Search
Search results
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Poison Orchids in Books
May 4, 2020
As soon as I read the synopsis for Poison Orchids by Sarah A. Denzil and Anni Taylor, I was hooked. This sounded like something I could really sink my teeth right into. I'm a big fan of psychological thrillers, and this one did not disappoint.
Gemma and Hayley end up working on a mango farm for the very rich and very handsome Tate LLewellyn. Everything seems perfect for them...a place to live, a steady income, fun times, and a sense of belonging. However, when Gemma and Hayley end up running out in the middle of the road away from an attacker, their memories start getting foggy. Each girl tells the detectives a different story yet both don't add up. With time running out for Gemma and Hayley, the police must figure out what the real truth is if they want to save the girls.
I found the plot for Poison Orchids to be very interesting. The whole memory thing has been done before, but I felt like Denzil and Taylor gave it an original spin that kept me glued to the book. Yes, there are some parts of the plot that are a little over the top and a bit unbelievable, but even so, the plot holds its own. Despite some of the outrageous scenes, this book held my unwavering attention with its perfect pacing. I found myself wanting to know what would happen next. I found that I couldn't trust anyone (with the exception of the police) in Poison Orchids. It was as if the thrills were never ending throughout this book! While you know almost from the beginning who the baddie is, there are plenty of plot twists throughout that will leave you thinking about them long after you finish the book. However, there are no cliff hangers, and it seemed that all loose ends were tied up by the end of the book.
The characters were well fleshed out and solid. I loved both Gemma and Hayley. Sometimes I would love one more than the other, but in the end, I realized I loved them both equally. I could somewhat relate to both of them.Tate and Rodney were both written very well although I would have liked a bit more backstory on Rodney. Megan, the psychologist, was an interesting character. I enjoyed getting to know her a bit better later on in the book. What I really admired was how much she cared about Gemma and Hayley. Bronwen, the detective on the case, was a no-nonsense type of woman, and I admired that about her. She wanted answers, and she was determined to get them. Even the secondary characters all felt very realistic. I could actually picture each and every character quite easily as I was reading Poison Orchids.
Trigger warnings for Poison Orchids include profanity, alcohol use, drug use, violence, death, murder, attempted suicide, rape, assault, brainwashing, gaslighting, and cults.
All in all, Poison Orchids makes for a thrilling read that will leave you thinking about it long after you've finished reading. It's got fantastic characters and an interesting plot for sure. I would definitely recommend Poison Orchids by Sarah A. Denzil and Anni Taylor to those aged 17+ who are after a great read!
Gemma and Hayley end up working on a mango farm for the very rich and very handsome Tate LLewellyn. Everything seems perfect for them...a place to live, a steady income, fun times, and a sense of belonging. However, when Gemma and Hayley end up running out in the middle of the road away from an attacker, their memories start getting foggy. Each girl tells the detectives a different story yet both don't add up. With time running out for Gemma and Hayley, the police must figure out what the real truth is if they want to save the girls.
I found the plot for Poison Orchids to be very interesting. The whole memory thing has been done before, but I felt like Denzil and Taylor gave it an original spin that kept me glued to the book. Yes, there are some parts of the plot that are a little over the top and a bit unbelievable, but even so, the plot holds its own. Despite some of the outrageous scenes, this book held my unwavering attention with its perfect pacing. I found myself wanting to know what would happen next. I found that I couldn't trust anyone (with the exception of the police) in Poison Orchids. It was as if the thrills were never ending throughout this book! While you know almost from the beginning who the baddie is, there are plenty of plot twists throughout that will leave you thinking about them long after you finish the book. However, there are no cliff hangers, and it seemed that all loose ends were tied up by the end of the book.
The characters were well fleshed out and solid. I loved both Gemma and Hayley. Sometimes I would love one more than the other, but in the end, I realized I loved them both equally. I could somewhat relate to both of them.Tate and Rodney were both written very well although I would have liked a bit more backstory on Rodney. Megan, the psychologist, was an interesting character. I enjoyed getting to know her a bit better later on in the book. What I really admired was how much she cared about Gemma and Hayley. Bronwen, the detective on the case, was a no-nonsense type of woman, and I admired that about her. She wanted answers, and she was determined to get them. Even the secondary characters all felt very realistic. I could actually picture each and every character quite easily as I was reading Poison Orchids.
Trigger warnings for Poison Orchids include profanity, alcohol use, drug use, violence, death, murder, attempted suicide, rape, assault, brainwashing, gaslighting, and cults.
All in all, Poison Orchids makes for a thrilling read that will leave you thinking about it long after you've finished reading. It's got fantastic characters and an interesting plot for sure. I would definitely recommend Poison Orchids by Sarah A. Denzil and Anni Taylor to those aged 17+ who are after a great read!
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Girl on the Train (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A Victim of its marketing
It’s always refreshing to see a film released primarily for the adult market. We all loved The Hunger Games, but imagine what the series could’ve been like had the franchise been given a 15 or even an 18 certification.
And Fifty Shades of Grey may have its critics (me being one of them) but at least it appealed to those of us not interested in sharing cinema screens with rambling tweens. The finest of the adult genre? Well, that has to be Gone Girl. But now there’s a new kid on the block, ready to steal its crown. Is The Girl on the Train a worthy adversary?
Alcoholic Rachel Watson (Emily Blunt) catches daily glimpses of a seemingly perfect couple, Scott (Luke Evans) and Megan (Haley Bennett), from the window of her train. One day, Watson witnesses something shocking unfold in the garden of the strangers’ home. Rachel tells the authorities what she thinks she saw after learning Megan is missing. Unable to trust her memory, the troubled woman begins her own investigation, while police suspect that Rachel may have crossed a dangerous line.
Emily Blunt has become one of Hollywood’s finest actors, constantly adding new genres to her resume. From The Devil Wears Prada to Sicario and beyond, there is nothing she won’t try and The Girl on the Train is bolstered by a career-best performance by the actress. It’s never easy to play a drunk convincingly; you can look to some UK soap operas for proof of that, but she manages to pull it off exceptionally well.
Of the supporting cast, only Justin Theroux makes a lasting impact as Rachel’s ex-husband Tom, now living with his new wife Anna – a lacklustre Rebecca Ferguson. It would be unfair to sling too much mud at a very talented group of actors, but up against Blunt, there really is no comparison.
Elsewhere, the complex narrative of Paula Hawkins’ book translates to a rather messy filming style when viewed on the big screen. Continuous flashbacks from within Rachel’s mind are handled reasonably well by director Tate Taylor (The Help) and he manages to wrench everything together to stop the plot from becoming incoherent.
Unfortunately, The Girl on the Train is a victim of its own intense marketing campaign. The trailers have given away far too much for those who haven’t read the book and whilst the twists and turns aren’t immediately obvious, some of the Cluedo-esque fun has been removed. It’s clear Dreamworks wanted the film to resemble Gone Girl as much as possible, aiming to attract a similar audience, but this may have backfired slightly.
Overall, The Girl on the Train is a particularly faithful adaptation of the novel of the same name, held up by an intense and frankly incredible performance by Emily Blunt. Unfortunately, some of the film’s suspense has been lost by a poorly executed marketing campaign and as such it becomes a passable addition to the adult thriller genre. This year’s Gone Girl it is not.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/10/06/a-victim-of-its-marketing-the-girl-on-the-train-review/
And Fifty Shades of Grey may have its critics (me being one of them) but at least it appealed to those of us not interested in sharing cinema screens with rambling tweens. The finest of the adult genre? Well, that has to be Gone Girl. But now there’s a new kid on the block, ready to steal its crown. Is The Girl on the Train a worthy adversary?
Alcoholic Rachel Watson (Emily Blunt) catches daily glimpses of a seemingly perfect couple, Scott (Luke Evans) and Megan (Haley Bennett), from the window of her train. One day, Watson witnesses something shocking unfold in the garden of the strangers’ home. Rachel tells the authorities what she thinks she saw after learning Megan is missing. Unable to trust her memory, the troubled woman begins her own investigation, while police suspect that Rachel may have crossed a dangerous line.
Emily Blunt has become one of Hollywood’s finest actors, constantly adding new genres to her resume. From The Devil Wears Prada to Sicario and beyond, there is nothing she won’t try and The Girl on the Train is bolstered by a career-best performance by the actress. It’s never easy to play a drunk convincingly; you can look to some UK soap operas for proof of that, but she manages to pull it off exceptionally well.
Of the supporting cast, only Justin Theroux makes a lasting impact as Rachel’s ex-husband Tom, now living with his new wife Anna – a lacklustre Rebecca Ferguson. It would be unfair to sling too much mud at a very talented group of actors, but up against Blunt, there really is no comparison.
Elsewhere, the complex narrative of Paula Hawkins’ book translates to a rather messy filming style when viewed on the big screen. Continuous flashbacks from within Rachel’s mind are handled reasonably well by director Tate Taylor (The Help) and he manages to wrench everything together to stop the plot from becoming incoherent.
Unfortunately, The Girl on the Train is a victim of its own intense marketing campaign. The trailers have given away far too much for those who haven’t read the book and whilst the twists and turns aren’t immediately obvious, some of the Cluedo-esque fun has been removed. It’s clear Dreamworks wanted the film to resemble Gone Girl as much as possible, aiming to attract a similar audience, but this may have backfired slightly.
Overall, The Girl on the Train is a particularly faithful adaptation of the novel of the same name, held up by an intense and frankly incredible performance by Emily Blunt. Unfortunately, some of the film’s suspense has been lost by a poorly executed marketing campaign and as such it becomes a passable addition to the adult thriller genre. This year’s Gone Girl it is not.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/10/06/a-victim-of-its-marketing-the-girl-on-the-train-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ava (2020) in Movies
Oct 8, 2020
Great mother/daughter scene in the middle of a generic assassin flick
To give you everything you need to know about the Jessica Chastain assassin flick AVA is to read the IMDB description of the film:
"Ava is a deadly assassin who works for a black ops organization, traveling the globe specializing in high profile hits. When a job goes dangerously wrong she is forced to fight for her own survival."
Pretty generic, right? There are only about a dozen films that I can think of off the top of my head that would fit this description. So...what separates this one to make it worth watching?
Not much.
Chastain stars as Ava, a deadly assassin who...oh, you get it. When the "job goes dangerously wrong", she heads back to Boston and into the arms of her loving family - who want nothing to do with her.
Chastain is good, but nothing special as Ava...she seems to be able to pull off the physicality of this role quite well (like Jennifer Lawrence in RED SPARROW or Charlize Theron in ATOMIC BLONDE). The head of the shadowy organization that Ava works, played by Collin Farrell, is generically shadowy and Farrell plays it professionally with a touch of "over the top" acting (but not too much). The great John Malkovich is a spark of energy in this film as Ava's mentor. Mr. Malkovich, as is his want to do, eats the scenery in every scene that he is in. Under normal circumstances, this would annoying, but in this film, it is welcome. Ioan Gruffudd and Joan Chen show up (briefly) as adversaries of Ava and all of these components makes the "assassin side" of this film work well enough.
The "family side' of this film just doesn't work - except for one scene.
Common is just plain bad in the underwritten role of Ava's former lover who is now married to her sister. Jess Wexler is forgettable as Ava's sister (I even had to look her up on IMDB to remind me of who played this role) and Geena Davis - as Ava's estranged mother - looks like she is just there because she owed someone a favor.
Except for one scene.
And that's the interesting thing about this film. Right in the middle of this very generic, very ordinary film is a "come to Jesus" meeting between Ava (Chastain) and her mother (Davis). This scene was "Oscar worthy" with 2 very good actresses going back and forth with each other (with Davis dominating the scene). I gotta think that this scene was the only one Davis read when she agreed to do this film and was pouting during her other, generic scenes.
Director Tate Taylor (who took over when the original Director was bounced when past sexual indiscretions were unearthed) and writer Matthew Newton bring nothing new to the genre. It is all very...generic. The action scenes are professionally done, but generic. The situations are contrived and...generic. The acting is...scenery chewing generic. The ending is predictably generic.
All-in-all an "entertaining enough" generic action flick - except for that one scene (and maybe Malkovich's performance), they make it worthwhile.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10 - it really is a "5", but will add a point for Malkovich and another point for the mother daughter scene). - and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
"Ava is a deadly assassin who works for a black ops organization, traveling the globe specializing in high profile hits. When a job goes dangerously wrong she is forced to fight for her own survival."
Pretty generic, right? There are only about a dozen films that I can think of off the top of my head that would fit this description. So...what separates this one to make it worth watching?
Not much.
Chastain stars as Ava, a deadly assassin who...oh, you get it. When the "job goes dangerously wrong", she heads back to Boston and into the arms of her loving family - who want nothing to do with her.
Chastain is good, but nothing special as Ava...she seems to be able to pull off the physicality of this role quite well (like Jennifer Lawrence in RED SPARROW or Charlize Theron in ATOMIC BLONDE). The head of the shadowy organization that Ava works, played by Collin Farrell, is generically shadowy and Farrell plays it professionally with a touch of "over the top" acting (but not too much). The great John Malkovich is a spark of energy in this film as Ava's mentor. Mr. Malkovich, as is his want to do, eats the scenery in every scene that he is in. Under normal circumstances, this would annoying, but in this film, it is welcome. Ioan Gruffudd and Joan Chen show up (briefly) as adversaries of Ava and all of these components makes the "assassin side" of this film work well enough.
The "family side' of this film just doesn't work - except for one scene.
Common is just plain bad in the underwritten role of Ava's former lover who is now married to her sister. Jess Wexler is forgettable as Ava's sister (I even had to look her up on IMDB to remind me of who played this role) and Geena Davis - as Ava's estranged mother - looks like she is just there because she owed someone a favor.
Except for one scene.
And that's the interesting thing about this film. Right in the middle of this very generic, very ordinary film is a "come to Jesus" meeting between Ava (Chastain) and her mother (Davis). This scene was "Oscar worthy" with 2 very good actresses going back and forth with each other (with Davis dominating the scene). I gotta think that this scene was the only one Davis read when she agreed to do this film and was pouting during her other, generic scenes.
Director Tate Taylor (who took over when the original Director was bounced when past sexual indiscretions were unearthed) and writer Matthew Newton bring nothing new to the genre. It is all very...generic. The action scenes are professionally done, but generic. The situations are contrived and...generic. The acting is...scenery chewing generic. The ending is predictably generic.
All-in-all an "entertaining enough" generic action flick - except for that one scene (and maybe Malkovich's performance), they make it worthwhile.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10 - it really is a "5", but will add a point for Malkovich and another point for the mother daughter scene). - and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Apartment (1960) in Movies
May 11, 2018
A true classic in every sense of the word
My local cinema does "Secret Movie Night" once a month, you just show up and watch a "classic" of their choosing, you just don't know what it is until it starts.
One of the reasons that I enjoy this is that I end up viewing films that I might not, otherwise, choose to watch. Case in point is the selection for May - the 1960 Oscar winner for Best Picture, THE APARTMENT - a "love story" with some comedy and some dark dramatic moments and themes. A very tricky combination of items that are bundled together, brilliantly, by a master of the craft.
THE APARTMENT tells the story of nebbish office worker C.C. Baxter (Jack Lemmon in an Oscar nominated performance, more on that later) who is talked into lending his apartment to higher-ups in his company so they can carry out extra-marital affairs. When one of the affairs goes wrong, Baxter is forced to "clean up the mess".
Written and Directed by the GREAT Billy WIlder (SOME LIKE IT HOT, SUNSET BOULEVARD), The Apartment is more than a love story, more than a look into the vacuous lives of those anonymous office workers, it is a look into the lives of those who are victims of abuse of power. Wilder, rightfully so, won the Oscar for Best Director and Best Screenplay for this film. The Apartment is strongly written and directed not flinching at the deep subject matter while also balancing things out with moments of comedy and joy, turning what could have been a dour, dark subject into a more joyous exploration of true humanity and love rising through the corruption and abuse of power heaped upon them.
In the lead role of CC Baxter, Lemmon is perfectly cast. Starting as a pure comedic character who is set upon by a world too strong for him, his character slowly turns sharper, deeper, more serious and more real as the film progresses. Lemmon was nominated for the Oscar for his performance - and rightfully so. I had to look up who beat him out for the statue and found out it was Burt Lancaster's powerhouse performance in ELMER GANTRY, so I can't really argue about this (but I digress).
Matching Lemmon beat for beat is Shirley MacLaine, the wronged girl who's "issues" (I'm not going to spoil what happens, if you haven't seen this) are at the heart of this film - and at the heart of Lemmon's character. MacLaine is charming and tragic in this role and she, too, was nominated for an Oscar (for Best Actress losing to Elizabeth Taylor for Butterfield 8). Rounding out the cast was a pre-MY 3 SONS Fred MacMurray (as the Exec who abuses both Lemmon's and MacLaine's characters). He was terrific as this cad, and thought for sure that he would have been nominated for Best Supporting Actor, but that honor went to Jack Kruschen as Lemmon's neighbor in the apartment building where they both lived. I am fine with that but preferred MacMurray's performance. Also showing up are such great character actors as Ray Walston (MY FAVORITE MARTIAN), David Lewis (GENERAL HOSPITAL), Willard Waterman (THE GREAT GILDERSLEEVE) and David White (Larry Tate in BEWITCHED) as other Execs using The Apartment for their purposes.
This is a terrific motion picture and if you haven't seen it (or if you haven't seen it in quite sometime), I highly recommend you check it out (it is shown on the Turner Classic Movie channel on a fairly regular basis). It certainly shows a slice of life during the MAD MEN days that just doesn't exist anymore - and also presents a type of film, and a type of filmmaker, that just doesn't exist today.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
One of the reasons that I enjoy this is that I end up viewing films that I might not, otherwise, choose to watch. Case in point is the selection for May - the 1960 Oscar winner for Best Picture, THE APARTMENT - a "love story" with some comedy and some dark dramatic moments and themes. A very tricky combination of items that are bundled together, brilliantly, by a master of the craft.
THE APARTMENT tells the story of nebbish office worker C.C. Baxter (Jack Lemmon in an Oscar nominated performance, more on that later) who is talked into lending his apartment to higher-ups in his company so they can carry out extra-marital affairs. When one of the affairs goes wrong, Baxter is forced to "clean up the mess".
Written and Directed by the GREAT Billy WIlder (SOME LIKE IT HOT, SUNSET BOULEVARD), The Apartment is more than a love story, more than a look into the vacuous lives of those anonymous office workers, it is a look into the lives of those who are victims of abuse of power. Wilder, rightfully so, won the Oscar for Best Director and Best Screenplay for this film. The Apartment is strongly written and directed not flinching at the deep subject matter while also balancing things out with moments of comedy and joy, turning what could have been a dour, dark subject into a more joyous exploration of true humanity and love rising through the corruption and abuse of power heaped upon them.
In the lead role of CC Baxter, Lemmon is perfectly cast. Starting as a pure comedic character who is set upon by a world too strong for him, his character slowly turns sharper, deeper, more serious and more real as the film progresses. Lemmon was nominated for the Oscar for his performance - and rightfully so. I had to look up who beat him out for the statue and found out it was Burt Lancaster's powerhouse performance in ELMER GANTRY, so I can't really argue about this (but I digress).
Matching Lemmon beat for beat is Shirley MacLaine, the wronged girl who's "issues" (I'm not going to spoil what happens, if you haven't seen this) are at the heart of this film - and at the heart of Lemmon's character. MacLaine is charming and tragic in this role and she, too, was nominated for an Oscar (for Best Actress losing to Elizabeth Taylor for Butterfield 8). Rounding out the cast was a pre-MY 3 SONS Fred MacMurray (as the Exec who abuses both Lemmon's and MacLaine's characters). He was terrific as this cad, and thought for sure that he would have been nominated for Best Supporting Actor, but that honor went to Jack Kruschen as Lemmon's neighbor in the apartment building where they both lived. I am fine with that but preferred MacMurray's performance. Also showing up are such great character actors as Ray Walston (MY FAVORITE MARTIAN), David Lewis (GENERAL HOSPITAL), Willard Waterman (THE GREAT GILDERSLEEVE) and David White (Larry Tate in BEWITCHED) as other Execs using The Apartment for their purposes.
This is a terrific motion picture and if you haven't seen it (or if you haven't seen it in quite sometime), I highly recommend you check it out (it is shown on the Turner Classic Movie channel on a fairly regular basis). It certainly shows a slice of life during the MAD MEN days that just doesn't exist anymore - and also presents a type of film, and a type of filmmaker, that just doesn't exist today.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Ava (2020) in Movies
Jan 5, 2021
Dull and unoriginal
Ava is a 2020 spy action thriller directed by Tate Taylor and starring Jessica Chastain. It follows Ava (Chastain), an assassin working for a shadowy organisation who soon becomes hunted by her own, led by the mysterious Simon (Colin Farrell). Between missions and death threats, Ava is aided by her handler Duke (John Malkovich) while she attempts to resolve some long held family issues with her mother (Geena Davis), sister (Jess Weixler) and ex (Common).
From the outset, Ava appears to be like your typical female assassin style film – a loud, stylish electro/techno soundtrack overlaying an assassination featuring wigs, stylish clothes and cars and every other spy cliché you’d come to expect from a film like this. The only truly original and enjoyable thing in this opening scene is Ioan Gruffudd’s shady businessman, who looks like he’s having a whale of a time relishing playing a bad guy for a change. However what you don’t see coming with Ava after this initial scene is that instead of being a full on action film, it turns into a family melodrama with a few fight scenes thrown in almost as an afterthought.
Ava is a characterless film full of clichés, and lacking in any personality whatsoever. The spy and action elements, when we eventually see them that is, are entirely unoriginal and have been done so much better in any other spy film you could think of. The fight scenes are surprisingly dull and the camera work only results in highlighting how staged and choreographed the scenes are, they just don’t look real. It isn’t helped by all of the family drama either, with a large number of conversational dialogue scenes taking over the majority of the short but feels so long run time. It wouldn’t be too bad if these were scripted well but I’m afraid like everything else in this film, the script is lacklustre and clichéd.
Character development is poor and banal too, with the majority of the spy related characters lacking in any form of personality or likability. Ava herself is the worst, she reminded me of a personality-less robot who has no depth or emotions, no matter how much the opening credits scene or family interactions try to tell us otherwise. This film has really done it’s stellar cast a huge injustice and gives them absolutely nothing to work with.
Even the plot suffers from a complete absence of originality and seems to have been kept as vague as possible, whether on purpose or because the writers just couldn’t be bothered I’m not sure. The shadowy organisation that Ava, Duke and Simon all work for is never identified or discussed in any real detail. All we learn about them is that they employ assassins to make hits on possibly shady people, with no further elaboration on why or what these people have done wrong, which Ava herself seems fascinated about as we see her questioning her victims as they’re about to die. I’m all for creating a mysterious atmosphere giving away just enough to keep us intrigued, but I’m afraid this doesn’t work for Ava as it just comes across as lazy and complacent with sloppy writing.
I couldn’t help but compare Ava to Atomic Blonde, another female led assassin film that is worlds apart from this. Ava is lacking in everything that made Atomic Blonde - a fun watch, with style, substance and some brutal (but well executed) fight scenes - and I really wish Ava had followed the same formula as at least this would have made it watchable. As it is, it’s a completely dull and clichéd spy film lacking in pretty much everything.
From the outset, Ava appears to be like your typical female assassin style film – a loud, stylish electro/techno soundtrack overlaying an assassination featuring wigs, stylish clothes and cars and every other spy cliché you’d come to expect from a film like this. The only truly original and enjoyable thing in this opening scene is Ioan Gruffudd’s shady businessman, who looks like he’s having a whale of a time relishing playing a bad guy for a change. However what you don’t see coming with Ava after this initial scene is that instead of being a full on action film, it turns into a family melodrama with a few fight scenes thrown in almost as an afterthought.
Ava is a characterless film full of clichés, and lacking in any personality whatsoever. The spy and action elements, when we eventually see them that is, are entirely unoriginal and have been done so much better in any other spy film you could think of. The fight scenes are surprisingly dull and the camera work only results in highlighting how staged and choreographed the scenes are, they just don’t look real. It isn’t helped by all of the family drama either, with a large number of conversational dialogue scenes taking over the majority of the short but feels so long run time. It wouldn’t be too bad if these were scripted well but I’m afraid like everything else in this film, the script is lacklustre and clichéd.
Character development is poor and banal too, with the majority of the spy related characters lacking in any form of personality or likability. Ava herself is the worst, she reminded me of a personality-less robot who has no depth or emotions, no matter how much the opening credits scene or family interactions try to tell us otherwise. This film has really done it’s stellar cast a huge injustice and gives them absolutely nothing to work with.
Even the plot suffers from a complete absence of originality and seems to have been kept as vague as possible, whether on purpose or because the writers just couldn’t be bothered I’m not sure. The shadowy organisation that Ava, Duke and Simon all work for is never identified or discussed in any real detail. All we learn about them is that they employ assassins to make hits on possibly shady people, with no further elaboration on why or what these people have done wrong, which Ava herself seems fascinated about as we see her questioning her victims as they’re about to die. I’m all for creating a mysterious atmosphere giving away just enough to keep us intrigued, but I’m afraid this doesn’t work for Ava as it just comes across as lazy and complacent with sloppy writing.
I couldn’t help but compare Ava to Atomic Blonde, another female led assassin film that is worlds apart from this. Ava is lacking in everything that made Atomic Blonde - a fun watch, with style, substance and some brutal (but well executed) fight scenes - and I really wish Ava had followed the same formula as at least this would have made it watchable. As it is, it’s a completely dull and clichéd spy film lacking in pretty much everything.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Girl on the Train (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
You won’t uncork a bottle of Malbec again without thinking of this film…
“The Girl on a Train” is the film adaptation of the best-seller by Paula Hawkins, transported from the London suburbs to New York’s Hastings-on-Hudson.
It’s actually rather a sordid story encompassing as it does alcoholism, murder, marital strife, deceit, sexual frustration, an historical tragedy and lashings and lashings of violence. Emily Blunt (“Sicario”, “Edge of Tomorrow”) plays Rachel, a divorcee with an alcohol problem who escapes into an obsessive fantasy each day as she passes her former neighbourhood on her commute into the city. Ex-husband Tom (Justin Theroux, “Zoolander 2”) lives in her old house with his second wife Anna (Rebecca “MI:5” Ferguson) and new baby Evie. But her real fantasy rests with cheerleader-style young neighbour Megan (Haley Bennett) who is actually locked in a frustratingly child-free marriage (frustrating for him at least) with the controlling and unpredictable Scott (Luke Evans, “The Hobbit”). A sixth party in this complex network is Megan’s psychiatrist Dr Kamal Abdic (Édgar Ramírez, “Joy”).
In pure Hitchcockian style Megan witnesses mere glimpses of events from her twice-daily train and from these pieces together stories that suitably feed her psychosis. When ‘shit gets real’ and a key character goes missing, Megan surfaces her suspicions and obsessions to the police investigation (led by Detective Riley, the ever-excellent Allison Janney from “The West Wing”) and promptly makes herself suspect number one.
Readers of the book will already be aware of the twists and turns of the story, so will watch the film from a different perspective than I did. (Despite my best intentions I never managed to read the book first).
First up, you would have to say that Emily Blunt’s performance is outstanding in an extremely challenging acting role. Every nuance of shame, confusion, grief, fear, doubt and anger is beautifully enacted: it would not be a surprise to see her gain her first Oscar nomination for this. All the other lead roles are also delivered with great professionalism, with Haley Bennett (a busy month for her, with “The Magnificent Seven” also out) being impressive and Rebecca Ferguson, one of my favourite current actresses, delivering another measured and delicate performance.
Girl on a Train, The
Rebecca Ferguson as Anna – “there were three of us in this marriage so it was a bit crowded”
The supporting roles are also effective, with Darren Goldstein as the somewhat creepy “man in the suit” and “Friends” star Lisa Kudrow popping up in an effective and pivotal role. The Screen Guild Awards have an excellent category for an Ensemble Cast in a Motion Picture, and it feels appropriate to nominate this cast for that award.
So it’s a blockbuster book with a rollercoaster story and a stellar cast, so what could go wrong? Well, something for sure. This is a case in point where I suspect it is easier to slowly peel back Rachel’s lost memory with pages and imagination than it is with dodgy fuzzy images on a big screen. Although the film comes in at only 112 minutes, the pacing in places is too slow (the screenplay by Erin Cressida Wilson takes its time) and director Tate Taylor (“The Help”) is no Hitchcock, or indeed a David Fincher (since the film has strong similarities to last year’s “Gone Girl”: when the action does happen it lacks style, with the violence being on the brutal side and leaving little to the imagination.
It’s by no means a bad film, and worth seeing for the acting performances alone. But it’s not a film I think that will trouble my top 10 for the year.
It’s actually rather a sordid story encompassing as it does alcoholism, murder, marital strife, deceit, sexual frustration, an historical tragedy and lashings and lashings of violence. Emily Blunt (“Sicario”, “Edge of Tomorrow”) plays Rachel, a divorcee with an alcohol problem who escapes into an obsessive fantasy each day as she passes her former neighbourhood on her commute into the city. Ex-husband Tom (Justin Theroux, “Zoolander 2”) lives in her old house with his second wife Anna (Rebecca “MI:5” Ferguson) and new baby Evie. But her real fantasy rests with cheerleader-style young neighbour Megan (Haley Bennett) who is actually locked in a frustratingly child-free marriage (frustrating for him at least) with the controlling and unpredictable Scott (Luke Evans, “The Hobbit”). A sixth party in this complex network is Megan’s psychiatrist Dr Kamal Abdic (Édgar Ramírez, “Joy”).
In pure Hitchcockian style Megan witnesses mere glimpses of events from her twice-daily train and from these pieces together stories that suitably feed her psychosis. When ‘shit gets real’ and a key character goes missing, Megan surfaces her suspicions and obsessions to the police investigation (led by Detective Riley, the ever-excellent Allison Janney from “The West Wing”) and promptly makes herself suspect number one.
Readers of the book will already be aware of the twists and turns of the story, so will watch the film from a different perspective than I did. (Despite my best intentions I never managed to read the book first).
First up, you would have to say that Emily Blunt’s performance is outstanding in an extremely challenging acting role. Every nuance of shame, confusion, grief, fear, doubt and anger is beautifully enacted: it would not be a surprise to see her gain her first Oscar nomination for this. All the other lead roles are also delivered with great professionalism, with Haley Bennett (a busy month for her, with “The Magnificent Seven” also out) being impressive and Rebecca Ferguson, one of my favourite current actresses, delivering another measured and delicate performance.
Girl on a Train, The
Rebecca Ferguson as Anna – “there were three of us in this marriage so it was a bit crowded”
The supporting roles are also effective, with Darren Goldstein as the somewhat creepy “man in the suit” and “Friends” star Lisa Kudrow popping up in an effective and pivotal role. The Screen Guild Awards have an excellent category for an Ensemble Cast in a Motion Picture, and it feels appropriate to nominate this cast for that award.
So it’s a blockbuster book with a rollercoaster story and a stellar cast, so what could go wrong? Well, something for sure. This is a case in point where I suspect it is easier to slowly peel back Rachel’s lost memory with pages and imagination than it is with dodgy fuzzy images on a big screen. Although the film comes in at only 112 minutes, the pacing in places is too slow (the screenplay by Erin Cressida Wilson takes its time) and director Tate Taylor (“The Help”) is no Hitchcock, or indeed a David Fincher (since the film has strong similarities to last year’s “Gone Girl”: when the action does happen it lacks style, with the violence being on the brutal side and leaving little to the imagination.
It’s by no means a bad film, and worth seeing for the acting performances alone. But it’s not a film I think that will trouble my top 10 for the year.