I read The Glass Castle by Jannette Walls, and I’ve watched the movie directed by Dustin Daniel Cretton. Jannette grew up in poverty as well as having neglectful and abusive parents after her father thought he could win in blackjack by cheating and got discovered by the other players they made their way to san francisco; she constantly moved with her 3 siblings Brian, Lori, and Maureen Walls she and her siblings must learn to fend for themselves and care for one another learning to rely on their choices as well as burned when she was three in an unsupervised cooking incident. I recommend the movie over the book because it’s more age-appropriate than the book will ever be. If you want the full-fledged story, including more of the rather hard-to-read parts, I’d recommend the book because I liked the positive aspects of the detailed memoir. Jannette appears just as she is depicted in the book. Unlike the actress who portrays her, the other characters are described differently. Jannette has ginger hair and brown eyes, similar to those of her siblings. Interestingly, her siblings are portrayed in the film as dirty blondes, while she remains a “scrawny redhead.” Her mother also describes her as skinny and bony, and the author describes her like that throughout her childhood due to living in poverty and almost always going hungry. Additionally, Jannette must learn to survive tough situations like the laboratory fire in the shed as well as being thrown out of a car going 40 miles an hour, defend herself when in a fight at school against 5 different girls, learn how to swim by almost drowning, and learn to live comfortably instead of squatting going through college and finding love outside the family. One thing that happened in the book that was not in the movie was the scenes of the green lantern, the bar that Jannette’s father passed by now and then when he went for a drink otherwise known as the place with the pretty ladies (geishas) as brian called them he was tempted to go up to them because they seemed nice when they smiled and waved. If they stuck with the original appearances in the movie their designs would be better as well as looking more like siblings, having a visual on the beggining made it more clear it was in the present day rather than in her childhood without context clues it made it seem like she was still a child in the beginning of the book, additionally billy was thankfully non existent for the longest segment in the book or the assault of Jannette walls, it was very unnessisary for the story and it didn’t progress anything, it just made her life worse. Another scene that got left out was the explanation of why she wasnt with eric anymore it was because her fiancee cheated on her a few weeks before their wedding I would’ve liked to have the segment of the explanation of why she isnt with anyone after the start of the last chapter in the movie or “thanksgiving”. If the book didn’t include some parts, I’d recommend it. For this reason, it excluded context from the narrative and removed John, Jannette’s second husband. Instead of her husband saying, “Are you okay?” her mother asked as soon as she started tearing up over how grateful she was to have her loving family over. She didn't have the farmhouse that John had, just an apartment/ house of her own. Without John, she has nobody to live and to love with other than her family, and without the context of the breakup between Eric and Jannette, viewers who haven't read the book lack the context and understanding between the lines. For this reason, I recommend the movie. I enjoyed it far more than the book because it's less graphic/ descriptive. However, Robbie is still a part of it, so please read the trigger warning before you watch the movie. I strongly advise against the book because of the graphic violence in both for her being beaten up and assaulted as well as her father being abusive and having withdrawls within both the movie and the book.

I have read the book “The Glass Castle” written by Jeannette Walls, and watched the movie “The Glass Castle” directed by Destin Daniel Cretton. The Glass Castle is a memoir about Jeannette Walls and her life and how she grew up overcoming crazy obstacles, dealing with her drunk and irresponsible father and carefree mother. Jeannettes life growing up was wild, her family moved around a lot! (doing the “Skedaddle” (pg. 19)) She went from sleeping in the desert when she was a kid to living in New York as a successful journalist in her adulthood. I recommend the book over the movie just because the book gives more details about her life. In the book Jeannette was described with red hair, bucked teeth, and 6ft tall. “I was nearly 6ft tall, pale as a frog's underbelly, and had bright red hair.” (pg. 200) “They're just a little bucked,” she’d say.” In the movie she does have red hair, no bucked teeth, and definitely not 6ft tall. In the movie when she was younger she was more oblivious to her dads behavior but in the book she understood more what her dad was doing. At this point I still would recommend the book over the movie because of all the detail that was put into it. In the end of the book Jeannette was engaged to Eric, in the movie she was engaged to a “David” but there was no David in the book. Also in the book she remarried to John, in the movie she got divorced and stayed single. “I was standing on the platform with my second husband, John.” (pg. 285) This didn't really affect how I felt about the movie but like I said the book has more detail. The change that it had on the storyline in the movie is just that Jeannette stayed single. I still recommend the book because of more details, the littlest thing in the book could have such a huge impact on the storyline and since some things are removed or changed in the movie and it's just not the same detail that the book has. One part that I was looking forward to in the movie was a scene in the book where Jeannettes dad takes the kids to a zoo and Jeannette got to pet a cheetah (pg. 107-108) but of course with the lack of detail it wasn’t in the movie.On the other hand it had no effect on my enjoyment of the movie because movies always lack something that the book doesn't. I don't think it affected the storyline, it just lacked some detail. And for that reason I 100% still recommend the book. Ultimately, if you want to look at this storyline deeper and get real insight about what Jeannette grew up through then definitely read the book over watching the movie, it provides more detail, scenes, and people that the movie doesn't have.

I read the book “The Glass Castle” by Jeannette Walls. I also watched the movie based on this book, “The Glass Castle” directed by Destin Daniel Cretton. This story is about a family of 6 with 4 young kids, Lori, Jeanette, Brian, and Maureen. They grow up with an alcoholic dad who can't take care of them properly and a mom who has absolutely no worries in her life but her art career. Having to move cities all the time due to actions from their dad, the kids have to fend for themselves and adjust to all the different houses they move to, hoping one day to build “the glass castle” their dad teases them with. I would recommend the book over the movie.The book has so much more detail and doesn't move as fast as the movie. The way the book is formatted makes it easier to understand the story as they grow up, while the movie was formatted in a way I felt gave away the end of the story. In this story, there were 2 main characters. The dad, Rex, and the middle daughter Jeanette. The dad was exactly how I pictured him in my head from reading the book. Tall, middle aged white man with a messy haircut. Also, he had the same personality and character traits as he did in the book. For example, he has a thrill in living life in his way, not following society rules. His rule breaking usually involved money. In the book, on page 112 he cashes a check to the bank that wasn't his. ”Dad climbed into the front of the car, turned around, and with a wicked grin, held up a stack of bills.” Another example of this was in a scene in the movie where Jeanette had to go to the hospital because she set herself on fire trying to make food for her and her siblings, since her parents never did. Rex didn't want to pay for the expensive hospital bills so he had Brian, who was a toddler at the time, lay on the ground and pretend to be hurt while he went and grabbed Jeannette. As he darts through the hospital carrying Jeannette, he tells Brian that it's time to go and Brian gets up perfectly fine, leaving the nurses confused. Another character trait I noticed similar between the movie and book was physical and emotional abuse. In both the book and the movie, Rex gets mad at the wife, Rose Mary, and hangs her out of the window by her arms. “She was hanging from the second floor. Dad was holding her by her arms while she tried to hit him.” “He's trying to kill me!” Not only did Rex get physical when he would drink, but the words he said and things he did emotionally affected the kids. One summer, Rex had told the family he was going to quit drinking and build the glass castle he was always teasing the kids with. Jeantte asked Rex on page 116 “ Do you think maybe you could stop drinking?” which is why he decided to quit. Though he was right back to his old habits near the end of the summer. This severely disappointed all the kids and left them all thinking he would never change, except Jeannette. Jeannette was the only one who had hope for her dad, and it destroyed her. Everytime her dad messed up, Jeannette always forgave him, which was her worst trait since it caused continuation in her dads behavior. When he had got back into his bad habits in the book, Mom had told Jeannette, “How come you never blame your father for everything? He's no saint you know.” on page 187 where Jeanette replied, “I was dads last defender, the only one who pretended to believe all his excuses and tales, and to have faith in his plans for the future.” This character trait was portrayed in a different scene in the movie. Rose Mary had tied Rex down to the bed so he wouldn't drink. He was going through terrible withdrawals, and started begging Jeannette to get him alcohol. Jeannette starts whimpering, saying how he promised, but Rex didn't care. “I don't care about that stupid promise! Go get me a drink!” he screamed. Jeannette gets scared and screams, and she gives in and gets him a drink. She had a weak spot for her dad, emotionally abused by his caring and loving act when he was sober, which all got thrown away with just one drink. Moving on to the plot, all of the scenes from the movie were in the book. But one thing the book didn't have was the format. The movie tells the story using flashbacks, jumping from the kids at a young age to the next scene being them all grown up living in the city. The book tells the story from start to end, showing each step of the family growing up. Each chapter of the book was a different chapter in their life. New house, new major event, new age or just something new coming up that would have an effect. This effect from the movie on the plot made the story less interesting. When I read the book, the ending surprised me because it was unexpected, but the movie starts with the ending, basically spoiling the fact that they make it out of a poor life. The book has a couple of pages starting with the ending but it had no meaning yet. And, with no visuals, it wasn't fully given away. The movie gave away what had me wondering about the whole book, and this ruined the suspense as well as affected the storyline by leaving a lot of important events out. For this reason, I recommend the book for a better understanding of the storyline, and how they grew up. A part of the book that was left out in the movie was their entire childhood before moving to Welch. In the book, they lived in a terrible neighborhood in Nevada which had a house called the “Green Lantern”, which wasn't brought up in the movie at all. The Green Lantern was a house filled with women and wasn't a place for kids. Exploring this house left the kids with extra trauma, especially with other kids in the neighborhood putting them in similar traumatic situations. I felt that it made the kids' story more tragic, and made sense of certain behaviors later in the story. Another thing from their childhood that wasn't in the movie was Jeannette’s experience at her new school. When they moved to Welch, on page 139, Jeannette was excited to start at a new school, finally getting a fresh start. But she gets bullied, and later on gets jumped and made fun of, the girls using the words “poor, ugly, and dirty.” This scene later causes Jeannette to stop going to school and get a job so she can move away from Welch. This was a key event in her childhood and was important to the ending of the story. With the movie leaving out so much of the children's life growing up in Nevada, I felt that it was harder to understand how the children felt, especially knowing Welch was supposed to be a new start from Nevada. Not including the beginning of the book in the movie doesn't give the viewer the full experience. For this reason, I would recommend the book. In conclusion, reading the book over watching the movie is a better choice. The book goes into full detail, from when the children first started, to when they grow up. The book has more feeling, even without visuals. The format of the movie with flashbacks in between each scene ruined the plot, and made the storyline more confusing. For a full look into the story, I would read the book rather than watching the movie.

With all due respect to the actors and the book, I am completely put off with making these parents anything except the abusive, selfish, dangerous parents that they were. Making these parents look heroic or loving is a real disservice to the reality of the pathetic lives that they gave their children.

All families merit their own movie, but this one in particular really made for a hell of a story - challenges abounded, but dealt with in a touching manner. Of course, presenting the family at the end was like the cherry on the cake. Sure, this is Hollywoodian, but still realistic enough.

i don't like woody in this WAY tooooo dramatic in everything he does and why is he wearing some kind of pants that you can see his 'junk' ? and...he treats oldest daughter like she's his wife and i almost changed the channel but it was worth it, just to see oldest daughter, finally tell him off!

Idk why this didn’t get way better reviews honestly, seems like the book worms aren’t too happy about this one but coming from someone who didn’t read the book I thought it was a great movie, although I’m not sure how accurately it represented the tree story. I’m definitely interested in reading the book now but I’m scared, sometimes it ruins the movie lol. Highly suggest watching this on some edibles if you’re into that kind of ride.

Having not read the book, it would be a decent movie thanks to good acting and okay directing and filmmaking. But having read the book this story doesn't come close to well representing the book. Various plot lines are completely different or just missing entirely and the cuts to present day are confusing and not even present in the book at all. The movie is so bad it makes the events seem untrue.

Tudo lindo e colorido entretanto revoltante e irresponsável… Alguém comentou que não havia motivo suficiente para Jean odiar o pai, mas deixar quatro crianças passar fome, viver em lugar insalubre e precário por opção (ela descobre que os pais tinham uma terra avaliada em U$ 1 milhão), com mãe esquizofrênica e pai alcoólatra, ambos irresponsáveis e que deixaram marcas irreparáveis nas crianças… Até que elas cresceram bem demais, uma linda e triste biografia, pais tóxicos existem e muito...

The facts in this film are so extreme that it even scares us when we remember that they are real. Still, the story is beautiful, especially the redemptive ending. The entire cast was magnificent, I just thought the makeup failed a little when it came to making the parents older. Without wrinkles, they looked as old as their adult children.

Very painful to watch and yet a testament to the power of some people to persevere despite awful circumstances.

a heartwarming film Brie Larson and Woody Harrelson did a fantastic job as always

Good to watch Brie Larson's performance, the story is okay, but it shows clearly how some people should absolutely NOT be parents. Not everyone is fit for being so. The movies at times tries to lighten things up, but it didn't convince me otherwise.

Solid acting and not much else.

This film did an pretty honest job of showing all sides in a dysfunctional family. Hard to watch at times, but heartwarming other times. If you enjoy drama this is a great flick.

I don't get why people didn't like this movie I thought it was one of the best movies I've seen.

A chaotic childhood of abuse and neglect leads to an emotionally damaged woman. Director Destin Daniel Cretton's indie biographical drama The Glass Castle (2017) is a mixed bag. There's really disturbing scenes of child abuse and neglecting kids based on Jeanette Walls' real childhood trauma. Cretton directs a beautiful film that is frustrating because it tries too hard to give you the happy Hallmark ending of the awful parents deserve your sympathy because they're trying to be better. They were awful people and Cretton's tone ranges from quirky comedy to frightening suspense to sad drama. What was Cretton thinking? I kept thinking The Glass Castle is about Jeanette's girl in denial of how truly disgusting and pathetic her parents were at heart. I would rather recommend The Florida Project, Uncle Frank, Little Miss Sunshine, or Captain Fantastic. Jeannette Walls' life is fascinating and strange, but writers Destin Daniel Cretton and Andrew Lanham lose the point by trying to shift the themes into an uplifting story. Cretton will probably never surpass his 2013 indie drama Short Term 12, also starring Brie Larson. The story is remarkably like Running on Empty (1988), but this time the movie is almost justifying the child abuse of the father and the neglect of the mother by saying they tried to be better later. The perspective is warped and dishonest as we can see how horrible the parents are and it is not an uplifting story. Casting directors Ronna Kress and Chelsea Ellis Bloch brilliantly cast Ella Anderson as young Brie Larson and Sadie Sink as young Sarah Snook. Brie Larson is forlorn and miserable as the emotionally conflicted journalist Jeannette Walls, looking back on her horrendously abusive and negative parents. Larson is subtle and realistic. She's so moving and beautiful here. I wish Brie would come back to these compelling dramas instead of boring blockbusters. Her best acting is in Room, Short Term 12, and The Glass Castle besides her fun appearance in Scott Pilgrim. Chandler Head is adorable as Jeannette Walls (age 8) when she burns herself cooking hot dogs by herself. Ella Anderson is cute and touching as Jeannette Walls (age 11) as her family uproots her life again and again. You see how she wants to believe in her father's lies, but she just keeps getting heartbroken. Naomi Watts is excellent as the awful neglectful mother Rose Mary Walls. She pretends like everything is fine as she never raises her kids. Watts feels like one of those hippie mothers, who never wanted the responsibility of raising children. Woody Harrelson is horrifying as the abusive father Rex Walls, who lies to his children and keeps moving them at a moment's notice. They portray the worst parents you've ever seen in film. Sarah Snook is gorgeous and compelling as the adult Jeanette's sister Lori Walls. She's honest and fun. Olivia Kate Rice is nice as Lori Walls (age 10), but Sadie Sink is phenomenal as Lori Walls (age 13). She's as funny as Ella and heartbreaking as she is fed up with her awful parents. Josh Caras' Brian Walls, Iain Armitage's Brian Walls (age 6), and Charlie Shotwell's Brian Walls (age 9) are solid supporting performances. I liked Brigette Lundy-Paine's grown up Maureen Walls too. Max Greenfield's wet blanket boyfriend David is so dull. All the other characters are forgettable. Editor Nat Sanders does striking cuts that feel refined. I do wish The Glass Castle was around thirty minutes shorter because it feels like its 127 minutes. Cinematographer Brett Pawlak's sweeping wide shots as the family travels around are pretty. I loved the intimate close-up shots when the father is talking to his daughter the most though. Production designer Sharon Seymour makes all these makeshift houses for the young family and a nice apartment for adult Jeanette. Art directors Nicolas Lepage and Charlotte Rouleau's use lovely natural lighting and plenty of nature shots for the establishing environments. Set decorators Brent Lambert, Jason Nardella, and Suzanne Cloutier keep the homes sparse to show the family's poverty. Composer Joel P. West's gentle score is touching and melodic for a nice atmosphere, despite the darker subject matter. Costume designer Mirren Gordon-Crozier, Joy Cretton, and Henri Aubertin gave Brie Larson and Sarah Snook gorgeous outfits that are so fashionable. All the poor clothes are so sad. Makeup artists Annick Chartier, Melissa Fafard, and Marie-Josée Beaudet make the family look horrible in their squalor, while the adults are refined and clean. Hairstylists Ghislaine Sant, Michelle Côté, and Jean Scarabin do wonders for all these lush red hairstyles. In all, The Glass Castle is fairly engaging, but seriously problematic. Brie Larson steals the film.

Don't do it. Save yourselves don't watch this movie. It's 80% child abuse they try to make unique but abuse none the less. The last 20% there's an epiphany that you will get a good feeling about but the cost is too high. I don't care if it has good acting or not this sort of movie goes too far and has nothing to do with entertainment.

Her parents as portrayed in the movie were so ridiculous, selfish, abusive and downright annoying, that it was just difficult to watch.

Slow in some parts, but that's kinda the point with the build-up throughout. Woody Harrelson does another masterful job. A great actor. Anything he's attached to will have heart and authenticity. Glass Castle is another example of this.