Search
Search results
156Reviews (7 KP) rated Dark Waters (2019) in Movies
May 1, 2020
Films are important.
Films are important to us all for many different reasons, they show what we are, what we can be, what we aspire to be, of who we are. Sometimes that comes in the form of escapism, of dreaming that we can be better, Mark Ruffalo is no stranger to the genre I'm referring to, sometimes shows us our darkest fears and that we can overcome them, and sometimes, it shows us just how low, we as people can get, and never offer any kind of redemption. Dark Waters manages to be all of these things. A small intro before the film began had me franticly signing up to numerous petitions the second the film ended, joining a cause I didn't even know existed before I sat down to watch. This is why film is important, and why you should watch Dark Waters as soon as you can. So why the 3 out of 5 rating? Surely a film that EVERYONE should watch should get top marks, right? Unfortunately not.
The film begins with Rob Bilott (Mark Ruffalo), a corporate defence attorney, whose office is visited by a farmer from his home town, trying to raise a legal case against DuPont, a multi-billion dollar business, the towns biggest employer, and a chemical company at the heart of potentially poisoning the towns water supply. As Billot investigates the scale of the issue, and its inevitable cover up, it all becomes alarmingly clear. Thousands of people are being poisoned, they're health will likely deteriorate and life threatening illnesses are now a high probability. To take a line from the recent movie Bombshell “somebody has to stand up, somebody has to get mad.”
That anger that should be felt, but for all the terrifying facts about the poisoning these people received on a daily basis, it never comes, the rage should be palpable. Instead it opts for giving us all the information, teaching about regulation and government intervention, or lack thereof, and the only temper in the film shows comes as a heated exchange in a board room that blows over as soon as it comes, and protesters outside courtrooms for fleeting moments throughout the movie. It should be seething instead of showing, giving us the knowledge we need through gritted teeth, not clinical, scientific and impersonal.
Dark Waters is off the mark with its tone, Mark Ruffalo's high-priced lawyer is too uncertain, a little too every-man, never really portrayed a hot-shot or an underdog, and the supporting cast fall into “Good Guy” or “Bad Guy” far too easily with no exploration into any depth of character. One scene has a DuPont representative, shown in great detail, every undisputable, despicable thing that his company has done to these people, and listens attentively, never upset or defiant but instead seeming slightly bored, before getting up and leaving. Every scene feels like it should be emotionally hard-hitting but never raises above a tap on the shoulder.
As the lesson goes on, the complete lack of morals DuPont has, becomes shockingly clear as they drag the case on for as long as they can, making sure Billot's firm spend more money and time than they are willing to pay. Bilot's home life becomes strained, which distracts from the main thread more than adds to it plot, he becomes distant from his wife, a woefully underused Anne Hathaway, and his health deteriorates under the weight of fighting, and in the end, the conclusion is murkier than the water supply. But he still fights, and in real life, Rob Billot is still fighting to this day to help the West Virginia community, and to change the way the corporations are regulated worldwide.
This film is important, and everyone should see it because it's message, just don't see it for its entertainment value, because that's few and far between.
Films are important to us all for many different reasons, they show what we are, what we can be, what we aspire to be, of who we are. Sometimes that comes in the form of escapism, of dreaming that we can be better, Mark Ruffalo is no stranger to the genre I'm referring to, sometimes shows us our darkest fears and that we can overcome them, and sometimes, it shows us just how low, we as people can get, and never offer any kind of redemption. Dark Waters manages to be all of these things. A small intro before the film began had me franticly signing up to numerous petitions the second the film ended, joining a cause I didn't even know existed before I sat down to watch. This is why film is important, and why you should watch Dark Waters as soon as you can. So why the 3 out of 5 rating? Surely a film that EVERYONE should watch should get top marks, right? Unfortunately not.
The film begins with Rob Bilott (Mark Ruffalo), a corporate defence attorney, whose office is visited by a farmer from his home town, trying to raise a legal case against DuPont, a multi-billion dollar business, the towns biggest employer, and a chemical company at the heart of potentially poisoning the towns water supply. As Billot investigates the scale of the issue, and its inevitable cover up, it all becomes alarmingly clear. Thousands of people are being poisoned, they're health will likely deteriorate and life threatening illnesses are now a high probability. To take a line from the recent movie Bombshell “somebody has to stand up, somebody has to get mad.”
That anger that should be felt, but for all the terrifying facts about the poisoning these people received on a daily basis, it never comes, the rage should be palpable. Instead it opts for giving us all the information, teaching about regulation and government intervention, or lack thereof, and the only temper in the film shows comes as a heated exchange in a board room that blows over as soon as it comes, and protesters outside courtrooms for fleeting moments throughout the movie. It should be seething instead of showing, giving us the knowledge we need through gritted teeth, not clinical, scientific and impersonal.
Dark Waters is off the mark with its tone, Mark Ruffalo's high-priced lawyer is too uncertain, a little too every-man, never really portrayed a hot-shot or an underdog, and the supporting cast fall into “Good Guy” or “Bad Guy” far too easily with no exploration into any depth of character. One scene has a DuPont representative, shown in great detail, every undisputable, despicable thing that his company has done to these people, and listens attentively, never upset or defiant but instead seeming slightly bored, before getting up and leaving. Every scene feels like it should be emotionally hard-hitting but never raises above a tap on the shoulder.
As the lesson goes on, the complete lack of morals DuPont has, becomes shockingly clear as they drag the case on for as long as they can, making sure Billot's firm spend more money and time than they are willing to pay. Bilot's home life becomes strained, which distracts from the main thread more than adds to it plot, he becomes distant from his wife, a woefully underused Anne Hathaway, and his health deteriorates under the weight of fighting, and in the end, the conclusion is murkier than the water supply. But he still fights, and in real life, Rob Billot is still fighting to this day to help the West Virginia community, and to change the way the corporations are regulated worldwide.
This film is important, and everyone should see it because it's message, just don't see it for its entertainment value, because that's few and far between.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Personal History of David Copperfield (2019) in Movies
Jan 8, 2021
The fantastic ensemble cast (1 more)
Great directing and editing
Effortlessly stylish and entertaining
The Personal History of David Copperfield starts with the young man (Dev Patel) regaling a theatre audience with a reading of his autobiography. This immediately pitches him into witnessing his own birth to widowed single mother Clara (the wonderful Morfydd Clark, or "Saint Maud" fame). From there, Copperfield goes helter-skelter into a rollercoaster life encompassing workhouse-bottling poverty, fish-gutting and rich gentlemanly pursuits.
You have to admire the artistry of Dickens. Of course, I am aware of some of the plethora of rich and complex characters that Dickens imagined including the rascally Mr Micawber (Peter Capaldi) and the ever-'umble but conniving Uriah Heep (Ben Wishaw). But the story is literally rammed with amazing characters. It's almost as if Dickens conjured up full pen-portraits of 30 different characters and then contrived to fit them somehow into the story. Remarkably rich.
There's a very striking nature to the casting of this movie. It had me going "Wha?? Who??" while watching it. Because the roles are cast multi-culturally, without nature to the demographics of the time and - crucially - to the relationship between the characters. For example, with Copperfield, you might - with a bit of a squint - play along with it since we never see the father. But then the mother of the (very-much-white) Steerforth (Aneurin Barnard) turns up as Nigerian-born actress Nikki Amuka-Bird (who is fabulous). Benedict Wong also turns up as legal director Mr Wickfield. It was as if the casting was done purely on talent and regardless of race and appropriateness for the Dickensian times. Which is refreshingly different and much to be welcomed.
Sarah Crowe has won a number of awards for her casting of the film and a BAFTA nomination too. And well deserved, since she pulls in a truly stellar ensemble cast. As well as those mentioned above, we also have Hugh Laurie as the addled Mr Dick; Tilda Swinton as Betsey Trotwood; Anna Maxwell Martin as Mrs Strong; Paul Whitehouse as Daniel Peggotty; and Gwendoline Christie as the evil Mrs Murdstone. Even Daisy May Cooper (from TV's "This Country") turns up and is particularly effective as Peggoty - the housemaid and friend to Copperfield. And casting Morfydd Clark in a second role as the scatty love interest Dora Spenlow is also both brilliant and provocative.
With such a wealth of talent on show, it's difficult to pull out specific performances. This is a movie that genuinely deserved to make the SAG Ensemble award list.
When I saw that the director of this was Armando Iannucci, I raised an eyebrow. For the subject matter seemed to be at right angles to the normal satirical thrust of the director. But the guy behind "The Thick of It" and "The Death of Stalin" reigned in his most satirical barbs and - together with his regular collaborative screenwriter Simon Blackwell - turned the movie into a delightfully quirky telling of the story. I felt that there was something of the Guy Ritchie "Sherlock Holmes" behind the very effective use of the cutting and on screen handwriting.
In that cutting, many of the scene transitions are masterfully done. So a special shout-out to the film editors Mick Audsley and Peter Lambert here. A memorable example is a flashback in the "boat house" where a background tarpaulin blows away to reveal Steerforth on horseback in France: simply breathtaking.
This was a refreshing movie. Endlessly innovative and entertaining. It makes me even possibly want to revisit trying to read the book again! Highly recommended.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://rb.gy/ba74zo ).
You have to admire the artistry of Dickens. Of course, I am aware of some of the plethora of rich and complex characters that Dickens imagined including the rascally Mr Micawber (Peter Capaldi) and the ever-'umble but conniving Uriah Heep (Ben Wishaw). But the story is literally rammed with amazing characters. It's almost as if Dickens conjured up full pen-portraits of 30 different characters and then contrived to fit them somehow into the story. Remarkably rich.
There's a very striking nature to the casting of this movie. It had me going "Wha?? Who??" while watching it. Because the roles are cast multi-culturally, without nature to the demographics of the time and - crucially - to the relationship between the characters. For example, with Copperfield, you might - with a bit of a squint - play along with it since we never see the father. But then the mother of the (very-much-white) Steerforth (Aneurin Barnard) turns up as Nigerian-born actress Nikki Amuka-Bird (who is fabulous). Benedict Wong also turns up as legal director Mr Wickfield. It was as if the casting was done purely on talent and regardless of race and appropriateness for the Dickensian times. Which is refreshingly different and much to be welcomed.
Sarah Crowe has won a number of awards for her casting of the film and a BAFTA nomination too. And well deserved, since she pulls in a truly stellar ensemble cast. As well as those mentioned above, we also have Hugh Laurie as the addled Mr Dick; Tilda Swinton as Betsey Trotwood; Anna Maxwell Martin as Mrs Strong; Paul Whitehouse as Daniel Peggotty; and Gwendoline Christie as the evil Mrs Murdstone. Even Daisy May Cooper (from TV's "This Country") turns up and is particularly effective as Peggoty - the housemaid and friend to Copperfield. And casting Morfydd Clark in a second role as the scatty love interest Dora Spenlow is also both brilliant and provocative.
With such a wealth of talent on show, it's difficult to pull out specific performances. This is a movie that genuinely deserved to make the SAG Ensemble award list.
When I saw that the director of this was Armando Iannucci, I raised an eyebrow. For the subject matter seemed to be at right angles to the normal satirical thrust of the director. But the guy behind "The Thick of It" and "The Death of Stalin" reigned in his most satirical barbs and - together with his regular collaborative screenwriter Simon Blackwell - turned the movie into a delightfully quirky telling of the story. I felt that there was something of the Guy Ritchie "Sherlock Holmes" behind the very effective use of the cutting and on screen handwriting.
In that cutting, many of the scene transitions are masterfully done. So a special shout-out to the film editors Mick Audsley and Peter Lambert here. A memorable example is a flashback in the "boat house" where a background tarpaulin blows away to reveal Steerforth on horseback in France: simply breathtaking.
This was a refreshing movie. Endlessly innovative and entertaining. It makes me even possibly want to revisit trying to read the book again! Highly recommended.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://rb.gy/ba74zo ).
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated The Purge (2013) in Movies
Jan 28, 2021
Contains spoilers, click to show
I wanted a 'Killer in masks/home invasion' and that's what I got but there is a lot going on it 'The Purge' :
1) We have the purge itself, a new political party has come in and started titular Purge, one night a year where any crime is legal (although the emphasis is on killing and, via subtext, rape). There are a few exceptions stated at the start of the film and, although it's not directly stated, it seems that minors are exempt, in that they can be targets but not actually participate in the killing.
2)The 'Boyfriend' subplot. This could have led to the main plot but seems to be there just to keep us off track at the beginning.
3) The bloody stranger - ok he's needed as he's the main McGuffin
4) The Freaks, Yes the film needs it's antagonists and it's sometimes good to throw in a red herring but we have; The Freaks, Henry (the boy friend), The Bloody stranger who is suspected as being dangerous when he first arrives, even Janes Sandin looks like he could be the antagonist when he is going to throw the stranger out of the house, then we have...
5) The neighbours - even from the start of the film there is something off about them.
6) Add all of this together with a lot of politics and you have a very layered film.
The first half of the film is mainly set up, setting up the idea of the purge and introducing the characters, there are a few shots of violence in the beginning but the film starts off slow. Then it explodes in violence.
Although the concept is the same, The Purge is a different beast to something like 'The Strangers', both films spend time building up to the the action but, when the action starts, the Purge is much faster paced, mainly because there are more 'hunters' and they have guns.
The Purge is also a very political film but it doesn't go down the 'rich vs poor' root that a lot of films do, this is mentioned a bit but only to back up the thinking behind some of those who partake in the event. The film shows two sides of the Purge and mentions two more, you have those that want to take part in the event and those (like the main family) who don't, the Sandin's just want to get through the night where as the 'Freaks' happily take part in it. It's also mentioned that there are those who can not protect themselves (the poor) and those that object.
After watching it I am left with two questions:
1) what happened to Henrys body? We last saw it in Zoey's room, no one mentioned moving it and it couldn't have been taken out of the house but it was never seen when the Freaks were going room to room, they even went into the room where it should have been.
2) were the cookies poisoned? The neighbour said they saw the shutters come down (pulled off) and decided to take the opportunity to kill the Sandins but the hatred was already there so could the cookies have been another way to kill them off. It's true that they would have had to have been cooked before the purge officially started but, going by when they given, they would not have been eaten until either a few minuets before the start or after it had started and I doubt that anyone official would pay too much attention to the bodies after the purge. There would be too many even if they wanted too.
1) We have the purge itself, a new political party has come in and started titular Purge, one night a year where any crime is legal (although the emphasis is on killing and, via subtext, rape). There are a few exceptions stated at the start of the film and, although it's not directly stated, it seems that minors are exempt, in that they can be targets but not actually participate in the killing.
2)The 'Boyfriend' subplot. This could have led to the main plot but seems to be there just to keep us off track at the beginning.
3) The bloody stranger - ok he's needed as he's the main McGuffin
4) The Freaks, Yes the film needs it's antagonists and it's sometimes good to throw in a red herring but we have; The Freaks, Henry (the boy friend), The Bloody stranger who is suspected as being dangerous when he first arrives, even Janes Sandin looks like he could be the antagonist when he is going to throw the stranger out of the house, then we have...
5) The neighbours - even from the start of the film there is something off about them.
6) Add all of this together with a lot of politics and you have a very layered film.
The first half of the film is mainly set up, setting up the idea of the purge and introducing the characters, there are a few shots of violence in the beginning but the film starts off slow. Then it explodes in violence.
Although the concept is the same, The Purge is a different beast to something like 'The Strangers', both films spend time building up to the the action but, when the action starts, the Purge is much faster paced, mainly because there are more 'hunters' and they have guns.
The Purge is also a very political film but it doesn't go down the 'rich vs poor' root that a lot of films do, this is mentioned a bit but only to back up the thinking behind some of those who partake in the event. The film shows two sides of the Purge and mentions two more, you have those that want to take part in the event and those (like the main family) who don't, the Sandin's just want to get through the night where as the 'Freaks' happily take part in it. It's also mentioned that there are those who can not protect themselves (the poor) and those that object.
After watching it I am left with two questions:
1) what happened to Henrys body? We last saw it in Zoey's room, no one mentioned moving it and it couldn't have been taken out of the house but it was never seen when the Freaks were going room to room, they even went into the room where it should have been.
2) were the cookies poisoned? The neighbour said they saw the shutters come down (pulled off) and decided to take the opportunity to kill the Sandins but the hatred was already there so could the cookies have been another way to kill them off. It's true that they would have had to have been cooked before the purge officially started but, going by when they given, they would not have been eaten until either a few minuets before the start or after it had started and I doubt that anyone official would pay too much attention to the bodies after the purge. There would be too many even if they wanted too.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Edge of Darkness (2010) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: Edge of Darkness starts when Craven (Gibson) get to spend his daughter Emma (Novakovic) only for an unknown gunman killing her on his doorstep, Craven being a homicide detective isn’t allowed to investigate the case for legal reasons, so he decides to go against the law in his search for the murderer.
The early signs make it looks like Craven himself was the target, but it soon comes to light that it might be Emma’s work for a government company run by Jack Bennett (Huston) that might have made her the target and the deeper he digs the more he learns about his daughter.
Thoughts on Edge of Darkness
Characters – Craven is a respect homicide detective, everyone in the force knows just how capable of solving a murder he can be, but when his own daughter is murdered, he starts to go against the law to figure out who and why she was murdered. He will not stop at anything to locate the truth and take out the people that murdered his daughter. Jedburgh is an English man that will help Craven fill in the gaps, while trying to keep him away from the answers, he has been hired to make sure the investment stays safe, without building up a body count. Jack Bennett runs the company that Emma works for, he knows how to answer questions to keep the press happy, while keeping the shady operations under wraps. Emma is the daughter that Craven is delighted to spend time with once again, only she gets murdered and it is her life before this meeting that we get to see her in.
Performances – Mel Gibson might well have had his problems in Hollywood, but when it comes to crime thrillers, he is in his element always shining in these roles without ever looking out of place, and demanding the screen whenever he steps on screen. Ray Winstone is great in his role, which only seems to be around for the calmer or criminal sides of the film. Danny Huston is an actor that can play a villain in his sleep and this is no different, he brings the smug figure to life here. Bojana Novakovic is great in her smaller role which doesn’t need to get much more screen time to add to the story.
Story – The story here follows a homicide detective that starts to investigate the murder of his daughter only to find himself in the middle of a much bigger conspiracy that puts his own life in danger. This story starts off looking like it is going to be a revenge like movie because of how the first murder happens only to become a big conspiracy movie that offers up plenty of miss-direction as we lead to the truth. Any story that can keep you guessing and let try to figure out the ending yourself is an entertaining watch, with the outcome not even needing to be spoon fed to us either. This might well be a remake of a television show, but it plays into the modern ideas and works with how the conspiracy could be relevant for today’s climate.
Crime/Mystery – The crime side of the film starts by just looking like a murder, it soon dives into cover ups, conspiracy and secret groups which shows how the government might go about trying to cover up a secret. The mystery in the film comes from just how the conspiracy keeps managing to unfold to expose more truth about what Emma was involved in.
Settings – The film uses the Boston setting to show how many crimes have been committed in this stricter state which does show us just how big of a conspiracy needs covering up.
Scene of the Movie – Riverside meeting.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It would have been nice to see more of Jedburgh.
Final Thoughts – This is a wonderfully intense crime thriller that does keep you guessing throughout the film, we get strong performance throughout and a story that has been modernized without looking out of place.
Overall: Hugely entertaining crime thriller.
The early signs make it looks like Craven himself was the target, but it soon comes to light that it might be Emma’s work for a government company run by Jack Bennett (Huston) that might have made her the target and the deeper he digs the more he learns about his daughter.
Thoughts on Edge of Darkness
Characters – Craven is a respect homicide detective, everyone in the force knows just how capable of solving a murder he can be, but when his own daughter is murdered, he starts to go against the law to figure out who and why she was murdered. He will not stop at anything to locate the truth and take out the people that murdered his daughter. Jedburgh is an English man that will help Craven fill in the gaps, while trying to keep him away from the answers, he has been hired to make sure the investment stays safe, without building up a body count. Jack Bennett runs the company that Emma works for, he knows how to answer questions to keep the press happy, while keeping the shady operations under wraps. Emma is the daughter that Craven is delighted to spend time with once again, only she gets murdered and it is her life before this meeting that we get to see her in.
Performances – Mel Gibson might well have had his problems in Hollywood, but when it comes to crime thrillers, he is in his element always shining in these roles without ever looking out of place, and demanding the screen whenever he steps on screen. Ray Winstone is great in his role, which only seems to be around for the calmer or criminal sides of the film. Danny Huston is an actor that can play a villain in his sleep and this is no different, he brings the smug figure to life here. Bojana Novakovic is great in her smaller role which doesn’t need to get much more screen time to add to the story.
Story – The story here follows a homicide detective that starts to investigate the murder of his daughter only to find himself in the middle of a much bigger conspiracy that puts his own life in danger. This story starts off looking like it is going to be a revenge like movie because of how the first murder happens only to become a big conspiracy movie that offers up plenty of miss-direction as we lead to the truth. Any story that can keep you guessing and let try to figure out the ending yourself is an entertaining watch, with the outcome not even needing to be spoon fed to us either. This might well be a remake of a television show, but it plays into the modern ideas and works with how the conspiracy could be relevant for today’s climate.
Crime/Mystery – The crime side of the film starts by just looking like a murder, it soon dives into cover ups, conspiracy and secret groups which shows how the government might go about trying to cover up a secret. The mystery in the film comes from just how the conspiracy keeps managing to unfold to expose more truth about what Emma was involved in.
Settings – The film uses the Boston setting to show how many crimes have been committed in this stricter state which does show us just how big of a conspiracy needs covering up.
Scene of the Movie – Riverside meeting.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It would have been nice to see more of Jedburgh.
Final Thoughts – This is a wonderfully intense crime thriller that does keep you guessing throughout the film, we get strong performance throughout and a story that has been modernized without looking out of place.
Overall: Hugely entertaining crime thriller.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Crisis (2021) in Movies
Feb 19, 2021
Worth it just for Oldman
Crisis is a 2021 film from write, director and producer Nicholas Jarecki, who previously brought us 2012's Arbitrage starring Richard Gere. Crisis is a story about drugs, namely opioids, and follows three separate yet related narratives about opioids and their impact on US society. There's an undercover DEA agent posing as a drug trafficker arranging a Fentanyl smuggling operation between Canada and the US (Armie Hammer), a recovering addict architect determined to track down those responsible for her son's involvement in narcotics (Evangeline Lilly), and a university professor (Gary Oldman) who's research laboratory uncovers dangerous revelations about a new drug that they've been paid to research by a very influential drug company and their executives (Luke Evans).
The main purpose of Crisis appears to be highlighting two entirely juxtaposed real life issues with opioids - the illegal smuggling and import of street drugs and the completely legal yet questionable drugs introduced by drug companies with full support of the government. For most, neither of these stories should be particularly surprising as they're fairly common knowledge and have been featured in countless films and documentaries over the years, although I think this may be the first time the two stories have been shown together in a film. And for Crisis this really works - showing the two contrasting issues makes for a more interesting and unique story rather than concentrating solely on one that we've seen many times before, especially as its split into three separate narratives.
However, the problem with Crisis is that not all of the narratives are as engaging as intended. Evangeline Lilly puts in a wonderful and emotional performance as architect and mother Claire, but her narrative becomes a little unrealistic as she becomes bent on revenge at those responsible for involving her son in the drugs underworld. And unfortunately Armie Hammer's narrative as undercover federal agent Jake is nothing original, with a smuggling operation and drugs bust that we've seen in many other films, some of which I'm afraid have done it a lot better. The most interesting narrative though is that of Gary Oldman as Dr Tyrone Brower, whose struggle over whether to tell the truth about a new dangerous drug or take the money from his drug company employers is a surprisingly thrilling morality tale. It's helped by a superb turn from Oldman himself and a wonderful supporting role from Greg Kinnear (who I've adored since 1997's As Good As It Gets), and the verbal sparring scenes between Brower and Kinnear's university Dean are probably the best in the film. It's a shame however that Luke Evans isn't given as much to do with his part in this narrative, even with his questionable American accent.
The biggest problem I had with all of the narratives is that unlike similar films that intertwine related narratives that eventually intersect dramatically (think 2006's Best Picture Oscar winner Crash), the narratives here don't all come together in the way I was expecting, which was rather disappointing.
Cinematography-wise, director and writer Jarecki does a good job as the film looks and feels good, and really highlights the US and Canadian settings. The soundtrack only adds to the overall tense and suspenseful feel of the film, although it does feature the typical pulsing, drum beat style that seems to be standard for a modern thriller. And the script, while possibly a little clichéd especially around the drugs bust and smuggling, is good and with his supporting acting role as Jake's fellow DEA agent Stan, Nicholas Jarecki could be one to watch in future.
Overall, Crisis is a good thriller that tells the story of well-known drug issues in a different way and does well in highlighting real life concerns. For the most part it succeeds in bringing an interesting set of narratives together for a fairly gripping albeit slightly long film, and despite my preconceptions about how its intersecting storylines should play out, it is an enjoyable watch, although for the most part thanks to the talents of Gary Oldman.
The main purpose of Crisis appears to be highlighting two entirely juxtaposed real life issues with opioids - the illegal smuggling and import of street drugs and the completely legal yet questionable drugs introduced by drug companies with full support of the government. For most, neither of these stories should be particularly surprising as they're fairly common knowledge and have been featured in countless films and documentaries over the years, although I think this may be the first time the two stories have been shown together in a film. And for Crisis this really works - showing the two contrasting issues makes for a more interesting and unique story rather than concentrating solely on one that we've seen many times before, especially as its split into three separate narratives.
However, the problem with Crisis is that not all of the narratives are as engaging as intended. Evangeline Lilly puts in a wonderful and emotional performance as architect and mother Claire, but her narrative becomes a little unrealistic as she becomes bent on revenge at those responsible for involving her son in the drugs underworld. And unfortunately Armie Hammer's narrative as undercover federal agent Jake is nothing original, with a smuggling operation and drugs bust that we've seen in many other films, some of which I'm afraid have done it a lot better. The most interesting narrative though is that of Gary Oldman as Dr Tyrone Brower, whose struggle over whether to tell the truth about a new dangerous drug or take the money from his drug company employers is a surprisingly thrilling morality tale. It's helped by a superb turn from Oldman himself and a wonderful supporting role from Greg Kinnear (who I've adored since 1997's As Good As It Gets), and the verbal sparring scenes between Brower and Kinnear's university Dean are probably the best in the film. It's a shame however that Luke Evans isn't given as much to do with his part in this narrative, even with his questionable American accent.
The biggest problem I had with all of the narratives is that unlike similar films that intertwine related narratives that eventually intersect dramatically (think 2006's Best Picture Oscar winner Crash), the narratives here don't all come together in the way I was expecting, which was rather disappointing.
Cinematography-wise, director and writer Jarecki does a good job as the film looks and feels good, and really highlights the US and Canadian settings. The soundtrack only adds to the overall tense and suspenseful feel of the film, although it does feature the typical pulsing, drum beat style that seems to be standard for a modern thriller. And the script, while possibly a little clichéd especially around the drugs bust and smuggling, is good and with his supporting acting role as Jake's fellow DEA agent Stan, Nicholas Jarecki could be one to watch in future.
Overall, Crisis is a good thriller that tells the story of well-known drug issues in a different way and does well in highlighting real life concerns. For the most part it succeeds in bringing an interesting set of narratives together for a fairly gripping albeit slightly long film, and despite my preconceptions about how its intersecting storylines should play out, it is an enjoyable watch, although for the most part thanks to the talents of Gary Oldman.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets in Books
Aug 3, 2020
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
#1 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3217515684">Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone</a> - ★★★★★
#2 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2371215543">Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets</a> - ★★★★★
#3 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3275165909">Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban</a> - ★★★★
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Book-Review-Banner-42.png"/>;
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is probably my favorite book in the Harry Potter series. It's the second year in Hogwarts for Harry Potter and his friends Ron and Hermione. The year we discover many new things in the Harry Potter world.
This is the book where we meet Dobby. Also the book where we find out about Voldemort's true identity. The book in which we find out what really happened to Moaning Myrtle.
I have truly forgotten how good the beginning of the book is. Firstly, I cannot understand why Harry has to go back and stay with that awful family during the summer. I know they are his legal guardians, but they don't want him staying with them either! Then, there is Dobby, who wants Harry to not go back to Hogwarts and creates a huge mess. The best moment though, is when Ron comes to the rescue with the flying car! Because Ron knows Harry might be in trouble. And Harry's owl secret endeavours are revealed too. And I cannot help but share this moment of Hermione worrying about Harry, as well as Ron's family owl.
<b><i>"I've been really worried and if Harry is all right, will you please let me know at once, but perhaps it would be better if you used a different owl, because I think another delivery might finish your one off."</i></b>
There is something about the Harry Potter books that I have always loved. The feeling of acceptance they give you. The inclusivity. The ability to be part of the magical world too!
<b><i>"You will find that I will only truly have left this school when none here are loyal to me. You will also find that help will always be given at Hogwarts to those who ask for it."</i></b>
Harry's curiosity is something I loved since day one.
I love the powerful friendship he has with Hermione & Ron. His bravery and his eagerness to always make things right. I love that danger doesn't scare him. And I have to admit - I also love Harry's rivalry with Malfoy! Their encounters are always a treat!
<b><i>"Honestly, if you were any slower, you'd be going backwards."</i></b>
What I loved the most about this book were the conversations between Harry and You Know Who. The moment Harry acknowledged why he is alive and why he is better.
<b><i>"How is it that a baby with no extraordinary magical talent managed to defeat the greatest wizard of all time?"
"No one knows why you lost your powers when you attacked me. I don't know myself. But I know why you couldn't kill me. Because my mother died to save me."</i></b>
And on top o all this - the moment Harry finds out why he truly belongs to Gryffindor!
<b><i>"It is out choices, Harry, that show us what we truly are, far more than our abilities."</i></b>
Truly a favorite of mine and a series I will be forever recommending.<b><i>Always!</i></b>
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
#1 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3217515684">Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone</a> - ★★★★★
#2 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2371215543">Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets</a> - ★★★★★
#3 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3275165909">Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban</a> - ★★★★
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Book-Review-Banner-42.png"/>;
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is probably my favorite book in the Harry Potter series. It's the second year in Hogwarts for Harry Potter and his friends Ron and Hermione. The year we discover many new things in the Harry Potter world.
This is the book where we meet Dobby. Also the book where we find out about Voldemort's true identity. The book in which we find out what really happened to Moaning Myrtle.
I have truly forgotten how good the beginning of the book is. Firstly, I cannot understand why Harry has to go back and stay with that awful family during the summer. I know they are his legal guardians, but they don't want him staying with them either! Then, there is Dobby, who wants Harry to not go back to Hogwarts and creates a huge mess. The best moment though, is when Ron comes to the rescue with the flying car! Because Ron knows Harry might be in trouble. And Harry's owl secret endeavours are revealed too. And I cannot help but share this moment of Hermione worrying about Harry, as well as Ron's family owl.
<b><i>"I've been really worried and if Harry is all right, will you please let me know at once, but perhaps it would be better if you used a different owl, because I think another delivery might finish your one off."</i></b>
There is something about the Harry Potter books that I have always loved. The feeling of acceptance they give you. The inclusivity. The ability to be part of the magical world too!
<b><i>"You will find that I will only truly have left this school when none here are loyal to me. You will also find that help will always be given at Hogwarts to those who ask for it."</i></b>
Harry's curiosity is something I loved since day one.
I love the powerful friendship he has with Hermione & Ron. His bravery and his eagerness to always make things right. I love that danger doesn't scare him. And I have to admit - I also love Harry's rivalry with Malfoy! Their encounters are always a treat!
<b><i>"Honestly, if you were any slower, you'd be going backwards."</i></b>
What I loved the most about this book were the conversations between Harry and You Know Who. The moment Harry acknowledged why he is alive and why he is better.
<b><i>"How is it that a baby with no extraordinary magical talent managed to defeat the greatest wizard of all time?"
"No one knows why you lost your powers when you attacked me. I don't know myself. But I know why you couldn't kill me. Because my mother died to save me."</i></b>
And on top o all this - the moment Harry finds out why he truly belongs to Gryffindor!
<b><i>"It is out choices, Harry, that show us what we truly are, far more than our abilities."</i></b>
Truly a favorite of mine and a series I will be forever recommending.<b><i>Always!</i></b>
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Finding your feet (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Foot tapping and Tear Jerking.
There are some films whose trailers really don’t properly represent their contents. The trailer for the new ‘grey-pound’ film “Finding Your Feet” promised a light hearted and witty foray into an elderly dance-club. And, yes, you get some laughs. But it’s very much a bitter sweet comedy, and the bitterness is ladled on by the bucketload leading to more tears than smiles through the majority of the running time.
Sandra (Imelda Staunton, “Pride“) – now Lady Sandra, after her husband’s latest knighthood – is in a predictable, sex-free but reasonably happy marriage to legal beagle Mike (John Sessions, “Denial“, “Florence Foster Jenkins“) when her world is shaken to its core on discovering that Mike has been having a five-year affair with her best friend Pamela (Josie Lawrence). Moving in with her Bohemian sister Bif (Celia Imrie, “Bridget Jones Baby“), she struggles to integrate into her decidedly lower class lifestyle and find common ground with Bif’s dance club friends Charlie (Timothy Spall, “Denial“, “Mr Turner”), Ted (David Hayman) and Jackie (Joanna Lumley, “The Wolf of Wall Street“).
Can Sandra turn her downward spiral around and find love and happiness again? Well, the posters scream “The Feel Good Film of the Year” so you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know the answer to that! But it’s a bumpy journey for sure.
Getting all the acting honours is Timothy Spall, who is far too good to be buried away in this small British rom com. To watch him do “ordinary bloke doing ordinary things” is an absolute delight. He adds class and distinction to every scene he’s in, especially for those concerned with his truly tragic and upsetting back-story. Running a close second is Celia Imrie who has a wicked smile off to perfection and adds a lot of emotional depth to her performance: and she needs the range, since she too is on a pretty emotional journey through the second half of the film.
John Sessions and Josie Lawrence – old compatriots of course from the original version of TV’s “Whose Line Is It Anyway” – also deliver marvellous cameo performances, as does Phoebe Nicholls (“The Elephant Man”, “Downton Abbey”) as the tennis playing friend Janet.
Less convincing for me was Imelda Staunton, particularly in the first half of the film: for me she never quite pulls off the icy cold emotional wreck of Sandra, but is much better once the thaw has set in.
The film is written by Meg Leonard (in a debut script) and Nick Moorcroft (who did the “St Trinians” scripts). And there are some funny lines in there, although it has to be said that there are not enough of them. The majority of the best ones in fact are in the trailer, never bettered by Joanna Lumley’s zinger…. “My last marriage ended for religious reasons…. he thought he was God and I didn’t”! There’s not much more room for comic lines, since the rest of the script is stuffed with the dramatic outcomes from various flavours of old-age malady. Fortunately I was one of the younger members of the generally grey-haired audience, but for those further up the scale it must have been like staring into the void!
The film will win no awards for choreography, since the dance scenes are gloriously inept and out of sync. But this all rather adds to the charm of the piece.
Directed by Richard Loncraine, director of the equally forgettable Brit-flick “Wimbledon” and the rather more memorable “Brimstone and Treacle”, this is as Douglas Adams would have said “Mostly Harmless”: a film that most over-50’s will find a pleasant way to spend two hours. But go in expecting a drama with comic moments, rather than the hilarious comedy predicted by the trailer, and you will be better prepared.
(I should comment that the rating below is my view: my illustrious wife declared it a triumphant chick-flick and gave it FFFFf).
Sandra (Imelda Staunton, “Pride“) – now Lady Sandra, after her husband’s latest knighthood – is in a predictable, sex-free but reasonably happy marriage to legal beagle Mike (John Sessions, “Denial“, “Florence Foster Jenkins“) when her world is shaken to its core on discovering that Mike has been having a five-year affair with her best friend Pamela (Josie Lawrence). Moving in with her Bohemian sister Bif (Celia Imrie, “Bridget Jones Baby“), she struggles to integrate into her decidedly lower class lifestyle and find common ground with Bif’s dance club friends Charlie (Timothy Spall, “Denial“, “Mr Turner”), Ted (David Hayman) and Jackie (Joanna Lumley, “The Wolf of Wall Street“).
Can Sandra turn her downward spiral around and find love and happiness again? Well, the posters scream “The Feel Good Film of the Year” so you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know the answer to that! But it’s a bumpy journey for sure.
Getting all the acting honours is Timothy Spall, who is far too good to be buried away in this small British rom com. To watch him do “ordinary bloke doing ordinary things” is an absolute delight. He adds class and distinction to every scene he’s in, especially for those concerned with his truly tragic and upsetting back-story. Running a close second is Celia Imrie who has a wicked smile off to perfection and adds a lot of emotional depth to her performance: and she needs the range, since she too is on a pretty emotional journey through the second half of the film.
John Sessions and Josie Lawrence – old compatriots of course from the original version of TV’s “Whose Line Is It Anyway” – also deliver marvellous cameo performances, as does Phoebe Nicholls (“The Elephant Man”, “Downton Abbey”) as the tennis playing friend Janet.
Less convincing for me was Imelda Staunton, particularly in the first half of the film: for me she never quite pulls off the icy cold emotional wreck of Sandra, but is much better once the thaw has set in.
The film is written by Meg Leonard (in a debut script) and Nick Moorcroft (who did the “St Trinians” scripts). And there are some funny lines in there, although it has to be said that there are not enough of them. The majority of the best ones in fact are in the trailer, never bettered by Joanna Lumley’s zinger…. “My last marriage ended for religious reasons…. he thought he was God and I didn’t”! There’s not much more room for comic lines, since the rest of the script is stuffed with the dramatic outcomes from various flavours of old-age malady. Fortunately I was one of the younger members of the generally grey-haired audience, but for those further up the scale it must have been like staring into the void!
The film will win no awards for choreography, since the dance scenes are gloriously inept and out of sync. But this all rather adds to the charm of the piece.
Directed by Richard Loncraine, director of the equally forgettable Brit-flick “Wimbledon” and the rather more memorable “Brimstone and Treacle”, this is as Douglas Adams would have said “Mostly Harmless”: a film that most over-50’s will find a pleasant way to spend two hours. But go in expecting a drama with comic moments, rather than the hilarious comedy predicted by the trailer, and you will be better prepared.
(I should comment that the rating below is my view: my illustrious wife declared it a triumphant chick-flick and gave it FFFFf).
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Flash (2023) in Movies
Jun 7, 2023
Amidst numerous delays and offscreen speculations about the fate of the movie, Director Andy Muschietti has finally seen his big-screen adaptation of DC Comics "The Flash" arrive.
We first saw the film in late April at Cinemacon and now that we have seen the final cut with additional footage and a noticing credits, I can finally give you my impressions.
The movie opens with Barry Allen (Ezra Miller), called into action to help with an issue in Gotham City which offers a chance for an extended action scene as well as some cameo appearances that should delight fans.
Like most superheroes, Barry has to contend with work and personal issues and his time as the Flash often makes him late for work and even more of a social outcast than he already is. And the arrival of an old school friend reminds him that his father is scheduled to have a court appearance on appeal of his conviction for murdering his wife many years earlier. Barry is obsessed with proving his father's innocence however there is little evidence that can support his appeal.
Despite warnings not to alter time, Barry travels to the past to make a slight adjustment which results in his mother living and growing up in a two-parent household for himself.
His euphoria becomes short-lived when Barry runs into a younger version of himself and realizes that if he does not enable his younger self with his powers, then he will never exist to create the alternate reality where his parents are safe and happy.
The younger Barry is extremely immature and annoying and when he becomes confused with powers while the other loses them, there are numerous opportunities for comic mayhem which the film briefly touches upon before returning to the more serious aspects of the story.
As he was warned, Barry has created fractions in reality, and the one that he finds himself in has several changes from the one that knows including a world free of superpowered beings. This becomes a serious problem when General Zod (Michael Shannon) arrives and there is no Superman or Justice League to save the day.
In an act of desperation, Barry seeks out Batman (Michael Keaton), and is shocked to discover that he is different than the one that he knows in his reality. Both Barrys and Batman hatch a plan of desperation that sees them desperately mounting a rescue and offensive to save humanity.
The film has some fantastic visual effects but like most hero films becomes heavily bogged down on them in a final act that in many ways seems at times anticlimactic to the potential that the story has been building to. Miller is solid as the two Barrys although the younger version of them becomes very annoying and at times and some segments drag on.
Keaton absolutely steals the film and brings a much-needed presence to the action as he seems to really be enjoying his return to the role and his segments are often the most compelling parts of the film as he provides a stabilizing and grounding presence to the Barrys.
There are numerous cameos throughout the film that I will not spoil but suffice it to say they should delight fans and do offer some intriguing questions.
The biggest issue now is the future of the character as Gunn and Saffron are busy building their DC universe while outside projects currently are in the works. It is not a secret that legal issues and outside distractions have been associated with Miller to the point where some question whether the film could be released despite its lavish budget.
The final box office numbers will be very interesting because I found the film quite enjoyable and a pleasant surprise in one of the better DC cinematic efforts notwithstanding the final act which became a bit formulaic and anticlimactic for my liking. While it doesn't approach the level of several of the Marvel films, it does show that there is plenty of potential to make solid stories within the DC universe.
4 stars out of 5
We first saw the film in late April at Cinemacon and now that we have seen the final cut with additional footage and a noticing credits, I can finally give you my impressions.
The movie opens with Barry Allen (Ezra Miller), called into action to help with an issue in Gotham City which offers a chance for an extended action scene as well as some cameo appearances that should delight fans.
Like most superheroes, Barry has to contend with work and personal issues and his time as the Flash often makes him late for work and even more of a social outcast than he already is. And the arrival of an old school friend reminds him that his father is scheduled to have a court appearance on appeal of his conviction for murdering his wife many years earlier. Barry is obsessed with proving his father's innocence however there is little evidence that can support his appeal.
Despite warnings not to alter time, Barry travels to the past to make a slight adjustment which results in his mother living and growing up in a two-parent household for himself.
His euphoria becomes short-lived when Barry runs into a younger version of himself and realizes that if he does not enable his younger self with his powers, then he will never exist to create the alternate reality where his parents are safe and happy.
The younger Barry is extremely immature and annoying and when he becomes confused with powers while the other loses them, there are numerous opportunities for comic mayhem which the film briefly touches upon before returning to the more serious aspects of the story.
As he was warned, Barry has created fractions in reality, and the one that he finds himself in has several changes from the one that knows including a world free of superpowered beings. This becomes a serious problem when General Zod (Michael Shannon) arrives and there is no Superman or Justice League to save the day.
In an act of desperation, Barry seeks out Batman (Michael Keaton), and is shocked to discover that he is different than the one that he knows in his reality. Both Barrys and Batman hatch a plan of desperation that sees them desperately mounting a rescue and offensive to save humanity.
The film has some fantastic visual effects but like most hero films becomes heavily bogged down on them in a final act that in many ways seems at times anticlimactic to the potential that the story has been building to. Miller is solid as the two Barrys although the younger version of them becomes very annoying and at times and some segments drag on.
Keaton absolutely steals the film and brings a much-needed presence to the action as he seems to really be enjoying his return to the role and his segments are often the most compelling parts of the film as he provides a stabilizing and grounding presence to the Barrys.
There are numerous cameos throughout the film that I will not spoil but suffice it to say they should delight fans and do offer some intriguing questions.
The biggest issue now is the future of the character as Gunn and Saffron are busy building their DC universe while outside projects currently are in the works. It is not a secret that legal issues and outside distractions have been associated with Miller to the point where some question whether the film could be released despite its lavish budget.
The final box office numbers will be very interesting because I found the film quite enjoyable and a pleasant surprise in one of the better DC cinematic efforts notwithstanding the final act which became a bit formulaic and anticlimactic for my liking. While it doesn't approach the level of several of the Marvel films, it does show that there is plenty of potential to make solid stories within the DC universe.
4 stars out of 5
Sassy Brit (97 KP) rated Let The Dead Keep Their Secrets in Books
Jun 5, 2019
Let The DEAD Keep Their Secrets by Rosemary Simpson brings to life New York City during the 1880s in a historical mystery. It is rich in the culture of the time with a riveting Colombo type crime. Readers know who has done it and seek clues with the characters to find the proof.
The plot opens with New York opera singer Claire Buchanan calling on the investigative services of Prudence MacKenzie and her partner, Geoffrey Hunter. Claire shows up at their door begging them to find out exactly how her twin sister, Catherine, and newborn daughter died, believing it was not from natural causes. Catherine’s husband, Aaron Sorenson, is a scoundrel and appears to be marrying women, getting them pregnant, and then having baby and mother die in childbirth. Prudence and Geoffrey find that childbirth can be dangerous to one’s health as they realize that Sorenson’s current wife may also be in danger. His motive, both the late wife and the current wife would inherit a substantial estate, which will go to him upon their death. Sorensen seems to always be in need of money to pay mounting gambling debts. As the tension mounts the investigative team is putting themselves at risk in attempting to expose the murder-for-inheritance scheme.
The author noted, “Catherine was emotionally abused. Women during that time period did not have much choice. In the Gilded Age in New York women were still property of their husbands. They were very limited to what their husbands wanted.”
One of the important clues is a photograph of the late mother and child. Simpson weaves into the story a Victorian Era custom, post-mortem photography. During these scenes readers learn of the spiritualists who believe “about the possibility of capturing an image of the soul leaving a body at the moment of death.” It was during this time that Claire senses something from her twin sister. The author commented, “During my research, I read how twins separated by birth and raised by different families still have the same likes and dislikes and can sense how each other feels.”
Through the characters people learn of the Gilded Age era, with a fascinating description of the homes, the period clothing, and the city of New York. Unlike many women of the time, Prudence is very unconventional, desiring to take the bar exam and become a litigator. For now, she is content to be an amateur sleuth to her partner, ex-Pinkerton agent Geoffrey Hunter, as she learns on the job. “I wrote Prudence being raised by a widowed father who looked at her as a replacement for a son. He did not make an exception for her being a girl and made sure she had a very well developed sharp legal mind. She is determined to make her own way even though she inherited wealth. I read that the Pinkerton Agency hired a lady detective during the Civil War and knew I wanted to make my heroine an investigator who is constantly challenged by Geoffrey.”
The hero and heroine also have flaws. The author uses events that happened during the Gilded Age paralleling them with what is happening today. Simpson explained, “Geoffrey has left his southern roots, abandoning his culture and family. He has a lot of contradictions. Prudence must struggle with her addiction to the drug laudanum. She was given it by her family doctor to help her cope with her father’s passing and then her fiancé’s death. She overcame the reliance on laudanum but not without a terrible struggle and the knowledge that she would never be entirely free of it. I parallel it with the opioid epidemic today. People became accidental addicts because they were given the drugs legally to cope with physical and emotional pain.”
The antagonist, Simpson has no redeeming qualities. He is a cold and calculating thief, a swindler, and bigamist who victimizes rich women. “I wanted to write an absolute villain. He is unscrupulous, uncaring with no conscience. He had every vile habit known. I do not write cozy mysteries, but historical noirs. My bad guys are really, really bad who cause awful things to happen.”
The author definitely had done her homework. “I want to feel I live in this world for awhile and to get the reader to feel that also. I read the New York Times Archives and fall into the rhythm of the language used, how they spoke, wrote and thought. It puts me in the mindset of the character I am writing about.” With her detailed descriptions and gripping story Simpson has also drawn the reader into the time period through an exciting and action-packed mystery.
The plot opens with New York opera singer Claire Buchanan calling on the investigative services of Prudence MacKenzie and her partner, Geoffrey Hunter. Claire shows up at their door begging them to find out exactly how her twin sister, Catherine, and newborn daughter died, believing it was not from natural causes. Catherine’s husband, Aaron Sorenson, is a scoundrel and appears to be marrying women, getting them pregnant, and then having baby and mother die in childbirth. Prudence and Geoffrey find that childbirth can be dangerous to one’s health as they realize that Sorenson’s current wife may also be in danger. His motive, both the late wife and the current wife would inherit a substantial estate, which will go to him upon their death. Sorensen seems to always be in need of money to pay mounting gambling debts. As the tension mounts the investigative team is putting themselves at risk in attempting to expose the murder-for-inheritance scheme.
The author noted, “Catherine was emotionally abused. Women during that time period did not have much choice. In the Gilded Age in New York women were still property of their husbands. They were very limited to what their husbands wanted.”
One of the important clues is a photograph of the late mother and child. Simpson weaves into the story a Victorian Era custom, post-mortem photography. During these scenes readers learn of the spiritualists who believe “about the possibility of capturing an image of the soul leaving a body at the moment of death.” It was during this time that Claire senses something from her twin sister. The author commented, “During my research, I read how twins separated by birth and raised by different families still have the same likes and dislikes and can sense how each other feels.”
Through the characters people learn of the Gilded Age era, with a fascinating description of the homes, the period clothing, and the city of New York. Unlike many women of the time, Prudence is very unconventional, desiring to take the bar exam and become a litigator. For now, she is content to be an amateur sleuth to her partner, ex-Pinkerton agent Geoffrey Hunter, as she learns on the job. “I wrote Prudence being raised by a widowed father who looked at her as a replacement for a son. He did not make an exception for her being a girl and made sure she had a very well developed sharp legal mind. She is determined to make her own way even though she inherited wealth. I read that the Pinkerton Agency hired a lady detective during the Civil War and knew I wanted to make my heroine an investigator who is constantly challenged by Geoffrey.”
The hero and heroine also have flaws. The author uses events that happened during the Gilded Age paralleling them with what is happening today. Simpson explained, “Geoffrey has left his southern roots, abandoning his culture and family. He has a lot of contradictions. Prudence must struggle with her addiction to the drug laudanum. She was given it by her family doctor to help her cope with her father’s passing and then her fiancé’s death. She overcame the reliance on laudanum but not without a terrible struggle and the knowledge that she would never be entirely free of it. I parallel it with the opioid epidemic today. People became accidental addicts because they were given the drugs legally to cope with physical and emotional pain.”
The antagonist, Simpson has no redeeming qualities. He is a cold and calculating thief, a swindler, and bigamist who victimizes rich women. “I wanted to write an absolute villain. He is unscrupulous, uncaring with no conscience. He had every vile habit known. I do not write cozy mysteries, but historical noirs. My bad guys are really, really bad who cause awful things to happen.”
The author definitely had done her homework. “I want to feel I live in this world for awhile and to get the reader to feel that also. I read the New York Times Archives and fall into the rhythm of the language used, how they spoke, wrote and thought. It puts me in the mindset of the character I am writing about.” With her detailed descriptions and gripping story Simpson has also drawn the reader into the time period through an exciting and action-packed mystery.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Purge: Anarchy (2014) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Last year audiences got a glimpse into a future America where crime, unemployment, and other social factors were at an all-time low. The cost for such radical social transformation was an annual Purge where for 12 hours; all crimes including murder are legal.
The film was made for less than $4 million and went on to become a surprise hit which naturally gave rise to sequel plans.
“The Purge: Anarchy” picks up a year later shortly before the annual Purge commences. The story follows three main groups of people who are preparing for the pending evening in Los Angeles.
Eva, (Carmen Ejogo), is a single mom who works as a waitress when she is not caring for her daughter and father, Shane and Liz a coupling facing a possible separation, ( Zach Gilford, Kiele Sanchez), and a mysterious man known as Sargent (Frank Grillo).
Although strangers at the start of the evening, fate brings them all together on an evening where not everyone can be trusted as people can turn on one another over long standing grudges or simply to ‘free the beast” as they call it citing their right to do so as granted by the new founding fathers.
The streets have become a battlefield as the carnage builds up and people locked in their buildings soon find themselves under attack from black armor clad shock troops supported by chain gun equipped semi-trailers.
The main characters of the film must work with one another to stay alive as Sergeant as desperate need of a car to replace the one he lost saving his companions, but to the others he is a dangerous wildcard that they are not sure can be trusted.
As the group moves through the streets looking for safety, danger is all around them and as they evening progresses they learn more and more about the Purge and who in society benefits the most from this annual event.
With death a constant companion, the group must survive against all odds in a world gone mad for 12 hours and with limited options, they must take on the deadliest threats ever assembled for The Purge.
The film is a rare sequel that is actually better than the original. The increased budget shows as the ability to set the story in a city rather than a single home has allowed a more diverse cast of characters, motivations, and scenarios to be presented.
Aside from the solid mix of action and suspense, I enjoyed the fact that the characters came across as real people rather than stereotypical fodder for films of this type. While there is not tons of depth given to them, we are given enough information to understand their motivations and find a reason to care for them.
The film also takes on some very touchy subjects such as social injustices, the needs of the poor vs the seemingly uncaring attitudes of the wealthy and how laws seem to be made often to appease only the rich and powerful at the expense of everyone else.
Taking on such difficult subject matter without becoming overly preachy was a strong point of the film as it not only entertained but raised some very good questions and social commentary while allowing the audience to make up their own minds.
This reminded me in many ways of the original Star Trek series as they were pioneers in taking on topics that the network censors would not allow by hiding it in the cloak of fantasy. The powers that be had little knowledge of what was being presented but those who did watch the show clearly got the message.
This was evident in the film when the tables turned on a sadistic and elite socialite which resulted in loud cheers and applause from the audience.
There has been talk that the next film in the series may be a prequel and deal with the original Purge and how it came to be. I for one would love to see more as the nature of the premise gives rise to so many stories and scenarios in one night alone, and the fact that the Purge is an annual event, and then perhaps we will see films in this series on a regular basis. If they keep up the quality of this one, then I say bring them on.
http://sknr.net/2014/07/18/the-purge-anarchy/
The film was made for less than $4 million and went on to become a surprise hit which naturally gave rise to sequel plans.
“The Purge: Anarchy” picks up a year later shortly before the annual Purge commences. The story follows three main groups of people who are preparing for the pending evening in Los Angeles.
Eva, (Carmen Ejogo), is a single mom who works as a waitress when she is not caring for her daughter and father, Shane and Liz a coupling facing a possible separation, ( Zach Gilford, Kiele Sanchez), and a mysterious man known as Sargent (Frank Grillo).
Although strangers at the start of the evening, fate brings them all together on an evening where not everyone can be trusted as people can turn on one another over long standing grudges or simply to ‘free the beast” as they call it citing their right to do so as granted by the new founding fathers.
The streets have become a battlefield as the carnage builds up and people locked in their buildings soon find themselves under attack from black armor clad shock troops supported by chain gun equipped semi-trailers.
The main characters of the film must work with one another to stay alive as Sergeant as desperate need of a car to replace the one he lost saving his companions, but to the others he is a dangerous wildcard that they are not sure can be trusted.
As the group moves through the streets looking for safety, danger is all around them and as they evening progresses they learn more and more about the Purge and who in society benefits the most from this annual event.
With death a constant companion, the group must survive against all odds in a world gone mad for 12 hours and with limited options, they must take on the deadliest threats ever assembled for The Purge.
The film is a rare sequel that is actually better than the original. The increased budget shows as the ability to set the story in a city rather than a single home has allowed a more diverse cast of characters, motivations, and scenarios to be presented.
Aside from the solid mix of action and suspense, I enjoyed the fact that the characters came across as real people rather than stereotypical fodder for films of this type. While there is not tons of depth given to them, we are given enough information to understand their motivations and find a reason to care for them.
The film also takes on some very touchy subjects such as social injustices, the needs of the poor vs the seemingly uncaring attitudes of the wealthy and how laws seem to be made often to appease only the rich and powerful at the expense of everyone else.
Taking on such difficult subject matter without becoming overly preachy was a strong point of the film as it not only entertained but raised some very good questions and social commentary while allowing the audience to make up their own minds.
This reminded me in many ways of the original Star Trek series as they were pioneers in taking on topics that the network censors would not allow by hiding it in the cloak of fantasy. The powers that be had little knowledge of what was being presented but those who did watch the show clearly got the message.
This was evident in the film when the tables turned on a sadistic and elite socialite which resulted in loud cheers and applause from the audience.
There has been talk that the next film in the series may be a prequel and deal with the original Purge and how it came to be. I for one would love to see more as the nature of the premise gives rise to so many stories and scenarios in one night alone, and the fact that the Purge is an annual event, and then perhaps we will see films in this series on a regular basis. If they keep up the quality of this one, then I say bring them on.
http://sknr.net/2014/07/18/the-purge-anarchy/