Search
Search results
Ross (3282 KP) rated Dogs of War in Books
Sep 19, 2017
Disclosure: I received a free advance copy of this novel from NetGalley in return for an honest review.
This near-future science fiction story surrounds the use of genetically modified, cyborg animals in security and warfare and the humane concerns around that.
Having read the author's fantasy series, Shadows of the Apt, I was already familiar with Tchaikovsky's style, and his liking for warfare and technology (that series including the development of a number of new technologies which are eventually used as weapons).
What I was not quite prepared for was how he would write if in the PoV of a cyborg dog (how can you prepare yourself for that?!). This took a little getting used to, but not too much (a little like Flowers for Algernon, the language starts off simplistic but develops). Rex's vocabulary is like that of a small child, but one that has learned certain military phrases. Rex just wants his master to acknowledge him with a "good dog" now and then.
The story develops through a government-backed incursion into rebel-held Mexico, then into the courtroom and beyond into the brave new world for suddenly free man-made creatures.
There are a number of topical issues dealt with here, using not-people to do unpleasant jobs, the burden of responsibility in warfare and also the dangers of cyber-linked machines/people.
I really enjoyed the book and how the different PoVs come across and also how the setting and the message keeps changing throughout so there are different concerns to be dealt with or discussed (without being preachy!).
I also enjoyed Tchaikovsky's descriptions of conflict and battle scenes: giving enough of a picture of the whole battle while focussing on key moments and events.
Overall, something of a departure from my usual book, but very much enjoyable. This wouldn't have looked out of place with Richard Bachman's name on it.
This near-future science fiction story surrounds the use of genetically modified, cyborg animals in security and warfare and the humane concerns around that.
Having read the author's fantasy series, Shadows of the Apt, I was already familiar with Tchaikovsky's style, and his liking for warfare and technology (that series including the development of a number of new technologies which are eventually used as weapons).
What I was not quite prepared for was how he would write if in the PoV of a cyborg dog (how can you prepare yourself for that?!). This took a little getting used to, but not too much (a little like Flowers for Algernon, the language starts off simplistic but develops). Rex's vocabulary is like that of a small child, but one that has learned certain military phrases. Rex just wants his master to acknowledge him with a "good dog" now and then.
The story develops through a government-backed incursion into rebel-held Mexico, then into the courtroom and beyond into the brave new world for suddenly free man-made creatures.
There are a number of topical issues dealt with here, using not-people to do unpleasant jobs, the burden of responsibility in warfare and also the dangers of cyber-linked machines/people.
I really enjoyed the book and how the different PoVs come across and also how the setting and the message keeps changing throughout so there are different concerns to be dealt with or discussed (without being preachy!).
I also enjoyed Tchaikovsky's descriptions of conflict and battle scenes: giving enough of a picture of the whole battle while focussing on key moments and events.
Overall, something of a departure from my usual book, but very much enjoyable. This wouldn't have looked out of place with Richard Bachman's name on it.
Before I started this book, I had never read any of the other books in this series. What grabbed me was the blurb and a lot of recommendations from my friends.
Eddie Flynn is a defence lawyer, good at what he does, he has made a name for himself, whilst annoying the NYPD. When Robert Solomon gets arrested for murder, Flynn gets an invite to be on the defence team. With all the evidence stacked up against Robert, Flynn knows he has a fight in court. But the further Flynn investigates, he quickly comes to realise that it is not a simple case of murder.
From the start, you know that Joshua Kane was a master of his work. Everything he did was planned to the finest detail. He was one of the cleverest serial killers I have read about and I did have an admiration for him.
The story swaps between Flynn and Kane’s story, there is no confusion as Kane is in 3rd POV. This helped the story flow and you learn about the characters in detail. This story is fast paced and the tension builds throughout. I do not read many courtroom dramas but I found this intriguing, even down to the jury selection and after I found out what they have to go through to get selected, I admired Joshua more.
When I am reading thrillers I like to guess where the story was going, but with this story, I was wrong in every case. The story was well plotted and there was a lot of detail to the story. Even if you have not read the others in the series, you do not miss out on any of the stories as this can be read as a stand-alone and for me a good introduction to this author’s work. An intriguing plot and a must for thriller lovers and you will get to find out why thirteen as there are only twelve on the jury.
Eddie Flynn is a defence lawyer, good at what he does, he has made a name for himself, whilst annoying the NYPD. When Robert Solomon gets arrested for murder, Flynn gets an invite to be on the defence team. With all the evidence stacked up against Robert, Flynn knows he has a fight in court. But the further Flynn investigates, he quickly comes to realise that it is not a simple case of murder.
From the start, you know that Joshua Kane was a master of his work. Everything he did was planned to the finest detail. He was one of the cleverest serial killers I have read about and I did have an admiration for him.
The story swaps between Flynn and Kane’s story, there is no confusion as Kane is in 3rd POV. This helped the story flow and you learn about the characters in detail. This story is fast paced and the tension builds throughout. I do not read many courtroom dramas but I found this intriguing, even down to the jury selection and after I found out what they have to go through to get selected, I admired Joshua more.
When I am reading thrillers I like to guess where the story was going, but with this story, I was wrong in every case. The story was well plotted and there was a lot of detail to the story. Even if you have not read the others in the series, you do not miss out on any of the stories as this can be read as a stand-alone and for me a good introduction to this author’s work. An intriguing plot and a must for thriller lovers and you will get to find out why thirteen as there are only twelve on the jury.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Gray Mountain in Books
Feb 13, 2018
It's a little unfair to John Grisham, but I probably would have rated this book 4 stars if he didn't write it. It was a pretty good book, but I kept waiting for the typical Grisham-flair to pop up - a huge courtroom battle, an epic good versus evil duel, etc.
Instead, the battle and storyline I would have really wanted to read about goes on in the background as a secondary storyline. The main plot follows Samantha Kofer, a young law associate at a powerful firm in New York City. However, when the recession hits in '08, Samantha finds herself furloughed and in order to keep her health insurance, and to potentially get her old job back, must intern at a rural legal aid clinic in Brady, Virginia.
There Samantha meets a cast of characters, including Mattie, who runs the clinic; her nephew, Donovan, also a lawyer; Donovan's shady brother, Jeff; and a host of other rural townsfolk. She also gets her first taste of real law. We, the reader, learn about the atrocities of Big Coal and strip mining, including Black Lung Disease, which the book goes into in great detail (and which personally, makes me want to become a lawyer or social worker, as it's all awful).
It's interesting to have Grisham write in the voice of a young female. It takes me back to Darby Shaw (of "The Pelican Brief" - one of my all-time favorite Grisham novels), though Samantha is *no* Darby Shaw, by any stretch of the imagination. She's a bit spineless, though, really, she's not given much story to work with. The first 3/4 of the book I mostly enjoyed and then the last 1/4 just sort of tapers off. It almost seems as if a sequel is in order, but who knows.
Again, I think I might have liked Samantha and her story a bit more if it wasn't Grisham, as I might have expected a bit less. It's a good read, but leaves you wanting more.
Instead, the battle and storyline I would have really wanted to read about goes on in the background as a secondary storyline. The main plot follows Samantha Kofer, a young law associate at a powerful firm in New York City. However, when the recession hits in '08, Samantha finds herself furloughed and in order to keep her health insurance, and to potentially get her old job back, must intern at a rural legal aid clinic in Brady, Virginia.
There Samantha meets a cast of characters, including Mattie, who runs the clinic; her nephew, Donovan, also a lawyer; Donovan's shady brother, Jeff; and a host of other rural townsfolk. She also gets her first taste of real law. We, the reader, learn about the atrocities of Big Coal and strip mining, including Black Lung Disease, which the book goes into in great detail (and which personally, makes me want to become a lawyer or social worker, as it's all awful).
It's interesting to have Grisham write in the voice of a young female. It takes me back to Darby Shaw (of "The Pelican Brief" - one of my all-time favorite Grisham novels), though Samantha is *no* Darby Shaw, by any stretch of the imagination. She's a bit spineless, though, really, she's not given much story to work with. The first 3/4 of the book I mostly enjoyed and then the last 1/4 just sort of tapers off. It almost seems as if a sequel is in order, but who knows.
Again, I think I might have liked Samantha and her story a bit more if it wasn't Grisham, as I might have expected a bit less. It's a good read, but leaves you wanting more.
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated JFK (1991) in Movies
Sep 20, 2020 (Updated Nov 26, 2020)
"𝘕𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘴 𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵. 𝘐𝘵'𝘴 𝘶𝘱 𝘵𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶."
Jesus Christ. Back when conspiracy theories were good, now all it takes is a shitty, debunked, and obviously phony Facebook meme to get people to believe 5G causes coronavirus or whatever stupid shit Trump retweets from hate groups this week. On the other hand you have this seemingly never-ending and soul-stirring barrage of lies, cover-ups, threats, deaths/suicides/murders, extensively planned attacks, and general anguish which still plays more truthful and earnest than most things that come out of the CIA, White House, and/or FBI. Not a single word wasted, crams more exhilaration into a group of people talking at a dinner table than the vast majority of MCU 'action' scenes - and the meticulous, airtight extent of the writing is nothing less than utterly flooring. As a result of the beyond exceptional jam-packed conspiracy narrative I can't say any of these characters are that compelling in their own regard (even though the cast is an unforgettable all-timer of screen legends), but given the end result it's a fair tradeoff for the type of movie that bangs around in your head like a rubber bullet after watching it. Feverish, hot-blooded, commanding provocation - even made *my* ass paranoid. The final thirty minutes of - essentially - one long courtroom speech shouldn't work in theory; but not only is it thrilling as can be (and *that* moment just pierces your mortal soul), but it offers some of Costner's finest work throughout his entire career as an actor. Imagine this coming out and still getting shit like 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘬𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥, 𝘉𝘰𝘣𝘣𝘺, and 𝘒𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘒𝘦𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘥𝘺 - would have loved to have been there for the ensuing shitstorm this caused back in its day, must have been legendary. So great that it *actually* caused a big deal change in government legislation immediately upon release.
Jesus Christ. Back when conspiracy theories were good, now all it takes is a shitty, debunked, and obviously phony Facebook meme to get people to believe 5G causes coronavirus or whatever stupid shit Trump retweets from hate groups this week. On the other hand you have this seemingly never-ending and soul-stirring barrage of lies, cover-ups, threats, deaths/suicides/murders, extensively planned attacks, and general anguish which still plays more truthful and earnest than most things that come out of the CIA, White House, and/or FBI. Not a single word wasted, crams more exhilaration into a group of people talking at a dinner table than the vast majority of MCU 'action' scenes - and the meticulous, airtight extent of the writing is nothing less than utterly flooring. As a result of the beyond exceptional jam-packed conspiracy narrative I can't say any of these characters are that compelling in their own regard (even though the cast is an unforgettable all-timer of screen legends), but given the end result it's a fair tradeoff for the type of movie that bangs around in your head like a rubber bullet after watching it. Feverish, hot-blooded, commanding provocation - even made *my* ass paranoid. The final thirty minutes of - essentially - one long courtroom speech shouldn't work in theory; but not only is it thrilling as can be (and *that* moment just pierces your mortal soul), but it offers some of Costner's finest work throughout his entire career as an actor. Imagine this coming out and still getting shit like 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘬𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥, 𝘉𝘰𝘣𝘣𝘺, and 𝘒𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘒𝘦𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘥𝘺 - would have loved to have been there for the ensuing shitstorm this caused back in its day, must have been legendary. So great that it *actually* caused a big deal change in government legislation immediately upon release.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Where the Crawdads Sing in Books
Aug 12, 2021
A haunting story of survival
Kya Clark is very young when her mother leaves, abandoning her to their marshland home and her violent father. His presence is in her life is scattered, at best, and Kya mostly raises herself, learning about the land, the wildlife, and the swamp on her own. She forms attachment to few, but meets two very different young men from town whom she feels drawn to. In 1969, one of those men is found dead and Kya--always a source of gossip among the locals--is the prime suspect.
I'm not sure there's much I can add to the many reviews of this popular book. I read it as part of my new reading project--choosing books off my shelves based on their Goodreads rankings. This is my third book of the project, forcing me out of my comfort zone and to try books in genres I don't usually read! I'm glad I finally read it-- it's a very mesmerizing tale, and Kya's improbable life on the marsh quickly drew me in.
This is part a character-driven and coming of age story combined with a mystery and courtroom drama. It covers a lot of Kya's life, but focuses on her growing up in the marsh. There's a lot that seems hard to believe--especially that no one does anything to help this parent-less child, growing up alone in the marsh. The book covers a lot of heady topics, including racism, sexual assault, and more. Its description of nature and the marsh are beautiful. At the heart of the story is Kya, and it's impossible not to root for our heroine. She's tough and smart, and the way she loves her marsh is simply beautiful.
Overall, rating on pure enjoyment, I really liked this book. If I don't delve too deep into pondering about the inner workings of the plot, this was a great read--mesmerizing, haunting, and lovely. 4+ stars.
I'm not sure there's much I can add to the many reviews of this popular book. I read it as part of my new reading project--choosing books off my shelves based on their Goodreads rankings. This is my third book of the project, forcing me out of my comfort zone and to try books in genres I don't usually read! I'm glad I finally read it-- it's a very mesmerizing tale, and Kya's improbable life on the marsh quickly drew me in.
This is part a character-driven and coming of age story combined with a mystery and courtroom drama. It covers a lot of Kya's life, but focuses on her growing up in the marsh. There's a lot that seems hard to believe--especially that no one does anything to help this parent-less child, growing up alone in the marsh. The book covers a lot of heady topics, including racism, sexual assault, and more. Its description of nature and the marsh are beautiful. At the heart of the story is Kya, and it's impossible not to root for our heroine. She's tough and smart, and the way she loves her marsh is simply beautiful.
Overall, rating on pure enjoyment, I really liked this book. If I don't delve too deep into pondering about the inner workings of the plot, this was a great read--mesmerizing, haunting, and lovely. 4+ stars.
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.)
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Judgment at Nuremberg (1961) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
“He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her.”
It has been over 20 years since I first saw this as teenager, but watching it again with little memory of the specifics, I was both a little disappointed but also very impressed.
With a title like “Judgement at Nuremberg,” you can be forgiven for expecting a film about the trial of the Concentration Camp guards or Hermann Goering, but instead we are given something much more subtle and subversive. This follows a fictionalised account of the “Judges Trial”.
Here, Spencer Tracey’s U.S. Judge leads a panel of three peers as they preside over a trial of four NAZI judges, the focus of their crimes is not of there actions during the war but those in the mid 1930’s and their perversions of justice in aiding Hitler’s NAZI’s to oppress their own people.
The film also asked a myriad of uncomfortable questions, not only taking aim at the long dead National Socialist movement, but the world as a whole, including the U.S.A. Sighting parallels from Allied nations who claim cultural superiority after winning the war yet only being a stone’s throw away from the same attitudes.
But this is not just subverting the perceptions of jurist prudence, it is a drama, a head to head between Tracey and his German counterpart in the doc, Bert Lancaster. It is also a vehicle for a host of Oscar worthy performances from an all star cast, ALL of which excel in their roles, some more subtly than others.
The standouts are Montgomery Cliff and Judy Garland, both of whom would pass away soon after this film was release at relatively young ages. Kramer’s cinematography is impressive too, as it keeps the camera moving around the courtroom through the lengthy cross-examination scenes, keeping the tension high and the interest alive through this three-hour drama.
With a healthy dose of melancholy, jaded and brutalised characters and foreshadowing the impending Cold War, this is a film which understands war and the often forgotten fact that even though Wars have a start and and end date, they take decades to build up and never really end.
With a title like “Judgement at Nuremberg,” you can be forgiven for expecting a film about the trial of the Concentration Camp guards or Hermann Goering, but instead we are given something much more subtle and subversive. This follows a fictionalised account of the “Judges Trial”.
Here, Spencer Tracey’s U.S. Judge leads a panel of three peers as they preside over a trial of four NAZI judges, the focus of their crimes is not of there actions during the war but those in the mid 1930’s and their perversions of justice in aiding Hitler’s NAZI’s to oppress their own people.
The film also asked a myriad of uncomfortable questions, not only taking aim at the long dead National Socialist movement, but the world as a whole, including the U.S.A. Sighting parallels from Allied nations who claim cultural superiority after winning the war yet only being a stone’s throw away from the same attitudes.
But this is not just subverting the perceptions of jurist prudence, it is a drama, a head to head between Tracey and his German counterpart in the doc, Bert Lancaster. It is also a vehicle for a host of Oscar worthy performances from an all star cast, ALL of which excel in their roles, some more subtly than others.
The standouts are Montgomery Cliff and Judy Garland, both of whom would pass away soon after this film was release at relatively young ages. Kramer’s cinematography is impressive too, as it keeps the camera moving around the courtroom through the lengthy cross-examination scenes, keeping the tension high and the interest alive through this three-hour drama.
With a healthy dose of melancholy, jaded and brutalised characters and foreshadowing the impending Cold War, this is a film which understands war and the often forgotten fact that even though Wars have a start and and end date, they take decades to build up and never really end.
Sassy Brit (97 KP) rated Our Kind of Cruelty: A Novel in Books
Jun 5, 2019
Our Kind of Cruelty by Araminta Hall is a domestic thriller and courtroom drama like no other! I’ve never read one quite like it. Not only do we have a male narrator named Mike, and see things from his point of view, we’re also dealing with other issues of autism and passionate obsessions, too. Until recently, Mike and his girlfriend Verity ( V as he likes to call her) have played a dangerous, sexual game called ‘Crave’, for years. But when they break up obsessed Mike still believes V is playing the game and will come back to him, despite V telling him she’s getting married to someone else and inviting him to the wedding. Nothing deters single-minded, Mike from his expected outcome.
The book begins like any other but it wasn’t long before I felt sorry for Mike, even though I knew he was a nasty piece of work. Why? I found the reason I sympathised with him was in the details. The way the author, Araminta Hall, portrayed Mike’s years as he talked about life as a kid; the things he refused to do, or accept, because his thinking was always logical and he didn’t understand why no one else could see things the way he did. Why say sorry when you don’t mean it? Why say you could kill someone and not do it?
As an adult Mike’s learnt to fit in with the world and act as society expects. To a certain degree. But it doesn’t mean he has to like it, or find it easy to do. He’s also one for keeping himself in check with routines of which he thrives on. Clearly, when you get to the end you’ll realise Mike’s attitude plays a massive part of the final twist.
I really enjoyed this book and its flawed characters. Although it’s not particularly fast-paced to start with, the journey fascinated me. Our Kind of Cruelty is about obsessive love, unhealthy relationships, and the psychology of the human mind. Details. It’s all in the details.
#WhatsYourVerdict? My verdict would give the whole twist away… This would translate well to film.
The book begins like any other but it wasn’t long before I felt sorry for Mike, even though I knew he was a nasty piece of work. Why? I found the reason I sympathised with him was in the details. The way the author, Araminta Hall, portrayed Mike’s years as he talked about life as a kid; the things he refused to do, or accept, because his thinking was always logical and he didn’t understand why no one else could see things the way he did. Why say sorry when you don’t mean it? Why say you could kill someone and not do it?
As an adult Mike’s learnt to fit in with the world and act as society expects. To a certain degree. But it doesn’t mean he has to like it, or find it easy to do. He’s also one for keeping himself in check with routines of which he thrives on. Clearly, when you get to the end you’ll realise Mike’s attitude plays a massive part of the final twist.
I really enjoyed this book and its flawed characters. Although it’s not particularly fast-paced to start with, the journey fascinated me. Our Kind of Cruelty is about obsessive love, unhealthy relationships, and the psychology of the human mind. Details. It’s all in the details.
#WhatsYourVerdict? My verdict would give the whole twist away… This would translate well to film.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Amistad (1997) in Movies
Aug 13, 2020
Give Us Us Free
Slaves are put on trial when they start a mutiny on the ship bringing them over to America. Although a little long in the tooth, Amistad is a memorable movie that gives you something to root for.
Acting: 10
This was the first time I got to see a performance from Djimon Hounsou. I was blown away by his tenacity. You felt his passion in every single line he utters. This movie wouldn’t have been the same without him. I would argue the same for Anthony Hopkins playing the role of John Quincy Adams. Hopkins is no secret to blockbuster performances so it’s no surprise that he knocks this one out of the park.
Beginning: 10
This is how you start a movie! For me, it has one of the top ten beginning of all time for any movie. It’s riveting and terrifying at the same time. The way Spielberg shot it was genius.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
No surprise here with one of the most iconic directors of all time at the helm. He always has a way of choosing the best angle for the greatest impact. I could spend a whole entry talking about the subtle things he does to leave large impacts. It’s a cinematic treat.
Conflict: 7
The struggle here is the movie mostly revolves around two major cases. The courtroom can be boring in spots on the big screen if not done right. Even in the case of Amistad where things are done right, it can still be a bit much to consume. You feel like nothing is happening when actually there is a whole lot happening at once.
Entertainment Value: 8
I was intrigued to see how this story would unfold from beginning to end. I loved the character development and the understanding of what got both sides to their respective points. Again, despite its length, you will be engaged throughout.
Memorability: 6
Pace: 1
Plot: 10
Resolution: 9
Overall: 81
Improve the pacing here and you have a masterpiece point blank. Despite its length, Amistad is definitely worth the time spent. I enjoyed it thoroughly.
Acting: 10
This was the first time I got to see a performance from Djimon Hounsou. I was blown away by his tenacity. You felt his passion in every single line he utters. This movie wouldn’t have been the same without him. I would argue the same for Anthony Hopkins playing the role of John Quincy Adams. Hopkins is no secret to blockbuster performances so it’s no surprise that he knocks this one out of the park.
Beginning: 10
This is how you start a movie! For me, it has one of the top ten beginning of all time for any movie. It’s riveting and terrifying at the same time. The way Spielberg shot it was genius.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
No surprise here with one of the most iconic directors of all time at the helm. He always has a way of choosing the best angle for the greatest impact. I could spend a whole entry talking about the subtle things he does to leave large impacts. It’s a cinematic treat.
Conflict: 7
The struggle here is the movie mostly revolves around two major cases. The courtroom can be boring in spots on the big screen if not done right. Even in the case of Amistad where things are done right, it can still be a bit much to consume. You feel like nothing is happening when actually there is a whole lot happening at once.
Entertainment Value: 8
I was intrigued to see how this story would unfold from beginning to end. I loved the character development and the understanding of what got both sides to their respective points. Again, despite its length, you will be engaged throughout.
Memorability: 6
Pace: 1
Plot: 10
Resolution: 9
Overall: 81
Improve the pacing here and you have a masterpiece point blank. Despite its length, Amistad is definitely worth the time spent. I enjoyed it thoroughly.
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Accused (1988) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: We start The Accused by seeing Sarah (Foster) running from a bar desperately looking for help before she gets asked all the intimate questions after a rape. District prosecutor Kathryn Murphy takes over the case and takes Sarah back to the crime scene to identify the suspects. While Kathryn puts a case together she learns more about Sarah’s character and while the defence makes out Sarah is just telling a story. We see Kathryn and Lieutenant Duncan (Mulligan) try to investigate what happened they find out there are no witnesses and the case is struggling to come together. After the suspects get put in jail for a reduced charge of reckless endangerment Sarah pushes for more and after a confrontation with one of the men who got off cheered on, Kathryn opens a new case against the people who cheered on and watched leading to the ability to charge the rapist.
What The Accused shows us is however a story sounds it doesn’t mean it isn’t true. We have to let the prosecutors create a case before we judge who is guilty. It shows we need to stand up for what is right and not everything is what it seems. We see how difficult it can be for the victim against such a large amount of suspects who unite. We see how the prosecutor risks everything to get the truth about the night after finally seeing the light about what really happened. This case could break her career but as she is doing the right thing it proves to be the right thing. A big plus The Accused uses is not focusing on any of the men involved we a left to only see and hear about their actions. The Accused is a great story about fighting for what is right and how monstrous people can be. (9/10)
Actor Review
Kelly McGillis: Kathryn Murphy the district prosecutor who will fight for justice but only once she has learned all the facts. She agrees to plea agreement for the rapist but once challenged by Sarah she decides to go after the people who cheered them on. Kelly gives a good performance searching for the truth. (8/10)
kelly
Jodie Foster: Sarah Tobias the victim who has to go through the rape only to be left questioned by people on her side and the people against her. Sarah refused to back down and wants to see the people pay when she finally gets the chance on front of a courtroom full of people. Jodie gives a great performance that she full deserved the Oscar she won. (10/10)
jodie
Support Cast: Where The Accused chooses not to focus on the rapist we don’t meet too many supporting characters, we only see their actions and hear how other people saw them.
Director Review: Jonathan Kaplan – Jonathan does a great job directing The Accused he focuses on the victim and the case being built against the rapist. (9/10)
Crime: The crime The Accused focuses on was based on a real case and shows the seriousness of it. (9/10)
Drama: The Accused uses the effects to create the drama of what happened to the people involved. (9/10)
Settings: The Accused uses the settings well, we see The Mill where the crime happens, the office to see how the world is different for our victim, the small beat up house the victims lives in showing that she would be considered lower than the people involved and almost not important and the home of the prosecutor which shows us the difference in working class the two women have. (9/10)
Suggestion: I would suggest watching The Accused as it shows the victims problems after the assault rather than trying to make a monstrous villain for a crime film. (Watch)
Best Part: The Courtroom
Worst Part: The Deal
Believability: Based on a real case a young woman suffered through. (9/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: Jodie Foster won Best Actress.
Box Office: $32 Million
Budget: $6 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 51 Minutes
Tagline: On April 18th 1987, Sarah Tobias stops for a drink at a bar called The Mill.
Trivia: Upon seeing a pre-screening of the film, Jodie Foster thought her performance as Sarah Tobias was so awful that she immediately began preparing for and taking the GRE’s for graduate school. She was prepared to leave her film career behind and focus on academia…until she won the Academy Award for her performance.
Overall: Would you fight for the truth
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/01/28/the-accused-1988/
What The Accused shows us is however a story sounds it doesn’t mean it isn’t true. We have to let the prosecutors create a case before we judge who is guilty. It shows we need to stand up for what is right and not everything is what it seems. We see how difficult it can be for the victim against such a large amount of suspects who unite. We see how the prosecutor risks everything to get the truth about the night after finally seeing the light about what really happened. This case could break her career but as she is doing the right thing it proves to be the right thing. A big plus The Accused uses is not focusing on any of the men involved we a left to only see and hear about their actions. The Accused is a great story about fighting for what is right and how monstrous people can be. (9/10)
Actor Review
Kelly McGillis: Kathryn Murphy the district prosecutor who will fight for justice but only once she has learned all the facts. She agrees to plea agreement for the rapist but once challenged by Sarah she decides to go after the people who cheered them on. Kelly gives a good performance searching for the truth. (8/10)
kelly
Jodie Foster: Sarah Tobias the victim who has to go through the rape only to be left questioned by people on her side and the people against her. Sarah refused to back down and wants to see the people pay when she finally gets the chance on front of a courtroom full of people. Jodie gives a great performance that she full deserved the Oscar she won. (10/10)
jodie
Support Cast: Where The Accused chooses not to focus on the rapist we don’t meet too many supporting characters, we only see their actions and hear how other people saw them.
Director Review: Jonathan Kaplan – Jonathan does a great job directing The Accused he focuses on the victim and the case being built against the rapist. (9/10)
Crime: The crime The Accused focuses on was based on a real case and shows the seriousness of it. (9/10)
Drama: The Accused uses the effects to create the drama of what happened to the people involved. (9/10)
Settings: The Accused uses the settings well, we see The Mill where the crime happens, the office to see how the world is different for our victim, the small beat up house the victims lives in showing that she would be considered lower than the people involved and almost not important and the home of the prosecutor which shows us the difference in working class the two women have. (9/10)
Suggestion: I would suggest watching The Accused as it shows the victims problems after the assault rather than trying to make a monstrous villain for a crime film. (Watch)
Best Part: The Courtroom
Worst Part: The Deal
Believability: Based on a real case a young woman suffered through. (9/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: Jodie Foster won Best Actress.
Box Office: $32 Million
Budget: $6 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 51 Minutes
Tagline: On April 18th 1987, Sarah Tobias stops for a drink at a bar called The Mill.
Trivia: Upon seeing a pre-screening of the film, Jodie Foster thought her performance as Sarah Tobias was so awful that she immediately began preparing for and taking the GRE’s for graduate school. She was prepared to leave her film career behind and focus on academia…until she won the Academy Award for her performance.
Overall: Would you fight for the truth
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/01/28/the-accused-1988/