Search
Search results
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Sagrada in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
One of the best parts of the board gaming experience is finding a fun group of people with whom to play! Sometimes, though, coordinating a game night is easier said than done. We all must occasionally forego the group experience and face the world as the Lonely Only. But fear not! The world of solo-play is a vast and exciting realm! What follows is a chronicle of my journey into the solo-playing world – notes on gameplay, mechanics, rules, difficulty, and overall experience with solo variations of commonly multiplayer games! I hope this will provide some insight as you continue to grow your collection, or explore your already owned games!
In Sagrada, you are an artist who has been tasked with creating a beautiful stained glass window. Working piece by piece, you build a masterpiece – the likes of which have never before been witnessed. Finding the perfect pieces can be tricky, but through careful use of your tools and with your artistic vision, you can create the best window in the town! The game is played over 10 rounds in which players draft dice and place them in their windows, following certain placement restrictions. A set number of tools are available for use, and can aid you in manipulating the dice to your benefit. Points are scored based on successful completion of private and public objectives, and the player with the highest score at the end of 10 drafting rounds is the winner!
My favorite part about playing Sagrada solo is that the game is essentially played the same way, regardless of player count. The only difference is how you win! In both group and solo play, each player will draft two dice every round. In group play, any leftover dice are discarded, while in solo play, the remaining two dice will be added towards the Target Score – the score you are trying to beat at the end of the game! To find the Target Score, you add all of the die values of your unused dice from each round. If, at the end of the 10 rounds, you have earned more points than the Target Score, you win! But if the Target Score is higher than your final score, you lose.
The game play differences are simple enough, but actually winning the game solo is a different story. I have played Sagrada solo quite a bit, and have won maybe 25% of the time. Depending on which window card and objectives are in play, and because of placement restrictions, I often have to sacrifice high-valued dice to the Target Score. And since there are no placement restrictions for the Target Score, and two dice are added to it each round, it is very easy for that score to sky-rocket. I either barely pull off a win, or I lose by a huge margin. Playing in a group is nicer in this regard because the other players have the same placement restrictions that I have – nobody is just getting points for free. Without the Target Score, there really is no way to play Sagrada solo, but it makes the game feel a little imbalanced to me.
Just because it is difficult to win solo does not mean that I do not like the game. It requires quite a bit of strategy, and that keeps me engaged for the entire game. There are dice placement restrictions based on color AND value, so there are two different ways in which you have to constantly be strategizing. You can’t just focus on either value or color – your strategy must always be changing based on which color dice are drawn and what values are subsequently rolled. Even with the amount of strategy required, Sagrada actually plays pretty quickly as a solo game, and I really like that. I like the challenge of this game, and often try to play until I can win. Since I can finish an entire solo game in probably 10-15 minutes, I am able to get multiple plays in a row!
Sagrada is a challenging game to play solo, but not in a way that feels futile. I don’t win a lot, but the strategic implications and the pretty dice colors are what keep me coming back to this game! If you haven’t tried Sagrada solo yet, I’d encourage you to give it a shot. But be warned – you might not always win.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/02/26/solo-chronicles-sagrada/
In Sagrada, you are an artist who has been tasked with creating a beautiful stained glass window. Working piece by piece, you build a masterpiece – the likes of which have never before been witnessed. Finding the perfect pieces can be tricky, but through careful use of your tools and with your artistic vision, you can create the best window in the town! The game is played over 10 rounds in which players draft dice and place them in their windows, following certain placement restrictions. A set number of tools are available for use, and can aid you in manipulating the dice to your benefit. Points are scored based on successful completion of private and public objectives, and the player with the highest score at the end of 10 drafting rounds is the winner!
My favorite part about playing Sagrada solo is that the game is essentially played the same way, regardless of player count. The only difference is how you win! In both group and solo play, each player will draft two dice every round. In group play, any leftover dice are discarded, while in solo play, the remaining two dice will be added towards the Target Score – the score you are trying to beat at the end of the game! To find the Target Score, you add all of the die values of your unused dice from each round. If, at the end of the 10 rounds, you have earned more points than the Target Score, you win! But if the Target Score is higher than your final score, you lose.
The game play differences are simple enough, but actually winning the game solo is a different story. I have played Sagrada solo quite a bit, and have won maybe 25% of the time. Depending on which window card and objectives are in play, and because of placement restrictions, I often have to sacrifice high-valued dice to the Target Score. And since there are no placement restrictions for the Target Score, and two dice are added to it each round, it is very easy for that score to sky-rocket. I either barely pull off a win, or I lose by a huge margin. Playing in a group is nicer in this regard because the other players have the same placement restrictions that I have – nobody is just getting points for free. Without the Target Score, there really is no way to play Sagrada solo, but it makes the game feel a little imbalanced to me.
Just because it is difficult to win solo does not mean that I do not like the game. It requires quite a bit of strategy, and that keeps me engaged for the entire game. There are dice placement restrictions based on color AND value, so there are two different ways in which you have to constantly be strategizing. You can’t just focus on either value or color – your strategy must always be changing based on which color dice are drawn and what values are subsequently rolled. Even with the amount of strategy required, Sagrada actually plays pretty quickly as a solo game, and I really like that. I like the challenge of this game, and often try to play until I can win. Since I can finish an entire solo game in probably 10-15 minutes, I am able to get multiple plays in a row!
Sagrada is a challenging game to play solo, but not in a way that feels futile. I don’t win a lot, but the strategic implications and the pretty dice colors are what keep me coming back to this game! If you haven’t tried Sagrada solo yet, I’d encourage you to give it a shot. But be warned – you might not always win.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/02/26/solo-chronicles-sagrada/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Walk the Line (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Condensing something as vast and complex as the life of a person into a film is often a daunting task. With so many events that comprise the span of an individual, knowing what to cover and what to omit is a daunting task for any writer. For an icon like Johnny Cash, this task becomes monumental as not only does the history and humanity of the individual need to be captured, but the very soul of the artist as well.
Thankfully in the film Walk the Line Writer Gil Dennis and Writer/Director James Mangold capture the very essence of The Man in Black. Unlike many biopics that focus on the rise and fall of an individual, Walk the Line strives to balance than man and his demons without losing the compassion of the character.
The film stars Joaquin Phoenix as Johnny Cash, a man who rose from poverty in Dyess Arkansas to become on of the most beloved and enduring entertainers in history. Chronicling portions of his childhood, and the hardships he endured as well as his sting in the Air Force, we are shown things that helped shape the man he was to become. Shortly after his Air Force career, Johnny marries Vivian (Ginnifer Goodwin), and they start a family. Struggling to make ends meet as a door to door salesman, and facing pressure to take a job with her father in San Antonio Johnny manages to gain an audition for Sun Records in Nashville.
When told in the audition that his Gospel songs will not sell, Johnny instead performs one of his own compositions and earns a record contract. Before long, he and his band are on the road playing with the likes of Jerry Lee Lewis, Elvis Presley, and June Carter (Reese Witherspoon). June who has been part of a singing family
as well as an object of admiration for Johnny since their childhoods soon becomes a friend to Johnny as he copes with rising fame and the pressures and temptations of life on the road.
As Johnny spends more and more time on the road, tensions between him and Vivian grow causing Johnny to delve deeper into the temptations that are available to him as a star. During this time, Johhny becomes obsessed with June, who wile attracted to Johnny has just come from a failed marriage and does not want to break up Johnny’s family. It is against this backdrop that the unusual courtship between the two begins. They spend time with one another on the road, they talk for hours on end, and even perform duets with one another on stage, yet Johnny’s love for June remains a source of frustration that only leads him deeper into his destructive behaviors.
While the addition that grips Johnny is a driving part of the film, the main focus of the story is the love between Johnny and June and their unusual courtship that survived despite marriages, addictions, denials, and their own insecurities. Phoenix and Witherspoon are amazing and give Oscar Caliber performances that are easily the best in recent years. Not only do they both convey the mannerisms of their flesh and blood counterparts, but they convey solid chemistry and compassion from the audience.
While one can say that Johnny was an adulterer and a drug addict, his gentle nature, compassion, and humanity are abundantly clear in the way he is portrayed by Phoenix. We do not see Cash as a stuck up rock star, we see him as a simple human being, who used his gifts to connect with the masses yet never lost site of his heart. His tenderness, honesty, and devotion to his music, June, and eventually himself are clear and Phoenix is able to portray this by a reserved and endearing manner that captures the man he is portraying. Far too many films of this type are loaded with scenes of conflict, screaming, conflict and destruction that it was refreshing to see Johnny attempt to win June by stubbornness, and persistence yet never losing his easy going mannerisms despite being wracked by addiction.
Much has been made of the decision to let Phoenix and Witherspoon sing their parts rather than dub the voices. Unlike in the film “Ray” where Jaime Foxx had his singing dubbed over, the accurate and heartfelt interpretations of the songs only underscores the triumph and complexity of their performances.
Not just a good film but a great film, Walk the Line is an endearing and entertaining film that keeps you engrossed from start to finish. If you are not a fan of Johnny Cash when you see this film, at the least you will find a new found respect for this American Legend.
Thankfully in the film Walk the Line Writer Gil Dennis and Writer/Director James Mangold capture the very essence of The Man in Black. Unlike many biopics that focus on the rise and fall of an individual, Walk the Line strives to balance than man and his demons without losing the compassion of the character.
The film stars Joaquin Phoenix as Johnny Cash, a man who rose from poverty in Dyess Arkansas to become on of the most beloved and enduring entertainers in history. Chronicling portions of his childhood, and the hardships he endured as well as his sting in the Air Force, we are shown things that helped shape the man he was to become. Shortly after his Air Force career, Johnny marries Vivian (Ginnifer Goodwin), and they start a family. Struggling to make ends meet as a door to door salesman, and facing pressure to take a job with her father in San Antonio Johnny manages to gain an audition for Sun Records in Nashville.
When told in the audition that his Gospel songs will not sell, Johnny instead performs one of his own compositions and earns a record contract. Before long, he and his band are on the road playing with the likes of Jerry Lee Lewis, Elvis Presley, and June Carter (Reese Witherspoon). June who has been part of a singing family
as well as an object of admiration for Johnny since their childhoods soon becomes a friend to Johnny as he copes with rising fame and the pressures and temptations of life on the road.
As Johnny spends more and more time on the road, tensions between him and Vivian grow causing Johnny to delve deeper into the temptations that are available to him as a star. During this time, Johhny becomes obsessed with June, who wile attracted to Johnny has just come from a failed marriage and does not want to break up Johnny’s family. It is against this backdrop that the unusual courtship between the two begins. They spend time with one another on the road, they talk for hours on end, and even perform duets with one another on stage, yet Johnny’s love for June remains a source of frustration that only leads him deeper into his destructive behaviors.
While the addition that grips Johnny is a driving part of the film, the main focus of the story is the love between Johnny and June and their unusual courtship that survived despite marriages, addictions, denials, and their own insecurities. Phoenix and Witherspoon are amazing and give Oscar Caliber performances that are easily the best in recent years. Not only do they both convey the mannerisms of their flesh and blood counterparts, but they convey solid chemistry and compassion from the audience.
While one can say that Johnny was an adulterer and a drug addict, his gentle nature, compassion, and humanity are abundantly clear in the way he is portrayed by Phoenix. We do not see Cash as a stuck up rock star, we see him as a simple human being, who used his gifts to connect with the masses yet never lost site of his heart. His tenderness, honesty, and devotion to his music, June, and eventually himself are clear and Phoenix is able to portray this by a reserved and endearing manner that captures the man he is portraying. Far too many films of this type are loaded with scenes of conflict, screaming, conflict and destruction that it was refreshing to see Johnny attempt to win June by stubbornness, and persistence yet never losing his easy going mannerisms despite being wracked by addiction.
Much has been made of the decision to let Phoenix and Witherspoon sing their parts rather than dub the voices. Unlike in the film “Ray” where Jaime Foxx had his singing dubbed over, the accurate and heartfelt interpretations of the songs only underscores the triumph and complexity of their performances.
Not just a good film but a great film, Walk the Line is an endearing and entertaining film that keeps you engrossed from start to finish. If you are not a fan of Johnny Cash when you see this film, at the least you will find a new found respect for this American Legend.
Monacello: The Little Monk: Book 1
Geraldine McCaughrean and Jana Diemberger
Book
A haunting legend from the Undercity of Naples "Goblin" "Gremlin!" "Demon!" Strange little creature....
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Finding Steve McQueen (2019) in Movies
Nov 9, 2020
This heist comedy (we'll come to that later) sounds pretty good from the synopsis, I can't really elaborate much on it like I normally would because, for once, it's spot on!
I had a big issue almost straight off the bat... "In 1972"... that's how the synopsis starts. I had reread it just before starting the film and as it begins it actually flashes up "1980", very quickly it's explained (and it makes sense) but I didn't enjoy starting the film with that confusion. Now, if I was seeing this in the cinema it wouldn't have been an issue because you don't tend to sit there in the trailers reading the synopsis before it starts, but with it hitting digital you will be instantly seeing it before you press play... I know it's a really minor thing to be bugged by... but it did bug me.
The reason for the jump in years is that we're seeing Harry Barber telling his girlfriend, Molly, the story of his past and the heist. Flashbacks are a time-honoured tradition in films, but they're difficult to get right. The story jumps several times, but there's very little differentiation between time unless the diner is involved on one side of the jump. At one point it jumps because he talks at the camera and we hop back to Molly talking, it stuck out... it either never happened again or it blended in so well that I didn't notice it. It wouldn't be the first film to add something random like that and abandon the style choice. Some else will have to let me know if it happened more than I think it did.
These two things, combined with some free moving camerawork (that you know I hate) meant that I found the beginning of Finding Steve McQueen, especially when the heist that is pushed in the marketing doesn't appear for quite a while.
IMDb lists crime thriller as a guide... thriller is definitely the wrong word. Heist comedy (as per the PR I saw) is definitely more accurate, though I didn't find it particularly funny. It did bring a mild laugh out of me, but not enough to stamp it with the comedy tag. Even "heist" feels like it doesn't fit well, it may be about one but what's presented is much heavier on other parts of the story. It's more like a biopic with romance than crime. In the end that's a little bit disappointing when you're looking forward to crime.
William Fichtner was an instant standout for me, I thought he handled the role of Enzo Rotella particularly well, and there was a great dynamic with Louis Lombardi as Pauly. Rachael Taylor as Molly Murphy was great too, when she wasn't freaking me out with how much she looked like Nicole Kidman. Somehow I've never noticed that before so I'll have to put it down to a cunning makeup artist.
From there though I was underwhelmed. I'm not familiar with Travis Fimmel, and sadly, from this performance I've not been convinced to check out anything in his back catalogue. Apart from two well-played emotional scenes I didn't enjoy the character of Harry Barber at all.
Had this been advertised as a biography instead of a crime/heist then I probably would have had a more favourable opinion, but we're presented with a slow and light film. I'm not expecting all crime films to be gritty and dark, but I do expect them to focus more on the actual crime and investigation. That's also where I found the flashback idea falling apart because we're shown things for context that Harry wouldn't have known and been able to tell Molly.
What I did love about this film was the setting and the look of everything. It had a wonderful freshness about it and that coupled with the costumes felt natural and like it captured the era perfectly.
I by no means hated this film, but I was extremely disappointed. The way the story was balanced means that the heist gets lost in everything else that's happening and although it's hailed as an amazing feat in American history it doesn't feel all that impressive in this portrayal. The only real criminal thing about this film was the underuse of Forest Whitaker.
As a biography I could have seen clear to give this a 3, maybe a 3.5, but as a crime I can't give it more than a 2. It feels entirely misrepresented, had it not been for the few excellent performances, and the hope of exciting crime drama, I think I would have turned it off.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/finding-steve-mcqueen-movie-review.html
I had a big issue almost straight off the bat... "In 1972"... that's how the synopsis starts. I had reread it just before starting the film and as it begins it actually flashes up "1980", very quickly it's explained (and it makes sense) but I didn't enjoy starting the film with that confusion. Now, if I was seeing this in the cinema it wouldn't have been an issue because you don't tend to sit there in the trailers reading the synopsis before it starts, but with it hitting digital you will be instantly seeing it before you press play... I know it's a really minor thing to be bugged by... but it did bug me.
The reason for the jump in years is that we're seeing Harry Barber telling his girlfriend, Molly, the story of his past and the heist. Flashbacks are a time-honoured tradition in films, but they're difficult to get right. The story jumps several times, but there's very little differentiation between time unless the diner is involved on one side of the jump. At one point it jumps because he talks at the camera and we hop back to Molly talking, it stuck out... it either never happened again or it blended in so well that I didn't notice it. It wouldn't be the first film to add something random like that and abandon the style choice. Some else will have to let me know if it happened more than I think it did.
These two things, combined with some free moving camerawork (that you know I hate) meant that I found the beginning of Finding Steve McQueen, especially when the heist that is pushed in the marketing doesn't appear for quite a while.
IMDb lists crime thriller as a guide... thriller is definitely the wrong word. Heist comedy (as per the PR I saw) is definitely more accurate, though I didn't find it particularly funny. It did bring a mild laugh out of me, but not enough to stamp it with the comedy tag. Even "heist" feels like it doesn't fit well, it may be about one but what's presented is much heavier on other parts of the story. It's more like a biopic with romance than crime. In the end that's a little bit disappointing when you're looking forward to crime.
William Fichtner was an instant standout for me, I thought he handled the role of Enzo Rotella particularly well, and there was a great dynamic with Louis Lombardi as Pauly. Rachael Taylor as Molly Murphy was great too, when she wasn't freaking me out with how much she looked like Nicole Kidman. Somehow I've never noticed that before so I'll have to put it down to a cunning makeup artist.
From there though I was underwhelmed. I'm not familiar with Travis Fimmel, and sadly, from this performance I've not been convinced to check out anything in his back catalogue. Apart from two well-played emotional scenes I didn't enjoy the character of Harry Barber at all.
Had this been advertised as a biography instead of a crime/heist then I probably would have had a more favourable opinion, but we're presented with a slow and light film. I'm not expecting all crime films to be gritty and dark, but I do expect them to focus more on the actual crime and investigation. That's also where I found the flashback idea falling apart because we're shown things for context that Harry wouldn't have known and been able to tell Molly.
What I did love about this film was the setting and the look of everything. It had a wonderful freshness about it and that coupled with the costumes felt natural and like it captured the era perfectly.
I by no means hated this film, but I was extremely disappointed. The way the story was balanced means that the heist gets lost in everything else that's happening and although it's hailed as an amazing feat in American history it doesn't feel all that impressive in this portrayal. The only real criminal thing about this film was the underuse of Forest Whitaker.
As a biography I could have seen clear to give this a 3, maybe a 3.5, but as a crime I can't give it more than a 2. It feels entirely misrepresented, had it not been for the few excellent performances, and the hope of exciting crime drama, I think I would have turned it off.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/finding-steve-mcqueen-movie-review.html
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Toy Story 4 (2019) in Movies
Jun 25, 2019
Another TOY STORY triumph for PIXAR
When I first heard that Pixar was going to make a 4th TOY STORY film, I found myself firmly in the camp of "why are they doing this? The 3rd film tied off the trilogy marvelously well and 4th film was not needed" But...I trust Pixar, and when it was revealed that both Tom Hanks and Tim Allen were back on board after reading the script, my fears were alleviated quite a bit, but I still had some unease in the pit of my stomach.
I shouldn't have worried. For TOY STORY 4 is a wonderful addition to the adventures of Woody, Buzz and gang. It fits in nicely with the other films in the series and brings just the right amount of joy, fun, adventure and emotional heft.
Picking up the adventures of these toys as they now belong to Bonnie (after being gifted to Bonnie when their original owner, Andy, went off to college at the end of Toy Story 3), things have progressed realistically enough. The "order of things" in Bonnie's room is somewhat different than in Andy's. Woody, the old Cowboy doll, is relegated (more often than not) to the closet while Bonnie plays more with Jessie, Buzz and others. Into this group comes "Forky" a plastic spork that is made into a toy by Bonnie at Kindergarten. In a nice reversal of the first Toy Story film, Woody works hard to ensure that Forky is accepted into the group.
Without revealing too much of the plot, the gang (including Woody and Forky) go on a roadtrip with Bonnie in her parents' rented RV and end up in a small-ish town where a carnival is taking place across the street from an Antique store that houses Woody's old flame, Bo Peep. New characters are introduced, old characters are given a moment (or two) to shine and adventures and shenanigans ensue, with an emotionally satisfying climax - you know, a TOY STORY film.
This one continues to progress these toys "lives" and adventures in such a smart, natural and clever way that I did not feel that I was watching the same film again. I was watching characters I love continue to live, learn, grow and progress - a very smart choice by these filmmakers.
As always, the voice cast is superb. Tim Allen (Buzz Lightyear), Joan Cusak (Jessie), Wallace Shawn (Rex), John Ratzenberger (Piggy) and even the late Don Rickles (Mr. PotatoHead) are all back and contribute greatly to the finished result. It is like putting on an old, comfortable sweater on a somewhat chilly day. You get a reassuring shiver of warmth.
But the filmmakers don't stop there - Annie Potts is back as Bo Peep (she - and the Bo Peep character - were in the original Toy Story). Add to these voices, the marvelous work by Christina Hendricks (Gabby Gabby), Key & Peele (Ducky & Bunny), Carl Weathers (all the Combat Carls) and Tony Hale (wonderfully quirky as Forky) and we have quite the ensemble of interesting, quirky characters - growing and enriching the "Universe" they are in (quite like what Marvel has done with their "Universe"). Special notice needs to be made of Keanu Reeves work as Canadian Daredevil toy Duke Kaboom (the Canadian Evil Kneivel), it is the most entertaining - to me - of all the new characters.
But...make no mistake...this film belongs to Tom Hanks as Woody. It has taken me 4 films to realize this, but Hanks good guy "everyman" portrayal of Woody is the heart and soul of these pictures and this 4th film is Woody's film - as his character comes full circle from the paranoid toy who wants to keep living his safe existence to something much, much more in this film. It isn't hyperbole of me to say that I would be just fine for Hanks to receive an Oscar nomination for his voice work in this film - he is that good.
Interestingly enough, Pixar brought in a novice Director, Josh Cooley, to helm this film. It is his first feature film directing experience, but he is a veteran Pixar face - having written INSIDE OUT and was the main Storyboard Artist for UP - his direction looks like someone who was comfortable in this medium - and with the style of film that Pixar (usually) goes for - and he does terrific work here.
I really enjoyed the journey of the characters (especially Woody) in this film. I need not have worried about Pixar making a 4th Toy Story - they nailed the landing again.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
I shouldn't have worried. For TOY STORY 4 is a wonderful addition to the adventures of Woody, Buzz and gang. It fits in nicely with the other films in the series and brings just the right amount of joy, fun, adventure and emotional heft.
Picking up the adventures of these toys as they now belong to Bonnie (after being gifted to Bonnie when their original owner, Andy, went off to college at the end of Toy Story 3), things have progressed realistically enough. The "order of things" in Bonnie's room is somewhat different than in Andy's. Woody, the old Cowboy doll, is relegated (more often than not) to the closet while Bonnie plays more with Jessie, Buzz and others. Into this group comes "Forky" a plastic spork that is made into a toy by Bonnie at Kindergarten. In a nice reversal of the first Toy Story film, Woody works hard to ensure that Forky is accepted into the group.
Without revealing too much of the plot, the gang (including Woody and Forky) go on a roadtrip with Bonnie in her parents' rented RV and end up in a small-ish town where a carnival is taking place across the street from an Antique store that houses Woody's old flame, Bo Peep. New characters are introduced, old characters are given a moment (or two) to shine and adventures and shenanigans ensue, with an emotionally satisfying climax - you know, a TOY STORY film.
This one continues to progress these toys "lives" and adventures in such a smart, natural and clever way that I did not feel that I was watching the same film again. I was watching characters I love continue to live, learn, grow and progress - a very smart choice by these filmmakers.
As always, the voice cast is superb. Tim Allen (Buzz Lightyear), Joan Cusak (Jessie), Wallace Shawn (Rex), John Ratzenberger (Piggy) and even the late Don Rickles (Mr. PotatoHead) are all back and contribute greatly to the finished result. It is like putting on an old, comfortable sweater on a somewhat chilly day. You get a reassuring shiver of warmth.
But the filmmakers don't stop there - Annie Potts is back as Bo Peep (she - and the Bo Peep character - were in the original Toy Story). Add to these voices, the marvelous work by Christina Hendricks (Gabby Gabby), Key & Peele (Ducky & Bunny), Carl Weathers (all the Combat Carls) and Tony Hale (wonderfully quirky as Forky) and we have quite the ensemble of interesting, quirky characters - growing and enriching the "Universe" they are in (quite like what Marvel has done with their "Universe"). Special notice needs to be made of Keanu Reeves work as Canadian Daredevil toy Duke Kaboom (the Canadian Evil Kneivel), it is the most entertaining - to me - of all the new characters.
But...make no mistake...this film belongs to Tom Hanks as Woody. It has taken me 4 films to realize this, but Hanks good guy "everyman" portrayal of Woody is the heart and soul of these pictures and this 4th film is Woody's film - as his character comes full circle from the paranoid toy who wants to keep living his safe existence to something much, much more in this film. It isn't hyperbole of me to say that I would be just fine for Hanks to receive an Oscar nomination for his voice work in this film - he is that good.
Interestingly enough, Pixar brought in a novice Director, Josh Cooley, to helm this film. It is his first feature film directing experience, but he is a veteran Pixar face - having written INSIDE OUT and was the main Storyboard Artist for UP - his direction looks like someone who was comfortable in this medium - and with the style of film that Pixar (usually) goes for - and he does terrific work here.
I really enjoyed the journey of the characters (especially Woody) in this film. I need not have worried about Pixar making a 4th Toy Story - they nailed the landing again.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
Take Me Apart by Kelela
5.8
Rate It
Album Watch
With great anticipation, Kelela's debut album emerges as an epic portrait of an artist spanning the...
dance electronic R&B pop
Louise (64 KP) rated The Problem with Forever in Books
Jul 2, 2018
I have really wanted to read something by Jennifer L Armentrout for a while, one being the lux series that I have heard a lot of people in the blogosphere rave about. I wasn’t expecting to like this book as much as I did! Your probably think I say that for all the books I read, but I try not to set expectations too high. This book was addictive, I managed to read 70% of it in one day and stayed up until the early hours of the morning just so I could finish it, even though I knew I was going to be sooo tired for work the next day.
Mallory Dodge hasn’t had the easiest start in life, she grew up in Foster homes and some that were pretty awful, so much that she becomes withdrawn and the only way to keep herself safe and from drawing attention to herself is to remain as quiet as a ‘Mouse’. Until one horrific incident she manages to escape the horrific abuse that she was subjected to and adopted by Carl and Rosa two doctors that treated her but she will forever be scarred mentally and physically. Mallory is returning to a state school after being home schooled for the previous 4 years and somewhat apprehensive. Being silent has held Mallory back and she needs to start getting on with her life and one is to start socializing with people her own age and building her confidence, otherwise she fears she will be this way forever.
All is going well on her first day, well she hasn’t spoken to anyone but at least she is at school which is a big tick in the box. One of her classes is speech, one of the hardest lessons for her to overcome. She spots a boy who feels familiar to her, but it couldn’t be, could it? When the boy seats himself next to her in speech she is shocked, the boy is Rider Stark…. her best friend from when she was in the foster home, her saviour and protector, one that experienced all those awful things with her, he knows her like no-one else. With emotions and feelings about Rider all over the place, her foster parents not happy with his sudden appearance and what it will mean, Mallory has to break the silence to save everything.
OK! I need to start off with the cover, how beautiful is this book and the colours? This would instantly draw me in and buy it, you can just tell its contemporary. This book a massive 480 pages and there wasn’t a dull moment. This is such an emotional story, there is swoon worthy romance with a hot guy, there are sad times and times when my heart was racing because I was scared for Mallory and Rider, what would happen to them both.
Mallory’s character was amazing with so much development, she was such a different girl at the finish and I was overcome with pride as of how well she had managed and grew. She is a likeable character always trying to please everyone, she is shy and timid making you really feel for her.
Rider, he is Mallory’s protector and he always will be. It’s what he knows best. He skips class to make sure Mallory is not alone at lunch, he doesn’t do much when he does attend his lessons but he is an artist (not to him). He is so caring and like perfect boyfriend material it was impossible not to swoon.
Some could say the romance was a bit insta-lovey but for me it wasn’t. They hadn’t seen each other in 4 years and they were reconnecting wanting to get to know each other again and find out how life has been since they last saw each other. But their friendship was totally different from 4 years ago, and they both knew it. There was an attraction that wasn’t there before.
Throughout the story Mallory has flashbacks to when she was younger and the abuse(physically and verbally) that herself and Rider were subjected to and what lead to the incident. It shows how Rider cared for Mallory and how there pasts had shaped the people they had become.
I really liked most of the side characters in this book, there was Ainsley which was Mallory’s best friend outside of school. Hector and Jayden were cheeky chappies who Rider lived with. Paige and Carl I didn’t really warm to but I think that’s mainly because they were getting in the way of Mallory’s happiness .
This story is addictive, beautiful and heart warming, I enjoyed every page and would definitely recommend it.
I rated this 4 out of stars
I received a copy of this from Netgalley and the publisher in exchange for an honest review.
Mallory Dodge hasn’t had the easiest start in life, she grew up in Foster homes and some that were pretty awful, so much that she becomes withdrawn and the only way to keep herself safe and from drawing attention to herself is to remain as quiet as a ‘Mouse’. Until one horrific incident she manages to escape the horrific abuse that she was subjected to and adopted by Carl and Rosa two doctors that treated her but she will forever be scarred mentally and physically. Mallory is returning to a state school after being home schooled for the previous 4 years and somewhat apprehensive. Being silent has held Mallory back and she needs to start getting on with her life and one is to start socializing with people her own age and building her confidence, otherwise she fears she will be this way forever.
All is going well on her first day, well she hasn’t spoken to anyone but at least she is at school which is a big tick in the box. One of her classes is speech, one of the hardest lessons for her to overcome. She spots a boy who feels familiar to her, but it couldn’t be, could it? When the boy seats himself next to her in speech she is shocked, the boy is Rider Stark…. her best friend from when she was in the foster home, her saviour and protector, one that experienced all those awful things with her, he knows her like no-one else. With emotions and feelings about Rider all over the place, her foster parents not happy with his sudden appearance and what it will mean, Mallory has to break the silence to save everything.
OK! I need to start off with the cover, how beautiful is this book and the colours? This would instantly draw me in and buy it, you can just tell its contemporary. This book a massive 480 pages and there wasn’t a dull moment. This is such an emotional story, there is swoon worthy romance with a hot guy, there are sad times and times when my heart was racing because I was scared for Mallory and Rider, what would happen to them both.
Mallory’s character was amazing with so much development, she was such a different girl at the finish and I was overcome with pride as of how well she had managed and grew. She is a likeable character always trying to please everyone, she is shy and timid making you really feel for her.
Rider, he is Mallory’s protector and he always will be. It’s what he knows best. He skips class to make sure Mallory is not alone at lunch, he doesn’t do much when he does attend his lessons but he is an artist (not to him). He is so caring and like perfect boyfriend material it was impossible not to swoon.
Some could say the romance was a bit insta-lovey but for me it wasn’t. They hadn’t seen each other in 4 years and they were reconnecting wanting to get to know each other again and find out how life has been since they last saw each other. But their friendship was totally different from 4 years ago, and they both knew it. There was an attraction that wasn’t there before.
Throughout the story Mallory has flashbacks to when she was younger and the abuse(physically and verbally) that herself and Rider were subjected to and what lead to the incident. It shows how Rider cared for Mallory and how there pasts had shaped the people they had become.
I really liked most of the side characters in this book, there was Ainsley which was Mallory’s best friend outside of school. Hector and Jayden were cheeky chappies who Rider lived with. Paige and Carl I didn’t really warm to but I think that’s mainly because they were getting in the way of Mallory’s happiness .
This story is addictive, beautiful and heart warming, I enjoyed every page and would definitely recommend it.
I rated this 4 out of stars
I received a copy of this from Netgalley and the publisher in exchange for an honest review.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A Monster Calls (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“I’ll. Be. Right. Here.”
The worst thing about this movie is its title. The second worst thing about this movie is its trailer. Both will either a) put people off seeing it (it succeeded in that with my wife for example) or b) make people conclude it is a ‘nice holiday film to take the kids to’, which is also an horrendous mistake!
This is a crying shame because it is a riveting drama and a superb piece of film-making by the Spaniard J. A. Bayona (“The Impossible”) that may well catapult it already into my top 10 films of 2017. But it is not, I would suggest, a film that is remotely suitable for kids under 10 to see, dealing as it does with terminal illness, bullying and impending doom. For this is a dark (read pitch black) but hauntingly beautiful film.
Lewis MacDougall, in only his second film (after last year’s “Peter Pan”) plays Conor – a young but talented and sensitive artist growing up as a 12 year old in the North of England with his single mum (Felicity Jones). She is suffering from an aggressive form of cancer and is forever medically grasping for a new hope (D’ya see what I did there?). Young Conor believes fervently that each new treatment will be ‘the one’ but the building tension, the lack of sleep and his recurrent nightmares are destroying him mentally and physically. As if this wasn’t enough, his distracted nature is leading to him being seriously bullied at school and there is the added stress of having to live in his grandmother’s pristine and teen-unfriendly house when his mother is hospitalised.
Towering over the nearby graveyard on the hill is an ancient yew tree and Conor is visited after midnight by this “monster” (voiced by Liam Neeson). Is he dreaming, or is it real? The tree dispatches wisdom in the form of three ‘tales’, with the proviso that Conor tell the tree the fourth tale which “must be the truth”.
A tale of grief, guilt and a search for closure, this is a harrowing but rewarding journey for the viewer.
The film is technically outstanding on so many levels:
the art design is superb, with the gorgeous ‘tale animations’ being highly reminiscent of the beautiful ones in “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1”;
the use of sound is brilliant, with sudden silence being used as a weapon with which to assault the senses in one key sequence;
the cinematography by Oscar Faura (“The Imitation Game”) is faultless, capturing both the dreary reality in a Northern winter with the comparative warmth of the strange dream-like sequences;
the music by Fernando Velázquez is used effectively and intelligently to reflect the sombre mood;
the special effects team led by Pau Costa (“The Revenant”, “The Impossible”) shines not just with Neesen’s monster, but with the incorporation of the root and branch effects into the ‘normal’ surroundings.
As the BFG illustrated, having a whole film carried by a young actor is a bit of an ask, but here Lewis MacDougall achieves just that like a seasoned pro. His performance is nothing short of staggering and – although a brave move by the Academy – it would be great to see him nominated for a BAFTA acting award for this.
Confirming her position in the acting top-flight is Felicity Jones, heart-wrenching in her role of the declining mum, and Sigourney Weaver is also excellent as the po-faced but grief-stricken grandmother. Liam Neeson probably didn’t add much by getting dressed up in the mo-cap suit for the tree scenes, but his voice is just perfect as the wise old sage.
The only criticism of what is an absorbing and intelligent script (by Patrick Ness, who also wrote the graphical novel) is the introduction of Conor’s Dad, played by Toby Kebbell (Dr Doom from “The Fantastic 4”), who is literally flown in from LA on a flying visit but whose role is a little superfluous to the plot.
This is exactly what “The BFG” should have been but wasn’t. It draws on a number of potential influences including “Mary Poppins”/”Saving Mr Banks” and “ET”. Wise, clever and a thing of beauty from beginning to end, this is a treat for movie-goers and a highly recommended watch. However, if you have lost someone to “the Big C” be aware that this film could be highly traumatic for you….. or highly cathartic: as I’m not a psychiatrist, I’m really not that sure! Also, if you are of the blubbing kind, take LOTS of tissues: the film features the best use of a digital clock since “Groundhog Day” and if you are not reduced to tears by that scene you are certifiably not human.
This is a crying shame because it is a riveting drama and a superb piece of film-making by the Spaniard J. A. Bayona (“The Impossible”) that may well catapult it already into my top 10 films of 2017. But it is not, I would suggest, a film that is remotely suitable for kids under 10 to see, dealing as it does with terminal illness, bullying and impending doom. For this is a dark (read pitch black) but hauntingly beautiful film.
Lewis MacDougall, in only his second film (after last year’s “Peter Pan”) plays Conor – a young but talented and sensitive artist growing up as a 12 year old in the North of England with his single mum (Felicity Jones). She is suffering from an aggressive form of cancer and is forever medically grasping for a new hope (D’ya see what I did there?). Young Conor believes fervently that each new treatment will be ‘the one’ but the building tension, the lack of sleep and his recurrent nightmares are destroying him mentally and physically. As if this wasn’t enough, his distracted nature is leading to him being seriously bullied at school and there is the added stress of having to live in his grandmother’s pristine and teen-unfriendly house when his mother is hospitalised.
Towering over the nearby graveyard on the hill is an ancient yew tree and Conor is visited after midnight by this “monster” (voiced by Liam Neeson). Is he dreaming, or is it real? The tree dispatches wisdom in the form of three ‘tales’, with the proviso that Conor tell the tree the fourth tale which “must be the truth”.
A tale of grief, guilt and a search for closure, this is a harrowing but rewarding journey for the viewer.
The film is technically outstanding on so many levels:
the art design is superb, with the gorgeous ‘tale animations’ being highly reminiscent of the beautiful ones in “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1”;
the use of sound is brilliant, with sudden silence being used as a weapon with which to assault the senses in one key sequence;
the cinematography by Oscar Faura (“The Imitation Game”) is faultless, capturing both the dreary reality in a Northern winter with the comparative warmth of the strange dream-like sequences;
the music by Fernando Velázquez is used effectively and intelligently to reflect the sombre mood;
the special effects team led by Pau Costa (“The Revenant”, “The Impossible”) shines not just with Neesen’s monster, but with the incorporation of the root and branch effects into the ‘normal’ surroundings.
As the BFG illustrated, having a whole film carried by a young actor is a bit of an ask, but here Lewis MacDougall achieves just that like a seasoned pro. His performance is nothing short of staggering and – although a brave move by the Academy – it would be great to see him nominated for a BAFTA acting award for this.
Confirming her position in the acting top-flight is Felicity Jones, heart-wrenching in her role of the declining mum, and Sigourney Weaver is also excellent as the po-faced but grief-stricken grandmother. Liam Neeson probably didn’t add much by getting dressed up in the mo-cap suit for the tree scenes, but his voice is just perfect as the wise old sage.
The only criticism of what is an absorbing and intelligent script (by Patrick Ness, who also wrote the graphical novel) is the introduction of Conor’s Dad, played by Toby Kebbell (Dr Doom from “The Fantastic 4”), who is literally flown in from LA on a flying visit but whose role is a little superfluous to the plot.
This is exactly what “The BFG” should have been but wasn’t. It draws on a number of potential influences including “Mary Poppins”/”Saving Mr Banks” and “ET”. Wise, clever and a thing of beauty from beginning to end, this is a treat for movie-goers and a highly recommended watch. However, if you have lost someone to “the Big C” be aware that this film could be highly traumatic for you….. or highly cathartic: as I’m not a psychiatrist, I’m really not that sure! Also, if you are of the blubbing kind, take LOTS of tissues: the film features the best use of a digital clock since “Groundhog Day” and if you are not reduced to tears by that scene you are certifiably not human.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Good Boys (2019) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Repetitive. (1 more)
Too similar to other R-rated teen comedies.
Thor Casts Anal Bead Nunchucks
“Bean Bag Boys for life!” In Good Boys, that’s the motto for three 12-year-old best friends that are finding the sixth grade way more profound and coercing than the fifth grade or any other grade before it ever was. Max (Jacob Tremblay) is at the age where girls aren’t so gross and are actually quite arousing, Thor (Brady Noon) is giving up on who he is and what he loves in a bold attempt to try to fit in with kids who he thinks are cool, and Lucas (Keith L. Williams) mostly just loves Magic: The Gathering, treating women with respect, and being honest.
Two weeks into sixth grade and the boys find themselves invited to their first party, but the catch is that it’s a kissing party and none of them know how to kiss. They use Max’s dad’s drone to spy on high school girls Hannah (Molly Gordon) and Lily (Midori Francis), but the girls end up capturing the drone and holding it for ransom. After a face-to-face meeting goes south, Thor steals Hannah’s purse which includes two capsules of Molly/ecstasy in a kid’s chewy vitamins bottle. Now in possession of illegal drugs after skipping school and using Max’s dad’s drone without permission while he’s out of town, the boys need to figure out a way to get the drone back home without his dad knowing so Max won’t get grounded all so they can still attend the kissing party and become legends of the sixth grade.
Good Boys is co-written and co-directed (only Stupnitsky received credit) by Gene Stupnitsky and Lee Eisenberg (writers of Year One and Bad Teacher). The film is produced by Seth Green’s Point Grey Pictures and Good Universe (both Neighbors films, The Disaster Artist, Long Shot). This is all worth mentioning to get an idea of what you’re diving into if you plan on seeing this film. The R-rated comedy attempts to capture what Superbad did for teenagers over a decade ago, but replaces the teenage element with tweens. Whether they’re successful or not is entirely up to you.
There are some decent laugh-out-loud moments in Good Boys, but their long-lasting effect is short-lived because Stupnitsky and Eisenberg decided to repeat those laugh out loud moments over and over again to the point of annoyance. The main laughs of the film come from the boys trying to talk about adult things they don’t fully understand (cum pronounced as koom, a sex doll being a CPR dummy, a nymphomaniac is someone who likes to have sex at sea and on land, etc), thinking sex toys are weapons, and still not being able to get past the child proof lid on a vitamin bottle. These are all funny at first, but all the gags in the film fall under the same handful of categories and essentially feel like Stupnitsky and Eisenberg didn’t have enough creativity in the script writing process to think outside a smattering of raunch.
The typo’d “porb” sequence where the boys attempt to look up how to kiss on the internet, the crossing the busy highway on the way to the mall sequence, and Lucas being so adamant about a woman’s consent are more humorous elements because they’re not as overplayed into the ground; even the opening where Max is on the verge of masturbation seems like a cheap knock off of what Not Another Teen Movie did in its opening sequence nearly 20 years ago. In comparison, Olivia Wilde’s Booksmart from earlier this year was labeled as a female version of Superbad. The Superbad influence is there, but Booksmart adds a refreshing female perspective and explores what the future means for the main characters to a more satisfying extent.
Growing up and what that means to a 12-year-old is explored in Good Boys, but it seems awkward. You’re on the verge of becoming a teenager, which shouldn’t mean all that much for you other than attending a new school. Lucas’ parents are in the middle of a divorce and Thor is trying to be something he isn’t just for his reputation. The characters learn something over the course of the film because of this, but the entire maturing angle doesn’t feel right. Part of it is meant to be ridiculous, especially after Lucas says something like, “I’ve grown up a lot in the past two hours,” and it’s cool that the film goes out of its way to tell the audience to never be ashamed of what you love, but it all feels sloppy and thrown together at the last minute.
This is the first R-rated film to ever have a rating that includes, “all involving tweens,” and this could be seen as the Superbad of this generation, but Good Boys simply doesn’t differentiate itself from the high school and college R-rated comedies that came before it to be memorable or enjoyable. It will likely be a crowd pleaser anyway since the theater I was in was full of laughs from the general public, but its charm is ruined so early on and that’s a painful thing to say when your film is only 90 minutes long. Good Boys may be outrageous and funny at times, but its generic formula destroys what little entertainment value it potentially had.
Two weeks into sixth grade and the boys find themselves invited to their first party, but the catch is that it’s a kissing party and none of them know how to kiss. They use Max’s dad’s drone to spy on high school girls Hannah (Molly Gordon) and Lily (Midori Francis), but the girls end up capturing the drone and holding it for ransom. After a face-to-face meeting goes south, Thor steals Hannah’s purse which includes two capsules of Molly/ecstasy in a kid’s chewy vitamins bottle. Now in possession of illegal drugs after skipping school and using Max’s dad’s drone without permission while he’s out of town, the boys need to figure out a way to get the drone back home without his dad knowing so Max won’t get grounded all so they can still attend the kissing party and become legends of the sixth grade.
Good Boys is co-written and co-directed (only Stupnitsky received credit) by Gene Stupnitsky and Lee Eisenberg (writers of Year One and Bad Teacher). The film is produced by Seth Green’s Point Grey Pictures and Good Universe (both Neighbors films, The Disaster Artist, Long Shot). This is all worth mentioning to get an idea of what you’re diving into if you plan on seeing this film. The R-rated comedy attempts to capture what Superbad did for teenagers over a decade ago, but replaces the teenage element with tweens. Whether they’re successful or not is entirely up to you.
There are some decent laugh-out-loud moments in Good Boys, but their long-lasting effect is short-lived because Stupnitsky and Eisenberg decided to repeat those laugh out loud moments over and over again to the point of annoyance. The main laughs of the film come from the boys trying to talk about adult things they don’t fully understand (cum pronounced as koom, a sex doll being a CPR dummy, a nymphomaniac is someone who likes to have sex at sea and on land, etc), thinking sex toys are weapons, and still not being able to get past the child proof lid on a vitamin bottle. These are all funny at first, but all the gags in the film fall under the same handful of categories and essentially feel like Stupnitsky and Eisenberg didn’t have enough creativity in the script writing process to think outside a smattering of raunch.
The typo’d “porb” sequence where the boys attempt to look up how to kiss on the internet, the crossing the busy highway on the way to the mall sequence, and Lucas being so adamant about a woman’s consent are more humorous elements because they’re not as overplayed into the ground; even the opening where Max is on the verge of masturbation seems like a cheap knock off of what Not Another Teen Movie did in its opening sequence nearly 20 years ago. In comparison, Olivia Wilde’s Booksmart from earlier this year was labeled as a female version of Superbad. The Superbad influence is there, but Booksmart adds a refreshing female perspective and explores what the future means for the main characters to a more satisfying extent.
Growing up and what that means to a 12-year-old is explored in Good Boys, but it seems awkward. You’re on the verge of becoming a teenager, which shouldn’t mean all that much for you other than attending a new school. Lucas’ parents are in the middle of a divorce and Thor is trying to be something he isn’t just for his reputation. The characters learn something over the course of the film because of this, but the entire maturing angle doesn’t feel right. Part of it is meant to be ridiculous, especially after Lucas says something like, “I’ve grown up a lot in the past two hours,” and it’s cool that the film goes out of its way to tell the audience to never be ashamed of what you love, but it all feels sloppy and thrown together at the last minute.
This is the first R-rated film to ever have a rating that includes, “all involving tweens,” and this could be seen as the Superbad of this generation, but Good Boys simply doesn’t differentiate itself from the high school and college R-rated comedies that came before it to be memorable or enjoyable. It will likely be a crowd pleaser anyway since the theater I was in was full of laughs from the general public, but its charm is ruined so early on and that’s a painful thing to say when your film is only 90 minutes long. Good Boys may be outrageous and funny at times, but its generic formula destroys what little entertainment value it potentially had.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Their Finest (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Keep Calm and Carry on Writing.
In a well-mined category, “Their Finest” is a World War 2 comedy/drama telling a tale I haven’t seen told before: the story behind the British Ministry of Information and their drive to produce propaganda films that support morale and promote positive messages in a time of national crisis. For it is 1940 and London is under nightly attack by the Luftwaffe during the time known as “The Blitz”. Unfortunately the Ministry is run by a bunch of toffs, and their output is laughably misaligned with the working class population, and especially the female population: with their husbands fighting overseas, these two groups are fast becoming one and the same. For women are finding and enjoying new empowerment and freedom in being socially unshackled from the kitchen sink.
The brave crew of the Nancy Starling. Bill Nighy as Uncle Frank, with twins Lily and Francesca Knight as the Starling sisters.
Enter Catrin Cole (Gemma Arterton, “The Girl with all the Gifts“) who is one such woman arriving to a dangerous London from South Wales to live with struggling disabled artist Ellis (Jack Huston, grandson of John Huston). Catrin, stretching the truth a little, brings a stirring ‘true’ tale of derring-do about the Dunkirk evacuation to the Ministry’s attention. She is then employed to “write the slop” (the woman’s dialogue) in the writing team headed by spiky Tom Buckley (Sam Claflin, “Me Before You“).
One of the stars of the film within the film is ‘Uncle Frank’ played by the aging but charismatic actor Ambrose Hilliard (Bill Nighy, “Dad’s Army“, “Love Actually”). Catrin proves her worth by pouring oil on troubled waters as the army insist on the introduction of an American airman (Jake Lacy, “Carol“) to the stressful mix. An attraction builds between Catrin and Tom, but how will the love triangle resolve itself? (For a significant clue see the “Spoiler Section” below the trailer, but be warned that this is a major spoiler!).
As you might expect if you’ve seen the trailer the film is, in the main, warm and funny with Gemma Arterton just gorgeously huggable as the determined young lady trying to make it in a misogynistic 40’s world of work. Arterton is just the perfect “girl next door”: (sigh… if I was only 20 years younger and unattached!) But mixed in with the humour and the romantic storyline is a harsh sprinkling of the trials of war and not a little heartbreak occurs. This is at least a 5 tissue movie.
Claflin, who is having a strong year with appearances in a wide range of films, is also eminently watchable. One of his best scenes is a speech with Arterton about “why people love the movies”, a theory that the film merrily and memorably drives a stake through the heart of!
Elsewhere Lacy is hilarious as the hapless airman with zero acting ability; Helen McCrory (“Harry Potter”) as Sophie Smith vamps it up wonderfully as the potential Polish love interest for Hilliard; Richard E Grant (“Logan“) and Jeremy Irons (“The Lion King”, “Die Hard: with a Vengeance”) pop up in useful cameos and Eddie Marsan (“Sherlock Holmes”) is also touching as Hilliard’s long-suffering agent.
But it is Bill Nighy’s Hilliard who carries most of the wit and humour of the film with his pompous thespian persona, basking in the dwindling glory of a much loved series of “Inspector Lynley” films. With his pomposity progressively warming under the thawing effect of Sophie and Catrin, you have to love him! Bill Nighy is, well, Bill Nighy. Hugh Grant gets it (unfairly) in the neck for “being Hugh Grant” in every film, but this pales in comparison with Nighy’s performances! But who cares: his kooky delivery is just delightful and he is a national treasure!
Slightly less convincing for me was Rachael Stirling’s role as a butch ministry busybody with more than a hint of the lesbian about her. Stirling’s performance in the role is fine, but would this really have been so blatant in 1940’s Britain? This didn’t really ring true for me.
While the film gamely tries to pull off London in the Blitz the film’s limited budget (around £25m) makes everything feel a little underpowered and ’empty’: a few hundred more extras in the Underground/Blitz scenes for example would have helped no end. However, the special effects crew do their best and the cinematography by Sebastian Blenkov (“The Riot Club”) suitably conveys the mood: a scene where Catrin gets caught in a bomb blast outside a clothes shop is particularly moving.
As with all comedy dramas, sometimes the bedfellows lie uncomfortably with each other, and a couple of plot twists: one highly predictable; one shockingly unpredictable make this a non-linear watch. This rollercoaster of a script by Gaby Chiappe, in an excellent feature film debut (she actually also has a cameo in the propaganda “carrot film”!), undeniably adds interest and makes the film more memorable. However (I know from personal experience) that the twist did not please everyone in the audience!
Despite its occasionally uneven tone, this is a really enjoyable watch (particularly for more mature audiences) and Danish director Lone Scherfig finally has a vehicle that matches the quality of her much praised Carey Mulligan vehicle “An Education”.
The brave crew of the Nancy Starling. Bill Nighy as Uncle Frank, with twins Lily and Francesca Knight as the Starling sisters.
Enter Catrin Cole (Gemma Arterton, “The Girl with all the Gifts“) who is one such woman arriving to a dangerous London from South Wales to live with struggling disabled artist Ellis (Jack Huston, grandson of John Huston). Catrin, stretching the truth a little, brings a stirring ‘true’ tale of derring-do about the Dunkirk evacuation to the Ministry’s attention. She is then employed to “write the slop” (the woman’s dialogue) in the writing team headed by spiky Tom Buckley (Sam Claflin, “Me Before You“).
One of the stars of the film within the film is ‘Uncle Frank’ played by the aging but charismatic actor Ambrose Hilliard (Bill Nighy, “Dad’s Army“, “Love Actually”). Catrin proves her worth by pouring oil on troubled waters as the army insist on the introduction of an American airman (Jake Lacy, “Carol“) to the stressful mix. An attraction builds between Catrin and Tom, but how will the love triangle resolve itself? (For a significant clue see the “Spoiler Section” below the trailer, but be warned that this is a major spoiler!).
As you might expect if you’ve seen the trailer the film is, in the main, warm and funny with Gemma Arterton just gorgeously huggable as the determined young lady trying to make it in a misogynistic 40’s world of work. Arterton is just the perfect “girl next door”: (sigh… if I was only 20 years younger and unattached!) But mixed in with the humour and the romantic storyline is a harsh sprinkling of the trials of war and not a little heartbreak occurs. This is at least a 5 tissue movie.
Claflin, who is having a strong year with appearances in a wide range of films, is also eminently watchable. One of his best scenes is a speech with Arterton about “why people love the movies”, a theory that the film merrily and memorably drives a stake through the heart of!
Elsewhere Lacy is hilarious as the hapless airman with zero acting ability; Helen McCrory (“Harry Potter”) as Sophie Smith vamps it up wonderfully as the potential Polish love interest for Hilliard; Richard E Grant (“Logan“) and Jeremy Irons (“The Lion King”, “Die Hard: with a Vengeance”) pop up in useful cameos and Eddie Marsan (“Sherlock Holmes”) is also touching as Hilliard’s long-suffering agent.
But it is Bill Nighy’s Hilliard who carries most of the wit and humour of the film with his pompous thespian persona, basking in the dwindling glory of a much loved series of “Inspector Lynley” films. With his pomposity progressively warming under the thawing effect of Sophie and Catrin, you have to love him! Bill Nighy is, well, Bill Nighy. Hugh Grant gets it (unfairly) in the neck for “being Hugh Grant” in every film, but this pales in comparison with Nighy’s performances! But who cares: his kooky delivery is just delightful and he is a national treasure!
Slightly less convincing for me was Rachael Stirling’s role as a butch ministry busybody with more than a hint of the lesbian about her. Stirling’s performance in the role is fine, but would this really have been so blatant in 1940’s Britain? This didn’t really ring true for me.
While the film gamely tries to pull off London in the Blitz the film’s limited budget (around £25m) makes everything feel a little underpowered and ’empty’: a few hundred more extras in the Underground/Blitz scenes for example would have helped no end. However, the special effects crew do their best and the cinematography by Sebastian Blenkov (“The Riot Club”) suitably conveys the mood: a scene where Catrin gets caught in a bomb blast outside a clothes shop is particularly moving.
As with all comedy dramas, sometimes the bedfellows lie uncomfortably with each other, and a couple of plot twists: one highly predictable; one shockingly unpredictable make this a non-linear watch. This rollercoaster of a script by Gaby Chiappe, in an excellent feature film debut (she actually also has a cameo in the propaganda “carrot film”!), undeniably adds interest and makes the film more memorable. However (I know from personal experience) that the twist did not please everyone in the audience!
Despite its occasionally uneven tone, this is a really enjoyable watch (particularly for more mature audiences) and Danish director Lone Scherfig finally has a vehicle that matches the quality of her much praised Carey Mulligan vehicle “An Education”.