Search
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Dark Lake in Books
Dec 24, 2017 (Updated Dec 24, 2017)
intriguing (2 more)
compelling
surprising
Rosalind Ryan, a popular yet mysterious teacher, is found dead by the local lake. She's been murdered, her body left floating with red roses surrounding her. Detective Sergeant Gemma Woodstock and her partner, Felix, are called in to investigate Rosalind's case. Nothing about Rosalind adds up--everyone seemed to like her, but no one really knew her. She lived in a cheap apartment, but clearly had expensive taste in wine and makeup. She was the youngest of four, with three brothers, one of with whom she'd quarreled recently. Her father, George, is ill and runs a large business conglomerate in Australia, yet seemed to adore his inscrutable daughter. As for Gemma, she has memories of Rosalind from their time together in high school, when the beautiful Rose seemed enigmatic even then. Gemma and Felix have their hands full, focusing on Rosalind's co-workers, students, family, and more. Who is responsible for the death of this lovely teacher?
This is an intriguing and compelling two part mystery, with the present-day case focusing on Rosalind, combined with flashes to Gemma's past, focusing on her history with her former boyfriend Jacob, who died as a teen. The majority of our story is told from Gemma's present-day point of view, but we get a few key snippets from the townspeople and occasionally Gemma's point of view flashes to the past.
I really liked Gemma as a narrator. The intersection of the case with her past was extremely well-done. I read some reviews where the readers didn't care for Gemma, but that wasn't the case for me, though I could understand, as the story wore on, how they came to that point of view. She doesn't always make the right decisions, and I'm intrigued to see what she'll be like in the next novel (Goodreads tell me this is the first book in the series). But for me, I identified with her in many ways and, because she was so well-written, really enjoyed the story from her point of view, even if I didn't always agree with her actions. It was also great to get to see a character dealing with the challenges of being female and a mother in a small police force--in a small town no less--in what seemed to be, overall, a fairly realistic fashion.
The story itself is great. There are several twists that really got me, so major kudos to Bailey. I read a lot of thrillers, and it's not always easy to surprise me! For a huge portion of this book, I had *no idea* where this was going to go, or who killed Rosalind. Several times I found myself genuinely shocked by the happenings and was completely enthralled by the story and Bailey's characters. (I also can't believe this is a debut novel - wow.) She does an excellent job at creating tension in the story and the characters, slowing unfurling plot points and details as we go along. This novel is truly a puzzle, the pieces fitting into place as we go along, and putting them together is a joy. It is so well-done and Bailey's weaving together the past and the present is excellent. I wound up really liking Gemma, and her boss Jonesy, and I'm quite excited this is a series. I can't wait to see where Bailey takes us (and Gemma) next. 4.5 stars.
This is an intriguing and compelling two part mystery, with the present-day case focusing on Rosalind, combined with flashes to Gemma's past, focusing on her history with her former boyfriend Jacob, who died as a teen. The majority of our story is told from Gemma's present-day point of view, but we get a few key snippets from the townspeople and occasionally Gemma's point of view flashes to the past.
I really liked Gemma as a narrator. The intersection of the case with her past was extremely well-done. I read some reviews where the readers didn't care for Gemma, but that wasn't the case for me, though I could understand, as the story wore on, how they came to that point of view. She doesn't always make the right decisions, and I'm intrigued to see what she'll be like in the next novel (Goodreads tell me this is the first book in the series). But for me, I identified with her in many ways and, because she was so well-written, really enjoyed the story from her point of view, even if I didn't always agree with her actions. It was also great to get to see a character dealing with the challenges of being female and a mother in a small police force--in a small town no less--in what seemed to be, overall, a fairly realistic fashion.
The story itself is great. There are several twists that really got me, so major kudos to Bailey. I read a lot of thrillers, and it's not always easy to surprise me! For a huge portion of this book, I had *no idea* where this was going to go, or who killed Rosalind. Several times I found myself genuinely shocked by the happenings and was completely enthralled by the story and Bailey's characters. (I also can't believe this is a debut novel - wow.) She does an excellent job at creating tension in the story and the characters, slowing unfurling plot points and details as we go along. This novel is truly a puzzle, the pieces fitting into place as we go along, and putting them together is a joy. It is so well-done and Bailey's weaving together the past and the present is excellent. I wound up really liking Gemma, and her boss Jonesy, and I'm quite excited this is a series. I can't wait to see where Bailey takes us (and Gemma) next. 4.5 stars.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Hunt for Red October (1990) in Movies
Jul 15, 2020
Boring
I spent a minute trying to figure out a logline for this movie and I couldn’t quite get a grasp on how to put it into words. Something about a submarine led by a defective Soviet commander headed for American soil and special agent Jack Ryan (Alec Baldwin) having to hunt him down. That’s the best I can do.
Acting: 10
Performances were strong across the board and is not where the movie fell flat in the slightest. Alec Baldwin delivers as Ryan with a sharp charisma that makes the movie just slightly more bearable. I was also impressed with Sean Connery’s role as villain Marko Ramius. Definitely the type of guy you love to hate and Connery did a solid job of bringing him to life.
Beginning: 8
Wasn’t 100% bought in after the first ten minutes, but enough happened to make me want to watch more. While I have seen way better movies in my day, I have definitely seen way worse beginnings too. It gives you a bit of story while creating excitement and intrigue for the story.
Characters: 5
The acting was fine. The characters, on the other hand, bored the absolute hell out of me. None of their storylines or backgrounds compelled me to ultimately care about the story as a whole. How many times have I said bad characters breed bad movies? Couldn’t be truer here.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
This movie relies a lot on smoke and mirrors. First you see a submarine, then it disappears. You see a missile, then it’s gone. After awhile the parlor trick gets old and so does the story. It felt like their action sequences suffered from a lower budget.
Conflict: 5
The action was mediocre at best. For this to be a movie about dueling submarines, there certainly aren’t a lot of dueling submarines. I can’t think of a better way to say this: This movie is really boring. There is way too much close-quarters talk and not enough actually happening.
Entertainment Value: 6
For every solid moment The Hunt For Red October brings, it gives you more scenes of people just sitting around discussing strategy. The high points were few and far between. It’s not a total dumpster fire, but I was certainly hoping for more.
Memorability: 4
Pace: 2
Plot: 10
Resolution: 2
Overall: 57
Contrary to what you might think, I hate shitting on movies. Sometimes, as is the case for The Hunt For Red October, it’s unavoidable. With such a stellar cast, I was hoping for more.
Acting: 10
Performances were strong across the board and is not where the movie fell flat in the slightest. Alec Baldwin delivers as Ryan with a sharp charisma that makes the movie just slightly more bearable. I was also impressed with Sean Connery’s role as villain Marko Ramius. Definitely the type of guy you love to hate and Connery did a solid job of bringing him to life.
Beginning: 8
Wasn’t 100% bought in after the first ten minutes, but enough happened to make me want to watch more. While I have seen way better movies in my day, I have definitely seen way worse beginnings too. It gives you a bit of story while creating excitement and intrigue for the story.
Characters: 5
The acting was fine. The characters, on the other hand, bored the absolute hell out of me. None of their storylines or backgrounds compelled me to ultimately care about the story as a whole. How many times have I said bad characters breed bad movies? Couldn’t be truer here.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
This movie relies a lot on smoke and mirrors. First you see a submarine, then it disappears. You see a missile, then it’s gone. After awhile the parlor trick gets old and so does the story. It felt like their action sequences suffered from a lower budget.
Conflict: 5
The action was mediocre at best. For this to be a movie about dueling submarines, there certainly aren’t a lot of dueling submarines. I can’t think of a better way to say this: This movie is really boring. There is way too much close-quarters talk and not enough actually happening.
Entertainment Value: 6
For every solid moment The Hunt For Red October brings, it gives you more scenes of people just sitting around discussing strategy. The high points were few and far between. It’s not a total dumpster fire, but I was certainly hoping for more.
Memorability: 4
Pace: 2
Plot: 10
Resolution: 2
Overall: 57
Contrary to what you might think, I hate shitting on movies. Sometimes, as is the case for The Hunt For Red October, it’s unavoidable. With such a stellar cast, I was hoping for more.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Basic Instinct (1992) in Movies
Apr 17, 2021
Love The Way You Lie
Basic Instinct- is a excellent erotic thriller. Both Micheal Douglas and Sharon Stone are excellent in it.
The plot: The mysterious Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone), a beautiful crime novelist, becomes a suspect when she is linked to the brutal death of a rock star. Investigated by homicide detective Nick Curran (Michael Douglas), Catherine seduces him into an intense relationship. Meanwhile, the murder case becomes increasingly complicated when more seemingly connected deaths occur and Nick's psychologist and lover, Beth Garner (Jeanne Tripplehorn), appears to be another suspect.
Douglas recommended Kim Basinger for the role of Catherine Tramell, but Basinger declined. He also proposed Julia Roberts, Greta Scacchi and Meg Ryan but they also turned down the role, as did Michelle Pfeiffer, Geena Davis, Kathleen Turner, Ellen Barkin, and Mariel Hemingway. Verhoeven considered Demi Moore.
She was paid $500,000, a low sum relative to the film's production budget. Michael Douglas was determined to have another A-list actress starring in the movie with him; worried to take the risk on his own, he was quoted as saying "I need someone to share the risks of this movie. [...] I don't want to be up there all by myself. There's going to be a lot of shit flying around.
Basic Instinct is rated R for "strong violence and sensuality, and for drug use and language". It was initially given a commercially restrictive NC-17 rating by the MPAA for “graphic depictions of extremely explicit violence, sexual content, and strong language”, but under pressure from TriStar and Carolco, Verhoeven cut 35–40 seconds to gain an R rating.
Its a excellent thriller and a must watch.
The plot: The mysterious Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone), a beautiful crime novelist, becomes a suspect when she is linked to the brutal death of a rock star. Investigated by homicide detective Nick Curran (Michael Douglas), Catherine seduces him into an intense relationship. Meanwhile, the murder case becomes increasingly complicated when more seemingly connected deaths occur and Nick's psychologist and lover, Beth Garner (Jeanne Tripplehorn), appears to be another suspect.
Douglas recommended Kim Basinger for the role of Catherine Tramell, but Basinger declined. He also proposed Julia Roberts, Greta Scacchi and Meg Ryan but they also turned down the role, as did Michelle Pfeiffer, Geena Davis, Kathleen Turner, Ellen Barkin, and Mariel Hemingway. Verhoeven considered Demi Moore.
She was paid $500,000, a low sum relative to the film's production budget. Michael Douglas was determined to have another A-list actress starring in the movie with him; worried to take the risk on his own, he was quoted as saying "I need someone to share the risks of this movie. [...] I don't want to be up there all by myself. There's going to be a lot of shit flying around.
Basic Instinct is rated R for "strong violence and sensuality, and for drug use and language". It was initially given a commercially restrictive NC-17 rating by the MPAA for “graphic depictions of extremely explicit violence, sexual content, and strong language”, but under pressure from TriStar and Carolco, Verhoeven cut 35–40 seconds to gain an R rating.
Its a excellent thriller and a must watch.
The Bone Code
Book
THE NEW SUNDAY TIMES BESTSELLER IN THE TEMPERANCE BRENNAN SERIES 'I await the next Kathy Reichs'...
CSI: Crime Scene Investigation - Season 15
6.0
Rate It
TV Season
Finlay finds her car rigged to explode ("The CSI Effect") as Sara and Greg are quarantined ("Bad...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Blade Runner 2049 (2017) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
It's 2049 and bioengineered humans are a mainstream part of society, essential to keep the human race going. Newer models have been created to obey humans, and K works for the LAPD as a blade runner. K's investigation leads him to a farm where he retires an old model replicant. While searching he finds a box buried beneath a tree that contains the bones of a human body, a woman who died in child birth. When the lab investigates the remains they discover that they are in fact of a female replicant, which leads to questions as replicants aren't supposed to be able to get pregnant.
K is told to destroy the evidence for fear that the knowledge is too dangerous, but he continues to investigate the replicant through the manufacturer's head quarters. This leads him on a trail, but unbeknown to him he's now not the only one looking for the answers.
I've been searching the depths of my brain... it's pretty scary down there... but I'm almost certain that I haven't seen the first Blade Runner. But having seen this one I'm fairly confident that you don't miss anything if that happens to be the case. Obviously, with Harrison Ford in this one as his older self there are some moments that appear to reflect his past, but through the context of the scenes everything seems to make sense.
The film sits at around the 2 hours 45 minutes mark, and I was a little concerned that it was going to feel long. During movies I tend to check the time the first time I get a little distracted, and I went for my phone thinking I must be only an hour or so in... and there were only 30 minutes left. Honestly, it was a great movie. At no point did I really get bored and look off round the cinema, which is one of my usual habits.
As my Unlimited card has gone premium and I get 3D tickets for free I went to see that showing as it was the handiest one. Yet again, I'm left wondering what the point of the 3D was. I am really not sold on it at all, I haven't seen a film where I was wowed by it. My only reaction has been "this was terrible and unwatchable" (see Valerian) or when I get up to leave when it's over "oh yeah, I've got 3D glasses on. Huh."
Ryan Gosling... much to my friend's shock, I have worked out that I've never seen him in any film. And he doesn't really do it for me, I'm all about the other Ryan... the best one. He was good in this though, he managed to play the part well, even through the points where he was in crisis. I probably wouldn't say no to seeing him in another film... apart from La La Land.
K is told to destroy the evidence for fear that the knowledge is too dangerous, but he continues to investigate the replicant through the manufacturer's head quarters. This leads him on a trail, but unbeknown to him he's now not the only one looking for the answers.
I've been searching the depths of my brain... it's pretty scary down there... but I'm almost certain that I haven't seen the first Blade Runner. But having seen this one I'm fairly confident that you don't miss anything if that happens to be the case. Obviously, with Harrison Ford in this one as his older self there are some moments that appear to reflect his past, but through the context of the scenes everything seems to make sense.
The film sits at around the 2 hours 45 minutes mark, and I was a little concerned that it was going to feel long. During movies I tend to check the time the first time I get a little distracted, and I went for my phone thinking I must be only an hour or so in... and there were only 30 minutes left. Honestly, it was a great movie. At no point did I really get bored and look off round the cinema, which is one of my usual habits.
As my Unlimited card has gone premium and I get 3D tickets for free I went to see that showing as it was the handiest one. Yet again, I'm left wondering what the point of the 3D was. I am really not sold on it at all, I haven't seen a film where I was wowed by it. My only reaction has been "this was terrible and unwatchable" (see Valerian) or when I get up to leave when it's over "oh yeah, I've got 3D glasses on. Huh."
Ryan Gosling... much to my friend's shock, I have worked out that I've never seen him in any film. And he doesn't really do it for me, I'm all about the other Ryan... the best one. He was good in this though, he managed to play the part well, even through the points where he was in crisis. I probably wouldn't say no to seeing him in another film... apart from La La Land.
Mike Wilder (20 KP) rated Evidence (2013) in Movies
May 30, 2018
A good "found footage" film
Contains spoilers, click to show
This is a film made in the style of "found footage". The whole film is made from the perspective of whoever is filming at the time. The style was made famous with The Blair Witch Project and perfected in Cloverfield. I saw the trailer for this and thought it could be good. After trying to track down the film I discovered it had just been released here. So I got hold of a copy and sat back.
The film is about a group of friends Ryan (Ryan McCoy), Brett (Brett Rosenberg), Abi (Abigail Richie) & Ashley (Ashley Bracken) who are out camping and making a documentary about the experience. They discover a strange creature and the trip quickly turns deadly. Soon they are on the run from strange creatures and anonymous military personnel intent on stopping the creatures.
You may have noticed in the above paragraph that the characters all have the same names as the actor playing them. This was either due to a very lazy writer, or as the writer was also Ryan McCoy one of the actors, an attempt to make the film feel more real and the friendships believable. I feel that the latter is the case as the group comes off as good friends. They interact with each other in a very realistic and genuine way. Especially the female stars. They manage to portray a wide range of emotions from playful happiness to annoyed and then terrified. The opening scenes are very well done. With most "found footage" films, the introduction to the characters and the plot are usually badly done, they are kind of a mess trying to get all the information out to the viewer. However this film is the exception to the rule. It's very well put together and the script and the pacing of the characters introductions are very good. The story starts of as a pretty standard you meet the characters, they go camping then the twist, they are not alone out there. The twist is where these type of films usually fail. But Evidence manages to succeed big time. You see a creature in the distance then during the night all hell lets loose. From this moment on the film is pure tension. I have not seen a film where for the whole last hour I was on edge. I was expecting something to happen at any moment. And it happens in so many different ways and at random times leaving you unable to let your guard down. Unlike many films in this genre, not even the camera operator is safe as the camera gets passed around for various reasons. The other great thing that I found was there was also a good reason to have the camera still on while they were running for their lives. Usually this is overlooked and we are meant to ignore that but here the reason is good and helps to make the film believable.
However with all the shocks and surprises, the film makers fail in trying to do too much. Towards the end the characters encounter many different types of creatures and I felt this was a little over the top. If they had kept to one or two different creatures it would have made a little more sense. As it was you are left very confused at the end with little or no answers as to what was going on. It worked with Cloverfield but here it missed the mark. Not by much and the film as a whole more than makes up for it.
There are a few plot holes but most can be explained away. However this is still a great addition to the "found film" genre. There have been many attempts to recreate these types of films and many fail. However people will continue to try and sometimes out of all the attempts you find something a little different, one that stands out from the rest. That one is called Evidence.
The film is about a group of friends Ryan (Ryan McCoy), Brett (Brett Rosenberg), Abi (Abigail Richie) & Ashley (Ashley Bracken) who are out camping and making a documentary about the experience. They discover a strange creature and the trip quickly turns deadly. Soon they are on the run from strange creatures and anonymous military personnel intent on stopping the creatures.
You may have noticed in the above paragraph that the characters all have the same names as the actor playing them. This was either due to a very lazy writer, or as the writer was also Ryan McCoy one of the actors, an attempt to make the film feel more real and the friendships believable. I feel that the latter is the case as the group comes off as good friends. They interact with each other in a very realistic and genuine way. Especially the female stars. They manage to portray a wide range of emotions from playful happiness to annoyed and then terrified. The opening scenes are very well done. With most "found footage" films, the introduction to the characters and the plot are usually badly done, they are kind of a mess trying to get all the information out to the viewer. However this film is the exception to the rule. It's very well put together and the script and the pacing of the characters introductions are very good. The story starts of as a pretty standard you meet the characters, they go camping then the twist, they are not alone out there. The twist is where these type of films usually fail. But Evidence manages to succeed big time. You see a creature in the distance then during the night all hell lets loose. From this moment on the film is pure tension. I have not seen a film where for the whole last hour I was on edge. I was expecting something to happen at any moment. And it happens in so many different ways and at random times leaving you unable to let your guard down. Unlike many films in this genre, not even the camera operator is safe as the camera gets passed around for various reasons. The other great thing that I found was there was also a good reason to have the camera still on while they were running for their lives. Usually this is overlooked and we are meant to ignore that but here the reason is good and helps to make the film believable.
However with all the shocks and surprises, the film makers fail in trying to do too much. Towards the end the characters encounter many different types of creatures and I felt this was a little over the top. If they had kept to one or two different creatures it would have made a little more sense. As it was you are left very confused at the end with little or no answers as to what was going on. It worked with Cloverfield but here it missed the mark. Not by much and the film as a whole more than makes up for it.
There are a few plot holes but most can be explained away. However this is still a great addition to the "found film" genre. There have been many attempts to recreate these types of films and many fail. However people will continue to try and sometimes out of all the attempts you find something a little different, one that stands out from the rest. That one is called Evidence.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Oxygen (2021) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A taut mystery horror/thriller that goes off in surprising directions!
You can recognize a ‘lockdown-produced movie’ a mile off. Typically it focuses on a handful of players, who are mostly socially isolated. Here is a classic example. Yet by doing that, the director is forced to focus in on character and dialogue. As such, some of these ‘small’ movies that reign in the director’s excesses are far better as a result.
“Oxygen” is a case in point. When I saw that the film was directed by Alexandre Aja – the man behind the OTT “Piranha 3D” and the equally OTT popcorn-croc movie “Crawl” from 2 years ago, I feared the worst. But this an intriguing little movie that mystifies and jolts in equal measure.
There is probably no such thing anymore as a truly novel thriller or science fiction film. And this draws recognisably from a host of other movies: I personally recognised elements from “Room“, “Solaris”, “Moon” and “Gravity” in there. But the closest similarity is definitely to the Ryan Reynolds 2010 thriller “Buried” which features a very similar initial set-up. If “Oxygen” were to have pulled out an ending like that film (if you haven’t watched it yet – do so!) then it would have been a mini-classic.
Positives:
No spoilers here, but this is a ‘small’ mystery movie that goes off in a VERY surprising direction. The script is genuinely unpredictable.
Mélanie Laurent gives a strong performance as the heroine near the end of her tether.
Although this is a French film, don’t let that put you off. Netflix gives options of the original French, French with subtitles and an English dub. And the English dubbing is so good that it took me until some sub-titles for text written in French before I realised it was dubbed!
Negatives:
After the long drip-drip-drip of context, I found the ending to be something of a disappointment. Too twee.
I found something morally dubious about the ‘re-routing’ request near the end of the movie. (Although, I’m sure given the options, I would probably do the same!)
If you don’t like jump scares, you are likely to spill a lot of hot drinks while watching this one!
“Oxygen” is a case in point. When I saw that the film was directed by Alexandre Aja – the man behind the OTT “Piranha 3D” and the equally OTT popcorn-croc movie “Crawl” from 2 years ago, I feared the worst. But this an intriguing little movie that mystifies and jolts in equal measure.
There is probably no such thing anymore as a truly novel thriller or science fiction film. And this draws recognisably from a host of other movies: I personally recognised elements from “Room“, “Solaris”, “Moon” and “Gravity” in there. But the closest similarity is definitely to the Ryan Reynolds 2010 thriller “Buried” which features a very similar initial set-up. If “Oxygen” were to have pulled out an ending like that film (if you haven’t watched it yet – do so!) then it would have been a mini-classic.
Positives:
No spoilers here, but this is a ‘small’ mystery movie that goes off in a VERY surprising direction. The script is genuinely unpredictable.
Mélanie Laurent gives a strong performance as the heroine near the end of her tether.
Although this is a French film, don’t let that put you off. Netflix gives options of the original French, French with subtitles and an English dub. And the English dubbing is so good that it took me until some sub-titles for text written in French before I realised it was dubbed!
Negatives:
After the long drip-drip-drip of context, I found the ending to be something of a disappointment. Too twee.
I found something morally dubious about the ‘re-routing’ request near the end of the movie. (Although, I’m sure given the options, I would probably do the same!)
If you don’t like jump scares, you are likely to spill a lot of hot drinks while watching this one!
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Charm Offensive in Books
Sep 2, 2021
A delightful reality show romantic comedy
Dev Deshpande works on the set of Ever After, a reality dating show he's loved since he was a kid. He truly believes in the show's premise of happily ever after, even as his own six-year-relationship with Ryan, a co-worker, ends. Then the show casts Charles Winshaw, a handsome millionaire tech genius as their next prince. Charlie has only agreed to come on the show to fix his awkward image, which has made it impossible for him to get another job in tech. He's terrible in front of the cameras and even worse with the women he's supposed to woo. Dev is assigned as his handler, a last ditch attempt to save Ever After. As he works to get Charlie to open up, the two connect, and realize that their chemistry is far better than anything Charlie has with his potential love interests. But Ever After demands a fairy tale ending--what does that mean for Charlie and Dev?
"And maybe then Dev will forget that in his own life, happily ever afters are never guaranteed."
This is a truly lovely book, with a great romance filled with crackling tension combined with excellent points about mental illness and being loved unconditionally (or not, as the case may be). I fell head over heels in love with both Charlie and Dev--they are wonderful characters, whom you grow attached to easily.
Dev truly believes in the romance of the show when no one else does--including his ex, Ryan, and Charlie. Yet sweet Dev does not feel worthy of the love he so fervently believes in and can only offer up what he terms "Fun Dev," a light, easygoing version of his personality that does not reflect his true self. Meanwhile Charlie struggles with OCD and anxiety. He has never been in a serious relationship or given himself a true chance to explore whom he likes. The two feel so real and are so well-written: they just fly off the pages. I don't watch the Bachelor and other type shows, but if you do, I'm sure you'll love this book. Even if you don't though, there's so much to enjoy in the dynamics of the story and the examination of the pros and cons of reality shows--a look at how they treat women, racism, sexuality, and more.
"Then again, it turns out Charles Winshaw is no one's definition of a Prince Charming, no matter how much he might look the part."
Cochrun writes and describes anxiety so well and truly mental illness as a whole. It's treated seriously and given the respect it deserves. There is so much great representation in this book, include ace. And while it covers serious issues, at heart, this is a romance, and oh, it's so cute! There's so much steamy, sexual tension between Charlie and Dev. So many hot scenes, so much love and wondering and flirting... they are adorable together! This book made me smile and laugh and cry; it's so wonderful written and just bursting with goodness.
I do think Charlie probably could have gotten a new job in tech without going on a reality show, but oh well. Overall, this is such an excellent read. It's a wonderful blend of serious and fun and flirty and a great exploration into love and what happily ever after really means.
"And maybe then Dev will forget that in his own life, happily ever afters are never guaranteed."
This is a truly lovely book, with a great romance filled with crackling tension combined with excellent points about mental illness and being loved unconditionally (or not, as the case may be). I fell head over heels in love with both Charlie and Dev--they are wonderful characters, whom you grow attached to easily.
Dev truly believes in the romance of the show when no one else does--including his ex, Ryan, and Charlie. Yet sweet Dev does not feel worthy of the love he so fervently believes in and can only offer up what he terms "Fun Dev," a light, easygoing version of his personality that does not reflect his true self. Meanwhile Charlie struggles with OCD and anxiety. He has never been in a serious relationship or given himself a true chance to explore whom he likes. The two feel so real and are so well-written: they just fly off the pages. I don't watch the Bachelor and other type shows, but if you do, I'm sure you'll love this book. Even if you don't though, there's so much to enjoy in the dynamics of the story and the examination of the pros and cons of reality shows--a look at how they treat women, racism, sexuality, and more.
"Then again, it turns out Charles Winshaw is no one's definition of a Prince Charming, no matter how much he might look the part."
Cochrun writes and describes anxiety so well and truly mental illness as a whole. It's treated seriously and given the respect it deserves. There is so much great representation in this book, include ace. And while it covers serious issues, at heart, this is a romance, and oh, it's so cute! There's so much steamy, sexual tension between Charlie and Dev. So many hot scenes, so much love and wondering and flirting... they are adorable together! This book made me smile and laugh and cry; it's so wonderful written and just bursting with goodness.
I do think Charlie probably could have gotten a new job in tech without going on a reality show, but oh well. Overall, this is such an excellent read. It's a wonderful blend of serious and fun and flirty and a great exploration into love and what happily ever after really means.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Beast (2022) in Movies
Sep 24, 2022
More Tension Than I Anticipate
We are witnessing the after-effects of the COVID PANDEMIC shutdown in 2020 as the films that are being released at the tail end of summer/early fall of 2022 are not the most scintillating of efforts and thus, one must lower their expectations to have a good time at the Cineplex.
Such is the case with the “Cujo in Africa” killer lion saga BEAST starring Idris Elba as a widowed father of two teenage girls. The threesome head back to the African Village where the deceased mother was born and raised - to connect to their roots - unaware that poachers have unwittingly created a rogue, killer lion who is feasting on the humans in the area.
Directed by Batasar Kormakur (2 GUNS) and written, perfunctorily, by Ryan Engle (RAMPAGE) BEAST is a pretty by-the-book “wild animal goes after human” story with the first 1/3 of this 90 minute epic being the setup (in this case, clumsily setting up the daughter’s anger at their father who “was not there” as their mother was dying). Do you think the upcoming adventure is going to bring these 3 closer?
The middle third of the film is the hook where we put these 3 (and their friend, played by Sharlto Copley - DISTRICT 9) into harm’s way in such a way that they are trapped and must contend with the BEAST. And the final 1/3 is the payoff - how does this group conquer the BEAST?
Pretty mechanical, right?
Well…a funny thing happened while watching this film… I found myself invested in these characters, well…at least some of them, and I was genuinely interested and intrigued and (at times) a little on the edge of my seat as I watched them attempt to get out of their predicament.
Credit for this has to go to Director Kormakur who uses his camera to beautifully capture the Africa landscape that these folks are trapped in. It is a loving picture of Africa that Kormakur has drawn and it made the slow parts of this film (and there are plenty) bearable just by being able to look at the background.
Also helping this film is the friendship and camaraderie shown between Elba’s character and Copley’s character. These are 2 good actors looking like they actually are enjoying their time together and their actions on screen mirror their personalities that are drawn thinly and quickly during the first part of the film.
Fairing less well are the 2 daughters, played by Leah Jeffries and Iyana Halley. They are, for the most part, 1 dimensional “typical teenagers” who have a bone to pick with their father and don’t shy away from picking at that bone - and each other - throughout the course of this film.
But, enough about all of that, what one goes to see in these types of films is the animal attacks and Director Kormakur traps our foursome in and around a jeep while the BEAST attacks and attacks and attacks - and these scenes are shot very professionally and actually manage to ratchet up the tension as the CGI Lion goes after it’s victims.
There are enough plot holes to drive the aforementioned Jeep through in this film and sometimes the characters - especially the 2 teenage girls - make VERY dumb decisions, but the tension of the attack scenes and the work of Elba and Copley makes this film a decent (enough) viewing experience.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars out of 10 and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with the “Cujo in Africa” killer lion saga BEAST starring Idris Elba as a widowed father of two teenage girls. The threesome head back to the African Village where the deceased mother was born and raised - to connect to their roots - unaware that poachers have unwittingly created a rogue, killer lion who is feasting on the humans in the area.
Directed by Batasar Kormakur (2 GUNS) and written, perfunctorily, by Ryan Engle (RAMPAGE) BEAST is a pretty by-the-book “wild animal goes after human” story with the first 1/3 of this 90 minute epic being the setup (in this case, clumsily setting up the daughter’s anger at their father who “was not there” as their mother was dying). Do you think the upcoming adventure is going to bring these 3 closer?
The middle third of the film is the hook where we put these 3 (and their friend, played by Sharlto Copley - DISTRICT 9) into harm’s way in such a way that they are trapped and must contend with the BEAST. And the final 1/3 is the payoff - how does this group conquer the BEAST?
Pretty mechanical, right?
Well…a funny thing happened while watching this film… I found myself invested in these characters, well…at least some of them, and I was genuinely interested and intrigued and (at times) a little on the edge of my seat as I watched them attempt to get out of their predicament.
Credit for this has to go to Director Kormakur who uses his camera to beautifully capture the Africa landscape that these folks are trapped in. It is a loving picture of Africa that Kormakur has drawn and it made the slow parts of this film (and there are plenty) bearable just by being able to look at the background.
Also helping this film is the friendship and camaraderie shown between Elba’s character and Copley’s character. These are 2 good actors looking like they actually are enjoying their time together and their actions on screen mirror their personalities that are drawn thinly and quickly during the first part of the film.
Fairing less well are the 2 daughters, played by Leah Jeffries and Iyana Halley. They are, for the most part, 1 dimensional “typical teenagers” who have a bone to pick with their father and don’t shy away from picking at that bone - and each other - throughout the course of this film.
But, enough about all of that, what one goes to see in these types of films is the animal attacks and Director Kormakur traps our foursome in and around a jeep while the BEAST attacks and attacks and attacks - and these scenes are shot very professionally and actually manage to ratchet up the tension as the CGI Lion goes after it’s victims.
There are enough plot holes to drive the aforementioned Jeep through in this film and sometimes the characters - especially the 2 teenage girls - make VERY dumb decisions, but the tension of the attack scenes and the work of Elba and Copley makes this film a decent (enough) viewing experience.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars out of 10 and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)