Search
Search results
Farm Charm
Games and Entertainment
App
Farm Charm is a charming accumulative match-3 puzzler with lots of fascinating levels! Discover...
Ab Workouts MMA PRO - Core Strength Abdominal Flex Training & Personal Abs Trainer
Sports and Health & Fitness
App
Train Like an MMA Pro Fighter! The world’s first app that strengthens every abdominal muscle...
Planet of Heroes - Brawl MOBA
Games
App
Looking for an exciting real time war game for smartphones? Welcome to Planet of Heroes: stunning...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ant-Man and The Wasp: Quantumania (2023) in Movies
Mar 18, 2023
Middle of the Road Marvel
The good news for long-time, hard core Marvel Cinematic Universe fans is that the next “big bad” in the Marvel Cinematic Universe has been unleashed and we will now get to see “Kang The Conqueror” (in his permutations) battling our heroes for the foreseeable future.
The bad news is that for casual fans – and folks that are just plain tired of the MCU – things are going to get more complex and convoluted as the MCU heads deeper into the “Comic Bookiness” of their source material.
Such is the case with ANT-MAN AND THE WASP: QUANTUMANIA, the 3rd standalone Ant Man film starring Paul Ruud, Evangeline Lilly and Michael Douglas. It is a very “Comic Bookie” film in that it takes the audience to the “Quantum Realm” and all the quirky characters and locations therein.
Director Peyton Reed (who helmed the previous 2 Ant-Man films) leans into this “Comic Bookieness” in that he accents the weird and bizarre and creates comic-book-like panels on the images on the screen. Consequently, this makes the film interesting to look at, but for the most part, there is not much substance under the surface.
For their part, Ruud, Lilly, Douglas, Michelle Pfeiffer (returning from the 2nd Ant-Man film) and newcomer Kathryn Newton (taking over the role of Ruud’s daughter, Cassie) are game in what they are asked to work with and react to (mostly to a green screen with CGI filled in later) and they all are winning (enough) presences on screen to spend a very enjoyable time with.
Jonathan Majors is on-board as Kang the Conqueror (a version of him was seen at the end of the first season of the Disney+ series LOKI) and he brings his considerable acting chops, gravitas and weight to the proceedings. He is a force to be reckoned with which was apparent from almost the first time he commanded the screen in this film. It will be interesting to see where he takes things from here.
The problem with this film is that it is (mostly) style with very little substance. Necessarily, the plot drives a more dramatic, darker theme to this Ant-Man film than in previous outings and the film suffers because of it. One of the charms of the Ant-Man films is that Director Reed was able to lean into the inherent goofiness of Paul Ruud and the absurd idea of him being able to shrink. That quirkiness and sense of fun is gone – as are regular characters played in the past 2 films by the likes of Bobby Canavale, Judy Greer, Randall Park (who has a blink or you’ll miss him cameo) and (most egregiously) Michael Pena.
What they are replaced by are some quirky “Quantum Realm” characters – most of whom are CGI and are voiced by some very good voice performers – it just doesn’t hit the same, since the overall theme is darker. Katy M. O’Brian and William Jackson Harper (who is rounding into a very intriguing performer) bring gusto to their roles as a few members of the Quantum realm, which helps pick up the sagginess of this film, but not enough. Not even a Bill Murray appearance can elevate this film to something funner than it is.
All in all a “fine” entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe – and one that will remind you very much that you are watching a film based on Comic Book characters – but it falls squarely in the middle of the MCU entries...a catalogue of which is becoming very deep (maybe too deep), indeed.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The bad news is that for casual fans – and folks that are just plain tired of the MCU – things are going to get more complex and convoluted as the MCU heads deeper into the “Comic Bookiness” of their source material.
Such is the case with ANT-MAN AND THE WASP: QUANTUMANIA, the 3rd standalone Ant Man film starring Paul Ruud, Evangeline Lilly and Michael Douglas. It is a very “Comic Bookie” film in that it takes the audience to the “Quantum Realm” and all the quirky characters and locations therein.
Director Peyton Reed (who helmed the previous 2 Ant-Man films) leans into this “Comic Bookieness” in that he accents the weird and bizarre and creates comic-book-like panels on the images on the screen. Consequently, this makes the film interesting to look at, but for the most part, there is not much substance under the surface.
For their part, Ruud, Lilly, Douglas, Michelle Pfeiffer (returning from the 2nd Ant-Man film) and newcomer Kathryn Newton (taking over the role of Ruud’s daughter, Cassie) are game in what they are asked to work with and react to (mostly to a green screen with CGI filled in later) and they all are winning (enough) presences on screen to spend a very enjoyable time with.
Jonathan Majors is on-board as Kang the Conqueror (a version of him was seen at the end of the first season of the Disney+ series LOKI) and he brings his considerable acting chops, gravitas and weight to the proceedings. He is a force to be reckoned with which was apparent from almost the first time he commanded the screen in this film. It will be interesting to see where he takes things from here.
The problem with this film is that it is (mostly) style with very little substance. Necessarily, the plot drives a more dramatic, darker theme to this Ant-Man film than in previous outings and the film suffers because of it. One of the charms of the Ant-Man films is that Director Reed was able to lean into the inherent goofiness of Paul Ruud and the absurd idea of him being able to shrink. That quirkiness and sense of fun is gone – as are regular characters played in the past 2 films by the likes of Bobby Canavale, Judy Greer, Randall Park (who has a blink or you’ll miss him cameo) and (most egregiously) Michael Pena.
What they are replaced by are some quirky “Quantum Realm” characters – most of whom are CGI and are voiced by some very good voice performers – it just doesn’t hit the same, since the overall theme is darker. Katy M. O’Brian and William Jackson Harper (who is rounding into a very intriguing performer) bring gusto to their roles as a few members of the Quantum realm, which helps pick up the sagginess of this film, but not enough. Not even a Bill Murray appearance can elevate this film to something funner than it is.
All in all a “fine” entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe – and one that will remind you very much that you are watching a film based on Comic Book characters – but it falls squarely in the middle of the MCU entries...a catalogue of which is becoming very deep (maybe too deep), indeed.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Harsh Shadows in Tabletop Games
Apr 20, 2021
I am definitely a social gamer, but if there is one positive thing to come from the year 2020, it was rediscovering my love of playing solo games. So when Wonderspell reached out about previewing their newest casual solo card game, I was hooked! Taking on the role of a secret agent trying to track down an enemy spy? Yes please! Keep reading to find out more.
Disclaimer: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this preview. The pictured components might not be finalized, and could differ after a successful Kickstarter campaign. -L
Harsh Shadows is a solo card game of hand management, grid movement, and deduction where you are an agent working to collect evidence necessary to apprehend an enemy spy. To setup for a game, randomly place the 9 Location cards in a 3×3 grid. Prepare the Discovery deck as described in the rules, place 1 face-down Discovery card to the right of each Location, and place the rest of the deck off to the side of the grid. Shuffle the Confiscated Item cards and deal the appropriate number to each of the Case File cards – 3 to Evidence, 1 to Red Herring, and 4 to False Leads. The Spy card is placed on the upper-left-most Location, and your Agent card on the lower-right-most Location. Shuffle the Spy Movement cards, and the game is ready to begin! It should look similar to the picture below.
The game is played over a series of rounds in which you will be moving your Agent, performing additional actions, and then moving the Spy. The goal is to track down the Spy, with the correct evidence in hand, before the Spy is able to flee the scene. The first thing that you will do each round is to move your Agent. You may only move to a Location that is adjacent or diagonal to your current Location. Once you move to a new Location, you will draw the top Discovery card from that Location. Discovery cards will either be Items, Clues, or Bombs. Items are collected as potential Evidence, Clues are used to reveal Confiscated Items from Case Files, and Bombs force you to discard a card from your tableau. After you have moved and collected a new Discovery card, you may perform any/all of these additional actions: Use Clue Cards, Place the Tracking Bug, Track the Spy, or Use your current Location’s ability. To Use Clue cards, you will discard a number of clues in order to reveal a Confiscated Item card from a Case File. The Confiscated Items under the Evidence Case File show the 3 items you are required to have in hand to apprehend the Spy by the end of the game. The item under the Red Herring, if you have it in hand at game’s end, will cause you to automatically lose. The 4 items under the False Leads will neither help you win, nor cause you to lose – they simply offer fodder for you to discard when necessary.
Another element required to win the game is to place the Tracking Bug on the Spy. On your turn, you may place the Tracking Bug at your current Location card – if the Spy moves to the Location on a future turn, they are considered to be ‘bugged’ and the Tracking Bug is live! Twice per game, you are allowed to Track the Spy. To do so, you will look at the top card of the Spy Movement deck, and return it to the top. This just lets you see to which Location the Spy is about to move. And finally, you can use your Location’s ability. Once you have taken as many of the additional actions as you want, it is time to move the Spy. Reveal the top card of the Spy Movement deck, and move the Spy in the appropriate direction to a new Location. At the Spy’s new Location, add a Discovery card to its pile. Play continues in this manner until either you make an accusation, or the Spy escapes. In order to make an accusation, you must have Evidence cards in hand, the Spy must be bugged, and you must be at the same Location as the Spy. When you make an accusation, you will reveal any remaining cards under the Evidence and Red Herring Case Files. If you have the 3 matching Evidence cards, you win and apprehend the Spy! BUT if you have the Red Herring card, or you are missing any of the required Evidence cards, you lose. If you haven’t made an accusation in time, the Spy could escape, causing you to lose the game as well – I’ll leave those details for you to discover on your own!
In theory, Harsh Shadows seems like a neat and strategic card game, but how does it hold up in reality? Pretty well, actually! The first thing I want to talk about is how strategic it is, even with its elements of deduction. You need to collect Evidence fast in order to catch the Spy, so what’s the best plan of movement? Also, each Location has a special ability, so is there an ability you need to use now or do you want to wait a bit longer? After using a Location’s ability, it is no longer available for the rest of the game, so you have to time those uses carefully. Along those lines comes the deduction. Sure, you can try to reveal all the Confiscated Items so that you’re 100% sure that you’ve got the right Evidence. But if you don’t work fast enough, the Spy could escape. Are you willing to risk only knowing for sure what 1 piece of Evidence in order to confront the Spy before it’s too late? Or do you want to save up Clues to purchase that coveted Red Herring, to know for sure what not to keep in order to win. There’s a balance of risk with deduction, as well as a real-time element in the sense that the game has a finite amount of rounds. You’re not racing a physical clock, but once the Discovery deck runs out, the Spy is considered to be on the run, on the verge of escaping. Overall, this is a casual card game, but it has a decent amount of strategy to keep you engaged and entertained.
Let’s touch on components for a second. Obviously, this is just a card game, and this is a preview copy. As I said earlier, the final production could differ from this version, but I have to say that this preview copy is good quality. The cards are nice and thick, the artwork thematic and clean. I imagine the rules would get some final edits for slight clarifications, but for the most part the production quality is already pretty decent.
I have to say that Harsh Shadows surprised me. I’d never played a solo game with deduction elements, and it was actually quite exciting. Usually the deduction games I’ve played are based around sussing out a traitor amongst a group of people, so there is that human interaction element that can really help guide your thoughts and decisions. In Harsh Shadows, there’s nobody but yourself – you can’t look for tells in other players because the cards won’t speak to you. It feels riskier in this way because it’s more a game of odds then, instead of your ability to pick out social cues. Other people may feel differently, but I thought this was a neat twist on the deduction mechanic. If you’re looking for a strategic solo game, that plays relatively quickly and casually, I would definitely recommend checking out Harsh Shadows. It goes live on Kickstarter here in April, and I look forward to following its progress!
Disclaimer: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this preview. The pictured components might not be finalized, and could differ after a successful Kickstarter campaign. -L
Harsh Shadows is a solo card game of hand management, grid movement, and deduction where you are an agent working to collect evidence necessary to apprehend an enemy spy. To setup for a game, randomly place the 9 Location cards in a 3×3 grid. Prepare the Discovery deck as described in the rules, place 1 face-down Discovery card to the right of each Location, and place the rest of the deck off to the side of the grid. Shuffle the Confiscated Item cards and deal the appropriate number to each of the Case File cards – 3 to Evidence, 1 to Red Herring, and 4 to False Leads. The Spy card is placed on the upper-left-most Location, and your Agent card on the lower-right-most Location. Shuffle the Spy Movement cards, and the game is ready to begin! It should look similar to the picture below.
The game is played over a series of rounds in which you will be moving your Agent, performing additional actions, and then moving the Spy. The goal is to track down the Spy, with the correct evidence in hand, before the Spy is able to flee the scene. The first thing that you will do each round is to move your Agent. You may only move to a Location that is adjacent or diagonal to your current Location. Once you move to a new Location, you will draw the top Discovery card from that Location. Discovery cards will either be Items, Clues, or Bombs. Items are collected as potential Evidence, Clues are used to reveal Confiscated Items from Case Files, and Bombs force you to discard a card from your tableau. After you have moved and collected a new Discovery card, you may perform any/all of these additional actions: Use Clue Cards, Place the Tracking Bug, Track the Spy, or Use your current Location’s ability. To Use Clue cards, you will discard a number of clues in order to reveal a Confiscated Item card from a Case File. The Confiscated Items under the Evidence Case File show the 3 items you are required to have in hand to apprehend the Spy by the end of the game. The item under the Red Herring, if you have it in hand at game’s end, will cause you to automatically lose. The 4 items under the False Leads will neither help you win, nor cause you to lose – they simply offer fodder for you to discard when necessary.
Another element required to win the game is to place the Tracking Bug on the Spy. On your turn, you may place the Tracking Bug at your current Location card – if the Spy moves to the Location on a future turn, they are considered to be ‘bugged’ and the Tracking Bug is live! Twice per game, you are allowed to Track the Spy. To do so, you will look at the top card of the Spy Movement deck, and return it to the top. This just lets you see to which Location the Spy is about to move. And finally, you can use your Location’s ability. Once you have taken as many of the additional actions as you want, it is time to move the Spy. Reveal the top card of the Spy Movement deck, and move the Spy in the appropriate direction to a new Location. At the Spy’s new Location, add a Discovery card to its pile. Play continues in this manner until either you make an accusation, or the Spy escapes. In order to make an accusation, you must have Evidence cards in hand, the Spy must be bugged, and you must be at the same Location as the Spy. When you make an accusation, you will reveal any remaining cards under the Evidence and Red Herring Case Files. If you have the 3 matching Evidence cards, you win and apprehend the Spy! BUT if you have the Red Herring card, or you are missing any of the required Evidence cards, you lose. If you haven’t made an accusation in time, the Spy could escape, causing you to lose the game as well – I’ll leave those details for you to discover on your own!
In theory, Harsh Shadows seems like a neat and strategic card game, but how does it hold up in reality? Pretty well, actually! The first thing I want to talk about is how strategic it is, even with its elements of deduction. You need to collect Evidence fast in order to catch the Spy, so what’s the best plan of movement? Also, each Location has a special ability, so is there an ability you need to use now or do you want to wait a bit longer? After using a Location’s ability, it is no longer available for the rest of the game, so you have to time those uses carefully. Along those lines comes the deduction. Sure, you can try to reveal all the Confiscated Items so that you’re 100% sure that you’ve got the right Evidence. But if you don’t work fast enough, the Spy could escape. Are you willing to risk only knowing for sure what 1 piece of Evidence in order to confront the Spy before it’s too late? Or do you want to save up Clues to purchase that coveted Red Herring, to know for sure what not to keep in order to win. There’s a balance of risk with deduction, as well as a real-time element in the sense that the game has a finite amount of rounds. You’re not racing a physical clock, but once the Discovery deck runs out, the Spy is considered to be on the run, on the verge of escaping. Overall, this is a casual card game, but it has a decent amount of strategy to keep you engaged and entertained.
Let’s touch on components for a second. Obviously, this is just a card game, and this is a preview copy. As I said earlier, the final production could differ from this version, but I have to say that this preview copy is good quality. The cards are nice and thick, the artwork thematic and clean. I imagine the rules would get some final edits for slight clarifications, but for the most part the production quality is already pretty decent.
I have to say that Harsh Shadows surprised me. I’d never played a solo game with deduction elements, and it was actually quite exciting. Usually the deduction games I’ve played are based around sussing out a traitor amongst a group of people, so there is that human interaction element that can really help guide your thoughts and decisions. In Harsh Shadows, there’s nobody but yourself – you can’t look for tells in other players because the cards won’t speak to you. It feels riskier in this way because it’s more a game of odds then, instead of your ability to pick out social cues. Other people may feel differently, but I thought this was a neat twist on the deduction mechanic. If you’re looking for a strategic solo game, that plays relatively quickly and casually, I would definitely recommend checking out Harsh Shadows. It goes live on Kickstarter here in April, and I look forward to following its progress!
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Once Dead, Twice Shy (Madison Avery, #1) in Books
Apr 27, 2018
Madison Avery doesn't believe in fate—until a combination of fate and free will brings her to live with her dad (which her mom thinks is a good thing for her since she can't stay out of trouble at home), gets her a pity-date ("you got your boss to get his son to ask me out? what?"), and kills her (at her junior prom. On her seventeenth birthday. of all the luck.). Now, after having claimed the amulet of the timekeeper who killed her (which is the only thing that keeps her looking like she's alive), she has to learn how to live with death. If that's even possible.
But the dark timekeeper who killed her isn't happy, because she's got his amulet, and she's not all the way dead (just sort of dead). Teaming up with Barnabas—who may or may not be a fallen angel—and the light time keeper, Chronos (or Ron for short), a guardian angel (who she forces to guard someone else) and enlisting the human help of her ex-prom date Josh (who she didn't realize she had a crush on), she has to attempt to save her soul.
All in a day's work for a dead high-schooler… right?
This was the second time I've read Once Dead, Twice Shy. I still can't figure out what the title means. Whatever it means, it was a pretty exciting book. There wasn't a second of "down-time." Madison was always up to something, learning something, running to—or from—something, or saving someone. Every chapter had little pieces of the puzzle, and the way it all fit together at the end, was priceless, hilarious, and promising.
I will say that I don't like where the story picks up. I think Harrison should have actually included the beginning of the story, where she gets killed. I read it before I read this book and I would have been rather lost without it. It was a short story included in Prom Nights from Hell. I don't care if this is technically a "book 1" in the series. It should have been book 2, or at least had the beginning of the story included in it.
I really liked Madison. I liked her character (though not some of her choices—but hey, if I was a dead seventeen year old trying to keep her dad from knowing that she could bend time, I probably would have made those same choices) and I liked her interior monologue. She was serious enough to be nerve-wracking and exciting, but sarcastic enough to give everything a touch of comic relief. I really didn't like Josh in the short prequel to this book, but as his character began to be more clear, I really started to like him. I hope things turn out well between him and Madison. I would have liked a little more romantic tension between them, but what was there was clean and innocent—a little too innocent for Madison Avery.
I don't particularly like Kim Harrison's writing style. It's very casual, it has those dreaded fragments, and it's nothing out of the ordinary. However, her way of describing both physical images and emotional feelings was very good, and I could see everything, hear everything, and feel everything her characters were experiencing. As I mentioned above, I liked the comic relief. I also liked her lack of language through the story. Madison had her own set of "words" and phrases that she used that weren't offensive in any way, and it made the story much more enjoyable. However, the only word I can think of to describe her writing is mediocre, and that and the lack of tension between Madison and Josh are the only reasons I don't give this book five stars.
Content: clean of language, violence, and sexuality of any kind. Thank you Harrison, for writing clean YA fiction!
Recommendation: Ages 12+ to lovers of sci-fi, fantasy, and general YA fiction.
This review is copyright Haley Mathiot and Night Owl Reviews.
But the dark timekeeper who killed her isn't happy, because she's got his amulet, and she's not all the way dead (just sort of dead). Teaming up with Barnabas—who may or may not be a fallen angel—and the light time keeper, Chronos (or Ron for short), a guardian angel (who she forces to guard someone else) and enlisting the human help of her ex-prom date Josh (who she didn't realize she had a crush on), she has to attempt to save her soul.
All in a day's work for a dead high-schooler… right?
This was the second time I've read Once Dead, Twice Shy. I still can't figure out what the title means. Whatever it means, it was a pretty exciting book. There wasn't a second of "down-time." Madison was always up to something, learning something, running to—or from—something, or saving someone. Every chapter had little pieces of the puzzle, and the way it all fit together at the end, was priceless, hilarious, and promising.
I will say that I don't like where the story picks up. I think Harrison should have actually included the beginning of the story, where she gets killed. I read it before I read this book and I would have been rather lost without it. It was a short story included in Prom Nights from Hell. I don't care if this is technically a "book 1" in the series. It should have been book 2, or at least had the beginning of the story included in it.
I really liked Madison. I liked her character (though not some of her choices—but hey, if I was a dead seventeen year old trying to keep her dad from knowing that she could bend time, I probably would have made those same choices) and I liked her interior monologue. She was serious enough to be nerve-wracking and exciting, but sarcastic enough to give everything a touch of comic relief. I really didn't like Josh in the short prequel to this book, but as his character began to be more clear, I really started to like him. I hope things turn out well between him and Madison. I would have liked a little more romantic tension between them, but what was there was clean and innocent—a little too innocent for Madison Avery.
I don't particularly like Kim Harrison's writing style. It's very casual, it has those dreaded fragments, and it's nothing out of the ordinary. However, her way of describing both physical images and emotional feelings was very good, and I could see everything, hear everything, and feel everything her characters were experiencing. As I mentioned above, I liked the comic relief. I also liked her lack of language through the story. Madison had her own set of "words" and phrases that she used that weren't offensive in any way, and it made the story much more enjoyable. However, the only word I can think of to describe her writing is mediocre, and that and the lack of tension between Madison and Josh are the only reasons I don't give this book five stars.
Content: clean of language, violence, and sexuality of any kind. Thank you Harrison, for writing clean YA fiction!
Recommendation: Ages 12+ to lovers of sci-fi, fantasy, and general YA fiction.
This review is copyright Haley Mathiot and Night Owl Reviews.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Lady In The Van (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019 (Updated Jun 11, 2019)
Like a particularly lethargic sloth
Cinema has a long lasting love of people having their homes invaded by unwanted intruders, and not just because that’s how most directors view anyone who tries to tell them their opinion on filmmaking. It’s because there’s a lot of different directions one can take with the drama and excitement of home invasion. The horror of Wait Until Dark, the brutality of Straw Dogs, the silliness of Home Alone, the potential is quite large. And now throwing in its own interpretation of this theme is The Lady in the Van, based on the somewhat true story of Alan Bennett’s relationship with a transient woman who parked her van on his driveway. So, how does he and the audience respond?
With a dull, mild curiosity.
Despite being from the viewpoint of two Alan Bennetts, described as one being the writer and the other living the life, the main character is Miss Sheppard, the lady in the van. The film insists that we should be interested in her mysterious life, her past as a pianist and a nun, and why she chooses to live in the van, but throughout most of the film I was only thinking “Oh, let’s just go back and hear Alan Bennett be cynical some more.” The words are witty and sharp, but it’s mostly said about things we don’t care about. Miss Sheppard is a flat, mostly dull character, and the audience is unwillingly handcuffed to her.
The highlight of the film is its acting, with the cast being a veritable who’s who of Britain’s finest talent, and James Corden. What dimension Miss Sheppard has is provided almost entirely by the volatile yet vulnerable performance by Maggie Smith, and Alex Jennings is as real an Alan Bennett as the actual Alan Bennett. Even in the small roles, everyone from Roger Allam to Gwen Taylor manage to force themselves to shine. The only bad performance is from, of all people, Jim Broadbent, who pops up to antagonise Miss Sheppard but appears less like a real human being and more like a cartoon supervillain. For a second, I thought the character’s name was Baron von Drakkhen.
But great players cannot save a bad game, and the story of the film is flat, predictable and boring. If you don’t immediately care about Miss Sheppard, then the film becomes more tedious and lifeless by the second. I guessed long before the end the mystery behind Miss Sheppard, but even if I hadn’t I would still have been bored due to the lack of any interest. The film believes that the existence of a mystery to be motivation enough to solve it, which just isn’t the case; I don’t know what John McCririck had for breakfast, but I’m not going to stare at his stools to find out.
Not helping matters is a very by the numbers direction by Nicholas Hytner. While not incompetent, there’s very little in the way of style or flair without being casual. The only parts that show any sort of imagination are the fourth wall breaks, but the best only happen towards the end. It’s a shame that the potential of having two Alan Bennetts and seeing the film from the perspective of the writer only starts to be explored as the film is drawing to a close. Otherwise, a robot could’ve directed this film.
Alan Bennett is a highly praised writer, and rightfully so, but The Lady in the Van just isn’t his best. The above-average but by no means stellar script is tied to a plot as lifeless and sluggish as a particularly lethargic sloth. If you’re really hurting to see Bennett at his best, it’d be a lot cheaper and a lot more entertaining to rent The Madness of King George or The History Boys or even one of The Secret Policeman’s Ball’s, plus you can order some pizza from your sofa. Otherwise, The Lady in the Van, unlike the real Miss Sheppard, can very safely be ignored.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/11/19/like-a-particularly-lethargic-sloth-the-lady-in-the-van-review/
With a dull, mild curiosity.
Despite being from the viewpoint of two Alan Bennetts, described as one being the writer and the other living the life, the main character is Miss Sheppard, the lady in the van. The film insists that we should be interested in her mysterious life, her past as a pianist and a nun, and why she chooses to live in the van, but throughout most of the film I was only thinking “Oh, let’s just go back and hear Alan Bennett be cynical some more.” The words are witty and sharp, but it’s mostly said about things we don’t care about. Miss Sheppard is a flat, mostly dull character, and the audience is unwillingly handcuffed to her.
The highlight of the film is its acting, with the cast being a veritable who’s who of Britain’s finest talent, and James Corden. What dimension Miss Sheppard has is provided almost entirely by the volatile yet vulnerable performance by Maggie Smith, and Alex Jennings is as real an Alan Bennett as the actual Alan Bennett. Even in the small roles, everyone from Roger Allam to Gwen Taylor manage to force themselves to shine. The only bad performance is from, of all people, Jim Broadbent, who pops up to antagonise Miss Sheppard but appears less like a real human being and more like a cartoon supervillain. For a second, I thought the character’s name was Baron von Drakkhen.
But great players cannot save a bad game, and the story of the film is flat, predictable and boring. If you don’t immediately care about Miss Sheppard, then the film becomes more tedious and lifeless by the second. I guessed long before the end the mystery behind Miss Sheppard, but even if I hadn’t I would still have been bored due to the lack of any interest. The film believes that the existence of a mystery to be motivation enough to solve it, which just isn’t the case; I don’t know what John McCririck had for breakfast, but I’m not going to stare at his stools to find out.
Not helping matters is a very by the numbers direction by Nicholas Hytner. While not incompetent, there’s very little in the way of style or flair without being casual. The only parts that show any sort of imagination are the fourth wall breaks, but the best only happen towards the end. It’s a shame that the potential of having two Alan Bennetts and seeing the film from the perspective of the writer only starts to be explored as the film is drawing to a close. Otherwise, a robot could’ve directed this film.
Alan Bennett is a highly praised writer, and rightfully so, but The Lady in the Van just isn’t his best. The above-average but by no means stellar script is tied to a plot as lifeless and sluggish as a particularly lethargic sloth. If you’re really hurting to see Bennett at his best, it’d be a lot cheaper and a lot more entertaining to rent The Madness of King George or The History Boys or even one of The Secret Policeman’s Ball’s, plus you can order some pizza from your sofa. Otherwise, The Lady in the Van, unlike the real Miss Sheppard, can very safely be ignored.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/11/19/like-a-particularly-lethargic-sloth-the-lady-in-the-van-review/
Darren (1599 KP) rated 12 Rounds 3: Lockdown (2015) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Story: 12 Rounds 3: Lockdown starts as Burke (Cross) and his fellow officers learning of an incriminating set of photos of his men’s corruption. We move on to meet Burke’s former partner John Shaw (Ambrose) who is returning to work after being shot in the line of duty. It isn’t too long before we see the clash between Burke and Shaw which leads to Shaw investigating the bust.
When Shaw uncovers the truth he finds himself being hunted in the precinct by Burke and his men Gideon (Cudmore), Darrow (Munro) Harris (Olsson), Meeks (Levins) and Saul (Morrow). Shaw finds himself locked in the station with only the rookie Jenny Taylor (Smyth) not hunting him down like Burke’s men.
12 Rounds 3: Lockdown is an action film that does everything you need it to without making anything over complicated. We have the one man taking on the villains in a building with no escape to expose the truth. What more do you need in an action film. Saying that we have one final twist that comes off very cheap and forced. This is something that is easy to watch which will work for casual viewing.
Actor Review
Dean Ambrose: John Shaw is the honest cop that has just returned to work after being injured in the line of duty. He uncovers that his former partner has been Burke and his men have become corrupt. He has to survive a lockdown being hunted down by all of the men and being framed for everything to get the truth out. Dean is very good in this role with a potentially new action star.
Roger Cross: Tyler Burke is the former partner of Shaw but they have gone their separate ways with Burke entering into the world of corruption but when he is about to get busted he will kill anyone that gets in his way including Shaw who is the only man stopping his team from being exposed. Roger makes for a good leading villain role.
Daniel Cudmore: Gideon is one of the men working with Burke, he is the psychical presence that Shaw must overcome in the traditional big guy little guy fight in an action movie. Daniel is good for what he needs to be in this film without standing out any more than the rest of the bad guys.
Lochlyn Munro: Darrow is the tech guy on Burke’s team he does everything to make sure that Shaw can’t communicate or escape with the outside world. Lochlyn does well in this role which again is just like the rest of the bad guys.
Support Cast: 12 Rounds 3: Lockdown has a very simple used of supporting cast with most of them being the people trying to kill Shaw with the rest outside working out what to do.
Director Review: Stephen Reynolds – Stephen gives us an action film that is an easy watch as well as being non-stop.
Action: 12 Rounds 3: Lockdown has plenty of action going on from start to finish with the nothing being too over the top but never seems to stop.
Crime: 12 Rounds 3: Lockdown has all the criminals being police which is a nice take on the crime side of the story.
Thriller: 12 Rounds 3: Lockdown doesn’t stop which is always a good thing in an action film.
Settings: 12 Rounds 3: Lockdown keeps nearly all of the film inside the police station which helps keep the action in a small space.
Special Effects: 12 Rounds 3: Lockdown uses the special effects well without having to use them too often.
Suggestion: 12 Rounds 3: Lockdown is one for the action fans out there to enjoy, it is an easy watch. (Action Fans Watch)
Best Part: Ambrose is great with no previous experience.
Worst Part: Final Twist.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: Maybe
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 30 Minutes
Trivia: Due to being in WWE where they perform in front of a live audience on live television, Dean Ambrose was used to reading his lines in one try and got aggravated when other actors forgot their lines.
Overall: Enjoyable action film that is easy to watch.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/04/04/12-rounds-3-lockdown-2015/
When Shaw uncovers the truth he finds himself being hunted in the precinct by Burke and his men Gideon (Cudmore), Darrow (Munro) Harris (Olsson), Meeks (Levins) and Saul (Morrow). Shaw finds himself locked in the station with only the rookie Jenny Taylor (Smyth) not hunting him down like Burke’s men.
12 Rounds 3: Lockdown is an action film that does everything you need it to without making anything over complicated. We have the one man taking on the villains in a building with no escape to expose the truth. What more do you need in an action film. Saying that we have one final twist that comes off very cheap and forced. This is something that is easy to watch which will work for casual viewing.
Actor Review
Dean Ambrose: John Shaw is the honest cop that has just returned to work after being injured in the line of duty. He uncovers that his former partner has been Burke and his men have become corrupt. He has to survive a lockdown being hunted down by all of the men and being framed for everything to get the truth out. Dean is very good in this role with a potentially new action star.
Roger Cross: Tyler Burke is the former partner of Shaw but they have gone their separate ways with Burke entering into the world of corruption but when he is about to get busted he will kill anyone that gets in his way including Shaw who is the only man stopping his team from being exposed. Roger makes for a good leading villain role.
Daniel Cudmore: Gideon is one of the men working with Burke, he is the psychical presence that Shaw must overcome in the traditional big guy little guy fight in an action movie. Daniel is good for what he needs to be in this film without standing out any more than the rest of the bad guys.
Lochlyn Munro: Darrow is the tech guy on Burke’s team he does everything to make sure that Shaw can’t communicate or escape with the outside world. Lochlyn does well in this role which again is just like the rest of the bad guys.
Support Cast: 12 Rounds 3: Lockdown has a very simple used of supporting cast with most of them being the people trying to kill Shaw with the rest outside working out what to do.
Director Review: Stephen Reynolds – Stephen gives us an action film that is an easy watch as well as being non-stop.
Action: 12 Rounds 3: Lockdown has plenty of action going on from start to finish with the nothing being too over the top but never seems to stop.
Crime: 12 Rounds 3: Lockdown has all the criminals being police which is a nice take on the crime side of the story.
Thriller: 12 Rounds 3: Lockdown doesn’t stop which is always a good thing in an action film.
Settings: 12 Rounds 3: Lockdown keeps nearly all of the film inside the police station which helps keep the action in a small space.
Special Effects: 12 Rounds 3: Lockdown uses the special effects well without having to use them too often.
Suggestion: 12 Rounds 3: Lockdown is one for the action fans out there to enjoy, it is an easy watch. (Action Fans Watch)
Best Part: Ambrose is great with no previous experience.
Worst Part: Final Twist.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: Maybe
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 30 Minutes
Trivia: Due to being in WWE where they perform in front of a live audience on live television, Dean Ambrose was used to reading his lines in one try and got aggravated when other actors forgot their lines.
Overall: Enjoyable action film that is easy to watch.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/04/04/12-rounds-3-lockdown-2015/
Darren (1599 KP) rated 12 Years a Slave (2013) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Watching how Solomon struggles to just survive let alone becoming free again. We see how different men who have slaves treat them, some well some badly. The story shows the tragic truth about how slaves were treated and even though this story get a happy ending of freedom, most never got that chance, with this still happening in the modern world it should make everyone be thankful for the fact they are free now. The story is an inspiration story of survival and not giving up hope. (10/10)
Actor Reviews
Chiwetel Ejiofor: Solomon kidnapped and sold into slavery, not resting on the fact he will never escape he tries over the 12 years to find a way to get his own freedom before finally finding someone to trust enough. Chiwetel is brilliant in the role and fully deserved his BAFTA for best actor. (10/10)
solomon
Michael Fassbender: Edwin Epps the drunken plantation owner who abuses his slaves for his own pleasure, enforced strict rules and taking all the hope out of his slaves. Great performance from Fassbender playing a character that is driven to be hated. (9/10)
fassbender
REPORT THIS AD
Lupita Nyong’o: Patsey one of the slaves on Epps’s plantation who is his favourite as she is the best picker and also he favourite for his sexual pleasures. Great performance, showing that the hope had been taken from some of the slaves. (10/10)
lupita
Brad Pitt: Bass a free roaming labourer who doesn’t turn up to late in the film, becomes the last chance for Solomon. Only a small role but does a good job.(8/10)
pitt
Paul Dano: Tibeats, Ford’s evil slaver runner who pushes all of them to limits they shouldn’t have to go, he thinks he is better than all of the slaves, but Solomon teaches him a thing or too. Good performance from Dano showing he can fit into any role with ease. (8/10)
dano
Paul Giamatti: Freeman the slave sales man who put them all up for show so that the highest bidder will purchase them. Only a small role but affectively showing how the slavery sales were made to be glamorous for what they are doing. (7/10)
paul
REPORT THIS AD
Benedict Cumberbatch: Ford a good man who looks after his slaves, Ford purchases Solomon and is willing to listen to Solomon’s ideas to improve his work. Forced to sell on Solomon, but always looked after them all fair. Good supporting performance and his character reflexes how evil Epps is.(8/10)
benedict
Sarah Paulson: Mistress Epps the wife of Edwin, who has a dislike for Patsey but an almost sympatric side to the rest of the slaves. Good performance and the one scene with Patsey is really stand out. (9/10)
mistress epps
Director Review: Steve McQueen – Brilliant direction to tell such an amazing story of one man’s journey. (10/10)
Biography: Amazing look at how Solomon survived his ordeal. (10/10)
Drama: Stunning look at something that could have been all guns, blood and gore, but focuses on the emotions involved with the people. (10/10)
History: Good look at how people were treated during the slave times. (10/10)
Settings: Beautiful settings used to create the story. (10/10)
Suggestion: This really should be watched by all, but I do feel the more casual film fan may find it hard to watch. (Watch)
Best Part: Chiwetel Performance.
Worst Part: Some of the punishment scenes are hard to watch.
Favourite Quote: Solomon ‘I will not fall into despair! I will keep myself hardy until freedom is opportune!’
Believability: Based on Solomon’s true story. (10/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
REPORT THIS AD
Oscar Chances: Won 3 Oscars.
Box Office: $178,413,838
Budget: $20 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 13 Minutes
Tagline: The extraordinary true story of Solomon Northup.
Overall: Stunning Story
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/05/12/12-years-a-slave-2013/
Actor Reviews
Chiwetel Ejiofor: Solomon kidnapped and sold into slavery, not resting on the fact he will never escape he tries over the 12 years to find a way to get his own freedom before finally finding someone to trust enough. Chiwetel is brilliant in the role and fully deserved his BAFTA for best actor. (10/10)
solomon
Michael Fassbender: Edwin Epps the drunken plantation owner who abuses his slaves for his own pleasure, enforced strict rules and taking all the hope out of his slaves. Great performance from Fassbender playing a character that is driven to be hated. (9/10)
fassbender
REPORT THIS AD
Lupita Nyong’o: Patsey one of the slaves on Epps’s plantation who is his favourite as she is the best picker and also he favourite for his sexual pleasures. Great performance, showing that the hope had been taken from some of the slaves. (10/10)
lupita
Brad Pitt: Bass a free roaming labourer who doesn’t turn up to late in the film, becomes the last chance for Solomon. Only a small role but does a good job.(8/10)
pitt
Paul Dano: Tibeats, Ford’s evil slaver runner who pushes all of them to limits they shouldn’t have to go, he thinks he is better than all of the slaves, but Solomon teaches him a thing or too. Good performance from Dano showing he can fit into any role with ease. (8/10)
dano
Paul Giamatti: Freeman the slave sales man who put them all up for show so that the highest bidder will purchase them. Only a small role but affectively showing how the slavery sales were made to be glamorous for what they are doing. (7/10)
paul
REPORT THIS AD
Benedict Cumberbatch: Ford a good man who looks after his slaves, Ford purchases Solomon and is willing to listen to Solomon’s ideas to improve his work. Forced to sell on Solomon, but always looked after them all fair. Good supporting performance and his character reflexes how evil Epps is.(8/10)
benedict
Sarah Paulson: Mistress Epps the wife of Edwin, who has a dislike for Patsey but an almost sympatric side to the rest of the slaves. Good performance and the one scene with Patsey is really stand out. (9/10)
mistress epps
Director Review: Steve McQueen – Brilliant direction to tell such an amazing story of one man’s journey. (10/10)
Biography: Amazing look at how Solomon survived his ordeal. (10/10)
Drama: Stunning look at something that could have been all guns, blood and gore, but focuses on the emotions involved with the people. (10/10)
History: Good look at how people were treated during the slave times. (10/10)
Settings: Beautiful settings used to create the story. (10/10)
Suggestion: This really should be watched by all, but I do feel the more casual film fan may find it hard to watch. (Watch)
Best Part: Chiwetel Performance.
Worst Part: Some of the punishment scenes are hard to watch.
Favourite Quote: Solomon ‘I will not fall into despair! I will keep myself hardy until freedom is opportune!’
Believability: Based on Solomon’s true story. (10/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
REPORT THIS AD
Oscar Chances: Won 3 Oscars.
Box Office: $178,413,838
Budget: $20 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 13 Minutes
Tagline: The extraordinary true story of Solomon Northup.
Overall: Stunning Story
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/05/12/12-years-a-slave-2013/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Bewitched (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Turning a classic television series into a feature film can be a risky proposition. While the built in audience of Baby Boomers and new fans of a show gained through reruns make remakes a potentially lucrative venture, the task of recasting classic characters and modernizing the story to today’s audiences is rife with hazards.
For example, for every remake that succeeds, such as The Adams Family, Starsky and Hutch, and The Brady Bunch, there are countless others that fail, like The Wild Wild West, Car 54 Where Are You and I-Spy.
Sadly the new film version of Bewitched falls into the latter category. It is so bad it begs the question as to why such talents like Nicole Kidman, Michael Caine, and Will Ferrell signed on.
The story centers on Isabel Bigelow (Nicole Kidman), a young woman who is anxious to set off on her own and leave the family structure behind her. While this is not so uncommon for most people, Isabel is a witch and her decision to live as a mortal without her powers is of great consternation to her father (Michael Caine).
Isabel is convinced she can find a man, and can live in happiness and love with a mortal. She wants no part of the shallow and wandering eye that makes up their lifestyle. Convinced his daughter will never be able to live without her powers, her father chides her for her frequent and casual use of powers to do everything from find and furnish her home to paying for everyday needs.
At roughly the same time, fading actor Jack Wyatt is about to sign up to play the male lead in a new television version of the classic Bewitched television series. With the gigantic failure of his recent film, Jack is in need of a hit. Not wanting to take any attention away from his star turn, Jack insists that the producers cast a complete unknown in the role of Samantha. He does not want anyone infringing upon his spotlight.
A chance encounter with Isabel leads to her being cast by Jack in the new series. Isabel is taken by Jack and when she learns the role is that of a witch, she signs aboard despite some reservations.
Naturally Jack and Isabel will hit it off, and yes there will be issues, particularly when Jack’s shallow nature becomes clear to Isabel, and this is to say nothing of Isabel’s true identity which in and of itself is an issue.
What starts as a good premise with a solid cast quickly dissolves into a disjointed mess thanks to a paper thin plot that is rife with plot holes, non-sequitors, and unresolved moments. One such example is the character of Iris Smythson (Shirley Mac Laine), who plays Endora on the show. It is at first hinted at that she too is a witch and then made obvious. However there is no conclusion to this revelation. We see that she has a power and uses it, but we never really get the why she is there, how she chose to live as she does, and how her relationship with Isabel’s father is going to be altered by this.
Another problem the show has is that Ferell is reduced to running around, over-acting to get laughs. The situations go on way to long, and things that are at first amusing, become tedious after a while. One such scene has Ferell’s character appearing nude on a live television appearance. It is something that is used to generate laughs but there is no setup to the scene and it plays out as a desperate attempt to get laughs.
The only thing that works is the charm of Kidman who, as the quirky Isabel, is delightful, as is the supporting work of Caine and Steve Carell as Uncle Arthur. Sadly they are the only good things in a film that became so bad that many in the audience at my press screener were voicing their disdain when we left the film. Perhaps Samantha can twitch her nose and make this one vanish, as there is precious little to redeem it.
For example, for every remake that succeeds, such as The Adams Family, Starsky and Hutch, and The Brady Bunch, there are countless others that fail, like The Wild Wild West, Car 54 Where Are You and I-Spy.
Sadly the new film version of Bewitched falls into the latter category. It is so bad it begs the question as to why such talents like Nicole Kidman, Michael Caine, and Will Ferrell signed on.
The story centers on Isabel Bigelow (Nicole Kidman), a young woman who is anxious to set off on her own and leave the family structure behind her. While this is not so uncommon for most people, Isabel is a witch and her decision to live as a mortal without her powers is of great consternation to her father (Michael Caine).
Isabel is convinced she can find a man, and can live in happiness and love with a mortal. She wants no part of the shallow and wandering eye that makes up their lifestyle. Convinced his daughter will never be able to live without her powers, her father chides her for her frequent and casual use of powers to do everything from find and furnish her home to paying for everyday needs.
At roughly the same time, fading actor Jack Wyatt is about to sign up to play the male lead in a new television version of the classic Bewitched television series. With the gigantic failure of his recent film, Jack is in need of a hit. Not wanting to take any attention away from his star turn, Jack insists that the producers cast a complete unknown in the role of Samantha. He does not want anyone infringing upon his spotlight.
A chance encounter with Isabel leads to her being cast by Jack in the new series. Isabel is taken by Jack and when she learns the role is that of a witch, she signs aboard despite some reservations.
Naturally Jack and Isabel will hit it off, and yes there will be issues, particularly when Jack’s shallow nature becomes clear to Isabel, and this is to say nothing of Isabel’s true identity which in and of itself is an issue.
What starts as a good premise with a solid cast quickly dissolves into a disjointed mess thanks to a paper thin plot that is rife with plot holes, non-sequitors, and unresolved moments. One such example is the character of Iris Smythson (Shirley Mac Laine), who plays Endora on the show. It is at first hinted at that she too is a witch and then made obvious. However there is no conclusion to this revelation. We see that she has a power and uses it, but we never really get the why she is there, how she chose to live as she does, and how her relationship with Isabel’s father is going to be altered by this.
Another problem the show has is that Ferell is reduced to running around, over-acting to get laughs. The situations go on way to long, and things that are at first amusing, become tedious after a while. One such scene has Ferell’s character appearing nude on a live television appearance. It is something that is used to generate laughs but there is no setup to the scene and it plays out as a desperate attempt to get laughs.
The only thing that works is the charm of Kidman who, as the quirky Isabel, is delightful, as is the supporting work of Caine and Steve Carell as Uncle Arthur. Sadly they are the only good things in a film that became so bad that many in the audience at my press screener were voicing their disdain when we left the film. Perhaps Samantha can twitch her nose and make this one vanish, as there is precious little to redeem it.