Search
Search results
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Rope (1948) in Movies
Sep 18, 2019
80 minutes of magic!
Two men, the charismatic and charming Phillip, and the cowardly and sheepish Brandon have just strangled their mutual friend, David, and are holding him in their arms. To dispose of the body, they decide on the bold move a placing it in a large trunk in the middle of the living room of their high rise apartment building. They don't have much time to discuss their situation before guests start arriving for their dinner party which had been planned beforehand.
After the guests arrive, the usual small talk and chit chat commences with those attending including David fiance and a former college professor of the men. After the idle conversation starts to bore, it is mentioned how interesting it would be to murder someone and the consequences of doing so. It's no dig deal to dispose of people you don't like is it? Some party-goers are not keen on this conversation and lead it in a new direction eventually focusing on the missing David who has not yet arrived.
Eventually, the unresolved issue of David's absence is brushed aside for the moment and the guests leave to go about their lives. The college professor returns after having been given verbal clues in the former conversations about the nefarious activity of Phillip and David as well as some physical ones. He confronts the duo and David is unable to hold back.
The mystery has been revealed and the men have to deal with the fallout and consequences.
The physical limitation of the amount of film cameras of the day were able to hold was the only drawback for the way Hitchcock managed to shoot this film. There are only 10 total shots within the film ranging from 4 to 10 minutes. The cuts were achieved through normal editing, but also the actors and camera intersecting for brief moments where a momentary black frame would occur continuing the action right after this moment.
I can't even imagine the amount of rehearsal and takes would have been necessary for both the actors and production crew to orchestrate visual and vocal cues and not making mistakes for such a long time for each shot to be completed successfully. The film feels much like a stage production having all the scenes occur mainly in the living room and foyer areas, but that had to be by design.
With no elaborate staging, the audience is left to enjoy the masterful screenplay nonstop and trying to figure out if the two murderers will actually be able to dissuade blame or be confronted with the guilt.
One of many Jimmy Stewart's many Hitchcock collaborations, his performance mostly gets overlooked here in comparison to Vertigo and Rear Window; however, once he arrives at the party it is kind to see him and he delivers another captivating and motivated performance.
In the current days of digital filmmaking and continuous camera shots which can now be processed with computers, it is monumental Hitchcock was able to achieve this feat back in the day with only relentless dedication, but also precise and genius execution.
After the guests arrive, the usual small talk and chit chat commences with those attending including David fiance and a former college professor of the men. After the idle conversation starts to bore, it is mentioned how interesting it would be to murder someone and the consequences of doing so. It's no dig deal to dispose of people you don't like is it? Some party-goers are not keen on this conversation and lead it in a new direction eventually focusing on the missing David who has not yet arrived.
Eventually, the unresolved issue of David's absence is brushed aside for the moment and the guests leave to go about their lives. The college professor returns after having been given verbal clues in the former conversations about the nefarious activity of Phillip and David as well as some physical ones. He confronts the duo and David is unable to hold back.
The mystery has been revealed and the men have to deal with the fallout and consequences.
The physical limitation of the amount of film cameras of the day were able to hold was the only drawback for the way Hitchcock managed to shoot this film. There are only 10 total shots within the film ranging from 4 to 10 minutes. The cuts were achieved through normal editing, but also the actors and camera intersecting for brief moments where a momentary black frame would occur continuing the action right after this moment.
I can't even imagine the amount of rehearsal and takes would have been necessary for both the actors and production crew to orchestrate visual and vocal cues and not making mistakes for such a long time for each shot to be completed successfully. The film feels much like a stage production having all the scenes occur mainly in the living room and foyer areas, but that had to be by design.
With no elaborate staging, the audience is left to enjoy the masterful screenplay nonstop and trying to figure out if the two murderers will actually be able to dissuade blame or be confronted with the guilt.
One of many Jimmy Stewart's many Hitchcock collaborations, his performance mostly gets overlooked here in comparison to Vertigo and Rear Window; however, once he arrives at the party it is kind to see him and he delivers another captivating and motivated performance.
In the current days of digital filmmaking and continuous camera shots which can now be processed with computers, it is monumental Hitchcock was able to achieve this feat back in the day with only relentless dedication, but also precise and genius execution.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Amsterdam (2022) in Movies
Nov 21, 2022
Weak First Half Gives Way To Strong Second Half
There are certain Directors working today that gain such a reputation that most Major Movie Stars clamor to be in their films - no matter how big (or small) their part is. Quentin Tarantino, Wes Anderson and Christopher Nolan all come to mind. And, for some reason, David O. Russell is in that camp as well.
The latest film from this cinematic auteur, AMSTERDAM, is jam-packed with stars from Christian Bale to John David Washington to Margot Robbie, Robert DeNiro, Zoe Saldana, Rami Malek, Andrea Riseborough, Chris Rock, Michael Shannon, Michael Myers, Timothy Olyphant, Any-Taylor Joy and even Taylor Swift show up to play part in this drama/thriller/comedy that takes a real life event and gives it the David O. Russell touch.
And…what is the David O. Russell touch? It is - for better or for worse - a skewed perspective of the goings-on in the film, commenting on the action while driving a narrative forward. On the one hand, he is liked by many actors for he let’s them improvise and work through their performances. However, on the other hand, if he is not getting what he wants, he is also known as a antagonistic Director as he has had on-set feuds with George Clooney, Lilly Tomlin and Amy Adams. But…on the other hand…he has been nominated for Best Director 3x and quite a few of his actors (Bale, Adams, Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, etc.) have been nominated for an Oscar.
For AMSTERDAM the film’s tone and intention meander for the 1st half of the movie - as do the performances - before settling into a crackerjack thriller/murder-mystery/espionage film.
And that’s too bad for many will be turned off by the 1st half - the meandering is detrimental to the audience’s enjoyment - it feels like a series of “acting scenes” and not a coherent grouping of scenarios leading to a plot. This will turn many off - and will have them turning off the film - before it settles down and becomes good.
As is often the case with Russell’s films, the performances are good (Washington), better (Robbie) and best (Bale, channelling his inner Peter Faulk) while the other actors support the 3 leads in surprising ways. If nothing else, see this movie to watch all of these wonderful performers plying their craft. Of course, you’ll be saying to yourself “that’s wonderfully acted” for you won’t be immersed into the people, emotions or the plot at the beginning.
And that is Russell’s issue. If he could have settled on the tone and focus of the 2nd half of the film in the first half, he’d have himself another Oscar contending film. But, as it were, it’s an interesting curiosity - one that will have you entertained for a few hours, but will leave you scratching your head longing for “what could have been”.
Letter Grade: B (“C” for the first half, “A” for the 2nd half)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The latest film from this cinematic auteur, AMSTERDAM, is jam-packed with stars from Christian Bale to John David Washington to Margot Robbie, Robert DeNiro, Zoe Saldana, Rami Malek, Andrea Riseborough, Chris Rock, Michael Shannon, Michael Myers, Timothy Olyphant, Any-Taylor Joy and even Taylor Swift show up to play part in this drama/thriller/comedy that takes a real life event and gives it the David O. Russell touch.
And…what is the David O. Russell touch? It is - for better or for worse - a skewed perspective of the goings-on in the film, commenting on the action while driving a narrative forward. On the one hand, he is liked by many actors for he let’s them improvise and work through their performances. However, on the other hand, if he is not getting what he wants, he is also known as a antagonistic Director as he has had on-set feuds with George Clooney, Lilly Tomlin and Amy Adams. But…on the other hand…he has been nominated for Best Director 3x and quite a few of his actors (Bale, Adams, Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, etc.) have been nominated for an Oscar.
For AMSTERDAM the film’s tone and intention meander for the 1st half of the movie - as do the performances - before settling into a crackerjack thriller/murder-mystery/espionage film.
And that’s too bad for many will be turned off by the 1st half - the meandering is detrimental to the audience’s enjoyment - it feels like a series of “acting scenes” and not a coherent grouping of scenarios leading to a plot. This will turn many off - and will have them turning off the film - before it settles down and becomes good.
As is often the case with Russell’s films, the performances are good (Washington), better (Robbie) and best (Bale, channelling his inner Peter Faulk) while the other actors support the 3 leads in surprising ways. If nothing else, see this movie to watch all of these wonderful performers plying their craft. Of course, you’ll be saying to yourself “that’s wonderfully acted” for you won’t be immersed into the people, emotions or the plot at the beginning.
And that is Russell’s issue. If he could have settled on the tone and focus of the 2nd half of the film in the first half, he’d have himself another Oscar contending film. But, as it were, it’s an interesting curiosity - one that will have you entertained for a few hours, but will leave you scratching your head longing for “what could have been”.
Letter Grade: B (“C” for the first half, “A” for the 2nd half)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Anatomy of a Murder (1959) in Movies
Nov 30, 2018
One of the Best Courtroom Dramas of all Time
I have to admit, that (at times) the fun part of going to "SECRET MOVIE NIGHT" is the anticipation of not knowing what the film is. Sometimes the film is "good, not great" (like THE BLUES BROTHERS, BODY HEAT and A FACE IN THE CROWD) and other times it is a CLASSIC (Like CITIZEN KANE, THE APARTMENT and NETWORK). I am happy to report that this month's installment IS a classic, our old pal Jimmy Stewart in 1959's ANATOMY OF MURDER.
Directed by the great Otto Preminger, AOM is often referred to as the finest courtroom drama ever filmed. While I need to give that some thought, I will say AOM is right up there as one of the finest examples of a courtroom drama.
Starring Jimmy Stewart as "country lawyer" Paul Biegler, who is brought in to defend Army Lieutenant Manion (Ben Gazzara). Manion is accused of murdering a man that raped his wife (Lee Remick). The central mystery isn't "did Manion kill the man" (he did), it is more of "did he kill his wife's rapist or lover" and "will Biegler get away with the temporary insanity plea".
This is the kind of plot that we've all seen a dozen times on standard TV shows, but back in 1959, this type of film - and trial - was quite new and fresh and this film was "scandalous" in it's use of frank language. Remember, this is 1959 in Eisenhower "Happy Days" Americana, so hearing words like "bitch, panties, penetration, slut, sperm, bitch and slut" was quite shocking and led to many protests of the film.
Those who were turned off by the language and frankhandling of the subject matter lost out on an intriguing, well-acted, well-written and well-directed courtroom drama, where the verdict is up in the air right up until the foreman of the jury says "We, the jury, find the defendant..."
Jimmy Stewart is perfectly cast in the lead role of Defense Attorney, Biegler. Stewart brings an instant likableness and every man integrity quality to the role. His Attorney is down-to-earth but whip-smart, able to crack a joke to lighten the mood or explode in rage at an affront at a moment's notice. He goes toe-to-toe with Prosecuting Attorney Claude Dancer (a VERY young George C. Scott). Dancer is everything that Biegler is not, crisp, well-polished and arrogant. While it would have been very easy to paint these two characters as good (Stewart) and bad (Scott), Director Preminger and screenwriter Wendell Mayes shy away from this and show these two as fierce competitors playing a very serious game of chess - and this works very well, indeed. Both Stewart and Scott were nominated for Oscars for their work as Best Actor and Supporting Actor respectively.
The Supporting cast is superb, featuring such 1950's/early 1960's stalwarts as Arthur O'Connell (also Oscar nominated as Stewarts's alcoholic law mentor), the always good Eve Arden, Orson Bean and Katherine Grant. It also features three character actors in small roles (witnesses in the trial) who you would recognize from other things - Murray Hamilton (the Mayor in Jaws), Howard McNear (Floyd the Barber from Mayberry) and Joseph Kearns (Mr. Wilson in Dennis the Menace).
Special notice needs to be made for Lee Remick as the sultry and flirtatious woman at the core of the film. Remick is superb in this role, and that is fortunate, for if she wasn't believable in the "would she or won't she" role that she is asked to play, then the film could have easily fallen apart. But the real bright spot in this film is the scene stealing Joseph N. Welch as the Judge in the case. His performance as the judge is the perfect "third leg" to the Stewart/Scott stool, balancing charm, folksiness and strength in even portions (depending on what is needed to balance the other two).
Otto Preminger (LAURA, STALAG 17) is a Director who's name is beginning to fade into the dust of the past - and that's too bad, for he is a strong director who knows how to frame a scene and pace a film. Even though AOM is 2 hours and 40 minutes of talking, it never feels long or slow.
Two other aspects of this film need to be mentioned - the "jazz" score by the great Duke Ellington (which won a grammy) is perfectly suited to the themes and mood of this film and the opening title sequence (and movie poster) is reminiscent of an Alfred Hitchock film - and that is because they are done by frequent Hitchock contributor Saul Bass.
Nominated for 7 Oscars (it won zero, falling to the juggernaut that was BEN HUR that year), ANATOMY OF A MURDER is an intriguing courtroom drama that also opens the door to performers of the past. Well worth the time investment, should you run across it (it is frequently shown on TCM).
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Directed by the great Otto Preminger, AOM is often referred to as the finest courtroom drama ever filmed. While I need to give that some thought, I will say AOM is right up there as one of the finest examples of a courtroom drama.
Starring Jimmy Stewart as "country lawyer" Paul Biegler, who is brought in to defend Army Lieutenant Manion (Ben Gazzara). Manion is accused of murdering a man that raped his wife (Lee Remick). The central mystery isn't "did Manion kill the man" (he did), it is more of "did he kill his wife's rapist or lover" and "will Biegler get away with the temporary insanity plea".
This is the kind of plot that we've all seen a dozen times on standard TV shows, but back in 1959, this type of film - and trial - was quite new and fresh and this film was "scandalous" in it's use of frank language. Remember, this is 1959 in Eisenhower "Happy Days" Americana, so hearing words like "bitch, panties, penetration, slut, sperm, bitch and slut" was quite shocking and led to many protests of the film.
Those who were turned off by the language and frankhandling of the subject matter lost out on an intriguing, well-acted, well-written and well-directed courtroom drama, where the verdict is up in the air right up until the foreman of the jury says "We, the jury, find the defendant..."
Jimmy Stewart is perfectly cast in the lead role of Defense Attorney, Biegler. Stewart brings an instant likableness and every man integrity quality to the role. His Attorney is down-to-earth but whip-smart, able to crack a joke to lighten the mood or explode in rage at an affront at a moment's notice. He goes toe-to-toe with Prosecuting Attorney Claude Dancer (a VERY young George C. Scott). Dancer is everything that Biegler is not, crisp, well-polished and arrogant. While it would have been very easy to paint these two characters as good (Stewart) and bad (Scott), Director Preminger and screenwriter Wendell Mayes shy away from this and show these two as fierce competitors playing a very serious game of chess - and this works very well, indeed. Both Stewart and Scott were nominated for Oscars for their work as Best Actor and Supporting Actor respectively.
The Supporting cast is superb, featuring such 1950's/early 1960's stalwarts as Arthur O'Connell (also Oscar nominated as Stewarts's alcoholic law mentor), the always good Eve Arden, Orson Bean and Katherine Grant. It also features three character actors in small roles (witnesses in the trial) who you would recognize from other things - Murray Hamilton (the Mayor in Jaws), Howard McNear (Floyd the Barber from Mayberry) and Joseph Kearns (Mr. Wilson in Dennis the Menace).
Special notice needs to be made for Lee Remick as the sultry and flirtatious woman at the core of the film. Remick is superb in this role, and that is fortunate, for if she wasn't believable in the "would she or won't she" role that she is asked to play, then the film could have easily fallen apart. But the real bright spot in this film is the scene stealing Joseph N. Welch as the Judge in the case. His performance as the judge is the perfect "third leg" to the Stewart/Scott stool, balancing charm, folksiness and strength in even portions (depending on what is needed to balance the other two).
Otto Preminger (LAURA, STALAG 17) is a Director who's name is beginning to fade into the dust of the past - and that's too bad, for he is a strong director who knows how to frame a scene and pace a film. Even though AOM is 2 hours and 40 minutes of talking, it never feels long or slow.
Two other aspects of this film need to be mentioned - the "jazz" score by the great Duke Ellington (which won a grammy) is perfectly suited to the themes and mood of this film and the opening title sequence (and movie poster) is reminiscent of an Alfred Hitchock film - and that is because they are done by frequent Hitchock contributor Saul Bass.
Nominated for 7 Oscars (it won zero, falling to the juggernaut that was BEN HUR that year), ANATOMY OF A MURDER is an intriguing courtroom drama that also opens the door to performers of the past. Well worth the time investment, should you run across it (it is frequently shown on TCM).
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Donner Party tale (1 more)
Lots of mystery
Inconsistencies (1 more)
Changes characters referred name too much
Authors Preston and Child did such a great job on 'Old Bones' that once you start reading, you won't be able to put it down.
'Old Bones' follows two women, Nora Kelly and Corrie Swanson, with a small segment following a man named Clive Benton, all of who end up being intertwined within this one novel. The entire story revolves around the dark history of the cannibalistic Donner Party, while bringing in fictitious elements to give the readers a well-rounded adventure.
The story gets rolling after Benton visits Kelly with a historical diary that belonged to a member of the Donner Party- - - Kelly is a well-known archaeologist, while Benton is an accredited historian - - - Benton tells Kelly that the journal revealed a lost camp which had never been discovered by anyone, and that this camp could be one of the biggest archaeological finds of the century. While Kelly has to convince the director of the Archaeology Institute to fund the expedition, Benton springs on her and the director that there is a possibility of twenty million dollars worth of gold coins that belonged to a member of the Donner Party could still be located at this lost camp, and, of course, the director quickly agrees to fund the expedition.
Before this, I have never read a book by Preston and Child, but after reading 'Old Bones,' I am anxious to read their other works. The writing is fluid, and keeps the pace going quite well, and the transition between the two main characters is done flawlessly without any confusion as to whose view point you are viewing. The fictitious take on the historical Donner Party is done masterfully enough that even I had to go back to actual historic documents to see what was true and what was not. In one book, readers get dark history, paranormal elements, archaeology, thriller moments, mystery and suspense.
Although the story is a well-written one, there is one scene that could have had great potential, but nothing ever came of it: "Taking a few more steps, she passed through a particularly dense stand of trees and suddenly emerged into a roughly circular clearing. Odd: there was no reason for a break like this in such thick forest. She shone her light around, but there was nothing: just a soft bed of green moss, undisturbed by tracks, and a few scattered boulders." The way this scene is written leaves readers to believe that this may be important later on, but the area is unfortunately never mentioned again.
The story brings FBI agent Swanson into the lives of Benton and Kelly after a string of grave robberies and one presumed murder takes place; the former and latter have one thing in common: they are descendants of a member belonging to the Donner Party.
" 'So where do we fit into this?' asked Nora.
'The commonality I referred to. All four individuals were descended from a single person: a man named Parkin.'
Nora saw Clive start in surprise. 'Albert Parkin?' he asked. 'Of the Donner Party?'
'Exactly. And I've been led to understand he's one of the individuals in the camp you're excavating.' " Agent Swanson isn't exactly welcomed with open arms at the expedition.
The amount of archaeological understanding that was put into this novel is astounding. Preston and Child relay a lot of terms and devices used in the career field such as when Benton uses a bamboo pick to loosen the surface of a quad area and a whisk to gently work dirt away from findings. But this story isn't all archaeological terms, there's also a lot of great development among the characters.
These characters are written differently just enough that the reader should be able to tell them apart easily. Kelly is a leading archaeologist, who has led many different expeditions, but she is also still dealing with the grief of losing her husband years before. Benton is a historian that is a descendant of a member belonging to the Donner Party,and Swanson is a junior FBI agent that is eager to work on her first active case. Even minor characters are distinct among themselves.
Yet, the story is not flawless, there are quite a few inconsistencies, but the major problem I have found with the novel is the changing of characters' names in which they are addressed by. One scene, Nora would be referred to as Kelly - her last name - then more than usually the next paragraph, she would be called Nora. This happens with the main characters too often than it should, that it can confuse the reader and upset the flow of the story itself.
And unfortunately, the paranormal and horror elements are few and far between. We get an amazing retelling of the Donner Party tragedy not once, but throughout the story, reliving the cannibalism that took place, as well as the fictional element of gold leading to murder:
" 'Then you'll recall that when Wolfinger's wagon became stuck while crossing the Great Salt Lake Desert, two men - - - Reinhardt and Spitzer- - - volunteered to go back and help dig it out. Those two men returned, claiming Indians had killed Wolfinger.'
' Yes, yes, ' Dr. Fugit said, concealing a growing impatience.
'Well, that was a lie. Even at the time the members of the party were suspicious that something untoward had happened to Wolfinger. Reinhardt and Spitzer were viewed with a great deal if suspicion, and the two men afterwards kept to themselves and were somewhat ostracized by the rest. When Reinhardt was dying of starvation in the Lost Camp, he made a deathbed confession: Wolfinger had not been killed by Indians. Reinhardt and Spitzer had gone back, murdered Wolfinger, and taken his gold.' He paused. ' This information has been known to historians for over a century, but nobody, incredibly enough, thought to ask the next question: what happened to the gold? ' "
I highly recommend this book to fans of Thomas Harris; the writing is very similar and the character Swanson reminds me a lot of Harris' character Clarice Starling (refer to 'Silence of the Lambs' and 'Hannibal'). I also recommend this book to anyone who enjoys history, especially that of dark history, such as the Donner Party tale.
'Old Bones' follows two women, Nora Kelly and Corrie Swanson, with a small segment following a man named Clive Benton, all of who end up being intertwined within this one novel. The entire story revolves around the dark history of the cannibalistic Donner Party, while bringing in fictitious elements to give the readers a well-rounded adventure.
The story gets rolling after Benton visits Kelly with a historical diary that belonged to a member of the Donner Party- - - Kelly is a well-known archaeologist, while Benton is an accredited historian - - - Benton tells Kelly that the journal revealed a lost camp which had never been discovered by anyone, and that this camp could be one of the biggest archaeological finds of the century. While Kelly has to convince the director of the Archaeology Institute to fund the expedition, Benton springs on her and the director that there is a possibility of twenty million dollars worth of gold coins that belonged to a member of the Donner Party could still be located at this lost camp, and, of course, the director quickly agrees to fund the expedition.
Before this, I have never read a book by Preston and Child, but after reading 'Old Bones,' I am anxious to read their other works. The writing is fluid, and keeps the pace going quite well, and the transition between the two main characters is done flawlessly without any confusion as to whose view point you are viewing. The fictitious take on the historical Donner Party is done masterfully enough that even I had to go back to actual historic documents to see what was true and what was not. In one book, readers get dark history, paranormal elements, archaeology, thriller moments, mystery and suspense.
Although the story is a well-written one, there is one scene that could have had great potential, but nothing ever came of it: "Taking a few more steps, she passed through a particularly dense stand of trees and suddenly emerged into a roughly circular clearing. Odd: there was no reason for a break like this in such thick forest. She shone her light around, but there was nothing: just a soft bed of green moss, undisturbed by tracks, and a few scattered boulders." The way this scene is written leaves readers to believe that this may be important later on, but the area is unfortunately never mentioned again.
The story brings FBI agent Swanson into the lives of Benton and Kelly after a string of grave robberies and one presumed murder takes place; the former and latter have one thing in common: they are descendants of a member belonging to the Donner Party.
" 'So where do we fit into this?' asked Nora.
'The commonality I referred to. All four individuals were descended from a single person: a man named Parkin.'
Nora saw Clive start in surprise. 'Albert Parkin?' he asked. 'Of the Donner Party?'
'Exactly. And I've been led to understand he's one of the individuals in the camp you're excavating.' " Agent Swanson isn't exactly welcomed with open arms at the expedition.
The amount of archaeological understanding that was put into this novel is astounding. Preston and Child relay a lot of terms and devices used in the career field such as when Benton uses a bamboo pick to loosen the surface of a quad area and a whisk to gently work dirt away from findings. But this story isn't all archaeological terms, there's also a lot of great development among the characters.
These characters are written differently just enough that the reader should be able to tell them apart easily. Kelly is a leading archaeologist, who has led many different expeditions, but she is also still dealing with the grief of losing her husband years before. Benton is a historian that is a descendant of a member belonging to the Donner Party,and Swanson is a junior FBI agent that is eager to work on her first active case. Even minor characters are distinct among themselves.
Yet, the story is not flawless, there are quite a few inconsistencies, but the major problem I have found with the novel is the changing of characters' names in which they are addressed by. One scene, Nora would be referred to as Kelly - her last name - then more than usually the next paragraph, she would be called Nora. This happens with the main characters too often than it should, that it can confuse the reader and upset the flow of the story itself.
And unfortunately, the paranormal and horror elements are few and far between. We get an amazing retelling of the Donner Party tragedy not once, but throughout the story, reliving the cannibalism that took place, as well as the fictional element of gold leading to murder:
" 'Then you'll recall that when Wolfinger's wagon became stuck while crossing the Great Salt Lake Desert, two men - - - Reinhardt and Spitzer- - - volunteered to go back and help dig it out. Those two men returned, claiming Indians had killed Wolfinger.'
' Yes, yes, ' Dr. Fugit said, concealing a growing impatience.
'Well, that was a lie. Even at the time the members of the party were suspicious that something untoward had happened to Wolfinger. Reinhardt and Spitzer were viewed with a great deal if suspicion, and the two men afterwards kept to themselves and were somewhat ostracized by the rest. When Reinhardt was dying of starvation in the Lost Camp, he made a deathbed confession: Wolfinger had not been killed by Indians. Reinhardt and Spitzer had gone back, murdered Wolfinger, and taken his gold.' He paused. ' This information has been known to historians for over a century, but nobody, incredibly enough, thought to ask the next question: what happened to the gold? ' "
I highly recommend this book to fans of Thomas Harris; the writing is very similar and the character Swanson reminds me a lot of Harris' character Clarice Starling (refer to 'Silence of the Lambs' and 'Hannibal'). I also recommend this book to anyone who enjoys history, especially that of dark history, such as the Donner Party tale.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated An Unwanted Guest in Books
Mar 11, 2019
Eerie read with a rather tidy ending
Mitchell's Inn is a lovely lodge far away from the hustle and bustle of it all--there's no wifi, just a relaxing setting, good food, and comfortable rooms. But this particular weekend, things go awry when a bad storm hits, covering the Inn in ice and knocking out the power: there's no phone service or the ability for anyone to leave the premises. Then, by morning, one of the guests is dead. It could be an accident, but no one can say for sure. And when the second guest dies, it's certain: they are trapped with a murderer. There's no power, no contact with the world, and someone is slowly killing them off. Is someone else next and how do the remaining guests stay safe?
"It feels like they're playing at something, some sort of parlor game, or murder mystery evening, with the lights out. Only no one's having fun."
Believe it or not, I've never read a book by Shari Lapena, but I was drawn to this one due to the Agatha Christie comparisons, as I'm a sucker for anything similar to Christie. And this one definitely had some likenesses, with the guests trapped in the Inn, limiting our pool of suspects (and victims). Weirdly enough, my brain kept occasionally going to the movie Clue too - silly, I know, but something about the setting!
This book draws you in from the beginning; the first death happens fairly quickly. There are a lot of characters to keep track of: most are in pairs, and I found myself flipping back a page or two trying to remember who was attached to whom for a while. The narration style is in very short paragraphs, each from the perspective of a different guest. This gives you a bit of whiplash feel at times, as you never really get to fully immerse yourself in anyone's point of view. Still, while I did feel things slowed slightly after the first death, for the most part it keeps things moving fairly quickly and lets you see things from a variety of sides.
Lapena is also very descriptive and sets the scene well. It's easy to picture this lovely Inn--which quickly turns dark and disastrous. The book is actually creepy and eerie at times; I won't go into detail as to why, to avoid spoilers, but I definitely found myself a little spooked. In fact, I was surprised the guests were so calm in the beginning, what with a dead woman and no power! (Don't worry, it won't last.) The novel allows you to think how you'd feel in that particular situation. It certainly doesn't encourage you to go vacation at a remote Inn anytime soon.
I was certainly completely perplexed at whodunnit, so kudos to Lapena for that. With such a limited cast of characters (and getting slimmer every moment), that's quite a feat. I thought the ending was a bit tidy and I was left feeling oddly letdown; I'm not sure I can even explain why.
Overall, I enjoyed this one even I didn't wildly love it. It does have a bit of a Christie feel to it, and it kept me guessing. The scene setting is excellent, and I liked the eerie, trapped sense I felt while reading. It wraps up a tad neatly, but I'd still recommend it.
"It feels like they're playing at something, some sort of parlor game, or murder mystery evening, with the lights out. Only no one's having fun."
Believe it or not, I've never read a book by Shari Lapena, but I was drawn to this one due to the Agatha Christie comparisons, as I'm a sucker for anything similar to Christie. And this one definitely had some likenesses, with the guests trapped in the Inn, limiting our pool of suspects (and victims). Weirdly enough, my brain kept occasionally going to the movie Clue too - silly, I know, but something about the setting!
This book draws you in from the beginning; the first death happens fairly quickly. There are a lot of characters to keep track of: most are in pairs, and I found myself flipping back a page or two trying to remember who was attached to whom for a while. The narration style is in very short paragraphs, each from the perspective of a different guest. This gives you a bit of whiplash feel at times, as you never really get to fully immerse yourself in anyone's point of view. Still, while I did feel things slowed slightly after the first death, for the most part it keeps things moving fairly quickly and lets you see things from a variety of sides.
Lapena is also very descriptive and sets the scene well. It's easy to picture this lovely Inn--which quickly turns dark and disastrous. The book is actually creepy and eerie at times; I won't go into detail as to why, to avoid spoilers, but I definitely found myself a little spooked. In fact, I was surprised the guests were so calm in the beginning, what with a dead woman and no power! (Don't worry, it won't last.) The novel allows you to think how you'd feel in that particular situation. It certainly doesn't encourage you to go vacation at a remote Inn anytime soon.
I was certainly completely perplexed at whodunnit, so kudos to Lapena for that. With such a limited cast of characters (and getting slimmer every moment), that's quite a feat. I thought the ending was a bit tidy and I was left feeling oddly letdown; I'm not sure I can even explain why.
Overall, I enjoyed this one even I didn't wildly love it. It does have a bit of a Christie feel to it, and it kept me guessing. The scene setting is excellent, and I liked the eerie, trapped sense I felt while reading. It wraps up a tad neatly, but I'd still recommend it.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Then She Was Gone in Books
Apr 27, 2019
Just Okay
I loved I Found You by Lisa Jewell, so when I read the synopsis of her other book, Then She Was Gone, it was a book I knew I had to read. While this book was still a good read, it wasn't great, and I was left feeling a little disappointed.
The plot for Then She Was Gone was interesting enough although I did predict the mystery of why Poppy looked like Ellie early on. There were a couple of plot twists that I didn't see coming though of which I was thankful. I was constantly trying to figure out what Floyd's endgame was when it came to Laurel. I was also always hopeful that Ellie would return home safely. I thought the ending was done nicely. It tied up all loose ends and provided me with enough closure to be satisfied.
The one thing that bothered me, and I know it's a personal preference, was how the book was written in present tense aside from when Ellie and Noelle were telling their side of the story. It just really irks me when books are written this way. That really seemed to take away from the story for me.
The characters in Then She Was Gone were mostly believable. I had a hard time believing Noelle's side of things could actually happen for as long as they did when it came to Poppy. I also had a hard time believing Noelle could stay a virgin for so long. Poppy seemed very intelligent for her young years to not have been in some kind of advanced schooling. Poppy came across more of an adult than a child in every scene she was in. The author does attempt to explain why Poppy is the way she is, but I still found Poppy a bit unrealistic for a little girl. I liked Laurel, and I could only imagine her pain, but I felt like she was too uncaring toward her daughter Hanna and her son Jake. Maybe I'd have to be in Laurel's shoes to understand what it's like (although I pray I never am). It would have been nice to get a glimpse of Hanna's and Jake's point of view of things. Jake is hardly ever mentioned in the book, and there were many times I had to rack my brain to remember who Jake was whilst reading Then She Was Gone. It seems like Jake was put in as an afterthought to quickly tie up some loose ends. I enjoyed the character of Paul, Laurel's ex-husband. I admired his sunny disposition. Sara-Jade was another character I liked a lot although she wasn't in the book often enough. I liked Floyd and felt he was a well fleshed out character, but I was always wary when it came to him.
The pacing was done well enough. My interest never wavered, and I found myself needing to know what happened next to see if my predictions were correct. Then She Was Gone is definitely a page turner. I'll give it that.
Trigger warnings for Then She Was Gone include profanities, sexual situations (although not graphic), kidnapping, drinking alcohol, violence, death, murder, and miscarriages.
Overall, Then She Was Gone is just a decent read. The plot is interesting enough, and some of the characters are well written. For me, the present tense use really took away my enjoyment of the book. I would still recommend Then She Was Gone by Lisa Jewell to those aged 17+ especially to those who like thrillers.
The plot for Then She Was Gone was interesting enough although I did predict the mystery of why Poppy looked like Ellie early on. There were a couple of plot twists that I didn't see coming though of which I was thankful. I was constantly trying to figure out what Floyd's endgame was when it came to Laurel. I was also always hopeful that Ellie would return home safely. I thought the ending was done nicely. It tied up all loose ends and provided me with enough closure to be satisfied.
The one thing that bothered me, and I know it's a personal preference, was how the book was written in present tense aside from when Ellie and Noelle were telling their side of the story. It just really irks me when books are written this way. That really seemed to take away from the story for me.
The characters in Then She Was Gone were mostly believable. I had a hard time believing Noelle's side of things could actually happen for as long as they did when it came to Poppy. I also had a hard time believing Noelle could stay a virgin for so long. Poppy seemed very intelligent for her young years to not have been in some kind of advanced schooling. Poppy came across more of an adult than a child in every scene she was in. The author does attempt to explain why Poppy is the way she is, but I still found Poppy a bit unrealistic for a little girl. I liked Laurel, and I could only imagine her pain, but I felt like she was too uncaring toward her daughter Hanna and her son Jake. Maybe I'd have to be in Laurel's shoes to understand what it's like (although I pray I never am). It would have been nice to get a glimpse of Hanna's and Jake's point of view of things. Jake is hardly ever mentioned in the book, and there were many times I had to rack my brain to remember who Jake was whilst reading Then She Was Gone. It seems like Jake was put in as an afterthought to quickly tie up some loose ends. I enjoyed the character of Paul, Laurel's ex-husband. I admired his sunny disposition. Sara-Jade was another character I liked a lot although she wasn't in the book often enough. I liked Floyd and felt he was a well fleshed out character, but I was always wary when it came to him.
The pacing was done well enough. My interest never wavered, and I found myself needing to know what happened next to see if my predictions were correct. Then She Was Gone is definitely a page turner. I'll give it that.
Trigger warnings for Then She Was Gone include profanities, sexual situations (although not graphic), kidnapping, drinking alcohol, violence, death, murder, and miscarriages.
Overall, Then She Was Gone is just a decent read. The plot is interesting enough, and some of the characters are well written. For me, the present tense use really took away my enjoyment of the book. I would still recommend Then She Was Gone by Lisa Jewell to those aged 17+ especially to those who like thrillers.
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 KP) rated The Jacket (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
The human mind is a deep and complex organ that to this day is not fully understood by the best scientific minds on the planet. It is known that only a small percentage of the mind is actually used, with the vast majority of the unused portion presenting a mystery. There are those who have suggested that those individuals who show paranormal abilities are simply individuals who have learned to use areas of the brain that are normally dormant.
In the new psychological thriller The Jacket, Adrian Brody plays Jack Starks, a Gulf war soldier who is shot in the head in 1991 during combat operations.
Jack survives this ordeal as he awakens during medical triage despite being classified as dead by the attending medics. Flash forward to late 1992, and Jack is on his way to Canada through a cold and remote section of Vermont It is learned that Jack has some mental blocks in his head via a series of flashbacks, but when he comes to the aid of a stranded motorist and her young daughter, Jack soon finds his life taking an unexpected turn.
Despite being a good Samaritan, Jack is forced to accept a ride from a passing drifter miles later, when the mother refuses to assist him. Flash forward again and Jack is being charged with the murder of a police officer who Jack insists was killed by the man who picked them up. Since Jack has a mental condition, his claims of the driver who picked him up are dismissed as mental delusions.
Jack is committed to a mental institution where under the treatment of Dr. Becker (Kris Kristofferson), Jack is bound in a straight jacket and locked in a storage shelf in the basement morgue. While in the box, Jack travels 17 years into the future where he is reunited with Jackie (Kiera Knightley), the little girl he helped years earlier. Jackie has fallen upon hard times and refuses to believe that the person before her is the same Jack Starks who helped her years ago, as she claims that Jack Starks died years ago in the asylum.
As Jack comes in and out of treatment his perception of the events in the box comes into question due to his condition, and only the supportive Dr. Lorenson (Jennifer Jason Leigh), seems sympathetic to his concerns that he is going to die in the next few days.
The film jumps between the past, present, future where Jack attempts to uncover what happened to him with the help of Jackie so that he can try to prevent it from happening or at the very least, make the future a better place for those in the past who can avoid their fates.
The strength of the film is the solid work by the two leads as Brody and Knightley work well with one another and infuses their characters with compassion and humanity while showing their flaws as they attempt to deal with the hardships of their situations.
While some may take exception to the dark tone of the film, I preferred to look at the interesting twists to the story and how the film makes you think and interpret situations and outcomes rather than handing it to the audience in a tidy package.
In the new psychological thriller The Jacket, Adrian Brody plays Jack Starks, a Gulf war soldier who is shot in the head in 1991 during combat operations.
Jack survives this ordeal as he awakens during medical triage despite being classified as dead by the attending medics. Flash forward to late 1992, and Jack is on his way to Canada through a cold and remote section of Vermont It is learned that Jack has some mental blocks in his head via a series of flashbacks, but when he comes to the aid of a stranded motorist and her young daughter, Jack soon finds his life taking an unexpected turn.
Despite being a good Samaritan, Jack is forced to accept a ride from a passing drifter miles later, when the mother refuses to assist him. Flash forward again and Jack is being charged with the murder of a police officer who Jack insists was killed by the man who picked them up. Since Jack has a mental condition, his claims of the driver who picked him up are dismissed as mental delusions.
Jack is committed to a mental institution where under the treatment of Dr. Becker (Kris Kristofferson), Jack is bound in a straight jacket and locked in a storage shelf in the basement morgue. While in the box, Jack travels 17 years into the future where he is reunited with Jackie (Kiera Knightley), the little girl he helped years earlier. Jackie has fallen upon hard times and refuses to believe that the person before her is the same Jack Starks who helped her years ago, as she claims that Jack Starks died years ago in the asylum.
As Jack comes in and out of treatment his perception of the events in the box comes into question due to his condition, and only the supportive Dr. Lorenson (Jennifer Jason Leigh), seems sympathetic to his concerns that he is going to die in the next few days.
The film jumps between the past, present, future where Jack attempts to uncover what happened to him with the help of Jackie so that he can try to prevent it from happening or at the very least, make the future a better place for those in the past who can avoid their fates.
The strength of the film is the solid work by the two leads as Brody and Knightley work well with one another and infuses their characters with compassion and humanity while showing their flaws as they attempt to deal with the hardships of their situations.
While some may take exception to the dark tone of the film, I preferred to look at the interesting twists to the story and how the film makes you think and interpret situations and outcomes rather than handing it to the audience in a tidy package.
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated Ashes of Glass in Books
Jan 4, 2021
Contains spoilers, click to show
Ashes of Glass is a gorgeous retelling of Cinderella, and you all know what a sucker I am for a retelling!
Arella's upbringing is one we have heard numerous times, both through print and on screen. For this reason Emma Hill presents this chapter of Arella's life almost as a misty, memory montage; preferring to focus on the upcoming tale she has to tell. I must say I greatly appreciated this originality and confindence: Hill knows she has an absolute gem of a story here and doesn't need to pad it out with the sad turn of events we all know.
Anyone who has read "So, This is Love" by Elizabeth Lim will see some similarities within the two storylines in that Ella begins working in the Palace. However, Hill's Ella is , in my opinion, a much stronger character from the outset. She has no qualms in challenging Prince Freddie's prejudices in respects to gypsies and, on the whole, does not change her behaviour towards Freddie once she discovers he is the Prince.
Ella and Freddie are only two of a whole cast of characters who are beautifully portrayed within this novel. I really loved the added details such as the King's interest in elephants, the fact that the Duke was nicer (but still quite strict) and the fact that Ella had a friend alongside her. All of these factors made the story a lot more real than the classic fairy tale. Hill made it so easy for the reader to fall in love with Ella and Freddie as a couple, especially because they were not perfect and experienced real emotions such as doubt and jealousy. If anything, our love for these two made it even easier for us to hate the villain, Lord DiFortunato.
Now, we all love to hate the sleazy, slimy villain in a story, but this guy was something else! Emma Hill's villain literally made my skin crawl and, at the point in the story where Ella's curiosity puts her in a whole heap of danger, the suspense was too much I had to skim read just to know whether she was going to be OK.
The one character I did want a bit more of was Lady Izabella: I suspect she was likely Freddie's godmother due to her friendship with the Queen and I think this could have been cleverly played on a little more. Don't get me wrong she was a charming (and necessary) background character but I would have liked to see her a little more.
EJ Hill also included a lot of nods to the original fairy tale which were really appreciated. Of course the iconic pink dress becomes ruined and the ballgown is a must but Ella's affectionate use of Prince Charming as a nickname for Freddie was just gorgeous. Oh and losing the shoe: genius!
This is not to say this story lacks originality though. There is a thrilling sub plot into the investigation into the King's death which moves alongside and intersects Arella's plotline beautifully.
I would say that the chapters do shift from Arella to Freddie quite often and this could be quite confusing at times. Also faith plays a huge part within the story. I already knew Emma Hill was a Christian so this wasn't a surprise and it didn't put me off the story at all. I do think that it was included quite heavily though.
If you want the story of Cinderella, with a swoon-worthy Prince, more action, less Stepmother/sisters and an underlying murder mystery. This is the book for you!
Arella's upbringing is one we have heard numerous times, both through print and on screen. For this reason Emma Hill presents this chapter of Arella's life almost as a misty, memory montage; preferring to focus on the upcoming tale she has to tell. I must say I greatly appreciated this originality and confindence: Hill knows she has an absolute gem of a story here and doesn't need to pad it out with the sad turn of events we all know.
Anyone who has read "So, This is Love" by Elizabeth Lim will see some similarities within the two storylines in that Ella begins working in the Palace. However, Hill's Ella is , in my opinion, a much stronger character from the outset. She has no qualms in challenging Prince Freddie's prejudices in respects to gypsies and, on the whole, does not change her behaviour towards Freddie once she discovers he is the Prince.
Ella and Freddie are only two of a whole cast of characters who are beautifully portrayed within this novel. I really loved the added details such as the King's interest in elephants, the fact that the Duke was nicer (but still quite strict) and the fact that Ella had a friend alongside her. All of these factors made the story a lot more real than the classic fairy tale. Hill made it so easy for the reader to fall in love with Ella and Freddie as a couple, especially because they were not perfect and experienced real emotions such as doubt and jealousy. If anything, our love for these two made it even easier for us to hate the villain, Lord DiFortunato.
Now, we all love to hate the sleazy, slimy villain in a story, but this guy was something else! Emma Hill's villain literally made my skin crawl and, at the point in the story where Ella's curiosity puts her in a whole heap of danger, the suspense was too much I had to skim read just to know whether she was going to be OK.
The one character I did want a bit more of was Lady Izabella: I suspect she was likely Freddie's godmother due to her friendship with the Queen and I think this could have been cleverly played on a little more. Don't get me wrong she was a charming (and necessary) background character but I would have liked to see her a little more.
EJ Hill also included a lot of nods to the original fairy tale which were really appreciated. Of course the iconic pink dress becomes ruined and the ballgown is a must but Ella's affectionate use of Prince Charming as a nickname for Freddie was just gorgeous. Oh and losing the shoe: genius!
This is not to say this story lacks originality though. There is a thrilling sub plot into the investigation into the King's death which moves alongside and intersects Arella's plotline beautifully.
I would say that the chapters do shift from Arella to Freddie quite often and this could be quite confusing at times. Also faith plays a huge part within the story. I already knew Emma Hill was a Christian so this wasn't a surprise and it didn't put me off the story at all. I do think that it was included quite heavily though.
If you want the story of Cinderella, with a swoon-worthy Prince, more action, less Stepmother/sisters and an underlying murder mystery. This is the book for you!
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated A Walk Among the Tombstones (2014) in Movies
Jun 28, 2019 (Updated Jun 28, 2019)
Liam Neeson puts in a commanding performance and is a natural as a detective. (2 more)
The film has great visual flair and creates an effectively dark and moody atmosphere.
The solid supporting cast strengthen an otherwise dull and derivative film.
The heavy graphic content of rape, mutilation, and murder is extremely off-putting. (1 more)
There's not a single likeable character to be found in the whole movie.
A Walk Among the Tombstones is unsettling but never really all that compelling. It's a decent detective movie, but your enjoyment of it may depend on how well you can handle its grimy setting and extreme violence.
After watching A Walk Among the Tombstones, I literally felt like I was going to puke. This mystery-thriller, based on Lawrence Block’s popular novel, is a gross and grisly foray into the criminal underworld in search of sadistic kidnappers. Director Scott Frank paints a portrait of a dark and twisted 1990s New York City where women are disappearing, only to later show up chopped into pieces. The film is grim without remorse or reason, and if you’re anything like me, you’ll be eager for it to end so you can wash your hands of it entirely. It stars Liam Neeson as an unlicensed private detective named Matthew Scudder who leads an investigation to find the people responsible for these horrific murders. While it may appear from the trailers to be another entry in Neeson’s growing lineup of ass-kicking action-thrillers, it’s actually far from it. A Walk Among the Tombstones plays out more like a brooding, slow-paced horror film. If you’re expecting Taken, then you’re walking right into the wrong movie.
Neeson’s character Matt Scudder is a former alcoholic and an ex-cop turned personal private investigator who works in exchange for favors. Since he’s no longer affiliated with the police, he’s an appealing person to turn to for those who need help but want to keep the cops out of the picture. When a drug dealer’s wife is kidnapped and savagely murdered, he seeks out Scudder for help. What follows is in an investigation into the murder that links up to the murder of another drug dealer’s wife. With the killers still at large, Scudder is determined to catch them before they can strike again.
Being that Scudder is working with criminals to find even worse criminals, the characters in A Walk Among the Tombstones are quite despicable. In fact, I would argue there’s not a single likeable character in the whole film. Even our protagonist Scudder is a shady person with a corrupt past. It’s hard to care about anyone here except for the poor abducted women, and yet we never get to know any of them. They’re reduced to the point where it’s hard to see them as anything more than the killers’ unlucky victims who have no chance of surviving. We follow Scudder through this twisted investigation not because we care about him, but for their sake of these women, with the hope that our detective hero can put an end to these killers’ unspeakable crimes. The film’s dreadful cast of characters give an incredibly bleak and hopeless outlook on people as a whole.
Liam Neeson gives a suitable performance as Scudder, fitting into the role of a detective quite naturally. As usual, he has a great presence and commands your attention any time he’s on screen. In A Walk Among the Tombstones, he’s not nearly the unstoppable action-hero he has been in his other recent films, but he’s still an intimidating guy you’d be wise not to mess with. He does actually have a couple tense conversations with the killers over the phone that are reminiscent of the famous scene in Taken, but certainly not as memorable.
The killers in the movie happen to be far more appalling than interesting. We don’t ever get to know much about them or their motives. They’re sick, demented people that aren’t given much more depth than being bad for the sake of being bad. However, there’s no question that they’re believably haunting and deranged. Despite their limited screen time and lack of complexity, their actors put in truly unnerving performances.
The film is well-acted throughout, with a few especially notable performances from supporting characters. Olafur Darri Olafsson is terrific as the creepy cemetery groundskeeper, and Eric Nelsen does a commendable job as the drug addict younger brother of the drug dealer who sought Scudder’s help. There’s also Brian “Astro” Bradley as a homeless teenager named TJ that Scudder befriends, who volunteers himself to be his crime-solving partner. Astro at times lightens up the moody film with his charm, and while he’s truly the only character that offers any sense of hope in the film’s gritty world, I think his character largely feels out of place as an unnecessary inclusion.
Scott Frank effectively creates a dark and sullen atmosphere in his movie that is also visually striking. He turns New York’s underbelly into a stylishly gloomy city where its seedy citizens can run rampant. He demonstrates proficiency behind the camera, building eeriness and suspense. However, he goes too far with the film’s graphic sexual content, which includes rape, torture, and mutilation. While he never gives you a very clear look at these heinous acts, he puts you right there in the moment and lets the camera linger. It’s sadistic, cruel, and very disturbing to watch. In a bizarre directorial decision, he has the 12 steps to recovery from Alcoholics Anonymous narrated over the climax of the film. Considering Scudder regularly attends AA meetings to celebrate his sobriety, I can understand why it was included, but it just doesn’t work and ends up detracting from the film’s most heightened sequences. He also disappointingly finishes the movie on a bad note with a conclusion that is drawn out far too long and which contains a weak, conventional ending that is completely forgettable.
A Walk Among the Tombstones raises more questions than it answers, but in a movie this morbid, maybe it’s best not to know. While the movie excels at being unsettling, it’s never really all that compelling. Filled with plenty of bad dialogue and characters that are hard to relate to and care about, I was yearning for this one to end so I wouldn’t have to endure any more of its vileness. Even with all the disturbing content aside, I would argue that the film is still only average at best. While I’m sure there are plenty of people with a penchant for the macabre that will enjoy the film, I am certainly not one of them and I left the theater feeling completely disturbed by what I had just watched. A Walk Among the Tombstones is a decent detective movie, but your enjoyment of the film may depend on how well you can handle its grimy setting and extreme violence. One thing that I can assure you is that I personally don’t have the stomach for it.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 9.20.14.)
Neeson’s character Matt Scudder is a former alcoholic and an ex-cop turned personal private investigator who works in exchange for favors. Since he’s no longer affiliated with the police, he’s an appealing person to turn to for those who need help but want to keep the cops out of the picture. When a drug dealer’s wife is kidnapped and savagely murdered, he seeks out Scudder for help. What follows is in an investigation into the murder that links up to the murder of another drug dealer’s wife. With the killers still at large, Scudder is determined to catch them before they can strike again.
Being that Scudder is working with criminals to find even worse criminals, the characters in A Walk Among the Tombstones are quite despicable. In fact, I would argue there’s not a single likeable character in the whole film. Even our protagonist Scudder is a shady person with a corrupt past. It’s hard to care about anyone here except for the poor abducted women, and yet we never get to know any of them. They’re reduced to the point where it’s hard to see them as anything more than the killers’ unlucky victims who have no chance of surviving. We follow Scudder through this twisted investigation not because we care about him, but for their sake of these women, with the hope that our detective hero can put an end to these killers’ unspeakable crimes. The film’s dreadful cast of characters give an incredibly bleak and hopeless outlook on people as a whole.
Liam Neeson gives a suitable performance as Scudder, fitting into the role of a detective quite naturally. As usual, he has a great presence and commands your attention any time he’s on screen. In A Walk Among the Tombstones, he’s not nearly the unstoppable action-hero he has been in his other recent films, but he’s still an intimidating guy you’d be wise not to mess with. He does actually have a couple tense conversations with the killers over the phone that are reminiscent of the famous scene in Taken, but certainly not as memorable.
The killers in the movie happen to be far more appalling than interesting. We don’t ever get to know much about them or their motives. They’re sick, demented people that aren’t given much more depth than being bad for the sake of being bad. However, there’s no question that they’re believably haunting and deranged. Despite their limited screen time and lack of complexity, their actors put in truly unnerving performances.
The film is well-acted throughout, with a few especially notable performances from supporting characters. Olafur Darri Olafsson is terrific as the creepy cemetery groundskeeper, and Eric Nelsen does a commendable job as the drug addict younger brother of the drug dealer who sought Scudder’s help. There’s also Brian “Astro” Bradley as a homeless teenager named TJ that Scudder befriends, who volunteers himself to be his crime-solving partner. Astro at times lightens up the moody film with his charm, and while he’s truly the only character that offers any sense of hope in the film’s gritty world, I think his character largely feels out of place as an unnecessary inclusion.
Scott Frank effectively creates a dark and sullen atmosphere in his movie that is also visually striking. He turns New York’s underbelly into a stylishly gloomy city where its seedy citizens can run rampant. He demonstrates proficiency behind the camera, building eeriness and suspense. However, he goes too far with the film’s graphic sexual content, which includes rape, torture, and mutilation. While he never gives you a very clear look at these heinous acts, he puts you right there in the moment and lets the camera linger. It’s sadistic, cruel, and very disturbing to watch. In a bizarre directorial decision, he has the 12 steps to recovery from Alcoholics Anonymous narrated over the climax of the film. Considering Scudder regularly attends AA meetings to celebrate his sobriety, I can understand why it was included, but it just doesn’t work and ends up detracting from the film’s most heightened sequences. He also disappointingly finishes the movie on a bad note with a conclusion that is drawn out far too long and which contains a weak, conventional ending that is completely forgettable.
A Walk Among the Tombstones raises more questions than it answers, but in a movie this morbid, maybe it’s best not to know. While the movie excels at being unsettling, it’s never really all that compelling. Filled with plenty of bad dialogue and characters that are hard to relate to and care about, I was yearning for this one to end so I wouldn’t have to endure any more of its vileness. Even with all the disturbing content aside, I would argue that the film is still only average at best. While I’m sure there are plenty of people with a penchant for the macabre that will enjoy the film, I am certainly not one of them and I left the theater feeling completely disturbed by what I had just watched. A Walk Among the Tombstones is a decent detective movie, but your enjoyment of the film may depend on how well you can handle its grimy setting and extreme violence. One thing that I can assure you is that I personally don’t have the stomach for it.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 9.20.14.)
Mothergamer (1536 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Assassin's Creed Unity in Video Games
Apr 3, 2019
I waited to buy Assassin's Creed Unity because of all the glitches and problems the game had upon its release that I kept hearing about. I'm glad I waited because it seems they addressed and fixed many of those glitches. There's a ton to see and do in Unity besides the main story such as side quests, puzzle quests, murder mystery quests, and co-op missions that you can play with friends or privately. I liked the character of Arno Dorian (much more than I liked Shay in Rogue) and it was interesting to see a lot of his interactions with his friends and a variety of historical figures like Napoleon Bonaparte and Marquis de Sade.
Introducing Arno Dorian
The viewpoints in 16th century Paris are stunning, showing off a beautiful thriving city with a lot of people. The scenes with the Revolution were also interesting to see and interact with because of the people and I found I would stop and just listen. This also had me remembering all the French I learned as I listened to various conversations. At times having a lot of people could be frustrating when having to chase a target for a mission or spy on someone because they would get in the way causing a mission to fail if you didn't get to where you needed to be in time. There were also times where the controls would be a little wonky and Arno would grab a wall when I wanted him to just run or jump. It didn't happen often though so I didn't mind too much. I also didn't see the point of the game having four different types of currency. I'm not kidding. You had the livres, (what francs were first called) sync points, creed points, and helix credits. I felt this all could have done with just one currency. Instead you have money to buy stuff, the sync points and creed points are used to upgrade gear and skills, while the helix credits you use real money to buy things via UPlay. All of it is completely useless. UPlay is not only pointless, it just screams of greed. The game really only needed one currency and nothing else.
A spectacular view of 16th Century Paris
I do understand that Arno's tale of revenge with the Assassins vs. Templars has been done before, but I found I did like the story for what it was; an entertaining adventure with some pivotal history and interesting characters in it. Yes, they did take a few liberties with some of the historical aspects, but it flowed really well and was done in a subtle way that made all the events mesh well together. I liked the character of Elise also, and I wish there had been a few more main missions with her because she offered a different point of view and also showed that not all the Templars were power hungry insane people. There's also the factor that she and Arno together were intriguing and they made a great team.
Elise and Arno
There are several different ways to do many of the missions which I found to be fun. You could either sneak in a window or disguise yourself as one of the soldiers and just walk right in the front door. The AI for the enemies is more aggressive here so I found myself relying heavily on smoke bombs often. At some points it got a little frustrating especially with the final memory sequence because I had to be a certain distance from the target to finish the mission. There were a couple of glitch issues such as a location on the map for a quest not showing up and an odd one where Arno got stuck in a wall and it looked like he was swimming on the wall. Those were the only technical problems I ran into which isn't too bad. Overall the game itself is fun to play with lots to see and do. There's even a mission with a hot air balloon that's very cool.
Hot air balloon over Paris is awesome
Once I had finished up the main story of Unity, I started the Dead Kings DLC. This happens a week after the events of the main story and in Franciade (now Saint Denis) and Arno runs into the Marquis de Sade once again who wishes for Arno to help him find the manuscript of Nicoleas de Condorcet which is rumored to be in the tomb of Louis IX. Arno agrees to help him in exchange for a ship to take Arno to Egypt. After that you get to explore Franciade and while not as big as Paris it's just as beautiful and there's lots to explore above and below.
A bird's eye view of some of Franciade
Arno runs into some tomb raiders who happen to be working for Napoleon Bonaparte and we see him once again throughout the area. Napoleon is looking for something in a Precursor Temple. While we all know what that could mean Arno does not, but he knows that whatever it is can't be good. He also befriends a young boy named Leon and they work together to figure out exactly what it is Napoleon is after. There are a lot of side missions here too along with some murder mystery quests and a few more co-op missions as well. There are even a few take over the enemy fort missions that are fun to do as well.
Some of the missions could be a bit frustrating because a lot of them were in the catacombs and it could be very hard to see with how dark some of the areas are. I had to use Eagle Vision a lot just to be able to see where I needed to go. Luckily there were only a couple of places that were difficult to see in. You also get some new equipment that is pretty awesome like the guillotine gun basically an axe and a grenade launcher melded together. While not the stealthiest of weapons, it's a ton of fun to unleash all that firepower on your enemies. The lantern on the other hand, annoyed me. Yes, the catacombs are dark and yes you need a lantern, but it seemed a lot of the puzzles relied heavily on the lantern and it was a bit clunky and tedious. I mean having to use a lantern just so I could scare away roaches to jump on a ledge was a bit much.
The Precursor Temple was interesting to explore with a few lighting puzzles and brazier puzzles. The scenes with Arno and Leon chatting together were nice because it showed Leon gradually getting Arno to see that there is always hope and even caused Arno to change his mind about a few things. With the main story and side missions Dead Kings is only a couple of hours, but it's a couple of hours worth playing.
Arno in the Precursor Temple
Overall Assassin's Creed Unity (which includes the Dead Kings DLC for free) is a solid game and it is fun to play. There's a lot to see and do on your own and plenty to do with your friends via co-op missions. It's worth checking out because of the fun of the missions and because of the fact that the main character is actually pretty likable.
Introducing Arno Dorian
The viewpoints in 16th century Paris are stunning, showing off a beautiful thriving city with a lot of people. The scenes with the Revolution were also interesting to see and interact with because of the people and I found I would stop and just listen. This also had me remembering all the French I learned as I listened to various conversations. At times having a lot of people could be frustrating when having to chase a target for a mission or spy on someone because they would get in the way causing a mission to fail if you didn't get to where you needed to be in time. There were also times where the controls would be a little wonky and Arno would grab a wall when I wanted him to just run or jump. It didn't happen often though so I didn't mind too much. I also didn't see the point of the game having four different types of currency. I'm not kidding. You had the livres, (what francs were first called) sync points, creed points, and helix credits. I felt this all could have done with just one currency. Instead you have money to buy stuff, the sync points and creed points are used to upgrade gear and skills, while the helix credits you use real money to buy things via UPlay. All of it is completely useless. UPlay is not only pointless, it just screams of greed. The game really only needed one currency and nothing else.
A spectacular view of 16th Century Paris
I do understand that Arno's tale of revenge with the Assassins vs. Templars has been done before, but I found I did like the story for what it was; an entertaining adventure with some pivotal history and interesting characters in it. Yes, they did take a few liberties with some of the historical aspects, but it flowed really well and was done in a subtle way that made all the events mesh well together. I liked the character of Elise also, and I wish there had been a few more main missions with her because she offered a different point of view and also showed that not all the Templars were power hungry insane people. There's also the factor that she and Arno together were intriguing and they made a great team.
Elise and Arno
There are several different ways to do many of the missions which I found to be fun. You could either sneak in a window or disguise yourself as one of the soldiers and just walk right in the front door. The AI for the enemies is more aggressive here so I found myself relying heavily on smoke bombs often. At some points it got a little frustrating especially with the final memory sequence because I had to be a certain distance from the target to finish the mission. There were a couple of glitch issues such as a location on the map for a quest not showing up and an odd one where Arno got stuck in a wall and it looked like he was swimming on the wall. Those were the only technical problems I ran into which isn't too bad. Overall the game itself is fun to play with lots to see and do. There's even a mission with a hot air balloon that's very cool.
Hot air balloon over Paris is awesome
Once I had finished up the main story of Unity, I started the Dead Kings DLC. This happens a week after the events of the main story and in Franciade (now Saint Denis) and Arno runs into the Marquis de Sade once again who wishes for Arno to help him find the manuscript of Nicoleas de Condorcet which is rumored to be in the tomb of Louis IX. Arno agrees to help him in exchange for a ship to take Arno to Egypt. After that you get to explore Franciade and while not as big as Paris it's just as beautiful and there's lots to explore above and below.
A bird's eye view of some of Franciade
Arno runs into some tomb raiders who happen to be working for Napoleon Bonaparte and we see him once again throughout the area. Napoleon is looking for something in a Precursor Temple. While we all know what that could mean Arno does not, but he knows that whatever it is can't be good. He also befriends a young boy named Leon and they work together to figure out exactly what it is Napoleon is after. There are a lot of side missions here too along with some murder mystery quests and a few more co-op missions as well. There are even a few take over the enemy fort missions that are fun to do as well.
Some of the missions could be a bit frustrating because a lot of them were in the catacombs and it could be very hard to see with how dark some of the areas are. I had to use Eagle Vision a lot just to be able to see where I needed to go. Luckily there were only a couple of places that were difficult to see in. You also get some new equipment that is pretty awesome like the guillotine gun basically an axe and a grenade launcher melded together. While not the stealthiest of weapons, it's a ton of fun to unleash all that firepower on your enemies. The lantern on the other hand, annoyed me. Yes, the catacombs are dark and yes you need a lantern, but it seemed a lot of the puzzles relied heavily on the lantern and it was a bit clunky and tedious. I mean having to use a lantern just so I could scare away roaches to jump on a ledge was a bit much.
The Precursor Temple was interesting to explore with a few lighting puzzles and brazier puzzles. The scenes with Arno and Leon chatting together were nice because it showed Leon gradually getting Arno to see that there is always hope and even caused Arno to change his mind about a few things. With the main story and side missions Dead Kings is only a couple of hours, but it's a couple of hours worth playing.
Arno in the Precursor Temple
Overall Assassin's Creed Unity (which includes the Dead Kings DLC for free) is a solid game and it is fun to play. There's a lot to see and do on your own and plenty to do with your friends via co-op missions. It's worth checking out because of the fun of the missions and because of the fact that the main character is actually pretty likable.