Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Twist (2021) in Movies
Feb 17, 2021
I'm not sure what grabbed me about this one to make me watch... probably the cast. When will I learn?
Twist has been fending for himself for a long time, but when he crosses paths with Dodge and Batesy, he finds himself a family on the wrong side of the law.
The trend for updating stories is one I've enjoyed in the past, but Twist felt like a weird hybrid of a film that... well, let's get into it.
It may have been based on Oliver Twist, but I genuinely don't think they should have made is such a big splash. Yes, there are similarities, but the majority of the time it just felt like it was the character names being thrown in at random to make the connection. And is it the sort of connection you need to exploit? I don't think that you've naturally got a crossover between what the story of Oliver Twist is and what is represented here.
As an ensemble it's got some pretty big names attached. Caine, Clarke and Headey are generally a good call when it comes to picking something to watch... this is definitely how I got tricked into watching Twist.
Caine was... Caine, if you know, you know. Headey was a psycho that came across so excessively over the top, maybe to give the film wider appeal in other markets? I'm not entirely sure to be honest. And Clarke at least made for some enjoyable watching.
Our other, younger cast members, were such a random group. Rafferty Law as Twist didn't give a lot, and I know that by the nature of his character origin and backstory his nature was supposed to be on a different level to the others, but I didn't find it very believable. Dodge and Batesy played by Rita Ora and Franz Drameh fit well together initially, but I quickly found Drameh to be much more skilled as Ora's acting became a little lacklustre.
Overall there's weren't many moments in Twist that worked for me because of this odd mix of cast. The biggest anomaly being Leigh Francis as the traffic warden. Had the tone of the film been different then I absolutely could have seen a place for him in it, but as it was his role stuck out like a sore thumb.
We witness a lot of freerunning (or parkour, I'm not sure which term is more appropriate here) through the film and they used this as an opportunity to fling the camera around too and put in some fancy moves. Generally I'm not a fan, and while they fit in the moment, they seemed out of place given that the rest of the camerawork felt a little more generic. I noted down that it seemed to almost be missing at some points, but I'm not sure if that's because I just sighed and ignored it or if it was only used on certain types of shots... I will not be watching it again to find out.
Twist feels like it's what you would get if you took the TV series Hustle and mixed it with a London gangster movie... but without the same level of finesse. There is definitely something in this film but I think I was severely distracted by the attempt to capitalise on a bizarre reworking of a classic tale.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/02/twist-movie-review.html
Twist has been fending for himself for a long time, but when he crosses paths with Dodge and Batesy, he finds himself a family on the wrong side of the law.
The trend for updating stories is one I've enjoyed in the past, but Twist felt like a weird hybrid of a film that... well, let's get into it.
It may have been based on Oliver Twist, but I genuinely don't think they should have made is such a big splash. Yes, there are similarities, but the majority of the time it just felt like it was the character names being thrown in at random to make the connection. And is it the sort of connection you need to exploit? I don't think that you've naturally got a crossover between what the story of Oliver Twist is and what is represented here.
As an ensemble it's got some pretty big names attached. Caine, Clarke and Headey are generally a good call when it comes to picking something to watch... this is definitely how I got tricked into watching Twist.
Caine was... Caine, if you know, you know. Headey was a psycho that came across so excessively over the top, maybe to give the film wider appeal in other markets? I'm not entirely sure to be honest. And Clarke at least made for some enjoyable watching.
Our other, younger cast members, were such a random group. Rafferty Law as Twist didn't give a lot, and I know that by the nature of his character origin and backstory his nature was supposed to be on a different level to the others, but I didn't find it very believable. Dodge and Batesy played by Rita Ora and Franz Drameh fit well together initially, but I quickly found Drameh to be much more skilled as Ora's acting became a little lacklustre.
Overall there's weren't many moments in Twist that worked for me because of this odd mix of cast. The biggest anomaly being Leigh Francis as the traffic warden. Had the tone of the film been different then I absolutely could have seen a place for him in it, but as it was his role stuck out like a sore thumb.
We witness a lot of freerunning (or parkour, I'm not sure which term is more appropriate here) through the film and they used this as an opportunity to fling the camera around too and put in some fancy moves. Generally I'm not a fan, and while they fit in the moment, they seemed out of place given that the rest of the camerawork felt a little more generic. I noted down that it seemed to almost be missing at some points, but I'm not sure if that's because I just sighed and ignored it or if it was only used on certain types of shots... I will not be watching it again to find out.
Twist feels like it's what you would get if you took the TV series Hustle and mixed it with a London gangster movie... but without the same level of finesse. There is definitely something in this film but I think I was severely distracted by the attempt to capitalise on a bizarre reworking of a classic tale.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/02/twist-movie-review.html
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Taxi Driver (1976) in Movies
Sep 10, 2020
Perfect blend of Director, Star and Place
Dark, dirty, rainy, dangerous, foggy, grimy, glorious - all words that would describe New York City in the late 1960's/early 1970's.
They are also words that would describe Martin Scorcese's 1976 film, TAXI DRIVER starring Robert DeNiro (fresh off his Oscar win for Godfather II) in another Oscar nominated performance.
This film is a perfect blend of Director, star and material. These 3 elements come together to blend a vivid portrayal of an outsider/loner observing the decay of the city he loves, finally culminating in his desire to correct some of the wrongs.
I still don't know if I'm talking about Travis Bickle, the character DeNiro is playing, or of Director Scorcese.
DeNiro is powerful in his portrayal of the titular Taxi Driver, Travis Bickle. He subtly underplays the character - especially at the beginning - showing a lost soul wandering the big city. Slowly, this character begins to gain his footing - and that footing is terrifying in the violence that is welling up in him. He has no social attachments - and the 2 that he attempts to gain during the course of this film slips through his grasp the harder he tries to clutch them.
Jodie Foster was Oscar nominated for her turn as 13 year old street walker Iris. It is a stunningly strong performance by an young actress who heretofore was known only for lighthearted "Disney-type" films and shows the strength of character and performer that Foster would become. Albert Brooks and Peter Boyle pop up in this film in somewhat comic-relief roles. Roles that are a needed, and welcome, change of pace for this film. As opposed to Harvey Keitel as "Sport" the pimp of Foster's character. You can sense that he is just as dangerous as Bickle and if these two were to go up against each other, violence is going to erupt.
The surprise of this movie for me was the performance of Cybill Shepherd as Betsy, the object of Travis' desire. She brings a power and grace to her role that is extremely attractive to watch. You are drawn to Betsy and can understand how Travis is drawn to her as well.
But, make no mistake, this is Scorcese's film. He captures the feel of New York City of this time. This film is mostly mood and atmosphere - and that is a good thing. You get the sense that you are there. This film is a time capsule of the "Mean Streets" times of NYC - and shows a Director that knows this city and knows how he wants to show it on film. I was shocked to find out that Scorcese was NOT nominated for an Oscar for his work here, it is that good.
I also was surprised to find that the great Bernard Herrmann (Citizen Kane, Psycho, Vertigo) was the Composer of the film - and he is a great choice. His music perfectly matches - and enhances - the mood that is set up by Scorcese. This film would not be as atmospheric - or would capture the vibe of the time - without Herrmann's score. Unfortunately, Herrmann would pass away shortly after completing his work on this film, so his Oscar nomination was posthumous.
A wonderful blend of character, place and mood. Taxi Driver is timeless because it is about a specific time.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
They are also words that would describe Martin Scorcese's 1976 film, TAXI DRIVER starring Robert DeNiro (fresh off his Oscar win for Godfather II) in another Oscar nominated performance.
This film is a perfect blend of Director, star and material. These 3 elements come together to blend a vivid portrayal of an outsider/loner observing the decay of the city he loves, finally culminating in his desire to correct some of the wrongs.
I still don't know if I'm talking about Travis Bickle, the character DeNiro is playing, or of Director Scorcese.
DeNiro is powerful in his portrayal of the titular Taxi Driver, Travis Bickle. He subtly underplays the character - especially at the beginning - showing a lost soul wandering the big city. Slowly, this character begins to gain his footing - and that footing is terrifying in the violence that is welling up in him. He has no social attachments - and the 2 that he attempts to gain during the course of this film slips through his grasp the harder he tries to clutch them.
Jodie Foster was Oscar nominated for her turn as 13 year old street walker Iris. It is a stunningly strong performance by an young actress who heretofore was known only for lighthearted "Disney-type" films and shows the strength of character and performer that Foster would become. Albert Brooks and Peter Boyle pop up in this film in somewhat comic-relief roles. Roles that are a needed, and welcome, change of pace for this film. As opposed to Harvey Keitel as "Sport" the pimp of Foster's character. You can sense that he is just as dangerous as Bickle and if these two were to go up against each other, violence is going to erupt.
The surprise of this movie for me was the performance of Cybill Shepherd as Betsy, the object of Travis' desire. She brings a power and grace to her role that is extremely attractive to watch. You are drawn to Betsy and can understand how Travis is drawn to her as well.
But, make no mistake, this is Scorcese's film. He captures the feel of New York City of this time. This film is mostly mood and atmosphere - and that is a good thing. You get the sense that you are there. This film is a time capsule of the "Mean Streets" times of NYC - and shows a Director that knows this city and knows how he wants to show it on film. I was shocked to find out that Scorcese was NOT nominated for an Oscar for his work here, it is that good.
I also was surprised to find that the great Bernard Herrmann (Citizen Kane, Psycho, Vertigo) was the Composer of the film - and he is a great choice. His music perfectly matches - and enhances - the mood that is set up by Scorcese. This film would not be as atmospheric - or would capture the vibe of the time - without Herrmann's score. Unfortunately, Herrmann would pass away shortly after completing his work on this film, so his Oscar nomination was posthumous.
A wonderful blend of character, place and mood. Taxi Driver is timeless because it is about a specific time.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Censor (2021) in Movies
Sep 3, 2021
Niamh Algar is fabulous (1 more)
Novel story and great direction
A genuinely original story (at last!)
Positives:
- I often whinge on about there being no novelty in movies anymore, with everything being derivative of everything else. Well here's a case for the defence. There have been movies before about the mental effect of working in the horror movie business (Toby Jones in "Berberian Sound Studio" comes to mind). But none (as far as I'm aware) from the viewpoint of a film censor. This novelty gave the movie the scope to go in a number of different directions - including as a historical drama. But it focuses on a study of how loss and grief can suddenly emerge in dramatic ways even after many years. Director Prano Bailey-Bond co-wrote this and directs it with such verve that she is very much added to my "one to watch" list for writer-directors.
- Irish actress Niamh Algar is just brilliant here, reminiscent of Morfydd Clark's fantastic performance in "Saint Maud" (not the only parallel to be drawn in this review). The acting during the dramatic conclusion is utterly chilling.
- While the ending of the movie might be polarising, I loved it. No spoilers, but it's one of my favourite endings of any movie so far this year. It reminded me strongly of the ending of "Saint Maud".
- The editing is by Mark Towns (who also did "Saint Maud"). And it's bloody marvellous, particularly during that finale! While it doesn't shy away from showing some pretty horrible stuff, Towns shows much of this subliminally in the edit (shades of the "Psycho" shower scene). This probably helped with its certification (of which more later).
- The music by Emilie Levienaise-Farrouch is quirky and fitting for the movie. I loved the jaunty end-title music.
- Has one of the best impalings since Timothy Dalton fell on that model church spire in "Hot Fuzz"!
Negatives:
- While Algar is utterly fabulous, I was less convinced by the acting of some of her fellow censors in the office. Some of this felt a bit wooden to me.
Summary Thoughts on "Censor": The workings of the UK film censors have always fascinated me, and here's a novel insight into their work during a very difficult period in their history: the National Viewers and Listener's Association, headed by the fearsome Mary Whitehouse, was up in arms at the potential damage to people's (and particularly children's) mental wellbeing from the influx of "video nasties" arriving in homes on VHS tapes. The film needs to be applauded for coming up with such a novel storyline.
What I found surprising (and ironic) is that this got away with only a "15" certificate. Editor Mark Towns suggested to me, in a private communication on Twitter, that the BBFC rated it thus due to the "context" in which the violence was set. But I remember the first 'X' film I saw. It was Brian De Palma's "The Fury", which (from memory) was purely rated as such for the final scene in which John Cassavetes's character explodes in a gory fountain. Judging from "Censor"'s "15" certificate, things have become significantly more permissive in recent years!
(For the full graphical review check out onemannsmovies on the web, facebook and (for the video review) Tiktok. Thanks)
- I often whinge on about there being no novelty in movies anymore, with everything being derivative of everything else. Well here's a case for the defence. There have been movies before about the mental effect of working in the horror movie business (Toby Jones in "Berberian Sound Studio" comes to mind). But none (as far as I'm aware) from the viewpoint of a film censor. This novelty gave the movie the scope to go in a number of different directions - including as a historical drama. But it focuses on a study of how loss and grief can suddenly emerge in dramatic ways even after many years. Director Prano Bailey-Bond co-wrote this and directs it with such verve that she is very much added to my "one to watch" list for writer-directors.
- Irish actress Niamh Algar is just brilliant here, reminiscent of Morfydd Clark's fantastic performance in "Saint Maud" (not the only parallel to be drawn in this review). The acting during the dramatic conclusion is utterly chilling.
- While the ending of the movie might be polarising, I loved it. No spoilers, but it's one of my favourite endings of any movie so far this year. It reminded me strongly of the ending of "Saint Maud".
- The editing is by Mark Towns (who also did "Saint Maud"). And it's bloody marvellous, particularly during that finale! While it doesn't shy away from showing some pretty horrible stuff, Towns shows much of this subliminally in the edit (shades of the "Psycho" shower scene). This probably helped with its certification (of which more later).
- The music by Emilie Levienaise-Farrouch is quirky and fitting for the movie. I loved the jaunty end-title music.
- Has one of the best impalings since Timothy Dalton fell on that model church spire in "Hot Fuzz"!
Negatives:
- While Algar is utterly fabulous, I was less convinced by the acting of some of her fellow censors in the office. Some of this felt a bit wooden to me.
Summary Thoughts on "Censor": The workings of the UK film censors have always fascinated me, and here's a novel insight into their work during a very difficult period in their history: the National Viewers and Listener's Association, headed by the fearsome Mary Whitehouse, was up in arms at the potential damage to people's (and particularly children's) mental wellbeing from the influx of "video nasties" arriving in homes on VHS tapes. The film needs to be applauded for coming up with such a novel storyline.
What I found surprising (and ironic) is that this got away with only a "15" certificate. Editor Mark Towns suggested to me, in a private communication on Twitter, that the BBFC rated it thus due to the "context" in which the violence was set. But I remember the first 'X' film I saw. It was Brian De Palma's "The Fury", which (from memory) was purely rated as such for the final scene in which John Cassavetes's character explodes in a gory fountain. Judging from "Censor"'s "15" certificate, things have become significantly more permissive in recent years!
(For the full graphical review check out onemannsmovies on the web, facebook and (for the video review) Tiktok. Thanks)
A Bibliophagist (113 KP) rated You in Books
Jan 27, 2020 (Updated Jan 27, 2020)
Unique (3 more)
Well thought out
Fast paced
Creepy
Sometimes loses focus (1 more)
Character feels inconsistant
Unique, interesting and stands on it's own
As a book nerd, and fan of crime podcasts and shows, I had to read this book after loving the show version of it.
Honestly, this is one of the better adaptations (as far as book to screen goes). The show stays true enough to the book, but the book retains enough to be worth the read, even if you've watched the show.
The book is presented completely as the internal monologue of Joe Goldburg, a bookstore employee who is unstable, obsessive and violent. It follows his narration(and therefore unreliable account) of meeting Beck, a girl he becomes obsessed with, stalks and eventually forms a relationship with. The book handles this extremely well, presenting Joe ample opportunity to believably narrate every aspect of the story. He manipulates Beck's life, interfering with a current, bad, boyfriend, toxic friendships and Beck herself, to pave way for what he considers the inevitable, Beck and him living happily ever after. However, obviously, when you are a murderous, psycho, stalker, things never go as you imagine.
Unlike the show, the book never lets you forget that Joe is a monster, having it delivered 100% from his perspective lets us see all the questionable interworkings of his mind. Kepnes obviously referenced incel forums while researching, because a lot of what he says is copy pasta incel rhetoric. He is a bad guy. I think where I struggled with this book is that Beck, in her own way, is a terrible, narcissistic, whiney piece of work. She treats everyone terribly and is very "woe is me". Leaving me to not care about her fate. I watched her fall into his grasp and almost rooted for her demise because she was just the worst. I feel the author needed to deliver something redeeming about her to make me care about what he was doing to her. But up until the end, I hated Beck. But, unlike the show, unlike the masses of Joe fans onlines, I hated Joe too in this book. It was scary how so much he did was so easy, and with the incel like thoughts it reminds you that this would be so easy to happen in real life. At times however, his character felt inconsistent, making dumb descisions or having severe thoughts that didn't feel like his mental instability, just inconsistent story telling. So I would argue that the show was smart in removing all the incel thoughts, all the oversexualized, suddenly very agressive thoughts. Because of course someone who thinks like that could do these things. It's almost scarier that the show version doesn't think this way, just fully 100% believes he is doing the right thing. That's scary. I wish the author had employed that more in her book, something to prove to the reader that Joe fully was convinced he was good. But for every time she attempted to write this she undermined it with some obviously bad thought, that never made the reader doubt for a moment. This isn't bad persay, but I think it took a little creepiness from the book and traded it for shock value. The equivalent of showing the monster in a creepy monster flick. Overall it kept my attention, and I immediately ordered the next book (this one ended very different from the show, and ancillary names were used for different character in season 2) so I'm excited to see what she did in book two, as I won't have something to compare it to.
Worth the read, whether you've seen the show or not. Dark, real, and very creepy. It'll make you look at strangers a little differently.
Honestly, this is one of the better adaptations (as far as book to screen goes). The show stays true enough to the book, but the book retains enough to be worth the read, even if you've watched the show.
The book is presented completely as the internal monologue of Joe Goldburg, a bookstore employee who is unstable, obsessive and violent. It follows his narration(and therefore unreliable account) of meeting Beck, a girl he becomes obsessed with, stalks and eventually forms a relationship with. The book handles this extremely well, presenting Joe ample opportunity to believably narrate every aspect of the story. He manipulates Beck's life, interfering with a current, bad, boyfriend, toxic friendships and Beck herself, to pave way for what he considers the inevitable, Beck and him living happily ever after. However, obviously, when you are a murderous, psycho, stalker, things never go as you imagine.
Unlike the show, the book never lets you forget that Joe is a monster, having it delivered 100% from his perspective lets us see all the questionable interworkings of his mind. Kepnes obviously referenced incel forums while researching, because a lot of what he says is copy pasta incel rhetoric. He is a bad guy. I think where I struggled with this book is that Beck, in her own way, is a terrible, narcissistic, whiney piece of work. She treats everyone terribly and is very "woe is me". Leaving me to not care about her fate. I watched her fall into his grasp and almost rooted for her demise because she was just the worst. I feel the author needed to deliver something redeeming about her to make me care about what he was doing to her. But up until the end, I hated Beck. But, unlike the show, unlike the masses of Joe fans onlines, I hated Joe too in this book. It was scary how so much he did was so easy, and with the incel like thoughts it reminds you that this would be so easy to happen in real life. At times however, his character felt inconsistent, making dumb descisions or having severe thoughts that didn't feel like his mental instability, just inconsistent story telling. So I would argue that the show was smart in removing all the incel thoughts, all the oversexualized, suddenly very agressive thoughts. Because of course someone who thinks like that could do these things. It's almost scarier that the show version doesn't think this way, just fully 100% believes he is doing the right thing. That's scary. I wish the author had employed that more in her book, something to prove to the reader that Joe fully was convinced he was good. But for every time she attempted to write this she undermined it with some obviously bad thought, that never made the reader doubt for a moment. This isn't bad persay, but I think it took a little creepiness from the book and traded it for shock value. The equivalent of showing the monster in a creepy monster flick. Overall it kept my attention, and I immediately ordered the next book (this one ended very different from the show, and ancillary names were used for different character in season 2) so I'm excited to see what she did in book two, as I won't have something to compare it to.
Worth the read, whether you've seen the show or not. Dark, real, and very creepy. It'll make you look at strangers a little differently.
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Chief Zabu (2016) in Movies
Oct 8, 2020
“Chief Zabu” Captures 80s America With A Comedic Twist
Greetings & Salutations Everyone!
It’s perplexing how so very few people seem to comprehend the grand efforts that go into the production of a movie. The numerous individuals involved, the various disciplines and skill sets, the length of production time, etc. The film I have the good fortune to share with you today has essentially been on one of the longest journeys I’ve ever heard of. A journey so lengthy in scope, it was the subject of a recurring gag during the tenure of ‘Mystery Science Theater 3000’. 30 years. That’s right. It actually didn’t take 30 years to literally make/film the movie. Production for the film began in 1986. But due to an unforeseen series of circumstances, production was unable to be completed until 2016. Now if you’re a ‘die hard disciple’ of MST3K, obligations don’t matter. The fact that they thought enough of it to make it the subject of a running joke is advertisement enough to make you want to see the film. So … without further adieu I present for your consideration, “Chief Zabu”
“Chief Zabu” is a socio-political comedy that takes place primarily in New York during the mid-1980s and follows a determined New York businessman who believes his dreams of wealth and political power can be secured by cornering the economic future of a newly independent Polynesian country. The film was directed, produced, and written by Zack Norman (credited as Howard Zuker) and Neil Cohen. The film stars Allen Garfield, Zack Norman, Manu Tupou, Ed Lauter, Marianna Hill, Allan Arbus, Harsh Nayyar, Joseph Warren, Betty Karlen, Tom Nardini, Charles Siegal, Shirley Stoler, Lucianne Buchanan, and Ferdinand Mayne.
Chief Henri Zabu (Tupou) is the leader of a Polynesian country who has been thrust into the world of politics and has journeyed to New York City to secure recognition for his country from the United Nations. Secretly, he has come to hopefully secure investors and the finical backing to kickstart his country’s economy and infrastructure. Ben Sydney (Garfield) and his longtime friend and partner Sammy Brooks (Norman), are a pair of devious and crafty New York realtors going from one mediocre deal to the next while fantasizing about that ‘deal of a lifetime’ that will one day hopefully ‘find them’. It does. Sort of. Through a series of almost unreal interactions with a series of characters ranging from con artists to wealthy individuals who would likely push a family member into a pool if properly motivated, Ben and Sammy believe they’ve got the political and finance connections to make their ambitions a reality. And then, just when things are going so well … the proverbial rug looks as though it’s going to get pulled out from under them. So it would seem. New York realtors with political aspirations and possibly questionable morals. Does this ring any bells anyone?
Setting aside the comedic aspects of the film, it’s a fictional yet not unrealistic representation some of the political and economic influences that surrounded the arena of the United Nations in the mid to late 80’s. An interesting side story that depicts how first world nations would seize the opportunity to try and capitalize on newly independent or weaker nations by securing footholds in their economic and political power bases. Thereby funneling a nation’s resources and wealth away from those nations.
In the end, the film captures the 80’s in America much for what it was with a comedic twist. Celebrity worship, political backstabbing, and materialism. The only other film I can think of off the top of my head that did better would be ‘American Psycho’. Thankfully and perhaps gratefully, ‘Chief Zabu’ accomplished this WITHOUT the excessive and unprecedented depictions of violence. I’d give this film 4 out of 5 stars. The only way to one-up the movie is if we could take it back in time and give it the ‘MST3K’ treatment.
It’s perplexing how so very few people seem to comprehend the grand efforts that go into the production of a movie. The numerous individuals involved, the various disciplines and skill sets, the length of production time, etc. The film I have the good fortune to share with you today has essentially been on one of the longest journeys I’ve ever heard of. A journey so lengthy in scope, it was the subject of a recurring gag during the tenure of ‘Mystery Science Theater 3000’. 30 years. That’s right. It actually didn’t take 30 years to literally make/film the movie. Production for the film began in 1986. But due to an unforeseen series of circumstances, production was unable to be completed until 2016. Now if you’re a ‘die hard disciple’ of MST3K, obligations don’t matter. The fact that they thought enough of it to make it the subject of a running joke is advertisement enough to make you want to see the film. So … without further adieu I present for your consideration, “Chief Zabu”
“Chief Zabu” is a socio-political comedy that takes place primarily in New York during the mid-1980s and follows a determined New York businessman who believes his dreams of wealth and political power can be secured by cornering the economic future of a newly independent Polynesian country. The film was directed, produced, and written by Zack Norman (credited as Howard Zuker) and Neil Cohen. The film stars Allen Garfield, Zack Norman, Manu Tupou, Ed Lauter, Marianna Hill, Allan Arbus, Harsh Nayyar, Joseph Warren, Betty Karlen, Tom Nardini, Charles Siegal, Shirley Stoler, Lucianne Buchanan, and Ferdinand Mayne.
Chief Henri Zabu (Tupou) is the leader of a Polynesian country who has been thrust into the world of politics and has journeyed to New York City to secure recognition for his country from the United Nations. Secretly, he has come to hopefully secure investors and the finical backing to kickstart his country’s economy and infrastructure. Ben Sydney (Garfield) and his longtime friend and partner Sammy Brooks (Norman), are a pair of devious and crafty New York realtors going from one mediocre deal to the next while fantasizing about that ‘deal of a lifetime’ that will one day hopefully ‘find them’. It does. Sort of. Through a series of almost unreal interactions with a series of characters ranging from con artists to wealthy individuals who would likely push a family member into a pool if properly motivated, Ben and Sammy believe they’ve got the political and finance connections to make their ambitions a reality. And then, just when things are going so well … the proverbial rug looks as though it’s going to get pulled out from under them. So it would seem. New York realtors with political aspirations and possibly questionable morals. Does this ring any bells anyone?
Setting aside the comedic aspects of the film, it’s a fictional yet not unrealistic representation some of the political and economic influences that surrounded the arena of the United Nations in the mid to late 80’s. An interesting side story that depicts how first world nations would seize the opportunity to try and capitalize on newly independent or weaker nations by securing footholds in their economic and political power bases. Thereby funneling a nation’s resources and wealth away from those nations.
In the end, the film captures the 80’s in America much for what it was with a comedic twist. Celebrity worship, political backstabbing, and materialism. The only other film I can think of off the top of my head that did better would be ‘American Psycho’. Thankfully and perhaps gratefully, ‘Chief Zabu’ accomplished this WITHOUT the excessive and unprecedented depictions of violence. I’d give this film 4 out of 5 stars. The only way to one-up the movie is if we could take it back in time and give it the ‘MST3K’ treatment.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Game Night (2018) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Virtual game nights over Zoom have been a big part of many lockdown experiences, so, if you haven’t already, check out this fun, disposable comedy starring Jason Bateman and Rachel McAdams. The two ever reliable leads make this 100 minute romp something worth doing, pitched as it is to tickle you on a superficial level and then leave you alone. Not one minute of meaningful plot or artistic message exists here; this is frat house tomfoolery for the now middle aged mainstream and then a bow to the crowd.
Anyone who has hosted, or been a guest at a dedicated game night will instantly relate to recognisable moments of cringe, such as the person who takes it all far too seriously and must win at all costs; the one who is far too dim to be true, and neither understands the rules nor knows the answers; the couple whose relationship is about to be ruined by how much they disagree; the guys who care much more about the booze, chat and music to care about the game; and the psycho that you didn’t really want to invite but is there in the mix anyway, giving the weirdest answers of all time and bringing down the mood. It’s all there!
When events take a canny twist and a planned fake murder mystery turns into a very real one, there is tons of fun to be had watching the main pair misjudge the amount of danger they are in, believing it all to still be a game. Bateman phones in his usual laconic likeable deadpan schtick, hard to differentiate from his role in half a dozen other films where he plays the likeable everyman, but is never less than watchable – because that’s what he does. McAdams also delivers her ace card, with a guileless charm and sweetness that makes her permanently lovable. She also wins by a point or two on the best lines and laugh out loud moments. If I was keeping score, I’d say she wins this one.
As a couple, their chemistry works a treat and sustains the conceit well for most of the running time. It can feel at times like a bit of a one trick pony, however, and also pushes the boundaries of likability by having quite a mean heart in places, leaning on crass, puerile or macho humour when not entirely necessary – but I guess it knows its target audience and just goes full tilt at that goal.
For that reason, it wouldn’t be something I’d be showing the kids. This is adult humour, for adults – a concept that always makes me slightly uncomfortable, as it will inevitably involve gratuitous violence, nasty misogyny and token gross-outs: the mainstay of comedy films without actual jokes. Game Night just about gets away with it, however, by being smart enough and self-aware enough to know exactly where it sits, shrugging its shoulders and saying “this is what this is” take it or leave it. And I guess there will be as many people who don’t enjoy it as those who do.
Personally, I enjoy what Bateman and McAdams do best enough to play along and enjoy the ride. There is also a terrifically creepy, but note perfect turn from the increasingly reliable Jesse Plemmons, as the lonely neighbour, who steals all the funniest moments the film has to offer. See it for his performance and comic timing if for nothing else. It’s also nice to see Michael C. Hall of Dexter fame turn up for two minutes of mayhem – I don’t see enough of him these days.
In conclusion, neither a winner or a loser. Let’s call it a draw and reset the pieces.
Anyone who has hosted, or been a guest at a dedicated game night will instantly relate to recognisable moments of cringe, such as the person who takes it all far too seriously and must win at all costs; the one who is far too dim to be true, and neither understands the rules nor knows the answers; the couple whose relationship is about to be ruined by how much they disagree; the guys who care much more about the booze, chat and music to care about the game; and the psycho that you didn’t really want to invite but is there in the mix anyway, giving the weirdest answers of all time and bringing down the mood. It’s all there!
When events take a canny twist and a planned fake murder mystery turns into a very real one, there is tons of fun to be had watching the main pair misjudge the amount of danger they are in, believing it all to still be a game. Bateman phones in his usual laconic likeable deadpan schtick, hard to differentiate from his role in half a dozen other films where he plays the likeable everyman, but is never less than watchable – because that’s what he does. McAdams also delivers her ace card, with a guileless charm and sweetness that makes her permanently lovable. She also wins by a point or two on the best lines and laugh out loud moments. If I was keeping score, I’d say she wins this one.
As a couple, their chemistry works a treat and sustains the conceit well for most of the running time. It can feel at times like a bit of a one trick pony, however, and also pushes the boundaries of likability by having quite a mean heart in places, leaning on crass, puerile or macho humour when not entirely necessary – but I guess it knows its target audience and just goes full tilt at that goal.
For that reason, it wouldn’t be something I’d be showing the kids. This is adult humour, for adults – a concept that always makes me slightly uncomfortable, as it will inevitably involve gratuitous violence, nasty misogyny and token gross-outs: the mainstay of comedy films without actual jokes. Game Night just about gets away with it, however, by being smart enough and self-aware enough to know exactly where it sits, shrugging its shoulders and saying “this is what this is” take it or leave it. And I guess there will be as many people who don’t enjoy it as those who do.
Personally, I enjoy what Bateman and McAdams do best enough to play along and enjoy the ride. There is also a terrifically creepy, but note perfect turn from the increasingly reliable Jesse Plemmons, as the lonely neighbour, who steals all the funniest moments the film has to offer. See it for his performance and comic timing if for nothing else. It’s also nice to see Michael C. Hall of Dexter fame turn up for two minutes of mayhem – I don’t see enough of him these days.
In conclusion, neither a winner or a loser. Let’s call it a draw and reset the pieces.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Snowman (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“We’re trudging through the slush”.
Unlike its animated namesake, “The Snowman” is not a good film. Frustratingly it has all the right ingredients:
A story by bestselling Nordic writer Jo Nesbø;
Gorgeously photogenic snowy scenes of Oslo and Bergen;
A stellar cast (Michael Fassbender (“Alien: Covenant“); Rebecca Ferguson (“Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“); J.K. Simmons (“Whiplash“); Toby Jones (“Dad’s Army“); Chloe Sevigny (“Love and Friendship“); Charlotte Gainsbourg (“Independence Day: Resurgence“, very sexy as Fassbender’s ex-squeeze) and even Val Kilmer (“Top Gun”, whose mother – interesting fact – is actually Swedish).
snowman2
That sinking feeling when you realise you’ve been drinking all night and its too late for bed before work.
And while these elements congeal in the snow together quite well as vignettes, the whole film jerks from vignette to vignette in a most unsatisfactory way. I haven’t read the book (which might be much better) but the inclusion in the (terrible!) trailers of key scenes that never made the final cut (where was the fire for example?, the fish? the man trap?) implied to me that the director (Tomas Alfredson, “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy”) and screenwriting team – Peter Straughan (also “Tinker, Tailor”), Hossein Amini (“The Two Faces of January“) and Søren Sveistrup (TV’s “The Killing”) – either didn’t have (or didn’t agree on) the direction they wanted the film to go in.
Film Title: The Snowman
Arve Stop (J.K. Simmons) and Katrine (Rebecca Ferguson) having a “Weinstein moment” at the hotel.
Nesbø (and indeed most crime writers these days) litter their work with damaged cops…. you have to question whether the detective application form has a mandatory check-box with “alcoholic and borderline psycho” on it!. This film is no exception. Fassbender plays Nesbø’s master sleuth Harry Hole: an alcoholic insomniac well off the rails between homicide cases. “If only Oslo had a higher murder rate” bemoans his boss (Ronan Vibert). He joins forces with newby officer Katrine Bratt (Rebecca Ferguson), who has her fair share of mental demons to fight, in investigating a series of missing person/murder cases. The duo unearth a link between the cases – all happen when the snow starts to fall and to particular types of women, with the protagonist leaving a snowman at the scene.
snowman5
One of the cuter snowmen… they get worse… much worse.
The plot is highly formulaic – I guessed who the killer was within about 20 minutes. But what makes this movie stand out, for all the wrong reasons, is that it has one of the most stupid, vacuous, flaccid, inane, ridiculous … (add 50 other thesaurus entries)… endings imaginable. My mouth actually gaped in astonishment!
There are also a surprisingly large number of loose ends you ponder after the film ends: why the “Snowman”‘s fixation with Harry?; what was with the “Vetlesen cleaner” subplot? How is Star Trek transportation possible in Norway? (But wait… “Telemark”… “Teleport”…. coincidence????? 🙂
On the plus side, there is some lovely Norwegian drone cinematography – (by Australian Dion Beebe (“Edge of Tomorrow“) – that immediately made me put “travel by winter train from Oslo to Bergen” on my life-map. The music by Marco Beltrami (“Logan“) is also effective and suitably Hitchcockian.
If you like your films gory, this one is definitely for you, with some pretty graphic content that (for those who like to cover their eyes) is cut to so quickly by editors Thelma Schoonmaker (“The Wolf of Wall Street“) and Claire Simpson (“Far From The Madding Crowd“) that your hands won’t have time to leave your lap! I remember this being a feature of a previous Nesbø adaptation (the much better “Headhunters” from 2011) but here it goes into overdrive.
snowman1
One of my favourite actresses – Rebecca Ferguson, curiously playing much “younger” in this film than she appears in her previous hits.
Overall this was a rather disappointing effort that was heading for a FFf rating. But just because of that ending I’m knocking a whole extra Fad off!
A story by bestselling Nordic writer Jo Nesbø;
Gorgeously photogenic snowy scenes of Oslo and Bergen;
A stellar cast (Michael Fassbender (“Alien: Covenant“); Rebecca Ferguson (“Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“); J.K. Simmons (“Whiplash“); Toby Jones (“Dad’s Army“); Chloe Sevigny (“Love and Friendship“); Charlotte Gainsbourg (“Independence Day: Resurgence“, very sexy as Fassbender’s ex-squeeze) and even Val Kilmer (“Top Gun”, whose mother – interesting fact – is actually Swedish).
snowman2
That sinking feeling when you realise you’ve been drinking all night and its too late for bed before work.
And while these elements congeal in the snow together quite well as vignettes, the whole film jerks from vignette to vignette in a most unsatisfactory way. I haven’t read the book (which might be much better) but the inclusion in the (terrible!) trailers of key scenes that never made the final cut (where was the fire for example?, the fish? the man trap?) implied to me that the director (Tomas Alfredson, “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy”) and screenwriting team – Peter Straughan (also “Tinker, Tailor”), Hossein Amini (“The Two Faces of January“) and Søren Sveistrup (TV’s “The Killing”) – either didn’t have (or didn’t agree on) the direction they wanted the film to go in.
Film Title: The Snowman
Arve Stop (J.K. Simmons) and Katrine (Rebecca Ferguson) having a “Weinstein moment” at the hotel.
Nesbø (and indeed most crime writers these days) litter their work with damaged cops…. you have to question whether the detective application form has a mandatory check-box with “alcoholic and borderline psycho” on it!. This film is no exception. Fassbender plays Nesbø’s master sleuth Harry Hole: an alcoholic insomniac well off the rails between homicide cases. “If only Oslo had a higher murder rate” bemoans his boss (Ronan Vibert). He joins forces with newby officer Katrine Bratt (Rebecca Ferguson), who has her fair share of mental demons to fight, in investigating a series of missing person/murder cases. The duo unearth a link between the cases – all happen when the snow starts to fall and to particular types of women, with the protagonist leaving a snowman at the scene.
snowman5
One of the cuter snowmen… they get worse… much worse.
The plot is highly formulaic – I guessed who the killer was within about 20 minutes. But what makes this movie stand out, for all the wrong reasons, is that it has one of the most stupid, vacuous, flaccid, inane, ridiculous … (add 50 other thesaurus entries)… endings imaginable. My mouth actually gaped in astonishment!
There are also a surprisingly large number of loose ends you ponder after the film ends: why the “Snowman”‘s fixation with Harry?; what was with the “Vetlesen cleaner” subplot? How is Star Trek transportation possible in Norway? (But wait… “Telemark”… “Teleport”…. coincidence????? 🙂
On the plus side, there is some lovely Norwegian drone cinematography – (by Australian Dion Beebe (“Edge of Tomorrow“) – that immediately made me put “travel by winter train from Oslo to Bergen” on my life-map. The music by Marco Beltrami (“Logan“) is also effective and suitably Hitchcockian.
If you like your films gory, this one is definitely for you, with some pretty graphic content that (for those who like to cover their eyes) is cut to so quickly by editors Thelma Schoonmaker (“The Wolf of Wall Street“) and Claire Simpson (“Far From The Madding Crowd“) that your hands won’t have time to leave your lap! I remember this being a feature of a previous Nesbø adaptation (the much better “Headhunters” from 2011) but here it goes into overdrive.
snowman1
One of my favourite actresses – Rebecca Ferguson, curiously playing much “younger” in this film than she appears in her previous hits.
Overall this was a rather disappointing effort that was heading for a FFf rating. But just because of that ending I’m knocking a whole extra Fad off!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Split (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“We are what we believe we are”.
M. Night Shyamalan fizzed into movie consciousness in 1999 with “The Sixth Sense” which – having rewatched it again recently – still has the power to unnerve and impress even after knowing the famous ‘twist’. Since that film and his next, “Unbreakable” in 2000, Shyamalan has ‘done a bit of an Orson Welles’ by never really living up to that early promise. Here with “Split” he returns to better form with a psychological thriller that is heavy on the psycho.
James McAvoy plays Kevin… and Dennis, and Patricia, and Hedwig, and Barry, and Orwell, and Jade, and… if the running time permitted… another 17 characters. But this is no “Kind Hearts and Coronets”: McAvoy plays all these varied personalities in the same body. For Kevin suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder, a rare condition where his different schisms not only affect his speech and attitude but also his whole physique. One personality for example is diabetic and needs insulin: all his others are fine.
Under the care of MPD specialist Dr Karen Fletcher (Betty Buckley, “Carrie”), Kevin seems to be making good progress. But all is not as it seems. Dennis, one of the more evil of Kevin’s personalities, has kidnapped three teens – Claire (Haley Lu Richardson), Marcia (Jessica Sula) and Casey (Anya Taylor-Joy) – and is holding them captive in his home.
It’s all going so well. Kevin (James McAvoy) getting much needed treatment from Dr Fletcher (Betty Buckley).
While Claire and Marcia are good friends, Casey is the wild-card in the pack: a moody and aloof teen that doesn’t fit in with the crowd. We see the abduction unfold largely through her intelligent and analytical eyes, with her experiences causing flashbacks to hunting trips in the woods as a five-year-old child with her father and uncle.
This is McAvoy’s film, with his different personalities being very well observed and the scenes where he switches from one to the other being particularly impressive as piece of acting. Of the youngsters, Anya Taylor-Joy is the most impressive, with the denouement of her particular sub-plot being my favourite part of the film.
Shyamalan, who also wrote the script, is treading a well worn cinematic path here (since often the MPD element is the surprise twist, to list any films here inevitably risks major spoilers – – but there is a decent list here). But this is a film that seems to have generated a lot of interest, particularly with a younger audience (I have seldom been quizzed more with the “Ooh, have you seen this yet” question). As a result this may be a modest sleeper hit.
Girl pray or Girl prey? Casey deep in the psycho’s lair.
Where I think the movie missteps is in its casting of the three cute and scantily dressed teens as the abductees. From the plot of the film that emerges this appears to be unnecessary and exploitative, especially since they are made to progressively dis-robe as the film progresses. The film would actually have been made more interesting if a family unit, or at least a mixed variety of individuals, had been taken.
Marcia (Jessica Sula) doesn’t necessarily appreciate the floral gift.
Unfortunately Shyamalan also over-gilds the lily for the finale by going from medical improbability into outright science fiction: and dilutes what was up to that point a stylish thriller. As a result it’s a decent popcorn film, and worth seeing for McAvoy’s clever performance, but its not going to go down in my book as a classic.
Watch out by the way for a nice final cameo scene: a clever reference to past glories.
James McAvoy plays Kevin… and Dennis, and Patricia, and Hedwig, and Barry, and Orwell, and Jade, and… if the running time permitted… another 17 characters. But this is no “Kind Hearts and Coronets”: McAvoy plays all these varied personalities in the same body. For Kevin suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder, a rare condition where his different schisms not only affect his speech and attitude but also his whole physique. One personality for example is diabetic and needs insulin: all his others are fine.
Under the care of MPD specialist Dr Karen Fletcher (Betty Buckley, “Carrie”), Kevin seems to be making good progress. But all is not as it seems. Dennis, one of the more evil of Kevin’s personalities, has kidnapped three teens – Claire (Haley Lu Richardson), Marcia (Jessica Sula) and Casey (Anya Taylor-Joy) – and is holding them captive in his home.
It’s all going so well. Kevin (James McAvoy) getting much needed treatment from Dr Fletcher (Betty Buckley).
While Claire and Marcia are good friends, Casey is the wild-card in the pack: a moody and aloof teen that doesn’t fit in with the crowd. We see the abduction unfold largely through her intelligent and analytical eyes, with her experiences causing flashbacks to hunting trips in the woods as a five-year-old child with her father and uncle.
This is McAvoy’s film, with his different personalities being very well observed and the scenes where he switches from one to the other being particularly impressive as piece of acting. Of the youngsters, Anya Taylor-Joy is the most impressive, with the denouement of her particular sub-plot being my favourite part of the film.
Shyamalan, who also wrote the script, is treading a well worn cinematic path here (since often the MPD element is the surprise twist, to list any films here inevitably risks major spoilers – – but there is a decent list here). But this is a film that seems to have generated a lot of interest, particularly with a younger audience (I have seldom been quizzed more with the “Ooh, have you seen this yet” question). As a result this may be a modest sleeper hit.
Girl pray or Girl prey? Casey deep in the psycho’s lair.
Where I think the movie missteps is in its casting of the three cute and scantily dressed teens as the abductees. From the plot of the film that emerges this appears to be unnecessary and exploitative, especially since they are made to progressively dis-robe as the film progresses. The film would actually have been made more interesting if a family unit, or at least a mixed variety of individuals, had been taken.
Marcia (Jessica Sula) doesn’t necessarily appreciate the floral gift.
Unfortunately Shyamalan also over-gilds the lily for the finale by going from medical improbability into outright science fiction: and dilutes what was up to that point a stylish thriller. As a result it’s a decent popcorn film, and worth seeing for McAvoy’s clever performance, but its not going to go down in my book as a classic.
Watch out by the way for a nice final cameo scene: a clever reference to past glories.
Nadya R (9 KP) rated The Butterfly Garden in Books
Jul 2, 2018
Usually I don’t choice book by its cover. But in this case, when I saw the book’s cover I was almost sure that I wanna read this book. The cover with its dark tones and eye catching red details is so stunning.* Then there was a brainstorming review that made me 100% sure I am gonna read this book.
The story is told my Maya. 18 years old girl managed to escape from a sex-addicted serial killer. He ‘catches’ the girls and make them live in the Garden. From first sight this Garden is a piece of Heaven- all this green plants, cliffs with waterfalls and brooks, but actually its a Devil’s place and the Devil is The Gardener. Rich man, craving for attention sociopath, he keeps his Garden full with beautiful young girls with breathtaking tattoos on their back. The tattoos represent butterfly wings and that’s why these girls are called ‘Butterflies’. They are going to share the butterfly beauty but their short life as well.
The story goes in two directions- the one, where two FBI detectives are trying to solve the mystery of The Garden and meanwhile leading Maya’s interrogation and the second one brings us back the house throughout Maya’s memories.
Maya was the girl who helps the new ‘catch’ the get use with the new situation they came with. Also she tries to keep all girls united. Except from the Gardener, there is his eldest son who also is aware of what’s going on in his dad’s secret garden. There is Lorraine as well. She is an ex-Butterfly who takes care for the girls and plays the role of their doctor. She is free of going in and out of the house, whenever she wants to, but also she is the perfect example of Stockholm syndrome so she didn’t even think about exposing her beloved one.
The Gardener is pretty conflicting character, though. Although he keeps girls in captive, for the outside world he is intelligent man, and big appreciator of art. He takes care for the girls, acts gently, with respect, but he expect from them, they always to be ready to greet him in their beds and to satisfy his sexual desires. From other side is his biggest son. He, in difference with his father, is evil and rude. He is one sadistic son of a bitch, trying to take all the benefits from the girls, as he can. The thing that makes him horny and turns him up is to break girls limbs, to hurt and even to kill them while he is f*cking them.
The wind of change came with Des - the Gardener lil son. He is good and loving, just like his father, except the fact that he doesn’t ripe girls and doesn’t like what his father and brother are doing at all. But after all he is son of his father and prefers to keep their family name nice and clean, instead of helping the girls.
From the very first page, the book held my attention and this didn’t change throughout the hole book till the last page. A horrifying story narrated extremely well. The adrenaline of the action kept me awake in the night, made me turn over the pages till I reached the last one. Maya is the perfect narrator- a rebel with butting tongue, she brings so much life to the book and her story at all. The biggest fault of the book is its ending. Seriously who can finish an amazing book like this in this stupid, discouraged way? It’s like the author just ran out of ideas (or deadlines were knocking on the door) and rushed the end. In the last pages there is a person, showed up with all the answers I need, but I didn’t found their answers because the book came to its end. I was so frustrated that I wanted to throw the book away and never ever look at it once again.
Despite the miserable ending, I recommend the books as something that everyone, who likes psycho triller, has to read.
* I’m taking about Bulgarian edition of the book ?
The story is told my Maya. 18 years old girl managed to escape from a sex-addicted serial killer. He ‘catches’ the girls and make them live in the Garden. From first sight this Garden is a piece of Heaven- all this green plants, cliffs with waterfalls and brooks, but actually its a Devil’s place and the Devil is The Gardener. Rich man, craving for attention sociopath, he keeps his Garden full with beautiful young girls with breathtaking tattoos on their back. The tattoos represent butterfly wings and that’s why these girls are called ‘Butterflies’. They are going to share the butterfly beauty but their short life as well.
The story goes in two directions- the one, where two FBI detectives are trying to solve the mystery of The Garden and meanwhile leading Maya’s interrogation and the second one brings us back the house throughout Maya’s memories.
Maya was the girl who helps the new ‘catch’ the get use with the new situation they came with. Also she tries to keep all girls united. Except from the Gardener, there is his eldest son who also is aware of what’s going on in his dad’s secret garden. There is Lorraine as well. She is an ex-Butterfly who takes care for the girls and plays the role of their doctor. She is free of going in and out of the house, whenever she wants to, but also she is the perfect example of Stockholm syndrome so she didn’t even think about exposing her beloved one.
The Gardener is pretty conflicting character, though. Although he keeps girls in captive, for the outside world he is intelligent man, and big appreciator of art. He takes care for the girls, acts gently, with respect, but he expect from them, they always to be ready to greet him in their beds and to satisfy his sexual desires. From other side is his biggest son. He, in difference with his father, is evil and rude. He is one sadistic son of a bitch, trying to take all the benefits from the girls, as he can. The thing that makes him horny and turns him up is to break girls limbs, to hurt and even to kill them while he is f*cking them.
The wind of change came with Des - the Gardener lil son. He is good and loving, just like his father, except the fact that he doesn’t ripe girls and doesn’t like what his father and brother are doing at all. But after all he is son of his father and prefers to keep their family name nice and clean, instead of helping the girls.
From the very first page, the book held my attention and this didn’t change throughout the hole book till the last page. A horrifying story narrated extremely well. The adrenaline of the action kept me awake in the night, made me turn over the pages till I reached the last one. Maya is the perfect narrator- a rebel with butting tongue, she brings so much life to the book and her story at all. The biggest fault of the book is its ending. Seriously who can finish an amazing book like this in this stupid, discouraged way? It’s like the author just ran out of ideas (or deadlines were knocking on the door) and rushed the end. In the last pages there is a person, showed up with all the answers I need, but I didn’t found their answers because the book came to its end. I was so frustrated that I wanted to throw the book away and never ever look at it once again.
Despite the miserable ending, I recommend the books as something that everyone, who likes psycho triller, has to read.
* I’m taking about Bulgarian edition of the book ?
Gossip Life - The Interactive Episode Story Game
Games and Entertainment
App
NEW GOSSIP LIFE – MORE THAN JUST A STORY GAME! IMMERSE yourself in our interactive stories...