Search
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated NOS4A2 in Books
Mar 15, 2018
<i>I read this novel as my BookBum Club book for January! Check out <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/297482-the-bookbum-club">The BookBum Club on Goodreads!</a></i>
A darkly disturbing thrill ride of a book! I was expecting it to spook me out a little more than it did, but it was super enjoyable even still.
I’ve never read a Joe Hill book before this one, but now I know I want to read more of his work. I don’t think there’s any denying that his writing style really sucks you into the story and he’s a genius as describing things. How can one man come up with so many different Christmas similes? I also loved how this book was set up, where sometimes the end of sentence in a paragraph wouldn’t end because the title of the next paragraph completed the sentence. I thought this was a really unique aspect of the novel, as well as several illustrations dotted throughout.
One thing I really loved about this novel was the characters. I’ve seen some less that glowing reviews whinging about Vic, and while I can understand some people’s frustration at how frustrating she was, I think the whole point of her character to be frustrating. I personally found her troubled but sweet. Lou was equally sweet, a nice human being through-and-through, but at the end of the day, I don’t think he brought an awful lot to the story.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, of course, was Charlie Manx. What a genuinely terrifying character. I’ve read through several books with horrifying characters (Annie Wilkes springs to mind immediately) and Charlie Manx is definitely up there with the worst of them. What made him so chilling, for me, was how I imagined his voice. Every sentence of his speech was lifted at the end by an exclamation mark! He was always so cheery! Always so sinister! And then, of course, we have Bing Partridge who may just be the most repulsive character I’ve ever read about.
I loved the story of this novel, but I’m not going to explain what happened because this novel needs to be experienced, not told, in order to reach its full potential. My only issue was I though maybe 700 pages was a bit long. Chapter after chapter was a new dip and dive in this roller-coaster of a story, but sometimes it just felt like stalling time.
Another thing that disappointed me about this book, and this is what brought it down to 4 stars, is that I was expecting this to be scarier than it turned out to be. Don’t get me wrong, it’s seriously sinister and has some really creepy moments, but I wanted to get to “I can’t sleep” scared. Though saying that, when I was driving home in the dark one day, an old classic black British car (we have a lot of old car conventions around where I live) pulled up behind me and followed me nearly all the way home and I did get the heebie-geebies (don’t worry, I didn’t break the speed limit though).
Overall, this novel is well worth the read if you’re into dark, sinister novels filled with the really weird and the really wonderful. I’m so happy I’ve finally read this novel and have been opened up to the world of Joe Hill’s writing. I will definitely be reading more of his stuff.
A darkly disturbing thrill ride of a book! I was expecting it to spook me out a little more than it did, but it was super enjoyable even still.
I’ve never read a Joe Hill book before this one, but now I know I want to read more of his work. I don’t think there’s any denying that his writing style really sucks you into the story and he’s a genius as describing things. How can one man come up with so many different Christmas similes? I also loved how this book was set up, where sometimes the end of sentence in a paragraph wouldn’t end because the title of the next paragraph completed the sentence. I thought this was a really unique aspect of the novel, as well as several illustrations dotted throughout.
One thing I really loved about this novel was the characters. I’ve seen some less that glowing reviews whinging about Vic, and while I can understand some people’s frustration at how frustrating she was, I think the whole point of her character to be frustrating. I personally found her troubled but sweet. Lou was equally sweet, a nice human being through-and-through, but at the end of the day, I don’t think he brought an awful lot to the story.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, of course, was Charlie Manx. What a genuinely terrifying character. I’ve read through several books with horrifying characters (Annie Wilkes springs to mind immediately) and Charlie Manx is definitely up there with the worst of them. What made him so chilling, for me, was how I imagined his voice. Every sentence of his speech was lifted at the end by an exclamation mark! He was always so cheery! Always so sinister! And then, of course, we have Bing Partridge who may just be the most repulsive character I’ve ever read about.
I loved the story of this novel, but I’m not going to explain what happened because this novel needs to be experienced, not told, in order to reach its full potential. My only issue was I though maybe 700 pages was a bit long. Chapter after chapter was a new dip and dive in this roller-coaster of a story, but sometimes it just felt like stalling time.
Another thing that disappointed me about this book, and this is what brought it down to 4 stars, is that I was expecting this to be scarier than it turned out to be. Don’t get me wrong, it’s seriously sinister and has some really creepy moments, but I wanted to get to “I can’t sleep” scared. Though saying that, when I was driving home in the dark one day, an old classic black British car (we have a lot of old car conventions around where I live) pulled up behind me and followed me nearly all the way home and I did get the heebie-geebies (don’t worry, I didn’t break the speed limit though).
Overall, this novel is well worth the read if you’re into dark, sinister novels filled with the really weird and the really wonderful. I’m so happy I’ve finally read this novel and have been opened up to the world of Joe Hill’s writing. I will definitely be reading more of his stuff.
Jessica - Where the Book Ends (15 KP) rated Take My Hand (Take My Hand, #1) in Books
Jan 30, 2019
This is my first experience with a book by Nicola Haken. The synopsis sounded promising and I have been looking for a new series to read, so I thought I would give this one a go.
This story is of two people trying to start their lives over after terrible events that occurred in each of their lives. They get thrown together and together they learn how to love...again.
The story is primarily set in London, so that's amazing! I'm obsessed with London and all things British, so I was SOOOOO excited for this book. I wanted to fall in LOVE with this book, and these characters, but at best I only fell in LIKE with this book. Sigh.
Dexter and Emily are great characters. They have the tormented past, the rocky relationship, and undying love for one another. Okay so it sounds like this book has everything a book needs. But still... I just couldn't fall in love, and let me tell you why.
1) Dexter is from the U.S.A. so when he moves to London, he clearly doesn't understand all of the lingo and slang that the English use. Which is fine. Emily used a lot of these slang words, "ginger minger" being an example of one, and so the narrator would pause and explain what each one meant. This was very helpful throughout the story. However, this is the part that bothers me. Throughout the story when Dex would have a chapter and be talking sometimes I would get confused and he started to sound like Emily to me. I felt like the two were blending together.
2) There were several times throughout this book I wanted to literally reach into my kindle and slap Emily. I understand she's never really been in a relationship before, and I understand she's socially awkward, but my god! It's like this girl is from another planet and she doesn't understand human interactions, AT ALL! She blushes at everything - even when it's not sexual, she doesn't know how to talk to people, and she doesn't know how to be in a relationship. If the guy is a alcoholic and throws stuff at the wall, and runs out on you every time he's scared. You drop him and run. It just didn't seem realistic at all.
He drank and ran out on her when she was in a strange country with a strange woman she'd never met, and he was just like, peace out. Then she had the nerve to feel sorry. He kept secrets from her and she had the nerve to scold herself for feeling that way. It just didn't feel real to me. I felt like she gave in to him too easily. Now, before you all comment like crazy about how I don't understand alcoholics and how I don't know how they operate and how I don't understand addiction, let me just tell you this... You're wrong. I understand, and I understand better than some. I was a teenage alcoholic. It ruined my life and it took me YEARS to get it back together. SO I GET IT.
3) Now that all that's out of the way on to the next. I didn't like that Emily was so clearly afraid to say SEX or PENIS, or VAGINA. If you can't say it or talk about it, you shouldn't be doing it. She really needed to grow up. I understand that some people just don't feel comfortable talking about it, but at some point you need to draw a line. Emily was just a little too chaste for my preference and I think the description of the sex scenes from Emily's perspective were out of place for this very reason. The chapters where she was the narrator, she shouldn't have been comfortable describing what was going down. I feel like the scene should have been set up and then a fade to black would have been more appropriate.
4) Lastly, Rachel... UHHHH MOST ANNOYING CHARACTER EVER!! At first I thought she was badass! Here you have this girl who has lived her life in a wheelchair and has had to compensate for it by being independent, coloring her hair funky colors, and getting tattoos. Awesome! Right... WRONG. She then opened her mouth. OMG! She's not independent and trying to stand out, she's just down right offensive, and she didn't seem to fit at all in this story.
I know by now you're probably thinking "Why did you give this book three stars if you clearly hated it." Right? Well, I didn't hate it, at all. I liked it, it evoked emotion, it made me think and it made me feel. Those things are SOOO important when writing a book. This author has some definite promise, and I know there are a couple more books in this series. I will probably read them since this book ended on a cliffhanger (which was awesome, btw). I want to know what happens to these characters, and I'm hoping they both grow up a bit in the upcoming books.
My one last thing I'd like to point out is the editing. Now, I don't know if I got a pre-edited copy or if I got the final draft. So, I'm not considering the editing in my rating, because I can't be certain. I do feel that this book needs some serious proofreading, but again it may not be that way in a purchased copy so again don't hold that minor detail against the author, because no one is perfect.
I will definitely read other books by this author. She has a great writing style, her story flows very nicely, there aren't any dull moments, and her story is one that tears at the heartstrings. I in no way mean this review to sound as if I'm attacking her, when in fact its the complete opposite. I commend her for writing this book, and I think she did it well. Plus, the most important thing EVER, her writing made me think and feel which is what good writing should do. So, I implore you to give this book a chance don't let my feelings and observations deter you from reading a book with great potential that you may absolutely love!
This story is of two people trying to start their lives over after terrible events that occurred in each of their lives. They get thrown together and together they learn how to love...again.
The story is primarily set in London, so that's amazing! I'm obsessed with London and all things British, so I was SOOOOO excited for this book. I wanted to fall in LOVE with this book, and these characters, but at best I only fell in LIKE with this book. Sigh.
Dexter and Emily are great characters. They have the tormented past, the rocky relationship, and undying love for one another. Okay so it sounds like this book has everything a book needs. But still... I just couldn't fall in love, and let me tell you why.
1) Dexter is from the U.S.A. so when he moves to London, he clearly doesn't understand all of the lingo and slang that the English use. Which is fine. Emily used a lot of these slang words, "ginger minger" being an example of one, and so the narrator would pause and explain what each one meant. This was very helpful throughout the story. However, this is the part that bothers me. Throughout the story when Dex would have a chapter and be talking sometimes I would get confused and he started to sound like Emily to me. I felt like the two were blending together.
2) There were several times throughout this book I wanted to literally reach into my kindle and slap Emily. I understand she's never really been in a relationship before, and I understand she's socially awkward, but my god! It's like this girl is from another planet and she doesn't understand human interactions, AT ALL! She blushes at everything - even when it's not sexual, she doesn't know how to talk to people, and she doesn't know how to be in a relationship. If the guy is a alcoholic and throws stuff at the wall, and runs out on you every time he's scared. You drop him and run. It just didn't seem realistic at all.
He drank and ran out on her when she was in a strange country with a strange woman she'd never met, and he was just like, peace out. Then she had the nerve to feel sorry. He kept secrets from her and she had the nerve to scold herself for feeling that way. It just didn't feel real to me. I felt like she gave in to him too easily. Now, before you all comment like crazy about how I don't understand alcoholics and how I don't know how they operate and how I don't understand addiction, let me just tell you this... You're wrong. I understand, and I understand better than some. I was a teenage alcoholic. It ruined my life and it took me YEARS to get it back together. SO I GET IT.
3) Now that all that's out of the way on to the next. I didn't like that Emily was so clearly afraid to say SEX or PENIS, or VAGINA. If you can't say it or talk about it, you shouldn't be doing it. She really needed to grow up. I understand that some people just don't feel comfortable talking about it, but at some point you need to draw a line. Emily was just a little too chaste for my preference and I think the description of the sex scenes from Emily's perspective were out of place for this very reason. The chapters where she was the narrator, she shouldn't have been comfortable describing what was going down. I feel like the scene should have been set up and then a fade to black would have been more appropriate.
4) Lastly, Rachel... UHHHH MOST ANNOYING CHARACTER EVER!! At first I thought she was badass! Here you have this girl who has lived her life in a wheelchair and has had to compensate for it by being independent, coloring her hair funky colors, and getting tattoos. Awesome! Right... WRONG. She then opened her mouth. OMG! She's not independent and trying to stand out, she's just down right offensive, and she didn't seem to fit at all in this story.
I know by now you're probably thinking "Why did you give this book three stars if you clearly hated it." Right? Well, I didn't hate it, at all. I liked it, it evoked emotion, it made me think and it made me feel. Those things are SOOO important when writing a book. This author has some definite promise, and I know there are a couple more books in this series. I will probably read them since this book ended on a cliffhanger (which was awesome, btw). I want to know what happens to these characters, and I'm hoping they both grow up a bit in the upcoming books.
My one last thing I'd like to point out is the editing. Now, I don't know if I got a pre-edited copy or if I got the final draft. So, I'm not considering the editing in my rating, because I can't be certain. I do feel that this book needs some serious proofreading, but again it may not be that way in a purchased copy so again don't hold that minor detail against the author, because no one is perfect.
I will definitely read other books by this author. She has a great writing style, her story flows very nicely, there aren't any dull moments, and her story is one that tears at the heartstrings. I in no way mean this review to sound as if I'm attacking her, when in fact its the complete opposite. I commend her for writing this book, and I think she did it well. Plus, the most important thing EVER, her writing made me think and feel which is what good writing should do. So, I implore you to give this book a chance don't let my feelings and observations deter you from reading a book with great potential that you may absolutely love!
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated I Am Not Okay With This in TV
Mar 3, 2020
Proof that Netflix can rule your life, in an OK way, I guess. Every time I have dropped in for the last two weeks, this is the show they went out of their way to push on me. I watched the trailer and thought hmm, I don’t get it… but after relentless publicity I ended up watching the entire first series within 36 hours of its release on February 26th. Which is easy enough to do, as the entire first series only lasts 2 1/2 hours, in 7 x 23 minute easy to swallow episodes. Another nice tactic for the attention deficient generation.
Based on the graphic novels of Charles Forsman, who also gave us The End of the F***ing World – an equally dark edged teen angst story, that has had 2 full seasons of similarly short episodes. It also continues the partnership of that series’ main director, British born Jonathon Entwistle, who seems happily stuck with this genre on his, as yet, limited CV. It stars the quirky charm of Sophia Lillis, best known from the It reboot movies, and Wyatt Oleff, also plucked from that franchise. And, oh yeah, it shares production credits with a small show called Stranger Things; so it has a pop culture pedigree 100% guaranteed to attract a young audience.
In terms of tone and direction, it does wobble at the beginning, but also shows a lot of promise, thanks largely to the watchability of Lillis, who is perfectly cast as a nervy, nerdy teen with a lot of smarts, but not too many friends. The humour is black, the satire subtle, and the delivery is disarmingly adult; on the surface this is a high school comedy, but underneath it is a fucked up, biting exploration of grief, paranoia and anger (mis)management – it pushes boundaries on content, visually and in use of language that only Netflix can endorse and get away with. Which of course is what audiences want!
The premise is that after the suicide of her father, 17 year old Sydney Novak is having some emotional issues beyond the normal teenage stuff of zits on your thighs. As she keeps a secret journal to document her worries and thoughts (heard in voice-over consistently, giving it a definite graphic novel thought bubble vibe) we are in from the start on the possibility she may have a dubious superpower linked to being pissed off.
It takes a while for that aspect to kick in, however, so don’t expect big, showy, superhero set pieces; this is a comedy drama that borrows from every teenage trope available, and is focussed more on the troubles of high school, a single mom and general growing pains. It is funny – I laughed, and found it a charming mix of something really modern feeling, but with retro vibes; it is clearly 2020, but could be 1985, a trick Stranger Things has taught them well.
Really, it is almost all over before it gets started, with these brief episode times – which is smart; no time to waste, so it moves along, and is always endearingly entertaining. In essence, what we have here is a 2 1/2 hour pilot show, chopped into bite sized chunks and released as a tease for the main show, which will be series 2. Think of it as an origin story, if you will. Undoubtedly, that 2nd series is already on the way. Early critical response is solid, and in about another month you will be hearing everyone and their cat talking about it, for sure.
The lack of originality didn’t massively bother me, as you could see what they were trying to do with it, and the large appeal is to recreate a teen world that feels familiar and comfortable, and then play with those preconceptions, choosing the right moments to flip it upside down. Which eventually it does. The final episode of seven is an absolute doozy! Talk about teasing cliff-hangers! They really know how to keep us hooked!
The best thing about it, by a country mile, is the obvious star quality of Sophia Lillis, who must surely use this as a stepping-stone to a fine career, if she can master the emotional scenes as well as the charming quirky ones, at which she already excels. She reminds me a lot of Ellen Page, without the unlikely gravitas… yet. There is time to mature. I will be there for season 2 for sure, so it will be exciting to find out where it all goes next – this is a big opportunity for a BIG little show. I am only half sure they won’t fuck it up…
Based on the graphic novels of Charles Forsman, who also gave us The End of the F***ing World – an equally dark edged teen angst story, that has had 2 full seasons of similarly short episodes. It also continues the partnership of that series’ main director, British born Jonathon Entwistle, who seems happily stuck with this genre on his, as yet, limited CV. It stars the quirky charm of Sophia Lillis, best known from the It reboot movies, and Wyatt Oleff, also plucked from that franchise. And, oh yeah, it shares production credits with a small show called Stranger Things; so it has a pop culture pedigree 100% guaranteed to attract a young audience.
In terms of tone and direction, it does wobble at the beginning, but also shows a lot of promise, thanks largely to the watchability of Lillis, who is perfectly cast as a nervy, nerdy teen with a lot of smarts, but not too many friends. The humour is black, the satire subtle, and the delivery is disarmingly adult; on the surface this is a high school comedy, but underneath it is a fucked up, biting exploration of grief, paranoia and anger (mis)management – it pushes boundaries on content, visually and in use of language that only Netflix can endorse and get away with. Which of course is what audiences want!
The premise is that after the suicide of her father, 17 year old Sydney Novak is having some emotional issues beyond the normal teenage stuff of zits on your thighs. As she keeps a secret journal to document her worries and thoughts (heard in voice-over consistently, giving it a definite graphic novel thought bubble vibe) we are in from the start on the possibility she may have a dubious superpower linked to being pissed off.
It takes a while for that aspect to kick in, however, so don’t expect big, showy, superhero set pieces; this is a comedy drama that borrows from every teenage trope available, and is focussed more on the troubles of high school, a single mom and general growing pains. It is funny – I laughed, and found it a charming mix of something really modern feeling, but with retro vibes; it is clearly 2020, but could be 1985, a trick Stranger Things has taught them well.
Really, it is almost all over before it gets started, with these brief episode times – which is smart; no time to waste, so it moves along, and is always endearingly entertaining. In essence, what we have here is a 2 1/2 hour pilot show, chopped into bite sized chunks and released as a tease for the main show, which will be series 2. Think of it as an origin story, if you will. Undoubtedly, that 2nd series is already on the way. Early critical response is solid, and in about another month you will be hearing everyone and their cat talking about it, for sure.
The lack of originality didn’t massively bother me, as you could see what they were trying to do with it, and the large appeal is to recreate a teen world that feels familiar and comfortable, and then play with those preconceptions, choosing the right moments to flip it upside down. Which eventually it does. The final episode of seven is an absolute doozy! Talk about teasing cliff-hangers! They really know how to keep us hooked!
The best thing about it, by a country mile, is the obvious star quality of Sophia Lillis, who must surely use this as a stepping-stone to a fine career, if she can master the emotional scenes as well as the charming quirky ones, at which she already excels. She reminds me a lot of Ellen Page, without the unlikely gravitas… yet. There is time to mature. I will be there for season 2 for sure, so it will be exciting to find out where it all goes next – this is a big opportunity for a BIG little show. I am only half sure they won’t fuck it up…
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Get Him to the Greek (2010) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
Aaron Green (Jonah Hill) works as a record company intern at Pinnacle Records. His boss Sergio Roma (Sean "Diddy" Combs) is wanting a "game changer" that will help turn the company around. Aaron pitches the idea that since it's the ten year anniversary of out of control British rock star Aldous Snow (Russell Brand) performing at the Greek Theatre in Los Angeles, he believes that the company can make a serious profit from not only a return performance, but by re-releasing his back catalog, as well. Sergio eventually goes for the idea and Aaron flies out to London to bring Aldous back to America to prepare for the show. Unfortunately for him, Aldous Snow's lifestyle tends to rub off on him and turns his life upside down in the process. As Aaron deals with some relationship issues and has his hands full trying to keep Aldous sober, Aldous has some relationship problems of his own and begins to wonder if there's more to life than sex, drugs, and rock and roll. It seems like a moot point by the time the Greek Theater show sells out as Aaron may not have a girlfriend or a job by the time the show begins and Aldous speaks of skipping the gig altogether.
I was a pretty big fan of Forgetting Sarah Marshall, but that was mostly due to the Dracula rock opera and Russell Brand's outrageous portrayal of Aldous Snow. So Get Him to the Greek immediately grabbed my attention since it was announced as a spinoff sequel, but I became excited when reviews trickled in saying it was raunchier than its predecessor. Is more Aldous Snow really a good thing though? The short answer is yes. Yes it is.
Russell Brand is really the backbone of the film. Aldous Snow's rock star lifestyle provides his character with a sense of unpredictability as his outlandish outbursts and struggle with more adult decisions is enticing and at often times hilarious. Jonah Hill's screen presence is just as important to the film. His usual quick witted and delightfully explicit sense of humor in addition to his chemistry with Russell Brand is really a spectacular combination. Sean Combs manages to steal quite a few scenes, as well. His theory on screwing with people's heads and his one-liners ("You cannot out run me! I am black!") were surprisingly hysterical. The music in the film is really the key ingredient that brings the entire film together though. Fictional band Infant Sorrow delivers some pretty fantastic and humorously obscene ballads that are better than they should be for a film like this. I liked "Furry Walls" so much that I downloaded the soundtrack as soon as I returned from the theater.
The film's strongest scenes don't seem to last as long as they should though. The R-rated comedy seems to shine brightest when things get a bit more serious as the main characters come off as being more human, more realistic, and easier to relate to during those situations. Unfortunately those scenes really only begin to transpire in the last 15-20 minutes of the film and even though the point is made, I can't help but think of how a great film could have been even better if those events had occurred earlier on to have an even bigger impact. The biggest issue for me was that most of the scenes in the trailers were either not in the film at all or were different takes from scenes that actually made it into the theatrical version of the film. That means the DVD will probably be unrated and have x amount of extra footage not seen in theaters, but at least 50% of the scenes you're looking forward to were probably left on the cutting room floor which is just disappointing.
Get Him to the Greek may very well be this year's The Hangover, but isn't quite as laugh out loud funny as the 2009 comedy blockbuster. Get Him to the Greek is a wonderfully amusing comedy with a highly entertaining soundtrack that effectively gives a little more depth to the already remarkable for all the wrong reasons character Aldous Snow, but unfortunately doesn't live up to the reputation of being the uproarious riot that everyone seems to be making it out to be. Nevertheless, it is still an extremely solid comedy that comes highly recommended from me.
I was a pretty big fan of Forgetting Sarah Marshall, but that was mostly due to the Dracula rock opera and Russell Brand's outrageous portrayal of Aldous Snow. So Get Him to the Greek immediately grabbed my attention since it was announced as a spinoff sequel, but I became excited when reviews trickled in saying it was raunchier than its predecessor. Is more Aldous Snow really a good thing though? The short answer is yes. Yes it is.
Russell Brand is really the backbone of the film. Aldous Snow's rock star lifestyle provides his character with a sense of unpredictability as his outlandish outbursts and struggle with more adult decisions is enticing and at often times hilarious. Jonah Hill's screen presence is just as important to the film. His usual quick witted and delightfully explicit sense of humor in addition to his chemistry with Russell Brand is really a spectacular combination. Sean Combs manages to steal quite a few scenes, as well. His theory on screwing with people's heads and his one-liners ("You cannot out run me! I am black!") were surprisingly hysterical. The music in the film is really the key ingredient that brings the entire film together though. Fictional band Infant Sorrow delivers some pretty fantastic and humorously obscene ballads that are better than they should be for a film like this. I liked "Furry Walls" so much that I downloaded the soundtrack as soon as I returned from the theater.
The film's strongest scenes don't seem to last as long as they should though. The R-rated comedy seems to shine brightest when things get a bit more serious as the main characters come off as being more human, more realistic, and easier to relate to during those situations. Unfortunately those scenes really only begin to transpire in the last 15-20 minutes of the film and even though the point is made, I can't help but think of how a great film could have been even better if those events had occurred earlier on to have an even bigger impact. The biggest issue for me was that most of the scenes in the trailers were either not in the film at all or were different takes from scenes that actually made it into the theatrical version of the film. That means the DVD will probably be unrated and have x amount of extra footage not seen in theaters, but at least 50% of the scenes you're looking forward to were probably left on the cutting room floor which is just disappointing.
Get Him to the Greek may very well be this year's The Hangover, but isn't quite as laugh out loud funny as the 2009 comedy blockbuster. Get Him to the Greek is a wonderfully amusing comedy with a highly entertaining soundtrack that effectively gives a little more depth to the already remarkable for all the wrong reasons character Aldous Snow, but unfortunately doesn't live up to the reputation of being the uproarious riot that everyone seems to be making it out to be. Nevertheless, it is still an extremely solid comedy that comes highly recommended from me.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Equalizer 2 (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A “Good Guy” meting out justice in a bad way.
There’s something really satisfying about seeing our ‘hero’ Robert McCall giving bad ‘uns a bloody nose (and far worse) as immediate punishment for a crime committed. My parent’s pre-war generation would wax lyrical about the days when police officers or teachers could give a kid a “good box around the ears” as a lesson for a minor infringement. (“Ah, the good old days…. That’ll learn ‘im”!). But equally there’s also the queasy feeling here that this is a vigilante being judge, jury and executioner. Thank GOODNESS then that it’s Denzel Washington and he’s OBVIOUSLY a good guy that will never get it wrong!
Washington returns here as the righter of wrongs, now working as a Lyft driver in Boston (clearly Uber either lost the bidding war or they were not considered to be as cool a brand anymore). Through his job he crosses paths with various troubled souls and is often able to help: sometimes with just an encouraging word; sometimes with more physical activity! By way of validating his good guy credentials, he also takes under his wing Miles (Ashton Sanders) – a local black kid at risk of being dragged into the Boston gang scene.
But this is all window-dressing for the main plot, involving bad guys (for reasons that escaped me) tidying up a lot of CIA loose ends in Brussels in a very brutal way. In charge of the investigation is Robert’s ex-boss Susan Plummer (Melissa Leo) and to help out further Robert has to ‘reappear’ to his ex-partner Dave York (Pedro Pascal). As in the first film, events lead to an explosive western-style showdown.
Directed again by Antoine Fuqua, the film oozes style from the impressive opening shots of a Turkish train, where the cinematography by Bourne-regular Oliver Wood is exceptional. The action scenes are well-executed, and includes a superb science experiment that will puzzle any viewer who thinks “hang on a minute – flour doesn’t burn”!
Reading again my review of the original film, I went off on a rant about extreme screen violence in sub-18 certificate films. There is certainly – as the British film censors (the BBFC) describe it – “strong violence” in this film, with some pretty brutal murder scenes. If anything though I thought the violence was a little less gratuitous this time around, which I welcome.
Denzel is the greatest asset of this film though. He acts up a hurricane (literally), and without his calm and powerful presence at the heart of the film, this would just be A.N.Other generic thriller. It’s also great that this time around the excellent Melissa Leo gets more screen time, as does her husband played by Bill “Independence Day” Pullman. (Is it just me that gets Mr Pullman confused with the late Mr Paxton? I spent all of this film thinking “Oh how sad” though all his scenes before I realised I was grieving for the wrong guy!). In terms of mistaken identity, this film has another in that a key villain Resnik looks far too much like Mark Wahlberg, but is actually Canadian actor Jonathan Scarfe.
Where the film stumbled for me was in having too many parallel “good deed” sub-plots. One in particular – you’ll know the one – feels completely superfluous, beggars belief and could have been excised completely for the DVD deleted scenes.
Do you need to have seen the first film? No, not really. There is exposition about McCall’s back-story, but if this was covered in the first film then I had completely forgotten it. It certainly didn’t detract from this as a stand-alone film.
A cut-above the norm, Washington’s solid performance makes this an entertaining night out at the flicks.
Washington returns here as the righter of wrongs, now working as a Lyft driver in Boston (clearly Uber either lost the bidding war or they were not considered to be as cool a brand anymore). Through his job he crosses paths with various troubled souls and is often able to help: sometimes with just an encouraging word; sometimes with more physical activity! By way of validating his good guy credentials, he also takes under his wing Miles (Ashton Sanders) – a local black kid at risk of being dragged into the Boston gang scene.
But this is all window-dressing for the main plot, involving bad guys (for reasons that escaped me) tidying up a lot of CIA loose ends in Brussels in a very brutal way. In charge of the investigation is Robert’s ex-boss Susan Plummer (Melissa Leo) and to help out further Robert has to ‘reappear’ to his ex-partner Dave York (Pedro Pascal). As in the first film, events lead to an explosive western-style showdown.
Directed again by Antoine Fuqua, the film oozes style from the impressive opening shots of a Turkish train, where the cinematography by Bourne-regular Oliver Wood is exceptional. The action scenes are well-executed, and includes a superb science experiment that will puzzle any viewer who thinks “hang on a minute – flour doesn’t burn”!
Reading again my review of the original film, I went off on a rant about extreme screen violence in sub-18 certificate films. There is certainly – as the British film censors (the BBFC) describe it – “strong violence” in this film, with some pretty brutal murder scenes. If anything though I thought the violence was a little less gratuitous this time around, which I welcome.
Denzel is the greatest asset of this film though. He acts up a hurricane (literally), and without his calm and powerful presence at the heart of the film, this would just be A.N.Other generic thriller. It’s also great that this time around the excellent Melissa Leo gets more screen time, as does her husband played by Bill “Independence Day” Pullman. (Is it just me that gets Mr Pullman confused with the late Mr Paxton? I spent all of this film thinking “Oh how sad” though all his scenes before I realised I was grieving for the wrong guy!). In terms of mistaken identity, this film has another in that a key villain Resnik looks far too much like Mark Wahlberg, but is actually Canadian actor Jonathan Scarfe.
Where the film stumbled for me was in having too many parallel “good deed” sub-plots. One in particular – you’ll know the one – feels completely superfluous, beggars belief and could have been excised completely for the DVD deleted scenes.
Do you need to have seen the first film? No, not really. There is exposition about McCall’s back-story, but if this was covered in the first film then I had completely forgotten it. It certainly didn’t detract from this as a stand-alone film.
A cut-above the norm, Washington’s solid performance makes this an entertaining night out at the flicks.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Nutcracker and the Four Realms (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A fantasy that’s glossy and beautiful to look at.
Before the heavyweight juggernaut of “Mary Poppins Returns” arrives at Christmas, here’s another Disney live action feature to get everyone in the festive spirit.
The Plot.
It’s Victorian London and Young Clara (Mackenzie Foy) lives with her father (Matthew Macfadyen), her older sister Louise (Ellie Bamber) and her younger brother Fritz (Tom Sweet). It’s Christmas and the family are having a hard time as they are grieving the recent death of wife and mother Marie (Anna Madeley). Like her mother, Clara has an astute mind with an engineering bias and is encouraged in this pursuit by her quirky inventor godfather, Drosselmeyer (Morgan Freeman). At his fabled Christmas ball, Clara asks for his help in accessing a gift Clara’s mother has bequeathed to her. This leads Clara on a magical adventure to a parallel world with four realms, where everything is not quite peace and harmony.
The Review.
This is a film that visually delights from the word go. The film opens with a swooping tour of Victorian London (who knew the Disney castle was in the capital’s suburbs?!) via Westminster bridge and into the Stahlbaum’s attic. It’s a spectacular tour-de-force of special-effects wizardry and sets up the expectation of what’s to come. For every scene that follows is a richly decorated feast for the eyes. Drosselmeyer’s party is a glorious event, full of extras, strong on costume design and with a rich colour palette as filmed by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“). When we are pitched into the Four Realms – no wardrobe required – the magical visions continue.
The film represents a Narnia-esque take on the four compass-point lands of Oz, and on that basis it’s a bit formulaic. But the good vs evil angles are more subtley portrayed. Of the Four Realms leaders, Keira Knightley as Sugar Plum rather steals the show from the others (played by Richard E. Grant, Eugenio Derbez and Helen Mirren). Mirren in particular is given little to do.
What age kids would this be suitable for? Well, probably a good judge would be the Wizard of Oz. If your kids are not completely freaked out by the Wicked Witch of the West and the flying monkeys, then they will probably cope OK with the scary bits of the “Realm of Entertainment”. Although those who suffer from either musophobia or (especially) coulrophobia might want to give it a miss! All kids are different though, and the “loss of the mother” is also an angle to consider: that might worry and upset young children. It is definitely a “PG” certificate rather than a “U” certificate.
Young people who also enjoy ballet (I nearly fell into a sexist trap there!) will also get a kick out of some of the dance sequences, which are “Fantasia-esque” in their presentation and feature Misty Copeland, famously the first African American Female Principal Dancer with the American Ballet Theatre. (I have no appreciation at all for ballet, but I’m sure it was brilliant!)
As for the moral tone of the film, the female empowerment message is rather ladled on with a trowel, but as it’s a good message I have no great problem with that. I am often appalled at how lacking in confidence young people are in their own abilities. Here is a young lady (an engineer!) learning self-resilience and the confidence to be able to do anything in life she puts her mind to. Well said.
The story is rather generic – child visits a magical other world – but the screenplay is impressive given its the first-feature screenplay for Ashleigh Powell: there is an article on her approach to screenwriting that you might find interesting here.
The film is credited with two directors. This – particularly if there is also an army of screenwriters – is normally a warning sign on a film. (As a case in point, the chaotic 1967 version of “Casino Royale” had six different directors, and it shows!). Here, there clearly were issues with the filming since Disney insisted on reshoots for which the original director, Lasse Hallström, was not available. This is where the “Captain America” director Joe Johnston stepped in.
The turns.
I really enjoyed Mackenzie Foy‘s performance as Clara. Now 18, she is a feisty and believable Disney princess for the modern age. (If, like me, you are struggling to place where you’ve heard her name before, she was the young Murph in Nolan’s “Interstellar“).
Another name I was struggling with was Ellie Bamber as her sister. Ellie was excellent in the traumatic role of the daughter in the brilliant “Nocturnal Animals“, one of my favourite films of 2016. (Hopefully the therapy has worked and Ellie can sleep at night again!).
A newcomer with a big role is Jayden Fowora-Knight as the Nutcracker soldier: Jayden had a bit part in “Ready Player One” but does a great job here in a substantial role in the film. He stands out as a black actor in a Disney feature: notwithstanding the Finn character in “Star Wars”, this is a long-overdue and welcome approach from Disney.
British comedians Omid Djalili and Jack Whitehouse turn up to add some light relief, but the humour seems rather forced and not particularly fitting.
Final thoughts
I wasn’t expecting to enjoy this one much, but I did. Prinicipally because it is such a visual feast and worth going to see just for that alone: I have a prediction that this film will be nominated for production design, costume design and possible special effects.
I think kids of the right age – I would have thought 6 to 10 sort of range – will enjoy this a lot, particularly if they like dance. Young girls in particular will most relate to the lead character. For such kids, I’d rate this a 4*. The rating below reflects my rating as an adult: so I don’t think ‘drag-a-long’ parents in the Christmas holidays (if it is still on by then) will not be totally bored.
The Plot.
It’s Victorian London and Young Clara (Mackenzie Foy) lives with her father (Matthew Macfadyen), her older sister Louise (Ellie Bamber) and her younger brother Fritz (Tom Sweet). It’s Christmas and the family are having a hard time as they are grieving the recent death of wife and mother Marie (Anna Madeley). Like her mother, Clara has an astute mind with an engineering bias and is encouraged in this pursuit by her quirky inventor godfather, Drosselmeyer (Morgan Freeman). At his fabled Christmas ball, Clara asks for his help in accessing a gift Clara’s mother has bequeathed to her. This leads Clara on a magical adventure to a parallel world with four realms, where everything is not quite peace and harmony.
The Review.
This is a film that visually delights from the word go. The film opens with a swooping tour of Victorian London (who knew the Disney castle was in the capital’s suburbs?!) via Westminster bridge and into the Stahlbaum’s attic. It’s a spectacular tour-de-force of special-effects wizardry and sets up the expectation of what’s to come. For every scene that follows is a richly decorated feast for the eyes. Drosselmeyer’s party is a glorious event, full of extras, strong on costume design and with a rich colour palette as filmed by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“). When we are pitched into the Four Realms – no wardrobe required – the magical visions continue.
The film represents a Narnia-esque take on the four compass-point lands of Oz, and on that basis it’s a bit formulaic. But the good vs evil angles are more subtley portrayed. Of the Four Realms leaders, Keira Knightley as Sugar Plum rather steals the show from the others (played by Richard E. Grant, Eugenio Derbez and Helen Mirren). Mirren in particular is given little to do.
What age kids would this be suitable for? Well, probably a good judge would be the Wizard of Oz. If your kids are not completely freaked out by the Wicked Witch of the West and the flying monkeys, then they will probably cope OK with the scary bits of the “Realm of Entertainment”. Although those who suffer from either musophobia or (especially) coulrophobia might want to give it a miss! All kids are different though, and the “loss of the mother” is also an angle to consider: that might worry and upset young children. It is definitely a “PG” certificate rather than a “U” certificate.
Young people who also enjoy ballet (I nearly fell into a sexist trap there!) will also get a kick out of some of the dance sequences, which are “Fantasia-esque” in their presentation and feature Misty Copeland, famously the first African American Female Principal Dancer with the American Ballet Theatre. (I have no appreciation at all for ballet, but I’m sure it was brilliant!)
As for the moral tone of the film, the female empowerment message is rather ladled on with a trowel, but as it’s a good message I have no great problem with that. I am often appalled at how lacking in confidence young people are in their own abilities. Here is a young lady (an engineer!) learning self-resilience and the confidence to be able to do anything in life she puts her mind to. Well said.
The story is rather generic – child visits a magical other world – but the screenplay is impressive given its the first-feature screenplay for Ashleigh Powell: there is an article on her approach to screenwriting that you might find interesting here.
The film is credited with two directors. This – particularly if there is also an army of screenwriters – is normally a warning sign on a film. (As a case in point, the chaotic 1967 version of “Casino Royale” had six different directors, and it shows!). Here, there clearly were issues with the filming since Disney insisted on reshoots for which the original director, Lasse Hallström, was not available. This is where the “Captain America” director Joe Johnston stepped in.
The turns.
I really enjoyed Mackenzie Foy‘s performance as Clara. Now 18, she is a feisty and believable Disney princess for the modern age. (If, like me, you are struggling to place where you’ve heard her name before, she was the young Murph in Nolan’s “Interstellar“).
Another name I was struggling with was Ellie Bamber as her sister. Ellie was excellent in the traumatic role of the daughter in the brilliant “Nocturnal Animals“, one of my favourite films of 2016. (Hopefully the therapy has worked and Ellie can sleep at night again!).
A newcomer with a big role is Jayden Fowora-Knight as the Nutcracker soldier: Jayden had a bit part in “Ready Player One” but does a great job here in a substantial role in the film. He stands out as a black actor in a Disney feature: notwithstanding the Finn character in “Star Wars”, this is a long-overdue and welcome approach from Disney.
British comedians Omid Djalili and Jack Whitehouse turn up to add some light relief, but the humour seems rather forced and not particularly fitting.
Final thoughts
I wasn’t expecting to enjoy this one much, but I did. Prinicipally because it is such a visual feast and worth going to see just for that alone: I have a prediction that this film will be nominated for production design, costume design and possible special effects.
I think kids of the right age – I would have thought 6 to 10 sort of range – will enjoy this a lot, particularly if they like dance. Young girls in particular will most relate to the lead character. For such kids, I’d rate this a 4*. The rating below reflects my rating as an adult: so I don’t think ‘drag-a-long’ parents in the Christmas holidays (if it is still on by then) will not be totally bored.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Girl in the Spider's Web (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Would the last straight woman in Stockholm turn off the lights?
You’ve gotta love a Scandi-thriller. Well, that was until last year’s hopeless Michael Fassbender vehicle “The Snowman” which devalued the currency better than Brexit has done to the pound! The mother of them all though was the original “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” trilogy (in Swedish) in 2009. Although subject to a wholly unnecessary English remake two year’s later by David Fincher (with Mara Rooney and Daniel Craig) it was Noomi Rapace who struck the perfect note as the original anarchic and damaged Lisbeth Salander: a punk wielding a baseball bat like an alien-thing possessed (pun well and truly intended!).
Now though we have “A New Dragon Tattoo Story” (as the film’s subtitle clumsily declares) based on the book by David Lagercrantz, who took over the literary franchise after the untimely death of Stieg Larsson. Picking up the reins as Salander is that most British of actresses Claire Foy…. which seems an odd choice, but one which – after you get past the rather odd accent – she just about pulls off.
The Plot
Lizbeth Salendar (Claire Foy) has an interesting hobby. She is a vigilante, like a lesbian Batman, stalking the streets of Stockholm putting wrongs right where abusive boyfriends/husbands are concerned.
She is also a hacking machine for rent. And Frans Balder (Stephen Merchant) has a problem. He has invented a software program that allows its user to control every nuclear warhead in the world from a single laptop (cue every other Bond/24/Austin Powers script ever written). But he has had second thoughts and wants it back from its resting place on the server of the NSA’s chief hacker, Ed Needham (Lakeith Stanfield). Balder recruits Salander to recover it, but when things go pear-shaped Salander finds herself on the wrong side of both the law and the encircling terrorist “spiders”.
The Review
Scandi-dramas work best when they exploit the snow; maintain a sexual tension; and go dark, gritty and violent. On the plus side, “The Girl in the Spider’s Web” ticks most of those boxes adequately. Foy’s Salandar is smart, sassy and sexy, outwitting the best of the best, and only once finding her intellectual match. (If you’re a lesbian, Stockholm is most definitely the place to be: there only seemed to be one hetero-female there, and she was an adulteress).
But Salander also has a Bond-like invincibility that unfortunately tests your incredulity at multiple points. Contributing to the excitement is the stunt team, who keep themselves busy with some great car and bike chases.
So, the movie has its moments and is great to look at. But the film ends up a sandwich or two short of a smorgasbord, thanks largely to some totally bonkers plot points and more than a few ridiculous coincidences. There are without doubt an array of well-constructed set pieces here, but they fail to fully connect with any great conviction. An example of a scene that infuriates is a dramatic bathroom fight in a red-lit gloom with identical protagonists that is cut together so furiously you would need a Blu-ray slo-mo to work out what the hell is going on… and then I fear you might fail.
So it’s an A- for the Production Design (Eve Stewart, “The Danish Girl“) and the Cinematography (Pedro Luque, “Don’t Breathe“), but a C- for the director Fede Alvarez (also “Don’t Breathe“).
Avoid the Trailer
I will save my biggest source of wrath though for that major bug-bear of mine: trailers that spoil the plot.
I’ve asked before, but for a film like this, WHO EXACTLY PUTS TOGETHER THE TRAILER? I’d like to think it’s some mindless committee of marketing execs somewhere. Because I HONESTLY CAN’T BELIEVE it would be the director! (If I’m wrong though, I would point my finger at Mr Alvarez and chant “shame, shame, shame”!)
For the trailer that I saw playing in UK cinemas does it’s level best to not only drop in the key spoilers of the plot (including the climactic scene), but also spoils just about every action money-shot in the movie. It’s all so pointless. If you’ve by any chance managed to get to this point without seeing the trailer, then SAVE YOURSELVES and AVOID IT!
(The one attached below by the way is slightly – slightly! – better, including some over-dubbing of a line that I don’t think was in the film. Perhaps they realised their huge mistake and reissued it?)
The Turns
As I mentioned earlier, Claire Foy again extends her range by playing Salander really well. She is the reason to go and see the film.
The Daniel Craig part of Blomkvist is played here by Sverrir Gudnason, who was in “The Circle” (which I saw) and was Borg in “Borg McEnroe” (which I didn’t). Blomkvist really is a lazy ****, since he works for the publication “Millenium” but writes absolutely nothing for years. It must be only because the boss (Vicky Krieps) fancies him that he keeps his job. Gudnason is good enough, but has very little to do in the movie: its the Salander/Foy show. Slightly, but only slightly, more involved is Lakeith Standfield as the US intelligence man.
Given little to do in the plot. Sverrir Gudnason as the incredibly unproductive ‘journalist’ Mikael Blomkvist. (Source: Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Stephen Merchant is an odd casting choice for Balder. Not withstanding that he was brilliant when almost unrecognisable in “Logan“, here he looks far too much like his “Ricky Gervais sidekick” persona to be taken seriously: and it’s not even remotely a comedy (there is only one humorous moment in the film, a nice “clicker” gag in a car park).
Final Thoughts
I had high hopes for this film from the trailer, but I was left disappointed. It’s not classic Scandi-noir like the original “Tattoo”; and it’s not going for the black comedy angle of “Headhunters” (which I saw again last week and loved… again!). It falls into a rather “meh” category. It’s not a bad evening’s watch, but perhaps worth leaving for a DVD/cable showing.
Now though we have “A New Dragon Tattoo Story” (as the film’s subtitle clumsily declares) based on the book by David Lagercrantz, who took over the literary franchise after the untimely death of Stieg Larsson. Picking up the reins as Salander is that most British of actresses Claire Foy…. which seems an odd choice, but one which – after you get past the rather odd accent – she just about pulls off.
The Plot
Lizbeth Salendar (Claire Foy) has an interesting hobby. She is a vigilante, like a lesbian Batman, stalking the streets of Stockholm putting wrongs right where abusive boyfriends/husbands are concerned.
She is also a hacking machine for rent. And Frans Balder (Stephen Merchant) has a problem. He has invented a software program that allows its user to control every nuclear warhead in the world from a single laptop (cue every other Bond/24/Austin Powers script ever written). But he has had second thoughts and wants it back from its resting place on the server of the NSA’s chief hacker, Ed Needham (Lakeith Stanfield). Balder recruits Salander to recover it, but when things go pear-shaped Salander finds herself on the wrong side of both the law and the encircling terrorist “spiders”.
The Review
Scandi-dramas work best when they exploit the snow; maintain a sexual tension; and go dark, gritty and violent. On the plus side, “The Girl in the Spider’s Web” ticks most of those boxes adequately. Foy’s Salandar is smart, sassy and sexy, outwitting the best of the best, and only once finding her intellectual match. (If you’re a lesbian, Stockholm is most definitely the place to be: there only seemed to be one hetero-female there, and she was an adulteress).
But Salander also has a Bond-like invincibility that unfortunately tests your incredulity at multiple points. Contributing to the excitement is the stunt team, who keep themselves busy with some great car and bike chases.
So, the movie has its moments and is great to look at. But the film ends up a sandwich or two short of a smorgasbord, thanks largely to some totally bonkers plot points and more than a few ridiculous coincidences. There are without doubt an array of well-constructed set pieces here, but they fail to fully connect with any great conviction. An example of a scene that infuriates is a dramatic bathroom fight in a red-lit gloom with identical protagonists that is cut together so furiously you would need a Blu-ray slo-mo to work out what the hell is going on… and then I fear you might fail.
So it’s an A- for the Production Design (Eve Stewart, “The Danish Girl“) and the Cinematography (Pedro Luque, “Don’t Breathe“), but a C- for the director Fede Alvarez (also “Don’t Breathe“).
Avoid the Trailer
I will save my biggest source of wrath though for that major bug-bear of mine: trailers that spoil the plot.
I’ve asked before, but for a film like this, WHO EXACTLY PUTS TOGETHER THE TRAILER? I’d like to think it’s some mindless committee of marketing execs somewhere. Because I HONESTLY CAN’T BELIEVE it would be the director! (If I’m wrong though, I would point my finger at Mr Alvarez and chant “shame, shame, shame”!)
For the trailer that I saw playing in UK cinemas does it’s level best to not only drop in the key spoilers of the plot (including the climactic scene), but also spoils just about every action money-shot in the movie. It’s all so pointless. If you’ve by any chance managed to get to this point without seeing the trailer, then SAVE YOURSELVES and AVOID IT!
(The one attached below by the way is slightly – slightly! – better, including some over-dubbing of a line that I don’t think was in the film. Perhaps they realised their huge mistake and reissued it?)
The Turns
As I mentioned earlier, Claire Foy again extends her range by playing Salander really well. She is the reason to go and see the film.
The Daniel Craig part of Blomkvist is played here by Sverrir Gudnason, who was in “The Circle” (which I saw) and was Borg in “Borg McEnroe” (which I didn’t). Blomkvist really is a lazy ****, since he works for the publication “Millenium” but writes absolutely nothing for years. It must be only because the boss (Vicky Krieps) fancies him that he keeps his job. Gudnason is good enough, but has very little to do in the movie: its the Salander/Foy show. Slightly, but only slightly, more involved is Lakeith Standfield as the US intelligence man.
Given little to do in the plot. Sverrir Gudnason as the incredibly unproductive ‘journalist’ Mikael Blomkvist. (Source: Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Stephen Merchant is an odd casting choice for Balder. Not withstanding that he was brilliant when almost unrecognisable in “Logan“, here he looks far too much like his “Ricky Gervais sidekick” persona to be taken seriously: and it’s not even remotely a comedy (there is only one humorous moment in the film, a nice “clicker” gag in a car park).
Final Thoughts
I had high hopes for this film from the trailer, but I was left disappointed. It’s not classic Scandi-noir like the original “Tattoo”; and it’s not going for the black comedy angle of “Headhunters” (which I saw again last week and loved… again!). It falls into a rather “meh” category. It’s not a bad evening’s watch, but perhaps worth leaving for a DVD/cable showing.