Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Rhythm Section (2019) in Movies
Mar 5, 2020
The Rhythm Section popped up almost out of nowhere when it hit screens. Seeing the cast line-up I was very interested in seeing what it had to offer.
Stephanie has been a broken woman ever since her family died in a plane crash. The situation would be tough for anyone to deal with but it's made worse by the fact she was supposed to be on the plane too. Life in tatters, addicted to drugs and turning tricks for money she's all but given up on life. That's when Proctor appears.
Proctor is an investigative journalist who is tracking down the people responsible for the tragedy. He takes her in and she paws over his evidence. With a new found rage she goes off on her own, but actions have consequences and it's a steep learning curve.
There is something in The Rhythm Section, the story has a definite spark, but this final product didn't hit the right note for me. It's a classic story of revenge but the film doesn't seem to make much out of it. Littering it with flashbacks to fill in story and attempt to get us in Stephanie's head just adds to the jumpiness throughout. That jumpiness wasn't just reserved for the story, I noted that the camera movements early on were bizarre, I imagine in an effort to emulate her physical and mental state, but it was particularly jarring to watch.
The Rhythm Section seems to have no real way to follow the passage of time, which I feel was a mistake as it would have helped to make things more believable. Somehow B (Law) managed to get Stephanie off drugs, markedly improve her fitness levels and train her to be an (admittedly mediocre) assassin. With some concept of time elapsing I might have been on board with that transformation.
All that training seems to be for nought as she mainly survives off dumb luck during her travels. Her natural luck would also explain how she managed to capture the only bit of information she needed at the beginning of the film to find Proctor's well trained and secret source.
Law and Lively had some good moments in her training montage. There was some humour and friendship, of a sort, but the combative nature of both characters outside of that felt strained and neither appeared comfortable in the role. Sterling K. Brown playing Mark Serra seemed to be the most at home in the role, there was a spark there that gave him a confidence in what he was doing.
With a script written by the author of the source material I'm at a bit of a loss, this scenario should mean that it's a proper representation of the book but I'm left with little desire to experience any of the other three stories in this series having seen Rhythm Section.
As I said, there feels like there's something in this idea that would have made a great film, but it feels rushed and a little confused. The film ends in a way that could see a sequel, and that is possible given the other books in the series, but I can't see it progressing beyond one film off the back of this.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-rhythm-section-movie-review.html
Stephanie has been a broken woman ever since her family died in a plane crash. The situation would be tough for anyone to deal with but it's made worse by the fact she was supposed to be on the plane too. Life in tatters, addicted to drugs and turning tricks for money she's all but given up on life. That's when Proctor appears.
Proctor is an investigative journalist who is tracking down the people responsible for the tragedy. He takes her in and she paws over his evidence. With a new found rage she goes off on her own, but actions have consequences and it's a steep learning curve.
There is something in The Rhythm Section, the story has a definite spark, but this final product didn't hit the right note for me. It's a classic story of revenge but the film doesn't seem to make much out of it. Littering it with flashbacks to fill in story and attempt to get us in Stephanie's head just adds to the jumpiness throughout. That jumpiness wasn't just reserved for the story, I noted that the camera movements early on were bizarre, I imagine in an effort to emulate her physical and mental state, but it was particularly jarring to watch.
The Rhythm Section seems to have no real way to follow the passage of time, which I feel was a mistake as it would have helped to make things more believable. Somehow B (Law) managed to get Stephanie off drugs, markedly improve her fitness levels and train her to be an (admittedly mediocre) assassin. With some concept of time elapsing I might have been on board with that transformation.
All that training seems to be for nought as she mainly survives off dumb luck during her travels. Her natural luck would also explain how she managed to capture the only bit of information she needed at the beginning of the film to find Proctor's well trained and secret source.
Law and Lively had some good moments in her training montage. There was some humour and friendship, of a sort, but the combative nature of both characters outside of that felt strained and neither appeared comfortable in the role. Sterling K. Brown playing Mark Serra seemed to be the most at home in the role, there was a spark there that gave him a confidence in what he was doing.
With a script written by the author of the source material I'm at a bit of a loss, this scenario should mean that it's a proper representation of the book but I'm left with little desire to experience any of the other three stories in this series having seen Rhythm Section.
As I said, there feels like there's something in this idea that would have made a great film, but it feels rushed and a little confused. The film ends in a way that could see a sequel, and that is possible given the other books in the series, but I can't see it progressing beyond one film off the back of this.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-rhythm-section-movie-review.html
JT (287 KP) rated The Avengers (2012) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
As the dust settles on a film that has seriously ‘hulk smashed’ the box office its clear to see why this film has been met with such high acclaim from critics and fans alike. There is no getting away from the fact that this is one hell of a blockbuster, with more superheroes than you can cram into a S.H.I.E.L.D. meeting room and a villain that almost stole the whole show, it had pretty much everything.
The film opens as S.H.I.E.L.D. is mid evacuation after The Tesseract, an energy source of unknown potential, has activated. Loki (Tom Hiddleston) has plans to take over the world with a strong army and have everyone kneel before him, he’s cunning but “lacks conviction” as is pointed out by cult fan favourite Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg).
So, Nick Fury activates the Avengers initiative, pulling resource from Thor, Captain America, Iron Man, Black Widow, Hawkeye and of course Bruce Banner in order to stop the impending attack. The good thing about the Avengers is that no time needs to be spent setting the characters up, as given the previous films we know all about them and their powers. However, this gives more time for them to decipher each others egos.
Tony Stark feels like the team’s unofficial leader, brash and bold he has to contend with a number of personalities, remember he doesn’t play well with others. A great scene sees Thor, Captain America and Iron Man all come to blows but its hard to say if there was any clear winner.
Natasha Romanoff aka Black Widow and Clint ‘Hawkeye’ Barton who have popped up in previous films but neither had their own title struggle at times to fit in, but they are integral to the group and plot. However if there were not part of the assemble you wouldn’t miss them too much.
As for Bruce Banner, Weadon’s Hulk is probably the most realistic CGI transformation to date. Ang Lee’s looked ridiculous and Louis Leterrier’s Hulk looked liked he’d been pumped full of steroids as opposed to gamma radiation.
Weadon though achieved a great balance and with Mark Ruffalo stepping in as the green monster the Hulk had a lot of charisma in this, even having time for some humour. T.V. original big man Lou Ferrigno provided the voice so it all seemed like the Hulk was back.
The perfect villain – Loki
Hiddleston for me though was the stand-out here, as comic book villains go he brought so much to the role. It was a dark, composed and at times sinister portrayal of a man desperate for revenge and to be worshipped like the god he feels he deserves to be.
The films action sequences are second to none, with everything from the initial opening evacuation at S.H.I.E.L.D. to the climactic ending all choreographed to perfection. The only gripe is that it boarder lines on Transformers styled destruction, in which some parts are drawn out. I mean just how many Chitauri can one group of superheroes fend off?
Another post credits scene certainly would pave the way for a sequel, and given the film’s massive haul which is well in excess of $450m no one would stand in the way. It should pretty much be a forgone conclusion that the team will at some point reunite.
The film opens as S.H.I.E.L.D. is mid evacuation after The Tesseract, an energy source of unknown potential, has activated. Loki (Tom Hiddleston) has plans to take over the world with a strong army and have everyone kneel before him, he’s cunning but “lacks conviction” as is pointed out by cult fan favourite Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg).
So, Nick Fury activates the Avengers initiative, pulling resource from Thor, Captain America, Iron Man, Black Widow, Hawkeye and of course Bruce Banner in order to stop the impending attack. The good thing about the Avengers is that no time needs to be spent setting the characters up, as given the previous films we know all about them and their powers. However, this gives more time for them to decipher each others egos.
Tony Stark feels like the team’s unofficial leader, brash and bold he has to contend with a number of personalities, remember he doesn’t play well with others. A great scene sees Thor, Captain America and Iron Man all come to blows but its hard to say if there was any clear winner.
Natasha Romanoff aka Black Widow and Clint ‘Hawkeye’ Barton who have popped up in previous films but neither had their own title struggle at times to fit in, but they are integral to the group and plot. However if there were not part of the assemble you wouldn’t miss them too much.
As for Bruce Banner, Weadon’s Hulk is probably the most realistic CGI transformation to date. Ang Lee’s looked ridiculous and Louis Leterrier’s Hulk looked liked he’d been pumped full of steroids as opposed to gamma radiation.
Weadon though achieved a great balance and with Mark Ruffalo stepping in as the green monster the Hulk had a lot of charisma in this, even having time for some humour. T.V. original big man Lou Ferrigno provided the voice so it all seemed like the Hulk was back.
The perfect villain – Loki
Hiddleston for me though was the stand-out here, as comic book villains go he brought so much to the role. It was a dark, composed and at times sinister portrayal of a man desperate for revenge and to be worshipped like the god he feels he deserves to be.
The films action sequences are second to none, with everything from the initial opening evacuation at S.H.I.E.L.D. to the climactic ending all choreographed to perfection. The only gripe is that it boarder lines on Transformers styled destruction, in which some parts are drawn out. I mean just how many Chitauri can one group of superheroes fend off?
Another post credits scene certainly would pave the way for a sequel, and given the film’s massive haul which is well in excess of $450m no one would stand in the way. It should pretty much be a forgone conclusion that the team will at some point reunite.
JT (287 KP) rated Paranormal Activity 3 (2011) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
If it’s not broke, then don’t fix it. Seems a pretty good mantra and one that new directors Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman have stuck to.
The pair are behind the camera for the third terrifying instalment of the ever-popular franchise that proves you don’t need a massive budget to make a shit load of money. The film had the biggest opening weekend of any other horror film grossing $54m, and at the same time satisfying those that love it when things go bump in the night.
We’re still with Katie and Kristi, the sisters who were on the wrong end of a pissed off entity for the original and the sequel, or should we say prequel in this case. This time, after a brief cameo from the older girls Katie Featherston and Sprague Grayden, we are transported back to 1988 and the home of VHS, with the siblings now much younger.
The plot follows a different path as we get closer to discovering why this entity has targeted this suburban family in the first place.
Things start to turn sinister from the outset after Dennis (Nicholas Smith), a wedding videographer discovers a figure silhouetted on camera. Desperate to discover what it is, and against the wishes of his partner Julie (Lauren Bittner), he sets up the good old handheld cameras in the bedrooms hoping for it to reappear, it doesn’t take long.
The focus on this is the relationship that Kristi has with the invisible entity who she has aptly named Toby and runs about playfully with until it is clear that Toby gets slightly annoyed when things don’t go his way. The film is full of jumps and jolts that will have you leaping out of your seat or ducking down behind it.
From the old fashioned white-sheeted ghost to making you never want to see a Teddy Ruxpin again as long as you live. Joost and Schulman find new and unique ways to scare the living daylights out of you. To reveal too much more would, of course, ruin it, but suffice to say they are all brilliantly executed.
Being 1988 CCTV was all but redundant for the most part and perhaps one of the biggest payoffs was Dennis’s makeshift camera that was set up in the living room downstairs. Made out of a desk fan the camera pans slowly from one end of the room to the other and is very much the main focus for several horrific scenes, including a homage to the exploding cupboards in PA2.
The film is also injected with a strong sense of light-heartedness and humour, used almost like a comforter that the audience will embrace, that is until Joost and Schulman smack them across the face with another scare. The plot follows a different path as we get closer to discovering why this entity has targeted this suburban family in the first place.
It’s a reveal that may or may not is appreciated, but one thing is for sure you’ll have a great time getting there.
One important thing to note is that the trailer below contains scenes that aren’t included in the film at all, I for one am happy with this as it means that cinema goers can still go in fresh. Although you do feel a little cheated that you missed something important.
The pair are behind the camera for the third terrifying instalment of the ever-popular franchise that proves you don’t need a massive budget to make a shit load of money. The film had the biggest opening weekend of any other horror film grossing $54m, and at the same time satisfying those that love it when things go bump in the night.
We’re still with Katie and Kristi, the sisters who were on the wrong end of a pissed off entity for the original and the sequel, or should we say prequel in this case. This time, after a brief cameo from the older girls Katie Featherston and Sprague Grayden, we are transported back to 1988 and the home of VHS, with the siblings now much younger.
The plot follows a different path as we get closer to discovering why this entity has targeted this suburban family in the first place.
Things start to turn sinister from the outset after Dennis (Nicholas Smith), a wedding videographer discovers a figure silhouetted on camera. Desperate to discover what it is, and against the wishes of his partner Julie (Lauren Bittner), he sets up the good old handheld cameras in the bedrooms hoping for it to reappear, it doesn’t take long.
The focus on this is the relationship that Kristi has with the invisible entity who she has aptly named Toby and runs about playfully with until it is clear that Toby gets slightly annoyed when things don’t go his way. The film is full of jumps and jolts that will have you leaping out of your seat or ducking down behind it.
From the old fashioned white-sheeted ghost to making you never want to see a Teddy Ruxpin again as long as you live. Joost and Schulman find new and unique ways to scare the living daylights out of you. To reveal too much more would, of course, ruin it, but suffice to say they are all brilliantly executed.
Being 1988 CCTV was all but redundant for the most part and perhaps one of the biggest payoffs was Dennis’s makeshift camera that was set up in the living room downstairs. Made out of a desk fan the camera pans slowly from one end of the room to the other and is very much the main focus for several horrific scenes, including a homage to the exploding cupboards in PA2.
The film is also injected with a strong sense of light-heartedness and humour, used almost like a comforter that the audience will embrace, that is until Joost and Schulman smack them across the face with another scare. The plot follows a different path as we get closer to discovering why this entity has targeted this suburban family in the first place.
It’s a reveal that may or may not is appreciated, but one thing is for sure you’ll have a great time getting there.
One important thing to note is that the trailer below contains scenes that aren’t included in the film at all, I for one am happy with this as it means that cinema goers can still go in fresh. Although you do feel a little cheated that you missed something important.
Age, Sex, Location
Book
A hilarious and refreshingly honest foray into modern dating, Age, Sex, Location is Bridget Jones's...
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Departed (2006) in Movies
Feb 20, 2021
The best gangster flick made to date
Film #15 on the 100 Movies List: The Departed
The Departed is Martin Scorcese’s Oscar winning Irish gangster film released in 2006, a remake of the 2002 Hong Kong film Infernal Affairs, and loosely based around the real life Boston Hill Gang led by Whitey Bulger. It’s a film I remember watching when it was first released when I was at university, and I was blown away. It centres around Irish gang boss Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson) and his relationships with police detective mole Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon) and undercover state trooper Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio), as the latter two attempt to uncover each other’s identities.
Colin Sullivan was introduced to Costello as a young boy, groomed into joining the Massachusetts State Police and soon rises to the ranks of detective in the Special Investigation Unit, led by Captain Ellerby (Alec Baldwin)and responsible for bringing down Costello and his gang. Conversely Billy Costigan suffered a troubled youth with numerous members of his family involved in Costello’s gang. He trains as a state trooper and due to his family’s criminal ties, is turned into an undercover agent by Captain Queenan (Martin Sheen) and Staff Sergeant Dignam (Mark Wahlberg), his role to infiltrate Costello’s gang. Soon suspicions are raised and the net begins to close in on everyone involved, with dire consequences.
Personally, I think this is one of the best gangster films I’ve ever seen, if not the best. It’s everything you’d expect and more from a film in this genre, and I’m not sure anyone other than Scorcese could pull off a crime thriller that manages to feature such prominent Celtic music with such flair. It has a whip smart, often funny script that features some cracking one liners and quips, especially from Mark Wahlberg’s Dignam. Yes it is a little crude and some of the dialogue could be considered as offensive by some, but to me this just makes it more realistic as you can’t exactly expect gangsters and police to talk politely. Of course the script is brought to life by a truly phenomenal cast, and arguably one of the best ensembles in a gangster film in terms of talent. Leonardo DiCaprio is no longer the fresh faced youngster he was in the days of Titanic, although he puts in a terrific performance as Billy. This is also one of the few films I’ve seen of Matt Damon’s where he doesn’t play a nice guy, and he really fits this surprisingly well. But it’s Nicholson who steals the show as Costello and he definitely gets the biggest share of the witty script, bringing some light humour to an otherwise menacing criminal figure. You can’t keep your eyes off him whenever he’s on screen, and I don’t believe anyone else could pull this off without seeming like an over the top caricature.
However it isn’t perfect. The relationship between police psychiatrist Madolyn Madden (Vera Farmiga) and both Sullivan and Costigan is a little unnecessary and not important to the main plot, but fortunately the performances from all involved mean this isn’t a major issue. And again, the film is rather long but fortunately the tense scenes and great acting, alongside a few well placed action scenes, mean it never feels too drawn out.
This is a shining example of how to do a gangster film, and one I’d wholeheartedly recommend. It’s an intelligent, performance driven masterpiece and entirely deserving of it’s Best Picture Academy Award win.
The Departed is Martin Scorcese’s Oscar winning Irish gangster film released in 2006, a remake of the 2002 Hong Kong film Infernal Affairs, and loosely based around the real life Boston Hill Gang led by Whitey Bulger. It’s a film I remember watching when it was first released when I was at university, and I was blown away. It centres around Irish gang boss Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson) and his relationships with police detective mole Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon) and undercover state trooper Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio), as the latter two attempt to uncover each other’s identities.
Colin Sullivan was introduced to Costello as a young boy, groomed into joining the Massachusetts State Police and soon rises to the ranks of detective in the Special Investigation Unit, led by Captain Ellerby (Alec Baldwin)and responsible for bringing down Costello and his gang. Conversely Billy Costigan suffered a troubled youth with numerous members of his family involved in Costello’s gang. He trains as a state trooper and due to his family’s criminal ties, is turned into an undercover agent by Captain Queenan (Martin Sheen) and Staff Sergeant Dignam (Mark Wahlberg), his role to infiltrate Costello’s gang. Soon suspicions are raised and the net begins to close in on everyone involved, with dire consequences.
Personally, I think this is one of the best gangster films I’ve ever seen, if not the best. It’s everything you’d expect and more from a film in this genre, and I’m not sure anyone other than Scorcese could pull off a crime thriller that manages to feature such prominent Celtic music with such flair. It has a whip smart, often funny script that features some cracking one liners and quips, especially from Mark Wahlberg’s Dignam. Yes it is a little crude and some of the dialogue could be considered as offensive by some, but to me this just makes it more realistic as you can’t exactly expect gangsters and police to talk politely. Of course the script is brought to life by a truly phenomenal cast, and arguably one of the best ensembles in a gangster film in terms of talent. Leonardo DiCaprio is no longer the fresh faced youngster he was in the days of Titanic, although he puts in a terrific performance as Billy. This is also one of the few films I’ve seen of Matt Damon’s where he doesn’t play a nice guy, and he really fits this surprisingly well. But it’s Nicholson who steals the show as Costello and he definitely gets the biggest share of the witty script, bringing some light humour to an otherwise menacing criminal figure. You can’t keep your eyes off him whenever he’s on screen, and I don’t believe anyone else could pull this off without seeming like an over the top caricature.
However it isn’t perfect. The relationship between police psychiatrist Madolyn Madden (Vera Farmiga) and both Sullivan and Costigan is a little unnecessary and not important to the main plot, but fortunately the performances from all involved mean this isn’t a major issue. And again, the film is rather long but fortunately the tense scenes and great acting, alongside a few well placed action scenes, mean it never feels too drawn out.
This is a shining example of how to do a gangster film, and one I’d wholeheartedly recommend. It’s an intelligent, performance driven masterpiece and entirely deserving of it’s Best Picture Academy Award win.
Natasha Khan recommended Selected Ambient Works 85-92 by Aphex Twin in Music (curated)
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Mortal Kombat (2021) in Movies
May 23, 2021
Contains spoilers, click to show
Mortal Kombat is one of those films that doesn't seem to know what story it wants to tell, it starts with a grudge battle between a proto Sub Zero and Proto Scorpion then jumps to the modern times with Sub-Zero hunting a young fighter, Cole Young. Then it (kind of) switches back to the Scorpion/Sub-Zero grudge match.
The bulk of the movie follows Cole as he joins up with Sonya Blade to find a group of 'Earths Champions' in an attempt to stop a secret invasion from Outworld. The hero's are, of course various characters from the 'Mortal Kombat' video games and a lot of the film is just looking for excuses to for the characters to shout out one liners from the games.
This isn't to say that Mortal Kombat is a bad movie, it has good fight scenes and the relationship between Sonia and Kano lead to some of the funniest moments of the movie. In fact I would go as far as saying that Kano is the best character of the film, a tough job seeing as he seems to be there for the comic relief.
There is a lot of time put into the put into the human characters but almost nothing to the villains, the most we find out about them is that Kabal seems to be a human and that Kano put him in his suit, there is no back story to this, no information a to how he ended up on outworld and, puzzlingly he seems to want to Kano to join up with his team.
I felt that there was something disappointing about the ending (HERE BE SPOILERS)..... All through the film we are told that Cole is the last of Hanzo Hasashi's (Scorpion) blood line (even though Cole has a daughter so she should be the last), he's given Hanzo's weapon and is being set up to become Scorpion. Then suddenly Hanzo is back, as Scorpion and all but saves the day. I know the film has the law of the games to follow but building one character up and then just re introducing someone else to all but take his place just feels like a cheat, especially as most of the film is about finding the power within and using it to win.
Saying all that Mortal Kombat is a good film, it has action and humour and some quite graphic 'Brutalities'. I think part of the problem is the 1995 Mortal Kombat film which feels a lot more fun, it doesn't have all the blood but it has a simple story, the villains seem slightly more rounded and the soundtrack just works. Also, and I know there is a big push to have actors of the 'correct' ethnicity I really do think that Christopher Lambert was a better 'Lord Rayden', Tadanobu Asano, who plays the character in this version seems bland and emotionless. I think that even an elder god would get worked up if evil forces were trying to invade his realm, especially if the invaders were breaking the rules.
The effects are good although some charters seem to have more attention than others (Sub-Zero, I'm looking at you) and there could have been more attention spent to the 'Evil' characters but, over all the film works with few problems.
The bulk of the movie follows Cole as he joins up with Sonya Blade to find a group of 'Earths Champions' in an attempt to stop a secret invasion from Outworld. The hero's are, of course various characters from the 'Mortal Kombat' video games and a lot of the film is just looking for excuses to for the characters to shout out one liners from the games.
This isn't to say that Mortal Kombat is a bad movie, it has good fight scenes and the relationship between Sonia and Kano lead to some of the funniest moments of the movie. In fact I would go as far as saying that Kano is the best character of the film, a tough job seeing as he seems to be there for the comic relief.
There is a lot of time put into the put into the human characters but almost nothing to the villains, the most we find out about them is that Kabal seems to be a human and that Kano put him in his suit, there is no back story to this, no information a to how he ended up on outworld and, puzzlingly he seems to want to Kano to join up with his team.
I felt that there was something disappointing about the ending (HERE BE SPOILERS)..... All through the film we are told that Cole is the last of Hanzo Hasashi's (Scorpion) blood line (even though Cole has a daughter so she should be the last), he's given Hanzo's weapon and is being set up to become Scorpion. Then suddenly Hanzo is back, as Scorpion and all but saves the day. I know the film has the law of the games to follow but building one character up and then just re introducing someone else to all but take his place just feels like a cheat, especially as most of the film is about finding the power within and using it to win.
Saying all that Mortal Kombat is a good film, it has action and humour and some quite graphic 'Brutalities'. I think part of the problem is the 1995 Mortal Kombat film which feels a lot more fun, it doesn't have all the blood but it has a simple story, the villains seem slightly more rounded and the soundtrack just works. Also, and I know there is a big push to have actors of the 'correct' ethnicity I really do think that Christopher Lambert was a better 'Lord Rayden', Tadanobu Asano, who plays the character in this version seems bland and emotionless. I think that even an elder god would get worked up if evil forces were trying to invade his realm, especially if the invaders were breaking the rules.
The effects are good although some charters seem to have more attention than others (Sub-Zero, I'm looking at you) and there could have been more attention spent to the 'Evil' characters but, over all the film works with few problems.
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated Lost Property in Books
Jul 2, 2021
Dot Watson works in the TfL Lost Property office, meticulously labelling items found on London’s public transport in the hope of reuniting them with their owner. However, it soon becomes apparent that it is Dot who is lost, grieving the loss of her father to suicide, her mother to dementia and her ever-deteriorating relationship with her sister.
What isn’t initially clear is why Dot feels guilt-ridden by her father’s suicide but Paris carefully peels back the layers of Dot and her family’s lives to expose their loss, their love and their vulnerability.
Dot herself is fastidious in details, finding safety in rules, routine and order. Her safe words (Sellotape, safety pin, superglue) echo through the novel with no real context except to calm Dot, to allow her to keep everything together and in place. In contrast to this, Dot is clearly falling apart.
Dot’s life is already poles apart from what she envisioned for herself but circumstances cause her to fall further and start looking for an escape: an escape that she finds amongst the stacks of unclaimed items, with a little help from a bottle of absinthe!
Dot’s hallucinations do cause moments of humour but more than this they portray her raw grief and her depression. Dot tries to find a story behind every item in the stacks, to give the item an identity, an owner, a purpose. But what she is really looking for is her identity, her purpose. She passionately fights for these items, believing that their worth surpasses monetary value, but she cannot apply this to herself until it is almost too late.
The characters surrounding Dot serve to reflect how isolated she has made herself.
Our protagonist has few friends in her social circle and those that she does have seem to be work friends, in whom she often finds criticism. I really appreciated the roles of characters such as Anita, she never stopped inviting Dot to events even when Dot had refused several times before. Anita is the perfect model for a friend of someone with depression: keep showing up, keep listening and never give up.
Dot’s mother, Gail, has dementia and has recently moved out of the maisonette she shared with Dot and into a care home. The relationship between mother and daughter has never been as close as the bond Dot had with her father but Dot’s memories of her mother slowly unfurl into the recognition and acceptance of her as a person and a protector, rather than the background character she has always assumed her mother to be.
Dot’s sister Philippa seems to be a bit of a steamroller of a character at first, bossy and controlling in that she plans to sell the maisonette and thus make Dot homeless. However, Philippa finds her spotlight in the final few chapters, perhaps because Dot allows herself to see her sister properly and acknowledge the life and pain that they both shared. The resulting love between the two sisters is heart-warming.
Lost Property is heart-breakingly honest and open. I laughed and, as someone coming to terms with a dementia diagnosis within the family, I cried my little heart out. I frankly couldn’t believe Lost Property is Helen Paris’ debut novel. This is the most emotive book I have read this year.
Thank you to Bookstagrammers.com, Helen Paris and Penguin Random House UK for gifting me a hard copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
What isn’t initially clear is why Dot feels guilt-ridden by her father’s suicide but Paris carefully peels back the layers of Dot and her family’s lives to expose their loss, their love and their vulnerability.
Dot herself is fastidious in details, finding safety in rules, routine and order. Her safe words (Sellotape, safety pin, superglue) echo through the novel with no real context except to calm Dot, to allow her to keep everything together and in place. In contrast to this, Dot is clearly falling apart.
Dot’s life is already poles apart from what she envisioned for herself but circumstances cause her to fall further and start looking for an escape: an escape that she finds amongst the stacks of unclaimed items, with a little help from a bottle of absinthe!
Dot’s hallucinations do cause moments of humour but more than this they portray her raw grief and her depression. Dot tries to find a story behind every item in the stacks, to give the item an identity, an owner, a purpose. But what she is really looking for is her identity, her purpose. She passionately fights for these items, believing that their worth surpasses monetary value, but she cannot apply this to herself until it is almost too late.
The characters surrounding Dot serve to reflect how isolated she has made herself.
Our protagonist has few friends in her social circle and those that she does have seem to be work friends, in whom she often finds criticism. I really appreciated the roles of characters such as Anita, she never stopped inviting Dot to events even when Dot had refused several times before. Anita is the perfect model for a friend of someone with depression: keep showing up, keep listening and never give up.
Dot’s mother, Gail, has dementia and has recently moved out of the maisonette she shared with Dot and into a care home. The relationship between mother and daughter has never been as close as the bond Dot had with her father but Dot’s memories of her mother slowly unfurl into the recognition and acceptance of her as a person and a protector, rather than the background character she has always assumed her mother to be.
Dot’s sister Philippa seems to be a bit of a steamroller of a character at first, bossy and controlling in that she plans to sell the maisonette and thus make Dot homeless. However, Philippa finds her spotlight in the final few chapters, perhaps because Dot allows herself to see her sister properly and acknowledge the life and pain that they both shared. The resulting love between the two sisters is heart-warming.
Lost Property is heart-breakingly honest and open. I laughed and, as someone coming to terms with a dementia diagnosis within the family, I cried my little heart out. I frankly couldn’t believe Lost Property is Helen Paris’ debut novel. This is the most emotive book I have read this year.
Thank you to Bookstagrammers.com, Helen Paris and Penguin Random House UK for gifting me a hard copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Boys - Season 2 in TV
Oct 10, 2020
Excellent, but not quite as good as the first
For me, the first series of The Boys was a brilliant surprise and the wait for this second series has been a rather frustrating and impatient experience, especially as Amazon decided not to release the entire series at once. Fortunately by the time the credits rolled on the series 2 finale, it was definitely worth the wait.
This second series follows on from the reveal at the end of the series 1 finale, and features more dodgy supes and the Boys trying to take down both them and Vought.
Series 2 is very similar to the first. It’s just as rude and crude as before, full of dark and often hilarious humour and the blood and gore ante seems to have been upped considerably. It definitely provides a refreshing change to the Marvel universe and the majority of other superheroes that stick to their PG or 12A ratings. This has a very smart and funny take on politics and also on pop culture and the media, and even superhero films don’t escape this unscathed when we see The Seven making their own movie.
The cast are as fantastic as they were in the first series. Antony Starr is outstanding as Homelander, playing the homicidal maniac with some semblance of a heart – after 2 series I think I both love and hate him in equal parts, he’s such a complex character. It was very nice to see Dominique McElligott get more to work with as Maeve as well and to see more depth to her character. The rest of the cast and the new additions do very well too - Goran Visjnic, Shawn Ashmore and Jim Beaver are especially welcome, and it was very clever of Eric Kripke to name Beaver’s character as Robert Singer, the same name as his character from Supernatural.
Despite this, I don’t think this series is perfect and I do think it’s a slight baby step down from the rather excellent first series. Some of the episodes feel like they drag a little, although they do end up picking up towards the end (usually with a bang). The final two episodes definitely try and make up for this and I think the finale itself was especially good as we get to see Stormfront get her much deserved comeuppance. I also think some of the interactions between Starlight and the other characters are slightly badly scripted and feel a little forced and cringeworthy, but I’m not entirely sure if this is on purpose to show how awkwardly Starlight interacts with others.
The Deep has also been done a disservice in this series. He starts off brilliantly and the scene with the whale in the third episode is downright genius, however as the series moves on we see less and less of him and he’s sorely missed. Admittedly when he does pop up in the later episodes he has some cracking lines, but it’s not enough. I also think that Shawn Ashmore as Lamplighter was fantastic for the brief time we saw him, and I really wish he’d been kept around for much longer.
The Boys series 2 is overall a very good series that for the most part lives up to it’s predecessor and after the final few scenes in episode 8, definitely leaves us crying out for more.
This second series follows on from the reveal at the end of the series 1 finale, and features more dodgy supes and the Boys trying to take down both them and Vought.
Series 2 is very similar to the first. It’s just as rude and crude as before, full of dark and often hilarious humour and the blood and gore ante seems to have been upped considerably. It definitely provides a refreshing change to the Marvel universe and the majority of other superheroes that stick to their PG or 12A ratings. This has a very smart and funny take on politics and also on pop culture and the media, and even superhero films don’t escape this unscathed when we see The Seven making their own movie.
The cast are as fantastic as they were in the first series. Antony Starr is outstanding as Homelander, playing the homicidal maniac with some semblance of a heart – after 2 series I think I both love and hate him in equal parts, he’s such a complex character. It was very nice to see Dominique McElligott get more to work with as Maeve as well and to see more depth to her character. The rest of the cast and the new additions do very well too - Goran Visjnic, Shawn Ashmore and Jim Beaver are especially welcome, and it was very clever of Eric Kripke to name Beaver’s character as Robert Singer, the same name as his character from Supernatural.
Despite this, I don’t think this series is perfect and I do think it’s a slight baby step down from the rather excellent first series. Some of the episodes feel like they drag a little, although they do end up picking up towards the end (usually with a bang). The final two episodes definitely try and make up for this and I think the finale itself was especially good as we get to see Stormfront get her much deserved comeuppance. I also think some of the interactions between Starlight and the other characters are slightly badly scripted and feel a little forced and cringeworthy, but I’m not entirely sure if this is on purpose to show how awkwardly Starlight interacts with others.
The Deep has also been done a disservice in this series. He starts off brilliantly and the scene with the whale in the third episode is downright genius, however as the series moves on we see less and less of him and he’s sorely missed. Admittedly when he does pop up in the later episodes he has some cracking lines, but it’s not enough. I also think that Shawn Ashmore as Lamplighter was fantastic for the brief time we saw him, and I really wish he’d been kept around for much longer.
The Boys series 2 is overall a very good series that for the most part lives up to it’s predecessor and after the final few scenes in episode 8, definitely leaves us crying out for more.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Untouchables (1987) in Movies
Dec 16, 2020 (Updated Dec 16, 2020)
A little melodramatic
(not) Film #7 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: The Untouchables
As with most of the films on this list, The Untouchables is a film that has garnered a great deal of acclaim over the years, and yet if I’ve ever seen it, I’m ashamed to admit that I don’t remember it.
The Untouchables (1987) was directed by Brian De Palma and stars Kevin Costner as Eliot Ness, a treasury agent who recruits a group of fellow cops and agents to take down mob boss Al Capone (Robert De Niro) in Prohibition-era Chicago, with Ness and his agents soon becoming known as the “untouchables” after refusing large bribes. Sean Connery, Andy Garcia and Charles Martin Smith make up the rest of the Untouchables.
An American gangster film is a dime a dozen, there have been countless over the years and the 1920s and 30s are always featured fairly heavily, no doubt due to the large number of criminal gangs and mobsters around in that era. Personally whilst The Untouchables is a good film, I don’t think there’s a lot in this to make it particularly notable or outstanding above any of the others. It’s engaging and interesting, which it should be considering the subject matter – it is based on a true story after all. The entire production looks great too; the sets, costumes and locations are very well done and definitely look the part.
The issue with The Untouchables is it’s too melodramatic, too over the top and clichéd. This isn’t helped by Ennio Morricone’s score, which feels far too heavy handed, cheesy and out of place for the scenes. Even the open title credits is ridiculously over dramatic. You can definitely tell this film was made in the 80s and I’m afraid that’s not a good thing. There’s also some questionable acting from Kevin Costner, and while admittedly I’ve never been a big fan of his, the script and some of the almost cringeworthy scenes with Ness’s wife don’t help matters. And De Niro’s Capone pops up in scenes that feel rather random and forced during the first hour, and seem completely out of place with the rest of the story.
Despite this, The Untouchables is still fairly enjoyable and this is mostly due to Sean Connery’s Malone, the role that he won his only Oscar for. The Irishman, despite sounding very Scottish, injects some much needed heart, humour and spirit into the film and without him, this would have been a very lacklustre film indeed. Even Connery’s horrific Irish accent is a source of amusement, and without the character having been described as Irish, I would’ve just assumed he was Scottish.
Overall, I found The Untouchables to be a decent and entertaining gangster film as long as you can ignore the melodramatic overtones. But I’m not convinced that it’s anything memorable or above average, and if it even deserves a place on this list.
Update: So after having watched this film and headed to my Bucket List to scratch it off, I realised that the film on this list is actually The Intouchables, a French film from 2012 also known as Untouchable. Oops. So I’m afraid The Untouchables isn’t number 7 ticked off my bucket list after all 😆
As with most of the films on this list, The Untouchables is a film that has garnered a great deal of acclaim over the years, and yet if I’ve ever seen it, I’m ashamed to admit that I don’t remember it.
The Untouchables (1987) was directed by Brian De Palma and stars Kevin Costner as Eliot Ness, a treasury agent who recruits a group of fellow cops and agents to take down mob boss Al Capone (Robert De Niro) in Prohibition-era Chicago, with Ness and his agents soon becoming known as the “untouchables” after refusing large bribes. Sean Connery, Andy Garcia and Charles Martin Smith make up the rest of the Untouchables.
An American gangster film is a dime a dozen, there have been countless over the years and the 1920s and 30s are always featured fairly heavily, no doubt due to the large number of criminal gangs and mobsters around in that era. Personally whilst The Untouchables is a good film, I don’t think there’s a lot in this to make it particularly notable or outstanding above any of the others. It’s engaging and interesting, which it should be considering the subject matter – it is based on a true story after all. The entire production looks great too; the sets, costumes and locations are very well done and definitely look the part.
The issue with The Untouchables is it’s too melodramatic, too over the top and clichéd. This isn’t helped by Ennio Morricone’s score, which feels far too heavy handed, cheesy and out of place for the scenes. Even the open title credits is ridiculously over dramatic. You can definitely tell this film was made in the 80s and I’m afraid that’s not a good thing. There’s also some questionable acting from Kevin Costner, and while admittedly I’ve never been a big fan of his, the script and some of the almost cringeworthy scenes with Ness’s wife don’t help matters. And De Niro’s Capone pops up in scenes that feel rather random and forced during the first hour, and seem completely out of place with the rest of the story.
Despite this, The Untouchables is still fairly enjoyable and this is mostly due to Sean Connery’s Malone, the role that he won his only Oscar for. The Irishman, despite sounding very Scottish, injects some much needed heart, humour and spirit into the film and without him, this would have been a very lacklustre film indeed. Even Connery’s horrific Irish accent is a source of amusement, and without the character having been described as Irish, I would’ve just assumed he was Scottish.
Overall, I found The Untouchables to be a decent and entertaining gangster film as long as you can ignore the melodramatic overtones. But I’m not convinced that it’s anything memorable or above average, and if it even deserves a place on this list.
Update: So after having watched this film and headed to my Bucket List to scratch it off, I realised that the film on this list is actually The Intouchables, a French film from 2012 also known as Untouchable. Oops. So I’m afraid The Untouchables isn’t number 7 ticked off my bucket list after all 😆
