Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mule (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Eastwood is back, but is he hero or anti-hero?
It’s delightful to see Clint Eastwood back in front of the camera on the big screen. His last starring film was “Trouble with the Curve” in 2012 – a baseball-themed film that I don’t remember coming out in the UK, let alone remember seeing. Before that was 2008’s excellent “Gran Torino”.
Based on a true story.
“The Mule” is based on a true New York Times story about Leo Sharp, a veteren recruited by a cartel to ship drugs from the southern border to Chicago.
Eastwood couldn’t cast Sharp in the movie as himself because he died back in 2016, so had to personally take the role. (This is #satire…. Eastwood’s last film was the terrible “The 15:17 to Paris” where his ‘actors’ were the real-life participants themselves: you won’t find a review on this site as I only review films I’ve managed to sit through…. and with this one I failed!).
The plot.
Eastwood plays Earl Stone, a self-centred horticulturist of award-winning daylily’s (whatever they are) who is estranged from wife Mary (Dianne Wiest) and especially from his daughter Iris (Alison Eastwood, Clint’s own daughter), who now refuses to speak to him. This is because Earl has let his family down at every turn. The only person willing to give him a chance is his grand-daughter Ginny (Taissa Farmiga, younger sister of Vera). With his affairs in financial freefall, a chance meeting at a wedding leads Earl into a money-making driving job for the cartel operated by Laton (Andy Garcia). (Laton doesn’t seem to have a first name….. Fernando perhaps?).
With has beat-up truck and aged manner, he is invisible to the cops and so highly effective in the role. Even when – as the money keeps rolling in – he upgrades his truck to a souped-up monster!
Loose Morals.
It’s difficult to know whether Eastwood is playing a hero or an anti-hero. You feel tense when Earl is at risk of being caught, but then again the law officers would be preventing hundreds of kilos of cocaine from reaching the streets of Chicago and through their actions saving the lives of probably hundreds of people. I felt utterly conflicted: the blood of those people, and the destruction of the families that addiction causes, was on Earl’s hands as much as his employer’s. But you can’t quite equate that to the affable old-man that Eastwood portrays, who uses much of the money for charitable good-works in his community.
Family values.
In parallel with the drug-running main plot is a tale of Earl’s attempted redemption: “family should always come first”. When the two storylines come together around a critical event then it feels like a sufficient trigger for Earl to turn his back on his life of selfishness. This also gives room for some splendid acting scenes between Eastwood and Wiest. It’s also interesting that Earl tries to teach the younger DEA enforcement agent not to follow in the sins of his past. Bradley Cooper, back in pretty-boy mode, plays the agent, but seemed to me to be coasting; to me he wasn’t convincing in the role. Michael Peña is better as his unnamed DEA-buddy.
Final thoughts.
The showing at my cinema was surprisingly well-attended for a Wednesday night, showing that Eastwood is still a star-draw for box-office even in his old age. And it’s the reason to see the film for sure. His gristled driving turn to camera (most fully seen in the trailer rather than the final cut) is extraordinary.
He even manages to turn in an “eyes in rearview-mirror” shot that is surely a tribute to his Dirty Harry days!
If you can park your moral compass for a few hours then its an enjoyable film of drug-running and redemption. I’d like to suggest it also illustrates that crime really doesn’t pay, but from the end titles scene I’m not even sure at that age if that even applies!
Based on a true story.
“The Mule” is based on a true New York Times story about Leo Sharp, a veteren recruited by a cartel to ship drugs from the southern border to Chicago.
Eastwood couldn’t cast Sharp in the movie as himself because he died back in 2016, so had to personally take the role. (This is #satire…. Eastwood’s last film was the terrible “The 15:17 to Paris” where his ‘actors’ were the real-life participants themselves: you won’t find a review on this site as I only review films I’ve managed to sit through…. and with this one I failed!).
The plot.
Eastwood plays Earl Stone, a self-centred horticulturist of award-winning daylily’s (whatever they are) who is estranged from wife Mary (Dianne Wiest) and especially from his daughter Iris (Alison Eastwood, Clint’s own daughter), who now refuses to speak to him. This is because Earl has let his family down at every turn. The only person willing to give him a chance is his grand-daughter Ginny (Taissa Farmiga, younger sister of Vera). With his affairs in financial freefall, a chance meeting at a wedding leads Earl into a money-making driving job for the cartel operated by Laton (Andy Garcia). (Laton doesn’t seem to have a first name….. Fernando perhaps?).
With has beat-up truck and aged manner, he is invisible to the cops and so highly effective in the role. Even when – as the money keeps rolling in – he upgrades his truck to a souped-up monster!
Loose Morals.
It’s difficult to know whether Eastwood is playing a hero or an anti-hero. You feel tense when Earl is at risk of being caught, but then again the law officers would be preventing hundreds of kilos of cocaine from reaching the streets of Chicago and through their actions saving the lives of probably hundreds of people. I felt utterly conflicted: the blood of those people, and the destruction of the families that addiction causes, was on Earl’s hands as much as his employer’s. But you can’t quite equate that to the affable old-man that Eastwood portrays, who uses much of the money for charitable good-works in his community.
Family values.
In parallel with the drug-running main plot is a tale of Earl’s attempted redemption: “family should always come first”. When the two storylines come together around a critical event then it feels like a sufficient trigger for Earl to turn his back on his life of selfishness. This also gives room for some splendid acting scenes between Eastwood and Wiest. It’s also interesting that Earl tries to teach the younger DEA enforcement agent not to follow in the sins of his past. Bradley Cooper, back in pretty-boy mode, plays the agent, but seemed to me to be coasting; to me he wasn’t convincing in the role. Michael Peña is better as his unnamed DEA-buddy.
Final thoughts.
The showing at my cinema was surprisingly well-attended for a Wednesday night, showing that Eastwood is still a star-draw for box-office even in his old age. And it’s the reason to see the film for sure. His gristled driving turn to camera (most fully seen in the trailer rather than the final cut) is extraordinary.
He even manages to turn in an “eyes in rearview-mirror” shot that is surely a tribute to his Dirty Harry days!
If you can park your moral compass for a few hours then its an enjoyable film of drug-running and redemption. I’d like to suggest it also illustrates that crime really doesn’t pay, but from the end titles scene I’m not even sure at that age if that even applies!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Book Club (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A book club without a spine.
Let’s be clear before we start; I am NOT in the demographic that this film is aimed at. And judging from the general reactions of the cinema audience I shared this with – 90%+ of who were women aged over 50 – my views are NOT going to necessarily reflect the general view, since there seemed to be quite a few satisfied customers in the audience. But my personal view would be, if you’re going to make a light-hearted comedy aimed at the lucrative silver pound, then at least make it a good one. For this – for me – felt like 50 shades of lame.
The action – if we can stretch the use of English that far – revolves around the four middle-class white ladies (this film challenges neither class nor racial divides) who meet periodically with copious quantities of wine and goat-cheese stuffed tomatoes to discuss a book. Hotel owner Vivian (Jane Fonda, “Klute”, “On Golden Pond”) is making lots of love but is reluctant to commit to it herself; Diane (Diane Keaton, “”Annie Hall”, “Something’s Gotta Give”) is recently widowed and struggling against being pigeon-holed as an ‘old duffer’ by her two daughters; Sharon (Candice Bergen, “Soldier Blue”, “Miss Congeniality”) has devoted her life to her career as a high court judge at the expense of a physical relationship (“What happens to a vagina that hasn’t been used in 18 years?!”); and Carol (Mary Steenburgen (“Back to the Future Part III”) is in a sexless marriage with her recently retired husband Bruce (Craig T Nelson, “Get Hard“, “Poltergeist”).
Vivian introduces the book club to “50 Shades of Grey” and the book influences everyone’s lives in different ways.
What ensues is 100 minutes of double entendres (“You have a lethargic pussy” says a veterinarian… you get the level) as the four separate stories (bump and) grind towards their separate conclusions. There are one or too laugh-out-loud moments but the majority of the screenplay is merely smile-worthy: “Mostly harmless” as Douglas Adams would have said.
What IS good, which is the reason my rating won’t have a “1” in it, is that it does give a reason to see some of our more senior actors and actresses strut their stuff again on the main stage.
In terms of the lead performances, while Steenburgen is good, it is Candice Bergen who impresses most as a fine comic actress. More please! Fonda and Don Johnson (“Miami Vice”) were supposed to be a hot couple, but their acting to me appeared false and their chemistry non-existent: did they have a fight outside the trailer every morning? And Diane Keaton was… well… Diane Keaton: the ditzy old hippy shtick wore a bit thin for me by the end.
We also have appearances from the great Andy Garcia (“The Godfather Part III”, “Oceans 11”), Wallace Shawn (just SOOooo good as the sleazy mob lawyer in “The Good Wife/Fight”) and (best of all) Richard Dreyfuss (“Jaws”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”). Dreyfuss has merely a cameo, but I was just longing for more of his character.
Alicia Silverstone (“Clueless”, “Batman & Robin”) even turns up, but her character (together with her sister played by Katie Aselton) is so annoying and vacuous that it’s not easy to warm to her.
A standout – but not in a good way – is the special effects, with some of the dodgiest green screen work I’ve seen in many a year. Think “North by Northwest” quality….. but that’s nearly 60 years old!
So, it’s not a film I would run to see again, but I’m not going to pan it completely, since if you are of the demographic that enjoys such films, you may really enjoy this one. It reminds me somewhat of “It’s Complicated” – and that’s one of my wife’s personal favourites! It also addresses some key topics that will be of relevance to a senior audience, not normally addressed by movies: male impotence resulting from self-doubt; the need to keep a young and ever-inquiring mind; and the good times to be had by getting out and back in the game again after bereavement (yes, you know who you are and you know I’m addressing YOU here!).
The action – if we can stretch the use of English that far – revolves around the four middle-class white ladies (this film challenges neither class nor racial divides) who meet periodically with copious quantities of wine and goat-cheese stuffed tomatoes to discuss a book. Hotel owner Vivian (Jane Fonda, “Klute”, “On Golden Pond”) is making lots of love but is reluctant to commit to it herself; Diane (Diane Keaton, “”Annie Hall”, “Something’s Gotta Give”) is recently widowed and struggling against being pigeon-holed as an ‘old duffer’ by her two daughters; Sharon (Candice Bergen, “Soldier Blue”, “Miss Congeniality”) has devoted her life to her career as a high court judge at the expense of a physical relationship (“What happens to a vagina that hasn’t been used in 18 years?!”); and Carol (Mary Steenburgen (“Back to the Future Part III”) is in a sexless marriage with her recently retired husband Bruce (Craig T Nelson, “Get Hard“, “Poltergeist”).
Vivian introduces the book club to “50 Shades of Grey” and the book influences everyone’s lives in different ways.
What ensues is 100 minutes of double entendres (“You have a lethargic pussy” says a veterinarian… you get the level) as the four separate stories (bump and) grind towards their separate conclusions. There are one or too laugh-out-loud moments but the majority of the screenplay is merely smile-worthy: “Mostly harmless” as Douglas Adams would have said.
What IS good, which is the reason my rating won’t have a “1” in it, is that it does give a reason to see some of our more senior actors and actresses strut their stuff again on the main stage.
In terms of the lead performances, while Steenburgen is good, it is Candice Bergen who impresses most as a fine comic actress. More please! Fonda and Don Johnson (“Miami Vice”) were supposed to be a hot couple, but their acting to me appeared false and their chemistry non-existent: did they have a fight outside the trailer every morning? And Diane Keaton was… well… Diane Keaton: the ditzy old hippy shtick wore a bit thin for me by the end.
We also have appearances from the great Andy Garcia (“The Godfather Part III”, “Oceans 11”), Wallace Shawn (just SOOooo good as the sleazy mob lawyer in “The Good Wife/Fight”) and (best of all) Richard Dreyfuss (“Jaws”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”). Dreyfuss has merely a cameo, but I was just longing for more of his character.
Alicia Silverstone (“Clueless”, “Batman & Robin”) even turns up, but her character (together with her sister played by Katie Aselton) is so annoying and vacuous that it’s not easy to warm to her.
A standout – but not in a good way – is the special effects, with some of the dodgiest green screen work I’ve seen in many a year. Think “North by Northwest” quality….. but that’s nearly 60 years old!
So, it’s not a film I would run to see again, but I’m not going to pan it completely, since if you are of the demographic that enjoys such films, you may really enjoy this one. It reminds me somewhat of “It’s Complicated” – and that’s one of my wife’s personal favourites! It also addresses some key topics that will be of relevance to a senior audience, not normally addressed by movies: male impotence resulting from self-doubt; the need to keep a young and ever-inquiring mind; and the good times to be had by getting out and back in the game again after bereavement (yes, you know who you are and you know I’m addressing YOU here!).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Finding your feet (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Foot tapping and Tear Jerking.
There are some films whose trailers really don’t properly represent their contents. The trailer for the new ‘grey-pound’ film “Finding Your Feet” promised a light hearted and witty foray into an elderly dance-club. And, yes, you get some laughs. But it’s very much a bitter sweet comedy, and the bitterness is ladled on by the bucketload leading to more tears than smiles through the majority of the running time.
Sandra (Imelda Staunton, “Pride“) – now Lady Sandra, after her husband’s latest knighthood – is in a predictable, sex-free but reasonably happy marriage to legal beagle Mike (John Sessions, “Denial“, “Florence Foster Jenkins“) when her world is shaken to its core on discovering that Mike has been having a five-year affair with her best friend Pamela (Josie Lawrence). Moving in with her Bohemian sister Bif (Celia Imrie, “Bridget Jones Baby“), she struggles to integrate into her decidedly lower class lifestyle and find common ground with Bif’s dance club friends Charlie (Timothy Spall, “Denial“, “Mr Turner”), Ted (David Hayman) and Jackie (Joanna Lumley, “The Wolf of Wall Street“).
Can Sandra turn her downward spiral around and find love and happiness again? Well, the posters scream “The Feel Good Film of the Year” so you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know the answer to that! But it’s a bumpy journey for sure.
Getting all the acting honours is Timothy Spall, who is far too good to be buried away in this small British rom com. To watch him do “ordinary bloke doing ordinary things” is an absolute delight. He adds class and distinction to every scene he’s in, especially for those concerned with his truly tragic and upsetting back-story. Running a close second is Celia Imrie who has a wicked smile off to perfection and adds a lot of emotional depth to her performance: and she needs the range, since she too is on a pretty emotional journey through the second half of the film.
John Sessions and Josie Lawrence – old compatriots of course from the original version of TV’s “Whose Line Is It Anyway” – also deliver marvellous cameo performances, as does Phoebe Nicholls (“The Elephant Man”, “Downton Abbey”) as the tennis playing friend Janet.
Less convincing for me was Imelda Staunton, particularly in the first half of the film: for me she never quite pulls off the icy cold emotional wreck of Sandra, but is much better once the thaw has set in.
The film is written by Meg Leonard (in a debut script) and Nick Moorcroft (who did the “St Trinians” scripts). And there are some funny lines in there, although it has to be said that there are not enough of them. The majority of the best ones in fact are in the trailer, never bettered by Joanna Lumley’s zinger…. “My last marriage ended for religious reasons…. he thought he was God and I didn’t”! There’s not much more room for comic lines, since the rest of the script is stuffed with the dramatic outcomes from various flavours of old-age malady. Fortunately I was one of the younger members of the generally grey-haired audience, but for those further up the scale it must have been like staring into the void!
The film will win no awards for choreography, since the dance scenes are gloriously inept and out of sync. But this all rather adds to the charm of the piece.
Directed by Richard Loncraine, director of the equally forgettable Brit-flick “Wimbledon” and the rather more memorable “Brimstone and Treacle”, this is as Douglas Adams would have said “Mostly Harmless”: a film that most over-50’s will find a pleasant way to spend two hours. But go in expecting a drama with comic moments, rather than the hilarious comedy predicted by the trailer, and you will be better prepared.
(I should comment that the rating below is my view: my illustrious wife declared it a triumphant chick-flick and gave it FFFFf).
Sandra (Imelda Staunton, “Pride“) – now Lady Sandra, after her husband’s latest knighthood – is in a predictable, sex-free but reasonably happy marriage to legal beagle Mike (John Sessions, “Denial“, “Florence Foster Jenkins“) when her world is shaken to its core on discovering that Mike has been having a five-year affair with her best friend Pamela (Josie Lawrence). Moving in with her Bohemian sister Bif (Celia Imrie, “Bridget Jones Baby“), she struggles to integrate into her decidedly lower class lifestyle and find common ground with Bif’s dance club friends Charlie (Timothy Spall, “Denial“, “Mr Turner”), Ted (David Hayman) and Jackie (Joanna Lumley, “The Wolf of Wall Street“).
Can Sandra turn her downward spiral around and find love and happiness again? Well, the posters scream “The Feel Good Film of the Year” so you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know the answer to that! But it’s a bumpy journey for sure.
Getting all the acting honours is Timothy Spall, who is far too good to be buried away in this small British rom com. To watch him do “ordinary bloke doing ordinary things” is an absolute delight. He adds class and distinction to every scene he’s in, especially for those concerned with his truly tragic and upsetting back-story. Running a close second is Celia Imrie who has a wicked smile off to perfection and adds a lot of emotional depth to her performance: and she needs the range, since she too is on a pretty emotional journey through the second half of the film.
John Sessions and Josie Lawrence – old compatriots of course from the original version of TV’s “Whose Line Is It Anyway” – also deliver marvellous cameo performances, as does Phoebe Nicholls (“The Elephant Man”, “Downton Abbey”) as the tennis playing friend Janet.
Less convincing for me was Imelda Staunton, particularly in the first half of the film: for me she never quite pulls off the icy cold emotional wreck of Sandra, but is much better once the thaw has set in.
The film is written by Meg Leonard (in a debut script) and Nick Moorcroft (who did the “St Trinians” scripts). And there are some funny lines in there, although it has to be said that there are not enough of them. The majority of the best ones in fact are in the trailer, never bettered by Joanna Lumley’s zinger…. “My last marriage ended for religious reasons…. he thought he was God and I didn’t”! There’s not much more room for comic lines, since the rest of the script is stuffed with the dramatic outcomes from various flavours of old-age malady. Fortunately I was one of the younger members of the generally grey-haired audience, but for those further up the scale it must have been like staring into the void!
The film will win no awards for choreography, since the dance scenes are gloriously inept and out of sync. But this all rather adds to the charm of the piece.
Directed by Richard Loncraine, director of the equally forgettable Brit-flick “Wimbledon” and the rather more memorable “Brimstone and Treacle”, this is as Douglas Adams would have said “Mostly Harmless”: a film that most over-50’s will find a pleasant way to spend two hours. But go in expecting a drama with comic moments, rather than the hilarious comedy predicted by the trailer, and you will be better prepared.
(I should comment that the rating below is my view: my illustrious wife declared it a triumphant chick-flick and gave it FFFFf).
Hadley (567 KP) rated In Cold Blood: A True Account of a Multiple Murder and Its Consequences in Books
Aug 2, 2020
The writing (1 more)
The flow
In the 'Introduction' of Capote's true crime novel In Cold Blood, American writer Bob Colacello states: "Capote was one of the first who dared to elevate journalism to the level of art. In Cold Blood is a work of great discipline and even greater restraint, a tale of fate, as spare and elegiac as a Greek tragedy, as rich in its breadth and depth as the classic French novels of Stendhal and Flaubert. 'We all have our souls and we all have facades,' Truman Capote told his friend Kay Meehan a year or so before he came upon the news that would inspire his masterpiece, 'and then there's something in between that makes us function as people. That's what I have the ability to communicate.' "
The novel, which was published in 1965, is an eyewitness account of Capote's visitation to the scene of the murder as well as meetings with the murderers and townspeople- - - a retelling of the crime and aftermath, mostly from the eyes of those affected, by hundreds of hours of interviews and interrogations. The novel, ultimately, was the end of Capote which led him to alcoholism that took his life in 1984.
Like most small-town murders, a tension between residences is created when a well-known and well-liked family of four is brutally murdered, and everyone begins to point a finger at the other: "But afterward the townspeople, theretofore sufficiently unfearful of each other to seldom trouble to lock their doors, found fantasy re-creating them over and again - - - those somber explosions that stimulated fires of mistrust in the glare of which many old neighbors viewed each other strangely, and as strangers." Fortunately, the KBI (Kansas Bureau of Investigation) didn't allow these accusations to keep them from finding the real killers.
" 'Deep down,' Perry continued, 'way, way rock bottom, I never thought I could do it. A thing like that.' " Perry Smith, one of the murderers, confesses to his cohort and partner-in-crime, Richard Hickock, about murdering the Clutter family. "Presently, he said, 'Know what it is that really bugs me? About that other thing[Clutter murder]? It's just I don't believe it- - - that anyone can get away with a thing like that.' And he suspected that Dick [Richard] didn't, either. For Dick was at least partly inhabited by Perry's mystical-moral apprehensions. Thus: 'Now, just shut up!' "
Capote writes clearly of the impact that Smith's and Hickock's past may have played leading up to the murders, mostly focusing on Smith's traumatic childhood. During the trial portion of the book, a psychologist is brought in to point out how the two murderers may not have been responsible for their actions due-to instances in their past - - - a horrific car crash in Hickock's that left him with a lop-sided face and black-out spells, as well as Smith being physically and emotional abused by his alcoholic mother and father. In exploring these traumas, In Cold Blood leaves the impression that these two men were merely ticking time bombs and that the Clutter family, unfortunately, had to pay for it.
The trauma shared by Hickock and Smith help to shape the two murderers into actual human beings rather than monsters throughout the novel: one scene, where we get to read a letter to Smith from his last living sister, readers get to see how he was perceived by his family members, as his sister goes on to degrade him to the maturity level of a child and that she is above him because of that- - -but she also reveals her jealousy of their father loving him more than he ever loved her (despite the excessive abuse). A close friend of Smith's tells him to be careful writing her anymore because he believes that: 'they can only serve to increase your already dangerous anti-social instincts.'
Part of the narrative, too, is the KBI agent in-charge of the Clutter murder, Alvin Dewey: One day while visiting Holcomb's well-known cafe (Hartman's) where Dewey is told he looks awful from weight loss and fatigue - - - Dewey recalls that he had spent: 'two wearying and wasted days trying to trace that phantom pair, the Mexicans sworn by Paul Helm to have visited Mr. Clutter on the eve of the murders.' And then he gets heckled by a local, who wants to know why he hasn't found the people responsible yet,but Dewey simply smiles and walks away, having put up with numerous people being angry that the murders were taking so long to solve.
But it wasn't footwork that got the pair arrested, it was an old cellmate who had given Hickock the idea that there was $10,000 in a safe at the Clutter farm that came forward: (read this on my blog because I had to cut it out since my review was too long!).
Meanwhile, readers also get to experience Hickock and Smith's troubles as they are on the run after the murders which is done masterfully by Capote. And although one would assume that the killers would stay as far away from Kansas as possible, the two end up back there, only to miraculously get out before the police can catch up with them. The pair decide to head to Florida, where, on December 19, 1959, an entire family was murdered in the exact same way as the Clutters; Hickock and Smith both adamantly denied that they were involved with it - - - and back in 2012- - - Hickock and Smith's bodies were exhumed to compare their DNA with a profile found on one of the victim's clothing: they were not a match. The case remains unsolved til this day.
" Presently he[Smith] came across an inner-page story that won his entire attention. It concerned murder, the slaying of a Florida family, a Mr. and Mrs. Clifford Walker, their four-year-old son, and their two-year-old daughter. Each of the victims, though not bound or gagged, had been shot through the head with a .22 weapon. The crime, clueless and apparently motiveless, had taken place Saturday night, December 19, at the Walker home, on a cattle-raising ranch not far from Tallahassee."
Not soon after the pair leave the Florida beaches, they are arrested on what they believe to be parole violations, but it's clear, when the arresting officers are KBI agents that they had been caught for the Clutter murders. " 'Listen good, Perry. Because Mr. Duntz[KBI agent] is going to tell you where you really were...' Midway in the questioning, after he'd[Smith] begun to notice the number of allusions to a particular November weekend, he'd nerved himself for what he knew was coming, yet when it did, when the big cowboy with the sleepy voice said, 'You were killing the Clutter family' - - - well, he'd damn near died. That's all. "
The confession that follows is the most intense part of the book, given in it's entirety, readers finally get to know what happened to the Clutter family that cold night in November, 1959. Smith reveals that he never had the intention to kill anyone in the home, and that when the safe hadn't been found, he had fully intended to leave, even without Hickock, but what kept him there was Hickock threatening to rape Nancy Clutter. Smith states that he hates people who can't control themselves sexually, and that he didn't allow his partner to touch her at all. He also reveals that he thought about killing Hickock afterwards,stating: " no witnesses."
Capote didn't write 'In Cold Blood' until after Hickock and Smith were executed. The amount of interviews, court room appearances, and even witnessing the executions of both murderers shines through in this novel. But the book has also brought about doubters; a handful of people have since come forward to state that Capote's masterpiece is either 'not the full story' or 'completely wrong.' Just as recent as 2017, a man came forward with a 'manuscript' of a book that Hickock was writing, that contained a different confession on how and why the murders took place- - - Hickock states in this unpublished manuscript that a man by the name 'Roberts' had hired him and Smith to kill the Clutters.
Whether or not you believe that Capote wrote the whole truth or some of the truth, this novel is flawless and beautiful. The writing is poetic and the flow of the story keeps moving, page after page, never stopping long enough to bore the reader. I highly recommend this book as a MUST READ for anyone who loves the True Crime genre.
The novel, which was published in 1965, is an eyewitness account of Capote's visitation to the scene of the murder as well as meetings with the murderers and townspeople- - - a retelling of the crime and aftermath, mostly from the eyes of those affected, by hundreds of hours of interviews and interrogations. The novel, ultimately, was the end of Capote which led him to alcoholism that took his life in 1984.
Like most small-town murders, a tension between residences is created when a well-known and well-liked family of four is brutally murdered, and everyone begins to point a finger at the other: "But afterward the townspeople, theretofore sufficiently unfearful of each other to seldom trouble to lock their doors, found fantasy re-creating them over and again - - - those somber explosions that stimulated fires of mistrust in the glare of which many old neighbors viewed each other strangely, and as strangers." Fortunately, the KBI (Kansas Bureau of Investigation) didn't allow these accusations to keep them from finding the real killers.
" 'Deep down,' Perry continued, 'way, way rock bottom, I never thought I could do it. A thing like that.' " Perry Smith, one of the murderers, confesses to his cohort and partner-in-crime, Richard Hickock, about murdering the Clutter family. "Presently, he said, 'Know what it is that really bugs me? About that other thing[Clutter murder]? It's just I don't believe it- - - that anyone can get away with a thing like that.' And he suspected that Dick [Richard] didn't, either. For Dick was at least partly inhabited by Perry's mystical-moral apprehensions. Thus: 'Now, just shut up!' "
Capote writes clearly of the impact that Smith's and Hickock's past may have played leading up to the murders, mostly focusing on Smith's traumatic childhood. During the trial portion of the book, a psychologist is brought in to point out how the two murderers may not have been responsible for their actions due-to instances in their past - - - a horrific car crash in Hickock's that left him with a lop-sided face and black-out spells, as well as Smith being physically and emotional abused by his alcoholic mother and father. In exploring these traumas, In Cold Blood leaves the impression that these two men were merely ticking time bombs and that the Clutter family, unfortunately, had to pay for it.
The trauma shared by Hickock and Smith help to shape the two murderers into actual human beings rather than monsters throughout the novel: one scene, where we get to read a letter to Smith from his last living sister, readers get to see how he was perceived by his family members, as his sister goes on to degrade him to the maturity level of a child and that she is above him because of that- - -but she also reveals her jealousy of their father loving him more than he ever loved her (despite the excessive abuse). A close friend of Smith's tells him to be careful writing her anymore because he believes that: 'they can only serve to increase your already dangerous anti-social instincts.'
Part of the narrative, too, is the KBI agent in-charge of the Clutter murder, Alvin Dewey: One day while visiting Holcomb's well-known cafe (Hartman's) where Dewey is told he looks awful from weight loss and fatigue - - - Dewey recalls that he had spent: 'two wearying and wasted days trying to trace that phantom pair, the Mexicans sworn by Paul Helm to have visited Mr. Clutter on the eve of the murders.' And then he gets heckled by a local, who wants to know why he hasn't found the people responsible yet,but Dewey simply smiles and walks away, having put up with numerous people being angry that the murders were taking so long to solve.
But it wasn't footwork that got the pair arrested, it was an old cellmate who had given Hickock the idea that there was $10,000 in a safe at the Clutter farm that came forward: (read this on my blog because I had to cut it out since my review was too long!).
Meanwhile, readers also get to experience Hickock and Smith's troubles as they are on the run after the murders which is done masterfully by Capote. And although one would assume that the killers would stay as far away from Kansas as possible, the two end up back there, only to miraculously get out before the police can catch up with them. The pair decide to head to Florida, where, on December 19, 1959, an entire family was murdered in the exact same way as the Clutters; Hickock and Smith both adamantly denied that they were involved with it - - - and back in 2012- - - Hickock and Smith's bodies were exhumed to compare their DNA with a profile found on one of the victim's clothing: they were not a match. The case remains unsolved til this day.
" Presently he[Smith] came across an inner-page story that won his entire attention. It concerned murder, the slaying of a Florida family, a Mr. and Mrs. Clifford Walker, their four-year-old son, and their two-year-old daughter. Each of the victims, though not bound or gagged, had been shot through the head with a .22 weapon. The crime, clueless and apparently motiveless, had taken place Saturday night, December 19, at the Walker home, on a cattle-raising ranch not far from Tallahassee."
Not soon after the pair leave the Florida beaches, they are arrested on what they believe to be parole violations, but it's clear, when the arresting officers are KBI agents that they had been caught for the Clutter murders. " 'Listen good, Perry. Because Mr. Duntz[KBI agent] is going to tell you where you really were...' Midway in the questioning, after he'd[Smith] begun to notice the number of allusions to a particular November weekend, he'd nerved himself for what he knew was coming, yet when it did, when the big cowboy with the sleepy voice said, 'You were killing the Clutter family' - - - well, he'd damn near died. That's all. "
The confession that follows is the most intense part of the book, given in it's entirety, readers finally get to know what happened to the Clutter family that cold night in November, 1959. Smith reveals that he never had the intention to kill anyone in the home, and that when the safe hadn't been found, he had fully intended to leave, even without Hickock, but what kept him there was Hickock threatening to rape Nancy Clutter. Smith states that he hates people who can't control themselves sexually, and that he didn't allow his partner to touch her at all. He also reveals that he thought about killing Hickock afterwards,stating: " no witnesses."
Capote didn't write 'In Cold Blood' until after Hickock and Smith were executed. The amount of interviews, court room appearances, and even witnessing the executions of both murderers shines through in this novel. But the book has also brought about doubters; a handful of people have since come forward to state that Capote's masterpiece is either 'not the full story' or 'completely wrong.' Just as recent as 2017, a man came forward with a 'manuscript' of a book that Hickock was writing, that contained a different confession on how and why the murders took place- - - Hickock states in this unpublished manuscript that a man by the name 'Roberts' had hired him and Smith to kill the Clutters.
Whether or not you believe that Capote wrote the whole truth or some of the truth, this novel is flawless and beautiful. The writing is poetic and the flow of the story keeps moving, page after page, never stopping long enough to bore the reader. I highly recommend this book as a MUST READ for anyone who loves the True Crime genre.
TheDefunctDiva (304 KP) rated Alice in Wonderland (2010) in Movies
Sep 26, 2017
A is for Artful
Contains spoilers, click to show
As with another of Tim Burton’s films, Sleepy Hollow, Alice in Wonderland strays significantly from the original material. And, in a vein similar to Sleepy Hollow, decapitation is a much-discussed topic.
Alice is introduced to the audience as a child who has strange dreams. In the subsequent scenes, an older Alice is seen in a carriage with her mother. She is unwittingly on her way to her engagement party, and she is fully expected to accept the offer of marriage from someone who seems quite ill-suited for her. “Your life will be perfect. It’s already been decided,” says her sister Margaret.
Elements of the engagement party offer foreshadowing for the alternate reality Alice soon finds herself in. Instead of accepting her suitor’s proposal, Alice runs away and follows a rabbit wearing a waistcoat into an exceptionally large rabbit hole. There, she is found falling with a variety of household objects, including one particularly friendly piano.
Once in Wonderland, Alice’s world has literally turned upside-down. She falls from her perch on the ceiling to the floor. Alice solves a puzzle of many locked doors, using the expected growing and shrinking mechanisms, and then she emerges into a strange topiary. There she is greeted by the rabbit and other residents of Wonderland, who argue whether this Alice is “the right Alice.”
Many of the traditional characters are found in this Wonderland, but most of the ominous poetry associated with those characters has been omitted. Tweedledum and Tweedledee are introduced, but they don’t seem to serve much purpose. I missed the recitation of “the Walrus and the Carpenter” very much.
Alice insists that the world around her must be a dream, as she is led through oversized mushrooms to a blue caterpillar, voiced by the talented Alan Rickman. Once again, Alice’s destiny is written: the caterpillar reveals a scroll which shows an image of Alice slaying the dreaded Jabberwocky. Indeed, it is her role to become the champion of Wonderland, to rise up and defeat the Red Queen who keeps this horrible beast as a weapon.
Later, we come across a dysfunctional tea party held under the shadow of a dilapidated windmill. Johnny Depp appears as the wild and wide-eyed Mad Hatter. Alice, it seems, is late to her tea just as she was to her engagement party. We learn that there is a whole network of characters, including the White Queen (Anne Hathaway), who wish to bring down the tyrannical Red Queen.
The struggle between the Red and White Queens eventually comes to a head, and Alice bravely accepts her fate to fight the Jabberwocky. And the Jabberwocky is indeed a terrifying entity, as it seems to be part dinosaur and part dragon.
The visual effects in this film were striking. Burton paints a beautiful landscape full of dark, rich colors. Several moments in the film are surreal and disturbing, such as when Alice crosses a moat full of dismembered heads to gain access to the Red Queen’s castle. However, some of the characters, such as the Cheshire cat, had a more cartoonish quality about them that I found off-putting.
The acting and voice-overs in the film were also impressive. Actress Mia Wasikowska was enchanting as Alice. She reflected the vulnerability and the more intrepid characteristics of the young girl quite well. Depp was delightfully creepy as the Mad Hatter. Crispin Glover was effective as the Knave of Hearts, the Red Queen’s lead henchman. And Stephen Fry was a marvelous voice choice for the strange and eerie Cheshire Cat.
The Red Queen is quite the character in this film. Helena Bonham Carter perfectly captures the Queen’s cruelty and absurdity. She delivers the “off with his head” line repeatedly and with gusto. The Queen’s cranium was so large that I was surprised she didn’t fall forward from the weight of it. And I haven’t seen that much blue eyeshadow since the 80s.
The Blu-ray version of this film enhanced the quality of the computer graphic imagery quite well. The special features consisted of interviews of the cast regarding the characters. These interviews contained behind-the-scenes looks at some of the makeup and green screen work done on this film. Though these interviews were enlightening, I would have loved to see more about the production process, since the sets and some characters were entirely computer-generated.
All things considered, Burton’s Alice in Wonderland is a delightful departure from reality. Fans of Burton’s other films are sure to love it.
Alice is introduced to the audience as a child who has strange dreams. In the subsequent scenes, an older Alice is seen in a carriage with her mother. She is unwittingly on her way to her engagement party, and she is fully expected to accept the offer of marriage from someone who seems quite ill-suited for her. “Your life will be perfect. It’s already been decided,” says her sister Margaret.
Elements of the engagement party offer foreshadowing for the alternate reality Alice soon finds herself in. Instead of accepting her suitor’s proposal, Alice runs away and follows a rabbit wearing a waistcoat into an exceptionally large rabbit hole. There, she is found falling with a variety of household objects, including one particularly friendly piano.
Once in Wonderland, Alice’s world has literally turned upside-down. She falls from her perch on the ceiling to the floor. Alice solves a puzzle of many locked doors, using the expected growing and shrinking mechanisms, and then she emerges into a strange topiary. There she is greeted by the rabbit and other residents of Wonderland, who argue whether this Alice is “the right Alice.”
Many of the traditional characters are found in this Wonderland, but most of the ominous poetry associated with those characters has been omitted. Tweedledum and Tweedledee are introduced, but they don’t seem to serve much purpose. I missed the recitation of “the Walrus and the Carpenter” very much.
Alice insists that the world around her must be a dream, as she is led through oversized mushrooms to a blue caterpillar, voiced by the talented Alan Rickman. Once again, Alice’s destiny is written: the caterpillar reveals a scroll which shows an image of Alice slaying the dreaded Jabberwocky. Indeed, it is her role to become the champion of Wonderland, to rise up and defeat the Red Queen who keeps this horrible beast as a weapon.
Later, we come across a dysfunctional tea party held under the shadow of a dilapidated windmill. Johnny Depp appears as the wild and wide-eyed Mad Hatter. Alice, it seems, is late to her tea just as she was to her engagement party. We learn that there is a whole network of characters, including the White Queen (Anne Hathaway), who wish to bring down the tyrannical Red Queen.
The struggle between the Red and White Queens eventually comes to a head, and Alice bravely accepts her fate to fight the Jabberwocky. And the Jabberwocky is indeed a terrifying entity, as it seems to be part dinosaur and part dragon.
The visual effects in this film were striking. Burton paints a beautiful landscape full of dark, rich colors. Several moments in the film are surreal and disturbing, such as when Alice crosses a moat full of dismembered heads to gain access to the Red Queen’s castle. However, some of the characters, such as the Cheshire cat, had a more cartoonish quality about them that I found off-putting.
The acting and voice-overs in the film were also impressive. Actress Mia Wasikowska was enchanting as Alice. She reflected the vulnerability and the more intrepid characteristics of the young girl quite well. Depp was delightfully creepy as the Mad Hatter. Crispin Glover was effective as the Knave of Hearts, the Red Queen’s lead henchman. And Stephen Fry was a marvelous voice choice for the strange and eerie Cheshire Cat.
The Red Queen is quite the character in this film. Helena Bonham Carter perfectly captures the Queen’s cruelty and absurdity. She delivers the “off with his head” line repeatedly and with gusto. The Queen’s cranium was so large that I was surprised she didn’t fall forward from the weight of it. And I haven’t seen that much blue eyeshadow since the 80s.
The Blu-ray version of this film enhanced the quality of the computer graphic imagery quite well. The special features consisted of interviews of the cast regarding the characters. These interviews contained behind-the-scenes looks at some of the makeup and green screen work done on this film. Though these interviews were enlightening, I would have loved to see more about the production process, since the sets and some characters were entirely computer-generated.
All things considered, Burton’s Alice in Wonderland is a delightful departure from reality. Fans of Burton’s other films are sure to love it.
Kaysee Hood (83 KP) rated Attachments in Books
Nov 16, 2017
Unconventional Romance (3 more)
Read Life Issues
Movie/Book References
Friendships
Love at First...E-mail?
I've seen some low scored reviews for this book on GR and I realized it may keep some people from reading it, but here are some points I think some should consider before not giving Attachments a chance:
1. This is Rainbow Rowell's first published novel, so of course for some it doesn't hold the magic like Eleanor & Park. Keep in mind many first books never hold against later published works, but are still good or why would the author be allowed to continue?
2. Even though it was published in 2011, it is based in 1999/2000 for plot reasons as to why Lincoln would have his job. This may offset some readers who might not realize how different 1999 is to 2017 Internet use wise for jobs.
3. The lack of reading into who and why the characters are as they are. In a way, it is the adult version of Fangirl, expect the roles are flipped a tad bit.
Anyway, I loved Attachments because it stayed true to Rowell's style, yet it felt raw compared to how she writes now. There is the unconventional love story of a man falling in love with a woman through the e-mails he reads as part of his job to ensure people are working and not nonsense while on the job. There's characters of all sorts with real world problems and real life flaws. There are topics covered of overbearing mothers and mothers who are too cruel both because of their own life. There is men who never want to be tied down, yet one does due to advice and the right woman. The book covers pieces life without taking from the plot whatsoever.
Lincoln O'Neil is a 28-year-old who could have been a successful man with a normal day shift job if a break up had not left him shattered nine years before. Maybe also if his mother had not coddled him, even though she clearly meant well as it is clear him and his sister, Eve, might have been her whole life. Yet we would not have the awkward, shy man working a the swing shift in the IT office as a "security officer" fixing computers in his spare time when he isn't reading through e-mails that come up flagged in the Webfence program. Apparently the security part was ensuring no one at the newspaper office was using the Internet to look at porn, gamble, or idle chit chat instead of working. Not quite was Lincoln had pictured and he doesn't enjoy reading people's exchanges, but the money is good and will grant him the chance to move out his mom's sooner rather than later.
His mundane routine and nothingness during his shift is filled with some enjoyment as Lincoln reads the e-mails flagged from Beth Fremont and Jennifer Scribner-Snyder. There is nothing harmful. Innocent discussions of water cooler talk, life, relationships, and gossip. As much as he knows it is wrong to continue to read their messages about their lives without flagging them as he would anyone else Lincoln cannot help but to get a kick out of the e-mails.
However it soon becomes apparent Lincoln has fallen for Beth despite the fact he has no idea what she looks like or who is she outside of work. Not to mention she has a boyfriend, Chris, who even though she may rant about to Jennifer, she obviously has not intent on breaking ties with. Not for someone like Lincoln anyway. So he spends his time in turmoil trying to decide if a new job is in order, going back to college, or finding a woman to focus his attention on (which are the very things he tries to do). He even tries to ignore the e-mails, yet can't. He cannot help, but feel for Jennifer's worry over having a baby even though her husband wants one. He cannot help, but captivated by their friendship. He cannot help his feelings for Beth for who she is.
It doesn't help Beth has spotted him labeling him as "A Cute Guy" when he never realized she was around. It is like a game of cat and mouse between them then. Beth still unaware he is reading her e-mails. Lincoln unaware of how often she is close to him even when she is going out of her way to find him.
Thus a budding romance is born. But how much of a romance can it be when Beth has Chris and Lincoln can barely look a woman in the eyes?
1. This is Rainbow Rowell's first published novel, so of course for some it doesn't hold the magic like Eleanor & Park. Keep in mind many first books never hold against later published works, but are still good or why would the author be allowed to continue?
2. Even though it was published in 2011, it is based in 1999/2000 for plot reasons as to why Lincoln would have his job. This may offset some readers who might not realize how different 1999 is to 2017 Internet use wise for jobs.
3. The lack of reading into who and why the characters are as they are. In a way, it is the adult version of Fangirl, expect the roles are flipped a tad bit.
Anyway, I loved Attachments because it stayed true to Rowell's style, yet it felt raw compared to how she writes now. There is the unconventional love story of a man falling in love with a woman through the e-mails he reads as part of his job to ensure people are working and not nonsense while on the job. There's characters of all sorts with real world problems and real life flaws. There are topics covered of overbearing mothers and mothers who are too cruel both because of their own life. There is men who never want to be tied down, yet one does due to advice and the right woman. The book covers pieces life without taking from the plot whatsoever.
Lincoln O'Neil is a 28-year-old who could have been a successful man with a normal day shift job if a break up had not left him shattered nine years before. Maybe also if his mother had not coddled him, even though she clearly meant well as it is clear him and his sister, Eve, might have been her whole life. Yet we would not have the awkward, shy man working a the swing shift in the IT office as a "security officer" fixing computers in his spare time when he isn't reading through e-mails that come up flagged in the Webfence program. Apparently the security part was ensuring no one at the newspaper office was using the Internet to look at porn, gamble, or idle chit chat instead of working. Not quite was Lincoln had pictured and he doesn't enjoy reading people's exchanges, but the money is good and will grant him the chance to move out his mom's sooner rather than later.
His mundane routine and nothingness during his shift is filled with some enjoyment as Lincoln reads the e-mails flagged from Beth Fremont and Jennifer Scribner-Snyder. There is nothing harmful. Innocent discussions of water cooler talk, life, relationships, and gossip. As much as he knows it is wrong to continue to read their messages about their lives without flagging them as he would anyone else Lincoln cannot help but to get a kick out of the e-mails.
However it soon becomes apparent Lincoln has fallen for Beth despite the fact he has no idea what she looks like or who is she outside of work. Not to mention she has a boyfriend, Chris, who even though she may rant about to Jennifer, she obviously has not intent on breaking ties with. Not for someone like Lincoln anyway. So he spends his time in turmoil trying to decide if a new job is in order, going back to college, or finding a woman to focus his attention on (which are the very things he tries to do). He even tries to ignore the e-mails, yet can't. He cannot help, but feel for Jennifer's worry over having a baby even though her husband wants one. He cannot help, but captivated by their friendship. He cannot help his feelings for Beth for who she is.
It doesn't help Beth has spotted him labeling him as "A Cute Guy" when he never realized she was around. It is like a game of cat and mouse between them then. Beth still unaware he is reading her e-mails. Lincoln unaware of how often she is close to him even when she is going out of her way to find him.
Thus a budding romance is born. But how much of a romance can it be when Beth has Chris and Lincoln can barely look a woman in the eyes?
Lee (2222 KP) rated Annabelle: Creation (2017) in Movies
Aug 31, 2017
Effective scares (1 more)
The young stars are brilliant
Surprising decent entry in The Conjuring universe
I'm a big fan of The Conjuring. It's easily one of my favourite scary movies in recent years, successfully hitting the right notes for me when it comes to big scares. I wasn't such a fan of the opening scenes featuring Annabelle though, and The Conjuring 2 didn't quite do it for me either, so when the spin off Annabelle movie came out in 2014, I gave it a miss. Even more so when it received some pretty average reviews. It's been on my Netflix watch-list for sometime now, and I'm sure I will watch it out of curiosity at some point, but for now I can take it or leave it. When I saw the trailer for Annabelle: Creation though, it definitely grabbed my interest. More so than the previous movie. The fact that it was set before the last one and could be watched without needing to have seen it either was also a big plus point as far as I was concerned.
This movie takes us right back to the creation of the Annabelle doll itself, before introducing us to the evil part that we're familiar with (although to be fair, even if the doll wasn't evil, who the hell is going to want a doll that looks like that?!). It's 1957 and Samuel Mullins lives with his wife Esther and their young daughter. Samuel is a master toy-maker, handcrafting dolls in the workshop located within the grounds of their house. But tragedy strikes one day, and the family is destroyed when the daughter is killed.
The story picks up again 12 years later with a group of orphan girls who are traveling with their caretaker, Sister Charlotte, to go and live with the Mullins in their large, empty house. They're welcomed inside by Mr Mullins who tells them that their rooms are all upstairs. There's a locked room upstairs that they're not to go into, but you kind of know they will do at some point, and the Mullins room is downstairs. Mrs Mullins is now bed-ridden following an event that we do not yet know about, but otherwise the girls are free to go explore and enjoy the house as they wish. One of the younger girls, Janice, can only walk with the aid of a leg brace and crutch, so is happy to discover that there is even a stair-lift installed to help her get upstairs.
Not much happens for the first twenty minutes or so, but the movie does an excellent job of introducing us to the large isolated house and the potential for scares to be had later in the movie. That stair-lift I just mentioned - it goes nice and slow and only works if you've managed to click the seat-belt in. The nearby barn - that's got a big scarecrow hanging inside with a terrifying evil looking sandbag face. There's a deep, sinister looking well nearby too. Inside there's an out of use dumbwaiter lift and a whole host of other places to hide. You know it's all going to be put to good use later on, and with Janice not being able to walk so well, you can't help thinking that this is only going to add the tension even more.
When things do kick off, it's all very well executed. There are actually some surprisingly effective BANG scares following moments of quietness and some genuinely creepy stuff of nightmares. And yes, that tension that I mentioned involving Janice and her disability, is played to maximum effect. Janice and her room mate Linda are both brilliant in this and are totally convincing as they come to terms with and try fighting back against the evil that's plaguing them.
For me, this was almost as good as The Conjuring. I got a similar feeling from this, particularly with regard to the setting, the cast and the type of scares involved, which I really liked. As a side note, I also really love how this type of movie tends to attract groups of teenage boys and girls to the cinema. There's nothing like watching this in a dark screening, hearing a mixture of fake bravado from the boys along with gasps/petrified hyperventilating from both the boys and girls! It really does add to the overall enjoyment!
This movie takes us right back to the creation of the Annabelle doll itself, before introducing us to the evil part that we're familiar with (although to be fair, even if the doll wasn't evil, who the hell is going to want a doll that looks like that?!). It's 1957 and Samuel Mullins lives with his wife Esther and their young daughter. Samuel is a master toy-maker, handcrafting dolls in the workshop located within the grounds of their house. But tragedy strikes one day, and the family is destroyed when the daughter is killed.
The story picks up again 12 years later with a group of orphan girls who are traveling with their caretaker, Sister Charlotte, to go and live with the Mullins in their large, empty house. They're welcomed inside by Mr Mullins who tells them that their rooms are all upstairs. There's a locked room upstairs that they're not to go into, but you kind of know they will do at some point, and the Mullins room is downstairs. Mrs Mullins is now bed-ridden following an event that we do not yet know about, but otherwise the girls are free to go explore and enjoy the house as they wish. One of the younger girls, Janice, can only walk with the aid of a leg brace and crutch, so is happy to discover that there is even a stair-lift installed to help her get upstairs.
Not much happens for the first twenty minutes or so, but the movie does an excellent job of introducing us to the large isolated house and the potential for scares to be had later in the movie. That stair-lift I just mentioned - it goes nice and slow and only works if you've managed to click the seat-belt in. The nearby barn - that's got a big scarecrow hanging inside with a terrifying evil looking sandbag face. There's a deep, sinister looking well nearby too. Inside there's an out of use dumbwaiter lift and a whole host of other places to hide. You know it's all going to be put to good use later on, and with Janice not being able to walk so well, you can't help thinking that this is only going to add the tension even more.
When things do kick off, it's all very well executed. There are actually some surprisingly effective BANG scares following moments of quietness and some genuinely creepy stuff of nightmares. And yes, that tension that I mentioned involving Janice and her disability, is played to maximum effect. Janice and her room mate Linda are both brilliant in this and are totally convincing as they come to terms with and try fighting back against the evil that's plaguing them.
For me, this was almost as good as The Conjuring. I got a similar feeling from this, particularly with regard to the setting, the cast and the type of scares involved, which I really liked. As a side note, I also really love how this type of movie tends to attract groups of teenage boys and girls to the cinema. There's nothing like watching this in a dark screening, hearing a mixture of fake bravado from the boys along with gasps/petrified hyperventilating from both the boys and girls! It really does add to the overall enjoyment!
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated The Other Boleyn Girl in Books
Feb 15, 2019
Going into <b>The Other Boleyn Girl</b> I already knew that the historical details weren't very factual, but I had this laying around and needed something both light and set in the past, so I figured this would do nicely. The writing itself is perfectly fine, and mostly, I did enjoy the book. Although, for the first half, it seemed as if everyone only wore red and by the end I got so sick of hearing about Anne's "B" for Boleyn necklace I could scream.
Mary Boleyn, the narrator, is a strange character: sympathetic and of reasonable intelligence one minute, a moronic irritant the next. Personality-wise she went up and down and back and forth. First she was fine not being the King's favorite anymore and seeming to want to leave the court life for the country to be with her children, then she was jealous of a title Anne received, years after the affair between Mary and Henry was over. Possibly this was put in as part of the rivalry between the sisters, but it didn't contextually fit. Her development could have used more work and she didn't mature or change much throughout the whole book, especially between the years 1522 to 1533. I seriously got tired of everybody's patronizing and calling her a fool all the time. They should have just named the book, <b>The Foolish Boleyn Girl</b>. I find it hard to believe Mary was so ignorant the king would have continued to have her as mistress for four years, give or take. She had to offer something other than good looks and being great in the bedroom. Anne herself sure was a piece of work, and even though she was pretty much evil throughout the book, I did still feel sorry for her at the end. Jane Parker was a one-dimensional malicious harpy who wasn't given a reason why she was that way; she was just the resident baddy to the Boleyns. To me, it felt like defamation of character.
Politics and the separation of the Church of England from the Catholic Church were merely mentioned in passing as court life and its primary players took center stage. The whole incest plot, I could have done without. Now if it were the absolute truth then it'd be okay, but since it's highly debatable and based on hearsay, I found it unnecessary and gratuitous. Around the two-thirds mark, the pace let up and it became more sluggish and boring, and it wasn't until the last sixty pages that it recaptured my attention again.
As long as readers know going into this book that the history has been twisted around and invented for pure sensation, then it's fine as a fictional read, but take any "facts" with a grain of salt. While it was an okay read, I didn't love it, but it managed to divert my attention for a few days.
One last note dealing with the fourth question in the Q&A with Philippa Gregory in the back of the book:
<blockquote>How about Mary and Anne's brother, George? Did he really sleep with his sister so that she could give Henry a son?
<i>Nobody can know the answer to this one. Anne was accused of adultery with George at their trials and his wife gave evidence against them both. Most people think the trial was a show trial, but it is an interesting accusation. Anne had three miscarriages by the time of her trial, and she was not a woman to let something like sin or crime stand in her way--she was clearly guilty of one murder. I think if she had thought that Henry could not bear a son she was quite capable of finding someone to father a child on her. If she thought that, then George would have been the obvious choice.</i></blockquote>
Obvious? How in the world is that obvious? You cannot be serious, Ms. Gregory. Now I'm far from an expert in Tudor England, but I cannot imagine that being a common practice. Maybe someone more knowledgeable about this time could tell me if that ever happened, because it just boggles my mind that George would be the "<i>obvious choice</i>." Not to mention, who the hell did Anne supposedly kill? I hadn't heard that anywhere. Even my searches are coming up blank.
Mary Boleyn, the narrator, is a strange character: sympathetic and of reasonable intelligence one minute, a moronic irritant the next. Personality-wise she went up and down and back and forth. First she was fine not being the King's favorite anymore and seeming to want to leave the court life for the country to be with her children, then she was jealous of a title Anne received, years after the affair between Mary and Henry was over. Possibly this was put in as part of the rivalry between the sisters, but it didn't contextually fit. Her development could have used more work and she didn't mature or change much throughout the whole book, especially between the years 1522 to 1533. I seriously got tired of everybody's patronizing and calling her a fool all the time. They should have just named the book, <b>The Foolish Boleyn Girl</b>. I find it hard to believe Mary was so ignorant the king would have continued to have her as mistress for four years, give or take. She had to offer something other than good looks and being great in the bedroom. Anne herself sure was a piece of work, and even though she was pretty much evil throughout the book, I did still feel sorry for her at the end. Jane Parker was a one-dimensional malicious harpy who wasn't given a reason why she was that way; she was just the resident baddy to the Boleyns. To me, it felt like defamation of character.
Politics and the separation of the Church of England from the Catholic Church were merely mentioned in passing as court life and its primary players took center stage. The whole incest plot, I could have done without. Now if it were the absolute truth then it'd be okay, but since it's highly debatable and based on hearsay, I found it unnecessary and gratuitous. Around the two-thirds mark, the pace let up and it became more sluggish and boring, and it wasn't until the last sixty pages that it recaptured my attention again.
As long as readers know going into this book that the history has been twisted around and invented for pure sensation, then it's fine as a fictional read, but take any "facts" with a grain of salt. While it was an okay read, I didn't love it, but it managed to divert my attention for a few days.
One last note dealing with the fourth question in the Q&A with Philippa Gregory in the back of the book:
<blockquote>How about Mary and Anne's brother, George? Did he really sleep with his sister so that she could give Henry a son?
<i>Nobody can know the answer to this one. Anne was accused of adultery with George at their trials and his wife gave evidence against them both. Most people think the trial was a show trial, but it is an interesting accusation. Anne had three miscarriages by the time of her trial, and she was not a woman to let something like sin or crime stand in her way--she was clearly guilty of one murder. I think if she had thought that Henry could not bear a son she was quite capable of finding someone to father a child on her. If she thought that, then George would have been the obvious choice.</i></blockquote>
Obvious? How in the world is that obvious? You cannot be serious, Ms. Gregory. Now I'm far from an expert in Tudor England, but I cannot imagine that being a common practice. Maybe someone more knowledgeable about this time could tell me if that ever happened, because it just boggles my mind that George would be the "<i>obvious choice</i>." Not to mention, who the hell did Anne supposedly kill? I hadn't heard that anywhere. Even my searches are coming up blank.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Ben-Hur (2016) in Movies
Feb 20, 2019
Who thought it was a good idea to remake Ben-Hur? Well, on paper, it would seem to be a possibility. Ben-Hur has been hitting our cinema screens since 1907, with three other theatrical versions before this one; a short silent effort in 1907, the 1925 silent epic and the blockbusting MGM epic from 1959.
But this follows stage plays, TV movies and even animated movies, all based on General Lee Wallace's 1880 novel of the same name. But if a comparison is to be made, let us focus on the 1959 Charlton Heston movie. That, which ran for over three and half hours, takes its time to establish characters and situations, then takes us on a journey across the Roman Empire as we follow the turmoil of Judah Ben-Hur, betrayed by his best friend, a Roman who he considered to be a brother.
This journey takes place and parallels the life and ultimate execution of Jesus Christ and with this parallel, Judah is gradually inspired to temper his vengeance against his friend turned enemy and after the famous chariot race and the hollow victory therein, he will witness the crucifixion and through several machinations, find solace in the fledgling Christian movement.
So, how does this version hold up? To the 1959 version; not very well. This two-hour action movie is centred around the chariot race from start to finish, something which happens in the second act of the 1959 version but this is NOT the conclusion, but a catalyst for the finale.
Here, even though the events play out in a similar fashion, they are rushed and none of the character moments are earned. It is as if the film was pitched soley on the concept of showing an action packed chariot race in the 21st century.
If you want to see a modern interpretation of this race, possibly cinema's greatest such sequence, then look at Star Wars: Episode I's Podrace which captures the spirit perfectly. The positioning of this race and its significance to the plot was the same in the 1925 version as well, yet the fifteen minute 1907 short pretty much cherry picked the same plot elements as this 2016 version, which is quite telling really.
There was little interest in the story, just a cynical desire to bring this iconic movie back to the big screen and milk it as they would any franchise. But Ben-Hur is a poisoned chalice, so iconic that it would have to have offered something new without losing the original feel to succeed, as this classic simply did not warrant a remake.
But if you are going to remake it, give it a mega budget, which they did not, an all star cast, again, not the case and bring on board a top director to lead this project.
Instead we have a cast of relative unknowns, with Morgan Freeman being the most notable cast member, the director of such movies as Wanted (2007) and a small budget of just $100,000,000, when a blockbuster these days is usually pushing $200,000,000.
The main selling point for the previous two Ben-Hurs was the scale. These were epics and pushed the technology, filmmaking styles and never shied away from the strong religious overtones. Here it looks like it is given little more than lip service hoping to pander to the religious right.
It failed. Darren Aronofsky's Noah (2013) made more of an impact and it divided audiences, but at least it was faithful to itself, pushed boundaries and left its mark on cinema.
But by the end, my jaw was literally on the floor as the maimed Massalia reconciled with Judah and the pair ride off into the sunset together, all forgiven....
WHAT!!!
And more importantly, what was the point? Jesus sacrified himself, (in the story) so that people like Judah would put down their swords and learn to forgive, yet in the end, Judah and Massalia sacrifice nothing as they both regain their friendship and live happily ever after. In the previous versions, Ben-Hur beat Massalia but he has the last laugh as his mother and sister have been left with leprosy, that is until Jesus' death sparks a miracle which cures them. This was his reward for seeing the error of his ways, not getting his family and his friend back.
In the end, this is not a bad action romp, very watchable and is an entertaining spectacle but ultimately forgettable. It will entertain for two hours but leaves you with nothing to think about, unlike the books, plays and films which have preceded this.
A real shame...
But this follows stage plays, TV movies and even animated movies, all based on General Lee Wallace's 1880 novel of the same name. But if a comparison is to be made, let us focus on the 1959 Charlton Heston movie. That, which ran for over three and half hours, takes its time to establish characters and situations, then takes us on a journey across the Roman Empire as we follow the turmoil of Judah Ben-Hur, betrayed by his best friend, a Roman who he considered to be a brother.
This journey takes place and parallels the life and ultimate execution of Jesus Christ and with this parallel, Judah is gradually inspired to temper his vengeance against his friend turned enemy and after the famous chariot race and the hollow victory therein, he will witness the crucifixion and through several machinations, find solace in the fledgling Christian movement.
So, how does this version hold up? To the 1959 version; not very well. This two-hour action movie is centred around the chariot race from start to finish, something which happens in the second act of the 1959 version but this is NOT the conclusion, but a catalyst for the finale.
Here, even though the events play out in a similar fashion, they are rushed and none of the character moments are earned. It is as if the film was pitched soley on the concept of showing an action packed chariot race in the 21st century.
If you want to see a modern interpretation of this race, possibly cinema's greatest such sequence, then look at Star Wars: Episode I's Podrace which captures the spirit perfectly. The positioning of this race and its significance to the plot was the same in the 1925 version as well, yet the fifteen minute 1907 short pretty much cherry picked the same plot elements as this 2016 version, which is quite telling really.
There was little interest in the story, just a cynical desire to bring this iconic movie back to the big screen and milk it as they would any franchise. But Ben-Hur is a poisoned chalice, so iconic that it would have to have offered something new without losing the original feel to succeed, as this classic simply did not warrant a remake.
But if you are going to remake it, give it a mega budget, which they did not, an all star cast, again, not the case and bring on board a top director to lead this project.
Instead we have a cast of relative unknowns, with Morgan Freeman being the most notable cast member, the director of such movies as Wanted (2007) and a small budget of just $100,000,000, when a blockbuster these days is usually pushing $200,000,000.
The main selling point for the previous two Ben-Hurs was the scale. These were epics and pushed the technology, filmmaking styles and never shied away from the strong religious overtones. Here it looks like it is given little more than lip service hoping to pander to the religious right.
It failed. Darren Aronofsky's Noah (2013) made more of an impact and it divided audiences, but at least it was faithful to itself, pushed boundaries and left its mark on cinema.
But by the end, my jaw was literally on the floor as the maimed Massalia reconciled with Judah and the pair ride off into the sunset together, all forgiven....
WHAT!!!
And more importantly, what was the point? Jesus sacrified himself, (in the story) so that people like Judah would put down their swords and learn to forgive, yet in the end, Judah and Massalia sacrifice nothing as they both regain their friendship and live happily ever after. In the previous versions, Ben-Hur beat Massalia but he has the last laugh as his mother and sister have been left with leprosy, that is until Jesus' death sparks a miracle which cures them. This was his reward for seeing the error of his ways, not getting his family and his friend back.
In the end, this is not a bad action romp, very watchable and is an entertaining spectacle but ultimately forgettable. It will entertain for two hours but leaves you with nothing to think about, unlike the books, plays and films which have preceded this.
A real shame...
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated What Alice Forgot in Books
Feb 27, 2019
For some reason, I kept seeing What Alice Forgot by Liane Moriarty almost every book place I would look. At first, I wasn't interested, but it kept showing up. Eventually, I took it as a sign that maybe I should read What Alice Forgot. I'm glad I did because it was a great book!
The plot for What Alice Forgot is a complex and deep one. It's not just about Alice. It's also about her sister Elisabeth, whom we learn more through letters to her therapist, Jeremy. Elisabeth is trying to conceive. She keeps going through failed IVF treatments time and time again. We learn about her struggle and how she's handling that. We also learn about Frannie, Alice's surrogate grandmother, through letters with a man named Phil. At the center of the story is Alice. After falling off a stationary bike and bumping her head during spin class, Alice wakes up to find some can't remember anything that happened for the past 10 years. Alice believes she is still 29, and she finds it frustrating and a tad funny that she's really almost 40 years old. Alice can't believe who she's turned into at 39. She would hate herself! The book explains if Alice will be more loving and carefree like her 29 year old self or if she'll be that rushed, cynical woman she was at 39 when and if she gets her memories back. There were one or two plot twists although I wouldn't consider them major. All of my questions were answered, and Liane Moriarty did an excellent job of tying up any loose ends and writing a great epilogue explaining what happened to each character years later.
I loved the characters in What Alice Forgot! I felt they were all very fleshed out and felt like I was reading about real live people. It was interesting to see Alice at odds with herself when her old self was surprised by what her new self (before she hit her head and lost her memory for the past 10 years) was like. I, personally, liked Alice after she forgot her memory. She was more fun loving and carefree. New Alice was always rushed and snippy. I also liked Nick, Alice's soon to be ex-husband. Although he was rushed with work, I loved how he still would help out Alice. I really related to Alice's oldest daughter, Madison, the most. Madison had experienced so much in her short life, so she was acting out a lot of the time. I just wanted to hug her. Alice's youngest daughter, Olivia, was really cute and funny. I loved how she referred to everything as "darling." My heart really went out to Elisabeth. I just wanted Elisabeth to finally have a baby of her own after miscarrying so many times in the past. Frannie was such a fun character! I was moved by her love of Elisabeth and Alice, and I really appreciated her humor at times!
The pacing for What Alice Forgot was a bit hit and miss sometimes. There were a lot of times, mostly during the first 60 percent or so in the book, that I thought about just giving up and finding something else to read. However, I would read a bit more, and the pacing would pick up again. Then it would go back to being slow. Once I got about 65 percent through the book, the pacing found its footing, and it was smooth sailing from there. My eyes devoured the rest of the pages, and I couldn't wait to find out if Alice would get her memory back or if she'd end up with Nick or Dominick. (I was Team Nick throughout the book.) I also wanted to know what would come of Elisabeth's IVF treatment. I really wanted her to have a baby of her own!
Trigger warnings for What Alice Forgot include miscarriages, failed fertility treatments, amnesia, divorce, death, drinking, some profanities, and a few mentions of sex but no details.
Overall, What Alice Forgot is a lovely read even though the pacing is a bit off for the first half or so in the book. Luckily, the pacing redeems itself, and with a great plot and fantastic characters, this book does make a good read. I would definitely recommend What Alice Forgot by Liane Moriarty to everyone aged 16+ who loves a feel good novel.
The plot for What Alice Forgot is a complex and deep one. It's not just about Alice. It's also about her sister Elisabeth, whom we learn more through letters to her therapist, Jeremy. Elisabeth is trying to conceive. She keeps going through failed IVF treatments time and time again. We learn about her struggle and how she's handling that. We also learn about Frannie, Alice's surrogate grandmother, through letters with a man named Phil. At the center of the story is Alice. After falling off a stationary bike and bumping her head during spin class, Alice wakes up to find some can't remember anything that happened for the past 10 years. Alice believes she is still 29, and she finds it frustrating and a tad funny that she's really almost 40 years old. Alice can't believe who she's turned into at 39. She would hate herself! The book explains if Alice will be more loving and carefree like her 29 year old self or if she'll be that rushed, cynical woman she was at 39 when and if she gets her memories back. There were one or two plot twists although I wouldn't consider them major. All of my questions were answered, and Liane Moriarty did an excellent job of tying up any loose ends and writing a great epilogue explaining what happened to each character years later.
I loved the characters in What Alice Forgot! I felt they were all very fleshed out and felt like I was reading about real live people. It was interesting to see Alice at odds with herself when her old self was surprised by what her new self (before she hit her head and lost her memory for the past 10 years) was like. I, personally, liked Alice after she forgot her memory. She was more fun loving and carefree. New Alice was always rushed and snippy. I also liked Nick, Alice's soon to be ex-husband. Although he was rushed with work, I loved how he still would help out Alice. I really related to Alice's oldest daughter, Madison, the most. Madison had experienced so much in her short life, so she was acting out a lot of the time. I just wanted to hug her. Alice's youngest daughter, Olivia, was really cute and funny. I loved how she referred to everything as "darling." My heart really went out to Elisabeth. I just wanted Elisabeth to finally have a baby of her own after miscarrying so many times in the past. Frannie was such a fun character! I was moved by her love of Elisabeth and Alice, and I really appreciated her humor at times!
The pacing for What Alice Forgot was a bit hit and miss sometimes. There were a lot of times, mostly during the first 60 percent or so in the book, that I thought about just giving up and finding something else to read. However, I would read a bit more, and the pacing would pick up again. Then it would go back to being slow. Once I got about 65 percent through the book, the pacing found its footing, and it was smooth sailing from there. My eyes devoured the rest of the pages, and I couldn't wait to find out if Alice would get her memory back or if she'd end up with Nick or Dominick. (I was Team Nick throughout the book.) I also wanted to know what would come of Elisabeth's IVF treatment. I really wanted her to have a baby of her own!
Trigger warnings for What Alice Forgot include miscarriages, failed fertility treatments, amnesia, divorce, death, drinking, some profanities, and a few mentions of sex but no details.
Overall, What Alice Forgot is a lovely read even though the pacing is a bit off for the first half or so in the book. Luckily, the pacing redeems itself, and with a great plot and fantastic characters, this book does make a good read. I would definitely recommend What Alice Forgot by Liane Moriarty to everyone aged 16+ who loves a feel good novel.