Search
Search results
Mark @ Carstairs Considers (2269 KP) rated Murder Off the Books in Books
Sep 15, 2023 (Updated Sep 15, 2023)
Grand Opening, Book Launch, and Murder
After months of work, Tess Harrow is ready to open her new bookstore and celebrate the launch of her latest bestselling thriller. However, her plans are changed when her mother, Bee, shows up unexpected. Trailing Bee is her latest boyfriend, Levi, who is a suspected serial killer preying on older women. Naturally, Tess doesn’t react well to that, but the next morning, Levi has been murdered. With as close to home as this hit, Tess can’t help but put her plans aside and start investigating. Can she figure out what happened?
Those who have read the first two books in the series will know what to expect here. We get a plot with some wackiness that fits this story and these characters perfectly. I did find some of the humor fell flat for me (might just be me), but I still laughed plenty. Yet the story comes together for a logical climax. The characters are all strong and entertaining as well. I did find a handful of political comments, which were superfluous to the story, threw me out of the story. The author does a good job of skirting spoilers for the previous books, which fans will know is a pretty big task. If you want a mystery filled with humor, you’ll be glad you picked this one up.
Those who have read the first two books in the series will know what to expect here. We get a plot with some wackiness that fits this story and these characters perfectly. I did find some of the humor fell flat for me (might just be me), but I still laughed plenty. Yet the story comes together for a logical climax. The characters are all strong and entertaining as well. I did find a handful of political comments, which were superfluous to the story, threw me out of the story. The author does a good job of skirting spoilers for the previous books, which fans will know is a pretty big task. If you want a mystery filled with humor, you’ll be glad you picked this one up.
Merissa (12330 KP) rated Alpha's Moon (Dirigo Pack #1) in Books
Jun 23, 2021 (Updated Jul 18, 2023)
ALPHA'S MOON is the first book in the Dirigo Pack series and what a start!!!
Sheridan is a hybrid - wolf father and witch mother, accepted by neither 'camp'. After her parents die, she is left alone in the world but survives. She doesn't trust easily, especially if they are in one of the two camps mentioned above. So what is she to do when her friend's brother says they are mates?
I loved this book! Although the instant mate connection was there, Kane and Sheridan worked their way through it, allowing their relationship to grow. I adored how Kane was determined to give Sheridan the space she needed, even going against his parents and the Pack to do so. It's easy to fall back on old habits, but Sheridan and Kane learn from them and move forward.
There's a bit of something for everyone here, with betrayal, mystery, and political machinations. I thought the whole story was bound together brilliantly, and I would LOVE to see more of Isaac.
An amazing start to the series and I can't wait for more. Absolutely recommended by me.
** same worded review will appear elsewhere **
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book, and the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Jun 23, 2021
Sheridan is a hybrid - wolf father and witch mother, accepted by neither 'camp'. After her parents die, she is left alone in the world but survives. She doesn't trust easily, especially if they are in one of the two camps mentioned above. So what is she to do when her friend's brother says they are mates?
I loved this book! Although the instant mate connection was there, Kane and Sheridan worked their way through it, allowing their relationship to grow. I adored how Kane was determined to give Sheridan the space she needed, even going against his parents and the Pack to do so. It's easy to fall back on old habits, but Sheridan and Kane learn from them and move forward.
There's a bit of something for everyone here, with betrayal, mystery, and political machinations. I thought the whole story was bound together brilliantly, and I would LOVE to see more of Isaac.
An amazing start to the series and I can't wait for more. Absolutely recommended by me.
** same worded review will appear elsewhere **
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book, and the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Jun 23, 2021
Hazel (2934 KP) rated The Child Who Lived in Books
Aug 13, 2023
Although a work of fiction, The Child Who Lived is based on true events and tells a little told story of female prisoners within Mauthausen.
The book starts in the divorce courts in 1946 where Lore's husband is filing for divorce due to her 'unacceptable behaviour'. There, she tells the story of her remarkable life before and during the war.
Lore was a political prisoner initially interred in Ravensbrück but sent to Mauthausen with another group of women there to service the needs of the men. Lore and the other women soon become like family; looking out for and supporting each other whilst trying to survive the brutal regime inflicted by the SS. Against all the odds and rules, Lore finds love and unexpectedly becomes pregnant ... a death sentence for both mother and baby. How is she going to survive and save the life of her unborn child?
This is a story of bravery, strength, love and survival and although a work of fiction and therefore there is some 'artistic licence' and a suspension of reality at times, it is a story that hits all the emotions and the characters stay with you long after you finish.
Recommended to those who enjoy reading historical fiction from this era and thank you to the author, Bookouture and NetGalley for enabling me to read and share my thoughts of The Child Who Lived.
The book starts in the divorce courts in 1946 where Lore's husband is filing for divorce due to her 'unacceptable behaviour'. There, she tells the story of her remarkable life before and during the war.
Lore was a political prisoner initially interred in Ravensbrück but sent to Mauthausen with another group of women there to service the needs of the men. Lore and the other women soon become like family; looking out for and supporting each other whilst trying to survive the brutal regime inflicted by the SS. Against all the odds and rules, Lore finds love and unexpectedly becomes pregnant ... a death sentence for both mother and baby. How is she going to survive and save the life of her unborn child?
This is a story of bravery, strength, love and survival and although a work of fiction and therefore there is some 'artistic licence' and a suspension of reality at times, it is a story that hits all the emotions and the characters stay with you long after you finish.
Recommended to those who enjoy reading historical fiction from this era and thank you to the author, Bookouture and NetGalley for enabling me to read and share my thoughts of The Child Who Lived.
A Short History of Lithuania to 1569
Book
Why did Lithuania’s dictator in the 1920s (the pro-Nazi Augustinas Voldemaras, who aligned himself...
history bookbuzz
Hunt In The Night (Blood and Bonds #3)
10.0
Rate It
Book
Book three in the Blood and Bonds series Hunting killers is Mason’s job. But falling for a...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Front Runner (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Candidate for a downfall.
We can all probably rattle off some of the classics movies with US politics as their backdrop. For me, “All the President’s Men”; “Primary Colors”; and “Frost/Nixon” might make that list. In the next tier down there are many great drama/thrillers – “Miss Sloane“; “The Post“; “The Ides of March”; “The American President”; “JFK” – and even some pretty funny comedies – “Dave” and “My Fellow Americans” for example. It’s actually quite difficult to think of many films on the subject that are outright dire, proving it remains a fertile ground for film-makers.
“The Front Runner” fortunately avoids this last category, but it’s certainly not good enough to make it into the ‘classics’ list either.
A true story.
The film is based on the true-story of US presidential hopeful Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) and if you are NOT aware of the historical background then you might want to skip the rest of this review – and indeed all others – so you can see the film first and let the history come as a surprise to you.
Hart was younger than most candidates: good-looking, floppy-haired and refreshingly matter of fact in his dealings with the public and the press. Any interviews had to be about his politics: not about his family life with wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and teenage daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever).
Unfortunately, Hart has a weakness for a pretty face (or ten) and his marriage is rocky as a result: “Just don’t embarrass me” is Lee’s one requirement. His “nothing to hide” line to an intelligent Washington Post reporter – AJ Parker (a well cast Mamoudou Athie) – leads to a half-arsed stake-out by Miami Herald reporters and incriminating pictures linking Hart to a Miami pharmaceutical saleswoman Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As the growing press tsunami rises, and his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) gets more and more frustrated with him, can his candidacy survive and will his (now very much embarrassed) wife stick by him?
The turns.
Hugh Jackman is perfectly cast here; very believable as the self-centred, self-righteous and stubborn politician. But this central performance is surrounded by a strong team of supporting players. Vera Farmiga is superb as the wounded wife. Sara Paxton is heartbreaking as the intelligent college girl unfairly portrayed as a “slapper” by the media. The scenes between her and Hart-staffer Irene (Molly Ephraim), trying desperately to support her as best she can, are very nicely done. J.K Simmons as campaign manager Bill Dixon is as reliable as ever. And Alfred Molina turns up as the latest film incarnation of The Post’s Ben Bradlee – surely one of the most oft portrayed real-life journalists in film history.
“What did they just say”?
The biggest cause of dissatisfaction I have with the film is with the sound mixing. Was this a deliberate act by director Jason Reitman, to reflect the chaotic nature of political campaigning? Whether it was deliberate or not, much of the film’s dialogue – particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film – is drowned out by background noise. Sometimes I just longed for subtitles!
Just a little bit dull.
The screenplay, by Matt Bai (from his source book), Jay Carson (a Clinton staffer) and director Jason Reitman might align with the history, but the big problem is that the story’s just a little bit dull, particularly by today’s levels of scandal. This suffers the same fate as “House of Cards” (even before the Kevin Spacey allegations) in that the shocking realities of the Trump-era have progressively neutered the shock-factor of the fiction: to the point where it starts to become boring. Here, only once or twice does the screenplay hit a winning beat: for me, it was the scenes between Donna Rice and Irene Kelly and the dramatic press conference towards the end of the film. The rest of the time, the screenplay was perfectly serviceable but nothing spectacular.
When is a politician’s personal life private?
A core tenet of the film is Hart’s view that politics should be about the policies and not about the personality. Looking at the subject nowadays, it’s clearly a ridiculously idealistic viewpoint. Of course it matters. Politicians need to be trusted by their constituents (yeah, like that’s the case in the UK and the US at the moment!) and whether or not they slap their wives around or sleep with farm animals is clearly a material factor in that relationship. But this was clearly not as much the case in the 70’s as it is today, and the suggestion is that the Hart case was a turning point and a wake-up call to politicians around the world. (An interesting article by the Washington Post itself points out that this is also a simplistic view: that Hart should have been well aware of the dangerous game he was playing.)
Fidelity in politics.
Do you think that powerful politicos are driven to infidelity because they are powerful? Or that it is a characteristic of men who have the charisma to become political leaders in the first place? Such was the discussion my wife and I had in the car home after this film. Nature or political nurture? I’m still not sure.
It’s worth pointing out that to this day both Hart and Rice (interestingly, an alleged ex-girlfriend of Eagles front-man Don Henley) stick to their story that they never had sex.
Final thoughts.
The film’s perfectly watchable, has great acting, but is a little bit of a non-event. The end titles came and I thought “OK, that’s that then”…. nothing more. If you’re a fan of this style of historical political film then you probably won’t be disappointed by it; if not, probably best to wait and catch this on the TV.
“The Front Runner” fortunately avoids this last category, but it’s certainly not good enough to make it into the ‘classics’ list either.
A true story.
The film is based on the true-story of US presidential hopeful Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) and if you are NOT aware of the historical background then you might want to skip the rest of this review – and indeed all others – so you can see the film first and let the history come as a surprise to you.
Hart was younger than most candidates: good-looking, floppy-haired and refreshingly matter of fact in his dealings with the public and the press. Any interviews had to be about his politics: not about his family life with wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and teenage daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever).
Unfortunately, Hart has a weakness for a pretty face (or ten) and his marriage is rocky as a result: “Just don’t embarrass me” is Lee’s one requirement. His “nothing to hide” line to an intelligent Washington Post reporter – AJ Parker (a well cast Mamoudou Athie) – leads to a half-arsed stake-out by Miami Herald reporters and incriminating pictures linking Hart to a Miami pharmaceutical saleswoman Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As the growing press tsunami rises, and his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) gets more and more frustrated with him, can his candidacy survive and will his (now very much embarrassed) wife stick by him?
The turns.
Hugh Jackman is perfectly cast here; very believable as the self-centred, self-righteous and stubborn politician. But this central performance is surrounded by a strong team of supporting players. Vera Farmiga is superb as the wounded wife. Sara Paxton is heartbreaking as the intelligent college girl unfairly portrayed as a “slapper” by the media. The scenes between her and Hart-staffer Irene (Molly Ephraim), trying desperately to support her as best she can, are very nicely done. J.K Simmons as campaign manager Bill Dixon is as reliable as ever. And Alfred Molina turns up as the latest film incarnation of The Post’s Ben Bradlee – surely one of the most oft portrayed real-life journalists in film history.
“What did they just say”?
The biggest cause of dissatisfaction I have with the film is with the sound mixing. Was this a deliberate act by director Jason Reitman, to reflect the chaotic nature of political campaigning? Whether it was deliberate or not, much of the film’s dialogue – particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film – is drowned out by background noise. Sometimes I just longed for subtitles!
Just a little bit dull.
The screenplay, by Matt Bai (from his source book), Jay Carson (a Clinton staffer) and director Jason Reitman might align with the history, but the big problem is that the story’s just a little bit dull, particularly by today’s levels of scandal. This suffers the same fate as “House of Cards” (even before the Kevin Spacey allegations) in that the shocking realities of the Trump-era have progressively neutered the shock-factor of the fiction: to the point where it starts to become boring. Here, only once or twice does the screenplay hit a winning beat: for me, it was the scenes between Donna Rice and Irene Kelly and the dramatic press conference towards the end of the film. The rest of the time, the screenplay was perfectly serviceable but nothing spectacular.
When is a politician’s personal life private?
A core tenet of the film is Hart’s view that politics should be about the policies and not about the personality. Looking at the subject nowadays, it’s clearly a ridiculously idealistic viewpoint. Of course it matters. Politicians need to be trusted by their constituents (yeah, like that’s the case in the UK and the US at the moment!) and whether or not they slap their wives around or sleep with farm animals is clearly a material factor in that relationship. But this was clearly not as much the case in the 70’s as it is today, and the suggestion is that the Hart case was a turning point and a wake-up call to politicians around the world. (An interesting article by the Washington Post itself points out that this is also a simplistic view: that Hart should have been well aware of the dangerous game he was playing.)
Fidelity in politics.
Do you think that powerful politicos are driven to infidelity because they are powerful? Or that it is a characteristic of men who have the charisma to become political leaders in the first place? Such was the discussion my wife and I had in the car home after this film. Nature or political nurture? I’m still not sure.
It’s worth pointing out that to this day both Hart and Rice (interestingly, an alleged ex-girlfriend of Eagles front-man Don Henley) stick to their story that they never had sex.
Final thoughts.
The film’s perfectly watchable, has great acting, but is a little bit of a non-event. The end titles came and I thought “OK, that’s that then”…. nothing more. If you’re a fan of this style of historical political film then you probably won’t be disappointed by it; if not, probably best to wait and catch this on the TV.
Eilidh G Clark (177 KP) rated Serious Sweet: Longlisted for the Man Booker Prize in Books
May 13, 2017
This novel is a work of art, l I would expect nothing less from a Man Booker contender.
‘The trouble was, that Margaret Thatcher got her drunk.’
A.L. Kennedy is an award-winning novelist, short story writer, and comedian. Her most recent novel, Serious Sweet, 2016, was long listed for this year’s Man Booker prize. Prior to reading the novel, I read some reviews and was fascinated by their diversity, comments ranging from disappointing to outright marvellous. This told me that I was about to embark on a work of art, after all I would expect nothing less from a Man Booker contender.
The novel is set in the heart of contemporary London and follows its two main characters, John Sigurdsson and Meg Williams through a single day. John is a fickle character, who at 59-year of age, has recently divorced is adulterous wife, and his professional life is hanging in the balance. Working as a senior civil servant in Westminster, he is attempting to uncover some pretty immoral activity. John has a talent for letter writing, this, he finds, is a romantic way to connect to women, whilst otherwise remaining inconspicuous. This is how he meets Meg.
Meg Williams is a 45-year-old bankrupt accountant, now working in an animal shelter because, ‘people who’ve been damaged by people go and work with salvaged animals because the animals have also been damaged by people’ (128). Meg is a victim of sexual abuse from a previous partner, something that we only learn in smatterings throughout the novel. A struggling alcoholic, Meg is on the wagon then off the wagon and blames her more recent fall on Margaret Thatcher, ‘The trouble was that Margaret Thatcher got her drunk.’
While the novel itself can be read as a political satire, and political corruption is plentiful in the narrative, I feel it is simply a back-story. The real story is the unfolding of the human consciousness and the power of the mind. Kennedy shows the reader the power of will through the thoughts of each character, stripping them back to their rawest and purest selves, and showing real courage and hope.
When John and Meg eventually meet at the end of the novel, it is not without some supercharged emotional turmoil. Connecting initially through letter writing, however, allowed the characters to open up their inner thoughts and feelings and gave a platform to be open and honest without the restrictions of reality. This, I believe, is where hope is born in the story.
Watching these two characters evolve was a real delight for me and I feel that Kennedy did the novel justice. You can almost feel each character battle with their own heads while their consciousness’ begins to intertwine. And let us not forget those beautifully written vignettes between chapters. Kennedy has written a wonderful novel, and Serious Sweet, I believe was worthy of its Man Booker place.
A.L. Kennedy is an award-winning novelist, short story writer, and comedian. Her most recent novel, Serious Sweet, 2016, was long listed for this year’s Man Booker prize. Prior to reading the novel, I read some reviews and was fascinated by their diversity, comments ranging from disappointing to outright marvellous. This told me that I was about to embark on a work of art, after all I would expect nothing less from a Man Booker contender.
The novel is set in the heart of contemporary London and follows its two main characters, John Sigurdsson and Meg Williams through a single day. John is a fickle character, who at 59-year of age, has recently divorced is adulterous wife, and his professional life is hanging in the balance. Working as a senior civil servant in Westminster, he is attempting to uncover some pretty immoral activity. John has a talent for letter writing, this, he finds, is a romantic way to connect to women, whilst otherwise remaining inconspicuous. This is how he meets Meg.
Meg Williams is a 45-year-old bankrupt accountant, now working in an animal shelter because, ‘people who’ve been damaged by people go and work with salvaged animals because the animals have also been damaged by people’ (128). Meg is a victim of sexual abuse from a previous partner, something that we only learn in smatterings throughout the novel. A struggling alcoholic, Meg is on the wagon then off the wagon and blames her more recent fall on Margaret Thatcher, ‘The trouble was that Margaret Thatcher got her drunk.’
While the novel itself can be read as a political satire, and political corruption is plentiful in the narrative, I feel it is simply a back-story. The real story is the unfolding of the human consciousness and the power of the mind. Kennedy shows the reader the power of will through the thoughts of each character, stripping them back to their rawest and purest selves, and showing real courage and hope.
When John and Meg eventually meet at the end of the novel, it is not without some supercharged emotional turmoil. Connecting initially through letter writing, however, allowed the characters to open up their inner thoughts and feelings and gave a platform to be open and honest without the restrictions of reality. This, I believe, is where hope is born in the story.
Watching these two characters evolve was a real delight for me and I feel that Kennedy did the novel justice. You can almost feel each character battle with their own heads while their consciousness’ begins to intertwine. And let us not forget those beautifully written vignettes between chapters. Kennedy has written a wonderful novel, and Serious Sweet, I believe was worthy of its Man Booker place.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Battle in Seattle (2008) in Movies
Mar 7, 2019
Lefty cold
Contains spoilers, click to show
I caught this on the TV and was intrigued by the opening credits, always being one to be interested in real events and certainly ones in a recent political context. I admit that I was unaware of these events, but as the plot played out it left me feeling somewhat cold, always waiting for the hook that never came.
This was basically a docudrama which melded the real and the reenactment together to create an at times frightening and tense view of the riots. Though this could have been any riot, over any subject, which was kind of the point. I feel that this could easily have been a film focusing on the Poll Tax riots of 1990 and have lost nothing.
I feel that this needed to be more, in every area. More Seattle Riots, and I mean in a way that singled them out as such, and not just any riot. More character drama, with barely scratched the surface at most and more political. This attacks the WTO with the lowest common denominator, playing the emotional and reactionary left wing card, rather than a fully rounded balanced argument.
I have no doubt that the World Trade Organisation is evil, as are most capital institutions, but there was little to convict them here, except the strong implications that they are against free speech.
This was a film which was fair to it's characters; The riot cop just doing his job, the peaceful protesters, the anarchists and the forlorn Mayer. But there was a lack of a strong villain, as, as I've said, the WTO wasn't sufficiently justified.
Also, its historical integrity has to be questioned. Simply put, are any of the characters portrait here real? The protesters are fictional, as I understand, but the Mayer? The reporter? It's not clear and based on their actions within the film, I would really like to know.
*** SPOILER *** But finally, the most disturbing and probably the best, most compelling part of this film to me would be the what happens to Charlize Theron's character, a pregnant woman and wife of Woody Harleson's riot cop. As she is trying in vain to make her way home amidst the chaos of rioters clashing with police and in the confusion is treated as a rioter and is hit in the stomach with a baton. The result I'll leave in your imagination...
This was best moment in the film were the true horror of these clashes become prevalent as the moral lines are crossed and order breaks down.
************** In summation, this was worth a watch but will offer little in the way of clarification as to the motives of the events of that November, but maybe there are no more. Maybe it was a riot which stemmed from a protest against the capitalist machine. If you have strong lefty views then this is the film for you, if not, have a look but I doubt that you'll be blown away.
This was basically a docudrama which melded the real and the reenactment together to create an at times frightening and tense view of the riots. Though this could have been any riot, over any subject, which was kind of the point. I feel that this could easily have been a film focusing on the Poll Tax riots of 1990 and have lost nothing.
I feel that this needed to be more, in every area. More Seattle Riots, and I mean in a way that singled them out as such, and not just any riot. More character drama, with barely scratched the surface at most and more political. This attacks the WTO with the lowest common denominator, playing the emotional and reactionary left wing card, rather than a fully rounded balanced argument.
I have no doubt that the World Trade Organisation is evil, as are most capital institutions, but there was little to convict them here, except the strong implications that they are against free speech.
This was a film which was fair to it's characters; The riot cop just doing his job, the peaceful protesters, the anarchists and the forlorn Mayer. But there was a lack of a strong villain, as, as I've said, the WTO wasn't sufficiently justified.
Also, its historical integrity has to be questioned. Simply put, are any of the characters portrait here real? The protesters are fictional, as I understand, but the Mayer? The reporter? It's not clear and based on their actions within the film, I would really like to know.
*** SPOILER *** But finally, the most disturbing and probably the best, most compelling part of this film to me would be the what happens to Charlize Theron's character, a pregnant woman and wife of Woody Harleson's riot cop. As she is trying in vain to make her way home amidst the chaos of rioters clashing with police and in the confusion is treated as a rioter and is hit in the stomach with a baton. The result I'll leave in your imagination...
This was best moment in the film were the true horror of these clashes become prevalent as the moral lines are crossed and order breaks down.
************** In summation, this was worth a watch but will offer little in the way of clarification as to the motives of the events of that November, but maybe there are no more. Maybe it was a riot which stemmed from a protest against the capitalist machine. If you have strong lefty views then this is the film for you, if not, have a look but I doubt that you'll be blown away.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated State of Play (2009) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In the corridors of the nation’s capital, Washington D.C. alliances and wheeling and dealing are the name of the game. With billions if not trillions of dollars hinging on new laws and policy, corporations clearly have an interest in which way the political winds are leaning and how it will affect their all important bottom line.
In the political thriller “State of Play”, Director Kevin MacDonald has combined a stellar cast with a strong script from Tony Gilroy, Billy Ray, and Matthew Michael Carnahan to craft one of the best dramas since Gilroy’s “Michael Clayton”.
When the lead researcher of Congressman Stephen Collins (Ben Affleck), dies in an accident, it is a devastating blow to the young Congressman as he prepares for a series of hearings intended to cull the growth of a private security firm.
What is at first listed as an accident raises suspicion in veteran news reporter Cal McAffrey (Russell Crowe), who has had a long friendship, with Collins. Despite tension in recent years, Collins turns to Cal when it is revealed that he had an affair with his researcher. As Cal looks into the story he is under pressure from his editor (Helen Mirren), to deliver a story to keep the papers new owners happy. If this was not bad enough, Cal is also dogged by an online reporter for the paper named Della (Rachael McAdams), who is looking to make a name for herself at the paper.
Cal soon learns that the assistant was killed in what was made to look like an accident, and that a shooting incident that occurred prior to the death may be related to the murder.
Cal teams up with Della and soon learns that some very big players may be involved and that they will stop at nothing to protect their secret.
In a race against time, Cal and Della must get to the bottom of the mystery and stay alive. Unsure who to trust and which way their leads will follow, Cal and Della look for the answers that unaware that the quest they have undertaken will affect the halls of power as well as the very nation itself.
“State of Play” is a very tight thriller that is filled with twists and turns. The characters are interesting and well developed and the performances are first rate. Crowe is powerful as the determined Cal and works well with Affleck and Adams. Robin Wright Penn and Helen Mirren also give very strong performances.
The story of the film seems ripped from the headlines and has an eerie sense of reality to it, and works much better than “The International” attempted to do with its conspiracy premise.
While I have avoided as many spoilers as I could, suffice it to say that the film does have a deep plot that twists and turns to a rewarding conclusion and will keep your attention. I would hope that the fine work in this film is not forgotten when the Oscars come up next.
In the political thriller “State of Play”, Director Kevin MacDonald has combined a stellar cast with a strong script from Tony Gilroy, Billy Ray, and Matthew Michael Carnahan to craft one of the best dramas since Gilroy’s “Michael Clayton”.
When the lead researcher of Congressman Stephen Collins (Ben Affleck), dies in an accident, it is a devastating blow to the young Congressman as he prepares for a series of hearings intended to cull the growth of a private security firm.
What is at first listed as an accident raises suspicion in veteran news reporter Cal McAffrey (Russell Crowe), who has had a long friendship, with Collins. Despite tension in recent years, Collins turns to Cal when it is revealed that he had an affair with his researcher. As Cal looks into the story he is under pressure from his editor (Helen Mirren), to deliver a story to keep the papers new owners happy. If this was not bad enough, Cal is also dogged by an online reporter for the paper named Della (Rachael McAdams), who is looking to make a name for herself at the paper.
Cal soon learns that the assistant was killed in what was made to look like an accident, and that a shooting incident that occurred prior to the death may be related to the murder.
Cal teams up with Della and soon learns that some very big players may be involved and that they will stop at nothing to protect their secret.
In a race against time, Cal and Della must get to the bottom of the mystery and stay alive. Unsure who to trust and which way their leads will follow, Cal and Della look for the answers that unaware that the quest they have undertaken will affect the halls of power as well as the very nation itself.
“State of Play” is a very tight thriller that is filled with twists and turns. The characters are interesting and well developed and the performances are first rate. Crowe is powerful as the determined Cal and works well with Affleck and Adams. Robin Wright Penn and Helen Mirren also give very strong performances.
The story of the film seems ripped from the headlines and has an eerie sense of reality to it, and works much better than “The International” attempted to do with its conspiracy premise.
While I have avoided as many spoilers as I could, suffice it to say that the film does have a deep plot that twists and turns to a rewarding conclusion and will keep your attention. I would hope that the fine work in this film is not forgotten when the Oscars come up next.