Search
Search results
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Roma (2018) in Movies
Mar 2, 2020 (Updated Mar 3, 2020)
I watched Roma exactly a week ago today. And although I knew 20 minutes in that I loved it, and at the end that I really loved it, I have taken that time to let it settle within me in before coming to write about it. Some films are so good that you have to do that: let it sink into you fully, before doing anything so trivial as judging and comparing them. Roma is incomparable! I have never seen anything like it, or felt as deeply moved by a film in a long time.
Not that it didn’t get attention at the time of its release, it did, receiving 10 Oscar nominations and winning 3, for best foreign language film, director and cinematography, but it certainly wasn’t seen by as many people as it should have been, despite its presence on Netflix from the start. Having digested it now, and spending some time reading about how and why it was made, I feel a slight mission to recommend it to as many people as I can.
Based on Alfonso Cuarón’s own childhood in Mexico City, and his memories of his family and especially their housemaid, Liboria (Libo) Rodriguez, to whom the film is dedicated, it is a masterpiece labour of love that few directors ever achieve or even attempt to make. After a strong career of exceptional films, including Y Tu Mamá También, Children of Men and Gravity, it was the box office and critical success of the latter that gave Cuarón carte blanche to go and make whatever project he chose. Where many might have been tempted by the big money of superhero or fantasy movies (for which he had some experience with Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban) he went back to his roots and shot a very personal non-English film, in black and white, where no music exists except that which occurs naturally, and on the surface not much happens.
At least it feels like not much is happening, such is the naturalistic, almost improvised (although it wasn’t) style and pace; shot with a lens capturing detail and nuance with some of the most beautiful photography I have ever had the privilege to see. Truly, an awful lot is happening, but you have to feel and experience it, not simply be told it by the narrative. It takes a while for our Hollywood conditioned brains to accept this at first, and many might come to it and give up half an hour in because of that challenge. I can promise, however, there is not a single thing boring about this film, unless humanity is boring.
Oscar nominated lead Yalitza Aparicio as the shy, loving maid, Cleo, was not an actor before this film. She auditioned and was hand picked by Cuarón from hundreds of young women, without knowing who he was or what the film was about. Apparently, the film was shot in sequence so as not to confuse her emotionally on her extraordinary journey. She is so unassuming and natural that part of you falls in love with her immediately. In time, we almost come to forget we are watching an act at all, and almost become her, such is the empathy she evokes.
Which isn’t an easy ride, as we watch her be gently and then cruelly ignored, mistreated and used; climaxing in one of the most astonishingly painful and jaw-dropping scenes imaginable, and then a scene of such powerful redemption and humanity it instantly breaks the heart and lifts the soul. All the while she never asks for attention or love, but is just herself: a young woman living a difficult but beautiful life in a country and time full of turmoil, prejudice and social change.
The recreation of Mexico in 1970 is so breathtaking, it is hard to imagine at times we are not watching a documentary from that era. But, it is the detail the lens chooses to capture that reminds you this is a visual poem and a love-letter to a time, a place and a family far away in history and the memory of one man (represented by ten year old Carlos Peralta as Paco). At times it evokes the work of the very greatest film artists of all time: Bergman, Fellini, Hitchcock etc. Not one image is wasted or insignificant, from the reflection of the sky in water, to the dog-shit constantly lining the driveway. Everything is chosen and meaningful in the full context of the work.
There is no awkward exposition, no dramatic moments milked for all they are worth, no sequences of heightened excitement that manipulate us; simply truthful moments that hang in the air for what they are, leaving us to decide how we relate to them without ever preaching or teaching us how. In that way, it is a work of such maturity that I doubt many living directors could emulate it at all. The closest comparison I can think of is the personal passion Spielberg put into Shindler’s List, but really it is a moot comparison, and in fact owes much more to films like Haneke’s The White Ribbon.
Can it be faulted? Well, yes, certainly. But, honestly, I don’t see the point in trying. It is as close to perfection a small story of this kind can be. Importantly, I think it is an open film, that allows us to take from it whatever we like, relating to our own experiences and cares. For me, it said that any pain and hardship can be overcome, as long as there is love and beauty walking by its side. A message of no small importance. If you haven’t seen it, I urge you to do so. If you have, then please keep spreading the word. I believe it to be a genuine classic that will endure the criticism of many decades to come. Without a doubt in my mind something very special indeed.
Not that it didn’t get attention at the time of its release, it did, receiving 10 Oscar nominations and winning 3, for best foreign language film, director and cinematography, but it certainly wasn’t seen by as many people as it should have been, despite its presence on Netflix from the start. Having digested it now, and spending some time reading about how and why it was made, I feel a slight mission to recommend it to as many people as I can.
Based on Alfonso Cuarón’s own childhood in Mexico City, and his memories of his family and especially their housemaid, Liboria (Libo) Rodriguez, to whom the film is dedicated, it is a masterpiece labour of love that few directors ever achieve or even attempt to make. After a strong career of exceptional films, including Y Tu Mamá También, Children of Men and Gravity, it was the box office and critical success of the latter that gave Cuarón carte blanche to go and make whatever project he chose. Where many might have been tempted by the big money of superhero or fantasy movies (for which he had some experience with Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban) he went back to his roots and shot a very personal non-English film, in black and white, where no music exists except that which occurs naturally, and on the surface not much happens.
At least it feels like not much is happening, such is the naturalistic, almost improvised (although it wasn’t) style and pace; shot with a lens capturing detail and nuance with some of the most beautiful photography I have ever had the privilege to see. Truly, an awful lot is happening, but you have to feel and experience it, not simply be told it by the narrative. It takes a while for our Hollywood conditioned brains to accept this at first, and many might come to it and give up half an hour in because of that challenge. I can promise, however, there is not a single thing boring about this film, unless humanity is boring.
Oscar nominated lead Yalitza Aparicio as the shy, loving maid, Cleo, was not an actor before this film. She auditioned and was hand picked by Cuarón from hundreds of young women, without knowing who he was or what the film was about. Apparently, the film was shot in sequence so as not to confuse her emotionally on her extraordinary journey. She is so unassuming and natural that part of you falls in love with her immediately. In time, we almost come to forget we are watching an act at all, and almost become her, such is the empathy she evokes.
Which isn’t an easy ride, as we watch her be gently and then cruelly ignored, mistreated and used; climaxing in one of the most astonishingly painful and jaw-dropping scenes imaginable, and then a scene of such powerful redemption and humanity it instantly breaks the heart and lifts the soul. All the while she never asks for attention or love, but is just herself: a young woman living a difficult but beautiful life in a country and time full of turmoil, prejudice and social change.
The recreation of Mexico in 1970 is so breathtaking, it is hard to imagine at times we are not watching a documentary from that era. But, it is the detail the lens chooses to capture that reminds you this is a visual poem and a love-letter to a time, a place and a family far away in history and the memory of one man (represented by ten year old Carlos Peralta as Paco). At times it evokes the work of the very greatest film artists of all time: Bergman, Fellini, Hitchcock etc. Not one image is wasted or insignificant, from the reflection of the sky in water, to the dog-shit constantly lining the driveway. Everything is chosen and meaningful in the full context of the work.
There is no awkward exposition, no dramatic moments milked for all they are worth, no sequences of heightened excitement that manipulate us; simply truthful moments that hang in the air for what they are, leaving us to decide how we relate to them without ever preaching or teaching us how. In that way, it is a work of such maturity that I doubt many living directors could emulate it at all. The closest comparison I can think of is the personal passion Spielberg put into Shindler’s List, but really it is a moot comparison, and in fact owes much more to films like Haneke’s The White Ribbon.
Can it be faulted? Well, yes, certainly. But, honestly, I don’t see the point in trying. It is as close to perfection a small story of this kind can be. Importantly, I think it is an open film, that allows us to take from it whatever we like, relating to our own experiences and cares. For me, it said that any pain and hardship can be overcome, as long as there is love and beauty walking by its side. A message of no small importance. If you haven’t seen it, I urge you to do so. If you have, then please keep spreading the word. I believe it to be a genuine classic that will endure the criticism of many decades to come. Without a doubt in my mind something very special indeed.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bad Boys for Life (2020) in Movies
Mar 9, 2020
Welcome to Miami - again!
Will Smith seems to have been having a lacklustre period in his career. His genie from "Aladdin" got a rather lukewarm reception. And his last movie - "Gemini Man" - billed as a big summer blockbuster - failed to impress. True it wasn't a commercial disaster (raking in at the time of writing about 150% of budget), but it's still a film on a plane for me that, even if I'm bored, I'll say "nah" to.
Perhaps it's for this reason that Smith reached for an old and reliable property to dust off for another outing.
And, do you know, it's not half bad.
I only recently saw this one, right at the end of its UK cinema run, because frankly it appealed to me like being hit round the head with a cold fish. Martin Lawrence is an actor who just grates on me enormously. I'm sure he's a lovely chap; kind to animals; donates to charity; etc - but I generally just don't find him funny. (Here though he has a killer line about condom use that made me chuckle.) It feels to me like he is on implausible ground here re-treading the role of aging detective Marcus Burnett. One look at Burnett lumbering along and you would think "well, he'd never pass the medical" for the on-street role he's portrayed doing. His buddy is detective Mike Lowrey (Will Smith), who has a sordid past that is set to catch up on him.
Since we start the story in Colombia, where Isabel Aretas (Kate Del Castillo), the witchy wife of a notorious deceased drug baron, is sprung from prison by her son Armando (Jacob Scipio) in what I admit is a clever and novel way. The Aretas family is bent on revenge - - and a key target in their sites is Lowrey.
Burnett is newly a grandparent and hell-bent on retirement. But with Lowrey and his associates with a target on their backs, will there be one last chance to "Ride Together, Die Together"?
Not seen the first two movies? Not to worry! There are movies, like LOTR, where if you've missed the first two movies in the series you will be left in serious "WTF" territory in trying to watch the third. This is not one of those movies. The story is entirely self-contained, and refers to events never seen prior to the first film in the series.
But whether the movie is for you will depend on your tolerance for loud and brash visuals and music with the knob turned up to 12. Directors Adil and Bilall (Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah - Belgian film school buddies best known for the critically acclaimed 2015 feature "Black") - don't do anything by halves.
There is a scene in "Lost Series 3" in which Sawyer, Kate, and Alex have to bust young Karl out of the mysterious room 23 where he is being tortured by having his eyes kept open while watching a collage of images continually smashed into his eyeballs. This movie feels a little like that after a while.
This is not by any means a criticism that it's poorly done. There is some truly stunning cinematography of the Miami skyline by Belgian cinematographer Robrecht Heyvaert, including a 'pull-back' drone shot from a conversation on the top of a building that is quite AWESOME! And there are more than enough "fast action - then slo-mo - then fast again" shots to keep music-video junkies happy!
The music score by Lorne Balfe is also pumping, adding a dynamism to the frantic action scenes that keeps you entertained.
The screenplay by Chris Bremner, Peter Craig and Joe Carnahan is assuredly familiar: it's not going to win any prizes for originality. We've seen the cartel/revenge plotline played out in multiple movies over the years. And we've also seen the "buddy cops with aging partner taking retirement" angle from the "Lethal Weapon" series. This just sticks them together.
Will Smith and Martin Lawrence wise-crack their way through the comedy well-enough, though for me it never reaches the heights of the pairing of Smith and Tommy Lee Jones from MiB (or indeed Mel Gibson and Danny Glover from Lethal Weapon). Elsewhere we have Vanessa Hudgens as a cute cop, still trying to break through from "Disneyfication" into mainstream flicks. For one horrible moment, when I saw her name on the cast, I thought she might be the love interest to Smith. But no. That honour goes to Mexican beauty Paola Nuñez who, with only a 10 year age gap, becomes a less gag-worthy pairing. She plays a female leadership role (every 20's film now needs one) as the head of a new crime division.
Also good value is Joe Pantoliano reprising his role as Captain Howard - Lowrie's exasperated boss. Playing it by the numbers, every film like this has to have one!
Where the plot does add some interest is in a surprising scene mid-film and a twist that I didn't see coming. But this twist felt - in the context of the release date or the film - like a mistake (a "Spoiler Section" in my review on the One Mann's Movies web site discusses this).
All of this happens of course against a backdrop of a body count of bad guys being killed in ever more graphic and gory ways, while the good guys generally dodge every bullet, grenade and crashing helicopter heading their way.
It's that time of year when films are released to die. Where studios drop their movies that are never going to trouble the Academy and are not deemed worthy of summer or even late spring release. But they should have had more faith in this one, for it's not half bad. True, you may need a couple of paracetamols afterwards, but if your corneas and ear-drums can stand the pace, its not short on entertainment value.
(For the full graphical review, check out the One Mann's Movies link here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/03/08/one-manns-movies-film-review-bad-boys-for-life-2020/ ).
Perhaps it's for this reason that Smith reached for an old and reliable property to dust off for another outing.
And, do you know, it's not half bad.
I only recently saw this one, right at the end of its UK cinema run, because frankly it appealed to me like being hit round the head with a cold fish. Martin Lawrence is an actor who just grates on me enormously. I'm sure he's a lovely chap; kind to animals; donates to charity; etc - but I generally just don't find him funny. (Here though he has a killer line about condom use that made me chuckle.) It feels to me like he is on implausible ground here re-treading the role of aging detective Marcus Burnett. One look at Burnett lumbering along and you would think "well, he'd never pass the medical" for the on-street role he's portrayed doing. His buddy is detective Mike Lowrey (Will Smith), who has a sordid past that is set to catch up on him.
Since we start the story in Colombia, where Isabel Aretas (Kate Del Castillo), the witchy wife of a notorious deceased drug baron, is sprung from prison by her son Armando (Jacob Scipio) in what I admit is a clever and novel way. The Aretas family is bent on revenge - - and a key target in their sites is Lowrey.
Burnett is newly a grandparent and hell-bent on retirement. But with Lowrey and his associates with a target on their backs, will there be one last chance to "Ride Together, Die Together"?
Not seen the first two movies? Not to worry! There are movies, like LOTR, where if you've missed the first two movies in the series you will be left in serious "WTF" territory in trying to watch the third. This is not one of those movies. The story is entirely self-contained, and refers to events never seen prior to the first film in the series.
But whether the movie is for you will depend on your tolerance for loud and brash visuals and music with the knob turned up to 12. Directors Adil and Bilall (Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah - Belgian film school buddies best known for the critically acclaimed 2015 feature "Black") - don't do anything by halves.
There is a scene in "Lost Series 3" in which Sawyer, Kate, and Alex have to bust young Karl out of the mysterious room 23 where he is being tortured by having his eyes kept open while watching a collage of images continually smashed into his eyeballs. This movie feels a little like that after a while.
This is not by any means a criticism that it's poorly done. There is some truly stunning cinematography of the Miami skyline by Belgian cinematographer Robrecht Heyvaert, including a 'pull-back' drone shot from a conversation on the top of a building that is quite AWESOME! And there are more than enough "fast action - then slo-mo - then fast again" shots to keep music-video junkies happy!
The music score by Lorne Balfe is also pumping, adding a dynamism to the frantic action scenes that keeps you entertained.
The screenplay by Chris Bremner, Peter Craig and Joe Carnahan is assuredly familiar: it's not going to win any prizes for originality. We've seen the cartel/revenge plotline played out in multiple movies over the years. And we've also seen the "buddy cops with aging partner taking retirement" angle from the "Lethal Weapon" series. This just sticks them together.
Will Smith and Martin Lawrence wise-crack their way through the comedy well-enough, though for me it never reaches the heights of the pairing of Smith and Tommy Lee Jones from MiB (or indeed Mel Gibson and Danny Glover from Lethal Weapon). Elsewhere we have Vanessa Hudgens as a cute cop, still trying to break through from "Disneyfication" into mainstream flicks. For one horrible moment, when I saw her name on the cast, I thought she might be the love interest to Smith. But no. That honour goes to Mexican beauty Paola Nuñez who, with only a 10 year age gap, becomes a less gag-worthy pairing. She plays a female leadership role (every 20's film now needs one) as the head of a new crime division.
Also good value is Joe Pantoliano reprising his role as Captain Howard - Lowrie's exasperated boss. Playing it by the numbers, every film like this has to have one!
Where the plot does add some interest is in a surprising scene mid-film and a twist that I didn't see coming. But this twist felt - in the context of the release date or the film - like a mistake (a "Spoiler Section" in my review on the One Mann's Movies web site discusses this).
All of this happens of course against a backdrop of a body count of bad guys being killed in ever more graphic and gory ways, while the good guys generally dodge every bullet, grenade and crashing helicopter heading their way.
It's that time of year when films are released to die. Where studios drop their movies that are never going to trouble the Academy and are not deemed worthy of summer or even late spring release. But they should have had more faith in this one, for it's not half bad. True, you may need a couple of paracetamols afterwards, but if your corneas and ear-drums can stand the pace, its not short on entertainment value.
(For the full graphical review, check out the One Mann's Movies link here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/03/08/one-manns-movies-film-review-bad-boys-for-life-2020/ ).
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Pocket Pixel Artist in Tabletop Games
Feb 5, 2021
Ahh good ol’ NES. How I miss thee. My very first video game console, and still I remember it fondly. Somewhat recently a revival of 8-bit art has flown around various mediums and board games were also infused with this love of the pixelated art style. But how well can YOU create 8-bit art? Do you think you are able to create a masterpiece with pixel cubes in, say, 60 seconds? Let’s find out.
Pocket Pixel Artist is a cube-artistry game for teams of any number of players. In it players will be assuming the roles of the next great 8-bit artist and creating magnum opuses of block art for the enjoyment of all.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign launching March 9, 2021, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup separate the players into teams of at least two players. Shuffle the deck of prompt cards and keep the colored cubes handy for the artists. The game will last four rounds and the winning team will be they who finishes with the most Victory Points from correctly guessing assembled art pieces. Choose a team to create first and the game may begin!
On a turn one player from the active team will draw a card from the stack, choose one of the eight words on the card, and be ready to begin building the word once a 60 second timer begins. The goal of each round is to have the current artist’s team guess the word being built for a VP, but each round has slightly different rules to follow.
In the first round, “Head to Head,” each team will nominate an artist to begin. Each artist will then draw a card, choose a word to create, and then begin building their words simultaneously against the other artists. The team that guesses the word correctly first will receive more VP than the teams that follow.
The second round, “Pixel Boogaloo,” has artists choosing a word and building their art in secret. Once the 60 second timer is up the artist will then uncover their creation. The artist’s teammate(s) then have 30 seconds to guess the word. If they cannot, the next team in table order will have 30 seconds to earn a VP with a successful guess. This round is played until all players have had a chance to be both artist and guesser.
The third round, “Palette Crash,” the team to the left of the active artist’s team will choose a color from green, yellow, blue, and red to shout to the active artist. The artist will then be forced to choose one of the words on the card matching that color as well as being limited to using only cubes of the matching color (players can agree to use black and white cubes as well for an easier challenge). This word building is also done in secret and then revealed after the 60 second timer for their teammates to guess within 30 seconds. Should the teammates guess correctly the team will be awarded with 2 VP. If they fail to guess correctly, the next team in table order automatically receives 1 VP. This round is played until all players have had a chance to be both artist and guesser.
The final round, “Final Render,” the artist will draw a card, choose a word, and begin building in full view of all players. For each correct guess the guessing team will earn 1 VP toward their total. Once all players have had a chance to build in this round the game ends and VPs are tallied.
Components. This is another mint tin game of cards and colored cubes. The cards are all fine and the cubes as well. There is some art on the cards, and it is also fine 8-bit renders. I have no complaints other than the rulesheet does not fit in the tin along with the components – the tin will not shut.
Gameplay is easy for some and not so easy for others (like me). As you can see in the image above, that is my lame attempt at a rainbow. When you only have 60 seconds to create something that actually looks like what is on the card, the stress and lack of actual art talent can certainly play tricks on you (me). But that is also part of the fun. In my head I can see exactly what I want to build, but getting all the cubes in the right order and correct colors causes my hand-eye coordination to fly out the window. Others must have been better at putting the square peg in the square hole when they were babies because I just can’t do it very well as an adult.
Now, again, I am in the minority of people who just aren’t that great at this game. At least in my experience. Having the game follow different rules each round is a refreshing spin on the Pictionary style of creating something for others to guess. I do enjoy fiddling with the cubes and at least attempting to make something recognizable. I enjoy seeing many different choices on each card and not being limited to just one word on a turn. Obviously these do nothing for my artistry, but they are appreciated.
Should you be in need of a small game that gives the feel of Pictionary without being pen and paper, I urge you to check out Pocket Pixel Artist. I can see it working in many scenarios, just like its cousin from the same publisher Swearmints. At the end of the game players typically did not seem to care much about which team won, but always had a great time playing and remembering the ridiculous monstrosities that were constructed.
Pocket Pixel Artist is a cube-artistry game for teams of any number of players. In it players will be assuming the roles of the next great 8-bit artist and creating magnum opuses of block art for the enjoyment of all.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign launching March 9, 2021, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup separate the players into teams of at least two players. Shuffle the deck of prompt cards and keep the colored cubes handy for the artists. The game will last four rounds and the winning team will be they who finishes with the most Victory Points from correctly guessing assembled art pieces. Choose a team to create first and the game may begin!
On a turn one player from the active team will draw a card from the stack, choose one of the eight words on the card, and be ready to begin building the word once a 60 second timer begins. The goal of each round is to have the current artist’s team guess the word being built for a VP, but each round has slightly different rules to follow.
In the first round, “Head to Head,” each team will nominate an artist to begin. Each artist will then draw a card, choose a word to create, and then begin building their words simultaneously against the other artists. The team that guesses the word correctly first will receive more VP than the teams that follow.
The second round, “Pixel Boogaloo,” has artists choosing a word and building their art in secret. Once the 60 second timer is up the artist will then uncover their creation. The artist’s teammate(s) then have 30 seconds to guess the word. If they cannot, the next team in table order will have 30 seconds to earn a VP with a successful guess. This round is played until all players have had a chance to be both artist and guesser.
The third round, “Palette Crash,” the team to the left of the active artist’s team will choose a color from green, yellow, blue, and red to shout to the active artist. The artist will then be forced to choose one of the words on the card matching that color as well as being limited to using only cubes of the matching color (players can agree to use black and white cubes as well for an easier challenge). This word building is also done in secret and then revealed after the 60 second timer for their teammates to guess within 30 seconds. Should the teammates guess correctly the team will be awarded with 2 VP. If they fail to guess correctly, the next team in table order automatically receives 1 VP. This round is played until all players have had a chance to be both artist and guesser.
The final round, “Final Render,” the artist will draw a card, choose a word, and begin building in full view of all players. For each correct guess the guessing team will earn 1 VP toward their total. Once all players have had a chance to build in this round the game ends and VPs are tallied.
Components. This is another mint tin game of cards and colored cubes. The cards are all fine and the cubes as well. There is some art on the cards, and it is also fine 8-bit renders. I have no complaints other than the rulesheet does not fit in the tin along with the components – the tin will not shut.
Gameplay is easy for some and not so easy for others (like me). As you can see in the image above, that is my lame attempt at a rainbow. When you only have 60 seconds to create something that actually looks like what is on the card, the stress and lack of actual art talent can certainly play tricks on you (me). But that is also part of the fun. In my head I can see exactly what I want to build, but getting all the cubes in the right order and correct colors causes my hand-eye coordination to fly out the window. Others must have been better at putting the square peg in the square hole when they were babies because I just can’t do it very well as an adult.
Now, again, I am in the minority of people who just aren’t that great at this game. At least in my experience. Having the game follow different rules each round is a refreshing spin on the Pictionary style of creating something for others to guess. I do enjoy fiddling with the cubes and at least attempting to make something recognizable. I enjoy seeing many different choices on each card and not being limited to just one word on a turn. Obviously these do nothing for my artistry, but they are appreciated.
Should you be in need of a small game that gives the feel of Pictionary without being pen and paper, I urge you to check out Pocket Pixel Artist. I can see it working in many scenarios, just like its cousin from the same publisher Swearmints. At the end of the game players typically did not seem to care much about which team won, but always had a great time playing and remembering the ridiculous monstrosities that were constructed.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Lighthouse (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Robert Eggers made a striking introduction for himself in 2015 with the moody and disconcerting The Witch, bringing a future star to the world’s attention in Anya Taylor-Joy in the process. You could argue after seeing his sophomore effort, The Lighthouse, that in terms of creating deliberately nauseating landscapes his work is the third cog in the arthouse revival of intellectual “horror”, after Ari Aster (Hereditary / Midsommar) and Jordan Peele (Get Out / Us). The group actually sits quite well together, as there is an obvious social commentary by metaphor crossover going on here, as well as just a little bit of “crazy”.
The point of difference up front with Eggars seems to be an earthiness. He likes dirt, and straw and rain and holes in the ground, and a sense of temperature in a scene (usually very cold). He also loves to frame an image and hold it there simply for the bizarre beauty of it, much as David Lynch has done unapologetically and without explanation his whole career.
As perfect as Tayor-Joy was in The Witch for her innocent otherworldly qualities, so Willem Dafoe is also as a craggy, sweaty-toothed old man of the sea in this. Whatever else you take, or don’t take from The Lighthouse, it is hard to deny the absolute cinematic purity of Dafoe’s face! It alone will guarantee this film’s cult status (and his) forever. And I do mean forever; the very best images of this film are worthy to be frozen, framed and wondered at alongside the most enduring black and white iconography in the entire history of the art form. And most often the best images involve Dafoe.
He is just so damn interesting to look at, all the time, no matter what. His range as an actor over the years just gets more and more impressive the more you think about it. He is capable of being heartbreakingly vulnerable and tender, but can also be terrifying on demand. His streak of dark humour can not be underestimated either – consider the genius of his introduction here, where the simple touch of his pipe being upside down tells you everything you need to know about this man and where this film is going.
Except, we don’t know where it is going. Ever. It is a very odd experience in terms of a satisfying narrative. It never seems to settle or fit into a genre comfortably, which is fine if all elements sublimate magically, but I don’t think they quite do. Is it a horror, a comedy, a psychological thriller, a study of loneliness and isolation, a metaphor for… something? The closest I can get is to say it is as if Lynch remade Young Frankenstein with just Igor and Dr Frankenstein, at a lighthouse, but forgot to make it funny or cohere into a real story. Of course, the things that I am reaching for as shortcomings may be exactly what others see as strengths. There is something to be said for being taken on a journey you can’t define or easily explain.
Quite often on this journey we are teased and fed details that seem to go nowhere, and avenues that may have proved interesting to explore are closed with a bang, in favour of another drinking scene and another fight – which are great the first few times, but become repetitive to a baffling degree later on. Mythology and dreams of the sea are played with, but also not fully approached; we are only given brief flashes of Mermaids and Krakens, nightmares and visions only, before returning to the mundanity and drudgery of the job of a lighthouse keeper. You are often left wondering who is going more mad, the men in the film or you watching it. I definitely recommend the best way to watch this is a little or a lot drunk, very late at night… it demands it, somehow.
It is difficult for all these reasons to say with any true certainty then, after just one viewing, if I think it is any good… I don’t know yet, I will have to watch it again some time to find out, is my best answer. For sure the photography is 100% first rate and instantly unforgettable – Jarin Blaschke was deservedly Oscar nominated for the extremely fine work – and the design and feel of the whole thing is quite masterful. I really want to like it more than I do, and perhaps if I was still in my wide-eyed twenties I would be enthusing about it endlessly, but now… I can see a touch of the Emperor’s new clothes about it, so am cautious of praising it too much.
One other element that is impressive, however, that I have yet to touch on, is the continued rise of Mr Robert Pattinson as an actor of serious note. As I have already touched on recently in other reviews, I did not see this coming, that it would be him that I was naming as one of the most promising talents of his age group working in film today! But you just can’t deny his versatility and understanding of genre and character. He puts in another very solid effort here, full of interesting choices and nuance; he is certainly an exciting prospect for the decade ahead.
In summary. See it. Unless you absolutely hate things that don’t tie the strings up nice and neatly, and decide for yourself. Some people will hate it, and I get that. It is a film-lovers film, for sure. Mesmerising and Meticulous, as one critic put it. Admire it for the craft involved, and experience it with an open mind. Just don’t go in expecting traditional horror, or traditional drama, or traditional comedy, or even traditional surrealism… The Lighthouse, for all it’s debatable flaws is unique! I suggest you let it be that way by not over-reaching to define it.
The point of difference up front with Eggars seems to be an earthiness. He likes dirt, and straw and rain and holes in the ground, and a sense of temperature in a scene (usually very cold). He also loves to frame an image and hold it there simply for the bizarre beauty of it, much as David Lynch has done unapologetically and without explanation his whole career.
As perfect as Tayor-Joy was in The Witch for her innocent otherworldly qualities, so Willem Dafoe is also as a craggy, sweaty-toothed old man of the sea in this. Whatever else you take, or don’t take from The Lighthouse, it is hard to deny the absolute cinematic purity of Dafoe’s face! It alone will guarantee this film’s cult status (and his) forever. And I do mean forever; the very best images of this film are worthy to be frozen, framed and wondered at alongside the most enduring black and white iconography in the entire history of the art form. And most often the best images involve Dafoe.
He is just so damn interesting to look at, all the time, no matter what. His range as an actor over the years just gets more and more impressive the more you think about it. He is capable of being heartbreakingly vulnerable and tender, but can also be terrifying on demand. His streak of dark humour can not be underestimated either – consider the genius of his introduction here, where the simple touch of his pipe being upside down tells you everything you need to know about this man and where this film is going.
Except, we don’t know where it is going. Ever. It is a very odd experience in terms of a satisfying narrative. It never seems to settle or fit into a genre comfortably, which is fine if all elements sublimate magically, but I don’t think they quite do. Is it a horror, a comedy, a psychological thriller, a study of loneliness and isolation, a metaphor for… something? The closest I can get is to say it is as if Lynch remade Young Frankenstein with just Igor and Dr Frankenstein, at a lighthouse, but forgot to make it funny or cohere into a real story. Of course, the things that I am reaching for as shortcomings may be exactly what others see as strengths. There is something to be said for being taken on a journey you can’t define or easily explain.
Quite often on this journey we are teased and fed details that seem to go nowhere, and avenues that may have proved interesting to explore are closed with a bang, in favour of another drinking scene and another fight – which are great the first few times, but become repetitive to a baffling degree later on. Mythology and dreams of the sea are played with, but also not fully approached; we are only given brief flashes of Mermaids and Krakens, nightmares and visions only, before returning to the mundanity and drudgery of the job of a lighthouse keeper. You are often left wondering who is going more mad, the men in the film or you watching it. I definitely recommend the best way to watch this is a little or a lot drunk, very late at night… it demands it, somehow.
It is difficult for all these reasons to say with any true certainty then, after just one viewing, if I think it is any good… I don’t know yet, I will have to watch it again some time to find out, is my best answer. For sure the photography is 100% first rate and instantly unforgettable – Jarin Blaschke was deservedly Oscar nominated for the extremely fine work – and the design and feel of the whole thing is quite masterful. I really want to like it more than I do, and perhaps if I was still in my wide-eyed twenties I would be enthusing about it endlessly, but now… I can see a touch of the Emperor’s new clothes about it, so am cautious of praising it too much.
One other element that is impressive, however, that I have yet to touch on, is the continued rise of Mr Robert Pattinson as an actor of serious note. As I have already touched on recently in other reviews, I did not see this coming, that it would be him that I was naming as one of the most promising talents of his age group working in film today! But you just can’t deny his versatility and understanding of genre and character. He puts in another very solid effort here, full of interesting choices and nuance; he is certainly an exciting prospect for the decade ahead.
In summary. See it. Unless you absolutely hate things that don’t tie the strings up nice and neatly, and decide for yourself. Some people will hate it, and I get that. It is a film-lovers film, for sure. Mesmerising and Meticulous, as one critic put it. Admire it for the craft involved, and experience it with an open mind. Just don’t go in expecting traditional horror, or traditional drama, or traditional comedy, or even traditional surrealism… The Lighthouse, for all it’s debatable flaws is unique! I suggest you let it be that way by not over-reaching to define it.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Hunting Sasquatch in Tabletop Games
Jan 30, 2021
Sasquatch. Nessie. La Chupacabra. The Jersey Devil. These are all examples of what is called “Cryptids.” These cryptids are mostly fairytale creatures, and have not been substantiated yet, but many a fool have hunted them nonetheless. You are one of those fools. Your target? Information on Sasquatch. Yeah, you might find other clues to fellow cryptids along the way, but you really need that sweet sweet clear photo to be crowned King Fool!
Hunting Sasquatch is a competitive press-your-luck card and dice game where players are attempting to gather clues to catch Sasquatch. The winner will be the player with the most Victory Points at the end of the game, if any VP are to be had before too many Hunters go missing in the woods.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup shuffle the Location cards (big ones) and reveal as many locations as are players. Shuffle the Hunter cards and deal three to each player. Shuffle the Hunter’s Arsenal cards and place its deck near the Hunter deck on the table. Separate the various tokens by type and place them on the table nearby as well. Have the dice accessible to all players and the game may begin!
On a turn the active player will choose one of their Hunters to visit a Location. The Hunter may visit one of the face-up Locations or draw one to be placed on top of one of those revealed. If the Hunter draws a new Location they MUST visit this newly-revealed Location.
The Hunter then rolls all eight of the green Hunter Dice. If the Hunter had gained any Anti- tokens (anti-camera, anti-book, etc) then those Anti- tokens cause matching dice to be removed from the turn immediately. The Hunter may now spend any Wildcard Tokens they may have earned previously to rotate a die’s value to anything wished.
Once the roll is ready to be resolved, the Hunter will reference the Location they chose for dice values. Each Location has Lost Conditions on the left and Victory Conditions on the right of the card. The Hunter must fill as many Lost Conditions as they have matching dice, and may then assign Victory Conditions dice to their places on the card. Should a Hunter fill up the Lost Conditions spaces with dice the Hunter is then lost to the hunt and their Hunter Card is discarded. Should the Hunter avoiding becoming lost and fill up the column of Victory Conditions they will score the booty from the box in the lower right-hand corner of the Location card (mostly VP, Evidence Tokens, Wildcard Tokens).
If neither column of icons on the Location Card have been filled completely and there are still dice available, the black Fate Die may be rolled. A successful Fate Die roll shows a lucky horseshoe and allows the Hunter to re-roll the available dice. An unsuccessful Fate Die roll shows a bear trap icon and forces the Hunter to apply the Trap conditions on the lower left-hand corner of the Location Card (usually Anti- tokens).
The game ends once a certain number of Hunters are lost (depending on number of players) or once any Hunter has collected all five Evidence Tokens.
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of the game, so components will most likely be different as a result of a successful Kickstarter campaign. That said, I can comment on the direction the game is going, and I like it quite a bit. The tokens will need to be improved to be more usable, and obviously the dice will upgraded, but other than those I like everything else going on here. The cards are nice, easy to read, and have great artwork on them. Similarly the Location Cards are probably my favorite components of the game because they feature hilarious and wonderful artwork. The game looks great as is, but I am eagerly looking forward to what it will be once completely finished.
The gameplay is kind of a crapshoot in my experience. I have had several plays where too many Hunters were lost too quickly and the game ended in five minutes. I have also played games where Lady Luck was on my side and I was rolling like a king. I managed to get three Evidence Tokens that time. Each one of my games have ended in surpassing the total number of Hunters lost, but I feel like the game is winnable. Just probably by someone luckier than me.
I do really love dice games, and when they allow players to alter the face values, or the game alters them I find a great deal of satisfaction. And that is what Hunting Sasquatch delivers. It is a dice chucking game with dice alteration, amazing hilarious art, and a pretty tough difficulty level. It is perfect for gamers who enjoy dice games but find most to be too lame and easy.
I love this theme. I love this art style. I love the gameplay. I do not love the tiny and thin tokens (but I pray they get a huge upgrade for the final version). Hunting Sasquatch is another winner from Spyglass Games, who brought us the incredible VENOM Assault. I am a big fan of the games this publisher is putting out there and if you are like me, I think you will also like this one a lot. I invite you to check out their Kickstarter campaign when it launches, and remember: cryptids are just made-up stories. They cannot come to your campsite and eat all your jerky.
Hunting Sasquatch is a competitive press-your-luck card and dice game where players are attempting to gather clues to catch Sasquatch. The winner will be the player with the most Victory Points at the end of the game, if any VP are to be had before too many Hunters go missing in the woods.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup shuffle the Location cards (big ones) and reveal as many locations as are players. Shuffle the Hunter cards and deal three to each player. Shuffle the Hunter’s Arsenal cards and place its deck near the Hunter deck on the table. Separate the various tokens by type and place them on the table nearby as well. Have the dice accessible to all players and the game may begin!
On a turn the active player will choose one of their Hunters to visit a Location. The Hunter may visit one of the face-up Locations or draw one to be placed on top of one of those revealed. If the Hunter draws a new Location they MUST visit this newly-revealed Location.
The Hunter then rolls all eight of the green Hunter Dice. If the Hunter had gained any Anti- tokens (anti-camera, anti-book, etc) then those Anti- tokens cause matching dice to be removed from the turn immediately. The Hunter may now spend any Wildcard Tokens they may have earned previously to rotate a die’s value to anything wished.
Once the roll is ready to be resolved, the Hunter will reference the Location they chose for dice values. Each Location has Lost Conditions on the left and Victory Conditions on the right of the card. The Hunter must fill as many Lost Conditions as they have matching dice, and may then assign Victory Conditions dice to their places on the card. Should a Hunter fill up the Lost Conditions spaces with dice the Hunter is then lost to the hunt and their Hunter Card is discarded. Should the Hunter avoiding becoming lost and fill up the column of Victory Conditions they will score the booty from the box in the lower right-hand corner of the Location card (mostly VP, Evidence Tokens, Wildcard Tokens).
If neither column of icons on the Location Card have been filled completely and there are still dice available, the black Fate Die may be rolled. A successful Fate Die roll shows a lucky horseshoe and allows the Hunter to re-roll the available dice. An unsuccessful Fate Die roll shows a bear trap icon and forces the Hunter to apply the Trap conditions on the lower left-hand corner of the Location Card (usually Anti- tokens).
The game ends once a certain number of Hunters are lost (depending on number of players) or once any Hunter has collected all five Evidence Tokens.
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of the game, so components will most likely be different as a result of a successful Kickstarter campaign. That said, I can comment on the direction the game is going, and I like it quite a bit. The tokens will need to be improved to be more usable, and obviously the dice will upgraded, but other than those I like everything else going on here. The cards are nice, easy to read, and have great artwork on them. Similarly the Location Cards are probably my favorite components of the game because they feature hilarious and wonderful artwork. The game looks great as is, but I am eagerly looking forward to what it will be once completely finished.
The gameplay is kind of a crapshoot in my experience. I have had several plays where too many Hunters were lost too quickly and the game ended in five minutes. I have also played games where Lady Luck was on my side and I was rolling like a king. I managed to get three Evidence Tokens that time. Each one of my games have ended in surpassing the total number of Hunters lost, but I feel like the game is winnable. Just probably by someone luckier than me.
I do really love dice games, and when they allow players to alter the face values, or the game alters them I find a great deal of satisfaction. And that is what Hunting Sasquatch delivers. It is a dice chucking game with dice alteration, amazing hilarious art, and a pretty tough difficulty level. It is perfect for gamers who enjoy dice games but find most to be too lame and easy.
I love this theme. I love this art style. I love the gameplay. I do not love the tiny and thin tokens (but I pray they get a huge upgrade for the final version). Hunting Sasquatch is another winner from Spyglass Games, who brought us the incredible VENOM Assault. I am a big fan of the games this publisher is putting out there and if you are like me, I think you will also like this one a lot. I invite you to check out their Kickstarter campaign when it launches, and remember: cryptids are just made-up stories. They cannot come to your campsite and eat all your jerky.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (2017) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
The story of Valerian is a good one. We open on Mül, a idyllic place of peace and a simple life. But this peace is shattered when fire rains from the sky devastating the entire planet. The last moment of Mül sees the Princess, doomed to die in the explosion, release her energy into the universe, through time and space.
Valerian, sunning himself on his ship, is hit with a sudden vision of the cataclysm on Mül. Unsure about it's meaning he goes back to the task at hand, retrieving a relic from some disreputable people on the black market. The "converter" is the last of it's kind in the universe, it will eat anything and rapidly replicate it, and as such is a very valuable commodity.
The mission is to return the converter to Alpha station. But when they arrive they discover that the station has been infected with something right at its heart. It's spreading, and all those that enter do not come back. When events lead to Valerian being drawn into the infected area, Laureline isn't willing to give up hope, and she battles her way in. Once she's reunited with Valerian they work travel to the centre of the station and discover the shocking truth about how the infection began...
The film is based on Valerian and Laureline, a French sci-fi comic series written by Pierre Christin and illustrated by Jean-Claude Mézières. I have got the first one to read, but as is my tradition, I have yet to do so. The first one is available free on Kindle at the moment if anybody is that way inclined. I expect that it will get a much better reaction in Europe than it seem to have done in the States, which is a bit of a shame. Possibly the way to go would have been with bigger stars, but *shrugs shoulders* it's too late now.
As I said, the story itself is a good one, and while people are nit picking and saying there are plot holes... there aren't if you don't look for them. I have this horrible ability to just watch a film for what it is, if you just go and see something to have some fun you don't notice any of that. It's a horribly nice way to be able to live my life, I enjoy a lot more things that way.
What I'm about to say is going to contradict my overall feeling for the film... I didn't really enjoy Dane DeHaan or Cara Delevingne. I had originally thought that I hadn't seen DeHaan in anything before, but was soon getting recollections of The Amazing Spider-Man 2. Scrolling through Delevingne's few years of films I've only seen Suicide Squad, and her acting as a "real person" is quite a small piece in that. While I can't think of anyone who would have perfectly suited either role, I feel like many other actors could have done an equal, or better, performance.
You get a wonderful introduction to what the station is, and has become. And we're treated to the potted history of alien species, several of which would sit quite nicely in the Whoniverse. I'm quite looking forward to reading the graphic novel. I can see stories unfolding in the different sections of the station, and that works. It almost feels like it would have made an amazing TV series, because it is essentially Star Trek with glitzier aliens and ecosystems.
As far as the secondary characters go we're treated to several memorable moments. Including Ethan Hawke as Jolly the Pimp, which is as flamboyant as you'd expect. Clive Owen as Commander Filitt, stern and ruthless, the sort who would stab you in the back (or the front) for his own gain. Sam Spruell as General Okto-Bar, who acted his part incredibly well... I'm honestly surprised I've not seen any of the other things he's been in, but I will be checking them out. Rihanna as Bubble, I'm a little surprised about how much I heard about her being in this considering how short her role is. But the same is true of a few things I've seen recently. We first meet her at Jolly's den of iniquity, where the music video training definitely came in handy.
As a whole the film moves along smoothly, with only a few little bits that seemed like they didn't belong, or could have been cut out. Unlike other films though, these little additions didn't harm the overall product.
Here is where my love for the film takes a steep nose-drive. Imagine crying with joy to resting bitch-face in the space of a few seconds. The 3D was hideous. I can't even think of a nice thing to say about it.
When the scenes were general crowd shots or indoors, everything was fine... although these shots didn't really benefit from the effect. The exterior shots however, in my not so expert opinion, were a terrible idea. I found some of them actually painful to watch, particularly long range shots of Alpha with ships coming in to dock. It was near on impossible to deal with the perspective as there was so much happening. For the last half of the film I took my 3D glasses off every time these shots appeared on screen as my head was rapidly starting to hurt, and I wasn't the only one having trouble.
If it wasn't for the painful exterior shots I honestly would have forgotten I was watching the film in 3D. Unlike other 3D films, you weren't aware that things were coming out of the screen at you. Not once.
I really don't want to be so negative about this film, it was an enjoyable watch (without the optical illusion created by the 3D). I would recommend it to anyone who has a passing interest in sci-fi and adaptations of comics. And I feel like, if nothing else, it might get the graphic novels themselves more circulation outside of Europe.
But please... watch it in 2D.
Valerian, sunning himself on his ship, is hit with a sudden vision of the cataclysm on Mül. Unsure about it's meaning he goes back to the task at hand, retrieving a relic from some disreputable people on the black market. The "converter" is the last of it's kind in the universe, it will eat anything and rapidly replicate it, and as such is a very valuable commodity.
The mission is to return the converter to Alpha station. But when they arrive they discover that the station has been infected with something right at its heart. It's spreading, and all those that enter do not come back. When events lead to Valerian being drawn into the infected area, Laureline isn't willing to give up hope, and she battles her way in. Once she's reunited with Valerian they work travel to the centre of the station and discover the shocking truth about how the infection began...
The film is based on Valerian and Laureline, a French sci-fi comic series written by Pierre Christin and illustrated by Jean-Claude Mézières. I have got the first one to read, but as is my tradition, I have yet to do so. The first one is available free on Kindle at the moment if anybody is that way inclined. I expect that it will get a much better reaction in Europe than it seem to have done in the States, which is a bit of a shame. Possibly the way to go would have been with bigger stars, but *shrugs shoulders* it's too late now.
As I said, the story itself is a good one, and while people are nit picking and saying there are plot holes... there aren't if you don't look for them. I have this horrible ability to just watch a film for what it is, if you just go and see something to have some fun you don't notice any of that. It's a horribly nice way to be able to live my life, I enjoy a lot more things that way.
What I'm about to say is going to contradict my overall feeling for the film... I didn't really enjoy Dane DeHaan or Cara Delevingne. I had originally thought that I hadn't seen DeHaan in anything before, but was soon getting recollections of The Amazing Spider-Man 2. Scrolling through Delevingne's few years of films I've only seen Suicide Squad, and her acting as a "real person" is quite a small piece in that. While I can't think of anyone who would have perfectly suited either role, I feel like many other actors could have done an equal, or better, performance.
You get a wonderful introduction to what the station is, and has become. And we're treated to the potted history of alien species, several of which would sit quite nicely in the Whoniverse. I'm quite looking forward to reading the graphic novel. I can see stories unfolding in the different sections of the station, and that works. It almost feels like it would have made an amazing TV series, because it is essentially Star Trek with glitzier aliens and ecosystems.
As far as the secondary characters go we're treated to several memorable moments. Including Ethan Hawke as Jolly the Pimp, which is as flamboyant as you'd expect. Clive Owen as Commander Filitt, stern and ruthless, the sort who would stab you in the back (or the front) for his own gain. Sam Spruell as General Okto-Bar, who acted his part incredibly well... I'm honestly surprised I've not seen any of the other things he's been in, but I will be checking them out. Rihanna as Bubble, I'm a little surprised about how much I heard about her being in this considering how short her role is. But the same is true of a few things I've seen recently. We first meet her at Jolly's den of iniquity, where the music video training definitely came in handy.
As a whole the film moves along smoothly, with only a few little bits that seemed like they didn't belong, or could have been cut out. Unlike other films though, these little additions didn't harm the overall product.
Here is where my love for the film takes a steep nose-drive. Imagine crying with joy to resting bitch-face in the space of a few seconds. The 3D was hideous. I can't even think of a nice thing to say about it.
When the scenes were general crowd shots or indoors, everything was fine... although these shots didn't really benefit from the effect. The exterior shots however, in my not so expert opinion, were a terrible idea. I found some of them actually painful to watch, particularly long range shots of Alpha with ships coming in to dock. It was near on impossible to deal with the perspective as there was so much happening. For the last half of the film I took my 3D glasses off every time these shots appeared on screen as my head was rapidly starting to hurt, and I wasn't the only one having trouble.
If it wasn't for the painful exterior shots I honestly would have forgotten I was watching the film in 3D. Unlike other 3D films, you weren't aware that things were coming out of the screen at you. Not once.
I really don't want to be so negative about this film, it was an enjoyable watch (without the optical illusion created by the 3D). I would recommend it to anyone who has a passing interest in sci-fi and adaptations of comics. And I feel like, if nothing else, it might get the graphic novels themselves more circulation outside of Europe.
But please... watch it in 2D.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Instant Family (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Enjoyable and harmless comedy laced with a degree of sentimentality.
The Plot
Pete (Mark Wahlberg) and Ellie (Rose Byrne) are focused and business-oriented home designers. They’ve talked about having kids “sometime in the future” but the years – as years are want to do – are motoring away from them. Pete is concerned that if they have their own kids now then he will end up being an “old dad” (cue very funny, black-comedy, flashback). This leads them into contact with the State’s fostering service – led by Karen (Octavia Spencer) and Sharon (Tig Notaro) – and they progress into foster training. This introduces into their ‘perfect adult lives’ 15-year old Lizzy (Isabela Moner) and her younger siblings Juan (Gustavo Quiroz) and Lita (Julianna Gamiz). As these guys come from a troubled background Pete and Ellie find they have their work cut out. Who will crack first?
The turns
You’ve got to admire Mark Wahlberg as an actor. In the same vein as Steve Carell, he seems to be able to flex from dramatic (in his case, tough-guy action roles) to comedy without a blink. He’s nowhere near the calibre of actor as Carell, but he brings to all his roles a sense of menace – derived no doubt from his torrid criminal background in younger days. (His wiki page makes your eyes water: there’s a great biopic screenplay waiting to be written there! ) It must have made the kid actor who plays Charlie (Carson Holmes) actually soil himself at a key point in the film!
Wahlberg and the excellent Rose Byrne make a believable driven-couple, and Byrne has such a range of expressive faces that she can’t help but make you laugh.
Of the child actors, Nickelodeon star Isabella Moner shines with genuine brilliance, both in terms of her acting as the fiercely loyal Lizzy but also in terms of her musical ability (she sings the impressive end-title song). With Hollywood in ‘post-La-La-Showman: Here we go again’ mode, this is a talented young lady I predict might be in big demand over the next few years.
Top of my list of the most stupid “where the hell have I seen her before bang-my-head-against-the-cinema-wall” moments is the actress playing Ellie’s mother Jan. She is OF COURSE Julie Hagerty, air-hostess supreme from “Airplane!”.
Also good value, and topping my list of “I know her from lots of films but don’t know her name” is Margo Martindale* as Pete’s exuberant and easily bought mother Sandy. (*Must write this out 100 times before her picture appears in the Picturehouse Harbour Lights film quiz!).
A well-crafty script with some wayward characters
The script by director Sean (“Daddy’s Home”) Anders and John Morris zips along at a fine pace, albeit in a wholly predictable direction. It helps that I struggle the think of many films about the adoption process itself. Sure there have been lots of movies about children that have been adopted – Manchester By The Sea and Lion being two recent examples – but the only film I can immediately think of (and not in a good way) with foster care at its heart was the Katherine Heigl comedy from a few years ago “Life as we know it”. So this is good movie territory to mine.
There are some fine running jokes, notably young Juan’s penchant for constantly getting injured. However, the script also lapses as did Anders’ “Daddy’s Home 2” from last year – into moments of slushy sentimentality. (My dear departed Dad always used to affect an exaggerated snore at such points, and I could hear him in my head at regular intervals during the film!). I would have preferred a harder and blacker edge to the comedy: something that last year’s excellent “Game Night” pulled off so well.
There are also a couple of characters in the film that were poorly scripted and which just didn’t work. While Octavia Spencer was fine (channelling an almost identical version of her wisecracking and sardonic character from “The Shape of Water“), I just had no idea what her colleague Sharon (Tig Notaro) was supposed to be. The tone was all over the place. Similarly, who should pop up on a balcony in an unexpected cameo but the great Joan Cusack. And very funny she is too for the 10 second interruption. But the writers having got her there just couldn’t leave alone and we get a plain embarrassing extended interruption that strikes a duff note in the flow of the film.
Summary
The film is amusing and harmless without taxing many brain cells. Most notably unlike many so-called American ‘comedies’ it did actually make me laugh at multiple points. I should also point out that my wife absolutely loved it, rating it a strong 4* going on 5*.
But the really cute thing is that…
…the film is “inspired by a true family”: namely Anders’ own. He and his wife fostered three kids out of the US foster service, so the script is undoubtedly loosely based on their own experiences, which give it an extra impact for some of Peter and Ellie’s lines. In an essay for TIME (source: bustle.com) Anders wrote:
My wife Beth and I had been talking for years about whether we should have kids,” he wrote. “For the longest time we just felt like we couldn’t afford it. Then I sold a couple of scripts and was feeling like I might have a career, but we were in our 40s and worried we had left it too long. We knew kids would make our life bigger, so one day I joked, ‘Why don’t we just adopt a five-year-old and it will be like we got started five years ago?'”
It gives you a completely different perspective on the film knowing this. My wife after the film was saying “I’m not sure how accurately it portrays the fostering process”. But it clearly does.
Pete (Mark Wahlberg) and Ellie (Rose Byrne) are focused and business-oriented home designers. They’ve talked about having kids “sometime in the future” but the years – as years are want to do – are motoring away from them. Pete is concerned that if they have their own kids now then he will end up being an “old dad” (cue very funny, black-comedy, flashback). This leads them into contact with the State’s fostering service – led by Karen (Octavia Spencer) and Sharon (Tig Notaro) – and they progress into foster training. This introduces into their ‘perfect adult lives’ 15-year old Lizzy (Isabela Moner) and her younger siblings Juan (Gustavo Quiroz) and Lita (Julianna Gamiz). As these guys come from a troubled background Pete and Ellie find they have their work cut out. Who will crack first?
The turns
You’ve got to admire Mark Wahlberg as an actor. In the same vein as Steve Carell, he seems to be able to flex from dramatic (in his case, tough-guy action roles) to comedy without a blink. He’s nowhere near the calibre of actor as Carell, but he brings to all his roles a sense of menace – derived no doubt from his torrid criminal background in younger days. (His wiki page makes your eyes water: there’s a great biopic screenplay waiting to be written there! ) It must have made the kid actor who plays Charlie (Carson Holmes) actually soil himself at a key point in the film!
Wahlberg and the excellent Rose Byrne make a believable driven-couple, and Byrne has such a range of expressive faces that she can’t help but make you laugh.
Of the child actors, Nickelodeon star Isabella Moner shines with genuine brilliance, both in terms of her acting as the fiercely loyal Lizzy but also in terms of her musical ability (she sings the impressive end-title song). With Hollywood in ‘post-La-La-Showman: Here we go again’ mode, this is a talented young lady I predict might be in big demand over the next few years.
Top of my list of the most stupid “where the hell have I seen her before bang-my-head-against-the-cinema-wall” moments is the actress playing Ellie’s mother Jan. She is OF COURSE Julie Hagerty, air-hostess supreme from “Airplane!”.
Also good value, and topping my list of “I know her from lots of films but don’t know her name” is Margo Martindale* as Pete’s exuberant and easily bought mother Sandy. (*Must write this out 100 times before her picture appears in the Picturehouse Harbour Lights film quiz!).
A well-crafty script with some wayward characters
The script by director Sean (“Daddy’s Home”) Anders and John Morris zips along at a fine pace, albeit in a wholly predictable direction. It helps that I struggle the think of many films about the adoption process itself. Sure there have been lots of movies about children that have been adopted – Manchester By The Sea and Lion being two recent examples – but the only film I can immediately think of (and not in a good way) with foster care at its heart was the Katherine Heigl comedy from a few years ago “Life as we know it”. So this is good movie territory to mine.
There are some fine running jokes, notably young Juan’s penchant for constantly getting injured. However, the script also lapses as did Anders’ “Daddy’s Home 2” from last year – into moments of slushy sentimentality. (My dear departed Dad always used to affect an exaggerated snore at such points, and I could hear him in my head at regular intervals during the film!). I would have preferred a harder and blacker edge to the comedy: something that last year’s excellent “Game Night” pulled off so well.
There are also a couple of characters in the film that were poorly scripted and which just didn’t work. While Octavia Spencer was fine (channelling an almost identical version of her wisecracking and sardonic character from “The Shape of Water“), I just had no idea what her colleague Sharon (Tig Notaro) was supposed to be. The tone was all over the place. Similarly, who should pop up on a balcony in an unexpected cameo but the great Joan Cusack. And very funny she is too for the 10 second interruption. But the writers having got her there just couldn’t leave alone and we get a plain embarrassing extended interruption that strikes a duff note in the flow of the film.
Summary
The film is amusing and harmless without taxing many brain cells. Most notably unlike many so-called American ‘comedies’ it did actually make me laugh at multiple points. I should also point out that my wife absolutely loved it, rating it a strong 4* going on 5*.
But the really cute thing is that…
…the film is “inspired by a true family”: namely Anders’ own. He and his wife fostered three kids out of the US foster service, so the script is undoubtedly loosely based on their own experiences, which give it an extra impact for some of Peter and Ellie’s lines. In an essay for TIME (source: bustle.com) Anders wrote:
My wife Beth and I had been talking for years about whether we should have kids,” he wrote. “For the longest time we just felt like we couldn’t afford it. Then I sold a couple of scripts and was feeling like I might have a career, but we were in our 40s and worried we had left it too long. We knew kids would make our life bigger, so one day I joked, ‘Why don’t we just adopt a five-year-old and it will be like we got started five years ago?'”
It gives you a completely different perspective on the film knowing this. My wife after the film was saying “I’m not sure how accurately it portrays the fostering process”. But it clearly does.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Girl in the Spider's Web (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Would the last straight woman in Stockholm turn off the lights?
You’ve gotta love a Scandi-thriller. Well, that was until last year’s hopeless Michael Fassbender vehicle “The Snowman” which devalued the currency better than Brexit has done to the pound! The mother of them all though was the original “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” trilogy (in Swedish) in 2009. Although subject to a wholly unnecessary English remake two year’s later by David Fincher (with Mara Rooney and Daniel Craig) it was Noomi Rapace who struck the perfect note as the original anarchic and damaged Lisbeth Salander: a punk wielding a baseball bat like an alien-thing possessed (pun well and truly intended!).
Now though we have “A New Dragon Tattoo Story” (as the film’s subtitle clumsily declares) based on the book by David Lagercrantz, who took over the literary franchise after the untimely death of Stieg Larsson. Picking up the reins as Salander is that most British of actresses Claire Foy…. which seems an odd choice, but one which – after you get past the rather odd accent – she just about pulls off.
The Plot
Lizbeth Salendar (Claire Foy) has an interesting hobby. She is a vigilante, like a lesbian Batman, stalking the streets of Stockholm putting wrongs right where abusive boyfriends/husbands are concerned.
She is also a hacking machine for rent. And Frans Balder (Stephen Merchant) has a problem. He has invented a software program that allows its user to control every nuclear warhead in the world from a single laptop (cue every other Bond/24/Austin Powers script ever written). But he has had second thoughts and wants it back from its resting place on the server of the NSA’s chief hacker, Ed Needham (Lakeith Stanfield). Balder recruits Salander to recover it, but when things go pear-shaped Salander finds herself on the wrong side of both the law and the encircling terrorist “spiders”.
The Review
Scandi-dramas work best when they exploit the snow; maintain a sexual tension; and go dark, gritty and violent. On the plus side, “The Girl in the Spider’s Web” ticks most of those boxes adequately. Foy’s Salandar is smart, sassy and sexy, outwitting the best of the best, and only once finding her intellectual match. (If you’re a lesbian, Stockholm is most definitely the place to be: there only seemed to be one hetero-female there, and she was an adulteress).
But Salander also has a Bond-like invincibility that unfortunately tests your incredulity at multiple points. Contributing to the excitement is the stunt team, who keep themselves busy with some great car and bike chases.
So, the movie has its moments and is great to look at. But the film ends up a sandwich or two short of a smorgasbord, thanks largely to some totally bonkers plot points and more than a few ridiculous coincidences. There are without doubt an array of well-constructed set pieces here, but they fail to fully connect with any great conviction. An example of a scene that infuriates is a dramatic bathroom fight in a red-lit gloom with identical protagonists that is cut together so furiously you would need a Blu-ray slo-mo to work out what the hell is going on… and then I fear you might fail.
So it’s an A- for the Production Design (Eve Stewart, “The Danish Girl“) and the Cinematography (Pedro Luque, “Don’t Breathe“), but a C- for the director Fede Alvarez (also “Don’t Breathe“).
Avoid the Trailer
I will save my biggest source of wrath though for that major bug-bear of mine: trailers that spoil the plot.
I’ve asked before, but for a film like this, WHO EXACTLY PUTS TOGETHER THE TRAILER? I’d like to think it’s some mindless committee of marketing execs somewhere. Because I HONESTLY CAN’T BELIEVE it would be the director! (If I’m wrong though, I would point my finger at Mr Alvarez and chant “shame, shame, shame”!)
For the trailer that I saw playing in UK cinemas does it’s level best to not only drop in the key spoilers of the plot (including the climactic scene), but also spoils just about every action money-shot in the movie. It’s all so pointless. If you’ve by any chance managed to get to this point without seeing the trailer, then SAVE YOURSELVES and AVOID IT!
(The one attached below by the way is slightly – slightly! – better, including some over-dubbing of a line that I don’t think was in the film. Perhaps they realised their huge mistake and reissued it?)
The Turns
As I mentioned earlier, Claire Foy again extends her range by playing Salander really well. She is the reason to go and see the film.
The Daniel Craig part of Blomkvist is played here by Sverrir Gudnason, who was in “The Circle” (which I saw) and was Borg in “Borg McEnroe” (which I didn’t). Blomkvist really is a lazy ****, since he works for the publication “Millenium” but writes absolutely nothing for years. It must be only because the boss (Vicky Krieps) fancies him that he keeps his job. Gudnason is good enough, but has very little to do in the movie: its the Salander/Foy show. Slightly, but only slightly, more involved is Lakeith Standfield as the US intelligence man.
Given little to do in the plot. Sverrir Gudnason as the incredibly unproductive ‘journalist’ Mikael Blomkvist. (Source: Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Stephen Merchant is an odd casting choice for Balder. Not withstanding that he was brilliant when almost unrecognisable in “Logan“, here he looks far too much like his “Ricky Gervais sidekick” persona to be taken seriously: and it’s not even remotely a comedy (there is only one humorous moment in the film, a nice “clicker” gag in a car park).
Final Thoughts
I had high hopes for this film from the trailer, but I was left disappointed. It’s not classic Scandi-noir like the original “Tattoo”; and it’s not going for the black comedy angle of “Headhunters” (which I saw again last week and loved… again!). It falls into a rather “meh” category. It’s not a bad evening’s watch, but perhaps worth leaving for a DVD/cable showing.
Now though we have “A New Dragon Tattoo Story” (as the film’s subtitle clumsily declares) based on the book by David Lagercrantz, who took over the literary franchise after the untimely death of Stieg Larsson. Picking up the reins as Salander is that most British of actresses Claire Foy…. which seems an odd choice, but one which – after you get past the rather odd accent – she just about pulls off.
The Plot
Lizbeth Salendar (Claire Foy) has an interesting hobby. She is a vigilante, like a lesbian Batman, stalking the streets of Stockholm putting wrongs right where abusive boyfriends/husbands are concerned.
She is also a hacking machine for rent. And Frans Balder (Stephen Merchant) has a problem. He has invented a software program that allows its user to control every nuclear warhead in the world from a single laptop (cue every other Bond/24/Austin Powers script ever written). But he has had second thoughts and wants it back from its resting place on the server of the NSA’s chief hacker, Ed Needham (Lakeith Stanfield). Balder recruits Salander to recover it, but when things go pear-shaped Salander finds herself on the wrong side of both the law and the encircling terrorist “spiders”.
The Review
Scandi-dramas work best when they exploit the snow; maintain a sexual tension; and go dark, gritty and violent. On the plus side, “The Girl in the Spider’s Web” ticks most of those boxes adequately. Foy’s Salandar is smart, sassy and sexy, outwitting the best of the best, and only once finding her intellectual match. (If you’re a lesbian, Stockholm is most definitely the place to be: there only seemed to be one hetero-female there, and she was an adulteress).
But Salander also has a Bond-like invincibility that unfortunately tests your incredulity at multiple points. Contributing to the excitement is the stunt team, who keep themselves busy with some great car and bike chases.
So, the movie has its moments and is great to look at. But the film ends up a sandwich or two short of a smorgasbord, thanks largely to some totally bonkers plot points and more than a few ridiculous coincidences. There are without doubt an array of well-constructed set pieces here, but they fail to fully connect with any great conviction. An example of a scene that infuriates is a dramatic bathroom fight in a red-lit gloom with identical protagonists that is cut together so furiously you would need a Blu-ray slo-mo to work out what the hell is going on… and then I fear you might fail.
So it’s an A- for the Production Design (Eve Stewart, “The Danish Girl“) and the Cinematography (Pedro Luque, “Don’t Breathe“), but a C- for the director Fede Alvarez (also “Don’t Breathe“).
Avoid the Trailer
I will save my biggest source of wrath though for that major bug-bear of mine: trailers that spoil the plot.
I’ve asked before, but for a film like this, WHO EXACTLY PUTS TOGETHER THE TRAILER? I’d like to think it’s some mindless committee of marketing execs somewhere. Because I HONESTLY CAN’T BELIEVE it would be the director! (If I’m wrong though, I would point my finger at Mr Alvarez and chant “shame, shame, shame”!)
For the trailer that I saw playing in UK cinemas does it’s level best to not only drop in the key spoilers of the plot (including the climactic scene), but also spoils just about every action money-shot in the movie. It’s all so pointless. If you’ve by any chance managed to get to this point without seeing the trailer, then SAVE YOURSELVES and AVOID IT!
(The one attached below by the way is slightly – slightly! – better, including some over-dubbing of a line that I don’t think was in the film. Perhaps they realised their huge mistake and reissued it?)
The Turns
As I mentioned earlier, Claire Foy again extends her range by playing Salander really well. She is the reason to go and see the film.
The Daniel Craig part of Blomkvist is played here by Sverrir Gudnason, who was in “The Circle” (which I saw) and was Borg in “Borg McEnroe” (which I didn’t). Blomkvist really is a lazy ****, since he works for the publication “Millenium” but writes absolutely nothing for years. It must be only because the boss (Vicky Krieps) fancies him that he keeps his job. Gudnason is good enough, but has very little to do in the movie: its the Salander/Foy show. Slightly, but only slightly, more involved is Lakeith Standfield as the US intelligence man.
Given little to do in the plot. Sverrir Gudnason as the incredibly unproductive ‘journalist’ Mikael Blomkvist. (Source: Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Stephen Merchant is an odd casting choice for Balder. Not withstanding that he was brilliant when almost unrecognisable in “Logan“, here he looks far too much like his “Ricky Gervais sidekick” persona to be taken seriously: and it’s not even remotely a comedy (there is only one humorous moment in the film, a nice “clicker” gag in a car park).
Final Thoughts
I had high hopes for this film from the trailer, but I was left disappointed. It’s not classic Scandi-noir like the original “Tattoo”; and it’s not going for the black comedy angle of “Headhunters” (which I saw again last week and loved… again!). It falls into a rather “meh” category. It’s not a bad evening’s watch, but perhaps worth leaving for a DVD/cable showing.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Nutcracker and the Four Realms (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A fantasy that’s glossy and beautiful to look at.
Before the heavyweight juggernaut of “Mary Poppins Returns” arrives at Christmas, here’s another Disney live action feature to get everyone in the festive spirit.
The Plot.
It’s Victorian London and Young Clara (Mackenzie Foy) lives with her father (Matthew Macfadyen), her older sister Louise (Ellie Bamber) and her younger brother Fritz (Tom Sweet). It’s Christmas and the family are having a hard time as they are grieving the recent death of wife and mother Marie (Anna Madeley). Like her mother, Clara has an astute mind with an engineering bias and is encouraged in this pursuit by her quirky inventor godfather, Drosselmeyer (Morgan Freeman). At his fabled Christmas ball, Clara asks for his help in accessing a gift Clara’s mother has bequeathed to her. This leads Clara on a magical adventure to a parallel world with four realms, where everything is not quite peace and harmony.
The Review.
This is a film that visually delights from the word go. The film opens with a swooping tour of Victorian London (who knew the Disney castle was in the capital’s suburbs?!) via Westminster bridge and into the Stahlbaum’s attic. It’s a spectacular tour-de-force of special-effects wizardry and sets up the expectation of what’s to come. For every scene that follows is a richly decorated feast for the eyes. Drosselmeyer’s party is a glorious event, full of extras, strong on costume design and with a rich colour palette as filmed by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“). When we are pitched into the Four Realms – no wardrobe required – the magical visions continue.
The film represents a Narnia-esque take on the four compass-point lands of Oz, and on that basis it’s a bit formulaic. But the good vs evil angles are more subtley portrayed. Of the Four Realms leaders, Keira Knightley as Sugar Plum rather steals the show from the others (played by Richard E. Grant, Eugenio Derbez and Helen Mirren). Mirren in particular is given little to do.
What age kids would this be suitable for? Well, probably a good judge would be the Wizard of Oz. If your kids are not completely freaked out by the Wicked Witch of the West and the flying monkeys, then they will probably cope OK with the scary bits of the “Realm of Entertainment”. Although those who suffer from either musophobia or (especially) coulrophobia might want to give it a miss! All kids are different though, and the “loss of the mother” is also an angle to consider: that might worry and upset young children. It is definitely a “PG” certificate rather than a “U” certificate.
Young people who also enjoy ballet (I nearly fell into a sexist trap there!) will also get a kick out of some of the dance sequences, which are “Fantasia-esque” in their presentation and feature Misty Copeland, famously the first African American Female Principal Dancer with the American Ballet Theatre. (I have no appreciation at all for ballet, but I’m sure it was brilliant!)
As for the moral tone of the film, the female empowerment message is rather ladled on with a trowel, but as it’s a good message I have no great problem with that. I am often appalled at how lacking in confidence young people are in their own abilities. Here is a young lady (an engineer!) learning self-resilience and the confidence to be able to do anything in life she puts her mind to. Well said.
The story is rather generic – child visits a magical other world – but the screenplay is impressive given its the first-feature screenplay for Ashleigh Powell: there is an article on her approach to screenwriting that you might find interesting here.
The film is credited with two directors. This – particularly if there is also an army of screenwriters – is normally a warning sign on a film. (As a case in point, the chaotic 1967 version of “Casino Royale” had six different directors, and it shows!). Here, there clearly were issues with the filming since Disney insisted on reshoots for which the original director, Lasse Hallström, was not available. This is where the “Captain America” director Joe Johnston stepped in.
The turns.
I really enjoyed Mackenzie Foy‘s performance as Clara. Now 18, she is a feisty and believable Disney princess for the modern age. (If, like me, you are struggling to place where you’ve heard her name before, she was the young Murph in Nolan’s “Interstellar“).
Another name I was struggling with was Ellie Bamber as her sister. Ellie was excellent in the traumatic role of the daughter in the brilliant “Nocturnal Animals“, one of my favourite films of 2016. (Hopefully the therapy has worked and Ellie can sleep at night again!).
A newcomer with a big role is Jayden Fowora-Knight as the Nutcracker soldier: Jayden had a bit part in “Ready Player One” but does a great job here in a substantial role in the film. He stands out as a black actor in a Disney feature: notwithstanding the Finn character in “Star Wars”, this is a long-overdue and welcome approach from Disney.
British comedians Omid Djalili and Jack Whitehouse turn up to add some light relief, but the humour seems rather forced and not particularly fitting.
Final thoughts
I wasn’t expecting to enjoy this one much, but I did. Prinicipally because it is such a visual feast and worth going to see just for that alone: I have a prediction that this film will be nominated for production design, costume design and possible special effects.
I think kids of the right age – I would have thought 6 to 10 sort of range – will enjoy this a lot, particularly if they like dance. Young girls in particular will most relate to the lead character. For such kids, I’d rate this a 4*. The rating below reflects my rating as an adult: so I don’t think ‘drag-a-long’ parents in the Christmas holidays (if it is still on by then) will not be totally bored.
The Plot.
It’s Victorian London and Young Clara (Mackenzie Foy) lives with her father (Matthew Macfadyen), her older sister Louise (Ellie Bamber) and her younger brother Fritz (Tom Sweet). It’s Christmas and the family are having a hard time as they are grieving the recent death of wife and mother Marie (Anna Madeley). Like her mother, Clara has an astute mind with an engineering bias and is encouraged in this pursuit by her quirky inventor godfather, Drosselmeyer (Morgan Freeman). At his fabled Christmas ball, Clara asks for his help in accessing a gift Clara’s mother has bequeathed to her. This leads Clara on a magical adventure to a parallel world with four realms, where everything is not quite peace and harmony.
The Review.
This is a film that visually delights from the word go. The film opens with a swooping tour of Victorian London (who knew the Disney castle was in the capital’s suburbs?!) via Westminster bridge and into the Stahlbaum’s attic. It’s a spectacular tour-de-force of special-effects wizardry and sets up the expectation of what’s to come. For every scene that follows is a richly decorated feast for the eyes. Drosselmeyer’s party is a glorious event, full of extras, strong on costume design and with a rich colour palette as filmed by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“). When we are pitched into the Four Realms – no wardrobe required – the magical visions continue.
The film represents a Narnia-esque take on the four compass-point lands of Oz, and on that basis it’s a bit formulaic. But the good vs evil angles are more subtley portrayed. Of the Four Realms leaders, Keira Knightley as Sugar Plum rather steals the show from the others (played by Richard E. Grant, Eugenio Derbez and Helen Mirren). Mirren in particular is given little to do.
What age kids would this be suitable for? Well, probably a good judge would be the Wizard of Oz. If your kids are not completely freaked out by the Wicked Witch of the West and the flying monkeys, then they will probably cope OK with the scary bits of the “Realm of Entertainment”. Although those who suffer from either musophobia or (especially) coulrophobia might want to give it a miss! All kids are different though, and the “loss of the mother” is also an angle to consider: that might worry and upset young children. It is definitely a “PG” certificate rather than a “U” certificate.
Young people who also enjoy ballet (I nearly fell into a sexist trap there!) will also get a kick out of some of the dance sequences, which are “Fantasia-esque” in their presentation and feature Misty Copeland, famously the first African American Female Principal Dancer with the American Ballet Theatre. (I have no appreciation at all for ballet, but I’m sure it was brilliant!)
As for the moral tone of the film, the female empowerment message is rather ladled on with a trowel, but as it’s a good message I have no great problem with that. I am often appalled at how lacking in confidence young people are in their own abilities. Here is a young lady (an engineer!) learning self-resilience and the confidence to be able to do anything in life she puts her mind to. Well said.
The story is rather generic – child visits a magical other world – but the screenplay is impressive given its the first-feature screenplay for Ashleigh Powell: there is an article on her approach to screenwriting that you might find interesting here.
The film is credited with two directors. This – particularly if there is also an army of screenwriters – is normally a warning sign on a film. (As a case in point, the chaotic 1967 version of “Casino Royale” had six different directors, and it shows!). Here, there clearly were issues with the filming since Disney insisted on reshoots for which the original director, Lasse Hallström, was not available. This is where the “Captain America” director Joe Johnston stepped in.
The turns.
I really enjoyed Mackenzie Foy‘s performance as Clara. Now 18, she is a feisty and believable Disney princess for the modern age. (If, like me, you are struggling to place where you’ve heard her name before, she was the young Murph in Nolan’s “Interstellar“).
Another name I was struggling with was Ellie Bamber as her sister. Ellie was excellent in the traumatic role of the daughter in the brilliant “Nocturnal Animals“, one of my favourite films of 2016. (Hopefully the therapy has worked and Ellie can sleep at night again!).
A newcomer with a big role is Jayden Fowora-Knight as the Nutcracker soldier: Jayden had a bit part in “Ready Player One” but does a great job here in a substantial role in the film. He stands out as a black actor in a Disney feature: notwithstanding the Finn character in “Star Wars”, this is a long-overdue and welcome approach from Disney.
British comedians Omid Djalili and Jack Whitehouse turn up to add some light relief, but the humour seems rather forced and not particularly fitting.
Final thoughts
I wasn’t expecting to enjoy this one much, but I did. Prinicipally because it is such a visual feast and worth going to see just for that alone: I have a prediction that this film will be nominated for production design, costume design and possible special effects.
I think kids of the right age – I would have thought 6 to 10 sort of range – will enjoy this a lot, particularly if they like dance. Young girls in particular will most relate to the lead character. For such kids, I’d rate this a 4*. The rating below reflects my rating as an adult: so I don’t think ‘drag-a-long’ parents in the Christmas holidays (if it is still on by then) will not be totally bored.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild in Video Games
Jul 25, 2017
Bonus Points - An Example Of The Favoritism Towards Certain Developers In The Gaming Industry, Even When They Don’t Deliver
Zelda: Breath Of The Wild came out last month and it has taken the gaming world by storm. As a non Zelda fan, I am left wondering why this is the case. Why is this Zelda game so revolutionary? I don’t own the game, but I have played the first few hours of it and I have read a good number of reviews on the game. There are a few critics claiming that this game, ‘writes a new chapter in the videogames industry,’ and that it is an, ‘evolution of everything that has come before.’
While I appreciate that this is a well made game and it is doing new things within the Zelda franchise, these statements stick in my throat a little. This isn’t because I don’t agree that this is an impressive game, because it is. Other than the odd frame rate drop, there aren’t many flaws with this game and I did enjoy the few hours that I spent with it, (I had a lend of a friends Switch for the night so I could try the game for myself.)
My problem comes from the fact that this is a well made game that isn’t doing anything that hasn’t been done before a million times and frankly been done better. Full disclosure, I have never been a Zelda fan, but I wanted this game to convert me and I’m sorry to say that it didn’t. The purpose of this piece isn’t to attack the Zelda franchise, so you fanboys can put your pitchforks down. What I want to discuss is how when Nintendo do anything that is slightly better than a disaster, it is heralded as the brave new step in video games by a large number of the video game press.
I get it, nostalgia is a powerful lens and most writers in their 30’s grew up playing on Nintendo systems and franchises like Mario and Zelda, but as someone who is around ten years younger and grew up with Playstation, I don’t feel that Nintendo has advanced a great deal since the turn of the millennium and frankly, I don’t see Nintendo as having broken any new ground in the last twenty years.
If games like Breath of the Wild came out on another console, they wouldn’t be lauded as the best thing since sliced bread. In fact they have, it’s called Horizon: Zero Dawn! When Horizon came out it received a positive critical reception and high sales, but no one was writing articles claiming it was the next step in the evolution of video games. Splatoon has been put on a pedestal and has been described as ‘fresh,’ and, ‘unique,’ even though it is nothing more than a dumbed down version of Team Fortress 2 for a younger audience. Super Mario Maker was released in 2015 and it was essentially a $60 level editor. Level editors have been included in other games since forever and no fuss has been made, but when Nintendo sell an entire game based on the concept, it’s hailed as another, ‘triumph by Nintendo.’
When you compare Breath of The Wild to other recent open world games like The Witcher or Skyrim, there is nothing that makes it unique from a design and functionality standpoint. If Breath of The Wild came out in 2008, then sure you could get away with labeling it revolutionary, but in this day and age it isn’t any more special than Horizon or Skyrim.
Let’s look at some of the features that have been called unique in the game. The tower climbing to uncover zones of the map mechanic has been done in the Assassin’s Creed and Far Cry series’. Using plants for crafting and cooking has been done in Far Cry and Skyrim. Far Cry 2 and Dead Island had degradable weapons. The inventory system is very reminiscent of multiple Ubisoft titles; essentially Breath of The Wild has taken some elements from other games and made something from that within the Zelda universe.
This may sound patronizing, but it honestly isn’t intended that way. I get it, Nintendo fans have had it hard over these last five years, they have had nothing to be proud of since the launch of the Wii and they have had to stand by their console of choice and defend themselves with very little ammo to defend themselves with, but as a result nowadays when anything better than a car crash is released by them it is inflated by a large number of critics in the industry and so Nintendo fans are given a justification for putting their mediocre games on a pedestal. This is why to the rest of the industry it appears that Nintendo fans can’t accept things for the way that they really are and everything is blown so far out of proportion.
Some examples of Nintendo games being blown out of proportion and reviewers being clouded by nostalgia are available to go and check out right now on Metacritic. Zelda: Skyward Sword is currently sitting at a 93, Zelda: Twilight Princess is sitting at a 95 and Metroid: Other M has a 79. All three of these games are recognized as subpar and once the novelty wore off, even the most hardcore of Nintendo fans would agree that these are forgettable, black marks on the respective franchises track records. Not that BOTW isn’t a game for Zelda fans to be proud of, because it is. I can see why this would be people’s game of the year so far and I can see why it could be considered as the best Zelda game, but to someone that isn’t a Zelda fan that praise is meaningless.
In summary, the inflation of mediocrity in the industry has to stop, if we want gaming to improve. If we want to break new ground across the gaming media, these sycophants and apologists living in a false perception of reality have to go. These novelty games that are applauded for simply carrying the title of a beloved franchise, have to stop being praised so highly and given a free pass of any sort of criticism just because of a nostalgic lens.
While I appreciate that this is a well made game and it is doing new things within the Zelda franchise, these statements stick in my throat a little. This isn’t because I don’t agree that this is an impressive game, because it is. Other than the odd frame rate drop, there aren’t many flaws with this game and I did enjoy the few hours that I spent with it, (I had a lend of a friends Switch for the night so I could try the game for myself.)
My problem comes from the fact that this is a well made game that isn’t doing anything that hasn’t been done before a million times and frankly been done better. Full disclosure, I have never been a Zelda fan, but I wanted this game to convert me and I’m sorry to say that it didn’t. The purpose of this piece isn’t to attack the Zelda franchise, so you fanboys can put your pitchforks down. What I want to discuss is how when Nintendo do anything that is slightly better than a disaster, it is heralded as the brave new step in video games by a large number of the video game press.
I get it, nostalgia is a powerful lens and most writers in their 30’s grew up playing on Nintendo systems and franchises like Mario and Zelda, but as someone who is around ten years younger and grew up with Playstation, I don’t feel that Nintendo has advanced a great deal since the turn of the millennium and frankly, I don’t see Nintendo as having broken any new ground in the last twenty years.
If games like Breath of the Wild came out on another console, they wouldn’t be lauded as the best thing since sliced bread. In fact they have, it’s called Horizon: Zero Dawn! When Horizon came out it received a positive critical reception and high sales, but no one was writing articles claiming it was the next step in the evolution of video games. Splatoon has been put on a pedestal and has been described as ‘fresh,’ and, ‘unique,’ even though it is nothing more than a dumbed down version of Team Fortress 2 for a younger audience. Super Mario Maker was released in 2015 and it was essentially a $60 level editor. Level editors have been included in other games since forever and no fuss has been made, but when Nintendo sell an entire game based on the concept, it’s hailed as another, ‘triumph by Nintendo.’
When you compare Breath of The Wild to other recent open world games like The Witcher or Skyrim, there is nothing that makes it unique from a design and functionality standpoint. If Breath of The Wild came out in 2008, then sure you could get away with labeling it revolutionary, but in this day and age it isn’t any more special than Horizon or Skyrim.
Let’s look at some of the features that have been called unique in the game. The tower climbing to uncover zones of the map mechanic has been done in the Assassin’s Creed and Far Cry series’. Using plants for crafting and cooking has been done in Far Cry and Skyrim. Far Cry 2 and Dead Island had degradable weapons. The inventory system is very reminiscent of multiple Ubisoft titles; essentially Breath of The Wild has taken some elements from other games and made something from that within the Zelda universe.
This may sound patronizing, but it honestly isn’t intended that way. I get it, Nintendo fans have had it hard over these last five years, they have had nothing to be proud of since the launch of the Wii and they have had to stand by their console of choice and defend themselves with very little ammo to defend themselves with, but as a result nowadays when anything better than a car crash is released by them it is inflated by a large number of critics in the industry and so Nintendo fans are given a justification for putting their mediocre games on a pedestal. This is why to the rest of the industry it appears that Nintendo fans can’t accept things for the way that they really are and everything is blown so far out of proportion.
Some examples of Nintendo games being blown out of proportion and reviewers being clouded by nostalgia are available to go and check out right now on Metacritic. Zelda: Skyward Sword is currently sitting at a 93, Zelda: Twilight Princess is sitting at a 95 and Metroid: Other M has a 79. All three of these games are recognized as subpar and once the novelty wore off, even the most hardcore of Nintendo fans would agree that these are forgettable, black marks on the respective franchises track records. Not that BOTW isn’t a game for Zelda fans to be proud of, because it is. I can see why this would be people’s game of the year so far and I can see why it could be considered as the best Zelda game, but to someone that isn’t a Zelda fan that praise is meaningless.
In summary, the inflation of mediocrity in the industry has to stop, if we want gaming to improve. If we want to break new ground across the gaming media, these sycophants and apologists living in a false perception of reality have to go. These novelty games that are applauded for simply carrying the title of a beloved franchise, have to stop being praised so highly and given a free pass of any sort of criticism just because of a nostalgic lens.