Search
Amanda (96 KP) rated The Woman in the Window in Books
Mar 11, 2019
Anna has what's called Agoraphobia, meaning that she has anxiety leaving her house. Therefore, anything that needs to be done outside the house, she has done for her. Any medications she needs, groceries, etc., they are delivered to her house. She can't even bare to open a window because it would trigger her phobia. You learn there are different reasons for this kind of phobia.
Loss of a loved one.
Tragic accident.
Or...it could be something else entirely.
Ann also talks to other people with the same phobia and tries to also council them. You don't find out till much later as to why Anna who was a child psychologist now cannot bare to leave her home. She suffers from depression and is on multiple medications. She's separated from her husband, whom also has their daughter with him.
And she drinks...a lot.
One of the things I liked about Anna is her love for old movies. I loved how Finn incorporated some lines from different movies, including Alfred Hitchcock. Anna witnesses a murder in her neighbors house across the street. Try as she may, nobody takes her seriously and blame it on the medication she takes with alcohol.
“You can hear someone’s secrets and their fears and their wants, but remember that these exist alongside other people’s secrets and fears, people living in the same room.”
I kind of felt bad for her, but sometime during the story, I started to get frustrated with her as well. I really got a Girl on a Train feel. The main character always needs a drink or has to drink something in order to keep herself together, even though the alcohol doesn't help her situation at all.
On a different note, Girl on a Train was highly depressing.
The more the story progressed the more intrigued I got because there were quite a few twists that I honestly didn't see coming and I found myself yelling, 'WHAT?' Glad I was only listening to a book in the car and not in my house where someone could look at me funny. Not that people don't do that anyway, but such as life as a bookworm, I don't care.
“The definition of insanity, Fox, Wesley used to remind me, paraphrasing Einstein, is doing the same thing again and again and expecting different result.”
I've read a few psychological thrillers and while they were good, none kept me on my toes like this one. So many things happen with Anna and they come in bits and pieces but eventually make up a whole puzzle. You almost start to believe that perhaps Anna didn't see someone being murdered...maybe she did have an illusion.
Did it happen?
You have to read and find out.
I'd definitely give this 4 1/2 stars. Finn's writing in Anna's point of view is brilliant. You are inside her head and you are seeing everything through her eyes. She may start to ramble from time to time, but that just shows that she's still someone who is suffering. Other characters that play a major role in her life you don't know all that much...but you learn who they are in the end.
It's a long book, but every minute of it was well worth the listen. I will say that toward the beginning it was more like Girl on a Train, but it slowly morphs into Alfred Hitchcock's, Rear Window. I will say that I look forward to A.J. Finn's next novel.
Loss of a loved one.
Tragic accident.
Or...it could be something else entirely.
Ann also talks to other people with the same phobia and tries to also council them. You don't find out till much later as to why Anna who was a child psychologist now cannot bare to leave her home. She suffers from depression and is on multiple medications. She's separated from her husband, whom also has their daughter with him.
And she drinks...a lot.
One of the things I liked about Anna is her love for old movies. I loved how Finn incorporated some lines from different movies, including Alfred Hitchcock. Anna witnesses a murder in her neighbors house across the street. Try as she may, nobody takes her seriously and blame it on the medication she takes with alcohol.
“You can hear someone’s secrets and their fears and their wants, but remember that these exist alongside other people’s secrets and fears, people living in the same room.”
I kind of felt bad for her, but sometime during the story, I started to get frustrated with her as well. I really got a Girl on a Train feel. The main character always needs a drink or has to drink something in order to keep herself together, even though the alcohol doesn't help her situation at all.
On a different note, Girl on a Train was highly depressing.
The more the story progressed the more intrigued I got because there were quite a few twists that I honestly didn't see coming and I found myself yelling, 'WHAT?' Glad I was only listening to a book in the car and not in my house where someone could look at me funny. Not that people don't do that anyway, but such as life as a bookworm, I don't care.
“The definition of insanity, Fox, Wesley used to remind me, paraphrasing Einstein, is doing the same thing again and again and expecting different result.”
I've read a few psychological thrillers and while they were good, none kept me on my toes like this one. So many things happen with Anna and they come in bits and pieces but eventually make up a whole puzzle. You almost start to believe that perhaps Anna didn't see someone being murdered...maybe she did have an illusion.
Did it happen?
You have to read and find out.
I'd definitely give this 4 1/2 stars. Finn's writing in Anna's point of view is brilliant. You are inside her head and you are seeing everything through her eyes. She may start to ramble from time to time, but that just shows that she's still someone who is suffering. Other characters that play a major role in her life you don't know all that much...but you learn who they are in the end.
It's a long book, but every minute of it was well worth the listen. I will say that toward the beginning it was more like Girl on a Train, but it slowly morphs into Alfred Hitchcock's, Rear Window. I will say that I look forward to A.J. Finn's next novel.
Louise (64 KP) rated Salt to the Sea in Books
Jul 2, 2018
This book! OMG you guys! It had the feels and was so so so so sad!
Guilt is a hunter.
Salt to the Sea is a story set in 1945 Germany told from four perspectives, Florian, Joana, Emilia and Alfred all from different homelands, fleeing Stalin's Red Army. Refugees are fleeing for freedom in form on the Wilhelm- Gustloff a ship that will make a 48 hour trip to Kiel. The Wilhelm-Gustaloff is evacuating injured soldiers and civilians - It's capacity is to hold 1500 passengers but with so many people they are forced to take over 10,000. A few hours into the trip the ship is hit by Russian torpedoes, does the foursome still have enough fight to survive?
Fate is a hunter.
Joana is Lithuanian and has been assisting a doctor with surgery, with her knowledge she is able to help some of the injured refugees and civilians she comes across. She is leading a current group of people to the Wilhelm Gustloff when she meets Florian a Prussian apprentice art restorer for Gauleiter Erich Koch who was a leader of the regional branch of Nazi party (Very high up). Along side Florian is Emilia a 15-year-old Polish girl on the run from a farm in which she was sent by her father. Then there is Alfred a German sailor, with his first Voyage being the Wilhelm-Gustloff.
Shame is a hunter
This book was heartbreaking and a real eye opener. The story is told in small chapters alternating from the four perspectives. Alfred's perspectives are sometimes told in letters to a love interest back home The characters are equally fleshed out and you get a real connection with them, they all have something they are running from and a background story. I really didn't like Alfred's character, in his letters he was making out that he was some highly responsible soldier which made a huge difference to the war when all he was doing was a low-level job on the ship, he was pretty much insane. Emilia's story grew stronger and stronger as the story went on and became more peturbed . Florian is a mysterious character who doesn't reveal much about himself but he is always calculating the best way to freedom. There is a slow burn romance within the novel but it is no way insta-lovey at all. With this romance we find out more about Florian.
Fear is a hunter.
This book reminded me a lot of 'All the light we cannot see' by Anthony Doerr minus the fantasy element. But for me it was much better, the fact that you don't really read stories about Lithuanians, Prussians etc in world war 2 stories. The Wilhelm Gustloff was an actual ship in world war 2 and 9,500 lives were lost however I had never heard about this before and I am really interested in reading more about this. I am going to be honest, I don't know too much about the war and the particulars to it, so I can't say how accurate Ruta's account is.
This book is compelling and harrowing at the same time, some of the descriptions of how the civilians and refugees were living and attempts for freedom were deeply upsetting. The most moving book I have read this year and would definitely recommend to anyone that is interested in historical fiction.
I loved Ruta Sepetys writing and really want to read between shades of gray and out of the easy.
I rated this 5 out of 5 stars.
Guilt is a hunter.
Salt to the Sea is a story set in 1945 Germany told from four perspectives, Florian, Joana, Emilia and Alfred all from different homelands, fleeing Stalin's Red Army. Refugees are fleeing for freedom in form on the Wilhelm- Gustloff a ship that will make a 48 hour trip to Kiel. The Wilhelm-Gustaloff is evacuating injured soldiers and civilians - It's capacity is to hold 1500 passengers but with so many people they are forced to take over 10,000. A few hours into the trip the ship is hit by Russian torpedoes, does the foursome still have enough fight to survive?
Fate is a hunter.
Joana is Lithuanian and has been assisting a doctor with surgery, with her knowledge she is able to help some of the injured refugees and civilians she comes across. She is leading a current group of people to the Wilhelm Gustloff when she meets Florian a Prussian apprentice art restorer for Gauleiter Erich Koch who was a leader of the regional branch of Nazi party (Very high up). Along side Florian is Emilia a 15-year-old Polish girl on the run from a farm in which she was sent by her father. Then there is Alfred a German sailor, with his first Voyage being the Wilhelm-Gustloff.
Shame is a hunter
This book was heartbreaking and a real eye opener. The story is told in small chapters alternating from the four perspectives. Alfred's perspectives are sometimes told in letters to a love interest back home The characters are equally fleshed out and you get a real connection with them, they all have something they are running from and a background story. I really didn't like Alfred's character, in his letters he was making out that he was some highly responsible soldier which made a huge difference to the war when all he was doing was a low-level job on the ship, he was pretty much insane. Emilia's story grew stronger and stronger as the story went on and became more peturbed . Florian is a mysterious character who doesn't reveal much about himself but he is always calculating the best way to freedom. There is a slow burn romance within the novel but it is no way insta-lovey at all. With this romance we find out more about Florian.
Fear is a hunter.
This book reminded me a lot of 'All the light we cannot see' by Anthony Doerr minus the fantasy element. But for me it was much better, the fact that you don't really read stories about Lithuanians, Prussians etc in world war 2 stories. The Wilhelm Gustloff was an actual ship in world war 2 and 9,500 lives were lost however I had never heard about this before and I am really interested in reading more about this. I am going to be honest, I don't know too much about the war and the particulars to it, so I can't say how accurate Ruta's account is.
This book is compelling and harrowing at the same time, some of the descriptions of how the civilians and refugees were living and attempts for freedom were deeply upsetting. The most moving book I have read this year and would definitely recommend to anyone that is interested in historical fiction.
I loved Ruta Sepetys writing and really want to read between shades of gray and out of the easy.
I rated this 5 out of 5 stars.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Promising Young Woman (2020) in Movies
Apr 18, 2021
The wait for this film was agonising, and I honestly don't know how I managed to avoid spoilers when some people on the internet were incapable of using hashtags.
Cassie can't forget the past, and the event that she's living with leaves her holding onto a taste for revenge. She doles out life lessons to those who deserve it as she looks for the way to get the ultimate revenge.
Promising Young Woman is a film I would have loved to have gone into blind. The opening sets up the rest of the film so well, but all I've been able to think is what my reaction would have been without having seen a trailer and knowing what was going to happen... it would have been horrific with a side of evil satisfaction.
Though Carey Mulligan has been in a lot of things, the only thing I can actually say I've seen her in is the Doctor Who episode, Blink... which freaks me out for obvious reasons. Her back catalogue is looking a lot more enticing after seeing her performance here. Cassandra is a thinker and a planner, and while others think she's not achieving her potential, but where she is in life gives her exactly what she needs. Mulligan snaps instantly between the two sides of Cassie's persona with such finesse that when you combine it with the production's editing and cinematography and those moments hold you in suspense for the next.
If you asked me my thoughts on Bo Burnham then I probably would have said I wasn't a fan. But actually, I only remember seeing his stand up, and I was surprised I'd seen films he's been in. Ryan was a great character, he's got that natural charm to him that made a great contrast to the other men we see throughout the film. The development in their relationship is great and follows that sort of "wholesome" and goof expectation of a "successful" dating life... admittedly, not for everyone though.
There was a large recognisable cast, but of the other actors, my main call out would be Alfred Molina. His scene with Carey Mulligan was easily one of my favourites, not just for his performance but the way his character impacts Cassie. In the rest of the cast there were some solid performances, Jennifer Coolidge definitely surprised me as I A) didn't know she was in this and B) have never seen her in a role like this before. But beyond them there were some actor/role combinations that didn't feel right to me.
Something that continually jumped out at me was the score. Great selection of songs, perfectly aligned, nice mix of styles... and that version of Toxic? Masterpiece. I adored every moment of it and I'm listening to the album right now on Spotify.
The feel of the film was a very interesting experience. The divide in Cassie's life is so clear, and I loved Madison's reaction to seeing it. The whole look shows you the drama and thriller side incredibly well and somehow managed to blend them together seamlessly. (Though as an inserted afterthought, I would have liked to have seen this in a murdery version.)
I would really like to talk about the end of the film, but won't for obvious reasons. There's a behind the scenes feature that goes into a specific point, and that attention to detail makes that scene. But in that same instance I knew what was going to happen, and I curse my brain for making it pop into my thoughts.
Promising Young Woman is a very good film, and yet again Emerald Fennell has created something darkly delightful. It embodies something that a lot of people can identify with, not just women, and I have to hope it might enlighten some people as well as entertain.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/04/promising-young-woman-movie-review.html
Cassie can't forget the past, and the event that she's living with leaves her holding onto a taste for revenge. She doles out life lessons to those who deserve it as she looks for the way to get the ultimate revenge.
Promising Young Woman is a film I would have loved to have gone into blind. The opening sets up the rest of the film so well, but all I've been able to think is what my reaction would have been without having seen a trailer and knowing what was going to happen... it would have been horrific with a side of evil satisfaction.
Though Carey Mulligan has been in a lot of things, the only thing I can actually say I've seen her in is the Doctor Who episode, Blink... which freaks me out for obvious reasons. Her back catalogue is looking a lot more enticing after seeing her performance here. Cassandra is a thinker and a planner, and while others think she's not achieving her potential, but where she is in life gives her exactly what she needs. Mulligan snaps instantly between the two sides of Cassie's persona with such finesse that when you combine it with the production's editing and cinematography and those moments hold you in suspense for the next.
If you asked me my thoughts on Bo Burnham then I probably would have said I wasn't a fan. But actually, I only remember seeing his stand up, and I was surprised I'd seen films he's been in. Ryan was a great character, he's got that natural charm to him that made a great contrast to the other men we see throughout the film. The development in their relationship is great and follows that sort of "wholesome" and goof expectation of a "successful" dating life... admittedly, not for everyone though.
There was a large recognisable cast, but of the other actors, my main call out would be Alfred Molina. His scene with Carey Mulligan was easily one of my favourites, not just for his performance but the way his character impacts Cassie. In the rest of the cast there were some solid performances, Jennifer Coolidge definitely surprised me as I A) didn't know she was in this and B) have never seen her in a role like this before. But beyond them there were some actor/role combinations that didn't feel right to me.
Something that continually jumped out at me was the score. Great selection of songs, perfectly aligned, nice mix of styles... and that version of Toxic? Masterpiece. I adored every moment of it and I'm listening to the album right now on Spotify.
The feel of the film was a very interesting experience. The divide in Cassie's life is so clear, and I loved Madison's reaction to seeing it. The whole look shows you the drama and thriller side incredibly well and somehow managed to blend them together seamlessly. (Though as an inserted afterthought, I would have liked to have seen this in a murdery version.)
I would really like to talk about the end of the film, but won't for obvious reasons. There's a behind the scenes feature that goes into a specific point, and that attention to detail makes that scene. But in that same instance I knew what was going to happen, and I curse my brain for making it pop into my thoughts.
Promising Young Woman is a very good film, and yet again Emerald Fennell has created something darkly delightful. It embodies something that a lot of people can identify with, not just women, and I have to hope it might enlighten some people as well as entertain.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/04/promising-young-woman-movie-review.html
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Savage in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review can be found on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com/">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>).
When I read the blurb for this novella, I was a little bit interested especially when it came to the mysterious village. The whole creature thing isn't usually what I read when it comes to the horror genre, but as this was a short read, I thought I'd give it a try. However, it wasn't something I can say I enjoyed.
I don't really like or dislike the title. It's a bit plain and boring, and I don't really see what it has to do with the book unless it pertains to what the villagers call the undisciplined. No mention of the word savage was ever used.
The cover of this book reminds me of a book from the time of Alfred Hitchcock. I believe that the cover does suit the book.
The world building starts off being believable. It was quite easy to picture a man driving along a country road, his car dying, and then he mysteriously gets transported to a strange village. However, the author starts talking about angles and shapes, and I just found myself being really confused. I wouldn't say this made the world building any less believable but just confusing, at least for me.
I thought the pacing to be a bit too slow for my liking. There's not really any action until almost the very end of the book. Luckily this book is short or else I would've quit reading it before I was finished.
The plot is interesting enough. A man's car breaks down just outside some strange village. The man goes into the village and notices how perfectly angular the people and the landscape is. The villagers start talking about the undisciplined. The man ends up getting locked up but manages to escape. However, he runs into something a lot worse than the strange villagers. So yes, the plot line was interesting enough, but I just felt it was executed a bit poorly. I felt as if the ending didn't tie in with the whole book. I don't want to give away any spoilers, but I will say that if the author was going for that ending, maybe he should've rethought about whether or not to have a mysterious village in the book as the village and the ending don't really mesh well.
I did like Daryl. He seemed like your everyday, normal working man. However, I think he was a bit too intellectual for me to fully relate to. As for the villagers, I can't really comment on them because I felt like there wasn't enough back story on the village and its people to fully form an opinion. I would've liked more back story on the village, and I feel that with more back story, the book would've been less confusing and more interesting.
There wasn't much dialogue in the book which I found disappointing. It seemed like all that was in the book was adjectives and too much description for my liking. Not only that, but I felt that the words used were too intellectual for a common reader such as myself. A lot of the time I didn't even know what the words meant, and this lead to a lot of confusion and lack of interest for me. It's just too wordy of a book if that makes sense. There are a few swear words and a tiny bit of violence. There is also a little bit of sexual references but only in one or two scenes, and it's not very graphic.
Overall, Savage by Gary Fry has a promising story line, but with all the big words, too much description and not enough dialogue, it just falls flat. It doesn't help that the mysterious village has no back story and that the ending doesn't really mesh with the rest of the story.
Personally, I wouldn't recommend this book unless you know words that aren't used in every day conversations or if you're an English major. I'd say this book is written for those 18+.
<b>I'd give Savage by Gary Fry a 2 out of 5.</b>
(I received a free ecopy of this book from the publisher through Netgalley for an honest and unbiased review).
When I read the blurb for this novella, I was a little bit interested especially when it came to the mysterious village. The whole creature thing isn't usually what I read when it comes to the horror genre, but as this was a short read, I thought I'd give it a try. However, it wasn't something I can say I enjoyed.
I don't really like or dislike the title. It's a bit plain and boring, and I don't really see what it has to do with the book unless it pertains to what the villagers call the undisciplined. No mention of the word savage was ever used.
The cover of this book reminds me of a book from the time of Alfred Hitchcock. I believe that the cover does suit the book.
The world building starts off being believable. It was quite easy to picture a man driving along a country road, his car dying, and then he mysteriously gets transported to a strange village. However, the author starts talking about angles and shapes, and I just found myself being really confused. I wouldn't say this made the world building any less believable but just confusing, at least for me.
I thought the pacing to be a bit too slow for my liking. There's not really any action until almost the very end of the book. Luckily this book is short or else I would've quit reading it before I was finished.
The plot is interesting enough. A man's car breaks down just outside some strange village. The man goes into the village and notices how perfectly angular the people and the landscape is. The villagers start talking about the undisciplined. The man ends up getting locked up but manages to escape. However, he runs into something a lot worse than the strange villagers. So yes, the plot line was interesting enough, but I just felt it was executed a bit poorly. I felt as if the ending didn't tie in with the whole book. I don't want to give away any spoilers, but I will say that if the author was going for that ending, maybe he should've rethought about whether or not to have a mysterious village in the book as the village and the ending don't really mesh well.
I did like Daryl. He seemed like your everyday, normal working man. However, I think he was a bit too intellectual for me to fully relate to. As for the villagers, I can't really comment on them because I felt like there wasn't enough back story on the village and its people to fully form an opinion. I would've liked more back story on the village, and I feel that with more back story, the book would've been less confusing and more interesting.
There wasn't much dialogue in the book which I found disappointing. It seemed like all that was in the book was adjectives and too much description for my liking. Not only that, but I felt that the words used were too intellectual for a common reader such as myself. A lot of the time I didn't even know what the words meant, and this lead to a lot of confusion and lack of interest for me. It's just too wordy of a book if that makes sense. There are a few swear words and a tiny bit of violence. There is also a little bit of sexual references but only in one or two scenes, and it's not very graphic.
Overall, Savage by Gary Fry has a promising story line, but with all the big words, too much description and not enough dialogue, it just falls flat. It doesn't help that the mysterious village has no back story and that the ending doesn't really mesh with the rest of the story.
Personally, I wouldn't recommend this book unless you know words that aren't used in every day conversations or if you're an English major. I'd say this book is written for those 18+.
<b>I'd give Savage by Gary Fry a 2 out of 5.</b>
(I received a free ecopy of this book from the publisher through Netgalley for an honest and unbiased review).
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated The Front Runner (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
At the end of the 1984 Democratic Primaries a relative unknown Senator from Colorado, Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman), concedes victory to Walter Mondale. But being the runner up to the Democratic Party Presidential nominee catapults Hart to the national stage. Fast forward to 1988 and Hart is the overwhelming front runner to be not only the Democratic nominee but most likely the next President of the United States. He is a progressive and has a knack for explaining politics so that everyone can understand. He’s well spoken, has popular policies, a clear message for the future and is a handsome man to boot. It seems like nothing can stand in his way. That is until three weeks into the primary elections reporters from the Miami Herald, Tom Fiedler (Steve Zissis) and Pete Murphy (Bill Burr), get wind of a story of Hart and a young woman from Miami spending time together at yacht party. Since Hart is very much married to his wife, Lee Hart (Vera Farmiga), they decide to investigate. They find out that the two may be meeting in Washington D.C. at Hart’s townhouse. They follow the young woman, Donna Rice (Sara Paxton), from Miami to D.C. There they take photos of the two together and print a story. The media blitz is on and the story explodes. Hart now faces one of the first personal political scandals. He must try and navigate a new media age to not see his political career slip away.
Even though this is a true story and some of you may already know the facts I will put the disclaimer of spoilers ahead. This is the story of Senator Hart and his fall from grace as a sure fire Presidential Nominee to out of politics in the blink of an eye, in one of the first “tabloid” political scandals. The Jason Reitman (Up in the Air, Thank you for Smoking) directed film focuses heavily on the interaction between politicians and reporters. It shows, and touches on, how this relationship evolves/devolves so quickly. There are plenty of moments that you can tie into today’s media and how maybe this instance influenced how the media reported on the private lives of politicians.
Overall I thought the film was good. I thought that telling the story from the side of the media and the people on the campaign was really interesting. I just thought that it was not overly compelling. You can’t feel bad for Hart because it was his actions and how he handled the situation that led to the eventual result. Also yeah the media maybe went too far at some point but also you could see how the reporters were just trying to do their jobs. The film has a large ensemble cast. J.K Simmons, Molly Ephraim, Chris Coy, Alfred Molina, Kevin Pollak, Mamoudou Athie and the list goes on. They all do okay but really this is all about Jackman. His performance is outstanding. The story did drag a little at points but for a political drama it was not overboard. I think it could have been a little shorter.
To use a real story that had such a media spotlight on it was ambitious and I give the filmmakers credit for that. But you can see some of the limitation on screen. Not really a theater must see but definitely if this is a story you are not familiar with it is worth the watch. Again it draws a lot of parallels and makes a lot of nods to today’s media and political climate.
Even though this is a true story and some of you may already know the facts I will put the disclaimer of spoilers ahead. This is the story of Senator Hart and his fall from grace as a sure fire Presidential Nominee to out of politics in the blink of an eye, in one of the first “tabloid” political scandals. The Jason Reitman (Up in the Air, Thank you for Smoking) directed film focuses heavily on the interaction between politicians and reporters. It shows, and touches on, how this relationship evolves/devolves so quickly. There are plenty of moments that you can tie into today’s media and how maybe this instance influenced how the media reported on the private lives of politicians.
Overall I thought the film was good. I thought that telling the story from the side of the media and the people on the campaign was really interesting. I just thought that it was not overly compelling. You can’t feel bad for Hart because it was his actions and how he handled the situation that led to the eventual result. Also yeah the media maybe went too far at some point but also you could see how the reporters were just trying to do their jobs. The film has a large ensemble cast. J.K Simmons, Molly Ephraim, Chris Coy, Alfred Molina, Kevin Pollak, Mamoudou Athie and the list goes on. They all do okay but really this is all about Jackman. His performance is outstanding. The story did drag a little at points but for a political drama it was not overboard. I think it could have been a little shorter.
To use a real story that had such a media spotlight on it was ambitious and I give the filmmakers credit for that. But you can see some of the limitation on screen. Not really a theater must see but definitely if this is a story you are not familiar with it is worth the watch. Again it draws a lot of parallels and makes a lot of nods to today’s media and political climate.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated The Dark Knight Rises (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Christian Bale reprises his role as Bruce Wayne/Batman in the final installment of Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy, The Dark Knight Rises,and is forced to come face to face with new villains once again. This time it is the terrorist leader Bane (Tom Hardy) and cat burglar, Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway).
In the previous movie Batman had to combat the famed Joker who caused havoc in the city of Gotham. Joker convinced Harvey Dent to seek revenge against Batman and those responsible for the death of his lover, Rachel Dawes. Dent decides to use his lucky coin to decide the fate of those he assumes are responsible, Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) and his family being just a few of the people captured within Dent’s grip of revenge. While Batman saved the life of Gordon’s young son, many still die. Batman decided to let the public think that he was the one responsible for all the deaths to keep Dent’s name in good standing with the public. Gordan on the other hand knows the truth.
The Dark Knight Rises is set eight years after the extensive damage the Joker brought upon the city and its residents. During this time, Batman isolated himself within the walls of Wayne Manor as Gotham rebuilt itself with the help of Gordon and John Blake (Joseph Gordon Leavitt).
During a celebration of Dent’s life and his successes, Gordan is tempted to tell the people of Gotham the truth behind the murders eight years ago but finds that it may not be the right time to do so. Terrorist leader Bane arrives and takes over the celebration and wounds Gordon forcing his subordinate Blake to take over. After Wayne learns that one of his projects he had been investing in over the years was actually being used for nuclear devices, Wayne decides to shut down the project. One of Wayne’s business rivals is suspected to have employed terrorist leader Bane to takeover the company and use its nuclear devices against the city.
After finding out the truth Bruce Wayne decides to return to the streets of Gotham as Batman, though the decision is met with great resistance by his trusty butler Alfred (Michael Caine). Bane has taken the lead in bringing Wayne Enterprises down and an intense confrontation leaves Batman hurt and condemned to an inescapable prison. Bane is left free to wreak uncontested havoc on Gotham, once again bringing a violent storm of perilous destruction upon its people. While Batman is stuck in Bane’s prison, we learn the sordid history of Bane.
To say much more would give a lot of the story away. Suffice it to say, The Dark Knight Rises is this year’s best comic book movie so far. The graphics, action, soundtrack and opening sequence are amazing. The storyline leaves you wanting more. Christopher Nolan has does an excellent job in all the installments of Batman but is remarkably exceptional in the third and final installment of the series.
In the previous movie Batman had to combat the famed Joker who caused havoc in the city of Gotham. Joker convinced Harvey Dent to seek revenge against Batman and those responsible for the death of his lover, Rachel Dawes. Dent decides to use his lucky coin to decide the fate of those he assumes are responsible, Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) and his family being just a few of the people captured within Dent’s grip of revenge. While Batman saved the life of Gordon’s young son, many still die. Batman decided to let the public think that he was the one responsible for all the deaths to keep Dent’s name in good standing with the public. Gordan on the other hand knows the truth.
The Dark Knight Rises is set eight years after the extensive damage the Joker brought upon the city and its residents. During this time, Batman isolated himself within the walls of Wayne Manor as Gotham rebuilt itself with the help of Gordon and John Blake (Joseph Gordon Leavitt).
During a celebration of Dent’s life and his successes, Gordan is tempted to tell the people of Gotham the truth behind the murders eight years ago but finds that it may not be the right time to do so. Terrorist leader Bane arrives and takes over the celebration and wounds Gordon forcing his subordinate Blake to take over. After Wayne learns that one of his projects he had been investing in over the years was actually being used for nuclear devices, Wayne decides to shut down the project. One of Wayne’s business rivals is suspected to have employed terrorist leader Bane to takeover the company and use its nuclear devices against the city.
After finding out the truth Bruce Wayne decides to return to the streets of Gotham as Batman, though the decision is met with great resistance by his trusty butler Alfred (Michael Caine). Bane has taken the lead in bringing Wayne Enterprises down and an intense confrontation leaves Batman hurt and condemned to an inescapable prison. Bane is left free to wreak uncontested havoc on Gotham, once again bringing a violent storm of perilous destruction upon its people. While Batman is stuck in Bane’s prison, we learn the sordid history of Bane.
To say much more would give a lot of the story away. Suffice it to say, The Dark Knight Rises is this year’s best comic book movie so far. The graphics, action, soundtrack and opening sequence are amazing. The storyline leaves you wanting more. Christopher Nolan has does an excellent job in all the installments of Batman but is remarkably exceptional in the third and final installment of the series.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
Nov 27, 2017
Decent cast performances (1 more)
Good fun
Varying quality of SFX (1 more)
Painfully safe
Justice At Last For DC Fans?
Last weekend, a movie dropped that most comic book fans have been hotly anticipating for the last few decades. The follow up to the disappointment that was Dawn of Justice, Justice League had a lot to live up to. I’m not going to try and convince you that it is a perfect movie, but I enjoyed it. If I was judging the movie on it’s own I would probably be much harsher with my rating etc, but in the context of other DCEU movies, it’s a breath of fresh air.
The first half of the movie is extremely choppy and unfocused and feels more like a grab bag of scenes cut together to resemble a story rather than any sort of coherent story. Then the last half of the movie plays it incredibly safe and plays out exactly how you would predict. There are no surprises or twists and then the credits roll and half heartedly set up a potential sequel, although with the huge amount of money Warner Bros lost on this movie if the rumoured budget amount of 300 million is to be believed, we may not be getting another entry any time soon. Which is sort of a shame because there are aspects of this movie that I really like, such as Batfleck and Jeremy Irons as Alfred.
There isn’t really much to talk about here, which is disappointing. Although Batman V Superman left a great deal to be desired as a decent comic book movie, it at least gave all of us something to talk about. The cast is alright, Affleck was just as great as Batman as he’s been up until now, Cavill puts in a decent Superman performance if you can get by that dodgy CGI upper lip, Gal Gadot is great as Wonder Woman, Ray Fisher does fine as Cyborg, Jason Momoa’s Aquaman is pretty one dimensional, but I think that’s more to do with the script than with the actor. Ezra Miller is annoying but clearly supposed to be the comic relief in the film. JK Simmons is wasted as Jim Gordon, but it’s nice to see Amy Adams in a reduced role here. I don’t hate Amy Adams, but I am not a fan of her portrayal as Lois Lane and surprisingly, she actually serves a purpose in this film, as opposed to pondering about with a camera looking surprised. The SFX varies greatly, with some really impressive visual effects and some that look like absolute garbage.
Slight spoilers going forwards I guess, but it’s not exactly a shocking revelation that they resurrect Superman from the dead in this movie, which as a long time comic book fan, I feel like could have been handled better.
Overall, it’s not the worst movie in the world; it’s not even the worst movie in this universe, but really it should be great. This movie should be so much better than, ‘okay,’ it’s the Justice League for Christssake. This film isn’t even as good as Thor Ragnarok, the third sequel in one of the least popular Avenger’s solo film. Justice League should have blown Thor out of the water, both commercially and critically! However, as a standalone film, without any context around it, it is a fun film and I did enjoy my time with it.
The first half of the movie is extremely choppy and unfocused and feels more like a grab bag of scenes cut together to resemble a story rather than any sort of coherent story. Then the last half of the movie plays it incredibly safe and plays out exactly how you would predict. There are no surprises or twists and then the credits roll and half heartedly set up a potential sequel, although with the huge amount of money Warner Bros lost on this movie if the rumoured budget amount of 300 million is to be believed, we may not be getting another entry any time soon. Which is sort of a shame because there are aspects of this movie that I really like, such as Batfleck and Jeremy Irons as Alfred.
There isn’t really much to talk about here, which is disappointing. Although Batman V Superman left a great deal to be desired as a decent comic book movie, it at least gave all of us something to talk about. The cast is alright, Affleck was just as great as Batman as he’s been up until now, Cavill puts in a decent Superman performance if you can get by that dodgy CGI upper lip, Gal Gadot is great as Wonder Woman, Ray Fisher does fine as Cyborg, Jason Momoa’s Aquaman is pretty one dimensional, but I think that’s more to do with the script than with the actor. Ezra Miller is annoying but clearly supposed to be the comic relief in the film. JK Simmons is wasted as Jim Gordon, but it’s nice to see Amy Adams in a reduced role here. I don’t hate Amy Adams, but I am not a fan of her portrayal as Lois Lane and surprisingly, she actually serves a purpose in this film, as opposed to pondering about with a camera looking surprised. The SFX varies greatly, with some really impressive visual effects and some that look like absolute garbage.
Slight spoilers going forwards I guess, but it’s not exactly a shocking revelation that they resurrect Superman from the dead in this movie, which as a long time comic book fan, I feel like could have been handled better.
Overall, it’s not the worst movie in the world; it’s not even the worst movie in this universe, but really it should be great. This movie should be so much better than, ‘okay,’ it’s the Justice League for Christssake. This film isn’t even as good as Thor Ragnarok, the third sequel in one of the least popular Avenger’s solo film. Justice League should have blown Thor out of the water, both commercially and critically! However, as a standalone film, without any context around it, it is a fun film and I did enjoy my time with it.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Knives Out (2019) in Movies
Dec 4, 2019
If they were to give it a go, this movie should justifiably be Rian's redemption from the harshest of his previous critics. For this is a really entertaining film. I found myself smiling with glee through a sizable proportion of the running time.
Multi-millionaire crime-fiction author Harlan Thrombey (the wonderful Christopher Plummer) is celebrating his 85th birthday with three generations of his family in his "Cludo-like" mansion. But all is not well with the family harmonic and the next morning Harlan is found dead in his room by his nurse Marta (Ana de Armas). Apparently, it's a suicide, but when private detective Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig) arrives on the scene he starts turning over stones "oin seearch ov tha troooth" (sic) and dark secrets begin to emerge.
Key to success of this Agatha Christie-style movie is a dense portmanteau cast and a well-plotted script. Both are here present.
In terms of the cast, this is another candidate for the SAG Ensemble Cast award. For the cast is suitably stellar with Chris "Cap" Evans, Toni Collette, Michael Shannon, Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson vying for the top billing with Craig and Plummer. They bounce off each other joyously, with Collette taking my prize for top acting kudos. She's just deliciously over the top as the scheming hippy chick with the rasping voice and the cutting one-liners.
With a starring role is Cuban bombshell Ana de Armas, here notching down the glamour to play the plainly dressed nurse. But she has a magnetic screen presence and is perfectly cast as the girl at the heart of all the action. She has the doe-eyed innocence that Alfred Hitchcock was always looking for in his leading ladies. Interestingly, she is soon to appear with Craig again as Bond-girl Paloma in "No Time to Die".
Elsewhere in the cast are some interesting cameos: the family's lawyer is none other than Frank "Yoda" Oz; and the ancient security guard is M. Emmet Walsh, who has an amazing filmography going back to the late 60's.
Writer/director is clearly his 'thing'. But Rian Johnson here pulls off a neat trick with the script which is brilliantly twisty and turny and 100% entertaining. Although it's presented as cuts between the 'present time' and versions of the night in question, the whole doughnut is never entirely in view until the final reel. It's a satisfying story, and some of the dialogue is laugh-out-loud funny.
A nice plot point is the inability for young Marta to tell a lie without vomiting. Wouldn't the UK General Elections be Sooooo much more colourful if that was a general trait!!
I've only the one real criticism of the movie, and that's Daniel Craig's appalling Southern drawl. It's really quite distracting. Aside from some witty lines of dialogue ("What is this? CSI KFC?") nothing would have been lost to cast him as an urbane English detective instead. They could have slipped in some Brexit jokes instead! I appreciate Craig wants to distance himself from Bond somewhat. He did the same thing as Joe Bang in "Logan Lucky". But - sorry - it didn't really work for me then and it doesn't work now either.
In summary, this is a really fun movie that a whole family with older children (the rating is 12+) can go and enjoy together. There's limited violence; limited swearing and sexual innuendo; and no sex (save for the Hitler youth in the bathroom!). But there is a whole lot of sleuthing fun to be had. Bravo Mr Johnson, bravo! For that reason it comes with a bob-the-movie-man "Highly recommended" tag.
(For the full graphical review please check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/04/one-manns-movies-film-review-knives-out-2019/).
Multi-millionaire crime-fiction author Harlan Thrombey (the wonderful Christopher Plummer) is celebrating his 85th birthday with three generations of his family in his "Cludo-like" mansion. But all is not well with the family harmonic and the next morning Harlan is found dead in his room by his nurse Marta (Ana de Armas). Apparently, it's a suicide, but when private detective Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig) arrives on the scene he starts turning over stones "oin seearch ov tha troooth" (sic) and dark secrets begin to emerge.
Key to success of this Agatha Christie-style movie is a dense portmanteau cast and a well-plotted script. Both are here present.
In terms of the cast, this is another candidate for the SAG Ensemble Cast award. For the cast is suitably stellar with Chris "Cap" Evans, Toni Collette, Michael Shannon, Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson vying for the top billing with Craig and Plummer. They bounce off each other joyously, with Collette taking my prize for top acting kudos. She's just deliciously over the top as the scheming hippy chick with the rasping voice and the cutting one-liners.
With a starring role is Cuban bombshell Ana de Armas, here notching down the glamour to play the plainly dressed nurse. But she has a magnetic screen presence and is perfectly cast as the girl at the heart of all the action. She has the doe-eyed innocence that Alfred Hitchcock was always looking for in his leading ladies. Interestingly, she is soon to appear with Craig again as Bond-girl Paloma in "No Time to Die".
Elsewhere in the cast are some interesting cameos: the family's lawyer is none other than Frank "Yoda" Oz; and the ancient security guard is M. Emmet Walsh, who has an amazing filmography going back to the late 60's.
Writer/director is clearly his 'thing'. But Rian Johnson here pulls off a neat trick with the script which is brilliantly twisty and turny and 100% entertaining. Although it's presented as cuts between the 'present time' and versions of the night in question, the whole doughnut is never entirely in view until the final reel. It's a satisfying story, and some of the dialogue is laugh-out-loud funny.
A nice plot point is the inability for young Marta to tell a lie without vomiting. Wouldn't the UK General Elections be Sooooo much more colourful if that was a general trait!!
I've only the one real criticism of the movie, and that's Daniel Craig's appalling Southern drawl. It's really quite distracting. Aside from some witty lines of dialogue ("What is this? CSI KFC?") nothing would have been lost to cast him as an urbane English detective instead. They could have slipped in some Brexit jokes instead! I appreciate Craig wants to distance himself from Bond somewhat. He did the same thing as Joe Bang in "Logan Lucky". But - sorry - it didn't really work for me then and it doesn't work now either.
In summary, this is a really fun movie that a whole family with older children (the rating is 12+) can go and enjoy together. There's limited violence; limited swearing and sexual innuendo; and no sex (save for the Hitler youth in the bathroom!). But there is a whole lot of sleuthing fun to be had. Bravo Mr Johnson, bravo! For that reason it comes with a bob-the-movie-man "Highly recommended" tag.
(For the full graphical review please check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/04/one-manns-movies-film-review-knives-out-2019/).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Rear Window (1954) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Hmm… must have splattered a lot”.
Maddy at Maddy Loves Her Classic Films is hosting The Alfred Hitchcockblogathon. A fine idea, celebrating the life and works of the “Master of Suspense”. My contribution comes from his 1954 masterpiece “Rear Window” starring James Stewart and Grace Kelly.
rw-poster
In one pan around his small apartment, and without a word of dialogue required, Hitchcock deftly fills in all the back-story you need: Stewart plays ace photo-journalist L.B. Jefferies, laid up from jetting the world to worn-torn regions by a broken leg in a full-cast with only his courtyard view to entertain him. In sweltering summer temperatures all the apartments are open to the elements, so he can be well entertained by the menagerie before him: “Miss Torso”, the scantily-clad and frequently showering ballerina; a sculptress with an eye towards Henry Moore; a struggling composer (who has his clock wound by someone very familiar!); a newly-wedded bride threatening to wear out the groom; a salesman and his bed-ridden wife; a dog-loving and balcony-sleeping couple; and “Miss Lonelyhearts” – a hard-drinking spinster forced to create imaginary male dinner-guests.
Stewart plays his usual ‘Mr Ordinary’ watching perfectly ordinary goings on in a perfectly ordinary apartment block.
Or not. Jefferies is drawn to some odd-events in the apartment of the salesman (Raymond Burr, still 13 years before his career-defining role in TV’s “Ironside”). His rampant suspicions infect not only his cranky middle-aged physiotherapist Stella (Thelma Ritter) but also his perfect (“too perfect”) girlfriend, the fashion expert Lisa (Grace Kelly). Of course his police friend Doyle (Wendell Corey) is having none of it… there is no evidence of any crime being committed. And the “murdered” wife has been seen being put on a train by her husband, and is sending him letters from the countryside.
Is Jefferies just going stir-crazy? Or is there really something to it?
The set for this film is masterly. Although depicting a genuine location in New York’s Greenwich village the huge set was constructed on the Paramount lot in Hollywood, and you can just imagine the army of carpenters and artists building the multi-layered structure.
It’s one of the stars of the film, allowing for a wealth of detail to be populated: in the apartments; in the street behind; even in the cafe over the other side of the street. And it’s this detail that really makes what could be a highly static film come alive. There are a half dozen films-within-the-film going on at once, with Stewart’s character – and you as the fellow-voyeur – having a multi-pass to watch them all simultaneously.
And watch he does. As what could be perceived as a seriously pervy character – something he is called out on by Stella – Jeffries gets to see an eyeful in particular of the shapely and scantily-clad ballerina (Georgine Darcy, agent-less and only paid $350 for the role!). These scenes must have been deemed quite risque for the year of release.
Where the film rather falters is in the bickering romance between Stewart and Kelly. As a hot-blooded man, I will declare that even today Kelly’s first dream-like appearance (with Vaseline lightly coating the lens) is breathtaking. She’s just the ‘girl-next-door’: if you live next to a palace that is! And yet (with Kelly 21 years Stewart’s junior) she’s just “too perfect” for L.B. , who feels (against her protestations) that she’s ‘too girly’ to hack the life of a war photographer on the road. The mysogeny, common for the day, is gasp-making: “If a girl’s pretty enough, she just has to ‘be'” intones Stewart, to no howls of protest or throwing of saucepans! In fact Kelly is greatly encouraged: “Preview of coming attractions” purrs Kelly, flaunting what she has around the apartment in a negligee.
These scenes though are rather overlong and somewhat get in the way of the murder mystery plot-line. Things really start to warm up when a death occurs, to piercing screams in the night: “Which one of you did it?” shouts a woman to the neighbourhood, as everything – momentarily – stops. “WHICH ONE OF YOU DID IT?”. Given your emotional involvement in the ongoing voyeurism, it’s hard as a viewer not to feel discomforted…. (“well, it wasn’t me”…. shifts uneasily in the seat).
From then on, Hitchcock proceeds to pile on suspenseful jolt after jolt, with first Lisa and then L.B. placed in harms way. While the perpetrator may seem clueless and incompetent, as most murderers of passion probably are, the denouement is satisfying, with a great trial use of green-screen ‘falling’ that would be perfected by Hitchcock for “Vertigo” four years later.
What’s curious for such as classic is that there are a number of fluffed lines in the piece: with two notable ones by Stewart and Kelly. Hitchcock was the master of long and uninterrupted takes, but did he not believe in re-shooting scenes when such errors occurred? Most odd.
Although tighter and more claustrophobic that some of his better known films, this is a firm favourite of mine. If you’ve never seen it, its well worth you checking out.
rw-poster
In one pan around his small apartment, and without a word of dialogue required, Hitchcock deftly fills in all the back-story you need: Stewart plays ace photo-journalist L.B. Jefferies, laid up from jetting the world to worn-torn regions by a broken leg in a full-cast with only his courtyard view to entertain him. In sweltering summer temperatures all the apartments are open to the elements, so he can be well entertained by the menagerie before him: “Miss Torso”, the scantily-clad and frequently showering ballerina; a sculptress with an eye towards Henry Moore; a struggling composer (who has his clock wound by someone very familiar!); a newly-wedded bride threatening to wear out the groom; a salesman and his bed-ridden wife; a dog-loving and balcony-sleeping couple; and “Miss Lonelyhearts” – a hard-drinking spinster forced to create imaginary male dinner-guests.
Stewart plays his usual ‘Mr Ordinary’ watching perfectly ordinary goings on in a perfectly ordinary apartment block.
Or not. Jefferies is drawn to some odd-events in the apartment of the salesman (Raymond Burr, still 13 years before his career-defining role in TV’s “Ironside”). His rampant suspicions infect not only his cranky middle-aged physiotherapist Stella (Thelma Ritter) but also his perfect (“too perfect”) girlfriend, the fashion expert Lisa (Grace Kelly). Of course his police friend Doyle (Wendell Corey) is having none of it… there is no evidence of any crime being committed. And the “murdered” wife has been seen being put on a train by her husband, and is sending him letters from the countryside.
Is Jefferies just going stir-crazy? Or is there really something to it?
The set for this film is masterly. Although depicting a genuine location in New York’s Greenwich village the huge set was constructed on the Paramount lot in Hollywood, and you can just imagine the army of carpenters and artists building the multi-layered structure.
It’s one of the stars of the film, allowing for a wealth of detail to be populated: in the apartments; in the street behind; even in the cafe over the other side of the street. And it’s this detail that really makes what could be a highly static film come alive. There are a half dozen films-within-the-film going on at once, with Stewart’s character – and you as the fellow-voyeur – having a multi-pass to watch them all simultaneously.
And watch he does. As what could be perceived as a seriously pervy character – something he is called out on by Stella – Jeffries gets to see an eyeful in particular of the shapely and scantily-clad ballerina (Georgine Darcy, agent-less and only paid $350 for the role!). These scenes must have been deemed quite risque for the year of release.
Where the film rather falters is in the bickering romance between Stewart and Kelly. As a hot-blooded man, I will declare that even today Kelly’s first dream-like appearance (with Vaseline lightly coating the lens) is breathtaking. She’s just the ‘girl-next-door’: if you live next to a palace that is! And yet (with Kelly 21 years Stewart’s junior) she’s just “too perfect” for L.B. , who feels (against her protestations) that she’s ‘too girly’ to hack the life of a war photographer on the road. The mysogeny, common for the day, is gasp-making: “If a girl’s pretty enough, she just has to ‘be'” intones Stewart, to no howls of protest or throwing of saucepans! In fact Kelly is greatly encouraged: “Preview of coming attractions” purrs Kelly, flaunting what she has around the apartment in a negligee.
These scenes though are rather overlong and somewhat get in the way of the murder mystery plot-line. Things really start to warm up when a death occurs, to piercing screams in the night: “Which one of you did it?” shouts a woman to the neighbourhood, as everything – momentarily – stops. “WHICH ONE OF YOU DID IT?”. Given your emotional involvement in the ongoing voyeurism, it’s hard as a viewer not to feel discomforted…. (“well, it wasn’t me”…. shifts uneasily in the seat).
From then on, Hitchcock proceeds to pile on suspenseful jolt after jolt, with first Lisa and then L.B. placed in harms way. While the perpetrator may seem clueless and incompetent, as most murderers of passion probably are, the denouement is satisfying, with a great trial use of green-screen ‘falling’ that would be perfected by Hitchcock for “Vertigo” four years later.
What’s curious for such as classic is that there are a number of fluffed lines in the piece: with two notable ones by Stewart and Kelly. Hitchcock was the master of long and uninterrupted takes, but did he not believe in re-shooting scenes when such errors occurred? Most odd.
Although tighter and more claustrophobic that some of his better known films, this is a firm favourite of mine. If you’ve never seen it, its well worth you checking out.