Search
Search results
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
An honest, captivating and respectful biopic
Biopics are not easy to perfect and when you’re dealing with an iconic figure such as Freddie Mercury, it becomes even harder. When this film was announced it seemed natural to feel a little bit of apprehension, because could anyone really portray Freddie? Who could bring him to life on screen before thousands of fans? Thankfully, for me at least, my worries were soon quenched as soon as I began to watch it. I thought was a stunning film and I have no problem admitting that brought tears to my eyes on several occasions.
Rami Malek was an excellent choice to portray Freddie, to the point where I found myself believing I was watching the man himself. His stage presence especially was spot on and the live performances were simply stunning to watch, especially with surround sound. I felt transported, part of the crowd, and it was such a special moment to share with the rest of the cinema. We become part of different times and places in a matter of minutes, giving you an idea of just how globally successful and adored Queen were. Despite the film’s main focus being Freddie, the supporting roles of the rest of the band were fantastic too, and I have so much praise for Gwilym Lee, Ben Hardy and Joseph Mazzello for their performances.
Freddie dealt with a lot of discrimination during his career, particularly due to his race, sexuality and flamboyant personality. The film chose to portray these issues honestly, because pretending they didn’t exist would be an insult. When Freddie first starts performing with the rest of Queen, he’s greeted with questions such as “Who’s the P***?”, which for a modern audience is a terrible racial slur that I don’t even feel comfortable writing here. But for a Indian-British Parsi musician performing to a largely white audience in the ’70s, this word would have been used a lot. I feel it was important for the filmmakers to shed light on this as it provides context into Freddie’s upbringing and life that some may not have known about, including his real name: Farrokh Bulsara.
In terms of his sexuality, the film uses the role of the press to exploit and make a big deal about his personal relationships. The press conference scene was particularly uncomfortable as he’s bombarded with inappropriate questions instead of focusing on Queen and their music. He was constantly criticised in papers and magazines for simply being himself, and that’s a heartbreaking truth that Bohemian Rhapsody really hammers home. His long-term relationship with Mary Austin is also focused on throughout, and how that broke down but they still remained in touch. It’s a complex part of his life that the film does well to explore in just over 2 hours.
It’s not all bleak, and although these dark truths are explored, the film is fundamentally a celebration of Freddie’s life and extraordinary talent. Several Queen songs are present throughout the film and we even see the writing process behind some of them, my favourite being the creation of We Will Rock You in which they wanted the audience to play along with them through stomps and claps. The birth of Bohemian Rhapsody is comical in nature and received a lot of backlash at the time, but as we know, has since gone on to become an iconic song we all know the lyrics to.
Even in Freddie’s final days, after he was diagnosed with AIDS, the film encourages us to celebrate their music and make the most of the time Freddie has left, which is exactly what he himself wanted to do. I can’t think of a more respectful and considerate way to show it than that.
I could probably write an entire essay about just how much I thought Bohemian Rhapsody got right, but hopefully I’ve managed to condense my thoughts somewhat. This is a film you simply must experience for yourself, at least once.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/11/14/bohemian-rhapsody-an-honest-captivating-and-respectful-biopic/
Rami Malek was an excellent choice to portray Freddie, to the point where I found myself believing I was watching the man himself. His stage presence especially was spot on and the live performances were simply stunning to watch, especially with surround sound. I felt transported, part of the crowd, and it was such a special moment to share with the rest of the cinema. We become part of different times and places in a matter of minutes, giving you an idea of just how globally successful and adored Queen were. Despite the film’s main focus being Freddie, the supporting roles of the rest of the band were fantastic too, and I have so much praise for Gwilym Lee, Ben Hardy and Joseph Mazzello for their performances.
Freddie dealt with a lot of discrimination during his career, particularly due to his race, sexuality and flamboyant personality. The film chose to portray these issues honestly, because pretending they didn’t exist would be an insult. When Freddie first starts performing with the rest of Queen, he’s greeted with questions such as “Who’s the P***?”, which for a modern audience is a terrible racial slur that I don’t even feel comfortable writing here. But for a Indian-British Parsi musician performing to a largely white audience in the ’70s, this word would have been used a lot. I feel it was important for the filmmakers to shed light on this as it provides context into Freddie’s upbringing and life that some may not have known about, including his real name: Farrokh Bulsara.
In terms of his sexuality, the film uses the role of the press to exploit and make a big deal about his personal relationships. The press conference scene was particularly uncomfortable as he’s bombarded with inappropriate questions instead of focusing on Queen and their music. He was constantly criticised in papers and magazines for simply being himself, and that’s a heartbreaking truth that Bohemian Rhapsody really hammers home. His long-term relationship with Mary Austin is also focused on throughout, and how that broke down but they still remained in touch. It’s a complex part of his life that the film does well to explore in just over 2 hours.
It’s not all bleak, and although these dark truths are explored, the film is fundamentally a celebration of Freddie’s life and extraordinary talent. Several Queen songs are present throughout the film and we even see the writing process behind some of them, my favourite being the creation of We Will Rock You in which they wanted the audience to play along with them through stomps and claps. The birth of Bohemian Rhapsody is comical in nature and received a lot of backlash at the time, but as we know, has since gone on to become an iconic song we all know the lyrics to.
Even in Freddie’s final days, after he was diagnosed with AIDS, the film encourages us to celebrate their music and make the most of the time Freddie has left, which is exactly what he himself wanted to do. I can’t think of a more respectful and considerate way to show it than that.
I could probably write an entire essay about just how much I thought Bohemian Rhapsody got right, but hopefully I’ve managed to condense my thoughts somewhat. This is a film you simply must experience for yourself, at least once.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/11/14/bohemian-rhapsody-an-honest-captivating-and-respectful-biopic/
Lee KM Pallatina (951 KP) rated the Xbox 360 version of Duke Nukem Forever in Video Games
Mar 20, 2020
Hail to the clone baby
Contains spoilers, click to show
Duke Nukem was originally created in 1987 by chief programmer Todd Replogle of Apogee Software now 3D Realms as the hero the video game titled Metal Future, which was set in the then-near future of 1997.
Duke Nukem's first appearance was in 1997,
Created by George Broussard; Scott Miller; Jim Norwood; Todd Replogle
Dukes last appearance was a Cameo in the 2018 movie Ready Player One.
The character first appeared in the 1991 video game Duke Nukem. He has since starred in multiple sequels developed by 3D Realms. Most recently in Duke Nukem Forever, released by Gearbox Software, which now owns the rights and intellectual property.
Duke Nukem has been listed on many "Best Characters" and "Best Heroes" lists over the years, including being listed as number one in ScrewAttack's "Top 10 Coolest Video Game Characters" list in 2007.
Featuring him in the section "top ten forces of good" in their 2004 list of top 50 retro game heroes, Retro Gamer called Duke "the ultimate cheese hero, and a true remnant of 80’s action flicks. He was listed at number 27 in the "Top 50 Video Game Characters" list by Guinness World Records Gamer's Edition 2011. GameDaily also ranked him sixth on their list of best anti-heroes in video games. In 2011, Empire ranked him as the 20th greatest video game character, calling him "one of the best action characters ever devised" and adding that "Film might have Schwarzenegger, but Gaming's got Mr Nukem"
Reception of the character by the time of Duke Nukem Forever's release was mostly mixed. Dan Whitehead of Eurogamer elaborated on Duke Nukem's decreased relevance since 1996, and added that the character's "half-hearted digs" at rival franchises were ill-advised due to the game's delayed release (Yet still quite funny).
Duke Nukem had become "a caricature of his former self. crossing the line from charmingly foul-mouthed to obnoxious and embarrassing. Others have been more positive about the character, finding him to be "genuinely hilarious" due to his tongue-in-cheek rejection of video game traditions (such as finding a key to open a door or wearing a special suit of armor) (looking at you Master Chief).
Plot:
Twelve years after he saved the Earth from an alien invasion, Duke Nukem is a worldwide icon, and has achieved great fame from his heroic deeds. After sampling a video game based on his past heroics (the game Duke plays is a revamped version of the final level of the third episode of Duke Nukem 3D), he arrives on the set of a talk show for an interview. On his way to the show, Duke witnesses a news broadcast announcing that aliens have once again invaded. Unlike previous encounters, the aliens initially appear peaceful and at first seem to pose no harm to the humans of Earth.
Duke's talk show appearance is cancelled to allow television stations to cover the alien invasion, and Duke retires to the "Duke Cave", his personal home. There, he receives a call from the President and General Graves of the Earth Defense Force (EDF). The President orders Duke not to harm the invaders, and adds that he is in diplomatic talks with the alien overlord. Duke obliges this request, but he and Graves remain uneasy about the whole situation. Before he can leave his chambers, he is attacked by hostile aliens who are swearing revenge on Duke.
Pig cops, flying Alien brains and a 3 breasted Alien are among the carnage that is a day in the life of the king.
DLC sub plot-
The doctor who cloned me:
After all the negativity duke Nukem forever received, this DLC was released in an attempt to undo some of the damage, this extension had you play as the Real duke, who wakes up to find and army of clones posing as him created by his old nemesis doctor proton, to which you/Nukem must take out all the clones and reclaim your Throne.
(The main game duke was a clone, if I wasn't clear :) )
Duke Nukem's first appearance was in 1997,
Created by George Broussard; Scott Miller; Jim Norwood; Todd Replogle
Dukes last appearance was a Cameo in the 2018 movie Ready Player One.
The character first appeared in the 1991 video game Duke Nukem. He has since starred in multiple sequels developed by 3D Realms. Most recently in Duke Nukem Forever, released by Gearbox Software, which now owns the rights and intellectual property.
Duke Nukem has been listed on many "Best Characters" and "Best Heroes" lists over the years, including being listed as number one in ScrewAttack's "Top 10 Coolest Video Game Characters" list in 2007.
Featuring him in the section "top ten forces of good" in their 2004 list of top 50 retro game heroes, Retro Gamer called Duke "the ultimate cheese hero, and a true remnant of 80’s action flicks. He was listed at number 27 in the "Top 50 Video Game Characters" list by Guinness World Records Gamer's Edition 2011. GameDaily also ranked him sixth on their list of best anti-heroes in video games. In 2011, Empire ranked him as the 20th greatest video game character, calling him "one of the best action characters ever devised" and adding that "Film might have Schwarzenegger, but Gaming's got Mr Nukem"
Reception of the character by the time of Duke Nukem Forever's release was mostly mixed. Dan Whitehead of Eurogamer elaborated on Duke Nukem's decreased relevance since 1996, and added that the character's "half-hearted digs" at rival franchises were ill-advised due to the game's delayed release (Yet still quite funny).
Duke Nukem had become "a caricature of his former self. crossing the line from charmingly foul-mouthed to obnoxious and embarrassing. Others have been more positive about the character, finding him to be "genuinely hilarious" due to his tongue-in-cheek rejection of video game traditions (such as finding a key to open a door or wearing a special suit of armor) (looking at you Master Chief).
Plot:
Twelve years after he saved the Earth from an alien invasion, Duke Nukem is a worldwide icon, and has achieved great fame from his heroic deeds. After sampling a video game based on his past heroics (the game Duke plays is a revamped version of the final level of the third episode of Duke Nukem 3D), he arrives on the set of a talk show for an interview. On his way to the show, Duke witnesses a news broadcast announcing that aliens have once again invaded. Unlike previous encounters, the aliens initially appear peaceful and at first seem to pose no harm to the humans of Earth.
Duke's talk show appearance is cancelled to allow television stations to cover the alien invasion, and Duke retires to the "Duke Cave", his personal home. There, he receives a call from the President and General Graves of the Earth Defense Force (EDF). The President orders Duke not to harm the invaders, and adds that he is in diplomatic talks with the alien overlord. Duke obliges this request, but he and Graves remain uneasy about the whole situation. Before he can leave his chambers, he is attacked by hostile aliens who are swearing revenge on Duke.
Pig cops, flying Alien brains and a 3 breasted Alien are among the carnage that is a day in the life of the king.
DLC sub plot-
The doctor who cloned me:
After all the negativity duke Nukem forever received, this DLC was released in an attempt to undo some of the damage, this extension had you play as the Real duke, who wakes up to find and army of clones posing as him created by his old nemesis doctor proton, to which you/Nukem must take out all the clones and reclaim your Throne.
(The main game duke was a clone, if I wasn't clear :) )
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Ocean’s 8 (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Light and breezy but utterly forgettable
It’s a peculiar state of affairs, the film industry that is. While reboots, remakes, prequels and sequels seem to be garnering much disdain from the movie-going audience of late, studios still push ahead with them regardless.
I mean, look at poor Disney and the performance of Solo: A Star Wars Story if you need any indication of a tiring audience. Female-led reboots are all the rage now too with Paul Feig’s Ghostbusters being met with a dreadful run at the box office despite decent critical responses. Next up, we’ve got Ocean’s 8, a sequel no-one was really asking for but got anyway. Is it worth a watch?
Five years, eight months, 12 days and counting – that’s how long Debbie Ocean (Sandra Bullock) has been devising the biggest heist of her life. She knows what it’s going to take – a team of the best people in the field, starting with her partner-in-crime Lou Miller (Cate Blanchett). Together, they recruit a crew of specialists, including jeweller Amita, street con Constance, suburban mom Tammy (Sarah Paulson), hacker Nine Ball (Rihanna), and fashion designer Rose (Helena Bonham Carter). Their target: a necklace that’s worth more than $150 million.
Gary Ross, director of the first Hunger Games movie, takes over from Steven Soderbergh to helm a film that is perfectly passable popcorn fodder, but sadly nothing more. But, for the sake of this review, let’s start with the positives.
The cast is by far, the biggest selling point for this film. Filled to the brim with talent like Bullock, Blanchett and Paulson, it was always going to be a win-win situation pulling an ensemble like this together. Bullock is absolutely fabulous from the minute the film begins and Anne Hathaway is clearly having a ball playing an over-the-top version of herself. Helena Bonham Carter is surprisingly good as a failing Irish fashion designer and it’s always a joy seeing Sarah Paulson’s understated performances grace the big screen.
What’s not so good is the way the film treats its stars from different ethnicities however. Rihanna, Mindy Kaling (Amita) and Awkwafina (Constance) are sorely underused throughout. In fact, outside of Paulson, Awkwafina and Kaling provide the film with its most intriguing characters – but we learn very little about them apart from a few scenes studying their personal/professional lives.
It’s also best not to talk about James Corden and his hideously over-acted performance as fraud investigator John. Filled with cringeworthy dialogue, it’s a miracle his part is relatively short. Like a bad smell however, he lingers for much too long.
The biggest sin that Ocean’s 8 commits is its complete lack of plausibility
Then there’s the plot, or rather the script. In making these women the absolute best-of-the-best, there are no high stakes, no tension to be had or anything remotely resembling a narrow-escape.
There’s the obligatory ‘oh no’ moment as something looks like it’s going to go wrong, but it’s rectified so suddenly that any joy in watching the heist unfold is completely lost. Where the previous Ocean’s movies were riddled with tension, Ocean’s 8 is devoid of it.
Thankfully, the plan is fun if a little uninspiring to behold, filled with bland cinematography very similar to what was seen in the first Hunger Games film way back in 2012. It’s all just very staid, like the studio was simply ticking boxes on a checklist to make sure they got a film that would make them money, but was lacking anything in the way of originality.
But perhaps the biggest sin that Ocean’s 8 commits is its complete lack of plausibility. Article upon article has already been created in which writers dissect the film’s heist plan and come up with the same conclusion: it can’t be done. You don’t need those articles though, because the plot holes are big enough for anyone to see and that’s a real shame. This becomes increasingly evident in the film’s final 10 minutes which makes a mockery of everything that came before.
Overall, Ocean’s 8 is your typical summer blockbuster. It’s light, breezy and like a big tub of cottage cheese, devoid of any personality whatsoever. It’s saving grace is the cast. Managing to pull together an ensemble this good takes a lot of effort, and for that, it deserves some praise – faint praise, but praise nonetheless.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/06/21/oceans-8-review-light-and-breezy-but-utterly-forgettable/
I mean, look at poor Disney and the performance of Solo: A Star Wars Story if you need any indication of a tiring audience. Female-led reboots are all the rage now too with Paul Feig’s Ghostbusters being met with a dreadful run at the box office despite decent critical responses. Next up, we’ve got Ocean’s 8, a sequel no-one was really asking for but got anyway. Is it worth a watch?
Five years, eight months, 12 days and counting – that’s how long Debbie Ocean (Sandra Bullock) has been devising the biggest heist of her life. She knows what it’s going to take – a team of the best people in the field, starting with her partner-in-crime Lou Miller (Cate Blanchett). Together, they recruit a crew of specialists, including jeweller Amita, street con Constance, suburban mom Tammy (Sarah Paulson), hacker Nine Ball (Rihanna), and fashion designer Rose (Helena Bonham Carter). Their target: a necklace that’s worth more than $150 million.
Gary Ross, director of the first Hunger Games movie, takes over from Steven Soderbergh to helm a film that is perfectly passable popcorn fodder, but sadly nothing more. But, for the sake of this review, let’s start with the positives.
The cast is by far, the biggest selling point for this film. Filled to the brim with talent like Bullock, Blanchett and Paulson, it was always going to be a win-win situation pulling an ensemble like this together. Bullock is absolutely fabulous from the minute the film begins and Anne Hathaway is clearly having a ball playing an over-the-top version of herself. Helena Bonham Carter is surprisingly good as a failing Irish fashion designer and it’s always a joy seeing Sarah Paulson’s understated performances grace the big screen.
What’s not so good is the way the film treats its stars from different ethnicities however. Rihanna, Mindy Kaling (Amita) and Awkwafina (Constance) are sorely underused throughout. In fact, outside of Paulson, Awkwafina and Kaling provide the film with its most intriguing characters – but we learn very little about them apart from a few scenes studying their personal/professional lives.
It’s also best not to talk about James Corden and his hideously over-acted performance as fraud investigator John. Filled with cringeworthy dialogue, it’s a miracle his part is relatively short. Like a bad smell however, he lingers for much too long.
The biggest sin that Ocean’s 8 commits is its complete lack of plausibility
Then there’s the plot, or rather the script. In making these women the absolute best-of-the-best, there are no high stakes, no tension to be had or anything remotely resembling a narrow-escape.
There’s the obligatory ‘oh no’ moment as something looks like it’s going to go wrong, but it’s rectified so suddenly that any joy in watching the heist unfold is completely lost. Where the previous Ocean’s movies were riddled with tension, Ocean’s 8 is devoid of it.
Thankfully, the plan is fun if a little uninspiring to behold, filled with bland cinematography very similar to what was seen in the first Hunger Games film way back in 2012. It’s all just very staid, like the studio was simply ticking boxes on a checklist to make sure they got a film that would make them money, but was lacking anything in the way of originality.
But perhaps the biggest sin that Ocean’s 8 commits is its complete lack of plausibility. Article upon article has already been created in which writers dissect the film’s heist plan and come up with the same conclusion: it can’t be done. You don’t need those articles though, because the plot holes are big enough for anyone to see and that’s a real shame. This becomes increasingly evident in the film’s final 10 minutes which makes a mockery of everything that came before.
Overall, Ocean’s 8 is your typical summer blockbuster. It’s light, breezy and like a big tub of cottage cheese, devoid of any personality whatsoever. It’s saving grace is the cast. Managing to pull together an ensemble this good takes a lot of effort, and for that, it deserves some praise – faint praise, but praise nonetheless.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/06/21/oceans-8-review-light-and-breezy-but-utterly-forgettable/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Greedy men + Dinosaurs = Lunch!
I’ve really had a rollercoaster of emotions on this one. As a general fan of dinosaurs running riot, since I saw the brilliant original in 1993, I was pretty disillusioned by the teaser trailer for this one: all over-the-top CGI. But as the lights dimmed and the Universal logo faded to ominous sonar sounds, the hairs stood up again and I thought J.A. Bayona (“A Monster Calls“) *might* deliver something really special here. Ultimately though, I left the theatre disappointed… but only slightly so.
With extreme topicality given what is happening on one of the Hawaiian islands at the moment, Isla Nublar – home to the now derelict Jurassic World theme park – is in serious trouble due to a volcanic eruption. Swayed by chaos theory expert Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum), a US senate committee decides to do…. absolutely nothing, letting the dinosaurs face re-extinction. This is much to the fury of our heroine from the first film, Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas-Howard), who now runs a “Save the Dinosaurs” group. When all seems lost, help comes from the wallet of philanthropist Benjamin Lockwood (James Cromwell, “Babe”, “LA Confidential”) and his ops manager Eli Mills (Rafe Spall, “The Big Short“) who propose to fund a private rescue mission: a mission that requires the involvement of Velociraptor-wrangler Owen Grady (Chris Pratt, “Guardians of the Galaxy“, “Passengers“). But are their motives truly honourable?
The film has its moments, with some well-executed action scenes, some nice munching of bad people and a few scenes that are truly touching: shots of a brachiosauruses’ last moments is a memorable piece of cinema. But that said, the film is extremely patchy. An exciting (but not particularly logical) pre-title sequence seques into a very wordy and action-free first reel, headed up by Goldblum (always seated: did he have his legs chewed off by a raptor?) droning on (blah blah blah), no doubt for a huge fee but not for much purpose. The early part of the movie is good however at introducing new characters: specifically the geeky Franklin (Justice Smith) and the pre-requisite 2018 ‘Times Up” kick-ass female character Zia ( Daniella Pineda), who is actually very good. As a whole though it’s not terribly engaging, leading to even the reveal of the derelict theme park – which should have been a high point – falling somewhat flat.
The much trailered volcano scenes that follow are impressive but should have been left to impress in the film.
Things ratchet up again though when the action moves to the more confining environment of Lockwood’s estate, bringing in arch-villain Gunnar Eversol played by Toby Jones (“The Snowman“, “Atomic Blonde“), who really should have taken the stairs, and Lockwood’s granddaughter Maisie ( Isabella Sermon) who is excellent as the ‘child in peril’. Some of the character’s actions don’t make a lot of sense (laser-targeting Owen? Why?) but they do generate some memorable scenes, supported by Michael Giacchino’s stirring soundtrack.
So, it pretty much works as an action film, but in terms of character development it doesn’t go anywhere in particular: Claire and Owen come out in about the same condition as they came in. I was expecting something deeper from Bayona (with his “A Monster Calls” being my personal No. 2 film of last year) than just a ‘running and screaming’ film.
It’s also difficult to avoid the fact that after five of these films there’s nothing much new under the Isla Nublar sun. Some of the plot here is a retread of the genetic shenanigans of the last film, mixed with the ‘off-island’ antics of “The Lost World”. And most of the action scenes are just stripped and re-painted from the earlier films. For example, the “about to get eaten but saved by another dinosaur” trope so expertly done by Spielberg in the finale of JP1 is re-hashed not once but THREE times in this movie: leading to more yawning that excitement if I’m honest.
Overall though, it’s an effective summer blockbuster that mostly delivers on the thrills and should be a good crowd-pleaser. By the way, staying through the endless credits is worth it not just for getting the full force of Giacchino and Williams’ majestic themes: there is quite a nice “monkey” at the end, illustrating that gambling might involve more than just money in the future!
With extreme topicality given what is happening on one of the Hawaiian islands at the moment, Isla Nublar – home to the now derelict Jurassic World theme park – is in serious trouble due to a volcanic eruption. Swayed by chaos theory expert Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum), a US senate committee decides to do…. absolutely nothing, letting the dinosaurs face re-extinction. This is much to the fury of our heroine from the first film, Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas-Howard), who now runs a “Save the Dinosaurs” group. When all seems lost, help comes from the wallet of philanthropist Benjamin Lockwood (James Cromwell, “Babe”, “LA Confidential”) and his ops manager Eli Mills (Rafe Spall, “The Big Short“) who propose to fund a private rescue mission: a mission that requires the involvement of Velociraptor-wrangler Owen Grady (Chris Pratt, “Guardians of the Galaxy“, “Passengers“). But are their motives truly honourable?
The film has its moments, with some well-executed action scenes, some nice munching of bad people and a few scenes that are truly touching: shots of a brachiosauruses’ last moments is a memorable piece of cinema. But that said, the film is extremely patchy. An exciting (but not particularly logical) pre-title sequence seques into a very wordy and action-free first reel, headed up by Goldblum (always seated: did he have his legs chewed off by a raptor?) droning on (blah blah blah), no doubt for a huge fee but not for much purpose. The early part of the movie is good however at introducing new characters: specifically the geeky Franklin (Justice Smith) and the pre-requisite 2018 ‘Times Up” kick-ass female character Zia ( Daniella Pineda), who is actually very good. As a whole though it’s not terribly engaging, leading to even the reveal of the derelict theme park – which should have been a high point – falling somewhat flat.
The much trailered volcano scenes that follow are impressive but should have been left to impress in the film.
Things ratchet up again though when the action moves to the more confining environment of Lockwood’s estate, bringing in arch-villain Gunnar Eversol played by Toby Jones (“The Snowman“, “Atomic Blonde“), who really should have taken the stairs, and Lockwood’s granddaughter Maisie ( Isabella Sermon) who is excellent as the ‘child in peril’. Some of the character’s actions don’t make a lot of sense (laser-targeting Owen? Why?) but they do generate some memorable scenes, supported by Michael Giacchino’s stirring soundtrack.
So, it pretty much works as an action film, but in terms of character development it doesn’t go anywhere in particular: Claire and Owen come out in about the same condition as they came in. I was expecting something deeper from Bayona (with his “A Monster Calls” being my personal No. 2 film of last year) than just a ‘running and screaming’ film.
It’s also difficult to avoid the fact that after five of these films there’s nothing much new under the Isla Nublar sun. Some of the plot here is a retread of the genetic shenanigans of the last film, mixed with the ‘off-island’ antics of “The Lost World”. And most of the action scenes are just stripped and re-painted from the earlier films. For example, the “about to get eaten but saved by another dinosaur” trope so expertly done by Spielberg in the finale of JP1 is re-hashed not once but THREE times in this movie: leading to more yawning that excitement if I’m honest.
Overall though, it’s an effective summer blockbuster that mostly delivers on the thrills and should be a good crowd-pleaser. By the way, staying through the endless credits is worth it not just for getting the full force of Giacchino and Williams’ majestic themes: there is quite a nice “monkey” at the end, illustrating that gambling might involve more than just money in the future!
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Deception: Murder in Hong Kong in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
One of the funnest (yeah I know, it’s not a word) parts of board gaming is getting to introduce new people to the hobby! Whether it’s a family gathering or a party with friends, I love breaking out a fun game for any occasion! Some board gamers have an aversion to the ‘party’ games category, but I think you just need to find the right game for the group to have the best experience! One of those games, for me, is Deception: Murder in Hong Kong!
MURDER! As an Investigator, that’s just another day on the job for you. This time feels different, though. Something about this case is off… After the initial evidence is gathered, the team’s Forensic Scientist has disclosed to the team that the killer is one of the Investigators! Everyone is on edge, accusing every other Investigator of being the murderer. Everyone had potential means and motive, and it is up to you to figure it out! As the Forensic Scientist uncovers more evidence, the details of the crime will come to light, and the killer will be revealed. Put your investigative and deductive skills to the test as you try to unmask the killer, or throw the team off your scent if you are the culprit!
DISCLAIMER!! This review is for vanilla Deception: Murder in Hong Kong. We have plans to add in the expansion once one of us purchases it and learns it and teaches it to the rest of us. Should that happen and our review change, we will add that information to this review or to a new review and link to it from here. -T
Deception: Murder in Hong Kong is a game of bluffing, deduction, and hidden identity. All players (except for the Forensic Scientist) have a secret role in the game – Investigator, Witness, Murderer, or Accomplice. The Forensic Scientist knows who the killer is, and how they did it. It is their job to guide the Investigators to the killer by providing clues about the uncovered evidence. The Investigators are trying to interpret the clues and uncover the killer’s identity. The Witness knows who the killer is, but has not yet figured out how they did it. The Murderer and Accomplice are looking to pin the murder on one of the other innocent members of the team! As clues are revealed, each player gets a chance to make a case against the player whom they think is the murderer. You must convince everyone of your logic, or else the killer could get away! In a game where everyone is a suspect, who can you trust? Gather clues, present your case, and put your poker face to the test in this ultimate game of deception! (See what I did there?)
I thoroughly enjoy games of deduction. Anything where you have to think and solve puzzles/riddles/etc. is fun for me. In Deception, it’s a race to see who can find the solution first. Not only do you have to deduce the correct answer from the provided clues, but you also have to put your persuasive skills to the test! Unless you can convince everyone that a specific player is the killer, they might turn their accusations towards someone else, or even worse, towards YOU! You really have to think outside of the box to interpret the Forensic Scientist’s clues, and I like to challenge myself to find the solution in as few turns as possible. The faster I can solve the murder, the smarter I feel. Don’t lie, it makes you feel smart too when you figure it out before anyone else!
The only part of Deception that I don’t really enjoy is the bluffing aspect, which is one of the most integral parts of the game, I know. I am just a horrible liar with a questionable poker face. If we play and I am the Murderer, I am almost always found out. Whenever anyone accuses me, my mind blanks and I cannot think of a single convincing way to get everyone off my scent! That is a personal problem, though, because when I get to be just a regular ol’ Investigator, I have a blast! I can still be accused, but I always feel like I have an easier time getting people off my case if I am actually innocent. I know some people really enjoy being the Murderer because they like the challenge of deceiving the entire team. I am not one of those people though. If I was guaranteed to be just a plain Investigator (or the Forensic Scientist) every time, I would probably pull this game out more!
Deception: Murder in Hong Kong is a ‘party’ game, but with the right group, it can still be a challenging game. A higher player count, in this case, does not necessarily equate to a chaotic game either. So give Deception a try. It’ll be worth it! Purple Phoenix Games gives it a 17 / 24.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2018/12/26/deception-murder-in-hong-kong-review/
MURDER! As an Investigator, that’s just another day on the job for you. This time feels different, though. Something about this case is off… After the initial evidence is gathered, the team’s Forensic Scientist has disclosed to the team that the killer is one of the Investigators! Everyone is on edge, accusing every other Investigator of being the murderer. Everyone had potential means and motive, and it is up to you to figure it out! As the Forensic Scientist uncovers more evidence, the details of the crime will come to light, and the killer will be revealed. Put your investigative and deductive skills to the test as you try to unmask the killer, or throw the team off your scent if you are the culprit!
DISCLAIMER!! This review is for vanilla Deception: Murder in Hong Kong. We have plans to add in the expansion once one of us purchases it and learns it and teaches it to the rest of us. Should that happen and our review change, we will add that information to this review or to a new review and link to it from here. -T
Deception: Murder in Hong Kong is a game of bluffing, deduction, and hidden identity. All players (except for the Forensic Scientist) have a secret role in the game – Investigator, Witness, Murderer, or Accomplice. The Forensic Scientist knows who the killer is, and how they did it. It is their job to guide the Investigators to the killer by providing clues about the uncovered evidence. The Investigators are trying to interpret the clues and uncover the killer’s identity. The Witness knows who the killer is, but has not yet figured out how they did it. The Murderer and Accomplice are looking to pin the murder on one of the other innocent members of the team! As clues are revealed, each player gets a chance to make a case against the player whom they think is the murderer. You must convince everyone of your logic, or else the killer could get away! In a game where everyone is a suspect, who can you trust? Gather clues, present your case, and put your poker face to the test in this ultimate game of deception! (See what I did there?)
I thoroughly enjoy games of deduction. Anything where you have to think and solve puzzles/riddles/etc. is fun for me. In Deception, it’s a race to see who can find the solution first. Not only do you have to deduce the correct answer from the provided clues, but you also have to put your persuasive skills to the test! Unless you can convince everyone that a specific player is the killer, they might turn their accusations towards someone else, or even worse, towards YOU! You really have to think outside of the box to interpret the Forensic Scientist’s clues, and I like to challenge myself to find the solution in as few turns as possible. The faster I can solve the murder, the smarter I feel. Don’t lie, it makes you feel smart too when you figure it out before anyone else!
The only part of Deception that I don’t really enjoy is the bluffing aspect, which is one of the most integral parts of the game, I know. I am just a horrible liar with a questionable poker face. If we play and I am the Murderer, I am almost always found out. Whenever anyone accuses me, my mind blanks and I cannot think of a single convincing way to get everyone off my scent! That is a personal problem, though, because when I get to be just a regular ol’ Investigator, I have a blast! I can still be accused, but I always feel like I have an easier time getting people off my case if I am actually innocent. I know some people really enjoy being the Murderer because they like the challenge of deceiving the entire team. I am not one of those people though. If I was guaranteed to be just a plain Investigator (or the Forensic Scientist) every time, I would probably pull this game out more!
Deception: Murder in Hong Kong is a ‘party’ game, but with the right group, it can still be a challenging game. A higher player count, in this case, does not necessarily equate to a chaotic game either. So give Deception a try. It’ll be worth it! Purple Phoenix Games gives it a 17 / 24.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2018/12/26/deception-murder-in-hong-kong-review/
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Fallout 76 in Video Games
Feb 27, 2019 (Updated Feb 27, 2019)
A Grotesque Atrocity of Modern Gaming and an Abhorrent Insult to it's Audience
When Fallout 76 was announced last summer, I was initially intrigued. Not knowing anything about it, I was surprised that we were getting this before Starfield, (which wasn't announced at the time but was heavily rumoured,) or the next entry in the Elder Scrolls series, but I hoped it would be on par with the Fallout series last fantastic interim game; New Vegas. Then at Bethesda's E3 conference, we were given the bad news that this was going to be an always online experience with an open world online hub and some light PvP elements.
Fast forward to November 2018 and the game launches to hugely negative reviews. The majority of online reviewers are pounding the thing into the ground and criticising the barrage of issues present in the game. Connection issues, sub par graphics, a vast assortment of glitches, a distinct lack of human NPC's, weird lighting and pop in and so on and so forth. I am quite happily playing through Red Dead Redemption 2 at this point and leaving Fallout 76 indefinitely on the backburner. The following week, the game is on sale for half of it's RRP, then as the weeks go on the price continues to drop.
Then, at the start of February, I am looking for a new game to stick my teeth into and I see a pre-owned copy of Fallout 76 on sale for only 20 quid. I think to myself, what the hell and give it a go. I had heard that a few patches had been put out to fix various issues and so I thought how bad can it be?
I have been playing video games for the last 20 years and I don't think that I have ever seen a more egregious assault on my principles as a consumer. There isn't even a game here.
If you have played any of the other Fallout games since 3, you will know that you suffer through the more grindy RPG elements of the game because the progression mechanics are married well enough with the games other systems that they aren't too noticeable or invasive. The characters, the locations, the quests and the story elements make up for the lacking gameplay and overall the games are enjoyable enough that the dated gameplay systems usually aren't penalised too hard in reviews.
Well imagine any of the other previous Fallout games, but with all of the reasons to play through it that I mentioned above stripped away, leaving only the annoying grindy bullshit that you normally put up with. Except here, there is simply no reason to put up with it.
This is the realisation that I came to last night after putting about 7 hours into the game and I decided to switch it off and never pick it up again.
There is no plot, there are no characters, there is absolutely nothing to see that you haven't already seen in previous Fallout games with more meat to them and there is simply no reason to play this game.
If past Fallout games are a big meaty, juicy leg of lamb, then this is nothing but the dry bone that is left after all of the good stuff has been ripped away.
This is nothing but a quick cash grab. I'm not even talking specifically about the disgusting micro-transactions present in the game such as making players pay £10+ to change the colour of their power armour. No, I'm just talking about the game as a whole as there is absolutely no other merit to it or reason for it to exist or be played other than to make Bethesda some easy money.
This thing shouldn't exist and the fact that it does is a huge slap on the face to the consumer and it pretty much encapsulates everything that is wrong with the mind-set of modern publishers. This game should be boycotted and if you have to pick it up out of morbid curiosity, do what I did and buy it used.
I have heard a few industry experts say that this could be the game that ends Bethesda, the final nail in the coffin after the let-downs of Fallout 4 and ESO. Although don't want this to happen as I never like to see a gaming company go out of business, to be honest I can't say that they wouldn't deserve it for the below the belt bullshit that they are trying to pull on their audience. As a consumer and a fan of this franchise as well as the studio that produced it, I feel betrayed on a personal level and it really is going to take something extraordinary to put them back in my good graces and the good graces of their audience.
The Witcher 3 came out 4 years ago this year and it still looks and plays better than anything Bethesda studios has developed, (and I'm not even a big fan of The Witcher.) Bethesda really needs to pull their finger out if they want to compete with their peers going forwards. Starfield better be running on a brank new slick engine and contain story and gameplay elements that are nothing short of spectacular if they are to redeem themselves from this disaster.
I was hesitant to score this a 1/10, as it is not the worst game of the generation, however in the context of the rest of the series and the motive behind this particular sorry excuse for an entry in the series, it is such an insult that my conscience would not let me award it as anything more than the lowest possible score.
Fast forward to November 2018 and the game launches to hugely negative reviews. The majority of online reviewers are pounding the thing into the ground and criticising the barrage of issues present in the game. Connection issues, sub par graphics, a vast assortment of glitches, a distinct lack of human NPC's, weird lighting and pop in and so on and so forth. I am quite happily playing through Red Dead Redemption 2 at this point and leaving Fallout 76 indefinitely on the backburner. The following week, the game is on sale for half of it's RRP, then as the weeks go on the price continues to drop.
Then, at the start of February, I am looking for a new game to stick my teeth into and I see a pre-owned copy of Fallout 76 on sale for only 20 quid. I think to myself, what the hell and give it a go. I had heard that a few patches had been put out to fix various issues and so I thought how bad can it be?
I have been playing video games for the last 20 years and I don't think that I have ever seen a more egregious assault on my principles as a consumer. There isn't even a game here.
If you have played any of the other Fallout games since 3, you will know that you suffer through the more grindy RPG elements of the game because the progression mechanics are married well enough with the games other systems that they aren't too noticeable or invasive. The characters, the locations, the quests and the story elements make up for the lacking gameplay and overall the games are enjoyable enough that the dated gameplay systems usually aren't penalised too hard in reviews.
Well imagine any of the other previous Fallout games, but with all of the reasons to play through it that I mentioned above stripped away, leaving only the annoying grindy bullshit that you normally put up with. Except here, there is simply no reason to put up with it.
This is the realisation that I came to last night after putting about 7 hours into the game and I decided to switch it off and never pick it up again.
There is no plot, there are no characters, there is absolutely nothing to see that you haven't already seen in previous Fallout games with more meat to them and there is simply no reason to play this game.
If past Fallout games are a big meaty, juicy leg of lamb, then this is nothing but the dry bone that is left after all of the good stuff has been ripped away.
This is nothing but a quick cash grab. I'm not even talking specifically about the disgusting micro-transactions present in the game such as making players pay £10+ to change the colour of their power armour. No, I'm just talking about the game as a whole as there is absolutely no other merit to it or reason for it to exist or be played other than to make Bethesda some easy money.
This thing shouldn't exist and the fact that it does is a huge slap on the face to the consumer and it pretty much encapsulates everything that is wrong with the mind-set of modern publishers. This game should be boycotted and if you have to pick it up out of morbid curiosity, do what I did and buy it used.
I have heard a few industry experts say that this could be the game that ends Bethesda, the final nail in the coffin after the let-downs of Fallout 4 and ESO. Although don't want this to happen as I never like to see a gaming company go out of business, to be honest I can't say that they wouldn't deserve it for the below the belt bullshit that they are trying to pull on their audience. As a consumer and a fan of this franchise as well as the studio that produced it, I feel betrayed on a personal level and it really is going to take something extraordinary to put them back in my good graces and the good graces of their audience.
The Witcher 3 came out 4 years ago this year and it still looks and plays better than anything Bethesda studios has developed, (and I'm not even a big fan of The Witcher.) Bethesda really needs to pull their finger out if they want to compete with their peers going forwards. Starfield better be running on a brank new slick engine and contain story and gameplay elements that are nothing short of spectacular if they are to redeem themselves from this disaster.
I was hesitant to score this a 1/10, as it is not the worst game of the generation, however in the context of the rest of the series and the motive behind this particular sorry excuse for an entry in the series, it is such an insult that my conscience would not let me award it as anything more than the lowest possible score.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mary Poppins Returns (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A valiant attempt to recreate a masterpiece.
How do you repaint a masterpiece: the Mona Lisa of children’s fantasy cinema? Some would say “You shouldn’t try”.
As I’ve said before, Mary Poppins was the first film I saw when it came out (or soon afterwards) at a very impressionable age…. I was said to have bawled my eyes out with “THE MAGIC NANNY IS GOING AWAY!!” as Julie Andrews floated off! So as my last cinema trip of 2018 I went to see this sequel, 54 years after the original, with a sense of dread. I’m relieved to say that although the film has its flaws it’s by no means the disaster I envisaged.
The plot
It’s a fairly lightweight story. Now all grown up, young Michael from the original film (Ben Whishaw) has his own family. His troubles though come not singly but in battalions since not only is he grieving a recent loss but he is also about to be evicted from 17 Cherry Tree Lane. Help is at hand in that his father, George Banks, had shares with the Fidelity Fiduciary Bank. But despite their best efforts neither he, his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) nor their chirpy “strike a light” lamplighter friend Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda) can find the all-important share certificates. With the deadline from bank manager Wilkins (Colin Firth) approaching, it’s fortuitous that Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt) drops in to look after the Banks children – John (Nathanael Saleh), Anabel (Pixie Davies) and Georgie (Joel Dawson) – in her own inimitable fashion.
Songs that are more Meh-ry Poppins
I know musical taste is very personal. My biggest problem with the film though was that the songs by Marc Shaiman were, to me, on the lacklustre side. Only one jumped out and struck me: the jaunty vaudeville number “A Cover is not the Book”. Elsewhere they were – to me – unmemorable and nowhere near as catchy as those of “The Greatest Showman“. (What amplified this for me was having some of the classic Sherman-brothers themes woven into the soundtrack that just made me realise what I was missing!) Richard M Sherman – now 90 – was credited with “Music Consultant” but I wonder how much input he actually had?
The other flaws
Another issue I had with the film was that it just tried WAAYYY too hard to tick off the key attributes of the original:
‘Mary in the mirror’ – check
‘Bottomless carpet bag’ – check
‘Initial fun in the nursery’ – check
‘Quirky trip to a cartoon land’ – check
‘Dance on the ceiling with a quirky relative’ – check
‘Chirpy chimney sweeps’ – check (“Er… Mr Marshall… we couldn’t get chimney sweeps… will lamplighters do?” “Yeah, good enough”)
Another thing that struck me about the film – particularly as a film aimed at kids – is just how long it is. At 2 hours and 10 minutes it’s a bladder-testing experience for adults let alone younger children. (It’s worth noting that this is still 9 minutes shorter than the original, but back in the 60’s we had FAR fewer options to be stimulated by entertainment and our attention spans were – I think – much longer as a result!)
What it does get right
But with this whinging aside, the film does get a number of things spit-spot on.
Emily Blunt is near perfection as Poppins. (In the interests of balance my wife found her bizarrely clipped accent very grating, but I suspect P.L. Travers would have approved!). Broadway star Lin-Manuel Miranda also does a good job as Jack, although you wonder whether the ‘society of cockney actors’ must again be in a big grump about the casting! I found Emily Mortimer just delightful as the grown-up Jane, although Ben Whishaw‘s Michael didn’t particularly connect with me.
Almost unrecognisable was David Warner as the now wheelchair-bound Admiral Boom. His first mate is none other than Jim Norton of “Father Ted” Bishop Brennan fame (thanks to my daughter Jenn for pointing that one out)!
Also watch out (I’d largely missed it before I realised!) for a nice pavement cameo by Karen Dotrice, the original Jane, asking directions to number 19 Cherry Tree Lane.
What the film also gets right is to implement the old-school animation of the “Jolly Holidays” segment of the original. That’s a really smart move. Filmed at Shepperton Studios in London, this is once again a great advert for Britain’s film technicians. The London sets and the costumes (by the great Sandy Powell) are just superb.
Some cameo cherries on the cake
Finally, the aces in the hole are the two cameos near the end of the film. And they would have been lovely surprises as well since neither name appears in the opening credits. It’s therefore a CRYING SHAME that they chose to let the cat out of the bag in the trailer (BLOODY MARKETING EXECS!). In case you haven’t seen the trailer, I won’t spoil it for you here. But as a magical movie experience the first of those cameos moved me close to tears. He also delivers a hum-dinger of a plot twist that is a genuinely welcome crossover from the first film.
Final Thoughts
Rob Marshall directs, and with a pretty impossible task he delivers an end-product that, while it didn’t completely thrill me, did well not to trash my delicate hopes and dreams either. Having just listened to Kermode and Mayo’s review (and it seems that Mark Kermode places Poppins on a similar pedestal to me) the songs (and therefore the “Place Where Lost Things Go” song) just didn’t resonate with me in the same way, and so, unlike Kermode, I mentally never bridged the gap to safely enjoying it.
But what we all think is secondary. Because if some three or four year old out there gets a similarly lifelong love of the cinema by watching this, then that’s all that matters.
As I’ve said before, Mary Poppins was the first film I saw when it came out (or soon afterwards) at a very impressionable age…. I was said to have bawled my eyes out with “THE MAGIC NANNY IS GOING AWAY!!” as Julie Andrews floated off! So as my last cinema trip of 2018 I went to see this sequel, 54 years after the original, with a sense of dread. I’m relieved to say that although the film has its flaws it’s by no means the disaster I envisaged.
The plot
It’s a fairly lightweight story. Now all grown up, young Michael from the original film (Ben Whishaw) has his own family. His troubles though come not singly but in battalions since not only is he grieving a recent loss but he is also about to be evicted from 17 Cherry Tree Lane. Help is at hand in that his father, George Banks, had shares with the Fidelity Fiduciary Bank. But despite their best efforts neither he, his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) nor their chirpy “strike a light” lamplighter friend Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda) can find the all-important share certificates. With the deadline from bank manager Wilkins (Colin Firth) approaching, it’s fortuitous that Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt) drops in to look after the Banks children – John (Nathanael Saleh), Anabel (Pixie Davies) and Georgie (Joel Dawson) – in her own inimitable fashion.
Songs that are more Meh-ry Poppins
I know musical taste is very personal. My biggest problem with the film though was that the songs by Marc Shaiman were, to me, on the lacklustre side. Only one jumped out and struck me: the jaunty vaudeville number “A Cover is not the Book”. Elsewhere they were – to me – unmemorable and nowhere near as catchy as those of “The Greatest Showman“. (What amplified this for me was having some of the classic Sherman-brothers themes woven into the soundtrack that just made me realise what I was missing!) Richard M Sherman – now 90 – was credited with “Music Consultant” but I wonder how much input he actually had?
The other flaws
Another issue I had with the film was that it just tried WAAYYY too hard to tick off the key attributes of the original:
‘Mary in the mirror’ – check
‘Bottomless carpet bag’ – check
‘Initial fun in the nursery’ – check
‘Quirky trip to a cartoon land’ – check
‘Dance on the ceiling with a quirky relative’ – check
‘Chirpy chimney sweeps’ – check (“Er… Mr Marshall… we couldn’t get chimney sweeps… will lamplighters do?” “Yeah, good enough”)
Another thing that struck me about the film – particularly as a film aimed at kids – is just how long it is. At 2 hours and 10 minutes it’s a bladder-testing experience for adults let alone younger children. (It’s worth noting that this is still 9 minutes shorter than the original, but back in the 60’s we had FAR fewer options to be stimulated by entertainment and our attention spans were – I think – much longer as a result!)
What it does get right
But with this whinging aside, the film does get a number of things spit-spot on.
Emily Blunt is near perfection as Poppins. (In the interests of balance my wife found her bizarrely clipped accent very grating, but I suspect P.L. Travers would have approved!). Broadway star Lin-Manuel Miranda also does a good job as Jack, although you wonder whether the ‘society of cockney actors’ must again be in a big grump about the casting! I found Emily Mortimer just delightful as the grown-up Jane, although Ben Whishaw‘s Michael didn’t particularly connect with me.
Almost unrecognisable was David Warner as the now wheelchair-bound Admiral Boom. His first mate is none other than Jim Norton of “Father Ted” Bishop Brennan fame (thanks to my daughter Jenn for pointing that one out)!
Also watch out (I’d largely missed it before I realised!) for a nice pavement cameo by Karen Dotrice, the original Jane, asking directions to number 19 Cherry Tree Lane.
What the film also gets right is to implement the old-school animation of the “Jolly Holidays” segment of the original. That’s a really smart move. Filmed at Shepperton Studios in London, this is once again a great advert for Britain’s film technicians. The London sets and the costumes (by the great Sandy Powell) are just superb.
Some cameo cherries on the cake
Finally, the aces in the hole are the two cameos near the end of the film. And they would have been lovely surprises as well since neither name appears in the opening credits. It’s therefore a CRYING SHAME that they chose to let the cat out of the bag in the trailer (BLOODY MARKETING EXECS!). In case you haven’t seen the trailer, I won’t spoil it for you here. But as a magical movie experience the first of those cameos moved me close to tears. He also delivers a hum-dinger of a plot twist that is a genuinely welcome crossover from the first film.
Final Thoughts
Rob Marshall directs, and with a pretty impossible task he delivers an end-product that, while it didn’t completely thrill me, did well not to trash my delicate hopes and dreams either. Having just listened to Kermode and Mayo’s review (and it seems that Mark Kermode places Poppins on a similar pedestal to me) the songs (and therefore the “Place Where Lost Things Go” song) just didn’t resonate with me in the same way, and so, unlike Kermode, I mentally never bridged the gap to safely enjoying it.
But what we all think is secondary. Because if some three or four year old out there gets a similarly lifelong love of the cinema by watching this, then that’s all that matters.