Search
Search results
FilmIntuition (33 KP) rated An Anonymous Girl in Books
Dec 22, 2018
Takes 150 Pages to Get Going
Wasting a clever set-up that feels like a cross between David Fincher's The Game and “the wrong man” motif that filled Alfred Hitchcock’s filmography, after strapped-for-cash twenty-something makeup artist Jessica Farris participates in a paid ethics study intended for someone else, An Anonymous Girl takes roughly 150 pages to get going.
Graduating from creepy to only mildly thrilling, predictably Jessica discovers that the study was the bait needed to lure her into a diabolical shrink’s carnival funhouse of lies and manipulation where very little is what it seems.
Needless to say, it's a disappointing return to the genre for Greer Hendricks and Sarah Pekkanen following their smash hit The Wife Between Us. And while An Anonymous Girl has the makings of a much greater psychological mystery, the authors don't invest nearly as much thought into the heroine as the book's villain, which means that the reader is usually three steps ahead of Jessica each time she gets a (fairly obvious) ticket to the clue bus.
Sticking it out due to mild curiosity as to how everything would turn out as well a desire to review An Anonymous Girl since St. Martin's Press, Bookish First, and NetGalley were kind enough to send me an arc, despite an intriguing idea, in the end, I think most readers will be tempted to put it down in favor of picking a different thriller up.
Graduating from creepy to only mildly thrilling, predictably Jessica discovers that the study was the bait needed to lure her into a diabolical shrink’s carnival funhouse of lies and manipulation where very little is what it seems.
Needless to say, it's a disappointing return to the genre for Greer Hendricks and Sarah Pekkanen following their smash hit The Wife Between Us. And while An Anonymous Girl has the makings of a much greater psychological mystery, the authors don't invest nearly as much thought into the heroine as the book's villain, which means that the reader is usually three steps ahead of Jessica each time she gets a (fairly obvious) ticket to the clue bus.
Sticking it out due to mild curiosity as to how everything would turn out as well a desire to review An Anonymous Girl since St. Martin's Press, Bookish First, and NetGalley were kind enough to send me an arc, despite an intriguing idea, in the end, I think most readers will be tempted to put it down in favor of picking a different thriller up.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Charade (1963) in Movies
Nov 15, 2020
The best Hitchcock film NOT Directed by Hitchcock
What do you get when you cross Cary Grant (NORTH BY NORTHWEST) with Audrey Hepburn (BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S) and a cavalcade of interesting faces like Walter Matthau (GOODBYE CHARLIE), James Coburn (THE GREAT ESCAPE), George Kennedy (IN HARM'S WAY) and Ned Glass (WEST SIDE STORY), put them in an exotic European location (this time, mostly, Paris) and have all of them chasing each other for a missing $250,000?
You have the best Alfred Hitchock film NOT Directed by Alfred Hitchcock.
Based on a story by Peter Stone, and Directed by Stanley Donen (SINGIN' IN THE RAIN), CHARADE is a throwback film, that shows the scramble for power and wealth in the beginnings of the cold war in Europe as a woman (Hepburn) searches for answers after her husband shows up deceased and she is instantly besieged by a bevy of mugs looking for some missing loot.
It's a fun and interesting whoddunnit and "whereisit"? With a central plot/love story hinging on the relationship between the Grant and Hepburn characters. And...this is where Charade succeeds greatly as the chemistry between the two is strong, thanks to the smart, forward-thinking idea of having Hepburn as on top of her game as Grant is of his. She is no "damsel in distress", but rather a worthy sparring partner for Grants (and the other mugs).
Of course, it doesn't hurt that Hepburn is dressed - impeccably - by Edith Head in stunning Givenchy outfits all set to the music of Henry Mancini.
Speaking of mugs, they don't get more character-y to look at than Matthau, Coburn, Kennedy and Glass and they all are terrific in their roles as shadowy, sinister figures who are after something that they think Hepburn has...but she just might not have it.
Beautifully shot by Donen in Paris of the early 1960's, this film captures a bygone era and a real feeling of a romanticized and glamorous Europe. This is interesting characters doing interesting things in an interesting way in an interesting place.
And...I'm glad all of this is interesting, for if you stopped for a moment to think about the plot - or the rather languid pace of this film - then Charade would lose quite a bit of it's luster and appeal.
But, fortunately for me, I didn't do that. I sat and immersed myself in these characters, settings and circumstances and was rewarded with a very entertaining evening brought to the screen by master players who know what they are doing.
Letter Grade: A-
8 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
You have the best Alfred Hitchock film NOT Directed by Alfred Hitchcock.
Based on a story by Peter Stone, and Directed by Stanley Donen (SINGIN' IN THE RAIN), CHARADE is a throwback film, that shows the scramble for power and wealth in the beginnings of the cold war in Europe as a woman (Hepburn) searches for answers after her husband shows up deceased and she is instantly besieged by a bevy of mugs looking for some missing loot.
It's a fun and interesting whoddunnit and "whereisit"? With a central plot/love story hinging on the relationship between the Grant and Hepburn characters. And...this is where Charade succeeds greatly as the chemistry between the two is strong, thanks to the smart, forward-thinking idea of having Hepburn as on top of her game as Grant is of his. She is no "damsel in distress", but rather a worthy sparring partner for Grants (and the other mugs).
Of course, it doesn't hurt that Hepburn is dressed - impeccably - by Edith Head in stunning Givenchy outfits all set to the music of Henry Mancini.
Speaking of mugs, they don't get more character-y to look at than Matthau, Coburn, Kennedy and Glass and they all are terrific in their roles as shadowy, sinister figures who are after something that they think Hepburn has...but she just might not have it.
Beautifully shot by Donen in Paris of the early 1960's, this film captures a bygone era and a real feeling of a romanticized and glamorous Europe. This is interesting characters doing interesting things in an interesting way in an interesting place.
And...I'm glad all of this is interesting, for if you stopped for a moment to think about the plot - or the rather languid pace of this film - then Charade would lose quite a bit of it's luster and appeal.
But, fortunately for me, I didn't do that. I sat and immersed myself in these characters, settings and circumstances and was rewarded with a very entertaining evening brought to the screen by master players who know what they are doing.
Letter Grade: A-
8 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Batman Begins (2005) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
Batman has always seemed to make great viewing and with the darker takes on him of the past to decades, great movies. This was a real treat though. It’s almost a rational take on an irrational super hero. Christopher Nolan has managed to give Batman a human face and the world he inhabits a sense of scale and realism. But that’s not to say that it is lacking in the sense of the theatrical.
Back in 2005, the hype for this film was building, with a new take on the old comic hero taking shape. Though I must admit that the design of the new Batmobile didn’t look cool to me, but I loved the concept of rooting him in a real world. The other questionable point was that lack of the big hitters in terms of the villains. The Joker, Penguin, Riddler and Catwomen were dumped in favour of The Scarecrow and Ra’s al Ghul, with only one that I, as the un-indoctrinated in comic book lore, that I had heard of being The Scarecrow.
But this was not to be a typical Batman film in any sense of the word. In June 2005, Batman was reborn and not only had the career of an independently styled filmmaker, Christopher Nolan blown into the big leagues but Blockbusters had just been redefined, an event not dis-similar in effect t those of Jaws and Star Wars in the 1970’s.
Batman, a Warner Bros. cash cow for decades, was about to cross all the main lines within the industry and a blockbuster with art house sensibilities and real intelligence was about to born. It’s not the first, but it opened the door for Nolan and his like to change the way we think about movies of this kind. It doesn’t seem to be that long ago that Marvel was dominating cinemas was some first-rate adaptations such as X-Men, Spider-man and the underrated Hulk, which in many ways may be classed as a prototype for this, with art house direction from Ang Lee.
The plot of Batman Begins isn’t really that important though that’s not to sell it short. It’s a highly developed and conceived story, packed from the opening frame to the 140th minute, but it’s simply the perfect blend of the evolution of Bruce Wayne into Batman, and the usual diabolical plans of the super-villain, only it doesn’t feel like that when you’re watching it. It feels like a well judged story about a traumatised young man, struggling to come terms with his parents murder, and his place in the world.
Luckily for him, his family are billionaires and his butler is Alfred, or more importantly, Michael Caine! There are of course a whole host of contrivances to explain how Batman’s image was forged, how the Batcave was created and where the Batmobile came from, but no-one’s suggesting that this a documentary. This is a more grounded and psychological approach to the story of a nutcase who dressed up like a bat and fights crime without a single superpower to his aid.
But it’s how Nolan brings all this together that works so well. He addresses things so subtly that you can end up missing them if you blink, or at least fail to see them coming. Wayne is turned into a flamboyant excentric to maintain a distance from his friends, if he even has any. The Batcave never ends up looking how we’d expect either, but it is full of bats if that helps and he does park his car there.
It is not until The Dark Knight that we see a Batcave of sorts and that isn’t even in the grounds of Wayne Manor. So, the direction, conception and writing are great, what about the casting? Christian Bale is Wayne/Batman for me, though the animatistic tone to his voice maybe a little overdone, but I do get it. Katie Holmes is the weakest link and am glad that she was recast for the sequel. The rest of the players are first-rate and this may well be on of the best casts ever assembled for a single film in my opinion.
Gary Oldman, so understated as Lt. Gordon, Caine as Alfred is perfect; Liam Neeson is on top form, which he isn’t always, let’s face it and Morgan Freeman, like Oldman and Caine can seemingly do no wrong. Then there’s Hans Zimmer‘s collaboration with James Newton Howard for the score which is one of Zimmer’s best. Howard is an able composer and he clearly provided many of the excellent emotional riffs, but it was Zimmer who brought this together with his dominant, strident style, colossal beats and pacing.
The look and sound of this film sets it apart from so many of its brethren. Batman Begins is a truly original, relentless and groundbreaking movie that is the best of the comic book movies by a mile, but not necessarily the best comic book adaptation. Spider-man or Watchmen for example, may qualify for the fact that they more literally reflect their respective sources but Nolan’s masterpiece is a blueprint as to how film should tackle such adaptations.
And yes, that’s right; Batman Begins is a masterpiece if ever there was one, though a slightly lesser one in comparison to its own sequel, The Dark Knight which may have completely rewritten the handbook.
Back in 2005, the hype for this film was building, with a new take on the old comic hero taking shape. Though I must admit that the design of the new Batmobile didn’t look cool to me, but I loved the concept of rooting him in a real world. The other questionable point was that lack of the big hitters in terms of the villains. The Joker, Penguin, Riddler and Catwomen were dumped in favour of The Scarecrow and Ra’s al Ghul, with only one that I, as the un-indoctrinated in comic book lore, that I had heard of being The Scarecrow.
But this was not to be a typical Batman film in any sense of the word. In June 2005, Batman was reborn and not only had the career of an independently styled filmmaker, Christopher Nolan blown into the big leagues but Blockbusters had just been redefined, an event not dis-similar in effect t those of Jaws and Star Wars in the 1970’s.
Batman, a Warner Bros. cash cow for decades, was about to cross all the main lines within the industry and a blockbuster with art house sensibilities and real intelligence was about to born. It’s not the first, but it opened the door for Nolan and his like to change the way we think about movies of this kind. It doesn’t seem to be that long ago that Marvel was dominating cinemas was some first-rate adaptations such as X-Men, Spider-man and the underrated Hulk, which in many ways may be classed as a prototype for this, with art house direction from Ang Lee.
The plot of Batman Begins isn’t really that important though that’s not to sell it short. It’s a highly developed and conceived story, packed from the opening frame to the 140th minute, but it’s simply the perfect blend of the evolution of Bruce Wayne into Batman, and the usual diabolical plans of the super-villain, only it doesn’t feel like that when you’re watching it. It feels like a well judged story about a traumatised young man, struggling to come terms with his parents murder, and his place in the world.
Luckily for him, his family are billionaires and his butler is Alfred, or more importantly, Michael Caine! There are of course a whole host of contrivances to explain how Batman’s image was forged, how the Batcave was created and where the Batmobile came from, but no-one’s suggesting that this a documentary. This is a more grounded and psychological approach to the story of a nutcase who dressed up like a bat and fights crime without a single superpower to his aid.
But it’s how Nolan brings all this together that works so well. He addresses things so subtly that you can end up missing them if you blink, or at least fail to see them coming. Wayne is turned into a flamboyant excentric to maintain a distance from his friends, if he even has any. The Batcave never ends up looking how we’d expect either, but it is full of bats if that helps and he does park his car there.
It is not until The Dark Knight that we see a Batcave of sorts and that isn’t even in the grounds of Wayne Manor. So, the direction, conception and writing are great, what about the casting? Christian Bale is Wayne/Batman for me, though the animatistic tone to his voice maybe a little overdone, but I do get it. Katie Holmes is the weakest link and am glad that she was recast for the sequel. The rest of the players are first-rate and this may well be on of the best casts ever assembled for a single film in my opinion.
Gary Oldman, so understated as Lt. Gordon, Caine as Alfred is perfect; Liam Neeson is on top form, which he isn’t always, let’s face it and Morgan Freeman, like Oldman and Caine can seemingly do no wrong. Then there’s Hans Zimmer‘s collaboration with James Newton Howard for the score which is one of Zimmer’s best. Howard is an able composer and he clearly provided many of the excellent emotional riffs, but it was Zimmer who brought this together with his dominant, strident style, colossal beats and pacing.
The look and sound of this film sets it apart from so many of its brethren. Batman Begins is a truly original, relentless and groundbreaking movie that is the best of the comic book movies by a mile, but not necessarily the best comic book adaptation. Spider-man or Watchmen for example, may qualify for the fact that they more literally reflect their respective sources but Nolan’s masterpiece is a blueprint as to how film should tackle such adaptations.
And yes, that’s right; Batman Begins is a masterpiece if ever there was one, though a slightly lesser one in comparison to its own sequel, The Dark Knight which may have completely rewritten the handbook.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Dec 8, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Had this been released on any regular week I'd have seen Joker the day it came out and not been overly bothered by the Twitter frenzy that happened in the aftermath of the opening... but, Joker came out two days into the London Film Festival and that meant I couldn't see it straight away. I ended up taking a day off in the middle of it and going out to have a regular cinema outing, it was only 6 days after release but the barrage of feedback online was enough to make me bored at the thought of seeing it.
I do not know how to do this review. It's not that I don't have things to say about it, because I do, but there's a lot of grumbling. I'm going to try bullet pointing it as it covers things that cross audience feedback with moaning.
• What is real? We see the Sophie shots replayed without her in them and we realise he imagined it but we also know that he's imagined other things... everything could be a twist on reality.
• I did not assume that the man with Bruce at home was Alfred.
• I would not have found it unbelievable had Arthur and Sophie been a couple.
• This film could easily have been a pre-origin story for the Joker character.
• I know Arthur needs every push to make the story progress but I don't see that Thomas Wayne needed to be that aggressive.
• Wouldn't it have been good if this film made no reference to anything Batman/Joker related and the first time we're actually shown the connection is in that iconic alley scene?
So there are the things I had thoughts, they all have me waffling on for ages when I voice them out loud.
Joaquin Phoenix really commits to the journey of Arthur and it's an incredible depiction. I'm not so bothered about the violence in the movie, what disturbed me more was how Phoenix manages to laugh without it showing on his face... that was chilling. Everything crafted around him really shows his life, the way he's captured in the shots, the way you see the darker side taking over him, you can see it in every scene. It's uncomfortable to watch him sometimes, but that's the way it needs to be.
As an environment you can feel the dirt and the story of the city really comes through in everything you see. There's a very clear divide between rich and poor and I really thought the sets and costumes worked perfectly.
I'm going to mention the song... it worked perfectly in the scene, it had the right tone for it and I thought it was very effective. As you look down the rest of the tracklisting it was nice to see that everything had a very theatrical leaning.
When we get to the point where Arthur, now under the guise of Joker, appears on Murray's talk show there's an element of uncertainty about what's going to happen. The escalation is chilling and when he starts his speech you can feel the change in him. That speech had a moment of understanding in it before you remember everything we've just seen. I would happily have seen the film end with that test card.
What happens after this is a big piece that feels like hallucination moments rather than real ones. I really didn't need that... BUT... it did bring us to that iconic alleyway scene. It was perfectly captured and would have been amazing if we saw the clown slip into the alleyway and then... no pearls. I groaned when I saw that. I'm fed up with it, it took that tense moment and could have left you with that sense of knowing without hitting you with that now rather common slap in the face of an image.
Unlike other films I still don't have a very clear idea of how I feel about this film, there are lots of issues I had with it but then there's that brilliant performance from Joaquin Phoenix. I'm sure this needs another viewing, but even then I'm not sure I'd be totally certain about how I felt.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/joker-spoilers-movie-review.html
I do not know how to do this review. It's not that I don't have things to say about it, because I do, but there's a lot of grumbling. I'm going to try bullet pointing it as it covers things that cross audience feedback with moaning.
• What is real? We see the Sophie shots replayed without her in them and we realise he imagined it but we also know that he's imagined other things... everything could be a twist on reality.
• I did not assume that the man with Bruce at home was Alfred.
• I would not have found it unbelievable had Arthur and Sophie been a couple.
• This film could easily have been a pre-origin story for the Joker character.
• I know Arthur needs every push to make the story progress but I don't see that Thomas Wayne needed to be that aggressive.
• Wouldn't it have been good if this film made no reference to anything Batman/Joker related and the first time we're actually shown the connection is in that iconic alley scene?
So there are the things I had thoughts, they all have me waffling on for ages when I voice them out loud.
Joaquin Phoenix really commits to the journey of Arthur and it's an incredible depiction. I'm not so bothered about the violence in the movie, what disturbed me more was how Phoenix manages to laugh without it showing on his face... that was chilling. Everything crafted around him really shows his life, the way he's captured in the shots, the way you see the darker side taking over him, you can see it in every scene. It's uncomfortable to watch him sometimes, but that's the way it needs to be.
As an environment you can feel the dirt and the story of the city really comes through in everything you see. There's a very clear divide between rich and poor and I really thought the sets and costumes worked perfectly.
I'm going to mention the song... it worked perfectly in the scene, it had the right tone for it and I thought it was very effective. As you look down the rest of the tracklisting it was nice to see that everything had a very theatrical leaning.
When we get to the point where Arthur, now under the guise of Joker, appears on Murray's talk show there's an element of uncertainty about what's going to happen. The escalation is chilling and when he starts his speech you can feel the change in him. That speech had a moment of understanding in it before you remember everything we've just seen. I would happily have seen the film end with that test card.
What happens after this is a big piece that feels like hallucination moments rather than real ones. I really didn't need that... BUT... it did bring us to that iconic alleyway scene. It was perfectly captured and would have been amazing if we saw the clown slip into the alleyway and then... no pearls. I groaned when I saw that. I'm fed up with it, it took that tense moment and could have left you with that sense of knowing without hitting you with that now rather common slap in the face of an image.
Unlike other films I still don't have a very clear idea of how I feel about this film, there are lots of issues I had with it but then there's that brilliant performance from Joaquin Phoenix. I'm sure this needs another viewing, but even then I'm not sure I'd be totally certain about how I felt.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/joker-spoilers-movie-review.html