Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Whiplash (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Well, I must’ve done something to incur this kind of karma recently … My editors have been assigning me some excellent films this past month and this one is another on that string …
intensity, drive, and jazz combine to form the synopsis of this latest film. ‘Whiplash’ is a dramatic ‘jazz thriller’ which premiered at 2014 Sundance film festival back in January and instantly received several awards and critical acclaim before hit the theaters earlier this October.
Written and directed by Damien Chazelle, ‘Whiplash’ stars Miles Teller, J.K. Simmons, Melissa Benoist, Paul Reiser, Jayson Blair, Austin Stowell, and Kavita Patil.
At a music conservatory where the competition could be compared to a ‘dog-eat-dog’ philosophy, Andrew Neyman (Teller) is a promising young drummer, willing to sacrifice his personal life and nearly everything else with his ultimate goal of becoming one of the great jazz drummers in memory. Having fallen under the eye of Terence Fletcher (Simmons), an almost insane and ruthless music conductor who notices the young music prodigy’s talent and becomes the drummer’s mentor.
Assigning Neyman as 2nd then 1st chair, Fletcher at first calmly nurtures the drummer prodigy but then pulls a complete 180 berating Neyman and very nearly assaulting him with a drum cymbal and reassigns him to 2nd chair. Later, at a jazz competition where the 1st chairs music was lost and Neyman ‘saves the day’ by playing the entire music set from memory Fletcher assigns him to 1st chair as a reward only to reassign him a few days later and replace him with another ‘supposed’ drummer prodigy. All the while, Neyman is devoting all his energies and thought to his drumming to the point of boarding on a nervous breakdown and injury …. even ending his relationship with his girlfriend. Throughout all these events Fletcher continues his villainous and tyrannical treatment of Neyman all in an effort to inspire him to realize his true potential …. the potential that Fletcher believes Neyman possess.
I mentioned ‘intensity’ and ‘drive’ at the beginning of this review …. Those two key words ….
are what this film created. The drive of Neyman and the intensity of his mentor Fletcher ….
Perhaps it’s the other way around? When the movie ends, you left with the same feeling you might imagine if you tried a 5 shot espresso. This film shows how much music (in this case jazz) can affect an individual. How anyone’s true passion can push someone beyond what is would be described as normal.
Teller and Simmons had the rare good fortunes as far as the casting in which they could both be the lead actors in this film where the intensity is magnified by the reaction of the other’s volatile attitude from one minute to the next. It was like watching a violent chemical reaction unfold in a science lab. You almost found yourself wanting to duck for cover when Neyman and Fletcher started fuming at each other. At the apex of this volatile relationship was the goal of realizing Neyman’s potential again, it was all about the drive and the intensity.
Despite the films praise, it has not been without criticism …. In recent edition of Slate, an internet culture and current affairs magazine, Forrest Wickman accused the film of distorting and misinterpreting an anecdote regarding legendary jazz composer and saxophonist Charlie Parker. Both main characters Fletcher and Neyman mention that drummer Jo Jones threw a cymbal at the teenaged Parker’s head as retaliation for Parker’s supposedly losing the beat of the composition they were performing in Count Basie’s band during a 1930s performance. According to Wickman, “Jones didn’t throw the cymbal at Parker’s head. He threw it at the floor near his feet, ‘gonging’ him off. It wasn’t an episode of physical abuse.” Jones was upset at Parker’s failure to change key with the rest of the band NOT losing the beat.
Alas, there is a an occurrence of the dreaded ‘artistic license’ in the film. And although it’s disappointing to see such an excellent film ‘alter history’ in order to better meld with the film’s script/premise the movie was so well done that I kind of let that slip by. If the performances by Teller and Simmons aren’t enough to convince you … At least go for the music! If you’re into ‘real’ jazz and not the ‘Starbucks Coffeehouse Crap’ that J.K. Simmons refers to in the film, then ‘Whiplash’ is definitely a film worth checking out. Definitely NOT one for the kids as there is A LOT of foul adult language in the film. Once again, I’m going to give this film 4 out of 5 stars.
intensity, drive, and jazz combine to form the synopsis of this latest film. ‘Whiplash’ is a dramatic ‘jazz thriller’ which premiered at 2014 Sundance film festival back in January and instantly received several awards and critical acclaim before hit the theaters earlier this October.
Written and directed by Damien Chazelle, ‘Whiplash’ stars Miles Teller, J.K. Simmons, Melissa Benoist, Paul Reiser, Jayson Blair, Austin Stowell, and Kavita Patil.
At a music conservatory where the competition could be compared to a ‘dog-eat-dog’ philosophy, Andrew Neyman (Teller) is a promising young drummer, willing to sacrifice his personal life and nearly everything else with his ultimate goal of becoming one of the great jazz drummers in memory. Having fallen under the eye of Terence Fletcher (Simmons), an almost insane and ruthless music conductor who notices the young music prodigy’s talent and becomes the drummer’s mentor.
Assigning Neyman as 2nd then 1st chair, Fletcher at first calmly nurtures the drummer prodigy but then pulls a complete 180 berating Neyman and very nearly assaulting him with a drum cymbal and reassigns him to 2nd chair. Later, at a jazz competition where the 1st chairs music was lost and Neyman ‘saves the day’ by playing the entire music set from memory Fletcher assigns him to 1st chair as a reward only to reassign him a few days later and replace him with another ‘supposed’ drummer prodigy. All the while, Neyman is devoting all his energies and thought to his drumming to the point of boarding on a nervous breakdown and injury …. even ending his relationship with his girlfriend. Throughout all these events Fletcher continues his villainous and tyrannical treatment of Neyman all in an effort to inspire him to realize his true potential …. the potential that Fletcher believes Neyman possess.
I mentioned ‘intensity’ and ‘drive’ at the beginning of this review …. Those two key words ….
are what this film created. The drive of Neyman and the intensity of his mentor Fletcher ….
Perhaps it’s the other way around? When the movie ends, you left with the same feeling you might imagine if you tried a 5 shot espresso. This film shows how much music (in this case jazz) can affect an individual. How anyone’s true passion can push someone beyond what is would be described as normal.
Teller and Simmons had the rare good fortunes as far as the casting in which they could both be the lead actors in this film where the intensity is magnified by the reaction of the other’s volatile attitude from one minute to the next. It was like watching a violent chemical reaction unfold in a science lab. You almost found yourself wanting to duck for cover when Neyman and Fletcher started fuming at each other. At the apex of this volatile relationship was the goal of realizing Neyman’s potential again, it was all about the drive and the intensity.
Despite the films praise, it has not been without criticism …. In recent edition of Slate, an internet culture and current affairs magazine, Forrest Wickman accused the film of distorting and misinterpreting an anecdote regarding legendary jazz composer and saxophonist Charlie Parker. Both main characters Fletcher and Neyman mention that drummer Jo Jones threw a cymbal at the teenaged Parker’s head as retaliation for Parker’s supposedly losing the beat of the composition they were performing in Count Basie’s band during a 1930s performance. According to Wickman, “Jones didn’t throw the cymbal at Parker’s head. He threw it at the floor near his feet, ‘gonging’ him off. It wasn’t an episode of physical abuse.” Jones was upset at Parker’s failure to change key with the rest of the band NOT losing the beat.
Alas, there is a an occurrence of the dreaded ‘artistic license’ in the film. And although it’s disappointing to see such an excellent film ‘alter history’ in order to better meld with the film’s script/premise the movie was so well done that I kind of let that slip by. If the performances by Teller and Simmons aren’t enough to convince you … At least go for the music! If you’re into ‘real’ jazz and not the ‘Starbucks Coffeehouse Crap’ that J.K. Simmons refers to in the film, then ‘Whiplash’ is definitely a film worth checking out. Definitely NOT one for the kids as there is A LOT of foul adult language in the film. Once again, I’m going to give this film 4 out of 5 stars.
Rob Bell's book wins on pathos and good intentions, but not on solid argumentation or exegesis. He has a heart for the lost and the suffering, which is admirable. But he has to turn the Bible into theological silly putty to make his case.
There are a few major errors in Love Wins, which leads to his making other more minor mistakes. The first error is giving precedence to certain biblical themes (to the exclusion of others) over clear and specific biblical teaching. Bell makes much of themes like restoration in Scripture, but ignores themes of final punishment. By dwelling on those themes, he can transition to reading them into texts where they don't belong without being found out by biblical illiterates, such as Jesus' claim that Sodom and Gomorrah will fare better on the day of judgement than cities which rejected the direct revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Instead of reading this in its obvious sense-- that there are degrees of punishment on the final day and those who reject direct revelation of Jesus will suffer most-- he understands Jesus to be saying that there is a great deal of hope for Sodom and Gomorrah's salvation-- that their punishment was corrective instead of destructive. Even though he doesn't get anywhere close to proving his case (certainly only God knows whether or not some in Sodom will be saved, but the story of Abraham bargaining would suggest otherwise), he seems to fall back on the emotionally-driven claim that God saving everyone is a "better story" than damning some and saving others.
On his overuse of the word "story," it is one example where Bell is obnoxiously post-modern and emergent. He uses the word "story/stories" in his short book 138 times. For a book of around 200 pages, large font, and constantly skipped lines/single words on their own lines*, that's an impressive display of post-modernism.
Another major error is that he conflates a strong exclusivism with eternal conscious punishment which has the effect that when he attacks one, he is in effect attacking the other, making his job easier. In addition, he ignores annihilationism as an alternative to eternal conscious torment, which also strengthens the emotional pull of his position, since it is contrasted with an eternal conscious punishment where God damns people for never being able to hear the name of Jesus. (note: while I am annoyed at Bell's misrepresentations of eternal conscious torment, I am myself an annihilationist)
Bell explains that God will eventually win everyone over, but it must be of their accord. However, he doesn't explain how it is that everyone will be saved of their own free will. For emotional effect, Bell criticizes the eternal conscious hell camp with having a God that would turn his back on people in hell who are repenting and turning to God. Of course, this assumes that sinners turn to God on their own instead of by His grace. Bell here appears to be a Pelagian, or else doesn't know enough about soteriology to make such distinctions (a terrifying prospect for a Pastor). In any case, this is another example where he is misrepresenting eternal conscious hell proponents (the first I mentioned was when he claimed they were all strict exclusivists), which makes his book far harder to take seriously.
One strange and interesting point that Rob Bell makes comes from making the afterlife analogous to the parable of the prodigal son. He claims that hell is not being cast out of "the party," (despite Jesus' parable about the marriage supper being like a party where people are cast out of) but being at the party but not enjoying it. "Hell is being at the party," Bell claims. The message to take from that is never go to one of Rob Bell's parties.
*Bell's book is filled with skipped lines and one word sentences sitting on their own lines. I suppose this is done for dramatic effect-- indicating places where Bell would pause if this were one of his Nooma videos. However, it tends to just look irritating and faux artsy. I mostly listened to the book on Kindle's text-to-speech feature, and I could still tell when he was doing it. Like,
You put a series of short sentences on their own lines to make a point?
Really?
You do that?
And it's repetitive?
Extremely?
And annoying?
There are a few major errors in Love Wins, which leads to his making other more minor mistakes. The first error is giving precedence to certain biblical themes (to the exclusion of others) over clear and specific biblical teaching. Bell makes much of themes like restoration in Scripture, but ignores themes of final punishment. By dwelling on those themes, he can transition to reading them into texts where they don't belong without being found out by biblical illiterates, such as Jesus' claim that Sodom and Gomorrah will fare better on the day of judgement than cities which rejected the direct revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Instead of reading this in its obvious sense-- that there are degrees of punishment on the final day and those who reject direct revelation of Jesus will suffer most-- he understands Jesus to be saying that there is a great deal of hope for Sodom and Gomorrah's salvation-- that their punishment was corrective instead of destructive. Even though he doesn't get anywhere close to proving his case (certainly only God knows whether or not some in Sodom will be saved, but the story of Abraham bargaining would suggest otherwise), he seems to fall back on the emotionally-driven claim that God saving everyone is a "better story" than damning some and saving others.
On his overuse of the word "story," it is one example where Bell is obnoxiously post-modern and emergent. He uses the word "story/stories" in his short book 138 times. For a book of around 200 pages, large font, and constantly skipped lines/single words on their own lines*, that's an impressive display of post-modernism.
Another major error is that he conflates a strong exclusivism with eternal conscious punishment which has the effect that when he attacks one, he is in effect attacking the other, making his job easier. In addition, he ignores annihilationism as an alternative to eternal conscious torment, which also strengthens the emotional pull of his position, since it is contrasted with an eternal conscious punishment where God damns people for never being able to hear the name of Jesus. (note: while I am annoyed at Bell's misrepresentations of eternal conscious torment, I am myself an annihilationist)
Bell explains that God will eventually win everyone over, but it must be of their accord. However, he doesn't explain how it is that everyone will be saved of their own free will. For emotional effect, Bell criticizes the eternal conscious hell camp with having a God that would turn his back on people in hell who are repenting and turning to God. Of course, this assumes that sinners turn to God on their own instead of by His grace. Bell here appears to be a Pelagian, or else doesn't know enough about soteriology to make such distinctions (a terrifying prospect for a Pastor). In any case, this is another example where he is misrepresenting eternal conscious hell proponents (the first I mentioned was when he claimed they were all strict exclusivists), which makes his book far harder to take seriously.
One strange and interesting point that Rob Bell makes comes from making the afterlife analogous to the parable of the prodigal son. He claims that hell is not being cast out of "the party," (despite Jesus' parable about the marriage supper being like a party where people are cast out of) but being at the party but not enjoying it. "Hell is being at the party," Bell claims. The message to take from that is never go to one of Rob Bell's parties.
*Bell's book is filled with skipped lines and one word sentences sitting on their own lines. I suppose this is done for dramatic effect-- indicating places where Bell would pause if this were one of his Nooma videos. However, it tends to just look irritating and faux artsy. I mostly listened to the book on Kindle's text-to-speech feature, and I could still tell when he was doing it. Like,
You put a series of short sentences on their own lines to make a point?
Really?
You do that?
And it's repetitive?
Extremely?
And annoying?
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Suburbicon (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
Suburbicon is a picturesque community built to free families from all the hustle and bustle of the big city but with all the amenities a community will need. For all intents in purposes Suburbicon is the ideal place to raise a family in the 1950s. That is exactly what the Lodge family is doing. That is until the night Nicky (Noah Jupe) is awoken by his father, Gardner (Matt Damon), and told that there are two men in the house. The two criminals, Sloan and Louis (Glenn Fleshler and Alex Hassell), move the family to the kitchen and tie Nicky, Gardner, Nicky’s mother Rose (Julianne Moore) and Rose’s sister Margaret (also Julianne Moore) to chairs and put them to sleep using chloroform. When Nicky awakens in the hospital his father and aunt are waiting for him but sadly his mother was overdosed with chloroform and died. After the funeral it is decided by Gardner that Aunt Margaret should come stay with them. When officer Hightower (Jack Conley) calls to let them know they have found two possible suspects Gardner rushes to the police station to look at a lineup. Gardner arrives and is surprised to find Margaret and Nicky there. He asks that Nicky be left outside to save him from the trauma. After a line of potential criminals are paraded in front of Gardner and Margaret both agree that the perpetrators are not there. When they turn around they are surprised to see Nicky with a shocked look on his face as he is staring directly at Sloan and Louis. Nicky now knows that something is going on with his mother’s death and he may be trapped in a house with the two people who are responsible. He is not the only one that thinks something is amiss an insurance investigator, Bud Cooper (Oscar Isaac), shows up with questions about the policy. Is the Suburbicon truly the sanctuary that it looks like from the outside or is there something sinister happening behind closed doors?
This dark comedy, thriller, and mystery is directed by George Clooney (The Monuments Men, Leatherheads) and written by Joel and Ethan Coen (Fargo, The Big Lebowski). The film has some fun moments and interesting twists. I enjoyed how they made the film authentic to the 1950s era. The scenery and sets all give you the feel of the time period. The performances were are mostly well done. Julianne Moore’s performance was really good in both roles but especially as the out there Margaret. She was at times very innocent and loving and the next moment really scary in a deranged kind of way. The supporting cast was large and all were fun, especially the dry Hightower (Conley) and the lovable Uncle Mitch (Gary Basaraba). Matt Damon is part scary and funny but sometimes over the top.
Where this film lost me was on parts of the story really that felt disjointed from other parts of the film. For instance another story line that is playing out during the film is that the Mayers’ family moves to Suburbicon on the same day that the break in at the Lodge’s. The Mayers are the first African American family to move into the area and they are instantly judged and discriminated against. As the movie continues and more craziness is happing at the Lodge home, which shares a back yard with the Mayers, there is an escalation in the persecution of the Mayers. I totally understand what point the film was attempting to make about how people were up in arms about a single family that just moving the town and ignoring, or rather too busy to even notice, the evil deeds being committed so close. I just believe that two stories never felt like they were truly tied together and in some points even part of the same film. I really believe an opportunity was missed. Also the comedy was at times really good but also times where it felt forced. When Matt Damon is riding a child bike with a blood soaked shirt down suburban streets you would think that would be funny, and it looked funny in the trailer, but it felt forced when put into the context of the scene.
Overall this is a film was good but really left me feeling like I just didn’t get it. It was definitely original and I would encourage people to watch it and come to their own conclusions.
This dark comedy, thriller, and mystery is directed by George Clooney (The Monuments Men, Leatherheads) and written by Joel and Ethan Coen (Fargo, The Big Lebowski). The film has some fun moments and interesting twists. I enjoyed how they made the film authentic to the 1950s era. The scenery and sets all give you the feel of the time period. The performances were are mostly well done. Julianne Moore’s performance was really good in both roles but especially as the out there Margaret. She was at times very innocent and loving and the next moment really scary in a deranged kind of way. The supporting cast was large and all were fun, especially the dry Hightower (Conley) and the lovable Uncle Mitch (Gary Basaraba). Matt Damon is part scary and funny but sometimes over the top.
Where this film lost me was on parts of the story really that felt disjointed from other parts of the film. For instance another story line that is playing out during the film is that the Mayers’ family moves to Suburbicon on the same day that the break in at the Lodge’s. The Mayers are the first African American family to move into the area and they are instantly judged and discriminated against. As the movie continues and more craziness is happing at the Lodge home, which shares a back yard with the Mayers, there is an escalation in the persecution of the Mayers. I totally understand what point the film was attempting to make about how people were up in arms about a single family that just moving the town and ignoring, or rather too busy to even notice, the evil deeds being committed so close. I just believe that two stories never felt like they were truly tied together and in some points even part of the same film. I really believe an opportunity was missed. Also the comedy was at times really good but also times where it felt forced. When Matt Damon is riding a child bike with a blood soaked shirt down suburban streets you would think that would be funny, and it looked funny in the trailer, but it felt forced when put into the context of the scene.
Overall this is a film was good but really left me feeling like I just didn’t get it. It was definitely original and I would encourage people to watch it and come to their own conclusions.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Lady In The Van (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
In the last two decades America has seen an almost literal ‘invasion’ of British film and television programming. Like the British ‘music invasion’ some 60 years ago we just can’t seem to get enough of it. Today’s film for your consideration is the 2015 British dramatic comedy ‘The Lady In The Van’. Based upon the 1999 West End play of the same name written by Alan Bennett and starring famed British actress Maggie Smith, who also portrayed the lead in the original stage production at Queens Theater in London and again in a 2009 BBC 4 radio adaption, ‘The Lady In The Van’ follows the true story of Maggie Shepherd. An elderly lady who lived in a rundown van in Bennett’s driveway for 15 years.
Directed by Nicholas Hytner, who also directed the stage play, the film stars legendary British actress Maggie Smith as Maggie Shepherd, Alex Jennings as Alan Bennett, Jim Broadbent as Underwood, Deborah Findlay as Pauline, Roger Allam as Rufus, Gwen Taylor as Mam, Cecillia Noble as Miss Brisco, Nicholas Burns as Giles Perry, Pandora Colin as Mrs Perry, and Frances de la Tour As Ursula Vaughan Williams.
‘The Lady In The Van’ follows the true story of playwright Alan Bennett’s strained and tested relationship with Miss Maggie Shepherd. An eccentric and frightened homeless woman whom he befriended in the 1970s shortly after he moved into London’s Camden neighborhood. Originally, Bennett invites Shepherd to park her aging Bedford van in his driveway so she can list it as an address in order to collect benefits and eventually move on. Instead, Shepherd ends up living in the van in Bennett’s driveway for 15 years. Just before her death in 1989, Alan learns that Maggie Shepherd is actually Margaret Fairchild. A gifted piano player who was a pupil of pianist Alfred Cortot and had a fondness for Chopin. So much so that when she tried to become a nun, she was kicked out of her religious order twice for wanting to play music. Bennett also learns that the reason Shepherd was homeless was that she was on the run for leaving the scene of a crime she didn’t commit after escaping an institution where she’d been committed by her own brother.
I found this movie to be a prime example of the concept ‘Everyone Has A Story To Tell’. Whether the person wants to tell the story or not is a whole other idea entirely. The strange friendship between Bennett and Shepherd is certainly an unusual one to be sure. While Bennett’s neighbors would be happy to see they as they describe ‘the crazy old lady leave the neighborhood, Bennett seems to follow his writer’s instincts and also his humanity. Maggie Smith’s and Alex Jennings’s performances as the oddly paired friends go far in helping to comprehend what went on between the two. Shepherd and Bennett both excelled as artists in their own way. One as a writer one as a musician. Both kinds of artists tell stories thorough their respective crafts. In this case though, the writer (Bennett) had the ‘responsibility’ of telling Shepherd’s story after debating with himself more than once whether he had the right to do so and whether it was moral or not. On top of that, it took over a decade to find the answers Bennett was looking for. In the end, it seems Bennett did what writers do. They use what’s around them in their lives to write about. And perhaps, by doing so, he helped give Shepherd some sort of closure and perhaps peace as well just before her death.
I’m going to give this film 4 out of 5 stars. The movie clocks in at 104 minutes so it is a long movie but honestly, how can you say ‘no’ to a movie with Maggie Smith? Honestly, explain that one to me. She definitely ‘carries the film’ with her performance as Miss Mary Shepherd but the combination of her performance and that of Alex Jennings as the writer Alan Bennett that really make the film. I think another one of the reasons this film was good was because you had so many of the people that were involved in the original play that worked on the film itself. I personally find some British films, comedies in particular, to be a bit quirky sometimes. As funny as British humor is its sometimes difficult to grasp at first and there’s a bit of that in this film. Don’t let that discourage you though. If you can find an awesome art house movie theater, I’d certainly recommend going to catch it there. If you can’t, watch it online.
This is your friendly neighborhood freelance photographer and movie fanatic ‘The CameraMan’ and on behalf of my fellows at Skewed & Reviewed I’d like to say ‘Thanks For Reading’ and we’ll see you at the movies.
Directed by Nicholas Hytner, who also directed the stage play, the film stars legendary British actress Maggie Smith as Maggie Shepherd, Alex Jennings as Alan Bennett, Jim Broadbent as Underwood, Deborah Findlay as Pauline, Roger Allam as Rufus, Gwen Taylor as Mam, Cecillia Noble as Miss Brisco, Nicholas Burns as Giles Perry, Pandora Colin as Mrs Perry, and Frances de la Tour As Ursula Vaughan Williams.
‘The Lady In The Van’ follows the true story of playwright Alan Bennett’s strained and tested relationship with Miss Maggie Shepherd. An eccentric and frightened homeless woman whom he befriended in the 1970s shortly after he moved into London’s Camden neighborhood. Originally, Bennett invites Shepherd to park her aging Bedford van in his driveway so she can list it as an address in order to collect benefits and eventually move on. Instead, Shepherd ends up living in the van in Bennett’s driveway for 15 years. Just before her death in 1989, Alan learns that Maggie Shepherd is actually Margaret Fairchild. A gifted piano player who was a pupil of pianist Alfred Cortot and had a fondness for Chopin. So much so that when she tried to become a nun, she was kicked out of her religious order twice for wanting to play music. Bennett also learns that the reason Shepherd was homeless was that she was on the run for leaving the scene of a crime she didn’t commit after escaping an institution where she’d been committed by her own brother.
I found this movie to be a prime example of the concept ‘Everyone Has A Story To Tell’. Whether the person wants to tell the story or not is a whole other idea entirely. The strange friendship between Bennett and Shepherd is certainly an unusual one to be sure. While Bennett’s neighbors would be happy to see they as they describe ‘the crazy old lady leave the neighborhood, Bennett seems to follow his writer’s instincts and also his humanity. Maggie Smith’s and Alex Jennings’s performances as the oddly paired friends go far in helping to comprehend what went on between the two. Shepherd and Bennett both excelled as artists in their own way. One as a writer one as a musician. Both kinds of artists tell stories thorough their respective crafts. In this case though, the writer (Bennett) had the ‘responsibility’ of telling Shepherd’s story after debating with himself more than once whether he had the right to do so and whether it was moral or not. On top of that, it took over a decade to find the answers Bennett was looking for. In the end, it seems Bennett did what writers do. They use what’s around them in their lives to write about. And perhaps, by doing so, he helped give Shepherd some sort of closure and perhaps peace as well just before her death.
I’m going to give this film 4 out of 5 stars. The movie clocks in at 104 minutes so it is a long movie but honestly, how can you say ‘no’ to a movie with Maggie Smith? Honestly, explain that one to me. She definitely ‘carries the film’ with her performance as Miss Mary Shepherd but the combination of her performance and that of Alex Jennings as the writer Alan Bennett that really make the film. I think another one of the reasons this film was good was because you had so many of the people that were involved in the original play that worked on the film itself. I personally find some British films, comedies in particular, to be a bit quirky sometimes. As funny as British humor is its sometimes difficult to grasp at first and there’s a bit of that in this film. Don’t let that discourage you though. If you can find an awesome art house movie theater, I’d certainly recommend going to catch it there. If you can’t, watch it online.
This is your friendly neighborhood freelance photographer and movie fanatic ‘The CameraMan’ and on behalf of my fellows at Skewed & Reviewed I’d like to say ‘Thanks For Reading’ and we’ll see you at the movies.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Stephen King's A Good Marriage (2014) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: A Good Marriage starts with the anniversary party of Darcy (Allen) and Bob Anderson (LaPaglia) with their grown up children Petra (Connolly) and Donnie (Stockman). Everything on the outside looks like it is going great for the couple and what could possibly be shocking about them? The couple seem to have a follower in Holt Ramsey (Lang) but why?
Darcy’s life takes a sudden change when searching for batteries she finds a hidden box with the drivers licences of woman who are found dead. As Darcy struggles to deal with the realisation that she is married to a serial killer we watch how Bob is tracking down him latest victim while away on business. We have to watch how Bob and Darcy try to work through the problems because spilling the secret could ruin the family.
A Good Marriage really does end up coming off very dull, the concept sounds very interesting. I feel this story should have been a hell of a lot tenser because of the action of the husband especially with the idea that the wife doesn’t want to destroy her children’s lives with the secret. I can honestly say I was expecting a look into the husband’s killing and an actual confrontation rather than just a calm talking about his actions. Overall the story doesn’t come off very well at all and I can honestly say this will disappoint any and all the Stephen King Fans out there. (2/10)
Actor Review
Joan Allen: Darcy Anderson is the loving mother and wife who discovers her husband’s secret. Darcy has to try and figure out what to do because talking will destroy the family but she also knows the next victim will now be here fault. Joan does a solid job but doesn’t reach the levels you would expect to make you feel like her character is scared or keeping a brave face. (5/10)
Anthony LaPaglia: Bob Anderson is the account husband of Darcy who has been living a different life behind his family’s back as a serial killer. When his wife discovers his secret he has to convince her not to go to the cops and ruin the life the children think they have had. Anthony is an actor I would expect to be able to play this role really well but he doesn’t seem to get into the role enough to make us believe he is a killer. (3/10)
Support Cast: A Good Marriage has a supporting cast that are mostly people Darcy is trying to protect from the truth, but it also has a man trying to find out the truth about the killer.
Director Review: Peter Askin – Peter doesn’t give us enough tension in a film that should be filled to the rim with tension because of the subject matter. (3/10)
Thriller: A Good Marriage is a film that should be filled with tension but this manages to let it all go without capitalising on the idea. (2/10)
Settings: A Good Marriage keeps the settings great because the idea would be that the killer is in plain sight living a normal life. (9/10)
Suggestion: A Good Marriage has to go down as one to avoid because it really does disappoint trying to tell an easy story. (Avoid)
Best Part: Hard to find anything.
Worst Part: No Tension.
Improve Ideas: High tension level.
Believability: The idea does come from a real serial killer but the outcome on film doesn’t really work. (3/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 42 Minutes
Trivia: This is Stephen King’s first self-adapted screenplay since “Pet Sematary,” which was released 25 years earlier. The last feature film script he wrote was “Sleepwalkers,” released in 1992. Since then he has written TV movies, mini-series and shows, such as “The Stand,” “The Shining” and “Kingdom Hospital.”
Overall: Very disappointing thriller with no actual tension.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/06/04/a-good-marriage-2014/
Darcy’s life takes a sudden change when searching for batteries she finds a hidden box with the drivers licences of woman who are found dead. As Darcy struggles to deal with the realisation that she is married to a serial killer we watch how Bob is tracking down him latest victim while away on business. We have to watch how Bob and Darcy try to work through the problems because spilling the secret could ruin the family.
A Good Marriage really does end up coming off very dull, the concept sounds very interesting. I feel this story should have been a hell of a lot tenser because of the action of the husband especially with the idea that the wife doesn’t want to destroy her children’s lives with the secret. I can honestly say I was expecting a look into the husband’s killing and an actual confrontation rather than just a calm talking about his actions. Overall the story doesn’t come off very well at all and I can honestly say this will disappoint any and all the Stephen King Fans out there. (2/10)
Actor Review
Joan Allen: Darcy Anderson is the loving mother and wife who discovers her husband’s secret. Darcy has to try and figure out what to do because talking will destroy the family but she also knows the next victim will now be here fault. Joan does a solid job but doesn’t reach the levels you would expect to make you feel like her character is scared or keeping a brave face. (5/10)
Anthony LaPaglia: Bob Anderson is the account husband of Darcy who has been living a different life behind his family’s back as a serial killer. When his wife discovers his secret he has to convince her not to go to the cops and ruin the life the children think they have had. Anthony is an actor I would expect to be able to play this role really well but he doesn’t seem to get into the role enough to make us believe he is a killer. (3/10)
Support Cast: A Good Marriage has a supporting cast that are mostly people Darcy is trying to protect from the truth, but it also has a man trying to find out the truth about the killer.
Director Review: Peter Askin – Peter doesn’t give us enough tension in a film that should be filled to the rim with tension because of the subject matter. (3/10)
Thriller: A Good Marriage is a film that should be filled with tension but this manages to let it all go without capitalising on the idea. (2/10)
Settings: A Good Marriage keeps the settings great because the idea would be that the killer is in plain sight living a normal life. (9/10)
Suggestion: A Good Marriage has to go down as one to avoid because it really does disappoint trying to tell an easy story. (Avoid)
Best Part: Hard to find anything.
Worst Part: No Tension.
Improve Ideas: High tension level.
Believability: The idea does come from a real serial killer but the outcome on film doesn’t really work. (3/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 42 Minutes
Trivia: This is Stephen King’s first self-adapted screenplay since “Pet Sematary,” which was released 25 years earlier. The last feature film script he wrote was “Sleepwalkers,” released in 1992. Since then he has written TV movies, mini-series and shows, such as “The Stand,” “The Shining” and “Kingdom Hospital.”
Overall: Very disappointing thriller with no actual tension.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/06/04/a-good-marriage-2014/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Stan & Ollie (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
When the laughter has to end.
The problem with any comedy double act is that if illness or death get in the way (think Dustin Gee and Les Dennis; or Morecambe and Wise) the wheels can come off for the other partner. “Stan and Ollie” tells the story of the comic duo starting in 1937 when they reached their peak of global popularity, albeit when Laurel was hardly on speaking terms with their long-term producer Hal Roach (Danny Huston).
As you might guess from this, the emotional direction for the film is downwards, but not necessarily in a totally depressing way. The film depicts the duo’s tour of Laurel’s native country (he was born in Lancashire) and this has its ups as well as its downs.
Not knowing their life story, this is one where when the trailer came on I shut my eyes and plugged my ears so as to avoid spoilers: as such I will say nothing further on the details of the plot.
My wife and I were reminiscing after seeing this flick about how our parents used to crack up over the film antics of Laurel and Hardy. And they were, in their own slapstick way, very funny indeed. The film manages to recreate (impecably) some of their more famous routines and parodies others: their travel trunk gallops to the bottom of the station steps, mimicking the famous scenes with a piano from 1932’s “The Music Box”. “Do we really need that trunk” Hardy deadpans to Laurel.
The turns
There are four star turns at the heart of the film and they are John C. Reilly as Ollie; Steve Coogan as Stan; Shirley Henderson (forever to be referenced as “Moaning Myrtle”) as Ollie’s wife Lucille and Nina Arianda (so memorable as the ‘pointer outer’ in the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ segment of “Florence Foster Jenkins“) as Stan’s latest wife Ida.
Coogan and Reilly do an outstanding job of impersonating the comic duo. Both are simply brilliant, playing up to their public personas when visible but subtly delivering similar traits in private. Of the two, John C. Reilly’s performance is the most memorable: he IS Oliver Hardy. Not taking too much away from the other performance, but there are a few times when Coogan poked through the illusion (like a Partridge sticking its head out from a Pear Tree you might say).
Henderson and Arianda also add tremendous heart to the drama, and Arianda’s Ida in particular is hilarious. Also delivering a fabulous supporting role is Rufus Jones as the famous impressario Bernard Delfont: all smarm and Machiavellian chicanery that adds a different shape of comedy to the film.
Another Fine Mess?
Actually, no: it’s one of those pleasant and untaxing cinema experiences that older audiences in particular will really enjoy. However, the film’s far from perfect in my view: the flash-forwards/flash-backs I felt made the story bitty and disjointed; and ultimately the life story of the duo doesn’t have a huge depth of drama in it to amaze or excite, the way that 2004’s “Beyond the Sea” (the biopic of Bobby Darin) did for example. But the film never gets boring or disappoints.
I’d like to say that the script by Jeff Pope (“Philomena“) is historically accurate, but a look at the wikipedia entries for the pair show that it was far from that. Yes, the tours of the UK and Europe did happen, but over multiple years and the actual events in their lives are telescoped into a single trip for dramatic purposes. But I think the essence of the pair comes across nicely. Laurel’s wikipedia entry records a nice death-bed scene that sums up the guy:
“Minutes before his death, he told his nurse that he would not mind going skiing, and she replied that she was not aware that he was a skier. “I’m not,” said Laurel, “I’d rather be doing that than this!” A few minutes later, the nurse looked in on him again and found that he had died quietly in his armchair.”
“Stan and Ollie” has a few preview screenings before the New Year, but goes on UK general release on January 11th. Recommended.
As you might guess from this, the emotional direction for the film is downwards, but not necessarily in a totally depressing way. The film depicts the duo’s tour of Laurel’s native country (he was born in Lancashire) and this has its ups as well as its downs.
Not knowing their life story, this is one where when the trailer came on I shut my eyes and plugged my ears so as to avoid spoilers: as such I will say nothing further on the details of the plot.
My wife and I were reminiscing after seeing this flick about how our parents used to crack up over the film antics of Laurel and Hardy. And they were, in their own slapstick way, very funny indeed. The film manages to recreate (impecably) some of their more famous routines and parodies others: their travel trunk gallops to the bottom of the station steps, mimicking the famous scenes with a piano from 1932’s “The Music Box”. “Do we really need that trunk” Hardy deadpans to Laurel.
The turns
There are four star turns at the heart of the film and they are John C. Reilly as Ollie; Steve Coogan as Stan; Shirley Henderson (forever to be referenced as “Moaning Myrtle”) as Ollie’s wife Lucille and Nina Arianda (so memorable as the ‘pointer outer’ in the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ segment of “Florence Foster Jenkins“) as Stan’s latest wife Ida.
Coogan and Reilly do an outstanding job of impersonating the comic duo. Both are simply brilliant, playing up to their public personas when visible but subtly delivering similar traits in private. Of the two, John C. Reilly’s performance is the most memorable: he IS Oliver Hardy. Not taking too much away from the other performance, but there are a few times when Coogan poked through the illusion (like a Partridge sticking its head out from a Pear Tree you might say).
Henderson and Arianda also add tremendous heart to the drama, and Arianda’s Ida in particular is hilarious. Also delivering a fabulous supporting role is Rufus Jones as the famous impressario Bernard Delfont: all smarm and Machiavellian chicanery that adds a different shape of comedy to the film.
Another Fine Mess?
Actually, no: it’s one of those pleasant and untaxing cinema experiences that older audiences in particular will really enjoy. However, the film’s far from perfect in my view: the flash-forwards/flash-backs I felt made the story bitty and disjointed; and ultimately the life story of the duo doesn’t have a huge depth of drama in it to amaze or excite, the way that 2004’s “Beyond the Sea” (the biopic of Bobby Darin) did for example. But the film never gets boring or disappoints.
I’d like to say that the script by Jeff Pope (“Philomena“) is historically accurate, but a look at the wikipedia entries for the pair show that it was far from that. Yes, the tours of the UK and Europe did happen, but over multiple years and the actual events in their lives are telescoped into a single trip for dramatic purposes. But I think the essence of the pair comes across nicely. Laurel’s wikipedia entry records a nice death-bed scene that sums up the guy:
“Minutes before his death, he told his nurse that he would not mind going skiing, and she replied that she was not aware that he was a skier. “I’m not,” said Laurel, “I’d rather be doing that than this!” A few minutes later, the nurse looked in on him again and found that he had died quietly in his armchair.”
“Stan and Ollie” has a few preview screenings before the New Year, but goes on UK general release on January 11th. Recommended.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated White Noise (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Ever since the phenomenal success of “The Sixth Sense”, films dealing with the supernatural have been an ever increasing presence at theaters world wide as studios attempt to find the next break out film in the genre to ensure lucrative box office and video returns.
The latest foray into the Supernatural is the new Michael Keaton film White Noise, which is based on the actual study of E.V.P. or Electronic Voice Phenomena which is reputed some paranormal investigators to be the voices of dead people speaking to the living via static in electronic devices.
Although the factuality of this is still a topic of hot debate, as after decades of study, no conclusive finding either way as to the legitimacy of E.V.P. have been found as many people attribute the supposed voices as simply the mind hearing what it wants to hear. Despite this, there are a growing number of groups and organizations worldwide who are dedicated to the study of E.V.P.
The film centers on Jonathan Rivers’s (Michael Keaton), a successful architect who is married to a best selling author Anna (Chandra West). The couple is anxiously awaiting the arrival of their first child as Jonathan has a son from a previous marriage and is thrilled to see his family grow
Tragedy sets in when Anna goes missing and eventually is found dead after an apparent accident. Jonathan has his world collapse around him yet and is living in a state of despair. Shortly, a man named Raymond Price (Ian McNeice) comes to Jonathan claiming that he has been receiving messages from Anna from the afterlife. Jonathan is at first dismissive but when he gets calls on his cell that are originating from Anna’s cell number; he visits Raymond and learns about E.V.P.
Jonathan becomes drawn into the study of E.V.P. and soon becomes obsessed with recording voices and images from the afterlife as he is desperate to stay in contact with Anna. All is not well though as Raymond failed to tell Jonathan that there are evil and dangerous entities in the afterlife and they can also use E.V.P. as a way to access and influence the living.
Jonathan also meets a fellow E.V.P user named Sara (Deborah Kara Unger), who like Jonathan becomes involved in a deeper and darker mystery as Jonathan begins to decipher a pattern behind the messages as well as the intentions behind them.
White Noise starts well as a solid mystery and had a few moments where what you imagine is often more intense than what the reality really is. Early in the film there are some good chills and creepy moments as the story unfolds. Roughly ¾ of the way into the film, the tone of the film changes from supernatural thriller to that of a mystery and I suspect that the film will lose many people at this point. The film was working well as a thrill, yet the last ¼ of the film and the conclusion become confused and sporadic as the momentum and flow of the film is lost.
The conclusion was unsatisfying as I was able to see where it was going and based on the very promising first hour of the film, it was sad to see that the film took the easy way out and relied on tired premises instead of continuing to forge ahead with the new premise and take it to what should have been a much better and more logical conclusion.
Keaton does solid work and carries the film very well. It is great to see him back on the big screen as he is a gifted and versatile actor who is capable of handling a wide range of roles.
While not a bad film, White Noise is sunk by the issues with the finale that I mentioned above. That being said, it is an entertaining film that aside from the ending, does generally work and holds the attention of the viewer.
The latest foray into the Supernatural is the new Michael Keaton film White Noise, which is based on the actual study of E.V.P. or Electronic Voice Phenomena which is reputed some paranormal investigators to be the voices of dead people speaking to the living via static in electronic devices.
Although the factuality of this is still a topic of hot debate, as after decades of study, no conclusive finding either way as to the legitimacy of E.V.P. have been found as many people attribute the supposed voices as simply the mind hearing what it wants to hear. Despite this, there are a growing number of groups and organizations worldwide who are dedicated to the study of E.V.P.
The film centers on Jonathan Rivers’s (Michael Keaton), a successful architect who is married to a best selling author Anna (Chandra West). The couple is anxiously awaiting the arrival of their first child as Jonathan has a son from a previous marriage and is thrilled to see his family grow
Tragedy sets in when Anna goes missing and eventually is found dead after an apparent accident. Jonathan has his world collapse around him yet and is living in a state of despair. Shortly, a man named Raymond Price (Ian McNeice) comes to Jonathan claiming that he has been receiving messages from Anna from the afterlife. Jonathan is at first dismissive but when he gets calls on his cell that are originating from Anna’s cell number; he visits Raymond and learns about E.V.P.
Jonathan becomes drawn into the study of E.V.P. and soon becomes obsessed with recording voices and images from the afterlife as he is desperate to stay in contact with Anna. All is not well though as Raymond failed to tell Jonathan that there are evil and dangerous entities in the afterlife and they can also use E.V.P. as a way to access and influence the living.
Jonathan also meets a fellow E.V.P user named Sara (Deborah Kara Unger), who like Jonathan becomes involved in a deeper and darker mystery as Jonathan begins to decipher a pattern behind the messages as well as the intentions behind them.
White Noise starts well as a solid mystery and had a few moments where what you imagine is often more intense than what the reality really is. Early in the film there are some good chills and creepy moments as the story unfolds. Roughly ¾ of the way into the film, the tone of the film changes from supernatural thriller to that of a mystery and I suspect that the film will lose many people at this point. The film was working well as a thrill, yet the last ¼ of the film and the conclusion become confused and sporadic as the momentum and flow of the film is lost.
The conclusion was unsatisfying as I was able to see where it was going and based on the very promising first hour of the film, it was sad to see that the film took the easy way out and relied on tired premises instead of continuing to forge ahead with the new premise and take it to what should have been a much better and more logical conclusion.
Keaton does solid work and carries the film very well. It is great to see him back on the big screen as he is a gifted and versatile actor who is capable of handling a wide range of roles.
While not a bad film, White Noise is sunk by the issues with the finale that I mentioned above. That being said, it is an entertaining film that aside from the ending, does generally work and holds the attention of the viewer.
Story: 71 starts as we see Gary Hook (O’Connell) going through his training with his regiment before they get deployed to Belfast to deal with the riot situation. In Ireland the regiment receive their instructions and onto the Catholic side of the war. When the riots get out of hand Gary finds himself on the wrong side of the barrier alone and unarmed in the Irish territory.
With tensions rising Gary finds himself in the middle of the battle not knowing which side to trust as both side are preparing to attack each other as Gary learns the harsh reality of what these riots are causing.
71 puts us into the middle of the Irish riots showing just one soldier’s experience behind enemy lines, this works well. My issue with the story is unless you know the history which I only know the basics you are left kind of wondering why the riots are happening in the first place. Another problem I found was telling what was going on with the supporting characters like who was on whose side which I do understand adds to the mystery but in this situation we should be able to identify them easily. As a film about survival in an urban setting this is great though.
Actor Review
Jack O’Connell: Gary Hook is the young soldier who is on his first mission on the streets on Belfast during the riots of 71, trying to receive a lost weapon he gets separated by his unit and stranded alone behind enemy lines never sure who to trust. Jack is great in this leading role in what was an outstanding year for the young actor.gary
Sam Reid: Lt. Armitage is one of the men that wants to start searching for Gary but constantly gets put down Captain Browning. Sam is solid in this role but doesn’t get enough screen time.
Sean Harris: Captain Sandy Browning is the man running the situation he knows that Gary is alive but really is playing both sides of the battle. Sean is also solid but only in a supporting role.
Killian Scott: Quinn is one of the leaders out trying to kill Gary, he takes his men and boys out on the streets on the hunt for him and will hurt anyone who gets in his way. Killian is good in what seems like one of the primary villains.
Support Cast: 71 has a large supporting cast but working out which side they are on gets confusing at times.
Director Review: Yann Demange – Yann gives us wonderfully shot sequences throughout but not enough back story to the events on the film.
Action: 71 has intensely shot action sequences involved.
Thriller: 71 keeps us on edge as we watch Gary trying to survive the warzone.
War: 71 puts us into a warzone as we see Gary trying to avoid conflict seemingly around every single corner.
Settings: 71 puts us in the warzone of the Belfast streets which really works to pull us into the story.
Special Effects: 71 has great effects when needed without having to just go overboard with them.
Suggestion: 71 is one for fans of the genre but otherwise people might find it slightly hard to keep up with. (War Film Fans Watch)
Best Part: Bomb shock.
Worst Part: Not enough history of the events.
Believability: The riots were real but story is fictional.
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Similar Too: Behind Enemy Lines
Awards: Nominated for One BAFTA.
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 39 Minutes
Trivia: Most scenes within the film were shot in Northern England, not in the film’s setting of Belfast.
Overall: Good history war thriller that is intense but never fully drags you into believing everything.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/11/08/71-2014/
With tensions rising Gary finds himself in the middle of the battle not knowing which side to trust as both side are preparing to attack each other as Gary learns the harsh reality of what these riots are causing.
71 puts us into the middle of the Irish riots showing just one soldier’s experience behind enemy lines, this works well. My issue with the story is unless you know the history which I only know the basics you are left kind of wondering why the riots are happening in the first place. Another problem I found was telling what was going on with the supporting characters like who was on whose side which I do understand adds to the mystery but in this situation we should be able to identify them easily. As a film about survival in an urban setting this is great though.
Actor Review
Jack O’Connell: Gary Hook is the young soldier who is on his first mission on the streets on Belfast during the riots of 71, trying to receive a lost weapon he gets separated by his unit and stranded alone behind enemy lines never sure who to trust. Jack is great in this leading role in what was an outstanding year for the young actor.gary
Sam Reid: Lt. Armitage is one of the men that wants to start searching for Gary but constantly gets put down Captain Browning. Sam is solid in this role but doesn’t get enough screen time.
Sean Harris: Captain Sandy Browning is the man running the situation he knows that Gary is alive but really is playing both sides of the battle. Sean is also solid but only in a supporting role.
Killian Scott: Quinn is one of the leaders out trying to kill Gary, he takes his men and boys out on the streets on the hunt for him and will hurt anyone who gets in his way. Killian is good in what seems like one of the primary villains.
Support Cast: 71 has a large supporting cast but working out which side they are on gets confusing at times.
Director Review: Yann Demange – Yann gives us wonderfully shot sequences throughout but not enough back story to the events on the film.
Action: 71 has intensely shot action sequences involved.
Thriller: 71 keeps us on edge as we watch Gary trying to survive the warzone.
War: 71 puts us into a warzone as we see Gary trying to avoid conflict seemingly around every single corner.
Settings: 71 puts us in the warzone of the Belfast streets which really works to pull us into the story.
Special Effects: 71 has great effects when needed without having to just go overboard with them.
Suggestion: 71 is one for fans of the genre but otherwise people might find it slightly hard to keep up with. (War Film Fans Watch)
Best Part: Bomb shock.
Worst Part: Not enough history of the events.
Believability: The riots were real but story is fictional.
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Similar Too: Behind Enemy Lines
Awards: Nominated for One BAFTA.
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 39 Minutes
Trivia: Most scenes within the film were shot in Northern England, not in the film’s setting of Belfast.
Overall: Good history war thriller that is intense but never fully drags you into believing everything.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/11/08/71-2014/
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Every Fifteen Minutes in Books
Feb 1, 2018
Dr. Eric Parrish is a busy psychiatrist juggling his work as Chief at a hospital unit, as well as his own private practice. He is also reeling from his recent separation from his wife and the subsequent time he must spend away from his daughter, Hannah, who is only seven-years-old. One day, Eric is called to treat an elderly woman who is dying from cancer, but it quickly becomes clear the real patient is her grandson Max, who, at 17, is having difficulty dealing with his grandmother's impending death. Eric quickly discovers that Max is depressed, struggling with OCD, and having violent thoughts about a girl he knows from his job. However, as Eric treats Max, he suddenly finds his own life breaking apart around him. There is a murder, a violent incident, problems with his wife and daughter, issues at work, and much more.
I never really got "into" this book. To me, Eric is not a likeable character. Throughout the course of the novel he seems to make a remarkable number of questionable decisions, even if his life is somewhat spiraling out of control. For instance, as he goes through the divorce with Caitlin, Eric is constantly lamenting about Hannah and the effects of the divorce on her. So much so that he comes by the house unasked, calls his wife and daughter at all hours, completely ignores the advice of his lawyer, etc. He seems to lack knowledge of any basic divorce or legal protocol - not to mention common sense.
The lack of common sense prevails throughout the book. So much of the plot is supposedly driven by what Eric knows about Max, this teenage kid he meets at the hospital, but really they have two sessions together before things go awry. It seems insane that he would have learned so much about his patient in this time. So much of the plot just seemed implausible and annoying. We hear constant talk about Eric's past anxiety and how he overcame it. OK - so what?
Overall, I just found myself irritated by Eric and annoyed by his decisions. Parts of the book seem completely improbable and the plot is so thinly constructed that once you figure out how everything comes together, it seems barely possible. Then Scottoline throws in another twist that seems completely unnecessary. Overall, rather disappointing read.
I never really got "into" this book. To me, Eric is not a likeable character. Throughout the course of the novel he seems to make a remarkable number of questionable decisions, even if his life is somewhat spiraling out of control. For instance, as he goes through the divorce with Caitlin, Eric is constantly lamenting about Hannah and the effects of the divorce on her. So much so that he comes by the house unasked, calls his wife and daughter at all hours, completely ignores the advice of his lawyer, etc. He seems to lack knowledge of any basic divorce or legal protocol - not to mention common sense.
The lack of common sense prevails throughout the book. So much of the plot is supposedly driven by what Eric knows about Max, this teenage kid he meets at the hospital, but really they have two sessions together before things go awry. It seems insane that he would have learned so much about his patient in this time. So much of the plot just seemed implausible and annoying. We hear constant talk about Eric's past anxiety and how he overcame it. OK - so what?
Overall, I just found myself irritated by Eric and annoyed by his decisions. Parts of the book seem completely improbable and the plot is so thinly constructed that once you figure out how everything comes together, it seems barely possible. Then Scottoline throws in another twist that seems completely unnecessary. Overall, rather disappointing read.
InfusiCalc
Medical and Education
App
InfusiCalc is a drug dose calculator which can be used for either continuous infusions or bolus...