Search
Search results
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated The Chalk Man in Books
May 16, 2018
It’s hard to believe that The Chalk Man by C. J. Tudor is a debut; it’s even harder to believe that it’s not considered horror. Though the book focuses primarily on a whodunnit sort of plot, it borrows heavily from my favorite genre. Certain elements of The Chalk Man are downright grisly, which is a welcoming change from many of the mystery books I tend to read. Then again, I love gore and that’s no secret.
The Chalk Man bounces flawlessly between past and present as the story of an unfortunate girl’s murder unravels. Normally, I find back and forth plots confusing. Tudor approaches this not by labeling each shift as a new chapter, but by naming the chapters with the year they take place. This weaving of the plot creates a sense of urgency, with each chapter ending on the cusp of a new discovery. When all the cards are on the table, nothing is as it seems. The popular, snarky definition of the word “assume” definitely plays a heavy-handed role in this book and Tudor pulls it off well.
Creating complex characters appears to be another forte of Tudor’s. By complex, I mean that his cast, much like the plot, has as several layers to it. In some cases, this can make a story difficult to comprehend, but Tudor exercises some caution in giving any of his characters too many traits.
The Chalk Man is a quick, entertaining read which is always a plus. The constant action kept the book from becoming a chore and thus I was able to devour it in a few days. I’d like to thank Penguin’s First to Read program for providing me with a free copy of this book. This review reflects my own opinion.
The Chalk Man bounces flawlessly between past and present as the story of an unfortunate girl’s murder unravels. Normally, I find back and forth plots confusing. Tudor approaches this not by labeling each shift as a new chapter, but by naming the chapters with the year they take place. This weaving of the plot creates a sense of urgency, with each chapter ending on the cusp of a new discovery. When all the cards are on the table, nothing is as it seems. The popular, snarky definition of the word “assume” definitely plays a heavy-handed role in this book and Tudor pulls it off well.
Creating complex characters appears to be another forte of Tudor’s. By complex, I mean that his cast, much like the plot, has as several layers to it. In some cases, this can make a story difficult to comprehend, but Tudor exercises some caution in giving any of his characters too many traits.
The Chalk Man is a quick, entertaining read which is always a plus. The constant action kept the book from becoming a chore and thus I was able to devour it in a few days. I’d like to thank Penguin’s First to Read program for providing me with a free copy of this book. This review reflects my own opinion.
Lots of twists and turns (1 more)
Red herrings to keep us guessing
And so the plot thickens...
The story centres around the main character Tom, who is trying to keep his family together after the death of his wife, whilst starting a new relationship with Sophie. Tom is desperately trying to find his daughter, who has gone missing from the same party where her boyfriend turns up dead.
This is a who did it series, where we are left till the very last episode to find out where Jenny (the missing daughter) is (and with whom), and also who murdered her boyfriend, as well as the reasons behind this. As much as the plot unravels in the first part of the series, we are delighted to watch as lose ends are tied up in a complex thread towards the end. As viewers we are left with the bigger picture during the last episode, where we can see just how clever the writing of this series have been at masking such a huge chain of events.
The plot is quite complex, and certainly not one that you can leave to make a cup of tea without pausing. The clues come thick and fast throughout the whole series, some have cleverly been placed as red herrings, to stop us realising the answers too soon. I am usually know for picking murderers from stories very early on in the plot, however if I were to bet on this one, I would be totally missing the mark- I was genuinely shock when the murder was revealed.
There are a lot of characters in the series, although they are subtly introduced, so they were not too overwhelming. The characters were superbly cast, being both well acted and believable. Michael C. Hall, who played Tom was exceptional in his acting, showing a complete range of emotions throughout. There were also a few smaller sub-stories within the main plot, which helped enrich the series further.
Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed the series, it was one I binged on over two days and kept me guessing throughout.
This is a who did it series, where we are left till the very last episode to find out where Jenny (the missing daughter) is (and with whom), and also who murdered her boyfriend, as well as the reasons behind this. As much as the plot unravels in the first part of the series, we are delighted to watch as lose ends are tied up in a complex thread towards the end. As viewers we are left with the bigger picture during the last episode, where we can see just how clever the writing of this series have been at masking such a huge chain of events.
The plot is quite complex, and certainly not one that you can leave to make a cup of tea without pausing. The clues come thick and fast throughout the whole series, some have cleverly been placed as red herrings, to stop us realising the answers too soon. I am usually know for picking murderers from stories very early on in the plot, however if I were to bet on this one, I would be totally missing the mark- I was genuinely shock when the murder was revealed.
There are a lot of characters in the series, although they are subtly introduced, so they were not too overwhelming. The characters were superbly cast, being both well acted and believable. Michael C. Hall, who played Tom was exceptional in his acting, showing a complete range of emotions throughout. There were also a few smaller sub-stories within the main plot, which helped enrich the series further.
Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed the series, it was one I binged on over two days and kept me guessing throughout.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Boneseeker in Books
Jan 23, 2020
Okay, I have a question: who else, while reading this book (if you did), kept imagining Sherlock Holmes as Benedict Cumberbatch? And I don't even have cable to watch it, nor do I have time to watch Masterpiece Mystery....
<img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_kJ9pDaSzoQ/U2VHyusffEI/AAAAAAAADKw/2xCShmhbaAg/s1600/turnups.gif"; height="153" width="320">
Although imagining THE Sherlock Holmes having a kid is probably impossible. Yet in Boneseeker, it's the next generation of Holmes and Watson, only it's not the legendary duo (wait, they're legendary, right?). Instead of being set in London, the story is mainly set in Philadelphia and New York. Arabella, Sherlock's daughter, and Henry, John Watson's son, are on an expedition to find out if a giant hand found are from a Neanderthal or from Nephilim.
Boneseeker is actually quite scary. Sausage murder? Oh dear. But essentially the book is focused on 4 missing scientists who were on the hunt to prove what the hand really is in said expedition above. I think they were also looking for more giant bones hey, can't give anything away, eh? before they actually vanished into nowhere.
The notes at the end were really helpful. I was planning on doing some of my own research when I had the time, whether at school or at the library, but then I finished reading Boneseeker and saw "AUTHOR'S NOTES." Thus resulting in me going "Fantastic! Less research and Bing crap for me!" Search engines usually just give a) a bunch of crap, b) something entirely different from what you're searching for, or c) "I'm sorry, but that search term doesn't exist. Try again." That's like "Oh, GAME OVER." *plays funky music* I think my mom once said Google told her "Hahaha, you're so funny. What kind of search term is that?" Seems legit mom. I think that's just Option A or B for you.
<img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MPfbXCfaO6U/U2VIn0kF3WI/AAAAAAAADK4/nihGmv8QglM/s1600/seemslegit.gif"; height="180" width="320">
What's disappointing? Sherlock doesn't make much an appearance, to the dismay of Sherlock fans, unless you're just a fan of John Watson. He makes quite the appearance for the majority of the book. Oh, and it's a stand alone. *sigh* I was so hoping for a sequel. On the bright side, no waiting! Isn't that great, with so many series of books popping up by the day?
<img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_4sSv6F_1eg/U2VJFOLi7qI/AAAAAAAADLE/I9G2jTU62xc/s1600/too-many-people.gif"; height="156" width="320">
Despite the fact Sherlock doesn't make a huge appearance, mystery fans will find this an enjoyable reads. Oh, and maybe for those who enjoy reading about blood and gore...
EDIT: I stand corrected. This is NOT a stand alone (according to author)
------------------
Advance review copy provided by publisher
Original Rating: 4.5
Original Review posted on <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/06/arc-review-boneseeker-by-brynn-chapman.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Gi5Rk5yLloA/UtliaUbdL3I/AAAAAAAACbE/J27z92_qrYU/s1600/Official+Banner.png"; /></a>
<img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_kJ9pDaSzoQ/U2VHyusffEI/AAAAAAAADKw/2xCShmhbaAg/s1600/turnups.gif"; height="153" width="320">
Although imagining THE Sherlock Holmes having a kid is probably impossible. Yet in Boneseeker, it's the next generation of Holmes and Watson, only it's not the legendary duo (wait, they're legendary, right?). Instead of being set in London, the story is mainly set in Philadelphia and New York. Arabella, Sherlock's daughter, and Henry, John Watson's son, are on an expedition to find out if a giant hand found are from a Neanderthal or from Nephilim.
Boneseeker is actually quite scary. Sausage murder? Oh dear. But essentially the book is focused on 4 missing scientists who were on the hunt to prove what the hand really is in said expedition above. I think they were also looking for more giant bones hey, can't give anything away, eh? before they actually vanished into nowhere.
The notes at the end were really helpful. I was planning on doing some of my own research when I had the time, whether at school or at the library, but then I finished reading Boneseeker and saw "AUTHOR'S NOTES." Thus resulting in me going "Fantastic! Less research and Bing crap for me!" Search engines usually just give a) a bunch of crap, b) something entirely different from what you're searching for, or c) "I'm sorry, but that search term doesn't exist. Try again." That's like "Oh, GAME OVER." *plays funky music* I think my mom once said Google told her "Hahaha, you're so funny. What kind of search term is that?" Seems legit mom. I think that's just Option A or B for you.
<img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MPfbXCfaO6U/U2VIn0kF3WI/AAAAAAAADK4/nihGmv8QglM/s1600/seemslegit.gif"; height="180" width="320">
What's disappointing? Sherlock doesn't make much an appearance, to the dismay of Sherlock fans, unless you're just a fan of John Watson. He makes quite the appearance for the majority of the book. Oh, and it's a stand alone. *sigh* I was so hoping for a sequel. On the bright side, no waiting! Isn't that great, with so many series of books popping up by the day?
<img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_4sSv6F_1eg/U2VJFOLi7qI/AAAAAAAADLE/I9G2jTU62xc/s1600/too-many-people.gif"; height="156" width="320">
Despite the fact Sherlock doesn't make a huge appearance, mystery fans will find this an enjoyable reads. Oh, and maybe for those who enjoy reading about blood and gore...
EDIT: I stand corrected. This is NOT a stand alone (according to author)
------------------
Advance review copy provided by publisher
Original Rating: 4.5
Original Review posted on <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/06/arc-review-boneseeker-by-brynn-chapman.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Gi5Rk5yLloA/UtliaUbdL3I/AAAAAAAACbE/J27z92_qrYU/s1600/Official+Banner.png"; /></a>
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Amsterdam (2022) in Movies
Nov 21, 2022
Weak First Half Gives Way To Strong Second Half
There are certain Directors working today that gain such a reputation that most Major Movie Stars clamor to be in their films - no matter how big (or small) their part is. Quentin Tarantino, Wes Anderson and Christopher Nolan all come to mind. And, for some reason, David O. Russell is in that camp as well.
The latest film from this cinematic auteur, AMSTERDAM, is jam-packed with stars from Christian Bale to John David Washington to Margot Robbie, Robert DeNiro, Zoe Saldana, Rami Malek, Andrea Riseborough, Chris Rock, Michael Shannon, Michael Myers, Timothy Olyphant, Any-Taylor Joy and even Taylor Swift show up to play part in this drama/thriller/comedy that takes a real life event and gives it the David O. Russell touch.
And…what is the David O. Russell touch? It is - for better or for worse - a skewed perspective of the goings-on in the film, commenting on the action while driving a narrative forward. On the one hand, he is liked by many actors for he let’s them improvise and work through their performances. However, on the other hand, if he is not getting what he wants, he is also known as a antagonistic Director as he has had on-set feuds with George Clooney, Lilly Tomlin and Amy Adams. But…on the other hand…he has been nominated for Best Director 3x and quite a few of his actors (Bale, Adams, Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, etc.) have been nominated for an Oscar.
For AMSTERDAM the film’s tone and intention meander for the 1st half of the movie - as do the performances - before settling into a crackerjack thriller/murder-mystery/espionage film.
And that’s too bad for many will be turned off by the 1st half - the meandering is detrimental to the audience’s enjoyment - it feels like a series of “acting scenes” and not a coherent grouping of scenarios leading to a plot. This will turn many off - and will have them turning off the film - before it settles down and becomes good.
As is often the case with Russell’s films, the performances are good (Washington), better (Robbie) and best (Bale, channelling his inner Peter Faulk) while the other actors support the 3 leads in surprising ways. If nothing else, see this movie to watch all of these wonderful performers plying their craft. Of course, you’ll be saying to yourself “that’s wonderfully acted” for you won’t be immersed into the people, emotions or the plot at the beginning.
And that is Russell’s issue. If he could have settled on the tone and focus of the 2nd half of the film in the first half, he’d have himself another Oscar contending film. But, as it were, it’s an interesting curiosity - one that will have you entertained for a few hours, but will leave you scratching your head longing for “what could have been”.
Letter Grade: B (“C” for the first half, “A” for the 2nd half)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The latest film from this cinematic auteur, AMSTERDAM, is jam-packed with stars from Christian Bale to John David Washington to Margot Robbie, Robert DeNiro, Zoe Saldana, Rami Malek, Andrea Riseborough, Chris Rock, Michael Shannon, Michael Myers, Timothy Olyphant, Any-Taylor Joy and even Taylor Swift show up to play part in this drama/thriller/comedy that takes a real life event and gives it the David O. Russell touch.
And…what is the David O. Russell touch? It is - for better or for worse - a skewed perspective of the goings-on in the film, commenting on the action while driving a narrative forward. On the one hand, he is liked by many actors for he let’s them improvise and work through their performances. However, on the other hand, if he is not getting what he wants, he is also known as a antagonistic Director as he has had on-set feuds with George Clooney, Lilly Tomlin and Amy Adams. But…on the other hand…he has been nominated for Best Director 3x and quite a few of his actors (Bale, Adams, Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, etc.) have been nominated for an Oscar.
For AMSTERDAM the film’s tone and intention meander for the 1st half of the movie - as do the performances - before settling into a crackerjack thriller/murder-mystery/espionage film.
And that’s too bad for many will be turned off by the 1st half - the meandering is detrimental to the audience’s enjoyment - it feels like a series of “acting scenes” and not a coherent grouping of scenarios leading to a plot. This will turn many off - and will have them turning off the film - before it settles down and becomes good.
As is often the case with Russell’s films, the performances are good (Washington), better (Robbie) and best (Bale, channelling his inner Peter Faulk) while the other actors support the 3 leads in surprising ways. If nothing else, see this movie to watch all of these wonderful performers plying their craft. Of course, you’ll be saying to yourself “that’s wonderfully acted” for you won’t be immersed into the people, emotions or the plot at the beginning.
And that is Russell’s issue. If he could have settled on the tone and focus of the 2nd half of the film in the first half, he’d have himself another Oscar contending film. But, as it were, it’s an interesting curiosity - one that will have you entertained for a few hours, but will leave you scratching your head longing for “what could have been”.
Letter Grade: B (“C” for the first half, “A” for the 2nd half)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Anatomy of a Murder (1959) in Movies
Nov 30, 2018
One of the Best Courtroom Dramas of all Time
I have to admit, that (at times) the fun part of going to "SECRET MOVIE NIGHT" is the anticipation of not knowing what the film is. Sometimes the film is "good, not great" (like THE BLUES BROTHERS, BODY HEAT and A FACE IN THE CROWD) and other times it is a CLASSIC (Like CITIZEN KANE, THE APARTMENT and NETWORK). I am happy to report that this month's installment IS a classic, our old pal Jimmy Stewart in 1959's ANATOMY OF MURDER.
Directed by the great Otto Preminger, AOM is often referred to as the finest courtroom drama ever filmed. While I need to give that some thought, I will say AOM is right up there as one of the finest examples of a courtroom drama.
Starring Jimmy Stewart as "country lawyer" Paul Biegler, who is brought in to defend Army Lieutenant Manion (Ben Gazzara). Manion is accused of murdering a man that raped his wife (Lee Remick). The central mystery isn't "did Manion kill the man" (he did), it is more of "did he kill his wife's rapist or lover" and "will Biegler get away with the temporary insanity plea".
This is the kind of plot that we've all seen a dozen times on standard TV shows, but back in 1959, this type of film - and trial - was quite new and fresh and this film was "scandalous" in it's use of frank language. Remember, this is 1959 in Eisenhower "Happy Days" Americana, so hearing words like "bitch, panties, penetration, slut, sperm, bitch and slut" was quite shocking and led to many protests of the film.
Those who were turned off by the language and frankhandling of the subject matter lost out on an intriguing, well-acted, well-written and well-directed courtroom drama, where the verdict is up in the air right up until the foreman of the jury says "We, the jury, find the defendant..."
Jimmy Stewart is perfectly cast in the lead role of Defense Attorney, Biegler. Stewart brings an instant likableness and every man integrity quality to the role. His Attorney is down-to-earth but whip-smart, able to crack a joke to lighten the mood or explode in rage at an affront at a moment's notice. He goes toe-to-toe with Prosecuting Attorney Claude Dancer (a VERY young George C. Scott). Dancer is everything that Biegler is not, crisp, well-polished and arrogant. While it would have been very easy to paint these two characters as good (Stewart) and bad (Scott), Director Preminger and screenwriter Wendell Mayes shy away from this and show these two as fierce competitors playing a very serious game of chess - and this works very well, indeed. Both Stewart and Scott were nominated for Oscars for their work as Best Actor and Supporting Actor respectively.
The Supporting cast is superb, featuring such 1950's/early 1960's stalwarts as Arthur O'Connell (also Oscar nominated as Stewarts's alcoholic law mentor), the always good Eve Arden, Orson Bean and Katherine Grant. It also features three character actors in small roles (witnesses in the trial) who you would recognize from other things - Murray Hamilton (the Mayor in Jaws), Howard McNear (Floyd the Barber from Mayberry) and Joseph Kearns (Mr. Wilson in Dennis the Menace).
Special notice needs to be made for Lee Remick as the sultry and flirtatious woman at the core of the film. Remick is superb in this role, and that is fortunate, for if she wasn't believable in the "would she or won't she" role that she is asked to play, then the film could have easily fallen apart. But the real bright spot in this film is the scene stealing Joseph N. Welch as the Judge in the case. His performance as the judge is the perfect "third leg" to the Stewart/Scott stool, balancing charm, folksiness and strength in even portions (depending on what is needed to balance the other two).
Otto Preminger (LAURA, STALAG 17) is a Director who's name is beginning to fade into the dust of the past - and that's too bad, for he is a strong director who knows how to frame a scene and pace a film. Even though AOM is 2 hours and 40 minutes of talking, it never feels long or slow.
Two other aspects of this film need to be mentioned - the "jazz" score by the great Duke Ellington (which won a grammy) is perfectly suited to the themes and mood of this film and the opening title sequence (and movie poster) is reminiscent of an Alfred Hitchock film - and that is because they are done by frequent Hitchock contributor Saul Bass.
Nominated for 7 Oscars (it won zero, falling to the juggernaut that was BEN HUR that year), ANATOMY OF A MURDER is an intriguing courtroom drama that also opens the door to performers of the past. Well worth the time investment, should you run across it (it is frequently shown on TCM).
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Directed by the great Otto Preminger, AOM is often referred to as the finest courtroom drama ever filmed. While I need to give that some thought, I will say AOM is right up there as one of the finest examples of a courtroom drama.
Starring Jimmy Stewart as "country lawyer" Paul Biegler, who is brought in to defend Army Lieutenant Manion (Ben Gazzara). Manion is accused of murdering a man that raped his wife (Lee Remick). The central mystery isn't "did Manion kill the man" (he did), it is more of "did he kill his wife's rapist or lover" and "will Biegler get away with the temporary insanity plea".
This is the kind of plot that we've all seen a dozen times on standard TV shows, but back in 1959, this type of film - and trial - was quite new and fresh and this film was "scandalous" in it's use of frank language. Remember, this is 1959 in Eisenhower "Happy Days" Americana, so hearing words like "bitch, panties, penetration, slut, sperm, bitch and slut" was quite shocking and led to many protests of the film.
Those who were turned off by the language and frankhandling of the subject matter lost out on an intriguing, well-acted, well-written and well-directed courtroom drama, where the verdict is up in the air right up until the foreman of the jury says "We, the jury, find the defendant..."
Jimmy Stewart is perfectly cast in the lead role of Defense Attorney, Biegler. Stewart brings an instant likableness and every man integrity quality to the role. His Attorney is down-to-earth but whip-smart, able to crack a joke to lighten the mood or explode in rage at an affront at a moment's notice. He goes toe-to-toe with Prosecuting Attorney Claude Dancer (a VERY young George C. Scott). Dancer is everything that Biegler is not, crisp, well-polished and arrogant. While it would have been very easy to paint these two characters as good (Stewart) and bad (Scott), Director Preminger and screenwriter Wendell Mayes shy away from this and show these two as fierce competitors playing a very serious game of chess - and this works very well, indeed. Both Stewart and Scott were nominated for Oscars for their work as Best Actor and Supporting Actor respectively.
The Supporting cast is superb, featuring such 1950's/early 1960's stalwarts as Arthur O'Connell (also Oscar nominated as Stewarts's alcoholic law mentor), the always good Eve Arden, Orson Bean and Katherine Grant. It also features three character actors in small roles (witnesses in the trial) who you would recognize from other things - Murray Hamilton (the Mayor in Jaws), Howard McNear (Floyd the Barber from Mayberry) and Joseph Kearns (Mr. Wilson in Dennis the Menace).
Special notice needs to be made for Lee Remick as the sultry and flirtatious woman at the core of the film. Remick is superb in this role, and that is fortunate, for if she wasn't believable in the "would she or won't she" role that she is asked to play, then the film could have easily fallen apart. But the real bright spot in this film is the scene stealing Joseph N. Welch as the Judge in the case. His performance as the judge is the perfect "third leg" to the Stewart/Scott stool, balancing charm, folksiness and strength in even portions (depending on what is needed to balance the other two).
Otto Preminger (LAURA, STALAG 17) is a Director who's name is beginning to fade into the dust of the past - and that's too bad, for he is a strong director who knows how to frame a scene and pace a film. Even though AOM is 2 hours and 40 minutes of talking, it never feels long or slow.
Two other aspects of this film need to be mentioned - the "jazz" score by the great Duke Ellington (which won a grammy) is perfectly suited to the themes and mood of this film and the opening title sequence (and movie poster) is reminiscent of an Alfred Hitchock film - and that is because they are done by frequent Hitchock contributor Saul Bass.
Nominated for 7 Oscars (it won zero, falling to the juggernaut that was BEN HUR that year), ANATOMY OF A MURDER is an intriguing courtroom drama that also opens the door to performers of the past. Well worth the time investment, should you run across it (it is frequently shown on TCM).
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Other Mrs. in Books
Apr 4, 2020
Mental illness done correctly (1 more)
Addictive
Mental illness.
I've read a lot of horror books that cover this subject, watched horror movies covering this subject, listened to music covering this subject, but none of them have covered mental illness as well and correctly as Mary Kubica's "The Other Mrs.."
So, with that said, if you have any type of PTSD, this book may be hard for you to read. Otherwise, this novel is very addicting, filled with so many twists and turns that you won't be able to set it down for long. For me, someone who deals with C-PTSD, 'The Other Mrs.' by Mary Kubica has been a heartache to read, but also very fulfilling to finish.
Kubica is known for her best-selling novel 'the Good Girl' - - - a thriller following a mother and a detective in search of the the former's missing daughter that leads them down a twisted tale of family secrets. From highly acclaimed critics, 'the Other Mrs.' has out-done 'the Good Girl' as Kubica's best novel so far. Kubica sticks with her psychological thriller writing that she is known for in this newest novel. She keeps the reader guessing at what will happen next, and she plays out mental illnesses in a way that most who suffer can relate while winding in a mystery well enough that the reader won't be able to guess everything before the ending.
I can't give such a heavy review on this book because, to do so, would give away a lot of the ending, so I'll stick to talking about noteworthy characters that make up the novel. The main character is a woman named Sadie, whose family is being uprooted from Chicago and moved to a small island in Maine after her husband's sister dies, which leaves them with not only a house in the will, but a sixteen-year-old niece named Imogen.
Sadie is already a mother of two sons, both younger than sixteen, when she suddenly finds herself in-charge of the stereo-typical edgy teenager, Imogen. Sadie describes her the first time she sees Imogen: " But there she stands, a morose figure dressed in black. Black jeans, a black shirt, bare feet. Her hair is black, long with bangs that slant sideways across her face. Her eyes are outlined in a thick slash of black eyeliner. Everything black, aside from the white lettering on her shirt, which reads, I want to die. The septum of her nose is pierced. Her skin, in contrast to everything else, is white, pallid, ghostlike. She's thin. "
Early one morning when Sadie is heading off to work, she finds a word spelled on her car window. The word reads: "Die." Sadie, as most readers, quickly assumes that Imogen is responsibly for this, as she tries to explain: "I've tried to be understanding because of how awful the situation must be for her. Her life has been upended. She lost her mother and now must share her home with people she doesn't know. But that doesn't justify threatening me. Because Imogen doesn't mince words. She means just what she said. She wants me to die."
The next character that makes up a big part of this story is a confident, self-centered woman, whose name is Camille,and is also the 'other woman' in this story. Camille is a woman who gets what and who she wants, and won't let anyone get in her way, including Sadie, whose husband is someone Camille wants. I can't go much into the things that Camille's character does because it would give away a lot of the surprises in this novel - - - I can say though that there is murder and mystery throughout; the book will leave most readers guessing until the very end.
One other character who deserves mentioning is a little girl- - - with the nickname 'Mouse' - - - who finds herself suddenly dealing with a horrific stepmother, who abuses her physically and mentally unbeknownst to Mouse's father. One time, in which Mouse shows how smart she is to her the stepmother while being in front of her father (who Mouse likes to call 'Fake Mom'), later that night, when Mouse's father isn't looking, Fake Mom lets Mouse know how she felt about that:
" But later that night, when he father wasn't looking, Fake Mom got down into Mouse's face and told her if she ever made her look stupid again in front of her father, there would be hell to pay. Fake Mom's face got all red. She bared her teeth like a dog does when it's mad. A vein stuck out of her forehead. It throbbed. Fake Mom spit when she spoke, like she was so mad she couldn't stop herself from spitting. Like she was spitting mad. She spit on Mouse's face but Mouse didn't dare raise a hand to wipe it away."
Mental and physical abuse make up all that The Other Mrs. is about. So far, this is the best story I have read in a long time. My only problem with it is it's written like a YA novel, where it seems Kubica tried to keep that from happening by throwing in some heavy syllable words to make it more fitting for adults. But, luckily, she left out most of the wishy-washy elements that make up YA novels, so I believe most adults will enjoy this. I highly recommend this book to people who love murder mysteries!
I've read a lot of horror books that cover this subject, watched horror movies covering this subject, listened to music covering this subject, but none of them have covered mental illness as well and correctly as Mary Kubica's "The Other Mrs.."
So, with that said, if you have any type of PTSD, this book may be hard for you to read. Otherwise, this novel is very addicting, filled with so many twists and turns that you won't be able to set it down for long. For me, someone who deals with C-PTSD, 'The Other Mrs.' by Mary Kubica has been a heartache to read, but also very fulfilling to finish.
Kubica is known for her best-selling novel 'the Good Girl' - - - a thriller following a mother and a detective in search of the the former's missing daughter that leads them down a twisted tale of family secrets. From highly acclaimed critics, 'the Other Mrs.' has out-done 'the Good Girl' as Kubica's best novel so far. Kubica sticks with her psychological thriller writing that she is known for in this newest novel. She keeps the reader guessing at what will happen next, and she plays out mental illnesses in a way that most who suffer can relate while winding in a mystery well enough that the reader won't be able to guess everything before the ending.
I can't give such a heavy review on this book because, to do so, would give away a lot of the ending, so I'll stick to talking about noteworthy characters that make up the novel. The main character is a woman named Sadie, whose family is being uprooted from Chicago and moved to a small island in Maine after her husband's sister dies, which leaves them with not only a house in the will, but a sixteen-year-old niece named Imogen.
Sadie is already a mother of two sons, both younger than sixteen, when she suddenly finds herself in-charge of the stereo-typical edgy teenager, Imogen. Sadie describes her the first time she sees Imogen: " But there she stands, a morose figure dressed in black. Black jeans, a black shirt, bare feet. Her hair is black, long with bangs that slant sideways across her face. Her eyes are outlined in a thick slash of black eyeliner. Everything black, aside from the white lettering on her shirt, which reads, I want to die. The septum of her nose is pierced. Her skin, in contrast to everything else, is white, pallid, ghostlike. She's thin. "
Early one morning when Sadie is heading off to work, she finds a word spelled on her car window. The word reads: "Die." Sadie, as most readers, quickly assumes that Imogen is responsibly for this, as she tries to explain: "I've tried to be understanding because of how awful the situation must be for her. Her life has been upended. She lost her mother and now must share her home with people she doesn't know. But that doesn't justify threatening me. Because Imogen doesn't mince words. She means just what she said. She wants me to die."
The next character that makes up a big part of this story is a confident, self-centered woman, whose name is Camille,and is also the 'other woman' in this story. Camille is a woman who gets what and who she wants, and won't let anyone get in her way, including Sadie, whose husband is someone Camille wants. I can't go much into the things that Camille's character does because it would give away a lot of the surprises in this novel - - - I can say though that there is murder and mystery throughout; the book will leave most readers guessing until the very end.
One other character who deserves mentioning is a little girl- - - with the nickname 'Mouse' - - - who finds herself suddenly dealing with a horrific stepmother, who abuses her physically and mentally unbeknownst to Mouse's father. One time, in which Mouse shows how smart she is to her the stepmother while being in front of her father (who Mouse likes to call 'Fake Mom'), later that night, when Mouse's father isn't looking, Fake Mom lets Mouse know how she felt about that:
" But later that night, when he father wasn't looking, Fake Mom got down into Mouse's face and told her if she ever made her look stupid again in front of her father, there would be hell to pay. Fake Mom's face got all red. She bared her teeth like a dog does when it's mad. A vein stuck out of her forehead. It throbbed. Fake Mom spit when she spoke, like she was so mad she couldn't stop herself from spitting. Like she was spitting mad. She spit on Mouse's face but Mouse didn't dare raise a hand to wipe it away."
Mental and physical abuse make up all that The Other Mrs. is about. So far, this is the best story I have read in a long time. My only problem with it is it's written like a YA novel, where it seems Kubica tried to keep that from happening by throwing in some heavy syllable words to make it more fitting for adults. But, luckily, she left out most of the wishy-washy elements that make up YA novels, so I believe most adults will enjoy this. I highly recommend this book to people who love murder mysteries!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Those Who Wish Me Dead (2021) in Movies
May 19, 2021
Disappointing
And…we have the “leader in the clubhouse” for the WORST FILM OF 2021.
As faithful readers of my reviews know, I’m all for a “turn you mind off” action flick, not really caring about plot/characters, but let some competent storytelling and decent action scenes transport me away from the real world for a few hours (or in this case, for 100 minutes) and THOSE WHO WISH ME DEAD started off promisingly enough and so I settled into my chair looking to be entertained.
I’m still waiting
THOSE WHO WISH ME DEAD stars Angelina Jolie as a “Fire Jumper” who is suffering from a traumatic experience and is shying away from human connection and interaction, looking for cheap, death-defying thrills to feel some sort of emotion. Into her world comes a young boy who has witnessed a murder and the murderers are chasing him, so she must save him.
And…of course…there’s a fire.
I can roll with that flimsy plot (certainly other action flicks have been entertaining with much less plot) but TWWMD (as I will call this from now on) fails to capitalize at all on any of the aspects of the plot and fails to garner much in the way of interest throughout the film.
Director/Writer Taylor Sheridan (the writer on the terrific HELL OR HIGH WATER) was brought on board this film early on as a “script doctor” and then stepped into the Director’s role when the original director (smartly) dropped out and he promised the producer’s that he could get Angelina Jolie to star in it.
To be fair, Jolie brings the necessary star quality to the role of emotionally crippled “Fire Jumper” Hannah, and she looks like she was “game” for whatever Sheridan asked her to do - there just isn’t much for her to do.
And this is unfortunate, for Sheridan starts the movie with an interesting scene where our two hitmen (Aiden Gillen - “Littlefinger” from GAME OF THRONES and Nicholas Hoult - Beast in the X-MEN FIRST CLASS films) take out their first target. This is actually a pretty good scene and one that starts the film out with promise. Little did I know that it was the best scene in the film.
After that, nothing interesting really happens and the other characters (with an exception that I will speak about in a moment) are not interesting at all (I’m looking at you, Tyler Perry, who was clearly doing a favor for Sheridan). As a matter of fact, some of the other characters were just plain annyoing (I’m looking at you, “Fire Jumper” Friends of Hannah).
The exception to this is the work of Jon Bernthal (Shane in the first 2 season of THE WALKING DEAD) and Medina Senghore (an actress I had not seen before) as a local cop and his “survivalist” wife. These two bring some intensity and spark to pretty dull proceedings - I think I would have rather have seen a film that focused on these 2 characters, rather than Jolie’s.
Most of the blame for this must fall to Writer/Director Sheridan. I don’t think he ever figured out what type of film he was making. Is it an action flick? Sort of (and the action scenes are not all that good/interesting). Is it a redemption story? Sure. (But I didn’t buy how Jolie’s character needed redemption). Is it a story of survival? Kind of (but I didn’t really care for the child actor that was being saved).
There was a good idea in here, but this movie wasn’t even close to a good movie on this idea. Skip this one.
Letter Grade: C
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take this to the Bank(ofMarquis)
As faithful readers of my reviews know, I’m all for a “turn you mind off” action flick, not really caring about plot/characters, but let some competent storytelling and decent action scenes transport me away from the real world for a few hours (or in this case, for 100 minutes) and THOSE WHO WISH ME DEAD started off promisingly enough and so I settled into my chair looking to be entertained.
I’m still waiting
THOSE WHO WISH ME DEAD stars Angelina Jolie as a “Fire Jumper” who is suffering from a traumatic experience and is shying away from human connection and interaction, looking for cheap, death-defying thrills to feel some sort of emotion. Into her world comes a young boy who has witnessed a murder and the murderers are chasing him, so she must save him.
And…of course…there’s a fire.
I can roll with that flimsy plot (certainly other action flicks have been entertaining with much less plot) but TWWMD (as I will call this from now on) fails to capitalize at all on any of the aspects of the plot and fails to garner much in the way of interest throughout the film.
Director/Writer Taylor Sheridan (the writer on the terrific HELL OR HIGH WATER) was brought on board this film early on as a “script doctor” and then stepped into the Director’s role when the original director (smartly) dropped out and he promised the producer’s that he could get Angelina Jolie to star in it.
To be fair, Jolie brings the necessary star quality to the role of emotionally crippled “Fire Jumper” Hannah, and she looks like she was “game” for whatever Sheridan asked her to do - there just isn’t much for her to do.
And this is unfortunate, for Sheridan starts the movie with an interesting scene where our two hitmen (Aiden Gillen - “Littlefinger” from GAME OF THRONES and Nicholas Hoult - Beast in the X-MEN FIRST CLASS films) take out their first target. This is actually a pretty good scene and one that starts the film out with promise. Little did I know that it was the best scene in the film.
After that, nothing interesting really happens and the other characters (with an exception that I will speak about in a moment) are not interesting at all (I’m looking at you, Tyler Perry, who was clearly doing a favor for Sheridan). As a matter of fact, some of the other characters were just plain annyoing (I’m looking at you, “Fire Jumper” Friends of Hannah).
The exception to this is the work of Jon Bernthal (Shane in the first 2 season of THE WALKING DEAD) and Medina Senghore (an actress I had not seen before) as a local cop and his “survivalist” wife. These two bring some intensity and spark to pretty dull proceedings - I think I would have rather have seen a film that focused on these 2 characters, rather than Jolie’s.
Most of the blame for this must fall to Writer/Director Sheridan. I don’t think he ever figured out what type of film he was making. Is it an action flick? Sort of (and the action scenes are not all that good/interesting). Is it a redemption story? Sure. (But I didn’t buy how Jolie’s character needed redemption). Is it a story of survival? Kind of (but I didn’t really care for the child actor that was being saved).
There was a good idea in here, but this movie wasn’t even close to a good movie on this idea. Skip this one.
Letter Grade: C
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take this to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Game Night (2018) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Virtual game nights over Zoom have been a big part of many lockdown experiences, so, if you haven’t already, check out this fun, disposable comedy starring Jason Bateman and Rachel McAdams. The two ever reliable leads make this 100 minute romp something worth doing, pitched as it is to tickle you on a superficial level and then leave you alone. Not one minute of meaningful plot or artistic message exists here; this is frat house tomfoolery for the now middle aged mainstream and then a bow to the crowd.
Anyone who has hosted, or been a guest at a dedicated game night will instantly relate to recognisable moments of cringe, such as the person who takes it all far too seriously and must win at all costs; the one who is far too dim to be true, and neither understands the rules nor knows the answers; the couple whose relationship is about to be ruined by how much they disagree; the guys who care much more about the booze, chat and music to care about the game; and the psycho that you didn’t really want to invite but is there in the mix anyway, giving the weirdest answers of all time and bringing down the mood. It’s all there!
When events take a canny twist and a planned fake murder mystery turns into a very real one, there is tons of fun to be had watching the main pair misjudge the amount of danger they are in, believing it all to still be a game. Bateman phones in his usual laconic likeable deadpan schtick, hard to differentiate from his role in half a dozen other films where he plays the likeable everyman, but is never less than watchable – because that’s what he does. McAdams also delivers her ace card, with a guileless charm and sweetness that makes her permanently lovable. She also wins by a point or two on the best lines and laugh out loud moments. If I was keeping score, I’d say she wins this one.
As a couple, their chemistry works a treat and sustains the conceit well for most of the running time. It can feel at times like a bit of a one trick pony, however, and also pushes the boundaries of likability by having quite a mean heart in places, leaning on crass, puerile or macho humour when not entirely necessary – but I guess it knows its target audience and just goes full tilt at that goal.
For that reason, it wouldn’t be something I’d be showing the kids. This is adult humour, for adults – a concept that always makes me slightly uncomfortable, as it will inevitably involve gratuitous violence, nasty misogyny and token gross-outs: the mainstay of comedy films without actual jokes. Game Night just about gets away with it, however, by being smart enough and self-aware enough to know exactly where it sits, shrugging its shoulders and saying “this is what this is” take it or leave it. And I guess there will be as many people who don’t enjoy it as those who do.
Personally, I enjoy what Bateman and McAdams do best enough to play along and enjoy the ride. There is also a terrifically creepy, but note perfect turn from the increasingly reliable Jesse Plemmons, as the lonely neighbour, who steals all the funniest moments the film has to offer. See it for his performance and comic timing if for nothing else. It’s also nice to see Michael C. Hall of Dexter fame turn up for two minutes of mayhem – I don’t see enough of him these days.
In conclusion, neither a winner or a loser. Let’s call it a draw and reset the pieces.
Anyone who has hosted, or been a guest at a dedicated game night will instantly relate to recognisable moments of cringe, such as the person who takes it all far too seriously and must win at all costs; the one who is far too dim to be true, and neither understands the rules nor knows the answers; the couple whose relationship is about to be ruined by how much they disagree; the guys who care much more about the booze, chat and music to care about the game; and the psycho that you didn’t really want to invite but is there in the mix anyway, giving the weirdest answers of all time and bringing down the mood. It’s all there!
When events take a canny twist and a planned fake murder mystery turns into a very real one, there is tons of fun to be had watching the main pair misjudge the amount of danger they are in, believing it all to still be a game. Bateman phones in his usual laconic likeable deadpan schtick, hard to differentiate from his role in half a dozen other films where he plays the likeable everyman, but is never less than watchable – because that’s what he does. McAdams also delivers her ace card, with a guileless charm and sweetness that makes her permanently lovable. She also wins by a point or two on the best lines and laugh out loud moments. If I was keeping score, I’d say she wins this one.
As a couple, their chemistry works a treat and sustains the conceit well for most of the running time. It can feel at times like a bit of a one trick pony, however, and also pushes the boundaries of likability by having quite a mean heart in places, leaning on crass, puerile or macho humour when not entirely necessary – but I guess it knows its target audience and just goes full tilt at that goal.
For that reason, it wouldn’t be something I’d be showing the kids. This is adult humour, for adults – a concept that always makes me slightly uncomfortable, as it will inevitably involve gratuitous violence, nasty misogyny and token gross-outs: the mainstay of comedy films without actual jokes. Game Night just about gets away with it, however, by being smart enough and self-aware enough to know exactly where it sits, shrugging its shoulders and saying “this is what this is” take it or leave it. And I guess there will be as many people who don’t enjoy it as those who do.
Personally, I enjoy what Bateman and McAdams do best enough to play along and enjoy the ride. There is also a terrifically creepy, but note perfect turn from the increasingly reliable Jesse Plemmons, as the lonely neighbour, who steals all the funniest moments the film has to offer. See it for his performance and comic timing if for nothing else. It’s also nice to see Michael C. Hall of Dexter fame turn up for two minutes of mayhem – I don’t see enough of him these days.
In conclusion, neither a winner or a loser. Let’s call it a draw and reset the pieces.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Clue (1985) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I wish I could remember the first time I saw Clue. It has been one of my favourites for years. Tim Curry as Wadsworth and Lesley Ann Warren as Miss Scarlet will always be the highlight of this for me. Looking at my sense of humour these days I see a lot of things I recognise from these older films that I grew up with.
FUN FACT - CASTING: Jonathan Lynn said that Carrie Fisher was originally cast as Miss Scarlet but went into rehab four days before filming began, so Warren was given the role instead.
Generally all round the cast is great and they all bring something memorable to their characters.
FUN FACT - COLOURS: The character's colourful monikers match with the colour of their playing pieces in the board game and their cars in the movie.
I'm not going to lie, the fact that they didn't wear their colours has always bothered me. Evidently they're all wearing the "opposite" of their colours... I'm not sure I care for that idea if I'm honest.
I can't put my finger on what I love so much about Clue. It's just so easy to watch. From the moment Wadsworth gives that dog a withering look to the triumphant ending it's just brilliant to watch. I can't think of a moment that I dislike, and trying to pick a favourite moment? Forget it. I'd just have to present you with the entire movie with ending C.
FUN FACT - ENDINGS: While there are three endings to the film that you can see on the blu-ray/DVD, there was actually a fourth one filmed where Wadsworth revealed that he had actually poisoned everyone earlier in the evening. It's still in the novelisation but was never shown.
There are so many laughs throughout and while I've seen it so often that I don't laugh out loud as much it still brings a smile to my face. I enjoy the slightly madcap interactions and the overly dramatic reactions.
Tim Curry really is amazing, I think basically all of us would agree with that. (Well apart from one person I found online who has evidently never liked anything he's been in.) This movie could be used as his emotional resume. I don't think there are any he missed!
FUN FACT - CASTING: Lynn was set to cast Leonard Rossiter (Rigsby from Rising Damp) as Wadsworth but he sadly passed away before production started. His second choice was Rowan Atkinson but the studio were worried he was too much of an unknown in the states at the time.
While I can definitely see Rossiter in his role I really can't imagine him having the same impact on screen. Curry's flamboyancy definitely lifted the film to pole position among comedies.
Watching Clue of course makes me want to watch Murder By Death which has a very similar feel, although not quite so manic towards the end.
"It's my defense mechanism!" - Miss Scarlet
Isn't it though!?
What you should do
I know older films aren't for everyone but Clue is amazingly fun and I feel like everyone need to see it, and if you don't love it... just tell me that you did in a text message so I can't tell you're lying to me.
Note: I brought a special edition of Clue from HMV. It was a blu-ray copy in a retro VHS type box. It also came with a small poster, a collectors card, a sticker and a DVD copy. It's fun and it's different, but ultimately that version really isn't worth the money. I would just get the cheapest thing that you can. The quality difference of the blu-ray isn't worth it and the VHS box gimmick is nice in theory but disappointing in reality.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Secret passageways in a house? Erm, yes please!
FUN FACT - CASTING: Jonathan Lynn said that Carrie Fisher was originally cast as Miss Scarlet but went into rehab four days before filming began, so Warren was given the role instead.
Generally all round the cast is great and they all bring something memorable to their characters.
FUN FACT - COLOURS: The character's colourful monikers match with the colour of their playing pieces in the board game and their cars in the movie.
I'm not going to lie, the fact that they didn't wear their colours has always bothered me. Evidently they're all wearing the "opposite" of their colours... I'm not sure I care for that idea if I'm honest.
I can't put my finger on what I love so much about Clue. It's just so easy to watch. From the moment Wadsworth gives that dog a withering look to the triumphant ending it's just brilliant to watch. I can't think of a moment that I dislike, and trying to pick a favourite moment? Forget it. I'd just have to present you with the entire movie with ending C.
FUN FACT - ENDINGS: While there are three endings to the film that you can see on the blu-ray/DVD, there was actually a fourth one filmed where Wadsworth revealed that he had actually poisoned everyone earlier in the evening. It's still in the novelisation but was never shown.
There are so many laughs throughout and while I've seen it so often that I don't laugh out loud as much it still brings a smile to my face. I enjoy the slightly madcap interactions and the overly dramatic reactions.
Tim Curry really is amazing, I think basically all of us would agree with that. (Well apart from one person I found online who has evidently never liked anything he's been in.) This movie could be used as his emotional resume. I don't think there are any he missed!
FUN FACT - CASTING: Lynn was set to cast Leonard Rossiter (Rigsby from Rising Damp) as Wadsworth but he sadly passed away before production started. His second choice was Rowan Atkinson but the studio were worried he was too much of an unknown in the states at the time.
While I can definitely see Rossiter in his role I really can't imagine him having the same impact on screen. Curry's flamboyancy definitely lifted the film to pole position among comedies.
Watching Clue of course makes me want to watch Murder By Death which has a very similar feel, although not quite so manic towards the end.
"It's my defense mechanism!" - Miss Scarlet
Isn't it though!?
What you should do
I know older films aren't for everyone but Clue is amazingly fun and I feel like everyone need to see it, and if you don't love it... just tell me that you did in a text message so I can't tell you're lying to me.
Note: I brought a special edition of Clue from HMV. It was a blu-ray copy in a retro VHS type box. It also came with a small poster, a collectors card, a sticker and a DVD copy. It's fun and it's different, but ultimately that version really isn't worth the money. I would just get the cheapest thing that you can. The quality difference of the blu-ray isn't worth it and the VHS box gimmick is nice in theory but disappointing in reality.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Secret passageways in a house? Erm, yes please!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Reminiscence (2021) in Movies
Aug 24, 2021
Needed a better Director - like one of the Nolan boys
Christopher Nolan is one of the greatest Directors of our time usually making films that have an attribute of time in them. His brother, Jonathan Nolan, has had a hand in most of his brother’s terrific works as well as the creative force behind such “trippy” TV series as PERSON OF INTEREST and the recent revival of WESTWORLD. In both of these TV Series, Jonathan Nolan was assisted by his wife, Lisa Joy.
Lisa Joy has written and directed her own “trippy, play with time” film, REMINISCENCE that has quite a few of the hallmarks of a Christopher (or Jonathan) Nolan film - but it also has one very unsettling aspect to it - it plays like a twice over copy of something else.
REMINISCENCE is a classic neo-noir with our hero being smitten by the femme fatale which draws him into her world, where murder, criminal activities and low-lifes run rampant all with a downbeat tone.
This sounds like a terrific premise for a Christopher Nolan film, unfortunately, in the hands of Lisa Joy, it is like watching a local community theater production of a Broadway musical.
The first 1/3 of this film is one long, laborious setup for the tragedy that will unfold and it is told at an uninteresting snail’s pace. Reminiscence picks up a bit in the middle with a pretty good action scene - and plot twist - before squandering this momentum with mediocrity at the end.
Joy’s script - which was on Hollywood’s infamous “blacklist’ of scripts for many, many years (a list of screenplays that are generally praised, but for some reason or another have not been produced), is at the core of the problem. The dialogue is not very interesting and dripping with heavy film noire clichés. She does not follow the Hollywood doctrine of “show, don’t tell”. She TELLS the audience much, much more than is needed and never really gives the audience any credit for figuring things out for themselves.
For example, there is a “dirty cop” that is central to the plot (there always is in this type of film). So, how do the other characters in the film address him? “You’re the dirty cop…”
I’d laugh if I wasn’t so bored.
What DOES work in this film is the acting of Hugh Jackman (as our hero), Rebecca Ferguson (as the femme fatale) and - especially - Thandie Newton as the “Gal Friday” of Jackman’s. Someone needs to give this talented actress a true showcase of her talents.
Someone also needs to give good ol’ Cliff Curtis a vehicle for his talents - he is one of the most misused good performers in Hollywood and he is misused in this film as well.
And…don’t get me started on the special effects. If you are going to make a trippy, sci-fi, futuristic neo-noire thriller, you probably shouldn’t cut the corner on the special effects, but this film does that, amazingly.
But…with a good Director at the helm there is enough “good enough” here (especially in the acting) that you should be able to pull something decent out of it.
But…Joy is making her theatrical film directing debut - exactly the type of director that this film does not need. What this film needed wasn’t a rookie director like Joy, it needed a Nolan - either Jonathan or (preferably) Christopher to make this work. But, one will have to be contented with a copy of a copy.
And that’s just not good enough.
Letter Grade: C+ (the performances of the leads almost salvage things.
5 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Lisa Joy has written and directed her own “trippy, play with time” film, REMINISCENCE that has quite a few of the hallmarks of a Christopher (or Jonathan) Nolan film - but it also has one very unsettling aspect to it - it plays like a twice over copy of something else.
REMINISCENCE is a classic neo-noir with our hero being smitten by the femme fatale which draws him into her world, where murder, criminal activities and low-lifes run rampant all with a downbeat tone.
This sounds like a terrific premise for a Christopher Nolan film, unfortunately, in the hands of Lisa Joy, it is like watching a local community theater production of a Broadway musical.
The first 1/3 of this film is one long, laborious setup for the tragedy that will unfold and it is told at an uninteresting snail’s pace. Reminiscence picks up a bit in the middle with a pretty good action scene - and plot twist - before squandering this momentum with mediocrity at the end.
Joy’s script - which was on Hollywood’s infamous “blacklist’ of scripts for many, many years (a list of screenplays that are generally praised, but for some reason or another have not been produced), is at the core of the problem. The dialogue is not very interesting and dripping with heavy film noire clichés. She does not follow the Hollywood doctrine of “show, don’t tell”. She TELLS the audience much, much more than is needed and never really gives the audience any credit for figuring things out for themselves.
For example, there is a “dirty cop” that is central to the plot (there always is in this type of film). So, how do the other characters in the film address him? “You’re the dirty cop…”
I’d laugh if I wasn’t so bored.
What DOES work in this film is the acting of Hugh Jackman (as our hero), Rebecca Ferguson (as the femme fatale) and - especially - Thandie Newton as the “Gal Friday” of Jackman’s. Someone needs to give this talented actress a true showcase of her talents.
Someone also needs to give good ol’ Cliff Curtis a vehicle for his talents - he is one of the most misused good performers in Hollywood and he is misused in this film as well.
And…don’t get me started on the special effects. If you are going to make a trippy, sci-fi, futuristic neo-noire thriller, you probably shouldn’t cut the corner on the special effects, but this film does that, amazingly.
But…with a good Director at the helm there is enough “good enough” here (especially in the acting) that you should be able to pull something decent out of it.
But…Joy is making her theatrical film directing debut - exactly the type of director that this film does not need. What this film needed wasn’t a rookie director like Joy, it needed a Nolan - either Jonathan or (preferably) Christopher to make this work. But, one will have to be contented with a copy of a copy.
And that’s just not good enough.
Letter Grade: C+ (the performances of the leads almost salvage things.
5 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)