Search
Search results
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Shadow Hunters in Tabletop Games
Jul 24, 2021
Playing board games has enlightened me so much and given me wishes to follow career paths I would not have considered otherwise. One career I would NOT want to take on is that of a Shadow Hunter: the warriors who seek out and destroy beings from the demon realms walking in our midst. I’d rather stay blissfully ignorant to their existence and simply hope we can be friends. However, in board game worlds I will seek and destroy like a good little Shadow Hunter does.
Shadow Hunters is a hidden identity survival card game for groups of 4-8 players. Each player’s drawn persona will belong to the Shadows, the Hunters, or Neutrals (common bystanders). The goals of the players may all be completely different and the game may end at any time due to fulfilling personal agendas. Players may even win when their characters are dead!
To setup place the board on the table and randomly populate the card spaces on the board with the Area Cards. Shuffle the White Cards, Black Cards, and Hermit Cards (why didn’t they just name these the Green Cards?) into their own stacks and place them on the side of the board in their slots. Players choose their preferred colors, take the boards and pieces with that color, and place one of their wooden markers on the No Damage space on the board. The other wooden marker will be used for movement on the board Area cards. Shuffle and deal each player one Character Card to be kept secret from the other players. Determine start player and the game is ready to begin!
On a player’s turn they will be completing at least one task and then possible other tasks. First, the active player will roll both the 1d6 and 1d4 together to arrive at a number between two and 10. The player will place their marker on the matching Area card on the board. Should a player roll a seven they may choose any location other than the space they are on and move. Each location will have an action printed on its card that a player may choose to complete. These could be drawing cards from the White, Black, or Hermit decks, damaging other players, or stealing equipment cards from them. Lastly, the active player may straight up attack another player within the same Area range (the three different areas are two cards linked together, so either the card the marker shares or the one that is linked).
As soon as a character has suffered damage equal to or greater than the HP shown on their Character Card, that character dies. Once a character dies, the owning player flips the Character Card over to reveal the character and, more importantly, their faction to which they belong. If this causes one player to fulfill their character’s goals, they must announce that the game is over. If not, play continues in this fashion until a player’s goal has been achieved to end the game. This could mean the Shadow team or Hunter team wins as a group, or that one player wins alone.
Components. Oddly, this edition of Shadow Hunters is now almost 10 years old, so it fall within the “older games” group. That said, the components are still excellent quality, even by today’s standards. The cards have a faint linen finish, the cardboard components are all thick and matte finished, the wooden player markers are chunky and fun to move around. The only issues I have with components are that I wish the colors matched more on the wooden markers and the player boards. Not a huge deal, but something that makes me cringe just a little inside. The other issue I have is most definitely a personal preference: the numbers on the d4 are on the bottom and I prefer them on the top. I know, purely personal preference and I’m dumb for even mentioning it.
This is a game I love but irks my wife. And not even because she doesn’t like the game. It irks her because of how I play it. Until I use the Hermit Cards to try to help figure out which player is on my team I will certainly be attacking everyone I can every chance I get. That’s not the best way to make friends, and I get it, but I’m not taking that chance of allowing a potential opponent to get a leg up on me. That bothers my wife because many times I’m attacking my teammates. Oh well.
I have played this game so many times with different groups and have had great success with it almost every single time. It’s an easy teach, the theme makes sense, and having different end goals is something that many people can rally behind. I know there are about 3,000 hidden identity games out there, but I consider this one of the best. Even 10 years later it sill holds that sheen and gives us a little different experience than just spamming The Resistance: Avalon every time. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a hot 17 / 24. Pick this one up if you find it in the wild and want a different feel for your hidden identity collection. I love it and you might too.
Shadow Hunters is a hidden identity survival card game for groups of 4-8 players. Each player’s drawn persona will belong to the Shadows, the Hunters, or Neutrals (common bystanders). The goals of the players may all be completely different and the game may end at any time due to fulfilling personal agendas. Players may even win when their characters are dead!
To setup place the board on the table and randomly populate the card spaces on the board with the Area Cards. Shuffle the White Cards, Black Cards, and Hermit Cards (why didn’t they just name these the Green Cards?) into their own stacks and place them on the side of the board in their slots. Players choose their preferred colors, take the boards and pieces with that color, and place one of their wooden markers on the No Damage space on the board. The other wooden marker will be used for movement on the board Area cards. Shuffle and deal each player one Character Card to be kept secret from the other players. Determine start player and the game is ready to begin!
On a player’s turn they will be completing at least one task and then possible other tasks. First, the active player will roll both the 1d6 and 1d4 together to arrive at a number between two and 10. The player will place their marker on the matching Area card on the board. Should a player roll a seven they may choose any location other than the space they are on and move. Each location will have an action printed on its card that a player may choose to complete. These could be drawing cards from the White, Black, or Hermit decks, damaging other players, or stealing equipment cards from them. Lastly, the active player may straight up attack another player within the same Area range (the three different areas are two cards linked together, so either the card the marker shares or the one that is linked).
As soon as a character has suffered damage equal to or greater than the HP shown on their Character Card, that character dies. Once a character dies, the owning player flips the Character Card over to reveal the character and, more importantly, their faction to which they belong. If this causes one player to fulfill their character’s goals, they must announce that the game is over. If not, play continues in this fashion until a player’s goal has been achieved to end the game. This could mean the Shadow team or Hunter team wins as a group, or that one player wins alone.
Components. Oddly, this edition of Shadow Hunters is now almost 10 years old, so it fall within the “older games” group. That said, the components are still excellent quality, even by today’s standards. The cards have a faint linen finish, the cardboard components are all thick and matte finished, the wooden player markers are chunky and fun to move around. The only issues I have with components are that I wish the colors matched more on the wooden markers and the player boards. Not a huge deal, but something that makes me cringe just a little inside. The other issue I have is most definitely a personal preference: the numbers on the d4 are on the bottom and I prefer them on the top. I know, purely personal preference and I’m dumb for even mentioning it.
This is a game I love but irks my wife. And not even because she doesn’t like the game. It irks her because of how I play it. Until I use the Hermit Cards to try to help figure out which player is on my team I will certainly be attacking everyone I can every chance I get. That’s not the best way to make friends, and I get it, but I’m not taking that chance of allowing a potential opponent to get a leg up on me. That bothers my wife because many times I’m attacking my teammates. Oh well.
I have played this game so many times with different groups and have had great success with it almost every single time. It’s an easy teach, the theme makes sense, and having different end goals is something that many people can rally behind. I know there are about 3,000 hidden identity games out there, but I consider this one of the best. Even 10 years later it sill holds that sheen and gives us a little different experience than just spamming The Resistance: Avalon every time. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a hot 17 / 24. Pick this one up if you find it in the wild and want a different feel for your hidden identity collection. I love it and you might too.
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated Ashton's Bride in Books
Feb 15, 2019
I have mixed feelings about this book. It was well-written, Margaret and Ashton were sympathetic, but I hated the way she time-traveled. It started off well enough until that point and I had a hard time getting past it. (I'll talk more about that in a hidden spoiler) Other than the time-travel, which is a big part of the book obviously, I enjoyed it. The relationship between Margaret and Ashton was pretty realistic and loving. So as far as time-travel romances, it's not one of my favorites, but it is still a good love story. In some ways, I think it might have been better strictly as historical romance.
Be warned! Massive ranting ahead!
<spoiler>
1. Like I said before, I hated her time-travel method. I don't quite get even how she time-traveled and the part I hate the absolute most is that she's in someone else's body. I just recently read a short story that had the same time-travel method, except that it was explained. I just find it disturbing and creepy, not to mention the amount of times it is said in the book how beautiful and perfect her looks are. Pretty nauseating. I just don't know how you could get used to looking in the mirror and not seeing yourself. That'd just be weird to me, even if I did happen to enter into a drop-dead gorgeous body. And Margaret acted like she was some freak of nature when she was in 1993. Boo hoo. Be happy with yourself for goodness sake! It seemed somewhat like the author was saying that you're not good enough if you're not beautiful. At least, that's the impression it gave to me.
2. It seemed to me that Ashton was infatuated with Mag. He couldn't have possibly actually loved her the way she was before Margaret entered her body, but he said he had. He really had to have fallen in love with Margaret, not Mag, and the blurriness there bothered me.
3. They're cousins. Okay so Margaret actually isn't, but the body she's in is. So what about children? Not a major point since cousins marrying isn't all that odd back then, but because of my other problems, it creeped me out more here.
4. Margaret's whole "revelation." She says now her parents and siblings never went to Cape Cod and are alive after all since they only went because of her and now she's back in time, and her parents only had two kids and not three. Umm no. If her parents never had her, then it would be impossible (yes, so is time-travel, but that's beside the point) for her to have gone back in time at all! She would have disappeared; she couldn't just be there now! Am I the only one who can see that?! Remember the photo featuring disappearing McFly's in Back to the Future? What comes around goes around. There's a few instances of that, but this is the one that bothers me most.
5. How did the papers show up? Seemed really unnecessary just to have Ashton believe her.
Had the back cover described how exactly Margaret time-traveled (like a mention of waking up in a strange body, perhaps?), maybe I wouldn't have had such a hard time with the concept and the other stuff wouldn't have bothered me as much. Who's to know?</spoiler> I promise, I'm really not crazy, even if my rants point to the contrary. I really think it could have been a great story, and I'm sure others will enjoy it, I just was left very disappointed.
Be warned! Massive ranting ahead!
<spoiler>
1. Like I said before, I hated her time-travel method. I don't quite get even how she time-traveled and the part I hate the absolute most is that she's in someone else's body. I just recently read a short story that had the same time-travel method, except that it was explained. I just find it disturbing and creepy, not to mention the amount of times it is said in the book how beautiful and perfect her looks are. Pretty nauseating. I just don't know how you could get used to looking in the mirror and not seeing yourself. That'd just be weird to me, even if I did happen to enter into a drop-dead gorgeous body. And Margaret acted like she was some freak of nature when she was in 1993. Boo hoo. Be happy with yourself for goodness sake! It seemed somewhat like the author was saying that you're not good enough if you're not beautiful. At least, that's the impression it gave to me.
2. It seemed to me that Ashton was infatuated with Mag. He couldn't have possibly actually loved her the way she was before Margaret entered her body, but he said he had. He really had to have fallen in love with Margaret, not Mag, and the blurriness there bothered me.
3. They're cousins. Okay so Margaret actually isn't, but the body she's in is. So what about children? Not a major point since cousins marrying isn't all that odd back then, but because of my other problems, it creeped me out more here.
4. Margaret's whole "revelation." She says now her parents and siblings never went to Cape Cod and are alive after all since they only went because of her and now she's back in time, and her parents only had two kids and not three. Umm no. If her parents never had her, then it would be impossible (yes, so is time-travel, but that's beside the point) for her to have gone back in time at all! She would have disappeared; she couldn't just be there now! Am I the only one who can see that?! Remember the photo featuring disappearing McFly's in Back to the Future? What comes around goes around. There's a few instances of that, but this is the one that bothers me most.
5. How did the papers show up? Seemed really unnecessary just to have Ashton believe her.
Had the back cover described how exactly Margaret time-traveled (like a mention of waking up in a strange body, perhaps?), maybe I wouldn't have had such a hard time with the concept and the other stuff wouldn't have bothered me as much. Who's to know?</spoiler> I promise, I'm really not crazy, even if my rants point to the contrary. I really think it could have been a great story, and I'm sure others will enjoy it, I just was left very disappointed.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) in Movies
May 4, 2022
The noticeable Sam Raimi elements. (2 more)
The film is great when it's able to showcase horror.
The second end credits sequence is amazing.
The film is incredibly formulaic outside of its horror elements. (2 more)
You don't really care about any of the new characters.
No one is going to get that first end credits sequence.
Sam Raimi Finally Brings Horror to the MCU
Even with all of the universe jumping and Sam Raimi being able to add his filmmaking trademarks, Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is a bit too formulaic for its own good. Doctor Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) has been having dreams of a different version of himself dying while seeking a mythical book known as The Book of Ashanti. In his dream, Strange encounters America Chavez (Xochitl Gomez), a young girl with the uncontrollable power of universe jumping.
But then Strange meets America in his universe and learns that dreams are actually us seeing different versions of ourselves in different universes. Still blinded by the events in WandaVision, Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen) intends to capture America and utilize her universe jumping ability to reunite with the children she created with magic.
Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness relies on what feels like a simplistic storyline to drive what is essentially the MCU’s first horror film. Strange really only seems driven to protect America because he dreamed about her and Wanda Maximoff has only turned evil because there’s suddenly this very thin line between being a mother and becoming a monster. Most of the film feels like a typical MCU film featuring the standard humor and wisecracking you’ve come to expect from superhero films along with the fate of the world (and possibly every other) probably being at stake.
The most refreshing moments of Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness are the moments that you can tell Raimi had a hand in writing, directing, or having some sort of input in some capacity. This is Raimi’s first directorial gig since 2013’s Oz: The Great and Powerful and it becomes quite obvious that audiences have missed his work. The Shuma Gorath sequence (renamed Gargantos for trademark purposes) is outstanding. Doctor Strange, Wong, and America battling a giant one eyed octopus is something so awesome that it kind of writes itself. Not only is it the film’s first big action sequence, but you can see a lot of Doctor Octopus and Spider-Man 2 influences as Gargantos destroys skyscrapers and gets his tentacles chopped off. The slicing of the bus as it’s thrown at Doctor Strange and America is also legitimately one of the coolest moments of the film.
There is a ton of homage to Evil Dead and Drag Me to Hell buried within the film. The final 20 minutes are overflowing with concepts seemingly pulled from classic Sam Raimi films. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness revolves around a book of the damned not unlike the Necronomicon. There are at least two major eyeball gags and a ridiculous amount of burning candles in the film. Like most Sam Raimi films, there’s an emphasis on corniness. His sense of humor has always been on the corny side and the heartfelt moments always seem to be milked and over exaggerated ever so slightly. All of these elements are in Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness and they are the moments that make the film feel more unique in comparison to the other 28 films in the MCU.
Strange saves America from Scarlet Witch by knocking her and himself into her own star shaped portal that sees them both falling through multiple universes. It’s a gloriously disorienting sequence, but it’s also incredibly similar to not only what we saw in the first Doctor Strange film but also a lot like the 700 space jumps in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2. This film is meant to open the door even further when it comes to the cosmic side of the MCU and now the horror side of it as well. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is not Spider-Man: No Way Home. There are not a ton of nostalgic cameos sprinkled throughout the film. There’s one sequence that combines fan speculation and other universes, but there aren’t a lot of hidden cameos like the internet speculated.
What is perhaps most interesting about this superhero sequel is that Stephen Strange is still learning to be more humble. His only play during Infinity War that ended up costing so many their lives for five long years is still weighing heavily on his mind. He also still loves Christine (Rachel McAdams) despite the fact that she’s moved on and struggles with whether he’s now happy or not. Throughout the film he’s constantly compared to the Doctor Strange of that universe and yet the film goes out of its way to show that this Doctor Strange is different. He will break the rules if he has to, but he will only do so when it’s the only option.
With so many universes and alternate versions of himself, it was naturally only a matter of time before Doctor Strange would have to fight himself. The musical note war Strange has with the Darkhold obsessed version of himself in the collapsed universe in the second half of the film does some really intriguing stuff with musical notes that essentially borrows visuals from the Chuck Jones directed animated short, “High Note,” from 1960 as well as the battle or reactionary element found in video games such as Dance Dance Revolution and Guitar Hero. It’s an unusual fight that seems to be inspired solely by Strange bumping into a piano during the magical brawl.
Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is dark, silly, and fan pleasing. The film is at is most bewitching when Sam Raimi can let his horror roots be showcased. It will satisfy horror and superhero film fans alike, but would have and could have been even better if Raimi was allowed to dive even further into the horror genre. Be sure to stay after the credits, as well. There are two after credits sequences with the final one being so absurdly on the nose for Sam Raimi that it may be the most entertaining part of the film.
But then Strange meets America in his universe and learns that dreams are actually us seeing different versions of ourselves in different universes. Still blinded by the events in WandaVision, Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen) intends to capture America and utilize her universe jumping ability to reunite with the children she created with magic.
Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness relies on what feels like a simplistic storyline to drive what is essentially the MCU’s first horror film. Strange really only seems driven to protect America because he dreamed about her and Wanda Maximoff has only turned evil because there’s suddenly this very thin line between being a mother and becoming a monster. Most of the film feels like a typical MCU film featuring the standard humor and wisecracking you’ve come to expect from superhero films along with the fate of the world (and possibly every other) probably being at stake.
The most refreshing moments of Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness are the moments that you can tell Raimi had a hand in writing, directing, or having some sort of input in some capacity. This is Raimi’s first directorial gig since 2013’s Oz: The Great and Powerful and it becomes quite obvious that audiences have missed his work. The Shuma Gorath sequence (renamed Gargantos for trademark purposes) is outstanding. Doctor Strange, Wong, and America battling a giant one eyed octopus is something so awesome that it kind of writes itself. Not only is it the film’s first big action sequence, but you can see a lot of Doctor Octopus and Spider-Man 2 influences as Gargantos destroys skyscrapers and gets his tentacles chopped off. The slicing of the bus as it’s thrown at Doctor Strange and America is also legitimately one of the coolest moments of the film.
There is a ton of homage to Evil Dead and Drag Me to Hell buried within the film. The final 20 minutes are overflowing with concepts seemingly pulled from classic Sam Raimi films. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness revolves around a book of the damned not unlike the Necronomicon. There are at least two major eyeball gags and a ridiculous amount of burning candles in the film. Like most Sam Raimi films, there’s an emphasis on corniness. His sense of humor has always been on the corny side and the heartfelt moments always seem to be milked and over exaggerated ever so slightly. All of these elements are in Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness and they are the moments that make the film feel more unique in comparison to the other 28 films in the MCU.
Strange saves America from Scarlet Witch by knocking her and himself into her own star shaped portal that sees them both falling through multiple universes. It’s a gloriously disorienting sequence, but it’s also incredibly similar to not only what we saw in the first Doctor Strange film but also a lot like the 700 space jumps in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2. This film is meant to open the door even further when it comes to the cosmic side of the MCU and now the horror side of it as well. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is not Spider-Man: No Way Home. There are not a ton of nostalgic cameos sprinkled throughout the film. There’s one sequence that combines fan speculation and other universes, but there aren’t a lot of hidden cameos like the internet speculated.
What is perhaps most interesting about this superhero sequel is that Stephen Strange is still learning to be more humble. His only play during Infinity War that ended up costing so many their lives for five long years is still weighing heavily on his mind. He also still loves Christine (Rachel McAdams) despite the fact that she’s moved on and struggles with whether he’s now happy or not. Throughout the film he’s constantly compared to the Doctor Strange of that universe and yet the film goes out of its way to show that this Doctor Strange is different. He will break the rules if he has to, but he will only do so when it’s the only option.
With so many universes and alternate versions of himself, it was naturally only a matter of time before Doctor Strange would have to fight himself. The musical note war Strange has with the Darkhold obsessed version of himself in the collapsed universe in the second half of the film does some really intriguing stuff with musical notes that essentially borrows visuals from the Chuck Jones directed animated short, “High Note,” from 1960 as well as the battle or reactionary element found in video games such as Dance Dance Revolution and Guitar Hero. It’s an unusual fight that seems to be inspired solely by Strange bumping into a piano during the magical brawl.
Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is dark, silly, and fan pleasing. The film is at is most bewitching when Sam Raimi can let his horror roots be showcased. It will satisfy horror and superhero film fans alike, but would have and could have been even better if Raimi was allowed to dive even further into the horror genre. Be sure to stay after the credits, as well. There are two after credits sequences with the final one being so absurdly on the nose for Sam Raimi that it may be the most entertaining part of the film.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated First Man (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
He captured a feeling. Sky with no ceiling.
A memorable event
I am a child of the 60’s, born in 1961. The “Space Race” for me was not some historical concept but a pervasive backdrop to my childhood. I still recall, at the age of 8, being marched into my junior school’s assembly hall. We all peered at the grainy black-and-white pictures of Neil Armstrong as he spoke his famously fluffed line before stepping onto the lunar surface. The event happened at 3:54am UK time, so clearly my recollection of “seeing it live” is bogus. (I read that the BBC stayed on air until 10:30 in the morning, so it was probably a ‘final review’ of the night’s events I saw). It is probably lodged in my memory less for the historical event and more due to the fact that there was TELEVISION ON IN THE MORNING! (Kids, ask your grandparents!)
A very personal connection. My personal copy of Waddington’s “Blast Off” board game, briefly shown in the film.
The plot
But back to Damien Chazelle‘s film. We start early in the 60’s with America getting well and truly kicked up the proberbial by the Russians in the space race: they fail to get the first man in space; they fail to carry out the first spacewalk. So the Americans, following the famous JFK speech, set their sights on the moon. It’s the equivalent of making a mess of cutting your toenails but then deciding to have a go at brain surgery. NASA develop the Gemini programme to practice the essential docking manoevers required as a precursor for the seemingly impossible (‘two blackboard’) mission that is Apollo.
But the price paid for such ambition is high.
Ryan Gosling plays Neil Armstrong as a dedicated, prickly, professional; altogether not a terribly likeable individual. Claire Foy plays his long-suffering wife Janet, putting her support for her husband’s dangerous profession ahead of her natural fears of becoming a single mother.
Review
There is obviously little tension to be mined from a film that has such a well-known historical context. Those with even a subliminal knowledge of the subject will be aware of the key triumphs and tragedies along the way. The script (by Josh Singer, “The Post“; “Spotlight“) is very well done in developing a creeping dread of knowing what is shortly to come.
Even with these inherent spoilers, Chazelle still manages to evoke armrest-squeezing tension into the space flight sequences. A lot of this is achieved through disorientating camera movements and flashing images that may irritate some but I found to be highly effective. (Did anyone else flash back to that excellent “Mission Space” ride at Epcot during the launch sequences?) This hand-held cinematography by Linus Sandgren (Chazelle’s “La La Land” collaborator) is matched by some utterly drop-dead gorgeous shots – beautifully framed; beautifully lit – that would be worthy of a Kaminski/Spielberg collaboration.
Those expecting a rollercoaster thrill-ride of the likes of “Apollo 13” will be disappointed. The film has more of the slow-and-long-burn feeling of “The Right Stuff” in mood and, at 141 minutes, some might even find it quite boring. There is significant time, for example, spent within the family home. These scenes include turbulent events of which I wasn’t previously aware: events that form the cornerstone of the film’s drama. For me, the balance of the personal and the historical background was perfectly done. I found it curious though that with such a family-oriented drama Chazelle chose to ditch completely any cuts away to the earthbound onlookers during the tense lunar landing sequence. (Compare and contrast with Ron Howard‘s masterly inter-cutting in the re-entry scene of “Apollo 13”). With the outcome foretold, perhaps such tension building was considered unnecessary? I’m not suggesting it was wrong to ‘stay in the moment’ with the astronauts, but it’s a bold directorial move.
Overall, the foolhardiness of NASA trying to do what they did with the 60’s technology at their disposal is well-portrayed. If you’ve been lucky enough, as I have, to view the Apollo 11 capsule in the National Air and Space museum in Washington you can’t help but be impressed by the bravery of Armstong, Aldrin and Collins in getting in that bucket of bolts and putting their lives on the line. True American heroes.
On that topic, the “flag issue” has generated much self-righteous heat within the US media; that is regarding Chazelle not showing the American flag being planted. This seems fatuous to me. Not only is the flag shown on the moon, but the film ably demonstrates the American know-how and bravery behind the mission. If Clint Eastwood had been directing he would have probably gone there: but for me it certainly didn’t need any further patriotism rubbed in the viewer’s face.
The turns
Are Oscar nominations on the cards for Ryan Gosling and Claire Foy? For me, it would be staggering if they are not: this film has “Oscar nomination” written all over it. I’d also certainly not bet against Foy winning for Best Actress: her portrayal of a wife on the edge is nothing short of brilliant. And perhaps, just perhaps, this might be Gosling’s year too.
Elsewhere there are strong supporting performances from Kyle Chandler (as Deke Slayton), Corey Stoll (as the ‘tell it how it is’ Buzz Aldrin) and Jason Clarke (as Ed White). It’s also great to see Belfast-born Ciarán Hinds in another mainstream Hollywood release.
For me, another dead cert Oscar nomination will be Justin Hurwitz for the score which is breathtakingly brilliant, not just in its compelling themes but also in its orchestration: the use of the eerie theremin and melodic harp are just brilliant together. I haven’t heard a score this year that’s more fitting to the visuals: although it’s early in the Oscar season to be calling it, I’d be very surprised if this didn’t walk away with the statuette.
Summary
Loved this. Damien Chazelle – with “Whiplash“, “La La Land” and now “First Man” – has hit all of three out of the park in my book. It’s not really a film for thrill-seekers, who might get bored, but anyone, like me, with an interest in the history of space exploration will I think lap it up: for this was surely the most memorable decade in space history… so far.
On leaving the cinema I looked up at the rising moon and marvelled once more at the audacity of man. My eyes then drifted across to the red dot that was Mars. How long I wonder? And how many dramatic film biographies still to come?
I am a child of the 60’s, born in 1961. The “Space Race” for me was not some historical concept but a pervasive backdrop to my childhood. I still recall, at the age of 8, being marched into my junior school’s assembly hall. We all peered at the grainy black-and-white pictures of Neil Armstrong as he spoke his famously fluffed line before stepping onto the lunar surface. The event happened at 3:54am UK time, so clearly my recollection of “seeing it live” is bogus. (I read that the BBC stayed on air until 10:30 in the morning, so it was probably a ‘final review’ of the night’s events I saw). It is probably lodged in my memory less for the historical event and more due to the fact that there was TELEVISION ON IN THE MORNING! (Kids, ask your grandparents!)
A very personal connection. My personal copy of Waddington’s “Blast Off” board game, briefly shown in the film.
The plot
But back to Damien Chazelle‘s film. We start early in the 60’s with America getting well and truly kicked up the proberbial by the Russians in the space race: they fail to get the first man in space; they fail to carry out the first spacewalk. So the Americans, following the famous JFK speech, set their sights on the moon. It’s the equivalent of making a mess of cutting your toenails but then deciding to have a go at brain surgery. NASA develop the Gemini programme to practice the essential docking manoevers required as a precursor for the seemingly impossible (‘two blackboard’) mission that is Apollo.
But the price paid for such ambition is high.
Ryan Gosling plays Neil Armstrong as a dedicated, prickly, professional; altogether not a terribly likeable individual. Claire Foy plays his long-suffering wife Janet, putting her support for her husband’s dangerous profession ahead of her natural fears of becoming a single mother.
Review
There is obviously little tension to be mined from a film that has such a well-known historical context. Those with even a subliminal knowledge of the subject will be aware of the key triumphs and tragedies along the way. The script (by Josh Singer, “The Post“; “Spotlight“) is very well done in developing a creeping dread of knowing what is shortly to come.
Even with these inherent spoilers, Chazelle still manages to evoke armrest-squeezing tension into the space flight sequences. A lot of this is achieved through disorientating camera movements and flashing images that may irritate some but I found to be highly effective. (Did anyone else flash back to that excellent “Mission Space” ride at Epcot during the launch sequences?) This hand-held cinematography by Linus Sandgren (Chazelle’s “La La Land” collaborator) is matched by some utterly drop-dead gorgeous shots – beautifully framed; beautifully lit – that would be worthy of a Kaminski/Spielberg collaboration.
Those expecting a rollercoaster thrill-ride of the likes of “Apollo 13” will be disappointed. The film has more of the slow-and-long-burn feeling of “The Right Stuff” in mood and, at 141 minutes, some might even find it quite boring. There is significant time, for example, spent within the family home. These scenes include turbulent events of which I wasn’t previously aware: events that form the cornerstone of the film’s drama. For me, the balance of the personal and the historical background was perfectly done. I found it curious though that with such a family-oriented drama Chazelle chose to ditch completely any cuts away to the earthbound onlookers during the tense lunar landing sequence. (Compare and contrast with Ron Howard‘s masterly inter-cutting in the re-entry scene of “Apollo 13”). With the outcome foretold, perhaps such tension building was considered unnecessary? I’m not suggesting it was wrong to ‘stay in the moment’ with the astronauts, but it’s a bold directorial move.
Overall, the foolhardiness of NASA trying to do what they did with the 60’s technology at their disposal is well-portrayed. If you’ve been lucky enough, as I have, to view the Apollo 11 capsule in the National Air and Space museum in Washington you can’t help but be impressed by the bravery of Armstong, Aldrin and Collins in getting in that bucket of bolts and putting their lives on the line. True American heroes.
On that topic, the “flag issue” has generated much self-righteous heat within the US media; that is regarding Chazelle not showing the American flag being planted. This seems fatuous to me. Not only is the flag shown on the moon, but the film ably demonstrates the American know-how and bravery behind the mission. If Clint Eastwood had been directing he would have probably gone there: but for me it certainly didn’t need any further patriotism rubbed in the viewer’s face.
The turns
Are Oscar nominations on the cards for Ryan Gosling and Claire Foy? For me, it would be staggering if they are not: this film has “Oscar nomination” written all over it. I’d also certainly not bet against Foy winning for Best Actress: her portrayal of a wife on the edge is nothing short of brilliant. And perhaps, just perhaps, this might be Gosling’s year too.
Elsewhere there are strong supporting performances from Kyle Chandler (as Deke Slayton), Corey Stoll (as the ‘tell it how it is’ Buzz Aldrin) and Jason Clarke (as Ed White). It’s also great to see Belfast-born Ciarán Hinds in another mainstream Hollywood release.
For me, another dead cert Oscar nomination will be Justin Hurwitz for the score which is breathtakingly brilliant, not just in its compelling themes but also in its orchestration: the use of the eerie theremin and melodic harp are just brilliant together. I haven’t heard a score this year that’s more fitting to the visuals: although it’s early in the Oscar season to be calling it, I’d be very surprised if this didn’t walk away with the statuette.
Summary
Loved this. Damien Chazelle – with “Whiplash“, “La La Land” and now “First Man” – has hit all of three out of the park in my book. It’s not really a film for thrill-seekers, who might get bored, but anyone, like me, with an interest in the history of space exploration will I think lap it up: for this was surely the most memorable decade in space history… so far.
On leaving the cinema I looked up at the rising moon and marvelled once more at the audacity of man. My eyes then drifted across to the red dot that was Mars. How long I wonder? And how many dramatic film biographies still to come?
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Skyfall (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
It has been four years since Daniel Craig graced the screen as James Bond, in large part due to financial issues with MGM studio. Thankfully the matters were resolved and Academy award-winning director Sam Mendes kept his schedule free to avoid any conflicts that would have kept him from filming the latest chapter in the series. “Skyfall” has a very satisfying and enjoyable plot that twist and turns yet is not difficult to follow as it takes the audience on an emotional roller coaster.
After being wounded in the line of duty, Bond has gone missing and is assumed dead by everyone at MI6. While recuperating, Bond is in no hurry to let the world or his former comrades know that he still alive, becoming very dependent on alcohol and medication to help him cope.
A list of all the operatives in deep cover operations has fallen into the wrong hands which places not only the agents’ lives, but the effectiveness of the British Secret Service, in grave danger. As a result, the head of MI6, M (Dame Judy Dench), is fighting not only for the lives of her agents, but for her very career as she is strongly encourage to ease into retirement by the new government minister named Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes).
As if M’s troubles could not get any worse without her primary operative, an explosion rocks the MI6 headquarters as M returns from her meeting with Mallory. It becomes very clear that the person in possession of list has a personal score to settle with M, and delights in taunting her and her agents online as he executes a deadly plan of revenge.
Following the explosion, Bond resurfaces and demands to return to active duty despite having physical and mental issues as a result of his last mission. Mallory and others urge Bond to get out of the game and leave it for younger men, but Bond’s sense of honor and duty drive him to face the challenge.
With exotic locales ranging from Shanghai, Macau, Turkey, as well as London and Scotland, “Skyfall” captures the best of Bond with a gripping story that will have you hooked for the film’s entire 2 1/2 hours run time.
The introduction of Javier Bardem to the series was a masterful stroke as he plays a Bond villain unlike others. He is not a mega-millionaire bent on conquering the world, but rather he is a sympathetic and somewhat tragic figure that is a very kindred spirit to Bond himself.
The hallmark of the series has always been great action pieces and stunt work and “Skyfall”, does not disappoint in this category. I am very impressed with how computer generated effects were kept to an absolute minimum in the movie and how Craig and cast really went all out for their demanding and physical roles.
Mendes is to be commended for his work. Not only is the film wonderful to look at capturing the darkness of the world Bond operates in as well as the lavish beauty of the locales in which he travels. The stark contrast between light and dark in the film aptly portrays the psyche of Bond as he’s truly a person haunted by demons and the film even allows us greater insight into his character and past than has previously been seen before.
Naomi Harris and Bérénice Marlohe are the latest of Bond girls and they prove that they are more than just eye candy for the film, as they both are complex and strong women who complement the story well instead of being gratuitous sidekicks and obligatory damsels in distress.
The action-filled finale is very satisfying and the film concludes very well setting up the next chapters in the series very well. I had not been as big offensive glass to Daniel Craig films as I have of certain past Bond films. My biggest issue was that the new version of bond comes across more as a common thug rather than the suave, sophisticated, gentleman killer that I had grown to associate with bond.
This time around the film has much more of a balance in this regard as there is a quiet strength to Craig’s performance as he seems more comfortable in the role than he had in previous outings. We know that he can carry the physical demands of the role, this time around Mendes encouraged him to open up his emotional range which allowed for a more diverse and complex Bond than we had seen previously. I truly think that his work in “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” really helped Craig as he did a masterful job playing a complex character with flaws, and seemed much more comfortable in bringing more bonds demons to light.
I’m extremely happy with the film and especially love the movie’s dénouement which, for me, promises a very good and eagerly anticipated direction for future films.
After being wounded in the line of duty, Bond has gone missing and is assumed dead by everyone at MI6. While recuperating, Bond is in no hurry to let the world or his former comrades know that he still alive, becoming very dependent on alcohol and medication to help him cope.
A list of all the operatives in deep cover operations has fallen into the wrong hands which places not only the agents’ lives, but the effectiveness of the British Secret Service, in grave danger. As a result, the head of MI6, M (Dame Judy Dench), is fighting not only for the lives of her agents, but for her very career as she is strongly encourage to ease into retirement by the new government minister named Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes).
As if M’s troubles could not get any worse without her primary operative, an explosion rocks the MI6 headquarters as M returns from her meeting with Mallory. It becomes very clear that the person in possession of list has a personal score to settle with M, and delights in taunting her and her agents online as he executes a deadly plan of revenge.
Following the explosion, Bond resurfaces and demands to return to active duty despite having physical and mental issues as a result of his last mission. Mallory and others urge Bond to get out of the game and leave it for younger men, but Bond’s sense of honor and duty drive him to face the challenge.
With exotic locales ranging from Shanghai, Macau, Turkey, as well as London and Scotland, “Skyfall” captures the best of Bond with a gripping story that will have you hooked for the film’s entire 2 1/2 hours run time.
The introduction of Javier Bardem to the series was a masterful stroke as he plays a Bond villain unlike others. He is not a mega-millionaire bent on conquering the world, but rather he is a sympathetic and somewhat tragic figure that is a very kindred spirit to Bond himself.
The hallmark of the series has always been great action pieces and stunt work and “Skyfall”, does not disappoint in this category. I am very impressed with how computer generated effects were kept to an absolute minimum in the movie and how Craig and cast really went all out for their demanding and physical roles.
Mendes is to be commended for his work. Not only is the film wonderful to look at capturing the darkness of the world Bond operates in as well as the lavish beauty of the locales in which he travels. The stark contrast between light and dark in the film aptly portrays the psyche of Bond as he’s truly a person haunted by demons and the film even allows us greater insight into his character and past than has previously been seen before.
Naomi Harris and Bérénice Marlohe are the latest of Bond girls and they prove that they are more than just eye candy for the film, as they both are complex and strong women who complement the story well instead of being gratuitous sidekicks and obligatory damsels in distress.
The action-filled finale is very satisfying and the film concludes very well setting up the next chapters in the series very well. I had not been as big offensive glass to Daniel Craig films as I have of certain past Bond films. My biggest issue was that the new version of bond comes across more as a common thug rather than the suave, sophisticated, gentleman killer that I had grown to associate with bond.
This time around the film has much more of a balance in this regard as there is a quiet strength to Craig’s performance as he seems more comfortable in the role than he had in previous outings. We know that he can carry the physical demands of the role, this time around Mendes encouraged him to open up his emotional range which allowed for a more diverse and complex Bond than we had seen previously. I truly think that his work in “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” really helped Craig as he did a masterful job playing a complex character with flaws, and seemed much more comfortable in bringing more bonds demons to light.
I’m extremely happy with the film and especially love the movie’s dénouement which, for me, promises a very good and eagerly anticipated direction for future films.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated The Batman (2022) in Movies
Mar 6, 2022
Paul Dano and Colin Farrell's Performances (2 more)
The Batmobile car chase with Oz
The different/damaged take on Bruce Wayne
Entirely too long - too much detective work (2 more)
Little to no chemistry between The Bat and The Cat
The raspy adventures of Batsy and Jimbo
When is a Bat Not Quite a Bat?
Matt Reeves’ The Batman isn’t an origin story. Instead Bruce Wayne (Robert Pattinson) treats every villain and every thug as if they were the ones to take his parents away from him. This is a version of Bruce Wayne that hates being Bruce Wayne; Batman is his legacy. The tragedy of losing his parents is his most defining characteristic. Bruce is a social hermit and the world’s biggest introvert in The Batman.
The Riddler (Paul Dano) kills Gotham’s mayor on Halloween night and he continues to target key political figures throughout the film. A cryptic riddle is left for Batman at every crime scene revealing just a big enough clue to keep Batman and Jim Gordon (Jeffrey Wright) entangled in Riddler’s enigmatic bloodbath. As Batman crosses paths with a cat-loving thief named Selina Kyle (Zoe Kravitz) and the magnificently sleazy Iceberg Lounge owner Oswald Cobblepot (Colin Farrell), he soon realizes that the Wayne family may be a bigger piece of the puzzle than he originally imagined.
Paul Dano is essentially the highlight of the film. Matt Reeves stated that his inspiration for his version of the character was The Zodiac Killer and it shows. Riddler’s costume is basically a camouflage gimp outfit with tactical advantages and a fetish for duct tape. Dano’s performance is haunting. His riddles are more akin to Jigsaw’s games from the Saw franchise. The character is at his best when he’s showcased in grainy cell phone videos where his shouting and heavy breathing are even more distorted than if he was standing right in front of you. The intriguing aspect is that Dano seems to be even more mesmerizing as the character once he’s unmasked. He’s able to tap into this lunacy, this dread, and this hypnotic terror that defines the character whether he’s hiding his face or not.
Featured less prominently is Colin Farrell as Oswald Cobblepot, who also delivers a fantastic performance. Farrell is so unrecognizable thanks to the facial prosthetics and fat suit that he’s wearing. Some of the aspects of The Penguin that makes him so dangerous is that he’s incredibly resourceful and he can talk his way into and out of just about anything. Farrell’s best moments as the character come during the Batmobile chase featured in the trailer followed by the conversation Batman and Gordon have with him immediately afterwards. You never knew how much you needed a Spanish lesson from Oz until Matt Reeves came along.
The Batmobile car chase is the best sequence of the film. It’s absolutely explosive and worth seeing in a theater. Michael Giacchino’s score is also bold and thrilling; it helps define the Batman character for a new generation with an undeniably epic theme. Matt Reeves compared Bruce Wayne to Kurt Cobain in this film. Bruce’s relationship with the spotlight and how he’d rather stay away from it is a lot like how Cobain viewed being famous. “Something in the Way” by Nirvana fits the Batman universe so well and it’s surprising nobody has ever thought of utilizing it until now.
This unusual version of Bruce Wayne in The Batman makes it feel unlike any other Batman film. Bruce Wayne is typically a playboy that is consistently showcased at public events that flaunts his fortune and bounces from woman to woman on a nightly basis. In The Batman, we see the smudged black eye makeup as Bruce takes off his cowl. Robert Pattinson didn’t bulk up for the role, so he has this pale and gaunt appearance. He has no interest in the business his father left him in charge of. Vengeance is his only purpose.
The Batman is also the first Batman film to actually feel like a detective story. So much time is devoted to the investigation aspect of the film; maybe too much time. The film is five minutes shy of being three hours long and The Batman feels like a three hour film. Some of these sequences feel like they could have been trimmed (did we really need to see Batman or Bruce Wayne go to the Iceberg Lounge so many times?) or cut entirely, but everything feels like it’s part of the bigger picture of capturing The Riddler. Every little stop along the way leads to the next clue or next big encounter. Unfortunately, it feels like a chore listening to Batman answer riddles for the sixth time in the midst of three hours.
Robert Pattinson is a seriously talented actor outside of the Twilight franchise and Zoe Kravitz chooses interesting projects to be a part of, but their chemistry in The Batman feels forced. Batman tracks down Selina Kyle almost like a stalker as he starts inserting himself into her life after a random encounter at The Iceberg Lounge. Despite being friends in real life, the two actors seem stiff and awkward when they’re around each other. These are two versions of the characters that don’t have the history the comics or the movies laid out for them after decades of publication and on screen appearances. This is supposed to be the first time they’ve met and they go from being bumbling partners to nearly leaving Gotham together after being shot at a few times and finding a dead girl in a trunk; it doesn’t make sense.
Matt Reeves was capable of taking The Batman into a different direction for both the Batman universe and superhero films alike. The action sequences are almost earned here as there’s much more down time while following a lead or doing research. You actually see that Bruce documents his inner monologues and his nightly outings as Batman in handwritten journals. There’s a ton of interesting concepts in The Batman that ultimately don’t pay off.
Paul Dano and Colin Farrell are extraordinary, but The Batman is a three hour slog through Gotham that culminates with an over exaggerated riddle that isn’t worth solving. Having Batman and Jim Gordon both speak in raspy, whispery grunts feels excessive as does Gordon’s insistence on calling Batman, “Chief,” every time that they’re together. The film deserves credit for prominently shining the spotlight on the underbelly of crime in Gotham, but the storytelling in The Batman is a lot like Bugs Bunny meaning to have taken that left turn at Albuquerque; a meandering foray down a dark rabbit hole that isn’t entirely necessary.
The Riddler (Paul Dano) kills Gotham’s mayor on Halloween night and he continues to target key political figures throughout the film. A cryptic riddle is left for Batman at every crime scene revealing just a big enough clue to keep Batman and Jim Gordon (Jeffrey Wright) entangled in Riddler’s enigmatic bloodbath. As Batman crosses paths with a cat-loving thief named Selina Kyle (Zoe Kravitz) and the magnificently sleazy Iceberg Lounge owner Oswald Cobblepot (Colin Farrell), he soon realizes that the Wayne family may be a bigger piece of the puzzle than he originally imagined.
Paul Dano is essentially the highlight of the film. Matt Reeves stated that his inspiration for his version of the character was The Zodiac Killer and it shows. Riddler’s costume is basically a camouflage gimp outfit with tactical advantages and a fetish for duct tape. Dano’s performance is haunting. His riddles are more akin to Jigsaw’s games from the Saw franchise. The character is at his best when he’s showcased in grainy cell phone videos where his shouting and heavy breathing are even more distorted than if he was standing right in front of you. The intriguing aspect is that Dano seems to be even more mesmerizing as the character once he’s unmasked. He’s able to tap into this lunacy, this dread, and this hypnotic terror that defines the character whether he’s hiding his face or not.
Featured less prominently is Colin Farrell as Oswald Cobblepot, who also delivers a fantastic performance. Farrell is so unrecognizable thanks to the facial prosthetics and fat suit that he’s wearing. Some of the aspects of The Penguin that makes him so dangerous is that he’s incredibly resourceful and he can talk his way into and out of just about anything. Farrell’s best moments as the character come during the Batmobile chase featured in the trailer followed by the conversation Batman and Gordon have with him immediately afterwards. You never knew how much you needed a Spanish lesson from Oz until Matt Reeves came along.
The Batmobile car chase is the best sequence of the film. It’s absolutely explosive and worth seeing in a theater. Michael Giacchino’s score is also bold and thrilling; it helps define the Batman character for a new generation with an undeniably epic theme. Matt Reeves compared Bruce Wayne to Kurt Cobain in this film. Bruce’s relationship with the spotlight and how he’d rather stay away from it is a lot like how Cobain viewed being famous. “Something in the Way” by Nirvana fits the Batman universe so well and it’s surprising nobody has ever thought of utilizing it until now.
This unusual version of Bruce Wayne in The Batman makes it feel unlike any other Batman film. Bruce Wayne is typically a playboy that is consistently showcased at public events that flaunts his fortune and bounces from woman to woman on a nightly basis. In The Batman, we see the smudged black eye makeup as Bruce takes off his cowl. Robert Pattinson didn’t bulk up for the role, so he has this pale and gaunt appearance. He has no interest in the business his father left him in charge of. Vengeance is his only purpose.
The Batman is also the first Batman film to actually feel like a detective story. So much time is devoted to the investigation aspect of the film; maybe too much time. The film is five minutes shy of being three hours long and The Batman feels like a three hour film. Some of these sequences feel like they could have been trimmed (did we really need to see Batman or Bruce Wayne go to the Iceberg Lounge so many times?) or cut entirely, but everything feels like it’s part of the bigger picture of capturing The Riddler. Every little stop along the way leads to the next clue or next big encounter. Unfortunately, it feels like a chore listening to Batman answer riddles for the sixth time in the midst of three hours.
Robert Pattinson is a seriously talented actor outside of the Twilight franchise and Zoe Kravitz chooses interesting projects to be a part of, but their chemistry in The Batman feels forced. Batman tracks down Selina Kyle almost like a stalker as he starts inserting himself into her life after a random encounter at The Iceberg Lounge. Despite being friends in real life, the two actors seem stiff and awkward when they’re around each other. These are two versions of the characters that don’t have the history the comics or the movies laid out for them after decades of publication and on screen appearances. This is supposed to be the first time they’ve met and they go from being bumbling partners to nearly leaving Gotham together after being shot at a few times and finding a dead girl in a trunk; it doesn’t make sense.
Matt Reeves was capable of taking The Batman into a different direction for both the Batman universe and superhero films alike. The action sequences are almost earned here as there’s much more down time while following a lead or doing research. You actually see that Bruce documents his inner monologues and his nightly outings as Batman in handwritten journals. There’s a ton of interesting concepts in The Batman that ultimately don’t pay off.
Paul Dano and Colin Farrell are extraordinary, but The Batman is a three hour slog through Gotham that culminates with an over exaggerated riddle that isn’t worth solving. Having Batman and Jim Gordon both speak in raspy, whispery grunts feels excessive as does Gordon’s insistence on calling Batman, “Chief,” every time that they’re together. The film deserves credit for prominently shining the spotlight on the underbelly of crime in Gotham, but the storytelling in The Batman is a lot like Bugs Bunny meaning to have taken that left turn at Albuquerque; a meandering foray down a dark rabbit hole that isn’t entirely necessary.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Old (2021) in Movies
Jul 28, 2021
Cinematography and Sound Design - very Hitchcockian (1 more)
Concept and initial set-up of the movie
Dafter than the Dharma initiative.
"Old" is the latest from the gloriously inconsistent writer/director M. Night Shyamalan. Will this be great Shyamalan (à la "The Sixth Sense") or dire Shyamalan (à la "The Last Airbender")? The answer, in my view, is somewhere in the middle. It's a curate's egg of a movie.
Positives:
- The premise feels very familiar (desert island beach; time slips; weird things happening.... "Lost" anyone?). But as a shell for a big screen adventure it kept me well-engaged.
- Shyamalan and his "Glass" cinematographer Mike Gioulakis use some novel techniques to portray the ageing effects. The angles they utilize feel quite Hitchcockian at times. Shyamalan supports this with the sound design, which makes this a REALLY good movie to watch in a cinema with good surround sound. Often the camera will be spinning showing nothing but ocean or rocks, with the character's conversation rotating behind you in the cinema. It's really quite effective.
- Shyamalan knows that no visual effects can improve on the horrors your mind can come up with. Although a '15' certificate, the "sustained threat, strong violence and injury detail" referenced by the BBFC pales into insignificance (in terms of what you actually see) compared to the equally rated "Freaky".
- I've seen other reviews comment that the "twist" (no spoilers here) was obvious. But, although not a ground-breaking idea, I was sufficiently satisfied with the denouement. It made sense, albeit twisted sense.
Negatives:
- I enjoyed the movie's leisurely set-up, introducing the characters and the movie's concept. (In many ways, it felt like the start of one of Irwin Allen's disaster movies of the 70's and 80's). But then Shyamalan turns the dial up to 11 and the action becomes increasingly farcical. Add into that the fact that you can see some of the 'jolts' coming a mile off, and the movie becomes progressively more disappointing, with a high ERQ (eye-rolling quotient) by the end.
- In particular, there are inconsistencies to the story that get you asking uncomfortable questions. For example, wounds can heal in the blink of an eye.... but not stab wounds apparently.
- The cast is truly global in nature: Vicky ("Phantom Thread") Krieps hails from Luxembourg; Bernal is Mexican; Sewell is a Brit; Amuka-Bird ("David Copperfield") is Nigerian; Leung is American; Eliza Scanlan is an Aussie; and Thomasin McKenzie (so good in "Jojo Rabbit", and good here too) is a Kiwi. But although it's clearly quite natural that an exotic beach resort would attract guests from all over the world, the combination of accents here makes the whole thing, unfortunately, sound like a dodgy spaghetti western!
Summary Thoughts: 'Time' and 'ageing' have of course been a popular movie topic for many years. I remember being both gripped and horrified by George Pal's wonderful 1960's version of "The Time Machine" when Rod Taylor threw his machine into fast forward and the dead Morlock decomposed in front of his eyes! Ursula Andress did the same as the rapidly ageing Ayesha in 1965's "She". And, more recently and with better effects, Julian Glover did the same in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade".
Unfortunately, "Old" isn't likely to join any of these classic movies in my consciousness. It's a diverting enough movie, with fabulous views of the Dominican Republic (which the local tourist board will no doubt be delighted with). A "less is more" approach might have made this a classic. But unfortunately, that's not what Shyamalan delivered here. Since what we get is a 'Lost-lite' with farcical elements.
And, by the way.... The movie that Charles (Rufus Sewell) refers to starring Jack Nicholson and Marlon Brando is "The Missouri Breaks". It has a very unusual John Williams soundtrack, which I have on vinyl somewhere and is probably worth a few bob!
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on t'interweb, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
Positives:
- The premise feels very familiar (desert island beach; time slips; weird things happening.... "Lost" anyone?). But as a shell for a big screen adventure it kept me well-engaged.
- Shyamalan and his "Glass" cinematographer Mike Gioulakis use some novel techniques to portray the ageing effects. The angles they utilize feel quite Hitchcockian at times. Shyamalan supports this with the sound design, which makes this a REALLY good movie to watch in a cinema with good surround sound. Often the camera will be spinning showing nothing but ocean or rocks, with the character's conversation rotating behind you in the cinema. It's really quite effective.
- Shyamalan knows that no visual effects can improve on the horrors your mind can come up with. Although a '15' certificate, the "sustained threat, strong violence and injury detail" referenced by the BBFC pales into insignificance (in terms of what you actually see) compared to the equally rated "Freaky".
- I've seen other reviews comment that the "twist" (no spoilers here) was obvious. But, although not a ground-breaking idea, I was sufficiently satisfied with the denouement. It made sense, albeit twisted sense.
Negatives:
- I enjoyed the movie's leisurely set-up, introducing the characters and the movie's concept. (In many ways, it felt like the start of one of Irwin Allen's disaster movies of the 70's and 80's). But then Shyamalan turns the dial up to 11 and the action becomes increasingly farcical. Add into that the fact that you can see some of the 'jolts' coming a mile off, and the movie becomes progressively more disappointing, with a high ERQ (eye-rolling quotient) by the end.
- In particular, there are inconsistencies to the story that get you asking uncomfortable questions. For example, wounds can heal in the blink of an eye.... but not stab wounds apparently.
- The cast is truly global in nature: Vicky ("Phantom Thread") Krieps hails from Luxembourg; Bernal is Mexican; Sewell is a Brit; Amuka-Bird ("David Copperfield") is Nigerian; Leung is American; Eliza Scanlan is an Aussie; and Thomasin McKenzie (so good in "Jojo Rabbit", and good here too) is a Kiwi. But although it's clearly quite natural that an exotic beach resort would attract guests from all over the world, the combination of accents here makes the whole thing, unfortunately, sound like a dodgy spaghetti western!
Summary Thoughts: 'Time' and 'ageing' have of course been a popular movie topic for many years. I remember being both gripped and horrified by George Pal's wonderful 1960's version of "The Time Machine" when Rod Taylor threw his machine into fast forward and the dead Morlock decomposed in front of his eyes! Ursula Andress did the same as the rapidly ageing Ayesha in 1965's "She". And, more recently and with better effects, Julian Glover did the same in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade".
Unfortunately, "Old" isn't likely to join any of these classic movies in my consciousness. It's a diverting enough movie, with fabulous views of the Dominican Republic (which the local tourist board will no doubt be delighted with). A "less is more" approach might have made this a classic. But unfortunately, that's not what Shyamalan delivered here. Since what we get is a 'Lost-lite' with farcical elements.
And, by the way.... The movie that Charles (Rufus Sewell) refers to starring Jack Nicholson and Marlon Brando is "The Missouri Breaks". It has a very unusual John Williams soundtrack, which I have on vinyl somewhere and is probably worth a few bob!
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on t'interweb, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
Midge (525 KP) rated Salvation in Death (In Death, #27) in Books
Dec 17, 2018
Lovely portrayal of the relationship between the two lead characters (1 more)
Some hilarious moments
Gripping And Very Interesting!
Immediately after drinking the wine during a Catholic funeral mass, Father Miguel Flores is dead on the altar. Detective Lieutenant Eve Dallas confirms that the consecrated wine contained potassium cyanide. Though the East Harlem neighbourhood is a long way from the stone mansion she shares with her billionaire husband Roarke, she knows she's looking for a murderer.
The autopsy reveals faint scars of knife wounds, a removed tattoo and evidence of plastic surgery, suggesting “Father Flores” may not be the man his parishioners thought. Now, as Eve pieces together clues that suggest identity theft, gang connections, and a deeply personal act of revenge, she hopes to track down whoever committed this unholy act. Then a second murder takes place, in front of an even larger crowd of worshippers. Are the homicides linked?
Salvation in Death is the 27th book of the "In Death" series, with Eve and Roarke as the lead characters.
Salvation in Death begins with the poisoning of a Catholic priest during mass. The priest, a passionate, dedicated and energetic member of the community, seems to have no enemies. He cared especially about young people, was not depressed, stressed or troubled and every member of the church looked up to him. But when his autopsy reveals some old scars and a covered tattoo, Eve realises that the priest must have some dark secrets in his past. When the tattoo points to a ruthless badass gang, Eve is not convinced that the priest is the person he purports to be. When another religious leader is also killed, Eve and her team have to investigate whether there is a serial killer on the loose or if the cases are coincidental in their timing.
This is the first book I have read from the "In Death" series by J. D. Robb, the pseudonym of Nora Roberts. I loved the portrayal of the relationship between the two lead characters, Eve and Roarke, particularly,
"Everything and all things. That was Eve for him. Nothing he'd ever dreamed of, even in secret in the dirty alleys of Dublin, approached the reality of her. Nothing he possessed could ever be as precious. The taste of her in the cool night, in the pale light, stirred a craving he understood would never be fully sated."
There is an impressive number of characters in this crime novel which I have to say made it a little difficult to follow at times. Others that I found an affinity with were Peabody and her significant other and work colleague, McNab.
"They were a good ten feet from the Homicide bullpen when Peabody's nose went up like a hound on the hunt. "I smell doughnuts." When Peabody increased her pace, Eve started to roll her eyes, but then she smelled them, too."
I also liked the following quote including McNab:-
"We got a snag. One of the sons-in-law's a lawyer." "Shit." "Ain't that always the way?" ......."So. He's making lawyer noises. It's after two A.M., and people have been held here for over four hours, yaddah-blah-blah." "Did you get anything from the interviews?" "Nothing that buzzed and popped......"
Eve is really out of her comfort zone investigating murders that have taken place in Catholic churches. She obviously has a past that she has to come to terms with which she seems to make some progress in Salvation in Death. Roarke and she have a great deal of chemistry between them and are very hot together and Roarke has some hilarious moments that make him adorable. He is there for her when certain aspects of the case trouble her and she is needing clarity, but she is by his side when he is struggling with some bad memories of his own. They make a brilliant team and I can't wait to read more of them.
I really surprised myself in that I chose to read this crime novel at all as I don't generally go for books relating to Catholicism. However, I thought it was very nicely written and I found it thoroughly enjoyable. The ending was a surprise to me, and I loved the way the book was concluded. Reading Salvation in Death has inspired me to read other "In Deaths" and also other Nora Roberts novels.
Overall, Salvation in Death is a gripping and very interesting read.
The autopsy reveals faint scars of knife wounds, a removed tattoo and evidence of plastic surgery, suggesting “Father Flores” may not be the man his parishioners thought. Now, as Eve pieces together clues that suggest identity theft, gang connections, and a deeply personal act of revenge, she hopes to track down whoever committed this unholy act. Then a second murder takes place, in front of an even larger crowd of worshippers. Are the homicides linked?
Salvation in Death is the 27th book of the "In Death" series, with Eve and Roarke as the lead characters.
Salvation in Death begins with the poisoning of a Catholic priest during mass. The priest, a passionate, dedicated and energetic member of the community, seems to have no enemies. He cared especially about young people, was not depressed, stressed or troubled and every member of the church looked up to him. But when his autopsy reveals some old scars and a covered tattoo, Eve realises that the priest must have some dark secrets in his past. When the tattoo points to a ruthless badass gang, Eve is not convinced that the priest is the person he purports to be. When another religious leader is also killed, Eve and her team have to investigate whether there is a serial killer on the loose or if the cases are coincidental in their timing.
This is the first book I have read from the "In Death" series by J. D. Robb, the pseudonym of Nora Roberts. I loved the portrayal of the relationship between the two lead characters, Eve and Roarke, particularly,
"Everything and all things. That was Eve for him. Nothing he'd ever dreamed of, even in secret in the dirty alleys of Dublin, approached the reality of her. Nothing he possessed could ever be as precious. The taste of her in the cool night, in the pale light, stirred a craving he understood would never be fully sated."
There is an impressive number of characters in this crime novel which I have to say made it a little difficult to follow at times. Others that I found an affinity with were Peabody and her significant other and work colleague, McNab.
"They were a good ten feet from the Homicide bullpen when Peabody's nose went up like a hound on the hunt. "I smell doughnuts." When Peabody increased her pace, Eve started to roll her eyes, but then she smelled them, too."
I also liked the following quote including McNab:-
"We got a snag. One of the sons-in-law's a lawyer." "Shit." "Ain't that always the way?" ......."So. He's making lawyer noises. It's after two A.M., and people have been held here for over four hours, yaddah-blah-blah." "Did you get anything from the interviews?" "Nothing that buzzed and popped......"
Eve is really out of her comfort zone investigating murders that have taken place in Catholic churches. She obviously has a past that she has to come to terms with which she seems to make some progress in Salvation in Death. Roarke and she have a great deal of chemistry between them and are very hot together and Roarke has some hilarious moments that make him adorable. He is there for her when certain aspects of the case trouble her and she is needing clarity, but she is by his side when he is struggling with some bad memories of his own. They make a brilliant team and I can't wait to read more of them.
I really surprised myself in that I chose to read this crime novel at all as I don't generally go for books relating to Catholicism. However, I thought it was very nicely written and I found it thoroughly enjoyable. The ending was a surprise to me, and I loved the way the book was concluded. Reading Salvation in Death has inspired me to read other "In Deaths" and also other Nora Roberts novels.
Overall, Salvation in Death is a gripping and very interesting read.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Allegiant (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
A+ for effort
I think it’s probably fair to say that the Young Adult genre has become oversaturated due to the phenomenal success of The Hunger Games. Since coming to a slightly underwhelming conclusion last year, many new franchises have its crown firmly in their sights.
The Maze Runner was a muddled first outing with the second, Scorch Trials faring much better and the same can be said for the Divergent series. The first film was at times, an incomprehensible mess, while its follow-up, Insurgent was a thrilling if CGI-heavy and overlong affair.
Allegiant marks the first of two films ending the moderately successful series, with Ascendant being released in June next year. But does this split conclusion harm it as much as it did for Mockingjay?
Allegiant picks up immediately after the end of its predecessor with Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley), her lover Four (Theo James) and a group of friends leaving their once safe-haven of a post-apocalyptic Chicago in order to find a world beyond the wall, populated by others once thought forgotten. What ensues will change their lives forever.
The cast is on form in this instalment with Woodley growing into the role perfectly. It’s true that she’s no Jennifer Lawrence, and many would see her as a budget Katniss Everdeen, but she plays the character with a confidence only matched by her rival in the genre. Theo James gets a much larger role here too, and this is welcome, given his pivotal part in the novels.
Elsewhere, Naomi Watts does her best Julianne Moore impression and clearly watched the latter’s performance in Mockingjay to prepare for an incredibly similar role. Jeff Daniels is a nice addition as the Bureau of Genetic Welfare’s leader, David, though again, his acting prowess feels a little wasted.
Robert Schwentke directs the film with a unique colour palate and visual flair. Scenes “beyond the wall” are stunning and glisten with a red lick of paint, a welcome change from the staid, grey and blue many directors continue to use in blockbusters. It’s very Total Recall-esque in these sequences and better for it.
Unfortunately, once the plucky group of teens leave the Martian-like “Fringe” behind, the CGI kicks up a gear. This is where things start to unravel somewhat and Schwentke throws effect upon effect at the screen until there is hardly any realism left. On the whole, they’re pretty decent, but there are a few lapses that stop the film dead in its tracks, especially towards the cliff-hanger conclusion.
It’s also far too long. Much like Mockingjay, splitting the final book was an exercise in cash-grabbing rather than giving fans of the novels what they want. At over two hours in length, Allegiant drags in places and means the final film, as a whole, will be around four hours.
Nevertheless, there is much to enjoy here. The story for newcomers is incomprehensible and some of the dialogue is downright laughable, but for those of us continuing the saga, it’s an epic adventure with some cracking visuals, good acting and an intriguing plot – despite a few convoluted moments.
Overall, Allegiant is a film hampered by its timing. The similarities to The Hunger Games are obvious throughout, from exactly the same dialogue in certain scenes, to similar sets and similar casting decisions. But, if you can forget all that, it’s a fun, if overlong ride
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/13/a-for-effort-divergent-allegiant-review/
The Maze Runner was a muddled first outing with the second, Scorch Trials faring much better and the same can be said for the Divergent series. The first film was at times, an incomprehensible mess, while its follow-up, Insurgent was a thrilling if CGI-heavy and overlong affair.
Allegiant marks the first of two films ending the moderately successful series, with Ascendant being released in June next year. But does this split conclusion harm it as much as it did for Mockingjay?
Allegiant picks up immediately after the end of its predecessor with Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley), her lover Four (Theo James) and a group of friends leaving their once safe-haven of a post-apocalyptic Chicago in order to find a world beyond the wall, populated by others once thought forgotten. What ensues will change their lives forever.
The cast is on form in this instalment with Woodley growing into the role perfectly. It’s true that she’s no Jennifer Lawrence, and many would see her as a budget Katniss Everdeen, but she plays the character with a confidence only matched by her rival in the genre. Theo James gets a much larger role here too, and this is welcome, given his pivotal part in the novels.
Elsewhere, Naomi Watts does her best Julianne Moore impression and clearly watched the latter’s performance in Mockingjay to prepare for an incredibly similar role. Jeff Daniels is a nice addition as the Bureau of Genetic Welfare’s leader, David, though again, his acting prowess feels a little wasted.
Robert Schwentke directs the film with a unique colour palate and visual flair. Scenes “beyond the wall” are stunning and glisten with a red lick of paint, a welcome change from the staid, grey and blue many directors continue to use in blockbusters. It’s very Total Recall-esque in these sequences and better for it.
Unfortunately, once the plucky group of teens leave the Martian-like “Fringe” behind, the CGI kicks up a gear. This is where things start to unravel somewhat and Schwentke throws effect upon effect at the screen until there is hardly any realism left. On the whole, they’re pretty decent, but there are a few lapses that stop the film dead in its tracks, especially towards the cliff-hanger conclusion.
It’s also far too long. Much like Mockingjay, splitting the final book was an exercise in cash-grabbing rather than giving fans of the novels what they want. At over two hours in length, Allegiant drags in places and means the final film, as a whole, will be around four hours.
Nevertheless, there is much to enjoy here. The story for newcomers is incomprehensible and some of the dialogue is downright laughable, but for those of us continuing the saga, it’s an epic adventure with some cracking visuals, good acting and an intriguing plot – despite a few convoluted moments.
Overall, Allegiant is a film hampered by its timing. The similarities to The Hunger Games are obvious throughout, from exactly the same dialogue in certain scenes, to similar sets and similar casting decisions. But, if you can forget all that, it’s a fun, if overlong ride
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/13/a-for-effort-divergent-allegiant-review/
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Long Bright River in Books
Apr 23, 2020
This was the first book I ever checked out from Libby. I miss my library right now, but I'm glad for that app, even if I can only put six books on hold at one time. (What is that?! Six holds; that's for amateurs.)
Kensington, a neighborhood in Philadelphia, is plagued by drug use, especially heroin. It's where sisters Kacey and Mickey grew up. The girls lost their mother at a young age and were raised by their grandmother, Gee, who provided shelter and not much else. Now, Mickey is determined to raise her son Thomas differently. With love and kindness and a feeling of safety. Mickey is a police officer, so she's more than familiar with the streets of Kensington. At the same time, Kensington is struck with a series of murders, Kacey disappears. Mickey and Kacey haven't had much contact in years, since her sister became stuck in the tangle of addiction, but she's still worried. Even more so since those being murdered are young women, no doubt drug and sex workers. Found strangled on the streets. As Mickey starts looking into the murders, she gets caught up in a twisted web of lies and deceit--some of it related to her missing sister--and soon it may be too late to save either Mickey or Kacey.
The first time I found my sister dead, she was sixteen. It was the summer of 2002. Forty-eight hours earlier, on a Friday afternoon, she’d left school with her friends, telling me she’d be back by evening. She wasn’t.
This isn't a fun book to read, so if you're looking for a feel-good read right now, this isn't it. But it's a well-written, extremely powerful look at addiction. While it focuses on the story of the murdered girls, it's also an in-depth character study, taking us into Mickey's history with her sister and how their past has formed their present. Told in a then and now format, we learn about the sisters, and we get a harrowing and detailed look at the effect of addiction, not just on Kacey, but on an entire town. It's depressing, it's real, and it's wonderfully done.
Kacey told me that time spent in addiction feels looped. Each morning brings with it the possibility of change, each evening the shame of failure.
This is not really a fast-moving book, but it does have twists and turns, many of them surprising. There's plenty to keep you guessing, as we try to figure out what is happening to the women on the streets in Kensington. In turn, we have to figure out Kacey and Mickey's past and how it's brought us to where we are today. Characters are sparse, but incredibly well-created, with my favorite, beyond the sisters, being Mickey's landlord, Mrs. Mahon, a formidable woman in her own right. And Mickey's sweet, wise young son Thomas.
While Kacey is clearly the damaged one on paper, as an addict, often living on the streets, we see Mickey isn't always much better. She's had a tough time, and it's hard for her to trust anyone. Both she and Kacey are astounding characters, who stand out in this powerful novel about addiction, police abuse, and the love of a mother. This isn't always an easy read, but I'm glad I picked it up. It will stick with me for some time.
Kensington, a neighborhood in Philadelphia, is plagued by drug use, especially heroin. It's where sisters Kacey and Mickey grew up. The girls lost their mother at a young age and were raised by their grandmother, Gee, who provided shelter and not much else. Now, Mickey is determined to raise her son Thomas differently. With love and kindness and a feeling of safety. Mickey is a police officer, so she's more than familiar with the streets of Kensington. At the same time, Kensington is struck with a series of murders, Kacey disappears. Mickey and Kacey haven't had much contact in years, since her sister became stuck in the tangle of addiction, but she's still worried. Even more so since those being murdered are young women, no doubt drug and sex workers. Found strangled on the streets. As Mickey starts looking into the murders, she gets caught up in a twisted web of lies and deceit--some of it related to her missing sister--and soon it may be too late to save either Mickey or Kacey.
The first time I found my sister dead, she was sixteen. It was the summer of 2002. Forty-eight hours earlier, on a Friday afternoon, she’d left school with her friends, telling me she’d be back by evening. She wasn’t.
This isn't a fun book to read, so if you're looking for a feel-good read right now, this isn't it. But it's a well-written, extremely powerful look at addiction. While it focuses on the story of the murdered girls, it's also an in-depth character study, taking us into Mickey's history with her sister and how their past has formed their present. Told in a then and now format, we learn about the sisters, and we get a harrowing and detailed look at the effect of addiction, not just on Kacey, but on an entire town. It's depressing, it's real, and it's wonderfully done.
Kacey told me that time spent in addiction feels looped. Each morning brings with it the possibility of change, each evening the shame of failure.
This is not really a fast-moving book, but it does have twists and turns, many of them surprising. There's plenty to keep you guessing, as we try to figure out what is happening to the women on the streets in Kensington. In turn, we have to figure out Kacey and Mickey's past and how it's brought us to where we are today. Characters are sparse, but incredibly well-created, with my favorite, beyond the sisters, being Mickey's landlord, Mrs. Mahon, a formidable woman in her own right. And Mickey's sweet, wise young son Thomas.
While Kacey is clearly the damaged one on paper, as an addict, often living on the streets, we see Mickey isn't always much better. She's had a tough time, and it's hard for her to trust anyone. Both she and Kacey are astounding characters, who stand out in this powerful novel about addiction, police abuse, and the love of a mother. This isn't always an easy read, but I'm glad I picked it up. It will stick with me for some time.