Search
Search results
Ninja Girl Adventures (Ninja Girl Adventures #1)
Melissa Wilson and Phil Elmore
10.0
Rate It
Book
Sister Power at It’s Best Moira Mackenzie is just 14 years old. Her sister Mindy is 15, and...
Young Adult Thriller
The Fourth Talisman
9.0
Rate It
Book
Nocturne, a wilderness of eternal night. Solis, a wasteland of endless day. It’s been a...
Sweet Reunion (Hope Falls #1)
7.0
Rate It
Book
For Amanda Jacobs, dealing with the pain of losing her beloved Dad is the toughest thing she's ever...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Girl on the Train (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A Victim of its marketing
It’s always refreshing to see a film released primarily for the adult market. We all loved The Hunger Games, but imagine what the series could’ve been like had the franchise been given a 15 or even an 18 certification.
And Fifty Shades of Grey may have its critics (me being one of them) but at least it appealed to those of us not interested in sharing cinema screens with rambling tweens. The finest of the adult genre? Well, that has to be Gone Girl. But now there’s a new kid on the block, ready to steal its crown. Is The Girl on the Train a worthy adversary?
Alcoholic Rachel Watson (Emily Blunt) catches daily glimpses of a seemingly perfect couple, Scott (Luke Evans) and Megan (Haley Bennett), from the window of her train. One day, Watson witnesses something shocking unfold in the garden of the strangers’ home. Rachel tells the authorities what she thinks she saw after learning Megan is missing. Unable to trust her memory, the troubled woman begins her own investigation, while police suspect that Rachel may have crossed a dangerous line.
Emily Blunt has become one of Hollywood’s finest actors, constantly adding new genres to her resume. From The Devil Wears Prada to Sicario and beyond, there is nothing she won’t try and The Girl on the Train is bolstered by a career-best performance by the actress. It’s never easy to play a drunk convincingly; you can look to some UK soap operas for proof of that, but she manages to pull it off exceptionally well.
Of the supporting cast, only Justin Theroux makes a lasting impact as Rachel’s ex-husband Tom, now living with his new wife Anna – a lacklustre Rebecca Ferguson. It would be unfair to sling too much mud at a very talented group of actors, but up against Blunt, there really is no comparison.
Elsewhere, the complex narrative of Paula Hawkins’ book translates to a rather messy filming style when viewed on the big screen. Continuous flashbacks from within Rachel’s mind are handled reasonably well by director Tate Taylor (The Help) and he manages to wrench everything together to stop the plot from becoming incoherent.
Unfortunately, The Girl on the Train is a victim of its own intense marketing campaign. The trailers have given away far too much for those who haven’t read the book and whilst the twists and turns aren’t immediately obvious, some of the Cluedo-esque fun has been removed. It’s clear Dreamworks wanted the film to resemble Gone Girl as much as possible, aiming to attract a similar audience, but this may have backfired slightly.
Overall, The Girl on the Train is a particularly faithful adaptation of the novel of the same name, held up by an intense and frankly incredible performance by Emily Blunt. Unfortunately, some of the film’s suspense has been lost by a poorly executed marketing campaign and as such it becomes a passable addition to the adult thriller genre. This year’s Gone Girl it is not.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/10/06/a-victim-of-its-marketing-the-girl-on-the-train-review/
And Fifty Shades of Grey may have its critics (me being one of them) but at least it appealed to those of us not interested in sharing cinema screens with rambling tweens. The finest of the adult genre? Well, that has to be Gone Girl. But now there’s a new kid on the block, ready to steal its crown. Is The Girl on the Train a worthy adversary?
Alcoholic Rachel Watson (Emily Blunt) catches daily glimpses of a seemingly perfect couple, Scott (Luke Evans) and Megan (Haley Bennett), from the window of her train. One day, Watson witnesses something shocking unfold in the garden of the strangers’ home. Rachel tells the authorities what she thinks she saw after learning Megan is missing. Unable to trust her memory, the troubled woman begins her own investigation, while police suspect that Rachel may have crossed a dangerous line.
Emily Blunt has become one of Hollywood’s finest actors, constantly adding new genres to her resume. From The Devil Wears Prada to Sicario and beyond, there is nothing she won’t try and The Girl on the Train is bolstered by a career-best performance by the actress. It’s never easy to play a drunk convincingly; you can look to some UK soap operas for proof of that, but she manages to pull it off exceptionally well.
Of the supporting cast, only Justin Theroux makes a lasting impact as Rachel’s ex-husband Tom, now living with his new wife Anna – a lacklustre Rebecca Ferguson. It would be unfair to sling too much mud at a very talented group of actors, but up against Blunt, there really is no comparison.
Elsewhere, the complex narrative of Paula Hawkins’ book translates to a rather messy filming style when viewed on the big screen. Continuous flashbacks from within Rachel’s mind are handled reasonably well by director Tate Taylor (The Help) and he manages to wrench everything together to stop the plot from becoming incoherent.
Unfortunately, The Girl on the Train is a victim of its own intense marketing campaign. The trailers have given away far too much for those who haven’t read the book and whilst the twists and turns aren’t immediately obvious, some of the Cluedo-esque fun has been removed. It’s clear Dreamworks wanted the film to resemble Gone Girl as much as possible, aiming to attract a similar audience, but this may have backfired slightly.
Overall, The Girl on the Train is a particularly faithful adaptation of the novel of the same name, held up by an intense and frankly incredible performance by Emily Blunt. Unfortunately, some of the film’s suspense has been lost by a poorly executed marketing campaign and as such it becomes a passable addition to the adult thriller genre. This year’s Gone Girl it is not.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/10/06/a-victim-of-its-marketing-the-girl-on-the-train-review/
Daf Yomi for Women - דף יומי לנשים
1.0
Rate It
Podcast
Now including more than 800 shiurim, Daf Yomi for Women is the first and only podcast featuring a...
Suswatibasu (1703 KP) rated Killers of the Flower Moon: The Osage Murder and the Birth of the FBI in Books
Nov 24, 2017 (Updated Nov 24, 2017)
Mind-blowing and a disconcerting read
I can say without a doubt, this is one of the best novels I've read this year. It is a disturbing and excellent real-life account of the plight of Native Americans who found themselves the unwitting beneficiaries of a financial boom in the 1920's after oil was discovered under the previously barren and worthless reservation they were moved to.
This fantastic book relates to a story covered in blood, racism and greed. Oil, black gold, made the Plains Osage tribe incredibly wealthy. By the 1890's, the remnants of this great people were in the scrub lands of Northern Oklahoma.
Their life was continually harsh, the soil poor. In the late 1890's, by chance, oil was struck in Osage County, flowing in abundance and in great demand. From 1918 to 1928, $202 million was paid to the tribe which by then numbered around 3000, transforming their lives. 680 barrels were obtained in a day in 1920 from a strike at Burbank, angering the whites and thus began the "Reign of Terror" in which hundreds of the Osage tribe members were subsequently killed in the most horrendous display of corruption.
The book itself begins in 1921 with an Osage woman who had a share of the mineral riches to be found under the Osage land. Mollie like others was subject to a law that treated her tribe as juveniles whose estates had to be administered by white guardians, that is local lawyers and businessmen, appointed by local courts.
Guardianship was unpoliced and few records were kept. Fraud was therefore prevalent and many of the local white community participated in corruption - murder was widespread as a result. Mollie's sister, Anna, was the first noticeable murder in which she was shot and killed, launching a major probe into similar killings in the area. Many other murders were committed over the following years, with poisoning as the most common method of killing. Essentially it was a covert form of genocide.
The locals refused to act, partly due to fear or involvement in this heinous plot, so J. Edgar Hoover, who was the first president of the FBI, became involved in the investigation. He sent a tall Texas Ranger called Tom White to scrutinise an epic series of murders in which even investigators were targets.
What follows is not only history but a riveting detective story and the book demonstrates yet again the enormous cost of American nationhood. It provides some fascinating insight into the early workings of the FBI (not least Hoover's nascent megalomania) for whom this was a celebrated case and a valuable reminder for folk who thought the persecution of American Indians ended in the late 19th century. Author and journalist David Grann does a superb job in collating all of the information with dozens of pages solely highlighting attributions and references - it is thorough and well-researched. Therefore it is hardly surprising that Hollywood has snapped up this book to turn it into a major motion picture - let's hope they don't whitewash history once again.
This fantastic book relates to a story covered in blood, racism and greed. Oil, black gold, made the Plains Osage tribe incredibly wealthy. By the 1890's, the remnants of this great people were in the scrub lands of Northern Oklahoma.
Their life was continually harsh, the soil poor. In the late 1890's, by chance, oil was struck in Osage County, flowing in abundance and in great demand. From 1918 to 1928, $202 million was paid to the tribe which by then numbered around 3000, transforming their lives. 680 barrels were obtained in a day in 1920 from a strike at Burbank, angering the whites and thus began the "Reign of Terror" in which hundreds of the Osage tribe members were subsequently killed in the most horrendous display of corruption.
The book itself begins in 1921 with an Osage woman who had a share of the mineral riches to be found under the Osage land. Mollie like others was subject to a law that treated her tribe as juveniles whose estates had to be administered by white guardians, that is local lawyers and businessmen, appointed by local courts.
Guardianship was unpoliced and few records were kept. Fraud was therefore prevalent and many of the local white community participated in corruption - murder was widespread as a result. Mollie's sister, Anna, was the first noticeable murder in which she was shot and killed, launching a major probe into similar killings in the area. Many other murders were committed over the following years, with poisoning as the most common method of killing. Essentially it was a covert form of genocide.
The locals refused to act, partly due to fear or involvement in this heinous plot, so J. Edgar Hoover, who was the first president of the FBI, became involved in the investigation. He sent a tall Texas Ranger called Tom White to scrutinise an epic series of murders in which even investigators were targets.
What follows is not only history but a riveting detective story and the book demonstrates yet again the enormous cost of American nationhood. It provides some fascinating insight into the early workings of the FBI (not least Hoover's nascent megalomania) for whom this was a celebrated case and a valuable reminder for folk who thought the persecution of American Indians ended in the late 19th century. Author and journalist David Grann does a superb job in collating all of the information with dozens of pages solely highlighting attributions and references - it is thorough and well-researched. Therefore it is hardly surprising that Hollywood has snapped up this book to turn it into a major motion picture - let's hope they don't whitewash history once again.
On Bone Bridge
10.0
Rate It
Book
"The sins of the past will not stay buried. But who are the innocent and who are the guilty?" ...
mystery thriller suspense fiction Ireland Maria Hoey
The Witless Protection Program
10.0
Rate It
Book
In the fifth Catering Hall Mystery by Agatha Award-winning author Maria DiRico, series sleuth Mia...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated A Simple Favor (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
When you look at the directorial line up from Paul Feig, with hilariously funny movies such as Ghostbusters, Bridesmaids, and The Heat under his belt, it’s a bit of a surprise to see him take on a suspense thriller. Don’t worry Feig fans, there’s plenty of outlandish, laugh out loud moments.
A Simple Favor centers around the perky Stephanie Smothers (Anna Kendrick), a widowed stay at home mommy vlogger whose life revolves around her son. She struggles with making friends due to her overly ambitious attempts at being the best at everything she does—think Stepford wife without the husband. Enter Emily (Blake Lively)—a brash, confident, mysterious woman whose son just happens to be best friend’s with Stephanie’s little boy. To both mom’s dismay, they are forced to hang out afterschool because their boys want to have a playdate. Stephanie thinks Emily has everything—the perfect marriage, the amazing career, and the gorgeous designer house. To the surprise of all the parents at school, the two moms spark an unlikely friendship. Until one day, Emily calls Stephanie and asks her for a simple favor. Little did Stephanie know this simple favor ends up uncovering a slew of secrets of deceit and lies.
Feig’s propensity for comedy still lingers even in the blackest of moments throughout the movie. He knew exactly which moments to take it up a notch and add in some witty humor to let his leading ladies shine. Lively exudes a callous charisma that makes her perfect to take on the role of Emily. I’d like to think Anna Kendrick’s acting chops are just that good, because she does such a great job at playing an insufferable perfectionist.
It’s hard to pick sides in this film. Everyone is so twisted, you find yourself rooting for one person in part of the movie, and then their skeleton’s come out, and you want to root for the other. This is a true testament to the screenwriters—they make you want to be both women. Doesn’t apologize for its sick and twisted manic storyline. It’s upscale garbage at its finest! Can’t help but love seeing the downfall of perfection.
A Simple Favor centers around the perky Stephanie Smothers (Anna Kendrick), a widowed stay at home mommy vlogger whose life revolves around her son. She struggles with making friends due to her overly ambitious attempts at being the best at everything she does—think Stepford wife without the husband. Enter Emily (Blake Lively)—a brash, confident, mysterious woman whose son just happens to be best friend’s with Stephanie’s little boy. To both mom’s dismay, they are forced to hang out afterschool because their boys want to have a playdate. Stephanie thinks Emily has everything—the perfect marriage, the amazing career, and the gorgeous designer house. To the surprise of all the parents at school, the two moms spark an unlikely friendship. Until one day, Emily calls Stephanie and asks her for a simple favor. Little did Stephanie know this simple favor ends up uncovering a slew of secrets of deceit and lies.
Feig’s propensity for comedy still lingers even in the blackest of moments throughout the movie. He knew exactly which moments to take it up a notch and add in some witty humor to let his leading ladies shine. Lively exudes a callous charisma that makes her perfect to take on the role of Emily. I’d like to think Anna Kendrick’s acting chops are just that good, because she does such a great job at playing an insufferable perfectionist.
It’s hard to pick sides in this film. Everyone is so twisted, you find yourself rooting for one person in part of the movie, and then their skeleton’s come out, and you want to root for the other. This is a true testament to the screenwriters—they make you want to be both women. Doesn’t apologize for its sick and twisted manic storyline. It’s upscale garbage at its finest! Can’t help but love seeing the downfall of perfection.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Terminator: Dark Fate (2019) in Movies
Nov 6, 2019
Good (enough) conclusion to the Franchise
After a few attempts at resurrecting this franchise, James Cameron has (wisely) decided to bury the franchise with one last TERMINATOR film starring the original Terminator himself, Arnold Schwarzenegger. TERMINATOR: DARK FATE is a direct sequel to T2: JUDGEMENT DAY (or so says Producer/Writer Cameron) as it ignores the 3rd and 4th movies in this series (as well as the television show THE SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES).
And that is a wise move as it simplifies things and just lets us get on to what a Terminator movie does best - fantastic action sequences, state of the art CGI, a killer robot that will stop at nothing to accomplish it's mission, and a plucky hero or 2 to battle said killer robot.
Oh...did I mention that they recruit a Terminator to help them stop the Terminator?
And it all works well...enough. Set in this year (2019), TERMINATOR: DARK FATE tells the tale of what happens next after Sarah and John Connor stopped Judgement Day in the 2nd Terminator film. A deadly - even more dangerous - Terminator (version 9!) returns to 2019 to kill a single woman (Natalie Reyes). This time she is helped by an augmented human from the future (Mackenzie Davis) and...Sarah Connor! Returning to this film, all buffed up and aging, is a craggy voiced Linda Hamilton as Sarah, who brings an adequate amount of world-weary, "been there, done that" attitude to the proceedings that pretty much carry the first half of the film.
And...just as the film was beginning to sag in the middle, along comes Arnold.
Playing an aging Terminator (which is explained, well enough, in the plot), Arnold plays the Terminator (who has been living with humans for over 20 years) with a wink in his eye and a sense of humor about him. Yep...this is a Terminator with a funny bone. And - I'll be darned - it works! Thanks to the performance of Mr. Schwarzenegger. He knows exactly what kind of film he is in and brings the right amount of energy, muscle and humor to the proceedings. He pretty much carries this film on his broad shoulders for the 2nd half - and he carries it with ease.
Credit Director Tim Miller (DEADPOOL) for keeping things light, simple and moving along crisply. He, too, understands the type of film he is making (and the audience that will go see this type of film) so he keeps the dialogue light and snappy, the plot at it's simplest and the action as high as he can go - blowing things up at a moment's notice. It's not sublte art by any stretch of the imagination, but it is art - in a way - and art that he does well.
If this is the last Terminator film (and I hope it is), then it is going out on a high (enough) note. I was surprisingly entertained (and not preached to) and, I think that is all I could have hoped for in a Terminator flick.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And that is a wise move as it simplifies things and just lets us get on to what a Terminator movie does best - fantastic action sequences, state of the art CGI, a killer robot that will stop at nothing to accomplish it's mission, and a plucky hero or 2 to battle said killer robot.
Oh...did I mention that they recruit a Terminator to help them stop the Terminator?
And it all works well...enough. Set in this year (2019), TERMINATOR: DARK FATE tells the tale of what happens next after Sarah and John Connor stopped Judgement Day in the 2nd Terminator film. A deadly - even more dangerous - Terminator (version 9!) returns to 2019 to kill a single woman (Natalie Reyes). This time she is helped by an augmented human from the future (Mackenzie Davis) and...Sarah Connor! Returning to this film, all buffed up and aging, is a craggy voiced Linda Hamilton as Sarah, who brings an adequate amount of world-weary, "been there, done that" attitude to the proceedings that pretty much carry the first half of the film.
And...just as the film was beginning to sag in the middle, along comes Arnold.
Playing an aging Terminator (which is explained, well enough, in the plot), Arnold plays the Terminator (who has been living with humans for over 20 years) with a wink in his eye and a sense of humor about him. Yep...this is a Terminator with a funny bone. And - I'll be darned - it works! Thanks to the performance of Mr. Schwarzenegger. He knows exactly what kind of film he is in and brings the right amount of energy, muscle and humor to the proceedings. He pretty much carries this film on his broad shoulders for the 2nd half - and he carries it with ease.
Credit Director Tim Miller (DEADPOOL) for keeping things light, simple and moving along crisply. He, too, understands the type of film he is making (and the audience that will go see this type of film) so he keeps the dialogue light and snappy, the plot at it's simplest and the action as high as he can go - blowing things up at a moment's notice. It's not sublte art by any stretch of the imagination, but it is art - in a way - and art that he does well.
If this is the last Terminator film (and I hope it is), then it is going out on a high (enough) note. I was surprisingly entertained (and not preached to) and, I think that is all I could have hoped for in a Terminator flick.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)