Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Equalizer 2 (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A “Good Guy” meting out justice in a bad way.
There’s something really satisfying about seeing our ‘hero’ Robert McCall giving bad ‘uns a bloody nose (and far worse) as immediate punishment for a crime committed. My parent’s pre-war generation would wax lyrical about the days when police officers or teachers could give a kid a “good box around the ears” as a lesson for a minor infringement. (“Ah, the good old days…. That’ll learn ‘im”!). But equally there’s also the queasy feeling here that this is a vigilante being judge, jury and executioner. Thank GOODNESS then that it’s Denzel Washington and he’s OBVIOUSLY a good guy that will never get it wrong!
Washington returns here as the righter of wrongs, now working as a Lyft driver in Boston (clearly Uber either lost the bidding war or they were not considered to be as cool a brand anymore). Through his job he crosses paths with various troubled souls and is often able to help: sometimes with just an encouraging word; sometimes with more physical activity! By way of validating his good guy credentials, he also takes under his wing Miles (Ashton Sanders) – a local black kid at risk of being dragged into the Boston gang scene.
But this is all window-dressing for the main plot, involving bad guys (for reasons that escaped me) tidying up a lot of CIA loose ends in Brussels in a very brutal way. In charge of the investigation is Robert’s ex-boss Susan Plummer (Melissa Leo) and to help out further Robert has to ‘reappear’ to his ex-partner Dave York (Pedro Pascal). As in the first film, events lead to an explosive western-style showdown.
Directed again by Antoine Fuqua, the film oozes style from the impressive opening shots of a Turkish train, where the cinematography by Bourne-regular Oliver Wood is exceptional. The action scenes are well-executed, and includes a superb science experiment that will puzzle any viewer who thinks “hang on a minute – flour doesn’t burn”!
Reading again my review of the original film, I went off on a rant about extreme screen violence in sub-18 certificate films. There is certainly – as the British film censors (the BBFC) describe it – “strong violence” in this film, with some pretty brutal murder scenes. If anything though I thought the violence was a little less gratuitous this time around, which I welcome.
Denzel is the greatest asset of this film though. He acts up a hurricane (literally), and without his calm and powerful presence at the heart of the film, this would just be A.N.Other generic thriller. It’s also great that this time around the excellent Melissa Leo gets more screen time, as does her husband played by Bill “Independence Day” Pullman. (Is it just me that gets Mr Pullman confused with the late Mr Paxton? I spent all of this film thinking “Oh how sad” though all his scenes before I realised I was grieving for the wrong guy!). In terms of mistaken identity, this film has another in that a key villain Resnik looks far too much like Mark Wahlberg, but is actually Canadian actor Jonathan Scarfe.
Where the film stumbled for me was in having too many parallel “good deed” sub-plots. One in particular – you’ll know the one – feels completely superfluous, beggars belief and could have been excised completely for the DVD deleted scenes.
Do you need to have seen the first film? No, not really. There is exposition about McCall’s back-story, but if this was covered in the first film then I had completely forgotten it. It certainly didn’t detract from this as a stand-alone film.
A cut-above the norm, Washington’s solid performance makes this an entertaining night out at the flicks.
Washington returns here as the righter of wrongs, now working as a Lyft driver in Boston (clearly Uber either lost the bidding war or they were not considered to be as cool a brand anymore). Through his job he crosses paths with various troubled souls and is often able to help: sometimes with just an encouraging word; sometimes with more physical activity! By way of validating his good guy credentials, he also takes under his wing Miles (Ashton Sanders) – a local black kid at risk of being dragged into the Boston gang scene.
But this is all window-dressing for the main plot, involving bad guys (for reasons that escaped me) tidying up a lot of CIA loose ends in Brussels in a very brutal way. In charge of the investigation is Robert’s ex-boss Susan Plummer (Melissa Leo) and to help out further Robert has to ‘reappear’ to his ex-partner Dave York (Pedro Pascal). As in the first film, events lead to an explosive western-style showdown.
Directed again by Antoine Fuqua, the film oozes style from the impressive opening shots of a Turkish train, where the cinematography by Bourne-regular Oliver Wood is exceptional. The action scenes are well-executed, and includes a superb science experiment that will puzzle any viewer who thinks “hang on a minute – flour doesn’t burn”!
Reading again my review of the original film, I went off on a rant about extreme screen violence in sub-18 certificate films. There is certainly – as the British film censors (the BBFC) describe it – “strong violence” in this film, with some pretty brutal murder scenes. If anything though I thought the violence was a little less gratuitous this time around, which I welcome.
Denzel is the greatest asset of this film though. He acts up a hurricane (literally), and without his calm and powerful presence at the heart of the film, this would just be A.N.Other generic thriller. It’s also great that this time around the excellent Melissa Leo gets more screen time, as does her husband played by Bill “Independence Day” Pullman. (Is it just me that gets Mr Pullman confused with the late Mr Paxton? I spent all of this film thinking “Oh how sad” though all his scenes before I realised I was grieving for the wrong guy!). In terms of mistaken identity, this film has another in that a key villain Resnik looks far too much like Mark Wahlberg, but is actually Canadian actor Jonathan Scarfe.
Where the film stumbled for me was in having too many parallel “good deed” sub-plots. One in particular – you’ll know the one – feels completely superfluous, beggars belief and could have been excised completely for the DVD deleted scenes.
Do you need to have seen the first film? No, not really. There is exposition about McCall’s back-story, but if this was covered in the first film then I had completely forgotten it. It certainly didn’t detract from this as a stand-alone film.
A cut-above the norm, Washington’s solid performance makes this an entertaining night out at the flicks.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Game Night (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021 (Updated Sep 29, 2021)
Miss Scarlett at the Airport with the Jet Engine.
“Game Night” is an American comedy film starring Jason Bateman (“Horrible Bosses”, “Central Intelligence“) as Max and Rachel McAdams (“Spotlight“, “Doctor Strange“) as Annie: two hyper-competitive professionals who invite other couples around to their house for a weekly night of charades and board games. The regulars are long-term couple Kevin and Michelle (Lamorne Morris and Kylie Bunbury) and complete buffoon Ryan (Billy Magnussen, “The Big Short“) and his revolving door of generally vacant girlfriends. Estranged from the group, after his divorce, is the creepy police officer Gary (Jesse Plemons, “The Post“, “American Made“) who lives next door.
Auditions for the next Spiderman movie were not going well.
But Max is not content (affecting the mobility of his fishes!) as he has a severe inferiority complex about his enormously successful and cocky older brother Brooks (Kyle Chandler, “Manchester by the Sea“) who beats him at EVERYTHING. When Brooks barges into their game night things get heated and after he organises the next game night as “something different” things take a sharp left into The Twilight Zone.
Bateman, McAdams and Chandler, with game night about to go in an odd direction.
As befits the quality of most modern American comedy films, its all complete nonsense of course. But actually, this is quite good nonsense. The script by Mark Perez (his first movie script in 12 years!) while following a fairly predictable path early in the film is littered with some good one-liners and funny scenes (a bullet-removal is a high-spot) and includes a memorable twist in the final real that I didn’t see coming.
Ryan and Sarah (Billy Magnussen and Sharon Horgan) about to get egged on. (There is a certain lack of logic in the action that follows).
Much of this is powered by the chemistry between Bateman and McAdams. McAdams in particular should do more comedy, as she is very adept at it. Playing the one bright spark in a parade of vacuousness, English comedienne Sharon Horgan also adds a butt to Magnussen’s one-tone joke very effectively. The surprising comedy player though is Jesse Plemons who I thought was just uncomfortably hilarious.
Jesse Plemons and his very white hairy friend.
It is normally unusual to find special effects in a film like this, but here the team (headed up by Dean Tyrrell) should be congratulated for some very subtle but effective effects. Most of the long shots in the film of the neighbourhood/streets etc. are of models which only fade to live action as you zoom in. In the opening drone-fly-over of Max and Annie driving home I thought all the housing looked model-like but as we zoomed into them arriving home I thought I must have imagined in. Only in the subsequent scenes did I realise I was right after all! But it’s so very subtle. I suspect many of the audience were similarly fooled (and many who’ve seen the film and are reading this will be still going “what??”)! There’s a kind of explanation for the randomness of these effects during the (very entertaining) end-titles.
Bullet removal with squeaky toy gag… very funny.
It’s unusual for me to laugh at a comedy so much, but this one I really did. Every comedy film is allowed a little latitude to get the odd strand wrong, and this one is no exception (I didn’t think the spat between Kevin and Michelle really worked)… so it’s not perfect, but novice directors John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein (who’s only previous film project was 2015’s clearly missable “Vacation”) have pulled off a really entertaining watch here.
Auditions for the next Spiderman movie were not going well.
But Max is not content (affecting the mobility of his fishes!) as he has a severe inferiority complex about his enormously successful and cocky older brother Brooks (Kyle Chandler, “Manchester by the Sea“) who beats him at EVERYTHING. When Brooks barges into their game night things get heated and after he organises the next game night as “something different” things take a sharp left into The Twilight Zone.
Bateman, McAdams and Chandler, with game night about to go in an odd direction.
As befits the quality of most modern American comedy films, its all complete nonsense of course. But actually, this is quite good nonsense. The script by Mark Perez (his first movie script in 12 years!) while following a fairly predictable path early in the film is littered with some good one-liners and funny scenes (a bullet-removal is a high-spot) and includes a memorable twist in the final real that I didn’t see coming.
Ryan and Sarah (Billy Magnussen and Sharon Horgan) about to get egged on. (There is a certain lack of logic in the action that follows).
Much of this is powered by the chemistry between Bateman and McAdams. McAdams in particular should do more comedy, as she is very adept at it. Playing the one bright spark in a parade of vacuousness, English comedienne Sharon Horgan also adds a butt to Magnussen’s one-tone joke very effectively. The surprising comedy player though is Jesse Plemons who I thought was just uncomfortably hilarious.
Jesse Plemons and his very white hairy friend.
It is normally unusual to find special effects in a film like this, but here the team (headed up by Dean Tyrrell) should be congratulated for some very subtle but effective effects. Most of the long shots in the film of the neighbourhood/streets etc. are of models which only fade to live action as you zoom in. In the opening drone-fly-over of Max and Annie driving home I thought all the housing looked model-like but as we zoomed into them arriving home I thought I must have imagined in. Only in the subsequent scenes did I realise I was right after all! But it’s so very subtle. I suspect many of the audience were similarly fooled (and many who’ve seen the film and are reading this will be still going “what??”)! There’s a kind of explanation for the randomness of these effects during the (very entertaining) end-titles.
Bullet removal with squeaky toy gag… very funny.
It’s unusual for me to laugh at a comedy so much, but this one I really did. Every comedy film is allowed a little latitude to get the odd strand wrong, and this one is no exception (I didn’t think the spat between Kevin and Michelle really worked)… so it’s not perfect, but novice directors John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein (who’s only previous film project was 2015’s clearly missable “Vacation”) have pulled off a really entertaining watch here.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Commuter (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“This train is freaking me out”.
“The Commuter” is not a good film. You know that I’m not a prude about action films: “Die Hard” is one of my all time favourites and I even gave this actor/director combo’s previous outing – “Non-Stop” – a rather generous three Fads. But like many of my commutes, this is a hundred minutes of life that I won’t get back again.
Liam Neeson (“A Monster Calls“, “Taken 3“) plays Michael MacCauley an insurance salesman (no, I’m not making it up) who of course used to be a police officer with a certain set of skills. With advancing years, a couple of mortgages to keep up and a son about to go to college, he is financially rather exposed.
“Give me a sausage roll off the trolley…. NOW damn it”.
When a bad day turns worse, the commuting MacCauley is approached by a mysterious woman (Vera Farmiga, “The Judge“, “Up In The Air”) who offers him a financial bail-out for doing “just one small thing”. No, it’s not for sex in the toilet… it’s to use his familiarity with the train and its normal passengers to find the person that ‘doesn’t fit there’. For there is a lot at stake and MacCauley is drawn into a perilous game where his own life and the lives of his son and wife Karen (Elizabeth McGovern, “Downton Abbey”) are put at risk.
Vera Farmiga has a proposition for Liam Neeson.
What the inexperienced writers (Byron Willinger, Philip de Blasi and Ryan Engle (“Non-stop”)) were clearly shooting for was a Hitchcockian “ordinary man in deep-water” style flick of the James Stewart “North by Northwest” variety…. but they really miss this by a mile. With the 65 year old Liam Neeson – here playing 60 – performing acrobatics on, under and across an express train, belief is not just suspended – it is hung drawn and quartered! The action is just ludicrously unrealistic.
Unfortunately, Neeson – although still looking remarkably good for his advanced years – is increasingly is starting to look like Roger Moore in “A View to a Kill”: its time to hang up the ‘action hero’ coat and focus on more character acting pieces (this was the man who gave us Oskar Schindler after all).
A chain defies all the laws of physics… train guard Colin McFarlane tries to help Neeson avoid disaster. A green screen is obviously not evident!
The plot also has more holes than a moth-eaten jumper. Omnipotence of the villains is evident, but never explained, and while they are fiendishly clever in some aspects they are face-palmingly stupid about others. (No spoilers, but the threat to MacCauley’s family is mind-numbingly foilable).
It was fairly obvious that Obi Wan Kenobi was out of place on the train. No.. of course not… this was just MacCauley’s commuting pal Walt (Jonathan Banks)
A ‘major event’ at the end of reel two (if you’ve seen the spoilerish trailer you’ll know what this is) leads – notably without any ‘consequence’ – into a completely ridiculous final reel that beggars belief. It also includes a “twist” so obvious that the writers must have assumed an IQ of sub-50.
What’s the great Sam Neill (“Jurassic Park”) doing in this mess?
This is a film that melds “Taken”, “Non-stop”, “Unstoppable”, “Strangers on a Train” and – most bizarrely and cringe-worthily – “Spartacus” to create a cinematic mess of supreme proportions. I put director Jaume Collet-Serra’s last film – “The Shallows” – into my Top 10 films of 2016. He’ll be lucky if this one doesn’t make my “Turkeys of the Year” list for 2018.
Avoid!
Liam Neeson (“A Monster Calls“, “Taken 3“) plays Michael MacCauley an insurance salesman (no, I’m not making it up) who of course used to be a police officer with a certain set of skills. With advancing years, a couple of mortgages to keep up and a son about to go to college, he is financially rather exposed.
“Give me a sausage roll off the trolley…. NOW damn it”.
When a bad day turns worse, the commuting MacCauley is approached by a mysterious woman (Vera Farmiga, “The Judge“, “Up In The Air”) who offers him a financial bail-out for doing “just one small thing”. No, it’s not for sex in the toilet… it’s to use his familiarity with the train and its normal passengers to find the person that ‘doesn’t fit there’. For there is a lot at stake and MacCauley is drawn into a perilous game where his own life and the lives of his son and wife Karen (Elizabeth McGovern, “Downton Abbey”) are put at risk.
Vera Farmiga has a proposition for Liam Neeson.
What the inexperienced writers (Byron Willinger, Philip de Blasi and Ryan Engle (“Non-stop”)) were clearly shooting for was a Hitchcockian “ordinary man in deep-water” style flick of the James Stewart “North by Northwest” variety…. but they really miss this by a mile. With the 65 year old Liam Neeson – here playing 60 – performing acrobatics on, under and across an express train, belief is not just suspended – it is hung drawn and quartered! The action is just ludicrously unrealistic.
Unfortunately, Neeson – although still looking remarkably good for his advanced years – is increasingly is starting to look like Roger Moore in “A View to a Kill”: its time to hang up the ‘action hero’ coat and focus on more character acting pieces (this was the man who gave us Oskar Schindler after all).
A chain defies all the laws of physics… train guard Colin McFarlane tries to help Neeson avoid disaster. A green screen is obviously not evident!
The plot also has more holes than a moth-eaten jumper. Omnipotence of the villains is evident, but never explained, and while they are fiendishly clever in some aspects they are face-palmingly stupid about others. (No spoilers, but the threat to MacCauley’s family is mind-numbingly foilable).
It was fairly obvious that Obi Wan Kenobi was out of place on the train. No.. of course not… this was just MacCauley’s commuting pal Walt (Jonathan Banks)
A ‘major event’ at the end of reel two (if you’ve seen the spoilerish trailer you’ll know what this is) leads – notably without any ‘consequence’ – into a completely ridiculous final reel that beggars belief. It also includes a “twist” so obvious that the writers must have assumed an IQ of sub-50.
What’s the great Sam Neill (“Jurassic Park”) doing in this mess?
This is a film that melds “Taken”, “Non-stop”, “Unstoppable”, “Strangers on a Train” and – most bizarrely and cringe-worthily – “Spartacus” to create a cinematic mess of supreme proportions. I put director Jaume Collet-Serra’s last film – “The Shallows” – into my Top 10 films of 2016. He’ll be lucky if this one doesn’t make my “Turkeys of the Year” list for 2018.
Avoid!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Flatliners (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The undiscovered country… which they shouldn’t have returned to.
The movies have depicted the hereafter in varied ways over the years. From the bleached white warehouses of Powell and Pressburger’s “A Matter of Life and Death” in 1946 and Warren Beatty’s “Heaven Can Wait” in 1978 to – for me – the peak of the game: Vincent Ward’s mawkish but gorgeously rendered oil-paint version of heaven in 1998’s “What Dreams May Come”. Joel Schmacher’s 1990’s “Flatliners” saw a set of “brat pack” movie names of the day (including Kevin Bacon, Julia Roberts, William Baldwin and Kiefer Sutherland) as experimenting trainee doctors, cheating death to experience the afterlife and getting more than they bargained for. The depictions of the afterlife were unmemorable: in that I don’t remember them much! (I think there was some sort of spooky tree involved, but that’s about it!)
But the concept was sufficiently enticing – who isn’t a little bit intrigued by the question of “what’s beyond”? – that Cross Creek Pictures thought it worthy of dusting off and giving it another outing in pursuit of dirty lucre. But unfortunately this offering adds little to the property’s reputation.
In this version, the lead role is headed up by Ellen Page (“Inception”) who is a great actress… too good for this stuff. Also in that category is Diego Luna, who really made an impact in “Rogue One” but here has little to work with in terms of backstory. The remaining three doctors – Nina Dobrev as “the sexy one”; James Norton (“War and Peace”) as “the posh boy” and Kiersey Clemons as the “cute but repressed one”, all have even less backstory and struggle to make a great impact.
Still struggling to get the high score on Angry Birds: from left to right Ray (Diego Luna), Sophia (Kiersey Clemons), Marlo (Nina Dobrev), Courtney (Ellen Page) and Jamie (James Norton).
Also putting in an appearance, as the one link from the original film, is Kiefer Sutherland as a senior member of the teaching staff. But he’s not playing the same character (that WOULD have been a bloody miracle!) and although Sutherland adds gravitas he really is given criminally little to do. What was director Niels Arden Oplev (“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”) thinking?
In terms of the story, it’s pretty much a re-hash of Peter Filardi’s original, with Ben Ripley (“Source Code”) adding a few minor tweaks to the screenplay to update it for the current generation. But I will levy the same criticism of this film as I levied at the recent Stephen King adaptation of “It”: for horror to work well it need to obey some decent ‘rules of physics’ and although most of the scenes work (since a lot of the “action” is sensibly based inside the character’s heads) there are the occasional linkages to the ‘real world’ that generate a “WTF???” response. A seemingly indestructible Mini car (which is also clearly untraceable by the police!) and a knife incident at the dockside are two cases in point.
Is there anything good to say about this film? Well, there are certainly a few tense moments that make the hairs on your neck at least start to stand to attention. But these are few and far between, amongst a sea of movie ‘meh’. It’s certainly not going to be the worst film I see this year, since at least I wasn’t completely bored for the two hours. But I won’t remember this one in a few weeks. As a summary in the form of a “Black Adder” quote, it’s all a bit like a broken pencil….. pointless.
But the concept was sufficiently enticing – who isn’t a little bit intrigued by the question of “what’s beyond”? – that Cross Creek Pictures thought it worthy of dusting off and giving it another outing in pursuit of dirty lucre. But unfortunately this offering adds little to the property’s reputation.
In this version, the lead role is headed up by Ellen Page (“Inception”) who is a great actress… too good for this stuff. Also in that category is Diego Luna, who really made an impact in “Rogue One” but here has little to work with in terms of backstory. The remaining three doctors – Nina Dobrev as “the sexy one”; James Norton (“War and Peace”) as “the posh boy” and Kiersey Clemons as the “cute but repressed one”, all have even less backstory and struggle to make a great impact.
Still struggling to get the high score on Angry Birds: from left to right Ray (Diego Luna), Sophia (Kiersey Clemons), Marlo (Nina Dobrev), Courtney (Ellen Page) and Jamie (James Norton).
Also putting in an appearance, as the one link from the original film, is Kiefer Sutherland as a senior member of the teaching staff. But he’s not playing the same character (that WOULD have been a bloody miracle!) and although Sutherland adds gravitas he really is given criminally little to do. What was director Niels Arden Oplev (“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”) thinking?
In terms of the story, it’s pretty much a re-hash of Peter Filardi’s original, with Ben Ripley (“Source Code”) adding a few minor tweaks to the screenplay to update it for the current generation. But I will levy the same criticism of this film as I levied at the recent Stephen King adaptation of “It”: for horror to work well it need to obey some decent ‘rules of physics’ and although most of the scenes work (since a lot of the “action” is sensibly based inside the character’s heads) there are the occasional linkages to the ‘real world’ that generate a “WTF???” response. A seemingly indestructible Mini car (which is also clearly untraceable by the police!) and a knife incident at the dockside are two cases in point.
Is there anything good to say about this film? Well, there are certainly a few tense moments that make the hairs on your neck at least start to stand to attention. But these are few and far between, amongst a sea of movie ‘meh’. It’s certainly not going to be the worst film I see this year, since at least I wasn’t completely bored for the two hours. But I won’t remember this one in a few weeks. As a summary in the form of a “Black Adder” quote, it’s all a bit like a broken pencil….. pointless.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Inferno (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Infernal
Dan Brown has had a bad rap over the years from snobbish reviewers who dismiss his work as “trash”. I’m sure to a large degree the multi-millionaire Dan Brown couldn’t give a toss! I personally enjoyed both the books and Ron Howard’s films of “The Da Vinci Code” and “Angels and Demons” as glossy escapism. Occasionally though books will generate a “WHHAAAT??” moment and Brown’s 2013 novel “Inferno” generated just such a response in its dramatic conclusion… and (for me at least) not in a good way. As someone always looking at script potential in books, the words “unfilmable” came to mind. So veteran screenwriter David Koepp (“Jurassic Park”, “Mission Impossible”, “Spiderman”) is to be congratulated in ‘adapting’ the story to provide a coherent screenplay.
But unfortunately it’s still arrant nonsense.
The film starts in promising style with famed symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) waking in hospital to horrific visions of hell on earth with only the attractive young nurse Dr Sienna Brooks (Felicity Jones) to soothe his nerves. A serious head wound prevents him from remembering the last 48 hours which makes it a bit tricky when a “Terminator”-style female cop (the striking Romanian actress Ana Ularu) arrives to try to kill him. Fleeing the scene, Langdon follows a typically convoluted trail of puzzles in a race to find the location of the source of a plague that if released will devastate the world’s population. In the process he has to dodge police, World Health Organisation (WHO) staff and members of a shadowy “private security organisation” trying to catch him.
The problem with the story is that it has a plague-sized hole in its plot. The actions of the main protagonist of the film, Bertrand Zobrist (Ben Foster, “The Program”), make absolutely zero sense. If he wanted to achieve his aims he would have just done it! (“No, Mr Bond – I won’t shoot you now”). Laying a devious cryptic trail for others to follow makes even less sense, particularly as he is even seen (in flashback) to be not very good at that! Quite bonkers!
Unfortunately, the more you ponder the story, the worse it gets, and it is this that fatally drags the film down despite all the good work that Hanks, Jones and director Ron Howard try to counter-balance it with.
For there are elements on the positive side of the scales. The Italian and Turkish scenes (in Florence, Venice and Istanbul) are gloriously filmed with lush colours and exotic and evocative locations. Tom Hanks is as solidly reliable as ever in the Langdon role, and its great to see Felicity “The Theory of Everything” Jones in a leading role before she disappears into obscurity again (humour: “Rogue One” is released in December).
Tom Hanks
The film has fun with romantic expectations of the Langdon and Brooks characters. Here though is Hanks with the more age-appropriate Knudsen.
The supporting cast is also of great quality. Sidse Babett Knudsen (“Borgen”) is Dr Sinsky, leader of the W.H.O. (not credited – as memorably done with Peter Capaldi in “World War Z” as “Doctor, W.H.O.”!). Irrfan (“Jurassic World”) Khan is striking as the mysterious and authoritarian “Provost”. And Omar Sy (who made such an impact in the brilliant “The Intouchables”) plays the lead W.H.O. officer in pursuit of Langdon.
Hans Zimmer again provides the soundtrack, with his beautiful series theme cleverly working its way into the music as Langdon’s memory returns. However, at various points the music become overtly noticeable, intrusive and not to my liking. A bombastic choral reworking of the theme over the end titles is stirring though.
In summary, a glossy and nonsensical disappointment.
But unfortunately it’s still arrant nonsense.
The film starts in promising style with famed symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) waking in hospital to horrific visions of hell on earth with only the attractive young nurse Dr Sienna Brooks (Felicity Jones) to soothe his nerves. A serious head wound prevents him from remembering the last 48 hours which makes it a bit tricky when a “Terminator”-style female cop (the striking Romanian actress Ana Ularu) arrives to try to kill him. Fleeing the scene, Langdon follows a typically convoluted trail of puzzles in a race to find the location of the source of a plague that if released will devastate the world’s population. In the process he has to dodge police, World Health Organisation (WHO) staff and members of a shadowy “private security organisation” trying to catch him.
The problem with the story is that it has a plague-sized hole in its plot. The actions of the main protagonist of the film, Bertrand Zobrist (Ben Foster, “The Program”), make absolutely zero sense. If he wanted to achieve his aims he would have just done it! (“No, Mr Bond – I won’t shoot you now”). Laying a devious cryptic trail for others to follow makes even less sense, particularly as he is even seen (in flashback) to be not very good at that! Quite bonkers!
Unfortunately, the more you ponder the story, the worse it gets, and it is this that fatally drags the film down despite all the good work that Hanks, Jones and director Ron Howard try to counter-balance it with.
For there are elements on the positive side of the scales. The Italian and Turkish scenes (in Florence, Venice and Istanbul) are gloriously filmed with lush colours and exotic and evocative locations. Tom Hanks is as solidly reliable as ever in the Langdon role, and its great to see Felicity “The Theory of Everything” Jones in a leading role before she disappears into obscurity again (humour: “Rogue One” is released in December).
Tom Hanks
The film has fun with romantic expectations of the Langdon and Brooks characters. Here though is Hanks with the more age-appropriate Knudsen.
The supporting cast is also of great quality. Sidse Babett Knudsen (“Borgen”) is Dr Sinsky, leader of the W.H.O. (not credited – as memorably done with Peter Capaldi in “World War Z” as “Doctor, W.H.O.”!). Irrfan (“Jurassic World”) Khan is striking as the mysterious and authoritarian “Provost”. And Omar Sy (who made such an impact in the brilliant “The Intouchables”) plays the lead W.H.O. officer in pursuit of Langdon.
Hans Zimmer again provides the soundtrack, with his beautiful series theme cleverly working its way into the music as Langdon’s memory returns. However, at various points the music become overtly noticeable, intrusive and not to my liking. A bombastic choral reworking of the theme over the end titles is stirring though.
In summary, a glossy and nonsensical disappointment.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Girl on the Train (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
You won’t uncork a bottle of Malbec again without thinking of this film…
“The Girl on a Train” is the film adaptation of the best-seller by Paula Hawkins, transported from the London suburbs to New York’s Hastings-on-Hudson.
It’s actually rather a sordid story encompassing as it does alcoholism, murder, marital strife, deceit, sexual frustration, an historical tragedy and lashings and lashings of violence. Emily Blunt (“Sicario”, “Edge of Tomorrow”) plays Rachel, a divorcee with an alcohol problem who escapes into an obsessive fantasy each day as she passes her former neighbourhood on her commute into the city. Ex-husband Tom (Justin Theroux, “Zoolander 2”) lives in her old house with his second wife Anna (Rebecca “MI:5” Ferguson) and new baby Evie. But her real fantasy rests with cheerleader-style young neighbour Megan (Haley Bennett) who is actually locked in a frustratingly child-free marriage (frustrating for him at least) with the controlling and unpredictable Scott (Luke Evans, “The Hobbit”). A sixth party in this complex network is Megan’s psychiatrist Dr Kamal Abdic (Édgar Ramírez, “Joy”).
In pure Hitchcockian style Megan witnesses mere glimpses of events from her twice-daily train and from these pieces together stories that suitably feed her psychosis. When ‘shit gets real’ and a key character goes missing, Megan surfaces her suspicions and obsessions to the police investigation (led by Detective Riley, the ever-excellent Allison Janney from “The West Wing”) and promptly makes herself suspect number one.
Readers of the book will already be aware of the twists and turns of the story, so will watch the film from a different perspective than I did. (Despite my best intentions I never managed to read the book first).
First up, you would have to say that Emily Blunt’s performance is outstanding in an extremely challenging acting role. Every nuance of shame, confusion, grief, fear, doubt and anger is beautifully enacted: it would not be a surprise to see her gain her first Oscar nomination for this. All the other lead roles are also delivered with great professionalism, with Haley Bennett (a busy month for her, with “The Magnificent Seven” also out) being impressive and Rebecca Ferguson, one of my favourite current actresses, delivering another measured and delicate performance.
Girl on a Train, The
Rebecca Ferguson as Anna – “there were three of us in this marriage so it was a bit crowded”
The supporting roles are also effective, with Darren Goldstein as the somewhat creepy “man in the suit” and “Friends” star Lisa Kudrow popping up in an effective and pivotal role. The Screen Guild Awards have an excellent category for an Ensemble Cast in a Motion Picture, and it feels appropriate to nominate this cast for that award.
So it’s a blockbuster book with a rollercoaster story and a stellar cast, so what could go wrong? Well, something for sure. This is a case in point where I suspect it is easier to slowly peel back Rachel’s lost memory with pages and imagination than it is with dodgy fuzzy images on a big screen. Although the film comes in at only 112 minutes, the pacing in places is too slow (the screenplay by Erin Cressida Wilson takes its time) and director Tate Taylor (“The Help”) is no Hitchcock, or indeed a David Fincher (since the film has strong similarities to last year’s “Gone Girl”: when the action does happen it lacks style, with the violence being on the brutal side and leaving little to the imagination.
It’s by no means a bad film, and worth seeing for the acting performances alone. But it’s not a film I think that will trouble my top 10 for the year.
It’s actually rather a sordid story encompassing as it does alcoholism, murder, marital strife, deceit, sexual frustration, an historical tragedy and lashings and lashings of violence. Emily Blunt (“Sicario”, “Edge of Tomorrow”) plays Rachel, a divorcee with an alcohol problem who escapes into an obsessive fantasy each day as she passes her former neighbourhood on her commute into the city. Ex-husband Tom (Justin Theroux, “Zoolander 2”) lives in her old house with his second wife Anna (Rebecca “MI:5” Ferguson) and new baby Evie. But her real fantasy rests with cheerleader-style young neighbour Megan (Haley Bennett) who is actually locked in a frustratingly child-free marriage (frustrating for him at least) with the controlling and unpredictable Scott (Luke Evans, “The Hobbit”). A sixth party in this complex network is Megan’s psychiatrist Dr Kamal Abdic (Édgar Ramírez, “Joy”).
In pure Hitchcockian style Megan witnesses mere glimpses of events from her twice-daily train and from these pieces together stories that suitably feed her psychosis. When ‘shit gets real’ and a key character goes missing, Megan surfaces her suspicions and obsessions to the police investigation (led by Detective Riley, the ever-excellent Allison Janney from “The West Wing”) and promptly makes herself suspect number one.
Readers of the book will already be aware of the twists and turns of the story, so will watch the film from a different perspective than I did. (Despite my best intentions I never managed to read the book first).
First up, you would have to say that Emily Blunt’s performance is outstanding in an extremely challenging acting role. Every nuance of shame, confusion, grief, fear, doubt and anger is beautifully enacted: it would not be a surprise to see her gain her first Oscar nomination for this. All the other lead roles are also delivered with great professionalism, with Haley Bennett (a busy month for her, with “The Magnificent Seven” also out) being impressive and Rebecca Ferguson, one of my favourite current actresses, delivering another measured and delicate performance.
Girl on a Train, The
Rebecca Ferguson as Anna – “there were three of us in this marriage so it was a bit crowded”
The supporting roles are also effective, with Darren Goldstein as the somewhat creepy “man in the suit” and “Friends” star Lisa Kudrow popping up in an effective and pivotal role. The Screen Guild Awards have an excellent category for an Ensemble Cast in a Motion Picture, and it feels appropriate to nominate this cast for that award.
So it’s a blockbuster book with a rollercoaster story and a stellar cast, so what could go wrong? Well, something for sure. This is a case in point where I suspect it is easier to slowly peel back Rachel’s lost memory with pages and imagination than it is with dodgy fuzzy images on a big screen. Although the film comes in at only 112 minutes, the pacing in places is too slow (the screenplay by Erin Cressida Wilson takes its time) and director Tate Taylor (“The Help”) is no Hitchcock, or indeed a David Fincher (since the film has strong similarities to last year’s “Gone Girl”: when the action does happen it lacks style, with the violence being on the brutal side and leaving little to the imagination.
It’s by no means a bad film, and worth seeing for the acting performances alone. But it’s not a film I think that will trouble my top 10 for the year.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The French Dispatch (2021) in Movies
Jan 4, 2022
Weak Stories Can't Support the STUNNING Visuals
Filmmaker Wes Anderson is an acquired taste. He is one of the most visually stunning filmmakers working today, but his films are often time difficult to grasp and can get lost in their own weirdness.
Such is the case with his latest effort THE FRENCH DISPATCH. It is a visually STUNNING film that you can turn the sound off and just drink in the images depicted on screen with your eyes - but the story these pictures tell was, unfortunately, not all that compelling.
Starring Bill Murray, Tilda Swinton, Frances McDormand, Jeffrey Wright and a whole bundle of known stars, THE FRENCH DISPATCH tells the story of a Sunday Newspaper insert called THE FRENCH DISPATCH (think PARADE MAGAZINE). The quirk of the FRENCH DISPATCH is that this insert in the Liberty, Kansas paper in the 1930’s(or so) focuses solely on the goings-on of the French town of Enui. Stories told in the flavor of the New Yorker.
So…this setup is just, really, an excuse to tell 3 different short stories and tie them together with an overarching theme - getting the French Dispatch ready to publish. A good enough excuse for a movie - provided that the 3 stories being told are interesting enough - which they are not (and therein lies the issue with this film).
Bill Murray is a congenial enough host of this party as the Editor of The French Dispatch. His character is the “through line” of this film and if you are going to anchor an anthology film with a character/actor, then Bill Murray is a pretty good anchor.
The first story, telling of a life-imprisoned person (Benicio Del Toro) who finds a muse (Lea Seydoux) and becomes a world famous artist, thanks to the efforts of his patron (Adrian Brody) is the best of the bunch. This story is written/narrated by a character played by Tilda Swinton and it is her performance that is the highlight of the film for me. Because of this narration - and because this is the best written/most interesting and best acted of the 3 stories (by Del Toro, Seydoux and Brody), I was excited as to where this film was going to go from here.
Unfortunately, that direction was down.
The 3rd story - narrated by a character played by Jeffrey Wright about a Police Commissioner’s son who is kidnapped is absurb - and almost succeeds when Anderson decides to animate the car chase - but ultimately isn’t quite as good as the first piece.
And then there is the middle part that stars Timothee Chalamet as a student that starts a rebellion. This part is written/narrated by a character played by Frances McDormand and while these 2 are “game” for what is given to them, the story is not compelling and, to be honest, a bit boring. This middle story (the longest of the 3 tales) is where the movie loses it’s footing.
And that’s too bad for Anderson - as is his custom - fills every frame with interesting pictures/visuals that are a marvel to look at and fills almost every minor role with some sort of major star looking to work with him. Almost the best part of this film was to spot the star in a cameo role. Willem DaFoe, Saoirse Ronan, Liev Schrieber, the “Fonz” himself, Henry Winkler, Cristoph Walz and Anderson “regulars” Jason Schwartman, Edward Norton and Owen Wilson (amongst others) all show up - briefly - to lend their talents to this absurdity.
Well worth checking out for the visuals, just don’t look for much in the way of plot or drama.
Letter Grade: B (did I mention that the visuals are STUNNING?)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with his latest effort THE FRENCH DISPATCH. It is a visually STUNNING film that you can turn the sound off and just drink in the images depicted on screen with your eyes - but the story these pictures tell was, unfortunately, not all that compelling.
Starring Bill Murray, Tilda Swinton, Frances McDormand, Jeffrey Wright and a whole bundle of known stars, THE FRENCH DISPATCH tells the story of a Sunday Newspaper insert called THE FRENCH DISPATCH (think PARADE MAGAZINE). The quirk of the FRENCH DISPATCH is that this insert in the Liberty, Kansas paper in the 1930’s(or so) focuses solely on the goings-on of the French town of Enui. Stories told in the flavor of the New Yorker.
So…this setup is just, really, an excuse to tell 3 different short stories and tie them together with an overarching theme - getting the French Dispatch ready to publish. A good enough excuse for a movie - provided that the 3 stories being told are interesting enough - which they are not (and therein lies the issue with this film).
Bill Murray is a congenial enough host of this party as the Editor of The French Dispatch. His character is the “through line” of this film and if you are going to anchor an anthology film with a character/actor, then Bill Murray is a pretty good anchor.
The first story, telling of a life-imprisoned person (Benicio Del Toro) who finds a muse (Lea Seydoux) and becomes a world famous artist, thanks to the efforts of his patron (Adrian Brody) is the best of the bunch. This story is written/narrated by a character played by Tilda Swinton and it is her performance that is the highlight of the film for me. Because of this narration - and because this is the best written/most interesting and best acted of the 3 stories (by Del Toro, Seydoux and Brody), I was excited as to where this film was going to go from here.
Unfortunately, that direction was down.
The 3rd story - narrated by a character played by Jeffrey Wright about a Police Commissioner’s son who is kidnapped is absurb - and almost succeeds when Anderson decides to animate the car chase - but ultimately isn’t quite as good as the first piece.
And then there is the middle part that stars Timothee Chalamet as a student that starts a rebellion. This part is written/narrated by a character played by Frances McDormand and while these 2 are “game” for what is given to them, the story is not compelling and, to be honest, a bit boring. This middle story (the longest of the 3 tales) is where the movie loses it’s footing.
And that’s too bad for Anderson - as is his custom - fills every frame with interesting pictures/visuals that are a marvel to look at and fills almost every minor role with some sort of major star looking to work with him. Almost the best part of this film was to spot the star in a cameo role. Willem DaFoe, Saoirse Ronan, Liev Schrieber, the “Fonz” himself, Henry Winkler, Cristoph Walz and Anderson “regulars” Jason Schwartman, Edward Norton and Owen Wilson (amongst others) all show up - briefly - to lend their talents to this absurdity.
Well worth checking out for the visuals, just don’t look for much in the way of plot or drama.
Letter Grade: B (did I mention that the visuals are STUNNING?)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
DiscoStu (6 KP) rated Bright (2017) in Movies
Jan 8, 2018 (Updated Jan 8, 2018)
“A competent buddy cop movie that offers solid pacing and character portrayals at the expense of building up the films (admittedly) interesting universe”.
Contains spoilers, click to show
Netflix’s ‘Bright’, directed by David Ayer (Suicide Squad) and starring Will Smith and Joel Edgerton, brings the big budget box office trappings of a fully fledged cinema release to their home streaming subscription service and arguably the end result is a fun and enjoyable, if slightly flawed, buddy-cop-movie-with-a-twist that sets up a universe you’ll likely want to see more of.
Smith plays Daryl Ward, a weary veteran L.A. cop reluctantly partnered with orc partner Nick, the first and only orc to make the force in this alternate earth story. The film opens with Ward taking a round of buckshot from an orc thug whilst Nick looks on waiting for a burrito from a street vendor. The incident leaves a distrust between Ward and Nick, with Ward unsure whether his partner really has his back after Nick not only failed to step up and prevent the shooting but also failed to apprehend the orc perpetrator during the ensuing foot chase. Ward also finds himself at odds with other members of the force who don’t share the police’s ‘progressive’ attitudes of allowing orcs into the force.
The film briefly touches on a two thousand year old conflict between the nine armies and the Dark Lord who was defeated when various races allied to defeat him. In the established lore the orcs allied with the Dark Lord and have been subjugated ever since. The film attempts to portray the orcs through a social commentary that reflects the black community today and how heavy handed the film tackles the subject will probably depend on the viewer. For me it was handled sensitively enough without being too in your face.
The film sees the two protagonists dispatched to a disturbance that quickly escalates to a situation that goes from bad to worse. Finding themselves on the run with a Bright, the film’s titular white haired magic wielders, and a coveted magic wand Ward and Nick have to navigate hostile L.A. gang land environments whilst pursued by Inferni (the magic version of the Illuminati), the police and human and orc gangsters, all who have their own plans for the wand.
The film is shot well, with plenty of scenery that builds up the shared world of humans, orcs, elves , centaurs and the other races that we don’t get to spend any time with. A montage at the start of the film shows various L.A. scenery graffiti tagged with striking imagery depicting the struggle of orcs in an oppressed landscape. Evidently, orc lives matter. The film also doesn’t struggle for pacing. The two hour runtime services the story well enough, even if some of the world building and character exploration suffers as a result. I would have liked to have spent more time exploring the shared history of the various races and understanding the motivations of the stories’ villains but sadly these elements are undersold in favour of a shorter runtime that hurries the narrative along. To the credit of the writers and the director this world bares revisiting and at the time of writing it sounds like Netflix know this too with a sequel already greenlit.
Bright is a fun jaunt in a world I’d like to get to know better. Smith and Edgerton are strong leads who share a strong chemistry and make you care about their characters. The bad guys don’t fare as well here, especially disappointing given that Noomi Rapace is the lead antagonist but hopefully a sequel will correct some of these missteps. Bright feels like a £20 cinema ticket movie and gives enough to the viewer that you’ll want to discuss it with friends afterwards. As a film bundled with your Netflix subscription it’s hard to be too critical.
Smith plays Daryl Ward, a weary veteran L.A. cop reluctantly partnered with orc partner Nick, the first and only orc to make the force in this alternate earth story. The film opens with Ward taking a round of buckshot from an orc thug whilst Nick looks on waiting for a burrito from a street vendor. The incident leaves a distrust between Ward and Nick, with Ward unsure whether his partner really has his back after Nick not only failed to step up and prevent the shooting but also failed to apprehend the orc perpetrator during the ensuing foot chase. Ward also finds himself at odds with other members of the force who don’t share the police’s ‘progressive’ attitudes of allowing orcs into the force.
The film briefly touches on a two thousand year old conflict between the nine armies and the Dark Lord who was defeated when various races allied to defeat him. In the established lore the orcs allied with the Dark Lord and have been subjugated ever since. The film attempts to portray the orcs through a social commentary that reflects the black community today and how heavy handed the film tackles the subject will probably depend on the viewer. For me it was handled sensitively enough without being too in your face.
The film sees the two protagonists dispatched to a disturbance that quickly escalates to a situation that goes from bad to worse. Finding themselves on the run with a Bright, the film’s titular white haired magic wielders, and a coveted magic wand Ward and Nick have to navigate hostile L.A. gang land environments whilst pursued by Inferni (the magic version of the Illuminati), the police and human and orc gangsters, all who have their own plans for the wand.
The film is shot well, with plenty of scenery that builds up the shared world of humans, orcs, elves , centaurs and the other races that we don’t get to spend any time with. A montage at the start of the film shows various L.A. scenery graffiti tagged with striking imagery depicting the struggle of orcs in an oppressed landscape. Evidently, orc lives matter. The film also doesn’t struggle for pacing. The two hour runtime services the story well enough, even if some of the world building and character exploration suffers as a result. I would have liked to have spent more time exploring the shared history of the various races and understanding the motivations of the stories’ villains but sadly these elements are undersold in favour of a shorter runtime that hurries the narrative along. To the credit of the writers and the director this world bares revisiting and at the time of writing it sounds like Netflix know this too with a sequel already greenlit.
Bright is a fun jaunt in a world I’d like to get to know better. Smith and Edgerton are strong leads who share a strong chemistry and make you care about their characters. The bad guys don’t fare as well here, especially disappointing given that Noomi Rapace is the lead antagonist but hopefully a sequel will correct some of these missteps. Bright feels like a £20 cinema ticket movie and gives enough to the viewer that you’ll want to discuss it with friends afterwards. As a film bundled with your Netflix subscription it’s hard to be too critical.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Bleeding Violet in Books
Apr 27, 2018
Bleeding Violet by Dia Reeves
Genre: YA, Romance, Paranormal
Rating: 4/5
My Summary: Hanna is a freak. Diagnosed with Anxiety, Depression, Insomnia, Hyperactivity, Insanity, and nearly shut away as a maniac-depressive, she runs away from home in search of the mother she never knew. On arriving in her mother’s strange town called Portero, she makes a deal with her mom—if she can fit in with the people in this town within two weeks, she can stay. Her mother scoffs at the idea of Hanna being able to fit into the town—but Hanna soon learns that this has nothing to do with her, and everything to do with the town. Portero is like nothing she’s ever seen or heard of or imagined before. Strange creatures, invisible doors, a police-like force with a strange sense of right and wrong, a boy who she’s not sure if she likes or hates (but knows for sure that he’s hot), and a mayor who thinks she’s a god, Hanna starts her two-week challenge trying to fit in—and ends it trying to save the lives of everyone she loves.
Review:
Bleeding Violet was freakishly amazing, morbidly exciting, and realistically romantic.
I love it when the romance between the characters is real—not two perfect people who never fight who get along perfect. No, the romance between Hanna and Wyatt was not perfect, but it was there and it was special, and it was funny.
This whole book was funny. Though parts of it were strange and morbid, a lot of it was moderately confusing in an understandable way (Does that make any sense? probably not. Remember that Hanna is insane. She hallucinates… and makes some pretty interesting things happen near the end. It is confusing because it’s impossible, but understandable because she’s crazy.). I laughed almost the whole way through. It’s light and heavy, witty and serious, all mixed with the color purple.
The characters were my favorite. All the characters were very distinct and different. Sometimes when reading a story, some of the minor characters kind of blend together and seem similar, not defined enough, because they don’t really matter. But in Bleeding Violet, all the characters are distinct. I’m not sure if telling everyone that I identify with Hanna would be a wise idea because it might scare you… but to a certain extent, I did (and do) relate to her. Not just because of my own insanity (mwa-ha-ha!) but because her character was written in a very clear personal way. The story is told from first person inside Hanna’s head, so I knew exactly what Hanna was thinking all the time. Wyatt wasn’t perfect either. He had his flaws and that made him a real person. The change in Rosalie (the mother) was… both interesting and wonderful to see (Trying to keep this spoiler-free… but those of you who’ve read it already know what I mean by “change”).
The plot was engaging and fast paced, but not rushed. The details enhanced the story, rather than slowing it down just for the sake of telling you what something looked or felt like.
Bleeding Violet has a good mix of reality and paranormal. It’s mixed well enough that you can relate to it and it feels like our present day, age, and atmosphere, but the paranormal aspects are still strong and don’t feel out of place.
The low points of the book were the writing, and the ending. The writing was nothing special, but for the most part it was acceptable. The ending wasn’t a let down, but it could have been better. It was cute and sweet, but it didn’t fix all the problems, didn’t answer all the questions, and didn’t have quite enough closure for me.
Content: There was some sex, but no explicit details. There were some sexual references, moderate language, and some morbid details. Not for the easily offended or the weak of stomach.
Recommendation: Ages 16+ to anyone who doesn’t mind being a little freaked out or surprised by crazy people.
Will I buy this book and read it again? Yes, probably. (I read the e-book copy for review.) It will (hopefully soon) have a permanent spot on my bookshelf.
~Haleyknitz
Genre: YA, Romance, Paranormal
Rating: 4/5
My Summary: Hanna is a freak. Diagnosed with Anxiety, Depression, Insomnia, Hyperactivity, Insanity, and nearly shut away as a maniac-depressive, she runs away from home in search of the mother she never knew. On arriving in her mother’s strange town called Portero, she makes a deal with her mom—if she can fit in with the people in this town within two weeks, she can stay. Her mother scoffs at the idea of Hanna being able to fit into the town—but Hanna soon learns that this has nothing to do with her, and everything to do with the town. Portero is like nothing she’s ever seen or heard of or imagined before. Strange creatures, invisible doors, a police-like force with a strange sense of right and wrong, a boy who she’s not sure if she likes or hates (but knows for sure that he’s hot), and a mayor who thinks she’s a god, Hanna starts her two-week challenge trying to fit in—and ends it trying to save the lives of everyone she loves.
Review:
Bleeding Violet was freakishly amazing, morbidly exciting, and realistically romantic.
I love it when the romance between the characters is real—not two perfect people who never fight who get along perfect. No, the romance between Hanna and Wyatt was not perfect, but it was there and it was special, and it was funny.
This whole book was funny. Though parts of it were strange and morbid, a lot of it was moderately confusing in an understandable way (Does that make any sense? probably not. Remember that Hanna is insane. She hallucinates… and makes some pretty interesting things happen near the end. It is confusing because it’s impossible, but understandable because she’s crazy.). I laughed almost the whole way through. It’s light and heavy, witty and serious, all mixed with the color purple.
The characters were my favorite. All the characters were very distinct and different. Sometimes when reading a story, some of the minor characters kind of blend together and seem similar, not defined enough, because they don’t really matter. But in Bleeding Violet, all the characters are distinct. I’m not sure if telling everyone that I identify with Hanna would be a wise idea because it might scare you… but to a certain extent, I did (and do) relate to her. Not just because of my own insanity (mwa-ha-ha!) but because her character was written in a very clear personal way. The story is told from first person inside Hanna’s head, so I knew exactly what Hanna was thinking all the time. Wyatt wasn’t perfect either. He had his flaws and that made him a real person. The change in Rosalie (the mother) was… both interesting and wonderful to see (Trying to keep this spoiler-free… but those of you who’ve read it already know what I mean by “change”).
The plot was engaging and fast paced, but not rushed. The details enhanced the story, rather than slowing it down just for the sake of telling you what something looked or felt like.
Bleeding Violet has a good mix of reality and paranormal. It’s mixed well enough that you can relate to it and it feels like our present day, age, and atmosphere, but the paranormal aspects are still strong and don’t feel out of place.
The low points of the book were the writing, and the ending. The writing was nothing special, but for the most part it was acceptable. The ending wasn’t a let down, but it could have been better. It was cute and sweet, but it didn’t fix all the problems, didn’t answer all the questions, and didn’t have quite enough closure for me.
Content: There was some sex, but no explicit details. There were some sexual references, moderate language, and some morbid details. Not for the easily offended or the weak of stomach.
Recommendation: Ages 16+ to anyone who doesn’t mind being a little freaked out or surprised by crazy people.
Will I buy this book and read it again? Yes, probably. (I read the e-book copy for review.) It will (hopefully soon) have a permanent spot on my bookshelf.
~Haleyknitz
Amanda (96 KP) rated People Like Us in Books
Mar 12, 2019
Ever watched that show Pretty Little Liars or Riverdale (RIP Luke Perry) and think to yourself, this is such a stupid teenager drama show...and yet I can't stop watching or I need to know what happens next? This book doesn't read like Riverdale, but it definitely reads like an episode or another book of Pretty Little Liars. I will say that it reads like that, and a little like Karen M. McManus' novel, One of Us is Lying.
So we have Katherine "Kay" at a boarding school called, Bates. She's there for a soccer and hopes to get an athletic scholarship. One night, her and her few friends come across a body, a student and things begin to unravel about Kay and now she's being blackmailed.
Here's Kay in a nutshell. She DID NOT come from money, though she is trying her best to dress and act the part - including being the bully. It's hard to say if she goes a long with most of the stuff her friends did and said, or if she is genuinely a 'mean girl'. Although, after a prank that was her idea comes to play, my sympathy for her slowly weakens.
She gets a link to this revenge blog and it works along with algorithm that if she doesn't get a student off the class roster (meaning getting them expelled) then information about her is leaked to the police that could put her in prison. How it works is the blog is a stove and it opens for a 'recipe'. The recipe is a poem and sometimes had photos or information that incriminates her friends. One of them, for example, hints that one of her friends cheats on her tests.
To add to the drama, Kay struggles with her romantic feelings for her best friend (though I often wonder why) Brie whom has a girlfriend. They've gone through the whole will they or will they not bit, and although Brie has a girlfriend, Kay still struggles. She also has conflicting feelings for her ex-boyfriend, Spencer, who cheated on her...oddly enough with the student they found dead.
Kay's life is one long soap opera. She harbors a secret about her brother's murder and her best friend's suicide (before she was shipped to Bates). Her and her group of friends makes me think of the reasons of why I didn't hang out with a group of girls growing up. They are catty and vengeful. Sometimes guys aren't any better, but I had more guy friends than I did girl friends growing up.
I dozed off on most of the book because Kay started babbling on about certain things that just didn't keep my interest. The more she told her story the more intrigued I did get, but in the end, I still couldn't really feel much for her. I'm not sure if that was the intention of the story - perhaps if it were, it wouldn't be told by Kay. The characters were not likable, but I think that was the point.
I didn't even care for Brie whom is basically the only NICE girl in the whole bunch. I can understand her being hurt by Kay (and Kay has said and done some things to warrant that), but at the same time, I wonder what it is about her that has Kay wanting her so badly.
I liked Nola for a moment because she was a computer nerd and liked literature, but that didn't last long at all. The only character I felt for was a cat named Hunter...poor kitty.
The story as a whole wasn't bad. Each side story came around in full circle and nothing was left out or left unresolved. I didn't even have a problem with how it ended, because honestly, how else would it have ended? Kay expresses regret for her actions and the things she has said, but if the story were to continue into a book two, I better see some major growth from everything she endured.
So we have Katherine "Kay" at a boarding school called, Bates. She's there for a soccer and hopes to get an athletic scholarship. One night, her and her few friends come across a body, a student and things begin to unravel about Kay and now she's being blackmailed.
Here's Kay in a nutshell. She DID NOT come from money, though she is trying her best to dress and act the part - including being the bully. It's hard to say if she goes a long with most of the stuff her friends did and said, or if she is genuinely a 'mean girl'. Although, after a prank that was her idea comes to play, my sympathy for her slowly weakens.
She gets a link to this revenge blog and it works along with algorithm that if she doesn't get a student off the class roster (meaning getting them expelled) then information about her is leaked to the police that could put her in prison. How it works is the blog is a stove and it opens for a 'recipe'. The recipe is a poem and sometimes had photos or information that incriminates her friends. One of them, for example, hints that one of her friends cheats on her tests.
To add to the drama, Kay struggles with her romantic feelings for her best friend (though I often wonder why) Brie whom has a girlfriend. They've gone through the whole will they or will they not bit, and although Brie has a girlfriend, Kay still struggles. She also has conflicting feelings for her ex-boyfriend, Spencer, who cheated on her...oddly enough with the student they found dead.
Kay's life is one long soap opera. She harbors a secret about her brother's murder and her best friend's suicide (before she was shipped to Bates). Her and her group of friends makes me think of the reasons of why I didn't hang out with a group of girls growing up. They are catty and vengeful. Sometimes guys aren't any better, but I had more guy friends than I did girl friends growing up.
I dozed off on most of the book because Kay started babbling on about certain things that just didn't keep my interest. The more she told her story the more intrigued I did get, but in the end, I still couldn't really feel much for her. I'm not sure if that was the intention of the story - perhaps if it were, it wouldn't be told by Kay. The characters were not likable, but I think that was the point.
I didn't even care for Brie whom is basically the only NICE girl in the whole bunch. I can understand her being hurt by Kay (and Kay has said and done some things to warrant that), but at the same time, I wonder what it is about her that has Kay wanting her so badly.
I liked Nola for a moment because she was a computer nerd and liked literature, but that didn't last long at all. The only character I felt for was a cat named Hunter...poor kitty.
The story as a whole wasn't bad. Each side story came around in full circle and nothing was left out or left unresolved. I didn't even have a problem with how it ended, because honestly, how else would it have ended? Kay expresses regret for her actions and the things she has said, but if the story were to continue into a book two, I better see some major growth from everything she endured.