Search
Search results
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (2019) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Before you read this review of Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw, I just want you to know that I can’t stand this franchise. I gave up keeping up with them after Furious 7 and felt like the Fast & Furious franchise peaked/was tolerable around Fast Five and never really went anywhere worthwhile before or since. I have not seen all the films and really only seemed to watch every other entry, but whether you’re in a heist or a drag race that lethal dose of masculinity being projectile vomited all over you by an entire cast (women included) for two hours straight is dull and tiresome. In fact, just call this franchise “Dull & Tiresome” from here on out and I doubt anyone would notice. It’s even got “tire” in there for car…stuff.
Ignoring the fact that screenwriters Chris Morgan (writer of every Fast and Furious entry since Tokyo Drift) and Drew Pearce (writer and director of the flop known as Hotel Artemis) were involved, I actually like David Leitch’s work (co-director of John Wick, director of Deadpool 2 and Atomic Blonde) even if he is probably going to screw up that Enter the Dragon remake. The trailers also made Hobbs & Shaw look like the stupid kind of action film I might enjoy; a bunch of fight scenes and chase sequences that give the middle finger to physics. But when a big moment in the film is a group of the good guys willingly bringing a bunch of sharp sticks to a battle where the villains are loaded to the teeth with highly advanced firearms, then you know you’ve jumped headfirst into the deep end of ridiculous without a special needs helmet.
The film is quick to point out that even though Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) is in Los Angeles and Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) is in London, they’re essentially similar characters. Hobbs is a big dude who likes to Hulk smash everything while Shaw likes to think he has more class and finesse to his ass beatings and exaggerated torture devices. Despite their different cultures and supposedly unique way of approaching their work, they do nothing but talk trash, jack things up, simultaneously kick unsuspecting guys in the balls, and track stuff that needs tracking because that’s what trackers do. They reluctantly join forces and are in constant competition with one another to find some CT17 virus, which is currently inside Shaw’s MI6 operative sister Hattie Shaw (Vanessa Kirby) and is being hunted by formerly dead, cyber genetically altered, and current superhuman criminal mastermind Brixton Lore (Idris Elba). Don’t get too attached to the whole virus thing since even the film can’t keep up with what the hell it’s supposed to be.
The highlight of Hobbs & Shaw is the amount of cameos it’s able to squeeze into its excruciating two-hour-and-fifteen-minute runtime. The film utilizes about a third of the cast of a certain sequel to a certain film starring a certain Regenerating Degenerate and that cast is responsible for the humor that works best in whatever this spinoff is supposed to accomplish. Idris Elba is unbelievably cool as Brixton Lore. He’s this cocky and unstoppable bad ass who has a history with Shaw and his car chase on his self-driving motorcycle where he slides under a bus in slow motion is too sick for words. Vanessa Kirby has this on-screen presence that outshines the consistent bickering between Hobbs and Shaw. She’s the one capable female character in the film (Helen Mirren sitting behind glass doesn’t count) who seems to be the only one thinking logically, but it took her doing the dumbest thing imaginable at the beginning of the film to get that way.
This action film smorgasbord rides on the chemistry between Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham, but that gets old as soon as they start sort-of working together. Their incessant ribbing of each other, desire to always outdo one another, and nonstop unfiltered machismo being this palpable elephant in the room leads to nothing but verbal dick size comparisons and leaves you thinking that maybe they’ll make out or grope each other by the end of the film. Spoiler alert: maybe they’re saving that for the sequel.
There isn’t enough of a differentiation between action sequences in Hobbs & Shaw to make it feel worthwhile. There’s chemistry between the cast that is undeniable and some of its outrageousness is entertaining, but it all begins to feel similar and falls apart far sooner than it should. For those who care, there is a mid-credits and after-credits scene but neither is surprising. The cheesy motivational speeches, forced heartfelt stories, and, “all technology in the world doesn’t beat heart,” mumbo jumbo doesn’t help matters. The supposed story for this film is basically a dunce cap disguised as a pocket protector. There are intelligent elements used in ludicrous ways and maybe that’s what could describe the Fast & Furious franchise as a whole. You can bury a diamond in a dog turd and say it’s extravagant and that it’s valuable, but it’s still a dog turd that smells awful and lingers long after it’s been flushed away.
Ignoring the fact that screenwriters Chris Morgan (writer of every Fast and Furious entry since Tokyo Drift) and Drew Pearce (writer and director of the flop known as Hotel Artemis) were involved, I actually like David Leitch’s work (co-director of John Wick, director of Deadpool 2 and Atomic Blonde) even if he is probably going to screw up that Enter the Dragon remake. The trailers also made Hobbs & Shaw look like the stupid kind of action film I might enjoy; a bunch of fight scenes and chase sequences that give the middle finger to physics. But when a big moment in the film is a group of the good guys willingly bringing a bunch of sharp sticks to a battle where the villains are loaded to the teeth with highly advanced firearms, then you know you’ve jumped headfirst into the deep end of ridiculous without a special needs helmet.
The film is quick to point out that even though Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) is in Los Angeles and Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) is in London, they’re essentially similar characters. Hobbs is a big dude who likes to Hulk smash everything while Shaw likes to think he has more class and finesse to his ass beatings and exaggerated torture devices. Despite their different cultures and supposedly unique way of approaching their work, they do nothing but talk trash, jack things up, simultaneously kick unsuspecting guys in the balls, and track stuff that needs tracking because that’s what trackers do. They reluctantly join forces and are in constant competition with one another to find some CT17 virus, which is currently inside Shaw’s MI6 operative sister Hattie Shaw (Vanessa Kirby) and is being hunted by formerly dead, cyber genetically altered, and current superhuman criminal mastermind Brixton Lore (Idris Elba). Don’t get too attached to the whole virus thing since even the film can’t keep up with what the hell it’s supposed to be.
The highlight of Hobbs & Shaw is the amount of cameos it’s able to squeeze into its excruciating two-hour-and-fifteen-minute runtime. The film utilizes about a third of the cast of a certain sequel to a certain film starring a certain Regenerating Degenerate and that cast is responsible for the humor that works best in whatever this spinoff is supposed to accomplish. Idris Elba is unbelievably cool as Brixton Lore. He’s this cocky and unstoppable bad ass who has a history with Shaw and his car chase on his self-driving motorcycle where he slides under a bus in slow motion is too sick for words. Vanessa Kirby has this on-screen presence that outshines the consistent bickering between Hobbs and Shaw. She’s the one capable female character in the film (Helen Mirren sitting behind glass doesn’t count) who seems to be the only one thinking logically, but it took her doing the dumbest thing imaginable at the beginning of the film to get that way.
This action film smorgasbord rides on the chemistry between Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham, but that gets old as soon as they start sort-of working together. Their incessant ribbing of each other, desire to always outdo one another, and nonstop unfiltered machismo being this palpable elephant in the room leads to nothing but verbal dick size comparisons and leaves you thinking that maybe they’ll make out or grope each other by the end of the film. Spoiler alert: maybe they’re saving that for the sequel.
There isn’t enough of a differentiation between action sequences in Hobbs & Shaw to make it feel worthwhile. There’s chemistry between the cast that is undeniable and some of its outrageousness is entertaining, but it all begins to feel similar and falls apart far sooner than it should. For those who care, there is a mid-credits and after-credits scene but neither is surprising. The cheesy motivational speeches, forced heartfelt stories, and, “all technology in the world doesn’t beat heart,” mumbo jumbo doesn’t help matters. The supposed story for this film is basically a dunce cap disguised as a pocket protector. There are intelligent elements used in ludicrous ways and maybe that’s what could describe the Fast & Furious franchise as a whole. You can bury a diamond in a dog turd and say it’s extravagant and that it’s valuable, but it’s still a dog turd that smells awful and lingers long after it’s been flushed away.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Hustlers (2019) in Movies
Sep 16, 2019
Hustlers is 'inspired by a true story' and is based on a New York Magazine article written by Jessica Pressler in 2015 titled "The Hustlers at Scores". The tagline for that article was “Here’s a modern Robin Hood story for you: a few strippers who stole from (mostly) rich, (usually) disgusting, (in their minds) pathetic men and gave to, well, themselves" - something which pretty much sums up the entire plot of the movie. You'd be forgiven for thinking you'd seen this kind of thing a hundred times before, and to be honest the trailer didn't really do it any justice either in my opinion. But, turns out that Hustlers is actually a pretty slick and hugely entertaining piece of fun, something that I wasn't expecting to like anywhere near as much as I did.
We're in 2007 and Destiny (Constance Wu) is working nights at a Manhattan strip club called Moves. Caring for her grandmother and catching up on sleep by day, it soon becomes clear that life as a stripper isn't quite as glamorous as she'd imagined it to be. With a large number of girls working at the club, competition is strong, as are the internal politics, and the clients frequenting the club are just as disgusting as you'd imagine rich drunken assholes to be. And, at the end of a shift, the money that Destiny earns is subjected to numerous deductions and penalties from the manager and doorman as they all take their cuts, leaving Destiny with not very much at all.
And then one night, as the DJ introduces her, "The one, the only, Ramona!" (Jennifer Lopez) hits the stage to show everyone how it's all done, highlighting to Destiny the kind of money she could be making if she upped her game. Dominating the main stage, Ramona masterfully works the pole as she slinks around in time to the music. And it clearly works too - dollar bills shower her, and cover the stage, while the stunned onlookers lose their minds and overreact like something out of a Tex Avery cartoon.
Destiny follows Ramona up onto the roof, where she's taking time out for a smoke break and it's not long before Ramona decides to take Destiny under her wing. Along with showing her the more dexterously impressive moves on stage, she also reveals the three levels of client who visit the club and how to best work them to your advantage. They become good friends, working together to earn more than either of them have before. But then, during 2008, the recession hits and the club no longer benefits from the wild spending habits of Wall Street's biggest earners. Destiny becomes pregnant, leaving the club along with most of the other girls, but struggles to re-enter the workforce a few years later having had no real experience outside of a strip club. And then she meets up with Ramona once more, and learns about fishing...
Fishing involves the girls leaving the confines and constraints of the club in order to lure guys in from outside. Working as a group, they lace their drinks in bars (enough to make them happy, but not really conscious enough to fully appreciate or remember what happens for the rest of the night), then bringing them back to the club. There they can freely swipe their credit cards, have a great time and make thousands of dollars per night. As Ramona sells it to Destiny and the other girls they've recruited to help them, this isn't just survival, it's revenge against all of the Wall Street workers behind the recession, who had no comeback for their actions.
Occasionally the movies flashes forward a few years, where Destiny is being interviewed by the reporter who will eventually go on to write the article on their story (played by Julia Stiles). These scenes work well as a narrative device for the movie and it's clear that, while Destiny seems to have fared pretty well financially over the years, whatever she's done to get there has all gone horribly wrong at some point.
But for now, their scam works perfectly. After the lows and struggles of life as a lowly stripper, it's a real thrill to follow these girls on their journey to expensive clothes, big flashy cars and penthouse apartments. They all become like family, even enjoying an expensive Christmas together with their real families joining them. Hustlers moves beyond its humble strip club beginnings and the camaraderie and power these women develop together feels so genuine, it really makes this movie shine. Scenes where the girls go shopping, or even work together in the kitchen to perfect their drug recipe, are a lot of fun and Hustlers features just as much humour as it does drama. Much of what makes this all work so well is down to it's cast. Hustlers features some pretty strong support, but it's the pairing of Constance Wu and Jennifer Lopez that really stands out. Both are on top form, better than anything I've seen them in before and many reviews I've read are already recommending Oscar nominations for Jennifer Lopez.
Like I say, I wasn't expecting to like this as much as I thought I would based on the trailer. What I got was a fun, exhilarating story of female empowerment with a strong, solid cast. And, as the New York Magazine article so eloquently put it, a modern Robin Hood story.
We're in 2007 and Destiny (Constance Wu) is working nights at a Manhattan strip club called Moves. Caring for her grandmother and catching up on sleep by day, it soon becomes clear that life as a stripper isn't quite as glamorous as she'd imagined it to be. With a large number of girls working at the club, competition is strong, as are the internal politics, and the clients frequenting the club are just as disgusting as you'd imagine rich drunken assholes to be. And, at the end of a shift, the money that Destiny earns is subjected to numerous deductions and penalties from the manager and doorman as they all take their cuts, leaving Destiny with not very much at all.
And then one night, as the DJ introduces her, "The one, the only, Ramona!" (Jennifer Lopez) hits the stage to show everyone how it's all done, highlighting to Destiny the kind of money she could be making if she upped her game. Dominating the main stage, Ramona masterfully works the pole as she slinks around in time to the music. And it clearly works too - dollar bills shower her, and cover the stage, while the stunned onlookers lose their minds and overreact like something out of a Tex Avery cartoon.
Destiny follows Ramona up onto the roof, where she's taking time out for a smoke break and it's not long before Ramona decides to take Destiny under her wing. Along with showing her the more dexterously impressive moves on stage, she also reveals the three levels of client who visit the club and how to best work them to your advantage. They become good friends, working together to earn more than either of them have before. But then, during 2008, the recession hits and the club no longer benefits from the wild spending habits of Wall Street's biggest earners. Destiny becomes pregnant, leaving the club along with most of the other girls, but struggles to re-enter the workforce a few years later having had no real experience outside of a strip club. And then she meets up with Ramona once more, and learns about fishing...
Fishing involves the girls leaving the confines and constraints of the club in order to lure guys in from outside. Working as a group, they lace their drinks in bars (enough to make them happy, but not really conscious enough to fully appreciate or remember what happens for the rest of the night), then bringing them back to the club. There they can freely swipe their credit cards, have a great time and make thousands of dollars per night. As Ramona sells it to Destiny and the other girls they've recruited to help them, this isn't just survival, it's revenge against all of the Wall Street workers behind the recession, who had no comeback for their actions.
Occasionally the movies flashes forward a few years, where Destiny is being interviewed by the reporter who will eventually go on to write the article on their story (played by Julia Stiles). These scenes work well as a narrative device for the movie and it's clear that, while Destiny seems to have fared pretty well financially over the years, whatever she's done to get there has all gone horribly wrong at some point.
But for now, their scam works perfectly. After the lows and struggles of life as a lowly stripper, it's a real thrill to follow these girls on their journey to expensive clothes, big flashy cars and penthouse apartments. They all become like family, even enjoying an expensive Christmas together with their real families joining them. Hustlers moves beyond its humble strip club beginnings and the camaraderie and power these women develop together feels so genuine, it really makes this movie shine. Scenes where the girls go shopping, or even work together in the kitchen to perfect their drug recipe, are a lot of fun and Hustlers features just as much humour as it does drama. Much of what makes this all work so well is down to it's cast. Hustlers features some pretty strong support, but it's the pairing of Constance Wu and Jennifer Lopez that really stands out. Both are on top form, better than anything I've seen them in before and many reviews I've read are already recommending Oscar nominations for Jennifer Lopez.
Like I say, I wasn't expecting to like this as much as I thought I would based on the trailer. What I got was a fun, exhilarating story of female empowerment with a strong, solid cast. And, as the New York Magazine article so eloquently put it, a modern Robin Hood story.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated The GemShine Pylons in Tabletop Games
Mar 17, 2021
The empire needs power, and you’ve landed a job constructing gem-powered Pylons to harness and distribute that power. Different colored gems will provide power of varying levels, and the more power you can deliver will earn you rewards within the empire. Oh, also, we don’t want those Pylons to be eyesores, so if you can add some decorations to them to make them more attractive, that would be rewarded as well! Can you build the best, most powerful, and most attractive Pylons? Put yourself to the challenge!
Disclaimer: We were provided with a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this preview. This is not a production copy of the game. The game also came with rules for solo play and cooperative play, but this preview will be covering the base rules of competitive play. I will be providing a general overview of the gameplay, and will not be rehashing the entire rulebook in this preview! -L
The GemShine Pylons is an economic game of hand management in which players are trying to build, power, and decorate Pylons in an effort to earn the most end-game points. To setup the game, shuffle the deck of Pylon cards, deal 1 face-down to each player as their starting Pylon, and deal 5 face-up next to the deck to serve as the market. Place the Timing Card at the bottom of the Pylon deck, with the appropriate player-count side face-up. Place the Setup card at the end of the market line, and place a random gem from the bag onto the empty gem slot. Above the market line, create 4 piles of Decoration cards, based on the number of Representatives on each card. Each player receives 4 random gems to their personal supply, a starting player is selected, and the game is ready to begin! The setup should look similar to the picture below.
The GemShine Pylons is played over a series of rounds in which players take turns performing actions. On your turn, you will perform one of three actions: Purchase a Card, Gather Gems, or Build a Pylon. To Purchase a Card, you will select a card from the market and pay its cost. There are 3 different costs for purchasing cards – leave 1 gem, leave 2 gems, or discard 1 Pylon. To leave 1 or 2 gems, you will select a gem (or 2) from your personal supply and place it in the spot emptied by the card you have purchased. When you discard a Pylon, you will take a Pylon from your tableau and discard it in order to purchase said card. Once a card has been purchased, you resolve the effect shown. These effects could be: gaining gems, placing gems onto Pylons/Decorations, gaining Pylons, or ‘purchasing’ Decorations. You may choose to not perform any/all effects on a card. Certain market cards have a number/color of Representatives on the bottom, and those are used to purchase Decorations. Every Decoration has a Representative cost, and you must discard cards from your hand with the matching color Representatives equal to the Representative cost. After performing the action on the card, it now goes into your hand.
To Gather Gems, you will take all the gems that are present in the market line, including the gem on the Setup card. These gems go directly into your personal supply. Any cards that were left in the market line are discarded, and the market is filled with 5 new cards from the Pylon deck. Select a random gem to be placed on the Setup card. To Build a Pylon, you will select a card from your hand and place it face-down in your tableau – it is now a Pylon. Play continues in this fashion, alternating turns, until the Pylon deck is depleted and the Timing Card is revealed. The game ends at the end of the current round. Points are now tallied – from Decorations and gems in slots. Players count up their points from any Decoration cards in their tableau. All players then reveal the cards in their hands, and the total number of Representatives for each color – blue, red, and white – are counted. The color that has the highest number of Representatives across all players combined is worth 4 points, the next highest is worth 2 points, and the lowest is worth 1 point. Players will then go through their gems in slots, counting up points based on the color majorities. Only gems in slots earn end-game points – any gems in your personal supply are not counted. Add up gem points and Decoration points, and the player with the highest score wins!
I know that may seem like a lot, but I do have to say that once you get going, the gameplay is pretty streamlined and straightforward. You only have 3 main action options each turn. If you purchase a card from the market, there are essentially 4 different effect options on each card. That being said, the small number of actions/effects do not stop the gameplay from being strategic. Most cards in the market require you to pay 1 or 2 gems, leaving them in the market line and available for your opponents to collect. How badly do you need that effect, and which color gem do you give up? Maybe the available cards only have blue Representatives but you only need 1 more red Representative to claim a Decoration – should you snag that blue in hopes of using it later in the game? Or do you go for a card that allows you to place gems, thus powering your Pylons and earning you points at the end of the game. But if you wait too long, your opponent may just buy the Decoration you were saving towards – seems to happen to me every time! It is also important to note that when you buy a Decoration, it can only be attached to a gem-powered Pylon. So you’ve got to balance having enough gems to power your Pylons, as well as having enough gems to purchase cards from the market. AND the different colored gems will earn varying amounts of points at the end of the game – do you want to risk going all in on red gems in hopes of scoring big, or should you try to collect gem colors evenly and spread those points around. There’s no single right way to play, and your strategy must be evolving constantly as the market line and available Decorations change throughout play.
Let me touch on components for a moment. Although we received a prototype copy of the game, the artwork is finalized and ready for production. The art style is relatively simple, yet nice to look at and thematically appropriate. I want to applaud the iconography on the cards as well, as it is very straight-forward and easy to understand. The cards have no text on them at all, but the consistency of the icons and simplicity of their explanations make them very easy to comprehend. The gems themselves are chunky and fun to play with, and make the game feel a little more immersive!
Overall, I really like The GemShine Pylons. The gameplay is straightforward, relatively simple, yet requires a decent amount of strategy. Every game feels exciting and unique, as everyone really is at the mercy of the deck shuffle. The artwork is thematic, the iconography is simple and clear, and the gameplay feels fresh. Even though this is only a prototype copy of the game, I am excited to have it in my collection, and am already thinking about my strategy for my next play. I am eager to try out the solo and cooperative modes as well, but the competitive rules themselves are engaging and entertaining. If you’re looking forward to a strategic, yet quick game, give The GemShine Pylons a try. I look forward to following this Kickstarter campaign and seeing what other goodies Game Elemental has in store!
Disclaimer: We were provided with a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this preview. This is not a production copy of the game. The game also came with rules for solo play and cooperative play, but this preview will be covering the base rules of competitive play. I will be providing a general overview of the gameplay, and will not be rehashing the entire rulebook in this preview! -L
The GemShine Pylons is an economic game of hand management in which players are trying to build, power, and decorate Pylons in an effort to earn the most end-game points. To setup the game, shuffle the deck of Pylon cards, deal 1 face-down to each player as their starting Pylon, and deal 5 face-up next to the deck to serve as the market. Place the Timing Card at the bottom of the Pylon deck, with the appropriate player-count side face-up. Place the Setup card at the end of the market line, and place a random gem from the bag onto the empty gem slot. Above the market line, create 4 piles of Decoration cards, based on the number of Representatives on each card. Each player receives 4 random gems to their personal supply, a starting player is selected, and the game is ready to begin! The setup should look similar to the picture below.
The GemShine Pylons is played over a series of rounds in which players take turns performing actions. On your turn, you will perform one of three actions: Purchase a Card, Gather Gems, or Build a Pylon. To Purchase a Card, you will select a card from the market and pay its cost. There are 3 different costs for purchasing cards – leave 1 gem, leave 2 gems, or discard 1 Pylon. To leave 1 or 2 gems, you will select a gem (or 2) from your personal supply and place it in the spot emptied by the card you have purchased. When you discard a Pylon, you will take a Pylon from your tableau and discard it in order to purchase said card. Once a card has been purchased, you resolve the effect shown. These effects could be: gaining gems, placing gems onto Pylons/Decorations, gaining Pylons, or ‘purchasing’ Decorations. You may choose to not perform any/all effects on a card. Certain market cards have a number/color of Representatives on the bottom, and those are used to purchase Decorations. Every Decoration has a Representative cost, and you must discard cards from your hand with the matching color Representatives equal to the Representative cost. After performing the action on the card, it now goes into your hand.
To Gather Gems, you will take all the gems that are present in the market line, including the gem on the Setup card. These gems go directly into your personal supply. Any cards that were left in the market line are discarded, and the market is filled with 5 new cards from the Pylon deck. Select a random gem to be placed on the Setup card. To Build a Pylon, you will select a card from your hand and place it face-down in your tableau – it is now a Pylon. Play continues in this fashion, alternating turns, until the Pylon deck is depleted and the Timing Card is revealed. The game ends at the end of the current round. Points are now tallied – from Decorations and gems in slots. Players count up their points from any Decoration cards in their tableau. All players then reveal the cards in their hands, and the total number of Representatives for each color – blue, red, and white – are counted. The color that has the highest number of Representatives across all players combined is worth 4 points, the next highest is worth 2 points, and the lowest is worth 1 point. Players will then go through their gems in slots, counting up points based on the color majorities. Only gems in slots earn end-game points – any gems in your personal supply are not counted. Add up gem points and Decoration points, and the player with the highest score wins!
I know that may seem like a lot, but I do have to say that once you get going, the gameplay is pretty streamlined and straightforward. You only have 3 main action options each turn. If you purchase a card from the market, there are essentially 4 different effect options on each card. That being said, the small number of actions/effects do not stop the gameplay from being strategic. Most cards in the market require you to pay 1 or 2 gems, leaving them in the market line and available for your opponents to collect. How badly do you need that effect, and which color gem do you give up? Maybe the available cards only have blue Representatives but you only need 1 more red Representative to claim a Decoration – should you snag that blue in hopes of using it later in the game? Or do you go for a card that allows you to place gems, thus powering your Pylons and earning you points at the end of the game. But if you wait too long, your opponent may just buy the Decoration you were saving towards – seems to happen to me every time! It is also important to note that when you buy a Decoration, it can only be attached to a gem-powered Pylon. So you’ve got to balance having enough gems to power your Pylons, as well as having enough gems to purchase cards from the market. AND the different colored gems will earn varying amounts of points at the end of the game – do you want to risk going all in on red gems in hopes of scoring big, or should you try to collect gem colors evenly and spread those points around. There’s no single right way to play, and your strategy must be evolving constantly as the market line and available Decorations change throughout play.
Let me touch on components for a moment. Although we received a prototype copy of the game, the artwork is finalized and ready for production. The art style is relatively simple, yet nice to look at and thematically appropriate. I want to applaud the iconography on the cards as well, as it is very straight-forward and easy to understand. The cards have no text on them at all, but the consistency of the icons and simplicity of their explanations make them very easy to comprehend. The gems themselves are chunky and fun to play with, and make the game feel a little more immersive!
Overall, I really like The GemShine Pylons. The gameplay is straightforward, relatively simple, yet requires a decent amount of strategy. Every game feels exciting and unique, as everyone really is at the mercy of the deck shuffle. The artwork is thematic, the iconography is simple and clear, and the gameplay feels fresh. Even though this is only a prototype copy of the game, I am excited to have it in my collection, and am already thinking about my strategy for my next play. I am eager to try out the solo and cooperative modes as well, but the competitive rules themselves are engaging and entertaining. If you’re looking forward to a strategic, yet quick game, give The GemShine Pylons a try. I look forward to following this Kickstarter campaign and seeing what other goodies Game Elemental has in store!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated WALL-E (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
To be honest, I didn’t put much faith in a movie about a robot who could only say, “Wa-AA-lleee….” Especially one that’s been by himself for 700 years. Then again, the last Pixar release of talking machines wasn’t exactly a stellar production, either. Give me talking rats or talking fish, at least they had personality. But talking cars? C’mon, now. But maybe Pixar learned from its mistake of verbosity in Cars and decided limited dialogue would bring back the luster of Pixar’s blinding three dimensional success. If that’s how WALL*E came about, then kudos to Pixar. WALL*E not only kept me fascinated, it made me giggle throughout and left me sighing.
In this new offering from the same team who brought you Finding Nemo, The Incredibles and Ratatouille, Earth is a virtual wasteland, and no longer inhabited by humans. The humans are all aboard a space colony called Axiom, pampered and waited on in robot-assisted existence. Left behind is WALL*E, a hardworking Waste Allocation Load Lifter – Earth class robot, has done what he was programmed to do, compact trash and stack it neatly, cleaning the planet one trash cube at a time. Apparently the passing of years all alone has given this clunky, rusty, dented and creaky machine, time to develop a sense of curiosity, a playful personality, and a love for “Hello, Dolly” showtunes and choreography. His best friend is a cockroach, he’s managed to amass a treasure trove of junk, is seemingly content, albeit lonely.
Then along came EVE. A sleek, state-of-the art egg-shaped robot deposited on earth by an Axiom spacecraft to scan its surroundings as an Extra-terrestrial Vegetation Evaluator. WALL*E is instantly enthralled and admires EVE’s speed, versatility and gracefulness from a tentative distance. She exudes efficiency and focus and comes with a laser she’s not afraid to use. EVE has a classified directive and WALL*E, after he’s overcome his fear of her laser, befriends her and inadvertently helps EVE achieve her goal. EVE has to return to the Axiom to report her findings, but WALL*E is desperate to build on this new found friendship. Who can blame him? If you’d been alone for 700 years, wouldn’t you be reluctant to say good bye to a new friend? So WALL*E becomes an accidental tourist of the galaxy, embarking on a thrilling adventure that makes him an anxious stowaway aboard a ship of advanced machines and lazy humans.
Under the direction of by Academy Award(r)-winning writer-director Andrew Stanton, the gifted storytellers and artists who brought charm and innovation to The Incredibles and Ratatouille, elevated their game by enabling WALL*E to convey in beeps and tones and soulful eyes a gamut of emotions that captivates the viewer. Limited dialogue was definitely on the menu, at least between robots. Which makes WALL-E all the more enchanting. It’s up to the viewer to draw on simple exchanges and the robots’ varying intonations of each other’s names to interpret their growing affection for one another.
With its breathtaking animation and deft rendering of heartwarming characters, CGI-animated features don’t get much better than this.
A fantastic voyage with an eco-friendly warning wrapped in a poignant love story, WALL*E restored my faith in Pixar’s well-deserved, acclaim.
In this new offering from the same team who brought you Finding Nemo, The Incredibles and Ratatouille, Earth is a virtual wasteland, and no longer inhabited by humans. The humans are all aboard a space colony called Axiom, pampered and waited on in robot-assisted existence. Left behind is WALL*E, a hardworking Waste Allocation Load Lifter – Earth class robot, has done what he was programmed to do, compact trash and stack it neatly, cleaning the planet one trash cube at a time. Apparently the passing of years all alone has given this clunky, rusty, dented and creaky machine, time to develop a sense of curiosity, a playful personality, and a love for “Hello, Dolly” showtunes and choreography. His best friend is a cockroach, he’s managed to amass a treasure trove of junk, is seemingly content, albeit lonely.
Then along came EVE. A sleek, state-of-the art egg-shaped robot deposited on earth by an Axiom spacecraft to scan its surroundings as an Extra-terrestrial Vegetation Evaluator. WALL*E is instantly enthralled and admires EVE’s speed, versatility and gracefulness from a tentative distance. She exudes efficiency and focus and comes with a laser she’s not afraid to use. EVE has a classified directive and WALL*E, after he’s overcome his fear of her laser, befriends her and inadvertently helps EVE achieve her goal. EVE has to return to the Axiom to report her findings, but WALL*E is desperate to build on this new found friendship. Who can blame him? If you’d been alone for 700 years, wouldn’t you be reluctant to say good bye to a new friend? So WALL*E becomes an accidental tourist of the galaxy, embarking on a thrilling adventure that makes him an anxious stowaway aboard a ship of advanced machines and lazy humans.
Under the direction of by Academy Award(r)-winning writer-director Andrew Stanton, the gifted storytellers and artists who brought charm and innovation to The Incredibles and Ratatouille, elevated their game by enabling WALL*E to convey in beeps and tones and soulful eyes a gamut of emotions that captivates the viewer. Limited dialogue was definitely on the menu, at least between robots. Which makes WALL-E all the more enchanting. It’s up to the viewer to draw on simple exchanges and the robots’ varying intonations of each other’s names to interpret their growing affection for one another.
With its breathtaking animation and deft rendering of heartwarming characters, CGI-animated features don’t get much better than this.
A fantastic voyage with an eco-friendly warning wrapped in a poignant love story, WALL*E restored my faith in Pixar’s well-deserved, acclaim.
JT (287 KP) rated Paranormal Activity 3 (2011) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
If it’s not broke, then don’t fix it. Seems a pretty good mantra and one that new directors Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman have stuck to.
The pair are behind the camera for the third terrifying instalment of the ever-popular franchise that proves you don’t need a massive budget to make a shit load of money. The film had the biggest opening weekend of any other horror film grossing $54m, and at the same time satisfying those that love it when things go bump in the night.
We’re still with Katie and Kristi, the sisters who were on the wrong end of a pissed off entity for the original and the sequel, or should we say prequel in this case. This time, after a brief cameo from the older girls Katie Featherston and Sprague Grayden, we are transported back to 1988 and the home of VHS, with the siblings now much younger.
The plot follows a different path as we get closer to discovering why this entity has targeted this suburban family in the first place.
Things start to turn sinister from the outset after Dennis (Nicholas Smith), a wedding videographer discovers a figure silhouetted on camera. Desperate to discover what it is, and against the wishes of his partner Julie (Lauren Bittner), he sets up the good old handheld cameras in the bedrooms hoping for it to reappear, it doesn’t take long.
The focus on this is the relationship that Kristi has with the invisible entity who she has aptly named Toby and runs about playfully with until it is clear that Toby gets slightly annoyed when things don’t go his way. The film is full of jumps and jolts that will have you leaping out of your seat or ducking down behind it.
From the old fashioned white-sheeted ghost to making you never want to see a Teddy Ruxpin again as long as you live. Joost and Schulman find new and unique ways to scare the living daylights out of you. To reveal too much more would, of course, ruin it, but suffice to say they are all brilliantly executed.
Being 1988 CCTV was all but redundant for the most part and perhaps one of the biggest payoffs was Dennis’s makeshift camera that was set up in the living room downstairs. Made out of a desk fan the camera pans slowly from one end of the room to the other and is very much the main focus for several horrific scenes, including a homage to the exploding cupboards in PA2.
The film is also injected with a strong sense of light-heartedness and humour, used almost like a comforter that the audience will embrace, that is until Joost and Schulman smack them across the face with another scare. The plot follows a different path as we get closer to discovering why this entity has targeted this suburban family in the first place.
It’s a reveal that may or may not is appreciated, but one thing is for sure you’ll have a great time getting there.
One important thing to note is that the trailer below contains scenes that aren’t included in the film at all, I for one am happy with this as it means that cinema goers can still go in fresh. Although you do feel a little cheated that you missed something important.
The pair are behind the camera for the third terrifying instalment of the ever-popular franchise that proves you don’t need a massive budget to make a shit load of money. The film had the biggest opening weekend of any other horror film grossing $54m, and at the same time satisfying those that love it when things go bump in the night.
We’re still with Katie and Kristi, the sisters who were on the wrong end of a pissed off entity for the original and the sequel, or should we say prequel in this case. This time, after a brief cameo from the older girls Katie Featherston and Sprague Grayden, we are transported back to 1988 and the home of VHS, with the siblings now much younger.
The plot follows a different path as we get closer to discovering why this entity has targeted this suburban family in the first place.
Things start to turn sinister from the outset after Dennis (Nicholas Smith), a wedding videographer discovers a figure silhouetted on camera. Desperate to discover what it is, and against the wishes of his partner Julie (Lauren Bittner), he sets up the good old handheld cameras in the bedrooms hoping for it to reappear, it doesn’t take long.
The focus on this is the relationship that Kristi has with the invisible entity who she has aptly named Toby and runs about playfully with until it is clear that Toby gets slightly annoyed when things don’t go his way. The film is full of jumps and jolts that will have you leaping out of your seat or ducking down behind it.
From the old fashioned white-sheeted ghost to making you never want to see a Teddy Ruxpin again as long as you live. Joost and Schulman find new and unique ways to scare the living daylights out of you. To reveal too much more would, of course, ruin it, but suffice to say they are all brilliantly executed.
Being 1988 CCTV was all but redundant for the most part and perhaps one of the biggest payoffs was Dennis’s makeshift camera that was set up in the living room downstairs. Made out of a desk fan the camera pans slowly from one end of the room to the other and is very much the main focus for several horrific scenes, including a homage to the exploding cupboards in PA2.
The film is also injected with a strong sense of light-heartedness and humour, used almost like a comforter that the audience will embrace, that is until Joost and Schulman smack them across the face with another scare. The plot follows a different path as we get closer to discovering why this entity has targeted this suburban family in the first place.
It’s a reveal that may or may not is appreciated, but one thing is for sure you’ll have a great time getting there.
One important thing to note is that the trailer below contains scenes that aren’t included in the film at all, I for one am happy with this as it means that cinema goers can still go in fresh. Although you do feel a little cheated that you missed something important.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Sting (1973) in Movies
Mar 29, 2020
On my list of All Time Favorite Films
I'll come right out and say it - the 1973 Academy Award winning film for Best Picture, THE STING, is one of the greatest films of all time. It's well written, well acted, well directed with a memorable musical score and characters, situations, costumes and set design that become richer over time and through repeated viewings.
Set in Chicago in the gangster-ridden, depression era mid-1930's, THE STING tells the tale of two con man who join forces for the ultimate con of a vile N.Y. Gangster who is responsible for killing a friend of theirs.
From everything I have read about it, the script by David S. Ward (who won an Oscar for his work) arrived pretty much finished. He shaped the story of the con men - and the myriad pieces of misdirection - fully before shopping it around to the studios. Universal jumped all over it and tabbed veteran Director George Roy Hill (BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID) to helm the picture. Hill - being no dummy - saw this as a vehicle to re-team Newman and Redford (stars of Butch Cassidy) and the rest...as they say...is history.
Newman and Redford are perfectly cast as veteran grifter Henry Gondorff (Newman) and up and coming grifter Johnny Hooker (Redford). They have an ease of playing off of each other - each one complimenting the other one - both giving in their scenes with the other one which makes the scenes more rich and alive. They are joined by a veritable "who's who" of late '60's/early '70's character actors - Harold Gould, Eileen Brennan, Charles Durning, Ray Walston and Dana Elcar - all of them bring their "A" game and they are fun to watch. Special notice should be made to Robert Earl Jones (father of James Earl Jones) as Luther, the character who's fate propels the plot forward.
But...none of this would work if you didn't have a "bad guy" that was interesting to watch - and to root against - and bad guys don't get much better...and badder...than Robert Shaw's Doyle Lonnegan. Shaw plays Lonnegan as a physically tough boss who doesn't suffer failure, but is smart enough to avoid obvious traps. He is a worthy adversary of Gondorff and Hooker's and it is fun to watch Newman, Redford and Shaw play off each other. One other note - it was with this performance that Universal recommended Shaw to young Director Stephen Spielberg for his "shark flick" JAWS.
Edith Head won her 8th (and last) Oscar for the magnificent period costumes in this film and Marvin Hamlisch won for the Music - a surprising hit on the pop charts of re-channeled Scott Joplin tunes. The set design won an Oscar - as did the Director, George Roy Hill. All in all, the film won 7 out of the 11 Oscars it was nominated for (Redford was nominated for Best Actor, but did not win).
THE STING is a well crafted film. One that tells a timeless story and that stands the test of time as a testament of how great of an achievement in film this is. It is one of my All Time favorites.
Letter Grade: the rare A+
5 stars (out of 5) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Set in Chicago in the gangster-ridden, depression era mid-1930's, THE STING tells the tale of two con man who join forces for the ultimate con of a vile N.Y. Gangster who is responsible for killing a friend of theirs.
From everything I have read about it, the script by David S. Ward (who won an Oscar for his work) arrived pretty much finished. He shaped the story of the con men - and the myriad pieces of misdirection - fully before shopping it around to the studios. Universal jumped all over it and tabbed veteran Director George Roy Hill (BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID) to helm the picture. Hill - being no dummy - saw this as a vehicle to re-team Newman and Redford (stars of Butch Cassidy) and the rest...as they say...is history.
Newman and Redford are perfectly cast as veteran grifter Henry Gondorff (Newman) and up and coming grifter Johnny Hooker (Redford). They have an ease of playing off of each other - each one complimenting the other one - both giving in their scenes with the other one which makes the scenes more rich and alive. They are joined by a veritable "who's who" of late '60's/early '70's character actors - Harold Gould, Eileen Brennan, Charles Durning, Ray Walston and Dana Elcar - all of them bring their "A" game and they are fun to watch. Special notice should be made to Robert Earl Jones (father of James Earl Jones) as Luther, the character who's fate propels the plot forward.
But...none of this would work if you didn't have a "bad guy" that was interesting to watch - and to root against - and bad guys don't get much better...and badder...than Robert Shaw's Doyle Lonnegan. Shaw plays Lonnegan as a physically tough boss who doesn't suffer failure, but is smart enough to avoid obvious traps. He is a worthy adversary of Gondorff and Hooker's and it is fun to watch Newman, Redford and Shaw play off each other. One other note - it was with this performance that Universal recommended Shaw to young Director Stephen Spielberg for his "shark flick" JAWS.
Edith Head won her 8th (and last) Oscar for the magnificent period costumes in this film and Marvin Hamlisch won for the Music - a surprising hit on the pop charts of re-channeled Scott Joplin tunes. The set design won an Oscar - as did the Director, George Roy Hill. All in all, the film won 7 out of the 11 Oscars it was nominated for (Redford was nominated for Best Actor, but did not win).
THE STING is a well crafted film. One that tells a timeless story and that stands the test of time as a testament of how great of an achievement in film this is. It is one of my All Time favorites.
Letter Grade: the rare A+
5 stars (out of 5) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Darren (1599 KP) rated Slaughterhouse Rulez (2018) in Movies
Oct 14, 2019
Characters – Don is the new student being sent to a boarding school, he comes from a common family where he has a close group of friends which he would prefer to be around, he does stick out around the rest of the students, easily breaking the rules around the school. Willoughby is the student that must show Don around the school, he fills in the blanks, has a secret and will be the one that helps Don be prepared for everything in the year. Meredith Houseman is one of teachers, he once attended the school, feeling the pride the school embodies, he will end up helping the students against the evil in the school grounds. The Bat is the headmaster, he has been taking bribes to let the fracking happen and isn’t willing to lose the money coming his way.
Performances – Michael Sheen and Simon Pegg both look like they are having a lot of fun playing the stuck up British stereotypes which are here for the supporting roles. Finn Cole takes the lead in this film and he does all he can because this film does try to introduce too many different types of characters, not giving the lead enough time to shine, Asa Butterfield does well with his role too, getting to become a supporting character for once, instead of having the weight of the film put on him.
Story – The story here follows the time at a private British boarding school which sees monsters unleashed on the students, who must fight to save themselves. The weirdest way to describe this film would be to say this is the British boarding school version of ‘Attack the Block’, I say this because we are trying to play into a lot of stereotypes for added comedy to the situation. When we break down this alone we get to see how the British private school system comes off, with the student classes, the students believing they are better than anybody else and how the teachers are trapped in their own illusions. Add in the monsters which is what they feel like, which again disappoints along with one serious side to the story which is almost played out for jokes.
Comedy/Horror – The comedy only works if you find taking the piss out of upper-class English funny, this is what the film is set around getting laughs from. The horror is what the monsters do to the people, it would have been nice to get more time with them, once we do it does work well for blood splatter.
Settings – The film is set on the grounds of a private boarding school, this is put in an isolated location which does help make the film get added horror elements involved.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are mixed because it does feel like the thrown buckets of blood which for the budget isn’t what you want to see, though the creatures do look frightening at times.
Scene of the Movie – Monsters unleashed.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Too much upper-class British jokes.
Final Thoughts – This is a fun enough horror comedy, it will get the laughs in places and has well created creatures.
Overall: British Ripped apart
Performances – Michael Sheen and Simon Pegg both look like they are having a lot of fun playing the stuck up British stereotypes which are here for the supporting roles. Finn Cole takes the lead in this film and he does all he can because this film does try to introduce too many different types of characters, not giving the lead enough time to shine, Asa Butterfield does well with his role too, getting to become a supporting character for once, instead of having the weight of the film put on him.
Story – The story here follows the time at a private British boarding school which sees monsters unleashed on the students, who must fight to save themselves. The weirdest way to describe this film would be to say this is the British boarding school version of ‘Attack the Block’, I say this because we are trying to play into a lot of stereotypes for added comedy to the situation. When we break down this alone we get to see how the British private school system comes off, with the student classes, the students believing they are better than anybody else and how the teachers are trapped in their own illusions. Add in the monsters which is what they feel like, which again disappoints along with one serious side to the story which is almost played out for jokes.
Comedy/Horror – The comedy only works if you find taking the piss out of upper-class English funny, this is what the film is set around getting laughs from. The horror is what the monsters do to the people, it would have been nice to get more time with them, once we do it does work well for blood splatter.
Settings – The film is set on the grounds of a private boarding school, this is put in an isolated location which does help make the film get added horror elements involved.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are mixed because it does feel like the thrown buckets of blood which for the budget isn’t what you want to see, though the creatures do look frightening at times.
Scene of the Movie – Monsters unleashed.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Too much upper-class British jokes.
Final Thoughts – This is a fun enough horror comedy, it will get the laughs in places and has well created creatures.
Overall: British Ripped apart
Darren (1599 KP) rated 5 Flights Up (2015) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 5 Flights Up starts by introducing our elderly couple Alex (Freeman) and Ruth (Keaton) that have spent their whole life living in Brooklyn but it is finally time for them to move out. Ruth’s niece Lilly (Nixon) is the one trying to sell the house and doing everything she can to make sure they get as much as they can for it. Alex has witnessed how the area has changed over the years and along with his dog Dorothy really is struggling to make it up the 5 flights.
The couple have to deal with the idea that Dorothy needs major surgery to fix a ruptured disc in her back, this means that Alex has to go along with selling the apartment to help fund the operation. The attempts to sell the apartment get put in jeopardy when a terrorist attack happens on the Williamsburg Bridge where a tanker gets abandoned on the bridge and the suspect flees.
The first interested parties turn up before the open house where Alex & Ruth get to meet a collection on colourful characters that all have different opinions on the apartment. Alex & Ruth decide to try and find their own replacement apartment as they continue to battle the idea of trying to pick who to sell the apartment too.couple
5 Flights Up tells such a simple story of a couple trying to move apartments, while dealing with their sick dog. This is putting everything down to the simplest way, the flashbacks show how in love the couple have been through the years but for the most part the film takes place over a couple of days. I will say not everyone will find this appealing and I do think the light hearted comedy makes the film a lot more enjoyable. The performances are all important and the character our couple meet add to the story. This will go under many people’s radar but it is well worth a watch. (7/10)
Actor Review
Morgan Freeman: Alex is our elderly man reluctantly selling his apartment with his wife. We watch how the relationship has blossomed over the years and the love for their dog helped keep them happy. Morgan gives us a charming performance that shows he age without taking away any of his acting credentials. (7/10)
Diane Keaton: Ruth is Alex’s wife who is willing to sell their apartment and falls for another apartment, she tries to convince Alex into buy the new apartment as they both continue to want to buy the new apartment alone. Diane does give a good performance showing she still has what it takes to lead a film. (7/10)
Support Cast: 5 Flights Up has a supporting cast that each have their own colourful take on the situation as we see Alex & Ruth react to them all.
Director Review: Richard Loncraine – Richard gives us a charming drama that keeps our attention from start to finish. (7/10)
Drama: 5 Flights Up puts us into a very real situation off an elderly couple considering moving but as the story unfolds we see how difficult it is to make that decision. (8/10)
Settings: 5 Flights Up keeps the settings easy to identify and gives them all a very homely feel to our couple. (9/10)
Suggestion: 5 Flights Up is one to try I do believe it will be enjoyed but there is part of me that thinks some people will not enjoy this one too much. (Try It)
Best Part: Open house.
Worst Part: The characters the couple meet are slightly generic.
Believability: The moving idea is a very real idea that people will find themselves in and the indecision about it too. (8/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: Unlikely
Runtime: 1 Hour 32 Minutes
Tagline: A coming of age story
Overall: Charmingly enjoyable film about life and the difficulties with change.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/05/18/5-flights-up-2015/
The couple have to deal with the idea that Dorothy needs major surgery to fix a ruptured disc in her back, this means that Alex has to go along with selling the apartment to help fund the operation. The attempts to sell the apartment get put in jeopardy when a terrorist attack happens on the Williamsburg Bridge where a tanker gets abandoned on the bridge and the suspect flees.
The first interested parties turn up before the open house where Alex & Ruth get to meet a collection on colourful characters that all have different opinions on the apartment. Alex & Ruth decide to try and find their own replacement apartment as they continue to battle the idea of trying to pick who to sell the apartment too.couple
5 Flights Up tells such a simple story of a couple trying to move apartments, while dealing with their sick dog. This is putting everything down to the simplest way, the flashbacks show how in love the couple have been through the years but for the most part the film takes place over a couple of days. I will say not everyone will find this appealing and I do think the light hearted comedy makes the film a lot more enjoyable. The performances are all important and the character our couple meet add to the story. This will go under many people’s radar but it is well worth a watch. (7/10)
Actor Review
Morgan Freeman: Alex is our elderly man reluctantly selling his apartment with his wife. We watch how the relationship has blossomed over the years and the love for their dog helped keep them happy. Morgan gives us a charming performance that shows he age without taking away any of his acting credentials. (7/10)
Diane Keaton: Ruth is Alex’s wife who is willing to sell their apartment and falls for another apartment, she tries to convince Alex into buy the new apartment as they both continue to want to buy the new apartment alone. Diane does give a good performance showing she still has what it takes to lead a film. (7/10)
Support Cast: 5 Flights Up has a supporting cast that each have their own colourful take on the situation as we see Alex & Ruth react to them all.
Director Review: Richard Loncraine – Richard gives us a charming drama that keeps our attention from start to finish. (7/10)
Drama: 5 Flights Up puts us into a very real situation off an elderly couple considering moving but as the story unfolds we see how difficult it is to make that decision. (8/10)
Settings: 5 Flights Up keeps the settings easy to identify and gives them all a very homely feel to our couple. (9/10)
Suggestion: 5 Flights Up is one to try I do believe it will be enjoyed but there is part of me that thinks some people will not enjoy this one too much. (Try It)
Best Part: Open house.
Worst Part: The characters the couple meet are slightly generic.
Believability: The moving idea is a very real idea that people will find themselves in and the indecision about it too. (8/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: Unlikely
Runtime: 1 Hour 32 Minutes
Tagline: A coming of age story
Overall: Charmingly enjoyable film about life and the difficulties with change.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/05/18/5-flights-up-2015/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Gemini Man (2019) in Movies
Oct 17, 2019
The Effects Just Aren't Good Enough
Ang Lee is a visionary Director that loves to push the envelope of advances in movie-making technology, so the plot contrivance of GEMINI MAN (a Government Assassin is being chased by his much younger clone) was right up his alley - and he makes good (enough) work of the technology that "de-ages" Will Smith and puts the older and younger version of himself on screen at the same time. This was also his 2nd film (after BILLY FLYNN'S LONG HALFTIME WALK) that Lee shot in 4K 3D at 120 frames per second (the "normal" shooting speed is 24 FPS).
He should have spent more of his time on the script..
Based on a long gestating screenplay written in the 1990's by David Lemke (and re-written in the 2010's by Billy Ray - THE HUNGER GAMES - and Mr. GAME OF THRONES himself, David Benioff), GEMINI MAN follows a Government Contract Killer, Henry Brogan (Will Smtih) who does "one last job" and is looking forward to retirement. His agency (under the leadership of Clive Owen) decides to "take him out" and sends "Gemini" after him. Brogan tries to escape but his every move is anticipated by the Gemini - a younger clone of himself (this is not a spoiler, it's in the trailer and ON THE POSTER). He is joined by a pair of "buddies" (Mary Elizabeth Winsted and Benedict Wong) in plotting how to outsmart himself.
This film had all the markings of a bad "B" film, but under the watchful eye of Lee and the charismatic performances of Winsted, Wong - and most especially - Smith, this film is actually quite watchable.
What doesn't work - the plot. To say it is contrived is to do a disservice to the word "contrived". It really doesn't give us anything new, it just gives us a bridge from action scene to action. Also, the reasoning of the Government to get rid of Brogan doesn't really work and Clive Owen - as the head of the Gemini program - and the main "suit" that is chasing Smith looks like he is sleepwalking his way through this film.
What works - the interplay and "fun" of Smith, Winsted and Wong as the 3 "professionals" on the run - and outsmarting - "the Agency". These 3 work really well off each other and I would love to have seen a "Mission Impossible" style film of these 3 doing some sort of impossible mission. Special note needs to be made of Smith's performance - as the older Brogan. He is world weary and heavy, but still has the twinkle in his eye and the physical acumen to be a top assassin. This is the type of role that Smith - especially at his age and experience - is ideal for. His charisma shines and he holds his own in the physical/fight scenes. Also, Ang Lee knows how to shoot an action sequence. True, there is nothing "new", revolutionary or evolutionary in any of the fight/chase scenes, but they are put together in a competent, professional manner and did a good enough job.
And then there is the younger Brogan - "Junior" - played by a CGI "de-aged" Will Smith.
We've seen the CGI "de-aging" effect before - most notably in some Marvel Movies like CAPTAIN MARVEL - and while it works well enough, I just don't think it is quite there yet. You can tell that something is just a little off - not enough for it to really bother you, but enough to know that something isn't quite right - especially when Junior spends most of this film on screen with his older self. You see the "real" Will Smith up against the "copy" and the "copy" looks like...a copy. Also, the "de-aging" of the voice didn't really work for me. It sounded "off" and at times it sounded like bad ADR.
I was able to shrug off these slight technical anomalies and enjoy this film for what it is - a breezy action-er that certainly entertains for 2 hours. But it is no masterpiece and no "major" technological breakthrough. That will have to wait for another movie.
Letter Grade: B (mostly for the fun interplay between older Smith, Winsted and Wong)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
He should have spent more of his time on the script..
Based on a long gestating screenplay written in the 1990's by David Lemke (and re-written in the 2010's by Billy Ray - THE HUNGER GAMES - and Mr. GAME OF THRONES himself, David Benioff), GEMINI MAN follows a Government Contract Killer, Henry Brogan (Will Smtih) who does "one last job" and is looking forward to retirement. His agency (under the leadership of Clive Owen) decides to "take him out" and sends "Gemini" after him. Brogan tries to escape but his every move is anticipated by the Gemini - a younger clone of himself (this is not a spoiler, it's in the trailer and ON THE POSTER). He is joined by a pair of "buddies" (Mary Elizabeth Winsted and Benedict Wong) in plotting how to outsmart himself.
This film had all the markings of a bad "B" film, but under the watchful eye of Lee and the charismatic performances of Winsted, Wong - and most especially - Smith, this film is actually quite watchable.
What doesn't work - the plot. To say it is contrived is to do a disservice to the word "contrived". It really doesn't give us anything new, it just gives us a bridge from action scene to action. Also, the reasoning of the Government to get rid of Brogan doesn't really work and Clive Owen - as the head of the Gemini program - and the main "suit" that is chasing Smith looks like he is sleepwalking his way through this film.
What works - the interplay and "fun" of Smith, Winsted and Wong as the 3 "professionals" on the run - and outsmarting - "the Agency". These 3 work really well off each other and I would love to have seen a "Mission Impossible" style film of these 3 doing some sort of impossible mission. Special note needs to be made of Smith's performance - as the older Brogan. He is world weary and heavy, but still has the twinkle in his eye and the physical acumen to be a top assassin. This is the type of role that Smith - especially at his age and experience - is ideal for. His charisma shines and he holds his own in the physical/fight scenes. Also, Ang Lee knows how to shoot an action sequence. True, there is nothing "new", revolutionary or evolutionary in any of the fight/chase scenes, but they are put together in a competent, professional manner and did a good enough job.
And then there is the younger Brogan - "Junior" - played by a CGI "de-aged" Will Smith.
We've seen the CGI "de-aging" effect before - most notably in some Marvel Movies like CAPTAIN MARVEL - and while it works well enough, I just don't think it is quite there yet. You can tell that something is just a little off - not enough for it to really bother you, but enough to know that something isn't quite right - especially when Junior spends most of this film on screen with his older self. You see the "real" Will Smith up against the "copy" and the "copy" looks like...a copy. Also, the "de-aging" of the voice didn't really work for me. It sounded "off" and at times it sounded like bad ADR.
I was able to shrug off these slight technical anomalies and enjoy this film for what it is - a breezy action-er that certainly entertains for 2 hours. But it is no masterpiece and no "major" technological breakthrough. That will have to wait for another movie.
Letter Grade: B (mostly for the fun interplay between older Smith, Winsted and Wong)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Flash (2023) in Movies
Jun 7, 2023
Amidst numerous delays and offscreen speculations about the fate of the movie, Director Andy Muschietti has finally seen his big-screen adaptation of DC Comics "The Flash" arrive.
We first saw the film in late April at Cinemacon and now that we have seen the final cut with additional footage and a noticing credits, I can finally give you my impressions.
The movie opens with Barry Allen (Ezra Miller), called into action to help with an issue in Gotham City which offers a chance for an extended action scene as well as some cameo appearances that should delight fans.
Like most superheroes, Barry has to contend with work and personal issues and his time as the Flash often makes him late for work and even more of a social outcast than he already is. And the arrival of an old school friend reminds him that his father is scheduled to have a court appearance on appeal of his conviction for murdering his wife many years earlier. Barry is obsessed with proving his father's innocence however there is little evidence that can support his appeal.
Despite warnings not to alter time, Barry travels to the past to make a slight adjustment which results in his mother living and growing up in a two-parent household for himself.
His euphoria becomes short-lived when Barry runs into a younger version of himself and realizes that if he does not enable his younger self with his powers, then he will never exist to create the alternate reality where his parents are safe and happy.
The younger Barry is extremely immature and annoying and when he becomes confused with powers while the other loses them, there are numerous opportunities for comic mayhem which the film briefly touches upon before returning to the more serious aspects of the story.
As he was warned, Barry has created fractions in reality, and the one that he finds himself in has several changes from the one that knows including a world free of superpowered beings. This becomes a serious problem when General Zod (Michael Shannon) arrives and there is no Superman or Justice League to save the day.
In an act of desperation, Barry seeks out Batman (Michael Keaton), and is shocked to discover that he is different than the one that he knows in his reality. Both Barrys and Batman hatch a plan of desperation that sees them desperately mounting a rescue and offensive to save humanity.
The film has some fantastic visual effects but like most hero films becomes heavily bogged down on them in a final act that in many ways seems at times anticlimactic to the potential that the story has been building to. Miller is solid as the two Barrys although the younger version of them becomes very annoying and at times and some segments drag on.
Keaton absolutely steals the film and brings a much-needed presence to the action as he seems to really be enjoying his return to the role and his segments are often the most compelling parts of the film as he provides a stabilizing and grounding presence to the Barrys.
There are numerous cameos throughout the film that I will not spoil but suffice it to say they should delight fans and do offer some intriguing questions.
The biggest issue now is the future of the character as Gunn and Saffron are busy building their DC universe while outside projects currently are in the works. It is not a secret that legal issues and outside distractions have been associated with Miller to the point where some question whether the film could be released despite its lavish budget.
The final box office numbers will be very interesting because I found the film quite enjoyable and a pleasant surprise in one of the better DC cinematic efforts notwithstanding the final act which became a bit formulaic and anticlimactic for my liking. While it doesn't approach the level of several of the Marvel films, it does show that there is plenty of potential to make solid stories within the DC universe.
4 stars out of 5
We first saw the film in late April at Cinemacon and now that we have seen the final cut with additional footage and a noticing credits, I can finally give you my impressions.
The movie opens with Barry Allen (Ezra Miller), called into action to help with an issue in Gotham City which offers a chance for an extended action scene as well as some cameo appearances that should delight fans.
Like most superheroes, Barry has to contend with work and personal issues and his time as the Flash often makes him late for work and even more of a social outcast than he already is. And the arrival of an old school friend reminds him that his father is scheduled to have a court appearance on appeal of his conviction for murdering his wife many years earlier. Barry is obsessed with proving his father's innocence however there is little evidence that can support his appeal.
Despite warnings not to alter time, Barry travels to the past to make a slight adjustment which results in his mother living and growing up in a two-parent household for himself.
His euphoria becomes short-lived when Barry runs into a younger version of himself and realizes that if he does not enable his younger self with his powers, then he will never exist to create the alternate reality where his parents are safe and happy.
The younger Barry is extremely immature and annoying and when he becomes confused with powers while the other loses them, there are numerous opportunities for comic mayhem which the film briefly touches upon before returning to the more serious aspects of the story.
As he was warned, Barry has created fractions in reality, and the one that he finds himself in has several changes from the one that knows including a world free of superpowered beings. This becomes a serious problem when General Zod (Michael Shannon) arrives and there is no Superman or Justice League to save the day.
In an act of desperation, Barry seeks out Batman (Michael Keaton), and is shocked to discover that he is different than the one that he knows in his reality. Both Barrys and Batman hatch a plan of desperation that sees them desperately mounting a rescue and offensive to save humanity.
The film has some fantastic visual effects but like most hero films becomes heavily bogged down on them in a final act that in many ways seems at times anticlimactic to the potential that the story has been building to. Miller is solid as the two Barrys although the younger version of them becomes very annoying and at times and some segments drag on.
Keaton absolutely steals the film and brings a much-needed presence to the action as he seems to really be enjoying his return to the role and his segments are often the most compelling parts of the film as he provides a stabilizing and grounding presence to the Barrys.
There are numerous cameos throughout the film that I will not spoil but suffice it to say they should delight fans and do offer some intriguing questions.
The biggest issue now is the future of the character as Gunn and Saffron are busy building their DC universe while outside projects currently are in the works. It is not a secret that legal issues and outside distractions have been associated with Miller to the point where some question whether the film could be released despite its lavish budget.
The final box office numbers will be very interesting because I found the film quite enjoyable and a pleasant surprise in one of the better DC cinematic efforts notwithstanding the final act which became a bit formulaic and anticlimactic for my liking. While it doesn't approach the level of several of the Marvel films, it does show that there is plenty of potential to make solid stories within the DC universe.
4 stars out of 5