Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Instant Family (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Enjoyable and harmless comedy laced with a degree of sentimentality.
The Plot
Pete (Mark Wahlberg) and Ellie (Rose Byrne) are focused and business-oriented home designers. They’ve talked about having kids “sometime in the future” but the years – as years are want to do – are motoring away from them. Pete is concerned that if they have their own kids now then he will end up being an “old dad” (cue very funny, black-comedy, flashback). This leads them into contact with the State’s fostering service – led by Karen (Octavia Spencer) and Sharon (Tig Notaro) – and they progress into foster training. This introduces into their ‘perfect adult lives’ 15-year old Lizzy (Isabela Moner) and her younger siblings Juan (Gustavo Quiroz) and Lita (Julianna Gamiz). As these guys come from a troubled background Pete and Ellie find they have their work cut out. Who will crack first?
The turns
You’ve got to admire Mark Wahlberg as an actor. In the same vein as Steve Carell, he seems to be able to flex from dramatic (in his case, tough-guy action roles) to comedy without a blink. He’s nowhere near the calibre of actor as Carell, but he brings to all his roles a sense of menace – derived no doubt from his torrid criminal background in younger days. (His wiki page makes your eyes water: there’s a great biopic screenplay waiting to be written there! ) It must have made the kid actor who plays Charlie (Carson Holmes) actually soil himself at a key point in the film!
Wahlberg and the excellent Rose Byrne make a believable driven-couple, and Byrne has such a range of expressive faces that she can’t help but make you laugh.
Of the child actors, Nickelodeon star Isabella Moner shines with genuine brilliance, both in terms of her acting as the fiercely loyal Lizzy but also in terms of her musical ability (she sings the impressive end-title song). With Hollywood in ‘post-La-La-Showman: Here we go again’ mode, this is a talented young lady I predict might be in big demand over the next few years.
Top of my list of the most stupid “where the hell have I seen her before bang-my-head-against-the-cinema-wall” moments is the actress playing Ellie’s mother Jan. She is OF COURSE Julie Hagerty, air-hostess supreme from “Airplane!”.
Also good value, and topping my list of “I know her from lots of films but don’t know her name” is Margo Martindale* as Pete’s exuberant and easily bought mother Sandy. (*Must write this out 100 times before her picture appears in the Picturehouse Harbour Lights film quiz!).
A well-crafty script with some wayward characters
The script by director Sean (“Daddy’s Home”) Anders and John Morris zips along at a fine pace, albeit in a wholly predictable direction. It helps that I struggle the think of many films about the adoption process itself. Sure there have been lots of movies about children that have been adopted – Manchester By The Sea and Lion being two recent examples – but the only film I can immediately think of (and not in a good way) with foster care at its heart was the Katherine Heigl comedy from a few years ago “Life as we know it”. So this is good movie territory to mine.
There are some fine running jokes, notably young Juan’s penchant for constantly getting injured. However, the script also lapses as did Anders’ “Daddy’s Home 2” from last year – into moments of slushy sentimentality. (My dear departed Dad always used to affect an exaggerated snore at such points, and I could hear him in my head at regular intervals during the film!). I would have preferred a harder and blacker edge to the comedy: something that last year’s excellent “Game Night” pulled off so well.
There are also a couple of characters in the film that were poorly scripted and which just didn’t work. While Octavia Spencer was fine (channelling an almost identical version of her wisecracking and sardonic character from “The Shape of Water“), I just had no idea what her colleague Sharon (Tig Notaro) was supposed to be. The tone was all over the place. Similarly, who should pop up on a balcony in an unexpected cameo but the great Joan Cusack. And very funny she is too for the 10 second interruption. But the writers having got her there just couldn’t leave alone and we get a plain embarrassing extended interruption that strikes a duff note in the flow of the film.
Summary
The film is amusing and harmless without taxing many brain cells. Most notably unlike many so-called American ‘comedies’ it did actually make me laugh at multiple points. I should also point out that my wife absolutely loved it, rating it a strong 4* going on 5*.
But the really cute thing is that…
…the film is “inspired by a true family”: namely Anders’ own. He and his wife fostered three kids out of the US foster service, so the script is undoubtedly loosely based on their own experiences, which give it an extra impact for some of Peter and Ellie’s lines. In an essay for TIME (source: bustle.com) Anders wrote:
My wife Beth and I had been talking for years about whether we should have kids,” he wrote. “For the longest time we just felt like we couldn’t afford it. Then I sold a couple of scripts and was feeling like I might have a career, but we were in our 40s and worried we had left it too long. We knew kids would make our life bigger, so one day I joked, ‘Why don’t we just adopt a five-year-old and it will be like we got started five years ago?'”
It gives you a completely different perspective on the film knowing this. My wife after the film was saying “I’m not sure how accurately it portrays the fostering process”. But it clearly does.
Pete (Mark Wahlberg) and Ellie (Rose Byrne) are focused and business-oriented home designers. They’ve talked about having kids “sometime in the future” but the years – as years are want to do – are motoring away from them. Pete is concerned that if they have their own kids now then he will end up being an “old dad” (cue very funny, black-comedy, flashback). This leads them into contact with the State’s fostering service – led by Karen (Octavia Spencer) and Sharon (Tig Notaro) – and they progress into foster training. This introduces into their ‘perfect adult lives’ 15-year old Lizzy (Isabela Moner) and her younger siblings Juan (Gustavo Quiroz) and Lita (Julianna Gamiz). As these guys come from a troubled background Pete and Ellie find they have their work cut out. Who will crack first?
The turns
You’ve got to admire Mark Wahlberg as an actor. In the same vein as Steve Carell, he seems to be able to flex from dramatic (in his case, tough-guy action roles) to comedy without a blink. He’s nowhere near the calibre of actor as Carell, but he brings to all his roles a sense of menace – derived no doubt from his torrid criminal background in younger days. (His wiki page makes your eyes water: there’s a great biopic screenplay waiting to be written there! ) It must have made the kid actor who plays Charlie (Carson Holmes) actually soil himself at a key point in the film!
Wahlberg and the excellent Rose Byrne make a believable driven-couple, and Byrne has such a range of expressive faces that she can’t help but make you laugh.
Of the child actors, Nickelodeon star Isabella Moner shines with genuine brilliance, both in terms of her acting as the fiercely loyal Lizzy but also in terms of her musical ability (she sings the impressive end-title song). With Hollywood in ‘post-La-La-Showman: Here we go again’ mode, this is a talented young lady I predict might be in big demand over the next few years.
Top of my list of the most stupid “where the hell have I seen her before bang-my-head-against-the-cinema-wall” moments is the actress playing Ellie’s mother Jan. She is OF COURSE Julie Hagerty, air-hostess supreme from “Airplane!”.
Also good value, and topping my list of “I know her from lots of films but don’t know her name” is Margo Martindale* as Pete’s exuberant and easily bought mother Sandy. (*Must write this out 100 times before her picture appears in the Picturehouse Harbour Lights film quiz!).
A well-crafty script with some wayward characters
The script by director Sean (“Daddy’s Home”) Anders and John Morris zips along at a fine pace, albeit in a wholly predictable direction. It helps that I struggle the think of many films about the adoption process itself. Sure there have been lots of movies about children that have been adopted – Manchester By The Sea and Lion being two recent examples – but the only film I can immediately think of (and not in a good way) with foster care at its heart was the Katherine Heigl comedy from a few years ago “Life as we know it”. So this is good movie territory to mine.
There are some fine running jokes, notably young Juan’s penchant for constantly getting injured. However, the script also lapses as did Anders’ “Daddy’s Home 2” from last year – into moments of slushy sentimentality. (My dear departed Dad always used to affect an exaggerated snore at such points, and I could hear him in my head at regular intervals during the film!). I would have preferred a harder and blacker edge to the comedy: something that last year’s excellent “Game Night” pulled off so well.
There are also a couple of characters in the film that were poorly scripted and which just didn’t work. While Octavia Spencer was fine (channelling an almost identical version of her wisecracking and sardonic character from “The Shape of Water“), I just had no idea what her colleague Sharon (Tig Notaro) was supposed to be. The tone was all over the place. Similarly, who should pop up on a balcony in an unexpected cameo but the great Joan Cusack. And very funny she is too for the 10 second interruption. But the writers having got her there just couldn’t leave alone and we get a plain embarrassing extended interruption that strikes a duff note in the flow of the film.
Summary
The film is amusing and harmless without taxing many brain cells. Most notably unlike many so-called American ‘comedies’ it did actually make me laugh at multiple points. I should also point out that my wife absolutely loved it, rating it a strong 4* going on 5*.
But the really cute thing is that…
…the film is “inspired by a true family”: namely Anders’ own. He and his wife fostered three kids out of the US foster service, so the script is undoubtedly loosely based on their own experiences, which give it an extra impact for some of Peter and Ellie’s lines. In an essay for TIME (source: bustle.com) Anders wrote:
My wife Beth and I had been talking for years about whether we should have kids,” he wrote. “For the longest time we just felt like we couldn’t afford it. Then I sold a couple of scripts and was feeling like I might have a career, but we were in our 40s and worried we had left it too long. We knew kids would make our life bigger, so one day I joked, ‘Why don’t we just adopt a five-year-old and it will be like we got started five years ago?'”
It gives you a completely different perspective on the film knowing this. My wife after the film was saying “I’m not sure how accurately it portrays the fostering process”. But it clearly does.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Independence Day: Resurgence (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Why Will Smith is a wise, wise man.
I’m catching up on a few of the big films I missed during 2016. But Roland Emmerich has a lot to answer for with this one. Twenty years after Independence Day smashed the summer box office of 1996, the aliens are back: bigger and badder than ever. Steven Hiller (Will Smith) is no longer on the scene but, to give Emmerich a little credit, he has gathered an impressive array of the original stars to return led by Hiller’s wife Jasmine (Vivica Fox), President Whitmore (Bill Pullman), Dr Okun (Brent Spiner), David Levinson (Jeff Goldblum) and his dad (Judd Hirsch). The great Robert Loggia even turns up, who played the original General Grey, looking like he is about to expire (which unfortunately he did late last year, and the film is in memorial to him). All of them have weathered over the years apart from Judd Hirsch who must have a picture in his attic.
Playing the new generation (Hiller’s young son Dylan and the president’s daughter Patricia) are Jessie Usher and the comely Maika Monroe respectively, the latter having the pout of a young Jessica Alba and showing promise. Rounding off the young ‘uns, and playing an enormously irritating hunk/hero and his sidekick buddy are Jake (Liam Hemsworth – yes, younger brother of Chris) and Floyd (Nicolas Wright). And with the obvious needs of summer blockbusters to appeal to the ravenous Chinese market there is also Shanghai-born Angelababy as a young hotshot pilot and Chin Han as her uncle, moonbase commander Commander Jiang.
It’s hard to know where to start with criticism of this film. It’s like you’ve caught someone desecrating the grave of a dearly departed relative. The plot is ludicrous…. Uh oh…here comes another One Mann’s Movies Showcase Theatre….
The scene: onboard the alien craft high above central Asia
DRONE K’FAALL: “The use of the anti-gravity weapon worked a treat your Majesty. We have ripped up Shanghai and dumped in from a great height on London! Take that Queenie! All hail our weapons superiority! I take it we should just ‘rinse and repeat’ around the world to wipe them all out? ”
QUEEN ALIEN BEE: “No K’Fall. Let’s land in the Atlantic and then go fight them one-on-one with our little ships in the desert near Area 51.”
DRONE K’FALL: “B-b-b-but your Majesty, with our gravity weapon we could eliminate all threat, drill out the earth’s core and find what we came here for in perfect safety!”.
QUEEN ALIEN BEE: “No… that’s just what they’ll be expecting us to do…”
I thought the Oscar for the dumbest aliens of the year was a shoe-in for the ones who chose a similar tactic in “The 5th Wave” – but no… we have another contender for the crown. This ridiculous London-based CGI sequence – a virtual re-shoot of the ridiculous CGI sequence in Emmerich’s “2012” where John Cusack is fleeing by plane a collapsing Los Angeles – is mitigated only by Goldblum’s witty comment about them “Always going for the landmarks” – the best line in the film.
Elsewhere, the story and screenplay – by an army of writers (never a good sign) – is risible and an insult to intelligence, alien or otherwise. The ludicrous plot points go on and on…
Why on earth is the single landed alien craft from 1996 owned by an African warlord? If mankind have ‘benefited’ so much from the alien technology that must surely have been through the UN-dismantling of that ship?
There seems to be no logical connection between the “visions” (stolen from “Close Encounters”) and the alien craft. The visions might have well have been of the alien’s last shopping list (“six cans of Kraag beans; one bottle of Vollufi ale; … “);
The alien craft is big enough to span the WHOLE Atlantic when it lands, but – who would believe it? – comes to a stop with its edge in Washington JUST ENOUGH to dip the White House flag to a jaunty angle. #cringe;
The alien ship – apparently open to the elements – allows our heroic hunks to wander around without spacesuits;
Breathless… or not. Jessie T Usher and Liam Hemsworth (foreground) not dying of asphyxiation or cold.
At one point it looked like our curvaceous heroine was going to defeat the alien queen in good ol’ Wild West fashion armed only with a handgun (but no, my head could come out of my hands again);
And don’t even get me started on the opening “excitement” about propping up a collapsing supergun on the moon with a spaceship. Gerry Anderson would be spinning in his grave.
The dialogue is little better. The original “Independence Day” was probably most famous for two scenes: the impressive destruction of the White House and Bill Paxton’s ludicrously corny “We will not go quietly into the night” speech. Here trying to go one better we have not just one version of this but two with William Fichner’s General Adams chipping one in from the rough before Paxton delivers an impromptu hanger speech that is toe-curlingly excruciating.
Much of the acting is of the “I really don’t want to be here but it’s good for the pension” variety with Paxton and Goldblum going through the motions and Charlotte Gainsborough being horribly miscast as a French anthropologist running around the world on the trail of Pokemon Go characters… or symbols… or something. Only Brent Spiner and Judd Hirsch really get into their stride with likeably over-the-top performances.
Goldblum and Charlotte Gainsborough. A less likely historic romantic attachment its difficult to imagine.
If this was a standalone story it might scrape a double-Fad… but as it so horrendously sullies a classic movie experience it incurs my cinematic wrath. It might have made Roland Emmer-richer (sic)…. but my recommendation would be to get a big bag of popcorn, the original 1996 movie on DVD and enjoy. Avoid, avoid, avoid.
Playing the new generation (Hiller’s young son Dylan and the president’s daughter Patricia) are Jessie Usher and the comely Maika Monroe respectively, the latter having the pout of a young Jessica Alba and showing promise. Rounding off the young ‘uns, and playing an enormously irritating hunk/hero and his sidekick buddy are Jake (Liam Hemsworth – yes, younger brother of Chris) and Floyd (Nicolas Wright). And with the obvious needs of summer blockbusters to appeal to the ravenous Chinese market there is also Shanghai-born Angelababy as a young hotshot pilot and Chin Han as her uncle, moonbase commander Commander Jiang.
It’s hard to know where to start with criticism of this film. It’s like you’ve caught someone desecrating the grave of a dearly departed relative. The plot is ludicrous…. Uh oh…here comes another One Mann’s Movies Showcase Theatre….
The scene: onboard the alien craft high above central Asia
DRONE K’FAALL: “The use of the anti-gravity weapon worked a treat your Majesty. We have ripped up Shanghai and dumped in from a great height on London! Take that Queenie! All hail our weapons superiority! I take it we should just ‘rinse and repeat’ around the world to wipe them all out? ”
QUEEN ALIEN BEE: “No K’Fall. Let’s land in the Atlantic and then go fight them one-on-one with our little ships in the desert near Area 51.”
DRONE K’FALL: “B-b-b-but your Majesty, with our gravity weapon we could eliminate all threat, drill out the earth’s core and find what we came here for in perfect safety!”.
QUEEN ALIEN BEE: “No… that’s just what they’ll be expecting us to do…”
I thought the Oscar for the dumbest aliens of the year was a shoe-in for the ones who chose a similar tactic in “The 5th Wave” – but no… we have another contender for the crown. This ridiculous London-based CGI sequence – a virtual re-shoot of the ridiculous CGI sequence in Emmerich’s “2012” where John Cusack is fleeing by plane a collapsing Los Angeles – is mitigated only by Goldblum’s witty comment about them “Always going for the landmarks” – the best line in the film.
Elsewhere, the story and screenplay – by an army of writers (never a good sign) – is risible and an insult to intelligence, alien or otherwise. The ludicrous plot points go on and on…
Why on earth is the single landed alien craft from 1996 owned by an African warlord? If mankind have ‘benefited’ so much from the alien technology that must surely have been through the UN-dismantling of that ship?
There seems to be no logical connection between the “visions” (stolen from “Close Encounters”) and the alien craft. The visions might have well have been of the alien’s last shopping list (“six cans of Kraag beans; one bottle of Vollufi ale; … “);
The alien craft is big enough to span the WHOLE Atlantic when it lands, but – who would believe it? – comes to a stop with its edge in Washington JUST ENOUGH to dip the White House flag to a jaunty angle. #cringe;
The alien ship – apparently open to the elements – allows our heroic hunks to wander around without spacesuits;
Breathless… or not. Jessie T Usher and Liam Hemsworth (foreground) not dying of asphyxiation or cold.
At one point it looked like our curvaceous heroine was going to defeat the alien queen in good ol’ Wild West fashion armed only with a handgun (but no, my head could come out of my hands again);
And don’t even get me started on the opening “excitement” about propping up a collapsing supergun on the moon with a spaceship. Gerry Anderson would be spinning in his grave.
The dialogue is little better. The original “Independence Day” was probably most famous for two scenes: the impressive destruction of the White House and Bill Paxton’s ludicrously corny “We will not go quietly into the night” speech. Here trying to go one better we have not just one version of this but two with William Fichner’s General Adams chipping one in from the rough before Paxton delivers an impromptu hanger speech that is toe-curlingly excruciating.
Much of the acting is of the “I really don’t want to be here but it’s good for the pension” variety with Paxton and Goldblum going through the motions and Charlotte Gainsborough being horribly miscast as a French anthropologist running around the world on the trail of Pokemon Go characters… or symbols… or something. Only Brent Spiner and Judd Hirsch really get into their stride with likeably over-the-top performances.
Goldblum and Charlotte Gainsborough. A less likely historic romantic attachment its difficult to imagine.
If this was a standalone story it might scrape a double-Fad… but as it so horrendously sullies a classic movie experience it incurs my cinematic wrath. It might have made Roland Emmer-richer (sic)…. but my recommendation would be to get a big bag of popcorn, the original 1996 movie on DVD and enjoy. Avoid, avoid, avoid.
Paul Kellett (118 KP) rated Fallen Land: A Post Apocalyptic Board Game in Tabletop Games
May 9, 2019
Great theme, very immersive (2 more)
Solo playable
Plenty of replayability
A bit fiddly to keep track of things (1 more)
A lot of little rules to remember
An Immersive Post Apocalyptic survival game
I don't know where I was when this launched on Kickstarter, but it totally passed me by until I started seeing a few posts on Facebook groups a couple of weeks ago. My interest was piqued and after watching a few videos and reading the reviews here, I took the plunge and ordered it from Fallen Dominion Studios. I got the base came and the expansion which adds more cards, rules for an epic 6 player game as well as 2 solo variants. Delivery to the UK was super quick, about 10 days and the shipping price was good.
On first opening the box, you are greeted with a few punchboards, the game board and a ton of cards, there is a lot contained in such a small box.
After punching and organising everything, I read the rules, painted the little plastic faction tokens and made some character inventory sleeves to help keep the play area neat.
The rules are really well written and easy to follow & understand with plenty of examples and pictures. there is a helpful index on the inside back page so you can quickly find anything you need mid-game.
The first solo variant is basically just a "reach the victory point win in as few turns as possible" - a great way to quickly learn the basics of the game and very enjoyable. It will be good if you just want to play a fairly quick (60-90 minute) survival/exploration game.
The second solo rule set is where the game really kicks into high gear. You choose a number of opponent factions depending on how much of a challenge you want and during the Town Business Phase, roll a D10 for each faction, comparing the result to a chart in the book to see what each faction does. these results can boost each faction up one or both of the victory point tracks (getting to the top of either one is a win) or more importantly, initiating PvP combat against your faction.
While this is still not the same as playing against real opponents, it offers a great challenge that will test your luck and skill to beat.
So what sets this game out as a solo gem? It's one of the most immersive games I've played. It's part open-world survival boardgame, part rpg and part story book.
You are the leader of a faction of survivors following a devastating war that destroyed the US leaving pockets of survivors trying to eke out a living among the radioactive ruins. As you make your way around the map, trying to secure vital resources or checking out points of interest, you will be drawing encounter cards and trying to complete them.
You control a team of 5 characters plus a vehicle if you are lucky and start the game with 10 items (from assault rifles to baseball bats, med kits to body armour and everything in between) which you can equip to each character any way you see fit. Some characters will get a bonus if they have certain items and some items can grant boosts to your entire party.
Here is where the RPG feel comes in. Each character and Item has a row of skill attribute boxes along the bottom edge of the card with skills such as Combat, Survival, Medical, Mechanics and Diplomacy. Your character card has a maximum carrying capacity and each item a weight so your character can only carry a certain number of items.
Skill checks are simple, you add up the total values in each attribute column of your character plus his/her equipment. Every 10 is an automatic success. Then you roll a D10 and must roll equal to or lower than the unit value. So, if your combat total is 14, then you get 1 success for the 10 and then must roll 4 or less to get a second success. This makes equipping items very important as not only do you want your skills to be as high as possible, it's often preferable to store an item for later if it would result in a lower unit thus making the die roll harder.
On to the encounters. There are a lot of them. Seriously, loads and each one on them has a mini story delving into another aspect of life after 'the war'. These add so much to the feeling of being immersed in a full world and are varied and well written. Each encounter will list a series of skill checks and the number of successes you need to pass. This is Ameritrash at it's finest Read a story, roll a bunch of dice and the deal with the outcome. A successful result will see you off with a new stash of items, victory points or maybe even new characters you can rotate into your team to replace injured members or just improve your chances with better skills.
There is so much in this game, the sheer number of cards is immense. the replayability is sky high as you will never see everything this game can offer. There are character combinations that complement each other if used together (what are the chances of drawing a husband and his wife together out of a deck of over 100 cards?), locations and storylines that trigger bonus effects if you have the right gear and 10 different factions each with their own skills and bonuses.
This game is certainly not for everyone - if you don't like luck-based games then you might not enjoy the amount of dice rolling and card drawing in Fallen Land.
The art is also divisive. It's very stylized and cartoony but it works with the feel of the game. It's not a pretty experience, everything is broken and destroyed, it's a harsh, Mad Max world of brutal survival and the art on the cards kind of fits this feel and to be honest, most of it ends up covered up and you concentrate more on reading the stories and trying to survive.
All in all a great so experience and a fantastic, brutal multiplayer game.
On first opening the box, you are greeted with a few punchboards, the game board and a ton of cards, there is a lot contained in such a small box.
After punching and organising everything, I read the rules, painted the little plastic faction tokens and made some character inventory sleeves to help keep the play area neat.
The rules are really well written and easy to follow & understand with plenty of examples and pictures. there is a helpful index on the inside back page so you can quickly find anything you need mid-game.
The first solo variant is basically just a "reach the victory point win in as few turns as possible" - a great way to quickly learn the basics of the game and very enjoyable. It will be good if you just want to play a fairly quick (60-90 minute) survival/exploration game.
The second solo rule set is where the game really kicks into high gear. You choose a number of opponent factions depending on how much of a challenge you want and during the Town Business Phase, roll a D10 for each faction, comparing the result to a chart in the book to see what each faction does. these results can boost each faction up one or both of the victory point tracks (getting to the top of either one is a win) or more importantly, initiating PvP combat against your faction.
While this is still not the same as playing against real opponents, it offers a great challenge that will test your luck and skill to beat.
So what sets this game out as a solo gem? It's one of the most immersive games I've played. It's part open-world survival boardgame, part rpg and part story book.
You are the leader of a faction of survivors following a devastating war that destroyed the US leaving pockets of survivors trying to eke out a living among the radioactive ruins. As you make your way around the map, trying to secure vital resources or checking out points of interest, you will be drawing encounter cards and trying to complete them.
You control a team of 5 characters plus a vehicle if you are lucky and start the game with 10 items (from assault rifles to baseball bats, med kits to body armour and everything in between) which you can equip to each character any way you see fit. Some characters will get a bonus if they have certain items and some items can grant boosts to your entire party.
Here is where the RPG feel comes in. Each character and Item has a row of skill attribute boxes along the bottom edge of the card with skills such as Combat, Survival, Medical, Mechanics and Diplomacy. Your character card has a maximum carrying capacity and each item a weight so your character can only carry a certain number of items.
Skill checks are simple, you add up the total values in each attribute column of your character plus his/her equipment. Every 10 is an automatic success. Then you roll a D10 and must roll equal to or lower than the unit value. So, if your combat total is 14, then you get 1 success for the 10 and then must roll 4 or less to get a second success. This makes equipping items very important as not only do you want your skills to be as high as possible, it's often preferable to store an item for later if it would result in a lower unit thus making the die roll harder.
On to the encounters. There are a lot of them. Seriously, loads and each one on them has a mini story delving into another aspect of life after 'the war'. These add so much to the feeling of being immersed in a full world and are varied and well written. Each encounter will list a series of skill checks and the number of successes you need to pass. This is Ameritrash at it's finest Read a story, roll a bunch of dice and the deal with the outcome. A successful result will see you off with a new stash of items, victory points or maybe even new characters you can rotate into your team to replace injured members or just improve your chances with better skills.
There is so much in this game, the sheer number of cards is immense. the replayability is sky high as you will never see everything this game can offer. There are character combinations that complement each other if used together (what are the chances of drawing a husband and his wife together out of a deck of over 100 cards?), locations and storylines that trigger bonus effects if you have the right gear and 10 different factions each with their own skills and bonuses.
This game is certainly not for everyone - if you don't like luck-based games then you might not enjoy the amount of dice rolling and card drawing in Fallen Land.
The art is also divisive. It's very stylized and cartoony but it works with the feel of the game. It's not a pretty experience, everything is broken and destroyed, it's a harsh, Mad Max world of brutal survival and the art on the cards kind of fits this feel and to be honest, most of it ends up covered up and you concentrate more on reading the stories and trying to survive.
All in all a great so experience and a fantastic, brutal multiplayer game.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A bold new era
“We’re not on an island anymore” barks Chris Pratt’s Owen Grady towards the finale of Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom. And he’s not wrong, the fifth film in the Jurassic franchise says goodbye to Isla Nublar in rip-roaring fashion, transforming itself into a a family friendly gothic horror film in its last hour.
Ok, ok, let’s start from the beginning. The Jurassic franchise has often been criticised for relying too heavily on the same story points to make a film. 2015’s Jurassic World, whilst becoming one of the highest-grossing films of all time, was lambasted for being a modern-day reimagining of 1993’s classic, Jurassic Park. And while some of that criticism was justified, it was still pure sugary, popcorn entertainment.
Now, three years later, director J.A. Bayona (The Impossible, A Monster Calls) takes over from Colin Trevorrow to bring us a film that starts out like we expect, but ends on a note that will transform the series beyond recognition. The question is, does it actually work?
Three years after the destruction of the Jurassic World theme park, Owen Grady (Pratt) and Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas Howard) return to the island of Isla Nublar to save the remaining dinosaurs from a volcano that’s about to erupt. They soon encounter terrifying new breeds of gigantic dinos while uncovering a conspiracy that threatens the entire planet and our own existence.
Fallen Kingdom begins with a pre-title card sequence situated in the lagoon of Isla Nublar that is up there with the best in the series. J.A. Bayona masterfully uses light and shadow to create a really compelling opening that is sure to be one of the summer’s best action scenes. And that is a trait that is brought to the rest of the film. Fallen Kingdom is absolutely beautiful.
The cinematography is exquisite and much better than the staid filming style of Bayona’s predecessor. There are scenes throughout this film that feel like they could be pulled straight from the screen and hung in your living room: it’s gorgeous.
Despite Bayona’s inexperience at creating a juggernaut film like this, his previous films are felt throughout. There’s a deep, earthy colour palatte that is the polar opposite of what we saw in Jurassic World. Where that was clinical and far too blue, Bayona’s colourings feel real, raw and grounded in reality.
The cast is also an incredibly strong part of the film. Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard both sizzle with on-screen chemistry and there’s a cheeky nod to the backlash Howard faced after wearing high-heels for much of Jurassic World’s runtime. Newcomers Justice Smith and Daniella Pineda are terrific as a jumpy IT wiz and veterinary surgeon respectively. James Cromwell is nicely ret-conned into the story as John Hammond’s business partner, Benjamin, and adds a touch of class to proceedings.
Rafe Spall is excellent as the slimy assistant of Benjami, Eli and Toby Jones hams up the screen as an auctioneer. So far, so good then?
The first half of the film, situated on Isla Nublar as it pops into life is astounding and features some of the best destruction ever put to film. The CGI is leaps and bounds ahead of its predecessor and the dinosaurs feel absolutely real throughout. What I didn’t expect however, is poignancy. There are moments in Fallen Kingdom that have real emotional whack, especially as the rescue operation leaves the island. A lone Brachiosaur standing at the dock is heart-breaking and beautifully done.
J.A. Bayona utilises his horror roots beautifully and there is no denying it is the best-looking film in the series
Unfortunately, Fallen Kingdom’s biggest selling point is also its biggest downfall. In trying to do something new, the film stalls as we head to a gothic-esque mansion for the final hour. The confines of the house slow the pacing right down and despite the constant onslaught of action, it really does lag. The special effects and animatronics remain flawless and the action is thrilling, but the script lets them down.
Speaking of the script, this was Jurassic World’s biggest weakness and the same can be said here. Colin Trevorrow and Derek Connelly should be applauded for bringing this franchise back from the edge of extinction, but my god, they cannot write dialogue to save their lives. The characters often converse in what feels like speech bubbles and this can really bring you out of the moment.
There’s also a laughably poor plot twist that feels like it was written by a five-year-old to add some wow factor to the film’s final third. It fails miserably. Then there’s the film’s ‘villain’, the Indoraptor. This genetically modified beast is a sorely underdeveloped entity throughout the film. Sure, she’s menacing enough, but it feels shoehorned in. Trevorrow has stated that Fallen Kingdom will be the last Jurassic movie to feature hybrid dinosaurs: this is absolutely the right decision.
Trevorrow has said that his Jurassic vision is a new trilogy, but the ending of Fallen Kingdom feels like it simply can’t be fixed in one more film. It’s Planet of the Apes-esque in scale.
When we take a look at the score, it’s a story of two halves. Michael Giacchino is one of the greatest composers working today and his music for Jurassic World was absolutely sublime. Here, however, the music is unrecognisable as Jurassic in its construction. John Williams’ iconic theme is rendered to a few bars here and there and that’s a real shame. It’s a good score most definitely, but it could have been so much better.
Finally, we have to circle back around to the cast and the elephant in the room: Jeff Goldblum. His return as Dr Ian Malcolm in this film adds a nice bookend, beginning and end, but you have seen all but two or three lines of his dialogue in the trailer. A horrifically underused presence, but a nice cameo nonetheless.
Overall, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom is a solid addition to the ever-expanding series. J.A. Bayona utilises his horror roots beautifully and there is no denying it is the best-looking film in the series with superb set pieces, well-choreographed action and gorgeous cinematography. However, once again the film is let down by poor scriptwriting from Trevorrow and Connelly and a second half that struggles to keep pace with the stunning first.
Is it better than Jurassic World? Well that’s for you to decide, but comparing them is almost impossible.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/06/07/jurassic-world-fallen-kingdom-review-a-bold-new-era/
Ok, ok, let’s start from the beginning. The Jurassic franchise has often been criticised for relying too heavily on the same story points to make a film. 2015’s Jurassic World, whilst becoming one of the highest-grossing films of all time, was lambasted for being a modern-day reimagining of 1993’s classic, Jurassic Park. And while some of that criticism was justified, it was still pure sugary, popcorn entertainment.
Now, three years later, director J.A. Bayona (The Impossible, A Monster Calls) takes over from Colin Trevorrow to bring us a film that starts out like we expect, but ends on a note that will transform the series beyond recognition. The question is, does it actually work?
Three years after the destruction of the Jurassic World theme park, Owen Grady (Pratt) and Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas Howard) return to the island of Isla Nublar to save the remaining dinosaurs from a volcano that’s about to erupt. They soon encounter terrifying new breeds of gigantic dinos while uncovering a conspiracy that threatens the entire planet and our own existence.
Fallen Kingdom begins with a pre-title card sequence situated in the lagoon of Isla Nublar that is up there with the best in the series. J.A. Bayona masterfully uses light and shadow to create a really compelling opening that is sure to be one of the summer’s best action scenes. And that is a trait that is brought to the rest of the film. Fallen Kingdom is absolutely beautiful.
The cinematography is exquisite and much better than the staid filming style of Bayona’s predecessor. There are scenes throughout this film that feel like they could be pulled straight from the screen and hung in your living room: it’s gorgeous.
Despite Bayona’s inexperience at creating a juggernaut film like this, his previous films are felt throughout. There’s a deep, earthy colour palatte that is the polar opposite of what we saw in Jurassic World. Where that was clinical and far too blue, Bayona’s colourings feel real, raw and grounded in reality.
The cast is also an incredibly strong part of the film. Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard both sizzle with on-screen chemistry and there’s a cheeky nod to the backlash Howard faced after wearing high-heels for much of Jurassic World’s runtime. Newcomers Justice Smith and Daniella Pineda are terrific as a jumpy IT wiz and veterinary surgeon respectively. James Cromwell is nicely ret-conned into the story as John Hammond’s business partner, Benjamin, and adds a touch of class to proceedings.
Rafe Spall is excellent as the slimy assistant of Benjami, Eli and Toby Jones hams up the screen as an auctioneer. So far, so good then?
The first half of the film, situated on Isla Nublar as it pops into life is astounding and features some of the best destruction ever put to film. The CGI is leaps and bounds ahead of its predecessor and the dinosaurs feel absolutely real throughout. What I didn’t expect however, is poignancy. There are moments in Fallen Kingdom that have real emotional whack, especially as the rescue operation leaves the island. A lone Brachiosaur standing at the dock is heart-breaking and beautifully done.
J.A. Bayona utilises his horror roots beautifully and there is no denying it is the best-looking film in the series
Unfortunately, Fallen Kingdom’s biggest selling point is also its biggest downfall. In trying to do something new, the film stalls as we head to a gothic-esque mansion for the final hour. The confines of the house slow the pacing right down and despite the constant onslaught of action, it really does lag. The special effects and animatronics remain flawless and the action is thrilling, but the script lets them down.
Speaking of the script, this was Jurassic World’s biggest weakness and the same can be said here. Colin Trevorrow and Derek Connelly should be applauded for bringing this franchise back from the edge of extinction, but my god, they cannot write dialogue to save their lives. The characters often converse in what feels like speech bubbles and this can really bring you out of the moment.
There’s also a laughably poor plot twist that feels like it was written by a five-year-old to add some wow factor to the film’s final third. It fails miserably. Then there’s the film’s ‘villain’, the Indoraptor. This genetically modified beast is a sorely underdeveloped entity throughout the film. Sure, she’s menacing enough, but it feels shoehorned in. Trevorrow has stated that Fallen Kingdom will be the last Jurassic movie to feature hybrid dinosaurs: this is absolutely the right decision.
Trevorrow has said that his Jurassic vision is a new trilogy, but the ending of Fallen Kingdom feels like it simply can’t be fixed in one more film. It’s Planet of the Apes-esque in scale.
When we take a look at the score, it’s a story of two halves. Michael Giacchino is one of the greatest composers working today and his music for Jurassic World was absolutely sublime. Here, however, the music is unrecognisable as Jurassic in its construction. John Williams’ iconic theme is rendered to a few bars here and there and that’s a real shame. It’s a good score most definitely, but it could have been so much better.
Finally, we have to circle back around to the cast and the elephant in the room: Jeff Goldblum. His return as Dr Ian Malcolm in this film adds a nice bookend, beginning and end, but you have seen all but two or three lines of his dialogue in the trailer. A horrifically underused presence, but a nice cameo nonetheless.
Overall, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom is a solid addition to the ever-expanding series. J.A. Bayona utilises his horror roots beautifully and there is no denying it is the best-looking film in the series with superb set pieces, well-choreographed action and gorgeous cinematography. However, once again the film is let down by poor scriptwriting from Trevorrow and Connelly and a second half that struggles to keep pace with the stunning first.
Is it better than Jurassic World? Well that’s for you to decide, but comparing them is almost impossible.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/06/07/jurassic-world-fallen-kingdom-review-a-bold-new-era/
BackToTheMovies (56 KP) rated Child's Play (2019) in Movies
Jun 21, 2019
After moving to a new city, young Andy Barclay receives a special present from his mother. A seemingly innocent Buddi doll that becomes his best friend. When the doll suddenly takes on a life of its own, Andy unites with other neighborhood children to stop the sinister toy from wreaking bloody havoc.
For months I’ve been hating on this reboot. Whilst I still don’t necessarily agree with the politics of how this film came to be. I left the theatre quite surprised at how much I enjoyed this movie. Child’s Play is reimagined for a modern generation. Whilst this film is an alternate timeline twist to the original it still manages to throw in that classic Chucky humor we all know and love. Here’s my Child’s Play 2019 review.
Lars Klevberg tells the story of Buddi, an artificial intelligence robot that can control your home appliances and become your best friend. He will play with you, interact with you like a real human being and you can do activities together. After a man is fired at the Buddi factory he reprograms one of the dolls to disobey its commands and the reign of Chucky begins when it falls into the hands of young Andy (Gabriel Bateman) given to him as a present by his mum Karen (Aubrey Plaza). What follows is a thoroughly enjoyable feature that flies by. Chucky’s murderous rage ramps up to artificial intelligence warfare with epic results.
Disregarding the original storyline of a serial killer whose soul inhabits a Good Guys doll the new Child’s Play tells a more chilling tale. The movie runs a very close to home social commentary about our reliance on technology and the implications that could follow. Buddi is your walking, talking Amazon Echo. Every home device is controlled at his fingertips from TV’s to telephones and even as far as automated cars. You can only imagine the terror that unfolds as Chucky learns to utilize his technological surroundings for evil.
Chucky starts off innocent enough. He’s programmed to be Andy’s best friend but what starts out as a unique interaction between boy and robot instantly changes when Chucky becomes sentient. Influenced by those around him and watching horror movies with Andy suddenly Buddi becomes more sinister in nature. Instead of a treasured companion, Chucky becomes possessive and will protect Andy by any means necessary. Quite the different approach from that of previous installments. Even when Chucky begins his reign of terror Andy is still loyal to him to some degree. Whilst he cannot understand why Chucky is doing the things he does there’s a loneliness about Andy’s character that almost seems to justify Chucky’s behavior. He doesn’t agree with it but at the same time, he has a friend, albeit a murderous little rampaging doll.
Child’s Play has some incredible humour mixed in throughout which allows the film to flow freely. Whilst Seed of Chucky and Bride of Chucky had free-speaking souls it’s harder to convey this type of humour within a robotic doll. Instead, the doll spills one-liners and is influenced by those around him leading to some comical results. Chucky’s infamous one-liners come to the fold and various facial expressions on the doll are hysterical.
The vocal work and comedic delivery from Mark Hamil is nothing short of wonderful. There is nothing this man cannot do. The force is strong with him even in a Chucky movie. Whilst more robotic in nature the way the lines are delivered with such dry-pan straight-faced edge is just brilliant. But once again we cannot compare this new Chucky to the sublime work of Brad Dourif. Brad is delivering dialogue as a human being whereas Mark is delivering lines as a robotic entity. They just cannot be compared and it would be a stupid comparison to make. All in all the voice work is great It’s just a shame I can’t take this ugly doll seriously for one second!
Whoever designed the Buddi doll in pre-production needs a serious talking to! I’m not quite sure what look they were going for with this but it certainly isn’t a good one. The film becomes even more of a comedy the more you look at it. The old dolls had that look of innocence in the originals, this one is just so damn weird. I can’t picture a production meeting where everyone in the room agreed that this is the final look of the doll without intense laughing involved. It’s like the production team are openly fucking with us. No one on this planet can take this doll seriously and for me, Child’s Play is way more of a comedy than it will ever be a horror movie.
For the most part, casting within Child’s Play is very strong. Gabriel Bateman (Andy) puts in a strong performance single-handedly carrying the film. Brian Tyree Henry (Mike) who plays a neighbor/detective is also a nice comedic relief within the feature. Ty Consiglio, Beatrice Kitsos and Carlease Burke also play strong supporting roles. Where casting failed for me however was Aubrey Plaza. I’ve seen Aubrey in comedies where her humor never really hits home in any roles she’s in.
Arrogant and annoying in many roles this cookie cutter casting has her playing the same role in every film she’s in. Playing Andy’s mum in this film doesn’t work for me whatsoever. There’s no conviction, no depth, no family dynamic feel of any sort. She almost plays an annoying older sister rather than a mother. Thankfully, she doesn’t play a key role as such to Andy’s arc and thus I can overlook her involvement as such. I think Aubrey should have played a sister role or similar, it would have played to her on-screen strengths.
When Chucky starts killing is when this movie comes into its own. It has nothing to compare it to previous Chucky films. Our new technologically manipulative little doll runs havoc on the millennial generation of mobile phone and gadget addicted humans. The death scenes are gory and for the most part, all have comedy elements to them. Whilst the kills are unimaginative it’s how Chucky delivers those kills that really add that star gore power to proceedings.
Endearing, gory and mostly hilarious. The contrast of tone in Child’s Play may even persuade the die-hard fans to enjoy this one. It shouldn’t really be compared to the originals in any way shape or form although it does have an 80’s flair to it. Child’s Play has taken a new direction but has stayed relevant to modern times and whilst it’s taking a different path than the upcoming TV series, it’s safe to say Chucky really is back!
Thanks for checking out my Child’s Play 2019 review. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did!
https://backtothemovies.com/childs-play-2019-review/
For months I’ve been hating on this reboot. Whilst I still don’t necessarily agree with the politics of how this film came to be. I left the theatre quite surprised at how much I enjoyed this movie. Child’s Play is reimagined for a modern generation. Whilst this film is an alternate timeline twist to the original it still manages to throw in that classic Chucky humor we all know and love. Here’s my Child’s Play 2019 review.
Lars Klevberg tells the story of Buddi, an artificial intelligence robot that can control your home appliances and become your best friend. He will play with you, interact with you like a real human being and you can do activities together. After a man is fired at the Buddi factory he reprograms one of the dolls to disobey its commands and the reign of Chucky begins when it falls into the hands of young Andy (Gabriel Bateman) given to him as a present by his mum Karen (Aubrey Plaza). What follows is a thoroughly enjoyable feature that flies by. Chucky’s murderous rage ramps up to artificial intelligence warfare with epic results.
Disregarding the original storyline of a serial killer whose soul inhabits a Good Guys doll the new Child’s Play tells a more chilling tale. The movie runs a very close to home social commentary about our reliance on technology and the implications that could follow. Buddi is your walking, talking Amazon Echo. Every home device is controlled at his fingertips from TV’s to telephones and even as far as automated cars. You can only imagine the terror that unfolds as Chucky learns to utilize his technological surroundings for evil.
Chucky starts off innocent enough. He’s programmed to be Andy’s best friend but what starts out as a unique interaction between boy and robot instantly changes when Chucky becomes sentient. Influenced by those around him and watching horror movies with Andy suddenly Buddi becomes more sinister in nature. Instead of a treasured companion, Chucky becomes possessive and will protect Andy by any means necessary. Quite the different approach from that of previous installments. Even when Chucky begins his reign of terror Andy is still loyal to him to some degree. Whilst he cannot understand why Chucky is doing the things he does there’s a loneliness about Andy’s character that almost seems to justify Chucky’s behavior. He doesn’t agree with it but at the same time, he has a friend, albeit a murderous little rampaging doll.
Child’s Play has some incredible humour mixed in throughout which allows the film to flow freely. Whilst Seed of Chucky and Bride of Chucky had free-speaking souls it’s harder to convey this type of humour within a robotic doll. Instead, the doll spills one-liners and is influenced by those around him leading to some comical results. Chucky’s infamous one-liners come to the fold and various facial expressions on the doll are hysterical.
The vocal work and comedic delivery from Mark Hamil is nothing short of wonderful. There is nothing this man cannot do. The force is strong with him even in a Chucky movie. Whilst more robotic in nature the way the lines are delivered with such dry-pan straight-faced edge is just brilliant. But once again we cannot compare this new Chucky to the sublime work of Brad Dourif. Brad is delivering dialogue as a human being whereas Mark is delivering lines as a robotic entity. They just cannot be compared and it would be a stupid comparison to make. All in all the voice work is great It’s just a shame I can’t take this ugly doll seriously for one second!
Whoever designed the Buddi doll in pre-production needs a serious talking to! I’m not quite sure what look they were going for with this but it certainly isn’t a good one. The film becomes even more of a comedy the more you look at it. The old dolls had that look of innocence in the originals, this one is just so damn weird. I can’t picture a production meeting where everyone in the room agreed that this is the final look of the doll without intense laughing involved. It’s like the production team are openly fucking with us. No one on this planet can take this doll seriously and for me, Child’s Play is way more of a comedy than it will ever be a horror movie.
For the most part, casting within Child’s Play is very strong. Gabriel Bateman (Andy) puts in a strong performance single-handedly carrying the film. Brian Tyree Henry (Mike) who plays a neighbor/detective is also a nice comedic relief within the feature. Ty Consiglio, Beatrice Kitsos and Carlease Burke also play strong supporting roles. Where casting failed for me however was Aubrey Plaza. I’ve seen Aubrey in comedies where her humor never really hits home in any roles she’s in.
Arrogant and annoying in many roles this cookie cutter casting has her playing the same role in every film she’s in. Playing Andy’s mum in this film doesn’t work for me whatsoever. There’s no conviction, no depth, no family dynamic feel of any sort. She almost plays an annoying older sister rather than a mother. Thankfully, she doesn’t play a key role as such to Andy’s arc and thus I can overlook her involvement as such. I think Aubrey should have played a sister role or similar, it would have played to her on-screen strengths.
When Chucky starts killing is when this movie comes into its own. It has nothing to compare it to previous Chucky films. Our new technologically manipulative little doll runs havoc on the millennial generation of mobile phone and gadget addicted humans. The death scenes are gory and for the most part, all have comedy elements to them. Whilst the kills are unimaginative it’s how Chucky delivers those kills that really add that star gore power to proceedings.
Endearing, gory and mostly hilarious. The contrast of tone in Child’s Play may even persuade the die-hard fans to enjoy this one. It shouldn’t really be compared to the originals in any way shape or form although it does have an 80’s flair to it. Child’s Play has taken a new direction but has stayed relevant to modern times and whilst it’s taking a different path than the upcoming TV series, it’s safe to say Chucky really is back!
Thanks for checking out my Child’s Play 2019 review. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did!
https://backtothemovies.com/childs-play-2019-review/
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Focus (2015) in Movies
Jul 1, 2019
The problem with Focus is that it treats its audience like we're all as dumb as nails. While the film itself is entertaining, its cons are unconvincing, and it's not nearly as smart as it thinks it is.
After watching Focus, I thought back to a great line from Will Smith’s con artist character Nicky Spurgeon, in which he proclaims, “There’s two kinds of people in this world. There’s hammers and nails. You decide which one you want to be.” It’s a powerful and chilling line of dialogue that emphasizes Nicky’s need to exert power and control over others in order to be successful in his indecent business. The problem with the film, however, is that it treats its audience like we’re all as dumb as nails.
Unfortunately, therein lies the film’s biggest problem. While I do think there is some merit in its depiction of the con game, Focus for the most part is unconvincing. Not only did I feel like I was being conned by the characters, but I felt like I was being conned by the legitimacy of the cons themselves. Most of them are quite a stretch, to say the least, but more troublesome is that their successful outcomes don’t ever feel truly earned. Everything just cleans up too neatly, due to some inane level of planning that relies on far too many improbable factors and additionally treats every mistake as if it was part of the plan all along. Therefore, trying to take Focus seriously is something of a brain-numbing exercise. While the film itself is fairly entertaining, it’s not nearly as smart as it thinks it is.
As a viewer, it feels like there’s not much of a pay-off in watching them pull off their successful schemes, and that’s largely because we’re left out of the loop. We the audience are being played the whole time. We’re not given any room for our own participation and guesswork because the movie gives us no clues to help us solve the puzzle. Yet it’s inviting us to look for answers by emphasizing the importance of being focused and aware, while withholding any and all necessary clues to help us make sense of what is happening along the way.
In Focus, Will Smith plays con-man Nicky, who meets a beautiful woman named Jess (Margot Robbie) while dining alone one night. After inviting Nicky to her hotel room, Jess attempts to con him with the help of a friend, but ultimately fails. After all, you can’t hustle a hustler. Being eager to learn more, Jess wants Nicky to take her under his wing and teach her the art of his craft. What ensues is a steamy relationship and a partnership in deception.
Jess proves to be a natural in the con game, quickly earning the respect and admiration of Nicky, who allows her to join his thirty-strong crew. This team of crooks racks up millions through swindling, hustling, and pickpocketing. It’s fun to watch the action unfold, but a little disconcerting that it glorifies these criminals while they’re plainly stealing from innocent strangers. Make no mistake about it, Focus portrays them as the good guys, and offers little to no consequence for their devious actions. Still, it’s hard to root against this cast of con-artists, and you’ll want to see how they manage to get away with it all.
Instead, Focus tries to make you believe there isn’t any con in play at all, only to later pull out the rug to reveal a highly ludicrous scenario. It feels dishonest and cheap, like it’s essentially cheating its way to the desired outcome without doing the work to get there. It’s selling its own capers short and taking the fun out of them. Thus even the climax of the film feels disjointed because we can’t believe what we’re seeing and just have to watch incredulously as we wait for the inevitable far-fetched explanation.
Despite the shortcomings of the cons, I would like to express that the film still does plenty of things right. First and foremost, Will Smith shines in his performance, adding enough perplexity to his character to keep you on your toes. He makes it hard to tell whether or not his character Nicky is bluffing, which helps add to the tension of scenes. Even when Nicky appears to break character and let his guard down, I still found myself guessing about his true intentions. While the movie is overall somewhat of a letdown, I can safely say that Will Smith absolutely nails it.
The only issue I had with Will Smith is his character’s obsession with Margot Robbie’s Jess. I’m sure many guys could attest to a Margot Robbie obsession, but I’m not one of those guys. While the chemistry between Smith and Robbie was fairly good, it did seem more than a tad blown out of proportion. The romance between them felt rushed and more lustful than loving. Still, Robbie gives a respectable performance of deception and allure.
I would like to particularly applaud the work of B.D. Wong, who plays a high-stakes roller that gambles with Nicky during the Super Bowl, in what is my personal favorite scene of the movie. The tension between Wong and Smith is absolutely electrifying, and they play off of each other extraordinarily well. I was on the edge of my seat throughout their whole encounter, only to have the moment spoiled by an absurd and unlikely final outcome.
The other performances are all adequate, though most of the characters are given little screen time, aside from Nicky’s perverted, overweight associate Farhad (Adrian Martinez) who musters up a few laughs. The dialogue can be pretty hit-or-miss, and the plot is rather thin, but the production values are outstanding. This is a film that is unmistakably beautiful to look at, with gorgeous sets and superb camera work. One particularly admirable scene has the camera placed in the passenger seat focused on a man who is gearing himself up before he deliberately crashes his car head-on into another. It’s a moment that feels like a strange detour, and yet it’s so bizarre and memorable that it just works.
Focus has the makings of an excellent film, but it regrettably drops the ball by fumbling the con game. If only the cons themselves weren’t so far-fetched and sloppy, the whole movie would have been a whole lot more effective. Despite the film’s insistence that you look closely, its most pivotal moments don’t hold up to any sort of analysis or scrutiny. In other words, this is a film that would be best enjoyed out of focus.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 1.31.16.)
Unfortunately, therein lies the film’s biggest problem. While I do think there is some merit in its depiction of the con game, Focus for the most part is unconvincing. Not only did I feel like I was being conned by the characters, but I felt like I was being conned by the legitimacy of the cons themselves. Most of them are quite a stretch, to say the least, but more troublesome is that their successful outcomes don’t ever feel truly earned. Everything just cleans up too neatly, due to some inane level of planning that relies on far too many improbable factors and additionally treats every mistake as if it was part of the plan all along. Therefore, trying to take Focus seriously is something of a brain-numbing exercise. While the film itself is fairly entertaining, it’s not nearly as smart as it thinks it is.
As a viewer, it feels like there’s not much of a pay-off in watching them pull off their successful schemes, and that’s largely because we’re left out of the loop. We the audience are being played the whole time. We’re not given any room for our own participation and guesswork because the movie gives us no clues to help us solve the puzzle. Yet it’s inviting us to look for answers by emphasizing the importance of being focused and aware, while withholding any and all necessary clues to help us make sense of what is happening along the way.
In Focus, Will Smith plays con-man Nicky, who meets a beautiful woman named Jess (Margot Robbie) while dining alone one night. After inviting Nicky to her hotel room, Jess attempts to con him with the help of a friend, but ultimately fails. After all, you can’t hustle a hustler. Being eager to learn more, Jess wants Nicky to take her under his wing and teach her the art of his craft. What ensues is a steamy relationship and a partnership in deception.
Jess proves to be a natural in the con game, quickly earning the respect and admiration of Nicky, who allows her to join his thirty-strong crew. This team of crooks racks up millions through swindling, hustling, and pickpocketing. It’s fun to watch the action unfold, but a little disconcerting that it glorifies these criminals while they’re plainly stealing from innocent strangers. Make no mistake about it, Focus portrays them as the good guys, and offers little to no consequence for their devious actions. Still, it’s hard to root against this cast of con-artists, and you’ll want to see how they manage to get away with it all.
Instead, Focus tries to make you believe there isn’t any con in play at all, only to later pull out the rug to reveal a highly ludicrous scenario. It feels dishonest and cheap, like it’s essentially cheating its way to the desired outcome without doing the work to get there. It’s selling its own capers short and taking the fun out of them. Thus even the climax of the film feels disjointed because we can’t believe what we’re seeing and just have to watch incredulously as we wait for the inevitable far-fetched explanation.
Despite the shortcomings of the cons, I would like to express that the film still does plenty of things right. First and foremost, Will Smith shines in his performance, adding enough perplexity to his character to keep you on your toes. He makes it hard to tell whether or not his character Nicky is bluffing, which helps add to the tension of scenes. Even when Nicky appears to break character and let his guard down, I still found myself guessing about his true intentions. While the movie is overall somewhat of a letdown, I can safely say that Will Smith absolutely nails it.
The only issue I had with Will Smith is his character’s obsession with Margot Robbie’s Jess. I’m sure many guys could attest to a Margot Robbie obsession, but I’m not one of those guys. While the chemistry between Smith and Robbie was fairly good, it did seem more than a tad blown out of proportion. The romance between them felt rushed and more lustful than loving. Still, Robbie gives a respectable performance of deception and allure.
I would like to particularly applaud the work of B.D. Wong, who plays a high-stakes roller that gambles with Nicky during the Super Bowl, in what is my personal favorite scene of the movie. The tension between Wong and Smith is absolutely electrifying, and they play off of each other extraordinarily well. I was on the edge of my seat throughout their whole encounter, only to have the moment spoiled by an absurd and unlikely final outcome.
The other performances are all adequate, though most of the characters are given little screen time, aside from Nicky’s perverted, overweight associate Farhad (Adrian Martinez) who musters up a few laughs. The dialogue can be pretty hit-or-miss, and the plot is rather thin, but the production values are outstanding. This is a film that is unmistakably beautiful to look at, with gorgeous sets and superb camera work. One particularly admirable scene has the camera placed in the passenger seat focused on a man who is gearing himself up before he deliberately crashes his car head-on into another. It’s a moment that feels like a strange detour, and yet it’s so bizarre and memorable that it just works.
Focus has the makings of an excellent film, but it regrettably drops the ball by fumbling the con game. If only the cons themselves weren’t so far-fetched and sloppy, the whole movie would have been a whole lot more effective. Despite the film’s insistence that you look closely, its most pivotal moments don’t hold up to any sort of analysis or scrutiny. In other words, this is a film that would be best enjoyed out of focus.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 1.31.16.)
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated DiTiC in Tabletop Games
Oct 2, 2019
Purple Phoenix Games Preview
Abstract strategy games hold a special place in my heart. I’m not really a fan of Chess, but I am a fan of games that are light on rules and components but heavier in strategy needed to best your opponents. Yes, I like games that have zombies and gore or adventure and treasures as well, but abstracts are a great escape from those Ameritrashy games we all love.
So my original thought was to try to open this preview with a dastardly abstract statement to truly emphasize how theming is irrelevant with some activities. Not quite having done that, DiTiC is an abstract strategy game of “tile placement and dice-pawn” movement. How does it play? Read on.
In DiTiC the winner is the first player to upgrade one of their dice from a smaller-valued die into a value of six. Bring out smaller value dice and move them around the “board” to combine with other dice and win the game!
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a review copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know if the final components will be similar or different, or if the Kickstarter campaign will alter or add anything through stretch goals. -T
To setup a game of DiTiC, each player chooses a color of dice and takes all dice into their hand. The tile with “DiTiC START” on it is the, well, starting tile and is placed in the middle of the table. Roll off to see who goes first and you are ready to play!
On a turn a player may draw and place a tile or move one of their dice. Players start with zero dice on the board, so the first few turns will be drawing a tile from the bag and placing it on the board either side face-up. As you can see from the photos the tiles will have different colored (and shaped) corners. It’s when these corners complete an intersection of four tile corners that dice may enter the board. Depending on the color of the intersection’s majority control a die of said majority color comes into play on the value of the number of icons present. That’s a mouthful. So there are four corners to the intersection. If said intersection contains two red, a blue, and a black icon then red will place a die with value of two pips showing on that intersection. These dice may now be moved and combined with like-valued dice (with an exception). If a player has at least one die on the board when initiating this action, they may roll the action die after placement and complete any other actions the die result allows.
When a player decides instead to move, combine, or overtake a die, they simply move the die along the edge of a tile to the next closest intersection. Exception to movement: players can move all dice with a value of one BEFORE any other dice movement, and dice with value of one or two may move in any direction – even diagonally.
To combine/upgrade dice players will need to move one die into the same intersection as an equal-valued die in order to combine into a die of value +1. Example: a four die and a four die combine to make a five die. Exception to combinations: a value one die may combine with a value three die (remember the exception from the previous paragraph?) to create a value four die.
To overtake an opponent’s die, a player simply moves a superior die onto an occupied intersection. Typically, a die of larger value can overtake any die of smaller value. Exceptions: nothing may overtake a four or five, and only a five can overtake a three. Three-value dice seem to be the superheros of DiTiC.
So after many back-and-forth turns of placing tiles and rolling dice or moving/combining/overtaking dice the winner is crowned once they have upgraded any die into a value six die.
Components. Again, this is a prototype version of the game, so I will comment on what I can. I think the game looks very nice, even in this stage of production. The icons on the tiles are clear – and THANK YOU for considering the colorblind gamer community by making each icon different by both color and art style. The dice are your typical d6 (and I do not know if there will be any changes made to these as a result of a successful campaign). The icons on the action die make sense and I really dig the laser-etched wooden design, and I kinda hope that detail makes it into the final product. But I prefer wooden dice to plastic every time. The game also came with a burlap bag to house and conceal the tiles, and coupled with the wooden dice makes a nice little natural organic combo. My only request for the final version of the game? Go crazy with the color scheme. Black, red, white, and blue are great colors, but fling out the purple and the gold and the orange and the aqua. But I’m no designer. It looks great as it is.
So like I said up top, I love abstracts. Surprisingly so. The more I play them the more I love them. And this game definitely adds to my love of the genre. The rules are kinda wacky, and the dice of different values each can do their own thing, and I think that’s really interesting. It’s not simply a game of moving big dice around eating all the little dice. I mean, you CAN do that, but you will not advance your own strategies. But there is an amount of take that in this game, from the action dice to the tile placement to the overtaking of dice, that will really appeal to lots of people. It’s not a big game, but it looks great on the table, and plays really well once you have immersed yourself in the rules. I really believe that the more I play it the more I will fall in love with it. In fact, as I type this I want to go home and play it right now. And that’s a mark of a good, if not great, game, isn’t it?
If you like abstract strategy games and have a little room for this small game in your collection (or better, MAKE some room for it) then you should definitely consider backing it on Kickstarter, or (depending on when you read this) picking it up at your FLGS.
So my original thought was to try to open this preview with a dastardly abstract statement to truly emphasize how theming is irrelevant with some activities. Not quite having done that, DiTiC is an abstract strategy game of “tile placement and dice-pawn” movement. How does it play? Read on.
In DiTiC the winner is the first player to upgrade one of their dice from a smaller-valued die into a value of six. Bring out smaller value dice and move them around the “board” to combine with other dice and win the game!
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a review copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know if the final components will be similar or different, or if the Kickstarter campaign will alter or add anything through stretch goals. -T
To setup a game of DiTiC, each player chooses a color of dice and takes all dice into their hand. The tile with “DiTiC START” on it is the, well, starting tile and is placed in the middle of the table. Roll off to see who goes first and you are ready to play!
On a turn a player may draw and place a tile or move one of their dice. Players start with zero dice on the board, so the first few turns will be drawing a tile from the bag and placing it on the board either side face-up. As you can see from the photos the tiles will have different colored (and shaped) corners. It’s when these corners complete an intersection of four tile corners that dice may enter the board. Depending on the color of the intersection’s majority control a die of said majority color comes into play on the value of the number of icons present. That’s a mouthful. So there are four corners to the intersection. If said intersection contains two red, a blue, and a black icon then red will place a die with value of two pips showing on that intersection. These dice may now be moved and combined with like-valued dice (with an exception). If a player has at least one die on the board when initiating this action, they may roll the action die after placement and complete any other actions the die result allows.
When a player decides instead to move, combine, or overtake a die, they simply move the die along the edge of a tile to the next closest intersection. Exception to movement: players can move all dice with a value of one BEFORE any other dice movement, and dice with value of one or two may move in any direction – even diagonally.
To combine/upgrade dice players will need to move one die into the same intersection as an equal-valued die in order to combine into a die of value +1. Example: a four die and a four die combine to make a five die. Exception to combinations: a value one die may combine with a value three die (remember the exception from the previous paragraph?) to create a value four die.
To overtake an opponent’s die, a player simply moves a superior die onto an occupied intersection. Typically, a die of larger value can overtake any die of smaller value. Exceptions: nothing may overtake a four or five, and only a five can overtake a three. Three-value dice seem to be the superheros of DiTiC.
So after many back-and-forth turns of placing tiles and rolling dice or moving/combining/overtaking dice the winner is crowned once they have upgraded any die into a value six die.
Components. Again, this is a prototype version of the game, so I will comment on what I can. I think the game looks very nice, even in this stage of production. The icons on the tiles are clear – and THANK YOU for considering the colorblind gamer community by making each icon different by both color and art style. The dice are your typical d6 (and I do not know if there will be any changes made to these as a result of a successful campaign). The icons on the action die make sense and I really dig the laser-etched wooden design, and I kinda hope that detail makes it into the final product. But I prefer wooden dice to plastic every time. The game also came with a burlap bag to house and conceal the tiles, and coupled with the wooden dice makes a nice little natural organic combo. My only request for the final version of the game? Go crazy with the color scheme. Black, red, white, and blue are great colors, but fling out the purple and the gold and the orange and the aqua. But I’m no designer. It looks great as it is.
So like I said up top, I love abstracts. Surprisingly so. The more I play them the more I love them. And this game definitely adds to my love of the genre. The rules are kinda wacky, and the dice of different values each can do their own thing, and I think that’s really interesting. It’s not simply a game of moving big dice around eating all the little dice. I mean, you CAN do that, but you will not advance your own strategies. But there is an amount of take that in this game, from the action dice to the tile placement to the overtaking of dice, that will really appeal to lots of people. It’s not a big game, but it looks great on the table, and plays really well once you have immersed yourself in the rules. I really believe that the more I play it the more I will fall in love with it. In fact, as I type this I want to go home and play it right now. And that’s a mark of a good, if not great, game, isn’t it?
If you like abstract strategy games and have a little room for this small game in your collection (or better, MAKE some room for it) then you should definitely consider backing it on Kickstarter, or (depending on when you read this) picking it up at your FLGS.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Expanse in TV
Sep 4, 2020 (Updated Feb 11, 2021)
In this particular future, where there exists a cold war tension between the splintered factions of humanity across the solar system, all is not well. Earthers, Dusters (Martians) and Skinnies (Belters) compete for resources and political strength in an ever shifting landscape of trust and betrayal. It is a sci-fi geek’s paradise, full of believable tech, an extensive character list and jargon coming out of the wazoo! It’s all very complicated… and season five just finished airing on Amazon Prime on Wednesday 3rd Feb, so I thought it a good time to talk about it in detail.
Based on the novel series by James S. A. Corey (actually the assumed name of collaborators Ty Franck and Daniel Abraham), which began in 2011 and has produced one book a year since, the TV version has been on the go since 2015, first at SyFy and then at Amazon after being cancelled unfairly, and to mass uproar from the fans, after Season three. It isn’t something you watch casually – either you are into it and make a point of obsessing about it, or you watch a few, feel completely lost and admit it isn’t for you; although you suspect it is good and you just didn’t make the effort to engage enough. Sci-fi this earnest can be like that: a little unforgiving to tourists and passers-by.
Personally, I went through 2 phases with it. The first was watching it late at night with autoplay on, falling in and out of sleep depending on how exciting what was happening was, missing a lot of the detail and feeling largely lost in space. The second was coming back to Season 4 recently (about 3 weeks ago), after taking in a full recap of the story, and becoming a true fan that couldn’t get enough of the complex web of storylines, motives and personalities. Catching up enough to have to wait a week between episodes for the last 4 weeks, which has been tremendously rewarding.
Not that I had a major problem with it from the start. I thought it had a great look and a great mood about it, but lacked some star quality in the cast and was fairly opaque storywise. It always had potential. It was a question of whether you could be bothered to invest in that, knowing that it may go nowhere or even get cancelled very quickly – the TV universe is not known for being kind to sci-fi, as die-hard fans of Firefly still weep about regularly, and quite correctly.
In season one you watch it for the only person onboard that you have heard of, namely Thomas Jane (from The Mist and The Punisher) as det. Joe Miller, a cynical sleuth complete with a great anachronistic hat, who gets wrapped up in a mystery so mysterious it is often hard to work out what he is doing at all, and why… he literally comes and goes, for reasons that become apparent in later seasons. A frustrating and yet fascinating entity that must have been a real test to get right.
The show’s main cast also take a lot of time to warm up, to the point where you wonder who they are and whether they will be in it for long? Steven Strait, Dominique Tipper, Wes Chatham and Cas Anvar, as the ragtag collective of a small ship (they eventually name The Rocinante) that finds itself at the centre of a huge political shitstorm as the last bastion of impartial hope and moral reasoning, exude such little charisma at first it all seems doomed to fail. But, something magical begins to happen, by virtue of being in their presence a lot – you start to care. And the more you care the more the subsequent events have the power to stun you sideways!
More than anything else I can think of in recent years, this is a show that rewards patient investment. You will have definite moments of wanting to quit or take a long break, but the more faith you show in it, the more it will reward you in the long run. For me it was the climax of season 3 when I realised I was 100% into it, and that everything that had happened to that point was now starting to make sense in a larger context. Basically, what you think this is and what you assume it is about early doors, is not where it ends up. It goes somewhere way better!
Perhaps because it has the support of the book series as inspiration, the writing and story arc feels stronger and stronger in time. There are to date 9 books, so there is still scope to let this run for a good few years. And it does start to feel like there is a point where it will all completely tie together. Anyway, I am rambling as much as an average episode seems to do here. The point is, there is something right on the tightrope edge of classic or near miss going on with this. The cast have all really grown into their skins and personalities, and there are some moments in seasons 4 & 5 that left me jaw dropped at their dramatic weight!
Look, this isn’t going to be for everyone. It is very easy to say “I don’t get it” and move on with this show, but I am a sci-fi veteran , if not full geek, and I now absolutely love it. Cult status then is what we are talking about here. There will be a good wait for season six now, but the cliffhanger is mouth-watering, so I am in! It’s far from impossible they will ruin the vibe at some point and it will all fall flat… or, it could become the stuff of legend. I’ll be there to find out either way. No chance I am doing 5 seasons of something to drop out at that point.
Take away the space and the spaceships and this is a story about division and rights, and the hard work it takes to meet a diplomatic solution to the many differences and grievances that exist between different tribes and factions. What will some do to gain power? What will others do to ensure freedom and justice? How easy is it to waste life in the name of a cause? Oh, yeah and there’s also the little detail of an ancient alien civilisation that have been leaving tech and artifacts all over the solar system for us to fight over and try to control. As I say, the main story element of it all still feels like a partial mystery, and I love that!
Based on the novel series by James S. A. Corey (actually the assumed name of collaborators Ty Franck and Daniel Abraham), which began in 2011 and has produced one book a year since, the TV version has been on the go since 2015, first at SyFy and then at Amazon after being cancelled unfairly, and to mass uproar from the fans, after Season three. It isn’t something you watch casually – either you are into it and make a point of obsessing about it, or you watch a few, feel completely lost and admit it isn’t for you; although you suspect it is good and you just didn’t make the effort to engage enough. Sci-fi this earnest can be like that: a little unforgiving to tourists and passers-by.
Personally, I went through 2 phases with it. The first was watching it late at night with autoplay on, falling in and out of sleep depending on how exciting what was happening was, missing a lot of the detail and feeling largely lost in space. The second was coming back to Season 4 recently (about 3 weeks ago), after taking in a full recap of the story, and becoming a true fan that couldn’t get enough of the complex web of storylines, motives and personalities. Catching up enough to have to wait a week between episodes for the last 4 weeks, which has been tremendously rewarding.
Not that I had a major problem with it from the start. I thought it had a great look and a great mood about it, but lacked some star quality in the cast and was fairly opaque storywise. It always had potential. It was a question of whether you could be bothered to invest in that, knowing that it may go nowhere or even get cancelled very quickly – the TV universe is not known for being kind to sci-fi, as die-hard fans of Firefly still weep about regularly, and quite correctly.
In season one you watch it for the only person onboard that you have heard of, namely Thomas Jane (from The Mist and The Punisher) as det. Joe Miller, a cynical sleuth complete with a great anachronistic hat, who gets wrapped up in a mystery so mysterious it is often hard to work out what he is doing at all, and why… he literally comes and goes, for reasons that become apparent in later seasons. A frustrating and yet fascinating entity that must have been a real test to get right.
The show’s main cast also take a lot of time to warm up, to the point where you wonder who they are and whether they will be in it for long? Steven Strait, Dominique Tipper, Wes Chatham and Cas Anvar, as the ragtag collective of a small ship (they eventually name The Rocinante) that finds itself at the centre of a huge political shitstorm as the last bastion of impartial hope and moral reasoning, exude such little charisma at first it all seems doomed to fail. But, something magical begins to happen, by virtue of being in their presence a lot – you start to care. And the more you care the more the subsequent events have the power to stun you sideways!
More than anything else I can think of in recent years, this is a show that rewards patient investment. You will have definite moments of wanting to quit or take a long break, but the more faith you show in it, the more it will reward you in the long run. For me it was the climax of season 3 when I realised I was 100% into it, and that everything that had happened to that point was now starting to make sense in a larger context. Basically, what you think this is and what you assume it is about early doors, is not where it ends up. It goes somewhere way better!
Perhaps because it has the support of the book series as inspiration, the writing and story arc feels stronger and stronger in time. There are to date 9 books, so there is still scope to let this run for a good few years. And it does start to feel like there is a point where it will all completely tie together. Anyway, I am rambling as much as an average episode seems to do here. The point is, there is something right on the tightrope edge of classic or near miss going on with this. The cast have all really grown into their skins and personalities, and there are some moments in seasons 4 & 5 that left me jaw dropped at their dramatic weight!
Look, this isn’t going to be for everyone. It is very easy to say “I don’t get it” and move on with this show, but I am a sci-fi veteran , if not full geek, and I now absolutely love it. Cult status then is what we are talking about here. There will be a good wait for season six now, but the cliffhanger is mouth-watering, so I am in! It’s far from impossible they will ruin the vibe at some point and it will all fall flat… or, it could become the stuff of legend. I’ll be there to find out either way. No chance I am doing 5 seasons of something to drop out at that point.
Take away the space and the spaceships and this is a story about division and rights, and the hard work it takes to meet a diplomatic solution to the many differences and grievances that exist between different tribes and factions. What will some do to gain power? What will others do to ensure freedom and justice? How easy is it to waste life in the name of a cause? Oh, yeah and there’s also the little detail of an ancient alien civilisation that have been leaving tech and artifacts all over the solar system for us to fight over and try to control. As I say, the main story element of it all still feels like a partial mystery, and I love that!
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?
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Darkest Hour (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Not buggering it up.
As Doctor Who repeatedly points out, time is most definitely a tricksy thing. As I think I’ve commented on before, the events of 1940-45 are not in my lifetime but were sufficiently fresh to my parents that they were still actively talked about… so they still appear “current” to me. But I find it astonishing to realize that to a teen viewer this film is equivalent in timeframe to the sinking of the Titanic! #ancienthistory! So I suspect your connection to this film will be strongly affected by your age, and that was definitely reflected in the average age at my showing which must have been at least 60.
It’s 1940 and Western Europe is under siege. Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup, “The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“) is the Conservative Prime Minister but is voted out of office in an attempt to form a grand coalition government with Labour leader Clement Atlee (David Schofield). Despite appearing a shoe-in for the role, Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) turns it down, thinking that his alternative (and bête noire) would drink from the poisoned chalice and be quickly be out of his (and Chamberlain’s) hair. For that alternative choice is the volatile and unpredictable Churchill (Gary Oldman), grudgingly invited into the job by King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“). With the Nazi’s bearing down on the 300,000 encircled troops at Dunkirk, and with calls from his war cabinet to capitulate and seek terms of settlement, this is indeed both Churchill’s, and the country’s, ‘darkest hour’.
Despite the woeful lack of historical knowledge among today’s youngsters, most will be at least aware of the story of Dunkirk, with many having absorbed Christopher Nolan’s film of last summer. This film is almost the matching bookend to that film, showing the terrifying behind-closed-door events that led up to that miracle. For it was terrifying seeing how close Britain came to the brink, and I’m not sure even I really appreciated that before. While this might have been a “thriller” if it had been a fictional story, we well know the outcome of the story: but even with this knowledge I still found the film to be extremely tense and claustrophobic as the net draws in around Churchill’s firmly-held beliefs.
Gary Oldman’s performance is extraordinary, and his award nominations are well-deserved. We have grown so used to some of his more over-the-top Russian portrayals in films like “Air Force One” and last year’s (pretty poor) “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” that it is easy to forget what a nuanced and flexible actor he is. Ever since that “No, surely not!” moment of that first glimpse of the film’s trailer, it has almost been impossible to ‘see’ Oldman behind the brilliant make-up of the character (Kazuhiro Tsuji gets a special credit for it). But his eyes are in there, and there are some extreme close-ups (for example, during a bizarre and tense phone call with Roosevelt (David Strathairn)) when you suddenly see “There you are!”.
The supportive wife – Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas) gives Winston (Gary Oldman) a hug.
While I have nothing against Brian Cox as an actor, I far prefer the portrayal of Churchill on show here compared to last year’s “Churchill“: true that that film was set three or four stressful years later, but Cox’s Churchill was portrayed as an incompetent fool, an embarrassment to the establishment that have to work around him. Oldman’s Churchill is irascible, unreasonable, but undeniably a leader and a great orator.
Mirroring “Churchill” though, the action is seen through the eyes of Churchill’s put-upon secretary, here played delightfully by Lily James (“Downton Abbey”, “Baby Driver“) who perfectly looks and sounds the part. The character is more successful than that of Ella Purnell’s Garrett in that she is given more room to develop her character and for the audience to warm to her. Oldman is getting all the kudos, but Lily James really deserves some for her touching and engaging performance here.
Perfectly cast: Lily James as Churchill’s secretary Elizabeth Layton.
Also in Oldman’s shadow is the always marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “The English Patient”) as Clemmie Churchill, expressing all the love and frustration associated with being a long-suffering wife to an over-worked husband in the public service.
At the pen is “The Theory of Everything” writer Anthony McCarten, and I’d like to say its a great script but with most of the best lines (“a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – LoL) coming from Winston himself it’s difficult to tell. Some of the scenes can get a bit laborious and at 125 minutes – though not long by any means – the script could still perhaps have had a nip and tuck here and there.
Where some of this time is well spent though is in some sedate shots of London street life, across two separate scenes panning across everyday folk as the stresses of war start to become more evident. This is just one of the areas where director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride and Prejudice”) shows considerable panache, ably assisted by the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (“Inside Llewyn Davis“): a boy closes his telescope-fingers around Churchill’s plane; a bomb’s eye-view of the beleaguered Brigadier Nicholson in Calais; and – very impressively – the smoky imperiousness of the House of Commons set.
An atmospheric chamber: the recreation of the wartime House of Commons is spectacular (with production design by Sarah Greenwood (“Anna Karenina”, “Atonement”)).
And most-importantly Wright delivers what Christopher Nolan couldn’t deliver in “Dunkirk“: a properly CGI’d vista of hundred of small boats crossing the channel to Dunkirk. Now THAT is a scene that Kenneth Branagh could justly have looked in awe at!!!
There are a number of scenes that require disbelief to be suspended though: the biggest one being a tube train ride – very moving and effective I must say – but one that features the longest journey between any two stations on the District Line than has ever been experienced!
One stop on the District Line via Westminster…. via Harrow-on-the-Hill!
So this is a great film for really reliving a knife-edge moment in British history, and is highly recommended particularly for older viewers. If I’m honest though, between “Darkest Hour”, “Churchill” and John Lithgow’s excellent portrayal in “The Crown” I’m all over portrayals of the great man for a few years. Can we please move on now Hollywood?
It’s 1940 and Western Europe is under siege. Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup, “The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“) is the Conservative Prime Minister but is voted out of office in an attempt to form a grand coalition government with Labour leader Clement Atlee (David Schofield). Despite appearing a shoe-in for the role, Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) turns it down, thinking that his alternative (and bête noire) would drink from the poisoned chalice and be quickly be out of his (and Chamberlain’s) hair. For that alternative choice is the volatile and unpredictable Churchill (Gary Oldman), grudgingly invited into the job by King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“). With the Nazi’s bearing down on the 300,000 encircled troops at Dunkirk, and with calls from his war cabinet to capitulate and seek terms of settlement, this is indeed both Churchill’s, and the country’s, ‘darkest hour’.
Despite the woeful lack of historical knowledge among today’s youngsters, most will be at least aware of the story of Dunkirk, with many having absorbed Christopher Nolan’s film of last summer. This film is almost the matching bookend to that film, showing the terrifying behind-closed-door events that led up to that miracle. For it was terrifying seeing how close Britain came to the brink, and I’m not sure even I really appreciated that before. While this might have been a “thriller” if it had been a fictional story, we well know the outcome of the story: but even with this knowledge I still found the film to be extremely tense and claustrophobic as the net draws in around Churchill’s firmly-held beliefs.
Gary Oldman’s performance is extraordinary, and his award nominations are well-deserved. We have grown so used to some of his more over-the-top Russian portrayals in films like “Air Force One” and last year’s (pretty poor) “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” that it is easy to forget what a nuanced and flexible actor he is. Ever since that “No, surely not!” moment of that first glimpse of the film’s trailer, it has almost been impossible to ‘see’ Oldman behind the brilliant make-up of the character (Kazuhiro Tsuji gets a special credit for it). But his eyes are in there, and there are some extreme close-ups (for example, during a bizarre and tense phone call with Roosevelt (David Strathairn)) when you suddenly see “There you are!”.
The supportive wife – Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas) gives Winston (Gary Oldman) a hug.
While I have nothing against Brian Cox as an actor, I far prefer the portrayal of Churchill on show here compared to last year’s “Churchill“: true that that film was set three or four stressful years later, but Cox’s Churchill was portrayed as an incompetent fool, an embarrassment to the establishment that have to work around him. Oldman’s Churchill is irascible, unreasonable, but undeniably a leader and a great orator.
Mirroring “Churchill” though, the action is seen through the eyes of Churchill’s put-upon secretary, here played delightfully by Lily James (“Downton Abbey”, “Baby Driver“) who perfectly looks and sounds the part. The character is more successful than that of Ella Purnell’s Garrett in that she is given more room to develop her character and for the audience to warm to her. Oldman is getting all the kudos, but Lily James really deserves some for her touching and engaging performance here.
Perfectly cast: Lily James as Churchill’s secretary Elizabeth Layton.
Also in Oldman’s shadow is the always marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “The English Patient”) as Clemmie Churchill, expressing all the love and frustration associated with being a long-suffering wife to an over-worked husband in the public service.
At the pen is “The Theory of Everything” writer Anthony McCarten, and I’d like to say its a great script but with most of the best lines (“a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – LoL) coming from Winston himself it’s difficult to tell. Some of the scenes can get a bit laborious and at 125 minutes – though not long by any means – the script could still perhaps have had a nip and tuck here and there.
Where some of this time is well spent though is in some sedate shots of London street life, across two separate scenes panning across everyday folk as the stresses of war start to become more evident. This is just one of the areas where director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride and Prejudice”) shows considerable panache, ably assisted by the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (“Inside Llewyn Davis“): a boy closes his telescope-fingers around Churchill’s plane; a bomb’s eye-view of the beleaguered Brigadier Nicholson in Calais; and – very impressively – the smoky imperiousness of the House of Commons set.
An atmospheric chamber: the recreation of the wartime House of Commons is spectacular (with production design by Sarah Greenwood (“Anna Karenina”, “Atonement”)).
And most-importantly Wright delivers what Christopher Nolan couldn’t deliver in “Dunkirk“: a properly CGI’d vista of hundred of small boats crossing the channel to Dunkirk. Now THAT is a scene that Kenneth Branagh could justly have looked in awe at!!!
There are a number of scenes that require disbelief to be suspended though: the biggest one being a tube train ride – very moving and effective I must say – but one that features the longest journey between any two stations on the District Line than has ever been experienced!
One stop on the District Line via Westminster…. via Harrow-on-the-Hill!
So this is a great film for really reliving a knife-edge moment in British history, and is highly recommended particularly for older viewers. If I’m honest though, between “Darkest Hour”, “Churchill” and John Lithgow’s excellent portrayal in “The Crown” I’m all over portrayals of the great man for a few years. Can we please move on now Hollywood?