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

Jeannette Walls (Brie Larson) and David (Max Greenfield) are a yuppie couple in 80's NYC. She is horrified to see her parents dumpster diving. The movie tells the story of her growing up with her troubled parents (Woody Harrelson, Naomi Watts) and her three siblings in a volatile nomadic lifestyle.

I didn't read the Jeannette's autobiographical novel. I think I've seen another movie with a similar premise but I don't remember what it's called. Some of this seem familiar without knowing where the story is headed. At first, the childhood story overshadows the future story. Woody is doing some great work. One can see both the love and the fear from young Jeannette. I wasn't sold on older Jeannette until Brie turns up the volume during the arm wrestling scene. She fully rises up to Woody's level. It's great dueling performances. It does need to find a way to wrap up the story. The third act meanders but I give it some leeway as real life. It's hard to manufacture a climax. I'd probably tighten the ending. The movie runs on too long anyways. I love the two performances and like her clashing feelings about her parents. Family are complicated.

"The Glass Castle" is an American English-language film from this year (2017) directed by Hawaiian filmmaker Destin Daniel Cretton and he also adapted the novel for the screen here. It's not the first time he worked with Oscar winner Brie Larson, who plays the central character here. And she proves once more without a doubt that she is among the very finest from her age group in Hollywood now. But still, this is without a doubt Woody Harrelson's film here and the only thing in doubt is if he should win the Oscar for supporting or lead. His character is somewhat similar to Viggo Mortensen's Captain Fantastic and also he has as much of an impact as Arquette in Boyhood and if these two were getting such a great deal of recognition, then so should he as it was simply an amazing portrayal here.

Let me add that I have not read the novel, so my review is entirely based on the film and I cannot comment on parallels and differences compared to the book. But I can say that the book must be amazing to be as good as these slightly over 2 hours we have here. The film is by far the best of 2017 by now and that means especially something as I have seen a lot from this year already and I cannot agree with the mixed reception at all. It is close to a masterpiece. The actors are all good, even the dude from New Girl is tolerable this time. Harrelson is the great standout though and I see he has 2 films in the race this year and it is really high time he gets his Oscar. Very overdue. As for the film itself, it may not be a dominant player this awards season if I see the reception and also because people will say it is the specific story of one family, but irrelevant in the grand picture. This may be true, the first part, but I think they could not be any more wrong about the second. There's important subjects like coming-of-age, alcoholism, father-daughter relationships, husband-wife relationships, sexual abuse, criminal negligence and many others in here and yet the film never feels rushed or for the sake of it, but more like an in-depth examination of these issues that is always satisfying.

Everybody will think something else about the subplots and it will depend on your history how much you will connect with each of these. But I think that there is something in here for everybody and even as a neutral observer, it will be tough not to appreciate the film. This is also due to the great attention to detail. Just one example from near the end: The moment the central character stands still before entering her dad's room one last time because she does(n't) know what expects her at the other side of the door. Harrelson raises the bar to a spectacular level for future performances of loving dads whose approach to life and whose own demons keep them from being the parent their children need them to be. This film's raw authenticity, the characters' imperfection as well as many heartbreaking moments turn this onto one of the very best films of the 2010s. Don't trust the critics talking down on it. This is my Best Picture winner of 2017 at this point and you really need to see it because it is so good and you have a lot more to gain than to lose here. Chances are almost zero you will hate it, but they are good that you will totally love it. So much heart in here and it never drags despite comfortably crossing the 2-hour mark. Go get that Oscar Woody.