Le Château de verre

The book is wonderful, one of my favourite and most memorable reads in recent years. It was thought-provoking, harrowing and poignant, with a chillingly troubled but complex portrayal of dysfunctional family life. So there were high expectations on that front, as well as that a great cast were involved.

Seeing 'The Glass Castle' last night, it is a pretty well done film on its own terms despite a few faults. On the other hand, it is very understandable why it has been said that as an adaptation it is mishandled. Although always striving to judge a film adaptation always as a standalone, if asked which is better between the book and the film the answer's a no brainer. The book feels much more balanced and more complex and the ending rang true far more. Although 'The Glass Castle' has a huge amount to recommend and is better than some of the mixed critical reception suggests (personal opinion), its ending and some tonal issues are its biggest faults.

Particularly in the case of the ending. Not just because it is drenched in sentimentality that is hard even for the strongest of stomachs. Even more so because things feel wrapped up too tidily and patly, the ending is far more realistic in the source material and should have made it on film, definitely would have preferred something more daring than a conclusion that really did not ring true and felt tacked on. Another issue with the ending is that we are told up to the end one thing about Rex and Rose Mary, and it is so overwhelming in evidence that it's easy to believe, then at the end it does a complete 180 degrees and it was just hard to buy.

While not as problematic, things do get a little melodramatic in places and the point of view of the film is somewhat too one-sided, with much more development to Rose Mary and showing her as equally accountable there would have been more complexity.

However, 'The Glass Castle' is a beautifully shot film and the production values are never less than top drawer. The music is neither too intrusive or too low-key and the direction is skillful visually, handles most of the tonal and time shifts well and with good attention to making the portrayal of the family as real as possible.

Script flows naturally and is thought-provoking and nuanced. The story has its problems, but mostly it is very compelling, hard-hitting and pathos-filled. It's particularly good in its careful balance of laughter and tears, the intense but also profound understanding of the central father-daughter bond and in the twisted but troubled portrayal of the dysfunctional family. Apart from Rose Mary being underwritten and underused, the characters are more than archetypal clichés, Jeannette is especially well realised.

Woody Harrelson gives a courageously gutsy performance as a pretty reprehensible human being, while Brie Larson's Jeanette is powerfully conflicted. All the children are well cast, with Ella Anderson in particular being an absolute revelation. Naomi Watts does a very good job with what she has.

In conclusion, adaptation-wise it is mishandled and the ending really doesn't ring true at all, but it's a well made emotional roller-coaster with a believable portrayal of dysfunctional family life and stellar performances deserving of some kind of award recognition (Harrelson, Larson and Anderson in particular). 7/10 Bethany Cox

'THE GLASS CASTLE': Four Stars (Out of Five)

The new drama adapted from the 2005 memoir (of the same name) by Jeannette Walls, based on her experiences growing up in a poor dysfunctional family. The film was directed by Destin Daniel Cretton (who also helmed the 2013 critical darling 'SHORT TERM 12'), and it was written by Cretton and Andrew Lanham. The movie stars Brie Larson (who also starred in 'SHORT TERM 12'), Woody Harrelson, Naomi Watts, Ella Anderson, Chandler Head and Max Greenfield. The film has received mixed reviews from critics, and it's performed modestly at the Box Office so far. I found it to be a little too long, and slow-paced, but it's mostly a very moving and enjoyable film.

The story is told from Jeannette's (Larson) point of view, as an adult, as she recollects on growing up as a child in extreme poverty. Her mother, Rose Mary (Watts), was an eccentric artist, and her father, Rex (Harrelson), was a free-spirited alcoholic. Jeannette, and her three siblings, were constantly forced to move, and often times they didn't have enough to eat, or ideally safe conditions to live in. The whole time Rex filled the children's heads with unrealistic hopes and dreams of a better life.

The movie is filled with one heartbreaking scene after another, I cried multiple times throughout the entire film. Larson plays the central character in it (as an adult), but Harrelson actually has far more screen time; and he's the real star of the movie (in my opinion) as well. As flawed a character as he is, Harrelson's character is also (in some ways) the most relatable, at least for me, due to his dreams and generally positive outlook on life. The film has many great moments in it too, but it seems to lose it's way at times, and it's sometimes a pain to sit through (due to it's pacing). 'SHORT TERM 12' is definitely a much better film, but this movie had a lot of potential to it. I think it's definitely still worth seeing.

Watch an episode of our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: https://youtu.be/j_XDrmlMJNY

Raising children is not easy. Being a child growing up in an unstable relationship and general instability character wise (parents wise that is), is not easy either. This movie is not easy to watch is what I'm trying to say. But it is rewarding if you are into dramas and really good performances. The lines are blurred between good and bad, and what parenting is about and how or what you should learn from the usually most important people in your life.

Woody Harrelson gives a powerhouse performance, which elevates but is also enhanched through the other great performances. As the saying goes, what doesn't kill you ... So if you like slow moving drama with a distraught time line, this is the one you may like

The acting and writing for this movie are great, however, I think it missed the mark in terms of what of this incredible story the screen writers chose to focus on. I read the book as an amazing story of resilience, and while the film certainly didn't shy from the fact that Walls thrived despite the neglect and emotional abuse she endured as a child, it played more like a story about her relationship with her father than as a personal story about her tenacity to survive despite it all. I found the book inspiring. The movie didn't inspire as much as it pulled the heart strings. In the end her parents looked a bit too sympathetic, and I left the theater feeling that us viewers were robbed of some of the most raw and telling details her of her childhood, the details that best illustrated just how trying and unique her life was growing up. In all, though I thought the acting was great, I think the meat of Jeanette's personal story of transformation was sacrificed to make space for telling the specific story of her relationship with her father.

This movie really bothered me. Rex Walls was not a misunderstood man whose demons excused the neglect and abuse he made his family suffer. He was a drunk con-artist who made his family suffer by not providing them with food or shelter. He was also an expert in conning his children into believing that he actually loved and cared about them. The Mom was not portrayed properly, she was equally complicit with the neglect and horrible childhood those children endured. The movie should have been about the children and how they somehow managed to thrive, not their horrible alcoholic father and lazy mother.