Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Tom Clancy's The Division 2 in Video Games
Jun 19, 2019
Following up a hit game is never an easy task. The delicate balance
between keeping things familiar yet not repeating what has come before is
always tricky.
Such is the case facing Ubisoft with Tom Clancy’s The Division 2. I want to point out at the start that Ubisoft in no way helped
with the review process despite doing extensive pre-release coverage for
the game.
As such; there were elements to the game that I had question and issues with and the company would not respond to questions or even recognize the coverage that had been done prior.
The game follows up the events of the first game in that a virus named the
“Dollar Flu” has laid waste to the country after being passed around on
currency during the busy Christmas shopping season.
This time out the game
is set in Washington D.C. and players once again take on the role of a
member of an elite agency called “The Division”.
With the city in chaos and the survivors being tormented by criminal
factions and extreme militants; players must work solo and in groups to
complete various missions and objectives to reclaim the city.
Like the previous game players can customize their character to have a
look, weapons, and accessories that they want and can swap and update them
as they go along.
Playing from a third person perspective, the highly-detailed city is vast
and many points from the White House to the Lincoln Memorial, and
Smithsonian Institute are available to explore and even undertake missions
in.
The enemies are dangerous as the vicious Hyena gang as well as the
Outcasts roam the city. There is also a Military faction called The True
Sons who bring military tactics into their encounters.
Players will be able to gather loot and armor and weapon upgrades as they
go and can even use special power ups to heal, set mines, and other traps
to help even the odds.
Those abilities can be upgraded, swapped, and assigned, and make the game
very interesting as some players opt to have a Drone while others elect
for Turrets or other options.
Weapons can go from pistols, machine guns, shotguns, and sniper rifles,
and players can also use grenades to dispatch large groups.
While working solo is fine, the key to success is working with others and
players can now call for backup to get help in addition to the general
matchmaking and friend invites. There has also been a Clan system added
which is nice as players can create or join a group and have support
available when needed.
This is a great thing as the missions can be challenging as your level
rank rises and players are always outnumbered and outgunned in missions.
I found the game to be very impressive and lots of fun and the ability to
upgrade bases and take on side missions and patrols beyond the core
missions ensures lots of gameplay as was the case with the first game.
There have also been updates which add new content and based on the prior
game, we expect to see lots of new content released in the months ahead.
There were some annoying issues with the sound as some channels would
drop. One example was how voices became muted and how some sounds such as
radio messages utterly vanished. While it was not a deal-breaker; it was
annoying s the updates pre and post mission help give players a great
understanding of the unfolding story.
I did like the fact that the abundance of side missions was curtailed in
favor of more relevant missions and capturing control points and helping
end threats to the general population.
One time I took control of a mounted machine gun and found the sound
locked during firing and continued for several minutes even after I
respawned. I had to go back to the gun and fire it again to get the sound
glitch to stop.
There were also some annoying graphical glitches like textures and enemies
appearing late while I was walking after the last update. With a 2070 GTX
Graphics Card this should not happen and thankfully it seemed to abate
after a few annoying occurrences.
That being said; the game is very solid and enjoyable and it is a shame
that a company that has such great games is very difficult to work with
from the media and support side of things as The Division 2 is a solid
sequel and one of the more enjoyable games I have played in a while.
http://sknr.net/2019/04/08/tom-clancys-the-division-2/
between keeping things familiar yet not repeating what has come before is
always tricky.
Such is the case facing Ubisoft with Tom Clancy’s The Division 2. I want to point out at the start that Ubisoft in no way helped
with the review process despite doing extensive pre-release coverage for
the game.
As such; there were elements to the game that I had question and issues with and the company would not respond to questions or even recognize the coverage that had been done prior.
The game follows up the events of the first game in that a virus named the
“Dollar Flu” has laid waste to the country after being passed around on
currency during the busy Christmas shopping season.
This time out the game
is set in Washington D.C. and players once again take on the role of a
member of an elite agency called “The Division”.
With the city in chaos and the survivors being tormented by criminal
factions and extreme militants; players must work solo and in groups to
complete various missions and objectives to reclaim the city.
Like the previous game players can customize their character to have a
look, weapons, and accessories that they want and can swap and update them
as they go along.
Playing from a third person perspective, the highly-detailed city is vast
and many points from the White House to the Lincoln Memorial, and
Smithsonian Institute are available to explore and even undertake missions
in.
The enemies are dangerous as the vicious Hyena gang as well as the
Outcasts roam the city. There is also a Military faction called The True
Sons who bring military tactics into their encounters.
Players will be able to gather loot and armor and weapon upgrades as they
go and can even use special power ups to heal, set mines, and other traps
to help even the odds.
Those abilities can be upgraded, swapped, and assigned, and make the game
very interesting as some players opt to have a Drone while others elect
for Turrets or other options.
Weapons can go from pistols, machine guns, shotguns, and sniper rifles,
and players can also use grenades to dispatch large groups.
While working solo is fine, the key to success is working with others and
players can now call for backup to get help in addition to the general
matchmaking and friend invites. There has also been a Clan system added
which is nice as players can create or join a group and have support
available when needed.
This is a great thing as the missions can be challenging as your level
rank rises and players are always outnumbered and outgunned in missions.
I found the game to be very impressive and lots of fun and the ability to
upgrade bases and take on side missions and patrols beyond the core
missions ensures lots of gameplay as was the case with the first game.
There have also been updates which add new content and based on the prior
game, we expect to see lots of new content released in the months ahead.
There were some annoying issues with the sound as some channels would
drop. One example was how voices became muted and how some sounds such as
radio messages utterly vanished. While it was not a deal-breaker; it was
annoying s the updates pre and post mission help give players a great
understanding of the unfolding story.
I did like the fact that the abundance of side missions was curtailed in
favor of more relevant missions and capturing control points and helping
end threats to the general population.
One time I took control of a mounted machine gun and found the sound
locked during firing and continued for several minutes even after I
respawned. I had to go back to the gun and fire it again to get the sound
glitch to stop.
There were also some annoying graphical glitches like textures and enemies
appearing late while I was walking after the last update. With a 2070 GTX
Graphics Card this should not happen and thankfully it seemed to abate
after a few annoying occurrences.
That being said; the game is very solid and enjoyable and it is a shame
that a company that has such great games is very difficult to work with
from the media and support side of things as The Division 2 is a solid
sequel and one of the more enjoyable games I have played in a while.
http://sknr.net/2019/04/08/tom-clancys-the-division-2/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Friday the 13th (2009) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In the 1980’s the so- called slasher film genre was in full swing. When Michael Myers and the “Halloween” franchise became the highest grossing independent film in cinema history, the studios scrambled to get in on the booming genre and unleashed a flood of psycho killers on the viewing public, for the better part of a decade and a half.
Along with the aforementioned Michael Myers, and the later Freddy Krueger from the “Nightmare on Elm Street” series, Jason Voorhees of the “Friday The 13Th” series has become a cultural landmark. He has appeared in over ten movies (eleven if you count “Freddy Vs. Jason”) and unleashed havoc on countless oversexed and loaded teens, as well as those unfortunate enough to cross his path.
While the series, to many fans, become stale and largely self mocking with the Jason-in-space themed “Jason X”, the character rebounded nicely with “Freddy Vs. Jason” and had many fans clamoring for a second match up between the two iconic bad guys.
Eventually the powers-that-be decided to go the remake route, which had proven successful with “Halloween” and “My Bloody Valentine”, and have crafted a new “Friday the 13th” which they hope will re-energize the series.
The film opens with a modern re-telling of what was part of the finale of the original film, and hits the ground running with an impressive opening sequence that has Jason menacing a group of teens camping in the woods. The intense first twenty minutes of the film had the audience at the test screening gasping and cheering as the events set the stage for the body of the film, which revolves around another group of young adults taking a trip into the woods for a scenic getaway.
As the group stops for supplies, they encounter a young man who is looking for his sister who vanished in the area six weeks earlier. Despite little luck in his search, and the insistence by the local police that his sister is not anywhere in the area, he remains undaunted and continues his search.
At the same time, the group of young adults embarks on a frenzy of sex, drinking, drugs, and carefree living in the woods unaware that they are about to gain the attention of Camp Crystal Lake’s most infamous former camper.
As the film unfolds, Jason soon unleashes his customary brutality on the group as well as any townies that come across him, and the film deftly mixes some humor with classic horror mayhem. In the time honored formula, a group of survivors soon finds themselves under siege by Jason and must find a way to survive Jason’s wrath.
While the film lacks much in the way of plot and is loaded with a cast of largely unknowns, the film is a refreshing update to the series, knowing what the fans have come to expect and providing plenty of gore and scares. Since the cast exists to be little more than fodder for Jason, there is little effort devoted to fleshing them out as characters other than to provide excuses for most of the ladies in the film to shed their clothes, and a few of the male cast to establish themselves as comic relief, or the jerk who is destined for something special.
Director Marcus Nispel who has a solid pedigree with the recent “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre”, viral videos of Resident Evil 5, as well as the pending “Alice.” He clearly knows his subject matter and working with Producer Michael Bay and a script from Damian Shannon and Mark Swift (the duo behind “Freddy vs. Jason”), produced a solid by the numbers horror film.
Fans of the series will note clever references to the past films such as Jason’s original mask and will find themselves yelling at the screen over the constant stupidity of the victims as well as the inventive way Jason dispatches his victims. I found myself enjoying the updated Jason because while the movie is faithful to the character, it revitalized him to show a more cunning predator who is not above using traps, bait, and plotting to achieve his means. There was a plot thread in the film that did not really get developed as much as I had hoped, but in the end, the film delivered the goods and sets the stage well for future outings of the machete-wielding Jason.
Along with the aforementioned Michael Myers, and the later Freddy Krueger from the “Nightmare on Elm Street” series, Jason Voorhees of the “Friday The 13Th” series has become a cultural landmark. He has appeared in over ten movies (eleven if you count “Freddy Vs. Jason”) and unleashed havoc on countless oversexed and loaded teens, as well as those unfortunate enough to cross his path.
While the series, to many fans, become stale and largely self mocking with the Jason-in-space themed “Jason X”, the character rebounded nicely with “Freddy Vs. Jason” and had many fans clamoring for a second match up between the two iconic bad guys.
Eventually the powers-that-be decided to go the remake route, which had proven successful with “Halloween” and “My Bloody Valentine”, and have crafted a new “Friday the 13th” which they hope will re-energize the series.
The film opens with a modern re-telling of what was part of the finale of the original film, and hits the ground running with an impressive opening sequence that has Jason menacing a group of teens camping in the woods. The intense first twenty minutes of the film had the audience at the test screening gasping and cheering as the events set the stage for the body of the film, which revolves around another group of young adults taking a trip into the woods for a scenic getaway.
As the group stops for supplies, they encounter a young man who is looking for his sister who vanished in the area six weeks earlier. Despite little luck in his search, and the insistence by the local police that his sister is not anywhere in the area, he remains undaunted and continues his search.
At the same time, the group of young adults embarks on a frenzy of sex, drinking, drugs, and carefree living in the woods unaware that they are about to gain the attention of Camp Crystal Lake’s most infamous former camper.
As the film unfolds, Jason soon unleashes his customary brutality on the group as well as any townies that come across him, and the film deftly mixes some humor with classic horror mayhem. In the time honored formula, a group of survivors soon finds themselves under siege by Jason and must find a way to survive Jason’s wrath.
While the film lacks much in the way of plot and is loaded with a cast of largely unknowns, the film is a refreshing update to the series, knowing what the fans have come to expect and providing plenty of gore and scares. Since the cast exists to be little more than fodder for Jason, there is little effort devoted to fleshing them out as characters other than to provide excuses for most of the ladies in the film to shed their clothes, and a few of the male cast to establish themselves as comic relief, or the jerk who is destined for something special.
Director Marcus Nispel who has a solid pedigree with the recent “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre”, viral videos of Resident Evil 5, as well as the pending “Alice.” He clearly knows his subject matter and working with Producer Michael Bay and a script from Damian Shannon and Mark Swift (the duo behind “Freddy vs. Jason”), produced a solid by the numbers horror film.
Fans of the series will note clever references to the past films such as Jason’s original mask and will find themselves yelling at the screen over the constant stupidity of the victims as well as the inventive way Jason dispatches his victims. I found myself enjoying the updated Jason because while the movie is faithful to the character, it revitalized him to show a more cunning predator who is not above using traps, bait, and plotting to achieve his means. There was a plot thread in the film that did not really get developed as much as I had hoped, but in the end, the film delivered the goods and sets the stage well for future outings of the machete-wielding Jason.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Superman Returns (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
It has been nearly twenty years since Superman graced the silver screen. This fact is outstanding when you consider that numerous attempts to revive the franchise and two successful television series have occurred in the nearly two decades since 1987’s “Superman IV: The Quest for Peace”.
Amidst much speculation and rumors of a soaring budget that is reported to be over $250 Million, Superman Returns has arrived.
Under the direction of Bryan Singer, who successfully launched the first two films in the “X-Men” series, Brandon Routh dons the tights and capes of the late Christopher Reeve, as the man of steel and his mild mannered alter ego Clark Kent.
As the films opens, it is explained that Superman has been gone five years as he has traveled to what astronomers believe are the remains of his home planet Krypton which was destroyed when he was an infant.
Soon after his return, Clark visits his adopted mother in his hometown of Smallville before returning to Metropolis and his job at the Daily Planet. His happy homecoming is short-lived when Clark realizes that his beloved Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) is now a single mom with a fiancée named Richard (James Marsden).
As if this is not enough, Superman is shortly thereafter called into action to save Lois and the passengers of a plane and space shuttle encounter a deadly situation when a press conference goes awry.
In a spectacle of action and visual brilliance Superman not only saves the day, but makes a highly visible and triumphant return that signals to the world that he is back.
As happy as the majority of the world is to have their champion back, Lois is very conflicted about his return. She believes he abandoned humanity and left her without even saying goodbye. Such is the extent of Lois’s anger toward Superman; she has written a story entitled “Why the World Doesn’t Need Superman” for which she was awarded a Pulitzer Prize.
As upset as Lois is about the return of Superman, there is one individual who is seething mad over his return and that is Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey) who plans to use his recently acquired wealth to hatch his latest plot and end the threat of Superman once and for all.
Lex plans to use the crystals and knowledge he has pilfered from Superman’s arctic Fortress of Solitude to craft a new landmass, where he will rule supreme. The fact that billions of innocents will be killed in the process is of no consequence to the power mad Luthor, setting the stage for several high tech action sequences and daring adventures as Superman sets out to save the day.
Despite numerous concerns I had over the film, I am happy to say that the series is in great hands, and the combination of Spacey, Bosworth, Routh, and Singer have not only produced the best film of Summer 2006, but have paved the way for what looks to be a series of films that, while true to the source materials, is not afraid to push the envelope to modernize Superman.
Routh was solid, not only looked the part perfectly, but handled the dual roles of Clark and Superman with and easygoing charm and manner that is highly effective. His ability to portray Superman as a being with deep emotions as well as power is key to the film as the audience is given a chance to see more than just the man with the muscles. Bosworth is also to be commended for her portrayal of a strong and capable Lois who is anything but the stock damsel in distress. The chemistry between Routh and Bosworth is good which is vital, as this is much more than effects and action.
The humanity and compassion that drives the film is an unexpected bonus. Despite the amazing action sequences, this is a story with deep emotional and psychological themes that are rarely seen in films of this nature.
If I had to find fault in the film, it would be that Spacey was not allowed to really let Lex be truly evil. Sure he talks a good fight, and in a few sequences is not above getting his hands dirty. But, for a film as grand as this, the diabolic plot Luthor is trying to hatch just does not seem diabolic enough.
One could also say that at a running time of nearly two hours and forty minutes that perhaps 20 minutes or so could have been trimmed towards the end to help the pacing of the final segments of the film.
That being said, the impressive mix of action, humor, romance, and cast gives Superman Returns a highly winning formula.
Amidst much speculation and rumors of a soaring budget that is reported to be over $250 Million, Superman Returns has arrived.
Under the direction of Bryan Singer, who successfully launched the first two films in the “X-Men” series, Brandon Routh dons the tights and capes of the late Christopher Reeve, as the man of steel and his mild mannered alter ego Clark Kent.
As the films opens, it is explained that Superman has been gone five years as he has traveled to what astronomers believe are the remains of his home planet Krypton which was destroyed when he was an infant.
Soon after his return, Clark visits his adopted mother in his hometown of Smallville before returning to Metropolis and his job at the Daily Planet. His happy homecoming is short-lived when Clark realizes that his beloved Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) is now a single mom with a fiancée named Richard (James Marsden).
As if this is not enough, Superman is shortly thereafter called into action to save Lois and the passengers of a plane and space shuttle encounter a deadly situation when a press conference goes awry.
In a spectacle of action and visual brilliance Superman not only saves the day, but makes a highly visible and triumphant return that signals to the world that he is back.
As happy as the majority of the world is to have their champion back, Lois is very conflicted about his return. She believes he abandoned humanity and left her without even saying goodbye. Such is the extent of Lois’s anger toward Superman; she has written a story entitled “Why the World Doesn’t Need Superman” for which she was awarded a Pulitzer Prize.
As upset as Lois is about the return of Superman, there is one individual who is seething mad over his return and that is Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey) who plans to use his recently acquired wealth to hatch his latest plot and end the threat of Superman once and for all.
Lex plans to use the crystals and knowledge he has pilfered from Superman’s arctic Fortress of Solitude to craft a new landmass, where he will rule supreme. The fact that billions of innocents will be killed in the process is of no consequence to the power mad Luthor, setting the stage for several high tech action sequences and daring adventures as Superman sets out to save the day.
Despite numerous concerns I had over the film, I am happy to say that the series is in great hands, and the combination of Spacey, Bosworth, Routh, and Singer have not only produced the best film of Summer 2006, but have paved the way for what looks to be a series of films that, while true to the source materials, is not afraid to push the envelope to modernize Superman.
Routh was solid, not only looked the part perfectly, but handled the dual roles of Clark and Superman with and easygoing charm and manner that is highly effective. His ability to portray Superman as a being with deep emotions as well as power is key to the film as the audience is given a chance to see more than just the man with the muscles. Bosworth is also to be commended for her portrayal of a strong and capable Lois who is anything but the stock damsel in distress. The chemistry between Routh and Bosworth is good which is vital, as this is much more than effects and action.
The humanity and compassion that drives the film is an unexpected bonus. Despite the amazing action sequences, this is a story with deep emotional and psychological themes that are rarely seen in films of this nature.
If I had to find fault in the film, it would be that Spacey was not allowed to really let Lex be truly evil. Sure he talks a good fight, and in a few sequences is not above getting his hands dirty. But, for a film as grand as this, the diabolic plot Luthor is trying to hatch just does not seem diabolic enough.
One could also say that at a running time of nearly two hours and forty minutes that perhaps 20 minutes or so could have been trimmed towards the end to help the pacing of the final segments of the film.
That being said, the impressive mix of action, humor, romance, and cast gives Superman Returns a highly winning formula.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated The Exorcist (1973) in Movies
Oct 17, 2019
Its a scream
This is a guest review for the stage show of The Exorcist not for the movie written by my good friend jappyscraps (on instagram) which I'm very thankful for.
The Exorcist on stage – Alexandra Theatre, Birmingham, 16/10/19
It’s my number one film of all-time so naturally I approached this production with some caution. Any stage adaptations of films have to be stripped down for obvious reasons and with The Exorcist having some key technical moments I was eager to see how they achieved them or even included them at all.
There’s a very clever build-up to the show with a steady drone of religious chanting and indecipherable voices, whispers and moans which stay with you before a massive crack rips through the sound system and the theatre is plunged into total darkness. It’s quite unsettling and there were a lot of nervous giggles and squeaks in the audience. A light appears at the top of the stage set and Father Merrin (played by Paul Nicholas, yes him of 80’s sitcom ‘Just Good Friends’ fame and one-time pop star) appears, speaks a few lines which we couldn’t hear at all and then promptly disappears and the stage lights reveal the MacNeil household below where Chris MacNeil and her daughter Regan. They obviously have a close bond and the next few minutes is spent establishing this and introducing the character of Burke, a film director and friend of actress Chris, who provides some occasional comedy touches. There are scenes of Regan playing with a Ouija board which she discovers in the attic. This is the first introduction of the demon that Regan refers to as Captain Howdy. Unlike the film, we hear the demon speaking in the early stages of Regan’s possession. The demon’s voice is provided by (a pre-recorded) Sir Ian McKellen and his performance is brilliant despite it sounding nothing like Mercedes McCambridge in the original.
At this stage we have lost one of the key characters and if you know the story well you will know who this is. As Reagan’s behaviour deteriorates, we are introduced to various doctors and psychiatrists before a priest friend of Chris suggests she talks to Father Karras, a key character in The Exorcist. When Karras first meets Regan she is in her bed, restrained by straps and speaking in the demon’s voice. Susannah Edgeley as Regan does a magnificent job lip-synching to McKellen’s voice, she does not miss a beat and her performance overall steals the show.
Father Karras is not convinced that an exorcism is the answer but, as we know, events take a turn for the worse and a frail Father Merrin is summoned for a showdown with the demon, which is the show’s dramatic (and loud) finale.
If you are wondering if all of The Exorcist’s key moments are included in the stage show I can confirm that most of them are, even if they don’t appear in the same scenes in the film. So, the crucifix scene is present and correct, though not so bloody and graphic. Regan’s head spin is there, achieved by what you might describe as a Penn & Teller trick but it is surprisingly effective. Regan does vomit during the exorcism but the classic scene of her projectile vomiting over Karras isn’t there, probably a step too far for a stage show. There is no levitation in the exorcism but there is a clever effect where Regan is catapulted forward on the bed, as if pushed forward by the demon. It’s all very impressive stuff.
The Exorcist on stage is very good, fans of the film will enjoy picking up on the original dialogue and dissecting the new lines and plotline. Some characters from the film don’t appear at all, the key one being Lieutenant Kinderman (played by Lee J. Cobb in the film) which I was a little disappointed about. My main issues were with the sound on occasions, particularly not hearing the actors deliver their lines clearly but it was a minor niggle. The character of Burke Dennings is renamed Burke Dennis in the stage show and I have no idea why – I was frankly irritated by it. The performances of Susannah Edgeley and McKellen’s demon more than make up for it though. The stage set is excellent and the lights and sound effects were top notch. I’d recommend it without hesitation, just don’t expect a scene for scene reboot of the film or you will be very disappointed.
The Exorcist on stage – Alexandra Theatre, Birmingham, 16/10/19
It’s my number one film of all-time so naturally I approached this production with some caution. Any stage adaptations of films have to be stripped down for obvious reasons and with The Exorcist having some key technical moments I was eager to see how they achieved them or even included them at all.
There’s a very clever build-up to the show with a steady drone of religious chanting and indecipherable voices, whispers and moans which stay with you before a massive crack rips through the sound system and the theatre is plunged into total darkness. It’s quite unsettling and there were a lot of nervous giggles and squeaks in the audience. A light appears at the top of the stage set and Father Merrin (played by Paul Nicholas, yes him of 80’s sitcom ‘Just Good Friends’ fame and one-time pop star) appears, speaks a few lines which we couldn’t hear at all and then promptly disappears and the stage lights reveal the MacNeil household below where Chris MacNeil and her daughter Regan. They obviously have a close bond and the next few minutes is spent establishing this and introducing the character of Burke, a film director and friend of actress Chris, who provides some occasional comedy touches. There are scenes of Regan playing with a Ouija board which she discovers in the attic. This is the first introduction of the demon that Regan refers to as Captain Howdy. Unlike the film, we hear the demon speaking in the early stages of Regan’s possession. The demon’s voice is provided by (a pre-recorded) Sir Ian McKellen and his performance is brilliant despite it sounding nothing like Mercedes McCambridge in the original.
At this stage we have lost one of the key characters and if you know the story well you will know who this is. As Reagan’s behaviour deteriorates, we are introduced to various doctors and psychiatrists before a priest friend of Chris suggests she talks to Father Karras, a key character in The Exorcist. When Karras first meets Regan she is in her bed, restrained by straps and speaking in the demon’s voice. Susannah Edgeley as Regan does a magnificent job lip-synching to McKellen’s voice, she does not miss a beat and her performance overall steals the show.
Father Karras is not convinced that an exorcism is the answer but, as we know, events take a turn for the worse and a frail Father Merrin is summoned for a showdown with the demon, which is the show’s dramatic (and loud) finale.
If you are wondering if all of The Exorcist’s key moments are included in the stage show I can confirm that most of them are, even if they don’t appear in the same scenes in the film. So, the crucifix scene is present and correct, though not so bloody and graphic. Regan’s head spin is there, achieved by what you might describe as a Penn & Teller trick but it is surprisingly effective. Regan does vomit during the exorcism but the classic scene of her projectile vomiting over Karras isn’t there, probably a step too far for a stage show. There is no levitation in the exorcism but there is a clever effect where Regan is catapulted forward on the bed, as if pushed forward by the demon. It’s all very impressive stuff.
The Exorcist on stage is very good, fans of the film will enjoy picking up on the original dialogue and dissecting the new lines and plotline. Some characters from the film don’t appear at all, the key one being Lieutenant Kinderman (played by Lee J. Cobb in the film) which I was a little disappointed about. My main issues were with the sound on occasions, particularly not hearing the actors deliver their lines clearly but it was a minor niggle. The character of Burke Dennings is renamed Burke Dennis in the stage show and I have no idea why – I was frankly irritated by it. The performances of Susannah Edgeley and McKellen’s demon more than make up for it though. The stage set is excellent and the lights and sound effects were top notch. I’d recommend it without hesitation, just don’t expect a scene for scene reboot of the film or you will be very disappointed.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Fighting with My Family (2019) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Wrestling sure has changed since its heyday back in the 80’s. Believe it or not, back in those days there were many people who believed it was real, the wrestlers themselves would use razor blades to cut their faces to further the illusion. Big names like Andre’ the Giant, Sargent Slaughter and Hulk Hogan dominated the scenes and Hulkamania was all the rage. Wrestling these days still has characters larger than life who wage good versus evil battles against one another. Although now the focus is not only on what happens in the ring, but the characters and personas that present themselves outside the ring. Fighting with My Family, written and directed by Stephen Merchant (writer for The Office and Extras), takes us on a young woman’s rise from a family wrestling league to one of the youngest female stars to be featured in WWE.
Saraya “Paige” Bevis (Florence Pugh) alongside her brother Zak “Zodiac” Bevis (Jack Lowden) and parents (Nick Frost / Lena Headey) are a family run wrestling team. Trying to make a name for themselves they run a small gym in Norwich, England. Training up-and-coming wrestlers and putting on shows for the locals in hopes of a shot at the big time. One fateful evening, while Zak’s far more conservative girlfriend and her parents are over for dinner, a call comes from the WWE that will change both of their lives.
Saraya and Zak are offered an opportunity to compete against others for a chance to join similar hopefuls in Florida for a chance to be the next big thing. As one would expect, the competition is fierce and at the end of the day, only Saraya is chosen for a chance to go to America. The choice to take her and not her brother results in a sibling rivalry that neither would have anticipated when they were both trying out. Ultimately Saraya must choose to go forward with her dream or stay with her family, and while the choice is not easy, there wouldn’t be much of a film if she chose to stay. So, begins Saraya’s journey to show that she has not only the skills and strength, but the heart to succeed.
Fighting with My Family is a movie that has a tremendous amount of heart even if there is little interest in its source material. While it certainly does focus on wrestling as the key component, it could have easily been replaced with any other sport and had the same heart-warming success. This is not a movie only about the wild world of professional wrestling, but about one woman who must overcome her own self-doubts and insecurities to succeed. It’s a film about not only believing in yourself (even when others do not) but pushing yourself to follow your dreams no matter how difficult the road to achieving them turns out to be. The film reminds us that we should not simply take everything at face value, and that sometimes judging a book by it’s cover can prevent us from the magic that is held in the pages underneath.
The superior cast connects with the viewers on many levels. Whether its Jack Lowden’s portrayal of a man who worked hard only to fall short of his dreams, to Florence Pugh’s portrayal of Paige, a woman who constantly struggles with her choice and whether wrestling is her dream or simply the dream her parents pushed upon her. As always Vince Vaughn does an outstanding job delivering not only on the comedic aspects of the film, but also when tasked at delivering a more serious tone. This is a movie that will have you cheering for each character, and even applauding throughout.
Even though wrestling was a huge part of growing up, spanning everything from action figures to video games, I’ve never considered myself to be a wrestling fan. For those of you who are instantly looking to forego this movie because of the wrestling content, I’d ask you to reconsider. Fighting with My Family is so much more than simply a “wrestling movie”, and while it likely won’t convert you into being a die hard wrestling fan at the end, you might just be surprised at how much you take away from it when you leave the theater. You’ll laugh, you’ll cry, you’ll cheer (at least that’s what all the viewers did at the screening I attended) and can you really say that about many movies these days?
Saraya “Paige” Bevis (Florence Pugh) alongside her brother Zak “Zodiac” Bevis (Jack Lowden) and parents (Nick Frost / Lena Headey) are a family run wrestling team. Trying to make a name for themselves they run a small gym in Norwich, England. Training up-and-coming wrestlers and putting on shows for the locals in hopes of a shot at the big time. One fateful evening, while Zak’s far more conservative girlfriend and her parents are over for dinner, a call comes from the WWE that will change both of their lives.
Saraya and Zak are offered an opportunity to compete against others for a chance to join similar hopefuls in Florida for a chance to be the next big thing. As one would expect, the competition is fierce and at the end of the day, only Saraya is chosen for a chance to go to America. The choice to take her and not her brother results in a sibling rivalry that neither would have anticipated when they were both trying out. Ultimately Saraya must choose to go forward with her dream or stay with her family, and while the choice is not easy, there wouldn’t be much of a film if she chose to stay. So, begins Saraya’s journey to show that she has not only the skills and strength, but the heart to succeed.
Fighting with My Family is a movie that has a tremendous amount of heart even if there is little interest in its source material. While it certainly does focus on wrestling as the key component, it could have easily been replaced with any other sport and had the same heart-warming success. This is not a movie only about the wild world of professional wrestling, but about one woman who must overcome her own self-doubts and insecurities to succeed. It’s a film about not only believing in yourself (even when others do not) but pushing yourself to follow your dreams no matter how difficult the road to achieving them turns out to be. The film reminds us that we should not simply take everything at face value, and that sometimes judging a book by it’s cover can prevent us from the magic that is held in the pages underneath.
The superior cast connects with the viewers on many levels. Whether its Jack Lowden’s portrayal of a man who worked hard only to fall short of his dreams, to Florence Pugh’s portrayal of Paige, a woman who constantly struggles with her choice and whether wrestling is her dream or simply the dream her parents pushed upon her. As always Vince Vaughn does an outstanding job delivering not only on the comedic aspects of the film, but also when tasked at delivering a more serious tone. This is a movie that will have you cheering for each character, and even applauding throughout.
Even though wrestling was a huge part of growing up, spanning everything from action figures to video games, I’ve never considered myself to be a wrestling fan. For those of you who are instantly looking to forego this movie because of the wrestling content, I’d ask you to reconsider. Fighting with My Family is so much more than simply a “wrestling movie”, and while it likely won’t convert you into being a die hard wrestling fan at the end, you might just be surprised at how much you take away from it when you leave the theater. You’ll laugh, you’ll cry, you’ll cheer (at least that’s what all the viewers did at the screening I attended) and can you really say that about many movies these days?
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated First Man (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
As a child growing up in the 80’s the space race had already been around for decades. While I had heard the stories of my parents watching Neil Armstrong take his first steps on the moon, at the time I didn’t realize what it really took for those very first steps to occur. Considering we were living in a time full of space shuttles and satellites, it was easy to forget that only twenty years earlier we were still working on how to get a man into space.
First Man by Universal Pictures and directed by Damien Chazelle (La La Land / Whiplash) takes us on the incredible journey of Neil Armstrong (Ryan Gosling) becoming the first man on the moon. The movie covers almost a decade of time, starting with the first scene of Neil Armstrong in a high-altitude test flight in his X-15 to of course the pivotal moment when he first steps foot on the moon. It’s a lot to pack into a film that only runs a bit over 2 hours (138 minutes to be precise) so even though it doesn’t go too deep into any particular event, it shows just enough of the journey to be very captivating.
The cinematography is both beautiful and a bit unsettling at the same time. It’s grainy and shaky, looking as though the film itself was shot in the same era that it portrays. There is a blend of new footage and actual footage that is practically impossible to distinguish from each other. There were many times throughout the film where I questioned whether the footage was actually pulled from original film, or simply filmed to appear that it was. Viewers who are sensitive to shaky camera sequences (where it looks like it is being filmed using an old 8mm handheld movie camera) or for those who prefer a crisper image of grainy footage might be slightly turned off, however I found the mix of both old and new incredibly interesting and it made all of the characters appear as if they were part of an archived documentary, instead of an entirely new film.
The video wasn’t the only mix that is present in the film as there is also a blend of old and new audio footage. They even used the original recording of the moon landing and seamlessly blended Ryan Gosling’s voice in where Neil Armstrong would have originally been heard. The mix of audio footage was done so flawlessly throughout the film that you may even start to believe that that Ryan Gosling and Neil Armstrong are one-in-the-same person.
Since the movie is based on Neil Armstrong himself and not directly on the space race, a lot of other critical events are simply introduced and then gone in a flash. The time jumps in the movie can be a bit confusing as well. For example, there are scenes where his wife Janet (Claire Foy) is pregnant one minute and the very next minute she has a young son running around. Years pass by in minutes in this film, even for crucial events. Another example is when we are introduced to the young astronauts training for the Gemini flights and then a short time later they are ready to complete their missions. Considering these astronauts were an important part of history, it would have been nice to see a little bit more of their development. The best way to describe these hasty time jumps is that they play out a lot like reading a Wikipedia article, the key points are shown and described in detail, but any of the character development (outside of Neil and his wife) is largely missing. That’s not to say that there aren’t other characters in the film that are important, they just aren’t the focus of the film.
If you are looking for a film that is action oriented like Apollo 13 or The Right Stuff, then you may be a bit disappointed in First Man as it is definitely more like a documentary than a Hollywood blockbuster. If you are however interested in the history of Neil Armstrong and his trials and tribulations on his way to the first moon landing, then you will be in for an incredible journey. Even though First Man seems more at home on the History Channel than Netflix, that’s what makes it such an interesting and enjoyable movie. I thoroughly enjoyed First Man and it’s excellent blend of history and personal storytelling makes it a great movie to see with the whole family.
First Man by Universal Pictures and directed by Damien Chazelle (La La Land / Whiplash) takes us on the incredible journey of Neil Armstrong (Ryan Gosling) becoming the first man on the moon. The movie covers almost a decade of time, starting with the first scene of Neil Armstrong in a high-altitude test flight in his X-15 to of course the pivotal moment when he first steps foot on the moon. It’s a lot to pack into a film that only runs a bit over 2 hours (138 minutes to be precise) so even though it doesn’t go too deep into any particular event, it shows just enough of the journey to be very captivating.
The cinematography is both beautiful and a bit unsettling at the same time. It’s grainy and shaky, looking as though the film itself was shot in the same era that it portrays. There is a blend of new footage and actual footage that is practically impossible to distinguish from each other. There were many times throughout the film where I questioned whether the footage was actually pulled from original film, or simply filmed to appear that it was. Viewers who are sensitive to shaky camera sequences (where it looks like it is being filmed using an old 8mm handheld movie camera) or for those who prefer a crisper image of grainy footage might be slightly turned off, however I found the mix of both old and new incredibly interesting and it made all of the characters appear as if they were part of an archived documentary, instead of an entirely new film.
The video wasn’t the only mix that is present in the film as there is also a blend of old and new audio footage. They even used the original recording of the moon landing and seamlessly blended Ryan Gosling’s voice in where Neil Armstrong would have originally been heard. The mix of audio footage was done so flawlessly throughout the film that you may even start to believe that that Ryan Gosling and Neil Armstrong are one-in-the-same person.
Since the movie is based on Neil Armstrong himself and not directly on the space race, a lot of other critical events are simply introduced and then gone in a flash. The time jumps in the movie can be a bit confusing as well. For example, there are scenes where his wife Janet (Claire Foy) is pregnant one minute and the very next minute she has a young son running around. Years pass by in minutes in this film, even for crucial events. Another example is when we are introduced to the young astronauts training for the Gemini flights and then a short time later they are ready to complete their missions. Considering these astronauts were an important part of history, it would have been nice to see a little bit more of their development. The best way to describe these hasty time jumps is that they play out a lot like reading a Wikipedia article, the key points are shown and described in detail, but any of the character development (outside of Neil and his wife) is largely missing. That’s not to say that there aren’t other characters in the film that are important, they just aren’t the focus of the film.
If you are looking for a film that is action oriented like Apollo 13 or The Right Stuff, then you may be a bit disappointed in First Man as it is definitely more like a documentary than a Hollywood blockbuster. If you are however interested in the history of Neil Armstrong and his trials and tribulations on his way to the first moon landing, then you will be in for an incredible journey. Even though First Man seems more at home on the History Channel than Netflix, that’s what makes it such an interesting and enjoyable movie. I thoroughly enjoyed First Man and it’s excellent blend of history and personal storytelling makes it a great movie to see with the whole family.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Truth or Dare (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Growing up with four sisters who would regularly have slumber parties, I was no stranger to the game Truth or Dare. For those who were never lucky enough to experience this game for themselves, the premise is simple, decide whether to tell the truth, regardless of what was asked or take a dare. I’m certain many friendships and relationships were lost over this simple game, because most people probably didn’t want to tell the truth or had friends who would come up with the most embarrassing dare imaginable. Hopefully, the game didn’t result in the death of most of your friends though, unlike the film Truth or Dare produced by Blumhouse Productions and directed by Jeff Wadlow (Kick-Ass 2).
Truth or Dare is a film that starts off with simple beginnings, a group of friends in their final year of college decide to spend their last spring break partying it up in Mexico. Olivia (Lucy Hale), being the responsible one, is reluctant to go choosing instead to spend her spring break building houses for Habitat for Humanity. Her best friend Markie (Violett Bean) pulls out all the stops and convinces her reluctant bestie to forgo Habitat and spend the week in Mexico instead. On their final night Olivia is approached by a handsome stranger named Carter (Landon Liboiron) who convinces her and her friends to join him for a rousing game of Truth or Dare in a spooky old abandoned Mexican mission. What could go wrong?
The game seemed simple enough, and everyone traveled home thinking that the game was only a game and ended when they left Mexico. It is only after their return, and strangers begin smiling at them and Truth or Dare voices appear from out of nowhere, that the game has only just begun. Play the game or face the consequences, fail to tell the truth, you die; fail your dare, you die…the rules are simple, but obeying them is what gradually tears the group of friends apart.
Truth or Dare follows much of the same plot twists and turns that other teen-based horror movies (I Know What You Did Last Summer, Final Destination, etc.) do. Initially the characters don’t buy into what is happening and it takes a few horrific events to convince them that what is going on is real. While the movie sticks very close to the formula of those before it, there are still the occasional plot twists or jump scares to keep things interesting. The movie attempts to play on the moral dilemma that comes with playing a game of Truth or Dare; the player must usually decide between hurting someone with honesty or harming themselves or someone else by taking the dare. Without giving away any spoilers, there is a “truth” question posed to Olivia at the beginning of the game that comes full circle at the end which demonstrates this point brilliantly.
Lucy Hale did an incredible job in her portrayal of Olivia, a young college student who tries to do the right thing, even if that happens to be at the expense of those around her. The rest of the cast however seemed to be a little more inconsistent in their character portrayals. It’s not that any one of them did a particularly poor job, their characters just felt more like cardboard cutouts, sticking to their given teen stereotype that teetered between believable and frustrating. There are certainly plenty of moments where you will be face-palming yourself on how the characters are behaving, considering the very real consequences they are facing. Remember they are all very aware of the rules, so accepting someone’s truth or the consequences of a dare, you’d think would be a given.
Overall, I enjoyed Truth or Dare. It doesn’t break any new ground and in many ways, resembles the teen suspense/horror movies of the mid 90’s. There are plenty of jump scares, and also a fair share of groan worthy moments. It’s the type of movie that won’t likely have any lasting impact once you leave the theater but is entertaining enough that you won’t be looking at your watch wondering when it’ll be over. It’s a fun movie that likely won’t be nominated for any awards, but that’s okay. Sometimes all you want is an escape, a movie that accepts what it is, and hopefully gives the audience exactly what they were expecting.
Truth or Dare is a film that starts off with simple beginnings, a group of friends in their final year of college decide to spend their last spring break partying it up in Mexico. Olivia (Lucy Hale), being the responsible one, is reluctant to go choosing instead to spend her spring break building houses for Habitat for Humanity. Her best friend Markie (Violett Bean) pulls out all the stops and convinces her reluctant bestie to forgo Habitat and spend the week in Mexico instead. On their final night Olivia is approached by a handsome stranger named Carter (Landon Liboiron) who convinces her and her friends to join him for a rousing game of Truth or Dare in a spooky old abandoned Mexican mission. What could go wrong?
The game seemed simple enough, and everyone traveled home thinking that the game was only a game and ended when they left Mexico. It is only after their return, and strangers begin smiling at them and Truth or Dare voices appear from out of nowhere, that the game has only just begun. Play the game or face the consequences, fail to tell the truth, you die; fail your dare, you die…the rules are simple, but obeying them is what gradually tears the group of friends apart.
Truth or Dare follows much of the same plot twists and turns that other teen-based horror movies (I Know What You Did Last Summer, Final Destination, etc.) do. Initially the characters don’t buy into what is happening and it takes a few horrific events to convince them that what is going on is real. While the movie sticks very close to the formula of those before it, there are still the occasional plot twists or jump scares to keep things interesting. The movie attempts to play on the moral dilemma that comes with playing a game of Truth or Dare; the player must usually decide between hurting someone with honesty or harming themselves or someone else by taking the dare. Without giving away any spoilers, there is a “truth” question posed to Olivia at the beginning of the game that comes full circle at the end which demonstrates this point brilliantly.
Lucy Hale did an incredible job in her portrayal of Olivia, a young college student who tries to do the right thing, even if that happens to be at the expense of those around her. The rest of the cast however seemed to be a little more inconsistent in their character portrayals. It’s not that any one of them did a particularly poor job, their characters just felt more like cardboard cutouts, sticking to their given teen stereotype that teetered between believable and frustrating. There are certainly plenty of moments where you will be face-palming yourself on how the characters are behaving, considering the very real consequences they are facing. Remember they are all very aware of the rules, so accepting someone’s truth or the consequences of a dare, you’d think would be a given.
Overall, I enjoyed Truth or Dare. It doesn’t break any new ground and in many ways, resembles the teen suspense/horror movies of the mid 90’s. There are plenty of jump scares, and also a fair share of groan worthy moments. It’s the type of movie that won’t likely have any lasting impact once you leave the theater but is entertaining enough that you won’t be looking at your watch wondering when it’ll be over. It’s a fun movie that likely won’t be nominated for any awards, but that’s okay. Sometimes all you want is an escape, a movie that accepts what it is, and hopefully gives the audience exactly what they were expecting.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Kitchen (2019) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
Times are tough in Hells Kitchen, people need to diversify to stay on top. Three gangsters decide to do just that but manage to fall on the wrong side of the law on their first outing. As they are locked up their wives are left to pick up the pieces. They'll be looked after, that's the promise they hear but the money they get won't even cover their rent.
The three women are desperate but see an opportunity in the gap their imprisoned husbands have left. What the mob needs is a woman's touch.
Melissa McCarthy amuses me, her comedy really hits the spot, then she appeared in Can You Ever Forgive Me? and I was so happy to see she could do drama too. Tiffany Haddish was much the same, I've seen her in lots of comedy and find her to be entertaining (if a little over played) so when her name popped up on this I was interested to see how she handled "sensible". I was very pleased with the result, but we'll get there.
The look of everything in The Kitchen felt spot on. All the little touches really pulled the 70's feel together and gace each character their own vibe that lined up perfectly with their development through the film.
Music certainly helped on this front, though part of me was sad that they used "It's A Man's Man's Man's World." I know it fits perfectly with the tone and the subject but it felt so cliché for that to be the first thing we go and I actually sighed when it came on.
Our three wives make an interesting mix as a team, a collection that you couldn't see being friends under normal circumstances but they've been brought together out of necessity. I liked the way we got to see their lives unfold from the beginning. Their home life with their husbands and then their reactions as the men are charged. Kathy looking upset, Ruby with a look of disappointment that he should have been smarter, and Claire's smile as the court gives her a reprieve from his violence.
We see their progression to becoming a success in town happen quite quickly on screen and I thought that worked well. It left all the internal politics out until there was something bigger at stake to deal with.
The women all take on a path of their own, it diversifies their abilities but you know that something has to give. Every little piece that's added to their story felt like it was right to be there, nothing was unnecessary.
There's a certain amount of stereotype acting in The Kitchen but it works well when it comes to the gangs and their interactions together. Both Kathy (McCarthy) and Ruby (Haddish) have that in them too at one point or another but it's a little less evident in general.
As I said at the beginning, Melissa McCarthy's step into drama had been a hit with me and her portrayal of Kathy was no different. She went from an attentive wife and mother who minds her own business to a mob boss and entrepeneur, it's such a smooth transition that you'd wonder if she was doing something fishy on the side already.
Tiffany Haddish was amazing too, her dramatic skills really brought Ruby to life and it was a wonderfully believable performance.
Then there's Claire played by Elisabeth Moss. She's had great success in The Handmaid's Tale and I do binge watch that once the series is out, but truth be told I don't really like they way she brings her character in either to life. Claire is a woman abused by her husband, she's attacked by a homeless man and then "rescued" by Gabriel, a hitman who has skills that become and obsession for her. Her transition is the only one that doesn't sit right, yes I believe she'd try to take back her power wherever she could but her whole arc seems a little crazy.
As a crime drama it's probably missing something to take it over the line into an amazing effort but I enjoyed it for the most part. It didn't leave things unanswered and with so many different strands going on that was entirely possible.
Passing comment... I love Common, he needs to be in all the things.
What you should do
It's worth a watch when it hits streaming sites.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Some quality retro clothing.
The three women are desperate but see an opportunity in the gap their imprisoned husbands have left. What the mob needs is a woman's touch.
Melissa McCarthy amuses me, her comedy really hits the spot, then she appeared in Can You Ever Forgive Me? and I was so happy to see she could do drama too. Tiffany Haddish was much the same, I've seen her in lots of comedy and find her to be entertaining (if a little over played) so when her name popped up on this I was interested to see how she handled "sensible". I was very pleased with the result, but we'll get there.
The look of everything in The Kitchen felt spot on. All the little touches really pulled the 70's feel together and gace each character their own vibe that lined up perfectly with their development through the film.
Music certainly helped on this front, though part of me was sad that they used "It's A Man's Man's Man's World." I know it fits perfectly with the tone and the subject but it felt so cliché for that to be the first thing we go and I actually sighed when it came on.
Our three wives make an interesting mix as a team, a collection that you couldn't see being friends under normal circumstances but they've been brought together out of necessity. I liked the way we got to see their lives unfold from the beginning. Their home life with their husbands and then their reactions as the men are charged. Kathy looking upset, Ruby with a look of disappointment that he should have been smarter, and Claire's smile as the court gives her a reprieve from his violence.
We see their progression to becoming a success in town happen quite quickly on screen and I thought that worked well. It left all the internal politics out until there was something bigger at stake to deal with.
The women all take on a path of their own, it diversifies their abilities but you know that something has to give. Every little piece that's added to their story felt like it was right to be there, nothing was unnecessary.
There's a certain amount of stereotype acting in The Kitchen but it works well when it comes to the gangs and their interactions together. Both Kathy (McCarthy) and Ruby (Haddish) have that in them too at one point or another but it's a little less evident in general.
As I said at the beginning, Melissa McCarthy's step into drama had been a hit with me and her portrayal of Kathy was no different. She went from an attentive wife and mother who minds her own business to a mob boss and entrepeneur, it's such a smooth transition that you'd wonder if she was doing something fishy on the side already.
Tiffany Haddish was amazing too, her dramatic skills really brought Ruby to life and it was a wonderfully believable performance.
Then there's Claire played by Elisabeth Moss. She's had great success in The Handmaid's Tale and I do binge watch that once the series is out, but truth be told I don't really like they way she brings her character in either to life. Claire is a woman abused by her husband, she's attacked by a homeless man and then "rescued" by Gabriel, a hitman who has skills that become and obsession for her. Her transition is the only one that doesn't sit right, yes I believe she'd try to take back her power wherever she could but her whole arc seems a little crazy.
As a crime drama it's probably missing something to take it over the line into an amazing effort but I enjoyed it for the most part. It didn't leave things unanswered and with so many different strands going on that was entirely possible.
Passing comment... I love Common, he needs to be in all the things.
What you should do
It's worth a watch when it hits streaming sites.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Some quality retro clothing.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019) in Movies
Dec 13, 2019
"Anything mentionable is manageable"
Tom Hanks' new movie is a film I personally struggled to fully engage with. But some I suspect will truly LOVE it's gentle and feel-good nature.
Who WAS Fred Rogers? Based on a true story this movie very quickly makes you realise that Fred Rogers, who died in 2003, was an American legend. This is supported by the GLOWING reviews here on IMDB by US viewers. Rogers was a children's TV presenter that used puppets and song to help children work through their fears and psychological issues. I suspect, like me, most Brits would say "WHO?" (Just as if a 60's born Brit like me saying "Let's look through the arched window" will similarly get a "WHAT?" from nearly all Americans!)
Here the story revolves not around Fred (Tom Hanks) helping a child with issues, but with Fred's fixation with 'Esquire' journo Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys), who is fighting his own demons of anger, resentment and pain. For Lloyd is struggling not only with his feelings about fatherhood, with the normal strains that is placing on the relationship with wife and mother Andrea (Susan Kelechi Watson), but also with the reemergence on the scene of his estranged and hard-drinking father Jerry (Chris Cooper).
The movie starts (and continues) with model sets reminiscent of the brilliantly barmy "Welcome to Marwen" and (the rather more subtle) "Game Night". Fun is had with matchbox-car freeways and planes flying off and clunking down on model runways.
We join Mr Rogers on set filming his series: and the movie sloooooows to match Rogers' leisurely pace. This was a movie I went into completely blind (which is unusual for me): I knew precisely zip about it. No knowledge of Rogers. No knowledge of the story. No sight of the trailer. Nothing. So these opening scenes were a real "WTF" moment as my brain struggled to work out what the story was all about.
There was undeniably something creepy about seeing the saintly Fred Rogers engaging with sick and vulnerable children. And I realised just what damage the likes of the convicted-paedophiles Jimmy Saville, Stuart Hall and Rolf Harris have done to my suspicions against all such entertainers. I feared - without any background knowledge on Rogers - that the story would take a darker turn. But no! That's not the story....
For as mentioned earlier, this is the story of Lloyd. And it's a relatively simple and linear story of familial stress that we've seen in movies throughout the decades. Whether you will buy into this story-within-the-story, or not, will flavour your overall enjoyment of the film.
Many who are into analysis and 'talking treatments' will - I think - appreciate the script. But I personally didn't really warm to any of the players - other than Rogers - so this was a negative for me. And I found the pace so slow that I ended up a bit fidgety and bored moving into the second reel of the film. Two women got up and walked out at that point - - it was clearly not for them (this was a Cineworld "Unlimited" pre-release screening).
The third reel rather pulled it together again, and established an "It's a Wonderful Life" style of feelgood that I warmed to much more.
This is a movie I predict the Academy will love. And everyone loves Hanks already. Read the tea-leaves. It's a brilliant performance from Hanks in its stillness and quietness.
No more so than in one particular scene....
This is the follow up movie from Marielle Heller to the impressive "Can You Ever Forgive Me?". And this particular scene - let's call it the "Anti-When-Harry-Met-Sally" moment - is a massively brave and striking piece of cinema.
It's truly extraordinary and worth the price of a ticket alone.
In summary, I enjoyed this movie, primarily for watching the master Hanks at work. The pacing for me was somewhat off though. But I can't be overly critical of such a warm-hearted movie. I predict you will see this and go home with a big dose of the warm-fuzzies.
See here for the full graphical review - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/12/one-manns-movies-film-review-a-beautiful-day-in-the-neighborhood-2019/
Who WAS Fred Rogers? Based on a true story this movie very quickly makes you realise that Fred Rogers, who died in 2003, was an American legend. This is supported by the GLOWING reviews here on IMDB by US viewers. Rogers was a children's TV presenter that used puppets and song to help children work through their fears and psychological issues. I suspect, like me, most Brits would say "WHO?" (Just as if a 60's born Brit like me saying "Let's look through the arched window" will similarly get a "WHAT?" from nearly all Americans!)
Here the story revolves not around Fred (Tom Hanks) helping a child with issues, but with Fred's fixation with 'Esquire' journo Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys), who is fighting his own demons of anger, resentment and pain. For Lloyd is struggling not only with his feelings about fatherhood, with the normal strains that is placing on the relationship with wife and mother Andrea (Susan Kelechi Watson), but also with the reemergence on the scene of his estranged and hard-drinking father Jerry (Chris Cooper).
The movie starts (and continues) with model sets reminiscent of the brilliantly barmy "Welcome to Marwen" and (the rather more subtle) "Game Night". Fun is had with matchbox-car freeways and planes flying off and clunking down on model runways.
We join Mr Rogers on set filming his series: and the movie sloooooows to match Rogers' leisurely pace. This was a movie I went into completely blind (which is unusual for me): I knew precisely zip about it. No knowledge of Rogers. No knowledge of the story. No sight of the trailer. Nothing. So these opening scenes were a real "WTF" moment as my brain struggled to work out what the story was all about.
There was undeniably something creepy about seeing the saintly Fred Rogers engaging with sick and vulnerable children. And I realised just what damage the likes of the convicted-paedophiles Jimmy Saville, Stuart Hall and Rolf Harris have done to my suspicions against all such entertainers. I feared - without any background knowledge on Rogers - that the story would take a darker turn. But no! That's not the story....
For as mentioned earlier, this is the story of Lloyd. And it's a relatively simple and linear story of familial stress that we've seen in movies throughout the decades. Whether you will buy into this story-within-the-story, or not, will flavour your overall enjoyment of the film.
Many who are into analysis and 'talking treatments' will - I think - appreciate the script. But I personally didn't really warm to any of the players - other than Rogers - so this was a negative for me. And I found the pace so slow that I ended up a bit fidgety and bored moving into the second reel of the film. Two women got up and walked out at that point - - it was clearly not for them (this was a Cineworld "Unlimited" pre-release screening).
The third reel rather pulled it together again, and established an "It's a Wonderful Life" style of feelgood that I warmed to much more.
This is a movie I predict the Academy will love. And everyone loves Hanks already. Read the tea-leaves. It's a brilliant performance from Hanks in its stillness and quietness.
No more so than in one particular scene....
This is the follow up movie from Marielle Heller to the impressive "Can You Ever Forgive Me?". And this particular scene - let's call it the "Anti-When-Harry-Met-Sally" moment - is a massively brave and striking piece of cinema.
It's truly extraordinary and worth the price of a ticket alone.
In summary, I enjoyed this movie, primarily for watching the master Hanks at work. The pacing for me was somewhat off though. But I can't be overly critical of such a warm-hearted movie. I predict you will see this and go home with a big dose of the warm-fuzzies.
See here for the full graphical review - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/12/one-manns-movies-film-review-a-beautiful-day-in-the-neighborhood-2019/
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (2019) in Movies
Aug 1, 2019
A surprisingly pleasant thrill-ride!
The Fast & The Furious franchise paused to allow two of it's most memorable, larger-than-life characters to branch out on their own with this action-packed offering of explosions and humour.
I have to admit, I had my reservations about this one. Firstly, it's basically a F&F movie... we all know what they are and what to expect, which is why we love them. Except it's not a proper F&F movie, and I was worried labelling it as part of that story universe would burden it with unrealistic expectations. Secondly, I've spent the last few months trying to avoid trailers for it, when I realised they were basically showing the entire film in them. After the first three or four, I was left genuinely concerned they had nothing left to show me. I thought there was no way they could have any eye candy that I hadn't at least seen a snapshot of.
So, I entered the cinema expecting very little. Which is probably why I left the cinema feeling very happy and satisfied.
Saying this is a F&F movie is like saying Captain America and Guardians of the Galaxy are Marvel movies. Yes, they technically are, but they are two hugely different types of movie. The similarities are obviously more prevalent here, along with the formulaic and predictable buddy-cop routine, but this film manages to confidently and successfully stand on its own two feet, and not in the shadow of Vin Diesel as I first feared.
And yes, the trailers showed snippets of pretty much every major action sequence, but weirdly, they didn't give away as much you would think. There are also some nice surprises in there. I won't spoil them, but let's just say I'm very impressed at how they managed to keep the cameos under wraps!
Okay, let's get into it. The plot (such as it is) revolves around a mysterious tech firm trying to get a hold of a deadly virus, using Idris Elba's enjoyable villain, Brixton to track it down. It takes all of five minutes for things to go sideways, leaving Hattie Shaw on the run from the bad guys. The Powers That Be (the CIA and MI6) decide they need the best bad guy trackers in the business to hunt down Brixton and retrieve this virus, and the girl... thus saving the world. The former recruits Mr. Johnson; the latter, Mr. Statham. As we know from the trailers, Vanessa Kirby portrays Shaw's sister - it becomes a family affair and we're off to the races.
The on-screen chemistry between Statham and Johnson is clear to see. The comedic dialogue they have lands a lot more than it misses. There's perhaps a bit too much gung-ho stereotyping and fan-service catchphrases, but again, you have to expect that kind of thing from a film like this.
What I liked about it was that whilst they didn't re-invent the wheel, it didn't feel like a carbon-copy of every other action film, like so many others do. It had heart. It had character. Yes, some of the stunts were silly. Yes, the bad guy being genetically-enhanced was a bit weird - blending sci-fi with real-world action whilst never actually acknowledging it took some getting used to. But the film just kinda worked. It was very good without being great. It was predictable but still managed to be enjoyable. It's a good two-hour investment of your time for an afternoon/evening out with the family.
Hobbs and Shaw is proof that whatever your criticisms, whatever your reservations, anything Dwayne Johnson touches turns to gold right now. It's also what a potential future Expendables reboot will probably look like.
Meanwhile F&F9 is now filming (sans Statham and Johnson, apparently) and with an inevitable H&S sequel surely not too far away, you can't help but wonder if they're gearing this all up to be a super-charged, car-based competitor to the MCU. The ending, two mid-credits and one post-credits scene in this film clearly set up another outing and tease a sinister, overarching enemy with ties to the character's pasts... could this be a way to link it all back to Vin Diesel and Co? Could a crossover Summer blockbuster be the only way to tell this story? If early box office figures are anything to go by here, the smart money would say yes.
Go, enjoy, eat popcorn and leave your brain and the real world in the car.
I have to admit, I had my reservations about this one. Firstly, it's basically a F&F movie... we all know what they are and what to expect, which is why we love them. Except it's not a proper F&F movie, and I was worried labelling it as part of that story universe would burden it with unrealistic expectations. Secondly, I've spent the last few months trying to avoid trailers for it, when I realised they were basically showing the entire film in them. After the first three or four, I was left genuinely concerned they had nothing left to show me. I thought there was no way they could have any eye candy that I hadn't at least seen a snapshot of.
So, I entered the cinema expecting very little. Which is probably why I left the cinema feeling very happy and satisfied.
Saying this is a F&F movie is like saying Captain America and Guardians of the Galaxy are Marvel movies. Yes, they technically are, but they are two hugely different types of movie. The similarities are obviously more prevalent here, along with the formulaic and predictable buddy-cop routine, but this film manages to confidently and successfully stand on its own two feet, and not in the shadow of Vin Diesel as I first feared.
And yes, the trailers showed snippets of pretty much every major action sequence, but weirdly, they didn't give away as much you would think. There are also some nice surprises in there. I won't spoil them, but let's just say I'm very impressed at how they managed to keep the cameos under wraps!
Okay, let's get into it. The plot (such as it is) revolves around a mysterious tech firm trying to get a hold of a deadly virus, using Idris Elba's enjoyable villain, Brixton to track it down. It takes all of five minutes for things to go sideways, leaving Hattie Shaw on the run from the bad guys. The Powers That Be (the CIA and MI6) decide they need the best bad guy trackers in the business to hunt down Brixton and retrieve this virus, and the girl... thus saving the world. The former recruits Mr. Johnson; the latter, Mr. Statham. As we know from the trailers, Vanessa Kirby portrays Shaw's sister - it becomes a family affair and we're off to the races.
The on-screen chemistry between Statham and Johnson is clear to see. The comedic dialogue they have lands a lot more than it misses. There's perhaps a bit too much gung-ho stereotyping and fan-service catchphrases, but again, you have to expect that kind of thing from a film like this.
What I liked about it was that whilst they didn't re-invent the wheel, it didn't feel like a carbon-copy of every other action film, like so many others do. It had heart. It had character. Yes, some of the stunts were silly. Yes, the bad guy being genetically-enhanced was a bit weird - blending sci-fi with real-world action whilst never actually acknowledging it took some getting used to. But the film just kinda worked. It was very good without being great. It was predictable but still managed to be enjoyable. It's a good two-hour investment of your time for an afternoon/evening out with the family.
Hobbs and Shaw is proof that whatever your criticisms, whatever your reservations, anything Dwayne Johnson touches turns to gold right now. It's also what a potential future Expendables reboot will probably look like.
Meanwhile F&F9 is now filming (sans Statham and Johnson, apparently) and with an inevitable H&S sequel surely not too far away, you can't help but wonder if they're gearing this all up to be a super-charged, car-based competitor to the MCU. The ending, two mid-credits and one post-credits scene in this film clearly set up another outing and tease a sinister, overarching enemy with ties to the character's pasts... could this be a way to link it all back to Vin Diesel and Co? Could a crossover Summer blockbuster be the only way to tell this story? If early box office figures are anything to go by here, the smart money would say yes.
Go, enjoy, eat popcorn and leave your brain and the real world in the car.