Search
Search results
AmyBee (4 KP) rated We Need to Talk About Kevin in Books
Sep 5, 2018
WARNING - SPOILERS AHEAD!!! ALSO, THIS REVIEW IS STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION SO IF PARTS DON'T MAKE SENSE, WORRY NOT, I'LL BE BACK TO FINISH IT LATER!
I quite liked this psychological family/crime drama although I did think it dragged on quite a bit with a LOT of unnecessary information. I understand that we are meant to be inside Eva's head, experiencing and feeling everything that she does/did but there is still a hell of a lot in there that could easily have been omitted with no harm to the rest of the story. On the other hand, this approach helps if we want to read the story like a 'stream of consciousness' style of narrative.
That said, it was still enjoyable if a little tedious at times due to my above point and I absolutely was not prepared for the ending!
Several people asked on Quora whether the younger sister harmed herself with the cleaning fluid on purpose, which made it very clear to me that some readers have fundamentally misunderstood the entire story, and this makes me wonder if they have a different view altogether on the ending - who do they see as being responsible for the murders? Kevin? Kevin's mother? Or, a combination of the actions of each character and toxic social/familial environments which ignored and subsequently exacerbated the poor mental health of several characters, encouraged cycles of abuse, revenge and retaliation. My guess is that they entirely and wrongly blame Kevin.
Shriver has written this novel very cleverly, as when we think about each character's transgressions out of context, we all know what is wrong and who is responsible; however this is written in such a way that it encourages the reader to pick a character to blame, providing arguments for and against each one along the way. In real life, this would never happen, as we do not get this kind of depth of insight into the lives of mass murderers. We simply blame the killer first and foremost, maybe looking briefly in disdain at his neglectful family.
In this novel, it isn't as easy to simply blame Kevin. He may be the killer, but there are so many more mitigating factors to consider.
His mother's narcissism makes her unable to see or accept her role in the actions of her very sick son. She sees him as "bad" and that's just not true. Even worse is that she treats him as though he is just bad rather than extremely ill.
I do wonder also, if the author got any backlash for writing this on the back of all the school shootings there has been in the US since the 1990's? Did people think this was an opportunistic move in the same way that they lambasted Emma whats-her-name for writing ROOM after the Josef Fritzl scandal?
I quite liked this psychological family/crime drama although I did think it dragged on quite a bit with a LOT of unnecessary information. I understand that we are meant to be inside Eva's head, experiencing and feeling everything that she does/did but there is still a hell of a lot in there that could easily have been omitted with no harm to the rest of the story. On the other hand, this approach helps if we want to read the story like a 'stream of consciousness' style of narrative.
That said, it was still enjoyable if a little tedious at times due to my above point and I absolutely was not prepared for the ending!
Several people asked on Quora whether the younger sister harmed herself with the cleaning fluid on purpose, which made it very clear to me that some readers have fundamentally misunderstood the entire story, and this makes me wonder if they have a different view altogether on the ending - who do they see as being responsible for the murders? Kevin? Kevin's mother? Or, a combination of the actions of each character and toxic social/familial environments which ignored and subsequently exacerbated the poor mental health of several characters, encouraged cycles of abuse, revenge and retaliation. My guess is that they entirely and wrongly blame Kevin.
Shriver has written this novel very cleverly, as when we think about each character's transgressions out of context, we all know what is wrong and who is responsible; however this is written in such a way that it encourages the reader to pick a character to blame, providing arguments for and against each one along the way. In real life, this would never happen, as we do not get this kind of depth of insight into the lives of mass murderers. We simply blame the killer first and foremost, maybe looking briefly in disdain at his neglectful family.
In this novel, it isn't as easy to simply blame Kevin. He may be the killer, but there are so many more mitigating factors to consider.
His mother's narcissism makes her unable to see or accept her role in the actions of her very sick son. She sees him as "bad" and that's just not true. Even worse is that she treats him as though he is just bad rather than extremely ill.
I do wonder also, if the author got any backlash for writing this on the back of all the school shootings there has been in the US since the 1990's? Did people think this was an opportunistic move in the same way that they lambasted Emma whats-her-name for writing ROOM after the Josef Fritzl scandal?
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Gwendy's Button Box in Books
Nov 4, 2018
Interesting Plot (2 more)
Great Characters
An Easy Read
A Nice Short Read
I was on the hunt for my next great read from my local library. While browsing the books, I came across Gwendy's Button Box by Stephen King and Richard Chizmar. The synopsis definitely caught my attention. I'm glad I found this book because I loved it! I also loved the illustrations peppered throughout the book.
The pacing for Gwendy's Button Box was spot on. It flowed at such a nice even pace. Not once did I find myself becoming too bored or wondering what had just happened.
The world building and plot are written superbly. This is a short read, and all of the chapters are short as well. However, the plot is still strong and told in a way that answered all my questions. The world building is believable, and I found myself wanting a button box but also wondering if I'd want all that responsibility. The plot is as follows. Gwendy, an overweight 12 year old is tired of being made fun of because of her size. One day while exercising, she encounters a man in a black hat. He gives her a box with button on top. It is not a normal box though. It seems to have powers. Before long, Gwendy is popular, thin, beautiful, and everything is going swimmingly for her. In time, events start to happen that make her think the box isn't all it's cracked up to be. Gwendy is left wondering what life would have been like without the box, and she comes to resent it. Will Gwendy be able to live life without the box after it's done so much for her?
Gwendy's Button Box focuses mainly on the titular character. We get to see her starting out as a 12 year old, and we read about her growing up throughout the years. I loved Gwendy, and I loved her thought process and how curious she was about the box. It was interesting seeing the change in her through the years and how she matured. I found her to be fleshed out well enough to be enjoyable to read about. The minor characters mentioned throughout the book are also well written, and each adds something to the story however minor. I enjoyed Mr. Farris. I still can't figure out his motives for giving Gwendy the button box or where he came from, but I believe that's the beauty of Gwendy's Button Box. It does leave it up for speculation on purpose.
Trigger warnings for Gwendy's Button Box include swearing (although not much), violence, attempted rape (though not graphic), mentions of nudity, and murder.
Overall, Gwendy's Button Box is a short yet interesting read. It held my attention throughout and was very enjoyable. I would definitely recommend Gwendy's Button Box by Stephen King and Richard Chizmar to everyone aged 16+.
The pacing for Gwendy's Button Box was spot on. It flowed at such a nice even pace. Not once did I find myself becoming too bored or wondering what had just happened.
The world building and plot are written superbly. This is a short read, and all of the chapters are short as well. However, the plot is still strong and told in a way that answered all my questions. The world building is believable, and I found myself wanting a button box but also wondering if I'd want all that responsibility. The plot is as follows. Gwendy, an overweight 12 year old is tired of being made fun of because of her size. One day while exercising, she encounters a man in a black hat. He gives her a box with button on top. It is not a normal box though. It seems to have powers. Before long, Gwendy is popular, thin, beautiful, and everything is going swimmingly for her. In time, events start to happen that make her think the box isn't all it's cracked up to be. Gwendy is left wondering what life would have been like without the box, and she comes to resent it. Will Gwendy be able to live life without the box after it's done so much for her?
Gwendy's Button Box focuses mainly on the titular character. We get to see her starting out as a 12 year old, and we read about her growing up throughout the years. I loved Gwendy, and I loved her thought process and how curious she was about the box. It was interesting seeing the change in her through the years and how she matured. I found her to be fleshed out well enough to be enjoyable to read about. The minor characters mentioned throughout the book are also well written, and each adds something to the story however minor. I enjoyed Mr. Farris. I still can't figure out his motives for giving Gwendy the button box or where he came from, but I believe that's the beauty of Gwendy's Button Box. It does leave it up for speculation on purpose.
Trigger warnings for Gwendy's Button Box include swearing (although not much), violence, attempted rape (though not graphic), mentions of nudity, and murder.
Overall, Gwendy's Button Box is a short yet interesting read. It held my attention throughout and was very enjoyable. I would definitely recommend Gwendy's Button Box by Stephen King and Richard Chizmar to everyone aged 16+.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Deadpool 2 (2018) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
The Mercenary with a mouth is back with the eagerly awaited arrival of “Deadpool 2”. The films sees the generally well-meaning but highly dysfunctional Deadpool (Ryan Reynolds), back to taking out bad guys as a contract player but also managing his relationship with Vanessa (Morena Baccarin). When an unexpected event sends his life into a freefall, Deadpool tries to find a new purpose with the help of his X-Men associates from the last film who attempt to recruit him into their organization.
His first mission is to defuse an angry and destructive young mutant named Russell (Julian Dennison), which takes an unexpected turn and lands them both in serious trouble.
One would think that would be enough to cause some major life changes for Deadpool but thanks to the arrival of Cable (Josh Brolin), a cyborg soldier from the future; things are about to get much more complicated and intense.
Undaunted, Deadpool opts to form his own league of heroes and aside from Domino (Zazie Beetz); they seem to be as unlucky or dysfunctional as their leader which makes for some very hysterical consequences.
What follows is an action and laugh-laden adventure which brings even more of what made the first film such a success to the audience as the film takes the bawdy action of the first and ups the ante thanks in large part to an expanded budget and cast.
My biggest concern for the film was that with an expanded budget there would be too many characters and an attempt to do far too much with the film. That did play out at times in the beginning as for me, the first film worked so well as they had to let the characters rather than the action and effects carry it and the rapid-fire arrival of so many jokes and creative profanity made repeat viewing of the film necessary to catch everything.
This time out we get elaborate action and chase sequences as well as a much larger cast. At times it seemed as if this would possibly overshadow the characters and story but Reynolds and Director David Leith never let it cross that line.
They also go back to the core elements in the final third of the film which really allows the film to fully connect with the tone of the original film and brings the film home to a satisfying conclusion. What really sold the film for me was the brilliant and very inspired extended scene during the credits which allows Deadpool to “fix” various issues which perfectly captures the irreverent character and the best aspects of the series where the cast is willing to make fun of themselves as well as the larger universe in which their characters exist.
I cannot wait to see what comes next as “DeadPool 2” is another fun outing for the character and something very different from most comic based movies.
http://sknr.net/2018/05/14/deadpool-2-2/
His first mission is to defuse an angry and destructive young mutant named Russell (Julian Dennison), which takes an unexpected turn and lands them both in serious trouble.
One would think that would be enough to cause some major life changes for Deadpool but thanks to the arrival of Cable (Josh Brolin), a cyborg soldier from the future; things are about to get much more complicated and intense.
Undaunted, Deadpool opts to form his own league of heroes and aside from Domino (Zazie Beetz); they seem to be as unlucky or dysfunctional as their leader which makes for some very hysterical consequences.
What follows is an action and laugh-laden adventure which brings even more of what made the first film such a success to the audience as the film takes the bawdy action of the first and ups the ante thanks in large part to an expanded budget and cast.
My biggest concern for the film was that with an expanded budget there would be too many characters and an attempt to do far too much with the film. That did play out at times in the beginning as for me, the first film worked so well as they had to let the characters rather than the action and effects carry it and the rapid-fire arrival of so many jokes and creative profanity made repeat viewing of the film necessary to catch everything.
This time out we get elaborate action and chase sequences as well as a much larger cast. At times it seemed as if this would possibly overshadow the characters and story but Reynolds and Director David Leith never let it cross that line.
They also go back to the core elements in the final third of the film which really allows the film to fully connect with the tone of the original film and brings the film home to a satisfying conclusion. What really sold the film for me was the brilliant and very inspired extended scene during the credits which allows Deadpool to “fix” various issues which perfectly captures the irreverent character and the best aspects of the series where the cast is willing to make fun of themselves as well as the larger universe in which their characters exist.
I cannot wait to see what comes next as “DeadPool 2” is another fun outing for the character and something very different from most comic based movies.
http://sknr.net/2018/05/14/deadpool-2-2/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid (2004) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Deep in the dense jungles of Borneo, a research team has come hoping to succeed where famed explorer Ponce De Leon once failed. History notes that De Leon ventured to Florida looking for the fabled Fountain of Youth that would endow all who drank from it with eternal youth and life.
The modern quest is taken up by a research team who believe that the rare Blood Orchid, which blooms every seven years is the key to eternal youth, as the small samples they obtained shows that the plant allows for greater cell reproduction and thus an end to aging.
With visions of billions of dollars in their heads, the team sets off to collect several samples of the orchid, as they only have a week to do so before they must wait another seven years for the flower to bloom again. Complicating matters is that the team has arrived during rainy season, and as such there is only one boat captain named Johnson (Johnny Messner), who will attempt to take the team down river in the dangerous conditions. The trip turns out to be even more dangerous than expected, and the team leader Dr. Byron (Matthew Marsden), offers and additional $50,00 to Johnson unbeknownst to his team to push on, no matter what.
When the boat jams a rudder due to debris and ends up on the bad side of a waterfall, the team finds themselves without any transportation and forced to trek across the jungle to not only catch other transportation, but to reach the Orchids in time. Unbeknownst to the team, they have entered an area of the jungle that is teaming with giant and deadly anacondas and the team is soon under attack by the large and deadly creatures that strike without warning and vanish almost as quickly as they appear.
Fractions soon arise as many in the team want to abandon the quest for the orchid and return to safety, while Byron insists that to give up now would be crazy and despite the risk, the prize the orchid promises is well worth the risk.
What follows is the typical cat and mouse game that while short on suspense does have some surprises and laughs along the way.
The snake effects are done via CGI this time out instead of animatronics, and the technology allows an even greater range of motion for the snakes, which adds to the suspense factor, as the snakes are able to appear as full body creatures rather then a simple head. The cast is solid especially Messner and Kadee Strickland as a scientist named Sam. The remainder of the cast has a bit of depth even those whose entire purpose is to become snake chow. Yes, the film is a B-Movie, and is light on plot, realism, and depth, but for late summer entertainment, “Anacondas” has enough bite to keep you interested.
The modern quest is taken up by a research team who believe that the rare Blood Orchid, which blooms every seven years is the key to eternal youth, as the small samples they obtained shows that the plant allows for greater cell reproduction and thus an end to aging.
With visions of billions of dollars in their heads, the team sets off to collect several samples of the orchid, as they only have a week to do so before they must wait another seven years for the flower to bloom again. Complicating matters is that the team has arrived during rainy season, and as such there is only one boat captain named Johnson (Johnny Messner), who will attempt to take the team down river in the dangerous conditions. The trip turns out to be even more dangerous than expected, and the team leader Dr. Byron (Matthew Marsden), offers and additional $50,00 to Johnson unbeknownst to his team to push on, no matter what.
When the boat jams a rudder due to debris and ends up on the bad side of a waterfall, the team finds themselves without any transportation and forced to trek across the jungle to not only catch other transportation, but to reach the Orchids in time. Unbeknownst to the team, they have entered an area of the jungle that is teaming with giant and deadly anacondas and the team is soon under attack by the large and deadly creatures that strike without warning and vanish almost as quickly as they appear.
Fractions soon arise as many in the team want to abandon the quest for the orchid and return to safety, while Byron insists that to give up now would be crazy and despite the risk, the prize the orchid promises is well worth the risk.
What follows is the typical cat and mouse game that while short on suspense does have some surprises and laughs along the way.
The snake effects are done via CGI this time out instead of animatronics, and the technology allows an even greater range of motion for the snakes, which adds to the suspense factor, as the snakes are able to appear as full body creatures rather then a simple head. The cast is solid especially Messner and Kadee Strickland as a scientist named Sam. The remainder of the cast has a bit of depth even those whose entire purpose is to become snake chow. Yes, the film is a B-Movie, and is light on plot, realism, and depth, but for late summer entertainment, “Anacondas” has enough bite to keep you interested.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated All Is True (2018) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
I have reservations about anything that Kenneth Branagh is in on the big screen. I'm sorry but I'm going to say it... he needs to stop. Stay behind the camera or on stage. I'm already pre-disappointed for Death On The Nile.
Regardless of that feeling I was excited to see Judy Dench and Ian McKellen in action, it was also a nice surprise to see Ben Elton's name on it... I'm not sure how that had escaped my notice.
Even with those redeeming features I was left bored? Disappointed? No, definitely bored.
I know lots of different snippets about Shakespeare. Whether they're true or not always seems to be up for debate but there are plenty of facts out there. One of the things I had never heard before was this film's addition of the Shakespeare/Wriothesley friendship. By this point I was already feeling disengaged so adding it in pushed me even closer to the edge. I was actually annoyed to be presented with something completely unknown. I know that's mad.
The story as a whole wasn't going to be action-packed and therefore a little slower paced, but everything we were presented with didn't seem connected to anything else. One of the notes I made just said "nothing seems to have a real purpose" and I don't think that opinion changed by the time the film ended. I didn't understand the ultimate point of this film, I know it's about the end of his life and yet... *quizzical shrug*.
You say Ben Elton and you think Blackadder and The Thin Blue Line, at least I do. He's built for comedy and in this there just isn't any and it shows. Everything feels bland and is punctuated with silences that bring the awkwardness of the characters right out into the audience. Unfortunately a real awkwardness and not an "I identify with this character" one.
As for the star-studded cast, I enjoyed Judi Dench's performance the most but even that can't bring up the score on this for me. McKellen gave a fantastic performance but it didn't feel like it belonged in this film, it felt like he was acting in a Shakespeare play and not in a film about Shakespeare.
Had you taken Dench and McKellen out there would have been very little in this film to stop it from sliding into obscurity.
What you should do
I can't recommend this one, I wouldn't even bother when it appears on TV. It does have its audience somewhere though, as I and several other people heaved a sigh of relief when it ended the little old lady across the aisle exclaimed "ooooh weren't that lovely!"
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I would like to take home the two hours of my life I spent on this film, if that's possible?
Regardless of that feeling I was excited to see Judy Dench and Ian McKellen in action, it was also a nice surprise to see Ben Elton's name on it... I'm not sure how that had escaped my notice.
Even with those redeeming features I was left bored? Disappointed? No, definitely bored.
I know lots of different snippets about Shakespeare. Whether they're true or not always seems to be up for debate but there are plenty of facts out there. One of the things I had never heard before was this film's addition of the Shakespeare/Wriothesley friendship. By this point I was already feeling disengaged so adding it in pushed me even closer to the edge. I was actually annoyed to be presented with something completely unknown. I know that's mad.
The story as a whole wasn't going to be action-packed and therefore a little slower paced, but everything we were presented with didn't seem connected to anything else. One of the notes I made just said "nothing seems to have a real purpose" and I don't think that opinion changed by the time the film ended. I didn't understand the ultimate point of this film, I know it's about the end of his life and yet... *quizzical shrug*.
You say Ben Elton and you think Blackadder and The Thin Blue Line, at least I do. He's built for comedy and in this there just isn't any and it shows. Everything feels bland and is punctuated with silences that bring the awkwardness of the characters right out into the audience. Unfortunately a real awkwardness and not an "I identify with this character" one.
As for the star-studded cast, I enjoyed Judi Dench's performance the most but even that can't bring up the score on this for me. McKellen gave a fantastic performance but it didn't feel like it belonged in this film, it felt like he was acting in a Shakespeare play and not in a film about Shakespeare.
Had you taken Dench and McKellen out there would have been very little in this film to stop it from sliding into obscurity.
What you should do
I can't recommend this one, I wouldn't even bother when it appears on TV. It does have its audience somewhere though, as I and several other people heaved a sigh of relief when it ended the little old lady across the aisle exclaimed "ooooh weren't that lovely!"
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I would like to take home the two hours of my life I spent on this film, if that's possible?
Eilidh G Clark (177 KP) rated Goblin in Books
Jul 2, 2019
Brilliant book, well wriiten, original
Winner of the Saltire Society first book of the year award 2017, Goblin, by Ever Dundas is a brilliant and brave first novel. Set in both London during WW2 and in Edinburgh in 2011, the story is told in flashback. For me, the first half of the novel is the best, we meet Goblin as a nine-year-old tomboy with a love for animals and a passion for storytelling - both of which the protagonist collects.
Goblin has a difficult family life; a mother who doesn’t want her, 'Goblin-runt born blue. Nothing can kill you. [...] You're like a cockroach,' (p.5) a father who mends radio’s and barely talks and a brother (David) who spends most of his time in his bedroom. Left to her own devices, the protagonist, her dog Devil, and her two friends Mac and Stevie roam the neighbourhood and hang around in an abandoned worksite. As a collector of stories, Goblin enthusiastically attends the local church with Mac, 'I loved the stories, turning them over in my head, weaving my own.' (p.24) before meeting The Crazy Pigeon Lady who tells her tales of Lizards people from the realm below. The childhood innocence in these chapters, mixed with magic realism, break down the walls of adult reasoning and creates a wonderful suspension of disbelief.
But without giving away the story plot, the suspension of disbelief serves another purpose; to divert the reader (as well as the adult protagonist) from the truth. So, while the adult Goblin searches amongst her tangled past, she takes the reader along for the ride. We meet multiple parents, live life on the road, come alive on the streets and in the circus, explore love, death, desire, and hate – and somewhere in the middle we meet an impressive collection of animals - Goblin has it all. And as far as strong female protagonists go, she’s right up there with Anais Hendricks from Jenni Fagan’s Panopticon, to Janie Ryan in Kerry Hudson’s Tony Hogan Bought Me an Ice Cream Float Before He Stole My Ma, characters who are so real you might just walk by them on the street.
The only teeny tiny criticism about the novel is that the second half spans over a lengthy period of time and it felt a little rushed. However, there is so much to say about this novel, so many angles to discuss, from Queer Theory to Religion, from Myth to Realism, and as a graduate of English Literature I could have a field day studying this book but for now, as a lover of good books, I’ll give it a big thumbs up and a huge recommendation, it’ll be finding a space on my ‘keep’ book shelve.
Goblin, Ever Dundas (2017) published by Saraband
Goblin has a difficult family life; a mother who doesn’t want her, 'Goblin-runt born blue. Nothing can kill you. [...] You're like a cockroach,' (p.5) a father who mends radio’s and barely talks and a brother (David) who spends most of his time in his bedroom. Left to her own devices, the protagonist, her dog Devil, and her two friends Mac and Stevie roam the neighbourhood and hang around in an abandoned worksite. As a collector of stories, Goblin enthusiastically attends the local church with Mac, 'I loved the stories, turning them over in my head, weaving my own.' (p.24) before meeting The Crazy Pigeon Lady who tells her tales of Lizards people from the realm below. The childhood innocence in these chapters, mixed with magic realism, break down the walls of adult reasoning and creates a wonderful suspension of disbelief.
But without giving away the story plot, the suspension of disbelief serves another purpose; to divert the reader (as well as the adult protagonist) from the truth. So, while the adult Goblin searches amongst her tangled past, she takes the reader along for the ride. We meet multiple parents, live life on the road, come alive on the streets and in the circus, explore love, death, desire, and hate – and somewhere in the middle we meet an impressive collection of animals - Goblin has it all. And as far as strong female protagonists go, she’s right up there with Anais Hendricks from Jenni Fagan’s Panopticon, to Janie Ryan in Kerry Hudson’s Tony Hogan Bought Me an Ice Cream Float Before He Stole My Ma, characters who are so real you might just walk by them on the street.
The only teeny tiny criticism about the novel is that the second half spans over a lengthy period of time and it felt a little rushed. However, there is so much to say about this novel, so many angles to discuss, from Queer Theory to Religion, from Myth to Realism, and as a graduate of English Literature I could have a field day studying this book but for now, as a lover of good books, I’ll give it a big thumbs up and a huge recommendation, it’ll be finding a space on my ‘keep’ book shelve.
Goblin, Ever Dundas (2017) published by Saraband
Piper (13 KP) rated Doctor Sleep (2019) in Movies
Nov 27, 2019
Impressive Casting (2 more)
Excellent Ending
Beautifully Shot
Ridiculous Running Time (1 more)
Low On Scares
Doctor Sleep: The Long Haul
Contains spoilers, click to show
Watch enough horror movies, and you develop a certain tolerance: that said, I don't think you'd have to watch many to see this film and still not be scared. There are a couple of grisly moments, and Flanagan does an excellent job of building tension, but I had the feeling coming out of this film that I hadn't just seen a horror film at all. And I think that might have been the point: this was more about the story than the scares.
The story, overall, was well-adapted. About two-thirds of the way in the film really starts to veer off the path the book had laid out, but what it does with that last third is probably the best part of the movie. Spoilers follow: the end of Kubrick's "The Shining" left the Overlook Hotel intact (if a little sad) rather than burning it down as in the novel. Mike Flanagan does two things with this film, both adapting the novel and following on from Kubrick's film, and the Overlook features heavily in this ending and wraps up the Shining story quite nicely. In fact it seems the main purpose of the ending was to do justice to Stephen King's original vision, and in honesty it's a better ending than that of the novel.
Where "The Shining" largely ignored character's motivations and development and treated them essentially as set-pieces, "Doctor Sleep" spends far too long bringing them together. The characters are expertly cast, and Ewan McGregor almost takes a back-seat to let Kyleigh Curran's Abra shine (pun intended). Interactions are played off nicely and there's a self-referential cameo from Flanagan's other King adaptation that doesn't feel too shoe-horned in. The characters that are obviously just there to die die rather obviously, and one in particular serves purely as motivation for another to keep on fightin'. The acting itself excels, with a star turn by Rebecca Ferguson. The issue is that it simply could have been half an hour shorter, with half an hour less build-up. By the end of the movie I was just glad we had finally returned to the Overlook and things were starting to really happen.
The film is shot beautifully, and where scenes or characters from "The Shining" are re-created or referenced it's done with a great amount of care. I might have been the only one that found Rose flying above the clouds a little naff, but I still have to admit it was at least shot nicely. Overall, this was a brilliant film that could just have benefitted from a little trimming down, but Flanagan clearly cared about these characters and wanted us to feel for them and I think he certainly achieved that - and I have to stress again how ridiculously impressed I was with the ending.
The story, overall, was well-adapted. About two-thirds of the way in the film really starts to veer off the path the book had laid out, but what it does with that last third is probably the best part of the movie. Spoilers follow: the end of Kubrick's "The Shining" left the Overlook Hotel intact (if a little sad) rather than burning it down as in the novel. Mike Flanagan does two things with this film, both adapting the novel and following on from Kubrick's film, and the Overlook features heavily in this ending and wraps up the Shining story quite nicely. In fact it seems the main purpose of the ending was to do justice to Stephen King's original vision, and in honesty it's a better ending than that of the novel.
Where "The Shining" largely ignored character's motivations and development and treated them essentially as set-pieces, "Doctor Sleep" spends far too long bringing them together. The characters are expertly cast, and Ewan McGregor almost takes a back-seat to let Kyleigh Curran's Abra shine (pun intended). Interactions are played off nicely and there's a self-referential cameo from Flanagan's other King adaptation that doesn't feel too shoe-horned in. The characters that are obviously just there to die die rather obviously, and one in particular serves purely as motivation for another to keep on fightin'. The acting itself excels, with a star turn by Rebecca Ferguson. The issue is that it simply could have been half an hour shorter, with half an hour less build-up. By the end of the movie I was just glad we had finally returned to the Overlook and things were starting to really happen.
The film is shot beautifully, and where scenes or characters from "The Shining" are re-created or referenced it's done with a great amount of care. I might have been the only one that found Rose flying above the clouds a little naff, but I still have to admit it was at least shot nicely. Overall, this was a brilliant film that could just have benefitted from a little trimming down, but Flanagan clearly cared about these characters and wanted us to feel for them and I think he certainly achieved that - and I have to stress again how ridiculously impressed I was with the ending.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated 1917 (2020) in Movies
Nov 28, 2019
World War I was called “The Great War” and “The War to End All Wars” as the sheer number of nations and continents involved in the conflict as well as the tremendous loss of life; was thought to be so horrific that war would become a thing of the past.
As we know this did not happen as a generation later the world was once again at war with even great death and destruction to follow. However in “1917” we see the conflict from the viewpoint of a lowly Corporal Schofield (George MacKay) who along with his friend Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) are tasked with delivering a message across enemy lines to warn advanced units to call of an attack due to an ambush being set by the Germans.
The duo are told that the enemy has pulled back and as such; the dreaded No Man’s Land between the opposing trenches are likely to be abandoned as well their approach to a town near their destination. With the phone lines down; the duo are the only option and they are at first shocked to learn that it would just the two of them.
As they make their way across a grim and corpse-laden battlefield, the audience as well as the two men get a look at the horrific conditions that combat took place under and how fallen individuals were left to decompose where they fell due to the entrenched and stagnant nature of Trench Warfare.
As complications mount, the two must face up to their greatest fears and challenges; driven by a sense of mission and purpose for a conflict they just want to see end so they can return home to their families.
Director Sam Mendes has crafted an Oscar Caliber film as it is gripping as it is breathtaking thanks to the amazing visuals. The contrast between the beauty of the landscape and the carnage of war has rarely been captured as well as it was in this film and the fact that Mendes had a hand in writing the story based on stories told by a relative really help to bring the full impact of the story home.
The film has some amazing sequences like sustained and extended shots where you wonder how Mendes was able to film scenes with so many things going on in one take as there is a scene near the start that looks as if it is an extended scene with no breaks or cutaways.
In the end the biggest selling point for the film is that it is a human drama at its core. While there is combat and action, they are not the focal points as much of the film centers around the young men and their conversations.
The film will stay with you after the credits roll and I consider “1917” to be one of the best films of 2019 and one not to be missed.
As we know this did not happen as a generation later the world was once again at war with even great death and destruction to follow. However in “1917” we see the conflict from the viewpoint of a lowly Corporal Schofield (George MacKay) who along with his friend Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) are tasked with delivering a message across enemy lines to warn advanced units to call of an attack due to an ambush being set by the Germans.
The duo are told that the enemy has pulled back and as such; the dreaded No Man’s Land between the opposing trenches are likely to be abandoned as well their approach to a town near their destination. With the phone lines down; the duo are the only option and they are at first shocked to learn that it would just the two of them.
As they make their way across a grim and corpse-laden battlefield, the audience as well as the two men get a look at the horrific conditions that combat took place under and how fallen individuals were left to decompose where they fell due to the entrenched and stagnant nature of Trench Warfare.
As complications mount, the two must face up to their greatest fears and challenges; driven by a sense of mission and purpose for a conflict they just want to see end so they can return home to their families.
Director Sam Mendes has crafted an Oscar Caliber film as it is gripping as it is breathtaking thanks to the amazing visuals. The contrast between the beauty of the landscape and the carnage of war has rarely been captured as well as it was in this film and the fact that Mendes had a hand in writing the story based on stories told by a relative really help to bring the full impact of the story home.
The film has some amazing sequences like sustained and extended shots where you wonder how Mendes was able to film scenes with so many things going on in one take as there is a scene near the start that looks as if it is an extended scene with no breaks or cutaways.
In the end the biggest selling point for the film is that it is a human drama at its core. While there is combat and action, they are not the focal points as much of the film centers around the young men and their conversations.
The film will stay with you after the credits roll and I consider “1917” to be one of the best films of 2019 and one not to be missed.
Night Reader Reviews (683 KP) rated The Rochester Runes in Books
Jan 9, 2020
The Rochester Ruins is the second book in the series Freiyon Fables by Justin Hunt, too which the first book only received a 2 from me. The timeline this book and the first appear to overlap to some extent at the beginning. Old friends and foes, as well as new, make an appearance in this book as well.
Unlike the first book that detailed a lightning-tailed squirrel's journey through Freiyon this story follows the three human Rochester siblings. The three siblings., Robert, Charles, and Sarah move with their mother into their grandparents old manor. None of the children are exactly thrilled about the move and are surprised to find the manor to have traps in it. After finding a mysterious stone that unlocks a door at the end of a secret passage the children find themselves in Freiyon.
It is in this world of talking animals and sentient trees that they search for the rune stones that will lift their familys curse. The rune stones, once gathered together also have the ability to grant wishes. The Rochester siblings. use these wishes to aid them in protecting Freiyon from The Grabbers, who are also in search of the rune stones. This is an adventure that will bring their entire family together, but it may also tear some of them apart.
What I liked best was Freiyon still feeling a lot like Narnia. Then there is also the fact that this book is tied very nicely in with the first one. Some of the human characters even made me question if they are in any way related to the unnamed boy at the end of the first book, but that is just speculation on my part. What I did not like is just like the first book the writing felt oversimplified. At times it did seem like maybe this was on purpose with the goal of preventing the book from being too long. If that is the case than the book suffers from it. The ending also felt very confusing and as if it was unnecessary for things to turn out the way the did, but I dont want to give any major spoilers.
Once again I would suggest that middle school-aged children and some elementary students can visit the would of Freiyon. The violence that made me question how some parents of younger children might perceive this series even appeared to be a little less graphic this time around. I rate this book a 2 out of 4 just like the first. Once again the book seems to jump from one major sequence of events to another with only minimal transitioning. Still, the world itself is intriguing if only it was given a better description. The ending of this one also made it lose major points.
https://nightreaderreviews.blogspot.com/
Unlike the first book that detailed a lightning-tailed squirrel's journey through Freiyon this story follows the three human Rochester siblings. The three siblings., Robert, Charles, and Sarah move with their mother into their grandparents old manor. None of the children are exactly thrilled about the move and are surprised to find the manor to have traps in it. After finding a mysterious stone that unlocks a door at the end of a secret passage the children find themselves in Freiyon.
It is in this world of talking animals and sentient trees that they search for the rune stones that will lift their familys curse. The rune stones, once gathered together also have the ability to grant wishes. The Rochester siblings. use these wishes to aid them in protecting Freiyon from The Grabbers, who are also in search of the rune stones. This is an adventure that will bring their entire family together, but it may also tear some of them apart.
What I liked best was Freiyon still feeling a lot like Narnia. Then there is also the fact that this book is tied very nicely in with the first one. Some of the human characters even made me question if they are in any way related to the unnamed boy at the end of the first book, but that is just speculation on my part. What I did not like is just like the first book the writing felt oversimplified. At times it did seem like maybe this was on purpose with the goal of preventing the book from being too long. If that is the case than the book suffers from it. The ending also felt very confusing and as if it was unnecessary for things to turn out the way the did, but I dont want to give any major spoilers.
Once again I would suggest that middle school-aged children and some elementary students can visit the would of Freiyon. The violence that made me question how some parents of younger children might perceive this series even appeared to be a little less graphic this time around. I rate this book a 2 out of 4 just like the first. Once again the book seems to jump from one major sequence of events to another with only minimal transitioning. Still, the world itself is intriguing if only it was given a better description. The ending of this one also made it lose major points.
https://nightreaderreviews.blogspot.com/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Gosford Park (2001) in Movies
Mar 24, 2020
Underneath it all...and Altman film
Do you like DOWNTON ABBEY? Do you like Agatha Christie Murder Mysteries? Do you like the 1970's British television series UPSTAIRS DOWNSTAIRS? If your answer to any of these questions is yes, then do I have a film for you.
GOSFORD PARK is an English Murder Mystery, set in the 1920's, featuring an All Star Cast, Directed by a 7 time Oscar nominee. It received critical acclaim in the year it was released (2001), earned 7 Oscar nominations (including Best Picture) and won the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay (Julian Fellowes...who would go on to create/write DOWNTON ABBEY).
Set in an English Country Manor, overseen by overbearing Lord William McCordle (Michael Gambon, the 2nd Albus Dumbledore in the Harry Potter films), GOSFORD PARK tells of the trials, tribulations, loves and death (yes, there's a murder) of a host of characters both Upstairs (the wealthy) and Downstairs (the servants).
And what a cast it is! Kristin Scott Thomas, Maggie Smith, Charles Dance, Jeremy Northam, Tom Hollander and Bob Balaban lead the group of the wealthy, while Helen Mirren, Alan Bates, Clive Owen, Kelly MacDonald, Eileen Atkins and Emily Watson head up the cast of servants below the stairs.
Both Maggie Smith and Helen Mirren were nominated for an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress for their work in this film (both losing to Jennifer Connelly for A BEAUTIFUL MIND).
Directed by Robert Altman (M*A*S*H, NASHVILLE), GOSFORD PARK is much of what you would expect from an Altman film...many, many people living their lives, sometimes intersecting with others, often times just going off on their own, tied together by the circumstances of being in this giant manor house on a weekend of a murder.
It is an ambitious, "Oscar bait" film that succeeds for the most part. And, if you are into the costumes, sets, Interior Design and intimate scenes of people talking, then you will be richly rewarded by this film.
I loved this film when it first came out and was anxiously looking forward to re-visiting it.
While I still liked it during this viewing, I did find the pacing to be languid and I started finding myself being frustrated by threads and character direction that just sort of petered out or ended all together with no real resolution. I know this was on purpose, for Altman would argue that this is what happens in real life, but I found this frustrating.
But this film has much, much going for it and if you haven't seen this - or haven't seen this in awhile - and are a fan of these types of films, then GOSFORD PARK will be a very rewarding 2 hours and 11 minutes of a movie going experience.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
GOSFORD PARK is an English Murder Mystery, set in the 1920's, featuring an All Star Cast, Directed by a 7 time Oscar nominee. It received critical acclaim in the year it was released (2001), earned 7 Oscar nominations (including Best Picture) and won the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay (Julian Fellowes...who would go on to create/write DOWNTON ABBEY).
Set in an English Country Manor, overseen by overbearing Lord William McCordle (Michael Gambon, the 2nd Albus Dumbledore in the Harry Potter films), GOSFORD PARK tells of the trials, tribulations, loves and death (yes, there's a murder) of a host of characters both Upstairs (the wealthy) and Downstairs (the servants).
And what a cast it is! Kristin Scott Thomas, Maggie Smith, Charles Dance, Jeremy Northam, Tom Hollander and Bob Balaban lead the group of the wealthy, while Helen Mirren, Alan Bates, Clive Owen, Kelly MacDonald, Eileen Atkins and Emily Watson head up the cast of servants below the stairs.
Both Maggie Smith and Helen Mirren were nominated for an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress for their work in this film (both losing to Jennifer Connelly for A BEAUTIFUL MIND).
Directed by Robert Altman (M*A*S*H, NASHVILLE), GOSFORD PARK is much of what you would expect from an Altman film...many, many people living their lives, sometimes intersecting with others, often times just going off on their own, tied together by the circumstances of being in this giant manor house on a weekend of a murder.
It is an ambitious, "Oscar bait" film that succeeds for the most part. And, if you are into the costumes, sets, Interior Design and intimate scenes of people talking, then you will be richly rewarded by this film.
I loved this film when it first came out and was anxiously looking forward to re-visiting it.
While I still liked it during this viewing, I did find the pacing to be languid and I started finding myself being frustrated by threads and character direction that just sort of petered out or ended all together with no real resolution. I know this was on purpose, for Altman would argue that this is what happens in real life, but I found this frustrating.
But this film has much, much going for it and if you haven't seen this - or haven't seen this in awhile - and are a fan of these types of films, then GOSFORD PARK will be a very rewarding 2 hours and 11 minutes of a movie going experience.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)