Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga (2020) in Movies
Jun 27, 2020
Rachel McAdams and Dan Stevens steal most of the scenes (1 more)
A real feelgood movie that spoofs the unspoofable pretty well
My lovely farce
Will Ferrell's output over the last few years has been decidedly patchy. I have to go back to "Get Hard" to find one of his movies that really got to my funny bone. But this latest Netflix offering hits the spot for me.
We start with the song recently voted the number one Eurovision song of all time by UK viewers: "Waterloo" by Abba. Young Lars Erickssong (LOL) (Alfie Melia) is transfixed watching the 1974 Eurovision winner with his recently bereaved father and local Lothario Erick (Pierce Brosnan). (Mental note to women: never marry Brosnan on screen... he gets through wives faster than you can murder "S.O.S."). Also present are his friends and young Sigrit ("probably not by sister") Ericksdottir (Sophia-Grace Donnelly). Lars vows to one day stand on that stage and make his father and his remote Icelandic fishing village proud.
Now all grown up, Lars (now Will Ferrell) and Sigrit (now Rachel McAdams) are still pursuing their dream of representing Iceland in the upcoming Eurovision Song Contest. They are, of course, dreadful - - so they should fit right in! But their way is blocked by the immensely talented Katiana (Demi Lovato) and all seems hopeless. Will Sigrit's faith in the power of the Elves see them through?
There's an obvious problem here. The Eurovision Song Contest is in itself so bat-s**t bonkers that it is almost impossible to spoof. (If anyone is not on this wavelength, checkout the genuine Russian entry in this year's (cancelled) contest on Youtube). But the team here (writers Will Ferrell and Andrew Steele and director David "The Judge" Dobkin) do a really great job. I'd love to know what a US audience - who I guess will mostly be unfamiliar with Eurovision - make of this. Since Australia are now honorary Europeans in the contest.... wouldn't it be great if there was a Mexican mariachi band attending and a country and western act from the States? (Brits would love the US to be involved.... as spoofed in the film, there's only one country European's hate more than the UK.... be nice to have someone else to join us in the "nul points" club!)
Wherever you may be on the "Ferrell-funny-or-not-ometer", there's one thing I hope we can all agree on here, and that is that Rachel McAdams continues to shine as a comic lead. She was fantastic in "Game Night" - one of my favourite comedies of recent years - and here she is both gorgeous and hilarious. She knocks it out of the park playing the elf-loving Icelandic pixie with the golden voice. (McAdams "sings" but is significantly "helped" in the mix by Swedish pop star Molly Sandén (aka My Marianne)).
Here she even gets to almost reprise her wonderful "YEESSSSS! Oh no, he died!" line from "Game Night".
Almost matching her in the scene-stealing stakes though is Downton's Dan Stevens as Lemtov: a Russian 'Tom Jones'-like contestant singing "Lion of Love" ("Let's get together; I'm a lion lover; And I hunt for love!"). He's DEFINITELY not gay ("There are no gays in Russia") but are his multi-millions enough to turn Sigrit's head?
For those who love their annual Eurovision parties, there are also an impressive array of nice cameos that will delight.
But where the film-makers really score (no pun intended) is making the music so fitting. Some of the tracks make you think "Yeah, if this was the real content, this might have got my vote". Director Dobkin is quoted as saying "It's okay if it's funny, but it has to be really good music. It has to still be great and just kitschy enough to be Eurovision, because that's part of what's fun about Eurovision" (Source: Vulture). Very true. This success is down to the involvement of pop writer/producer Savan Kotecha on the project: the man behind hits by Katy Petty, Ariana Grande and Ellie Goulding.
A comedy needs to make me laugh, and this one really did - numerous times. It's not just the dialogue. Some of the cut-away scenes are priceless and perfectly executed: jumping whales; a collapsing glacier; a small slamming door!
Sure, it borrows from a number of other sources in its plot: most notably THAT episode of "Father Ted" and the rap-battle scenes from "Pitch Perfect". And sure, some of the outRAGEOUS Icelandic accents sometimes swerve into an alarming mix of Indian, Welsh and Caribbean dialects! But above all, this is movie with real heart. The plot is pretty well signposted, but the finale still packs a (surprisingly) hefty emotional punch, and it leaves you with a really nice afterglow.
As we struggle out of Covid lockdown, it may not be a vaccine, but it is a pretty good medicine for the side-effects. Did I love this? Jaja Ding Dong!
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/06/27/one-manns-movies-film-review-eurovision-song-contest-the-story-of-fire-saga-2020/ ).
We start with the song recently voted the number one Eurovision song of all time by UK viewers: "Waterloo" by Abba. Young Lars Erickssong (LOL) (Alfie Melia) is transfixed watching the 1974 Eurovision winner with his recently bereaved father and local Lothario Erick (Pierce Brosnan). (Mental note to women: never marry Brosnan on screen... he gets through wives faster than you can murder "S.O.S."). Also present are his friends and young Sigrit ("probably not by sister") Ericksdottir (Sophia-Grace Donnelly). Lars vows to one day stand on that stage and make his father and his remote Icelandic fishing village proud.
Now all grown up, Lars (now Will Ferrell) and Sigrit (now Rachel McAdams) are still pursuing their dream of representing Iceland in the upcoming Eurovision Song Contest. They are, of course, dreadful - - so they should fit right in! But their way is blocked by the immensely talented Katiana (Demi Lovato) and all seems hopeless. Will Sigrit's faith in the power of the Elves see them through?
There's an obvious problem here. The Eurovision Song Contest is in itself so bat-s**t bonkers that it is almost impossible to spoof. (If anyone is not on this wavelength, checkout the genuine Russian entry in this year's (cancelled) contest on Youtube). But the team here (writers Will Ferrell and Andrew Steele and director David "The Judge" Dobkin) do a really great job. I'd love to know what a US audience - who I guess will mostly be unfamiliar with Eurovision - make of this. Since Australia are now honorary Europeans in the contest.... wouldn't it be great if there was a Mexican mariachi band attending and a country and western act from the States? (Brits would love the US to be involved.... as spoofed in the film, there's only one country European's hate more than the UK.... be nice to have someone else to join us in the "nul points" club!)
Wherever you may be on the "Ferrell-funny-or-not-ometer", there's one thing I hope we can all agree on here, and that is that Rachel McAdams continues to shine as a comic lead. She was fantastic in "Game Night" - one of my favourite comedies of recent years - and here she is both gorgeous and hilarious. She knocks it out of the park playing the elf-loving Icelandic pixie with the golden voice. (McAdams "sings" but is significantly "helped" in the mix by Swedish pop star Molly Sandén (aka My Marianne)).
Here she even gets to almost reprise her wonderful "YEESSSSS! Oh no, he died!" line from "Game Night".
Almost matching her in the scene-stealing stakes though is Downton's Dan Stevens as Lemtov: a Russian 'Tom Jones'-like contestant singing "Lion of Love" ("Let's get together; I'm a lion lover; And I hunt for love!"). He's DEFINITELY not gay ("There are no gays in Russia") but are his multi-millions enough to turn Sigrit's head?
For those who love their annual Eurovision parties, there are also an impressive array of nice cameos that will delight.
But where the film-makers really score (no pun intended) is making the music so fitting. Some of the tracks make you think "Yeah, if this was the real content, this might have got my vote". Director Dobkin is quoted as saying "It's okay if it's funny, but it has to be really good music. It has to still be great and just kitschy enough to be Eurovision, because that's part of what's fun about Eurovision" (Source: Vulture). Very true. This success is down to the involvement of pop writer/producer Savan Kotecha on the project: the man behind hits by Katy Petty, Ariana Grande and Ellie Goulding.
A comedy needs to make me laugh, and this one really did - numerous times. It's not just the dialogue. Some of the cut-away scenes are priceless and perfectly executed: jumping whales; a collapsing glacier; a small slamming door!
Sure, it borrows from a number of other sources in its plot: most notably THAT episode of "Father Ted" and the rap-battle scenes from "Pitch Perfect". And sure, some of the outRAGEOUS Icelandic accents sometimes swerve into an alarming mix of Indian, Welsh and Caribbean dialects! But above all, this is movie with real heart. The plot is pretty well signposted, but the finale still packs a (surprisingly) hefty emotional punch, and it leaves you with a really nice afterglow.
As we struggle out of Covid lockdown, it may not be a vaccine, but it is a pretty good medicine for the side-effects. Did I love this? Jaja Ding Dong!
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/06/27/one-manns-movies-film-review-eurovision-song-contest-the-story-of-fire-saga-2020/ ).
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Wish You Were Here in Tabletop Games
Nov 3, 2020
I thought I was smart. I thought my wife was smarter. I thought that combined, we would have a great shot at figuring out anything thrown at us. Then The Enigma Emporium threw Wish You Were Here at us, and now we feel the American school system has failed us miserably. The level of defeat we feel is immense and can only hope to redeem ourselves during the next game.
Wish You Were Here is a puzzle-on-some-postcards-that-make-you-feel-like-a-Kindergarten-version-of-Indiana-Jones-minus-the-physical-adventuring game. I really cannot describe it any better for you, but will let you know what to expect and how we fared.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of the entire Wish You Were Here series of games for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your envelope. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, as there is no rulebook. For more information and to order your own, visit the publisher’s website. Also, I am purposely hiding or not showing certain things because I wish to avoid any spoilers. -T
To setup, make sure your phone or tablet are fully charged, grab yourself a nice chai tea latte (or three), a pad of paper and writing utensil, open the game envelope and pull out the five postcards. You are now ready to “play” Wish You Were Here.
Why am I being so sparse and cryptic? Well, Wish You Were Here is a game that is played by figuring out puzzles and clues printed on postcards to catch a criminal and suss out their crime(s). The postcards are simply full of different puzzles and different TYPES of puzzles. I am really unable to go into much further detail for fear of spoilers, but before you tackle this adventure, I would brush up on your Dan Brown to channel your inner Robert Langdon (the guy from the Da Vinci Code books and movies).
Inside the envelope are five postcards from which you will need to assemble a working idea of what is actually going on and what is being communicated to you through these clues. Speaking of clues, the publisher has thankfully included their website to visit when you are simply stuck on something provided.
Players will be tackling the puzzles provided by attacking separately or as a group and putting together their thoughts and findings. Once the players have it figured out (good luck) then they must collaborate their answers within the game.
Components. This game is five postcards in a paper envelope. The envelope is fine and holds the postcards well. The postcards themselves are normal postcard stock, but every little item on them may be important toward solving the case. They are all vastly different in style and, I’ll give you a tiny hint, each card may have its own theme. The components here are strange to try to review, but for being the type of game it is, the components are excellent..?
Okay so like I said in my intro, I found my wife and I to be highly intelligent people. We both have college degrees and one of us was a high school valedictorian (not me). So imagine my surprise as we are cookin’ on the first postcard, have some items and ideas written down, but then get super stuck on what it is trying to tell us. So we think that there is no harm in checking out the clues on the publisher website and check it out. Once we find what we are looking for, we realize that maybe we are in way over our heads here.
The clues are incredibly helpful to solving the information provided on each postcard. I just wish we didn’t become so dependent on them to figure out each card. Once we pulled up the clues site the first time, it became more and more tempting to just get as many clues as we could there and then the game became more an activity of following clue instructions and applying their suggestions than us actually trying to figure them out ourselves. It might have had something to do with the fact that we started the game at 10pm, and were nowhere near finished at midnight, but the chai and cookies helped a little.
All in all, this game is incredibly unique and really really tough, unless the players are all into ciphers and codices. Being able to recognize what puzzle style is being employed is the first step in solving each one. Using that information to apply to the puzzle at hand is the other side of that coin. That said, we at Purple Phoenix Games give this one a solid, but hidden 12 / 18. Our brains are still reeling from that playthrough, but we are determined to figure out more items independently once we attempt the next game in the series. If you are looking for a small footprint, brain-wrecking, incredibly thinky game to pull out with your more academic friends, then definitely order your copy of Wish You Were Here from theenigmaemporium.com, and grab all the others while you are there as well.
Wish You Were Here is a puzzle-on-some-postcards-that-make-you-feel-like-a-Kindergarten-version-of-Indiana-Jones-minus-the-physical-adventuring game. I really cannot describe it any better for you, but will let you know what to expect and how we fared.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of the entire Wish You Were Here series of games for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your envelope. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, as there is no rulebook. For more information and to order your own, visit the publisher’s website. Also, I am purposely hiding or not showing certain things because I wish to avoid any spoilers. -T
To setup, make sure your phone or tablet are fully charged, grab yourself a nice chai tea latte (or three), a pad of paper and writing utensil, open the game envelope and pull out the five postcards. You are now ready to “play” Wish You Were Here.
Why am I being so sparse and cryptic? Well, Wish You Were Here is a game that is played by figuring out puzzles and clues printed on postcards to catch a criminal and suss out their crime(s). The postcards are simply full of different puzzles and different TYPES of puzzles. I am really unable to go into much further detail for fear of spoilers, but before you tackle this adventure, I would brush up on your Dan Brown to channel your inner Robert Langdon (the guy from the Da Vinci Code books and movies).
Inside the envelope are five postcards from which you will need to assemble a working idea of what is actually going on and what is being communicated to you through these clues. Speaking of clues, the publisher has thankfully included their website to visit when you are simply stuck on something provided.
Players will be tackling the puzzles provided by attacking separately or as a group and putting together their thoughts and findings. Once the players have it figured out (good luck) then they must collaborate their answers within the game.
Components. This game is five postcards in a paper envelope. The envelope is fine and holds the postcards well. The postcards themselves are normal postcard stock, but every little item on them may be important toward solving the case. They are all vastly different in style and, I’ll give you a tiny hint, each card may have its own theme. The components here are strange to try to review, but for being the type of game it is, the components are excellent..?
Okay so like I said in my intro, I found my wife and I to be highly intelligent people. We both have college degrees and one of us was a high school valedictorian (not me). So imagine my surprise as we are cookin’ on the first postcard, have some items and ideas written down, but then get super stuck on what it is trying to tell us. So we think that there is no harm in checking out the clues on the publisher website and check it out. Once we find what we are looking for, we realize that maybe we are in way over our heads here.
The clues are incredibly helpful to solving the information provided on each postcard. I just wish we didn’t become so dependent on them to figure out each card. Once we pulled up the clues site the first time, it became more and more tempting to just get as many clues as we could there and then the game became more an activity of following clue instructions and applying their suggestions than us actually trying to figure them out ourselves. It might have had something to do with the fact that we started the game at 10pm, and were nowhere near finished at midnight, but the chai and cookies helped a little.
All in all, this game is incredibly unique and really really tough, unless the players are all into ciphers and codices. Being able to recognize what puzzle style is being employed is the first step in solving each one. Using that information to apply to the puzzle at hand is the other side of that coin. That said, we at Purple Phoenix Games give this one a solid, but hidden 12 / 18. Our brains are still reeling from that playthrough, but we are determined to figure out more items independently once we attempt the next game in the series. If you are looking for a small footprint, brain-wrecking, incredibly thinky game to pull out with your more academic friends, then definitely order your copy of Wish You Were Here from theenigmaemporium.com, and grab all the others while you are there as well.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Virtual Reef Diver in Tabletop Games
Nov 19, 2020
Ahh, ze Great Barrier Reef. How I would love to see you! To swim with ze fishies and see ze beautiful colors! But alas, I am no great diver, and have only snorkled once – in ze Caribbean. I am very interested in ze marine life on ze reefs surrounding Australia, and so when I heard of a game from one of our favorite publishers (who happen to be Australian) featuring photos of ze Great Barrier Reef I knew I had to take a look.
Virtual Reef Diver is an educational card game that helps to bring awareness to happenings of the Great Barrier Reef and even implements ways for players to participate in the studies of this natural wonder. The winner(s) of the game is (are) the team who scores the most points at the end of three rounds, and also hopefully learns several new things along the way.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. It is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, but to give a general idea of the feel of the game flow. You are invited to download the rulebook, purchase the game through the publisher directly, or through any retailers stocking it. -T
To setup, shuffle the Action card deck, the Reef Disturbance deck, and the Reef decks separately, placing them on the table. Each team, or player, may be given a Classification Card (reference card) as well. From the Reef deck deal 12 cards face-up on the table in a 3×4 (or 4×3 whatever) grid. Each round a new set of 12 cards will be dealt to the table. Determine the starting player/team and the game may begin!
Players will decide at the beginning of the game which mode they wish to play: Standard or Advanced. I will be previewing the Standard mode. On a turn a player will choose a card from the grid and attempt to identify its type: Hard Coral, Soft Coral, Algae, Invertebrates, Fish, Marine Mammals, or Technology. If correct, the player will collect the card as a trophy and it will be worth VPs at the end of the game. The next player may then take a turn identifying the type of card and collecting if correct, or leaving on the table if incorrect.
All cards are worth VPs except the Technology cards. These, once correctly identified, will allow the player to exchange it for an Action card to be used in the future. Action cards can be very powerful at different times during the game.
Once all 12 cards have been taken for the round the players will reveal a Reef Disturbance card. These typically will have players discarding cards of a certain type, or several cards at once. Some Action cards will negate these effects, so having them ready is great strategy. The grid may now be replenished and the second round started. The game ends at the end of the third round and players count up points to determine the winner!
Components. Again, while this game is in production, I treated it as a preview, and these are final components. That said, this game exists to benefit the Australian Government-funded citizen science website ACEMS. Further, this game is a bunch of cards in a box. The photos on the main Reef cards are mostly quite nice, with a couple looking perhaps a little outdated. The other graphics on the game are fine. They don’t get in the way, and are functional. The cards themselves are also fine quality. Nothing in the box is exquisite nor subpar at all.
The gameplay is something that I am struggling with as a reviewer. You see, this is a VERY different game depending on the mode you play. I will probably always play it on Standard mode because I can guess what type a card may be, but the Advanced mode also awards extra points for identifying the common name, taxonomic family (scientific name), and habitat of each card’s subject. That is for eggheads, man! I’m just a normal American-educated gamer. I don’t know that stuff! So the Standard mode is relatively easy to play and be good, where the Advanced mode is for those times when you have, let’s say, a Scrabble or Chess snob who revels in being the most intellectual person in the room. That’s not at all a bad thing, and I hope any real eggheads know I am kidding around. I am merely jealous at how smart many people are.
That being the case, this game would work well for a group of younger gamers eager to learn about the marine life on the Great Barrier Reef, or those looking for a relaxing quasi-trivia style card game. Need to amp it up and play on Advanced mode? Go for it. I’ll still be flailing about like a clownfish out of water trying to understand the difference between hard and soft coral and how to distinguish them. Seriously. Take a look for yourself and help out a VERY worthy cause in the process.
Virtual Reef Diver is an educational card game that helps to bring awareness to happenings of the Great Barrier Reef and even implements ways for players to participate in the studies of this natural wonder. The winner(s) of the game is (are) the team who scores the most points at the end of three rounds, and also hopefully learns several new things along the way.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. It is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, but to give a general idea of the feel of the game flow. You are invited to download the rulebook, purchase the game through the publisher directly, or through any retailers stocking it. -T
To setup, shuffle the Action card deck, the Reef Disturbance deck, and the Reef decks separately, placing them on the table. Each team, or player, may be given a Classification Card (reference card) as well. From the Reef deck deal 12 cards face-up on the table in a 3×4 (or 4×3 whatever) grid. Each round a new set of 12 cards will be dealt to the table. Determine the starting player/team and the game may begin!
Players will decide at the beginning of the game which mode they wish to play: Standard or Advanced. I will be previewing the Standard mode. On a turn a player will choose a card from the grid and attempt to identify its type: Hard Coral, Soft Coral, Algae, Invertebrates, Fish, Marine Mammals, or Technology. If correct, the player will collect the card as a trophy and it will be worth VPs at the end of the game. The next player may then take a turn identifying the type of card and collecting if correct, or leaving on the table if incorrect.
All cards are worth VPs except the Technology cards. These, once correctly identified, will allow the player to exchange it for an Action card to be used in the future. Action cards can be very powerful at different times during the game.
Once all 12 cards have been taken for the round the players will reveal a Reef Disturbance card. These typically will have players discarding cards of a certain type, or several cards at once. Some Action cards will negate these effects, so having them ready is great strategy. The grid may now be replenished and the second round started. The game ends at the end of the third round and players count up points to determine the winner!
Components. Again, while this game is in production, I treated it as a preview, and these are final components. That said, this game exists to benefit the Australian Government-funded citizen science website ACEMS. Further, this game is a bunch of cards in a box. The photos on the main Reef cards are mostly quite nice, with a couple looking perhaps a little outdated. The other graphics on the game are fine. They don’t get in the way, and are functional. The cards themselves are also fine quality. Nothing in the box is exquisite nor subpar at all.
The gameplay is something that I am struggling with as a reviewer. You see, this is a VERY different game depending on the mode you play. I will probably always play it on Standard mode because I can guess what type a card may be, but the Advanced mode also awards extra points for identifying the common name, taxonomic family (scientific name), and habitat of each card’s subject. That is for eggheads, man! I’m just a normal American-educated gamer. I don’t know that stuff! So the Standard mode is relatively easy to play and be good, where the Advanced mode is for those times when you have, let’s say, a Scrabble or Chess snob who revels in being the most intellectual person in the room. That’s not at all a bad thing, and I hope any real eggheads know I am kidding around. I am merely jealous at how smart many people are.
That being the case, this game would work well for a group of younger gamers eager to learn about the marine life on the Great Barrier Reef, or those looking for a relaxing quasi-trivia style card game. Need to amp it up and play on Advanced mode? Go for it. I’ll still be flailing about like a clownfish out of water trying to understand the difference between hard and soft coral and how to distinguish them. Seriously. Take a look for yourself and help out a VERY worthy cause in the process.
Charlie Miller (881 KP) rated Fitbit Charge 3 in Tech
Oct 17, 2020
Fitbit changed my life(style)
First of all thanks to @smashbomb for the great giveaway of a Fitbit Inspire HR
The heading in this review might seem dramatic but it is no exaggeration.
I had a fitbit charge 3 before I won this giveaway. So I am going to repost this review on the charge 3 as well as here. As it is a review on both and I will compare them against each other. I will also post this review for the Fitbit app as both fitness trackers are used in conjunction with the app. I will score them all separately on what they offer.
I was never one to over worry about my appearance so I paid little attention to my weight and in fact have been slightly overweight most of my life. My change started a week or two before I decided to buy a Fitbit. My wife who is one to care about her appearance had recently successfully implemented her own diet and exercise plan using a Fitbit Charge 3 and the Fitbit app to monitor her calorie intake and her daily exercise.
She had recently put on a bit of weight and this had affected her confidence so she decided to change. As I have Lupus an autoimmune disease. I am classed as clinically vulnerable to Covid so we were shielding for 19 weeks. I was advised to go in a little earlier than the rest of the UK nation being locked down. Towards the end of lockdown we started to go for walks on our daily exercise. This was the beginning of the change.
One day I caught site of my reflection in the microwave of all places. It was a side profile of my stomach and my waist and I realised I had let my weight gain go too far.
So I decided to use our daily walks to try and push myself first by slowly increasing the distance walked then to trying to improve the pace and choosing different routes which would push me a bit more. For instance with steep inclines.
I noticed some benefits almost straight away. Being quite goal driven. I set myself a goal of weight loss of 1lb a week. I started using the Fitbit app to monitor my calorie intake alongside my daily exercise.
It has worked wonders. I was 15st 8lb (clinically obese) when I started. I am now 13st 10lb(still overweight) and counting. I walk at least 2 miles, 5 out of 7 days. Most weeks I walk 6 days and some weeks I walk every day.
My wife and I have also allowed ourselves cheat days. This is so we don't feel deprived so that if we really fancy a treat we can say we will have that on Friday or Saturday and it works. Although we have cheat days we always monitor our calorie intake. This is so we can see over a week or month we still have a healthy deficit.
Having the fitness tracker alongside the app has inspired my wife and I to make additional changes. We have implemented new habits due to the tips popping up on the app now and again. I used to drink tea all day. I have changed this to no added sugar dilute juice and now drink my daily recommended amount of water every day.
Another tip that popped up is to eat a high protein breakfast early in the day this gets your metabolism going early and stages of cravings for carbs and sweet things. Of the options recommended my wife and started making overnight fruit and oat jars. This has also worked. I eat much more salad and a lot less carbs and sugar.
The next habit I am going to try and implement is to not eat at least 2 hours before going to bed.
Overall these are great buys. I love the step counter/goal, distance counter/goal, the exercise tracker, the water intake monitor and the calorie intake/outgoing monitor.
It's not often that you can say a purchase actually has a positive effect on your lifestyle.
One gripe about all the products is you have to pay extra for premium content once you have forked out for the trackers.
The scores I have given are: Inspire HR 7
Fitbit app 9
Charge 3 9
After raving about them you might wonder why not 10's all round. I knocked 1 off the charge 3 and the app for the fact that there is additional content that doesn't come with the purchase of the tech.
The additional knock of a further 2 points is because the HR doesn't offer an altimeter and it doesn't have the advertised battery life of 5 days. It lasts just under that amount of time.
So either one of these would be a good investment for a fitness tracker on a budget. Personally I would fork out the extra £30 for the Charge 3. The altimeter and the extra battery is worth the little bit extra.
The heading in this review might seem dramatic but it is no exaggeration.
I had a fitbit charge 3 before I won this giveaway. So I am going to repost this review on the charge 3 as well as here. As it is a review on both and I will compare them against each other. I will also post this review for the Fitbit app as both fitness trackers are used in conjunction with the app. I will score them all separately on what they offer.
I was never one to over worry about my appearance so I paid little attention to my weight and in fact have been slightly overweight most of my life. My change started a week or two before I decided to buy a Fitbit. My wife who is one to care about her appearance had recently successfully implemented her own diet and exercise plan using a Fitbit Charge 3 and the Fitbit app to monitor her calorie intake and her daily exercise.
She had recently put on a bit of weight and this had affected her confidence so she decided to change. As I have Lupus an autoimmune disease. I am classed as clinically vulnerable to Covid so we were shielding for 19 weeks. I was advised to go in a little earlier than the rest of the UK nation being locked down. Towards the end of lockdown we started to go for walks on our daily exercise. This was the beginning of the change.
One day I caught site of my reflection in the microwave of all places. It was a side profile of my stomach and my waist and I realised I had let my weight gain go too far.
So I decided to use our daily walks to try and push myself first by slowly increasing the distance walked then to trying to improve the pace and choosing different routes which would push me a bit more. For instance with steep inclines.
I noticed some benefits almost straight away. Being quite goal driven. I set myself a goal of weight loss of 1lb a week. I started using the Fitbit app to monitor my calorie intake alongside my daily exercise.
It has worked wonders. I was 15st 8lb (clinically obese) when I started. I am now 13st 10lb(still overweight) and counting. I walk at least 2 miles, 5 out of 7 days. Most weeks I walk 6 days and some weeks I walk every day.
My wife and I have also allowed ourselves cheat days. This is so we don't feel deprived so that if we really fancy a treat we can say we will have that on Friday or Saturday and it works. Although we have cheat days we always monitor our calorie intake. This is so we can see over a week or month we still have a healthy deficit.
Having the fitness tracker alongside the app has inspired my wife and I to make additional changes. We have implemented new habits due to the tips popping up on the app now and again. I used to drink tea all day. I have changed this to no added sugar dilute juice and now drink my daily recommended amount of water every day.
Another tip that popped up is to eat a high protein breakfast early in the day this gets your metabolism going early and stages of cravings for carbs and sweet things. Of the options recommended my wife and started making overnight fruit and oat jars. This has also worked. I eat much more salad and a lot less carbs and sugar.
The next habit I am going to try and implement is to not eat at least 2 hours before going to bed.
Overall these are great buys. I love the step counter/goal, distance counter/goal, the exercise tracker, the water intake monitor and the calorie intake/outgoing monitor.
It's not often that you can say a purchase actually has a positive effect on your lifestyle.
One gripe about all the products is you have to pay extra for premium content once you have forked out for the trackers.
The scores I have given are: Inspire HR 7
Fitbit app 9
Charge 3 9
After raving about them you might wonder why not 10's all round. I knocked 1 off the charge 3 and the app for the fact that there is additional content that doesn't come with the purchase of the tech.
The additional knock of a further 2 points is because the HR doesn't offer an altimeter and it doesn't have the advertised battery life of 5 days. It lasts just under that amount of time.
So either one of these would be a good investment for a fitness tracker on a budget. Personally I would fork out the extra £30 for the Charge 3. The altimeter and the extra battery is worth the little bit extra.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Pudge & Prejudice in Books
Jan 31, 2021
I'm not big on romance novels, but when I saw the cover and synopsis of Pudge & Prejudice by A.K. Pittman, I knew that this was one book I had to read. It just seemed so relatable. I'm so happy that I did get a chance to read this book because I have become totally smitten with it!
I thought the plot for Pudge & Prejudice was very well written. It's 1984, and fifteen year old Elyse (nicknamed "Pudge" by her older sister) and her family have just moved to Texas. It's a bit of a culture shock at first, but Elyse learns the ropes quickly. While her beautiful, older sister Jayne has no trouble fitting in at high school, Elyse's body issues complicate things especially when it comes to guys like Billy Fritz. Will Elyse ever be able to get over her looks or will the way she thinks of herself be her downfall?
The plot for Pudge & Prejudice is such a cute one, and it's one I can semi-relate too. (I never had a crush on any of the football players at my school, but I was a chubby teen like Elyse.) Pittman does an excellent job of making the small Texas town that Elyse lives in come to life. I could picture every sight, taste, and smell throughout the book. I just had to open my book, and I was instantly transported. The pacing for Pudge & Prejudice was spot on. I found myself not wanting to put this book down. It held my interest from the very first page. I loved the 1980's references, and I was glad that they weren't overdone like some other books. One thing that I did enjoy about Pudge & Prejudice is that the romance isn't all in your face. It's hard for me to describe, but although there was some romance, it wasn't what the whole book was about. I didn't spot any plot twists, but Pudge & Prejudice is such a fantastic book that it didn't need any plot twists. There was a minor cliffhanger at the end of the book which mentions the summer after Elyse's sophomore year. I'm hoping this will turn into a series because I would love to see what happened to Elyse and her sister Jayne that summer. (I was so sad when the book ended.) I will say that I did find some of the book a bit unrealistic as to who crushes on Elyse. I have never known something like that to happen. Maybe it happens to a small minority, but I never knew it to happen at any school I had ever known. However, this was such a sweet and fun read that I didn't mind. I liked seeing how the story would progress.
Kudos to A.K. Pittman for writing such fantastic well fleshed out characters! I think I knew someone like each character mentioned when I was in school. I could picture each character in Pudge & Prejudice as if they were someone I knew in real life. Elyse was the most relatable character for me. I was her in high school (minus the crush on a football player). I sympathized with her more than any other character I've ever came across in a book. Pittman's portrayal of an overweight teen struggling with self esteem issues was perfect. I loved how sweet Jayne, Elyse's older sister, was. I loved the relationship between between Jayne and Elyse. The way they looked out for each other was really sweet. Charlie was also a really nice guy, and it was interesting to read about his and Jayne's relationship especially when the problem of sports came up. Billy was an interesting character. He's the only one that I couldn't imagine knowing in real life. Perhaps they are unicorns at exist somewhere, but I had never known anyone like Billy when I was a teen (and even now). However, Billy was a complex and great character. I did enjoy reading about him. Lottie was well fleshed out, but she seemed a bit too snobby for my liking. She was way too blunt and what she said about her boyfriend really irked me. She treated her boyfriend horribly. If I was Elyse, I wouldn't have been friends with her for very long, but I understand how hard it was for Elyse to make friends. Unfortunately, I did know people like Lottie in my school. Lydia (Elyse's younger sister) was fun to read about as was Gage although I never really trusted Gage for some reason.
Trigger warnings for Pudge & Prejudice include minor kissing, a mention of sex, a mention of punching someone, cheating, and body issues.
All in all, Pudge & Prejudice is such a cute and fun read. It's got such a relatable plot and a cast full of characters that everyone can relate to. This is one book that I could definitely picture as a successful Netflix series. (I know I'd binge watch for sure!) I would definitely recommend Pudge & Prejudice by A.K. Pittman to everyone aged 13+ that are after a sweet and fun read. This is one book that will leave you smiling long after you've read it.
--
(A special thank you to Lone Star Literary Life for providing me with a paperback copy of Pudge & Prejudice by A.K. Pittman in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
I thought the plot for Pudge & Prejudice was very well written. It's 1984, and fifteen year old Elyse (nicknamed "Pudge" by her older sister) and her family have just moved to Texas. It's a bit of a culture shock at first, but Elyse learns the ropes quickly. While her beautiful, older sister Jayne has no trouble fitting in at high school, Elyse's body issues complicate things especially when it comes to guys like Billy Fritz. Will Elyse ever be able to get over her looks or will the way she thinks of herself be her downfall?
The plot for Pudge & Prejudice is such a cute one, and it's one I can semi-relate too. (I never had a crush on any of the football players at my school, but I was a chubby teen like Elyse.) Pittman does an excellent job of making the small Texas town that Elyse lives in come to life. I could picture every sight, taste, and smell throughout the book. I just had to open my book, and I was instantly transported. The pacing for Pudge & Prejudice was spot on. I found myself not wanting to put this book down. It held my interest from the very first page. I loved the 1980's references, and I was glad that they weren't overdone like some other books. One thing that I did enjoy about Pudge & Prejudice is that the romance isn't all in your face. It's hard for me to describe, but although there was some romance, it wasn't what the whole book was about. I didn't spot any plot twists, but Pudge & Prejudice is such a fantastic book that it didn't need any plot twists. There was a minor cliffhanger at the end of the book which mentions the summer after Elyse's sophomore year. I'm hoping this will turn into a series because I would love to see what happened to Elyse and her sister Jayne that summer. (I was so sad when the book ended.) I will say that I did find some of the book a bit unrealistic as to who crushes on Elyse. I have never known something like that to happen. Maybe it happens to a small minority, but I never knew it to happen at any school I had ever known. However, this was such a sweet and fun read that I didn't mind. I liked seeing how the story would progress.
Kudos to A.K. Pittman for writing such fantastic well fleshed out characters! I think I knew someone like each character mentioned when I was in school. I could picture each character in Pudge & Prejudice as if they were someone I knew in real life. Elyse was the most relatable character for me. I was her in high school (minus the crush on a football player). I sympathized with her more than any other character I've ever came across in a book. Pittman's portrayal of an overweight teen struggling with self esteem issues was perfect. I loved how sweet Jayne, Elyse's older sister, was. I loved the relationship between between Jayne and Elyse. The way they looked out for each other was really sweet. Charlie was also a really nice guy, and it was interesting to read about his and Jayne's relationship especially when the problem of sports came up. Billy was an interesting character. He's the only one that I couldn't imagine knowing in real life. Perhaps they are unicorns at exist somewhere, but I had never known anyone like Billy when I was a teen (and even now). However, Billy was a complex and great character. I did enjoy reading about him. Lottie was well fleshed out, but she seemed a bit too snobby for my liking. She was way too blunt and what she said about her boyfriend really irked me. She treated her boyfriend horribly. If I was Elyse, I wouldn't have been friends with her for very long, but I understand how hard it was for Elyse to make friends. Unfortunately, I did know people like Lottie in my school. Lydia (Elyse's younger sister) was fun to read about as was Gage although I never really trusted Gage for some reason.
Trigger warnings for Pudge & Prejudice include minor kissing, a mention of sex, a mention of punching someone, cheating, and body issues.
All in all, Pudge & Prejudice is such a cute and fun read. It's got such a relatable plot and a cast full of characters that everyone can relate to. This is one book that I could definitely picture as a successful Netflix series. (I know I'd binge watch for sure!) I would definitely recommend Pudge & Prejudice by A.K. Pittman to everyone aged 13+ that are after a sweet and fun read. This is one book that will leave you smiling long after you've read it.
--
(A special thank you to Lone Star Literary Life for providing me with a paperback copy of Pudge & Prejudice by A.K. Pittman in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Groupers (2019) in Movies
Sep 26, 2019
Greetings & Salutations Fellow Movie Fanatics!
It’s not often I see a film that is so good in my opinion, I actually look forward to writing about it and letting you folks know what’s what. In all honesty though, I wouldn’t be surprised if I’m the last person to see it. Quite frankly, I’m surprised that I have not heard or read anything about this movie already. How they managed to put everything together and create a film like this where the runtime is just a 1 hour and 49 minutes is beyond my comprehension. Yes, I said JUST and 1 and 49 minutes. Now that might seem a tad long on the tooth as far as movies go but once you watch it, I think you’ll understand my perception of it. I don’t think my review will do the movie justice but I want to tell you folks about in the hopes that you’ll immediately seek out a means of watching it.
‘Groupers’ is a dramatic comedy film written/directed by Anderson Cowan and stars Nicole Dambro, Jesse Pudles, Cameron Duckett, Peter Mayer-Klepchick, Max Reed III, Brian Loakimedes, Terrance Wentz, Travis Stanberry, Marqus Bobesich, Edward Jackson, Kaleb Rich-Harris, Mike Carano, Robin S. Roth, Laurence Scott Murphy, and Travis Lee Elder.
Orin (Pudles) is a high school student who is dealing with what has become unfortunately an all too common occurrence in schools and colleges today. He is a young person who faces ridicule and bullying because he is gay. The source of the majority of this harassment are two of his fellow students, best friends Brad (Mayer-Klepchick) and Dylan (Duckett). Fast forward to a night when Brad and Dylan decide roll with their over-inflated egos make the rounds at a bar or two and engage in some underage drinking and attempt to impress a fellow female patron or two. Just as the two jocks are beginning to get plastered they’re approached by Meg (Dambro). It doesn’t take much convincing at this point, Meg invites them to come with her and somehow they manage to follow her out of the back of the bar where they are more or less thrown into the back of a van (they pretty much threw themselves in the van). Already this is turning into something that sound like a ‘scary urban legend kind of movie’ right? Not even fully grasping the situation they’re in, Brad and Dylan get psyched up at the supposed prospect of engaging in unnatural activities when fumes engulf the inside of the van and the two jocks are knocked out cold. Several hours later, Brad and Dylan regain consciousness to find themselves restrained at the bottom of an empty pool. Meg, the girl from the bar, is actually a grad student and explains that the two of them are now part of a social experiment and implies that their lives depend on participating in the experiment regardless of the results. What follows is a downward spiral of lies, revenge, more than one close call with death, and an unforeseen series unforeseen guests that turn the tables on the participants in the experiment but each other as well.
The as the film progresses, it becomes vendetta driven. The seriously comedic aspects don’t start until at least a third of the way in unless you count the idiotic behavior of Brad and Dylan. At that point, the humor is driven by the unforeseen circumstances that Meg could not possibly have anticipated nor would anyone who appeared to prepare for this so thoroughly. The fact is the experiment should have progressed as she planned regardless of the outcome. All in all, this is one of the best films I’ve seen all year. I’d actually go so far as to say it’s in the top 5 and will remain there I can guarantee that. The film is similar to that of movies like ‘Pulp Fiction’ in the sense that it progresses backwards in relation to certain events and then jumps back into the present. It is NOT difficult to follow though. The premise of the film is one of the most original I’ve seen in a while. Note how the cast managed to make such an awesome film considering most of it takes place in a derelict house with an empty pool. Nothing is overshadowed in the film either. You have a movie that manages to encompass serious subject matter one minute and the next minute you can’t help but laugh and again neither overshadows the other. The cast? Absolutely awesome! They should be absolutely proud of this film and what they’ve accomplished with it. They should certainly consider ‘getting the band back together’ for other projects too. I’d go so far as to say the film deserves a theater release for sure. Nicole Dambro ‘Meg’ is most certainly a talent movie viewers should look out for. Her character’s presence commands such attention from the other characters while she herself commands the attention of the audience. The film has drugs and alcohol plus questionable dialogue and language plus some nudity so definitely NOT one for young folks. As I mention earlier, it’s a bit long on the tooth timewise at 1 hour and 49 minutes but it’s SO worth it. Just make sure you get drinks and snacks prior to the movie. I’m going to go ahead and rate this one 5 out of 5 stars. Give some real thought to seeing ‘Groupers’ . Trust me on this one
It’s not often I see a film that is so good in my opinion, I actually look forward to writing about it and letting you folks know what’s what. In all honesty though, I wouldn’t be surprised if I’m the last person to see it. Quite frankly, I’m surprised that I have not heard or read anything about this movie already. How they managed to put everything together and create a film like this where the runtime is just a 1 hour and 49 minutes is beyond my comprehension. Yes, I said JUST and 1 and 49 minutes. Now that might seem a tad long on the tooth as far as movies go but once you watch it, I think you’ll understand my perception of it. I don’t think my review will do the movie justice but I want to tell you folks about in the hopes that you’ll immediately seek out a means of watching it.
‘Groupers’ is a dramatic comedy film written/directed by Anderson Cowan and stars Nicole Dambro, Jesse Pudles, Cameron Duckett, Peter Mayer-Klepchick, Max Reed III, Brian Loakimedes, Terrance Wentz, Travis Stanberry, Marqus Bobesich, Edward Jackson, Kaleb Rich-Harris, Mike Carano, Robin S. Roth, Laurence Scott Murphy, and Travis Lee Elder.
Orin (Pudles) is a high school student who is dealing with what has become unfortunately an all too common occurrence in schools and colleges today. He is a young person who faces ridicule and bullying because he is gay. The source of the majority of this harassment are two of his fellow students, best friends Brad (Mayer-Klepchick) and Dylan (Duckett). Fast forward to a night when Brad and Dylan decide roll with their over-inflated egos make the rounds at a bar or two and engage in some underage drinking and attempt to impress a fellow female patron or two. Just as the two jocks are beginning to get plastered they’re approached by Meg (Dambro). It doesn’t take much convincing at this point, Meg invites them to come with her and somehow they manage to follow her out of the back of the bar where they are more or less thrown into the back of a van (they pretty much threw themselves in the van). Already this is turning into something that sound like a ‘scary urban legend kind of movie’ right? Not even fully grasping the situation they’re in, Brad and Dylan get psyched up at the supposed prospect of engaging in unnatural activities when fumes engulf the inside of the van and the two jocks are knocked out cold. Several hours later, Brad and Dylan regain consciousness to find themselves restrained at the bottom of an empty pool. Meg, the girl from the bar, is actually a grad student and explains that the two of them are now part of a social experiment and implies that their lives depend on participating in the experiment regardless of the results. What follows is a downward spiral of lies, revenge, more than one close call with death, and an unforeseen series unforeseen guests that turn the tables on the participants in the experiment but each other as well.
The as the film progresses, it becomes vendetta driven. The seriously comedic aspects don’t start until at least a third of the way in unless you count the idiotic behavior of Brad and Dylan. At that point, the humor is driven by the unforeseen circumstances that Meg could not possibly have anticipated nor would anyone who appeared to prepare for this so thoroughly. The fact is the experiment should have progressed as she planned regardless of the outcome. All in all, this is one of the best films I’ve seen all year. I’d actually go so far as to say it’s in the top 5 and will remain there I can guarantee that. The film is similar to that of movies like ‘Pulp Fiction’ in the sense that it progresses backwards in relation to certain events and then jumps back into the present. It is NOT difficult to follow though. The premise of the film is one of the most original I’ve seen in a while. Note how the cast managed to make such an awesome film considering most of it takes place in a derelict house with an empty pool. Nothing is overshadowed in the film either. You have a movie that manages to encompass serious subject matter one minute and the next minute you can’t help but laugh and again neither overshadows the other. The cast? Absolutely awesome! They should be absolutely proud of this film and what they’ve accomplished with it. They should certainly consider ‘getting the band back together’ for other projects too. I’d go so far as to say the film deserves a theater release for sure. Nicole Dambro ‘Meg’ is most certainly a talent movie viewers should look out for. Her character’s presence commands such attention from the other characters while she herself commands the attention of the audience. The film has drugs and alcohol plus questionable dialogue and language plus some nudity so definitely NOT one for young folks. As I mention earlier, it’s a bit long on the tooth timewise at 1 hour and 49 minutes but it’s SO worth it. Just make sure you get drinks and snacks prior to the movie. I’m going to go ahead and rate this one 5 out of 5 stars. Give some real thought to seeing ‘Groupers’ . Trust me on this one
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Philadelphia Story (1940) in Movies
Sep 14, 2019
It's as good (maybe better) than you've heard
We all know of movies that you hear are considered a "classic", but you've never seen, and the few clips of the film you've seen does not, exactly, motivate you to check out the entire film. THE PHILADELPHIA STORY was one such film for me. This 1940 George Cukor production is lauded for it's dialogue, direction and the stellar performances of the cast - particularly the 3 leads, Katherine Hepburn, Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart.
Recently, I attended our monthly "Secret Movie Night" where we pack the Willow Creek Movie Theater on the 2nd Thursday of every month and get treated to a "Classic" Film (made before 1970) or a "New Classic" (made after 1970), but we don't know what the film is until it starts playing on the screen.
So...imagine how much my eyes rolled back into my head when I saw that this month's film was the aforementioned THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. I sighed to myself and said "all right, time to endure this one all the way through."
And...I couldn't have been more wrong. Almost from the start the script, pacing and witty dialogue of this Broadway-Play-Turned-Movie swept me away. Most certainly aided by the fact that 3 of the best movie stars of all time - at the peak of their abilities - were letting this wonderful dialogue roll off their tongues. This film is a "classic" in every sense of the word.
The plot is...inconsequential. Basically...Philadelphia socialite Tracy Lord (Hepburn) is getting remarried. Her ex-husband (Cary Grant) enlists the aid of a Journalist (Jimmy Stewart) to create havoc at the wedding.
But...this is a film where the journey, not the destination, is the fun of the flick. The 3 leads banter back and forth with each other, arming and disarming (and charming) one another with their quick wit and biting criticism. The Broadway Stage play was written, specifically, for Hepburn and she exceeds in this role. Here is a newsflash - KATHERINE HEPBURN IS A VERY GOOD ACTRESS - and I think this is the very best performance of the very best actress of all time (with apologies to Meryl Streep). She was nominated (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Actress for her performance (losing to a very deserving Ginger Rogers in KITTY FOYLE, I would have voted for Hepburn, but gotta give Rogers her due, she is very good as the titular KITTY FOYLE).
Stepping up to the plate - and matching Hepburn blow for blow - is, surprisingly, Stewart. I didn't really know the story of this film, so I was surprised where Stewart's character-arc went, especially in relation to his relationship with Hepburn. Stewart lost the Oscar in 1939 for his bravura performance in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (inexplicably losing to Robert Donat in GOODBYE MR. CHIPS), so the Academy made up for it's mistake by awarding Stewart the Oscar for Best Actor of 1940. This most certainly was a worthy Oscar-winning performance, but (if I"m going to be honest), pales in comparison to his work in MR. SMITH...
Looming over these two (and Tracy's impeding marriage to another person) is Cary Grant as Tracy's ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven. While Grant's role is the least showy of the 3, he commands the screen just with his presence whenever he shows up and strengthens this triangle with his strength of character.
The supporting cast is just as strong - Ruth Hussy (Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress) as a photographer, Roland Young (as the lecherous Uncle Willy) and, especially, 13 year old Virginia Weidler who is spunky, fun and smart as Tracy's kid sister. The only performer relegated to the back of the scenery is the bland John Howard as George Kittredge (the man Tracy is slated to marry). With Grant and Stewart on the scene, you know that Kittredge has no shot at getting Tracy Lord to the altar (or does he?).
All of these fine actors and the wonderful dialogue were put into the hands of the great Director George Cukor - who had 1 of his 5 Best Director Oscar Nominations for this film (he will win for MY FAIR LADY in 1964). He handles this film with skilled hands letting the actors (and the dialogue) "do their thing" without letting any of them overstay their welcome. It is a masterful job of directing and with strong actors (and off-screen personalities) like Hepburn, Grant and Stewart, he had his hands full.
Sure...it's a 1940's movie, so some of the "social situations" (mostly male/female dynamics) do not age particularly well, but Hepburn was a strong personality - certainly well ahead of the game in terms of equality of strength of the sexes, so these dynamics do not jump at us as strongly as it might have been in a lesser actress's hands.
If you haven't seen this film in sometime (or if you haven't seen it at all) - check out THE PHILADELPHIA STORY - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Recently, I attended our monthly "Secret Movie Night" where we pack the Willow Creek Movie Theater on the 2nd Thursday of every month and get treated to a "Classic" Film (made before 1970) or a "New Classic" (made after 1970), but we don't know what the film is until it starts playing on the screen.
So...imagine how much my eyes rolled back into my head when I saw that this month's film was the aforementioned THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. I sighed to myself and said "all right, time to endure this one all the way through."
And...I couldn't have been more wrong. Almost from the start the script, pacing and witty dialogue of this Broadway-Play-Turned-Movie swept me away. Most certainly aided by the fact that 3 of the best movie stars of all time - at the peak of their abilities - were letting this wonderful dialogue roll off their tongues. This film is a "classic" in every sense of the word.
The plot is...inconsequential. Basically...Philadelphia socialite Tracy Lord (Hepburn) is getting remarried. Her ex-husband (Cary Grant) enlists the aid of a Journalist (Jimmy Stewart) to create havoc at the wedding.
But...this is a film where the journey, not the destination, is the fun of the flick. The 3 leads banter back and forth with each other, arming and disarming (and charming) one another with their quick wit and biting criticism. The Broadway Stage play was written, specifically, for Hepburn and she exceeds in this role. Here is a newsflash - KATHERINE HEPBURN IS A VERY GOOD ACTRESS - and I think this is the very best performance of the very best actress of all time (with apologies to Meryl Streep). She was nominated (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Actress for her performance (losing to a very deserving Ginger Rogers in KITTY FOYLE, I would have voted for Hepburn, but gotta give Rogers her due, she is very good as the titular KITTY FOYLE).
Stepping up to the plate - and matching Hepburn blow for blow - is, surprisingly, Stewart. I didn't really know the story of this film, so I was surprised where Stewart's character-arc went, especially in relation to his relationship with Hepburn. Stewart lost the Oscar in 1939 for his bravura performance in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (inexplicably losing to Robert Donat in GOODBYE MR. CHIPS), so the Academy made up for it's mistake by awarding Stewart the Oscar for Best Actor of 1940. This most certainly was a worthy Oscar-winning performance, but (if I"m going to be honest), pales in comparison to his work in MR. SMITH...
Looming over these two (and Tracy's impeding marriage to another person) is Cary Grant as Tracy's ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven. While Grant's role is the least showy of the 3, he commands the screen just with his presence whenever he shows up and strengthens this triangle with his strength of character.
The supporting cast is just as strong - Ruth Hussy (Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress) as a photographer, Roland Young (as the lecherous Uncle Willy) and, especially, 13 year old Virginia Weidler who is spunky, fun and smart as Tracy's kid sister. The only performer relegated to the back of the scenery is the bland John Howard as George Kittredge (the man Tracy is slated to marry). With Grant and Stewart on the scene, you know that Kittredge has no shot at getting Tracy Lord to the altar (or does he?).
All of these fine actors and the wonderful dialogue were put into the hands of the great Director George Cukor - who had 1 of his 5 Best Director Oscar Nominations for this film (he will win for MY FAIR LADY in 1964). He handles this film with skilled hands letting the actors (and the dialogue) "do their thing" without letting any of them overstay their welcome. It is a masterful job of directing and with strong actors (and off-screen personalities) like Hepburn, Grant and Stewart, he had his hands full.
Sure...it's a 1940's movie, so some of the "social situations" (mostly male/female dynamics) do not age particularly well, but Hepburn was a strong personality - certainly well ahead of the game in terms of equality of strength of the sexes, so these dynamics do not jump at us as strongly as it might have been in a lesser actress's hands.
If you haven't seen this film in sometime (or if you haven't seen it at all) - check out THE PHILADELPHIA STORY - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Downsizing (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Tiny People, Big Mess.
From the trailer this film looked quirky, funny and interesting and has been on my “looking forward to” list for many months. Oh dear, what a let down.
Matt Damon (“The Martian“, “The Great Wall“, “Jason Bourne“) and Kristen Wiig (“mother!“, “Ghostbusters“) play Paul and Audrey Safranek. Paul is a laid-back and hardworking occupational therapist; Audrey has materialistic ambitions over and above their available finances. The two decide to “downsize” making use of a revolutionary Norwegian invention that reduces humans, and most other lifeforms, to a fraction of their normal size. This offers huge wealth to the normal American, since the cost of living in downsized form within the mini-estate called LeisureLand is tiny in comparison to “big folks”. But all does not go well in the transition (unlike the trailer, no spoilers here) and Paul needs to find a new purpose in life as bigger problems loom.
It’s clearly written to be a social satire, and there are some clever angles to be explored here: everyone publicly positions their downsizing based on ‘environmental issues’ and ‘saving the planet’, but most everyone’s real reason is the lifestyle benefits. Also lightly touched on, but never deeply explored, are the impacts that the downsizing initiative is having on the broader American economy and property markets, with the ‘big people’ questioning why small people should have the same rights and votes as them.
But the film never really gets into the meat of any of this. Worse than that, the movie never settles on what it is trying to be. I think we can write off “Sci-Fi” pretty early on. But is it a drama? A comedy? A love story? A socialist rant? An environmental cri de coeur? The film jumbles all these aspects together and treats each so halfheartedly that none of them get properly addressed.
Not only are the audience confused: none of the actors seem to be too sure why they’re there either. Damon – never Mr Personality – should have been able to develop some chemistry with the feisty and dynamic Ms Wiig, but even these early scenes plod along with you thinking “what a dull film”. Things perk up slightly at the LeisureLand sales fair, where Neil Patrick Harris (“Gone Girl“) and a naked Laura Dern (“Star Wars: The Last Jedi“) glibly try to sell a luxury doll’s house to the assembled crowd. American consumerism in miniature.
But post-downsizing the film crashes back to ‘Dullesville Arizona’ again, but with added depression, requiring Christophe Waltz (“Django Unchanined”, “Spectre“), as a dodgy Serbian entrepreneur Dusan Mirkovic, to over-act manically to try to add any sort of energy into the film (which he is only mildly successful at doing). There’s a rather bizarre supporting role from Udo Kier – looking for all the world like Terence Stamp – as Mirkovic’s ship-owning pal, and an almost cameo performance from Jason Sudeikis (“Colossal“).
Enter stage-left Thai-born Hong Chau as Ngoc Lan Tran, a Vietnamese cleaner. There’s a clever angle here: where “average American Joes” like Safranek can live like kings, but the poor still have to scrape by, living in ‘skyscraper Portacabins’, as the menial classes: there’s no escaping class structures, even when 5 inches tall. Chau sums up the uneven nature of the film, as she mostly plays her lines for laughs but then (in a spectacularly good bit of acting in the midst of, I have to say, some pretty poor hamming) bursts into uncontrollable tears.
Just when you think things are going to limp to a unmemorable close, the film ups and leaves LeisureLand to add a completely bizarre final act. (It’s pretty unusual in the UK for people to walk out of a cinema mid-film, but a couple did so at this point). This segment bears no relationship to the downsizing theme whatsoever, since all the players at this point could be full-sized. Aside from an amusing “50 shades of f**k” speech from Ngoc Lan Tran and a “massive explosion”, this story goes nowhere, says nothing (at least not to me) and merely irritates. Throw in a completely anti-climatic non-ending and I genuinely shared a “WTF look” with the stranger sat next to me!
This is all very strange, since this comes from Alexander Payne, who also directed and co-wrote “The Descendants”, one of the most impressive films of the decade. Jim Taylor co-writes (as he has co-written numerous other films with Payne).
I note that in this morning’s London Times that their film critic, Kevin Maher – someone who’s views I am generally pretty well aligned with – gave it 4 *’s out of 5. I can only assume that he either saw a completely different cut of the film, or he is a lot cleverer than I am and understood amazing sub-texts that completely passed me by! Maybe… but I have a sneaking suspicion that the general viewing public will more share my opinion on this than his.
I was tempted to give this just one star as it was such a disappointment to me, but the underlying concept is a good one: it is just one that has, in my humble opinion, been implemented in a bizarrely slipshod manner.
Definitely not recommended. Go and see “Coco” instead!
Matt Damon (“The Martian“, “The Great Wall“, “Jason Bourne“) and Kristen Wiig (“mother!“, “Ghostbusters“) play Paul and Audrey Safranek. Paul is a laid-back and hardworking occupational therapist; Audrey has materialistic ambitions over and above their available finances. The two decide to “downsize” making use of a revolutionary Norwegian invention that reduces humans, and most other lifeforms, to a fraction of their normal size. This offers huge wealth to the normal American, since the cost of living in downsized form within the mini-estate called LeisureLand is tiny in comparison to “big folks”. But all does not go well in the transition (unlike the trailer, no spoilers here) and Paul needs to find a new purpose in life as bigger problems loom.
It’s clearly written to be a social satire, and there are some clever angles to be explored here: everyone publicly positions their downsizing based on ‘environmental issues’ and ‘saving the planet’, but most everyone’s real reason is the lifestyle benefits. Also lightly touched on, but never deeply explored, are the impacts that the downsizing initiative is having on the broader American economy and property markets, with the ‘big people’ questioning why small people should have the same rights and votes as them.
But the film never really gets into the meat of any of this. Worse than that, the movie never settles on what it is trying to be. I think we can write off “Sci-Fi” pretty early on. But is it a drama? A comedy? A love story? A socialist rant? An environmental cri de coeur? The film jumbles all these aspects together and treats each so halfheartedly that none of them get properly addressed.
Not only are the audience confused: none of the actors seem to be too sure why they’re there either. Damon – never Mr Personality – should have been able to develop some chemistry with the feisty and dynamic Ms Wiig, but even these early scenes plod along with you thinking “what a dull film”. Things perk up slightly at the LeisureLand sales fair, where Neil Patrick Harris (“Gone Girl“) and a naked Laura Dern (“Star Wars: The Last Jedi“) glibly try to sell a luxury doll’s house to the assembled crowd. American consumerism in miniature.
But post-downsizing the film crashes back to ‘Dullesville Arizona’ again, but with added depression, requiring Christophe Waltz (“Django Unchanined”, “Spectre“), as a dodgy Serbian entrepreneur Dusan Mirkovic, to over-act manically to try to add any sort of energy into the film (which he is only mildly successful at doing). There’s a rather bizarre supporting role from Udo Kier – looking for all the world like Terence Stamp – as Mirkovic’s ship-owning pal, and an almost cameo performance from Jason Sudeikis (“Colossal“).
Enter stage-left Thai-born Hong Chau as Ngoc Lan Tran, a Vietnamese cleaner. There’s a clever angle here: where “average American Joes” like Safranek can live like kings, but the poor still have to scrape by, living in ‘skyscraper Portacabins’, as the menial classes: there’s no escaping class structures, even when 5 inches tall. Chau sums up the uneven nature of the film, as she mostly plays her lines for laughs but then (in a spectacularly good bit of acting in the midst of, I have to say, some pretty poor hamming) bursts into uncontrollable tears.
Just when you think things are going to limp to a unmemorable close, the film ups and leaves LeisureLand to add a completely bizarre final act. (It’s pretty unusual in the UK for people to walk out of a cinema mid-film, but a couple did so at this point). This segment bears no relationship to the downsizing theme whatsoever, since all the players at this point could be full-sized. Aside from an amusing “50 shades of f**k” speech from Ngoc Lan Tran and a “massive explosion”, this story goes nowhere, says nothing (at least not to me) and merely irritates. Throw in a completely anti-climatic non-ending and I genuinely shared a “WTF look” with the stranger sat next to me!
This is all very strange, since this comes from Alexander Payne, who also directed and co-wrote “The Descendants”, one of the most impressive films of the decade. Jim Taylor co-writes (as he has co-written numerous other films with Payne).
I note that in this morning’s London Times that their film critic, Kevin Maher – someone who’s views I am generally pretty well aligned with – gave it 4 *’s out of 5. I can only assume that he either saw a completely different cut of the film, or he is a lot cleverer than I am and understood amazing sub-texts that completely passed me by! Maybe… but I have a sneaking suspicion that the general viewing public will more share my opinion on this than his.
I was tempted to give this just one star as it was such a disappointment to me, but the underlying concept is a good one: it is just one that has, in my humble opinion, been implemented in a bizarrely slipshod manner.
Definitely not recommended. Go and see “Coco” instead!
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Lightyear (2022) in Movies
Jun 17, 2022
Visually gorgeous animation (2 more)
Sox
Designs of the insects, robots, and especially Zurg
Too much Star Wars influence (1 more)
Writing is a bit underwhelming
A Visually Gorgeous Nod to Science Fiction
Lightyear has a simple premise that fits it into the Toy Story timeline while also giving the film the freedom to creatively do just about whatever it wants. This on-screen version of Buzz Lightyear is what inspired the toy and this film was Andy’s favorite film.
Test pilot Buzz Lightyear (now voiced by Chris Evans) wakes up from hyper sleep to research and explore a nearby planet that is off the course of his ship’s destination. The mission results in Buzz’s entire crew being marooned on a planet overrun by giant insects and bothersome vines. With guilt weighing heavily on his shoulders, Buzz takes it upon himself to be the pilot responsible for hyper speed tests.
After spending a year on the planet, there’s finally enough resources for a test flight. But the mission fails and when Buzz returns, four years have passed. Intending to finish the mission despite the consequences, Buzz pilots test flight after test flight as each mission results in years passing while he’s away. He watches his friends age and die until he finally returns to a planet that now cowers to the ominous Zurg and his battalion of relentlessly inhuman robots.
After co-directing Finding Dory and while working as an animator for Pixar since 1998’s A Bug’s Life, Lightyear is the directorial debut of Angus MacLane. Written by MacLane, Matthew Aldrich (Coco), and Jason Headley (Onward), Lightyear is receiving a lot of backlash for including a same sex relationship as well as an on-screen lesbian kiss (some countries are refusing to release the film in theaters because of it). The relationship involves another Space Ranger named Alisha Hawthorne (Uzo Aduba, Orange is the New Black, Steven Universe). Hawthorne and the life she builds on a planet she is essentially stuck on ends up being the inspiration for not only Buzz, but as well as Alisha’s granddaughter, Izzy (Keke Palmer). Even if you’re against homosexuality, Alisha’s relationship is undeniably the most sentimental aspect of the film. Lightyear wouldn’t be the same without its inclusion.
The film does some different stuff with Zurg as far as who he is and how he relates to Buzz that may or may not retcon what was established in Toy Story 2. Both the story and the writing of the film seem to play it safe as they take a predictable approach to what essentially could have been something more unique. The discussion that’s been floating around about the film is that the jokes, sillier moments, and more absurd lines of dialogue seem to always disrupt the film whenever it tries to take a step towards being a thrilling sci-fi film. It’s difficult to argue with this statement, especially since Mo Morrison’s (Taika Waititi) whole purpose in the film is to broadcast his incompetence and the film revolves around a team of misfits attempting to save the planet despite their shortcomings.
The film is visually one of the year’s best looking films; animated or otherwise. Taking inspiration from early sci-fi films and space operas like Star Wars, Angus MacLane wanted Lightyear to look, “cinematic,” and, “chunky.” If you see the film in IMAX, this is the first animated film to ever have sequences shown in the 1.43:1 aspect ratio (it’s usually 2.39:1) as visual effects supervisor Jane Yen states that a virtual IMAX camera was developed to shoot said sequences, which were then cropped to standard definition. The film is gorgeous and even looks different in comparison to other Pixar films. With its lush colors, heavy use of shadows, bright lighting for highlights, and character designs for insects and robots that seem to be directly inspired by the likes of Starship Troopers and Gundam, Lightyear is a visually delicious treat.
Angus MacLane has his love for Star Wars showcased a bit too often in Lightyear as certain sequences seem to be directly lifted from the George Lucas created franchise. Many of Zurg’s scenes are a direct homage to various Darth Vader sequences in the Star Wars films. When Buzz is carried upside down by a Zyclops as Izzy and the others try to help him free borrows heavily from The Empire Strikes Back when Luke is hanging upside down in the icy Wampa cave; Buzz is even wearing an orange and white outfit that resembles Luke’s when he pilots the X-Wing. The love for Star Wars is as much a hindrance as it is an inspiration. The film spends more time referencing its origins rather than putting more of a focus on establishing its own identity.
Sox is legitimately the most fun character of the film. He’s humorous and resourceful; a robot cat that is Buzz’s most useful tool and companion. If Disney doesn’t resurrect Teddy Ruxpin technology for a new Sox animatronic toy then it will end up being wasted potential to a soul crushing extent.
Like Toy Story 4, Lightyear is an unnecessary installment to the Toy Story franchise, but is enjoyable nevertheless. Its homage to science fiction makes the animated film feel more like a sci-fi actioner rather than an animated film the majority of the time. It has a rich and palpable atmosphere that is gorgeously animated and is filled with the laugh out loud and heartfelt moments Pixar is typically known for.
Test pilot Buzz Lightyear (now voiced by Chris Evans) wakes up from hyper sleep to research and explore a nearby planet that is off the course of his ship’s destination. The mission results in Buzz’s entire crew being marooned on a planet overrun by giant insects and bothersome vines. With guilt weighing heavily on his shoulders, Buzz takes it upon himself to be the pilot responsible for hyper speed tests.
After spending a year on the planet, there’s finally enough resources for a test flight. But the mission fails and when Buzz returns, four years have passed. Intending to finish the mission despite the consequences, Buzz pilots test flight after test flight as each mission results in years passing while he’s away. He watches his friends age and die until he finally returns to a planet that now cowers to the ominous Zurg and his battalion of relentlessly inhuman robots.
After co-directing Finding Dory and while working as an animator for Pixar since 1998’s A Bug’s Life, Lightyear is the directorial debut of Angus MacLane. Written by MacLane, Matthew Aldrich (Coco), and Jason Headley (Onward), Lightyear is receiving a lot of backlash for including a same sex relationship as well as an on-screen lesbian kiss (some countries are refusing to release the film in theaters because of it). The relationship involves another Space Ranger named Alisha Hawthorne (Uzo Aduba, Orange is the New Black, Steven Universe). Hawthorne and the life she builds on a planet she is essentially stuck on ends up being the inspiration for not only Buzz, but as well as Alisha’s granddaughter, Izzy (Keke Palmer). Even if you’re against homosexuality, Alisha’s relationship is undeniably the most sentimental aspect of the film. Lightyear wouldn’t be the same without its inclusion.
The film does some different stuff with Zurg as far as who he is and how he relates to Buzz that may or may not retcon what was established in Toy Story 2. Both the story and the writing of the film seem to play it safe as they take a predictable approach to what essentially could have been something more unique. The discussion that’s been floating around about the film is that the jokes, sillier moments, and more absurd lines of dialogue seem to always disrupt the film whenever it tries to take a step towards being a thrilling sci-fi film. It’s difficult to argue with this statement, especially since Mo Morrison’s (Taika Waititi) whole purpose in the film is to broadcast his incompetence and the film revolves around a team of misfits attempting to save the planet despite their shortcomings.
The film is visually one of the year’s best looking films; animated or otherwise. Taking inspiration from early sci-fi films and space operas like Star Wars, Angus MacLane wanted Lightyear to look, “cinematic,” and, “chunky.” If you see the film in IMAX, this is the first animated film to ever have sequences shown in the 1.43:1 aspect ratio (it’s usually 2.39:1) as visual effects supervisor Jane Yen states that a virtual IMAX camera was developed to shoot said sequences, which were then cropped to standard definition. The film is gorgeous and even looks different in comparison to other Pixar films. With its lush colors, heavy use of shadows, bright lighting for highlights, and character designs for insects and robots that seem to be directly inspired by the likes of Starship Troopers and Gundam, Lightyear is a visually delicious treat.
Angus MacLane has his love for Star Wars showcased a bit too often in Lightyear as certain sequences seem to be directly lifted from the George Lucas created franchise. Many of Zurg’s scenes are a direct homage to various Darth Vader sequences in the Star Wars films. When Buzz is carried upside down by a Zyclops as Izzy and the others try to help him free borrows heavily from The Empire Strikes Back when Luke is hanging upside down in the icy Wampa cave; Buzz is even wearing an orange and white outfit that resembles Luke’s when he pilots the X-Wing. The love for Star Wars is as much a hindrance as it is an inspiration. The film spends more time referencing its origins rather than putting more of a focus on establishing its own identity.
Sox is legitimately the most fun character of the film. He’s humorous and resourceful; a robot cat that is Buzz’s most useful tool and companion. If Disney doesn’t resurrect Teddy Ruxpin technology for a new Sox animatronic toy then it will end up being wasted potential to a soul crushing extent.
Like Toy Story 4, Lightyear is an unnecessary installment to the Toy Story franchise, but is enjoyable nevertheless. Its homage to science fiction makes the animated film feel more like a sci-fi actioner rather than an animated film the majority of the time. It has a rich and palpable atmosphere that is gorgeously animated and is filled with the laugh out loud and heartfelt moments Pixar is typically known for.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Killers of the Flower moon (2023) in Movies
Oct 27, 2023
Best Thing Scorses (and DeNiro) have done in many, many years
The BankofMarquis would highly recommend you see the latest epic (and we do mean EPIC) film from famed Director Martin Scorsese in a movie theater. Not because of the beautiful Cinematography by Rodrigo Prieto, not because of the Epic-ness of the tale told and not because movie theaters could use your business (all of which are reasons to see it in the movie theaters). You need to see KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON in a movie theater so that you cannot be distracted by things around you (most, notably your PHONE). One needs to immerse themselves in the experience of this 3 1/2 movie to totally understand and appreciate it.
And that is because KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON is as much atmosphere, mood and setting as it is story. Early on, one of the characters warns another one that the Osage people (the central group in this story) “don’t say much, listen more and let long pauses hang between words” and Scorsese does much of the same. Letting the story hang - and be told in - the silence between the words. And it works…if you are paying attention.
Starring Scorsese regulars Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert DeNiro and featuring a wonderful, soon-to-be-Oscar-Nominated performance by newcomer Lily Gladstone, KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON is based on the novel of the same name by David Gann and tells the tale of the Osage Nation who discover oil on their land in the 1920’s and the white men who come to try to connive and steal it away from them.
Taken on the surface, this story could be a pretty straight-forward white-man steals from the Indians story (substitute Buffalo for Oil and we have a story told so many times before - most notably in the Oscar winning movie DANCING WITH WOLVES), but in the hands of master craftsman Scorsese, this movie is much, much more than that.
Easily his best work in at least 10 years, Scorsese lets this story breathe and focuses in on the mood and atmosphere of the period - and the disparate people that inhabit…and battle for…this land and oil. It is the work of a maestro nearing the end of his tenure, skillfully conducting the Orchestra, one last, loving, magnificent time.
Like Scorsese, this is Oscar winner Robert DeNiro’s best performance in years and will not be surprised if he garners his first Oscar nomination in many, many years. Gone are the histrionics and over-the-top gestures and facial ticks that mar his comedic work (and in some cases his non-comedic work). DeNiro returns to the compact, internal “method” acting that was the hallmark of his early (best) work. You can see that this player still has “game” and he gives the role of William “King” Hale some dimension. This is good for this character could have, in lesser hands, turned into a “mustache-twirling” villain tying the heroine to the railroad tracks but in DeNiro’s capable hands (with Scorsese skillfully leading him) it is so much more.
Speaking of the Heroine, newcomer Lily Gladstone is just a strong and compact in her portrayal of Mollie Burkhart - the Osage woman in the center of the story. She gives Lily some sharp edges along with the rounded corners she is given in the script and the story and more than holds her own with the likes of DeNiro and DiCaprio in the many, many scenes she has with them. Most of the time, she needs to express quite a bit with a look or silence (while looking away) and she is able to convey that very, very well.
Fairing less well in this film is Leonardo DiCaprio as Ernest Burkhart, the sad-sack that is the pawn of “King” Hale and the love interest of Lily…or is he? DiCaprio is very good as Burkhart (when has he ever given a bad performance) but this character is thinly written and you can almost see the puppet strings on him. This, probably, is on purpose by Scorsese…but against two solid characters like DeNiro’s “King” Hale and Gladstone’s Molly, there just needed to be a bit more to DiCaprio’s character to make him more interesting.
Since this is a Scorsese film, it is fleshed out by some wonderful character actors led by the always watchable Jesse Plemons as the FBI agent sent to unpack what is going on. Joining him in what are (essentially) extended cameos are John Lithgow, newly minted Oscar winner Brendan Fraser, the always good Tantoo Cardinal, Scott Shepherd (as Leo’s brother) and a myriad of “that guy” and “interesting looking roughnecks” to flesh the feel of the film out - both on the white man as well as the Osage sides of the story.
The aforementioned Cinematography by Rodrigo Prieto along with the Costuming (Jacqueline West), Production Design (Jack Fisk) and Score (Robbie Peterson) all add to the mood of the piece and makes it very successful, indeed.
Just be forewarned, it is as every bit of 3 1/2 hours as it’s runtime dictates. There will be long, slow, silent parts that will make you tempted to pick up your phone - but resist that and enjoy the epic mood piece that is KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON. You won’t regret it.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
And that is because KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON is as much atmosphere, mood and setting as it is story. Early on, one of the characters warns another one that the Osage people (the central group in this story) “don’t say much, listen more and let long pauses hang between words” and Scorsese does much of the same. Letting the story hang - and be told in - the silence between the words. And it works…if you are paying attention.
Starring Scorsese regulars Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert DeNiro and featuring a wonderful, soon-to-be-Oscar-Nominated performance by newcomer Lily Gladstone, KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON is based on the novel of the same name by David Gann and tells the tale of the Osage Nation who discover oil on their land in the 1920’s and the white men who come to try to connive and steal it away from them.
Taken on the surface, this story could be a pretty straight-forward white-man steals from the Indians story (substitute Buffalo for Oil and we have a story told so many times before - most notably in the Oscar winning movie DANCING WITH WOLVES), but in the hands of master craftsman Scorsese, this movie is much, much more than that.
Easily his best work in at least 10 years, Scorsese lets this story breathe and focuses in on the mood and atmosphere of the period - and the disparate people that inhabit…and battle for…this land and oil. It is the work of a maestro nearing the end of his tenure, skillfully conducting the Orchestra, one last, loving, magnificent time.
Like Scorsese, this is Oscar winner Robert DeNiro’s best performance in years and will not be surprised if he garners his first Oscar nomination in many, many years. Gone are the histrionics and over-the-top gestures and facial ticks that mar his comedic work (and in some cases his non-comedic work). DeNiro returns to the compact, internal “method” acting that was the hallmark of his early (best) work. You can see that this player still has “game” and he gives the role of William “King” Hale some dimension. This is good for this character could have, in lesser hands, turned into a “mustache-twirling” villain tying the heroine to the railroad tracks but in DeNiro’s capable hands (with Scorsese skillfully leading him) it is so much more.
Speaking of the Heroine, newcomer Lily Gladstone is just a strong and compact in her portrayal of Mollie Burkhart - the Osage woman in the center of the story. She gives Lily some sharp edges along with the rounded corners she is given in the script and the story and more than holds her own with the likes of DeNiro and DiCaprio in the many, many scenes she has with them. Most of the time, she needs to express quite a bit with a look or silence (while looking away) and she is able to convey that very, very well.
Fairing less well in this film is Leonardo DiCaprio as Ernest Burkhart, the sad-sack that is the pawn of “King” Hale and the love interest of Lily…or is he? DiCaprio is very good as Burkhart (when has he ever given a bad performance) but this character is thinly written and you can almost see the puppet strings on him. This, probably, is on purpose by Scorsese…but against two solid characters like DeNiro’s “King” Hale and Gladstone’s Molly, there just needed to be a bit more to DiCaprio’s character to make him more interesting.
Since this is a Scorsese film, it is fleshed out by some wonderful character actors led by the always watchable Jesse Plemons as the FBI agent sent to unpack what is going on. Joining him in what are (essentially) extended cameos are John Lithgow, newly minted Oscar winner Brendan Fraser, the always good Tantoo Cardinal, Scott Shepherd (as Leo’s brother) and a myriad of “that guy” and “interesting looking roughnecks” to flesh the feel of the film out - both on the white man as well as the Osage sides of the story.
The aforementioned Cinematography by Rodrigo Prieto along with the Costuming (Jacqueline West), Production Design (Jack Fisk) and Score (Robbie Peterson) all add to the mood of the piece and makes it very successful, indeed.
Just be forewarned, it is as every bit of 3 1/2 hours as it’s runtime dictates. There will be long, slow, silent parts that will make you tempted to pick up your phone - but resist that and enjoy the epic mood piece that is KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON. You won’t regret it.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).