Search
Search results
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated Mindhunter: Inside the FBI's Elite Serial Crime Unit in Books
May 16, 2018
If you’re reading this review, chances are you’re either a) a true crime buff or b) curious as to what the source material of Netflix’s latest original series, Mindhunters, is based on. That title, Mindhunter: Inside the FBI’s Elite Serial Crime Unit by John Douglas is actually a fascinating read that details a division of the FBI that, had it not been created, would leave us without shows like Criminal Minds, where the Behavioral Science Unit profiles killers and races the clock to save victims that may still be alive. (Also, we wouldn’t have our Shemar Moore and wouldn’t that be a crying shame? We need our Morgan and Baby Girl.)
Reading more like Douglas is sitting in the room beside you and recounting his past, Mindhunter, as expected, delves into some pretty deep material. For a while, I had to put it down because the ATKID murders dug beneath my skin. Despite the sometimes gory details Douglas provides readers with, I feel this is an important title for any true crime fan. After all, it is Douglas that a certain character from Silence of the Lambs is based on.
<a href="http://theghastlygrimoire.com/2017/11/19/book-review-mindhunter-inside-the-fbis-elite-serial-crime-unit-mindhunter-1-by-john-douglas/"; target="_new">Read more at <i>The Ghastly Grimoire</i>.</a>
Reading more like Douglas is sitting in the room beside you and recounting his past, Mindhunter, as expected, delves into some pretty deep material. For a while, I had to put it down because the ATKID murders dug beneath my skin. Despite the sometimes gory details Douglas provides readers with, I feel this is an important title for any true crime fan. After all, it is Douglas that a certain character from Silence of the Lambs is based on.
<a href="http://theghastlygrimoire.com/2017/11/19/book-review-mindhunter-inside-the-fbis-elite-serial-crime-unit-mindhunter-1-by-john-douglas/"; target="_new">Read more at <i>The Ghastly Grimoire</i>.</a>
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated The Ghost and the Darkness (1996) in Movies
Apr 24, 2021
Lions Among Us
The Ghost and the Darkness- is a good film. Both Micheal Douglas and Val Klimer are good in it.
The plot: Sir Robert Beaumont (Tom Wilkinson) is behind schedule on a railroad in Africa. Enlisting noted engineer John Henry Patterson (Val Kilmer) to right the ship, Beaumont expects results. Everything seems great until the crew discovers the mutilated corpse of the project's foreman (Henry Cele), seemingly killed by a lion. After several more attacks, Patterson calls in famed hunter Charles Remington (Michael Douglas), who has finally met his match in the bloodthirsty lions.
Its a good film.
The plot: Sir Robert Beaumont (Tom Wilkinson) is behind schedule on a railroad in Africa. Enlisting noted engineer John Henry Patterson (Val Kilmer) to right the ship, Beaumont expects results. Everything seems great until the crew discovers the mutilated corpse of the project's foreman (Henry Cele), seemingly killed by a lion. After several more attacks, Patterson calls in famed hunter Charles Remington (Michael Douglas), who has finally met his match in the bloodthirsty lions.
Its a good film.
BookblogbyCari (345 KP) rated Mindhunter: Inside the FBI Elite Serial Crime Unit (Now A Netflix Series) in Books
Mar 10, 2019
Douglas is a show-off
This is hands-down the most action-packed biography I have ever read! And it’s almost the most egotistical and narcissistic sounding biography I have ever read.
In his opening scene in the prologue, Douglas finds himself waking up from a coma in hospital expecting to be tortured by sick criminals, having (almost) single-handily run the FBI’s psychological profiling unit, handling hundreds of cases for several years.
I haven’t had the opportunity to watch the Netflix series based on this book, but I am quite a fan of the Criminal Minds series, so I had an idea of what to expect. However, you need to get 6 chapters in before Douglas starts talking about his work as an FBI profiler. He starts off talking about growing up, his love life, and getting into his career.
Douglas may call himself a profiler, but in my opinion, he is first and foremost a story-teller, with a talent for a drama-filled yarn. And rather than being put off by his constant bragging, I found myself hanging on his every word.
This light and long prelude to the criminal profiling section of the book made the crime details feel all the more gruesome. Some of the predictions made by Douglas about the murderers are barely believable. I mean, how can a crime scene really tell you the age of a murderer or what kind of car he drives?
Unfortunately, Douglas doesn’t offer much explanation into these kinds of things, and the leader is left assuming it’s all down to statistics. And if there’s anywhere the book is let down it would be here, because this would be why readers would pick the book up.
I once read a similar book called The Profiler, by Pat Brown. Brown, however, was a mere spectator to criminal goings on and had no influence whatever on getting criminals brought to justice. Douglas, however, would meet with local police and provide strategies on getting the bad guy, and getting him to confess.
To me, the most crucial chapter was Battle of the Shrinks. It looks at how criminals are dealt with once apprehended. Here Douglas meets with a psychiatrist whose job it was to assess whether criminals can have their sentences shortened and be let off early. This psychiatrist didn’t bother reading police reports to see from an outsider exactly what the criminal had done because he didn’t want to be made biased it and wanted to meet the criminal exactly as they presented himself to him. Douglas was appalled by this attitude and tried to get this over to the psychiatrist, but sadly, to no avail.
In short, this is a very entertaining book, and while it can teach you lot, reading it will never make you as good a profiler as John Douglas himself.
In his opening scene in the prologue, Douglas finds himself waking up from a coma in hospital expecting to be tortured by sick criminals, having (almost) single-handily run the FBI’s psychological profiling unit, handling hundreds of cases for several years.
I haven’t had the opportunity to watch the Netflix series based on this book, but I am quite a fan of the Criminal Minds series, so I had an idea of what to expect. However, you need to get 6 chapters in before Douglas starts talking about his work as an FBI profiler. He starts off talking about growing up, his love life, and getting into his career.
Douglas may call himself a profiler, but in my opinion, he is first and foremost a story-teller, with a talent for a drama-filled yarn. And rather than being put off by his constant bragging, I found myself hanging on his every word.
This light and long prelude to the criminal profiling section of the book made the crime details feel all the more gruesome. Some of the predictions made by Douglas about the murderers are barely believable. I mean, how can a crime scene really tell you the age of a murderer or what kind of car he drives?
Unfortunately, Douglas doesn’t offer much explanation into these kinds of things, and the leader is left assuming it’s all down to statistics. And if there’s anywhere the book is let down it would be here, because this would be why readers would pick the book up.
I once read a similar book called The Profiler, by Pat Brown. Brown, however, was a mere spectator to criminal goings on and had no influence whatever on getting criminals brought to justice. Douglas, however, would meet with local police and provide strategies on getting the bad guy, and getting him to confess.
To me, the most crucial chapter was Battle of the Shrinks. It looks at how criminals are dealt with once apprehended. Here Douglas meets with a psychiatrist whose job it was to assess whether criminals can have their sentences shortened and be let off early. This psychiatrist didn’t bother reading police reports to see from an outsider exactly what the criminal had done because he didn’t want to be made biased it and wanted to meet the criminal exactly as they presented himself to him. Douglas was appalled by this attitude and tried to get this over to the psychiatrist, but sadly, to no avail.
In short, this is a very entertaining book, and while it can teach you lot, reading it will never make you as good a profiler as John Douglas himself.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Gunfight at the O.K. Corral (1957) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
In another piece of perfect casting, Douglas realised that in this old tale of massive mythological appeal the role of Doc Holliday is far more interesting than the lead of Wyatt Earp. Even so, he managed to earn level billing with lifelong friend Burt Lancaster, such was his box office draw at this point. The two had worked together before, but it wasn’t until this hugely entertaining western that they really bonded; apparently laughing so much between takes that on several occasions director John Sturges sent them home, as no work was possible that day. Douglas also talks in his auto-biography about how he became obsessed with how many times Doc would cough in a scene to maintain continuity – evidence of just how seriously he did take his screen work and craft.
Benny Sadfie recommended Milestones (1975) in Movies (curated)
Blazing Minds (92 KP) rated Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018) in Movies
Nov 1, 2021 (Updated Nov 3, 2021)
Ant-Man and the Wasp bring us two years after Ant-Man helped the Avengers and before Infinity War, Scott (Paul Rudd) is now under house arrest and is struggling to start a new business with Luis (Michael Peña) and juggle life as a superhero and loving father.
Hope Van Dyne (Evangeline Lilly) and Dr. Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) have a new mission for Scott after he has visions of Hank’s wife, the original Wasp (Michelle Pfeiffer). But on this mission, there is more to just trying to save Hank’s wife, a “Ghost” (Hannah John-Kamen) is also trying to get the technology that Ant-Man and the Wasp are also after, plus the FBI and Sonny Burch (Walton Goggins).
Hope Van Dyne (Evangeline Lilly) and Dr. Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) have a new mission for Scott after he has visions of Hank’s wife, the original Wasp (Michelle Pfeiffer). But on this mission, there is more to just trying to save Hank’s wife, a “Ghost” (Hannah John-Kamen) is also trying to get the technology that Ant-Man and the Wasp are also after, plus the FBI and Sonny Burch (Walton Goggins).
Suswatibasu (1701 KP) rated Mindhunter - Season 1 in TV
Oct 15, 2017 (Updated Oct 15, 2017)
A sum total of nothing
Totally disappointed with this series. It's slow and at times seems completely pointless. The premise sounds fantastic - two behavioural psychologists set up a team within the FBI to establish the first idea of serial killers, finding patterns in speech and action from notorious convicts such as Edmund Kemper and Richard Speck, in order to create a pioneering guide into forensic psychology. It is based on the true crime book Mind Hunter: Inside The FBI's Elite Serial Crime Unit written by Mark Olshaker and John E. Douglas.
The series is produced by David Fincher and Charlize Theron, so you would hope for something rather spectacular. Alas, it just completely falls short, each episode seems to just waste away into nothingness and the only thread there is, is the irritating behaviour of the main character who seems to be an arrogant narcissist himself and seems to completely unravel by the end of the series.
There's also a mysterious character throughout the series that doesn't come to fruition so you're left literally scratching your head wondering why the hell he was used in the first place. The acting is the only part where I can say, without a doubt, is extraordinary but that's it.
The series is produced by David Fincher and Charlize Theron, so you would hope for something rather spectacular. Alas, it just completely falls short, each episode seems to just waste away into nothingness and the only thread there is, is the irritating behaviour of the main character who seems to be an arrogant narcissist himself and seems to completely unravel by the end of the series.
There's also a mysterious character throughout the series that doesn't come to fruition so you're left literally scratching your head wondering why the hell he was used in the first place. The acting is the only part where I can say, without a doubt, is extraordinary but that's it.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Trumbo (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
What is it that makes, not a great, but even a good biopic? It is certainly no enviable task, trying to condense decades of a person’s life into a mere two hours. Choosing what to keep and what to leave, stringing events together so that they feel as though they are one complete narrative opposed to a series of vignettes. And then there are the inevitable purists who will write off the entire product based on a single detail either left out or composited due to running time or budgetary restrictions. Over the years, I have found myself wrestling with my opinion of Braveheart. Do I enjoy it for its epic qualities, or do I cast it aside as the wretched historical inaccuracies fly in the face of what is one of the most important times in a country’s past?
The answer is simply, and stolen from another great historical epic, are you not entertained? Film can and should be powerful and informative. It can and should influence our thinking and encourage an emotional response, but above all, it should entertain. Trumbo does all of the above, ticks all the necessary boxes on the list of what makes a great biopic and whatever historical inaccuracies lie within be damned. Director Jay Roach, writer John McNamara and an ensemble so good it has to be seen to be believed have made, if not the best biopic of the year (that distinction still stays with Steve Jobs for now), then certainly the most enjoyable.
Where I find myself in reviewing Trumbo is trying not to sound monotonous in singing its high praises. Whether you’re interested in a message or not, because there is a good one in there, it’s a film that demands to be seen just on the strength of the cohesiveness that comes from the writing, the acting and (I still can’t believe I’m about to write this about the man who made all three Austin Powers movies) the directing.
I could prattle on endlessly about how overwhelmingly good this cast is, but the names speak for themselves. Bryan Cranston showcases that he is not just the best thing on television, but also a big-screen powerhouse. Helen Mirren, in her inimitable fashion and with beautiful understatement, is a force to be reckoned with, seething venom and self-righteousness. Louis C.K. finally breaks out of his stand-up comic persona to give a truly heartfelt performance played with surprisingly restrained vulnerability. The chemistry between him and Bryan Cranston will no doubt leave you wanting more. And John Goodman… well, it’s John Goodman. He continues to prove that no matter how small a part he has to play, it will stay with you long after you’ve left the theater. Hands down, and these are only four out of a dozen terrific performances, there hasn’t been an ensemble this stunning since L.A. Confidential.
It should also be mentioned that Michael Stuhlbarg, David James Elliott and Dean O’Gorman, who portray Edward G. Robinson, John Wayne and Kirk Douglas respectively, are unquestionably destined to go down as the unsung heroes of Trumbo. Their efforts, not just to imitate but to fully realize these Hollywood stars of a by-gone era, are a further complement to inspired casting and commitment to honoring the lives of the people portrayed on screen.
In short (and well done for making it this far through monotonous and truly well-deserved praise), if you have to see one film this Thanksgiving season that doesn’t star Tom Hardy as England’s notorious Kray brothers, see Trumbo.
The answer is simply, and stolen from another great historical epic, are you not entertained? Film can and should be powerful and informative. It can and should influence our thinking and encourage an emotional response, but above all, it should entertain. Trumbo does all of the above, ticks all the necessary boxes on the list of what makes a great biopic and whatever historical inaccuracies lie within be damned. Director Jay Roach, writer John McNamara and an ensemble so good it has to be seen to be believed have made, if not the best biopic of the year (that distinction still stays with Steve Jobs for now), then certainly the most enjoyable.
Where I find myself in reviewing Trumbo is trying not to sound monotonous in singing its high praises. Whether you’re interested in a message or not, because there is a good one in there, it’s a film that demands to be seen just on the strength of the cohesiveness that comes from the writing, the acting and (I still can’t believe I’m about to write this about the man who made all three Austin Powers movies) the directing.
I could prattle on endlessly about how overwhelmingly good this cast is, but the names speak for themselves. Bryan Cranston showcases that he is not just the best thing on television, but also a big-screen powerhouse. Helen Mirren, in her inimitable fashion and with beautiful understatement, is a force to be reckoned with, seething venom and self-righteousness. Louis C.K. finally breaks out of his stand-up comic persona to give a truly heartfelt performance played with surprisingly restrained vulnerability. The chemistry between him and Bryan Cranston will no doubt leave you wanting more. And John Goodman… well, it’s John Goodman. He continues to prove that no matter how small a part he has to play, it will stay with you long after you’ve left the theater. Hands down, and these are only four out of a dozen terrific performances, there hasn’t been an ensemble this stunning since L.A. Confidential.
It should also be mentioned that Michael Stuhlbarg, David James Elliott and Dean O’Gorman, who portray Edward G. Robinson, John Wayne and Kirk Douglas respectively, are unquestionably destined to go down as the unsung heroes of Trumbo. Their efforts, not just to imitate but to fully realize these Hollywood stars of a by-gone era, are a further complement to inspired casting and commitment to honoring the lives of the people portrayed on screen.
In short (and well done for making it this far through monotonous and truly well-deserved praise), if you have to see one film this Thanksgiving season that doesn’t star Tom Hardy as England’s notorious Kray brothers, see Trumbo.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Unlocked (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
London Has Fallen, but good
Every year it happens, a big blockbuster comes along and absolutely obliterates the competition at the box office. This year, that award has gone to the much-hyped and slightly disappointing Guardians of the Galaxy: Vol 2.
Then, a fortnight later, another massive hit arrives, Alien: Covenant this time, meaning any films caught between the two behemoths are generally forgotten. In 2016, that forgotten movie was Eye in the Sky. This year, it’s Michael Apted’s terrorism thriller, Unlocked. But is it a film worth watching?
After being tricked into providing information to the wrong side, a CIA interrogator (Noomi Rapace) finds herself at the centre of a devastating biological attack on London. As she tries to dodge those that pursue her, she stumbles along a terrifying web of lies along the way.
At its core, Unlocked is an enjoyable romp that verges on the side of unremarkable but a few standout scenes, cracking cast and confident direction ensure it is one of the better films in a genre clogged with tripe.
Speaking of that cracking cast, it features the likes of John Malkovich, Toni Collette, Orlando Bloom and Michael Douglas. Each of these stars act well though some, Malkovich in particular, are sorely underused. Nevertheless, he and Collette add a level of class to proceedings whilst Douglas looks like he’s there just for the wages.
The story, written by Peter O’Brien is actually pretty good. It’s nothing particularly original, but manages to sustain enough interest to see Unlocked through its taut 98 minute running time. In fact, I wouldn’t mind seeing a sequel, it’s genuinely that intriguing.
The parallels to last year’s London Has Fallen will no doubt be drawn and the fragile subject matter that both films tackle is one that is perhaps a little too hard to stomach for some moviegoers. However, Unlocked delves into the topic of British terrorism in a much more sensitive way, rather than money-making with all-out spectacle.
Cinematography wise, it’s more of the same – competent but unexceptional. The action is staged well but Michael Apted struggles with the smaller details; there’s some lazy editing and poor sound mixing. The special effects are few and far between, helping the film’s cause in a way, but those that are there are more than up to the task of bolstering its appeal.
Overall, Unlocked is an entertaining thriller that has a stellar cast. It’s well paced, nicely shot and tackles the subjects of urban terrorism sensitively, but you’ll have a hard time remembering it a few months down the line, it’s marketing has just been that terrible.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/06/london-has-fallen-but-good-unlocked-review/
Then, a fortnight later, another massive hit arrives, Alien: Covenant this time, meaning any films caught between the two behemoths are generally forgotten. In 2016, that forgotten movie was Eye in the Sky. This year, it’s Michael Apted’s terrorism thriller, Unlocked. But is it a film worth watching?
After being tricked into providing information to the wrong side, a CIA interrogator (Noomi Rapace) finds herself at the centre of a devastating biological attack on London. As she tries to dodge those that pursue her, she stumbles along a terrifying web of lies along the way.
At its core, Unlocked is an enjoyable romp that verges on the side of unremarkable but a few standout scenes, cracking cast and confident direction ensure it is one of the better films in a genre clogged with tripe.
Speaking of that cracking cast, it features the likes of John Malkovich, Toni Collette, Orlando Bloom and Michael Douglas. Each of these stars act well though some, Malkovich in particular, are sorely underused. Nevertheless, he and Collette add a level of class to proceedings whilst Douglas looks like he’s there just for the wages.
The story, written by Peter O’Brien is actually pretty good. It’s nothing particularly original, but manages to sustain enough interest to see Unlocked through its taut 98 minute running time. In fact, I wouldn’t mind seeing a sequel, it’s genuinely that intriguing.
The parallels to last year’s London Has Fallen will no doubt be drawn and the fragile subject matter that both films tackle is one that is perhaps a little too hard to stomach for some moviegoers. However, Unlocked delves into the topic of British terrorism in a much more sensitive way, rather than money-making with all-out spectacle.
Cinematography wise, it’s more of the same – competent but unexceptional. The action is staged well but Michael Apted struggles with the smaller details; there’s some lazy editing and poor sound mixing. The special effects are few and far between, helping the film’s cause in a way, but those that are there are more than up to the task of bolstering its appeal.
Overall, Unlocked is an entertaining thriller that has a stellar cast. It’s well paced, nicely shot and tackles the subjects of urban terrorism sensitively, but you’ll have a hard time remembering it a few months down the line, it’s marketing has just been that terrible.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/06/london-has-fallen-but-good-unlocked-review/
