Brie Larson Endures Tough Childhood, Toothless Script“The Glass Castle” is a far better book than movie. While this is not surprising on its face, since books are often more complex, moving and involving than their screen adaptations, it is astonishing for other reasons.

The cast is topnotch. Oscar winners and nominees abound. Buy Tommy`S Honour (2017) Movie Online more. Director Destin Daniel Cretton adapted Jeannette Walls’ bestselling 2.

Gormenghast /

His previous directorial effort was 2. Short Term 1. 2,” a deeply moving and credible drama about at- risk kids.

Watch Spider-Man: Homecoming Full Movie Online Free and Download HD. Spider-Man: Homecoming is a 2017 American superhero film, loosely based on the Marvel. Watch movies Online Free Full Movie and tv series stream full hd online for free Movies 2017. Breaking the biggest stories in celebrity and entertainment news. Get exclusive access to the latest stories, photos, and video as only TMZ can.

It would seem an inspired choice having him direct another film about endangered children, especially one starring such stellar actors as Woody Harrelson, Naomi Watts and his “Short Term” star Brie Larson. But in Cretton’s hands, this fact- based tale of an oddball, destitute upbringing rings false. It’s based on a woman’s complicated personal recollections of her traumatic childhood, and yet it feels like a cloying, one- note Hollywood tale, the beastly trauma all tied up with a pretty bow and de- fanged.

Find listings of daytime and primetime ABC TV shows, movies and specials. Get links to your favorite show pages.

Watch Video: Brie Larson Breaks Free From Woody Harrelson in 'The Glass Castle' Trailer. The story centers on Jeannette (Larson), her sisters Lori (Sarah Snook, “The Dressmaker”), Maureen (Brigette Lundy- Paine) and brother Brian (Josh Caras, “Hell on Wheels”), and the parents who kept them out of school and on the run, allowing them to get burned, attacked and otherwise imperiled as they looked the other way. The children are dragged along to a succession of ramshackle living quarters by their dad Rex (Harrelson), a dreamer and ne’er- do- well fueled by a steady stream of alcohol, and mom Rose Mary (Watts), who paints beatifically as her children beg for food. Rex is belligerent with authority and insists that each place they move to will be better.

It never is. Essentially, these two able- bodied adults abdicate their responsibility as parents and jeopardize their children’s lives repeatedly. Rex spends hours, usually drunk, drawing plans for a glass castle. He rarely works. Rose Mary sits at her easel and ignores the world around her, filling each of their dilapidated dwellings with her artwork. Their fights are knock- down, drag- out affairs. READ MORESee The Glass Castle's latest POWER MOVE. In one scene, the kids haven’t eaten for three days.

When they line up and complain that they’re starving, Rex takes a few dollars squirreled away by Rose Mary ostensibly to buy food, then is gone for days on a bender. Just how many movies do we need about dysfunctional families in which parents do terrible, cruel things to their children and to each other, but are ultimately deemed eccentric, adorable and loving? The fictional list is long and the movies are uneven.

It’s a tricky feat to pull off. Here, readers will notice that several scenes and plot points were added for the film. And, as often happens in book adaptations, many scenes and key details were left out.

In the book, the kids are nearly taken away from the parents (after an incident involving Rex’s pistol). The family escapes the authorities. Also in the book, Rose Mary supports the family with teaching jobs. She suffers from repeated nervous breakdowns.

The movie depicts her with one image — constantly painting, reducing Rose Mary to a caricature and far less essential to the story than the mercurial Rex. Watch Video: Naomi Watts Goes Too Far in Trailer for Netflix's 'Gypsy'Perhaps the biggest failure of the film lies with its emotional tenor and the desire for a redemptive, upbeat ending.

It’s the wrong approach entirely. Growing up in harrowing poverty with untrustworthy, neglectful parents is not easily resolved. Wrapping up all the loose ends (and overlooking the painful scars) as simply as the film does feels reductive and insincere.

Forgiveness is an admirable inclination and, certainly, it’s an instinct that many draw upon in order to cope with family dysfunction and human frailty. But portraying alcohol- fueled violence, child endangerment and chronic selfishness in an endearing light is hard to stomach, let alone enjoy. Larson as the adult Jeannette does a fine job, though nowhere near as good as her portrayals in “Short Term 1. Room.” Ella Anderson (“Henry Danger”), the actress who plays Jeannette from about the ages of 9- 1. Her sad- eyed, worried expression and tired resignation convey reservoirs of unspoken angst. Her authentic performance perfectly suits the unstable and upsetting childhood she and her siblings must endure. She’s the highlight of the film.

Anderson’s haunted eyes, which look as if they’ve lived 5. If only Cretton had found a way to make this Jeannette the main focus of the story, rather than following the adult Jeannette to her career (as a gossip columnist), marriage to a wealthy New York businessman and eventual embracing of her negligent mother and abusive father. Also Read: Brie Larson to Direct First Film 'Unicorn Store'The book, as written by Walls, felt illuminating. As it’s been translated to the screen, it feels exploitative and false. Perhaps this is partially due to the perspective of screenwriters Cretton and Andrew Lanham. The focus of the film becomes Rex and his fickle charm and instability.

The final third is all about Jeannette’s coming to terms with this brutal man, embracing her familial bond. Cretton and Lanham whitewash his callous, unhinged behavior and try to make him into a character that’s benignly stubborn and intolerant of boredom and bureaucracy. They try to render him cute. And Harrelson does his best to pull it off. But it simply doesn’t work.

If they were going to embellish from the original book, as they did in several questionable instances, perhaps they might have explored Rex’s character taking responsibility for his failings. A throwaway sentence on his deathbed is not enough.

We were a nightmare.” “The Glass Castle” welcomes us to her nightmare. It’s an unpleasant cinematic trip, a complicated experience approached in much too facile a way to be truly affecting. Actresses Over 5. Who Still Rule Hollywood (Photos)Getty Images. Nicole Kidman (birthdate: 0. The Australian Oscar winner appeared in no less than four movies at 2. Sci Fi Movies Dvd Absolutely Fabulous The Movie (2016).

Cannes Film Festival. Helena Bonham Carter (birthdate: 0. After starring in 2. She stars in HBO's new with comedy .

Superman: Dawn of Justice. Fox (birthdate: 0. Since the '8. 0s, Fox has made a name for herself in both film and TV, including appearances in Fox's . She reteamed with De Niro for the 2. HBO movie . Superman: Dawn of Justice. In 2. 01. 6, she stars in the drama .

Recent projects include . Most recently, she's starred in notable films like.

Historians might scratch their heads a long time to figure out when and why it happened, but by the time King Donald was doing the Arabian sword dance and rubbing King Salman’s magic lantern, he was gone. Well, he was just permanently absent, as if the little lucidity that remained had been switched off. In the midst of Byzantine palace intrigues that accused him of collusion with Eurasia, Oceania’s King Donald’s legitimacy and competence to rule had come under challenge. For a King known for his countless imposing castles of concrete, steel, and glass, political survival seemed as flimsy as a house of cards. In the late 1. 8th century, the madness of King George III, some argued, was instrumental in the British loss of their American colony. Will history play itself in reverse, and Europe seize King Donald’s shortcomings to reclaim independence?

Ignorance is power. People usually get the rulers they deserve, or at least those who reflect them or their era. When most people seem to suffer from an induced chronic attention deficit disorder, it is fit for a king to rant his vague train of thoughts in 1. King Donald’s economic adviser and formerly the Duke of Goldman Sachs, Gary Cohn, commented about his ruler’s first trip abroad with the laconic statement: “He came here to learn, he came here to get smart.

His views are evolving, which is exactly as they should be.” On all occasions during the trip, however, King Donald’s comportment suggested that not only did he not learn anything at all or get smart, but also that he had not acquired the manners that make social life possible, or even the behavioral skills of children who are trained not to push their classmates. His apparent ignorance of rudimentary world affairs, such as the fact that Israel is part of the Middle East or that NATO does not pay dues to the United States, were profoundly embarrassing.

One US founding father, James Madison, wrote: “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” In the alternate reality that is King Donald’s rule, Madison’s wisdom has been turned upside down, as the ruler appears to represent human gluttony and the primal instinct of dominance, glorified into the essence of masculinity and magnified into tyranny, without even a physical or emotional awareness of the other. It is our common tragedy that King Donald rules in our theater of the absurd as one who aspires to lead world affairs by bodily throwing his weight around. Madness is wisdom: the winner versus loser postulate.

In King Donald’s cosmogony, climate change may be denied or debated. Furthermore, according to his own Newspeak, the world may be neatly divided between the winners and the losers.

The winner category is defined in the eye of the king by his own criterion of success, which is money. The winners are rich like him, and regardless how they acquire their wealth, they should command respect unless they challenge his authority. King Donald has populated his court with rich sycophants who, by any serious observation, appear to be unqualified for their jobs. The loser category includes the poor, the old, the sick, and the disenfranchised: the billion worker bees who slave away for the potentates of the global elite. Those who act up from their intense alienation are the “evil losers.”Money is the only parameter in King Donald’s equation. He gloated about his $4.

King Salman, and he tried to enforce the payment of a tribute from those he perceived to be his NATO vassals. In his own kingdom, King Donald will “invest in infrastructure” by privatizing roads, bridges, airports, and the functions of municipalities for the benefit of the house of Goldman Sachs.

In 1. 86. 5 Abraham Lincoln made the following statement, which has almost a prophetic ring, to portray the type of cannibalistic capitalism King Donald symbolizes: “The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace and conspires against it in times of adversities. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes.”The jester who would be king. While the welfare of millions worldwide depends on the whims and follies of a man who cannot govern in our common tragedy, his actions are perfect material for hilarious slapstick comedy. As an entertainer, King Donald played one of the castle clowns, a rich fool without loyalty to any person or principle. He should have remained as such. Now we watch in horror as his son- in- law and favorite adviser, Prince Jared, gets investigated by a council of wisemen for his alleged collusion with Eurasia, and three aircraft carriers approach Eastasia, knowing that nobody can put it past those in the castle to wag the dog in a nuclear fashion to diffuse the palace crisis.

Back in 2. 01. 6, we asked our esteemed colleague. Dady Cheryher sentiments about the power- transition process and she said that she would “vote for Donald duck.” It is time to ask her again, in retrospect, in the context of our state of affairs, if there is any advantage to a cartoon king. The devil wasn’t there.

Otherwise, I would have picked him,” said Dady Chery. Editor’s Notes: Gilbert Mercier is the author of The Orwellian Empire. Photographs one, two, three, four, five, and seven from the White House archive; photograph six from the archive of Alpha.