Search
Search results
LilyLovesIndie (123 KP) rated The Divided Hearts (Sweet Deception Regency #7) in Books
Nov 5, 2018
I received this book as a complimentary review copy through Story Cartel.
A love story of a different kind, The Divided Hearts tells the tale of Judith and Nate, and the long realisation they both go through before they accept their love for each other. Set against the backdrop of Newport, America, on the another war with the motherland, some great historical points are raised, as well as dealing with the emotional conflict of those with English ties but who are American at heart.
I thoroughly enjoyed this book, which is quite strange as I usually stay away from romance, and there are many reasons for this! Firstly I'll start with how easy it was to read. The flow was fantastic, really easy to get your head into, Darcy really sets the scene well and gives you just the right amount of information to keep you engaged in the story without overloading you. IT's very rare to find a book that's so easy to read, but you could dip in and out at your own leisure, knowing the idyllic life of early America was waiting for you to return.
Another thing I enjoyed about this book was the fantastic description used by Darcy. It was beautifully detailed, I felt that I could see every vista she described, feel all the dresses Judith wore and get all hot and flustered at Nate's muscles! It's rare that a book truly appeals to all senses whilst you are reading it, but Darcy manages this superbly and it is a great delight to read.
In addition, the characters deserve a mention. In a relatively short text, it's sometimes difficult to really engage and invest emotionally in the characters, but in 'The Divided Hearts' you are drawn whole heartedly into their lives. You agonise with Judith over her decision of whether to stay in America or not. You get excited when good things happen to the characters, you feel scared for them when they're in danger. I know it sounds vague, but believe me, this is a book you want to read for yourself, and I won't spoil that first read excitement!
Perhaps the best thing for me though was the story itself. It was entirely believable from start to finish. You really could have imagined this happening during that difficult transition time, and that makes it all the more enjoyable. It's like you're getting a lovely snippet into the past, and although it's a story, you don't feel it is entirely fictional, rather, you feel like there's some truth and somewhere out there this actually did happen. I think the accuracy of the history in general helps greatly with this, and it's a relief (and a pleasure!) to see a book that's so well researched and that presents such an accurate historical representation of the time and place it is describing.
In conclusion, this is a brilliant read for an easy afternoon sat in the sunshine. The plot, characters and description work fantastically together to provide a much needed release from the drama's of every day like. I highly recommend it to anyone who enjoys historical fiction or a little bit of easy reading romance.
A love story of a different kind, The Divided Hearts tells the tale of Judith and Nate, and the long realisation they both go through before they accept their love for each other. Set against the backdrop of Newport, America, on the another war with the motherland, some great historical points are raised, as well as dealing with the emotional conflict of those with English ties but who are American at heart.
I thoroughly enjoyed this book, which is quite strange as I usually stay away from romance, and there are many reasons for this! Firstly I'll start with how easy it was to read. The flow was fantastic, really easy to get your head into, Darcy really sets the scene well and gives you just the right amount of information to keep you engaged in the story without overloading you. IT's very rare to find a book that's so easy to read, but you could dip in and out at your own leisure, knowing the idyllic life of early America was waiting for you to return.
Another thing I enjoyed about this book was the fantastic description used by Darcy. It was beautifully detailed, I felt that I could see every vista she described, feel all the dresses Judith wore and get all hot and flustered at Nate's muscles! It's rare that a book truly appeals to all senses whilst you are reading it, but Darcy manages this superbly and it is a great delight to read.
In addition, the characters deserve a mention. In a relatively short text, it's sometimes difficult to really engage and invest emotionally in the characters, but in 'The Divided Hearts' you are drawn whole heartedly into their lives. You agonise with Judith over her decision of whether to stay in America or not. You get excited when good things happen to the characters, you feel scared for them when they're in danger. I know it sounds vague, but believe me, this is a book you want to read for yourself, and I won't spoil that first read excitement!
Perhaps the best thing for me though was the story itself. It was entirely believable from start to finish. You really could have imagined this happening during that difficult transition time, and that makes it all the more enjoyable. It's like you're getting a lovely snippet into the past, and although it's a story, you don't feel it is entirely fictional, rather, you feel like there's some truth and somewhere out there this actually did happen. I think the accuracy of the history in general helps greatly with this, and it's a relief (and a pleasure!) to see a book that's so well researched and that presents such an accurate historical representation of the time and place it is describing.
In conclusion, this is a brilliant read for an easy afternoon sat in the sunshine. The plot, characters and description work fantastically together to provide a much needed release from the drama's of every day like. I highly recommend it to anyone who enjoys historical fiction or a little bit of easy reading romance.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Mary Queen of Scots (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
A tale of two queens
I’ve never really considered myself a massive fan of period dramas, so I tend to approach them with more caution than I would a different genre. After being pleasantly surprised by Yorgos Lanthimos’ The Favourite, I suddenly became more excited about Mary Queen of Scots. Whilst I believe the former is a much stronger film, I still had a good time with this one.
The performances given by both Saoirse Ronan and Margot Robbie are just stunning. Between them, they carry the entire film and transport you to another time and place. They’re captivating and powerful, particularly Ronan as Mary. I loved her character and felt invested in her. Despite knowing how it was all going to end I still rooted for her throughout, and wanted her to succeed. Her character is driven, passionate and tenacious, traits that Ronan truly brings to life on screen.
Aesthetically, Mary Queen of Scots is a wonderful film that is picturesque even during the darker scenes. Both leading ladies pull off the roles and the costumes effortlessly. I’ve never been so impressed by hairstyling in particular, so I would love this film to win the Academy Award for Best Makeup and Hairstyling this year. The styles were so intricate and beautiful, bringing out the personalities of those who wore them.
It is also refreshing to know the film was directed by a woman, considering the narrative focuses on two of history’s most powerful and intriguing queens. This was actually Josie Rourke’s directorial debut, and what a fantastic one it was. I loved the way she portrayed all the ugliness of life in this era, just as much as the regalness. There is one scene where Mary is shown on her period, and this really struck me. I liked how it was normalised, no one made a big deal out of it, it was just a part of her life like every other woman. I’m glad Rourke chose to include this.
As many people have pointed out, this film is certainly not historically accurate so if you’re the kind of person who needs that you’d leave feeling disappointed. For me, I saw it as an interesting case study of both women that’s a work of fiction. That’s alright in my books and I don’t have a problem with artistic licence. It was an entertaining period piece that was beautiful to look at. Sometimes that’s enough. Nobody was trying to suggest this was a documentary, it’s a film.
Overall Mary Queen of Scots is entertaining and very well acted, but the narrative does feel a little too slow and drawn out in places. It’s definitely not the strongest period piece I’ve seen, but that doesn’t necessarily make it a bad film. It is worth seeing on the big screen due to the beautiful Scottish scenery and the intense conflict between Protestant and Catholic. It’s bold, dramatic and worth losing yourself in, even if you’d only do it once.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/01/23/a-tale-of-two-queens-my-review-of-mary-queen-of-scots/
The performances given by both Saoirse Ronan and Margot Robbie are just stunning. Between them, they carry the entire film and transport you to another time and place. They’re captivating and powerful, particularly Ronan as Mary. I loved her character and felt invested in her. Despite knowing how it was all going to end I still rooted for her throughout, and wanted her to succeed. Her character is driven, passionate and tenacious, traits that Ronan truly brings to life on screen.
Aesthetically, Mary Queen of Scots is a wonderful film that is picturesque even during the darker scenes. Both leading ladies pull off the roles and the costumes effortlessly. I’ve never been so impressed by hairstyling in particular, so I would love this film to win the Academy Award for Best Makeup and Hairstyling this year. The styles were so intricate and beautiful, bringing out the personalities of those who wore them.
It is also refreshing to know the film was directed by a woman, considering the narrative focuses on two of history’s most powerful and intriguing queens. This was actually Josie Rourke’s directorial debut, and what a fantastic one it was. I loved the way she portrayed all the ugliness of life in this era, just as much as the regalness. There is one scene where Mary is shown on her period, and this really struck me. I liked how it was normalised, no one made a big deal out of it, it was just a part of her life like every other woman. I’m glad Rourke chose to include this.
As many people have pointed out, this film is certainly not historically accurate so if you’re the kind of person who needs that you’d leave feeling disappointed. For me, I saw it as an interesting case study of both women that’s a work of fiction. That’s alright in my books and I don’t have a problem with artistic licence. It was an entertaining period piece that was beautiful to look at. Sometimes that’s enough. Nobody was trying to suggest this was a documentary, it’s a film.
Overall Mary Queen of Scots is entertaining and very well acted, but the narrative does feel a little too slow and drawn out in places. It’s definitely not the strongest period piece I’ve seen, but that doesn’t necessarily make it a bad film. It is worth seeing on the big screen due to the beautiful Scottish scenery and the intense conflict between Protestant and Catholic. It’s bold, dramatic and worth losing yourself in, even if you’d only do it once.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/01/23/a-tale-of-two-queens-my-review-of-mary-queen-of-scots/
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Dead Don't Die (2019) in Movies
Oct 29, 2019
The Acting Wasn't My Issue
On paper, you look at the cast of The Dead Don’t Die and you think, “This has gotta be a hit!” Adam Driver. The great Bill Murray. Tilda Swinton. Count me in. Sadly, I was extremely disappointed in the finished product. The film centers around what happens when a zombie outbreak hits a sleepy town.
Acting: 10
Just because I didn’t enjoy the film doesn’t mean it didn’t harbor strong performances from the cast. The aforementioned names above were all phenomenal in their respective roles. When the setting is “quiet town”, sometimes actors have a tendency to go overboard with their bumpkin pretenses, but this crew play to their parts perfectly. They made the movie somewhat bearable.
Beginning: 1
The movie really takes awhile to build up. I kept waiting for the engine to turn over, but I was left in a cold car for at least the first twenty minutes. Here’s the thing: I don’t hate slow starts if they serve a greater purpose. I’ll use a direct example from the same genre: Shaun of the Dead takes a bit to get going, but you can feel it actually building to something. Every few minutes you’re getting hints to the things happening around Shaun and his friend and you know it’s only a matter of time before they realize shit has hit the fan. With The Dead Don’t Die, the beginning feels more like a slow lull that doesn’t exactly get you excited to watch the rest of the movie.
Characters: 10
Not only were each of the characters hilarious, but I love how they surprised me by breaking the fourth wall. They made you feel like you were somehow in on the joke. Officer Mindy Morrison (Chloe Sevigny) was one of my favorites. It was hilarious watching how she handled certain situations, particularly when we finally know it’s zombies. Her and Ronnie Peterson (Adam Driver) onscreen definitely gave me a couple laughs.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 9
You can always expect some semblance of a good time when zombies are involved. After a slow start, the action picks up enough to at least keep things interesting. There were a number of cool action sequences that I thoroughly enjoyed. I wish it was enough to save the movie as a whole.
Entertainment Value: 10
Memorability: 6
One of the areas where the movie fell short for me. I don’t know quite how to explain it except to say there wasn’t enough meat in it for me. It’s been a few weeks since I last saw the film and, even now, I’m struggling to remember anything substantial. For me, it doesn’t come off as a complete film.
Pace: 5
Plot: 1
Resolution: 1
Overall: 63
Much like a lot of movies that fall into this range, I really wanted to like The Dead Don’t Die more. Had it tweaked a few areas and punched up the script with more laughs, I think we would be looking at a hit. Oh well. Can’t win ‘em all.
Acting: 10
Just because I didn’t enjoy the film doesn’t mean it didn’t harbor strong performances from the cast. The aforementioned names above were all phenomenal in their respective roles. When the setting is “quiet town”, sometimes actors have a tendency to go overboard with their bumpkin pretenses, but this crew play to their parts perfectly. They made the movie somewhat bearable.
Beginning: 1
The movie really takes awhile to build up. I kept waiting for the engine to turn over, but I was left in a cold car for at least the first twenty minutes. Here’s the thing: I don’t hate slow starts if they serve a greater purpose. I’ll use a direct example from the same genre: Shaun of the Dead takes a bit to get going, but you can feel it actually building to something. Every few minutes you’re getting hints to the things happening around Shaun and his friend and you know it’s only a matter of time before they realize shit has hit the fan. With The Dead Don’t Die, the beginning feels more like a slow lull that doesn’t exactly get you excited to watch the rest of the movie.
Characters: 10
Not only were each of the characters hilarious, but I love how they surprised me by breaking the fourth wall. They made you feel like you were somehow in on the joke. Officer Mindy Morrison (Chloe Sevigny) was one of my favorites. It was hilarious watching how she handled certain situations, particularly when we finally know it’s zombies. Her and Ronnie Peterson (Adam Driver) onscreen definitely gave me a couple laughs.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 9
You can always expect some semblance of a good time when zombies are involved. After a slow start, the action picks up enough to at least keep things interesting. There were a number of cool action sequences that I thoroughly enjoyed. I wish it was enough to save the movie as a whole.
Entertainment Value: 10
Memorability: 6
One of the areas where the movie fell short for me. I don’t know quite how to explain it except to say there wasn’t enough meat in it for me. It’s been a few weeks since I last saw the film and, even now, I’m struggling to remember anything substantial. For me, it doesn’t come off as a complete film.
Pace: 5
Plot: 1
Resolution: 1
Overall: 63
Much like a lot of movies that fall into this range, I really wanted to like The Dead Don’t Die more. Had it tweaked a few areas and punched up the script with more laughs, I think we would be looking at a hit. Oh well. Can’t win ‘em all.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Martyrs (2008) in Movies
Dec 28, 2019
Entertaining In a Crazy Way
Sometimes it helps to watch a movie with another person to get an extra perspective on what makes a movie special. I’ll admit, I would have reamed Martyrs on my own merit, but I definitely looked at it differently once I got an alternate opinion from my wife who watched is as well. The movie follows the story of two friends Anna (Morjana Aloui) and Lucie (Mylene Jampanoi). Lucie finds herself looking out for Anna when Anna can’t stop seeing an apparition that makes her do terrible things. Anna’s got a secret that no one believes, including Lucie who has her doubts.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
In the beginning we see Anna running away from what can only be seen as an abusive situation. She’s cut up and bleeding. It doesn’t take long to be drawn into her story and want to know more about what happened.
Characters: 6
I appreciated the depth of Anna’s character. She has issues, layers of them. You feel bad for her and terrified of her at the same time. The other characters, however, left a bit to be desired. We don’t really get a deep dive into Lucie’s situation, only that she has this need to take care of Anna. Outside of these two, the rest of the characters definitely fall a bit flat.
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
Conflict: 6
There are some truly tense moments in Martyrs, but a good portion of the movie feels more like torture porn. The action comes in brief pockets and isn’t always effective when it does happen. There were some solid sequences that were truly terrifying, but overall things could have been better.
Entertainment Value: 7
This movie succeeds with intrigue and originality. If charisma alone was enough to pass a movie, my overall score would be a lot higher. I enjoyed the mystery of it all which held my attention throughout the film. Will Lucie get to the bottom of what’s going on with Anna? Is Anna telling the truth? You really don’t know what to expect.
Memorability: 5
Pace: 9
Plot: 5
I think Martyrs eventually becomes a victim of it’s own trope as it focuses too much on leaving you in the dark and not necessarily pushing a legit story. I definitely feel there are certain elements that could have made the story a lot better, but I’m hesitant to dive in too much for fear of ruining the story. The plot progression is mediocre at best and leaves too much to interpretation.
Resolution: 8
For what it’s worth, Martyrs has absolutely one of the craziest endings I have ever seen. If you would have told me at the start of the movie that the road would have led there, I wouldn’t believe you. The shock factor is definitely there.
Overall: 74
Had the story been stronger and a bit more character development considered, Martyrs might have had more success with me. As it stands, I consider it an interesting enough film to watch at least once. it will keep you guessing right up until the end.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
In the beginning we see Anna running away from what can only be seen as an abusive situation. She’s cut up and bleeding. It doesn’t take long to be drawn into her story and want to know more about what happened.
Characters: 6
I appreciated the depth of Anna’s character. She has issues, layers of them. You feel bad for her and terrified of her at the same time. The other characters, however, left a bit to be desired. We don’t really get a deep dive into Lucie’s situation, only that she has this need to take care of Anna. Outside of these two, the rest of the characters definitely fall a bit flat.
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
Conflict: 6
There are some truly tense moments in Martyrs, but a good portion of the movie feels more like torture porn. The action comes in brief pockets and isn’t always effective when it does happen. There were some solid sequences that were truly terrifying, but overall things could have been better.
Entertainment Value: 7
This movie succeeds with intrigue and originality. If charisma alone was enough to pass a movie, my overall score would be a lot higher. I enjoyed the mystery of it all which held my attention throughout the film. Will Lucie get to the bottom of what’s going on with Anna? Is Anna telling the truth? You really don’t know what to expect.
Memorability: 5
Pace: 9
Plot: 5
I think Martyrs eventually becomes a victim of it’s own trope as it focuses too much on leaving you in the dark and not necessarily pushing a legit story. I definitely feel there are certain elements that could have made the story a lot better, but I’m hesitant to dive in too much for fear of ruining the story. The plot progression is mediocre at best and leaves too much to interpretation.
Resolution: 8
For what it’s worth, Martyrs has absolutely one of the craziest endings I have ever seen. If you would have told me at the start of the movie that the road would have led there, I wouldn’t believe you. The shock factor is definitely there.
Overall: 74
Had the story been stronger and a bit more character development considered, Martyrs might have had more success with me. As it stands, I consider it an interesting enough film to watch at least once. it will keep you guessing right up until the end.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Point Blank (2019) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: Point Blank starts when emergency room nurse Paul (Mackie) is preparing to have his first child with his wife Taryn (Parris), she is due within weeks, but she gets kidnapped by Mateo (Cooke) who wants Paul to help his injured brother Abe (Grillo) escape from the emergency room after being accused of murdering the DA.
Paul and Abe go on the run with LT Lewis (Harden) tracking them down as we see just who was really behind the murder of the DA.
Thoughts on Point Blank
Characters – Paul is an emergency room nurse, he is married and about to start his family, his life is exactly where he wants it. His life takes a big change one this day when he gets forced to help a murder suspect escape from the hospital to save his pregnant wife, meaning he will need to start breaking the law to save her. Abe is the gun for hire that has been injured in the incident, he is the prime suspect and is being set up, where his brother is trying to help him escape, he is street smart and has connections in the criminal world which will help him stay ahead of the law. LT Lewis is the one trying to track down the pair trying to put away the person that killed the DA. Mateo is the brother of Abe that has gone to the extremes to try and get his brother out of custody.
Performances – Anthony Mackie and Frank Grillo do everything they can with this film, Grillo is starting make a name for himself in the trashing action films now, where he can play the bad boy with ease, Mackie doesn’t do much that you wouldn’t expect from him here though. Marcia Gay Harden gives us the basic cop figure, while Christian Cooke completes the main cast with a basic enough performance.
Story – The story here follows an emergency nurse that must help a murder suspect to save his kidnapped wife. This is a basic story which I always say is all you need for action at times, this is a remake of a French film, but we are lacking that one thing a good action film needs a villain that feels like a threat, we do get many suspects to who the villain might be because it is clear that Abe never committed a crime. We get moments of the unlikely couple needing to work together only for them to not have enough conflict about what is happening. This is basic storytelling that just never gets intense enough to the level it could do.
Action – The action involved in the film is the highlight of the film, even if a lot is basic, it does bring the film to life with the car chases involved.
Settings – The film is set in a big city which does help us understand how many people can be getting crimes done with ease.
Scene of the Movie – Big D
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not enough villain potential.
Final Thoughts – This is a mostly by the book action film that just doesn’t get going.
Overall: Forgettable Action Film.
Paul and Abe go on the run with LT Lewis (Harden) tracking them down as we see just who was really behind the murder of the DA.
Thoughts on Point Blank
Characters – Paul is an emergency room nurse, he is married and about to start his family, his life is exactly where he wants it. His life takes a big change one this day when he gets forced to help a murder suspect escape from the hospital to save his pregnant wife, meaning he will need to start breaking the law to save her. Abe is the gun for hire that has been injured in the incident, he is the prime suspect and is being set up, where his brother is trying to help him escape, he is street smart and has connections in the criminal world which will help him stay ahead of the law. LT Lewis is the one trying to track down the pair trying to put away the person that killed the DA. Mateo is the brother of Abe that has gone to the extremes to try and get his brother out of custody.
Performances – Anthony Mackie and Frank Grillo do everything they can with this film, Grillo is starting make a name for himself in the trashing action films now, where he can play the bad boy with ease, Mackie doesn’t do much that you wouldn’t expect from him here though. Marcia Gay Harden gives us the basic cop figure, while Christian Cooke completes the main cast with a basic enough performance.
Story – The story here follows an emergency nurse that must help a murder suspect to save his kidnapped wife. This is a basic story which I always say is all you need for action at times, this is a remake of a French film, but we are lacking that one thing a good action film needs a villain that feels like a threat, we do get many suspects to who the villain might be because it is clear that Abe never committed a crime. We get moments of the unlikely couple needing to work together only for them to not have enough conflict about what is happening. This is basic storytelling that just never gets intense enough to the level it could do.
Action – The action involved in the film is the highlight of the film, even if a lot is basic, it does bring the film to life with the car chases involved.
Settings – The film is set in a big city which does help us understand how many people can be getting crimes done with ease.
Scene of the Movie – Big D
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not enough villain potential.
Final Thoughts – This is a mostly by the book action film that just doesn’t get going.
Overall: Forgettable Action Film.
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated The Bootlegger in Books
Nov 11, 2019
The Bootlegger is the latest in the series of stories about the detective Isaac Bell from Cussler and Bell collaborator Justin Scott.
Time has moved on for Bell; it is now the early 1920s prohibition is in force and the loss of lives during the First World War has hit the Van Dorn detective agency hard. Faced with routine lawbreaking to smuggle and sell alcohol on the East Coast, and with lucrative government contracts being lost to new federal agencies, the struggle against crime has never been harder. And when Bell has to take over the role of head of the agency he faces a tough job.
Meanwhile the recent war in Europe has spread communist revolutionaries across the world, trying to destablise governments and bring about the fall of capitalism, following the example of the Russian Revolution. One resourceful operative sees the possibilities of bootlegging to finance his activities against America, but his masters are not so keen on the idea of making vast amounts of money, regardless of the use it is to be put to. But his fatal mistake is attracting the attention of the Van Dorns, who still stick by their motto - We Never Give Up. Ever.
You pretty much get what you expect with this book, more of the same from the previous Isaac Bell books. Personally I enjoy them, the insight into American early 20th century history is always a fantastic backdrop. Scott's seeming obsession with train timetables is kept to a small section here regarding moving a cargo from one place to another. There is still the full selection of large engined transport - fast cars, fast planes and in this one fast boats. There are exciting chases and shootouts, plots and subplots, ruthless villains and gangsters aplenty and the real motives of the villain do not become clear until the final showdown.
It is a shame that we know the identity of the villain more or less right from the start rather than the Van Dorns having to piece the clues together to unmask him, as in the previous novels. Although in this case it would have been hard to explain the conflict between his communist aims and capitalist means of obtaining them, which is the real engine at the heart of the plot.
Unlike Columbo Bell is not sure who his man is for quite a way through the book until realisation dawns about who he must be looking for. But I felt that he suddenly went from not knowing the actual identity of the villain to seeing through all his subterfuge far too quickly. There didn't seem to be a Columbo 'Just one more thing' moment where the vital clue or clever insight threw everything wide open. But perhaps it was time for the story to cut to the chase - and it certainly does that to a satisfying (although possibly not great) finale.
Overall I enjoyed the book, the pace was good and the set pieces very well written. However it was never going to challenge the reader in any real way. But then it's an escapist adventure story, why should it?
Time has moved on for Bell; it is now the early 1920s prohibition is in force and the loss of lives during the First World War has hit the Van Dorn detective agency hard. Faced with routine lawbreaking to smuggle and sell alcohol on the East Coast, and with lucrative government contracts being lost to new federal agencies, the struggle against crime has never been harder. And when Bell has to take over the role of head of the agency he faces a tough job.
Meanwhile the recent war in Europe has spread communist revolutionaries across the world, trying to destablise governments and bring about the fall of capitalism, following the example of the Russian Revolution. One resourceful operative sees the possibilities of bootlegging to finance his activities against America, but his masters are not so keen on the idea of making vast amounts of money, regardless of the use it is to be put to. But his fatal mistake is attracting the attention of the Van Dorns, who still stick by their motto - We Never Give Up. Ever.
You pretty much get what you expect with this book, more of the same from the previous Isaac Bell books. Personally I enjoy them, the insight into American early 20th century history is always a fantastic backdrop. Scott's seeming obsession with train timetables is kept to a small section here regarding moving a cargo from one place to another. There is still the full selection of large engined transport - fast cars, fast planes and in this one fast boats. There are exciting chases and shootouts, plots and subplots, ruthless villains and gangsters aplenty and the real motives of the villain do not become clear until the final showdown.
It is a shame that we know the identity of the villain more or less right from the start rather than the Van Dorns having to piece the clues together to unmask him, as in the previous novels. Although in this case it would have been hard to explain the conflict between his communist aims and capitalist means of obtaining them, which is the real engine at the heart of the plot.
Unlike Columbo Bell is not sure who his man is for quite a way through the book until realisation dawns about who he must be looking for. But I felt that he suddenly went from not knowing the actual identity of the villain to seeing through all his subterfuge far too quickly. There didn't seem to be a Columbo 'Just one more thing' moment where the vital clue or clever insight threw everything wide open. But perhaps it was time for the story to cut to the chase - and it certainly does that to a satisfying (although possibly not great) finale.
Overall I enjoyed the book, the pace was good and the set pieces very well written. However it was never going to challenge the reader in any real way. But then it's an escapist adventure story, why should it?
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Legend (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Have you heard of Legend? Not the movie from the mid-eighties, but the story of Ronnie and Reggie Kray (Tom Hardy, playing both brothers). Don’t know who they are, that’s okay, neither did I. But if you are across the pond and are reading this, you probably do. They Kray brothers are twins, and perhaps the most notorious gangsters in London history. Think John Dillinger, or Al Capone, of the UK.
Legend is a story of Reggie and Ronnie Kray’s rise to power as the top gangsters of the East End of London, and beyond. However, it is told from the point of view of Reggie’s wife, Francis Kray (Emily Browning). Though, the movie starts with her meeting Reggie for the first time, and it is really a love story of how she fell in love with a gangster that would not change his ways. There is nothing solely remarkable about the plot of the movie, but it is definitely captivating. I went into the film not knowing much about the Krays, but glad that I didn’t as it might have marred my experience.
Hardy, however, is remarkable in his portrayal of the Kray brothers. Each brother having his own distinctive personality, and even distinctive looks despite being identical twin brothers. Ronnie, as Francis describes him, is a one man mob trying to take control of London. The only catch is that he is paranoid schizophrenic and has trouble in social situations. This leads to a high distrust of people, and some intriguing scenes during the course of the film, especially interacting with Francis and his brother. Reggie is the intelligent, methodical brother who has bigger goals and aspirations than his brother, but his loyalty to his family holds him back. He has a deep loyalty, and even in the height of conflict would not take his anger, or disappointment, out on Ronnie. This did not sit well with Francis, who desperately wanted Reggie to go straight, but still agreed to marry him, even against the wishes of her mother.
There is no rise without a fall, but I won’t give too much insight into that as it will help the movie win you over if you know less. But Hardy and Browning were backed by a wonderful supporting cast including the likes of David Thewlis, Christopher Eccleston, Taron Egerton, and Chazz Palminteri. Hardy himself brought some levity to the more serious scenes, though there were times where I was taken out of the movie as Ronnie Kray had a slight tendency to sound like Bane, Hardy’s previous role in the Dark Knight franchise.
If you enjoy British films such as Rock’n’Rolla, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, or Trainspotting, you will definitely enjoy Legend. In fact, Legend is the first movie rated 18+ in the UK to break the box office record set by Trainspotting in 1996. That says a lot about the movie. Will I add it to my collection upon home release? The jury is still out on that, but it definitely was a great film and worth seeing.
Legend is a story of Reggie and Ronnie Kray’s rise to power as the top gangsters of the East End of London, and beyond. However, it is told from the point of view of Reggie’s wife, Francis Kray (Emily Browning). Though, the movie starts with her meeting Reggie for the first time, and it is really a love story of how she fell in love with a gangster that would not change his ways. There is nothing solely remarkable about the plot of the movie, but it is definitely captivating. I went into the film not knowing much about the Krays, but glad that I didn’t as it might have marred my experience.
Hardy, however, is remarkable in his portrayal of the Kray brothers. Each brother having his own distinctive personality, and even distinctive looks despite being identical twin brothers. Ronnie, as Francis describes him, is a one man mob trying to take control of London. The only catch is that he is paranoid schizophrenic and has trouble in social situations. This leads to a high distrust of people, and some intriguing scenes during the course of the film, especially interacting with Francis and his brother. Reggie is the intelligent, methodical brother who has bigger goals and aspirations than his brother, but his loyalty to his family holds him back. He has a deep loyalty, and even in the height of conflict would not take his anger, or disappointment, out on Ronnie. This did not sit well with Francis, who desperately wanted Reggie to go straight, but still agreed to marry him, even against the wishes of her mother.
There is no rise without a fall, but I won’t give too much insight into that as it will help the movie win you over if you know less. But Hardy and Browning were backed by a wonderful supporting cast including the likes of David Thewlis, Christopher Eccleston, Taron Egerton, and Chazz Palminteri. Hardy himself brought some levity to the more serious scenes, though there were times where I was taken out of the movie as Ronnie Kray had a slight tendency to sound like Bane, Hardy’s previous role in the Dark Knight franchise.
If you enjoy British films such as Rock’n’Rolla, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, or Trainspotting, you will definitely enjoy Legend. In fact, Legend is the first movie rated 18+ in the UK to break the box office record set by Trainspotting in 1996. That says a lot about the movie. Will I add it to my collection upon home release? The jury is still out on that, but it definitely was a great film and worth seeing.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated That's My Boy (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Adam Sandler movies have often been a mixed bag. For every “The Wedding Singer” and “50 First Dates” there are several forgettable offerings like “Little Nicky”, “I Now Prounounce You Chuck and Larry”, and “8 Crazy Nights”. To be fair there’ve also been several guilty pleasures such as “Happy Gilmore” and “The Waterboy” along the way. Sadly, his recent offerings, culminating in the disastrous “Jack and Jill”, have given me very low expectations for his new film “That’s My Boy” which pairs Sandler with former Saturday Night Live star Andy Samberg.
Sandler stars as Donny, a down-on his luck former celebrity who gained notoriety after impregnating his teacher at 13. While the teacher (Eva Amurri Martino) went on to a 30-year prison sentence, Donny used his notoriety to become a pop culture sensation. Unfortunately for Donny fame was fleeting and he wasted the money he had accumulated along the way. We soon learn Donny faces a prison sentence unless he comes up with $45,000 to pay back taxes.
Desperate, he turns to his estranged son Todd (Andy Samberg), who has pretty much disowned his father and does not even go by is given birth name. Todd is about to marry a socialite named Jamie (Leighton Meester), and since he is a numbers genius with an extremely bright future with a partnership pending, the arrival of his crude, drunken father, is a disaster in the making. Passing himself off as long-lost friend, Donny attempts to reconnect with his son and naturally this happens over some very vulgar and awkward moments, not all of which are limited to bachelor party scenes.
Of course anybody who has seen any of Sandler’s films will know the formula that follows: crude situations followed by conflict, mixed with celebrity cameos and an ’80s soundtrack tossed in with a few laughs along the way towards a tidy ending. To say that there is a definite formula to his films would be an understatement and Sandler gives the impression that he’s making up many of the scenes as he goes along, all the while sporting a hybrid Boston/Little Nicky accent.
What ultimately sells the film is the energy and effort that the cast puts into their performances. While the plot can be charitably described as disjointed, there are several scenes that are LOL-inducing, especially those with James Caan as an angry priest and with Vanilla Ice and Todd Bridges lampooning their faded glory.
While the film is a bit cruder than most of Sandler’s usual fare it is, for the most part, good-natured and lighthearted. Obviously nobody is expected to take the film seriously. Samberg does a good job playing the restrained uptight Todd, and in the scenes where he lets loose, shows solid working chemistry with Sandler.
While it is not a great cinematic comedy it certainly has more than its fair share of laughs along the way, just as long as you’re willing to overlook the lackluster plot and uneven pacing of the film.
Sandler stars as Donny, a down-on his luck former celebrity who gained notoriety after impregnating his teacher at 13. While the teacher (Eva Amurri Martino) went on to a 30-year prison sentence, Donny used his notoriety to become a pop culture sensation. Unfortunately for Donny fame was fleeting and he wasted the money he had accumulated along the way. We soon learn Donny faces a prison sentence unless he comes up with $45,000 to pay back taxes.
Desperate, he turns to his estranged son Todd (Andy Samberg), who has pretty much disowned his father and does not even go by is given birth name. Todd is about to marry a socialite named Jamie (Leighton Meester), and since he is a numbers genius with an extremely bright future with a partnership pending, the arrival of his crude, drunken father, is a disaster in the making. Passing himself off as long-lost friend, Donny attempts to reconnect with his son and naturally this happens over some very vulgar and awkward moments, not all of which are limited to bachelor party scenes.
Of course anybody who has seen any of Sandler’s films will know the formula that follows: crude situations followed by conflict, mixed with celebrity cameos and an ’80s soundtrack tossed in with a few laughs along the way towards a tidy ending. To say that there is a definite formula to his films would be an understatement and Sandler gives the impression that he’s making up many of the scenes as he goes along, all the while sporting a hybrid Boston/Little Nicky accent.
What ultimately sells the film is the energy and effort that the cast puts into their performances. While the plot can be charitably described as disjointed, there are several scenes that are LOL-inducing, especially those with James Caan as an angry priest and with Vanilla Ice and Todd Bridges lampooning their faded glory.
While the film is a bit cruder than most of Sandler’s usual fare it is, for the most part, good-natured and lighthearted. Obviously nobody is expected to take the film seriously. Samberg does a good job playing the restrained uptight Todd, and in the scenes where he lets loose, shows solid working chemistry with Sandler.
While it is not a great cinematic comedy it certainly has more than its fair share of laughs along the way, just as long as you’re willing to overlook the lackluster plot and uneven pacing of the film.
Global Teams: How the Best Teams Achieve High Performance
Book
Working for a matrix international organisation, with its ensuing diverse global teams, based in a...
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Casino Royale (1967) in Movies
Jul 24, 2020
It Gets Real Bad
Here’s what Rotten Tomatoes has to say because I couldn’t begin to tell you what this shit-show is about: “This James Bond spoof features the hero coming out of retirement to attempt to fix some problems for SMERSH, while a multitude of other subplots unwind about the central figure.” Yeah, even RT was having trouble trying to figure out what the hell was going on with the 1967 Casino Royale. How bad is it? Well, let’s just say I just finished reading a list of the Top 100 Worst Movies of All Time and I was very surprised to not see this movie on there.
Acting: 10
The movie was bad, but I honestly can’t say that the acting was. These professionals had a job to do and they did it…more or less. While there’s no one performance that really stood out for me, I can definitely remember thinking that no one shit the bed at least.
Beginning: 6
This movie is weird through and through and the beginning is no exception. I will say there was some mild interest after the first ten minutes. I knew it was going to be different than the previous Bond movies, but I wasn’t sure if that was a good thing or not.
Characters: 8
In addition to solid acting, the characters weren’t all that bad either. Sure James Bond was way more lame than the usual guy we had come to know and love over the previous few movies. But throw in characters like the aloof Evelyn Tremble (Peter Sellers) and you’ve got a fun cast of characters that at least try to keep things interesting.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Casino Royale is shot like they were given the lowest budget imaginable. Everything feels extremely cheap and done with little to no effort. It is a far cry from the previous Bond movies that give you groundbreaking shots and decent special effects. This movie’s visuals are mediocre at best.
Conflict: 6
Entertainment Value: 3
It’s never a good sign when I have to stop watching a movie at night and continue on in the morning. When it’s good enough, I will stay up no matter how tired I am. This movie was bad enough to put me right to sleep. I scored it a 3 because it reached a point where my interest was piqued in just how bad things were going to get.
Memorability: 8
It’s bad sure…but boy is it unforgettable bad. With all the craziness that ensued, they made sure you would remember it a long time after watching it. And you know what? There’s a fun respectability that comes with that.
Pace: 1
Plot: 2
Resolution: 6
The best part about the end? It was the end.
Overall: 55
I wanted to watch all the Bond movies, including the stinkers. Casino Royale is easily one of the stinkers. But, with movies as it is with everything, you can’t know where you’re going unless you see where you’ve been.
Acting: 10
The movie was bad, but I honestly can’t say that the acting was. These professionals had a job to do and they did it…more or less. While there’s no one performance that really stood out for me, I can definitely remember thinking that no one shit the bed at least.
Beginning: 6
This movie is weird through and through and the beginning is no exception. I will say there was some mild interest after the first ten minutes. I knew it was going to be different than the previous Bond movies, but I wasn’t sure if that was a good thing or not.
Characters: 8
In addition to solid acting, the characters weren’t all that bad either. Sure James Bond was way more lame than the usual guy we had come to know and love over the previous few movies. But throw in characters like the aloof Evelyn Tremble (Peter Sellers) and you’ve got a fun cast of characters that at least try to keep things interesting.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Casino Royale is shot like they were given the lowest budget imaginable. Everything feels extremely cheap and done with little to no effort. It is a far cry from the previous Bond movies that give you groundbreaking shots and decent special effects. This movie’s visuals are mediocre at best.
Conflict: 6
Entertainment Value: 3
It’s never a good sign when I have to stop watching a movie at night and continue on in the morning. When it’s good enough, I will stay up no matter how tired I am. This movie was bad enough to put me right to sleep. I scored it a 3 because it reached a point where my interest was piqued in just how bad things were going to get.
Memorability: 8
It’s bad sure…but boy is it unforgettable bad. With all the craziness that ensued, they made sure you would remember it a long time after watching it. And you know what? There’s a fun respectability that comes with that.
Pace: 1
Plot: 2
Resolution: 6
The best part about the end? It was the end.
Overall: 55
I wanted to watch all the Bond movies, including the stinkers. Casino Royale is easily one of the stinkers. But, with movies as it is with everything, you can’t know where you’re going unless you see where you’ve been.