My 2019 : Reviewed Books and Movies in Review

Below is the list of the books I read and the movies I watched in 2019, and their ratings. For books, I didn't read much. I'm not a big reader as there are so many movie out in the world that take up my attention. Both "Ender's Game" and "The Girl with the Dragon's Tattoo" were interesting books that I will keep in my library and will gladly recommend.

2019 Books Reviewed

4/5 – The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

4/5 – Ender's Game (1985)

As for movies, I watched quite a handful of movies over the year of 2019 (due to my knee injury). I have put the movies in bold in the list below if they earned equal to or lower than a 2.0/5 or earned a 4.5/5 or higher.

Here are my top rated movies (not in order) of movies I watched in 2019:

5/5 – Titanic: The Aftermath (2012)

5/5 – Dragonheart (1996)

5/5 – Quick Change (1990)

4.5/5 – Train Driver's Diary (2016)

4.5/5 – Bleach (2018)

4.5/5 – Escape from Alcatraz (1979)

4.5/5 – August Rush (2007)

4.5/5 – Egypt: The Quest for Immortality (1995)

4.5/5 – Fed Up (2014)

4.5/5 – Incredibles 2 (2018)

4.5/5 – Coco (2017)

Here are my lowest ranked movies of those I watched in 2019 (not in order):

2/5 – Leaves of Grass (2009)

2/5 – The Emoji Movie (2017)

1.5/5 – Krampus: The Christmas Devil (2013)

1.5/5 – Pee-Wee's Big Adventure (1985)

1/5 - IT: Chapter Two (2019)

1/5 – Dogtooth (2009)

0.5/5 – A Serbian Film (2010)

The full list of all of the movies I have reviewed are below. All of these have reviews posted here in my blog, but I will not be linking to each movie (sorry but that is a lot of work and I have to catch up on the 2020 reviews).

All in all, I did watch some interesting movies in different genres including documentaries. I was able to watch some movies that were newer and some that were older. I will continue to give reviews as often as I can though it takes a while for a review to be completed (sometimes 2+ hours on one review, honestly).

Feel free to give me suggestions on movies to watch. I have a list growing, which is much longer than my To Be Read book list, hahahahaha, but recommendations are always heard. ^.^

Anyways, that's my year of 2019 in review. With the whole Covid-19 pandemic, I believe I have watched more movies this year than last year so I will definitely have a huge task ahead of me to catch up for reviews.

Thanks for looking back with me! Here's to 2020 and the future, if the world doesn't explode before then (*grumble grumble riots grumble*).

Contact me?

Twitter @gracie_delunac

Email graciemaedelunac@yahoo.com

Facebook https://facebook.com/GracieMaeDeLunac/

Skype gracelyn2019@yahoo.com

2019 Movies Reviewed

1/5 - IT: Chapter Two (2019)

3/5 - A Million Ways to Die in the West (2014)

3/5 - Beauty and the Beast (2017)

3.5/5 – Life (1999)

3.5/5 – Titanic (1953)

4/5 – My Fair Lady (1964)

4/5 – Fireworks (2017)

4.5/5 – Bleach (2018)

1.5/5 – Krampus: The Christmas Devil (2013)

4.5/5 – Escape from Alcatraz (1979)

2.5/5 – Clerks (1994)

3.5/5 – Big Driver (2014)

5/5 – Titanic: The Aftermath (2012)

2.5/5 – Speed (1994)

2/5 – Leaves of Grass (2009)

2.5/5 – Sinister (2012)

4/5 – The Greatest Showman (2017)

4.5/5 – August Rush (2007)

4/5 – One Last Shot (1998)

2.5/5 – Cannibal: The Musical (1993)

2.5/5 – 6 Souls (2010)

3.5/5 – Allegiant (2016)

3/5 – Black Panther (2018)

3.5/5 – Insurgent (2015)

4/5 – Aladdin (2019)

3.5/5 – Dawn of the Dead (2004)

3/5 – Swearnet: The Movie (2014)

2.5/5 – Mystic River (2003)

3.5/5 – World Trade Center (2006)

2.5/5 – 10.0 Earthquake (2014)

3/5 – Welcome to Leith (2015)

3.5/5 – Airplane! (1980)

2.5/5 – The Commuter (2018)

4/5 – Saving Private Ryan (1998)

2.5/5 – Ender's Game (2013)

3/5 – Cube Zero (2004)

3/5 – Cube 2: Hypercube (2002)

4/5 – Cube (1997)

3.5/5 – The Other Man (2008)

3/5 – The Resident (2011)

3.5/5 – Aliens in Egypt (2016)

3.5/5 – Magic Mike XXL (2015)

3.5/5 – Magic Mike (2012)

3/5 – Interview with the Vampire (1994)

3/5 – Fade to Black (1980)

3/5 – Dead and Buried (1981)

4.5/5 – Egypt: The Quest for Immortality (1995)

5/5 – Dragonheart (1996)

4/5 – Reasonable Doubt (2014)

4.5/5 – Fed Up (2014)

3.5/5 – Shallow Grave (1995)

5/5 – Quick Change (1990)

4.5/5 – Train Driver's Diary (2016)

3.5/5 – My Super Ex-Girlfriend (2006)

1/5 – Dogtooth (2009)

4/5 – XXY (2007)

3.5/5 – The Seven Deadly Sins The Movie: Prisoners of the Sky (2018)

4/5 – The Magic Pill (2017)

3/5 – Mermaid's Song (2015)

3.5/5 – Knights of Badassdom (2013)

3.5/5 – Tangled (2010)

3.5/5 – Suspiria (1977)

4/5 – Warm Bodies (2013)

3.5/5 – The Muppets All-Star Comedy Gala (2012)

3/5 – Drive Angry (2011)

3/5 – Waxwork (1988)

4/5 – Whale Rider (2003)

4.5/5 – Incredibles 2 (2018)

3/5 – Anti Matter (2017)

3.5/5 – Deja Vu (2006)

3/5 – Coraline (2009)

4.5/5 – Coco (2017)

3/5 – The Rocky Horror Picture Show: Let's Do The Time Warp Again (2016)

2.5/5 – Pet Sematary II (1992)

0.5/5 – A Serbian Film (2010)

3/5 – Escape Plan 2 (2018)

4/5 – Escape Plan (2013)

3/5 – The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies (2014)

4/5 – The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug (2013)

3.5/5 – The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

2/5 – The Emoji Movie (2017)

1.5/5 – Pee-Wee's Big Adventure (1985)

2.5/5 – Tales from the Hood 2 (2018)

3/5 – Jigsaw (2017)

953.

Movie Review: "Beauty and the Beast" 03/17/17

This is a movie review for "Beauty and the Beast", released March 17, 2017. I watched this in December of 2019.

Genre: Family, Fantasy, Musical

Run Time: 2 hours and 9 minutes

Official MPAA Rating (According to IMDB.com):

G / General Audiences

PG / Parental Guidance Suggested

PG-13 / Parents Strongly Cautioned

R / Restricted

X

Not Rated

Trailer

Notable Cast

Emma Watson ... Belle

Dan Stevens ... Beast

Luke Evans ... Gaston

Josh Gad ... LeFou

Kevin Kline ... Maurice

Ewan McGregor ... Lumière

Ian McKellen ... Cogsworth

Emma Thompson ... Mrs. Potts

Plot

An artist and his daughter Belle, having moved to a small countryside town in France, are having to adapt to the quiet lifestyle. Unfortunately for the bookworm daughter, everyone thinks that she is strange for loving to read. Actually, they think it is bad...

Anyways, father Maurice goes off to another town's market (a yearly thing). He somehow gets lost and finds the beast's castle. He plucks a rose for Belle and gets captured. Belle goes to find him, swaps places with him so that he can go free, and then starts to learn of the castle's curse.

Can the prince/beast learn to love? Will Belle be the one? How will the townsfolk (including Gaston, the man that wants to marry Belle) react about the beast?

Rating Criteria

0/5 – No value whatsoever. Absolute waste of time.

1/5 – Barely worth any time.

2/5 – Pathetic but has a bit of something to hold the attention a little.

3/5 – Somewhat kept the attention but could definitely have used more.

4/5 – Good, but not awe-strikingly amazing. Could have maybe used a bit more to the movie.

5/5 – Go see it! Wonderful movie all around. – characters, music, theme, story line, etc.

3/5 - *SPOILERS*{Well, this is awkward but I didn't put down a rating when I put it on my list of movies to review... Anyways, after reviewing the movie well after watching it, I have decided to rate it a 3/5.}

As a live-action remake of a beloved 1991 Disney movie, this movie is mediocre. They add in things and take out things that make a "Beauty and the Beast" 1991 fan cringe.

For one, Maurice is nothing but a kind father that is trying his best to help his daughter. He shows nothing of "crazy" like the 1991 version. He is more of an artist than an inventor but he never shows the town reason for them to call him "Crazy Old Maurice".

For being in France, almost no one knows French. Gaston actually says something to LeFou about wanting to marry Belle (she has this....) and LeFou responds with "je ne sais quoi" [which means "I don't know what" in French] and Gaston goes "I don't know what that means". I mean, come on.... Do your French, dummies!

They knock down reading multiple times. I guess there was a time where reading was less popular, especially for women, but... [Put a time stamp on it to make us understand WHEN in France reading is a no-go.] LeFou actually admits that he can't read when singing the "Gaston" song and there is Gaston's name up on the wall - "I'm illiterate". [Bad quality but you get the drift...]

Of the original songs, they kept most of them identical to the original songs but they did change the "Mob Song". LeFou actually seems to realize that Gaston, his hero and man-crush, is probably the monster.... Here's the 1991 version of the "Mob Song" with the comparison afterwards.

I like how LeFou is wising up but I don't like how they changed the lyrics. Gaston says: "Call it war. Call it threat. You can bet they all will follow for in times like these, they'll do just as I say." I mean, are we making references to the war after 9/11 or what....? This really really bothered me.

Why the heck is Belle and Maurice's house in town?! *angry grunt*

As for the music of the movie, there is NO comparison between Angela Lansbury as Mrs Potts and Emma Thompson playing the same part. The wonderful depth of voice acting in the 1991 version is not matched in the 2017 version. Here is a comparison between the 1991 version and the 2017 of "Tale as Old as Time". In my opinion, Angela gives the song much more character with her voice instead of Emma's version.

"Tale as Old as Time" 1991 with Angela Lansbury:

"Tale as Old as Time" 2017 with Emma Thompson:

"Learning you CAN change." Really, why is there an accent there?!

This is true also with "Be Our Guest". I like Ewan McGregor but his version of the song really fell flat....

"Be Our Guest" 1991

"Be Our Guest" 2017

Sorry, Ewan, but your French accent is TERRIBLE! "Gueeeesst....." It's like the whole song is trying too hard to be good.....

New songs - "How Does a Moment Last Forever" and "Evermore".

"How Does a Moment Last Forever" - I think this is a cute song but it is forgettable.

"Evermore" - This is a cute song about the beast/prince realizing that he loves Belle, even though she has just left. "I know that she'll never leave me even as she runs away. She will still torment me, calm me, hurt me, move me, come what may." Well, at least you realize that you care for her... But you still need her to return that love for the spell to be broken.

I definitely did not like the enchanted book. I mean sure, let's learn why Belle's mother wasn't in the picture (the plague in Paris) and why they are out in this other town but it seemed unnecessary and did not flow with the story.

I was upset that the father was changed into an artist especially since Chip never stole away to help them get out of the basement after being locked up, but how could a porcelain cup help anyways? And what is it with the enchantments on the servants anyways? Like how is it only one cup that is a child....? (I was wondering about that with the 1991 version too, since there were more cups with faces. Like how many children are in the castle and why aren't they shown after the transformation?) What is up with the fact that every servant turns to "pure object" right before the transformation back to human? 

[That really messed with the ending because wtf, so we did this too late but NO we didn't!] And then there's the prince giving out a beastial growl at the end.... *cringe*

I guess it was worth giving it a try but honestly, I would suggest just sticking to the original 1991 version. Seriously. If you love the 1991 version, stay away from this one. This was just a terrible try to remake the beloved classic. If you never watched the 1991 version, then you could potentially like this movie. Watching it is your choice though, so thank you for reading my opinion ;-).

(If you want a decent live-action remake of a classic Disney movie, I'd suggest "Aladdin" over this one even though Will Smith didn't do as amazing as Robin Williams for Genie.)

That's my movie review. Thanks for reading! More reviews to come eventually.

~ Gracie Mae DeLunac

Contact me?

Twitter @gracie_delunac

Email graciemaedelunac@yahoo.com

Facebook https://facebook.com/GracieMaeDeLunac/

Skype gracelyn2019@yahoo.com

"Everything Wrong with Beauty and the Beast (2017)"

by @CinemaSins

1249.

Book Review: "The Girl who Played with Fire", 2006

 After previously watching the American version of "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" and the Swedish trilogy of the series "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo", I decided to read these books. I purchased the three books ("The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo", "The Girl that Played with Fire", and "The Girl that Kicked the Hornet's Nest") from a thrift store. After reading the first book of the series, I immediately picked up the second book and started reading. This is a book review for the second of that series - "The Girl that Played with Fire".

"The Girl who Played with Fire"

Author: Stieg Larsson

Language Read: English

Published: 2006

Genre: Crime, mystery, thriller

Finished reading this book: January 10, 2020

Plot

After solving the Harriet Verger case and resolving the Wennerström libel suit against Blomkvist, Lisbeth Salander (having stolen money from Wennerström's failing empire) decided to go for a vacation and to improve herself. She has stopped communicating with Blomkvist, having felt shunned by him previously when she almost gave him a gift, but she still keeps tabs on him via his computer. When a new writer enters Blomkvist's magazine department with an idea about sex trafficking in Sweden, Lisbeth takes interest. Soon, however, the new writer is found dead and Lisbeth is blamed for it.

As Mikael (the one person that thinks that Lisbeth is not responsible for the murders of the writer and the writer's girlfriend) and Lisbeth (from the shadows) research into what is going on with the murders, they find a web of issues and connections that tie further back in time to Lisbeth's past. Can she deal with her past without getting killed? Is it possible to solve these murderers and catch those responsible?

Review

3.5/5 - 

*SPOILERS*

The book starts off slow and monotonous. Lisbeth is a great character, even after siphoning money from Wernerstrom back in the first book, and she shows it from the beginning. The plot doesn't really get interesting until 1/3rd into the book when Daag Svensson and his girlfriend Johansson were murdered. The questions from that point on are who did it (why are they all blaming Lisbeth and is she the one who actually did it?), why did they do it (was it connected to the prostitution expose that Svensson and Johansson were working on or was it for a different reason?), and how do they get closure for what has happened? The investigations by the police, Millenium and Milton Security slowly each pull information out about the situation, but Lisbeth's investigation into Zala (Zalachenko, her father) leads the plotline further.

Turns out that Zalachenko is a Russian defector that got protection from the Swedish government years way back when. He impregnated Lisbeth's mother (with Lisbeth and her twin sister) and never agreed to marry her. Being a nasty drunk, he would constantly beat Lisbeth's mother and no police would help her because of Zalachenko's protection. So Lisbeth took the initiative to protect her mother - she threw a homemade Molotov cocktail made from a milk carton into his car as he was about to leave, burning him, disfiguring him, and causing him lose his foot via amputation. Of course, he never forgot. She had been sent to a psych ward thanks to the government protecting Zalachenko, where she was abused, and was given a record of being mentally ill though she had only tried to get help to protect her mother. The reports of that time also pushed the police to suspect her more, on top of circumstantial evidence.

Bjurman had been associated with Zalachenko back when he defected from Russia and, because he was annoyed and angry at Lisbeth, asked for Zalachenko's help to get rid of Lisbeth. Zalachenko sent his son (Niedermann, the German-born giant that has a medical disorder that doesn't allow him to feel pain) to Bjurman to settle the issue right as Lisbeth was talking with Svensson/Johansson about Zala. Lisbeth blamed herself for giving Svensson the link between Bjurman and Zala because Niedermann killed Bjurman, drove to Svensson/Johansson's place and killed them. If she hadn't asked about if there was a link between Bjurman and Zala, then Svensson and Johansson probably wouldn't have been killed. It just so happened that Lisbeth had touched the gun previously (2 years ago when she was getting Bjurman back for raping her) and Niedermann had used gloves. So, that's why the police thought she was the main suspect for the murders.

So, what happened? Lisbeth tracked down Niedermann and Zalachenko, went after them, and they saw her on surveillance camera and took her down. They took her out to be killed but she tried to cause as much damage as she could and tried to get away. However, Zalachenko shot her three times: hip, shoulder and right by one ear. The head wound took her down, they dropped her in a freshly dug hole, buried her without making sure she was dead, and left. Fortunately for her, she didn't die from the shot, had enough air in the grave to breathe, and hadn't been crushed to death by the ground because it was light and sandy. She managed to dig herself out and walk away from the site, but unfortunately managed to walk back to Zalachenko's farmhouse. They didn't see her in the cameras this time because she came from a different direction. She wanted to set the place ablaze so she went into a woodshed, but no gasoline or other way to start a fire. Zalachenko heard the commotion and came to investigate, where he was whacked twice by Lisbeth with an axe. He went down with the axe but didn't die. Niedermann heard Zalachenko screaming so he came to investigate. Seeing Lisbeth looking worse than a zombie, his fear of the dark and seeing her made him panic and run away. He just so happened to be on the road looking for a ride when Blomkvist came driving up, looking for Lisbeth. Blomkvist tied him up to a road sign, found the farmhouse with Zalachenko moaning in pain in the woodshed and with Lisbeth barely alive lying on a bench in the kitchen. Blomkvist called emergency services and the story abruptly ended.

I disliked the fact that the end had almost NO finality. So Berger is going to leave Millennium and hasn't told anyone except her husband (left that to the very end too!), Zalachenko is in the woodshed, Niedermann is tied up to a sign, Blomkvist is on the phone and is Lisbeth going to live? What are the police going to say over all of this? Are they going to charge Lisbeth for the damage that she did to Zalachenko and some other of his associates or are they going to let her go considering the evidence? No clue because the book just stopped. Seriously, worse than a Stephen King ending!!!

This book took me longer to read than "Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" because the plot was just so slow that I opted many times to watch something over reading this. Once the homicides happened, I was more intrigued but it was still more of a "I like Lisbeth and want to know what happens to her" thing than "let's get this solved". To have the ending that it did made me feel angry that I had spent so much time and emotional investment into this book because I didn't get what I was looking for. I still plan to read the third book "The Girl That Kicked The Hornet's Nest" but I am not reaching for it immediately because I am bitter at the lack of conclusion the book made.

Let's say it like this: I own all 3 of the trilogy and I haven't even tried to read the third book because the ending of the second one left a bad taste in my mouth/mind.

I might try to read the third later but it has been over eight months since I finished the second one and other books come to mind before "The Girl that Kicked the Hornet's Nest". However, there is hope because I bought a copy of the fourth book. Stieg Larsson only wrote three books of the Millennium series (passed away in 2004 before the books were actually published) but another author (David Lagercrantz) picked up where he left off and wrote three more books for the series: "The Girl in the Spider's Web", "The Girl who Takes an Eye for an Eye", and "The Girl Who Lived Twice". I bought "The Girl in the Spider's Web", so there is a chance that I may want to read the third book eventually. We'll see in the future about that.

"Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" was much more interesting to read. I would definitely still recommend the first book but this second one is more of a "you can read it because I won't stop you but I don't recommend it". Your tastes might like this book better than I did or even better than the first, but I am not pleased.

So, that's my book review. Not a bad book, slow first half, and an ending that was lack-luster. Definitely read the first book before this one because it piggybacks off of the first book.

Thanks for reading my review! More to come eventually.

Contact me?

Twitter @gracie_delunac

Email graciemaedelunac@yahoo.com

Facebook https://facebook.com/GracieMaeDeLunac/

Skype gracelyn2019@yahoo.com

1572.

Book Review: "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo", 2005

Book Review: "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo"

I previously watched the American movie "Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" and the Swedish trilogy on the books. I therefore thought, when I saw the books at a thrift store, 'why not try the books'. Sometimes the movies just don't do as good as the books so why not. This is a review for the first book, "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo".

"The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo"

Author: Stieg Larsson

Language Read: English

Published: 2005

Genre: Mystery, Crime Fiction, Thriller, Suspense, Nordic noir

Plot

Reporter Mikael Blomkvist receives a request from a corporate man (Henrik Vanger) to help him solve a family mystery that has haunted him for over thirty years: what happened to his granddaughter Harriet? Who has been keeping up a tradition she started years before her disappearance (sending him a pressed flower on his birthday)? Who is responsible for the disappearance of Harriet, of all the family members that could have done it on the day in question thirty years ago?

Mikael finds that he has a connection to the Vanger family [Harriet had been his babysitter sometimes] and is given incentive to take the job. Having just had a major court case of "slander" against a major business mogul (Hans-Erik Wennerström), Mikael needs to take some time out of the spotlight and Vanger says he can help with dealing with the Wennerström case.

As Mikael works on the case, he finds out that there is a computer hacker watching his moves. Vanger had asked a security company (prior to offering the case to Blomkvist) do a background check on Blomkvist. The person that did the background check is a young woman named Lisbeth Salander and she checks up on him every so often. However, she takes interest in the case of the missing Harriet and soon Lisbeth and Mikael are working together to figure out the thirty-year-old mystery.

Can they solve the mystery? Did someone in the Vanger family kill Harriet and, if so, where is her body? Why would someone of the family attack Harriet? Are there darker secrets than just Harriet missing? And who is sending the pressed flowers on Henrik's birthday?

Review

4/5 - This is a very good book ["a page turner"] and I do believe that the Swedish version of this movie did a very good job sticking to the book. There are some dark things that this book deals with including vile murder rituals, attacks on women (murdered and raped), incestual abuse/rape/attacks, etc.

Even though the story has a lot of nasty topics to deal with, I do think this book was very well written. I enjoyed the intelligence that Lisbeth and Mikael both showed while dealing with their investigation. I was sad to see the book end but it was a good ending and had a bit of "look of hope" for Lisbeth. I picked up the second book immediately to read it as I was not ready to be finished with this 'verse, so the review for that will be soon.

I personally think this is very good book. I am glad to have it in my collection but I don't think that I will be rereading it any time soon (thanks to that never ending list of To Be Read books and To Be Watched movies and the reviews that ensue).

Oh, and by the way, the American version of the movie might have had decent special effects and whatnot but it didn't stick to the book as much as I would have liked.

That's my book review. Thanks for reading! More reviews to come eventually.

Contact me?

Twitter @gracie_delunac

Email graciemaedelunac@yahoo.com

Facebook https://facebook.com/GracieMaeDeLunac/

Skype gracelyn2019@yahoo.com

619.

Classic Movie Review: "Life" 04/16/99

This is a movie review for "Life", released April 16, 1999. As I have seen this before, this is a classic movie review. I watched it again most recently on December 31, 2019.

Genre: Comedy, Crime, Drama

Run Time: 1 Hour and 48 Minutes

Official MPAA Rating (According to IMDB.com):

G / General Audiences

PG / Parental Guidance Suggested

PG-13 / Parents Strongly Cautioned

R / Restricted

X

Not Rated

Trailer

Notable Cast

Eddie Murphy ... Rayford Gibson
Martin Lawrence ... Claude Banks

Bernie Mac ... Jangle Leg

Plot

Rayford and Claude end up taking a trip for a New York (mafia?) boss down to the south. While they are down there, they are robbed and arrested, tried for the murder of a bad guy and thrown into prison for life. Of course they didn't kill the guy but no one would listen to them because they're in the south. So, how do they survive prison? Or can they get out before their life sentence is up....? And what will happen between the two of them - will they become friends or just stay mad at each other for all the years in prison that they are serving together?

Rating Criteria

0/5 – No value whatsoever. Absolute waste of time.

1/5 – Barely worth any time.

2/5 – Pathetic but has a bit of something to hold the attention a little.

3/5 – Somewhat kept the attention but could definitely have used more.

4/5 – Good, but not awe-strikingly amazing. Could have maybe used a bit more to the movie.

5/5 – Go see it! Wonderful movie all around. – characters, music, theme, story line, etc.

3.5/5 - This is a decent comedy though it is about being stuck in prison. It is interesting to see how people try to survive inside a prison, especially since Ray and Claude didn't do the crimes they were committed for. It is funny to watch Ray try his darndest to get out of prison and the ending makes you go "well....". I'm not going to spoil it for you but it is cute and they do end up as friends, after many years in the prison.


Ray's Boom Boom Room (a fantasy about owning a club):

I have seen this movie at least twice. I would recommend this movie as something to watch though it seems like there isn't much to see during the movie because they are stuck in the prison (except watching the failed attempts to get out of the prison, of course). The camaraderie between the inmates is cute, as seen in the dream sequence of Ray's Boom Boom Room. Is this a kid-friendly movie? Not necessarily but it isn't too violent or graphic.

Anyways, that's my movie review. Thanks for reading! More reviews to come eventually.

~ Gracie Mae DeLunac

Contact me?

Twitter @gracie_delunac

Email graciemaedelunac@yahoo.com

Facebook https://facebook.com/GracieMaeDeLunac/

Skype gracelyn2019@yahoo.com

473.

Movie Review: "Titanic" 04/11/53

This is a movie review for "Titanic", first premiered April 11, 1953 in Norfolk, Virginia (USA). I watched this via VHS copy on December 30, 2019.

Genre: Drama, History, Romance

Run Time: 1 Hour and 38 Minutes

Official MPAA Rating (According to IMDB.com):

G / General Audiences

PG / Parental Guidance Suggested

PG-13 / Parents Strongly Cautioned

R / Restricted

X

Not Rated

Trailer

Notable Cast

Clifton Webb ... Richard Ward Sturges
Barbara Stanwyck ... Julia Sturges
Robert Wagner ... Gifford Rogers
Audrey Dalton ... Annette Sturges
Brian Aherne ... Captain E. J. Smith

Harper Carter ... Norman Sturges (uncredited)

Plot

Everyone knows about the story of the great cruise liner Titanic making her way across the ocean and hitting an iceberg that brought her down. This is the story of a family trying to figure out what to do with their lives, dealing with infidelity and conflict of opinion between mother and father, while on the Titanic. When the ship hits the iceberg, however, everything changes. Can they come to a conclusion? Will they come together during this tragedy? Who will survive?

Rating Criteria

0/5 – No value whatsoever. Absolute waste of time.

1/5 – Barely worth any time.

2/5 – Pathetic but has a bit of something to hold the attention a little.

3/5 – Somewhat kept the attention but could definitely have used more.

4/5 – Good, but not awe-strikingly amazing. Could have maybe used a bit more to the movie.

5/5 – Go see it! Wonderful movie all around. – characters, music, theme, story line, etc.

3.5/5 - A better plot line and more relatable than the 1997 "Titanic" movie with DiCaprio. At times it was hard to watch because it was in black and white but the acting was good. The story was good. It was good to see them come to a conclusion between the husband and wife but it was sad to see the father and son (though not his) stay behind. The tragedy of the Titanic's sinking will always hit hard to me because there was such a loss of life but I think that this version of the story, especially since it was closer to the time that the actual incident occurred, is a fair representation of what happened. It wasn't sugar-coated, with a pastor actually running into the boiler area where the workers were going to be trapped.

For those that are interested in the Titanic and the stuff regarding the disastrous fate it succumbed to, I would recommend this. If you don't like black and white movies, you might want to pass. Aside that, I would recommend this movie.


That's my movie review. Thanks for reading! More reviews to come eventually. 

~ Gracie Mae DeLunac

Contact me?

Twitter @gracie_delunac

Email graciemaedelunac@yahoo.com

Facebook https://facebook.com/GracieMaeDeLunac/

Skype gracelyn2019@yahoo.com

456.

Classic Movie Review: "My Fair Lady" 10/21/64

This is a movie review for "My Fair Lady", first premiered October 21, 1964 in New York City, New York (USA). I have watched this movie multiple times over the years (hence "classic" movie review).

Genre: Drama, Family, Musical

Run Time: 2 Hours 50 Minutes

Official MPAA Rating (According to IMDB.com):

G / General Audiences

PG / Parental Guidance Suggested

PG-13 / Parents Strongly Cautioned

R / Restricted

X

Not Rated

Trailer

Notable Cast

Audrey Hepburn ... Eliza Doolittle
Rex Harrison ... Professor Henry Higgins
Stanley Holloway ... Alfred P. Doolittle
Wilfrid Hyde-White ... Colonel Hugh Pickering
Gladys Cooper ... Mrs. Higgins

Jeremy Brett ... Freddy Eynsford-Hill
Theodore Bikel ... Zoltan Karpathy
Mona Washbourne ... Mrs. Pearce

Plot

Professor Henry Higgins and Colonel Hugh Pickering are linguistic heavy-weights. They've been to many places and talked with many people. They love language. When Pickering said that Higgins could not take a common flower-selling girl off of the street and straighten her language, Higgins took the challenge and said that he'd have her "speaking like a queen at the ball!". What kind of things must they go through? Can she learn how to speak properly?

Rating Criteria

0/5 – No value whatsoever. Absolute waste of time.

1/5 – Barely worth any time.

2/5 – Pathetic but has a bit of something to hold the attention a little.

3/5 – Somewhat kept the attention but could definitely have used more.

4/5 – Good, but not awe-strikingly amazing. Could have maybe used a bit more to the movie.

5/5 – Go see it! Wonderful movie all around. – characters, music, theme, story line, etc.

4/5 - *SPOILERS*


Eliza trying to act properly at the horse races:

I love how Eliza really stands up for herself because she should get acknowledgement of her work for acting like a lady at the ball and the Professor's mother agrees with her. If she hadn't done the work to learn how to speak, Professor Higgins' task would have failed. To have him treat her merely as a "test subject" and not giving her credit, though she is a female, is just not right. So this song "Without You" really bolsters her up in my mind:

Why Eliza returned to the Professor at the end: I think she had a fondness for him but aside that, I could not understand why at all especially considering he had constantly been a bother to her the whole time she had been studying with him. One of his last sentences in the movie is not "I'm glad you're back" but "Have you seen my slippers?". Like seriously, we're not going to talk about the fact that you were treating her terribly and now she's back? We're not going to talk about the fact that you two have some sort of connection....?  This is the main thing that made me downgrade this movie because there was not a conclusion at the end about how their relationship stood.

Though I am upset at the ending of the movie, I must say this is still one of my most favorite musicals that I have grown up with (including "Camelot", "Oklahoma", etc). I would recommend this movie to those that like musicals, because the songs are fantastic and the movie would be nothing without the music. Otherwise, feel free to stay away from the movie if you're against older movies and musicals; you'd be missing out if you did stay away from them, in my honest opinion!


Anyways, that's my movie review. Thanks for reading! More reviews to come eventually.

~ Gracie Mae DeLunac

Contact me?

Twitter @gracie_delunac

Email graciemaedelunac@yahoo.com

Facebook https://facebook.com/GracieMaeDeLunac/

Skype gracelyn2019@yahoo.com

596.