Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Assistant (2020) in Movies
May 24, 2020
Julia Garner's performance (1 more)
The tension that manages to be created through a portrayal of the mundane
The movie seems to have a lot of haters on IMDB (a rating at the time of writing of 5.9)... but I refuse to follow "the pack" on this one... I thought it was great. It manages to make the mundane incredibly tense. This is this first (semi-)fictional feature from documentary-maker Kitty Green.... and in my book she does a knock-out job.
We first meet Jane (Julia Garner) at 'God-knows-what-o-clock' in the morning as she arrives at her workplace - a New York film-production company. First to arrive every morning, she turns on the lights, turns on the screens, makes the pot of coffee and cleans off stains from her boss's couch. The stain isn't coffee. A lost gold bracelet is recovered.
For we are in a truly toxic working environment here. 'The boss' - clearly modelled on Harvey Weinstein - is a bullying tyrant who can reduce Jane and her two male assistants (Jon Orsini and Noah Robbins) to quivering wrecks. "WHAT THE F*** DID YOU SAY TO HER" barks the boss down the phone at Jane, after she has had a perfectly reasonable phone conversation with the estranged Mrs Boss.
The toxicity is pervasive though throughout Miram..., sorry...., 'the company'. Jane is almost invisible to her other co-workers who don't give her eye-contact even when she's talking to them and barely register her presence when sharing a lift.
But bullying and workplace toxicity is just part of this story. A steady stream of starlets arrive in the office, like meat deliveries to a butcher. In a chilling sequence, the photocopier churns out photos of beautiful actresses.... a paper-based equivalent of swiping-left or -right in the selection process. None of the "if you... I will" discussions are shown, but they don't need to be: the inference is clear.
Jane is smart, slim and pretty... but not in an obvious 'Hollywood way'. "You'll be OK..." says a co-worker "you're not his type".
But someone who distinctly is "his type" is Sienna (Kristine Froseth), a "very very young" aspiring waitress-come-actress from Boise, who suddenly and unexpectedly arrives as a "new assistant"... to be promptly put up in a swanky hotel room. It's time to act... and Jane approaches the company HR manager (Matthew Macfadyen)....
An old Spielberg trick is to increase tension by keeping the "monster" hidden from view: cue the tanker driver from "Duel" and (for most of the film) the shark from "Jaws". Here, the boss is felt only as a malevolent force and never seen on screen. It's an approach that works brilliantly, focusing the emotion on the effect he has on those flamed.
There is also recognition that these powerful people are also hugely intelligent and manipulative. Seeing that Jane is a valuable asset, the public berating is sometimes followed up with a private email apology.... dripping a few words of encouragement and praise like a few drops of Methadone to a drug-addict.
This is an excellent movie and thoughtfully and elegantly directed. Following a normal day in Jane's work life.... albeit a day where perhaps the penny finally drops... is immersive and engaging. And at only 88 minutes long, the movie never outstays its welcome.
The performances are first rate. Julia Garner is magnificent, and in a year where the Oscars will be "interesting", here's a good candidate for Best Actress I would suggest if not Best Picture. Garner's an actress I'm unfamiliar with: the only one of her previous flicks I've seen was Sin City 2.
Also oily and impressive is Matthew Macfadyen as the HR manager. There's also a sparse but well-used score by Tamar-kali.
The one area I found poor was in the sound design. It's clearly filmed in an office environment, rather than on a sound stage, and unfortunately the combination of the acoustics and the New York accents makes some of the dialogue really difficult to hear. An example is a discussion between two co-workers in an office kitchen, which was completely indecipherable for me.
Should I watch this? In my view, definitely, yes. It's chilling and an insight into the terrible ordeal that many professional women in the film industry, and other industries, have had to put up with before the "Me Too" lid was blown off (and many probably still do). The most telling line in the film? At the end of the "Thanks" in the end-titles: "All those who shared their experiences".
(See the full graphical review at One Mann's Movies here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/05/24/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-assistant-2020/ . Thanks).
We first meet Jane (Julia Garner) at 'God-knows-what-o-clock' in the morning as she arrives at her workplace - a New York film-production company. First to arrive every morning, she turns on the lights, turns on the screens, makes the pot of coffee and cleans off stains from her boss's couch. The stain isn't coffee. A lost gold bracelet is recovered.
For we are in a truly toxic working environment here. 'The boss' - clearly modelled on Harvey Weinstein - is a bullying tyrant who can reduce Jane and her two male assistants (Jon Orsini and Noah Robbins) to quivering wrecks. "WHAT THE F*** DID YOU SAY TO HER" barks the boss down the phone at Jane, after she has had a perfectly reasonable phone conversation with the estranged Mrs Boss.
The toxicity is pervasive though throughout Miram..., sorry...., 'the company'. Jane is almost invisible to her other co-workers who don't give her eye-contact even when she's talking to them and barely register her presence when sharing a lift.
But bullying and workplace toxicity is just part of this story. A steady stream of starlets arrive in the office, like meat deliveries to a butcher. In a chilling sequence, the photocopier churns out photos of beautiful actresses.... a paper-based equivalent of swiping-left or -right in the selection process. None of the "if you... I will" discussions are shown, but they don't need to be: the inference is clear.
Jane is smart, slim and pretty... but not in an obvious 'Hollywood way'. "You'll be OK..." says a co-worker "you're not his type".
But someone who distinctly is "his type" is Sienna (Kristine Froseth), a "very very young" aspiring waitress-come-actress from Boise, who suddenly and unexpectedly arrives as a "new assistant"... to be promptly put up in a swanky hotel room. It's time to act... and Jane approaches the company HR manager (Matthew Macfadyen)....
An old Spielberg trick is to increase tension by keeping the "monster" hidden from view: cue the tanker driver from "Duel" and (for most of the film) the shark from "Jaws". Here, the boss is felt only as a malevolent force and never seen on screen. It's an approach that works brilliantly, focusing the emotion on the effect he has on those flamed.
There is also recognition that these powerful people are also hugely intelligent and manipulative. Seeing that Jane is a valuable asset, the public berating is sometimes followed up with a private email apology.... dripping a few words of encouragement and praise like a few drops of Methadone to a drug-addict.
This is an excellent movie and thoughtfully and elegantly directed. Following a normal day in Jane's work life.... albeit a day where perhaps the penny finally drops... is immersive and engaging. And at only 88 minutes long, the movie never outstays its welcome.
The performances are first rate. Julia Garner is magnificent, and in a year where the Oscars will be "interesting", here's a good candidate for Best Actress I would suggest if not Best Picture. Garner's an actress I'm unfamiliar with: the only one of her previous flicks I've seen was Sin City 2.
Also oily and impressive is Matthew Macfadyen as the HR manager. There's also a sparse but well-used score by Tamar-kali.
The one area I found poor was in the sound design. It's clearly filmed in an office environment, rather than on a sound stage, and unfortunately the combination of the acoustics and the New York accents makes some of the dialogue really difficult to hear. An example is a discussion between two co-workers in an office kitchen, which was completely indecipherable for me.
Should I watch this? In my view, definitely, yes. It's chilling and an insight into the terrible ordeal that many professional women in the film industry, and other industries, have had to put up with before the "Me Too" lid was blown off (and many probably still do). The most telling line in the film? At the end of the "Thanks" in the end-titles: "All those who shared their experiences".
(See the full graphical review at One Mann's Movies here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/05/24/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-assistant-2020/ . Thanks).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A Monster Calls (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“I’ll. Be. Right. Here.”
The worst thing about this movie is its title. The second worst thing about this movie is its trailer. Both will either a) put people off seeing it (it succeeded in that with my wife for example) or b) make people conclude it is a ‘nice holiday film to take the kids to’, which is also an horrendous mistake!
This is a crying shame because it is a riveting drama and a superb piece of film-making by the Spaniard J. A. Bayona (“The Impossible”) that may well catapult it already into my top 10 films of 2017. But it is not, I would suggest, a film that is remotely suitable for kids under 10 to see, dealing as it does with terminal illness, bullying and impending doom. For this is a dark (read pitch black) but hauntingly beautiful film.
Lewis MacDougall, in only his second film (after last year’s “Peter Pan”) plays Conor – a young but talented and sensitive artist growing up as a 12 year old in the North of England with his single mum (Felicity Jones). She is suffering from an aggressive form of cancer and is forever medically grasping for a new hope (D’ya see what I did there?). Young Conor believes fervently that each new treatment will be ‘the one’ but the building tension, the lack of sleep and his recurrent nightmares are destroying him mentally and physically. As if this wasn’t enough, his distracted nature is leading to him being seriously bullied at school and there is the added stress of having to live in his grandmother’s pristine and teen-unfriendly house when his mother is hospitalised.
Towering over the nearby graveyard on the hill is an ancient yew tree and Conor is visited after midnight by this “monster” (voiced by Liam Neeson). Is he dreaming, or is it real? The tree dispatches wisdom in the form of three ‘tales’, with the proviso that Conor tell the tree the fourth tale which “must be the truth”.
A tale of grief, guilt and a search for closure, this is a harrowing but rewarding journey for the viewer.
The film is technically outstanding on so many levels:
the art design is superb, with the gorgeous ‘tale animations’ being highly reminiscent of the beautiful ones in “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1”;
the use of sound is brilliant, with sudden silence being used as a weapon with which to assault the senses in one key sequence;
the cinematography by Oscar Faura (“The Imitation Game”) is faultless, capturing both the dreary reality in a Northern winter with the comparative warmth of the strange dream-like sequences;
the music by Fernando Velázquez is used effectively and intelligently to reflect the sombre mood;
the special effects team led by Pau Costa (“The Revenant”, “The Impossible”) shines not just with Neesen’s monster, but with the incorporation of the root and branch effects into the ‘normal’ surroundings.
As the BFG illustrated, having a whole film carried by a young actor is a bit of an ask, but here Lewis MacDougall achieves just that like a seasoned pro. His performance is nothing short of staggering and – although a brave move by the Academy – it would be great to see him nominated for a BAFTA acting award for this.
Confirming her position in the acting top-flight is Felicity Jones, heart-wrenching in her role of the declining mum, and Sigourney Weaver is also excellent as the po-faced but grief-stricken grandmother. Liam Neeson probably didn’t add much by getting dressed up in the mo-cap suit for the tree scenes, but his voice is just perfect as the wise old sage.
The only criticism of what is an absorbing and intelligent script (by Patrick Ness, who also wrote the graphical novel) is the introduction of Conor’s Dad, played by Toby Kebbell (Dr Doom from “The Fantastic 4”), who is literally flown in from LA on a flying visit but whose role is a little superfluous to the plot.
This is exactly what “The BFG” should have been but wasn’t. It draws on a number of potential influences including “Mary Poppins”/”Saving Mr Banks” and “ET”. Wise, clever and a thing of beauty from beginning to end, this is a treat for movie-goers and a highly recommended watch. However, if you have lost someone to “the Big C” be aware that this film could be highly traumatic for you….. or highly cathartic: as I’m not a psychiatrist, I’m really not that sure! Also, if you are of the blubbing kind, take LOTS of tissues: the film features the best use of a digital clock since “Groundhog Day” and if you are not reduced to tears by that scene you are certifiably not human.
This is a crying shame because it is a riveting drama and a superb piece of film-making by the Spaniard J. A. Bayona (“The Impossible”) that may well catapult it already into my top 10 films of 2017. But it is not, I would suggest, a film that is remotely suitable for kids under 10 to see, dealing as it does with terminal illness, bullying and impending doom. For this is a dark (read pitch black) but hauntingly beautiful film.
Lewis MacDougall, in only his second film (after last year’s “Peter Pan”) plays Conor – a young but talented and sensitive artist growing up as a 12 year old in the North of England with his single mum (Felicity Jones). She is suffering from an aggressive form of cancer and is forever medically grasping for a new hope (D’ya see what I did there?). Young Conor believes fervently that each new treatment will be ‘the one’ but the building tension, the lack of sleep and his recurrent nightmares are destroying him mentally and physically. As if this wasn’t enough, his distracted nature is leading to him being seriously bullied at school and there is the added stress of having to live in his grandmother’s pristine and teen-unfriendly house when his mother is hospitalised.
Towering over the nearby graveyard on the hill is an ancient yew tree and Conor is visited after midnight by this “monster” (voiced by Liam Neeson). Is he dreaming, or is it real? The tree dispatches wisdom in the form of three ‘tales’, with the proviso that Conor tell the tree the fourth tale which “must be the truth”.
A tale of grief, guilt and a search for closure, this is a harrowing but rewarding journey for the viewer.
The film is technically outstanding on so many levels:
the art design is superb, with the gorgeous ‘tale animations’ being highly reminiscent of the beautiful ones in “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1”;
the use of sound is brilliant, with sudden silence being used as a weapon with which to assault the senses in one key sequence;
the cinematography by Oscar Faura (“The Imitation Game”) is faultless, capturing both the dreary reality in a Northern winter with the comparative warmth of the strange dream-like sequences;
the music by Fernando Velázquez is used effectively and intelligently to reflect the sombre mood;
the special effects team led by Pau Costa (“The Revenant”, “The Impossible”) shines not just with Neesen’s monster, but with the incorporation of the root and branch effects into the ‘normal’ surroundings.
As the BFG illustrated, having a whole film carried by a young actor is a bit of an ask, but here Lewis MacDougall achieves just that like a seasoned pro. His performance is nothing short of staggering and – although a brave move by the Academy – it would be great to see him nominated for a BAFTA acting award for this.
Confirming her position in the acting top-flight is Felicity Jones, heart-wrenching in her role of the declining mum, and Sigourney Weaver is also excellent as the po-faced but grief-stricken grandmother. Liam Neeson probably didn’t add much by getting dressed up in the mo-cap suit for the tree scenes, but his voice is just perfect as the wise old sage.
The only criticism of what is an absorbing and intelligent script (by Patrick Ness, who also wrote the graphical novel) is the introduction of Conor’s Dad, played by Toby Kebbell (Dr Doom from “The Fantastic 4”), who is literally flown in from LA on a flying visit but whose role is a little superfluous to the plot.
This is exactly what “The BFG” should have been but wasn’t. It draws on a number of potential influences including “Mary Poppins”/”Saving Mr Banks” and “ET”. Wise, clever and a thing of beauty from beginning to end, this is a treat for movie-goers and a highly recommended watch. However, if you have lost someone to “the Big C” be aware that this film could be highly traumatic for you….. or highly cathartic: as I’m not a psychiatrist, I’m really not that sure! Also, if you are of the blubbing kind, take LOTS of tissues: the film features the best use of a digital clock since “Groundhog Day” and if you are not reduced to tears by that scene you are certifiably not human.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated V for Vendetta (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
On a dark and silent night, a young woman named Evey (Natalie Portman), treads carefully through the streets of London unaware of the direction her life is about to take. As an attractive young lady, sneaking out of her home after curfew is filled with peril, especially when she is confronted by a gang of local thugs who happen to work for the government. Despite her protests, the men set up Evey only to be confronted by a masked figure.
The masked figure quickly dispatches the assailants and offers to escort Evey to safety. Despite being scared, Evey does accompany the figure to a rooftop where she is treated to a spectacular explosion set to music.
Thus begins V for Vendetta a film that mixes “The Phantom of the Opera” “Beauty and the Beast” and ?” to create a gothic love story and biting social commentary about the dangers of governmental control and censorship in a society gone awry.
In London of the near future, it is learned that a series of terrorist attacks have left thousands dead which resulted in stricter governmental controls and intrusions into privacy and lifestyles. Those who did not conform nor meet expectations often vanished never to be heard from again. Such was the case of Evey’s parents who decided to protest governmental policies and soon found themselves beaten and whisked away in the night.
Behind all of the oppression is a man named Adam Sutler (John Hurt), a monomaniacal leader who rules with an iron fist and an extreme agenda that he has manipulated to make himself and unopposed ruler of the nation.
While most of the population lives in fear of Sutler and his men, there is one who does not, a mysterious masked figure named V (Hugo Weaving), who dons a Guy Fawkes mask in tribute to the man who centuries ago attempted to destroy Parliament. When V is able to temporarily gain control of the television network for the government, he is able to broadcast his message to the people that the time has come to take back their lives and society and stop living in fear. Towards this end, V pledges to the masses that he will destroy Parliament in 1 year and that the people should gather to watch the destruction unfold.
This bold proclamation causes Sutler to stop at nothing to capture V and he tasks his Chief Inspector Finch (Stephen Rea), to locate V. Since Evey worked at the television station and was observed helping V on a security monitor, Finch decides to locate Evey and force her to reveal the locale of the mysterious vigilante.
This task proves difficult as V has taken Evey into his protection and forces her to live in his luxurious yet secluded home in order to avoid the police forces.
It is during this time that Evey learns that V is a study in contrast. On one hand he is a very sophisticated person with a taste for the arts, culture, and a desire to see people free to live their lives as they desire.
During this time V also kills top members of the political party and with the discovery of each new victim, he becomes an even bigger target of a very irate Sutler.
All of which culminates in a race against the clock for V to complete his plan and exact his revenge for past wrongdoings done to him which propels the film to its climatic finale.
While the film is an interesting and at times enjoyable film it is hampered in some ways by a marketing program where early trailers showed the film to be an action filled romp. The truth is there is about 15-20 minutes of action in the films nearly 2hr and 10 minute run time which allows the majority of the film to be spent on the interaction between V and Evey.
While this is interesting and does bring in elements of “Phantom” and “Beauty” as I mentioned earlier, it is at the sacrifice of what I think are important factors. For example we learn a bit about why V is on his vendetta but serious questions from that are not answered. We do not learn the full what, where and why, on his situation. I am trying hard to avoid spoilers here so suffice it to say there are some very important questions about what was done to him, how he survived and so on that need to be answered but are not.
The action sequences though few and far between are well staged and Weaving and Portman have a great chemistry with one another and do make interesting and compelling characters.
The main strength of the film is the message that people need to be aware of what is going on around them and not be so willing to accept everything they are told at face value. There is a real sense of counter-culture with the film as the prevalent theme of question and if needed defy authority permeates the film.
The script written by the Wachowski brothers of The Matrix trilogy fame has chosen to tone down the gimmicky of bullet time effects and instead focus on a character driven drama with a message and it is one that resounds loudly and clearly.
The masked figure quickly dispatches the assailants and offers to escort Evey to safety. Despite being scared, Evey does accompany the figure to a rooftop where she is treated to a spectacular explosion set to music.
Thus begins V for Vendetta a film that mixes “The Phantom of the Opera” “Beauty and the Beast” and ?” to create a gothic love story and biting social commentary about the dangers of governmental control and censorship in a society gone awry.
In London of the near future, it is learned that a series of terrorist attacks have left thousands dead which resulted in stricter governmental controls and intrusions into privacy and lifestyles. Those who did not conform nor meet expectations often vanished never to be heard from again. Such was the case of Evey’s parents who decided to protest governmental policies and soon found themselves beaten and whisked away in the night.
Behind all of the oppression is a man named Adam Sutler (John Hurt), a monomaniacal leader who rules with an iron fist and an extreme agenda that he has manipulated to make himself and unopposed ruler of the nation.
While most of the population lives in fear of Sutler and his men, there is one who does not, a mysterious masked figure named V (Hugo Weaving), who dons a Guy Fawkes mask in tribute to the man who centuries ago attempted to destroy Parliament. When V is able to temporarily gain control of the television network for the government, he is able to broadcast his message to the people that the time has come to take back their lives and society and stop living in fear. Towards this end, V pledges to the masses that he will destroy Parliament in 1 year and that the people should gather to watch the destruction unfold.
This bold proclamation causes Sutler to stop at nothing to capture V and he tasks his Chief Inspector Finch (Stephen Rea), to locate V. Since Evey worked at the television station and was observed helping V on a security monitor, Finch decides to locate Evey and force her to reveal the locale of the mysterious vigilante.
This task proves difficult as V has taken Evey into his protection and forces her to live in his luxurious yet secluded home in order to avoid the police forces.
It is during this time that Evey learns that V is a study in contrast. On one hand he is a very sophisticated person with a taste for the arts, culture, and a desire to see people free to live their lives as they desire.
During this time V also kills top members of the political party and with the discovery of each new victim, he becomes an even bigger target of a very irate Sutler.
All of which culminates in a race against the clock for V to complete his plan and exact his revenge for past wrongdoings done to him which propels the film to its climatic finale.
While the film is an interesting and at times enjoyable film it is hampered in some ways by a marketing program where early trailers showed the film to be an action filled romp. The truth is there is about 15-20 minutes of action in the films nearly 2hr and 10 minute run time which allows the majority of the film to be spent on the interaction between V and Evey.
While this is interesting and does bring in elements of “Phantom” and “Beauty” as I mentioned earlier, it is at the sacrifice of what I think are important factors. For example we learn a bit about why V is on his vendetta but serious questions from that are not answered. We do not learn the full what, where and why, on his situation. I am trying hard to avoid spoilers here so suffice it to say there are some very important questions about what was done to him, how he survived and so on that need to be answered but are not.
The action sequences though few and far between are well staged and Weaving and Portman have a great chemistry with one another and do make interesting and compelling characters.
The main strength of the film is the message that people need to be aware of what is going on around them and not be so willing to accept everything they are told at face value. There is a real sense of counter-culture with the film as the prevalent theme of question and if needed defy authority permeates the film.
The script written by the Wachowski brothers of The Matrix trilogy fame has chosen to tone down the gimmicky of bullet time effects and instead focus on a character driven drama with a message and it is one that resounds loudly and clearly.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Rear Window (1954) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Hmm… must have splattered a lot”.
Maddy at Maddy Loves Her Classic Films is hosting The Alfred Hitchcockblogathon. A fine idea, celebrating the life and works of the “Master of Suspense”. My contribution comes from his 1954 masterpiece “Rear Window” starring James Stewart and Grace Kelly.
rw-poster
In one pan around his small apartment, and without a word of dialogue required, Hitchcock deftly fills in all the back-story you need: Stewart plays ace photo-journalist L.B. Jefferies, laid up from jetting the world to worn-torn regions by a broken leg in a full-cast with only his courtyard view to entertain him. In sweltering summer temperatures all the apartments are open to the elements, so he can be well entertained by the menagerie before him: “Miss Torso”, the scantily-clad and frequently showering ballerina; a sculptress with an eye towards Henry Moore; a struggling composer (who has his clock wound by someone very familiar!); a newly-wedded bride threatening to wear out the groom; a salesman and his bed-ridden wife; a dog-loving and balcony-sleeping couple; and “Miss Lonelyhearts” – a hard-drinking spinster forced to create imaginary male dinner-guests.
Stewart plays his usual ‘Mr Ordinary’ watching perfectly ordinary goings on in a perfectly ordinary apartment block.
Or not. Jefferies is drawn to some odd-events in the apartment of the salesman (Raymond Burr, still 13 years before his career-defining role in TV’s “Ironside”). His rampant suspicions infect not only his cranky middle-aged physiotherapist Stella (Thelma Ritter) but also his perfect (“too perfect”) girlfriend, the fashion expert Lisa (Grace Kelly). Of course his police friend Doyle (Wendell Corey) is having none of it… there is no evidence of any crime being committed. And the “murdered” wife has been seen being put on a train by her husband, and is sending him letters from the countryside.
Is Jefferies just going stir-crazy? Or is there really something to it?
The set for this film is masterly. Although depicting a genuine location in New York’s Greenwich village the huge set was constructed on the Paramount lot in Hollywood, and you can just imagine the army of carpenters and artists building the multi-layered structure.
It’s one of the stars of the film, allowing for a wealth of detail to be populated: in the apartments; in the street behind; even in the cafe over the other side of the street. And it’s this detail that really makes what could be a highly static film come alive. There are a half dozen films-within-the-film going on at once, with Stewart’s character – and you as the fellow-voyeur – having a multi-pass to watch them all simultaneously.
And watch he does. As what could be perceived as a seriously pervy character – something he is called out on by Stella – Jeffries gets to see an eyeful in particular of the shapely and scantily-clad ballerina (Georgine Darcy, agent-less and only paid $350 for the role!). These scenes must have been deemed quite risque for the year of release.
Where the film rather falters is in the bickering romance between Stewart and Kelly. As a hot-blooded man, I will declare that even today Kelly’s first dream-like appearance (with Vaseline lightly coating the lens) is breathtaking. She’s just the ‘girl-next-door’: if you live next to a palace that is! And yet (with Kelly 21 years Stewart’s junior) she’s just “too perfect” for L.B. , who feels (against her protestations) that she’s ‘too girly’ to hack the life of a war photographer on the road. The mysogeny, common for the day, is gasp-making: “If a girl’s pretty enough, she just has to ‘be'” intones Stewart, to no howls of protest or throwing of saucepans! In fact Kelly is greatly encouraged: “Preview of coming attractions” purrs Kelly, flaunting what she has around the apartment in a negligee.
These scenes though are rather overlong and somewhat get in the way of the murder mystery plot-line. Things really start to warm up when a death occurs, to piercing screams in the night: “Which one of you did it?” shouts a woman to the neighbourhood, as everything – momentarily – stops. “WHICH ONE OF YOU DID IT?”. Given your emotional involvement in the ongoing voyeurism, it’s hard as a viewer not to feel discomforted…. (“well, it wasn’t me”…. shifts uneasily in the seat).
From then on, Hitchcock proceeds to pile on suspenseful jolt after jolt, with first Lisa and then L.B. placed in harms way. While the perpetrator may seem clueless and incompetent, as most murderers of passion probably are, the denouement is satisfying, with a great trial use of green-screen ‘falling’ that would be perfected by Hitchcock for “Vertigo” four years later.
What’s curious for such as classic is that there are a number of fluffed lines in the piece: with two notable ones by Stewart and Kelly. Hitchcock was the master of long and uninterrupted takes, but did he not believe in re-shooting scenes when such errors occurred? Most odd.
Although tighter and more claustrophobic that some of his better known films, this is a firm favourite of mine. If you’ve never seen it, its well worth you checking out.
rw-poster
In one pan around his small apartment, and without a word of dialogue required, Hitchcock deftly fills in all the back-story you need: Stewart plays ace photo-journalist L.B. Jefferies, laid up from jetting the world to worn-torn regions by a broken leg in a full-cast with only his courtyard view to entertain him. In sweltering summer temperatures all the apartments are open to the elements, so he can be well entertained by the menagerie before him: “Miss Torso”, the scantily-clad and frequently showering ballerina; a sculptress with an eye towards Henry Moore; a struggling composer (who has his clock wound by someone very familiar!); a newly-wedded bride threatening to wear out the groom; a salesman and his bed-ridden wife; a dog-loving and balcony-sleeping couple; and “Miss Lonelyhearts” – a hard-drinking spinster forced to create imaginary male dinner-guests.
Stewart plays his usual ‘Mr Ordinary’ watching perfectly ordinary goings on in a perfectly ordinary apartment block.
Or not. Jefferies is drawn to some odd-events in the apartment of the salesman (Raymond Burr, still 13 years before his career-defining role in TV’s “Ironside”). His rampant suspicions infect not only his cranky middle-aged physiotherapist Stella (Thelma Ritter) but also his perfect (“too perfect”) girlfriend, the fashion expert Lisa (Grace Kelly). Of course his police friend Doyle (Wendell Corey) is having none of it… there is no evidence of any crime being committed. And the “murdered” wife has been seen being put on a train by her husband, and is sending him letters from the countryside.
Is Jefferies just going stir-crazy? Or is there really something to it?
The set for this film is masterly. Although depicting a genuine location in New York’s Greenwich village the huge set was constructed on the Paramount lot in Hollywood, and you can just imagine the army of carpenters and artists building the multi-layered structure.
It’s one of the stars of the film, allowing for a wealth of detail to be populated: in the apartments; in the street behind; even in the cafe over the other side of the street. And it’s this detail that really makes what could be a highly static film come alive. There are a half dozen films-within-the-film going on at once, with Stewart’s character – and you as the fellow-voyeur – having a multi-pass to watch them all simultaneously.
And watch he does. As what could be perceived as a seriously pervy character – something he is called out on by Stella – Jeffries gets to see an eyeful in particular of the shapely and scantily-clad ballerina (Georgine Darcy, agent-less and only paid $350 for the role!). These scenes must have been deemed quite risque for the year of release.
Where the film rather falters is in the bickering romance between Stewart and Kelly. As a hot-blooded man, I will declare that even today Kelly’s first dream-like appearance (with Vaseline lightly coating the lens) is breathtaking. She’s just the ‘girl-next-door’: if you live next to a palace that is! And yet (with Kelly 21 years Stewart’s junior) she’s just “too perfect” for L.B. , who feels (against her protestations) that she’s ‘too girly’ to hack the life of a war photographer on the road. The mysogeny, common for the day, is gasp-making: “If a girl’s pretty enough, she just has to ‘be'” intones Stewart, to no howls of protest or throwing of saucepans! In fact Kelly is greatly encouraged: “Preview of coming attractions” purrs Kelly, flaunting what she has around the apartment in a negligee.
These scenes though are rather overlong and somewhat get in the way of the murder mystery plot-line. Things really start to warm up when a death occurs, to piercing screams in the night: “Which one of you did it?” shouts a woman to the neighbourhood, as everything – momentarily – stops. “WHICH ONE OF YOU DID IT?”. Given your emotional involvement in the ongoing voyeurism, it’s hard as a viewer not to feel discomforted…. (“well, it wasn’t me”…. shifts uneasily in the seat).
From then on, Hitchcock proceeds to pile on suspenseful jolt after jolt, with first Lisa and then L.B. placed in harms way. While the perpetrator may seem clueless and incompetent, as most murderers of passion probably are, the denouement is satisfying, with a great trial use of green-screen ‘falling’ that would be perfected by Hitchcock for “Vertigo” four years later.
What’s curious for such as classic is that there are a number of fluffed lines in the piece: with two notable ones by Stewart and Kelly. Hitchcock was the master of long and uninterrupted takes, but did he not believe in re-shooting scenes when such errors occurred? Most odd.
Although tighter and more claustrophobic that some of his better known films, this is a firm favourite of mine. If you’ve never seen it, its well worth you checking out.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated John Wick: Chapter 3 - Parabellum (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
We left off at the end of John Wick 2 with our lead's imminent excommunication. He's been given an hours grace, in a city that's filled with assassins his odds don't look good, but even for John Wick... bad odds are still pretty good.
I've been contemplating the story to this since I watched it. There doesn't feel like much of one. He's attempting to save his life, sure, but that's really the only thing. It feels very much like a set up for the sequel, which depending on what you read is either already planned or not planned at all.
I don't really think we go to see John Wick movies for the plot though, do we? So on that front it delivers spectacularly. The opening was immense, we come in knowing that it's all going to kick off pretty quickly after the last instalment so the anticipation is with you from the off, and it doesn't disappoint. Sheer kick-assery that we've come to expect from the franchise.
As the clock ticks over the hour and John Wick's own time is now running out he dashes through the streets (rather bold for someone with a $14 million bounty on his head) trying to make his way to people who might actually help him. Of course he's spotted by one of the thousands of assassins and villains that seem to litter the streets of New York. He ends up in a handily weaponised building and we see him take on a gang of knife proficient bad guys. The scene in this sequence, with the weapons cupboards, had everyone in the cinema chuckling.
Laughter was a surprising feature of the film, the same chuckling rippled through several scenes and broke up the violence. Some of that violence did also bring out the odd pained "ooh" as we recoiled from the screen in sympathetic pain for the character.
The complexities of the fight scenes are epic, but there was one moment in particular that stuck out as being scripted... yes, yes, I know it's all scripted! We see a very brief pause and the reaction's slow in a moment that was such a departure from everything around it that it was very noticeable to me. (On second viewing, while I still saw it, it wasn't as bad as I had seen it the first time.)
One other fight scene made me pause with a moment of being picky. John and Sofia are fighting every bad guy in Morocco. It was epic, it was fun... but everywhere I looked, "someone's going to fall off that and land on that". The set-up of the scenery was such a giveaway to upcoming action that it took some edge of the action.
The cast is filled to the brim with wonderful actors. Ian McShane, Laurence Fishburne, Lance Reddick and Anjelica Huston were brilliant. I was a little taken aback to see Jerome Flynn appear as Sofia's old boss, Berrada. I winced a little when I noticed that he was playing it with an accent, but I had to take it back because he was rather good with it. There was no one that I thought was "letting the side down", everyone brought their A-game.
There's only one character that did something that disappointed. Zero, played by Mark Dacascos, is a very disciplined man. He's a master with the knife, a master of death, and his action sequences are incredible. He also gets a very funny moment in The Continental before my moment of disappointment. They turn him into a fanboy, and while the contrast has the potential to be amusing it's actually better achieved with characters later in the film. Zero's change felt uncomfortable and out of place.
I shouldn't put all of that in one place, there's one other very short moment in the film that seems out of character/place, and that's at the very end of the film. It felt so odd that I would have ended it a scene earlier. I liked the reveal, but it would have left a bit more intrigue without it.
We can't talk about John Wick without talking about doggos, and these ones were exceptionally good. The two new additions are very talented and look like they get to have a lot of fun. But my heart belongs to Dog though. When he turns up in a taxi... 😢
Can we all face up to some facts at this point, please? John Wick... super assassin... well, he isn't really is he? He's just really resilient when taking a beating, and very persistent when it comes to shooting things! He'd waste a lot less ammo if he didn't put a minimum of three bullets into every body.
Parabellum was action packed and showed us some very imaginative pieces, but it didn't feel quite as well rounded as either of the other two. I'm still looking forward to what's to come, the pure action is amazing I love to see what they think of next. On the horizon we've got a fourth film, which is listed as Ballerina, and a TV series called The Continental. From this installment I could see some potential routes for the film, but it's the series I'm excited about. I would absolutely love it if each episode was in a different Continental.
What you should do
This movie is an "anyone" kind of thing. Old, young, couples, friends, lone cinema nerds... we were all there. If you love mindless violence and action then you should go and watch this, and look out for the best line of the whole film, "I get it."
If you don't like seeing bad things happen to good books, perhaps don't watch the first ten minutes or so.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I've been contemplating the story to this since I watched it. There doesn't feel like much of one. He's attempting to save his life, sure, but that's really the only thing. It feels very much like a set up for the sequel, which depending on what you read is either already planned or not planned at all.
I don't really think we go to see John Wick movies for the plot though, do we? So on that front it delivers spectacularly. The opening was immense, we come in knowing that it's all going to kick off pretty quickly after the last instalment so the anticipation is with you from the off, and it doesn't disappoint. Sheer kick-assery that we've come to expect from the franchise.
As the clock ticks over the hour and John Wick's own time is now running out he dashes through the streets (rather bold for someone with a $14 million bounty on his head) trying to make his way to people who might actually help him. Of course he's spotted by one of the thousands of assassins and villains that seem to litter the streets of New York. He ends up in a handily weaponised building and we see him take on a gang of knife proficient bad guys. The scene in this sequence, with the weapons cupboards, had everyone in the cinema chuckling.
Laughter was a surprising feature of the film, the same chuckling rippled through several scenes and broke up the violence. Some of that violence did also bring out the odd pained "ooh" as we recoiled from the screen in sympathetic pain for the character.
The complexities of the fight scenes are epic, but there was one moment in particular that stuck out as being scripted... yes, yes, I know it's all scripted! We see a very brief pause and the reaction's slow in a moment that was such a departure from everything around it that it was very noticeable to me. (On second viewing, while I still saw it, it wasn't as bad as I had seen it the first time.)
One other fight scene made me pause with a moment of being picky. John and Sofia are fighting every bad guy in Morocco. It was epic, it was fun... but everywhere I looked, "someone's going to fall off that and land on that". The set-up of the scenery was such a giveaway to upcoming action that it took some edge of the action.
The cast is filled to the brim with wonderful actors. Ian McShane, Laurence Fishburne, Lance Reddick and Anjelica Huston were brilliant. I was a little taken aback to see Jerome Flynn appear as Sofia's old boss, Berrada. I winced a little when I noticed that he was playing it with an accent, but I had to take it back because he was rather good with it. There was no one that I thought was "letting the side down", everyone brought their A-game.
There's only one character that did something that disappointed. Zero, played by Mark Dacascos, is a very disciplined man. He's a master with the knife, a master of death, and his action sequences are incredible. He also gets a very funny moment in The Continental before my moment of disappointment. They turn him into a fanboy, and while the contrast has the potential to be amusing it's actually better achieved with characters later in the film. Zero's change felt uncomfortable and out of place.
I shouldn't put all of that in one place, there's one other very short moment in the film that seems out of character/place, and that's at the very end of the film. It felt so odd that I would have ended it a scene earlier. I liked the reveal, but it would have left a bit more intrigue without it.
We can't talk about John Wick without talking about doggos, and these ones were exceptionally good. The two new additions are very talented and look like they get to have a lot of fun. But my heart belongs to Dog though. When he turns up in a taxi... 😢
Can we all face up to some facts at this point, please? John Wick... super assassin... well, he isn't really is he? He's just really resilient when taking a beating, and very persistent when it comes to shooting things! He'd waste a lot less ammo if he didn't put a minimum of three bullets into every body.
Parabellum was action packed and showed us some very imaginative pieces, but it didn't feel quite as well rounded as either of the other two. I'm still looking forward to what's to come, the pure action is amazing I love to see what they think of next. On the horizon we've got a fourth film, which is listed as Ballerina, and a TV series called The Continental. From this installment I could see some potential routes for the film, but it's the series I'm excited about. I would absolutely love it if each episode was in a different Continental.
What you should do
This movie is an "anyone" kind of thing. Old, young, couples, friends, lone cinema nerds... we were all there. If you love mindless violence and action then you should go and watch this, and look out for the best line of the whole film, "I get it."
If you don't like seeing bad things happen to good books, perhaps don't watch the first ten minutes or so.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings (2021) in Movies
Sep 5, 2021
Superhero Epic With Emotional Family Drama And Gravity-Defying Martial Arts
In the past, Xu Wenwu (Tony Leung), Shang-Chi's father, used the Ten Rings, mystical weapons granting him immortality and power, to amass an army of warriors and topple kingdoms and governments alike. In the present Shang-Chi (Simu Liu) is just a regular guy working a dead end job as a valet with his best friend Katy (Awkwafina) and enjoying life. When he and Katy are attacked by the mysterious Ten Rings Organization, Shang-Chi must confront the past of his former life. A life he thought he left behind.
This movie was really great! I'm so glad I went to go watch it in theaters and on the first day before anybody spoiled anything for me. I hate people who do that. Anyways, this movie was an excellent addition to the MCU and I like the way it went about being it's own thing. It felt like they didn't have to try and adhere to being part of a shared universe and making things fit but at the same time there were plenty of Easter eggs and surprises sprinkled throughout. The film also managed to check a lot of boxes without feeling like they were forced. It had drama, really great action, killer fight scenes, and some comedy mixed in there. The movie felt a lot like the first Guardians of the Galaxy movie, especially in how it balanced the seriousness and lightness throughout the film. I liked the chemistry between the characters and thought the casting was perfect. The bus scene was one of my favorite parts of the movie and all the action that went on. If I had to say that there was a biggest flaw in the film it would probably be that they didn't really go too far into some of the lore involved but ultimately that didn't detract from it enough to be something major.
I liked the way the director chose to portray the events in the story and how it was a pretty cohesive plot and not all over the place. The pacing was done well and there was good use of flashbacks in certain scenes to move the plot. I felt like it was done well without turning into "info dumping" with character dialogue. The cinematography was great and seemed naturalistic and heightened. They definitely took advantage of filming on location in San Francisco with some scenes filmed in famous places such as Russian Hill, Noe Valley, Nob Hill and Fisherman's Wharf. The fight choreography in the movie is phenomenal. It's probably the best that there has ever been in a Marvel film and it shows. They got Brad Allen who had worked with Jackie Chan before, as the supervising stunt coordinator and he brought that physical comedy to the scenes where setups and stakes keep rising as do the payoffs. The tone of the movie was light but definitely had it's moments were it got darker however it never left it's core of being about family. The music was more contemporary and modern but with some musical score in the scenes where it fit really well but there was nothing that really stuck out as unique or compelling. The acting was pretty good with even Awkwafina showing a little bit of range with some dramatic scenes and not just comedy. Simu Liu was very convincing as Shang-Chi, both versions, the "average Joe" and the warrior. His father played by Tony Leung was also very good in his scenes from the ones showing the past to his interactions with Shang-Chi. You could really feel the tension between them. And of course Michelle Yeoh was just awesome!
The writing was good and dialogue never felt like somebody said something that was out of character or didn't fit right. The plot was never weak or boring. Although you could tell where it was going it had a little bit of mystery to it. The editing was done very proper and there were some good cuts of action scenes particularly the bus scene. I liked the one transition in the beginning from the tale of the past to the alarm clock. The costume designs were something that you usually don't remember in some films but this one had some really iconic ones that stuck out. For example that one masked blue ninja's outfit, as well as the other Ten Rings soldiers looked cool. Razor Fist's arm design was inventive also. There were so many outfits that come out later in the movie that just fit really well too. Although as cool and nice looking as Shang-Chi's costume was, I did think it could have been better. There were plenty of really cool set designs from the Ten Rings lair to a underground fight club in Macau but the one set piece that stole the show to me was this really ornate wooden carving that looked really intricate. You'll know the one when you see it. The special effects were really good and I couldn't really complain too much except that the movie did suffer from one of those things that happened towards the end like in Black Panther where they just used too much in a certain sequence and it looked bad in that particular part. I did have a favorite character in the movie but it'd be spoiling it if I said who it was, so I'll just say that they have exceptional "acting" skills. Anyways I give Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings a 8/10 and it gets my "Must See Seal of Approval". You need to get out there and check this movie out this Labor Day Weekend.
This movie was really great! I'm so glad I went to go watch it in theaters and on the first day before anybody spoiled anything for me. I hate people who do that. Anyways, this movie was an excellent addition to the MCU and I like the way it went about being it's own thing. It felt like they didn't have to try and adhere to being part of a shared universe and making things fit but at the same time there were plenty of Easter eggs and surprises sprinkled throughout. The film also managed to check a lot of boxes without feeling like they were forced. It had drama, really great action, killer fight scenes, and some comedy mixed in there. The movie felt a lot like the first Guardians of the Galaxy movie, especially in how it balanced the seriousness and lightness throughout the film. I liked the chemistry between the characters and thought the casting was perfect. The bus scene was one of my favorite parts of the movie and all the action that went on. If I had to say that there was a biggest flaw in the film it would probably be that they didn't really go too far into some of the lore involved but ultimately that didn't detract from it enough to be something major.
I liked the way the director chose to portray the events in the story and how it was a pretty cohesive plot and not all over the place. The pacing was done well and there was good use of flashbacks in certain scenes to move the plot. I felt like it was done well without turning into "info dumping" with character dialogue. The cinematography was great and seemed naturalistic and heightened. They definitely took advantage of filming on location in San Francisco with some scenes filmed in famous places such as Russian Hill, Noe Valley, Nob Hill and Fisherman's Wharf. The fight choreography in the movie is phenomenal. It's probably the best that there has ever been in a Marvel film and it shows. They got Brad Allen who had worked with Jackie Chan before, as the supervising stunt coordinator and he brought that physical comedy to the scenes where setups and stakes keep rising as do the payoffs. The tone of the movie was light but definitely had it's moments were it got darker however it never left it's core of being about family. The music was more contemporary and modern but with some musical score in the scenes where it fit really well but there was nothing that really stuck out as unique or compelling. The acting was pretty good with even Awkwafina showing a little bit of range with some dramatic scenes and not just comedy. Simu Liu was very convincing as Shang-Chi, both versions, the "average Joe" and the warrior. His father played by Tony Leung was also very good in his scenes from the ones showing the past to his interactions with Shang-Chi. You could really feel the tension between them. And of course Michelle Yeoh was just awesome!
The writing was good and dialogue never felt like somebody said something that was out of character or didn't fit right. The plot was never weak or boring. Although you could tell where it was going it had a little bit of mystery to it. The editing was done very proper and there were some good cuts of action scenes particularly the bus scene. I liked the one transition in the beginning from the tale of the past to the alarm clock. The costume designs were something that you usually don't remember in some films but this one had some really iconic ones that stuck out. For example that one masked blue ninja's outfit, as well as the other Ten Rings soldiers looked cool. Razor Fist's arm design was inventive also. There were so many outfits that come out later in the movie that just fit really well too. Although as cool and nice looking as Shang-Chi's costume was, I did think it could have been better. There were plenty of really cool set designs from the Ten Rings lair to a underground fight club in Macau but the one set piece that stole the show to me was this really ornate wooden carving that looked really intricate. You'll know the one when you see it. The special effects were really good and I couldn't really complain too much except that the movie did suffer from one of those things that happened towards the end like in Black Panther where they just used too much in a certain sequence and it looked bad in that particular part. I did have a favorite character in the movie but it'd be spoiling it if I said who it was, so I'll just say that they have exceptional "acting" skills. Anyways I give Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings a 8/10 and it gets my "Must See Seal of Approval". You need to get out there and check this movie out this Labor Day Weekend.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Marriage Story (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
One Mann’s Movies Review of “Marriage Story” – a “Kramer vs Kramer lite” in my book, albeit with some great acting performances.
K vs K Lite.
For me, mention the phrase “divorce movie” and there’s only one film that comes to mind – the Oscar-laden classic from 1979 starring an immaculate Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep. THAT toy plane; THOSE stiches! (Gulp). This is the yardstick by which I judge such movies… and to be honest, “Marriage Story” didn’t measure up.
The story.
We start the movie seeing the apparently idyllic married life of theatre impresario Charlie (Adam Driver) and his lead actress and muse Nicole (Scarlett Johansson), together bringing up their young child. But spin forwards and the pair are in the middle of an ‘amicable’ separation, with Nicole returning to her home roots in California and Charlie having an expensive commute to and from New York where he’s struggling to premiere his show on Broadway.
But despite an agreement to keep lawyers out of the equation, Nicole is persuaded to lawyer up with Nora Fanshaw (Laura Dern) tightening up the legal screws until Charlie’s life risks being torn apart. It’s time for him to fight back.
Well regarded by the Academy.
As for “Kramer vs Kramer”, this is a movie that has been garlanded with multiple Oscar nominations. Both Driver and Johansson are nominated in the lead acting roles and Laura Dern seems to be favourite for the Best Supporting Actress gong (after winning the Golden Globe and the BAFTA). Three more Oscar nominations come for the score (by Randy Newman); the original screenplay (by director Noah Baumbach); and a Best Film nomination.
Both leads deliver really emotional performances, with Johansson in particular being very believable in the role. But who knew she was so short?! She always strikes me as a statuesque beauty, but she’s only 5′ 3” and it’s particularly noticeable in a scene filmed at Warner Brothers Studios.
It’s also fabulous to see both the great Alan Alda (here showing signs of his Parkinson’s) and Ray Liotta on screen again, as both low-rent and top-dollar lawyers respectively.
But WHY exactly are they divorcing?
I found the whole set up of the movie as frustrating. There seemed no clear understanding of why the separation is happening. True there is an affair involved (and Mrs Movie Man and I have always lived our nearly 40 years of marriage with the understanding that a “one strike” rule applies). But notwithstanding that, it seems to be more of a ‘drifting apart’ that’s gone on. I just wanted to give them a good shaking and get them to work it out!
This is all obviously unfair – because (and I also know this from experience) that in many marriages ‘shit happens’: some people do just want to do different things; feel suffocated; etc. And – thinking about it – I’m not sure there was any real reason given for Meryl Streep‘s departure in K vs K: which was part of the reason for Dustin Hoffman‘s character’s frustration.
Who do you sympathise with?
This is a movie where the audience is bound to take a side. But for me, there was only one side to take and that was Charlie’s. The actions of Nicole seem reprehensible and unforgivable, and when there are lines to be crossed she seems to have little hesitation in crossing them.
Many people seem to rave about this movie, but…
…I found the pace to be inconsistent. At one point, the story just stops for a soulful rendition by Charlie of a song in a bar, and I frankly just got bored with it. And while there’s a steady build up of the legal case involved, suddenly we seem to skip to a resolution without any real rationale for it. Or did I fall asleep??
A further irritation for me was Julie Hagerty as Nicole’s mum Sandra. She does the kooky mum turn that she did perfectly well in last year’s funny “Instant Family“, but its a role that really didn’t seem to fit in this movie. There’s an element of slapstick comedy in these scenes that just didn’t suit the general tone of the movie.
Overall, I just don’t share the love for this movie. Given the choice, I’d much rather watch Kramer vs Kramer again.
And what was that punchline?
By the way, Alan Alda is a fantastic comedian, and really knows how to deliver a joke. In this movie he’s regaling Charlie with a long-winded story (on the clock) when Charlie interrupts him. How did it end…. Alda revealed the full joke after a press screening at the New York Film Festival… and it’s a corker!
This woman’s at her hairdresser’s, and she says, “I’m going to Rome on holiday.”
He says, “Oh really, what airline are you taking?”
She says, “Alitalia.”
He says, “Alitalia, are you crazy? That’s terrible, don’t take that.”
He says, “Where are you gonna stay?”
She says, “I’m gonna stay at The Hassler.”
“The Hassler! What, are you kidding? They’re renovating the Hassler. You’ll hear hammering all night long. You won’t sleep! What are you gonna see?”
She says, “I think I’m going to try to go to the Vatican.” “The Vatican? You’ll be standing in line all day long—”
(Charlie interrupts at this point, but the joke goes on)
So she goes to Rome. She comes back, and the hairdresser says, “How was it?”
She says, “It was a great trip, it was wonderful.”
“How was the Vatican?”
“Wonderful! We happened to meet the Pope.”
“You met the Pope?”
“Yeah, and he spoke to me.”
“What did he say to you?”
“He said, ‘Where’d you get that f***ing haircut?’”
LOL!
For me, mention the phrase “divorce movie” and there’s only one film that comes to mind – the Oscar-laden classic from 1979 starring an immaculate Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep. THAT toy plane; THOSE stiches! (Gulp). This is the yardstick by which I judge such movies… and to be honest, “Marriage Story” didn’t measure up.
The story.
We start the movie seeing the apparently idyllic married life of theatre impresario Charlie (Adam Driver) and his lead actress and muse Nicole (Scarlett Johansson), together bringing up their young child. But spin forwards and the pair are in the middle of an ‘amicable’ separation, with Nicole returning to her home roots in California and Charlie having an expensive commute to and from New York where he’s struggling to premiere his show on Broadway.
But despite an agreement to keep lawyers out of the equation, Nicole is persuaded to lawyer up with Nora Fanshaw (Laura Dern) tightening up the legal screws until Charlie’s life risks being torn apart. It’s time for him to fight back.
Well regarded by the Academy.
As for “Kramer vs Kramer”, this is a movie that has been garlanded with multiple Oscar nominations. Both Driver and Johansson are nominated in the lead acting roles and Laura Dern seems to be favourite for the Best Supporting Actress gong (after winning the Golden Globe and the BAFTA). Three more Oscar nominations come for the score (by Randy Newman); the original screenplay (by director Noah Baumbach); and a Best Film nomination.
Both leads deliver really emotional performances, with Johansson in particular being very believable in the role. But who knew she was so short?! She always strikes me as a statuesque beauty, but she’s only 5′ 3” and it’s particularly noticeable in a scene filmed at Warner Brothers Studios.
It’s also fabulous to see both the great Alan Alda (here showing signs of his Parkinson’s) and Ray Liotta on screen again, as both low-rent and top-dollar lawyers respectively.
But WHY exactly are they divorcing?
I found the whole set up of the movie as frustrating. There seemed no clear understanding of why the separation is happening. True there is an affair involved (and Mrs Movie Man and I have always lived our nearly 40 years of marriage with the understanding that a “one strike” rule applies). But notwithstanding that, it seems to be more of a ‘drifting apart’ that’s gone on. I just wanted to give them a good shaking and get them to work it out!
This is all obviously unfair – because (and I also know this from experience) that in many marriages ‘shit happens’: some people do just want to do different things; feel suffocated; etc. And – thinking about it – I’m not sure there was any real reason given for Meryl Streep‘s departure in K vs K: which was part of the reason for Dustin Hoffman‘s character’s frustration.
Who do you sympathise with?
This is a movie where the audience is bound to take a side. But for me, there was only one side to take and that was Charlie’s. The actions of Nicole seem reprehensible and unforgivable, and when there are lines to be crossed she seems to have little hesitation in crossing them.
Many people seem to rave about this movie, but…
…I found the pace to be inconsistent. At one point, the story just stops for a soulful rendition by Charlie of a song in a bar, and I frankly just got bored with it. And while there’s a steady build up of the legal case involved, suddenly we seem to skip to a resolution without any real rationale for it. Or did I fall asleep??
A further irritation for me was Julie Hagerty as Nicole’s mum Sandra. She does the kooky mum turn that she did perfectly well in last year’s funny “Instant Family“, but its a role that really didn’t seem to fit in this movie. There’s an element of slapstick comedy in these scenes that just didn’t suit the general tone of the movie.
Overall, I just don’t share the love for this movie. Given the choice, I’d much rather watch Kramer vs Kramer again.
And what was that punchline?
By the way, Alan Alda is a fantastic comedian, and really knows how to deliver a joke. In this movie he’s regaling Charlie with a long-winded story (on the clock) when Charlie interrupts him. How did it end…. Alda revealed the full joke after a press screening at the New York Film Festival… and it’s a corker!
This woman’s at her hairdresser’s, and she says, “I’m going to Rome on holiday.”
He says, “Oh really, what airline are you taking?”
She says, “Alitalia.”
He says, “Alitalia, are you crazy? That’s terrible, don’t take that.”
He says, “Where are you gonna stay?”
She says, “I’m gonna stay at The Hassler.”
“The Hassler! What, are you kidding? They’re renovating the Hassler. You’ll hear hammering all night long. You won’t sleep! What are you gonna see?”
She says, “I think I’m going to try to go to the Vatican.” “The Vatican? You’ll be standing in line all day long—”
(Charlie interrupts at this point, but the joke goes on)
So she goes to Rome. She comes back, and the hairdresser says, “How was it?”
She says, “It was a great trip, it was wonderful.”
“How was the Vatican?”
“Wonderful! We happened to meet the Pope.”
“You met the Pope?”
“Yeah, and he spoke to me.”
“What did he say to you?”
“He said, ‘Where’d you get that f***ing haircut?’”
LOL!
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Amazing Spider-Man 2 in Video Games
Jul 21, 2017
Poor Graphics (3 more)
Awkward Animation
Glitches Galore
Rushed Ending
Can He Swing From A Web? Yeah, But That’s About All He Can Do…
You may be thinking Dan, why the hell are you reviewing a low rated movie tie in game that came out three years ago? Well, I would say, that is a very valid question. I am reviewing this game because I actually believe it is one of the most relevant games I’ve played so far this year in terms of the wider gaming landscape, so yeah you have me rumbled, this won’t be so much a review of The Amazing Spiderman 2 for PS4 as it will be a commentary on bad games in general and their place in the modern gaming landscape.
I had just come off of finally getting around to playing Until Dawn at the start of January. A well made, well written, well acted, well executed teen horror story that had atmosphere and intrigue in spades. I then went on to play a game that I thought was mediocre by comparison, DMC Definitive Edition. When playing through the story I was so underwhelmed and disappointed in what they had turned this once great franchise into, an angsty, melodramatic, arcade slash ‘em up with as much depth as the shallow end of the kiddies swimming pool. I thought what a waste of cash and time. What a piece of garbage. Oh how naive I was, I had no idea how much worse it could get. After beating DMC and the attached story DLC that came with the Definitive Edition, I popped out the game and slid in The Amazing Spiderman 2. The first thing that I noticed was that the game graphically is at the same level if not worse than the first Amazing Spiderman game on PS3, but I thought hey, games with under par graphics can still be fun, UI’s and poly counts aren’t everything so I began working my way through the main story. Let’s start with the only positive that this game has going for it, the web slinging. Traversal feels and looks great in the game, zipping around NYC is a treat and when everything works correctly, you can pull off some truly spectacular acrobatics while shooting around in mid air. The shoulder buttons on the controller are matched to Spidey’s arms, left trigger for left swing, right trigger for right swing, and unlike the last game, in this one the web shooters have to be aimed at a building in order to perform a successful swing. The important phrase here, is ‘when it works.’ There were several times when I would be right next to a building and press the trigger to swing, only to hear Spidey say, ‘Hey, this just in, web slingers need something to stick to.’ No shit Spidey, that’s why I’m pressing the trigger on the side where the huge fucking skyscraper is. Also, there would be times when I had a decent amount of momentum going, swing left, right, left, right consecutively and as I pressed the left trigger again to attach to the building on my left, for some odd reason, Spidey would fire his right hand web shooter, attaching to a distant building on the right, turning me away from the direction I was swinging and totally ruining my momentum, this was particularly frustrating during boss fights and chase sequences or when swinging against the clock. Overall though traversal is fun, okay now that the positive is out of the way, let’s rip this thing apart. Animations are stiff, glitches are common and every cutscene in the game ends abruptly with an awkward animation that resembles the look of a news anchor when they run out of words to read off the teleprompter, but the camera is still rolling. Why they decided to add a dialogue system, I have no idea, it is so unnecessary and out of place and has absolutely no effect on the outcome of the game’s narrative, it’s simply there for the sake of having a dialogue option. The plot is fairly standard, but is bearable for the first two thirds of the game, however the point that the publishers told the development team to get a move on and meet the deadline to coincide with the release of the movie becomes instantly clear. The last 5 or so chapters in the game are so rushed it’s like going through a checklist. The first bossfight in the last third of the game is pretty mundane, but at least there is an attempt at a build up to it. However after that fight you are teleported to the top of a skyscraper to battle Electro in a boss fight with the least build up ever. So you do that and then you are corrected, this next boss fight with the Green Goblin is the least build up to a boss fight ever. You don’t see the transformation of either Electro or the Goblin and honestly, if I hadn’t seen the movie that goes with this game, I would not have had a clue about what was going on. Then it’s as if the game remembers that they made a half arsed attempt at introducing Carnage away back at the beginning of the story and so they throw in another out of the blue boss fight to end the game. Wow, this lack of story build up and context wouldn’t have been acceptable in a PS1 game, it certainly isn’t acceptable here. Also the game again (just like the first one,) tries to copy the Arkham games in terms of the stealth and combat systems and miserably fails.
In my opinion, games like this; lazy, half arsed cash grabs, just aren’t acceptable in today’s modern landscape of video games. I thought DMC was a slog, but after playing this piece of dogshit, DMC is game of the year material. So please, please stop. Until you have a dedicated team who genuinely want to make a good game for fans of a franchise, don’t bother. Signed by everyone.
I had just come off of finally getting around to playing Until Dawn at the start of January. A well made, well written, well acted, well executed teen horror story that had atmosphere and intrigue in spades. I then went on to play a game that I thought was mediocre by comparison, DMC Definitive Edition. When playing through the story I was so underwhelmed and disappointed in what they had turned this once great franchise into, an angsty, melodramatic, arcade slash ‘em up with as much depth as the shallow end of the kiddies swimming pool. I thought what a waste of cash and time. What a piece of garbage. Oh how naive I was, I had no idea how much worse it could get. After beating DMC and the attached story DLC that came with the Definitive Edition, I popped out the game and slid in The Amazing Spiderman 2. The first thing that I noticed was that the game graphically is at the same level if not worse than the first Amazing Spiderman game on PS3, but I thought hey, games with under par graphics can still be fun, UI’s and poly counts aren’t everything so I began working my way through the main story. Let’s start with the only positive that this game has going for it, the web slinging. Traversal feels and looks great in the game, zipping around NYC is a treat and when everything works correctly, you can pull off some truly spectacular acrobatics while shooting around in mid air. The shoulder buttons on the controller are matched to Spidey’s arms, left trigger for left swing, right trigger for right swing, and unlike the last game, in this one the web shooters have to be aimed at a building in order to perform a successful swing. The important phrase here, is ‘when it works.’ There were several times when I would be right next to a building and press the trigger to swing, only to hear Spidey say, ‘Hey, this just in, web slingers need something to stick to.’ No shit Spidey, that’s why I’m pressing the trigger on the side where the huge fucking skyscraper is. Also, there would be times when I had a decent amount of momentum going, swing left, right, left, right consecutively and as I pressed the left trigger again to attach to the building on my left, for some odd reason, Spidey would fire his right hand web shooter, attaching to a distant building on the right, turning me away from the direction I was swinging and totally ruining my momentum, this was particularly frustrating during boss fights and chase sequences or when swinging against the clock. Overall though traversal is fun, okay now that the positive is out of the way, let’s rip this thing apart. Animations are stiff, glitches are common and every cutscene in the game ends abruptly with an awkward animation that resembles the look of a news anchor when they run out of words to read off the teleprompter, but the camera is still rolling. Why they decided to add a dialogue system, I have no idea, it is so unnecessary and out of place and has absolutely no effect on the outcome of the game’s narrative, it’s simply there for the sake of having a dialogue option. The plot is fairly standard, but is bearable for the first two thirds of the game, however the point that the publishers told the development team to get a move on and meet the deadline to coincide with the release of the movie becomes instantly clear. The last 5 or so chapters in the game are so rushed it’s like going through a checklist. The first bossfight in the last third of the game is pretty mundane, but at least there is an attempt at a build up to it. However after that fight you are teleported to the top of a skyscraper to battle Electro in a boss fight with the least build up ever. So you do that and then you are corrected, this next boss fight with the Green Goblin is the least build up to a boss fight ever. You don’t see the transformation of either Electro or the Goblin and honestly, if I hadn’t seen the movie that goes with this game, I would not have had a clue about what was going on. Then it’s as if the game remembers that they made a half arsed attempt at introducing Carnage away back at the beginning of the story and so they throw in another out of the blue boss fight to end the game. Wow, this lack of story build up and context wouldn’t have been acceptable in a PS1 game, it certainly isn’t acceptable here. Also the game again (just like the first one,) tries to copy the Arkham games in terms of the stealth and combat systems and miserably fails.
In my opinion, games like this; lazy, half arsed cash grabs, just aren’t acceptable in today’s modern landscape of video games. I thought DMC was a slog, but after playing this piece of dogshit, DMC is game of the year material. So please, please stop. Until you have a dedicated team who genuinely want to make a good game for fans of a franchise, don’t bother. Signed by everyone.
Mothergamer (1562 KP) rated the PlayStation 3 version of Catherine in Video Games
Apr 3, 2019
First of all, let me say that while I know a lot of you love Atlus games as much as I do, Catherine is not a typical video game. In fact, it is a sliding block puzzle game with a great story woven in. If you're not big on puzzle games, Catherine may not be the video game for you. However, if you genuinely enjoy challenging puzzles and are a puzzle game addict like myself, Catherine definitely gives you your money's worth.
Catherine is much more than a puzzle game however. The story is definitely what brings everything together. It addresses adult situations, things that people go through or suffer such as, fear of commitment, infidelity, and about how some people are childish and won't take responsibility for their actions. It's a unique title and simply an adult video game because it involves adult situations and the issues we have as we get older.
The story centers around Vincent Brooks who has a girlfriend by the name of Katherine. They're both in their early thirties and Katherine's biological clock is ticking which she hints at to him by telling him her mother has asked where the relationship is going. Vincent isn't sure he's ready for that level of commitment yet and says as much to his buddies he hangs out with at the local bar.
One night while hanging out at the bar mulling over a sliding block nightmare he had the night before, he runs into a beautiful blonde bombshell by the name of Catherine. Apparently after blacking out, he wakes up after another nightmare to find that she has spent the night. Of course, Vincent freaks out completely. Now, Vincent has to make a choice between lust and love, have good times with Catherine or finally make a commitment to Katherine.
Vincent's nightmares continue and even worse, people actually seem to be dying in them.Healthy men in their twenties and thirties are found dead in their beds and there seems to be no reason for it. A rumor goes around that it is a woman cursing all these men for being unfaithful. Is the rumor true? Vincent has to find out, climbing for his life one nightmare at a time.
Vincent Brooks In His Nightmare
Vincent's nightmares are the heart and soul of the puzzle sections. Every night, he wakes up surrounded by sheep, with horns growing out of his head and a voice taunting him to come up. There are items along the way that help you with the puzzles, but many obstacles as well involving sheep that are trying to climb also as the world crumbles behind them. You have a reason to climb, survival and the inner demons Vincent is struggling with. If you don't climb, you die. One example of this is, there's a giant monster version of Vincent's girlfriend Katherine, trying to grab him and smash the heck out of him. If Vincent's not quick enough to climb all those blocks to the top, he will surely die.
Every night, there's a different puzzle with each nightmare and depending on how quickly you get to the top and how many points you get, you can win gold, silver, or bronze trophies. The complexity of the puzzles is very interesting and the story is well written and captures your attention perfectly. It sounds silly, but you actually feel a sense of accomplishment when you have figured out a rather difficult puzzle.
Solve The Puzzle Or Die Trying
This brings up the next point. Some of the puzzles in Catherine will make you want to punch every living thing in your path. The difficulty level is excruciatingly high on a variety of them. There's no shame in playing a game on the Easy level. I know I will try a game on Easy first, to get a feel for the controls, to see how well the game plays, and to have a chance to genuinely enjoy the story that is being told. Then I will play again working on all the achievements and trophies, and improving my game scores. This is what I did with Catherine and some of those puzzles made me want to punch whoever designed it right in the face. A challenge is all well and good and definitely in a puzzle game, but when the game is on the Easy setting and it's still making you weep bitter tears of defeat, that is a big problem. Don't believe me? Apparently the difficulty level was such a destroyer of worlds, that the Japanese gamers complained about it. Frankly, that said quite a lot to me about how high Atlus raised the bar on these puzzles. The complaints were so many, that Atlus promised to put a patch in that would make the game much less difficult on Easy. I do understand their reasoning that they wanted the game to be challenging, so that players could reap huge rewards when they solved a puzzle, but the Easy setting in a game should be just that, easy and not throw people into the deep end with a sink or swim attitude. That's what the Hard and Nightmare settings are for.
However, there is hope! There is a secret trick to get to a Very Easy mode. It's a secret that Atlus put in to make the game a cake walk for players. When you access the main menu of the game, highlight Golden Playhouse and hold the back or select button for a few seconds. The screen will flash with a prompt telling you Very Easy mode has been activated. From there, the puzzles are much easier, and you can actually enjoy the story without those resentful feelings and frustration. It is a nice touch, and I give kudos to Atlus for caring enough about fans of their games to put it in there, because they do want people to enjoy the game.
Overalll, the game is great. The story is well thought out and acted out well with a great voice cast. There are also interesting characters that Vincent meets in the bar and can talk to, even help them with their issues. There is also a fun mini game in Catherine, called Rapunzel that is a sliding block puzzle game also that gives you pretty good rewards when you beat all the levels, along with opportunities to unlock music from various Atlus games and the Catherine game to play on the jukebox in the bar.
I have always loved the artwork in Atlus video games and Catherine is no exception. Right down to the animated short cut scenes, everything is colorful, seamless, and you really appreciate how everything ties together. The music, the voice cast, and the game play all mesh into a fantastic video game. Catherine is definitely a game worth having in any gaming enthusiast's collection and absolutely worth playing more than once.
Catherine is much more than a puzzle game however. The story is definitely what brings everything together. It addresses adult situations, things that people go through or suffer such as, fear of commitment, infidelity, and about how some people are childish and won't take responsibility for their actions. It's a unique title and simply an adult video game because it involves adult situations and the issues we have as we get older.
The story centers around Vincent Brooks who has a girlfriend by the name of Katherine. They're both in their early thirties and Katherine's biological clock is ticking which she hints at to him by telling him her mother has asked where the relationship is going. Vincent isn't sure he's ready for that level of commitment yet and says as much to his buddies he hangs out with at the local bar.
One night while hanging out at the bar mulling over a sliding block nightmare he had the night before, he runs into a beautiful blonde bombshell by the name of Catherine. Apparently after blacking out, he wakes up after another nightmare to find that she has spent the night. Of course, Vincent freaks out completely. Now, Vincent has to make a choice between lust and love, have good times with Catherine or finally make a commitment to Katherine.
Vincent's nightmares continue and even worse, people actually seem to be dying in them.Healthy men in their twenties and thirties are found dead in their beds and there seems to be no reason for it. A rumor goes around that it is a woman cursing all these men for being unfaithful. Is the rumor true? Vincent has to find out, climbing for his life one nightmare at a time.
Vincent Brooks In His Nightmare
Vincent's nightmares are the heart and soul of the puzzle sections. Every night, he wakes up surrounded by sheep, with horns growing out of his head and a voice taunting him to come up. There are items along the way that help you with the puzzles, but many obstacles as well involving sheep that are trying to climb also as the world crumbles behind them. You have a reason to climb, survival and the inner demons Vincent is struggling with. If you don't climb, you die. One example of this is, there's a giant monster version of Vincent's girlfriend Katherine, trying to grab him and smash the heck out of him. If Vincent's not quick enough to climb all those blocks to the top, he will surely die.
Every night, there's a different puzzle with each nightmare and depending on how quickly you get to the top and how many points you get, you can win gold, silver, or bronze trophies. The complexity of the puzzles is very interesting and the story is well written and captures your attention perfectly. It sounds silly, but you actually feel a sense of accomplishment when you have figured out a rather difficult puzzle.
Solve The Puzzle Or Die Trying
This brings up the next point. Some of the puzzles in Catherine will make you want to punch every living thing in your path. The difficulty level is excruciatingly high on a variety of them. There's no shame in playing a game on the Easy level. I know I will try a game on Easy first, to get a feel for the controls, to see how well the game plays, and to have a chance to genuinely enjoy the story that is being told. Then I will play again working on all the achievements and trophies, and improving my game scores. This is what I did with Catherine and some of those puzzles made me want to punch whoever designed it right in the face. A challenge is all well and good and definitely in a puzzle game, but when the game is on the Easy setting and it's still making you weep bitter tears of defeat, that is a big problem. Don't believe me? Apparently the difficulty level was such a destroyer of worlds, that the Japanese gamers complained about it. Frankly, that said quite a lot to me about how high Atlus raised the bar on these puzzles. The complaints were so many, that Atlus promised to put a patch in that would make the game much less difficult on Easy. I do understand their reasoning that they wanted the game to be challenging, so that players could reap huge rewards when they solved a puzzle, but the Easy setting in a game should be just that, easy and not throw people into the deep end with a sink or swim attitude. That's what the Hard and Nightmare settings are for.
However, there is hope! There is a secret trick to get to a Very Easy mode. It's a secret that Atlus put in to make the game a cake walk for players. When you access the main menu of the game, highlight Golden Playhouse and hold the back or select button for a few seconds. The screen will flash with a prompt telling you Very Easy mode has been activated. From there, the puzzles are much easier, and you can actually enjoy the story without those resentful feelings and frustration. It is a nice touch, and I give kudos to Atlus for caring enough about fans of their games to put it in there, because they do want people to enjoy the game.
Overalll, the game is great. The story is well thought out and acted out well with a great voice cast. There are also interesting characters that Vincent meets in the bar and can talk to, even help them with their issues. There is also a fun mini game in Catherine, called Rapunzel that is a sliding block puzzle game also that gives you pretty good rewards when you beat all the levels, along with opportunities to unlock music from various Atlus games and the Catherine game to play on the jukebox in the bar.
I have always loved the artwork in Atlus video games and Catherine is no exception. Right down to the animated short cut scenes, everything is colorful, seamless, and you really appreciate how everything ties together. The music, the voice cast, and the game play all mesh into a fantastic video game. Catherine is definitely a game worth having in any gaming enthusiast's collection and absolutely worth playing more than once.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Exit: The Game – The Polar Station in Tabletop Games
Mar 11, 2022
One thing that has grown in popularity over the recent years are Escape Rooms. You know, where you’re physically trapped inside a room and have to solve various puzzles, crack codes, and beat the clock in an effort to get out before it’s game over. It should come as no surprise that this premise has made its way into the world of board gaming. Yeah, you’re not physically trapped somewhere, but you still have tons of puzzles to sort out in the fastest time you can. So how does this EXIT game hold up when compared with a real-life escape room? Keep reading to find out!
Disclaimer: In order to avoid spoilers, I will not be going too in depth with this review, but rather provide a general overview of the type of gameplay involved. Also, this review covers one specific EXIT game, but the general mechanics and gameplay are the same across the entire EXIT family.
In EXIT: The Game – The Polar Station (simply referred to as just EXIT from hereon out), you are a member of a research team stationed in the Arctic. One morning, the evacuation alarm goes off unexpectedly, and everyone makes a break for the helicopters. Just one problem for your crew – your exit door is already locked and sealed! You make your way to another section of the lab to look for an alternate escape route. What you find is a room full of locked drawers/doors. You must quickly crack these codes, in hopes that the materials contained within will aid you in your attempts to escape before the final rescue helicopter takes off.
To setup for a game, sort the cards into their appropriate decks – Riddle cards, Answer cards, and Help cards. Place the Decoder disk and the Book in the center of the table. Leave the other items in the game box, to be introduced later in the gameplay. You will also most likely need a pen/pencil and paper to help you as you solve the riddles. And bam! You’re ready to start. You may then open the Book and begin the game. The game ends if or when players are able to successfully solve all of the riddles/puzzles and make their escape from the polar station.
Without spoilers, that’s basically as much detail as I can provide. Over the course of the gameplay, players will be using the pages of the Book to find clues, solve puzzles, or even identify secret symbols. Riddle cards will be drawn and used as ciphers, puzzles, or clues to help crack a code. When you think you have the correct 3-digit code for a specific Riddle Card, enter the code onto the Decoder disk. The disk will then provide the number of an Answer card, which you will draw and check to see if you were correct or incorrect. If your answer is incorrect, you simply keep trying to solve the Riddle card. If your answer is correct, you will then be instructed to draw other Riddle Cards, or the other items from the game box, and will continue with these new puzzles. If at any point in time you feel stuck, you may draw a Help card for the corresponding puzzle. The first and second Help cards will give you hints, and the final Help card will tell you the solution to the puzzle. Draw these sparingly if you can, as they affect your end-game score!
When all puzzles/riddles/codes have been completed and cracked, the game is over. Players will then check the rulebook to see how many Stars were earned, out of 10. The number of Help cards you use, as well as how much time you took to complete the game, will affect the overall score.
All in all, I think that EXIT is a unique game. The games of the series have varying difficulty levels, and this particular EXIT is rated a 3 out of 5. So this one isn’t the most difficult game in the bunch, but it wasn’t easy either! All of the puzzles require creative solutions, and the answers are rarely ever as straight-forward as they appear. Some puzzles are more logical than others, while some require you to physically manipulate components to be used in creative ways. I guess that’s as good a segue as any to get into components. This game consists of a deck of cards, a Decoder disk, a Book, and a couple of special ‘items.’ All decent quality overall. But here’s the thing – you will have to bend/cut/manipulate/destroy many of the components to help you in your mission to solve the riddles. So this game is literally a one-and-done. It cannot be played again.
Did I enjoy my play of this EXIT game? Yes. It was uniquely challenging, while forcing me to think creatively when addressing the different riddles. The method used to solve one riddle is not necessarily the same to solve the next, so you have be able to adjust on the fly. And often times you will have several riddles in play at once, so you have to decide which to address and when, when do you have the right information, which riddle it goes with, etc.
The biggest drawback for me is that it cannot be played again, The fact that you have to alter the components to a point of destroying the original card is something that was personally hard for me to get used to. I try to keep all my games so nice and pristine, that having to cut a card apart was tough! I got over it though. Having played a couple of the EXIT games, as well as a few of the Unlock! games, I would have to say I prefer the Unlock! system. The puzzles are just as challenging and creative, but you do not need to alter components to complete the game. That way, I can pass along an Unlock! game to a friend, as opposed to just tossing this EXIT game right in the recycling bin. I might pick up another EXIT game if I had a specific group/game night in mind, but in general I don’t think I’ll be grabbing any more of these, for the lack of replayability alone. The gameplay itself is pretty great, but the fact that I can’t play it again is a con I can’t ignore. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a chilling 4 / 6.
Disclaimer: In order to avoid spoilers, I will not be going too in depth with this review, but rather provide a general overview of the type of gameplay involved. Also, this review covers one specific EXIT game, but the general mechanics and gameplay are the same across the entire EXIT family.
In EXIT: The Game – The Polar Station (simply referred to as just EXIT from hereon out), you are a member of a research team stationed in the Arctic. One morning, the evacuation alarm goes off unexpectedly, and everyone makes a break for the helicopters. Just one problem for your crew – your exit door is already locked and sealed! You make your way to another section of the lab to look for an alternate escape route. What you find is a room full of locked drawers/doors. You must quickly crack these codes, in hopes that the materials contained within will aid you in your attempts to escape before the final rescue helicopter takes off.
To setup for a game, sort the cards into their appropriate decks – Riddle cards, Answer cards, and Help cards. Place the Decoder disk and the Book in the center of the table. Leave the other items in the game box, to be introduced later in the gameplay. You will also most likely need a pen/pencil and paper to help you as you solve the riddles. And bam! You’re ready to start. You may then open the Book and begin the game. The game ends if or when players are able to successfully solve all of the riddles/puzzles and make their escape from the polar station.
Without spoilers, that’s basically as much detail as I can provide. Over the course of the gameplay, players will be using the pages of the Book to find clues, solve puzzles, or even identify secret symbols. Riddle cards will be drawn and used as ciphers, puzzles, or clues to help crack a code. When you think you have the correct 3-digit code for a specific Riddle Card, enter the code onto the Decoder disk. The disk will then provide the number of an Answer card, which you will draw and check to see if you were correct or incorrect. If your answer is incorrect, you simply keep trying to solve the Riddle card. If your answer is correct, you will then be instructed to draw other Riddle Cards, or the other items from the game box, and will continue with these new puzzles. If at any point in time you feel stuck, you may draw a Help card for the corresponding puzzle. The first and second Help cards will give you hints, and the final Help card will tell you the solution to the puzzle. Draw these sparingly if you can, as they affect your end-game score!
When all puzzles/riddles/codes have been completed and cracked, the game is over. Players will then check the rulebook to see how many Stars were earned, out of 10. The number of Help cards you use, as well as how much time you took to complete the game, will affect the overall score.
All in all, I think that EXIT is a unique game. The games of the series have varying difficulty levels, and this particular EXIT is rated a 3 out of 5. So this one isn’t the most difficult game in the bunch, but it wasn’t easy either! All of the puzzles require creative solutions, and the answers are rarely ever as straight-forward as they appear. Some puzzles are more logical than others, while some require you to physically manipulate components to be used in creative ways. I guess that’s as good a segue as any to get into components. This game consists of a deck of cards, a Decoder disk, a Book, and a couple of special ‘items.’ All decent quality overall. But here’s the thing – you will have to bend/cut/manipulate/destroy many of the components to help you in your mission to solve the riddles. So this game is literally a one-and-done. It cannot be played again.
Did I enjoy my play of this EXIT game? Yes. It was uniquely challenging, while forcing me to think creatively when addressing the different riddles. The method used to solve one riddle is not necessarily the same to solve the next, so you have be able to adjust on the fly. And often times you will have several riddles in play at once, so you have to decide which to address and when, when do you have the right information, which riddle it goes with, etc.
The biggest drawback for me is that it cannot be played again, The fact that you have to alter the components to a point of destroying the original card is something that was personally hard for me to get used to. I try to keep all my games so nice and pristine, that having to cut a card apart was tough! I got over it though. Having played a couple of the EXIT games, as well as a few of the Unlock! games, I would have to say I prefer the Unlock! system. The puzzles are just as challenging and creative, but you do not need to alter components to complete the game. That way, I can pass along an Unlock! game to a friend, as opposed to just tossing this EXIT game right in the recycling bin. I might pick up another EXIT game if I had a specific group/game night in mind, but in general I don’t think I’ll be grabbing any more of these, for the lack of replayability alone. The gameplay itself is pretty great, but the fact that I can’t play it again is a con I can’t ignore. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a chilling 4 / 6.
