Search
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated Good Me, Bad Me in Books
Mar 15, 2018
Read my review here: http://bookbumzuky.wordpress.com/
AVAILABLE NOW!
<b><i>I promised to be the best I could. I promised to try… Forgive me.</b></i>
Wow. This book was far, far better than I was expecting it to be. I had left it in my library for so long that I had forgotten what it was even about when I picked it up to read. <i>Be warned,</i> there are <b>triggers</b> to note in this book (sexual, physical and emotional abuse of a child, self harm and child murder) but Land is decent enough not to delve too deeply into any of these topics.
The plot for this was new to me, I don’t think I’ve ever read a novel with a similar plot line, though I may be forgetting (I won’t be forgetting about this one)! Annie, whose name is changed to Milly for protection reasons, is the daughter of a serial killer. And while her mother's trial looms, Milly is trying to move on, forget her old life and fit in with her foster family but nightmarish nighttime visits and a constant inner voice from her mother don’t make any of this easy. Stuck in a battle of nature and nurture, Milly is terrified of what she might become. Fighting with herself daily to be the “good me” is tough, because afterall, she is her mother's daughter.
The writing style of this novel is incredible. It was snappy, fast paced yet added to the mystery of the plot. It kept me wanting to know more, which is exactly why I read the novel in under 24 hours. My only, <i>tiny</i>, gripe with the writing, was sometimes, <i>very occasionally</i>, sentences were structured in a way that made it sound like Milly was Yoda... but I only noticed it a couple of times throughout the entire thing.
<b>Twisted, shocking, unputdownable and unforgettable.</b> This is set to be one of the best debuts of 2017 and is by far one of the best debuts I’ve read this year (I finished this in late 2016, not early 2017!!). I’m excited to see what other books Land can produce.
Thanks to Netgalley and Penguin UK - Michael Joseph for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.
AVAILABLE NOW!
<b><i>I promised to be the best I could. I promised to try… Forgive me.</b></i>
Wow. This book was far, far better than I was expecting it to be. I had left it in my library for so long that I had forgotten what it was even about when I picked it up to read. <i>Be warned,</i> there are <b>triggers</b> to note in this book (sexual, physical and emotional abuse of a child, self harm and child murder) but Land is decent enough not to delve too deeply into any of these topics.
The plot for this was new to me, I don’t think I’ve ever read a novel with a similar plot line, though I may be forgetting (I won’t be forgetting about this one)! Annie, whose name is changed to Milly for protection reasons, is the daughter of a serial killer. And while her mother's trial looms, Milly is trying to move on, forget her old life and fit in with her foster family but nightmarish nighttime visits and a constant inner voice from her mother don’t make any of this easy. Stuck in a battle of nature and nurture, Milly is terrified of what she might become. Fighting with herself daily to be the “good me” is tough, because afterall, she is her mother's daughter.
The writing style of this novel is incredible. It was snappy, fast paced yet added to the mystery of the plot. It kept me wanting to know more, which is exactly why I read the novel in under 24 hours. My only, <i>tiny</i>, gripe with the writing, was sometimes, <i>very occasionally</i>, sentences were structured in a way that made it sound like Milly was Yoda... but I only noticed it a couple of times throughout the entire thing.
<b>Twisted, shocking, unputdownable and unforgettable.</b> This is set to be one of the best debuts of 2017 and is by far one of the best debuts I’ve read this year (I finished this in late 2016, not early 2017!!). I’m excited to see what other books Land can produce.
Thanks to Netgalley and Penguin UK - Michael Joseph for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Frank Miller's Sin City: A Dame to Kill For (2014) in Movies
Jan 17, 2021
I think that I actually prefer A Dame to Kill For over the first Sin City...
Once again, it's a visual feast, and once again, has a damn fine cast.
Two of the stories here are (unless I'm mistaken) written for this film, rather than being adapted. One of them concentrates on Johnny (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and his incredible luck at gambling. This story serves as nothing more than to further highlight just how much of an asshole Senator Rourke (Powers Boothe) is, once again, acting as the films main big bad. It's effective enough and does what it sets out to do. The other story concentrates on Nancy (Jessica Alba) torn up and struggling with alcohol after what Rourke did to Hartigan (Bruce Willis) in the first movie, before enlisting the help of Marv (Mickey Rourke) to exact revenge. This one is a little more high stakes. By this point, you really want Rourke to face some really unfriendly justice, and it's fitting that Nancy be the one to dish it out.
However, the titular story is what holds everything together.
A Dame to Kill For, which is indeed adapted from the comics is fantastic. It takes up the majority of runtime, and follows pre Clive Owen looking Dwight (Josh Brolin) going toe to toe with the seductively powerful and dangerous Ava (Eva Green). Here is where we're in full blown prequel territory, learning how Dwight comes to look how he does in the original, his connections the the girls of Old Town, and how Manute (Dennis Haysbert) ends up with his fetching golden eyeball. The best character interactions happen here. Green and Brolin are both great, and easily steal the show. It also boasts some great action when Gail (Rosario Dawson) and Miho (Jamie Chung) return to fuck shit up, and is just an all round enjoyable segment that easily dwarfs the other two stories.
The cast also includes Ray Liota, Christopher Meloni, Jaime King, Jeremy Piven, Christopher Lloyd, Juno Temple, Julia Garner, and Lady Gaga, so yeah, pretty solid ensemble all in all!
Its a damn shame that ADTKF took as long as it did to materialise. The Sin City hype train had gone a bit quiet by the time it released, and it didn't get the credit it deserves, and is frequently discarded as an inferior film to it's predecessor when personally, I think there's a lot to love.
Once again, it's a visual feast, and once again, has a damn fine cast.
Two of the stories here are (unless I'm mistaken) written for this film, rather than being adapted. One of them concentrates on Johnny (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and his incredible luck at gambling. This story serves as nothing more than to further highlight just how much of an asshole Senator Rourke (Powers Boothe) is, once again, acting as the films main big bad. It's effective enough and does what it sets out to do. The other story concentrates on Nancy (Jessica Alba) torn up and struggling with alcohol after what Rourke did to Hartigan (Bruce Willis) in the first movie, before enlisting the help of Marv (Mickey Rourke) to exact revenge. This one is a little more high stakes. By this point, you really want Rourke to face some really unfriendly justice, and it's fitting that Nancy be the one to dish it out.
However, the titular story is what holds everything together.
A Dame to Kill For, which is indeed adapted from the comics is fantastic. It takes up the majority of runtime, and follows pre Clive Owen looking Dwight (Josh Brolin) going toe to toe with the seductively powerful and dangerous Ava (Eva Green). Here is where we're in full blown prequel territory, learning how Dwight comes to look how he does in the original, his connections the the girls of Old Town, and how Manute (Dennis Haysbert) ends up with his fetching golden eyeball. The best character interactions happen here. Green and Brolin are both great, and easily steal the show. It also boasts some great action when Gail (Rosario Dawson) and Miho (Jamie Chung) return to fuck shit up, and is just an all round enjoyable segment that easily dwarfs the other two stories.
The cast also includes Ray Liota, Christopher Meloni, Jaime King, Jeremy Piven, Christopher Lloyd, Juno Temple, Julia Garner, and Lady Gaga, so yeah, pretty solid ensemble all in all!
Its a damn shame that ADTKF took as long as it did to materialise. The Sin City hype train had gone a bit quiet by the time it released, and it didn't get the credit it deserves, and is frequently discarded as an inferior film to it's predecessor when personally, I think there's a lot to love.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Dark Knight Rises (2012) in Movies
Jun 27, 2018
A "good enough" ending to the trilogy
Going into the filming of THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, Director Christopher Nolan had a problem on his hands. The previous film in this trilogy - 2008's THE DARK KNIGHT - had turned into a cultural phenomenon based, in part, on the late Heath Ledger's bravura performance as The Joker. So how does he top it?
The quick answer is - you don't, so don't even try.
THE DARK KNIGHT RISES is a satisfactory conclusion to the Dark Knight trilogy that started with 2005's BATMAN BEGINS and, again stars Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne/Batman, the "Dark Knight".
What Director Nolan wisely does is continue his dark tone with this film, but does not even mention The Joker (or Ledger) in this film. Let the memories of the past films be just that - memories - and let this film stand on it's own.
And it does, for the most part.
Taking place 8 years after the events of THE DARK KNIGHT, this film has Batman coming out of self-imposed "retirement" to, yet again, save Gotham City from the clutches of a bad guy - this time, the masked Bane. In the course of this film Batman is torn down, to be risen and reborn again as the shining light of good over evil, shedding the "Dark Knight" moniker once and for all.
Nolan - and his brother, and frequent collaborator, Jonathan - wrote the screenplay and it is...serviceable. Nothing really remarkable about the story and plot. It gives each one of our returning characters - Lucious Fox (Morgan Freeman), Alfred Pennyworth (Michael Caine) and - especially - Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) room to shine along with other, new characters like Selina Kyle/Catwoman (a really good Anne Hathaway), Officer Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard) and, of course, Bane (Tom Hardy).
As you might be able to see, ALL of these actors are members of Nolan's "troupe" of actors - they either have been in other Nolan films (or, in the case of Hathaway, WILL be in another Nolan film) and each of them appear on the screen with gusto and a quiet confidence in their characters and a trust in a filmmaker that comes from frequent collaborations.
In the lead, Bale, of course, gives his usual, strong performance, though I did detect a hint of weariness in the performance. Now...some will say that is because the character is becoming weary, but I think it is more to the case that Bale was growing weary of playing this character.
But that is a quibble for all of the characters/actors do a terrific/professional job pushing the plot forward, which (let's admit) is just an excuse to go from one gigantic battle/chase scene to another and...Nolan certainly knows how to do these.
From the opening to close, every one of these gigantic "set pieces" held my attention and I found myself - even though I have seen this film before - sitting on the edge of my seat as the good guys - led by Batman - raced time to thwart the machinations of the bad guys in the end.
I'm glad these action sequences held my attention, for there are, inexplicably, looooong sections of this film where there is no action, but "character development" and "growth from strong internal retrospection." This sort of thing might have looked good on the page, but it is rather dull and boring when put on the screen. This film is almost 3 hours long, and - if Mr. Nolan would like to contact me - I can suggest a few spots where we can trim about 20-30 minutes out of this film, starting with the long stretch where Bruce Wayne is imprisoned.
But...these stretches are tolerable when you know it will lead you to some really fine action sequences featuring character/actors that you care about and are actually rooting for them to succeed. As I stated before, this is an "agreeable" conclusion to the trilogy. One who's journey I was glad to be one, but - to be honest - one that I was glad was over as well.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
The quick answer is - you don't, so don't even try.
THE DARK KNIGHT RISES is a satisfactory conclusion to the Dark Knight trilogy that started with 2005's BATMAN BEGINS and, again stars Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne/Batman, the "Dark Knight".
What Director Nolan wisely does is continue his dark tone with this film, but does not even mention The Joker (or Ledger) in this film. Let the memories of the past films be just that - memories - and let this film stand on it's own.
And it does, for the most part.
Taking place 8 years after the events of THE DARK KNIGHT, this film has Batman coming out of self-imposed "retirement" to, yet again, save Gotham City from the clutches of a bad guy - this time, the masked Bane. In the course of this film Batman is torn down, to be risen and reborn again as the shining light of good over evil, shedding the "Dark Knight" moniker once and for all.
Nolan - and his brother, and frequent collaborator, Jonathan - wrote the screenplay and it is...serviceable. Nothing really remarkable about the story and plot. It gives each one of our returning characters - Lucious Fox (Morgan Freeman), Alfred Pennyworth (Michael Caine) and - especially - Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) room to shine along with other, new characters like Selina Kyle/Catwoman (a really good Anne Hathaway), Officer Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard) and, of course, Bane (Tom Hardy).
As you might be able to see, ALL of these actors are members of Nolan's "troupe" of actors - they either have been in other Nolan films (or, in the case of Hathaway, WILL be in another Nolan film) and each of them appear on the screen with gusto and a quiet confidence in their characters and a trust in a filmmaker that comes from frequent collaborations.
In the lead, Bale, of course, gives his usual, strong performance, though I did detect a hint of weariness in the performance. Now...some will say that is because the character is becoming weary, but I think it is more to the case that Bale was growing weary of playing this character.
But that is a quibble for all of the characters/actors do a terrific/professional job pushing the plot forward, which (let's admit) is just an excuse to go from one gigantic battle/chase scene to another and...Nolan certainly knows how to do these.
From the opening to close, every one of these gigantic "set pieces" held my attention and I found myself - even though I have seen this film before - sitting on the edge of my seat as the good guys - led by Batman - raced time to thwart the machinations of the bad guys in the end.
I'm glad these action sequences held my attention, for there are, inexplicably, looooong sections of this film where there is no action, but "character development" and "growth from strong internal retrospection." This sort of thing might have looked good on the page, but it is rather dull and boring when put on the screen. This film is almost 3 hours long, and - if Mr. Nolan would like to contact me - I can suggest a few spots where we can trim about 20-30 minutes out of this film, starting with the long stretch where Bruce Wayne is imprisoned.
But...these stretches are tolerable when you know it will lead you to some really fine action sequences featuring character/actors that you care about and are actually rooting for them to succeed. As I stated before, this is an "agreeable" conclusion to the trilogy. One who's journey I was glad to be one, but - to be honest - one that I was glad was over as well.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Anatomy of a Murder (1959) in Movies
Nov 30, 2018
One of the Best Courtroom Dramas of all Time
I have to admit, that (at times) the fun part of going to "SECRET MOVIE NIGHT" is the anticipation of not knowing what the film is. Sometimes the film is "good, not great" (like THE BLUES BROTHERS, BODY HEAT and A FACE IN THE CROWD) and other times it is a CLASSIC (Like CITIZEN KANE, THE APARTMENT and NETWORK). I am happy to report that this month's installment IS a classic, our old pal Jimmy Stewart in 1959's ANATOMY OF MURDER.
Directed by the great Otto Preminger, AOM is often referred to as the finest courtroom drama ever filmed. While I need to give that some thought, I will say AOM is right up there as one of the finest examples of a courtroom drama.
Starring Jimmy Stewart as "country lawyer" Paul Biegler, who is brought in to defend Army Lieutenant Manion (Ben Gazzara). Manion is accused of murdering a man that raped his wife (Lee Remick). The central mystery isn't "did Manion kill the man" (he did), it is more of "did he kill his wife's rapist or lover" and "will Biegler get away with the temporary insanity plea".
This is the kind of plot that we've all seen a dozen times on standard TV shows, but back in 1959, this type of film - and trial - was quite new and fresh and this film was "scandalous" in it's use of frank language. Remember, this is 1959 in Eisenhower "Happy Days" Americana, so hearing words like "bitch, panties, penetration, slut, sperm, bitch and slut" was quite shocking and led to many protests of the film.
Those who were turned off by the language and frankhandling of the subject matter lost out on an intriguing, well-acted, well-written and well-directed courtroom drama, where the verdict is up in the air right up until the foreman of the jury says "We, the jury, find the defendant..."
Jimmy Stewart is perfectly cast in the lead role of Defense Attorney, Biegler. Stewart brings an instant likableness and every man integrity quality to the role. His Attorney is down-to-earth but whip-smart, able to crack a joke to lighten the mood or explode in rage at an affront at a moment's notice. He goes toe-to-toe with Prosecuting Attorney Claude Dancer (a VERY young George C. Scott). Dancer is everything that Biegler is not, crisp, well-polished and arrogant. While it would have been very easy to paint these two characters as good (Stewart) and bad (Scott), Director Preminger and screenwriter Wendell Mayes shy away from this and show these two as fierce competitors playing a very serious game of chess - and this works very well, indeed. Both Stewart and Scott were nominated for Oscars for their work as Best Actor and Supporting Actor respectively.
The Supporting cast is superb, featuring such 1950's/early 1960's stalwarts as Arthur O'Connell (also Oscar nominated as Stewarts's alcoholic law mentor), the always good Eve Arden, Orson Bean and Katherine Grant. It also features three character actors in small roles (witnesses in the trial) who you would recognize from other things - Murray Hamilton (the Mayor in Jaws), Howard McNear (Floyd the Barber from Mayberry) and Joseph Kearns (Mr. Wilson in Dennis the Menace).
Special notice needs to be made for Lee Remick as the sultry and flirtatious woman at the core of the film. Remick is superb in this role, and that is fortunate, for if she wasn't believable in the "would she or won't she" role that she is asked to play, then the film could have easily fallen apart. But the real bright spot in this film is the scene stealing Joseph N. Welch as the Judge in the case. His performance as the judge is the perfect "third leg" to the Stewart/Scott stool, balancing charm, folksiness and strength in even portions (depending on what is needed to balance the other two).
Otto Preminger (LAURA, STALAG 17) is a Director who's name is beginning to fade into the dust of the past - and that's too bad, for he is a strong director who knows how to frame a scene and pace a film. Even though AOM is 2 hours and 40 minutes of talking, it never feels long or slow.
Two other aspects of this film need to be mentioned - the "jazz" score by the great Duke Ellington (which won a grammy) is perfectly suited to the themes and mood of this film and the opening title sequence (and movie poster) is reminiscent of an Alfred Hitchock film - and that is because they are done by frequent Hitchock contributor Saul Bass.
Nominated for 7 Oscars (it won zero, falling to the juggernaut that was BEN HUR that year), ANATOMY OF A MURDER is an intriguing courtroom drama that also opens the door to performers of the past. Well worth the time investment, should you run across it (it is frequently shown on TCM).
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Directed by the great Otto Preminger, AOM is often referred to as the finest courtroom drama ever filmed. While I need to give that some thought, I will say AOM is right up there as one of the finest examples of a courtroom drama.
Starring Jimmy Stewart as "country lawyer" Paul Biegler, who is brought in to defend Army Lieutenant Manion (Ben Gazzara). Manion is accused of murdering a man that raped his wife (Lee Remick). The central mystery isn't "did Manion kill the man" (he did), it is more of "did he kill his wife's rapist or lover" and "will Biegler get away with the temporary insanity plea".
This is the kind of plot that we've all seen a dozen times on standard TV shows, but back in 1959, this type of film - and trial - was quite new and fresh and this film was "scandalous" in it's use of frank language. Remember, this is 1959 in Eisenhower "Happy Days" Americana, so hearing words like "bitch, panties, penetration, slut, sperm, bitch and slut" was quite shocking and led to many protests of the film.
Those who were turned off by the language and frankhandling of the subject matter lost out on an intriguing, well-acted, well-written and well-directed courtroom drama, where the verdict is up in the air right up until the foreman of the jury says "We, the jury, find the defendant..."
Jimmy Stewart is perfectly cast in the lead role of Defense Attorney, Biegler. Stewart brings an instant likableness and every man integrity quality to the role. His Attorney is down-to-earth but whip-smart, able to crack a joke to lighten the mood or explode in rage at an affront at a moment's notice. He goes toe-to-toe with Prosecuting Attorney Claude Dancer (a VERY young George C. Scott). Dancer is everything that Biegler is not, crisp, well-polished and arrogant. While it would have been very easy to paint these two characters as good (Stewart) and bad (Scott), Director Preminger and screenwriter Wendell Mayes shy away from this and show these two as fierce competitors playing a very serious game of chess - and this works very well, indeed. Both Stewart and Scott were nominated for Oscars for their work as Best Actor and Supporting Actor respectively.
The Supporting cast is superb, featuring such 1950's/early 1960's stalwarts as Arthur O'Connell (also Oscar nominated as Stewarts's alcoholic law mentor), the always good Eve Arden, Orson Bean and Katherine Grant. It also features three character actors in small roles (witnesses in the trial) who you would recognize from other things - Murray Hamilton (the Mayor in Jaws), Howard McNear (Floyd the Barber from Mayberry) and Joseph Kearns (Mr. Wilson in Dennis the Menace).
Special notice needs to be made for Lee Remick as the sultry and flirtatious woman at the core of the film. Remick is superb in this role, and that is fortunate, for if she wasn't believable in the "would she or won't she" role that she is asked to play, then the film could have easily fallen apart. But the real bright spot in this film is the scene stealing Joseph N. Welch as the Judge in the case. His performance as the judge is the perfect "third leg" to the Stewart/Scott stool, balancing charm, folksiness and strength in even portions (depending on what is needed to balance the other two).
Otto Preminger (LAURA, STALAG 17) is a Director who's name is beginning to fade into the dust of the past - and that's too bad, for he is a strong director who knows how to frame a scene and pace a film. Even though AOM is 2 hours and 40 minutes of talking, it never feels long or slow.
Two other aspects of this film need to be mentioned - the "jazz" score by the great Duke Ellington (which won a grammy) is perfectly suited to the themes and mood of this film and the opening title sequence (and movie poster) is reminiscent of an Alfred Hitchock film - and that is because they are done by frequent Hitchock contributor Saul Bass.
Nominated for 7 Oscars (it won zero, falling to the juggernaut that was BEN HUR that year), ANATOMY OF A MURDER is an intriguing courtroom drama that also opens the door to performers of the past. Well worth the time investment, should you run across it (it is frequently shown on TCM).
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Looper (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
In the world of 2072, it is learned that time travel has been invented and is declared illegal by all the governments of the world. Naturally, the criminal elements of the future embrace the technology. Apparently getting rid of bodies and people in the future is tricky because of innovative tagging and tracking technology.
The criminal bosses of the future send a man named Abe (Jeff Bridges) 30 years into the past to serve the criminals of the future with a new type of hit man called a Looper. In the new film “Looper” Joseph Gordon-Levitt stars as Joe, a Looper who never lets morals get in the way of his job. He is happy to promptly dispatch anyone sent from the future without a second thought.
Joe is well paid for his work, and is happy to enjoy the drugs and women that come with his job. Yet Joe desires to leave it all one day and travel to France. For a Looper to be retired, he is forced to kill a future version of himself, and in doing so, gets a fantastic retirement payout and 30 years to live it up since that is how long it will take for time travel to be invented. Naturally an older version of yourself cannot be sent back to be killed by your younger self for at least 30 years. But the increase in retirements is a bit disconcerting for Joe.
Things change drastically for Joe when his older self (Bruce Willis), appears and manages to escape before he can be killed by his younger self. For a Looper to have his target escape is a serious infraction, and in no time, Joe finds himself not only hunting his older self, but also on the run from his former friends and allies who have made him both older and younger a priority.
At this point in the film, I was hooked, as my mind raced with twists, possibilities, and the promise of the film. Sadly the momentum grinds to a halt in the second half as the older Joe attempts to ally with his younger self to stop a future crime boss while he is a child. This quickly becomes a very blatant “Terminator” rip off as older Joe attempts to locate and kill children who may be the future crime lord while younger Joe is biding his time hiding from his former associates while protecting a young child and his mother from his older self.
It does not take much thought to see where this is going but sadly the remainder of the movie is underwhelming and disappointing as the film recycles scenarios that we have seen many times before in better movies. The second half lacks any real action and climactic finale to give the audience the well-deserved payoff they waited for.
Willis, Bridges, and Gordon-Levitt do solid work but seem to be going through the motions as they never really earn any sympathy from the audience. Much like last year’s “In Time”, “Looper” has a great premise that starts well and then fails to live up to its potential.
The criminal bosses of the future send a man named Abe (Jeff Bridges) 30 years into the past to serve the criminals of the future with a new type of hit man called a Looper. In the new film “Looper” Joseph Gordon-Levitt stars as Joe, a Looper who never lets morals get in the way of his job. He is happy to promptly dispatch anyone sent from the future without a second thought.
Joe is well paid for his work, and is happy to enjoy the drugs and women that come with his job. Yet Joe desires to leave it all one day and travel to France. For a Looper to be retired, he is forced to kill a future version of himself, and in doing so, gets a fantastic retirement payout and 30 years to live it up since that is how long it will take for time travel to be invented. Naturally an older version of yourself cannot be sent back to be killed by your younger self for at least 30 years. But the increase in retirements is a bit disconcerting for Joe.
Things change drastically for Joe when his older self (Bruce Willis), appears and manages to escape before he can be killed by his younger self. For a Looper to have his target escape is a serious infraction, and in no time, Joe finds himself not only hunting his older self, but also on the run from his former friends and allies who have made him both older and younger a priority.
At this point in the film, I was hooked, as my mind raced with twists, possibilities, and the promise of the film. Sadly the momentum grinds to a halt in the second half as the older Joe attempts to ally with his younger self to stop a future crime boss while he is a child. This quickly becomes a very blatant “Terminator” rip off as older Joe attempts to locate and kill children who may be the future crime lord while younger Joe is biding his time hiding from his former associates while protecting a young child and his mother from his older self.
It does not take much thought to see where this is going but sadly the remainder of the movie is underwhelming and disappointing as the film recycles scenarios that we have seen many times before in better movies. The second half lacks any real action and climactic finale to give the audience the well-deserved payoff they waited for.
Willis, Bridges, and Gordon-Levitt do solid work but seem to be going through the motions as they never really earn any sympathy from the audience. Much like last year’s “In Time”, “Looper” has a great premise that starts well and then fails to live up to its potential.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020) in Movies
Oct 19, 2020 (Updated Oct 19, 2020)
Fascinating
The Trial of the Chicago 7 is Aaron Sorkin’s second foray into directing, a dramatisation of the true story of 7 people on trial following the events at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Illinois.
The film centres around what is effectively a sham of a trial, and aside from a few flashbacks and prep scenes, it is virtually set entirely in the courtroom for the 2+ hour duration. There aren’t many films that can pull this off and aside from a slight lull in the middle, The Trial of the Chicago 7 manages this impressively well and this is mainly down to Aaron Sorkin himself and his rather stellar cast. It also helps that the story itself is a fascinating one. I knew nothing about the trial, the people or even the protests in Chicago, so watching this was a rather disturbing eye opener. It’s a truly compelling and interesting story which has a great deal of relevance to today’s politics – Netflix Ken what they were doing releasing this close to election time!
I’m a long time fan of Sorkin’s writing and alongside his directing, it definitely does not disappoint here. His usual sharp and quick witted dialogue is ever present and is delivered flawless by the marvellous cast. Sorkin even manages to throw in a few laughs which considering the rather serious aspects of the story is no mean feat, and these are often delivered from the ‘bromance’ between Sacha Baron Cohen’s Abbie Hoffman and Jeremy Strong’s Jerry Rubin. However every single member of this ensemble cast shines individually. From Mark Rylance’s exasperated lawyer William Kunstler to Frank Langella’s rather evil and incompetent judge, from Joseph Gordon Levitt’s prosecutor with a conscience to Eddie Redmayne’s intellectual Hayden. Even Michael Keaton who has a blink and you’ll miss it role as a former Attorney General is brilliant. I couldn’t pinpoint a single person in this case who excels above another as they are all fantastic.
I don’t believe this film is perfect. There is a slight lull in the middle due to the mostly courtroom setting, even with the cracking dialogue, and whilst I did enjoy Sorkin’s directing style, I did wonder if this film looked a little too slick and polished overall. The story is dark, gritty and rather disturbing when you think of the political and racial undertones and motivations, and the film itself doesn’t always reflect this – the ending especially is very moving, but feels a little too happy and Hollywood. I’d also question why not all of the major characters were included in the intertitles detailing what happened to the individuals after the events of this film. Considering it was such a balanced cast, it seemed odd not to include all the main characters especially for those who don’t know the real life history.
Overall this is a fantastic dialogue and performance driven film. Sorkin is without a doubt a master of the legal and political drama, and if you’re a fan of his earlier work then this is definitely one worth watching. Whilst “enjoyable” may not be the most appropriate word considering the subject matter, this is a hugely interesting and entertaining watch.
The film centres around what is effectively a sham of a trial, and aside from a few flashbacks and prep scenes, it is virtually set entirely in the courtroom for the 2+ hour duration. There aren’t many films that can pull this off and aside from a slight lull in the middle, The Trial of the Chicago 7 manages this impressively well and this is mainly down to Aaron Sorkin himself and his rather stellar cast. It also helps that the story itself is a fascinating one. I knew nothing about the trial, the people or even the protests in Chicago, so watching this was a rather disturbing eye opener. It’s a truly compelling and interesting story which has a great deal of relevance to today’s politics – Netflix Ken what they were doing releasing this close to election time!
I’m a long time fan of Sorkin’s writing and alongside his directing, it definitely does not disappoint here. His usual sharp and quick witted dialogue is ever present and is delivered flawless by the marvellous cast. Sorkin even manages to throw in a few laughs which considering the rather serious aspects of the story is no mean feat, and these are often delivered from the ‘bromance’ between Sacha Baron Cohen’s Abbie Hoffman and Jeremy Strong’s Jerry Rubin. However every single member of this ensemble cast shines individually. From Mark Rylance’s exasperated lawyer William Kunstler to Frank Langella’s rather evil and incompetent judge, from Joseph Gordon Levitt’s prosecutor with a conscience to Eddie Redmayne’s intellectual Hayden. Even Michael Keaton who has a blink and you’ll miss it role as a former Attorney General is brilliant. I couldn’t pinpoint a single person in this case who excels above another as they are all fantastic.
I don’t believe this film is perfect. There is a slight lull in the middle due to the mostly courtroom setting, even with the cracking dialogue, and whilst I did enjoy Sorkin’s directing style, I did wonder if this film looked a little too slick and polished overall. The story is dark, gritty and rather disturbing when you think of the political and racial undertones and motivations, and the film itself doesn’t always reflect this – the ending especially is very moving, but feels a little too happy and Hollywood. I’d also question why not all of the major characters were included in the intertitles detailing what happened to the individuals after the events of this film. Considering it was such a balanced cast, it seemed odd not to include all the main characters especially for those who don’t know the real life history.
Overall this is a fantastic dialogue and performance driven film. Sorkin is without a doubt a master of the legal and political drama, and if you’re a fan of his earlier work then this is definitely one worth watching. Whilst “enjoyable” may not be the most appropriate word considering the subject matter, this is a hugely interesting and entertaining watch.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Knight of Cups (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
I’ll just come out and say it … This movie for all it’s grandeur with its ensemble cast and it’s amazing photographic work and direction is something that should be shown at film festivals and in art house movie theaters and NOT your mainstream chain theaters. Someplace where you can order a meal and perhaps a glass of wine or a local ale. Why? If the movie has Christian Bale in its cast you know there’s going to be drama involved regardless of whether or not the movie itself is dramatic. THIS particular film is a drama that could be compared to something written by Shakespeare.
‘Knight Of Cups’ is a romantic drama written and directed by Terrence Malick and stars an ensemble cast including Christian Bale, Cate Blanchett, Antonio Banderas, Natalie Portman, Brian Dennehy, Armin Muller-Stahl, Isabel Lucas, Freida Pinto, Wes Bentley, Imogen Poots, Teresa Palmer, and Peter Matthiessen.
“Once there was a young prince whose father, the king of the East, sent him down into Egypt to find a pearl. But when the prince arrived, the people poured him a cup. Drinking it, he forgot he was the son of a king, forgot about the pearl and fell into a deep sleep.”
Rick (Bale) is a successful writer born into a powerful family in L.A. The son of Joseph (Dennehy) and brother to Barry (Bently). After the lose of a second brother as well as his mother, Rick becomes disillusioned and loses himself in the excesses found in the ‘City Of Angles’ and nearby Las Vegas. Along this aimless journey he encounters 6 different women Nancy (Blanchett) a doctor, Elizabeth (Portman) a married woman, Helen (Pinto), Isabel (Lucas), Karen (Palmer), and Della (Poots) looking to form some sort of bond or connection. Perhaps even to discover love only to encounter more lose. He wanders from cities, to beaches, then from mountains to deserts. Searching for something meaningful, some purpose all the while trying to hold what remains of his family and his own sanity together and along the way encounters a cast of colorful characters who have their own ideas about life and their own views on how he should live his.
This film was pretty much Malick’s attempt at making an art film with a large budget and a star studded cast. That’s just the thing. He succeeded and it was just too much. From a technical standpoint, it was wonderfully directed with its landscapes and ‘not-the-norm’ angles and close-ups but it simultaneously took away from the people and the story. It was almost as though they were trying to combine a film on the Discovery Channel with a drama. The film was two minutes shy of 2 hours long. Had the director been able to shave 20 minutes from it, then I could see it given a limited run in major theaters. I have to give kudos to the actors and actresses who were on top of their game which made the film worth sitting through once. The film is rated R for scenes of violence, nudity, and language. If you’re enduring one of those days where you just need to disappear and NOT communicate with anyone for a while, go see this movie. It’s runtime and complexity will help take your mind off your troubles. I’d highly recommend though that you save the film for viewing at home. I’ll give this film 3 out of 5 stars.
‘Knight Of Cups’ is a romantic drama written and directed by Terrence Malick and stars an ensemble cast including Christian Bale, Cate Blanchett, Antonio Banderas, Natalie Portman, Brian Dennehy, Armin Muller-Stahl, Isabel Lucas, Freida Pinto, Wes Bentley, Imogen Poots, Teresa Palmer, and Peter Matthiessen.
“Once there was a young prince whose father, the king of the East, sent him down into Egypt to find a pearl. But when the prince arrived, the people poured him a cup. Drinking it, he forgot he was the son of a king, forgot about the pearl and fell into a deep sleep.”
Rick (Bale) is a successful writer born into a powerful family in L.A. The son of Joseph (Dennehy) and brother to Barry (Bently). After the lose of a second brother as well as his mother, Rick becomes disillusioned and loses himself in the excesses found in the ‘City Of Angles’ and nearby Las Vegas. Along this aimless journey he encounters 6 different women Nancy (Blanchett) a doctor, Elizabeth (Portman) a married woman, Helen (Pinto), Isabel (Lucas), Karen (Palmer), and Della (Poots) looking to form some sort of bond or connection. Perhaps even to discover love only to encounter more lose. He wanders from cities, to beaches, then from mountains to deserts. Searching for something meaningful, some purpose all the while trying to hold what remains of his family and his own sanity together and along the way encounters a cast of colorful characters who have their own ideas about life and their own views on how he should live his.
This film was pretty much Malick’s attempt at making an art film with a large budget and a star studded cast. That’s just the thing. He succeeded and it was just too much. From a technical standpoint, it was wonderfully directed with its landscapes and ‘not-the-norm’ angles and close-ups but it simultaneously took away from the people and the story. It was almost as though they were trying to combine a film on the Discovery Channel with a drama. The film was two minutes shy of 2 hours long. Had the director been able to shave 20 minutes from it, then I could see it given a limited run in major theaters. I have to give kudos to the actors and actresses who were on top of their game which made the film worth sitting through once. The film is rated R for scenes of violence, nudity, and language. If you’re enduring one of those days where you just need to disappear and NOT communicate with anyone for a while, go see this movie. It’s runtime and complexity will help take your mind off your troubles. I’d highly recommend though that you save the film for viewing at home. I’ll give this film 3 out of 5 stars.
Art Of War By Sun Tzu
Business and Education
App
We have fixed formatting issues and are re-introducing Art Of War For Free with the bug fixes. ...
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated The Dark Knight Rises (2012) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
After four years, since The Dark Knight ended, leaving us wanting more and seven years since Christopher Nolan reinvented the comic book adaptation with Batman Begins, The final chapter of The Dark Knight Trilogy has arrived.
With this much hype, would it possible live up to potentially bloated expectations? The first reviews hit last monday, with 4 to 5 stars being the consensus. Well, it did! The Dark Knight returns one last time, after eight years have passed since the events of The Dark Knight and Batman had retreated into the rebuilt Wayne Manor as Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman), maintaining the lie that Harvey Dent was Gotham’s The White Knight, and not the maniacal Two-Face, had managed to clean up Gotham City.
Batman was no longer needed but in the meantime, Bane has arrived in the city with grand plans for its destruction. I won’t go much further into the plot that this, though I will probably write a more spoiler heavy review for the Blu-ray later in the year. But for now, I will try to maintain the film’s integrity.
When we first meet Bruce Wayne after almost a decade of seclusion, he is a broken man, both physically and mentally following the murder of his childhood sweetheart, Rachel Dawes in the previous film and the toll of nightly combat. So the first port of call is to bring Batman back to the streets of Gotham. The sense of excitement is palpable and very much a part of what makes Nolan’s films tick.
He draws his audience into the narrative as if we are part of the events and the universe as it unfolds, leaving us not just wanting Batman to return for the sake of the action but for Gotham’s sake as well. Bane, played so excellently by Tom Hardy, was a little difficult to understand from behind his mask, but still conveyed an enormous amount of presence and power, as he lays siege to the city but not as Terrorist per say, but as a freedom fighter or revolutionary, with many visual references to the French Revolution to keep us going.
Anne Hathaway’s Catwoman, though not named as anyone other than Selina Kyle, was a credit to her character as well as the actress. Dark, sultry, seductive and agile, her feline credibly was intact, whilst still being a very human character. Her duplicity was bread from desperation rather than evil and her motives convincingly drive her in both good and more dubious endeavours.
*** MAJOR SPOILER***
The less said about Talia Al Ghul the better, but the for those aware of her role, it was well-played, though her final scene was the hammiest in the film, possibly the entire trilogy.
Then there’s the supporting cast, such as Mathew Modene, who does a great job as Dept. Commissioner Foley and Cillian Murphy’s back again, as the subtly unrecognisable Scarecrow, who besides some frayed shoulder’s on his jacket, could have been anyone,and that’s the beauty of Nolan’s Batman universe. It’s fluid and you can’t count on anything on anyone for too long.
But this franchise would be nothing without Hans Zimmer percussive score, pounding as much as it was gentle, it works well among with Nolan’s direction to craft the near perfect conclusion to the Trilogy. Both riff on earlier films and supe it up accordingly whilst maintaining the film’s integrity.
In the end, my expectations were met and exceeded. Nolan has crowned his trilogy with a film which is of the same calabar as the two which preceded it, filling in many of the blanks, choosing the right characters to take on and doing so a variety of ways, touching this time on the flamboyant Bain, though scrapping the “Venom” plot from the comics, creating an intriguing Catwoman and building another major character in the form of R. John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Lovett).
The ending of the film is just perfect, not only for this but for the entire Trilogy. With nods to Inception though I believe that it is just a nod and not as similar as some would protest, but this is epic in the way that The Dark Knight never tried to be and Batman Begins didn’t need to be. The threat is apocalyptic, in keeping with the genre, but believable in keeping with Nolan.
The same can be said for the action, though I must admit, the sentimentalist in me wanted to see the Batmoble/Tumber back, though it was there in triplicate, as Bane steels three prototype Tumbers from Wayne Enterprises, for his private army, but the Bat (Batwing) was stunning, and the Batpod made a reappearance. The Final showdown will leave you breathless, the perfect blend of direction, Zimmer’s score and some of the most intense and meaningful action you’ll see on the big screen.
The only real faults with The Dark Knight Rises stem from its scale and change in direction. It’s more about Batman’s evolution from crime fighter to savour. Less intense on a personal level, but much grander in its ideals and horror as Gotham is destroyed on scale never seen in a film of this type. But it’s not as far-fetched as one may think, as it grounds itself with historical references, such as the French Revolution, which was hardly far-fetched, though it was hard-hitting and is well translated here.
Bruce Wayne completes his journey from the boy who witnessed his parents murder, to a young man who could not grow beyond it, to a man who lost himself in a journey to understand the criminal mind. Finally returning as Batman, who defied his mentor to protect his beloved city, to a master detective. But here, he returns to his roots.
The billionaire who never cared about his wealth as much as he cared for the people of Gotham, he ends up exactly where he needed to be. Decide for yourself, whether it’s a happy ending, sad or satisfying, but either way, it was not only the best way to advance the saga, but the best way to end the series as a whole. Thanks to Nolan and his crew, we now have the most definitively brilliant Batman series EVER committed to celluloid, (or digital), and no matter what is to follow, whether it is to be the Justice League mash-up or another reboot, I suspect that it will be a long, long time before anyone can beat these.
With this much hype, would it possible live up to potentially bloated expectations? The first reviews hit last monday, with 4 to 5 stars being the consensus. Well, it did! The Dark Knight returns one last time, after eight years have passed since the events of The Dark Knight and Batman had retreated into the rebuilt Wayne Manor as Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman), maintaining the lie that Harvey Dent was Gotham’s The White Knight, and not the maniacal Two-Face, had managed to clean up Gotham City.
Batman was no longer needed but in the meantime, Bane has arrived in the city with grand plans for its destruction. I won’t go much further into the plot that this, though I will probably write a more spoiler heavy review for the Blu-ray later in the year. But for now, I will try to maintain the film’s integrity.
When we first meet Bruce Wayne after almost a decade of seclusion, he is a broken man, both physically and mentally following the murder of his childhood sweetheart, Rachel Dawes in the previous film and the toll of nightly combat. So the first port of call is to bring Batman back to the streets of Gotham. The sense of excitement is palpable and very much a part of what makes Nolan’s films tick.
He draws his audience into the narrative as if we are part of the events and the universe as it unfolds, leaving us not just wanting Batman to return for the sake of the action but for Gotham’s sake as well. Bane, played so excellently by Tom Hardy, was a little difficult to understand from behind his mask, but still conveyed an enormous amount of presence and power, as he lays siege to the city but not as Terrorist per say, but as a freedom fighter or revolutionary, with many visual references to the French Revolution to keep us going.
Anne Hathaway’s Catwoman, though not named as anyone other than Selina Kyle, was a credit to her character as well as the actress. Dark, sultry, seductive and agile, her feline credibly was intact, whilst still being a very human character. Her duplicity was bread from desperation rather than evil and her motives convincingly drive her in both good and more dubious endeavours.
*** MAJOR SPOILER***
The less said about Talia Al Ghul the better, but the for those aware of her role, it was well-played, though her final scene was the hammiest in the film, possibly the entire trilogy.
Then there’s the supporting cast, such as Mathew Modene, who does a great job as Dept. Commissioner Foley and Cillian Murphy’s back again, as the subtly unrecognisable Scarecrow, who besides some frayed shoulder’s on his jacket, could have been anyone,and that’s the beauty of Nolan’s Batman universe. It’s fluid and you can’t count on anything on anyone for too long.
But this franchise would be nothing without Hans Zimmer percussive score, pounding as much as it was gentle, it works well among with Nolan’s direction to craft the near perfect conclusion to the Trilogy. Both riff on earlier films and supe it up accordingly whilst maintaining the film’s integrity.
In the end, my expectations were met and exceeded. Nolan has crowned his trilogy with a film which is of the same calabar as the two which preceded it, filling in many of the blanks, choosing the right characters to take on and doing so a variety of ways, touching this time on the flamboyant Bain, though scrapping the “Venom” plot from the comics, creating an intriguing Catwoman and building another major character in the form of R. John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Lovett).
The ending of the film is just perfect, not only for this but for the entire Trilogy. With nods to Inception though I believe that it is just a nod and not as similar as some would protest, but this is epic in the way that The Dark Knight never tried to be and Batman Begins didn’t need to be. The threat is apocalyptic, in keeping with the genre, but believable in keeping with Nolan.
The same can be said for the action, though I must admit, the sentimentalist in me wanted to see the Batmoble/Tumber back, though it was there in triplicate, as Bane steels three prototype Tumbers from Wayne Enterprises, for his private army, but the Bat (Batwing) was stunning, and the Batpod made a reappearance. The Final showdown will leave you breathless, the perfect blend of direction, Zimmer’s score and some of the most intense and meaningful action you’ll see on the big screen.
The only real faults with The Dark Knight Rises stem from its scale and change in direction. It’s more about Batman’s evolution from crime fighter to savour. Less intense on a personal level, but much grander in its ideals and horror as Gotham is destroyed on scale never seen in a film of this type. But it’s not as far-fetched as one may think, as it grounds itself with historical references, such as the French Revolution, which was hardly far-fetched, though it was hard-hitting and is well translated here.
Bruce Wayne completes his journey from the boy who witnessed his parents murder, to a young man who could not grow beyond it, to a man who lost himself in a journey to understand the criminal mind. Finally returning as Batman, who defied his mentor to protect his beloved city, to a master detective. But here, he returns to his roots.
The billionaire who never cared about his wealth as much as he cared for the people of Gotham, he ends up exactly where he needed to be. Decide for yourself, whether it’s a happy ending, sad or satisfying, but either way, it was not only the best way to advance the saga, but the best way to end the series as a whole. Thanks to Nolan and his crew, we now have the most definitively brilliant Batman series EVER committed to celluloid, (or digital), and no matter what is to follow, whether it is to be the Justice League mash-up or another reboot, I suspect that it will be a long, long time before anyone can beat these.
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated I am missing in Books
Mar 15, 2018
<b>3.5 stars</b> but Im rounding up to 4 because I liked more than I disliked.
My first impression of this book, before I even picked it up was this: oh no. Firstly, Netgalley is pretty useless at telling you when a book is part way through a series, so I didnt initially realise this was the <b>EIGHTH</b> book in a series, secondly this is over 500 pages. I often find mystery thrillers over 400 pages are dragged out and could really be around 300 pages long with some good editing. But I was pleasantly surprised.
This is my first taste of the David Raker series, as mentioned above, but it was so easy going into this one with no background information about him as a character. The book got straight on with the storyline of The Lost Man and didnt dwell too often on his life or characters he had a past with. I think when you get so deep into a series as to have 8 books, the new ones you come out with do need to be as close to a standalone as possible.
As for the 500+ page issue, I do think there could have been some bits cut out to make it a little shorter. There was quite a bit of repetition of what had happened just previously, like at the beginning of a new TV episode where is does a short re-cap. I also found some of the conversation tedious and skimmed them. There was a lot of
<b><i><blockquote>And so then what happened? I asked. He didnt move.
Tell me what happened, I pushed to get an answer, but he kept his head down and didnt say anything.
Are you going to tell me what happened? I wanted to force an answer out of him but I didnt want to rush him. This time he moved slightly to look at me, but still he didnt say anything.</blockquote></b></i>
which, as you can imagine, gets a bit annoying when you come across several conversations like this. Other than these few little issues with the writing, I thought the rest of it was very good and that Weaver is a talented writer!
When it comes to the story, my feelings are really conflicted (Im probably going to put some spoiler tags in my GR review if you want to read something that goes into a little more detail because this is probably going to be vague). What initially drew me to this book was the idea that a man is missing himself he has no memory of where he comes from or of who he is so he hires a PI to find him. What we get from that is a twisty, journey into the history of this mans life and how that led him to be washed up on UK shores.
Admittedly, this is one hell of a ride. Its fast paced and exciting, but its also quite convoluted and towards the end where the big reveals are coming thick and fast, it gets a little ridiculous.
I liked this one but I couldnt quite believe it, and so couldnt get myself into it as much as I would have liked to. It starts off very chilling and intriguing but it gradually gets into lets make this as crazy as we can.
<i>Thanks to Netgalley and Penguin Michael Joseph for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.</i>
My first impression of this book, before I even picked it up was this: oh no. Firstly, Netgalley is pretty useless at telling you when a book is part way through a series, so I didnt initially realise this was the <b>EIGHTH</b> book in a series, secondly this is over 500 pages. I often find mystery thrillers over 400 pages are dragged out and could really be around 300 pages long with some good editing. But I was pleasantly surprised.
This is my first taste of the David Raker series, as mentioned above, but it was so easy going into this one with no background information about him as a character. The book got straight on with the storyline of The Lost Man and didnt dwell too often on his life or characters he had a past with. I think when you get so deep into a series as to have 8 books, the new ones you come out with do need to be as close to a standalone as possible.
As for the 500+ page issue, I do think there could have been some bits cut out to make it a little shorter. There was quite a bit of repetition of what had happened just previously, like at the beginning of a new TV episode where is does a short re-cap. I also found some of the conversation tedious and skimmed them. There was a lot of
<b><i><blockquote>And so then what happened? I asked. He didnt move.
Tell me what happened, I pushed to get an answer, but he kept his head down and didnt say anything.
Are you going to tell me what happened? I wanted to force an answer out of him but I didnt want to rush him. This time he moved slightly to look at me, but still he didnt say anything.</blockquote></b></i>
which, as you can imagine, gets a bit annoying when you come across several conversations like this. Other than these few little issues with the writing, I thought the rest of it was very good and that Weaver is a talented writer!
When it comes to the story, my feelings are really conflicted (Im probably going to put some spoiler tags in my GR review if you want to read something that goes into a little more detail because this is probably going to be vague). What initially drew me to this book was the idea that a man is missing himself he has no memory of where he comes from or of who he is so he hires a PI to find him. What we get from that is a twisty, journey into the history of this mans life and how that led him to be washed up on UK shores.
Admittedly, this is one hell of a ride. Its fast paced and exciting, but its also quite convoluted and towards the end where the big reveals are coming thick and fast, it gets a little ridiculous.
I liked this one but I couldnt quite believe it, and so couldnt get myself into it as much as I would have liked to. It starts off very chilling and intriguing but it gradually gets into lets make this as crazy as we can.
<i>Thanks to Netgalley and Penguin Michael Joseph for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.</i>