Search
Search results
As a worker tears apart an old house under construction in London, he makes an unsettling discovery: tiny bones. The police believe they belong to a baby who was buried years earlier. The story catches the eye of journalist Kate Waters, who immediately wants to determine the child's identity. Her research leads her to a missing child from several decades in the past: a stolen baby, who was never found. Kate finds herself drawn into the missing baby's case and the lives of several women: Angela, a mother who had her baby stolen many years ago; Emma, who once lived on the block where the baby's bones were found; and Jude, Emma's mother.
I really enjoyed Barton's previous novel, The Widow, and I have to say that THE CHILD did not disappoint. It's hard exactly to describe her books, but they have some sort of power over you, drawing you into their narrative and making it difficult to come back to reality until you've reached the end. Much like THE WIDOW, we're presented with a cast of disparate characters-not all of whom are particularly likeable. I hadn't realized, for some reason, that THE CHILD would feature Kate again--a journalist we previously met in Barton's earlier book. I found Kate a much more engaging protagonist this time around: she came across as more human and flawed.
Otherwise, the novel focuses on timid, depressed Emma and her difficult relationship with her mother, Jude, who kicked Emma out of the house at the sixteen. Each woman has a turn at the narration, as does Angela, who is still reeling from having her baby stolen from the hospital (and never found). Barton does a skillful job weaving their stories together. Everything unfolds in bits and pieces as the tale progresses in the eyes of each of our narrators. For me, it was extremely riveting: just as one shocking piece came out, another one would fall into place.
Barton also gives us an excellent look into the journalism business, with a focus on how Kate writes her stories, with a strong emphasis on real (face-to-face, non-Internet-based) research. We see firsthand how the current social media craze is affecting the newspaper world. It's refreshing, as we get to basically see a crime/story solved, yet not necessarily through the lens of a typical police drama.
Overall, I really enjoyed this one. I figured out parts of it as it went along, but found it to be a very compelling read. Definitely worth picking up.
I really enjoyed Barton's previous novel, The Widow, and I have to say that THE CHILD did not disappoint. It's hard exactly to describe her books, but they have some sort of power over you, drawing you into their narrative and making it difficult to come back to reality until you've reached the end. Much like THE WIDOW, we're presented with a cast of disparate characters-not all of whom are particularly likeable. I hadn't realized, for some reason, that THE CHILD would feature Kate again--a journalist we previously met in Barton's earlier book. I found Kate a much more engaging protagonist this time around: she came across as more human and flawed.
Otherwise, the novel focuses on timid, depressed Emma and her difficult relationship with her mother, Jude, who kicked Emma out of the house at the sixteen. Each woman has a turn at the narration, as does Angela, who is still reeling from having her baby stolen from the hospital (and never found). Barton does a skillful job weaving their stories together. Everything unfolds in bits and pieces as the tale progresses in the eyes of each of our narrators. For me, it was extremely riveting: just as one shocking piece came out, another one would fall into place.
Barton also gives us an excellent look into the journalism business, with a focus on how Kate writes her stories, with a strong emphasis on real (face-to-face, non-Internet-based) research. We see firsthand how the current social media craze is affecting the newspaper world. It's refreshing, as we get to basically see a crime/story solved, yet not necessarily through the lens of a typical police drama.
Overall, I really enjoyed this one. I figured out parts of it as it went along, but found it to be a very compelling read. Definitely worth picking up.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Angels Burning in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Dove Carnahan is Chief of Police in a rural Pennsylvania town. Her job is typically more administrative than investigative. So when a girl's body is found beaten and burned in abandoned part of town, Dove must rally her team's limited resources to find out what has happened. In addition, she must work with the state police, including Chief Nolan, with whom she has a past, to solve the crime. In doing so, Dove becomes entwined with a local redneck family. The crime also brings up memories of the murder of Dove's mother many years ago. Will Dove be able to bring justice for this crime, without getting sidetracked by her own past?
I thoroughly enjoyed this book - it took me by complete surprise. Part of it was that I felt that I knew the characters. I've grown up with families like these - gone to school with them, live near them now. O'Dell portrayed the town dynamics flawlessly and she did a magnificent job of bringing each character into full detail.
Dove is an interesting character - flawed in many ways, but you cannot help but root for her and like her. The entire book felt somewhat familiar, like I'd picked up in the middle of series. (Speaking of, when this ended, I thought, oh I hope O'Dell writes another book featuring Dove.) Dove reminded me a little bit of Kate Burkholder, from Linda Castillo's excellent series - another strong female detective fighting for her hometown.
There were a few plot points that seemed a bit unbelievable (at one point, Dove shoots out the tires on a boys' pickup truck, just because he's annoyed her - something that would no doubt get her fired in this crazy media/viral video age we live in), but O'Dell's writing and plot gets you past any missteps. I thought Dove focused a bit too much on worries about her age (she's just turned 50) and her gender -- pointing out how men wouldn't treat her a particular way if she was actually a man. But really, Dove is so excellent at her job that she really just manages to prove that she can do anything - age or gender be damned.
The plot is intriguing and compelling and you find yourself drawn into the deceased girl's family and acquaintances, as well as Dove's own family and past. Honestly, when this one was over, I felt sad, which is a rare quality anymore. 4.5 stars.
(Note: I received an ARC of this book from Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.)
I thoroughly enjoyed this book - it took me by complete surprise. Part of it was that I felt that I knew the characters. I've grown up with families like these - gone to school with them, live near them now. O'Dell portrayed the town dynamics flawlessly and she did a magnificent job of bringing each character into full detail.
Dove is an interesting character - flawed in many ways, but you cannot help but root for her and like her. The entire book felt somewhat familiar, like I'd picked up in the middle of series. (Speaking of, when this ended, I thought, oh I hope O'Dell writes another book featuring Dove.) Dove reminded me a little bit of Kate Burkholder, from Linda Castillo's excellent series - another strong female detective fighting for her hometown.
There were a few plot points that seemed a bit unbelievable (at one point, Dove shoots out the tires on a boys' pickup truck, just because he's annoyed her - something that would no doubt get her fired in this crazy media/viral video age we live in), but O'Dell's writing and plot gets you past any missteps. I thought Dove focused a bit too much on worries about her age (she's just turned 50) and her gender -- pointing out how men wouldn't treat her a particular way if she was actually a man. But really, Dove is so excellent at her job that she really just manages to prove that she can do anything - age or gender be damned.
The plot is intriguing and compelling and you find yourself drawn into the deceased girl's family and acquaintances, as well as Dove's own family and past. Honestly, when this one was over, I felt sad, which is a rare quality anymore. 4.5 stars.
(Note: I received an ARC of this book from Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.)
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated I'm Travelling Alone in Books
Mar 15, 2018
I read this novel as my BookBum Club book for November! Check out this page to find out more about my very own Book Club!
I had heard so many great things about this novel from family and online, it’s got a great average rating on Goodreads, so I thought I was going to really love it, unfortunately it didn’t do much for me. For me, this was nothing more than your standard police procedural, a sub-genre in crime that I’m not a huge fan of.
What drew me to this one other than the recommendations was the title. I really like how striking and eerie it is! This, obviously, lead me to read the synopsis and I definitely thought the plot was a unique one in a genre that’s so heavily populated. The storyline, in the end, didn’t live completely up to my expectations, but it was a great twisty and turny story. I did have my suspicions about the killer from quite early on, which turned out to be correct, so for that reason I can’t personally see why so many people are stunned by the conclusion. However, I didn’t have any theory as to why the killer was doing what they were doing so it was interesting to find out!
I liked the characters in this one, but sometimes they felt a little clunky and unbelievable, which might be down to translation issues or regional differences… I mean, do Norwegian people really wink at each other during every conversation? There was a lot of winking going on!
Personally, I felt more connected to Holger Munch in this one than I did with Mia Kruger. I understood her position in life, but sometimes I was sick of hearing how sorry for herself she felt. I really do hate the cliche police officer in these kinds of books and she really fit the part perfectly.
The writing for this one was good, but like I said earlier, maybe some of the thrill of it was lost in translation because I never got that heart-racing feeling I usually do with books about catching a killer. Some of the nail-biting conversations happening felt rushed and all bunched together at the end of a chapter which, for me, ruined any kind of atmosphere it was meant to have.
I seem to be swimming in a sea of mediocre books at the moment, and it sucks! I wish I had liked this one way more… my dad and nan will be disappointed when they see my review.
I had heard so many great things about this novel from family and online, it’s got a great average rating on Goodreads, so I thought I was going to really love it, unfortunately it didn’t do much for me. For me, this was nothing more than your standard police procedural, a sub-genre in crime that I’m not a huge fan of.
What drew me to this one other than the recommendations was the title. I really like how striking and eerie it is! This, obviously, lead me to read the synopsis and I definitely thought the plot was a unique one in a genre that’s so heavily populated. The storyline, in the end, didn’t live completely up to my expectations, but it was a great twisty and turny story. I did have my suspicions about the killer from quite early on, which turned out to be correct, so for that reason I can’t personally see why so many people are stunned by the conclusion. However, I didn’t have any theory as to why the killer was doing what they were doing so it was interesting to find out!
I liked the characters in this one, but sometimes they felt a little clunky and unbelievable, which might be down to translation issues or regional differences… I mean, do Norwegian people really wink at each other during every conversation? There was a lot of winking going on!
Personally, I felt more connected to Holger Munch in this one than I did with Mia Kruger. I understood her position in life, but sometimes I was sick of hearing how sorry for herself she felt. I really do hate the cliche police officer in these kinds of books and she really fit the part perfectly.
The writing for this one was good, but like I said earlier, maybe some of the thrill of it was lost in translation because I never got that heart-racing feeling I usually do with books about catching a killer. Some of the nail-biting conversations happening felt rushed and all bunched together at the end of a chapter which, for me, ruined any kind of atmosphere it was meant to have.
I seem to be swimming in a sea of mediocre books at the moment, and it sucks! I wish I had liked this one way more… my dad and nan will be disappointed when they see my review.
Darren (1599 KP) rated 7 Seconds (2005) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Story: What is a simple bank heist revenge plot we get some of the worst cops in the history of film, the worst gangsters and worst acting ever. While watching all I could think was a very poor man’s version of ‘Ronin’ and it would be hard to disagree with the idea of the film. (3/10)
Actor Review: Wesley Snipes – Jack Tuliver thief who is also ex-delta force who arranges a heist that he gets double crossed on and left to find out by whom. Snipes’ gets some good one-liners and really is the only good thing about this film. (6/10)
snipes
Actor Review: Tamzin Outhwaite – Sgt Kelly Anders a military Police officer who somehow gets caught up in the middle of the event but is the only one with brains. Awful performance she really should have stuck to the soaps. (2/10)
tamzin
Actor Review: Deobia Oparei – Spanky when things are going his way he is all talk but when it’s not he runs and hides. Funny character, but in the end a waste of use of the actors potential talent. (4/10)
spanky
Actor Review: Georgina Rylance – Suza, Jack’s partner in the crime but gets kidnapped leading him to try his best to save her. Simple support role that doesn’t get a chance to do much. (4/10)
suza
Actor Review: Peter Lee-Wilson – Alexsie Kutchinov the gangster who wants the heist prize and will do anything in his power to get it. Good performance as he gets to use the characters disability well. (6/10)
alex
Director Review: Simon Fellows – Can tell a known thinking man’s action thriller well but doesn’t try anything new. (5/10)
Action: The car chases work well, and some fights are good. (7/10)
Crime: Simple crime side to the story. (5/10)
Thriller: Doesn’t really get you routing for anyone or anywhere near the edge of the seat. (5/10)
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Settings: Set in Romania we get some good settings and look at the city. (8/10)
Suggestion: This is one that is really just for late night TV viewing any other time would be waste of time and money. (Late Night)
Best Part: Car chase one
Worst Part: The Police
Action Scene Of The Film: Car chase
Kill Of The Film: Some the of henchmen
Oscar Chances: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Overall: Crime Caper With No Brains Required
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/07/22/7-seconds-2005/
Actor Review: Wesley Snipes – Jack Tuliver thief who is also ex-delta force who arranges a heist that he gets double crossed on and left to find out by whom. Snipes’ gets some good one-liners and really is the only good thing about this film. (6/10)
snipes
Actor Review: Tamzin Outhwaite – Sgt Kelly Anders a military Police officer who somehow gets caught up in the middle of the event but is the only one with brains. Awful performance she really should have stuck to the soaps. (2/10)
tamzin
Actor Review: Deobia Oparei – Spanky when things are going his way he is all talk but when it’s not he runs and hides. Funny character, but in the end a waste of use of the actors potential talent. (4/10)
spanky
Actor Review: Georgina Rylance – Suza, Jack’s partner in the crime but gets kidnapped leading him to try his best to save her. Simple support role that doesn’t get a chance to do much. (4/10)
suza
Actor Review: Peter Lee-Wilson – Alexsie Kutchinov the gangster who wants the heist prize and will do anything in his power to get it. Good performance as he gets to use the characters disability well. (6/10)
alex
Director Review: Simon Fellows – Can tell a known thinking man’s action thriller well but doesn’t try anything new. (5/10)
Action: The car chases work well, and some fights are good. (7/10)
Crime: Simple crime side to the story. (5/10)
Thriller: Doesn’t really get you routing for anyone or anywhere near the edge of the seat. (5/10)
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Settings: Set in Romania we get some good settings and look at the city. (8/10)
Suggestion: This is one that is really just for late night TV viewing any other time would be waste of time and money. (Late Night)
Best Part: Car chase one
Worst Part: The Police
Action Scene Of The Film: Car chase
Kill Of The Film: Some the of henchmen
Oscar Chances: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Overall: Crime Caper With No Brains Required
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/07/22/7-seconds-2005/
Kaz (232 KP) rated Queen Camilia in Books
Jul 15, 2019 (Updated Jul 15, 2019)
A Royal 'What if' story
Contains spoilers, click to show
I remember reading 'The Secret Diary of Adrian Mole' when I was a teenager and really enjoying it. So when I saw this book, I was looking forward to reading this.
This novel is based on what would happen if the institution of the Royal Family was in exile and were living on a council estate. Britain is divided into many different zones, depending on your social standing and no one can cross zones without an I.D card. Also the police know your every move, thanks to cameras which are installed everywhere and they can access all information about the residents, using the Vulcan computer system.
Firstly, I liked how Sue Townsend characterized the members of the Royal family, they are all very likable characters, funny characters. I also liked that we got the perspectives of the royal pets too, on what was going on.
However, I found a few things wrong with this book. I personally like the British Royal Family, but, even though this book is funny, I could tell that the author wasn't entirely in favour of them and so I felt that at times, the jokes were a bit cutting and were laughing at the Royal Family, rather than laughing with them.
Secondly, at the beginning of the book, I felt like this was making some interesting observation on modern British life. However, as the book progressed, what could have been a humorous insight into these issues, turned into a bit of a mess.
Thirdly, the construction of the plot was very sloppy. The plot didn't seem to focus on one specific thing. What was a book about the Royal Family and the illegitimate son of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles , randomly turned into a farce about the dogs in the area. The comedy with the dogs at the beginning was funny, as I said before,, but it escalated into farce.
Also, plot line involving a police officer having a crush on one of the lower class women in 'Slapper Valley', one of the exclusion zones, never got an resolution at all..
Finally, the ending for me, was very poor. It ended quite abruptly and was quite frankly, bizarre and unsatisfying.
I started out really enjoying this book, but in the end, it turned into a bit of a mess. This was occasionally funny, but overall, a very disappointing read.
This novel is based on what would happen if the institution of the Royal Family was in exile and were living on a council estate. Britain is divided into many different zones, depending on your social standing and no one can cross zones without an I.D card. Also the police know your every move, thanks to cameras which are installed everywhere and they can access all information about the residents, using the Vulcan computer system.
Firstly, I liked how Sue Townsend characterized the members of the Royal family, they are all very likable characters, funny characters. I also liked that we got the perspectives of the royal pets too, on what was going on.
However, I found a few things wrong with this book. I personally like the British Royal Family, but, even though this book is funny, I could tell that the author wasn't entirely in favour of them and so I felt that at times, the jokes were a bit cutting and were laughing at the Royal Family, rather than laughing with them.
Secondly, at the beginning of the book, I felt like this was making some interesting observation on modern British life. However, as the book progressed, what could have been a humorous insight into these issues, turned into a bit of a mess.
Thirdly, the construction of the plot was very sloppy. The plot didn't seem to focus on one specific thing. What was a book about the Royal Family and the illegitimate son of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles , randomly turned into a farce about the dogs in the area. The comedy with the dogs at the beginning was funny, as I said before,, but it escalated into farce.
Also, plot line involving a police officer having a crush on one of the lower class women in 'Slapper Valley', one of the exclusion zones, never got an resolution at all..
Finally, the ending for me, was very poor. It ended quite abruptly and was quite frankly, bizarre and unsatisfying.
I started out really enjoying this book, but in the end, it turned into a bit of a mess. This was occasionally funny, but overall, a very disappointing read.
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated Chuck Steak in Books
Nov 11, 2019
Remember those action movies from the 80s and 90s? The ones where the chisel-jawed hero catches the bad guy via a convoluted and improbable plot, over the top action scenes and mass collateral damage? Chuck Steak doesn't just remember them. He IS them.
Maverick stop-at-nothing-even-if-it-causes-millions-of-dollars-of-damage-and-gets-me-suspended-again cop Chuck Steak (not the meat) has a new adversary. A bomb has been planted in his girlfriend and Chuck is being blackmailed into doing things he doesn't want to do, like be nice to his in-laws-to-be, become tolerant and accepting of minorities and work with a partner. He blunders through each increasingly ridiculous task, always managing it in unlikely ways, in the nick of time and causing maximum destruction in the process. But the mastermind behind the plan is always one step ahead. Has the apparently invincible Chuck Steak finally met his match?
First things first, this is in no way a serious book. As is fitting for the movie genre it is inspired by, everything is larger than life and twice as loud. There is however coherence to the plot (even though it does meander around for some gratuitous action scenes) and the twists, turns and red herrings thrown out in the final chapters as to who the villain is will certainly wrong foot many readers and in the end it does make some kind of sense.
There is also a subtext around acceptance of people who are different; Chuck and the police are portrayed very much as the intolerant knuckleheads of action movies, but his realisations that how he normally behaves could be grossly offensive provide some of the more striking moments of the book.
The prose is fast and loose, with flashbacks, changes of point of view and the occasional sub plot thrown in. The characterisation is bold, from the incredibly clichéd police captain to the more nuanced father in law. They bounce of each other in interesting ways and are each a key part of Chuck's journey. Some of the writing is a little cluttered and confused but that just adds to the feeling of this being a headlong rush to the final chapter.
80s and 90s action flicks were just 2 hours of pure escapist entertainment, never intended to be anything other than enormous fun. Chuck Steak captures the spirit of these well. An absolute riot to read.
Rated R for pretty much everything that makes things R rated
Maverick stop-at-nothing-even-if-it-causes-millions-of-dollars-of-damage-and-gets-me-suspended-again cop Chuck Steak (not the meat) has a new adversary. A bomb has been planted in his girlfriend and Chuck is being blackmailed into doing things he doesn't want to do, like be nice to his in-laws-to-be, become tolerant and accepting of minorities and work with a partner. He blunders through each increasingly ridiculous task, always managing it in unlikely ways, in the nick of time and causing maximum destruction in the process. But the mastermind behind the plan is always one step ahead. Has the apparently invincible Chuck Steak finally met his match?
First things first, this is in no way a serious book. As is fitting for the movie genre it is inspired by, everything is larger than life and twice as loud. There is however coherence to the plot (even though it does meander around for some gratuitous action scenes) and the twists, turns and red herrings thrown out in the final chapters as to who the villain is will certainly wrong foot many readers and in the end it does make some kind of sense.
There is also a subtext around acceptance of people who are different; Chuck and the police are portrayed very much as the intolerant knuckleheads of action movies, but his realisations that how he normally behaves could be grossly offensive provide some of the more striking moments of the book.
The prose is fast and loose, with flashbacks, changes of point of view and the occasional sub plot thrown in. The characterisation is bold, from the incredibly clichéd police captain to the more nuanced father in law. They bounce of each other in interesting ways and are each a key part of Chuck's journey. Some of the writing is a little cluttered and confused but that just adds to the feeling of this being a headlong rush to the final chapter.
80s and 90s action flicks were just 2 hours of pure escapist entertainment, never intended to be anything other than enormous fun. Chuck Steak captures the spirit of these well. An absolute riot to read.
Rated R for pretty much everything that makes things R rated
Andrew Sinclair (25 KP) rated Demolition Man (1993) in Movies
Nov 25, 2019 (Updated Nov 25, 2019)
I've decided it will be fun to review this classic action-packed sci-fi thriller as I watch it. I've watched it many times before and I guess I'm feeling nostalgic.
The film opens with a violent action scene with Stallone the hero pursuing his nemesis Wesley Snipes. It's tense stuff as they come face to face and stare each other down. It's literally an explosive beginning. Snipes manic laughter in that first scene gives you an idea of the kind of psychopath he is playing. After the destruction they have both caused they are both sentenced to be cryogenicly frozen for their crimes. That's a harsh punishment for an over-zealous cop but probably a fair one for a psychotic killer.
35 years later and America is a very different place. There is barely any crime but very little freedom. It is even illegal to swear. It's this philosophical debate that the film sheds light on which makes it both intriguing and funny. When the main characters, Snipes first then Stallone, find themselves in this supposed utopia their reactions are both humorous and volatile.
However one character played by Sandra Bullock actually appreciates Stallone's hardline old-fashioned ways as she has a fascination for the 20th Century. This creates an amusing and romantic interaction between them. Her inept attempts at 20th Century phrases adds to the comedy.
The scene where the police need instructions to arrest a violent criminal from a device which is like a modern day tablet makes me smile. And the line "We're police officers. We're not trained for this kind of violence!" makes me laugh out loud.
There is also a conspiracy story line. Snipes was released on purpose in order to hunt down rebels who resent the choice limiting laws. Meanwhile others unaware of this conspiracy release Stallone in order to capture Snipes. Then things really kick off!
The list of things that have been made illegal is laughable and this is brilliantly summed up with Stallone's line "Are you shitting me?!"
The films futuristic vision is entertaining and is also a good vehicle for humour as Stallone and Snipes are constantly taken aback by the technology. They both finally cross paths again in a museum where Snipes is stealing old weapons as of course weapons are illegal now. From this point on they continue their cat and mouse pursuit until the spectacular climax.
I love this film! It's over the top full-on fun which also manages to be philosophically thought-provoking. Definitely worth watching!
The film opens with a violent action scene with Stallone the hero pursuing his nemesis Wesley Snipes. It's tense stuff as they come face to face and stare each other down. It's literally an explosive beginning. Snipes manic laughter in that first scene gives you an idea of the kind of psychopath he is playing. After the destruction they have both caused they are both sentenced to be cryogenicly frozen for their crimes. That's a harsh punishment for an over-zealous cop but probably a fair one for a psychotic killer.
35 years later and America is a very different place. There is barely any crime but very little freedom. It is even illegal to swear. It's this philosophical debate that the film sheds light on which makes it both intriguing and funny. When the main characters, Snipes first then Stallone, find themselves in this supposed utopia their reactions are both humorous and volatile.
However one character played by Sandra Bullock actually appreciates Stallone's hardline old-fashioned ways as she has a fascination for the 20th Century. This creates an amusing and romantic interaction between them. Her inept attempts at 20th Century phrases adds to the comedy.
The scene where the police need instructions to arrest a violent criminal from a device which is like a modern day tablet makes me smile. And the line "We're police officers. We're not trained for this kind of violence!" makes me laugh out loud.
There is also a conspiracy story line. Snipes was released on purpose in order to hunt down rebels who resent the choice limiting laws. Meanwhile others unaware of this conspiracy release Stallone in order to capture Snipes. Then things really kick off!
The list of things that have been made illegal is laughable and this is brilliantly summed up with Stallone's line "Are you shitting me?!"
The films futuristic vision is entertaining and is also a good vehicle for humour as Stallone and Snipes are constantly taken aback by the technology. They both finally cross paths again in a museum where Snipes is stealing old weapons as of course weapons are illegal now. From this point on they continue their cat and mouse pursuit until the spectacular climax.
I love this film! It's over the top full-on fun which also manages to be philosophically thought-provoking. Definitely worth watching!
Lee (2222 KP) rated Knives Out (2019) in Movies
Nov 26, 2019 (Updated Nov 29, 2019)
The morning after his 85th birthday party, millionaire Harlan Thrombey (Christopher Plummer) is found dead in his study. The local police find no evidence of foul play and come to the conclusion that his death was a suicide. However, an anonymous person believes otherwise and has hired celebrity detective Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig) to try and determine 'whodunit'. When Blanc arrives at the Thrombey residence, it's been a week since Harlan's death, and all members of his large eccentric family have been assembled for further questioning by the police while Blanc looks on, quietly digesting their stories.
The family is portrayed by an impressive cast - Harlan’s daughter Linda (Jamie Lee Curtis) is the matriarch of the family, married to womanizer Richard (Don Johnson) and mother to Ransom (Chris Evans). Harlan's son Walt (Michael Shannon) works for his fathers publishing company and Joni (Toni Collette) is the wife of Harlan's late son. As they each recount their version of events, all slightly different to the others, it becomes clear that none of them is particularly honest, and that all of them had ample reason to want Harlan out of their lives.
The only person seemingly telling the truth, due to the fact that she suffers from a condition whereby she throws up if she doesn't, is Harlan's young nurse and confidante, Marta (Ana de Armas). She was the last to see Harlan the night he died, so her version of the events that took place that evening leading up to his demise are taken as the truth. It's up to Blanc to try and deduce what happened during the few hours that Marta was away from the house until the next morning.
Much of the fun of Knives Out comes from piecing together the various layers of information and working out who the hell is actually telling the truth. It's classic Agatha Christie stuff with a modern twist, a house full of characters that could easily have been lifted straight out of a game of Clue/Cluedo and twists and turns aplenty, keeping you on your toes and guessing at the truth until the very end. I felt it lagged for a while during the second half though, before gathering pace again for the finale, and I didn't find it to be the huge standout hit of the year that many reviewers have claimed it to be either. But, overall, Knives Out is just a hell of a lot of devilish fun.
The family is portrayed by an impressive cast - Harlan’s daughter Linda (Jamie Lee Curtis) is the matriarch of the family, married to womanizer Richard (Don Johnson) and mother to Ransom (Chris Evans). Harlan's son Walt (Michael Shannon) works for his fathers publishing company and Joni (Toni Collette) is the wife of Harlan's late son. As they each recount their version of events, all slightly different to the others, it becomes clear that none of them is particularly honest, and that all of them had ample reason to want Harlan out of their lives.
The only person seemingly telling the truth, due to the fact that she suffers from a condition whereby she throws up if she doesn't, is Harlan's young nurse and confidante, Marta (Ana de Armas). She was the last to see Harlan the night he died, so her version of the events that took place that evening leading up to his demise are taken as the truth. It's up to Blanc to try and deduce what happened during the few hours that Marta was away from the house until the next morning.
Much of the fun of Knives Out comes from piecing together the various layers of information and working out who the hell is actually telling the truth. It's classic Agatha Christie stuff with a modern twist, a house full of characters that could easily have been lifted straight out of a game of Clue/Cluedo and twists and turns aplenty, keeping you on your toes and guessing at the truth until the very end. I felt it lagged for a while during the second half though, before gathering pace again for the finale, and I didn't find it to be the huge standout hit of the year that many reviewers have claimed it to be either. But, overall, Knives Out is just a hell of a lot of devilish fun.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Spiral: From the Book of Saw (2021) in Movies
May 23, 2021
Usually I would feel the urge to watch the series of films before seeing a new one. In this instance, knowing I've only seen one film (possibly two), kept me happy enough to go with this one. I wasn't convinced I had it in me to watch the whole series.
Detective Banks works alone in his departments after standing up against a corrupt cop. Now he has to partner with a rookie cop as he's thrown into a case as a spate of horrendous murders, with more than a passing resemblance to those that lie deep in the cities past, plague the PD.
The focus on the PD and Banks really worked for me, and the partnership between Banks and Schenk was strong. It transitioned the story well from being a Saw film without being a Saw film. For me that was a bonus.
Chris Rock was an interesting choice in the lead role. There are moments where he stood out and was convincing in the part, but others that gave me flashbacks to Dogma and Lethal Weapon 4. While it was an enjoyable piece of acting, it did occasionally take me out of the story.
Dynamics between the characters were pretty solid throughout, and I'd be hard-pressed to say someone didn't fit in the cast. What did put me out a little was the tension within the police department. There are some flashbacks that give you some context, but the current day points felt... too petty? But that might just be something I don't have enough knowledge of.
Not being tied to the Saw franchise probably helps. I liked the idea of this horror breaking out into a police thriller sort of thing, and I got Bone Collector and Criminal Monds vibes as I watched. Anyone who knows me will know that's a winner.
I was very entertained as I watched, but it wasn't until I got outside and was chatting about it that I kept stumbling across flaws that had thankfully escaped me while in the cinema. I did know the ending before I got there, and that didn't bother me as much as it had in other films. I think mainly because I was engaged in finding out the why of it all. Despite both of those things, it was a good film for me, but I sense a Saw purist might not agree.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/05/spiral-movie-review.html
Detective Banks works alone in his departments after standing up against a corrupt cop. Now he has to partner with a rookie cop as he's thrown into a case as a spate of horrendous murders, with more than a passing resemblance to those that lie deep in the cities past, plague the PD.
The focus on the PD and Banks really worked for me, and the partnership between Banks and Schenk was strong. It transitioned the story well from being a Saw film without being a Saw film. For me that was a bonus.
Chris Rock was an interesting choice in the lead role. There are moments where he stood out and was convincing in the part, but others that gave me flashbacks to Dogma and Lethal Weapon 4. While it was an enjoyable piece of acting, it did occasionally take me out of the story.
Dynamics between the characters were pretty solid throughout, and I'd be hard-pressed to say someone didn't fit in the cast. What did put me out a little was the tension within the police department. There are some flashbacks that give you some context, but the current day points felt... too petty? But that might just be something I don't have enough knowledge of.
Not being tied to the Saw franchise probably helps. I liked the idea of this horror breaking out into a police thriller sort of thing, and I got Bone Collector and Criminal Monds vibes as I watched. Anyone who knows me will know that's a winner.
I was very entertained as I watched, but it wasn't until I got outside and was chatting about it that I kept stumbling across flaws that had thankfully escaped me while in the cinema. I did know the ending before I got there, and that didn't bother me as much as it had in other films. I think mainly because I was engaged in finding out the why of it all. Despite both of those things, it was a good film for me, but I sense a Saw purist might not agree.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/05/spiral-movie-review.html
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Jigsaw (2017) in Movies
May 1, 2021
Contains spoilers, click to show
10 Years after the events in saw 7 (the Final chapter/Saw 3D) a new 'game' has started and a new group of police officers have to try to find out what is happening and who is responsible.
Jigsaw runs to almost the same formula as the previous films , there is a game in progress and the police have to stop it but as well as the game there is still enough of a story to make the film interesting. The biggest difference is that there isn't really the back story in the same way the other films had mainly because, with the exception of John Kramer (the original Jigsaw), we have all new characters. Instead Jigsaw focuses on finding out who the new Jigsaw is or even if it is a new Jigsaw or if John has some how come back from the dead. This is where the film is cleaver, it gives us a number of possible suspects and even makes it seem it may be John.
Jigsaw doesn't seem to be as gory as the previous films, yes you still have people in a game and yes at least some of them loose but there are no intestines littering the ground or close ups on people getting cut in half. Don't get me wrong there is still gore, closeups of the dead bodies and people loosing limbs but it doesn't quite have the same feel to it.
The story aspect to the film is good , as I said, it does leave you guessing to who the killer is although, if you pay attention there are clues. The film also plays with time a bit and, as in the other films, this is used to throw the viewer off track.
Jigsaw is a good entry in to the Saw franchise, as it has a ten year gap from Saw 7 it doesn't get bogged down with the original charters and doesn't get (too) bogged down with the past timeline which was getting a bit muddled (in my opinion) but it does manage to pull from what has gone before and use it further the story.
And that's it, the end of the Saw franchise. OK not quite, at the time of writing 'Spiral, Chapters from the book of Saw' is due out at the cinema (Corona willing) in a couple of weeks and it looks to bigger and better however I probably won't get to see it for a while so, for now, it's time to move onto something new.
Jigsaw runs to almost the same formula as the previous films , there is a game in progress and the police have to stop it but as well as the game there is still enough of a story to make the film interesting. The biggest difference is that there isn't really the back story in the same way the other films had mainly because, with the exception of John Kramer (the original Jigsaw), we have all new characters. Instead Jigsaw focuses on finding out who the new Jigsaw is or even if it is a new Jigsaw or if John has some how come back from the dead. This is where the film is cleaver, it gives us a number of possible suspects and even makes it seem it may be John.
Jigsaw doesn't seem to be as gory as the previous films, yes you still have people in a game and yes at least some of them loose but there are no intestines littering the ground or close ups on people getting cut in half. Don't get me wrong there is still gore, closeups of the dead bodies and people loosing limbs but it doesn't quite have the same feel to it.
The story aspect to the film is good , as I said, it does leave you guessing to who the killer is although, if you pay attention there are clues. The film also plays with time a bit and, as in the other films, this is used to throw the viewer off track.
Jigsaw is a good entry in to the Saw franchise, as it has a ten year gap from Saw 7 it doesn't get bogged down with the original charters and doesn't get (too) bogged down with the past timeline which was getting a bit muddled (in my opinion) but it does manage to pull from what has gone before and use it further the story.
And that's it, the end of the Saw franchise. OK not quite, at the time of writing 'Spiral, Chapters from the book of Saw' is due out at the cinema (Corona willing) in a couple of weeks and it looks to bigger and better however I probably won't get to see it for a while so, for now, it's time to move onto something new.