Search
Search results
Dakotah Salazar (12 KP) rated Child's Play (2019) in Movies
Jul 1, 2019
Good Kills (1 more)
Good Doll Design
Slasher Cliches (1 more)
Predictable
A.I. Chucky reborn in a tech savvy world.
As Chucky embarks into a new century, the filmmakers realize that it was time to make Chucky into artificial intelligence. In previous films, there was always a sense of witchcraft going on where it made Chucky come to life. This makes more sense of making Chucky as a Amazon Alexa type of technology. A Buddi of sorts.
They cleverly weave that into the depth of where Chucky's madness is taking over him. In how it started was a little far fetched. A guy decided to break the rules at his job because of poor working conditions and a over the top douche of a boss. It was mishandled how it happened.
I think that Aubrey Plaza, Gabriel Bateman, and Brian Tyree Howard are amazing in this movie. They really sell the world that was created for them, especially Bateman who is tortured by Chucky's antics.
As for the doll design, I think it looked really good. There are moments where rendering in the CGI was needed, but overall, it looked amazing in some scenes. I specifically remember the moment where Bateman is walking Chucky into his room and the way his facial expressions are used makes him weirdly human, and that increases the creepy factor within Chucky.
As for the negatives, it follows the typical ground plan of every slasher, especially Child's Play movies. Mom's boyfriend is a douche. Mom doesn't believe her son. Friends believe Andy. Nice cop who lives with mother may be the knight in shining armor. We can see where this is going, and it also takes a while for Chucky to actually kill something. It panders too much and I think they could've had more potential with the horror.
They cleverly weave that into the depth of where Chucky's madness is taking over him. In how it started was a little far fetched. A guy decided to break the rules at his job because of poor working conditions and a over the top douche of a boss. It was mishandled how it happened.
I think that Aubrey Plaza, Gabriel Bateman, and Brian Tyree Howard are amazing in this movie. They really sell the world that was created for them, especially Bateman who is tortured by Chucky's antics.
As for the doll design, I think it looked really good. There are moments where rendering in the CGI was needed, but overall, it looked amazing in some scenes. I specifically remember the moment where Bateman is walking Chucky into his room and the way his facial expressions are used makes him weirdly human, and that increases the creepy factor within Chucky.
As for the negatives, it follows the typical ground plan of every slasher, especially Child's Play movies. Mom's boyfriend is a douche. Mom doesn't believe her son. Friends believe Andy. Nice cop who lives with mother may be the knight in shining armor. We can see where this is going, and it also takes a while for Chucky to actually kill something. It panders too much and I think they could've had more potential with the horror.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Child's Play (2019) in Movies
Apr 11, 2020
Creepy but not in the way they intended
Let’s face it, nobody has high hopes when it comes to a reboot of a classic horror and Chucky is one of those characters that has been done to death over the years. Whilst this film wasn’t as terrible as I expected, it was still rather lacking.
To start with there’s the huge elephant in the room, or should I say the huge Buddi doll in the room. I really do not know what they were thinking with the design of the doll. It looks horrendous. It’s creepy, but not in a scary way. It’s creepy because of how awful it looks. The doll from the original looks a lot better (and scarier) than this. It spoilt a lot of the film for me as I spent most of my time cringing or cracking up laughing at how bad it looked.
Which was a shame, as I liked a lot of what they’d done with the rest of the film. It was a great idea to introduce the technology side with the smart devices and makes it a lot more relevant to modern society, and quite scarily realistic. At first I wasn’t keen that they’d changed Andy from a younger child to a teenager, but as the film goes on I started to realise this was actually a good idea. Sadly though Aubrey Plaza was a little underused, but I love that Mark Hamill was the voice of Chucky. There’s also a decent amount of blood and gore in this film which is always appreciated.
There is a slight sadness that this film hasn’t included more references to the original but overall it would’ve been a rather decent and enjoyable horror if it hadn’t been for the damn awful design of the doll.
To start with there’s the huge elephant in the room, or should I say the huge Buddi doll in the room. I really do not know what they were thinking with the design of the doll. It looks horrendous. It’s creepy, but not in a scary way. It’s creepy because of how awful it looks. The doll from the original looks a lot better (and scarier) than this. It spoilt a lot of the film for me as I spent most of my time cringing or cracking up laughing at how bad it looked.
Which was a shame, as I liked a lot of what they’d done with the rest of the film. It was a great idea to introduce the technology side with the smart devices and makes it a lot more relevant to modern society, and quite scarily realistic. At first I wasn’t keen that they’d changed Andy from a younger child to a teenager, but as the film goes on I started to realise this was actually a good idea. Sadly though Aubrey Plaza was a little underused, but I love that Mark Hamill was the voice of Chucky. There’s also a decent amount of blood and gore in this film which is always appreciated.
There is a slight sadness that this film hasn’t included more references to the original but overall it would’ve been a rather decent and enjoyable horror if it hadn’t been for the damn awful design of the doll.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated It: Chapter Two (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
Pennywise Returns - Not As Scary As Chapter 1, But Still Great
It Chapter 2 is a 2019 supernatural/horror movie directed by Andy Muschietti from a screenplay by Gary Dauberman. It was produced by New Line Cinema, Double Dream, Vertigo Entertainment, and Rideback, and distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures. The film stars Jessica Chastain, James McAvoy, Bill Hader, and Bill Skarsgard.
The evil clown Pennywise returns to terrorize the town of Derry, Maine after being defeated by the members of the Losers' Club 27 years ago. The childhood friends have long since gone their separate ways but are called home to keep their promise by Mike Harlon who never moved away. Not quite remembering everything from their past but each traumatized by their own scars, the Loser must conquer their fears and destroy Pennywise for good.
This movie was great. Personally, I think chapter 1 was better, but this film definitely didn't disappoint. Right from the beginning it set the tone with a opening scene of a gay couple being severely beaten. I really liked the casting and who they chose to portray the children of the Losers club, they did a great job. The acting from everyone was good, Jessica Chastain, James McAvoy and Bill Hader's performances were superb. I enjoyed how this movie expanded on the lore of Pennywise and his origin. Even with a long run time, it didn't feel like a super long movie. To me some of the most enjoyable parts were the flashbacks where you got to see the younger cast. It was good that they had a big part in this movie too. I give this movie an 8/10 and it also gets my "Must See Seal Of Approval".
The evil clown Pennywise returns to terrorize the town of Derry, Maine after being defeated by the members of the Losers' Club 27 years ago. The childhood friends have long since gone their separate ways but are called home to keep their promise by Mike Harlon who never moved away. Not quite remembering everything from their past but each traumatized by their own scars, the Loser must conquer their fears and destroy Pennywise for good.
This movie was great. Personally, I think chapter 1 was better, but this film definitely didn't disappoint. Right from the beginning it set the tone with a opening scene of a gay couple being severely beaten. I really liked the casting and who they chose to portray the children of the Losers club, they did a great job. The acting from everyone was good, Jessica Chastain, James McAvoy and Bill Hader's performances were superb. I enjoyed how this movie expanded on the lore of Pennywise and his origin. Even with a long run time, it didn't feel like a super long movie. To me some of the most enjoyable parts were the flashbacks where you got to see the younger cast. It was good that they had a big part in this movie too. I give this movie an 8/10 and it also gets my "Must See Seal Of Approval".
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
After being shipped from New York to Madagascar and then leaving Madagascar only to end up stranded in Africa, our four favorite zoo animals are back and causing a ruckus once again, but this time in Europe.
Madagascar 3: Europe’s Most Wanted starts off where Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa left off, with Alex the lion(Ben Stiller), Marty the zebra(Chris Rock), Gloria the hippo (Jada Pinkett Smith) and Melman the giraffe (David Schwimmer) are stranded in Africa longing to get back to their beloved zoo in New York City. They realize the only way they will be able to return home is by relying on their super competent penguin buddies who have made their way to Monte Carlo with their chimp powered plane and the loot of jewels and money they squandered upon in Africa during the second movie.
So the quartet of four legged lovable characters along with a few familiar lemurs, King Julien (Sacha Baron Cohen), the self proclaimed King of Madagascar and his assistants Maurice (Cedric the Entertainer) and Mort (Andy Richter), decide to make their way to Monte Carlo, find the penguins, the chimpanzees, and head to New York.
Once the gang arrives in Monte Carlo it doesn’t take long for them to incite panic. Enter Captain Chantal Dubois (Francis McDormand), an impassive, somewhat indestructible animal control officer, who wants nothing more than to add a lion to her already impressive collection of animal heads mounted on her office wall. Due to her relentless pursuit and unconventional hunting techniques the animals are forced to take refuge aboard a circus train where they are welcomed by a simple-minded sea lion named Stefano (Martin Short). Stefano introduces the group to the rest of the animal circus performers and they each demonstrate their amazing tricks. The train is on its way to London and the circus crew hopes their show will garner the attention of a big time U.S. circus promoter looking to bring a show to New York. This was Alex and company’s ticket home! But would they be up to the challenge of putting on the greatest show anyone has ever seen AND evade Dubois who is hot on their tails every step of the way?
The simple storyline of animals wanting to get home has been the common thread in all three Madagascar movies. Dreamworks Animation rarely reaches the emotional expertise of Pixar, but they always manage to create movies that are still very much engaging, humorous and visually stunning. Eric Darnell and Tom McGrath, who directed the first two movies, come together once again and steer clear from the choppy, thrown together sequence of events that have plagued some sequels and trilogies. I truly believe that keeping with the same directoral chemistry plays a big part in this movie’s well-paced and entertaining storyline.
This movie is definitely geared toward the kindergarten and preschool aged audience with much of the action in the movie involving the circus performance and its Cirque du Soleil-type entertainment. Let’s add the 3D component and voila! An amazing, kaleidoscope of lights and pyrotechnics along with wonderful performances of acrobats, seal shot from cannon, high wire dancing giraffe and hippo, and flying penguins. It’s like a box of animal crackers come to life!
Madagascar 3: Europe’s Most Wanted starts off where Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa left off, with Alex the lion(Ben Stiller), Marty the zebra(Chris Rock), Gloria the hippo (Jada Pinkett Smith) and Melman the giraffe (David Schwimmer) are stranded in Africa longing to get back to their beloved zoo in New York City. They realize the only way they will be able to return home is by relying on their super competent penguin buddies who have made their way to Monte Carlo with their chimp powered plane and the loot of jewels and money they squandered upon in Africa during the second movie.
So the quartet of four legged lovable characters along with a few familiar lemurs, King Julien (Sacha Baron Cohen), the self proclaimed King of Madagascar and his assistants Maurice (Cedric the Entertainer) and Mort (Andy Richter), decide to make their way to Monte Carlo, find the penguins, the chimpanzees, and head to New York.
Once the gang arrives in Monte Carlo it doesn’t take long for them to incite panic. Enter Captain Chantal Dubois (Francis McDormand), an impassive, somewhat indestructible animal control officer, who wants nothing more than to add a lion to her already impressive collection of animal heads mounted on her office wall. Due to her relentless pursuit and unconventional hunting techniques the animals are forced to take refuge aboard a circus train where they are welcomed by a simple-minded sea lion named Stefano (Martin Short). Stefano introduces the group to the rest of the animal circus performers and they each demonstrate their amazing tricks. The train is on its way to London and the circus crew hopes their show will garner the attention of a big time U.S. circus promoter looking to bring a show to New York. This was Alex and company’s ticket home! But would they be up to the challenge of putting on the greatest show anyone has ever seen AND evade Dubois who is hot on their tails every step of the way?
The simple storyline of animals wanting to get home has been the common thread in all three Madagascar movies. Dreamworks Animation rarely reaches the emotional expertise of Pixar, but they always manage to create movies that are still very much engaging, humorous and visually stunning. Eric Darnell and Tom McGrath, who directed the first two movies, come together once again and steer clear from the choppy, thrown together sequence of events that have plagued some sequels and trilogies. I truly believe that keeping with the same directoral chemistry plays a big part in this movie’s well-paced and entertaining storyline.
This movie is definitely geared toward the kindergarten and preschool aged audience with much of the action in the movie involving the circus performance and its Cirque du Soleil-type entertainment. Let’s add the 3D component and voila! An amazing, kaleidoscope of lights and pyrotechnics along with wonderful performances of acrobats, seal shot from cannon, high wire dancing giraffe and hippo, and flying penguins. It’s like a box of animal crackers come to life!
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Untouchables (1987) in Movies
Dec 16, 2020 (Updated Dec 16, 2020)
A little melodramatic
(not) Film #7 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: The Untouchables
As with most of the films on this list, The Untouchables is a film that has garnered a great deal of acclaim over the years, and yet if I’ve ever seen it, I’m ashamed to admit that I don’t remember it.
The Untouchables (1987) was directed by Brian De Palma and stars Kevin Costner as Eliot Ness, a treasury agent who recruits a group of fellow cops and agents to take down mob boss Al Capone (Robert De Niro) in Prohibition-era Chicago, with Ness and his agents soon becoming known as the “untouchables” after refusing large bribes. Sean Connery, Andy Garcia and Charles Martin Smith make up the rest of the Untouchables.
An American gangster film is a dime a dozen, there have been countless over the years and the 1920s and 30s are always featured fairly heavily, no doubt due to the large number of criminal gangs and mobsters around in that era. Personally whilst The Untouchables is a good film, I don’t think there’s a lot in this to make it particularly notable or outstanding above any of the others. It’s engaging and interesting, which it should be considering the subject matter – it is based on a true story after all. The entire production looks great too; the sets, costumes and locations are very well done and definitely look the part.
The issue with The Untouchables is it’s too melodramatic, too over the top and clichéd. This isn’t helped by Ennio Morricone’s score, which feels far too heavy handed, cheesy and out of place for the scenes. Even the open title credits is ridiculously over dramatic. You can definitely tell this film was made in the 80s and I’m afraid that’s not a good thing. There’s also some questionable acting from Kevin Costner, and while admittedly I’ve never been a big fan of his, the script and some of the almost cringeworthy scenes with Ness’s wife don’t help matters. And De Niro’s Capone pops up in scenes that feel rather random and forced during the first hour, and seem completely out of place with the rest of the story.
Despite this, The Untouchables is still fairly enjoyable and this is mostly due to Sean Connery’s Malone, the role that he won his only Oscar for. The Irishman, despite sounding very Scottish, injects some much needed heart, humour and spirit into the film and without him, this would have been a very lacklustre film indeed. Even Connery’s horrific Irish accent is a source of amusement, and without the character having been described as Irish, I would’ve just assumed he was Scottish.
Overall, I found The Untouchables to be a decent and entertaining gangster film as long as you can ignore the melodramatic overtones. But I’m not convinced that it’s anything memorable or above average, and if it even deserves a place on this list.
Update: So after having watched this film and headed to my Bucket List to scratch it off, I realised that the film on this list is actually The Intouchables, a French film from 2012 also known as Untouchable. Oops. So I’m afraid The Untouchables isn’t number 7 ticked off my bucket list after all 😆
As with most of the films on this list, The Untouchables is a film that has garnered a great deal of acclaim over the years, and yet if I’ve ever seen it, I’m ashamed to admit that I don’t remember it.
The Untouchables (1987) was directed by Brian De Palma and stars Kevin Costner as Eliot Ness, a treasury agent who recruits a group of fellow cops and agents to take down mob boss Al Capone (Robert De Niro) in Prohibition-era Chicago, with Ness and his agents soon becoming known as the “untouchables” after refusing large bribes. Sean Connery, Andy Garcia and Charles Martin Smith make up the rest of the Untouchables.
An American gangster film is a dime a dozen, there have been countless over the years and the 1920s and 30s are always featured fairly heavily, no doubt due to the large number of criminal gangs and mobsters around in that era. Personally whilst The Untouchables is a good film, I don’t think there’s a lot in this to make it particularly notable or outstanding above any of the others. It’s engaging and interesting, which it should be considering the subject matter – it is based on a true story after all. The entire production looks great too; the sets, costumes and locations are very well done and definitely look the part.
The issue with The Untouchables is it’s too melodramatic, too over the top and clichéd. This isn’t helped by Ennio Morricone’s score, which feels far too heavy handed, cheesy and out of place for the scenes. Even the open title credits is ridiculously over dramatic. You can definitely tell this film was made in the 80s and I’m afraid that’s not a good thing. There’s also some questionable acting from Kevin Costner, and while admittedly I’ve never been a big fan of his, the script and some of the almost cringeworthy scenes with Ness’s wife don’t help matters. And De Niro’s Capone pops up in scenes that feel rather random and forced during the first hour, and seem completely out of place with the rest of the story.
Despite this, The Untouchables is still fairly enjoyable and this is mostly due to Sean Connery’s Malone, the role that he won his only Oscar for. The Irishman, despite sounding very Scottish, injects some much needed heart, humour and spirit into the film and without him, this would have been a very lacklustre film indeed. Even Connery’s horrific Irish accent is a source of amusement, and without the character having been described as Irish, I would’ve just assumed he was Scottish.
Overall, I found The Untouchables to be a decent and entertaining gangster film as long as you can ignore the melodramatic overtones. But I’m not convinced that it’s anything memorable or above average, and if it even deserves a place on this list.
Update: So after having watched this film and headed to my Bucket List to scratch it off, I realised that the film on this list is actually The Intouchables, a French film from 2012 also known as Untouchable. Oops. So I’m afraid The Untouchables isn’t number 7 ticked off my bucket list after all 😆
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Wrath of Man (2021) in Movies
Jun 16, 2021
Surprising Depth of Character and GREAT action
I am always up for a good “B” action flick - something mindless that shows a macho hero (usually seeking revenge) taking out a boatload of faceless/nameless bad guys. So it was with much anticipation that I settled back into my chair to clear my head and catch Jason Statham doing what he does best.
What I got was something much, much more.
Directed by Guy Ritchie (LOCK, STOCK AND TWO SMOKING BARRELS), WRATH OF MAN tells the tale of seemingly innocent, meek, quiet man who takes a job with an Armored Car Company. Of course, since this meek man is played with a steely-eyed gaze by Jason Statham, there is something more to him. In the course of this film, of course, we find out.
Ritchie is a seasoned veteran Director of these sorts of films (LOCK STOCK…, SNATCH and the recent THE GENTLEMEN being examples of his ability) and this film nicely showcases his skill. He sets up the characters and the action scenes deftly and he does something that I really love to see in a film - he shows the same action scene from 3 different character's’ perspectives, every time we view the same scene from a different point of view it adds some depth to the scene (and the characters). It is this aspect of the film - the depth of character - that I was not expecting to see.
Statham, of course, is perfectly cast as the mysterious “H”. He has a strength of character (as well as a physical strength) needed to drive this story forward. I believed his motivations as a character while eagerly anticipating his “turn on a dime” change from “meek and mild” to “action hero”. In lesser hands, it would have seemed corny, but with Statham (and the direction of Ritchie), it is not.
Ritchie, of course, fills this world with a “rogues gallery” of tough guys, henchmen, unlikely heroes and villians. Standouts of this group were veteran character actor Holt McCallany (a veritable “that guy” actor) who plays a fellow armored car driver, Jeffrey Donovan (TV’s BURN NOTICE) and Scott Eastwood (Clint’s son) as a couple of “bad guys” and Darrell D’Silva (a veteran of European films who was heretofore unknown to me) as one of Statham’s allies. Whenever D’Silva was on the screen, he would draw my attention (in a good way). I’ll be keeping an eye out for him in future films.
Also along for the fun are the great Eddie Marsan (as the Manager of the Armored Car Company) and a gravelly voiced Andy Garcia (as a shadowy person from Statham’s past). They both know exactly what type of film they are in and look like they are having fun with their roles. Oh…and there is also a Josh Hartnett sighting (the “it” actor of the early ‘2000’s). His character of another Armored Car Driver is the weakest written and least realized of the characters in this film - but it was fun to see him on screen again.
But…all of these fine qualities rise or fall on the Direction of the action sequences and in the capable hands of Guy Ritchie, these scenes succeed greatly. He sets up and choreographs the fights (both hand-to-hand and gun fights) in such a way that the audience is never confused about what is going on (unless it is a deliberate choice) and he eschews the quick-cut editing that (I feel) is a sign of a weakly conceived and choreographed fight.
I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed this film - not only for the action, but for the depth of character and quality that was put up on the screen.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
What I got was something much, much more.
Directed by Guy Ritchie (LOCK, STOCK AND TWO SMOKING BARRELS), WRATH OF MAN tells the tale of seemingly innocent, meek, quiet man who takes a job with an Armored Car Company. Of course, since this meek man is played with a steely-eyed gaze by Jason Statham, there is something more to him. In the course of this film, of course, we find out.
Ritchie is a seasoned veteran Director of these sorts of films (LOCK STOCK…, SNATCH and the recent THE GENTLEMEN being examples of his ability) and this film nicely showcases his skill. He sets up the characters and the action scenes deftly and he does something that I really love to see in a film - he shows the same action scene from 3 different character's’ perspectives, every time we view the same scene from a different point of view it adds some depth to the scene (and the characters). It is this aspect of the film - the depth of character - that I was not expecting to see.
Statham, of course, is perfectly cast as the mysterious “H”. He has a strength of character (as well as a physical strength) needed to drive this story forward. I believed his motivations as a character while eagerly anticipating his “turn on a dime” change from “meek and mild” to “action hero”. In lesser hands, it would have seemed corny, but with Statham (and the direction of Ritchie), it is not.
Ritchie, of course, fills this world with a “rogues gallery” of tough guys, henchmen, unlikely heroes and villians. Standouts of this group were veteran character actor Holt McCallany (a veritable “that guy” actor) who plays a fellow armored car driver, Jeffrey Donovan (TV’s BURN NOTICE) and Scott Eastwood (Clint’s son) as a couple of “bad guys” and Darrell D’Silva (a veteran of European films who was heretofore unknown to me) as one of Statham’s allies. Whenever D’Silva was on the screen, he would draw my attention (in a good way). I’ll be keeping an eye out for him in future films.
Also along for the fun are the great Eddie Marsan (as the Manager of the Armored Car Company) and a gravelly voiced Andy Garcia (as a shadowy person from Statham’s past). They both know exactly what type of film they are in and look like they are having fun with their roles. Oh…and there is also a Josh Hartnett sighting (the “it” actor of the early ‘2000’s). His character of another Armored Car Driver is the weakest written and least realized of the characters in this film - but it was fun to see him on screen again.
But…all of these fine qualities rise or fall on the Direction of the action sequences and in the capable hands of Guy Ritchie, these scenes succeed greatly. He sets up and choreographs the fights (both hand-to-hand and gun fights) in such a way that the audience is never confused about what is going on (unless it is a deliberate choice) and he eschews the quick-cut editing that (I feel) is a sign of a weakly conceived and choreographed fight.
I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed this film - not only for the action, but for the depth of character and quality that was put up on the screen.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Long Shot (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
#Punching.
#Punching refers to an in-family joke….. my WhatsApp reply to my son when he sent me a picture of his new “Brazilian supermodel girlfriend” (she’s not). Bronwyn is now my daughter-in-law!
Similarly, the ‘out-there’ journalist Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan) has been holding a candle for the glacial ice-queen Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron) for nearly twenty years. At the age of 16 she was his babysitter. Always with an interest in school issues, she has now risen to the dizzy heights of secretary (“of State”) to the President of the United States (Bob Odenkirk). With Charlotte getting the opportunity to run for President, fate arranges for Fred to get hired as a speechwriter on the team to help inject some necessary humour into Charlotte’s icy public persona. But in terms of romantic options, the shell-suited Fred is surely #punching isn’t he?
A rare thing.
Getting the balance right for a “romantic comedy” is a tricky job, but “Long Shot” just about gets it spot on. The comedy is sharp with a whole heap of great lines, some of which will need a second watch to catch. It’s also pleasingly politically incorrect, with US news anchors in particular being lampooned for their appallingly sexist language.
Just occasionally, the humour flips into Farrelly-levels of dubious taste (one “Mary-style” incident in particular was, for me, very funny but might test some viewer’s “ugh” button). The film also earns its UK15 certificate from the extensive array of “F” words utilized, and for some casual drug use.
Romantically, the film harks back to a classic blockbuster of 1990, but is well done and touching.
Writing and Directing
The sharp and tight screenplay was written by Dan Sterling, who wrote the internationally controversial Seth Rogen/James Franco comedy “The Interview” from 2014, and Liz Hannah, whose movie screenplay debut was the Spielberg drama “The Post“.
Behind the camera is Jonathan Levine, who previously directed the pretty awful “Snatched” from 2017 (a film I have started watching on a plane but never finished) but on the flip side he has on his bio the interesting rom-com-zombie film “Warm Bodies” and the moving cancer comedy “50:50”, also with Rogan, from 2011.
Also worthy of note in the technical department is the cinematography by Yves Bélanger (“The Mule“, “Brooklyn“, “Dallas Buyers Club“) with some lovely angles and tracking shots (a kitchen dance scene has an impressively leisurely track-away).
The Cast
Seth Rogen is a bit of an acquired taste: he’s like the US version of Johnny Vegas. Here he is suitably geeky when he needs to be, but has the range to make some of the pathos work in the inevitable “downer” scenes. Theron is absolutely gorgeous on-screen (although unlike the US anchors I OBVIOUSLY also appreciate her style and acting ability!). She really is the Grace Kelly of the modern age. She’s no stranger to comedy, having been in the other Seth (Macfarlane)’s “A Million Ways to Die in the West“. But she seems to be more comfortable with this material, and again gets the mix of comedy, romance and drama spot-on.
The strong supporting cast includes the unknown (to me) June Diane Raphael who is very effective at the cock-blocking Maggie, Charlotte’s aide; O’Shea Jackson Jr. as Fred’s buddy Lance; and Ravi Patel as the staffer Tom.
But winning the prize for the most unrecognizable cast member was Andy Serkis as the wizened old Rupert Murdoch-style media tycoon Parker Wembley: I genuinely got a shock as the titles rolled that this was him.
Final thoughts.
Although possibly causing offence to some, this is a fine example of a US comedy that delivers consistent laughs. Most of the audience chatter coming out of the screening was positive. At just over 2 hours, it breaks my “90 minute comedy” rule, but just about gets away with it. It’s not quite for me at the bar of “Game Night“, but it’s pretty close. Recommended.
#Punching refers to an in-family joke….. my WhatsApp reply to my son when he sent me a picture of his new “Brazilian supermodel girlfriend” (she’s not). Bronwyn is now my daughter-in-law!
Similarly, the ‘out-there’ journalist Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan) has been holding a candle for the glacial ice-queen Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron) for nearly twenty years. At the age of 16 she was his babysitter. Always with an interest in school issues, she has now risen to the dizzy heights of secretary (“of State”) to the President of the United States (Bob Odenkirk). With Charlotte getting the opportunity to run for President, fate arranges for Fred to get hired as a speechwriter on the team to help inject some necessary humour into Charlotte’s icy public persona. But in terms of romantic options, the shell-suited Fred is surely #punching isn’t he?
A rare thing.
Getting the balance right for a “romantic comedy” is a tricky job, but “Long Shot” just about gets it spot on. The comedy is sharp with a whole heap of great lines, some of which will need a second watch to catch. It’s also pleasingly politically incorrect, with US news anchors in particular being lampooned for their appallingly sexist language.
Just occasionally, the humour flips into Farrelly-levels of dubious taste (one “Mary-style” incident in particular was, for me, very funny but might test some viewer’s “ugh” button). The film also earns its UK15 certificate from the extensive array of “F” words utilized, and for some casual drug use.
Romantically, the film harks back to a classic blockbuster of 1990, but is well done and touching.
Writing and Directing
The sharp and tight screenplay was written by Dan Sterling, who wrote the internationally controversial Seth Rogen/James Franco comedy “The Interview” from 2014, and Liz Hannah, whose movie screenplay debut was the Spielberg drama “The Post“.
Behind the camera is Jonathan Levine, who previously directed the pretty awful “Snatched” from 2017 (a film I have started watching on a plane but never finished) but on the flip side he has on his bio the interesting rom-com-zombie film “Warm Bodies” and the moving cancer comedy “50:50”, also with Rogan, from 2011.
Also worthy of note in the technical department is the cinematography by Yves Bélanger (“The Mule“, “Brooklyn“, “Dallas Buyers Club“) with some lovely angles and tracking shots (a kitchen dance scene has an impressively leisurely track-away).
The Cast
Seth Rogen is a bit of an acquired taste: he’s like the US version of Johnny Vegas. Here he is suitably geeky when he needs to be, but has the range to make some of the pathos work in the inevitable “downer” scenes. Theron is absolutely gorgeous on-screen (although unlike the US anchors I OBVIOUSLY also appreciate her style and acting ability!). She really is the Grace Kelly of the modern age. She’s no stranger to comedy, having been in the other Seth (Macfarlane)’s “A Million Ways to Die in the West“. But she seems to be more comfortable with this material, and again gets the mix of comedy, romance and drama spot-on.
The strong supporting cast includes the unknown (to me) June Diane Raphael who is very effective at the cock-blocking Maggie, Charlotte’s aide; O’Shea Jackson Jr. as Fred’s buddy Lance; and Ravi Patel as the staffer Tom.
But winning the prize for the most unrecognizable cast member was Andy Serkis as the wizened old Rupert Murdoch-style media tycoon Parker Wembley: I genuinely got a shock as the titles rolled that this was him.
Final thoughts.
Although possibly causing offence to some, this is a fine example of a US comedy that delivers consistent laughs. Most of the audience chatter coming out of the screening was positive. At just over 2 hours, it breaks my “90 minute comedy” rule, but just about gets away with it. It’s not quite for me at the bar of “Game Night“, but it’s pretty close. Recommended.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Daring Dustbunnies in Tabletop Games
Mar 3, 2021
I have never once entertained the thought that every time I run the vacuum cleaner I may be sucking up fluffballs that are psychically linked to magical beings. Why have I never thought of this before learning of this game’s existence? What kind of egocentric human am I?? Well no more! I now care about each pile of dust accumulating under my couches and will strive to keep them there as long as I can. Or at least as long as my wife allows.
Daring Dustbunnies is a card-driven racing game for two to five players. In it players assume the roles of mystical rabbits whose fate is linked to colored fluffballs attempting to get close to the vacuum without being sucked up into it. Through timely card play the mystical hares can eke out a win or suffer the ultimate fate of being sucked into the evil Hoover (not a sponsor) of death.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game 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 box. I will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. Like what you read? You may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup place the Start tile and Vacuum tile on the table with room tiles between depending on the number of players. The gold, silver, and bronze medals, all six fluffballeeples, cat, and dog tokens will be placed on or near the modular board. Each player will be dealt two character cards, choosing one to represent themselves and the other to be flipped as a resource and Fate token organizer. Fate tokens are dealt to each player. The players will look at the Fate cards and then place them face-down on their inactive character tile. Each player receives one Wire token, three starting Static tokens, and four Move cards. The remaining Move cards and Charms cards are to be shuffled and set in decks near the board. The player who last used a vacuum will be the starting player and the game may begin!
On a turn the active player will choose one of their Move cards to play and resolve. Move cards typically show a numeric value and color of fluffball to be moved. Should the player throw a 1 of Pink, then the pink fluffballeeple is moved one space closer to the vacuum tile. If there are no other fluffballs on this space the player will perform the space’s special action. This could include playing an extra Move card, flipping the top Move card and resolving, dumping a Move card from hand, taking or giving a Move card from hand from/to another player, or moving another fluffball one space forward. If a fluffball lands on a space containing another fluffball the moving fluff instead receives a number of Static tokens equal to the number of other fluffballs on the space.
Some Move cards do not move fluffballs. Instead they may activate the Cat or Dog, which forces fluffballs either toward the vacuum or away from it, respectively (darn cats). Some cards are Talismans which force the active player to reveal their Fate card for the remainder of the round. This is important because maneuvering fluffballs in order to keep their own Fated fluff free from the vacuum is a perilous task for the player. Once their Fate token is revealed other players may then focus Move on that color fluff in order to knock out its player for the round.
Once a fluffball approaches the vacuum tile and is forced to move into it, the fluffball stops at the Tube of Destiny. Within this tube fluffballs are able to be saved with savvy cardplay, but one more Move card played matching the fluffball’s color is a death sentence to to the Bag of Beyond. Fluffballs in the Bag may not be saved by any means.
Ways a fluffball can be saved from the Tube are by Charm cards, Wire tokens, and character special abilities (possibly). Charm cards may be played before or after a Move card has been played on any turn. They are powered by Static tokens (game currency) and can offer a multitude of special powers. Wire tokens are provided at game setup and can move a fluffball backwards (away from the vacuum) for a cost of ALL the player’s Static. All characters will have special abilities printed on their character tiles, and are able to be used once per round. As each game lasts three rounds, these are very powerful.
Play continues with each player taking turns playing their cards, using Charms and special abilities, and refilling their hand of cards once all cards in hand have been played until all end of round conditions are met. The fluffball closest to the vacuum without being inside it is awarded a Gold medal, the next closest the Silver, and next closest the Bronze. At the end of three rounds players compare numbers of medals won and determine the winner!
Components. I want to start by saying I absolutely adore the theme and art style of this game. How quirky and wonderful is this theme? And it is so colorful and stinking cute! I just smile a giddy smile every time I play this because I am just having so much fun getting into the theme and using the components. That said, this game uses a lot of different components and the quality is very very good across the board. The only real minor quibble I have is the design of the Static tokens. They are supposed to be placed below the Fate token on the backside of the character tile, but that area of the tile coupled with the busy Static token design sometimes causes my eyes to go a little funny. It’s very busy-on-busy. If only one item was busy and the other a little more plain I would be completely happy with the components.
The gameplay is very unique and enjoyable. Yes, I know several games that use cardplay to move tokens along a race track. But usually in games like that the goal is to be the first across the finish line. Here the player wants their linked fluffball to be closest to the finish line without actually passing it. This little twist is something I very much appreciate and causes players to adopt different strategies than one might normally utilize.
The different special powers of the characters and Charms cards are also aspects that help raise this game’s favor. Add in the abilities of the Cat and Dog and now there are so many options for players to choose as they play the game. I know Andy Hopwood, designer, takes pride in his ability to offer games with familiar playability but with a twist. Daring Dustbunnies is no different, but is also quite a bit different than what I was expecting.
I happen to very much love this game. My 4-year-old son and I also play a watered-down version of the game without the special powers and Charms (because he can’t read yet), and he absolutely adores it. In fact, my boy enjoys just carrying the vacuum tile around the house as he would a treasured stuffie. If THAT doesn’t say “great game,” I don’t know what does.
Wait, yes I do know what does. I can say it. Daring Dustbunnies is a great game! As I am learning more about Andy Hopwood’s games I am starting to appreciate the wonderful designs and this one is one of his best, in my opinion. If you are looking for a cute and excellent game with an inventive theme and familiar gameplay, but with a twist, then you need to look into Daring Dustbunnies. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a frantically Fated 16 / 18. Play it with your littles. Play it with your significant other(s). Play it with family and friends. I have a feeling all will enjoy it.
Daring Dustbunnies is a card-driven racing game for two to five players. In it players assume the roles of mystical rabbits whose fate is linked to colored fluffballs attempting to get close to the vacuum without being sucked up into it. Through timely card play the mystical hares can eke out a win or suffer the ultimate fate of being sucked into the evil Hoover (not a sponsor) of death.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game 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 box. I will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. Like what you read? You may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup place the Start tile and Vacuum tile on the table with room tiles between depending on the number of players. The gold, silver, and bronze medals, all six fluffballeeples, cat, and dog tokens will be placed on or near the modular board. Each player will be dealt two character cards, choosing one to represent themselves and the other to be flipped as a resource and Fate token organizer. Fate tokens are dealt to each player. The players will look at the Fate cards and then place them face-down on their inactive character tile. Each player receives one Wire token, three starting Static tokens, and four Move cards. The remaining Move cards and Charms cards are to be shuffled and set in decks near the board. The player who last used a vacuum will be the starting player and the game may begin!
On a turn the active player will choose one of their Move cards to play and resolve. Move cards typically show a numeric value and color of fluffball to be moved. Should the player throw a 1 of Pink, then the pink fluffballeeple is moved one space closer to the vacuum tile. If there are no other fluffballs on this space the player will perform the space’s special action. This could include playing an extra Move card, flipping the top Move card and resolving, dumping a Move card from hand, taking or giving a Move card from hand from/to another player, or moving another fluffball one space forward. If a fluffball lands on a space containing another fluffball the moving fluff instead receives a number of Static tokens equal to the number of other fluffballs on the space.
Some Move cards do not move fluffballs. Instead they may activate the Cat or Dog, which forces fluffballs either toward the vacuum or away from it, respectively (darn cats). Some cards are Talismans which force the active player to reveal their Fate card for the remainder of the round. This is important because maneuvering fluffballs in order to keep their own Fated fluff free from the vacuum is a perilous task for the player. Once their Fate token is revealed other players may then focus Move on that color fluff in order to knock out its player for the round.
Once a fluffball approaches the vacuum tile and is forced to move into it, the fluffball stops at the Tube of Destiny. Within this tube fluffballs are able to be saved with savvy cardplay, but one more Move card played matching the fluffball’s color is a death sentence to to the Bag of Beyond. Fluffballs in the Bag may not be saved by any means.
Ways a fluffball can be saved from the Tube are by Charm cards, Wire tokens, and character special abilities (possibly). Charm cards may be played before or after a Move card has been played on any turn. They are powered by Static tokens (game currency) and can offer a multitude of special powers. Wire tokens are provided at game setup and can move a fluffball backwards (away from the vacuum) for a cost of ALL the player’s Static. All characters will have special abilities printed on their character tiles, and are able to be used once per round. As each game lasts three rounds, these are very powerful.
Play continues with each player taking turns playing their cards, using Charms and special abilities, and refilling their hand of cards once all cards in hand have been played until all end of round conditions are met. The fluffball closest to the vacuum without being inside it is awarded a Gold medal, the next closest the Silver, and next closest the Bronze. At the end of three rounds players compare numbers of medals won and determine the winner!
Components. I want to start by saying I absolutely adore the theme and art style of this game. How quirky and wonderful is this theme? And it is so colorful and stinking cute! I just smile a giddy smile every time I play this because I am just having so much fun getting into the theme and using the components. That said, this game uses a lot of different components and the quality is very very good across the board. The only real minor quibble I have is the design of the Static tokens. They are supposed to be placed below the Fate token on the backside of the character tile, but that area of the tile coupled with the busy Static token design sometimes causes my eyes to go a little funny. It’s very busy-on-busy. If only one item was busy and the other a little more plain I would be completely happy with the components.
The gameplay is very unique and enjoyable. Yes, I know several games that use cardplay to move tokens along a race track. But usually in games like that the goal is to be the first across the finish line. Here the player wants their linked fluffball to be closest to the finish line without actually passing it. This little twist is something I very much appreciate and causes players to adopt different strategies than one might normally utilize.
The different special powers of the characters and Charms cards are also aspects that help raise this game’s favor. Add in the abilities of the Cat and Dog and now there are so many options for players to choose as they play the game. I know Andy Hopwood, designer, takes pride in his ability to offer games with familiar playability but with a twist. Daring Dustbunnies is no different, but is also quite a bit different than what I was expecting.
I happen to very much love this game. My 4-year-old son and I also play a watered-down version of the game without the special powers and Charms (because he can’t read yet), and he absolutely adores it. In fact, my boy enjoys just carrying the vacuum tile around the house as he would a treasured stuffie. If THAT doesn’t say “great game,” I don’t know what does.
Wait, yes I do know what does. I can say it. Daring Dustbunnies is a great game! As I am learning more about Andy Hopwood’s games I am starting to appreciate the wonderful designs and this one is one of his best, in my opinion. If you are looking for a cute and excellent game with an inventive theme and familiar gameplay, but with a twist, then you need to look into Daring Dustbunnies. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a frantically Fated 16 / 18. Play it with your littles. Play it with your significant other(s). Play it with family and friends. I have a feeling all will enjoy it.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
The Galaxy like you've never seen it before
Crafting sequels is never easy, but creating a fitting sequel to 2015’s biggest movie and one of the world’s biggest franchises is no easy feat. Not only do you have to make a film that moves the game on from The Force Awakens, but one that also meets the incredibly high expectations of fans across the globe.
Who took on this ridiculous job I hear you cry? Well Looper’s Rian Johnson takes over directorial duties from J.J. Abrams and the result is The Last Jedi. But is this a fitting sequel or a lacklustre affair?
Following on from the events of 2015’s The Force Awakens, Rey (Daisy Ridley) develops her newly discovered abilities with the guidance of Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill), who is unsettled by the strength of her powers. Meanwhile, the Resistance, led by General Leia Organa (Carrie Fisher) prepares to do battle with not only the First Order, but Supreme Leader Snoke (Andy Serkis) and Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) too.
The Last Jedi opens with a beautifully choreographed battle between good and evil as Resistance pilot Poe Dameron (Oscar Issac), assisted by the adorable BB-8, tries to take on the evil First Order. This stunningly directed sequence sets up The Last Jedi perfectly – this is one hell of a good-looking film.
Practical effects are the order of the day here, something some other franchises seem to have forgotten about, and the movie is all the better for having them there. From large scale model ships to the more intricate fauna, The Last Jedi seeps with attention to detail – no stone has been left unturned in creating a living, breathing world. So, it’s all the more disappointing to be sucked out of the spectacle with some occasionally very shoddy CGI.
Apart from a couple of lapses that are geared more towards the film’s finale, The Last Jedi is probably the best-looking Star Wars film out there. From the blood-red lair of Supreme Leader Snoke to the salt-encrusted planet of the film’s gorgeous finale, every frame gives you something to look at. Rian Johnson carefully focusses the cameras on our main characters, using intense close-ups to bleed every single drop of emotion from them. Speaking of which, the entire cast is absolutely mesmerising.
Daisy Ridley deserves recognition for being utterly brilliant in this instalment. I had my reservations about her ability to cope with the toll this franchise would take on the actress but she has proved me wrong, and then some. John Boyega is excellent and Laura Dern’s addition to the galaxy is wonderful. The problem is the cast is just so huge, it’s impossible to mention everyone. Oh, Adam Driver’s performance really has to be seen to be believed and Kylo Ren is definitely moving up the ranks of the Star Wars villain hierarchy. His take on the character in The Last Jedi is exceptional.
If The Force Awakens was J.J. Abrams love letter to the franchise, then The Last Jedi is the break-up song
Special mention must go however, to Carrie Fisher. Rian Johnson has stated that none of Fisher’s scenes were changed or moved after the actresses’ untimely death last year, but her time on screen really does take on new, and emotional, meaning here. Princess Leia is as much a Star Wars staple as Chewie, Luke or Han and the galaxy certainly won’t shine brighter without her presence. Nevertheless, this was a fitting tribute to the actress and a wonderful body of work to have her name attached to.
The script is like nothing Star Wars has ever seen before. Riddled with more twists and turns than spaghetti junction, it’s almost entirely unpredictable and that’s something you really don’t see come around very often. In any other franchise it would be exhausting, but here it’s exhilarating and incredibly well written.
At 152 minutes, The Last Jedi is a long film, the longest in the franchise in fact and there’s no getting away from that. The middle act in which some of our heroes traverse a vast casino planet are a little off pace and it does have a whiff of George Lucas’ less than stellar prequels about it, but the rest of the film moves at breakneck speed.
Overall, Rian Johnson has taken risks here and the majority of them pay off with fantastic results; Star Wars: The Last Jedi is a worthy sequel to an ever-growing brand and one that outdoes its predecessor by some margin. If The Force Awakens was J.J. Abrams love letter to the franchise, then The Last Jedi is the break-up song because while still feeling like a Star Wars movie in many ways, it’s so different it’ll have you picking your jaw up off the floor more than once. My only question is: why isn’t Rian Johnson directing Episode IX?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/14/star-wars-the-last-jedi-review-the-galaxy-like-youve-never-seen-it-before/
Who took on this ridiculous job I hear you cry? Well Looper’s Rian Johnson takes over directorial duties from J.J. Abrams and the result is The Last Jedi. But is this a fitting sequel or a lacklustre affair?
Following on from the events of 2015’s The Force Awakens, Rey (Daisy Ridley) develops her newly discovered abilities with the guidance of Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill), who is unsettled by the strength of her powers. Meanwhile, the Resistance, led by General Leia Organa (Carrie Fisher) prepares to do battle with not only the First Order, but Supreme Leader Snoke (Andy Serkis) and Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) too.
The Last Jedi opens with a beautifully choreographed battle between good and evil as Resistance pilot Poe Dameron (Oscar Issac), assisted by the adorable BB-8, tries to take on the evil First Order. This stunningly directed sequence sets up The Last Jedi perfectly – this is one hell of a good-looking film.
Practical effects are the order of the day here, something some other franchises seem to have forgotten about, and the movie is all the better for having them there. From large scale model ships to the more intricate fauna, The Last Jedi seeps with attention to detail – no stone has been left unturned in creating a living, breathing world. So, it’s all the more disappointing to be sucked out of the spectacle with some occasionally very shoddy CGI.
Apart from a couple of lapses that are geared more towards the film’s finale, The Last Jedi is probably the best-looking Star Wars film out there. From the blood-red lair of Supreme Leader Snoke to the salt-encrusted planet of the film’s gorgeous finale, every frame gives you something to look at. Rian Johnson carefully focusses the cameras on our main characters, using intense close-ups to bleed every single drop of emotion from them. Speaking of which, the entire cast is absolutely mesmerising.
Daisy Ridley deserves recognition for being utterly brilliant in this instalment. I had my reservations about her ability to cope with the toll this franchise would take on the actress but she has proved me wrong, and then some. John Boyega is excellent and Laura Dern’s addition to the galaxy is wonderful. The problem is the cast is just so huge, it’s impossible to mention everyone. Oh, Adam Driver’s performance really has to be seen to be believed and Kylo Ren is definitely moving up the ranks of the Star Wars villain hierarchy. His take on the character in The Last Jedi is exceptional.
If The Force Awakens was J.J. Abrams love letter to the franchise, then The Last Jedi is the break-up song
Special mention must go however, to Carrie Fisher. Rian Johnson has stated that none of Fisher’s scenes were changed or moved after the actresses’ untimely death last year, but her time on screen really does take on new, and emotional, meaning here. Princess Leia is as much a Star Wars staple as Chewie, Luke or Han and the galaxy certainly won’t shine brighter without her presence. Nevertheless, this was a fitting tribute to the actress and a wonderful body of work to have her name attached to.
The script is like nothing Star Wars has ever seen before. Riddled with more twists and turns than spaghetti junction, it’s almost entirely unpredictable and that’s something you really don’t see come around very often. In any other franchise it would be exhausting, but here it’s exhilarating and incredibly well written.
At 152 minutes, The Last Jedi is a long film, the longest in the franchise in fact and there’s no getting away from that. The middle act in which some of our heroes traverse a vast casino planet are a little off pace and it does have a whiff of George Lucas’ less than stellar prequels about it, but the rest of the film moves at breakneck speed.
Overall, Rian Johnson has taken risks here and the majority of them pay off with fantastic results; Star Wars: The Last Jedi is a worthy sequel to an ever-growing brand and one that outdoes its predecessor by some margin. If The Force Awakens was J.J. Abrams love letter to the franchise, then The Last Jedi is the break-up song because while still feeling like a Star Wars movie in many ways, it’s so different it’ll have you picking your jaw up off the floor more than once. My only question is: why isn’t Rian Johnson directing Episode IX?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/14/star-wars-the-last-jedi-review-the-galaxy-like-youve-never-seen-it-before/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Six Minutes to Midnight (2021) in Movies
Apr 4, 2021 (Updated Apr 4, 2021)
Historical story (Potential for a great film) (1 more)
Judi Dench
B-grade spy caper antics (1 more)
Some ridiculous plot-points
A "39 Steps-esque" thriller that doesn't match its potential
In "Six Minutes to Midnight", it's the summer of 1939 (so we are in a parallel time-flow here with the events of "The Dig"). A private girl's school - the Augusta Victoria College in Bexhill-on-Sea - is run with loving care by the spinster Miss Rocholl (Judi Dench). But the 'finishing school' is unusual, in that all its teenage students are German. Indeed, they are the offspring of prominent Nazis.
When half-German English teacher Thomas Miller (Eddie Izzard) applies for a suddenly vacant position, he is taken on to share the teaching duties with Rocholl and Ilse (Carla Juri). But in snooping into the activities going on there, he finds mystery and danger.
Positives:
This is a fascinating premise for a movie that will appeal to an older generation, along the lines of "They don't make them like this anymore". It has elements of the 'good guy on the run' that struck parallels with "The 39 Steps" for me.
It's great that the school is all based on historical fact. Miss Rochol did indeed run the school, as a part of a plan to infiltrate British high-society with pro-Nazi sympathies ahead of an invasion. In real-life, one of the pupils was the god-daughter of Heinrich Himmler and one - Bettina von Ribbentrop - was the daughter of the German foreign minister.
After a comic "Family Guy"-style set of production logos to kick off with (for a full one and a half minutes!!), the pre-title sequence is a superb scene-setter. What exactly is going on here? A frantic scrabbling in a bookcase. A pier-end disappearance. The school badge (a genuine reproduction!) with its Union flag and Nazi Swastika insignia. The girls performing a ballet-like ritual on the beach with batons. (This looks to be a cracker, I thought).
Judi Dench. Superb as always.
Chris Seager does the cinematography, and impressively so. Most of Seager's CV has been TV work, so it must be delightful to be given the breadth of a cinema screen to capture landscapes like this.
I like the clever title: "Six Minutes to Midnight". I assumed it was intended solely to reflect the imminence of war. But it actually has another meaning entirely.
Negatives:
For me, was a highly frustrating film. All of the great credibility and atmosphere it builds up in the first 30 minutes, it then squanders by diving off into sub-Hitchcock spy capers.
Izzard becomes a 'man on the run', and doesn't seem credible at that. (I appreciate the irony of this statement given that this is the man who ran 32 marathons in 31 days for charity!) But Izzard is built for distance and not for speed, and some of the police chase scenes in the movie strain credibility to breaking point. Another actor might have been able to pull this off better.
There's a lack of continuity in the film: was it perhaps cut down from a much longer running time? At one point, Miller is a wanted murderer with his face plastered on the front pages. The next, kindly bus driver Charlie (Jim Broadbent) is unaccountably aiding him and Rochol seems to have assumed his innocence in later scenes.
Various spy caper clichés are mined to extreme - including those old classics 'swerve to avoid bullets'; 'gun shot but different gun'; and 'shot guy seems to live forever'. And there are double-agent 'twists' occurring that are utterly predictable.
A very specific continuity irritation for me was in an 'aircraft landing' scene. Markers are separated by nine paces (I went back and counted them!) yet a view from a plane shows them a 'runway-width' apart. This might have escaped scrutiny were it shown just once. But no... we have ground shot; air shot; ground shot; air shot..... repeatedly!
Summary thoughts: This was one of the cinema trailers that most appealed to me over a year ago, in those heady days in the sunlit-uplands of life before Covid-19. It's a movie that showed a great deal of promise, since the history is fascinating. And there is probably a really great TV serial in here: showing the 'alternate history' consequences of these high-society German girls penetrating British society and steering the war in a different direction (screenplay idea (C) RJ Mann!) But the potential is squandered with a non-credible spy caper bolted onto the side.
So with "Six Minutes to Midnight", Downton-director Andy Goddard has made a perfectly watchable 'rainy Sunday afternoon' film, that I enjoyed in part for its 'old-school' quirkiness. But it's frustrating that all the promise couldn't be transitioned into a more satisfying movie.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/04/six-minutes-to-midnight-a-39-steps-esque-thriller-but-not-quite-pulling-it-off/. Thanks).
When half-German English teacher Thomas Miller (Eddie Izzard) applies for a suddenly vacant position, he is taken on to share the teaching duties with Rocholl and Ilse (Carla Juri). But in snooping into the activities going on there, he finds mystery and danger.
Positives:
This is a fascinating premise for a movie that will appeal to an older generation, along the lines of "They don't make them like this anymore". It has elements of the 'good guy on the run' that struck parallels with "The 39 Steps" for me.
It's great that the school is all based on historical fact. Miss Rochol did indeed run the school, as a part of a plan to infiltrate British high-society with pro-Nazi sympathies ahead of an invasion. In real-life, one of the pupils was the god-daughter of Heinrich Himmler and one - Bettina von Ribbentrop - was the daughter of the German foreign minister.
After a comic "Family Guy"-style set of production logos to kick off with (for a full one and a half minutes!!), the pre-title sequence is a superb scene-setter. What exactly is going on here? A frantic scrabbling in a bookcase. A pier-end disappearance. The school badge (a genuine reproduction!) with its Union flag and Nazi Swastika insignia. The girls performing a ballet-like ritual on the beach with batons. (This looks to be a cracker, I thought).
Judi Dench. Superb as always.
Chris Seager does the cinematography, and impressively so. Most of Seager's CV has been TV work, so it must be delightful to be given the breadth of a cinema screen to capture landscapes like this.
I like the clever title: "Six Minutes to Midnight". I assumed it was intended solely to reflect the imminence of war. But it actually has another meaning entirely.
Negatives:
For me, was a highly frustrating film. All of the great credibility and atmosphere it builds up in the first 30 minutes, it then squanders by diving off into sub-Hitchcock spy capers.
Izzard becomes a 'man on the run', and doesn't seem credible at that. (I appreciate the irony of this statement given that this is the man who ran 32 marathons in 31 days for charity!) But Izzard is built for distance and not for speed, and some of the police chase scenes in the movie strain credibility to breaking point. Another actor might have been able to pull this off better.
There's a lack of continuity in the film: was it perhaps cut down from a much longer running time? At one point, Miller is a wanted murderer with his face plastered on the front pages. The next, kindly bus driver Charlie (Jim Broadbent) is unaccountably aiding him and Rochol seems to have assumed his innocence in later scenes.
Various spy caper clichés are mined to extreme - including those old classics 'swerve to avoid bullets'; 'gun shot but different gun'; and 'shot guy seems to live forever'. And there are double-agent 'twists' occurring that are utterly predictable.
A very specific continuity irritation for me was in an 'aircraft landing' scene. Markers are separated by nine paces (I went back and counted them!) yet a view from a plane shows them a 'runway-width' apart. This might have escaped scrutiny were it shown just once. But no... we have ground shot; air shot; ground shot; air shot..... repeatedly!
Summary thoughts: This was one of the cinema trailers that most appealed to me over a year ago, in those heady days in the sunlit-uplands of life before Covid-19. It's a movie that showed a great deal of promise, since the history is fascinating. And there is probably a really great TV serial in here: showing the 'alternate history' consequences of these high-society German girls penetrating British society and steering the war in a different direction (screenplay idea (C) RJ Mann!) But the potential is squandered with a non-credible spy caper bolted onto the side.
So with "Six Minutes to Midnight", Downton-director Andy Goddard has made a perfectly watchable 'rainy Sunday afternoon' film, that I enjoyed in part for its 'old-school' quirkiness. But it's frustrating that all the promise couldn't be transitioned into a more satisfying movie.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/04/six-minutes-to-midnight-a-39-steps-esque-thriller-but-not-quite-pulling-it-off/. Thanks).