Search
Search results
Carma (21 KP) rated How to Keep a Secret in Books
Jun 17, 2019
How to Keep a Secret is written in a different style than we normally see from Sarah Morgan. As with all her other novels, this one flows story to story without hesitation blending all 4 womens stories into one overall story. Not leaving you feel like you are reading separate stories, another 5 star, well done for Ms. Morgan.
How to Keep a Secret follows the stories of Mom Nancy, a painter who barely had time for her daughters while they grew up. Sisters Jenna, who longs for a baby with her husband (maybe too much), Lauren, whos husband unexpectedly dies leaving her in chaos with her teenage daughter Mack, who isnt much into supporting her mother right now. They each are well versed in secret keeping, will they come together as one to tackle them head on.
Each woman has her own story to tell and each is told with passion, compassion, dignity and grace from both their own perspectives and as seen from those around them. Once again Ms. Morgan uses her pen and paper to draw us into this world, surrounding us with new friends who we fight for, care about and are sad when they leave us.
Nancys story could be a mothers story from any age or perspective. She is the breadwinner and leaves the care of the girls up to their dad, the fun one. She feels like she has neglected them their whole lives and has no clue how to be there for them now. Having lost her husband 5 years ago she has become a shell of her former self. She has to do some major life adjustments and clean outs to get back to being herself again. Maybe even find love again.
Lauren is dealing with the loss of her husband as well, though in the present not the past as her mother is. She has lost the close connection with her teenage daughter Mack, and has absolutely no idea what happened to cause the rift. At her husbands funeral she finally finds out the reason behind Macks sudden departure. As she packs and moves back home to Marthas Vineyard, can she find peace with her daughter once again?
Jenna has suffered her own personal losses as of late she cant get pregnant. She has no idea why or how come, she just knows she wants a baby more than anything isnt being afforded the opportunity. If one more well-meaning person tells her how great a mom shed be when she finally decided to have a baby, she would spit nails. Shes decided the universe has not. Can her marriage to Greg withstand the constant pressure that comes from trying to make a baby and failing?
Mack is a confused, upset, lonely and borderline angry teenage girl. She just lost her dad Ed and is now having to move across the pond with her mother into her grandmothers house on Marthas Vineyard. Nothing about life is fair at this moment. Can she start over in a new place, with new friends and new family?
Ms. Morgan once again tells a beautiful story that has you so wrapped up in the lives of the characters you are quite upset that it has ended. I received a copy of the novel in advance without any expectations for review. Any and all opinions expressed are solely my own. I would advise you to run, not walk, to the nearest place that sells Ms. Morgans books and pick up a copy today.
How to Keep a Secret follows the stories of Mom Nancy, a painter who barely had time for her daughters while they grew up. Sisters Jenna, who longs for a baby with her husband (maybe too much), Lauren, whos husband unexpectedly dies leaving her in chaos with her teenage daughter Mack, who isnt much into supporting her mother right now. They each are well versed in secret keeping, will they come together as one to tackle them head on.
Each woman has her own story to tell and each is told with passion, compassion, dignity and grace from both their own perspectives and as seen from those around them. Once again Ms. Morgan uses her pen and paper to draw us into this world, surrounding us with new friends who we fight for, care about and are sad when they leave us.
Nancys story could be a mothers story from any age or perspective. She is the breadwinner and leaves the care of the girls up to their dad, the fun one. She feels like she has neglected them their whole lives and has no clue how to be there for them now. Having lost her husband 5 years ago she has become a shell of her former self. She has to do some major life adjustments and clean outs to get back to being herself again. Maybe even find love again.
Lauren is dealing with the loss of her husband as well, though in the present not the past as her mother is. She has lost the close connection with her teenage daughter Mack, and has absolutely no idea what happened to cause the rift. At her husbands funeral she finally finds out the reason behind Macks sudden departure. As she packs and moves back home to Marthas Vineyard, can she find peace with her daughter once again?
Jenna has suffered her own personal losses as of late she cant get pregnant. She has no idea why or how come, she just knows she wants a baby more than anything isnt being afforded the opportunity. If one more well-meaning person tells her how great a mom shed be when she finally decided to have a baby, she would spit nails. Shes decided the universe has not. Can her marriage to Greg withstand the constant pressure that comes from trying to make a baby and failing?
Mack is a confused, upset, lonely and borderline angry teenage girl. She just lost her dad Ed and is now having to move across the pond with her mother into her grandmothers house on Marthas Vineyard. Nothing about life is fair at this moment. Can she start over in a new place, with new friends and new family?
Ms. Morgan once again tells a beautiful story that has you so wrapped up in the lives of the characters you are quite upset that it has ended. I received a copy of the novel in advance without any expectations for review. Any and all opinions expressed are solely my own. I would advise you to run, not walk, to the nearest place that sells Ms. Morgans books and pick up a copy today.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Warcraft (2016) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Back in 1994, I fondly remember playing Warcraft on my PC as well as the fun of connecting with a friend over a dial up modem for hours of fun. Blizzard’s online matchmaking portal also served as a source of countless chatrooms in the pre-internet days and through the two sequels and add on packs that followed as well as the huge success of World of Warcraft, the name Warcraft came to symbolize quality and fun to millions of fans the world over.
The feature film is directed by Duncan Jones who replaced Sam Raimi in pre-production years ago, and follows the arrival or the Orcs into Azeroth and the battle that erupts as the humans try to stop this invading force. An evil energy source is compelling the actions of a power obsessed Orc and he is obsessed with destroying the humans to find a new home for his people which is no longer inhabitable thanks to said dark magic.
There are the usual collection of wizards, warriors, love interest, heroes, and villains that one would expect in a fantasy adventure but there are many elements that simply do not work. From poor casting choices to a story that is weak even by video game standards the movie just does not live up to what one expects form a summer blockbuster especially one with a name associated with quality. It is shocking to me that the studio thought the casting choices were appropriate for the film as there is no star power at all and no chemistry at all between any of the performers. It is almost as if some executives figured since their kids play Warcraft and they know people who play Warcraft, then this will be a huge hit as everyone will flock to it. Yes, but the salad days of the franchise are behind it as World of Warcraft does not have the subscriber bases it once had. Three to Five years ago would have been a great time for the film but for now it is too late and far to lacking. I am sure fans will see it for curiosity sake and it may open well, but I do not see it having much staying power and as what is supposed to be the first film in a planned series, I am not sure that I want to see much more of it which is sad as I am a fan of the games and I liked that the visuals of the film matched much of the quality artwork of the games.
The action scenes for the film are entertaining enough and they do have a good degree of visual appeal but they just do not have any intensity or compulsion to them and with the disjointed plot and sub par acting, it really makes it hard to get caught up in the outcome. One segment was indicating an epic battle was to come and it was resolved in seconds which really invalidated much of the events leading up to it.
Sadly the first cinematic offering for the franchise is not going to be the landmark event that the arrival of the previous games have been as it plays out like a big budget fan film with solid special effects but a plodding and stale story, bad acting, and a no-name cast who cannot even decide what accent they are using from scene to scene. I half expected Crow and Tom Servo to pop up in the corner and add their commentary especially during the ridiculous “Moses Scene” which was so indicative of the slapdash nature of the film.
http://sknr.net/2016/06/08/warcraft/
The feature film is directed by Duncan Jones who replaced Sam Raimi in pre-production years ago, and follows the arrival or the Orcs into Azeroth and the battle that erupts as the humans try to stop this invading force. An evil energy source is compelling the actions of a power obsessed Orc and he is obsessed with destroying the humans to find a new home for his people which is no longer inhabitable thanks to said dark magic.
There are the usual collection of wizards, warriors, love interest, heroes, and villains that one would expect in a fantasy adventure but there are many elements that simply do not work. From poor casting choices to a story that is weak even by video game standards the movie just does not live up to what one expects form a summer blockbuster especially one with a name associated with quality. It is shocking to me that the studio thought the casting choices were appropriate for the film as there is no star power at all and no chemistry at all between any of the performers. It is almost as if some executives figured since their kids play Warcraft and they know people who play Warcraft, then this will be a huge hit as everyone will flock to it. Yes, but the salad days of the franchise are behind it as World of Warcraft does not have the subscriber bases it once had. Three to Five years ago would have been a great time for the film but for now it is too late and far to lacking. I am sure fans will see it for curiosity sake and it may open well, but I do not see it having much staying power and as what is supposed to be the first film in a planned series, I am not sure that I want to see much more of it which is sad as I am a fan of the games and I liked that the visuals of the film matched much of the quality artwork of the games.
The action scenes for the film are entertaining enough and they do have a good degree of visual appeal but they just do not have any intensity or compulsion to them and with the disjointed plot and sub par acting, it really makes it hard to get caught up in the outcome. One segment was indicating an epic battle was to come and it was resolved in seconds which really invalidated much of the events leading up to it.
Sadly the first cinematic offering for the franchise is not going to be the landmark event that the arrival of the previous games have been as it plays out like a big budget fan film with solid special effects but a plodding and stale story, bad acting, and a no-name cast who cannot even decide what accent they are using from scene to scene. I half expected Crow and Tom Servo to pop up in the corner and add their commentary especially during the ridiculous “Moses Scene” which was so indicative of the slapdash nature of the film.
http://sknr.net/2016/06/08/warcraft/
Kayleigh (12 KP) rated The Fault in Our Stars in Books
Jan 2, 2019
If you don’t want to read a long review, here’s my summary: Read. This. Book. It is perfect.
In my last review (of <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com/2013/02/02/beautiful-creatures/">Beautiful Creatures</a>), I was a little harsh about the portrayal of love stories in teenage/young adult fiction. The backbone of this book is that slowly but surely, the two main characters, Hazel and Augustus, fall in love. It’s not some pre-determined, intense force that sweeps the characters off their feet. It’s slow and steady, with a few set-backs, much like Hazel’s breathing at times, if you like. As Hazel puts it, perfectly:
<blockquote>“I fell in love the way you fall asleep: slowly, and then all at once.”</blockquote>
There’s nothing glamorous – life goes up and down, it’s sad and it’s funny, it’s not fair. It’s real.
In The Fault in Our Stars, John Green introduces us to two extremely philosophical teenagers that have been through a lot more than most people, with the knowledge that there is only more hardship to come. He humanises something I know I have never really thought about – the feelings, and more specifically, the sense of humour cancer sufferers/survivors have throughout it all. I talk about the humour later, but something that really got the message across was Hazel finally admitting her biggest fear to her parents. Hazel, the girl who decided to become a vegetarian so as to “minimise the number of deaths I’m responsible for.”
<blockquote>“‘I’m like. Like. I’m a grenade, Mom. I’m a grenade and at some point I’m going to blow up and I would like to minimise the casualties, okay?’”</blockquote>
It was the realness of the characters that got me so attached. For the last third of the story, I was unabashedly sobbing (luckily, alone. The first time I finished this, I was on a bus). To be blunt (and a little bit gross), the best way I can describe the end of this book is like this. When I was a child, I’d be crying my eyes out over something or other, and my mum would be comforting me. When the worst was over, she’d joke that I’d better not have got snot on her jumper, which would make me laugh through the tears. I’m trying not to put spoilers in here, but the next quote, for example, happens just after one of the most poignant parts of the book. It lightens the mood without altering the seriousness, and at the same time reminding us that they are, after all, only teenagers.
<blockquote>“He smiled. Gallows humour. ‘I’m on a roller coaster that only goes up,’ he said.
‘And it is my privilege and my responsibility to ride all the way up with you,’ I said.
‘Would it be absolutely ludicrous to try to make out?’
‘There is no try,’ I said. ‘There is only do.’”</blockquote>
John Green managed to blend humour and tragedy perfectly. If you’ve read the book already, he wrote a blog post answering questions about the book – I’d recommend a read. I don’t want to waffle, so I’ll leave it there, but I’d wholeheartedly recommend The Fault in Our Stars - it’s an instant favourite and already has a place in my heart. Don’t forget the tissues!
Oh, and about the film that’s apparently in the works – did anyone else picture Hazel as looking a little like Ellen Page in Juno? Maybe it’s a similar attitude to life, but I could only see her as this!
PS – Sorry for anglicising the quotes – habit!
This review is also on my <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com">blog</a>; - if you liked it, please check it out!
In my last review (of <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com/2013/02/02/beautiful-creatures/">Beautiful Creatures</a>), I was a little harsh about the portrayal of love stories in teenage/young adult fiction. The backbone of this book is that slowly but surely, the two main characters, Hazel and Augustus, fall in love. It’s not some pre-determined, intense force that sweeps the characters off their feet. It’s slow and steady, with a few set-backs, much like Hazel’s breathing at times, if you like. As Hazel puts it, perfectly:
<blockquote>“I fell in love the way you fall asleep: slowly, and then all at once.”</blockquote>
There’s nothing glamorous – life goes up and down, it’s sad and it’s funny, it’s not fair. It’s real.
In The Fault in Our Stars, John Green introduces us to two extremely philosophical teenagers that have been through a lot more than most people, with the knowledge that there is only more hardship to come. He humanises something I know I have never really thought about – the feelings, and more specifically, the sense of humour cancer sufferers/survivors have throughout it all. I talk about the humour later, but something that really got the message across was Hazel finally admitting her biggest fear to her parents. Hazel, the girl who decided to become a vegetarian so as to “minimise the number of deaths I’m responsible for.”
<blockquote>“‘I’m like. Like. I’m a grenade, Mom. I’m a grenade and at some point I’m going to blow up and I would like to minimise the casualties, okay?’”</blockquote>
It was the realness of the characters that got me so attached. For the last third of the story, I was unabashedly sobbing (luckily, alone. The first time I finished this, I was on a bus). To be blunt (and a little bit gross), the best way I can describe the end of this book is like this. When I was a child, I’d be crying my eyes out over something or other, and my mum would be comforting me. When the worst was over, she’d joke that I’d better not have got snot on her jumper, which would make me laugh through the tears. I’m trying not to put spoilers in here, but the next quote, for example, happens just after one of the most poignant parts of the book. It lightens the mood without altering the seriousness, and at the same time reminding us that they are, after all, only teenagers.
<blockquote>“He smiled. Gallows humour. ‘I’m on a roller coaster that only goes up,’ he said.
‘And it is my privilege and my responsibility to ride all the way up with you,’ I said.
‘Would it be absolutely ludicrous to try to make out?’
‘There is no try,’ I said. ‘There is only do.’”</blockquote>
John Green managed to blend humour and tragedy perfectly. If you’ve read the book already, he wrote a blog post answering questions about the book – I’d recommend a read. I don’t want to waffle, so I’ll leave it there, but I’d wholeheartedly recommend The Fault in Our Stars - it’s an instant favourite and already has a place in my heart. Don’t forget the tissues!
Oh, and about the film that’s apparently in the works – did anyone else picture Hazel as looking a little like Ellen Page in Juno? Maybe it’s a similar attitude to life, but I could only see her as this!
PS – Sorry for anglicising the quotes – habit!
This review is also on my <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com">blog</a>; - if you liked it, please check it out!
Hazel (1853 KP) rated A Piece Of The World in Books
Dec 14, 2018
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.</i>
Until reading Christina Baker Kline’s note at the end of the book, it is impossible to guess that it is based on real people, although, admittedly, it is a little strange to name the main character after oneself. In fact, <i>A Piece of the World</i> is written around a single painting in the Museum of Modern Art, New York: <i>Christina’s World</i> (1948) by Andrew Wyeth, a man who appears and paints this work in the story.
Baker Cline researched thoroughly into the background story of the painting. Christina Olson, the main character of this book, was a real person who posed for Wyeth as he painted this striking picture. Although the overall story is a work of fiction, the dates and key characters are biographically accurate. Beginning in 1939, the narrative weaves too and fro, from Christina’s present day to her childhood and back again. Christina is an ageing woman who can barely walk and lives in a dilapidated cottage with her brother on a hill in the village of Cushing, Maine. Having lived in this state for so long, it is a welcome surprise to be visited by the young Andrew Wyeth who falls in love with the cottage and regularly comes to work on his canvases in their upper rooms. Through their peaceful relationship and flashbacks to her past, Christina’s character development is investigated and knitted together to explain why she has become this recluse on a hill.
Christina had problems from a very young age. After almost dying from a fever, she developed an undiagnosed degenerative disease that slowly ate away at the nerves in her arms and legs. Today, neurologists believe this to be <i>Charcot-Marie-Tooth</i> disease but there were no doctors able to provide this diagnosis at the time. Christina suffered aches and pains growing up and could barely walk in a straight line. Her determination to keep going is admirable and makes her a strong female protagonist.
One day in her early twenties, Christina meets a boy who pays her the kind of attention that she has never received before. Believing his promises that they will be together forever, she dares to dream of having a normal life. The reader, however, knows that the future Christina is alone with only her brother for company, making it heartbreaking to read of their developing romance knowing that it is not going to last.
There is no “happy-ever-after” to this story, nor is there a sad ending. It is an account of a woman who had been dealt a raw deal in life but continued getting on despite it. The end result, the painting <i>Christina’s World</i>, shows Christina as she sees herself. She may not be able to walk but she is still a woman; she made the most of her childhood, she never complained. This painting is her “letter to the World that never wrote to [Her].”
<i>A Piece of the World</i> is a powerful novel about purpose and determination. Christina may not have had a typical, successful life or become famous but she had her daily achievements: crawling through a field for an hour to visit a friend, cooking dinners despite not being able to stand up, carrying on after the end of a romantic relationship …
Written as gracefully as the brushstrokes of a painting with elements of Emily Dickinson thrown in here and there, </i>A Piece of the World</i> is a beautiful piece of work. It is something that can be enjoyed as you are mentally drawn into the storyline, leaving you wondering what happens to Christina and her brother after the completion of the painting. It is a novel the author can be proud of.
<imgsrc="https://www.moma.org/media/W1siZiIsIjE2NTQ1NyJdLFsicCIsImNvbnZlcnQiLCItcmVzaXplIDIwMDB4MjAwMFx1MDAzZSJdXQ.jpg?sha=33c151dba7f8de4c"width="100"height="40"alt="ChristinasWorld"/>;
Until reading Christina Baker Kline’s note at the end of the book, it is impossible to guess that it is based on real people, although, admittedly, it is a little strange to name the main character after oneself. In fact, <i>A Piece of the World</i> is written around a single painting in the Museum of Modern Art, New York: <i>Christina’s World</i> (1948) by Andrew Wyeth, a man who appears and paints this work in the story.
Baker Cline researched thoroughly into the background story of the painting. Christina Olson, the main character of this book, was a real person who posed for Wyeth as he painted this striking picture. Although the overall story is a work of fiction, the dates and key characters are biographically accurate. Beginning in 1939, the narrative weaves too and fro, from Christina’s present day to her childhood and back again. Christina is an ageing woman who can barely walk and lives in a dilapidated cottage with her brother on a hill in the village of Cushing, Maine. Having lived in this state for so long, it is a welcome surprise to be visited by the young Andrew Wyeth who falls in love with the cottage and regularly comes to work on his canvases in their upper rooms. Through their peaceful relationship and flashbacks to her past, Christina’s character development is investigated and knitted together to explain why she has become this recluse on a hill.
Christina had problems from a very young age. After almost dying from a fever, she developed an undiagnosed degenerative disease that slowly ate away at the nerves in her arms and legs. Today, neurologists believe this to be <i>Charcot-Marie-Tooth</i> disease but there were no doctors able to provide this diagnosis at the time. Christina suffered aches and pains growing up and could barely walk in a straight line. Her determination to keep going is admirable and makes her a strong female protagonist.
One day in her early twenties, Christina meets a boy who pays her the kind of attention that she has never received before. Believing his promises that they will be together forever, she dares to dream of having a normal life. The reader, however, knows that the future Christina is alone with only her brother for company, making it heartbreaking to read of their developing romance knowing that it is not going to last.
There is no “happy-ever-after” to this story, nor is there a sad ending. It is an account of a woman who had been dealt a raw deal in life but continued getting on despite it. The end result, the painting <i>Christina’s World</i>, shows Christina as she sees herself. She may not be able to walk but she is still a woman; she made the most of her childhood, she never complained. This painting is her “letter to the World that never wrote to [Her].”
<i>A Piece of the World</i> is a powerful novel about purpose and determination. Christina may not have had a typical, successful life or become famous but she had her daily achievements: crawling through a field for an hour to visit a friend, cooking dinners despite not being able to stand up, carrying on after the end of a romantic relationship …
Written as gracefully as the brushstrokes of a painting with elements of Emily Dickinson thrown in here and there, </i>A Piece of the World</i> is a beautiful piece of work. It is something that can be enjoyed as you are mentally drawn into the storyline, leaving you wondering what happens to Christina and her brother after the completion of the painting. It is a novel the author can be proud of.
<imgsrc="https://www.moma.org/media/W1siZiIsIjE2NTQ1NyJdLFsicCIsImNvbnZlcnQiLCItcmVzaXplIDIwMDB4MjAwMFx1MDAzZSJdXQ.jpg?sha=33c151dba7f8de4c"width="100"height="40"alt="ChristinasWorld"/>;
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated White Noise (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Ever since the phenomenal success of “The Sixth Sense”, films dealing with the supernatural have been an ever increasing presence at theaters world wide as studios attempt to find the next break out film in the genre to ensure lucrative box office and video returns.
The latest foray into the Supernatural is the new Michael Keaton film White Noise, which is based on the actual study of E.V.P. or Electronic Voice Phenomena which is reputed some paranormal investigators to be the voices of dead people speaking to the living via static in electronic devices.
Although the factuality of this is still a topic of hot debate, as after decades of study, no conclusive finding either way as to the legitimacy of E.V.P. have been found as many people attribute the supposed voices as simply the mind hearing what it wants to hear. Despite this, there are a growing number of groups and organizations worldwide who are dedicated to the study of E.V.P.
The film centers on Jonathan Rivers’s (Michael Keaton), a successful architect who is married to a best selling author Anna (Chandra West). The couple is anxiously awaiting the arrival of their first child as Jonathan has a son from a previous marriage and is thrilled to see his family grow
Tragedy sets in when Anna goes missing and eventually is found dead after an apparent accident. Jonathan has his world collapse around him yet and is living in a state of despair. Shortly, a man named Raymond Price (Ian McNeice) comes to Jonathan claiming that he has been receiving messages from Anna from the afterlife. Jonathan is at first dismissive but when he gets calls on his cell that are originating from Anna’s cell number; he visits Raymond and learns about E.V.P.
Jonathan becomes drawn into the study of E.V.P. and soon becomes obsessed with recording voices and images from the afterlife as he is desperate to stay in contact with Anna. All is not well though as Raymond failed to tell Jonathan that there are evil and dangerous entities in the afterlife and they can also use E.V.P. as a way to access and influence the living.
Jonathan also meets a fellow E.V.P user named Sara (Deborah Kara Unger), who like Jonathan becomes involved in a deeper and darker mystery as Jonathan begins to decipher a pattern behind the messages as well as the intentions behind them.
White Noise starts well as a solid mystery and had a few moments where what you imagine is often more intense than what the reality really is. Early in the film there are some good chills and creepy moments as the story unfolds. Roughly ¾ of the way into the film, the tone of the film changes from supernatural thriller to that of a mystery and I suspect that the film will lose many people at this point. The film was working well as a thrill, yet the last ¼ of the film and the conclusion become confused and sporadic as the momentum and flow of the film is lost.
The conclusion was unsatisfying as I was able to see where it was going and based on the very promising first hour of the film, it was sad to see that the film took the easy way out and relied on tired premises instead of continuing to forge ahead with the new premise and take it to what should have been a much better and more logical conclusion.
Keaton does solid work and carries the film very well. It is great to see him back on the big screen as he is a gifted and versatile actor who is capable of handling a wide range of roles.
While not a bad film, White Noise is sunk by the issues with the finale that I mentioned above. That being said, it is an entertaining film that aside from the ending, does generally work and holds the attention of the viewer.
The latest foray into the Supernatural is the new Michael Keaton film White Noise, which is based on the actual study of E.V.P. or Electronic Voice Phenomena which is reputed some paranormal investigators to be the voices of dead people speaking to the living via static in electronic devices.
Although the factuality of this is still a topic of hot debate, as after decades of study, no conclusive finding either way as to the legitimacy of E.V.P. have been found as many people attribute the supposed voices as simply the mind hearing what it wants to hear. Despite this, there are a growing number of groups and organizations worldwide who are dedicated to the study of E.V.P.
The film centers on Jonathan Rivers’s (Michael Keaton), a successful architect who is married to a best selling author Anna (Chandra West). The couple is anxiously awaiting the arrival of their first child as Jonathan has a son from a previous marriage and is thrilled to see his family grow
Tragedy sets in when Anna goes missing and eventually is found dead after an apparent accident. Jonathan has his world collapse around him yet and is living in a state of despair. Shortly, a man named Raymond Price (Ian McNeice) comes to Jonathan claiming that he has been receiving messages from Anna from the afterlife. Jonathan is at first dismissive but when he gets calls on his cell that are originating from Anna’s cell number; he visits Raymond and learns about E.V.P.
Jonathan becomes drawn into the study of E.V.P. and soon becomes obsessed with recording voices and images from the afterlife as he is desperate to stay in contact with Anna. All is not well though as Raymond failed to tell Jonathan that there are evil and dangerous entities in the afterlife and they can also use E.V.P. as a way to access and influence the living.
Jonathan also meets a fellow E.V.P user named Sara (Deborah Kara Unger), who like Jonathan becomes involved in a deeper and darker mystery as Jonathan begins to decipher a pattern behind the messages as well as the intentions behind them.
White Noise starts well as a solid mystery and had a few moments where what you imagine is often more intense than what the reality really is. Early in the film there are some good chills and creepy moments as the story unfolds. Roughly ¾ of the way into the film, the tone of the film changes from supernatural thriller to that of a mystery and I suspect that the film will lose many people at this point. The film was working well as a thrill, yet the last ¼ of the film and the conclusion become confused and sporadic as the momentum and flow of the film is lost.
The conclusion was unsatisfying as I was able to see where it was going and based on the very promising first hour of the film, it was sad to see that the film took the easy way out and relied on tired premises instead of continuing to forge ahead with the new premise and take it to what should have been a much better and more logical conclusion.
Keaton does solid work and carries the film very well. It is great to see him back on the big screen as he is a gifted and versatile actor who is capable of handling a wide range of roles.
While not a bad film, White Noise is sunk by the issues with the finale that I mentioned above. That being said, it is an entertaining film that aside from the ending, does generally work and holds the attention of the viewer.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Interpreter (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In 1945, the leaders of the world formed a charter to create the United Nations in an attempt to prevent conflicts that resulted in the Second World War. Unlike the
League of Nations before it, the U.N. as it is often known has endured over time, and has seen its membership grow over the years.
In the new film The Interpreter, Nicole Kidman stars as Sylvia Broom, an interpreter at the U.N. who spends her days translating various languages into English during various meetings and assemblies.
One evening Sylvia returns to the U.N. after hours to retrieve a bag that she had left in a sound booth. Unexpectedly, Sylvia hears a whispered conversation over the speakers in an African dialect know only to a few people, herself being one of them.
Despite some reservations Sylvia does not report her discovery until the following morning, when some odd circumstances come into play. Chief amongst them is the discovery that the person referred to in the conversation as “The Teacher” is very likely a controversial African leader who is on his way to address the U.N. in an effort to avoid being placed on trial by the World Court for atrocities.
Assigned to investigate the case is Tobin Keller (Sean Penn), an F.B.I. agent who has recently lost his wife and despite his grief, is throwing himself into his work. Tobin is skeptical over Sylvia’s report as he finds it odd that she just happened to overhear a conversation in a language that only a handful of people in the country, she included could understand. Tobin’s instincts tell him that this is simply a ploy to cancel the pending visit allowing political rivals to claim power in the absence of the African leader.
Under the thought that it is better to be safe than sorry, Tobin begins to investigate the case, and soon has far more questions than answers. It becomes clear that Sylvia is hiding something, and may indeed have a connection to the plot.
When Sylvia reports a break in and a masked figure on her balcony, Tobin and his team set up surveillance of Sylvia in an effort to get to the bottom of the plot With time definitely not on their side, more questions than answers keep emerging especially when prime suspects begin to vanish, and later turn up dead, or become victims in a horrific act of terrorism leaving Tobin to put the pieces together and protect the African leader at all costs.
While the film has a good premise and cast, it is sunk by a very dull and plodding plot, that drags on for over two hours and fails to pay off. The film could easily have had thirty minutes trimmed from its running time and not lost much of the story. While this may be a matter of stylistic preference what cannot be overlooked are the films glaring lack of tension or suspense and the sad lack of chemistry between Kidman and Penn. While theirs is not a romantic relationship, Penn seems as if he is being restrained as his part does not allow his talents to show.
The same goes for Kidman, who seems to be having trouble with her accents, as she flips between American, and African tinted accents throughout the film and seems at times to be simply going through the motions.
What is most puzzling to me is how a gifted director like Sydney Pollack allows the film to go on and on without any suspense or real dynamic to the story. It just keeps plodding along and never seems to go anywhere. It does not build up to the finale, it just happens and with some uninspired twists. It was very obvious to me from the start of the film who was behind the plot. There are some red herrings in the film but they seem tacked on rather than natural elements to the plot.
League of Nations before it, the U.N. as it is often known has endured over time, and has seen its membership grow over the years.
In the new film The Interpreter, Nicole Kidman stars as Sylvia Broom, an interpreter at the U.N. who spends her days translating various languages into English during various meetings and assemblies.
One evening Sylvia returns to the U.N. after hours to retrieve a bag that she had left in a sound booth. Unexpectedly, Sylvia hears a whispered conversation over the speakers in an African dialect know only to a few people, herself being one of them.
Despite some reservations Sylvia does not report her discovery until the following morning, when some odd circumstances come into play. Chief amongst them is the discovery that the person referred to in the conversation as “The Teacher” is very likely a controversial African leader who is on his way to address the U.N. in an effort to avoid being placed on trial by the World Court for atrocities.
Assigned to investigate the case is Tobin Keller (Sean Penn), an F.B.I. agent who has recently lost his wife and despite his grief, is throwing himself into his work. Tobin is skeptical over Sylvia’s report as he finds it odd that she just happened to overhear a conversation in a language that only a handful of people in the country, she included could understand. Tobin’s instincts tell him that this is simply a ploy to cancel the pending visit allowing political rivals to claim power in the absence of the African leader.
Under the thought that it is better to be safe than sorry, Tobin begins to investigate the case, and soon has far more questions than answers. It becomes clear that Sylvia is hiding something, and may indeed have a connection to the plot.
When Sylvia reports a break in and a masked figure on her balcony, Tobin and his team set up surveillance of Sylvia in an effort to get to the bottom of the plot With time definitely not on their side, more questions than answers keep emerging especially when prime suspects begin to vanish, and later turn up dead, or become victims in a horrific act of terrorism leaving Tobin to put the pieces together and protect the African leader at all costs.
While the film has a good premise and cast, it is sunk by a very dull and plodding plot, that drags on for over two hours and fails to pay off. The film could easily have had thirty minutes trimmed from its running time and not lost much of the story. While this may be a matter of stylistic preference what cannot be overlooked are the films glaring lack of tension or suspense and the sad lack of chemistry between Kidman and Penn. While theirs is not a romantic relationship, Penn seems as if he is being restrained as his part does not allow his talents to show.
The same goes for Kidman, who seems to be having trouble with her accents, as she flips between American, and African tinted accents throughout the film and seems at times to be simply going through the motions.
What is most puzzling to me is how a gifted director like Sydney Pollack allows the film to go on and on without any suspense or real dynamic to the story. It just keeps plodding along and never seems to go anywhere. It does not build up to the finale, it just happens and with some uninspired twists. It was very obvious to me from the start of the film who was behind the plot. There are some red herrings in the film but they seem tacked on rather than natural elements to the plot.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Grandma's Boy (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Life for video game tester is often filled with long hours, countless repetition and ever looming deadlines as the rush to get the latest games done and on budget is a key factor in the gaming industry. Often testers, much like the game coders toil away in obscurity with only their fellow gamers and personality quirks as their only companions. One such individual is a man named Alex (Allen Covert), a 36 year old professional game tester who suddenly finds himself out of his home thanks to a roommate who spends months of rent money at a local brothel.
Undaunted, Alex drifts from friend to friend often with disastrous results as he attempts to take stock of his situation and avoid the unpleasant alternative of moving in with his Grandmother (Doris Roberts) and her friends. With a deadline looming for his company’s latest game, a producer named Samantha (Linda Cardellini) is brought in to get the team on task. Faced with the reality of sleeping at his desk thanks to a rather embarrassing incident at a friend’s house, Alex is forced to reluctantly take refuge at his grandmothers.
Since Alex is the old man amongst the early 20’s testers who want nothing better than to break his unbeaten streak in head to head game challenges, Alex is forced to tell his co-workers that he spends his nights with three women and they wear him out. The sad truth is that Alex is worn out from 6:00 AM wakeups followed by three hours of chores before going to work. As if life was not complicated enough for Alex, the head game designer J.P. (Joel Moore), becomes more and more eccentric and this is only fueled by his interest in Samantha and his knowledge that Alex is attracted to her.
With a premise like this “Grandma’s Boys” has all of the ingredients to be a fun comedy that continues in the tradition of Adam Sandler’s comedies since his company produced the film. Sadly the film despite a few laughs becomes utterly predictable and drags in many places. The cast is enjoyable enough, but the jokes are too far between leaving the cast to carry the story which sadly is not strong enough to support the down time between jokes.
This is not to say that there are not some funny moments in the film as I can think of at least a half dozen good laughs. The issue is that when you have to wait 15-20 minutes between then in a film that is just over an hour and a half, it does tend to make the film drag. Also, much of the humor is derived from drug use. While it is funny in spots, the constant use of drugs, being stoned, and so on becomes old fast and makes the film seem like a one trick pony.
Covert who co wrote the film does his best in the film, but seems best suited as a supporting character as his character while likeable does not really connect with the audience the same way that one would with say Sandler, Schneider, or even Stiller. There are some good cameos in the film and Shirley Jones, Ms. Partridge herself is good as the older lady with a healthy libido, but I just could not help think that this film could have, and should have been much better than it was.
In the end, despite some good moments, there simply was not enough of them to save the film as the thin story, repetitive themes, and long gaps between good jokes ultimately sinks the film. It was nice to see a film about game testers as it is a group that is rife with comedic potential to be exploited, but sadly Grandma’s Boys barely scratches the surface.
Undaunted, Alex drifts from friend to friend often with disastrous results as he attempts to take stock of his situation and avoid the unpleasant alternative of moving in with his Grandmother (Doris Roberts) and her friends. With a deadline looming for his company’s latest game, a producer named Samantha (Linda Cardellini) is brought in to get the team on task. Faced with the reality of sleeping at his desk thanks to a rather embarrassing incident at a friend’s house, Alex is forced to reluctantly take refuge at his grandmothers.
Since Alex is the old man amongst the early 20’s testers who want nothing better than to break his unbeaten streak in head to head game challenges, Alex is forced to tell his co-workers that he spends his nights with three women and they wear him out. The sad truth is that Alex is worn out from 6:00 AM wakeups followed by three hours of chores before going to work. As if life was not complicated enough for Alex, the head game designer J.P. (Joel Moore), becomes more and more eccentric and this is only fueled by his interest in Samantha and his knowledge that Alex is attracted to her.
With a premise like this “Grandma’s Boys” has all of the ingredients to be a fun comedy that continues in the tradition of Adam Sandler’s comedies since his company produced the film. Sadly the film despite a few laughs becomes utterly predictable and drags in many places. The cast is enjoyable enough, but the jokes are too far between leaving the cast to carry the story which sadly is not strong enough to support the down time between jokes.
This is not to say that there are not some funny moments in the film as I can think of at least a half dozen good laughs. The issue is that when you have to wait 15-20 minutes between then in a film that is just over an hour and a half, it does tend to make the film drag. Also, much of the humor is derived from drug use. While it is funny in spots, the constant use of drugs, being stoned, and so on becomes old fast and makes the film seem like a one trick pony.
Covert who co wrote the film does his best in the film, but seems best suited as a supporting character as his character while likeable does not really connect with the audience the same way that one would with say Sandler, Schneider, or even Stiller. There are some good cameos in the film and Shirley Jones, Ms. Partridge herself is good as the older lady with a healthy libido, but I just could not help think that this film could have, and should have been much better than it was.
In the end, despite some good moments, there simply was not enough of them to save the film as the thin story, repetitive themes, and long gaps between good jokes ultimately sinks the film. It was nice to see a film about game testers as it is a group that is rife with comedic potential to be exploited, but sadly Grandma’s Boys barely scratches the surface.
The daughter (and stepdaughter) of actors, Sally Field earned her first acting role at seventeen and was quickly on television in shows such as "Gidget" and "The Flying Nun." Those roles showcased Sally's youth and smiling personality. But, behind the scenes, Sally had a tumultuous childhood: her parents divorced when she was young, and her relationships with them and her stepfather were not easy. She found happiness, in many ways, as an actress, but also struggled to find roles that challenged her. In this, her first memoir, she tells the story of her childhood and her early years as an actress.
I listened to the majority of this (and then switched over to the book, I'm weird), and I'm not going to lie: this wasn't always a fun listen for me. This book is sort of depressing and stressful a lot of the time. I will be honest that I didn't know a lot about Sally Field going in--I knew of Gidget, her roles with Burt Reynolds, "Forrest Gump," and honestly, most recently, "Brothers & Sisters." I knew one of her sons was gay, and she supported him.
I did not know her mother was an actress. I did not know that a lot of really bad things happened to her. Seriously, this memoir contains a lot of Sally Field telling us all the awful memories of her childhood, and, later, her early acting days. I'm not saying that's bad--it's truly brave and powerful stuff. But, man, as you're in the car driving 2+ hours to work? It's draining. I felt horrible for her, I felt proud that she'd overcome it, and I felt a little exhausted by it all. I also was appalled by how much she had to deal with (alone) and the state of the acting community for women during that time period.
It did, however, seem to make the beginning of the book go by rather slowly. Or maybe that's just the audio format--this was only the second audiobook I've ever listened to and, coincidentally, the second audiobook I found slow. When Field got to the time period where she became a mom, it picked up for me, perhaps because I could relate better to her. I felt an odd kinship--I was headed off, leaving behind my kids for a work project, and many times, so was she. (Alas, I was doing a rather boring job and she was a famous actress, but hey, you try to find parallels where you can, right?)
No matter what, I applaud her for being unafraid to tell the truth about her life, including admitting her own faults. She supplements her memories with her journal entries, newspaper articles, letters, and more. The result is a very detailed and personal account of her life--up until about "Norma Rae." After that, it glosses over most of her career following that film, which is a little sad for anyone who enjoyed all her subsequent films. This memoir is clearly focused more on Field's personal growth versus a celebrity tell-all. And I get that, I do, but you can't help but wish for a few more juicy details.
In the end, this wasn't an easy read/listen, but it was a good one. I learned a great deal about Field's life, and I admire her so much more as a person now. She had to go through a great deal to get the acting career and overall life she desired. If you enjoy memoirs and autobiographies, you will probably like this one, especially if you like them detailed, versus just focused on celebrity fluff and laughs (though Field is very witty). 4 stars.
I listened to the majority of this (and then switched over to the book, I'm weird), and I'm not going to lie: this wasn't always a fun listen for me. This book is sort of depressing and stressful a lot of the time. I will be honest that I didn't know a lot about Sally Field going in--I knew of Gidget, her roles with Burt Reynolds, "Forrest Gump," and honestly, most recently, "Brothers & Sisters." I knew one of her sons was gay, and she supported him.
I did not know her mother was an actress. I did not know that a lot of really bad things happened to her. Seriously, this memoir contains a lot of Sally Field telling us all the awful memories of her childhood, and, later, her early acting days. I'm not saying that's bad--it's truly brave and powerful stuff. But, man, as you're in the car driving 2+ hours to work? It's draining. I felt horrible for her, I felt proud that she'd overcome it, and I felt a little exhausted by it all. I also was appalled by how much she had to deal with (alone) and the state of the acting community for women during that time period.
It did, however, seem to make the beginning of the book go by rather slowly. Or maybe that's just the audio format--this was only the second audiobook I've ever listened to and, coincidentally, the second audiobook I found slow. When Field got to the time period where she became a mom, it picked up for me, perhaps because I could relate better to her. I felt an odd kinship--I was headed off, leaving behind my kids for a work project, and many times, so was she. (Alas, I was doing a rather boring job and she was a famous actress, but hey, you try to find parallels where you can, right?)
No matter what, I applaud her for being unafraid to tell the truth about her life, including admitting her own faults. She supplements her memories with her journal entries, newspaper articles, letters, and more. The result is a very detailed and personal account of her life--up until about "Norma Rae." After that, it glosses over most of her career following that film, which is a little sad for anyone who enjoyed all her subsequent films. This memoir is clearly focused more on Field's personal growth versus a celebrity tell-all. And I get that, I do, but you can't help but wish for a few more juicy details.
In the end, this wasn't an easy read/listen, but it was a good one. I learned a great deal about Field's life, and I admire her so much more as a person now. She had to go through a great deal to get the acting career and overall life she desired. If you enjoy memoirs and autobiographies, you will probably like this one, especially if you like them detailed, versus just focused on celebrity fluff and laughs (though Field is very witty). 4 stars.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jul 27, 2019 (Updated Jul 27, 2019)
Overhyped and disappointed
Contains spoilers, click to show
This review will contain spoilers.... and this is my opinon.
Once upon a time in hollywood is Quentin Tarantino’s ninth film and has a large ensemble cast.
This to me didnt seem like a quentin tarantino film, i mean it had some elements that he does but overall it didnt seem like a tarantino film, it was missing all of elements pervious used in his other films. There are only three storylines in this film. Rick's storyline, Cliff's storyline and Sharon's storyline and thats it. When in reservoir dogs, pulp fiction, jackie brown and four roons their were more than three storylines. Its also missing all the blood and gore like in his other films. Yes that sence at the end, and one of Rick's movies he has a flamflower but thats it. When as the other films that tarantino did had alot of blood and gore and violence and swearing. This movie seemed like it had none of that.
I was very disappointed because iam a huge quentin tarantino fan, i think he is one of the best directors of all time and like his other movies. So i was very excited for this movie and turns out i was very disappointed.
It didnt seem like it was a 2h and 40min movie.
Also lets talk about charles manson and his family throwed into this movie. I thought the movie was going to be about Rick and Cliff invisagating the murder of sharon taron and invisagating the manson family. Their are only three sences that have to do with the manson family.
1. The scene were charles introduces himself to polanski home.
2. When cliff goes to Spahn ranch run by the manson family and thier meanching charlies and cliff should meet him. This sence right here is the best part of the movie. Its myserious, dramatic, you dont know if the family is going to murder cliff or not. So your questioning if thats going to happen. But unfourtaly this sence is only like 5-15 mins long and at no point charles comes. You think something is going to happen than boom sence ends.
3. The end, were some of the manson family are about to kill tate and her friends and then thier try to kill rick and cliff because cliff was mad at them for being hillbillys and being on privite property. Which was like a unexpected turn but why??? Cliff fights them off and kills two of them and then rick kills one with a flameflower.
Thats it, three sences with the manson family and one with charles what a let down.
This whole movie was a let down,
Dakota Fanning, Bruce Dern, Luke Perry , Damian Lewis, Timothy Olyphant and micheal madsen all had one sence and these are big movie stars. To waste all of this talent is sad. Basically most of the supporting cast was wasted and only had one sence.
Also the ending, after rick and cliff fight off some of the manson family, cliff is being taking off to the hostipal and rick finally meets sharon tate then the movie's title comes on and then boom movie off. I thought that cant be it, that wasnt 2h and 40mins. It didnt feel like it, but it was. I thought why are the credits showing. Their should be more, but no the credits are showing.
Once upon a time in hollywood, is alternate timeline movie about the late 1960's in hollywood. But why have the manson family in it when your not going to use them that much. Why develop this alternate storyline, when their is a real life story and your using the real life people in the movie. Stupid it.
I can go on and on how this movie was very disappointed but i think i did this movie its justice.
Overall, once upon a time in hollywood is a very dissappointed movie.
:(
Once upon a time in hollywood is Quentin Tarantino’s ninth film and has a large ensemble cast.
This to me didnt seem like a quentin tarantino film, i mean it had some elements that he does but overall it didnt seem like a tarantino film, it was missing all of elements pervious used in his other films. There are only three storylines in this film. Rick's storyline, Cliff's storyline and Sharon's storyline and thats it. When in reservoir dogs, pulp fiction, jackie brown and four roons their were more than three storylines. Its also missing all the blood and gore like in his other films. Yes that sence at the end, and one of Rick's movies he has a flamflower but thats it. When as the other films that tarantino did had alot of blood and gore and violence and swearing. This movie seemed like it had none of that.
I was very disappointed because iam a huge quentin tarantino fan, i think he is one of the best directors of all time and like his other movies. So i was very excited for this movie and turns out i was very disappointed.
It didnt seem like it was a 2h and 40min movie.
Also lets talk about charles manson and his family throwed into this movie. I thought the movie was going to be about Rick and Cliff invisagating the murder of sharon taron and invisagating the manson family. Their are only three sences that have to do with the manson family.
1. The scene were charles introduces himself to polanski home.
2. When cliff goes to Spahn ranch run by the manson family and thier meanching charlies and cliff should meet him. This sence right here is the best part of the movie. Its myserious, dramatic, you dont know if the family is going to murder cliff or not. So your questioning if thats going to happen. But unfourtaly this sence is only like 5-15 mins long and at no point charles comes. You think something is going to happen than boom sence ends.
3. The end, were some of the manson family are about to kill tate and her friends and then thier try to kill rick and cliff because cliff was mad at them for being hillbillys and being on privite property. Which was like a unexpected turn but why??? Cliff fights them off and kills two of them and then rick kills one with a flameflower.
Thats it, three sences with the manson family and one with charles what a let down.
This whole movie was a let down,
Dakota Fanning, Bruce Dern, Luke Perry , Damian Lewis, Timothy Olyphant and micheal madsen all had one sence and these are big movie stars. To waste all of this talent is sad. Basically most of the supporting cast was wasted and only had one sence.
Also the ending, after rick and cliff fight off some of the manson family, cliff is being taking off to the hostipal and rick finally meets sharon tate then the movie's title comes on and then boom movie off. I thought that cant be it, that wasnt 2h and 40mins. It didnt feel like it, but it was. I thought why are the credits showing. Their should be more, but no the credits are showing.
Once upon a time in hollywood, is alternate timeline movie about the late 1960's in hollywood. But why have the manson family in it when your not going to use them that much. Why develop this alternate storyline, when their is a real life story and your using the real life people in the movie. Stupid it.
I can go on and on how this movie was very disappointed but i think i did this movie its justice.
Overall, once upon a time in hollywood is a very dissappointed movie.
:(
Lee (2222 KP) rated Jojo Rabbit (2019) in Movies
Dec 17, 2019
During the opening credits of Jojo Rabbit, we're treated to The Beatles singing "I Want to Hold Your Hand" while documentary footage plays showing crowds of Germans going absolutely nuts for Hitler, sieg-heiling and cheering for him. It's a fairly good indication of the kind of humour you can expect from Jojo Rabbit and writer/director Taika Waititi, who hit the big time after directing 'Thor Ragnarok', but has previously been responsible for a wide range of brilliantly quirky movies such as 'What We Do in the Shadows' and 'Hunt for the Wilderpeople'.
We begin by meeting 10 year old German boy, Johannes 'Jojo' Betzler (Roman Griffin Davis), as he nervously prepares to head off to Nazi youth camp in order to fulfill his dream of serving Adolf Hitler. Heading up the camp is one-eyed Captain Klenzendorf (Sam Rockwell), aided by a bunch of inept instructors, including Fraulein Rahm (Rebel Wilson) and Finkel (Alfie Allen). At the camp, boys get to play with knives and hand grenades, girls are taught the importance of having babies (Fraulein Rahm has given birth to 18!), while all of the children are taught about the evil monsters that are the Jews. Accompanying Jojo at the camp are best friend Yorki (a brilliant Archie Yates, soon to be starring in the recently announced remake of Home Alone) and Jojo's imaginary friend Hitler (Taika Waititi). When Jojo refuses to wring the neck of rabbit during a lesson on killing (earning him the nickname Jojo Rabbit), and is hospitalised following an unfortunate incident with a grenade, he is forced to leave the camp behind, returning home to be with his mother Rosie (Scarlett Johansson).
While his mother is out during the day, Jojo discovers a teenage Jewish girl named Elsa (Thomasin McKenzie) hiding out in the wall-space of his sisters bedroom. Jojo is initially shocked, and repulsed, by this hideous Jew, even more so when he discovers that it was his mother who was responsible for hiding her. As time goes on though, Jojo and Elsa begin to form a friendship, with Elsa feeding Jojo a series of made up ridiculous stories and tales regarding the origins and ways of Jews so that Jojo can write a book about them. All the while, Rosie remains completely unaware that Jojo knows anything of Elsa. The bumbling, goofy Hitler occasionally shows up too when Jojo needs words of encouragement, or when times are tough, and provides us with some welcome light relief. More humour is provided in the form of various smaller characters, including gestapo member Stephen Merchant and his team during what is essentially a pretty serious and dramatic scene as they show up and ransack Jojo's house.
But Jojo Rabbit is a movie about relationships. The Jojo/Hitler dynamic begins to take a backseat as things start to get more serious and we focus more on the bond between Jojo and his mother, and the relationship between Jojo and Elsa, as the final months of the war play out. The child actors in Jojo Rabbit are all outstanding and we also get to see a wonderfully different side to Scarlett Johansson. Sam Rockwell is hilarious and Rebel Wilson is just, well, Rebel Wilson! Occasionally though, we are dealt an unexpected gut punch, and it's fair to say that you'll be crying at Jojo Rabbit just as much as you'll be laughing. If I'm honest, I really wasn't expecting that side to Jojo Rabbit and it did more for me and my enjoyment of the movie than the comedy did, which wasn't really as laugh out loud as I thought it would be. Overall though, Jojo Rabbit is simply wonderful - funny, heartbreaking, sad and poignant - and unlike anything you've ever seen before.
We begin by meeting 10 year old German boy, Johannes 'Jojo' Betzler (Roman Griffin Davis), as he nervously prepares to head off to Nazi youth camp in order to fulfill his dream of serving Adolf Hitler. Heading up the camp is one-eyed Captain Klenzendorf (Sam Rockwell), aided by a bunch of inept instructors, including Fraulein Rahm (Rebel Wilson) and Finkel (Alfie Allen). At the camp, boys get to play with knives and hand grenades, girls are taught the importance of having babies (Fraulein Rahm has given birth to 18!), while all of the children are taught about the evil monsters that are the Jews. Accompanying Jojo at the camp are best friend Yorki (a brilliant Archie Yates, soon to be starring in the recently announced remake of Home Alone) and Jojo's imaginary friend Hitler (Taika Waititi). When Jojo refuses to wring the neck of rabbit during a lesson on killing (earning him the nickname Jojo Rabbit), and is hospitalised following an unfortunate incident with a grenade, he is forced to leave the camp behind, returning home to be with his mother Rosie (Scarlett Johansson).
While his mother is out during the day, Jojo discovers a teenage Jewish girl named Elsa (Thomasin McKenzie) hiding out in the wall-space of his sisters bedroom. Jojo is initially shocked, and repulsed, by this hideous Jew, even more so when he discovers that it was his mother who was responsible for hiding her. As time goes on though, Jojo and Elsa begin to form a friendship, with Elsa feeding Jojo a series of made up ridiculous stories and tales regarding the origins and ways of Jews so that Jojo can write a book about them. All the while, Rosie remains completely unaware that Jojo knows anything of Elsa. The bumbling, goofy Hitler occasionally shows up too when Jojo needs words of encouragement, or when times are tough, and provides us with some welcome light relief. More humour is provided in the form of various smaller characters, including gestapo member Stephen Merchant and his team during what is essentially a pretty serious and dramatic scene as they show up and ransack Jojo's house.
But Jojo Rabbit is a movie about relationships. The Jojo/Hitler dynamic begins to take a backseat as things start to get more serious and we focus more on the bond between Jojo and his mother, and the relationship between Jojo and Elsa, as the final months of the war play out. The child actors in Jojo Rabbit are all outstanding and we also get to see a wonderfully different side to Scarlett Johansson. Sam Rockwell is hilarious and Rebel Wilson is just, well, Rebel Wilson! Occasionally though, we are dealt an unexpected gut punch, and it's fair to say that you'll be crying at Jojo Rabbit just as much as you'll be laughing. If I'm honest, I really wasn't expecting that side to Jojo Rabbit and it did more for me and my enjoyment of the movie than the comedy did, which wasn't really as laugh out loud as I thought it would be. Overall though, Jojo Rabbit is simply wonderful - funny, heartbreaking, sad and poignant - and unlike anything you've ever seen before.