Search
Enjoyable thriller
This is a page turner of a thriller. It takes a little to get to grips with the time jumping but it helps that it uses rewind, pause and fast forward as chapters to give you some baring and once you get it it’s fine and kinda fun in a novel way. This book lends itself to being a great easy read with enough going on to keep you engaged but without being too taxing on the old noggin - perfect for holiday reading.
Natalie is a social media influencer and I did find the beginning of the book was throwing a bit too much jargon about this area at us; along with describing click bait journalist Audery’s world it felt like a real push to be “with it”. It is however a great area to explore as opening yourself up to the world like that gives a whole huge potential for weirdo exposure. When Natalie visits the remote Irish village of Shanamore she gets to meet even more odd characters in the form of holiday cottage manager Andrew with a real Norman Bates feel to him and other locals. There is definitely an air of creepy, in a skin crawling fashion, about them.
I didn’t find there to be much mystery in this book with it all being too evident who was responsible as soon as they began to appear. The multitude of POVs and the moving around in time did hamper any real development of feeling invested in the characters. All in all an enjoyable quick thriller read without too much thought required.
My thanks to the author, publisher Atlantic Books and NetGalley for the ARC of this book in exchange for an honest review.
Natalie is a social media influencer and I did find the beginning of the book was throwing a bit too much jargon about this area at us; along with describing click bait journalist Audery’s world it felt like a real push to be “with it”. It is however a great area to explore as opening yourself up to the world like that gives a whole huge potential for weirdo exposure. When Natalie visits the remote Irish village of Shanamore she gets to meet even more odd characters in the form of holiday cottage manager Andrew with a real Norman Bates feel to him and other locals. There is definitely an air of creepy, in a skin crawling fashion, about them.
I didn’t find there to be much mystery in this book with it all being too evident who was responsible as soon as they began to appear. The multitude of POVs and the moving around in time did hamper any real development of feeling invested in the characters. All in all an enjoyable quick thriller read without too much thought required.
My thanks to the author, publisher Atlantic Books and NetGalley for the ARC of this book in exchange for an honest review.
Veronica Pena (690 KP) rated Rope (1948) in Movies
Mar 12, 2020
did i speak too soon?
Contains spoilers, click to show
If you've read my other reviews, you know that I'm currently in a Hitchcock film class. I've been dreading watching his films because of the ones I've seen, with the exception of Psycho, have been the same story told in different ways. I was equally as dreadful when it came to watching this film. However, I was pleasantly surprised.
In Psycho, while we saw a serial killer, it was almost as if Norman had no choice because he'd been overtaken, so to speak, by Norma Bates. Norman knew what had been done, what his mother had done, and he cleaned up after her, defended her, took care of her. In Shadow of a Doubt, while Uncle Charlie was also a killer, Hitchcock played with the likable villain scenario that we talked about last week. He was this dapper, well-liked, well-respected man that seemed like he could never be capable of the things he was accused. And even when he did die, only little Charly and the detective really knew the truth of who Uncle Charlie was. In Sabotage, we saw murder but it wasn't purposeful. The bomb that was meant to explode, wasn't meant to explode where it did - on a public bus, killing not only the nephew but several strangers and a puppy.
Rope is glaringly different in comparison. We see Brandon who is ecstatic, almost euphoric about what he and Phillip had done. He almost gets off on the idea that they just killed a man, a friend of theirs, and invited that man's family, friends, and fiance over for a party while that man's dead body lying there, unbeknownst to the guests. Brandon was excited by that. In contrast, Phillip is paranoid, drinking rapidly and in excess trying to calm himself down, but really only making himself more suspicious. The nuance and the contrast of Brandon and Phillip's characters are different than anything we've seen from Hitchcock thus far, but even further than that, we see Rupert come in and kind of save the day. He puts the pieces together, observant of both Brandon and Phillip's awkwardness and behavior throughout the party, then noticing the hat and the rope, he comes back and realizes what they have done. Instead of taking vengeance into his own hands, something that we saw in Sabotage, he fires 3 shots out of the window, causing passersby and neighbors to call the police. Rupert than sits next to the chest that holds David's body, almost protecting him, while he waits for the authorities to arrive for Brandon and Phillip.
This film, more than any other one besides Psycho, has been my favorite to watch and the one that kept me drawn in. This film does not fit the original narrative I've held. It's in a completely different game entirely.
In Psycho, while we saw a serial killer, it was almost as if Norman had no choice because he'd been overtaken, so to speak, by Norma Bates. Norman knew what had been done, what his mother had done, and he cleaned up after her, defended her, took care of her. In Shadow of a Doubt, while Uncle Charlie was also a killer, Hitchcock played with the likable villain scenario that we talked about last week. He was this dapper, well-liked, well-respected man that seemed like he could never be capable of the things he was accused. And even when he did die, only little Charly and the detective really knew the truth of who Uncle Charlie was. In Sabotage, we saw murder but it wasn't purposeful. The bomb that was meant to explode, wasn't meant to explode where it did - on a public bus, killing not only the nephew but several strangers and a puppy.
Rope is glaringly different in comparison. We see Brandon who is ecstatic, almost euphoric about what he and Phillip had done. He almost gets off on the idea that they just killed a man, a friend of theirs, and invited that man's family, friends, and fiance over for a party while that man's dead body lying there, unbeknownst to the guests. Brandon was excited by that. In contrast, Phillip is paranoid, drinking rapidly and in excess trying to calm himself down, but really only making himself more suspicious. The nuance and the contrast of Brandon and Phillip's characters are different than anything we've seen from Hitchcock thus far, but even further than that, we see Rupert come in and kind of save the day. He puts the pieces together, observant of both Brandon and Phillip's awkwardness and behavior throughout the party, then noticing the hat and the rope, he comes back and realizes what they have done. Instead of taking vengeance into his own hands, something that we saw in Sabotage, he fires 3 shots out of the window, causing passersby and neighbors to call the police. Rupert than sits next to the chest that holds David's body, almost protecting him, while he waits for the authorities to arrive for Brandon and Phillip.
This film, more than any other one besides Psycho, has been my favorite to watch and the one that kept me drawn in. This film does not fit the original narrative I've held. It's in a completely different game entirely.
Hazel (2934 KP) rated Bury Them Deep (Inspector McLean #10) in Books
Feb 16, 2020
Engrossing
I have said this before and I will say it again ... once more, this is a treat for crime fiction, with a hint of "other", lovers the world over ... Mr Oswald has provided yet another gripping story.
DCI Tony McLean is a Detective Chief Inspector and, as such, should not be on the front line of policing however, he just can't help himself particularly when a trusted colleague, Anya Renfrew, goes missing under suspicious circumstances. Is this connected to a massive multi-agency enquiry that is just about to get underway and which is so hush-hush, that most people involved don't know the full story? Was she just unfortunate to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? Or is this connected to numerous missing persons cases that have remained unsolved for many years? When it transpires why Anya was where she was when she disappeared and her address is not where she actually lives, the mystery deepens.
It's clear that Tony is at his happiest when in the thick of things rather than sitting at his desk reading reports and directing operations and this theme is strong throughout the book. Mr Oswald is able to effortlessly portray the enthusiasm and passion Tony has for investigating and solving the apparently unsolvable crimes whilst trying to appease the top brass and having a life outside of the Police. This ability brings Tony to life and makes him believable and "human".
It's not just Tony who is brought to life, this book is littered with excellent characters ... Grumpy Bob, Norman Bates, Gav, Bobby, Professor Harriet Turner, etc., etc., etc. Ex Detective Superintendent Grace Ramsey was a particular favourite of mine who is described as "a slim, middleaged woman in a severe dark suit with a face like licking piss off a nettle" ... that one line caused a laugh-out-loud moment and conjured up an image that has stuck with me and one that captures a few people I know!! I will definitely be using that one in the future 😎
The opening chapter had me hooked and wondering what the heck it would have to do with a crime in the 21st century however, the subtly of how this was woven and developed into the story was excellent and had me thinking that it isn't something that's beyond what is possible in these times unfortunately.
This is an engrossing read and one in which I was completely drawn into and enjoyed immensely from start to finish and, once again, I am thankful to Headline and NetGalley for my copy in return for an honest and unbiased review.
DCI Tony McLean is a Detective Chief Inspector and, as such, should not be on the front line of policing however, he just can't help himself particularly when a trusted colleague, Anya Renfrew, goes missing under suspicious circumstances. Is this connected to a massive multi-agency enquiry that is just about to get underway and which is so hush-hush, that most people involved don't know the full story? Was she just unfortunate to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? Or is this connected to numerous missing persons cases that have remained unsolved for many years? When it transpires why Anya was where she was when she disappeared and her address is not where she actually lives, the mystery deepens.
It's clear that Tony is at his happiest when in the thick of things rather than sitting at his desk reading reports and directing operations and this theme is strong throughout the book. Mr Oswald is able to effortlessly portray the enthusiasm and passion Tony has for investigating and solving the apparently unsolvable crimes whilst trying to appease the top brass and having a life outside of the Police. This ability brings Tony to life and makes him believable and "human".
It's not just Tony who is brought to life, this book is littered with excellent characters ... Grumpy Bob, Norman Bates, Gav, Bobby, Professor Harriet Turner, etc., etc., etc. Ex Detective Superintendent Grace Ramsey was a particular favourite of mine who is described as "a slim, middleaged woman in a severe dark suit with a face like licking piss off a nettle" ... that one line caused a laugh-out-loud moment and conjured up an image that has stuck with me and one that captures a few people I know!! I will definitely be using that one in the future 😎
The opening chapter had me hooked and wondering what the heck it would have to do with a crime in the 21st century however, the subtly of how this was woven and developed into the story was excellent and had me thinking that it isn't something that's beyond what is possible in these times unfortunately.
This is an engrossing read and one in which I was completely drawn into and enjoyed immensely from start to finish and, once again, I am thankful to Headline and NetGalley for my copy in return for an honest and unbiased review.
JT (287 KP) rated Sleep Tight (2011) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Jaume Balagueró brought terror to our screens with [Rec] in 2007, a tightly filmed horror set inside the walls of an apartment block over run with flesh eating zombies.
In Sleep Tight Balagueró again goes back inside an apartment block, this time the zombies are replaced by normal residents and a concierge with a sinister secret. César (Luis Tosar) is unhappy, and has been pretty much all his life, from the opening shot we see him standing on a ledge high above the streets preparing himself to drop to the concrete below.
He goes about his daily business with meticulous routine greeting the residents with a wry smile and engaging them in conversation day to day, but deep down he loathes it.It seems that his quest is to make others just as unhappy as he is, with main target being the gorgeous Clara (Marta Etura). Initially César seems pleasant enough, he’s polite and courteous and is always making himself available to those who need his help, whether it’s from feeding dogs to fumigating apartments.
It’s when we finally see him under Clara’s bed lying in wait that you realize that Balagueró is about to deliver us a 21st century boogieman. The lengths that César will go to to put Clara in harm’s way will leave you with your jaw open. The idea being that he wants to break her, “we’ll wipe that smile off her face,” he tells his bed ridden mother in hospital.
This almost nods right away to a Hitchcockian feel to the film, think of César as the Spanish version of Norman Bates without the dress, although at one point he does toy with the idea of using a large kitchen knife. During his torment of poor Clara he infests her house with bugs, injects things into her moisturizing products and even goes so far as to sleep in the same bed, with a little help from chloroform.
It would be unfair to explain anything more as it would give too much of the story away, and when Clara’s boyfriend Marcos arrives on the scene things only get worse. During the film you almost feel sorry for César and you’d be guilty for feeling anything but admiration towards him, at his dedication the very least.
It’s a voyeuristic nightmare, more so for the audience as Clara doesn’t really have much of a clue what is going on. Even when César is caught in the apartment during one of the films more gripping scenes he has an embarrassed excuse.
Balagueró proves to critics that he can capture as much tension and suspense through conventional cameras as opposed to the point of view of a hand held camcorder, which he used so effectively throughout [Rec] and its sequel.
Sleep Tight is an edgy slow burning thriller, a different take on the horror genre that will leave you gasping after the final act.
In Sleep Tight Balagueró again goes back inside an apartment block, this time the zombies are replaced by normal residents and a concierge with a sinister secret. César (Luis Tosar) is unhappy, and has been pretty much all his life, from the opening shot we see him standing on a ledge high above the streets preparing himself to drop to the concrete below.
He goes about his daily business with meticulous routine greeting the residents with a wry smile and engaging them in conversation day to day, but deep down he loathes it.It seems that his quest is to make others just as unhappy as he is, with main target being the gorgeous Clara (Marta Etura). Initially César seems pleasant enough, he’s polite and courteous and is always making himself available to those who need his help, whether it’s from feeding dogs to fumigating apartments.
It’s when we finally see him under Clara’s bed lying in wait that you realize that Balagueró is about to deliver us a 21st century boogieman. The lengths that César will go to to put Clara in harm’s way will leave you with your jaw open. The idea being that he wants to break her, “we’ll wipe that smile off her face,” he tells his bed ridden mother in hospital.
This almost nods right away to a Hitchcockian feel to the film, think of César as the Spanish version of Norman Bates without the dress, although at one point he does toy with the idea of using a large kitchen knife. During his torment of poor Clara he infests her house with bugs, injects things into her moisturizing products and even goes so far as to sleep in the same bed, with a little help from chloroform.
It would be unfair to explain anything more as it would give too much of the story away, and when Clara’s boyfriend Marcos arrives on the scene things only get worse. During the film you almost feel sorry for César and you’d be guilty for feeling anything but admiration towards him, at his dedication the very least.
It’s a voyeuristic nightmare, more so for the audience as Clara doesn’t really have much of a clue what is going on. Even when César is caught in the apartment during one of the films more gripping scenes he has an embarrassed excuse.
Balagueró proves to critics that he can capture as much tension and suspense through conventional cameras as opposed to the point of view of a hand held camcorder, which he used so effectively throughout [Rec] and its sequel.
Sleep Tight is an edgy slow burning thriller, a different take on the horror genre that will leave you gasping after the final act.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Psycho (1960) in Movies
Oct 29, 2018
An all-time great performance by Anthony Perkins
I'm sure all of you have (at least) heard of the 1960 Alfred Hitchcock film, PSYCHO. And I'm sure most of you have seen (at least in part) the famous "shower scene". But when was the last time you really sat down and watched this film? It had been awhile for me and I walked away with the following impression:
PSYCHO is not all that scary, but it is suspenseful as heck with strong Direction by the "Master of Suspense" and very strong performances anchoring the front and back end of the film.
PSYCHO was billed when it came out as a "Janet Leigh Film". So, to give this review context, let's look at who Janet Leigh was at the time. Before shooting PSYCHO, Leigh was generally cast as the ingenue and/or love interest in mainstream fair such as LITTLE WOMEN, ANGELS IN THE OUTFIELD and HOUDINI (a modern "comp" to her might be someone like Anne Hathaway before she started doing "edgier" work). Leigh did show that there was more to her than just being an ingenue when she played the morally ambiguous wife of Charlton Heston's character in Orson Welles' TOUCH OF EVIL. This film (probably) gave Hitchcock the idea to cast Leigh in PSYCHO.
When 1960's audiences first saw Leigh on screen in PSYCHO, I'm sure that most of them were shocked for, instead of being the pure and wholesome ingenue and wife, she plays the entire first scene in a bra and slip. Her character, Marion Crane, is not morally ambiguous, she is morally corrupt - and when Leigh's character has a chance to act on her moral corruptness, she jumps at the chance. The rest of the first half of this film is Leigh trying to get away with her "crime". She is quite good in this part of the film and was nominated for an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress (deservedly so).
And then...Anthony Perkins shows up.
We are about 45 minutes into the 1 hour and 49 minute film when Perkins' Norman Bates first appears on screen and an interesting thing happened - I couldn't take my eyes off of him. I was enjoying Leigh's performance but instantly pushed her aside (and to the background) when Perkins shows up. Without giving plot away, let me say that there is much, much going behind Norman's eyes and the performance by Perkins strongly suggests this, without going over-the-top or being melodramatic. It is a perfect blend of actor, character and performance and I was shocked that he was not even NOMINATED for an Oscar (Peter Ustinov would win for SPARTACUS). Perkins performance is one of the all-time greats with one of the most interesting and unusual characters - and portrayals - of all time.
Much of the credit for Perkins' and Leigh's strong performances have to go to Director Hitchcock who was at the height of his Directing powers (and power). From the "get go", you can feel the Director's hand in this film, building suspense from scene to scene and shot to shot, first with Leigh's character and, later, with Perkins. Both characters are trying to get away with something and Hitchcock pulls his camera in close to make a point - from a distance all seems good, but when you get up close, you can tell that things are very bad, indeed.
The filming of the famous "shower scene" is well documented and is a Master Class in film and editing. It is worth the price of admission on it's own - as is a scene on a staircase with Private Detective Arbogast, played by Martin Balsam. Hitchcock chooses to heighten the realism in this scene on the staircase by going a more esoteric route (rather than traditional filming of the events) and, one can argue, it doesn't belong in this film. Until, that is, you think about it and then it makes great sense and absolutely, positively has to be in this film in that way.
Another aspect of this film that begs to be mentioned is the Film Score by the great Bernard Herrmann - Hitchcock's regular collaborator. The music in this film punctuates the action on the screen - from the persistent beat and pacing of the opening credits music - driving the audience forward into the action - that does not let go, reaching it's peak and crescendo in the shower scene and then floating down gently like an animal catching it's breath after great activity.
Does the entire film hold up almost 60 years later? Almost...but not quite. Most annoying to me was the "wrap-up" scene at the end where a character spells out everything for the audience. As if we are not smart enough to "get it" - and perhaps the audiences in 1960 weren't.
But that is a quibble for a film that is a classic and is one that, if you have not seen (or seen for awhile), begs to be seen. Check out this film, not for the scares, but rather, the suspense that is generated by Hitchcock and his performers throughout. A GREAT entree into the world of Alfred Hitchcock films.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
PSYCHO is not all that scary, but it is suspenseful as heck with strong Direction by the "Master of Suspense" and very strong performances anchoring the front and back end of the film.
PSYCHO was billed when it came out as a "Janet Leigh Film". So, to give this review context, let's look at who Janet Leigh was at the time. Before shooting PSYCHO, Leigh was generally cast as the ingenue and/or love interest in mainstream fair such as LITTLE WOMEN, ANGELS IN THE OUTFIELD and HOUDINI (a modern "comp" to her might be someone like Anne Hathaway before she started doing "edgier" work). Leigh did show that there was more to her than just being an ingenue when she played the morally ambiguous wife of Charlton Heston's character in Orson Welles' TOUCH OF EVIL. This film (probably) gave Hitchcock the idea to cast Leigh in PSYCHO.
When 1960's audiences first saw Leigh on screen in PSYCHO, I'm sure that most of them were shocked for, instead of being the pure and wholesome ingenue and wife, she plays the entire first scene in a bra and slip. Her character, Marion Crane, is not morally ambiguous, she is morally corrupt - and when Leigh's character has a chance to act on her moral corruptness, she jumps at the chance. The rest of the first half of this film is Leigh trying to get away with her "crime". She is quite good in this part of the film and was nominated for an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress (deservedly so).
And then...Anthony Perkins shows up.
We are about 45 minutes into the 1 hour and 49 minute film when Perkins' Norman Bates first appears on screen and an interesting thing happened - I couldn't take my eyes off of him. I was enjoying Leigh's performance but instantly pushed her aside (and to the background) when Perkins shows up. Without giving plot away, let me say that there is much, much going behind Norman's eyes and the performance by Perkins strongly suggests this, without going over-the-top or being melodramatic. It is a perfect blend of actor, character and performance and I was shocked that he was not even NOMINATED for an Oscar (Peter Ustinov would win for SPARTACUS). Perkins performance is one of the all-time greats with one of the most interesting and unusual characters - and portrayals - of all time.
Much of the credit for Perkins' and Leigh's strong performances have to go to Director Hitchcock who was at the height of his Directing powers (and power). From the "get go", you can feel the Director's hand in this film, building suspense from scene to scene and shot to shot, first with Leigh's character and, later, with Perkins. Both characters are trying to get away with something and Hitchcock pulls his camera in close to make a point - from a distance all seems good, but when you get up close, you can tell that things are very bad, indeed.
The filming of the famous "shower scene" is well documented and is a Master Class in film and editing. It is worth the price of admission on it's own - as is a scene on a staircase with Private Detective Arbogast, played by Martin Balsam. Hitchcock chooses to heighten the realism in this scene on the staircase by going a more esoteric route (rather than traditional filming of the events) and, one can argue, it doesn't belong in this film. Until, that is, you think about it and then it makes great sense and absolutely, positively has to be in this film in that way.
Another aspect of this film that begs to be mentioned is the Film Score by the great Bernard Herrmann - Hitchcock's regular collaborator. The music in this film punctuates the action on the screen - from the persistent beat and pacing of the opening credits music - driving the audience forward into the action - that does not let go, reaching it's peak and crescendo in the shower scene and then floating down gently like an animal catching it's breath after great activity.
Does the entire film hold up almost 60 years later? Almost...but not quite. Most annoying to me was the "wrap-up" scene at the end where a character spells out everything for the audience. As if we are not smart enough to "get it" - and perhaps the audiences in 1960 weren't.
But that is a quibble for a film that is a classic and is one that, if you have not seen (or seen for awhile), begs to be seen. Check out this film, not for the scares, but rather, the suspense that is generated by Hitchcock and his performers throughout. A GREAT entree into the world of Alfred Hitchcock films.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)