Search
Search results
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
If you check back in the archives of The Wasteland you will see that from time to time I do find myself down the dark, fascinating yet morbid rabbit hole of true crime documentary. I do find the majority of them a little ghoulish, but when done particularly well they can become incredible insights into the human condition at its worst, and the state of the legal and punitive systems that deal with the most extreme cases. How these systems fail, and why, is more of a draw for me than any attempt to understand the person behind the evil crimes. Although I must admit to some curiosity in that regard on a certain level.
One such documentary series that really impressed me was Conversations With a Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes, directed by Joe Berlinger. It was very detailed without being sensationalist or forcing drama and tension into the presentation in a manipulative way. I have a particular fascination with Ted Bundy and his crimes, simply because it is such a compellingly bizarre story, of an educated, seemingly ordinary and charming man, that did absolutely horrific things. So, seeing that the same producer had turned his hand as a film-maker, and his deep knowledge of the case and the man, towards a feature film, I had to give it a watch at some point, despite some mixed reviews.
The first thing anyone will want to talk about here, naturally, is the casting of Bundy against type, with the former teen sensation Zac Efron taking on such a huge and daunting role you would have thought beyond him. Physically the resemblance between Efron and Bundy is remarkable; even more so when the period hair styles and costumes are added in. His instinctive understanding of the charm aspect of Bundy is also very spooky – you do get the sense of almost liking him on one hand and fearing him on the other. As an acting exercise, his work here is far more impressive than anything else he has ever done, bar none, hinting that as he moves into his 30s Efron will make a fine supporting actor if well cast.
What is missing from this portrayal of Bundy, however is his own amusement and psychopathic detachment from the crimes that is apparent in documentary footage. Efron’s Bundy is much more serious and sinister, without pushing the boundaries of playing “evil” too far. Whether this was the actor or the director’s choice is unclear. It means ultimately that the tone is earnest and threatening, almost inviting us to like and respect him more. Whereas, with a touch more of the misplaced levity that made watching and listening to the real Bundy so sickening we would have a closer impression of how, despite appearing “normal” on the surface, he never truly was.
Lily Collins is perfectly fine as Bundy’s girlfriend, Liz Kendall, but, again, she makes no attempt to portray the true naivety and denial apparent from footage of the real person, instead choosing to portray her as an innocent woman truly duped by a criminal mastermind. It is a fine performance in the context of this film, I just doubt it is that close to who Liz really was.
John Malkovich also, as the judge who spoke the title of this film in his closing remarks of the real court case, seems to be presenting a movie version of the real person that doesn’t capture the essence of the real dynamic so much as giving us a neat, glossy version of the real man. Put all this together and you still get the facts of what happened without anything changed or misleading, but you also get the impression that it is a heightened drama of events rather than anything even close to presenting the most interesting or disturbing aspects of the story.
In some ways then, it makes this production a touch cowardly. It is very much the certificate 15 version for an easy watching audience. The crimes themselves are not shown, or even discussed in much detail, merely hinted at and brushed over. It assumes you have some knowledge of the more gruesome facts up front, but also, oddly, presents itself as if he may actually be innocent in some way, because this was the view Liz Kendall maintained until even after his death in reality.
Worryingly, this makes the film almost a romance, where the good things about Bundy are given equal weight. Are we being invited to decide for ourselves if he was evil, or even guilty at all? I don’t think that is the point they are going for, but it isn’t that far off! For me then, this film is a curious failure that invites debate and interest, therefore always holding your interest and attention, but is dangerously close to being offensively dismissive of the victims.
Ultimately, I can’t decide whether it is something that should in any way be recommended. If it were a fiction it would play as a decent if unspectacular character study. It looks great, the period detail of the production is very well done and it is eminently watchable. However, the fact that these events were real, and in reality so much more disturbing, leads me to the conclusion that this is problematic viewing to be treated with caution.
One such documentary series that really impressed me was Conversations With a Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes, directed by Joe Berlinger. It was very detailed without being sensationalist or forcing drama and tension into the presentation in a manipulative way. I have a particular fascination with Ted Bundy and his crimes, simply because it is such a compellingly bizarre story, of an educated, seemingly ordinary and charming man, that did absolutely horrific things. So, seeing that the same producer had turned his hand as a film-maker, and his deep knowledge of the case and the man, towards a feature film, I had to give it a watch at some point, despite some mixed reviews.
The first thing anyone will want to talk about here, naturally, is the casting of Bundy against type, with the former teen sensation Zac Efron taking on such a huge and daunting role you would have thought beyond him. Physically the resemblance between Efron and Bundy is remarkable; even more so when the period hair styles and costumes are added in. His instinctive understanding of the charm aspect of Bundy is also very spooky – you do get the sense of almost liking him on one hand and fearing him on the other. As an acting exercise, his work here is far more impressive than anything else he has ever done, bar none, hinting that as he moves into his 30s Efron will make a fine supporting actor if well cast.
What is missing from this portrayal of Bundy, however is his own amusement and psychopathic detachment from the crimes that is apparent in documentary footage. Efron’s Bundy is much more serious and sinister, without pushing the boundaries of playing “evil” too far. Whether this was the actor or the director’s choice is unclear. It means ultimately that the tone is earnest and threatening, almost inviting us to like and respect him more. Whereas, with a touch more of the misplaced levity that made watching and listening to the real Bundy so sickening we would have a closer impression of how, despite appearing “normal” on the surface, he never truly was.
Lily Collins is perfectly fine as Bundy’s girlfriend, Liz Kendall, but, again, she makes no attempt to portray the true naivety and denial apparent from footage of the real person, instead choosing to portray her as an innocent woman truly duped by a criminal mastermind. It is a fine performance in the context of this film, I just doubt it is that close to who Liz really was.
John Malkovich also, as the judge who spoke the title of this film in his closing remarks of the real court case, seems to be presenting a movie version of the real person that doesn’t capture the essence of the real dynamic so much as giving us a neat, glossy version of the real man. Put all this together and you still get the facts of what happened without anything changed or misleading, but you also get the impression that it is a heightened drama of events rather than anything even close to presenting the most interesting or disturbing aspects of the story.
In some ways then, it makes this production a touch cowardly. It is very much the certificate 15 version for an easy watching audience. The crimes themselves are not shown, or even discussed in much detail, merely hinted at and brushed over. It assumes you have some knowledge of the more gruesome facts up front, but also, oddly, presents itself as if he may actually be innocent in some way, because this was the view Liz Kendall maintained until even after his death in reality.
Worryingly, this makes the film almost a romance, where the good things about Bundy are given equal weight. Are we being invited to decide for ourselves if he was evil, or even guilty at all? I don’t think that is the point they are going for, but it isn’t that far off! For me then, this film is a curious failure that invites debate and interest, therefore always holding your interest and attention, but is dangerously close to being offensively dismissive of the victims.
Ultimately, I can’t decide whether it is something that should in any way be recommended. If it were a fiction it would play as a decent if unspectacular character study. It looks great, the period detail of the production is very well done and it is eminently watchable. However, the fact that these events were real, and in reality so much more disturbing, leads me to the conclusion that this is problematic viewing to be treated with caution.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Alone with Her (2007) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Alone with Her starts warning statistics about how every minute 3 people become victims of stalkers and how easy it is to become one. We start by following our stalker in question Doug (Hanks) who has rigged a bag to wonder around with a hidden camera. When Doug picks his victim Amy (Talancon) he enters her house to place hidden cameras around her apartment while she is on holiday.
With the cameras set up Doug learns all the ins and outs of Amy’s live while she has no idea but when Doug starts trying to get to know Amy in person he uses his own information about her to make a relationship happen, but when things don’t go to his plan things turn sour and we see just how dangerous Doug can be.
Alone with Her brings us a disturbing look at how far a stalker can go, it all comes off early that it is just going to be watching but then when Doug gets involved in Amy’ life we get to see how far it goes. To think this film was made in 2006 just think how this could reach new levels with all the new technology we have in the world now. This film could make you paranoid about everything in your life but by the end it ends up going in an easy ending.
Actor Review
Colin Hanks: Doug is our stalker he likes to follow people’s lives when he picks his newest victim Amy he sets up cameras all over her house while following her around her everyday life, when things don’t go to his plan he starts getting involved in her life showing how dangerous he is. Colin gives us a disturbing performance that will use his charming side before showing his darker side.doug
Ana Claudia Talancon: Amy is the single lady that becomes the object of Doug’s obsession. She is unaware of anything going on but tore between what she wants from a chance meeting from Doug leading her to putting her life in danger when she finds out Doug’s true motives. Ana gives us a brave performance where she has to go through a lot during the film.amy
Support Cast: Alone with Her only really has two supporting cast members with Amy’s best friend and a potential love interest, they do what they need to but get eclipse by the two stars of the film.
Director Review: Eric Nicholas – Eric gives us a terrifying look at how a stalker could operate, with it starting off with simple watching before turning darker as the film continues.
Crime: Alone with Her shows how a criminal stalker goes about his plans.
Horror: Alone with Her shows how things end up getting out of hand when someone is watching your every move without you knowing.
Thriller: Alone with Her keeps you guessing to what will happen next and how far Doug will go.
Settings: Alone with Her keeps most of the settings inside the house of Amy as we watch everything she does this all works because it brings the horror of terror inside his own house.
Suggestion: Alone with Her is one to try because it does have a good idea of horror but does start slow. (Try It)
Best Part: The fact it could be real.
Worst Part: Slow starting.
Believability: This could easily happen to someone.
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: Could have one
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $1 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 18 Minutes
Tagline: Anytime. Anywhere. He’s watching.
Overall: Disturbing Thriller that will shock you with ow easy it is to become a victim of stalking
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/06/10/movie-reviews-101-midnight-horror-alone-with-her-2006/
With the cameras set up Doug learns all the ins and outs of Amy’s live while she has no idea but when Doug starts trying to get to know Amy in person he uses his own information about her to make a relationship happen, but when things don’t go to his plan things turn sour and we see just how dangerous Doug can be.
Alone with Her brings us a disturbing look at how far a stalker can go, it all comes off early that it is just going to be watching but then when Doug gets involved in Amy’ life we get to see how far it goes. To think this film was made in 2006 just think how this could reach new levels with all the new technology we have in the world now. This film could make you paranoid about everything in your life but by the end it ends up going in an easy ending.
Actor Review
Colin Hanks: Doug is our stalker he likes to follow people’s lives when he picks his newest victim Amy he sets up cameras all over her house while following her around her everyday life, when things don’t go to his plan he starts getting involved in her life showing how dangerous he is. Colin gives us a disturbing performance that will use his charming side before showing his darker side.doug
Ana Claudia Talancon: Amy is the single lady that becomes the object of Doug’s obsession. She is unaware of anything going on but tore between what she wants from a chance meeting from Doug leading her to putting her life in danger when she finds out Doug’s true motives. Ana gives us a brave performance where she has to go through a lot during the film.amy
Support Cast: Alone with Her only really has two supporting cast members with Amy’s best friend and a potential love interest, they do what they need to but get eclipse by the two stars of the film.
Director Review: Eric Nicholas – Eric gives us a terrifying look at how a stalker could operate, with it starting off with simple watching before turning darker as the film continues.
Crime: Alone with Her shows how a criminal stalker goes about his plans.
Horror: Alone with Her shows how things end up getting out of hand when someone is watching your every move without you knowing.
Thriller: Alone with Her keeps you guessing to what will happen next and how far Doug will go.
Settings: Alone with Her keeps most of the settings inside the house of Amy as we watch everything she does this all works because it brings the horror of terror inside his own house.
Suggestion: Alone with Her is one to try because it does have a good idea of horror but does start slow. (Try It)
Best Part: The fact it could be real.
Worst Part: Slow starting.
Believability: This could easily happen to someone.
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: Could have one
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $1 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 18 Minutes
Tagline: Anytime. Anywhere. He’s watching.
Overall: Disturbing Thriller that will shock you with ow easy it is to become a victim of stalking
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/06/10/movie-reviews-101-midnight-horror-alone-with-her-2006/
A Bibliophagist (113 KP) rated You in Books
Jan 27, 2020 (Updated Jan 27, 2020)
Unique (3 more)
Well thought out
Fast paced
Creepy
Sometimes loses focus (1 more)
Character feels inconsistant
Unique, interesting and stands on it's own
As a book nerd, and fan of crime podcasts and shows, I had to read this book after loving the show version of it.
Honestly, this is one of the better adaptations (as far as book to screen goes). The show stays true enough to the book, but the book retains enough to be worth the read, even if you've watched the show.
The book is presented completely as the internal monologue of Joe Goldburg, a bookstore employee who is unstable, obsessive and violent. It follows his narration(and therefore unreliable account) of meeting Beck, a girl he becomes obsessed with, stalks and eventually forms a relationship with. The book handles this extremely well, presenting Joe ample opportunity to believably narrate every aspect of the story. He manipulates Beck's life, interfering with a current, bad, boyfriend, toxic friendships and Beck herself, to pave way for what he considers the inevitable, Beck and him living happily ever after. However, obviously, when you are a murderous, psycho, stalker, things never go as you imagine.
Unlike the show, the book never lets you forget that Joe is a monster, having it delivered 100% from his perspective lets us see all the questionable interworkings of his mind. Kepnes obviously referenced incel forums while researching, because a lot of what he says is copy pasta incel rhetoric. He is a bad guy. I think where I struggled with this book is that Beck, in her own way, is a terrible, narcissistic, whiney piece of work. She treats everyone terribly and is very "woe is me". Leaving me to not care about her fate. I watched her fall into his grasp and almost rooted for her demise because she was just the worst. I feel the author needed to deliver something redeeming about her to make me care about what he was doing to her. But up until the end, I hated Beck. But, unlike the show, unlike the masses of Joe fans onlines, I hated Joe too in this book. It was scary how so much he did was so easy, and with the incel like thoughts it reminds you that this would be so easy to happen in real life. At times however, his character felt inconsistent, making dumb descisions or having severe thoughts that didn't feel like his mental instability, just inconsistent story telling. So I would argue that the show was smart in removing all the incel thoughts, all the oversexualized, suddenly very agressive thoughts. Because of course someone who thinks like that could do these things. It's almost scarier that the show version doesn't think this way, just fully 100% believes he is doing the right thing. That's scary. I wish the author had employed that more in her book, something to prove to the reader that Joe fully was convinced he was good. But for every time she attempted to write this she undermined it with some obviously bad thought, that never made the reader doubt for a moment. This isn't bad persay, but I think it took a little creepiness from the book and traded it for shock value. The equivalent of showing the monster in a creepy monster flick. Overall it kept my attention, and I immediately ordered the next book (this one ended very different from the show, and ancillary names were used for different character in season 2) so I'm excited to see what she did in book two, as I won't have something to compare it to.
Worth the read, whether you've seen the show or not. Dark, real, and very creepy. It'll make you look at strangers a little differently.
Honestly, this is one of the better adaptations (as far as book to screen goes). The show stays true enough to the book, but the book retains enough to be worth the read, even if you've watched the show.
The book is presented completely as the internal monologue of Joe Goldburg, a bookstore employee who is unstable, obsessive and violent. It follows his narration(and therefore unreliable account) of meeting Beck, a girl he becomes obsessed with, stalks and eventually forms a relationship with. The book handles this extremely well, presenting Joe ample opportunity to believably narrate every aspect of the story. He manipulates Beck's life, interfering with a current, bad, boyfriend, toxic friendships and Beck herself, to pave way for what he considers the inevitable, Beck and him living happily ever after. However, obviously, when you are a murderous, psycho, stalker, things never go as you imagine.
Unlike the show, the book never lets you forget that Joe is a monster, having it delivered 100% from his perspective lets us see all the questionable interworkings of his mind. Kepnes obviously referenced incel forums while researching, because a lot of what he says is copy pasta incel rhetoric. He is a bad guy. I think where I struggled with this book is that Beck, in her own way, is a terrible, narcissistic, whiney piece of work. She treats everyone terribly and is very "woe is me". Leaving me to not care about her fate. I watched her fall into his grasp and almost rooted for her demise because she was just the worst. I feel the author needed to deliver something redeeming about her to make me care about what he was doing to her. But up until the end, I hated Beck. But, unlike the show, unlike the masses of Joe fans onlines, I hated Joe too in this book. It was scary how so much he did was so easy, and with the incel like thoughts it reminds you that this would be so easy to happen in real life. At times however, his character felt inconsistent, making dumb descisions or having severe thoughts that didn't feel like his mental instability, just inconsistent story telling. So I would argue that the show was smart in removing all the incel thoughts, all the oversexualized, suddenly very agressive thoughts. Because of course someone who thinks like that could do these things. It's almost scarier that the show version doesn't think this way, just fully 100% believes he is doing the right thing. That's scary. I wish the author had employed that more in her book, something to prove to the reader that Joe fully was convinced he was good. But for every time she attempted to write this she undermined it with some obviously bad thought, that never made the reader doubt for a moment. This isn't bad persay, but I think it took a little creepiness from the book and traded it for shock value. The equivalent of showing the monster in a creepy monster flick. Overall it kept my attention, and I immediately ordered the next book (this one ended very different from the show, and ancillary names were used for different character in season 2) so I'm excited to see what she did in book two, as I won't have something to compare it to.
Worth the read, whether you've seen the show or not. Dark, real, and very creepy. It'll make you look at strangers a little differently.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Black Mirror - Season 2 in TV
Mar 3, 2020
Be Right Back - 8
Hayley Atwell, best known as Captain America’s squeeze in the MCU, Carries the emotional weight of this episode in beguiling style. Not for the last time Black Mirror enters the territory of death, grief, loneliness and questions of a tech-aided afterlife. If it were possible to bring a loved one back in physical form, even though we knew it wasn’t really them, would we be tempted to do it? Entirely believable as a concept, considering the amount of data we are storing about ourselves on social media and in other digital ways. Although any kind of clone as good as Domhnall Gleason is a bit far fetched for now. What works here is realising that no matter how good a facsimile is, it is the myriad of tiny details that make a person that we miss the most, even the imperfections. Genuinely moving in its best moments, and a strong start to season 2 in 2013.
White Bear - 7.5
White Bear, the first of the “blind” episodes, where we as viewer are thrown into a situation with no explanation or context, was the first Black Mirror episode I ever watched. I remember being blown away by the dark concept, compelling nature of the minimal narrative, the cunning twist, and the boldness of the statement seemingly being made. So many themes are going on at the same time here: true crime as voyeuristic entertainment; the moral idea of an eye for an eye, brainwashing, and whether torture under any circumstance can be justified, for starters. Looking back, it isn’t the most rounded tale in the canon, or the best acted, but it is certainly very memorable. It also saw the birth of the White Bear symbol, which pops up in other episodes regularly, if paying attention. What is its meaning? The jury is still out!
The Waldo Moment - 6
The political apathy of a nation, and hatred of the personality flaws of our politicians could lead to a figurehead without real policies being elected and revered – it isn’t a very strange idea in 2020 at all. Many younger voters have been incited to demand change, without any idea of what that change should entail. So, in concept, this episode is right on the money. Trouble is it isn’t well written enough to sustain the drama or intrigue in the way the best of the canon do. The shock value is low, and therefore the reaction is “meh, fair enough”. For me, the first real blip in quality control for the series.
White Christmas - 8.5
This was the transition episode that saw Black Mirror make the big money move from Channel 4 to Netflix. Although now bundled into series two, it was a 21 month wait after The Waldo Moment before over 2 million of us settled down to this Christmas gift in 2014. It comes over as an anthology within an anthology, with John Hamm and Rafe Spall telling tales in front of the fire whilst on a “job” together in the cold wilderness of an unknown location. It is laden with ideas of technology back-firing, and is very satisfying in how quickly it moves through the plot points. The chemistry of the two lead men is great; the arrogance of one and the nervousness of the other allowing for some beautiful twists and turns. Essentially, the whole thing is either a re-working of ideas already used, or a precursor to future ideas that will be more fleshed out. Not that it really matters. This is the highest rated individual episode on IMDb, and the reason for that has to be its accessibility. The balance between being creeped out and entertained is just about perfect.
Hayley Atwell, best known as Captain America’s squeeze in the MCU, Carries the emotional weight of this episode in beguiling style. Not for the last time Black Mirror enters the territory of death, grief, loneliness and questions of a tech-aided afterlife. If it were possible to bring a loved one back in physical form, even though we knew it wasn’t really them, would we be tempted to do it? Entirely believable as a concept, considering the amount of data we are storing about ourselves on social media and in other digital ways. Although any kind of clone as good as Domhnall Gleason is a bit far fetched for now. What works here is realising that no matter how good a facsimile is, it is the myriad of tiny details that make a person that we miss the most, even the imperfections. Genuinely moving in its best moments, and a strong start to season 2 in 2013.
White Bear - 7.5
White Bear, the first of the “blind” episodes, where we as viewer are thrown into a situation with no explanation or context, was the first Black Mirror episode I ever watched. I remember being blown away by the dark concept, compelling nature of the minimal narrative, the cunning twist, and the boldness of the statement seemingly being made. So many themes are going on at the same time here: true crime as voyeuristic entertainment; the moral idea of an eye for an eye, brainwashing, and whether torture under any circumstance can be justified, for starters. Looking back, it isn’t the most rounded tale in the canon, or the best acted, but it is certainly very memorable. It also saw the birth of the White Bear symbol, which pops up in other episodes regularly, if paying attention. What is its meaning? The jury is still out!
The Waldo Moment - 6
The political apathy of a nation, and hatred of the personality flaws of our politicians could lead to a figurehead without real policies being elected and revered – it isn’t a very strange idea in 2020 at all. Many younger voters have been incited to demand change, without any idea of what that change should entail. So, in concept, this episode is right on the money. Trouble is it isn’t well written enough to sustain the drama or intrigue in the way the best of the canon do. The shock value is low, and therefore the reaction is “meh, fair enough”. For me, the first real blip in quality control for the series.
White Christmas - 8.5
This was the transition episode that saw Black Mirror make the big money move from Channel 4 to Netflix. Although now bundled into series two, it was a 21 month wait after The Waldo Moment before over 2 million of us settled down to this Christmas gift in 2014. It comes over as an anthology within an anthology, with John Hamm and Rafe Spall telling tales in front of the fire whilst on a “job” together in the cold wilderness of an unknown location. It is laden with ideas of technology back-firing, and is very satisfying in how quickly it moves through the plot points. The chemistry of the two lead men is great; the arrogance of one and the nervousness of the other allowing for some beautiful twists and turns. Essentially, the whole thing is either a re-working of ideas already used, or a precursor to future ideas that will be more fleshed out. Not that it really matters. This is the highest rated individual episode on IMDb, and the reason for that has to be its accessibility. The balance between being creeped out and entertained is just about perfect.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Electric Slide (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Today’s choice for your consideration is the 2014 film ‘Electric Slide’. A biographical crime film based on the life of antique/furniture salesman turned bank robber Eddie Dodson.
Starring Jim Sturgess, Isabel Lucas, Chloe Sevigny, Patricia Arquette, and Christopher Lambert, ‘Electric Slide’ opens in 1983 Los Angeles. Disco is nearly dead and Rock-n-Roll is putting the final nails in its coffin. By day, Eddie Dodson (Jim Sturgess) is a hip antique furniture salesman (there’s a contradiction in terms) catering to the rich and famous while in engaging in some petty thievering from his customers on the side. By night, he moves with the drug-fueled parties from one mansion to the next. A chance encounter at one of these parties introduces him to the beautiful and aloof Pauline (Isabel Lucas). Eddie and Pauline are immediately smitten with one another as though destined by fate. At about the same time, Eddie’s carefree lifestyle is coming back to haunt him as loan sharks finally catch up to him and his former benefactor Roy Fortune (Christopher Lambert) comes calling demanding the return of his money. With no other way to repay his debt, Eddie resorts to robbing banks. With Pauline in tow, Eddie uses his charm to talk the tellers at over 60 banks in the L.A. Area into handing over their cash. However, instead of paying off his debts Eddie and Pauline simply continue their life of excess with the police and the loan sharks in hot pursuit.
This film did an excellent job of depicting the ‘L.A. Lifestyle’ of the early 1980s that didn’t involve celebrities, but the folks who you would imagine would be latching on to those said celebrities.
The groupies if you will. The main character Eddie Dodson seems like he was a born con artist … a greasy slime ball who will take you for every thing you have if you let him. He is a bizarrely likable character though and his devotion to Pauline makes the viewer all the more want him to get away with just about any scheme he tries to pull. This is the first time I’ve seen Isabel Lucas in film since ‘Transformers:Revenge Of The Fallen’ or the ‘Red Dawn’ remake and I must say her performance as Pauline was brilliant. To quote another reviewer who screened this film I found myself asking ‘Who is that girl?’ From her first appearance on screen, it’s like you’re immediately drawn to her quiet/mysterious presence. It was also awesome to see Christopher Lambert in a movie once again. Although he’s portrayed a villain previously, I had personally never seen anything where he was the villain. His appearance in this film although brief had me convinced. In my opinion he should pursue more roles as the villain if they present themselves.
One of the movie’s aspects that bugged me though was the soundtrack. The only way I could describe it would be ‘hipsters trying to sound retro’ and they didn’t succeed. The music didn’t sound like it belonged in the timeframe which the movie took place in. There were also far too many clips and scenes where they kicked in the slow motion or decided to have the camera pan or zoom out in some attempt to capture more of the surroundings. They could’ve used this wasted time to include more dialogue and interaction between the main characters in my opinion. Besides the A-List actors they managed to enlist for this film the only thing that saved it in the end was the knowledge that the film was based on a true story. It kinda of fizzled about halfway though and then kicked back in 3/4s of the way through. The film is worth watching visually but the thing that killed it was that it could’ve used more dialogue. I’d give it 2.5 out of 5 stars. It’s worth watching once or twice. Nothing to write home about though.
Starring Jim Sturgess, Isabel Lucas, Chloe Sevigny, Patricia Arquette, and Christopher Lambert, ‘Electric Slide’ opens in 1983 Los Angeles. Disco is nearly dead and Rock-n-Roll is putting the final nails in its coffin. By day, Eddie Dodson (Jim Sturgess) is a hip antique furniture salesman (there’s a contradiction in terms) catering to the rich and famous while in engaging in some petty thievering from his customers on the side. By night, he moves with the drug-fueled parties from one mansion to the next. A chance encounter at one of these parties introduces him to the beautiful and aloof Pauline (Isabel Lucas). Eddie and Pauline are immediately smitten with one another as though destined by fate. At about the same time, Eddie’s carefree lifestyle is coming back to haunt him as loan sharks finally catch up to him and his former benefactor Roy Fortune (Christopher Lambert) comes calling demanding the return of his money. With no other way to repay his debt, Eddie resorts to robbing banks. With Pauline in tow, Eddie uses his charm to talk the tellers at over 60 banks in the L.A. Area into handing over their cash. However, instead of paying off his debts Eddie and Pauline simply continue their life of excess with the police and the loan sharks in hot pursuit.
This film did an excellent job of depicting the ‘L.A. Lifestyle’ of the early 1980s that didn’t involve celebrities, but the folks who you would imagine would be latching on to those said celebrities.
The groupies if you will. The main character Eddie Dodson seems like he was a born con artist … a greasy slime ball who will take you for every thing you have if you let him. He is a bizarrely likable character though and his devotion to Pauline makes the viewer all the more want him to get away with just about any scheme he tries to pull. This is the first time I’ve seen Isabel Lucas in film since ‘Transformers:Revenge Of The Fallen’ or the ‘Red Dawn’ remake and I must say her performance as Pauline was brilliant. To quote another reviewer who screened this film I found myself asking ‘Who is that girl?’ From her first appearance on screen, it’s like you’re immediately drawn to her quiet/mysterious presence. It was also awesome to see Christopher Lambert in a movie once again. Although he’s portrayed a villain previously, I had personally never seen anything where he was the villain. His appearance in this film although brief had me convinced. In my opinion he should pursue more roles as the villain if they present themselves.
One of the movie’s aspects that bugged me though was the soundtrack. The only way I could describe it would be ‘hipsters trying to sound retro’ and they didn’t succeed. The music didn’t sound like it belonged in the timeframe which the movie took place in. There were also far too many clips and scenes where they kicked in the slow motion or decided to have the camera pan or zoom out in some attempt to capture more of the surroundings. They could’ve used this wasted time to include more dialogue and interaction between the main characters in my opinion. Besides the A-List actors they managed to enlist for this film the only thing that saved it in the end was the knowledge that the film was based on a true story. It kinda of fizzled about halfway though and then kicked back in 3/4s of the way through. The film is worth watching visually but the thing that killed it was that it could’ve used more dialogue. I’d give it 2.5 out of 5 stars. It’s worth watching once or twice. Nothing to write home about though.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Unsolved Mysteries in TV
Jan 22, 2021 (Updated Jan 22, 2021)
It is a guilty secret of mine that when in the right mood I love to get a small fix of the unexplained or the macabre true crime documentary type thing. They tend to range from truly ridiculous to the mildly convincing, but tend not to have especially high production value. Netflix seem to know there is demand for it however, and every now and again there is a mini-series that can live in the same box as the more serious docs.
Making a Murderer was maybe the first to break through into the mainstream consciousness, some five years ago. I watched the first series of that with a morbid fascination, as did everyone else. The second season was interesting too, but lacked the cliffhanger drive of the first. Then there are three or four parters like the superlative Ted Bundy Tapes, which get to the point and don’t out stay their welcome. Unsolved Mysteries is sort of something in the middle.
The twist on this series is that these six stories are all active cases that remain unsolved by local police forces, and we are encouraged at the end of each one to call a hotline with any info that may lead to an arrest. This is a gimmick, of course, and I can’t imagine the calls and emails they have been getting! Those would make a better TV show than this actually is, for sure.
Each episode is an hour long, which in honesty is twice as long as it needs to be in half the cases. In fact, only two of the six captured my imagination enough to give me chills and want to know what happened. The other four were standard missing person stories that although “unsolved” were pretty mundane. As mundane as murder ever gets… which is a pitfall of watching this stuff… it all gets quite normalised and loses its power to disturb, as it should.
The first to interest me was the first up, the strange story of Rey Rivera, known as “the mystery on the rooftop”. The thing that got me was the hidden note taped to the back of his computer, that read like a coded message, and hinted at involvement with a secret society. That, combined with the fact that his fall to death was impossible, and that his boss put a gagging order on all his staff after the event. Whatever this guy had going on in his life it was weird! And his family knew not one thing about it…
The second was “House of Terror”, the story of a French aristocrat who secretly shot his entire family while they slept, carefully buried them under the back porch with immense care, left no other trace of evidence in the house, then disappeared forever into the mountains, seemingly creating a deliberate false trail on CCTV. What got me here was the calculation and calm of it all, combined with the mystery of not knowing his motive, other than the fact he may have been living a lie about how successful he was financially. Regardless, his actions were so cool and unpanicked, it was like watching something out of the Bourne Identity.
As I say, otherwise it is all pretty standard stuff, and nothing to write home about. But I will remember those two cases and be holding out for any new developments in them. I guess that’s all they want – enough intrigue to keep you hooked for more down the line. Of course, you are never quite sure how manipulative with the “truth” these things are? It seemed to be presented soberly and without a sensationalist angle, but you never know. Why do I watch them at all, that is the biggest mystery…
Making a Murderer was maybe the first to break through into the mainstream consciousness, some five years ago. I watched the first series of that with a morbid fascination, as did everyone else. The second season was interesting too, but lacked the cliffhanger drive of the first. Then there are three or four parters like the superlative Ted Bundy Tapes, which get to the point and don’t out stay their welcome. Unsolved Mysteries is sort of something in the middle.
The twist on this series is that these six stories are all active cases that remain unsolved by local police forces, and we are encouraged at the end of each one to call a hotline with any info that may lead to an arrest. This is a gimmick, of course, and I can’t imagine the calls and emails they have been getting! Those would make a better TV show than this actually is, for sure.
Each episode is an hour long, which in honesty is twice as long as it needs to be in half the cases. In fact, only two of the six captured my imagination enough to give me chills and want to know what happened. The other four were standard missing person stories that although “unsolved” were pretty mundane. As mundane as murder ever gets… which is a pitfall of watching this stuff… it all gets quite normalised and loses its power to disturb, as it should.
The first to interest me was the first up, the strange story of Rey Rivera, known as “the mystery on the rooftop”. The thing that got me was the hidden note taped to the back of his computer, that read like a coded message, and hinted at involvement with a secret society. That, combined with the fact that his fall to death was impossible, and that his boss put a gagging order on all his staff after the event. Whatever this guy had going on in his life it was weird! And his family knew not one thing about it…
The second was “House of Terror”, the story of a French aristocrat who secretly shot his entire family while they slept, carefully buried them under the back porch with immense care, left no other trace of evidence in the house, then disappeared forever into the mountains, seemingly creating a deliberate false trail on CCTV. What got me here was the calculation and calm of it all, combined with the mystery of not knowing his motive, other than the fact he may have been living a lie about how successful he was financially. Regardless, his actions were so cool and unpanicked, it was like watching something out of the Bourne Identity.
As I say, otherwise it is all pretty standard stuff, and nothing to write home about. But I will remember those two cases and be holding out for any new developments in them. I guess that’s all they want – enough intrigue to keep you hooked for more down the line. Of course, you are never quite sure how manipulative with the “truth” these things are? It seemed to be presented soberly and without a sensationalist angle, but you never know. Why do I watch them at all, that is the biggest mystery…
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated The Purge (2013) in Movies
Jan 28, 2021
Contains spoilers, click to show
I wanted a 'Killer in masks/home invasion' and that's what I got but there is a lot going on it 'The Purge' :
1) We have the purge itself, a new political party has come in and started titular Purge, one night a year where any crime is legal (although the emphasis is on killing and, via subtext, rape). There are a few exceptions stated at the start of the film and, although it's not directly stated, it seems that minors are exempt, in that they can be targets but not actually participate in the killing.
2)The 'Boyfriend' subplot. This could have led to the main plot but seems to be there just to keep us off track at the beginning.
3) The bloody stranger - ok he's needed as he's the main McGuffin
4) The Freaks, Yes the film needs it's antagonists and it's sometimes good to throw in a red herring but we have; The Freaks, Henry (the boy friend), The Bloody stranger who is suspected as being dangerous when he first arrives, even Janes Sandin looks like he could be the antagonist when he is going to throw the stranger out of the house, then we have...
5) The neighbours - even from the start of the film there is something off about them.
6) Add all of this together with a lot of politics and you have a very layered film.
The first half of the film is mainly set up, setting up the idea of the purge and introducing the characters, there are a few shots of violence in the beginning but the film starts off slow. Then it explodes in violence.
Although the concept is the same, The Purge is a different beast to something like 'The Strangers', both films spend time building up to the the action but, when the action starts, the Purge is much faster paced, mainly because there are more 'hunters' and they have guns.
The Purge is also a very political film but it doesn't go down the 'rich vs poor' root that a lot of films do, this is mentioned a bit but only to back up the thinking behind some of those who partake in the event. The film shows two sides of the Purge and mentions two more, you have those that want to take part in the event and those (like the main family) who don't, the Sandin's just want to get through the night where as the 'Freaks' happily take part in it. It's also mentioned that there are those who can not protect themselves (the poor) and those that object.
After watching it I am left with two questions:
1) what happened to Henrys body? We last saw it in Zoey's room, no one mentioned moving it and it couldn't have been taken out of the house but it was never seen when the Freaks were going room to room, they even went into the room where it should have been.
2) were the cookies poisoned? The neighbour said they saw the shutters come down (pulled off) and decided to take the opportunity to kill the Sandins but the hatred was already there so could the cookies have been another way to kill them off. It's true that they would have had to have been cooked before the purge officially started but, going by when they given, they would not have been eaten until either a few minuets before the start or after it had started and I doubt that anyone official would pay too much attention to the bodies after the purge. There would be too many even if they wanted too.
1) We have the purge itself, a new political party has come in and started titular Purge, one night a year where any crime is legal (although the emphasis is on killing and, via subtext, rape). There are a few exceptions stated at the start of the film and, although it's not directly stated, it seems that minors are exempt, in that they can be targets but not actually participate in the killing.
2)The 'Boyfriend' subplot. This could have led to the main plot but seems to be there just to keep us off track at the beginning.
3) The bloody stranger - ok he's needed as he's the main McGuffin
4) The Freaks, Yes the film needs it's antagonists and it's sometimes good to throw in a red herring but we have; The Freaks, Henry (the boy friend), The Bloody stranger who is suspected as being dangerous when he first arrives, even Janes Sandin looks like he could be the antagonist when he is going to throw the stranger out of the house, then we have...
5) The neighbours - even from the start of the film there is something off about them.
6) Add all of this together with a lot of politics and you have a very layered film.
The first half of the film is mainly set up, setting up the idea of the purge and introducing the characters, there are a few shots of violence in the beginning but the film starts off slow. Then it explodes in violence.
Although the concept is the same, The Purge is a different beast to something like 'The Strangers', both films spend time building up to the the action but, when the action starts, the Purge is much faster paced, mainly because there are more 'hunters' and they have guns.
The Purge is also a very political film but it doesn't go down the 'rich vs poor' root that a lot of films do, this is mentioned a bit but only to back up the thinking behind some of those who partake in the event. The film shows two sides of the Purge and mentions two more, you have those that want to take part in the event and those (like the main family) who don't, the Sandin's just want to get through the night where as the 'Freaks' happily take part in it. It's also mentioned that there are those who can not protect themselves (the poor) and those that object.
After watching it I am left with two questions:
1) what happened to Henrys body? We last saw it in Zoey's room, no one mentioned moving it and it couldn't have been taken out of the house but it was never seen when the Freaks were going room to room, they even went into the room where it should have been.
2) were the cookies poisoned? The neighbour said they saw the shutters come down (pulled off) and decided to take the opportunity to kill the Sandins but the hatred was already there so could the cookies have been another way to kill them off. It's true that they would have had to have been cooked before the purge officially started but, going by when they given, they would not have been eaten until either a few minuets before the start or after it had started and I doubt that anyone official would pay too much attention to the bodies after the purge. There would be too many even if they wanted too.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Obey (2018) in Movies
Aug 30, 2019
Verdict: Eye-Opening Drama
Story: Obey starts as we meet Leon (Rutherford) a 19-year-old man living in London, he doesn’t have the education, he spends most of his time getting high and drinking with friends, while causing trouble with other gangs, Leon does train in boxing and is starting to wonder what his life is meant to be.
As the violence in the surrounding neighbourhood, Leon starts to question everything more, as he sees his friends acting out causing bigger problems, while he homelife isn’t getting any better with his alcoholic mother, stopping him from getting a chance to improve himself and the woman he meets Twiggy (Clark) only gives him mixed messages.
Thoughts on Obey
Characters – Leon is the 19-year-old man that was raised in the London, where he has become part of a gang, didn’t get a chance at an education and is left facing a life of uncertainty. Leon is feeling like life is going no where now and he wants to do something about it, this could see him go back into education or continue his training in boxing, but the reality comes with him that he just doesn’t want to get involved in criminal actions going on within London, it is a make or break time for the young man, that we completely understand his position in life. Twiggy is the woman that Leon meets, she has been squatting in London with her boyfriend, though she is a free spirit that isn’t looking for trouble, which makes her different to everybody else in Leon’s life. Anton is her boyfriend that we don’t learn to much about other than he is happy to hang out with whoever and fights for rights. We do get to meet most of the gang Leon is in, though the names are easy to forget, they represent a life of crime he could fall into, Leon’s alcoholic mother and her abusive boyfriend, each character does seem to reflect a life Leon could have.
Performances – Marcus Rutherford easily gives us a standout performance in this film, he will make you understand every single situation his character is going through, which is a delight to watch. Sophie Kennedy Clark is everything she needs to be, with the whole supporting cast making you feel like you are part of this world that Leon is living through.
Story – The story here follows a young man who grew up in London as part of a gang, who isn’t given a chance of a future, until he meets a stranger and is left to decide what he wants for his own future. This story is a true eye opener when it comes to showing us how the gang situation happens, is treated and how hopeless somebody could be if they are trapped within it. We do only follow one person, who is given a few outs, through support, a woman, but is also held back by his lack of education, his gang friends and caring for his addict mother. This does show us how hard the life can be, how the mentality can see the person making the wrong decisions, how the outsiders can see them as wrong, rather than not given a chance. This is an important story for the people of England to see and one that could open up more eyes to what the problems really are, not what they think they are.
Settings – The film is set in London, this does show us just how difficult the life would be for Leon and other young people in this location, if they haven’t been given a chance.
Scene of the Movie – The journey.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not enough development of the supporting characters.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the most important eye openers in the world of film, it doesn’t glorify anything, just keeps it feeling realistic throughout the film.
Overall: Important drama.
Story: Obey starts as we meet Leon (Rutherford) a 19-year-old man living in London, he doesn’t have the education, he spends most of his time getting high and drinking with friends, while causing trouble with other gangs, Leon does train in boxing and is starting to wonder what his life is meant to be.
As the violence in the surrounding neighbourhood, Leon starts to question everything more, as he sees his friends acting out causing bigger problems, while he homelife isn’t getting any better with his alcoholic mother, stopping him from getting a chance to improve himself and the woman he meets Twiggy (Clark) only gives him mixed messages.
Thoughts on Obey
Characters – Leon is the 19-year-old man that was raised in the London, where he has become part of a gang, didn’t get a chance at an education and is left facing a life of uncertainty. Leon is feeling like life is going no where now and he wants to do something about it, this could see him go back into education or continue his training in boxing, but the reality comes with him that he just doesn’t want to get involved in criminal actions going on within London, it is a make or break time for the young man, that we completely understand his position in life. Twiggy is the woman that Leon meets, she has been squatting in London with her boyfriend, though she is a free spirit that isn’t looking for trouble, which makes her different to everybody else in Leon’s life. Anton is her boyfriend that we don’t learn to much about other than he is happy to hang out with whoever and fights for rights. We do get to meet most of the gang Leon is in, though the names are easy to forget, they represent a life of crime he could fall into, Leon’s alcoholic mother and her abusive boyfriend, each character does seem to reflect a life Leon could have.
Performances – Marcus Rutherford easily gives us a standout performance in this film, he will make you understand every single situation his character is going through, which is a delight to watch. Sophie Kennedy Clark is everything she needs to be, with the whole supporting cast making you feel like you are part of this world that Leon is living through.
Story – The story here follows a young man who grew up in London as part of a gang, who isn’t given a chance of a future, until he meets a stranger and is left to decide what he wants for his own future. This story is a true eye opener when it comes to showing us how the gang situation happens, is treated and how hopeless somebody could be if they are trapped within it. We do only follow one person, who is given a few outs, through support, a woman, but is also held back by his lack of education, his gang friends and caring for his addict mother. This does show us how hard the life can be, how the mentality can see the person making the wrong decisions, how the outsiders can see them as wrong, rather than not given a chance. This is an important story for the people of England to see and one that could open up more eyes to what the problems really are, not what they think they are.
Settings – The film is set in London, this does show us just how difficult the life would be for Leon and other young people in this location, if they haven’t been given a chance.
Scene of the Movie – The journey.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not enough development of the supporting characters.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the most important eye openers in the world of film, it doesn’t glorify anything, just keeps it feeling realistic throughout the film.
Overall: Important drama.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Sinner - Season 1 in TV
Nov 30, 2017 (Updated Nov 30, 2017)
Barely any of the characters were sympathetic or relatable (3 more)
The ending was dissatisfying
So many wasted episodes
It was only 9 episodes long, but it felt far longer
A Sin That This Wasn't Better
This show came highly recommended to me by sources that I usually trust, but it turned out to be a total let down. The show opens with a young family going to the beach. The mother who is played by Jessica Biel, suddenly walks over to another young man on the beach and stabs him to death in front of over a hundred witnesses in broad daylight. She is then arrested and the show spends the next 8 episodes clumsily trying to explain why she committed this heinous act.
I like Jessica Biel, I like Bill Pullman and I like Christopher Abbott, who plays the husband to Biel's Cora Tannetti. I like mysterious shows about crime and murder. I should have loved this, but I thought it was a train wreck from start to finish. During the first episode we see the murder occur in graphic detail, then the next couple of episodes ask why she did what she did and then you start to wonder, "how are they going to manage to drag this out for another six episodes without it getting stale?" The answer is, they aren't and it gets old fast. In this sense, the writing is a mess.
Sometimes though, a show can have messy writing, but be saved by it's cast of characters. However, that is absolutely not the case here. Cora is the main character of the show, so I think we are supposed to feel some sort of connection to her, yet she is so grossly off-putting in every way, I was actually was hoping to see her get the death sentence. At first you see her committing this atrocity, which obviously causes you to take an instant dislike to her, but you expect as the show goes on and we learn more about her, that we will eventually feel sympathetic towards her. In fact, the exact opposite is true, every new facet of information that I learned about her backstory just made me hate her more and at no point did I feel like I was on her side.
There is also a flashback subplot going on, which shows Cora as a suspiciously old looking teenager, as for some reason Jessica Biel is still playing the role of the teenage Cora. Through this we see her family life growing up, but her family are some of the most dislikeable characters I have seen in a TV show in years. Her mother is a religious nut to the point of insanity, her father is sleeping with the next door neighbour and her terminally ill sister is such a little shit that you don't feel any sympathy towards her for her illness and you end up hoping she will die sooner rather than later.
I'll try to discuss the ending without giving away any major spoilers, but for those who haven't yet seen the show, you may want to skip to the final paragraph. At around the episode 5 mark, I was very close to giving up on this show, but I had heard that the ending was amazing, so I stuck with it. What a waste of time that turned out to be. The reveal itself was a huge let down and after everything was revealed, I still felt that the murder victim didn't deserve to die and I thought that Cora pretty much getting away with murder was so dissatisfying and undeserved.
Overall, this show is pretty awful. There are so many plot threads that go nowhere, the writing thinks it is far more clever than it actually is, actors that I normally like are playing entirely dislikeable characters and the whole thing seems far longer than just nine episodes. The ending isn't worth sticking around for and really the show is just tons of wasted potential. Do yourself a favour and give this a skip, there are far better shows available to watch on Netflix.
I like Jessica Biel, I like Bill Pullman and I like Christopher Abbott, who plays the husband to Biel's Cora Tannetti. I like mysterious shows about crime and murder. I should have loved this, but I thought it was a train wreck from start to finish. During the first episode we see the murder occur in graphic detail, then the next couple of episodes ask why she did what she did and then you start to wonder, "how are they going to manage to drag this out for another six episodes without it getting stale?" The answer is, they aren't and it gets old fast. In this sense, the writing is a mess.
Sometimes though, a show can have messy writing, but be saved by it's cast of characters. However, that is absolutely not the case here. Cora is the main character of the show, so I think we are supposed to feel some sort of connection to her, yet she is so grossly off-putting in every way, I was actually was hoping to see her get the death sentence. At first you see her committing this atrocity, which obviously causes you to take an instant dislike to her, but you expect as the show goes on and we learn more about her, that we will eventually feel sympathetic towards her. In fact, the exact opposite is true, every new facet of information that I learned about her backstory just made me hate her more and at no point did I feel like I was on her side.
There is also a flashback subplot going on, which shows Cora as a suspiciously old looking teenager, as for some reason Jessica Biel is still playing the role of the teenage Cora. Through this we see her family life growing up, but her family are some of the most dislikeable characters I have seen in a TV show in years. Her mother is a religious nut to the point of insanity, her father is sleeping with the next door neighbour and her terminally ill sister is such a little shit that you don't feel any sympathy towards her for her illness and you end up hoping she will die sooner rather than later.
I'll try to discuss the ending without giving away any major spoilers, but for those who haven't yet seen the show, you may want to skip to the final paragraph. At around the episode 5 mark, I was very close to giving up on this show, but I had heard that the ending was amazing, so I stuck with it. What a waste of time that turned out to be. The reveal itself was a huge let down and after everything was revealed, I still felt that the murder victim didn't deserve to die and I thought that Cora pretty much getting away with murder was so dissatisfying and undeserved.
Overall, this show is pretty awful. There are so many plot threads that go nowhere, the writing thinks it is far more clever than it actually is, actors that I normally like are playing entirely dislikeable characters and the whole thing seems far longer than just nine episodes. The ending isn't worth sticking around for and really the show is just tons of wasted potential. Do yourself a favour and give this a skip, there are far better shows available to watch on Netflix.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated A Nearly Normal Family in Books
May 14, 2019
Legal thrillers usually aren't my thing. In fact, I find them to be more a snooze fest than anything else. However, when I read the synopsis for A Nearly Normal Family by M.T. Edvardsson, I was intrigued. I just want to say that this book blew me away! It was that good!
The plot for A Nearly Normal Family is very intriguing indeed. Eighteen year old Stella becomes involved with an older man named Christopher. She's having the time of her life. When she learns more about her romantic interest, she's having a hard time believing the bad stuff is true. It's not long before Christopher is found murdered, and Stella is the main suspect. Told from the point of view from Stella's father, Stella, and Stella's mother, we learn what really happened that night, what led to all of this drama, and what happens afterwards. We also learn how far people will go to protect the ones they love. I found myself not wanting to guess what happened with this book. I wanted everything to be a complete surprise which it was. There are a few twists and turns throughout this novel which I did enjoy. I loved that this book tied up any loose ends by the end of the book, and nothing was left to speculation. I hate having to guess what happened after the main mystery has been solved, so I was thrilled when I had all my answers. I'm a stickler for closure!
The characters were all very well developed and fleshed out enough that they felt real. We are introduced to Adam, Stella's father, first. We see his relationship with his daughter, his wife, and with God since he's a pastor. He relies heavily on his faith to get him through things. He's an upstanding member of the community and very trustworthy. I found Adam to be the most interesting to read about. It was interesting to read about his response to his daughter being accused of murder. Next, we are introduced to Stella's point of view. Stella is accused of murdering her boyfriend, Christopher. She's eighteen and has a devil may care attitude when it comes to everything. Some points throughout the book, I felt she was innocent of the crime, but there were other times she seemed very guilty. I couldn't figure her out. It was interesting to read about what had happened throughout her young life to get to the predicament she was in. Finally, we learn the perspective from Ulrika, Stella's mother. I didn't think I would be able to connect with Ulrika right at first, but I found myself understanding her quickly. Ulrika is a criminal defense attorney, so it was interesting reading about her perspective on everything. I was happy that Ulrika didn't use legal jargon too often. Although we don't get to read things from her perspective, the character of Amina, Stella's best friend, was also intriguing. I loved reading about the girls' friendship throughout the years and how loyal they were to one another.
The pacing was spot on! Every time the story would change perspectives, I thought I'd get bored with the change of character, but I was sucked in right away same as before. I devoured page after page of A Nearly Normal Family. I couldn't wait to find out more and learn about motives and what would happen.
Trigger warnings include profanity, alcohol use, drug use, violence (not very graphic), rape (not very graphic, mentions of sex (not graphic), and murder.
Overall, A Nearly Normal Family is a very intriguing read that pulls you in from the very first page and doesn't let you go even after it ends. I would definitely recommend A Nearly Normal Family by M.T. Edvardsson to those aged 18+ who like to get lost in well written thrillers!
--
(A special thank you to the publisher for providing me with an ARC paperback of A Nearly Normal Family by M.T. Edvardsson in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
The plot for A Nearly Normal Family is very intriguing indeed. Eighteen year old Stella becomes involved with an older man named Christopher. She's having the time of her life. When she learns more about her romantic interest, she's having a hard time believing the bad stuff is true. It's not long before Christopher is found murdered, and Stella is the main suspect. Told from the point of view from Stella's father, Stella, and Stella's mother, we learn what really happened that night, what led to all of this drama, and what happens afterwards. We also learn how far people will go to protect the ones they love. I found myself not wanting to guess what happened with this book. I wanted everything to be a complete surprise which it was. There are a few twists and turns throughout this novel which I did enjoy. I loved that this book tied up any loose ends by the end of the book, and nothing was left to speculation. I hate having to guess what happened after the main mystery has been solved, so I was thrilled when I had all my answers. I'm a stickler for closure!
The characters were all very well developed and fleshed out enough that they felt real. We are introduced to Adam, Stella's father, first. We see his relationship with his daughter, his wife, and with God since he's a pastor. He relies heavily on his faith to get him through things. He's an upstanding member of the community and very trustworthy. I found Adam to be the most interesting to read about. It was interesting to read about his response to his daughter being accused of murder. Next, we are introduced to Stella's point of view. Stella is accused of murdering her boyfriend, Christopher. She's eighteen and has a devil may care attitude when it comes to everything. Some points throughout the book, I felt she was innocent of the crime, but there were other times she seemed very guilty. I couldn't figure her out. It was interesting to read about what had happened throughout her young life to get to the predicament she was in. Finally, we learn the perspective from Ulrika, Stella's mother. I didn't think I would be able to connect with Ulrika right at first, but I found myself understanding her quickly. Ulrika is a criminal defense attorney, so it was interesting reading about her perspective on everything. I was happy that Ulrika didn't use legal jargon too often. Although we don't get to read things from her perspective, the character of Amina, Stella's best friend, was also intriguing. I loved reading about the girls' friendship throughout the years and how loyal they were to one another.
The pacing was spot on! Every time the story would change perspectives, I thought I'd get bored with the change of character, but I was sucked in right away same as before. I devoured page after page of A Nearly Normal Family. I couldn't wait to find out more and learn about motives and what would happen.
Trigger warnings include profanity, alcohol use, drug use, violence (not very graphic), rape (not very graphic, mentions of sex (not graphic), and murder.
Overall, A Nearly Normal Family is a very intriguing read that pulls you in from the very first page and doesn't let you go even after it ends. I would definitely recommend A Nearly Normal Family by M.T. Edvardsson to those aged 18+ who like to get lost in well written thrillers!
--
(A special thank you to the publisher for providing me with an ARC paperback of A Nearly Normal Family by M.T. Edvardsson in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)