Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Frankie (2019) in Movies
May 24, 2021
A film about death that dies on its feet.
In "Frankie", the eponymous French movie star (played by Isabelle Huppert) is dying of cancer and gathers her complex family and friends around her for one last 'family holiday' in the picturesque Portuguese town of Sintra. We follow the events of a single day of the vacation as frictions and back-stories of the players become more evident.
Positives:
- Sintra looks gorgeous: as a regular visitor to Portugal's Silver Coast, it's a place I've not yet visited. The cinematography of the region makes me want to change that.
- There are a couple of decent scenes in the movie: both involving the trustworthy Greg Kinnear: one involving him trying to sell a film idea to Frankie (who knows, but won't tell him, that she won't be around for it); and another with Kinnear and Tomei at their hotel.
Negatives:
- Where do I start.... the film is as dull as dishwater!
-- A criticism I had of the otherwise impressive "Nomadland" was that the story arc of the leading character was shallow and not very compelling. The story arc here is a bloody straight line! Virtually nothing happens in the movie and it goes nowhere. Events occur as isolated snippets in the storyline. For example, the 'loss' of an expensive bracelet is randomly lobbed into the story, but then is never referenced back in any future narrative.
-- When the ending happened (which the illustrious Mrs Movie Man referred to as a "blessing") it was a non-event. The lady behind us in the cinema exclaimed "WHAT????". And I could understand her frustration.
- The direction is distinctly lacking. Aside from the couple of decent scenes (see above), most of the shots feel like first takes, with the actors doing read-throughs of the clunky script to try to work out how to best sell the lines. "OK, time to film it for real now". But director Sachs has already shouted "Cut and Print.... now who's for some more vinos and Pastel de Nata?"! Were they aiming for some sort of naturalistic fumbling of the character's conversations? For that's how it comes across, and it's just awful.
- The script feels like a wasted opportunity. The set-up should have been a good one for an intense drama. And there are flashes (merely flashes) of potential brilliance in there: a formative step-brother/step-sister incident is based around the film "Grease", which is mirrored (either cleverly or purely through coincidence!?) in the beach-side romance of Maya (Sennia Nanua) and Portuguese holiday-maker Pedro (Manuel Sá Nogueira). And does the homosexual Michel (Pascal Greggory) have his sights on Jimmy (Brendan Gleeson)? Or Tiago? Or both? None of these potentially interesting strands ever get tied down.
- Aside from the poor script and the poor direction, some of the acting performances are unconvincing. "The Girl with all the Gifts" was a fabulous film - it made my number 2 slot of 2016! And I called out young Sennia Nanua as "one to watch for the future" as the zombie girl at the heart of the film. Here she was 17 at the time of filming. But I'm afraid I just didn't find her convincing as the moody teen. (By the way, I only single her out, since I was so impressed with her previous performance: with the exception perhaps of Kinnear, Tomei and Carloto Cotta. none of the rest of the cast consistently shine either.)
Summary Thoughts: It's a real shame that my first visit back to the cinema was such a let-down. Ira Sachs is not a director I know, but he comes with a strong reputation (for 2016's "Little Men"). But here he delivers a plain stinker. I'm afraid this movie has a word associated with it, and the word is "Avoid".
(For the full graphical review, please check out "One Mann's Movies" here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/24/frankie-a-film-about-death-that-dies-on-its-feet/. Thanks.)
Positives:
- Sintra looks gorgeous: as a regular visitor to Portugal's Silver Coast, it's a place I've not yet visited. The cinematography of the region makes me want to change that.
- There are a couple of decent scenes in the movie: both involving the trustworthy Greg Kinnear: one involving him trying to sell a film idea to Frankie (who knows, but won't tell him, that she won't be around for it); and another with Kinnear and Tomei at their hotel.
Negatives:
- Where do I start.... the film is as dull as dishwater!
-- A criticism I had of the otherwise impressive "Nomadland" was that the story arc of the leading character was shallow and not very compelling. The story arc here is a bloody straight line! Virtually nothing happens in the movie and it goes nowhere. Events occur as isolated snippets in the storyline. For example, the 'loss' of an expensive bracelet is randomly lobbed into the story, but then is never referenced back in any future narrative.
-- When the ending happened (which the illustrious Mrs Movie Man referred to as a "blessing") it was a non-event. The lady behind us in the cinema exclaimed "WHAT????". And I could understand her frustration.
- The direction is distinctly lacking. Aside from the couple of decent scenes (see above), most of the shots feel like first takes, with the actors doing read-throughs of the clunky script to try to work out how to best sell the lines. "OK, time to film it for real now". But director Sachs has already shouted "Cut and Print.... now who's for some more vinos and Pastel de Nata?"! Were they aiming for some sort of naturalistic fumbling of the character's conversations? For that's how it comes across, and it's just awful.
- The script feels like a wasted opportunity. The set-up should have been a good one for an intense drama. And there are flashes (merely flashes) of potential brilliance in there: a formative step-brother/step-sister incident is based around the film "Grease", which is mirrored (either cleverly or purely through coincidence!?) in the beach-side romance of Maya (Sennia Nanua) and Portuguese holiday-maker Pedro (Manuel Sá Nogueira). And does the homosexual Michel (Pascal Greggory) have his sights on Jimmy (Brendan Gleeson)? Or Tiago? Or both? None of these potentially interesting strands ever get tied down.
- Aside from the poor script and the poor direction, some of the acting performances are unconvincing. "The Girl with all the Gifts" was a fabulous film - it made my number 2 slot of 2016! And I called out young Sennia Nanua as "one to watch for the future" as the zombie girl at the heart of the film. Here she was 17 at the time of filming. But I'm afraid I just didn't find her convincing as the moody teen. (By the way, I only single her out, since I was so impressed with her previous performance: with the exception perhaps of Kinnear, Tomei and Carloto Cotta. none of the rest of the cast consistently shine either.)
Summary Thoughts: It's a real shame that my first visit back to the cinema was such a let-down. Ira Sachs is not a director I know, but he comes with a strong reputation (for 2016's "Little Men"). But here he delivers a plain stinker. I'm afraid this movie has a word associated with it, and the word is "Avoid".
(For the full graphical review, please check out "One Mann's Movies" here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/24/frankie-a-film-about-death-that-dies-on-its-feet/. Thanks.)
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated Superman: Action Comics - The Oz Effect in Books
Nov 30, 2020
I passed on "The Oz Effect" when it first ran in ACTION COMICS back in 2017. The whole "Rebirth" thing intrigued me, but some of the stuff like the Flash/Batman crossover "The Button", just left me cold and bordering on disinterest. When I saw the identity reveal as to the story arc's antagonist, I felt frustrated and disappointing, feeling like "#Facepalm Didn't we do something like this already?!".
Since re-discovering my love of Superman (my earliest recollections of the character were one of love and admiration, because he was just so darned GOOD, y'know?) during Bendis taking the reins, I figured reading this book would aid me in what was to come. Catching it on a recent Comixology sale for the Big 'S' was the icing on the cake!
The first story in book, the two-issue story "Only Human", written by Rob Williams, was just meh. It felt like "paint by number", as far as the plot was concerned. Nothing in it made me go, "Whoa! Holy crapola, that was fab!" Nope.
The only reason it was included was due to the inclusion, and overall influence, of Mr. Oz on the story. Outside of that, I saw no reason to include it, other than DC wanted to add more pages (good, bad, or otherwise) for the money spent on purchasing it!
Now, the art by Guillem March was another story altogether. I felt he did a great job of capturing the heroic aspects to Superman, as well as the "human" side, achieving a perfect balance. I also thought the way he drew Lois Lane was also perfect, making her appear to be smart, because, well, she is, right? 'Nuff said. Thank you. Guillem, for helping to make this a 3-Star review instead of just a 2-Star one!
As far as the remainder of the book, which WAS "The Oz Effect, I thought it was fair. Not terrible by any means, but certainly not the kind of Dan Jurgens' helmed story. I felt the dialogue involving Clark and Jon, as well as with Lois, was good, as was the way he handled Perry White. But the reveal for Mr. Oz (no Spoilers, promise!) was just a bit underwhelming!
The character who he really has been done before. Sometimes good, sometimes not so good. This round, I was just like "Hmmm.. Ok, didn't see it coming, but at the same time.." I think a lot of people, myself included, were hoping it would be WATCHMEN's Ozmandyias. *womp* *womp* Nope. And that, dear readers, is the only kinda-sorta Spoiler in this review!
What really made it work for me, as well as aiding that push for the 3-Star review, was the backstory. Even though <i>his name</i> (not gonna say it, but we all know the blue fellow in question) is not mentioned, it is clear who is behind all of this. The fact that he brought this person into the present, tweaking the grand scheme of Everything? Whew! That's heavy! And definitely interest enough for me to stay onboard with Supes, especially with care Bendis is exhibiting with the character as well as the book's main cast.
This was my first time with Viktor Bogdanovic's art style. Quite good, I'd say. He really does a great job at capturing character's emotions, really drawing you into what is going on in that particular panel. Definitely someone I will be looking out for going forward.
So, final verdict, do I recommend this? Yeah, because there's a lot of little bits that owe to the bigger story involving <i>him</i>. However, don't expect to have your mind blown or anything, because it really ain't gonna do that. But, it's good enough to read.
And that, dear readers, is all I have to say about it!
I will be curious to finally read Geoff Johns' DOOMSDAY CLOCK (hopefully, it will conclude in my lifetime!) as I feel a lot more will make sense.
Since re-discovering my love of Superman (my earliest recollections of the character were one of love and admiration, because he was just so darned GOOD, y'know?) during Bendis taking the reins, I figured reading this book would aid me in what was to come. Catching it on a recent Comixology sale for the Big 'S' was the icing on the cake!
The first story in book, the two-issue story "Only Human", written by Rob Williams, was just meh. It felt like "paint by number", as far as the plot was concerned. Nothing in it made me go, "Whoa! Holy crapola, that was fab!" Nope.
The only reason it was included was due to the inclusion, and overall influence, of Mr. Oz on the story. Outside of that, I saw no reason to include it, other than DC wanted to add more pages (good, bad, or otherwise) for the money spent on purchasing it!
Now, the art by Guillem March was another story altogether. I felt he did a great job of capturing the heroic aspects to Superman, as well as the "human" side, achieving a perfect balance. I also thought the way he drew Lois Lane was also perfect, making her appear to be smart, because, well, she is, right? 'Nuff said. Thank you. Guillem, for helping to make this a 3-Star review instead of just a 2-Star one!
As far as the remainder of the book, which WAS "The Oz Effect, I thought it was fair. Not terrible by any means, but certainly not the kind of Dan Jurgens' helmed story. I felt the dialogue involving Clark and Jon, as well as with Lois, was good, as was the way he handled Perry White. But the reveal for Mr. Oz (no Spoilers, promise!) was just a bit underwhelming!
The character who he really has been done before. Sometimes good, sometimes not so good. This round, I was just like "Hmmm.. Ok, didn't see it coming, but at the same time.." I think a lot of people, myself included, were hoping it would be WATCHMEN's Ozmandyias. *womp* *womp* Nope. And that, dear readers, is the only kinda-sorta Spoiler in this review!
What really made it work for me, as well as aiding that push for the 3-Star review, was the backstory. Even though <i>his name</i> (not gonna say it, but we all know the blue fellow in question) is not mentioned, it is clear who is behind all of this. The fact that he brought this person into the present, tweaking the grand scheme of Everything? Whew! That's heavy! And definitely interest enough for me to stay onboard with Supes, especially with care Bendis is exhibiting with the character as well as the book's main cast.
This was my first time with Viktor Bogdanovic's art style. Quite good, I'd say. He really does a great job at capturing character's emotions, really drawing you into what is going on in that particular panel. Definitely someone I will be looking out for going forward.
So, final verdict, do I recommend this? Yeah, because there's a lot of little bits that owe to the bigger story involving <i>him</i>. However, don't expect to have your mind blown or anything, because it really ain't gonna do that. But, it's good enough to read.
And that, dear readers, is all I have to say about it!
I will be curious to finally read Geoff Johns' DOOMSDAY CLOCK (hopefully, it will conclude in my lifetime!) as I feel a lot more will make sense.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Midnight Sky (2020) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
As a movie star, which, let’s face it, is George Clooney’s main and best job, we haven’t seen the guy for four years, since the largely underwhelming Money Monster. And, as a director, you’d be forgiven for thinking he hasn’t done anything for years, so unmemorable was 2017’s Suburbicon, with Matt Damon. It is a worrying trend of his entire career, that despite some genuine gold, and even a few diamonds here and there over the years, there are way more duds, with large pockets of “meh” thrown in.
The Netflix original movie The Midnight Sky was never going to be met with very high expectations, therefore. Although, it is testament to gorgeous George’s allure that we are still curious to at least see for ourselves what all the poor reviews are about. It seemed to be unanimous around the big voices that the main issue is that “nothing happens”. This does not worry me normally, as it quite often demonstrates how a 2020s audience, especially a Netflix one, has the attention span of a hungry vole in search of a fast worm followed by a quick nap! Patient story building and minimalism are not well regarded any more in the main. And that is a big problem for this film in finding an appreciative audience.
Clooney himself pitched it as Gravity meets The Revenant. Now, what you have done there, George, is set yourself up to be compared to two works of relative genius, both with far bigger budgets and the actual big screen in mind, not the “yes, it’s still a movie, but it is made for TV and phones” phenomenon. So it is bound to suffer in any critique. It didn’t stand a chance.
OK, it is ponderously slow. Fact. And there are moments when staring at Clooney’s extremely compelling beard is the most interesting thing to do with your brain or eyes in that moment. But to say nothing happens is erroneously unfair – Augustine is dying, and alone, in a world that has destroyed itself in an unspecified way. As he navigates a nightmare landscape of ice and his own diminishing sanity his subconscious creates an ethereal presence to guide him to his “essential” purpose: getting a message to a distant space station not to return to Earth under any circumstances.
Whilst not remotely original, and borrowing from the previously specified references in big, obvious ways (as well as Solaris, which GC didn’t mention, but its influence is apparent, both the Soderburgh and Tarkovsky versions), the heart of the idea isn’t anywhere near as weak as the naysayers would have you believe. If, in fact, you tune in to Clooney’s fine, sensitive performance, whilst reading between the lines of emotion and meaning, it is quite a satisfying tale. Yes, with a lot of problems, not least of all in momentum and the excitement you might expect from a sci-fi. But it isn’t “bad”, per se. Merely ponderous.
As for those up in space, including the always watchable and wonderful Felicity Jones, David Oyelowo, and Kyle Chandler, their lot is much more difficult than the Earthbound sequences. Caught between budget CGI and sets, and trapped in recreations of better space films, they simply don’t have the script to create any atmosphere or chemistry between themselves. Including an excruciating sing-along sequence that serves no purpose other than to make you cringe! The shame then is that we never feel like they are worth saving, which makes Augustine’s efforts feel futile and hollow – maybe something Clooney as director wanted to convey… but he shouldn’t have done it by making us care absolutely zero about those being saved.
Ultimately, it is an admirable failure in many ways, and not worth an earnest recommendation. It is another flop for Clooney as director. But there is just enough beauty and fragility in what Clooney is doing as an actor to make it far from a complete waste of time. Yes, it is a further example of Netflix producing something that feels churned out and corner cutting, rather than a fully rounded work that has all the framework a big cinema release would receive. It just isn’t quite as bad as the reviews suggest.
The Netflix original movie The Midnight Sky was never going to be met with very high expectations, therefore. Although, it is testament to gorgeous George’s allure that we are still curious to at least see for ourselves what all the poor reviews are about. It seemed to be unanimous around the big voices that the main issue is that “nothing happens”. This does not worry me normally, as it quite often demonstrates how a 2020s audience, especially a Netflix one, has the attention span of a hungry vole in search of a fast worm followed by a quick nap! Patient story building and minimalism are not well regarded any more in the main. And that is a big problem for this film in finding an appreciative audience.
Clooney himself pitched it as Gravity meets The Revenant. Now, what you have done there, George, is set yourself up to be compared to two works of relative genius, both with far bigger budgets and the actual big screen in mind, not the “yes, it’s still a movie, but it is made for TV and phones” phenomenon. So it is bound to suffer in any critique. It didn’t stand a chance.
OK, it is ponderously slow. Fact. And there are moments when staring at Clooney’s extremely compelling beard is the most interesting thing to do with your brain or eyes in that moment. But to say nothing happens is erroneously unfair – Augustine is dying, and alone, in a world that has destroyed itself in an unspecified way. As he navigates a nightmare landscape of ice and his own diminishing sanity his subconscious creates an ethereal presence to guide him to his “essential” purpose: getting a message to a distant space station not to return to Earth under any circumstances.
Whilst not remotely original, and borrowing from the previously specified references in big, obvious ways (as well as Solaris, which GC didn’t mention, but its influence is apparent, both the Soderburgh and Tarkovsky versions), the heart of the idea isn’t anywhere near as weak as the naysayers would have you believe. If, in fact, you tune in to Clooney’s fine, sensitive performance, whilst reading between the lines of emotion and meaning, it is quite a satisfying tale. Yes, with a lot of problems, not least of all in momentum and the excitement you might expect from a sci-fi. But it isn’t “bad”, per se. Merely ponderous.
As for those up in space, including the always watchable and wonderful Felicity Jones, David Oyelowo, and Kyle Chandler, their lot is much more difficult than the Earthbound sequences. Caught between budget CGI and sets, and trapped in recreations of better space films, they simply don’t have the script to create any atmosphere or chemistry between themselves. Including an excruciating sing-along sequence that serves no purpose other than to make you cringe! The shame then is that we never feel like they are worth saving, which makes Augustine’s efforts feel futile and hollow – maybe something Clooney as director wanted to convey… but he shouldn’t have done it by making us care absolutely zero about those being saved.
Ultimately, it is an admirable failure in many ways, and not worth an earnest recommendation. It is another flop for Clooney as director. But there is just enough beauty and fragility in what Clooney is doing as an actor to make it far from a complete waste of time. Yes, it is a further example of Netflix producing something that feels churned out and corner cutting, rather than a fully rounded work that has all the framework a big cinema release would receive. It just isn’t quite as bad as the reviews suggest.
Darren (1599 KP) rated From Dusk Till Dawn (1996) in Movies
Sep 2, 2019
Thoughts on From Dusk till Dawn
Characters – Seth Gecko has just been sprung from prison by his brother, he wants to get across the border to complete a deal which would see them both have freedom, he is the one that remains in control wanting to keep everything calm, which would mean not leaving a pile of bodies behind them. He does deliver the threats which would see them as a danger, though he does just want things to be simple. Richard or Ritchie is must more of a loose cannon, he is paranoid and this makes him more dangerous, as he will kill people putting their safety at risk. He is protected by his brother, as he doesn’t seem like he is capable of putting a plan together himself. Jacob was a priest that has lost his faith after his wife’s death, he I taking his family on a vacation and gets forced into helping the brothers, he wants to keep them safe, willing to risk his own life to make this happen. Kate and Scott are his children, they are dealing with their own loss the best way they know how to and being supportive to their father. Santanico is the beautiful dancer that will stop a bar with her dance, she is one of the leaders of the vampires who has been waiting for the food in human form.
Performances – George Clooney is great to see in this role, after this we only usually see him in smooth talking roles, rather than a rough criminal, showing he could become any role offered to him. Tarantino in this film is creepy and putting himself in the supporting role does hide any restrictions he might have as an actor. Harvey Keitel is great showing a character that is meant to be hating his life choice, but remaining strong for his children. Juliette Lewis and Ernest Liu are both solid enough in the supporting roles without getting too much more to work with, while Salma Hayek turns heads with her performance.
Story – The story here follows two criminals trying to get to Mexico, the family they force to help them across the border and the bar they find, filled with vampires that they must fight to survive the night. Where this story stands up on its own, is by making it a criminal tory to start with, having no hints of horror or vampires involved, as we just watch the two loose cannons trying to get to safety, by pulling the rug out from under us to thrown us into the horror idea is genius switch of pace for the story. we do have themes going on especially with the Jacob character needing to find his lost faith which finding it will become the big part in fight the vampires. The story also exists in a world where vampire stories do exist, which gives them ideas on how to fight back, which was the main attraction to the 90’s horror stories.
Action/Horror – The action in the film involves the fighting with the vampires, we get to take everything to a new level for this side of the genre, with the blood splatter in the action, which the horror gives us because we vampires which are a staple of horror, but we do focus on the action over the scares.
Settings – The film uses the getting to the location setting of the camper van which does show us the road trip feel to the film, but it is the bar that will be one that is always going to be hard to forget, being a run down biker and trucker bar.
Special Effects – The special effects are some of the best you will see in the vampire genre, it shows that you can get plenty done with practical effects, with the only weakness come from the human to vampire transformations, which look CGI and have dated.
Scene of the Movie – The battle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The transformations have dated badly.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the most fun vampire movies you will ever see, it has plenty of blood flying around the screen and will keep you entertained from start to finish.
Overall: Purely entertaining vampire movie.
Characters – Seth Gecko has just been sprung from prison by his brother, he wants to get across the border to complete a deal which would see them both have freedom, he is the one that remains in control wanting to keep everything calm, which would mean not leaving a pile of bodies behind them. He does deliver the threats which would see them as a danger, though he does just want things to be simple. Richard or Ritchie is must more of a loose cannon, he is paranoid and this makes him more dangerous, as he will kill people putting their safety at risk. He is protected by his brother, as he doesn’t seem like he is capable of putting a plan together himself. Jacob was a priest that has lost his faith after his wife’s death, he I taking his family on a vacation and gets forced into helping the brothers, he wants to keep them safe, willing to risk his own life to make this happen. Kate and Scott are his children, they are dealing with their own loss the best way they know how to and being supportive to their father. Santanico is the beautiful dancer that will stop a bar with her dance, she is one of the leaders of the vampires who has been waiting for the food in human form.
Performances – George Clooney is great to see in this role, after this we only usually see him in smooth talking roles, rather than a rough criminal, showing he could become any role offered to him. Tarantino in this film is creepy and putting himself in the supporting role does hide any restrictions he might have as an actor. Harvey Keitel is great showing a character that is meant to be hating his life choice, but remaining strong for his children. Juliette Lewis and Ernest Liu are both solid enough in the supporting roles without getting too much more to work with, while Salma Hayek turns heads with her performance.
Story – The story here follows two criminals trying to get to Mexico, the family they force to help them across the border and the bar they find, filled with vampires that they must fight to survive the night. Where this story stands up on its own, is by making it a criminal tory to start with, having no hints of horror or vampires involved, as we just watch the two loose cannons trying to get to safety, by pulling the rug out from under us to thrown us into the horror idea is genius switch of pace for the story. we do have themes going on especially with the Jacob character needing to find his lost faith which finding it will become the big part in fight the vampires. The story also exists in a world where vampire stories do exist, which gives them ideas on how to fight back, which was the main attraction to the 90’s horror stories.
Action/Horror – The action in the film involves the fighting with the vampires, we get to take everything to a new level for this side of the genre, with the blood splatter in the action, which the horror gives us because we vampires which are a staple of horror, but we do focus on the action over the scares.
Settings – The film uses the getting to the location setting of the camper van which does show us the road trip feel to the film, but it is the bar that will be one that is always going to be hard to forget, being a run down biker and trucker bar.
Special Effects – The special effects are some of the best you will see in the vampire genre, it shows that you can get plenty done with practical effects, with the only weakness come from the human to vampire transformations, which look CGI and have dated.
Scene of the Movie – The battle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The transformations have dated badly.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the most fun vampire movies you will ever see, it has plenty of blood flying around the screen and will keep you entertained from start to finish.
Overall: Purely entertaining vampire movie.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Composure in Tabletop Games
Sep 5, 2019
Sometimes you just identify with something so strongly that you have to respond to the call for action. Such was the case when I was contacted about reviewing Composure. Here’s what hooked me, “We started as just a couple buddies that didn’t think Cards Against Humanity was that funny.” If you know me or my game tastes, you would know that CAH is my ultimate least favorite game of all time. It’s just gross for the sake of being gross. Not a fan at all. So when we were sent Composure, I was hailing it to the group as the CAH-killer. Is it?
In Composure, the name of the game is keeping your composure while discussing subjects that may toe the line of offensive to some people. If you can answer difficult questions with a straight face, you may score VPs in the form of poker chips (included). If not, no chips. In fact, you pay chips to the pot when you laugh or get upset or just break composure.
To setup, deal each player 10 cards and 10 poker chips. You are now ready to play.
To start a round, everyone antes up a chip to the pot. When it is your turn to be the Dealer, you will choose a card from your hand and challenge another player to answer the question or scenario on your chosen card. Try to match up your card with the player you know with whom it will strike a chord and watch the devastation unfold. If anyone breaks composure, pay the pot. If you can answer without breaking composure, the Dealer awards you with chip(s). That’s the game. We just played until we got through our entire hands, but you can house rule end times/rounds.
Components. This game consists of a ton of cards and a ton of poker chips. Mine also came with a glamorous sheer sparkly bag into which I put the chips after playing. The cards are all fine quality, and the chips are standard white plastic poker chips. There really is no “art” to be had aside from the publisher’s logo on the cards and chip stickers. Nobody purchases CAH for the art, so nobody will purchase Composure for the art.
I think it must be me. I think because I toe the line of offensiveness on the daily that people with whom I play games come to expect that I will say something off-color or very dangerously close to offensive. Therefore, when I have played this game, the offensiveness was somewhat eschewed simply by my presence at the table. Don’t get me wrong, I am incredibly inclusive and I love all people, but I’ll probably say something stupid that I expect to be hilarious, but comes across as a little (or a whole ton) harsh and uncaring. That said, my game-mates are immune to this type of carrying on and so the game came across a little flat for us. This is NOT a knock on the game. I think it’s a case of game to gamer mismatch.
So here’s what I think. Composure IS a replacement for CAH for me. But then again, so is 52 Card Pickup. Now, while I do not own CAH, my brother Bryan does and that fills a niche for his collection. I did not have any offensive card games in my collection, so this will suit my needs in that area quite nicely. I don’t like the rudeness of CAH, but I get the same taste from this game without the punishment of having to play the former.
If you are looking for something that comes in an aggressive green color to knock off that disgusting big black box, then this is your game. If I were to house rule some stuff, I would have a discard and replace mechanic so that I can load my hand with group-appropriate cards and not be stuck with stinkers. That said, Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a sturdy 6 / 12. If you’re like me, ditch the crap and get yourself a real slightly-offensive card game.
In Composure, the name of the game is keeping your composure while discussing subjects that may toe the line of offensive to some people. If you can answer difficult questions with a straight face, you may score VPs in the form of poker chips (included). If not, no chips. In fact, you pay chips to the pot when you laugh or get upset or just break composure.
To setup, deal each player 10 cards and 10 poker chips. You are now ready to play.
To start a round, everyone antes up a chip to the pot. When it is your turn to be the Dealer, you will choose a card from your hand and challenge another player to answer the question or scenario on your chosen card. Try to match up your card with the player you know with whom it will strike a chord and watch the devastation unfold. If anyone breaks composure, pay the pot. If you can answer without breaking composure, the Dealer awards you with chip(s). That’s the game. We just played until we got through our entire hands, but you can house rule end times/rounds.
Components. This game consists of a ton of cards and a ton of poker chips. Mine also came with a glamorous sheer sparkly bag into which I put the chips after playing. The cards are all fine quality, and the chips are standard white plastic poker chips. There really is no “art” to be had aside from the publisher’s logo on the cards and chip stickers. Nobody purchases CAH for the art, so nobody will purchase Composure for the art.
I think it must be me. I think because I toe the line of offensiveness on the daily that people with whom I play games come to expect that I will say something off-color or very dangerously close to offensive. Therefore, when I have played this game, the offensiveness was somewhat eschewed simply by my presence at the table. Don’t get me wrong, I am incredibly inclusive and I love all people, but I’ll probably say something stupid that I expect to be hilarious, but comes across as a little (or a whole ton) harsh and uncaring. That said, my game-mates are immune to this type of carrying on and so the game came across a little flat for us. This is NOT a knock on the game. I think it’s a case of game to gamer mismatch.
So here’s what I think. Composure IS a replacement for CAH for me. But then again, so is 52 Card Pickup. Now, while I do not own CAH, my brother Bryan does and that fills a niche for his collection. I did not have any offensive card games in my collection, so this will suit my needs in that area quite nicely. I don’t like the rudeness of CAH, but I get the same taste from this game without the punishment of having to play the former.
If you are looking for something that comes in an aggressive green color to knock off that disgusting big black box, then this is your game. If I were to house rule some stuff, I would have a discard and replace mechanic so that I can load my hand with group-appropriate cards and not be stuck with stinkers. That said, Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a sturdy 6 / 12. If you’re like me, ditch the crap and get yourself a real slightly-offensive card game.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Long Shot (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
#Punching.
#Punching refers to an in-family joke….. my WhatsApp reply to my son when he sent me a picture of his new “Brazilian supermodel girlfriend” (she’s not). Bronwyn is now my daughter-in-law!
Similarly, the ‘out-there’ journalist Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan) has been holding a candle for the glacial ice-queen Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron) for nearly twenty years. At the age of 16 she was his babysitter. Always with an interest in school issues, she has now risen to the dizzy heights of secretary (“of State”) to the President of the United States (Bob Odenkirk). With Charlotte getting the opportunity to run for President, fate arranges for Fred to get hired as a speechwriter on the team to help inject some necessary humour into Charlotte’s icy public persona. But in terms of romantic options, the shell-suited Fred is surely #punching isn’t he?
A rare thing.
Getting the balance right for a “romantic comedy” is a tricky job, but “Long Shot” just about gets it spot on. The comedy is sharp with a whole heap of great lines, some of which will need a second watch to catch. It’s also pleasingly politically incorrect, with US news anchors in particular being lampooned for their appallingly sexist language.
Just occasionally, the humour flips into Farrelly-levels of dubious taste (one “Mary-style” incident in particular was, for me, very funny but might test some viewer’s “ugh” button). The film also earns its UK15 certificate from the extensive array of “F” words utilized, and for some casual drug use.
Romantically, the film harks back to a classic blockbuster of 1990, but is well done and touching.
Writing and Directing
The sharp and tight screenplay was written by Dan Sterling, who wrote the internationally controversial Seth Rogen/James Franco comedy “The Interview” from 2014, and Liz Hannah, whose movie screenplay debut was the Spielberg drama “The Post“.
Behind the camera is Jonathan Levine, who previously directed the pretty awful “Snatched” from 2017 (a film I have started watching on a plane but never finished) but on the flip side he has on his bio the interesting rom-com-zombie film “Warm Bodies” and the moving cancer comedy “50:50”, also with Rogan, from 2011.
Also worthy of note in the technical department is the cinematography by Yves Bélanger (“The Mule“, “Brooklyn“, “Dallas Buyers Club“) with some lovely angles and tracking shots (a kitchen dance scene has an impressively leisurely track-away).
The Cast
Seth Rogen is a bit of an acquired taste: he’s like the US version of Johnny Vegas. Here he is suitably geeky when he needs to be, but has the range to make some of the pathos work in the inevitable “downer” scenes. Theron is absolutely gorgeous on-screen (although unlike the US anchors I OBVIOUSLY also appreciate her style and acting ability!). She really is the Grace Kelly of the modern age. She’s no stranger to comedy, having been in the other Seth (Macfarlane)’s “A Million Ways to Die in the West“. But she seems to be more comfortable with this material, and again gets the mix of comedy, romance and drama spot-on.
The strong supporting cast includes the unknown (to me) June Diane Raphael who is very effective at the cock-blocking Maggie, Charlotte’s aide; O’Shea Jackson Jr. as Fred’s buddy Lance; and Ravi Patel as the staffer Tom.
But winning the prize for the most unrecognizable cast member was Andy Serkis as the wizened old Rupert Murdoch-style media tycoon Parker Wembley: I genuinely got a shock as the titles rolled that this was him.
Final thoughts.
Although possibly causing offence to some, this is a fine example of a US comedy that delivers consistent laughs. Most of the audience chatter coming out of the screening was positive. At just over 2 hours, it breaks my “90 minute comedy” rule, but just about gets away with it. It’s not quite for me at the bar of “Game Night“, but it’s pretty close. Recommended.
#Punching refers to an in-family joke….. my WhatsApp reply to my son when he sent me a picture of his new “Brazilian supermodel girlfriend” (she’s not). Bronwyn is now my daughter-in-law!
Similarly, the ‘out-there’ journalist Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan) has been holding a candle for the glacial ice-queen Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron) for nearly twenty years. At the age of 16 she was his babysitter. Always with an interest in school issues, she has now risen to the dizzy heights of secretary (“of State”) to the President of the United States (Bob Odenkirk). With Charlotte getting the opportunity to run for President, fate arranges for Fred to get hired as a speechwriter on the team to help inject some necessary humour into Charlotte’s icy public persona. But in terms of romantic options, the shell-suited Fred is surely #punching isn’t he?
A rare thing.
Getting the balance right for a “romantic comedy” is a tricky job, but “Long Shot” just about gets it spot on. The comedy is sharp with a whole heap of great lines, some of which will need a second watch to catch. It’s also pleasingly politically incorrect, with US news anchors in particular being lampooned for their appallingly sexist language.
Just occasionally, the humour flips into Farrelly-levels of dubious taste (one “Mary-style” incident in particular was, for me, very funny but might test some viewer’s “ugh” button). The film also earns its UK15 certificate from the extensive array of “F” words utilized, and for some casual drug use.
Romantically, the film harks back to a classic blockbuster of 1990, but is well done and touching.
Writing and Directing
The sharp and tight screenplay was written by Dan Sterling, who wrote the internationally controversial Seth Rogen/James Franco comedy “The Interview” from 2014, and Liz Hannah, whose movie screenplay debut was the Spielberg drama “The Post“.
Behind the camera is Jonathan Levine, who previously directed the pretty awful “Snatched” from 2017 (a film I have started watching on a plane but never finished) but on the flip side he has on his bio the interesting rom-com-zombie film “Warm Bodies” and the moving cancer comedy “50:50”, also with Rogan, from 2011.
Also worthy of note in the technical department is the cinematography by Yves Bélanger (“The Mule“, “Brooklyn“, “Dallas Buyers Club“) with some lovely angles and tracking shots (a kitchen dance scene has an impressively leisurely track-away).
The Cast
Seth Rogen is a bit of an acquired taste: he’s like the US version of Johnny Vegas. Here he is suitably geeky when he needs to be, but has the range to make some of the pathos work in the inevitable “downer” scenes. Theron is absolutely gorgeous on-screen (although unlike the US anchors I OBVIOUSLY also appreciate her style and acting ability!). She really is the Grace Kelly of the modern age. She’s no stranger to comedy, having been in the other Seth (Macfarlane)’s “A Million Ways to Die in the West“. But she seems to be more comfortable with this material, and again gets the mix of comedy, romance and drama spot-on.
The strong supporting cast includes the unknown (to me) June Diane Raphael who is very effective at the cock-blocking Maggie, Charlotte’s aide; O’Shea Jackson Jr. as Fred’s buddy Lance; and Ravi Patel as the staffer Tom.
But winning the prize for the most unrecognizable cast member was Andy Serkis as the wizened old Rupert Murdoch-style media tycoon Parker Wembley: I genuinely got a shock as the titles rolled that this was him.
Final thoughts.
Although possibly causing offence to some, this is a fine example of a US comedy that delivers consistent laughs. Most of the audience chatter coming out of the screening was positive. At just over 2 hours, it breaks my “90 minute comedy” rule, but just about gets away with it. It’s not quite for me at the bar of “Game Night“, but it’s pretty close. Recommended.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mule (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Eastwood is back, but is he hero or anti-hero?
It’s delightful to see Clint Eastwood back in front of the camera on the big screen. His last starring film was “Trouble with the Curve” in 2012 – a baseball-themed film that I don’t remember coming out in the UK, let alone remember seeing. Before that was 2008’s excellent “Gran Torino”.
Based on a true story.
“The Mule” is based on a true New York Times story about Leo Sharp, a veteren recruited by a cartel to ship drugs from the southern border to Chicago.
Eastwood couldn’t cast Sharp in the movie as himself because he died back in 2016, so had to personally take the role. (This is #satire…. Eastwood’s last film was the terrible “The 15:17 to Paris” where his ‘actors’ were the real-life participants themselves: you won’t find a review on this site as I only review films I’ve managed to sit through…. and with this one I failed!).
The plot.
Eastwood plays Earl Stone, a self-centred horticulturist of award-winning daylily’s (whatever they are) who is estranged from wife Mary (Dianne Wiest) and especially from his daughter Iris (Alison Eastwood, Clint’s own daughter), who now refuses to speak to him. This is because Earl has let his family down at every turn. The only person willing to give him a chance is his grand-daughter Ginny (Taissa Farmiga, younger sister of Vera). With his affairs in financial freefall, a chance meeting at a wedding leads Earl into a money-making driving job for the cartel operated by Laton (Andy Garcia). (Laton doesn’t seem to have a first name….. Fernando perhaps?).
With has beat-up truck and aged manner, he is invisible to the cops and so highly effective in the role. Even when – as the money keeps rolling in – he upgrades his truck to a souped-up monster!
Loose Morals.
It’s difficult to know whether Eastwood is playing a hero or an anti-hero. You feel tense when Earl is at risk of being caught, but then again the law officers would be preventing hundreds of kilos of cocaine from reaching the streets of Chicago and through their actions saving the lives of probably hundreds of people. I felt utterly conflicted: the blood of those people, and the destruction of the families that addiction causes, was on Earl’s hands as much as his employer’s. But you can’t quite equate that to the affable old-man that Eastwood portrays, who uses much of the money for charitable good-works in his community.
Family values.
In parallel with the drug-running main plot is a tale of Earl’s attempted redemption: “family should always come first”. When the two storylines come together around a critical event then it feels like a sufficient trigger for Earl to turn his back on his life of selfishness. This also gives room for some splendid acting scenes between Eastwood and Wiest. It’s also interesting that Earl tries to teach the younger DEA enforcement agent not to follow in the sins of his past. Bradley Cooper, back in pretty-boy mode, plays the agent, but seemed to me to be coasting; to me he wasn’t convincing in the role. Michael Peña is better as his unnamed DEA-buddy.
Final thoughts.
The showing at my cinema was surprisingly well-attended for a Wednesday night, showing that Eastwood is still a star-draw for box-office even in his old age. And it’s the reason to see the film for sure. His gristled driving turn to camera (most fully seen in the trailer rather than the final cut) is extraordinary.
He even manages to turn in an “eyes in rearview-mirror” shot that is surely a tribute to his Dirty Harry days!
If you can park your moral compass for a few hours then its an enjoyable film of drug-running and redemption. I’d like to suggest it also illustrates that crime really doesn’t pay, but from the end titles scene I’m not even sure at that age if that even applies!
Based on a true story.
“The Mule” is based on a true New York Times story about Leo Sharp, a veteren recruited by a cartel to ship drugs from the southern border to Chicago.
Eastwood couldn’t cast Sharp in the movie as himself because he died back in 2016, so had to personally take the role. (This is #satire…. Eastwood’s last film was the terrible “The 15:17 to Paris” where his ‘actors’ were the real-life participants themselves: you won’t find a review on this site as I only review films I’ve managed to sit through…. and with this one I failed!).
The plot.
Eastwood plays Earl Stone, a self-centred horticulturist of award-winning daylily’s (whatever they are) who is estranged from wife Mary (Dianne Wiest) and especially from his daughter Iris (Alison Eastwood, Clint’s own daughter), who now refuses to speak to him. This is because Earl has let his family down at every turn. The only person willing to give him a chance is his grand-daughter Ginny (Taissa Farmiga, younger sister of Vera). With his affairs in financial freefall, a chance meeting at a wedding leads Earl into a money-making driving job for the cartel operated by Laton (Andy Garcia). (Laton doesn’t seem to have a first name….. Fernando perhaps?).
With has beat-up truck and aged manner, he is invisible to the cops and so highly effective in the role. Even when – as the money keeps rolling in – he upgrades his truck to a souped-up monster!
Loose Morals.
It’s difficult to know whether Eastwood is playing a hero or an anti-hero. You feel tense when Earl is at risk of being caught, but then again the law officers would be preventing hundreds of kilos of cocaine from reaching the streets of Chicago and through their actions saving the lives of probably hundreds of people. I felt utterly conflicted: the blood of those people, and the destruction of the families that addiction causes, was on Earl’s hands as much as his employer’s. But you can’t quite equate that to the affable old-man that Eastwood portrays, who uses much of the money for charitable good-works in his community.
Family values.
In parallel with the drug-running main plot is a tale of Earl’s attempted redemption: “family should always come first”. When the two storylines come together around a critical event then it feels like a sufficient trigger for Earl to turn his back on his life of selfishness. This also gives room for some splendid acting scenes between Eastwood and Wiest. It’s also interesting that Earl tries to teach the younger DEA enforcement agent not to follow in the sins of his past. Bradley Cooper, back in pretty-boy mode, plays the agent, but seemed to me to be coasting; to me he wasn’t convincing in the role. Michael Peña is better as his unnamed DEA-buddy.
Final thoughts.
The showing at my cinema was surprisingly well-attended for a Wednesday night, showing that Eastwood is still a star-draw for box-office even in his old age. And it’s the reason to see the film for sure. His gristled driving turn to camera (most fully seen in the trailer rather than the final cut) is extraordinary.
He even manages to turn in an “eyes in rearview-mirror” shot that is surely a tribute to his Dirty Harry days!
If you can park your moral compass for a few hours then its an enjoyable film of drug-running and redemption. I’d like to suggest it also illustrates that crime really doesn’t pay, but from the end titles scene I’m not even sure at that age if that even applies!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated On Chesil Beach (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Flawed but moving tale of a bygone sexual era.
As you might notice from my lack of recent posts, the day job is getting in a way a bit at the moment. But one film I wanted to catch was this adaptation of Ian McEwan’s novel. What’s both an advantage and a disadvantage of catching a film late is that you can’t help avoid absorbing some of the reviews of others: Kevin Maher of the Times gave this a rather sniffy two stars; Amy from “Oh That Film Blog” was much more measured (an excellent review: man, that girl can write!). Last night, I actually ended up enjoying the film much more than I was expecting to.
Set against Dorset’s spectacular shingle bank of Chesil Beach (which is a bitch to walk along!) the story, set primarily in 1962, joins two newly-weds Florence (Saoirse Ronan, “Brooklyn“, “Lady Bird“) and Edward (Billy Howle, “Dunkirk“) about to embark on the sexual adventure of their consummation at a seaside hotel. The timing of the film is critical: 1962 really marked the watershed between the staid conservatism and goody-two-shoes-ness of the 50’s and the sexual liberation of the swinging sixties. Sex before marriage was frowned upon. The problem for Florence and Edward is that sex after marriage is looking pretty unlikely too! For the inexperienced couple have more hang-ups about sex than there are pebbles on the beach.
The lead-up to their union is squirm-inducing to watch: a silent silver-service meal in their room; incompetent fumbling with zippers; shoes that refuse to come off. To prolong the agony for the viewer, we work through flashbacks of their first meeting at Oxford University and their dysfunctional family lives: for Florence a bullying father and mother (Samuel West and Emily Watson) and for Edward a loving but stressed father (TV regular, Adrian Scarborough) due to a mentally impaired mother (Anne-Marie Duff, “Suffragette“, “Before I Go To Sleep“).
As Ian McEwan is known to do (as per the end of “Atonement” for example), there are a couple of clever “Oh My God” twists in the tale: one merely hinted at in flashback; another involving a record-buying child that is also unresolved but begs a massive question.
The first half of the film is undoubtedly better than the last: while the screenplay is going for the “if only” twist of films like “Sliding Doors” and “La La Land“, the film over-stretches with some dodgy make-up where alternative actors would have been a far better choice. The ending still had the power to move me though.
Saoirse Ronan is magnificent: I don’t think I’ve seen the young Irish-American in a film I didn’t enjoy. Here she is back with a McEwan adaptation again and bleeds discomfort with every line of her face. Her desperate longing to talk to someone – such as the kindly probing vicar – is constantly counteracted by her shame and embarassment. Howle also holds his own well (no pun intended) but when up against the acting tour de force of Ronan he is always going to appear in second place.
A brave performance comes from Anne-Marie Duff who shines as the mentally wayward mother. The flashback where we see how she came to be that way is wholly predicatable but still manages to shock. And Duff is part of a strong ensemble cast who all do their bit.
Another star of the show for me is the photography by Sean Bobbitt (“12 Years a Slave“) which portrays the windswept Dorset beach beautifully but manages to get the frame close and claustrophobic when it needs to be. Wide panoramas with characters barely on the left and right of the frame will play havoc with DVD ratios on TV, but work superbly on the big screen.
Directed by stage-director Dominic Cooke, in his movie-directing debut, this is a brave story to try to move from page to screen and while it is not without faults it is a ball-achingly sad tale that moved me. Recommended if you enjoyed the similarly sad tale of “Atonement”.
Set against Dorset’s spectacular shingle bank of Chesil Beach (which is a bitch to walk along!) the story, set primarily in 1962, joins two newly-weds Florence (Saoirse Ronan, “Brooklyn“, “Lady Bird“) and Edward (Billy Howle, “Dunkirk“) about to embark on the sexual adventure of their consummation at a seaside hotel. The timing of the film is critical: 1962 really marked the watershed between the staid conservatism and goody-two-shoes-ness of the 50’s and the sexual liberation of the swinging sixties. Sex before marriage was frowned upon. The problem for Florence and Edward is that sex after marriage is looking pretty unlikely too! For the inexperienced couple have more hang-ups about sex than there are pebbles on the beach.
The lead-up to their union is squirm-inducing to watch: a silent silver-service meal in their room; incompetent fumbling with zippers; shoes that refuse to come off. To prolong the agony for the viewer, we work through flashbacks of their first meeting at Oxford University and their dysfunctional family lives: for Florence a bullying father and mother (Samuel West and Emily Watson) and for Edward a loving but stressed father (TV regular, Adrian Scarborough) due to a mentally impaired mother (Anne-Marie Duff, “Suffragette“, “Before I Go To Sleep“).
As Ian McEwan is known to do (as per the end of “Atonement” for example), there are a couple of clever “Oh My God” twists in the tale: one merely hinted at in flashback; another involving a record-buying child that is also unresolved but begs a massive question.
The first half of the film is undoubtedly better than the last: while the screenplay is going for the “if only” twist of films like “Sliding Doors” and “La La Land“, the film over-stretches with some dodgy make-up where alternative actors would have been a far better choice. The ending still had the power to move me though.
Saoirse Ronan is magnificent: I don’t think I’ve seen the young Irish-American in a film I didn’t enjoy. Here she is back with a McEwan adaptation again and bleeds discomfort with every line of her face. Her desperate longing to talk to someone – such as the kindly probing vicar – is constantly counteracted by her shame and embarassment. Howle also holds his own well (no pun intended) but when up against the acting tour de force of Ronan he is always going to appear in second place.
A brave performance comes from Anne-Marie Duff who shines as the mentally wayward mother. The flashback where we see how she came to be that way is wholly predicatable but still manages to shock. And Duff is part of a strong ensemble cast who all do their bit.
Another star of the show for me is the photography by Sean Bobbitt (“12 Years a Slave“) which portrays the windswept Dorset beach beautifully but manages to get the frame close and claustrophobic when it needs to be. Wide panoramas with characters barely on the left and right of the frame will play havoc with DVD ratios on TV, but work superbly on the big screen.
Directed by stage-director Dominic Cooke, in his movie-directing debut, this is a brave story to try to move from page to screen and while it is not without faults it is a ball-achingly sad tale that moved me. Recommended if you enjoyed the similarly sad tale of “Atonement”.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Tomb Raider (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A tremendously energetic and fun video game spin-off.
In this #TimesUp year, reviewing a film like “Tomb Raider” is just asking for trouble! So where shall I start digging my shallow grave?
Let’s start with the video game… “Tomb Raider” is of course the original video game phenomenon that started in 1993, featuring Lara Croft: someone that teenagers across the land mastur…. did their homework alongside in bedrooms up and down the land. Beauty; athleticism; a fierce independence; unfeasibly large breasts; ridiculously impossible leaps: in this film reboot, Alicia Vikander’s Lara differs from this ideal in just one respect. And before the Dora Milaje smash through my windows and drag me off for incarceration on Mysogeny Island, I’ll point out that this is OBVIOUSLY the least important omission! 🙂
For this film is good… very good.
“I’M SORRY….? WHAT DID YOU SAY DR BOB??” “But this is a film about a VIDEO GAME! … They are all uniformly s****e!”
Beauty, brains and talent: the GB Olympic team will likely be calling.
I know – I can barely bring myself to admit it. But this one really is good. Most of this is down to the reason I was looking forward so much to this one. Alicia Vikander (“Ex Machina“; “The Danish Girl“; “The Light Between Oceans“) is such a class act, and here she is so much more than just a one-dimensional action hero. She hurts, she mourns, she feels guilt, she’s vulnerable. And it’s all there on her face. Great acting skill. She also kicks ass like no woman on film since Emily Blunt in “Edge of Tomorrow“!
Don’t you just hate it when you drop a bag of flour in your kitchen?
The story by Evan Daugherty and Geneva Robertson-Dworet (with Alastair Siddons adding to the screenplay) rockets off in great style with a “fox and hounds” bike chase around the City of London which is brilliantly done and sets up Croft’s character with the minimum of tedious back story. Switch to the main story and Lara is struggling to face the fact that her father (Dominic West, “Money Monster“), seen in flashback, is finally dead after going off to Japan seven years previously in search of the legendary tomb of ancient sorceress Queen Himiko. The Croft corp. COO (Kristin Scott Thomas, “Darkest Hour“) persuades Lara its time to sign the necessary papers, but on the verge of this act the lawyer Mr Yaffe (Derek Jacobi, “Murder on the Orient Express“) lets a significant cat out of the bag and sets Lara off on the trail of her long-dead father’s original mission.
In happier times. Daddy (Dominic West) goes off on yet another trip from Croft Manor.
It’s a rollercoaster ride that’s really well done. But I reckon the writers should have named Jeffrey Boam, George Lucas and Menno Meyjes as co-collaborators, for the film plagerises terribly from “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”. In two or three places, the similarities are shocking! As in the best of Lucas traditions though there are some breathtaking set-pieces, with the best of them staged at the top of a raging waterfall that’s just plane ridiculous! (Even if it plagerises blatantly from “The Lost World”!).
English and patient. Kristin Scott Thomas as the guiding hand at the Croft corporation.
The movie’s tremendous to look at too, with cinematography by George Richmond (“Kingsman“; “Eddie the Eagle“) and (aside from a dodgy helicopter effect) good special effect by Max Poolman (“District 9”) and his team.
My one criticism would be that Vogel – the chief villain, played by Walton Goggins (“The Hateful Eight“) – is rather too unremittingly evil to have two sweetly smiling young children in his desk photo. One can only hope he faces a nasty demise!
Never trust a guy with a beard. Walton Goggins, a bit over the top as the villain of the piece.
The film is directed by Norwegian director Roar Uthaug, in what looks to be his first “non-Norwegian” film. Roar by name; roar by nature! He does a great job. An early “summer blockbuster” actioner that gets two thumbs up from me. What a pleasant surprise!
Let’s start with the video game… “Tomb Raider” is of course the original video game phenomenon that started in 1993, featuring Lara Croft: someone that teenagers across the land mastur…. did their homework alongside in bedrooms up and down the land. Beauty; athleticism; a fierce independence; unfeasibly large breasts; ridiculously impossible leaps: in this film reboot, Alicia Vikander’s Lara differs from this ideal in just one respect. And before the Dora Milaje smash through my windows and drag me off for incarceration on Mysogeny Island, I’ll point out that this is OBVIOUSLY the least important omission! 🙂
For this film is good… very good.
“I’M SORRY….? WHAT DID YOU SAY DR BOB??” “But this is a film about a VIDEO GAME! … They are all uniformly s****e!”
Beauty, brains and talent: the GB Olympic team will likely be calling.
I know – I can barely bring myself to admit it. But this one really is good. Most of this is down to the reason I was looking forward so much to this one. Alicia Vikander (“Ex Machina“; “The Danish Girl“; “The Light Between Oceans“) is such a class act, and here she is so much more than just a one-dimensional action hero. She hurts, she mourns, she feels guilt, she’s vulnerable. And it’s all there on her face. Great acting skill. She also kicks ass like no woman on film since Emily Blunt in “Edge of Tomorrow“!
Don’t you just hate it when you drop a bag of flour in your kitchen?
The story by Evan Daugherty and Geneva Robertson-Dworet (with Alastair Siddons adding to the screenplay) rockets off in great style with a “fox and hounds” bike chase around the City of London which is brilliantly done and sets up Croft’s character with the minimum of tedious back story. Switch to the main story and Lara is struggling to face the fact that her father (Dominic West, “Money Monster“), seen in flashback, is finally dead after going off to Japan seven years previously in search of the legendary tomb of ancient sorceress Queen Himiko. The Croft corp. COO (Kristin Scott Thomas, “Darkest Hour“) persuades Lara its time to sign the necessary papers, but on the verge of this act the lawyer Mr Yaffe (Derek Jacobi, “Murder on the Orient Express“) lets a significant cat out of the bag and sets Lara off on the trail of her long-dead father’s original mission.
In happier times. Daddy (Dominic West) goes off on yet another trip from Croft Manor.
It’s a rollercoaster ride that’s really well done. But I reckon the writers should have named Jeffrey Boam, George Lucas and Menno Meyjes as co-collaborators, for the film plagerises terribly from “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”. In two or three places, the similarities are shocking! As in the best of Lucas traditions though there are some breathtaking set-pieces, with the best of them staged at the top of a raging waterfall that’s just plane ridiculous! (Even if it plagerises blatantly from “The Lost World”!).
English and patient. Kristin Scott Thomas as the guiding hand at the Croft corporation.
The movie’s tremendous to look at too, with cinematography by George Richmond (“Kingsman“; “Eddie the Eagle“) and (aside from a dodgy helicopter effect) good special effect by Max Poolman (“District 9”) and his team.
My one criticism would be that Vogel – the chief villain, played by Walton Goggins (“The Hateful Eight“) – is rather too unremittingly evil to have two sweetly smiling young children in his desk photo. One can only hope he faces a nasty demise!
Never trust a guy with a beard. Walton Goggins, a bit over the top as the villain of the piece.
The film is directed by Norwegian director Roar Uthaug, in what looks to be his first “non-Norwegian” film. Roar by name; roar by nature! He does a great job. An early “summer blockbuster” actioner that gets two thumbs up from me. What a pleasant surprise!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Paddington 2 (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Bear faced brilliance.
I never went to see “Paddington 2” at the cinema when it came out. Well, it’s a kids film isn’t it? And my grandkids I thought… well, their probably a bit too young for the long haul on this one. But – after catching up with it recently on a transatlantic flight – I’m sorry I missed it. For it is brilliant in its own way.
Having not seen the first “Paddington”, also directed by Paul King, there is a useful little flashback to the Peruvian origins of the little chap before we pitch into the plot proper. Paddington (voiced by Ben Wishaw, “Spectre“) has nicely settled down to life with The Brown’s in their London home and is a well-loved member of the community (well, well loved that is by everyone except the cranky Mr Curry (Peter Capaldi, “Dr Who“, “World War Z“). But he longs to buy his Aunt Lucy (Imelda Staunton, “Finding Your Feet“) a special birthday present – a pop-up book of London scenes that he’s seen in a local antique shop. But for that he needs a lot of cash, and so proceeds to earn it through a variety of different jobs.
However, fading actor Phoenix Buchanan (Hugh Grant, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.“) also shows an unhealty interest in the book and, after it disappears from the shop with Paddington’s paw prints all over the scene, the poor bear finds himself on the wrong side of the law.
This is a continually inventive movie, which rockets along with truly impressive verve and panache from scene to scene. As a particular example of this, an animated walk through the pop-up book is marvellously done: a tribute to the 2D retro nature (even in those days!) of the TV animation of the 70’s that will go over the heads of younger viewers. There are plenty of slapstick scenes – notably of Paddington trying window cleaning, and his job in a barber’s shop – which will not only delight younger children but also made this 57 year old laugh out loud too! The prison sequence also delights, with a laundry blunder by the bear leading into a comical showdown with the prison’s chief poisoner, sorry, head chef played by Brendan Gleeson (“Alone in Berlin“, “Live By Night“).
Vision AND sound! Paddington with incarcerated friends, including Brendan Gleeson (centre).
The cast all seem to revel in their parts, with Hugh Bonneville (“Viceroy’s House“, “The Monuments Men“) energetic as Mr Brown and Oscar runner-up (surely!) Sally Hawkins (“The Shape of Water“) very chirpy as Mrs Brown. All of the residents of Windsor Gardens are a who’s who of UK film and TV, and each cameo has a lovely little tale behind it: Julie Walters (“Brooklyn“) as Mrs Bird, the Brown’s help; Sanjeev Bhaskar as Dr Jafri, forever nearly locking himself out; Miss Kitts (Jessica Hynes) and the crusty Colonel Lancaster (Ben Miller) in a ‘will they/won’t they’ potential romance. Elsewhere, Jim Broadbent (“Bridget Jones Baby“, “Eddie the Eagle“) is great as the antique store owner; Tom Conti adds both gravitas and humour as Judge Biggleswade and Richard Ayoade (“The Double“) is very funny as a forensic expert.
The Brown family: from left; Mr Brown (Hugh Bonneville); Jonathan (Samuel Joslin); Mrs Brown (Sally Hawkins); Mrs Bird (Julie Walters); and Judy Brown (Madeleine Harris).
Head and shoulders above all of them though is Hugh Grant who is just outstandingly good as the puffed-up and self-important ham-actor. His Best Supporting Actor nomination for a BAFTA was surprising, but having seen the film so very much deserved. Hang around in the end credits for his last words of the film which are cornily hilarious! One can only hope that Phoenix Buchanen returns for Paddington 3.
A career best… Hugh Grant as the devilishly slippery Phoenix Buchanan.
I would have thought that some of the scenes towards the end of the film, particularly one where Paddington seems doomed to a watery end, might be a little frightening for younger viewers. Thank heavens Sally Hawkins has gills! 🙂
Overall, this is a movie I would gladly watch again, with or without kids. In a movie landscape that is pretty devoid of good comedy, here is a movie that really did make me laugh out loud.
Having not seen the first “Paddington”, also directed by Paul King, there is a useful little flashback to the Peruvian origins of the little chap before we pitch into the plot proper. Paddington (voiced by Ben Wishaw, “Spectre“) has nicely settled down to life with The Brown’s in their London home and is a well-loved member of the community (well, well loved that is by everyone except the cranky Mr Curry (Peter Capaldi, “Dr Who“, “World War Z“). But he longs to buy his Aunt Lucy (Imelda Staunton, “Finding Your Feet“) a special birthday present – a pop-up book of London scenes that he’s seen in a local antique shop. But for that he needs a lot of cash, and so proceeds to earn it through a variety of different jobs.
However, fading actor Phoenix Buchanan (Hugh Grant, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.“) also shows an unhealty interest in the book and, after it disappears from the shop with Paddington’s paw prints all over the scene, the poor bear finds himself on the wrong side of the law.
This is a continually inventive movie, which rockets along with truly impressive verve and panache from scene to scene. As a particular example of this, an animated walk through the pop-up book is marvellously done: a tribute to the 2D retro nature (even in those days!) of the TV animation of the 70’s that will go over the heads of younger viewers. There are plenty of slapstick scenes – notably of Paddington trying window cleaning, and his job in a barber’s shop – which will not only delight younger children but also made this 57 year old laugh out loud too! The prison sequence also delights, with a laundry blunder by the bear leading into a comical showdown with the prison’s chief poisoner, sorry, head chef played by Brendan Gleeson (“Alone in Berlin“, “Live By Night“).
Vision AND sound! Paddington with incarcerated friends, including Brendan Gleeson (centre).
The cast all seem to revel in their parts, with Hugh Bonneville (“Viceroy’s House“, “The Monuments Men“) energetic as Mr Brown and Oscar runner-up (surely!) Sally Hawkins (“The Shape of Water“) very chirpy as Mrs Brown. All of the residents of Windsor Gardens are a who’s who of UK film and TV, and each cameo has a lovely little tale behind it: Julie Walters (“Brooklyn“) as Mrs Bird, the Brown’s help; Sanjeev Bhaskar as Dr Jafri, forever nearly locking himself out; Miss Kitts (Jessica Hynes) and the crusty Colonel Lancaster (Ben Miller) in a ‘will they/won’t they’ potential romance. Elsewhere, Jim Broadbent (“Bridget Jones Baby“, “Eddie the Eagle“) is great as the antique store owner; Tom Conti adds both gravitas and humour as Judge Biggleswade and Richard Ayoade (“The Double“) is very funny as a forensic expert.
The Brown family: from left; Mr Brown (Hugh Bonneville); Jonathan (Samuel Joslin); Mrs Brown (Sally Hawkins); Mrs Bird (Julie Walters); and Judy Brown (Madeleine Harris).
Head and shoulders above all of them though is Hugh Grant who is just outstandingly good as the puffed-up and self-important ham-actor. His Best Supporting Actor nomination for a BAFTA was surprising, but having seen the film so very much deserved. Hang around in the end credits for his last words of the film which are cornily hilarious! One can only hope that Phoenix Buchanen returns for Paddington 3.
A career best… Hugh Grant as the devilishly slippery Phoenix Buchanan.
I would have thought that some of the scenes towards the end of the film, particularly one where Paddington seems doomed to a watery end, might be a little frightening for younger viewers. Thank heavens Sally Hawkins has gills! 🙂
Overall, this is a movie I would gladly watch again, with or without kids. In a movie landscape that is pretty devoid of good comedy, here is a movie that really did make me laugh out loud.