Search
156Reviews (7 KP) rated Dark Waters (2019) in Movies
May 1, 2020
Films are important.
Films are important to us all for many different reasons, they show what we are, what we can be, what we aspire to be, of who we are. Sometimes that comes in the form of escapism, of dreaming that we can be better, Mark Ruffalo is no stranger to the genre I'm referring to, sometimes shows us our darkest fears and that we can overcome them, and sometimes, it shows us just how low, we as people can get, and never offer any kind of redemption. Dark Waters manages to be all of these things. A small intro before the film began had me franticly signing up to numerous petitions the second the film ended, joining a cause I didn't even know existed before I sat down to watch. This is why film is important, and why you should watch Dark Waters as soon as you can. So why the 3 out of 5 rating? Surely a film that EVERYONE should watch should get top marks, right? Unfortunately not.
The film begins with Rob Bilott (Mark Ruffalo), a corporate defence attorney, whose office is visited by a farmer from his home town, trying to raise a legal case against DuPont, a multi-billion dollar business, the towns biggest employer, and a chemical company at the heart of potentially poisoning the towns water supply. As Billot investigates the scale of the issue, and its inevitable cover up, it all becomes alarmingly clear. Thousands of people are being poisoned, they're health will likely deteriorate and life threatening illnesses are now a high probability. To take a line from the recent movie Bombshell “somebody has to stand up, somebody has to get mad.”
That anger that should be felt, but for all the terrifying facts about the poisoning these people received on a daily basis, it never comes, the rage should be palpable. Instead it opts for giving us all the information, teaching about regulation and government intervention, or lack thereof, and the only temper in the film shows comes as a heated exchange in a board room that blows over as soon as it comes, and protesters outside courtrooms for fleeting moments throughout the movie. It should be seething instead of showing, giving us the knowledge we need through gritted teeth, not clinical, scientific and impersonal.
Dark Waters is off the mark with its tone, Mark Ruffalo's high-priced lawyer is too uncertain, a little too every-man, never really portrayed a hot-shot or an underdog, and the supporting cast fall into “Good Guy” or “Bad Guy” far too easily with no exploration into any depth of character. One scene has a DuPont representative, shown in great detail, every undisputable, despicable thing that his company has done to these people, and listens attentively, never upset or defiant but instead seeming slightly bored, before getting up and leaving. Every scene feels like it should be emotionally hard-hitting but never raises above a tap on the shoulder.
As the lesson goes on, the complete lack of morals DuPont has, becomes shockingly clear as they drag the case on for as long as they can, making sure Billot's firm spend more money and time than they are willing to pay. Bilot's home life becomes strained, which distracts from the main thread more than adds to it plot, he becomes distant from his wife, a woefully underused Anne Hathaway, and his health deteriorates under the weight of fighting, and in the end, the conclusion is murkier than the water supply. But he still fights, and in real life, Rob Billot is still fighting to this day to help the West Virginia community, and to change the way the corporations are regulated worldwide.
This film is important, and everyone should see it because it's message, just don't see it for its entertainment value, because that's few and far between.
Films are important to us all for many different reasons, they show what we are, what we can be, what we aspire to be, of who we are. Sometimes that comes in the form of escapism, of dreaming that we can be better, Mark Ruffalo is no stranger to the genre I'm referring to, sometimes shows us our darkest fears and that we can overcome them, and sometimes, it shows us just how low, we as people can get, and never offer any kind of redemption. Dark Waters manages to be all of these things. A small intro before the film began had me franticly signing up to numerous petitions the second the film ended, joining a cause I didn't even know existed before I sat down to watch. This is why film is important, and why you should watch Dark Waters as soon as you can. So why the 3 out of 5 rating? Surely a film that EVERYONE should watch should get top marks, right? Unfortunately not.
The film begins with Rob Bilott (Mark Ruffalo), a corporate defence attorney, whose office is visited by a farmer from his home town, trying to raise a legal case against DuPont, a multi-billion dollar business, the towns biggest employer, and a chemical company at the heart of potentially poisoning the towns water supply. As Billot investigates the scale of the issue, and its inevitable cover up, it all becomes alarmingly clear. Thousands of people are being poisoned, they're health will likely deteriorate and life threatening illnesses are now a high probability. To take a line from the recent movie Bombshell “somebody has to stand up, somebody has to get mad.”
That anger that should be felt, but for all the terrifying facts about the poisoning these people received on a daily basis, it never comes, the rage should be palpable. Instead it opts for giving us all the information, teaching about regulation and government intervention, or lack thereof, and the only temper in the film shows comes as a heated exchange in a board room that blows over as soon as it comes, and protesters outside courtrooms for fleeting moments throughout the movie. It should be seething instead of showing, giving us the knowledge we need through gritted teeth, not clinical, scientific and impersonal.
Dark Waters is off the mark with its tone, Mark Ruffalo's high-priced lawyer is too uncertain, a little too every-man, never really portrayed a hot-shot or an underdog, and the supporting cast fall into “Good Guy” or “Bad Guy” far too easily with no exploration into any depth of character. One scene has a DuPont representative, shown in great detail, every undisputable, despicable thing that his company has done to these people, and listens attentively, never upset or defiant but instead seeming slightly bored, before getting up and leaving. Every scene feels like it should be emotionally hard-hitting but never raises above a tap on the shoulder.
As the lesson goes on, the complete lack of morals DuPont has, becomes shockingly clear as they drag the case on for as long as they can, making sure Billot's firm spend more money and time than they are willing to pay. Bilot's home life becomes strained, which distracts from the main thread more than adds to it plot, he becomes distant from his wife, a woefully underused Anne Hathaway, and his health deteriorates under the weight of fighting, and in the end, the conclusion is murkier than the water supply. But he still fights, and in real life, Rob Billot is still fighting to this day to help the West Virginia community, and to change the way the corporations are regulated worldwide.
This film is important, and everyone should see it because it's message, just don't see it for its entertainment value, because that's few and far between.
Artemis Director's Viewfinder
Photo & Video and Utilities
App
Artemis Director's Viewfinder reproduces any camera, aspect ratio and lens combination. Included is...
Artemis HD
Photo & Video and Productivity
App
THIS VERSION OF ARTEMIS IS SPECIFICALLY FOR IPAD USERS ONLY. FOR THE UNIVERSAL VERSION OF ARTEMIS...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Sweetheart (2021) in Movies
Sep 20, 2021
Great ensemble cast (1 more)
Sensitive and moving writing by Marley Morrison
A Gregory's Girl for the 21st Century
When I was in my late teen's, Bill Forsyth's "Gregory's Girl" perfectly epitomised the angst of the school years' emotions I'd left behind me. And I was very much heterosexual. With "Sweetheart", Marley Morrison in an astonishing feature debut delivers a "Gregory's Girl" for today's much more sexually fluid times.
Positives:
- What a great ensemble cast! It's all headed up by Nell Barlow, amazingly in her feature debut. Nell manages to perfectly deliver the hair-pullingly frustrating unpredictability of a teenage girl: always planning to go off doing something worthy like "knitting jumpers for elephants in Indonesia". But she manages to keep the portrayal just the right side of parody, not straying into 'Kevin and Perry' territory. "What's wrong with you?" asks her mother. "I'm 17. Everything's wrong with me" she replies. It's an immaculate performance for someone so young.
- Jo Hartley is also fabulous as A. J.'s mum, a lost soul struggling with her own worries, without having those of AJ to add to them. It's not portrayed as a typical 'Mum v Teen' battle, but beautifully nuanced. "Just because you're a lesbian now, it doesn't mean you have to dress like a boy" she pleads with A. J.
- If you're trying to place her, Ella Rae-Smith was the striking girl in the baseball cap in Netflix's "The Stranger". She is also wonderful here, as the 'hot girl' who you think has it all but is underneath deeply troubled and conflicted. A sex scene (beautifully lit and filmed by Emily Almond Barr and Matthew Wicks) manages to show absolutely nothing but is deliciously erotic as a result.
- The writing by Marley Morrison feels very autobiographical. And, as I found through reading this Guardian article about Morrison's gender-journey, there is a lot of personal experience in here. It's clever that the film is claustrophobically set in the remote holiday park (actually the real Freshwater Beach Holiday Park near Bridport on the Dorset coast). If it had been set in a big city like London, AJ could have constantly fled from her feelings, never resolving them. Here, she is constantly running into Isla.... there is no escape.
- I also very much liked the relationship written between A. J. and Steve. Steve is almost the safety valve on the pressure cooker, always helpfully allowing some steam to escape. It adds warmth to the story.
- For such an indie picture, there's a range of great tunes on the soundtrack: mostly from bands I have never heard of (probably making it affordable). I'm not sure if there's to be a soundtrack album released, but it's worth a listen if so.
Negatives:
- I wasn't fond of the sound mix on the film. Some of the dialogue was indistinct.
- A. J. gives us an occasional running commentary of her thoughts as a voiceover. Regular readers of my blog will know my thoughts on this subject! I'm not sure if it added much to the story: a 'show-not-tell' approach would have been my preference.
Summary Thoughts on "Sweetheart": I likened this film to 1980's "Gregory's Girl", and that's a great compliment. That movie made stars out of John Gordon Sinclair and Clare Grogan. I'd predict similar great things for Nell Barlow, Ella Rae-Smith and particularly for writer/director Marley Morrison. I'll very much look forward to Marley's future projects.
It's a cracking little British film. It deserves a major cinema release, but I suspect this is one that you might need to hunt out at your less mainstream cinemas. But please do so - it's well worth it. Very much recommended.
(For the full graphical review and video, check out #onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
Positives:
- What a great ensemble cast! It's all headed up by Nell Barlow, amazingly in her feature debut. Nell manages to perfectly deliver the hair-pullingly frustrating unpredictability of a teenage girl: always planning to go off doing something worthy like "knitting jumpers for elephants in Indonesia". But she manages to keep the portrayal just the right side of parody, not straying into 'Kevin and Perry' territory. "What's wrong with you?" asks her mother. "I'm 17. Everything's wrong with me" she replies. It's an immaculate performance for someone so young.
- Jo Hartley is also fabulous as A. J.'s mum, a lost soul struggling with her own worries, without having those of AJ to add to them. It's not portrayed as a typical 'Mum v Teen' battle, but beautifully nuanced. "Just because you're a lesbian now, it doesn't mean you have to dress like a boy" she pleads with A. J.
- If you're trying to place her, Ella Rae-Smith was the striking girl in the baseball cap in Netflix's "The Stranger". She is also wonderful here, as the 'hot girl' who you think has it all but is underneath deeply troubled and conflicted. A sex scene (beautifully lit and filmed by Emily Almond Barr and Matthew Wicks) manages to show absolutely nothing but is deliciously erotic as a result.
- The writing by Marley Morrison feels very autobiographical. And, as I found through reading this Guardian article about Morrison's gender-journey, there is a lot of personal experience in here. It's clever that the film is claustrophobically set in the remote holiday park (actually the real Freshwater Beach Holiday Park near Bridport on the Dorset coast). If it had been set in a big city like London, AJ could have constantly fled from her feelings, never resolving them. Here, she is constantly running into Isla.... there is no escape.
- I also very much liked the relationship written between A. J. and Steve. Steve is almost the safety valve on the pressure cooker, always helpfully allowing some steam to escape. It adds warmth to the story.
- For such an indie picture, there's a range of great tunes on the soundtrack: mostly from bands I have never heard of (probably making it affordable). I'm not sure if there's to be a soundtrack album released, but it's worth a listen if so.
Negatives:
- I wasn't fond of the sound mix on the film. Some of the dialogue was indistinct.
- A. J. gives us an occasional running commentary of her thoughts as a voiceover. Regular readers of my blog will know my thoughts on this subject! I'm not sure if it added much to the story: a 'show-not-tell' approach would have been my preference.
Summary Thoughts on "Sweetheart": I likened this film to 1980's "Gregory's Girl", and that's a great compliment. That movie made stars out of John Gordon Sinclair and Clare Grogan. I'd predict similar great things for Nell Barlow, Ella Rae-Smith and particularly for writer/director Marley Morrison. I'll very much look forward to Marley's future projects.
It's a cracking little British film. It deserves a major cinema release, but I suspect this is one that you might need to hunt out at your less mainstream cinemas. But please do so - it's well worth it. Very much recommended.
(For the full graphical review and video, check out #onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Downsizing (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Tiny People, Big Mess.
From the trailer this film looked quirky, funny and interesting and has been on my “looking forward to” list for many months. Oh dear, what a let down.
Matt Damon (“The Martian“, “The Great Wall“, “Jason Bourne“) and Kristen Wiig (“mother!“, “Ghostbusters“) play Paul and Audrey Safranek. Paul is a laid-back and hardworking occupational therapist; Audrey has materialistic ambitions over and above their available finances. The two decide to “downsize” making use of a revolutionary Norwegian invention that reduces humans, and most other lifeforms, to a fraction of their normal size. This offers huge wealth to the normal American, since the cost of living in downsized form within the mini-estate called LeisureLand is tiny in comparison to “big folks”. But all does not go well in the transition (unlike the trailer, no spoilers here) and Paul needs to find a new purpose in life as bigger problems loom.
It’s clearly written to be a social satire, and there are some clever angles to be explored here: everyone publicly positions their downsizing based on ‘environmental issues’ and ‘saving the planet’, but most everyone’s real reason is the lifestyle benefits. Also lightly touched on, but never deeply explored, are the impacts that the downsizing initiative is having on the broader American economy and property markets, with the ‘big people’ questioning why small people should have the same rights and votes as them.
But the film never really gets into the meat of any of this. Worse than that, the movie never settles on what it is trying to be. I think we can write off “Sci-Fi” pretty early on. But is it a drama? A comedy? A love story? A socialist rant? An environmental cri de coeur? The film jumbles all these aspects together and treats each so halfheartedly that none of them get properly addressed.
Not only are the audience confused: none of the actors seem to be too sure why they’re there either. Damon – never Mr Personality – should have been able to develop some chemistry with the feisty and dynamic Ms Wiig, but even these early scenes plod along with you thinking “what a dull film”. Things perk up slightly at the LeisureLand sales fair, where Neil Patrick Harris (“Gone Girl“) and a naked Laura Dern (“Star Wars: The Last Jedi“) glibly try to sell a luxury doll’s house to the assembled crowd. American consumerism in miniature.
But post-downsizing the film crashes back to ‘Dullesville Arizona’ again, but with added depression, requiring Christophe Waltz (“Django Unchanined”, “Spectre“), as a dodgy Serbian entrepreneur Dusan Mirkovic, to over-act manically to try to add any sort of energy into the film (which he is only mildly successful at doing). There’s a rather bizarre supporting role from Udo Kier – looking for all the world like Terence Stamp – as Mirkovic’s ship-owning pal, and an almost cameo performance from Jason Sudeikis (“Colossal“).
Enter stage-left Thai-born Hong Chau as Ngoc Lan Tran, a Vietnamese cleaner. There’s a clever angle here: where “average American Joes” like Safranek can live like kings, but the poor still have to scrape by, living in ‘skyscraper Portacabins’, as the menial classes: there’s no escaping class structures, even when 5 inches tall. Chau sums up the uneven nature of the film, as she mostly plays her lines for laughs but then (in a spectacularly good bit of acting in the midst of, I have to say, some pretty poor hamming) bursts into uncontrollable tears.
Just when you think things are going to limp to a unmemorable close, the film ups and leaves LeisureLand to add a completely bizarre final act. (It’s pretty unusual in the UK for people to walk out of a cinema mid-film, but a couple did so at this point). This segment bears no relationship to the downsizing theme whatsoever, since all the players at this point could be full-sized. Aside from an amusing “50 shades of f**k” speech from Ngoc Lan Tran and a “massive explosion”, this story goes nowhere, says nothing (at least not to me) and merely irritates. Throw in a completely anti-climatic non-ending and I genuinely shared a “WTF look” with the stranger sat next to me!
This is all very strange, since this comes from Alexander Payne, who also directed and co-wrote “The Descendants”, one of the most impressive films of the decade. Jim Taylor co-writes (as he has co-written numerous other films with Payne).
I note that in this morning’s London Times that their film critic, Kevin Maher – someone who’s views I am generally pretty well aligned with – gave it 4 *’s out of 5. I can only assume that he either saw a completely different cut of the film, or he is a lot cleverer than I am and understood amazing sub-texts that completely passed me by! Maybe… but I have a sneaking suspicion that the general viewing public will more share my opinion on this than his.
I was tempted to give this just one star as it was such a disappointment to me, but the underlying concept is a good one: it is just one that has, in my humble opinion, been implemented in a bizarrely slipshod manner.
Definitely not recommended. Go and see “Coco” instead!
Matt Damon (“The Martian“, “The Great Wall“, “Jason Bourne“) and Kristen Wiig (“mother!“, “Ghostbusters“) play Paul and Audrey Safranek. Paul is a laid-back and hardworking occupational therapist; Audrey has materialistic ambitions over and above their available finances. The two decide to “downsize” making use of a revolutionary Norwegian invention that reduces humans, and most other lifeforms, to a fraction of their normal size. This offers huge wealth to the normal American, since the cost of living in downsized form within the mini-estate called LeisureLand is tiny in comparison to “big folks”. But all does not go well in the transition (unlike the trailer, no spoilers here) and Paul needs to find a new purpose in life as bigger problems loom.
It’s clearly written to be a social satire, and there are some clever angles to be explored here: everyone publicly positions their downsizing based on ‘environmental issues’ and ‘saving the planet’, but most everyone’s real reason is the lifestyle benefits. Also lightly touched on, but never deeply explored, are the impacts that the downsizing initiative is having on the broader American economy and property markets, with the ‘big people’ questioning why small people should have the same rights and votes as them.
But the film never really gets into the meat of any of this. Worse than that, the movie never settles on what it is trying to be. I think we can write off “Sci-Fi” pretty early on. But is it a drama? A comedy? A love story? A socialist rant? An environmental cri de coeur? The film jumbles all these aspects together and treats each so halfheartedly that none of them get properly addressed.
Not only are the audience confused: none of the actors seem to be too sure why they’re there either. Damon – never Mr Personality – should have been able to develop some chemistry with the feisty and dynamic Ms Wiig, but even these early scenes plod along with you thinking “what a dull film”. Things perk up slightly at the LeisureLand sales fair, where Neil Patrick Harris (“Gone Girl“) and a naked Laura Dern (“Star Wars: The Last Jedi“) glibly try to sell a luxury doll’s house to the assembled crowd. American consumerism in miniature.
But post-downsizing the film crashes back to ‘Dullesville Arizona’ again, but with added depression, requiring Christophe Waltz (“Django Unchanined”, “Spectre“), as a dodgy Serbian entrepreneur Dusan Mirkovic, to over-act manically to try to add any sort of energy into the film (which he is only mildly successful at doing). There’s a rather bizarre supporting role from Udo Kier – looking for all the world like Terence Stamp – as Mirkovic’s ship-owning pal, and an almost cameo performance from Jason Sudeikis (“Colossal“).
Enter stage-left Thai-born Hong Chau as Ngoc Lan Tran, a Vietnamese cleaner. There’s a clever angle here: where “average American Joes” like Safranek can live like kings, but the poor still have to scrape by, living in ‘skyscraper Portacabins’, as the menial classes: there’s no escaping class structures, even when 5 inches tall. Chau sums up the uneven nature of the film, as she mostly plays her lines for laughs but then (in a spectacularly good bit of acting in the midst of, I have to say, some pretty poor hamming) bursts into uncontrollable tears.
Just when you think things are going to limp to a unmemorable close, the film ups and leaves LeisureLand to add a completely bizarre final act. (It’s pretty unusual in the UK for people to walk out of a cinema mid-film, but a couple did so at this point). This segment bears no relationship to the downsizing theme whatsoever, since all the players at this point could be full-sized. Aside from an amusing “50 shades of f**k” speech from Ngoc Lan Tran and a “massive explosion”, this story goes nowhere, says nothing (at least not to me) and merely irritates. Throw in a completely anti-climatic non-ending and I genuinely shared a “WTF look” with the stranger sat next to me!
This is all very strange, since this comes from Alexander Payne, who also directed and co-wrote “The Descendants”, one of the most impressive films of the decade. Jim Taylor co-writes (as he has co-written numerous other films with Payne).
I note that in this morning’s London Times that their film critic, Kevin Maher – someone who’s views I am generally pretty well aligned with – gave it 4 *’s out of 5. I can only assume that he either saw a completely different cut of the film, or he is a lot cleverer than I am and understood amazing sub-texts that completely passed me by! Maybe… but I have a sneaking suspicion that the general viewing public will more share my opinion on this than his.
I was tempted to give this just one star as it was such a disappointment to me, but the underlying concept is a good one: it is just one that has, in my humble opinion, been implemented in a bizarrely slipshod manner.
Definitely not recommended. Go and see “Coco” instead!
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Haunting of Hill House in TV
Nov 13, 2018 (Updated Nov 13, 2018)
Predictable jumpscares (2 more)
Bad acting
Crappy script
Overhyped Garbage
The Haunting Of Hill House is a 2018 Netflix series directed by Mike Flanagan, who directed last year's fantastically creepy adaption of Stephen King's 'Gerald's Game'. Hill House even features some of the same cast members in Carla Gugino and Henry Thomas, whom I both really like. Before diving into it, I thought that this show was going to be tailor made for me, with a brilliant cast and the same subtle but terrifying horror that Flanagan used in Gerald's Game.
However, after watching the first couple of episodes, I was struggling to get into it. Due to the massive amount of hype and praise that this show was getting I decided to stick with it. By the time I got to episode 6, I was done, but then my girlfriend guilted me into watching that rest of the series because she wanted to see it and she was, "too scared to watch it alone."
What a huge waste of time that turned out to be.
If you have read any of my other reviews of horror-based media, you will know that I have a love/hate relationship with the genre. There are very few horror movies or shows that I feel indifferent about. I hate lazy, formulaic bad horror and that is exactly what Hill House is.
Every single episode consists of a jumpscare at the start of the episode, then a hard cut either forwards or backwards in the timeline. Then about 15-20 minutes of piss poor acting and boring dialogue. This is followed by another cheap jumpscare, usually a woman screaming at an obnoxiously loud volume at the camera. Then we get another hard cut back to the other timeline.
The main issue with this structure, (other than being extremely lazy and repetitive,) is that when the hard cut is made to the other timeline, the audience knows that it is done by an editor and that we are now being asked to focus on a part of the story within the other timeline, but for the characters within the show, it makes no sense. For example, two people are having a conversation when something creepy happens. They go to investigate and a screaming woman comes launching towards them or is standing at the edge of a bed or doing basically any other ghost story cliché you can think of. Then the show cuts away to show the characters as children being haunted by a different ghost, but then when we cut back to the present, we never find out how the last jumpscare was resolved. What was the aftermath of that screaming lady at the end of the bed you ask? How was that resolved? How are the character's mentalities after this happened to them? Who cares?! Say the writers, let's just move on to the next cheap jumpscare.
The script is extraordinarily lazy and the child actors are horribly bad. This is an issue that I feel that there isn't really any excuse for anymore after the brilliant child performances in shows like Stranger Things and Season 2 of the Sinner.
If you judge the quality of something based on what it sets out to do versus what it actually does, then The Haunting Of Hill House is the worst show that I have had the displeasure of sitting through this year. The scares are pathetic, the acting is atrocious in places, the script is diabolically cheesy at times, there is hardly any originality present for an, 'original series,' and the show is overflowing with clichés. Not once did a jumpscare actually scare me, because they were all either laughably predicable or they would be totally out of place just for the sake of shock value and would merit a heavy sigh rather than an legit scare. The most egregious, offensively bad example of this was when two characters were having a conversation in a car in episode 6 and a ghost randomly screams from the backseat.
Please do not waste your time with this series, 2018 had so much brilliance to offer on the small screen and despite what you might hear from big publications, this is not one of them.
However, after watching the first couple of episodes, I was struggling to get into it. Due to the massive amount of hype and praise that this show was getting I decided to stick with it. By the time I got to episode 6, I was done, but then my girlfriend guilted me into watching that rest of the series because she wanted to see it and she was, "too scared to watch it alone."
What a huge waste of time that turned out to be.
If you have read any of my other reviews of horror-based media, you will know that I have a love/hate relationship with the genre. There are very few horror movies or shows that I feel indifferent about. I hate lazy, formulaic bad horror and that is exactly what Hill House is.
Every single episode consists of a jumpscare at the start of the episode, then a hard cut either forwards or backwards in the timeline. Then about 15-20 minutes of piss poor acting and boring dialogue. This is followed by another cheap jumpscare, usually a woman screaming at an obnoxiously loud volume at the camera. Then we get another hard cut back to the other timeline.
The main issue with this structure, (other than being extremely lazy and repetitive,) is that when the hard cut is made to the other timeline, the audience knows that it is done by an editor and that we are now being asked to focus on a part of the story within the other timeline, but for the characters within the show, it makes no sense. For example, two people are having a conversation when something creepy happens. They go to investigate and a screaming woman comes launching towards them or is standing at the edge of a bed or doing basically any other ghost story cliché you can think of. Then the show cuts away to show the characters as children being haunted by a different ghost, but then when we cut back to the present, we never find out how the last jumpscare was resolved. What was the aftermath of that screaming lady at the end of the bed you ask? How was that resolved? How are the character's mentalities after this happened to them? Who cares?! Say the writers, let's just move on to the next cheap jumpscare.
The script is extraordinarily lazy and the child actors are horribly bad. This is an issue that I feel that there isn't really any excuse for anymore after the brilliant child performances in shows like Stranger Things and Season 2 of the Sinner.
If you judge the quality of something based on what it sets out to do versus what it actually does, then The Haunting Of Hill House is the worst show that I have had the displeasure of sitting through this year. The scares are pathetic, the acting is atrocious in places, the script is diabolically cheesy at times, there is hardly any originality present for an, 'original series,' and the show is overflowing with clichés. Not once did a jumpscare actually scare me, because they were all either laughably predicable or they would be totally out of place just for the sake of shock value and would merit a heavy sigh rather than an legit scare. The most egregious, offensively bad example of this was when two characters were having a conversation in a car in episode 6 and a ghost randomly screams from the backseat.
Please do not waste your time with this series, 2018 had so much brilliance to offer on the small screen and despite what you might hear from big publications, this is not one of them.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Castle Rock in TV
Jan 21, 2019
Sissy Spacek (1 more)
Bill Skarsgård
Fantastic story telling
Set in the Stephen King multiverse, the Maine town of Castle Rock is the setting for this psychological horror thriller spanning ten episodes. It utilises various characters and settings from the authors work, and even actors who have appeared in movie versions of his books, resulting in a unique and richly detailed story which has been clearly influenced by the great author.
The story begins with yet another Shawshank prison warden, Warden Lacy, committing suicide. When his successor Theresa Porter takes over, she begins plans to reopen an abandoned cell block within the prison in order to cater for the growing number of inmates. As guards investigate the old block, they discover a young man (Bill Skarsgård, as creepy without his 'It' makeup as he is in it!) locked in an underground cage, with no record as to who he is or why he was down there. The only words he utters when asked his name are Henry Deaver, the name of a lawyer who'd had a troubled childhood in Castle Rock (glimpsed in a flashback right at the start of the episode) and is now living in Texas. As the kid gets moved to the main prison cells while they try to figure out where he came from, mystery and death seem to follow him. We discover in flashbacks that Warden Lacy was the one responsible for caging him and keeping him alive all these years, claiming that god had instructed him to do it. Eventually Henry Deaver manages to get the kid released into the community, but bad things continue to happen wherever he goes and he also appears to be drawn to the childhood home of Henry Deaver, where his dementia suffering mother Ruth (Sissy Spacek) and her new partner Alan are. Is this mysterious stranger actually the devil? Why did Warden Lacy tell him before he committed suicide that he must ask for Henry Deaver if ever discovered? And why, as we discover later on, has this kid not aged one bit in the last 27 years?!
The remainder of the season continues to slowly add details and backstory, adding a few more interesting characters along the way with very few clues that may provide a full answer to these questions. It's wonderful story telling, continuing to provide mystery every step of the way and demanding that you pay close attention to absolutely everything. Towards the end of the season are two outstanding episodes which reward your attention, making you re-evaluate everything you've seen before and giving you a fresh perspective on the whole story. They focus on the two most interesting characters of the season, coincidentally played by actors who have previously starred in Stephen King movie adaptations. In 'The Queen', we focus on Ruth - walking us through conversations and scenes we've seen before in previous episodes but showing them the way she experiences them, which isn't necessarily the way they unfolded for others. It's an emotional representation of dementia, showing just how terrifying and tragic a deteriorating mind can be. Then, in the episode 'Henry Deaver', we focus on the kid and finally get to understand who he is, where he came from and the reason for everything that's happened so far. We get a lot of answers, and whether or not you'd already got a pretty good idea of what was going on (I hadn't), this is still a fantastic episode.
Overall, Castle Rock managed to keep me hooked, entertained, and at times confused, and I really can't ask for more than that in a show. I'm not a reader of books, so wouldn't have picked up on all of the Easter eggs dotted around the show for fans of Stephen King to enjoy. But I absolutely love the movies that are based on them, so I got a real kick out of revisiting the setting of Shawshank. I also love 'The Shining', so got an even bigger kick out of a final end credits scene where the niece of Jack Torrance, and an author herself, states that she's headed out west to dig deeper into her family history. If we're headed to the Overlook Hotel next, then I absolutely cannot wait for season 2!
The story begins with yet another Shawshank prison warden, Warden Lacy, committing suicide. When his successor Theresa Porter takes over, she begins plans to reopen an abandoned cell block within the prison in order to cater for the growing number of inmates. As guards investigate the old block, they discover a young man (Bill Skarsgård, as creepy without his 'It' makeup as he is in it!) locked in an underground cage, with no record as to who he is or why he was down there. The only words he utters when asked his name are Henry Deaver, the name of a lawyer who'd had a troubled childhood in Castle Rock (glimpsed in a flashback right at the start of the episode) and is now living in Texas. As the kid gets moved to the main prison cells while they try to figure out where he came from, mystery and death seem to follow him. We discover in flashbacks that Warden Lacy was the one responsible for caging him and keeping him alive all these years, claiming that god had instructed him to do it. Eventually Henry Deaver manages to get the kid released into the community, but bad things continue to happen wherever he goes and he also appears to be drawn to the childhood home of Henry Deaver, where his dementia suffering mother Ruth (Sissy Spacek) and her new partner Alan are. Is this mysterious stranger actually the devil? Why did Warden Lacy tell him before he committed suicide that he must ask for Henry Deaver if ever discovered? And why, as we discover later on, has this kid not aged one bit in the last 27 years?!
The remainder of the season continues to slowly add details and backstory, adding a few more interesting characters along the way with very few clues that may provide a full answer to these questions. It's wonderful story telling, continuing to provide mystery every step of the way and demanding that you pay close attention to absolutely everything. Towards the end of the season are two outstanding episodes which reward your attention, making you re-evaluate everything you've seen before and giving you a fresh perspective on the whole story. They focus on the two most interesting characters of the season, coincidentally played by actors who have previously starred in Stephen King movie adaptations. In 'The Queen', we focus on Ruth - walking us through conversations and scenes we've seen before in previous episodes but showing them the way she experiences them, which isn't necessarily the way they unfolded for others. It's an emotional representation of dementia, showing just how terrifying and tragic a deteriorating mind can be. Then, in the episode 'Henry Deaver', we focus on the kid and finally get to understand who he is, where he came from and the reason for everything that's happened so far. We get a lot of answers, and whether or not you'd already got a pretty good idea of what was going on (I hadn't), this is still a fantastic episode.
Overall, Castle Rock managed to keep me hooked, entertained, and at times confused, and I really can't ask for more than that in a show. I'm not a reader of books, so wouldn't have picked up on all of the Easter eggs dotted around the show for fans of Stephen King to enjoy. But I absolutely love the movies that are based on them, so I got a real kick out of revisiting the setting of Shawshank. I also love 'The Shining', so got an even bigger kick out of a final end credits scene where the niece of Jack Torrance, and an author herself, states that she's headed out west to dig deeper into her family history. If we're headed to the Overlook Hotel next, then I absolutely cannot wait for season 2!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Enola Holmes (2020) in Movies
Oct 4, 2020
Millie Bobby Brown - a confident raw talent (1 more)
Henry Cavill as a new take on Sherlock
The unsinkable Millie Bobby Brown
Sherlock Holmes never had a sister. But if he did, what adventures would Enola Holmes get up to? That’s the premise behind this Netflix feature. starring rising star Millie Bobby Brown.
Enola Holmes (Millie Bobby Brown) thinks she’s been named as such because it spells “alone” backwards. (But then, she admits, that it doesn’t seem to follow for either kcolrehs or tforcym!)
Enola has been brought up by her dearest mother Eudoria (Helena Bonham Carter) to be a strong and confident woman, free of the normal 19th century rituals of ladylike husband-seeking niceties: for her, it’s all mental gymnastics and martial arts. But when on her 16th birthday her mother vanishes, Enola sets out on a quest to find her. But Eudoria is a Holmes, and knows the value of clues and how to cover her tracks.
Of greater concern to Enola is her brother and ward Mycroft (Sam Claflin), who is intent on packing her off to the Victorian finishing school of Miss Harrison (“Killing Eve’s” Fiona Shaw). But while trying to escape from her brothers – not a trivial matter when one is the famous detective Sherlock (Henry Cavill) – Enola encounters a Marquess on the run (Louis Partridge) and adventure, intrigue and murder are on the cards.
Filming in this “Fleabag” style – where the lead is constantly breaking the fourth wall – requires a confidence in delivery that many young actors would struggle with. But not Millie Bobby Brown. Her asides and camera glances – while not quite as skillful as the astonishingly accomplished Phoebe Waller-Bridge – are nonetheless impressive and constantly entertaining. An underwater wink at the camera was particularly enjoyable.
So… actress – tick!
But perhaps more impressive to me was that the 16 year old – most famous for her role in “Stranger Things”, which I still haven’t watched – was also a PRODUCER of this movie. Which makes me think she is a serious person to watch in the movie business (if there ever is a movie business left after 2020). I read that she is the youngest person ever to appear on the annual list of the “world’s 100 most influential people” by Time magazine: so others agree!
The supporting case are a broad array of British acting talent, with Henry Cavill being particularly appealing as Sherlock, Burn Gorman at his slimy evil best as a murderous henchman, and Sam Claflin being as anonymous as I always find him. (That’s a compliment by the way: whereas I see some actors and think “oh, there’s <<Tom Hanks>> again”, I never recognize Claflin until the credits role… he is a chameleon of the acting world).
But acting the socks off everyone else for me is Frances de la Tour as the Marquess’s grandmother. A deliciously twinkling and charming performance from an old dame of the screen.
The similarities with “Fleabag” are not coincidental, since the director is Harry Bradbeer; director of all of the episodes except the original pilot. But it’s unfortunate in some ways that the style has been interpolated into the Holmes story. Since, of course, this approach was previously done by Guy Ritchie in the two very entertaining movies featuring Robert Downey Jnr and Jude Law. And for me, that’s a shame. Since although the styles are markedly different – here we have a lot of Paddington-style cardboard animations – the “feel” of the films is the same. As such, it doesn’t feel as novel as it should do. Why couldn’t she have been someone else’s sister? Houdini perhaps? Or Oscar Wilde?
As two hours of entertaining escapism, Enola Holmes worked well for me. Brown is eminently watchable, and given the Netflix response to the movie, a sequel would be – I expect – on the cards.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/10/04/the-unsinkable-millie-bobby-brown/. Thanks.)
Enola Holmes (Millie Bobby Brown) thinks she’s been named as such because it spells “alone” backwards. (But then, she admits, that it doesn’t seem to follow for either kcolrehs or tforcym!)
Enola has been brought up by her dearest mother Eudoria (Helena Bonham Carter) to be a strong and confident woman, free of the normal 19th century rituals of ladylike husband-seeking niceties: for her, it’s all mental gymnastics and martial arts. But when on her 16th birthday her mother vanishes, Enola sets out on a quest to find her. But Eudoria is a Holmes, and knows the value of clues and how to cover her tracks.
Of greater concern to Enola is her brother and ward Mycroft (Sam Claflin), who is intent on packing her off to the Victorian finishing school of Miss Harrison (“Killing Eve’s” Fiona Shaw). But while trying to escape from her brothers – not a trivial matter when one is the famous detective Sherlock (Henry Cavill) – Enola encounters a Marquess on the run (Louis Partridge) and adventure, intrigue and murder are on the cards.
Filming in this “Fleabag” style – where the lead is constantly breaking the fourth wall – requires a confidence in delivery that many young actors would struggle with. But not Millie Bobby Brown. Her asides and camera glances – while not quite as skillful as the astonishingly accomplished Phoebe Waller-Bridge – are nonetheless impressive and constantly entertaining. An underwater wink at the camera was particularly enjoyable.
So… actress – tick!
But perhaps more impressive to me was that the 16 year old – most famous for her role in “Stranger Things”, which I still haven’t watched – was also a PRODUCER of this movie. Which makes me think she is a serious person to watch in the movie business (if there ever is a movie business left after 2020). I read that she is the youngest person ever to appear on the annual list of the “world’s 100 most influential people” by Time magazine: so others agree!
The supporting case are a broad array of British acting talent, with Henry Cavill being particularly appealing as Sherlock, Burn Gorman at his slimy evil best as a murderous henchman, and Sam Claflin being as anonymous as I always find him. (That’s a compliment by the way: whereas I see some actors and think “oh, there’s <<Tom Hanks>> again”, I never recognize Claflin until the credits role… he is a chameleon of the acting world).
But acting the socks off everyone else for me is Frances de la Tour as the Marquess’s grandmother. A deliciously twinkling and charming performance from an old dame of the screen.
The similarities with “Fleabag” are not coincidental, since the director is Harry Bradbeer; director of all of the episodes except the original pilot. But it’s unfortunate in some ways that the style has been interpolated into the Holmes story. Since, of course, this approach was previously done by Guy Ritchie in the two very entertaining movies featuring Robert Downey Jnr and Jude Law. And for me, that’s a shame. Since although the styles are markedly different – here we have a lot of Paddington-style cardboard animations – the “feel” of the films is the same. As such, it doesn’t feel as novel as it should do. Why couldn’t she have been someone else’s sister? Houdini perhaps? Or Oscar Wilde?
As two hours of entertaining escapism, Enola Holmes worked well for me. Brown is eminently watchable, and given the Netflix response to the movie, a sequel would be – I expect – on the cards.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/10/04/the-unsinkable-millie-bobby-brown/. Thanks.)
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Thorn in Books
Aug 3, 2020
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
#1 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3214627135">Thorn</a>; - ★★★★★
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Book-Review-Banner-56.png"/>;
Thorn by Intisar Khanani is such a powerful story about finding your true self, fighting against the injustice and loving with your whole heart.
<b>Synopsis</b>
Princess Alyrra grew up in a cruel family, fearing that her brother might hurt her every day. She despises the fact that she needs to behave in a certain way to appeal to the court. Her despise grows even more when she learns that she's been betrothed to the powerful Prince Kestrin, a stranger from another kingdom.
But when a sorceress robes Alyrra of her true identity, she sees this as an opportunity to start a new life as a goose girl, where she doesn't have to pretend in front of everyone and be her true self.
Soon enough, she realises what is actually going on with the regular people in the kingdom. The poverty, the crimes, the fact that the royal guards don't care at all. The fact that the street thieves have to make their own sets of rules in order to keep the peace on the streets.
When a big tragedy hits home, Alyrra knows she needs to make a choice. Stay here and give up the identity of the princess forever, or go back to being a princess, only for the sake of saving the people.
<b><i>"It is rare for someone who wants power to truly deserve it."</i></b>
<b>My Thoughts:</b>
Thorn is the first book of the Dauntless Path series, and I am so happy I had the chance to read it! Very powerful book, with a very strong female character, who is not afraid to say what she thinks and fight for what she believes in!
<b><i>"I've found that acting when you are afraid is the greatest sign of courage there is."</i></b>
What I loved about Alyrra's character is that it shows us how much of a hardship it can be to make a certain choice. It is not just black and white. At first, we all root for the - get your identity back. However, Alyrra has been abused all her life. Her brother abused her physically and her mother mentally. She then had to deal with the pressure of being a princess. Following rules. Not saying what she really thinks, but what others want to hear. She is then promised to marry someone she doesn't know and pretend to be someone she is not, again.
<b><i>And suddenly, she can be someone else.</i></b>
She has the chance to start a brand new life. A person that is not in the spotlight. She can think and speak freely. And that is why I understand her choice to want to stay as a goose girl forever.
<b><i>"We all have our unspoken sorrows, hopes we cannot mention, choices we may yet regret."</i></b>
But then she sees the true picture of how people are treated in the kingdom. How people live. The injustice that happens on the streets every single day. And then she also gets the attention of the prince and being who she is, she is not afraid to say her mind.
But to truly change things, she needs to become a princess again. And making such a choice comes not only with consequences, but with huge sacrifices too.
The ending of Thorn was very well written and very satisfying. I am looking forward to reading more about Alyrra's story and get more answers in the next book. I cannot recommend Thorn enough!
Thank you to ReadersFirst and Hot Key Books, for sending me a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
#1 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3214627135">Thorn</a>; - ★★★★★
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Book-Review-Banner-56.png"/>;
Thorn by Intisar Khanani is such a powerful story about finding your true self, fighting against the injustice and loving with your whole heart.
<b>Synopsis</b>
Princess Alyrra grew up in a cruel family, fearing that her brother might hurt her every day. She despises the fact that she needs to behave in a certain way to appeal to the court. Her despise grows even more when she learns that she's been betrothed to the powerful Prince Kestrin, a stranger from another kingdom.
But when a sorceress robes Alyrra of her true identity, she sees this as an opportunity to start a new life as a goose girl, where she doesn't have to pretend in front of everyone and be her true self.
Soon enough, she realises what is actually going on with the regular people in the kingdom. The poverty, the crimes, the fact that the royal guards don't care at all. The fact that the street thieves have to make their own sets of rules in order to keep the peace on the streets.
When a big tragedy hits home, Alyrra knows she needs to make a choice. Stay here and give up the identity of the princess forever, or go back to being a princess, only for the sake of saving the people.
<b><i>"It is rare for someone who wants power to truly deserve it."</i></b>
<b>My Thoughts:</b>
Thorn is the first book of the Dauntless Path series, and I am so happy I had the chance to read it! Very powerful book, with a very strong female character, who is not afraid to say what she thinks and fight for what she believes in!
<b><i>"I've found that acting when you are afraid is the greatest sign of courage there is."</i></b>
What I loved about Alyrra's character is that it shows us how much of a hardship it can be to make a certain choice. It is not just black and white. At first, we all root for the - get your identity back. However, Alyrra has been abused all her life. Her brother abused her physically and her mother mentally. She then had to deal with the pressure of being a princess. Following rules. Not saying what she really thinks, but what others want to hear. She is then promised to marry someone she doesn't know and pretend to be someone she is not, again.
<b><i>And suddenly, she can be someone else.</i></b>
She has the chance to start a brand new life. A person that is not in the spotlight. She can think and speak freely. And that is why I understand her choice to want to stay as a goose girl forever.
<b><i>"We all have our unspoken sorrows, hopes we cannot mention, choices we may yet regret."</i></b>
But then she sees the true picture of how people are treated in the kingdom. How people live. The injustice that happens on the streets every single day. And then she also gets the attention of the prince and being who she is, she is not afraid to say her mind.
But to truly change things, she needs to become a princess again. And making such a choice comes not only with consequences, but with huge sacrifices too.
The ending of Thorn was very well written and very satisfying. I am looking forward to reading more about Alyrra's story and get more answers in the next book. I cannot recommend Thorn enough!
Thank you to ReadersFirst and Hot Key Books, for sending me a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated It (2017) in Movies
Oct 4, 2017
The cast are great (1 more)
Good tonal balance of horror and comedy
Sloppy technical elements (1 more)
Predictable jumpscares
Time To Float!
Contains spoilers, click to show
The 2017 remake of IT has been highly anticipated by Stephen King fans around the world and being a huge fan of King myself and growing up reading his stuff meant I was looking forward to seeing this. I also loved the original 1990 version when I was younger, so I was really hoping that this wouldn’t suck. Spoilers are going to follow for anyone that cares.
Let’s go through what I liked first of all. The movie opens with the tragic and brutal death of Georgie Denborough. Just like the book, he follows his paper sailboat down a storm drain, where he first encounters IT. This first appearance of Bill Skarsgard as Pennywise sets the tone for the rest of the movie, unflinching and horrifying. I felt that this intro was extremely effective in setting up what the audience could expect from this adaption, both tonally and visually.
I thought that the child actors in the movie where phenomenal, much better than I had anticipated. They all do a great job with the material they are given and each manage to bring some range to their roles. I liked the visuals for the most part and appreciated the use of mostly practical effects, my highlights being the headless burning boy in the library and when Pennywise’s entire head opens up to consume Beverly.
I enjoyed the fact that the movie served as both a coming of age story and as a horror movie. Stranger Things was clearly inspired by the original IT and this version is clearly inspired by Stanger Things, which was nice to see as a fan of both series. I liked how the movie was about kids, but dealt with adult themes in a mature manner. I also admire how the movie worked in a fair amount of comedic moments whilst still remaining frightening. Another thing that I appreciated was the few moments of subtle creepyness that the film sprinkled throughout, such as the kids TV show that was heard in the background talking about how ‘you should dance along with the clown,’ and encouraging you to be violent etc, I thought that this was a really nice touch. Also, during the library scene where Ben is flipping through the history book, I think IT took the form of the librarian, as the librarian is really creepily staring at Ben from the background of the scene, which really freaked me out when I noticed it. I also liked how some of the jumpscares worked, but unfortunately not all of them did.
Now onto what I didn’t like; my biggest issue with this movie is how formulaic it ends up feeling by around the halfway mark. With each new member of the losers club we are introduced to, we find out what the kid is scared of, then IT appears to them as the aforementioned fear, then we get a jumpscare and the scene cuts away, the next kid is introduced and the same thing happens again. This occurs repeatedly about eight times and by the fifth or sixth time it isn’t scary any longer. The worst thing that a horror movie can be is to become predictable and I’m sorry to say that this is what happens here. It ends up feeling like a checklist:
1. A child is introduced into the movie. Check
2. Some exposition is given for why they are scared of a certain thing. Check
3. IT takes the form of said fear and scares the kid. Check
4. Jumpscare happens and we abruptly cut to the next scene. Check
5. Rinse and repeat.
Some of the jumpscares do work though. Although the jumpscare during the projector screen was very obviously telegraphed, the fact that Pennywise was so huge in that scene took me by surprise, which was a nice touch. Also the scene I mentioned earlier with the headless boy in the library was well structured in the sense that once the boy was chasing Ben through the library you thought you had seen the scare, but when Pennywise leapt out from nowhere it was a genuine surprise.
The sound design is another element of the movie that I had a love/hate relationship with. For me, good sound design is essential to any worthwhile horror movie. I thought that the score used in the film was fantastic; the varied pieces perfectly complemented the tone of each scene they were used in. I also thought that some of the sound effects were well implemented in places. At other points though, the audio just annoyed me. The most egregious example of this was after Beverly smacked her dad across the head and IT appears behind her and grabs her. The sound that occurs here is ear piercingly loud, to the point that it was uncomfortable. It’s not scary, it’s not enjoyable, it’s just obnoxiously loud. It also comes across as lazy; it’s as if in post production someone decided that that scene wasn’t scary enough, so as a quick fix they just put in a painfully loud noise.
Another technical element that bothered me in places was the lighting. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed how a lot of the scenes took place in broad daylight, meaning we could see IT in all of his terrifying glory and in some scenes the lack of lighting added a sense of dread and helped with the film’s tone, but at times it obscured what was going on and shrouded too much of the environment and characters in darkness, to the point where you were having to squint to see what was going on.
Overall, this is a decent adaption. Bill Skarsgard does a fantastic job as Pennywise, the actors playing the kids are all great and the movie does have some effective scares. I was just taken out of it too many times though, due to the predictable nature of the repeated jumpscare sequences and some really poorly implemented technical elements.
Let’s go through what I liked first of all. The movie opens with the tragic and brutal death of Georgie Denborough. Just like the book, he follows his paper sailboat down a storm drain, where he first encounters IT. This first appearance of Bill Skarsgard as Pennywise sets the tone for the rest of the movie, unflinching and horrifying. I felt that this intro was extremely effective in setting up what the audience could expect from this adaption, both tonally and visually.
I thought that the child actors in the movie where phenomenal, much better than I had anticipated. They all do a great job with the material they are given and each manage to bring some range to their roles. I liked the visuals for the most part and appreciated the use of mostly practical effects, my highlights being the headless burning boy in the library and when Pennywise’s entire head opens up to consume Beverly.
I enjoyed the fact that the movie served as both a coming of age story and as a horror movie. Stranger Things was clearly inspired by the original IT and this version is clearly inspired by Stanger Things, which was nice to see as a fan of both series. I liked how the movie was about kids, but dealt with adult themes in a mature manner. I also admire how the movie worked in a fair amount of comedic moments whilst still remaining frightening. Another thing that I appreciated was the few moments of subtle creepyness that the film sprinkled throughout, such as the kids TV show that was heard in the background talking about how ‘you should dance along with the clown,’ and encouraging you to be violent etc, I thought that this was a really nice touch. Also, during the library scene where Ben is flipping through the history book, I think IT took the form of the librarian, as the librarian is really creepily staring at Ben from the background of the scene, which really freaked me out when I noticed it. I also liked how some of the jumpscares worked, but unfortunately not all of them did.
Now onto what I didn’t like; my biggest issue with this movie is how formulaic it ends up feeling by around the halfway mark. With each new member of the losers club we are introduced to, we find out what the kid is scared of, then IT appears to them as the aforementioned fear, then we get a jumpscare and the scene cuts away, the next kid is introduced and the same thing happens again. This occurs repeatedly about eight times and by the fifth or sixth time it isn’t scary any longer. The worst thing that a horror movie can be is to become predictable and I’m sorry to say that this is what happens here. It ends up feeling like a checklist:
1. A child is introduced into the movie. Check
2. Some exposition is given for why they are scared of a certain thing. Check
3. IT takes the form of said fear and scares the kid. Check
4. Jumpscare happens and we abruptly cut to the next scene. Check
5. Rinse and repeat.
Some of the jumpscares do work though. Although the jumpscare during the projector screen was very obviously telegraphed, the fact that Pennywise was so huge in that scene took me by surprise, which was a nice touch. Also the scene I mentioned earlier with the headless boy in the library was well structured in the sense that once the boy was chasing Ben through the library you thought you had seen the scare, but when Pennywise leapt out from nowhere it was a genuine surprise.
The sound design is another element of the movie that I had a love/hate relationship with. For me, good sound design is essential to any worthwhile horror movie. I thought that the score used in the film was fantastic; the varied pieces perfectly complemented the tone of each scene they were used in. I also thought that some of the sound effects were well implemented in places. At other points though, the audio just annoyed me. The most egregious example of this was after Beverly smacked her dad across the head and IT appears behind her and grabs her. The sound that occurs here is ear piercingly loud, to the point that it was uncomfortable. It’s not scary, it’s not enjoyable, it’s just obnoxiously loud. It also comes across as lazy; it’s as if in post production someone decided that that scene wasn’t scary enough, so as a quick fix they just put in a painfully loud noise.
Another technical element that bothered me in places was the lighting. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed how a lot of the scenes took place in broad daylight, meaning we could see IT in all of his terrifying glory and in some scenes the lack of lighting added a sense of dread and helped with the film’s tone, but at times it obscured what was going on and shrouded too much of the environment and characters in darkness, to the point where you were having to squint to see what was going on.
Overall, this is a decent adaption. Bill Skarsgard does a fantastic job as Pennywise, the actors playing the kids are all great and the movie does have some effective scares. I was just taken out of it too many times though, due to the predictable nature of the repeated jumpscare sequences and some really poorly implemented technical elements.