Search
Search results
Great Villain (1 more)
Great Crime Story
Too many characters (1 more)
Some characters not needed
An ex-child soldier, a violent, hairless man, and a drug lord make up the cast of characters in the Thomas Harris novel, 'Cari Mora.' Mora, our title character, is the ex-child soldier that now lives in Miami, Flordia, where she watches over a deceased drug lord's mansion. This drug lord is the real-life Pablo Escobar.
Written in Harris' crime fiction style, 'Cari Mora' quickly starts with men competing to get to the rumored millions of dollars in gold that is suppose to be at the Escobar mansion. One of these men is a very memorable German character named Hans-Peter Schneider, who readers come to know as someone that is hired to kill/deliver people to rich customers, as well as selling organs on the black market: " He [Schneider] could see his reflection in the glass side of his liquid cremation machine where he was dissolving Karla, a girl who hadn't worked out for business." When Schneider meets Mora, he immediately wants to sell her to a high paying customer.
The novel's main subject is Escobar's hidden gold, but readers also get a glimpse into the underworld of human trafficking and hired thugs. Most interestingly, the story surrounds the dark past of certain characters - - - mostly Mora and Schneider- - - who also happen to be the most put-together characters in all of the novel. All other characters seem to be filler, where most of their stories either don't end or aren't explained. Such as the character Benito, when the reader gets to follow him home, there is a mere snippet about his family life that leaves us wanting more: " Lupe was waiting at Benito's house, in spirit, in the small garden she had made behind Benito's house. He felt her presence warm and close to him as fireflies winked over the white blossoms, luminous under the moon. Benito poured a glass of Flor de Cana for himself and one for her. He drank both of them sitting in the garden with Lupe, and being there together was enough. "
While the treasure hunt is going on, a man named Jesus Villarreal becomes an important character that used to be Escobar's captain- - - and who knows exactly where the gold is hidden; he has not only made a deal with Schneider, but also another drug lord named Don Ernesto- - - if he tells exactly how to get the gold, safely, his wife, son and sister-in-law must be taken care of when he is gone.
This story has twist and turns known in every great crime fiction novel: a woman who is more than what she seems, thugs with guns, dark backstories, and fast-reading action. Yet, the story contains so many characters,even new ones coming in on almost every chapter, that it could be hard for readers to keep in mind who is who, especially with not enough description to tell them apart. Another disappointment is the character named Detective Terry Robles, who had such an amazing story to tell - - - from he and his wife being shot up by druggies to Robles seeking revenge when his wife can't exactly remember who she is,let alone who he is, because of her injury - - - but his story never comes to fruition, and we never get to experience the end of it.
As great as a character Mora is, I personally believe that Schneider would have been a much more interesting view point to read from. The story would have taken on a completely different appeal if the focus had been on strictly him. For instance, one of the most intriguing parts was reading about Schneider's past which may hold the key to why he is who he is : "His parents were in the freezer and he could hear their voices through the door. They could not get out because the freezer door was secured with a chain Hans had tied in an excellent chain knot, the way his father had taught him to tie a chain, shaking the knot until the links jammed tight. "
Although I wish for a different view point, I will say again that Mora is a well-written character - - - her character just becomes flat in certain places- - - but she still makes the story worth reading. Harris did a wonderful job in showing the darker side of life, as he has always done with his Hannibal series. If anyone is a fan of the Netflix show 'Narcos,' or crime fiction surrounding drug lords, they will certainly enjoy this book from beginning to end.
Written in Harris' crime fiction style, 'Cari Mora' quickly starts with men competing to get to the rumored millions of dollars in gold that is suppose to be at the Escobar mansion. One of these men is a very memorable German character named Hans-Peter Schneider, who readers come to know as someone that is hired to kill/deliver people to rich customers, as well as selling organs on the black market: " He [Schneider] could see his reflection in the glass side of his liquid cremation machine where he was dissolving Karla, a girl who hadn't worked out for business." When Schneider meets Mora, he immediately wants to sell her to a high paying customer.
The novel's main subject is Escobar's hidden gold, but readers also get a glimpse into the underworld of human trafficking and hired thugs. Most interestingly, the story surrounds the dark past of certain characters - - - mostly Mora and Schneider- - - who also happen to be the most put-together characters in all of the novel. All other characters seem to be filler, where most of their stories either don't end or aren't explained. Such as the character Benito, when the reader gets to follow him home, there is a mere snippet about his family life that leaves us wanting more: " Lupe was waiting at Benito's house, in spirit, in the small garden she had made behind Benito's house. He felt her presence warm and close to him as fireflies winked over the white blossoms, luminous under the moon. Benito poured a glass of Flor de Cana for himself and one for her. He drank both of them sitting in the garden with Lupe, and being there together was enough. "
While the treasure hunt is going on, a man named Jesus Villarreal becomes an important character that used to be Escobar's captain- - - and who knows exactly where the gold is hidden; he has not only made a deal with Schneider, but also another drug lord named Don Ernesto- - - if he tells exactly how to get the gold, safely, his wife, son and sister-in-law must be taken care of when he is gone.
This story has twist and turns known in every great crime fiction novel: a woman who is more than what she seems, thugs with guns, dark backstories, and fast-reading action. Yet, the story contains so many characters,even new ones coming in on almost every chapter, that it could be hard for readers to keep in mind who is who, especially with not enough description to tell them apart. Another disappointment is the character named Detective Terry Robles, who had such an amazing story to tell - - - from he and his wife being shot up by druggies to Robles seeking revenge when his wife can't exactly remember who she is,let alone who he is, because of her injury - - - but his story never comes to fruition, and we never get to experience the end of it.
As great as a character Mora is, I personally believe that Schneider would have been a much more interesting view point to read from. The story would have taken on a completely different appeal if the focus had been on strictly him. For instance, one of the most intriguing parts was reading about Schneider's past which may hold the key to why he is who he is : "His parents were in the freezer and he could hear their voices through the door. They could not get out because the freezer door was secured with a chain Hans had tied in an excellent chain knot, the way his father had taught him to tie a chain, shaking the knot until the links jammed tight. "
Although I wish for a different view point, I will say again that Mora is a well-written character - - - her character just becomes flat in certain places- - - but she still makes the story worth reading. Harris did a wonderful job in showing the darker side of life, as he has always done with his Hannibal series. If anyone is a fan of the Netflix show 'Narcos,' or crime fiction surrounding drug lords, they will certainly enjoy this book from beginning to end.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Pain & Gain (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Michael Bay’s latest film Pain and Gain suffers from a bit of performance anxiety. It starts hot and flashy, becomes humorous and then starts to drag as it realizes it needs to actually deliver. This is unfortunate because if Bay focused on delivering an entertaining movie from start to finish he may have succeeded. Instead we are constantly reminded by expository text on screen and one of the five unnecessary voiceovers that “sometimes the facts are stranger than fiction.” And the facts are that we get a film here that starts out as a comedy, evolves into a kidnapping/extortion story with a few more jokes only to end with minimal action and no redeeming opportunities for our protagonists. Plus the final jokes or shock opportunities are lost in the fact that our main characters become less and less likeable as the story evolves.
Mark Wahlberg plays body-builder and trainer Daniel Lugo, a self-described “doer” who is tired of working hard only to never reach the level of success that many of his rich clients have achieved. Fed up with his everyday life of being broke, Logo decides it is time to take what he thinks should be his. Together with the help of his roided-out, impotent employee Adrian (Anthony Mackie) and ex-con who found Jesus Paul (Dwayne Johnson), the trio decide to kidnap and extort the jerk off wealthy client Victor (Tony Shalhoub) for everything thing he has. The hilarity ensues while it’s obvious that these muscle heads do not have to smarts to pull off this elaborate plan other than what they have seen in the movies.
It should be noted here that Wahlberg is once again great as a character that does not possess a lot of smarts. Mackie delivers another solid character performance to add to his resume but it is Johnson who steals the show. In a movie where at first glance his physique fits right in, it is his softer more emotional side that shows some range that we have never seen from him before. He plays an ex-con who is determined to change his life only to be slowly sucked back into the lifestyle that put him in jail in the first place. Johnson’s emotional range has him delivering perhaps his best performance ever.
Eventually these three break Victor and take everything he has and they start to live out their dreams. But like all things that take no skill or real effort to earn, the three squander their new found wealth and go looking for another target. All while Victor hires a private detective (Ed Harris) to help bust the trio as the local cops do not believe that some muscle heads could pull off the elaborate heist.
And here is where the film starts to fall apart. The three main characters start to change from fun loving hard working characters to bad guys. The things they do to gain their wealth are repulsive and it stops being funny. Victor is a terrible character that is hard to like in the first place, so you do not really feel bad for him when he loses everything. It is just that you do not really feel happy for our anti-heroes either. And when the story enters its third act after dragging through the second, it feels rushed to close out the film as the gang decides to make a run at another wealthy target.
Furthermore, every character get his/hers own voice over. Seriously, what is the point? It is one thing for Wahlberg to have his own narration as he is the main character, however even Harris gets his own character development through dialogue. It makes the story disjointed and made me feel unsure about who or what I should be rooting for.
In the end I walked out of the theater feeling like we watched two different movies. A rags-to-riches comedy in the beginning that morphs into an unfunny crime drama by the end that has to remind you again and again that you are watching something that is based on a true story. It is a shame because I enjoyed the beginning of this film. I wish that Bay would have taken even additional liberties to make a more consistent film from start to finish on what was already a loosely based true story in the first place.
Mark Wahlberg plays body-builder and trainer Daniel Lugo, a self-described “doer” who is tired of working hard only to never reach the level of success that many of his rich clients have achieved. Fed up with his everyday life of being broke, Logo decides it is time to take what he thinks should be his. Together with the help of his roided-out, impotent employee Adrian (Anthony Mackie) and ex-con who found Jesus Paul (Dwayne Johnson), the trio decide to kidnap and extort the jerk off wealthy client Victor (Tony Shalhoub) for everything thing he has. The hilarity ensues while it’s obvious that these muscle heads do not have to smarts to pull off this elaborate plan other than what they have seen in the movies.
It should be noted here that Wahlberg is once again great as a character that does not possess a lot of smarts. Mackie delivers another solid character performance to add to his resume but it is Johnson who steals the show. In a movie where at first glance his physique fits right in, it is his softer more emotional side that shows some range that we have never seen from him before. He plays an ex-con who is determined to change his life only to be slowly sucked back into the lifestyle that put him in jail in the first place. Johnson’s emotional range has him delivering perhaps his best performance ever.
Eventually these three break Victor and take everything he has and they start to live out their dreams. But like all things that take no skill or real effort to earn, the three squander their new found wealth and go looking for another target. All while Victor hires a private detective (Ed Harris) to help bust the trio as the local cops do not believe that some muscle heads could pull off the elaborate heist.
And here is where the film starts to fall apart. The three main characters start to change from fun loving hard working characters to bad guys. The things they do to gain their wealth are repulsive and it stops being funny. Victor is a terrible character that is hard to like in the first place, so you do not really feel bad for him when he loses everything. It is just that you do not really feel happy for our anti-heroes either. And when the story enters its third act after dragging through the second, it feels rushed to close out the film as the gang decides to make a run at another wealthy target.
Furthermore, every character get his/hers own voice over. Seriously, what is the point? It is one thing for Wahlberg to have his own narration as he is the main character, however even Harris gets his own character development through dialogue. It makes the story disjointed and made me feel unsure about who or what I should be rooting for.
In the end I walked out of the theater feeling like we watched two different movies. A rags-to-riches comedy in the beginning that morphs into an unfunny crime drama by the end that has to remind you again and again that you are watching something that is based on a true story. It is a shame because I enjoyed the beginning of this film. I wish that Bay would have taken even additional liberties to make a more consistent film from start to finish on what was already a loosely based true story in the first place.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Murder on the Orient Express (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
You’ll never guess who dunnit…
There’s a big problem with Kenneth Branagh’s 2017 filming of the Hercule Poirot-based murder mystery…. and that’s the 1974 Sidney Lumet classic featuring Albert Finney in the starring role. For that film was so memorable – at least, the “who” of the “whodunnit” (no spoilers here) was so memorable – that any remake is likely to be tarnished by that knowledge. If you go into this film blissfully unaware of the plot, you are a lucky man/woman. For this is a classic Agatha Christie yarn.
The irascible, borderline OCD, but undeniably great Belgian detective, Poirot, is dragged around the world by grateful police forces to help solve unsolvable crimes. After solving a case in Jerusalem, Poirot is called back to the UK with his mode of transport being the famous Orient Express. Trapped in the mountains by an avalanche, a murder is committed and with multiple suspects and a plethora of clues it is up to Poirot to solve the case.
Branagh enjoys himself enormously as Poirot, sporting the most distractingly magnificent facial hair since Daniel Day-Lewis in “The Gangs of New York”. The moustache must have had its own trailer and make-up team!
Above all, the film is glorious to look at, featuring a rich and exotic colour palette that is reminiscent of the early colour films of the 40’s. Cinematography was by Haris Zambarloukos (“Mamma Mia” and who also collaborated with Branagh on “Thor) with lots of innovative “ceiling down” shots and artful point-of-view takes that might be annoying to some but which I consider as deserving of Oscar/BAFTA nominations.
The pictures are accompanied by a lush score by Patrick Doyle (who also scored Branagh’s “Thor”). Hats off also to the special effects crew, who made the alpine bridge scenes look decidedly more alpine than where they were actually filmed (on a specially made bridge in the Surrey Hills!).
All these technical elements combine to make the film’s early stages look and feel truly epic.
And the cast… what a cast! Dame Judi Dench (“Victoria and Abdul“); Olivia Coleman (“The Lobster“); Johnny Depp (“Black Mass“); Daisy Ridley (“Star Wars: The Force Awakens“); Penélope Cruz (“Zoolander 2“); Josh Gad (Olaf!); Derek Jacobi (“I, Claudius”); Willem Dafoe (“The Great Wall“) and Michelle Pfeiffer (“mother!“). A real case again of an “oh, it’s you” film again at the cinema – when’s the last time we saw that?
It’s also great to see young Lucy Boynton, so magnificent in last year’s excellent “Sing Street“, getting an A-list role as the twitchy and disturbed countess.
With all these ingredients in the pot, it should be great, right? Unfortunately, in my view, no, not quite. The film’s opening momentum is really not maintained by the screenplay by Michael Green (“Blade Runner 2049“; “Logan“). At heart, it’s a fairly static and “stagey” piece at best, set as it is on the rather claustrophobic train (just three carriages… on the Orient Express… really?). But the tale is made even more static by the train’s derailment in the snow. Branagh and Green try to sex up the action where they can, but there are lengthy passages of fairly repetitive dialogue. One encounter in particular between Branagh and Depp seems to last interminably: you wonder if the problem was that the director wasn’t always looking on to yell “Cut”!
All this leads to the “revelation” of the murderer as being a bit of an anticlimactic “thank heavens for that” rather than the gasping denouement it should have been. (Perhaps this would be different if you didn’t know the twist).
However, these reservations aside, it’s an enjoyable night out at the flicks, although a bit of a disappointment from the level of expectation I had for it. I can’t be too grumpy about it, given it’s a return to good old-fashioned yarn-spinning at the cinema, with great visuals and an epic cast. And that has to be good news.
For sure, Branagh does make for an amusing and engaging Poirot, even if his dialogue did need some ‘tuning in’ to. There was a suggestion at the end of the film that we might be seeing his return in “Death on the Nile” – the most lush and decorous of Peter Ustinov’s outings – which I would certainly welcome. He will have to find another 10 A-list stars though to decorate the boat, which will be a challenge for casting!
The irascible, borderline OCD, but undeniably great Belgian detective, Poirot, is dragged around the world by grateful police forces to help solve unsolvable crimes. After solving a case in Jerusalem, Poirot is called back to the UK with his mode of transport being the famous Orient Express. Trapped in the mountains by an avalanche, a murder is committed and with multiple suspects and a plethora of clues it is up to Poirot to solve the case.
Branagh enjoys himself enormously as Poirot, sporting the most distractingly magnificent facial hair since Daniel Day-Lewis in “The Gangs of New York”. The moustache must have had its own trailer and make-up team!
Above all, the film is glorious to look at, featuring a rich and exotic colour palette that is reminiscent of the early colour films of the 40’s. Cinematography was by Haris Zambarloukos (“Mamma Mia” and who also collaborated with Branagh on “Thor) with lots of innovative “ceiling down” shots and artful point-of-view takes that might be annoying to some but which I consider as deserving of Oscar/BAFTA nominations.
The pictures are accompanied by a lush score by Patrick Doyle (who also scored Branagh’s “Thor”). Hats off also to the special effects crew, who made the alpine bridge scenes look decidedly more alpine than where they were actually filmed (on a specially made bridge in the Surrey Hills!).
All these technical elements combine to make the film’s early stages look and feel truly epic.
And the cast… what a cast! Dame Judi Dench (“Victoria and Abdul“); Olivia Coleman (“The Lobster“); Johnny Depp (“Black Mass“); Daisy Ridley (“Star Wars: The Force Awakens“); Penélope Cruz (“Zoolander 2“); Josh Gad (Olaf!); Derek Jacobi (“I, Claudius”); Willem Dafoe (“The Great Wall“) and Michelle Pfeiffer (“mother!“). A real case again of an “oh, it’s you” film again at the cinema – when’s the last time we saw that?
It’s also great to see young Lucy Boynton, so magnificent in last year’s excellent “Sing Street“, getting an A-list role as the twitchy and disturbed countess.
With all these ingredients in the pot, it should be great, right? Unfortunately, in my view, no, not quite. The film’s opening momentum is really not maintained by the screenplay by Michael Green (“Blade Runner 2049“; “Logan“). At heart, it’s a fairly static and “stagey” piece at best, set as it is on the rather claustrophobic train (just three carriages… on the Orient Express… really?). But the tale is made even more static by the train’s derailment in the snow. Branagh and Green try to sex up the action where they can, but there are lengthy passages of fairly repetitive dialogue. One encounter in particular between Branagh and Depp seems to last interminably: you wonder if the problem was that the director wasn’t always looking on to yell “Cut”!
All this leads to the “revelation” of the murderer as being a bit of an anticlimactic “thank heavens for that” rather than the gasping denouement it should have been. (Perhaps this would be different if you didn’t know the twist).
However, these reservations aside, it’s an enjoyable night out at the flicks, although a bit of a disappointment from the level of expectation I had for it. I can’t be too grumpy about it, given it’s a return to good old-fashioned yarn-spinning at the cinema, with great visuals and an epic cast. And that has to be good news.
For sure, Branagh does make for an amusing and engaging Poirot, even if his dialogue did need some ‘tuning in’ to. There was a suggestion at the end of the film that we might be seeing his return in “Death on the Nile” – the most lush and decorous of Peter Ustinov’s outings – which I would certainly welcome. He will have to find another 10 A-list stars though to decorate the boat, which will be a challenge for casting!
Kyera (8 KP) rated Lola and the Boy Next Door (Anna and the French Kiss, #2) in Books
Feb 1, 2018
The second book in the series follow anna to San Francisco, but tells the story of Lola. Lola is a unique girl with a penchant for fashion and boy troubles. Mainly, an older boy(friend) that her parents don't approve of. After falling in love with Anna and the French Kiss, I was excited to immediately begin Lola and the Boy Next Door. While it is still a good book, I didn't connect with the main character as much as I did the first book. It takes a while for you to fall in love with the book and Lola grows on you as the story progresses.
I was happy to see more of ANna and St. Clair, as theirs was the story that I fell in love with. Anna reads as older than she is, in my opinons. Where she seemed like a twenty-year-old college student in the first novel, she now feels older even though its only been a few months. Her relationship with Etienne, as well as her demeanor, make them feel like theyre now in their mid-twenties... or maybe they're just starting to feel like a happy, married couple.
Lola is faced with one of those typical YA love triangles - she's in a relationship but she's faced with unresolved feelings for another boy. Its obvious and you know who she's going to end up with at the end. A relationship isn't right if you are uncomfortable imagining a future with them - or if you fall for someone else. Love and committment don't lead to considering other people.
All that being said, I much prefer Cricket as her suitor than Max (so I shant complain that Lola questions her feelings). He doesn't have a fiery temper, he's kind and thoughtful, plus he's creative and smart in the way that inventors are. Max is angsty and although he's there for Lola, its more superficial and forced than it should be. He once said, "Do you have any idea what I've put up with to be with you?" You shouldn't have to <i>put up with</i> things. You do them because you love the person and it makes <i>them</i> happy.
Anna sums up the dilemma beautifully, "Sometimes a mistake isn't a what. It's a who." Her mistake is Max, but it will take her time to discover that. Even her friendship with Cricket is more healthy and full of love, than the lustful one she has with Max. Let's be honest when she says, "I care about you. I want to be connected to you." even though it's only in her head, you know who she's going to end up with. She just hasn't admitted it yet.
While I haven't fallen in love with Lola like I did Anna, there are still characters that I've fallen for in this novel. Cricket, the boy next door, is lovable because he's kind, a little unsure of himself and so self-less. He's an architect, an inventor, a creator and must learn to take pride in what he's good at. I'm fond of her best friend, Lindsey, although I find her woefully underdeveloped. (But who can't fall in love with the introverted, studious best friend with a Nancy Drew book collection, detective obsession, and desire to be a spy? That was my entire childhood.)
Calliope is the golden child, who is too possessive over her brother and takes on the role of mean girl in this novel. Late in the book there's a moment that gives much-needed depth to her character when Lola fixes her costume and she realizes that her family needs to appreciate Cricket more. Overall, the characters seemed more developed in the first book so I'm a little disappointed by the new ones.
"You have to do the hard thing... you have to be honest with yourself." You should not stay in a relationship, the wrong relationship, because you are only delaying the time until you find yourself in the right one. Why be unhappy longer than you need to be? The author portrays this wonderfully and maybe readers can learn from Lola's missteps. She also shows you how to be the person they deserve to love. If you feel that you don't yet deserve them, earn it. It's a good lesson for anyone to learn.
The author description of Calliope's ice skating actually gave me chills. Although I don't know what all the technically terms translate to visually, I could still imagine her routine and the emotion of the arena.
The ending was great, as the author leaves the reader satisfied but wanting to hear more of the story. There are no glaring cliff-hangers or unresolved plot points. Of course, you want to know if Calliope goes to the Olympics and does well - but maybe that will be addressed in Isla's book.
I was happy to see more of ANna and St. Clair, as theirs was the story that I fell in love with. Anna reads as older than she is, in my opinons. Where she seemed like a twenty-year-old college student in the first novel, she now feels older even though its only been a few months. Her relationship with Etienne, as well as her demeanor, make them feel like theyre now in their mid-twenties... or maybe they're just starting to feel like a happy, married couple.
Lola is faced with one of those typical YA love triangles - she's in a relationship but she's faced with unresolved feelings for another boy. Its obvious and you know who she's going to end up with at the end. A relationship isn't right if you are uncomfortable imagining a future with them - or if you fall for someone else. Love and committment don't lead to considering other people.
All that being said, I much prefer Cricket as her suitor than Max (so I shant complain that Lola questions her feelings). He doesn't have a fiery temper, he's kind and thoughtful, plus he's creative and smart in the way that inventors are. Max is angsty and although he's there for Lola, its more superficial and forced than it should be. He once said, "Do you have any idea what I've put up with to be with you?" You shouldn't have to <i>put up with</i> things. You do them because you love the person and it makes <i>them</i> happy.
Anna sums up the dilemma beautifully, "Sometimes a mistake isn't a what. It's a who." Her mistake is Max, but it will take her time to discover that. Even her friendship with Cricket is more healthy and full of love, than the lustful one she has with Max. Let's be honest when she says, "I care about you. I want to be connected to you." even though it's only in her head, you know who she's going to end up with. She just hasn't admitted it yet.
While I haven't fallen in love with Lola like I did Anna, there are still characters that I've fallen for in this novel. Cricket, the boy next door, is lovable because he's kind, a little unsure of himself and so self-less. He's an architect, an inventor, a creator and must learn to take pride in what he's good at. I'm fond of her best friend, Lindsey, although I find her woefully underdeveloped. (But who can't fall in love with the introverted, studious best friend with a Nancy Drew book collection, detective obsession, and desire to be a spy? That was my entire childhood.)
Calliope is the golden child, who is too possessive over her brother and takes on the role of mean girl in this novel. Late in the book there's a moment that gives much-needed depth to her character when Lola fixes her costume and she realizes that her family needs to appreciate Cricket more. Overall, the characters seemed more developed in the first book so I'm a little disappointed by the new ones.
"You have to do the hard thing... you have to be honest with yourself." You should not stay in a relationship, the wrong relationship, because you are only delaying the time until you find yourself in the right one. Why be unhappy longer than you need to be? The author portrays this wonderfully and maybe readers can learn from Lola's missteps. She also shows you how to be the person they deserve to love. If you feel that you don't yet deserve them, earn it. It's a good lesson for anyone to learn.
The author description of Calliope's ice skating actually gave me chills. Although I don't know what all the technically terms translate to visually, I could still imagine her routine and the emotion of the arena.
The ending was great, as the author leaves the reader satisfied but wanting to hear more of the story. There are no glaring cliff-hangers or unresolved plot points. Of course, you want to know if Calliope goes to the Olympics and does well - but maybe that will be addressed in Isla's book.
honingwords (32 KP) rated Alias in Books
Jul 5, 2018
I’ve never read a book by Cari Hunter that I haven't loved and Alias lived up to my high expectations.
I’ve never read a book by Cari Hunter that I haven't loved and Alias lived up to my high expectations. It became available to me soon after I finished the third of her Dark Peaks trilogy so I was able to fangirl-mode right into it.
It is an absolute joy to read Cari Hunter’s books. I’m so thankful I have stumbled across her at the point where there have been a few books to binge on. It is no secret that I think she is one of the finest authors currently, and she has re-awakened my interest in crime thrillers after many years of reading solely romances. It’s a bonus that she is writing novels about regional parts of the UK.
Alias is written in the first person through-out, which is different to her other books and I found this quite refreshing.
The plot starts off with a car crash on a Welsh country road. The woman driver finds herself alive, confused as to who the dead woman beside her is, and then frustrated she doesn’t remember anything about herself, including her name, or why she was driving through Wales.
The opening scene brought tears to my eyes when I realised a great writer was going to be looking after the next few hours of my reading pleasure.
The local Police spend their time trying to work out if she should be prosecuted and she decides to keep tight-lipped about the small pieces of information that start to come back to her through her fugue while she is hospitalised, and then for the short while after she is released.
The rest of the book is about her finding out whether she is a goody or a baddy; whether she should trust Detective Bronwen Pryce, or, in fact, any of the other characters who tell her they are friends and colleagues. Cari makes us wonder about everyone until the very end of the novel.
The details! The details! Cari just loads her pages with perfect details about what is happening to the characters. There is never anything to stutter over. I never have to read a sentence twice because I didn’t understand it, or lose track of the easy-going flow.
I had to note the parts which made me beam during this book so I could re-read them at leisure. That’s it! Cari Hunter makes me beam while reading her books.
Her character’s legs are ‘wobblier than watered-down jelly’, they find ‘novelty of two cooperating lungs’, their ‘fingers poke out’ (from her splint) ‘as fat as unpopped sausages.’
Cari doesn’t simply give her characters goose pimples - they ‘tickle as they rise along her arm.’ They use ‘the painted numbers on the wheelie bins to gauge’ their progress down the street. When they eat they try ‘at first to isolate flavours and then giving up and simply enjoy the mix.’ Their stomach doesn’t just rumble; eating silences their ‘gastric percussion and leaves them with a stitch to walk off.’ The weather isn't cold, it is ‘brittle cold.’
The amnesia aspect had me in tears at points. There are people who possibly may no longer be alive and when she meets her friend for the ‘first time’ I became quite emotional.
As per her other books Cari has humorous moments throughout Alias.
The character is ‘sure that my choice of forget-me-nots wasn’t intended to be ironic.’ And there is a car-buying scene which make me laugh out loud.
There is no CSI Effect in this book. Some blood testing will be ‘four to five weeks at best’ rather than the four to five hours it can sometimes be in fiction.
I’m really sorry to learn there are no plans to take these characters further. Cari writes well-rounded characters with believable back stories and I would have loved to have seen a couple of the ones in this book teased out a little more in at least one sequel.
Don’t be picking this book up if you are looking for bodice-ripping sex. It just isn't there. Part of me cries out for more than Cari usually offers us, the part of me which craves romances. Holy Crap! She can sure write sex when she wants to but, people, this. is. a. crime. novel.
She could have put more sex in, but then it wouldn’t be true to itself, she wouldn’t be true to herself, and the novel would suffer for reader-driven gratuitous sex scenes which aren’t necessary to the plot.
If you would like recommendations for that kind of book let me know and I’ll introduce you to different genres and different authors.
For now, sit back and enjoy good down-to-earth well-written crime fiction.
It is an absolute joy to read Cari Hunter’s books. I’m so thankful I have stumbled across her at the point where there have been a few books to binge on. It is no secret that I think she is one of the finest authors currently, and she has re-awakened my interest in crime thrillers after many years of reading solely romances. It’s a bonus that she is writing novels about regional parts of the UK.
Alias is written in the first person through-out, which is different to her other books and I found this quite refreshing.
The plot starts off with a car crash on a Welsh country road. The woman driver finds herself alive, confused as to who the dead woman beside her is, and then frustrated she doesn’t remember anything about herself, including her name, or why she was driving through Wales.
The opening scene brought tears to my eyes when I realised a great writer was going to be looking after the next few hours of my reading pleasure.
The local Police spend their time trying to work out if she should be prosecuted and she decides to keep tight-lipped about the small pieces of information that start to come back to her through her fugue while she is hospitalised, and then for the short while after she is released.
The rest of the book is about her finding out whether she is a goody or a baddy; whether she should trust Detective Bronwen Pryce, or, in fact, any of the other characters who tell her they are friends and colleagues. Cari makes us wonder about everyone until the very end of the novel.
The details! The details! Cari just loads her pages with perfect details about what is happening to the characters. There is never anything to stutter over. I never have to read a sentence twice because I didn’t understand it, or lose track of the easy-going flow.
I had to note the parts which made me beam during this book so I could re-read them at leisure. That’s it! Cari Hunter makes me beam while reading her books.
Her character’s legs are ‘wobblier than watered-down jelly’, they find ‘novelty of two cooperating lungs’, their ‘fingers poke out’ (from her splint) ‘as fat as unpopped sausages.’
Cari doesn’t simply give her characters goose pimples - they ‘tickle as they rise along her arm.’ They use ‘the painted numbers on the wheelie bins to gauge’ their progress down the street. When they eat they try ‘at first to isolate flavours and then giving up and simply enjoy the mix.’ Their stomach doesn’t just rumble; eating silences their ‘gastric percussion and leaves them with a stitch to walk off.’ The weather isn't cold, it is ‘brittle cold.’
The amnesia aspect had me in tears at points. There are people who possibly may no longer be alive and when she meets her friend for the ‘first time’ I became quite emotional.
As per her other books Cari has humorous moments throughout Alias.
The character is ‘sure that my choice of forget-me-nots wasn’t intended to be ironic.’ And there is a car-buying scene which make me laugh out loud.
There is no CSI Effect in this book. Some blood testing will be ‘four to five weeks at best’ rather than the four to five hours it can sometimes be in fiction.
I’m really sorry to learn there are no plans to take these characters further. Cari writes well-rounded characters with believable back stories and I would have loved to have seen a couple of the ones in this book teased out a little more in at least one sequel.
Don’t be picking this book up if you are looking for bodice-ripping sex. It just isn't there. Part of me cries out for more than Cari usually offers us, the part of me which craves romances. Holy Crap! She can sure write sex when she wants to but, people, this. is. a. crime. novel.
She could have put more sex in, but then it wouldn’t be true to itself, she wouldn’t be true to herself, and the novel would suffer for reader-driven gratuitous sex scenes which aren’t necessary to the plot.
If you would like recommendations for that kind of book let me know and I’ll introduce you to different genres and different authors.
For now, sit back and enjoy good down-to-earth well-written crime fiction.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated the PC version of The Bureau: XCOM Declassified in Video Games
Jun 19, 2019
Following a path to release that contained delays, revisions, and fan concerns, The Bureau: XCom Declassified has arrived.
As a fan of the first two games in the series which were icons of the 386 and 486 CPU age, I had been horrified about how badly the series had eroded with subsequent released which moved away from the turned based strategy play in favor of all things, flight simulations and run and gun shooters.
When I heard that 2K was taking over the franchise I was excited but to be honest the first look I had at the game during the 2012 E3 Expo had me wondering if I would ever see a return of the classic game series as the new version seemed to be more of a tactical team based game.
Many fans shared this concern and others and XCom: Enemy Unknown appeased many of the fans concerns by giving fans the updated turn based game that they had hoped for.
The Bureau is set in 1962 and is a nice mix of noire meets the X-Files as it explains the early days of the XCom organization in a solid prequel to the events of the subsequent games.
In 1962 Agent William Carter is tasked with delivering a case to his superiors. Ambushed en route and left for dead, Carter awakens to an alien assault and must battle for his life as he attempts to escape the carnage around him.
Armed with his pistol and in time a rifle, Carter meets up with other survivors and is able to escape and soon finds himself recruited in the new and secret organization known as XCom. The new organization is tasked with stopping the alien threat by any means necessary and despite Carter’s past difficulties, his superior Faulke, is convinced that he is the right man for the job.
Carter is able to command three man teams and prior to each mission selects which agents as well as their equipment will accompany him on his missions. Players will also be able to assign power ups along the way and assign them to various agents. The new abilities are vast and range from calling in support drones and air strikes to levitation, cloaking, and numerous other abilities and attacks based on alien technology.
As with prior XCom games players will have the option to select several side missions or they can focus on the main missions to propel the story, Interacting with other characters not only fills in the story but allows players to get a bigger picture thanks to the dialogue options which allows Carter to ask as many or as few questions as he wants.
In combat, Carter and his team work in a third person perspective and travel through towns, countryside, and other locales to meet the alien threat head on. In combat, players can enter a tactical mode to give move and combat commands to other members of their team as well as provide reviving and healing when needed.
Enemies can be tricky but with proper strategy and some well placed shots or grenades they can be taken down. There is a nice variety of enemies and they get harder as the game moves forward. Players can obtain alien weapons at a later state in the game and being able to use energy weapons is a nice touch as is the ability to wander your base in between missions.
The game does offer some branching storylines as actions taken or not taken will give players one of the games various endings.
I enjoyed the graphics and sound of the game as being able to take cover behind a vintage car and then unleash a barrage on a swarm of enemies from a 60s restaurant or radio station was great fun. I also liked seeing various nods to the classic XCom throughout.
While at times it did play as linear I was happy that there was not as much micro-management as I feared there would be and the game is a lot of fun to play. The enemies did seem to become a bit repetitive as the game went along as while the early missions had some challenge, some of the later ones can be frustratingly difficult.
The voice acting in the game is solid and the banter would be worthy for any classic science fiction or hardcore detective film or novel of the time.
I wish that the game offered a multiplay option as being able to co-op missions would have been great fun but for what it is, the game is a satisfying experience.
In the end, it will not be a classic along the lines of the original but it is a very worthy entry into the series and well worth your time to play especially if you’re a fan of the series.
http://sknr.net/2013/10/03/the-bureau-xcom-declassified/
As a fan of the first two games in the series which were icons of the 386 and 486 CPU age, I had been horrified about how badly the series had eroded with subsequent released which moved away from the turned based strategy play in favor of all things, flight simulations and run and gun shooters.
When I heard that 2K was taking over the franchise I was excited but to be honest the first look I had at the game during the 2012 E3 Expo had me wondering if I would ever see a return of the classic game series as the new version seemed to be more of a tactical team based game.
Many fans shared this concern and others and XCom: Enemy Unknown appeased many of the fans concerns by giving fans the updated turn based game that they had hoped for.
The Bureau is set in 1962 and is a nice mix of noire meets the X-Files as it explains the early days of the XCom organization in a solid prequel to the events of the subsequent games.
In 1962 Agent William Carter is tasked with delivering a case to his superiors. Ambushed en route and left for dead, Carter awakens to an alien assault and must battle for his life as he attempts to escape the carnage around him.
Armed with his pistol and in time a rifle, Carter meets up with other survivors and is able to escape and soon finds himself recruited in the new and secret organization known as XCom. The new organization is tasked with stopping the alien threat by any means necessary and despite Carter’s past difficulties, his superior Faulke, is convinced that he is the right man for the job.
Carter is able to command three man teams and prior to each mission selects which agents as well as their equipment will accompany him on his missions. Players will also be able to assign power ups along the way and assign them to various agents. The new abilities are vast and range from calling in support drones and air strikes to levitation, cloaking, and numerous other abilities and attacks based on alien technology.
As with prior XCom games players will have the option to select several side missions or they can focus on the main missions to propel the story, Interacting with other characters not only fills in the story but allows players to get a bigger picture thanks to the dialogue options which allows Carter to ask as many or as few questions as he wants.
In combat, Carter and his team work in a third person perspective and travel through towns, countryside, and other locales to meet the alien threat head on. In combat, players can enter a tactical mode to give move and combat commands to other members of their team as well as provide reviving and healing when needed.
Enemies can be tricky but with proper strategy and some well placed shots or grenades they can be taken down. There is a nice variety of enemies and they get harder as the game moves forward. Players can obtain alien weapons at a later state in the game and being able to use energy weapons is a nice touch as is the ability to wander your base in between missions.
The game does offer some branching storylines as actions taken or not taken will give players one of the games various endings.
I enjoyed the graphics and sound of the game as being able to take cover behind a vintage car and then unleash a barrage on a swarm of enemies from a 60s restaurant or radio station was great fun. I also liked seeing various nods to the classic XCom throughout.
While at times it did play as linear I was happy that there was not as much micro-management as I feared there would be and the game is a lot of fun to play. The enemies did seem to become a bit repetitive as the game went along as while the early missions had some challenge, some of the later ones can be frustratingly difficult.
The voice acting in the game is solid and the banter would be worthy for any classic science fiction or hardcore detective film or novel of the time.
I wish that the game offered a multiplay option as being able to co-op missions would have been great fun but for what it is, the game is a satisfying experience.
In the end, it will not be a classic along the lines of the original but it is a very worthy entry into the series and well worth your time to play especially if you’re a fan of the series.
http://sknr.net/2013/10/03/the-bureau-xcom-declassified/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 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.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Cold Pursuit (2019) in Movies
Mar 15, 2020
Comments on revenge are best kept on the screen.
I'd completely forgotten the furore about Liam Neeson's comments back last February during the press-tour preceding the film's release. In discussing the destructive feelings of revenge experienced by his character, Nels Coxman, Neeson revealed something he did 40 years ago: after the rape of a friend by "a black man", Neeson went out on the streets to find another "black man" and do them harm. (As a fellow Ballymena-born man, David Moody (from the "Mark and Dave" blog) has an interesting theory about this... that it was not a "rascist" statement in the true sense, but something else entirely. See here - ).
The comments undoubtedly impacted the movie at the box office. Which is a shame. Because in his catalogue of bonkers and violent revenge-porn flicks, this is one of Neeson's more entertaining ones.
Revenge is a dish best served cold. And where colder to serve it than in the ski-resort of Kehoe where Nels Coxman is the local snowplow operative and "man of the year" for his services to the community. But the tracks are about to fall off his orderly life. For his son Kyle (Micheál Richardson) winds up dead through a drugs overdose and his strained marriage with wife Grace (Laura Dern) disintegrates. (One of the most cutting and best-written "Bye" notes ever seen in the movies).
With revenge in mind, Coxman pursues the Denver-based drugs lord Trevor Calcote (Tom Bateman) who dished out the drugs to his son. But he inadvertently manages to stay just below the parapet as he sets in train a gang war between Calcote and a Kehoe-based native-American drugs gang led by White Bull (Tom Jackson). The snow turned progressively pinker as the body count rises.
Calcote (aka "Viking") is painted as a colourful family man, with an annoyingly bright son Ryan (Nicholas Holmes) that he controls with a rod of iron. Viking is estranged from wife Aya (Julia Jones), who seems completely unafraid of him and happily embarrasses him in front of his men. This relationship never really works. Since given all the terrible and irrational things Viking does to people, whether they obstruct him or help him in equal measure, putting a quiet bullet into Aya's head seems to be to least he could do!
Where there is fun to be had is in the "Stockholm syndrome" linkage between young Ryan and Coxman. When his father insists on controlling his diet, feeding him the same insipidly healthy meals morning, noon and night, the alternative of being kidnapped and fed burgers seems eminently more preferable!
The film is at times really difficult to follow. There are lots of inexplicable leaps of logic and really inexplicably bonkers scenes that you can only patch together later. It's as if the filmmakers randomly filmed 5 hours of footage and then tried to edit it all into a cohesive plot!
As one example of this, the relationship between Coxman and "Wingman" (William Forsythe) was poorly introduced such that I was left baffled by a later plot twist.
In another scene, Neeson smashes the head of enforcer "Santa" (Michael Adamthwaite) into his steering wheel, but in the next scene collapses with him utterly exhausted in the snow. There was clearly a significant fight here that was cut out of the finished cut. But as a result the final cut makes no sense at all!
Of course, the local law enforcement team are average at best. Average because although young and keen-as-mustard detective Kim Dash (Emmy Rossum) is hot on the trail of the truth, her partner Gip (John Doman) is f*ckin' useless... wanting to do nothing but drink coffee and eat donuts in true Simpsons style.
Normally with these sort of films, it's difficult to keep track of the body count. No such problem here. Every death is celebrated with a tombstone graphic so it's easy to keep count! Needless to say, there are a lot of tombstones registered.
Directed by Norwegian Hans Petter Moland, it's all good violent cartoonish fun, that keeps its tongue firmly in its cheek for most of the running time. The snowy setting, the partly native-American cast and the presence of Julia Jones brings to mind the truly excellent Jeremy Renner / Elizabeth Olsen movie "Wind River". But there the similarities (and quality levels) definitely stop. It's not a clever movie; it's borderline bonkers for most of its running time (never more so than with a totally bizarre "joke" final shot); but it is entertaining. As a 'park brain at door' action comedy it just about makes the grade.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/03/15/one-manns-movies-dvd-review-cold-pursuit-2019/. Thanks.)
The comments undoubtedly impacted the movie at the box office. Which is a shame. Because in his catalogue of bonkers and violent revenge-porn flicks, this is one of Neeson's more entertaining ones.
Revenge is a dish best served cold. And where colder to serve it than in the ski-resort of Kehoe where Nels Coxman is the local snowplow operative and "man of the year" for his services to the community. But the tracks are about to fall off his orderly life. For his son Kyle (Micheál Richardson) winds up dead through a drugs overdose and his strained marriage with wife Grace (Laura Dern) disintegrates. (One of the most cutting and best-written "Bye" notes ever seen in the movies).
With revenge in mind, Coxman pursues the Denver-based drugs lord Trevor Calcote (Tom Bateman) who dished out the drugs to his son. But he inadvertently manages to stay just below the parapet as he sets in train a gang war between Calcote and a Kehoe-based native-American drugs gang led by White Bull (Tom Jackson). The snow turned progressively pinker as the body count rises.
Calcote (aka "Viking") is painted as a colourful family man, with an annoyingly bright son Ryan (Nicholas Holmes) that he controls with a rod of iron. Viking is estranged from wife Aya (Julia Jones), who seems completely unafraid of him and happily embarrasses him in front of his men. This relationship never really works. Since given all the terrible and irrational things Viking does to people, whether they obstruct him or help him in equal measure, putting a quiet bullet into Aya's head seems to be to least he could do!
Where there is fun to be had is in the "Stockholm syndrome" linkage between young Ryan and Coxman. When his father insists on controlling his diet, feeding him the same insipidly healthy meals morning, noon and night, the alternative of being kidnapped and fed burgers seems eminently more preferable!
The film is at times really difficult to follow. There are lots of inexplicable leaps of logic and really inexplicably bonkers scenes that you can only patch together later. It's as if the filmmakers randomly filmed 5 hours of footage and then tried to edit it all into a cohesive plot!
As one example of this, the relationship between Coxman and "Wingman" (William Forsythe) was poorly introduced such that I was left baffled by a later plot twist.
In another scene, Neeson smashes the head of enforcer "Santa" (Michael Adamthwaite) into his steering wheel, but in the next scene collapses with him utterly exhausted in the snow. There was clearly a significant fight here that was cut out of the finished cut. But as a result the final cut makes no sense at all!
Of course, the local law enforcement team are average at best. Average because although young and keen-as-mustard detective Kim Dash (Emmy Rossum) is hot on the trail of the truth, her partner Gip (John Doman) is f*ckin' useless... wanting to do nothing but drink coffee and eat donuts in true Simpsons style.
Normally with these sort of films, it's difficult to keep track of the body count. No such problem here. Every death is celebrated with a tombstone graphic so it's easy to keep count! Needless to say, there are a lot of tombstones registered.
Directed by Norwegian Hans Petter Moland, it's all good violent cartoonish fun, that keeps its tongue firmly in its cheek for most of the running time. The snowy setting, the partly native-American cast and the presence of Julia Jones brings to mind the truly excellent Jeremy Renner / Elizabeth Olsen movie "Wind River". But there the similarities (and quality levels) definitely stop. It's not a clever movie; it's borderline bonkers for most of its running time (never more so than with a totally bizarre "joke" final shot); but it is entertaining. As a 'park brain at door' action comedy it just about makes the grade.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/03/15/one-manns-movies-dvd-review-cold-pursuit-2019/. Thanks.)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Moonlighting in TV
Aug 6, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
Another dip into the retro TV archive as part of that odd period in lockdown when all I could do for my watching fix was find old shows with full episodes on You Tube. My favourite show when I was a teenager happened to be one of those, with most of seasons 1 and 5 out there, and a small selection from the middle years.
If you were to make a time capsule to show aliens what the mid to late 80s looked like, look no further than this madcap rom-com drama that ran for 66 episodes between 1985 and 1989. The shoulder pads, the hairdos, the slip on shoes, the large chunks of cheesiness, it’s all there. Some of the coloured silks Maddie Hayes (Cybill Shepherd) wears have to be seen to be believed.
It was the first show to get free reign creatively from a network, with ABC trusting Glenn Gordon Carol, fresh from success with Remington Steele, to create something cool and hip. At the peak of its success it was costing $1.6m per episode, with Bruce Willis’ pay check becoming a big chunk of that, as his ego inflated and his star rose.
They auditioned close to 600 actors for the role of glib, fast talking sleuth David Addison, before taking a risk on an out of work nobody the producers had heard singing karaoke in an LA bar. The phenomenal buzz around Bruce Willis in 1985 is hard to imagine now, but he was literally the biggest star on TV, and once Die Hard came along in 1988, he gave the movie star thing a good go too.
Famous for its post-modern take on episode content, with overlapping dialogue, direct address to camera, in jokes and endless references to current events and the show itself, it was a knowingly self-conscious misfit. Nothing had ever been like this. Nothing, even close. It was funny, cool, had mass appeal and could seemingly do no wrong, breaking ratings records all over the place.
But all was not paradise on set. Shepherd and Willis were never pals, and at the worst actively despised one another, often refusing to film scenes if they thought the other one was too much the focus – which in Shepherd’s case was often a weird anachronistic soft focus, that attempted to make her look like a vintage movie star. They argued, fell out, made up and threw tantrums just like the characters they played. And scripts for the unusual hour long format were often so late, they filmed filler scenes whilst they were being finished on set!
This allowed for an unparalleled voice in American TV land. They got away with some very terse comments and innuendo bordering on smut, that slipped under the network radar, simply because the show was being edited minutes before it was shown. By season four it was really falling apart, as episodes got more surreal and used the breaking of the fourth wall more often, in a desperate attempt just to keep going.
Ostensibly, it was a detective show. But it was never about the cases. The sleuthing was only a background to the will they won’t they romance of Maddie and David, facilitated by the ever present Allyce Beasley as Agnes DiPesto, the rhyming receptionist, that was the only other cast member to appear in all 66 shows apart from the two stars. Early on the mystery plots and crimes to be solved were taken semi seriously; with a peak in season three where it actually approached proper drama. But by the end it was all about Willis goofing around, at the expense of any recognisable story.
Let’s face it, looking back on it now it has aged a whole bunch in a lot of bad ways. You aren’t really going to indulge in it for anything other than nostalgia reasons. But I was a huge, huge fan, and so for me it was a real trip to see it again. I never missed it as a kid, and would sulk if anything threatened to stop me watching it as it aired. I had every episode taped on VHS and could quote entire episodes, I had watched them so much.
It all ended too soon for me, but not soon enough for them. Shepherd got pregnant, Willis took the break to go and make some mid budget action film, and the rest is history. To this day, footage of them reminiscing about it is a fascinating but awkward watch, as they clearing still can’t agree on anything and thinly veil their contempt for each other. Willis’ ego does not come out of it well, but David Addison will always remain the one character that formed my personality via TV in those days, for better or worse.
If you were to make a time capsule to show aliens what the mid to late 80s looked like, look no further than this madcap rom-com drama that ran for 66 episodes between 1985 and 1989. The shoulder pads, the hairdos, the slip on shoes, the large chunks of cheesiness, it’s all there. Some of the coloured silks Maddie Hayes (Cybill Shepherd) wears have to be seen to be believed.
It was the first show to get free reign creatively from a network, with ABC trusting Glenn Gordon Carol, fresh from success with Remington Steele, to create something cool and hip. At the peak of its success it was costing $1.6m per episode, with Bruce Willis’ pay check becoming a big chunk of that, as his ego inflated and his star rose.
They auditioned close to 600 actors for the role of glib, fast talking sleuth David Addison, before taking a risk on an out of work nobody the producers had heard singing karaoke in an LA bar. The phenomenal buzz around Bruce Willis in 1985 is hard to imagine now, but he was literally the biggest star on TV, and once Die Hard came along in 1988, he gave the movie star thing a good go too.
Famous for its post-modern take on episode content, with overlapping dialogue, direct address to camera, in jokes and endless references to current events and the show itself, it was a knowingly self-conscious misfit. Nothing had ever been like this. Nothing, even close. It was funny, cool, had mass appeal and could seemingly do no wrong, breaking ratings records all over the place.
But all was not paradise on set. Shepherd and Willis were never pals, and at the worst actively despised one another, often refusing to film scenes if they thought the other one was too much the focus – which in Shepherd’s case was often a weird anachronistic soft focus, that attempted to make her look like a vintage movie star. They argued, fell out, made up and threw tantrums just like the characters they played. And scripts for the unusual hour long format were often so late, they filmed filler scenes whilst they were being finished on set!
This allowed for an unparalleled voice in American TV land. They got away with some very terse comments and innuendo bordering on smut, that slipped under the network radar, simply because the show was being edited minutes before it was shown. By season four it was really falling apart, as episodes got more surreal and used the breaking of the fourth wall more often, in a desperate attempt just to keep going.
Ostensibly, it was a detective show. But it was never about the cases. The sleuthing was only a background to the will they won’t they romance of Maddie and David, facilitated by the ever present Allyce Beasley as Agnes DiPesto, the rhyming receptionist, that was the only other cast member to appear in all 66 shows apart from the two stars. Early on the mystery plots and crimes to be solved were taken semi seriously; with a peak in season three where it actually approached proper drama. But by the end it was all about Willis goofing around, at the expense of any recognisable story.
Let’s face it, looking back on it now it has aged a whole bunch in a lot of bad ways. You aren’t really going to indulge in it for anything other than nostalgia reasons. But I was a huge, huge fan, and so for me it was a real trip to see it again. I never missed it as a kid, and would sulk if anything threatened to stop me watching it as it aired. I had every episode taped on VHS and could quote entire episodes, I had watched them so much.
It all ended too soon for me, but not soon enough for them. Shepherd got pregnant, Willis took the break to go and make some mid budget action film, and the rest is history. To this day, footage of them reminiscing about it is a fascinating but awkward watch, as they clearing still can’t agree on anything and thinly veil their contempt for each other. Willis’ ego does not come out of it well, but David Addison will always remain the one character that formed my personality via TV in those days, for better or worse.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Psycho (1960) in Movies
Oct 29, 2018
An all-time great performance by Anthony Perkins
I'm sure all of you have (at least) heard of the 1960 Alfred Hitchcock film, PSYCHO. And I'm sure most of you have seen (at least in part) the famous "shower scene". But when was the last time you really sat down and watched this film? It had been awhile for me and I walked away with the following impression:
PSYCHO is not all that scary, but it is suspenseful as heck with strong Direction by the "Master of Suspense" and very strong performances anchoring the front and back end of the film.
PSYCHO was billed when it came out as a "Janet Leigh Film". So, to give this review context, let's look at who Janet Leigh was at the time. Before shooting PSYCHO, Leigh was generally cast as the ingenue and/or love interest in mainstream fair such as LITTLE WOMEN, ANGELS IN THE OUTFIELD and HOUDINI (a modern "comp" to her might be someone like Anne Hathaway before she started doing "edgier" work). Leigh did show that there was more to her than just being an ingenue when she played the morally ambiguous wife of Charlton Heston's character in Orson Welles' TOUCH OF EVIL. This film (probably) gave Hitchcock the idea to cast Leigh in PSYCHO.
When 1960's audiences first saw Leigh on screen in PSYCHO, I'm sure that most of them were shocked for, instead of being the pure and wholesome ingenue and wife, she plays the entire first scene in a bra and slip. Her character, Marion Crane, is not morally ambiguous, she is morally corrupt - and when Leigh's character has a chance to act on her moral corruptness, she jumps at the chance. The rest of the first half of this film is Leigh trying to get away with her "crime". She is quite good in this part of the film and was nominated for an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress (deservedly so).
And then...Anthony Perkins shows up.
We are about 45 minutes into the 1 hour and 49 minute film when Perkins' Norman Bates first appears on screen and an interesting thing happened - I couldn't take my eyes off of him. I was enjoying Leigh's performance but instantly pushed her aside (and to the background) when Perkins shows up. Without giving plot away, let me say that there is much, much going behind Norman's eyes and the performance by Perkins strongly suggests this, without going over-the-top or being melodramatic. It is a perfect blend of actor, character and performance and I was shocked that he was not even NOMINATED for an Oscar (Peter Ustinov would win for SPARTACUS). Perkins performance is one of the all-time greats with one of the most interesting and unusual characters - and portrayals - of all time.
Much of the credit for Perkins' and Leigh's strong performances have to go to Director Hitchcock who was at the height of his Directing powers (and power). From the "get go", you can feel the Director's hand in this film, building suspense from scene to scene and shot to shot, first with Leigh's character and, later, with Perkins. Both characters are trying to get away with something and Hitchcock pulls his camera in close to make a point - from a distance all seems good, but when you get up close, you can tell that things are very bad, indeed.
The filming of the famous "shower scene" is well documented and is a Master Class in film and editing. It is worth the price of admission on it's own - as is a scene on a staircase with Private Detective Arbogast, played by Martin Balsam. Hitchcock chooses to heighten the realism in this scene on the staircase by going a more esoteric route (rather than traditional filming of the events) and, one can argue, it doesn't belong in this film. Until, that is, you think about it and then it makes great sense and absolutely, positively has to be in this film in that way.
Another aspect of this film that begs to be mentioned is the Film Score by the great Bernard Herrmann - Hitchcock's regular collaborator. The music in this film punctuates the action on the screen - from the persistent beat and pacing of the opening credits music - driving the audience forward into the action - that does not let go, reaching it's peak and crescendo in the shower scene and then floating down gently like an animal catching it's breath after great activity.
Does the entire film hold up almost 60 years later? Almost...but not quite. Most annoying to me was the "wrap-up" scene at the end where a character spells out everything for the audience. As if we are not smart enough to "get it" - and perhaps the audiences in 1960 weren't.
But that is a quibble for a film that is a classic and is one that, if you have not seen (or seen for awhile), begs to be seen. Check out this film, not for the scares, but rather, the suspense that is generated by Hitchcock and his performers throughout. A GREAT entree into the world of Alfred Hitchcock films.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
PSYCHO is not all that scary, but it is suspenseful as heck with strong Direction by the "Master of Suspense" and very strong performances anchoring the front and back end of the film.
PSYCHO was billed when it came out as a "Janet Leigh Film". So, to give this review context, let's look at who Janet Leigh was at the time. Before shooting PSYCHO, Leigh was generally cast as the ingenue and/or love interest in mainstream fair such as LITTLE WOMEN, ANGELS IN THE OUTFIELD and HOUDINI (a modern "comp" to her might be someone like Anne Hathaway before she started doing "edgier" work). Leigh did show that there was more to her than just being an ingenue when she played the morally ambiguous wife of Charlton Heston's character in Orson Welles' TOUCH OF EVIL. This film (probably) gave Hitchcock the idea to cast Leigh in PSYCHO.
When 1960's audiences first saw Leigh on screen in PSYCHO, I'm sure that most of them were shocked for, instead of being the pure and wholesome ingenue and wife, she plays the entire first scene in a bra and slip. Her character, Marion Crane, is not morally ambiguous, she is morally corrupt - and when Leigh's character has a chance to act on her moral corruptness, she jumps at the chance. The rest of the first half of this film is Leigh trying to get away with her "crime". She is quite good in this part of the film and was nominated for an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress (deservedly so).
And then...Anthony Perkins shows up.
We are about 45 minutes into the 1 hour and 49 minute film when Perkins' Norman Bates first appears on screen and an interesting thing happened - I couldn't take my eyes off of him. I was enjoying Leigh's performance but instantly pushed her aside (and to the background) when Perkins shows up. Without giving plot away, let me say that there is much, much going behind Norman's eyes and the performance by Perkins strongly suggests this, without going over-the-top or being melodramatic. It is a perfect blend of actor, character and performance and I was shocked that he was not even NOMINATED for an Oscar (Peter Ustinov would win for SPARTACUS). Perkins performance is one of the all-time greats with one of the most interesting and unusual characters - and portrayals - of all time.
Much of the credit for Perkins' and Leigh's strong performances have to go to Director Hitchcock who was at the height of his Directing powers (and power). From the "get go", you can feel the Director's hand in this film, building suspense from scene to scene and shot to shot, first with Leigh's character and, later, with Perkins. Both characters are trying to get away with something and Hitchcock pulls his camera in close to make a point - from a distance all seems good, but when you get up close, you can tell that things are very bad, indeed.
The filming of the famous "shower scene" is well documented and is a Master Class in film and editing. It is worth the price of admission on it's own - as is a scene on a staircase with Private Detective Arbogast, played by Martin Balsam. Hitchcock chooses to heighten the realism in this scene on the staircase by going a more esoteric route (rather than traditional filming of the events) and, one can argue, it doesn't belong in this film. Until, that is, you think about it and then it makes great sense and absolutely, positively has to be in this film in that way.
Another aspect of this film that begs to be mentioned is the Film Score by the great Bernard Herrmann - Hitchcock's regular collaborator. The music in this film punctuates the action on the screen - from the persistent beat and pacing of the opening credits music - driving the audience forward into the action - that does not let go, reaching it's peak and crescendo in the shower scene and then floating down gently like an animal catching it's breath after great activity.
Does the entire film hold up almost 60 years later? Almost...but not quite. Most annoying to me was the "wrap-up" scene at the end where a character spells out everything for the audience. As if we are not smart enough to "get it" - and perhaps the audiences in 1960 weren't.
But that is a quibble for a film that is a classic and is one that, if you have not seen (or seen for awhile), begs to be seen. Check out this film, not for the scares, but rather, the suspense that is generated by Hitchcock and his performers throughout. A GREAT entree into the world of Alfred Hitchcock films.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)