Search
Sass Perilla (36 KP) rated Frankenstein in Books
Aug 9, 2019
The plot and major themes. (1 more)
Further work it inspired.
Readable, but disjointed and repetitive in parts.
Contains spoilers, click to show
Fundamentally, the problem with this book is the narrator, Victor. He is thoroughly detestable. A selfish, cowardly, irresponsible, excuse ridden, narcissistic d****e-bag of the highest order. And unfortunately, it is Victor Frankenstein’s POV that we are forced into for the majority of the novel.
My hatred for and frustration with the self-pitying, feckless behaviour of the (pseudo)
protagonist made this an irritating read for me- and to an extent I think this was Shelley’s intention. Victor isn’t designed to be the likable, affable, morally “good” man fallen from grace he believes himself to be, and the horrific events that befall those around him are of his making.
However, this doesn’t make him any less grating! The "monster" (to me reminiscent of Caliban with his lyrical speech and enforced isolation, being neither man nor not man) is eloquent and persuasive when he asks his creator to account for his misdoings. So, you’ve got to ask yourself, if an infanticidal, demonic, bag of sew together corpses is actually more engaging than the main storyteller, is that storyteller really the
right character to be telling the story?
Now, with all that said, it is an important book. A work by a female author with strong female characters (albeit background characters) who was only nineteen when she wrote the initial draft. Very impressive. But, for me her youth is evident. When we teach secondary school pupils to write creatively, we often give them the ambiguous instruction “show don’t tell”, and for me the book is more of a list of horrible and horrific events told in a Chinese puzzle box style story within a story, rather than an engaging and “complete” narrative. It feels like she chooses to place focus on the wrong “bits”- for example the whole of chapter nineteen where Victor travels the British Isles, comments briefly on the local architecture of each town and city and
then repetitively reminds us that he couldn’t enjoy the surroundings because of his angst.
And I would have at least like to have seen some of the courtroom drama when Victor is tried for the death of Clerval...
So, I hate to be “that” gal, who poo-poos these fantastic works of fiction (we know they’re great because some clever-britches told us they were) but in all honesty, the novel ain’t that good, and I’ll maintain that stance no matter how clever the britches of the opposing schools of thought.
I think the continuing appeal is in it’s universal themes: parenting, nature versus
nurture; morality and scientific advancement- and the whole idea of stitching a creature out of
corpse-parts and electrocuting it to life is pretty darn cool. And there are some really effective
horror scenes, such as the vignette of Victor ripping apart project lady-monster (I kind wish she had a name- a working title- but given he can’t even be bothered to name monster number one I guess this was all too much to hope for).
It’s readable, but it’s value, for me at any rate, lies in the offshoots and creativity it has spawned, rather than the work itself.
My hatred for and frustration with the self-pitying, feckless behaviour of the (pseudo)
protagonist made this an irritating read for me- and to an extent I think this was Shelley’s intention. Victor isn’t designed to be the likable, affable, morally “good” man fallen from grace he believes himself to be, and the horrific events that befall those around him are of his making.
However, this doesn’t make him any less grating! The "monster" (to me reminiscent of Caliban with his lyrical speech and enforced isolation, being neither man nor not man) is eloquent and persuasive when he asks his creator to account for his misdoings. So, you’ve got to ask yourself, if an infanticidal, demonic, bag of sew together corpses is actually more engaging than the main storyteller, is that storyteller really the
right character to be telling the story?
Now, with all that said, it is an important book. A work by a female author with strong female characters (albeit background characters) who was only nineteen when she wrote the initial draft. Very impressive. But, for me her youth is evident. When we teach secondary school pupils to write creatively, we often give them the ambiguous instruction “show don’t tell”, and for me the book is more of a list of horrible and horrific events told in a Chinese puzzle box style story within a story, rather than an engaging and “complete” narrative. It feels like she chooses to place focus on the wrong “bits”- for example the whole of chapter nineteen where Victor travels the British Isles, comments briefly on the local architecture of each town and city and
then repetitively reminds us that he couldn’t enjoy the surroundings because of his angst.
And I would have at least like to have seen some of the courtroom drama when Victor is tried for the death of Clerval...
So, I hate to be “that” gal, who poo-poos these fantastic works of fiction (we know they’re great because some clever-britches told us they were) but in all honesty, the novel ain’t that good, and I’ll maintain that stance no matter how clever the britches of the opposing schools of thought.
I think the continuing appeal is in it’s universal themes: parenting, nature versus
nurture; morality and scientific advancement- and the whole idea of stitching a creature out of
corpse-parts and electrocuting it to life is pretty darn cool. And there are some really effective
horror scenes, such as the vignette of Victor ripping apart project lady-monster (I kind wish she had a name- a working title- but given he can’t even be bothered to name monster number one I guess this was all too much to hope for).
It’s readable, but it’s value, for me at any rate, lies in the offshoots and creativity it has spawned, rather than the work itself.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Minority Report (2002) in Movies
Jul 19, 2020
I Knew I Would Love it Before I Watched it...See What I Did There?
In the future, “precogs” help predict a murder before it happens. When they predict that John Anderton, head of the precrime divison, will be the next killer, Anderton has to go on the run to prove his innocence.
Acting: 10
We give Tom Cruise shit for being crazy in real life. Say what you want about him on a personal level, the energy that he brings to the big screen is excellent. The way he taps into the emotions of a father that just lost his son hits you with a strong emotional tie to the movie.
Outside of a strong performance from Cruise as John Anderton, it’s also the lesser roles that drive this movie into classic status. Actors/actresses like Lois Smith as the matter-of-fact Dr. Hinneman and Colin Farrell sticking his nose into every single scene as Detective Danny Witwer bring fresh life to this movie throughout its duration. The female performances were particularly strong. This movie just doesn’t function the same without wonderful actresses Samantha Morton and Kathryn Morris helping to drive the story.
Beginning: 10
The first ten minutes really set the stage for the insanity to come. We see the precrime unit led by Anderton moving on their next target: A man who catches his wife in bed cheating, or at least he will. The act has yet to happen, but the unit is there to stop it before it does.
Characters: 10
Anderton is a troubled cop stuck between a terrible past and a troubling future. You can relate to his pain and why he has ended up the way he has. Like Anderton, each character has enough depth and backstory to make you care about them one way or the other. I was particularly drawn to Agatha, head of the precogs, and her story.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 10
Memorability: 10
There is a scene in this movie I consider one of the greatest in any film ever done. Anderton has captured the precog Agatha to try and get into her brain to unearth his innocence. With the police in hot pursuit, he has to escape through a mall using Agatha as a cognitive guide to help him escape danger. It is truly a brilliant layout of a scene and it really enhances this movie. This is a movie packed with a number of those same type of scenes that leave an impact in your brain.
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
A brilliant story from cover to cover. Steven Spielberg pulls out the heart and glitz of this movie with true wonder that only he can achieve. There is a reason I consider him the GOAT, because his stories wow you while making you think and feel at the same time. This story couldn’t have been put together more perfectly.
Resolution: 10
The ending couldn’t have been more perfect. It’s all about redemption and starting over. I won’t spoil it by going into further detail.
Overall: 100
Every now and then a movie comes along that manages to sit with me for a long time. It’s the primary reason I consider Minority Report to be the greatest sci-fi movie ever made and #3 on my all-time list. Quite frankly, it’s just plain dope.
Acting: 10
We give Tom Cruise shit for being crazy in real life. Say what you want about him on a personal level, the energy that he brings to the big screen is excellent. The way he taps into the emotions of a father that just lost his son hits you with a strong emotional tie to the movie.
Outside of a strong performance from Cruise as John Anderton, it’s also the lesser roles that drive this movie into classic status. Actors/actresses like Lois Smith as the matter-of-fact Dr. Hinneman and Colin Farrell sticking his nose into every single scene as Detective Danny Witwer bring fresh life to this movie throughout its duration. The female performances were particularly strong. This movie just doesn’t function the same without wonderful actresses Samantha Morton and Kathryn Morris helping to drive the story.
Beginning: 10
The first ten minutes really set the stage for the insanity to come. We see the precrime unit led by Anderton moving on their next target: A man who catches his wife in bed cheating, or at least he will. The act has yet to happen, but the unit is there to stop it before it does.
Characters: 10
Anderton is a troubled cop stuck between a terrible past and a troubling future. You can relate to his pain and why he has ended up the way he has. Like Anderton, each character has enough depth and backstory to make you care about them one way or the other. I was particularly drawn to Agatha, head of the precogs, and her story.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 10
Memorability: 10
There is a scene in this movie I consider one of the greatest in any film ever done. Anderton has captured the precog Agatha to try and get into her brain to unearth his innocence. With the police in hot pursuit, he has to escape through a mall using Agatha as a cognitive guide to help him escape danger. It is truly a brilliant layout of a scene and it really enhances this movie. This is a movie packed with a number of those same type of scenes that leave an impact in your brain.
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
A brilliant story from cover to cover. Steven Spielberg pulls out the heart and glitz of this movie with true wonder that only he can achieve. There is a reason I consider him the GOAT, because his stories wow you while making you think and feel at the same time. This story couldn’t have been put together more perfectly.
Resolution: 10
The ending couldn’t have been more perfect. It’s all about redemption and starting over. I won’t spoil it by going into further detail.
Overall: 100
Every now and then a movie comes along that manages to sit with me for a long time. It’s the primary reason I consider Minority Report to be the greatest sci-fi movie ever made and #3 on my all-time list. Quite frankly, it’s just plain dope.
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated The Hunger Games (2012) in Movies
Sep 20, 2020 (Updated Nov 26, 2020)
One of the most clueless things I've ever seen, as painstakingly unintelligent as it is one-dimensional and blunt. My problem isn't so much that every YA movie from then until at least 2018 cribbed from it (and for the most part, did it better lol) mercilessly until they left nothing left to this one but its picked-clean carcass - but moreso with the fact that it does only a couple steps above the bare minimum. How awesome would this have been as a Battle Royale-style, anti-fascist bloodbath where a bunch of kids are picked at random and exposed to both the elements and a shit-ton of weapons in a 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘚𝘩𝘰𝘸-esque battlefield commentated by a flamboyant Stanley Tucci and Toby Jones? But no, fuck that right? Instead we get a garbage-looking, shakycam exercise in going through the motions with bad characters and toothless action (wasps? most of the characters dying offscreen? are you kidding me?). Plus we're treated to another awful forced romance, dull-arrowed swipes at classism which amount to nothing more than overtly-obvious visual signifiers with nothing to actually chew on (I assume out of cowardice - which makes it worse), and one of the most infamous cases of vaguely misogynistic attempts at a 'strong female lead' by making her mean and stripped of any actual personality. Somehow it doesn't really drag, but it's pretty viciously unexciting. There's some real bite to the scenes where Katniss's every expression let alone word is picked apart by a capricious crowd and disingenuous MC, and Haymitch painfully watching the rich children play with the toy sword - though not only does it refuse to dive into the treasure trove of possible commentary it sets up, but I actually have to apologize to the (worlds better) 𝘋𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘵 for goofing on its idiotic politics because this is somehow even dumber. "We want to make sure there's never another uprising again, show we're a gracious + caring government, and entertain the public all at once. How do we do that? Well we'll just start abducting and killing children at random on national television of course!" Lmfao. Doesn't lean into anything that could have made this enjoyable, and there's a lot - so they had to have *tried* to make it this flat. Also one of those movies that only knows how to express its limited emotion through unbearable "everything sucks" world-building. Great... that would be another thing entirely if it even earned the right to do that, which naturally this doesn't. Cheesy and unintentionally funny.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) created a post
Nov 3, 2021
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated The Kitchen (2019) in Movies
Aug 24, 2019
Married into a life with the mob, three women living in Hell’s Kitchen, New York City in the late ‘70s find themselves trapped in their husband’s shadows in Andrea Berloff’s debut film, The Kitchen. Based on a 2014 DC Comics graphic novel by the same name, the film focuses on these three female friends facing the aftermath of their husband’s botched crime and subsequent imprisonment. Their Italian crime family promised to take care of them while their spouses are locked away, but their measly support simply isn’t enough when they’ve got mouths to feed and bills to pay. Tired of being weak and dependent, the ladies band together to take control of their situation by trying to take over the mob.
The Kitchen stars actresses Melissa McCarthy, Tiffany Haddish, and Elisabeth Moss as the female trio who work to rise to the top of their crime family by carrying the dead weight of the lazy men who lead it. McCarthy plays Kathy Brennan, a housewife and mother of two, whose seemingly good-natured husband is clearly involved in the wrong crowd. In spite of that, she appears to have a pleasant life at home, but her heavy reliance on her husband puts her in peril once he’s locked away. On the other hand, Haddish and Moss play Ruby and Claire, who are both victimized and disrespected by their husbands, with Claire even being regularly abused. These characteristics help to define the women and their actions as they attempt to upend the male-dominated establishment.
However, despite The Kitchen’s strong set-up, the characters themselves don’t show much depth beyond this, and the film’s performances leave a lot to be desired. McCarthy felt like she was acting in an entirely different movie. I’ve never seen a more passive and unconvincing crime boss. She’s struggling with a balancing act that sees her going between being tough, funny, ruthless, submissive, and sweet. By comparison to the rest of the movie, her whole character feels off-key. Then there’s Haddish who gives the worst acting performance I’ve seen in quite some time. I’m not really a fan of her brand of humor, but I didn’t like her dramatic turn here either. She just delivers snarky lines with attitude and death glares before walking off-camera in practically every shot she’s in. It’s almost funny how cheesy and over-the-top it is. You can’t just go mean-mugging your way through a whole major motion picture and expect to be taken seriously.
On a more positive note, Moss was much more impressive as Claire, who is fed up with being beaten down and bullied, and is determined to learn how to defend herself. She partners up with Domhnall Gleeson’s hitman character Gabriel who teaches her how to kill. Their relationship ends up being perhaps the most interesting aspect of the whole movie, and it has something of a Bonnie and Clyde quality to it. I only wish we could have seen it fleshed out a bit more.
For all of its potential, especially in terms of portraying female empowerment, The Kitchen regrettably winds up being a generic, inconsistent, and lethargic affair. I personally love the premise of the film. It’s a bad ass statement to any man who has ever said that a woman’s place is in the kitchen. It sticks up a middle finger to sexism by taking the action to the criminal streets of Hell’s Kitchen where the women rise to power. Unfortunately, despite the kick-ass feminist concept, I found that the film’s attempt at empowerment never really manifests into anything meaningful.
Instead, The Kitchen feels messy and uninspired. There isn’t a single scene in the entire film that I would consider to be good. The story is thin, the suspense is absent, the setting is bland, the tone is confusing, and the characters are mostly uninspired. I hate to even say it, but while watching it, I couldn’t help but be reminded of last year’s train-wreck of a film, Gotti, starring John Travolta. I think both of these films had a lot of promise, but seriously failed to deliver. As someone who loves a good gangster movie, I feel really disappointed.
There’s ultimately very little I liked about The Kitchen. The movie lacks a pulse, and the stakes never feel significant, not even as the body count piles up. The set design shows no strong sense of place or time period. Most of the settings outside seemed to be looking at nondescript sidewalks that could have been filmed anywhere. With the setting of Hell’s Kitchen, I can’t help but immediately think of The Godfather. Similarly, the use of The Rolling Stones in the trailer evokes thoughts of Scorsese and Goodfellas. Unfortunately, this movie clearly doesn’t even come close to comparing to either of those classics. This movie’s plot is weak, the betrayals are obvious, and the ending is uncomfortably idiotic. Despite it all, however, I find myself still interested in The Kitchen’s graphic novel at least, because I can’t imagine it being this bad.
The Kitchen stars actresses Melissa McCarthy, Tiffany Haddish, and Elisabeth Moss as the female trio who work to rise to the top of their crime family by carrying the dead weight of the lazy men who lead it. McCarthy plays Kathy Brennan, a housewife and mother of two, whose seemingly good-natured husband is clearly involved in the wrong crowd. In spite of that, she appears to have a pleasant life at home, but her heavy reliance on her husband puts her in peril once he’s locked away. On the other hand, Haddish and Moss play Ruby and Claire, who are both victimized and disrespected by their husbands, with Claire even being regularly abused. These characteristics help to define the women and their actions as they attempt to upend the male-dominated establishment.
However, despite The Kitchen’s strong set-up, the characters themselves don’t show much depth beyond this, and the film’s performances leave a lot to be desired. McCarthy felt like she was acting in an entirely different movie. I’ve never seen a more passive and unconvincing crime boss. She’s struggling with a balancing act that sees her going between being tough, funny, ruthless, submissive, and sweet. By comparison to the rest of the movie, her whole character feels off-key. Then there’s Haddish who gives the worst acting performance I’ve seen in quite some time. I’m not really a fan of her brand of humor, but I didn’t like her dramatic turn here either. She just delivers snarky lines with attitude and death glares before walking off-camera in practically every shot she’s in. It’s almost funny how cheesy and over-the-top it is. You can’t just go mean-mugging your way through a whole major motion picture and expect to be taken seriously.
On a more positive note, Moss was much more impressive as Claire, who is fed up with being beaten down and bullied, and is determined to learn how to defend herself. She partners up with Domhnall Gleeson’s hitman character Gabriel who teaches her how to kill. Their relationship ends up being perhaps the most interesting aspect of the whole movie, and it has something of a Bonnie and Clyde quality to it. I only wish we could have seen it fleshed out a bit more.
For all of its potential, especially in terms of portraying female empowerment, The Kitchen regrettably winds up being a generic, inconsistent, and lethargic affair. I personally love the premise of the film. It’s a bad ass statement to any man who has ever said that a woman’s place is in the kitchen. It sticks up a middle finger to sexism by taking the action to the criminal streets of Hell’s Kitchen where the women rise to power. Unfortunately, despite the kick-ass feminist concept, I found that the film’s attempt at empowerment never really manifests into anything meaningful.
Instead, The Kitchen feels messy and uninspired. There isn’t a single scene in the entire film that I would consider to be good. The story is thin, the suspense is absent, the setting is bland, the tone is confusing, and the characters are mostly uninspired. I hate to even say it, but while watching it, I couldn’t help but be reminded of last year’s train-wreck of a film, Gotti, starring John Travolta. I think both of these films had a lot of promise, but seriously failed to deliver. As someone who loves a good gangster movie, I feel really disappointed.
There’s ultimately very little I liked about The Kitchen. The movie lacks a pulse, and the stakes never feel significant, not even as the body count piles up. The set design shows no strong sense of place or time period. Most of the settings outside seemed to be looking at nondescript sidewalks that could have been filmed anywhere. With the setting of Hell’s Kitchen, I can’t help but immediately think of The Godfather. Similarly, the use of The Rolling Stones in the trailer evokes thoughts of Scorsese and Goodfellas. Unfortunately, this movie clearly doesn’t even come close to comparing to either of those classics. This movie’s plot is weak, the betrayals are obvious, and the ending is uncomfortably idiotic. Despite it all, however, I find myself still interested in The Kitchen’s graphic novel at least, because I can’t imagine it being this bad.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Hannie Caulder (1971) in Movies
Oct 31, 2019
You'll Have a Blast Watching This
Set in the western frontier days, a woman seeks revenge after a gang of bandits abuse her and kill her husband.
Acting: 8
No one is winning any awards, but they get the job done. Raquel Welch holds her own in her primary role as Hannie Caulder. She’s tough as nails and I love the perfect timing with which she delivers her quips. It’s fun watching her kick all the ass. Shout-out to Robert Culp as well playing the role of gunslinger Thomas Luther Price. He approaches his role with the calm demeanor of one that only kills when he has to. Both actors killed it.
The ones playing the bandits, however, did not. it was like watching the Three Stooges try and be bad guys. Fortunately they didn’t ruin the enjoyment of the movie as it made me want them to get theirs even more.
Beginning: 10
First ten minutes does the job of a true beginning: Sets up the plot while getting you excited to watch the rest of the movie. By the end of it, you know who’s bad, who’s good, and who needs to be avenged. Let the rest of the movie commence!
Characters: 8
Loved the protagonists as characters, not so much the bad guys as mentioned above. The villains were bumbling idiots who seemed to do bad things off sheer luck. Fortunately Hannie and her motivation for revenge was enough to carry the story. While I thought they could’ve put more clothes on the poor girl (she spends most of the movie in a poncho with nothing underneath), her rise to becoming a gunslinger was fun to watch.
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
There are some really beautiful shots I adored in the movie. At the very beginning, we see Hannie standing over her dead husband against the backdrop of her burning home. It feels almost poetic. Beautiful shots of the landscape are captured so perfectly. The gun battles were also shot in such a way that the deaths felt more realistic which was a nice touch.
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 9
You want fun? Check! Cool gun fights? Check! A quest for revenge that you can get behind? Done and done. I would be surprised if you didn’t have a blast during the film’s 85-minute runtime.
Memorability: 6
Pace: 10
Plot: 8
Much like Wonder Woman, the only thing this movie really suffers from is an unnecessary romance. it felt forced and happened way too quick. Hannie, like Diana, doesn’t need a man, not even in the slightest. Even if Thomas hadn’t trained her, I feel like she would have learned her way around a gun as her desire for revenge was so strong. You don’t need to fall in love to have a desire to kick ass. If anything, throwing love into the mix should have made Hannie question her motives. The rest of the story, though linear, was solid.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 87
I don’t say this lightly: I really enjoyed this movie. As campy as it can feel at times, a strong female lead makes it unique and memorable. If you like westerns, or even if you just like good movies, check this one out now for free on Amazon Prime Video or Hulu.
Acting: 8
No one is winning any awards, but they get the job done. Raquel Welch holds her own in her primary role as Hannie Caulder. She’s tough as nails and I love the perfect timing with which she delivers her quips. It’s fun watching her kick all the ass. Shout-out to Robert Culp as well playing the role of gunslinger Thomas Luther Price. He approaches his role with the calm demeanor of one that only kills when he has to. Both actors killed it.
The ones playing the bandits, however, did not. it was like watching the Three Stooges try and be bad guys. Fortunately they didn’t ruin the enjoyment of the movie as it made me want them to get theirs even more.
Beginning: 10
First ten minutes does the job of a true beginning: Sets up the plot while getting you excited to watch the rest of the movie. By the end of it, you know who’s bad, who’s good, and who needs to be avenged. Let the rest of the movie commence!
Characters: 8
Loved the protagonists as characters, not so much the bad guys as mentioned above. The villains were bumbling idiots who seemed to do bad things off sheer luck. Fortunately Hannie and her motivation for revenge was enough to carry the story. While I thought they could’ve put more clothes on the poor girl (she spends most of the movie in a poncho with nothing underneath), her rise to becoming a gunslinger was fun to watch.
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
There are some really beautiful shots I adored in the movie. At the very beginning, we see Hannie standing over her dead husband against the backdrop of her burning home. It feels almost poetic. Beautiful shots of the landscape are captured so perfectly. The gun battles were also shot in such a way that the deaths felt more realistic which was a nice touch.
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 9
You want fun? Check! Cool gun fights? Check! A quest for revenge that you can get behind? Done and done. I would be surprised if you didn’t have a blast during the film’s 85-minute runtime.
Memorability: 6
Pace: 10
Plot: 8
Much like Wonder Woman, the only thing this movie really suffers from is an unnecessary romance. it felt forced and happened way too quick. Hannie, like Diana, doesn’t need a man, not even in the slightest. Even if Thomas hadn’t trained her, I feel like she would have learned her way around a gun as her desire for revenge was so strong. You don’t need to fall in love to have a desire to kick ass. If anything, throwing love into the mix should have made Hannie question her motives. The rest of the story, though linear, was solid.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 87
I don’t say this lightly: I really enjoyed this movie. As campy as it can feel at times, a strong female lead makes it unique and memorable. If you like westerns, or even if you just like good movies, check this one out now for free on Amazon Prime Video or Hulu.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Girl in the Spider's Web (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
There has definitely been a shift in the characters that women are portraying in the movies. No longer happy to be relegated to the damsel in distress who is looking for their Prince Charming to rescue them, they become bad-ass avengers who aren’t afraid to kick-butt and take names. There is no better example of this than Lisbeth Salander, everyone’s favorite goth super-hacker and vigilante. In The Girl in the Spider’s Web, based on the best-selling novel of the same name, we see Lisbeth at her finest and it is an action packed, butt kicking good time.
Lisbeth (Claire Foy) leads a life as a vigilante who targets men that abuse woman ensuring they pay for their evil deeds. She’s not afraid to play hardball and threaten their very existence to ensure that justice is served. In the middle of punishing all the right people, Lisbeth receives a hacking opportunity that she can’t refuse, involving an application where simply logging in allows you to take over the world’s nuclear weapons. This super application was originally created and sold to the NSA in Washington and Lisbeth is tasked with stealing it back and returning it to the original creator so that it can be properly destroyed. Lisbeth successfully steals the application but that then makes her the target of not only the NSA whom she had stolen it from originally, but also another secretive group who has their own nefarious plans.
The film quickly goes from Lisbeth and her “simple” vigilante ways to becoming a global thriller that spans multiple countries and agencies. Not only does the plot change quickly but Lisbeth’s character also morph’s from being a Black Canary type vigilante to becoming a female version of Mission Impossible’s Ethan Hunt. Even though playing a female Ethan Hunt is different from Lisbeth’s usual trope her skills fit nicely into her new role. Her ability to hack into any computer system comes in handy quite a few times and lets us have a tie to the Lisbeth we know and love, but we also get to see her flex her wits and general bad-assery a bit deeper during her “impossible mission”. The film was definitely not what I expected but I was still pleasantly surprised.
The Swedish setting where the movie takes place was gorgeous and varies from desolate abandoned buildings to chases in the middle of sprawling cities. It utilizes the snow-covered landscape and decrepit buildings to create a sense of isolation, even when the streets themselves are packed with cars. Along with the isolation from the setting we also see the use of both old and new technology, which gives a low-tech feel to what is an otherwise a high stakes mission. Both the setting and the technology allows us to see that Lisbeth is a force to be reckoned with no matter what type of adversity she faces.
Which brings me to the one of the best parts of the movie and that is Claire Foy’s absolutely amazing portrayal of Lisbeth. We already knew she did a great job playing a royal in The Crown and as the wife of astronaut Neil Armstrong in First Man but relinquishing her usual elegant and classy portrayals to spectacularly play one of the biggest, baddest female characters around shows the true depth of her talent. She is definitely the star of the show and now I am an even bigger fan of hers than I already was. I was also impressed with the other main characters, including investigative journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Sverrir Gudnason), who plays less of role than in the original The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo but does a great job nonetheless, and the young boy, August Balder (Christopher Convery) that holds the key to the entire mission excellently played by Christopher Convery. The trio make an unusual team, but how the characters (and actors) play on each other’s strengths and weaknesses to complement each other brings heart to a movie that could have easily been 100% an action adventure.
The one aspect I feel could (and should) have been fleshed out more, was Lisbeth’s character as a battered woman’s vigilante. The movie started off with a very strong vigilante scene, but the vigilante theme is quickly forgotten until the very end of the film where we find out it was the sole catalyst of the main adversary. This oversight sadly turned what could have been a woman’s justice vigilante movie into a more run-of-the-mill super spy movie. That’s not necessarily bad, it is still action packed and full of twists and turns, but it’s definitely a missed opportunity to show more of who Lisbeth is.
The Girl in the Spider’s Web is filled with action, gadgets, and car chases though beautiful scenery and it is an excellent movie to see if you are looking for something different than green grinches and Nazi zombies. It’s not the movie I went in expecting to see, but I’m not complaining as it is still a solid film. Even though it diverts away from the more artistic The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo it is a very good action-packed thriller that would stack up nicely next to the Mission Impossible movies it is reminiscent of. It’s definitely a movie I recommend to action movie fans everywhere.
Lisbeth (Claire Foy) leads a life as a vigilante who targets men that abuse woman ensuring they pay for their evil deeds. She’s not afraid to play hardball and threaten their very existence to ensure that justice is served. In the middle of punishing all the right people, Lisbeth receives a hacking opportunity that she can’t refuse, involving an application where simply logging in allows you to take over the world’s nuclear weapons. This super application was originally created and sold to the NSA in Washington and Lisbeth is tasked with stealing it back and returning it to the original creator so that it can be properly destroyed. Lisbeth successfully steals the application but that then makes her the target of not only the NSA whom she had stolen it from originally, but also another secretive group who has their own nefarious plans.
The film quickly goes from Lisbeth and her “simple” vigilante ways to becoming a global thriller that spans multiple countries and agencies. Not only does the plot change quickly but Lisbeth’s character also morph’s from being a Black Canary type vigilante to becoming a female version of Mission Impossible’s Ethan Hunt. Even though playing a female Ethan Hunt is different from Lisbeth’s usual trope her skills fit nicely into her new role. Her ability to hack into any computer system comes in handy quite a few times and lets us have a tie to the Lisbeth we know and love, but we also get to see her flex her wits and general bad-assery a bit deeper during her “impossible mission”. The film was definitely not what I expected but I was still pleasantly surprised.
The Swedish setting where the movie takes place was gorgeous and varies from desolate abandoned buildings to chases in the middle of sprawling cities. It utilizes the snow-covered landscape and decrepit buildings to create a sense of isolation, even when the streets themselves are packed with cars. Along with the isolation from the setting we also see the use of both old and new technology, which gives a low-tech feel to what is an otherwise a high stakes mission. Both the setting and the technology allows us to see that Lisbeth is a force to be reckoned with no matter what type of adversity she faces.
Which brings me to the one of the best parts of the movie and that is Claire Foy’s absolutely amazing portrayal of Lisbeth. We already knew she did a great job playing a royal in The Crown and as the wife of astronaut Neil Armstrong in First Man but relinquishing her usual elegant and classy portrayals to spectacularly play one of the biggest, baddest female characters around shows the true depth of her talent. She is definitely the star of the show and now I am an even bigger fan of hers than I already was. I was also impressed with the other main characters, including investigative journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Sverrir Gudnason), who plays less of role than in the original The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo but does a great job nonetheless, and the young boy, August Balder (Christopher Convery) that holds the key to the entire mission excellently played by Christopher Convery. The trio make an unusual team, but how the characters (and actors) play on each other’s strengths and weaknesses to complement each other brings heart to a movie that could have easily been 100% an action adventure.
The one aspect I feel could (and should) have been fleshed out more, was Lisbeth’s character as a battered woman’s vigilante. The movie started off with a very strong vigilante scene, but the vigilante theme is quickly forgotten until the very end of the film where we find out it was the sole catalyst of the main adversary. This oversight sadly turned what could have been a woman’s justice vigilante movie into a more run-of-the-mill super spy movie. That’s not necessarily bad, it is still action packed and full of twists and turns, but it’s definitely a missed opportunity to show more of who Lisbeth is.
The Girl in the Spider’s Web is filled with action, gadgets, and car chases though beautiful scenery and it is an excellent movie to see if you are looking for something different than green grinches and Nazi zombies. It’s not the movie I went in expecting to see, but I’m not complaining as it is still a solid film. Even though it diverts away from the more artistic The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo it is a very good action-packed thriller that would stack up nicely next to the Mission Impossible movies it is reminiscent of. It’s definitely a movie I recommend to action movie fans everywhere.
Dana (24 KP) rated Reign of Shadows (Reign of Shadows, #1) in Books
Mar 23, 2018
Okay, so in this review, there will be some pretty general spoilers in the character descriptions, one that isn't really revealed until about thirty pages in. I will put SPOILER right in front of that one, then you can skip to where I put the asterisk to continue the paragraph if you want.
I am not overly sure on where I stand with this book. While the story itself wasn't bad, it also was not my favorite. There were some issues with me in the pacing of the story itself because a lot of the moments felt like they dragged on for a long time or that they they were repetitive.
Quite a few of the descriptions of the dwellers and other landscapes and characters were also not well described. I want to know more about what they look like, but we were not given those things.
Okay, now onto specifics. In this instance, the characters.
The guardians were very over-protective of Luna. I totally get why, but it got annoying after a while. But the bread Pearla makes sounds so freaking delicious.
Luna is a cool character. Her identity being what it is seemed like it was just pushed in the story.I know it is important later in the novel and will be coming up again in the later book(s) but it could have been mentioned or explored a little more for me. SPOILER: I did not see her being blind coming. No, that was not supposed to be a pun, but it just happened like that. I always enjoy having characters who are not perfect, especially ones who are living, surviving, and overcoming disabilities. Much of the time in books, characters often have a mental disability, if any, so it is awesome to read one where she is blind. I thought it was an awesome parallel that when she came into the world, the rest of the world went "blind" as well. That was really cool and I commend Sophie Jordan on that idea. * Okay, so as a female character, yes, she was strong and stubborn, but I didn't feel any attachment to her or her story line, which was unfortunate. I wanted to feel some sort of connection, but got nothing. I hope we get to know Luna more in the next book.
Now onto Fowler. (Note, I keep wanting to write Flower, but I think he would be pissed if he knew that and that kinda makes me want to do it even more.) Okay. So, he's kind of an ass. He wants survival and to get to this magical island where nothing bad ever happens, but he could be nicer about it. We do get some of his backstory and are able to understand part of the reason he is the way he is, but still, he's an ass. I don't like how he treats everyone, as if he's better than them, or as if they are just pawns to get rid of at the first moment he can. I hope he becomes a more likable character in the next book because I am not a fan.
Minor plot SPOILER that happens within the first fifty pages. I hate how Luna falls in love with Fowler almost instantaneously. I get that he is the first boy she meets, but geez, why? I really wanted them to become besties, not love interests. It would have made for a much more interesting story (in my opinion). CAN WE HAVE A STORY WHERE THERE IS NO LOVE INTEREST FOR THE MAIN FEMALE CHARACTER???? PLEASE? THANK YOU! *
Okay, now onto plot points. We have no idea what really happened on the night Luna was born, only what her guardians told her. Also, we know nothing of the new king and why he's such a skeevy ass. Or how and why the world turned to such crap. I just want to know all of these things! There was a lot introduced, but not explained. I get that it is because this the first book in a series, but I want info to keep me intrigued instead of just being annoyed by the withholding of it.
Overall, it was a pretty interesting read. Yes, it had issues, but a lot of books do nowadays. I will most likely be picking up the next book, if only to see what happens next!
I am not overly sure on where I stand with this book. While the story itself wasn't bad, it also was not my favorite. There were some issues with me in the pacing of the story itself because a lot of the moments felt like they dragged on for a long time or that they they were repetitive.
Quite a few of the descriptions of the dwellers and other landscapes and characters were also not well described. I want to know more about what they look like, but we were not given those things.
Okay, now onto specifics. In this instance, the characters.
The guardians were very over-protective of Luna. I totally get why, but it got annoying after a while. But the bread Pearla makes sounds so freaking delicious.
Luna is a cool character. Her identity being what it is seemed like it was just pushed in the story.I know it is important later in the novel and will be coming up again in the later book(s) but it could have been mentioned or explored a little more for me. SPOILER: I did not see her being blind coming. No, that was not supposed to be a pun, but it just happened like that. I always enjoy having characters who are not perfect, especially ones who are living, surviving, and overcoming disabilities. Much of the time in books, characters often have a mental disability, if any, so it is awesome to read one where she is blind. I thought it was an awesome parallel that when she came into the world, the rest of the world went "blind" as well. That was really cool and I commend Sophie Jordan on that idea. * Okay, so as a female character, yes, she was strong and stubborn, but I didn't feel any attachment to her or her story line, which was unfortunate. I wanted to feel some sort of connection, but got nothing. I hope we get to know Luna more in the next book.
Now onto Fowler. (Note, I keep wanting to write Flower, but I think he would be pissed if he knew that and that kinda makes me want to do it even more.) Okay. So, he's kind of an ass. He wants survival and to get to this magical island where nothing bad ever happens, but he could be nicer about it. We do get some of his backstory and are able to understand part of the reason he is the way he is, but still, he's an ass. I don't like how he treats everyone, as if he's better than them, or as if they are just pawns to get rid of at the first moment he can. I hope he becomes a more likable character in the next book because I am not a fan.
Minor plot SPOILER that happens within the first fifty pages. I hate how Luna falls in love with Fowler almost instantaneously. I get that he is the first boy she meets, but geez, why? I really wanted them to become besties, not love interests. It would have made for a much more interesting story (in my opinion). CAN WE HAVE A STORY WHERE THERE IS NO LOVE INTEREST FOR THE MAIN FEMALE CHARACTER???? PLEASE? THANK YOU! *
Okay, now onto plot points. We have no idea what really happened on the night Luna was born, only what her guardians told her. Also, we know nothing of the new king and why he's such a skeevy ass. Or how and why the world turned to such crap. I just want to know all of these things! There was a lot introduced, but not explained. I get that it is because this the first book in a series, but I want info to keep me intrigued instead of just being annoyed by the withholding of it.
Overall, it was a pretty interesting read. Yes, it had issues, but a lot of books do nowadays. I will most likely be picking up the next book, if only to see what happens next!
Sassy Brit (97 KP) rated Vendetta in Books
Jun 5, 2019
Vendetta by Iris Johansen brings back characters introduced in the Eve Duncan books. Although it is billed as an “Eve Duncan” she is only mentioned briefly. But, this does not take anything away from the plot and the main characters, Rachel Venable and Jude Brandon. The story centers on these two and their attempts to bring down Max Huber, the head of Red Star, a terrorist organization with immense power.
The story begins with the shooting of a top CIA official, Carl Venable. His dying breath to the operative, Jude Brandon, to save his daughter, Dr. Rachel Venable, and give her the choice of eliminating Huber to prevent him from wreaking further havoc on a global scale. Huber wants revenge on Rachel, believing that she killed his father by poisoning him. Enlisting the help of her good friend, CIA operative Catherine Ling and her on again, off again boyfriend, Richard Cameron, they work together to bring Huber down.
Johansen noted, “Every other chapter has a choice come into play. It is all about making choices. Rachel had to decide if she would go after the bad guys. Brandon whether he would involve himself emotionally with Rachel. Catherine made the choice not to hide from her desire for Cameron, as well as knowing she had to give Rachel space and control over her own destiny. The bad guy Huber is pure evil without redeeming qualities and his choice was to inflict as much collateral damage as possible. Even though I have a choice as a writer, I just wanted to kill Huber for doing terrible things to the people I love in my books.”
Both Rachel and Catherine had similar experiences of having to overcome rape. At the age of fifteen Rachel was captured by the Taliban in Afghanistan, watched them kill her mother and brother, and was brutally raped as well as tortured. What Johansen does wonderfully is to show how Rachel is determined to overcome her past experiences. One of the reasons she becomes a medical doctor is to heal people. Both Catherine and Rachel are intelligent, tough, strong, independent, and stubborn.
The book quote has Rachel determined to not be seen as a cripple. “I wrote that because I consider it the bravest thing she ever said. She went through a terrible event, but she fought and conquered it. Catherine also had a tough life, growing up on the Hong Kong waterfronts. She learned from it to become stronger. These two women are more similar than different. They had rough teenage years that they had to overcome. I think they are more sisters than friends and will always go to bat for each other. I think Catherine is more like the older sister because she has a son, which makes a big difference.”
Johansen writes female characters that are something other than constant damsels in distress. They find a way to survive and have come out even stronger. This story shows how a character’s past and the decisions made influence the present and future, sometimes to the point of getting revenge by pursuing a vendetta.
The story begins with the shooting of a top CIA official, Carl Venable. His dying breath to the operative, Jude Brandon, to save his daughter, Dr. Rachel Venable, and give her the choice of eliminating Huber to prevent him from wreaking further havoc on a global scale. Huber wants revenge on Rachel, believing that she killed his father by poisoning him. Enlisting the help of her good friend, CIA operative Catherine Ling and her on again, off again boyfriend, Richard Cameron, they work together to bring Huber down.
Johansen noted, “Every other chapter has a choice come into play. It is all about making choices. Rachel had to decide if she would go after the bad guys. Brandon whether he would involve himself emotionally with Rachel. Catherine made the choice not to hide from her desire for Cameron, as well as knowing she had to give Rachel space and control over her own destiny. The bad guy Huber is pure evil without redeeming qualities and his choice was to inflict as much collateral damage as possible. Even though I have a choice as a writer, I just wanted to kill Huber for doing terrible things to the people I love in my books.”
Both Rachel and Catherine had similar experiences of having to overcome rape. At the age of fifteen Rachel was captured by the Taliban in Afghanistan, watched them kill her mother and brother, and was brutally raped as well as tortured. What Johansen does wonderfully is to show how Rachel is determined to overcome her past experiences. One of the reasons she becomes a medical doctor is to heal people. Both Catherine and Rachel are intelligent, tough, strong, independent, and stubborn.
The book quote has Rachel determined to not be seen as a cripple. “I wrote that because I consider it the bravest thing she ever said. She went through a terrible event, but she fought and conquered it. Catherine also had a tough life, growing up on the Hong Kong waterfronts. She learned from it to become stronger. These two women are more similar than different. They had rough teenage years that they had to overcome. I think they are more sisters than friends and will always go to bat for each other. I think Catherine is more like the older sister because she has a son, which makes a big difference.”
Johansen writes female characters that are something other than constant damsels in distress. They find a way to survive and have come out even stronger. This story shows how a character’s past and the decisions made influence the present and future, sometimes to the point of getting revenge by pursuing a vendetta.
FilmIntuition (33 KP) rated Gate 76 in Books
Jun 1, 2018
Oozing With Tension
In the right place at the right time, boxer turned private eye Freddy Ferguson catches sight of some very wrong people in an airport security line just before a flight explodes at the San Francisco International Airport.
And even though he's been contracted to go through passenger lists as part of the B team hired by the airline, Freddy can't help but follow up on what he'd witnessed on that deadly night when an enigmatic blonde woman escaped certain death by checking in only to change her appearance in an airport bathroom rather than get on that flight. Is she a part of a bigger conspiracy or merely the last living witness of a horrific crime?
Stylistically reminiscent of Raymond Chandler and Elmore Leonard with its no-nonsense first person point-of-view, indie author Andrew Diamond's Noir flavored page turner is terse, strong, and oozing with tension.
But while Freddy's redemptive plight is fascinating indeed, the otherwise terrific Gate 76 makes a few missteps in its final third as – instead of zeroing in on its increasingly complicated Grisham level mystery – one of its female leads begins to preach at Freddy, and therefore the reader. And even though I appreciate the book's bold characterization and vivid description, moments like this are not only the opposite of subtle but they also pull focus away from the main storyline.
Juggling a large number of characters to the point that in the end, Freddy has to phone a few to literally tell them and the reader what is going on, Gate 76 might've worked even better if it had cut down on some of the middle-men to avoid the repetition of needing to explain something we've already figured out alongside our lead.
From its dynamic opening that plays just like an action movie, Gate 76 is a largely effective and entertaining thriller. With his keen sense of humor, eye for details, and ability to weave together an intricate number of subplots with style, this was a great introduction for me to Andrew Diamond and makes me eager to pick up some of his other reads.
Note: I received an ARC of this title via Bookish First in exchange for my honest opinion.
And even though he's been contracted to go through passenger lists as part of the B team hired by the airline, Freddy can't help but follow up on what he'd witnessed on that deadly night when an enigmatic blonde woman escaped certain death by checking in only to change her appearance in an airport bathroom rather than get on that flight. Is she a part of a bigger conspiracy or merely the last living witness of a horrific crime?
Stylistically reminiscent of Raymond Chandler and Elmore Leonard with its no-nonsense first person point-of-view, indie author Andrew Diamond's Noir flavored page turner is terse, strong, and oozing with tension.
But while Freddy's redemptive plight is fascinating indeed, the otherwise terrific Gate 76 makes a few missteps in its final third as – instead of zeroing in on its increasingly complicated Grisham level mystery – one of its female leads begins to preach at Freddy, and therefore the reader. And even though I appreciate the book's bold characterization and vivid description, moments like this are not only the opposite of subtle but they also pull focus away from the main storyline.
Juggling a large number of characters to the point that in the end, Freddy has to phone a few to literally tell them and the reader what is going on, Gate 76 might've worked even better if it had cut down on some of the middle-men to avoid the repetition of needing to explain something we've already figured out alongside our lead.
From its dynamic opening that plays just like an action movie, Gate 76 is a largely effective and entertaining thriller. With his keen sense of humor, eye for details, and ability to weave together an intricate number of subplots with style, this was a great introduction for me to Andrew Diamond and makes me eager to pick up some of his other reads.
Note: I received an ARC of this title via Bookish First in exchange for my honest opinion.