Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Five Feet Apart (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Firstly, I think it's nice to see a film partnering with a charity and bringing awareness to a wider audience. The advert for the charity before the film was a nice touch too.
Secondly, it appears that they shook the Disney tree hard for this one. Cole Sprouse and Moises Arias both had big roles on top Disney shows and Haley Lu Richardson appeared once in a show I've never heard of before.
Five Feet Apart opens really nicely with Stella and her friends. Everything is jolly old teen movie until they leave and Stella's demeanour changes. She isn't happy, her face is instantly one of resolve and sadness. The transformation of the room shows you everything that was hiding behind the camera, homely teen bedroom to sterile hospital room. It's a simple scene but it sets up Stella's character nicely.
This isn't a new tale, the idea is tried and tested over the years. A love story through the battle of illness is a guaranteed tearjerker, and this certainly delivered on that point.
Will's arrival at the hospital intrigues her almost instantly. He's the polar opposite of Stella, she has her reasons to battle through while Will is more for living for the moment, consequences be damned.
It's an enjoyable film, but the thing I think stands in the way for some people is the fact that we've never been in this sort of situation so everything seems farfetched. I can't imagine what it's like, but I can imagine emotions running high and recklessness coming from it. As an adult (ugh) I can't imagine putting my life in danger like the characters do, but I'm certain that teenage me would have done the same things... boy was she an idiot.
During the scene where Stella goes under general anaesthetic she's looking up at a drawing placed on the ceiling above her, as the drugs take hold the picture starts to come to life. It was a little whimsical for the film, but being that they use illustration in different areas it was a nice inclusion.
Stella's optimism and determination in the face of her CF is so strong and Haley Lu Richardson does a great job of dealing with the wide range of emotions that she cycles through. (Am I the only one who was getting Olivia Cooke vibes through this?)
The cheese to Stella's chalk is Will played by Cole Sprouse. Will is the fun-at-any-price sort of rebel so of course those two are perfect for each other. If I'm being brutally honest I always thought Cole Sprouse was the one that couldn't act. His performance in this has convinced me otherwise. As frustrating as I found Will's actions I thought he was an interesting character and that Sprouse brought him to life in a very believable way.
The pair make for a great lead couple, even if we are subjected to a rather condensed romance. I didn't really get much sense of how time flowed in this movie, it could be weeks, months, I couldn't tell. Due to the nature of their condition there's a necessary separation throughout the film and as you watch you wonder how they're going to deal with that when romances are traditionally full of closeness... I didn't think that something so simple could make me cry, but somehow there I was with tears rolling down my face. It was a bizarre idea but it worked really well visually even if it did get a little weird at one point.
At the end we ramp up fairly quickly and we see a swift change in our main characters. Emotions are so high that everything gets a little crazier. While the change in Stella didn't feel quite right to me, Will's change was a nice move and Sprouse's performance really showed the panic and reality behind the situation.
When we come to the conclusion of the film I could not have been more annoyed. If someone did that to me I think I'd punch their lights out, five feet rule or not.
Oh! And that five feet rule, you know, the one in the title of the film? We see it referred to early on and it's actually a six feet rule... that discrepancy annoyed me for longer than it probably should have done.
This might not be groundbreaking in its genre but it was an enjoyable watch. It gives you a different take on this popular medi-romance trend.
What you should do
If you like these devastating romances then this is definitely worth catching at some point.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
There's a lot of artistic talent flying around between the main characters and I'd love to pinch a little bit of that.
Secondly, it appears that they shook the Disney tree hard for this one. Cole Sprouse and Moises Arias both had big roles on top Disney shows and Haley Lu Richardson appeared once in a show I've never heard of before.
Five Feet Apart opens really nicely with Stella and her friends. Everything is jolly old teen movie until they leave and Stella's demeanour changes. She isn't happy, her face is instantly one of resolve and sadness. The transformation of the room shows you everything that was hiding behind the camera, homely teen bedroom to sterile hospital room. It's a simple scene but it sets up Stella's character nicely.
This isn't a new tale, the idea is tried and tested over the years. A love story through the battle of illness is a guaranteed tearjerker, and this certainly delivered on that point.
Will's arrival at the hospital intrigues her almost instantly. He's the polar opposite of Stella, she has her reasons to battle through while Will is more for living for the moment, consequences be damned.
It's an enjoyable film, but the thing I think stands in the way for some people is the fact that we've never been in this sort of situation so everything seems farfetched. I can't imagine what it's like, but I can imagine emotions running high and recklessness coming from it. As an adult (ugh) I can't imagine putting my life in danger like the characters do, but I'm certain that teenage me would have done the same things... boy was she an idiot.
During the scene where Stella goes under general anaesthetic she's looking up at a drawing placed on the ceiling above her, as the drugs take hold the picture starts to come to life. It was a little whimsical for the film, but being that they use illustration in different areas it was a nice inclusion.
Stella's optimism and determination in the face of her CF is so strong and Haley Lu Richardson does a great job of dealing with the wide range of emotions that she cycles through. (Am I the only one who was getting Olivia Cooke vibes through this?)
The cheese to Stella's chalk is Will played by Cole Sprouse. Will is the fun-at-any-price sort of rebel so of course those two are perfect for each other. If I'm being brutally honest I always thought Cole Sprouse was the one that couldn't act. His performance in this has convinced me otherwise. As frustrating as I found Will's actions I thought he was an interesting character and that Sprouse brought him to life in a very believable way.
The pair make for a great lead couple, even if we are subjected to a rather condensed romance. I didn't really get much sense of how time flowed in this movie, it could be weeks, months, I couldn't tell. Due to the nature of their condition there's a necessary separation throughout the film and as you watch you wonder how they're going to deal with that when romances are traditionally full of closeness... I didn't think that something so simple could make me cry, but somehow there I was with tears rolling down my face. It was a bizarre idea but it worked really well visually even if it did get a little weird at one point.
At the end we ramp up fairly quickly and we see a swift change in our main characters. Emotions are so high that everything gets a little crazier. While the change in Stella didn't feel quite right to me, Will's change was a nice move and Sprouse's performance really showed the panic and reality behind the situation.
When we come to the conclusion of the film I could not have been more annoyed. If someone did that to me I think I'd punch their lights out, five feet rule or not.
Oh! And that five feet rule, you know, the one in the title of the film? We see it referred to early on and it's actually a six feet rule... that discrepancy annoyed me for longer than it probably should have done.
This might not be groundbreaking in its genre but it was an enjoyable watch. It gives you a different take on this popular medi-romance trend.
What you should do
If you like these devastating romances then this is definitely worth catching at some point.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
There's a lot of artistic talent flying around between the main characters and I'd love to pinch a little bit of that.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Doctor Sleep (2019) in Movies
Dec 8, 2019
Thank goodness for retro screenings. I hadn't seen The Shining before but it's one of those things that gets parodied and mentioned so often that you think you might have actually seen it. Cineworld put it on so I made the time to go, there's a review coming soon... you know I'm not logical enough to have done it first!
Dan Torrance has grown up a lot since the events at The Overlook Hotel. The Shining is still with him and his self-destructive coping mechanisms are taking a toll on him. Constantly on the move, he's running from himself as well as a cult that are hunting him around the country.
Dan finds himself in a small town where he meets Billy. Billy recognises the signs of someone trying to find themselves and takes Dan under his wing, finding him a place to stay, a job, and a way to get his life back on track.
The Shining becomes a much more productive part of his life and somehow bring him a message from Abra, a young girl with powers even stronger than his. As the cult gets closer to her he knows he has to help, but that will mean going to a place he swore he'd never go again.
Cinema is going through a very big reboot/franchise phase at the moment, this week at the cinema we were showing 8 things that are follow-ups, spin-offs or reimaginings. I don't think I can commit to saying it's a good or bad thing but it does mean I get to at least see some older films as well. With things like Doctor Sleep, Dark Fate, and Halloween last year, I became very aware that I like the nostalgic homage that these films are for their predecessors. In Doctor Sleep we've got the original locations aged up, the same scenic shots and music, and a sneaky cameo from the original Danny. With The Shining so fresh in my mind it was nice to be able to spot these things.
Ewan McGregor was a top choice for the role of Danny, he's a great actor and every moment he was on screen became very real. Dan starts his journey as a mess, an alcoholic with a severe conscience that tries to set him on the right path. You see his desperation and you get the sense he's almost lost himself. McGregor successfully portrays him from rock bottom to redemption and there's a great balance from him throughout the film.
Pitting off against our good guys is Rebecca Ferguson as Rose The Hat. Rose is the leader of the cult and she has the ability to find people who possess the Shining. She makes a pretty convincing job of the supernatural elements and has got sexy-but-sinister down to a fine art. Most of her role is fairly heavy on the evil side and that was great, but she does get one scene where she's on the other side and, like McGregor, is able to do the polar opposite state so well that it comes across entirely believable.
In support roles we have Cliff Curtis who is consistently good in everything he does (but wronged deeply by this film) and Kyliegh Curran as Abra who I thought did a magnificent job, hopefully we'll be seeing her get more roles in the not too distant future.
There weren't any characters or actors that didn't fit in, the cast overall worked really well together in that respect. There are just two choices that I had slight personal quibbles with... Snakebite Andi gets recruited to the cult after Rose finds out about her special talent, that all worked perfectly well but once she's in the character pretty much vanishes until she's needed for a plot point. That seems like a massive waste of a great thread to me. The second is the bartender, I see what they were trying to do but I honestly hated it, it felt creepily wrong.
The sets and general feel of the film are good, but there's one moment in the effects that made my eyes roll. It's a nice way to convey the power that Rose uses but it is visually terrible, had that been better this could have been a 4.5. I feel that at this point though it's traditional for a Stephen King adaptation to have something that makes me go "WTF?!"
I enjoyed the journey Doctor Sleep took the characters on, I won't be the judge of how it compares to the source material or The Shining, but if you're a new fan like me then this will hopefully come across as a great watch. There are some amazing performances on show and Curran is definitely one to watch in the future.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/doctor-sleep-movie-review.html
Dan Torrance has grown up a lot since the events at The Overlook Hotel. The Shining is still with him and his self-destructive coping mechanisms are taking a toll on him. Constantly on the move, he's running from himself as well as a cult that are hunting him around the country.
Dan finds himself in a small town where he meets Billy. Billy recognises the signs of someone trying to find themselves and takes Dan under his wing, finding him a place to stay, a job, and a way to get his life back on track.
The Shining becomes a much more productive part of his life and somehow bring him a message from Abra, a young girl with powers even stronger than his. As the cult gets closer to her he knows he has to help, but that will mean going to a place he swore he'd never go again.
Cinema is going through a very big reboot/franchise phase at the moment, this week at the cinema we were showing 8 things that are follow-ups, spin-offs or reimaginings. I don't think I can commit to saying it's a good or bad thing but it does mean I get to at least see some older films as well. With things like Doctor Sleep, Dark Fate, and Halloween last year, I became very aware that I like the nostalgic homage that these films are for their predecessors. In Doctor Sleep we've got the original locations aged up, the same scenic shots and music, and a sneaky cameo from the original Danny. With The Shining so fresh in my mind it was nice to be able to spot these things.
Ewan McGregor was a top choice for the role of Danny, he's a great actor and every moment he was on screen became very real. Dan starts his journey as a mess, an alcoholic with a severe conscience that tries to set him on the right path. You see his desperation and you get the sense he's almost lost himself. McGregor successfully portrays him from rock bottom to redemption and there's a great balance from him throughout the film.
Pitting off against our good guys is Rebecca Ferguson as Rose The Hat. Rose is the leader of the cult and she has the ability to find people who possess the Shining. She makes a pretty convincing job of the supernatural elements and has got sexy-but-sinister down to a fine art. Most of her role is fairly heavy on the evil side and that was great, but she does get one scene where she's on the other side and, like McGregor, is able to do the polar opposite state so well that it comes across entirely believable.
In support roles we have Cliff Curtis who is consistently good in everything he does (but wronged deeply by this film) and Kyliegh Curran as Abra who I thought did a magnificent job, hopefully we'll be seeing her get more roles in the not too distant future.
There weren't any characters or actors that didn't fit in, the cast overall worked really well together in that respect. There are just two choices that I had slight personal quibbles with... Snakebite Andi gets recruited to the cult after Rose finds out about her special talent, that all worked perfectly well but once she's in the character pretty much vanishes until she's needed for a plot point. That seems like a massive waste of a great thread to me. The second is the bartender, I see what they were trying to do but I honestly hated it, it felt creepily wrong.
The sets and general feel of the film are good, but there's one moment in the effects that made my eyes roll. It's a nice way to convey the power that Rose uses but it is visually terrible, had that been better this could have been a 4.5. I feel that at this point though it's traditional for a Stephen King adaptation to have something that makes me go "WTF?!"
I enjoyed the journey Doctor Sleep took the characters on, I won't be the judge of how it compares to the source material or The Shining, but if you're a new fan like me then this will hopefully come across as a great watch. There are some amazing performances on show and Curran is definitely one to watch in the future.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/doctor-sleep-movie-review.html
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Jimmy's Hall (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
It’s not to often that we folks in America have the opportunity to catch any movies from Ireland.
The few that do come along almost certainly rate high on the scale of exceptional movies that one would want to see. I myself can’t remember a ‘bad’ Irish film. Perhaps one of the reasons for that is the fact that this country has a solid history of countless Irish immigrants coming here and helping to build the foundations for America. Well, today’s film for your consideration doesn’t go back THAT far. It doesn’t even take place in America. However, the history of Irish immigrants (specifically one immigrant) does play a role. Only it involves an Irish immigrant how came to America and then several years later returned to Ireland only to be forcibly deported back to America. I know I know. That explanation makes it sound like a comedy and although the film has many lighthearted moments, I can assure you it’s NOT a comedy. In fact, it deals with an influential figure in one of the more politically turbulent periods in Ireland’s history just before the beginning of the Second World War.
‘Jimmy’s Hall’ is a 2014 Irish-British drama directed by English television and film director Kenneth ‘Ken’ Loach. The film focuses on the events leading up to the deportation from Ireland of Jimmy Gralton, who led a precursor to Ireland’s communist party in the county Leitrim.
Starring Barry Ward, Simone Kirby, and Irish character actor Jim Norton, the film opens in 1932. Jimmy (Ward) has just returned to his home to help his mother tend the family farm after spending 10 years in the United States in the midst of the Great Depression coinciding with the establishment of a new government in the aftermath of the Civil War between pro-British and anti-British forces.
Reluctant to anger his old enemies, the church and the landowners who forced him to leave Ireland, but eager to meet the needs of the people of Leitrim, Jimmy (Ward) decides to reopen the ‘Hall’, a center for young people where they can meet to study, talk, dance, play music, learn to read, debate issues of the day. Free to all and open to anyone who wishes to learn while respecting the views and opinions of others, the ‘Hall’ is an immediate success. Not everyone is pleased to see Jimmy resuming his old activities. In particular the church and local priest (Norton) who see Gralton as not only a ‘bad influence’, but also as a follower of Stalin who as history knows sent countless millions (including religious leaders) to their deaths.
Despite the complaints and at times violent reactions on the part of the supporters of the church and the landowners, Gralton tries desperately to make them realize he has absolutely no connection to Stalin and has no desire to bring down the church. Only to better the situation for everyone. Jimmy even invites the local priest to take a leadership role in the Hall’s committee. In the end though, the fears of the church and the state go unchanged. Jimmy is a communist and although he has no connection Stalin the church and the government see them as one in the same. The police take Jimmy into custody at his family’s farm and forcibly deport him back to America even so much as denying him on last chance to see his ailing mother.
In education systems there are books and films which are considered ‘required reading’ or in this case ‘required viewing’. This film should be required viewing. It is not just an excellent film about a historical Irish political figure or as I mentioned earlier a film about a turbulent point in Irish history. It’s an example of the greater ‘world conflict’ between what became the western bloc and the eastern bloc. Both sides in that grater conflict saw each other the same way the two sides in the Irish countryside of the 1930s saw each other. The ones that meant well and only wanted to better the situation for everyone including themselves inspired fear in those who had power and those who had the power inspired fear in those who meant well. This movie showed that not all political figures are evil … nor are all religious figures. It’s the individual or several individuals within those groups that are reluctant to change.
I would highly recommend this film. Regardless of the content it’s an excellent film. If this film is as good as most films made in Ireland, they definitely need to start exporting them on a grander scale. I’d give this film 4 out of 5 stars.
This is your friendly neighborhood photographer ‘The CameraMan’ and on behalf of my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ I’d like to say thanks for reading and we’ll see you at the movies
The few that do come along almost certainly rate high on the scale of exceptional movies that one would want to see. I myself can’t remember a ‘bad’ Irish film. Perhaps one of the reasons for that is the fact that this country has a solid history of countless Irish immigrants coming here and helping to build the foundations for America. Well, today’s film for your consideration doesn’t go back THAT far. It doesn’t even take place in America. However, the history of Irish immigrants (specifically one immigrant) does play a role. Only it involves an Irish immigrant how came to America and then several years later returned to Ireland only to be forcibly deported back to America. I know I know. That explanation makes it sound like a comedy and although the film has many lighthearted moments, I can assure you it’s NOT a comedy. In fact, it deals with an influential figure in one of the more politically turbulent periods in Ireland’s history just before the beginning of the Second World War.
‘Jimmy’s Hall’ is a 2014 Irish-British drama directed by English television and film director Kenneth ‘Ken’ Loach. The film focuses on the events leading up to the deportation from Ireland of Jimmy Gralton, who led a precursor to Ireland’s communist party in the county Leitrim.
Starring Barry Ward, Simone Kirby, and Irish character actor Jim Norton, the film opens in 1932. Jimmy (Ward) has just returned to his home to help his mother tend the family farm after spending 10 years in the United States in the midst of the Great Depression coinciding with the establishment of a new government in the aftermath of the Civil War between pro-British and anti-British forces.
Reluctant to anger his old enemies, the church and the landowners who forced him to leave Ireland, but eager to meet the needs of the people of Leitrim, Jimmy (Ward) decides to reopen the ‘Hall’, a center for young people where they can meet to study, talk, dance, play music, learn to read, debate issues of the day. Free to all and open to anyone who wishes to learn while respecting the views and opinions of others, the ‘Hall’ is an immediate success. Not everyone is pleased to see Jimmy resuming his old activities. In particular the church and local priest (Norton) who see Gralton as not only a ‘bad influence’, but also as a follower of Stalin who as history knows sent countless millions (including religious leaders) to their deaths.
Despite the complaints and at times violent reactions on the part of the supporters of the church and the landowners, Gralton tries desperately to make them realize he has absolutely no connection to Stalin and has no desire to bring down the church. Only to better the situation for everyone. Jimmy even invites the local priest to take a leadership role in the Hall’s committee. In the end though, the fears of the church and the state go unchanged. Jimmy is a communist and although he has no connection Stalin the church and the government see them as one in the same. The police take Jimmy into custody at his family’s farm and forcibly deport him back to America even so much as denying him on last chance to see his ailing mother.
In education systems there are books and films which are considered ‘required reading’ or in this case ‘required viewing’. This film should be required viewing. It is not just an excellent film about a historical Irish political figure or as I mentioned earlier a film about a turbulent point in Irish history. It’s an example of the greater ‘world conflict’ between what became the western bloc and the eastern bloc. Both sides in that grater conflict saw each other the same way the two sides in the Irish countryside of the 1930s saw each other. The ones that meant well and only wanted to better the situation for everyone including themselves inspired fear in those who had power and those who had the power inspired fear in those who meant well. This movie showed that not all political figures are evil … nor are all religious figures. It’s the individual or several individuals within those groups that are reluctant to change.
I would highly recommend this film. Regardless of the content it’s an excellent film. If this film is as good as most films made in Ireland, they definitely need to start exporting them on a grander scale. I’d give this film 4 out of 5 stars.
This is your friendly neighborhood photographer ‘The CameraMan’ and on behalf of my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ I’d like to say thanks for reading and we’ll see you at the movies
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 14, 2019
I’ve never left the cinema more unnerved than I did after watching Todd Phillips’ first foray in the superhero genre. Joker is a frequently violent, often grotesque and regularly intense portrayal of the iconic character that’s already receiving praise and backlash in equal measure from those in the critic community.
With development originally beginning way back in 2016, Joaquin Phoenix walking out of interviews and the press junket being cancelled altogether, it’s safe to say that the path to release has not been easy, but what’s the finished product like?
Forever alone in a crowd, failed comedian Arthur Fleck (Phoenix) seeks connection as he walks the streets of Gotham City. Arthur wears two masks, the one he paints for his day job as a clown, and the guise he projects in a futile attempt to feel like he’s part of the world around him. Isolated, bullied and disregarded by society, Fleck begins a slow descent into madness as he transforms into the criminal mastermind known as the Joker.
Director of The Hangover trilogy, you’d be forgiven for thinking that Phillips is an odd choice to helm a picture like this, but his darkly comedic roots shine through in Joker and add a much-needed lightness of touch over the course of the running time. Without these pockets of humour, Joker would just be far too murky, more so than it already is.
Phoenix is absolutely astounding and his physical transformation defies words. Alongside Heath Ledger, these two very different portrayals of this iconic character are fully deserving of as much recognition as possible. Arguably however, Phoenix delivers the best iteration yet and one that perhaps needed even more commitment – this is a two-hour film dedicated to the character, whereas the Joker has always been a supporting part of previous films.
From the frame devoid of any muscle, dark circles under his eyes and wrinkles etched on his face, Phoenix’s dedication to this role is on another level to anything we have seen before. As his transformation from troubled Arthur Fleck to criminal mastermind gets underway, this only serves to highlight the acting prowess of this incredible performer. Elsewhere, supporting cast members like Robert De Niro, Frances Conroy and Zazie Beets are also wonderful in their roles of varying screen-time, but as Joker is a film about the singular character, they stay in the background, and rightly so.
The script too is exceptionally written. Phillips and co-writer Scott Silver, who also wrote 8 Mile, deliver a tightly wound screenplay that is at times just too tense for its own good. This is never a film you can sit back and relax to, it feels like you’re on the edge of your seat for the full two hours. The comedic notes that I alluded to earlier nicely round off some of the sharp edges however, but make no mistake, this is a brutal and unforgiving film.
The comedic notes… nicely round off some of the sharp edges
Criticism has been levelled already about the significance this film may have on those who already actively promote the character’s actions, and it’s easy to see why people are concerned. However, as an art form, Joker doesn’t need to be processed in such a way. Yes, it’s brutal, yes, it’s bloody and yes it sometimes hits too close to home about the issues we face in the real world, but cinema is escapism and that’s what it offers.
To look at it’s clear that the very modest of budget of $55million has been put to good use. The city of Gotham feels dirty, grimy and about to erupt and this is exactly how we as the audience want it to be. The uprising is coming and with each grimace from Phoenix’s face, we get closer and closer to that critical moment.
For me that critical moment occurs a little too late into the film and with not a lot of time left after this point, Joker tries to wrap up its loose ends too quickly, but this is a miniscule criticism in a deeply impressive and immersive cinema experience.
The score too is excellent. Icelandic composer Hildur Ingveldardóttir Guðnadóttir has worked on films like The Revenant and Sicario 2 and that gritty realism she brought to those films has been replicated here. It’s a soaring orchestral score populated with some sharp string solos that work perfectly with the character.
Overall, Joker is a masterpiece. Phoenix’s performance is one of the best I’ve ever had the pleasure of witnessing in the cinema and to go alongside that commitment the audience is treated to an engrossing script and beautiful score. Where DC has failed in the past is in forgetting to carve their own niche. Marvel has the 12A game all sewn up and there’s no point in competing there. Joker is the direction that should have been taken from the very beginning and it’s one of the best films I’ve seen in years.
Brutal? Yes. Beautiful? Absolutely.
With development originally beginning way back in 2016, Joaquin Phoenix walking out of interviews and the press junket being cancelled altogether, it’s safe to say that the path to release has not been easy, but what’s the finished product like?
Forever alone in a crowd, failed comedian Arthur Fleck (Phoenix) seeks connection as he walks the streets of Gotham City. Arthur wears two masks, the one he paints for his day job as a clown, and the guise he projects in a futile attempt to feel like he’s part of the world around him. Isolated, bullied and disregarded by society, Fleck begins a slow descent into madness as he transforms into the criminal mastermind known as the Joker.
Director of The Hangover trilogy, you’d be forgiven for thinking that Phillips is an odd choice to helm a picture like this, but his darkly comedic roots shine through in Joker and add a much-needed lightness of touch over the course of the running time. Without these pockets of humour, Joker would just be far too murky, more so than it already is.
Phoenix is absolutely astounding and his physical transformation defies words. Alongside Heath Ledger, these two very different portrayals of this iconic character are fully deserving of as much recognition as possible. Arguably however, Phoenix delivers the best iteration yet and one that perhaps needed even more commitment – this is a two-hour film dedicated to the character, whereas the Joker has always been a supporting part of previous films.
From the frame devoid of any muscle, dark circles under his eyes and wrinkles etched on his face, Phoenix’s dedication to this role is on another level to anything we have seen before. As his transformation from troubled Arthur Fleck to criminal mastermind gets underway, this only serves to highlight the acting prowess of this incredible performer. Elsewhere, supporting cast members like Robert De Niro, Frances Conroy and Zazie Beets are also wonderful in their roles of varying screen-time, but as Joker is a film about the singular character, they stay in the background, and rightly so.
The script too is exceptionally written. Phillips and co-writer Scott Silver, who also wrote 8 Mile, deliver a tightly wound screenplay that is at times just too tense for its own good. This is never a film you can sit back and relax to, it feels like you’re on the edge of your seat for the full two hours. The comedic notes that I alluded to earlier nicely round off some of the sharp edges however, but make no mistake, this is a brutal and unforgiving film.
The comedic notes… nicely round off some of the sharp edges
Criticism has been levelled already about the significance this film may have on those who already actively promote the character’s actions, and it’s easy to see why people are concerned. However, as an art form, Joker doesn’t need to be processed in such a way. Yes, it’s brutal, yes, it’s bloody and yes it sometimes hits too close to home about the issues we face in the real world, but cinema is escapism and that’s what it offers.
To look at it’s clear that the very modest of budget of $55million has been put to good use. The city of Gotham feels dirty, grimy and about to erupt and this is exactly how we as the audience want it to be. The uprising is coming and with each grimace from Phoenix’s face, we get closer and closer to that critical moment.
For me that critical moment occurs a little too late into the film and with not a lot of time left after this point, Joker tries to wrap up its loose ends too quickly, but this is a miniscule criticism in a deeply impressive and immersive cinema experience.
The score too is excellent. Icelandic composer Hildur Ingveldardóttir Guðnadóttir has worked on films like The Revenant and Sicario 2 and that gritty realism she brought to those films has been replicated here. It’s a soaring orchestral score populated with some sharp string solos that work perfectly with the character.
Overall, Joker is a masterpiece. Phoenix’s performance is one of the best I’ve ever had the pleasure of witnessing in the cinema and to go alongside that commitment the audience is treated to an engrossing script and beautiful score. Where DC has failed in the past is in forgetting to carve their own niche. Marvel has the 12A game all sewn up and there’s no point in competing there. Joker is the direction that should have been taken from the very beginning and it’s one of the best films I’ve seen in years.
Brutal? Yes. Beautiful? Absolutely.
IW
Industrial Water Resource Management, Challenges and Opportunities for Efficient Water Stewardship
Book
Water is one of the most important resources of all, Businesses, communities, and ecosystems...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Slaughterhouse Rulez (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Form-Prefect of the Dead.
The Plot
Meredith Houseman (Simon Pegg) is housemaster of Sparta house in Slaughterhouse school: an ancient public school establishment steering England’s future greats to greatness (which probably explains a lot about the current Brexit mess!). Houseman is not in a happy place, given that his girlfriend is now in deepest darkest African doing “good works” with handsome French doctors, and particularly that she is played by Margot Robbie: I would be also be sad… #punching!
New school starter Don Wallace (Finn Cole) is equally unhappy as he is a northern teen dragooned into attending the school by his well-meaning Mum (Jo Hartley). His strange room-mate Willoughby (Asa Butterfield) seems to be a chronic depressive; he is being picked on by the prefect-bully Clegg (Tom Rhys Harries); and his bed was previously occupied by a Viscount, since deceased under unpleasant circumstances that no-one wants to talk about. At least he has the distraction of the upper-sixth school goddess Clemsie Lawrence (Hermione Corfield) to take his mind off his woes.
All this washes over “The Bat” – the school’s headmaster (Michael Sheen) – since he is engrossed in some shady deal with an evil corporation doing fracking in the school grounds. The fracking though seems to be doing more than just causing a few minor earth tremors, as ancient forces are unleashed.
The Review
The movie is positioned as a “comedy/horror”, along the lines of “Shaun of the Dead”. The film also has Frost and Pegg as executive producers and they also have starring roles in the film. But there the similarities really end: this is a “Cornetto film” without a cone of solid chocolate lurking at the bottom to enjoy.
The script (by director Crispian Mills and first-time screenwriter Henry Fitzherbert) is nowhere near as sharp as the Frost/Pegg scripts for their famous collaborations. The story overall makes precious little sense: it’s a hodge-podge of elements from many Harry Potter films (especially “The Chamber of Secrets”), Lindsay Anderson’s “If…”; and Roy Boulting’s “The Guinea Pig”; with also a sprinkling of the anarchic essence of Michael Palin’s classic “Tomkinson’s Schooldays”. The whole thing never manages to gel into a cohesive whole.
After the second reel, the film completely loses sight of the plot: there’s a whole lot of running, screaming and dying going on but there’s little logic behind any of it that I could fathom. What didn’t help my comprehension of what was going on were some ‘Cornetto-esque’ sequences of manic editing. Images were thrown onto the screen so subliminally that any clever nuance was lost. I’m sure at one point there was a droll (if gross) segue at a “Roman orgy” of a girl receiving oral sex before being ‘eaten out’ in an entirely different way. But you would need a Blu-ray and a frame-by-frame pause function to get the joke.
That’s not to say that I didn’t laugh a few times along the way. There are some sight gags – for example, Wooten (Kit Connor) as the lad at the bottom of the bullying pecking order, chained to a U-bend – that made me laugh, and some running jokes – for example, Frost as the head of the anti-fracking camp offering the kids drugs at every encounter – that mildly amuse. But once again here’s a British comedy that, like the atrocious “The Brits are Coming“, thinks that “funny” largely revolves around swearing a lot – how useful that “frack” sounds so similar to another word – with added bodily dismemberment.
The turns
Pegg and Frost ham it up with their usual comedy schtick well enough, and it was quite fun to see Sheen try a comedy role for a change as the conniving and supercilious headmaster. Elsewhere all the young cast put their hearts into it, but it’s again Asa Butterfield that your eyes gravitate to, due to his striking features. I last saw Asa in the excellent if harrowing WW1 drama “Journey’s End“, and he here proves again that he is a One Mann’s Movies ‘name to watch for the future’.
Final thoughts
There’s a lot to irritate in this film. From the “z” in the title to… well… about 80% of the film. There is no nuance or subtlety to either the writing or the direction. I think that’s a great shame. The film has a good premise hidden in there. An adult comedy set around the ridiculous rules and rites of public schools (away from the light nonsense of “St Trinians”) is overdue. And the whole subject of fracking, and the conflicts surrounding the controversial techniques, hasn’t yet – to my knowledge – been explored in a fictional movie. The film does have a few very funny moments. But as a whole I left the cinema with that “wasted two hours” feeling. Not recommended.
Meredith Houseman (Simon Pegg) is housemaster of Sparta house in Slaughterhouse school: an ancient public school establishment steering England’s future greats to greatness (which probably explains a lot about the current Brexit mess!). Houseman is not in a happy place, given that his girlfriend is now in deepest darkest African doing “good works” with handsome French doctors, and particularly that she is played by Margot Robbie: I would be also be sad… #punching!
New school starter Don Wallace (Finn Cole) is equally unhappy as he is a northern teen dragooned into attending the school by his well-meaning Mum (Jo Hartley). His strange room-mate Willoughby (Asa Butterfield) seems to be a chronic depressive; he is being picked on by the prefect-bully Clegg (Tom Rhys Harries); and his bed was previously occupied by a Viscount, since deceased under unpleasant circumstances that no-one wants to talk about. At least he has the distraction of the upper-sixth school goddess Clemsie Lawrence (Hermione Corfield) to take his mind off his woes.
All this washes over “The Bat” – the school’s headmaster (Michael Sheen) – since he is engrossed in some shady deal with an evil corporation doing fracking in the school grounds. The fracking though seems to be doing more than just causing a few minor earth tremors, as ancient forces are unleashed.
The Review
The movie is positioned as a “comedy/horror”, along the lines of “Shaun of the Dead”. The film also has Frost and Pegg as executive producers and they also have starring roles in the film. But there the similarities really end: this is a “Cornetto film” without a cone of solid chocolate lurking at the bottom to enjoy.
The script (by director Crispian Mills and first-time screenwriter Henry Fitzherbert) is nowhere near as sharp as the Frost/Pegg scripts for their famous collaborations. The story overall makes precious little sense: it’s a hodge-podge of elements from many Harry Potter films (especially “The Chamber of Secrets”), Lindsay Anderson’s “If…”; and Roy Boulting’s “The Guinea Pig”; with also a sprinkling of the anarchic essence of Michael Palin’s classic “Tomkinson’s Schooldays”. The whole thing never manages to gel into a cohesive whole.
After the second reel, the film completely loses sight of the plot: there’s a whole lot of running, screaming and dying going on but there’s little logic behind any of it that I could fathom. What didn’t help my comprehension of what was going on were some ‘Cornetto-esque’ sequences of manic editing. Images were thrown onto the screen so subliminally that any clever nuance was lost. I’m sure at one point there was a droll (if gross) segue at a “Roman orgy” of a girl receiving oral sex before being ‘eaten out’ in an entirely different way. But you would need a Blu-ray and a frame-by-frame pause function to get the joke.
That’s not to say that I didn’t laugh a few times along the way. There are some sight gags – for example, Wooten (Kit Connor) as the lad at the bottom of the bullying pecking order, chained to a U-bend – that made me laugh, and some running jokes – for example, Frost as the head of the anti-fracking camp offering the kids drugs at every encounter – that mildly amuse. But once again here’s a British comedy that, like the atrocious “The Brits are Coming“, thinks that “funny” largely revolves around swearing a lot – how useful that “frack” sounds so similar to another word – with added bodily dismemberment.
The turns
Pegg and Frost ham it up with their usual comedy schtick well enough, and it was quite fun to see Sheen try a comedy role for a change as the conniving and supercilious headmaster. Elsewhere all the young cast put their hearts into it, but it’s again Asa Butterfield that your eyes gravitate to, due to his striking features. I last saw Asa in the excellent if harrowing WW1 drama “Journey’s End“, and he here proves again that he is a One Mann’s Movies ‘name to watch for the future’.
Final thoughts
There’s a lot to irritate in this film. From the “z” in the title to… well… about 80% of the film. There is no nuance or subtlety to either the writing or the direction. I think that’s a great shame. The film has a good premise hidden in there. An adult comedy set around the ridiculous rules and rites of public schools (away from the light nonsense of “St Trinians”) is overdue. And the whole subject of fracking, and the conflicts surrounding the controversial techniques, hasn’t yet – to my knowledge – been explored in a fictional movie. The film does have a few very funny moments. But as a whole I left the cinema with that “wasted two hours” feeling. Not recommended.
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Haunting of Hill House in Books
Apr 19, 2019
Strong writing (1 more)
Good characters
Run-on sentences (1 more)
No explanations for paranormal activity
Contains spoilers, click to show
If you're looking for a scary story, 'The Haunting of Hill House' just doesn't add up.
The story is still worth reading because Jackson's story telling is something that is missing in literature today. The reader is introduced to characters that are different enough to be interesting; their development is just right that it leaves the reader satisfied. The story moves along well enough that the pace keeps us from getting bored. And each turn of the page keeps the reader guessing what is going to happen next- a must for any ghost story.
In 'The Haunting of Hill House,' Jackson mostly focuses on the character Eleanor - a woman who recently lost the sickly mother she had taken care of for years, to receiving an invitation for a paranormal experiment at the infamous Hill House. Eleanor also seems to be the main character affected by the house, not only having her name written on a wall, but also having her named called out by spirits during an automatic writing session with them.
Our first introduction to the Hill House happens as Eleanor arrives: "No Human eye can isolate the unhappy coincidence of line and place which suggests evil in the face of a house, and yet somehow a maniac juxtaposition, a badly turned angle, some chance meeting of roof and sky, turned Hill House into a place of despair, more frightening because the face of Hill House seemed awake, with a watchfulness from the blank windows and a touch of glee in the eyebrow of a cornice. Almost any house, caught unexpectedly or at an odd angle, can turn a deeply humorous look on a watching person; even a mischievous little chimney, or a dormer like a dimple, can catch up a beholder with a sense of fellowship; but a house arrogant and hating, never off guard, can only be evil. This house, which seemed somehow to have formed itself, flying together into its own powerful pattern under the hands of its builders, fitting itself into its own construction of lines and angles, reared its great head back against the sky without concession to humanity. It was a house without kindness, never meant to be lived in , not a fit place for people or for love or for hope. Exorcism cannot alter the countenance of a house; Hill House would stay as it was until it was destroyed."
We never see Hill House through any other character's eyes, and the viewpoints mostly come from Eleanor (a missed opportunity,I think). Everyone who arrives at the house feels uneasy about it: doors and curtains close on their own, unexplained banging noises down the hallways(only at night), the chattering and laughter of children, and with an oddly placed cold spot. Yet,to the reader's dismay, nothing is fully explained by the end of the story - no apparitions show up, no one seems harmed by anything unseen (although, the character, Luke, suddenly shows up with a bruised face that is never discussed), and the reader ends up wondering if this really is a product of mass psychosis. It almost seems like Jackson ended the story abruptly just to finish it(the book is only a little under 200 pages). She set up wonderful scenarios, but without explanations, we're left with a very empty feeling.
Nearing the end of the book, the doctor, John Montague, who has ran the entire experiment, has his wife,Mrs. Montague,arrive a few days later, who seems to know more about contacting spirits than he does: "The library? I think it might do; books are frequently very good carriers, you know. Materializations are often best produced in rooms where there are books. I cannot think of any time when materialization was in any way hampered by the presence of books." And with the arrival of Dr. Montague's wife, we get one of the major experiences in the entire book. Although her character is quite annoying- even seen through the eyes of other characters- she brings some of the most ghost story elements, one of which is her automatic writing sessions: "Planchette felt very strongly about a nun, John. Perhaps something of the sort- a dark, vague figure, even- has been seen in the neighborhood? Villagers terrified when staggering home late at night?" None of the characters, besides Mrs. Montague's companion, Arthur, believe her automatic writing sessions are real, even after Eleanor's name is brought up during one. As I stated before, without any explanations, the reader is even led to believe that nothing was meant to come of these sessions whatsoever.
The ghost story elements may not have been strong in the story, but the characters make up for them. They constantly question what they are experiencing and/or seeing, they question their surroundings, and they question each other -Jackson does an amazing job weaving paranoia into the story line.
One of the more shocking and unbelievable scenes is when Eleanor is suddenly not fearful of the house anymore: "And here I am, she thought. Here I am inside. It was not cold at all, but deliciously, fondly warm. It was light enough for her to see the iron stairway curving around and around up to the tower, and the little door at the top. Under her feet the stone floor moved caressingly, rubbing itself against the soles of her feet, and all around the soft air touched her, stirring her hair, drifting against her fingers, coming in a light breath across her mouth, and she danced in circles. No stone lions for me, she thought, no oleanders; I have broken the spell of Hill House and somehow come inside. I am home, she thought, and stopped in wonder at the thought. I am home, I am home, she thought; now to climb." It was as if Eleanor was a completely different person in just a few pages.
I do have a couple of problems with 'The Haunting of Hill House,' mostly centering around the use of run-on sentences and extra long paragraphs. The run-on sentences are a waste of time because Jackson seems to merely elaborate on something that could be easily explained or experienced with fewer words. The paragraphs, however, need to be broken up for scene transitioning purposes -when she transitions from one scene to the next, she can confuse the reader with them: one paragraph will have all the characters in the dining area, but in that same paragraph, just a few sentences down, Jackson has the characters suddenly in the parlor,drinking Brandy. Maybe the intention was to make the reader feel paranoid and uneasy like the characters in the book, but it was certainly not needed with the way of Jackson's style of writing.
With all that said, it's easy to see why this book is a popular classic. The writing is strong, using enough descriptions to put the reader in Hill House with all of its paranormal beings. And no matter who you are, you are able to find at least one of the lead characters as a favorite. I feel the book is a must-read for anyone interested in the paranormal, because Jackson brings out the occult interest that was going on around 1959 - when she published 'The Haunting of Hill House;' everything from cold spots to the use of a planchette for automatic writing.
I recommend this book, but if you're looking for scares, you must look elsewhere.
The story is still worth reading because Jackson's story telling is something that is missing in literature today. The reader is introduced to characters that are different enough to be interesting; their development is just right that it leaves the reader satisfied. The story moves along well enough that the pace keeps us from getting bored. And each turn of the page keeps the reader guessing what is going to happen next- a must for any ghost story.
In 'The Haunting of Hill House,' Jackson mostly focuses on the character Eleanor - a woman who recently lost the sickly mother she had taken care of for years, to receiving an invitation for a paranormal experiment at the infamous Hill House. Eleanor also seems to be the main character affected by the house, not only having her name written on a wall, but also having her named called out by spirits during an automatic writing session with them.
Our first introduction to the Hill House happens as Eleanor arrives: "No Human eye can isolate the unhappy coincidence of line and place which suggests evil in the face of a house, and yet somehow a maniac juxtaposition, a badly turned angle, some chance meeting of roof and sky, turned Hill House into a place of despair, more frightening because the face of Hill House seemed awake, with a watchfulness from the blank windows and a touch of glee in the eyebrow of a cornice. Almost any house, caught unexpectedly or at an odd angle, can turn a deeply humorous look on a watching person; even a mischievous little chimney, or a dormer like a dimple, can catch up a beholder with a sense of fellowship; but a house arrogant and hating, never off guard, can only be evil. This house, which seemed somehow to have formed itself, flying together into its own powerful pattern under the hands of its builders, fitting itself into its own construction of lines and angles, reared its great head back against the sky without concession to humanity. It was a house without kindness, never meant to be lived in , not a fit place for people or for love or for hope. Exorcism cannot alter the countenance of a house; Hill House would stay as it was until it was destroyed."
We never see Hill House through any other character's eyes, and the viewpoints mostly come from Eleanor (a missed opportunity,I think). Everyone who arrives at the house feels uneasy about it: doors and curtains close on their own, unexplained banging noises down the hallways(only at night), the chattering and laughter of children, and with an oddly placed cold spot. Yet,to the reader's dismay, nothing is fully explained by the end of the story - no apparitions show up, no one seems harmed by anything unseen (although, the character, Luke, suddenly shows up with a bruised face that is never discussed), and the reader ends up wondering if this really is a product of mass psychosis. It almost seems like Jackson ended the story abruptly just to finish it(the book is only a little under 200 pages). She set up wonderful scenarios, but without explanations, we're left with a very empty feeling.
Nearing the end of the book, the doctor, John Montague, who has ran the entire experiment, has his wife,Mrs. Montague,arrive a few days later, who seems to know more about contacting spirits than he does: "The library? I think it might do; books are frequently very good carriers, you know. Materializations are often best produced in rooms where there are books. I cannot think of any time when materialization was in any way hampered by the presence of books." And with the arrival of Dr. Montague's wife, we get one of the major experiences in the entire book. Although her character is quite annoying- even seen through the eyes of other characters- she brings some of the most ghost story elements, one of which is her automatic writing sessions: "Planchette felt very strongly about a nun, John. Perhaps something of the sort- a dark, vague figure, even- has been seen in the neighborhood? Villagers terrified when staggering home late at night?" None of the characters, besides Mrs. Montague's companion, Arthur, believe her automatic writing sessions are real, even after Eleanor's name is brought up during one. As I stated before, without any explanations, the reader is even led to believe that nothing was meant to come of these sessions whatsoever.
The ghost story elements may not have been strong in the story, but the characters make up for them. They constantly question what they are experiencing and/or seeing, they question their surroundings, and they question each other -Jackson does an amazing job weaving paranoia into the story line.
One of the more shocking and unbelievable scenes is when Eleanor is suddenly not fearful of the house anymore: "And here I am, she thought. Here I am inside. It was not cold at all, but deliciously, fondly warm. It was light enough for her to see the iron stairway curving around and around up to the tower, and the little door at the top. Under her feet the stone floor moved caressingly, rubbing itself against the soles of her feet, and all around the soft air touched her, stirring her hair, drifting against her fingers, coming in a light breath across her mouth, and she danced in circles. No stone lions for me, she thought, no oleanders; I have broken the spell of Hill House and somehow come inside. I am home, she thought, and stopped in wonder at the thought. I am home, I am home, she thought; now to climb." It was as if Eleanor was a completely different person in just a few pages.
I do have a couple of problems with 'The Haunting of Hill House,' mostly centering around the use of run-on sentences and extra long paragraphs. The run-on sentences are a waste of time because Jackson seems to merely elaborate on something that could be easily explained or experienced with fewer words. The paragraphs, however, need to be broken up for scene transitioning purposes -when she transitions from one scene to the next, she can confuse the reader with them: one paragraph will have all the characters in the dining area, but in that same paragraph, just a few sentences down, Jackson has the characters suddenly in the parlor,drinking Brandy. Maybe the intention was to make the reader feel paranoid and uneasy like the characters in the book, but it was certainly not needed with the way of Jackson's style of writing.
With all that said, it's easy to see why this book is a popular classic. The writing is strong, using enough descriptions to put the reader in Hill House with all of its paranormal beings. And no matter who you are, you are able to find at least one of the lead characters as a favorite. I feel the book is a must-read for anyone interested in the paranormal, because Jackson brings out the occult interest that was going on around 1959 - when she published 'The Haunting of Hill House;' everything from cold spots to the use of a planchette for automatic writing.
I recommend this book, but if you're looking for scares, you must look elsewhere.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Knives Out (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Murder mystery films tend to be more fun in theory and anticipation than they are to watch. It’s a genre that I very much enjoy and have indulged in over the years. Yet, if I look back in detail at it, I find that it is the books, especially those of Agatha Christie, that I like much more than anything lasting a couple of hours on the screen. There’s something about the mystery being rushed and squeezed into the cinema artform that is usually anti-climactic or even a full on let down.
Perhaps my favourite of the entire genre is a film that refuses to take itself seriously and is at once a pastiche of the multiple cliches that have accumulated over the years. And that film is, of course, the wonderfully camp, funny and charming 1985 romp Clue, starring Tim Curry and a slough of 80s B stars having the time of their lives. It isn’t a “good” film, it is a cult film, it’s joy being in its absolute lack of pretension or moral judgement. Like the board game that inspired it, it isn’t overly complicated or long, but has just enough cleverness, mirth and ambiance about it to always be a winner.
Rian Johnson’s take on the genre, Knives Out, is aware of these elements at all times, being above all things colourful, playful, arch and glib, but never convoluted or cerebral in an alienating way. He is something of a master at subverting a genre and wringing new life into it; take the invention of the teen noir in Brick, or the blend of assassin time travel sci-fi in Looper. He even gave an entire franchise a new breath of life by re-examining the use of humour and self referencing in Star Wars: The Last Jedi.
All of those previous films have as many detractors as mega fans, proving his style is devisive, for its audacity and its irreverence towards any idea of purism within an established model. And Knives Out is no exception to that. However, it may be the film of his that most people can agree on that they enjoyed, for one reason or another. I think it’s as interesting to ask why that is as it is to talk about the film itself… so, I will. At least, I’ll try to do both without losing my train of thought.
Firstly, it looks stunning; the palate of rich colours used in the poster and all marketing just make it look like something you want to immerse yourself in – every jacket, tie, dress, or piece of furniture is designed to precision, and it works like a dream of the genre you may have once had, as if it had been plucked directly from your subconscious. As in all good murder mysteries, the location, props and costumes should hold as much character as the actors, and the stately home of the Thrombey family certainly provides plenty of atmosphere in every texture and material on display.
Of course, the cast of characters is wonderfully put together with some inspired casting of familiar faces and actors you trust, such as Toni Collette and Michael Shannon, together with a few we don’t see enough of these days, such as Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson, who both manage to create something as memorable as anything they did in their golden days. Add to the mix two bone fide action film superstars in Daniel Craig and Chris Evans, who leave the baggage of their most famous characters far behind and manage to convince you they are real actors again, the former with the aide of a jarring but hilarious Southern drawl, that grates at first but is a perfect choice on reflection.
Then there are the two lynchpins of this film’s ultimate success and joy: the exceptional legendary gravitas of 90 year old Christopher Plummer as the patriarch and victim at the centre of the intrigue, and the quite glorious revelation of Ana de Armas, whose charisma, beauty and skill in this delicately balanced role was the most impressive thing for me about the whole production. It may be Craig who is the ever present focus, as the detective tasked with solving the “crime”, but it is de Armas that you will remember most long after the credits roll.
As for the plot, well… I obviously can’t talk about it without ruining the whole thing. But, I can say that it isn’t far into the intricate web of motives, alibis and secrets before you start to sense this is going somewhere different, even unique. The examination of the relationships and personalities, and the extent to which they each demonstrate greed and selfishness is fascinating, superceding the crime that exists on the surface with a swamp of far seedier and unpleasant goings-on. Craig’s suave Benoit Blanc isn’t so much a detective here as a family therapist, or perhaps a supernatural presence in the style of the old classic, An Inspector Calls. Perhaps, it is suggested, no one completely escapes guilt and shame here… or do they? Are we looking for a murderer, or the only morally good person amidst a pack of dogs?
Another key element is how modern and unstuffy it feels, despite the country house and riches this is no play of manners, quite the opposite – no one here is on their best behaviour for the sake of decorum, and being upper class is an idea played with rather than enforced. The tea and cakes of the classic Christie, such as Murder on the Orient Express is replaced by smartphones and similar trappings, that identify it as definitely 2019 and no period piece. The concerns and themes are very much rooted in our present problems, and for that it engages and resonates in ways a costume drama just can’t do.
Upon finishing it for the first time, you may be thinking “sure, OK, I enjoyed that… but I’m not blown away here”. Then, as it sinks in over coming weeks, you find yourself recommending it to people, and thinking about how good it is in ways you didn’t initially think about. And that is surely why it was so embraced by the critics and paying public alike; it is a likeable, fun film, that can also stand some artistic scrutiny. It isn’t the smartest, or prettiest, or most meaningful film ever made, but it is enough of all three to make it an instant mini-classic, in my opinion.
I feel like there is maybe more to say about it, which is always a good sign, but that will do for now. I’d be happy to discuss it with anyone that feels the need. Or hear from anyone that didn’t like it! It would be interesting to hear that side of it, because I haven’t heard many negative comments on it at all. I don’t think I would defend it as a masterpiece to the end of the Earth, ‘cos it ain’t that good. I’m just hard pressed to find a serious fault. And it’s great when one of those sneaks up on you!
Perhaps my favourite of the entire genre is a film that refuses to take itself seriously and is at once a pastiche of the multiple cliches that have accumulated over the years. And that film is, of course, the wonderfully camp, funny and charming 1985 romp Clue, starring Tim Curry and a slough of 80s B stars having the time of their lives. It isn’t a “good” film, it is a cult film, it’s joy being in its absolute lack of pretension or moral judgement. Like the board game that inspired it, it isn’t overly complicated or long, but has just enough cleverness, mirth and ambiance about it to always be a winner.
Rian Johnson’s take on the genre, Knives Out, is aware of these elements at all times, being above all things colourful, playful, arch and glib, but never convoluted or cerebral in an alienating way. He is something of a master at subverting a genre and wringing new life into it; take the invention of the teen noir in Brick, or the blend of assassin time travel sci-fi in Looper. He even gave an entire franchise a new breath of life by re-examining the use of humour and self referencing in Star Wars: The Last Jedi.
All of those previous films have as many detractors as mega fans, proving his style is devisive, for its audacity and its irreverence towards any idea of purism within an established model. And Knives Out is no exception to that. However, it may be the film of his that most people can agree on that they enjoyed, for one reason or another. I think it’s as interesting to ask why that is as it is to talk about the film itself… so, I will. At least, I’ll try to do both without losing my train of thought.
Firstly, it looks stunning; the palate of rich colours used in the poster and all marketing just make it look like something you want to immerse yourself in – every jacket, tie, dress, or piece of furniture is designed to precision, and it works like a dream of the genre you may have once had, as if it had been plucked directly from your subconscious. As in all good murder mysteries, the location, props and costumes should hold as much character as the actors, and the stately home of the Thrombey family certainly provides plenty of atmosphere in every texture and material on display.
Of course, the cast of characters is wonderfully put together with some inspired casting of familiar faces and actors you trust, such as Toni Collette and Michael Shannon, together with a few we don’t see enough of these days, such as Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson, who both manage to create something as memorable as anything they did in their golden days. Add to the mix two bone fide action film superstars in Daniel Craig and Chris Evans, who leave the baggage of their most famous characters far behind and manage to convince you they are real actors again, the former with the aide of a jarring but hilarious Southern drawl, that grates at first but is a perfect choice on reflection.
Then there are the two lynchpins of this film’s ultimate success and joy: the exceptional legendary gravitas of 90 year old Christopher Plummer as the patriarch and victim at the centre of the intrigue, and the quite glorious revelation of Ana de Armas, whose charisma, beauty and skill in this delicately balanced role was the most impressive thing for me about the whole production. It may be Craig who is the ever present focus, as the detective tasked with solving the “crime”, but it is de Armas that you will remember most long after the credits roll.
As for the plot, well… I obviously can’t talk about it without ruining the whole thing. But, I can say that it isn’t far into the intricate web of motives, alibis and secrets before you start to sense this is going somewhere different, even unique. The examination of the relationships and personalities, and the extent to which they each demonstrate greed and selfishness is fascinating, superceding the crime that exists on the surface with a swamp of far seedier and unpleasant goings-on. Craig’s suave Benoit Blanc isn’t so much a detective here as a family therapist, or perhaps a supernatural presence in the style of the old classic, An Inspector Calls. Perhaps, it is suggested, no one completely escapes guilt and shame here… or do they? Are we looking for a murderer, or the only morally good person amidst a pack of dogs?
Another key element is how modern and unstuffy it feels, despite the country house and riches this is no play of manners, quite the opposite – no one here is on their best behaviour for the sake of decorum, and being upper class is an idea played with rather than enforced. The tea and cakes of the classic Christie, such as Murder on the Orient Express is replaced by smartphones and similar trappings, that identify it as definitely 2019 and no period piece. The concerns and themes are very much rooted in our present problems, and for that it engages and resonates in ways a costume drama just can’t do.
Upon finishing it for the first time, you may be thinking “sure, OK, I enjoyed that… but I’m not blown away here”. Then, as it sinks in over coming weeks, you find yourself recommending it to people, and thinking about how good it is in ways you didn’t initially think about. And that is surely why it was so embraced by the critics and paying public alike; it is a likeable, fun film, that can also stand some artistic scrutiny. It isn’t the smartest, or prettiest, or most meaningful film ever made, but it is enough of all three to make it an instant mini-classic, in my opinion.
I feel like there is maybe more to say about it, which is always a good sign, but that will do for now. I’d be happy to discuss it with anyone that feels the need. Or hear from anyone that didn’t like it! It would be interesting to hear that side of it, because I haven’t heard many negative comments on it at all. I don’t think I would defend it as a masterpiece to the end of the Earth, ‘cos it ain’t that good. I’m just hard pressed to find a serious fault. And it’s great when one of those sneaks up on you!
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Hunters of the Lost Creatures in Tabletop Games
May 8, 2022
If you are reading this, then we can agree on a few things: board games are cool and interesting, silly themes are usually fun, and we are all kids at heart. I appreciate other gamers so much because we all share a common bond of experiencing good and bad games, good and bad rules, as well as good and bad explanations of these rules. I would spoil it up top here if I let on which of these categories our featured game falls into, right? So keep reading.
Hunters of the Lost Creatures is a silly set collection card game for three to four players. In it, players assume the roles of zoological park curators charged with collecting unique creatures for their parks. They do this by bidding on and drafting creature cards, playing take-that style cards on their opponents, and blocking their cards from being manipulated by others.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, players choose one hunter card from each of the four hunting zones: Sea, Forest, Plains, and Air, as well as three “Park Closed” cards. The creature cards are to be split by zone and shuffled, with one special card (Turnado and Cat-a-Pult) added. These shuffled decks are then placed on the table and the top card revealed from each deck. Players decide turn order and the game may begin!
Hands are mostly played simultaneously, with players choosing either a hunter or special card from their hand and placing it face-down in front of themselves. All cards are revealed simultaneously and the card effects are applied. If a player has revealed a hunter, and no other players have the same-colored background/terrain type, that player receives the matching card from those on offer and places it in their park (tableau), or ANY OTHER PLAYER’S park. If ALL players have chosen the same terrain type hunters, the card on offer is removed from the game entirely. However, if not all hunters match, but at least one matches, the matching hunters’ players receive no cards.
Should a player choose to play a special card, their effects are triggered once per game. These include Turnado (switch any two creatures in any two parks), Cat-a-Pult (discards any creature from any player’s park), Thieves (steal any one terrain-matching creature and places it in the Thieves player’s park) and Closed Park (protects the player from the effects of aforementioned special cards). Again, these special cards may only be played once per game, so special consideration is needed as part of their strategy.
The game continues in this fashion of players throwing cards, messing with each other using special cards, and protecting themselves from said special cards until only one stack of creature cards remains. The game ends and points are tallied per the scoring table in the rulebook. The winner is promoted to Head Creature Park Guy and is carried around by the other players. Okay, that’s not at all true. They just win the game.
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of Hunters of the Lost Creatures, so all components shown here are subject to change at any time. That said, I received a huge deck of cards in a cute black cloth bag. The cards are all decent quality, and not super glossy, which I appreciate. The art on these cards are all whimsical and silly, which match the silly and punny titles for each. Some of these punny titles can be seen in our photos, with my favorites being the Dandylion (a well-“dressed” weed with a cane and lion face) and the Cougar (which is subtle, but portrays an adult apex big cat with a smaller and younger cat hanging on it). If you enjoy these somewhat intellectual, and sometimes visual, puns you will enjoy these cards.
What I have found in playing through this several times is that it is best when all players are taught the game backwards…ly. I mean to say that players need to know the premise, but most importantly, the scoring system before even the setup. Points are scored for having a run of 1-2-3, a straight of 0-1-2-3-10, at least one card from each terrain type, and for the printed value on the cards. It is more than simply collecting all the favorite cards or even highest value 10 cards. So there is strategy in collecting the best assortment of creatures for scoring purposes, which is great because otherwise this game is not really a game at all.
As players play their hunters to draft creatures, I have found that many players choose to chase the same cards over and over. It becomes obvious that most players will be vying for the value 10 cards, so the players who figure this out and grab the second best card is usually happier with the hand. Of course, more strategy is employed once the special cards are played, as they each mess with opponents in different ways. So even though I may not have acquired that 10 of Forest, I might grab the Turnado and switch out a value 0 or -10 card for that sparkling value 10. Wait, negative 10? Yep. Sometimes life just smacks you around and you get stuck with a -10 card to really punish your great play. Not that it ever happened to me, and not that I would be bitter about it.
The real game hinges on the usage of the special cards. When do you play them? Whom do you target? Turnabout is fair play, after all, and no alliances can be formed whilst playing Hunters of the Lost Creatures. Now, it is hinted at in the rulebook that preview copies ship with entry-level rules, which mean (to me) that more advanced rules may be coming in the final game, or at least some variants to spice up the gameplay. If true, then this game becomes much more interesting to me. Don’t get me wrong. I have enjoyed almost all of my plays, but be warned that playing with spiteful gamers may end poorly for a fun-filled game night.
All in all, I am excited to see how the campaign for Hunters of the Lost Creatures fares, as I believe many gamers and non-gamers alike will enjoy it. I would be super jazzed to grab a final copy if it does in fact ship with alternate or advanced rules, or if the creatures of the same value had unique names and art. That would really satisfy. Keep the bag or go traditional cardboard box, it matters not to me. Just beef up the card quality, add even more uniqueness and fanciful art and you’ve got a fan in me. Grab your copy during the Kickstarter campaign launching May 10, 2022!
Hunters of the Lost Creatures is a silly set collection card game for three to four players. In it, players assume the roles of zoological park curators charged with collecting unique creatures for their parks. They do this by bidding on and drafting creature cards, playing take-that style cards on their opponents, and blocking their cards from being manipulated by others.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, players choose one hunter card from each of the four hunting zones: Sea, Forest, Plains, and Air, as well as three “Park Closed” cards. The creature cards are to be split by zone and shuffled, with one special card (Turnado and Cat-a-Pult) added. These shuffled decks are then placed on the table and the top card revealed from each deck. Players decide turn order and the game may begin!
Hands are mostly played simultaneously, with players choosing either a hunter or special card from their hand and placing it face-down in front of themselves. All cards are revealed simultaneously and the card effects are applied. If a player has revealed a hunter, and no other players have the same-colored background/terrain type, that player receives the matching card from those on offer and places it in their park (tableau), or ANY OTHER PLAYER’S park. If ALL players have chosen the same terrain type hunters, the card on offer is removed from the game entirely. However, if not all hunters match, but at least one matches, the matching hunters’ players receive no cards.
Should a player choose to play a special card, their effects are triggered once per game. These include Turnado (switch any two creatures in any two parks), Cat-a-Pult (discards any creature from any player’s park), Thieves (steal any one terrain-matching creature and places it in the Thieves player’s park) and Closed Park (protects the player from the effects of aforementioned special cards). Again, these special cards may only be played once per game, so special consideration is needed as part of their strategy.
The game continues in this fashion of players throwing cards, messing with each other using special cards, and protecting themselves from said special cards until only one stack of creature cards remains. The game ends and points are tallied per the scoring table in the rulebook. The winner is promoted to Head Creature Park Guy and is carried around by the other players. Okay, that’s not at all true. They just win the game.
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of Hunters of the Lost Creatures, so all components shown here are subject to change at any time. That said, I received a huge deck of cards in a cute black cloth bag. The cards are all decent quality, and not super glossy, which I appreciate. The art on these cards are all whimsical and silly, which match the silly and punny titles for each. Some of these punny titles can be seen in our photos, with my favorites being the Dandylion (a well-“dressed” weed with a cane and lion face) and the Cougar (which is subtle, but portrays an adult apex big cat with a smaller and younger cat hanging on it). If you enjoy these somewhat intellectual, and sometimes visual, puns you will enjoy these cards.
What I have found in playing through this several times is that it is best when all players are taught the game backwards…ly. I mean to say that players need to know the premise, but most importantly, the scoring system before even the setup. Points are scored for having a run of 1-2-3, a straight of 0-1-2-3-10, at least one card from each terrain type, and for the printed value on the cards. It is more than simply collecting all the favorite cards or even highest value 10 cards. So there is strategy in collecting the best assortment of creatures for scoring purposes, which is great because otherwise this game is not really a game at all.
As players play their hunters to draft creatures, I have found that many players choose to chase the same cards over and over. It becomes obvious that most players will be vying for the value 10 cards, so the players who figure this out and grab the second best card is usually happier with the hand. Of course, more strategy is employed once the special cards are played, as they each mess with opponents in different ways. So even though I may not have acquired that 10 of Forest, I might grab the Turnado and switch out a value 0 or -10 card for that sparkling value 10. Wait, negative 10? Yep. Sometimes life just smacks you around and you get stuck with a -10 card to really punish your great play. Not that it ever happened to me, and not that I would be bitter about it.
The real game hinges on the usage of the special cards. When do you play them? Whom do you target? Turnabout is fair play, after all, and no alliances can be formed whilst playing Hunters of the Lost Creatures. Now, it is hinted at in the rulebook that preview copies ship with entry-level rules, which mean (to me) that more advanced rules may be coming in the final game, or at least some variants to spice up the gameplay. If true, then this game becomes much more interesting to me. Don’t get me wrong. I have enjoyed almost all of my plays, but be warned that playing with spiteful gamers may end poorly for a fun-filled game night.
All in all, I am excited to see how the campaign for Hunters of the Lost Creatures fares, as I believe many gamers and non-gamers alike will enjoy it. I would be super jazzed to grab a final copy if it does in fact ship with alternate or advanced rules, or if the creatures of the same value had unique names and art. That would really satisfy. Keep the bag or go traditional cardboard box, it matters not to me. Just beef up the card quality, add even more uniqueness and fanciful art and you’ve got a fan in me. Grab your copy during the Kickstarter campaign launching May 10, 2022!
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Small Great Things in Books
May 24, 2017
Small is an Understatement
Jodi Picoult has been my favourite author since I first came across her novels in 2008. With twenty-three novels under her belt, she continues to delight readers with her page-turning stories. Most of Picoult’s books contain a moral issue, often, but not always, in the form of medical ethics, as well as a hefty court case. Although following along similar lines, Small Great Things is a radical, revolutionary book, which, with great courage, Picoult has written with the intent to expose the reader to truths that most of us, as a society, are intentionally oblivious to.
The gist of the storyline is that a baby dies whilst under the care of a nurse, prompting the grieving parents to take her to court with the accusation of murder. Although that sounds like an interesting story, it barely begins to describe what the book is about. The character on trial, Ruth, is an African American labour and delivery nurse – something that in this day and age need not by an issue. On the other hand, the parents of the baby are White Supremacists: seriously racist with the belief that white people are the master race. The father, Turk, refuses to let his wife and child be treated by Ruth, however circumstances result in her being the only nurse available to watch Davis, when, unfortunately, he so happens to go into cardiac arrest. Although the reader knows that Ruth is not at fault, Turk insists she murdered his child – but is he accusing her of medical negligence, or punishing her for being black?
Three characters, all with different views and experience when it comes to racism, alternately narrate Small Great Things. Ruth and Turk represent the extremes at either side of the scale. Ruth experiences first hand the negative impact of prejudice in the American system and society, not only through this court case, but in everyday life as well. She also reveals the difficulties growing up in a predominately white environment, never feeling like she fitted in with her peers. Alternatively, Turk spent his teenage years attending KKK rallies, participating in a white power movement, and beating up anyone who was different: black, foreign, gay, Jewish and so forth.
The third character represents the majority of white people living in America. Kennedy is a public defender and the lawyer assigned to Ruth’s case. Like most of the population, she believes that she is not racist, and persuades Ruth to leave the colour of her skin out of the argument. However, as she gets to know her client, she begins to realize that it is nigh on impossible to ignore racial prejudice.
Picoult shocks the reader on two accounts: one, the way that people of colour have been, and still are, treated; and two, the revelation that an invisible empire of White Supremacists are living amongst us. Yet there is a third way in which Picoult provokes outrage – she indirectly accuses the reader of being racist, too.
There is always something to learn in a Jodi Picoult novel, for instance medical terminology, or the way in which a court trial is conducted. Small Great Things provides a lot more eye opening information than any of her previous books, unveiling facts about such a controversial subject.
Through Kennedy, the reader’s eyes are opened to the racial discrimination that we all turn a blind eye to. Ignored are the difficulties African Americans suffer when going shopping, applying for jobs, attending school, walking down the street, sitting on a bus, and so forth. Picoult asks me as a reader to think about how my life has been affected by racial discrimination: being served politely in shops because I am white, not having my ethnicity questioned when applying for college etc. Living in Britain I have not experienced openly hateful comments or behaviours towards people with a different skin tone – I used to believe this was primarily an American problem. Yet, Small Great Things has really made me think about the hierarchy of power within society, particularly in regards to the ethnicity of those at the top, compared with those at the bottom.
Jodi Picoult sat on the idea of writing a book about racism for well over a decade, yet it is particularly apt that it is published now, with the current predicaments America is facing. Although we have come a long way in attempts to achieve equality for all – compare the trial in To Kill A Mockingbird to Picoult’s version – recent events have revealed that we are no where near.
Small Great Things will shock everyone who reads it regardless of their ethnicity and so forth. Many may find it uncomfortable to read, become upset or outraged, and even feel like they are being directly targeted. If this is the case, then good – it should do that. Everyone needs to read this book. On the one hand it is a brilliant, well told story with a beautiful, almost poetic narrative, and on the other, it causes us to face up to the issues we are forever making light of or overlooking entirely. We have grown up believing that racism is a form of hatred when, actually, it is about power. However Small Great Things makes you feel, it is definitely worth reading, especially for the satisfying ending – one that you do not see coming.
The gist of the storyline is that a baby dies whilst under the care of a nurse, prompting the grieving parents to take her to court with the accusation of murder. Although that sounds like an interesting story, it barely begins to describe what the book is about. The character on trial, Ruth, is an African American labour and delivery nurse – something that in this day and age need not by an issue. On the other hand, the parents of the baby are White Supremacists: seriously racist with the belief that white people are the master race. The father, Turk, refuses to let his wife and child be treated by Ruth, however circumstances result in her being the only nurse available to watch Davis, when, unfortunately, he so happens to go into cardiac arrest. Although the reader knows that Ruth is not at fault, Turk insists she murdered his child – but is he accusing her of medical negligence, or punishing her for being black?
Three characters, all with different views and experience when it comes to racism, alternately narrate Small Great Things. Ruth and Turk represent the extremes at either side of the scale. Ruth experiences first hand the negative impact of prejudice in the American system and society, not only through this court case, but in everyday life as well. She also reveals the difficulties growing up in a predominately white environment, never feeling like she fitted in with her peers. Alternatively, Turk spent his teenage years attending KKK rallies, participating in a white power movement, and beating up anyone who was different: black, foreign, gay, Jewish and so forth.
The third character represents the majority of white people living in America. Kennedy is a public defender and the lawyer assigned to Ruth’s case. Like most of the population, she believes that she is not racist, and persuades Ruth to leave the colour of her skin out of the argument. However, as she gets to know her client, she begins to realize that it is nigh on impossible to ignore racial prejudice.
Picoult shocks the reader on two accounts: one, the way that people of colour have been, and still are, treated; and two, the revelation that an invisible empire of White Supremacists are living amongst us. Yet there is a third way in which Picoult provokes outrage – she indirectly accuses the reader of being racist, too.
There is always something to learn in a Jodi Picoult novel, for instance medical terminology, or the way in which a court trial is conducted. Small Great Things provides a lot more eye opening information than any of her previous books, unveiling facts about such a controversial subject.
Through Kennedy, the reader’s eyes are opened to the racial discrimination that we all turn a blind eye to. Ignored are the difficulties African Americans suffer when going shopping, applying for jobs, attending school, walking down the street, sitting on a bus, and so forth. Picoult asks me as a reader to think about how my life has been affected by racial discrimination: being served politely in shops because I am white, not having my ethnicity questioned when applying for college etc. Living in Britain I have not experienced openly hateful comments or behaviours towards people with a different skin tone – I used to believe this was primarily an American problem. Yet, Small Great Things has really made me think about the hierarchy of power within society, particularly in regards to the ethnicity of those at the top, compared with those at the bottom.
Jodi Picoult sat on the idea of writing a book about racism for well over a decade, yet it is particularly apt that it is published now, with the current predicaments America is facing. Although we have come a long way in attempts to achieve equality for all – compare the trial in To Kill A Mockingbird to Picoult’s version – recent events have revealed that we are no where near.
Small Great Things will shock everyone who reads it regardless of their ethnicity and so forth. Many may find it uncomfortable to read, become upset or outraged, and even feel like they are being directly targeted. If this is the case, then good – it should do that. Everyone needs to read this book. On the one hand it is a brilliant, well told story with a beautiful, almost poetic narrative, and on the other, it causes us to face up to the issues we are forever making light of or overlooking entirely. We have grown up believing that racism is a form of hatred when, actually, it is about power. However Small Great Things makes you feel, it is definitely worth reading, especially for the satisfying ending – one that you do not see coming.