Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Side Effects (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Steven Soderbergh has been toying with the notion of retirement for a couple of years now, and has said that “Side Effects” will be his final film. I certainly hope not.
As its title intones, “Side Effects” is a movie about what can happen when prescription medications, such as anti-depressants, can do at their worst, leading to anyone who taking them wishing they weren’t. The movie certainly starts out looking like a propaganda-film about how Doctor’s push these drugs onto patients as they are paid by pharmaceutical representatives to test their drugs. It seems that everyone in the film is taking meds of some form or another. The cast for the film should be a recipe for success: Jude Law, Rooney Mara, Catherine Zeta-Jones and Channing Tatum. But because of this perception, the first two-thirds of the film nearly put me to sleep. And then a twist happened that the made the plot extremely complex and worth watching. In many ways, the less said about “Side Effects,” the better. This may produce a better experience for you than I had. But here’s the basic idea of the movie:
Emily Taylor, played by Rooney Mara, is introduced when she is visiting her husband Martin (Tatum), a man convicted of insider trading who is about to be released after four years behind bars. Martin’s discharge happens uneventfully, but adjusting to the new life of poverty rehashes the depression that first plagued Emily when her husband’s prison term started. This leads to Emily crashing her car head-on into the wall of the garage in her apartment building. While in the hospital, rules force her to see psychiatrist Jonathan Banks (Law).
Up until this point, I had trouble connecting with Mara’s character. While it is revealed that she had mental problems prior to this episode, you don’t really completely grasp what it is until later in the movie. Mara seemed to be very stiff, and way too much like her emotionless character from “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.” But then we enter Jude Law. Law’s character, Banks, is friendly, approachable and caring. He is what first drew me deeper into the movie. Though, you soon discover that he is a doctor who believes in the power of drugs. This character kept me interested because I couldn’t quite nail if he was going to be an antagonist or protagonist.
Of course our dear Dr. Banks prescribes some medications to Emily and she begins showing some disturbing side effects and… The side effects lead to really terrible, bloody things which ruins careers, lives, and even drive people to madness. Or does it?
As its title intones, “Side Effects” is a movie about what can happen when prescription medications, such as anti-depressants, can do at their worst, leading to anyone who taking them wishing they weren’t. The movie certainly starts out looking like a propaganda-film about how Doctor’s push these drugs onto patients as they are paid by pharmaceutical representatives to test their drugs. It seems that everyone in the film is taking meds of some form or another. The cast for the film should be a recipe for success: Jude Law, Rooney Mara, Catherine Zeta-Jones and Channing Tatum. But because of this perception, the first two-thirds of the film nearly put me to sleep. And then a twist happened that the made the plot extremely complex and worth watching. In many ways, the less said about “Side Effects,” the better. This may produce a better experience for you than I had. But here’s the basic idea of the movie:
Emily Taylor, played by Rooney Mara, is introduced when she is visiting her husband Martin (Tatum), a man convicted of insider trading who is about to be released after four years behind bars. Martin’s discharge happens uneventfully, but adjusting to the new life of poverty rehashes the depression that first plagued Emily when her husband’s prison term started. This leads to Emily crashing her car head-on into the wall of the garage in her apartment building. While in the hospital, rules force her to see psychiatrist Jonathan Banks (Law).
Up until this point, I had trouble connecting with Mara’s character. While it is revealed that she had mental problems prior to this episode, you don’t really completely grasp what it is until later in the movie. Mara seemed to be very stiff, and way too much like her emotionless character from “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.” But then we enter Jude Law. Law’s character, Banks, is friendly, approachable and caring. He is what first drew me deeper into the movie. Though, you soon discover that he is a doctor who believes in the power of drugs. This character kept me interested because I couldn’t quite nail if he was going to be an antagonist or protagonist.
Of course our dear Dr. Banks prescribes some medications to Emily and she begins showing some disturbing side effects and… The side effects lead to really terrible, bloody things which ruins careers, lives, and even drive people to madness. Or does it?
Retouch Me: Body & Face Editor
Photo & Video and Lifestyle
9.0
Rate It
App
RetouchMe will turn your snaps into a model portfolio in a few minutes. Join over 6 MILLION users...
ArecRain (8 KP) rated Servant: The Kindred (Servant, #3) in Books
Jan 18, 2018
I almost feel bad having this series as my first review since I have absolutely nothing good to say about this book, or the series for that matter. Every element of this book was just terrible, from the language to the plot development, or lack thereof.
By the time I came to the final novel in the Servant trilogy, I quite literally had to force myself to read every page. Unlike the first two, where I became hooked on a goal that Gabrielle Cody was trying to reach, this book just grossed me out, bored me, and irritated me when I wasnt bored. After the first chapter, I lost any hope that this novel was an improvement on the first two.
The foul language was so excessive that I noticed myself just passing over it like you would the word the or and. The fact that Gaby couldnt form a sentence without saying the f-word seemed a bit juvenile to me. Fosters attempt to make Gaby seem uneducated is contradicted when she randomly uses words like cathartic. It was out of her character.
The characters were more frustrating in this novel than in the previous ones. Gaby and Luthers arguing left me so annoyed that, at times, I just skipped over it. I could not understand why Luther was so obsessed with her since any normal person probably would just ignored her from the get go. However, I felt that Gabys character had become more realistic in her feelings and thoughts. I actually liked that Gaby was so jealous of Ann, Luthers partner who is perfect in every way. I also liked the relationship she forms with Bliss, a ex-prostitute that Gaby saved from the streets, and the two orphans that Gaby takes under her wing.
The biggest problem I have with this series is the pedestal that Foster place Gaby upon. Foster makes her protagonist so strong and unbeatable that, more than once, I thought that the author was trying to make Gaby a god on earth. Gaby only obtains one injury through the entire novel, a bullet wound that is used to further the plot. Without the bullet wound, Gaby would have never gone to get a tattoo. Nobody can touch Gaby, something I found not only a nuascance but unlikely.
The final noteworthy thing about this book, is that we discover Gaby ancestry. I felt appeased in my search for discovering more about Gabys past and parents. Any surprise I had about her parentage was nullified by Fosters writing style.
I do believe I have complained enough about this series. I did have hope for it but was disappointed. After reading such an unpleasing series, I am going to read a book I know I should end up enjoying.
By the time I came to the final novel in the Servant trilogy, I quite literally had to force myself to read every page. Unlike the first two, where I became hooked on a goal that Gabrielle Cody was trying to reach, this book just grossed me out, bored me, and irritated me when I wasnt bored. After the first chapter, I lost any hope that this novel was an improvement on the first two.
The foul language was so excessive that I noticed myself just passing over it like you would the word the or and. The fact that Gaby couldnt form a sentence without saying the f-word seemed a bit juvenile to me. Fosters attempt to make Gaby seem uneducated is contradicted when she randomly uses words like cathartic. It was out of her character.
The characters were more frustrating in this novel than in the previous ones. Gaby and Luthers arguing left me so annoyed that, at times, I just skipped over it. I could not understand why Luther was so obsessed with her since any normal person probably would just ignored her from the get go. However, I felt that Gabys character had become more realistic in her feelings and thoughts. I actually liked that Gaby was so jealous of Ann, Luthers partner who is perfect in every way. I also liked the relationship she forms with Bliss, a ex-prostitute that Gaby saved from the streets, and the two orphans that Gaby takes under her wing.
The biggest problem I have with this series is the pedestal that Foster place Gaby upon. Foster makes her protagonist so strong and unbeatable that, more than once, I thought that the author was trying to make Gaby a god on earth. Gaby only obtains one injury through the entire novel, a bullet wound that is used to further the plot. Without the bullet wound, Gaby would have never gone to get a tattoo. Nobody can touch Gaby, something I found not only a nuascance but unlikely.
The final noteworthy thing about this book, is that we discover Gaby ancestry. I felt appeased in my search for discovering more about Gabys past and parents. Any surprise I had about her parentage was nullified by Fosters writing style.
I do believe I have complained enough about this series. I did have hope for it but was disappointed. After reading such an unpleasing series, I am going to read a book I know I should end up enjoying.
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Girl in the Spider's Web (2018) in Movies
Oct 2, 2019
Characters – Lisbeth Salander is the famous hacker that will stand up against any man that is causing a woman abuse, she will leave her brand on them. She is called for difficult hacking jobs, which sees her take something from the Americans, this makes her a wanted suspect in Sweden and her on the run looking for answers to clear her name. Mikael Blomkvist is still the only person that Lisbeth will trust, he tries to operate from a distant and investigates the trust behind what is happening. Ed Needham is the American that has his system hacked, a government man, he heads to Sweden to get it back and finds nothing but barriers from the Swedish government. Camilla Salander is the long lost sister of Lisbeth, she thought to be dead, but now she is involved in a criminal gang known as The Spiders, targeting Lisbeth for what she wants.
Performances – Claire Foy does feel mis-cast in this role, she doesn’t seem to have a tough enough look to make this character effect as the two previous stars. Sverrir Gudnason had large shoes to fill and he doesn’t do a strong enough job in the Mikael role, while Sylvia Hoeks does what she can with her role without being anything overly special, while LaKeith Stanfield doesn’t seem to feel like the character he is meant to be playing.
Story – The story here is the fourth story in the Dragon Tattoo world, the second in English and is the first not written by the original author. We follow Lisbeth who once again finds herself needing to take on secret organisation that what something that could put the world in danger and this time it becomes more personal, with her sister being the enemy. This story does feel like it has borrowed from many other films and while it still puts Lisbeth is an anti-hero role, we only seem to find ourselves in one direction where Lisbeth is always one step ahead of everything happening, despite the fact we get to see just how twisted the Spiders are, it paints one image of them only to leave us facing a different softer enemy.
Action/Crime – The action was pretty much all given away in the trailer, we have the motorbike chase across the ice, the car chases and shoot outs, each feels very similar and doesn’t have the suspense required in a thriller.
Settings – The film does try to bring everything back to Lisbeth’s backstory with the settings showing the off the grid life she current lives compared to the one she could have lived, the snowy roads add a little to the chases, but not that much overall.
Scene of the Movie – Ice lake escape.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The Spider’s not hinting at wanting to do to what they did to the guy without a nose, to the new Lisbeth group.
Final Thoughts – This does feel like a cash grab on a franchise that has never taken off on the American side of things, we get everything scaled back leaving us feeling disappointed by the end of the film.
Overall: No thrills to be seen here.
Performances – Claire Foy does feel mis-cast in this role, she doesn’t seem to have a tough enough look to make this character effect as the two previous stars. Sverrir Gudnason had large shoes to fill and he doesn’t do a strong enough job in the Mikael role, while Sylvia Hoeks does what she can with her role without being anything overly special, while LaKeith Stanfield doesn’t seem to feel like the character he is meant to be playing.
Story – The story here is the fourth story in the Dragon Tattoo world, the second in English and is the first not written by the original author. We follow Lisbeth who once again finds herself needing to take on secret organisation that what something that could put the world in danger and this time it becomes more personal, with her sister being the enemy. This story does feel like it has borrowed from many other films and while it still puts Lisbeth is an anti-hero role, we only seem to find ourselves in one direction where Lisbeth is always one step ahead of everything happening, despite the fact we get to see just how twisted the Spiders are, it paints one image of them only to leave us facing a different softer enemy.
Action/Crime – The action was pretty much all given away in the trailer, we have the motorbike chase across the ice, the car chases and shoot outs, each feels very similar and doesn’t have the suspense required in a thriller.
Settings – The film does try to bring everything back to Lisbeth’s backstory with the settings showing the off the grid life she current lives compared to the one she could have lived, the snowy roads add a little to the chases, but not that much overall.
Scene of the Movie – Ice lake escape.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The Spider’s not hinting at wanting to do to what they did to the guy without a nose, to the new Lisbeth group.
Final Thoughts – This does feel like a cash grab on a franchise that has never taken off on the American side of things, we get everything scaled back leaving us feeling disappointed by the end of the film.
Overall: No thrills to be seen here.
Avakin Life – 3D Virtual World
Games and Social Networking
App
ENTER AVAKIN LIFE: The amazing virtual world where you can become the person you always wanted to...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Insurgent (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A little soulless
There hasn’t been a better time to be part of the Young Adult revolution. From Stephanie Meyer’s underwhelming Twilight saga to Suzanne Collins’ superb Huger Games trilogy and everything in between, there is something about this genre that audiences love to read and to watch.
Coming a little late to the party is Veronica Roth’s Divergent franchise. After last year’s bland debut, a new director in the shape of Robert Schwentke (Flightplan, Tattoo) takes on the second film in the series, Insurgent, but can it finally bring something to the table?
Insurgent continues the story of a post-apocalyptic America that has been divided into ‘factions’ based on the personality traits of survivors. Being placed in a faction helps you live your life in accordance with the rules of the governing body of the time. However, having traits belonging to all five categories makes you a Divergent – a risk to peace in other words.
This action sequel follows Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley) and Four Eaton (Theo James), two Divergents on the run from Kate Winslet’s domineering Jeanie Matthews as they try to find out the truth about who they are and what is really going on behind the scenes.
For the uninitiated, Insurgent is a tiresome process and requires some prior knowledge of the first film to truly understand what is going on. However, in comparison to its dull and overly long predecessor, there is much to enjoy here.
The obliterated city of Chicago is given much more room to breathe and the beautifully choreographed shots of well-known landmarks draped in moss and ferns are a stunning addition and look much more realistic than the computer-generated imagery used for the Capitol in the Hunger Games series.
Moreover, there are some great acting performances scattered throughout, Woodley really gets her teeth stuck into the lead role after her disappointing turn in Divergent and Theo James provides the eye candy in a Liam Hemsworth-esque characterisation.
However, it is in Kate Winslet and newcomer Naomi Watts’ performances that we really see something special.
Despite their lack of screen time, they command each sequence they are a part of and it’s a shame they’re not used more throughout the near 2 hour runtime.
Unfortunately comparisons to other YA adaptations are unavoidable. Put Insurgent up against its main rival The Hunger Games: Catching Fire and the odds simply aren’t in its favour. The sheer star power the latter film commands is enviable and despite Winslet and Watts’ excellent performances, it just isn’t quite enough.
It all feels a little hollow, a bit flat and non-descript as the audience is thrown from one mildly entertaining set piece to another, right up until the obligatory gasps as you realise it’s another year to pick up where that cliff-hanger left things.
In the end, Insurgent improves on its overly convoluted predecessor and is much better than anything the Twilight saga threw at us, but it pales in comparison to the treat of watching ‘The Girl on Fire’ strut her stuff.
Alas, sitting in the middle isn’t quite enough in this highly competitive genre and despite some stunning cinematography and great acting, Insurgent feels a little soulless.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/22/a-little-soulless-insurgent-review/
Coming a little late to the party is Veronica Roth’s Divergent franchise. After last year’s bland debut, a new director in the shape of Robert Schwentke (Flightplan, Tattoo) takes on the second film in the series, Insurgent, but can it finally bring something to the table?
Insurgent continues the story of a post-apocalyptic America that has been divided into ‘factions’ based on the personality traits of survivors. Being placed in a faction helps you live your life in accordance with the rules of the governing body of the time. However, having traits belonging to all five categories makes you a Divergent – a risk to peace in other words.
This action sequel follows Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley) and Four Eaton (Theo James), two Divergents on the run from Kate Winslet’s domineering Jeanie Matthews as they try to find out the truth about who they are and what is really going on behind the scenes.
For the uninitiated, Insurgent is a tiresome process and requires some prior knowledge of the first film to truly understand what is going on. However, in comparison to its dull and overly long predecessor, there is much to enjoy here.
The obliterated city of Chicago is given much more room to breathe and the beautifully choreographed shots of well-known landmarks draped in moss and ferns are a stunning addition and look much more realistic than the computer-generated imagery used for the Capitol in the Hunger Games series.
Moreover, there are some great acting performances scattered throughout, Woodley really gets her teeth stuck into the lead role after her disappointing turn in Divergent and Theo James provides the eye candy in a Liam Hemsworth-esque characterisation.
However, it is in Kate Winslet and newcomer Naomi Watts’ performances that we really see something special.
Despite their lack of screen time, they command each sequence they are a part of and it’s a shame they’re not used more throughout the near 2 hour runtime.
Unfortunately comparisons to other YA adaptations are unavoidable. Put Insurgent up against its main rival The Hunger Games: Catching Fire and the odds simply aren’t in its favour. The sheer star power the latter film commands is enviable and despite Winslet and Watts’ excellent performances, it just isn’t quite enough.
It all feels a little hollow, a bit flat and non-descript as the audience is thrown from one mildly entertaining set piece to another, right up until the obligatory gasps as you realise it’s another year to pick up where that cliff-hanger left things.
In the end, Insurgent improves on its overly convoluted predecessor and is much better than anything the Twilight saga threw at us, but it pales in comparison to the treat of watching ‘The Girl on Fire’ strut her stuff.
Alas, sitting in the middle isn’t quite enough in this highly competitive genre and despite some stunning cinematography and great acting, Insurgent feels a little soulless.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/22/a-little-soulless-insurgent-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Snowman (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
No, not that one
Nordic noir is big business at the moment, but with the incredible scenery of the locations lending themselves perfectly to film, is there any wonder?
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and The Hypnotist are just a couple of movies that have fallen into this massively expanding genre.
Now, Jo Nesbø’s chilling The Snowman novel gets the silver screen treatment in a film of the same name. But can this continue the thrilling trend of whodunit novels being turned into fabulous crime dramas?For Detective Harry Hole (Michael Fassbender), the death of a young woman during the first snow of winter feels like anything but a routine homicide. His investigation leads him to “The Snowman Killer,” an elusive sociopath who continuously taunts Hole with ingeniously crafted cat-and-mouse games. As the brutal deaths show no sign of slowing, Harry teams up with a new recruit (Rebecca Ferguson) to try and lure the madman out of the shadows before it’s too late.
With Michael Fassbender at the helm, director Thomas Alfredson (Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy) manages to blend gorgeous imagery with an intriguing plot and excellent performances in a film that suffers from a couple of issues that stops it from becoming a must-see event.
These R-rated thrillers are ten-a-penny these days with the bar still being set incredibly high by Gone Girl. Last year’s Girl on the Train was a decent stab at dethroning David Fincher’s masterpiece, but it just fell a little short – well the same has happened here.
Michael Fassbender is uniformly excellent as troubled detective, Harry and the actor can do no wrong in his performances, but he’s suffered this year. After Assassin’s Creed failed to ignite the box-office, it looks to be a similar story this time. While The Snowman is technically competent and filmed beautifully, it lacks the sense of originality that breeds success.
It also doesn’t help that he’s surrounded by thinly padded supporting characters like former love interest Rakel (Charlotte Gainsbourg) and new police officer Katrine (Ferguson). Elsewhere, bizarre glorified cameos for Val Kilmer and Toby Jones leave you wondering if these actors expected a little more from their parts.
Perhaps I’m being a little harsh. After all, the cast is one of the film’s strongest suits. Add J.K. Simmons to the aforementioned roster and it really does have one of the best line-ups of the year. It’s just a shame the script doesn’t do more with them.
To look at, The Snowman is absolutely gorgeous. Helped obviously by magnificent Norwegian landscapes, Alfredson shoots using steady cam in scenes reminiscent of Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining, high praise indeed. In a year populated by CGI-heavy blockbusters, this comes as a real breath of fresh air.
Unfortunately, the constant use of flashbacks and a peculiar subplot involving a Winter sporting event ruin the pacing, though at 130 minutes, this isn’t too much of an issue. The ending however, is disappointing and lacks an emotional payoff after the film’s events.
Overall, The Snowman is a gritty adaptation of Jo Nesbø’s successful novel and while some of the plot choices leave a little to be desired, a great anchor performance by Michael Fassbender and stunning cinematography mean it’s definitely worth a watch; just don’t expect too much.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/10/14/the-snowman-review/
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and The Hypnotist are just a couple of movies that have fallen into this massively expanding genre.
Now, Jo Nesbø’s chilling The Snowman novel gets the silver screen treatment in a film of the same name. But can this continue the thrilling trend of whodunit novels being turned into fabulous crime dramas?For Detective Harry Hole (Michael Fassbender), the death of a young woman during the first snow of winter feels like anything but a routine homicide. His investigation leads him to “The Snowman Killer,” an elusive sociopath who continuously taunts Hole with ingeniously crafted cat-and-mouse games. As the brutal deaths show no sign of slowing, Harry teams up with a new recruit (Rebecca Ferguson) to try and lure the madman out of the shadows before it’s too late.
With Michael Fassbender at the helm, director Thomas Alfredson (Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy) manages to blend gorgeous imagery with an intriguing plot and excellent performances in a film that suffers from a couple of issues that stops it from becoming a must-see event.
These R-rated thrillers are ten-a-penny these days with the bar still being set incredibly high by Gone Girl. Last year’s Girl on the Train was a decent stab at dethroning David Fincher’s masterpiece, but it just fell a little short – well the same has happened here.
Michael Fassbender is uniformly excellent as troubled detective, Harry and the actor can do no wrong in his performances, but he’s suffered this year. After Assassin’s Creed failed to ignite the box-office, it looks to be a similar story this time. While The Snowman is technically competent and filmed beautifully, it lacks the sense of originality that breeds success.
It also doesn’t help that he’s surrounded by thinly padded supporting characters like former love interest Rakel (Charlotte Gainsbourg) and new police officer Katrine (Ferguson). Elsewhere, bizarre glorified cameos for Val Kilmer and Toby Jones leave you wondering if these actors expected a little more from their parts.
Perhaps I’m being a little harsh. After all, the cast is one of the film’s strongest suits. Add J.K. Simmons to the aforementioned roster and it really does have one of the best line-ups of the year. It’s just a shame the script doesn’t do more with them.
To look at, The Snowman is absolutely gorgeous. Helped obviously by magnificent Norwegian landscapes, Alfredson shoots using steady cam in scenes reminiscent of Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining, high praise indeed. In a year populated by CGI-heavy blockbusters, this comes as a real breath of fresh air.
Unfortunately, the constant use of flashbacks and a peculiar subplot involving a Winter sporting event ruin the pacing, though at 130 minutes, this isn’t too much of an issue. The ending however, is disappointing and lacks an emotional payoff after the film’s events.
Overall, The Snowman is a gritty adaptation of Jo Nesbø’s successful novel and while some of the plot choices leave a little to be desired, a great anchor performance by Michael Fassbender and stunning cinematography mean it’s definitely worth a watch; just don’t expect too much.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/10/14/the-snowman-review/
Hara05 (11 KP) rated The Tattooist of Auschwitz in Books
Jun 30, 2019
Does not live up to the hype!
Since my interest in the Holocaust started at the tender age of 7, I have devoured any book on the Holocaust that I can get my hands on. Before release, The Tattoo Of Auschwitz was all over my newsfeed and I pre-ordered, excited for another book on the subject.
Boy, what I disappointed.
The premise of this book offered so much potential but from the first page, I found myself cringing. I haven't read a book so poorly written since the Fifty Shades fiasco and although I'm loathe to compare the two (one a poorly informed erotica and this one, a book on such a important and harrowing topic) I find that I cannot help it.
As I've said, the premise offered so much potential. A true story of the Holocaust from a little explored prospective which shines a light on the suffering of all those forced through the gates of Auschwitz and Birkenau, this book could have been something truly special, resonating with so many readers on so many levels. Instead, the reader must grapple through pages of unrealistic dialogue, clunky exchanges and at times, very simplistic prose which simply makes the reader bored. We must never be bored when it comes to The Holocaust - of anything, the horrific event should have us all squirming, almost in a sea of distress as we turn each page for how else can we learn from this? How can we take on board the lessons that must be learned when we cannot connect with the characters?
The fact that this is a true story just adds to the disappointment. So many survivors spent their lives too afraid or too completely isolated to ever want to share their experiences with the world and yet, here we have a brave survivor , willing to do just that and their story is completely ruined by awful story telling. Whether all of the survivors story is true or not is not the issue here, it's how the story has been presented and bundled up beneath an eye catching cover.
So bad is the writing, so terribly constructed is the prose, that I found myself forcing myself to finish. By the time I did read the final sentence, I was relieved. Not my usual relief of 'Thank God, they survived!' but instead, relieved that I had managed to get through it. By the time the end came, I still did not feel any connection to the main characters other than the sympathy that they were forced to live through that ordeal. Of course, I was routing for them but not because of anything included in the book rather because they were real human beings who found themselves in such a place.
What is so disappointing is the fact that, with all the media attention and advertising this book received, it could have been at the forefront of the movement to raise awareness of The Holocaust. With so many survivors now gone, most without having shared their own stories, this book could have really been something special. It could have educated masses of people and made us take a long, hard look at ourselves and the world around us.
Instead, it is only memorable it's disjointed prose and simplicity, when it's premise is anything but simple.
Boy, what I disappointed.
The premise of this book offered so much potential but from the first page, I found myself cringing. I haven't read a book so poorly written since the Fifty Shades fiasco and although I'm loathe to compare the two (one a poorly informed erotica and this one, a book on such a important and harrowing topic) I find that I cannot help it.
As I've said, the premise offered so much potential. A true story of the Holocaust from a little explored prospective which shines a light on the suffering of all those forced through the gates of Auschwitz and Birkenau, this book could have been something truly special, resonating with so many readers on so many levels. Instead, the reader must grapple through pages of unrealistic dialogue, clunky exchanges and at times, very simplistic prose which simply makes the reader bored. We must never be bored when it comes to The Holocaust - of anything, the horrific event should have us all squirming, almost in a sea of distress as we turn each page for how else can we learn from this? How can we take on board the lessons that must be learned when we cannot connect with the characters?
The fact that this is a true story just adds to the disappointment. So many survivors spent their lives too afraid or too completely isolated to ever want to share their experiences with the world and yet, here we have a brave survivor , willing to do just that and their story is completely ruined by awful story telling. Whether all of the survivors story is true or not is not the issue here, it's how the story has been presented and bundled up beneath an eye catching cover.
So bad is the writing, so terribly constructed is the prose, that I found myself forcing myself to finish. By the time I did read the final sentence, I was relieved. Not my usual relief of 'Thank God, they survived!' but instead, relieved that I had managed to get through it. By the time the end came, I still did not feel any connection to the main characters other than the sympathy that they were forced to live through that ordeal. Of course, I was routing for them but not because of anything included in the book rather because they were real human beings who found themselves in such a place.
What is so disappointing is the fact that, with all the media attention and advertising this book received, it could have been at the forefront of the movement to raise awareness of The Holocaust. With so many survivors now gone, most without having shared their own stories, this book could have really been something special. It could have educated masses of people and made us take a long, hard look at ourselves and the world around us.
Instead, it is only memorable it's disjointed prose and simplicity, when it's premise is anything but simple.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Robert Downey, Jr. and Jude Law return once again as Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson in “Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows“. In this installment, a series of bombings across Europe has positioned the nations of the world on the brink of war. Holmes is convinced that there is a criminal mastermind behind the numerous, seemingly unrelated events and he believes it is renowned scholar James Moriarty (Jared Harris).
Watson, well-accustomed to Holmes’ eccentric and erratic behavior, is dubious of Holmes claims. Besides, Watson has his upcoming wedding to focus on, and only deigns to spend time with Holmes at the promise of a stag party at an upscale gentlemen’s club. While the bachelor party includes an entertaining Stephen Fry playing Holmes’ brother, Mycroft, Holmes has ulterior motives for taking Watson to this particular club. Early in the film, Holmes had cleverly intercepted a message from Irene Adler (Amy McAdams), that led him to a fortuneteller named Madam Simza Heron (Noomi Rapace), a woman Holmes believes has been targeted for death by Moriarty, who just happens to be working at the gentlemen’s club.
Eventually a meeting with Moriarty is arranged for Holmes. The two intellectuals spar with one another verbally in a civilized manner, with menacing undertones. Holmes isn’t able to convince Moriarty that Watson is no longer a partner in any of his endeavors and, Holmes is forced to take drastic measures to ensure the doctor and his new wife stay out of harm’s way. From Paris to Germany and other European locales, Holmes, Watson, and Simza and her gypsy friends race against time to uncover the diabolical plot that Moriarty has set for their demise in his quest to drive nations to war.
The film is an absolute delight and is a rare sequel that is even better than the previous film in the series. Robert Downey, Jr. and Jude Law have amazing chemistry with one another and their timing is absolutely perfect. The duo deftly mix action and comedy as well as the serious subject matter of the plot line and are utterly captivating and enjoyable to watch every step of the way. Rapace continues to impress in a much softer character than her Lisbeth Salandar role in the “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” Swedish trilogy. and is poised to become one of Hollywood’s new leading ladies.
Having become familiar with Harris’ work on the series Mad Men, I was delighted to see him expertly portray such a complex character as Moriarty: a gentleman scholar of impeccable upbringing and education who is also a twisted and evil genius. Harris plays Moriarty perfectly and never lets you forget the dark and sinister side of him without ever becoming a campy or cartoony vaudeville villain.
Guy Ritchie returns as director and lets his stars carry the film. The action has been ramped up this time around with some spectacular action sequences but the action never overshadows the character-driven story. The film was well-paced and an absolute thrill ride from beginning to end mixing fantastic action and some great humor for a very winning combination that is not to be missed. I am already looking forward to future outings of Holmes and Watson on the big screen as this was a truly enjoyable experience that shows you how action comedies are supposed to be made.
Watson, well-accustomed to Holmes’ eccentric and erratic behavior, is dubious of Holmes claims. Besides, Watson has his upcoming wedding to focus on, and only deigns to spend time with Holmes at the promise of a stag party at an upscale gentlemen’s club. While the bachelor party includes an entertaining Stephen Fry playing Holmes’ brother, Mycroft, Holmes has ulterior motives for taking Watson to this particular club. Early in the film, Holmes had cleverly intercepted a message from Irene Adler (Amy McAdams), that led him to a fortuneteller named Madam Simza Heron (Noomi Rapace), a woman Holmes believes has been targeted for death by Moriarty, who just happens to be working at the gentlemen’s club.
Eventually a meeting with Moriarty is arranged for Holmes. The two intellectuals spar with one another verbally in a civilized manner, with menacing undertones. Holmes isn’t able to convince Moriarty that Watson is no longer a partner in any of his endeavors and, Holmes is forced to take drastic measures to ensure the doctor and his new wife stay out of harm’s way. From Paris to Germany and other European locales, Holmes, Watson, and Simza and her gypsy friends race against time to uncover the diabolical plot that Moriarty has set for their demise in his quest to drive nations to war.
The film is an absolute delight and is a rare sequel that is even better than the previous film in the series. Robert Downey, Jr. and Jude Law have amazing chemistry with one another and their timing is absolutely perfect. The duo deftly mix action and comedy as well as the serious subject matter of the plot line and are utterly captivating and enjoyable to watch every step of the way. Rapace continues to impress in a much softer character than her Lisbeth Salandar role in the “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” Swedish trilogy. and is poised to become one of Hollywood’s new leading ladies.
Having become familiar with Harris’ work on the series Mad Men, I was delighted to see him expertly portray such a complex character as Moriarty: a gentleman scholar of impeccable upbringing and education who is also a twisted and evil genius. Harris plays Moriarty perfectly and never lets you forget the dark and sinister side of him without ever becoming a campy or cartoony vaudeville villain.
Guy Ritchie returns as director and lets his stars carry the film. The action has been ramped up this time around with some spectacular action sequences but the action never overshadows the character-driven story. The film was well-paced and an absolute thrill ride from beginning to end mixing fantastic action and some great humor for a very winning combination that is not to be missed. I am already looking forward to future outings of Holmes and Watson on the big screen as this was a truly enjoyable experience that shows you how action comedies are supposed to be made.
HiNative - Learn Languages
Education and Social Networking
App
HiNative is a global Q&A community for language learners and people that are curious about the...