Search
Search results
Dean (6926 KP) rated The Girl in the Spider's Web (2018) in Movies
Nov 26, 2018 (Updated Nov 26, 2018)
Hmm
I was looking forward to this after having watched and enjoyed the original Swedish Girl with the Dragon tattoo series of films. Even the US remake of the original was very good because the story was just very interesting.
This feels very different. From the Bond like opening credits and plot about a programme that can hack any nuclear missile world wide. It's very broad in scope... Without actually having a big plot feel to it. It's not a bad film, it's an ok Thriller. After the high standards set by the other films though this is a step down. Check out the the Swedish ones if you haven't seen them.
This feels very different. From the Bond like opening credits and plot about a programme that can hack any nuclear missile world wide. It's very broad in scope... Without actually having a big plot feel to it. It's not a bad film, it's an ok Thriller. After the high standards set by the other films though this is a step down. Check out the the Swedish ones if you haven't seen them.
Hara05 (11 KP) rated The Tattooist of Auschwitz in Books
Jun 30, 2019
Does not live up to the hype!
Since my interest in the Holocaust started at the tender age of 7, I have devoured any book on the Holocaust that I can get my hands on. Before release, The Tattoo Of Auschwitz was all over my newsfeed and I pre-ordered, excited for another book on the subject.
Boy, what I disappointed.
The premise of this book offered so much potential but from the first page, I found myself cringing. I haven't read a book so poorly written since the Fifty Shades fiasco and although I'm loathe to compare the two (one a poorly informed erotica and this one, a book on such a important and harrowing topic) I find that I cannot help it.
As I've said, the premise offered so much potential. A true story of the Holocaust from a little explored prospective which shines a light on the suffering of all those forced through the gates of Auschwitz and Birkenau, this book could have been something truly special, resonating with so many readers on so many levels. Instead, the reader must grapple through pages of unrealistic dialogue, clunky exchanges and at times, very simplistic prose which simply makes the reader bored. We must never be bored when it comes to The Holocaust - of anything, the horrific event should have us all squirming, almost in a sea of distress as we turn each page for how else can we learn from this? How can we take on board the lessons that must be learned when we cannot connect with the characters?
The fact that this is a true story just adds to the disappointment. So many survivors spent their lives too afraid or too completely isolated to ever want to share their experiences with the world and yet, here we have a brave survivor , willing to do just that and their story is completely ruined by awful story telling. Whether all of the survivors story is true or not is not the issue here, it's how the story has been presented and bundled up beneath an eye catching cover.
So bad is the writing, so terribly constructed is the prose, that I found myself forcing myself to finish. By the time I did read the final sentence, I was relieved. Not my usual relief of 'Thank God, they survived!' but instead, relieved that I had managed to get through it. By the time the end came, I still did not feel any connection to the main characters other than the sympathy that they were forced to live through that ordeal. Of course, I was routing for them but not because of anything included in the book rather because they were real human beings who found themselves in such a place.
What is so disappointing is the fact that, with all the media attention and advertising this book received, it could have been at the forefront of the movement to raise awareness of The Holocaust. With so many survivors now gone, most without having shared their own stories, this book could have really been something special. It could have educated masses of people and made us take a long, hard look at ourselves and the world around us.
Instead, it is only memorable it's disjointed prose and simplicity, when it's premise is anything but simple.
Boy, what I disappointed.
The premise of this book offered so much potential but from the first page, I found myself cringing. I haven't read a book so poorly written since the Fifty Shades fiasco and although I'm loathe to compare the two (one a poorly informed erotica and this one, a book on such a important and harrowing topic) I find that I cannot help it.
As I've said, the premise offered so much potential. A true story of the Holocaust from a little explored prospective which shines a light on the suffering of all those forced through the gates of Auschwitz and Birkenau, this book could have been something truly special, resonating with so many readers on so many levels. Instead, the reader must grapple through pages of unrealistic dialogue, clunky exchanges and at times, very simplistic prose which simply makes the reader bored. We must never be bored when it comes to The Holocaust - of anything, the horrific event should have us all squirming, almost in a sea of distress as we turn each page for how else can we learn from this? How can we take on board the lessons that must be learned when we cannot connect with the characters?
The fact that this is a true story just adds to the disappointment. So many survivors spent their lives too afraid or too completely isolated to ever want to share their experiences with the world and yet, here we have a brave survivor , willing to do just that and their story is completely ruined by awful story telling. Whether all of the survivors story is true or not is not the issue here, it's how the story has been presented and bundled up beneath an eye catching cover.
So bad is the writing, so terribly constructed is the prose, that I found myself forcing myself to finish. By the time I did read the final sentence, I was relieved. Not my usual relief of 'Thank God, they survived!' but instead, relieved that I had managed to get through it. By the time the end came, I still did not feel any connection to the main characters other than the sympathy that they were forced to live through that ordeal. Of course, I was routing for them but not because of anything included in the book rather because they were real human beings who found themselves in such a place.
What is so disappointing is the fact that, with all the media attention and advertising this book received, it could have been at the forefront of the movement to raise awareness of The Holocaust. With so many survivors now gone, most without having shared their own stories, this book could have really been something special. It could have educated masses of people and made us take a long, hard look at ourselves and the world around us.
Instead, it is only memorable it's disjointed prose and simplicity, when it's premise is anything but simple.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (2019) in Movies
Aug 5, 2019 (Updated Aug 6, 2019)
Genocide, Shmenocide.
Hobbs and Shaw had an easy job, we have these two great characters that have already been set up for us in other movies so all they needed to do was let them loose in an over the top action spectacle that knows exactly what it is. So why does what we actually got feel like an overlong, overstuffed film with characters (the reason why we are here) that aren't likeable anymore?. Is it the banter thats either worn thin or feels like its trying to hard, the scenes full of characters constantly explaining the plot or whats going to happen, the paint by numbers villain with generic motives or the many random nods to pop culture and other popular things that people like that didnt do anything but make me feel like a carrot is being dangled in front of us the entire time or im watching a peter kay stand up. Answer is im not sure but i know one thing, for every part of this movie i found cool or fun two more things popped up and dragged my enjoyment down. Action set pieces are really cool and well very well filmed with great scale/destruction and the movie overall has a 90s/commando action movie style i really enjoyed which might of worked at an hour and a half but just when you think its over another useless 40 minutes are then tagged on the end and the film becomes basically a big Dwayne Johnson advertisement. Yes i get it he has roots and the tribe thing going on, he has big muscles, he was a wrestler and he has a big tribal tattoo but why does that have to be an integral part of every films plot that he's in nowadays?. I'm just bored of seeing it now and id rather they cut the movie shorter and had a tighter film overall or explored the villain a bit more to be honest. I really did say find some enjoyment in Hobbs and Shaw (especially the action) but it was let down to often elsewhere. Statham steals the show here and clearly tries to have fun with his character but Idris Elba feels wasted as a villain and theres no tension or threat at all when your two leads seem invincible. Ryan Reynolds and Kevin Heart were also totaly unnecessary as was that Italian Job connection. Id say see it for the action scene at about 1h 40m in but other than that is sadly very veru forgettable and a little boring.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Unremembered (Unremembered, #1) in Books
Dec 17, 2018
<i>Unremembered</i> is the first in a young adult, science-fiction trilogy by American author, Jessica Brody. Set in current day California, <i>Unremembered</i> is told from the point of view of a sixteen-year-old girl, Seraphina, who has no memories of anything prior to the first page of the book.
Whilst it may be imagined that a first person narrative of someone who does not know anything may hinder the telling of the story, it actually connects the audience with the main character. As readers we also have no knowledge of what happened before the first page of the story. We learn everything as Seraphina does, the only difference being that we are aware of what certain items are – particularly technological ones – as well as being able to communicate and understand other people, not just through words but also with sarcasm and body language.
What we learn at the start is that there has been a plane crash into the Pacific Ocean with only one survivor, an unidentifiable girl with serious amnesia. Further on it transpires that there was never any record of her being on the plane in the first place. This is where all the question and mysteries begin. Temporarily given the name Violet, she is placed with a foster family, the Carson family, whose thirteen-year-old son Cody is intimidated by her flawless beauty. He begins to connect with her more after it emerges that she is a mathematical genius. So yet another question arises, how comes she can remembered how to solve complicated equations yet cannot even remember who she is?
There are also mysteries surrounding a peculiar tattoo on her wrist; a boy named Lyzender who keeps appearing, claiming to know who Violet, or should we say Sera, is; her uncanny ability to speak fluently in a range of languages; and the number 1609. What is the significance of this number? Not only is it the year Sera believes it is after recovering from the crash, it is also engraved onto a locket she was wearing along with the initials “S + Z”.
<i>Unremembered</i> is a fast paced novel whose mysteries get solved at the same time as more questions develop. It shows us how people with no experience of the modern world would struggle to understand the things we take for granted. It also poses the question of what it truly makes a human human.
I definitely recommend this novel and believe that it is something young adult girls would certainly enjoy. I am looking forward to reading the next book in the trilogy to find out what happens to Seraphina next.
Whilst it may be imagined that a first person narrative of someone who does not know anything may hinder the telling of the story, it actually connects the audience with the main character. As readers we also have no knowledge of what happened before the first page of the story. We learn everything as Seraphina does, the only difference being that we are aware of what certain items are – particularly technological ones – as well as being able to communicate and understand other people, not just through words but also with sarcasm and body language.
What we learn at the start is that there has been a plane crash into the Pacific Ocean with only one survivor, an unidentifiable girl with serious amnesia. Further on it transpires that there was never any record of her being on the plane in the first place. This is where all the question and mysteries begin. Temporarily given the name Violet, she is placed with a foster family, the Carson family, whose thirteen-year-old son Cody is intimidated by her flawless beauty. He begins to connect with her more after it emerges that she is a mathematical genius. So yet another question arises, how comes she can remembered how to solve complicated equations yet cannot even remember who she is?
There are also mysteries surrounding a peculiar tattoo on her wrist; a boy named Lyzender who keeps appearing, claiming to know who Violet, or should we say Sera, is; her uncanny ability to speak fluently in a range of languages; and the number 1609. What is the significance of this number? Not only is it the year Sera believes it is after recovering from the crash, it is also engraved onto a locket she was wearing along with the initials “S + Z”.
<i>Unremembered</i> is a fast paced novel whose mysteries get solved at the same time as more questions develop. It shows us how people with no experience of the modern world would struggle to understand the things we take for granted. It also poses the question of what it truly makes a human human.
I definitely recommend this novel and believe that it is something young adult girls would certainly enjoy. I am looking forward to reading the next book in the trilogy to find out what happens to Seraphina next.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Banker's Wife in Books
Mar 6, 2019
Great, exciting, tense novel
Annabel Lerner feels isolated in Geneva: she's not like the other bankers' wives, and she rarely sees her husband Matthew anymore. They moved to Geneva for a fresh start--and yes, to take advantage of the salary Matthew's private banking job at Swiss United offered. But Annabel never realized how stressed Matthew would be or how often he'd travel. And then, suddenly, he's gone: his private plane simply falling off the radar over the French Alps. Before she can even understand what's happening, Annabel is left to deal with the aftermath, including a trail of secrets and the powerful men at Swiss United who don't want them exposed. Meanwhile, Marina Tourneau is a reporter for The Press. Her mentor, Duncan Carr, has been chasing a story involving Morty Reiss, whose hedge fund was one of the largest Ponzi scams of all time. Supposedly, before he could get caught, Morty committed suicide. But Duncan and Marina believe Marty faked his death and Duncan has become obsessed with proving it--to the detriment of his health, his reputation, and his career. But Marina is also engaged to Grant Ellis, whose wealthy father, James, is about to run for President. The plan is for Marina to stop writing and stand by her man. But when she suddenly realizes she's on the trail of the story of her career, what will she do?
Well, this turned out to be a gem of a novel. When I first started reading it, I was a little worried that I wouldn't see what the fuss was all about, but things quickly picked up, and I was hooked. One of the best things about this novel is that it's an old-style thriller--it reminded me of old-school Grisham or Stieg Larsson. It even throws shade at the glutton of Girl books and their (annoying) unreliable narrators, which I love. This is a mystery for folks who love real stories without any fuss or distraction and with strong characters--all of which combine to leave you befuddled and anxious as everything slowly unfurls.
Alger takes us into the complicated and dark world of Swiss banking, where we are introduced to a lot of real bad guys who have no morals. You can't trust them, you know they are bad, and you know your heroes and heroines are in true danger. Rarely do I think this while reading a book (because, face it, the book is always better), but I really think this book would *actually* make a great movie. It's exciting and tense, and the way things are slowly revealed would make for a very effective film.
But, anyway, it's a wonderful novel. You quickly get sucked into Annabel and Marina's worlds--the majority of the story is told from their points of view. There's a decent amount of ancillary characters to keep track of, but it's certainly manageable. The best is not knowing who to trust, what to believe, or how things went down. There's that Girl with a Dragon Tattoo-reporting vibe that I love: the pleasure of solving a case. The story is set in 2015 but is completely timely, yet utterly timeless in its essence of greed, money, and fear--and what people do in the name of all three. I just loved the old-fashioned thrill of it, the long list of suspects, the excitement of trying to work out who did what.
Overall, this is just a great novel. The plot is excellent--tense, exciting, and expertly woven together. The characters are strong, but it's really the story that's the standout here. It truly reminds you of mysteries and thrillers of old (I sound ancient here, but whatever). Don't let the banking theme scare you off: this is a fabulous read, and if you're a mystery or thriller fan, I think you'll really enjoy this one. 4+ stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
Well, this turned out to be a gem of a novel. When I first started reading it, I was a little worried that I wouldn't see what the fuss was all about, but things quickly picked up, and I was hooked. One of the best things about this novel is that it's an old-style thriller--it reminded me of old-school Grisham or Stieg Larsson. It even throws shade at the glutton of Girl books and their (annoying) unreliable narrators, which I love. This is a mystery for folks who love real stories without any fuss or distraction and with strong characters--all of which combine to leave you befuddled and anxious as everything slowly unfurls.
Alger takes us into the complicated and dark world of Swiss banking, where we are introduced to a lot of real bad guys who have no morals. You can't trust them, you know they are bad, and you know your heroes and heroines are in true danger. Rarely do I think this while reading a book (because, face it, the book is always better), but I really think this book would *actually* make a great movie. It's exciting and tense, and the way things are slowly revealed would make for a very effective film.
But, anyway, it's a wonderful novel. You quickly get sucked into Annabel and Marina's worlds--the majority of the story is told from their points of view. There's a decent amount of ancillary characters to keep track of, but it's certainly manageable. The best is not knowing who to trust, what to believe, or how things went down. There's that Girl with a Dragon Tattoo-reporting vibe that I love: the pleasure of solving a case. The story is set in 2015 but is completely timely, yet utterly timeless in its essence of greed, money, and fear--and what people do in the name of all three. I just loved the old-fashioned thrill of it, the long list of suspects, the excitement of trying to work out who did what.
Overall, this is just a great novel. The plot is excellent--tense, exciting, and expertly woven together. The characters are strong, but it's really the story that's the standout here. It truly reminds you of mysteries and thrillers of old (I sound ancient here, but whatever). Don't let the banking theme scare you off: this is a fabulous read, and if you're a mystery or thriller fan, I think you'll really enjoy this one. 4+ stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Girl in the Spider's Web (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Would the last straight woman in Stockholm turn off the lights?
You’ve gotta love a Scandi-thriller. Well, that was until last year’s hopeless Michael Fassbender vehicle “The Snowman” which devalued the currency better than Brexit has done to the pound! The mother of them all though was the original “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” trilogy (in Swedish) in 2009. Although subject to a wholly unnecessary English remake two year’s later by David Fincher (with Mara Rooney and Daniel Craig) it was Noomi Rapace who struck the perfect note as the original anarchic and damaged Lisbeth Salander: a punk wielding a baseball bat like an alien-thing possessed (pun well and truly intended!).
Now though we have “A New Dragon Tattoo Story” (as the film’s subtitle clumsily declares) based on the book by David Lagercrantz, who took over the literary franchise after the untimely death of Stieg Larsson. Picking up the reins as Salander is that most British of actresses Claire Foy…. which seems an odd choice, but one which – after you get past the rather odd accent – she just about pulls off.
The Plot
Lizbeth Salendar (Claire Foy) has an interesting hobby. She is a vigilante, like a lesbian Batman, stalking the streets of Stockholm putting wrongs right where abusive boyfriends/husbands are concerned.
She is also a hacking machine for rent. And Frans Balder (Stephen Merchant) has a problem. He has invented a software program that allows its user to control every nuclear warhead in the world from a single laptop (cue every other Bond/24/Austin Powers script ever written). But he has had second thoughts and wants it back from its resting place on the server of the NSA’s chief hacker, Ed Needham (Lakeith Stanfield). Balder recruits Salander to recover it, but when things go pear-shaped Salander finds herself on the wrong side of both the law and the encircling terrorist “spiders”.
The Review
Scandi-dramas work best when they exploit the snow; maintain a sexual tension; and go dark, gritty and violent. On the plus side, “The Girl in the Spider’s Web” ticks most of those boxes adequately. Foy’s Salandar is smart, sassy and sexy, outwitting the best of the best, and only once finding her intellectual match. (If you’re a lesbian, Stockholm is most definitely the place to be: there only seemed to be one hetero-female there, and she was an adulteress).
But Salander also has a Bond-like invincibility that unfortunately tests your incredulity at multiple points. Contributing to the excitement is the stunt team, who keep themselves busy with some great car and bike chases.
So, the movie has its moments and is great to look at. But the film ends up a sandwich or two short of a smorgasbord, thanks largely to some totally bonkers plot points and more than a few ridiculous coincidences. There are without doubt an array of well-constructed set pieces here, but they fail to fully connect with any great conviction. An example of a scene that infuriates is a dramatic bathroom fight in a red-lit gloom with identical protagonists that is cut together so furiously you would need a Blu-ray slo-mo to work out what the hell is going on… and then I fear you might fail.
So it’s an A- for the Production Design (Eve Stewart, “The Danish Girl“) and the Cinematography (Pedro Luque, “Don’t Breathe“), but a C- for the director Fede Alvarez (also “Don’t Breathe“).
Avoid the Trailer
I will save my biggest source of wrath though for that major bug-bear of mine: trailers that spoil the plot.
I’ve asked before, but for a film like this, WHO EXACTLY PUTS TOGETHER THE TRAILER? I’d like to think it’s some mindless committee of marketing execs somewhere. Because I HONESTLY CAN’T BELIEVE it would be the director! (If I’m wrong though, I would point my finger at Mr Alvarez and chant “shame, shame, shame”!)
For the trailer that I saw playing in UK cinemas does it’s level best to not only drop in the key spoilers of the plot (including the climactic scene), but also spoils just about every action money-shot in the movie. It’s all so pointless. If you’ve by any chance managed to get to this point without seeing the trailer, then SAVE YOURSELVES and AVOID IT!
(The one attached below by the way is slightly – slightly! – better, including some over-dubbing of a line that I don’t think was in the film. Perhaps they realised their huge mistake and reissued it?)
The Turns
As I mentioned earlier, Claire Foy again extends her range by playing Salander really well. She is the reason to go and see the film.
The Daniel Craig part of Blomkvist is played here by Sverrir Gudnason, who was in “The Circle” (which I saw) and was Borg in “Borg McEnroe” (which I didn’t). Blomkvist really is a lazy ****, since he works for the publication “Millenium” but writes absolutely nothing for years. It must be only because the boss (Vicky Krieps) fancies him that he keeps his job. Gudnason is good enough, but has very little to do in the movie: its the Salander/Foy show. Slightly, but only slightly, more involved is Lakeith Standfield as the US intelligence man.
Given little to do in the plot. Sverrir Gudnason as the incredibly unproductive ‘journalist’ Mikael Blomkvist. (Source: Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Stephen Merchant is an odd casting choice for Balder. Not withstanding that he was brilliant when almost unrecognisable in “Logan“, here he looks far too much like his “Ricky Gervais sidekick” persona to be taken seriously: and it’s not even remotely a comedy (there is only one humorous moment in the film, a nice “clicker” gag in a car park).
Final Thoughts
I had high hopes for this film from the trailer, but I was left disappointed. It’s not classic Scandi-noir like the original “Tattoo”; and it’s not going for the black comedy angle of “Headhunters” (which I saw again last week and loved… again!). It falls into a rather “meh” category. It’s not a bad evening’s watch, but perhaps worth leaving for a DVD/cable showing.
Now though we have “A New Dragon Tattoo Story” (as the film’s subtitle clumsily declares) based on the book by David Lagercrantz, who took over the literary franchise after the untimely death of Stieg Larsson. Picking up the reins as Salander is that most British of actresses Claire Foy…. which seems an odd choice, but one which – after you get past the rather odd accent – she just about pulls off.
The Plot
Lizbeth Salendar (Claire Foy) has an interesting hobby. She is a vigilante, like a lesbian Batman, stalking the streets of Stockholm putting wrongs right where abusive boyfriends/husbands are concerned.
She is also a hacking machine for rent. And Frans Balder (Stephen Merchant) has a problem. He has invented a software program that allows its user to control every nuclear warhead in the world from a single laptop (cue every other Bond/24/Austin Powers script ever written). But he has had second thoughts and wants it back from its resting place on the server of the NSA’s chief hacker, Ed Needham (Lakeith Stanfield). Balder recruits Salander to recover it, but when things go pear-shaped Salander finds herself on the wrong side of both the law and the encircling terrorist “spiders”.
The Review
Scandi-dramas work best when they exploit the snow; maintain a sexual tension; and go dark, gritty and violent. On the plus side, “The Girl in the Spider’s Web” ticks most of those boxes adequately. Foy’s Salandar is smart, sassy and sexy, outwitting the best of the best, and only once finding her intellectual match. (If you’re a lesbian, Stockholm is most definitely the place to be: there only seemed to be one hetero-female there, and she was an adulteress).
But Salander also has a Bond-like invincibility that unfortunately tests your incredulity at multiple points. Contributing to the excitement is the stunt team, who keep themselves busy with some great car and bike chases.
So, the movie has its moments and is great to look at. But the film ends up a sandwich or two short of a smorgasbord, thanks largely to some totally bonkers plot points and more than a few ridiculous coincidences. There are without doubt an array of well-constructed set pieces here, but they fail to fully connect with any great conviction. An example of a scene that infuriates is a dramatic bathroom fight in a red-lit gloom with identical protagonists that is cut together so furiously you would need a Blu-ray slo-mo to work out what the hell is going on… and then I fear you might fail.
So it’s an A- for the Production Design (Eve Stewart, “The Danish Girl“) and the Cinematography (Pedro Luque, “Don’t Breathe“), but a C- for the director Fede Alvarez (also “Don’t Breathe“).
Avoid the Trailer
I will save my biggest source of wrath though for that major bug-bear of mine: trailers that spoil the plot.
I’ve asked before, but for a film like this, WHO EXACTLY PUTS TOGETHER THE TRAILER? I’d like to think it’s some mindless committee of marketing execs somewhere. Because I HONESTLY CAN’T BELIEVE it would be the director! (If I’m wrong though, I would point my finger at Mr Alvarez and chant “shame, shame, shame”!)
For the trailer that I saw playing in UK cinemas does it’s level best to not only drop in the key spoilers of the plot (including the climactic scene), but also spoils just about every action money-shot in the movie. It’s all so pointless. If you’ve by any chance managed to get to this point without seeing the trailer, then SAVE YOURSELVES and AVOID IT!
(The one attached below by the way is slightly – slightly! – better, including some over-dubbing of a line that I don’t think was in the film. Perhaps they realised their huge mistake and reissued it?)
The Turns
As I mentioned earlier, Claire Foy again extends her range by playing Salander really well. She is the reason to go and see the film.
The Daniel Craig part of Blomkvist is played here by Sverrir Gudnason, who was in “The Circle” (which I saw) and was Borg in “Borg McEnroe” (which I didn’t). Blomkvist really is a lazy ****, since he works for the publication “Millenium” but writes absolutely nothing for years. It must be only because the boss (Vicky Krieps) fancies him that he keeps his job. Gudnason is good enough, but has very little to do in the movie: its the Salander/Foy show. Slightly, but only slightly, more involved is Lakeith Standfield as the US intelligence man.
Given little to do in the plot. Sverrir Gudnason as the incredibly unproductive ‘journalist’ Mikael Blomkvist. (Source: Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Stephen Merchant is an odd casting choice for Balder. Not withstanding that he was brilliant when almost unrecognisable in “Logan“, here he looks far too much like his “Ricky Gervais sidekick” persona to be taken seriously: and it’s not even remotely a comedy (there is only one humorous moment in the film, a nice “clicker” gag in a car park).
Final Thoughts
I had high hopes for this film from the trailer, but I was left disappointed. It’s not classic Scandi-noir like the original “Tattoo”; and it’s not going for the black comedy angle of “Headhunters” (which I saw again last week and loved… again!). It falls into a rather “meh” category. It’s not a bad evening’s watch, but perhaps worth leaving for a DVD/cable showing.
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Girl in the Spider's Web (2018) in Movies
Oct 2, 2019
Characters – Lisbeth Salander is the famous hacker that will stand up against any man that is causing a woman abuse, she will leave her brand on them. She is called for difficult hacking jobs, which sees her take something from the Americans, this makes her a wanted suspect in Sweden and her on the run looking for answers to clear her name. Mikael Blomkvist is still the only person that Lisbeth will trust, he tries to operate from a distant and investigates the trust behind what is happening. Ed Needham is the American that has his system hacked, a government man, he heads to Sweden to get it back and finds nothing but barriers from the Swedish government. Camilla Salander is the long lost sister of Lisbeth, she thought to be dead, but now she is involved in a criminal gang known as The Spiders, targeting Lisbeth for what she wants.
Performances – Claire Foy does feel mis-cast in this role, she doesn’t seem to have a tough enough look to make this character effect as the two previous stars. Sverrir Gudnason had large shoes to fill and he doesn’t do a strong enough job in the Mikael role, while Sylvia Hoeks does what she can with her role without being anything overly special, while LaKeith Stanfield doesn’t seem to feel like the character he is meant to be playing.
Story – The story here is the fourth story in the Dragon Tattoo world, the second in English and is the first not written by the original author. We follow Lisbeth who once again finds herself needing to take on secret organisation that what something that could put the world in danger and this time it becomes more personal, with her sister being the enemy. This story does feel like it has borrowed from many other films and while it still puts Lisbeth is an anti-hero role, we only seem to find ourselves in one direction where Lisbeth is always one step ahead of everything happening, despite the fact we get to see just how twisted the Spiders are, it paints one image of them only to leave us facing a different softer enemy.
Action/Crime – The action was pretty much all given away in the trailer, we have the motorbike chase across the ice, the car chases and shoot outs, each feels very similar and doesn’t have the suspense required in a thriller.
Settings – The film does try to bring everything back to Lisbeth’s backstory with the settings showing the off the grid life she current lives compared to the one she could have lived, the snowy roads add a little to the chases, but not that much overall.
Scene of the Movie – Ice lake escape.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The Spider’s not hinting at wanting to do to what they did to the guy without a nose, to the new Lisbeth group.
Final Thoughts – This does feel like a cash grab on a franchise that has never taken off on the American side of things, we get everything scaled back leaving us feeling disappointed by the end of the film.
Overall: No thrills to be seen here.
Performances – Claire Foy does feel mis-cast in this role, she doesn’t seem to have a tough enough look to make this character effect as the two previous stars. Sverrir Gudnason had large shoes to fill and he doesn’t do a strong enough job in the Mikael role, while Sylvia Hoeks does what she can with her role without being anything overly special, while LaKeith Stanfield doesn’t seem to feel like the character he is meant to be playing.
Story – The story here is the fourth story in the Dragon Tattoo world, the second in English and is the first not written by the original author. We follow Lisbeth who once again finds herself needing to take on secret organisation that what something that could put the world in danger and this time it becomes more personal, with her sister being the enemy. This story does feel like it has borrowed from many other films and while it still puts Lisbeth is an anti-hero role, we only seem to find ourselves in one direction where Lisbeth is always one step ahead of everything happening, despite the fact we get to see just how twisted the Spiders are, it paints one image of them only to leave us facing a different softer enemy.
Action/Crime – The action was pretty much all given away in the trailer, we have the motorbike chase across the ice, the car chases and shoot outs, each feels very similar and doesn’t have the suspense required in a thriller.
Settings – The film does try to bring everything back to Lisbeth’s backstory with the settings showing the off the grid life she current lives compared to the one she could have lived, the snowy roads add a little to the chases, but not that much overall.
Scene of the Movie – Ice lake escape.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The Spider’s not hinting at wanting to do to what they did to the guy without a nose, to the new Lisbeth group.
Final Thoughts – This does feel like a cash grab on a franchise that has never taken off on the American side of things, we get everything scaled back leaving us feeling disappointed by the end of the film.
Overall: No thrills to be seen here.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Insurgent (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A little soulless
There hasn’t been a better time to be part of the Young Adult revolution. From Stephanie Meyer’s underwhelming Twilight saga to Suzanne Collins’ superb Huger Games trilogy and everything in between, there is something about this genre that audiences love to read and to watch.
Coming a little late to the party is Veronica Roth’s Divergent franchise. After last year’s bland debut, a new director in the shape of Robert Schwentke (Flightplan, Tattoo) takes on the second film in the series, Insurgent, but can it finally bring something to the table?
Insurgent continues the story of a post-apocalyptic America that has been divided into ‘factions’ based on the personality traits of survivors. Being placed in a faction helps you live your life in accordance with the rules of the governing body of the time. However, having traits belonging to all five categories makes you a Divergent – a risk to peace in other words.
This action sequel follows Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley) and Four Eaton (Theo James), two Divergents on the run from Kate Winslet’s domineering Jeanie Matthews as they try to find out the truth about who they are and what is really going on behind the scenes.
For the uninitiated, Insurgent is a tiresome process and requires some prior knowledge of the first film to truly understand what is going on. However, in comparison to its dull and overly long predecessor, there is much to enjoy here.
The obliterated city of Chicago is given much more room to breathe and the beautifully choreographed shots of well-known landmarks draped in moss and ferns are a stunning addition and look much more realistic than the computer-generated imagery used for the Capitol in the Hunger Games series.
Moreover, there are some great acting performances scattered throughout, Woodley really gets her teeth stuck into the lead role after her disappointing turn in Divergent and Theo James provides the eye candy in a Liam Hemsworth-esque characterisation.
However, it is in Kate Winslet and newcomer Naomi Watts’ performances that we really see something special.
Despite their lack of screen time, they command each sequence they are a part of and it’s a shame they’re not used more throughout the near 2 hour runtime.
Unfortunately comparisons to other YA adaptations are unavoidable. Put Insurgent up against its main rival The Hunger Games: Catching Fire and the odds simply aren’t in its favour. The sheer star power the latter film commands is enviable and despite Winslet and Watts’ excellent performances, it just isn’t quite enough.
It all feels a little hollow, a bit flat and non-descript as the audience is thrown from one mildly entertaining set piece to another, right up until the obligatory gasps as you realise it’s another year to pick up where that cliff-hanger left things.
In the end, Insurgent improves on its overly convoluted predecessor and is much better than anything the Twilight saga threw at us, but it pales in comparison to the treat of watching ‘The Girl on Fire’ strut her stuff.
Alas, sitting in the middle isn’t quite enough in this highly competitive genre and despite some stunning cinematography and great acting, Insurgent feels a little soulless.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/22/a-little-soulless-insurgent-review/
Coming a little late to the party is Veronica Roth’s Divergent franchise. After last year’s bland debut, a new director in the shape of Robert Schwentke (Flightplan, Tattoo) takes on the second film in the series, Insurgent, but can it finally bring something to the table?
Insurgent continues the story of a post-apocalyptic America that has been divided into ‘factions’ based on the personality traits of survivors. Being placed in a faction helps you live your life in accordance with the rules of the governing body of the time. However, having traits belonging to all five categories makes you a Divergent – a risk to peace in other words.
This action sequel follows Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley) and Four Eaton (Theo James), two Divergents on the run from Kate Winslet’s domineering Jeanie Matthews as they try to find out the truth about who they are and what is really going on behind the scenes.
For the uninitiated, Insurgent is a tiresome process and requires some prior knowledge of the first film to truly understand what is going on. However, in comparison to its dull and overly long predecessor, there is much to enjoy here.
The obliterated city of Chicago is given much more room to breathe and the beautifully choreographed shots of well-known landmarks draped in moss and ferns are a stunning addition and look much more realistic than the computer-generated imagery used for the Capitol in the Hunger Games series.
Moreover, there are some great acting performances scattered throughout, Woodley really gets her teeth stuck into the lead role after her disappointing turn in Divergent and Theo James provides the eye candy in a Liam Hemsworth-esque characterisation.
However, it is in Kate Winslet and newcomer Naomi Watts’ performances that we really see something special.
Despite their lack of screen time, they command each sequence they are a part of and it’s a shame they’re not used more throughout the near 2 hour runtime.
Unfortunately comparisons to other YA adaptations are unavoidable. Put Insurgent up against its main rival The Hunger Games: Catching Fire and the odds simply aren’t in its favour. The sheer star power the latter film commands is enviable and despite Winslet and Watts’ excellent performances, it just isn’t quite enough.
It all feels a little hollow, a bit flat and non-descript as the audience is thrown from one mildly entertaining set piece to another, right up until the obligatory gasps as you realise it’s another year to pick up where that cliff-hanger left things.
In the end, Insurgent improves on its overly convoluted predecessor and is much better than anything the Twilight saga threw at us, but it pales in comparison to the treat of watching ‘The Girl on Fire’ strut her stuff.
Alas, sitting in the middle isn’t quite enough in this highly competitive genre and despite some stunning cinematography and great acting, Insurgent feels a little soulless.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/22/a-little-soulless-insurgent-review/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Upside (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Not the 5* French classic, but a fun and moving movie nonetheless.
So, the movie-going audience for this film will divide into two categories:
Category A: those that have seen the original 2011 French classic “The Intouchables” that this is based on, and;
Category B: those that haven’t.
2011 is just before I started “One Mann’s Movies”, but “The Intouchables” would have got 5* from me, no problem.
This movie joins a list of standout European movies – for example, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”; “Let The Right One In”; “Sleepless Night”; etc. – that have had Hollywood “makeovers” that don’t match up to the originals. And this is no exception. However, it’s still been well made and deserves respect as a standalone piece of movie-making.
The Plot
Based on a true story, Phillip Lacasse (Bryan Cranston) is left both paraplegic and widowed by a string of bad luck. Not that money can buy you everything, but his care arrangements are substantially helped by him being a multi-millionaire (“Not rich enough to buy The Yankees; Rich enough to buy The Mets”). This is from success in investments and writing about such investments.
Depressed, cranky and with a “DNR” that his diligent PA Yvonne (Nicole Kidman) seems unable to comply with, Phillip lashes out at anyone and everyone and so dispatches his carers with monotonous regularity. Dell Scott (Kevin Hart) is on parole, with the requirement to seek work. Due to a mix-up, he finds himself in the employ of Phillip: with the suspicion that he’s been hired because he is the very worst candidate imaginable, and thus the most likely to let Phillip shuffle off this mortal coil. But the two men’s antipathy to each other slowly thaws as they teach each other new tricks.
Pin left in the grenade
Those who have seen “The Intouchables” will fondly remember the first 5 minutes of that film: a flash-forward to a manic police car-chase featuring our protagonists (there played by François Cluzet and Omar Sy). It drops like a comedy hand-grenade to open the film. Unfortunately, you can’t help but feel a bit let down by the same re-creation in “The Upside”. It has all the same content but none of the heart.
After that rocky start, the film continues to rather stutter along. Part of the reason for this I think is Kevin Hart. It’s not that he’s particularly bad in the role: it’s just that he IS Kevin Hart, and I was constantly thinking “there’s that comedian playing that role”.
However, once the story gets into its swing, giving Cranston more of a chance to shine (which he does), then the film started to motor and my reservations about Hart started to wane. Some of these story set pieces – such as the one about the art work – are punch-the-air funny in their own right. Cranston’s timing in delivering his punchlines is immaculate.
This IS what actors do
There seems to have been some furore about the casting of Bryan Cranston as the role of the disabled millionaire instead of a disabled actor. Lord save us! He’s an actor! That’s what actors do for a living: pretend to be people they’re not! It’s also worth pointing out that François Cluzet was an able-bodied actor as well.
As already mentioned, Bryan Cranston excels in the role. Phillip goes through such a wide range of emotions from despair to pure joy and back again that you can’t help but be impressed by the performance.
On the female side of the cast, it’s really nice to see Nicole Kidman in such a quiet and understated role and it’s nicely done; Aja Naomi King does a nice job as Dell’s protective ex-girlfriend Latrice; and there’s a nice female cameo as well, which I won’t spoil since I wasn’t expecting to see her in the film.
Final Thoughts
As a standalone film it has some laugh-out-loud moments, some feelgood highs and some moments of real pathos. The audience I saw this with was small, but there was still a buzz in the room and sporadic applause as the end titles came up: God only knows that’s unusual for a film!
The director is “Limitless” and “Divergent” director Neil Burger, and it’s a perfectly fun and innocent night out at the flicks that I commend to the house in this month of celluloid awards heavyweights.
Category A: those that have seen the original 2011 French classic “The Intouchables” that this is based on, and;
Category B: those that haven’t.
2011 is just before I started “One Mann’s Movies”, but “The Intouchables” would have got 5* from me, no problem.
This movie joins a list of standout European movies – for example, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”; “Let The Right One In”; “Sleepless Night”; etc. – that have had Hollywood “makeovers” that don’t match up to the originals. And this is no exception. However, it’s still been well made and deserves respect as a standalone piece of movie-making.
The Plot
Based on a true story, Phillip Lacasse (Bryan Cranston) is left both paraplegic and widowed by a string of bad luck. Not that money can buy you everything, but his care arrangements are substantially helped by him being a multi-millionaire (“Not rich enough to buy The Yankees; Rich enough to buy The Mets”). This is from success in investments and writing about such investments.
Depressed, cranky and with a “DNR” that his diligent PA Yvonne (Nicole Kidman) seems unable to comply with, Phillip lashes out at anyone and everyone and so dispatches his carers with monotonous regularity. Dell Scott (Kevin Hart) is on parole, with the requirement to seek work. Due to a mix-up, he finds himself in the employ of Phillip: with the suspicion that he’s been hired because he is the very worst candidate imaginable, and thus the most likely to let Phillip shuffle off this mortal coil. But the two men’s antipathy to each other slowly thaws as they teach each other new tricks.
Pin left in the grenade
Those who have seen “The Intouchables” will fondly remember the first 5 minutes of that film: a flash-forward to a manic police car-chase featuring our protagonists (there played by François Cluzet and Omar Sy). It drops like a comedy hand-grenade to open the film. Unfortunately, you can’t help but feel a bit let down by the same re-creation in “The Upside”. It has all the same content but none of the heart.
After that rocky start, the film continues to rather stutter along. Part of the reason for this I think is Kevin Hart. It’s not that he’s particularly bad in the role: it’s just that he IS Kevin Hart, and I was constantly thinking “there’s that comedian playing that role”.
However, once the story gets into its swing, giving Cranston more of a chance to shine (which he does), then the film started to motor and my reservations about Hart started to wane. Some of these story set pieces – such as the one about the art work – are punch-the-air funny in their own right. Cranston’s timing in delivering his punchlines is immaculate.
This IS what actors do
There seems to have been some furore about the casting of Bryan Cranston as the role of the disabled millionaire instead of a disabled actor. Lord save us! He’s an actor! That’s what actors do for a living: pretend to be people they’re not! It’s also worth pointing out that François Cluzet was an able-bodied actor as well.
As already mentioned, Bryan Cranston excels in the role. Phillip goes through such a wide range of emotions from despair to pure joy and back again that you can’t help but be impressed by the performance.
On the female side of the cast, it’s really nice to see Nicole Kidman in such a quiet and understated role and it’s nicely done; Aja Naomi King does a nice job as Dell’s protective ex-girlfriend Latrice; and there’s a nice female cameo as well, which I won’t spoil since I wasn’t expecting to see her in the film.
Final Thoughts
As a standalone film it has some laugh-out-loud moments, some feelgood highs and some moments of real pathos. The audience I saw this with was small, but there was still a buzz in the room and sporadic applause as the end titles came up: God only knows that’s unusual for a film!
The director is “Limitless” and “Divergent” director Neil Burger, and it’s a perfectly fun and innocent night out at the flicks that I commend to the house in this month of celluloid awards heavyweights.
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated Let the Right One In in Books
May 16, 2018
Several years ago, I had the pleasure (I think?) of watching the American remake of the film, Let the Right One In, which was titled Let Me In. I don’t remember any of it -only that I had found it interesting at the time. Undoubtedly, it had something to do with the fact that, during those years, I had an obsession with vampires. In fact, I gobbled up the Twilight books around then, and yes I am ashamed to admit that. Let the Right One In never crossed my mind again after that, until I received a box of books for free and found a copy of the Thomas Dunne Books translation inside it. Remembering the movie vaguely, and knowing the original version is among my boyfriend’s favorite films, I decided to give it a read and, once again, I am not in the least bit disappointed. I’m not sure if it’s a difference in what Americans find to be taboo in comparison to Swedish folk or what, but between John Ajvide Lindqvist and Stieg Larsson, I think I’m ready to delve deeper into Scandinavian novels!
Lindqvist has created for readers a completely deplorable cast of characters, ranging from Eli, the child, to her caretaker, Håkan Bengtsson. These characters aren’t hate-worthy in the same manner as Gone Girl‘s Amy Dunne, but rather in the way that they simply are. I won’t go too much into the details behind why I find the cast of this book to be unsavory, because I feel that just about anything I could say about the characters would, in one form or another, spoil the book; these characters and their flaws, which are bountiful, provide the book with so many unexpected twists and turns that just about anything that could be said might reveal something vital to the plot. Except for my favorite character, which, oddly enough, is Gösta. This may or may not have something to do with the fact that, like Gösta, I adore cats and it is extremely difficult for me to not want to take a stray in. (My boyfriend and I have too many, and I love them more than the entire world!)
The plot takes place over the course of about three weeks, beginning near the last week of October and ending on Friday, November 13. For a book of about five-hundred pages, that’s quite a few days to cover and often, that expanse of time, when it is written as detailed as Lindqvist has penned it, can seem like it simply drags on – that is not the case here. As I read, it felt more like a few days than several weeks, largely because the plot is fast paced and constantly moving. Because there isn’t a lot of exposition, there isn’t really much to slow the story down. Told from alternating perspectives, readers are given several different points of view of what’s going on, and from there it is relatively easy to come to your own conclusions regarding the story’s events as well as the behaviors of the various characters. Those I loathed, others might feel pity for, and vice versa.
Let the Right One In is a vampire novel, as I’ve alluded to earlier in this review; however, Lindqvist does not approach the idea of vampires in the same method that many books do presently. These are not romanticized vampires, but rather monsters. Horrible, bloodthirsty creatures that will rip out your throat, not sparkle – that’s what Lindqvist’s vampires are. This fact alone scores extra points with me, because I prefer vampires as the terrors they are meant to be, rather than the glorified, dark lovers that plague most contemporary literature.
My only gripe with this translation of Let the Right One In deals largely with its flow. While the story itself is excellent and the characters dynamic, the translation seemed to be a bit on the rough side. I do not speak Swedish. If I did, I wouldn’t have a use for the translated version of the story. That said, I know absolutely nothing of the language. Given that my major is in Creative Writing and that I have taken Linguistic courses, I do know that some languages have no tense – at least, not in the way that those of us that speak English view it. That said, there are many times in the translation that I was reading where the tense seemed to switch randomly, and I do not know if this was intentional or not. It was not an issue that I encountered while reading The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo though, so it’s a bit hard for me to be forgiving about it.
This book was definitely worth the read, and I’m hoping that I’ll get a chance to watch the original film adaptation in the future – my boyfriend might have it, actually. I should check!
Lindqvist has created for readers a completely deplorable cast of characters, ranging from Eli, the child, to her caretaker, Håkan Bengtsson. These characters aren’t hate-worthy in the same manner as Gone Girl‘s Amy Dunne, but rather in the way that they simply are. I won’t go too much into the details behind why I find the cast of this book to be unsavory, because I feel that just about anything I could say about the characters would, in one form or another, spoil the book; these characters and their flaws, which are bountiful, provide the book with so many unexpected twists and turns that just about anything that could be said might reveal something vital to the plot. Except for my favorite character, which, oddly enough, is Gösta. This may or may not have something to do with the fact that, like Gösta, I adore cats and it is extremely difficult for me to not want to take a stray in. (My boyfriend and I have too many, and I love them more than the entire world!)
The plot takes place over the course of about three weeks, beginning near the last week of October and ending on Friday, November 13. For a book of about five-hundred pages, that’s quite a few days to cover and often, that expanse of time, when it is written as detailed as Lindqvist has penned it, can seem like it simply drags on – that is not the case here. As I read, it felt more like a few days than several weeks, largely because the plot is fast paced and constantly moving. Because there isn’t a lot of exposition, there isn’t really much to slow the story down. Told from alternating perspectives, readers are given several different points of view of what’s going on, and from there it is relatively easy to come to your own conclusions regarding the story’s events as well as the behaviors of the various characters. Those I loathed, others might feel pity for, and vice versa.
Let the Right One In is a vampire novel, as I’ve alluded to earlier in this review; however, Lindqvist does not approach the idea of vampires in the same method that many books do presently. These are not romanticized vampires, but rather monsters. Horrible, bloodthirsty creatures that will rip out your throat, not sparkle – that’s what Lindqvist’s vampires are. This fact alone scores extra points with me, because I prefer vampires as the terrors they are meant to be, rather than the glorified, dark lovers that plague most contemporary literature.
My only gripe with this translation of Let the Right One In deals largely with its flow. While the story itself is excellent and the characters dynamic, the translation seemed to be a bit on the rough side. I do not speak Swedish. If I did, I wouldn’t have a use for the translated version of the story. That said, I know absolutely nothing of the language. Given that my major is in Creative Writing and that I have taken Linguistic courses, I do know that some languages have no tense – at least, not in the way that those of us that speak English view it. That said, there are many times in the translation that I was reading where the tense seemed to switch randomly, and I do not know if this was intentional or not. It was not an issue that I encountered while reading The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo though, so it’s a bit hard for me to be forgiving about it.
This book was definitely worth the read, and I’m hoping that I’ll get a chance to watch the original film adaptation in the future – my boyfriend might have it, actually. I should check!