Search
Search results
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Last of Us Part II in Video Games
Jun 30, 2020 (Updated Jul 1, 2020)
Gameplay (2 more)
Graphics
Sound
I'm Not Mad, I'm Just Disappointed
Contains spoilers, click to show
It's been a while since I've written anything, but I couldn't let this one go by without saying anything about it.
The Last Of Us Part 2 is the biggest disappointment of 2020.
I finished the game a few days ago and have been letting it process in my mind in the hopes that it will somehow make more sense to me. So far that hasn't been the case.
Let me provide you with some context, I wanted to like this game more than anyone. The first Last Of Us is one of my favourite games of all time and because of the spectacular writing and performances in that first game, I was really excited to see what would happen to these characters. This was definitely one of my most anticipated releases in recent years and I'm genuinely in awe at how much of a let down it was, especially after the 10/10 reviews I had been reading leading up to the game's release.
Spoilers will follow from this point on as it's pretty difficult to discuss my reasoning for being let down by the game without getting in depth, so please tread carefully if you have yet to play through the game.
First off, I don't normally like to bring up my personal politics when discussing fictional media, but I do feel that it's necessary to mention that I am pro LGBTQ+ and none of my issues with this game stem from any sort of political bias that I may have.
The game opens slowly, juxtaposing the intense opening of the first game. However these slow opening few hours really allow you to drink in the breathtaking visuals and fantastic sound design. These elements really help to sell the cinematic nature of the game, along with consistently stellar performances.
Then we are shown the main conflict that will propel the story for the sequel. Joel is unceremoniosly murdered by Abby, a new character that we know nothing about at this point.
Now I don't have a problem with main characters being killed off in a story, in fact as a Tarantino fan, I relish it when it's done properly. The problem with Joel's death is the way that it was executed. First off, Joel and Tommy would never in a million years have blindly trusted this random faction that they've just bumped into enough to give them their names so quickly. They've both survived 25 years in the apocalypse and yet the writers still expect you to believe that they would be this naïve and stupid. Then, there's the fact that this is how they choose to introduce this new group that you are later expected to sympathize with and this character that they will later force you to play as for half the game. Why would anyone who is a fan of this world and these characters want to play and learn about this random ruthless killer?
Now, what you might be asking is "aren't Joel and Ellie ruthless killers at this point?" And you would be right, they are. However the point is that we were already invested in these characters before we seen them ruthlessly murdering infected and humans alike and therefore are able to put it down to them having to do what they had to in order to survive. With Abby you are introduced to her killing a beloved character from the first game for the sake of pure shock value.
The first game came out during an oversaturation period of zombie stories across media and yet because of it's stellar writing, it managed to stand out from the crowd and actually become one of the most unique games of the last generation in terms of the story it told. The story in this game feels so generic by comparison. I remember watching interviews with Neil Druckman in the lead up to the game's release where he would talk about how the main hurdle of writing this game was justifying it's existence after the first one ended so well. Really? You had seven years and another generic revenge plot was the best thing that you could come up with?
Another highlight from the first game was the fleshed out side characters that all felt deep and like they really existed in the world. Characters like Tess, Bill and Marlene all naturally fitted into the plot and felt necessary to the overall story being told. The same cannot be said for the side characters in this game. I have already mentioned how it is made impossible to sympathize with Abby and her crew after seeing what they did to Joel. There are two other new characters introduced called Yara and Lev. They are siblings, which put me in mind of Henry and Sam from the first game, but where Henry and Sam felt layered and genuine, Yara and Lev feel shallow and shoehorned in to give Abby's plotline some narrative weight.
Then there is the strange pacing of the story. I feel like I must reiterate, they introduce a character that murders the beloved protagonist from the first game and later expect you to sympathize with her. Then there is the fact that you play as Ellie for the next 8 hours or so before they present you with a shocking cliffhanger, only to then force you to play as Abby for the next 10 hours. Not only are they making you play as the character that murdered Joel and Jessie in cold blood, but every extra hour that they unsuccessfully attempt to make you feel sorry for Abby is another hour before you can get back to see how the cliffhanger, (that was introduced 10 hours ago,) is resolved. And then, they bafflingly make you fight Ellie while playing as Abby. Why would the game expect me to want to hurt this character that I care about as this brand new random stranger?
You are then eventually given control back as Ellie and the game lulls you into a false sense of thinking that you are finally done playing as Abby. Then Ellie makes the totally nonsensical decision to abandon a nice, cushty, quiet farm life that she's carved out for herself, to go after Abby yet again.
After that, you guessed it! You are forced to play as Abby yet again. Thankfully it's only briefly as we then at long last get to properly play as Ellie again. Not sure if you remember her at this point, she's the one that's in all of the trailers and posters and on the cover of the damn game?
Then we get what is probably the most anticlimactic ending in the history of gaming. Ellie lets Abby go. After Abby killed Joel and Jessie and crippled Tommy and after Ellie murdered all of Abby's friends and after Ellie abandoned her girlfriend and step-son and had her fingers bitten off, she's just like, "nah fam, I'm good."
I'm sorry, what?
You are going to break your promise to Tommy and let the person that murdered your father figure get away? Why?
If getting your revenge wasn't worth it, you should have really realized that back on the farm when you were surrounded by people you love and a chance at a family life. If you chose to leave that behind you must be committed enough to see it through, otherwise it is all for nothing. There is subverting audience expectations and then there is having your characters make nonsensical decisions and I feel like TLOU2 was full of the latter.
On a positive note, the gameplay is extremely fun and satisfying. Every blow lands with more force and every bullet seems to strike even harder than in the first game. It does get a bit repetitive after a while and the actual function of taking out a group of enemies hasn't evolved a great deal since the first game, but I still really enjoyed it. The upgrading and crafting systems have also been fleshed out. This, along with the immaculate graphical presentation, tight, fluid animations, brilliant audio and expectedly phenomenal performances make for something with so much potential, with only the writing and direction letting it down. Unfortunately, writing and directing are both pretty essential in a story driven game.
Before I summarise, I'd like to highlight that I am not against stories that explore the moral grey area and don't have clear heroes and villains. For example, Metal Gear Solid is my favourite franchise in gaming and the whole point of that series is to show that there is no black and white, but we all do things for our own reasons. A good story should be able to make you see the things from the "villain's" point of view without being like, "look see what you did to them? That is why they are the way they are! Look see, she is a good person because she plays fetch with dogs!" In TLOU2 it all just feels so forced and unnatural. A good storyteller should show a character's motivations and then show their actions and leave it up to audience to decide if it's justified, instead of strictly saying, "this character is 100% justified in the heinous act that you just seen her commit, now you must be on her side!"
I think that's all that I've got to say and I guess at the very least, this game has got people talking. You cannot accuse it of playing it safe, but there are a ton of different ways that the plot could have went that probably would have been a lot more satisfying for fans of the series like myself. 6/10
The Last Of Us Part 2 is the biggest disappointment of 2020.
I finished the game a few days ago and have been letting it process in my mind in the hopes that it will somehow make more sense to me. So far that hasn't been the case.
Let me provide you with some context, I wanted to like this game more than anyone. The first Last Of Us is one of my favourite games of all time and because of the spectacular writing and performances in that first game, I was really excited to see what would happen to these characters. This was definitely one of my most anticipated releases in recent years and I'm genuinely in awe at how much of a let down it was, especially after the 10/10 reviews I had been reading leading up to the game's release.
Spoilers will follow from this point on as it's pretty difficult to discuss my reasoning for being let down by the game without getting in depth, so please tread carefully if you have yet to play through the game.
First off, I don't normally like to bring up my personal politics when discussing fictional media, but I do feel that it's necessary to mention that I am pro LGBTQ+ and none of my issues with this game stem from any sort of political bias that I may have.
The game opens slowly, juxtaposing the intense opening of the first game. However these slow opening few hours really allow you to drink in the breathtaking visuals and fantastic sound design. These elements really help to sell the cinematic nature of the game, along with consistently stellar performances.
Then we are shown the main conflict that will propel the story for the sequel. Joel is unceremoniosly murdered by Abby, a new character that we know nothing about at this point.
Now I don't have a problem with main characters being killed off in a story, in fact as a Tarantino fan, I relish it when it's done properly. The problem with Joel's death is the way that it was executed. First off, Joel and Tommy would never in a million years have blindly trusted this random faction that they've just bumped into enough to give them their names so quickly. They've both survived 25 years in the apocalypse and yet the writers still expect you to believe that they would be this naïve and stupid. Then, there's the fact that this is how they choose to introduce this new group that you are later expected to sympathize with and this character that they will later force you to play as for half the game. Why would anyone who is a fan of this world and these characters want to play and learn about this random ruthless killer?
Now, what you might be asking is "aren't Joel and Ellie ruthless killers at this point?" And you would be right, they are. However the point is that we were already invested in these characters before we seen them ruthlessly murdering infected and humans alike and therefore are able to put it down to them having to do what they had to in order to survive. With Abby you are introduced to her killing a beloved character from the first game for the sake of pure shock value.
The first game came out during an oversaturation period of zombie stories across media and yet because of it's stellar writing, it managed to stand out from the crowd and actually become one of the most unique games of the last generation in terms of the story it told. The story in this game feels so generic by comparison. I remember watching interviews with Neil Druckman in the lead up to the game's release where he would talk about how the main hurdle of writing this game was justifying it's existence after the first one ended so well. Really? You had seven years and another generic revenge plot was the best thing that you could come up with?
Another highlight from the first game was the fleshed out side characters that all felt deep and like they really existed in the world. Characters like Tess, Bill and Marlene all naturally fitted into the plot and felt necessary to the overall story being told. The same cannot be said for the side characters in this game. I have already mentioned how it is made impossible to sympathize with Abby and her crew after seeing what they did to Joel. There are two other new characters introduced called Yara and Lev. They are siblings, which put me in mind of Henry and Sam from the first game, but where Henry and Sam felt layered and genuine, Yara and Lev feel shallow and shoehorned in to give Abby's plotline some narrative weight.
Then there is the strange pacing of the story. I feel like I must reiterate, they introduce a character that murders the beloved protagonist from the first game and later expect you to sympathize with her. Then there is the fact that you play as Ellie for the next 8 hours or so before they present you with a shocking cliffhanger, only to then force you to play as Abby for the next 10 hours. Not only are they making you play as the character that murdered Joel and Jessie in cold blood, but every extra hour that they unsuccessfully attempt to make you feel sorry for Abby is another hour before you can get back to see how the cliffhanger, (that was introduced 10 hours ago,) is resolved. And then, they bafflingly make you fight Ellie while playing as Abby. Why would the game expect me to want to hurt this character that I care about as this brand new random stranger?
You are then eventually given control back as Ellie and the game lulls you into a false sense of thinking that you are finally done playing as Abby. Then Ellie makes the totally nonsensical decision to abandon a nice, cushty, quiet farm life that she's carved out for herself, to go after Abby yet again.
After that, you guessed it! You are forced to play as Abby yet again. Thankfully it's only briefly as we then at long last get to properly play as Ellie again. Not sure if you remember her at this point, she's the one that's in all of the trailers and posters and on the cover of the damn game?
Then we get what is probably the most anticlimactic ending in the history of gaming. Ellie lets Abby go. After Abby killed Joel and Jessie and crippled Tommy and after Ellie murdered all of Abby's friends and after Ellie abandoned her girlfriend and step-son and had her fingers bitten off, she's just like, "nah fam, I'm good."
I'm sorry, what?
You are going to break your promise to Tommy and let the person that murdered your father figure get away? Why?
If getting your revenge wasn't worth it, you should have really realized that back on the farm when you were surrounded by people you love and a chance at a family life. If you chose to leave that behind you must be committed enough to see it through, otherwise it is all for nothing. There is subverting audience expectations and then there is having your characters make nonsensical decisions and I feel like TLOU2 was full of the latter.
On a positive note, the gameplay is extremely fun and satisfying. Every blow lands with more force and every bullet seems to strike even harder than in the first game. It does get a bit repetitive after a while and the actual function of taking out a group of enemies hasn't evolved a great deal since the first game, but I still really enjoyed it. The upgrading and crafting systems have also been fleshed out. This, along with the immaculate graphical presentation, tight, fluid animations, brilliant audio and expectedly phenomenal performances make for something with so much potential, with only the writing and direction letting it down. Unfortunately, writing and directing are both pretty essential in a story driven game.
Before I summarise, I'd like to highlight that I am not against stories that explore the moral grey area and don't have clear heroes and villains. For example, Metal Gear Solid is my favourite franchise in gaming and the whole point of that series is to show that there is no black and white, but we all do things for our own reasons. A good story should be able to make you see the things from the "villain's" point of view without being like, "look see what you did to them? That is why they are the way they are! Look see, she is a good person because she plays fetch with dogs!" In TLOU2 it all just feels so forced and unnatural. A good storyteller should show a character's motivations and then show their actions and leave it up to audience to decide if it's justified, instead of strictly saying, "this character is 100% justified in the heinous act that you just seen her commit, now you must be on her side!"
I think that's all that I've got to say and I guess at the very least, this game has got people talking. You cannot accuse it of playing it safe, but there are a ton of different ways that the plot could have went that probably would have been a lot more satisfying for fans of the series like myself. 6/10
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.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Roma (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
“Siempre estamos solas”
Alfonso Cuarón‘s “Roma” has been lauded with praise and award’s hype, and I must admit to have been a little bit snooty about it. A black-and-white Spanish language film with subtitles that – to be honest – looks a bit dreary: can it really be that good? Having now (finally) seen it on Netflix I can confirm that’s a big YES from my point of view. It’s a novelty of a glacially slow film that grips like a vice.
A primer on 70’s Mexican History.
This is a film about ordinary life set against tumultuous times. Set in the Colonia Roma district of Mexico City (if you were puzzled, as I was, where the title came from) it is an “Upstairs, Downstairs” tale of Cleo (Yalitza Aparicio), a maid and nanny to a middle class family in the early 70’s.
There are two intertwined stories here: Cleo’s personal story and that of the family background in which she works.
Cleo has a pleasant enough life working as partners in crime in the household with Adela (Nancy García García). Life is about getting the work done (well, more of less), keeping the four children happy – to who she is devoted – and scraping enough by to spend her downtime with her martial arts boyfriend Ramón (José Manuel Guerrero Mendoza).
Meanwhile the lady of the house Senora Sofia (Marina de Tavira) has an affluent and cosseted lifestyle amid her loving family.
But times are about to change for all of the players, as events – not just the events of the ‘Mexican Dirty War’ of 1971 going on in the background – transpire to change all their lives forever.
A masterclass in framing.
It’s criminal that I wasn’t able to get to see this in the cinema. Since every frame of this movie is a masterpiece of detail. There is just so much going on that your eyes dart this way and that, and you could probably watch it five times and see more. Even the opening titles are mesmerising, as the cobbled floor becomes a screen and an airliner lazily flies across it.
Even major action sequences, that other directors would fill the screen with (“Do you KNOW how much this scene is costing for God’s sake??”), are seen as they would typically be seen in real life – second hand, from a place of hiding. This is typified by the depiction of the Corpus Christi Massacre of June ’71, where the military, and more controversially the elite El Halconazo (The Hawks) of the Mexican army, turned on a student protest. Most of the action is seen as glimpses through the windows by the characters during a shopping trip to the second floor of a department store. How this was enacted and directed is a mystery to me, but it works just brilliantly.
A masterclass in pacing and panning.
One of Cuarón’s trademarks is the long take (think “Children of Men”) and here he (literally!) goes to town with the technique. An incredibly impressive scene has Cleo and Adela running through the streets of the City to meet their lovers at the cinema. It’s a continuous pan that again defies belief in the brilliance of its execution.
Even the mundane act of Cleo tidying up the apartment is done with a glorious slow pan around the room. Some of this panning is done to set the mood for the film (“Get settled in… this is going to be a long haul”) but others manage to evoke a sense of rising dread, an example at the beach being a brilliant case in point.
The cinematography was supposed to have been done by the great Emmanuel Lubezki, but he was unavailable so Cuarón did it himself! And it’s quite brilliant. So, that’s a lesson learned then that will reduce the budget for next time!
A personal story.
Cuarón wrote the script. Of course he did… it’s his story! He’s the same age as I am, so was nine years old for the autobiographical events featured in the film (he is the kid who gets punished for eavesdropping). Numerous aspects of the film are from his own childhood, including the fact that his younger brother kept spookily coming out with things that he’d done in his past lives! It’s a painful true story of his upbringing and of the life of Liboria Rodríguez: “Libo” to whom the film is dedicated.
Where the script is delightful is in never destroying the mood with lengthy exposition. Both of the key stories evolve slowly and only gradually do you work out what’s really going on. This is grown-up cinema at its finest.
It’s also a love letter from Cuarón to the cinema of his youth, a passion that sparked his eventual career. We see a number of trips to the local fleapit, and in one cute scene we seen a clip from the Gregory Peck space epic “Marooned”: the film that inspired Cuarón’s own masterpiece “Gravity“.
A naturalistic cast.
Casting a large proportion of the cast from unknowns feels like a great risk, but its a risk that pays off handsomely, particularly in the case of Yalitza Aparicio, who is breathtakingly naturalistic. Cuarón withheld the script from his cast, so some of the “acting” is not acting at all – specifically a gruelling and heartrending scene featuring Cleo later in the film. That’s real and raw emotion on the screen.
Marina de Tavira, although an actress with a track record, is also mightily impressive as the beleaguered and troubled wife.
Final Thoughts.
This is a masterpiece, and thoroughly deserves the “Best Picture” awards it has been getting. It’s certainly my odds on favourite, as well as being my pick, for the Oscar on Sunday. Will it be for everyone? Probably not.
There are some scenes which feel slightly ostentatious. A forest fire scene is brilliantly done (“Put out the small fires kids”), but then a guy in a monster suit pulls off his head-wear and starts singing a long and mournful song. Sorry?
There will also be many I suspect who will find the leisurely pace of the film excruciating; “JUST GET ON WITH IT” I hear them yelling at the screen. But if you give it the time and let it soak in, then you WILL be moved and you WILL remember the film long after you’ve seen it.
I remain cross however that this was released through Netflix. This is a film that deserves a full and widespread cinema release in 70mm format. It’s like taking an iPhone snap of the Mona Lisa and putting the phone on display instead.
A primer on 70’s Mexican History.
This is a film about ordinary life set against tumultuous times. Set in the Colonia Roma district of Mexico City (if you were puzzled, as I was, where the title came from) it is an “Upstairs, Downstairs” tale of Cleo (Yalitza Aparicio), a maid and nanny to a middle class family in the early 70’s.
There are two intertwined stories here: Cleo’s personal story and that of the family background in which she works.
Cleo has a pleasant enough life working as partners in crime in the household with Adela (Nancy García García). Life is about getting the work done (well, more of less), keeping the four children happy – to who she is devoted – and scraping enough by to spend her downtime with her martial arts boyfriend Ramón (José Manuel Guerrero Mendoza).
Meanwhile the lady of the house Senora Sofia (Marina de Tavira) has an affluent and cosseted lifestyle amid her loving family.
But times are about to change for all of the players, as events – not just the events of the ‘Mexican Dirty War’ of 1971 going on in the background – transpire to change all their lives forever.
A masterclass in framing.
It’s criminal that I wasn’t able to get to see this in the cinema. Since every frame of this movie is a masterpiece of detail. There is just so much going on that your eyes dart this way and that, and you could probably watch it five times and see more. Even the opening titles are mesmerising, as the cobbled floor becomes a screen and an airliner lazily flies across it.
Even major action sequences, that other directors would fill the screen with (“Do you KNOW how much this scene is costing for God’s sake??”), are seen as they would typically be seen in real life – second hand, from a place of hiding. This is typified by the depiction of the Corpus Christi Massacre of June ’71, where the military, and more controversially the elite El Halconazo (The Hawks) of the Mexican army, turned on a student protest. Most of the action is seen as glimpses through the windows by the characters during a shopping trip to the second floor of a department store. How this was enacted and directed is a mystery to me, but it works just brilliantly.
A masterclass in pacing and panning.
One of Cuarón’s trademarks is the long take (think “Children of Men”) and here he (literally!) goes to town with the technique. An incredibly impressive scene has Cleo and Adela running through the streets of the City to meet their lovers at the cinema. It’s a continuous pan that again defies belief in the brilliance of its execution.
Even the mundane act of Cleo tidying up the apartment is done with a glorious slow pan around the room. Some of this panning is done to set the mood for the film (“Get settled in… this is going to be a long haul”) but others manage to evoke a sense of rising dread, an example at the beach being a brilliant case in point.
The cinematography was supposed to have been done by the great Emmanuel Lubezki, but he was unavailable so Cuarón did it himself! And it’s quite brilliant. So, that’s a lesson learned then that will reduce the budget for next time!
A personal story.
Cuarón wrote the script. Of course he did… it’s his story! He’s the same age as I am, so was nine years old for the autobiographical events featured in the film (he is the kid who gets punished for eavesdropping). Numerous aspects of the film are from his own childhood, including the fact that his younger brother kept spookily coming out with things that he’d done in his past lives! It’s a painful true story of his upbringing and of the life of Liboria Rodríguez: “Libo” to whom the film is dedicated.
Where the script is delightful is in never destroying the mood with lengthy exposition. Both of the key stories evolve slowly and only gradually do you work out what’s really going on. This is grown-up cinema at its finest.
It’s also a love letter from Cuarón to the cinema of his youth, a passion that sparked his eventual career. We see a number of trips to the local fleapit, and in one cute scene we seen a clip from the Gregory Peck space epic “Marooned”: the film that inspired Cuarón’s own masterpiece “Gravity“.
A naturalistic cast.
Casting a large proportion of the cast from unknowns feels like a great risk, but its a risk that pays off handsomely, particularly in the case of Yalitza Aparicio, who is breathtakingly naturalistic. Cuarón withheld the script from his cast, so some of the “acting” is not acting at all – specifically a gruelling and heartrending scene featuring Cleo later in the film. That’s real and raw emotion on the screen.
Marina de Tavira, although an actress with a track record, is also mightily impressive as the beleaguered and troubled wife.
Final Thoughts.
This is a masterpiece, and thoroughly deserves the “Best Picture” awards it has been getting. It’s certainly my odds on favourite, as well as being my pick, for the Oscar on Sunday. Will it be for everyone? Probably not.
There are some scenes which feel slightly ostentatious. A forest fire scene is brilliantly done (“Put out the small fires kids”), but then a guy in a monster suit pulls off his head-wear and starts singing a long and mournful song. Sorry?
There will also be many I suspect who will find the leisurely pace of the film excruciating; “JUST GET ON WITH IT” I hear them yelling at the screen. But if you give it the time and let it soak in, then you WILL be moved and you WILL remember the film long after you’ve seen it.
I remain cross however that this was released through Netflix. This is a film that deserves a full and widespread cinema release in 70mm format. It’s like taking an iPhone snap of the Mona Lisa and putting the phone on display instead.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated No Time to Die (2021) in Movies
Oct 7, 2021 (Updated Oct 10, 2021)
What a wait it’s been for Bond 25! But Daniel Craig’s last outing as Bond is finally here and I thought it was great! It has all the elements of Bond… but perhaps not as we traditionally know it.
Plot Summary:
We pick up immediately after the ending of “Spectre“, with Bond (Daniel Craig) and Madeleine (Léa Seydoux) all loved up and driving off into the sunset together. But their romantic getaway to Italy is rudely broken short by Spectre as elements of Madeleine’s past emerge to haunt the couple.
One element of that past – the horribly disfigured Lyutsifer Safin (Rami Malek) has a plan to make his mark on mankind with a biochemical weapon. And the retired Bond teams with the CIA’s Felix Leiter (a very welcome return of Jeffrey Wright) in a mission to Jamaica to combat it.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Daniel Craig, Léa Seydoux, Rami Malek, Lashana Lynch, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Ana de Armas.
Directed by: Cary Joji Fukunaga.
Written by: Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, Cary Joji Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge. (From a story by Purvis, Wade and Fukunaga).
Positives:
- The script has all the trappings of Bond: exotic locations; great stunts; thrilling action sequences; and more gadgets on show than in recent times. Yet it’s a real character piece too, delving far more into Bond’s emotions. The story running through it with Madeleine is both deep and emotional: something we haven’t seen since the Bond and Tracy romance in OHMSS. (And with Craig’s acting, he manages to pull this off far better than George Lazenby ever could!).
- I found the finale to be magnificent, bold and surprising. We’re back to the megalomaniac owning an island lair, à la Dr No. It even has its own submarine pen (a nod to Austin Power’s “Goldmember” perhaps!?). For me, the production design harks back to the superbly over-the-top Ken Adams creations of the Connery years. There are no sharks with frickin’ laser beams… but there could have been. (The set is a rather obvious redressing of the 007 stage at Pinewood, created of course for the tanker scenes in “The Spy Who Loved Me”. It even re-uses of the gantry level control room.)
- Craig is magnificent in his swan-song performance. There’s a scene, during the extended pre-credits sequence, where he’s sat in his bullet-ridden Aston just glowering for an extended period. I thought this was Craig’s acting at its best. I thought this again in a dramatic showdown scene with Rami Malek. Malek is not given a huge amount to do in the film, But what he does he does wonderfully, particularly in that electrifying scene with Craig.
- The film has a great deal more female empowerment than any previous Bond, with the tell-tale signs (although this might be a sexist presumption) of Phoebe Waller-Bridge on the script. Newcomer Lashana Lynch acquits herself well as the first female 00-agent, getting not just kick-ass action sequences but also her fair share of quips. But stealing the show is Ana de Armas (reunited with Craig of course from “Knives Out“). Her scenes in Cuba are brief but memorable, delivering a delicious mixture of action and comedy that makes you think “cast HER as the next Bond”!
- The music by Hans Zimmer! It’s a glorious soundtrack that pays deference not only to the action style of recent composers, like David Arnold and Thomas Newman, but particularly to the classic scores of John Barry. It actually incorporates not one but two classic themes from “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”, directly into the film. I’m even starting to warm to the Billie Eilish theme song, although I think it’s too similar in style to the Sam Smith offering from “Spectre“.
- The cinematography from Linus Sandgren (who did “La La Land“) is gorgeous: in turns colourful and vibrant for the Italian and Cuban scenes and cool and blue for the tense Norwegian action sequences.
Negatives:
- My main criticism is not of the film, but of the trailer(s). There are so many of the money shots from the film (particularly from the Matera-based action of the pre-title sequence) included in the trailers that I had an “OK, move on, seen this” attitude. Why did they have to spoil the movie so much? IT’S A NEW BOND… OF COURSE WE’RE GOING TO SEE IT. All you EVER needed for this is a 20-second teaser trailer. Just put white “Bond is Back” text on a black background and the Craig tunnel shot to the camera. Job done. It really infuriates me. B arbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson, PLEASE take note!
- At 163 minutes it’s the longest Bond ever and a bit of a bladder tester. But, having said that, there are no more than a few minutes here and there that I would want to trim. To do more you’d need to cut out whole episodes, and leaving Ana de Armas on the cutting room floor would have been criminal. As the illustrious Mrs Movie Man commented, “I wish they’d bring in the half time Intermission card like they used to do in the old days”. I agree. Everyone would have been a whole lot more comfortable and less fidgety.
Summary Thoughts on “No Time to Die”: Reading the comments on IMDB for the movie, I’m perplexed at the diatribe coming from supposed ‘Bond fans’ on this one. One-star review after one-star review (despite, I note, the overall film getting an overall 7.8/10 at the time of writing). In this regard, I class myself as very much a Bond fan. (My first film at the cinema was the release of “Live and Let Die” in 1973, but I then binge-watched all the other Bond films at the cinema: they used to do repeated double-features in those days). And I thought this was a fabulous Bond film. Full of drama, action, humour and deep-seated emotion. Couldn’t be better for me, and certainly on a par with “Casino Royale” and “Skyfall” for me as my favourite Craig outings.
As the end of the end credits said – “James Bond Will Return”. Who will they cast as the next Bond? And where will they take the story from here? Two of the most intriguing movie questions to take into 2022.
(For the full graphical review and video review, please search for @onemannsmovies. Thanks.)
Plot Summary:
We pick up immediately after the ending of “Spectre“, with Bond (Daniel Craig) and Madeleine (Léa Seydoux) all loved up and driving off into the sunset together. But their romantic getaway to Italy is rudely broken short by Spectre as elements of Madeleine’s past emerge to haunt the couple.
One element of that past – the horribly disfigured Lyutsifer Safin (Rami Malek) has a plan to make his mark on mankind with a biochemical weapon. And the retired Bond teams with the CIA’s Felix Leiter (a very welcome return of Jeffrey Wright) in a mission to Jamaica to combat it.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Daniel Craig, Léa Seydoux, Rami Malek, Lashana Lynch, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Ana de Armas.
Directed by: Cary Joji Fukunaga.
Written by: Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, Cary Joji Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge. (From a story by Purvis, Wade and Fukunaga).
Positives:
- The script has all the trappings of Bond: exotic locations; great stunts; thrilling action sequences; and more gadgets on show than in recent times. Yet it’s a real character piece too, delving far more into Bond’s emotions. The story running through it with Madeleine is both deep and emotional: something we haven’t seen since the Bond and Tracy romance in OHMSS. (And with Craig’s acting, he manages to pull this off far better than George Lazenby ever could!).
- I found the finale to be magnificent, bold and surprising. We’re back to the megalomaniac owning an island lair, à la Dr No. It even has its own submarine pen (a nod to Austin Power’s “Goldmember” perhaps!?). For me, the production design harks back to the superbly over-the-top Ken Adams creations of the Connery years. There are no sharks with frickin’ laser beams… but there could have been. (The set is a rather obvious redressing of the 007 stage at Pinewood, created of course for the tanker scenes in “The Spy Who Loved Me”. It even re-uses of the gantry level control room.)
- Craig is magnificent in his swan-song performance. There’s a scene, during the extended pre-credits sequence, where he’s sat in his bullet-ridden Aston just glowering for an extended period. I thought this was Craig’s acting at its best. I thought this again in a dramatic showdown scene with Rami Malek. Malek is not given a huge amount to do in the film, But what he does he does wonderfully, particularly in that electrifying scene with Craig.
- The film has a great deal more female empowerment than any previous Bond, with the tell-tale signs (although this might be a sexist presumption) of Phoebe Waller-Bridge on the script. Newcomer Lashana Lynch acquits herself well as the first female 00-agent, getting not just kick-ass action sequences but also her fair share of quips. But stealing the show is Ana de Armas (reunited with Craig of course from “Knives Out“). Her scenes in Cuba are brief but memorable, delivering a delicious mixture of action and comedy that makes you think “cast HER as the next Bond”!
- The music by Hans Zimmer! It’s a glorious soundtrack that pays deference not only to the action style of recent composers, like David Arnold and Thomas Newman, but particularly to the classic scores of John Barry. It actually incorporates not one but two classic themes from “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”, directly into the film. I’m even starting to warm to the Billie Eilish theme song, although I think it’s too similar in style to the Sam Smith offering from “Spectre“.
- The cinematography from Linus Sandgren (who did “La La Land“) is gorgeous: in turns colourful and vibrant for the Italian and Cuban scenes and cool and blue for the tense Norwegian action sequences.
Negatives:
- My main criticism is not of the film, but of the trailer(s). There are so many of the money shots from the film (particularly from the Matera-based action of the pre-title sequence) included in the trailers that I had an “OK, move on, seen this” attitude. Why did they have to spoil the movie so much? IT’S A NEW BOND… OF COURSE WE’RE GOING TO SEE IT. All you EVER needed for this is a 20-second teaser trailer. Just put white “Bond is Back” text on a black background and the Craig tunnel shot to the camera. Job done. It really infuriates me. B arbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson, PLEASE take note!
- At 163 minutes it’s the longest Bond ever and a bit of a bladder tester. But, having said that, there are no more than a few minutes here and there that I would want to trim. To do more you’d need to cut out whole episodes, and leaving Ana de Armas on the cutting room floor would have been criminal. As the illustrious Mrs Movie Man commented, “I wish they’d bring in the half time Intermission card like they used to do in the old days”. I agree. Everyone would have been a whole lot more comfortable and less fidgety.
Summary Thoughts on “No Time to Die”: Reading the comments on IMDB for the movie, I’m perplexed at the diatribe coming from supposed ‘Bond fans’ on this one. One-star review after one-star review (despite, I note, the overall film getting an overall 7.8/10 at the time of writing). In this regard, I class myself as very much a Bond fan. (My first film at the cinema was the release of “Live and Let Die” in 1973, but I then binge-watched all the other Bond films at the cinema: they used to do repeated double-features in those days). And I thought this was a fabulous Bond film. Full of drama, action, humour and deep-seated emotion. Couldn’t be better for me, and certainly on a par with “Casino Royale” and “Skyfall” for me as my favourite Craig outings.
As the end of the end credits said – “James Bond Will Return”. Who will they cast as the next Bond? And where will they take the story from here? Two of the most intriguing movie questions to take into 2022.
(For the full graphical review and video review, please search for @onemannsmovies. Thanks.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated First Man (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
He captured a feeling. Sky with no ceiling.
A memorable event
I am a child of the 60’s, born in 1961. The “Space Race” for me was not some historical concept but a pervasive backdrop to my childhood. I still recall, at the age of 8, being marched into my junior school’s assembly hall. We all peered at the grainy black-and-white pictures of Neil Armstrong as he spoke his famously fluffed line before stepping onto the lunar surface. The event happened at 3:54am UK time, so clearly my recollection of “seeing it live” is bogus. (I read that the BBC stayed on air until 10:30 in the morning, so it was probably a ‘final review’ of the night’s events I saw). It is probably lodged in my memory less for the historical event and more due to the fact that there was TELEVISION ON IN THE MORNING! (Kids, ask your grandparents!)
A very personal connection. My personal copy of Waddington’s “Blast Off” board game, briefly shown in the film.
The plot
But back to Damien Chazelle‘s film. We start early in the 60’s with America getting well and truly kicked up the proberbial by the Russians in the space race: they fail to get the first man in space; they fail to carry out the first spacewalk. So the Americans, following the famous JFK speech, set their sights on the moon. It’s the equivalent of making a mess of cutting your toenails but then deciding to have a go at brain surgery. NASA develop the Gemini programme to practice the essential docking manoevers required as a precursor for the seemingly impossible (‘two blackboard’) mission that is Apollo.
But the price paid for such ambition is high.
Ryan Gosling plays Neil Armstrong as a dedicated, prickly, professional; altogether not a terribly likeable individual. Claire Foy plays his long-suffering wife Janet, putting her support for her husband’s dangerous profession ahead of her natural fears of becoming a single mother.
Review
There is obviously little tension to be mined from a film that has such a well-known historical context. Those with even a subliminal knowledge of the subject will be aware of the key triumphs and tragedies along the way. The script (by Josh Singer, “The Post“; “Spotlight“) is very well done in developing a creeping dread of knowing what is shortly to come.
Even with these inherent spoilers, Chazelle still manages to evoke armrest-squeezing tension into the space flight sequences. A lot of this is achieved through disorientating camera movements and flashing images that may irritate some but I found to be highly effective. (Did anyone else flash back to that excellent “Mission Space” ride at Epcot during the launch sequences?) This hand-held cinematography by Linus Sandgren (Chazelle’s “La La Land” collaborator) is matched by some utterly drop-dead gorgeous shots – beautifully framed; beautifully lit – that would be worthy of a Kaminski/Spielberg collaboration.
Those expecting a rollercoaster thrill-ride of the likes of “Apollo 13” will be disappointed. The film has more of the slow-and-long-burn feeling of “The Right Stuff” in mood and, at 141 minutes, some might even find it quite boring. There is significant time, for example, spent within the family home. These scenes include turbulent events of which I wasn’t previously aware: events that form the cornerstone of the film’s drama. For me, the balance of the personal and the historical background was perfectly done. I found it curious though that with such a family-oriented drama Chazelle chose to ditch completely any cuts away to the earthbound onlookers during the tense lunar landing sequence. (Compare and contrast with Ron Howard‘s masterly inter-cutting in the re-entry scene of “Apollo 13”). With the outcome foretold, perhaps such tension building was considered unnecessary? I’m not suggesting it was wrong to ‘stay in the moment’ with the astronauts, but it’s a bold directorial move.
Overall, the foolhardiness of NASA trying to do what they did with the 60’s technology at their disposal is well-portrayed. If you’ve been lucky enough, as I have, to view the Apollo 11 capsule in the National Air and Space museum in Washington you can’t help but be impressed by the bravery of Armstong, Aldrin and Collins in getting in that bucket of bolts and putting their lives on the line. True American heroes.
On that topic, the “flag issue” has generated much self-righteous heat within the US media; that is regarding Chazelle not showing the American flag being planted. This seems fatuous to me. Not only is the flag shown on the moon, but the film ably demonstrates the American know-how and bravery behind the mission. If Clint Eastwood had been directing he would have probably gone there: but for me it certainly didn’t need any further patriotism rubbed in the viewer’s face.
The turns
Are Oscar nominations on the cards for Ryan Gosling and Claire Foy? For me, it would be staggering if they are not: this film has “Oscar nomination” written all over it. I’d also certainly not bet against Foy winning for Best Actress: her portrayal of a wife on the edge is nothing short of brilliant. And perhaps, just perhaps, this might be Gosling’s year too.
Elsewhere there are strong supporting performances from Kyle Chandler (as Deke Slayton), Corey Stoll (as the ‘tell it how it is’ Buzz Aldrin) and Jason Clarke (as Ed White). It’s also great to see Belfast-born Ciarán Hinds in another mainstream Hollywood release.
For me, another dead cert Oscar nomination will be Justin Hurwitz for the score which is breathtakingly brilliant, not just in its compelling themes but also in its orchestration: the use of the eerie theremin and melodic harp are just brilliant together. I haven’t heard a score this year that’s more fitting to the visuals: although it’s early in the Oscar season to be calling it, I’d be very surprised if this didn’t walk away with the statuette.
Summary
Loved this. Damien Chazelle – with “Whiplash“, “La La Land” and now “First Man” – has hit all of three out of the park in my book. It’s not really a film for thrill-seekers, who might get bored, but anyone, like me, with an interest in the history of space exploration will I think lap it up: for this was surely the most memorable decade in space history… so far.
On leaving the cinema I looked up at the rising moon and marvelled once more at the audacity of man. My eyes then drifted across to the red dot that was Mars. How long I wonder? And how many dramatic film biographies still to come?
I am a child of the 60’s, born in 1961. The “Space Race” for me was not some historical concept but a pervasive backdrop to my childhood. I still recall, at the age of 8, being marched into my junior school’s assembly hall. We all peered at the grainy black-and-white pictures of Neil Armstrong as he spoke his famously fluffed line before stepping onto the lunar surface. The event happened at 3:54am UK time, so clearly my recollection of “seeing it live” is bogus. (I read that the BBC stayed on air until 10:30 in the morning, so it was probably a ‘final review’ of the night’s events I saw). It is probably lodged in my memory less for the historical event and more due to the fact that there was TELEVISION ON IN THE MORNING! (Kids, ask your grandparents!)
A very personal connection. My personal copy of Waddington’s “Blast Off” board game, briefly shown in the film.
The plot
But back to Damien Chazelle‘s film. We start early in the 60’s with America getting well and truly kicked up the proberbial by the Russians in the space race: they fail to get the first man in space; they fail to carry out the first spacewalk. So the Americans, following the famous JFK speech, set their sights on the moon. It’s the equivalent of making a mess of cutting your toenails but then deciding to have a go at brain surgery. NASA develop the Gemini programme to practice the essential docking manoevers required as a precursor for the seemingly impossible (‘two blackboard’) mission that is Apollo.
But the price paid for such ambition is high.
Ryan Gosling plays Neil Armstrong as a dedicated, prickly, professional; altogether not a terribly likeable individual. Claire Foy plays his long-suffering wife Janet, putting her support for her husband’s dangerous profession ahead of her natural fears of becoming a single mother.
Review
There is obviously little tension to be mined from a film that has such a well-known historical context. Those with even a subliminal knowledge of the subject will be aware of the key triumphs and tragedies along the way. The script (by Josh Singer, “The Post“; “Spotlight“) is very well done in developing a creeping dread of knowing what is shortly to come.
Even with these inherent spoilers, Chazelle still manages to evoke armrest-squeezing tension into the space flight sequences. A lot of this is achieved through disorientating camera movements and flashing images that may irritate some but I found to be highly effective. (Did anyone else flash back to that excellent “Mission Space” ride at Epcot during the launch sequences?) This hand-held cinematography by Linus Sandgren (Chazelle’s “La La Land” collaborator) is matched by some utterly drop-dead gorgeous shots – beautifully framed; beautifully lit – that would be worthy of a Kaminski/Spielberg collaboration.
Those expecting a rollercoaster thrill-ride of the likes of “Apollo 13” will be disappointed. The film has more of the slow-and-long-burn feeling of “The Right Stuff” in mood and, at 141 minutes, some might even find it quite boring. There is significant time, for example, spent within the family home. These scenes include turbulent events of which I wasn’t previously aware: events that form the cornerstone of the film’s drama. For me, the balance of the personal and the historical background was perfectly done. I found it curious though that with such a family-oriented drama Chazelle chose to ditch completely any cuts away to the earthbound onlookers during the tense lunar landing sequence. (Compare and contrast with Ron Howard‘s masterly inter-cutting in the re-entry scene of “Apollo 13”). With the outcome foretold, perhaps such tension building was considered unnecessary? I’m not suggesting it was wrong to ‘stay in the moment’ with the astronauts, but it’s a bold directorial move.
Overall, the foolhardiness of NASA trying to do what they did with the 60’s technology at their disposal is well-portrayed. If you’ve been lucky enough, as I have, to view the Apollo 11 capsule in the National Air and Space museum in Washington you can’t help but be impressed by the bravery of Armstong, Aldrin and Collins in getting in that bucket of bolts and putting their lives on the line. True American heroes.
On that topic, the “flag issue” has generated much self-righteous heat within the US media; that is regarding Chazelle not showing the American flag being planted. This seems fatuous to me. Not only is the flag shown on the moon, but the film ably demonstrates the American know-how and bravery behind the mission. If Clint Eastwood had been directing he would have probably gone there: but for me it certainly didn’t need any further patriotism rubbed in the viewer’s face.
The turns
Are Oscar nominations on the cards for Ryan Gosling and Claire Foy? For me, it would be staggering if they are not: this film has “Oscar nomination” written all over it. I’d also certainly not bet against Foy winning for Best Actress: her portrayal of a wife on the edge is nothing short of brilliant. And perhaps, just perhaps, this might be Gosling’s year too.
Elsewhere there are strong supporting performances from Kyle Chandler (as Deke Slayton), Corey Stoll (as the ‘tell it how it is’ Buzz Aldrin) and Jason Clarke (as Ed White). It’s also great to see Belfast-born Ciarán Hinds in another mainstream Hollywood release.
For me, another dead cert Oscar nomination will be Justin Hurwitz for the score which is breathtakingly brilliant, not just in its compelling themes but also in its orchestration: the use of the eerie theremin and melodic harp are just brilliant together. I haven’t heard a score this year that’s more fitting to the visuals: although it’s early in the Oscar season to be calling it, I’d be very surprised if this didn’t walk away with the statuette.
Summary
Loved this. Damien Chazelle – with “Whiplash“, “La La Land” and now “First Man” – has hit all of three out of the park in my book. It’s not really a film for thrill-seekers, who might get bored, but anyone, like me, with an interest in the history of space exploration will I think lap it up: for this was surely the most memorable decade in space history… so far.
On leaving the cinema I looked up at the rising moon and marvelled once more at the audacity of man. My eyes then drifted across to the red dot that was Mars. How long I wonder? And how many dramatic film biographies still to come?
Hadley (567 KP) rated A Deadly Education: Lesson One of the Scholomance in Books
Dec 19, 2020
A darker version of Harry Potter (1 more)
Witchcraft/occult
Main character was unlikable (1 more)
Too much internal dialogue
It's nice knowing that books about witches aren't dead. The main idea of Naomi Novik's new novel, A Deadly Education - - - a new series with the second book already slated to release in 2021 - - - is about a school of magic that is focused on survival. Of course, this may bring about similarities of J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series, but this story is no way the same, A Deadly Education is a much darker witch school story with young murderers and also monsters that eat the students alive.
Yet this dark and morbid story is about a young girl who has been foreseen to possess powers that could destroy millions of people as our main character, and she can be quite off-putting at times. Her personality - - - a need to be liked, but refuses to allow anyone to like her, her need to show that she is always the smartest person in the room, and her blatant rudeness to a young man that saves her life more than once - - - makes it hard, as a reader, to root for this character. She does have moments of dark humor that made me laugh, moments of sarcasm that were pretty good, but she quickly assumes that everyone hates her and wants her to die before making it to senior graduation.
Galadriel is her name, but she prefers to go by El, and both of her parents were students at this Scholomance. She begins by talking about different kinds of witches there are at the school, including ones that use malia. Malia is a form of magic that takes it's mana from living things, including people. One such student she knows that uses malia is Yi Liu. El describes how malia of this sort slowly kills the one using it by telling the reader that Liu's eyes are turning all white, and her nails have gone completely black (and it's not polish).
Early on, readers are told about enclaves at the school, usually rich kids whose families have had more survivors from graduating classes than others. Students who are not part of these cliques know that it is very important to try to get an invitation to join one before senior year because your chances of survival are higher with a group than by yourself. El spends most of her time debating whether she wants to be part of one or not; her shifts in decisions are quite annoying. After she is saved by a student named Orion Lake, who is an enclaver from New York, she quickly decides to use him to obtain a seat in his enclave: " I couldn't blame her, really. It wasn't stupid to want to be pals with Orion if that looked like a real possibility. Aadhya's family lives in New Jersey: if she got into the New York enclave, she could probably pull them all inside. And I couldn't afford to alienate one of the vanishing few people who are willing to deal with me. "
Throughout the story, El becomes angrier and angrier every time that Lake saves her from being killed (which ends up almost being ten times), but one such time that he isn't able to, readers finally get to see what her powers have taught her, and this is practically the only time that we do: while an attack is happening in the library, El decides to go after Lake and help him save other students, but you can easily get lost in the library due to the shelves constantly moving, or you can be eaten because of the dark areas the shelves create; this is when a giant creature appears called a maw-mouth: "My whole body was clenched and waiting for it, and in the next flare of deep-red light I met half a dozen human eyes watching me, scattered over the thick rolling folds of the translucent, glossy mass that was just bulging its way out of the vent, many mouths open and working for air. " El tells us that the only way to stop a maw-mouth is to give it indigestion. "I stopped, and I used the best of the nineteen spells I know for killing an entire roomful of people, the shortest one; it's just three words in French, a la mort, but it must be cast carelessly, with a flick of the hand that most people get wrong, and if you get it even a little wrong, it kills you instead. " She does it correctly and the maw-mouth is defeated.
El believes that she saved a majority of the students from being killed by defeating the maw-mouth, but when she goes to breakfast the next morning, she finds out that a student had been 'poached' by a senior student. Every student's dorm room has a wall or spot that is nothing but a black abyss, where if anything that enters it will disappear forever. 'Poaching' is an act that has happened at the school before, and it's when a student pushes another student into the void, usually to take over their dorm room because the former's is unsafe. Oddly, this isn't surprising that it happened, when life at the school is life or death, people, especially teenagers, will make rash decisions without adults being present - - - yes, there are no teachers at this school, and everything seems to appear out of thin air.
The novel finally picks up pace when the wall leading to the graduation hall, which contains two maw-mouths for the senior class, is starting to break away, threatening to release any and all creatures into the school: "If a hole opened up to the graduation hall before the senior dorms were closed off, the seniors went from being the whole buffet to the toughest and most stale entrees on the menu. "
When the students decide to work together to patch up the hole, they soon find out that the senior students don't want it patched up: " 'But we also don't want to let you buy your lives with ours. That's what I hear seniors saying. Not, let's rip open the school, but why don't we make you, your class, graduate with us. Your class are the ones Orion has saved the most.' Chloe flinched visibly, and a lot of the other kids at our table tensed. 'So? Are you all willing to do that, graduate early, to save the poor little freshmen? If not, you can stop ' - - - she waved a hand in a spiraling circle, making a gesture of drama - - -'about how evil we are because we don't want to die...' "
The atmosphere in the story makes the threat of death in the school very real, but Novik's main character isn't well-written; there are side characters that I found much more interesting than El, and were better written. Lake is even a better character - - - especially when readers find out why he has a need to save people - - - I honestly believe it would have been a better story from Lake's point-of-view. Also, the amount of explaining that Novik does in the novel really breaks up the flow of the story, sometimes stopping right in the middle of an important scene just to explain something about the school.
I will be reading the sequel when it comes out because I do want to know what happens to a lot of the side characters and their senior graduation, but I can only recommend this book to people who love stories about witches and the occult. As for horror fans, I don't think you would get your fix from this novel.
Yet this dark and morbid story is about a young girl who has been foreseen to possess powers that could destroy millions of people as our main character, and she can be quite off-putting at times. Her personality - - - a need to be liked, but refuses to allow anyone to like her, her need to show that she is always the smartest person in the room, and her blatant rudeness to a young man that saves her life more than once - - - makes it hard, as a reader, to root for this character. She does have moments of dark humor that made me laugh, moments of sarcasm that were pretty good, but she quickly assumes that everyone hates her and wants her to die before making it to senior graduation.
Galadriel is her name, but she prefers to go by El, and both of her parents were students at this Scholomance. She begins by talking about different kinds of witches there are at the school, including ones that use malia. Malia is a form of magic that takes it's mana from living things, including people. One such student she knows that uses malia is Yi Liu. El describes how malia of this sort slowly kills the one using it by telling the reader that Liu's eyes are turning all white, and her nails have gone completely black (and it's not polish).
Early on, readers are told about enclaves at the school, usually rich kids whose families have had more survivors from graduating classes than others. Students who are not part of these cliques know that it is very important to try to get an invitation to join one before senior year because your chances of survival are higher with a group than by yourself. El spends most of her time debating whether she wants to be part of one or not; her shifts in decisions are quite annoying. After she is saved by a student named Orion Lake, who is an enclaver from New York, she quickly decides to use him to obtain a seat in his enclave: " I couldn't blame her, really. It wasn't stupid to want to be pals with Orion if that looked like a real possibility. Aadhya's family lives in New Jersey: if she got into the New York enclave, she could probably pull them all inside. And I couldn't afford to alienate one of the vanishing few people who are willing to deal with me. "
Throughout the story, El becomes angrier and angrier every time that Lake saves her from being killed (which ends up almost being ten times), but one such time that he isn't able to, readers finally get to see what her powers have taught her, and this is practically the only time that we do: while an attack is happening in the library, El decides to go after Lake and help him save other students, but you can easily get lost in the library due to the shelves constantly moving, or you can be eaten because of the dark areas the shelves create; this is when a giant creature appears called a maw-mouth: "My whole body was clenched and waiting for it, and in the next flare of deep-red light I met half a dozen human eyes watching me, scattered over the thick rolling folds of the translucent, glossy mass that was just bulging its way out of the vent, many mouths open and working for air. " El tells us that the only way to stop a maw-mouth is to give it indigestion. "I stopped, and I used the best of the nineteen spells I know for killing an entire roomful of people, the shortest one; it's just three words in French, a la mort, but it must be cast carelessly, with a flick of the hand that most people get wrong, and if you get it even a little wrong, it kills you instead. " She does it correctly and the maw-mouth is defeated.
El believes that she saved a majority of the students from being killed by defeating the maw-mouth, but when she goes to breakfast the next morning, she finds out that a student had been 'poached' by a senior student. Every student's dorm room has a wall or spot that is nothing but a black abyss, where if anything that enters it will disappear forever. 'Poaching' is an act that has happened at the school before, and it's when a student pushes another student into the void, usually to take over their dorm room because the former's is unsafe. Oddly, this isn't surprising that it happened, when life at the school is life or death, people, especially teenagers, will make rash decisions without adults being present - - - yes, there are no teachers at this school, and everything seems to appear out of thin air.
The novel finally picks up pace when the wall leading to the graduation hall, which contains two maw-mouths for the senior class, is starting to break away, threatening to release any and all creatures into the school: "If a hole opened up to the graduation hall before the senior dorms were closed off, the seniors went from being the whole buffet to the toughest and most stale entrees on the menu. "
When the students decide to work together to patch up the hole, they soon find out that the senior students don't want it patched up: " 'But we also don't want to let you buy your lives with ours. That's what I hear seniors saying. Not, let's rip open the school, but why don't we make you, your class, graduate with us. Your class are the ones Orion has saved the most.' Chloe flinched visibly, and a lot of the other kids at our table tensed. 'So? Are you all willing to do that, graduate early, to save the poor little freshmen? If not, you can stop ' - - - she waved a hand in a spiraling circle, making a gesture of drama - - -'about how evil we are because we don't want to die...' "
The atmosphere in the story makes the threat of death in the school very real, but Novik's main character isn't well-written; there are side characters that I found much more interesting than El, and were better written. Lake is even a better character - - - especially when readers find out why he has a need to save people - - - I honestly believe it would have been a better story from Lake's point-of-view. Also, the amount of explaining that Novik does in the novel really breaks up the flow of the story, sometimes stopping right in the middle of an important scene just to explain something about the school.
I will be reading the sequel when it comes out because I do want to know what happens to a lot of the side characters and their senior graduation, but I can only recommend this book to people who love stories about witches and the occult. As for horror fans, I don't think you would get your fix from this novel.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Calico in Tabletop Games
Oct 3, 2019
Cats. You love them. I tolerate them. I’m a dog person. While cats are the first things I think of when I hear the word Calico, it actually is also referencing a printed pattern. In this case, Calico refers to the printed fabrics to be woven into a quilt as well as the fluffy and mostly-indifferent mammalian species. Let’s take a closer look at Calico.
Calico is a game of tile drafting, tile placement, pattern recognition, with a hint of point salad. Now, not everything you do will score you points, but there are many ways to score. This game plays equally well solo as it does with a group, but how does one play it?
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. As this is a preview copy of the game, I do not know if the final rules or components will be similar or different to what we were provided. -T
To setup, each player chooses a quilt board that has a different colored stitching printed on it. This is the player’s color. Each player will receive their goal tiles of matching color and choose three of these to place on their boards in the starting positions (the rule book also details a recommended first game placement and tile choice). These tiles show the requirements to score them and how many points each scoring tile is worth. Three cat placards are chosen that will be visiting your quilt sections and who score differently from each other. Place the corresponding cat tokens nearby and randomly assign two black-and-white patter tokens to each cat under their placard. Place the cute rainbow tile and matching button tokens nearby. Shuffle the quilt patch tiles and place them in a pile or stack at the middle of the table. From this collection deal two per player, and draw and reveal three more face up to be the offer row. You are now ready to play.
On your turn you will place a tile from your hand, check for scoring, and then draw a new patch tile to your hand. You may place either of your tiles anywhere on your board in any orientation you like. Complete freedom! In order to score points, however, you will want to be strategic in where tiles are placed. You see, the scoring tiles you placed at setup will dictate how they score. Some tiles score when you have two sets of three similar tiles. Tiles are similar either by matching their patterns or their tile colors. Some tiles score when you have placed NO matches at all. Each of these tiles will score points based on whether you satisfied its requirements by color, by shape, or both. Example: a scoring tile says AAA-BBB. This means it wants two sets of three matching patch tiles surrounding it – and ONLY the tiles surrounding it. It also has printed scores of 8 and 13. This means that if you have two sets of tiles that match by color only (but not pattern) you will score 8 points. Should you match three tiles’ colors but also match three tiles’ patterns you will score 13 points.
It is important to note here that the six tiles surrounding the score tile do not have to match exactly. So you do not have to have three yellow tiles with ivy pattern. You need to have three yellow tiles (if you chose yellow for this example) and three tiles that have the ivy pattern. Your other set can be three blue tiles with three stripes patterns. As long as you have these sets from the six surrounding tiles you will score what is on that tile.
The cats come into play when you satisfy their scoring requirement printed on their placard. So Thimble, the actual Calico cat, will visit a portion of your quilt when you have placed three tiles adjacent to each other with their preferred pattern. In the example shown Thimble likes ferns and polka dots. So whenever you have three or more connecting tiles that share one of these patterns you will grab a Thimble token and place it on one of the tiles on your board. Each cat will have different scoring requirements and patterns of which to be aware.
Similarly, but with colors, are the rainbow scoring button tokens. Each patch tile contains a color and a pattern. Cats are attracted to patterns, whereas buttons are sewn onto similar colored tiles. Match up three tiles of the same color and you can sew a button onto your quilt. Buttons are worth 3 points and they just look great on your quilt.
Play continues in this fashion until all quilts are completed. Players then tally up their scores and determine the winner of Calico!
Components. Again, we were provided a prototype of this game, so I will not comment too much on the components as they will probably change from now until production. But, I am able to comment on the art and visual aspects. The art is by Beth Sobel. Do I need to say more at this point? Yes? Ok. So the illustrations of the cats are wonderful. The sleepy little space heaters are depicted so well and they really are cute (I mean, if you’re into cats). The patterns and colors on the quilt tiles and buttons are absolutely fantastic. Just seeing it on the table makes me excited to play it, and for a game about quilts and cats that is REALLY saying something. The art and visual appeal of this game is truly off the charts.
I am not colorblind, but I do appreciate when designers consider options for gamers who are. In Calico, though you are playing for and concentrating on patterns and colors, the tiles are also printed with icons that match the shapes of the buttons to be claimed. As you can see in our photos, yellow tiles have a crescent moon, which match the crescent moon button you claim. The purple tiles have a ghost? Onion? Jawless skull? Blueberry? Whatever it is, it also matched the token you claim for the rainbow bonus points. I like this. I like this a lot.
So do we like playing it? I have played several games of this solo as well as with a group, and it truly is fantastic. It’s one of those games that you can go nutty trying to figure out the optimal play, or you can just play it casually to come up with the prettiest end result. Granted, you probably will not win much, but golly look at your quilt! You can play Calico with ANY gamer type: beginner, casual, hard core, and industry personalities. And I believe that every one who plays this will have a great time and salivate for more plays (cats salivate, right? Or is that a dog-only thing?). I am very excited to see what Flatout Games has in store for this one on Kickstarter, and I would be happy to play with anyone who asks, or as part of anyone’s gaming event.
Calico is a game of tile drafting, tile placement, pattern recognition, with a hint of point salad. Now, not everything you do will score you points, but there are many ways to score. This game plays equally well solo as it does with a group, but how does one play it?
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. As this is a preview copy of the game, I do not know if the final rules or components will be similar or different to what we were provided. -T
To setup, each player chooses a quilt board that has a different colored stitching printed on it. This is the player’s color. Each player will receive their goal tiles of matching color and choose three of these to place on their boards in the starting positions (the rule book also details a recommended first game placement and tile choice). These tiles show the requirements to score them and how many points each scoring tile is worth. Three cat placards are chosen that will be visiting your quilt sections and who score differently from each other. Place the corresponding cat tokens nearby and randomly assign two black-and-white patter tokens to each cat under their placard. Place the cute rainbow tile and matching button tokens nearby. Shuffle the quilt patch tiles and place them in a pile or stack at the middle of the table. From this collection deal two per player, and draw and reveal three more face up to be the offer row. You are now ready to play.
On your turn you will place a tile from your hand, check for scoring, and then draw a new patch tile to your hand. You may place either of your tiles anywhere on your board in any orientation you like. Complete freedom! In order to score points, however, you will want to be strategic in where tiles are placed. You see, the scoring tiles you placed at setup will dictate how they score. Some tiles score when you have two sets of three similar tiles. Tiles are similar either by matching their patterns or their tile colors. Some tiles score when you have placed NO matches at all. Each of these tiles will score points based on whether you satisfied its requirements by color, by shape, or both. Example: a scoring tile says AAA-BBB. This means it wants two sets of three matching patch tiles surrounding it – and ONLY the tiles surrounding it. It also has printed scores of 8 and 13. This means that if you have two sets of tiles that match by color only (but not pattern) you will score 8 points. Should you match three tiles’ colors but also match three tiles’ patterns you will score 13 points.
It is important to note here that the six tiles surrounding the score tile do not have to match exactly. So you do not have to have three yellow tiles with ivy pattern. You need to have three yellow tiles (if you chose yellow for this example) and three tiles that have the ivy pattern. Your other set can be three blue tiles with three stripes patterns. As long as you have these sets from the six surrounding tiles you will score what is on that tile.
The cats come into play when you satisfy their scoring requirement printed on their placard. So Thimble, the actual Calico cat, will visit a portion of your quilt when you have placed three tiles adjacent to each other with their preferred pattern. In the example shown Thimble likes ferns and polka dots. So whenever you have three or more connecting tiles that share one of these patterns you will grab a Thimble token and place it on one of the tiles on your board. Each cat will have different scoring requirements and patterns of which to be aware.
Similarly, but with colors, are the rainbow scoring button tokens. Each patch tile contains a color and a pattern. Cats are attracted to patterns, whereas buttons are sewn onto similar colored tiles. Match up three tiles of the same color and you can sew a button onto your quilt. Buttons are worth 3 points and they just look great on your quilt.
Play continues in this fashion until all quilts are completed. Players then tally up their scores and determine the winner of Calico!
Components. Again, we were provided a prototype of this game, so I will not comment too much on the components as they will probably change from now until production. But, I am able to comment on the art and visual aspects. The art is by Beth Sobel. Do I need to say more at this point? Yes? Ok. So the illustrations of the cats are wonderful. The sleepy little space heaters are depicted so well and they really are cute (I mean, if you’re into cats). The patterns and colors on the quilt tiles and buttons are absolutely fantastic. Just seeing it on the table makes me excited to play it, and for a game about quilts and cats that is REALLY saying something. The art and visual appeal of this game is truly off the charts.
I am not colorblind, but I do appreciate when designers consider options for gamers who are. In Calico, though you are playing for and concentrating on patterns and colors, the tiles are also printed with icons that match the shapes of the buttons to be claimed. As you can see in our photos, yellow tiles have a crescent moon, which match the crescent moon button you claim. The purple tiles have a ghost? Onion? Jawless skull? Blueberry? Whatever it is, it also matched the token you claim for the rainbow bonus points. I like this. I like this a lot.
So do we like playing it? I have played several games of this solo as well as with a group, and it truly is fantastic. It’s one of those games that you can go nutty trying to figure out the optimal play, or you can just play it casually to come up with the prettiest end result. Granted, you probably will not win much, but golly look at your quilt! You can play Calico with ANY gamer type: beginner, casual, hard core, and industry personalities. And I believe that every one who plays this will have a great time and salivate for more plays (cats salivate, right? Or is that a dog-only thing?). I am very excited to see what Flatout Games has in store for this one on Kickstarter, and I would be happy to play with anyone who asks, or as part of anyone’s gaming event.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The King (2019) in Movies
Oct 29, 2019
There has been a lot of talk about The King, it's not one that I would necessarily have picked but I do enjoy historical films and who doesn't like a good battle scene? With Timothée Chalamet in the lead and Robert Pattinson in a supporting role I had my doubts, I'm not a fan of either one particularly but in the end it changed my opinion... partly. What surprised me was that this was a Netflix film, from all the hype I had been expecting a general release and I think it would have done incredibly well at the cinema, but we shall see how it fairs online.
My historical knowledge is terrible, luckily the evening I saw this I was meeting a friend for dinner who would be my phone a friend for all things historical so I picked his brain. We compared notes and it seems like they haven't messed with the actual history of it too much, though he did admit to not being an expert on this period. Do let me know in the comments how it stands up against documented history if you're up to speed on the topic.
The film does a good job of keeping the timeline clear, it doesn't jump around unnecessarily and despite the obvious long time frame of real life the scenes capture and condense everything quite nicely.
I'm going to start covering the acting by talking about Robert Pattinson. I have never heard such a unanimous reaction to a performance in my life. From the sheer volume in the Odean Luxe I believe that as soon as he spoke everyone broke out laughing. It wasn't just the one time either, it was every time. I don't know anything about The Dauphin of France but perhaps he did have the stereotypical accent... I don't know if I want to give RPat the benefit of the doubt. Almost every scene he was in had a rather tragic comedy element, mostly that was the accent but later there's a scene that would have sat well in a silent black and white comedy skit, I did laugh, but it really didn't fit the tone of any part of the film that he wasn't in.
Timothée Chalamet hasn't made much of an impression on me so far in his acting career. Beautiful Boy wasn't my cup of tea and his parts in Lady Bird and Hostiles clearly didn't either as I only remembered them when skimming IMDb. In The King though I found him to be excellent, I didn't make a single negative note about his performance. Every scene, every emotion, every moment in battle landed perfectly. This really did turn my opinion of him around and I'll be looking forward to his next role a lot more.
Joel Edgerton as Sir John Falstaff is the comic relief this film needed, his moments were light and broke the tension in the perfect way. He's a very consistent actor whose a pleasure to watch on screen and he's a multi-talented fella to boot... writer, producer and actor in this, well played sir, well played.
Sean Harris will also be a familiar face to most of us, and I suspect the main go to for people would be the MI franchise though he's got over 50 acting credits including the UK actors' traditional stint on The Bill. Yet another great actor in the mix and he managed to bring the characteristics of William out with great effect in his performance.
Overall the cast was excellent, though a couple of performances may have been a little on the irritating side for me, that did feel more intentional than anything else when you took the scenes into consideration.
It's difficult to know whether I'm spoiling something or not, but this is based on historical fact so I'm going to say not... The build up to the battle seemed fitting and yet somehow understated for what was to follow. The sound and the visuals are stunning, I'm getting goosebumps just remembering it. The rumble of the horses, the arrows... the sound in the cinema was so powerful and it makes me a little sad that this is going straight to Netflix where that part won't meet its full potential for most of its streams.
The other worry is that the battle won't get the same impact on a smaller screen. The camera work in The King is amazing, you got the sense of claustrophobia and the crush of the fight as we were brought into the mob of actors. I was in awe watching it. I genuinely don't know how they successfully managed to film that whole sequence in what was essentially a pool of mud. It makes my mind boggle.
While I can't really get on board with Robert Pattinson in this film everyone else was a joy to watch. It's a shame it's a Netflix film, I commend them for making something this impressive but it really deserves a cinema experience, I'm thankful to LFF for giving me that honour.
Full review originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-king-movie-review.html
My historical knowledge is terrible, luckily the evening I saw this I was meeting a friend for dinner who would be my phone a friend for all things historical so I picked his brain. We compared notes and it seems like they haven't messed with the actual history of it too much, though he did admit to not being an expert on this period. Do let me know in the comments how it stands up against documented history if you're up to speed on the topic.
The film does a good job of keeping the timeline clear, it doesn't jump around unnecessarily and despite the obvious long time frame of real life the scenes capture and condense everything quite nicely.
I'm going to start covering the acting by talking about Robert Pattinson. I have never heard such a unanimous reaction to a performance in my life. From the sheer volume in the Odean Luxe I believe that as soon as he spoke everyone broke out laughing. It wasn't just the one time either, it was every time. I don't know anything about The Dauphin of France but perhaps he did have the stereotypical accent... I don't know if I want to give RPat the benefit of the doubt. Almost every scene he was in had a rather tragic comedy element, mostly that was the accent but later there's a scene that would have sat well in a silent black and white comedy skit, I did laugh, but it really didn't fit the tone of any part of the film that he wasn't in.
Timothée Chalamet hasn't made much of an impression on me so far in his acting career. Beautiful Boy wasn't my cup of tea and his parts in Lady Bird and Hostiles clearly didn't either as I only remembered them when skimming IMDb. In The King though I found him to be excellent, I didn't make a single negative note about his performance. Every scene, every emotion, every moment in battle landed perfectly. This really did turn my opinion of him around and I'll be looking forward to his next role a lot more.
Joel Edgerton as Sir John Falstaff is the comic relief this film needed, his moments were light and broke the tension in the perfect way. He's a very consistent actor whose a pleasure to watch on screen and he's a multi-talented fella to boot... writer, producer and actor in this, well played sir, well played.
Sean Harris will also be a familiar face to most of us, and I suspect the main go to for people would be the MI franchise though he's got over 50 acting credits including the UK actors' traditional stint on The Bill. Yet another great actor in the mix and he managed to bring the characteristics of William out with great effect in his performance.
Overall the cast was excellent, though a couple of performances may have been a little on the irritating side for me, that did feel more intentional than anything else when you took the scenes into consideration.
It's difficult to know whether I'm spoiling something or not, but this is based on historical fact so I'm going to say not... The build up to the battle seemed fitting and yet somehow understated for what was to follow. The sound and the visuals are stunning, I'm getting goosebumps just remembering it. The rumble of the horses, the arrows... the sound in the cinema was so powerful and it makes me a little sad that this is going straight to Netflix where that part won't meet its full potential for most of its streams.
The other worry is that the battle won't get the same impact on a smaller screen. The camera work in The King is amazing, you got the sense of claustrophobia and the crush of the fight as we were brought into the mob of actors. I was in awe watching it. I genuinely don't know how they successfully managed to film that whole sequence in what was essentially a pool of mud. It makes my mind boggle.
While I can't really get on board with Robert Pattinson in this film everyone else was a joy to watch. It's a shame it's a Netflix film, I commend them for making something this impressive but it really deserves a cinema experience, I'm thankful to LFF for giving me that honour.
Full review originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-king-movie-review.html
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Glass (Crank, #2) in Books
Jun 6, 2018
(This review can also be found on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomethingyearold.blogspot.com">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>).
After reading Crank by Ellen Hopkins, I knew I had to read the sequel. It just had to be done. I enjoyed this book a lot, not as much as the first book in the series, but it was still good.
Glass begins where Crank left off. Now Kristina has a baby to take care off. Kristina believes she can control the monster now that she has Hunter to take care of. Little does she know it's not as easy as that. Will Kristina finally give up the monster for good this time to become a good mother?
The title of this sequel to Crank is a great one. Glass is one of the many slang names for the drug Meth. I love the way Hopkins continues to use a slang name for Meth.
Again, I do like the cover to this book. I do prefer the first cover as I loved the black and white simplicity of it. However, the purple cover with the title written in Meth looks good too.
As with the first book in this series, the world building is perfect. It's so easy to lose yourself in Kristina's world. The scenes for each chapter are so easy to imagine.
The pacing of this book is a bit slower than the first one. However, the pacing is still very good. I didn't devour this book like I did Crank, but I still loved it. I don't know why, but Glass just read a bit slower.
Like with the first book in the series, there isn't that much dialogue between characters. However, I loved the internal dialogue Kristina has with herself. It makes Kristina come across as more real and vulnerable. There is swearing in this book so if that bothers you, you don't want to read this book.
I still think Kristina is a fabulous character, and Hopkins does a fantastic job of portraying her like a proper Meth addict that came from a great home life. Kristina is a very well written character, and I really, really loved learning more about her. I was a bit saddened that Chase wasn't really in the second book as I loved him in the first. We do get to meet Trey though who I didn't really like, not because he wasn't written very well, but because of the way he treated Kristina. Brad was definitely one of my favourite characters.
This book is also written in verse like the first one. I like this because it makes the story more interesting to me. Plus, I like it when a book has a short chapter. Long chapters in books really annoy me for some reason.
Glass is a fantastic book and continues from the first book rather smoothly. The pacing is not as fast as the first book, but it's still a great sequel. I've now started on the third and final book in the series.
I'd recommend this book to everyone aged 16+ due to the bad language and the themes.
I'd give Glass (Crank #2) by Ellen Hopkins a 4.5 out of 5.
After reading Crank by Ellen Hopkins, I knew I had to read the sequel. It just had to be done. I enjoyed this book a lot, not as much as the first book in the series, but it was still good.
Glass begins where Crank left off. Now Kristina has a baby to take care off. Kristina believes she can control the monster now that she has Hunter to take care of. Little does she know it's not as easy as that. Will Kristina finally give up the monster for good this time to become a good mother?
The title of this sequel to Crank is a great one. Glass is one of the many slang names for the drug Meth. I love the way Hopkins continues to use a slang name for Meth.
Again, I do like the cover to this book. I do prefer the first cover as I loved the black and white simplicity of it. However, the purple cover with the title written in Meth looks good too.
As with the first book in this series, the world building is perfect. It's so easy to lose yourself in Kristina's world. The scenes for each chapter are so easy to imagine.
The pacing of this book is a bit slower than the first one. However, the pacing is still very good. I didn't devour this book like I did Crank, but I still loved it. I don't know why, but Glass just read a bit slower.
Like with the first book in the series, there isn't that much dialogue between characters. However, I loved the internal dialogue Kristina has with herself. It makes Kristina come across as more real and vulnerable. There is swearing in this book so if that bothers you, you don't want to read this book.
I still think Kristina is a fabulous character, and Hopkins does a fantastic job of portraying her like a proper Meth addict that came from a great home life. Kristina is a very well written character, and I really, really loved learning more about her. I was a bit saddened that Chase wasn't really in the second book as I loved him in the first. We do get to meet Trey though who I didn't really like, not because he wasn't written very well, but because of the way he treated Kristina. Brad was definitely one of my favourite characters.
This book is also written in verse like the first one. I like this because it makes the story more interesting to me. Plus, I like it when a book has a short chapter. Long chapters in books really annoy me for some reason.
Glass is a fantastic book and continues from the first book rather smoothly. The pacing is not as fast as the first book, but it's still a great sequel. I've now started on the third and final book in the series.
I'd recommend this book to everyone aged 16+ due to the bad language and the themes.
I'd give Glass (Crank #2) by Ellen Hopkins a 4.5 out of 5.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Hellboy (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Open, black and white apart from Nimue's red dress.
Production notes: Try and make it noir-esque, but we need it done quickly so don't be too bothered by any of the class that goes with it.
As openings go it summed up the backstory quite nicely and Ian McShane's voiceover was good, but despite all of that it wasn't saved from it being quite badly shot.
I didn't want to start this review by moaning, but it's nearly impossible as there's a lot to moan about. I think I'm going to get it all out of the way now and then move on.
That CGI... at one point I wrote down that it was Harry Potter bad, I'm talking Voldemort on the back of the head bad. I'm trying to think of an obvious effect where it was actually good but I'm drawing a blank. Gruagach, our pig-demon-thing, looked like he was wearing a Halloween mask, but had it been real life I suspect it would look better.
Generally the creature effects are terrible, I was briefly hopeful for the giants but then the fight started and things got progressively worse. The blood was a particularly bad offering. I was particularly annoyed with this scene because the bits where Hellboy is thrown around were actually quite good and with a little work it could have been amazing.
Major Ben Daimio, played by Daniel Dae Kim, also got some punishing CGI for his transformation, unfortunately the negativity doesn't stop there. I just couldn't understand what that accent was about... I just... what the... ugh.
He's not the only character that's treated badly. Alice has so much potential in her but it isn't until the end that she discovers what she's really capable of. I can't help but think that they could have used her more to boost the movie.
David Harbour as Hellboy doesn't have me convinced. he's got the laid back attitude and some of the banter that the part needs, but there was a spark missing for me. Perhaps he was slightly more horizontal than laid back.
Quite possibly the best scene in the movie is right at the end when we see the group back together briefly. This scene was so well done that I was a little irritated they didn't manage to replicate that earlier in the film.
Hellboy is probably too long, there are definitely pieces to cut out. As much as I love her, Big Mo has to go, I'd also cut out Baba Yaga. The effects were overly creepy and the scenes added hardly anything apart from what felt like an obvious set up for a sequel.
The story overall isn't that bad, I like the origin of Hellboy, although baby Hellboy felt a lot like they'd taken the Ally McBeal baby and painted it red. I also liked the fact that they didn't let him instantly take the easy route to victory, that really worked in his favour.
I've realised at this point that I haven't really mentioned Nimue. She's one of the main villains, I probably should have talked about her by now but apart from the assembly scene she's not overly memorable, much like most of the other bad guys.
As a last passing note I want to mention the music. I noticed it a lot and it was frequently very good, it certainly helped the transition scenes. I probably would have turned the volume down a bit, but it was a great selection so I don't think it's too much of a problem.
I should probably stop waffling at this point. Despite what has amounted to a lot of moaning and griping Hellboy wasn't a waste of my time. I know lots of you are going to disagree with me on that point. To be entertaining given all of those faults I nitpicked was a great achievement. It delivers on daft action and sometimes that's all I need to have an amusing time at the cinema. We probably just need to keep our fingers crossed for better effects if they come out with a sequel.
What you should do
I would go and see it at the cinema if I were you. If you can get past the fact it isn't Ron Perlman and there's a severe lack of kittens then you're bound to have some fun.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Some spirit powers would be quite fun, minus the vomiting part.
Production notes: Try and make it noir-esque, but we need it done quickly so don't be too bothered by any of the class that goes with it.
As openings go it summed up the backstory quite nicely and Ian McShane's voiceover was good, but despite all of that it wasn't saved from it being quite badly shot.
I didn't want to start this review by moaning, but it's nearly impossible as there's a lot to moan about. I think I'm going to get it all out of the way now and then move on.
That CGI... at one point I wrote down that it was Harry Potter bad, I'm talking Voldemort on the back of the head bad. I'm trying to think of an obvious effect where it was actually good but I'm drawing a blank. Gruagach, our pig-demon-thing, looked like he was wearing a Halloween mask, but had it been real life I suspect it would look better.
Generally the creature effects are terrible, I was briefly hopeful for the giants but then the fight started and things got progressively worse. The blood was a particularly bad offering. I was particularly annoyed with this scene because the bits where Hellboy is thrown around were actually quite good and with a little work it could have been amazing.
Major Ben Daimio, played by Daniel Dae Kim, also got some punishing CGI for his transformation, unfortunately the negativity doesn't stop there. I just couldn't understand what that accent was about... I just... what the... ugh.
He's not the only character that's treated badly. Alice has so much potential in her but it isn't until the end that she discovers what she's really capable of. I can't help but think that they could have used her more to boost the movie.
David Harbour as Hellboy doesn't have me convinced. he's got the laid back attitude and some of the banter that the part needs, but there was a spark missing for me. Perhaps he was slightly more horizontal than laid back.
Quite possibly the best scene in the movie is right at the end when we see the group back together briefly. This scene was so well done that I was a little irritated they didn't manage to replicate that earlier in the film.
Hellboy is probably too long, there are definitely pieces to cut out. As much as I love her, Big Mo has to go, I'd also cut out Baba Yaga. The effects were overly creepy and the scenes added hardly anything apart from what felt like an obvious set up for a sequel.
The story overall isn't that bad, I like the origin of Hellboy, although baby Hellboy felt a lot like they'd taken the Ally McBeal baby and painted it red. I also liked the fact that they didn't let him instantly take the easy route to victory, that really worked in his favour.
I've realised at this point that I haven't really mentioned Nimue. She's one of the main villains, I probably should have talked about her by now but apart from the assembly scene she's not overly memorable, much like most of the other bad guys.
As a last passing note I want to mention the music. I noticed it a lot and it was frequently very good, it certainly helped the transition scenes. I probably would have turned the volume down a bit, but it was a great selection so I don't think it's too much of a problem.
I should probably stop waffling at this point. Despite what has amounted to a lot of moaning and griping Hellboy wasn't a waste of my time. I know lots of you are going to disagree with me on that point. To be entertaining given all of those faults I nitpicked was a great achievement. It delivers on daft action and sometimes that's all I need to have an amusing time at the cinema. We probably just need to keep our fingers crossed for better effects if they come out with a sequel.
What you should do
I would go and see it at the cinema if I were you. If you can get past the fact it isn't Ron Perlman and there's a severe lack of kittens then you're bound to have some fun.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Some spirit powers would be quite fun, minus the vomiting part.