Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 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.
Pumpka (57 KP) rated Cards Against Humanity in Tabletop Games
Aug 15, 2019
Humour (2 more)
player count is high
a game specifically tailored to party people
creativity is limited (2 more)
often a popularity contest
multiple plays decreases the enjoyment of play
Here comes an unpopular opinion - hear me out
now - don't get me wrong, my first time playing Card against Humanity was hilarious! I loved it, I was in. The concept is very simple, you're presented with a silly, funny or rude situation and you have to fill in the blanks using the inappropriate cards from your hand to make the others laugh.
NOW
On MANY plays later, I see the flaw in this design. I've realised this is more of an activity than a game as such. Again, don't go pointing fingers too fast, I did enjoy the game at the start remember? Now, theres an AI built into the game called 'Rando' he can play too for various reasons and he can often win. As suggested, random cards are drawn, and because it usually doesn't make sense, its funny, and therefore wins! This made me realise that I'm not funny. Damn, I've been caught in this web of lies cards against humanity had me caught in. I have very limited choice and often my choices are a result of a card "dump" where really nothing was funny nor fit. A well thought out game might have a mechanic that allows me to do something else with these cards that maybe I don't see use for. So I'm not the one being funny, the predisposed topics and cards are just used as a shock factor -
which promptly brings me to my next point, these things and statements are often funny because you're shocked! THAT is in a card game, woaaah I'm such an adult, wow. No. sadly this may be funny the first time but there's only so many times I can see the "chunks of a dead hooker" card before it looses it's humorous effect. I've played with all of the expansions (which were available before I quit on this game) which was a fair few, and even then it wasn't enough.
The buzz was gone, and I no longer enjoy this game, I've not grown out of it, I'm not a humour buzzkill. There are many other similar style games that provide ample creativity. Now before one of you thinks it, yes, there are blank cards to write on, but it's often not enough to change and sustain the games core.
One more thing before I sign off on this one, it's often a popularity contest. I'm not the most popular in our gaming group, there are certainly people who will favour others and thats normal and fine. BUT when games like this swing around and the winner is essentially cast on a vote of the other players choosing. The winner can often be the same person again, and again and again. Because them putting cards down that were drawn out of a stack randomly and they had no input into the outcome of what those cards says was totally hilarious. They win again.
To summerise, creativity is so limited, it's not YOU being funny, it's the cards. It's not really that re-playable and it's often a popularity contest,
there are many other games of this genre that do it better.
NOW
On MANY plays later, I see the flaw in this design. I've realised this is more of an activity than a game as such. Again, don't go pointing fingers too fast, I did enjoy the game at the start remember? Now, theres an AI built into the game called 'Rando' he can play too for various reasons and he can often win. As suggested, random cards are drawn, and because it usually doesn't make sense, its funny, and therefore wins! This made me realise that I'm not funny. Damn, I've been caught in this web of lies cards against humanity had me caught in. I have very limited choice and often my choices are a result of a card "dump" where really nothing was funny nor fit. A well thought out game might have a mechanic that allows me to do something else with these cards that maybe I don't see use for. So I'm not the one being funny, the predisposed topics and cards are just used as a shock factor -
which promptly brings me to my next point, these things and statements are often funny because you're shocked! THAT is in a card game, woaaah I'm such an adult, wow. No. sadly this may be funny the first time but there's only so many times I can see the "chunks of a dead hooker" card before it looses it's humorous effect. I've played with all of the expansions (which were available before I quit on this game) which was a fair few, and even then it wasn't enough.
The buzz was gone, and I no longer enjoy this game, I've not grown out of it, I'm not a humour buzzkill. There are many other similar style games that provide ample creativity. Now before one of you thinks it, yes, there are blank cards to write on, but it's often not enough to change and sustain the games core.
One more thing before I sign off on this one, it's often a popularity contest. I'm not the most popular in our gaming group, there are certainly people who will favour others and thats normal and fine. BUT when games like this swing around and the winner is essentially cast on a vote of the other players choosing. The winner can often be the same person again, and again and again. Because them putting cards down that were drawn out of a stack randomly and they had no input into the outcome of what those cards says was totally hilarious. They win again.
To summerise, creativity is so limited, it's not YOU being funny, it's the cards. It's not really that re-playable and it's often a popularity contest,
there are many other games of this genre that do it better.
Sass Perilla (36 KP) rated Frankenstein in Books
Aug 9, 2019
The plot and major themes. (1 more)
Further work it inspired.
Readable, but disjointed and repetitive in parts.
Contains spoilers, click to show
Fundamentally, the problem with this book is the narrator, Victor. He is thoroughly detestable. A selfish, cowardly, irresponsible, excuse ridden, narcissistic d****e-bag of the highest order. And unfortunately, it is Victor Frankenstein’s POV that we are forced into for the majority of the novel.
My hatred for and frustration with the self-pitying, feckless behaviour of the (pseudo)
protagonist made this an irritating read for me- and to an extent I think this was Shelley’s intention. Victor isn’t designed to be the likable, affable, morally “good” man fallen from grace he believes himself to be, and the horrific events that befall those around him are of his making.
However, this doesn’t make him any less grating! The "monster" (to me reminiscent of Caliban with his lyrical speech and enforced isolation, being neither man nor not man) is eloquent and persuasive when he asks his creator to account for his misdoings. So, you’ve got to ask yourself, if an infanticidal, demonic, bag of sew together corpses is actually more engaging than the main storyteller, is that storyteller really the
right character to be telling the story?
Now, with all that said, it is an important book. A work by a female author with strong female characters (albeit background characters) who was only nineteen when she wrote the initial draft. Very impressive. But, for me her youth is evident. When we teach secondary school pupils to write creatively, we often give them the ambiguous instruction “show don’t tell”, and for me the book is more of a list of horrible and horrific events told in a Chinese puzzle box style story within a story, rather than an engaging and “complete” narrative. It feels like she chooses to place focus on the wrong “bits”- for example the whole of chapter nineteen where Victor travels the British Isles, comments briefly on the local architecture of each town and city and
then repetitively reminds us that he couldn’t enjoy the surroundings because of his angst.
And I would have at least like to have seen some of the courtroom drama when Victor is tried for the death of Clerval...
So, I hate to be “that” gal, who poo-poos these fantastic works of fiction (we know they’re great because some clever-britches told us they were) but in all honesty, the novel ain’t that good, and I’ll maintain that stance no matter how clever the britches of the opposing schools of thought.
I think the continuing appeal is in it’s universal themes: parenting, nature versus
nurture; morality and scientific advancement- and the whole idea of stitching a creature out of
corpse-parts and electrocuting it to life is pretty darn cool. And there are some really effective
horror scenes, such as the vignette of Victor ripping apart project lady-monster (I kind wish she had a name- a working title- but given he can’t even be bothered to name monster number one I guess this was all too much to hope for).
It’s readable, but it’s value, for me at any rate, lies in the offshoots and creativity it has spawned, rather than the work itself.
My hatred for and frustration with the self-pitying, feckless behaviour of the (pseudo)
protagonist made this an irritating read for me- and to an extent I think this was Shelley’s intention. Victor isn’t designed to be the likable, affable, morally “good” man fallen from grace he believes himself to be, and the horrific events that befall those around him are of his making.
However, this doesn’t make him any less grating! The "monster" (to me reminiscent of Caliban with his lyrical speech and enforced isolation, being neither man nor not man) is eloquent and persuasive when he asks his creator to account for his misdoings. So, you’ve got to ask yourself, if an infanticidal, demonic, bag of sew together corpses is actually more engaging than the main storyteller, is that storyteller really the
right character to be telling the story?
Now, with all that said, it is an important book. A work by a female author with strong female characters (albeit background characters) who was only nineteen when she wrote the initial draft. Very impressive. But, for me her youth is evident. When we teach secondary school pupils to write creatively, we often give them the ambiguous instruction “show don’t tell”, and for me the book is more of a list of horrible and horrific events told in a Chinese puzzle box style story within a story, rather than an engaging and “complete” narrative. It feels like she chooses to place focus on the wrong “bits”- for example the whole of chapter nineteen where Victor travels the British Isles, comments briefly on the local architecture of each town and city and
then repetitively reminds us that he couldn’t enjoy the surroundings because of his angst.
And I would have at least like to have seen some of the courtroom drama when Victor is tried for the death of Clerval...
So, I hate to be “that” gal, who poo-poos these fantastic works of fiction (we know they’re great because some clever-britches told us they were) but in all honesty, the novel ain’t that good, and I’ll maintain that stance no matter how clever the britches of the opposing schools of thought.
I think the continuing appeal is in it’s universal themes: parenting, nature versus
nurture; morality and scientific advancement- and the whole idea of stitching a creature out of
corpse-parts and electrocuting it to life is pretty darn cool. And there are some really effective
horror scenes, such as the vignette of Victor ripping apart project lady-monster (I kind wish she had a name- a working title- but given he can’t even be bothered to name monster number one I guess this was all too much to hope for).
It’s readable, but it’s value, for me at any rate, lies in the offshoots and creativity it has spawned, rather than the work itself.
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated A Night Inn Hell in Books
Nov 21, 2019
This is the first book in a trilogy about a remote and haunted inn - the Hang Inn - where each book tells the story of how some of the souls came to be trapped there. The bulk of the story is set at the end of the 19th century, with the first and last chapters set in contemporary times and told from the point of view of one of the haunting spirits. In preparing to scare a couple of tourists visiting the notorious haunted in, the narrator tells the reader their story.
Peter and Stella have owned the Hang Inn for several months. The Inn is miles from the nearest town and sits among nearly impassable marshland. Trade is slow and they will soon need to think seriously about giving up the inn. Then they are given an offer they can't refuse by Jason, a police officer in a small and secretive unit that tracks down the worst murderers and serial killers in Victorian England and ensures that they are very quietly disposed of. The government will pay for the Hang Inn to be used for the executions. But this is a secret only a few can know, and Peter cannot even tell Stella what is really going on.
The first infamous murderer is executed and Peter begins to doubt he has made the right decision but it is too late. And when the second murderer arrives the ghost of the first torments both him and Peter. How long can Peter keep the secret and what impact will it have on his relationship with Stella?
This is not a ghost story in the conventional sense. The first murderer does haunt the inn some of the nights but most of the story is taken up the effect the situation has on Peter, Stella and Jason as it turns each of their lives upside down and tests each of them. The secret of the executions reveals deeper and darker secrets and the inner character of each of the main protagonists. There are night time chases across the marshes and murders are described and committed.
The plot twists and turns as each victim brought to the inn tells their own story and this has its inevitable effect on Peter and Stella as well as Jason. The relationship between the three of them changes as time goes on. We know that ultimately one of them will be left haunting the inn, but which one? Only the final climactic scenes reveal this.
The book is an enjoyable read, although the nights when the murderers are held in the inn are a lot more gripping and interesting than the periods between which can seem a little over-long with a lot of introspection from the main characters as they try to deal with what is going on around them (and within them). But this does allow the characters to grow, and the interactions between them and the state of their own minds plays a vital role in everything that happens.
The strength of the book lies in the twin strands of the overall story itself and of the murderers. Each is different and each is portrayed excellently by Powell from evil psychopaths to those who feel their actions are justified. Each tells their story in detail with some deft twists to enable this to happen.
Overall this was an enjoyable novel with enough action and twists to keep the reader's interest throughout.
Rating: Scenes of murder and some sexual references
Peter and Stella have owned the Hang Inn for several months. The Inn is miles from the nearest town and sits among nearly impassable marshland. Trade is slow and they will soon need to think seriously about giving up the inn. Then they are given an offer they can't refuse by Jason, a police officer in a small and secretive unit that tracks down the worst murderers and serial killers in Victorian England and ensures that they are very quietly disposed of. The government will pay for the Hang Inn to be used for the executions. But this is a secret only a few can know, and Peter cannot even tell Stella what is really going on.
The first infamous murderer is executed and Peter begins to doubt he has made the right decision but it is too late. And when the second murderer arrives the ghost of the first torments both him and Peter. How long can Peter keep the secret and what impact will it have on his relationship with Stella?
This is not a ghost story in the conventional sense. The first murderer does haunt the inn some of the nights but most of the story is taken up the effect the situation has on Peter, Stella and Jason as it turns each of their lives upside down and tests each of them. The secret of the executions reveals deeper and darker secrets and the inner character of each of the main protagonists. There are night time chases across the marshes and murders are described and committed.
The plot twists and turns as each victim brought to the inn tells their own story and this has its inevitable effect on Peter and Stella as well as Jason. The relationship between the three of them changes as time goes on. We know that ultimately one of them will be left haunting the inn, but which one? Only the final climactic scenes reveal this.
The book is an enjoyable read, although the nights when the murderers are held in the inn are a lot more gripping and interesting than the periods between which can seem a little over-long with a lot of introspection from the main characters as they try to deal with what is going on around them (and within them). But this does allow the characters to grow, and the interactions between them and the state of their own minds plays a vital role in everything that happens.
The strength of the book lies in the twin strands of the overall story itself and of the murderers. Each is different and each is portrayed excellently by Powell from evil psychopaths to those who feel their actions are justified. Each tells their story in detail with some deft twists to enable this to happen.
Overall this was an enjoyable novel with enough action and twists to keep the reader's interest throughout.
Rating: Scenes of murder and some sexual references
Ali A (82 KP) rated Deathless Divide in Books
Mar 3, 2020
Epic Feminist Western with Zombies
After the fall of Kansas survivalist town Summerland, Jane McKeene, Katherine Deveraux, and their group set off to what they hope is a better opportunity at life. But of course, life is never easy, especially while surviving in 1880's America with the restless dead. On the road to a protected village called Nicodermus, the group suffers a loss. Then, what appears at first to be a safe haven, Nicodermus becomes filled with lies and mystery.
The group becomes separated and Jane soon finds herself on a path filled with darkness and blood while Katherine does everything she can to continue on. Katherine never expected to be friends with Jane McKeene, but after everything she's been through, she knows friends are hard to come by; her best friend, Jane, needs her now more than ever. When the duo reach a critical point, Katherine is the one who must keep hope alive so they can survive.
I enjoyed this book so much. My heart broke for Jane and all the hardship she had to go through, but I loved the badass fighter she became. The story arc she has through this novel kept me intrigued to see it to the end. Katherine however, really stole the show for me. Just having her be there as an ace character doing her thing and surviving - all while wearing a corset - is amazing. Also her love for stubborn and sometimes unflinching Jane is heartwarming; she's loyal to Jane no matter what, even when Jane tries to push her away. I respected Jane but I admired Katherine. Both girls are such badass characters for me and I love them both so much.
I'll try not to mention anything major about the story line, but it's pretty good to say the book splits between "Nicodermus" and "After Nicodermus." "After Nicodermus" leads in directions I would have never guessed and it had me turning page after page. It's intense. New, interesting characters are also introduced, many of whom were just as interesting as Jane and Katherine (I would have loved to see more of Carolina and Katherine's friendship).
Even with the back and forth between each chapter of Jane and Katherine's POVs in Deathless Divide, it has, just like Dread Nation, such an incredible, strong narrative. The way that Justina Ireland writes blows me away. Both characters give the reader so much to connect and hold onto.
I absolutely loved the ending of this book as well. I was so concerned in the last 75 pages or so that it wouldn't end well - not because I didn't want another one (at this point, I will read anything Justina Ireland writes I just love her writing so much), but because I was worried I was going to have to wait another two years before I found out after being left with a cliff hanger. Ireland was able to write the end perfectly that I was happy with the wrap-up of Jane's story.
Deathless Divide is a book I will now always recommend (of course after one reads Dread Nation). It has strong, independent, black, female, queer characters. It addresses issues of racism, sexism, mental health, and the meaning of surviving. The story is an easy and fast-paced read with characters that, as a reader, one can fall in love with.
The group becomes separated and Jane soon finds herself on a path filled with darkness and blood while Katherine does everything she can to continue on. Katherine never expected to be friends with Jane McKeene, but after everything she's been through, she knows friends are hard to come by; her best friend, Jane, needs her now more than ever. When the duo reach a critical point, Katherine is the one who must keep hope alive so they can survive.
I enjoyed this book so much. My heart broke for Jane and all the hardship she had to go through, but I loved the badass fighter she became. The story arc she has through this novel kept me intrigued to see it to the end. Katherine however, really stole the show for me. Just having her be there as an ace character doing her thing and surviving - all while wearing a corset - is amazing. Also her love for stubborn and sometimes unflinching Jane is heartwarming; she's loyal to Jane no matter what, even when Jane tries to push her away. I respected Jane but I admired Katherine. Both girls are such badass characters for me and I love them both so much.
I'll try not to mention anything major about the story line, but it's pretty good to say the book splits between "Nicodermus" and "After Nicodermus." "After Nicodermus" leads in directions I would have never guessed and it had me turning page after page. It's intense. New, interesting characters are also introduced, many of whom were just as interesting as Jane and Katherine (I would have loved to see more of Carolina and Katherine's friendship).
Even with the back and forth between each chapter of Jane and Katherine's POVs in Deathless Divide, it has, just like Dread Nation, such an incredible, strong narrative. The way that Justina Ireland writes blows me away. Both characters give the reader so much to connect and hold onto.
I absolutely loved the ending of this book as well. I was so concerned in the last 75 pages or so that it wouldn't end well - not because I didn't want another one (at this point, I will read anything Justina Ireland writes I just love her writing so much), but because I was worried I was going to have to wait another two years before I found out after being left with a cliff hanger. Ireland was able to write the end perfectly that I was happy with the wrap-up of Jane's story.
Deathless Divide is a book I will now always recommend (of course after one reads Dread Nation). It has strong, independent, black, female, queer characters. It addresses issues of racism, sexism, mental health, and the meaning of surviving. The story is an easy and fast-paced read with characters that, as a reader, one can fall in love with.
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 (980 KP) rated Missionary (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Directed by Anthony DiBlasi (whom is no stranger to the horror genre) ‘Missionary’ stars Dawn Olivieri (Heroes, True Blood, House Of Lies, CSI, How I Met Your Mother, Stargate Atlantis, The Vampire Diaries, Entourage, American Hustle) as Katherine, a young single mother recently separated from her husband Ian portrayed by actor Kip Pardue (Remember The Titans, Driven, The Rules Of Attraction, Hostel: Part 3, Mad Men, House) who is struggling to work full time, go to school, and raise their son Kesley (Conner Christie). One afternoon while helping Kelsey practice before tryouts for the junior high football team they are visited buy two Mormon missionaries. One of the two, Elder Kevin Brock (Mitch Ryan) offers to help Kelsey practice thereby ‘bending the rules’ regarding Mormons and sports under the guise of hoping to convert Katherine and Kelsey to the Mormon faith. In reality, Kevin and Katherine become infatuated with each other despite their 10 year age difference and begin an affair which also seriously compromises what Katherine likes to refer to as ‘the rules in the Mormon handbook’. While Katherine sees this as only a ‘temporary’ yet passionate sexual relationship, Kevin becomes more and more obsessed not only with Katherine but becoming a father figure to her young son Kelsey and based upon ‘his interpretation’ of Mormon doctrine believes that Katherine and Kesley are the family he’s been seeking since he joined the Mormon and that they will become his ‘celestial family’. Eventually, Katherine decides that the relationship is not good for either of them and instead choose to reconcile with her husband Ian and attempts to quietly end her relationship with Kevin. Now obsessed and bordering on psychotic, Kevin begins to stalk Katherine and her son determined to make them his ‘family’ at any cost.
For a film that follows the blueprint for the classic slasher/stalker, I have to give it a great deal of credit.
The introduction of the ‘Mormon Component’ was an original idea that to the best of my knowledge no one had dared to utilize in a movie. Probably out of fear that it might anger the leadership and followers of the Mormon faith. This film did an exceptional job though of creating a ‘distance’ between the antagonist and the other characters in the movie who were Mormons so even those who are not familiar with the religion almost instantly know that Kevin is not a legitimate follower of the faith and that his actions are NOT those of an everyday follower of that faith. The casting of Dawn Olivieri, Connor Christie, and Kip Pardue as the Kingsmen family were spot on. They were truly believable as a struggling family that was going through rough times and trying to work through their difficulties only to be thwarted by a most unlikely circumstance in the form of a crazed stalker-type who twists his religious beliefs into justifying his violent and evil actions.
On a scale of 1 to 5 stars, I’d give this film 3 stars. The film may not win any awards with the exception being an excellent job on the part of the actors and crew. The film does follow a blueprint of sorts as mentioned earlier for a slasher/stalker film and combined with original components definitely deserves a place in the scary movie section. Definitely NOT one for the kids as the film contains violence, gore, and some partial nudity. I would include it in a movie marathon on a Friday or Saturday night with a group of friends and some popcorn.
For a film that follows the blueprint for the classic slasher/stalker, I have to give it a great deal of credit.
The introduction of the ‘Mormon Component’ was an original idea that to the best of my knowledge no one had dared to utilize in a movie. Probably out of fear that it might anger the leadership and followers of the Mormon faith. This film did an exceptional job though of creating a ‘distance’ between the antagonist and the other characters in the movie who were Mormons so even those who are not familiar with the religion almost instantly know that Kevin is not a legitimate follower of the faith and that his actions are NOT those of an everyday follower of that faith. The casting of Dawn Olivieri, Connor Christie, and Kip Pardue as the Kingsmen family were spot on. They were truly believable as a struggling family that was going through rough times and trying to work through their difficulties only to be thwarted by a most unlikely circumstance in the form of a crazed stalker-type who twists his religious beliefs into justifying his violent and evil actions.
On a scale of 1 to 5 stars, I’d give this film 3 stars. The film may not win any awards with the exception being an excellent job on the part of the actors and crew. The film does follow a blueprint of sorts as mentioned earlier for a slasher/stalker film and combined with original components definitely deserves a place in the scary movie section. Definitely NOT one for the kids as the film contains violence, gore, and some partial nudity. I would include it in a movie marathon on a Friday or Saturday night with a group of friends and some popcorn.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Nightcrawler (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The concept of the American dream is generally thought of as ascending to great heights of success. For some, that means creating something out of nothing. They can do this either through lots of hard work, or by having a stroke of good luck.
“Nightcrawler” centers around Louis Bloom (Jake Gyllenhaal), a young man who is attempting to do just that – create something out of nothing and ascend to great heights of success.
Truly a schmuck by every definition of the word, Louis is a contemptible character. He lies, steals, and bends every rule in pursuit of the almighty dollar. This makes for a character that people will love to hate.
Louis discovers a grand opportunity to make money by essentially playing paparazzi to the world of crime. A skill in high demand in a news industry which sensationalizes violence and crime in order to gain ratings.
The film portrays the workings of the news media as somewhat twisted. The industry plays off of the naivety of the American public.
This theme builds throughout the movie, becoming more and more apparent. It hints at an uncertainty of the ethics of crime news coverage. This message is perhaps intended to extend beyond the silver screen and into the real world.
A thriller with depth, “Nightcrawler” is one hell of a debut for director Dan Gilroy. In addition to the unique and complex plot line, the cast is expertly selected.
Each character achieves a raw realness that turns the audience into witnesses rather than movie goers.
Gyllenhaal, who lost 20 pounds for the role, has mastered the art of portraying madness. His eyes communicate a certain detached sadness, yet at the same time he appears egotistical. His expression exudes an inner dialogue which is fleeting and somewhat absent from reality. He is the main character in the movie, as well as in his own mind.
The evolution which his character, Louis, exhibits is electrifying. He is a man in constant motion – doing whatever it takes to succeed, and sinking deeper into the dark side of a news media that lives off of ratings.
The film starts to resemble a gory train wreck which one cannot resist but to stare at as it follows Louis. In order to get the perfect shot, he pushes the line of morality further and further. His morally questionable character begins to blur into the realm of psychotic.
Human lives begin to be something of a commodity when on the other side of a lens. Nina (Rene Russo), a news director desperate to stay in demand is determined to stay focused on theme of urban crime creeping into suburban neighborhoods. She knows this is what grabs attention, and despite reality, she intends to deliver a particular story to viewers.
Russo’s tired eyes add to the realness of the dramatic story. She is just one of the characters which may confuse the audience in regards to who is “good” and who is “bad.” The interplay between characters who cannot be defined as good or bad creates a massively entertaining drama.
The deeper message of the film is left up for interpretation. Perhaps many people are just “not so good,” then there’s Louis who most people won’t be able to help but loath.
A true statement piece, “Nightcrawler” delivers a nauseating cinematic rush.
I give “Nightcrawler” 5 out of 5 stars.
“Nightcrawler” centers around Louis Bloom (Jake Gyllenhaal), a young man who is attempting to do just that – create something out of nothing and ascend to great heights of success.
Truly a schmuck by every definition of the word, Louis is a contemptible character. He lies, steals, and bends every rule in pursuit of the almighty dollar. This makes for a character that people will love to hate.
Louis discovers a grand opportunity to make money by essentially playing paparazzi to the world of crime. A skill in high demand in a news industry which sensationalizes violence and crime in order to gain ratings.
The film portrays the workings of the news media as somewhat twisted. The industry plays off of the naivety of the American public.
This theme builds throughout the movie, becoming more and more apparent. It hints at an uncertainty of the ethics of crime news coverage. This message is perhaps intended to extend beyond the silver screen and into the real world.
A thriller with depth, “Nightcrawler” is one hell of a debut for director Dan Gilroy. In addition to the unique and complex plot line, the cast is expertly selected.
Each character achieves a raw realness that turns the audience into witnesses rather than movie goers.
Gyllenhaal, who lost 20 pounds for the role, has mastered the art of portraying madness. His eyes communicate a certain detached sadness, yet at the same time he appears egotistical. His expression exudes an inner dialogue which is fleeting and somewhat absent from reality. He is the main character in the movie, as well as in his own mind.
The evolution which his character, Louis, exhibits is electrifying. He is a man in constant motion – doing whatever it takes to succeed, and sinking deeper into the dark side of a news media that lives off of ratings.
The film starts to resemble a gory train wreck which one cannot resist but to stare at as it follows Louis. In order to get the perfect shot, he pushes the line of morality further and further. His morally questionable character begins to blur into the realm of psychotic.
Human lives begin to be something of a commodity when on the other side of a lens. Nina (Rene Russo), a news director desperate to stay in demand is determined to stay focused on theme of urban crime creeping into suburban neighborhoods. She knows this is what grabs attention, and despite reality, she intends to deliver a particular story to viewers.
Russo’s tired eyes add to the realness of the dramatic story. She is just one of the characters which may confuse the audience in regards to who is “good” and who is “bad.” The interplay between characters who cannot be defined as good or bad creates a massively entertaining drama.
The deeper message of the film is left up for interpretation. Perhaps many people are just “not so good,” then there’s Louis who most people won’t be able to help but loath.
A true statement piece, “Nightcrawler” delivers a nauseating cinematic rush.
I give “Nightcrawler” 5 out of 5 stars.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Pitch Perfect (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
I have to admit, I am a sucker for movies with singing and dancing. And when there’s competition involved, even better! When I saw the trailer for Pitch Perfect, my first thought was it looked like “Bring It On” but for a capella groups. My second thought was, “Where do I line up?”
Sure, such movies are usually trite and predictable. But who cares? There’s singing and dancing! I don’t care that I’m expected to buy 27 year old Anna Kendrick as a rebellious, aspiring DJ named Beca, starting her freshman year at Barden College. She and Bella just graduated from high school in the Twilight series, so, sure, why not? Bribed by her dad with a promise to help her move to L.A. if she gave college a chance for one year, Becca considers what Barden has to offer. Unfortunately for her, the college’s “D.J. Club” is more about Semitic sign language than mixing beats.
Enter The Bellas, the college’s recently disgraced female a capella group lead by Aubrey (Anna Camp) and Chloe (Brittany Snow). Because of the uptight Aubrey’s shocking performance at a recent competition, they need to rebuild a group that can sing in saccharine-sweet, vanilla harmony. The pickings are slim (mostly) and what comes together is a motley crew of questionable talent. There’s Fat Amy played hilariously by Rebel Wilson, who can mermaid dance like no other. (Mainly because who else would?) There’s sexy Stacie (Alexis Knapp) who may be more comfortable with a stripper pole than singing soprano, and butch Cynthia who can’t keep her eyes of Stacie. Also in the group is Lilly (Hanna Mae Lee) who is borderline mute. So it’s no wonder Chloe aggressively recruits Beca whom she ambushes in the shower after overhearing Beca singing David Guetta’s “Titanium”.
The Bellas arch rivals are the Treble Makers and of course, Beca’s love interest in the movie is Treble Maker, Jesse (Skylar Astin) who somehow gets cuter with every scene. But he’s got to work pretty hard to impress Beca who’s more interested in her headphones than listening to Jesse wax on about the “Breakfast Club” which he believes has the best movie ending ever. Personally, I was a little disconcerted by the fact that college-age kids spoke of “Breakfast Club” with a reverance usually reserved for classics like Casablanca. Even my guest leaned over and said, “But that’s so before their time.” Then I realized, to kids who weren’t even alive when Breakfast Club was made, it would be a classic.
But Jesse’s pursuit of her isn’t Beca’s only problem. The songs Aubrey is dead set on the Bellas perfecting are yawn-worthy at best, which was grating on the music mixologist. The Bellas simply can’t win against the Treble Makers with tired arrangements of Ace of Base, Bangles and Gloria Estefan songs. But Aubrey is resistant to Beca’s attempts to bring the Bellas into the current decade. Therein lies the movie’s requisite conflicts.
Pitch Perfect in a word is fun. Simply fun. There were plenty of laughs, mainly thanks to Rebel Wilson’s scene-stealing lines and some outrageous repartee between competition commentators played by Elizabeth Banks and John Michael Higgins. The highlights, of course, were the singing performances. All of the actors have great pipes and the harmonies will please any choir geek who attends. But lest you think it’s only a teen flick, in an audience of mixed generations, the loudest laughter was from the older audience.
Sure, such movies are usually trite and predictable. But who cares? There’s singing and dancing! I don’t care that I’m expected to buy 27 year old Anna Kendrick as a rebellious, aspiring DJ named Beca, starting her freshman year at Barden College. She and Bella just graduated from high school in the Twilight series, so, sure, why not? Bribed by her dad with a promise to help her move to L.A. if she gave college a chance for one year, Becca considers what Barden has to offer. Unfortunately for her, the college’s “D.J. Club” is more about Semitic sign language than mixing beats.
Enter The Bellas, the college’s recently disgraced female a capella group lead by Aubrey (Anna Camp) and Chloe (Brittany Snow). Because of the uptight Aubrey’s shocking performance at a recent competition, they need to rebuild a group that can sing in saccharine-sweet, vanilla harmony. The pickings are slim (mostly) and what comes together is a motley crew of questionable talent. There’s Fat Amy played hilariously by Rebel Wilson, who can mermaid dance like no other. (Mainly because who else would?) There’s sexy Stacie (Alexis Knapp) who may be more comfortable with a stripper pole than singing soprano, and butch Cynthia who can’t keep her eyes of Stacie. Also in the group is Lilly (Hanna Mae Lee) who is borderline mute. So it’s no wonder Chloe aggressively recruits Beca whom she ambushes in the shower after overhearing Beca singing David Guetta’s “Titanium”.
The Bellas arch rivals are the Treble Makers and of course, Beca’s love interest in the movie is Treble Maker, Jesse (Skylar Astin) who somehow gets cuter with every scene. But he’s got to work pretty hard to impress Beca who’s more interested in her headphones than listening to Jesse wax on about the “Breakfast Club” which he believes has the best movie ending ever. Personally, I was a little disconcerted by the fact that college-age kids spoke of “Breakfast Club” with a reverance usually reserved for classics like Casablanca. Even my guest leaned over and said, “But that’s so before their time.” Then I realized, to kids who weren’t even alive when Breakfast Club was made, it would be a classic.
But Jesse’s pursuit of her isn’t Beca’s only problem. The songs Aubrey is dead set on the Bellas perfecting are yawn-worthy at best, which was grating on the music mixologist. The Bellas simply can’t win against the Treble Makers with tired arrangements of Ace of Base, Bangles and Gloria Estefan songs. But Aubrey is resistant to Beca’s attempts to bring the Bellas into the current decade. Therein lies the movie’s requisite conflicts.
Pitch Perfect in a word is fun. Simply fun. There were plenty of laughs, mainly thanks to Rebel Wilson’s scene-stealing lines and some outrageous repartee between competition commentators played by Elizabeth Banks and John Michael Higgins. The highlights, of course, were the singing performances. All of the actors have great pipes and the harmonies will please any choir geek who attends. But lest you think it’s only a teen flick, in an audience of mixed generations, the loudest laughter was from the older audience.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Long Bright River in Books
Apr 23, 2020
This was the first book I ever checked out from Libby. I miss my library right now, but I'm glad for that app, even if I can only put six books on hold at one time. (What is that?! Six holds; that's for amateurs.)
Kensington, a neighborhood in Philadelphia, is plagued by drug use, especially heroin. It's where sisters Kacey and Mickey grew up. The girls lost their mother at a young age and were raised by their grandmother, Gee, who provided shelter and not much else. Now, Mickey is determined to raise her son Thomas differently. With love and kindness and a feeling of safety. Mickey is a police officer, so she's more than familiar with the streets of Kensington. At the same time, Kensington is struck with a series of murders, Kacey disappears. Mickey and Kacey haven't had much contact in years, since her sister became stuck in the tangle of addiction, but she's still worried. Even more so since those being murdered are young women, no doubt drug and sex workers. Found strangled on the streets. As Mickey starts looking into the murders, she gets caught up in a twisted web of lies and deceit--some of it related to her missing sister--and soon it may be too late to save either Mickey or Kacey.
The first time I found my sister dead, she was sixteen. It was the summer of 2002. Forty-eight hours earlier, on a Friday afternoon, she’d left school with her friends, telling me she’d be back by evening. She wasn’t.
This isn't a fun book to read, so if you're looking for a feel-good read right now, this isn't it. But it's a well-written, extremely powerful look at addiction. While it focuses on the story of the murdered girls, it's also an in-depth character study, taking us into Mickey's history with her sister and how their past has formed their present. Told in a then and now format, we learn about the sisters, and we get a harrowing and detailed look at the effect of addiction, not just on Kacey, but on an entire town. It's depressing, it's real, and it's wonderfully done.
Kacey told me that time spent in addiction feels looped. Each morning brings with it the possibility of change, each evening the shame of failure.
This is not really a fast-moving book, but it does have twists and turns, many of them surprising. There's plenty to keep you guessing, as we try to figure out what is happening to the women on the streets in Kensington. In turn, we have to figure out Kacey and Mickey's past and how it's brought us to where we are today. Characters are sparse, but incredibly well-created, with my favorite, beyond the sisters, being Mickey's landlord, Mrs. Mahon, a formidable woman in her own right. And Mickey's sweet, wise young son Thomas.
While Kacey is clearly the damaged one on paper, as an addict, often living on the streets, we see Mickey isn't always much better. She's had a tough time, and it's hard for her to trust anyone. Both she and Kacey are astounding characters, who stand out in this powerful novel about addiction, police abuse, and the love of a mother. This isn't always an easy read, but I'm glad I picked it up. It will stick with me for some time.
Kensington, a neighborhood in Philadelphia, is plagued by drug use, especially heroin. It's where sisters Kacey and Mickey grew up. The girls lost their mother at a young age and were raised by their grandmother, Gee, who provided shelter and not much else. Now, Mickey is determined to raise her son Thomas differently. With love and kindness and a feeling of safety. Mickey is a police officer, so she's more than familiar with the streets of Kensington. At the same time, Kensington is struck with a series of murders, Kacey disappears. Mickey and Kacey haven't had much contact in years, since her sister became stuck in the tangle of addiction, but she's still worried. Even more so since those being murdered are young women, no doubt drug and sex workers. Found strangled on the streets. As Mickey starts looking into the murders, she gets caught up in a twisted web of lies and deceit--some of it related to her missing sister--and soon it may be too late to save either Mickey or Kacey.
The first time I found my sister dead, she was sixteen. It was the summer of 2002. Forty-eight hours earlier, on a Friday afternoon, she’d left school with her friends, telling me she’d be back by evening. She wasn’t.
This isn't a fun book to read, so if you're looking for a feel-good read right now, this isn't it. But it's a well-written, extremely powerful look at addiction. While it focuses on the story of the murdered girls, it's also an in-depth character study, taking us into Mickey's history with her sister and how their past has formed their present. Told in a then and now format, we learn about the sisters, and we get a harrowing and detailed look at the effect of addiction, not just on Kacey, but on an entire town. It's depressing, it's real, and it's wonderfully done.
Kacey told me that time spent in addiction feels looped. Each morning brings with it the possibility of change, each evening the shame of failure.
This is not really a fast-moving book, but it does have twists and turns, many of them surprising. There's plenty to keep you guessing, as we try to figure out what is happening to the women on the streets in Kensington. In turn, we have to figure out Kacey and Mickey's past and how it's brought us to where we are today. Characters are sparse, but incredibly well-created, with my favorite, beyond the sisters, being Mickey's landlord, Mrs. Mahon, a formidable woman in her own right. And Mickey's sweet, wise young son Thomas.
While Kacey is clearly the damaged one on paper, as an addict, often living on the streets, we see Mickey isn't always much better. She's had a tough time, and it's hard for her to trust anyone. Both she and Kacey are astounding characters, who stand out in this powerful novel about addiction, police abuse, and the love of a mother. This isn't always an easy read, but I'm glad I picked it up. It will stick with me for some time.