Search
Search results
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Girl Last Seen in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Lainey was ten when she was taken. She spent three horrible years in her kidnapper's basement, enduring horrible things. Lainey is supposed to be "lucky," since she escaped, but it's hard for her to see it that way sometimes. Her entire life has been formed by that awful period in her life. And now, another girl has gone missing. Olivia Shaw, who looks exactly like Lainey did thirteen years ago. Lainey's kidnapper was never found: the police say because she could never give strong enough evidence to identify him. So Lainey has spent these years afraid, living in a haze of pills and booze, and waiting for something bad to happen. Well, something bad has happened. How exactly is Lainey involved, and is she ever going to be safe again?
I definitely have some mixed feelings about this one. <i>It certainly grabs you from the beginning and has some moments that make you go "what?!"</i> Parts of the story are very unique--I enjoyed the plot of two young women/girls aligned by a potential kidnapper--but the story was marred somewhat by the focus on Lainey's drinking and drugs. She's presented as an unreliable narrator, which I understand, and as a flawed heroine. Some of the scenes with her nearly make you cringe: you feel a mix of such sympathy and frustration, because she's such a stressful protagonist. The trend toward these frustrating, unreliable narrators lately has grown a bit old for me.
My other issue was Lainey's strange dynamic with the detective investigating Olivia's disappearance, Sean: the same detective, coincidentally, who found Lainey thirteen years ago as she stumbled helplessly along the road after escaping her horrible fate in the basement. Their dynamic, frankly, is just odd, and I found it almost distracting from the main story. Romance? Just a side story? Is he involved? It was less a bit of intrigue though and, as I mentioned, a distraction. And honestly, a little confusing. After a while, I started to get a little bored with Lainey's helplessness, her interactions with Sean, and the overall lack of things moving forward.
That changed about 3/4 in, when things picked up and became interesting again. There are definitely some fascinating moments in the book, and I did find it engaging overall, despite some stumbles along the way. This is a first novel and I see room from improvement, for sure. I'm going for a 3-star rating -- this is based on a combination of 2.5 stars for some stilted/cheesy writing combined with 3.5 stars for some exciting plot twists, including one near the end that pretty much made it all worth it. I would certainly be intrigued to read Laurin's next book. Don't let my review scare you from this one: I read a lot of thrillers, so I get bit jaded reading some similar plot devices. There's still plenty of pieces to like here.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!); it is available everywhere as of 07/20/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a></center>;
I definitely have some mixed feelings about this one. <i>It certainly grabs you from the beginning and has some moments that make you go "what?!"</i> Parts of the story are very unique--I enjoyed the plot of two young women/girls aligned by a potential kidnapper--but the story was marred somewhat by the focus on Lainey's drinking and drugs. She's presented as an unreliable narrator, which I understand, and as a flawed heroine. Some of the scenes with her nearly make you cringe: you feel a mix of such sympathy and frustration, because she's such a stressful protagonist. The trend toward these frustrating, unreliable narrators lately has grown a bit old for me.
My other issue was Lainey's strange dynamic with the detective investigating Olivia's disappearance, Sean: the same detective, coincidentally, who found Lainey thirteen years ago as she stumbled helplessly along the road after escaping her horrible fate in the basement. Their dynamic, frankly, is just odd, and I found it almost distracting from the main story. Romance? Just a side story? Is he involved? It was less a bit of intrigue though and, as I mentioned, a distraction. And honestly, a little confusing. After a while, I started to get a little bored with Lainey's helplessness, her interactions with Sean, and the overall lack of things moving forward.
That changed about 3/4 in, when things picked up and became interesting again. There are definitely some fascinating moments in the book, and I did find it engaging overall, despite some stumbles along the way. This is a first novel and I see room from improvement, for sure. I'm going for a 3-star rating -- this is based on a combination of 2.5 stars for some stilted/cheesy writing combined with 3.5 stars for some exciting plot twists, including one near the end that pretty much made it all worth it. I would certainly be intrigued to read Laurin's next book. Don't let my review scare you from this one: I read a lot of thrillers, so I get bit jaded reading some similar plot devices. There's still plenty of pieces to like here.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!); it is available everywhere as of 07/20/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a></center>;
TheDefunctDiva (304 KP) rated The Outsider in Books
Oct 7, 2018
From the Inside, Out
Contains spoilers, click to show
This book opens like an episode of “Law and Order: SVU” not suitable for primetime.
A gruesome crime, involving a child (and complete with elements of cannibalism) is committed. The alleged murderer, damned by seemingly undeniable forensic proof, is then very publicly apprehended. And then the twists and turns begin. Though eyewitnesses also put beloved schoolteacher Terry Maitland at the scene of the horrific crime, the accused was actually at a conference in another city, where he was seen on camera no less. Then comes a series of events that threatens not only the man’s quality of life but his very existence.
The novel then expands into a whodunnit with a notably creepy character, a morphing being known as the Outsider. As the true perpetrator of this and other crimes against children and their families, he is at once very human and very otherworldly.
This novel is set in the southwest, which is an unusual departure for Stephen King. Therefore, the descriptions of places were perhaps a bit less detailed and authentic than I would have liked. But having lived in San Antonio, I can say he did a pretty good job and the scenery offered certainly didn’t detract from the story.
In some respects, the monster in the Outsider echoed back to Kafka’s The Metamorphosis. The descriptions of the constantly morphing Outsider character had an eerie element. In the end, the flesh of the outsider consisted of nightmarish worms. And there was a particularly nasty substance he used to morph into his intended victims, some unidentifiable black substance which seems the stuff nightmares are made of. Appropriate, since he went around “eating sorrow” like some unhinged emo kid. Leaving entire families in his wake with his vile need to satiate himself. In his default shape, he resembled a man with “straws for eyes” which is haunting, but not nearly as terrifying as some of King’s other humanoid villains.
This book had several scenes that are now ingrained in my memory. The scene that stole the show for me was when bereaved Arlene Peterson, the victim’s mother, pours funeral leftovers on her head before ultimately succumbing to a heart attack. But the arraignment scene was definitely one that offered more action and intrigue than previously seen in the book. Chaos is one of the things King does best, and this section was remarkable. The book up to this point dragged a little, but the arraignment reigns as a pivotal point that brings many horrors sharply into focus.
I especially enjoyed the murder mystery elements of the book, as I am a sucker for a good detective story. Holly, an investigator who worked with lead detective Ralph Anderson, was my favorite character. Throughout the novel, she is depicted as smart, shrewd, and socially inept. She is also a tad obsessive-compulsive, which I related to on a personal level.
Throughout, the book seems to focus on the dual nature of man, especially in the concluding scene. It seems every man in his lifetime, by choice or fate, wears more than one face. The Outsider was a quality thriller and mystery. It is at once mysterious and devastating, and a testament to the tenacity of the human spirit.
A gruesome crime, involving a child (and complete with elements of cannibalism) is committed. The alleged murderer, damned by seemingly undeniable forensic proof, is then very publicly apprehended. And then the twists and turns begin. Though eyewitnesses also put beloved schoolteacher Terry Maitland at the scene of the horrific crime, the accused was actually at a conference in another city, where he was seen on camera no less. Then comes a series of events that threatens not only the man’s quality of life but his very existence.
The novel then expands into a whodunnit with a notably creepy character, a morphing being known as the Outsider. As the true perpetrator of this and other crimes against children and their families, he is at once very human and very otherworldly.
This novel is set in the southwest, which is an unusual departure for Stephen King. Therefore, the descriptions of places were perhaps a bit less detailed and authentic than I would have liked. But having lived in San Antonio, I can say he did a pretty good job and the scenery offered certainly didn’t detract from the story.
In some respects, the monster in the Outsider echoed back to Kafka’s The Metamorphosis. The descriptions of the constantly morphing Outsider character had an eerie element. In the end, the flesh of the outsider consisted of nightmarish worms. And there was a particularly nasty substance he used to morph into his intended victims, some unidentifiable black substance which seems the stuff nightmares are made of. Appropriate, since he went around “eating sorrow” like some unhinged emo kid. Leaving entire families in his wake with his vile need to satiate himself. In his default shape, he resembled a man with “straws for eyes” which is haunting, but not nearly as terrifying as some of King’s other humanoid villains.
This book had several scenes that are now ingrained in my memory. The scene that stole the show for me was when bereaved Arlene Peterson, the victim’s mother, pours funeral leftovers on her head before ultimately succumbing to a heart attack. But the arraignment scene was definitely one that offered more action and intrigue than previously seen in the book. Chaos is one of the things King does best, and this section was remarkable. The book up to this point dragged a little, but the arraignment reigns as a pivotal point that brings many horrors sharply into focus.
I especially enjoyed the murder mystery elements of the book, as I am a sucker for a good detective story. Holly, an investigator who worked with lead detective Ralph Anderson, was my favorite character. Throughout the novel, she is depicted as smart, shrewd, and socially inept. She is also a tad obsessive-compulsive, which I related to on a personal level.
Throughout, the book seems to focus on the dual nature of man, especially in the concluding scene. It seems every man in his lifetime, by choice or fate, wears more than one face. The Outsider was a quality thriller and mystery. It is at once mysterious and devastating, and a testament to the tenacity of the human spirit.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Fifty Shades Darker (2017) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Anastasia Steele (Dakota Johnson) and Christian Grey (Jamie Dornan) have returned in “50 Shades Darker” which looks to continue the massive success of the series.
Picking up shortly after the last film, the newly single Anastasia has begun working her dream job as an assistant in a Seattle publishing company. When she is reunited with Christian at a social event, he pleads with her to take him back and offers to redefine the terms of their relationship agreement.
Although cautions, she takes him back and despite telling him she wants to take it slow, the first of many sex scenes follow.
Although happy to be reunited, the pair are plagued by issues from Christian’s past as well as his own inner demons which constantly pull at them and threaten to undermine their new relationship.
Of course much if it is little more than thinly veiled lip service designed to get them into the bedroom time and time again so the camera can focus on their bodies and Christian resorting to his old ways with all manner of restraints and devices.
One would think that a film that is supposed to be so erotic would be far more exciting and titillating but the film’s sex scenes are so dull and by the numbers you will soon find yourself losing interest. A big part of this goes to the total lack of chemistry between the leads. If you thought it was strained in the first film it is pretty much non-existent this time out. The dialogue is also not much better as it is laughably bad in areas and unintentionally funny. The monotone delivery of the leads does not help much as it seems like there is a competition to see how many shots of the beautiful Seattle area and their bodies can be creamed into the film.
Kim Bassinger does bring the film a bit of intrigue as a woman from Christian’s past, but she is not in the film enough to really make that much of a difference as pretty much all of the supporting characters are paper thin and not given the chance to grow.
I did like the film more than I liked the original film, but I continue to struggle with the appeal of the film series. The leads lack any chemistry and supporters of the BDSM lifestyle have said the series does not portray their lifestyle accurately and that what Christian does is abusive.
I posted the question that how much appeal would the series have if Christian was a struggling musician living in a hovel who could not even afford a Starbucks run. He would be considered a deeply damaged individual who women would run from. But package him up as a young and attractive billionaire, and it seems that common sense goes out the window as far as the ladies in his life go, and he gets a pass on behaviors that would be totally unacceptable to most.
For me the lack of eroticism, chemistry between the leads, and a compelling story could be overlooked as despite the issues, it does entertain. But when the characters are so hard to like, I found myself not having much sympathy for any obstacles they encountered. My advice, wait for the video as there are far more erotic and entertaining films on Netflix.
http://sknr.net/2017/02/09/50-shades-darker/
Picking up shortly after the last film, the newly single Anastasia has begun working her dream job as an assistant in a Seattle publishing company. When she is reunited with Christian at a social event, he pleads with her to take him back and offers to redefine the terms of their relationship agreement.
Although cautions, she takes him back and despite telling him she wants to take it slow, the first of many sex scenes follow.
Although happy to be reunited, the pair are plagued by issues from Christian’s past as well as his own inner demons which constantly pull at them and threaten to undermine their new relationship.
Of course much if it is little more than thinly veiled lip service designed to get them into the bedroom time and time again so the camera can focus on their bodies and Christian resorting to his old ways with all manner of restraints and devices.
One would think that a film that is supposed to be so erotic would be far more exciting and titillating but the film’s sex scenes are so dull and by the numbers you will soon find yourself losing interest. A big part of this goes to the total lack of chemistry between the leads. If you thought it was strained in the first film it is pretty much non-existent this time out. The dialogue is also not much better as it is laughably bad in areas and unintentionally funny. The monotone delivery of the leads does not help much as it seems like there is a competition to see how many shots of the beautiful Seattle area and their bodies can be creamed into the film.
Kim Bassinger does bring the film a bit of intrigue as a woman from Christian’s past, but she is not in the film enough to really make that much of a difference as pretty much all of the supporting characters are paper thin and not given the chance to grow.
I did like the film more than I liked the original film, but I continue to struggle with the appeal of the film series. The leads lack any chemistry and supporters of the BDSM lifestyle have said the series does not portray their lifestyle accurately and that what Christian does is abusive.
I posted the question that how much appeal would the series have if Christian was a struggling musician living in a hovel who could not even afford a Starbucks run. He would be considered a deeply damaged individual who women would run from. But package him up as a young and attractive billionaire, and it seems that common sense goes out the window as far as the ladies in his life go, and he gets a pass on behaviors that would be totally unacceptable to most.
For me the lack of eroticism, chemistry between the leads, and a compelling story could be overlooked as despite the issues, it does entertain. But when the characters are so hard to like, I found myself not having much sympathy for any obstacles they encountered. My advice, wait for the video as there are far more erotic and entertaining films on Netflix.
http://sknr.net/2017/02/09/50-shades-darker/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Syriana (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Oil, is perhaps the most precious natural resource on the planet and also one of the most controversial. It powers industry and the economies of many nations, yet the regions that contain the largest amounts are often the most unstable, and this instability often results from the influences of the very nations that purchase the oil.
It is a tenuous situation where buyer and seller are wary of one another and at times regard the other as a necessary evil. The money paid for the oil has made suppliers and handlers rich and powerful, but many on the outside of this privileged circle believe that greed has caused both sides to lose focus on what is most important for the people of their nations.
In the film Syriana viewers follow the paths of different people from various walks of life who for the most part do not know one another, yet are all linked by the same cause, oil.
There is the C.I.A. agent Bob Barnes (George Clooney), who spends time in locales such as Iran and Beirut eliminating threats to national security.
A lawyer, (Jeffrey Wright), who is caught in the middle as he attempts to find, and if need be eliminate damaging material that can prevent a pending merger between two oil companies.
There is the grieving energy analyst Bryan Woodman (Matt Damon), who deals with his loss by siding up with a powerful Prince, (Alexander Siddig), even at the alienation of his family.
There is also a displaced Pakistani worker who after losing his job when a Chinese company acquires the refinery where he worked, falls in with a group of radicals with a militant agenda.
The above is just a small sampling of the characters as there are numerous business, political, and Middle Eastern citizens who all play very prominent parts in the story.
The main focus of the film is not only to illustrate the connectivity between the characters but to show how politics and big business influence policy in oil rich nations and how through secret deals, political intrigue, and treachery policy in and towards the same oil producing nations are set into place and maintained.
While this is not much of a shock to people who follow the news, it is the way that director Stephen Gaghan uses ordinary and in some ways unremarkable people to tell the story and how it affects those who deal with oil.
Even those who are supposed the big players are often simply being played by forces outside their control in a world where reality and perceptions are often miles apart. The complex nature of the story is actually a model of simplicity as cause and effect, as well as the ability of big business to influence lawmakers is what drives the film.
The cast is strong especially Clooney and Siddig who make their characters sympathetic while at the same time captivating. The contrast of the men who are a Prince and an agent, yet whose destinies often cause them to walk along the same paths is amazing.
Syriana is an amazing film that is so complex in its simplicity. The basic message is very clear, yet the layers that must be uncovered like a tangled web of lies in telling the story is a far reaching journey that will shock and anger most viewers.
Some may find fault with a so called liberal agenda to the film, but politics aside, Syriana is a very captivating and entertaining film that makes you think.
It is a tenuous situation where buyer and seller are wary of one another and at times regard the other as a necessary evil. The money paid for the oil has made suppliers and handlers rich and powerful, but many on the outside of this privileged circle believe that greed has caused both sides to lose focus on what is most important for the people of their nations.
In the film Syriana viewers follow the paths of different people from various walks of life who for the most part do not know one another, yet are all linked by the same cause, oil.
There is the C.I.A. agent Bob Barnes (George Clooney), who spends time in locales such as Iran and Beirut eliminating threats to national security.
A lawyer, (Jeffrey Wright), who is caught in the middle as he attempts to find, and if need be eliminate damaging material that can prevent a pending merger between two oil companies.
There is the grieving energy analyst Bryan Woodman (Matt Damon), who deals with his loss by siding up with a powerful Prince, (Alexander Siddig), even at the alienation of his family.
There is also a displaced Pakistani worker who after losing his job when a Chinese company acquires the refinery where he worked, falls in with a group of radicals with a militant agenda.
The above is just a small sampling of the characters as there are numerous business, political, and Middle Eastern citizens who all play very prominent parts in the story.
The main focus of the film is not only to illustrate the connectivity between the characters but to show how politics and big business influence policy in oil rich nations and how through secret deals, political intrigue, and treachery policy in and towards the same oil producing nations are set into place and maintained.
While this is not much of a shock to people who follow the news, it is the way that director Stephen Gaghan uses ordinary and in some ways unremarkable people to tell the story and how it affects those who deal with oil.
Even those who are supposed the big players are often simply being played by forces outside their control in a world where reality and perceptions are often miles apart. The complex nature of the story is actually a model of simplicity as cause and effect, as well as the ability of big business to influence lawmakers is what drives the film.
The cast is strong especially Clooney and Siddig who make their characters sympathetic while at the same time captivating. The contrast of the men who are a Prince and an agent, yet whose destinies often cause them to walk along the same paths is amazing.
Syriana is an amazing film that is so complex in its simplicity. The basic message is very clear, yet the layers that must be uncovered like a tangled web of lies in telling the story is a far reaching journey that will shock and anger most viewers.
Some may find fault with a so called liberal agenda to the film, but politics aside, Syriana is a very captivating and entertaining film that makes you think.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Marie Antoinette, Serial Killer in Books
Jan 23, 2020
I only picked up <i>Marie Antoinette, Serial Killer</i> for two reasons: 1) Marie Antoinette is a serial killer. I <i>had</i> to see it. 2) I'm in need of a book that's less of a romance. Oh, and I need a break from all of the books out there that do before I blow a gasket. Really, it's for everyone's benefit.
This book is a fantastic break for me – it's <b>not a fluffy book set in Paris with a Paris romance</b> (though there <i>is</i> a sort-of Paris romance I'm totally peachy with), despite the fact Alender starts things off with a gruesome murder involving a head being chopped off by a ghost.
No, I did not actually enjoy reading a person getting her head chopped off by a flying broken mirror shard caused by a ghost. I might be a ninja and secretly evil, but I don't actually enjoy those kinds of things.
France's history in the late 18th century is quite intriguing – from helping the US with the American Revolution against the British and then entering their own Revolution against the monarchy a little over a decade later. Alender's book is <b>full of rich details involving French history and culture circulating the Revolution</b> (despite the fact some facts were liberated by Alender to fit the overall plot of the story) as Colette tours France with her classmates, questions her roots and her friendship with Hannah, and tries to figure out why she's seeing a Marie Antoinette lookalike everywhere.
<b>The amount of French the author uses throughout the book isn't overwhelming</b> – it's enough to keep the intrigue, but not enough where it'll be overly confusing and categorizing the book as a piece of French literature. Then again, it's probably helpful when 1) the main character isn't entirely proficient at French, and 2) the romance languages are so similar, I pretty much understand the basis of the conversations with my sliver understanding of Spanish and Italian.
On the overall basis of the book being well written, I had mixed feelings for Colette for awhile – she's both likable and not likable at the same time. She's not likable because <b>she just seems to have a very snobby attitude of sorts, tries too hard to fit in with the rich and wealthy at her private school, and spends her time being a doormat in the beginning of the book for fear of facing Hannah's wrath</b>. As the book goes on and everyone makes Colette questions her friendship with Hannah, Colette slowly becomes likable – someone who isn't snobby after all, and her ending with Hannah is quite fantastic. Of course, it does become a little obvious there's some sort of gap between their friendship (and growing) since Colette secretly rebels at times without Hannah's knowledge.
All in all, <i>Marie Antoinette, Serial Killer</i> is <b>a book about deception, loyalty, and how even the dead can come back for revenge to complete unfinished business before they can finally rest in peace.</b>
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-marie-antoinette-serial-killer-by-katie-alender/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
This book is a fantastic break for me – it's <b>not a fluffy book set in Paris with a Paris romance</b> (though there <i>is</i> a sort-of Paris romance I'm totally peachy with), despite the fact Alender starts things off with a gruesome murder involving a head being chopped off by a ghost.
No, I did not actually enjoy reading a person getting her head chopped off by a flying broken mirror shard caused by a ghost. I might be a ninja and secretly evil, but I don't actually enjoy those kinds of things.
France's history in the late 18th century is quite intriguing – from helping the US with the American Revolution against the British and then entering their own Revolution against the monarchy a little over a decade later. Alender's book is <b>full of rich details involving French history and culture circulating the Revolution</b> (despite the fact some facts were liberated by Alender to fit the overall plot of the story) as Colette tours France with her classmates, questions her roots and her friendship with Hannah, and tries to figure out why she's seeing a Marie Antoinette lookalike everywhere.
<b>The amount of French the author uses throughout the book isn't overwhelming</b> – it's enough to keep the intrigue, but not enough where it'll be overly confusing and categorizing the book as a piece of French literature. Then again, it's probably helpful when 1) the main character isn't entirely proficient at French, and 2) the romance languages are so similar, I pretty much understand the basis of the conversations with my sliver understanding of Spanish and Italian.
On the overall basis of the book being well written, I had mixed feelings for Colette for awhile – she's both likable and not likable at the same time. She's not likable because <b>she just seems to have a very snobby attitude of sorts, tries too hard to fit in with the rich and wealthy at her private school, and spends her time being a doormat in the beginning of the book for fear of facing Hannah's wrath</b>. As the book goes on and everyone makes Colette questions her friendship with Hannah, Colette slowly becomes likable – someone who isn't snobby after all, and her ending with Hannah is quite fantastic. Of course, it does become a little obvious there's some sort of gap between their friendship (and growing) since Colette secretly rebels at times without Hannah's knowledge.
All in all, <i>Marie Antoinette, Serial Killer</i> is <b>a book about deception, loyalty, and how even the dead can come back for revenge to complete unfinished business before they can finally rest in peace.</b>
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-marie-antoinette-serial-killer-by-katie-alender/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Turning (2020) in Movies
Mar 2, 2020
On reflection, I'm going to have to apologise to Like A Boss for saying it was the worst film I saw in January.
Another adaptation of another classic novel... I'll get this broken record fixed at some point, I promise. Though not until after Dolittle, oh and The Invisible Man, oh and The True History Of The Kelly Gang... you know what? Never mind!
Kate is looking for a different challenge and so she quits her teaching job to become governess to a young girl living on her uncle's estate with his housekeeper after her parent's tragic death. Life in the house is strange even before her brother arrives home suddenly from boarding school. There's something untoward going on but everything defies logic. Can she get out without it slowly eating away at her sanity?
But Emma, this is a horror and you don't like going to horrors at the cinema! No, you're right, but I'm still trying to be brave... but my god do I wish I'd picked a better film.
The first thing I would query is the time jump this film makes from its source material. I can understand wanting to modernise something to get a new audience, I really can, but its setting in 1994 didn't make a lot of sense and at the same time wasn't very noticeable. Within the house and grounds you'd be forgiven for thinking it was a period thriller because there was little to remind you it wasn't. Why not just go the whole hog and set it in the present day? The house could still have been off the grid, it would have allowed for extra backstory being inserted by her researching (I suspect the inclusion of Kate's friend was to allow for extra story details) and then in the climax of the film she could have been cut off from her access to the outside world. There's nothing quite like making an audience fear the technology they hold dear like that.
1 hour and 34 minutes, that was the entire runtime. Normally that's something to be applauded, but in this instance it was an agonising 94 minutes of programming. There was nothing in the film that gripped me, mild intrigue at times, but there was nothing to sustain that interest through any major sections of the film. Jump scares seemed to be the way it wanted to go but even I, the scardiest scaredy cat there ever was, could see them coming, meaning they made no impact.
Both Mackenzie Davis and Finn Wolfhard are good actors but there was no chemistry on screen. I felt no genuine tension between the two at all even though Miles was the certainly playing the creeper card a lot.
If you're talking about The Turning then you have to address the style of ending. A film that leaves you able to interpret what you want from certain events is something to be treasured and is a stroke of genius when done correctly. It's a great marketing tool because your audience are still thinking about the film and discussing it with people long after they've seen it. But for that discussion to be positive you need to have a film that hooks you in and The Turning just didn't do that for me.
Sometimes suspense works better as the written word.
Originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-turning-movie-review.html
Another adaptation of another classic novel... I'll get this broken record fixed at some point, I promise. Though not until after Dolittle, oh and The Invisible Man, oh and The True History Of The Kelly Gang... you know what? Never mind!
Kate is looking for a different challenge and so she quits her teaching job to become governess to a young girl living on her uncle's estate with his housekeeper after her parent's tragic death. Life in the house is strange even before her brother arrives home suddenly from boarding school. There's something untoward going on but everything defies logic. Can she get out without it slowly eating away at her sanity?
But Emma, this is a horror and you don't like going to horrors at the cinema! No, you're right, but I'm still trying to be brave... but my god do I wish I'd picked a better film.
The first thing I would query is the time jump this film makes from its source material. I can understand wanting to modernise something to get a new audience, I really can, but its setting in 1994 didn't make a lot of sense and at the same time wasn't very noticeable. Within the house and grounds you'd be forgiven for thinking it was a period thriller because there was little to remind you it wasn't. Why not just go the whole hog and set it in the present day? The house could still have been off the grid, it would have allowed for extra backstory being inserted by her researching (I suspect the inclusion of Kate's friend was to allow for extra story details) and then in the climax of the film she could have been cut off from her access to the outside world. There's nothing quite like making an audience fear the technology they hold dear like that.
1 hour and 34 minutes, that was the entire runtime. Normally that's something to be applauded, but in this instance it was an agonising 94 minutes of programming. There was nothing in the film that gripped me, mild intrigue at times, but there was nothing to sustain that interest through any major sections of the film. Jump scares seemed to be the way it wanted to go but even I, the scardiest scaredy cat there ever was, could see them coming, meaning they made no impact.
Both Mackenzie Davis and Finn Wolfhard are good actors but there was no chemistry on screen. I felt no genuine tension between the two at all even though Miles was the certainly playing the creeper card a lot.
If you're talking about The Turning then you have to address the style of ending. A film that leaves you able to interpret what you want from certain events is something to be treasured and is a stroke of genius when done correctly. It's a great marketing tool because your audience are still thinking about the film and discussing it with people long after they've seen it. But for that discussion to be positive you need to have a film that hooks you in and The Turning just didn't do that for me.
Sometimes suspense works better as the written word.
Originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-turning-movie-review.html
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Knives Out (2019) in Movies
Mar 6, 2020
Consistent Blast
In the Whodunit drama, detective Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig) has to uncover who killed famous author Harlan Thrombey (Christopher Plummer).
Acting: 10
I can’t speak enough about the amazing performances that made this movie come alive. I honestly don’t know where to start or who had the best chops because they were all so wonderful. Jamie Lee Curtis has always been one of my favorite actresses and her role didn’t disappoint here. She’s Linda Robinson who serves as somewhat of a matriarch in the family. She delivers her lines with such perfect timing and such fluid grace that it’s hard not to love her character. I also appreciated Jaeden Martell’s role in the movie. I can only imagine how hard it is as the youngest cast member when you have all these heavy-hitting stars beside you, but he definitely held his own by putting on a performance here that was even better than his role in It, in my opinion.
Beginning: 10
You are immediately thrown into this story from jump like you are springboarding into the sky. The intrigue is immediate which gave me an instant feeling that I was going to like this movie. It’s a perfect setup for what is to come.
Characters: 10
Nothing short of spectacular. Again, where do I start? I love that every single one of these characters in the movie have a rich story that’s connected to the deceased. There is also some kind of growth (whether negative or positive) with each character which is hard to juggle when you’re talking about managing runtime as well as screentime. I could pinpoint one specific role, but I loved each and every single one of them. That’s not a very common thing to say.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Director Rian Johnson really hits home on the visuals with an interesting blend of vivid colors and bleak imagery. I have a great appreciation with how the movie was ultimately cut. It’s a film that doesn’t rush, but takes its time, really capturing special dramatic moments. It almost feels like a Wes Anderson meets Stephen King type of cinematic adventure.
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 10
From shock value to mystery, Knives Out keeps you on your toes start to finish. It’s funny, it’s smart, and, most importantly, it’s original. This kind of movie has been done dozens of times before and this one is, by far, the most unique of the bunch. It truly is in a class of its own.
Memorability: 10
Pace: 9
With a 130-minute runtime, it’s only natural that there would be a slip-up in pace here and there. Fortunately, the slowdowns are very brief and barely noticeable. I can only think of one or two moments where I thought, “They could’ve cut that.” The momentum is pretty incredible otherwise.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
Ends strongly, yet smoothly with a finite resolution. I found it funny that the ending was actually a subtle knife into the hearts of the antagonists. The conclusion is a beautiful whisper.
Overall: 99
Knives Out is hilarious yet touching at the same time. With an original storyline, consistent pace, and brilliant characters the movie succeeds on just about every level. It was both refreshing and unexpected to watch a movie this grand.
Acting: 10
I can’t speak enough about the amazing performances that made this movie come alive. I honestly don’t know where to start or who had the best chops because they were all so wonderful. Jamie Lee Curtis has always been one of my favorite actresses and her role didn’t disappoint here. She’s Linda Robinson who serves as somewhat of a matriarch in the family. She delivers her lines with such perfect timing and such fluid grace that it’s hard not to love her character. I also appreciated Jaeden Martell’s role in the movie. I can only imagine how hard it is as the youngest cast member when you have all these heavy-hitting stars beside you, but he definitely held his own by putting on a performance here that was even better than his role in It, in my opinion.
Beginning: 10
You are immediately thrown into this story from jump like you are springboarding into the sky. The intrigue is immediate which gave me an instant feeling that I was going to like this movie. It’s a perfect setup for what is to come.
Characters: 10
Nothing short of spectacular. Again, where do I start? I love that every single one of these characters in the movie have a rich story that’s connected to the deceased. There is also some kind of growth (whether negative or positive) with each character which is hard to juggle when you’re talking about managing runtime as well as screentime. I could pinpoint one specific role, but I loved each and every single one of them. That’s not a very common thing to say.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Director Rian Johnson really hits home on the visuals with an interesting blend of vivid colors and bleak imagery. I have a great appreciation with how the movie was ultimately cut. It’s a film that doesn’t rush, but takes its time, really capturing special dramatic moments. It almost feels like a Wes Anderson meets Stephen King type of cinematic adventure.
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 10
From shock value to mystery, Knives Out keeps you on your toes start to finish. It’s funny, it’s smart, and, most importantly, it’s original. This kind of movie has been done dozens of times before and this one is, by far, the most unique of the bunch. It truly is in a class of its own.
Memorability: 10
Pace: 9
With a 130-minute runtime, it’s only natural that there would be a slip-up in pace here and there. Fortunately, the slowdowns are very brief and barely noticeable. I can only think of one or two moments where I thought, “They could’ve cut that.” The momentum is pretty incredible otherwise.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
Ends strongly, yet smoothly with a finite resolution. I found it funny that the ending was actually a subtle knife into the hearts of the antagonists. The conclusion is a beautiful whisper.
Overall: 99
Knives Out is hilarious yet touching at the same time. With an original storyline, consistent pace, and brilliant characters the movie succeeds on just about every level. It was both refreshing and unexpected to watch a movie this grand.
JT (287 KP) rated Dead Man Down (2013) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
If you’re looking for a film that is as dark and disturbing as The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, you might be a little disappointed here.
Only a little however, director Niels Arden Oplev’s first English language feature produces effective results in what is a very good revenge thriller. Colin Farrell plays gangland enforcer Victor who during a shoot out saves the life of his boss Alphonse (Howard) who is being tormented by an unknown hell bent on making his life uncomfortable.
Victor has his own agenda, getting as close to Alphonse as possible before exacting revenge for the murder of his wife and daughter years earlier. On the surface it looks like any bog standard Hollywood revenge thriller but dig a little deeper and therein lies an intricate story that weaves its way through to an explosive finale.
Oplev brings back Dragon Tattoo star Noomi Rapace and gives her a darker character, (one that she’ll be able to relate with) who has a past that has scared her, both inside and out, she’s after some revenge of her own. Comparisons will be drawn to her most famous female lead, Lisbeth Salander.
Rapace plays Beatrice, a lonely individual who lives with her slightly deaf mother Valentine (Isabelle Huppert) who has a penchant for cooking and Tupperware and it would be argued her talents are wasted in this. Beatrice blackmails Victor when she catches him knocking off a gang member in his apartment, and tells him that she’ll go to he police unless he helps her kill someone from her past.
Despite coming across as a revenge-actioner in the trailers the film itself has a lot more going for it than that, there is so much more to the story than just cracking heads and explosions. Beatrice’s pain at being scarred by a drunk diver who all but got away leaves her encased in worry and self pity, while Valentine does her best to push her back out into the world.
The relationship between Victor and Beatrice is cagey at first, but this isn’t an initial romance that is going to blossom with them walking off into the sunset together, not at the beginning anyway. It is hard to tell who really wants what and its more about the coming together of two lost souls whose first thought in life is revenge, leaving everything else to come second.
The on screen chemistry between the two lead protagonists is believable, Farrell is steely eyed and strong and Rapace conveys herself with devilish intrigue while at the same time giving off a sense of vulnerability. Terrance Howard is slick and does a decent job, although I could think of a number of other actors who probably could have pulled off the character with a great deal more menace.
The action is pretty good, the highlight being the pulsating last 15 minutes which to be honest was well worth the admission price alone. There was what I would call a ‘copout’ moment at the end, and after everything that Farrell had gone through I would have thought more attention would have been centered on that, instead I left feeling slightly short changed.
It’s a solid film from Niels Arden Oplev with some great acting and a finale that will leave you gasping for an encore.
Only a little however, director Niels Arden Oplev’s first English language feature produces effective results in what is a very good revenge thriller. Colin Farrell plays gangland enforcer Victor who during a shoot out saves the life of his boss Alphonse (Howard) who is being tormented by an unknown hell bent on making his life uncomfortable.
Victor has his own agenda, getting as close to Alphonse as possible before exacting revenge for the murder of his wife and daughter years earlier. On the surface it looks like any bog standard Hollywood revenge thriller but dig a little deeper and therein lies an intricate story that weaves its way through to an explosive finale.
Oplev brings back Dragon Tattoo star Noomi Rapace and gives her a darker character, (one that she’ll be able to relate with) who has a past that has scared her, both inside and out, she’s after some revenge of her own. Comparisons will be drawn to her most famous female lead, Lisbeth Salander.
Rapace plays Beatrice, a lonely individual who lives with her slightly deaf mother Valentine (Isabelle Huppert) who has a penchant for cooking and Tupperware and it would be argued her talents are wasted in this. Beatrice blackmails Victor when she catches him knocking off a gang member in his apartment, and tells him that she’ll go to he police unless he helps her kill someone from her past.
Despite coming across as a revenge-actioner in the trailers the film itself has a lot more going for it than that, there is so much more to the story than just cracking heads and explosions. Beatrice’s pain at being scarred by a drunk diver who all but got away leaves her encased in worry and self pity, while Valentine does her best to push her back out into the world.
The relationship between Victor and Beatrice is cagey at first, but this isn’t an initial romance that is going to blossom with them walking off into the sunset together, not at the beginning anyway. It is hard to tell who really wants what and its more about the coming together of two lost souls whose first thought in life is revenge, leaving everything else to come second.
The on screen chemistry between the two lead protagonists is believable, Farrell is steely eyed and strong and Rapace conveys herself with devilish intrigue while at the same time giving off a sense of vulnerability. Terrance Howard is slick and does a decent job, although I could think of a number of other actors who probably could have pulled off the character with a great deal more menace.
The action is pretty good, the highlight being the pulsating last 15 minutes which to be honest was well worth the admission price alone. There was what I would call a ‘copout’ moment at the end, and after everything that Farrell had gone through I would have thought more attention would have been centered on that, instead I left feeling slightly short changed.
It’s a solid film from Niels Arden Oplev with some great acting and a finale that will leave you gasping for an encore.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Safe (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
I’ve returned with another movie review for y’all and it should certainly come as no surprise Whatsoever that my review covers the latest edition to Jason Statham’s growing resume of action Movies. After 3 delays for its U.S. release, “SAFE” has finally arrived.
“Safe” is first and foremost an action film as one would expect from Statham
But somehow he always seems to up his game with even better actions scenes which are brilliantly Choreographed.
Some of which will have you laughing at the ineptness of his enemies
Or to the point where you’ll cringe at the very thought of the pain the characters might be going through. But as always, it’s worth it. This time, they’ve even thrown in more of a storyline and a plot twist or two that would peak Tarentino’s interest.
From writer/director by Boaz Yakin and executive producer Kevin Spacey and producer Lawrence Bender (Of Pulp Fiction and Inglorious Bastards fame), Jason Statham stars as Luke Wright. A garbage man turned second-rate cage fighter and former NYPD officer. Upon leaving the NYPD after testifying against corrupt NYPD detectives, Luke drifts from garbage man to Mixed Martial Arts fighter.
In order to support his pregnant wife. Upon winning a fight that he was supposed to lose the bad guys decides to make an example of him by brutally murdering his wife and unborn child. If this was not bad enough, the bad guys then tell Luke that they will murder anyone he comes into contact with as is illustrated when they later kill a homeless man Luke gave his shoes to.
Meanwhile, Mei (Catherine Chan) a young math prodigy, is forced to be a ‘counter’ for a Chinese triad (in essence instead of using computers, the triad forces her to memorize everything from money for drug transactions to police payoffs etc.), in order to keep the triad from killing her mother.
Upon learning of the death of her mother, Mei escapes but with the knowledge of the entire organization retained in her memory the triad hunts her down through the streets of New York City while also trying to avoid the same thugs who terrorize Luke as they have discovered who she is and want to use everything she knows to bring down their competitors.
Luke, mourning the loss of his wife and unborn child nearly commits suicide by jumping in front of a subway when he witness Mei being chased through the subway by the same goons who killed his wife.
After realizing that he is the only one who can protect Mei, Luke begins a brutal rampage through New York City battling all who stand in the way and pose a threat to Mei.
To sum up the movie briefly it is Grand Theft Auto meets “The Transporter” in New York City
minus the sex, drugs, and the modified Audi with the V-12 rocket engine.
There are plenty of shootouts, fight scenes, car chases, in even some intrigue to keep you thinking. A most excellent movie if you’re looking to take a break from the sunny weather and take refuge in a cool air-conditioned movie theater as the film is more than worth spending your hard earned cash on.
“Safe” is first and foremost an action film as one would expect from Statham
But somehow he always seems to up his game with even better actions scenes which are brilliantly Choreographed.
Some of which will have you laughing at the ineptness of his enemies
Or to the point where you’ll cringe at the very thought of the pain the characters might be going through. But as always, it’s worth it. This time, they’ve even thrown in more of a storyline and a plot twist or two that would peak Tarentino’s interest.
From writer/director by Boaz Yakin and executive producer Kevin Spacey and producer Lawrence Bender (Of Pulp Fiction and Inglorious Bastards fame), Jason Statham stars as Luke Wright. A garbage man turned second-rate cage fighter and former NYPD officer. Upon leaving the NYPD after testifying against corrupt NYPD detectives, Luke drifts from garbage man to Mixed Martial Arts fighter.
In order to support his pregnant wife. Upon winning a fight that he was supposed to lose the bad guys decides to make an example of him by brutally murdering his wife and unborn child. If this was not bad enough, the bad guys then tell Luke that they will murder anyone he comes into contact with as is illustrated when they later kill a homeless man Luke gave his shoes to.
Meanwhile, Mei (Catherine Chan) a young math prodigy, is forced to be a ‘counter’ for a Chinese triad (in essence instead of using computers, the triad forces her to memorize everything from money for drug transactions to police payoffs etc.), in order to keep the triad from killing her mother.
Upon learning of the death of her mother, Mei escapes but with the knowledge of the entire organization retained in her memory the triad hunts her down through the streets of New York City while also trying to avoid the same thugs who terrorize Luke as they have discovered who she is and want to use everything she knows to bring down their competitors.
Luke, mourning the loss of his wife and unborn child nearly commits suicide by jumping in front of a subway when he witness Mei being chased through the subway by the same goons who killed his wife.
After realizing that he is the only one who can protect Mei, Luke begins a brutal rampage through New York City battling all who stand in the way and pose a threat to Mei.
To sum up the movie briefly it is Grand Theft Auto meets “The Transporter” in New York City
minus the sex, drugs, and the modified Audi with the V-12 rocket engine.
There are plenty of shootouts, fight scenes, car chases, in even some intrigue to keep you thinking. A most excellent movie if you’re looking to take a break from the sunny weather and take refuge in a cool air-conditioned movie theater as the film is more than worth spending your hard earned cash on.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Finding Steve McQueen (2019) in Movies
Nov 3, 2020
Not much of a heist
Finding Steve McQueen is a heist drama centring around a young man who idolises Steve McQueen, and follows him as he joins a gang of thieves as they plot to steal millions from President Nixon’s secret funds. This is loosely based around a true story and is told from the point of view of the gang’s getaway driver Harry Barber, with his McQueen inspired locks and mannerisms.
The tale of the 1972 heist is recounted by Barber (Travis Fimmel) to his girlfriend Molly Murphy (Rachael Taylor) in 1980, after having been on the run from the FBI for 8 years. This starts out as though it could be a rather fun and lighthearted heist movie, but I’m afraid despite it’s short 90 minute run time, it feels rather drawn out and dull. Right from the get go, the cinematography, directing style and just general look of this film just doesn’t feel right. It feels like it has been made for tv, it has that rather cheap look about it and sadly the camera angles and character styling do nothing but reinforce this. The CGI, whilst infrequent, is very bad and you can spot the green screen scenes a mile off. Even the car chase scene is lacklustre and unimpressive. You can tell that this hasn’t had a lot of money thrown at it.
The performances too I’m afraid are also rather lacking, although a large part of this is likely down to the often dodgy script that seems to enjoy ramming 70s references down our throats whilst being completely unconvincing about every other aspect of the story. I haven’t see much of Travis Fimmel, so I’m not sure if his goofy persona in this is his acting style or in character, but either way it doesn’t always work. Rachael Taylor’s Molly seems out of place and rather unlikeable and it’s only Forest Whitaker as FBI Agent Howard Lambert who comes out unscathed, playing a rather aloof and unfazed agent on the tail of the gang following the heist.
The heist itself is really the main problem here. Instead of being a heist movie, this plays out like a romance with a little bit of heist thrown in, and not a very exciting one at that. There are some moments of intrigue and fun when you see how the gang pulled the heist off and later on how they got caught, but apart from this it’s probably one of the dullest heists I’ve ever seen. Aside from a decent soundtrack, there is very little excitement in this. The motive for the heist also seems rather fuzzy and far fetched. Even the romance seems forced and wavers between being very fake and unconvincing to rather cringeworthy and cliched.
There’s also the question of whether this movie succeeds in finding Steve McQueen, and whilst it is undoubtedly a homage to the man himself, it is not a very successful one. It references all the right things but unfortunately struggles to get close to the man himself and as heist movies go, it may have done itself a disservice by trying to liken itself to McQueen and his successes. Overall I’m afraid this is a rather dull heist film that even with a low budget could’ve been much better.
The tale of the 1972 heist is recounted by Barber (Travis Fimmel) to his girlfriend Molly Murphy (Rachael Taylor) in 1980, after having been on the run from the FBI for 8 years. This starts out as though it could be a rather fun and lighthearted heist movie, but I’m afraid despite it’s short 90 minute run time, it feels rather drawn out and dull. Right from the get go, the cinematography, directing style and just general look of this film just doesn’t feel right. It feels like it has been made for tv, it has that rather cheap look about it and sadly the camera angles and character styling do nothing but reinforce this. The CGI, whilst infrequent, is very bad and you can spot the green screen scenes a mile off. Even the car chase scene is lacklustre and unimpressive. You can tell that this hasn’t had a lot of money thrown at it.
The performances too I’m afraid are also rather lacking, although a large part of this is likely down to the often dodgy script that seems to enjoy ramming 70s references down our throats whilst being completely unconvincing about every other aspect of the story. I haven’t see much of Travis Fimmel, so I’m not sure if his goofy persona in this is his acting style or in character, but either way it doesn’t always work. Rachael Taylor’s Molly seems out of place and rather unlikeable and it’s only Forest Whitaker as FBI Agent Howard Lambert who comes out unscathed, playing a rather aloof and unfazed agent on the tail of the gang following the heist.
The heist itself is really the main problem here. Instead of being a heist movie, this plays out like a romance with a little bit of heist thrown in, and not a very exciting one at that. There are some moments of intrigue and fun when you see how the gang pulled the heist off and later on how they got caught, but apart from this it’s probably one of the dullest heists I’ve ever seen. Aside from a decent soundtrack, there is very little excitement in this. The motive for the heist also seems rather fuzzy and far fetched. Even the romance seems forced and wavers between being very fake and unconvincing to rather cringeworthy and cliched.
There’s also the question of whether this movie succeeds in finding Steve McQueen, and whilst it is undoubtedly a homage to the man himself, it is not a very successful one. It references all the right things but unfortunately struggles to get close to the man himself and as heist movies go, it may have done itself a disservice by trying to liken itself to McQueen and his successes. Overall I’m afraid this is a rather dull heist film that even with a low budget could’ve been much better.