Search
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Hard Candy (2005) in Movies
Feb 21, 2019
Solid Movie
Hardy Candy is as good as it is unsettling. There is an art in movies to making you feel creeped out and director David Slade definitely pulls it off here. I don’t really want to disclose too much of the plot in fear of giving it away for those that haven’t seen it, but I will say that it starts with a teenager meeting a thirty-something year-old in a chat room and agreeing to meet him in person. I definitely wasn’t expecting or ready for what happened next.
Acting: 10
Ellen Page plays the role of the aforementioned teenager Hayley Stark. In a word: Fantastic. I can almost imagine a role of this nature being somewhat freeing and therapeutic. I love the angle that she took as Hayley, calm on the surface but a loose cannon ready to explode. The emotional range here is noticed and appreciated.
Shout-out to Patrick Wilson playing the role of Jeff Kohlver the thirty-something. He, just like Page, excels in playing a multi-dimensional character that has that “other” side. Seeing the two work on screen together is like magic.
Beginning; 10
Characters: 9
The story centers around Hayley and Patrick but, in a way, one could argue that the movie is about four people: Their characters and the ones underneath the surface. The way they play off of each other is fascinating. You want to see more of them, know more about what got them to this point. It’s a cat-and-mouse game and you don’t quite know who’s who.
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
Colors and tones play a significant role in setting the mood of the movie. Again, it’s that eery creepiness Slade manages to capture in every shot, even when things feel normal. Emotional moments are captured in a way that manage to magnify the way a viewer feels. That’s where I feel the visuals succeed the most. On the downside, it got somewhat monotonous having the characters be in one location for the majority of the movie. Maybe breaking it up with flashbacks or something would have made the pill a little easier to swallow.
Conflict: 4
Let’s just say I was expecting a lot more to happen than what actually did. In other words, there was DEFINITELY room for more conflict here. Just slightly more subtle than I was hoping for.
Genre: 5
This score would have been higher had there been just a bit more action and a fluctuation of location changes. While it checks most boxes for what makes a quality movie, I have seen better dramas that are worth the higher score.
Memorability: 7
Pace: 10
Sometimes intensity can magnify a situation and that’s one of a number of things Hard Candy is great at. Because you’re dealing with two characters that are loaded pistols, you don’t really know what’s going to unfold from one scene to the next. That’s ultimately what makes the movie so fun to watch. There is always something to pay attention to here.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
Overall: 83
Hard Candy is a great example of why I created my scoring system in the first place. Some movies slip in some areas and they get called a bad movie as a result. When you look at all the moving parts separately, however, you potentially learn the opposite. Is it a perfect movie? Not at all. Is it a solid, fun movie to watch. Absolutely.
Acting: 10
Ellen Page plays the role of the aforementioned teenager Hayley Stark. In a word: Fantastic. I can almost imagine a role of this nature being somewhat freeing and therapeutic. I love the angle that she took as Hayley, calm on the surface but a loose cannon ready to explode. The emotional range here is noticed and appreciated.
Shout-out to Patrick Wilson playing the role of Jeff Kohlver the thirty-something. He, just like Page, excels in playing a multi-dimensional character that has that “other” side. Seeing the two work on screen together is like magic.
Beginning; 10
Characters: 9
The story centers around Hayley and Patrick but, in a way, one could argue that the movie is about four people: Their characters and the ones underneath the surface. The way they play off of each other is fascinating. You want to see more of them, know more about what got them to this point. It’s a cat-and-mouse game and you don’t quite know who’s who.
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
Colors and tones play a significant role in setting the mood of the movie. Again, it’s that eery creepiness Slade manages to capture in every shot, even when things feel normal. Emotional moments are captured in a way that manage to magnify the way a viewer feels. That’s where I feel the visuals succeed the most. On the downside, it got somewhat monotonous having the characters be in one location for the majority of the movie. Maybe breaking it up with flashbacks or something would have made the pill a little easier to swallow.
Conflict: 4
Let’s just say I was expecting a lot more to happen than what actually did. In other words, there was DEFINITELY room for more conflict here. Just slightly more subtle than I was hoping for.
Genre: 5
This score would have been higher had there been just a bit more action and a fluctuation of location changes. While it checks most boxes for what makes a quality movie, I have seen better dramas that are worth the higher score.
Memorability: 7
Pace: 10
Sometimes intensity can magnify a situation and that’s one of a number of things Hard Candy is great at. Because you’re dealing with two characters that are loaded pistols, you don’t really know what’s going to unfold from one scene to the next. That’s ultimately what makes the movie so fun to watch. There is always something to pay attention to here.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
Overall: 83
Hard Candy is a great example of why I created my scoring system in the first place. Some movies slip in some areas and they get called a bad movie as a result. When you look at all the moving parts separately, however, you potentially learn the opposite. Is it a perfect movie? Not at all. Is it a solid, fun movie to watch. Absolutely.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Alice Through the Looking Glass (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Curiously Terrible
Disney is set for a bumper year of takings. 2016 is dominated by the House of Mouse in all of their guises, whether Marvel, Pixar or Disney itself. We’ve already had the fantastic live-action remake of The Jungle Book and now Alice returns to Wonderland in Through the Looking Glass.
Tim Burton took us to the murky depths of “Underland” in the 2010 predecessor; a film that was hugely overrated with a box-office return of $1billion. Naturally a sequel was greenlit soon after, but is Through the Looking Glass another case of style over substance?
Yes is the short answer. Muppets director James Bobin takes over from Burton and recreates his vision of Wonderland with visual panache, but the story is so poor, and lacking in any real connection to Lewis Carroll’s charming 1871 novel that you’ll leave the cinema sorely disappointed.
We join the film three years after the events of its predecessor as Alice, played by an unappealing Mia Wasikowska, returns from a voyage on the high seas to her home in London. After a brief catch up, she returns to a far more colourful “Underland” where Johnny Depp’s Mad Hatter yearns for his family.
In order to reunite the Hatter with his estranged loved ones, Alice must turn back the hands of time to find out their fate. Story wise, that’s pretty much it as we follow Wasikowska’s Alice from one poorly executed set piece to another with no real consequence on the final result.
Even more frustrating is the complete wastage of Through the Looking Glass’ talented cast. The majority of the series’ stars return with Anne Hathaway and Stephen Fry being underused as the White Queen and Cheshire Cat respectively. Sacha Baron Cohen plays another one of his caricatures in the vaguely written villain, Time – I say vaguely written because his motives for stopping Alice in her quest are unclear to say the least.
Helena Bonham Carter and her massive head also make a comeback as does Matt Lucas’ hideous incarnation of Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
However, the worst part is the use of Alan Rickman’s passing as ticket bait. Rickman’s iconic voice was a highlight in Alice in Wonderland, with him taking a central role as narrator in the trailers for this sequel. My worst fear was confirmed however – his character is only in the finished product for five minutes.
Elsewhere, the special effects are decent and Bobin brings a brighter colour palette to the table than Burton did with his bleak, murky wasteland. Scriptwriter Linda Woolverton injects a dash of humour here and there but it’s not enough to save a bland and indifferent script that plods along despite the film’s succinct length.
Through the Looking Glass should have been a recipe for success. A promising director, huge budget, amazing source material and a talented cast all bode well for any film which makes the finished product even more appalling. Good special effects can sometimes successfully mask a wafer-thin story but creating such a poor plot out of Lewis Carroll’s novel is unforgivable.
Please don’t return us to “Underland” any time soon, I haven’t got the stomach for it, and Disney, if you’re listening, don’t let The BFG end up like this.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/06/04/curiously-terrible-through-the-looking-glass-review/
Tim Burton took us to the murky depths of “Underland” in the 2010 predecessor; a film that was hugely overrated with a box-office return of $1billion. Naturally a sequel was greenlit soon after, but is Through the Looking Glass another case of style over substance?
Yes is the short answer. Muppets director James Bobin takes over from Burton and recreates his vision of Wonderland with visual panache, but the story is so poor, and lacking in any real connection to Lewis Carroll’s charming 1871 novel that you’ll leave the cinema sorely disappointed.
We join the film three years after the events of its predecessor as Alice, played by an unappealing Mia Wasikowska, returns from a voyage on the high seas to her home in London. After a brief catch up, she returns to a far more colourful “Underland” where Johnny Depp’s Mad Hatter yearns for his family.
In order to reunite the Hatter with his estranged loved ones, Alice must turn back the hands of time to find out their fate. Story wise, that’s pretty much it as we follow Wasikowska’s Alice from one poorly executed set piece to another with no real consequence on the final result.
Even more frustrating is the complete wastage of Through the Looking Glass’ talented cast. The majority of the series’ stars return with Anne Hathaway and Stephen Fry being underused as the White Queen and Cheshire Cat respectively. Sacha Baron Cohen plays another one of his caricatures in the vaguely written villain, Time – I say vaguely written because his motives for stopping Alice in her quest are unclear to say the least.
Helena Bonham Carter and her massive head also make a comeback as does Matt Lucas’ hideous incarnation of Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
However, the worst part is the use of Alan Rickman’s passing as ticket bait. Rickman’s iconic voice was a highlight in Alice in Wonderland, with him taking a central role as narrator in the trailers for this sequel. My worst fear was confirmed however – his character is only in the finished product for five minutes.
Elsewhere, the special effects are decent and Bobin brings a brighter colour palette to the table than Burton did with his bleak, murky wasteland. Scriptwriter Linda Woolverton injects a dash of humour here and there but it’s not enough to save a bland and indifferent script that plods along despite the film’s succinct length.
Through the Looking Glass should have been a recipe for success. A promising director, huge budget, amazing source material and a talented cast all bode well for any film which makes the finished product even more appalling. Good special effects can sometimes successfully mask a wafer-thin story but creating such a poor plot out of Lewis Carroll’s novel is unforgivable.
Please don’t return us to “Underland” any time soon, I haven’t got the stomach for it, and Disney, if you’re listening, don’t let The BFG end up like this.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/06/04/curiously-terrible-through-the-looking-glass-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Elle (2016) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
The end of 2016 is just a few short weeks away. That being said, studios and filmmakers across the world are rolling out the few remaining big budget blockbusters and potential breakout independent masterpieces before year’s end. Among them is today’s film for your consideration. A film that has already received international acclaim when it premiered in competition for the Palme d’Or at the 2016 Cannes Film Festival as well as several awards including the Gotham Independent Film Award For Best Actress, the Los Angeles Film Critics Association Award for Best Actress, a New York Film Critics Association Award for Best Actress, and a Golden Globe Award Nomination for Best Actress for the film’s star, celebrated French film and stage actress Isabelle Huppert. The film would later go on to be selected as the French entry for Best Foreign Language Film at the 89th Academy Awards.
‘Elle’ ( meaning ‘her’ or ‘she’ in French) is an internationally co-produced psychological thriller directed by Paul Verhoeven. Yes, THAT Paul Verhoeven of ‘RoboCop’ , ‘Basic Instinct’, ‘Starship Troopers’, ‘Showgirls’, and ‘Total Recall’ fame. Hold on a second. Before you take his track record of recent works into account just hear me out. The film is based on the 2012 novel “Oh …. ” by French/Armenian author Philippe Djian which won the prix Interallie literary award for a novel written by journalist. ‘Elle’ is Verhoeven’s first French language film and his first film since 2006’s ‘Black Book’.
The film stars Isabelle Huppert as business woman Michele Leblanc. Mother, divorce, and head of a video game company who is viciously attacked and raped in her home late one night by an unknown assailant wearing a ski mask. Rather than report this to the police, she quickly ‘cleans up the mess’ and carries on with life as usual. The film also features several subplots that intricately weave into the film’s main storyline. Michele has a son Vincent (Jonas Bloquet) who is engaged to his unfaithful and domineering girlfriend Josie (Alice Isaac). Their relationship is strained due to Vincent’s lack of direction and his refusal to break off the relationship with Josie who is pregnant by the man she cheated on Vincent with. Michele’s relationship with her mother is also strained due to her mother’s narcissism and preference for younger men. A point of increasing animosity between Michelle and her mother is the fact that Michelle refuses her mother’s request to visit Michelle’s father, a convicted cereal killer, in prison. Meanwhile, Michele is carrying on an affair with Robert (Christian Berkele). The husband of her business partner and best friend Anna (Anne Consigny) while at the same time developing a fixation with Patrick (Laurent Lafitte). A banker and husband of Michele’s religiously devout neighbor Rebecca (Virginie Efira). All this, combined with the turmoil going on within Michele’s company make her reluctant to involve the police in anyway.
Soon Michele grows suspicious of all the men in her life and begins to ‘stalk in reverse’ those in particular might have the strongest motivation to do her harm. At first she suspects Kurt (Lucas Prisor). A particularly resentful employee of her company and even her ex-husband Richard (Charles Berling) who Michele inadvertently pepper-sprays while he was hiding outside her home checking on her safety. Despite pleas from Richard, her friends, and fearing another media frenzy similar to the one that occurred during her childhood when her father was arrested Michele continues with life as usual on the surface. In secret though, Michele is arming herself and using her company’s resources in an attempt to find her attacker and exact her own vision of retribution in this twisted cat and mouse game.
This film is by far one of the best thrillers I’ve seen in the last few years. In my opinion, we here in America don’t partake in enough of the films our neighbors in other countries have to offer. This film doesn’t ‘play it safe’. The story plays out in a realistic and believable manner. This is another one of those rare stories where there are really no ‘happy endings’ in the situation such as depicted in the film. It’s harsh, it’s in your face, it’s plausible, the innocent unfortunately suffer along with the guilty. Punishing the guilty is never enough and sometimes harms the victim(s) even more over the course of time. The film is rated R for depictions of physical and sexual violence and clocks in just past 2 hours. If you’re searching for a well written, well directed, and even better acted film. This psychological thriller is definitely for you. I expect this film will continue to garner more acclaim and even more awards. I’m giving this one 4 out of 5 stars.
‘Elle’ ( meaning ‘her’ or ‘she’ in French) is an internationally co-produced psychological thriller directed by Paul Verhoeven. Yes, THAT Paul Verhoeven of ‘RoboCop’ , ‘Basic Instinct’, ‘Starship Troopers’, ‘Showgirls’, and ‘Total Recall’ fame. Hold on a second. Before you take his track record of recent works into account just hear me out. The film is based on the 2012 novel “Oh …. ” by French/Armenian author Philippe Djian which won the prix Interallie literary award for a novel written by journalist. ‘Elle’ is Verhoeven’s first French language film and his first film since 2006’s ‘Black Book’.
The film stars Isabelle Huppert as business woman Michele Leblanc. Mother, divorce, and head of a video game company who is viciously attacked and raped in her home late one night by an unknown assailant wearing a ski mask. Rather than report this to the police, she quickly ‘cleans up the mess’ and carries on with life as usual. The film also features several subplots that intricately weave into the film’s main storyline. Michele has a son Vincent (Jonas Bloquet) who is engaged to his unfaithful and domineering girlfriend Josie (Alice Isaac). Their relationship is strained due to Vincent’s lack of direction and his refusal to break off the relationship with Josie who is pregnant by the man she cheated on Vincent with. Michele’s relationship with her mother is also strained due to her mother’s narcissism and preference for younger men. A point of increasing animosity between Michelle and her mother is the fact that Michelle refuses her mother’s request to visit Michelle’s father, a convicted cereal killer, in prison. Meanwhile, Michele is carrying on an affair with Robert (Christian Berkele). The husband of her business partner and best friend Anna (Anne Consigny) while at the same time developing a fixation with Patrick (Laurent Lafitte). A banker and husband of Michele’s religiously devout neighbor Rebecca (Virginie Efira). All this, combined with the turmoil going on within Michele’s company make her reluctant to involve the police in anyway.
Soon Michele grows suspicious of all the men in her life and begins to ‘stalk in reverse’ those in particular might have the strongest motivation to do her harm. At first she suspects Kurt (Lucas Prisor). A particularly resentful employee of her company and even her ex-husband Richard (Charles Berling) who Michele inadvertently pepper-sprays while he was hiding outside her home checking on her safety. Despite pleas from Richard, her friends, and fearing another media frenzy similar to the one that occurred during her childhood when her father was arrested Michele continues with life as usual on the surface. In secret though, Michele is arming herself and using her company’s resources in an attempt to find her attacker and exact her own vision of retribution in this twisted cat and mouse game.
This film is by far one of the best thrillers I’ve seen in the last few years. In my opinion, we here in America don’t partake in enough of the films our neighbors in other countries have to offer. This film doesn’t ‘play it safe’. The story plays out in a realistic and believable manner. This is another one of those rare stories where there are really no ‘happy endings’ in the situation such as depicted in the film. It’s harsh, it’s in your face, it’s plausible, the innocent unfortunately suffer along with the guilty. Punishing the guilty is never enough and sometimes harms the victim(s) even more over the course of time. The film is rated R for depictions of physical and sexual violence and clocks in just past 2 hours. If you’re searching for a well written, well directed, and even better acted film. This psychological thriller is definitely for you. I expect this film will continue to garner more acclaim and even more awards. I’m giving this one 4 out of 5 stars.
Jamie (131 KP) rated The Shining Girls in Books
Jun 4, 2017
Ambitious & unique story line (1 more)
Handles the web of time paradoxes well
Mash-up of genres is disjointing (2 more)
Romance is distracting at best
Repeated murder scenes gets wearisome
A cool time travel thriller
The Shining Girls follows Harper, a crude serial killer from the 1930’s that can hop through time; and Kirby, the spunky young woman that got away. This book was incredibly ambitious in its premise and I spent a great deal of my time reading the book wondering if it could deliver and I can happily say that I wasn’t disappointed.
The story is a heavily character driven dive through recent American history, from the Great Depression in the 1930’s all the way up to the early 1990’s. I was impressed by the amount of research that was put into this book, each decade having enough detail to get a good feel for the era. Many of the characters were pretty well fleshed out for such short chapters, and I found myself liking many of them.
My favorite part of the story, though, was the tragedy that was Harper because of how very flawed and human he is. He views himself as commanding, charming, persuasive, but to many of his victims he’s just downright creepy. He thinks himself calculating yet he makes mistakes left and right. He has a drive to rise up from the trenches of poverty and starvation from his own era, to be powerful. His choice of victims are all women in a great act of femicide, because he has this dire need to feel masculine. He chooses women that he views as invincible, that shine with ambition in order to assert his dominance by snuffing them out. He thinks he has this divine purpose, a destiny to fulfill because he wants it so desperately, even though the reality is that it’s simply senseless violence with no real meaning. He obsesses over the murders, returning to the scene of the crimes over and over to get off. Harper is pathetic. It was a refreshing change from the stereotypical smooth, genius archetype that glorifies killers. I didn’t know right away that this book was meant to be a feminist novel, but that’s what I took away from not only Harper’s struggle with masculinity, but with the strong and fiercely independent female characters all throughout the book.
There were a couple of problems with the book, however, that I feel need to be addressed. The mash up of genres is both a good and bad aspect of the story. The middle chapters where romance comes into play to me was really distracting and feels out of place. The tagline describing the novel also states that “the girl who wouldn’t die hunts the killer who shouldn’t exist” but honestly, it didn’t feel much like Kirby was really hunting the killer. Looking for connections with other murder cases and investigating some wild hunches, yes, but really she spends most of the book developing her bond with Dan. I would have really liked for this to be more of a cat and mouse type of hunt between Kirby and Harper.
The chapters with Harper were much more interesting, but even those became a little repetitive. We as the reader follow Harper as he stalks his victims in childhood, waiting for the right time to strike when they reach adulthood. While it was necessary for the plot to detail the characters to both connect them to the greater chain of paradoxes and to show Harper’s descent, the violence is excessive and extremely detailed, and after a while it started to feel more like torture porn. It just got tiring after a while.
Despite its flaws, I thought this book was good, and I mean really good. I loved the way that the time paradoxes were handled, time travel stories tend to be tricky and usually end up with a couple of glaring loop holes. The loops are handled in a way that I found satisfying and this book is easily my favorite time travel novel I’ve ever read. It is truly unique and a story I won’t soon forget.
The story is a heavily character driven dive through recent American history, from the Great Depression in the 1930’s all the way up to the early 1990’s. I was impressed by the amount of research that was put into this book, each decade having enough detail to get a good feel for the era. Many of the characters were pretty well fleshed out for such short chapters, and I found myself liking many of them.
My favorite part of the story, though, was the tragedy that was Harper because of how very flawed and human he is. He views himself as commanding, charming, persuasive, but to many of his victims he’s just downright creepy. He thinks himself calculating yet he makes mistakes left and right. He has a drive to rise up from the trenches of poverty and starvation from his own era, to be powerful. His choice of victims are all women in a great act of femicide, because he has this dire need to feel masculine. He chooses women that he views as invincible, that shine with ambition in order to assert his dominance by snuffing them out. He thinks he has this divine purpose, a destiny to fulfill because he wants it so desperately, even though the reality is that it’s simply senseless violence with no real meaning. He obsesses over the murders, returning to the scene of the crimes over and over to get off. Harper is pathetic. It was a refreshing change from the stereotypical smooth, genius archetype that glorifies killers. I didn’t know right away that this book was meant to be a feminist novel, but that’s what I took away from not only Harper’s struggle with masculinity, but with the strong and fiercely independent female characters all throughout the book.
There were a couple of problems with the book, however, that I feel need to be addressed. The mash up of genres is both a good and bad aspect of the story. The middle chapters where romance comes into play to me was really distracting and feels out of place. The tagline describing the novel also states that “the girl who wouldn’t die hunts the killer who shouldn’t exist” but honestly, it didn’t feel much like Kirby was really hunting the killer. Looking for connections with other murder cases and investigating some wild hunches, yes, but really she spends most of the book developing her bond with Dan. I would have really liked for this to be more of a cat and mouse type of hunt between Kirby and Harper.
The chapters with Harper were much more interesting, but even those became a little repetitive. We as the reader follow Harper as he stalks his victims in childhood, waiting for the right time to strike when they reach adulthood. While it was necessary for the plot to detail the characters to both connect them to the greater chain of paradoxes and to show Harper’s descent, the violence is excessive and extremely detailed, and after a while it started to feel more like torture porn. It just got tiring after a while.
Despite its flaws, I thought this book was good, and I mean really good. I loved the way that the time paradoxes were handled, time travel stories tend to be tricky and usually end up with a couple of glaring loop holes. The loops are handled in a way that I found satisfying and this book is easily my favorite time travel novel I’ve ever read. It is truly unique and a story I won’t soon forget.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Hell or High Water (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Sometimes a blind pig finds a truffle”.
One of the joys (and stresses) of the run up to the Oscar weekend is to try to catch all the major award films before the big event. As I bitched about in my BAFTA write-up, UK release dates do NOT make this an easy task, with some films like Paul Verhoeven’s “Elle”, featuring Best Actress nominee Isabelle Huppert, not released until mid March.
This week I have had the chance to catch up on two of the films with award potential that I missed at the cinema, and this is the write up of the first of those: “Hell or High Water”, was first released in September 2016, and what an excellent film it is.
Bank robberies have been featured in many hundreds of films since the early days of cinema: The Great Train Robbery for example dates back to 1903! More recent heist classics such as “Oceans 11”, “Die Hard”, “Run Lola Run” and “The Dark Knight Rises” tend towards the stylised end of the act. Where this film delivers interest is in aligning the protagonists’ drivers with the banking and mortgage ‘crimes’ featured in last year’s “The Big Short”. Add in to the movie Nutribullet a soupçon of the West Texan setting from Arthur Penn’s 1967 “Bonnie and Clyde”, turn it on and you have “Hell or High Water”.
Chris Pine (“Star Trek”) and Ben Foster (“Inferno“, “The Program“) play brothers Toby and Tanner Howard trying to rescue their deceased mother’s ranch from being foreclosed on by Texas Midlands bank. Rather than taking one of the “get out of debt” offers advertised on billboards – cleverly and insistently introduced in long panning highway shots – the brothers have their own financial plan: a scheme that involves early morning raids of the cash drawers of small-town Texas Midlands branches. But the meticulous planning of Toby, as the calm and intelligent one, are constantly at risk of upset by the unpredictable and violent actions of the loose-cannon Tanner.
Since the amounts of cash stolen are in the thousands rather than the millions, the FBI aren’t interested and the case is handed instead by aged and grumpy Texas Ranger Marcus Hamilton (Jeff Bridges, “True Grit”) and his partner Alberto (Gil Birmingham). The pair have a respectful relationship but one built around racial banter, with Hamilton constantly referring to Alberto’s Mexican/Comanche heritage. A cat and mouse game ensues with the lawmen staking out the most likely next hits. The sonorous cello strings of the soundtrack portend a dramatic finale, and we as viewers are not disappointed.
The performances of the main leads are all excellent, with Chris Pine given the chance to show more acting chops than he has had chance to with his previous Kirk/Jack Ryan characters. His chemistry with Ben Foster is just sublime. Similarly, Jeff Bridges and Gil Birmingham make for a formidable double act. It is Jeff Bridges though who has the standout performance and one that is Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actor. (In fact with Michael Shannon also getting nominated in the same category for “Nocturnal Animals”, we can add ‘West Texan lawman’ to ‘Holocaust movies’ (a Winslet “Extras” reference there!) as the prime bait for Oscar nomination glory!)
The real winner here though is the whip-smart screenplay by Taylor Sheridan (“Sicario“) which sizzles with great lines: lines that make you grin inanely at the screen regularly through the running time.”In your last days in the nursing home, you’ll think of me and giggle” schmoozes Tanner to the pretty hotel check-in girl: a come-on clearly worth remembering as it delivers the goods, as it were.
The trick here is in building up a degree of empathy and sympathy for the characters on both sides. The ‘bad guys’ here are successfully portrayed as the banks. At the moment you can get 25/1 odds on this winning the Best Original Screenplay Oscar – but I would personally rate it right up there with “Manchester by the Sea“.
Deftly directed by Scot David Mackenzie (“Starred Up”) this is a film (the first of two!) that might well have elbowed it’s way into my Top 10 of 2016 if I’d seen it during its cinema release. Well worth catching on the small screen.
This week I have had the chance to catch up on two of the films with award potential that I missed at the cinema, and this is the write up of the first of those: “Hell or High Water”, was first released in September 2016, and what an excellent film it is.
Bank robberies have been featured in many hundreds of films since the early days of cinema: The Great Train Robbery for example dates back to 1903! More recent heist classics such as “Oceans 11”, “Die Hard”, “Run Lola Run” and “The Dark Knight Rises” tend towards the stylised end of the act. Where this film delivers interest is in aligning the protagonists’ drivers with the banking and mortgage ‘crimes’ featured in last year’s “The Big Short”. Add in to the movie Nutribullet a soupçon of the West Texan setting from Arthur Penn’s 1967 “Bonnie and Clyde”, turn it on and you have “Hell or High Water”.
Chris Pine (“Star Trek”) and Ben Foster (“Inferno“, “The Program“) play brothers Toby and Tanner Howard trying to rescue their deceased mother’s ranch from being foreclosed on by Texas Midlands bank. Rather than taking one of the “get out of debt” offers advertised on billboards – cleverly and insistently introduced in long panning highway shots – the brothers have their own financial plan: a scheme that involves early morning raids of the cash drawers of small-town Texas Midlands branches. But the meticulous planning of Toby, as the calm and intelligent one, are constantly at risk of upset by the unpredictable and violent actions of the loose-cannon Tanner.
Since the amounts of cash stolen are in the thousands rather than the millions, the FBI aren’t interested and the case is handed instead by aged and grumpy Texas Ranger Marcus Hamilton (Jeff Bridges, “True Grit”) and his partner Alberto (Gil Birmingham). The pair have a respectful relationship but one built around racial banter, with Hamilton constantly referring to Alberto’s Mexican/Comanche heritage. A cat and mouse game ensues with the lawmen staking out the most likely next hits. The sonorous cello strings of the soundtrack portend a dramatic finale, and we as viewers are not disappointed.
The performances of the main leads are all excellent, with Chris Pine given the chance to show more acting chops than he has had chance to with his previous Kirk/Jack Ryan characters. His chemistry with Ben Foster is just sublime. Similarly, Jeff Bridges and Gil Birmingham make for a formidable double act. It is Jeff Bridges though who has the standout performance and one that is Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actor. (In fact with Michael Shannon also getting nominated in the same category for “Nocturnal Animals”, we can add ‘West Texan lawman’ to ‘Holocaust movies’ (a Winslet “Extras” reference there!) as the prime bait for Oscar nomination glory!)
The real winner here though is the whip-smart screenplay by Taylor Sheridan (“Sicario“) which sizzles with great lines: lines that make you grin inanely at the screen regularly through the running time.”In your last days in the nursing home, you’ll think of me and giggle” schmoozes Tanner to the pretty hotel check-in girl: a come-on clearly worth remembering as it delivers the goods, as it were.
The trick here is in building up a degree of empathy and sympathy for the characters on both sides. The ‘bad guys’ here are successfully portrayed as the banks. At the moment you can get 25/1 odds on this winning the Best Original Screenplay Oscar – but I would personally rate it right up there with “Manchester by the Sea“.
Deftly directed by Scot David Mackenzie (“Starred Up”) this is a film (the first of two!) that might well have elbowed it’s way into my Top 10 of 2016 if I’d seen it during its cinema release. Well worth catching on the small screen.
First Phrases HD
Education and Games
App
From SmartAppsforKids.com: "In my opinion, the full version is a must-have for parents of children...
Lee (2222 KP) rated Shazam! (2019) in Movies
Apr 8, 2019 (Updated Apr 8, 2019)
Shazam is the latest DC superhero to land himself a standalone movie and continues to highlight the fact that these self contained DC offerings really do seem to be a lot better than their rushed ensemble movie output. It also shows how much better they can be when straying from the traditional dark DC gloom and deciding to inject a bit more humour and fun into it all. Aquaman recently showed just how much of a box office success that formula can be, Wonder Woman before it to a certain extent, and although Shazam does certainly have some dark themes and moments, it’s ultimately a lot more fun than either of those.
Shazam does take it’s time in introducing our superhero though, not to mention our super-villain, and the result is a much more grounded and believable movie. We begin with young boy Thaddeus Sivana, traveling by car with his elder brother and father. It’s the first of a number of dark scenes involving the Sivana family, really helping us to get a better understanding and appreciation of the man he later becomes and the motivation that drives him. We then head to present day Philadelphia, where 15 year old Billy Batson is using whatever means possible, legal or otherwise, to try and locate the birth mother he became separated from as a young boy while at a crowded funfair. Since then, Billy has been in the foster care system, and now finds himself in the care of Victor and Rosa – former foster kids themselves, who now run a home for a small group of foster children. Billy is sharing a room with Freddy, a disabled boy with an interest in superheroes and the proud owner of some pretty cool superhero memorabilia, including a batarang from Batman and a genuine bullet, flattened from having bounced off the man of steel himself! The foster home is a pretty close knit group and Billy initially struggles to fit into this large new ready made family.
And then one day, while on the run after standing up to a couple of older kids who were bullying Freddy, Billy finds himself transported to a dark mysterious cave where he inherits the powers of aged wizard Shazam (Djimon Hounsoul). The wizard is the last Shazam, currently protecting the world from an invasion of the Seven Deadly Sins, but now so weak that he must transfer his powers to someone who is true of heart. Absorbing his power, Billy becomes a grown up superhero (Zachari Levy), but by saying the word Shazam he is able to alternate between his teen body and that of the mighty superhero whenever he wants.
Once he manages to convince Freddy that he is in fact Billy and not some crazy guy in a suit, they have a lot of fun trying to work out which powers Shazam actually has and how to best make use of them. If you’ve seen the trailer, you’ll know that this is where a lot of the fun lies within the movie and it’s definitely very entertaining. But Billy eventually begins having a little too much fun for Freddy’s liking, and when all he is doing is skipping school to go shoot off lightning bolts for a gathered crowd, Freddy becomes frustrated that he is wasting his gift. With great power comes great responsibility and all that. Meanwhile, young Thaddeus Sivana has now become Dr Sivana (Mark Strong), acquiring some pretty impressive powers of his own and forging his own dark path in a scene which really pushes the 12A age rating for the movie. All his life, Sivana has been seeking the power that Billy has now acquired, so when this larger than life hero shows up, goofing around and not really taking that power seriously, Dr Sivana goes after Shazam to try and take the power for himself.
From there, the rest of the movie is pretty much a cat and mouse chase between Sivana and Shazam across the city, up in the sky and down on the streets as they smash through shopping malls and buildings before culminating in a fairground showdown. It’s actually a lot more fun than it sounds, although the whole movie could probably benefit from having about 10-15 minutes cut from it. Also, the dark threat introduced so shockingly earlier on in the movie, suddenly doesn’t become so shocking or menacing towards the end. It’s indicative of the tone of the movie as a whole really, trying to remain rooted in the traditional DC gloom, but striving for family friendly box office success. These are all very minor negatives for me though – overall Shazam is a lot of fun and very lighthearted, with a lot to say about the importance of family. And the Boardman family had an absolute blast watching it!
Shazam does take it’s time in introducing our superhero though, not to mention our super-villain, and the result is a much more grounded and believable movie. We begin with young boy Thaddeus Sivana, traveling by car with his elder brother and father. It’s the first of a number of dark scenes involving the Sivana family, really helping us to get a better understanding and appreciation of the man he later becomes and the motivation that drives him. We then head to present day Philadelphia, where 15 year old Billy Batson is using whatever means possible, legal or otherwise, to try and locate the birth mother he became separated from as a young boy while at a crowded funfair. Since then, Billy has been in the foster care system, and now finds himself in the care of Victor and Rosa – former foster kids themselves, who now run a home for a small group of foster children. Billy is sharing a room with Freddy, a disabled boy with an interest in superheroes and the proud owner of some pretty cool superhero memorabilia, including a batarang from Batman and a genuine bullet, flattened from having bounced off the man of steel himself! The foster home is a pretty close knit group and Billy initially struggles to fit into this large new ready made family.
And then one day, while on the run after standing up to a couple of older kids who were bullying Freddy, Billy finds himself transported to a dark mysterious cave where he inherits the powers of aged wizard Shazam (Djimon Hounsoul). The wizard is the last Shazam, currently protecting the world from an invasion of the Seven Deadly Sins, but now so weak that he must transfer his powers to someone who is true of heart. Absorbing his power, Billy becomes a grown up superhero (Zachari Levy), but by saying the word Shazam he is able to alternate between his teen body and that of the mighty superhero whenever he wants.
Once he manages to convince Freddy that he is in fact Billy and not some crazy guy in a suit, they have a lot of fun trying to work out which powers Shazam actually has and how to best make use of them. If you’ve seen the trailer, you’ll know that this is where a lot of the fun lies within the movie and it’s definitely very entertaining. But Billy eventually begins having a little too much fun for Freddy’s liking, and when all he is doing is skipping school to go shoot off lightning bolts for a gathered crowd, Freddy becomes frustrated that he is wasting his gift. With great power comes great responsibility and all that. Meanwhile, young Thaddeus Sivana has now become Dr Sivana (Mark Strong), acquiring some pretty impressive powers of his own and forging his own dark path in a scene which really pushes the 12A age rating for the movie. All his life, Sivana has been seeking the power that Billy has now acquired, so when this larger than life hero shows up, goofing around and not really taking that power seriously, Dr Sivana goes after Shazam to try and take the power for himself.
From there, the rest of the movie is pretty much a cat and mouse chase between Sivana and Shazam across the city, up in the sky and down on the streets as they smash through shopping malls and buildings before culminating in a fairground showdown. It’s actually a lot more fun than it sounds, although the whole movie could probably benefit from having about 10-15 minutes cut from it. Also, the dark threat introduced so shockingly earlier on in the movie, suddenly doesn’t become so shocking or menacing towards the end. It’s indicative of the tone of the movie as a whole really, trying to remain rooted in the traditional DC gloom, but striving for family friendly box office success. These are all very minor negatives for me though – overall Shazam is a lot of fun and very lighthearted, with a lot to say about the importance of family. And the Boardman family had an absolute blast watching it!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated I, Robot (2004) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Tales of a dark and foreboding future where technology has run amuck have been cautioning viewers ever since Orwell made the phrase “Big Brother” a household expression. Other films such as ?”, “Westworld”, “Blade Runner” and “The Terminator” often show a dark and dangerous future where dependence upon technology created to serve mankind has lead to its eventual downfall.
In the film “I Robot” Director Alex Proyas who’s past work includes “The Crow” and “Dark City” tells the tale of a near future where robots have become commonplace and are entrusted to do all manner of tasks ranging from package delivery to waiting table and caring for households. The robots are assured to be safe as they are governed by a set of behavioral restrictors that require them to obey all human commands save for those to harm another human, as robots are not allowed to harm or by inaction allow to be harmed any human.
The film stars Will Smith as Del Spooner, a Chicago Homicide detective who does not trust robots and is highly suspicious of them. The fact that in 2035 there has yet to be one documented case worldwide of a robot ever being involved in a crime is of little concern to Del as he sees the potential for danger in technology that is so widely spread.
Del is in many ways a technophobe as aside from his modern car, he has a retro lifestyle including an old fashioned alarm clock, vintage 2004 shoes, and a fondness for music from the 1970’s. An incident in Del’s past has kept him off the force for a while and has only furthered his distaste for robotics and their growing place in society.
No sooner is Del back at work than an apparent suicide at U.S. Robotics by a friend sets the film into motion. What to all seems to be an open and shut case of suicide only causes Del to become more suspicious. Del soon discovers a new model robot locked in the office of the victim, who flees from crime scene and refuses to obey the orders to halt given to him.
The fact that the robot ignores command given by a human thus violating his central laws of programming is put off as a simple malfunction by Billionaire Lawrence Robertson (Bruce Greenwood), who does not want Del’s suspicions to disrupt his business plans on the eve of the largest rollout of new robots in history. It is explained that the new NX-5 model is about to be released to the public and soon there will be one robot for every 5 humans in the world and with so much invested in this, Robertson places a gag order on Del and the entire police force to forget about the renegade robot and not say a word to anyone.
Naturally Del does not follow this command and he suspects that there is a larger and much more serious threat posed to the public even though everyone around his says that he is paranoid and desperate to find or create any evidence to support his theory that robots are not as safe as everyone believes they are.
What follows is an action packed game of cat and mouse as Del and a U.S. Robotics scientist named Susan (Bridget Moynahan), start to uncover a deeper mystery, once in which the very world they have taken for granted is about to change.
The film is a visual marvel that shows you a fairly realistic view of the future as aside from the robots and futuristic highways, the world of 2035 does not look that much different than today.
Proyas knows that Smith is his star and he does a great job allowing him to carry the picture without allowing the visual effects to dominate the film, though they are spectacular. The futuristic highways and a great chase sequence were highlights of the film and had a surprising amount of tension and drama mixed into what was a solid action sequence.
Smith plays Spooner, as a man with demons yet never ceases to become a sensitive character despite his hard edge. He is a man that is determined to follow his instincts and do what is best for the people he is sworn to protect.
The film does only play lip service to the series of novels by Asimov, but it does tell a very good cautionary tale of human’s interaction and dependence upon technology without becoming preachy or losing site of the message that society must ensure to have a balance between humanity and technology in order to thrive.
If I had to find fault, it would be that many of the supporting roles were fairly bland, as Moynahan was not given much to do aside from play a Damsel in distress and the always solid James Cromwell and Bruce Greenwood were not used nearly enough. That being said “I Robot” delivers everything you want in a summer film and more.
In the film “I Robot” Director Alex Proyas who’s past work includes “The Crow” and “Dark City” tells the tale of a near future where robots have become commonplace and are entrusted to do all manner of tasks ranging from package delivery to waiting table and caring for households. The robots are assured to be safe as they are governed by a set of behavioral restrictors that require them to obey all human commands save for those to harm another human, as robots are not allowed to harm or by inaction allow to be harmed any human.
The film stars Will Smith as Del Spooner, a Chicago Homicide detective who does not trust robots and is highly suspicious of them. The fact that in 2035 there has yet to be one documented case worldwide of a robot ever being involved in a crime is of little concern to Del as he sees the potential for danger in technology that is so widely spread.
Del is in many ways a technophobe as aside from his modern car, he has a retro lifestyle including an old fashioned alarm clock, vintage 2004 shoes, and a fondness for music from the 1970’s. An incident in Del’s past has kept him off the force for a while and has only furthered his distaste for robotics and their growing place in society.
No sooner is Del back at work than an apparent suicide at U.S. Robotics by a friend sets the film into motion. What to all seems to be an open and shut case of suicide only causes Del to become more suspicious. Del soon discovers a new model robot locked in the office of the victim, who flees from crime scene and refuses to obey the orders to halt given to him.
The fact that the robot ignores command given by a human thus violating his central laws of programming is put off as a simple malfunction by Billionaire Lawrence Robertson (Bruce Greenwood), who does not want Del’s suspicions to disrupt his business plans on the eve of the largest rollout of new robots in history. It is explained that the new NX-5 model is about to be released to the public and soon there will be one robot for every 5 humans in the world and with so much invested in this, Robertson places a gag order on Del and the entire police force to forget about the renegade robot and not say a word to anyone.
Naturally Del does not follow this command and he suspects that there is a larger and much more serious threat posed to the public even though everyone around his says that he is paranoid and desperate to find or create any evidence to support his theory that robots are not as safe as everyone believes they are.
What follows is an action packed game of cat and mouse as Del and a U.S. Robotics scientist named Susan (Bridget Moynahan), start to uncover a deeper mystery, once in which the very world they have taken for granted is about to change.
The film is a visual marvel that shows you a fairly realistic view of the future as aside from the robots and futuristic highways, the world of 2035 does not look that much different than today.
Proyas knows that Smith is his star and he does a great job allowing him to carry the picture without allowing the visual effects to dominate the film, though they are spectacular. The futuristic highways and a great chase sequence were highlights of the film and had a surprising amount of tension and drama mixed into what was a solid action sequence.
Smith plays Spooner, as a man with demons yet never ceases to become a sensitive character despite his hard edge. He is a man that is determined to follow his instincts and do what is best for the people he is sworn to protect.
The film does only play lip service to the series of novels by Asimov, but it does tell a very good cautionary tale of human’s interaction and dependence upon technology without becoming preachy or losing site of the message that society must ensure to have a balance between humanity and technology in order to thrive.
If I had to find fault, it would be that many of the supporting roles were fairly bland, as Moynahan was not given much to do aside from play a Damsel in distress and the always solid James Cromwell and Bruce Greenwood were not used nearly enough. That being said “I Robot” delivers everything you want in a summer film and more.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Precious You in Books
Aug 3, 2020
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Book-Review-Banner-69.png"/>;
I am extremely happy and excited to be part of the blog tour for Precious You by Helen Monks Takhar. Thank you to the team at HQ - for sending me a copy in exchange for an honest review. Check out the other book bloggers that are part of the tour as well:
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/PreciousYou-btb.jpg"/>;
<b><i>Synopsis:</i></b>
When Lily is hired as the new intern at Leadership magazine, where Katherine is editor-in-chief, her arrival threatens the very foundations of the self-serving little world that Katherine has built. But before long, she finds herself obsessively drawn to Lily, who seems to be a cruel reminder of the beauty and potential Katherine once had, things she senses Lily plans to use against her.
Is Katherine simply paranoid, jealous of Lily's youth as she struggles with encroaching middle age? Is Lily just trying to get ahead in the cutthroat world of publishing? Or is there a more sinister motivation at play, fueled by the dark secrets they're both hiding? As their rivalry deepens, a disturbing picture emerges of two women pitted against each other across a toxic generational divide--and who are desperate enough to do anything to come out on top.
<b><i>My Thoughts:</i></b>
Wow - what an experience this book was. I haven’t read a book this fucked-up (in the best possible way) since I read Anonymous Girl and The Silent Patient. Just wow.
Okay, now that I have gathered my thoughts, let’s begin this review properly.
Precious You is a very exciting book, looking from a psychological aspect. We witness the battle between a “Snowflake” and a Generation-X. The battle of two women; one trying to conquer the world, the other one trying to stay relevant.
Both Katherine and Lily were very realistic characters. Both with opposing opinions on the world. And both with two completely different goals. Both fighting over power in every possible field that they share in common. But what I love the most is that I was able to understand both points of view. I found myself feeling for both of them, even though sometimes I couldn’t in my right mind understand their choices and their actions.
<b><i>But they both spoke to me.</i></b>
Each in their different way, for a different thing. And this is something I haven’t encountered in a long time. To be able to connect with both the victim and the villain. Despite us not knowing which is which until the very end of the book.
The other aspect I loved was the cat and mouse game they were playing. I haven’t seen a book so upsetting and twisted in a very long time. And I really loved it. Some things those women did are properly twisted. Really fucked-up. But I enjoyed reading it. It took me to another world, another reality where dark and twisted was the new normal.
It was interesting to witness such a vivid battle between two generations. The fear of new young people invading people’s space. The fight to get to the top, because of the people that have been at your workplace longer and have more knowledge. The wicked ways of how HR handled their issues. How your interns and your team can quickly turn on you if you stop delivering. It was interesting to read how the magazine worked as a company. I think the author did a great job at describing how one reality works.
I definitely recommend it - it is fast paced and very dark and twisty. If you love psychological thrillers, this one will be the right book for you!
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Book-Review-Banner-69.png"/>;
I am extremely happy and excited to be part of the blog tour for Precious You by Helen Monks Takhar. Thank you to the team at HQ - for sending me a copy in exchange for an honest review. Check out the other book bloggers that are part of the tour as well:
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/PreciousYou-btb.jpg"/>;
<b><i>Synopsis:</i></b>
When Lily is hired as the new intern at Leadership magazine, where Katherine is editor-in-chief, her arrival threatens the very foundations of the self-serving little world that Katherine has built. But before long, she finds herself obsessively drawn to Lily, who seems to be a cruel reminder of the beauty and potential Katherine once had, things she senses Lily plans to use against her.
Is Katherine simply paranoid, jealous of Lily's youth as she struggles with encroaching middle age? Is Lily just trying to get ahead in the cutthroat world of publishing? Or is there a more sinister motivation at play, fueled by the dark secrets they're both hiding? As their rivalry deepens, a disturbing picture emerges of two women pitted against each other across a toxic generational divide--and who are desperate enough to do anything to come out on top.
<b><i>My Thoughts:</i></b>
Wow - what an experience this book was. I haven’t read a book this fucked-up (in the best possible way) since I read Anonymous Girl and The Silent Patient. Just wow.
Okay, now that I have gathered my thoughts, let’s begin this review properly.
Precious You is a very exciting book, looking from a psychological aspect. We witness the battle between a “Snowflake” and a Generation-X. The battle of two women; one trying to conquer the world, the other one trying to stay relevant.
Both Katherine and Lily were very realistic characters. Both with opposing opinions on the world. And both with two completely different goals. Both fighting over power in every possible field that they share in common. But what I love the most is that I was able to understand both points of view. I found myself feeling for both of them, even though sometimes I couldn’t in my right mind understand their choices and their actions.
<b><i>But they both spoke to me.</i></b>
Each in their different way, for a different thing. And this is something I haven’t encountered in a long time. To be able to connect with both the victim and the villain. Despite us not knowing which is which until the very end of the book.
The other aspect I loved was the cat and mouse game they were playing. I haven’t seen a book so upsetting and twisted in a very long time. And I really loved it. Some things those women did are properly twisted. Really fucked-up. But I enjoyed reading it. It took me to another world, another reality where dark and twisted was the new normal.
It was interesting to witness such a vivid battle between two generations. The fear of new young people invading people’s space. The fight to get to the top, because of the people that have been at your workplace longer and have more knowledge. The wicked ways of how HR handled their issues. How your interns and your team can quickly turn on you if you stop delivering. It was interesting to read how the magazine worked as a company. I think the author did a great job at describing how one reality works.
I definitely recommend it - it is fast paced and very dark and twisty. If you love psychological thrillers, this one will be the right book for you!
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
Darren (1599 KP) rated A Patch Of Fog (2017) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: A Patch of Fog starts as we meet successful author and television presenter Sandy Duffy (Hill) that would like to return to the quiet life only to find himself caught shoplifting by security guard Robert (Graham). In an attempt to keep the story out of the papers tries to bribe Robert, who turns the tables on Sandy by blackmailing him into being his friend.
As Sandy tries to get himself out of the blackmail, he learns that Robert has a much darker side which puts his and his girlfriend, presenter Lucy (Pulver) lives at risk.
Thoughts on A Patch of Fog
Characters – Robert is mild mannered security guard in a general store, he is a lonely figure that takes advantage of the situation of power once he catches acclaimed author stealing in his store. He blackmails Sandy into being his friend and tries to stay one step ahead of him as he tries his best to escape from position. Sandy is the acclaimed author that has become a celebrity on television, though he wants to take a step away from the spotlight and the endless conversations about his book, A Patch of Fog. He tries his best to outsmart Robert though he can only get so far before learning Robert has everything planned out. Lucy is the television presenter just starting a relationship with Sandy, she has been trying to get the interview together for long time now.
Performances – Stephen Graham in the leading role as the slightly unhinged loner works very well, he shows that given the chance the moments of darkness can shine through. Conleth Hill is great in his role as the author that wants out of the limelight. When it comes to the rest of the cast they are fine without being overly involved in the main story.
Story – The story follows an author and celebrity being blackmailed by a security guard that catches him stealing. The story does come down to a cat-n-mouse style thriller where each character tries to stay ahead of the other, which brings twists along the way. This is a style of story telling we have seen before and it is one that is always interesting to watch unfold, by having both sides having secrets this does make it feel like one of the better ones too.
Thriller – This is a film that does keep you on the edge of your seat throughout as we wait to see just where things will go next.
Settings – The film does show the different lives both Robert and Sandy live, one with success, one with loneliness, though most of the scenes try to take place in everyday locations.
Scene of the Movie – The truth about A Patch of Fog.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not truly knowing is Robert has done this before or whether something made him snap.
Final Thoughts – This is a by the books blackmailing movie, it does keep you guessing throughout the film and with the two leads shining we did just want to see more.
Overall: By the book stalker thriller.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/03/05/a-patch-of-fog-2015/
As Sandy tries to get himself out of the blackmail, he learns that Robert has a much darker side which puts his and his girlfriend, presenter Lucy (Pulver) lives at risk.
Thoughts on A Patch of Fog
Characters – Robert is mild mannered security guard in a general store, he is a lonely figure that takes advantage of the situation of power once he catches acclaimed author stealing in his store. He blackmails Sandy into being his friend and tries to stay one step ahead of him as he tries his best to escape from position. Sandy is the acclaimed author that has become a celebrity on television, though he wants to take a step away from the spotlight and the endless conversations about his book, A Patch of Fog. He tries his best to outsmart Robert though he can only get so far before learning Robert has everything planned out. Lucy is the television presenter just starting a relationship with Sandy, she has been trying to get the interview together for long time now.
Performances – Stephen Graham in the leading role as the slightly unhinged loner works very well, he shows that given the chance the moments of darkness can shine through. Conleth Hill is great in his role as the author that wants out of the limelight. When it comes to the rest of the cast they are fine without being overly involved in the main story.
Story – The story follows an author and celebrity being blackmailed by a security guard that catches him stealing. The story does come down to a cat-n-mouse style thriller where each character tries to stay ahead of the other, which brings twists along the way. This is a style of story telling we have seen before and it is one that is always interesting to watch unfold, by having both sides having secrets this does make it feel like one of the better ones too.
Thriller – This is a film that does keep you on the edge of your seat throughout as we wait to see just where things will go next.
Settings – The film does show the different lives both Robert and Sandy live, one with success, one with loneliness, though most of the scenes try to take place in everyday locations.
Scene of the Movie – The truth about A Patch of Fog.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not truly knowing is Robert has done this before or whether something made him snap.
Final Thoughts – This is a by the books blackmailing movie, it does keep you guessing throughout the film and with the two leads shining we did just want to see more.
Overall: By the book stalker thriller.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/03/05/a-patch-of-fog-2015/