Search
Titan: The Life of John D. Rockerfeller, Sr.
Book
"John D. Rockefeller, Sr. history's first billionaire and the patriarch of America's most famous...
Prophesy (The King & Alpha, #1)
8.0
Rate It
Book
Justice Volkov is the youngest Alpha Zenith to ever lead the wolf shifters. Following in his...
MM Paranormal Romance
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Doctor Strange (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 11, 2019)
Marvel Meets Inception
Let’s face it; Marvel rarely gets it wrong when it comes to crafting cracking superhero blockbusters. Sure, Avengers: Age of Ultron was an overstuffed mess but it had ambition and Iron Man 2 was fine when not compared to its predecessor.
Now, one of the biggest film studios in the world takes on its biggest gamble yet – more so than Guardians of the Galaxy was, and that’s saying something! But does Doctor Strange hit all the right notes or are we looking at Marvel’s first true dog’s dinner?
Dr. Stephen Strange’s (Benedict Cumberbatch) life changes after a car accident robs him of the use of his hands. When traditional medicine fails him, he looks for healing, and hope, in a mysterious enclave. He quickly learns that the enclave is at the front line of a battle against unseen dark forces bent on destroying reality. Before long, Strange is forced to choose between his life of fortune and status or leave it all behind to defend the world as the most powerful sorcerer in existence.
Harry Potter meets Inception as director Scott Derrickson’s ambitious vision for the Marvel comic comes to life on screen. It’s one of the best looking films in the studio’s catalogue, and one that’s definitely worth paying the extra dosh for the 3D version.
When it comes to acting, the cast is, on the whole, very good. Tilda Swinton is perhaps the best character in the entire film as the ‘Ancient One’. She’s an incredible actress given the right material and despite being thinly written, she shines in this intriguing role. The rest of the cast, including Benedict Wong, Chiwetel Ejiofor and Rachel McAdams are poorly realised and make no measurable impact on the final cut.
Mads Mikkelsen’s portrayal of Kaecilius, the film’s main antagonist, is good but Marvel continuously struggle to create interesting villains and unfortunately, Mikkelsen falls into that pot, though he’s not quite as bad as Oscar Issac’s Apocalypse from this year’s X-Men entry. Let’s hope Mikkelsen is given more time to shine in Rogue One: A Star Wars Story in December.
Assessing Benedict Cumberbatch’s performance as the titular character is a little more difficult. On the one hand, he plays the deeply unlikeable Stephen Strange with the same class he brings to all his other personas; and then on the other, he seems at odds with Marvel’s global universe – the comedic elements almost feeling a little too forced, that is, in comparison to Chris Hemsworth’s mighty Thor or Paul Rudd’s sarcastic Ant-Man.
Luckily, the engaging special effects and magical story ensure Doctor Strange’s negatives are kept few and far between. Superhero films are beginning to grow a little tiresome with at least six being released this year alone, but the unique plot to this one makes certain you won’t have seen anything like it in the genre before.
Overall, Doctor Strange is a pleasing addition to the MCU, though one that isn’t quite as special as Guardians of the Galaxy was in 2014. It’s nice to have yet another character to join the growing list of Avengers but it’ll take another solo outing for Benedict Cumberbatch’s surgeon to make any sort of lasting impact.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/10/27/marvel-meets-inception-doctor-strange-review/
Now, one of the biggest film studios in the world takes on its biggest gamble yet – more so than Guardians of the Galaxy was, and that’s saying something! But does Doctor Strange hit all the right notes or are we looking at Marvel’s first true dog’s dinner?
Dr. Stephen Strange’s (Benedict Cumberbatch) life changes after a car accident robs him of the use of his hands. When traditional medicine fails him, he looks for healing, and hope, in a mysterious enclave. He quickly learns that the enclave is at the front line of a battle against unseen dark forces bent on destroying reality. Before long, Strange is forced to choose between his life of fortune and status or leave it all behind to defend the world as the most powerful sorcerer in existence.
Harry Potter meets Inception as director Scott Derrickson’s ambitious vision for the Marvel comic comes to life on screen. It’s one of the best looking films in the studio’s catalogue, and one that’s definitely worth paying the extra dosh for the 3D version.
When it comes to acting, the cast is, on the whole, very good. Tilda Swinton is perhaps the best character in the entire film as the ‘Ancient One’. She’s an incredible actress given the right material and despite being thinly written, she shines in this intriguing role. The rest of the cast, including Benedict Wong, Chiwetel Ejiofor and Rachel McAdams are poorly realised and make no measurable impact on the final cut.
Mads Mikkelsen’s portrayal of Kaecilius, the film’s main antagonist, is good but Marvel continuously struggle to create interesting villains and unfortunately, Mikkelsen falls into that pot, though he’s not quite as bad as Oscar Issac’s Apocalypse from this year’s X-Men entry. Let’s hope Mikkelsen is given more time to shine in Rogue One: A Star Wars Story in December.
Assessing Benedict Cumberbatch’s performance as the titular character is a little more difficult. On the one hand, he plays the deeply unlikeable Stephen Strange with the same class he brings to all his other personas; and then on the other, he seems at odds with Marvel’s global universe – the comedic elements almost feeling a little too forced, that is, in comparison to Chris Hemsworth’s mighty Thor or Paul Rudd’s sarcastic Ant-Man.
Luckily, the engaging special effects and magical story ensure Doctor Strange’s negatives are kept few and far between. Superhero films are beginning to grow a little tiresome with at least six being released this year alone, but the unique plot to this one makes certain you won’t have seen anything like it in the genre before.
Overall, Doctor Strange is a pleasing addition to the MCU, though one that isn’t quite as special as Guardians of the Galaxy was in 2014. It’s nice to have yet another character to join the growing list of Avengers but it’ll take another solo outing for Benedict Cumberbatch’s surgeon to make any sort of lasting impact.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/10/27/marvel-meets-inception-doctor-strange-review/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Molly's Game (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Wordy but entertaining.
You can never accuse Aaron Sorkin of skimping on his words. Sorkin is of course the award-winning writer of “The West Wing” but on the big screen he has also written many classics: “A Few Good Men”; “The Social Network” and “Steve Jobs” for example. Here he also makes his directorial debut in a movie about the true-life turbulent career of Olympic wannabe skier Molly Bloom.
Bloom is played by Jessica Chastain, from films such as “Zero Dark Thirty” and “Miss Sloane” (one of my films of the year last year). Chastain’s roles as an actress are often quite cold and calculating, as suits her demeanour. As such her characters are not often easy to warm to in movies (and as such, my wife is not a fan).
Taking the piste. Molly in her younger ski-centric role.
Here as Molly Bloom she is as equally driven as in “Miss Sloane“, but the drive is learned from her father (Kevin Costner), bullying her to be the best she can be at skiing in a highly competitive family. Forced out of the skiing business (for reasons I won’t spoil), she takes a “gap year” from law school that turns into a “gap life” after she falls into the slightly shady business of running poker nights for LA’s rich elite. It’s here that Chastain’s Bloom is able to show a gentler and more compassionate side, trying to talk some of her clients (who invariably fall in love with her) off the ledge of their gambling addiction.
Chris O’Dowd as one of the punter’s in deep.
Sorkin’s script (based on Molly’s own autobiography, I should add) does a really nice job of cutting backwards and forwards through Molly’s timeline to drill into motivations and her mental state, and in doing so he pulls out an award-winning (or at least Golden-Globe award-nominating) performance from Chastain in the process. Also very effective though is Kevin Costner (“Hidden Figures“, “Man of Steel“), who is quietly building an impressive portfolio of supporting actor roles. Here he rather dials in his “tough and aloof guy” performance until the park bench scene (below) where he surprises in a good way.
Benches with wolves. Kevin Costner impressive as Molly’s hard-line father.
It’s also a blessed relief to find a decent vehicle to showcase the undoubted talents of Britain’s Idris Elba – an actor who has been woefully served by rubbish such as “Bastille Day“, rather lame sequels like “Star Trek: Beyond” or minor roles such as in “Thor: Ragnarok“. Here he can really get his teeth into the role of Molly’s lawyer, with a multi-layered character that reveals a little – but not too much of – his back-story to leave you with intriguing questions.
An indecisive Charlie Jaffey (Idris Elba) can make his mind up about Molly (Jessica Chastain).
So it’s a good film, but an intelligent watch that mandates your attention. The script is sufficiently dense and wordy that it requires significant concentration: this is not a “park your brain at the door” type of ‘Michael Bay film’. (As such, while it remains a recommended watch, I’m not sure it would be one that would necessarily make my DVD list for repeat watchings).
Michael Cera (centre) as the mysterious but powerful “Player X”; a Hollywood actor, but who is he supposed to be? (Answers on a postcard!).
But again, I must comment on what an amazing year this is turning out to be for women in film. Less #Me-too and more #She-do! Once again, here is a movie where a confident woman is firmly in the driving seat, and while powerful men try to bring her down, it is not them that succeeds. (The studio bill for talent in the past year must be a LOT less than it was the year before! #don’tshootme #topicalhumour #CarrieGracey). #TimesUp.
Bloom is played by Jessica Chastain, from films such as “Zero Dark Thirty” and “Miss Sloane” (one of my films of the year last year). Chastain’s roles as an actress are often quite cold and calculating, as suits her demeanour. As such her characters are not often easy to warm to in movies (and as such, my wife is not a fan).
Taking the piste. Molly in her younger ski-centric role.
Here as Molly Bloom she is as equally driven as in “Miss Sloane“, but the drive is learned from her father (Kevin Costner), bullying her to be the best she can be at skiing in a highly competitive family. Forced out of the skiing business (for reasons I won’t spoil), she takes a “gap year” from law school that turns into a “gap life” after she falls into the slightly shady business of running poker nights for LA’s rich elite. It’s here that Chastain’s Bloom is able to show a gentler and more compassionate side, trying to talk some of her clients (who invariably fall in love with her) off the ledge of their gambling addiction.
Chris O’Dowd as one of the punter’s in deep.
Sorkin’s script (based on Molly’s own autobiography, I should add) does a really nice job of cutting backwards and forwards through Molly’s timeline to drill into motivations and her mental state, and in doing so he pulls out an award-winning (or at least Golden-Globe award-nominating) performance from Chastain in the process. Also very effective though is Kevin Costner (“Hidden Figures“, “Man of Steel“), who is quietly building an impressive portfolio of supporting actor roles. Here he rather dials in his “tough and aloof guy” performance until the park bench scene (below) where he surprises in a good way.
Benches with wolves. Kevin Costner impressive as Molly’s hard-line father.
It’s also a blessed relief to find a decent vehicle to showcase the undoubted talents of Britain’s Idris Elba – an actor who has been woefully served by rubbish such as “Bastille Day“, rather lame sequels like “Star Trek: Beyond” or minor roles such as in “Thor: Ragnarok“. Here he can really get his teeth into the role of Molly’s lawyer, with a multi-layered character that reveals a little – but not too much of – his back-story to leave you with intriguing questions.
An indecisive Charlie Jaffey (Idris Elba) can make his mind up about Molly (Jessica Chastain).
So it’s a good film, but an intelligent watch that mandates your attention. The script is sufficiently dense and wordy that it requires significant concentration: this is not a “park your brain at the door” type of ‘Michael Bay film’. (As such, while it remains a recommended watch, I’m not sure it would be one that would necessarily make my DVD list for repeat watchings).
Michael Cera (centre) as the mysterious but powerful “Player X”; a Hollywood actor, but who is he supposed to be? (Answers on a postcard!).
But again, I must comment on what an amazing year this is turning out to be for women in film. Less #Me-too and more #She-do! Once again, here is a movie where a confident woman is firmly in the driving seat, and while powerful men try to bring her down, it is not them that succeeds. (The studio bill for talent in the past year must be a LOT less than it was the year before! #don’tshootme #topicalhumour #CarrieGracey). #TimesUp.
Sassy Brit (97 KP) rated The Widows in Books
Jun 5, 2019
The Widows by Jess Montgomery is inspired by the true story of Ohio’s first female sheriff. The plot delves into how two women fought greed and violence while overcoming the loss of a loved one.
The author noted, “This is a darker and deeper style of writing, much more than my other stories. For example, I examine the Pinkerton men and the violence they used. I read multiple books that talked about how these men would shoot up the striking camps. I put in this book quote by one of the Pinkerton men, ‘A real war, and then, rule of law won’t matter. Those miners who resist, why, we’ll put ‘em down like rabid dogs.’”
The protagonists Lily and Marvena are based on the real-life historical figures of Maude Collins, the first female sheriff in Ohio, and Mother Jones, the famous activist and labor organizer. Sheriff Daniel Ross, the husband of Lily is murdered and no one knows by whom. Those powerful in the town want to pin it on a coal miner, Marvena’s brother. She has something in common with Lily since she also lost her husband, but to a coal mining accident. Because the mine owners think she will be easy to control, Lily is appointed sheriff pending the next election. But having a mind of her own and a sense of justice she partners with Marvena to find the elusive murderer and Marvena’s missing daughter.
“I wrote both Lily and Marvena as tough. Lily is sensitive but is also a protector who wants to support her community. She keeps her emotions close to her heart. Marvena is fierce and persistent, but also has a tender streak. Although both women were wary of each other at first, they have a common goal to find out what happened. They end up with a strong friendship and recognize that each is balancing their own demons.”
Readers might be curious as to what is real and what is fiction. Montgomery commented, “In real life Collins had five children, and the person who killed her husband was known. I decided it would be interesting to have Lily take the sheriff position to find out who killed her husband. The similarity is that both women lost their husbands in the line of duty, both were appointed sheriff, and both were elected. The differences: Lily is eight years younger than Maude during that time period and she had only had two children.”
Historical facts are intertwined in this novel that also has strong female characters and an intriguing mystery. Readers get a glimpse into the 1920s-coal mining town in Appalachian Ohio as the author examines women’s rights, prohibition, and the life of a coal miner.
The author noted, “This is a darker and deeper style of writing, much more than my other stories. For example, I examine the Pinkerton men and the violence they used. I read multiple books that talked about how these men would shoot up the striking camps. I put in this book quote by one of the Pinkerton men, ‘A real war, and then, rule of law won’t matter. Those miners who resist, why, we’ll put ‘em down like rabid dogs.’”
The protagonists Lily and Marvena are based on the real-life historical figures of Maude Collins, the first female sheriff in Ohio, and Mother Jones, the famous activist and labor organizer. Sheriff Daniel Ross, the husband of Lily is murdered and no one knows by whom. Those powerful in the town want to pin it on a coal miner, Marvena’s brother. She has something in common with Lily since she also lost her husband, but to a coal mining accident. Because the mine owners think she will be easy to control, Lily is appointed sheriff pending the next election. But having a mind of her own and a sense of justice she partners with Marvena to find the elusive murderer and Marvena’s missing daughter.
“I wrote both Lily and Marvena as tough. Lily is sensitive but is also a protector who wants to support her community. She keeps her emotions close to her heart. Marvena is fierce and persistent, but also has a tender streak. Although both women were wary of each other at first, they have a common goal to find out what happened. They end up with a strong friendship and recognize that each is balancing their own demons.”
Readers might be curious as to what is real and what is fiction. Montgomery commented, “In real life Collins had five children, and the person who killed her husband was known. I decided it would be interesting to have Lily take the sheriff position to find out who killed her husband. The similarity is that both women lost their husbands in the line of duty, both were appointed sheriff, and both were elected. The differences: Lily is eight years younger than Maude during that time period and she had only had two children.”
Historical facts are intertwined in this novel that also has strong female characters and an intriguing mystery. Readers get a glimpse into the 1920s-coal mining town in Appalachian Ohio as the author examines women’s rights, prohibition, and the life of a coal miner.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated X-Men: Dark Phoenix (2019) in Movies
Dec 2, 2019 (Updated Jan 13, 2020)
With the (eventually true) whispers about the Disney-Fox merger doing the rounds around Dark Phoenix's release, it arrived to little fanfare. Most people had already written off as a pointless film, and it was a prime target for negativity. So much so, that it was actually the first and only X-Men film I ended up missing in the cinema.
I recently watched it on home release, really not expecting much. After the swing-and-a-miss of Apocalypse, I wasn't feeling too invested in the characters.
So imagine my surprise when I remained glued to the screen for most of the runtime.
Dark Phoenix isn't perfect by any means, and far from the lofty heights of the top tier X-Men movies, buts it no where near as awful as I had heard.
I thought the story was actually ok. I was glad that it partially took place in space, like the original comic, and unlike The Last Stand.
Michael Fassbender and James McAvoy are fantastic as they usually are, as is Nicholas Hoult. I also thing Jennifer Lawrence I makes a good Mystique, even though I'm still not a massive fan of this franchises portrayal of her character.
Ty Sheridan and Sophie Turner are given more to do this time around, and are both fine. It's a shame that Evan Peters' Quicksilver is sidelined for this particular adventure.
There are some genuinely powerful emotional beats throughout the film, and it's clear as day that all the actors involved care about their characters, and are having fun.
My main criticism is predictably the villains. The D'bari are a fairly uninspired choice for such a big storyline, and they look like generic CGI aliens. I found Jessica Chastain quite wooden and uninteresting, and they made for a very underwhelming force if evil.
The main focus of Dark Phoenix is of course in Jean Grey's turn to the dark side, so vanilla bad guys shouldn't really be that important anyway.
Dark Phoenix does a slightly better job than The Last Stand of adapting this beloved storyline, but so can't help but feel that it would benefit from multiple movies, instead of cramming into one feature, a I really hope that's something that happens going into the MCU with these characters.
We still have New Mutants to go (if it ever actually comes out) but as a last main entry into the FOX X-Men franchise, you could do a lot worse. It's not the best, it's not the worst. Dark Phoenix sits somewhere quite comfortably in the middle.
Dare I say, I think it might actually be better than the first film...
I recently watched it on home release, really not expecting much. After the swing-and-a-miss of Apocalypse, I wasn't feeling too invested in the characters.
So imagine my surprise when I remained glued to the screen for most of the runtime.
Dark Phoenix isn't perfect by any means, and far from the lofty heights of the top tier X-Men movies, buts it no where near as awful as I had heard.
I thought the story was actually ok. I was glad that it partially took place in space, like the original comic, and unlike The Last Stand.
Michael Fassbender and James McAvoy are fantastic as they usually are, as is Nicholas Hoult. I also thing Jennifer Lawrence I makes a good Mystique, even though I'm still not a massive fan of this franchises portrayal of her character.
Ty Sheridan and Sophie Turner are given more to do this time around, and are both fine. It's a shame that Evan Peters' Quicksilver is sidelined for this particular adventure.
There are some genuinely powerful emotional beats throughout the film, and it's clear as day that all the actors involved care about their characters, and are having fun.
My main criticism is predictably the villains. The D'bari are a fairly uninspired choice for such a big storyline, and they look like generic CGI aliens. I found Jessica Chastain quite wooden and uninteresting, and they made for a very underwhelming force if evil.
The main focus of Dark Phoenix is of course in Jean Grey's turn to the dark side, so vanilla bad guys shouldn't really be that important anyway.
Dark Phoenix does a slightly better job than The Last Stand of adapting this beloved storyline, but so can't help but feel that it would benefit from multiple movies, instead of cramming into one feature, a I really hope that's something that happens going into the MCU with these characters.
We still have New Mutants to go (if it ever actually comes out) but as a last main entry into the FOX X-Men franchise, you could do a lot worse. It's not the best, it's not the worst. Dark Phoenix sits somewhere quite comfortably in the middle.
Dare I say, I think it might actually be better than the first film...
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) in Movies
Jan 9, 2020
Epic Indeed
In Guardians of the Galaxy, a group of unlikely heroes for a team to keep a powerful weapon out of the hands of a madman.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
The team is perfect and there’s no disputing it. They’re led by Peter Quill (Chris Pratt) who goes by the name of Starlord. He’s a self-loving womanizer who’s got comebacks for days. He falls in love with Gamora (Zoe Saldana), a green alien badass who is the daughter of a tyrant. Out of the five of them, my personal favorite is Groot (Vin Diesel), a tree being who only says, “I am Groot” yet his good friend Rocket Raccoon (weapons expert and maniac) seems to be the only one that understands the true context of his words. And I could do two more paragraphs on Drax (Dave Bautista) alone. You can’t help but love this team.
Beyond these characters, the movie really excels by bringing in a number of memorable characters that have smaller roles. Ronin (Lee Pace) the villain is a fun bad guy you definitely respect. Meanwhile, the mohawked Yondu is on the hunt for Starlord. Yondu (Michael Rooker) carries around a cool weapon that responds to his whistling. These characters are not only endearing, but experience growth throughout the movie.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
The first ten minutes takes you on sheer adventure and it never lets up from there. The stakes are high (they’re guarding the galaxy for God’s sake!) and the villain is a legit threat. There are space chases, prison breakouts, and more that will keep you entertained for the duration of the movie.
Entertainment Value: 10
Memorability: 10
It’s rare that I clap, laugh, and tear up all in the same movie. I lost count of the number of scenes that could be considered all-time greats in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I love that the movie dives into finding family int the most unlikely of places.
Pace: 10
Hard to believe the movie was over two hours when I checked the run time. It runs so smoothly and quickly. When it’s over, you feel like you’ve been on a massive adventure in a short amount of time.
Plot: 10
There were a number of places throughout the movie where an average story could have lost its way. Guardians of the Galaxy never misses a beat. It connects all of its dots while reaching out to the extended universe at the same time.
Resolution: 10
Groot…I love you. That’s all I will say.
Overall: 100
Endless adventure. Funny for days. Touching moments. A budding romance. Guardians of the Galaxy is why I love movies.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
The team is perfect and there’s no disputing it. They’re led by Peter Quill (Chris Pratt) who goes by the name of Starlord. He’s a self-loving womanizer who’s got comebacks for days. He falls in love with Gamora (Zoe Saldana), a green alien badass who is the daughter of a tyrant. Out of the five of them, my personal favorite is Groot (Vin Diesel), a tree being who only says, “I am Groot” yet his good friend Rocket Raccoon (weapons expert and maniac) seems to be the only one that understands the true context of his words. And I could do two more paragraphs on Drax (Dave Bautista) alone. You can’t help but love this team.
Beyond these characters, the movie really excels by bringing in a number of memorable characters that have smaller roles. Ronin (Lee Pace) the villain is a fun bad guy you definitely respect. Meanwhile, the mohawked Yondu is on the hunt for Starlord. Yondu (Michael Rooker) carries around a cool weapon that responds to his whistling. These characters are not only endearing, but experience growth throughout the movie.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
The first ten minutes takes you on sheer adventure and it never lets up from there. The stakes are high (they’re guarding the galaxy for God’s sake!) and the villain is a legit threat. There are space chases, prison breakouts, and more that will keep you entertained for the duration of the movie.
Entertainment Value: 10
Memorability: 10
It’s rare that I clap, laugh, and tear up all in the same movie. I lost count of the number of scenes that could be considered all-time greats in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I love that the movie dives into finding family int the most unlikely of places.
Pace: 10
Hard to believe the movie was over two hours when I checked the run time. It runs so smoothly and quickly. When it’s over, you feel like you’ve been on a massive adventure in a short amount of time.
Plot: 10
There were a number of places throughout the movie where an average story could have lost its way. Guardians of the Galaxy never misses a beat. It connects all of its dots while reaching out to the extended universe at the same time.
Resolution: 10
Groot…I love you. That’s all I will say.
Overall: 100
Endless adventure. Funny for days. Touching moments. A budding romance. Guardians of the Galaxy is why I love movies.
BookInspector (124 KP) rated We Were the Salt of the Sea in Books
Sep 24, 2020
Ode to the sea, that would describe this book the best, I think. This novel could make even the coldest heart to fall in love with this powerful God’s creation. 🙂
Catherine was looking for her biological mother, and one day she found her, but she was dead. There were so many unanswered questions left, and Catherine was trying to find out, who her mother really was. The characters chosen for this novel were incredibly complex. Their thoughts and feelings filled this book with different states of mind and different perspectives. All the characters had their own unique personality, and sometimes, they were really mysterious to me. I needed quite a bit of time to analyze them. I didn’t have a particularly favourite character in this book, I think they all had their pros and cons, making them all very believable and realistic.
The narrative of this novel was very smartly written, drop feeding the reader with the investigation’s findings, and opening the characters bit by bit. It was quite a slow burner for me, and I really missed some good twists and turns, but I think this novel concentrates more on the character’s feelings and their search of true selves, rather than trying to solve the crime. I really liked the setting and atmosphere of this novel, and the whole plot was soaked with sea love. The author has a passion for sailing, and you can truly feel her love for the sea when she explains the bond, which sea brings out in sailors. Authors expertise shines not only through the sea love but also through knowledge of boats and fishermen’s routines.
The writing style of this novel was very beautiful and incredibly poetic. The chapters had pretty decent length and didn’t leave me bored. The language of this book has quite a lot of sailing terms and is filled with French charm, so I had to look up some of the terms, which sounded alien to me. 🙂 I did like the ending of this book, I think it rounded the story quite well, however, this book makes your brain work, and even though there is a clue of who Catherine’s father is, I still couldn’t figure it out. (I am too lazy 😀 ) So, if you read this book, please let me know in the comment section down below 😉
So, to conclude, if you like sea, boats and a little bit of crime, filled with charming prose and unique characters, then this book is definitely for you. Summer season is just around the corner, so don’t forget a copy of this book, while enjoying that drink on the beach 😉
Catherine was looking for her biological mother, and one day she found her, but she was dead. There were so many unanswered questions left, and Catherine was trying to find out, who her mother really was. The characters chosen for this novel were incredibly complex. Their thoughts and feelings filled this book with different states of mind and different perspectives. All the characters had their own unique personality, and sometimes, they were really mysterious to me. I needed quite a bit of time to analyze them. I didn’t have a particularly favourite character in this book, I think they all had their pros and cons, making them all very believable and realistic.
The narrative of this novel was very smartly written, drop feeding the reader with the investigation’s findings, and opening the characters bit by bit. It was quite a slow burner for me, and I really missed some good twists and turns, but I think this novel concentrates more on the character’s feelings and their search of true selves, rather than trying to solve the crime. I really liked the setting and atmosphere of this novel, and the whole plot was soaked with sea love. The author has a passion for sailing, and you can truly feel her love for the sea when she explains the bond, which sea brings out in sailors. Authors expertise shines not only through the sea love but also through knowledge of boats and fishermen’s routines.
The writing style of this novel was very beautiful and incredibly poetic. The chapters had pretty decent length and didn’t leave me bored. The language of this book has quite a lot of sailing terms and is filled with French charm, so I had to look up some of the terms, which sounded alien to me. 🙂 I did like the ending of this book, I think it rounded the story quite well, however, this book makes your brain work, and even though there is a clue of who Catherine’s father is, I still couldn’t figure it out. (I am too lazy 😀 ) So, if you read this book, please let me know in the comment section down below 😉
So, to conclude, if you like sea, boats and a little bit of crime, filled with charming prose and unique characters, then this book is definitely for you. Summer season is just around the corner, so don’t forget a copy of this book, while enjoying that drink on the beach 😉
Pinnacle Studio - video editing
Photo & Video and Entertainment
App
* Best mobile app, Videomaker Best Products of the Year - 2014 * One of Time's 50 Must-Have iPad...
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated The Girl in the Spider's Web (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Disappointingly Average
I love The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo series. The Swedish films are excellent and David Fincher’s US adaptation was a decent watch too. Lisbeth Salander is such an iconic and well-written character, so her return to the big screen was met with much anticipation. With a new cast and new story I was looking forward to seeing it, catching a Limitless preview screening a few days before its general UK release. Unfortunately, it didn’t live up to my relatively high expectations.
The biggest insult to this film is its trailer. It gives away EVERYTHING so if you’ve seen the trailer, you’ve basically seen the entire film condensed down into a few minutes. All the best scenes and key moments have been awkwardly crammed into its promotion, to the point where I was able to predict exactly what was going to happen. I felt very let down by this and it seriously ruined my ability to enjoy the film properly. It deserved a much more ambiguous trailer, letting the mystery be revealed throughout the full narrative instead.
The film is redeemed somewhat by the performances. Claire Foy is a fantastic Lisbeth Salander, putting her all into this performance and fully embodying the badass, bisexual cyber-hacker that we all know and love. She is slick, smart and sexually charged, and is a worthy successor to both Noomi Rapace and Rooney Mara. If anything, Foy deserved a better film because this story really didn’t do her much justice and that’s not her fault.
It was also interesting to see British comedian Stephen Merchant in a much more serious role, proving that he is able to step out of his comfort zone. His character, Frans Balder, is a complex one despite his lack of screen time, and I was convinced by his take on the character. Despite his relatively small role, I found him more interesting than some of the main characters.
Security expert Edwin Needham is utterly forgettable, and his character wasn’t strong enough to get much interest from me. In a similar vein, Millenium journalist Mikael Blomkvist barely even made an appearance and considering he’s been a key character in the novels and in Lisbeth’s life, this was disappointing for me. I haven’t read the novel yet so I’m unsure if this is true to the original story, but it was a shame he didn’t feature more.
Because this film focuses primarily on Salander and twin sister, Camilla, I was relieved that I at least enjoyed scenes featuring the two of them. Sylvia Hoeks is a terrifying and powerful on-screen presence, from her mannerisms to her costume design. The fractured relationship between the two sisters is fascinating and runs deep, but seems to be glossed over at times. Foy and Hoeks did their best with the script they had, but I still found the narrative jumbled and rushed in places, favouring drawn-out action over scenes with any real substance.
Sure, the action sequences are well-shot and full of adrenaline but when they replace actual narrative coherence, we have a problem. There’s too much going on, there’s plot holes, and filler scenes that really didn’t need to be there. I know two hours isn’t really a lot of screen time to play with, but it could’ve been so much better than this.
The Girl In The Spider’s Web is nothing like the complex thriller I was expecting it to be, cramming far too much into its runtime and leaving me feeling dissatisfied. It’s entertaining in its own way and if you’re mainly looking looking for chase sequences, fast cars and action, then you’ll probably have a good time. There are some great scenes and lines of dialogue, but not enough to fully redeem itself. I don’t necessarily regret watching it, but I won’t be watching again. It’s a forgettable action film.
If you want to see Lisbeth Salander and co. at their best, catch the Swedish films instead.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/11/28/disappointingly-average-a-review-of-the-girl-in-the-spiders-web/
The biggest insult to this film is its trailer. It gives away EVERYTHING so if you’ve seen the trailer, you’ve basically seen the entire film condensed down into a few minutes. All the best scenes and key moments have been awkwardly crammed into its promotion, to the point where I was able to predict exactly what was going to happen. I felt very let down by this and it seriously ruined my ability to enjoy the film properly. It deserved a much more ambiguous trailer, letting the mystery be revealed throughout the full narrative instead.
The film is redeemed somewhat by the performances. Claire Foy is a fantastic Lisbeth Salander, putting her all into this performance and fully embodying the badass, bisexual cyber-hacker that we all know and love. She is slick, smart and sexually charged, and is a worthy successor to both Noomi Rapace and Rooney Mara. If anything, Foy deserved a better film because this story really didn’t do her much justice and that’s not her fault.
It was also interesting to see British comedian Stephen Merchant in a much more serious role, proving that he is able to step out of his comfort zone. His character, Frans Balder, is a complex one despite his lack of screen time, and I was convinced by his take on the character. Despite his relatively small role, I found him more interesting than some of the main characters.
Security expert Edwin Needham is utterly forgettable, and his character wasn’t strong enough to get much interest from me. In a similar vein, Millenium journalist Mikael Blomkvist barely even made an appearance and considering he’s been a key character in the novels and in Lisbeth’s life, this was disappointing for me. I haven’t read the novel yet so I’m unsure if this is true to the original story, but it was a shame he didn’t feature more.
Because this film focuses primarily on Salander and twin sister, Camilla, I was relieved that I at least enjoyed scenes featuring the two of them. Sylvia Hoeks is a terrifying and powerful on-screen presence, from her mannerisms to her costume design. The fractured relationship between the two sisters is fascinating and runs deep, but seems to be glossed over at times. Foy and Hoeks did their best with the script they had, but I still found the narrative jumbled and rushed in places, favouring drawn-out action over scenes with any real substance.
Sure, the action sequences are well-shot and full of adrenaline but when they replace actual narrative coherence, we have a problem. There’s too much going on, there’s plot holes, and filler scenes that really didn’t need to be there. I know two hours isn’t really a lot of screen time to play with, but it could’ve been so much better than this.
The Girl In The Spider’s Web is nothing like the complex thriller I was expecting it to be, cramming far too much into its runtime and leaving me feeling dissatisfied. It’s entertaining in its own way and if you’re mainly looking looking for chase sequences, fast cars and action, then you’ll probably have a good time. There are some great scenes and lines of dialogue, but not enough to fully redeem itself. I don’t necessarily regret watching it, but I won’t be watching again. It’s a forgettable action film.
If you want to see Lisbeth Salander and co. at their best, catch the Swedish films instead.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/11/28/disappointingly-average-a-review-of-the-girl-in-the-spiders-web/