Search
Search results
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated Kings or Pawns (Steps of Power #1) in Books
Nov 18, 2019
This book contains the usual staple fantasy races: elves, humans, dwarves, centaurs. There are epic battles and bold heroes, princesses in peril and magic. There is even a map at the front.
But that is where any similarity between this book and most other epic fantasy novels ends. Sherwood tells the tale of an elven country that has become corrupt with a ruling council who make decisions for reasons of profit, driving the rightful kings away and installing a puppet regime. Meanwhile the country is facing a war led by a brilliant defector.
When his father, the king, dies young Prince Hairem is determined to stand up to the council and stop the rot. But the council has ruled for hundreds of years, how can he possibly change things? Meanwhile Jikun, the general of the army must obey the council's wishes, even if the orders will only lead to destruction.
Sherwood starts with a few scenes and set pieces and gradually introduces the key players; Jikun is bold and brilliant but has a lot of inner demons which threaten to destroy him. Hairem is idealistic but naive.
The machinations of the council are real House of Cards type stuff, every way that Hairem tries to exert his authority blunted and diverted by the wily council members, who simultaneously try to make out they are on his side. As a political thriller this works amazingly well despite being set in a fantasy world; the descriptions and characters are perfectly pitched. It seems that pretty much everybody has dark secrets which everybody else is either trying to discover or use to their advantage.
There are scenes of action too, with Jikun and the army and also Sellemar mounting a daring raid into enemy territory plus duels and assasination attempts. This book really does have everything packed into it and the ending is both shocking and perfectly balanced to allow for further books in the series while satisfyingly closing a number of plot threads.
I was expecting a fairly standard fantasy book when I started this; what I got was an absolute gem that just begged to be read. A total masterpiece.
But that is where any similarity between this book and most other epic fantasy novels ends. Sherwood tells the tale of an elven country that has become corrupt with a ruling council who make decisions for reasons of profit, driving the rightful kings away and installing a puppet regime. Meanwhile the country is facing a war led by a brilliant defector.
When his father, the king, dies young Prince Hairem is determined to stand up to the council and stop the rot. But the council has ruled for hundreds of years, how can he possibly change things? Meanwhile Jikun, the general of the army must obey the council's wishes, even if the orders will only lead to destruction.
Sherwood starts with a few scenes and set pieces and gradually introduces the key players; Jikun is bold and brilliant but has a lot of inner demons which threaten to destroy him. Hairem is idealistic but naive.
The machinations of the council are real House of Cards type stuff, every way that Hairem tries to exert his authority blunted and diverted by the wily council members, who simultaneously try to make out they are on his side. As a political thriller this works amazingly well despite being set in a fantasy world; the descriptions and characters are perfectly pitched. It seems that pretty much everybody has dark secrets which everybody else is either trying to discover or use to their advantage.
There are scenes of action too, with Jikun and the army and also Sellemar mounting a daring raid into enemy territory plus duels and assasination attempts. This book really does have everything packed into it and the ending is both shocking and perfectly balanced to allow for further books in the series while satisfyingly closing a number of plot threads.
I was expecting a fairly standard fantasy book when I started this; what I got was an absolute gem that just begged to be read. A total masterpiece.
JT (287 KP) rated The Guest (2014) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
If there was any further indication needed that British leading men make for accomplished villains, this is a prime example. The softly spoken Dan Stevens (Downton Abbey) can now walk shoulder to shoulder with the likes of other talented antagonists such as Mark Strong, Tom Hiddleston and Ben Kingsley.
Director Adam Wingard‘s home invasion horror You’re Next received high acclaim so this was always going to be an exciting follow up. When I caught the trailer not a lot was given away. I like the fact that you’re going in almost blind. It makes for better viewing.
David (Stevens) enters the life of the Peterson family who are still grieving from the loss of their son Caleb who was killed in Iraq. Quickly he becomes an integral part of their lives, always around to help them out of difficult situations or as a shoulder to cry on.
It’s clear there is something more disturbing beneath his chilling blue eyes and it doesn’t take long for us to find out what. The Guest is a tense intriguing thriller that never gives too much away, making it one of its strong points. We all know there is something wrong with David, that much is clear from the shots of him grimly staring into the distance.
He manifests himself as a psychotic guardian angel with ulterior motives that are never revealed until the bodies start to pile up and we get to delve further into his back story. Even then Stevens plays his character with deadpan charm that makes us like him even more.
There are a number of genres all thrown in that ultimately work well alongside each other. A nice dose of action thanks to a backyard shootout is quickly morphed into an 80s slasher horror that echoes Halloween. The soundtrack is slick and pulsating, with comparisons drawn to Drive not just from the score but from Stevens somewhat uncanny resemblance to Ryan Gosling.
It never feels disjointed at any point and while it might wobble a little with the surprise ending (of which you knew was coming) it doesn’t damage the overall integrity if the story.
Director Adam Wingard‘s home invasion horror You’re Next received high acclaim so this was always going to be an exciting follow up. When I caught the trailer not a lot was given away. I like the fact that you’re going in almost blind. It makes for better viewing.
David (Stevens) enters the life of the Peterson family who are still grieving from the loss of their son Caleb who was killed in Iraq. Quickly he becomes an integral part of their lives, always around to help them out of difficult situations or as a shoulder to cry on.
It’s clear there is something more disturbing beneath his chilling blue eyes and it doesn’t take long for us to find out what. The Guest is a tense intriguing thriller that never gives too much away, making it one of its strong points. We all know there is something wrong with David, that much is clear from the shots of him grimly staring into the distance.
He manifests himself as a psychotic guardian angel with ulterior motives that are never revealed until the bodies start to pile up and we get to delve further into his back story. Even then Stevens plays his character with deadpan charm that makes us like him even more.
There are a number of genres all thrown in that ultimately work well alongside each other. A nice dose of action thanks to a backyard shootout is quickly morphed into an 80s slasher horror that echoes Halloween. The soundtrack is slick and pulsating, with comparisons drawn to Drive not just from the score but from Stevens somewhat uncanny resemblance to Ryan Gosling.
It never feels disjointed at any point and while it might wobble a little with the surprise ending (of which you knew was coming) it doesn’t damage the overall integrity if the story.
Wars of the Roses: Trinity
8.0
Rate It
Book
The brilliant retelling of the Wars of the Roses continues with Trinity, the second gripping...
BookInspector (124 KP) rated The House Swap in Books
Sep 24, 2020
I had such high hopes for this book, it had so much praise from famous authors, but I was left quite disappointed.
The whole story was told from multiple perspectives, but Caroline is the main lead. It is mainly her story, and her life events, which are discussed. Even though I would not praise Caroline’s actions in this book, I could not blame her for them either. She had to endure quite a lot in her marriage, and I am really surprised that they decided to make it work because it should be a really hard job to do. I really enjoyed Francis’s story in this book as well, had a good insight into addict’s mind.
The narrative of this novel was interesting and quite original, outlining domestic problems and emotions that these events create, but I would not be able to call this book a thriller, because it did not give me any thrills whatsoever. I did like the twists and turns in this book, they did wake my curiosity of what these events are all about. I missed the suspense and more action. I found the topics, such as cheating on your spouse, drug addiction, really amusing to read about. I enjoyed the insight into these problems and the effect it has on different people.
The book is set in London, and narrative travels between present and past, slowly revealing more with every chapter. So, even though the story built up my curiosity pretty well, the climax left me incredibly disappointed. I was expecting some juicy bits to fulfill my expectations, but all I got was “Meh” :/ I did like the length of the chapters and the way R. Fleet ended every chapter with a cliffhanger. (Very smart, very smart indeed…) The writing style and language used were pleasant and easy to read. I would like to throw in a DISCLAIMER, there is plenty of detailed sex scenes in this book followed by substance addiction. So, to conclude, it is an absorbing family drama, filled with mystery, plenty of emotions, and if you are a mystery fan, who is looking for something lighter and less intense, this would be a good choice, I think. Enjoy 🙂
The whole story was told from multiple perspectives, but Caroline is the main lead. It is mainly her story, and her life events, which are discussed. Even though I would not praise Caroline’s actions in this book, I could not blame her for them either. She had to endure quite a lot in her marriage, and I am really surprised that they decided to make it work because it should be a really hard job to do. I really enjoyed Francis’s story in this book as well, had a good insight into addict’s mind.
The narrative of this novel was interesting and quite original, outlining domestic problems and emotions that these events create, but I would not be able to call this book a thriller, because it did not give me any thrills whatsoever. I did like the twists and turns in this book, they did wake my curiosity of what these events are all about. I missed the suspense and more action. I found the topics, such as cheating on your spouse, drug addiction, really amusing to read about. I enjoyed the insight into these problems and the effect it has on different people.
The book is set in London, and narrative travels between present and past, slowly revealing more with every chapter. So, even though the story built up my curiosity pretty well, the climax left me incredibly disappointed. I was expecting some juicy bits to fulfill my expectations, but all I got was “Meh” :/ I did like the length of the chapters and the way R. Fleet ended every chapter with a cliffhanger. (Very smart, very smart indeed…) The writing style and language used were pleasant and easy to read. I would like to throw in a DISCLAIMER, there is plenty of detailed sex scenes in this book followed by substance addiction. So, to conclude, it is an absorbing family drama, filled with mystery, plenty of emotions, and if you are a mystery fan, who is looking for something lighter and less intense, this would be a good choice, I think. Enjoy 🙂
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Breaking In (2018) (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Get In.
Into every life a little rain must fall. Some fairly pervasive advertising drove me into the cinema to see this one… often a sign that the distributors think it has legs. And from its quirky opening titles (with a COMPLETELY expected shock denouement!) I started to think it did have something. The beginning is in fact VERY similar to the introductory scene of “Get Out” in its randomness, and for one brief moment I wondered if the film was trying to parody that indie classic from last year… with only some studio lawyers getting in the way of them really calling it “Get In”. (“No, no, no… ‘Get’ is copyrighted… you’ll have to use some other word!”).
But no. It turns out that this is a pretty below-average B-movie after all,
The plot is pretty derivative of the “family in dire peril” variety made famous by the “Taken” series. Not being able to persuade Liam Neeson to wear a dress in this “Times Up” era, the Neeson-actioner writer Ryan Engle (“The Commuter“, “Non-Stop“) switches the action to focus on stressed mother Shaun Russell (Gabrielle Union).
Shaun has come to deepest Wisconsin with her two kids, Jasmine (Ajiona Alexus) and Glover (Seth Carr) to arrange the sale of her deceased father’s luxury home: a house absolutely brimming to the elegant rafters with security features. But unknown to them, there are already intruders in the house searching for something of value, and with Shaun locked outside the secure fortress home she will stop at nothing to break in and bring her children safely home.
The sad thing about this one is that the fairly unknown cast actually do a pretty good job. The chief villain Eddie, played by Billy Burke, channels an effectively ‘evil-quiet-Gary-Oldman” turn to good effect. His accomplices, the more sensitive Sam (Levi Meaden), luckless Peter (Mark Furze) and (particularly) the psychopathic Duncan (Richard Cabral) (can a psychopath really be called Duncan?) are broad caricatures, but never too broad to be totally awful.
Gabrielle Union kicks-ass effectively with her particular set of skills (see below), but particularly good is 22-year old Ajiona Alexus who has a great screen presence and deserves to be in much better films than this.
Where the film stumbles and goes crashing through its carbonite shutters is in the story and the screenplay’s dialogue.
The former is just bat-shit crazy, with so many ridiculous plot-holes and “yeah-but” moments that you lose count. For example, at one point the daughter is looking for her mobile phone WHICH IS IN THE ROOM and which would wrap the plot up in 10 minutes flat…. but then something else happens and they stop looking for it, never to be thought of again!
And what of those ‘particular set of skills’ that Shaun has? Oh, I forgot to say… she has none!! Or at least you assume not, since Shaun seems to have no back-story whatsoever, other than the fact that her daddy is very very rich and being investigated by the D/A. For what? Embezzlement? Tax evasion? Smartie-smuggling? Gun running? Perhaps he was a mafia overlord and Shaun was brought up with martial arts, gun and knife training to spy-school level? Perhaps none of the above, and she was just an obsessive watcher of Engle-scripted flicks? We will never know.
In addition, Shaun gets the proverbial crap kicked out of her on so many occasions, but there is no trip to casualty required. (Yes, I know Neeson and most other action heroes have the same implausible in-vulnerabilities, but it just seems so much less realistic when she is a not-particularly sporty or athletic woman).
And that dialogue… it’s just plain laughable in places. If Eddie doesn’t do his “Mamma hen will come back to save her chicks” speech once, he does it five times….
“Hey, James”… (James McTeigue, director, “V for Vendetta”)… says Burke, “Haven’t I said this line four times already”. “Sure”, says McTeigue, “I’m not sure where exactly I want to put it in the final cut yet, but only one of them will stay in. Don’t worry… I won’t make you look stupid to the cinema-going audience!!”
Every last thriller cliché is mined as the story grinds to an unmemorable and very flat conclusion.
Before wrapping up, I’d point out Another crime being committed in the music department. Australian composer Johnny Klimek’s action thriller score is actually quiet good, full of nice electronic riffs. But he really doesn’t know when to shut up. I remember an interview by John Williams on scoring the score to Hitchcock’s “Family Plot” where he recounted that Hitchcock taught him the value of a sudden absence of music at key moments. This film is too recent to learn the many lessons of “A Quiet Place“: but there are so many moments in this film where silence should have been golden. At one point the (what should be) heart-stopping sound effect of a creaking beam can barely be heard over Klimek’s pounding electronics.
So in summary, although it’s the award of ‘good acting attempt’ badges to sew onto the cast’s scout uniforms, my message to you dear reader re this one is “Get Out” of the cinema and enjoy the nice summer evenings instead!
But no. It turns out that this is a pretty below-average B-movie after all,
The plot is pretty derivative of the “family in dire peril” variety made famous by the “Taken” series. Not being able to persuade Liam Neeson to wear a dress in this “Times Up” era, the Neeson-actioner writer Ryan Engle (“The Commuter“, “Non-Stop“) switches the action to focus on stressed mother Shaun Russell (Gabrielle Union).
Shaun has come to deepest Wisconsin with her two kids, Jasmine (Ajiona Alexus) and Glover (Seth Carr) to arrange the sale of her deceased father’s luxury home: a house absolutely brimming to the elegant rafters with security features. But unknown to them, there are already intruders in the house searching for something of value, and with Shaun locked outside the secure fortress home she will stop at nothing to break in and bring her children safely home.
The sad thing about this one is that the fairly unknown cast actually do a pretty good job. The chief villain Eddie, played by Billy Burke, channels an effectively ‘evil-quiet-Gary-Oldman” turn to good effect. His accomplices, the more sensitive Sam (Levi Meaden), luckless Peter (Mark Furze) and (particularly) the psychopathic Duncan (Richard Cabral) (can a psychopath really be called Duncan?) are broad caricatures, but never too broad to be totally awful.
Gabrielle Union kicks-ass effectively with her particular set of skills (see below), but particularly good is 22-year old Ajiona Alexus who has a great screen presence and deserves to be in much better films than this.
Where the film stumbles and goes crashing through its carbonite shutters is in the story and the screenplay’s dialogue.
The former is just bat-shit crazy, with so many ridiculous plot-holes and “yeah-but” moments that you lose count. For example, at one point the daughter is looking for her mobile phone WHICH IS IN THE ROOM and which would wrap the plot up in 10 minutes flat…. but then something else happens and they stop looking for it, never to be thought of again!
And what of those ‘particular set of skills’ that Shaun has? Oh, I forgot to say… she has none!! Or at least you assume not, since Shaun seems to have no back-story whatsoever, other than the fact that her daddy is very very rich and being investigated by the D/A. For what? Embezzlement? Tax evasion? Smartie-smuggling? Gun running? Perhaps he was a mafia overlord and Shaun was brought up with martial arts, gun and knife training to spy-school level? Perhaps none of the above, and she was just an obsessive watcher of Engle-scripted flicks? We will never know.
In addition, Shaun gets the proverbial crap kicked out of her on so many occasions, but there is no trip to casualty required. (Yes, I know Neeson and most other action heroes have the same implausible in-vulnerabilities, but it just seems so much less realistic when she is a not-particularly sporty or athletic woman).
And that dialogue… it’s just plain laughable in places. If Eddie doesn’t do his “Mamma hen will come back to save her chicks” speech once, he does it five times….
“Hey, James”… (James McTeigue, director, “V for Vendetta”)… says Burke, “Haven’t I said this line four times already”. “Sure”, says McTeigue, “I’m not sure where exactly I want to put it in the final cut yet, but only one of them will stay in. Don’t worry… I won’t make you look stupid to the cinema-going audience!!”
Every last thriller cliché is mined as the story grinds to an unmemorable and very flat conclusion.
Before wrapping up, I’d point out Another crime being committed in the music department. Australian composer Johnny Klimek’s action thriller score is actually quiet good, full of nice electronic riffs. But he really doesn’t know when to shut up. I remember an interview by John Williams on scoring the score to Hitchcock’s “Family Plot” where he recounted that Hitchcock taught him the value of a sudden absence of music at key moments. This film is too recent to learn the many lessons of “A Quiet Place“: but there are so many moments in this film where silence should have been golden. At one point the (what should be) heart-stopping sound effect of a creaking beam can barely be heard over Klimek’s pounding electronics.
So in summary, although it’s the award of ‘good acting attempt’ badges to sew onto the cast’s scout uniforms, my message to you dear reader re this one is “Get Out” of the cinema and enjoy the nice summer evenings instead!
Darren (1599 KP) rated Marauders (2016) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: Marauders starts when a bank robbery which leaves the bank manager executed, the president of the bank Hubert (Willis) has an excellent reputation and with the FBI investigating the robbery, Montgomery (Meloni) and his team Stockwell (Bautista) and newbie Wells (Grenier) try to put the clues together.
When the second heist happens, the fingers start pointing back at Hubert and a bigger conspiracy comes to the top with connection to a previous incident.
Thoughts on Marauders
Characters – Hubert is the bank president, he has always kept the face that the bank puts their customers first, but when his banks start getting robbed, he must deal with the fingers pointing back at him. Montgomery is the lead investigating from the FBI trying to get to the bottom of the heists, he has his own demons which haunt him everyday after the death of his wife and will not stop until he learns the truth. Stockwell is Montgomery’s trusted second, he is the tired cop figure, he is good at his job and hates people getting in his way. Wells is the rookie agent, with the qualifications to make him the best, he gets the jobs the others don’t want to do, while noticing things they miss.
Performances – The performances in the movie are mixed, we know that Bruce Willis is mostly mailing it in and it is a strange role for him. Christopher Meloni is the star of this movie, the determination and broken side of his character makes him stand out. Dave Bautista does get the funniest lines, some hit or than others, while Adrian Grenier starts strong but fades away in the biggest scenes of the middle of the movie.
Story – The story follows the effects of a brutal heist, the FBI must investigate the heist which brings us into the new web of conspiracies which could bring down a political powerhouse. This a story which does keep us guessing from start to finish, which is something I was surprised to see, as I thought this would be a lot messier. The positive of keeping us guessing, does leave the bigger question about just why the heists needed to be as brutal as they were because of certain injuries or deaths not needing to happen for the cause.
Action/Crime/Mystery – The action is brutal and often in your face when it comes to the gun sequences, the crime side of the film comes from the heists and just what they are aiming to achieve from the heists. The mystery is what draws us in because we don’t know what is happening which keeps us invested throughout.
Settings – The film is set in the city which shows how the panic of the robberies starts flying around we see how things get out of hand.
Scene of the Movie – The heists do feel very intense, which I did like.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The last sequence.
Final Thoughts – This was a surprisingly entertaining film, having no expectations going in, this did become intense and kept you guessing even if things unravel in the final scene.
Overall: Enjoyable crime thriller.
When the second heist happens, the fingers start pointing back at Hubert and a bigger conspiracy comes to the top with connection to a previous incident.
Thoughts on Marauders
Characters – Hubert is the bank president, he has always kept the face that the bank puts their customers first, but when his banks start getting robbed, he must deal with the fingers pointing back at him. Montgomery is the lead investigating from the FBI trying to get to the bottom of the heists, he has his own demons which haunt him everyday after the death of his wife and will not stop until he learns the truth. Stockwell is Montgomery’s trusted second, he is the tired cop figure, he is good at his job and hates people getting in his way. Wells is the rookie agent, with the qualifications to make him the best, he gets the jobs the others don’t want to do, while noticing things they miss.
Performances – The performances in the movie are mixed, we know that Bruce Willis is mostly mailing it in and it is a strange role for him. Christopher Meloni is the star of this movie, the determination and broken side of his character makes him stand out. Dave Bautista does get the funniest lines, some hit or than others, while Adrian Grenier starts strong but fades away in the biggest scenes of the middle of the movie.
Story – The story follows the effects of a brutal heist, the FBI must investigate the heist which brings us into the new web of conspiracies which could bring down a political powerhouse. This a story which does keep us guessing from start to finish, which is something I was surprised to see, as I thought this would be a lot messier. The positive of keeping us guessing, does leave the bigger question about just why the heists needed to be as brutal as they were because of certain injuries or deaths not needing to happen for the cause.
Action/Crime/Mystery – The action is brutal and often in your face when it comes to the gun sequences, the crime side of the film comes from the heists and just what they are aiming to achieve from the heists. The mystery is what draws us in because we don’t know what is happening which keeps us invested throughout.
Settings – The film is set in the city which shows how the panic of the robberies starts flying around we see how things get out of hand.
Scene of the Movie – The heists do feel very intense, which I did like.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The last sequence.
Final Thoughts – This was a surprisingly entertaining film, having no expectations going in, this did become intense and kept you guessing even if things unravel in the final scene.
Overall: Enjoyable crime thriller.
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Girl in the Spider's Web (2018) in Movies
Oct 2, 2019
Characters – Lisbeth Salander is the famous hacker that will stand up against any man that is causing a woman abuse, she will leave her brand on them. She is called for difficult hacking jobs, which sees her take something from the Americans, this makes her a wanted suspect in Sweden and her on the run looking for answers to clear her name. Mikael Blomkvist is still the only person that Lisbeth will trust, he tries to operate from a distant and investigates the trust behind what is happening. Ed Needham is the American that has his system hacked, a government man, he heads to Sweden to get it back and finds nothing but barriers from the Swedish government. Camilla Salander is the long lost sister of Lisbeth, she thought to be dead, but now she is involved in a criminal gang known as The Spiders, targeting Lisbeth for what she wants.
Performances – Claire Foy does feel mis-cast in this role, she doesn’t seem to have a tough enough look to make this character effect as the two previous stars. Sverrir Gudnason had large shoes to fill and he doesn’t do a strong enough job in the Mikael role, while Sylvia Hoeks does what she can with her role without being anything overly special, while LaKeith Stanfield doesn’t seem to feel like the character he is meant to be playing.
Story – The story here is the fourth story in the Dragon Tattoo world, the second in English and is the first not written by the original author. We follow Lisbeth who once again finds herself needing to take on secret organisation that what something that could put the world in danger and this time it becomes more personal, with her sister being the enemy. This story does feel like it has borrowed from many other films and while it still puts Lisbeth is an anti-hero role, we only seem to find ourselves in one direction where Lisbeth is always one step ahead of everything happening, despite the fact we get to see just how twisted the Spiders are, it paints one image of them only to leave us facing a different softer enemy.
Action/Crime – The action was pretty much all given away in the trailer, we have the motorbike chase across the ice, the car chases and shoot outs, each feels very similar and doesn’t have the suspense required in a thriller.
Settings – The film does try to bring everything back to Lisbeth’s backstory with the settings showing the off the grid life she current lives compared to the one she could have lived, the snowy roads add a little to the chases, but not that much overall.
Scene of the Movie – Ice lake escape.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The Spider’s not hinting at wanting to do to what they did to the guy without a nose, to the new Lisbeth group.
Final Thoughts – This does feel like a cash grab on a franchise that has never taken off on the American side of things, we get everything scaled back leaving us feeling disappointed by the end of the film.
Overall: No thrills to be seen here.
Performances – Claire Foy does feel mis-cast in this role, she doesn’t seem to have a tough enough look to make this character effect as the two previous stars. Sverrir Gudnason had large shoes to fill and he doesn’t do a strong enough job in the Mikael role, while Sylvia Hoeks does what she can with her role without being anything overly special, while LaKeith Stanfield doesn’t seem to feel like the character he is meant to be playing.
Story – The story here is the fourth story in the Dragon Tattoo world, the second in English and is the first not written by the original author. We follow Lisbeth who once again finds herself needing to take on secret organisation that what something that could put the world in danger and this time it becomes more personal, with her sister being the enemy. This story does feel like it has borrowed from many other films and while it still puts Lisbeth is an anti-hero role, we only seem to find ourselves in one direction where Lisbeth is always one step ahead of everything happening, despite the fact we get to see just how twisted the Spiders are, it paints one image of them only to leave us facing a different softer enemy.
Action/Crime – The action was pretty much all given away in the trailer, we have the motorbike chase across the ice, the car chases and shoot outs, each feels very similar and doesn’t have the suspense required in a thriller.
Settings – The film does try to bring everything back to Lisbeth’s backstory with the settings showing the off the grid life she current lives compared to the one she could have lived, the snowy roads add a little to the chases, but not that much overall.
Scene of the Movie – Ice lake escape.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The Spider’s not hinting at wanting to do to what they did to the guy without a nose, to the new Lisbeth group.
Final Thoughts – This does feel like a cash grab on a franchise that has never taken off on the American side of things, we get everything scaled back leaving us feeling disappointed by the end of the film.
Overall: No thrills to be seen here.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Quantum of Solace (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
With the success of “Casino Royale” featuring new Bond Daniel Craig, the world has waiting eagerly for the follow up, “Quantum of Solace” which continues the historic spy franchise.
Picking up exactly where the last film ended, Bond is walking a fine line between revenge and doing his duty after being betrayed by Vesper at the end of the last film. While interrogating a suspect with M (Judy Densch), it is learned that there is an organization that is very dangerous and influential that even has influence in the C.I.A. and MI6.
Before they can learn any further information, a shocking betrayal happens and Bond is in hot pursuit of the suspect across the rooftops of Italy and soon locked in a deadly confrontation with the traitor.
The recent events have M concerned and Bond is dispatched to Haiti to follow on a lead which thanks to a case of mistaken identity leads Bond to a woman named Camille (Olga Kurylenko). Olga is involved in a deadly game with a corrupt businessman named Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), and a Bolivian General named Medrano (Joaquin Cosio).
Unsure of their involvement, Bond follows Greene, and learns that he heads an environmental group and has designs on a track of desert in Bolivia. Unsure if Greene’s interest in the area is related to diamonds, oil, or something else, M tasks Bond with finding out what is going on, as her superiors are betting that it is related to oil, and with the C.I. A. involved, it is reasoned that the England cannot be left out of an already dwindling oil supply.
It is at this point that the film lost much of its steam for me as the final revelation seemed to be much ado about nothing as this sort of thing happens, and has happened the world over for years and is hardly worthy of involving the MI6, much less the worlds must dangerous spy.
What follows is a series of betrayals and a few action scenes leading up to a fiery climax which almost redeems the film.
Let me say at the outset that I am a Bond fan and a traditionalist. I understand change happens over time and I am not one who thinks that the role began and ended with Sean Connery. I enjoyed Roger Moore though found him a bit camp. Timothy Dalton did not work for me, and George Lazenby was only Bond for one film so it is hard to judge him fairly. That being said, I found Pierce Brosnan to have been the best Bond since Connery as his interpretation of the character is dead on.
Sir Ian Fleming created the character and has said that he was influenced by people he knew. Bond is a well educated and cultured individual who was educated at the top schools, was an officer in the Royal Navy, and is a suave and charming individual as well as a cold and deadly killer when needed. He is scarred by events in his past, as such he relies on alcohol, duty, and woman to get by, but never once allows himself to get to close to anyone.
When they rebooted the franchise with Craig, much of the 40 years of Bond as well as the essence of the character have been lost. Craig’s Bond is not a cultured blue blood, he is a common thug. In my review of “Casino Royale” I mentioned that the new Bond passed up spending a night with a woman in order to pursue a lead, and how Connery would have found time to do both with style.
Craig’s Bond is very light on womanizing and the film has zero sexual tension and only a very brief romance seen that seems tacked on. The underlying themes of Bond has been guns, gadgets, girls, and action, and this film has chosen to pretty much eschew almost all of this as there are zero gadgets in the film and to be honest, I found the plot to be uninspired.
I think that in many ways the people behind the film have tried to get as far away from the past Bond films as possible especially the maniacal villains who were bent on destroying the world.
As an action film, the movie does have its moments and if it was not a Bond film would be a passable action thriller. As a Bond film, it promises the world and will likely disappoint much long term Bond fans and appeal mainly to those who do not have a longstanding history with the character from book to film. I have to wonder if Sir Ian Fleming is spinning in his grave over what they have done to his gentleman spy in the name of progress.
Picking up exactly where the last film ended, Bond is walking a fine line between revenge and doing his duty after being betrayed by Vesper at the end of the last film. While interrogating a suspect with M (Judy Densch), it is learned that there is an organization that is very dangerous and influential that even has influence in the C.I.A. and MI6.
Before they can learn any further information, a shocking betrayal happens and Bond is in hot pursuit of the suspect across the rooftops of Italy and soon locked in a deadly confrontation with the traitor.
The recent events have M concerned and Bond is dispatched to Haiti to follow on a lead which thanks to a case of mistaken identity leads Bond to a woman named Camille (Olga Kurylenko). Olga is involved in a deadly game with a corrupt businessman named Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), and a Bolivian General named Medrano (Joaquin Cosio).
Unsure of their involvement, Bond follows Greene, and learns that he heads an environmental group and has designs on a track of desert in Bolivia. Unsure if Greene’s interest in the area is related to diamonds, oil, or something else, M tasks Bond with finding out what is going on, as her superiors are betting that it is related to oil, and with the C.I. A. involved, it is reasoned that the England cannot be left out of an already dwindling oil supply.
It is at this point that the film lost much of its steam for me as the final revelation seemed to be much ado about nothing as this sort of thing happens, and has happened the world over for years and is hardly worthy of involving the MI6, much less the worlds must dangerous spy.
What follows is a series of betrayals and a few action scenes leading up to a fiery climax which almost redeems the film.
Let me say at the outset that I am a Bond fan and a traditionalist. I understand change happens over time and I am not one who thinks that the role began and ended with Sean Connery. I enjoyed Roger Moore though found him a bit camp. Timothy Dalton did not work for me, and George Lazenby was only Bond for one film so it is hard to judge him fairly. That being said, I found Pierce Brosnan to have been the best Bond since Connery as his interpretation of the character is dead on.
Sir Ian Fleming created the character and has said that he was influenced by people he knew. Bond is a well educated and cultured individual who was educated at the top schools, was an officer in the Royal Navy, and is a suave and charming individual as well as a cold and deadly killer when needed. He is scarred by events in his past, as such he relies on alcohol, duty, and woman to get by, but never once allows himself to get to close to anyone.
When they rebooted the franchise with Craig, much of the 40 years of Bond as well as the essence of the character have been lost. Craig’s Bond is not a cultured blue blood, he is a common thug. In my review of “Casino Royale” I mentioned that the new Bond passed up spending a night with a woman in order to pursue a lead, and how Connery would have found time to do both with style.
Craig’s Bond is very light on womanizing and the film has zero sexual tension and only a very brief romance seen that seems tacked on. The underlying themes of Bond has been guns, gadgets, girls, and action, and this film has chosen to pretty much eschew almost all of this as there are zero gadgets in the film and to be honest, I found the plot to be uninspired.
I think that in many ways the people behind the film have tried to get as far away from the past Bond films as possible especially the maniacal villains who were bent on destroying the world.
As an action film, the movie does have its moments and if it was not a Bond film would be a passable action thriller. As a Bond film, it promises the world and will likely disappoint much long term Bond fans and appeal mainly to those who do not have a longstanding history with the character from book to film. I have to wonder if Sir Ian Fleming is spinning in his grave over what they have done to his gentleman spy in the name of progress.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated As Above So Below (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The film “As above so below” is part horror, part treasure adventure, and
all shaky cam. This found-footage film could also be more aptly titled as
“Lara Croft goes to hell.” The story centers around an excitable young
adventurer with a British accent named Scarlett on a search for the
mythological Philosopher’s Stone. A self-professed scholar of alchemy, she
hopes proving that the stone exists will fulfill her father’s legacy and
prove to the world that he wasn’t crazy. This search leads her and her
partners through the secret areas of the haunted catacombs of Pairs, France
into what could be hell itself. The movie starts with her traveling to Iran
for clues on the location of the Philosopher’s Stone.
The action opens without introductions which I enjoyed, as it gets right
into the action and sets the a good pace for the rest of the film. After
retrieving clues to the location of the stone and narrowly avoiding
security and a cave-in in Iran, our heroine sets off to Paris, France to
gather the rest of the crew for her adventure (the rest of our films
characters). These characters include her old friend Benji, a translator, a
group of French miscreants: Papillion (the leader), Zed and Souxie (the
Banshee, no kidding) all of whom are experts on the secret underground
catacombs. Her loyal documentarian George rounds out the crew who has
followed her around since the film’s opening shot.
Up until this point, the horror element of this film is non-existent. Once
the crew journey into the secret catacombs is when things begin to get
eerie. Plot and circumstance is good and all, but it’s a horror movie, is
it scary? Well, I wasn’t scared at all, neither was my wife whom I saw the
movie with. I’d call it more of a psychological thriller, a slight one at
that. Lots of supernatural happenings occur in the caverns akin to what
you’d find in a haunted house movie. Things like phone’s ringing
inexplicably in an area devoid of electricity and hundreds of feet below
the ground, spooky ghost like figures chanting occult hymns, and dead
drowned children. There isn’t much gore in this film, the little found is
reserved for the last 3rd of the movie. Some fear and wince inducing
moments are supplied via claustrophobia as the group squeezes themselves
through tight corridors and underwater channels. They did a pretty good job
of getting your heart racing. These scenes were reminiscent of a greater
horror entry “The Descent.” If you’ve seen that film, then you know what to
expect when it comes to the 1st person moments of claustrophobia.
Once in the catacombs what follows is a maze of twists and turns and
strange occurrences as the crew tries to solve the mystery of the hidden
Philosopher’s Stone as one by one the crew members get killed off in their
attempt to escape the demonic maze of underground tunnels. As for the
ending? Well prepare to be underwhelmed. The definitive worst part of the
film is its ending. It is so mundane and handled extremely poorly as to
come to an abrupt and seemingly rushed finish without any sense of
accomplishment or endearment to any of the characters or what they have
been through. Although they don’t all make it out alive (naturally this is
a horror film) those that do give off the impression of a group that has
just passed out of the end of a haunted house maze similar to those at the
upcoming Halloween Horror Nights at Universal Studios.
all shaky cam. This found-footage film could also be more aptly titled as
“Lara Croft goes to hell.” The story centers around an excitable young
adventurer with a British accent named Scarlett on a search for the
mythological Philosopher’s Stone. A self-professed scholar of alchemy, she
hopes proving that the stone exists will fulfill her father’s legacy and
prove to the world that he wasn’t crazy. This search leads her and her
partners through the secret areas of the haunted catacombs of Pairs, France
into what could be hell itself. The movie starts with her traveling to Iran
for clues on the location of the Philosopher’s Stone.
The action opens without introductions which I enjoyed, as it gets right
into the action and sets the a good pace for the rest of the film. After
retrieving clues to the location of the stone and narrowly avoiding
security and a cave-in in Iran, our heroine sets off to Paris, France to
gather the rest of the crew for her adventure (the rest of our films
characters). These characters include her old friend Benji, a translator, a
group of French miscreants: Papillion (the leader), Zed and Souxie (the
Banshee, no kidding) all of whom are experts on the secret underground
catacombs. Her loyal documentarian George rounds out the crew who has
followed her around since the film’s opening shot.
Up until this point, the horror element of this film is non-existent. Once
the crew journey into the secret catacombs is when things begin to get
eerie. Plot and circumstance is good and all, but it’s a horror movie, is
it scary? Well, I wasn’t scared at all, neither was my wife whom I saw the
movie with. I’d call it more of a psychological thriller, a slight one at
that. Lots of supernatural happenings occur in the caverns akin to what
you’d find in a haunted house movie. Things like phone’s ringing
inexplicably in an area devoid of electricity and hundreds of feet below
the ground, spooky ghost like figures chanting occult hymns, and dead
drowned children. There isn’t much gore in this film, the little found is
reserved for the last 3rd of the movie. Some fear and wince inducing
moments are supplied via claustrophobia as the group squeezes themselves
through tight corridors and underwater channels. They did a pretty good job
of getting your heart racing. These scenes were reminiscent of a greater
horror entry “The Descent.” If you’ve seen that film, then you know what to
expect when it comes to the 1st person moments of claustrophobia.
Once in the catacombs what follows is a maze of twists and turns and
strange occurrences as the crew tries to solve the mystery of the hidden
Philosopher’s Stone as one by one the crew members get killed off in their
attempt to escape the demonic maze of underground tunnels. As for the
ending? Well prepare to be underwhelmed. The definitive worst part of the
film is its ending. It is so mundane and handled extremely poorly as to
come to an abrupt and seemingly rushed finish without any sense of
accomplishment or endearment to any of the characters or what they have
been through. Although they don’t all make it out alive (naturally this is
a horror film) those that do give off the impression of a group that has
just passed out of the end of a haunted house maze similar to those at the
upcoming Halloween Horror Nights at Universal Studios.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Source Code (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Following upon his breakout success with the film Moon director Duncan Jones has returned with Source Code and has proven that he is not a one-hit wonder but also a talent on the rise.
The film stars Jake Gyllenhaal as Colter Stevens who, after waking up on a train, finds himself disoriented and unable to identify his travel companion, the attractive Christina Warren (Michelle Monaghan), who sits across from him eagerly discussing things they appear to have spoken about previously.
Taking a quick survey of his surroundings, Colter finds out that he is on a train heading to Chicago and that he cannot explain how he ended up where he currently is. Colter is not given much time to ponder his situation as the train is suddenly rocked by a massive explosion and he finds himself engulfed in a wall of flame. Shortly thereafter Colter awakens and finds himself upside down and strapped into what appears to be a cockpit of some sort.
A voice soon fills the cockpit, followed by the face of the woman he can’t identify on a video monitor. Unable to ascertain what is going on, a frantic Colter only recalls that he was a helicopter pilot on mission in Afghanistan. The mystery woman (Vera Farmiga) tells him that he is now part of a top-secret project that is attempting to unravel the mystery behind the bombing of the train.
Before he can ask too many questions, Colter once again finds himself back on the train with Christina and the same sequence of events occur before the train is engulfed by devastating fireball. When he once again awakens in his cockpit, Colter learns that the project he’s involved with can send him back in time 8 minutes into the body of someone on the train. He will be sent back time and time again to relive those final 8 min. in an effort to determine who is responsible for the bombing.
Despite his protests, Colter relives the events each time looking for new clues and each time ending up engulfed in the fireball and awakening in his cockpit. Eventually after numerous trips to the past Colter becomes obsessed with not only getting to the bottom of the mystery but with saving Christina to whom he is becoming attached through their numerous 8 minute interactions. Colter is also desperate to determine his exact situation as he has no memory of how he ended up in the program and finds himself not only trying to solve the mystery of the bombing, save Christina, but also fill in the gaps in his memory.
What follows is a fast-paced, character-driven adventure film that relies on the interaction’s between the two leads rather than special effects to carry the film. Gyllenhaal and Monaghan have good chemistry with each other and the film has some nice twists and turns that will keep the audience engrossed even if the concepts of time travel and temporal mechanics escape them.
Jones keeps the film moving at a brisk pace and it does not drag or overstay its welcome. Like Moon, Jones has based the film around a leading man who is facing isolation and questioning his mental state. With what could’ve been a dumbed-down action film, Jones has exceeded expectations and produced a smart and innovative action thriller with a touch of science fiction and romance thrown in, a winning combination that makes for a very enjoyable film.
The film stars Jake Gyllenhaal as Colter Stevens who, after waking up on a train, finds himself disoriented and unable to identify his travel companion, the attractive Christina Warren (Michelle Monaghan), who sits across from him eagerly discussing things they appear to have spoken about previously.
Taking a quick survey of his surroundings, Colter finds out that he is on a train heading to Chicago and that he cannot explain how he ended up where he currently is. Colter is not given much time to ponder his situation as the train is suddenly rocked by a massive explosion and he finds himself engulfed in a wall of flame. Shortly thereafter Colter awakens and finds himself upside down and strapped into what appears to be a cockpit of some sort.
A voice soon fills the cockpit, followed by the face of the woman he can’t identify on a video monitor. Unable to ascertain what is going on, a frantic Colter only recalls that he was a helicopter pilot on mission in Afghanistan. The mystery woman (Vera Farmiga) tells him that he is now part of a top-secret project that is attempting to unravel the mystery behind the bombing of the train.
Before he can ask too many questions, Colter once again finds himself back on the train with Christina and the same sequence of events occur before the train is engulfed by devastating fireball. When he once again awakens in his cockpit, Colter learns that the project he’s involved with can send him back in time 8 minutes into the body of someone on the train. He will be sent back time and time again to relive those final 8 min. in an effort to determine who is responsible for the bombing.
Despite his protests, Colter relives the events each time looking for new clues and each time ending up engulfed in the fireball and awakening in his cockpit. Eventually after numerous trips to the past Colter becomes obsessed with not only getting to the bottom of the mystery but with saving Christina to whom he is becoming attached through their numerous 8 minute interactions. Colter is also desperate to determine his exact situation as he has no memory of how he ended up in the program and finds himself not only trying to solve the mystery of the bombing, save Christina, but also fill in the gaps in his memory.
What follows is a fast-paced, character-driven adventure film that relies on the interaction’s between the two leads rather than special effects to carry the film. Gyllenhaal and Monaghan have good chemistry with each other and the film has some nice twists and turns that will keep the audience engrossed even if the concepts of time travel and temporal mechanics escape them.
Jones keeps the film moving at a brisk pace and it does not drag or overstay its welcome. Like Moon, Jones has based the film around a leading man who is facing isolation and questioning his mental state. With what could’ve been a dumbed-down action film, Jones has exceeded expectations and produced a smart and innovative action thriller with a touch of science fiction and romance thrown in, a winning combination that makes for a very enjoyable film.