Search
Search results
A Link To Kill (Hawthorne & Horowitz Mystery #3)
8.0
Rate It
Book
I couldn't see the sea from my bedroom but I could hear the waves breaking in the distance. They...
Lyndsey Gollogly (2893 KP) rated The Night She Disappeared in Books
Aug 7, 2022
139 of 230
Book
The Night She Disappeared
By Lisa Jewel
⭐️⭐️⭐️
On a beautiful summer night in a charming English suburb, a young woman and her boyfriend disappear after partying at the massive country estate of a new college friend.
One year later, a writer moves into a cottage on the edge of the woods that border the same estate. Known locally as the Dark Place, the dense forest is the writer’s favorite place for long walks and it’s on one such walk that she stumbles upon a mysterious note that simply reads, “DIG HERE.”
Could this be a clue towards what has happened to the missing young couple? And what exactly is buried in this haunted ground?
This started off slow for me but by the end I was gripped. I had kinda guessed what had happened half way through but it was well written and kept me interested until the end. I’m halfway way between 3&4 stars and only because I had worked it out early it stays at a 3. Not sure I’d have killed Zachary but he certainly wasn’t a nice character and needed a smack. I can’t imagine having your children just disappearing like that.
Book
The Night She Disappeared
By Lisa Jewel
⭐️⭐️⭐️
On a beautiful summer night in a charming English suburb, a young woman and her boyfriend disappear after partying at the massive country estate of a new college friend.
One year later, a writer moves into a cottage on the edge of the woods that border the same estate. Known locally as the Dark Place, the dense forest is the writer’s favorite place for long walks and it’s on one such walk that she stumbles upon a mysterious note that simply reads, “DIG HERE.”
Could this be a clue towards what has happened to the missing young couple? And what exactly is buried in this haunted ground?
This started off slow for me but by the end I was gripped. I had kinda guessed what had happened half way through but it was well written and kept me interested until the end. I’m halfway way between 3&4 stars and only because I had worked it out early it stays at a 3. Not sure I’d have killed Zachary but he certainly wasn’t a nice character and needed a smack. I can’t imagine having your children just disappearing like that.
The Twyford Code
8.5
Rate It
Book
It's time to solve the murder of the century... Forty years ago, Steven Smith found a copy of a...
ClareR (5726 KP) rated The Lamplighters in Books
Mar 14, 2022
The Lamplighters is a locked room (lighthouse!) mystery, which had me gripped up to the last page. How could three men go missing from a tower lighthouse, with no way off back to land. There’s no boat, no-one visited them - and what’s more, the lighthouse is locked from the inside when the investigation team arrive.
This is a mystery that affects their wives and partners even 20 years later. A writer contacts the three women and asks them to cooperate with him as he writes a book about the mystery. It seems that all three women held back secrets during the original investigation - but will the uncovering of these secrets make any difference?
The Lamplighters is told in flashbacks, alternating between the present day with the women, and the lead up to the disappearance with the men in the lighthouse. The lighthouse chapters in particular are seriously atmospheric, threatening, even. I had so many ideas as to what could have happened, my opinion changing constantly as more information was revealed. I didn’t guess the actual ending though, even after I’d described the basic storyline of the book to my husband, and he got it in one (note to self: do not discuss mystery books with the husband, AKA “Dr” Poirot…)
Highly recommended.
This is a mystery that affects their wives and partners even 20 years later. A writer contacts the three women and asks them to cooperate with him as he writes a book about the mystery. It seems that all three women held back secrets during the original investigation - but will the uncovering of these secrets make any difference?
The Lamplighters is told in flashbacks, alternating between the present day with the women, and the lead up to the disappearance with the men in the lighthouse. The lighthouse chapters in particular are seriously atmospheric, threatening, even. I had so many ideas as to what could have happened, my opinion changing constantly as more information was revealed. I didn’t guess the actual ending though, even after I’d described the basic storyline of the book to my husband, and he got it in one (note to self: do not discuss mystery books with the husband, AKA “Dr” Poirot…)
Highly recommended.
Excalibur (The Arthurian Chronicles, #1)
6.0
Rate It
Book
The sword has the power of Britain in its steel, men will follow and fight for whoever wields it......
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Words (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
On paper, The Words is a film that is better suited as a literary novella. In print, we, as readers, are often granted insight to our characters thoughts and motivation that is frequently lost on film or delivered in a lackluster voiceover that most critics deem as lazy film making. Furthermore, the story within a story, within a story approach in film often leaves the audience with uninteresting shells of characters and can make a story forgettable at best.
Given these reasons, it is easy to see why many would choose to undertake a less ambitious story for their directorial debut. That group does not include co-writer-directors Brian Klugman and Lee Sternthal. This duo is actually successful at tackling this dangerous story-within-a-story film device by keeping it simple. Focusing on the main characters of each story and their motivation, while tying each together with some common themes like love, what it means to write something great, and how far the need for success will drive the characters.
The movie begins with highly successful author Clay Hammond (Dennis Quaid) conducting a reading of his latest novel The Words. Among his audience is literary grad student and adoring fan, Daniella (Olivia Wilde), who has aspirations of picking the brain of the man that authored her favorite stories and perhaps getting involved romantically. As Hammond begins to read his story we are introduced to the tale of starving writer Rory Jensen (Bradley Cooper) and his wife Dora (Zoe Saldana). The two are a young couple in love, trying to get on their feet while Rory struggles with multiple rejections of his novels, until he is finally forced to come to grips with his own limitations as an artist and a writer.
As he settles into life and a job as a mail clerk at a publishing firm, he finds a lost manuscript in a vintage leather briefcase that Dora had purchased for him during their honeymoon in Paris. That story turns out to be something that moves him to tears. It is the final thing in his realization that he will never be the great writer that he thought he was, the great writer that wrote this anonymous story. In an effort to feel and try to understand what it is like to create something great, Rory decides to retype the novel word for word on his laptop if only to admire the beautiful story that he had instantly fallen in love with. When Dora mistakenly reads the novel, she encourages him to submit it to a publisher. Before he can tell her the truth, his world is transformed into the life he had always imagined he would have for himself and Dora as the novel gains him both great literary and commercial success. And finally, now that his star has risen he can get his own novel published.
Enter Jeremy Irons as the old man who reveals himself to Rory as the true author of his story. The old man feels compelled to explain to Rory the tragic origin of the story that has become the young author’s success. Irons steals every second he is on screen as his delivery of the old man oozes with the intellectual style that has been his trademark over the years. Like Rory, we are helpless to do nothing but listen and get lost in the words of his story as if he was sitting next to us and telling the story in real life.
The old man reveals that the novel is the result of great love and pain that his younger self (Ben Barnes) and the love of his life Celia (Nora Arnezeder) endured. While I am not familiar with Barnes’ and Arnezeder’s work, their performance as the younger couple in Irons’ story had a genuine connection. And while this love story does not seem to be anything new when it comes to film, it served its purpose by strengthening the other stories, showing how a great story can be mused from someplace unexpected, even if only once.
With Rory now confronted with his deceitful success, he struggles to decide how to make things right and live with himself as a fraud. It’s at this point the film subtly suggest that Hammond’s story of Rory may actually be a disguised autobiography.
As Rory, Bradley Cooper gives perhaps his best performance to date. I feel that despite his poor and deceitful decision, at no point does he lose the audience. With the help of a strong and emotionally charged performance by Zoe Saldana, we experience Cooper’s honest plight and can understand the events that unfold around him. He is effective as a man who genuinely believes he does not deserve the success that he stole. Without a doubt, this will be a surprising role for those fans who only know Cooper from the humorous characters he plays in The Hangover and most recently Hit and Run. I hope this is the beginning of growth in his craft beyond the charming, confident character we have seen in Limitless and perhaps into a deeper emotional actor.
The weakest part of this film is the story of Clay Hammond and Daniella. Dennis Quaid is quite unlikable as Hammond. He is monotone in his readings and the prose of his story is mediocre at best. While the film drops hints that Hammond’s story of Rory is autobiographical it makes sense that Quaid’s character is played this way. He succeeds in helping create the notion that Hammond is unworthy of the success his character has enjoyed. But something about his performance is so unlikable that even when his character has a redeeming moment, it is lost on an audience that may not care enough about him for it to work.
To add to this dislike of Quaid, Olivia Wilde seems out of place as the character Daniella. It is not that her performance is bad, it is just that every time they showed her as the starry-eyed fan who is love struck for Hammond, she just seemed out of place. Additionally there did not seem to be any connection between Daniella and Hammond in the way the other characters’ connections helped strengthen their performances.
In the end, I enjoyed this movie more than I expected. Visually the Montreal backdrop does an excellent job as both New York and Paris. And the continual piano score helps blend the stories. The simple focus on the main characters helped maintain the three different stories and keep the overall pacing of the movie in order. In addition, the solid to exceptional performances also helped to keep the film focused and avoided the empty shell of characters that most movies of this nature create. That being said, this movie is not for everyone, but those looking for a change of pace from the summer blockbusters season should consider this film.
Given these reasons, it is easy to see why many would choose to undertake a less ambitious story for their directorial debut. That group does not include co-writer-directors Brian Klugman and Lee Sternthal. This duo is actually successful at tackling this dangerous story-within-a-story film device by keeping it simple. Focusing on the main characters of each story and their motivation, while tying each together with some common themes like love, what it means to write something great, and how far the need for success will drive the characters.
The movie begins with highly successful author Clay Hammond (Dennis Quaid) conducting a reading of his latest novel The Words. Among his audience is literary grad student and adoring fan, Daniella (Olivia Wilde), who has aspirations of picking the brain of the man that authored her favorite stories and perhaps getting involved romantically. As Hammond begins to read his story we are introduced to the tale of starving writer Rory Jensen (Bradley Cooper) and his wife Dora (Zoe Saldana). The two are a young couple in love, trying to get on their feet while Rory struggles with multiple rejections of his novels, until he is finally forced to come to grips with his own limitations as an artist and a writer.
As he settles into life and a job as a mail clerk at a publishing firm, he finds a lost manuscript in a vintage leather briefcase that Dora had purchased for him during their honeymoon in Paris. That story turns out to be something that moves him to tears. It is the final thing in his realization that he will never be the great writer that he thought he was, the great writer that wrote this anonymous story. In an effort to feel and try to understand what it is like to create something great, Rory decides to retype the novel word for word on his laptop if only to admire the beautiful story that he had instantly fallen in love with. When Dora mistakenly reads the novel, she encourages him to submit it to a publisher. Before he can tell her the truth, his world is transformed into the life he had always imagined he would have for himself and Dora as the novel gains him both great literary and commercial success. And finally, now that his star has risen he can get his own novel published.
Enter Jeremy Irons as the old man who reveals himself to Rory as the true author of his story. The old man feels compelled to explain to Rory the tragic origin of the story that has become the young author’s success. Irons steals every second he is on screen as his delivery of the old man oozes with the intellectual style that has been his trademark over the years. Like Rory, we are helpless to do nothing but listen and get lost in the words of his story as if he was sitting next to us and telling the story in real life.
The old man reveals that the novel is the result of great love and pain that his younger self (Ben Barnes) and the love of his life Celia (Nora Arnezeder) endured. While I am not familiar with Barnes’ and Arnezeder’s work, their performance as the younger couple in Irons’ story had a genuine connection. And while this love story does not seem to be anything new when it comes to film, it served its purpose by strengthening the other stories, showing how a great story can be mused from someplace unexpected, even if only once.
With Rory now confronted with his deceitful success, he struggles to decide how to make things right and live with himself as a fraud. It’s at this point the film subtly suggest that Hammond’s story of Rory may actually be a disguised autobiography.
As Rory, Bradley Cooper gives perhaps his best performance to date. I feel that despite his poor and deceitful decision, at no point does he lose the audience. With the help of a strong and emotionally charged performance by Zoe Saldana, we experience Cooper’s honest plight and can understand the events that unfold around him. He is effective as a man who genuinely believes he does not deserve the success that he stole. Without a doubt, this will be a surprising role for those fans who only know Cooper from the humorous characters he plays in The Hangover and most recently Hit and Run. I hope this is the beginning of growth in his craft beyond the charming, confident character we have seen in Limitless and perhaps into a deeper emotional actor.
The weakest part of this film is the story of Clay Hammond and Daniella. Dennis Quaid is quite unlikable as Hammond. He is monotone in his readings and the prose of his story is mediocre at best. While the film drops hints that Hammond’s story of Rory is autobiographical it makes sense that Quaid’s character is played this way. He succeeds in helping create the notion that Hammond is unworthy of the success his character has enjoyed. But something about his performance is so unlikable that even when his character has a redeeming moment, it is lost on an audience that may not care enough about him for it to work.
To add to this dislike of Quaid, Olivia Wilde seems out of place as the character Daniella. It is not that her performance is bad, it is just that every time they showed her as the starry-eyed fan who is love struck for Hammond, she just seemed out of place. Additionally there did not seem to be any connection between Daniella and Hammond in the way the other characters’ connections helped strengthen their performances.
In the end, I enjoyed this movie more than I expected. Visually the Montreal backdrop does an excellent job as both New York and Paris. And the continual piano score helps blend the stories. The simple focus on the main characters helped maintain the three different stories and keep the overall pacing of the movie in order. In addition, the solid to exceptional performances also helped to keep the film focused and avoided the empty shell of characters that most movies of this nature create. That being said, this movie is not for everyone, but those looking for a change of pace from the summer blockbusters season should consider this film.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Lady In The Van (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019 (Updated Jun 11, 2019)
Like a particularly lethargic sloth
Cinema has a long lasting love of people having their homes invaded by unwanted intruders, and not just because that’s how most directors view anyone who tries to tell them their opinion on filmmaking. It’s because there’s a lot of different directions one can take with the drama and excitement of home invasion. The horror of Wait Until Dark, the brutality of Straw Dogs, the silliness of Home Alone, the potential is quite large. And now throwing in its own interpretation of this theme is The Lady in the Van, based on the somewhat true story of Alan Bennett’s relationship with a transient woman who parked her van on his driveway. So, how does he and the audience respond?
With a dull, mild curiosity.
Despite being from the viewpoint of two Alan Bennetts, described as one being the writer and the other living the life, the main character is Miss Sheppard, the lady in the van. The film insists that we should be interested in her mysterious life, her past as a pianist and a nun, and why she chooses to live in the van, but throughout most of the film I was only thinking “Oh, let’s just go back and hear Alan Bennett be cynical some more.” The words are witty and sharp, but it’s mostly said about things we don’t care about. Miss Sheppard is a flat, mostly dull character, and the audience is unwillingly handcuffed to her.
The highlight of the film is its acting, with the cast being a veritable who’s who of Britain’s finest talent, and James Corden. What dimension Miss Sheppard has is provided almost entirely by the volatile yet vulnerable performance by Maggie Smith, and Alex Jennings is as real an Alan Bennett as the actual Alan Bennett. Even in the small roles, everyone from Roger Allam to Gwen Taylor manage to force themselves to shine. The only bad performance is from, of all people, Jim Broadbent, who pops up to antagonise Miss Sheppard but appears less like a real human being and more like a cartoon supervillain. For a second, I thought the character’s name was Baron von Drakkhen.
But great players cannot save a bad game, and the story of the film is flat, predictable and boring. If you don’t immediately care about Miss Sheppard, then the film becomes more tedious and lifeless by the second. I guessed long before the end the mystery behind Miss Sheppard, but even if I hadn’t I would still have been bored due to the lack of any interest. The film believes that the existence of a mystery to be motivation enough to solve it, which just isn’t the case; I don’t know what John McCririck had for breakfast, but I’m not going to stare at his stools to find out.
Not helping matters is a very by the numbers direction by Nicholas Hytner. While not incompetent, there’s very little in the way of style or flair without being casual. The only parts that show any sort of imagination are the fourth wall breaks, but the best only happen towards the end. It’s a shame that the potential of having two Alan Bennetts and seeing the film from the perspective of the writer only starts to be explored as the film is drawing to a close. Otherwise, a robot could’ve directed this film.
Alan Bennett is a highly praised writer, and rightfully so, but The Lady in the Van just isn’t his best. The above-average but by no means stellar script is tied to a plot as lifeless and sluggish as a particularly lethargic sloth. If you’re really hurting to see Bennett at his best, it’d be a lot cheaper and a lot more entertaining to rent The Madness of King George or The History Boys or even one of The Secret Policeman’s Ball’s, plus you can order some pizza from your sofa. Otherwise, The Lady in the Van, unlike the real Miss Sheppard, can very safely be ignored.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/11/19/like-a-particularly-lethargic-sloth-the-lady-in-the-van-review/
With a dull, mild curiosity.
Despite being from the viewpoint of two Alan Bennetts, described as one being the writer and the other living the life, the main character is Miss Sheppard, the lady in the van. The film insists that we should be interested in her mysterious life, her past as a pianist and a nun, and why she chooses to live in the van, but throughout most of the film I was only thinking “Oh, let’s just go back and hear Alan Bennett be cynical some more.” The words are witty and sharp, but it’s mostly said about things we don’t care about. Miss Sheppard is a flat, mostly dull character, and the audience is unwillingly handcuffed to her.
The highlight of the film is its acting, with the cast being a veritable who’s who of Britain’s finest talent, and James Corden. What dimension Miss Sheppard has is provided almost entirely by the volatile yet vulnerable performance by Maggie Smith, and Alex Jennings is as real an Alan Bennett as the actual Alan Bennett. Even in the small roles, everyone from Roger Allam to Gwen Taylor manage to force themselves to shine. The only bad performance is from, of all people, Jim Broadbent, who pops up to antagonise Miss Sheppard but appears less like a real human being and more like a cartoon supervillain. For a second, I thought the character’s name was Baron von Drakkhen.
But great players cannot save a bad game, and the story of the film is flat, predictable and boring. If you don’t immediately care about Miss Sheppard, then the film becomes more tedious and lifeless by the second. I guessed long before the end the mystery behind Miss Sheppard, but even if I hadn’t I would still have been bored due to the lack of any interest. The film believes that the existence of a mystery to be motivation enough to solve it, which just isn’t the case; I don’t know what John McCririck had for breakfast, but I’m not going to stare at his stools to find out.
Not helping matters is a very by the numbers direction by Nicholas Hytner. While not incompetent, there’s very little in the way of style or flair without being casual. The only parts that show any sort of imagination are the fourth wall breaks, but the best only happen towards the end. It’s a shame that the potential of having two Alan Bennetts and seeing the film from the perspective of the writer only starts to be explored as the film is drawing to a close. Otherwise, a robot could’ve directed this film.
Alan Bennett is a highly praised writer, and rightfully so, but The Lady in the Van just isn’t his best. The above-average but by no means stellar script is tied to a plot as lifeless and sluggish as a particularly lethargic sloth. If you’re really hurting to see Bennett at his best, it’d be a lot cheaper and a lot more entertaining to rent The Madness of King George or The History Boys or even one of The Secret Policeman’s Ball’s, plus you can order some pizza from your sofa. Otherwise, The Lady in the Van, unlike the real Miss Sheppard, can very safely be ignored.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/11/19/like-a-particularly-lethargic-sloth-the-lady-in-the-van-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Hustlers (2019) in Movies
Sep 19, 2019
Bland and boring DESPITE J-Lo's performance
When I first saw the trailer for the Jennifer Lopez "strippers get back at scummy Wall Street-types" film, HUSTLERS, I wasn't at all interested in seeing it But then I got wind of strong early reviews with some (very faint) Oscar talk about J-Lo's performance in this film, so I thought I'd check it out.
I should have trusted my instincts.
What a lame disappointment this film is. It starts out flat and then flattens out even further to produce a movie that starts at one (fairly low) level and then stays there the entire time.
HUSTLERS stars Constance Wu (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) as a a young stripper who is taught the ropes of the stripping game by uber-stripper Jennifer Lopez (if you don't know who this is, then go ahead and skip to the rating of this film at the bottom of this review and move on). When J-Lo's character, Ramona, comes up with an idea to get back at the scummy Wall Street types AND make some money along the way, Wu's character, Destiny (of course) is a reluctant participant becoming - over time - the leader.
A potentially interesting, "based on True Events" story (this film is based on the real life exploits of Ramona as described in a New York Magazine story), this film just falls flat and I put the blame for this in 2 places.
Lets start with Director and Writer of the screenplay, Lorene Scafaria (SEEKING A FRIEND AT THE END OF THE WORLD). She wrote - and directed - this film like it is a modest-scaled, low-key independent film (much like the very good SEEKING A FRIEND...), but the second that this film cast Jennifer Lopez as the flashy leader Ramona, words like modest and low-key should have been thrown out the window but Scafaria chose not to do this, she downplays the best asset in her movie and plunks most of her effort on a lead who could not match Lopez star power wattage.
And that lead is Constance Wu - the other weak link in this chain. I thought she was "just fine" in CRAZY RICH ASIANS, blending into the scenery when more flamboyant personalities were on the screen (in CRA it was Michelle Yeoh's "tiger mom") and she blends into the scenery whenever J-Lo is on the screen in this film - and that just doesn't work here. She needed to step up and step out and match J-Lo blow for blow, but she backs up and backs away in these crucial moments, so when her character is on the screen alone - trying to get the audience's sympathies - I just didn't care.
What I did care about is Jennifer Lopez's performance as Ramona. She is the brightest spot in this film and brings her star power and natural charisma to the screen. The ultimate problem with this performance (and NO, it is NOT Oscar-worthy) is it feels that she is fighting the "low-key" headwinds of writer/director Scafaria the entire time.
Former Disney star Keke Palmer and current RIVERDALE star Lili Reinhart bring some fun and energy to the screen as the 3rd and 4th partners in this quartet of stripper Robin Hoods, but they are all too often sentenced to strut around in the background in tight outfits. I would have loved to see a movie with Lopez, Palmer and Reinhart that was more "out there" and less restrained.
Finally, two very good actresses - Julia Styles and Mercedes Ruehl - are in this film in "what-the-heck-are they-doing-in-this-film" roles that are underwritten and underutilized the talents of these actresses - another missed opportunity by Writer/Director Scafaria.
I've heard this film called a "female empowerment" film or "the stripper version of Goodfellas" and I couldn't disagree more. The only "empowering" part of this film is when the credits rolled and I could leave.
Letter Grade: C
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
I should have trusted my instincts.
What a lame disappointment this film is. It starts out flat and then flattens out even further to produce a movie that starts at one (fairly low) level and then stays there the entire time.
HUSTLERS stars Constance Wu (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) as a a young stripper who is taught the ropes of the stripping game by uber-stripper Jennifer Lopez (if you don't know who this is, then go ahead and skip to the rating of this film at the bottom of this review and move on). When J-Lo's character, Ramona, comes up with an idea to get back at the scummy Wall Street types AND make some money along the way, Wu's character, Destiny (of course) is a reluctant participant becoming - over time - the leader.
A potentially interesting, "based on True Events" story (this film is based on the real life exploits of Ramona as described in a New York Magazine story), this film just falls flat and I put the blame for this in 2 places.
Lets start with Director and Writer of the screenplay, Lorene Scafaria (SEEKING A FRIEND AT THE END OF THE WORLD). She wrote - and directed - this film like it is a modest-scaled, low-key independent film (much like the very good SEEKING A FRIEND...), but the second that this film cast Jennifer Lopez as the flashy leader Ramona, words like modest and low-key should have been thrown out the window but Scafaria chose not to do this, she downplays the best asset in her movie and plunks most of her effort on a lead who could not match Lopez star power wattage.
And that lead is Constance Wu - the other weak link in this chain. I thought she was "just fine" in CRAZY RICH ASIANS, blending into the scenery when more flamboyant personalities were on the screen (in CRA it was Michelle Yeoh's "tiger mom") and she blends into the scenery whenever J-Lo is on the screen in this film - and that just doesn't work here. She needed to step up and step out and match J-Lo blow for blow, but she backs up and backs away in these crucial moments, so when her character is on the screen alone - trying to get the audience's sympathies - I just didn't care.
What I did care about is Jennifer Lopez's performance as Ramona. She is the brightest spot in this film and brings her star power and natural charisma to the screen. The ultimate problem with this performance (and NO, it is NOT Oscar-worthy) is it feels that she is fighting the "low-key" headwinds of writer/director Scafaria the entire time.
Former Disney star Keke Palmer and current RIVERDALE star Lili Reinhart bring some fun and energy to the screen as the 3rd and 4th partners in this quartet of stripper Robin Hoods, but they are all too often sentenced to strut around in the background in tight outfits. I would have loved to see a movie with Lopez, Palmer and Reinhart that was more "out there" and less restrained.
Finally, two very good actresses - Julia Styles and Mercedes Ruehl - are in this film in "what-the-heck-are they-doing-in-this-film" roles that are underwritten and underutilized the talents of these actresses - another missed opportunity by Writer/Director Scafaria.
I've heard this film called a "female empowerment" film or "the stripper version of Goodfellas" and I couldn't disagree more. The only "empowering" part of this film is when the credits rolled and I could leave.
Letter Grade: C
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated The Raven (2012) in Movies
Apr 27, 2017
A brilliant crime thriller (4 more)
Gory
Connections to the work of Edgar Allan Poe
Great Cast
Watchable over and over again
Would love to know what happens in the end (1 more)
Not as exhilirating after the first watch
Quote the Raven, Nevermore.
First of all let me say this;
I am a poet and a writer, and my biggest inspiration as a writer has always been Edgar Allan Poe. I love the gothic horror, the tragedy, the macabre, and everything that makes Edgar Allan Poe the legend he is today.
With that said, let me tell you why I love this movie. It involves connections to some of Poe's greatest work, and not his poetry necessarily, it's actually more about his stories. Telltale Heart, Pit and the Pendulum and others that are all combined into the twisted mind of our antagonist who uses these stories to commit his crimes and leave evidence behind that only Poe himself would be able to figure out.
It's a brilliant crime thriller that delves into the mind of someone who is essentially Poe's biggest fan, but in a very dark and twisted way that gives us a fictional story about what happened during Poe's last days before he was found dead on a park bench. It's a known fact that Poe's last days remain a mystery and so this film had the opportunity to really play with some great ideas and they were executed brilliantly.
Speaking of execution this film is very grim and gory. One scene involving the story of The Pit and the Pendulum has us watch as a Pendulum drops lower and lower before slicing through a man's stomach like a warm knife through butter. It doesn't leave a lot to the imagination which gives this film some charm and makes it stand out from the rest of the Poe Film adaptations.
John Cusack plays the lengend himself, Edgar Allan Poe and brings a very interesting performance, that seems to suggest Poe thought himself as a higher intelligence to those around him, and he isn't shy to announce it.
Sharing the screen with Cusack, includes names such as Luke Evans who portrays Detective Fields, the detective I mentioned earlier that seeks Poe's assistance in the murder case. Brendan Gleeson portrays a very protective father named Charles Hamilton, who despises Poe being anywhere near his daughter Emily Hamilton, portrayed by Alice Eve. However there differences are put aside as the hunt for the missing Emily continues.
The story transitions well from scene to scene and story to story as each clue leads to the next, and eventually we discover the culprit who I shall not name here because I wish to leave the tension and suspense for you as you watch this film.
I am a poet and a writer, and my biggest inspiration as a writer has always been Edgar Allan Poe. I love the gothic horror, the tragedy, the macabre, and everything that makes Edgar Allan Poe the legend he is today.
With that said, let me tell you why I love this movie. It involves connections to some of Poe's greatest work, and not his poetry necessarily, it's actually more about his stories. Telltale Heart, Pit and the Pendulum and others that are all combined into the twisted mind of our antagonist who uses these stories to commit his crimes and leave evidence behind that only Poe himself would be able to figure out.
It's a brilliant crime thriller that delves into the mind of someone who is essentially Poe's biggest fan, but in a very dark and twisted way that gives us a fictional story about what happened during Poe's last days before he was found dead on a park bench. It's a known fact that Poe's last days remain a mystery and so this film had the opportunity to really play with some great ideas and they were executed brilliantly.
Speaking of execution this film is very grim and gory. One scene involving the story of The Pit and the Pendulum has us watch as a Pendulum drops lower and lower before slicing through a man's stomach like a warm knife through butter. It doesn't leave a lot to the imagination which gives this film some charm and makes it stand out from the rest of the Poe Film adaptations.
John Cusack plays the lengend himself, Edgar Allan Poe and brings a very interesting performance, that seems to suggest Poe thought himself as a higher intelligence to those around him, and he isn't shy to announce it.
Sharing the screen with Cusack, includes names such as Luke Evans who portrays Detective Fields, the detective I mentioned earlier that seeks Poe's assistance in the murder case. Brendan Gleeson portrays a very protective father named Charles Hamilton, who despises Poe being anywhere near his daughter Emily Hamilton, portrayed by Alice Eve. However there differences are put aside as the hunt for the missing Emily continues.
The story transitions well from scene to scene and story to story as each clue leads to the next, and eventually we discover the culprit who I shall not name here because I wish to leave the tension and suspense for you as you watch this film.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Wings (Wings, #1) in Books
Apr 27, 2018
This book had some good, some bad, some supremacy, some mediocrity. here's my warning now, that this has spoilers in it.
good: a wild twist. the idea that fairy's are plants never once crossed my mind, the idea that Laurel had flowers growing out of her back instead of actual wings was... kinda weird but also really cool. and in my opinion, the good over-weighed the bad.
bad: i remember very vividly that the boy she falls in love with is introduced in the first paragraph (or second, or something like that.) and that totally gave away that part of the plot. i knew right away she'd become involved with him. i would have liked the author to develop his character a little more, or develop Laurel's character a little more, before introducing him.
supremacy: it had me hooked from about the fifth chapter to the twenty-second. i literally read for five hours. that's a long time for me. i mean, i read A LOT and ALL THE TIME, but five hours at once? seriously. the only other times that's ever happened was for twilight and harry potter. very nice, Aprilynne.
mediocrity: the writing itself, the prose, the sentence structure, was not all that fabulous. it was just basic sentence structure most of the time, and ok vocabulary. the words themselves were not poetic and artful, something that you find in Edger Allen Poe or J K Rowling.
the last thing was the end. it left you hanging, a little. which, as a writer, is a smart and mean thing to do at the same time. i'm a writer, and in every single one of my books i leave my audience hanging. but as a reader, it's annoying. i the one thing i want to know is what happens about her and the boy thing? who does she end up with? i'll bet that the boy she met at school ends up with the girl who's had a crush on him forever, and she goes back to her fairy-boy. (can you tell i've forgotten some names and don't have the book with me?) whatever. but i hope there's a second one, because that one little thing will bug me from now until whenever the new one comes out (if there is one.)
of course, again, the book was addictive, and had a great twist. i will say that if i ever had a chance to read it again, i would probably not do it. but i will (if there is one) read the sequel. all in all, i did like this book. quite a lot. and i do recommend it to anyone who likes romance, fantasy, or adventure.
good: a wild twist. the idea that fairy's are plants never once crossed my mind, the idea that Laurel had flowers growing out of her back instead of actual wings was... kinda weird but also really cool. and in my opinion, the good over-weighed the bad.
bad: i remember very vividly that the boy she falls in love with is introduced in the first paragraph (or second, or something like that.) and that totally gave away that part of the plot. i knew right away she'd become involved with him. i would have liked the author to develop his character a little more, or develop Laurel's character a little more, before introducing him.
supremacy: it had me hooked from about the fifth chapter to the twenty-second. i literally read for five hours. that's a long time for me. i mean, i read A LOT and ALL THE TIME, but five hours at once? seriously. the only other times that's ever happened was for twilight and harry potter. very nice, Aprilynne.
mediocrity: the writing itself, the prose, the sentence structure, was not all that fabulous. it was just basic sentence structure most of the time, and ok vocabulary. the words themselves were not poetic and artful, something that you find in Edger Allen Poe or J K Rowling.
the last thing was the end. it left you hanging, a little. which, as a writer, is a smart and mean thing to do at the same time. i'm a writer, and in every single one of my books i leave my audience hanging. but as a reader, it's annoying. i the one thing i want to know is what happens about her and the boy thing? who does she end up with? i'll bet that the boy she met at school ends up with the girl who's had a crush on him forever, and she goes back to her fairy-boy. (can you tell i've forgotten some names and don't have the book with me?) whatever. but i hope there's a second one, because that one little thing will bug me from now until whenever the new one comes out (if there is one.)
of course, again, the book was addictive, and had a great twist. i will say that if i ever had a chance to read it again, i would probably not do it. but i will (if there is one) read the sequel. all in all, i did like this book. quite a lot. and i do recommend it to anyone who likes romance, fantasy, or adventure.