Search
Life Expectancy
9.3
Rate It
Book
In the dazzling new thriller from the master of dark suspense, the hand of fate reaches out to touch...
Seriously Messed Up
“Thriller of the year” according to Observer; it makes you wonder what all the other thrillers were like. Gone Girl is a contemporary crime thriller by American author Gillian Flynn. Likable “Cool Girl” Amy Dunne is missing; the police think her husband has something to do with it, but what really happened?
Flynn begins the novel with an epigraph: “Love is the world’s infinite mutability; lies, hatred, murder even, are all knit up in it; it is the inevitable blossoming of its opposites, a magnificent rose smelling faintly of blood.” – Tony Kushner, The Illusion. This implies that love and hate, and perhaps murder, will be the main issues within the novel. It hints that relationships may not be all that they first appear, which becomes evident as you read deeper into the book.
Split into three parts, the first section alternates between a first person account from Nick Dunne, the husband, of what is occurring on the day in which Amy disappears and the following days when both he and the police are attempting to determine the truth about what has happened and trying to find out where Amy is; and diary entries from Amy dating as far back as 2005.
To begin with I did not think much of the story and did not particularly like Amy, despite her being portrayed as a likable character; however I soon got into the story siding with Nick and wanting him to be innocent even though evidence and suspicion were mounting against him.
Initially I assumed that the truth would not be revealed until the end of the story rather than on the first page of part two. For the remainder of the book Nick’s narrative remains the same, progressing from where it left off at the end of part one; whereas Amy, instead of diary entries, she is telling the reader the truth about what happened on the 5th July – the day she went missing – and the subsequent days and weeks. At this point I became a bit bored with the story; as the reader we know the truth and it is frustrating that the police are getting it wrong. However part three contained more suspense than the rest of the novel.
So, why only three stars? As I already mentioned it did not seem that great at the beginning and to be honest I did not feel satisfied with the ending either. One of the main things that bothered me was the use of swear words. I understand that many people swear and so it is inevitable that these words would end up in novels; however in my opinion there is swearing and then there is swearing. This was beginning to border on the latter. Yes some of the characters were angry but I thought the use of expletives was slightly overdone.
Despite these misgivings it was a well-written piece of fiction that I think others may enjoy – the ratings on Goodreads certainly suggest that; but for me it was not anything special.
Flynn begins the novel with an epigraph: “Love is the world’s infinite mutability; lies, hatred, murder even, are all knit up in it; it is the inevitable blossoming of its opposites, a magnificent rose smelling faintly of blood.” – Tony Kushner, The Illusion. This implies that love and hate, and perhaps murder, will be the main issues within the novel. It hints that relationships may not be all that they first appear, which becomes evident as you read deeper into the book.
Split into three parts, the first section alternates between a first person account from Nick Dunne, the husband, of what is occurring on the day in which Amy disappears and the following days when both he and the police are attempting to determine the truth about what has happened and trying to find out where Amy is; and diary entries from Amy dating as far back as 2005.
To begin with I did not think much of the story and did not particularly like Amy, despite her being portrayed as a likable character; however I soon got into the story siding with Nick and wanting him to be innocent even though evidence and suspicion were mounting against him.
Initially I assumed that the truth would not be revealed until the end of the story rather than on the first page of part two. For the remainder of the book Nick’s narrative remains the same, progressing from where it left off at the end of part one; whereas Amy, instead of diary entries, she is telling the reader the truth about what happened on the 5th July – the day she went missing – and the subsequent days and weeks. At this point I became a bit bored with the story; as the reader we know the truth and it is frustrating that the police are getting it wrong. However part three contained more suspense than the rest of the novel.
So, why only three stars? As I already mentioned it did not seem that great at the beginning and to be honest I did not feel satisfied with the ending either. One of the main things that bothered me was the use of swear words. I understand that many people swear and so it is inevitable that these words would end up in novels; however in my opinion there is swearing and then there is swearing. This was beginning to border on the latter. Yes some of the characters were angry but I thought the use of expletives was slightly overdone.
Despite these misgivings it was a well-written piece of fiction that I think others may enjoy – the ratings on Goodreads certainly suggest that; but for me it was not anything special.
“Thriller of the year” according to <i>Observer</i>; it makes you wonder what all the other thrillers were like. <i>Gone Girl</i> is a contemporary crime thriller by American author Gillian Flynn. Likable “Cool Girl” Amy Dunne is missing; the police think her husband has something to do with it, but what really happened?
Flynn begins the novel with an epigraph: “Love is the world’s infinite mutability; lies, hatred, murder even, are all knit up in it; it is the inevitable blossoming of its opposites, a magnificent rose smelling faintly of blood.” – Tony Kushner, <i>The Illusion</i>. This implies that love and hate, and perhaps murder, will be the main issues within the novel. It hints that relationships may not be all that they first appear, which becomes evident as you read deeper into the book.
Split into three parts, the first section alternates between a first person account from Nick Dunne, the husband, of what is occurring on the day in which Amy disappears and the following days when both he and the police are attempting to determine the truth about what has happened and trying to find out where Amy is; and diary entries from Amy dating as far back as 2005.
To begin with I did not think much of the story and did not particularly like Amy, despite her being portrayed as a likable character; however I soon got into the story siding with Nick and wanting him to be innocent even though evidence and suspicion were mounting against him.
Initially I assumed that the truth would not be revealed until the end of the story rather than on the first page of part two. For the remainder of the book Nick’s narrative remains the same, progressing from where it left off at the end of part one; whereas Amy, instead of diary entries, she is telling the reader the truth about what happened on the 5th July – the day she went missing – and the subsequent days and weeks. At this point I became a bit bored with the story; as the reader we know the truth and it is frustrating that the police are getting it wrong. However part three contained more suspense than the rest of the novel.
So, why only three stars? As I already mentioned it did not seem that great at the beginning and to be honest I did not feel satisfied with the ending either. One of the main things that bothered me was the use of swear words. I understand that many people swear and so it is inevitable that these words would end up in novels; however in my opinion there is swearing and then there is <i>swearing</i>. This was beginning to border on the latter. Yes some of the characters were angry but I thought the use of expletives was slightly overdone.
Despite these misgivings it was a well-written piece of fiction that I think others may enjoy – the ratings on <i>Goodreads</i> certainly suggest that; but for me it was not anything special.
Flynn begins the novel with an epigraph: “Love is the world’s infinite mutability; lies, hatred, murder even, are all knit up in it; it is the inevitable blossoming of its opposites, a magnificent rose smelling faintly of blood.” – Tony Kushner, <i>The Illusion</i>. This implies that love and hate, and perhaps murder, will be the main issues within the novel. It hints that relationships may not be all that they first appear, which becomes evident as you read deeper into the book.
Split into three parts, the first section alternates between a first person account from Nick Dunne, the husband, of what is occurring on the day in which Amy disappears and the following days when both he and the police are attempting to determine the truth about what has happened and trying to find out where Amy is; and diary entries from Amy dating as far back as 2005.
To begin with I did not think much of the story and did not particularly like Amy, despite her being portrayed as a likable character; however I soon got into the story siding with Nick and wanting him to be innocent even though evidence and suspicion were mounting against him.
Initially I assumed that the truth would not be revealed until the end of the story rather than on the first page of part two. For the remainder of the book Nick’s narrative remains the same, progressing from where it left off at the end of part one; whereas Amy, instead of diary entries, she is telling the reader the truth about what happened on the 5th July – the day she went missing – and the subsequent days and weeks. At this point I became a bit bored with the story; as the reader we know the truth and it is frustrating that the police are getting it wrong. However part three contained more suspense than the rest of the novel.
So, why only three stars? As I already mentioned it did not seem that great at the beginning and to be honest I did not feel satisfied with the ending either. One of the main things that bothered me was the use of swear words. I understand that many people swear and so it is inevitable that these words would end up in novels; however in my opinion there is swearing and then there is <i>swearing</i>. This was beginning to border on the latter. Yes some of the characters were angry but I thought the use of expletives was slightly overdone.
Despite these misgivings it was a well-written piece of fiction that I think others may enjoy – the ratings on <i>Goodreads</i> certainly suggest that; but for me it was not anything special.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Stone Mothers in Books
Jun 21, 2019
Marianne's heart drops when she realizes her husband, Sam, has bought a flat for her in the town where she grew up, Nusstead. It's in the town's former mental asylum--all prettied up and converted into beautiful apartments. But Sam doesn't know about the dark secrets the asylum holds for Marianne and her teenage boyfriend, Jesse. Marianne fled Nusstead--and Jesse--as soon as she could, making a new life for herself with daughter Honor and Sam. Jesse never really forgave her and now that she's back, he's threatening to expose their long buried secrets. Marianne is determined to keep her husband and daughter from knowing about her past. But how far must she go to protect her secrets? And what doesn't she know about the past?
This was my first Erin Kelly book; it was a different sort of thriller. First off, please note there is a trigger warning for self-harm and suicide.
The book started off slow, and honestly, this is why I have such a hard time with being able to DNF a book. I was tempted for a little while, because I couldn't get into Marianne's voice or story. But then, as the book progressed, things picked up, and I actually became pretty engrossed in the plot. The story is sort of told backward, almost. It starts with the present and Marianne and then we get some different points of view, as well as timelines in the 80s and even 50s. (I don't want to say more than that.) The portion in the 80s is still told by Marianne, but I really liked her younger voice and was caught up in what was happening by then. I was glad I had kept reading. Initially, the book had seemed a little confusing--a lot is made about the fact that something has happened in the past and yet we don't know what it is--and yes, keeping us in suspense is the point, but still. It was a little much at times.
There are some interesting twists and connections in this one. I enjoyed how it shone a spotlight on women's issues and mental health stories. It's always rather scary to see how women's mental health was treated in the past, though I suppose women's health isn't being treated with much more respect right now, is it?
The book was a tad repetitive at the end as the storyline wrapped back around to the present, but it was still pretty interesting. I wasn't always sure if I was reading a thriller, a character driven novel, or a treatment on mental health and women's issues: sometimes it seemed like the book was struggling to find itself and maybe the ending faltered a little bit because of that. Still, overall, I enjoyed this book. It became progressively more interesting, and the intersecting stories, especially the ones in the past, were very compelling. I enjoyed the focus on mental health, especially. I have Erin Kelly's He Said/She Said on my TBR shelf, and I'll definitely pick it up at some point. 3.5 stars.
This was my first Erin Kelly book; it was a different sort of thriller. First off, please note there is a trigger warning for self-harm and suicide.
The book started off slow, and honestly, this is why I have such a hard time with being able to DNF a book. I was tempted for a little while, because I couldn't get into Marianne's voice or story. But then, as the book progressed, things picked up, and I actually became pretty engrossed in the plot. The story is sort of told backward, almost. It starts with the present and Marianne and then we get some different points of view, as well as timelines in the 80s and even 50s. (I don't want to say more than that.) The portion in the 80s is still told by Marianne, but I really liked her younger voice and was caught up in what was happening by then. I was glad I had kept reading. Initially, the book had seemed a little confusing--a lot is made about the fact that something has happened in the past and yet we don't know what it is--and yes, keeping us in suspense is the point, but still. It was a little much at times.
There are some interesting twists and connections in this one. I enjoyed how it shone a spotlight on women's issues and mental health stories. It's always rather scary to see how women's mental health was treated in the past, though I suppose women's health isn't being treated with much more respect right now, is it?
The book was a tad repetitive at the end as the storyline wrapped back around to the present, but it was still pretty interesting. I wasn't always sure if I was reading a thriller, a character driven novel, or a treatment on mental health and women's issues: sometimes it seemed like the book was struggling to find itself and maybe the ending faltered a little bit because of that. Still, overall, I enjoyed this book. It became progressively more interesting, and the intersecting stories, especially the ones in the past, were very compelling. I enjoyed the focus on mental health, especially. I have Erin Kelly's He Said/She Said on my TBR shelf, and I'll definitely pick it up at some point. 3.5 stars.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Little Things (2021) in Movies
Jan 26, 2021
Academy Award Winners Denzel Washington, Jared Leto, and Remi Malik star in the new thriller “The Little Things” and combine to make very gripping and memorable performances.
The script was reportedly written over thirty years ago by John Lee Hancock who has gone on to write, direct, and produce multiple films of note in the decades since he first created the screenplay.
The film is set in 1990 and involves a cop named Joe Deacon (Denzel Washington), who travels from his small California town to Los Angeles to get information on a suspect.
Joe has a history in L.A as he used to be a homicide detective for the department which combined with his meltdown while obsessing over a murder case has caused him more than a bit of notoriety.
Jim Baxter (Remi Malik) is the hotshot new Detective who has been leading the investigation into a string of unsolved murders. Joe accompanies Jim to a new crime scene and notes some similarities with his unsolved case. Joe takes some personal days and begins to do some legwork on the case and reports his findings to Jim which causes Joe to remember aspects of what drove him to his marital, health, and career issues as he is unable and unwilling to let the case drop.
When a prime suspect no longer fits into the picture; suspicions fall on a crime enthusiast named Albert (Jared Leto) who seems to check all the boxes but is also taking delight in winding up Joe which causes Jim to question if he is a viable suspect or just an oddball who gets off on crimes and winding up the cops but does not actually commit any offenses.
As the delicate dance unfolds between the characters the fact that this is an era before Cell Phones, DNA tests, GPS, and elaborate computer networks helps underscore the plight of the officers. If the film was set in a modern setting much of the suspense and uncertainty of the story and characters would be moot thanks to technology.
As the game of cat and mouse unfolds between the characters Jim learns how a person can become obsessed with a case and Joe attempts to mentor him from the success and failures of his life which includes some gray areas.
Aside from the strong performances and engaging story what makes “The Little Things” work is that it is a film that does not take the Hollywood fallbacks of extended gunfights, car chases, and over the top action scenes. What it does show is real and flawed characters that are doing what they think are right and does not attempt to wrap things up nice and tidy.
The film uses the element of doubt to not only drive the story but the actions of the characters which underscores that an element of uncertainty exists in some investigations and in with the resources available to police at the time; things are not always certain.
The film will appear in cinemas and HBO Max and is a compelling and well-crafted thriller that is not to be missed.
4.5 stars out of 5
The script was reportedly written over thirty years ago by John Lee Hancock who has gone on to write, direct, and produce multiple films of note in the decades since he first created the screenplay.
The film is set in 1990 and involves a cop named Joe Deacon (Denzel Washington), who travels from his small California town to Los Angeles to get information on a suspect.
Joe has a history in L.A as he used to be a homicide detective for the department which combined with his meltdown while obsessing over a murder case has caused him more than a bit of notoriety.
Jim Baxter (Remi Malik) is the hotshot new Detective who has been leading the investigation into a string of unsolved murders. Joe accompanies Jim to a new crime scene and notes some similarities with his unsolved case. Joe takes some personal days and begins to do some legwork on the case and reports his findings to Jim which causes Joe to remember aspects of what drove him to his marital, health, and career issues as he is unable and unwilling to let the case drop.
When a prime suspect no longer fits into the picture; suspicions fall on a crime enthusiast named Albert (Jared Leto) who seems to check all the boxes but is also taking delight in winding up Joe which causes Jim to question if he is a viable suspect or just an oddball who gets off on crimes and winding up the cops but does not actually commit any offenses.
As the delicate dance unfolds between the characters the fact that this is an era before Cell Phones, DNA tests, GPS, and elaborate computer networks helps underscore the plight of the officers. If the film was set in a modern setting much of the suspense and uncertainty of the story and characters would be moot thanks to technology.
As the game of cat and mouse unfolds between the characters Jim learns how a person can become obsessed with a case and Joe attempts to mentor him from the success and failures of his life which includes some gray areas.
Aside from the strong performances and engaging story what makes “The Little Things” work is that it is a film that does not take the Hollywood fallbacks of extended gunfights, car chases, and over the top action scenes. What it does show is real and flawed characters that are doing what they think are right and does not attempt to wrap things up nice and tidy.
The film uses the element of doubt to not only drive the story but the actions of the characters which underscores that an element of uncertainty exists in some investigations and in with the resources available to police at the time; things are not always certain.
The film will appear in cinemas and HBO Max and is a compelling and well-crafted thriller that is not to be missed.
4.5 stars out of 5
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jack Reacher: Never Go Back (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
I’m a big fan of Tom Cruise. He is a real old-fashioned film star, generous with his fans on the red carpet and with real star power at the box office. And I can happily sit down in front of just about any one of his DVD’s time and time again and still enjoy it. Unlike many critics, I even enjoyed his last outing as Jack Reacher.
Unfortunately, and it pains me to say this but, his latest outing – “Jack Reacher: Never Go Back” – is a bit dull.
Lee Child’s Reacher has many years before turned his back on his military past and wanders the country as a drifter righting wrongs outside of the law. In this film, his military past again makes a major (“No, ex-Major”) intrusion into his life. Potential love interest Major Susan Turner (Colbie Smulders, from the “Avengers” world) is arrested on trumped-up espionage charges and Cruise sets out to clear her name. Along the way he accidentally (and rather too conveniently for the plot) discovers that a paternity suit has been filed against him and Reacher confronts the rebellious and light-fingered teenager Samantha (Danika Yarosh, aged 18 playing 15).
Unfortunately the big-cheeses involved in the international arms skulduggery are determined to tie up each and every loose end in their intrigue, and that includes Reacher, Turner and young Samantha by association. Needless to say, the villains – led by a one-man killing machine (Patrick Heusinger) – haven’t counted on Reacher’s ‘particular set of skills’.
My problem with the film (after an entertaining opening) is that the screenplay lumbers from standard thriller set-piece to standard thriller set-piece in a highly predictable way. It’s as if the scripts from 20 different films have been stuck in a blender. Shadowy arms dealing shenanigans: check; Cute teenager in peril: check; Gun fight on a dockside: check; Rooftop chase: check.
Are all the individual set-pieces decently done? Yes, sure. But the combination of these bits of action tapas really don’t add up to a satisfying meal. The story arc is almost non-existent as there is no suspense in the ‘investigation’: the plot is all pretty well laid out for you.
Where there is some fun to be had is in the play-off between the born-leader Reacher and the born-leader Turner, both trying to be top-dog in the decision making. The romantic connection between the leads seems almost plausible despite their 20 (TWENTY!) year age difference: this is more down to how incredibly good Cruise still looks at age 54 (damn him!). Turner makes a good female role-model right up to the point where there is a confrontation in a hotel room and Turner backs down: despite Cruise being the “hero” it would have been nice for female equality for this face-off to have gone the other way.
The director is Edward Zwick, who helmed Cruise’s more interesting movie “The Last Samurai”.
The trailer started off well and then progressed into general mediocrity. Unfortunately – for me at least – the film lived up to the trailer. Watchable, but not memorable.
Unfortunately, and it pains me to say this but, his latest outing – “Jack Reacher: Never Go Back” – is a bit dull.
Lee Child’s Reacher has many years before turned his back on his military past and wanders the country as a drifter righting wrongs outside of the law. In this film, his military past again makes a major (“No, ex-Major”) intrusion into his life. Potential love interest Major Susan Turner (Colbie Smulders, from the “Avengers” world) is arrested on trumped-up espionage charges and Cruise sets out to clear her name. Along the way he accidentally (and rather too conveniently for the plot) discovers that a paternity suit has been filed against him and Reacher confronts the rebellious and light-fingered teenager Samantha (Danika Yarosh, aged 18 playing 15).
Unfortunately the big-cheeses involved in the international arms skulduggery are determined to tie up each and every loose end in their intrigue, and that includes Reacher, Turner and young Samantha by association. Needless to say, the villains – led by a one-man killing machine (Patrick Heusinger) – haven’t counted on Reacher’s ‘particular set of skills’.
My problem with the film (after an entertaining opening) is that the screenplay lumbers from standard thriller set-piece to standard thriller set-piece in a highly predictable way. It’s as if the scripts from 20 different films have been stuck in a blender. Shadowy arms dealing shenanigans: check; Cute teenager in peril: check; Gun fight on a dockside: check; Rooftop chase: check.
Are all the individual set-pieces decently done? Yes, sure. But the combination of these bits of action tapas really don’t add up to a satisfying meal. The story arc is almost non-existent as there is no suspense in the ‘investigation’: the plot is all pretty well laid out for you.
Where there is some fun to be had is in the play-off between the born-leader Reacher and the born-leader Turner, both trying to be top-dog in the decision making. The romantic connection between the leads seems almost plausible despite their 20 (TWENTY!) year age difference: this is more down to how incredibly good Cruise still looks at age 54 (damn him!). Turner makes a good female role-model right up to the point where there is a confrontation in a hotel room and Turner backs down: despite Cruise being the “hero” it would have been nice for female equality for this face-off to have gone the other way.
The director is Edward Zwick, who helmed Cruise’s more interesting movie “The Last Samurai”.
The trailer started off well and then progressed into general mediocrity. Unfortunately – for me at least – the film lived up to the trailer. Watchable, but not memorable.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Hunter Killer (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
The Hunt for Red October. Crimson Tide. Das Boot. These are the some of the greatest submarine movies ever made. Hunter Killer is not on that list.
That’s not to say that this movie isn’t entertaining. Gerard Butler appears alongside a surprisingly well stocked cast including Academy award winner Gary Oldman, Emmy winner Michael Nyqvist, Common and Linda Cardellini to create a gripping experience that is high action and suspense throughout the entire film. But where it excels in action it falls short in story and character development.
The action begins right off the bat; and within 5 minutes of the opening credits two submarines are destroyed and the world is on the brink of World War 3. Commander Joe Glass (Butler), despite never having captained a submarine before, is field promoted into command of the USS Arkansas, considered a Hunter Killer submarine, and sent to investigate the missing subs. During the course of his investigation, he discovers that not all is what it seems. Meanwhile, Rear Admiral John Fisk (Common) and NSA Agent Jayne Norquist (Cardellini) are at the Pentagon with some issues of their own. Using a Navy Seal recon team, they’ve discovered that a Russian military coup is in progress and the only way to prevent a war is to rescue the captive Russian president. In the end, all three teams need to work together in order to steer the two countries away from being driven into a nuclear confrontation by a rogue Russian defense minister
To its credit, this movie is what it is. Pure, driven action with few breaks and absolutely no subplots or side stories. Despite there being three main teams within the film (the submarine, the recon team and the Pentagon team) all three are focused on the same objective and there is very little deviation from their respective missions. There’s no accompanying love story or unshown historical conflict between two characters. There’s not even much in terms of character development beyond the typical “old crew learns to trust new and unproven leader”. This is as close to a pure action movie as you’re going to get. Every single line, scene and character is used to further an explosion in some way or another.
This is the first big project for director Donovan Marsh who, prior to this, hasn’t had anything close to this quality of cast or this kind of budget. Hunter Killer has actually been tossed around the studios for a number of years with other notable directors including Tony Scott (Crimson Tide) and Antoine Fuqua (Training Day) previously attached to the script. While it would have been exciting to see what either of those two could have done with this film, Marsh does manage to keep things alive by maintaining that constant stream of action and suspense. Unfortunately, he doesn’t seem to be able to elevate the picture above that basic level. Despite an all-star cast who performed excellently, the movie remains essentially one-dimensional.
If you’re looking for a tense (Crimson Tide), intelligent (Hunt for Red October) submarine movie that looks a little more like a political thriller and a little less like an advertisement for the Navy, then this movie is not for you. However, if you’re in need of a bit more action and a lot less subtext, then Hunter Killer makes for a great night out full of explosions, amusing jokes and better acting than the dialogue really deserved.
That’s not to say that this movie isn’t entertaining. Gerard Butler appears alongside a surprisingly well stocked cast including Academy award winner Gary Oldman, Emmy winner Michael Nyqvist, Common and Linda Cardellini to create a gripping experience that is high action and suspense throughout the entire film. But where it excels in action it falls short in story and character development.
The action begins right off the bat; and within 5 minutes of the opening credits two submarines are destroyed and the world is on the brink of World War 3. Commander Joe Glass (Butler), despite never having captained a submarine before, is field promoted into command of the USS Arkansas, considered a Hunter Killer submarine, and sent to investigate the missing subs. During the course of his investigation, he discovers that not all is what it seems. Meanwhile, Rear Admiral John Fisk (Common) and NSA Agent Jayne Norquist (Cardellini) are at the Pentagon with some issues of their own. Using a Navy Seal recon team, they’ve discovered that a Russian military coup is in progress and the only way to prevent a war is to rescue the captive Russian president. In the end, all three teams need to work together in order to steer the two countries away from being driven into a nuclear confrontation by a rogue Russian defense minister
To its credit, this movie is what it is. Pure, driven action with few breaks and absolutely no subplots or side stories. Despite there being three main teams within the film (the submarine, the recon team and the Pentagon team) all three are focused on the same objective and there is very little deviation from their respective missions. There’s no accompanying love story or unshown historical conflict between two characters. There’s not even much in terms of character development beyond the typical “old crew learns to trust new and unproven leader”. This is as close to a pure action movie as you’re going to get. Every single line, scene and character is used to further an explosion in some way or another.
This is the first big project for director Donovan Marsh who, prior to this, hasn’t had anything close to this quality of cast or this kind of budget. Hunter Killer has actually been tossed around the studios for a number of years with other notable directors including Tony Scott (Crimson Tide) and Antoine Fuqua (Training Day) previously attached to the script. While it would have been exciting to see what either of those two could have done with this film, Marsh does manage to keep things alive by maintaining that constant stream of action and suspense. Unfortunately, he doesn’t seem to be able to elevate the picture above that basic level. Despite an all-star cast who performed excellently, the movie remains essentially one-dimensional.
If you’re looking for a tense (Crimson Tide), intelligent (Hunt for Red October) submarine movie that looks a little more like a political thriller and a little less like an advertisement for the Navy, then this movie is not for you. However, if you’re in need of a bit more action and a lot less subtext, then Hunter Killer makes for a great night out full of explosions, amusing jokes and better acting than the dialogue really deserved.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Arrangement in Books
Aug 5, 2019
Twenty-one-year-old Natalie gratefully escaped her small-town life in Washington state, including an obsessive ex-boyfriend who broke into her house when she told him she was leaving for art school in New York City. But now the glamorous life she dreamed of is anything but: even with a partial scholarship, she's struggling to pay her tuition and rent. So when her friend tells her of a possible solution--go online and find an older sugar daddy: a wealthy man who pays her for dates--Natalie is intrigued. She figures it is a temporary solution until she gets back on her feet. But then she meets Gabe Turnmill, a handsome lawyer, more than thirty years older her senior. Soon she's madly in love with Gabe, who gives her a monthly allowance and helps her find her own apartment. But Gabe has his own family and life, and when he ends things with Natalie, she's devastated, unable to let things go. She begins stalking Gabe and his family. Gabe is a powerful man, however, and he's not going to let his sugar baby ruin his life.
Wow, this book was utterly captivating! I totally loved HER PRETTY FACE, and I felt the same about this one! This novel starts out with Natalie calling her long-estranged father, who abandoned her family when she was ten. "I killed someone," she says. From there, we flash back four months, learning more about Natalie's life as an art student and how she winds up as a sugar baby. It's utterly fascinating--learning about this life and how Natalie becomes tied up in it. She's convinced she will only go on a couple of dates, but her life becomes a series of unfortunate incidents. Then she falls for Gabe.
"But this was not a real relationship. Gabe was paying her. Now, Nat was afraid of falling for a man she could never really have."
The characters in this book are spot-on. Talk about creepy, obsessive, and utter trainwrecks. These two are so messed up. And I loved them! I could not put this book down! I picked it up on Sunday afternoon and had to finish it Sunday night before I went to bed. I simply could not look away from Natalie and Gabe and their absolutely bizarre relationship.
"Gabe liked situations he could control, people he could manage."
This book is a crazy mix of thriller, mystery, and romantic suspense. It's really interesting to think that these sugar baby/daddy relationships actually exist (hopefully without some of the other insanity that occurs in this book). Harding does such a wonderful job with her main characters and their utterly twisted minds. The point of view switches between the two, and we hear from some of the supporting cast, too. It helps up the drama and suspense, for sure. New York City is a great backdrop for all that goes down. I sort of had an inkling how it would all play out near the end, but I definitely couldn't put the book down.
Overall, totally loved this one. Definitely one of my favorite thrillers this year--just a really fun, captivating book with a different storyline and awesome, crazy characters. 4.5 stars.
Wow, this book was utterly captivating! I totally loved HER PRETTY FACE, and I felt the same about this one! This novel starts out with Natalie calling her long-estranged father, who abandoned her family when she was ten. "I killed someone," she says. From there, we flash back four months, learning more about Natalie's life as an art student and how she winds up as a sugar baby. It's utterly fascinating--learning about this life and how Natalie becomes tied up in it. She's convinced she will only go on a couple of dates, but her life becomes a series of unfortunate incidents. Then she falls for Gabe.
"But this was not a real relationship. Gabe was paying her. Now, Nat was afraid of falling for a man she could never really have."
The characters in this book are spot-on. Talk about creepy, obsessive, and utter trainwrecks. These two are so messed up. And I loved them! I could not put this book down! I picked it up on Sunday afternoon and had to finish it Sunday night before I went to bed. I simply could not look away from Natalie and Gabe and their absolutely bizarre relationship.
"Gabe liked situations he could control, people he could manage."
This book is a crazy mix of thriller, mystery, and romantic suspense. It's really interesting to think that these sugar baby/daddy relationships actually exist (hopefully without some of the other insanity that occurs in this book). Harding does such a wonderful job with her main characters and their utterly twisted minds. The point of view switches between the two, and we hear from some of the supporting cast, too. It helps up the drama and suspense, for sure. New York City is a great backdrop for all that goes down. I sort of had an inkling how it would all play out near the end, but I definitely couldn't put the book down.
Overall, totally loved this one. Definitely one of my favorite thrillers this year--just a really fun, captivating book with a different storyline and awesome, crazy characters. 4.5 stars.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated A Quiet Place: Part II (2021) in Movies
Jun 3, 2021
A Good, Maybe Very Good, But Not Great Sequel
Did you enjoy the first A QUIET PLACE film? This horror/thriller from 2018 was unique in that it emphasized the suspense portion of the horror genre while relying, heavily, on sound (or the lack thereof).
The inevitable sequel picks up right where the first film ends, following the survivors of the first film as they make their way to a new “Quiet Place”…and, while not as unique as the first film, certainly holds its own as an entertainment and if you enjoyed the first one, you’ll enjoy this, the 2nd of what is promised to be a Trilogy.
Written and Directed by John Krasinski (who wrote and directed the first one) A QUIET PLACE PART II has an opening sequence (pre-credits) that is as good of an opening sequence as I have seen for quite some time (maybe all the way back to SAVING PRIVATE RYAN - it’s that good of an opening sequence). Again, Krasinski infuses sound (and the lack thereof) as he changes the focus of this opening scene from a deaf character (with the lack of sound) to non-deaf characters (with LOTS of sound). It is this juxtaposition of sound (and not sound) that makes an indelible impression. This opening scene is worth the price of admission all by itself.
And…that’s important… for the rest of the film is good, maybe even very good, but not great. Emily Blunt returns and is a formidable screen presence, but since this film focuses as much (if not more) on the 2 kids (Noah Jupe and Millicent Simmonds - more on them later), Blunt is relegated to a co-starring (and maybe a supporting) role, which is too little Emily Blunt in this film for my taste.
The always dependable Cillian Murphy is along for the ride this time around as a fellow survivor who has to work through some cowardice issues. While, at first, it looked like Murphy was putting in a “workmanlike, but unspectacular” performance, by the end of the film it becomes much, much better. A good, maybe even very good, but not great, performance.
As for the kids, Noah Jupe does a good, maybe even very good (but not great) performance, but that might be because Millicent Simmonds as the deaf child (she is a deaf actress herself) is REMARKABLE in her role - and this is needed for a large portion of this film follows her journey - and it is a journey worth watching. I hope this young actress gets a ton more work after these series of movies. I am going to be very interested in seeing her do other things.
Director Krasinski pulls many of the right levers in stringing out the audience - and the tension - throughout the film (though, as is often the case in these types of films, I wanted to yell at the screen a couple of times when characters did stupid things that you knew were gonna end up poorly for them). He, again, relies on suspense (and not gore) in scaring his audience and succeeds much more than he fails in this flim.
All-in-all, a movie that would be a wise choice to bring you back into the Cineplex. The (albeit small) crowd that saw the film in the theater I watched it in had more than 1 time where we all jumped and screamed together - and I realized that I had missed that.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The inevitable sequel picks up right where the first film ends, following the survivors of the first film as they make their way to a new “Quiet Place”…and, while not as unique as the first film, certainly holds its own as an entertainment and if you enjoyed the first one, you’ll enjoy this, the 2nd of what is promised to be a Trilogy.
Written and Directed by John Krasinski (who wrote and directed the first one) A QUIET PLACE PART II has an opening sequence (pre-credits) that is as good of an opening sequence as I have seen for quite some time (maybe all the way back to SAVING PRIVATE RYAN - it’s that good of an opening sequence). Again, Krasinski infuses sound (and the lack thereof) as he changes the focus of this opening scene from a deaf character (with the lack of sound) to non-deaf characters (with LOTS of sound). It is this juxtaposition of sound (and not sound) that makes an indelible impression. This opening scene is worth the price of admission all by itself.
And…that’s important… for the rest of the film is good, maybe even very good, but not great. Emily Blunt returns and is a formidable screen presence, but since this film focuses as much (if not more) on the 2 kids (Noah Jupe and Millicent Simmonds - more on them later), Blunt is relegated to a co-starring (and maybe a supporting) role, which is too little Emily Blunt in this film for my taste.
The always dependable Cillian Murphy is along for the ride this time around as a fellow survivor who has to work through some cowardice issues. While, at first, it looked like Murphy was putting in a “workmanlike, but unspectacular” performance, by the end of the film it becomes much, much better. A good, maybe even very good, but not great, performance.
As for the kids, Noah Jupe does a good, maybe even very good (but not great) performance, but that might be because Millicent Simmonds as the deaf child (she is a deaf actress herself) is REMARKABLE in her role - and this is needed for a large portion of this film follows her journey - and it is a journey worth watching. I hope this young actress gets a ton more work after these series of movies. I am going to be very interested in seeing her do other things.
Director Krasinski pulls many of the right levers in stringing out the audience - and the tension - throughout the film (though, as is often the case in these types of films, I wanted to yell at the screen a couple of times when characters did stupid things that you knew were gonna end up poorly for them). He, again, relies on suspense (and not gore) in scaring his audience and succeeds much more than he fails in this flim.
All-in-all, a movie that would be a wise choice to bring you back into the Cineplex. The (albeit small) crowd that saw the film in the theater I watched it in had more than 1 time where we all jumped and screamed together - and I realized that I had missed that.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Menu (2022) in Movies
Nov 24, 2022
Puts the DARK in Dark Comedy
If a Film Comedy is Milk Chocolate and a Dark Comedy is Dark Chocolate, then the new film THE MENU (Directed by Mark Mylod - Game of Thrones) is the SPECIAL INTENSE (90%) Dark Chocolate of films.
And I mean that as a compliment.
Written by Seth Reiss and Will Tracy, THE MENU tells the tale of an exclusive, isolated restaurant, the 12 clients that head out to the secluded island this restaurant is on and the ego-maniacal, celebrity chef that runs this restaurant - and this dining experience. What starts out as a satire of these types of restaurants, the chefs and the hero-worship of it’s clientele turns into something much, much more sinister.
This is a film in 2 parts - the first part is a satire of the “Foodie” World with the dishes being somewhat absurd - and believable - as the attendees gush over the dishes, trying to interpret what they are being served and why. The 2nd half turns darker - as the real theme of the night emerges - but it is not the horror/slasher film that one is led to believe in the trailer, it is more of a psychological suspense thriller with some gore to accentuate the themes. (But make no mistake, there IS gore).
Ralph Fiennes (Voldemort in the Harry Potter films) is the perfect choice as the central figure in this film, Chef Slowik. He controls the screen by standing still and when he speaks and goes into action he pulls the audience - and his clientele - into his web.
Anya Tayor-Joy (THE QUEEN’S GAMBIT) is growing into an actress that is extremely interesting to watch on film and she more than holds her own up against Fiennes in their scenes together. She becomes just as much a force as he is.
The supporting characters in this adventure are interesting ranging from the always good John Leguzamo to Judith Light to Nicholas Hoult and Janet McTeer. They all flesh out characters that could have been just 2 dimensional background characters, but in the capable hands of these performers, they become much more.
Special notice needs to be made of Hong Chau (DOWNSIZING) as Chef Slowik’s main assistant. She pretty much holds down the center of the first part of this film (as we build up the entrance of Fiennes’ character) and she pulls it off with an understated strong performance.
Director Mylod treads an interesting line in THE MENU as he starts this film as a satire, moves it to a dark comedy fairly quickly and then moves it to a much darker place while still keeping the satiric and dark comedic tones as the more sinister things are happening. It’s a tightrope walk to be sure, and Mylod pulls it off.
It’s the type of film that will be difficult to find an audience for it is 2 types of films put together as one - and neither will totally satisfy hard-core fans - but for someone who is looking for an intelligent suspense film (with some gore and, again, let me emphasize that there IS gore) than this MENU will satisfy.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And I mean that as a compliment.
Written by Seth Reiss and Will Tracy, THE MENU tells the tale of an exclusive, isolated restaurant, the 12 clients that head out to the secluded island this restaurant is on and the ego-maniacal, celebrity chef that runs this restaurant - and this dining experience. What starts out as a satire of these types of restaurants, the chefs and the hero-worship of it’s clientele turns into something much, much more sinister.
This is a film in 2 parts - the first part is a satire of the “Foodie” World with the dishes being somewhat absurd - and believable - as the attendees gush over the dishes, trying to interpret what they are being served and why. The 2nd half turns darker - as the real theme of the night emerges - but it is not the horror/slasher film that one is led to believe in the trailer, it is more of a psychological suspense thriller with some gore to accentuate the themes. (But make no mistake, there IS gore).
Ralph Fiennes (Voldemort in the Harry Potter films) is the perfect choice as the central figure in this film, Chef Slowik. He controls the screen by standing still and when he speaks and goes into action he pulls the audience - and his clientele - into his web.
Anya Tayor-Joy (THE QUEEN’S GAMBIT) is growing into an actress that is extremely interesting to watch on film and she more than holds her own up against Fiennes in their scenes together. She becomes just as much a force as he is.
The supporting characters in this adventure are interesting ranging from the always good John Leguzamo to Judith Light to Nicholas Hoult and Janet McTeer. They all flesh out characters that could have been just 2 dimensional background characters, but in the capable hands of these performers, they become much more.
Special notice needs to be made of Hong Chau (DOWNSIZING) as Chef Slowik’s main assistant. She pretty much holds down the center of the first part of this film (as we build up the entrance of Fiennes’ character) and she pulls it off with an understated strong performance.
Director Mylod treads an interesting line in THE MENU as he starts this film as a satire, moves it to a dark comedy fairly quickly and then moves it to a much darker place while still keeping the satiric and dark comedic tones as the more sinister things are happening. It’s a tightrope walk to be sure, and Mylod pulls it off.
It’s the type of film that will be difficult to find an audience for it is 2 types of films put together as one - and neither will totally satisfy hard-core fans - but for someone who is looking for an intelligent suspense film (with some gore and, again, let me emphasize that there IS gore) than this MENU will satisfy.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Hazel (1853 KP) Jun 13, 2017
Suswatibasu (1701 KP) Aug 21, 2017