Opinion Piece: It (2017) Discussion With The Blog From Another World (Film)

Hello, my name is Judith! Welcome to my blog, ReadandReview. This a collaboration with Patrick from The Blog From Another World. 27 years after the first It, Pennywise the Clown has risen again in a new film adaptation. 27 days after its release (or thereabouts), Judith and Patrick decide to discuss It.


Patrick:

Firstly, how did you think the film compared with the book? Did you like the changes it made?

Judith:

I think the film handled the source material cleverly; they didn’t try to cram absolutely everything from the book into the plot, streamlining it in a way that works best for film.

I loved the characterisation of Eddie and Richie. They were definitely the best acted and felt incredibly accurate to their counterparts in the book. Annoyingly however, Bill and Ben felt a bit underdeveloped and Mike was almost non-existent. Mike’s overlooking in particular is a real shame, because he is meant to be the one who provides the history of Derry to the group and the one to reunite them as adults. His small role could even be seen as problematic, considering he is the only person of colour in the group and has the smallest presence.

My Photo [It 4]
Image via DigitalSpy.com

Patrick:

I did think some of the characterisation could have been shared round more. With a running time of over two hours, it was pretty long for a horror film, and it was perplexing why some of that time couldn’t have been spent on giving all the characters equal detail. I think it will be interesting to see who they cast as the older versions of the characters for the sequel.

I think they made judicious choices and made the most commercially viable film they could – in a good way! It has obviously captured audience’s attentions and I think a lot of this is making the story more accessible.

Judith:

Yes, I agree. Perhaps a lack of detailed characterisation for all was dependant on who were the strong / weak actors. In my opinion, Eddie and Richie developed the best performances, which isn’t surprising, as Jack Dylan Grazer (Eddie) has had other multiple acting roles in addition to It, and Finn Wolfhard (Richie) is best known for his strong performance in Stranger Things.

Patrick:

I think that the success of Stranger Things certain pushed Finn Wolfhard to the forefront in order to draw in that audience.

Yet if you look at something like The Goonies, you know who each of the kids are. They might be more broadly drawn than the kids in the novel of It, but you know where you stand with all of them. If they had to simplify the Losers Club, and shed some characterisation in the process, they could have done it more effectively.

Did you think the film was scary?

My Photo [It 1]
Image via Youtube.com

Judith:

I think it relied too much on jumpscares and loud noises, although I had expected that from watching the trailer.

When I left the cinema, I described it as “ridiculous macabre” to my friends, because It walks a fine line between creepy and downright ridiculous.

Patrick:

Which moments were the most effective?

Judith:

The scene that affected me most was when Pennywise approached Eddie in the abandoned house. He got so close to Eddie’s face and taunted him, truly terrifying an-already traumatised and injured Eddie. I thought both performances here worked really well; Pennywise felt like a tangible character who could not only psychologically torment them but physically grab, restrain or hurt the children just to scare them.

Patrick:

I thought the scares were fine, there was plenty of atmosphere and a good aesthetic but, as you say, too much of a reliance on loud noises making you jump. I really enjoyed the moment with the projector, the sense of helplessness really carried over and turned what could have been really corny into something quite primal.

My Photo [It 2]
Image via Youtube.com
Judith:

What did you think about the 80s nostalgia? I remember you mentioning it when we originally discussed our predictions for the film.

Patrick:

I thought it was pretty cynical but it didn’t bother me as much as it might have done. I think it takes some of the surprise out of the film, as you know the aesthetic and the locations almost immediately. It’s transposing the familiarity of the novel’s world to one which countless other films and TV series have taken place. I didn’t think it was too intrusive though.

What did you think of the portrayal of Pennywise? Was Bill Skarsgård an appropriate choice?

Judith:

I think he was creepy and unnerving but, like I’ve said previously, there was an underlying ridiculousness.

He at times looks odd rather than scary. His voice always seemed creepy and never friendly, making me think, “How does a little boy get persuaded to climb into the sewer with a man who already looks terrifying and introduced himself with a jumpscare?”

My Photo [It 3]
Tim Curry’s Pennywise (1990) and Bill Skarsgård’s Pennywise (2017)
Patrick:

I thought Skarsgård didn’t have the true creepiness that Pennywise does in the book; there’s such a strange seductiveness to him that makes him even more frightening. He’s like a grounded, realistic predator whereas Skarsgård was simply Coco the Creepy Clown. I don’t know whether someone like Will Poulter (the original choice), would have been better. He certainly looks less eerie. Skarsgård has unnerving written all over him.

Judith:

What did you think about shifts in tone? It mixes comedy with horror so often.

Patrick:

Honestly, I think it came from the 80s setting. This film wanted to be Goonies, ET and Halloween all in one. I certainly think the lurches in tone could have been avoided if the film had been set in the 50s.

Judith:

I think I would have enjoyed It in a similar way if it wasn’t a horror, which is odd, given how much it is marketed like a stereotypical horror. It felt at times more like a summer coming-of-age film; there were jarring scenes of friendship and fun in the midst of what is meant to be fear and tension.

Patrick:

I can see that. I think the film could have been about about ten minutes shorter. To me, it was trying to make a slightly pretentious point about “oh we’re a crafted and prestigious film” and the ending could have been stripped down.

Are you excited for the second film? What changes do you think will be made for it?

Judith:

I’m excited for the sequel because I hope as adults, Pennywise will terrorise them differently and more intensely. Some of the scares in this It were a little tame – perhaps to tone it down for a teenage audience. I hope the adult characters are developed more fully, and we get the chance to see what Pennywise / It truly is.

Patrick:

I hope that the sequel will progress in both tone and maturity. I hope it’s won’t be like The Hunger Games, which remained 12 rated even though, as an audience member growing up with the films, we were 16-18 when they finished.  I hope that they choose good actors rather than stars. I don’t want Chris Pratt to distract from the fact that I’m supposed to be scared.

A sequel for It has been confirmed to be released in 2019.


Thank you for reading this blog post! Please click ‘Like’ to support my blog, and ‘Follow’ this blog if you would like to read more content like this, as well as plenty of book reviews.

– Judith and Patrick


This post was last updated in January 2020.

 

 

Opinion Piece: Thoughts on The Handmaid’s Tale With The Blog From Another World

Hello, my name is Judith! Welcome to my blog, ReadandReview.

This a collaboration with Patrick from The Blog From Another World about the hit television drama, The Handmaid’s Tale. Patrick and I decided to discuss the book and its adaptation.

The Handmaid’s Tale is based on Margaret Atwood’s feminist dystopian novel of the same name, following the life of Offred, a Handmaid living and serving the extreme Christian totalitarian system named Gilead. She is forced to have sex with her Commander each month, in the hopes she will be impregnated with his child and thus continue the population of Gilead.

In a nutshell, I liked Atwood’s subverted use of Christianity in the novel, as this made an interesting dystopian premise, but the feminist overtones were overly laboured at times.

Patrick however, has not finished The Handmaid’s Tale yet.

“I have read part of it, but not enough to provide an honest summation. I think watching this story with very little prior knowledge gives the series a real unpredictability. I will have it finished by the time the series is over though!”

This is not the first adaptation of the novel; The Handmaid’s Tale was adapted into a film in 1990 – a film I have seen, and did not enjoy. I think the decision to move from a film adaptation to an in-depth television drama was smart.

Patrick said, “I think this TV adaptation has allowed the writers to expand upon Margaret Atwood’s ideas and the world she has created. You can dive into the backstory of many characters and give everything a very modern update. I think it was the most obvious thing to do and has paid off enormously.”

The Handmaid’s Tale is not especially a long novel, but its television adaptation has been divided into 10 episodes.

In my opinion, this helps the narrative to be divided proportionally, so that the story is covered at an appropriate depth and doesn’t feel “drawn out”. I also like the incorporation of flashbacks to Offred’s old life, as these both emphasise the pain she is currently in at being separated from her husband and daughter and tie in to the current narrative as she hears rumours her husband may be found.

Yet, despite thinking ten episodes is a good length for the drama, I struggle to keep up with watching new episodes.

In the UK, The Handmaid’s Tale is aired on Channel 4, and available to watch on catch-up on All4.   Channel 4 is notorious for its advert breaks. This is a petty complaint, and not linked to the production of The Handmaid’s Tale itself, but regularly disrupting a show that is full of gripping scenes and high-tension with advertisements completely ruins my immersion in the drama. The frequent advert breaks have a dramatic impact on my willingness to keep up with new episodes, and this is a real shame.

Patrick also struggles to watch new episodes, but for a different reason.

“I have hit a bit of a brick wall with this series. I cannot fault it – honestly – but it’s just so grim that I don’t know when I’ll watch the next episode.” he said, “If The Handmaid’s Tale was six, rather than ten, episodes long, then the intensity of the rape and violence might be warranted. Instead, imagining another four hours of brutality is not the most attractive prospect now – sometimes you need a bit lighter entertainment.”

However, Patrick and I have plenty of positives to discuss about The Handmaid’s Tale too.

He said, “I have really enjoyed the performances from the cast. Elizabeth Moss has made an incredible Offred, and has created so much depth and emotion. Yvonne Strahovski has also made the character of Serena Joy much more sympathetic and poignant than I first thought. I think that Serena Joy is probably the character I watch with the most interest.”

On this, I have to agree. In the novel, Serena Joy was always presented as a harsh, standoffish woman who resented Offred from the beginning. Whilst this is present in the television adaptation too, we are also presented with a  vulnerable, emotional – and quite frankly, human – side to her that helps the audience to understand her motivations and feelings, and this, I think, was lacking from the book.

Patrick continued, “I also think many of the directing choices have been strong. The complex and jumbled chronology has added variety and context when needed. The writing is fantastic, really delving into the situation with uncompromising bleakness.

In terms of casting, Ann Dowd as Aunt Lydia is very impressive and I think Madeline Brewer as Janine is the most complex role. The women have the most material to work with, and the series as a whole is a really ensemble effort.”


Thank you for reading this blog post! Please click ‘Like’ to support my blog, and ‘Follow’ this blog if you would like to read more content like this, as well as plenty of book reviews.

Have you seen read this book, or watched the adaptation? What did you think?

– Judith and Patrick


This post was last updated in January 2020.

Opinion Piece: It (2017) Discussion With The Blog From Another World (Trailer)

Hello, my name is Judith! Welcome to my blog, ReadandReview.

This is the second part of another collaborative series with Patrick, from The Blog From Another World, about Stephen King’s It. With the upcoming release of a new film adaptation of the iconic horror, it seemed like the perfect opportunity for us to discuss the trailer. You can read our first blog post, about the book and original film, here.

I thought, as trailers go, it looks quite well-made. A number of shots are incredibly similar to the original film. Whilst some may claim this is unoriginal, to me, this suggests the film will be fairly similar in terms of plot, improved upon with a better budget, better casting, and a better utilisation of horror conventions.

Patrick said, “I thought the trailer looked decent. It had lots of mood and seems to have a big enough budget to properly convey the supernatural elements of the novel. I thought that it relied on too many jump scares but that visually it looked excellent.”

Yet despite this positive response, Patrick is also sceptical of the new film because of its issues over direction.

“I’m not a fan of the director, Andres Muschetti, who made the massively disappointing Mama (2013). Mama suffers from the same problems as the works of Guillermo Del Toro. Both directors have a deep sense of visual style, but no restraint. Mama is a cluster of jump-scares, poor casting and an utterly predictable story.”

He continued, “I am also very sceptical about this film due to the way the studio treated its previous director, the fantastic Cary Fukunaga. Fukunaga, who has directed films such as Jane Eyre (2011), Sin Nombre (2009), and Beasts of No Nation (2015), is an incredibly versatile and skilful director. He wanted to turn IT into a two-part film to allow for both the children’s and adult’s plots, and cast Will Poulter, known for his performances in Son of Rambow (2007) and The Revenant (2015) as Pennywise the Clown, a choice which I think would have been inspired. However, the studio fired him, and instead chose Muschetti and his more conventional ideas. While the trailer looked fine, it did not set my world on fire.”

It was originally adapted into at TV miniseries in 1990, starring Tim Currey as Pennywise the Clown. However, there will be several notable changes from the miniseries, as well as the original novel.

The new film is likely to focus wholly on the children: Bill, Ben, Bev, Richie, Ed, Mike, and Stan, and their discovery and scary encounters with It.  Furthermore, from what I’ve read, the film will be set in the 1980s, whereas the original plot – at least, the plot following the characters as children – takes place in the 1950s. I’m not sure what the reasoning behind changing the date is, and I am curious to find out.

Patrick has his own speculations about the change of date. “I think it’s more 80s nostalgia. Whoopee.”

He explained, “The current trend of making every TV show or film set in the 80s is getting on my nerves. I can’t watch TV or go to the cinema without hearing some song from the era, or see another crusty star being brought back to play a role – even my beloved Kurt Russell is pushing it a bit.

“The biggest trend in 80’s nostalgia now is John Carpenter rip-offs. One of the biggest TV shows of last year was Stranger Things (2016-), an appallingly pandering and unintelligent show which tapped into the fact that John Carpenter was cool, and thus wrote cool music for his films. I expect It will be a love letter to the horror films of John Carpenter such as Halloween (?), and I don’t think the change of eras will be any more significant than that. If Muschetti doesn’t include any synth music on the score, and doesn’t have the boys’ bedrooms plastered in Carpenter film posters, then I will eat my hat.”

After watching the trailer a few more times, I think it’s a shame that there is little to mark this new IT out from other contemporary horror trailers – a dark colour palette, reasonably spooky music and of course, a ‘jump scare’.

Patrick commented on this potential predictability, “I think that there will be lots of loud noises in the night, and sudden appearances of Pennywise in mirrors behind characters.”

However, I am still excited for this film. The It miniseries was too bright, too jovial, too goofy. I hope this new adaptation will not only be visually stunning, but capable of brining to life the level of horror, terror and violence appropriate – no, necessary – to convey the story of It.

Patrick agreed, and said, “I’m sure that this film will be the most visually appealing of all the adaptations, with the advances in CGI and presumably a much bigger budget. I also think that Pennywise will be much more animalistic and brutal, giving me more nightmares than Curry ever did.”

He continued, “I think that casting a younger Pennywise is an excellent choice. Casting someone like Willem Dafoe or Christopher Walken would be horribly distracting and far too similar to Curry’s performance. Younger is better – it means Pennywise will be quicker, individual and frightening.”

It is due to be released in September 2017.


Thank you for reading my blog post! Please click ‘Like’ to support my blog, and ‘Follow’ this blog if you would like to read more content like this, as well as plenty of book reviews.

– Judith and Patrick


This post was last updated in January 2020.

 

the blog from another world

The following article was written by Judith from ReadandReview2016.

This is the second part of another collaborative series with Patrick, from The Blog From Another World, about Stephen King’s IT. With the upcoming release of a new film adaptation of the iconic horror, it seemed like the perfect opportunity for us to discuss the trailer. You can read our first blog post, about the book and original film, here.

I thought, as trailers go, it looks quite well-made. A number of shots are incredibly similar to the original film. Whilst some may claim this is unoriginal, to me, this suggests the film will be fairly similar in terms of plot, improved upon with a better budget, better casting, and a better utilisation of horror conventions.

Patrick said, “I thought the trailer looked decent. It had lots of mood and seems to have a big enough budget to…

View original post 748 more words

Opinion Piece: It Discussion With The Blog From Another World (Novel)

Hello, my name is Judith! Welcome to my blog, ReadandReview.

This is part of another collaborative series with Patrick, from The Blog From Another World. Stephen King is one of my favourite authors, and he wrote one of Patrick’s favourite novels, Carrie. With the upcoming release of a new film adaptation of the iconic horror, It, it seemed like the perfect opportunity for us to discuss both the book and original film.

Patrick said, “What I loved about the book when I read it was the detail. King puts a lot of effort into his character development.” I also loved It’s length – King provides brilliant detail of the characters’ lives as the plot switches from the perspectives of Bill, Ben, Bev, Richie, Ed, Mike, and Stan as both children and adults.

“The novel deals with the passage of time and the impact that traumatic childhood events have on our adulthood.” Patrick explained, “For this reason, I think the dual time period narrative is very fresh and gives the story a real weight which certain other King novels are missing.”

This style of narration submerges the reader and effectively conveys just how terrorizing It is to each character. It cemented my positive opinions about Stephen King; he writes thrilling and / or scary material incredibly well – be it in the simple description of a child’s feelings, or about the many forms It takes. Whilst not every passage contains a ‘scare’, enough detail is always given to put the reader on edge.

Pennywise the Clown, the most common form of It, is certainly a fantastic monster. Patrick said, “As an idea, he is terrifying, and sticks in my mind even now.”

“A great horror monster often makes more of an impression that the heroes, and Pennywise is no different. Norman Bates, Michael Myers, Jason, even Darth Vader – these characters are cultural icons more beloved than the lead characters in their respective films.”

However, no book is perfect. Patrick commented, “It has an overabundance of the clichés which feature heavily in most King novels.” Examples of this include one-dimensional bullies, an alcoholic writer, and a disappointing resolution.

Despite my love of King, the more of his novels I read, the more I see these tropes reappearing – in particularly the English teacher or author who struggles with alcohol. Another significant example of this character type is Jack Nicholson from The Shining. Whilst this is drawn from King’s own experiences (and we are so often encouraged to write about what we know), I can understand why a repetitive reuse of these tropes would come to grate on readers.

It was adapted into at TV miniseries in 1990, starring Tim Currey as Pennywise the Clown. It was made, at the height of, as dubbed by Patrick, “the Stephen King adaptation craze”.

I thought the film was alright. Visually, the appearance of Curry’s Pennywise was exactly what I had envisaged as I read the book, and I liked the fact there was an adaptation of such a good novel available.

However, for me, Curry’s actual performance often flip-flopped between mildly scary and pantomimic.

It suffers from a lot of the problems which plagues the miniseries – too much time to fill, and not enough money to make it really frightening.” Patrick explained, “A lot of the performances are very goofy, especially Tim Curry as Pennywise. He’s just so flamboyant and crazy that he doesn’t really scare me.” He continued, “It hasn’t aged well and some of it is unwittingly hilarious – I’m looking at you Talking Head!”

Finally, Patrick summarised his thoughts on the book and film with a phrase that every book lover longs to hear: “If you want the unadulterated It experience, read the book.”


Thank you for reading my blog post! Please click ‘Like’ to support my blog, and ‘Follow’ this blog if you would like to read more content like this, as well as plenty of book reviews.

Have you read this book, or watched the adaptation? What did you think?

– Judith and Patrick


This post was last updated in January 2020.

[Guest Post] Film Review: T2 Trainspotting

Hello, my name is Judith! Welcome to my blog, ReadandReview.

This a collaboration with Patrick from The Blog From Another World. The following blog post was written by Patrick.


I love Danny Boyle and I love Trainspotting. When T2 was announced, I was worried that the film would be a cash grab, a lazy retread. Paul Greengrass and Matt Damon had already disappointed me with Jason Bourne (2016), which was an ill-thought through bore. However, after watching Trainspotting again for my article with ReadandReview2016, the stakes were raised very high. Impossibly high?

No. Not at all. Danny Boyle is the finest British filmmaker in modern cinema. There is no doubt in my mind about this. T2 is fantastic. Possibly even better than the first.

Boyle performs camera moves, positions and set pieces which are truly thrilling. He and his director of photography Anthony Dodd Mantle work with light and shadow and perspective to create meaning.

He’s a director who inspires me and this might just be the biggest risk of his career. He pulls it off and shows a maturity and an evolution of film-making style which makes us understand just how much experience and persistence matters. In preparation for watching T2 I watched A Life Less Ordinary, the Boyle directed film which came after Trainspotting and before The Beach. The film is a flawed and underwhelming work despite a career best performance by Cameron Diaz.

My reason for watching A Life Less Ordinary was to remind myself of Boyle on a bad day (but even his low point is better than many director’s best).   Slumdog Millionaire and Steve Jobs are big favourites of mine but T2 takes his best work and betters it.  It’s funny, sad, euphoric, tragic and utterly brilliant.

The story of T2 follows Renton, Sick Boy (now Simon), Begbie and Spud as they deal with the modern world twenty years after the events of the first film.

This film is a wonderful look at ageing, our modern world and the responsibilities of adulthood. The characters feel deeper and emotionally richer although some plot strands don’t go anywhere and seem added in for nostalgia’s sake (the re-appearance of heroin is pointless).

The four leads are superb. Ewan McGregor is the best he’s been since the original film, Robert Carlyle has aged Begbie in the most perfect way and Ewan Bremner is the heart of the film. Only Jonny Lee Miller isn’t stretched, with Sick Boy always being a secondary character.

This film has a rollicking pace and heaps of style. It captures the spirit of the original whilst moving in an entirely new direction, away from drugs and toward some kind of recognition. For the first time, Renton is forced to face the consequences of his actions and it’s an explosive moment. I personally loved this scene (not a spoiler) which captures the hard edged but joyful tone of the original and is a perfect storm of music, action, comedy and character.

This film is the best thing I’ve seen all year. It would take a lot to top this, and I can’t wait!


Thank you for reading this blog post! Please click ‘Like’ to support my blog, and ‘Follow’ this blog if you would like to read more content like this, as well as plenty of book reviews.

Have you seen this film? What did you think?

– Judith and Patrick


This post was last updated in January 2020.

Opinion Piece: Trainspotting Discussion With The Blog from Another World (Film + Novel)

Hello, my name is Judith! Welcome to my blog, ReadandReview.

This a collaboration with Patrick from The Blog From Another World. With the release of Trainspotting 2, the long-awaited sequel to Danny Boyle’s 1996 black-comedy film, I discussed Trainspotting with Patrick.

I read Trainspotting, the book on which the film is based, by Irvine Welsh last year and wrote a review of it here. Overall, the gritty Scottish social realism failed to captivate me, but when I watched the film, I felt much more engaged.

I asked Patrick if he enjoyed watching Trainspotting. He said: “I think that ‘enjoy’ is a difficult term to use to describe this film. I think it’s is a British classic and a milestone for British cinema.”

He continued, “Many films have tried to emulate the anarchic and twisted style of this film (such as Jon S. Baird’s Filth in 2013 – based on another novel by Irvine Welsh) but nobody has ever really come close. I love Danny Boyle’s direction and he makes the film palatable for the audience.”

However, what I found unpalatable in Trainspotting was how every social situation was punctuated by, hard drug use aside, cigarettes and alcohol. Whilst Trainspotting is by no means the only film to feature heavy drinking and smoking, it’s something in film that irritates me every time; excessive consumption makes me feel physically sick. I also found it ironic that the characters who frequently binged on these “socially acceptable” drugs were the same characters berating Renton and his friends for their heroin addictions.

Yet the constant smoking and drinking was certainly not the most shocking part of Trainspotting. To say the film includes crude scenes is an understatement.

“It is a tough film to watch in places, so I understand why people can’t enjoy it for that reason.” Patrick said. However, he argued that these disgusting scenes are purposeful, and contrasted with moments of beauty and perfection.

“For example, when Renton dives down the worst toilet in Scotland, he lands in clear, serene water –  brilliant juxtaposition; I really admire the sheer invention of it.”

Renton is the central narrator of the film, which made the plot easier to follow and helped me put names to faces. It was also a nice change from the book, which frequently changed between different narrative perspectives, making for tough reading. The fact Renton’s narration helped me understand the plot better made me appreciate the voice-overs – a technique I normally dislike within film –  and I thought they matched the style of Trainspotting well.

Patrick’s favourite character was Francis Begbie, a psychopath with violent tendencies, played by Robert Carlyle.

“Carlyle gives such a ferocious and frightening portrayal of a psychopath” he said.

“I can’t help but feel that Heath Ledger’s Joker and Andrew Scott’s Moriarty share DNA with Begbie’s pint-glass-throwing-chaos. True, Renton, Spud and Sick Boy are iconic characters, but Begbie is the character who sticks in my mind. When Begbie starts a fight at the pub, it’s horrible. His callous violent bloodlust is frightening and his whim to have a fight is portrayed excellently.”

Patrick described to me another memorable Trainspotting scene, where Renton is forced by his parents to give up his heroin use, going through withdrawal symptoms, including vivid hallucinations. “It’s a horrific and surreal scene.” Patrick said, and I have to agree. McGregor’s acting here was fantastic; his screams really emphasised the suffering he was going through, and it was conflicting to watch.

Personally, I found the scene where Allison’s baby dies unsurprising but incredibly emotional. Allison, played by Susan Vidler, had an incredibly blasé attitude to drugs and promiscuous sex, resulting in a neglected baby surrounded by drugs and filth. When baby Dawn, inevitably died from poor health and neglect, it was such a raw and emotional scene – I could really sense Allison’s pain. However, what disturbed and angered me was that although Allison was in such pain, she still turned back to drugs – highlighting the vicious and destructive cycle of drug addiction.

It is scenes such as these that give Trainspotting a much darker tone, to juxtapose with its comedic elements.

Patrick said, “I think Trainspotting’s tone is very complex. It’s a film which is hyperactive but sombre, crass but frightening. The tone works because it’s about the ‘highs and lows’ of drug addiction; the tone wildly fluctuates to expertly capture and reflect what life is like for a heroin addict.”

“Many drugs films such as Requiem For A Dream (Darren Aronofsky, 2000) show only the horrific parts of drug addiction. Trainspotting is the best portrayal of addiction since The Lost Weekend (Billy Wilder, 1945). It gives a balanced but unflinching view of addiction – it’s as euphoric as it is disgusting. It is better to understand what drugs give you, before you see what they take away.”


Thank you for reading my blog post! Please click ‘Like’ to support my blog, and ‘Follow’ this blog if you would like to read more content like this, as well as plenty of book reviews.

Have you seen this film? What did you think?

– Judith and Patrick


This post was last updated in January 2020.

[Guest Post] Film Review: The Girl On The Train

Hello, my name is Judith! Welcome to my blog, ReadandReview. This a collaboration with Patrick from The Blog From Another World about The Girl On The Train. The following blog post was written by Patrick.


My name is Patrick from The Blog from Another World. If you want to check out Judith’s review of the book, you can find it here:

The novel, as Judith has written, is a page turner, a compelling read. This film then, should be gripping. It, in theory, should have maintained this tension and compulsive plot. Instead, The Girl on the Train has become a bore − a super-serious thriller without the thrills.

The most obvious comparison to this film is Gone Girl (2014), David Fincher’s brilliant adaptation of Gillian Flynn’s suburban murder mystery. Sadly, this film does not match the quality of Gone Girl at all.

I was struck in the first half an hour by how heavy and dour this film is. Each scene is laboured and miserable, characters complain about their lives and very little happens. It is not for a long time that the central disappearance occurs.

This film has a Hitchcockian plot; Rachel, played by Emily Blunt, commutes to and from New York each day on the train where she observes the lives of the people whose houses are near the tracks, including her ex-husband. When her ex-husband’s nanny goes missing, Rachel herself may be implicated in the mystery.

I recently watched Hitchcock’s Strangers on a Train in the cinema and was struck by the light touch and thrilling pace of it. Characters have light moments and dark moments. They are gripping, complex and compel you to keep watching. Strangers on a Train is a magnificent thriller and I would recommend it to anyone who feels short-changed by The Girl on the Train as, in contrast to this, it feels grindingly repetitive. A scene will open, someone will complain about their lives and by the end, without fail, they will be in tears. This makes the film such a drag, and pulls down many excellent performers along with it.

Emily Blunt and Rebecca Ferguson are excellent actresses. Their performances in Sicario (2015) and Mission Impossible 5 (2015) are some of the most fun and exciting female characters of recent years.

In this film, however, both feel laboured and heavy, battling with boring material in an attempt to make deep and meaningful characters. In the end, both come across as cyphers, stereotypes of middle class women, trapped in their own separate worlds, enraptured by the men around them. If this film was more thrilling and fun, this type of characterisation might work. A savage critique of the American middle class is what makes Gone Girl so fun. This film wants to portray real life, and aim for realism but another side of it wants to make Gone Girl, the savage, darkly funny and vicious mystery.

A presence with the entertainment value of Ben Affleck, Tyler Perry, or Kim Dickens would really have given The Girl on the Train another side, some more depth. People are naturally humorous, and a few amusing lines of dialogue or a dark sense of humour would have elevated things tenfold.

However, smaller roles seemed to feature actors who were really bringing something to the table. Justin Theroux as Rachel’s ex-husband and Luke Evans as the husband of the missing woman were far more convincing than most others. However, their involvement was too small for them to shine.

Blunt’s performance frankly is an embarrassment. She wildly overacts in some scenes and in others she seems slightly sheepish to be a part of this film. I was very disappointed by her and I think she is indicative of a lot of the problems this film suffers from.

However, most of the blame must be placed at director Tate Taylor’s door. He is the worst possible choice for director. This film needed a provocative and uncompromising director, someone who would tell the story truthfully and intelligently but with a sense of fun. The film handles tough real life themes but this doesn’t mean that you can skimp on the mystery and thrills at the centre of it. Taylor directs with a soporific and laboured style, glossy but shallow and with no sense of pace. This film is boring and silly with so few decent performances you wonder why these people were cast in the first place.

Overall, this film is a disaster, a page-turner turned into a cinema-snoozer which fails miserably at its central goal: to thrill and intrigue. I guessed the ending within the first fifteen minutes and I was so desperate for my guess to not be the case that I ended up making up theories to allow the screenwriter and director some credit.

However, I was sadly correct and I walked out of the cinema thinking: “This would be the movie David Fincher and Alfred Hitchcock would make if they were both stupid”.

Thank you for reading this very therapeutic review! I hope you enjoyed it, and if you want to see this film, just read the book instead. It’s obviously much better. On the other hand, watch Strangers on a Train – that’s how you do a train-based thriller.

I would just like to thank Judith for all her help and her agreeing to be a part of this collaboration! I hope we can work together in the near future.

Have you read watched this film, or read the book? What did you think? 

– Patrick and Judith


This post was last updated in 2020.