Search
ClareR (5596 KP) rated The Warehouse in Books
Sep 25, 2019
A brilliant, if disturbing, dystopian thriller!
What will the future hold for us, with climate change becoming ever more a part of our lives, capitalism taking over every part of society and big business pushing out the small, local businesses? Well, The Warehouse looks at all of these things in a near-future dystopian thriller.
The Cloud rules pretty much everything. We learn of its genesis from one of the narrators: Gibson. He is the founder of The Cloud, and built the business up from nothing. He is nearing the end of his life, and he has decided to blog during his remaining weeks as he visits all of The Cloud installations in the US.
Paxton used to have his own small business, but after The Cloud takes his product and sells it at a much cheaper price, his company folds. He finds himself without a job, home and money. So he decides to go and work for Cloud. Those who work there, live on site in small apartments. The children of workers are educated at Cloud schools, workers are entertained on site, and there are restaurants, shops and cinemas - all within the Cloud ‘town’. There is no reason to ever leave these huge towns (it reminded me of the Victorian models of towns built around coal mines or factories- the owners would provide accommodation near to work, so that there would be no excuse not to go to work. If you lost your job, you lost your home.).
Zinnia also gets a job at Cloud at the same time as Paxton, but she has an ulterior motive for being there. She’s an undercover spy for a competitor, and she has been given a job to do by someone that she’s never met.
Capitalism does not do well out of this book. It’s like the author has taken the idea of capitalism to its furthest point to show us what will happen if we and our governments continue to give big business the freedoms and money that we do. Every aspect of the workers lives is monitored through a wristband that they must wear at all times. In my e was no way that these people could ever imagine that they were free. They weren’t. Accidents at work were brushed under the carpet, as were assaults (sexual and physical), and drug dealing. Everything was done to the advantage of The Cloud.
I really enjoyed this, and it not only entertained, it gave me food for thought. What would our world be like bereft of humanity and morality? Well actually, I think it would be pretty much like living in The Cloud facility! And the thing is, it’s all perfectly plausible! This is a great read.
Many thanks to NetGalley and Bantam Press for my copy of this book to read and review.
The Cloud rules pretty much everything. We learn of its genesis from one of the narrators: Gibson. He is the founder of The Cloud, and built the business up from nothing. He is nearing the end of his life, and he has decided to blog during his remaining weeks as he visits all of The Cloud installations in the US.
Paxton used to have his own small business, but after The Cloud takes his product and sells it at a much cheaper price, his company folds. He finds himself without a job, home and money. So he decides to go and work for Cloud. Those who work there, live on site in small apartments. The children of workers are educated at Cloud schools, workers are entertained on site, and there are restaurants, shops and cinemas - all within the Cloud ‘town’. There is no reason to ever leave these huge towns (it reminded me of the Victorian models of towns built around coal mines or factories- the owners would provide accommodation near to work, so that there would be no excuse not to go to work. If you lost your job, you lost your home.).
Zinnia also gets a job at Cloud at the same time as Paxton, but she has an ulterior motive for being there. She’s an undercover spy for a competitor, and she has been given a job to do by someone that she’s never met.
Capitalism does not do well out of this book. It’s like the author has taken the idea of capitalism to its furthest point to show us what will happen if we and our governments continue to give big business the freedoms and money that we do. Every aspect of the workers lives is monitored through a wristband that they must wear at all times. In my e was no way that these people could ever imagine that they were free. They weren’t. Accidents at work were brushed under the carpet, as were assaults (sexual and physical), and drug dealing. Everything was done to the advantage of The Cloud.
I really enjoyed this, and it not only entertained, it gave me food for thought. What would our world be like bereft of humanity and morality? Well actually, I think it would be pretty much like living in The Cloud facility! And the thing is, it’s all perfectly plausible! This is a great read.
Many thanks to NetGalley and Bantam Press for my copy of this book to read and review.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Quantum of Solace (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
With the success of “Casino Royale” featuring new Bond Daniel Craig, the world has waiting eagerly for the follow up, “Quantum of Solace” which continues the historic spy franchise.
Picking up exactly where the last film ended, Bond is walking a fine line between revenge and doing his duty after being betrayed by Vesper at the end of the last film. While interrogating a suspect with M (Judy Densch), it is learned that there is an organization that is very dangerous and influential that even has influence in the C.I.A. and MI6.
Before they can learn any further information, a shocking betrayal happens and Bond is in hot pursuit of the suspect across the rooftops of Italy and soon locked in a deadly confrontation with the traitor.
The recent events have M concerned and Bond is dispatched to Haiti to follow on a lead which thanks to a case of mistaken identity leads Bond to a woman named Camille (Olga Kurylenko). Olga is involved in a deadly game with a corrupt businessman named Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), and a Bolivian General named Medrano (Joaquin Cosio).
Unsure of their involvement, Bond follows Greene, and learns that he heads an environmental group and has designs on a track of desert in Bolivia. Unsure if Greene’s interest in the area is related to diamonds, oil, or something else, M tasks Bond with finding out what is going on, as her superiors are betting that it is related to oil, and with the C.I. A. involved, it is reasoned that the England cannot be left out of an already dwindling oil supply.
It is at this point that the film lost much of its steam for me as the final revelation seemed to be much ado about nothing as this sort of thing happens, and has happened the world over for years and is hardly worthy of involving the MI6, much less the worlds must dangerous spy.
What follows is a series of betrayals and a few action scenes leading up to a fiery climax which almost redeems the film.
Let me say at the outset that I am a Bond fan and a traditionalist. I understand change happens over time and I am not one who thinks that the role began and ended with Sean Connery. I enjoyed Roger Moore though found him a bit camp. Timothy Dalton did not work for me, and George Lazenby was only Bond for one film so it is hard to judge him fairly. That being said, I found Pierce Brosnan to have been the best Bond since Connery as his interpretation of the character is dead on.
Sir Ian Fleming created the character and has said that he was influenced by people he knew. Bond is a well educated and cultured individual who was educated at the top schools, was an officer in the Royal Navy, and is a suave and charming individual as well as a cold and deadly killer when needed. He is scarred by events in his past, as such he relies on alcohol, duty, and woman to get by, but never once allows himself to get to close to anyone.
When they rebooted the franchise with Craig, much of the 40 years of Bond as well as the essence of the character have been lost. Craig’s Bond is not a cultured blue blood, he is a common thug. In my review of “Casino Royale” I mentioned that the new Bond passed up spending a night with a woman in order to pursue a lead, and how Connery would have found time to do both with style.
Craig’s Bond is very light on womanizing and the film has zero sexual tension and only a very brief romance seen that seems tacked on. The underlying themes of Bond has been guns, gadgets, girls, and action, and this film has chosen to pretty much eschew almost all of this as there are zero gadgets in the film and to be honest, I found the plot to be uninspired.
I think that in many ways the people behind the film have tried to get as far away from the past Bond films as possible especially the maniacal villains who were bent on destroying the world.
As an action film, the movie does have its moments and if it was not a Bond film would be a passable action thriller. As a Bond film, it promises the world and will likely disappoint much long term Bond fans and appeal mainly to those who do not have a longstanding history with the character from book to film. I have to wonder if Sir Ian Fleming is spinning in his grave over what they have done to his gentleman spy in the name of progress.
Picking up exactly where the last film ended, Bond is walking a fine line between revenge and doing his duty after being betrayed by Vesper at the end of the last film. While interrogating a suspect with M (Judy Densch), it is learned that there is an organization that is very dangerous and influential that even has influence in the C.I.A. and MI6.
Before they can learn any further information, a shocking betrayal happens and Bond is in hot pursuit of the suspect across the rooftops of Italy and soon locked in a deadly confrontation with the traitor.
The recent events have M concerned and Bond is dispatched to Haiti to follow on a lead which thanks to a case of mistaken identity leads Bond to a woman named Camille (Olga Kurylenko). Olga is involved in a deadly game with a corrupt businessman named Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), and a Bolivian General named Medrano (Joaquin Cosio).
Unsure of their involvement, Bond follows Greene, and learns that he heads an environmental group and has designs on a track of desert in Bolivia. Unsure if Greene’s interest in the area is related to diamonds, oil, or something else, M tasks Bond with finding out what is going on, as her superiors are betting that it is related to oil, and with the C.I. A. involved, it is reasoned that the England cannot be left out of an already dwindling oil supply.
It is at this point that the film lost much of its steam for me as the final revelation seemed to be much ado about nothing as this sort of thing happens, and has happened the world over for years and is hardly worthy of involving the MI6, much less the worlds must dangerous spy.
What follows is a series of betrayals and a few action scenes leading up to a fiery climax which almost redeems the film.
Let me say at the outset that I am a Bond fan and a traditionalist. I understand change happens over time and I am not one who thinks that the role began and ended with Sean Connery. I enjoyed Roger Moore though found him a bit camp. Timothy Dalton did not work for me, and George Lazenby was only Bond for one film so it is hard to judge him fairly. That being said, I found Pierce Brosnan to have been the best Bond since Connery as his interpretation of the character is dead on.
Sir Ian Fleming created the character and has said that he was influenced by people he knew. Bond is a well educated and cultured individual who was educated at the top schools, was an officer in the Royal Navy, and is a suave and charming individual as well as a cold and deadly killer when needed. He is scarred by events in his past, as such he relies on alcohol, duty, and woman to get by, but never once allows himself to get to close to anyone.
When they rebooted the franchise with Craig, much of the 40 years of Bond as well as the essence of the character have been lost. Craig’s Bond is not a cultured blue blood, he is a common thug. In my review of “Casino Royale” I mentioned that the new Bond passed up spending a night with a woman in order to pursue a lead, and how Connery would have found time to do both with style.
Craig’s Bond is very light on womanizing and the film has zero sexual tension and only a very brief romance seen that seems tacked on. The underlying themes of Bond has been guns, gadgets, girls, and action, and this film has chosen to pretty much eschew almost all of this as there are zero gadgets in the film and to be honest, I found the plot to be uninspired.
I think that in many ways the people behind the film have tried to get as far away from the past Bond films as possible especially the maniacal villains who were bent on destroying the world.
As an action film, the movie does have its moments and if it was not a Bond film would be a passable action thriller. As a Bond film, it promises the world and will likely disappoint much long term Bond fans and appeal mainly to those who do not have a longstanding history with the character from book to film. I have to wonder if Sir Ian Fleming is spinning in his grave over what they have done to his gentleman spy in the name of progress.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Knock at the cabin (2023) in Movies
Feb 28, 2023
When M. Night Shyamalan's name comes up on something, my brow furrows and I purse my lips... I'm never quite sure how to feel.
Eric, Andrew and Wen, take an idyllic trip to a peaceful cabin. But that peace is shattered when the knock-off Guardians of the Galaxy show up.
First thing I want to say, despite it being an M.NS film, it doesn't have the usual dubious tangent in it. I suspect we can put this down to the fact it's based on source material, namely The Cabin at the End of the World by Paul Trembley.
I wanted to see what I could talk about without spoiling the film at all. The synopsis is fairly vague, but intriguing. Then I rewatched the trailer, and from that, I could probably talk about the majority of this hour and forty minute film. The latter basically telling everything makes me wonder how it wasn't spoiled for me going in.
Knock at the Cabin boils down to a look at personal faith in the face of terror, for those on both sides of the incident.
While the majority of the story is set in the isolated cabin, we're shown flashbacks to Eric and Andrew's life. Heartbreak, trauma, joy, vengeance, it has been filled with so much, and that being peppered into the main story really helps to shape how we see their separate personalities and reactions.
The acting is an interesting one. The nature of the situation means that everyone is feeling a massive cycle of emotions... and somehow that works.
The group dynamic of Eric, Andrew and Wen was incredible, with Jonathan Groff and Kristen Cui being the standouts. I don't know that I would have been on board with Ben Aldridge as Andrew if it hadn't been for the pairing with Groff.
Opposite them, we get an interesting mix of characters who are led by Leonard... I am so proud of Dave Bautista right now, this was an amazing performance. I love him doing comedy (My Spy is still probably my favourite), but this was a great change of pace, he channels the character's profession into the situation so well... 5 stars for Bautista, no notes.
The other three bring up the rear with some chaotic energy. I just cannot unsee Ron Weasley though. I know he's been in other things since then, but I haven't happened across any of them, and as such, he was entirely distracting. It wasn't a bad turn, but it did overwhelm Nikki Amuka-Bird and Abby Quinn's roles for me.
M. Night Shymalan does his cameo and throws in his usual colour references for the regular viewers. I won't go into that, as it definitely constitutes spoilers, but it might not be something that's common knowledge, so absolutely worth a Google afterwards.
IMDb lists Knock at the Cabin as horror, mystery and thriller. Thriller, check. Mystery, a stretch. Horror, in my opinion, completely inaccurate. Having "horror" over everything about this film put people off watching it, and that's a great shame.
I was left with one big thought after seeing this, and that's that somewhere, in a remote cabin, a group of people have been playing this game for the last 3 years.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2023/02/knock-at-cabin-movie-review.html
Eric, Andrew and Wen, take an idyllic trip to a peaceful cabin. But that peace is shattered when the knock-off Guardians of the Galaxy show up.
First thing I want to say, despite it being an M.NS film, it doesn't have the usual dubious tangent in it. I suspect we can put this down to the fact it's based on source material, namely The Cabin at the End of the World by Paul Trembley.
I wanted to see what I could talk about without spoiling the film at all. The synopsis is fairly vague, but intriguing. Then I rewatched the trailer, and from that, I could probably talk about the majority of this hour and forty minute film. The latter basically telling everything makes me wonder how it wasn't spoiled for me going in.
Knock at the Cabin boils down to a look at personal faith in the face of terror, for those on both sides of the incident.
While the majority of the story is set in the isolated cabin, we're shown flashbacks to Eric and Andrew's life. Heartbreak, trauma, joy, vengeance, it has been filled with so much, and that being peppered into the main story really helps to shape how we see their separate personalities and reactions.
The acting is an interesting one. The nature of the situation means that everyone is feeling a massive cycle of emotions... and somehow that works.
The group dynamic of Eric, Andrew and Wen was incredible, with Jonathan Groff and Kristen Cui being the standouts. I don't know that I would have been on board with Ben Aldridge as Andrew if it hadn't been for the pairing with Groff.
Opposite them, we get an interesting mix of characters who are led by Leonard... I am so proud of Dave Bautista right now, this was an amazing performance. I love him doing comedy (My Spy is still probably my favourite), but this was a great change of pace, he channels the character's profession into the situation so well... 5 stars for Bautista, no notes.
The other three bring up the rear with some chaotic energy. I just cannot unsee Ron Weasley though. I know he's been in other things since then, but I haven't happened across any of them, and as such, he was entirely distracting. It wasn't a bad turn, but it did overwhelm Nikki Amuka-Bird and Abby Quinn's roles for me.
M. Night Shymalan does his cameo and throws in his usual colour references for the regular viewers. I won't go into that, as it definitely constitutes spoilers, but it might not be something that's common knowledge, so absolutely worth a Google afterwards.
IMDb lists Knock at the Cabin as horror, mystery and thriller. Thriller, check. Mystery, a stretch. Horror, in my opinion, completely inaccurate. Having "horror" over everything about this film put people off watching it, and that's a great shame.
I was left with one big thought after seeing this, and that's that somewhere, in a remote cabin, a group of people have been playing this game for the last 3 years.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2023/02/knock-at-cabin-movie-review.html
Dead in a Week (Forensic Instincts #7)
Book
What would you do if your daughter was kidnapped and given only a week to live? Lauren...
Suspense Thriller
Ross (3282 KP) rated Blood of Assassins in Books
Feb 12, 2018
I can't quite see what the fuss is all about
*** Disclosure: I received an advance copy of this book from NetGalley in return for an honest review ***
I read Blood of Assassins straight on the back of Age of Assassins, which I thought was OK.
Here we are back with Girton Club-Foot and his assassin master 5 years after the conclusion of the first book. Having travelled as mercenaries during this time, Girton has stopped training with the sword and picked up a warhammer instead. The book opens with he and his master seeing off some foreign assassins of their own, his master becoming poisoned in the conflict.
The Tired Lands has deteriorated over this time with Girton's three fellow squires all vying to become king, resulting in a long war that has taken its toll on the land and its people.
Girton becomes tasked with finding the spy within his old friend, Rufra's, camp and soon becomes embroiled in finding a murderer and fending off attacks on the camp and nearby towns.
Girton is one of the most annoying characters I have come across for a while, being incredibly stupid, selfish and childish. He is mooted as an incredible warrior on his return, which I thought of as odd due to nobody seeing his true skills in the first book - he always had to pretend to be mostly useless to hide his assassin and sorcery abilities. Hi is also praised for solving the mystery over the assassin-hiring in the first book, even though he solved that by luck, people just confessing to him or other people working it out instead of him.
Here he again does next to nothing to solve the mystery of the spy and only when he is confronted by them does he work it out.
As in the first book, he again becomes embroiled in identifying a murderer in the camp, which he again does despite his stupidity.
I'm all for an anti-hero but they are supposed to still make you either love them or hate them, I found myself completely indifferent to Girton's plight and just wanted to get through it.
There were more typical fantasy battle scenes in this book, which were well executed, but these were few and far between and came somewhat at odds with the plot. This redeemed the book for me.
However, as with the first book, there were no hints at who the culprit was, too much of it was left to the reveal, meaning the mystery aspect of the book was a little clumsy.
And the dream sequences, which in the first book served to tell the story of Girton's upbringing, here are a complete nonsense and add nothing to the story. Just flowery nonsense.
Barker has a good turn of phrase, but at times I thought it just confusing:
"The impact came from behind, high in the centre of my back, throwing me forward.
An arrow.
I knew the way they killed. Felt its ghost as it ruptured my lungs, split my breastbone and burst from my chest. I hit the floor, dust billowing from the carpet. The weight on my back forced me down into the choking cloud.
Not an arrow."
For me this was style over substance and left me unnecessarily confused as to what was happening.
The first person perspective is also fatally flawed in this setting as we therefore automatically know Girton survives, taking the edge off all the battles he is involved in.
In summary, a little flowery at times and doesn't know whether it wants to be a fantasy book or a thriller and succeeds in neither all that well.
I read Blood of Assassins straight on the back of Age of Assassins, which I thought was OK.
Here we are back with Girton Club-Foot and his assassin master 5 years after the conclusion of the first book. Having travelled as mercenaries during this time, Girton has stopped training with the sword and picked up a warhammer instead. The book opens with he and his master seeing off some foreign assassins of their own, his master becoming poisoned in the conflict.
The Tired Lands has deteriorated over this time with Girton's three fellow squires all vying to become king, resulting in a long war that has taken its toll on the land and its people.
Girton becomes tasked with finding the spy within his old friend, Rufra's, camp and soon becomes embroiled in finding a murderer and fending off attacks on the camp and nearby towns.
Girton is one of the most annoying characters I have come across for a while, being incredibly stupid, selfish and childish. He is mooted as an incredible warrior on his return, which I thought of as odd due to nobody seeing his true skills in the first book - he always had to pretend to be mostly useless to hide his assassin and sorcery abilities. Hi is also praised for solving the mystery over the assassin-hiring in the first book, even though he solved that by luck, people just confessing to him or other people working it out instead of him.
Here he again does next to nothing to solve the mystery of the spy and only when he is confronted by them does he work it out.
As in the first book, he again becomes embroiled in identifying a murderer in the camp, which he again does despite his stupidity.
I'm all for an anti-hero but they are supposed to still make you either love them or hate them, I found myself completely indifferent to Girton's plight and just wanted to get through it.
There were more typical fantasy battle scenes in this book, which were well executed, but these were few and far between and came somewhat at odds with the plot. This redeemed the book for me.
However, as with the first book, there were no hints at who the culprit was, too much of it was left to the reveal, meaning the mystery aspect of the book was a little clumsy.
And the dream sequences, which in the first book served to tell the story of Girton's upbringing, here are a complete nonsense and add nothing to the story. Just flowery nonsense.
Barker has a good turn of phrase, but at times I thought it just confusing:
"The impact came from behind, high in the centre of my back, throwing me forward.
An arrow.
I knew the way they killed. Felt its ghost as it ruptured my lungs, split my breastbone and burst from my chest. I hit the floor, dust billowing from the carpet. The weight on my back forced me down into the choking cloud.
Not an arrow."
For me this was style over substance and left me unnecessarily confused as to what was happening.
The first person perspective is also fatally flawed in this setting as we therefore automatically know Girton survives, taking the edge off all the battles he is involved in.
In summary, a little flowery at times and doesn't know whether it wants to be a fantasy book or a thriller and succeeds in neither all that well.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Spectre (2015) in Movies
Jul 20, 2017
Well written (1 more)
Good direction
Mr Hinx (1 more)
Not enough Cristoph Waltz
As good as the last?
Contains spoilers, click to show
When Casino Royale released in 2006, it was to be a soft reboot of the franchise that showed viewers the events of Bond’s first mission and it strived to rectify some of the silly gadgets etc that were being over-used with Brosnan’s Bond. In my opinion, Casino Royale was a great film, it just wasn’t a Bond film. It done away with all of the silly gimmicks and cheesy one liners and was an introduction to a more grounded version of the iconic character, which made for a great spy thriller but not a great Bond movie. Then Quantum of Solace came out and literally nobody cared, not many people went to see it, it didn’t make much money at the box office and to this day I’ve still not seen that whole movie from start to finish and to be honest, I’m perfectly okay with that. Skyfall was the third Craig Bond movie to be released and it was a triumph. Finally Craig felt like he was actually playing Bond and not just some random hard ass military spy. It even flirted with the idea of gadgets, had a flamboyant supervillain and introduced a young, fresh faced Q, which was a nice touch. The movie ended with Silva killing Judi Dench’s M and Bond killing Silva, Ralph Fiennes was then appointed with the title of M and Naomi Harris was revealed to be the new Moneypenny. So with the last movie pleasing both long time Bond fans and newcomers alike, SPECTRE had a lot to live up to.
The movie opens with Bond in Mexico City, during the Day Of The Dead festival, Bond listens in on a meeting of two Mafioso and learns about a mysterious organisation hoping to achieve world domination and their illusive leader known as ‘The Pale King.’ He then blows up the building they are in and ends up in a chopper fight with one of the gangsters, whom he eventually kills. This leads into a stunning opening credits sequence, that really is one of the best I’ve seen, (even though the song is still crap.) This is an awesome intro and probably tops Skyfall’s intro which was also very cool.
The rest of the movie is a joy to a long time Bond fan like me. It checks off all of the boxes that make up a classic Bond movie. An awesome Aston Martin car chase – check, a big bad henchman who doesn’t say much but is very hard to kill – check, an effective use of gadgets and cheesy one liners – check, a supervillain that has an epic secret layer that he invites Bond to – check, Bond being strapped to an elaborate device in that secret layer and tortured – check. Now all of this is really well executed, but the problem with it is that it throws any of the gritty realism shown in the last three movies right out of the window, which like I say is perfectly okay, but it causes this movie to feel as if it is taking place in a separate universe from the last three. This is not a problem to me, I am more than happy to have a good old fashioned Bond movie back on our screens that isn’t afraid to shy away from the use of gadgets and witty quips and it’s a movie that actually handles it well unlike some of the naff late Brosnan movies. On the other hand though, I can totally see why some people would have a problem with this movie, especially if you aren’t a long time Bond fan and prefer Craig’s more realistic turn as Bond. If that is the case then this movie really won’t be for you and the chances are that you will leave the cinema leaving pretty disappointed.
Now, let’s forget for a minute that this is a 007 movie and just analyse it as a traditional piece of cinema. First off, I’m really glad that they brought Sam Mendes back to direct this one, he is very obviously a passionate Bond fan and I think he has done a great job with both Bond movies that he has made and I also really hope they can keep him on to do at least one more movie in the series. This is also a well written movie, its script is witty and fast paced, while keeping making sure that although the audience is kept intrigued, they are never lost in whatever is going on. The cinematography in this movie is also great, besides a shaky cam chase sequence during the opening of the movie, I’d actually say that this is a masterfully shot movie. Hoyte Van Hoytema was the principle of photography for this movie and that guy really likes his eye pleasing shots and his use of the rule of thirds, which is especially evident in the funeral scene where Monica Belluci is introduced. There were two Bond girls in this movie and they were both serviceable, Belluci was really only there for exposition, but Lea Seadoux did a good job with her more fleshed out role.
Now, I want to talk about the main villain in the movie, played by the incredible Christophe Waltz. When he is in the movie, he steals every scene, however that leads me on to a problem I have with the movie. He is introduced near the beginning of the movie, within the first half hour, then a good hour passes before he is reintroduced, and although what is going on during that hour is entertaining, when you have already introduced a villain played by the master of playing villains that is Mr Waltz, it’s hard not to wonder when he is going to be back in the movie. Also I feel that this movie is quite long, possibly due to the large number of different locales and although it is actually only a few more minutes longer than Skyfall, Skyfall didn’t feel that long and this movie feels a lot longer. Also Mr Hinx is a pretty rubbish henchman, he is as forgetful as Jaws and Oddjob were memorable and doesn’t have a line until the last fight with Bond, I felt he was just very underused.
Now I’m going to go into spoiler territory, so if you haven’t seen the film yet, you may want to jump to the end of the review. Okay, we all good? Well turns out Christophe Waltz is actually the new Blofeld, which really isn’t surprising since he is the head of SPECTRE. What did annoy me a little, is the fact that he was Bond’s step-brother, kind of? But whatever, I can live with it. Also, although the villains lair was kind of a trope and wasn’t really used all too much before it was blown up, once Blofeld got his scar, he did look the part. So that is another classic Bond thing to introduce, Blofeld is to Bond what The Joker is to Batman and it is nice to have the arch nemesis introduced. One of the downsides to introducing Blofeld though is that it was obvious they weren’t going to kill him off, at least not in this movie, also Mr Hinx’s death was also rather anticlimactic. Andrew Scott’s character C was revealed to be a spy for SPECTRE and again had a fairly anticlimactic death, but he was perfectly serviceable in the role.
Overall I did enjoy the movie a great deal and although this is a review based on my opinion, I do somewhat have to take into consideration the bigger picture and how other fans will feel upon seeing this film. Like I have said, I think fans of old fashioned traditional Bond will love this movie as it finally fulfils the criteria for it to be labelled a ‘Bond’ movie, I can definitely see a lot of people being disappointed in the film if they go in expected another realistic spy thriller.
The movie opens with Bond in Mexico City, during the Day Of The Dead festival, Bond listens in on a meeting of two Mafioso and learns about a mysterious organisation hoping to achieve world domination and their illusive leader known as ‘The Pale King.’ He then blows up the building they are in and ends up in a chopper fight with one of the gangsters, whom he eventually kills. This leads into a stunning opening credits sequence, that really is one of the best I’ve seen, (even though the song is still crap.) This is an awesome intro and probably tops Skyfall’s intro which was also very cool.
The rest of the movie is a joy to a long time Bond fan like me. It checks off all of the boxes that make up a classic Bond movie. An awesome Aston Martin car chase – check, a big bad henchman who doesn’t say much but is very hard to kill – check, an effective use of gadgets and cheesy one liners – check, a supervillain that has an epic secret layer that he invites Bond to – check, Bond being strapped to an elaborate device in that secret layer and tortured – check. Now all of this is really well executed, but the problem with it is that it throws any of the gritty realism shown in the last three movies right out of the window, which like I say is perfectly okay, but it causes this movie to feel as if it is taking place in a separate universe from the last three. This is not a problem to me, I am more than happy to have a good old fashioned Bond movie back on our screens that isn’t afraid to shy away from the use of gadgets and witty quips and it’s a movie that actually handles it well unlike some of the naff late Brosnan movies. On the other hand though, I can totally see why some people would have a problem with this movie, especially if you aren’t a long time Bond fan and prefer Craig’s more realistic turn as Bond. If that is the case then this movie really won’t be for you and the chances are that you will leave the cinema leaving pretty disappointed.
Now, let’s forget for a minute that this is a 007 movie and just analyse it as a traditional piece of cinema. First off, I’m really glad that they brought Sam Mendes back to direct this one, he is very obviously a passionate Bond fan and I think he has done a great job with both Bond movies that he has made and I also really hope they can keep him on to do at least one more movie in the series. This is also a well written movie, its script is witty and fast paced, while keeping making sure that although the audience is kept intrigued, they are never lost in whatever is going on. The cinematography in this movie is also great, besides a shaky cam chase sequence during the opening of the movie, I’d actually say that this is a masterfully shot movie. Hoyte Van Hoytema was the principle of photography for this movie and that guy really likes his eye pleasing shots and his use of the rule of thirds, which is especially evident in the funeral scene where Monica Belluci is introduced. There were two Bond girls in this movie and they were both serviceable, Belluci was really only there for exposition, but Lea Seadoux did a good job with her more fleshed out role.
Now, I want to talk about the main villain in the movie, played by the incredible Christophe Waltz. When he is in the movie, he steals every scene, however that leads me on to a problem I have with the movie. He is introduced near the beginning of the movie, within the first half hour, then a good hour passes before he is reintroduced, and although what is going on during that hour is entertaining, when you have already introduced a villain played by the master of playing villains that is Mr Waltz, it’s hard not to wonder when he is going to be back in the movie. Also I feel that this movie is quite long, possibly due to the large number of different locales and although it is actually only a few more minutes longer than Skyfall, Skyfall didn’t feel that long and this movie feels a lot longer. Also Mr Hinx is a pretty rubbish henchman, he is as forgetful as Jaws and Oddjob were memorable and doesn’t have a line until the last fight with Bond, I felt he was just very underused.
Now I’m going to go into spoiler territory, so if you haven’t seen the film yet, you may want to jump to the end of the review. Okay, we all good? Well turns out Christophe Waltz is actually the new Blofeld, which really isn’t surprising since he is the head of SPECTRE. What did annoy me a little, is the fact that he was Bond’s step-brother, kind of? But whatever, I can live with it. Also, although the villains lair was kind of a trope and wasn’t really used all too much before it was blown up, once Blofeld got his scar, he did look the part. So that is another classic Bond thing to introduce, Blofeld is to Bond what The Joker is to Batman and it is nice to have the arch nemesis introduced. One of the downsides to introducing Blofeld though is that it was obvious they weren’t going to kill him off, at least not in this movie, also Mr Hinx’s death was also rather anticlimactic. Andrew Scott’s character C was revealed to be a spy for SPECTRE and again had a fairly anticlimactic death, but he was perfectly serviceable in the role.
Overall I did enjoy the movie a great deal and although this is a review based on my opinion, I do somewhat have to take into consideration the bigger picture and how other fans will feel upon seeing this film. Like I have said, I think fans of old fashioned traditional Bond will love this movie as it finally fulfils the criteria for it to be labelled a ‘Bond’ movie, I can definitely see a lot of people being disappointed in the film if they go in expected another realistic spy thriller.
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Official Secrets (2019) in Movies
Oct 16, 2019
Should this tense, dramatic thriller remain a Secret?
I was lucky enough to be invited to an advanced screening of this film, ahead of it's general release.
"Official Secrets (2019)" is a tense and clever thriller based on real events that occurred during the beginning of the Iraq War in 2003. Keira Knightley plays Katherine Gun, a British spy-turned-whistleblower who worked for GCHQ at the time. She leaked confidential information to the press, exposing illegal activities at the highest levels of government intended to falsely justify the invasion of Iraq. Backed by a high-calibre support cast, which includes Matt Smith and Ralph Fiennes, this film serves to show you the true story of what happened during this shadowy and questionable chapter in our history.
The film uses actual news footage from the time to great effect, making you feel as if you're watching a biographical documentary on the History Channel. Knightley is captivating as the Robin Hood-esque lead, delivering a truly believable and heartfelt performance throughout. It wasn't until the credits began to roll and they showed you footage of the real Katherine Gun from news reels at the time that you realise just how good Knightley's performance really was. From the way she dressed to the tone in which she spoke and the small mannerisms of her personality, it was a very, very good portrayal.
As with most films like this, I imagine certain events and aspects of the story were dramatised or exaggerated for the purposes of cinema, but at no point did it ever feel like it. Any changes to real events were subtle enough that you couldn't spot them without detailed knowledge of what really happened at the time - something, it turns out, very few people actually had.
Matt Smith is both charming and uncompromising as the stubborn reporter who champions Gun's crusade for the truth, giving her support and a platform to get her message out to the world. Similarly, Ralph Fiennes looks right at home as the lawyer who defends her in the public eye.
I admit that certain aspects and legalities within the plot felt, at times, a little far-fetched, but honestly, the film did such a good job of telling this story, I'm inclined to think that's still how things actually happened.
Spoilers aren't as much of an issue for films like this, as you already know the outcome. But this film isn't about the destination, it's about the journey. It shines a spotlight on the down-and-dirty world of global politics, as well as how difficult it can sometimes be to choose to do the right thing.
The film moves along at a slow yet perfect pace. It doesn't look or feel like a Hollywood movie, which I think is a very good thing. Instead, it feels like a BBC drama, similar to Line of Duty or Luther or Spooks, and that's exactly the kind of approach this film needed to work.
I went into this admittedly understanding very little of what went on back in 2003. I was much younger and wasn't interested in geopolitics, or even the news in general. But seeing this film piqued my interest, and after a few hours of Googling the events depicted in the film, I'm even more in awe of just how well made this was. Kudos to everyone involved.
My only criticism, if I had to give one, would be the number of times people had to say "Official Secrets Act"... I get that's what the film is about, but it seemed like every character had a quota for the number of times they had to mention it! But that's just nit-picking for nit-picking's sake. This truly is a cracking film. One of the gems of the year that's not to be missed!
"Official Secrets (2019)" is a tense and clever thriller based on real events that occurred during the beginning of the Iraq War in 2003. Keira Knightley plays Katherine Gun, a British spy-turned-whistleblower who worked for GCHQ at the time. She leaked confidential information to the press, exposing illegal activities at the highest levels of government intended to falsely justify the invasion of Iraq. Backed by a high-calibre support cast, which includes Matt Smith and Ralph Fiennes, this film serves to show you the true story of what happened during this shadowy and questionable chapter in our history.
The film uses actual news footage from the time to great effect, making you feel as if you're watching a biographical documentary on the History Channel. Knightley is captivating as the Robin Hood-esque lead, delivering a truly believable and heartfelt performance throughout. It wasn't until the credits began to roll and they showed you footage of the real Katherine Gun from news reels at the time that you realise just how good Knightley's performance really was. From the way she dressed to the tone in which she spoke and the small mannerisms of her personality, it was a very, very good portrayal.
As with most films like this, I imagine certain events and aspects of the story were dramatised or exaggerated for the purposes of cinema, but at no point did it ever feel like it. Any changes to real events were subtle enough that you couldn't spot them without detailed knowledge of what really happened at the time - something, it turns out, very few people actually had.
Matt Smith is both charming and uncompromising as the stubborn reporter who champions Gun's crusade for the truth, giving her support and a platform to get her message out to the world. Similarly, Ralph Fiennes looks right at home as the lawyer who defends her in the public eye.
I admit that certain aspects and legalities within the plot felt, at times, a little far-fetched, but honestly, the film did such a good job of telling this story, I'm inclined to think that's still how things actually happened.
Spoilers aren't as much of an issue for films like this, as you already know the outcome. But this film isn't about the destination, it's about the journey. It shines a spotlight on the down-and-dirty world of global politics, as well as how difficult it can sometimes be to choose to do the right thing.
The film moves along at a slow yet perfect pace. It doesn't look or feel like a Hollywood movie, which I think is a very good thing. Instead, it feels like a BBC drama, similar to Line of Duty or Luther or Spooks, and that's exactly the kind of approach this film needed to work.
I went into this admittedly understanding very little of what went on back in 2003. I was much younger and wasn't interested in geopolitics, or even the news in general. But seeing this film piqued my interest, and after a few hours of Googling the events depicted in the film, I'm even more in awe of just how well made this was. Kudos to everyone involved.
My only criticism, if I had to give one, would be the number of times people had to say "Official Secrets Act"... I get that's what the film is about, but it seemed like every character had a quota for the number of times they had to mention it! But that's just nit-picking for nit-picking's sake. This truly is a cracking film. One of the gems of the year that's not to be missed!
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Salt (2010) in Movies
Feb 25, 2019
Disappointing 80's retread...
Contains spoilers, click to show
Salt. The trailer looked rubbish, dated and starring Angelina Jolie, was never going to tickle my fancy. Reminding me of Rodger Donaldson's, Kevin Costner starrer, No Way Out, I felt that the attempt may be to bring that 80′s thriller to a new audience but instead we got a very confused tome. Firstly, I will cover the good points, which start with the script.
Though heavily flawed and mired by poor dialogue, pacing and a schizophrenic narrative, it was clearly intelligently conceived and several neat twists, though generally predictable, had survived. And besides the music, that's about it. In the end, this is a film with little identity, seeking to confuse the audience and bring them into the complex world of double agents and apocalyptic doomsday scenarios.
The story begins with Evelyn Salt, who after being released from a Korean prison and being brutally integrated as a spy, married her "Cover" husband who we believe she actually loves, in spite of the fact that he is being used as the aforementioned "cover". Then, 2 years later, she is brought into interrogate a Russian defector who tells her that she is a sleeper agent whose mission it to kill the Russian Premier, which she vehemently denies and goes on the run to prove her innocence and protect her husband
Sounds pretty straight forward so far But after about half an hour, everything shifts as she assassinates the Russian President, dons a Russian hat, meets up with the defector and watches her husband drown before her eyes to prove her loyalty to her brethren of sleeper agents. Then, she murders ALL of them! She meets up with another sleeper, breaks into the White House, blows part of it up and ends up in a room with a "master agent", a key player from earlier in the film and completely predictable twist, with a dead U.S. President and a nuclear countdown ticking
The main problem with this isn't the outlandish plotting but the fact that we never really know who Salt is. She starts out as a normal CIA agent, who is then placed under suspicion of being a Russian sleeper, then she 's on the run and until this point were satisfied that she's being set up, but then she is not only guilty, thereby destroying all the character development of the first act, she's a VERY guilty and clearly a bad guy.
Then she is forced to watch her husband die to prove her loyalty, only to promptly kill those who murdered him, so really, what was then point? This was a man whom she was wanting to save at all costs in the opening 30 minutes but when she finds him he's left to die.
Then she commits an outlandish assassination of the Russian Premier, or does she? But by the time she's making her way into the preposterously defended nuclear bunker, I simply don't like her, or really understand what the hell she's playing at? And without the empathy for the titular character, there's little going for the film.
This is an ambitious project but fails to engage with me, as Jolie is a truly terrible leading lady in my opinion, and casting her in such a duplicitous role was a mistake. Even if a character changes allegiances, we still know who they are but this is not the case here as Salt seems to have a split personality with little explanation.
And the final point must be that if Russia had trained a band of sleeper agents this skilled, this lethal that they could not only infiltrate the U.S., but fight their way into the heart of the White House's Nuclear Bunker, I believe that the Cold War would have heated up a long time ago and that we'd all be speaking Russian too!
A real shame that what could have been a pretty effective Cold War thriller was allowed to descend into an unpleasant and non-empathetic watch.
Though heavily flawed and mired by poor dialogue, pacing and a schizophrenic narrative, it was clearly intelligently conceived and several neat twists, though generally predictable, had survived. And besides the music, that's about it. In the end, this is a film with little identity, seeking to confuse the audience and bring them into the complex world of double agents and apocalyptic doomsday scenarios.
The story begins with Evelyn Salt, who after being released from a Korean prison and being brutally integrated as a spy, married her "Cover" husband who we believe she actually loves, in spite of the fact that he is being used as the aforementioned "cover". Then, 2 years later, she is brought into interrogate a Russian defector who tells her that she is a sleeper agent whose mission it to kill the Russian Premier, which she vehemently denies and goes on the run to prove her innocence and protect her husband
Sounds pretty straight forward so far But after about half an hour, everything shifts as she assassinates the Russian President, dons a Russian hat, meets up with the defector and watches her husband drown before her eyes to prove her loyalty to her brethren of sleeper agents. Then, she murders ALL of them! She meets up with another sleeper, breaks into the White House, blows part of it up and ends up in a room with a "master agent", a key player from earlier in the film and completely predictable twist, with a dead U.S. President and a nuclear countdown ticking
The main problem with this isn't the outlandish plotting but the fact that we never really know who Salt is. She starts out as a normal CIA agent, who is then placed under suspicion of being a Russian sleeper, then she 's on the run and until this point were satisfied that she's being set up, but then she is not only guilty, thereby destroying all the character development of the first act, she's a VERY guilty and clearly a bad guy.
Then she is forced to watch her husband die to prove her loyalty, only to promptly kill those who murdered him, so really, what was then point? This was a man whom she was wanting to save at all costs in the opening 30 minutes but when she finds him he's left to die.
Then she commits an outlandish assassination of the Russian Premier, or does she? But by the time she's making her way into the preposterously defended nuclear bunker, I simply don't like her, or really understand what the hell she's playing at? And without the empathy for the titular character, there's little going for the film.
This is an ambitious project but fails to engage with me, as Jolie is a truly terrible leading lady in my opinion, and casting her in such a duplicitous role was a mistake. Even if a character changes allegiances, we still know who they are but this is not the case here as Salt seems to have a split personality with little explanation.
And the final point must be that if Russia had trained a band of sleeper agents this skilled, this lethal that they could not only infiltrate the U.S., but fight their way into the heart of the White House's Nuclear Bunker, I believe that the Cold War would have heated up a long time ago and that we'd all be speaking Russian too!
A real shame that what could have been a pretty effective Cold War thriller was allowed to descend into an unpleasant and non-empathetic watch.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Little Girl Gone (An Afton Tangler Thriller #1) in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Afton Tangler is halfway up a cold, icy mountain ledge when the call comes in: a three-month old baby, Elizabeth Ann, has vanished, taken from her home in the middle of the night. The little girl's babysitter is in the hospital after being assaulted, and Elizabeth Ann's wealthy parents are frantic. Afton, a family liaison officer for the Minneapolis Police Department, must console the baby's parents, Susan and Richard Darden. Besides her ice climbing hobby, Afton is also an aspiring police officer, so when the lead detective on the case, Max, has her tag along, she does, trying to untangle the weird web of clues that accompanies this sad case. Who was the strange man, pretending to deliver a pizza, who attacked the babysitter? Is he connected to a woman at a doll show that interacted with Susan? Is Richard's recent job switch a factor? Will a ransom call come in? As Afton and Max race to find Elizabeth Ann, the web only thickens, and they become more frantic to find Elizabeth Ann before it's too late.
This was an interesting mystery novel. I won't lie: the writing is wooden and clunky to say the least. It's certainly not the smoothly written thriller of a say a Tana French or Mary Kubica, whose books I've recently read. Further, the plot is really preposterous at times, and it's crazy to watch Afton, who should really be sitting at a desk and chatting with families, out solving crimes, chasing bad guys, and scaling cliffs (seriously). That being said, you can't help develop but an affinity for Ms. Afton Tangler. She's amazingly good at untangling a mystery (a little too good at times), but she's also incredibly plucky and genuine. She's like a Melissa McCarthy character in "Spy" or "Bridesmaids" - she's so herself that you fall for her in spite of yourself.
I also always find it impressive when authors can make a book suspenseful even when we know who "did it" from the beginning. [b:Little Girl Gone|27209410|Little Girl Gone|Gerry Schmitt|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1463571368s/27209410.jpg|47250892] is told from the ever-popular multi-character POV, so we hear from Afton, but also Susan, and several characters related to the crime itself. So while we see the crime unfold and know exactly who took the Elizabeth Ann, Schmitt still does a good job of making the book exciting as Afton and Max attempt to find the little girl and reunite her with her parents. Because of that, plus Afton's tenacious character, I will still give this one 3 stars, despite some of the crazy plot holes and the occasional less than stellar writing.
I received a copy of this book from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you); it is available everywhere as of 07/05/2016.
<a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">My Blog</a> ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/justacatandbook">Twitter</a>;
This was an interesting mystery novel. I won't lie: the writing is wooden and clunky to say the least. It's certainly not the smoothly written thriller of a say a Tana French or Mary Kubica, whose books I've recently read. Further, the plot is really preposterous at times, and it's crazy to watch Afton, who should really be sitting at a desk and chatting with families, out solving crimes, chasing bad guys, and scaling cliffs (seriously). That being said, you can't help develop but an affinity for Ms. Afton Tangler. She's amazingly good at untangling a mystery (a little too good at times), but she's also incredibly plucky and genuine. She's like a Melissa McCarthy character in "Spy" or "Bridesmaids" - she's so herself that you fall for her in spite of yourself.
I also always find it impressive when authors can make a book suspenseful even when we know who "did it" from the beginning. [b:Little Girl Gone|27209410|Little Girl Gone|Gerry Schmitt|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1463571368s/27209410.jpg|47250892] is told from the ever-popular multi-character POV, so we hear from Afton, but also Susan, and several characters related to the crime itself. So while we see the crime unfold and know exactly who took the Elizabeth Ann, Schmitt still does a good job of making the book exciting as Afton and Max attempt to find the little girl and reunite her with her parents. Because of that, plus Afton's tenacious character, I will still give this one 3 stars, despite some of the crazy plot holes and the occasional less than stellar writing.
I received a copy of this book from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you); it is available everywhere as of 07/05/2016.
<a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">My Blog</a> ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/justacatandbook">Twitter</a>;