Search
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated All Is Fair in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<b><i>I received this book for free from Publisher in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.</i></b>
<h2><em><strong>All is Fair</strong></em><strong> by Dee Garretson promises an adventure.</strong></h2>
The beginning of <em>All is Fair</em> promises a fun, action-packed adventure, set in World War I with badass females being involved in espionage. After Mina receives a telegram from her father at her boarding school and decrypts the message, she heads home to find her friend Andrew with an American named Lucas.
<h2><strong>It's a little predictable, but also fun.</strong></h2>
<em>All is Fair</em> starts off great and I loved seeing Mina decrypting her father's message at school. I also loved seeing this play a role later on when Mina has to join Lucas on his mission so he could succeed.
But Garretson's novel is relatively predictable as I called some of the twists before they happened. While this may suck out of the fun for some people, I found myself letting the easy predictions slide as I enjoyed other aspects of the story.
<h2><strong>Slow at the beginning.</strong></h2>
After the promising intro and beginning when we are introduced to Mina and learn a little about her, the story dies down. <em>All is Fair</em> becomes slow and we focus a lot on the aristocratic life in the early 20th century before we get to the action-packed part of the story. I found myself stepping away frequently until then because I was just <em>bored</em> despite the character interactions.
<h2><strong>Characters and interactions are great, romance unnecessary</strong></h2>
I'm a huge character person - if there's a character or two that I enjoy reading, I'll likely let other problems (if any) I have slide. And I adored Mina. From the beginning, she's wanted to go on an adventure but rarely gets the opportunity until something happens and she takes the chance. Her interactions with Lucas are amusing and there is <em>quite</em> the shade being thrown between the two (I love me some good shade).
But the romance wasn't necessary to the story. It felt suddenly thrown in near the end just to have a romantic aspect of sorts. <em>All is Fair</em> would have been perfectly fine with the friendship and occasional shade being thrown about.
<h2><strong>We have an open ending.</strong></h2>
<em>All is Fair</em> leaves an open ending that promises of a possible sequel that could potentially happen. Even if there is no sequel, though, the story wrapped up nicely. My only issue aside from the unnecessary romantic aspect is the boring beginning readers will have to drag themselves through to get to the action-packed adventure.
<a href="http://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/all-is-fair-by-dee-garretson/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<h2><em><strong>All is Fair</strong></em><strong> by Dee Garretson promises an adventure.</strong></h2>
The beginning of <em>All is Fair</em> promises a fun, action-packed adventure, set in World War I with badass females being involved in espionage. After Mina receives a telegram from her father at her boarding school and decrypts the message, she heads home to find her friend Andrew with an American named Lucas.
<h2><strong>It's a little predictable, but also fun.</strong></h2>
<em>All is Fair</em> starts off great and I loved seeing Mina decrypting her father's message at school. I also loved seeing this play a role later on when Mina has to join Lucas on his mission so he could succeed.
But Garretson's novel is relatively predictable as I called some of the twists before they happened. While this may suck out of the fun for some people, I found myself letting the easy predictions slide as I enjoyed other aspects of the story.
<h2><strong>Slow at the beginning.</strong></h2>
After the promising intro and beginning when we are introduced to Mina and learn a little about her, the story dies down. <em>All is Fair</em> becomes slow and we focus a lot on the aristocratic life in the early 20th century before we get to the action-packed part of the story. I found myself stepping away frequently until then because I was just <em>bored</em> despite the character interactions.
<h2><strong>Characters and interactions are great, romance unnecessary</strong></h2>
I'm a huge character person - if there's a character or two that I enjoy reading, I'll likely let other problems (if any) I have slide. And I adored Mina. From the beginning, she's wanted to go on an adventure but rarely gets the opportunity until something happens and she takes the chance. Her interactions with Lucas are amusing and there is <em>quite</em> the shade being thrown between the two (I love me some good shade).
But the romance wasn't necessary to the story. It felt suddenly thrown in near the end just to have a romantic aspect of sorts. <em>All is Fair</em> would have been perfectly fine with the friendship and occasional shade being thrown about.
<h2><strong>We have an open ending.</strong></h2>
<em>All is Fair</em> leaves an open ending that promises of a possible sequel that could potentially happen. Even if there is no sequel, though, the story wrapped up nicely. My only issue aside from the unnecessary romantic aspect is the boring beginning readers will have to drag themselves through to get to the action-packed adventure.
<a href="http://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/all-is-fair-by-dee-garretson/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
JT (287 KP) rated Argo (2012) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Does making a film based on a true story make it any more endearing to the Oscar big wigs? Possibly, but one thing is for sure, Ben Affleck’s third film Argo is an outstanding piece of film making with exceptional attention to detail and sense of realism.
In 1979 Iran was overrun by Iranian revolutionaries, these revolutionaries stormed the American embassy taking several Americans hostage. Six of those managed to escape to the official residence of the Canadian Ambassador where the CIA was eventually ordered to get them out of the country by whatever means necessary.
Led by Tony Mendez (Affleck) a CIA expert in exfiltration he puts together an elaborate plan to go in as a film producer and rescue the six who’ll pose as a film crew on a location hunt for new sci-fi flick, Argo. Even if this was fiction it would be a pretty daring plan in an environment that was so hostile for its time they’re hanging people by cranes in the street, and women carry machine guns!
In order to make the film seem as real as possible Mendez enlists the help of John Chambers (John Goodman) a Hollywood make-up artist whose helped the CIA out before and film producer Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin). Between them they put the film into fake production, concoct false identities for the six and set about taking them out directly though the Iranian airport in a daring escape.
Affleck gets the cinematography spot on, creating a grainy perspective for that era and using some real footage as well. It all helps convey the narrative and plot that this was one of the most dangerous missions of its time and one what would live long in CIA and American history.
Goodman and Arkin add a humorous element to the proceedings “if it’s going to be a fake film I want it to be a fake hit” Lester claims when he’s approached about the project. The other side feels like a 70s version of 24 with the political suits in boardrooms arguing about the best way to execute the plan.
The tension is built slowly with everything climaxing to a pulsating last act which will have your heart pounding and seat gripped. Personally I didn’t endear to any of the six escapees, their stories are not built up enough other than they’re all unsure if they can trust Mendez to get them back on home soil safely.
Argo got the best picture Oscar over a lot of other seemingly worthy nominees, but you couldn’t deny Affleck his moment in the spotlight and cementing him as one of the best actor to director transitions. While the film might not be entirely accurate, Affleck just wants to get to the heart of this espionage thriller and does so while finding a perfect balance between comedy and drama.
In 1979 Iran was overrun by Iranian revolutionaries, these revolutionaries stormed the American embassy taking several Americans hostage. Six of those managed to escape to the official residence of the Canadian Ambassador where the CIA was eventually ordered to get them out of the country by whatever means necessary.
Led by Tony Mendez (Affleck) a CIA expert in exfiltration he puts together an elaborate plan to go in as a film producer and rescue the six who’ll pose as a film crew on a location hunt for new sci-fi flick, Argo. Even if this was fiction it would be a pretty daring plan in an environment that was so hostile for its time they’re hanging people by cranes in the street, and women carry machine guns!
In order to make the film seem as real as possible Mendez enlists the help of John Chambers (John Goodman) a Hollywood make-up artist whose helped the CIA out before and film producer Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin). Between them they put the film into fake production, concoct false identities for the six and set about taking them out directly though the Iranian airport in a daring escape.
Affleck gets the cinematography spot on, creating a grainy perspective for that era and using some real footage as well. It all helps convey the narrative and plot that this was one of the most dangerous missions of its time and one what would live long in CIA and American history.
Goodman and Arkin add a humorous element to the proceedings “if it’s going to be a fake film I want it to be a fake hit” Lester claims when he’s approached about the project. The other side feels like a 70s version of 24 with the political suits in boardrooms arguing about the best way to execute the plan.
The tension is built slowly with everything climaxing to a pulsating last act which will have your heart pounding and seat gripped. Personally I didn’t endear to any of the six escapees, their stories are not built up enough other than they’re all unsure if they can trust Mendez to get them back on home soil safely.
Argo got the best picture Oscar over a lot of other seemingly worthy nominees, but you couldn’t deny Affleck his moment in the spotlight and cementing him as one of the best actor to director transitions. While the film might not be entirely accurate, Affleck just wants to get to the heart of this espionage thriller and does so while finding a perfect balance between comedy and drama.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Rhythm Section (2019) in Movies
Nov 29, 2020
An average thriller
The Rhythm Section is a 2020 action thriller based on a book of the same name written by Mark Burnell. Directed by Reed Moreno, it stars Blake Lively as Stephanie Patrick, a young woman bent on revenge against the terrorists who orchestrated a plane crash that killed her entire family.
From the very beginning, you can see the influences and similarities in this to other films and stories.
This has obviously taken inspiration from the likes of John Le Carre and is a rather dark and gritty take on the action thriller genre, with a decent amount of physical (and well choreographed) violence. However in all honesty, the originality here is severely lacking. I’ve seen countless revenge films and this is no different. There is little in this to make it stand out above all those that have come before it and it isn’t helped by a limited number of action scenes either to help ramp up the interest.
It doesn’t start off very well, as we find out about Stephanie’s life and how the death of her family turned her into a drug addict and a prostitute. It’s so clichéd that even Jude Law’s character Boyd mocks her for this later in the film, which whilst fun, doesn’t change the fact that they actually used this idea in the plot. There’s also the sketchy almost nonexistent reason for journalist Proctor (Raza Jeffrey) to reach out to Stephanie to tell her that the plane crash was caused by terrorists rather than an accident. It just doesn’t make any sense as to why he’d get Stephanie involved and the film doesn’t even try to explain this rationally. Same goes when Boyd takes in Stephanie and starts to train her as an assassin. Whilst a reason is eventually revealed, it isn’t entirely plausible and again doesn’t make any sense as to why he does this with a woman who has no background or knowledge in espionage or assassination.
Aside from the sketchy plot, there are some plus points. Blake Lively performs well (despite the often hideous wigs), and you can see that she’s really giving it her all and could really make it as an action star. The scenes featuring her and Jude Law are also entertaining to watch and give the film a more relaxed feeling, especially the earlier training scenes. One of the most likeable things about this thought for me was the score. It’s tense and dramatic and full of excitement, with pieces featuring strings, piano and percussion to the point where you begin to wonder if the title ‘The Rhythm Section’ isn’t more appropriate for the music rather than the explanation given during the film.
Sadly The Rhythm Section is a fairly average thriller that whilst boosted slightly by a good performance and score, is unfortunately not particularly memorable, especially with such a lacklustre ending.
From the very beginning, you can see the influences and similarities in this to other films and stories.
This has obviously taken inspiration from the likes of John Le Carre and is a rather dark and gritty take on the action thriller genre, with a decent amount of physical (and well choreographed) violence. However in all honesty, the originality here is severely lacking. I’ve seen countless revenge films and this is no different. There is little in this to make it stand out above all those that have come before it and it isn’t helped by a limited number of action scenes either to help ramp up the interest.
It doesn’t start off very well, as we find out about Stephanie’s life and how the death of her family turned her into a drug addict and a prostitute. It’s so clichéd that even Jude Law’s character Boyd mocks her for this later in the film, which whilst fun, doesn’t change the fact that they actually used this idea in the plot. There’s also the sketchy almost nonexistent reason for journalist Proctor (Raza Jeffrey) to reach out to Stephanie to tell her that the plane crash was caused by terrorists rather than an accident. It just doesn’t make any sense as to why he’d get Stephanie involved and the film doesn’t even try to explain this rationally. Same goes when Boyd takes in Stephanie and starts to train her as an assassin. Whilst a reason is eventually revealed, it isn’t entirely plausible and again doesn’t make any sense as to why he does this with a woman who has no background or knowledge in espionage or assassination.
Aside from the sketchy plot, there are some plus points. Blake Lively performs well (despite the often hideous wigs), and you can see that she’s really giving it her all and could really make it as an action star. The scenes featuring her and Jude Law are also entertaining to watch and give the film a more relaxed feeling, especially the earlier training scenes. One of the most likeable things about this thought for me was the score. It’s tense and dramatic and full of excitement, with pieces featuring strings, piano and percussion to the point where you begin to wonder if the title ‘The Rhythm Section’ isn’t more appropriate for the music rather than the explanation given during the film.
Sadly The Rhythm Section is a fairly average thriller that whilst boosted slightly by a good performance and score, is unfortunately not particularly memorable, especially with such a lacklustre ending.
VPN Mobile Secure: Ad Blocking VPN
Productivity and Utilities
App
VPN Mobile Secure - Your Privacy Is Yours - Anonymous & Secured - Privacy Protection - Test the full...
Playing to the Edge: American Intelligence in the Age of Terror
Book
An unprecedented high-level master narrative of America's intelligence wars, demonstrating in a time...
Politics security conflict
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Captain Marvel (2019) in Movies
May 9, 2019
A solid, if unremarkable entry for the MCU's first female outing
The 21st instalment in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, the penultimate feature in their Phase 3 plan, and the final stop on the road to Avengers: Endgame, Captain Marvel welcomes another superhero into its family and applies the same formula that Marvel Studios has relied on to manufacture their episodic products but their latest is also their weakest film in years that never truly realises its full potential.
Set during the mid-1990s, the story follows Carol Danvers who has extraordinary powers at her disposal but no recollection of who she is or where she comes from. However, when she crash-lands on Earth after a recent mishap, she begins tracing her step towards her origins in order to unravel her identity, finds assistance from a low-level bureaucrat working for an espionage agency, and discovers a secret that unlocks her full potential.
Written & directed by Anna Boden & Ryan Fleck, the first act of Captain Marvel is a mess that tries to acquaint the viewers with its own world yet hurries through it in a way that leaves the audience confused. The story begins to take some shape once the plot moves to Earth but other than the back-n-forth banter between its primary characters, there isn't really anything that's appealing or refreshing about it.
That montage of snippets from Carol Danvers' past in which she is told by others that she can't do anything, she is no good, she is weak, she doesn't belong & she will never make it will reverberate with many, and it is a welcome element in the picture. But instead of digging deeper into this aspect, the filmmakers head for a rather simplistic approach and narrate the story with half-hearted zealousness.
The action segments are seldom impressive, storytelling is very basic, predictable & bereft of surprises, and some key moments are executed in a rather lacklustre fashion. Editing paces the plot inconsistently, fails to provide a rigid structure to it, and splices together action scenes so monotonously that they are missing the sense of wonder & excitement. The score is fine but only a few incorporated songs work out in its favour.
Coming to the performances, Captain Marvel packs a talented cast in Brie Larson, Samuel L. Jackson, Ben Mendelsohn, Lashana Lynch, Annette Bening & Jude Law. Larson embraces the eponymous role yet it is her fine rapport with Jackson that stands out more than her individual input. But it's Mendelsohn who impresses the most, delivering a compelling performance that only gets better as plot progresses.
On an overall scale, Captain Marvel is enjoyable to an extent, packs few amusing moments, and features a marvellous superheroine. Like Carol Danvers, this film had limitless potential. But unlike her, the filmmakers fail to tap into that element and possibly weren't even aware of what was up for grabs here. Generic, mundane & underwhelming, Captain Marvel isn't the film that the most powerful superhero in Marvel faction deserves, and is no match to the studio's finest efforts.
Set during the mid-1990s, the story follows Carol Danvers who has extraordinary powers at her disposal but no recollection of who she is or where she comes from. However, when she crash-lands on Earth after a recent mishap, she begins tracing her step towards her origins in order to unravel her identity, finds assistance from a low-level bureaucrat working for an espionage agency, and discovers a secret that unlocks her full potential.
Written & directed by Anna Boden & Ryan Fleck, the first act of Captain Marvel is a mess that tries to acquaint the viewers with its own world yet hurries through it in a way that leaves the audience confused. The story begins to take some shape once the plot moves to Earth but other than the back-n-forth banter between its primary characters, there isn't really anything that's appealing or refreshing about it.
That montage of snippets from Carol Danvers' past in which she is told by others that she can't do anything, she is no good, she is weak, she doesn't belong & she will never make it will reverberate with many, and it is a welcome element in the picture. But instead of digging deeper into this aspect, the filmmakers head for a rather simplistic approach and narrate the story with half-hearted zealousness.
The action segments are seldom impressive, storytelling is very basic, predictable & bereft of surprises, and some key moments are executed in a rather lacklustre fashion. Editing paces the plot inconsistently, fails to provide a rigid structure to it, and splices together action scenes so monotonously that they are missing the sense of wonder & excitement. The score is fine but only a few incorporated songs work out in its favour.
Coming to the performances, Captain Marvel packs a talented cast in Brie Larson, Samuel L. Jackson, Ben Mendelsohn, Lashana Lynch, Annette Bening & Jude Law. Larson embraces the eponymous role yet it is her fine rapport with Jackson that stands out more than her individual input. But it's Mendelsohn who impresses the most, delivering a compelling performance that only gets better as plot progresses.
On an overall scale, Captain Marvel is enjoyable to an extent, packs few amusing moments, and features a marvellous superheroine. Like Carol Danvers, this film had limitless potential. But unlike her, the filmmakers fail to tap into that element and possibly weren't even aware of what was up for grabs here. Generic, mundane & underwhelming, Captain Marvel isn't the film that the most powerful superhero in Marvel faction deserves, and is no match to the studio's finest efforts.
Night Reader Reviews (683 KP) rated Theta Double Dot in Books
Feb 17, 2020
Honest Review for Free Copy of Book
Theta Double Dot by Alan Dale has it all. Readers will find romance, crime, environmental awareness, and even business espionage within the pages. There is no one that is safe from Theta.
Mark is not doing great at his job. He is overworked and overstressed. His wife won’t let him quit because of the ways it could affect their finances, but Mark wants to, preferably before he gets fired. The company he works for has taken on a huge project in Alaska that appears doomed from the start and they have put Mark at the head of its operation. His wife believes that this project may be a good thing, and besides, they need the money with having a daughter in college (Sarah).
Sarah is having enough problems of her own at college. Almost immediately she finds a young man that she is interested in by the name of John. John convinces her to join the Peaceful Protest group which might not have been the best idea at the time. Another protest group by the name of Theta has been attacking petrochemical plants and have gained the title of terrorists. Seeing as how Sarah’s father is working on a new plant in Alaska, Sarah is being targeted by Theta right alongside the project. Can John protect Sarah and himself from Theta’s grasp before they become victims? What will happen to Sarah’s father, miles from home and facing the immediate threat of Theta?
What I liked best was this book showed two sides of the story (actually closer to three). As far as the Alaska project is concerned it showed the environmental concerns of the activists. What is even more impressive is the impact the plant would have on the indigenous people was illustrated as well. What I didn’t like was that the book jumped around from group to group a little more than what I would have liked. Personal preference would be to start a new chapter each time the focus changed to a new group. This just tends to make the transition a bit easier.
This book would be perfectly fine for adults and young adults alike. There is some mild sexual content but nothing too bad. The technical jargon is probably above most people's heads but so long as readers grasp the basics of what is being said that should not be a problem. I rate this book 3 out of 4. It was a little dry in spots and I found it annoying when I had to backtrack just because I realized too late that the group focus changed again. Although it had a strong plot line that moved along nicely, the jargon was too frequent and over my head.
https://smashbomb.com/nightreader
https://nightreaderreviews.blogspot.com/
https://www.facebook.com/nightreaderreviews
Mark is not doing great at his job. He is overworked and overstressed. His wife won’t let him quit because of the ways it could affect their finances, but Mark wants to, preferably before he gets fired. The company he works for has taken on a huge project in Alaska that appears doomed from the start and they have put Mark at the head of its operation. His wife believes that this project may be a good thing, and besides, they need the money with having a daughter in college (Sarah).
Sarah is having enough problems of her own at college. Almost immediately she finds a young man that she is interested in by the name of John. John convinces her to join the Peaceful Protest group which might not have been the best idea at the time. Another protest group by the name of Theta has been attacking petrochemical plants and have gained the title of terrorists. Seeing as how Sarah’s father is working on a new plant in Alaska, Sarah is being targeted by Theta right alongside the project. Can John protect Sarah and himself from Theta’s grasp before they become victims? What will happen to Sarah’s father, miles from home and facing the immediate threat of Theta?
What I liked best was this book showed two sides of the story (actually closer to three). As far as the Alaska project is concerned it showed the environmental concerns of the activists. What is even more impressive is the impact the plant would have on the indigenous people was illustrated as well. What I didn’t like was that the book jumped around from group to group a little more than what I would have liked. Personal preference would be to start a new chapter each time the focus changed to a new group. This just tends to make the transition a bit easier.
This book would be perfectly fine for adults and young adults alike. There is some mild sexual content but nothing too bad. The technical jargon is probably above most people's heads but so long as readers grasp the basics of what is being said that should not be a problem. I rate this book 3 out of 4. It was a little dry in spots and I found it annoying when I had to backtrack just because I realized too late that the group focus changed again. Although it had a strong plot line that moved along nicely, the jargon was too frequent and over my head.
https://smashbomb.com/nightreader
https://nightreaderreviews.blogspot.com/
https://www.facebook.com/nightreaderreviews
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jack Reacher: Never Go Back (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
I’m a big fan of Tom Cruise. He is a real old-fashioned film star, generous with his fans on the red carpet and with real star power at the box office. And I can happily sit down in front of just about any one of his DVD’s time and time again and still enjoy it. Unlike many critics, I even enjoyed his last outing as Jack Reacher.
Unfortunately, and it pains me to say this but, his latest outing – “Jack Reacher: Never Go Back” – is a bit dull.
Lee Child’s Reacher has many years before turned his back on his military past and wanders the country as a drifter righting wrongs outside of the law. In this film, his military past again makes a major (“No, ex-Major”) intrusion into his life. Potential love interest Major Susan Turner (Colbie Smulders, from the “Avengers” world) is arrested on trumped-up espionage charges and Cruise sets out to clear her name. Along the way he accidentally (and rather too conveniently for the plot) discovers that a paternity suit has been filed against him and Reacher confronts the rebellious and light-fingered teenager Samantha (Danika Yarosh, aged 18 playing 15).
Unfortunately the big-cheeses involved in the international arms skulduggery are determined to tie up each and every loose end in their intrigue, and that includes Reacher, Turner and young Samantha by association. Needless to say, the villains – led by a one-man killing machine (Patrick Heusinger) – haven’t counted on Reacher’s ‘particular set of skills’.
My problem with the film (after an entertaining opening) is that the screenplay lumbers from standard thriller set-piece to standard thriller set-piece in a highly predictable way. It’s as if the scripts from 20 different films have been stuck in a blender. Shadowy arms dealing shenanigans: check; Cute teenager in peril: check; Gun fight on a dockside: check; Rooftop chase: check.
Are all the individual set-pieces decently done? Yes, sure. But the combination of these bits of action tapas really don’t add up to a satisfying meal. The story arc is almost non-existent as there is no suspense in the ‘investigation’: the plot is all pretty well laid out for you.
Where there is some fun to be had is in the play-off between the born-leader Reacher and the born-leader Turner, both trying to be top-dog in the decision making. The romantic connection between the leads seems almost plausible despite their 20 (TWENTY!) year age difference: this is more down to how incredibly good Cruise still looks at age 54 (damn him!). Turner makes a good female role-model right up to the point where there is a confrontation in a hotel room and Turner backs down: despite Cruise being the “hero” it would have been nice for female equality for this face-off to have gone the other way.
The director is Edward Zwick, who helmed Cruise’s more interesting movie “The Last Samurai”.
The trailer started off well and then progressed into general mediocrity. Unfortunately – for me at least – the film lived up to the trailer. Watchable, but not memorable.
Unfortunately, and it pains me to say this but, his latest outing – “Jack Reacher: Never Go Back” – is a bit dull.
Lee Child’s Reacher has many years before turned his back on his military past and wanders the country as a drifter righting wrongs outside of the law. In this film, his military past again makes a major (“No, ex-Major”) intrusion into his life. Potential love interest Major Susan Turner (Colbie Smulders, from the “Avengers” world) is arrested on trumped-up espionage charges and Cruise sets out to clear her name. Along the way he accidentally (and rather too conveniently for the plot) discovers that a paternity suit has been filed against him and Reacher confronts the rebellious and light-fingered teenager Samantha (Danika Yarosh, aged 18 playing 15).
Unfortunately the big-cheeses involved in the international arms skulduggery are determined to tie up each and every loose end in their intrigue, and that includes Reacher, Turner and young Samantha by association. Needless to say, the villains – led by a one-man killing machine (Patrick Heusinger) – haven’t counted on Reacher’s ‘particular set of skills’.
My problem with the film (after an entertaining opening) is that the screenplay lumbers from standard thriller set-piece to standard thriller set-piece in a highly predictable way. It’s as if the scripts from 20 different films have been stuck in a blender. Shadowy arms dealing shenanigans: check; Cute teenager in peril: check; Gun fight on a dockside: check; Rooftop chase: check.
Are all the individual set-pieces decently done? Yes, sure. But the combination of these bits of action tapas really don’t add up to a satisfying meal. The story arc is almost non-existent as there is no suspense in the ‘investigation’: the plot is all pretty well laid out for you.
Where there is some fun to be had is in the play-off between the born-leader Reacher and the born-leader Turner, both trying to be top-dog in the decision making. The romantic connection between the leads seems almost plausible despite their 20 (TWENTY!) year age difference: this is more down to how incredibly good Cruise still looks at age 54 (damn him!). Turner makes a good female role-model right up to the point where there is a confrontation in a hotel room and Turner backs down: despite Cruise being the “hero” it would have been nice for female equality for this face-off to have gone the other way.
The director is Edward Zwick, who helmed Cruise’s more interesting movie “The Last Samurai”.
The trailer started off well and then progressed into general mediocrity. Unfortunately – for me at least – the film lived up to the trailer. Watchable, but not memorable.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Amsterdam (2022) in Movies
Nov 21, 2022
Weak First Half Gives Way To Strong Second Half
There are certain Directors working today that gain such a reputation that most Major Movie Stars clamor to be in their films - no matter how big (or small) their part is. Quentin Tarantino, Wes Anderson and Christopher Nolan all come to mind. And, for some reason, David O. Russell is in that camp as well.
The latest film from this cinematic auteur, AMSTERDAM, is jam-packed with stars from Christian Bale to John David Washington to Margot Robbie, Robert DeNiro, Zoe Saldana, Rami Malek, Andrea Riseborough, Chris Rock, Michael Shannon, Michael Myers, Timothy Olyphant, Any-Taylor Joy and even Taylor Swift show up to play part in this drama/thriller/comedy that takes a real life event and gives it the David O. Russell touch.
And…what is the David O. Russell touch? It is - for better or for worse - a skewed perspective of the goings-on in the film, commenting on the action while driving a narrative forward. On the one hand, he is liked by many actors for he let’s them improvise and work through their performances. However, on the other hand, if he is not getting what he wants, he is also known as a antagonistic Director as he has had on-set feuds with George Clooney, Lilly Tomlin and Amy Adams. But…on the other hand…he has been nominated for Best Director 3x and quite a few of his actors (Bale, Adams, Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, etc.) have been nominated for an Oscar.
For AMSTERDAM the film’s tone and intention meander for the 1st half of the movie - as do the performances - before settling into a crackerjack thriller/murder-mystery/espionage film.
And that’s too bad for many will be turned off by the 1st half - the meandering is detrimental to the audience’s enjoyment - it feels like a series of “acting scenes” and not a coherent grouping of scenarios leading to a plot. This will turn many off - and will have them turning off the film - before it settles down and becomes good.
As is often the case with Russell’s films, the performances are good (Washington), better (Robbie) and best (Bale, channelling his inner Peter Faulk) while the other actors support the 3 leads in surprising ways. If nothing else, see this movie to watch all of these wonderful performers plying their craft. Of course, you’ll be saying to yourself “that’s wonderfully acted” for you won’t be immersed into the people, emotions or the plot at the beginning.
And that is Russell’s issue. If he could have settled on the tone and focus of the 2nd half of the film in the first half, he’d have himself another Oscar contending film. But, as it were, it’s an interesting curiosity - one that will have you entertained for a few hours, but will leave you scratching your head longing for “what could have been”.
Letter Grade: B (“C” for the first half, “A” for the 2nd half)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The latest film from this cinematic auteur, AMSTERDAM, is jam-packed with stars from Christian Bale to John David Washington to Margot Robbie, Robert DeNiro, Zoe Saldana, Rami Malek, Andrea Riseborough, Chris Rock, Michael Shannon, Michael Myers, Timothy Olyphant, Any-Taylor Joy and even Taylor Swift show up to play part in this drama/thriller/comedy that takes a real life event and gives it the David O. Russell touch.
And…what is the David O. Russell touch? It is - for better or for worse - a skewed perspective of the goings-on in the film, commenting on the action while driving a narrative forward. On the one hand, he is liked by many actors for he let’s them improvise and work through their performances. However, on the other hand, if he is not getting what he wants, he is also known as a antagonistic Director as he has had on-set feuds with George Clooney, Lilly Tomlin and Amy Adams. But…on the other hand…he has been nominated for Best Director 3x and quite a few of his actors (Bale, Adams, Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, etc.) have been nominated for an Oscar.
For AMSTERDAM the film’s tone and intention meander for the 1st half of the movie - as do the performances - before settling into a crackerjack thriller/murder-mystery/espionage film.
And that’s too bad for many will be turned off by the 1st half - the meandering is detrimental to the audience’s enjoyment - it feels like a series of “acting scenes” and not a coherent grouping of scenarios leading to a plot. This will turn many off - and will have them turning off the film - before it settles down and becomes good.
As is often the case with Russell’s films, the performances are good (Washington), better (Robbie) and best (Bale, channelling his inner Peter Faulk) while the other actors support the 3 leads in surprising ways. If nothing else, see this movie to watch all of these wonderful performers plying their craft. Of course, you’ll be saying to yourself “that’s wonderfully acted” for you won’t be immersed into the people, emotions or the plot at the beginning.
And that is Russell’s issue. If he could have settled on the tone and focus of the 2nd half of the film in the first half, he’d have himself another Oscar contending film. But, as it were, it’s an interesting curiosity - one that will have you entertained for a few hours, but will leave you scratching your head longing for “what could have been”.
Letter Grade: B (“C” for the first half, “A” for the 2nd half)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bookapotamus (289 KP) rated The Glitch in Books
May 31, 2018
Not worth the hype
So, when I first heard about The Glitch, I was all like - Wow. What cool idea for a story! This is going to be awesome. I need to get my hands on this one! And then I read it, and I was all like - WTF did I just read? Did someone slip me drugs? Did I miss something?
Shelley is like one of those Steve Jobs-esque corporate tech CEO robots who is basically all work and zero play. Her company is called Conch, and is sort of like a Siri for everyday life that clips onto your ear. Even Steve jobs seems like a wuss compared to Shelley. She's stiff, and brusque and her marriage and friendships are more of business arrangements it seems, as well as having children (Nova and Blazer?!? ummm what?), she has ZERO social life - and she likes it all this way. In fact she thrives on it.
The story starts out with Nova going missing on the beach and her and her husband CASUALLY STROLL around on the beach looking for her while they are both ON THE PHONE taking conference calls. I cannot even believe people like this might exist. Then a "glitch" happens with the Conch product and weirdness ensues. I'm all for weird books. I don't base a books review on unlikeable characters. In fact Shelley is written PERFECTLY. Elisabeth Cohen is apparently a technical writer by trade and she shines at developing Shelley as a character. Her writing is SO smart, and sharp and I LOVE the way she writes. I'm giving a slight pass since it's her first novel because the words are there - and they are exquisite! They just need some finesse in arranging the story better. But the themes here all ALL over the place. Kidnapping? Corporate espionage? Time travel? Lightning? Weird romantic feeling for coworkers and nannies? Women's empowerment? Technology? Work/Life/Mom balance? I had enough trouble with being in Shelley's head with her ramblings and descriptions - thoroughly written, and passionately descriptive - but the story itself just fell flat.
And the ending, just really unsatisfying. And a bit unbelievable knowing how hardcore Shelley was about most things - It was like she just conceded and gave up? Which seemed so out of character.. There were several times I was like "No WAY this type A personality would let this chick in her house!" and "Why isn't she calling the cops!" It was like you knew so precisely who Shelley was by the incredible character development of how robotic and precise her actions would be and then - what? Huh? What just happened? I'm still just really confused.
I hate when this happens. I find out about a book that sounds so ridiculously awesome that i rush out to find it wherever I can immediately. The description when I first heard of the book had a question in it like "What would you do if you met your younger self?" I want to read THAT book. That's what I thought I was reading and where it was going, but it turned into this whole other story that went somewhere else entirely. There was so much promise and potential and I'm pretty bummed. It wasn't worth all the hype I've been hearing.
Shelley is like one of those Steve Jobs-esque corporate tech CEO robots who is basically all work and zero play. Her company is called Conch, and is sort of like a Siri for everyday life that clips onto your ear. Even Steve jobs seems like a wuss compared to Shelley. She's stiff, and brusque and her marriage and friendships are more of business arrangements it seems, as well as having children (Nova and Blazer?!? ummm what?), she has ZERO social life - and she likes it all this way. In fact she thrives on it.
The story starts out with Nova going missing on the beach and her and her husband CASUALLY STROLL around on the beach looking for her while they are both ON THE PHONE taking conference calls. I cannot even believe people like this might exist. Then a "glitch" happens with the Conch product and weirdness ensues. I'm all for weird books. I don't base a books review on unlikeable characters. In fact Shelley is written PERFECTLY. Elisabeth Cohen is apparently a technical writer by trade and she shines at developing Shelley as a character. Her writing is SO smart, and sharp and I LOVE the way she writes. I'm giving a slight pass since it's her first novel because the words are there - and they are exquisite! They just need some finesse in arranging the story better. But the themes here all ALL over the place. Kidnapping? Corporate espionage? Time travel? Lightning? Weird romantic feeling for coworkers and nannies? Women's empowerment? Technology? Work/Life/Mom balance? I had enough trouble with being in Shelley's head with her ramblings and descriptions - thoroughly written, and passionately descriptive - but the story itself just fell flat.
And the ending, just really unsatisfying. And a bit unbelievable knowing how hardcore Shelley was about most things - It was like she just conceded and gave up? Which seemed so out of character.. There were several times I was like "No WAY this type A personality would let this chick in her house!" and "Why isn't she calling the cops!" It was like you knew so precisely who Shelley was by the incredible character development of how robotic and precise her actions would be and then - what? Huh? What just happened? I'm still just really confused.
I hate when this happens. I find out about a book that sounds so ridiculously awesome that i rush out to find it wherever I can immediately. The description when I first heard of the book had a question in it like "What would you do if you met your younger self?" I want to read THAT book. That's what I thought I was reading and where it was going, but it turned into this whole other story that went somewhere else entirely. There was so much promise and potential and I'm pretty bummed. It wasn't worth all the hype I've been hearing.