Search

Search only in certain items:

Murphy's Heist (John McBride #1)
Murphy's Heist (John McBride #1)
David Chilcott | 2013 | Contemporary, Crime, Fiction & Poetry, Thriller
6
5.5 (2 Ratings)
Book Rating
Murphy's Heist is the first of the John McBride series of thrillers. Eamonn Murphy used to be a big man in the shady world of terrorism in Northern Ireland during the troubles. Now more-or-less retired and living in Cheshire he cannot resist planning a bullion robbery on the mainland. However John McBride, artist and former soldier, stumbles upon the plot. Murphy has to quickly change his plans as the net tightens.

As with the other McBride books the emphasis is on realism rather than spectacle. Although there are explosions, gun battles and chases they are very low-key which lends an air of authenticity which is missing from more adrenaline-fuelled thrillers.

The book is paced well, alternating between Murphy and associates attempting to get away with the crime and McBride and the authorities attempts to apprehend them. Murphy is a slippery and wily customer and McBride must use ingenuity and not a little luck.

This definitely shows as the first book in the series - McBride is just an ex-soldier, not ex-SAS and farms out the more 'special forces' duties to an ex-colleague, the extra developments of his past and his occasional desire for adventure beyond the sedate world of watercolours comes later and allows him to operate independently in challenging environments. But this is a good solid opening gambit clearly layout out the template for a more realistic thriller.

As a novel this isn't as good as my favourite so far - Find My Brother - but it certainly makes for a good read.
  
    Airway Ex

    Airway Ex

    Medical and Education

    (0 Ratings) Rate It

    App

    Perform challenging airway procedures, sharpen your intubation skills, and earn CME with Airway Ex,...

40x40

Armie Hammer recommended Cool Hand Luke (1967) in Movies (curated)

 
Cool Hand Luke (1967)
Cool Hand Luke (1967)
1967 | Classics, Comedy, Drama

"Cool Hand Luke, to me, and I’m not a film historian, but what it feels like to me is it’s in this intersectional point between the glamorization of film and that golden era of Hollywood where everything was meant to look perfect, like all the old Cary Grant movies like His Girl Friday and Arsenic and Old Lace, where everything is supposed to look so nice and everybody’s always impeccably dressed and charming and all that. Cool Hand Luke comes after that, where it’s a more cinema verite realism kind of thing. But also, there are still elements of the older films that you don’t get anymore, like using imagery in a really cool way. Like, there’s one scene where, to inspire a feeling of tension and stress, there’s just a really slow push in on a whirling fan that just keeps whirling and whirling, and I feel like they don’t do that much anymore. Now they have to really pander to the audience, and make sure that they serve up to you exactly what’s going on, instead of using that kind of stuff. Also, Paul Newman is the f—ing best, and he’s so good in that movie, and it’s just cool, man. It’s just a guy who just won’t get beat by the system, and I really like that. There’s so many layers to that movie. It’s one of the few movies that I make sure I keep downloaded on my iPhone or my iPad, just so that I always have it available."

Source
  
Excalibur (1981)
Excalibur (1981)
1981 | Action, Sci-Fi
7
7.7 (10 Ratings)
Movie Rating
Lush, beautiful visuals (1 more)
Stellar performances from all involved
Long movie, but feels like it rushes from highlight to highlight without fleshing out the story. (1 more)
More mythic fantasy of "knights in shining armor" as my younger self would have conceived it than anything grounded in reality.
Long on visuals, short on narrative cohesion and characterization
Excalibur is a classic, and deservedly so. The visuals and performances from the entire cast are outstanding, and you get to see early appearances from the likes of a then-unknown Patrick Stewart or Liam Neeson. The film is epic in scope, and that's part of the problem--in trying to tell the entire Arthurian legend, the film only has time (even at nearly two and a half hours) to hit the highlights without adding sufficient connective tissue to make sure that we care about the characters. Then there's the fact that the film caters to more of a child's fantasy version of knights in shining armor than anything else. I don't mind the anachronism of plate armor in the "dark ages," but characters living in their plate day on and day out, in peacetime, in the middle of their fortress? That crap is uncomfortable! Ten year old me would have bought that reality, but this film would have been (and in fact specifically WAS) denied to ten year old me based on the nudity and gore. I'm not asking for gritty realism, but I also wasn't expecting a return to the fantasties of my youth. Worth seeing, to be sure, but not timeless or without it's flaws.