Search
Search results
Andy K (10823 KP) rated The House That Jack Built (2018) in Movies
Nov 15, 2019
Into the disturbing mind of a serial killer..
The human mind is still one of those ultimate enigmas of life. How does it work exactly? Nature vs. nurture? What causes some of us to devote their lives to philanthropy and helping others whilst others of us are deeply disturbed devoting their existence to the destruction of life for their twisted, demented pleasure?
The story of Jack is a exercise in the extreme. From the opening moments of THTJB, the audience is quickly brought into Jack's world and not released for 2 1/2 hours of brutality.
Jack finds himself in his bright red rape van when he passes a damsel in distress in the form of a woman with a flat tire. He stops and reluctantly agrees to drive her to the nearest auto repair place for assistance. When the plight becomes more complicated, Jack reluctantly agrees to further drive the woman around. Growing impatient with her constant blather and insults at Jack's personality, Jack quickly reaches his limit and destroys the woman quickly using her broken car jack which happens to be lying right next to him in the front seat.
That is just the beginning.
The film is set to 5 "incidents" and an "epilogue" which chronicle several years in Jack's life, including other relationships with woman, his family and random encounters he has all used to fuel his addiction with death. Without detailing them all here, his journey for carnage includes extreme actions including multiple murders, corpse manipulation and even human trophies.
If you are a fan of writer/director Lars von Trier, this will be nothing new to you if you have seen some of his other films including Antichrist, Nymphomaniac or Dogville. His films usually require a strong stomach, but do not shock for shock's sake alone. The vivid imagery in all his films is used not only to proper the narrative, to show the audience something they have not seen before and cross the lines between art and film. His films will repulse some. I won't squabble with those who cannot handle his type of film-making; however, maybe my inner film snob relishes those who give me something different, something to think about after I have finished watching and thought out interesting characters you almost never see any more.
With THTJB, he delves into the human mind well providing voice-over to let us in to what Jack is thinking and maybe helps us include a glimmer of understanding with it. Jack's acts are loathsome, morbid, violent, criminal and terrible, but somehow I was still fascinated by him which comes with good writing. In an interview I watched after viewing the film, von Trier explained he loved writing for Jack because you never knew quite what he was going to say. Several times within the film he is "caught" in an awkward situation and is able to talk himself out of it with absurd, yet believable rhetoric. You certainly don't root for him since his actions are reprehensible, but you are interested in what happens next.
Matt Dillon was overlooked during awards season of 2018. The Academy should've looked his way as they did for Sir Anthony Hopkins in 1991. His performance is gritty, deeply disturbing and very believable. He made Jack seem sympathetic at times even through his extreme violent nature. Sometimes subtle, sometimes over the top. I can't remember a performance of his which was more striking.
A film by Lars von Trier will always propel your intellect after your viewing is complete and this film is no exception. Some of the images the movie provides (not just the kill scenes) are unforgettable, some beautiful, but all very thought out and aligned with precision. He is undoubtedly one of the most unique directors working in film today and I continually look forward to his subsequent offerings!
The story of Jack is a exercise in the extreme. From the opening moments of THTJB, the audience is quickly brought into Jack's world and not released for 2 1/2 hours of brutality.
Jack finds himself in his bright red rape van when he passes a damsel in distress in the form of a woman with a flat tire. He stops and reluctantly agrees to drive her to the nearest auto repair place for assistance. When the plight becomes more complicated, Jack reluctantly agrees to further drive the woman around. Growing impatient with her constant blather and insults at Jack's personality, Jack quickly reaches his limit and destroys the woman quickly using her broken car jack which happens to be lying right next to him in the front seat.
That is just the beginning.
The film is set to 5 "incidents" and an "epilogue" which chronicle several years in Jack's life, including other relationships with woman, his family and random encounters he has all used to fuel his addiction with death. Without detailing them all here, his journey for carnage includes extreme actions including multiple murders, corpse manipulation and even human trophies.
If you are a fan of writer/director Lars von Trier, this will be nothing new to you if you have seen some of his other films including Antichrist, Nymphomaniac or Dogville. His films usually require a strong stomach, but do not shock for shock's sake alone. The vivid imagery in all his films is used not only to proper the narrative, to show the audience something they have not seen before and cross the lines between art and film. His films will repulse some. I won't squabble with those who cannot handle his type of film-making; however, maybe my inner film snob relishes those who give me something different, something to think about after I have finished watching and thought out interesting characters you almost never see any more.
With THTJB, he delves into the human mind well providing voice-over to let us in to what Jack is thinking and maybe helps us include a glimmer of understanding with it. Jack's acts are loathsome, morbid, violent, criminal and terrible, but somehow I was still fascinated by him which comes with good writing. In an interview I watched after viewing the film, von Trier explained he loved writing for Jack because you never knew quite what he was going to say. Several times within the film he is "caught" in an awkward situation and is able to talk himself out of it with absurd, yet believable rhetoric. You certainly don't root for him since his actions are reprehensible, but you are interested in what happens next.
Matt Dillon was overlooked during awards season of 2018. The Academy should've looked his way as they did for Sir Anthony Hopkins in 1991. His performance is gritty, deeply disturbing and very believable. He made Jack seem sympathetic at times even through his extreme violent nature. Sometimes subtle, sometimes over the top. I can't remember a performance of his which was more striking.
A film by Lars von Trier will always propel your intellect after your viewing is complete and this film is no exception. Some of the images the movie provides (not just the kill scenes) are unforgettable, some beautiful, but all very thought out and aligned with precision. He is undoubtedly one of the most unique directors working in film today and I continually look forward to his subsequent offerings!
365Flicks (235 KP) rated Pandorica (2016) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
Now that Chris and I have handed back the reigns of Another Damn Wrestling Show to its original hosts Matt, Joe and the other one. I no longer have to watch 12 hours of Wrestling each week so I decided to tackle my backlog of Movie reviews that some awesome very kind people have been sending. Today was the turn of Pandorica, a movie that to be fair had me at the trailer because its tells you everything without giving anything away. Best type of Trailer really (Yes that was a pop at Terminator Genisys).
I had no real expectations going into Pandorica and I came out of it very pleasantly surprised by Tom Paton’s Genre busting Futuristic Dystopian , Sci-Fi horror, Suspense, Action Filled tale of what happens when Humanity is De-Volved into its most basic instincts. Well I did say Genre Busting. One of the best things about this movie is that you really cant put it in any bracket (no matter how hard you try for the purpose of reviewing).
Set somewhere in the future we meet a small group of Natives from the Varosha tribe. Tribe leader Nus (Luke D’Silva) has brought his three bravest and best to take part in a Violent trial to determine who should be leader of the Tribe when Nus expires. As is always the way, the three in question have very differing personalities. Eiren (Jade Hobday) is as deadly as she is determined and somewhat sexy (think Milla Jovovich in Resident Evil, Keira Knightley in King Arthur, Rhona Mitra in Doomsday). She is up against the wreckless headstrong bad ass Ares (Marc Zammit) who believes he is the only man fit enough to lead, rounding off the trio is Thade (Adam Bond) a very loyal confidant to the tribe but its all a bit over his head. Once the trial begins everything really turns to shit as the 3 discover a strange woman being chased by band of Vicious Lunatics in creepy masks. They must band to together to stay alive, all the while trying to prove they are the best candidate for leader, Winner is left standing at daybreak… Hopefully.
It is hard for me to believe that this is Tom Paton’s first full length feature film. He has a very clear idea of what he is doing with getting the best out of his strong leading cast, the Cinematography in this movie is gorgeous at times showing Paton is well aware of his on location surroundings and can direct his movie as such to show us this. Sometimes just the swooping shots over the top of the trees keep make you pause to admire. He has taken a number of Genres mashed them up and made a solid as hell flick that not only stands on its own but also serves as what could potentially be a great intro to a new series of flicks hat breath new life into some of these Genres, especially the Dystopian World End-y ones in the same vein as Neil Marshalls Doomsday.
I don’t want to keep raving on too much because you guys should really see this flick. It is available on all good streaming sites and video on demand services and I guarantee you will get a kick out of it, even if only for the Bitchin as hell soundtrack. I wont lie the music alone sucks you right in. I really enjoyed the movie and can easily see a sequel in fact if you do enjoy the movie, I recommend you stick around till the end of the credits (No Spoilers).
I had no real expectations going into Pandorica and I came out of it very pleasantly surprised by Tom Paton’s Genre busting Futuristic Dystopian , Sci-Fi horror, Suspense, Action Filled tale of what happens when Humanity is De-Volved into its most basic instincts. Well I did say Genre Busting. One of the best things about this movie is that you really cant put it in any bracket (no matter how hard you try for the purpose of reviewing).
Set somewhere in the future we meet a small group of Natives from the Varosha tribe. Tribe leader Nus (Luke D’Silva) has brought his three bravest and best to take part in a Violent trial to determine who should be leader of the Tribe when Nus expires. As is always the way, the three in question have very differing personalities. Eiren (Jade Hobday) is as deadly as she is determined and somewhat sexy (think Milla Jovovich in Resident Evil, Keira Knightley in King Arthur, Rhona Mitra in Doomsday). She is up against the wreckless headstrong bad ass Ares (Marc Zammit) who believes he is the only man fit enough to lead, rounding off the trio is Thade (Adam Bond) a very loyal confidant to the tribe but its all a bit over his head. Once the trial begins everything really turns to shit as the 3 discover a strange woman being chased by band of Vicious Lunatics in creepy masks. They must band to together to stay alive, all the while trying to prove they are the best candidate for leader, Winner is left standing at daybreak… Hopefully.
It is hard for me to believe that this is Tom Paton’s first full length feature film. He has a very clear idea of what he is doing with getting the best out of his strong leading cast, the Cinematography in this movie is gorgeous at times showing Paton is well aware of his on location surroundings and can direct his movie as such to show us this. Sometimes just the swooping shots over the top of the trees keep make you pause to admire. He has taken a number of Genres mashed them up and made a solid as hell flick that not only stands on its own but also serves as what could potentially be a great intro to a new series of flicks hat breath new life into some of these Genres, especially the Dystopian World End-y ones in the same vein as Neil Marshalls Doomsday.
I don’t want to keep raving on too much because you guys should really see this flick. It is available on all good streaming sites and video on demand services and I guarantee you will get a kick out of it, even if only for the Bitchin as hell soundtrack. I wont lie the music alone sucks you right in. I really enjoyed the movie and can easily see a sequel in fact if you do enjoy the movie, I recommend you stick around till the end of the credits (No Spoilers).
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Downsizing (2017) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
Sweeping up a few older films that I wanted to see but missed at the cinema in the last few years. My current IMDb watch list sits at 488, and, unlike this movie, never seems to shrink! There is a lot to keep up with. Bad reviews have kept me away from Alexander Payne’s Downsizing until now. I have to say, without the burden of expectation, it is a lot better than I thought it would be.
In particular, Sideways and The Descendents from the same Director are two of my absolute favourite light comedy satires of the last 20 years, so I am always interested to see what he is up to. He often has an eye for subtlety and relationships that can break the heart with truth. There is some of that on display here too, it has to be said, however, you do wonder if the sci-fi / CGI element of Downsizing got a little bit in the way?
It isn’t quite the film it could have been, and at times does feel messy and rushed. It also doesn’t follow through entirely with its premise, and perhaps that is what disappointed a lot of the audience. The idea of the small leaving the world of the large behind in search of an environmental solution to the world’s problems is compelling as a joke and allegorical devise… But it just isn’t explored to its full potential, and the visual effects that allow us to see this are years behind what they should have been.
Saying that, the personal journey’s of the main characters are relevent, funny, relatable and often unexpected. Matt Damon is totally fine and well cast; Christoph Waltz adds a counter-point humour and point of view that balances the political ethics of the subject very well; and both Kristen Wiig and Udi Keir offer support of deft pathos in minor roles.
The film truly belongs to Hong Chau, however. Without her multi-layered and show-stealing turn as a Vietnamese refugee, who “downsized” to escape tyranny, losing a limb in the process, the film would be much less than it ends up being. For its many faults, her performance lifts it to something worth watching, as long as you can forgive the argument that her character is a too broadly drawn race stereo-type. Honestly, I can’t see the problem, because I think what she does with it makes the movie – but I am aware of the problems with it…
As a political message and environmental allegory, the film as a whole raises some interesting debate, sometimes because of its (ahem) shortcomings. It is neither intelligent enough, nor funny enough to be a “good” film. But it is an entertaining film. If only to see the sequence of legal and medical procedure that leads to the new world of being small!
What would we be prepared to do to find an answer to a dying world, economic failure and personal unhappiness? Would we risk everything to find ourselves and a solution? Or would we carry on regardless? Feeling lost in a world of fear and looming disaster is a subject worth exploring, and I feel Downsizing asks enough questions well enough to be at least seen and argued with. If that is the only purpose it serves then… OK by me.
The bottom line is, I didn’t hate it. To see it at a rating of 5.7 on IMDb is strange and actually very interesting. It is not a bad film. It just doesn’t completely succeed. I think that score says much more about how vitriolic and opinionated people are becoming about environmental issues. Which is good. A missed opportunity perhaps, and therefore it earns a place in the bin marked “admirable failures”. See it for yourself if you haven’t – it has cult status written all over it, in very small writing.
In particular, Sideways and The Descendents from the same Director are two of my absolute favourite light comedy satires of the last 20 years, so I am always interested to see what he is up to. He often has an eye for subtlety and relationships that can break the heart with truth. There is some of that on display here too, it has to be said, however, you do wonder if the sci-fi / CGI element of Downsizing got a little bit in the way?
It isn’t quite the film it could have been, and at times does feel messy and rushed. It also doesn’t follow through entirely with its premise, and perhaps that is what disappointed a lot of the audience. The idea of the small leaving the world of the large behind in search of an environmental solution to the world’s problems is compelling as a joke and allegorical devise… But it just isn’t explored to its full potential, and the visual effects that allow us to see this are years behind what they should have been.
Saying that, the personal journey’s of the main characters are relevent, funny, relatable and often unexpected. Matt Damon is totally fine and well cast; Christoph Waltz adds a counter-point humour and point of view that balances the political ethics of the subject very well; and both Kristen Wiig and Udi Keir offer support of deft pathos in minor roles.
The film truly belongs to Hong Chau, however. Without her multi-layered and show-stealing turn as a Vietnamese refugee, who “downsized” to escape tyranny, losing a limb in the process, the film would be much less than it ends up being. For its many faults, her performance lifts it to something worth watching, as long as you can forgive the argument that her character is a too broadly drawn race stereo-type. Honestly, I can’t see the problem, because I think what she does with it makes the movie – but I am aware of the problems with it…
As a political message and environmental allegory, the film as a whole raises some interesting debate, sometimes because of its (ahem) shortcomings. It is neither intelligent enough, nor funny enough to be a “good” film. But it is an entertaining film. If only to see the sequence of legal and medical procedure that leads to the new world of being small!
What would we be prepared to do to find an answer to a dying world, economic failure and personal unhappiness? Would we risk everything to find ourselves and a solution? Or would we carry on regardless? Feeling lost in a world of fear and looming disaster is a subject worth exploring, and I feel Downsizing asks enough questions well enough to be at least seen and argued with. If that is the only purpose it serves then… OK by me.
The bottom line is, I didn’t hate it. To see it at a rating of 5.7 on IMDb is strange and actually very interesting. It is not a bad film. It just doesn’t completely succeed. I think that score says much more about how vitriolic and opinionated people are becoming about environmental issues. Which is good. A missed opportunity perhaps, and therefore it earns a place in the bin marked “admirable failures”. See it for yourself if you haven’t – it has cult status written all over it, in very small writing.
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Saving Private Ryan (1998) in Movies
Feb 9, 2021
A classic
Film #14 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Saving Private Ryan
When I think of war films, I immediately think of Saving Private Ryan. This is partly because I shamefully haven’t seen the majority of the older classic war films (but I may have done by the time I reach the end of this list), and also because this is the first war film I ever saw. I have my dad to thank for introducing me to this, he was obsessed with anything war related, and while I would never admit this to him as a teenager, even back then I could appreciate how brilliant this film was.
Saving Private Ryan is a 1998 World War II epic from Steven Spielberg that follows a group of soldiers as they embark on a mission across France to rescue a man who’s 3 brothers have been killed in action. It stars Tom Hanks as Captain Miller as he leads a host of recognisable faces including Vin Diesel (Caparzo), Barry Pepper (Jackson), Tom Sizemore (Horvath), Giovanni Ribisi (Wade), Edward Burns (Reiben) and Jeremy Davies as Upham as they trek across country to find Matt Damon’s Private Ryan.
The main plot is definitely very Hollywood, but the film itself looks and feels like anything but a glamorous Hollywood blockbuster. This is by far the grittiest, darkest and most horrific war film I’ve seen to date. Spielberg does not shy away from displaying the true horror of war, from the blood and gore of the fighting to the physical and psychological effects it had on the soldiers , it’s all here in all of its horrifying glory. One of the most memorable scenes of any war film is the opening sequence of the D-Day landings, that shows a haunting and frightfully bloody side of the war that no other films have managed to capture in such a dark and emotionally draining manner. Even the opening scene in Arlington Cemetery, especially when paired with a moving score from John Williams, is a tearjerker only a few minutes into the 2.5 hour runtime. I don’t know how factually realistic this whole film is, but it’s definitely one of the most compellingly believable films I’ve ever seen, especially the death scenes.
Visually the cinematography helps with the dark and gritty feeling. Everything looks grey and drab, even hazy at times, and this only helps to promote the overall tone of the film. Admittedly there are parts of this now that do look a little dated and there are a few early scenes with a strange out of place camera flare, but considering it was released 23 years ago, it’s aged pretty well and still looks quite good. It’s helped by a truly stellar cast lead by the ever brilliant Tom Hanks, who’s turn as Captain Miller is hauntingly good. The fact that he didn’t win the Oscar for his performance is criminal. Him alongside the rest of the cast, including memorably brash Brooklynite Reiben (Burns) and God-fearing elite sniper Jackson (Pepper), completely embody the camaraderie, friendship and sometimes hostility shown by the group of men perfectly. My only slight criticism of this film is that after growing to know and like these men over the course of the film, there is a question mark over some of their fates at the end which is a tiny bit disappointing.
Saving Private Ryan won 5 Oscars, including Best Director and Best Cinematography, but was nominated for many others including Best Picture, which in my opinion it deserved far more than the film that won in 1999 (Shakespeare in Love), as this is undoubtedly an all time classic war film.
When I think of war films, I immediately think of Saving Private Ryan. This is partly because I shamefully haven’t seen the majority of the older classic war films (but I may have done by the time I reach the end of this list), and also because this is the first war film I ever saw. I have my dad to thank for introducing me to this, he was obsessed with anything war related, and while I would never admit this to him as a teenager, even back then I could appreciate how brilliant this film was.
Saving Private Ryan is a 1998 World War II epic from Steven Spielberg that follows a group of soldiers as they embark on a mission across France to rescue a man who’s 3 brothers have been killed in action. It stars Tom Hanks as Captain Miller as he leads a host of recognisable faces including Vin Diesel (Caparzo), Barry Pepper (Jackson), Tom Sizemore (Horvath), Giovanni Ribisi (Wade), Edward Burns (Reiben) and Jeremy Davies as Upham as they trek across country to find Matt Damon’s Private Ryan.
The main plot is definitely very Hollywood, but the film itself looks and feels like anything but a glamorous Hollywood blockbuster. This is by far the grittiest, darkest and most horrific war film I’ve seen to date. Spielberg does not shy away from displaying the true horror of war, from the blood and gore of the fighting to the physical and psychological effects it had on the soldiers , it’s all here in all of its horrifying glory. One of the most memorable scenes of any war film is the opening sequence of the D-Day landings, that shows a haunting and frightfully bloody side of the war that no other films have managed to capture in such a dark and emotionally draining manner. Even the opening scene in Arlington Cemetery, especially when paired with a moving score from John Williams, is a tearjerker only a few minutes into the 2.5 hour runtime. I don’t know how factually realistic this whole film is, but it’s definitely one of the most compellingly believable films I’ve ever seen, especially the death scenes.
Visually the cinematography helps with the dark and gritty feeling. Everything looks grey and drab, even hazy at times, and this only helps to promote the overall tone of the film. Admittedly there are parts of this now that do look a little dated and there are a few early scenes with a strange out of place camera flare, but considering it was released 23 years ago, it’s aged pretty well and still looks quite good. It’s helped by a truly stellar cast lead by the ever brilliant Tom Hanks, who’s turn as Captain Miller is hauntingly good. The fact that he didn’t win the Oscar for his performance is criminal. Him alongside the rest of the cast, including memorably brash Brooklynite Reiben (Burns) and God-fearing elite sniper Jackson (Pepper), completely embody the camaraderie, friendship and sometimes hostility shown by the group of men perfectly. My only slight criticism of this film is that after growing to know and like these men over the course of the film, there is a question mark over some of their fates at the end which is a tiny bit disappointing.
Saving Private Ryan won 5 Oscars, including Best Director and Best Cinematography, but was nominated for many others including Best Picture, which in my opinion it deserved far more than the film that won in 1999 (Shakespeare in Love), as this is undoubtedly an all time classic war film.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated What We Do in the Shadows in TV
Jan 22, 2021
Anyone who watched and enjoyed the entirely silly, but mostly genius, original film version of this, written and directed by the same partnership of Jermaine Clement and Taika Waititi, should not miss this show! Although Clement and Waititi step down from acting duties (aside from cameo appearences), they are replaced by the ideal, if not actually better, pairing of Matt Berry and Kayvan Novak, whose previous experience in left-field comedy with an improvisational edge leaves them perfectly placed to make this comedy fly like a startled bat!
The lead duo are joined in all 20 episodes over 2 seasons so far by relative unknowns Natasia Demetriou, Harvey Guillén and Mark Proksch. The first two do adequate jobs of keeping the laughs rolling and the mood steady. But it is Proksch, who brings some knowledge of a working mockumentary farce from his role as Nate is the US version of The Office, who is the stand-out as Colin the energy vampire, who bores his victims to death, or leaves them drained of the will to live. The many ways that single joke is varied to hilarious effect is a thing of true comedic beauty at all times.
The fine balance between the bizarre and ridiculous world of vampires and other monsters with a situation of utter mundanity like flatsharing affords some wonderful moments of laugh out loud insanity. The writing is terrific all the way through, and the bite sized episode lengths ensure it zips along and the joke only wears thin if you gorge on too many in one go. In fact I would strongly recommend not bingeing this one, but rather savouring 2 or 3 in a sitting then leaving it a while. There is something about missing it and coming back to the joke after a break that works better for me.
Some of the things I love about it are the details of the visual world they live in. The paraphernalia of the flat they live in and the clothes they wear is joyous and ever rewarding. There will be things to spot in the background that you missed first time for sure – and that is a sign to me that they wanted to create a classic here and not something disposable. I also adore the opening credit sequence, and sing along every single time.
Then there is the fabulous use of creative swearing, that manages to reach new and surprising heights episode to episode. Berry is especially proficient in this art, leaving me spitting out my tea many times with the use of a profane phrase off the cuff. It is as much the way he says it as what he says, so it is no surprise to me he has been singled out at recent TV awards shows. I hope he gets the recognition he deserves with a shiny trophy or two.
The fact that it was nominated for 8 Emmys for season 2, after only two nods for season 1, also shows that this is an entity that gets better if you stick with it. At first the pattern of the humour may not gel, but the more you get used to it, the character quirks and various relationships, the rewards as a viewer are exponentially good. And if you watch long enough there are also some tasty cameo parts that turn up… but I won’t spoil the surprises here.
Is it a joke that can run and run? No probably not. But I would like to at least see a third season, to wrap it all up. Especially as season 2 ends on somewhat of a cliffhanger, as much as a puerile comedy like this can do. I am a fan. And I imagine I’ll always be able to go back and enjoy an episode here and there to cheer me up. Brilliant stuff, that has its heart and its funny bones in all the right places. Go on, stick your teeth into it!
The lead duo are joined in all 20 episodes over 2 seasons so far by relative unknowns Natasia Demetriou, Harvey Guillén and Mark Proksch. The first two do adequate jobs of keeping the laughs rolling and the mood steady. But it is Proksch, who brings some knowledge of a working mockumentary farce from his role as Nate is the US version of The Office, who is the stand-out as Colin the energy vampire, who bores his victims to death, or leaves them drained of the will to live. The many ways that single joke is varied to hilarious effect is a thing of true comedic beauty at all times.
The fine balance between the bizarre and ridiculous world of vampires and other monsters with a situation of utter mundanity like flatsharing affords some wonderful moments of laugh out loud insanity. The writing is terrific all the way through, and the bite sized episode lengths ensure it zips along and the joke only wears thin if you gorge on too many in one go. In fact I would strongly recommend not bingeing this one, but rather savouring 2 or 3 in a sitting then leaving it a while. There is something about missing it and coming back to the joke after a break that works better for me.
Some of the things I love about it are the details of the visual world they live in. The paraphernalia of the flat they live in and the clothes they wear is joyous and ever rewarding. There will be things to spot in the background that you missed first time for sure – and that is a sign to me that they wanted to create a classic here and not something disposable. I also adore the opening credit sequence, and sing along every single time.
Then there is the fabulous use of creative swearing, that manages to reach new and surprising heights episode to episode. Berry is especially proficient in this art, leaving me spitting out my tea many times with the use of a profane phrase off the cuff. It is as much the way he says it as what he says, so it is no surprise to me he has been singled out at recent TV awards shows. I hope he gets the recognition he deserves with a shiny trophy or two.
The fact that it was nominated for 8 Emmys for season 2, after only two nods for season 1, also shows that this is an entity that gets better if you stick with it. At first the pattern of the humour may not gel, but the more you get used to it, the character quirks and various relationships, the rewards as a viewer are exponentially good. And if you watch long enough there are also some tasty cameo parts that turn up… but I won’t spoil the surprises here.
Is it a joke that can run and run? No probably not. But I would like to at least see a third season, to wrap it all up. Especially as season 2 ends on somewhat of a cliffhanger, as much as a puerile comedy like this can do. I am a fan. And I imagine I’ll always be able to go back and enjoy an episode here and there to cheer me up. Brilliant stuff, that has its heart and its funny bones in all the right places. Go on, stick your teeth into it!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Downsizing (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
Overpopulation is a growing problem in the world and two Doctors, Dr. Jorgen Asbjornsen (Rolf Lassgard) and Dr. Andreas Jacobsen (Soren Pilmark) have found what they believe is the answer. The have discovered how to shrink all kinds of living matter, including humans. Asbjornsen and a group of volunteers are shrunk and live for years before showing the world. They believe that they can help solve the worlds hunger crisis as well as overpopulation. When occupational therapist Paul Safranek (Matt Damon) first hears of this he is fascinated with the idea of doing something grand to help save the world. But it isn’t until years later when he and his wife, Audrey Safranek (Kristen Wiig), run into an old college friend, Dave Johnson (Jason Sudeikis), who has been shrunk that he realizes he might be able to have a better life at four inches tall. Because of how cheap everything is to build for new tiny people there is an opportunity to live lavishly on meager means. The Safrankek’s have been struggling to get by and really be able enjoy life. When they hear that their hundreds of thousands could be millions they see this as their chance to live the luxury life. The head out to Leisureland Estates, a tiny community, to see what the small world has to offer. After the visit they are convinced and decide to go through with the procedure and begin the irreversible process of becoming “small.” On the operation date they go to separate areas to get completely shaved and prepped. When Paul wakes up he is surprised that Audrey is not with him and she has decided she cannot go through the irreversible process. After his divorce he is left alone trying to find himself and where he fits in a whole new world, at a whole new size.
This Alexander Payne (The Descendants, Nebraska, Sideways) written (co-written by Jim Taylor) and directed film is interesting and fun. If you look at this movie as a satire and don’t get too caught up in is this actually plausible you will be fine. For instance they make mention to how the people who are shrunk are pretty much left alone by things like mosquitoes and other insects but never mention things like rodents or other predators that would be difficult to fend off. I also was surprised by how in depth they get into social issues as the trailer I saw made it look more comedic than the film turned out to be. Not saying that there are not funny moments but the emphasis was really on issues like global overpopulation, exploitation of the poor, etc. and how one man decides to tackle these issues as the present themselves. I was taken by surprise at first but by the end of the film it really put everything into perspective.
Hong Chau, as Ngoc Lan Tran in the film, stood out and was really funny at times. The rest of the cast was good and fit the story well. The story did tend to drift between comedy and drama and not always as smoothly as intended. The film comes in at 2 hours and 15 minutes which is a little long but really if it was shorter the story would be even more all over the place. The plausibility of most of the film was in question for me and that was definitely distracting. But looking back if I spent less time on that I would have enjoyed the film more. Visually nothing really stand out like I thought it would and there was potential. The novelty of everyday things being bigger did get over done a little.
This Alexander Payne (The Descendants, Nebraska, Sideways) written (co-written by Jim Taylor) and directed film is interesting and fun. If you look at this movie as a satire and don’t get too caught up in is this actually plausible you will be fine. For instance they make mention to how the people who are shrunk are pretty much left alone by things like mosquitoes and other insects but never mention things like rodents or other predators that would be difficult to fend off. I also was surprised by how in depth they get into social issues as the trailer I saw made it look more comedic than the film turned out to be. Not saying that there are not funny moments but the emphasis was really on issues like global overpopulation, exploitation of the poor, etc. and how one man decides to tackle these issues as the present themselves. I was taken by surprise at first but by the end of the film it really put everything into perspective.
Hong Chau, as Ngoc Lan Tran in the film, stood out and was really funny at times. The rest of the cast was good and fit the story well. The story did tend to drift between comedy and drama and not always as smoothly as intended. The film comes in at 2 hours and 15 minutes which is a little long but really if it was shorter the story would be even more all over the place. The plausibility of most of the film was in question for me and that was definitely distracting. But looking back if I spent less time on that I would have enjoyed the film more. Visually nothing really stand out like I thought it would and there was potential. The novelty of everyday things being bigger did get over done a little.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Baywatch (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
Mitch Buchannon (Dwayne Johnson) is the head of the elite lifeguards of Baywatch. With over 500 confirmed saves he is a local legend. He and his team keep the beach safe by saving drowning victims and going after the people who threaten the safety of the bay they patrol. His team consists of; Stephanie Holden (Ilfenesh Hadera) the one person who might know the bay as well as Mitch and his second in command, C.J. Parker (Kelly Rohrbach) another veteran lifeguard, recruits Ronnie Greenbaum (Jon Bass) and Summer Quinn (Alexandra Daddario) both out to prove themselves, and the final member is cocky recruit Matt Brody (Zac Efron). When drugs start to wash up on the shores of the bay Mitch and company decide to investigate local business woman Victoria Leeds (Priyanka Chopra). They notice that some odd things seem to be happening around a high end resort she owns. The drugs are wash up right in front of the resort and an unknown fish company begins delivering mysterious blue barrels to the resort. But when a local councilman dies under suspicious circumstances, while wearing the same expensive watch worn by Victoria’s body guards, they decide they must infiltrate Victoria’s club, yacht . They have to come together and get to the bottom of where the drugs are coming from and who is responsible to save they bay they are sworn to protect.
If there was a film that took to the phase “don’t take yourself too seriously” Baywatch would be that film. This Seth Gordon (Horrible Bosses, Identity Thief) directed film embraces the cheesiness of the original Baywatch television series in a big way. The cast pokes fun at every aspect of the television series as well as the personas of the real life actors, specifically Johnson and Efron. Johnson’s character is constantly poking fun at Efron’s character by calling him boy band names, in reference to Efron’s status as a teen heartthrob. Another way the movie makes fun of itself is by calling out the fact the Baywatch team not only have the duties of lifeguards on the beach but also doing criminal investigates, going under cover and chasing criminals. There is an ongoing gag throughout the movie where a local police officer, Sgt. Ellerbee (yahya Abdul-Mateen II), reminds Mitch that he is not a police officer, which does not stop him from survelling suspects and looking at coroner reports. Another aspect that I think was done well was that it does not try to reimagine the universe of Baywatch. Rather it takes all the corny one liners and over the top plots and adds some raunchiness to make it new and fresh.
It maybe went a little too far on the cheesy lines and over-acting at times but I think that was the intent of the film. Many of times I found myself shaking my head at how absurd the story was but in the end it was all done in a fun way and again not taking itself too seriously. The action scenes are good not great. The acting fits the style of the movie, it’s bad but presumably on purpose. The CGI in the movie is hit and miss, most notable the underwater scenes are not the best. The movie is also way raunchier that I expected. Some scenes definitely caught me off guard at how far they went. I wouldn’t go into it expecting any amazing acting or plausible plot lines, because you are likely to be let down. This is not for anyone looking for a witty comedy or is not a fan of excessive foul language and some nudity. If you were a fan of the TV series you will probably enjoy the film, notably the cameos by Pamela Anderson (as Casey Jean Parker) and David Hasselhoff (as the mentor).
If there was a film that took to the phase “don’t take yourself too seriously” Baywatch would be that film. This Seth Gordon (Horrible Bosses, Identity Thief) directed film embraces the cheesiness of the original Baywatch television series in a big way. The cast pokes fun at every aspect of the television series as well as the personas of the real life actors, specifically Johnson and Efron. Johnson’s character is constantly poking fun at Efron’s character by calling him boy band names, in reference to Efron’s status as a teen heartthrob. Another way the movie makes fun of itself is by calling out the fact the Baywatch team not only have the duties of lifeguards on the beach but also doing criminal investigates, going under cover and chasing criminals. There is an ongoing gag throughout the movie where a local police officer, Sgt. Ellerbee (yahya Abdul-Mateen II), reminds Mitch that he is not a police officer, which does not stop him from survelling suspects and looking at coroner reports. Another aspect that I think was done well was that it does not try to reimagine the universe of Baywatch. Rather it takes all the corny one liners and over the top plots and adds some raunchiness to make it new and fresh.
It maybe went a little too far on the cheesy lines and over-acting at times but I think that was the intent of the film. Many of times I found myself shaking my head at how absurd the story was but in the end it was all done in a fun way and again not taking itself too seriously. The action scenes are good not great. The acting fits the style of the movie, it’s bad but presumably on purpose. The CGI in the movie is hit and miss, most notable the underwater scenes are not the best. The movie is also way raunchier that I expected. Some scenes definitely caught me off guard at how far they went. I wouldn’t go into it expecting any amazing acting or plausible plot lines, because you are likely to be let down. This is not for anyone looking for a witty comedy or is not a fan of excessive foul language and some nudity. If you were a fan of the TV series you will probably enjoy the film, notably the cameos by Pamela Anderson (as Casey Jean Parker) and David Hasselhoff (as the mentor).
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Live By Night (2017) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
I’m a sucker for a Prohibition-set yarn. It’s a fascinating period in history and typically yields excellent filmmaking with gritty, no-nonsense performances, gorgeous production design and hard-boiled action. It was De Palma’s The Untouchables that hooked me. Some would call it a guilty pleasure; and sure, Morricone’s score is a little over-the-top, De Niro is more caricature than character actor as Al Capone and I’m not going to argue that Connery’s Oscar was a “sympathy vote”, but it’s got everything I mentioned above in spades and for me it’ll always be the high benchmark of the Prohibition era gangster epic. Ben Affleck’s fourth turn as director has done nothing to change my position on that.
Live by Night is an uninspired mess, from voice-over laden start to disastrously predictable end, bringing nothing new or exciting to the table. Beat for beat, its weak script moves from one sigh-inducing cliché to another, reaching clumsily for moments of high emotion that ring hollow and false. If anyone needs any further proof that Matt Damon did all the heavy lifting on the script for Good Will Hunting, they need look no further. It feels wrong to come down so hard on Affleck after his back-to-back successes as a director, but this is more akin to the first work of a blundering novice, and also certainly not what we’ve come to expect of a Dennis Lehane adaptation (see Mystic River, Shutter Island and Affleck’s own incredible directorial debut, Gone Baby Gone). His decision to wear so many hats on this project, producing, directing, sole screenwriter and lead actor, has to be the reason for this stumble. The script desperately needed another set of eyes and the part of Joe Coughlin was clearly written for someone younger and more capable of performing with the subtlety needed to play someone who has to traverse the number of moral dilemmas he’s faced with. Hopefully, this inevitable failure will be what convinces Affleck that his place should be behind the camera directing other people’s scripts and guiding other people’s performances.
Speaking of the performances, there is a massive curve in this collection of acting that swings wildly from the cartoonish to the nuanced. To start with, we have Matthew Maher as a KKK member out for his cut and Robert Glenister as an Irish mob boss, both of whom are supposed to be playing dangerous and threatening but can’t do any better than laughable and two-dimensional. Then there’s Chris Messina and Affleck himself as the hoods on the rise, their chemistry is ill-advised at best as they both seem to think they’re in a buddy comedy as opposed to a serious piece of gangster melodrama A favorite of mine, Brendan Gleeson, sadly leaves the screen within the first twenty minutes and that left me with only the inimitable Chris Cooper to look forward to. The subplot involving him and Elle Fanning, as his born-again daughter speaking out against Coughlin’s sinful ways is not without problems of its own, but at least they sell it. That should be no surprise on Cooper’s part, but now between this and The Neon Demon last summer; Fanning is firmly on my radar as one to watch. My hope was that we were going to get some tremendous battle of wills between her and Affleck’s character akin to Paul Dano and Daniel Day-Lewis’ conflict in There Will Be Blood, but that was definitely asking too much. Fanning’s role, like Gleeson’s, is unfortunately cut short just as it gets good.
I guess The Untouchables is starting to sound less like a guilty pleasure and more like a masterpiece when compared to this regrettable misfire.
Live by Night is an uninspired mess, from voice-over laden start to disastrously predictable end, bringing nothing new or exciting to the table. Beat for beat, its weak script moves from one sigh-inducing cliché to another, reaching clumsily for moments of high emotion that ring hollow and false. If anyone needs any further proof that Matt Damon did all the heavy lifting on the script for Good Will Hunting, they need look no further. It feels wrong to come down so hard on Affleck after his back-to-back successes as a director, but this is more akin to the first work of a blundering novice, and also certainly not what we’ve come to expect of a Dennis Lehane adaptation (see Mystic River, Shutter Island and Affleck’s own incredible directorial debut, Gone Baby Gone). His decision to wear so many hats on this project, producing, directing, sole screenwriter and lead actor, has to be the reason for this stumble. The script desperately needed another set of eyes and the part of Joe Coughlin was clearly written for someone younger and more capable of performing with the subtlety needed to play someone who has to traverse the number of moral dilemmas he’s faced with. Hopefully, this inevitable failure will be what convinces Affleck that his place should be behind the camera directing other people’s scripts and guiding other people’s performances.
Speaking of the performances, there is a massive curve in this collection of acting that swings wildly from the cartoonish to the nuanced. To start with, we have Matthew Maher as a KKK member out for his cut and Robert Glenister as an Irish mob boss, both of whom are supposed to be playing dangerous and threatening but can’t do any better than laughable and two-dimensional. Then there’s Chris Messina and Affleck himself as the hoods on the rise, their chemistry is ill-advised at best as they both seem to think they’re in a buddy comedy as opposed to a serious piece of gangster melodrama A favorite of mine, Brendan Gleeson, sadly leaves the screen within the first twenty minutes and that left me with only the inimitable Chris Cooper to look forward to. The subplot involving him and Elle Fanning, as his born-again daughter speaking out against Coughlin’s sinful ways is not without problems of its own, but at least they sell it. That should be no surprise on Cooper’s part, but now between this and The Neon Demon last summer; Fanning is firmly on my radar as one to watch. My hope was that we were going to get some tremendous battle of wills between her and Affleck’s character akin to Paul Dano and Daniel Day-Lewis’ conflict in There Will Be Blood, but that was definitely asking too much. Fanning’s role, like Gleeson’s, is unfortunately cut short just as it gets good.
I guess The Untouchables is starting to sound less like a guilty pleasure and more like a masterpiece when compared to this regrettable misfire.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Nineteen Minutes in Books
May 25, 2017
Fantastic Author
Your son says the bullying was unbearable. But his revenge was murder. What would you do?
Nineteen Minutes is perhaps Jodi Picoult’s most controversial novel, as well as one of the longest. Lots of things can happen in nineteen minutes including a school shooting resulting in the deaths of ten people. This is what happens at the beginning of this book, leaving hundreds of teachers and students emotionally scarred for the remainder of their lives. Picoult explores the reactions of a community who’s ideas of safety have been shattered, the grief of the victims and their families and, perhaps most importantly, the heartache of the parents of the shooter.
Seventeen-year-old Peter Houghton has had enough of the bullying that he has endured throughout his entire school life. He has no friends, is constantly miserable, possibly suicidal, and so, on a typical morning in March 2007 he decides permanently fix the situation, unthinking of the consequences. But why did he go to such extremes? What circumstances in his life led to firing a gun as the only solution?
As the evidence is gathered in the lead up to the court trial, many key characters question their own involvement in Peter’s life. Firstly there is Josie Cormier, a straight-A student who swapped her childhood friendship with Peter for popularity and her boyfriend Matt, a particularly aggressive bully. Secondly there is Alex Cormier, Josie’s mother, who destroyed her friendship with Peter’s mother after finding their five-year-old children playing with guns in the Houghton’s basement.
If Peter’s father had never owned a selection of hunting rifles, would Peter ever have thought of guns as a way out of his predicament? On the other hand, Lacy Houghton blames herself for not noticing how badly her son was suffering, not just at school, but at home as well, where he had to live up to the memory of his saint-like older brother who died in a car crash the previous year.
Naturally a tragic event such as this changes people, however not always in a negative way. Relationships begin to blossom as characters realize how close they were to losing the ones they love. Alex takes a step back from her demanding job to comfort Josie in the aftermath, thus feeling closer to her than she ever has done before. Alex, a single mother, also opens herself up to a romantic relationship, something she has had no time to seriously consider up until now.
All the while, Defense Attorney Jordan McAfee, who some readers may remember from Salem Falls, fights a losing battle to get Peter acquitted, by arguing and prying into Peter’s emotions to discover his reason for committing murder.
What I like about Picoult’s novels is that there is a lot more to it than a simple storyline. While the story plays out and plot twists happen, the reader is learning something new. In Nineteen Minutes Picoult provides insight into midwifery, psychology and economics – things that are not synonymous with the shootings.
Readers will constantly question whose side of the story they are on. Hundreds of people grow up being bullied and will understand how Peter was feeling; yet they would not pick up a gun. Likewise, by putting themselves in the shoes of the victims readers will think about how they would feel in the same situation. However would anyone be willing to admit that they made someone else’s life a living hell? There is no simple conclusion to Nineteen Minutes; someone will always lose. Nevertheless, Picoult’s fantastic writing skills provide an enthralling story of love and loss.
I cannot recommend this book to readers in general due to the nature of the themes found in the story. Gun crime and school shootings are sadly still an occurrence in the present time, particularly in America, therefore there are thousands of people who have been affected by such an event, whether directly or indirectly as part of a local community. Some readers may find Nineteen Minutes challenging and upsetting, which is why I am not going to encourage everyone to read this book. However, Picoult has excelled herself with this novel and it would be a shame for people not to read it. Fans will not be disappointed with her writing and will love all her characters, possibly even Peter!
Nineteen Minutes is perhaps Jodi Picoult’s most controversial novel, as well as one of the longest. Lots of things can happen in nineteen minutes including a school shooting resulting in the deaths of ten people. This is what happens at the beginning of this book, leaving hundreds of teachers and students emotionally scarred for the remainder of their lives. Picoult explores the reactions of a community who’s ideas of safety have been shattered, the grief of the victims and their families and, perhaps most importantly, the heartache of the parents of the shooter.
Seventeen-year-old Peter Houghton has had enough of the bullying that he has endured throughout his entire school life. He has no friends, is constantly miserable, possibly suicidal, and so, on a typical morning in March 2007 he decides permanently fix the situation, unthinking of the consequences. But why did he go to such extremes? What circumstances in his life led to firing a gun as the only solution?
As the evidence is gathered in the lead up to the court trial, many key characters question their own involvement in Peter’s life. Firstly there is Josie Cormier, a straight-A student who swapped her childhood friendship with Peter for popularity and her boyfriend Matt, a particularly aggressive bully. Secondly there is Alex Cormier, Josie’s mother, who destroyed her friendship with Peter’s mother after finding their five-year-old children playing with guns in the Houghton’s basement.
If Peter’s father had never owned a selection of hunting rifles, would Peter ever have thought of guns as a way out of his predicament? On the other hand, Lacy Houghton blames herself for not noticing how badly her son was suffering, not just at school, but at home as well, where he had to live up to the memory of his saint-like older brother who died in a car crash the previous year.
Naturally a tragic event such as this changes people, however not always in a negative way. Relationships begin to blossom as characters realize how close they were to losing the ones they love. Alex takes a step back from her demanding job to comfort Josie in the aftermath, thus feeling closer to her than she ever has done before. Alex, a single mother, also opens herself up to a romantic relationship, something she has had no time to seriously consider up until now.
All the while, Defense Attorney Jordan McAfee, who some readers may remember from Salem Falls, fights a losing battle to get Peter acquitted, by arguing and prying into Peter’s emotions to discover his reason for committing murder.
What I like about Picoult’s novels is that there is a lot more to it than a simple storyline. While the story plays out and plot twists happen, the reader is learning something new. In Nineteen Minutes Picoult provides insight into midwifery, psychology and economics – things that are not synonymous with the shootings.
Readers will constantly question whose side of the story they are on. Hundreds of people grow up being bullied and will understand how Peter was feeling; yet they would not pick up a gun. Likewise, by putting themselves in the shoes of the victims readers will think about how they would feel in the same situation. However would anyone be willing to admit that they made someone else’s life a living hell? There is no simple conclusion to Nineteen Minutes; someone will always lose. Nevertheless, Picoult’s fantastic writing skills provide an enthralling story of love and loss.
I cannot recommend this book to readers in general due to the nature of the themes found in the story. Gun crime and school shootings are sadly still an occurrence in the present time, particularly in America, therefore there are thousands of people who have been affected by such an event, whether directly or indirectly as part of a local community. Some readers may find Nineteen Minutes challenging and upsetting, which is why I am not going to encourage everyone to read this book. However, Picoult has excelled herself with this novel and it would be a shame for people not to read it. Fans will not be disappointed with her writing and will love all her characters, possibly even Peter!
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated Fractured in Books
Mar 15, 2018
Also read my review here: http://bookbum.weebly.com/book-reviews/fractured-by-catherine-mckenzie
AVAILABLE NOW IN THE UK!
<b><i>They say that if a butterfly flaps its wings in the Amazonian rainforest, it can change the weather half a world away. Chaos theory...
All I know is today is that you can think that what you’ve done is only the flap of a butterfly wing, when it’s really a thunderclap.
And both can result in a hurricane.</b></i>
Julie’s life has gotten hard, she’s become a famous author and managed to bag herself a crazed stalker, so she decides to move her family across the country in hope of a new, stalkerless, beginning. And when she meet neighbour John, they hit it off immediately, the future seems brighter. But before long, things start to go wrong again. Who knew moving into a beautiful picturesque new neighbourhood could be so deadly?
I was really worried about reading this because Netgalley classed it as women's fiction and I have serious beef with that genre… but also, I was expecting a suspense thriller, not some family-lovey-dovey bullshit, but after seeing the rave reviews on Goodreads I had a little more hope that this would be bearable for me. And boy was it bearable, more than that in fact, it was exciting and thrilling to read!
As Stephen King says <i><b>“Good books don't give up all their secrets at once.”</i></b> and this book certainly didn’t! I thought it was excellent at keeping you on your toes, feeding you chunks of mystery and suspense a little at a time.
<b>Minor spoilers in this paragraph.</b> I really liked the main characters in this book… separately. Julie was a good mum and loving wife who was dealing with all her issues in a non-annoying way and John was a good dad, and, for the most part, a good husband. But put the two of them together and they got annoying. How could a grown man and woman not realise the friendship they had managed to create out of one conversation the day Julie moved in was inappropriate for so long? Julie especially, as her relationship with Daniel seemed close to perfect! The childishness of their situation had me really irritated and uncomfortable throughout the novel. I never used to have a problem with these kind of relationships in books until me and Matt had been together for a while, not that I <i>ever</i> condoned cheating on a partner before I got into a relationship, just the thought of being cheated on by your other half sets off all kinds of emotions and feelings inside of me that I can’t even begin to describe. <spoiler>So when they kissed each other outside Julie’s house, my stomach dropped, I felt instantly panicky and sick and contemplated putting the novel down as unfinished. I hate, <b>hate</b> reading about affairs.</spoiler>
My favourite character was Daniel though, what a lovely, gentle and understanding man… if not a little naive. Though I didn’t like Hanna, but she had every right to be angry and suspicious with John.
It’s pretty clear from a few chapters in who our criminal is, but McKenzie does well to keep what specifically the “accident” is and who our victim is secret until just the right moment. When we found out what happened and who it happened to I was shocked! It’s been a long time since a book has surprised me in the same way. What a crazy end to this rollercoaster ride of a book!
Overall, this is a fantastic suspense novel, with just the right amount of “women’s fiction” merged with thriller. I seriously recommend this for all thriller/suspense readers out there, I’m sure this won’t disappoint!
<i>(I don’t mean to create any kind of drama with this comment but this whole novel is <i>so American!</i> Wanting to sue someone over small things? Having “block parties” and neighbourhood newsletters and stuff with an immature queen bee in charge of it all? This shit would never go down in the UK.)</i>
I’d like to thank Netgalley and Lake Union Publishing for the opportunity to read this in an exchange for an honest review.
AVAILABLE NOW IN THE UK!
<b><i>They say that if a butterfly flaps its wings in the Amazonian rainforest, it can change the weather half a world away. Chaos theory...
All I know is today is that you can think that what you’ve done is only the flap of a butterfly wing, when it’s really a thunderclap.
And both can result in a hurricane.</b></i>
Julie’s life has gotten hard, she’s become a famous author and managed to bag herself a crazed stalker, so she decides to move her family across the country in hope of a new, stalkerless, beginning. And when she meet neighbour John, they hit it off immediately, the future seems brighter. But before long, things start to go wrong again. Who knew moving into a beautiful picturesque new neighbourhood could be so deadly?
I was really worried about reading this because Netgalley classed it as women's fiction and I have serious beef with that genre… but also, I was expecting a suspense thriller, not some family-lovey-dovey bullshit, but after seeing the rave reviews on Goodreads I had a little more hope that this would be bearable for me. And boy was it bearable, more than that in fact, it was exciting and thrilling to read!
As Stephen King says <i><b>“Good books don't give up all their secrets at once.”</i></b> and this book certainly didn’t! I thought it was excellent at keeping you on your toes, feeding you chunks of mystery and suspense a little at a time.
<b>Minor spoilers in this paragraph.</b> I really liked the main characters in this book… separately. Julie was a good mum and loving wife who was dealing with all her issues in a non-annoying way and John was a good dad, and, for the most part, a good husband. But put the two of them together and they got annoying. How could a grown man and woman not realise the friendship they had managed to create out of one conversation the day Julie moved in was inappropriate for so long? Julie especially, as her relationship with Daniel seemed close to perfect! The childishness of their situation had me really irritated and uncomfortable throughout the novel. I never used to have a problem with these kind of relationships in books until me and Matt had been together for a while, not that I <i>ever</i> condoned cheating on a partner before I got into a relationship, just the thought of being cheated on by your other half sets off all kinds of emotions and feelings inside of me that I can’t even begin to describe. <spoiler>So when they kissed each other outside Julie’s house, my stomach dropped, I felt instantly panicky and sick and contemplated putting the novel down as unfinished. I hate, <b>hate</b> reading about affairs.</spoiler>
My favourite character was Daniel though, what a lovely, gentle and understanding man… if not a little naive. Though I didn’t like Hanna, but she had every right to be angry and suspicious with John.
It’s pretty clear from a few chapters in who our criminal is, but McKenzie does well to keep what specifically the “accident” is and who our victim is secret until just the right moment. When we found out what happened and who it happened to I was shocked! It’s been a long time since a book has surprised me in the same way. What a crazy end to this rollercoaster ride of a book!
Overall, this is a fantastic suspense novel, with just the right amount of “women’s fiction” merged with thriller. I seriously recommend this for all thriller/suspense readers out there, I’m sure this won’t disappoint!
<i>(I don’t mean to create any kind of drama with this comment but this whole novel is <i>so American!</i> Wanting to sue someone over small things? Having “block parties” and neighbourhood newsletters and stuff with an immature queen bee in charge of it all? This shit would never go down in the UK.)</i>
I’d like to thank Netgalley and Lake Union Publishing for the opportunity to read this in an exchange for an honest review.