Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Pixie (2020) in Movies
Nov 2, 2020
Olivia Cooke - utterly enchanting (1 more)
Just the right balance of black humour and Tarantino-esque violence
Once upon a Time in the West... of Ireland
You know sometimes when you see a trailer you think "oh yeah - this is a must see"! The trailer for "Pixie" (see below) was one such moment for me. A spaghetti western set in Sligo? With Alec Baldwin as a "deadly gangster priest"? Yes, yes, yes!
In a remote Irish church, two Irish priests and two "visiting Afghan Catholic priests" are gunned down by a couple of losers in animal masks - Fergus (Fra Fee) and Colin (Rory Fleck Byrne) - over a stash of MDMA worth a million Euros. This reignites a simmering gang war between the gangster families of Dermot O'Brien (Colm Meaney) and Father Hector McGrath (Alec Baldwin). Linking everything together is Pixie (Olivia Cooke), O'Brien's daughter, who has a magnetic effect on men. She is somehow subtly the woman controlling everything going on.
Drawn into the mayhem are hapless teens Frank (Ben Hardy) and Harland (Daryl McCormack) - both of who have the hots for Pixie - who embark on a wild and bloody road-trip around southern Ireland.
Key to your belief in the ridiculous story is that the character of Pixie has to have the beauty and charisma to utterly enslave the poor men she crosses paths with: taking a "Kalashnikov to their hearts" as drug dealer Daniel (Chris Walley) puts it. And Olivia Cooke - so good in "Ready Player One" - absolutely and completely nails the role. I'm utterly in love with her after this movie, and she's thirty years too young for me! There's a sparkle and a mischief behind her that reminded me strongly of a young Audrey Hepburn.
Supporting her really well are the "Harry and Ron" to Cooke's Hermione - Ben Hardy (Roger Taylor in "Bohemian Rhapsody") and Daryl McCormack. And the trio make a truly memorable "love triangle". A bedroom scene manages to be both quietly erotic and excruciatingly funny in equal measure.
The direction here is by Barnaby Thompson, who's better known as a producer with the only previous movie directing credits being the St Trinian's reboots in 2007/09. Here he manages to channel some of the quirky camera shots of the likes of Guy Ritchie and Matthew Vaughn and mix them with the black humour and comedic gore of Quentin Tarantino. The taciturn hit-man Seamus (Ned Dennehy) typifies the comedy on offer, using a Land Rover to drag a poor victim round in a figure of eight on a soggy moor to make him talk!
Where I think the movie wimps out a bit is in an ecclesiastical shoot-out finale. Vaughn's "Kingsman: The Secret Service" set the bar here for completely outrageous and out-there church-based violence. Here, the scene is both tame by comparison (not necessarily a bad thing!), but also highly predictable. Given this is supposed to be "a plan", none of it feels to be very well thought-through! As such, belief can only be suspended for so long.
The visuals and music are fab. The cinematography - by veteran John de Borman - makes the west Ireland coast look utterly glorious and the Irish tourist board must have been delighted. There are also some beautifully-framed shots: a boot-eye (US: trunk-eye) perspective is fabulous, and there's a gasp-inducing fade-back to Pixie's face following a flashback. And a shout-out too to the editing by Robbie Morrison, since some of the plot twists are delivered as expert surprises.
The music - by Gerry Diver and David Holmes - is also spectacularly good at propelling the action and maintaining the feel-good theme.
Where I did have issues was with the audio mix. I'm sure there were a bunch of clever one-liners buried in there, but the combination of the accents (and I've worked in Northern Ireland for 20 years and am "tuned in"!) and the sound quality meant I missed a number of them. I will need another watch with subtitles to catch them all.
Thanks to ANOTHER WRETCHED LOCKDOWN in the UK this was my last trip to the cinema for at least a month: I was one of only four viewers in the "Odeon" cinema for this showing. Because it's a great shame that so few people will get to see this (at least for a while), since its the sort of feelgood movie that we all need right now. Slick and utterly entertaining, I'll quietly predict that this one will gain a following as a mini-cult-classic when it gets to streaming services. Recommended.
(For the full graphical review, please check-out the bob the movie man review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/11/02/pixie-once-upon-a-time-in-the-west-of-ireland/. Thanks.)
In a remote Irish church, two Irish priests and two "visiting Afghan Catholic priests" are gunned down by a couple of losers in animal masks - Fergus (Fra Fee) and Colin (Rory Fleck Byrne) - over a stash of MDMA worth a million Euros. This reignites a simmering gang war between the gangster families of Dermot O'Brien (Colm Meaney) and Father Hector McGrath (Alec Baldwin). Linking everything together is Pixie (Olivia Cooke), O'Brien's daughter, who has a magnetic effect on men. She is somehow subtly the woman controlling everything going on.
Drawn into the mayhem are hapless teens Frank (Ben Hardy) and Harland (Daryl McCormack) - both of who have the hots for Pixie - who embark on a wild and bloody road-trip around southern Ireland.
Key to your belief in the ridiculous story is that the character of Pixie has to have the beauty and charisma to utterly enslave the poor men she crosses paths with: taking a "Kalashnikov to their hearts" as drug dealer Daniel (Chris Walley) puts it. And Olivia Cooke - so good in "Ready Player One" - absolutely and completely nails the role. I'm utterly in love with her after this movie, and she's thirty years too young for me! There's a sparkle and a mischief behind her that reminded me strongly of a young Audrey Hepburn.
Supporting her really well are the "Harry and Ron" to Cooke's Hermione - Ben Hardy (Roger Taylor in "Bohemian Rhapsody") and Daryl McCormack. And the trio make a truly memorable "love triangle". A bedroom scene manages to be both quietly erotic and excruciatingly funny in equal measure.
The direction here is by Barnaby Thompson, who's better known as a producer with the only previous movie directing credits being the St Trinian's reboots in 2007/09. Here he manages to channel some of the quirky camera shots of the likes of Guy Ritchie and Matthew Vaughn and mix them with the black humour and comedic gore of Quentin Tarantino. The taciturn hit-man Seamus (Ned Dennehy) typifies the comedy on offer, using a Land Rover to drag a poor victim round in a figure of eight on a soggy moor to make him talk!
Where I think the movie wimps out a bit is in an ecclesiastical shoot-out finale. Vaughn's "Kingsman: The Secret Service" set the bar here for completely outrageous and out-there church-based violence. Here, the scene is both tame by comparison (not necessarily a bad thing!), but also highly predictable. Given this is supposed to be "a plan", none of it feels to be very well thought-through! As such, belief can only be suspended for so long.
The visuals and music are fab. The cinematography - by veteran John de Borman - makes the west Ireland coast look utterly glorious and the Irish tourist board must have been delighted. There are also some beautifully-framed shots: a boot-eye (US: trunk-eye) perspective is fabulous, and there's a gasp-inducing fade-back to Pixie's face following a flashback. And a shout-out too to the editing by Robbie Morrison, since some of the plot twists are delivered as expert surprises.
The music - by Gerry Diver and David Holmes - is also spectacularly good at propelling the action and maintaining the feel-good theme.
Where I did have issues was with the audio mix. I'm sure there were a bunch of clever one-liners buried in there, but the combination of the accents (and I've worked in Northern Ireland for 20 years and am "tuned in"!) and the sound quality meant I missed a number of them. I will need another watch with subtitles to catch them all.
Thanks to ANOTHER WRETCHED LOCKDOWN in the UK this was my last trip to the cinema for at least a month: I was one of only four viewers in the "Odeon" cinema for this showing. Because it's a great shame that so few people will get to see this (at least for a while), since its the sort of feelgood movie that we all need right now. Slick and utterly entertaining, I'll quietly predict that this one will gain a following as a mini-cult-classic when it gets to streaming services. Recommended.
(For the full graphical review, please check-out the bob the movie man review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/11/02/pixie-once-upon-a-time-in-the-west-of-ireland/. Thanks.)
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 7, 2019
An unapologetic masterpiece.
I wasn't sure what to expect going into this film. I'm a huge comic book fan, so the controversy and scepticism surrounding this movie, as well as the fact it's based within an established story world, had me doubting how it would work and how good the execution of it would be.
I certainly didn't expect the film I saw.
The basis for this movie is simple and effective: Arthur Fleck (played with a career-defining performance by Joaquin Phoenix) is a mentally unstable and depressed wannabe stand-up comedian working as a clown in a 1980's Gotham City. The movie is set against a backdrop of civil unrest, worker strikes and city-wide poverty, with each being exaggerated to highlight both the severity of each one for the purposes of the film, but also to shine a spotlight on how tough the real world was back then.
A potentially fatal encounter on a late-night subway acts as a catalyst for Fleck, who is shown throughout the first 20 minutes to be a man living on a knife's edge - balancing his own pitiful existence with the way society believes he should act. You get the sense that it would take nothing more than a gentle push to send him one way or the other. The subway was that push.
In a city that very much reflects the character's state of mind, this served to push more than just Arthur Fleck over the edge. Because he happened to be dressed as a clown at the time, and because the *cough* victims *cough* worked for Wayne Enterprises (ran by Thomas Wayne himself), it's seen by many as a vigilante act - someone standing up to the rich elite. This sparks outrage and rioting across the city. The idea of a man dressed as a clown standing up for the little guy becomes the poster child for a civil movement, much in the styling of "V For Vendetta (2005)".
The more Arthur Fleck struggles personally, the worse the streets of Gotham seem to get, as if society's increasing tension and unrest is somehow linked to his own state of mind. He finally realises what he has inadvertently created and begins to transform himself into the vigilante icon people already believe him to be.
Despite the slow pace of the movie, it never seems to drag. The story of Fleck's inevitable descent unfolds patiently, showing you exactly what it wants you to see, when it wants you to see it. It's a very bold and confident step for a movie which would've known how controversial it was going to be before it was even released.
The style of the film is extremely clever. The soundtrack is little more than a low-frequency hum, which plays almost constantly throughout. The camerawork is also exceptional. In every shot of Arthur Fleck, the camera centres on him before very slowly closing in on him. It's subtle, perhaps only a few millimetres per shot, but it's noticeable enough that you feel yourself being pulled in, being legitimately gripped by what you're watching. This contributes to what is, overall, a claustrophobic and sometimes unnerving experience.
There has been initial controversy about the film, with reports of people leaving the cinema during the screening for varying reasons. You see this from time to time, and the cynic in me thinks this is rarely more than clever marketing tactics. And then you see the comments from people who say they were disgusted or sickened or disturbed or whatever. I usually think it's a load of rubbish. That people are just saying that for attention. I don't honestly believe people who are that easily offended by a movie would choose to see something that is clearly going to show you all the things you don't like.
However, with "Joker (2019)", I can actually understand it. This is a truly disturbing film. Not for the violence, which has been the subject of much debate. There's actually very little violence in the movie, but when it's there, it's pretty graphic, admittedly. But honestly, it's not anywhere near as bad as a lot of things you see nowadays. No, it's disturbing because of how believable Arthur Fleck is. Seeing how unstable he is. Seeing how easy he can choose to do terrible things. It's... uncomfortable to watch at times, but only because it's so well done, so well written, you hate yourself for sympathising with him.
If I had to draw comparisons for this movie, I would have to say it's more subtle than "Watchmen (2009)", it's grittier and darker than "Taxi Driver (1976)" or "Fight Club (1999)" and much more uncompromising and unapologetic than "Natural Born Killers (1994)". It is truly a modern-day masterpiece. There are two major plot twists, both occurring in the second act, which really highlight the genius behind the screenplay. This movie is written perfectly, and executed the same way on-screen by Phoenix, who draws from both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger to create this unique take on the character which more than holds its own.
Now, before I summarise, we do need to address the whole... y'know... Batman thing. This is the Joker's origin story, after all.
So, first thing's first: this isn't a comic book movie. Not by a long way. This belongs in the same conversation as Goodfellas, not Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Todd Phillips has even stated that this is simply a stand-alone movie telling a story that needed to be told. Yes, it has references to the DC comic universe (which I will omit here for fear of venturing into spolier territory), but it's unlikely to ever cross over with DC's attempt to mimic the MCU.
The nods to the comics are infrequent but clever, touching on themes and events we already know, and in some cases, re-writing them entirely - which definitely will draw controversy with the hardcore comic fans. For example, I did question why they used the civil unrest subplot and backdrop to essentially try and make Wayne Enterprises the villain of the story, but like it or not, it was necessary and it worked like a charm.
I don't know if this was intentional or not, but there was one scene in particular towards the end of the movie where the Joker (as he is now) is riding in the back of a car with his head leaning against the window. The camera was on the wing mirror, focused on his face, and almost frame-for-frame it reminded me of the iconic scene in "The Dark Knight (2008)" where Heath Ledger's Joker is driving with his head out of the window. I'd like to think this was a gracious tribute to the performance of this character that will never be topped.
For a film that breaks the conventions of story-telling by having no real build-up or climactic ending, I have to say I can't remember a time when I was so blown away, so moved, and so affected by a movie. As close to perfect as you'll see this year.
10/10
A quick side note:
The show "13 Reasons Why" has a disclaimer at the beginning of each series from the cast that essentially warns viewers that, due to the sensitive nature of the content, it's inadvisable to watch it if you're struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts. I genuinely think this film should carry a similar notice. It's a dark, grim, unrelenting journey into one man's depressive life. While I won't ever believe listening to Marilyn Manson can make you want to shoot schoolchildren, I do think that if someone is struggling with suicidal thoughts or depression, this movie probably isn't for them. The story focuses on the media glorifying the terrible acts of someone who is mentally unstable. Yes, it's a movie. It's not real. But for someone in a very bad place themselves, this probably isn't the kind of thing you need to, or should, watch.
I certainly didn't expect the film I saw.
The basis for this movie is simple and effective: Arthur Fleck (played with a career-defining performance by Joaquin Phoenix) is a mentally unstable and depressed wannabe stand-up comedian working as a clown in a 1980's Gotham City. The movie is set against a backdrop of civil unrest, worker strikes and city-wide poverty, with each being exaggerated to highlight both the severity of each one for the purposes of the film, but also to shine a spotlight on how tough the real world was back then.
A potentially fatal encounter on a late-night subway acts as a catalyst for Fleck, who is shown throughout the first 20 minutes to be a man living on a knife's edge - balancing his own pitiful existence with the way society believes he should act. You get the sense that it would take nothing more than a gentle push to send him one way or the other. The subway was that push.
In a city that very much reflects the character's state of mind, this served to push more than just Arthur Fleck over the edge. Because he happened to be dressed as a clown at the time, and because the *cough* victims *cough* worked for Wayne Enterprises (ran by Thomas Wayne himself), it's seen by many as a vigilante act - someone standing up to the rich elite. This sparks outrage and rioting across the city. The idea of a man dressed as a clown standing up for the little guy becomes the poster child for a civil movement, much in the styling of "V For Vendetta (2005)".
The more Arthur Fleck struggles personally, the worse the streets of Gotham seem to get, as if society's increasing tension and unrest is somehow linked to his own state of mind. He finally realises what he has inadvertently created and begins to transform himself into the vigilante icon people already believe him to be.
Despite the slow pace of the movie, it never seems to drag. The story of Fleck's inevitable descent unfolds patiently, showing you exactly what it wants you to see, when it wants you to see it. It's a very bold and confident step for a movie which would've known how controversial it was going to be before it was even released.
The style of the film is extremely clever. The soundtrack is little more than a low-frequency hum, which plays almost constantly throughout. The camerawork is also exceptional. In every shot of Arthur Fleck, the camera centres on him before very slowly closing in on him. It's subtle, perhaps only a few millimetres per shot, but it's noticeable enough that you feel yourself being pulled in, being legitimately gripped by what you're watching. This contributes to what is, overall, a claustrophobic and sometimes unnerving experience.
There has been initial controversy about the film, with reports of people leaving the cinema during the screening for varying reasons. You see this from time to time, and the cynic in me thinks this is rarely more than clever marketing tactics. And then you see the comments from people who say they were disgusted or sickened or disturbed or whatever. I usually think it's a load of rubbish. That people are just saying that for attention. I don't honestly believe people who are that easily offended by a movie would choose to see something that is clearly going to show you all the things you don't like.
However, with "Joker (2019)", I can actually understand it. This is a truly disturbing film. Not for the violence, which has been the subject of much debate. There's actually very little violence in the movie, but when it's there, it's pretty graphic, admittedly. But honestly, it's not anywhere near as bad as a lot of things you see nowadays. No, it's disturbing because of how believable Arthur Fleck is. Seeing how unstable he is. Seeing how easy he can choose to do terrible things. It's... uncomfortable to watch at times, but only because it's so well done, so well written, you hate yourself for sympathising with him.
If I had to draw comparisons for this movie, I would have to say it's more subtle than "Watchmen (2009)", it's grittier and darker than "Taxi Driver (1976)" or "Fight Club (1999)" and much more uncompromising and unapologetic than "Natural Born Killers (1994)". It is truly a modern-day masterpiece. There are two major plot twists, both occurring in the second act, which really highlight the genius behind the screenplay. This movie is written perfectly, and executed the same way on-screen by Phoenix, who draws from both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger to create this unique take on the character which more than holds its own.
Now, before I summarise, we do need to address the whole... y'know... Batman thing. This is the Joker's origin story, after all.
So, first thing's first: this isn't a comic book movie. Not by a long way. This belongs in the same conversation as Goodfellas, not Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Todd Phillips has even stated that this is simply a stand-alone movie telling a story that needed to be told. Yes, it has references to the DC comic universe (which I will omit here for fear of venturing into spolier territory), but it's unlikely to ever cross over with DC's attempt to mimic the MCU.
The nods to the comics are infrequent but clever, touching on themes and events we already know, and in some cases, re-writing them entirely - which definitely will draw controversy with the hardcore comic fans. For example, I did question why they used the civil unrest subplot and backdrop to essentially try and make Wayne Enterprises the villain of the story, but like it or not, it was necessary and it worked like a charm.
I don't know if this was intentional or not, but there was one scene in particular towards the end of the movie where the Joker (as he is now) is riding in the back of a car with his head leaning against the window. The camera was on the wing mirror, focused on his face, and almost frame-for-frame it reminded me of the iconic scene in "The Dark Knight (2008)" where Heath Ledger's Joker is driving with his head out of the window. I'd like to think this was a gracious tribute to the performance of this character that will never be topped.
For a film that breaks the conventions of story-telling by having no real build-up or climactic ending, I have to say I can't remember a time when I was so blown away, so moved, and so affected by a movie. As close to perfect as you'll see this year.
10/10
A quick side note:
The show "13 Reasons Why" has a disclaimer at the beginning of each series from the cast that essentially warns viewers that, due to the sensitive nature of the content, it's inadvisable to watch it if you're struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts. I genuinely think this film should carry a similar notice. It's a dark, grim, unrelenting journey into one man's depressive life. While I won't ever believe listening to Marilyn Manson can make you want to shoot schoolchildren, I do think that if someone is struggling with suicidal thoughts or depression, this movie probably isn't for them. The story focuses on the media glorifying the terrible acts of someone who is mentally unstable. Yes, it's a movie. It's not real. But for someone in a very bad place themselves, this probably isn't the kind of thing you need to, or should, watch.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Chronicles of Crime: 1400 in Tabletop Games
Oct 21, 2020
Isn’t that box cover just awesome? I never open a preview with a comment about components, but this one warranted it because the box art is so good. Anyway, it’s Paris in the year, well, 1400 AD, and now some strange things are afoot at le Cercle K.
Chronicles of Crime: 1400 (which I shall shorten to 1400 for the duration of this preview) is an app-assisted campaign, murder-infested, cooperative storytelling game for one to four players. If you are familiar with the original Chronicles of Crime, you already know how to play 1400. However, should ye be of the uninitiated, allow me to set the stage for this incredible gaming experience.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, place the Evidence Board in the middle of the table and the Home Location Board near. Keep all the decks of cards nearby (shuffled or unshuffled, whatever is your liking) as well as the alphabetically-labeled Location Boards. Fire up the Chronicles of Crime app, choose “1400,” and then choose the case you would like to play. The app will walk players through the additional setup steps for the case being played. For this solo preview I played through The Missing Pages case. Also, to be completely upfront I got a 95/110 for a final score, but no big deal.
How do I explain this game succinctly? Well, each of the cases will involve players traveling to different Location Boards and meeting Characters at these locations. Many cases will be involving several Special Items and, new for the 1400 version, Vision Cards that may assist players in putting the case into focus. These Vision Cards do not really give the story away or anything, but are merely a vague framework of possible factors.
By using the app and scanning the QR codes on the boards and cards players will be learning about the case, viewing the scene of the crime(s), inspecting items, chatting up locals for information, and also new for 1400: consulting with the goodest boi dog companion! The dog, Perceval, assists the knight (the players) in cases by sniffing items. A word of caution, though, when you play this game do NOT have Perceval sniff any items until you are completely done with a location because he may drag you to another completely different location right away before you were ready. Not that it happened to me, mind you… okay, it did.
Play will continue not so much in “rounds” but until the players have enough evidence and a good handle on the situation enough to return Home to report to their family members all the details of the crime(s) by scanning answers to their questions about the case. The app then assesses the accuracy of the answers and outputs a score. For reference, though I did receive 95/110 on my first play of 1400 I did only receive a 70/100 on my first runthrough of the original Chronicles of Crime, so playing this style of game several times seems to improve how one plays.
Components. As most items in the box of the game are card or cardboard-based, and all really great quality, I will speak on other component items. Firstly, the art and art style throughout the game is simply stunning. I mean look at that Perceval card! And I already raved about the box cover in my opening statement. This art really speaks to me and it says, “I’m gorgeous.”
The app. I have only great things to say about the app. It’s the same app that you would use for original Chronicles of Crime, and operates the exact same way. For me it has been flawless to use and just a joy to bring technology into the gaming world, even for a game set in the year 1400. I am obviously no purist game enthusiast, as I enjoy these hybrid model games. Once you play with the app you will see how ingenious a system it really is. The app coupled with the nondescript cards and other components in the game make for infinite storytelling possibilities that can only be limited by creativity and time constraints. I love the components in the box AND the marvelous app.
Gameplay for me is also just glorious. I love being able to sit down, setup the game, and let the app tell me what’s going on. So what should I do first? Oh, let’s mosey on down here to this Location Board and drum up some information. Ooh I found an Item! I should bring it back to my Family Location Board and ask my merchant sister about it. Hmm, it’s religious in nature? Okay then, my Monkle (monk uncle) will know something about it. Okay, time to go back to that location and speak with the other person who was in there. OH CRAP, I wasted too much (in game) time and now that other person is gone?! Uh oh, I better stop messing around here…
It’s just amazing, and I love this family of games. I am so stoked to delve more into 1400 and discover more shenanigans happening in Paris. Perceval and I are out to solve all the cases and beg for more. If you are looking for a game that uses a hybrid board game/app model, are a fan of this era in history, or just want to have a really great experience playing a game, I urge you to consider Chronicles of Crime: 1400. It has everything I love in a unique game and I just can’t get enough!
Chronicles of Crime: 1400 (which I shall shorten to 1400 for the duration of this preview) is an app-assisted campaign, murder-infested, cooperative storytelling game for one to four players. If you are familiar with the original Chronicles of Crime, you already know how to play 1400. However, should ye be of the uninitiated, allow me to set the stage for this incredible gaming experience.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, place the Evidence Board in the middle of the table and the Home Location Board near. Keep all the decks of cards nearby (shuffled or unshuffled, whatever is your liking) as well as the alphabetically-labeled Location Boards. Fire up the Chronicles of Crime app, choose “1400,” and then choose the case you would like to play. The app will walk players through the additional setup steps for the case being played. For this solo preview I played through The Missing Pages case. Also, to be completely upfront I got a 95/110 for a final score, but no big deal.
How do I explain this game succinctly? Well, each of the cases will involve players traveling to different Location Boards and meeting Characters at these locations. Many cases will be involving several Special Items and, new for the 1400 version, Vision Cards that may assist players in putting the case into focus. These Vision Cards do not really give the story away or anything, but are merely a vague framework of possible factors.
By using the app and scanning the QR codes on the boards and cards players will be learning about the case, viewing the scene of the crime(s), inspecting items, chatting up locals for information, and also new for 1400: consulting with the goodest boi dog companion! The dog, Perceval, assists the knight (the players) in cases by sniffing items. A word of caution, though, when you play this game do NOT have Perceval sniff any items until you are completely done with a location because he may drag you to another completely different location right away before you were ready. Not that it happened to me, mind you… okay, it did.
Play will continue not so much in “rounds” but until the players have enough evidence and a good handle on the situation enough to return Home to report to their family members all the details of the crime(s) by scanning answers to their questions about the case. The app then assesses the accuracy of the answers and outputs a score. For reference, though I did receive 95/110 on my first play of 1400 I did only receive a 70/100 on my first runthrough of the original Chronicles of Crime, so playing this style of game several times seems to improve how one plays.
Components. As most items in the box of the game are card or cardboard-based, and all really great quality, I will speak on other component items. Firstly, the art and art style throughout the game is simply stunning. I mean look at that Perceval card! And I already raved about the box cover in my opening statement. This art really speaks to me and it says, “I’m gorgeous.”
The app. I have only great things to say about the app. It’s the same app that you would use for original Chronicles of Crime, and operates the exact same way. For me it has been flawless to use and just a joy to bring technology into the gaming world, even for a game set in the year 1400. I am obviously no purist game enthusiast, as I enjoy these hybrid model games. Once you play with the app you will see how ingenious a system it really is. The app coupled with the nondescript cards and other components in the game make for infinite storytelling possibilities that can only be limited by creativity and time constraints. I love the components in the box AND the marvelous app.
Gameplay for me is also just glorious. I love being able to sit down, setup the game, and let the app tell me what’s going on. So what should I do first? Oh, let’s mosey on down here to this Location Board and drum up some information. Ooh I found an Item! I should bring it back to my Family Location Board and ask my merchant sister about it. Hmm, it’s religious in nature? Okay then, my Monkle (monk uncle) will know something about it. Okay, time to go back to that location and speak with the other person who was in there. OH CRAP, I wasted too much (in game) time and now that other person is gone?! Uh oh, I better stop messing around here…
It’s just amazing, and I love this family of games. I am so stoked to delve more into 1400 and discover more shenanigans happening in Paris. Perceval and I are out to solve all the cases and beg for more. If you are looking for a game that uses a hybrid board game/app model, are a fan of this era in history, or just want to have a really great experience playing a game, I urge you to consider Chronicles of Crime: 1400. It has everything I love in a unique game and I just can’t get enough!
Housewife of Horror (12 KP) rated The Canal (2014) in Movies
Aug 25, 2018
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Canal (2014)
Platform: Shudder
Genre: Horror
Country: Ireland (IFB)
Running Time: 92 minutes
Written and Directed by: Ivan Kavanagh
Release Date: April 18th 2014 (Tribeca Film Festival)
Cast: Rupert Evans; Steve Oram; Antonia Campbell-Hughes; Hannah Hoekstra
After found footage, psychological horror films are a favorite of mine. I love how they pull you into the story, how up is down, left is right, I love to be enveloped by the plot. That tingly feeling I get on the back of my neck, the hairs standing up, I know then it has me in it’s clutches. I had that feeling with The Canal.
David (Rupert Evans) works as a film archivist, he is given a reel of footage from the police archives to watch and subsequently archive by his work colleague and close friend Claire (Antonia Campbell-Hughes), which turns out to be old crime scene footage of he and his wife’s current home. It was the scene of a shocking crime in 1902, the brutal murder of a cheating wife, their children and the nanny by the enraged father.
David suspects his wife Alice (Hannah Hoekstra) of having an affair, so he decides to follow her one night, only to unfortunately confirm his suspicions. He watches Alice while she is with her lover, and then picking up a hammer, he appears to mull over the idea of using it, only to quickly come to his senses. Walking away, he throws the hammer in to the canal on the way back to their marital home, where he has left their young son asleep in bed, alone in the house.
David, feeling sick from what he witnessed, as well as what he had considered doing about it, runs into the (quite dirty) canal-side public toilets. He hears something or someone coming in after him, and then see’s them, their feet, under the stall door, followed by fingers appearing to creep over the top of the door. He then proceeds to suffer from quite nightmarish visions that include the man, the husband, from the 1902 crime scene footage. He seems to be taunting David, whispering things to him. David, in a state of distress, manages to crawl outside, where he then witnesses what appears to be his wife being thrown into the canal; he just can’t see it very clearly or coherently. He later comes round on the floor of the bathroom, unnerved and disheveled, and makes his way home. The next morning, when he realises that Alice has not come home that night, David goes to the local police station to report her missing. Obviously, the police suspect David, “It’s always the husband” says the (inept) detective on the case.
The plot twists and turns, is it David? Is it the entity? Some great revelations about the grim history of the house come up throughout. It’s an interesting watch that comes to a disturbing conclusion.
A great little scene, that made me believe David was the killer, was during one of his viewings of the old footage. He stood up, in front of the projector, silhouetting him in front of the screen, making him appear to be a dark shadow. To me, this was the directors’ nod to David’s darkness within.
The Canal is a great psychological horror; it does very well to dig itself under your skin as you watch, and drag you in to this nightmare that David’s life has turned into. I was really impressed with the performance of Rupert Evans, tormented and devastated, he made David’s pain almost tangible. Watching him seemingly fall further into madness as the story progressed was quite frightening. I really felt for the nanny, she is a totally innocent girl who just wants to protect David and Alice’s son Billy, and can’t leave even when she knows she should. She gets dragged deeper and deeper in to the madness; everyone close to David is brought into this waking nightmare.
The ending is well, quite creepy and rather disturbing as I have said earlier. The story feels to me to have come full circle, and you can envision that it is a tormenting nightmare that will repeat itself over and over with future residents of the house for years to come.
4/5 – It’s rather worth a look if you like a good psychological horror
Lesley-Ann (Housewife of Horror)
Platform: Shudder
Genre: Horror
Country: Ireland (IFB)
Running Time: 92 minutes
Written and Directed by: Ivan Kavanagh
Release Date: April 18th 2014 (Tribeca Film Festival)
Cast: Rupert Evans; Steve Oram; Antonia Campbell-Hughes; Hannah Hoekstra
After found footage, psychological horror films are a favorite of mine. I love how they pull you into the story, how up is down, left is right, I love to be enveloped by the plot. That tingly feeling I get on the back of my neck, the hairs standing up, I know then it has me in it’s clutches. I had that feeling with The Canal.
David (Rupert Evans) works as a film archivist, he is given a reel of footage from the police archives to watch and subsequently archive by his work colleague and close friend Claire (Antonia Campbell-Hughes), which turns out to be old crime scene footage of he and his wife’s current home. It was the scene of a shocking crime in 1902, the brutal murder of a cheating wife, their children and the nanny by the enraged father.
David suspects his wife Alice (Hannah Hoekstra) of having an affair, so he decides to follow her one night, only to unfortunately confirm his suspicions. He watches Alice while she is with her lover, and then picking up a hammer, he appears to mull over the idea of using it, only to quickly come to his senses. Walking away, he throws the hammer in to the canal on the way back to their marital home, where he has left their young son asleep in bed, alone in the house.
David, feeling sick from what he witnessed, as well as what he had considered doing about it, runs into the (quite dirty) canal-side public toilets. He hears something or someone coming in after him, and then see’s them, their feet, under the stall door, followed by fingers appearing to creep over the top of the door. He then proceeds to suffer from quite nightmarish visions that include the man, the husband, from the 1902 crime scene footage. He seems to be taunting David, whispering things to him. David, in a state of distress, manages to crawl outside, where he then witnesses what appears to be his wife being thrown into the canal; he just can’t see it very clearly or coherently. He later comes round on the floor of the bathroom, unnerved and disheveled, and makes his way home. The next morning, when he realises that Alice has not come home that night, David goes to the local police station to report her missing. Obviously, the police suspect David, “It’s always the husband” says the (inept) detective on the case.
The plot twists and turns, is it David? Is it the entity? Some great revelations about the grim history of the house come up throughout. It’s an interesting watch that comes to a disturbing conclusion.
A great little scene, that made me believe David was the killer, was during one of his viewings of the old footage. He stood up, in front of the projector, silhouetting him in front of the screen, making him appear to be a dark shadow. To me, this was the directors’ nod to David’s darkness within.
The Canal is a great psychological horror; it does very well to dig itself under your skin as you watch, and drag you in to this nightmare that David’s life has turned into. I was really impressed with the performance of Rupert Evans, tormented and devastated, he made David’s pain almost tangible. Watching him seemingly fall further into madness as the story progressed was quite frightening. I really felt for the nanny, she is a totally innocent girl who just wants to protect David and Alice’s son Billy, and can’t leave even when she knows she should. She gets dragged deeper and deeper in to the madness; everyone close to David is brought into this waking nightmare.
The ending is well, quite creepy and rather disturbing as I have said earlier. The story feels to me to have come full circle, and you can envision that it is a tormenting nightmare that will repeat itself over and over with future residents of the house for years to come.
4/5 – It’s rather worth a look if you like a good psychological horror
Lesley-Ann (Housewife of Horror)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Pain & Gain (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Michael Bay’s latest film Pain and Gain suffers from a bit of performance anxiety. It starts hot and flashy, becomes humorous and then starts to drag as it realizes it needs to actually deliver. This is unfortunate because if Bay focused on delivering an entertaining movie from start to finish he may have succeeded. Instead we are constantly reminded by expository text on screen and one of the five unnecessary voiceovers that “sometimes the facts are stranger than fiction.” And the facts are that we get a film here that starts out as a comedy, evolves into a kidnapping/extortion story with a few more jokes only to end with minimal action and no redeeming opportunities for our protagonists. Plus the final jokes or shock opportunities are lost in the fact that our main characters become less and less likeable as the story evolves.
Mark Wahlberg plays body-builder and trainer Daniel Lugo, a self-described “doer” who is tired of working hard only to never reach the level of success that many of his rich clients have achieved. Fed up with his everyday life of being broke, Logo decides it is time to take what he thinks should be his. Together with the help of his roided-out, impotent employee Adrian (Anthony Mackie) and ex-con who found Jesus Paul (Dwayne Johnson), the trio decide to kidnap and extort the jerk off wealthy client Victor (Tony Shalhoub) for everything thing he has. The hilarity ensues while it’s obvious that these muscle heads do not have to smarts to pull off this elaborate plan other than what they have seen in the movies.
It should be noted here that Wahlberg is once again great as a character that does not possess a lot of smarts. Mackie delivers another solid character performance to add to his resume but it is Johnson who steals the show. In a movie where at first glance his physique fits right in, it is his softer more emotional side that shows some range that we have never seen from him before. He plays an ex-con who is determined to change his life only to be slowly sucked back into the lifestyle that put him in jail in the first place. Johnson’s emotional range has him delivering perhaps his best performance ever.
Eventually these three break Victor and take everything he has and they start to live out their dreams. But like all things that take no skill or real effort to earn, the three squander their new found wealth and go looking for another target. All while Victor hires a private detective (Ed Harris) to help bust the trio as the local cops do not believe that some muscle heads could pull off the elaborate heist.
And here is where the film starts to fall apart. The three main characters start to change from fun loving hard working characters to bad guys. The things they do to gain their wealth are repulsive and it stops being funny. Victor is a terrible character that is hard to like in the first place, so you do not really feel bad for him when he loses everything. It is just that you do not really feel happy for our anti-heroes either. And when the story enters its third act after dragging through the second, it feels rushed to close out the film as the gang decides to make a run at another wealthy target.
Furthermore, every character get his/hers own voice over. Seriously, what is the point? It is one thing for Wahlberg to have his own narration as he is the main character, however even Harris gets his own character development through dialogue. It makes the story disjointed and made me feel unsure about who or what I should be rooting for.
In the end I walked out of the theater feeling like we watched two different movies. A rags-to-riches comedy in the beginning that morphs into an unfunny crime drama by the end that has to remind you again and again that you are watching something that is based on a true story. It is a shame because I enjoyed the beginning of this film. I wish that Bay would have taken even additional liberties to make a more consistent film from start to finish on what was already a loosely based true story in the first place.
Mark Wahlberg plays body-builder and trainer Daniel Lugo, a self-described “doer” who is tired of working hard only to never reach the level of success that many of his rich clients have achieved. Fed up with his everyday life of being broke, Logo decides it is time to take what he thinks should be his. Together with the help of his roided-out, impotent employee Adrian (Anthony Mackie) and ex-con who found Jesus Paul (Dwayne Johnson), the trio decide to kidnap and extort the jerk off wealthy client Victor (Tony Shalhoub) for everything thing he has. The hilarity ensues while it’s obvious that these muscle heads do not have to smarts to pull off this elaborate plan other than what they have seen in the movies.
It should be noted here that Wahlberg is once again great as a character that does not possess a lot of smarts. Mackie delivers another solid character performance to add to his resume but it is Johnson who steals the show. In a movie where at first glance his physique fits right in, it is his softer more emotional side that shows some range that we have never seen from him before. He plays an ex-con who is determined to change his life only to be slowly sucked back into the lifestyle that put him in jail in the first place. Johnson’s emotional range has him delivering perhaps his best performance ever.
Eventually these three break Victor and take everything he has and they start to live out their dreams. But like all things that take no skill or real effort to earn, the three squander their new found wealth and go looking for another target. All while Victor hires a private detective (Ed Harris) to help bust the trio as the local cops do not believe that some muscle heads could pull off the elaborate heist.
And here is where the film starts to fall apart. The three main characters start to change from fun loving hard working characters to bad guys. The things they do to gain their wealth are repulsive and it stops being funny. Victor is a terrible character that is hard to like in the first place, so you do not really feel bad for him when he loses everything. It is just that you do not really feel happy for our anti-heroes either. And when the story enters its third act after dragging through the second, it feels rushed to close out the film as the gang decides to make a run at another wealthy target.
Furthermore, every character get his/hers own voice over. Seriously, what is the point? It is one thing for Wahlberg to have his own narration as he is the main character, however even Harris gets his own character development through dialogue. It makes the story disjointed and made me feel unsure about who or what I should be rooting for.
In the end I walked out of the theater feeling like we watched two different movies. A rags-to-riches comedy in the beginning that morphs into an unfunny crime drama by the end that has to remind you again and again that you are watching something that is based on a true story. It is a shame because I enjoyed the beginning of this film. I wish that Bay would have taken even additional liberties to make a more consistent film from start to finish on what was already a loosely based true story in the first place.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated A Star Is Born (2018) in Movies
Oct 19, 2018 (Updated Oct 19, 2018)
Bradley Cooper's direction (2 more)
Both lead performances
Great original songs
Better Than Expected
Contains spoilers, click to show
I have dragged my other half to see plenty of stuff recently that she has sat through because I wanted to see it, so I thought it was about time that I let her drag me to something that she fancied seeing. I'm pretty glad that she did.
I expected A Star Is Born to be full of cheesy dialogue and crappy pop songs and I didn't know what to expect from Bradley Cooper's first time in the director's chair. Thankfully, my uncertainty and doubt was proven wrong. This is an absolutely fantastic directorial debut from Cooper. There were several parts in the movie where it felt similar to a Clint Eastwood directed movie, the influence that Clint obviously had on Cooper when they worked together for American Sniper has clearly paid off here. The cinematography is brilliant throughout the film and he gets a lot out of his actors too.
Considering Cooper is an actor, he plays an exceptionally convincing rock star as Jackson Maine. His voice is phenomenal and if all of the guitar playing was done by him, then that was impressive also. Likewise, considering Lady Gaga's background is as a singer and not an actress, she did a pretty great job in this role as Ally - even if she is playing a character very similar to herself. Sam Elliot is also fantastic, (as he always is,) as Jack's older brother and I reckon could be in for an Oscar shout for best supporting role.
In order to talk about the main negative I had with the film, I am going to have to spoil the way that it ends. So SPOILERS from this point on, you have been warned.
I know that Jackson didn't commit suicide just because of what Ally's sleazy agent said to him at the end of the movie, but I only know that because I had to fill in the blanks myself. The way that the movie presents it, is as if the agent tells Jack that he's an embarrassment to Ally and that's what makes him want to hang himself, which to me isn't justification enough to have a character take their own life, especially a character like Jackson Maine. The argument could be made that it wasn't what the agent said that led to Jack's suicide, but because he said out loud the way that Jack sees himself. As a burden and embarrassment to Ally. Although, if this was the case I feel like the movie could have driven it home a bit more. Like I said, I know that there was more to the character's decision to end his life than that, but the movie doesn't show it, instead making it look as if he decided to hang himself because of a smarmy wee prick's obnoxious comments.
Overall, this film was far better than it had any right to be. Although, the movie is funny in parts, overall it takes itself more seriously than I expected it too and I think that it is better for it. It may not win best picture, but I reckon it deserves a nomination, as does Bradley Cooper for best director.
I expected A Star Is Born to be full of cheesy dialogue and crappy pop songs and I didn't know what to expect from Bradley Cooper's first time in the director's chair. Thankfully, my uncertainty and doubt was proven wrong. This is an absolutely fantastic directorial debut from Cooper. There were several parts in the movie where it felt similar to a Clint Eastwood directed movie, the influence that Clint obviously had on Cooper when they worked together for American Sniper has clearly paid off here. The cinematography is brilliant throughout the film and he gets a lot out of his actors too.
Considering Cooper is an actor, he plays an exceptionally convincing rock star as Jackson Maine. His voice is phenomenal and if all of the guitar playing was done by him, then that was impressive also. Likewise, considering Lady Gaga's background is as a singer and not an actress, she did a pretty great job in this role as Ally - even if she is playing a character very similar to herself. Sam Elliot is also fantastic, (as he always is,) as Jack's older brother and I reckon could be in for an Oscar shout for best supporting role.
In order to talk about the main negative I had with the film, I am going to have to spoil the way that it ends. So SPOILERS from this point on, you have been warned.
I know that Jackson didn't commit suicide just because of what Ally's sleazy agent said to him at the end of the movie, but I only know that because I had to fill in the blanks myself. The way that the movie presents it, is as if the agent tells Jack that he's an embarrassment to Ally and that's what makes him want to hang himself, which to me isn't justification enough to have a character take their own life, especially a character like Jackson Maine. The argument could be made that it wasn't what the agent said that led to Jack's suicide, but because he said out loud the way that Jack sees himself. As a burden and embarrassment to Ally. Although, if this was the case I feel like the movie could have driven it home a bit more. Like I said, I know that there was more to the character's decision to end his life than that, but the movie doesn't show it, instead making it look as if he decided to hang himself because of a smarmy wee prick's obnoxious comments.
Overall, this film was far better than it had any right to be. Although, the movie is funny in parts, overall it takes itself more seriously than I expected it too and I think that it is better for it. It may not win best picture, but I reckon it deserves a nomination, as does Bradley Cooper for best director.
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Irishman (2019) in Movies
Nov 27, 2019
Verdict: Just Another Gangster Movie
Story: The Irishman starts with Frank Sheeran (De Niro) recounting his time working under Russell Bufalino (Pesci) starting as a meat delivery man, a chance encounter with Russell brings them together. Russell was the guy that if anybody wanted something done, he would give the green light and expect it done.
Frank continued to rise working under the infamous Jimmy Hoffa (Pacino) who was in battle with the Kennedy’s who were trying to find a way to take down his unions, which does see Frank become the president of his own region.
Thoughts on The Irishman
Characters – Frank Sheeran is the narrator who is looking back through his life as he started as delivery driver before finding himself joining the mobs in the Italian neighbourhood, rising up the ranks from the bottom becoming one of the closest members of Jimmy Hoffa go to man, one of the most trusted hitmen in the mob. Jimmy Hoffa is the man that runs the unions, he has the attention of the Kennedy’s who have never trusted his business, he will always find a way to get his side of the story through without ever getting his hands dirty. He expects respect from everybody he deals with and will give it back, before he runs for office. Russell Bufalino is the one that gives Frank enter into the criminal world, a chance meeting opens the door and he will give the instructions Frank to follow. Peggy is the daughter of Frank that has grown up seeing his action become worse over the years.
Performances – The performances here are almost flawless, we get three of the greatest gangster movie performers in De Niro, Pacino and Pesci, you simply wouldn’t expect anything less from the three. The supporting cast is also wonderful, where once again the acting isn’t the weak part of the film.
Story – The story here follows Frank Sheeran’s rise from delivery man to hitman under one of the leaders of the mobs through the 60’s and 70’s America. Most of the story is Frank recounting his career in the mob, seeing how he often watched the biggest moments in the background, only getting his hands dirty when he needs to. We do need to talk about the length of the film because there is a huge problem here, we have so many scenes we don’t really need, we do also end up going through the routine that every single gangster movie does, which just makes it feel like something we have seen before. The timeline does fill in the random deaths with a headline on screen, even if that person is only in one scene.
Biopic/Crime – We do get to learn the life’s story of a notorious hitman through his own eyes, we see how he isn’t completely good, but he is loyal and always tries to do the right thing in the middle of the criminal world.
Settings – The settings takes us back to the eras we are going through, we have the glamourous locations for parties, the small street locations that show us where the dirty work gets done and a location which means everything to Frank, where it all started.
Scene of the Movie – The taxis.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It is just too long.
Final Thoughts – This is a gangster film that gets heavyweight performances in a story that we have seen before that does seem to drag along for way too long.
Overall: Long Drawn Out Gangster Film.
Frank continued to rise working under the infamous Jimmy Hoffa (Pacino) who was in battle with the Kennedy’s who were trying to find a way to take down his unions, which does see Frank become the president of his own region.
Thoughts on The Irishman
Characters – Frank Sheeran is the narrator who is looking back through his life as he started as delivery driver before finding himself joining the mobs in the Italian neighbourhood, rising up the ranks from the bottom becoming one of the closest members of Jimmy Hoffa go to man, one of the most trusted hitmen in the mob. Jimmy Hoffa is the man that runs the unions, he has the attention of the Kennedy’s who have never trusted his business, he will always find a way to get his side of the story through without ever getting his hands dirty. He expects respect from everybody he deals with and will give it back, before he runs for office. Russell Bufalino is the one that gives Frank enter into the criminal world, a chance meeting opens the door and he will give the instructions Frank to follow. Peggy is the daughter of Frank that has grown up seeing his action become worse over the years.
Performances – The performances here are almost flawless, we get three of the greatest gangster movie performers in De Niro, Pacino and Pesci, you simply wouldn’t expect anything less from the three. The supporting cast is also wonderful, where once again the acting isn’t the weak part of the film.
Story – The story here follows Frank Sheeran’s rise from delivery man to hitman under one of the leaders of the mobs through the 60’s and 70’s America. Most of the story is Frank recounting his career in the mob, seeing how he often watched the biggest moments in the background, only getting his hands dirty when he needs to. We do need to talk about the length of the film because there is a huge problem here, we have so many scenes we don’t really need, we do also end up going through the routine that every single gangster movie does, which just makes it feel like something we have seen before. The timeline does fill in the random deaths with a headline on screen, even if that person is only in one scene.
Biopic/Crime – We do get to learn the life’s story of a notorious hitman through his own eyes, we see how he isn’t completely good, but he is loyal and always tries to do the right thing in the middle of the criminal world.
Settings – The settings takes us back to the eras we are going through, we have the glamourous locations for parties, the small street locations that show us where the dirty work gets done and a location which means everything to Frank, where it all started.
Scene of the Movie – The taxis.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It is just too long.
Final Thoughts – This is a gangster film that gets heavyweight performances in a story that we have seen before that does seem to drag along for way too long.
Overall: Long Drawn Out Gangster Film.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Into the Woods (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
For those seeking a big dose of magic this holiday season, Disney’s “Into the Woods” aims to deliver just that. Adapted to the silver screen from the original Broadway musical production by Stephen Sondheim, the plot intertwines several of the Grimm Brothers’ fairy tales to create one story.
At the center of the story is The Baker (James Corden) and The Baker’s Wife (Emily Blunt) who are desperate to break the curse, which keeps them from having a child. The Witch (Meryl Streep) who placed the curse weaves a devious web, entangling all of the characters in a tumultuous adventure.
Streep is terrifying and highly entertaining to watch in her role. Her vocal and facial expressions exude a character of pure evil.
Other characters incorporated into the story include Little Red Riding Hood (Lilla Crawford), Cinderella (Anna Kendrick), and Rapunzel (Mackenzie Mauzy), just to name a few.
Disney toned down several aspects of the original plot, which would not have been appropriate for children. However, the story still maintains a racy mix of seriousness and humor. Each scene highlights the absurdities of fairy tales only noticed by adults.
One scene which will have adults rolling with laughter is the sudden duet between Cinderella’s Prince (Chris Pine) and his brother, Rapunzel’s Prince (Billy Magnusson). They sing about the challenges of literally chasing the ladies of their desire and their refusal to acknowledge any possibility of rejection.
Certain scenes test the limits of appropriateness and are almost perverse, or perhaps even err on the side horror.
One example of this is the role of The Wolf (Johnny Depp). As he stalks Little Red Riding Hood through the forest he sings about how she is fresh, supple, and young. Through the lyrics and the choice to use a human in the role, rather than a CGI wolf, a strange glimmer of pedophilia surfaces. This is taken a step further when The Wolf reveals a jacket full of candy in his attempt to lure the child.
The element of horror enters the film in a scene where Cinderella’s Stepmother cuts the feet of the ugly stepsisters to try and force them into the glass slipper offered by the Prince. This is not graphically shown. However, it is implied as she waves around a knife and sings about it.
Despite a few of these adult twists, the film should be fun for the whole family to watch. Just keep in mind that, like the original tales, some short scenes may be a bit horrifying for young children.
As is tradition with fairy tales, the good comes with the bad. The moral messages of each fairy tale are combined into one larger message: One should be careful what they wish for, because in the grander scheme of life the ramifications of those wishes may be unforeseen.
It is also a visually stunning piece of work. Nothing comes off as overdone or cheesy. The tales truly come to life and transport viewers into a land of fantasy.
The majority of the film is very exciting and fast moving. That being said, the film is lengthy with a runtime of 124 minutes. Unfortunately, the last 30 minutes begins to drag on and feel tiring. This would have been an easy fix if perhaps the last few songs had been shortened, or the last thirty minutes was cut completely.
All in all, the film is a truly magical cinematic experience. I give “Into the Woods” 4 out of 5 stars.
At the center of the story is The Baker (James Corden) and The Baker’s Wife (Emily Blunt) who are desperate to break the curse, which keeps them from having a child. The Witch (Meryl Streep) who placed the curse weaves a devious web, entangling all of the characters in a tumultuous adventure.
Streep is terrifying and highly entertaining to watch in her role. Her vocal and facial expressions exude a character of pure evil.
Other characters incorporated into the story include Little Red Riding Hood (Lilla Crawford), Cinderella (Anna Kendrick), and Rapunzel (Mackenzie Mauzy), just to name a few.
Disney toned down several aspects of the original plot, which would not have been appropriate for children. However, the story still maintains a racy mix of seriousness and humor. Each scene highlights the absurdities of fairy tales only noticed by adults.
One scene which will have adults rolling with laughter is the sudden duet between Cinderella’s Prince (Chris Pine) and his brother, Rapunzel’s Prince (Billy Magnusson). They sing about the challenges of literally chasing the ladies of their desire and their refusal to acknowledge any possibility of rejection.
Certain scenes test the limits of appropriateness and are almost perverse, or perhaps even err on the side horror.
One example of this is the role of The Wolf (Johnny Depp). As he stalks Little Red Riding Hood through the forest he sings about how she is fresh, supple, and young. Through the lyrics and the choice to use a human in the role, rather than a CGI wolf, a strange glimmer of pedophilia surfaces. This is taken a step further when The Wolf reveals a jacket full of candy in his attempt to lure the child.
The element of horror enters the film in a scene where Cinderella’s Stepmother cuts the feet of the ugly stepsisters to try and force them into the glass slipper offered by the Prince. This is not graphically shown. However, it is implied as she waves around a knife and sings about it.
Despite a few of these adult twists, the film should be fun for the whole family to watch. Just keep in mind that, like the original tales, some short scenes may be a bit horrifying for young children.
As is tradition with fairy tales, the good comes with the bad. The moral messages of each fairy tale are combined into one larger message: One should be careful what they wish for, because in the grander scheme of life the ramifications of those wishes may be unforeseen.
It is also a visually stunning piece of work. Nothing comes off as overdone or cheesy. The tales truly come to life and transport viewers into a land of fantasy.
The majority of the film is very exciting and fast moving. That being said, the film is lengthy with a runtime of 124 minutes. Unfortunately, the last 30 minutes begins to drag on and feel tiring. This would have been an easy fix if perhaps the last few songs had been shortened, or the last thirty minutes was cut completely.
All in all, the film is a truly magical cinematic experience. I give “Into the Woods” 4 out of 5 stars.
LumaFusion
Music and Photo & Video
App
LumaFusion is the most powerful multi-track video editor ever created for mobile devices. Used by...
videoediting bestvideoeditingapp professionalleveleditingapp