Search
Search results
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent (2022) in Movies
Apr 24, 2022
The performances of Nicolas Cage and Pedro Pascal. (1 more)
A simple concept wrapped in a ton of adult humor.
Could be a bit too meta at times. (1 more)
The second half of the film isn't quite as good as the first half.
The R-Rated Action Comedy of a Lifetime
Nicolas Cage portrays an exaggerated version of himself in The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent. In the film, Nick Cage is struggling as an actor. He’s in a crazy amount of debt, he can’t find steady work, and his ex-wife Olivia (Sharon Horgan) and daughter Addy (Anna MacDonald) feel like he’s too full of himself to fit them into his life. Nick contemplates retiring from acting altogether and is intending to do so after an awkward $1 million gig of being on an island as the guest of honor at a birthday party.
But the birthday is for a gargantuan Nicolas Cage super fan named Javi Gutierrez (Pedro Pascal). Javi and Nick become fast friends, but the CIA abducts Nick one evening and informs him that Javi is actually an arms dealer that is responsible for the kidnapping of the daughter of an anti-crime politician. Nick becomes torn between snitching for the government and seeing where his newfound friendship with Javi goes, which revolves around Nick having the most fun he’s had in years.
What makes The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent so entertaining is the bromance between Nicolas Cage and Pedro Pascal. The two seem like legitimate best friends and there’s essentially chemistry with the two actors as soon as they meet each other on screen. As Nick Cage, the real Cage is totally self-absorbed as the character. He’s blinded by his own interests and what he has going on in his life to really understand or pay attention to anyone else. The whole world revolves around Nick Cage. Meanwhile, Javi is more humble. He has so much Nicolas Cage memorabilia that his room devoted to him could be considered as a museum or shrine to the actor. The two surprisingly have a lot in common and end up being hilarious together.
The first hour of the film is basically the Cage and Pascal show with the two running around like idiots in the best kind of way. Nick and Javi bond over Paddington 2, possibly making a movie together, and doing acid together. The acid taking sequence in general is probably the funniest part of the film, especially with their uncontrollable paranoia and Pascal’s fake laughing.
The remaining 47 minutes is devoted to the two men attempting to kill one another. Nick believing that Javi is this guns dealing madman and Javi discovering that Nick has been working with the CIA. The film snowballs further and further into ridiculous territory and you just gobble it up because it’s so great. The R-rated action comedy is loaded with incredibly detailed movie references and Nicolas Cage being funnier than he has ever been.
Pedro Pascal has dabbled in comedy since leaving Game of Thrones and it has never really worked out. He was the best part of The Bubble, which dropped on Netflix earlier this month, but that’s not saying much since the film was so bad. This is the first time Pascal has gotten to showcase his comedic chops in a film that is legitimately funny, surprisingly sentimental, and enormously entertaining from beginning to end.
Throughout the film, Nick Cage argues with Nicky – the younger and more successful version of himself from Wild at Heart. Nicky is basically the devil on Nick Cage’s shoulder as he encourages him to take more risks and do whatever he wants simply because he is Nick freaking Cage. It’s incredible seeing two versions of Cage argue and interact on screen, but it nearly melts your brain from simply being too awesome for our Nicolas Cage admiring brains to process.
It certainly seems like The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent will have a deeper impact on you if you’re at least somewhat of a fan of Nicolas Cage’s work, but could also be amusing for fans of absurd adult comedies. Pedro Pascal is the humorous wingman we all wish we could have; soft spoken and yet a priceless factor in the overall ludicrous nature of the film. Meanwhile, Nicolas Cage continues to reign supreme as a talented lunatic at the top of his game. The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent is an outrageous and uproarious expedition into hilarity and absurdity. Nicolas Cage and Pedro Pascal are an unlikely yet brilliant comical duo that will have you rolling on the sticky movie theater floor with laughter.
But the birthday is for a gargantuan Nicolas Cage super fan named Javi Gutierrez (Pedro Pascal). Javi and Nick become fast friends, but the CIA abducts Nick one evening and informs him that Javi is actually an arms dealer that is responsible for the kidnapping of the daughter of an anti-crime politician. Nick becomes torn between snitching for the government and seeing where his newfound friendship with Javi goes, which revolves around Nick having the most fun he’s had in years.
What makes The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent so entertaining is the bromance between Nicolas Cage and Pedro Pascal. The two seem like legitimate best friends and there’s essentially chemistry with the two actors as soon as they meet each other on screen. As Nick Cage, the real Cage is totally self-absorbed as the character. He’s blinded by his own interests and what he has going on in his life to really understand or pay attention to anyone else. The whole world revolves around Nick Cage. Meanwhile, Javi is more humble. He has so much Nicolas Cage memorabilia that his room devoted to him could be considered as a museum or shrine to the actor. The two surprisingly have a lot in common and end up being hilarious together.
The first hour of the film is basically the Cage and Pascal show with the two running around like idiots in the best kind of way. Nick and Javi bond over Paddington 2, possibly making a movie together, and doing acid together. The acid taking sequence in general is probably the funniest part of the film, especially with their uncontrollable paranoia and Pascal’s fake laughing.
The remaining 47 minutes is devoted to the two men attempting to kill one another. Nick believing that Javi is this guns dealing madman and Javi discovering that Nick has been working with the CIA. The film snowballs further and further into ridiculous territory and you just gobble it up because it’s so great. The R-rated action comedy is loaded with incredibly detailed movie references and Nicolas Cage being funnier than he has ever been.
Pedro Pascal has dabbled in comedy since leaving Game of Thrones and it has never really worked out. He was the best part of The Bubble, which dropped on Netflix earlier this month, but that’s not saying much since the film was so bad. This is the first time Pascal has gotten to showcase his comedic chops in a film that is legitimately funny, surprisingly sentimental, and enormously entertaining from beginning to end.
Throughout the film, Nick Cage argues with Nicky – the younger and more successful version of himself from Wild at Heart. Nicky is basically the devil on Nick Cage’s shoulder as he encourages him to take more risks and do whatever he wants simply because he is Nick freaking Cage. It’s incredible seeing two versions of Cage argue and interact on screen, but it nearly melts your brain from simply being too awesome for our Nicolas Cage admiring brains to process.
It certainly seems like The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent will have a deeper impact on you if you’re at least somewhat of a fan of Nicolas Cage’s work, but could also be amusing for fans of absurd adult comedies. Pedro Pascal is the humorous wingman we all wish we could have; soft spoken and yet a priceless factor in the overall ludicrous nature of the film. Meanwhile, Nicolas Cage continues to reign supreme as a talented lunatic at the top of his game. The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent is an outrageous and uproarious expedition into hilarity and absurdity. Nicolas Cage and Pedro Pascal are an unlikely yet brilliant comical duo that will have you rolling on the sticky movie theater floor with laughter.
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Umbrella Academy in TV
Mar 4, 2019
I hadn’t even heard anything about The Umbrella Academy before, let alone read any of the Dark Horse comic series on which this Netflix show is adapted from. The premise, and the trailer for the show, didn’t initially appeal to me if I’m honest. But, it turns out that Netflix have only gone and done it again, turning out yet another binge worthy little gem of a show.
The setup for Umbrella Academy is that one day in 1989, 43 babies were born to mothers who were not pregnant when that day began. An eccentric billionaire, Sir Reginald Hargreeves, purchases seven of those babies and raises them, training them to become a powerful crime fighting team. Living with them at the Umbrella Academy is an android Nanny, who the children refer to as Mom, and a well spoken elderly chimpanzee butler called Dr Pogo (impressive work from Weta, the team behind the recent Planet of The Apes trilogy). Each child is known only by a number given to them by their ‘Father’, Sir Reginald – Number 1 through to Number 7 – ranked in order of their usefulness to him!
Fast forward to present day and the team have all but disbanded, with what’s left of them living out problem filled adult lives. Number 1 (now known as Luther) has been living on the moon for the past 4 years. He possesses super strength and has a very bulky appearance, wearing roll neck jumpers and a long coat. Number 2 (now Diego) is a vigilante and a bit of a knife expert. Number 3 (Allison) is now a famous actress, gifted with the ability to alter reality with her voice. Number 4 (Klaus) is a junkie who can communicate with the dead. Number 5 is able to perform small teleportations, or time jumps, but has been missing since they were all teenagers. Number 6 (Ben) was killed prior to the events in this show and Number 7 (Vanya) is believed not to have any special abilities, always being neglected and overlooked by the others while growing up. When news reaches them all that Sir Reginald has died, they all return to the academy.
The opening episode of The Umbrella Academy is packed full of thrills, mystery and a very exciting setup for the remainder of the season. We get a taste of the childrens abilities and teamwork, impressively taking out a bunch of bad guys. Then in present day, Number 5 suddenly appears from a portal in the sky. He claims to have spent decades living in a post-apocalyptic future, having jumped there all those years ago, but unable to return. He survived there until the age of 58, but on his return to present day he returned to his 13 year old appearance. We get a glimpse of the apocalyptic world that Number 5 arrived in and discover that whatever causes it is due to happen in just a few days from present day.
From there, the show suffers with what a lot of high concept shows tend to suffer from – second episode drag. That’s not to say that it’s boring, but we begin to delve into some of the Daddy issues that the various team members have, along with issues some of them have with each other and it’s a sharp contrast to the impressive opening episode. If I’m honest, by the end of episode 3 I was considering giving up, but I stuck with it. I really grew to like this dysfunctional family, and as the show dips back and forth between their teenage years and the present day, I really became invested in the show and its characters. They begin to band together to work through their issues and try and find a way of working out what causes the impending apocalypse, and how to stop it.
There are certainly consequences which play out throughout the season though. We discover that during his time in the future, Number 5 became involved in an organisation which works to correct events in time in order to ensure the destined timeline plays out as it should. Because of Number 5’s return to the present, he is now being hunted by a pair of black suited assassins called Hazel and Cha-Cha. Consequently, the body count in this show is pretty high, usually accompanied by a killer soundtrack!
I’m glad I stuck with it, because the whole thing soon became compulsive viewing, building to an incredibly entertaining and satisfying finale. With the apocalypse imminent, the whole team finally work together once more – a few twists and turns along the way, and a great cliffhanger setting things up for another season. I really loved everything about this show and the way that something so completely bonkers is presented so well, so believable and so intense.
The setup for Umbrella Academy is that one day in 1989, 43 babies were born to mothers who were not pregnant when that day began. An eccentric billionaire, Sir Reginald Hargreeves, purchases seven of those babies and raises them, training them to become a powerful crime fighting team. Living with them at the Umbrella Academy is an android Nanny, who the children refer to as Mom, and a well spoken elderly chimpanzee butler called Dr Pogo (impressive work from Weta, the team behind the recent Planet of The Apes trilogy). Each child is known only by a number given to them by their ‘Father’, Sir Reginald – Number 1 through to Number 7 – ranked in order of their usefulness to him!
Fast forward to present day and the team have all but disbanded, with what’s left of them living out problem filled adult lives. Number 1 (now known as Luther) has been living on the moon for the past 4 years. He possesses super strength and has a very bulky appearance, wearing roll neck jumpers and a long coat. Number 2 (now Diego) is a vigilante and a bit of a knife expert. Number 3 (Allison) is now a famous actress, gifted with the ability to alter reality with her voice. Number 4 (Klaus) is a junkie who can communicate with the dead. Number 5 is able to perform small teleportations, or time jumps, but has been missing since they were all teenagers. Number 6 (Ben) was killed prior to the events in this show and Number 7 (Vanya) is believed not to have any special abilities, always being neglected and overlooked by the others while growing up. When news reaches them all that Sir Reginald has died, they all return to the academy.
The opening episode of The Umbrella Academy is packed full of thrills, mystery and a very exciting setup for the remainder of the season. We get a taste of the childrens abilities and teamwork, impressively taking out a bunch of bad guys. Then in present day, Number 5 suddenly appears from a portal in the sky. He claims to have spent decades living in a post-apocalyptic future, having jumped there all those years ago, but unable to return. He survived there until the age of 58, but on his return to present day he returned to his 13 year old appearance. We get a glimpse of the apocalyptic world that Number 5 arrived in and discover that whatever causes it is due to happen in just a few days from present day.
From there, the show suffers with what a lot of high concept shows tend to suffer from – second episode drag. That’s not to say that it’s boring, but we begin to delve into some of the Daddy issues that the various team members have, along with issues some of them have with each other and it’s a sharp contrast to the impressive opening episode. If I’m honest, by the end of episode 3 I was considering giving up, but I stuck with it. I really grew to like this dysfunctional family, and as the show dips back and forth between their teenage years and the present day, I really became invested in the show and its characters. They begin to band together to work through their issues and try and find a way of working out what causes the impending apocalypse, and how to stop it.
There are certainly consequences which play out throughout the season though. We discover that during his time in the future, Number 5 became involved in an organisation which works to correct events in time in order to ensure the destined timeline plays out as it should. Because of Number 5’s return to the present, he is now being hunted by a pair of black suited assassins called Hazel and Cha-Cha. Consequently, the body count in this show is pretty high, usually accompanied by a killer soundtrack!
I’m glad I stuck with it, because the whole thing soon became compulsive viewing, building to an incredibly entertaining and satisfying finale. With the apocalypse imminent, the whole team finally work together once more – a few twists and turns along the way, and a great cliffhanger setting things up for another season. I really loved everything about this show and the way that something so completely bonkers is presented so well, so believable and so intense.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Iron Lady (2012) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Meryl Streep certainly has an impressive roster of films under her belt. She’s reduced Anne Hathaway to tears in The Devil Wears Prada, she’s played the role of struggling hotelier in the all singing, all dancing Mamma Mia and has racked up an astonishing 16 Oscar nominations for films like Kramer vs. Kramer and Sophie’s Choice. However, here, she perhaps takes on her biggest role to date portraying arguably the most controversial figure in British politics; Baroness Thatcher. Can she pull it off? Did you really need to ask?
Streep teams up with Mammia Mia director Phyllida Lloyd in the Iron Lady, a biopic surrounding the life of ex-Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher and between the two of them and a wonderful supporting cast, deliver a stunning but disappointingly safe take on the 86 year olds life.
The film opens with a frail looking woman wandering the streets and buying a bottle of milk, we soon learn that this woman is of course, Baroness Thatcher. After a thought provoking moment of silence, the scene is switched to her current home where she is kept under lock and key, struggling with ever worsening dementia. Her constant conversations with dead husband Dennis, played fabulously by Jim Broadbent are emotional and form the basis of the entire film.
It is in these scenes that we begin to ‘study’ Thatcher’s life from her youth right up until the present day. We see her refusing to give up after failing to gain a seat in the 1950 and 1951 general elections as well as her first steps into Number 10 as the first ever female Prime Minister. Lloyd displays these moments with great finesse and integrates Streep’s portrayal with real footage of Thatcher walking into 10 Downing Street amongst other key moments.
Most of the major events in Margaret’s career are carried over into the film, bar a few notable exceptions. The Grand Hotel bombing, the Falklands war, the death of Thatcher’s personal assistant at the hands of the IRA and of course the controversial Poll Tax all make the grade but are explained in a way that isn’t damaging to the reputation of the Baroness and this is perhaps where the film loses its way a little.
There’ll be no prizes in telling you that Margaret Thatcher was either a fantastic woman who turned around the fates of a country struggling with recession or a woman who nearly destroyed everything we hold dear; depending obviously on your thoughts of her. No matter what thoughts we all have, opinions are opinions. Here, however, the film tries to make up the minds of those watching, rather than allowing an opinion to form on its own and this is perhaps the biggest problem with a political biopic, there is always a sense of bias.
Fortunately, Lloyd stays on the right side of mass appeal and doesn’t give in to mindless brown-nosing.
It is in the films present day moments that really shine. Seeing a woman who wanted to change the world struggle to cope with the loss of her husband and fall into dementia is, no matter what your opinion on the ex-Prime Minister, heart-breaking. It is here, that sympathy is found.
Streep’s performance is stunning to say the least and she is a joy to watch. Her transgression from young, enthusiastic Thatcher to the old and frail woman we see today is yes, in part down to the astonishing make-up given to her throughout but mainly because of her ability as an actress. She, like the lady herself takes charge of every scene she is a part of, something which many actresses struggle to do. Streep may have had her critics in being cast for this film, but she has proved them wrong. It will be a crime if she isn’t nominated for an Oscar this year.
Of the films other cast, Olivia Colman does well as Margaret’s daughter Carole and as mentioned previously, Jim Broadbent is brilliant as the deceased Dennis Thatcher; he fits the role perfectly and again should be nominated for an Oscar later this year. The supporting cast includes the likes of Anthony Head as Geoffrey Howe and Nicholas Farrell as Thatcher’s murdered assistant Airey Neave, but the scenes with these characters are often overshadowed by Streep’s presence.
The Iron Lady is a joy to behold. It makes you proud to be British, to know that we as a country can produce films of this calibre and it shows the world just what a woman Margaret Thatcher was. In the scenes showing Thatcher’s spiral into dementia is where it becomes most touching, but throughout, we get a full, if slightly biased view of her 11 and a half years in office and Meryl Streep does the old girl proud.
Think what you will of the former Conservative leader, but The Iron Lady is worth a watch for Streep’s performance alone.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/01/12/review-the-iron-lady-2011/
Streep teams up with Mammia Mia director Phyllida Lloyd in the Iron Lady, a biopic surrounding the life of ex-Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher and between the two of them and a wonderful supporting cast, deliver a stunning but disappointingly safe take on the 86 year olds life.
The film opens with a frail looking woman wandering the streets and buying a bottle of milk, we soon learn that this woman is of course, Baroness Thatcher. After a thought provoking moment of silence, the scene is switched to her current home where she is kept under lock and key, struggling with ever worsening dementia. Her constant conversations with dead husband Dennis, played fabulously by Jim Broadbent are emotional and form the basis of the entire film.
It is in these scenes that we begin to ‘study’ Thatcher’s life from her youth right up until the present day. We see her refusing to give up after failing to gain a seat in the 1950 and 1951 general elections as well as her first steps into Number 10 as the first ever female Prime Minister. Lloyd displays these moments with great finesse and integrates Streep’s portrayal with real footage of Thatcher walking into 10 Downing Street amongst other key moments.
Most of the major events in Margaret’s career are carried over into the film, bar a few notable exceptions. The Grand Hotel bombing, the Falklands war, the death of Thatcher’s personal assistant at the hands of the IRA and of course the controversial Poll Tax all make the grade but are explained in a way that isn’t damaging to the reputation of the Baroness and this is perhaps where the film loses its way a little.
There’ll be no prizes in telling you that Margaret Thatcher was either a fantastic woman who turned around the fates of a country struggling with recession or a woman who nearly destroyed everything we hold dear; depending obviously on your thoughts of her. No matter what thoughts we all have, opinions are opinions. Here, however, the film tries to make up the minds of those watching, rather than allowing an opinion to form on its own and this is perhaps the biggest problem with a political biopic, there is always a sense of bias.
Fortunately, Lloyd stays on the right side of mass appeal and doesn’t give in to mindless brown-nosing.
It is in the films present day moments that really shine. Seeing a woman who wanted to change the world struggle to cope with the loss of her husband and fall into dementia is, no matter what your opinion on the ex-Prime Minister, heart-breaking. It is here, that sympathy is found.
Streep’s performance is stunning to say the least and she is a joy to watch. Her transgression from young, enthusiastic Thatcher to the old and frail woman we see today is yes, in part down to the astonishing make-up given to her throughout but mainly because of her ability as an actress. She, like the lady herself takes charge of every scene she is a part of, something which many actresses struggle to do. Streep may have had her critics in being cast for this film, but she has proved them wrong. It will be a crime if she isn’t nominated for an Oscar this year.
Of the films other cast, Olivia Colman does well as Margaret’s daughter Carole and as mentioned previously, Jim Broadbent is brilliant as the deceased Dennis Thatcher; he fits the role perfectly and again should be nominated for an Oscar later this year. The supporting cast includes the likes of Anthony Head as Geoffrey Howe and Nicholas Farrell as Thatcher’s murdered assistant Airey Neave, but the scenes with these characters are often overshadowed by Streep’s presence.
The Iron Lady is a joy to behold. It makes you proud to be British, to know that we as a country can produce films of this calibre and it shows the world just what a woman Margaret Thatcher was. In the scenes showing Thatcher’s spiral into dementia is where it becomes most touching, but throughout, we get a full, if slightly biased view of her 11 and a half years in office and Meryl Streep does the old girl proud.
Think what you will of the former Conservative leader, but The Iron Lady is worth a watch for Streep’s performance alone.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/01/12/review-the-iron-lady-2011/
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Deception: Murder in Hong Kong in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
One of the funnest (yeah I know, it’s not a word) parts of board gaming is getting to introduce new people to the hobby! Whether it’s a family gathering or a party with friends, I love breaking out a fun game for any occasion! Some board gamers have an aversion to the ‘party’ games category, but I think you just need to find the right game for the group to have the best experience! One of those games, for me, is Deception: Murder in Hong Kong!
MURDER! As an Investigator, that’s just another day on the job for you. This time feels different, though. Something about this case is off… After the initial evidence is gathered, the team’s Forensic Scientist has disclosed to the team that the killer is one of the Investigators! Everyone is on edge, accusing every other Investigator of being the murderer. Everyone had potential means and motive, and it is up to you to figure it out! As the Forensic Scientist uncovers more evidence, the details of the crime will come to light, and the killer will be revealed. Put your investigative and deductive skills to the test as you try to unmask the killer, or throw the team off your scent if you are the culprit!
DISCLAIMER!! This review is for vanilla Deception: Murder in Hong Kong. We have plans to add in the expansion once one of us purchases it and learns it and teaches it to the rest of us. Should that happen and our review change, we will add that information to this review or to a new review and link to it from here. -T
Deception: Murder in Hong Kong is a game of bluffing, deduction, and hidden identity. All players (except for the Forensic Scientist) have a secret role in the game – Investigator, Witness, Murderer, or Accomplice. The Forensic Scientist knows who the killer is, and how they did it. It is their job to guide the Investigators to the killer by providing clues about the uncovered evidence. The Investigators are trying to interpret the clues and uncover the killer’s identity. The Witness knows who the killer is, but has not yet figured out how they did it. The Murderer and Accomplice are looking to pin the murder on one of the other innocent members of the team! As clues are revealed, each player gets a chance to make a case against the player whom they think is the murderer. You must convince everyone of your logic, or else the killer could get away! In a game where everyone is a suspect, who can you trust? Gather clues, present your case, and put your poker face to the test in this ultimate game of deception! (See what I did there?)
I thoroughly enjoy games of deduction. Anything where you have to think and solve puzzles/riddles/etc. is fun for me. In Deception, it’s a race to see who can find the solution first. Not only do you have to deduce the correct answer from the provided clues, but you also have to put your persuasive skills to the test! Unless you can convince everyone that a specific player is the killer, they might turn their accusations towards someone else, or even worse, towards YOU! You really have to think outside of the box to interpret the Forensic Scientist’s clues, and I like to challenge myself to find the solution in as few turns as possible. The faster I can solve the murder, the smarter I feel. Don’t lie, it makes you feel smart too when you figure it out before anyone else!
The only part of Deception that I don’t really enjoy is the bluffing aspect, which is one of the most integral parts of the game, I know. I am just a horrible liar with a questionable poker face. If we play and I am the Murderer, I am almost always found out. Whenever anyone accuses me, my mind blanks and I cannot think of a single convincing way to get everyone off my scent! That is a personal problem, though, because when I get to be just a regular ol’ Investigator, I have a blast! I can still be accused, but I always feel like I have an easier time getting people off my case if I am actually innocent. I know some people really enjoy being the Murderer because they like the challenge of deceiving the entire team. I am not one of those people though. If I was guaranteed to be just a plain Investigator (or the Forensic Scientist) every time, I would probably pull this game out more!
Deception: Murder in Hong Kong is a ‘party’ game, but with the right group, it can still be a challenging game. A higher player count, in this case, does not necessarily equate to a chaotic game either. So give Deception a try. It’ll be worth it! Purple Phoenix Games gives it a 17 / 24.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2018/12/26/deception-murder-in-hong-kong-review/
MURDER! As an Investigator, that’s just another day on the job for you. This time feels different, though. Something about this case is off… After the initial evidence is gathered, the team’s Forensic Scientist has disclosed to the team that the killer is one of the Investigators! Everyone is on edge, accusing every other Investigator of being the murderer. Everyone had potential means and motive, and it is up to you to figure it out! As the Forensic Scientist uncovers more evidence, the details of the crime will come to light, and the killer will be revealed. Put your investigative and deductive skills to the test as you try to unmask the killer, or throw the team off your scent if you are the culprit!
DISCLAIMER!! This review is for vanilla Deception: Murder in Hong Kong. We have plans to add in the expansion once one of us purchases it and learns it and teaches it to the rest of us. Should that happen and our review change, we will add that information to this review or to a new review and link to it from here. -T
Deception: Murder in Hong Kong is a game of bluffing, deduction, and hidden identity. All players (except for the Forensic Scientist) have a secret role in the game – Investigator, Witness, Murderer, or Accomplice. The Forensic Scientist knows who the killer is, and how they did it. It is their job to guide the Investigators to the killer by providing clues about the uncovered evidence. The Investigators are trying to interpret the clues and uncover the killer’s identity. The Witness knows who the killer is, but has not yet figured out how they did it. The Murderer and Accomplice are looking to pin the murder on one of the other innocent members of the team! As clues are revealed, each player gets a chance to make a case against the player whom they think is the murderer. You must convince everyone of your logic, or else the killer could get away! In a game where everyone is a suspect, who can you trust? Gather clues, present your case, and put your poker face to the test in this ultimate game of deception! (See what I did there?)
I thoroughly enjoy games of deduction. Anything where you have to think and solve puzzles/riddles/etc. is fun for me. In Deception, it’s a race to see who can find the solution first. Not only do you have to deduce the correct answer from the provided clues, but you also have to put your persuasive skills to the test! Unless you can convince everyone that a specific player is the killer, they might turn their accusations towards someone else, or even worse, towards YOU! You really have to think outside of the box to interpret the Forensic Scientist’s clues, and I like to challenge myself to find the solution in as few turns as possible. The faster I can solve the murder, the smarter I feel. Don’t lie, it makes you feel smart too when you figure it out before anyone else!
The only part of Deception that I don’t really enjoy is the bluffing aspect, which is one of the most integral parts of the game, I know. I am just a horrible liar with a questionable poker face. If we play and I am the Murderer, I am almost always found out. Whenever anyone accuses me, my mind blanks and I cannot think of a single convincing way to get everyone off my scent! That is a personal problem, though, because when I get to be just a regular ol’ Investigator, I have a blast! I can still be accused, but I always feel like I have an easier time getting people off my case if I am actually innocent. I know some people really enjoy being the Murderer because they like the challenge of deceiving the entire team. I am not one of those people though. If I was guaranteed to be just a plain Investigator (or the Forensic Scientist) every time, I would probably pull this game out more!
Deception: Murder in Hong Kong is a ‘party’ game, but with the right group, it can still be a challenging game. A higher player count, in this case, does not necessarily equate to a chaotic game either. So give Deception a try. It’ll be worth it! Purple Phoenix Games gives it a 17 / 24.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2018/12/26/deception-murder-in-hong-kong-review/
Kyera (8 KP) rated The Circle in Books
Feb 1, 2018
Even a day after finishing The Circle by Dave Eggers, Im still not quite sure how I feel about the book. The story follows Mae, a young twenty-something year old as she gets a job at the Circle the biggest tech company around. Theyve essentially outperformed, purchased and influenced their competition like Google, Facebook and Apple and have become dominant in the field. The plot progresses as the company invents more and more ways to progress technology and access to knowledge.
I didnt find any of the characters in this book particularly likable. In fact, I really didnt connect with or like the main character at all. She seemed to have no backbone, became very defensive and accusatory with no motivation, meddled in other peoples private affairs, and made some terrible decisions in her life. Her choices throughout the book were very frustrating, as she succumbed to bad decision making, alienated her family, and pushed away her true friends.
For me, this book was very stress-inducing. Just Maes job in customer service became overwhelming very quickly. When she was introduced to her job, her desk and her coworkers, it was explained to her that she would have multiple points of contact that she must keep her focus on. Her first screen was for her work and interaction with customers, where she would respond to their queries and assist them with problems. The second screen was for inter-office communication (which was constant) between her and her colleagues. That in and of itself was overwhelming, but she was also told that she had to pay attention to her phone on her desk and the health monitor/smart watch type device on her wrist. As if that wasnt enough, over time the number of screens that were installed at her desk multiplied and became completely overwhelming to me as the reader. Just attempting to imagine having to deal with that was stressing me out a little.
As the book progressed, it reminded me more and more of 1984 and Big Brother. One of the first things that horrified me was the installation of cameras across the globe, although it was touted as a way to disseminate information and curb crime I could only think of the implications. What happened to personal privacy? As an introvert, the ideas put forth in the Circle were incredibly hard to accept. Circle membership grew, voting became mandatory and privacy all but disappeared. What makes the book even more hard-hitting and thought provoking is that the ideas in the book are the way that the world is currently progressing.
The book and its ideas definitely force you to think about the state of the world today, our reliance on technology and willingness to put so much information about ourselves out there in the world. Just as a slight spoiler, in the next paragraph I will discuss my feelings about the conclusion of the book. If you dont want to know whether they followed the path of Big Brother or rebelled, please just skip that paragraph and continue reading after that.
<spoiler>The entire book, I was expecting there to be a lesson about the overwhelming power of technology, our loss of privacy and the worlds discovery that this is not the way to live. There is a line that perhaps we should not cross and continuing on the path the Circle is taking is crossing that line. Unfortunately, that is not what happened in the book. In the end, the Circles way of being with no privacy, a world monopoly and forced participation in everything was accepted, wholeheartedly. I was baffled and so I have no idea how I feel about the book. It seemed like it was a technological horror, warning humanity but the acceptance at the end makes me question the purpose of the book. </spoiler>
One of my problems with the book may just stem from the issue of converting the book into eBook form and not formatting it well. As I have never paged through a physical copy, I dont know what the book is supposed to look like but beyond basic paragraph formatting there was no delineation between sections in my copy. Scene changes would occur where the day, location or character being interacted with would change and it caused a split-second of confusion. There were no chapters and no page breaks. The only formatting I had in my copy where the headings for book 1, 2, and 3. Again, this may just be my copy and if so I dont want to fault the book but if the physical book is like that, then I take issue with the formatting. It doesnt look professional and affects the readability of the book.
This book definitely forces you to think and may cause a few nightmares depending upon how you feel about technology, just be warned. Overall, I would recommend this book but to adult readers as it is not a young adult book.
I didnt find any of the characters in this book particularly likable. In fact, I really didnt connect with or like the main character at all. She seemed to have no backbone, became very defensive and accusatory with no motivation, meddled in other peoples private affairs, and made some terrible decisions in her life. Her choices throughout the book were very frustrating, as she succumbed to bad decision making, alienated her family, and pushed away her true friends.
For me, this book was very stress-inducing. Just Maes job in customer service became overwhelming very quickly. When she was introduced to her job, her desk and her coworkers, it was explained to her that she would have multiple points of contact that she must keep her focus on. Her first screen was for her work and interaction with customers, where she would respond to their queries and assist them with problems. The second screen was for inter-office communication (which was constant) between her and her colleagues. That in and of itself was overwhelming, but she was also told that she had to pay attention to her phone on her desk and the health monitor/smart watch type device on her wrist. As if that wasnt enough, over time the number of screens that were installed at her desk multiplied and became completely overwhelming to me as the reader. Just attempting to imagine having to deal with that was stressing me out a little.
As the book progressed, it reminded me more and more of 1984 and Big Brother. One of the first things that horrified me was the installation of cameras across the globe, although it was touted as a way to disseminate information and curb crime I could only think of the implications. What happened to personal privacy? As an introvert, the ideas put forth in the Circle were incredibly hard to accept. Circle membership grew, voting became mandatory and privacy all but disappeared. What makes the book even more hard-hitting and thought provoking is that the ideas in the book are the way that the world is currently progressing.
The book and its ideas definitely force you to think about the state of the world today, our reliance on technology and willingness to put so much information about ourselves out there in the world. Just as a slight spoiler, in the next paragraph I will discuss my feelings about the conclusion of the book. If you dont want to know whether they followed the path of Big Brother or rebelled, please just skip that paragraph and continue reading after that.
<spoiler>The entire book, I was expecting there to be a lesson about the overwhelming power of technology, our loss of privacy and the worlds discovery that this is not the way to live. There is a line that perhaps we should not cross and continuing on the path the Circle is taking is crossing that line. Unfortunately, that is not what happened in the book. In the end, the Circles way of being with no privacy, a world monopoly and forced participation in everything was accepted, wholeheartedly. I was baffled and so I have no idea how I feel about the book. It seemed like it was a technological horror, warning humanity but the acceptance at the end makes me question the purpose of the book. </spoiler>
One of my problems with the book may just stem from the issue of converting the book into eBook form and not formatting it well. As I have never paged through a physical copy, I dont know what the book is supposed to look like but beyond basic paragraph formatting there was no delineation between sections in my copy. Scene changes would occur where the day, location or character being interacted with would change and it caused a split-second of confusion. There were no chapters and no page breaks. The only formatting I had in my copy where the headings for book 1, 2, and 3. Again, this may just be my copy and if so I dont want to fault the book but if the physical book is like that, then I take issue with the formatting. It doesnt look professional and affects the readability of the book.
This book definitely forces you to think and may cause a few nightmares depending upon how you feel about technology, just be warned. Overall, I would recommend this book but to adult readers as it is not a young adult book.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Escape Plan (2013) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
80s action stars Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone have teamed up to power a 21st century prison break in the new film “Escape Plan”. The film was originally to be called “The Tomb” but underwent a title change during production.
Stallone plays Ray Breslin, a former prosecutor who now runs a company that evaluates the security of maximum security installations throughout the country. As such Ray has himself incarcerated under an assumed identity and devices ways to escape from the institutions so they can better understand flaws in their security systems.
Ray is very good at what he does and has been able to escape from every facility that he has tested. While this does not make him popular with Warden’s he is in high demand and as such charges a premium for his services.
Following his most recent escape, Ray and his associated are approached by the government to test a new ultra security facility, one that houses the most dangerous and undesirable elements the world has to offer. Ray is told that the inmates in the facility are there to essential disappear as they would be game changers to security if they should ever find freedom.
Despite the concerns of his staff, and buoyed by the double his usual fee payment, Ray agrees to be taken to the facility under the guise of an explosives maker.
Ray is soon captured in New Orleans and has his tracking chip removed before he blacks out and awakens in a glass walled prison with no windows to locate his position.
During his orientation with a brutal guard named Drake (Vinnie Jones) who killed an inmate during his trip to the facility and sadistic warden named Hobbs (Jim Caviezel), Ray learns that he is in serious trouble as he attempts to trigger his removal from the facility by uttering his extraction code to the Warden. What should have resulted in an immediate removal from the prison is instead greeted by scoffs as Ray is informed that he is there as the people who put him there do not want him ever to see the light of day again.
Enter Emil Rottmayer (Arnold Schwarzenegger), a fellow inmate who takes an interest in Ray and eventually wins over his skepticism. Emil is in the facility as he was a top lieutenant for a crime figure and the Warden is convinced that if he leans on Emil hard enough, he will give up the location of his boss and former associates and thus usher in a huge payday for the Warden.
Despite the bleak, brutal, and seemingly hopeless life in the prison, Ray and Emil work with one another to devise a plan to escape from the facility and the dangerous Warden and his minions before it is too late.
What follows is a tense thriller with some good action in the final act as the two veterans deliver what they have been known for. The film is more a drama than an action film as aside from a few prison fights, there is not much action until the finale when the guns come out.
Faran Tahir does some very good supporting work to the film as a fellow inmate named Javed and it was refreshing to see a person of Middle Eastern origins play a criminal for something other than terrorism. He is a very interesting character who despite having a past and a dangerous side to him is a man of faith who never lets the bleakness of his situation undermine his faith.
Caviezel is very good as the cold and evil Warden who places profits over the lives of his inmates as he is truly a loathsome individual who is every bit the match for the stars.
Stallone and Schwarzenegger seem to be having a great time working with one another and there is some humor filled moments in the film especially during some of their disagreements where jokes are bantered back and forth which seem to also play upon their age and action images.
The audience went crazy during the finale when in trademark style; Schwarzenegger grabbed a massive gun in slow motion, and with a knowing smirk, mowed down waves of bad guys. He is very aware of what audiences expect from his characters and he wanted to ensure that he is still up to the task of piling up the body count.
Sam Neill is sadly underused in the film as the facilities doctor. He has a small part and my wife and I had to wonder why he took the part when an actor of his stature would likely not be interested in something that small.
While action fans may be disappointed with having to wait for the big guns to come out, the film is a very good drama than gets good performances from its stars and supporting cast and is a very enjoyable outing which shows that the two stars still have gas left in the tank.
http://sknr.net/2013/10/18/escape-plan/
Stallone plays Ray Breslin, a former prosecutor who now runs a company that evaluates the security of maximum security installations throughout the country. As such Ray has himself incarcerated under an assumed identity and devices ways to escape from the institutions so they can better understand flaws in their security systems.
Ray is very good at what he does and has been able to escape from every facility that he has tested. While this does not make him popular with Warden’s he is in high demand and as such charges a premium for his services.
Following his most recent escape, Ray and his associated are approached by the government to test a new ultra security facility, one that houses the most dangerous and undesirable elements the world has to offer. Ray is told that the inmates in the facility are there to essential disappear as they would be game changers to security if they should ever find freedom.
Despite the concerns of his staff, and buoyed by the double his usual fee payment, Ray agrees to be taken to the facility under the guise of an explosives maker.
Ray is soon captured in New Orleans and has his tracking chip removed before he blacks out and awakens in a glass walled prison with no windows to locate his position.
During his orientation with a brutal guard named Drake (Vinnie Jones) who killed an inmate during his trip to the facility and sadistic warden named Hobbs (Jim Caviezel), Ray learns that he is in serious trouble as he attempts to trigger his removal from the facility by uttering his extraction code to the Warden. What should have resulted in an immediate removal from the prison is instead greeted by scoffs as Ray is informed that he is there as the people who put him there do not want him ever to see the light of day again.
Enter Emil Rottmayer (Arnold Schwarzenegger), a fellow inmate who takes an interest in Ray and eventually wins over his skepticism. Emil is in the facility as he was a top lieutenant for a crime figure and the Warden is convinced that if he leans on Emil hard enough, he will give up the location of his boss and former associates and thus usher in a huge payday for the Warden.
Despite the bleak, brutal, and seemingly hopeless life in the prison, Ray and Emil work with one another to devise a plan to escape from the facility and the dangerous Warden and his minions before it is too late.
What follows is a tense thriller with some good action in the final act as the two veterans deliver what they have been known for. The film is more a drama than an action film as aside from a few prison fights, there is not much action until the finale when the guns come out.
Faran Tahir does some very good supporting work to the film as a fellow inmate named Javed and it was refreshing to see a person of Middle Eastern origins play a criminal for something other than terrorism. He is a very interesting character who despite having a past and a dangerous side to him is a man of faith who never lets the bleakness of his situation undermine his faith.
Caviezel is very good as the cold and evil Warden who places profits over the lives of his inmates as he is truly a loathsome individual who is every bit the match for the stars.
Stallone and Schwarzenegger seem to be having a great time working with one another and there is some humor filled moments in the film especially during some of their disagreements where jokes are bantered back and forth which seem to also play upon their age and action images.
The audience went crazy during the finale when in trademark style; Schwarzenegger grabbed a massive gun in slow motion, and with a knowing smirk, mowed down waves of bad guys. He is very aware of what audiences expect from his characters and he wanted to ensure that he is still up to the task of piling up the body count.
Sam Neill is sadly underused in the film as the facilities doctor. He has a small part and my wife and I had to wonder why he took the part when an actor of his stature would likely not be interested in something that small.
While action fans may be disappointed with having to wait for the big guns to come out, the film is a very good drama than gets good performances from its stars and supporting cast and is a very enjoyable outing which shows that the two stars still have gas left in the tank.
http://sknr.net/2013/10/18/escape-plan/
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Death Race (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In 1975, legendary B-movie producer Roger Corman showed audiences a look at the near future with a biting film that deftly blended action and political commentary and satire. The film was “Death Race 2000” and starred David Carradine and featured a pre-“Rocky” Sylvester Stallone as bitter rivals in a brutal cross country race where finishing first was second only to the amount of death and carnage a driver left in their wake.
The film became a cult hit, and paved the way for films such as “Rollerball”, “Arena”, and countless other films that featured bloodlust sporting events for the masses a la Rome in the age of gladiators at the coliseum. Thirty-three years later, audiences are given the new and upgraded “Death Race” which benefits from a bigger budget with more carnage than the original film that inspired it ever dreamed of.
The film opens with an eerie warning of today’s troubled economic times, stating that the U.S.
economy collapses in 2012 and record unemployment and crime sweep the nation. With prisons overcrowded, corporations run correctional facilities for a profit and soon offer caged matches between inmates for the viewing pleasure of the nation. At first the matches are a huge success but soon lose their appeal to an audience that is eager for even bloodier sport.
In an effort to keep the cash flowing, the Death Race is created which pits convicts against one another in a brutal mix of speed, firepower, and death which in a few years surpasses even the Super Bowl as the most watched sporting event in the world.
Jason Statham stars as Jensen Ames, a former race driver who is framed for the murder of his wife and faces the prospect of life in prison while his daughter is raised by strangers. With the Death Race losing some if its audience, its creator, and warden of the prison, Hennessey (Joan Allen), offers Jensen a solution to both of their problems. If Jensen will pose as the masked Frankenstein for the race and win, he will be granted his freedom. It is learned that the real Frankenstein has finally succumbed to the numerous injuries he has incurred racing, and rather than risk losing his vast legions of fans who drive the ratings, it is easier to replace him than lose him, especially since recent races without Frankenstein had not garnered the same ratings as his past races.
It is explained that should a driver win five death races, they will be set free. Since Frankenstein has won four races, all Jensen has to do is win the race and stay alive to earn his freedom. Jensen is faced with an menacing list of adversaries including the deadly Machine Gun Joe (Tyrese Gibson), who is the biggest threat to Jensen with an absolute hatred for Frankenstein. Gun Joe is a cold-blooded killer who wants nothing more than two more race wins to earn his freedom and will stop at nothing to get it.
Jensen is assisted by the talented Coach (Ian McShane), who dispenses wisdom while overseeing the crew that outfits Jensen’s suped up, armor-plated, and very heavily armed racer. Assigned to ride with Jensen as his Navigator is Case (Natalie Martinez), a female prisoner who, like many of her fellow navigators, sees the race as a chance to earn their freedom and other special perks which makes risking their lives a worthwhile endeavor.
As the race unfolds in three stages, Jensen is tasked with not only surviving the threats Machine Gun Joe and the other racers aim his way, but surviving the twisted scheme that has him in its grasp.
The action of the film is fast, brutal, and unforgiving and is easily the highlight of the film. Sadly there are plenty of scenes with stiff and uninspired characters, numerous plot holes and leaps of logic, and clichés that bog the film down.
Statham is his usual soft talking hard man, a character he has made a career out of playing in such films as the “Crank” and the “Transporter” series. But unlike those films, he is not given much material to work with here. Statham has done solid work in the past but Jensen is a paper thin character who never fully given a chance to develop nor be embraced by the audience.
The same is true for the rest of the cast, a talented ensemble left to languish in want of better material. The film is directed by Paul W.S. Anderson of the “Resident Evil” series who once again shows that he has an eye for action, but still has issues with pacing and unsympathetic characters. This is a shame as the premise of the film is solid, but unlike the original, lacks the social and political commentary needed to balance the carnage and mayhem.
With a little more time in shop and tinkering, this could have been a solid action film, instead it stalls at the starting line badly in need of a tune up.
The film became a cult hit, and paved the way for films such as “Rollerball”, “Arena”, and countless other films that featured bloodlust sporting events for the masses a la Rome in the age of gladiators at the coliseum. Thirty-three years later, audiences are given the new and upgraded “Death Race” which benefits from a bigger budget with more carnage than the original film that inspired it ever dreamed of.
The film opens with an eerie warning of today’s troubled economic times, stating that the U.S.
economy collapses in 2012 and record unemployment and crime sweep the nation. With prisons overcrowded, corporations run correctional facilities for a profit and soon offer caged matches between inmates for the viewing pleasure of the nation. At first the matches are a huge success but soon lose their appeal to an audience that is eager for even bloodier sport.
In an effort to keep the cash flowing, the Death Race is created which pits convicts against one another in a brutal mix of speed, firepower, and death which in a few years surpasses even the Super Bowl as the most watched sporting event in the world.
Jason Statham stars as Jensen Ames, a former race driver who is framed for the murder of his wife and faces the prospect of life in prison while his daughter is raised by strangers. With the Death Race losing some if its audience, its creator, and warden of the prison, Hennessey (Joan Allen), offers Jensen a solution to both of their problems. If Jensen will pose as the masked Frankenstein for the race and win, he will be granted his freedom. It is learned that the real Frankenstein has finally succumbed to the numerous injuries he has incurred racing, and rather than risk losing his vast legions of fans who drive the ratings, it is easier to replace him than lose him, especially since recent races without Frankenstein had not garnered the same ratings as his past races.
It is explained that should a driver win five death races, they will be set free. Since Frankenstein has won four races, all Jensen has to do is win the race and stay alive to earn his freedom. Jensen is faced with an menacing list of adversaries including the deadly Machine Gun Joe (Tyrese Gibson), who is the biggest threat to Jensen with an absolute hatred for Frankenstein. Gun Joe is a cold-blooded killer who wants nothing more than two more race wins to earn his freedom and will stop at nothing to get it.
Jensen is assisted by the talented Coach (Ian McShane), who dispenses wisdom while overseeing the crew that outfits Jensen’s suped up, armor-plated, and very heavily armed racer. Assigned to ride with Jensen as his Navigator is Case (Natalie Martinez), a female prisoner who, like many of her fellow navigators, sees the race as a chance to earn their freedom and other special perks which makes risking their lives a worthwhile endeavor.
As the race unfolds in three stages, Jensen is tasked with not only surviving the threats Machine Gun Joe and the other racers aim his way, but surviving the twisted scheme that has him in its grasp.
The action of the film is fast, brutal, and unforgiving and is easily the highlight of the film. Sadly there are plenty of scenes with stiff and uninspired characters, numerous plot holes and leaps of logic, and clichés that bog the film down.
Statham is his usual soft talking hard man, a character he has made a career out of playing in such films as the “Crank” and the “Transporter” series. But unlike those films, he is not given much material to work with here. Statham has done solid work in the past but Jensen is a paper thin character who never fully given a chance to develop nor be embraced by the audience.
The same is true for the rest of the cast, a talented ensemble left to languish in want of better material. The film is directed by Paul W.S. Anderson of the “Resident Evil” series who once again shows that he has an eye for action, but still has issues with pacing and unsympathetic characters. This is a shame as the premise of the film is solid, but unlike the original, lacks the social and political commentary needed to balance the carnage and mayhem.
With a little more time in shop and tinkering, this could have been a solid action film, instead it stalls at the starting line badly in need of a tune up.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Lady In The Van (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
In the last two decades America has seen an almost literal ‘invasion’ of British film and television programming. Like the British ‘music invasion’ some 60 years ago we just can’t seem to get enough of it. Today’s film for your consideration is the 2015 British dramatic comedy ‘The Lady In The Van’. Based upon the 1999 West End play of the same name written by Alan Bennett and starring famed British actress Maggie Smith, who also portrayed the lead in the original stage production at Queens Theater in London and again in a 2009 BBC 4 radio adaption, ‘The Lady In The Van’ follows the true story of Maggie Shepherd. An elderly lady who lived in a rundown van in Bennett’s driveway for 15 years.
Directed by Nicholas Hytner, who also directed the stage play, the film stars legendary British actress Maggie Smith as Maggie Shepherd, Alex Jennings as Alan Bennett, Jim Broadbent as Underwood, Deborah Findlay as Pauline, Roger Allam as Rufus, Gwen Taylor as Mam, Cecillia Noble as Miss Brisco, Nicholas Burns as Giles Perry, Pandora Colin as Mrs Perry, and Frances de la Tour As Ursula Vaughan Williams.
‘The Lady In The Van’ follows the true story of playwright Alan Bennett’s strained and tested relationship with Miss Maggie Shepherd. An eccentric and frightened homeless woman whom he befriended in the 1970s shortly after he moved into London’s Camden neighborhood. Originally, Bennett invites Shepherd to park her aging Bedford van in his driveway so she can list it as an address in order to collect benefits and eventually move on. Instead, Shepherd ends up living in the van in Bennett’s driveway for 15 years. Just before her death in 1989, Alan learns that Maggie Shepherd is actually Margaret Fairchild. A gifted piano player who was a pupil of pianist Alfred Cortot and had a fondness for Chopin. So much so that when she tried to become a nun, she was kicked out of her religious order twice for wanting to play music. Bennett also learns that the reason Shepherd was homeless was that she was on the run for leaving the scene of a crime she didn’t commit after escaping an institution where she’d been committed by her own brother.
I found this movie to be a prime example of the concept ‘Everyone Has A Story To Tell’. Whether the person wants to tell the story or not is a whole other idea entirely. The strange friendship between Bennett and Shepherd is certainly an unusual one to be sure. While Bennett’s neighbors would be happy to see they as they describe ‘the crazy old lady leave the neighborhood, Bennett seems to follow his writer’s instincts and also his humanity. Maggie Smith’s and Alex Jennings’s performances as the oddly paired friends go far in helping to comprehend what went on between the two. Shepherd and Bennett both excelled as artists in their own way. One as a writer one as a musician. Both kinds of artists tell stories thorough their respective crafts. In this case though, the writer (Bennett) had the ‘responsibility’ of telling Shepherd’s story after debating with himself more than once whether he had the right to do so and whether it was moral or not. On top of that, it took over a decade to find the answers Bennett was looking for. In the end, it seems Bennett did what writers do. They use what’s around them in their lives to write about. And perhaps, by doing so, he helped give Shepherd some sort of closure and perhaps peace as well just before her death.
I’m going to give this film 4 out of 5 stars. The movie clocks in at 104 minutes so it is a long movie but honestly, how can you say ‘no’ to a movie with Maggie Smith? Honestly, explain that one to me. She definitely ‘carries the film’ with her performance as Miss Mary Shepherd but the combination of her performance and that of Alex Jennings as the writer Alan Bennett that really make the film. I think another one of the reasons this film was good was because you had so many of the people that were involved in the original play that worked on the film itself. I personally find some British films, comedies in particular, to be a bit quirky sometimes. As funny as British humor is its sometimes difficult to grasp at first and there’s a bit of that in this film. Don’t let that discourage you though. If you can find an awesome art house movie theater, I’d certainly recommend going to catch it there. If you can’t, watch it online.
This is your friendly neighborhood freelance photographer and movie fanatic ‘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.
Directed by Nicholas Hytner, who also directed the stage play, the film stars legendary British actress Maggie Smith as Maggie Shepherd, Alex Jennings as Alan Bennett, Jim Broadbent as Underwood, Deborah Findlay as Pauline, Roger Allam as Rufus, Gwen Taylor as Mam, Cecillia Noble as Miss Brisco, Nicholas Burns as Giles Perry, Pandora Colin as Mrs Perry, and Frances de la Tour As Ursula Vaughan Williams.
‘The Lady In The Van’ follows the true story of playwright Alan Bennett’s strained and tested relationship with Miss Maggie Shepherd. An eccentric and frightened homeless woman whom he befriended in the 1970s shortly after he moved into London’s Camden neighborhood. Originally, Bennett invites Shepherd to park her aging Bedford van in his driveway so she can list it as an address in order to collect benefits and eventually move on. Instead, Shepherd ends up living in the van in Bennett’s driveway for 15 years. Just before her death in 1989, Alan learns that Maggie Shepherd is actually Margaret Fairchild. A gifted piano player who was a pupil of pianist Alfred Cortot and had a fondness for Chopin. So much so that when she tried to become a nun, she was kicked out of her religious order twice for wanting to play music. Bennett also learns that the reason Shepherd was homeless was that she was on the run for leaving the scene of a crime she didn’t commit after escaping an institution where she’d been committed by her own brother.
I found this movie to be a prime example of the concept ‘Everyone Has A Story To Tell’. Whether the person wants to tell the story or not is a whole other idea entirely. The strange friendship between Bennett and Shepherd is certainly an unusual one to be sure. While Bennett’s neighbors would be happy to see they as they describe ‘the crazy old lady leave the neighborhood, Bennett seems to follow his writer’s instincts and also his humanity. Maggie Smith’s and Alex Jennings’s performances as the oddly paired friends go far in helping to comprehend what went on between the two. Shepherd and Bennett both excelled as artists in their own way. One as a writer one as a musician. Both kinds of artists tell stories thorough their respective crafts. In this case though, the writer (Bennett) had the ‘responsibility’ of telling Shepherd’s story after debating with himself more than once whether he had the right to do so and whether it was moral or not. On top of that, it took over a decade to find the answers Bennett was looking for. In the end, it seems Bennett did what writers do. They use what’s around them in their lives to write about. And perhaps, by doing so, he helped give Shepherd some sort of closure and perhaps peace as well just before her death.
I’m going to give this film 4 out of 5 stars. The movie clocks in at 104 minutes so it is a long movie but honestly, how can you say ‘no’ to a movie with Maggie Smith? Honestly, explain that one to me. She definitely ‘carries the film’ with her performance as Miss Mary Shepherd but the combination of her performance and that of Alex Jennings as the writer Alan Bennett that really make the film. I think another one of the reasons this film was good was because you had so many of the people that were involved in the original play that worked on the film itself. I personally find some British films, comedies in particular, to be a bit quirky sometimes. As funny as British humor is its sometimes difficult to grasp at first and there’s a bit of that in this film. Don’t let that discourage you though. If you can find an awesome art house movie theater, I’d certainly recommend going to catch it there. If you can’t, watch it online.
This is your friendly neighborhood freelance photographer and movie fanatic ‘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.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Midsommar (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2020
Midsommar is listed as "drama, horror, mystery" on IMDb, and you know how I am with horror... but honestly, this is such a bad categorisation to me. If anything it's a psychological drama/thriller. I found nothing in it to be horror-worthy and I definitely wasn't scared at any point. We should probably just create a genre of "weird AF" and put it in that.
Christopher and the lads are planning a trip to Sweden to participate in the mid-summer festival of Pelle's community. After his girlfriend Dani receives some devastating news he invites her along in an empty gesture, the last thing he expects is for her to accept.
When they arrive in the village they're instantly in awe of the idyllic landscape and setting. The community welcomes them with open arms and hallucinogenic substances, but Dani's trip brings up her recent trauma and she's left uneasy. Everything is different here, but they roll with it and try to experience what the members of this community do. As the first ceremony reaches its peak the guests are left shocked and terrified. Can they, should they, battle through their preconceptions and get to the end of the festival? Or should they leave?
Midsommar runs at 2 hours and 27 minutes, that's long for most films. I don't know how this manages to be that long, there really doesn't seem to be enough content for that amount of time. Something worked though, I wasn't bored. Potentially that was through confusion at the bizarreness. I'm hoping someone has worked out how much of the runtime was taken up by silence. It could easily have been cut down. Dani's family issues don't have much of an impact on the story. It certainly didn't need to depict what happened, leaving those bits out would have just meant some changes to imagery later and the beginning would have tightened up a lot.
There's no denying that the setting for the film is beautiful and the sets are intricate and yet understated. It really does illustrate the community's simple living and traditions. That combined with the basic clothing and headdresses all create an innocent and tranquil image for the commune.
Visuals within the film are frustrating, they like a good odd transition. Early on we have a scene that moves from an apartment to an airplane, Dani walks into the apartment's bathroom and we're transitioned into the plane bathroom in a magnificently done shot. It was strange but worked so smoothly. But the transitions eventually became tiring to watch. We also get an overhead sweeping shot of forest that could have been lifted straight from Pet Semetary. Then there's the road shot where the camera turns upside down and films for an inexplicably long amount of time. *sigh*
The audio is something that's interesting to me. At the beginning the music is abrasive and really quite difficult to sit through and that almost certainly, combined with Pugh's wailing, contributed to a couple deciding to leave the screening I was in. There's a significant amount of the film where there's little to no sound at all, but this opening was harsh and while it offers a contrast between the lifestyles in the film it in no way felt beneficial. When we come to Sweden quiet and serene is the overriding sense. The first time we really encounter any noise is during the first ceremony and the audio is muted to reflect the shock of Dani, that felt like it worked. Sadly, that scene had issues for me outside of this moment.
At the festival our group are going to witness an event that only happens every 90 years. This sticks nicely to a life cycle that is explained to them when they're being shown around. Aster did a lot of research on traditions and folklore, lots of it feels authentic if a little busy with different ideas. There are a couple of things that aren't addressed when it comes to their life cycle and the ritual, although this is something that I thought about after seeing it so during the film it's not much of a problem.
I have been trying to finish this review for a week, sometimes I come across ones that are trickier than others and this is one of them. I still don't know how I really feel about Midsommar, what I do know is that I can't rave about it like some people have been. The acting was mediocre, and while the idea was intriguing I feel like the script and the way it was executed didn't appeal to me. I didn't find the brightness of the film and the darkness of the tale combined well to make for a thrilling production. I would much rather see this sort of thing as a grittier crime drama.
As a passing comment though I would like to say that everyone in the screen laughed at the sex scene, and I think everyone should appreciate the penis make-up.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/07/midsommar-movie-review.html
Christopher and the lads are planning a trip to Sweden to participate in the mid-summer festival of Pelle's community. After his girlfriend Dani receives some devastating news he invites her along in an empty gesture, the last thing he expects is for her to accept.
When they arrive in the village they're instantly in awe of the idyllic landscape and setting. The community welcomes them with open arms and hallucinogenic substances, but Dani's trip brings up her recent trauma and she's left uneasy. Everything is different here, but they roll with it and try to experience what the members of this community do. As the first ceremony reaches its peak the guests are left shocked and terrified. Can they, should they, battle through their preconceptions and get to the end of the festival? Or should they leave?
Midsommar runs at 2 hours and 27 minutes, that's long for most films. I don't know how this manages to be that long, there really doesn't seem to be enough content for that amount of time. Something worked though, I wasn't bored. Potentially that was through confusion at the bizarreness. I'm hoping someone has worked out how much of the runtime was taken up by silence. It could easily have been cut down. Dani's family issues don't have much of an impact on the story. It certainly didn't need to depict what happened, leaving those bits out would have just meant some changes to imagery later and the beginning would have tightened up a lot.
There's no denying that the setting for the film is beautiful and the sets are intricate and yet understated. It really does illustrate the community's simple living and traditions. That combined with the basic clothing and headdresses all create an innocent and tranquil image for the commune.
Visuals within the film are frustrating, they like a good odd transition. Early on we have a scene that moves from an apartment to an airplane, Dani walks into the apartment's bathroom and we're transitioned into the plane bathroom in a magnificently done shot. It was strange but worked so smoothly. But the transitions eventually became tiring to watch. We also get an overhead sweeping shot of forest that could have been lifted straight from Pet Semetary. Then there's the road shot where the camera turns upside down and films for an inexplicably long amount of time. *sigh*
The audio is something that's interesting to me. At the beginning the music is abrasive and really quite difficult to sit through and that almost certainly, combined with Pugh's wailing, contributed to a couple deciding to leave the screening I was in. There's a significant amount of the film where there's little to no sound at all, but this opening was harsh and while it offers a contrast between the lifestyles in the film it in no way felt beneficial. When we come to Sweden quiet and serene is the overriding sense. The first time we really encounter any noise is during the first ceremony and the audio is muted to reflect the shock of Dani, that felt like it worked. Sadly, that scene had issues for me outside of this moment.
At the festival our group are going to witness an event that only happens every 90 years. This sticks nicely to a life cycle that is explained to them when they're being shown around. Aster did a lot of research on traditions and folklore, lots of it feels authentic if a little busy with different ideas. There are a couple of things that aren't addressed when it comes to their life cycle and the ritual, although this is something that I thought about after seeing it so during the film it's not much of a problem.
I have been trying to finish this review for a week, sometimes I come across ones that are trickier than others and this is one of them. I still don't know how I really feel about Midsommar, what I do know is that I can't rave about it like some people have been. The acting was mediocre, and while the idea was intriguing I feel like the script and the way it was executed didn't appeal to me. I didn't find the brightness of the film and the darkness of the tale combined well to make for a thrilling production. I would much rather see this sort of thing as a grittier crime drama.
As a passing comment though I would like to say that everyone in the screen laughed at the sex scene, and I think everyone should appreciate the penis make-up.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/07/midsommar-movie-review.html
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Big Little Lies - Season 1 in TV
Feb 8, 2019 (Updated Feb 8, 2019)
Rich White People Problems: The Show
As more news of Season 2 of this show seeps out, I decided to eventually get around to catching the first season of this highly praised and seemingly universally lauded show. I went in expecting greatness from this thing after reading all of the glowing critic's reviews. I am also a huge fan of many of the cast members involved in this project, so knowing nothing about the plot or subject matter the show is based on, I went in blind; excited to see what this series had in store.
The series opens with some ominous editing and vague hints that a major crime has been committed, which we eventually realise to be a murder. Then we are taken backwards tin time and are introduced to Reese Witherspoon's character Madeline, whom initially comes off as entitled and annoying, but you assume that this is going to have a purpose in her character's arc and she will grow on you. You are wrong to assume that as she is extremely irritating throughout the entire duration of the series, constantly interrupting other characters lines and sticking her oar in during group situations, just for the sake of clinging on to the spotlight and keeping herself at the centre of attention.
Thankfully, Nicole Kidman's character Celeste is less annoying and instead just a bit strange. We see pretty early on that she is a victim of domestic abuse at the hands of her much younger husband played by Alexander Skarsgard. At first this is pretty harrowing and sad to see, but for some reason, - and I don't want to kink shame anyone, - but it seems like she kind of likes it. The third main character we are introduced to is Jane, played by Shailene Woodley who immediately seems like damaged goods.
The "conflict," is then set up. After the first day at school we see a highly unrealistic scene play out as the most insensitive teacher in the world with zero foresight gathers all of the children in her class along with their parents outside the school gates. A girl has marks on her neck from being choked by one of the other kids. The teacher then asks the girl to point out the kid that did this to her (in front of the entire class and their parents!) and she points to Jane's son Ziggy. The boy denies any wrongdoing, but the girl who has been hurt's mother, (played by Laura Dern, whom I normally really like,) is a horrible, bitter bitch who responds to the situation by berating the accused boy in front of everyone, degrading his mother in the process for defending her child and not "making," him apologise.
*Insert Peter Griffin "Oh my God, who the hell cares?" meme here.*
Yeah, this is the kind of schoolyard bullshit that this show expects us to treat as a life or death issue. The whole thing is full of non-issues and petty whines centred around 'he said/she said,' nonsense. Then we are supposed to relate to these immature, venomous parents who don't do anything to help the situation whatsoever. Meanwhile the show treats domestic abuse, - something that is a very real and threatening issue, - as just a weird kink in this oddball couple's relationship.
It is clear that all of these parents clearly care far more about self-image than they do about their own children, which makes all of them extremely gross and off putting as characters. They constantly make up excuses as if to try and justify themselves and claim that the bitchy, conniving choices that they make towards each other is for the sake of their kids, when it is clearly just to one up each other in pathetic, petty social warfare and childish beefs.
Website theodysseyonline.com has an article called, '13 Reasons Why Big Little Lies Is So Powerful.' I truly fail to see what is apparently so powerful and ground-breaking about this series. I'm not even sure what it is trying to say; that domestic abuse and rape are bad things done by evil people? Wow, what a brave and unique stance to take! I also resent the idea that everyone that says anything remotely negative about this show is a women-hating misogynist. I consider myself a left-leaning liberal and a feminist, I am a strong supporter of equal rights amongst all genders and races and I do regular work for a women's mental health charity, but I can still spot an overrated, hollow waste of 7 hours when I see one.
Overall, even though this season only last 7 episodes, it is not worth your time. After watching the first 2 episodes I thought about giving up on it, but then I thought about all of the glowing reviews and thought, 'no, surely this must get better.' Let me save you seven hours of your time; it doesn't. This is a melodramatic glorified soap opera that doesn't handle any of the issues that it tries to tackle well and it is filled, - to the point it is bursting at the seams, - with small scope issues and minor annoyances treated as life threatening scenarios, all the while brushing off the genuinely scary and potentially life threatening scenario of domestic abuse.
The series opens with some ominous editing and vague hints that a major crime has been committed, which we eventually realise to be a murder. Then we are taken backwards tin time and are introduced to Reese Witherspoon's character Madeline, whom initially comes off as entitled and annoying, but you assume that this is going to have a purpose in her character's arc and she will grow on you. You are wrong to assume that as she is extremely irritating throughout the entire duration of the series, constantly interrupting other characters lines and sticking her oar in during group situations, just for the sake of clinging on to the spotlight and keeping herself at the centre of attention.
Thankfully, Nicole Kidman's character Celeste is less annoying and instead just a bit strange. We see pretty early on that she is a victim of domestic abuse at the hands of her much younger husband played by Alexander Skarsgard. At first this is pretty harrowing and sad to see, but for some reason, - and I don't want to kink shame anyone, - but it seems like she kind of likes it. The third main character we are introduced to is Jane, played by Shailene Woodley who immediately seems like damaged goods.
The "conflict," is then set up. After the first day at school we see a highly unrealistic scene play out as the most insensitive teacher in the world with zero foresight gathers all of the children in her class along with their parents outside the school gates. A girl has marks on her neck from being choked by one of the other kids. The teacher then asks the girl to point out the kid that did this to her (in front of the entire class and their parents!) and she points to Jane's son Ziggy. The boy denies any wrongdoing, but the girl who has been hurt's mother, (played by Laura Dern, whom I normally really like,) is a horrible, bitter bitch who responds to the situation by berating the accused boy in front of everyone, degrading his mother in the process for defending her child and not "making," him apologise.
*Insert Peter Griffin "Oh my God, who the hell cares?" meme here.*
Yeah, this is the kind of schoolyard bullshit that this show expects us to treat as a life or death issue. The whole thing is full of non-issues and petty whines centred around 'he said/she said,' nonsense. Then we are supposed to relate to these immature, venomous parents who don't do anything to help the situation whatsoever. Meanwhile the show treats domestic abuse, - something that is a very real and threatening issue, - as just a weird kink in this oddball couple's relationship.
It is clear that all of these parents clearly care far more about self-image than they do about their own children, which makes all of them extremely gross and off putting as characters. They constantly make up excuses as if to try and justify themselves and claim that the bitchy, conniving choices that they make towards each other is for the sake of their kids, when it is clearly just to one up each other in pathetic, petty social warfare and childish beefs.
Website theodysseyonline.com has an article called, '13 Reasons Why Big Little Lies Is So Powerful.' I truly fail to see what is apparently so powerful and ground-breaking about this series. I'm not even sure what it is trying to say; that domestic abuse and rape are bad things done by evil people? Wow, what a brave and unique stance to take! I also resent the idea that everyone that says anything remotely negative about this show is a women-hating misogynist. I consider myself a left-leaning liberal and a feminist, I am a strong supporter of equal rights amongst all genders and races and I do regular work for a women's mental health charity, but I can still spot an overrated, hollow waste of 7 hours when I see one.
Overall, even though this season only last 7 episodes, it is not worth your time. After watching the first 2 episodes I thought about giving up on it, but then I thought about all of the glowing reviews and thought, 'no, surely this must get better.' Let me save you seven hours of your time; it doesn't. This is a melodramatic glorified soap opera that doesn't handle any of the issues that it tries to tackle well and it is filled, - to the point it is bursting at the seams, - with small scope issues and minor annoyances treated as life threatening scenarios, all the while brushing off the genuinely scary and potentially life threatening scenario of domestic abuse.