Search
Search results
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated The Raven (2012) in Movies
Apr 27, 2017
A brilliant crime thriller (4 more)
Gory
Connections to the work of Edgar Allan Poe
Great Cast
Watchable over and over again
Would love to know what happens in the end (1 more)
Not as exhilirating after the first watch
Quote the Raven, Nevermore.
First of all let me say this;
I am a poet and a writer, and my biggest inspiration as a writer has always been Edgar Allan Poe. I love the gothic horror, the tragedy, the macabre, and everything that makes Edgar Allan Poe the legend he is today.
With that said, let me tell you why I love this movie. It involves connections to some of Poe's greatest work, and not his poetry necessarily, it's actually more about his stories. Telltale Heart, Pit and the Pendulum and others that are all combined into the twisted mind of our antagonist who uses these stories to commit his crimes and leave evidence behind that only Poe himself would be able to figure out.
It's a brilliant crime thriller that delves into the mind of someone who is essentially Poe's biggest fan, but in a very dark and twisted way that gives us a fictional story about what happened during Poe's last days before he was found dead on a park bench. It's a known fact that Poe's last days remain a mystery and so this film had the opportunity to really play with some great ideas and they were executed brilliantly.
Speaking of execution this film is very grim and gory. One scene involving the story of The Pit and the Pendulum has us watch as a Pendulum drops lower and lower before slicing through a man's stomach like a warm knife through butter. It doesn't leave a lot to the imagination which gives this film some charm and makes it stand out from the rest of the Poe Film adaptations.
John Cusack plays the lengend himself, Edgar Allan Poe and brings a very interesting performance, that seems to suggest Poe thought himself as a higher intelligence to those around him, and he isn't shy to announce it.
Sharing the screen with Cusack, includes names such as Luke Evans who portrays Detective Fields, the detective I mentioned earlier that seeks Poe's assistance in the murder case. Brendan Gleeson portrays a very protective father named Charles Hamilton, who despises Poe being anywhere near his daughter Emily Hamilton, portrayed by Alice Eve. However there differences are put aside as the hunt for the missing Emily continues.
The story transitions well from scene to scene and story to story as each clue leads to the next, and eventually we discover the culprit who I shall not name here because I wish to leave the tension and suspense for you as you watch this film.
I am a poet and a writer, and my biggest inspiration as a writer has always been Edgar Allan Poe. I love the gothic horror, the tragedy, the macabre, and everything that makes Edgar Allan Poe the legend he is today.
With that said, let me tell you why I love this movie. It involves connections to some of Poe's greatest work, and not his poetry necessarily, it's actually more about his stories. Telltale Heart, Pit and the Pendulum and others that are all combined into the twisted mind of our antagonist who uses these stories to commit his crimes and leave evidence behind that only Poe himself would be able to figure out.
It's a brilliant crime thriller that delves into the mind of someone who is essentially Poe's biggest fan, but in a very dark and twisted way that gives us a fictional story about what happened during Poe's last days before he was found dead on a park bench. It's a known fact that Poe's last days remain a mystery and so this film had the opportunity to really play with some great ideas and they were executed brilliantly.
Speaking of execution this film is very grim and gory. One scene involving the story of The Pit and the Pendulum has us watch as a Pendulum drops lower and lower before slicing through a man's stomach like a warm knife through butter. It doesn't leave a lot to the imagination which gives this film some charm and makes it stand out from the rest of the Poe Film adaptations.
John Cusack plays the lengend himself, Edgar Allan Poe and brings a very interesting performance, that seems to suggest Poe thought himself as a higher intelligence to those around him, and he isn't shy to announce it.
Sharing the screen with Cusack, includes names such as Luke Evans who portrays Detective Fields, the detective I mentioned earlier that seeks Poe's assistance in the murder case. Brendan Gleeson portrays a very protective father named Charles Hamilton, who despises Poe being anywhere near his daughter Emily Hamilton, portrayed by Alice Eve. However there differences are put aside as the hunt for the missing Emily continues.
The story transitions well from scene to scene and story to story as each clue leads to the next, and eventually we discover the culprit who I shall not name here because I wish to leave the tension and suspense for you as you watch this film.
Midge (525 KP) rated The Playing Card Killer in Books
Feb 19, 2019
A Fantastic, Creepy Thriller!
Well, I have to say that I enjoyed every minute of this cracking crime/thriller!
I loved that, straight-away, Russell James introduces Brian Sheridan, who is currently on medication for anxiety-related problems. Brian decides to stop taking his medication as he thinks that he is living life through fog and haze which he hates. As a result, he is tormented by dreams of women being strangled, then left with a playing card tucked in their corpse. When he sees an apparent victim on the news, dead, Brian fears he may be the unwitting killer. Detective Eric Weissbard thinks the same thing and starts to build a case to get Brian convicted. But there's so much more to these murders…
Brian discovers that he has a brother, Tyler, with a penchant for murder. Tyler is willing to frame Brian for the crimes unless Brian wants to join Team Playing Card Killer.
Russell James’ sympathetic portrayal of the immensely likeable Brian was wonderful to read as his neuroses and delusions were laid bare and there was no hidden side to him. Brian is a troubled young man with an adoptive family with whom he barely has any sort of relationship. His girlfriend, Daniela, by contrast, is confident, and self -assured and she delivers Brian an ultimatum - either he continues with his medication or she will leave him.
I also liked Russell James’ fantastic character portrayal of Detective Weissbard who is talented, analytical and operates mostly and very successfully on gut instinct. However, he is disrespected by his colleagues and is assigned to chasing all the non-eventful leads and red herrings. That is until a jittery young guy arrives at the station, claiming to have detailed knowledge of the investigation that hasn’t been revealed.
For me, THE PLAYING CARD KILLER explores some freaky imaginings and is full of creepy vibes. It's a fantastic thriller that surprised me with a mystery that borders on a grim horror novel. I was never quite sure exactly how far off the rails Brian had gone or where the author was going next with this disturbing but exciting story. The suspense was so great that I was on the edge of my seat because I was so absorbed with Brian and Detective Weissbard.
THE PLAYING CARD KILLER held my interest from start to finish and the way in which Russell James brought everything to a conclusion was just fabulous. I loved it and it has left me eager to read more from this author. I would recommend THE PLAYING CARD KILLER to anyone who likes this genre.
[Thank you to NetGalley, Flame Tree Press and Russell James for a free ARC of this book in exchange for a voluntary, honest review.]
I loved that, straight-away, Russell James introduces Brian Sheridan, who is currently on medication for anxiety-related problems. Brian decides to stop taking his medication as he thinks that he is living life through fog and haze which he hates. As a result, he is tormented by dreams of women being strangled, then left with a playing card tucked in their corpse. When he sees an apparent victim on the news, dead, Brian fears he may be the unwitting killer. Detective Eric Weissbard thinks the same thing and starts to build a case to get Brian convicted. But there's so much more to these murders…
Brian discovers that he has a brother, Tyler, with a penchant for murder. Tyler is willing to frame Brian for the crimes unless Brian wants to join Team Playing Card Killer.
Russell James’ sympathetic portrayal of the immensely likeable Brian was wonderful to read as his neuroses and delusions were laid bare and there was no hidden side to him. Brian is a troubled young man with an adoptive family with whom he barely has any sort of relationship. His girlfriend, Daniela, by contrast, is confident, and self -assured and she delivers Brian an ultimatum - either he continues with his medication or she will leave him.
I also liked Russell James’ fantastic character portrayal of Detective Weissbard who is talented, analytical and operates mostly and very successfully on gut instinct. However, he is disrespected by his colleagues and is assigned to chasing all the non-eventful leads and red herrings. That is until a jittery young guy arrives at the station, claiming to have detailed knowledge of the investigation that hasn’t been revealed.
For me, THE PLAYING CARD KILLER explores some freaky imaginings and is full of creepy vibes. It's a fantastic thriller that surprised me with a mystery that borders on a grim horror novel. I was never quite sure exactly how far off the rails Brian had gone or where the author was going next with this disturbing but exciting story. The suspense was so great that I was on the edge of my seat because I was so absorbed with Brian and Detective Weissbard.
THE PLAYING CARD KILLER held my interest from start to finish and the way in which Russell James brought everything to a conclusion was just fabulous. I loved it and it has left me eager to read more from this author. I would recommend THE PLAYING CARD KILLER to anyone who likes this genre.
[Thank you to NetGalley, Flame Tree Press and Russell James for a free ARC of this book in exchange for a voluntary, honest review.]
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Breakdown in Books
Jan 21, 2018
Predictable (1 more)
Silly plot
Cass is driving home one rainy night--taking the back road to her house--when she sees a woman stopped by the side of the road. Cass pauses to help her, but eventually drives home without making any contact. She feels bad about not assisting, but the crazy storm prevents her from even seeing who is in the car. It's only later that her husband tells her that someone was murdered that night, and Cass realizes that it was the same woman she saw. Eventually Cass realizes it was a woman she knew, Jane, and she feels even worse. After, Cass is consumed by Jane's murder. She feels watched and is convinced the murderer is calling her house repeatedly. She's forgetting things, unable to work her household appliances, and receiving items she swears she never ordered. Is Cass truly going crazy--and is the murderer coming for her next?
This book was a weird one for me. I'm one of the few who didn't read Paris' first novel, but I'd heard all the hype and was curious to try this one. The novel relies on the unreliable narrator trope big time; I was certainly befuddled early on whether Cass was indeed an unreliable narrator going mad, or whether someone was messing with her. The problem, for me, was that I was expecting an amazing thriller, but I found the novel rather predictable from the get-go. I figured things out early on. Still, I have to give it to Paris: I felt compelled to keep reading despite it all. The book is a page-turner, for sure.
However, the plot is based on silly secrets and a lack of communication (both huge pet peeves of mine). Cass won't go to the police about seeing Jane's car simply because she doesn't want to tell her husband she took a shortcut she promised she wouldn't take? Seriously? Her friend's life is worth less than that? Further, she won't tell anyone about her dementia fears and forgetfulness. It was very frustrating and often times, I found myself more baffled than intrigued by the mystery.
In the end, this was an interesting one. I found it very predictable and honestly felt like I'd read this novel already (I swear I've read a book with a very similar plot: something that will drive me crazy forever). Still, it was compulsively readable and easy-to-read. Overall, probably about 2.5 stars for me. However, it seems like most people loved this, so take my review with a grain of salt!
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review.
This book was a weird one for me. I'm one of the few who didn't read Paris' first novel, but I'd heard all the hype and was curious to try this one. The novel relies on the unreliable narrator trope big time; I was certainly befuddled early on whether Cass was indeed an unreliable narrator going mad, or whether someone was messing with her. The problem, for me, was that I was expecting an amazing thriller, but I found the novel rather predictable from the get-go. I figured things out early on. Still, I have to give it to Paris: I felt compelled to keep reading despite it all. The book is a page-turner, for sure.
However, the plot is based on silly secrets and a lack of communication (both huge pet peeves of mine). Cass won't go to the police about seeing Jane's car simply because she doesn't want to tell her husband she took a shortcut she promised she wouldn't take? Seriously? Her friend's life is worth less than that? Further, she won't tell anyone about her dementia fears and forgetfulness. It was very frustrating and often times, I found myself more baffled than intrigued by the mystery.
In the end, this was an interesting one. I found it very predictable and honestly felt like I'd read this novel already (I swear I've read a book with a very similar plot: something that will drive me crazy forever). Still, it was compulsively readable and easy-to-read. Overall, probably about 2.5 stars for me. However, it seems like most people loved this, so take my review with a grain of salt!
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Girl from Widow Hills in Books
Jun 18, 2020
Arden Mayor was just a child when she was swept away while sleepwalking during a terrifying rainstorm and went missing for days. Then she became the miracle of her small town of Widow Hills, Kentucky when she was found clinging for life to a storm drain. Her mother, Laurel, wrote a book. The family received money, fan letters, and, yes, stalkers. Soon it became too much and when she was old enough, Arden changed her name. She became Olivia. Now, as the twentieth anniversary of the incident nears, she has her own life. No one in her new world knows about her past. But when she receives word via phone call about her mother's death, something jolts loose in Olivia. She starts sleepwalking again, waking outside her house. And then one night she awakens, outside yet again, the body of a corpse at her feet. Even worse, the man is someone she knew from her previous life as Arden. Suddenly, Olivia's right back where she started: under scrutiny and media attention. And this time, she isn't the media darling, but a murder suspect.
"I was the girl who survived. The girl who held on. The girl you prayed for, or at least pretended to pray for--thankful most of all that it wasn't your own child down there, in the dark. And after: I was the miracle. The sensation. The story."
I don't have a lot of notes from reading this, but I think it's because I was too caught up in the story. This was a twisty thriller, and I simply wanted to know what happens. You can't ask for much more in a good mystery, can you? I've read a few books lately that cast a strong shadow of doubt on the protagonist (Heather Gudenkauf's This Is How I Lied being a great example)--and Miranda does great work of it here. Olivia sleepwalks, and we have a hard time fully trusting her throughout the novel. Heck, she has a hard time trusting herself.
Of course, there are plenty of other suspects and lots of twists and turns to keep you guessing. I enjoyed the story of a girl escaping her past, only to find it catching up with her, no matter how hard she tried. We see how the media and attention can unravel even the happiest of tales, how Olivia's mother couldn't handle the pressure, how Olivia had to become a different person to survive. Why, we wonder, does society have to take a happy thing and ruin it.
"The case made all of us, and then it unmade us."
Overall, this was a fast-paced and intriguing read. Olivia is an interesting character, oddly sympathetic despite her possibility of being a murderess. 3.75 stars, rounded to 4 here.
"I was the girl who survived. The girl who held on. The girl you prayed for, or at least pretended to pray for--thankful most of all that it wasn't your own child down there, in the dark. And after: I was the miracle. The sensation. The story."
I don't have a lot of notes from reading this, but I think it's because I was too caught up in the story. This was a twisty thriller, and I simply wanted to know what happens. You can't ask for much more in a good mystery, can you? I've read a few books lately that cast a strong shadow of doubt on the protagonist (Heather Gudenkauf's This Is How I Lied being a great example)--and Miranda does great work of it here. Olivia sleepwalks, and we have a hard time fully trusting her throughout the novel. Heck, she has a hard time trusting herself.
Of course, there are plenty of other suspects and lots of twists and turns to keep you guessing. I enjoyed the story of a girl escaping her past, only to find it catching up with her, no matter how hard she tried. We see how the media and attention can unravel even the happiest of tales, how Olivia's mother couldn't handle the pressure, how Olivia had to become a different person to survive. Why, we wonder, does society have to take a happy thing and ruin it.
"The case made all of us, and then it unmade us."
Overall, this was a fast-paced and intriguing read. Olivia is an interesting character, oddly sympathetic despite her possibility of being a murderess. 3.75 stars, rounded to 4 here.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Knives Out (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Murder mystery films tend to be more fun in theory and anticipation than they are to watch. It’s a genre that I very much enjoy and have indulged in over the years. Yet, if I look back in detail at it, I find that it is the books, especially those of Agatha Christie, that I like much more than anything lasting a couple of hours on the screen. There’s something about the mystery being rushed and squeezed into the cinema artform that is usually anti-climactic or even a full on let down.
Perhaps my favourite of the entire genre is a film that refuses to take itself seriously and is at once a pastiche of the multiple cliches that have accumulated over the years. And that film is, of course, the wonderfully camp, funny and charming 1985 romp Clue, starring Tim Curry and a slough of 80s B stars having the time of their lives. It isn’t a “good” film, it is a cult film, it’s joy being in its absolute lack of pretension or moral judgement. Like the board game that inspired it, it isn’t overly complicated or long, but has just enough cleverness, mirth and ambiance about it to always be a winner.
Rian Johnson’s take on the genre, Knives Out, is aware of these elements at all times, being above all things colourful, playful, arch and glib, but never convoluted or cerebral in an alienating way. He is something of a master at subverting a genre and wringing new life into it; take the invention of the teen noir in Brick, or the blend of assassin time travel sci-fi in Looper. He even gave an entire franchise a new breath of life by re-examining the use of humour and self referencing in Star Wars: The Last Jedi.
All of those previous films have as many detractors as mega fans, proving his style is devisive, for its audacity and its irreverence towards any idea of purism within an established model. And Knives Out is no exception to that. However, it may be the film of his that most people can agree on that they enjoyed, for one reason or another. I think it’s as interesting to ask why that is as it is to talk about the film itself… so, I will. At least, I’ll try to do both without losing my train of thought.
Firstly, it looks stunning; the palate of rich colours used in the poster and all marketing just make it look like something you want to immerse yourself in – every jacket, tie, dress, or piece of furniture is designed to precision, and it works like a dream of the genre you may have once had, as if it had been plucked directly from your subconscious. As in all good murder mysteries, the location, props and costumes should hold as much character as the actors, and the stately home of the Thrombey family certainly provides plenty of atmosphere in every texture and material on display.
Of course, the cast of characters is wonderfully put together with some inspired casting of familiar faces and actors you trust, such as Toni Collette and Michael Shannon, together with a few we don’t see enough of these days, such as Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson, who both manage to create something as memorable as anything they did in their golden days. Add to the mix two bone fide action film superstars in Daniel Craig and Chris Evans, who leave the baggage of their most famous characters far behind and manage to convince you they are real actors again, the former with the aide of a jarring but hilarious Southern drawl, that grates at first but is a perfect choice on reflection.
Then there are the two lynchpins of this film’s ultimate success and joy: the exceptional legendary gravitas of 90 year old Christopher Plummer as the patriarch and victim at the centre of the intrigue, and the quite glorious revelation of Ana de Armas, whose charisma, beauty and skill in this delicately balanced role was the most impressive thing for me about the whole production. It may be Craig who is the ever present focus, as the detective tasked with solving the “crime”, but it is de Armas that you will remember most long after the credits roll.
As for the plot, well… I obviously can’t talk about it without ruining the whole thing. But, I can say that it isn’t far into the intricate web of motives, alibis and secrets before you start to sense this is going somewhere different, even unique. The examination of the relationships and personalities, and the extent to which they each demonstrate greed and selfishness is fascinating, superceding the crime that exists on the surface with a swamp of far seedier and unpleasant goings-on. Craig’s suave Benoit Blanc isn’t so much a detective here as a family therapist, or perhaps a supernatural presence in the style of the old classic, An Inspector Calls. Perhaps, it is suggested, no one completely escapes guilt and shame here… or do they? Are we looking for a murderer, or the only morally good person amidst a pack of dogs?
Another key element is how modern and unstuffy it feels, despite the country house and riches this is no play of manners, quite the opposite – no one here is on their best behaviour for the sake of decorum, and being upper class is an idea played with rather than enforced. The tea and cakes of the classic Christie, such as Murder on the Orient Express is replaced by smartphones and similar trappings, that identify it as definitely 2019 and no period piece. The concerns and themes are very much rooted in our present problems, and for that it engages and resonates in ways a costume drama just can’t do.
Upon finishing it for the first time, you may be thinking “sure, OK, I enjoyed that… but I’m not blown away here”. Then, as it sinks in over coming weeks, you find yourself recommending it to people, and thinking about how good it is in ways you didn’t initially think about. And that is surely why it was so embraced by the critics and paying public alike; it is a likeable, fun film, that can also stand some artistic scrutiny. It isn’t the smartest, or prettiest, or most meaningful film ever made, but it is enough of all three to make it an instant mini-classic, in my opinion.
I feel like there is maybe more to say about it, which is always a good sign, but that will do for now. I’d be happy to discuss it with anyone that feels the need. Or hear from anyone that didn’t like it! It would be interesting to hear that side of it, because I haven’t heard many negative comments on it at all. I don’t think I would defend it as a masterpiece to the end of the Earth, ‘cos it ain’t that good. I’m just hard pressed to find a serious fault. And it’s great when one of those sneaks up on you!
Perhaps my favourite of the entire genre is a film that refuses to take itself seriously and is at once a pastiche of the multiple cliches that have accumulated over the years. And that film is, of course, the wonderfully camp, funny and charming 1985 romp Clue, starring Tim Curry and a slough of 80s B stars having the time of their lives. It isn’t a “good” film, it is a cult film, it’s joy being in its absolute lack of pretension or moral judgement. Like the board game that inspired it, it isn’t overly complicated or long, but has just enough cleverness, mirth and ambiance about it to always be a winner.
Rian Johnson’s take on the genre, Knives Out, is aware of these elements at all times, being above all things colourful, playful, arch and glib, but never convoluted or cerebral in an alienating way. He is something of a master at subverting a genre and wringing new life into it; take the invention of the teen noir in Brick, or the blend of assassin time travel sci-fi in Looper. He even gave an entire franchise a new breath of life by re-examining the use of humour and self referencing in Star Wars: The Last Jedi.
All of those previous films have as many detractors as mega fans, proving his style is devisive, for its audacity and its irreverence towards any idea of purism within an established model. And Knives Out is no exception to that. However, it may be the film of his that most people can agree on that they enjoyed, for one reason or another. I think it’s as interesting to ask why that is as it is to talk about the film itself… so, I will. At least, I’ll try to do both without losing my train of thought.
Firstly, it looks stunning; the palate of rich colours used in the poster and all marketing just make it look like something you want to immerse yourself in – every jacket, tie, dress, or piece of furniture is designed to precision, and it works like a dream of the genre you may have once had, as if it had been plucked directly from your subconscious. As in all good murder mysteries, the location, props and costumes should hold as much character as the actors, and the stately home of the Thrombey family certainly provides plenty of atmosphere in every texture and material on display.
Of course, the cast of characters is wonderfully put together with some inspired casting of familiar faces and actors you trust, such as Toni Collette and Michael Shannon, together with a few we don’t see enough of these days, such as Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson, who both manage to create something as memorable as anything they did in their golden days. Add to the mix two bone fide action film superstars in Daniel Craig and Chris Evans, who leave the baggage of their most famous characters far behind and manage to convince you they are real actors again, the former with the aide of a jarring but hilarious Southern drawl, that grates at first but is a perfect choice on reflection.
Then there are the two lynchpins of this film’s ultimate success and joy: the exceptional legendary gravitas of 90 year old Christopher Plummer as the patriarch and victim at the centre of the intrigue, and the quite glorious revelation of Ana de Armas, whose charisma, beauty and skill in this delicately balanced role was the most impressive thing for me about the whole production. It may be Craig who is the ever present focus, as the detective tasked with solving the “crime”, but it is de Armas that you will remember most long after the credits roll.
As for the plot, well… I obviously can’t talk about it without ruining the whole thing. But, I can say that it isn’t far into the intricate web of motives, alibis and secrets before you start to sense this is going somewhere different, even unique. The examination of the relationships and personalities, and the extent to which they each demonstrate greed and selfishness is fascinating, superceding the crime that exists on the surface with a swamp of far seedier and unpleasant goings-on. Craig’s suave Benoit Blanc isn’t so much a detective here as a family therapist, or perhaps a supernatural presence in the style of the old classic, An Inspector Calls. Perhaps, it is suggested, no one completely escapes guilt and shame here… or do they? Are we looking for a murderer, or the only morally good person amidst a pack of dogs?
Another key element is how modern and unstuffy it feels, despite the country house and riches this is no play of manners, quite the opposite – no one here is on their best behaviour for the sake of decorum, and being upper class is an idea played with rather than enforced. The tea and cakes of the classic Christie, such as Murder on the Orient Express is replaced by smartphones and similar trappings, that identify it as definitely 2019 and no period piece. The concerns and themes are very much rooted in our present problems, and for that it engages and resonates in ways a costume drama just can’t do.
Upon finishing it for the first time, you may be thinking “sure, OK, I enjoyed that… but I’m not blown away here”. Then, as it sinks in over coming weeks, you find yourself recommending it to people, and thinking about how good it is in ways you didn’t initially think about. And that is surely why it was so embraced by the critics and paying public alike; it is a likeable, fun film, that can also stand some artistic scrutiny. It isn’t the smartest, or prettiest, or most meaningful film ever made, but it is enough of all three to make it an instant mini-classic, in my opinion.
I feel like there is maybe more to say about it, which is always a good sign, but that will do for now. I’d be happy to discuss it with anyone that feels the need. Or hear from anyone that didn’t like it! It would be interesting to hear that side of it, because I haven’t heard many negative comments on it at all. I don’t think I would defend it as a masterpiece to the end of the Earth, ‘cos it ain’t that good. I’m just hard pressed to find a serious fault. And it’s great when one of those sneaks up on you!
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Sweet Little Lies in Books
Mar 18, 2019
Perplexing, well-written tale
Young Detective Constable Catrina (Cat) Kinsella hasn't had the easiest of lives--she didn't get along well with her father and her mother has since passed away. At twenty-six, Cat is in counseling after a traumatic incident while on the job, and she spends most of her nights alone, plagued by insomnia. She isn't close to her family, including her father, sister, or brother. Her latest case is that of thirty-five-year old Alice Lapaine, who is found murdered and dumped in Leamington Square. Alice too led a solitary life, spending weeks away from her husband, Thomas, who quickly becomes the team's top suspect. But then they receive a call--Alice isn't Alice, but rather Maryanne Doyle, a teenager who went missing in Ireland nearly twenty years ago. Suddenly, Cat's world is upside down. After all, she knew Maryanne, whom her family met while visiting Cat's grandmother when Cat was eight. And Cat has always suspected her father had something to do with Maryanne's sudden disappearance. Cat chooses not to tell her DCI about the linkages between Maryanne and her father, but this choice may have serious consequences: for Cat, her career, and her entire family.
"I feel it's necessary to make clear that I know nothing about what happened to Maryanne Doyle, the girl who went to Riley's for hairspray and never came back. I have my suspicions, of course. I speculate plenty, especially after white wine. But when it comes right down to it, I actually know nothing. The same cannot be said of my father."
This was an interesting, complicated tale. The mystery aspect of it was actually really fascinating, with the linkages slowly building between Alice and Maryanne, as we try to figure out what happened between Maryanne disappearing as a teen, her becoming Alice and then winding up murdered. Overall, I really enjoyed that part of the book. Frear has a lot of good surprises for us, and I was kept guessing for most of the novel.
The personal side of the book was a little harder for me. Don't get me wrong, I did like Cat. She certainly is a complicated character. I have to admit that characters that don't tell the truth or narratives that revolve around this aspect of keeping the truth hidden can be a bit of a pet peeve of mine. So basically an entire book that involves the main character keeping such a big secret (my Dad knew my murder victim, who was found a few paces outside the pub he owns)--that was tough for me. The more involved Cat gets in her case and the more entwined the case becomes with her own life and past: ugh. It all felt a little wrong and icky for me.
Honestly, I probably would have enjoyed this book more if the personal ties to Cat weren't there, or weren't so strong. I recognize they existed to give her depth and add more to the story and case, but they just made me uncomfortable and almost added an extra layer to the mystery that I felt wasn't necessary. Things were already twisty enough, it seemed as we didn't need this whole additional convoluted element with Cat's family. But maybe that's just me and my aversion to lying and such. (I don't even like when this happens in movies and eventually you know it's all going to come out and bad things will happen.)
This is not a simple book, and the story told is a perplexing and sophisticated one: you really have to be ready to follow along. On the plus side, it's original, and the characters are rather unique. I'm intrigued that it looks like Cat will be part of a series. I did like this book, even if some elements were a little harder for me to enjoy, and it was well-written. I'd certainly pick up the next book in a series and perhaps if her family wasn't so entwined in her case, enjoy it even more.
I received a copy of this book from the publisher and Edelweiss in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
"I feel it's necessary to make clear that I know nothing about what happened to Maryanne Doyle, the girl who went to Riley's for hairspray and never came back. I have my suspicions, of course. I speculate plenty, especially after white wine. But when it comes right down to it, I actually know nothing. The same cannot be said of my father."
This was an interesting, complicated tale. The mystery aspect of it was actually really fascinating, with the linkages slowly building between Alice and Maryanne, as we try to figure out what happened between Maryanne disappearing as a teen, her becoming Alice and then winding up murdered. Overall, I really enjoyed that part of the book. Frear has a lot of good surprises for us, and I was kept guessing for most of the novel.
The personal side of the book was a little harder for me. Don't get me wrong, I did like Cat. She certainly is a complicated character. I have to admit that characters that don't tell the truth or narratives that revolve around this aspect of keeping the truth hidden can be a bit of a pet peeve of mine. So basically an entire book that involves the main character keeping such a big secret (my Dad knew my murder victim, who was found a few paces outside the pub he owns)--that was tough for me. The more involved Cat gets in her case and the more entwined the case becomes with her own life and past: ugh. It all felt a little wrong and icky for me.
Honestly, I probably would have enjoyed this book more if the personal ties to Cat weren't there, or weren't so strong. I recognize they existed to give her depth and add more to the story and case, but they just made me uncomfortable and almost added an extra layer to the mystery that I felt wasn't necessary. Things were already twisty enough, it seemed as we didn't need this whole additional convoluted element with Cat's family. But maybe that's just me and my aversion to lying and such. (I don't even like when this happens in movies and eventually you know it's all going to come out and bad things will happen.)
This is not a simple book, and the story told is a perplexing and sophisticated one: you really have to be ready to follow along. On the plus side, it's original, and the characters are rather unique. I'm intrigued that it looks like Cat will be part of a series. I did like this book, even if some elements were a little harder for me to enjoy, and it was well-written. I'd certainly pick up the next book in a series and perhaps if her family wasn't so entwined in her case, enjoy it even more.
I received a copy of this book from the publisher and Edelweiss in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Crime Scene: The Vanishing at the Cecil Hotel in TV
Feb 22, 2021
Scarily glamourises internet sleuthing
Crime Scene: The Vanishing at the Cecil Hotel is the latest stylised true crime documentary from Netflix, and it’s a pretty scary watch, but not in the way you’d expect from something that has been advertised as a supernatural murder mystery.
The 4 episode documentary series focuses on a notorious hotel in downtown L.A, Hotel Cecil, and the disappearance of a Canadian student, Elisa Lam, who went missing from the hotel in unexplained circumstances and who was later found dead. On paper this has everything a true crime lover wants: CCTV footage of the victim acting strangely, a creepy hotel with a dodgy history and a lot of strange and unusual circumstances, which culminates in Elisa Lam’s decomposing body being found in a water tank on the hotel roof days after her disappearance, the same water that the hotel guests have been drinking all along. It’s a truly fascinating story and if done properly, would have been very interesting. However in the hands of director Joe Berlinger, the disappearance of Elisa Lam has been turned into a dull, drawn out affair that dangerously glamourises baseless conspiracy theories.
One of the two main problems is that this documentary has been drawn out over 4 hour long episodes, when realistically the true story of Elisa Lam’s disappearance could still have been told effectively in an hour, maybe two maximum, without detracting from the facts. And I guess that’s really the problem with The Vanishing at the Cecil Hotel, it isn’t necessarily all that concerned about the facts but rather just wants to create a film-like entertaining story, with the facts almost an afterthought crammed into the final parts of the last episode. It features lengthy and pointless interviews from other guests and tourists to try and give us a feel of what life at the Cecil was like, and these are entirely unnecessary, as some short exposition from the hotel manager or officers involved would’ve sufficed. Every part of this case is stretched so thinly that you almost lose track after having to weed out the truth and facts amongst all the irrelevant interviews and chatter. It isn’t helped by the narration of some of Elisa’s Tumblr posts, which comes across as cheesy and irritating rather than emotional and meaningful like it was probably intended.
What is most irrelevant and dangerous about this documentary, and the second main problem, is the focus on internet sleuths. These are mostly YouTubers who have spent hours dissecting every aspect of the case and have put forward many outrageous theories, all of which are completely laughable. But instead of mocking these idiots, this documentary glamourises them and their theories, and has dedicated more of it’s runtime to them than it has to any of the real life detectives and investigators involved. Watching these people wheel out one ridiculous theory after another had me wanting to throw my remote at the screen to make it stop. The theories ranged from the questionably plausible (foul player or murder) to the downright ludicrous - someone copying the film Dark Water, possible links to the Lam-Elisa TB test and a vast cover up jointly orchestrated by the police, hotel management and coroners staff are the ones that made me laugh and cringe the most.
All jokes aside, this focus on internet sleuths is extremely damaging and dangerous and this is illustrated by the awful accusations they made about Pablo Vergara aka Morbid, who’s only crime was to make music that wouldn’t be considered mainstream. If this documentary had focused on slamming these people and highlighting the dangers of them getting involved, then it would’ve redeemed itself. But it doesn’t, it gives them centre stage and debunking their theories is almost an afterthought. They aren’t even condemned for their treatment of Pablo despite the obviously long lasting effects on his mental health. These people are crazy and this only serves to highlight the huge problem with internet, video streaming sites and social media – how Joe public can ever think they know better than qualified pathologists and investigators is beyond me. And how this documentary can indulge and glamourise these people is even worse. From working a day job in the emergency services, I know how damaging this sort of interference and public perception can be.
The story of Elisa Lam’s disappearance at the Hotel Cecil is undoubtedly an interesting one. However in Crime Scene: The Vanishing at the Cecil Hotel, the real story has been mauled and disrespected by the focus and respect given to the internet sleuths and their absurd theories. I feel like I’m being generous giving it a 3, it made me so angry.
The 4 episode documentary series focuses on a notorious hotel in downtown L.A, Hotel Cecil, and the disappearance of a Canadian student, Elisa Lam, who went missing from the hotel in unexplained circumstances and who was later found dead. On paper this has everything a true crime lover wants: CCTV footage of the victim acting strangely, a creepy hotel with a dodgy history and a lot of strange and unusual circumstances, which culminates in Elisa Lam’s decomposing body being found in a water tank on the hotel roof days after her disappearance, the same water that the hotel guests have been drinking all along. It’s a truly fascinating story and if done properly, would have been very interesting. However in the hands of director Joe Berlinger, the disappearance of Elisa Lam has been turned into a dull, drawn out affair that dangerously glamourises baseless conspiracy theories.
One of the two main problems is that this documentary has been drawn out over 4 hour long episodes, when realistically the true story of Elisa Lam’s disappearance could still have been told effectively in an hour, maybe two maximum, without detracting from the facts. And I guess that’s really the problem with The Vanishing at the Cecil Hotel, it isn’t necessarily all that concerned about the facts but rather just wants to create a film-like entertaining story, with the facts almost an afterthought crammed into the final parts of the last episode. It features lengthy and pointless interviews from other guests and tourists to try and give us a feel of what life at the Cecil was like, and these are entirely unnecessary, as some short exposition from the hotel manager or officers involved would’ve sufficed. Every part of this case is stretched so thinly that you almost lose track after having to weed out the truth and facts amongst all the irrelevant interviews and chatter. It isn’t helped by the narration of some of Elisa’s Tumblr posts, which comes across as cheesy and irritating rather than emotional and meaningful like it was probably intended.
What is most irrelevant and dangerous about this documentary, and the second main problem, is the focus on internet sleuths. These are mostly YouTubers who have spent hours dissecting every aspect of the case and have put forward many outrageous theories, all of which are completely laughable. But instead of mocking these idiots, this documentary glamourises them and their theories, and has dedicated more of it’s runtime to them than it has to any of the real life detectives and investigators involved. Watching these people wheel out one ridiculous theory after another had me wanting to throw my remote at the screen to make it stop. The theories ranged from the questionably plausible (foul player or murder) to the downright ludicrous - someone copying the film Dark Water, possible links to the Lam-Elisa TB test and a vast cover up jointly orchestrated by the police, hotel management and coroners staff are the ones that made me laugh and cringe the most.
All jokes aside, this focus on internet sleuths is extremely damaging and dangerous and this is illustrated by the awful accusations they made about Pablo Vergara aka Morbid, who’s only crime was to make music that wouldn’t be considered mainstream. If this documentary had focused on slamming these people and highlighting the dangers of them getting involved, then it would’ve redeemed itself. But it doesn’t, it gives them centre stage and debunking their theories is almost an afterthought. They aren’t even condemned for their treatment of Pablo despite the obviously long lasting effects on his mental health. These people are crazy and this only serves to highlight the huge problem with internet, video streaming sites and social media – how Joe public can ever think they know better than qualified pathologists and investigators is beyond me. And how this documentary can indulge and glamourise these people is even worse. From working a day job in the emergency services, I know how damaging this sort of interference and public perception can be.
The story of Elisa Lam’s disappearance at the Hotel Cecil is undoubtedly an interesting one. However in Crime Scene: The Vanishing at the Cecil Hotel, the real story has been mauled and disrespected by the focus and respect given to the internet sleuths and their absurd theories. I feel like I’m being generous giving it a 3, it made me so angry.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated His and Hers in Books
Aug 3, 2020
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Book-Review-Banner-55.png"/>;
With His and Hers by Alice Feeney, prepare to jump on a ride where one murder will open up the gates of the past, and expose a lot of people in a very brutal way.
I am extremely happy and proud I can be part of the blog tour for this book!
<b><i>Synopsis:</i></b>
When a woman is murdered in Blackdown village, Anna Andrews needs to go there to cover the story. However, her hometown brings back a lot of unwanted memories.
Her ex-husband, DCI Jack Harper is investigating the murder and is very suspicious of Anna's involvement. That is, until he becomes a suspect himself.
<b><i>My Thoughts: </i></b>
I have to admit, at the beginning I though this will be a domestic thriller, and I am not too keen on them. I enjoy them, but I prefer psychological thrillers more. It turned out that His and Hers is not only a psychological thriller, but also a very well written one. I have only read one book from Alice Feeney before,<a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2798981407?book_show_action=false&from_review_page=1">I Know Who You Are</a>, and I also enjoyed it, so I was expecting to enjoy this one as well.
<b><i>The chapters are split into three points of view.</i></b>
The first one is Her - Anna's point of view. The second one is Him - Jack's story. The third one is the point of view of the killer, who has their own thoughts and explanations. And the beautiful thing about the third point of view is that we don't know who it might be until the very end of the book. That point of view is so well written, that I kept guessing who it might be, and kept changing my mind. At the end, the answer was so surprising and satisfying in the end. And once I knew who the killer is, I went back and read those pages again, and they had a completely another meaning for me. Kudos to Alice for making this possible, as I know not everyone can manage to do this!
<b><i>"And I pay attention to the little things, because they are often the biggest clues to who a person really is. People rarely see themselves the way others do; we all carry broken mirrors."
Dementia</i></b>
The book also briefly focuses on Dementia, and we get to experience the moment Anna realises her mother is ill. For me, this had a special meaning, having experience working with people suffering from dementia, and the writing of the symptoms was very accurate. The reaction of Anna was quite accurate as well, in terms of how hard it was to notice, but also how much harder is to actually accept this fact.
<b><i>"Mum doesn't always remember that I'm thirty-six and live in London. She frequently forgets that I have a job, and that I used to have a husband and a child of my own. She didn't even seem to know that it was my birthday. There was no card this year, or last, but it's not her fault. Time is something my mother has forgotten how to tell. It moves differently for her now, often backwards instead of forwards. Dementia stole time from my mother, and stole my mother from me."</i></b>
If you get to read His and Hers, prepare for many twists, many mysteries, a lot of drama and betrayals. The ending was the most satisfying part for me, but I enjoyed this book all the way through and struggled to put it down. I recommend it to everyone that is in love with mystery thrillers, especially the ones that focus on the psychological aspect.
<b><i>"Youth fools us into thinking there are infinite paths to choose from in life; maturity tricks us into thinking there is only one."</i></b>
Thank you to the HQ Team, for sending me an ARC copy of this book in exchange for an honest review!
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Book-Review-Banner-55.png"/>;
With His and Hers by Alice Feeney, prepare to jump on a ride where one murder will open up the gates of the past, and expose a lot of people in a very brutal way.
I am extremely happy and proud I can be part of the blog tour for this book!
<b><i>Synopsis:</i></b>
When a woman is murdered in Blackdown village, Anna Andrews needs to go there to cover the story. However, her hometown brings back a lot of unwanted memories.
Her ex-husband, DCI Jack Harper is investigating the murder and is very suspicious of Anna's involvement. That is, until he becomes a suspect himself.
<b><i>My Thoughts: </i></b>
I have to admit, at the beginning I though this will be a domestic thriller, and I am not too keen on them. I enjoy them, but I prefer psychological thrillers more. It turned out that His and Hers is not only a psychological thriller, but also a very well written one. I have only read one book from Alice Feeney before,<a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2798981407?book_show_action=false&from_review_page=1">I Know Who You Are</a>, and I also enjoyed it, so I was expecting to enjoy this one as well.
<b><i>The chapters are split into three points of view.</i></b>
The first one is Her - Anna's point of view. The second one is Him - Jack's story. The third one is the point of view of the killer, who has their own thoughts and explanations. And the beautiful thing about the third point of view is that we don't know who it might be until the very end of the book. That point of view is so well written, that I kept guessing who it might be, and kept changing my mind. At the end, the answer was so surprising and satisfying in the end. And once I knew who the killer is, I went back and read those pages again, and they had a completely another meaning for me. Kudos to Alice for making this possible, as I know not everyone can manage to do this!
<b><i>"And I pay attention to the little things, because they are often the biggest clues to who a person really is. People rarely see themselves the way others do; we all carry broken mirrors."
Dementia</i></b>
The book also briefly focuses on Dementia, and we get to experience the moment Anna realises her mother is ill. For me, this had a special meaning, having experience working with people suffering from dementia, and the writing of the symptoms was very accurate. The reaction of Anna was quite accurate as well, in terms of how hard it was to notice, but also how much harder is to actually accept this fact.
<b><i>"Mum doesn't always remember that I'm thirty-six and live in London. She frequently forgets that I have a job, and that I used to have a husband and a child of my own. She didn't even seem to know that it was my birthday. There was no card this year, or last, but it's not her fault. Time is something my mother has forgotten how to tell. It moves differently for her now, often backwards instead of forwards. Dementia stole time from my mother, and stole my mother from me."</i></b>
If you get to read His and Hers, prepare for many twists, many mysteries, a lot of drama and betrayals. The ending was the most satisfying part for me, but I enjoyed this book all the way through and struggled to put it down. I recommend it to everyone that is in love with mystery thrillers, especially the ones that focus on the psychological aspect.
<b><i>"Youth fools us into thinking there are infinite paths to choose from in life; maturity tricks us into thinking there is only one."</i></b>
Thank you to the HQ Team, for sending me an ARC copy of this book in exchange for an honest review!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Murder on the Orient Express (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
You’ll never guess who dunnit…
There’s a big problem with Kenneth Branagh’s 2017 filming of the Hercule Poirot-based murder mystery…. and that’s the 1974 Sidney Lumet classic featuring Albert Finney in the starring role. For that film was so memorable – at least, the “who” of the “whodunnit” (no spoilers here) was so memorable – that any remake is likely to be tarnished by that knowledge. If you go into this film blissfully unaware of the plot, you are a lucky man/woman. For this is a classic Agatha Christie yarn.
The irascible, borderline OCD, but undeniably great Belgian detective, Poirot, is dragged around the world by grateful police forces to help solve unsolvable crimes. After solving a case in Jerusalem, Poirot is called back to the UK with his mode of transport being the famous Orient Express. Trapped in the mountains by an avalanche, a murder is committed and with multiple suspects and a plethora of clues it is up to Poirot to solve the case.
Branagh enjoys himself enormously as Poirot, sporting the most distractingly magnificent facial hair since Daniel Day-Lewis in “The Gangs of New York”. The moustache must have had its own trailer and make-up team!
Above all, the film is glorious to look at, featuring a rich and exotic colour palette that is reminiscent of the early colour films of the 40’s. Cinematography was by Haris Zambarloukos (“Mamma Mia” and who also collaborated with Branagh on “Thor) with lots of innovative “ceiling down” shots and artful point-of-view takes that might be annoying to some but which I consider as deserving of Oscar/BAFTA nominations.
The pictures are accompanied by a lush score by Patrick Doyle (who also scored Branagh’s “Thor”). Hats off also to the special effects crew, who made the alpine bridge scenes look decidedly more alpine than where they were actually filmed (on a specially made bridge in the Surrey Hills!).
All these technical elements combine to make the film’s early stages look and feel truly epic.
And the cast… what a cast! Dame Judi Dench (“Victoria and Abdul“); Olivia Coleman (“The Lobster“); Johnny Depp (“Black Mass“); Daisy Ridley (“Star Wars: The Force Awakens“); Penélope Cruz (“Zoolander 2“); Josh Gad (Olaf!); Derek Jacobi (“I, Claudius”); Willem Dafoe (“The Great Wall“) and Michelle Pfeiffer (“mother!“). A real case again of an “oh, it’s you” film again at the cinema – when’s the last time we saw that?
It’s also great to see young Lucy Boynton, so magnificent in last year’s excellent “Sing Street“, getting an A-list role as the twitchy and disturbed countess.
With all these ingredients in the pot, it should be great, right? Unfortunately, in my view, no, not quite. The film’s opening momentum is really not maintained by the screenplay by Michael Green (“Blade Runner 2049“; “Logan“). At heart, it’s a fairly static and “stagey” piece at best, set as it is on the rather claustrophobic train (just three carriages… on the Orient Express… really?). But the tale is made even more static by the train’s derailment in the snow. Branagh and Green try to sex up the action where they can, but there are lengthy passages of fairly repetitive dialogue. One encounter in particular between Branagh and Depp seems to last interminably: you wonder if the problem was that the director wasn’t always looking on to yell “Cut”!
All this leads to the “revelation” of the murderer as being a bit of an anticlimactic “thank heavens for that” rather than the gasping denouement it should have been. (Perhaps this would be different if you didn’t know the twist).
However, these reservations aside, it’s an enjoyable night out at the flicks, although a bit of a disappointment from the level of expectation I had for it. I can’t be too grumpy about it, given it’s a return to good old-fashioned yarn-spinning at the cinema, with great visuals and an epic cast. And that has to be good news.
For sure, Branagh does make for an amusing and engaging Poirot, even if his dialogue did need some ‘tuning in’ to. There was a suggestion at the end of the film that we might be seeing his return in “Death on the Nile” – the most lush and decorous of Peter Ustinov’s outings – which I would certainly welcome. He will have to find another 10 A-list stars though to decorate the boat, which will be a challenge for casting!
The irascible, borderline OCD, but undeniably great Belgian detective, Poirot, is dragged around the world by grateful police forces to help solve unsolvable crimes. After solving a case in Jerusalem, Poirot is called back to the UK with his mode of transport being the famous Orient Express. Trapped in the mountains by an avalanche, a murder is committed and with multiple suspects and a plethora of clues it is up to Poirot to solve the case.
Branagh enjoys himself enormously as Poirot, sporting the most distractingly magnificent facial hair since Daniel Day-Lewis in “The Gangs of New York”. The moustache must have had its own trailer and make-up team!
Above all, the film is glorious to look at, featuring a rich and exotic colour palette that is reminiscent of the early colour films of the 40’s. Cinematography was by Haris Zambarloukos (“Mamma Mia” and who also collaborated with Branagh on “Thor) with lots of innovative “ceiling down” shots and artful point-of-view takes that might be annoying to some but which I consider as deserving of Oscar/BAFTA nominations.
The pictures are accompanied by a lush score by Patrick Doyle (who also scored Branagh’s “Thor”). Hats off also to the special effects crew, who made the alpine bridge scenes look decidedly more alpine than where they were actually filmed (on a specially made bridge in the Surrey Hills!).
All these technical elements combine to make the film’s early stages look and feel truly epic.
And the cast… what a cast! Dame Judi Dench (“Victoria and Abdul“); Olivia Coleman (“The Lobster“); Johnny Depp (“Black Mass“); Daisy Ridley (“Star Wars: The Force Awakens“); Penélope Cruz (“Zoolander 2“); Josh Gad (Olaf!); Derek Jacobi (“I, Claudius”); Willem Dafoe (“The Great Wall“) and Michelle Pfeiffer (“mother!“). A real case again of an “oh, it’s you” film again at the cinema – when’s the last time we saw that?
It’s also great to see young Lucy Boynton, so magnificent in last year’s excellent “Sing Street“, getting an A-list role as the twitchy and disturbed countess.
With all these ingredients in the pot, it should be great, right? Unfortunately, in my view, no, not quite. The film’s opening momentum is really not maintained by the screenplay by Michael Green (“Blade Runner 2049“; “Logan“). At heart, it’s a fairly static and “stagey” piece at best, set as it is on the rather claustrophobic train (just three carriages… on the Orient Express… really?). But the tale is made even more static by the train’s derailment in the snow. Branagh and Green try to sex up the action where they can, but there are lengthy passages of fairly repetitive dialogue. One encounter in particular between Branagh and Depp seems to last interminably: you wonder if the problem was that the director wasn’t always looking on to yell “Cut”!
All this leads to the “revelation” of the murderer as being a bit of an anticlimactic “thank heavens for that” rather than the gasping denouement it should have been. (Perhaps this would be different if you didn’t know the twist).
However, these reservations aside, it’s an enjoyable night out at the flicks, although a bit of a disappointment from the level of expectation I had for it. I can’t be too grumpy about it, given it’s a return to good old-fashioned yarn-spinning at the cinema, with great visuals and an epic cast. And that has to be good news.
For sure, Branagh does make for an amusing and engaging Poirot, even if his dialogue did need some ‘tuning in’ to. There was a suggestion at the end of the film that we might be seeing his return in “Death on the Nile” – the most lush and decorous of Peter Ustinov’s outings – which I would certainly welcome. He will have to find another 10 A-list stars though to decorate the boat, which will be a challenge for casting!
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 KP) rated State of Play (2009) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In the corridors of the nation’s capital, Washington D.C. alliances and wheeling and dealing are the name of the game. With billions if not trillions of dollars hinging on new laws and policy, corporations clearly have an interest in which way the political winds are leaning and how it will affect their all important bottom line.
In the political thriller “State of Play”, Director Kevin MacDonald has combined a stellar cast with a strong script from Tony Gilroy, Billy Ray, and Matthew Michael Carnahan to craft one of the best dramas since Gilroy’s “Michael Clayton”.
When the lead researcher of Congressman Stephen Collins (Ben Affleck), dies in an accident, it is a devastating blow to the young Congressman as he prepares for a series of hearings intended to cull the growth of a private security firm.
What is at first listed as an accident raises suspicion in veteran news reporter Cal McAffrey (Russell Crowe), who has had a long friendship, with Collins. Despite tension in recent years, Collins turns to Cal when it is revealed that he had an affair with his researcher. As Cal looks into the story he is under pressure from his editor (Helen Mirren), to deliver a story to keep the papers new owners happy. If this was not bad enough, Cal is also dogged by an online reporter for the paper named Della (Rachael McAdams), who is looking to make a name for herself at the paper.
Cal soon learns that the assistant was killed in what was made to look like an accident, and that a shooting incident that occurred prior to the death may be related to the murder.
Cal teams up with Della and soon learns that some very big players may be involved and that they will stop at nothing to protect their secret.
In a race against time, Cal and Della must get to the bottom of the mystery and stay alive. Unsure who to trust and which way their leads will follow, Cal and Della look for the answers that unaware that the quest they have undertaken will affect the halls of power as well as the very nation itself.
“State of Play” is a very tight thriller that is filled with twists and turns. The characters are interesting and well developed and the performances are first rate. Crowe is powerful as the determined Cal and works well with Affleck and Adams. Robin Wright Penn and Helen Mirren also give very strong performances.
The story of the film seems ripped from the headlines and has an eerie sense of reality to it, and works much better than “The International” attempted to do with its conspiracy premise.
While I have avoided as many spoilers as I could, suffice it to say that the film does have a deep plot that twists and turns to a rewarding conclusion and will keep your attention. I would hope that the fine work in this film is not forgotten when the Oscars come up next.
In the political thriller “State of Play”, Director Kevin MacDonald has combined a stellar cast with a strong script from Tony Gilroy, Billy Ray, and Matthew Michael Carnahan to craft one of the best dramas since Gilroy’s “Michael Clayton”.
When the lead researcher of Congressman Stephen Collins (Ben Affleck), dies in an accident, it is a devastating blow to the young Congressman as he prepares for a series of hearings intended to cull the growth of a private security firm.
What is at first listed as an accident raises suspicion in veteran news reporter Cal McAffrey (Russell Crowe), who has had a long friendship, with Collins. Despite tension in recent years, Collins turns to Cal when it is revealed that he had an affair with his researcher. As Cal looks into the story he is under pressure from his editor (Helen Mirren), to deliver a story to keep the papers new owners happy. If this was not bad enough, Cal is also dogged by an online reporter for the paper named Della (Rachael McAdams), who is looking to make a name for herself at the paper.
Cal soon learns that the assistant was killed in what was made to look like an accident, and that a shooting incident that occurred prior to the death may be related to the murder.
Cal teams up with Della and soon learns that some very big players may be involved and that they will stop at nothing to protect their secret.
In a race against time, Cal and Della must get to the bottom of the mystery and stay alive. Unsure who to trust and which way their leads will follow, Cal and Della look for the answers that unaware that the quest they have undertaken will affect the halls of power as well as the very nation itself.
“State of Play” is a very tight thriller that is filled with twists and turns. The characters are interesting and well developed and the performances are first rate. Crowe is powerful as the determined Cal and works well with Affleck and Adams. Robin Wright Penn and Helen Mirren also give very strong performances.
The story of the film seems ripped from the headlines and has an eerie sense of reality to it, and works much better than “The International” attempted to do with its conspiracy premise.
While I have avoided as many spoilers as I could, suffice it to say that the film does have a deep plot that twists and turns to a rewarding conclusion and will keep your attention. I would hope that the fine work in this film is not forgotten when the Oscars come up next.
Dean (6925 KP) Jul 26, 2017
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) Jul 27, 2017