Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Scream 4 (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Over a decade ago, director Wes Craven and writer Kevin Williamson breathed new life into what had become a very stagnant horror genre with the release of Scream. The film was a clever twist on the killer-on-the-loose theme that had dominated the genre since the 80s and scored huge with audiences who loved the twists and turns of the film as well as the characters who quoted rules for surviving a horror film. With the huge success of the film, two sequels followed. But by the time Scream 3 was released, the series had lost its momentum and was becomeing the very cliche of a horror film that the series had originally made fun of.
Now in 2011, Craven and Williamson have returned with Scream 4, which is the planned first film in a new trilogy for the series with hopes to breath new life in a genre that has once again grown stale with ghost films and the so-called torture porn of the Saw films. Scream 4 is set 10 years after the events of the first film, and with a new book to promote, Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell), has returned to Woodsboro as a best-selling author, thanks to her book on self-empowerment, a direct result of her experiences in the previous three films.
The return of Sidney is a happy moment for Sherrif Dewey Riley (David Arquette), but not so much for his wife Gale (Courtney Cox), who is facing a bad case of writer’s block and is not exactly thrilled with her fade from the spotlight and life as the wife of the sheriff in the small town. Things get shaken up when a couple of gruesome murders are discovered and before long Sidney is being targeted by a killer who seems to be repeating the pattern of killing that had haunted her in the past.
When the killer strikes again and taunts Sidney with a disturbing phone call, Gale sees the chance to regain her former glory and despite the wishes of her husband Dewey, sets out to solve the mystery of the killer before it is too late.
What follows is a twisting and turning plot that has you seeing suspects everywhere as the body count piles up.
The film introduces some new faces into the series and Hayden Panettiere and Emma Roberts make the best of their roles and actually bring some depth to their characters. Of course there are numerous horror and pop culture references in the film which not only lighten the tension but help with the plot. The killings are graphic and the mix of comedy and horror is in good balance. As usual, people are really dumb just before they get theirs and do not do things like phone for help, take a safer route, and so on, but the film is still enjoyable from a horror fan’s perspective.
There are some nice celebrity cameos in the film and while the film did drag a bit in the final act before the conclusion, the film did redeem itself in the end. While it is not in danger of being cited for a deep plot, original story, or deep characters with wide character arcs, Scream 4 knows who its target audience is and what the audience expects. Some may say the series stayed away top long and has lost its edge and simply repeats the pattern and plot lines we’ve seen in the previous films. In the end, despite some issues, Scream 4 delivers a welcome return to the franchise and paves the way for future sequels in a manner which should delight fans of the genre and franchise.
Now in 2011, Craven and Williamson have returned with Scream 4, which is the planned first film in a new trilogy for the series with hopes to breath new life in a genre that has once again grown stale with ghost films and the so-called torture porn of the Saw films. Scream 4 is set 10 years after the events of the first film, and with a new book to promote, Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell), has returned to Woodsboro as a best-selling author, thanks to her book on self-empowerment, a direct result of her experiences in the previous three films.
The return of Sidney is a happy moment for Sherrif Dewey Riley (David Arquette), but not so much for his wife Gale (Courtney Cox), who is facing a bad case of writer’s block and is not exactly thrilled with her fade from the spotlight and life as the wife of the sheriff in the small town. Things get shaken up when a couple of gruesome murders are discovered and before long Sidney is being targeted by a killer who seems to be repeating the pattern of killing that had haunted her in the past.
When the killer strikes again and taunts Sidney with a disturbing phone call, Gale sees the chance to regain her former glory and despite the wishes of her husband Dewey, sets out to solve the mystery of the killer before it is too late.
What follows is a twisting and turning plot that has you seeing suspects everywhere as the body count piles up.
The film introduces some new faces into the series and Hayden Panettiere and Emma Roberts make the best of their roles and actually bring some depth to their characters. Of course there are numerous horror and pop culture references in the film which not only lighten the tension but help with the plot. The killings are graphic and the mix of comedy and horror is in good balance. As usual, people are really dumb just before they get theirs and do not do things like phone for help, take a safer route, and so on, but the film is still enjoyable from a horror fan’s perspective.
There are some nice celebrity cameos in the film and while the film did drag a bit in the final act before the conclusion, the film did redeem itself in the end. While it is not in danger of being cited for a deep plot, original story, or deep characters with wide character arcs, Scream 4 knows who its target audience is and what the audience expects. Some may say the series stayed away top long and has lost its edge and simply repeats the pattern and plot lines we’ve seen in the previous films. In the end, despite some issues, Scream 4 delivers a welcome return to the franchise and paves the way for future sequels in a manner which should delight fans of the genre and franchise.
Melanie Caldicott (6 KP) rated The Lost Apothecary in Books
Apr 29, 2021
Thanks to the publishers and NetGalley for the ARe-copy in exchange for this honest review. You can also read my review on my blog - https:roamingthroughbooks.wordpress.com
The Lost Apothecary by Sarah Penner is a novel which switches between the storylines of a female apothecary in the 1790s who sells poisons to women to kill men who have wronged them and the present day, in which Caroline happens upon a clue which leads her to investigate the apothecary’s story.
Well, the idea of an apothecary dispensing poison for women to use for murder was enticing to say the least. This book had the potential to weave a thought-provoking, adventurous tale, developing themes about womanhood, oppression and doing evil for good. Sadly, for me it did not quite meet the mark.
The narratives switch between three characters, Caroline, our present-day historian, Nella, the apothecary, and Eliza, a servant girl who becomes friends with Nella over the course of the book.
As I said, I was expecting this novel to grapple with challenging themes, which could have been very emotive and dark. Yet, it turned out to be just a bland bit of light fiction never dwelling on anything for too long, skimming over the surface of most of the characters, their motives and their reactions and lacking depth on any of the parallel-running plotlines.
It is surprising how a book surrounding multiple murders, historical medicine and herbalism and women trapped in marriages with infidels, letches and rapists could be quite so vanilla. It was a pleasant enough read, but lacked the substance I was hoping for.
I found Nella, the apothecary to be a bit of an enigma. We do learn about her back story and gain some insight into her motives for dispensing the poisons. However, for a woman who was resourceful enough to construct the whole clandestine operation we meet her in a weakened state and I grew frustrated with how she seemed to fall into an oblivious kind of dream-like manner becoming swept along by circumstance with no clear influence on the events or people around her.
Eliza, was a naïve girl who met Nella whilst running an errand for her mistress. It is not really clear why the friendship between Nella and Eliza develops, it seems to be more for the convenience of the plot than due to real concrete reasoning. However, an intimacy develops between them which has the potential to bring new colour to the characters. But yet again, Penner seems to skim the surface of going to any depths and I was left feeling robbed of any insight into the emotional and kindred aspects of their friendship.
Finally, Caroline’s story in the present day brought a different perspective to the themes of womanhood running through this book. She parallels the wronged women of the 18th century by escaping to London on a trip she was supposed to take with her husband to celebrate their tenth wedding anniversary, but was instead travelling alone having discovered her husband had been having an affair.
I initially enjoyed Caroline’s historical investigations as they took her to The British Library and researching documents and newspapers there. As an avid genealogist I appreciated the details Penner gives about the sources of Caroline’s research and the challenges of finding the truth from historical documents.
Yet, again her story became somewhat contrived. It seemed unlikely that she would make some of the discoveries she did and her investigation became constructed around coincidence and unrealistic serendipity. Even the parallel storylines surrounding her relationship and those from the apothecary’s timeline seemed somewhat silly and phoney.
For me, the conclusion of the book yet again did not fully reconcile itself and therefore left me unmoved and feeling somewhat apathetic about the ending and the novel as a whole.
The Lost Apothecary by Sarah Penner is a novel which switches between the storylines of a female apothecary in the 1790s who sells poisons to women to kill men who have wronged them and the present day, in which Caroline happens upon a clue which leads her to investigate the apothecary’s story.
Well, the idea of an apothecary dispensing poison for women to use for murder was enticing to say the least. This book had the potential to weave a thought-provoking, adventurous tale, developing themes about womanhood, oppression and doing evil for good. Sadly, for me it did not quite meet the mark.
The narratives switch between three characters, Caroline, our present-day historian, Nella, the apothecary, and Eliza, a servant girl who becomes friends with Nella over the course of the book.
As I said, I was expecting this novel to grapple with challenging themes, which could have been very emotive and dark. Yet, it turned out to be just a bland bit of light fiction never dwelling on anything for too long, skimming over the surface of most of the characters, their motives and their reactions and lacking depth on any of the parallel-running plotlines.
It is surprising how a book surrounding multiple murders, historical medicine and herbalism and women trapped in marriages with infidels, letches and rapists could be quite so vanilla. It was a pleasant enough read, but lacked the substance I was hoping for.
I found Nella, the apothecary to be a bit of an enigma. We do learn about her back story and gain some insight into her motives for dispensing the poisons. However, for a woman who was resourceful enough to construct the whole clandestine operation we meet her in a weakened state and I grew frustrated with how she seemed to fall into an oblivious kind of dream-like manner becoming swept along by circumstance with no clear influence on the events or people around her.
Eliza, was a naïve girl who met Nella whilst running an errand for her mistress. It is not really clear why the friendship between Nella and Eliza develops, it seems to be more for the convenience of the plot than due to real concrete reasoning. However, an intimacy develops between them which has the potential to bring new colour to the characters. But yet again, Penner seems to skim the surface of going to any depths and I was left feeling robbed of any insight into the emotional and kindred aspects of their friendship.
Finally, Caroline’s story in the present day brought a different perspective to the themes of womanhood running through this book. She parallels the wronged women of the 18th century by escaping to London on a trip she was supposed to take with her husband to celebrate their tenth wedding anniversary, but was instead travelling alone having discovered her husband had been having an affair.
I initially enjoyed Caroline’s historical investigations as they took her to The British Library and researching documents and newspapers there. As an avid genealogist I appreciated the details Penner gives about the sources of Caroline’s research and the challenges of finding the truth from historical documents.
Yet, again her story became somewhat contrived. It seemed unlikely that she would make some of the discoveries she did and her investigation became constructed around coincidence and unrealistic serendipity. Even the parallel storylines surrounding her relationship and those from the apothecary’s timeline seemed somewhat silly and phoney.
For me, the conclusion of the book yet again did not fully reconcile itself and therefore left me unmoved and feeling somewhat apathetic about the ending and the novel as a whole.
Erika (17789 KP) rated Sophie: A Murder In West Cork in TV
Jul 31, 2021
Sophie: A Murder in West Cork, is one of Netflix’s newest true crime series offerings. Consisting of three episodes, the series examines the murder case of Sophie Toscan Du Plantier, a French National that was murdered at her rural holiday getaway home in Schull, Ireland in 1996. Du Plantier’s murder was the first in over 100 years in the small town and remains technically unsolved.
The documentary series had a wide variety of talking heads, from Du Planier’s family, friends, locals, various members of the Garda, and surprisingly, the main suspect. Du Planier’s private life seemed complicated, and it was definitely going to be utilized against her throughout the entire thing.
The case was interesting, Du Planier was found in a bramble bush a few days before Christmas. With seemingly no leads, and a haphazard investigation, I didn’t know how they would end up with a suspect. The first episode set everything up, establishing what the town was like by interviewing the locals. There was even a little spookiness brought in. A few days before her death, Du Planier had visited some ruins, and saw a white lady, which was an omen of death. Pretty interesting, and you wouldn’t think it was pertinent, however, Du Planier took it seriously.
If you watch enough true crime documentaries, you know normally what a killer would do, revisit the scene, be overly helpful, etc. It was clear as soon as they introduced the journalist that he was indeed the suspect. However, when the second episode started, the series was taken over by the main suspect, journalist and ‘poet’, Ian Bailey. As one of Du Planier’s family members quipped, he loves to be interviewed.
Somehow, Bailey had all of this insider knowledge, and wrote somewhat salacious articles about Du Planier, painting her as this woman that entertained all sorts of men. He was also very adamant that the murder was French, and probably her partner or another intimate partner. Bailey was somewhat charismatic, but a complete weirdo. It is common for law enforcement to go after the ‘others’ in society, so was he targeted because he was eccentric? Who knows?
It was clear that the Garda in this area had no idea as to what to do. They may have also had a little tunnel vision because the village creep was poking around the crime scene.
I’m all for presenting all sides to a case, but having the suspect take over in a very charismatic way is not the best approach. The Garda in the area, inexperienced in investigating murders, was obviously not equipped to deal with the investigation. It was clear from the beginning that it was the primary reason the case hasn’t been officially prosecuted in Ireland.
Whenever your documentary begins to get overtaken by the number one suspect, rather than the victim, I begin to have issues. It was also interesting that at the end of the series, there was actually a statement that Du Planier had been forgotten throughout the entire event, and while she was present, she wasn’t the center of the story.
Bailey seems to be the most likely culprit, though, the Garda couldn’t have convinced me beyond a reasonable doubt. It was interesting that somehow in France, the evidence was considered solid enough for a conviction.
I did generally enjoy the documentary series, but again, I have an issue with the main suspect overshadowing the victim. Also, I didn’t feel like enough evidence was presented, and the majority of it was slightly repetitive. I’m interested to see if the case is ever resolved. Based upon the series, probably not.
The documentary series had a wide variety of talking heads, from Du Planier’s family, friends, locals, various members of the Garda, and surprisingly, the main suspect. Du Planier’s private life seemed complicated, and it was definitely going to be utilized against her throughout the entire thing.
The case was interesting, Du Planier was found in a bramble bush a few days before Christmas. With seemingly no leads, and a haphazard investigation, I didn’t know how they would end up with a suspect. The first episode set everything up, establishing what the town was like by interviewing the locals. There was even a little spookiness brought in. A few days before her death, Du Planier had visited some ruins, and saw a white lady, which was an omen of death. Pretty interesting, and you wouldn’t think it was pertinent, however, Du Planier took it seriously.
If you watch enough true crime documentaries, you know normally what a killer would do, revisit the scene, be overly helpful, etc. It was clear as soon as they introduced the journalist that he was indeed the suspect. However, when the second episode started, the series was taken over by the main suspect, journalist and ‘poet’, Ian Bailey. As one of Du Planier’s family members quipped, he loves to be interviewed.
Somehow, Bailey had all of this insider knowledge, and wrote somewhat salacious articles about Du Planier, painting her as this woman that entertained all sorts of men. He was also very adamant that the murder was French, and probably her partner or another intimate partner. Bailey was somewhat charismatic, but a complete weirdo. It is common for law enforcement to go after the ‘others’ in society, so was he targeted because he was eccentric? Who knows?
It was clear that the Garda in this area had no idea as to what to do. They may have also had a little tunnel vision because the village creep was poking around the crime scene.
I’m all for presenting all sides to a case, but having the suspect take over in a very charismatic way is not the best approach. The Garda in the area, inexperienced in investigating murders, was obviously not equipped to deal with the investigation. It was clear from the beginning that it was the primary reason the case hasn’t been officially prosecuted in Ireland.
Whenever your documentary begins to get overtaken by the number one suspect, rather than the victim, I begin to have issues. It was also interesting that at the end of the series, there was actually a statement that Du Planier had been forgotten throughout the entire event, and while she was present, she wasn’t the center of the story.
Bailey seems to be the most likely culprit, though, the Garda couldn’t have convinced me beyond a reasonable doubt. It was interesting that somehow in France, the evidence was considered solid enough for a conviction.
I did generally enjoy the documentary series, but again, I have an issue with the main suspect overshadowing the victim. Also, I didn’t feel like enough evidence was presented, and the majority of it was slightly repetitive. I’m interested to see if the case is ever resolved. Based upon the series, probably not.
D&D Lords of Waterdeep
Games
9.0
Rate It
App
*Cross platform online play! Join your friends on other platforms!* *New In-game chat feature. Stay...
Jamie (131 KP) rated The Shining Girls in Books
Jun 4, 2017
Ambitious & unique story line (1 more)
Handles the web of time paradoxes well
Mash-up of genres is disjointing (2 more)
Romance is distracting at best
Repeated murder scenes gets wearisome
A cool time travel thriller
The Shining Girls follows Harper, a crude serial killer from the 1930’s that can hop through time; and Kirby, the spunky young woman that got away. This book was incredibly ambitious in its premise and I spent a great deal of my time reading the book wondering if it could deliver and I can happily say that I wasn’t disappointed.
The story is a heavily character driven dive through recent American history, from the Great Depression in the 1930’s all the way up to the early 1990’s. I was impressed by the amount of research that was put into this book, each decade having enough detail to get a good feel for the era. Many of the characters were pretty well fleshed out for such short chapters, and I found myself liking many of them.
My favorite part of the story, though, was the tragedy that was Harper because of how very flawed and human he is. He views himself as commanding, charming, persuasive, but to many of his victims he’s just downright creepy. He thinks himself calculating yet he makes mistakes left and right. He has a drive to rise up from the trenches of poverty and starvation from his own era, to be powerful. His choice of victims are all women in a great act of femicide, because he has this dire need to feel masculine. He chooses women that he views as invincible, that shine with ambition in order to assert his dominance by snuffing them out. He thinks he has this divine purpose, a destiny to fulfill because he wants it so desperately, even though the reality is that it’s simply senseless violence with no real meaning. He obsesses over the murders, returning to the scene of the crimes over and over to get off. Harper is pathetic. It was a refreshing change from the stereotypical smooth, genius archetype that glorifies killers. I didn’t know right away that this book was meant to be a feminist novel, but that’s what I took away from not only Harper’s struggle with masculinity, but with the strong and fiercely independent female characters all throughout the book.
There were a couple of problems with the book, however, that I feel need to be addressed. The mash up of genres is both a good and bad aspect of the story. The middle chapters where romance comes into play to me was really distracting and feels out of place. The tagline describing the novel also states that “the girl who wouldn’t die hunts the killer who shouldn’t exist” but honestly, it didn’t feel much like Kirby was really hunting the killer. Looking for connections with other murder cases and investigating some wild hunches, yes, but really she spends most of the book developing her bond with Dan. I would have really liked for this to be more of a cat and mouse type of hunt between Kirby and Harper.
The chapters with Harper were much more interesting, but even those became a little repetitive. We as the reader follow Harper as he stalks his victims in childhood, waiting for the right time to strike when they reach adulthood. While it was necessary for the plot to detail the characters to both connect them to the greater chain of paradoxes and to show Harper’s descent, the violence is excessive and extremely detailed, and after a while it started to feel more like torture porn. It just got tiring after a while.
Despite its flaws, I thought this book was good, and I mean really good. I loved the way that the time paradoxes were handled, time travel stories tend to be tricky and usually end up with a couple of glaring loop holes. The loops are handled in a way that I found satisfying and this book is easily my favorite time travel novel I’ve ever read. It is truly unique and a story I won’t soon forget.
The story is a heavily character driven dive through recent American history, from the Great Depression in the 1930’s all the way up to the early 1990’s. I was impressed by the amount of research that was put into this book, each decade having enough detail to get a good feel for the era. Many of the characters were pretty well fleshed out for such short chapters, and I found myself liking many of them.
My favorite part of the story, though, was the tragedy that was Harper because of how very flawed and human he is. He views himself as commanding, charming, persuasive, but to many of his victims he’s just downright creepy. He thinks himself calculating yet he makes mistakes left and right. He has a drive to rise up from the trenches of poverty and starvation from his own era, to be powerful. His choice of victims are all women in a great act of femicide, because he has this dire need to feel masculine. He chooses women that he views as invincible, that shine with ambition in order to assert his dominance by snuffing them out. He thinks he has this divine purpose, a destiny to fulfill because he wants it so desperately, even though the reality is that it’s simply senseless violence with no real meaning. He obsesses over the murders, returning to the scene of the crimes over and over to get off. Harper is pathetic. It was a refreshing change from the stereotypical smooth, genius archetype that glorifies killers. I didn’t know right away that this book was meant to be a feminist novel, but that’s what I took away from not only Harper’s struggle with masculinity, but with the strong and fiercely independent female characters all throughout the book.
There were a couple of problems with the book, however, that I feel need to be addressed. The mash up of genres is both a good and bad aspect of the story. The middle chapters where romance comes into play to me was really distracting and feels out of place. The tagline describing the novel also states that “the girl who wouldn’t die hunts the killer who shouldn’t exist” but honestly, it didn’t feel much like Kirby was really hunting the killer. Looking for connections with other murder cases and investigating some wild hunches, yes, but really she spends most of the book developing her bond with Dan. I would have really liked for this to be more of a cat and mouse type of hunt between Kirby and Harper.
The chapters with Harper were much more interesting, but even those became a little repetitive. We as the reader follow Harper as he stalks his victims in childhood, waiting for the right time to strike when they reach adulthood. While it was necessary for the plot to detail the characters to both connect them to the greater chain of paradoxes and to show Harper’s descent, the violence is excessive and extremely detailed, and after a while it started to feel more like torture porn. It just got tiring after a while.
Despite its flaws, I thought this book was good, and I mean really good. I loved the way that the time paradoxes were handled, time travel stories tend to be tricky and usually end up with a couple of glaring loop holes. The loops are handled in a way that I found satisfying and this book is easily my favorite time travel novel I’ve ever read. It is truly unique and a story I won’t soon forget.
Midge (525 KP) rated Death In Provence in Books
Feb 2, 2019
Many twists and turns of the plot (1 more)
Great pacing
A Light And Relaxing Read
DEATH IN PROVENCE is a wonderful, light, and relaxed read with all of the matching vibes you get when on holiday. That’s exactly how I felt - this novel is almost as good being on a long vacation.
It is a refreshing, mystery fiction novel set in wonderfully scenic St Merlot, a sleepy, quiet village that has infrequent visitors at the unfashionable end of the Luberon Valley, France. St Merlot is unspoilt, with dry stone walls and wildflowers.
What’s really likeable about it straight-away are the opening chapters that draw you into the main character, Penelope Kite. Recently retired and divorced, she is an optimistic, happy, fifty-year-old with plenty of joie-de-vivre. Penelope, or Penny to her friends, has put her unfaithful ex-husband and her ungrateful stepchildren first, for a long time. Since she left her job in forensics at the Home Office in England, she’s been an unpaid babysitter and chauffeur for her grandchildren. Now, she’s going to start living for herself so she buys her dream house, Le Chant d’Eau, or The Song of Water. The stone farmhouse tucked high in the hills is in need of major restoration but is complete with a garden, swimming pool, and sweeping mountain vistas.
But not long after her arrival at Le Chant d’Eau, a corpse is found floating in her swimming pool. The local detective doesn’t seem particularly interested in finding out either the truth or the murderer, but Penny knows a thing or two about murder investigations herself so she starts an investigation of her own.
Enter Clemence Valencourt, the chic but supercilious estate agent, the disdainful chief of police, Inspector Paul Gamelin brought in from the headquarters of the Police Municipale in Cavaillon to investigate. He is 40-ish, has a tanned narrow face, greying hair and a grave demeanour. He also speaks excellent English. The devilishly handsome local mayor is called in to formally identify the corpse. He is the maire de St Merlot, and is gorgeous, with floppy sun-streaked hair, a caramel tan and chiselled cheekbones He also has stunning dark blue eyes...
All this and being tempted by the delightful food and drink delicacies that Provence has to offer. Luckily her kind and high-spirited, old friend, Frankie who is conveniently fluid in French is just a flight away.
One of the highlights of the book is following the many twists and turns of the plot. I liked the fact that Penny is a smart 50-year-old woman who has lots of life experience and is trying to come to terms with ageing and that she is not quite as naive as her new neighbours in St. Merlot seem to believe. Both the plot and the character development are excellent, and the story is captivating and engaging. It held my interest from start to finish.
DEATH IN PROVENCE was an interesting novel particularly for the interplay of the different secondary characters as well as the primary ones - a reticent and monosyllabic neighbour, an eccentric but honourable gardener, a jaunty and smiling electrician, and a close-knit village community, to name but a few. Plenty of ups and downs along the way and plenty of surprises. I loved Serena Kent’s writing style which I found to be so vivid and very easy to read. The descriptions of the places, people and food were very real and it was easy to imagine that you were actually there. She has reflected the spirit of the French villagers, their individuality brilliantly.
Although I did not figure out who was behind the murders, even though all the clues were there, I had a great time guessing and I loved it! I was very satisfied with the ending. I have been inspired to read more from Serena Kent and I highly recommend this book. I suggest wholeheartedly that you add it to your reading list.
Thank you to Edelweiss and the publisher for a free ARC of this book in exchange for an honest review.
It is a refreshing, mystery fiction novel set in wonderfully scenic St Merlot, a sleepy, quiet village that has infrequent visitors at the unfashionable end of the Luberon Valley, France. St Merlot is unspoilt, with dry stone walls and wildflowers.
What’s really likeable about it straight-away are the opening chapters that draw you into the main character, Penelope Kite. Recently retired and divorced, she is an optimistic, happy, fifty-year-old with plenty of joie-de-vivre. Penelope, or Penny to her friends, has put her unfaithful ex-husband and her ungrateful stepchildren first, for a long time. Since she left her job in forensics at the Home Office in England, she’s been an unpaid babysitter and chauffeur for her grandchildren. Now, she’s going to start living for herself so she buys her dream house, Le Chant d’Eau, or The Song of Water. The stone farmhouse tucked high in the hills is in need of major restoration but is complete with a garden, swimming pool, and sweeping mountain vistas.
But not long after her arrival at Le Chant d’Eau, a corpse is found floating in her swimming pool. The local detective doesn’t seem particularly interested in finding out either the truth or the murderer, but Penny knows a thing or two about murder investigations herself so she starts an investigation of her own.
Enter Clemence Valencourt, the chic but supercilious estate agent, the disdainful chief of police, Inspector Paul Gamelin brought in from the headquarters of the Police Municipale in Cavaillon to investigate. He is 40-ish, has a tanned narrow face, greying hair and a grave demeanour. He also speaks excellent English. The devilishly handsome local mayor is called in to formally identify the corpse. He is the maire de St Merlot, and is gorgeous, with floppy sun-streaked hair, a caramel tan and chiselled cheekbones He also has stunning dark blue eyes...
All this and being tempted by the delightful food and drink delicacies that Provence has to offer. Luckily her kind and high-spirited, old friend, Frankie who is conveniently fluid in French is just a flight away.
One of the highlights of the book is following the many twists and turns of the plot. I liked the fact that Penny is a smart 50-year-old woman who has lots of life experience and is trying to come to terms with ageing and that she is not quite as naive as her new neighbours in St. Merlot seem to believe. Both the plot and the character development are excellent, and the story is captivating and engaging. It held my interest from start to finish.
DEATH IN PROVENCE was an interesting novel particularly for the interplay of the different secondary characters as well as the primary ones - a reticent and monosyllabic neighbour, an eccentric but honourable gardener, a jaunty and smiling electrician, and a close-knit village community, to name but a few. Plenty of ups and downs along the way and plenty of surprises. I loved Serena Kent’s writing style which I found to be so vivid and very easy to read. The descriptions of the places, people and food were very real and it was easy to imagine that you were actually there. She has reflected the spirit of the French villagers, their individuality brilliantly.
Although I did not figure out who was behind the murders, even though all the clues were there, I had a great time guessing and I loved it! I was very satisfied with the ending. I have been inspired to read more from Serena Kent and I highly recommend this book. I suggest wholeheartedly that you add it to your reading list.
Thank you to Edelweiss and the publisher for a free ARC of this book in exchange for an honest review.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Salt (2010) in Movies
Feb 25, 2019
Disappointing 80's retread...
Contains spoilers, click to show
Salt. The trailer looked rubbish, dated and starring Angelina Jolie, was never going to tickle my fancy. Reminding me of Rodger Donaldson's, Kevin Costner starrer, No Way Out, I felt that the attempt may be to bring that 80′s thriller to a new audience but instead we got a very confused tome. Firstly, I will cover the good points, which start with the script.
Though heavily flawed and mired by poor dialogue, pacing and a schizophrenic narrative, it was clearly intelligently conceived and several neat twists, though generally predictable, had survived. And besides the music, that's about it. In the end, this is a film with little identity, seeking to confuse the audience and bring them into the complex world of double agents and apocalyptic doomsday scenarios.
The story begins with Evelyn Salt, who after being released from a Korean prison and being brutally integrated as a spy, married her "Cover" husband who we believe she actually loves, in spite of the fact that he is being used as the aforementioned "cover". Then, 2 years later, she is brought into interrogate a Russian defector who tells her that she is a sleeper agent whose mission it to kill the Russian Premier, which she vehemently denies and goes on the run to prove her innocence and protect her husband
Sounds pretty straight forward so far But after about half an hour, everything shifts as she assassinates the Russian President, dons a Russian hat, meets up with the defector and watches her husband drown before her eyes to prove her loyalty to her brethren of sleeper agents. Then, she murders ALL of them! She meets up with another sleeper, breaks into the White House, blows part of it up and ends up in a room with a "master agent", a key player from earlier in the film and completely predictable twist, with a dead U.S. President and a nuclear countdown ticking
The main problem with this isn't the outlandish plotting but the fact that we never really know who Salt is. She starts out as a normal CIA agent, who is then placed under suspicion of being a Russian sleeper, then she 's on the run and until this point were satisfied that she's being set up, but then she is not only guilty, thereby destroying all the character development of the first act, she's a VERY guilty and clearly a bad guy.
Then she is forced to watch her husband die to prove her loyalty, only to promptly kill those who murdered him, so really, what was then point? This was a man whom she was wanting to save at all costs in the opening 30 minutes but when she finds him he's left to die.
Then she commits an outlandish assassination of the Russian Premier, or does she? But by the time she's making her way into the preposterously defended nuclear bunker, I simply don't like her, or really understand what the hell she's playing at? And without the empathy for the titular character, there's little going for the film.
This is an ambitious project but fails to engage with me, as Jolie is a truly terrible leading lady in my opinion, and casting her in such a duplicitous role was a mistake. Even if a character changes allegiances, we still know who they are but this is not the case here as Salt seems to have a split personality with little explanation.
And the final point must be that if Russia had trained a band of sleeper agents this skilled, this lethal that they could not only infiltrate the U.S., but fight their way into the heart of the White House's Nuclear Bunker, I believe that the Cold War would have heated up a long time ago and that we'd all be speaking Russian too!
A real shame that what could have been a pretty effective Cold War thriller was allowed to descend into an unpleasant and non-empathetic watch.
Though heavily flawed and mired by poor dialogue, pacing and a schizophrenic narrative, it was clearly intelligently conceived and several neat twists, though generally predictable, had survived. And besides the music, that's about it. In the end, this is a film with little identity, seeking to confuse the audience and bring them into the complex world of double agents and apocalyptic doomsday scenarios.
The story begins with Evelyn Salt, who after being released from a Korean prison and being brutally integrated as a spy, married her "Cover" husband who we believe she actually loves, in spite of the fact that he is being used as the aforementioned "cover". Then, 2 years later, she is brought into interrogate a Russian defector who tells her that she is a sleeper agent whose mission it to kill the Russian Premier, which she vehemently denies and goes on the run to prove her innocence and protect her husband
Sounds pretty straight forward so far But after about half an hour, everything shifts as she assassinates the Russian President, dons a Russian hat, meets up with the defector and watches her husband drown before her eyes to prove her loyalty to her brethren of sleeper agents. Then, she murders ALL of them! She meets up with another sleeper, breaks into the White House, blows part of it up and ends up in a room with a "master agent", a key player from earlier in the film and completely predictable twist, with a dead U.S. President and a nuclear countdown ticking
The main problem with this isn't the outlandish plotting but the fact that we never really know who Salt is. She starts out as a normal CIA agent, who is then placed under suspicion of being a Russian sleeper, then she 's on the run and until this point were satisfied that she's being set up, but then she is not only guilty, thereby destroying all the character development of the first act, she's a VERY guilty and clearly a bad guy.
Then she is forced to watch her husband die to prove her loyalty, only to promptly kill those who murdered him, so really, what was then point? This was a man whom she was wanting to save at all costs in the opening 30 minutes but when she finds him he's left to die.
Then she commits an outlandish assassination of the Russian Premier, or does she? But by the time she's making her way into the preposterously defended nuclear bunker, I simply don't like her, or really understand what the hell she's playing at? And without the empathy for the titular character, there's little going for the film.
This is an ambitious project but fails to engage with me, as Jolie is a truly terrible leading lady in my opinion, and casting her in such a duplicitous role was a mistake. Even if a character changes allegiances, we still know who they are but this is not the case here as Salt seems to have a split personality with little explanation.
And the final point must be that if Russia had trained a band of sleeper agents this skilled, this lethal that they could not only infiltrate the U.S., but fight their way into the heart of the White House's Nuclear Bunker, I believe that the Cold War would have heated up a long time ago and that we'd all be speaking Russian too!
A real shame that what could have been a pretty effective Cold War thriller was allowed to descend into an unpleasant and non-empathetic watch.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated The House That Jack Built (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Danish director Lars Von Trier is no stranger to controversy. He has certainly divided film fans with some praising his work and some condemning it. The House That Jack Built is his most recent creation, causing audience members at Cannes to either walk out in disgust or stand up and applaud. This seriously mixed reception caught my interest and I wanted to find out what he’d done to generate such a response.
I’ve only seen two of his previous films; Antichrist and Melancholia, the former being a film that disturbed me so much I haven’t been able to watch it a second time. Its visceral, raw and harrowing portrayal of sex, violence, and self-mutilation is something that is a thoroughly uncomfortable and unpleasant watch. Because of Antichrist, I felt nervous yet strangely excited to see what The House That Jack Built had in store for me. I was surprised, however, to discover that it is arguably his tamest film to date, with a lot of the more graphic content happening off-screen. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t have its disturbing moments, but it was a lot less visceral than I was expecting based on its recent backlash.
The film is split into five chapters labelled ‘The Incidents’ and an epilogue, detailing some of the murders that Jack carried out over a 12-year span. Two of these incidents include child abuse and female mutilation, but is presented in a much more psychologically disturbing way rather than uncomfortable close-ups and drawn out scenes that you watch from behind your hands. The House That Jack Built spends more time tapping into Jack’s own psyche than it does the atrocities he commits, with Matt Dillon really stealing the show as the titular character.
It’s also darkly funny in places, which I certainly wasn’t expecting. Dillon’s portrayal of a psychotic killer with OCD is both terrifying and amusing. He is simultaneously charming and unhinged, which is a difficult thing to pull off. He was by far my favourite thing about the film, reminiscent of so many iconic serial killers that have fascinated the general public. The film relied heavily on Jack’s character and inner thoughts so it was great to see Dillon pull it off so brilliantly.
Much like Von Trier’s previous work, The House That Jack Built features lots of symbolism throughout the narrative. In this case, it focuses heavily on religion, art and family, with Jack being challenged on all of these as he recounts the incidents. The voice challenging him is a mystery to us until the third act, where Bruno Ganz’s character is finally revealed to us. I found this reveal to be a little jarring and strange, but not unexpected from one of his films. For me, the third act is where it started to go downhill and I lost interest, which is a real shame after the strength of the first two. Despite seeing some really great analyses online, it wasn’t enough to change my own views on the way it ended. It just seemed a little too out of place for my liking.
The visual style is interesting and combines live action with animation and still images. This feels very random but in the context of this particular film, it actually works in its favour. Both Dillon and Ganz narrate over the animation and still images, giving us monologues that act as food for thought and raise questions about morality, life, death and so on. It’s an intense film in that regard and one that you have to really concentrate on in order to enjoy properly.
The House That Jack Built is a depressing, harrowing and strange film. Its blend of sadistic violence and humour makes it a truly unique horror film that seems to appeal to a very specific audience. It’s not for the faint of heart, and Jack’s misogynistic killing sprees teamed with his nihilistic outlook on life is bound to be uncomfortable for many to witness. As a case study on a serial killer it’s a fascinating watch, but out of the three films I’ve seen, this one is unfortunately the weakest in my eyes.
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/review-the-house-that-jack-built-2018/
I’ve only seen two of his previous films; Antichrist and Melancholia, the former being a film that disturbed me so much I haven’t been able to watch it a second time. Its visceral, raw and harrowing portrayal of sex, violence, and self-mutilation is something that is a thoroughly uncomfortable and unpleasant watch. Because of Antichrist, I felt nervous yet strangely excited to see what The House That Jack Built had in store for me. I was surprised, however, to discover that it is arguably his tamest film to date, with a lot of the more graphic content happening off-screen. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t have its disturbing moments, but it was a lot less visceral than I was expecting based on its recent backlash.
The film is split into five chapters labelled ‘The Incidents’ and an epilogue, detailing some of the murders that Jack carried out over a 12-year span. Two of these incidents include child abuse and female mutilation, but is presented in a much more psychologically disturbing way rather than uncomfortable close-ups and drawn out scenes that you watch from behind your hands. The House That Jack Built spends more time tapping into Jack’s own psyche than it does the atrocities he commits, with Matt Dillon really stealing the show as the titular character.
It’s also darkly funny in places, which I certainly wasn’t expecting. Dillon’s portrayal of a psychotic killer with OCD is both terrifying and amusing. He is simultaneously charming and unhinged, which is a difficult thing to pull off. He was by far my favourite thing about the film, reminiscent of so many iconic serial killers that have fascinated the general public. The film relied heavily on Jack’s character and inner thoughts so it was great to see Dillon pull it off so brilliantly.
Much like Von Trier’s previous work, The House That Jack Built features lots of symbolism throughout the narrative. In this case, it focuses heavily on religion, art and family, with Jack being challenged on all of these as he recounts the incidents. The voice challenging him is a mystery to us until the third act, where Bruno Ganz’s character is finally revealed to us. I found this reveal to be a little jarring and strange, but not unexpected from one of his films. For me, the third act is where it started to go downhill and I lost interest, which is a real shame after the strength of the first two. Despite seeing some really great analyses online, it wasn’t enough to change my own views on the way it ended. It just seemed a little too out of place for my liking.
The visual style is interesting and combines live action with animation and still images. This feels very random but in the context of this particular film, it actually works in its favour. Both Dillon and Ganz narrate over the animation and still images, giving us monologues that act as food for thought and raise questions about morality, life, death and so on. It’s an intense film in that regard and one that you have to really concentrate on in order to enjoy properly.
The House That Jack Built is a depressing, harrowing and strange film. Its blend of sadistic violence and humour makes it a truly unique horror film that seems to appeal to a very specific audience. It’s not for the faint of heart, and Jack’s misogynistic killing sprees teamed with his nihilistic outlook on life is bound to be uncomfortable for many to witness. As a case study on a serial killer it’s a fascinating watch, but out of the three films I’ve seen, this one is unfortunately the weakest in my eyes.
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/review-the-house-that-jack-built-2018/
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Michael’s back, back again
Happy Halloween everyone! What better way to celebrate than with my review of the latest in the Halloween franchise?
40 years after John Carpenter’s iconic horror film, we are greeted with a brand new instalment in Michael Myers’ saga. It feels like a really special moment for horror fans, as we reflect on the original decades later. The opening credits pay homage to the 1978 and provide some nostalgia for long time fans by using the same text and soundtrack that audiences would’ve seen on the big screen back then. This was a great stylistic choice as it really gets you feeling pumped for what’s to come.
The film opens with Myers in a high security facility, where two true crime podcasters attempt to communicate with him in order to learn more about him and the murders he committed. Unsurprisingly, Michael refuses to say anything, providing a seriously uncomfortable moment for the audience. Throughout the film, we don’t see or hear him, and shots of him without the mask are always the back of his head. I would have been very disappointed if they’d decided to show his face throughout, as this sense of facelessness is something that’s always scared me about him. He’s a silent killer, never jumping out and screaming, but hiding in the shadows waiting to strike at any point. Most interactions with Myers are tense, uncomfortable and nail biting. His presence alone has that effect on you.
As ever, it was a joy to see Jamie Lee Curtis reprise her role as original Myers’ victim, Laurie Strode. Throughout the film, Strode’s paranoia is hard to brush off, and actually makes you feel more on edge. It was great seeing how she’d aged, yet refused to move on, and Curtis really brought her to life once again. She was the highlight of the film for me, as she was far from a cowering victim, and someone who wanted Myers dead for good. Having said that, you can tell how much she still fears him and how she’s suffering with long-term PTSD after almost being murdered. Let’s face it, anyone would feel the same way.
Unfortunately, I did find some of the acting a bit cringeworthy and it took away from the overall experience. I know that horror films have a bit of a reputation for terrible acting and dialogue, but I felt like such an important franchise deserved better than that. In my screening there were a few laugh out loud moments, and I don’t think all of them were intentional. One thing I will say is that child actor Jibrail Nantambu is one to watch because he was such a character and brought some genuine humour to the scenes he was in. I hope he goes far. Michael’s handler Dr. Ranbir Sartain is also an interesting character that I won’t say much about, but his development throughout is particularly great.
Admittedly I would’ve preferred less focus on teenagers, families and their dramas, and more on Michael and the actual kills. The film was meant to be about him and Laurie, after all. Whilst I was mostly satisfied by the brutality and some really gruesome moments, I felt it had been hyped up to the point where I expected more. Is that bad? Have I just become desensitised to bloody moments? I’m not quite sure. Having said that, one scene in particular did have me on the edge of my seat so it was still able to provide that adrenaline rush despite all its flaws. I’m still really bloody scared of Michael Myers.
Overall, Halloween is certainly watchable and a great visit to the cinema, especially this evening. Whilst I’m not the world’s biggest Halloween fan and there are certain films in the franchise I haven’t even seen, I still enjoyed this and understood what was going on. If you’re a big horror fan, particularly of the classics, give this a go. It might give you some welcome nostalgia and scares, and maybe that’s enough.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/10/31/halloween-2018-michaels-back-back-again/
40 years after John Carpenter’s iconic horror film, we are greeted with a brand new instalment in Michael Myers’ saga. It feels like a really special moment for horror fans, as we reflect on the original decades later. The opening credits pay homage to the 1978 and provide some nostalgia for long time fans by using the same text and soundtrack that audiences would’ve seen on the big screen back then. This was a great stylistic choice as it really gets you feeling pumped for what’s to come.
The film opens with Myers in a high security facility, where two true crime podcasters attempt to communicate with him in order to learn more about him and the murders he committed. Unsurprisingly, Michael refuses to say anything, providing a seriously uncomfortable moment for the audience. Throughout the film, we don’t see or hear him, and shots of him without the mask are always the back of his head. I would have been very disappointed if they’d decided to show his face throughout, as this sense of facelessness is something that’s always scared me about him. He’s a silent killer, never jumping out and screaming, but hiding in the shadows waiting to strike at any point. Most interactions with Myers are tense, uncomfortable and nail biting. His presence alone has that effect on you.
As ever, it was a joy to see Jamie Lee Curtis reprise her role as original Myers’ victim, Laurie Strode. Throughout the film, Strode’s paranoia is hard to brush off, and actually makes you feel more on edge. It was great seeing how she’d aged, yet refused to move on, and Curtis really brought her to life once again. She was the highlight of the film for me, as she was far from a cowering victim, and someone who wanted Myers dead for good. Having said that, you can tell how much she still fears him and how she’s suffering with long-term PTSD after almost being murdered. Let’s face it, anyone would feel the same way.
Unfortunately, I did find some of the acting a bit cringeworthy and it took away from the overall experience. I know that horror films have a bit of a reputation for terrible acting and dialogue, but I felt like such an important franchise deserved better than that. In my screening there were a few laugh out loud moments, and I don’t think all of them were intentional. One thing I will say is that child actor Jibrail Nantambu is one to watch because he was such a character and brought some genuine humour to the scenes he was in. I hope he goes far. Michael’s handler Dr. Ranbir Sartain is also an interesting character that I won’t say much about, but his development throughout is particularly great.
Admittedly I would’ve preferred less focus on teenagers, families and their dramas, and more on Michael and the actual kills. The film was meant to be about him and Laurie, after all. Whilst I was mostly satisfied by the brutality and some really gruesome moments, I felt it had been hyped up to the point where I expected more. Is that bad? Have I just become desensitised to bloody moments? I’m not quite sure. Having said that, one scene in particular did have me on the edge of my seat so it was still able to provide that adrenaline rush despite all its flaws. I’m still really bloody scared of Michael Myers.
Overall, Halloween is certainly watchable and a great visit to the cinema, especially this evening. Whilst I’m not the world’s biggest Halloween fan and there are certain films in the franchise I haven’t even seen, I still enjoyed this and understood what was going on. If you’re a big horror fan, particularly of the classics, give this a go. It might give you some welcome nostalgia and scares, and maybe that’s enough.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/10/31/halloween-2018-michaels-back-back-again/
Lee (2222 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Aug 16, 2019
Quentin Tarantino is known for his lengthy, self-indulgent movies - some of which I've loved, some not so much. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a nostalgic homage to 1960s Hollywood and, at 2 hours 41 minutes, it is certainly lengthy and self-indulgent. But, despite some outstanding performances, it's probably at least an hour too long, and proved to be a real test of my patience and endurance.
Leonardo DiCaprio is Rick Dalton, a TV and movie star best known for repeatedly saving the day in the now cancelled TV show 'Bounty Law', where he played a classic screen cowboy. Rick is struggling to come to terms with his fading career, and the feeling that Hollywood is moving on without him. His best, and only friend, is Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt), who has been Rick's stunt double over the years. Work for Cliff has dried up following rumours that he murdered his wife and Cliff now spends his days as Rick's driver, odd-job man and general shoulder to cry on. He seems fairly relaxed about his simple lifestyle though - returning each evening to his trailer, and faithful canine companion Brandy, before picking Rick up bright and early the next day in order to drive him to whatever production set he's currently working at.
Meanwhile, successful young actor Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) has moved in next door to Rick along with her husband, director Roman Polanski. This is the area where Tarantino weaves fact with fiction and if you're not familiar with the Manson murders of 1969, it's probably worth reading up on a little bit before heading into the movie. On the night of 9 August 1969, three followers of cult leader Charles Manson entered the home of a heavily pregnant Sharon Tate and brutally murdered her and the friends who were with her at the time. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood begins a few months before those events, and then takes its sweet time in slowly building towards it.
If it weren't for the performances of everyone involved, this would have been a much harder watch for me. Brad Pitt is the best I've seen him for a long time here, all smiles and laid-back charm, a real interesting and enjoyable character. Leonardo DiCaprio is also on fine form as the broken man struggling to cling to fame and when the two are together, they're a lot of fun. Margot Robbie, has far less to do in her parallel story-line, but still manages to shine in her charismatic portrayal of Tate.
What does make the movie harder to watch is the run-time and, as I said right at the start, I feel this definitely could have benefited from at least an hour being chopped. Sunny LA during the 1960s is beautiful to look at, and when we're following Rick and Cliff as they cruise around town in their car it's nostalgic, vibrant and wonderful to watch. But, we get to follow the characters around town in their cars quite a lot in this movie. And, on top of that, literally every scene, no matter how significant, irrelevant or weak it may be, is dragged out far longer than it needs to be. The great scenes become diluted, and the scenes where nothing much was happening anyway, just become frustrating and hard work to hold your attention.
Along the way, our characters occasionally and unknowingly cross paths with the hippies who form Charles Manson's cult at Spahn Ranch. Cliff even has a uneasy standoff with a group of them at the ranch itself in one of the better scenes of the movie. It's these suspenseful moments that increase the tension perfectly, stoking the sense of foreboding and providing a constant reminder of the death and destruction set to come. The final 15 minutes or so do provide us with some intense, violent madness - a real wake up call after the meandering, often floundering, plot-lines of the movie up until that point. As always with Tarantino movies, there's plenty to digest, dissect and discuss but I certainly won't be revisiting this one any time soon.
Leonardo DiCaprio is Rick Dalton, a TV and movie star best known for repeatedly saving the day in the now cancelled TV show 'Bounty Law', where he played a classic screen cowboy. Rick is struggling to come to terms with his fading career, and the feeling that Hollywood is moving on without him. His best, and only friend, is Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt), who has been Rick's stunt double over the years. Work for Cliff has dried up following rumours that he murdered his wife and Cliff now spends his days as Rick's driver, odd-job man and general shoulder to cry on. He seems fairly relaxed about his simple lifestyle though - returning each evening to his trailer, and faithful canine companion Brandy, before picking Rick up bright and early the next day in order to drive him to whatever production set he's currently working at.
Meanwhile, successful young actor Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) has moved in next door to Rick along with her husband, director Roman Polanski. This is the area where Tarantino weaves fact with fiction and if you're not familiar with the Manson murders of 1969, it's probably worth reading up on a little bit before heading into the movie. On the night of 9 August 1969, three followers of cult leader Charles Manson entered the home of a heavily pregnant Sharon Tate and brutally murdered her and the friends who were with her at the time. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood begins a few months before those events, and then takes its sweet time in slowly building towards it.
If it weren't for the performances of everyone involved, this would have been a much harder watch for me. Brad Pitt is the best I've seen him for a long time here, all smiles and laid-back charm, a real interesting and enjoyable character. Leonardo DiCaprio is also on fine form as the broken man struggling to cling to fame and when the two are together, they're a lot of fun. Margot Robbie, has far less to do in her parallel story-line, but still manages to shine in her charismatic portrayal of Tate.
What does make the movie harder to watch is the run-time and, as I said right at the start, I feel this definitely could have benefited from at least an hour being chopped. Sunny LA during the 1960s is beautiful to look at, and when we're following Rick and Cliff as they cruise around town in their car it's nostalgic, vibrant and wonderful to watch. But, we get to follow the characters around town in their cars quite a lot in this movie. And, on top of that, literally every scene, no matter how significant, irrelevant or weak it may be, is dragged out far longer than it needs to be. The great scenes become diluted, and the scenes where nothing much was happening anyway, just become frustrating and hard work to hold your attention.
Along the way, our characters occasionally and unknowingly cross paths with the hippies who form Charles Manson's cult at Spahn Ranch. Cliff even has a uneasy standoff with a group of them at the ranch itself in one of the better scenes of the movie. It's these suspenseful moments that increase the tension perfectly, stoking the sense of foreboding and providing a constant reminder of the death and destruction set to come. The final 15 minutes or so do provide us with some intense, violent madness - a real wake up call after the meandering, often floundering, plot-lines of the movie up until that point. As always with Tarantino movies, there's plenty to digest, dissect and discuss but I certainly won't be revisiting this one any time soon.