Search
Search results
Debbiereadsbook (1077 KP) rated Scott (Owatonna U Hockey #2) in Books
Mar 29, 2019
much better than book one!
Independent reviewer for Archaeolibrarian, I was gifted my copy of this book.
This is book two in the Owatonna U Hockey trilogy, but you don't need to have read book one first. I have though, and found THAT book not really to my liking.
THIS one, however, I enjoyed far more.
Scott is suffering, since his brother died, and decides to self medicate with illegal steroids. After punching his best friend in the face, Scott is suspended for a whole 12 months, and is quite literally, chucked out his home. With nowhere to go, he happens to meet Hayne at a mandatory counselling session. Hayne, for reasons he cannot fathom, takes pity on Scott and the pair become inseparable. They each have their own demons, but together, they just might be able to overcome them.
Like I said, a MUCH better read, for me anyway, that Ryker. And much of that is because I didn't much care for Ryker in his book and I'll come back to that in a minute, though.
Hayne is a free spirited artist, in his final year at college. He is terrorised by his tenants, and spends all his time in his room, trying to paint his final piece. Meeting Scott, who turns out to be the muse he was missing, wasn't planned, but Hayne runs with it. Helping Scott get back to hockey seems the right and best thing to do. That Scott helps Hayne is a much added bonus.
Hayne is LOVELY!! So sweet, I wanted to punch his housemates! And the fact that he really sees Scott helps. Scott is trying to be the son his father wants, but he isn't his brother Luke. He will NEVER be Luke. His father pushes Scott away, and it takes his mother, who has been self medicating in the bottom of a bottle, to pull HER big girl panties up, and make her husband and son see that they are BOTH suffering and TOGETHER they can make some semblance of a relationship again.
Loved Hayne's mum and Mimi! Loved that they took Scott in when he needed someone the most, Hayne aside.
Back to Ryker. I did not like him in his book, but he does redeem himself somewhat here! While Scott is hiding, his friends, the ones he thought hated him, were planning an intervention, and Ryker is foremost at getting Scott to see that his friends don't hate him, they just didn't see how much he was suffering.
It does carry some darker story lines, grief, bereavement, alcohol and drug abuse, but they are all part and parcel of Scott's story, and they are very well written.
Oh, and you'll need tissues. I cried a LOT with this book!
Can't QUITE get past the first person to stretch to 5 stars, but a much better than book one:
4 stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
This is book two in the Owatonna U Hockey trilogy, but you don't need to have read book one first. I have though, and found THAT book not really to my liking.
THIS one, however, I enjoyed far more.
Scott is suffering, since his brother died, and decides to self medicate with illegal steroids. After punching his best friend in the face, Scott is suspended for a whole 12 months, and is quite literally, chucked out his home. With nowhere to go, he happens to meet Hayne at a mandatory counselling session. Hayne, for reasons he cannot fathom, takes pity on Scott and the pair become inseparable. They each have their own demons, but together, they just might be able to overcome them.
Like I said, a MUCH better read, for me anyway, that Ryker. And much of that is because I didn't much care for Ryker in his book and I'll come back to that in a minute, though.
Hayne is a free spirited artist, in his final year at college. He is terrorised by his tenants, and spends all his time in his room, trying to paint his final piece. Meeting Scott, who turns out to be the muse he was missing, wasn't planned, but Hayne runs with it. Helping Scott get back to hockey seems the right and best thing to do. That Scott helps Hayne is a much added bonus.
Hayne is LOVELY!! So sweet, I wanted to punch his housemates! And the fact that he really sees Scott helps. Scott is trying to be the son his father wants, but he isn't his brother Luke. He will NEVER be Luke. His father pushes Scott away, and it takes his mother, who has been self medicating in the bottom of a bottle, to pull HER big girl panties up, and make her husband and son see that they are BOTH suffering and TOGETHER they can make some semblance of a relationship again.
Loved Hayne's mum and Mimi! Loved that they took Scott in when he needed someone the most, Hayne aside.
Back to Ryker. I did not like him in his book, but he does redeem himself somewhat here! While Scott is hiding, his friends, the ones he thought hated him, were planning an intervention, and Ryker is foremost at getting Scott to see that his friends don't hate him, they just didn't see how much he was suffering.
It does carry some darker story lines, grief, bereavement, alcohol and drug abuse, but they are all part and parcel of Scott's story, and they are very well written.
Oh, and you'll need tissues. I cried a LOT with this book!
Can't QUITE get past the first person to stretch to 5 stars, but a much better than book one:
4 stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Dukes of Hazzard (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Those good ol’ boys from Hazzard County are back, in the film version of one of the most enduring series from the 70’s.
For those unfamiliar with the series, each week Cousins Bo and Luke Duke used their super charged Dodge Charger, christened “The General Lee”, to avoid corrupt police, city overlord Boss Hogg, and bad guys of the week.
If this sounds very simplistic, it is, yet the show was a huge ratings sensation as were subsequent T.V. reunions after the show completed its run. Thanks to reruns on syndication and the recent DVD sales, a new generation is encountering the Dukes and in many ways, that is who the new film is targeted to.
Starring Johnny Knoxville and Sean William Scott as Luke and Bo Duke, the film follows the basic theme of the series as the two cousins joke with one another as they run Moonshine for their Uncle Jessie (Willie Nelson), and try to stay one step ahead of the Sheriff Roscoe P. Coltrane (M.C. Gainey),
As the film opens, Bo is concerned about defending his title in the annual road rally and tying the record with his 4th consecutive win. Luke is concerned about staying one step ahead of a shotgun toting father & son duo who aren’t thrilled about his numerous dalliances with the daughter.
It is all fun and games until local overlord Boss Hogg (Burt Reynolds), seizes the family farm when he plants a still on the property and drives the Dukes out. Not ones to take it sitting down, Bo, Luke, and Cousin Daisy (Jessica Simpson), set out to discover why Boss Hogg is acquiring through ruthless means all of the land in the outlying areas of Hazzard County.
Bo and Luke are forced to flee Hazzard County and venture to Atlanta in order to gain further insight into Boss Hogg’s plans, which results in some funny fish-out-of-water moments when Bo and Luke have to deal with yuppies, college dorms, and the ‘hood as well as city police and the Boss himself.
Of course in keeping with the show, there will be countless car chases, spectacular jumps, and more than enough T&A thanks to Simpson, but what is surprising is that the film’s humor for the most part works.
Directed by Jay Chandrasekher of the Broken Lizard comedy troupe, the film does have its share of moments that may raise a few eyebrows as drug use, sex, and shots to the groin are present in this film, as is language that is more colorful than anything from the original series.
That being said, it is important to remember, that times have changed greatly since the Dukes first aired and you cannot blame the film makers for attempting to reach out to a broader audience. Such is the running joke of Bo being more concerned with his car than with woman, and his inability to speak with the object of his affections without fainting. This is quite a change from the unflappable character of the television show, yet one that still allows the good natured appeal of the character to remain intact.
The cast works well, especially the chemistry between Knoxville and Scott, as well as the scenery chewing performance of Reynolds who seems to be having the time of his life in the role. Much has been made of Simpson’s part, but it is mostly a limited role that offers her little chance to do much more than serve as eye candy, and does not show if she is capable of doing much more.
Nelson is sadly underused, but when he is on screen he raises the bar as his easygoing charm is a perfect match for Uncle Jessie.
While the film is in no way great cinema, it is at times an enjoyable bit of nostalgia to the days when Friday nights growing up meant dinner in front of the television watching the Dukes.
If car chases and some light comedy are what you are in the mood for, and you do not mind a thin story, you can do a lot worse than the Dukes.
For those unfamiliar with the series, each week Cousins Bo and Luke Duke used their super charged Dodge Charger, christened “The General Lee”, to avoid corrupt police, city overlord Boss Hogg, and bad guys of the week.
If this sounds very simplistic, it is, yet the show was a huge ratings sensation as were subsequent T.V. reunions after the show completed its run. Thanks to reruns on syndication and the recent DVD sales, a new generation is encountering the Dukes and in many ways, that is who the new film is targeted to.
Starring Johnny Knoxville and Sean William Scott as Luke and Bo Duke, the film follows the basic theme of the series as the two cousins joke with one another as they run Moonshine for their Uncle Jessie (Willie Nelson), and try to stay one step ahead of the Sheriff Roscoe P. Coltrane (M.C. Gainey),
As the film opens, Bo is concerned about defending his title in the annual road rally and tying the record with his 4th consecutive win. Luke is concerned about staying one step ahead of a shotgun toting father & son duo who aren’t thrilled about his numerous dalliances with the daughter.
It is all fun and games until local overlord Boss Hogg (Burt Reynolds), seizes the family farm when he plants a still on the property and drives the Dukes out. Not ones to take it sitting down, Bo, Luke, and Cousin Daisy (Jessica Simpson), set out to discover why Boss Hogg is acquiring through ruthless means all of the land in the outlying areas of Hazzard County.
Bo and Luke are forced to flee Hazzard County and venture to Atlanta in order to gain further insight into Boss Hogg’s plans, which results in some funny fish-out-of-water moments when Bo and Luke have to deal with yuppies, college dorms, and the ‘hood as well as city police and the Boss himself.
Of course in keeping with the show, there will be countless car chases, spectacular jumps, and more than enough T&A thanks to Simpson, but what is surprising is that the film’s humor for the most part works.
Directed by Jay Chandrasekher of the Broken Lizard comedy troupe, the film does have its share of moments that may raise a few eyebrows as drug use, sex, and shots to the groin are present in this film, as is language that is more colorful than anything from the original series.
That being said, it is important to remember, that times have changed greatly since the Dukes first aired and you cannot blame the film makers for attempting to reach out to a broader audience. Such is the running joke of Bo being more concerned with his car than with woman, and his inability to speak with the object of his affections without fainting. This is quite a change from the unflappable character of the television show, yet one that still allows the good natured appeal of the character to remain intact.
The cast works well, especially the chemistry between Knoxville and Scott, as well as the scenery chewing performance of Reynolds who seems to be having the time of his life in the role. Much has been made of Simpson’s part, but it is mostly a limited role that offers her little chance to do much more than serve as eye candy, and does not show if she is capable of doing much more.
Nelson is sadly underused, but when he is on screen he raises the bar as his easygoing charm is a perfect match for Uncle Jessie.
While the film is in no way great cinema, it is at times an enjoyable bit of nostalgia to the days when Friday nights growing up meant dinner in front of the television watching the Dukes.
If car chases and some light comedy are what you are in the mood for, and you do not mind a thin story, you can do a lot worse than the Dukes.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Morgan (2016) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Producer Ridley Scott has teamed with his son Luke for the new
Horror/Suspense film “Morgan” which blends Horror and Suspense in what may
well be a new franchise for FOX.
The film follows an isolated research facility surrounded by trees where
an experiment named Morgan (Anya Taylor-Joy), has had an “incident” which
has caused the parent company to dispatch a troubleshooter named Lee
Weathers (Kate Mara) to evaluate the program.
The cold and no-nonsense Weathers meets some hesitation from the research
team as they see her as a company tool intent on closing their program and
years of research and being unable to see the potential and progress of
their work.
As Weathers and the audience gets to know Morgan, they learn that she is a
genetic creation who became aware and functional at a very early age and
her recent act of violence has her confined to a cage where she listens to
music, plays Chess, and spends her time dreaming of her former visits
outside.
As Morgan is evaluated it appears that there is far more to her than first
appears. The creation is capable of great empathy, wisdom, and
appreciation for beauty, but also has a very dark side, which can appear
out of nowhere.
As the complex study and interactions with Morgan unfold, Lee and the
scientists are faced with a series of difficult decisions that sets things
on a course from which they may not return.
The film takes a while to get up to speed and does not have anything that
viewers have not seen before. I was able to figure out the twists to the
film early on and an incident that is referred to in the film would have
made a far more interesting film than what we were given. Perhaps it is
being saved for a possible prequel because as it currently stands,
“Morgan”, is an interesting if formulaic film that borrows from several
other films.
The funny thing about it is that like “Prometheus” the more I
thought about it, the more questions I had and perhaps like his father,
Scott is using the film to setup a much larger universe and future films.
I only wish there was a bit more to this as the premise though interesting
does not have enough for the versatile and talented cast to do and they
deserved much better.
http://sknr.net/2016/08/29/morgan/
Horror/Suspense film “Morgan” which blends Horror and Suspense in what may
well be a new franchise for FOX.
The film follows an isolated research facility surrounded by trees where
an experiment named Morgan (Anya Taylor-Joy), has had an “incident” which
has caused the parent company to dispatch a troubleshooter named Lee
Weathers (Kate Mara) to evaluate the program.
The cold and no-nonsense Weathers meets some hesitation from the research
team as they see her as a company tool intent on closing their program and
years of research and being unable to see the potential and progress of
their work.
As Weathers and the audience gets to know Morgan, they learn that she is a
genetic creation who became aware and functional at a very early age and
her recent act of violence has her confined to a cage where she listens to
music, plays Chess, and spends her time dreaming of her former visits
outside.
As Morgan is evaluated it appears that there is far more to her than first
appears. The creation is capable of great empathy, wisdom, and
appreciation for beauty, but also has a very dark side, which can appear
out of nowhere.
As the complex study and interactions with Morgan unfold, Lee and the
scientists are faced with a series of difficult decisions that sets things
on a course from which they may not return.
The film takes a while to get up to speed and does not have anything that
viewers have not seen before. I was able to figure out the twists to the
film early on and an incident that is referred to in the film would have
made a far more interesting film than what we were given. Perhaps it is
being saved for a possible prequel because as it currently stands,
“Morgan”, is an interesting if formulaic film that borrows from several
other films.
The funny thing about it is that like “Prometheus” the more I
thought about it, the more questions I had and perhaps like his father,
Scott is using the film to setup a much larger universe and future films.
I only wish there was a bit more to this as the premise though interesting
does not have enough for the versatile and talented cast to do and they
deserved much better.
http://sknr.net/2016/08/29/morgan/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Girl on the Train (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A Victim of its marketing
It’s always refreshing to see a film released primarily for the adult market. We all loved The Hunger Games, but imagine what the series could’ve been like had the franchise been given a 15 or even an 18 certification.
And Fifty Shades of Grey may have its critics (me being one of them) but at least it appealed to those of us not interested in sharing cinema screens with rambling tweens. The finest of the adult genre? Well, that has to be Gone Girl. But now there’s a new kid on the block, ready to steal its crown. Is The Girl on the Train a worthy adversary?
Alcoholic Rachel Watson (Emily Blunt) catches daily glimpses of a seemingly perfect couple, Scott (Luke Evans) and Megan (Haley Bennett), from the window of her train. One day, Watson witnesses something shocking unfold in the garden of the strangers’ home. Rachel tells the authorities what she thinks she saw after learning Megan is missing. Unable to trust her memory, the troubled woman begins her own investigation, while police suspect that Rachel may have crossed a dangerous line.
Emily Blunt has become one of Hollywood’s finest actors, constantly adding new genres to her resume. From The Devil Wears Prada to Sicario and beyond, there is nothing she won’t try and The Girl on the Train is bolstered by a career-best performance by the actress. It’s never easy to play a drunk convincingly; you can look to some UK soap operas for proof of that, but she manages to pull it off exceptionally well.
Of the supporting cast, only Justin Theroux makes a lasting impact as Rachel’s ex-husband Tom, now living with his new wife Anna – a lacklustre Rebecca Ferguson. It would be unfair to sling too much mud at a very talented group of actors, but up against Blunt, there really is no comparison.
Elsewhere, the complex narrative of Paula Hawkins’ book translates to a rather messy filming style when viewed on the big screen. Continuous flashbacks from within Rachel’s mind are handled reasonably well by director Tate Taylor (The Help) and he manages to wrench everything together to stop the plot from becoming incoherent.
Unfortunately, The Girl on the Train is a victim of its own intense marketing campaign. The trailers have given away far too much for those who haven’t read the book and whilst the twists and turns aren’t immediately obvious, some of the Cluedo-esque fun has been removed. It’s clear Dreamworks wanted the film to resemble Gone Girl as much as possible, aiming to attract a similar audience, but this may have backfired slightly.
Overall, The Girl on the Train is a particularly faithful adaptation of the novel of the same name, held up by an intense and frankly incredible performance by Emily Blunt. Unfortunately, some of the film’s suspense has been lost by a poorly executed marketing campaign and as such it becomes a passable addition to the adult thriller genre. This year’s Gone Girl it is not.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/10/06/a-victim-of-its-marketing-the-girl-on-the-train-review/
And Fifty Shades of Grey may have its critics (me being one of them) but at least it appealed to those of us not interested in sharing cinema screens with rambling tweens. The finest of the adult genre? Well, that has to be Gone Girl. But now there’s a new kid on the block, ready to steal its crown. Is The Girl on the Train a worthy adversary?
Alcoholic Rachel Watson (Emily Blunt) catches daily glimpses of a seemingly perfect couple, Scott (Luke Evans) and Megan (Haley Bennett), from the window of her train. One day, Watson witnesses something shocking unfold in the garden of the strangers’ home. Rachel tells the authorities what she thinks she saw after learning Megan is missing. Unable to trust her memory, the troubled woman begins her own investigation, while police suspect that Rachel may have crossed a dangerous line.
Emily Blunt has become one of Hollywood’s finest actors, constantly adding new genres to her resume. From The Devil Wears Prada to Sicario and beyond, there is nothing she won’t try and The Girl on the Train is bolstered by a career-best performance by the actress. It’s never easy to play a drunk convincingly; you can look to some UK soap operas for proof of that, but she manages to pull it off exceptionally well.
Of the supporting cast, only Justin Theroux makes a lasting impact as Rachel’s ex-husband Tom, now living with his new wife Anna – a lacklustre Rebecca Ferguson. It would be unfair to sling too much mud at a very talented group of actors, but up against Blunt, there really is no comparison.
Elsewhere, the complex narrative of Paula Hawkins’ book translates to a rather messy filming style when viewed on the big screen. Continuous flashbacks from within Rachel’s mind are handled reasonably well by director Tate Taylor (The Help) and he manages to wrench everything together to stop the plot from becoming incoherent.
Unfortunately, The Girl on the Train is a victim of its own intense marketing campaign. The trailers have given away far too much for those who haven’t read the book and whilst the twists and turns aren’t immediately obvious, some of the Cluedo-esque fun has been removed. It’s clear Dreamworks wanted the film to resemble Gone Girl as much as possible, aiming to attract a similar audience, but this may have backfired slightly.
Overall, The Girl on the Train is a particularly faithful adaptation of the novel of the same name, held up by an intense and frankly incredible performance by Emily Blunt. Unfortunately, some of the film’s suspense has been lost by a poorly executed marketing campaign and as such it becomes a passable addition to the adult thriller genre. This year’s Gone Girl it is not.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/10/06/a-victim-of-its-marketing-the-girl-on-the-train-review/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Girl on the Train (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
You won’t uncork a bottle of Malbec again without thinking of this film…
“The Girl on a Train” is the film adaptation of the best-seller by Paula Hawkins, transported from the London suburbs to New York’s Hastings-on-Hudson.
It’s actually rather a sordid story encompassing as it does alcoholism, murder, marital strife, deceit, sexual frustration, an historical tragedy and lashings and lashings of violence. Emily Blunt (“Sicario”, “Edge of Tomorrow”) plays Rachel, a divorcee with an alcohol problem who escapes into an obsessive fantasy each day as she passes her former neighbourhood on her commute into the city. Ex-husband Tom (Justin Theroux, “Zoolander 2”) lives in her old house with his second wife Anna (Rebecca “MI:5” Ferguson) and new baby Evie. But her real fantasy rests with cheerleader-style young neighbour Megan (Haley Bennett) who is actually locked in a frustratingly child-free marriage (frustrating for him at least) with the controlling and unpredictable Scott (Luke Evans, “The Hobbit”). A sixth party in this complex network is Megan’s psychiatrist Dr Kamal Abdic (Édgar Ramírez, “Joy”).
In pure Hitchcockian style Megan witnesses mere glimpses of events from her twice-daily train and from these pieces together stories that suitably feed her psychosis. When ‘shit gets real’ and a key character goes missing, Megan surfaces her suspicions and obsessions to the police investigation (led by Detective Riley, the ever-excellent Allison Janney from “The West Wing”) and promptly makes herself suspect number one.
Readers of the book will already be aware of the twists and turns of the story, so will watch the film from a different perspective than I did. (Despite my best intentions I never managed to read the book first).
First up, you would have to say that Emily Blunt’s performance is outstanding in an extremely challenging acting role. Every nuance of shame, confusion, grief, fear, doubt and anger is beautifully enacted: it would not be a surprise to see her gain her first Oscar nomination for this. All the other lead roles are also delivered with great professionalism, with Haley Bennett (a busy month for her, with “The Magnificent Seven” also out) being impressive and Rebecca Ferguson, one of my favourite current actresses, delivering another measured and delicate performance.
Girl on a Train, The
Rebecca Ferguson as Anna – “there were three of us in this marriage so it was a bit crowded”
The supporting roles are also effective, with Darren Goldstein as the somewhat creepy “man in the suit” and “Friends” star Lisa Kudrow popping up in an effective and pivotal role. The Screen Guild Awards have an excellent category for an Ensemble Cast in a Motion Picture, and it feels appropriate to nominate this cast for that award.
So it’s a blockbuster book with a rollercoaster story and a stellar cast, so what could go wrong? Well, something for sure. This is a case in point where I suspect it is easier to slowly peel back Rachel’s lost memory with pages and imagination than it is with dodgy fuzzy images on a big screen. Although the film comes in at only 112 minutes, the pacing in places is too slow (the screenplay by Erin Cressida Wilson takes its time) and director Tate Taylor (“The Help”) is no Hitchcock, or indeed a David Fincher (since the film has strong similarities to last year’s “Gone Girl”: when the action does happen it lacks style, with the violence being on the brutal side and leaving little to the imagination.
It’s by no means a bad film, and worth seeing for the acting performances alone. But it’s not a film I think that will trouble my top 10 for the year.
It’s actually rather a sordid story encompassing as it does alcoholism, murder, marital strife, deceit, sexual frustration, an historical tragedy and lashings and lashings of violence. Emily Blunt (“Sicario”, “Edge of Tomorrow”) plays Rachel, a divorcee with an alcohol problem who escapes into an obsessive fantasy each day as she passes her former neighbourhood on her commute into the city. Ex-husband Tom (Justin Theroux, “Zoolander 2”) lives in her old house with his second wife Anna (Rebecca “MI:5” Ferguson) and new baby Evie. But her real fantasy rests with cheerleader-style young neighbour Megan (Haley Bennett) who is actually locked in a frustratingly child-free marriage (frustrating for him at least) with the controlling and unpredictable Scott (Luke Evans, “The Hobbit”). A sixth party in this complex network is Megan’s psychiatrist Dr Kamal Abdic (Édgar Ramírez, “Joy”).
In pure Hitchcockian style Megan witnesses mere glimpses of events from her twice-daily train and from these pieces together stories that suitably feed her psychosis. When ‘shit gets real’ and a key character goes missing, Megan surfaces her suspicions and obsessions to the police investigation (led by Detective Riley, the ever-excellent Allison Janney from “The West Wing”) and promptly makes herself suspect number one.
Readers of the book will already be aware of the twists and turns of the story, so will watch the film from a different perspective than I did. (Despite my best intentions I never managed to read the book first).
First up, you would have to say that Emily Blunt’s performance is outstanding in an extremely challenging acting role. Every nuance of shame, confusion, grief, fear, doubt and anger is beautifully enacted: it would not be a surprise to see her gain her first Oscar nomination for this. All the other lead roles are also delivered with great professionalism, with Haley Bennett (a busy month for her, with “The Magnificent Seven” also out) being impressive and Rebecca Ferguson, one of my favourite current actresses, delivering another measured and delicate performance.
Girl on a Train, The
Rebecca Ferguson as Anna – “there were three of us in this marriage so it was a bit crowded”
The supporting roles are also effective, with Darren Goldstein as the somewhat creepy “man in the suit” and “Friends” star Lisa Kudrow popping up in an effective and pivotal role. The Screen Guild Awards have an excellent category for an Ensemble Cast in a Motion Picture, and it feels appropriate to nominate this cast for that award.
So it’s a blockbuster book with a rollercoaster story and a stellar cast, so what could go wrong? Well, something for sure. This is a case in point where I suspect it is easier to slowly peel back Rachel’s lost memory with pages and imagination than it is with dodgy fuzzy images on a big screen. Although the film comes in at only 112 minutes, the pacing in places is too slow (the screenplay by Erin Cressida Wilson takes its time) and director Tate Taylor (“The Help”) is no Hitchcock, or indeed a David Fincher (since the film has strong similarities to last year’s “Gone Girl”: when the action does happen it lacks style, with the violence being on the brutal side and leaving little to the imagination.
It’s by no means a bad film, and worth seeing for the acting performances alone. But it’s not a film I think that will trouble my top 10 for the year.