Search
Search results
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Knives Out (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Murder mystery films tend to be more fun in theory and anticipation than they are to watch. It’s a genre that I very much enjoy and have indulged in over the years. Yet, if I look back in detail at it, I find that it is the books, especially those of Agatha Christie, that I like much more than anything lasting a couple of hours on the screen. There’s something about the mystery being rushed and squeezed into the cinema artform that is usually anti-climactic or even a full on let down.
Perhaps my favourite of the entire genre is a film that refuses to take itself seriously and is at once a pastiche of the multiple cliches that have accumulated over the years. And that film is, of course, the wonderfully camp, funny and charming 1985 romp Clue, starring Tim Curry and a slough of 80s B stars having the time of their lives. It isn’t a “good” film, it is a cult film, it’s joy being in its absolute lack of pretension or moral judgement. Like the board game that inspired it, it isn’t overly complicated or long, but has just enough cleverness, mirth and ambiance about it to always be a winner.
Rian Johnson’s take on the genre, Knives Out, is aware of these elements at all times, being above all things colourful, playful, arch and glib, but never convoluted or cerebral in an alienating way. He is something of a master at subverting a genre and wringing new life into it; take the invention of the teen noir in Brick, or the blend of assassin time travel sci-fi in Looper. He even gave an entire franchise a new breath of life by re-examining the use of humour and self referencing in Star Wars: The Last Jedi.
All of those previous films have as many detractors as mega fans, proving his style is devisive, for its audacity and its irreverence towards any idea of purism within an established model. And Knives Out is no exception to that. However, it may be the film of his that most people can agree on that they enjoyed, for one reason or another. I think it’s as interesting to ask why that is as it is to talk about the film itself… so, I will. At least, I’ll try to do both without losing my train of thought.
Firstly, it looks stunning; the palate of rich colours used in the poster and all marketing just make it look like something you want to immerse yourself in – every jacket, tie, dress, or piece of furniture is designed to precision, and it works like a dream of the genre you may have once had, as if it had been plucked directly from your subconscious. As in all good murder mysteries, the location, props and costumes should hold as much character as the actors, and the stately home of the Thrombey family certainly provides plenty of atmosphere in every texture and material on display.
Of course, the cast of characters is wonderfully put together with some inspired casting of familiar faces and actors you trust, such as Toni Collette and Michael Shannon, together with a few we don’t see enough of these days, such as Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson, who both manage to create something as memorable as anything they did in their golden days. Add to the mix two bone fide action film superstars in Daniel Craig and Chris Evans, who leave the baggage of their most famous characters far behind and manage to convince you they are real actors again, the former with the aide of a jarring but hilarious Southern drawl, that grates at first but is a perfect choice on reflection.
Then there are the two lynchpins of this film’s ultimate success and joy: the exceptional legendary gravitas of 90 year old Christopher Plummer as the patriarch and victim at the centre of the intrigue, and the quite glorious revelation of Ana de Armas, whose charisma, beauty and skill in this delicately balanced role was the most impressive thing for me about the whole production. It may be Craig who is the ever present focus, as the detective tasked with solving the “crime”, but it is de Armas that you will remember most long after the credits roll.
As for the plot, well… I obviously can’t talk about it without ruining the whole thing. But, I can say that it isn’t far into the intricate web of motives, alibis and secrets before you start to sense this is going somewhere different, even unique. The examination of the relationships and personalities, and the extent to which they each demonstrate greed and selfishness is fascinating, superceding the crime that exists on the surface with a swamp of far seedier and unpleasant goings-on. Craig’s suave Benoit Blanc isn’t so much a detective here as a family therapist, or perhaps a supernatural presence in the style of the old classic, An Inspector Calls. Perhaps, it is suggested, no one completely escapes guilt and shame here… or do they? Are we looking for a murderer, or the only morally good person amidst a pack of dogs?
Another key element is how modern and unstuffy it feels, despite the country house and riches this is no play of manners, quite the opposite – no one here is on their best behaviour for the sake of decorum, and being upper class is an idea played with rather than enforced. The tea and cakes of the classic Christie, such as Murder on the Orient Express is replaced by smartphones and similar trappings, that identify it as definitely 2019 and no period piece. The concerns and themes are very much rooted in our present problems, and for that it engages and resonates in ways a costume drama just can’t do.
Upon finishing it for the first time, you may be thinking “sure, OK, I enjoyed that… but I’m not blown away here”. Then, as it sinks in over coming weeks, you find yourself recommending it to people, and thinking about how good it is in ways you didn’t initially think about. And that is surely why it was so embraced by the critics and paying public alike; it is a likeable, fun film, that can also stand some artistic scrutiny. It isn’t the smartest, or prettiest, or most meaningful film ever made, but it is enough of all three to make it an instant mini-classic, in my opinion.
I feel like there is maybe more to say about it, which is always a good sign, but that will do for now. I’d be happy to discuss it with anyone that feels the need. Or hear from anyone that didn’t like it! It would be interesting to hear that side of it, because I haven’t heard many negative comments on it at all. I don’t think I would defend it as a masterpiece to the end of the Earth, ‘cos it ain’t that good. I’m just hard pressed to find a serious fault. And it’s great when one of those sneaks up on you!
Perhaps my favourite of the entire genre is a film that refuses to take itself seriously and is at once a pastiche of the multiple cliches that have accumulated over the years. And that film is, of course, the wonderfully camp, funny and charming 1985 romp Clue, starring Tim Curry and a slough of 80s B stars having the time of their lives. It isn’t a “good” film, it is a cult film, it’s joy being in its absolute lack of pretension or moral judgement. Like the board game that inspired it, it isn’t overly complicated or long, but has just enough cleverness, mirth and ambiance about it to always be a winner.
Rian Johnson’s take on the genre, Knives Out, is aware of these elements at all times, being above all things colourful, playful, arch and glib, but never convoluted or cerebral in an alienating way. He is something of a master at subverting a genre and wringing new life into it; take the invention of the teen noir in Brick, or the blend of assassin time travel sci-fi in Looper. He even gave an entire franchise a new breath of life by re-examining the use of humour and self referencing in Star Wars: The Last Jedi.
All of those previous films have as many detractors as mega fans, proving his style is devisive, for its audacity and its irreverence towards any idea of purism within an established model. And Knives Out is no exception to that. However, it may be the film of his that most people can agree on that they enjoyed, for one reason or another. I think it’s as interesting to ask why that is as it is to talk about the film itself… so, I will. At least, I’ll try to do both without losing my train of thought.
Firstly, it looks stunning; the palate of rich colours used in the poster and all marketing just make it look like something you want to immerse yourself in – every jacket, tie, dress, or piece of furniture is designed to precision, and it works like a dream of the genre you may have once had, as if it had been plucked directly from your subconscious. As in all good murder mysteries, the location, props and costumes should hold as much character as the actors, and the stately home of the Thrombey family certainly provides plenty of atmosphere in every texture and material on display.
Of course, the cast of characters is wonderfully put together with some inspired casting of familiar faces and actors you trust, such as Toni Collette and Michael Shannon, together with a few we don’t see enough of these days, such as Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson, who both manage to create something as memorable as anything they did in their golden days. Add to the mix two bone fide action film superstars in Daniel Craig and Chris Evans, who leave the baggage of their most famous characters far behind and manage to convince you they are real actors again, the former with the aide of a jarring but hilarious Southern drawl, that grates at first but is a perfect choice on reflection.
Then there are the two lynchpins of this film’s ultimate success and joy: the exceptional legendary gravitas of 90 year old Christopher Plummer as the patriarch and victim at the centre of the intrigue, and the quite glorious revelation of Ana de Armas, whose charisma, beauty and skill in this delicately balanced role was the most impressive thing for me about the whole production. It may be Craig who is the ever present focus, as the detective tasked with solving the “crime”, but it is de Armas that you will remember most long after the credits roll.
As for the plot, well… I obviously can’t talk about it without ruining the whole thing. But, I can say that it isn’t far into the intricate web of motives, alibis and secrets before you start to sense this is going somewhere different, even unique. The examination of the relationships and personalities, and the extent to which they each demonstrate greed and selfishness is fascinating, superceding the crime that exists on the surface with a swamp of far seedier and unpleasant goings-on. Craig’s suave Benoit Blanc isn’t so much a detective here as a family therapist, or perhaps a supernatural presence in the style of the old classic, An Inspector Calls. Perhaps, it is suggested, no one completely escapes guilt and shame here… or do they? Are we looking for a murderer, or the only morally good person amidst a pack of dogs?
Another key element is how modern and unstuffy it feels, despite the country house and riches this is no play of manners, quite the opposite – no one here is on their best behaviour for the sake of decorum, and being upper class is an idea played with rather than enforced. The tea and cakes of the classic Christie, such as Murder on the Orient Express is replaced by smartphones and similar trappings, that identify it as definitely 2019 and no period piece. The concerns and themes are very much rooted in our present problems, and for that it engages and resonates in ways a costume drama just can’t do.
Upon finishing it for the first time, you may be thinking “sure, OK, I enjoyed that… but I’m not blown away here”. Then, as it sinks in over coming weeks, you find yourself recommending it to people, and thinking about how good it is in ways you didn’t initially think about. And that is surely why it was so embraced by the critics and paying public alike; it is a likeable, fun film, that can also stand some artistic scrutiny. It isn’t the smartest, or prettiest, or most meaningful film ever made, but it is enough of all three to make it an instant mini-classic, in my opinion.
I feel like there is maybe more to say about it, which is always a good sign, but that will do for now. I’d be happy to discuss it with anyone that feels the need. Or hear from anyone that didn’t like it! It would be interesting to hear that side of it, because I haven’t heard many negative comments on it at all. I don’t think I would defend it as a masterpiece to the end of the Earth, ‘cos it ain’t that good. I’m just hard pressed to find a serious fault. And it’s great when one of those sneaks up on you!
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Life for a teenager is never an easy thing. Between the constant insecurities about appearance, social standing, and other peer pressures,the teen years can be among the most traumatic in a persons life.
However when you are Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe), and you have recently survived a one on one confrontation with the evil wizard Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes),
typical teen angst would seem a blessing compared to what is to come.
In the new film, “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix” the classic 5th book in the series by J.K. Rowling has been transfered to the screen by Director David Yates, who shows that he has an affinity for the subject matter, and is not afraid to helm Harry and his friends into the darker chapters of their life.
The film opens with Harry and his cousin Dudley arguing as Harry has taken exception to the taunting over his recent nightmares and his dead parents. When an unexpected attack from dark forces forces Harry to use magic outside of Hogwarts to save their lives. While Harry is successful in his defense, he is shocked to learn that he is to be expelled for the action.
Soon Harry finds his way to a secret locale and is reunited with his friends Ron (Rupert Grint), and Hermione (Emma Watson), as well as his uncle Sirius (Gary Oldman).
Any joy from the reunion is short-lived as Harry learns that the locale is actually a secret lair for the Order of the Phoenix, a secret society dedicated to fighting Lord Voldemort.
Harry has learned that Minister Fudge (Robert Hardy), is using the press to descredit Harry’s tale that Voldemort has returned. In time, Harry is allowed to return to school and returns to find things have changed drastically.
The school has a new defense against the dark arts teacher named Dolores Umbridge (Imelda Staunton), has instituted strict rules and changes at the school and backed by the Ministry, she soon becomes a tyrant to the students, especially Harry whom she punishes severly any time he brings up the fact that Voldemort is back.
As if this were not bad enough, it seems as if a large portion of the school is weary of Harry as they are weary of his claims about Voldemort, and are starting to believe the negative things that have been written about Harry by the Ministry.
Undaunted, Harry and his friends soon begin their own training as Harry instructs them on ways to protect themselves from the dark forces assembling. During this time, Harry also grows closer to fellow student Cho
Chang (Katie Leung), and experiences his first kiss as he transitions from school boy to young man, with the weight of the world upon him.
What follows is an intense adventure as Harry and his friends race against time to save the day from the ever closing darkness, with their very lives hanging in the balance.
This Potter is darker and more mature than previous films and the dark tone and mood of the film is evident from the early scenes.
While there is still some humor in the film, the tone is set by Harry who has become a darker and more torubled individual and the events surrounding him do not
lead to much charm and merriment that was present in the earlier films in the series.
The cast does a good job and the FX work is solid if not spectacular. My biggest issue with the film is that it dragged in many segments and that the finale was not as exciting as I had hoped for. Many times during the film and after, I got the impression that I was watching a two and a half hour commercial for the next film and final book, as there was little in the film for me that drove the story or the mythos forward.
That being said, there were many scenes that I enjoyed in the film, I just wish the pacing of the film could have been better.
The film like Harry transitions into more mature themes and experiences,it just stumbles a bit getting there.
However when you are Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe), and you have recently survived a one on one confrontation with the evil wizard Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes),
typical teen angst would seem a blessing compared to what is to come.
In the new film, “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix” the classic 5th book in the series by J.K. Rowling has been transfered to the screen by Director David Yates, who shows that he has an affinity for the subject matter, and is not afraid to helm Harry and his friends into the darker chapters of their life.
The film opens with Harry and his cousin Dudley arguing as Harry has taken exception to the taunting over his recent nightmares and his dead parents. When an unexpected attack from dark forces forces Harry to use magic outside of Hogwarts to save their lives. While Harry is successful in his defense, he is shocked to learn that he is to be expelled for the action.
Soon Harry finds his way to a secret locale and is reunited with his friends Ron (Rupert Grint), and Hermione (Emma Watson), as well as his uncle Sirius (Gary Oldman).
Any joy from the reunion is short-lived as Harry learns that the locale is actually a secret lair for the Order of the Phoenix, a secret society dedicated to fighting Lord Voldemort.
Harry has learned that Minister Fudge (Robert Hardy), is using the press to descredit Harry’s tale that Voldemort has returned. In time, Harry is allowed to return to school and returns to find things have changed drastically.
The school has a new defense against the dark arts teacher named Dolores Umbridge (Imelda Staunton), has instituted strict rules and changes at the school and backed by the Ministry, she soon becomes a tyrant to the students, especially Harry whom she punishes severly any time he brings up the fact that Voldemort is back.
As if this were not bad enough, it seems as if a large portion of the school is weary of Harry as they are weary of his claims about Voldemort, and are starting to believe the negative things that have been written about Harry by the Ministry.
Undaunted, Harry and his friends soon begin their own training as Harry instructs them on ways to protect themselves from the dark forces assembling. During this time, Harry also grows closer to fellow student Cho
Chang (Katie Leung), and experiences his first kiss as he transitions from school boy to young man, with the weight of the world upon him.
What follows is an intense adventure as Harry and his friends race against time to save the day from the ever closing darkness, with their very lives hanging in the balance.
This Potter is darker and more mature than previous films and the dark tone and mood of the film is evident from the early scenes.
While there is still some humor in the film, the tone is set by Harry who has become a darker and more torubled individual and the events surrounding him do not
lead to much charm and merriment that was present in the earlier films in the series.
The cast does a good job and the FX work is solid if not spectacular. My biggest issue with the film is that it dragged in many segments and that the finale was not as exciting as I had hoped for. Many times during the film and after, I got the impression that I was watching a two and a half hour commercial for the next film and final book, as there was little in the film for me that drove the story or the mythos forward.
That being said, there were many scenes that I enjoyed in the film, I just wish the pacing of the film could have been better.
The film like Harry transitions into more mature themes and experiences,it just stumbles a bit getting there.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Secret Life of Pets 2 (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Have they made a TV series out of this yet? If not, why not? Secret Life Of Pets would be amazingly suited to being a TV series. While the whole film is quite entertaining, there's no denying that the little "intro" bits where we see the pets at home or get little skits outside the main storyline are the best bits. If anyone remembers Garfield & Friends, that's the format I could see it working in. As it is, Secret Life Of Pets 2 is a film of three parts... but not the beginning/middle/end type. We've got three individual storylines that do at least sort of meet up at the end.
There were a lot of teaser trailers for this and sadly it meant a lot of the scenes were pre-seen in some way, shape or form. I was surprised that none of them had any extra footage that was held back. I loved the vet clip and cat training montage, but there wasn't a single new moment to make them even better.
These two scenes in particular stuck out for another reason, they really highlighted the music. It's fun and a little jazzy, but it's also slightly too loud when combined with the speech which means it doesn't feel like it's in the background anymore.
The film starts out with Max getting used to the fact that there's now a child in his home. Initially he's apprehensive but soon he warms to Liam and goes out of his way to protect him from the dangers of the world. His hypersensitivity to everything has made him nervous and he needs to overcome this if he's going to deal with Liam going to pre-school.
Meanwhile, Captain Snowball is involved in his first case, a kitten that's been catnapped... well, a white tiger who has been chained and tormented by a circus. Snowball and Daisy must execute the perfect heist and free Hu from the evil Sergei's clutches.
Our third storyline doesn't fit in with the other two so well but it's possibly my favourite. Max has asked Gidget to look after his favourite toy and in a terrible accident it bounces out of her window and ends up landing in a neighbour's front room. That neighbour is definitely a cat person. Gidget must enlist the help of Chloe to learn how to be a cat so she can infiltrate her home and rescue the toy. This leads to my favourite scene in the whole film. Plan B has to be the best plan anyone has ever come up with, and Gidget really does deserve the admiration for it.
Secret Life Of Pets 2 is another amusing addition to the Illumination catalogue, and it's certainly not the worst. I've seen it twice and it's entertaining enough to watch more than once (although probably not as close together as I saw it). There are enough moments to keep everyone engaged, there are worse ways to spend some time.
What you should do
I think this will be a good option for a family outing, well worth seeing and it seems to be particularly popular with the kids.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I think I'd want Chloe, even though I'm a bit of a dog person.
There were a lot of teaser trailers for this and sadly it meant a lot of the scenes were pre-seen in some way, shape or form. I was surprised that none of them had any extra footage that was held back. I loved the vet clip and cat training montage, but there wasn't a single new moment to make them even better.
These two scenes in particular stuck out for another reason, they really highlighted the music. It's fun and a little jazzy, but it's also slightly too loud when combined with the speech which means it doesn't feel like it's in the background anymore.
The film starts out with Max getting used to the fact that there's now a child in his home. Initially he's apprehensive but soon he warms to Liam and goes out of his way to protect him from the dangers of the world. His hypersensitivity to everything has made him nervous and he needs to overcome this if he's going to deal with Liam going to pre-school.
Meanwhile, Captain Snowball is involved in his first case, a kitten that's been catnapped... well, a white tiger who has been chained and tormented by a circus. Snowball and Daisy must execute the perfect heist and free Hu from the evil Sergei's clutches.
Our third storyline doesn't fit in with the other two so well but it's possibly my favourite. Max has asked Gidget to look after his favourite toy and in a terrible accident it bounces out of her window and ends up landing in a neighbour's front room. That neighbour is definitely a cat person. Gidget must enlist the help of Chloe to learn how to be a cat so she can infiltrate her home and rescue the toy. This leads to my favourite scene in the whole film. Plan B has to be the best plan anyone has ever come up with, and Gidget really does deserve the admiration for it.
Secret Life Of Pets 2 is another amusing addition to the Illumination catalogue, and it's certainly not the worst. I've seen it twice and it's entertaining enough to watch more than once (although probably not as close together as I saw it). There are enough moments to keep everyone engaged, there are worse ways to spend some time.
What you should do
I think this will be a good option for a family outing, well worth seeing and it seems to be particularly popular with the kids.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I think I'd want Chloe, even though I'm a bit of a dog person.
Marriage of Inconvenience: Knitting in the City Book 7
10.0
Rate It
Book
From the USA Today Bestselling Series There are three things you need to know about Kat Tanner...
Cook Happy, Cook Healthy
Book
Delicious recipes to make life just that bit healthier and a lot easier. "Most of the food you put...
All That Glitters
Book
The debut novel from the winner of I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here 2015 Three years ago Issy...
Home (Songbird, #4)
9.0
Rate It
Book
Rachel Myers never meant to stay in Payton. Her eyes were set on bigger things than waitressing at...
Contemporary Romance
Love Potions (Warlocks MacGregor #1)
6.0
Rate It
Book
A little magickal mischief never hurt anyone… Erik MacGregor is from a clan of ancient Scottish...
Paranormal Romance Scotland
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Into the Woods (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
For those seeking a big dose of magic this holiday season, Disney’s “Into the Woods” aims to deliver just that. Adapted to the silver screen from the original Broadway musical production by Stephen Sondheim, the plot intertwines several of the Grimm Brothers’ fairy tales to create one story.
At the center of the story is The Baker (James Corden) and The Baker’s Wife (Emily Blunt) who are desperate to break the curse, which keeps them from having a child. The Witch (Meryl Streep) who placed the curse weaves a devious web, entangling all of the characters in a tumultuous adventure.
Streep is terrifying and highly entertaining to watch in her role. Her vocal and facial expressions exude a character of pure evil.
Other characters incorporated into the story include Little Red Riding Hood (Lilla Crawford), Cinderella (Anna Kendrick), and Rapunzel (Mackenzie Mauzy), just to name a few.
Disney toned down several aspects of the original plot, which would not have been appropriate for children. However, the story still maintains a racy mix of seriousness and humor. Each scene highlights the absurdities of fairy tales only noticed by adults.
One scene which will have adults rolling with laughter is the sudden duet between Cinderella’s Prince (Chris Pine) and his brother, Rapunzel’s Prince (Billy Magnusson). They sing about the challenges of literally chasing the ladies of their desire and their refusal to acknowledge any possibility of rejection.
Certain scenes test the limits of appropriateness and are almost perverse, or perhaps even err on the side horror.
One example of this is the role of The Wolf (Johnny Depp). As he stalks Little Red Riding Hood through the forest he sings about how she is fresh, supple, and young. Through the lyrics and the choice to use a human in the role, rather than a CGI wolf, a strange glimmer of pedophilia surfaces. This is taken a step further when The Wolf reveals a jacket full of candy in his attempt to lure the child.
The element of horror enters the film in a scene where Cinderella’s Stepmother cuts the feet of the ugly stepsisters to try and force them into the glass slipper offered by the Prince. This is not graphically shown. However, it is implied as she waves around a knife and sings about it.
Despite a few of these adult twists, the film should be fun for the whole family to watch. Just keep in mind that, like the original tales, some short scenes may be a bit horrifying for young children.
As is tradition with fairy tales, the good comes with the bad. The moral messages of each fairy tale are combined into one larger message: One should be careful what they wish for, because in the grander scheme of life the ramifications of those wishes may be unforeseen.
It is also a visually stunning piece of work. Nothing comes off as overdone or cheesy. The tales truly come to life and transport viewers into a land of fantasy.
The majority of the film is very exciting and fast moving. That being said, the film is lengthy with a runtime of 124 minutes. Unfortunately, the last 30 minutes begins to drag on and feel tiring. This would have been an easy fix if perhaps the last few songs had been shortened, or the last thirty minutes was cut completely.
All in all, the film is a truly magical cinematic experience. I give “Into the Woods” 4 out of 5 stars.
At the center of the story is The Baker (James Corden) and The Baker’s Wife (Emily Blunt) who are desperate to break the curse, which keeps them from having a child. The Witch (Meryl Streep) who placed the curse weaves a devious web, entangling all of the characters in a tumultuous adventure.
Streep is terrifying and highly entertaining to watch in her role. Her vocal and facial expressions exude a character of pure evil.
Other characters incorporated into the story include Little Red Riding Hood (Lilla Crawford), Cinderella (Anna Kendrick), and Rapunzel (Mackenzie Mauzy), just to name a few.
Disney toned down several aspects of the original plot, which would not have been appropriate for children. However, the story still maintains a racy mix of seriousness and humor. Each scene highlights the absurdities of fairy tales only noticed by adults.
One scene which will have adults rolling with laughter is the sudden duet between Cinderella’s Prince (Chris Pine) and his brother, Rapunzel’s Prince (Billy Magnusson). They sing about the challenges of literally chasing the ladies of their desire and their refusal to acknowledge any possibility of rejection.
Certain scenes test the limits of appropriateness and are almost perverse, or perhaps even err on the side horror.
One example of this is the role of The Wolf (Johnny Depp). As he stalks Little Red Riding Hood through the forest he sings about how she is fresh, supple, and young. Through the lyrics and the choice to use a human in the role, rather than a CGI wolf, a strange glimmer of pedophilia surfaces. This is taken a step further when The Wolf reveals a jacket full of candy in his attempt to lure the child.
The element of horror enters the film in a scene where Cinderella’s Stepmother cuts the feet of the ugly stepsisters to try and force them into the glass slipper offered by the Prince. This is not graphically shown. However, it is implied as she waves around a knife and sings about it.
Despite a few of these adult twists, the film should be fun for the whole family to watch. Just keep in mind that, like the original tales, some short scenes may be a bit horrifying for young children.
As is tradition with fairy tales, the good comes with the bad. The moral messages of each fairy tale are combined into one larger message: One should be careful what they wish for, because in the grander scheme of life the ramifications of those wishes may be unforeseen.
It is also a visually stunning piece of work. Nothing comes off as overdone or cheesy. The tales truly come to life and transport viewers into a land of fantasy.
The majority of the film is very exciting and fast moving. That being said, the film is lengthy with a runtime of 124 minutes. Unfortunately, the last 30 minutes begins to drag on and feel tiring. This would have been an easy fix if perhaps the last few songs had been shortened, or the last thirty minutes was cut completely.
All in all, the film is a truly magical cinematic experience. I give “Into the Woods” 4 out of 5 stars.
Ross (3284 KP) rated Good Omens in Books
Jun 12, 2019
Fun, charming romp towards the end of the world
Good Omens is a strange one. If you're a fan of Pratchett's Discworld, I can see you not being overly keen on this book (while his trademark humour is there and his funny Billy Connolly-esque tangents are in the footnotes, there is less of the fantastic about it). And likewise Gaiman fans might be missing his usual gothic flair and be somewhat alarmed at the amount of silliness in the book.
This is probably what put me off reading this until now. I seem to recall trying to read it about 20 years ago, but for some reason I gave up inside a couple of pages. That was 17 year old me as a Pratchett fan, and I must have opted for the 20+ Discworld books I still had yet to read instead, and had no idea who Neil Gaiman was.
Sadly, that makes me your common or garden bandwagon-jumper as I have only now read this for the first time with the TV series on my to-be-watched list.
I cannot say why I never returned to the book. I love Pratchett, had the honour of meeting him at signings a few times in the 90s, and he got me into Robert Rankin, Douglas Adams, Tom Holt and Tom Sharpe. This book is so in line with the flavour of the books I have enjoyed most in my life that it beggars belief I never gave it another thought.
I am so glad I eventually did, and did so before watching the TV series.
While there are epic expectations of the quality of the book, from the hype and cult status, I always read with an open mind.
The story underlying the book is a Fawlty Towers-esque attempt at the end of days, where one bumbling fool's error in the early stages completely changes the plans for the end of the human race.
I won't go into the plot in detail, and will only say that the read is a thoroughly enjoyable ride. It isn't laugh-out-loud funny, it is smirk-I-know-what-you-mean funny. This may not appeal to non-British readers as much as it is written with a very British sense of humour. It is very silly quite a lot of the time, but there is a good, deep story in there if you take a moment to think about it.
My only criticism would be that there was a little too much silliness and while enjoyable this may have distracted from the book at times. But you know you'll get that with Pratchett, he takes his little tangents and he adds in nonsense dialogues for sheer entertainment value - he very much sees that not every word has to be vital to the overall story, you can have a little fun along the way.
Now, to get into the TV series ....
This is probably what put me off reading this until now. I seem to recall trying to read it about 20 years ago, but for some reason I gave up inside a couple of pages. That was 17 year old me as a Pratchett fan, and I must have opted for the 20+ Discworld books I still had yet to read instead, and had no idea who Neil Gaiman was.
Sadly, that makes me your common or garden bandwagon-jumper as I have only now read this for the first time with the TV series on my to-be-watched list.
I cannot say why I never returned to the book. I love Pratchett, had the honour of meeting him at signings a few times in the 90s, and he got me into Robert Rankin, Douglas Adams, Tom Holt and Tom Sharpe. This book is so in line with the flavour of the books I have enjoyed most in my life that it beggars belief I never gave it another thought.
I am so glad I eventually did, and did so before watching the TV series.
While there are epic expectations of the quality of the book, from the hype and cult status, I always read with an open mind.
The story underlying the book is a Fawlty Towers-esque attempt at the end of days, where one bumbling fool's error in the early stages completely changes the plans for the end of the human race.
I won't go into the plot in detail, and will only say that the read is a thoroughly enjoyable ride. It isn't laugh-out-loud funny, it is smirk-I-know-what-you-mean funny. This may not appeal to non-British readers as much as it is written with a very British sense of humour. It is very silly quite a lot of the time, but there is a good, deep story in there if you take a moment to think about it.
My only criticism would be that there was a little too much silliness and while enjoyable this may have distracted from the book at times. But you know you'll get that with Pratchett, he takes his little tangents and he adds in nonsense dialogues for sheer entertainment value - he very much sees that not every word has to be vital to the overall story, you can have a little fun along the way.
Now, to get into the TV series ....