Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Girl on the Train (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
You won’t uncork a bottle of Malbec again without thinking of this film…
“The Girl on a Train” is the film adaptation of the best-seller by Paula Hawkins, transported from the London suburbs to New York’s Hastings-on-Hudson.
It’s actually rather a sordid story encompassing as it does alcoholism, murder, marital strife, deceit, sexual frustration, an historical tragedy and lashings and lashings of violence. Emily Blunt (“Sicario”, “Edge of Tomorrow”) plays Rachel, a divorcee with an alcohol problem who escapes into an obsessive fantasy each day as she passes her former neighbourhood on her commute into the city. Ex-husband Tom (Justin Theroux, “Zoolander 2”) lives in her old house with his second wife Anna (Rebecca “MI:5” Ferguson) and new baby Evie. But her real fantasy rests with cheerleader-style young neighbour Megan (Haley Bennett) who is actually locked in a frustratingly child-free marriage (frustrating for him at least) with the controlling and unpredictable Scott (Luke Evans, “The Hobbit”). A sixth party in this complex network is Megan’s psychiatrist Dr Kamal Abdic (Édgar Ramírez, “Joy”).
In pure Hitchcockian style Megan witnesses mere glimpses of events from her twice-daily train and from these pieces together stories that suitably feed her psychosis. When ‘shit gets real’ and a key character goes missing, Megan surfaces her suspicions and obsessions to the police investigation (led by Detective Riley, the ever-excellent Allison Janney from “The West Wing”) and promptly makes herself suspect number one.
Readers of the book will already be aware of the twists and turns of the story, so will watch the film from a different perspective than I did. (Despite my best intentions I never managed to read the book first).
First up, you would have to say that Emily Blunt’s performance is outstanding in an extremely challenging acting role. Every nuance of shame, confusion, grief, fear, doubt and anger is beautifully enacted: it would not be a surprise to see her gain her first Oscar nomination for this. All the other lead roles are also delivered with great professionalism, with Haley Bennett (a busy month for her, with “The Magnificent Seven” also out) being impressive and Rebecca Ferguson, one of my favourite current actresses, delivering another measured and delicate performance.
Girl on a Train, The
Rebecca Ferguson as Anna – “there were three of us in this marriage so it was a bit crowded”
The supporting roles are also effective, with Darren Goldstein as the somewhat creepy “man in the suit” and “Friends” star Lisa Kudrow popping up in an effective and pivotal role. The Screen Guild Awards have an excellent category for an Ensemble Cast in a Motion Picture, and it feels appropriate to nominate this cast for that award.
So it’s a blockbuster book with a rollercoaster story and a stellar cast, so what could go wrong? Well, something for sure. This is a case in point where I suspect it is easier to slowly peel back Rachel’s lost memory with pages and imagination than it is with dodgy fuzzy images on a big screen. Although the film comes in at only 112 minutes, the pacing in places is too slow (the screenplay by Erin Cressida Wilson takes its time) and director Tate Taylor (“The Help”) is no Hitchcock, or indeed a David Fincher (since the film has strong similarities to last year’s “Gone Girl”: when the action does happen it lacks style, with the violence being on the brutal side and leaving little to the imagination.
It’s by no means a bad film, and worth seeing for the acting performances alone. But it’s not a film I think that will trouble my top 10 for the year.
It’s actually rather a sordid story encompassing as it does alcoholism, murder, marital strife, deceit, sexual frustration, an historical tragedy and lashings and lashings of violence. Emily Blunt (“Sicario”, “Edge of Tomorrow”) plays Rachel, a divorcee with an alcohol problem who escapes into an obsessive fantasy each day as she passes her former neighbourhood on her commute into the city. Ex-husband Tom (Justin Theroux, “Zoolander 2”) lives in her old house with his second wife Anna (Rebecca “MI:5” Ferguson) and new baby Evie. But her real fantasy rests with cheerleader-style young neighbour Megan (Haley Bennett) who is actually locked in a frustratingly child-free marriage (frustrating for him at least) with the controlling and unpredictable Scott (Luke Evans, “The Hobbit”). A sixth party in this complex network is Megan’s psychiatrist Dr Kamal Abdic (Édgar Ramírez, “Joy”).
In pure Hitchcockian style Megan witnesses mere glimpses of events from her twice-daily train and from these pieces together stories that suitably feed her psychosis. When ‘shit gets real’ and a key character goes missing, Megan surfaces her suspicions and obsessions to the police investigation (led by Detective Riley, the ever-excellent Allison Janney from “The West Wing”) and promptly makes herself suspect number one.
Readers of the book will already be aware of the twists and turns of the story, so will watch the film from a different perspective than I did. (Despite my best intentions I never managed to read the book first).
First up, you would have to say that Emily Blunt’s performance is outstanding in an extremely challenging acting role. Every nuance of shame, confusion, grief, fear, doubt and anger is beautifully enacted: it would not be a surprise to see her gain her first Oscar nomination for this. All the other lead roles are also delivered with great professionalism, with Haley Bennett (a busy month for her, with “The Magnificent Seven” also out) being impressive and Rebecca Ferguson, one of my favourite current actresses, delivering another measured and delicate performance.
Girl on a Train, The
Rebecca Ferguson as Anna – “there were three of us in this marriage so it was a bit crowded”
The supporting roles are also effective, with Darren Goldstein as the somewhat creepy “man in the suit” and “Friends” star Lisa Kudrow popping up in an effective and pivotal role. The Screen Guild Awards have an excellent category for an Ensemble Cast in a Motion Picture, and it feels appropriate to nominate this cast for that award.
So it’s a blockbuster book with a rollercoaster story and a stellar cast, so what could go wrong? Well, something for sure. This is a case in point where I suspect it is easier to slowly peel back Rachel’s lost memory with pages and imagination than it is with dodgy fuzzy images on a big screen. Although the film comes in at only 112 minutes, the pacing in places is too slow (the screenplay by Erin Cressida Wilson takes its time) and director Tate Taylor (“The Help”) is no Hitchcock, or indeed a David Fincher (since the film has strong similarities to last year’s “Gone Girl”: when the action does happen it lacks style, with the violence being on the brutal side and leaving little to the imagination.
It’s by no means a bad film, and worth seeing for the acting performances alone. But it’s not a film I think that will trouble my top 10 for the year.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The French Dispatch (2021) in Movies
Jan 4, 2022
Weak Stories Can't Support the STUNNING Visuals
Filmmaker Wes Anderson is an acquired taste. He is one of the most visually stunning filmmakers working today, but his films are often time difficult to grasp and can get lost in their own weirdness.
Such is the case with his latest effort THE FRENCH DISPATCH. It is a visually STUNNING film that you can turn the sound off and just drink in the images depicted on screen with your eyes - but the story these pictures tell was, unfortunately, not all that compelling.
Starring Bill Murray, Tilda Swinton, Frances McDormand, Jeffrey Wright and a whole bundle of known stars, THE FRENCH DISPATCH tells the story of a Sunday Newspaper insert called THE FRENCH DISPATCH (think PARADE MAGAZINE). The quirk of the FRENCH DISPATCH is that this insert in the Liberty, Kansas paper in the 1930’s(or so) focuses solely on the goings-on of the French town of Enui. Stories told in the flavor of the New Yorker.
So…this setup is just, really, an excuse to tell 3 different short stories and tie them together with an overarching theme - getting the French Dispatch ready to publish. A good enough excuse for a movie - provided that the 3 stories being told are interesting enough - which they are not (and therein lies the issue with this film).
Bill Murray is a congenial enough host of this party as the Editor of The French Dispatch. His character is the “through line” of this film and if you are going to anchor an anthology film with a character/actor, then Bill Murray is a pretty good anchor.
The first story, telling of a life-imprisoned person (Benicio Del Toro) who finds a muse (Lea Seydoux) and becomes a world famous artist, thanks to the efforts of his patron (Adrian Brody) is the best of the bunch. This story is written/narrated by a character played by Tilda Swinton and it is her performance that is the highlight of the film for me. Because of this narration - and because this is the best written/most interesting and best acted of the 3 stories (by Del Toro, Seydoux and Brody), I was excited as to where this film was going to go from here.
Unfortunately, that direction was down.
The 3rd story - narrated by a character played by Jeffrey Wright about a Police Commissioner’s son who is kidnapped is absurb - and almost succeeds when Anderson decides to animate the car chase - but ultimately isn’t quite as good as the first piece.
And then there is the middle part that stars Timothee Chalamet as a student that starts a rebellion. This part is written/narrated by a character played by Frances McDormand and while these 2 are “game” for what is given to them, the story is not compelling and, to be honest, a bit boring. This middle story (the longest of the 3 tales) is where the movie loses it’s footing.
And that’s too bad for Anderson - as is his custom - fills every frame with interesting pictures/visuals that are a marvel to look at and fills almost every minor role with some sort of major star looking to work with him. Almost the best part of this film was to spot the star in a cameo role. Willem DaFoe, Saoirse Ronan, Liev Schrieber, the “Fonz” himself, Henry Winkler, Cristoph Walz and Anderson “regulars” Jason Schwartman, Edward Norton and Owen Wilson (amongst others) all show up - briefly - to lend their talents to this absurdity.
Well worth checking out for the visuals, just don’t look for much in the way of plot or drama.
Letter Grade: B (did I mention that the visuals are STUNNING?)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with his latest effort THE FRENCH DISPATCH. It is a visually STUNNING film that you can turn the sound off and just drink in the images depicted on screen with your eyes - but the story these pictures tell was, unfortunately, not all that compelling.
Starring Bill Murray, Tilda Swinton, Frances McDormand, Jeffrey Wright and a whole bundle of known stars, THE FRENCH DISPATCH tells the story of a Sunday Newspaper insert called THE FRENCH DISPATCH (think PARADE MAGAZINE). The quirk of the FRENCH DISPATCH is that this insert in the Liberty, Kansas paper in the 1930’s(or so) focuses solely on the goings-on of the French town of Enui. Stories told in the flavor of the New Yorker.
So…this setup is just, really, an excuse to tell 3 different short stories and tie them together with an overarching theme - getting the French Dispatch ready to publish. A good enough excuse for a movie - provided that the 3 stories being told are interesting enough - which they are not (and therein lies the issue with this film).
Bill Murray is a congenial enough host of this party as the Editor of The French Dispatch. His character is the “through line” of this film and if you are going to anchor an anthology film with a character/actor, then Bill Murray is a pretty good anchor.
The first story, telling of a life-imprisoned person (Benicio Del Toro) who finds a muse (Lea Seydoux) and becomes a world famous artist, thanks to the efforts of his patron (Adrian Brody) is the best of the bunch. This story is written/narrated by a character played by Tilda Swinton and it is her performance that is the highlight of the film for me. Because of this narration - and because this is the best written/most interesting and best acted of the 3 stories (by Del Toro, Seydoux and Brody), I was excited as to where this film was going to go from here.
Unfortunately, that direction was down.
The 3rd story - narrated by a character played by Jeffrey Wright about a Police Commissioner’s son who is kidnapped is absurb - and almost succeeds when Anderson decides to animate the car chase - but ultimately isn’t quite as good as the first piece.
And then there is the middle part that stars Timothee Chalamet as a student that starts a rebellion. This part is written/narrated by a character played by Frances McDormand and while these 2 are “game” for what is given to them, the story is not compelling and, to be honest, a bit boring. This middle story (the longest of the 3 tales) is where the movie loses it’s footing.
And that’s too bad for Anderson - as is his custom - fills every frame with interesting pictures/visuals that are a marvel to look at and fills almost every minor role with some sort of major star looking to work with him. Almost the best part of this film was to spot the star in a cameo role. Willem DaFoe, Saoirse Ronan, Liev Schrieber, the “Fonz” himself, Henry Winkler, Cristoph Walz and Anderson “regulars” Jason Schwartman, Edward Norton and Owen Wilson (amongst others) all show up - briefly - to lend their talents to this absurdity.
Well worth checking out for the visuals, just don’t look for much in the way of plot or drama.
Letter Grade: B (did I mention that the visuals are STUNNING?)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
DiscoStu (6 KP) rated Bright (2017) in Movies
Jan 8, 2018 (Updated Jan 8, 2018)
“A competent buddy cop movie that offers solid pacing and character portrayals at the expense of building up the films (admittedly) interesting universe”.
Contains spoilers, click to show
Netflix’s ‘Bright’, directed by David Ayer (Suicide Squad) and starring Will Smith and Joel Edgerton, brings the big budget box office trappings of a fully fledged cinema release to their home streaming subscription service and arguably the end result is a fun and enjoyable, if slightly flawed, buddy-cop-movie-with-a-twist that sets up a universe you’ll likely want to see more of.
Smith plays Daryl Ward, a weary veteran L.A. cop reluctantly partnered with orc partner Nick, the first and only orc to make the force in this alternate earth story. The film opens with Ward taking a round of buckshot from an orc thug whilst Nick looks on waiting for a burrito from a street vendor. The incident leaves a distrust between Ward and Nick, with Ward unsure whether his partner really has his back after Nick not only failed to step up and prevent the shooting but also failed to apprehend the orc perpetrator during the ensuing foot chase. Ward also finds himself at odds with other members of the force who don’t share the police’s ‘progressive’ attitudes of allowing orcs into the force.
The film briefly touches on a two thousand year old conflict between the nine armies and the Dark Lord who was defeated when various races allied to defeat him. In the established lore the orcs allied with the Dark Lord and have been subjugated ever since. The film attempts to portray the orcs through a social commentary that reflects the black community today and how heavy handed the film tackles the subject will probably depend on the viewer. For me it was handled sensitively enough without being too in your face.
The film sees the two protagonists dispatched to a disturbance that quickly escalates to a situation that goes from bad to worse. Finding themselves on the run with a Bright, the film’s titular white haired magic wielders, and a coveted magic wand Ward and Nick have to navigate hostile L.A. gang land environments whilst pursued by Inferni (the magic version of the Illuminati), the police and human and orc gangsters, all who have their own plans for the wand.
The film is shot well, with plenty of scenery that builds up the shared world of humans, orcs, elves , centaurs and the other races that we don’t get to spend any time with. A montage at the start of the film shows various L.A. scenery graffiti tagged with striking imagery depicting the struggle of orcs in an oppressed landscape. Evidently, orc lives matter. The film also doesn’t struggle for pacing. The two hour runtime services the story well enough, even if some of the world building and character exploration suffers as a result. I would have liked to have spent more time exploring the shared history of the various races and understanding the motivations of the stories’ villains but sadly these elements are undersold in favour of a shorter runtime that hurries the narrative along. To the credit of the writers and the director this world bares revisiting and at the time of writing it sounds like Netflix know this too with a sequel already greenlit.
Bright is a fun jaunt in a world I’d like to get to know better. Smith and Edgerton are strong leads who share a strong chemistry and make you care about their characters. The bad guys don’t fare as well here, especially disappointing given that Noomi Rapace is the lead antagonist but hopefully a sequel will correct some of these missteps. Bright feels like a £20 cinema ticket movie and gives enough to the viewer that you’ll want to discuss it with friends afterwards. As a film bundled with your Netflix subscription it’s hard to be too critical.
Smith plays Daryl Ward, a weary veteran L.A. cop reluctantly partnered with orc partner Nick, the first and only orc to make the force in this alternate earth story. The film opens with Ward taking a round of buckshot from an orc thug whilst Nick looks on waiting for a burrito from a street vendor. The incident leaves a distrust between Ward and Nick, with Ward unsure whether his partner really has his back after Nick not only failed to step up and prevent the shooting but also failed to apprehend the orc perpetrator during the ensuing foot chase. Ward also finds himself at odds with other members of the force who don’t share the police’s ‘progressive’ attitudes of allowing orcs into the force.
The film briefly touches on a two thousand year old conflict between the nine armies and the Dark Lord who was defeated when various races allied to defeat him. In the established lore the orcs allied with the Dark Lord and have been subjugated ever since. The film attempts to portray the orcs through a social commentary that reflects the black community today and how heavy handed the film tackles the subject will probably depend on the viewer. For me it was handled sensitively enough without being too in your face.
The film sees the two protagonists dispatched to a disturbance that quickly escalates to a situation that goes from bad to worse. Finding themselves on the run with a Bright, the film’s titular white haired magic wielders, and a coveted magic wand Ward and Nick have to navigate hostile L.A. gang land environments whilst pursued by Inferni (the magic version of the Illuminati), the police and human and orc gangsters, all who have their own plans for the wand.
The film is shot well, with plenty of scenery that builds up the shared world of humans, orcs, elves , centaurs and the other races that we don’t get to spend any time with. A montage at the start of the film shows various L.A. scenery graffiti tagged with striking imagery depicting the struggle of orcs in an oppressed landscape. Evidently, orc lives matter. The film also doesn’t struggle for pacing. The two hour runtime services the story well enough, even if some of the world building and character exploration suffers as a result. I would have liked to have spent more time exploring the shared history of the various races and understanding the motivations of the stories’ villains but sadly these elements are undersold in favour of a shorter runtime that hurries the narrative along. To the credit of the writers and the director this world bares revisiting and at the time of writing it sounds like Netflix know this too with a sequel already greenlit.
Bright is a fun jaunt in a world I’d like to get to know better. Smith and Edgerton are strong leads who share a strong chemistry and make you care about their characters. The bad guys don’t fare as well here, especially disappointing given that Noomi Rapace is the lead antagonist but hopefully a sequel will correct some of these missteps. Bright feels like a £20 cinema ticket movie and gives enough to the viewer that you’ll want to discuss it with friends afterwards. As a film bundled with your Netflix subscription it’s hard to be too critical.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Bleeding Violet in Books
Apr 27, 2018
Bleeding Violet by Dia Reeves
Genre: YA, Romance, Paranormal
Rating: 4/5
My Summary: Hanna is a freak. Diagnosed with Anxiety, Depression, Insomnia, Hyperactivity, Insanity, and nearly shut away as a maniac-depressive, she runs away from home in search of the mother she never knew. On arriving in her mother’s strange town called Portero, she makes a deal with her mom—if she can fit in with the people in this town within two weeks, she can stay. Her mother scoffs at the idea of Hanna being able to fit into the town—but Hanna soon learns that this has nothing to do with her, and everything to do with the town. Portero is like nothing she’s ever seen or heard of or imagined before. Strange creatures, invisible doors, a police-like force with a strange sense of right and wrong, a boy who she’s not sure if she likes or hates (but knows for sure that he’s hot), and a mayor who thinks she’s a god, Hanna starts her two-week challenge trying to fit in—and ends it trying to save the lives of everyone she loves.
Review:
Bleeding Violet was freakishly amazing, morbidly exciting, and realistically romantic.
I love it when the romance between the characters is real—not two perfect people who never fight who get along perfect. No, the romance between Hanna and Wyatt was not perfect, but it was there and it was special, and it was funny.
This whole book was funny. Though parts of it were strange and morbid, a lot of it was moderately confusing in an understandable way (Does that make any sense? probably not. Remember that Hanna is insane. She hallucinates… and makes some pretty interesting things happen near the end. It is confusing because it’s impossible, but understandable because she’s crazy.). I laughed almost the whole way through. It’s light and heavy, witty and serious, all mixed with the color purple.
The characters were my favorite. All the characters were very distinct and different. Sometimes when reading a story, some of the minor characters kind of blend together and seem similar, not defined enough, because they don’t really matter. But in Bleeding Violet, all the characters are distinct. I’m not sure if telling everyone that I identify with Hanna would be a wise idea because it might scare you… but to a certain extent, I did (and do) relate to her. Not just because of my own insanity (mwa-ha-ha!) but because her character was written in a very clear personal way. The story is told from first person inside Hanna’s head, so I knew exactly what Hanna was thinking all the time. Wyatt wasn’t perfect either. He had his flaws and that made him a real person. The change in Rosalie (the mother) was… both interesting and wonderful to see (Trying to keep this spoiler-free… but those of you who’ve read it already know what I mean by “change”).
The plot was engaging and fast paced, but not rushed. The details enhanced the story, rather than slowing it down just for the sake of telling you what something looked or felt like.
Bleeding Violet has a good mix of reality and paranormal. It’s mixed well enough that you can relate to it and it feels like our present day, age, and atmosphere, but the paranormal aspects are still strong and don’t feel out of place.
The low points of the book were the writing, and the ending. The writing was nothing special, but for the most part it was acceptable. The ending wasn’t a let down, but it could have been better. It was cute and sweet, but it didn’t fix all the problems, didn’t answer all the questions, and didn’t have quite enough closure for me.
Content: There was some sex, but no explicit details. There were some sexual references, moderate language, and some morbid details. Not for the easily offended or the weak of stomach.
Recommendation: Ages 16+ to anyone who doesn’t mind being a little freaked out or surprised by crazy people.
Will I buy this book and read it again? Yes, probably. (I read the e-book copy for review.) It will (hopefully soon) have a permanent spot on my bookshelf.
~Haleyknitz
Genre: YA, Romance, Paranormal
Rating: 4/5
My Summary: Hanna is a freak. Diagnosed with Anxiety, Depression, Insomnia, Hyperactivity, Insanity, and nearly shut away as a maniac-depressive, she runs away from home in search of the mother she never knew. On arriving in her mother’s strange town called Portero, she makes a deal with her mom—if she can fit in with the people in this town within two weeks, she can stay. Her mother scoffs at the idea of Hanna being able to fit into the town—but Hanna soon learns that this has nothing to do with her, and everything to do with the town. Portero is like nothing she’s ever seen or heard of or imagined before. Strange creatures, invisible doors, a police-like force with a strange sense of right and wrong, a boy who she’s not sure if she likes or hates (but knows for sure that he’s hot), and a mayor who thinks she’s a god, Hanna starts her two-week challenge trying to fit in—and ends it trying to save the lives of everyone she loves.
Review:
Bleeding Violet was freakishly amazing, morbidly exciting, and realistically romantic.
I love it when the romance between the characters is real—not two perfect people who never fight who get along perfect. No, the romance between Hanna and Wyatt was not perfect, but it was there and it was special, and it was funny.
This whole book was funny. Though parts of it were strange and morbid, a lot of it was moderately confusing in an understandable way (Does that make any sense? probably not. Remember that Hanna is insane. She hallucinates… and makes some pretty interesting things happen near the end. It is confusing because it’s impossible, but understandable because she’s crazy.). I laughed almost the whole way through. It’s light and heavy, witty and serious, all mixed with the color purple.
The characters were my favorite. All the characters were very distinct and different. Sometimes when reading a story, some of the minor characters kind of blend together and seem similar, not defined enough, because they don’t really matter. But in Bleeding Violet, all the characters are distinct. I’m not sure if telling everyone that I identify with Hanna would be a wise idea because it might scare you… but to a certain extent, I did (and do) relate to her. Not just because of my own insanity (mwa-ha-ha!) but because her character was written in a very clear personal way. The story is told from first person inside Hanna’s head, so I knew exactly what Hanna was thinking all the time. Wyatt wasn’t perfect either. He had his flaws and that made him a real person. The change in Rosalie (the mother) was… both interesting and wonderful to see (Trying to keep this spoiler-free… but those of you who’ve read it already know what I mean by “change”).
The plot was engaging and fast paced, but not rushed. The details enhanced the story, rather than slowing it down just for the sake of telling you what something looked or felt like.
Bleeding Violet has a good mix of reality and paranormal. It’s mixed well enough that you can relate to it and it feels like our present day, age, and atmosphere, but the paranormal aspects are still strong and don’t feel out of place.
The low points of the book were the writing, and the ending. The writing was nothing special, but for the most part it was acceptable. The ending wasn’t a let down, but it could have been better. It was cute and sweet, but it didn’t fix all the problems, didn’t answer all the questions, and didn’t have quite enough closure for me.
Content: There was some sex, but no explicit details. There were some sexual references, moderate language, and some morbid details. Not for the easily offended or the weak of stomach.
Recommendation: Ages 16+ to anyone who doesn’t mind being a little freaked out or surprised by crazy people.
Will I buy this book and read it again? Yes, probably. (I read the e-book copy for review.) It will (hopefully soon) have a permanent spot on my bookshelf.
~Haleyknitz
Amanda (96 KP) rated People Like Us in Books
Mar 12, 2019
Ever watched that show Pretty Little Liars or Riverdale (RIP Luke Perry) and think to yourself, this is such a stupid teenager drama show...and yet I can't stop watching or I need to know what happens next? This book doesn't read like Riverdale, but it definitely reads like an episode or another book of Pretty Little Liars. I will say that it reads like that, and a little like Karen M. McManus' novel, One of Us is Lying.
So we have Katherine "Kay" at a boarding school called, Bates. She's there for a soccer and hopes to get an athletic scholarship. One night, her and her few friends come across a body, a student and things begin to unravel about Kay and now she's being blackmailed.
Here's Kay in a nutshell. She DID NOT come from money, though she is trying her best to dress and act the part - including being the bully. It's hard to say if she goes a long with most of the stuff her friends did and said, or if she is genuinely a 'mean girl'. Although, after a prank that was her idea comes to play, my sympathy for her slowly weakens.
She gets a link to this revenge blog and it works along with algorithm that if she doesn't get a student off the class roster (meaning getting them expelled) then information about her is leaked to the police that could put her in prison. How it works is the blog is a stove and it opens for a 'recipe'. The recipe is a poem and sometimes had photos or information that incriminates her friends. One of them, for example, hints that one of her friends cheats on her tests.
To add to the drama, Kay struggles with her romantic feelings for her best friend (though I often wonder why) Brie whom has a girlfriend. They've gone through the whole will they or will they not bit, and although Brie has a girlfriend, Kay still struggles. She also has conflicting feelings for her ex-boyfriend, Spencer, who cheated on her...oddly enough with the student they found dead.
Kay's life is one long soap opera. She harbors a secret about her brother's murder and her best friend's suicide (before she was shipped to Bates). Her and her group of friends makes me think of the reasons of why I didn't hang out with a group of girls growing up. They are catty and vengeful. Sometimes guys aren't any better, but I had more guy friends than I did girl friends growing up.
I dozed off on most of the book because Kay started babbling on about certain things that just didn't keep my interest. The more she told her story the more intrigued I did get, but in the end, I still couldn't really feel much for her. I'm not sure if that was the intention of the story - perhaps if it were, it wouldn't be told by Kay. The characters were not likable, but I think that was the point.
I didn't even care for Brie whom is basically the only NICE girl in the whole bunch. I can understand her being hurt by Kay (and Kay has said and done some things to warrant that), but at the same time, I wonder what it is about her that has Kay wanting her so badly.
I liked Nola for a moment because she was a computer nerd and liked literature, but that didn't last long at all. The only character I felt for was a cat named Hunter...poor kitty.
The story as a whole wasn't bad. Each side story came around in full circle and nothing was left out or left unresolved. I didn't even have a problem with how it ended, because honestly, how else would it have ended? Kay expresses regret for her actions and the things she has said, but if the story were to continue into a book two, I better see some major growth from everything she endured.
So we have Katherine "Kay" at a boarding school called, Bates. She's there for a soccer and hopes to get an athletic scholarship. One night, her and her few friends come across a body, a student and things begin to unravel about Kay and now she's being blackmailed.
Here's Kay in a nutshell. She DID NOT come from money, though she is trying her best to dress and act the part - including being the bully. It's hard to say if she goes a long with most of the stuff her friends did and said, or if she is genuinely a 'mean girl'. Although, after a prank that was her idea comes to play, my sympathy for her slowly weakens.
She gets a link to this revenge blog and it works along with algorithm that if she doesn't get a student off the class roster (meaning getting them expelled) then information about her is leaked to the police that could put her in prison. How it works is the blog is a stove and it opens for a 'recipe'. The recipe is a poem and sometimes had photos or information that incriminates her friends. One of them, for example, hints that one of her friends cheats on her tests.
To add to the drama, Kay struggles with her romantic feelings for her best friend (though I often wonder why) Brie whom has a girlfriend. They've gone through the whole will they or will they not bit, and although Brie has a girlfriend, Kay still struggles. She also has conflicting feelings for her ex-boyfriend, Spencer, who cheated on her...oddly enough with the student they found dead.
Kay's life is one long soap opera. She harbors a secret about her brother's murder and her best friend's suicide (before she was shipped to Bates). Her and her group of friends makes me think of the reasons of why I didn't hang out with a group of girls growing up. They are catty and vengeful. Sometimes guys aren't any better, but I had more guy friends than I did girl friends growing up.
I dozed off on most of the book because Kay started babbling on about certain things that just didn't keep my interest. The more she told her story the more intrigued I did get, but in the end, I still couldn't really feel much for her. I'm not sure if that was the intention of the story - perhaps if it were, it wouldn't be told by Kay. The characters were not likable, but I think that was the point.
I didn't even care for Brie whom is basically the only NICE girl in the whole bunch. I can understand her being hurt by Kay (and Kay has said and done some things to warrant that), but at the same time, I wonder what it is about her that has Kay wanting her so badly.
I liked Nola for a moment because she was a computer nerd and liked literature, but that didn't last long at all. The only character I felt for was a cat named Hunter...poor kitty.
The story as a whole wasn't bad. Each side story came around in full circle and nothing was left out or left unresolved. I didn't even have a problem with how it ended, because honestly, how else would it have ended? Kay expresses regret for her actions and the things she has said, but if the story were to continue into a book two, I better see some major growth from everything she endured.
I'm gonna say this first. I went through this book because I was trying hard to finish it, but it was difficult. I remember seeing this book when I was much younger, but I never picked it up then. This also was not on my school reading list when I was in high school, so I never got to read it for an assignment either. I'm sure I'm probably in the minority, but this wasn't my favorite book this month.
I feel for Melinda, but it took most of the book to get to that stage. It was difficult to read through her eyes because it's mostly about the teachers and kids shunning her because she called the police and broke up a party and wanting to just be isolated. Her parents are just something else entirely.
"I'm getting better at smiling when people expect it."
When it seems like she may have a new friend in a new student named Heather, she goes and ditches Melinda to be a part of a group called The Marthas. That actually kind of hit close to home for me, because I've had someone do that to me. The sad thing is, Heather comes CRAWLING back to Melinda because she's overwhelmed and hates being a part of the group and needs Melinda's help with decorating. And Melinda, rightfully, tells her she can't help her.
She doesn't tell her the truth - which would be because you totally ditched her, told her you couldn't be around her because of her 'reputation' and just left her there, yeah, no. She just makes up some excuse about a tree being taken out of her yard. Well, either way, I was kind of proud of her for not giving in to helping her. Go away, Heather!
Like I said, it took me nearly half of to almost the end of the book to really get a feel for Melinda. When she does realize (from shows like Oprah and Sally Jessy) that she was raped, she tells one girl who USED TO BE her friend. Rachel/Rachelle pines over the guy who was known as IT for most of the book, but real name Andy, and she's called a liar.
"IT happened. There is no avoiding it, no forgetting. No running away, or flying, or burying, or hiding."
Of course she's called that. I kept thinking I wouldn't tell her. As sad as that sounds, I wouldn't have told her the truth. Because, she wouldn't believe her ex friend no matter if it is the truth or not.
While it took me nearly the whole book to feel for Melinda or want to finish the story, I'm glad I did. This still happens. I'm not saying it's only women who are raped, but those that suffer through this trauma can't seem to speak up. And when they do, it's not always well received. Why is it difficult when someone says they went through this kind of experience? Why is it judged so harshly? And why is it such a taboo subject?
"Censorship is the child of fear and the father of ignorance."
I would also like to point out the one time I think Rachel/Rachelle said it right when it came to looking for symbolism in classic books.
"How do you know what he meant to say? I mean, did he leave another book called "Symbolism in My Books?" If he didn't, then you could just be making all of this up. Does anyone really think this guy sat down and stuck all kinds of hidden meanings into his story? It's just a story.... But I think you are making all of this symbolism stuff up. I don't believe any of it."
Sorry, I'm quoting the book a lot. I'm sorry but I do agree that I think most of the classical authors weren't thinking much about symbolism when they wrote their books. Just saying.
I do believe everybody should read this book once in their lives. Censorship is a crock. Books like this and To Kill A Mockingbird are important novels that kids should read. Banning books is about as redundant as baker's chocolate.
I feel for Melinda, but it took most of the book to get to that stage. It was difficult to read through her eyes because it's mostly about the teachers and kids shunning her because she called the police and broke up a party and wanting to just be isolated. Her parents are just something else entirely.
"I'm getting better at smiling when people expect it."
When it seems like she may have a new friend in a new student named Heather, she goes and ditches Melinda to be a part of a group called The Marthas. That actually kind of hit close to home for me, because I've had someone do that to me. The sad thing is, Heather comes CRAWLING back to Melinda because she's overwhelmed and hates being a part of the group and needs Melinda's help with decorating. And Melinda, rightfully, tells her she can't help her.
She doesn't tell her the truth - which would be because you totally ditched her, told her you couldn't be around her because of her 'reputation' and just left her there, yeah, no. She just makes up some excuse about a tree being taken out of her yard. Well, either way, I was kind of proud of her for not giving in to helping her. Go away, Heather!
Like I said, it took me nearly half of to almost the end of the book to really get a feel for Melinda. When she does realize (from shows like Oprah and Sally Jessy) that she was raped, she tells one girl who USED TO BE her friend. Rachel/Rachelle pines over the guy who was known as IT for most of the book, but real name Andy, and she's called a liar.
"IT happened. There is no avoiding it, no forgetting. No running away, or flying, or burying, or hiding."
Of course she's called that. I kept thinking I wouldn't tell her. As sad as that sounds, I wouldn't have told her the truth. Because, she wouldn't believe her ex friend no matter if it is the truth or not.
While it took me nearly the whole book to feel for Melinda or want to finish the story, I'm glad I did. This still happens. I'm not saying it's only women who are raped, but those that suffer through this trauma can't seem to speak up. And when they do, it's not always well received. Why is it difficult when someone says they went through this kind of experience? Why is it judged so harshly? And why is it such a taboo subject?
"Censorship is the child of fear and the father of ignorance."
I would also like to point out the one time I think Rachel/Rachelle said it right when it came to looking for symbolism in classic books.
"How do you know what he meant to say? I mean, did he leave another book called "Symbolism in My Books?" If he didn't, then you could just be making all of this up. Does anyone really think this guy sat down and stuck all kinds of hidden meanings into his story? It's just a story.... But I think you are making all of this symbolism stuff up. I don't believe any of it."
Sorry, I'm quoting the book a lot. I'm sorry but I do agree that I think most of the classical authors weren't thinking much about symbolism when they wrote their books. Just saying.
I do believe everybody should read this book once in their lives. Censorship is a crock. Books like this and To Kill A Mockingbird are important novels that kids should read. Banning books is about as redundant as baker's chocolate.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Tomb Raider (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Contains little tomb raiding
Academy Award-winner Alicia Vikander is probably not the first choice for many to portray legendary video game character, Lara Croft. Perhaps Jennifer Lawrence, Natalie Portman or even Keira Knightley would have been above Vikander to be in with a shot of bagging the role?
That’s all conjecture anyway as Vikander is the leading lady we have ended up with, for better or for worse. But is this Tomb Raider reboot the film to end that dreaded video game to movie curse and can Vikander take on the role that Angelina Jolie made so famous back in the early 00s? Read on to find out.
Lara Croft (Vikander) is the fiercely independent daughter of an eccentric adventurer (Dominic West) who vanished years earlier. Hoping to solve the mystery of her father’s disappearance, Croft embarks on a perilous journey to his last-known destination – a fabled tomb on a mythical island that might be somewhere off the coast of Japan. The stakes couldn’t be higher as Lara must rely on her sharp mind, blind faith and stubborn spirit to venture into the unknown.
Director Roar Uthaug, who only has a few Swedish movies to his name, directs a decent, if not outstanding adaptation of the famous character’s origins story that features some nifty action set-pieces intertwined with a hectic and often nausea-inducing filming style. It doesn’t break the video game to movie curse, but it’s a good shot.
Unfortunately, the cast is one of the film’s weakest points. Vikander is a whiny, self-absorbed brat for the majority of the runtime, only letting this insipid persona go in the latter half of the movie. This is through no fault of her own as her performance is as solid as we’ve come to expect from the actress, but the script really lets her down. The film starts off poorly with a messily edited boxing match giving way to a rather implausible bike chase that ends with Vikander face planting the bonnet of a police car. Thankfully, this is as bad as it gets.
From then on, the audience is treated to a selection of thrilling set-pieces, populated by some very good CGI indeed. It’s just unfortunate the characters lack any sort of presence whatsoever. Outside of Vikander’s insipid Lara, the rest of the cast are merely there to offer expositional dialogue. Dominic West in particular, who plays Lara’s father, spouts nothing but exposition, even narrating certain parts of the movie.
Apart from a couple of scenes involving Nick Frost as a greedy pawnbroker, Tomb Raider is devoid of any sense of fun whatsoever
Elsewhere, for a film called Tomb Raider, there’s very little tomb raiding to be had. In fact, it feels like a hybrid of Kong: Skull Island,The Mummy, Indiana Jones and The Hunger Games and for this reason it lacks a sense of identity and any originality whatsoever.
Cinematography wise, Tomb Raider is competent but not exceptional. The shot choices are limited and the action is sometimes messily edited to the point where it’s difficult to tell exactly what it is that’s going on. It avoids unnecessary shaky cam, which is a miracle in itself but it’s not the best the genre has to offer.
Unfortunately, director Roar Uthaug’s idea to go the complete opposite of many blockbusters nowadays results in a film that really doesn’t have a sense of humour. Apart from a couple of scenes involving Nick Frost as a greedy pawnbroker, Tomb Raider is devoid of any sense of fun whatsoever. It seems the scriptwriters missed the memo about the premise being absolutely ridiculous – a dose of humour would have done this tale a world of good.
Overall, Tomb Raider is a decent stab at resurrecting a character that Angelina Jolie performed so well over the course of her two films in the early 00s. Alicia Vikander plays a very different Lara Croft to Jolie and whilst she may need a couple more films for us to get acquainted with her, she’s off to a reasonable if unoriginal start. Whether or not she gets the chance to tomb raid again remains to be seen, it all depends on those box-office numbers.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/03/16/tomb-raider-review-contains-little-tomb-raiding/
That’s all conjecture anyway as Vikander is the leading lady we have ended up with, for better or for worse. But is this Tomb Raider reboot the film to end that dreaded video game to movie curse and can Vikander take on the role that Angelina Jolie made so famous back in the early 00s? Read on to find out.
Lara Croft (Vikander) is the fiercely independent daughter of an eccentric adventurer (Dominic West) who vanished years earlier. Hoping to solve the mystery of her father’s disappearance, Croft embarks on a perilous journey to his last-known destination – a fabled tomb on a mythical island that might be somewhere off the coast of Japan. The stakes couldn’t be higher as Lara must rely on her sharp mind, blind faith and stubborn spirit to venture into the unknown.
Director Roar Uthaug, who only has a few Swedish movies to his name, directs a decent, if not outstanding adaptation of the famous character’s origins story that features some nifty action set-pieces intertwined with a hectic and often nausea-inducing filming style. It doesn’t break the video game to movie curse, but it’s a good shot.
Unfortunately, the cast is one of the film’s weakest points. Vikander is a whiny, self-absorbed brat for the majority of the runtime, only letting this insipid persona go in the latter half of the movie. This is through no fault of her own as her performance is as solid as we’ve come to expect from the actress, but the script really lets her down. The film starts off poorly with a messily edited boxing match giving way to a rather implausible bike chase that ends with Vikander face planting the bonnet of a police car. Thankfully, this is as bad as it gets.
From then on, the audience is treated to a selection of thrilling set-pieces, populated by some very good CGI indeed. It’s just unfortunate the characters lack any sort of presence whatsoever. Outside of Vikander’s insipid Lara, the rest of the cast are merely there to offer expositional dialogue. Dominic West in particular, who plays Lara’s father, spouts nothing but exposition, even narrating certain parts of the movie.
Apart from a couple of scenes involving Nick Frost as a greedy pawnbroker, Tomb Raider is devoid of any sense of fun whatsoever
Elsewhere, for a film called Tomb Raider, there’s very little tomb raiding to be had. In fact, it feels like a hybrid of Kong: Skull Island,The Mummy, Indiana Jones and The Hunger Games and for this reason it lacks a sense of identity and any originality whatsoever.
Cinematography wise, Tomb Raider is competent but not exceptional. The shot choices are limited and the action is sometimes messily edited to the point where it’s difficult to tell exactly what it is that’s going on. It avoids unnecessary shaky cam, which is a miracle in itself but it’s not the best the genre has to offer.
Unfortunately, director Roar Uthaug’s idea to go the complete opposite of many blockbusters nowadays results in a film that really doesn’t have a sense of humour. Apart from a couple of scenes involving Nick Frost as a greedy pawnbroker, Tomb Raider is devoid of any sense of fun whatsoever. It seems the scriptwriters missed the memo about the premise being absolutely ridiculous – a dose of humour would have done this tale a world of good.
Overall, Tomb Raider is a decent stab at resurrecting a character that Angelina Jolie performed so well over the course of her two films in the early 00s. Alicia Vikander plays a very different Lara Croft to Jolie and whilst she may need a couple more films for us to get acquainted with her, she’s off to a reasonable if unoriginal start. Whether or not she gets the chance to tomb raid again remains to be seen, it all depends on those box-office numbers.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/03/16/tomb-raider-review-contains-little-tomb-raiding/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Blade Runner 2049 (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A Visual Treat
It was always going to be a tricky proposition to craft a sequel to Ridley Scott’s divisive 1982 film, Blade Runner. By divisive, I mean that while it has gained a cult following in the decades since its initial release, the film’s initial box-office run resulted in a gross that many would label ‘disappointing.’
Stuck in development hell for well over 20 years, Blade Runner 2049 as it’s now known entered the hands of sci-fi aficionado Denis Villeneuve since 2015. But has a wait of over three decades been kind to the finished film?
Officer K (Ryan Gosling), a new blade runner tasked with tracking down old replicants for the Los Angeles Police Department, unearths a long-buried secret that has the potential to plunge what’s left of society into chaos. His discovery leads him on a quest to find Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), a former blade runner who’s been missing for 30 years.
Visually, Blade Runner 2049 is an absolute masterpiece but from the director of the equally stunning Arrival, this was to be expected. Tasked with taking the first film and crafting a worthy sequel was never going to be an easy ride for Villeneuve and he almost makes it out the other side unscathed, almost.
Our cast is one of the film’s strongest suits with Gosling in particular being as magnetic a presence as ever. It’s also nice to see the wonderful Dave Bautista sink his teeth into something a little grittier than his well-worn Drax persona. Unfortunately, despite being an ever-present feature in the trailers, Harrison Ford is disappointingly underused, though he does appear in 2049’s best sequences.
The cinematography is absolutely beautiful, there really is no other word for it. Bizarrely grounded in reality, the year 2049 is a place that doesn’t feel too far away from the world as we know it. Villeneuve’s metropolis’ live and breathe right before our very eyes with a desolate Las Vegas in particular being a highlight, bathed in an eerie orange glow.
The CGI too is staggering and some of the best seen in the genre. Holograms litter the cityscapes and detail pours out of every frame – Blade Runner 2049 has been meticulously crafted to an incredibly high standard by someone who clearly cares about the legacy this film will leave.
Elsewhere, the score by Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch is exquisite. Blending nostalgic tones with a modern edge, the music is one of the film’s high points and couples with each frame almost perfectly.
So, to look at and to listen to, it’s spectacular. But how does the rest of this sequel fare? Well, not too bad at all really. The story feels linked to the first film in a way that doesn’t tread on its toes. Many long-awaited sequels feel it necessary to shred what came before and try far too hard to craft their own paths. Thankfully, 2049 honours its predecessor in more ways than just sickly nostalgia.
Unfortunately, it’s far too long. At 163 minutes, this is a real slog by anyone’s standards and while it’s true the pacing is spot on, there’s no getting away from the fact that this is a long film and feels it. It would’ve been pretty easy to shave a couple of minutes from the run-time here and there, though it’s not too much of an issue.
My only other bugbear is a pretty big one. Ridley Scott’s ’82 masterpiece was a film that had a soul, despite its plot focusing on those to the contrary. Here, the sheen, the glitz and the polish are all super impressive but much like the replicants our blade runner must hunt, it all feels a touch soulless.
Ultimately, Blade Runner 2049 is a fine sequel to a film that’s been crying out for one since 1982. Ryan Gosling and Harrison Ford make a fine pairing despite the latter’s limited screen time but what this film is lacking is heart, and that’s something that can’t be made with stunning cinematography.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/10/06/blade-runner-2049-review/
Stuck in development hell for well over 20 years, Blade Runner 2049 as it’s now known entered the hands of sci-fi aficionado Denis Villeneuve since 2015. But has a wait of over three decades been kind to the finished film?
Officer K (Ryan Gosling), a new blade runner tasked with tracking down old replicants for the Los Angeles Police Department, unearths a long-buried secret that has the potential to plunge what’s left of society into chaos. His discovery leads him on a quest to find Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), a former blade runner who’s been missing for 30 years.
Visually, Blade Runner 2049 is an absolute masterpiece but from the director of the equally stunning Arrival, this was to be expected. Tasked with taking the first film and crafting a worthy sequel was never going to be an easy ride for Villeneuve and he almost makes it out the other side unscathed, almost.
Our cast is one of the film’s strongest suits with Gosling in particular being as magnetic a presence as ever. It’s also nice to see the wonderful Dave Bautista sink his teeth into something a little grittier than his well-worn Drax persona. Unfortunately, despite being an ever-present feature in the trailers, Harrison Ford is disappointingly underused, though he does appear in 2049’s best sequences.
The cinematography is absolutely beautiful, there really is no other word for it. Bizarrely grounded in reality, the year 2049 is a place that doesn’t feel too far away from the world as we know it. Villeneuve’s metropolis’ live and breathe right before our very eyes with a desolate Las Vegas in particular being a highlight, bathed in an eerie orange glow.
The CGI too is staggering and some of the best seen in the genre. Holograms litter the cityscapes and detail pours out of every frame – Blade Runner 2049 has been meticulously crafted to an incredibly high standard by someone who clearly cares about the legacy this film will leave.
Elsewhere, the score by Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch is exquisite. Blending nostalgic tones with a modern edge, the music is one of the film’s high points and couples with each frame almost perfectly.
So, to look at and to listen to, it’s spectacular. But how does the rest of this sequel fare? Well, not too bad at all really. The story feels linked to the first film in a way that doesn’t tread on its toes. Many long-awaited sequels feel it necessary to shred what came before and try far too hard to craft their own paths. Thankfully, 2049 honours its predecessor in more ways than just sickly nostalgia.
Unfortunately, it’s far too long. At 163 minutes, this is a real slog by anyone’s standards and while it’s true the pacing is spot on, there’s no getting away from the fact that this is a long film and feels it. It would’ve been pretty easy to shave a couple of minutes from the run-time here and there, though it’s not too much of an issue.
My only other bugbear is a pretty big one. Ridley Scott’s ’82 masterpiece was a film that had a soul, despite its plot focusing on those to the contrary. Here, the sheen, the glitz and the polish are all super impressive but much like the replicants our blade runner must hunt, it all feels a touch soulless.
Ultimately, Blade Runner 2049 is a fine sequel to a film that’s been crying out for one since 1982. Ryan Gosling and Harrison Ford make a fine pairing despite the latter’s limited screen time but what this film is lacking is heart, and that’s something that can’t be made with stunning cinematography.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/10/06/blade-runner-2049-review/
Lee (2222 KP) rated Brightburn (2019) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
What if Clark Kent grew up to be evil? What if, instead of growing up to be this all powerful protector of Earth and humanity, he decided he wanted to take the world, cruelly toying with and destroying humanity in the process? That's the premise behind Brightburn, a superhero horror movie from producer James Gunn, of Guardians of the Galaxy fame. Comic books are littered with plenty of 'what if' story-lines and alternate takes on popular superheroes, but up until now probably the most famous onscreen version of an evil Superman we've seen was in Superman III. And even then we only really got a drunk, unshaven, but still family friendly Superman, who felt a bit mischievous and blew out the Olympic torch for a bit of a laugh. Brightburn goes a lot darker, leaning heavily into horror with some wonderful, wince-inducing gory moments. If you're looking for Dark Phoenix levels of dark - moody, crying in the corner, that kind of thing - then you're going to be disappointed.
Brightburn begins by mirroring the origin story of Superman very closely - even the soundtrack reminded me of the music from 2013 movie Man of Steel on more than one occasion! Tori (Elizabeth Banks) and Kyle Bryer (David Denman) are a happily married couple, living on a farm and longing for a child of their own. And then one night, a meteor crash lands out in the nearby woods, bringing them a baby boy who they adopt as their own. We see home movies of a normal baby/toddler as he grows up as part of a normal, loving family. And then we move forward 10 years to present day.
As an adolescent, Brandon (Jackson A. Dunn) begins to experience some change in his life. His parents put it down to hormones, and attempt to give him the talk on girls and the facts of life, but it's a lot more than that. The rock shaped vessel which carried Brandon to Earth as a baby has been locked away in the family barn all these years, hidden from Brandon, but has now started glowing red. At the same time, something within Brandon appears to have been activated, and a number of small but disturbing incidents that follow leave his parents worried. They also realise that they've never actually seen their son bleed, or even hurt before. From there, the severity of these incidents increases greatly, and it becomes clear that there is definitely something very, very wrong with Brandon.
What I loved about Brightburn was the confined, low key setting of it all. The action is restricted primarily to the town of Brightburn, never really expanding into the worldwide, CGI heavy destruction of other superhero movies. We have an incredibly relatable mother who is out to love and protect her son until the bitter end, a father who becomes scared and horrified by everything that is unfolding, and then this powerful boy tearing the family apart - unpredictable and showing no sign of remorse or inner turmoil over everything that is happening. Outside of that, the action is confined to a relatively small cast - the local police, extended family and some other kids from school who we all follow throughout the movie - there's a lot of character depth to be found in Brightburn, which greatly adds to its overall enjoyment.
As is the norm these days though, the trailer does give away the majority of Brandon's targets and where he attacks them, meaning you kind of know what to expect for a lot of it. However, what the trailer doesn't give away is the atmosphere and the eeriness that builds to each of those shocking (and gory) moments and there are still plenty of jump scares and shocking scenes to keep you on your toes throughout. It builds to a climax which once again isn't a CGI overload, relying on shock and horror to deliver it's interesting conclusion. And, most importantly, it leaves the door open for what could be a very interesting sequel. I'm all up for that, and the direction that hints at, as I found Brightburn to be a very enjoyable and fresh take on the superhero genre.
Brightburn begins by mirroring the origin story of Superman very closely - even the soundtrack reminded me of the music from 2013 movie Man of Steel on more than one occasion! Tori (Elizabeth Banks) and Kyle Bryer (David Denman) are a happily married couple, living on a farm and longing for a child of their own. And then one night, a meteor crash lands out in the nearby woods, bringing them a baby boy who they adopt as their own. We see home movies of a normal baby/toddler as he grows up as part of a normal, loving family. And then we move forward 10 years to present day.
As an adolescent, Brandon (Jackson A. Dunn) begins to experience some change in his life. His parents put it down to hormones, and attempt to give him the talk on girls and the facts of life, but it's a lot more than that. The rock shaped vessel which carried Brandon to Earth as a baby has been locked away in the family barn all these years, hidden from Brandon, but has now started glowing red. At the same time, something within Brandon appears to have been activated, and a number of small but disturbing incidents that follow leave his parents worried. They also realise that they've never actually seen their son bleed, or even hurt before. From there, the severity of these incidents increases greatly, and it becomes clear that there is definitely something very, very wrong with Brandon.
What I loved about Brightburn was the confined, low key setting of it all. The action is restricted primarily to the town of Brightburn, never really expanding into the worldwide, CGI heavy destruction of other superhero movies. We have an incredibly relatable mother who is out to love and protect her son until the bitter end, a father who becomes scared and horrified by everything that is unfolding, and then this powerful boy tearing the family apart - unpredictable and showing no sign of remorse or inner turmoil over everything that is happening. Outside of that, the action is confined to a relatively small cast - the local police, extended family and some other kids from school who we all follow throughout the movie - there's a lot of character depth to be found in Brightburn, which greatly adds to its overall enjoyment.
As is the norm these days though, the trailer does give away the majority of Brandon's targets and where he attacks them, meaning you kind of know what to expect for a lot of it. However, what the trailer doesn't give away is the atmosphere and the eeriness that builds to each of those shocking (and gory) moments and there are still plenty of jump scares and shocking scenes to keep you on your toes throughout. It builds to a climax which once again isn't a CGI overload, relying on shock and horror to deliver it's interesting conclusion. And, most importantly, it leaves the door open for what could be a very interesting sequel. I'm all up for that, and the direction that hints at, as I found Brightburn to be a very enjoyable and fresh take on the superhero genre.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Scattering (The Outliers, #2) in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Note that this review may (will) have spoilers if you haven't read the first book in McCreight's Outliers series.
Now that we pick up with the second book, Wylie and Jasper have escaped the camp in Maine. But they are both deeply affected by what happened there, especially Cassie's death--each feels guilty in their own way. Further, Wylie is still coming to terms with her ability as an Outlier--to read people's thoughts and emotions--and what it means for real life. She's getting better with her skill, but does that mean it's also of value to others in the community or the military? It seems like the answer is yes, especially when Wylie gets picked up by the police and taken to a local hospital. There, on an isolated wing, she finds a group of girls similar to herself. She's convinced she's among other Outliers, but they are under heavy security and Wylie senses something is amiss. She has to get the girls (and herself) to safety--before it's too late.
So, I read the first book in this series, [b:The Outliers|26116473|The Outliers (The Outliers, #1)|Kimberly McCreight|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1450363086s/26116473.jpg|40782926], back in March 2016 and enjoyed it, but the Outlier storyline took some getting used to. I found the second novel to be far more enjoyable, as I was now prepared for the start for the story to revolve around Wylie, her Outlier abilities, and the fact that shadowy Government forces seem to be involved in seeking the Outliers and potentially having some control over their abilities. Probably my only complaint with this novel--and it actually has nothing really to do with the book itself, is that it's a little jumpy and confusing. Most of this would probably be resolved if I had a better memory, as a lot of the book relies on what happened in the first novel. I am not sure that you could just jump into this series without reading the first book--as I have <i>actually read</i> said first book and was still confused a few times and had to go back to my previous review to remind myself what happened.
Otherwise, this is a really exciting book, and I found it a great change of pace from some of the usual thrillers and other fare that I've been reading lately. If you're prepared for the plot (maybe suspend a little disbelief), it's a fast-paced read, and I often found myself lamenting when I couldn't read it. The novel is full of twists and turns, and it constantly keeps you guessing. McCreight has created a strong character in Wylie: she's tough and willing to fight for herself and those around her, even as she struggles with her own anxiety and the fact that she's an Outlier. Most of the novel focuses on Wylie, and she can hold her own. We meet some new characters in this one--all of whom add to the intricacy of the story--and some familiar faces from the first book pop up: many of whom will surprise (and confuse) you.
Overall, I think McCreight is coming into her own with this series. As far as I can tell, this is going to be a trilogy, and often, the second book in a trilogy can lag a bit, but not so here. Also, this one ends with a major cliffhanger (so much waiting for resolution!), and I'm fascinated to see how McCreight will resolve everything in just one book! But I'll definitely be reading it the moment it comes out!
You can read my review of book one in the series, THE OUTLIERS, <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1518275530?book_show_action=false&from_review_page=1">here</a>;.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.instagram.com/justacatandabook/">Instagram</a>; </center>
Now that we pick up with the second book, Wylie and Jasper have escaped the camp in Maine. But they are both deeply affected by what happened there, especially Cassie's death--each feels guilty in their own way. Further, Wylie is still coming to terms with her ability as an Outlier--to read people's thoughts and emotions--and what it means for real life. She's getting better with her skill, but does that mean it's also of value to others in the community or the military? It seems like the answer is yes, especially when Wylie gets picked up by the police and taken to a local hospital. There, on an isolated wing, she finds a group of girls similar to herself. She's convinced she's among other Outliers, but they are under heavy security and Wylie senses something is amiss. She has to get the girls (and herself) to safety--before it's too late.
So, I read the first book in this series, [b:The Outliers|26116473|The Outliers (The Outliers, #1)|Kimberly McCreight|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1450363086s/26116473.jpg|40782926], back in March 2016 and enjoyed it, but the Outlier storyline took some getting used to. I found the second novel to be far more enjoyable, as I was now prepared for the start for the story to revolve around Wylie, her Outlier abilities, and the fact that shadowy Government forces seem to be involved in seeking the Outliers and potentially having some control over their abilities. Probably my only complaint with this novel--and it actually has nothing really to do with the book itself, is that it's a little jumpy and confusing. Most of this would probably be resolved if I had a better memory, as a lot of the book relies on what happened in the first novel. I am not sure that you could just jump into this series without reading the first book--as I have <i>actually read</i> said first book and was still confused a few times and had to go back to my previous review to remind myself what happened.
Otherwise, this is a really exciting book, and I found it a great change of pace from some of the usual thrillers and other fare that I've been reading lately. If you're prepared for the plot (maybe suspend a little disbelief), it's a fast-paced read, and I often found myself lamenting when I couldn't read it. The novel is full of twists and turns, and it constantly keeps you guessing. McCreight has created a strong character in Wylie: she's tough and willing to fight for herself and those around her, even as she struggles with her own anxiety and the fact that she's an Outlier. Most of the novel focuses on Wylie, and she can hold her own. We meet some new characters in this one--all of whom add to the intricacy of the story--and some familiar faces from the first book pop up: many of whom will surprise (and confuse) you.
Overall, I think McCreight is coming into her own with this series. As far as I can tell, this is going to be a trilogy, and often, the second book in a trilogy can lag a bit, but not so here. Also, this one ends with a major cliffhanger (so much waiting for resolution!), and I'm fascinated to see how McCreight will resolve everything in just one book! But I'll definitely be reading it the moment it comes out!
You can read my review of book one in the series, THE OUTLIERS, <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1518275530?book_show_action=false&from_review_page=1">here</a>;.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.instagram.com/justacatandabook/">Instagram</a>; </center>