Search
Search results
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated Cruise the Storm (John McBride #2) in Books
Nov 12, 2019
A group of terrorist hijackers on board a cruise ship. An ex SAS soldier on board teaching watercolour painting. A huge storm bearing down on the ship.
This might sound like the plot of some Hollywood blockbuster full of explosions and witty one liners from the hero but Chilcott delivers something a lot more cerebral than that. The story and characters have a sense of reality and this is more like a game of chess between the chief hijacker and the crew, a game where the ship is the board and the pawns the passengers which the terrorists are only too willing to dispose of to meet their aims.
Keith Bourne is the founder and leader of the White Christian League, an extreme right wing terrorist organisation who specialise in violent demonstration and the odd mosque burning. Bourne wants cash to further his rather nasty aims and decides that hijacking a cruise liner will fit the bill nicely. MI5 have been watching him and manage to get one of their agents onto the boat in an attempt to thwart Bourne and his cronies.
John McBride is a watercolour artist of some renown who is drafted onto the cruise to teach any interested passengers how to paint in watercolours, the scenes in the various Mediterranean ports they will be visitng being ideal subjects. McBride also happens to be a former member of the elite SAS and when he is made aware of the plot to hijack the ship is able to advise the captain and MI5.
The tension cranks up nicely through the first half of the book, seen mostly from the point of view of Bourne and McBride as each becomes aware of each other and both their plans have to be changed by circumstance. Everything comes to a head on the night the storm hits the ship.
At this point, with everything poised on a knife edge of success or failure for both sides, Chilcott pulls a deft narrative twist and goes back and tells the story again from the point of view of the chairman of the cruise line and one of the passengers, once again building up to the crisis point. This has the nice effect of filling in details that were previously only mentioned but also did lose the momentum which took a while to get going again. It may have been better to tell the story purely sequentially but seeing events from different perspectives again was interesting.
The characters and situations are written with a real authenticity. There are no miraculous escapes, no amazing feats of marksmanship and this is a very real strength of Chilcott's writing. Everthing happens in a way that seems very authentic - and in the case of the actions of the hijackers, worryingly so. Every action and reaction of the characters is plausible and there are frequent points where the story could go one way or another just on a chance encounter or random event.
This realism also felt a little like a weakness to me. Some things happen which provide some dramatic tension at the time but ultimately don't really have a bearing on the eventual outcome. Although this is very much like real life, perhaps it is not what is expected in a thriller of this type. In particlar (and these aren't really spoilers) the ship is damaged in the storm but this doesn't really affect anything, and also what happens when events are told from the point of view of one of the passengers looks to be building to something interesting but ultimately fizzles away. I would have liked to see more of these sub plots carried forward to the end of the story.
Despite this, the book was a good and interesting read and I am looking forward to reading more of Chilcott's McBride novels. I would recommend this book to anyone who likes their thrillers character driven and cerebral rather than all action. Plus you will pick up some excellent tips on painting in watercolours as a bonus.
Rated: Some violence, language and sexual references
This might sound like the plot of some Hollywood blockbuster full of explosions and witty one liners from the hero but Chilcott delivers something a lot more cerebral than that. The story and characters have a sense of reality and this is more like a game of chess between the chief hijacker and the crew, a game where the ship is the board and the pawns the passengers which the terrorists are only too willing to dispose of to meet their aims.
Keith Bourne is the founder and leader of the White Christian League, an extreme right wing terrorist organisation who specialise in violent demonstration and the odd mosque burning. Bourne wants cash to further his rather nasty aims and decides that hijacking a cruise liner will fit the bill nicely. MI5 have been watching him and manage to get one of their agents onto the boat in an attempt to thwart Bourne and his cronies.
John McBride is a watercolour artist of some renown who is drafted onto the cruise to teach any interested passengers how to paint in watercolours, the scenes in the various Mediterranean ports they will be visitng being ideal subjects. McBride also happens to be a former member of the elite SAS and when he is made aware of the plot to hijack the ship is able to advise the captain and MI5.
The tension cranks up nicely through the first half of the book, seen mostly from the point of view of Bourne and McBride as each becomes aware of each other and both their plans have to be changed by circumstance. Everything comes to a head on the night the storm hits the ship.
At this point, with everything poised on a knife edge of success or failure for both sides, Chilcott pulls a deft narrative twist and goes back and tells the story again from the point of view of the chairman of the cruise line and one of the passengers, once again building up to the crisis point. This has the nice effect of filling in details that were previously only mentioned but also did lose the momentum which took a while to get going again. It may have been better to tell the story purely sequentially but seeing events from different perspectives again was interesting.
The characters and situations are written with a real authenticity. There are no miraculous escapes, no amazing feats of marksmanship and this is a very real strength of Chilcott's writing. Everthing happens in a way that seems very authentic - and in the case of the actions of the hijackers, worryingly so. Every action and reaction of the characters is plausible and there are frequent points where the story could go one way or another just on a chance encounter or random event.
This realism also felt a little like a weakness to me. Some things happen which provide some dramatic tension at the time but ultimately don't really have a bearing on the eventual outcome. Although this is very much like real life, perhaps it is not what is expected in a thriller of this type. In particlar (and these aren't really spoilers) the ship is damaged in the storm but this doesn't really affect anything, and also what happens when events are told from the point of view of one of the passengers looks to be building to something interesting but ultimately fizzles away. I would have liked to see more of these sub plots carried forward to the end of the story.
Despite this, the book was a good and interesting read and I am looking forward to reading more of Chilcott's McBride novels. I would recommend this book to anyone who likes their thrillers character driven and cerebral rather than all action. Plus you will pick up some excellent tips on painting in watercolours as a bonus.
Rated: Some violence, language and sexual references
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Midsommar (2019) in Movies
Nov 15, 2019
Poor Dani!
Coming off the critical and box office success of Hereditary, would writer/director Ari Aster avoid the sophomore slump with his 2nd major feature, Midsommar, I would say that is a resounding YES!
Following a major immediate family heartbreak, delicately fragile Dani is an emotional basket case and leaning hard on her current boyfriend, Christian. Little does she know, the boyfriend has had enough of her baggage and constant nagging, and his friends have all but convinced him to ditch her. They are also planning a fun vacation to Sweden to meet the family of mutual friend Pelle. Unfortunately, the turmoil in Dani's life not only prevents the break up, but also compels Christian to invite her along on the guys' Scandinavian adventure much to the chagrin of the male brotherhood.
Once on the ground in Sweden, the troupe makes their way to the commune of Pelle's extended "family" where the group quickly enhances their experience with some mind altering substances. Dani is unsure she should partake along with the group, but doesn't want to ruin the fun so she goes along.
The group get introduced to the commune clan and wanders through some awkward initial meetings including having to deal with a language barrier. Everyone seems nice, but there also seems there may be some tension beneath the surface. The group is shown around the campus, through various buildings with unusual and often graphic paintings within, The group is also instructed where they cannot go as it is forbidden.
Initial curiosity soon turns to horror as the newcomers witness a ritual which has grim consequences. Some members of the newbies, especially Dani, want to leave before witnessing anything else, but others, including Christian play off the encounter as one of cultural differences. Situations become increasing violent, creepy and really strange as the trespassers struggle to fin in, make some faux pas and may have to pay the ultimate price.
As with Aster's Hereditary, the audience may be somewhat confused at times (or at least I was) as to some of the various happenings, but just go along for the ride. There were a few sections mid way through I was waiting and expecting something profound to happen and didn't. I also watched the director's cut with around 24 extra minutes of footage within which could have been part of the problem.
Once the creepy events start to unfold, you are truly immersed in the scenery and unusual characters to the point where you can't help but keep watching just to see the consequences. The obvious comparison to The Wicker Man is certainly justified as the other most famous movie about a cult, but the mood is completely different. To me, Wicker Man never really does a good job establishing the community there as normal as you suspect almost immediately things are "not right". Maybe also since that film runs barely over 90 minutes the depth wasn't felt as it is in this film. I'm not complaining about Wicker Man as I loved that movie as well, just felt different.
The sprawling European countrysides alongside the beautiful mountainous greenery provided juxtaposition to the sinister, cruel and horrible events transpiring upon them. The artwork within the village halls were interesting, beautiful and terrifying simultaneously. The villages costumes of whit and female floral headdresses helped gain them what you would picture in your head a vicious, but pretty cult would look like for sure.
I was happy to see relative newcomer Florence Pugh looks to have a fledgling acting career as she has already wrapped Greta Gerwig's Little Women and is also starring alongside Scarlett Johansson in Black Widow coming May 2020. She provides Dani with vulnerability, strength, annoyance, trepidation, melancholy, veracity and emotional turmoil as a well rounded young adult. Her character has a truly remarkable arc within the film which is fun to watch and you root for her to succeed.
Midsommar's tone, subject matter and graphic brutality is not for everyone;; however, I found it a true delight.
Following a major immediate family heartbreak, delicately fragile Dani is an emotional basket case and leaning hard on her current boyfriend, Christian. Little does she know, the boyfriend has had enough of her baggage and constant nagging, and his friends have all but convinced him to ditch her. They are also planning a fun vacation to Sweden to meet the family of mutual friend Pelle. Unfortunately, the turmoil in Dani's life not only prevents the break up, but also compels Christian to invite her along on the guys' Scandinavian adventure much to the chagrin of the male brotherhood.
Once on the ground in Sweden, the troupe makes their way to the commune of Pelle's extended "family" where the group quickly enhances their experience with some mind altering substances. Dani is unsure she should partake along with the group, but doesn't want to ruin the fun so she goes along.
The group get introduced to the commune clan and wanders through some awkward initial meetings including having to deal with a language barrier. Everyone seems nice, but there also seems there may be some tension beneath the surface. The group is shown around the campus, through various buildings with unusual and often graphic paintings within, The group is also instructed where they cannot go as it is forbidden.
Initial curiosity soon turns to horror as the newcomers witness a ritual which has grim consequences. Some members of the newbies, especially Dani, want to leave before witnessing anything else, but others, including Christian play off the encounter as one of cultural differences. Situations become increasing violent, creepy and really strange as the trespassers struggle to fin in, make some faux pas and may have to pay the ultimate price.
As with Aster's Hereditary, the audience may be somewhat confused at times (or at least I was) as to some of the various happenings, but just go along for the ride. There were a few sections mid way through I was waiting and expecting something profound to happen and didn't. I also watched the director's cut with around 24 extra minutes of footage within which could have been part of the problem.
Once the creepy events start to unfold, you are truly immersed in the scenery and unusual characters to the point where you can't help but keep watching just to see the consequences. The obvious comparison to The Wicker Man is certainly justified as the other most famous movie about a cult, but the mood is completely different. To me, Wicker Man never really does a good job establishing the community there as normal as you suspect almost immediately things are "not right". Maybe also since that film runs barely over 90 minutes the depth wasn't felt as it is in this film. I'm not complaining about Wicker Man as I loved that movie as well, just felt different.
The sprawling European countrysides alongside the beautiful mountainous greenery provided juxtaposition to the sinister, cruel and horrible events transpiring upon them. The artwork within the village halls were interesting, beautiful and terrifying simultaneously. The villages costumes of whit and female floral headdresses helped gain them what you would picture in your head a vicious, but pretty cult would look like for sure.
I was happy to see relative newcomer Florence Pugh looks to have a fledgling acting career as she has already wrapped Greta Gerwig's Little Women and is also starring alongside Scarlett Johansson in Black Widow coming May 2020. She provides Dani with vulnerability, strength, annoyance, trepidation, melancholy, veracity and emotional turmoil as a well rounded young adult. Her character has a truly remarkable arc within the film which is fun to watch and you root for her to succeed.
Midsommar's tone, subject matter and graphic brutality is not for everyone;; however, I found it a true delight.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated A Stranger on the Beach in Books
Aug 5, 2019
Caroline Stark is proud of her new gorgeous beach house, carefully designed for vacationing and showcasing her perfect family. But that perfect life is crumbling around her. At a party debuting the home, her husband of 20 years, Jason, shows up with another woman. Her daughter, Hannah, is off at college now and doesn't need her. When Caroline, spots Aidan Callahan, a local bartender, watching her from the beach outside her home, she wonders if he's casing her house. Then Aidan is the bartender at her party. But as her marriage falls apart around her, Caroline finds herself turning to the much younger Aidan for support. They have a one-night-stand; then Caroline thinks there's a chance she can reconcile with Paul, her husband. But Aidan is obsessed with Caroline, calling her constantly and following her everywhere. Suddenly Caroline doesn't feel safe. She jokingly told Aidan to get rid of her husband, but she meant it as an anger-fueled joke. But will the obsessed younger man see it that way?
I'd heard a lot of excited buzz about this one and was looking forward to reading it, but--unpopular opinion time--this one wasn't one for me. I kept waiting the entire time for the book to excite me or draw me in, but I found it irritating and predictable. (I know! I'm sorry!) I figured out immediately how things were going to play out and then read it hoping I was wrong. I was not.
The shtick in this one is that it's told from both Caroline and Aidan's perspectives. We get most of the same events filtered through each of their lenses. It's clear early on that we're dealing with unreliable narrators. Either one or both of them are not telling us the whole truth. The problem with this is that it's also really freaking repetitive. I don't want to hear the same thing told to me twice, with a bit of a twist. I also didn't care for Caroline. She's annoying. The woman did not make smart decisions, and she couldn't even find the breaker box in her own home. I'm sorry, even if you're "not handy," be able to manage basic things. (I may have some pent up anger against Caroline to deal with.)
"There was a stranger on the beach. He was standing in front of my house, staring at it like he was casing it to rob. Sometimes fate sneaks up on you. But Aidan Callahan didn't sneak up on me. He was brazen. He stood there in the middle of the sand, staring up at my brand-speaking-new beachfront house, looking like he was up to no good."
As for Aidan, we have to hear about a million times about a previous violent incident involving his best friend. I don't know why. I was just over the repeating of things, in all forms. Aidan's brother is the Chief of Police in the small town where Caroline has built her beach house, and he's basically struggling to rebuild his life. I definitely felt more sympathy toward him, but also annoyance, because his obsession toward Caroline was just that, an obsession, and nothing good was going to come from this. From any of this! Just go home, dude, and stay out of trouble. She is so not worth it.
"Caroline. She was his good-luck charm, come to rescue him, and he loved her for it. Hell, he plain loved her, as she sat there laughing, her skin glowing, tendrils of golden hair curling around her face."
About 3/4 through the book, the perspective changes a little and things picked up a bit, but by then I was too irritated to be truly glad. I had also guessed everything from the beginning and this shift did nothing to alter that or surprise me, so yes. Sigh. There's definitely some drama in this one, but it felt forced to me. Oh, the power goes out just as you arrive at your beach house on the run? Wow!
Anyway, most people really love this book, and so take my bad mood review with a grain of salt. Hopefully you will love it much more than me! 2.5 stars.
I'd heard a lot of excited buzz about this one and was looking forward to reading it, but--unpopular opinion time--this one wasn't one for me. I kept waiting the entire time for the book to excite me or draw me in, but I found it irritating and predictable. (I know! I'm sorry!) I figured out immediately how things were going to play out and then read it hoping I was wrong. I was not.
The shtick in this one is that it's told from both Caroline and Aidan's perspectives. We get most of the same events filtered through each of their lenses. It's clear early on that we're dealing with unreliable narrators. Either one or both of them are not telling us the whole truth. The problem with this is that it's also really freaking repetitive. I don't want to hear the same thing told to me twice, with a bit of a twist. I also didn't care for Caroline. She's annoying. The woman did not make smart decisions, and she couldn't even find the breaker box in her own home. I'm sorry, even if you're "not handy," be able to manage basic things. (I may have some pent up anger against Caroline to deal with.)
"There was a stranger on the beach. He was standing in front of my house, staring at it like he was casing it to rob. Sometimes fate sneaks up on you. But Aidan Callahan didn't sneak up on me. He was brazen. He stood there in the middle of the sand, staring up at my brand-speaking-new beachfront house, looking like he was up to no good."
As for Aidan, we have to hear about a million times about a previous violent incident involving his best friend. I don't know why. I was just over the repeating of things, in all forms. Aidan's brother is the Chief of Police in the small town where Caroline has built her beach house, and he's basically struggling to rebuild his life. I definitely felt more sympathy toward him, but also annoyance, because his obsession toward Caroline was just that, an obsession, and nothing good was going to come from this. From any of this! Just go home, dude, and stay out of trouble. She is so not worth it.
"Caroline. She was his good-luck charm, come to rescue him, and he loved her for it. Hell, he plain loved her, as she sat there laughing, her skin glowing, tendrils of golden hair curling around her face."
About 3/4 through the book, the perspective changes a little and things picked up a bit, but by then I was too irritated to be truly glad. I had also guessed everything from the beginning and this shift did nothing to alter that or surprise me, so yes. Sigh. There's definitely some drama in this one, but it felt forced to me. Oh, the power goes out just as you arrive at your beach house on the run? Wow!
Anyway, most people really love this book, and so take my bad mood review with a grain of salt. Hopefully you will love it much more than me! 2.5 stars.
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Faceless Man (2019) in Movies
Aug 5, 2019
Story: The Faceless Man starts when Emily (Thurling) a recovering cancer survivor who has starting to put her life back together is spending a weekend away with friends, Nina (Kauffeld), Kyle (Pittaway), Brad (Facciolo), Dave (Astifo) and Chad (Walia) are having a weekend away for parties.
It isn’t long before the group of friends have upset the local rednecks who decide to terrorize them, a ruthless drug dealer Viktor Nov (Goikhman) searching for them, while Emily is dealing with her own insecurities about her recover, which manifests itself in a faceless figure haunting her.
Thoughts on The Faceless Man
Characters – Emily is a cancer survivor, she made it with friends, not family and has just started to put her life back together, despite having the fear that one day it would return, which appears to her in living nightmares including a faceless man figure, out of the group of friends this is the only character that gets much outside the generics traits we learn, we have the friend that wants more of a relationship, the one that will push the limits of drugging people, a few jokers and the best friend who can’t handle their substances. Eddie is the owner of the rented house, he comes off creepy to the city slickers as he puts it, he doesn’t want trouble in his property and will deal with anybody that causes it. Viktor Nov is the ruthless drug dealer that has been hunting for his drugs which have a connection to the group of friends, he uses his muscle to kill anybody that disrespects him.
Performances – Sophie Thurling in the leading role is one of the highlights in the film, seeing Sophie balance the mindset of her character through the film will keep us wondering just what will happen next, Albert Goikhman as the ruthless drug dealer is fun to watch, we always know something violent is going to happen when he is on the screen. Andy McPhee does bring the awkward local to life well too.
Story – The story follows a group of friends that want to go on a drink & drug filled party weekend, only to end up in a town that isn’t happy with this lifestyle and that want to send a message to them, while we also see one character haunted by a terrifying looking faceless man. This story does have plenty going on, which works in and against it because you could easily drop one of the side stories and still have an enjoyable horror movie, but mixing them together does add to the mystery of what will happen next, because it does feel like nobody is safe from what is going on. We could have had more development on the group of friends, as it they end up coming off like your usual slasher cast. With the different arcs we do get plenty of violence which is what the film wants to pay respect to the Ozploitation era of cinema, which will help understand the tone of the film.
Horror – The most impressive part of the horror in this film comes from the Faceless Man himself, it comes early in creepy moments, but the reveal of the creature is one of the most terrifying figures in horror this year.
Settings – The film is set in a small town location, with most of the action happening in the one house picked for the party, it shows how things can get out of hand and how uninvited guests can cause more problems in life.
Special Effects – The effects to create the Faceless Man are brilliant, he will scare you, where this film also shines is by letting us imagine the damage being down, with the chainsaw scene being played out longer than needed, which only adds to the horror being inflicted.
Scene of the Movie – The Faceless Man, first full reveal.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The group of friends are not that interesting.
Final Thoughts – This is a horror film built of paying respect to the Ozploitation era of cinema, it brings us plenty of blood and keeps us guessing along the way.
Overall: Ozploitation has returned.
It isn’t long before the group of friends have upset the local rednecks who decide to terrorize them, a ruthless drug dealer Viktor Nov (Goikhman) searching for them, while Emily is dealing with her own insecurities about her recover, which manifests itself in a faceless figure haunting her.
Thoughts on The Faceless Man
Characters – Emily is a cancer survivor, she made it with friends, not family and has just started to put her life back together, despite having the fear that one day it would return, which appears to her in living nightmares including a faceless man figure, out of the group of friends this is the only character that gets much outside the generics traits we learn, we have the friend that wants more of a relationship, the one that will push the limits of drugging people, a few jokers and the best friend who can’t handle their substances. Eddie is the owner of the rented house, he comes off creepy to the city slickers as he puts it, he doesn’t want trouble in his property and will deal with anybody that causes it. Viktor Nov is the ruthless drug dealer that has been hunting for his drugs which have a connection to the group of friends, he uses his muscle to kill anybody that disrespects him.
Performances – Sophie Thurling in the leading role is one of the highlights in the film, seeing Sophie balance the mindset of her character through the film will keep us wondering just what will happen next, Albert Goikhman as the ruthless drug dealer is fun to watch, we always know something violent is going to happen when he is on the screen. Andy McPhee does bring the awkward local to life well too.
Story – The story follows a group of friends that want to go on a drink & drug filled party weekend, only to end up in a town that isn’t happy with this lifestyle and that want to send a message to them, while we also see one character haunted by a terrifying looking faceless man. This story does have plenty going on, which works in and against it because you could easily drop one of the side stories and still have an enjoyable horror movie, but mixing them together does add to the mystery of what will happen next, because it does feel like nobody is safe from what is going on. We could have had more development on the group of friends, as it they end up coming off like your usual slasher cast. With the different arcs we do get plenty of violence which is what the film wants to pay respect to the Ozploitation era of cinema, which will help understand the tone of the film.
Horror – The most impressive part of the horror in this film comes from the Faceless Man himself, it comes early in creepy moments, but the reveal of the creature is one of the most terrifying figures in horror this year.
Settings – The film is set in a small town location, with most of the action happening in the one house picked for the party, it shows how things can get out of hand and how uninvited guests can cause more problems in life.
Special Effects – The effects to create the Faceless Man are brilliant, he will scare you, where this film also shines is by letting us imagine the damage being down, with the chainsaw scene being played out longer than needed, which only adds to the horror being inflicted.
Scene of the Movie – The Faceless Man, first full reveal.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The group of friends are not that interesting.
Final Thoughts – This is a horror film built of paying respect to the Ozploitation era of cinema, it brings us plenty of blood and keeps us guessing along the way.
Overall: Ozploitation has returned.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Lockout (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
In the later part of the 21st-century the worst criminals the planet has to offer are kept safely away from public in stasis aboard an orbiting prison known as MS: One. Although it is never explained in the film, it does not take a rocket scientist to guess that “MS” stands for Maximum Security and much like the rest of the movie “Lockout”, this is a film that does not aspire to be more than the sum of its heavily borrowed parts.
The film stars Guy Pearce as Snow, a special agent who has been wrongly accused in the killing of a high-ranking operative. Railroaded through the system, Snow is looking at a lengthy sentence.
At the same time, the presidents daughter Emily (Maggie Grace), has visited MS: One on a goodwill tour. One of her special causes is to confirm the truth that long-term stasis has damaging psychological and neurological effects for the prisoners. Since the prison is funded by a deep space research development she definitely sees conflict of interest in how prisoners are being treated.
Things take a turn for the worse when a violent prisoner goes off during his interview and proceeds to release pent-up inmate population and take the crew hostage. The prisoners run amok and for the time being are unaware that they had president’s daughter in their midst. Snow was given an ultimatum that the successful retrieval of the first daughter will help him avoid becoming a future resident of the orbiting prison.
Despite his misgivings, Snow accepts the assignment as he learns that one of his friends is incarcerated on board. This friend holds valuable information that can exonerates Snow from his charges. Once on board the station, Snow must battle mobs of psychopaths as he attempts to locate and rescue Emily.
While one would think this premise would hold plenty of excitement, thrills, and suspense, the film is essentially undone by its inability to sustain any real momentum for any developed and real tension.
While the prisoners do a great job of appearing menacing, torturing and killing the hostages, we really never learn of their true objective. At no time do they really make any serious demands for freedom, material goods, and so on which basically leaves them vulnerable to an all-out attack from the amassing forces around the prison.
One would think they would’ve asked for something as simple as pardons but they seem more interested in glaring threats to the president and the authorities via videoconference, not truly grasping the magnitude of their situation.
Pearce does a good job as the gruff Snow but sadly the script gives him very little to do other than smug one-liners and occasionally shoot the bad guys. Smith does show some spark and personality in her performance but she is given little to do aside from playing the damsel in distress although she doesn infuse the role with some strength and humor.
What really surprised me about the movie was even though it borrowed very heavily from Fortress 1 & 2 as well as an escape from New York, and have surprisingly little new to offer. It was clear that the intention was to create a diehard style film in space but unfortunately it fell relatively flat.
This was a huge surprise to me as one would think that Luc Besson and many of the creative talents that made “Taken” such a thrilling smash would have been able to come up with a better action film.
This is not to say that “Lockout” is a bad film more than it is a disappointment considering the premise, cast, and the potential that it had going for it.
I can certainly overlook plot holes, thinly crafted stock characters, and run-of-the-mill action sequences in my action films as long as they can get me some solid entertainment.
Sadly this is not the case and it plays out more like a direct to DVD release that’s certainly would be extremely welcome us and Netflix are red box rental but for my taste thanks to the lo-res and dated special effects did not warrant a major theatrical release.
The film stars Guy Pearce as Snow, a special agent who has been wrongly accused in the killing of a high-ranking operative. Railroaded through the system, Snow is looking at a lengthy sentence.
At the same time, the presidents daughter Emily (Maggie Grace), has visited MS: One on a goodwill tour. One of her special causes is to confirm the truth that long-term stasis has damaging psychological and neurological effects for the prisoners. Since the prison is funded by a deep space research development she definitely sees conflict of interest in how prisoners are being treated.
Things take a turn for the worse when a violent prisoner goes off during his interview and proceeds to release pent-up inmate population and take the crew hostage. The prisoners run amok and for the time being are unaware that they had president’s daughter in their midst. Snow was given an ultimatum that the successful retrieval of the first daughter will help him avoid becoming a future resident of the orbiting prison.
Despite his misgivings, Snow accepts the assignment as he learns that one of his friends is incarcerated on board. This friend holds valuable information that can exonerates Snow from his charges. Once on board the station, Snow must battle mobs of psychopaths as he attempts to locate and rescue Emily.
While one would think this premise would hold plenty of excitement, thrills, and suspense, the film is essentially undone by its inability to sustain any real momentum for any developed and real tension.
While the prisoners do a great job of appearing menacing, torturing and killing the hostages, we really never learn of their true objective. At no time do they really make any serious demands for freedom, material goods, and so on which basically leaves them vulnerable to an all-out attack from the amassing forces around the prison.
One would think they would’ve asked for something as simple as pardons but they seem more interested in glaring threats to the president and the authorities via videoconference, not truly grasping the magnitude of their situation.
Pearce does a good job as the gruff Snow but sadly the script gives him very little to do other than smug one-liners and occasionally shoot the bad guys. Smith does show some spark and personality in her performance but she is given little to do aside from playing the damsel in distress although she doesn infuse the role with some strength and humor.
What really surprised me about the movie was even though it borrowed very heavily from Fortress 1 & 2 as well as an escape from New York, and have surprisingly little new to offer. It was clear that the intention was to create a diehard style film in space but unfortunately it fell relatively flat.
This was a huge surprise to me as one would think that Luc Besson and many of the creative talents that made “Taken” such a thrilling smash would have been able to come up with a better action film.
This is not to say that “Lockout” is a bad film more than it is a disappointment considering the premise, cast, and the potential that it had going for it.
I can certainly overlook plot holes, thinly crafted stock characters, and run-of-the-mill action sequences in my action films as long as they can get me some solid entertainment.
Sadly this is not the case and it plays out more like a direct to DVD release that’s certainly would be extremely welcome us and Netflix are red box rental but for my taste thanks to the lo-res and dated special effects did not warrant a major theatrical release.
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated The Winter Duke in Books
Oct 13, 2020
A duchy of ice and snow above, a duchy of water and magic below, separated only by a lake of ice. Both dependent upon one another and both as violent as they are beautiful.
Ekata is a middle child within the Avenko royal family: a family who are intent on murdering each other to get to the throne. However, Ekata has no interest in the throne at all: her interests lie in biology rather than brokering treaties and she wants nothing more than to leave Kylma Above and attend university.
However, at the age of thirteen, Ekata wakes to find herself the only member of her family who has not been cursed into a permanent sleep. Suddenly, she is the Grand Duke and is expected to prove herself worthy to rule Kylma Above: conquering the world of politics and magic in order to find a way to wake her family and avoid death herself.
The Winter Duke spans only six days in its storyline. Nonetheless, this does not diminish the journey that Bartlett takes her readers on: there are twists at every turn and almost everyone seems like a villain; neither Ekata nor the reader knows whom they can trust.
Although this is very much Ekata’s story, there are so many characters surrounding her that there is a danger some of these may seem undeveloped. Thankfully, I didn’t feel this way at all. Bartlett brings something different to each character she introduces: from Sigis’ immediate repulsiveness; Eirhan’s deadpan nature and Inkar’s flirty charms. All the characters have their part to play and, although keeping track of all the ministers could be difficult at times, this only added to the overwhelming suffocation that Ekata must be feeling.
Ekata herself is an amazing protagonist: at just thirteen she makes a number of impulsive decisions which end disastrously – so why do we, as a reader, not get frustrated with her? Again, I feel that this is due, in part, to the dizzying number of secondary characters. The reader witnesses the sheer number of commitments that fall onto the shoulders of one who never aspired to this role: we attend unwanted proposals; hear the accusations of murdering her own family; comprehend that she is used as a pawn by her Prime Minister and constantly see Ekata’s authority undermined due to her sex. It is impossible not to empathise with her desperate need to return to her normal life.
Sexism plays a large part in Ekata’s story, with Sigis immediately heralded as the solution to her problems due to his position as a strong man with an army. Inkar is also underestimated due to being female: before she then shatters these perceptions with her axes, her willingness to fight and her protective nature over Ekata.
However, The Winter Duke has to be commended for the gender fluidity within its pages. The brideshow is made of men and women, at least one minister is non-binary and the only romance within this novel is between two queer females. This was such a natural romance as well, slow-burning and cautious due to the politics involved but one that, when the walls of both women came down, could achieve the impossible.
The world building by Claire Eliza Bartlett in this novel is second to none. Kylma Above is impressive with its ice palaces and winter roses invading every corner. However, Kylma Below, the duchy below the ice is magical and sinister in equal measure. With fields of magic, sharks used in tribunals, and coral gardens, it wasn’t only Ekata who wanted to explore further.
Quite a few YA novels recently have included queer women smashing the patriarchy. This is the first one I have read where they smash the autocracy.
Ekata’s journey to find out what kind of ruler she will be is encapsulating and riveting. In a story where the betrayal just keeps coming, Ekata remains loyal to the end – despite the epilogue proving that this is never appreciated. The world of Kylma was immersive and the themes of politics, murder, sexism and violence are swept up by the breezy writing style to create a book that was impossible to put down.
Thank you to Netgalley for giving me the opportunity to read and review this wonderful novel.
Ekata is a middle child within the Avenko royal family: a family who are intent on murdering each other to get to the throne. However, Ekata has no interest in the throne at all: her interests lie in biology rather than brokering treaties and she wants nothing more than to leave Kylma Above and attend university.
However, at the age of thirteen, Ekata wakes to find herself the only member of her family who has not been cursed into a permanent sleep. Suddenly, she is the Grand Duke and is expected to prove herself worthy to rule Kylma Above: conquering the world of politics and magic in order to find a way to wake her family and avoid death herself.
The Winter Duke spans only six days in its storyline. Nonetheless, this does not diminish the journey that Bartlett takes her readers on: there are twists at every turn and almost everyone seems like a villain; neither Ekata nor the reader knows whom they can trust.
Although this is very much Ekata’s story, there are so many characters surrounding her that there is a danger some of these may seem undeveloped. Thankfully, I didn’t feel this way at all. Bartlett brings something different to each character she introduces: from Sigis’ immediate repulsiveness; Eirhan’s deadpan nature and Inkar’s flirty charms. All the characters have their part to play and, although keeping track of all the ministers could be difficult at times, this only added to the overwhelming suffocation that Ekata must be feeling.
Ekata herself is an amazing protagonist: at just thirteen she makes a number of impulsive decisions which end disastrously – so why do we, as a reader, not get frustrated with her? Again, I feel that this is due, in part, to the dizzying number of secondary characters. The reader witnesses the sheer number of commitments that fall onto the shoulders of one who never aspired to this role: we attend unwanted proposals; hear the accusations of murdering her own family; comprehend that she is used as a pawn by her Prime Minister and constantly see Ekata’s authority undermined due to her sex. It is impossible not to empathise with her desperate need to return to her normal life.
Sexism plays a large part in Ekata’s story, with Sigis immediately heralded as the solution to her problems due to his position as a strong man with an army. Inkar is also underestimated due to being female: before she then shatters these perceptions with her axes, her willingness to fight and her protective nature over Ekata.
However, The Winter Duke has to be commended for the gender fluidity within its pages. The brideshow is made of men and women, at least one minister is non-binary and the only romance within this novel is between two queer females. This was such a natural romance as well, slow-burning and cautious due to the politics involved but one that, when the walls of both women came down, could achieve the impossible.
The world building by Claire Eliza Bartlett in this novel is second to none. Kylma Above is impressive with its ice palaces and winter roses invading every corner. However, Kylma Below, the duchy below the ice is magical and sinister in equal measure. With fields of magic, sharks used in tribunals, and coral gardens, it wasn’t only Ekata who wanted to explore further.
Quite a few YA novels recently have included queer women smashing the patriarchy. This is the first one I have read where they smash the autocracy.
Ekata’s journey to find out what kind of ruler she will be is encapsulating and riveting. In a story where the betrayal just keeps coming, Ekata remains loyal to the end – despite the epilogue proving that this is never appreciated. The world of Kylma was immersive and the themes of politics, murder, sexism and violence are swept up by the breezy writing style to create a book that was impossible to put down.
Thank you to Netgalley for giving me the opportunity to read and review this wonderful novel.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020) in Movies
Oct 24, 2020
The epic ensemble cast (1 more)
The direction from Aaron Sorkin
“Trial” is a less wordy triumph for Sorkin
So, "The Trial of the Chicago 7" is one which I was unfortunately unable to catch on its short "Oscar-nom" cinema release, but is now on Netflix. And boy, for older viewers who prefer historical drama over wham-bam action, this is definitely worth the watch.
I know a decent bit of 20th century history, but this is a story I knew nothing about. At the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, anti-Vietnam protests resulted in a violent and brutal confrontation with the police. Eight of the ring-leaders were rounded up and charged with inciting the violence. What happens in the court with the eight convicted men, in front of an old and partisan judge (the wonderful Frank Langella), is simply amazing.
There's a nice wiki article on the history you can look up. But its worth watching the movie blind, since it's a great rollercoaster ride.
If you read my blog regularly, you'll know that one of my favourite of the awards in award season is the "Ensemble Cast" award from the Screen Actor's Guild (SAG). I think a good measure of which movies might be good candidates for this award is when you find it difficult to single out particular actors for an individual award when they all work so well together. For this is a cast to die for:
- Sacha Baron Cohen, as Abbie Hoffman: an intelligent 'straight' role, poles apart from Borat and Bruno, that he delivers on 100%;
- Jeremy Strong as Hoffman's buddy Jerry Rubin, doing an enormously entertaining turn;
- Eddie Redmayne as the apparently 'sensible one' Tom Hayden. A bit similar to his role in "Les Miserables", but diving off in a different direction at a key point;
- John Carroll Lynch as the genuine 'boy scout' David Dellinger, so good in "The Founder" and here as the only family man under the judgmental stare of his wife and son;
- Yahya Abdul-Mateen II as Black Panther member Bobby Seale - the "minus 1" from the title - in an astonishingly powerful performance;
- Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the prosecutor Richard Schultz - always quietly dependable;
- And the fantastic Mark Rylance as the defense attorney William Kunstler. I appreciate I am having a tendency to gush in this review, but Rylance expresses such a range of frustration and disgust here that his performance is nothing short of electrifying.
There's also a cracking cameo from Michael Keaton playing the former US Attorney General, Ramsey Clark.
I would think that any of these performances might be Oscar-worthy (somewhere in the Actor/Supporting Actor categories) but my personal choices would be Rylance for Best Actor and Baron Cohen and Langella for Best Supporting Actor nods.
One of my issues with the scripts of Aaron Sorkin is that they tend to be overly dense and wordy. In epic TV like "The West Wing" he could spread the dialogue over a whole series, but in a feature film it can become very dense and verbose. I found that in both of his last two films - "Molly's Game" and "Steve Jobs".
Here, in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", even though there's a lot of speechifying, to me it never felt over the top. Although an epic courtroom drama (akin to his debut script "A Few Good Men") the characters are given time to breath between the lines. And many of those lines are real zingers, particularly out of the mouth of stand-up anarchist Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen).
Aside from the script being a zinger, the direction here from Aaron Sorkin is also top-notch. If you thought a courtroom drama was going to be static and boring, think again. The camera never rests, and inserted flashbacks (excellent film editing from Alan Baumgarten) maintain the momentum of the story.
Overall, this is a movie tour-de-force from Sorkin, and a fantastic watch. Could this be a writing/directing double Oscar nom for Sorkin?
(For the full graphical review, check out the bob the movie man review here - https://rb.gy/y6bxtf . Thanks.)
I know a decent bit of 20th century history, but this is a story I knew nothing about. At the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, anti-Vietnam protests resulted in a violent and brutal confrontation with the police. Eight of the ring-leaders were rounded up and charged with inciting the violence. What happens in the court with the eight convicted men, in front of an old and partisan judge (the wonderful Frank Langella), is simply amazing.
There's a nice wiki article on the history you can look up. But its worth watching the movie blind, since it's a great rollercoaster ride.
If you read my blog regularly, you'll know that one of my favourite of the awards in award season is the "Ensemble Cast" award from the Screen Actor's Guild (SAG). I think a good measure of which movies might be good candidates for this award is when you find it difficult to single out particular actors for an individual award when they all work so well together. For this is a cast to die for:
- Sacha Baron Cohen, as Abbie Hoffman: an intelligent 'straight' role, poles apart from Borat and Bruno, that he delivers on 100%;
- Jeremy Strong as Hoffman's buddy Jerry Rubin, doing an enormously entertaining turn;
- Eddie Redmayne as the apparently 'sensible one' Tom Hayden. A bit similar to his role in "Les Miserables", but diving off in a different direction at a key point;
- John Carroll Lynch as the genuine 'boy scout' David Dellinger, so good in "The Founder" and here as the only family man under the judgmental stare of his wife and son;
- Yahya Abdul-Mateen II as Black Panther member Bobby Seale - the "minus 1" from the title - in an astonishingly powerful performance;
- Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the prosecutor Richard Schultz - always quietly dependable;
- And the fantastic Mark Rylance as the defense attorney William Kunstler. I appreciate I am having a tendency to gush in this review, but Rylance expresses such a range of frustration and disgust here that his performance is nothing short of electrifying.
There's also a cracking cameo from Michael Keaton playing the former US Attorney General, Ramsey Clark.
I would think that any of these performances might be Oscar-worthy (somewhere in the Actor/Supporting Actor categories) but my personal choices would be Rylance for Best Actor and Baron Cohen and Langella for Best Supporting Actor nods.
One of my issues with the scripts of Aaron Sorkin is that they tend to be overly dense and wordy. In epic TV like "The West Wing" he could spread the dialogue over a whole series, but in a feature film it can become very dense and verbose. I found that in both of his last two films - "Molly's Game" and "Steve Jobs".
Here, in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", even though there's a lot of speechifying, to me it never felt over the top. Although an epic courtroom drama (akin to his debut script "A Few Good Men") the characters are given time to breath between the lines. And many of those lines are real zingers, particularly out of the mouth of stand-up anarchist Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen).
Aside from the script being a zinger, the direction here from Aaron Sorkin is also top-notch. If you thought a courtroom drama was going to be static and boring, think again. The camera never rests, and inserted flashbacks (excellent film editing from Alan Baumgarten) maintain the momentum of the story.
Overall, this is a movie tour-de-force from Sorkin, and a fantastic watch. Could this be a writing/directing double Oscar nom for Sorkin?
(For the full graphical review, check out the bob the movie man review here - https://rb.gy/y6bxtf . Thanks.)
Siren's Call (Dark Tides #1)
8.0
Rate It
Book
Between desire and love there are some things that can’t stay buried, even in the deep of the...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
“He’s waited for me; I’ve waited for him”.
A blood-soaked history.
There’s such a familiarity with the content of these films that it’s difficult to put yourself back in 1978 for Jamie Lee Curtis‘s original battle with Michael Myers when the teen-slasher genre was in its infancy. Arguably “The Texas Chain Saw Massacre” four years earlier booted the 70’s/80’s genre; but thanks to its huge success John Carpenter’s “Halloween” opened the flood-gates… or should I say, blood-gates.
The plot.
40 years after the terrifying events of Halloween night in Haddonfield, Illinois, Michael Myers is still mute and incarcerated in a psychiatric unit being studied by Dr Sartain (Haluk Bilginer). He is joined by two investigative journalists – Aaron Korey (Jefferson Hall) and Dana Haines (Basingstoke’s-own Rhian Rees: “Where are your loos?”… classic!). They are keen to reunite Myers with his nemesis Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) to watch the fireworks.
Strode is unfortunately damaged goods: still mentally traumatised and with failed marriages and a child taken into care, she lives in a fortified home in the middle of the woods. But she knows she has a date with destiny. As Halloween 2018 approaches, an ‘incident’ puts Myers on a collision course with Haddonfield’s teenage population all over again.
The turns.
Wow… you forget what an effective actress Jamie Lee Curtis is and here she absolutely owns every single scene she’s in, bringing enormous energy to the screen as the paranoid but ever-prepared hunter-in-waiting. The original Halloween was Lee Curtis’s movie debut and the film that made her a household name, and it almost feels like this is a passion-project for her to say “thanks for all the fish” for her career. Impressive.
As her eye-rolling daughter, Judy Greer rather pales in comparison (I found her character is a bit whiny and annoying), but the acting stakes pick up again with Andi Matichak as the granddaughter Allyson.
Of the other teens, Virginia Gardner is particularly effective as Vicky: the cute “favourite” babysitter who you can’t help but empathise with.
The review.
It’s very easy to make a very bad slasher movie, but this isn’t such a movie. Although having a wonderfully retro feel (when is the last time you saw “traditional” opening titles like this?) and despite mining every horror cliché known to man (ALWAYS look in the back seat when you get in a car!) it’s all obviously been done with loving care by the director David Gordon Green.
Above all, the director knows that what’s more scary than seeing violent murders is what your imagination can visualise happening off-screen. Don’t get me wrong, there is some SERIOUS gore meted out, with a few ‘cover your eyes’ moments. However, a good proportion of the violence is not shown, and very effective that is too, supported by Carpenter’s classic and insistent theme and some kick-ass foley work to add spice to your imagination!
The script (by the writing team of David Gordon Green, Danny McBride and Jeff Fradley) also wickedly plays with your darkest fear of where the plot *could* go if it wanted to: in a brilliant piece of misdirection (you’ll know the scene) your “OMG surely not” nerves twang and then un-twang with relief.
The script also works well to help you care about the teens on the menu, in much the same way as “Jaws” did with the tourists to Amity Beach.
Where the plot nearly lost me was in a rather daft twist before the final reel (which actually made more sense of what happened in the first reel, but was still hugely improbable). The ship rights itself fairly quickly (if messily) and normal order is resumed for the finale it deserves.
Final thoughts.
I’m not really a “horror nut” but this was popcorn horror of the best sort and I enjoyed it. Reverential to the original classic, it made for some entertaining reactions in the sparsely populated showing I attended: I imagine if seen in a packed auditorium on a Saturday night (or perhaps tomorrow night!) it would literally be a scream.
One’s thing for sure: when I got into my car in the dark cinema car park, I did take a sneaky look into the back seat!
There’s such a familiarity with the content of these films that it’s difficult to put yourself back in 1978 for Jamie Lee Curtis‘s original battle with Michael Myers when the teen-slasher genre was in its infancy. Arguably “The Texas Chain Saw Massacre” four years earlier booted the 70’s/80’s genre; but thanks to its huge success John Carpenter’s “Halloween” opened the flood-gates… or should I say, blood-gates.
The plot.
40 years after the terrifying events of Halloween night in Haddonfield, Illinois, Michael Myers is still mute and incarcerated in a psychiatric unit being studied by Dr Sartain (Haluk Bilginer). He is joined by two investigative journalists – Aaron Korey (Jefferson Hall) and Dana Haines (Basingstoke’s-own Rhian Rees: “Where are your loos?”… classic!). They are keen to reunite Myers with his nemesis Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) to watch the fireworks.
Strode is unfortunately damaged goods: still mentally traumatised and with failed marriages and a child taken into care, she lives in a fortified home in the middle of the woods. But she knows she has a date with destiny. As Halloween 2018 approaches, an ‘incident’ puts Myers on a collision course with Haddonfield’s teenage population all over again.
The turns.
Wow… you forget what an effective actress Jamie Lee Curtis is and here she absolutely owns every single scene she’s in, bringing enormous energy to the screen as the paranoid but ever-prepared hunter-in-waiting. The original Halloween was Lee Curtis’s movie debut and the film that made her a household name, and it almost feels like this is a passion-project for her to say “thanks for all the fish” for her career. Impressive.
As her eye-rolling daughter, Judy Greer rather pales in comparison (I found her character is a bit whiny and annoying), but the acting stakes pick up again with Andi Matichak as the granddaughter Allyson.
Of the other teens, Virginia Gardner is particularly effective as Vicky: the cute “favourite” babysitter who you can’t help but empathise with.
The review.
It’s very easy to make a very bad slasher movie, but this isn’t such a movie. Although having a wonderfully retro feel (when is the last time you saw “traditional” opening titles like this?) and despite mining every horror cliché known to man (ALWAYS look in the back seat when you get in a car!) it’s all obviously been done with loving care by the director David Gordon Green.
Above all, the director knows that what’s more scary than seeing violent murders is what your imagination can visualise happening off-screen. Don’t get me wrong, there is some SERIOUS gore meted out, with a few ‘cover your eyes’ moments. However, a good proportion of the violence is not shown, and very effective that is too, supported by Carpenter’s classic and insistent theme and some kick-ass foley work to add spice to your imagination!
The script (by the writing team of David Gordon Green, Danny McBride and Jeff Fradley) also wickedly plays with your darkest fear of where the plot *could* go if it wanted to: in a brilliant piece of misdirection (you’ll know the scene) your “OMG surely not” nerves twang and then un-twang with relief.
The script also works well to help you care about the teens on the menu, in much the same way as “Jaws” did with the tourists to Amity Beach.
Where the plot nearly lost me was in a rather daft twist before the final reel (which actually made more sense of what happened in the first reel, but was still hugely improbable). The ship rights itself fairly quickly (if messily) and normal order is resumed for the finale it deserves.
Final thoughts.
I’m not really a “horror nut” but this was popcorn horror of the best sort and I enjoyed it. Reverential to the original classic, it made for some entertaining reactions in the sparsely populated showing I attended: I imagine if seen in a packed auditorium on a Saturday night (or perhaps tomorrow night!) it would literally be a scream.
One’s thing for sure: when I got into my car in the dark cinema car park, I did take a sneaky look into the back seat!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Hell or High Water (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Sometimes a blind pig finds a truffle”.
One of the joys (and stresses) of the run up to the Oscar weekend is to try to catch all the major award films before the big event. As I bitched about in my BAFTA write-up, UK release dates do NOT make this an easy task, with some films like Paul Verhoeven’s “Elle”, featuring Best Actress nominee Isabelle Huppert, not released until mid March.
This week I have had the chance to catch up on two of the films with award potential that I missed at the cinema, and this is the write up of the first of those: “Hell or High Water”, was first released in September 2016, and what an excellent film it is.
Bank robberies have been featured in many hundreds of films since the early days of cinema: The Great Train Robbery for example dates back to 1903! More recent heist classics such as “Oceans 11”, “Die Hard”, “Run Lola Run” and “The Dark Knight Rises” tend towards the stylised end of the act. Where this film delivers interest is in aligning the protagonists’ drivers with the banking and mortgage ‘crimes’ featured in last year’s “The Big Short”. Add in to the movie Nutribullet a soupçon of the West Texan setting from Arthur Penn’s 1967 “Bonnie and Clyde”, turn it on and you have “Hell or High Water”.
Chris Pine (“Star Trek”) and Ben Foster (“Inferno“, “The Program“) play brothers Toby and Tanner Howard trying to rescue their deceased mother’s ranch from being foreclosed on by Texas Midlands bank. Rather than taking one of the “get out of debt” offers advertised on billboards – cleverly and insistently introduced in long panning highway shots – the brothers have their own financial plan: a scheme that involves early morning raids of the cash drawers of small-town Texas Midlands branches. But the meticulous planning of Toby, as the calm and intelligent one, are constantly at risk of upset by the unpredictable and violent actions of the loose-cannon Tanner.
Since the amounts of cash stolen are in the thousands rather than the millions, the FBI aren’t interested and the case is handed instead by aged and grumpy Texas Ranger Marcus Hamilton (Jeff Bridges, “True Grit”) and his partner Alberto (Gil Birmingham). The pair have a respectful relationship but one built around racial banter, with Hamilton constantly referring to Alberto’s Mexican/Comanche heritage. A cat and mouse game ensues with the lawmen staking out the most likely next hits. The sonorous cello strings of the soundtrack portend a dramatic finale, and we as viewers are not disappointed.
The performances of the main leads are all excellent, with Chris Pine given the chance to show more acting chops than he has had chance to with his previous Kirk/Jack Ryan characters. His chemistry with Ben Foster is just sublime. Similarly, Jeff Bridges and Gil Birmingham make for a formidable double act. It is Jeff Bridges though who has the standout performance and one that is Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actor. (In fact with Michael Shannon also getting nominated in the same category for “Nocturnal Animals”, we can add ‘West Texan lawman’ to ‘Holocaust movies’ (a Winslet “Extras” reference there!) as the prime bait for Oscar nomination glory!)
The real winner here though is the whip-smart screenplay by Taylor Sheridan (“Sicario“) which sizzles with great lines: lines that make you grin inanely at the screen regularly through the running time.”In your last days in the nursing home, you’ll think of me and giggle” schmoozes Tanner to the pretty hotel check-in girl: a come-on clearly worth remembering as it delivers the goods, as it were.
The trick here is in building up a degree of empathy and sympathy for the characters on both sides. The ‘bad guys’ here are successfully portrayed as the banks. At the moment you can get 25/1 odds on this winning the Best Original Screenplay Oscar – but I would personally rate it right up there with “Manchester by the Sea“.
Deftly directed by Scot David Mackenzie (“Starred Up”) this is a film (the first of two!) that might well have elbowed it’s way into my Top 10 of 2016 if I’d seen it during its cinema release. Well worth catching on the small screen.
This week I have had the chance to catch up on two of the films with award potential that I missed at the cinema, and this is the write up of the first of those: “Hell or High Water”, was first released in September 2016, and what an excellent film it is.
Bank robberies have been featured in many hundreds of films since the early days of cinema: The Great Train Robbery for example dates back to 1903! More recent heist classics such as “Oceans 11”, “Die Hard”, “Run Lola Run” and “The Dark Knight Rises” tend towards the stylised end of the act. Where this film delivers interest is in aligning the protagonists’ drivers with the banking and mortgage ‘crimes’ featured in last year’s “The Big Short”. Add in to the movie Nutribullet a soupçon of the West Texan setting from Arthur Penn’s 1967 “Bonnie and Clyde”, turn it on and you have “Hell or High Water”.
Chris Pine (“Star Trek”) and Ben Foster (“Inferno“, “The Program“) play brothers Toby and Tanner Howard trying to rescue their deceased mother’s ranch from being foreclosed on by Texas Midlands bank. Rather than taking one of the “get out of debt” offers advertised on billboards – cleverly and insistently introduced in long panning highway shots – the brothers have their own financial plan: a scheme that involves early morning raids of the cash drawers of small-town Texas Midlands branches. But the meticulous planning of Toby, as the calm and intelligent one, are constantly at risk of upset by the unpredictable and violent actions of the loose-cannon Tanner.
Since the amounts of cash stolen are in the thousands rather than the millions, the FBI aren’t interested and the case is handed instead by aged and grumpy Texas Ranger Marcus Hamilton (Jeff Bridges, “True Grit”) and his partner Alberto (Gil Birmingham). The pair have a respectful relationship but one built around racial banter, with Hamilton constantly referring to Alberto’s Mexican/Comanche heritage. A cat and mouse game ensues with the lawmen staking out the most likely next hits. The sonorous cello strings of the soundtrack portend a dramatic finale, and we as viewers are not disappointed.
The performances of the main leads are all excellent, with Chris Pine given the chance to show more acting chops than he has had chance to with his previous Kirk/Jack Ryan characters. His chemistry with Ben Foster is just sublime. Similarly, Jeff Bridges and Gil Birmingham make for a formidable double act. It is Jeff Bridges though who has the standout performance and one that is Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actor. (In fact with Michael Shannon also getting nominated in the same category for “Nocturnal Animals”, we can add ‘West Texan lawman’ to ‘Holocaust movies’ (a Winslet “Extras” reference there!) as the prime bait for Oscar nomination glory!)
The real winner here though is the whip-smart screenplay by Taylor Sheridan (“Sicario“) which sizzles with great lines: lines that make you grin inanely at the screen regularly through the running time.”In your last days in the nursing home, you’ll think of me and giggle” schmoozes Tanner to the pretty hotel check-in girl: a come-on clearly worth remembering as it delivers the goods, as it were.
The trick here is in building up a degree of empathy and sympathy for the characters on both sides. The ‘bad guys’ here are successfully portrayed as the banks. At the moment you can get 25/1 odds on this winning the Best Original Screenplay Oscar – but I would personally rate it right up there with “Manchester by the Sea“.
Deftly directed by Scot David Mackenzie (“Starred Up”) this is a film (the first of two!) that might well have elbowed it’s way into my Top 10 of 2016 if I’d seen it during its cinema release. Well worth catching on the small screen.