Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Scream 4 (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Over a decade ago, director Wes Craven and writer Kevin Williamson breathed new life into what had become a very stagnant horror genre with the release of Scream. The film was a clever twist on the killer-on-the-loose theme that had dominated the genre since the 80s and scored huge with audiences who loved the twists and turns of the film as well as the characters who quoted rules for surviving a horror film. With the huge success of the film, two sequels followed. But by the time Scream 3 was released, the series had lost its momentum and was becomeing the very cliche of a horror film that the series had originally made fun of.
Now in 2011, Craven and Williamson have returned with Scream 4, which is the planned first film in a new trilogy for the series with hopes to breath new life in a genre that has once again grown stale with ghost films and the so-called torture porn of the Saw films. Scream 4 is set 10 years after the events of the first film, and with a new book to promote, Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell), has returned to Woodsboro as a best-selling author, thanks to her book on self-empowerment, a direct result of her experiences in the previous three films.
The return of Sidney is a happy moment for Sherrif Dewey Riley (David Arquette), but not so much for his wife Gale (Courtney Cox), who is facing a bad case of writer’s block and is not exactly thrilled with her fade from the spotlight and life as the wife of the sheriff in the small town. Things get shaken up when a couple of gruesome murders are discovered and before long Sidney is being targeted by a killer who seems to be repeating the pattern of killing that had haunted her in the past.
When the killer strikes again and taunts Sidney with a disturbing phone call, Gale sees the chance to regain her former glory and despite the wishes of her husband Dewey, sets out to solve the mystery of the killer before it is too late.
What follows is a twisting and turning plot that has you seeing suspects everywhere as the body count piles up.
The film introduces some new faces into the series and Hayden Panettiere and Emma Roberts make the best of their roles and actually bring some depth to their characters. Of course there are numerous horror and pop culture references in the film which not only lighten the tension but help with the plot. The killings are graphic and the mix of comedy and horror is in good balance. As usual, people are really dumb just before they get theirs and do not do things like phone for help, take a safer route, and so on, but the film is still enjoyable from a horror fan’s perspective.
There are some nice celebrity cameos in the film and while the film did drag a bit in the final act before the conclusion, the film did redeem itself in the end. While it is not in danger of being cited for a deep plot, original story, or deep characters with wide character arcs, Scream 4 knows who its target audience is and what the audience expects. Some may say the series stayed away top long and has lost its edge and simply repeats the pattern and plot lines we’ve seen in the previous films. In the end, despite some issues, Scream 4 delivers a welcome return to the franchise and paves the way for future sequels in a manner which should delight fans of the genre and franchise.
Now in 2011, Craven and Williamson have returned with Scream 4, which is the planned first film in a new trilogy for the series with hopes to breath new life in a genre that has once again grown stale with ghost films and the so-called torture porn of the Saw films. Scream 4 is set 10 years after the events of the first film, and with a new book to promote, Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell), has returned to Woodsboro as a best-selling author, thanks to her book on self-empowerment, a direct result of her experiences in the previous three films.
The return of Sidney is a happy moment for Sherrif Dewey Riley (David Arquette), but not so much for his wife Gale (Courtney Cox), who is facing a bad case of writer’s block and is not exactly thrilled with her fade from the spotlight and life as the wife of the sheriff in the small town. Things get shaken up when a couple of gruesome murders are discovered and before long Sidney is being targeted by a killer who seems to be repeating the pattern of killing that had haunted her in the past.
When the killer strikes again and taunts Sidney with a disturbing phone call, Gale sees the chance to regain her former glory and despite the wishes of her husband Dewey, sets out to solve the mystery of the killer before it is too late.
What follows is a twisting and turning plot that has you seeing suspects everywhere as the body count piles up.
The film introduces some new faces into the series and Hayden Panettiere and Emma Roberts make the best of their roles and actually bring some depth to their characters. Of course there are numerous horror and pop culture references in the film which not only lighten the tension but help with the plot. The killings are graphic and the mix of comedy and horror is in good balance. As usual, people are really dumb just before they get theirs and do not do things like phone for help, take a safer route, and so on, but the film is still enjoyable from a horror fan’s perspective.
There are some nice celebrity cameos in the film and while the film did drag a bit in the final act before the conclusion, the film did redeem itself in the end. While it is not in danger of being cited for a deep plot, original story, or deep characters with wide character arcs, Scream 4 knows who its target audience is and what the audience expects. Some may say the series stayed away top long and has lost its edge and simply repeats the pattern and plot lines we’ve seen in the previous films. In the end, despite some issues, Scream 4 delivers a welcome return to the franchise and paves the way for future sequels in a manner which should delight fans of the genre and franchise.
James Bagshaw recommended track Femme d'argent, La (with Air France) by Air in Moon Safari by Air in Music (curated)
8.7
Album
Favorite
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Birds (1963) in Movies
Oct 28, 2020
Strong Suspense by the Master of Suspense
THE BIRDS is often listed amongst the great works of Alfred Hitchcock and I could never really understand the attraction. I thought it was a so-so fright-flick, so when I tripped across it on TV the other day, I started watching it with one eye, figuring I'd flip to something else in a few minutes.
And...then I caught myself getting into it.
Based on the novel by Daphne Du Maurier, THE BIRDS is told in Alfred Hithcock's suspenseful style to elevate a "pulp novel" idea of birds turning on humans to something much more tense than it had any right to be.
Newcomer Tippi Hendren stars as wealthy San Francisco socialite Melanie Daniels who chases suave charismatic lawyer Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor) north of San Fran to his home of Bodego Bay. Will Melanie be able to win Mitch's heart over the objections of his mother (Jessica Tandy) and ex-girlfriend (Suzanne Pleshette)? We'll never know, for the Birds have their own idea of how this tale will end.
Hitchock, of course, earns his nickname "The Master of Suspense" with this film. He has some long scenes that grow with tension. Whether it's Melanie crossing the Bay in a boat (only to, finally, be attacked by a bird) or Mitch's mother going down a long hallway to find out what happened to a farmer friend of hers to the famous - and famously pulled off - scene of the birds gathering en masse on the jungle gym prior to attacking Melanie and the school children. Hitchcock knows exactly how to raise tension in these scenes and he does so marvelously. Even 56 years later, I found what little hairs I have standing up on the back of my neck and my body bending ever so slightly towards the screen during these scenes.
But...the thing that caught me this time around was the performances of the leads and the way Hitchock lets scenes play out with the actors. I've never been a big Rod Taylor fan, I've always thought he was "fine", but nothing special. He is much more than "fine" in this film. It's probably the best work I've ever seen him do. Jessica Tandy, of course, as the mother is wonderfully cold and distant to begin with and slowly moves to close to madness and then understanding, it is a wonderfully understated performance showcasing a superb theater actress. As is Pleshette's turn as school teacher Annie. Her scenes with Hendren were laced (I'm sure purposely) with an undercurrent of sexual tension between the two female characters.
But...the star of this film is Tippi Hendren, beyond a doubt. Much has been made of the cruelty and misogynistic ways that Hitchock treated and abused Hendren in the making of this film. But her performance shone as the gold-digging, fun loving Melanie who descends into the depths as the film progresses. I've never thought much of her as a performer, but will have to check out other films of hers (most notably, Hitchock's MARNIE).
The special effects - which were cutting edge and earned an Oscar nomination back in the day - are dated, but that adds to the charm of the film (at least for me). I'm sure they "wowed" the audience in 1963, so I'll cut them some slack.
I was pleasantly surprised by the pacing, acting and SUSPENSE of this film. It has held up very well and if you haven't seen THE BIRDS in awhile, I recommend you check it out.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...then I caught myself getting into it.
Based on the novel by Daphne Du Maurier, THE BIRDS is told in Alfred Hithcock's suspenseful style to elevate a "pulp novel" idea of birds turning on humans to something much more tense than it had any right to be.
Newcomer Tippi Hendren stars as wealthy San Francisco socialite Melanie Daniels who chases suave charismatic lawyer Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor) north of San Fran to his home of Bodego Bay. Will Melanie be able to win Mitch's heart over the objections of his mother (Jessica Tandy) and ex-girlfriend (Suzanne Pleshette)? We'll never know, for the Birds have their own idea of how this tale will end.
Hitchock, of course, earns his nickname "The Master of Suspense" with this film. He has some long scenes that grow with tension. Whether it's Melanie crossing the Bay in a boat (only to, finally, be attacked by a bird) or Mitch's mother going down a long hallway to find out what happened to a farmer friend of hers to the famous - and famously pulled off - scene of the birds gathering en masse on the jungle gym prior to attacking Melanie and the school children. Hitchcock knows exactly how to raise tension in these scenes and he does so marvelously. Even 56 years later, I found what little hairs I have standing up on the back of my neck and my body bending ever so slightly towards the screen during these scenes.
But...the thing that caught me this time around was the performances of the leads and the way Hitchock lets scenes play out with the actors. I've never been a big Rod Taylor fan, I've always thought he was "fine", but nothing special. He is much more than "fine" in this film. It's probably the best work I've ever seen him do. Jessica Tandy, of course, as the mother is wonderfully cold and distant to begin with and slowly moves to close to madness and then understanding, it is a wonderfully understated performance showcasing a superb theater actress. As is Pleshette's turn as school teacher Annie. Her scenes with Hendren were laced (I'm sure purposely) with an undercurrent of sexual tension between the two female characters.
But...the star of this film is Tippi Hendren, beyond a doubt. Much has been made of the cruelty and misogynistic ways that Hitchock treated and abused Hendren in the making of this film. But her performance shone as the gold-digging, fun loving Melanie who descends into the depths as the film progresses. I've never thought much of her as a performer, but will have to check out other films of hers (most notably, Hitchock's MARNIE).
The special effects - which were cutting edge and earned an Oscar nomination back in the day - are dated, but that adds to the charm of the film (at least for me). I'm sure they "wowed" the audience in 1963, so I'll cut them some slack.
I was pleasantly surprised by the pacing, acting and SUSPENSE of this film. It has held up very well and if you haven't seen THE BIRDS in awhile, I recommend you check it out.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Motherless Brooklyn (2019) in Movies
Jan 15, 2021
A little too slow and self-indulgent for my tastes
There is no denying that Edward Norton is a talented performer. Ever since he burst onto the scene with his Oscar nominated performance in PRIMAL FEAR, he has been a presence both on and off the screen as an Actor, Writer, Producer and Director.
With his latest effort, MOTHERLESS BROOKLYN (based on the base selling novel by Jonathan Lethem), Norton puts ALL of his skills to work as he Produced, Directed, Wrote and Starred in this Private Eye thriller from 2019.
If only Norton had handed at least 1 of those jobs over to someone else.
Norton stars as Lionel Essrog, a Private Eye with Tourette’s Syndrome, who’s investigation into the murder of a mentor of his exposes corruption, racism, greed and abuse of power in City Hall in New York City in the 1950’s.
As the star, Norton brings a nice edge to Lionel, who’s Tourette’s causes him to twitch and belt out words randomly, as well as gives him a photographic memory. While the twitching and random swearing are a bit over the top at times, the photographic memory helps Lionel solve the case (of course it does).
And that’s where I have issue with writer Norton - as he cannot resist the urge to showcase Actor Norton’s propensity to go over the top and puts in many, many “Tourette’s moments” as well as putting in long dialogue scenes that tries to show the audience how smart Lionel is.
Unfortunately, Director Norton indulges Writer Norton and Actor Norton so the film has a languid pace that just sits on Lionel’s actions and words. This is a 2 hour movie packed into a 2 1/2 hour run time. Now, to be fair to Director Norton, there are some absolutely gorgeous and interesting pictures put on the screen and the atmosphere (and characters) that are created are interesting (enough) to ALMOST forgive the self-indulgent ways of Writer/Actor/Director Norton.
As for the rest of the cast, Bruce Willis is…Bruce Willis as a Private Eye that works with Lionel and Willem DaFoe is at his “Willem DeFoe-iest” in portraying a critic of New York City Hall with a secret past. It’s as if Director Norton said to both of these 2 fine actors to just “do your thing” while he focused on the myriad of other jobs he had on this film.
Special notice needs to be made of the work of Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Femme Fatale Laura Rose (a part that Norton specifically added to the film - her character was not in the book - and wrote just for her). She is quite good in this role and her scenes with Norton crackle somewhat louder than the rest of the film.
And then there is Alec Baldwin as a corrupt, racist, politician who is looking out for only 1 person - himself. While Baldwin is very good in this 100% serious role, I couldn’t be help but be reminded of a certain comedic character he has played for the past few years on Saturday Night Live.
The music by Daniel Pemberton and the Cinematography by Dick Pope add greatly to the atmosphere of this film - and that is good - for when the story bogs down (and it bogs down A LOT), there usually is something interesting to look at or listen to.
Not a bad film, but it could have been a much better film if someone would have taken at least ONE of the jobs off of Norton (I would vote for Director) and tightened things up and tone down Norton’s tendency to “ham it up” on screen.
Letter Grade: B-
6 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
With his latest effort, MOTHERLESS BROOKLYN (based on the base selling novel by Jonathan Lethem), Norton puts ALL of his skills to work as he Produced, Directed, Wrote and Starred in this Private Eye thriller from 2019.
If only Norton had handed at least 1 of those jobs over to someone else.
Norton stars as Lionel Essrog, a Private Eye with Tourette’s Syndrome, who’s investigation into the murder of a mentor of his exposes corruption, racism, greed and abuse of power in City Hall in New York City in the 1950’s.
As the star, Norton brings a nice edge to Lionel, who’s Tourette’s causes him to twitch and belt out words randomly, as well as gives him a photographic memory. While the twitching and random swearing are a bit over the top at times, the photographic memory helps Lionel solve the case (of course it does).
And that’s where I have issue with writer Norton - as he cannot resist the urge to showcase Actor Norton’s propensity to go over the top and puts in many, many “Tourette’s moments” as well as putting in long dialogue scenes that tries to show the audience how smart Lionel is.
Unfortunately, Director Norton indulges Writer Norton and Actor Norton so the film has a languid pace that just sits on Lionel’s actions and words. This is a 2 hour movie packed into a 2 1/2 hour run time. Now, to be fair to Director Norton, there are some absolutely gorgeous and interesting pictures put on the screen and the atmosphere (and characters) that are created are interesting (enough) to ALMOST forgive the self-indulgent ways of Writer/Actor/Director Norton.
As for the rest of the cast, Bruce Willis is…Bruce Willis as a Private Eye that works with Lionel and Willem DaFoe is at his “Willem DeFoe-iest” in portraying a critic of New York City Hall with a secret past. It’s as if Director Norton said to both of these 2 fine actors to just “do your thing” while he focused on the myriad of other jobs he had on this film.
Special notice needs to be made of the work of Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Femme Fatale Laura Rose (a part that Norton specifically added to the film - her character was not in the book - and wrote just for her). She is quite good in this role and her scenes with Norton crackle somewhat louder than the rest of the film.
And then there is Alec Baldwin as a corrupt, racist, politician who is looking out for only 1 person - himself. While Baldwin is very good in this 100% serious role, I couldn’t be help but be reminded of a certain comedic character he has played for the past few years on Saturday Night Live.
The music by Daniel Pemberton and the Cinematography by Dick Pope add greatly to the atmosphere of this film - and that is good - for when the story bogs down (and it bogs down A LOT), there usually is something interesting to look at or listen to.
Not a bad film, but it could have been a much better film if someone would have taken at least ONE of the jobs off of Norton (I would vote for Director) and tightened things up and tone down Norton’s tendency to “ham it up” on screen.
Letter Grade: B-
6 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated What We Do in the Shadows in TV
Jan 22, 2021
Anyone who watched and enjoyed the entirely silly, but mostly genius, original film version of this, written and directed by the same partnership of Jermaine Clement and Taika Waititi, should not miss this show! Although Clement and Waititi step down from acting duties (aside from cameo appearences), they are replaced by the ideal, if not actually better, pairing of Matt Berry and Kayvan Novak, whose previous experience in left-field comedy with an improvisational edge leaves them perfectly placed to make this comedy fly like a startled bat!
The lead duo are joined in all 20 episodes over 2 seasons so far by relative unknowns Natasia Demetriou, Harvey Guillén and Mark Proksch. The first two do adequate jobs of keeping the laughs rolling and the mood steady. But it is Proksch, who brings some knowledge of a working mockumentary farce from his role as Nate is the US version of The Office, who is the stand-out as Colin the energy vampire, who bores his victims to death, or leaves them drained of the will to live. The many ways that single joke is varied to hilarious effect is a thing of true comedic beauty at all times.
The fine balance between the bizarre and ridiculous world of vampires and other monsters with a situation of utter mundanity like flatsharing affords some wonderful moments of laugh out loud insanity. The writing is terrific all the way through, and the bite sized episode lengths ensure it zips along and the joke only wears thin if you gorge on too many in one go. In fact I would strongly recommend not bingeing this one, but rather savouring 2 or 3 in a sitting then leaving it a while. There is something about missing it and coming back to the joke after a break that works better for me.
Some of the things I love about it are the details of the visual world they live in. The paraphernalia of the flat they live in and the clothes they wear is joyous and ever rewarding. There will be things to spot in the background that you missed first time for sure – and that is a sign to me that they wanted to create a classic here and not something disposable. I also adore the opening credit sequence, and sing along every single time.
Then there is the fabulous use of creative swearing, that manages to reach new and surprising heights episode to episode. Berry is especially proficient in this art, leaving me spitting out my tea many times with the use of a profane phrase off the cuff. It is as much the way he says it as what he says, so it is no surprise to me he has been singled out at recent TV awards shows. I hope he gets the recognition he deserves with a shiny trophy or two.
The fact that it was nominated for 8 Emmys for season 2, after only two nods for season 1, also shows that this is an entity that gets better if you stick with it. At first the pattern of the humour may not gel, but the more you get used to it, the character quirks and various relationships, the rewards as a viewer are exponentially good. And if you watch long enough there are also some tasty cameo parts that turn up… but I won’t spoil the surprises here.
Is it a joke that can run and run? No probably not. But I would like to at least see a third season, to wrap it all up. Especially as season 2 ends on somewhat of a cliffhanger, as much as a puerile comedy like this can do. I am a fan. And I imagine I’ll always be able to go back and enjoy an episode here and there to cheer me up. Brilliant stuff, that has its heart and its funny bones in all the right places. Go on, stick your teeth into it!
The lead duo are joined in all 20 episodes over 2 seasons so far by relative unknowns Natasia Demetriou, Harvey Guillén and Mark Proksch. The first two do adequate jobs of keeping the laughs rolling and the mood steady. But it is Proksch, who brings some knowledge of a working mockumentary farce from his role as Nate is the US version of The Office, who is the stand-out as Colin the energy vampire, who bores his victims to death, or leaves them drained of the will to live. The many ways that single joke is varied to hilarious effect is a thing of true comedic beauty at all times.
The fine balance between the bizarre and ridiculous world of vampires and other monsters with a situation of utter mundanity like flatsharing affords some wonderful moments of laugh out loud insanity. The writing is terrific all the way through, and the bite sized episode lengths ensure it zips along and the joke only wears thin if you gorge on too many in one go. In fact I would strongly recommend not bingeing this one, but rather savouring 2 or 3 in a sitting then leaving it a while. There is something about missing it and coming back to the joke after a break that works better for me.
Some of the things I love about it are the details of the visual world they live in. The paraphernalia of the flat they live in and the clothes they wear is joyous and ever rewarding. There will be things to spot in the background that you missed first time for sure – and that is a sign to me that they wanted to create a classic here and not something disposable. I also adore the opening credit sequence, and sing along every single time.
Then there is the fabulous use of creative swearing, that manages to reach new and surprising heights episode to episode. Berry is especially proficient in this art, leaving me spitting out my tea many times with the use of a profane phrase off the cuff. It is as much the way he says it as what he says, so it is no surprise to me he has been singled out at recent TV awards shows. I hope he gets the recognition he deserves with a shiny trophy or two.
The fact that it was nominated for 8 Emmys for season 2, after only two nods for season 1, also shows that this is an entity that gets better if you stick with it. At first the pattern of the humour may not gel, but the more you get used to it, the character quirks and various relationships, the rewards as a viewer are exponentially good. And if you watch long enough there are also some tasty cameo parts that turn up… but I won’t spoil the surprises here.
Is it a joke that can run and run? No probably not. But I would like to at least see a third season, to wrap it all up. Especially as season 2 ends on somewhat of a cliffhanger, as much as a puerile comedy like this can do. I am a fan. And I imagine I’ll always be able to go back and enjoy an episode here and there to cheer me up. Brilliant stuff, that has its heart and its funny bones in all the right places. Go on, stick your teeth into it!
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Good Time (2017) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Here is another example of a very watchable low budget film that may have passed by your radar undetected. It came to my attention in two ways. The first because I disliked Uncut Gems so much folk started telling me to watch Good Time to get a better idea of what the Safdie brothers were all about. The second because Robert Pattinson kept popping up and being good in things, when again, there was a time I wouldn’t have thought that possible.
Josh and Benny Safdie have a lot of energy as filmmakers it seems; if the two films I’ve seen so far indicate a motif then it is people forced to act without much thought when the stakes are pretty much life and death. A raw, desperate energy exists in their work that comes straight at you through the screen. In Uncut Gems I found they pushed that feeling too hard, and what we were left with was a massively uncomfortable experience that felt like drinking too much coffee and then being screamed at by someone you hated. Good Time tempers that a little by having a protagonist whose motives you can at least identify with, played by a better, less shouty, more subtle and more likeable actor.
The plot revolves around Pattinson’s Connie frantically trying to find and save his mentally challenged brother, Nick, played by co-director Benny Safdie, after forcing him to participate in a bank robbery that goes wrong. Safdie as an actor is superb and memorable in the role, as is Pattinson. The chemistry between the two is simultaneously edgy, heartbreaking and somehow genuine. You believe they are brothers and invest in it – feeling Nick’s guilt and need to atone driving every bad decision along the grimy path he treads through the seedier parts of the city.
The camerawork and direction make the lights and sounds of the city a character in itself. It may not be true, but I see this film in my head, now as I think of it, as being 90% at night, lit by flashing headlights. Certainly that feel of running head-on into traffic is a big part of it. But there are slower, more sensitive scenes that spring to mind too. Constantly we are being asked if we can forgive Nick, or at least understand why he is making the choices he is making. Essentially he wants the panic to stop, but can’t ever get himself to a place of peace. An idea beautifully illustrated in the scenes involving the female characters of Corey and Crystal (the former played by Jennifer Jason Leigh with typical edge); Nick wants to be loved and respected, but how will that ever be possible?
Contrasting Pattinson’s work here with other recent efforts, including Tenet, The Lighthouse and The Lost City of Z, you can see an impressive range where his true personality disappears into his character. Something not every actor can do by any means, and something Adam Sandler failed to do in Uncut Gems, for example. I continue to be more impressed by him from film to film, to the extent that if I saw him in a cast it would be reason enough to see something. He has that ability to make an average film watchable, often being the best thing about the project. And I have to admit that has surprised me. But I like Kristen Stewart too these days, so it just shows how much the Twilight franchise has to answer for!
I wouldn’t go mad recommending this to everyone, but there is a time and a place for it, and I’m pleased I can appreciate the talent and potential the Safdie Brothers have inherently. There certainly aren’t enough young filmmakers taking risks in this way any more. It wouldn’t surprise me at all to see their formula strike true gold before too long.
Josh and Benny Safdie have a lot of energy as filmmakers it seems; if the two films I’ve seen so far indicate a motif then it is people forced to act without much thought when the stakes are pretty much life and death. A raw, desperate energy exists in their work that comes straight at you through the screen. In Uncut Gems I found they pushed that feeling too hard, and what we were left with was a massively uncomfortable experience that felt like drinking too much coffee and then being screamed at by someone you hated. Good Time tempers that a little by having a protagonist whose motives you can at least identify with, played by a better, less shouty, more subtle and more likeable actor.
The plot revolves around Pattinson’s Connie frantically trying to find and save his mentally challenged brother, Nick, played by co-director Benny Safdie, after forcing him to participate in a bank robbery that goes wrong. Safdie as an actor is superb and memorable in the role, as is Pattinson. The chemistry between the two is simultaneously edgy, heartbreaking and somehow genuine. You believe they are brothers and invest in it – feeling Nick’s guilt and need to atone driving every bad decision along the grimy path he treads through the seedier parts of the city.
The camerawork and direction make the lights and sounds of the city a character in itself. It may not be true, but I see this film in my head, now as I think of it, as being 90% at night, lit by flashing headlights. Certainly that feel of running head-on into traffic is a big part of it. But there are slower, more sensitive scenes that spring to mind too. Constantly we are being asked if we can forgive Nick, or at least understand why he is making the choices he is making. Essentially he wants the panic to stop, but can’t ever get himself to a place of peace. An idea beautifully illustrated in the scenes involving the female characters of Corey and Crystal (the former played by Jennifer Jason Leigh with typical edge); Nick wants to be loved and respected, but how will that ever be possible?
Contrasting Pattinson’s work here with other recent efforts, including Tenet, The Lighthouse and The Lost City of Z, you can see an impressive range where his true personality disappears into his character. Something not every actor can do by any means, and something Adam Sandler failed to do in Uncut Gems, for example. I continue to be more impressed by him from film to film, to the extent that if I saw him in a cast it would be reason enough to see something. He has that ability to make an average film watchable, often being the best thing about the project. And I have to admit that has surprised me. But I like Kristen Stewart too these days, so it just shows how much the Twilight franchise has to answer for!
I wouldn’t go mad recommending this to everyone, but there is a time and a place for it, and I’m pleased I can appreciate the talent and potential the Safdie Brothers have inherently. There certainly aren’t enough young filmmakers taking risks in this way any more. It wouldn’t surprise me at all to see their formula strike true gold before too long.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Unhinged (2020) in Movies
Sep 2, 2020
The opening credits for Unhinged paint a pretty bleak and horrific snapshot of human life, just to get us in the mood for what’s to come. Footage of actual road rage incidents, supermarket disagreements and brawls, cars crashing into each other, all while recordings of news readers talk about how stressed and angry we all are these days. I think that in the current climate, we can all appreciate just how angry the world seems to have become these last few months, and some of these scenes really hit home.
We’d already seen just how angry Russell Crowe’s character is (billed as ‘The Man’, although he later introduces himself as Tom Cooper), courtesy of a shocking little pre-credits scene. Sitting in his car at night, rain beating down on the car as he breathes heavily and pops some pills into his mouth. Slowly turning a wedding ring on his finger, he removes it, tossing it behind him onto the backseat. Taking a hammer, he gets out of the car and walks to the front door of the house he’d parked outside, before smashing it down and proceeding to use the hammer on the occupants. He’s clearly not the kind of person you want to get on the wrong side of.
The person that does manage to get on his wrong side is Rachel (Caren Pistorius), who’s also having a pretty bad day of her own. Waking up late on the sofa, we learn that she’s currently going through a divorce, with her ex-husband wanting her house. She’s also late in taking her son to school, so when they hit heavy traffic along the way, it’s the last thing she needs.
At some traffic lights, the large SUV she’s sitting behind doesn’t budge when the lights turn green, so Rachel lets out a series of long beeps on the horn, before eventually pulling around the SUV to continue on her way. Unfortunately for her though, when they hit more traffic further down the road, the SUV pulls up alongside her, and when the window rolls down, we see that it’s ‘The Man’ behind the wheel. He’s calm at first, if a little on edge, but after apologising for his mistake, demands the same from Rachel before they go their separate ways. Unfortunately though, Rachel isn’t prepared to offer an apology. “I need you to learn what a bad day is and I need you to learn how to say sorry” he growls, before Rachel pulls away, believing that to be the end of it.
What follows is an intense game of cat and mouse, as ‘The Man’ relentlessly stalks Rachel through the roads and highways. Just to make things worse, ‘The Man’ manages to get hold of Rachel’s phone and starts to threaten and target her close friends and family. We’ve already seen just how Unhinged he can be, and there’s more of that as the movie progresses and he gets a chance to carry out some of those threats. He’s not just out to kill Rachel, but to give her the worst possible day he can before that moment arrives.
Crowe is suitably menacing – overweight and sweaty, taking out anyone who gets in his way and methodical in his determination to catch Rachel. The movie does try to humanise him a little at times though, as we discover that he’s been through a relationship breakdown, and was laid off work just a few weeks short of retiring, as if trying to provide some justification for his behaviour.
Unhinged comes in at just over 90 minutes and proved to be a real intense, gut wrenching roller-coaster ride. I don’t know if I was just a bit giddy at being back in the cinema for the first time since March, but I found it to be a lot of fun.
We’d already seen just how angry Russell Crowe’s character is (billed as ‘The Man’, although he later introduces himself as Tom Cooper), courtesy of a shocking little pre-credits scene. Sitting in his car at night, rain beating down on the car as he breathes heavily and pops some pills into his mouth. Slowly turning a wedding ring on his finger, he removes it, tossing it behind him onto the backseat. Taking a hammer, he gets out of the car and walks to the front door of the house he’d parked outside, before smashing it down and proceeding to use the hammer on the occupants. He’s clearly not the kind of person you want to get on the wrong side of.
The person that does manage to get on his wrong side is Rachel (Caren Pistorius), who’s also having a pretty bad day of her own. Waking up late on the sofa, we learn that she’s currently going through a divorce, with her ex-husband wanting her house. She’s also late in taking her son to school, so when they hit heavy traffic along the way, it’s the last thing she needs.
At some traffic lights, the large SUV she’s sitting behind doesn’t budge when the lights turn green, so Rachel lets out a series of long beeps on the horn, before eventually pulling around the SUV to continue on her way. Unfortunately for her though, when they hit more traffic further down the road, the SUV pulls up alongside her, and when the window rolls down, we see that it’s ‘The Man’ behind the wheel. He’s calm at first, if a little on edge, but after apologising for his mistake, demands the same from Rachel before they go their separate ways. Unfortunately though, Rachel isn’t prepared to offer an apology. “I need you to learn what a bad day is and I need you to learn how to say sorry” he growls, before Rachel pulls away, believing that to be the end of it.
What follows is an intense game of cat and mouse, as ‘The Man’ relentlessly stalks Rachel through the roads and highways. Just to make things worse, ‘The Man’ manages to get hold of Rachel’s phone and starts to threaten and target her close friends and family. We’ve already seen just how Unhinged he can be, and there’s more of that as the movie progresses and he gets a chance to carry out some of those threats. He’s not just out to kill Rachel, but to give her the worst possible day he can before that moment arrives.
Crowe is suitably menacing – overweight and sweaty, taking out anyone who gets in his way and methodical in his determination to catch Rachel. The movie does try to humanise him a little at times though, as we discover that he’s been through a relationship breakdown, and was laid off work just a few weeks short of retiring, as if trying to provide some justification for his behaviour.
Unhinged comes in at just over 90 minutes and proved to be a real intense, gut wrenching roller-coaster ride. I don’t know if I was just a bit giddy at being back in the cinema for the first time since March, but I found it to be a lot of fun.
Solomon Wendt (30 KP) rated A Deadly Education: Lesson One of the Scholomance in Books
Aug 28, 2021
Worldbuilding (2 more)
Magic
Coming of Age
Some descriptions lacking (2 more)
Confused on Series Plot
Good first book but not a stand alone story
A Deadly Slice of Life/Coming of Age Magic School
Magic School. Wizards. Teenage Angst. A lot of reasons I signed up for the giveaway of this novel and glad I got a copy.
For those who want the quick recommendation, if you enjoy wizard teens and magic schools, you will enjoy this book. Outside of that category, it is a decent fantasy novel that is worth a read, but no need to go and get right away.
First and foremost, books like "A Deadly Education" have the unfortunate hurdle of separating itself from the magic school genre alpha that is Harry Potter, to which I believe Naomi Novik did really well. Whenever I read such stories, I can't help compare to the Potter series, but the world that Novik builds is such a stark contrast that I quickly forgot about Hogwarts and Muggles and traded in for the Scholomance and mundanes.
The world that Novik builds is dark and untrusting. Inside the school, there are maleficera, or 'mals,' that try to consume the students' mana at every turn. This puts the place on edge, making almost every character paranoid to open anything or even go anywhere without at least one other person with them, usually at a cost. This darker side is refreshing, especially because the magic in Novik's world is hard magic as opposed to the soft magic of other series. To those who don't know the difference, soft magic is that magic just exists and spells come without consequence. Hard, on the other hand, has limits and comes from a source and takes skills and finesse to learn and use them. Any author who takes it upon themselves to make the magic in their world hard magic gives themselves a challenge, something that Novik clears easily.
The other part of the world that is dangerous are the mals that attack students. There are a lot of them, so much to the point there should be a separate book that could be referenced to know what they are fighting. Although your imagination can run wild, some of the descriptions, or lack there of, leave you to fill in a lot of blanks. I'm still not sure if they are shadows and/or goo with various metal attached or part of their bodies. The variety is so immense that you don't encounter the same thing twice it seems. When reading the encounters, it was hard to picture the exact nature of the fight in my mind. However, the sense of danger was ever present throughout the whole book.
The story itself is coming of age, or more so coming of friendship, mixed with a slice of life feel. Although there is a starting event, Orion saving Galadriel for the second time, there is not an overarching plot for the story. It is just to survive and possibly make an alliance for graduation. This is not my cup of tea when it comes to stories as I enjoy seeing a defined goal or enemy that leads to a finale or into the next book of the series. This story does not have that, which seems to lack an overall plot other that "just survive." Even the climax of this story felt a little out of the blue in terms of action, and then is superseded by a social bombshell and cliffhanger for the next in the series.
To wrap and reiterate, I enjoy the world that this story takes place. It is inventive and unique to standout against others within the magic school genre. There was some plot lacking, but is still enjoyable for not quite knowing what is coming around the next corning. This a clearly the first book of series which is not the strongest as its own installment, but definitely has me waiting for the next in the line.
For those who want the quick recommendation, if you enjoy wizard teens and magic schools, you will enjoy this book. Outside of that category, it is a decent fantasy novel that is worth a read, but no need to go and get right away.
First and foremost, books like "A Deadly Education" have the unfortunate hurdle of separating itself from the magic school genre alpha that is Harry Potter, to which I believe Naomi Novik did really well. Whenever I read such stories, I can't help compare to the Potter series, but the world that Novik builds is such a stark contrast that I quickly forgot about Hogwarts and Muggles and traded in for the Scholomance and mundanes.
The world that Novik builds is dark and untrusting. Inside the school, there are maleficera, or 'mals,' that try to consume the students' mana at every turn. This puts the place on edge, making almost every character paranoid to open anything or even go anywhere without at least one other person with them, usually at a cost. This darker side is refreshing, especially because the magic in Novik's world is hard magic as opposed to the soft magic of other series. To those who don't know the difference, soft magic is that magic just exists and spells come without consequence. Hard, on the other hand, has limits and comes from a source and takes skills and finesse to learn and use them. Any author who takes it upon themselves to make the magic in their world hard magic gives themselves a challenge, something that Novik clears easily.
The other part of the world that is dangerous are the mals that attack students. There are a lot of them, so much to the point there should be a separate book that could be referenced to know what they are fighting. Although your imagination can run wild, some of the descriptions, or lack there of, leave you to fill in a lot of blanks. I'm still not sure if they are shadows and/or goo with various metal attached or part of their bodies. The variety is so immense that you don't encounter the same thing twice it seems. When reading the encounters, it was hard to picture the exact nature of the fight in my mind. However, the sense of danger was ever present throughout the whole book.
The story itself is coming of age, or more so coming of friendship, mixed with a slice of life feel. Although there is a starting event, Orion saving Galadriel for the second time, there is not an overarching plot for the story. It is just to survive and possibly make an alliance for graduation. This is not my cup of tea when it comes to stories as I enjoy seeing a defined goal or enemy that leads to a finale or into the next book of the series. This story does not have that, which seems to lack an overall plot other that "just survive." Even the climax of this story felt a little out of the blue in terms of action, and then is superseded by a social bombshell and cliffhanger for the next in the series.
To wrap and reiterate, I enjoy the world that this story takes place. It is inventive and unique to standout against others within the magic school genre. There was some plot lacking, but is still enjoyable for not quite knowing what is coming around the next corning. This a clearly the first book of series which is not the strongest as its own installment, but definitely has me waiting for the next in the line.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Snowman (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“We’re trudging through the slush”.
Unlike its animated namesake, “The Snowman” is not a good film. Frustratingly it has all the right ingredients:
A story by bestselling Nordic writer Jo Nesbø;
Gorgeously photogenic snowy scenes of Oslo and Bergen;
A stellar cast (Michael Fassbender (“Alien: Covenant“); Rebecca Ferguson (“Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“); J.K. Simmons (“Whiplash“); Toby Jones (“Dad’s Army“); Chloe Sevigny (“Love and Friendship“); Charlotte Gainsbourg (“Independence Day: Resurgence“, very sexy as Fassbender’s ex-squeeze) and even Val Kilmer (“Top Gun”, whose mother – interesting fact – is actually Swedish).
snowman2
That sinking feeling when you realise you’ve been drinking all night and its too late for bed before work.
And while these elements congeal in the snow together quite well as vignettes, the whole film jerks from vignette to vignette in a most unsatisfactory way. I haven’t read the book (which might be much better) but the inclusion in the (terrible!) trailers of key scenes that never made the final cut (where was the fire for example?, the fish? the man trap?) implied to me that the director (Tomas Alfredson, “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy”) and screenwriting team – Peter Straughan (also “Tinker, Tailor”), Hossein Amini (“The Two Faces of January“) and Søren Sveistrup (TV’s “The Killing”) – either didn’t have (or didn’t agree on) the direction they wanted the film to go in.
Film Title: The Snowman
Arve Stop (J.K. Simmons) and Katrine (Rebecca Ferguson) having a “Weinstein moment” at the hotel.
Nesbø (and indeed most crime writers these days) litter their work with damaged cops…. you have to question whether the detective application form has a mandatory check-box with “alcoholic and borderline psycho” on it!. This film is no exception. Fassbender plays Nesbø’s master sleuth Harry Hole: an alcoholic insomniac well off the rails between homicide cases. “If only Oslo had a higher murder rate” bemoans his boss (Ronan Vibert). He joins forces with newby officer Katrine Bratt (Rebecca Ferguson), who has her fair share of mental demons to fight, in investigating a series of missing person/murder cases. The duo unearth a link between the cases – all happen when the snow starts to fall and to particular types of women, with the protagonist leaving a snowman at the scene.
snowman5
One of the cuter snowmen… they get worse… much worse.
The plot is highly formulaic – I guessed who the killer was within about 20 minutes. But what makes this movie stand out, for all the wrong reasons, is that it has one of the most stupid, vacuous, flaccid, inane, ridiculous … (add 50 other thesaurus entries)… endings imaginable. My mouth actually gaped in astonishment!
There are also a surprisingly large number of loose ends you ponder after the film ends: why the “Snowman”‘s fixation with Harry?; what was with the “Vetlesen cleaner” subplot? How is Star Trek transportation possible in Norway? (But wait… “Telemark”… “Teleport”…. coincidence????? 🙂
On the plus side, there is some lovely Norwegian drone cinematography – (by Australian Dion Beebe (“Edge of Tomorrow“) – that immediately made me put “travel by winter train from Oslo to Bergen” on my life-map. The music by Marco Beltrami (“Logan“) is also effective and suitably Hitchcockian.
If you like your films gory, this one is definitely for you, with some pretty graphic content that (for those who like to cover their eyes) is cut to so quickly by editors Thelma Schoonmaker (“The Wolf of Wall Street“) and Claire Simpson (“Far From The Madding Crowd“) that your hands won’t have time to leave your lap! I remember this being a feature of a previous Nesbø adaptation (the much better “Headhunters” from 2011) but here it goes into overdrive.
snowman1
One of my favourite actresses – Rebecca Ferguson, curiously playing much “younger” in this film than she appears in her previous hits.
Overall this was a rather disappointing effort that was heading for a FFf rating. But just because of that ending I’m knocking a whole extra Fad off!
A story by bestselling Nordic writer Jo Nesbø;
Gorgeously photogenic snowy scenes of Oslo and Bergen;
A stellar cast (Michael Fassbender (“Alien: Covenant“); Rebecca Ferguson (“Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“); J.K. Simmons (“Whiplash“); Toby Jones (“Dad’s Army“); Chloe Sevigny (“Love and Friendship“); Charlotte Gainsbourg (“Independence Day: Resurgence“, very sexy as Fassbender’s ex-squeeze) and even Val Kilmer (“Top Gun”, whose mother – interesting fact – is actually Swedish).
snowman2
That sinking feeling when you realise you’ve been drinking all night and its too late for bed before work.
And while these elements congeal in the snow together quite well as vignettes, the whole film jerks from vignette to vignette in a most unsatisfactory way. I haven’t read the book (which might be much better) but the inclusion in the (terrible!) trailers of key scenes that never made the final cut (where was the fire for example?, the fish? the man trap?) implied to me that the director (Tomas Alfredson, “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy”) and screenwriting team – Peter Straughan (also “Tinker, Tailor”), Hossein Amini (“The Two Faces of January“) and Søren Sveistrup (TV’s “The Killing”) – either didn’t have (or didn’t agree on) the direction they wanted the film to go in.
Film Title: The Snowman
Arve Stop (J.K. Simmons) and Katrine (Rebecca Ferguson) having a “Weinstein moment” at the hotel.
Nesbø (and indeed most crime writers these days) litter their work with damaged cops…. you have to question whether the detective application form has a mandatory check-box with “alcoholic and borderline psycho” on it!. This film is no exception. Fassbender plays Nesbø’s master sleuth Harry Hole: an alcoholic insomniac well off the rails between homicide cases. “If only Oslo had a higher murder rate” bemoans his boss (Ronan Vibert). He joins forces with newby officer Katrine Bratt (Rebecca Ferguson), who has her fair share of mental demons to fight, in investigating a series of missing person/murder cases. The duo unearth a link between the cases – all happen when the snow starts to fall and to particular types of women, with the protagonist leaving a snowman at the scene.
snowman5
One of the cuter snowmen… they get worse… much worse.
The plot is highly formulaic – I guessed who the killer was within about 20 minutes. But what makes this movie stand out, for all the wrong reasons, is that it has one of the most stupid, vacuous, flaccid, inane, ridiculous … (add 50 other thesaurus entries)… endings imaginable. My mouth actually gaped in astonishment!
There are also a surprisingly large number of loose ends you ponder after the film ends: why the “Snowman”‘s fixation with Harry?; what was with the “Vetlesen cleaner” subplot? How is Star Trek transportation possible in Norway? (But wait… “Telemark”… “Teleport”…. coincidence????? 🙂
On the plus side, there is some lovely Norwegian drone cinematography – (by Australian Dion Beebe (“Edge of Tomorrow“) – that immediately made me put “travel by winter train from Oslo to Bergen” on my life-map. The music by Marco Beltrami (“Logan“) is also effective and suitably Hitchcockian.
If you like your films gory, this one is definitely for you, with some pretty graphic content that (for those who like to cover their eyes) is cut to so quickly by editors Thelma Schoonmaker (“The Wolf of Wall Street“) and Claire Simpson (“Far From The Madding Crowd“) that your hands won’t have time to leave your lap! I remember this being a feature of a previous Nesbø adaptation (the much better “Headhunters” from 2011) but here it goes into overdrive.
snowman1
One of my favourite actresses – Rebecca Ferguson, curiously playing much “younger” in this film than she appears in her previous hits.
Overall this was a rather disappointing effort that was heading for a FFf rating. But just because of that ending I’m knocking a whole extra Fad off!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Girl on the Train (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
You won’t uncork a bottle of Malbec again without thinking of this film…
“The Girl on a Train” is the film adaptation of the best-seller by Paula Hawkins, transported from the London suburbs to New York’s Hastings-on-Hudson.
It’s actually rather a sordid story encompassing as it does alcoholism, murder, marital strife, deceit, sexual frustration, an historical tragedy and lashings and lashings of violence. Emily Blunt (“Sicario”, “Edge of Tomorrow”) plays Rachel, a divorcee with an alcohol problem who escapes into an obsessive fantasy each day as she passes her former neighbourhood on her commute into the city. Ex-husband Tom (Justin Theroux, “Zoolander 2”) lives in her old house with his second wife Anna (Rebecca “MI:5” Ferguson) and new baby Evie. But her real fantasy rests with cheerleader-style young neighbour Megan (Haley Bennett) who is actually locked in a frustratingly child-free marriage (frustrating for him at least) with the controlling and unpredictable Scott (Luke Evans, “The Hobbit”). A sixth party in this complex network is Megan’s psychiatrist Dr Kamal Abdic (Édgar Ramírez, “Joy”).
In pure Hitchcockian style Megan witnesses mere glimpses of events from her twice-daily train and from these pieces together stories that suitably feed her psychosis. When ‘shit gets real’ and a key character goes missing, Megan surfaces her suspicions and obsessions to the police investigation (led by Detective Riley, the ever-excellent Allison Janney from “The West Wing”) and promptly makes herself suspect number one.
Readers of the book will already be aware of the twists and turns of the story, so will watch the film from a different perspective than I did. (Despite my best intentions I never managed to read the book first).
First up, you would have to say that Emily Blunt’s performance is outstanding in an extremely challenging acting role. Every nuance of shame, confusion, grief, fear, doubt and anger is beautifully enacted: it would not be a surprise to see her gain her first Oscar nomination for this. All the other lead roles are also delivered with great professionalism, with Haley Bennett (a busy month for her, with “The Magnificent Seven” also out) being impressive and Rebecca Ferguson, one of my favourite current actresses, delivering another measured and delicate performance.
Girl on a Train, The
Rebecca Ferguson as Anna – “there were three of us in this marriage so it was a bit crowded”
The supporting roles are also effective, with Darren Goldstein as the somewhat creepy “man in the suit” and “Friends” star Lisa Kudrow popping up in an effective and pivotal role. The Screen Guild Awards have an excellent category for an Ensemble Cast in a Motion Picture, and it feels appropriate to nominate this cast for that award.
So it’s a blockbuster book with a rollercoaster story and a stellar cast, so what could go wrong? Well, something for sure. This is a case in point where I suspect it is easier to slowly peel back Rachel’s lost memory with pages and imagination than it is with dodgy fuzzy images on a big screen. Although the film comes in at only 112 minutes, the pacing in places is too slow (the screenplay by Erin Cressida Wilson takes its time) and director Tate Taylor (“The Help”) is no Hitchcock, or indeed a David Fincher (since the film has strong similarities to last year’s “Gone Girl”: when the action does happen it lacks style, with the violence being on the brutal side and leaving little to the imagination.
It’s by no means a bad film, and worth seeing for the acting performances alone. But it’s not a film I think that will trouble my top 10 for the year.
It’s actually rather a sordid story encompassing as it does alcoholism, murder, marital strife, deceit, sexual frustration, an historical tragedy and lashings and lashings of violence. Emily Blunt (“Sicario”, “Edge of Tomorrow”) plays Rachel, a divorcee with an alcohol problem who escapes into an obsessive fantasy each day as she passes her former neighbourhood on her commute into the city. Ex-husband Tom (Justin Theroux, “Zoolander 2”) lives in her old house with his second wife Anna (Rebecca “MI:5” Ferguson) and new baby Evie. But her real fantasy rests with cheerleader-style young neighbour Megan (Haley Bennett) who is actually locked in a frustratingly child-free marriage (frustrating for him at least) with the controlling and unpredictable Scott (Luke Evans, “The Hobbit”). A sixth party in this complex network is Megan’s psychiatrist Dr Kamal Abdic (Édgar Ramírez, “Joy”).
In pure Hitchcockian style Megan witnesses mere glimpses of events from her twice-daily train and from these pieces together stories that suitably feed her psychosis. When ‘shit gets real’ and a key character goes missing, Megan surfaces her suspicions and obsessions to the police investigation (led by Detective Riley, the ever-excellent Allison Janney from “The West Wing”) and promptly makes herself suspect number one.
Readers of the book will already be aware of the twists and turns of the story, so will watch the film from a different perspective than I did. (Despite my best intentions I never managed to read the book first).
First up, you would have to say that Emily Blunt’s performance is outstanding in an extremely challenging acting role. Every nuance of shame, confusion, grief, fear, doubt and anger is beautifully enacted: it would not be a surprise to see her gain her first Oscar nomination for this. All the other lead roles are also delivered with great professionalism, with Haley Bennett (a busy month for her, with “The Magnificent Seven” also out) being impressive and Rebecca Ferguson, one of my favourite current actresses, delivering another measured and delicate performance.
Girl on a Train, The
Rebecca Ferguson as Anna – “there were three of us in this marriage so it was a bit crowded”
The supporting roles are also effective, with Darren Goldstein as the somewhat creepy “man in the suit” and “Friends” star Lisa Kudrow popping up in an effective and pivotal role. The Screen Guild Awards have an excellent category for an Ensemble Cast in a Motion Picture, and it feels appropriate to nominate this cast for that award.
So it’s a blockbuster book with a rollercoaster story and a stellar cast, so what could go wrong? Well, something for sure. This is a case in point where I suspect it is easier to slowly peel back Rachel’s lost memory with pages and imagination than it is with dodgy fuzzy images on a big screen. Although the film comes in at only 112 minutes, the pacing in places is too slow (the screenplay by Erin Cressida Wilson takes its time) and director Tate Taylor (“The Help”) is no Hitchcock, or indeed a David Fincher (since the film has strong similarities to last year’s “Gone Girl”: when the action does happen it lacks style, with the violence being on the brutal side and leaving little to the imagination.
It’s by no means a bad film, and worth seeing for the acting performances alone. But it’s not a film I think that will trouble my top 10 for the year.