Search
Search results
Rache (174 KP) rated The Psychopath Test in Books
Dec 10, 2018
Fascinating psychology (1 more)
Dark humour
Humorous Gonzo Journalism
Contains spoilers, click to show
Jon Ronson, the author of Men Who Stare at Goats, dives into the psychology behind the PCL-R, also known as the Bob Hare Psychopath Checklist (revised). Having heard about the checklist, Ronson self diagnoses as a psychopath, and decides to find out more. From talking to high-powered businessmen, to discussing brain scans of psychopaths' brains with an experimental psychologist who has a psychopath's brain scan, this is a fascinating dive into the psychology of psychopathy.
Of course, it wouldn't be a Jon Ronson book if it didn't include Ronson's special brand of gonzo, self-deprecating humour, which ties the whole book together into a cohesive story that will keep you reading "just one more page" until the end.
The only reason I gave this book a rating of 9 and not a 10 is because I have also read Men Who Stare at Goats, which is even better.
Of course, it wouldn't be a Jon Ronson book if it didn't include Ronson's special brand of gonzo, self-deprecating humour, which ties the whole book together into a cohesive story that will keep you reading "just one more page" until the end.
The only reason I gave this book a rating of 9 and not a 10 is because I have also read Men Who Stare at Goats, which is even better.
Awix (3310 KP) rated Dr Jekyll and Sister Hyde (1971) in Movies
Feb 9, 2018 (Updated Feb 9, 2018)
Gender on the Agenda
Hammer's second swing at a Jekyll and Hyde movie boasts a good cast, a capable director, and an inventive script that takes what sounds like a risible premise just seriously enough to keep it interesting. Dr Jekyll, intent on finding the universal cure for all diseases, realises he will die long before he completes the project, and so starts searching for an immortality serum - the recipe for which happens to include large quantities of female hormones. When he drinks it the inevitable happens.
Well, what ensues is a struggle between the moral but weak Jekyll and his ruthless, psychotic alter-ego, which somehow develops to include the real-life grave-robbers Burke and Hare and a somewhat unlikely solution to the mystery of Jack the Ripper's true identity. It's not exactly the subtlest or most refined piece of work, but neither is it completely sleazy or ridiculous.
The cast, director, and production values give the movie a touch of class (the punishingly low budget is concealed rather well) and the main weakness is that the script often seems to almost be treating the idea as a black joke, and doesn't explore some of the potential of the premise. Still, far from the travesty or spoof it sounds like.
Well, what ensues is a struggle between the moral but weak Jekyll and his ruthless, psychotic alter-ego, which somehow develops to include the real-life grave-robbers Burke and Hare and a somewhat unlikely solution to the mystery of Jack the Ripper's true identity. It's not exactly the subtlest or most refined piece of work, but neither is it completely sleazy or ridiculous.
The cast, director, and production values give the movie a touch of class (the punishingly low budget is concealed rather well) and the main weakness is that the script often seems to almost be treating the idea as a black joke, and doesn't explore some of the potential of the premise. Still, far from the travesty or spoof it sounds like.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Ned Kelly (2003) in Movies
Nov 24, 2019
Verdict: Biopic 101
Story: Ned Kelly starts in 1871 Australia where an Irish family the Kelly’s have settled in with the eldest son Ned (Ledger) ends up getting into trouble with the law, that has always targeted his family, seeing him placed in prison for a couple of years. Once out Ned does start to try and turn his family’s luck around with his friends Joseph Byrne (Bloom) and Aaron Sherritt (Edgerton), while working for an English family where Ned falls for Julia (Watts).
When Ned gets framed for assault by the constable that has always been out for his blood, his family gets targeted, but not the police are not going to stop until they have his head, forcing Ned to go on the run to protect his family, making him one of the most wanted criminals in the world.
Thoughts on Ned Kelly
Characters – Ned Kelly is a young Irish man that has always seen his family targeted by the law, he has gotten himself in trouble because of this, which sees him falsely accused and becoming a target. Ned refused to back down from the law needing to go on the run, leading to him becoming an outlaw taking from the rich inspiring the poor as he fights for what is right and his family’s pride. Joseph Byrne is Ned’s best friend, he will stand by his side through his battles, needing to do the right thing. Superintendent Francis Hare is the man charged with capturing the Kelly gang, he doesn’t want to hear the story, he just wants them gone. Julia Cook is an English woman that Ned was working for, she is one of the few that will help him seeing the good in his nature, but being held back by her own family.
Performances – Heath Ledger does a great job here showing how he wanted to break his pretty boy image, this performance makes this happen with ease. Orlando Bloom in the supporting role is strong without being truly great, while Geoffrey Rush feels wasted, with him being involved but not getting too much screen time, same goes for Naomi Watts, she just doesn’t get enough time to shine.
Story – The story here follows the innocent man that gets forced into become an outlaw who becomes the most wanted man in Australia. This story shows how settlers in other countries would always be unfairly targeted by the locals who saw them as threats, how people’s words could create outlaws because nobody would listen or understand the truths within a world. The story is only really told from Ned’s which will always make him look like the innocent man he was, but we do hear and see that most of the group have served time, so they might not be as innocent as they look (this is only from what the film shows, not what I know about the truth).
Action/Biopic/Western – The action is everything you would expect from a western, we have seen the shooting like always. The biopic does only show one side of the story and it does feel like there is more to tell.
Settings – The film utilises the location to show how Ned Kelly has to go into hiding and including the showdown.
Scene of the Movie – The showdown.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It does seem one sided.
Final Thoughts – This is a by the book biopic that showed one of the most famous outlaws in Australia, though it doesn’t seem to reach an intensity level that it could have.
Overall: Nice biopic.
Story: Ned Kelly starts in 1871 Australia where an Irish family the Kelly’s have settled in with the eldest son Ned (Ledger) ends up getting into trouble with the law, that has always targeted his family, seeing him placed in prison for a couple of years. Once out Ned does start to try and turn his family’s luck around with his friends Joseph Byrne (Bloom) and Aaron Sherritt (Edgerton), while working for an English family where Ned falls for Julia (Watts).
When Ned gets framed for assault by the constable that has always been out for his blood, his family gets targeted, but not the police are not going to stop until they have his head, forcing Ned to go on the run to protect his family, making him one of the most wanted criminals in the world.
Thoughts on Ned Kelly
Characters – Ned Kelly is a young Irish man that has always seen his family targeted by the law, he has gotten himself in trouble because of this, which sees him falsely accused and becoming a target. Ned refused to back down from the law needing to go on the run, leading to him becoming an outlaw taking from the rich inspiring the poor as he fights for what is right and his family’s pride. Joseph Byrne is Ned’s best friend, he will stand by his side through his battles, needing to do the right thing. Superintendent Francis Hare is the man charged with capturing the Kelly gang, he doesn’t want to hear the story, he just wants them gone. Julia Cook is an English woman that Ned was working for, she is one of the few that will help him seeing the good in his nature, but being held back by her own family.
Performances – Heath Ledger does a great job here showing how he wanted to break his pretty boy image, this performance makes this happen with ease. Orlando Bloom in the supporting role is strong without being truly great, while Geoffrey Rush feels wasted, with him being involved but not getting too much screen time, same goes for Naomi Watts, she just doesn’t get enough time to shine.
Story – The story here follows the innocent man that gets forced into become an outlaw who becomes the most wanted man in Australia. This story shows how settlers in other countries would always be unfairly targeted by the locals who saw them as threats, how people’s words could create outlaws because nobody would listen or understand the truths within a world. The story is only really told from Ned’s which will always make him look like the innocent man he was, but we do hear and see that most of the group have served time, so they might not be as innocent as they look (this is only from what the film shows, not what I know about the truth).
Action/Biopic/Western – The action is everything you would expect from a western, we have seen the shooting like always. The biopic does only show one side of the story and it does feel like there is more to tell.
Settings – The film utilises the location to show how Ned Kelly has to go into hiding and including the showdown.
Scene of the Movie – The showdown.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It does seem one sided.
Final Thoughts – This is a by the book biopic that showed one of the most famous outlaws in Australia, though it doesn’t seem to reach an intensity level that it could have.
Overall: Nice biopic.
This book drew me down the rabbit hole and never let go. I hate Marissa Meyer for making me fall in love with these characters when I know that they may not have a happy ending. No, I don't actually hate her book (I loved it) but it gives you so many feelings and yet you feel that it's not possible for it to work out. If you are familiar with Lewis Carroll's work, you know what happens in Alice in Wonderland. As this is a prequel, you expect that you know how each character turns out and wonder if it will inevitably play out the same way in Heartless. It crushes your heart to know their dreams and realize that they may not come true. My only hope going into this book was that it would have a Wicked-style secret that explains how any of them could possibly find their happily ever afters.
I have always been a huge fan of well-done fairytale re-tellings (or prequels in this case) and Heartless does not disappoint. Marissa Meyer did a wonderful job with the Lunar Chronicles and this is just as well done. We get a different look at our most beloved and hated characters, prior to their lives intersecting with Alice's. Most Wonderland retellings I've read feature Alice, so this was a nice change of pace.
Catherine is our likable if a bit spineless heroine who is set to be the future Queen of Hearts - if her mother has any say. She is joined by the Joker, Hatter, March Hare and other classic characters. Cath's dream is to open the finest bakery in Hearts, but her parents have other plans.
The Joker, Jest is my favourite character by far and he has a great arc throughout the story. He is witty, kind, magical and so much more than just the Fool. I almost wish he was the main character because his scenes were always my favourite.
The author took some liberties with the characters, but overall they just helped to make them more believable. Their personalities are developed and expanded, lending them an air of realness that doesn't always permeate Wonderland.
The Mad Tea Party scene was highly enjoyable as each guest was called upon to perform whilst jauntily adorned with a hat. My only negative is that I wish the Hatter was more likable. I understand his motivations but as classically one of my favourite characters I wish I had enjoyed his role more in this novel. I also wish that Cath could have been more pro-active, even though I understand her less than stellar backbone due to the period and her upbringing.
The world is vividly described from the fabric and accouterment laden Hatta's shop to the lavish King's castle. The author even adds a little Wonderland flair to common phrases and anecdotes. World-building is very well done and makes me long to visit Hearts.
Highly recommended to young adult/teen readers who enjoy fantasy and the fantastical, fairytale re-tellings, prequels and Marissa Meyer's wonderful writing.
I have always been a huge fan of well-done fairytale re-tellings (or prequels in this case) and Heartless does not disappoint. Marissa Meyer did a wonderful job with the Lunar Chronicles and this is just as well done. We get a different look at our most beloved and hated characters, prior to their lives intersecting with Alice's. Most Wonderland retellings I've read feature Alice, so this was a nice change of pace.
Catherine is our likable if a bit spineless heroine who is set to be the future Queen of Hearts - if her mother has any say. She is joined by the Joker, Hatter, March Hare and other classic characters. Cath's dream is to open the finest bakery in Hearts, but her parents have other plans.
The Joker, Jest is my favourite character by far and he has a great arc throughout the story. He is witty, kind, magical and so much more than just the Fool. I almost wish he was the main character because his scenes were always my favourite.
The author took some liberties with the characters, but overall they just helped to make them more believable. Their personalities are developed and expanded, lending them an air of realness that doesn't always permeate Wonderland.
The Mad Tea Party scene was highly enjoyable as each guest was called upon to perform whilst jauntily adorned with a hat. My only negative is that I wish the Hatter was more likable. I understand his motivations but as classically one of my favourite characters I wish I had enjoyed his role more in this novel. I also wish that Cath could have been more pro-active, even though I understand her less than stellar backbone due to the period and her upbringing.
The world is vividly described from the fabric and accouterment laden Hatta's shop to the lavish King's castle. The author even adds a little Wonderland flair to common phrases and anecdotes. World-building is very well done and makes me long to visit Hearts.
Highly recommended to young adult/teen readers who enjoy fantasy and the fantastical, fairytale re-tellings, prequels and Marissa Meyer's wonderful writing.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Denial (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Jewry Trial.
It’s the mid-90’s and Deborah Lipstadt (Rachael Weisz, “The Lobster“), an American professor of Holocaust studies at a US university has written a book naming and shaming David Irving (Timothy Spall, “Mr Turner”) as a Nazi-apologist who denies that the Holocaust ever happened. Filing a law suit against Penguin Books and Lipstadt in the UK, Lipstadt chooses to fight rather than settle and takes the case to the High Courts in a much publicised trial.
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?