Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Comedian (2017) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
Welcome to the year 2017 …. Another year which promises to bring you HUGE blockbuster theatrical releases including long awaited sequels, groundbreaking independent films, and breakout performances from some of cinemas great veterans as well as its rookie newcomers!
Alright … alright … that’s your standard P.R. HYPE. Not that it’s entirely untrue but let’s face it, we all have a pretty good idea as to what’s in store for us this year am I right?
Today’s film is amongst 2016s ‘leftovers’ if you will. No that that’s a bad thing. Example … leftover pizza. I don’t know one individual who doesn’t like leftover pizza. You can think of this film as such.
The selection we present to you is the dramatic comedy ‘The Comedians’. The latest from film legend Robert De Niro. The film premiered at the AFI Fest on November 11th and will be released in theaters on February 3rd. Directed by Taylor Hackford (An Officer And A Gentleman, RAY) and written by Lewis Friedman, comedian Jeff Ross, Art Linson, and Richard LaGravenese (The Fisher King) the film features an all star cast including Robert DeNiro, Leslie Mann, Harvey Keitel, Danny DeVito, Veronica Ferres, Patti LuPone, Edie Falco, Cloris Leachman, Charles Gordin, Jim Norton, Gilbert Gottfried, Jimmie Walker, Brett Butler, Lois Smith, Happy Anderson, Hannibal Buress, and an appearance by Billy Crystal.
DeNiro is Jack ‘Jackie’ Burke. A comedic legend best known for his iconic T.V. role decades before who has spent the years since then attempting to reinvent himself as an ‘insult’ comic. Despite rave performances and praise from fans and his fellow comedians, he is still frustrated that he cannot escape from the shadow of his television career and the mistakes he made during those years as a husband, father, and brother. During a performance at a comedy club on the outskirts of New York City he berates a husband and wife in the audience who are filming him for their internet show without his permission and later attacks the husband. At his court hearing, he is offered a plea deal but upon learning that part of the plea involves apologizing to the husband and wife he openly berates them in the courtroom and is sentenced to 30 days in jail plus community service. Once out of jail, Jackie begins his community service serving meals to the homeless while fine tuning his act at a local church. However, since he has not worked and has no money he pays a call upon his estranged brother whom he has not visited in ages to ask for a loan.
Jackie’s brother agrees but only if Jackie will appear at his niece’s wedding. Late one evening at the church he meets Harmony (Mann) whom is also serving community service for assault and battery. Shortly after, Harmony and Jackie make the rounds at some of the New York comedy clubs where Jackie is still ‘welcome’ after which Jackie proposes a trade of sorts, Harmony will be Jackie’s date to his niece’s wedding if Jackie will appear at the dinner to celebrate the birthday of Harmony’s father (Keitel) who is a huge fan of Jackie’s television persona. At the wedding, Jackie performed a variation of his stand-up act to the delight of his niece and her fiancé while simultaneously offending the majority of the other family members. A few days later, Jackie accompanies Harmony to her father’s birthday dinner only to become aggravated when Harmony’s father insists Jackie reenact his T.V. character’s. Jackie responds by sarcastically professing his intentions to sleep with Harmony. Without giving everything away, what follows is a re-awakening of sorts in which Jackie comes to terms with the inevitability that he will always be known for the one role he tries so desperately to get away from and realizes that if he wants to distances himself from it, he’s going to have to embrace the character.
Despite the all star cast and the fact there were indeed many laughs in the film, it was honestly a waste at the end. This could’ve been an amazing film but it was lacking in its story. The script just didn’t have the ‘heart’ to combine with the premise and the great performances given by the actors. It’s not that they didn’t try, the film just failed to measure up. The acting was great, the directing was good, and there were indeed a few laughs here and there …. it just didn’t have any life to it. Heaven forbid I criticize a DeNiro film, but I can’t give this one more than two out of five stars. I REALLY wanted to like the film, I just didn’t. If it shows up in your digital cable package, go ahead and give it a try. Rent it on iTunes even. Honestly though, I can’t see myself buying the movie.
Alright … alright … that’s your standard P.R. HYPE. Not that it’s entirely untrue but let’s face it, we all have a pretty good idea as to what’s in store for us this year am I right?
Today’s film is amongst 2016s ‘leftovers’ if you will. No that that’s a bad thing. Example … leftover pizza. I don’t know one individual who doesn’t like leftover pizza. You can think of this film as such.
The selection we present to you is the dramatic comedy ‘The Comedians’. The latest from film legend Robert De Niro. The film premiered at the AFI Fest on November 11th and will be released in theaters on February 3rd. Directed by Taylor Hackford (An Officer And A Gentleman, RAY) and written by Lewis Friedman, comedian Jeff Ross, Art Linson, and Richard LaGravenese (The Fisher King) the film features an all star cast including Robert DeNiro, Leslie Mann, Harvey Keitel, Danny DeVito, Veronica Ferres, Patti LuPone, Edie Falco, Cloris Leachman, Charles Gordin, Jim Norton, Gilbert Gottfried, Jimmie Walker, Brett Butler, Lois Smith, Happy Anderson, Hannibal Buress, and an appearance by Billy Crystal.
DeNiro is Jack ‘Jackie’ Burke. A comedic legend best known for his iconic T.V. role decades before who has spent the years since then attempting to reinvent himself as an ‘insult’ comic. Despite rave performances and praise from fans and his fellow comedians, he is still frustrated that he cannot escape from the shadow of his television career and the mistakes he made during those years as a husband, father, and brother. During a performance at a comedy club on the outskirts of New York City he berates a husband and wife in the audience who are filming him for their internet show without his permission and later attacks the husband. At his court hearing, he is offered a plea deal but upon learning that part of the plea involves apologizing to the husband and wife he openly berates them in the courtroom and is sentenced to 30 days in jail plus community service. Once out of jail, Jackie begins his community service serving meals to the homeless while fine tuning his act at a local church. However, since he has not worked and has no money he pays a call upon his estranged brother whom he has not visited in ages to ask for a loan.
Jackie’s brother agrees but only if Jackie will appear at his niece’s wedding. Late one evening at the church he meets Harmony (Mann) whom is also serving community service for assault and battery. Shortly after, Harmony and Jackie make the rounds at some of the New York comedy clubs where Jackie is still ‘welcome’ after which Jackie proposes a trade of sorts, Harmony will be Jackie’s date to his niece’s wedding if Jackie will appear at the dinner to celebrate the birthday of Harmony’s father (Keitel) who is a huge fan of Jackie’s television persona. At the wedding, Jackie performed a variation of his stand-up act to the delight of his niece and her fiancé while simultaneously offending the majority of the other family members. A few days later, Jackie accompanies Harmony to her father’s birthday dinner only to become aggravated when Harmony’s father insists Jackie reenact his T.V. character’s. Jackie responds by sarcastically professing his intentions to sleep with Harmony. Without giving everything away, what follows is a re-awakening of sorts in which Jackie comes to terms with the inevitability that he will always be known for the one role he tries so desperately to get away from and realizes that if he wants to distances himself from it, he’s going to have to embrace the character.
Despite the all star cast and the fact there were indeed many laughs in the film, it was honestly a waste at the end. This could’ve been an amazing film but it was lacking in its story. The script just didn’t have the ‘heart’ to combine with the premise and the great performances given by the actors. It’s not that they didn’t try, the film just failed to measure up. The acting was great, the directing was good, and there were indeed a few laughs here and there …. it just didn’t have any life to it. Heaven forbid I criticize a DeNiro film, but I can’t give this one more than two out of five stars. I REALLY wanted to like the film, I just didn’t. If it shows up in your digital cable package, go ahead and give it a try. Rent it on iTunes even. Honestly though, I can’t see myself buying the movie.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Crazy Rich Asians (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Crazy Rich Asians, Kevin Kwan’s romantic comedy has been delivered to the theaters with all of the glamour and glitz portrayed in the bestselling novel. This film features an all Asian Cast, a rarity, since the last American studio film to feature that was Joy Luck Club 25 years ago. This movie marks the first time Asians are cast as leads in a romantic comedy.
Rachel Chu’s (Constance Wu) journey to meet her boyfriend Nick Young’s (Henry Golding) family could be a bit of a fish out of water tale. Rachel is the daughter of a Chinese single mother who immigrated to America. Being an economics professor at NYU, is pretty prestigious accomplishment and Rachel loves what she does. She has been seeing Nick for over a year. He has his best friend’s wedding in Singapore and suggests that Rachel comes along to meet his friends and family.
Nick is from a well off family, a subject that he had never mentioned before. The first thing that tips her off is the treatment that they receive on the plane. When Rachel finds out that his family is well off, it does not change their relationship. However, she still does not realize how extensive the family finances are and is definitely not aware of the social status of the Youngs.
Singapore in all of its crisp and elegant beauty is a character in itself. We are taken to the many sites on the island as it is shown to Rachel. From the moment the couple arrive, they are met at the airport by Colin Khoo (Chris Pang), Nick’s best friend the groom and Araminta Lee (Sonoya Mizuno) the bride. They are taken to one of the Hawker’s Centre full of stalls, each specializing in a handful of dishes, some with a Michelin Star. We see an incredible smorgasbord in a quick cut of food porn. Nothing in Rachel’s first taste of town indicates the opulence that is to come.
Rachel goes to see Piek Goh(Awkwafina), her roommate during college. The Goh family is “new wealth” and we see the gilded display throughout to the point of excess. We meet Piek’s parents , Neenah (Chieng Mun Koh) and Wye Mun (Ken Jeong, bringing his brand of weird, creepy and awkward as Piek’s dad). The Gohs welcome Rachel with such warmth and treats her like family. This is where she learns how affluent and respected the Young’s are in Singapore. Piek takes it upon herself to provide her best friend with a fabulous suit of armor and education in order to survive the introduction to the world of the Youngs.
Meeting the Youngs is comparable to being introduced to the Royal Family of Singapore and Rachel was not aware of the social graces that are expected in the circles of the crazy rich. You can see that she is not accustomed to the superabundance that she is witnesses and is a little overwhelmed in trying to adapt. As Nick introduces her to his mother Eleanor (Michelle Yeoh), Rachel immediately gleams that his mother does not like her. Thus begins the power play between them. Eleanor doesn’t think that Rachel is an appropriate candidate to be the future Mrs. Young and Rachel wants to be accepted as she is and now feels the need to prove that she is good enough for Nick.
The only member of Nick’s family that Rachel has met is Astrid Young Teo (Gemma Chan) his cousin. If Eleanor is the Queen, then Astrid is the princess. She doesn’t walk, she glides. The societal cognoscenti hold her in high esteem. The women want to have her style and the men want to have her. With all the grace and beauty, she reigns in the land of the crazy rich. Rachel liked her some much that she says Astrid is who she wants to be when she grows up. Those who think that her life golden, is unaware that she has her own problems.
We are introduced to the wedding party and the extensive lavishness of the super rich of Asia. It may seem ridiculous and an exaggeration, but the lifestyle of the crazy rich and Asian is based on reality. As Rachel carefully steps through the social landmines that have appeared, she becomes more confident in her own ability and recognizes the game and how to play it.
I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, I wanted to see it again to catch all the things that I did not soak in from the first viewing. The story has a great balance of comedy and drama with Ken Jeong and Awkwafina gifting us with hilarious one liners and Constance Wu playing the confident woman learning how to find her footing. Henry Golding does exceptionally well on his first ever feature film, playing the man who has found love outside of the world of the Crazy Rich Asians.
This is an excellent romantic comedy that is served on a golden platter. Jon M. Chu has delivered a wonderfully delicious story that deserve to be watched over and over again. If you are a fan of the romantic comedy genre, take the time with this gem of a movie.
Rachel Chu’s (Constance Wu) journey to meet her boyfriend Nick Young’s (Henry Golding) family could be a bit of a fish out of water tale. Rachel is the daughter of a Chinese single mother who immigrated to America. Being an economics professor at NYU, is pretty prestigious accomplishment and Rachel loves what she does. She has been seeing Nick for over a year. He has his best friend’s wedding in Singapore and suggests that Rachel comes along to meet his friends and family.
Nick is from a well off family, a subject that he had never mentioned before. The first thing that tips her off is the treatment that they receive on the plane. When Rachel finds out that his family is well off, it does not change their relationship. However, she still does not realize how extensive the family finances are and is definitely not aware of the social status of the Youngs.
Singapore in all of its crisp and elegant beauty is a character in itself. We are taken to the many sites on the island as it is shown to Rachel. From the moment the couple arrive, they are met at the airport by Colin Khoo (Chris Pang), Nick’s best friend the groom and Araminta Lee (Sonoya Mizuno) the bride. They are taken to one of the Hawker’s Centre full of stalls, each specializing in a handful of dishes, some with a Michelin Star. We see an incredible smorgasbord in a quick cut of food porn. Nothing in Rachel’s first taste of town indicates the opulence that is to come.
Rachel goes to see Piek Goh(Awkwafina), her roommate during college. The Goh family is “new wealth” and we see the gilded display throughout to the point of excess. We meet Piek’s parents , Neenah (Chieng Mun Koh) and Wye Mun (Ken Jeong, bringing his brand of weird, creepy and awkward as Piek’s dad). The Gohs welcome Rachel with such warmth and treats her like family. This is where she learns how affluent and respected the Young’s are in Singapore. Piek takes it upon herself to provide her best friend with a fabulous suit of armor and education in order to survive the introduction to the world of the Youngs.
Meeting the Youngs is comparable to being introduced to the Royal Family of Singapore and Rachel was not aware of the social graces that are expected in the circles of the crazy rich. You can see that she is not accustomed to the superabundance that she is witnesses and is a little overwhelmed in trying to adapt. As Nick introduces her to his mother Eleanor (Michelle Yeoh), Rachel immediately gleams that his mother does not like her. Thus begins the power play between them. Eleanor doesn’t think that Rachel is an appropriate candidate to be the future Mrs. Young and Rachel wants to be accepted as she is and now feels the need to prove that she is good enough for Nick.
The only member of Nick’s family that Rachel has met is Astrid Young Teo (Gemma Chan) his cousin. If Eleanor is the Queen, then Astrid is the princess. She doesn’t walk, she glides. The societal cognoscenti hold her in high esteem. The women want to have her style and the men want to have her. With all the grace and beauty, she reigns in the land of the crazy rich. Rachel liked her some much that she says Astrid is who she wants to be when she grows up. Those who think that her life golden, is unaware that she has her own problems.
We are introduced to the wedding party and the extensive lavishness of the super rich of Asia. It may seem ridiculous and an exaggeration, but the lifestyle of the crazy rich and Asian is based on reality. As Rachel carefully steps through the social landmines that have appeared, she becomes more confident in her own ability and recognizes the game and how to play it.
I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, I wanted to see it again to catch all the things that I did not soak in from the first viewing. The story has a great balance of comedy and drama with Ken Jeong and Awkwafina gifting us with hilarious one liners and Constance Wu playing the confident woman learning how to find her footing. Henry Golding does exceptionally well on his first ever feature film, playing the man who has found love outside of the world of the Crazy Rich Asians.
This is an excellent romantic comedy that is served on a golden platter. Jon M. Chu has delivered a wonderfully delicious story that deserve to be watched over and over again. If you are a fan of the romantic comedy genre, take the time with this gem of a movie.
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb in Books
Apr 13, 2019
"The crime itself was indefensible. The brilliant, spoiled and bored sons of two of Chicago's wealthiest families planned to commit the perfect crime both for the thrill of and to prove their perverse misunderstanding of Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy of the 'superman,' who was above all law so long as he made no mistake. Their plan, worked out over several months, was to kidnap and immediately kill one of their younger neighbors and hide his body. They would then demand and collect a ransom. The body would never be discovered, the crime would never be solved and only they would know that they had prevailed over ordinary human beings and their simple-minded legal system. But far from being the 'perfect crime,' the murder of 14-year-old Bobby Franks turned out to be amateurishly botched. Before any ransom could be paid, the boy's body was discovered in a culvert near where Nathan Leopold often went bird-watching. A pair of telltale glasses were found adjacent to the body. They were easily traced to Leopold who first came up with a paper-thin alibi and soon thereafter confessed to the crime. His fellow murderer likewise confessed. Each of the 'superboys' placed blame for the actual killing on the other." - Alan M. Dershowitz
If you mentioned the names Leopold and Loeb today, many people wouldn't know who you were talking about, but if you had mentioned them just thirty years ago, many people would recall the 'murder of the century.'
If you are a fan of the True Crime genre, you'll come across the case of two wealthy Chicago boys who thought they could get away with murder. (The trial is probably the most talked about trial to-date because this is the first time that psychology was brought before a court room.)
For a good part of the late 1920's, Leopold and Loeb were household names for good reason: they came from millionaire families, they were college graduates before they were 18-years-old, and their trial was the first time in history that the world saw psychology put in front of a judge. The trial was even more unforgettable due to a closing speech given by famous defense attorney, Clarence Darrow, which is reprinted in its entirety,spanning a hefty 93 pages.
Nathan Leopold, Jr. and Richard Loeb were two people who should have never met, according to the courtroom. The two met at about the age of fifteen, soon after they began to embark on criminal acts together, ranging from theft to arson. It's stated in 'the Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb' that Loeb had created a fantasy world where he was a crime ringleader that was too smart for the police to catch. Readers get to judge for themselves whether or not they believe Loeb was the cause of their crimes, or if Leopold was the one really in charge.
After robbing Loeb's fraternity house together, Leopold and Loeb came up with a plan to kidnap a wealthy child that they could then ransom. "They began to devise elaborate plans for this kidnapping, and soon the planning became the all-important thing. They gave up the idea of kidnapping this particular person [a young man named William], and settled on the idea of kidnapping anyone who would fit in their kidnapping plans." Throughout the book, we find out that the boys were pretty desperate for a kidnapping victim, that they even thought about kidnapping one of their close friends:
"The plan of kidnaping Dick Rubel was given up because Dick Rubel's father was so tight we might not get any money from him."
Leopold and Loeb discussed everything from how they would receive the ransom, what weapons they would use, how they would get the victim inside a rented vehicle, and what they would do with the body afterwards. "In March, 1924, the patient [Loeb] conceived the idea of securing the money by having it thrown off a moving train. This idea was discussed in great detail, and gradually developed into a carefully systematized plan. As time wore on the plan became greatly modified from the original one. They discussed at considerable length the choice of a suitable subject for kidnapping. The patient's companion [Leopold] suggested that they kidnap a young girl instead of a boy, but the patient [Loeb] objected to this. His companion [Leopold] also suggested that they kidnap the patient's [Loeb] younger brother, but the patient apparently did not seriously consider doing this. They then considered half a dozen boys, any one of whom would do, for the following reasons: that they were physically small enough to be easily handled and their parents were extremely wealthy and would have no difficulty or disinclination to pay ransom money."
During the trial, Leopold and Loeb's psychological evaluations became the forefront of their guilty plea, stating that they were not responsible for their actions due to their upbringing and environment. "I submit the facts do not rest on the evidence of these boys alone. It is proven by the writings; it is proven by every act. It is proven by their companions, and there can by no question about it." Clarence Darrow explains in his famous closing statement. "We brought into this courtroom a number of their boy friends, whom they had known day by day, who had associated with them in the club house, were their constant companions, and they tell the same stories. They tell the story that neither of these two boys was responsible for his conduct."
'The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb' contains the portions of the psychiatric evaluations that were submitted in court,but the testimony of character witnesses is omitted. For a factual telling of a real life trial, this book is okay. If the reader pays attention, they may notice that some of the book contradicts itself, such as one page states that the car robe used to wrap up Franks' body was found buried near Lake Michigan,but then pages later, the book states it had been burned at Loeb's home.
The psychiatric reports are very repetitive,just using different words to describe the same things. Yet, these reports are the backbone of the trial and well worth a read. The evaluations and Darrow's extensive speech were what saved Leopold and Loeb from a death sentence.
There are very few books written about the 'murder of the century,' and even less about the 'lawyer of the century.' Leopold and Loeb, as well as Darrow, have faded into the obscurity of the True Crime genre, but because the boys' mental state was brought into question, we now accept forensic science/psychology in the court room today. I feel that only people who are truly interested in True Crime, or even have a fascination for the court room are the only ones who will enjoy 'The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb.'
If you mentioned the names Leopold and Loeb today, many people wouldn't know who you were talking about, but if you had mentioned them just thirty years ago, many people would recall the 'murder of the century.'
If you are a fan of the True Crime genre, you'll come across the case of two wealthy Chicago boys who thought they could get away with murder. (The trial is probably the most talked about trial to-date because this is the first time that psychology was brought before a court room.)
For a good part of the late 1920's, Leopold and Loeb were household names for good reason: they came from millionaire families, they were college graduates before they were 18-years-old, and their trial was the first time in history that the world saw psychology put in front of a judge. The trial was even more unforgettable due to a closing speech given by famous defense attorney, Clarence Darrow, which is reprinted in its entirety,spanning a hefty 93 pages.
Nathan Leopold, Jr. and Richard Loeb were two people who should have never met, according to the courtroom. The two met at about the age of fifteen, soon after they began to embark on criminal acts together, ranging from theft to arson. It's stated in 'the Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb' that Loeb had created a fantasy world where he was a crime ringleader that was too smart for the police to catch. Readers get to judge for themselves whether or not they believe Loeb was the cause of their crimes, or if Leopold was the one really in charge.
After robbing Loeb's fraternity house together, Leopold and Loeb came up with a plan to kidnap a wealthy child that they could then ransom. "They began to devise elaborate plans for this kidnapping, and soon the planning became the all-important thing. They gave up the idea of kidnapping this particular person [a young man named William], and settled on the idea of kidnapping anyone who would fit in their kidnapping plans." Throughout the book, we find out that the boys were pretty desperate for a kidnapping victim, that they even thought about kidnapping one of their close friends:
"The plan of kidnaping Dick Rubel was given up because Dick Rubel's father was so tight we might not get any money from him."
Leopold and Loeb discussed everything from how they would receive the ransom, what weapons they would use, how they would get the victim inside a rented vehicle, and what they would do with the body afterwards. "In March, 1924, the patient [Loeb] conceived the idea of securing the money by having it thrown off a moving train. This idea was discussed in great detail, and gradually developed into a carefully systematized plan. As time wore on the plan became greatly modified from the original one. They discussed at considerable length the choice of a suitable subject for kidnapping. The patient's companion [Leopold] suggested that they kidnap a young girl instead of a boy, but the patient [Loeb] objected to this. His companion [Leopold] also suggested that they kidnap the patient's [Loeb] younger brother, but the patient apparently did not seriously consider doing this. They then considered half a dozen boys, any one of whom would do, for the following reasons: that they were physically small enough to be easily handled and their parents were extremely wealthy and would have no difficulty or disinclination to pay ransom money."
During the trial, Leopold and Loeb's psychological evaluations became the forefront of their guilty plea, stating that they were not responsible for their actions due to their upbringing and environment. "I submit the facts do not rest on the evidence of these boys alone. It is proven by the writings; it is proven by every act. It is proven by their companions, and there can by no question about it." Clarence Darrow explains in his famous closing statement. "We brought into this courtroom a number of their boy friends, whom they had known day by day, who had associated with them in the club house, were their constant companions, and they tell the same stories. They tell the story that neither of these two boys was responsible for his conduct."
'The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb' contains the portions of the psychiatric evaluations that were submitted in court,but the testimony of character witnesses is omitted. For a factual telling of a real life trial, this book is okay. If the reader pays attention, they may notice that some of the book contradicts itself, such as one page states that the car robe used to wrap up Franks' body was found buried near Lake Michigan,but then pages later, the book states it had been burned at Loeb's home.
The psychiatric reports are very repetitive,just using different words to describe the same things. Yet, these reports are the backbone of the trial and well worth a read. The evaluations and Darrow's extensive speech were what saved Leopold and Loeb from a death sentence.
There are very few books written about the 'murder of the century,' and even less about the 'lawyer of the century.' Leopold and Loeb, as well as Darrow, have faded into the obscurity of the True Crime genre, but because the boys' mental state was brought into question, we now accept forensic science/psychology in the court room today. I feel that only people who are truly interested in True Crime, or even have a fascination for the court room are the only ones who will enjoy 'The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb.'
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Tales of Evil in Tabletop Games
Oct 1, 2020
It is no surprise that following the enormous success of Netflix’s “Stranger Things” that creators would begin developing ideas borrowed from the show’s setting or characters. Of course we have seen games in this “80s kids Goonie-esque adventure game” genre before, and I have to say that I love the setting. When I saw the Kickstarter campaign for Tales of Evil I was immediately drawn to it. Did my investment pay off or is this one a gnarly bust?
Tales of Evil is a cooperative, horror, storytelling, adventure game that uses a unique new “Fusion System” throughout the game. Players will be taking on personas of kids from the 1980s who belong to a club named “Pizza & Investigation.” I do not wish to reveal too much in this review, so I will be covering this as a Solo Chronicles using one character going through the introductory tutorial mission.
DISCLAIMER: We are using the Kickstarter Deluxe version of the game. We do have the expansions from the KS campaign, but will not be using those for this review. Also, we do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rule book, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy from the publisher directly or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, well, just follow the setup instructions in the rulebook. There’s too much for me to explain here. For one character playing the tutorial scenario, the game setup should look similar to what is pictured below. Maybe. The rulebook does not specifically state WHERE each item should be placed, so players will have ultimate freedom to setup items where they see fit to be most efficient for themselves.
Players in Tales of Evil will have no real “turn structure” as most games do, because all players will be adventuring together as a group. So characters will be moving as a group and never splitting the party (RPGers breathe a sigh of relief… maybe). However, as with many adventure games of this style, once players explore into new areas certain markers will placed on the board (Clue, Darkness, Mystery, Search, etc). These markers signify different actions that can be taken, or entrances to areas that are blocked or found, or something that could be traced from one area to another. The leader of the group for the time being is in possession of the Walkie-Talkie and will make all final decisions for the group after any discussion (for solo players, it is just a nice prop). Usually searching for items will result in a card draw and upon the card will be a test to pass using the stats on the player character mat to roll dice for successes. Of course, the other side of that are horrible losses as well.
Players will be traipsing through the area and reading passages from two actual books: the Story Book and the Event Book. Most of the action happens in the Story Book and it will guide players through the story and once choices are made or tests succeeded/failed, the book will instruct players what to do next and to which section to turn to further the story (a la Tales of the Arabian Nights). The game continues in this fashion until the story ends with victory or defeat.
Components. Why yes, that is a real spoon in the photo above. No, it does not come with the game. I will explain in a bit. The components in this game are great. Each character has their own mat for organization, action cards, equipment cards, and status cards that dictate the difficulty of the game and how the character degrades over time in the horror-filled mission. Some components are even glow-in-the-dark! A nice touch, but certainly unnecessary. I find everything to be wonderful quality, even the cards that are kind of polarizing on the KS comments are nice (people are complaining that they are not linen-finished, but I believe the publisher made the right call to make them matte finished if the linen obscured the look and art on them). Thumbs up for components from me.
I wanted to wait until my final thoughts to explain the whole “Fusion System” that is in play here. Tales of Evil uses the catchphrase, “You will get into the game and the game will get into you!” Now, I’m not sure exactly how this game is getting into me, but I’m certainly digging the game and this Fusion System. You see, some cards (in the tutorial, remember, so I’m not really giving much away here) will give players 60 seconds to grab a kitchen spoon for some benefit and a debilitation if they are unable to find one – hence the spoon in my photos. Another card relies on the character (and also then the player) removing their shoes. Still yet another deals with fire or people smoking in the vicinity. If there is fire nearby in real life, it affects the effects of the card drawn. It’s ingenious and I love every little bit of it! I can’t wait to see how the Fusion System will work in this game more and how it can be applied to other games in the future.
All in all I love everything about Tales of Evil. The setting is great, the Pizza & Investigation kids are awesome, and the game itself is incredibly engaging and makes you really think about the choices you make within. Perhaps the haunting feeling of doubting some choices is how the game gets into you, because I did find myself wondering what would have happened had I chosen a different course for some instances. I am very drawn to this game and I want to tackle all of the scenarios. Even solo! And another great thing about Tales of Evil is the fact that a player (or players) can join a game already in progress! So if I am exploring solo and my wife decides she wants to hop in, she just grabs a character mat, sets up the character, and dives right in with me. I LOVE games like that. So versatile.
While I should probably stop gushing at this point I just can’t. This game is so much fun and worth every penny spent on it. I implore you, if you are a fan of exploration adventure games in this vein you definitely need to snatch up a copy whenever you see one. And if you love it as much as I do let me know. We can swap adventure stories.
Oh did I mention the designer is even created a way for us normies to create our own scenarios and upload them to other Tales of Evil players? Yeah, I’m fascinated by that as well…
Tales of Evil is a cooperative, horror, storytelling, adventure game that uses a unique new “Fusion System” throughout the game. Players will be taking on personas of kids from the 1980s who belong to a club named “Pizza & Investigation.” I do not wish to reveal too much in this review, so I will be covering this as a Solo Chronicles using one character going through the introductory tutorial mission.
DISCLAIMER: We are using the Kickstarter Deluxe version of the game. We do have the expansions from the KS campaign, but will not be using those for this review. Also, we do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rule book, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy from the publisher directly or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, well, just follow the setup instructions in the rulebook. There’s too much for me to explain here. For one character playing the tutorial scenario, the game setup should look similar to what is pictured below. Maybe. The rulebook does not specifically state WHERE each item should be placed, so players will have ultimate freedom to setup items where they see fit to be most efficient for themselves.
Players in Tales of Evil will have no real “turn structure” as most games do, because all players will be adventuring together as a group. So characters will be moving as a group and never splitting the party (RPGers breathe a sigh of relief… maybe). However, as with many adventure games of this style, once players explore into new areas certain markers will placed on the board (Clue, Darkness, Mystery, Search, etc). These markers signify different actions that can be taken, or entrances to areas that are blocked or found, or something that could be traced from one area to another. The leader of the group for the time being is in possession of the Walkie-Talkie and will make all final decisions for the group after any discussion (for solo players, it is just a nice prop). Usually searching for items will result in a card draw and upon the card will be a test to pass using the stats on the player character mat to roll dice for successes. Of course, the other side of that are horrible losses as well.
Players will be traipsing through the area and reading passages from two actual books: the Story Book and the Event Book. Most of the action happens in the Story Book and it will guide players through the story and once choices are made or tests succeeded/failed, the book will instruct players what to do next and to which section to turn to further the story (a la Tales of the Arabian Nights). The game continues in this fashion until the story ends with victory or defeat.
Components. Why yes, that is a real spoon in the photo above. No, it does not come with the game. I will explain in a bit. The components in this game are great. Each character has their own mat for organization, action cards, equipment cards, and status cards that dictate the difficulty of the game and how the character degrades over time in the horror-filled mission. Some components are even glow-in-the-dark! A nice touch, but certainly unnecessary. I find everything to be wonderful quality, even the cards that are kind of polarizing on the KS comments are nice (people are complaining that they are not linen-finished, but I believe the publisher made the right call to make them matte finished if the linen obscured the look and art on them). Thumbs up for components from me.
I wanted to wait until my final thoughts to explain the whole “Fusion System” that is in play here. Tales of Evil uses the catchphrase, “You will get into the game and the game will get into you!” Now, I’m not sure exactly how this game is getting into me, but I’m certainly digging the game and this Fusion System. You see, some cards (in the tutorial, remember, so I’m not really giving much away here) will give players 60 seconds to grab a kitchen spoon for some benefit and a debilitation if they are unable to find one – hence the spoon in my photos. Another card relies on the character (and also then the player) removing their shoes. Still yet another deals with fire or people smoking in the vicinity. If there is fire nearby in real life, it affects the effects of the card drawn. It’s ingenious and I love every little bit of it! I can’t wait to see how the Fusion System will work in this game more and how it can be applied to other games in the future.
All in all I love everything about Tales of Evil. The setting is great, the Pizza & Investigation kids are awesome, and the game itself is incredibly engaging and makes you really think about the choices you make within. Perhaps the haunting feeling of doubting some choices is how the game gets into you, because I did find myself wondering what would have happened had I chosen a different course for some instances. I am very drawn to this game and I want to tackle all of the scenarios. Even solo! And another great thing about Tales of Evil is the fact that a player (or players) can join a game already in progress! So if I am exploring solo and my wife decides she wants to hop in, she just grabs a character mat, sets up the character, and dives right in with me. I LOVE games like that. So versatile.
While I should probably stop gushing at this point I just can’t. This game is so much fun and worth every penny spent on it. I implore you, if you are a fan of exploration adventure games in this vein you definitely need to snatch up a copy whenever you see one. And if you love it as much as I do let me know. We can swap adventure stories.
Oh did I mention the designer is even created a way for us normies to create our own scenarios and upload them to other Tales of Evil players? Yeah, I’m fascinated by that as well…
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Captain Marvel (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Midnight screening... what was I thinking? Somehow I managed to stay awake in the cinema (others didn't fare so well), but I went in pretty pumped up. Not so much for the film but the overall atmosphere of a Marvel first screening. There were over 100 tickets pre-booked, and the cinema was certainly very busy. There's something about the buzz of an audience that big. I did try and hold a couple of conversations while I was there, they were not successful due to my brain's impaired state.
*sigh*
Let me just get this out now... I enjoyed this movie, but I also didn't like it. I know, what does that even mean? I'm going to waffle a bit and hopefully it'll become clear.
I don't have a lot of pre-knowledge about Captain Marvel, in fact, until the trailers started coming out I'd probably have asked if you meant Ms Marvel or Shazam. As always the similarities between characters and brand is a complete mess.
Brie Larson had some pretty big boots to fill as the MCU's first headlining female character. I feel a bit sorry for Black Widow to be honest, but this is probably a bit lighter than her offering would have been considering her background.
Watching the trailers for this I wasn't left wowed. Vers comes across as rather cocky and after seeing the film I don't think she needed to be that way. Part of me thinks that a difference actress would have played it better, but mainly I'm just happy that they didn't ruin it.
Samuel L. Jackson was a treat, but then when isn't he?! It was nice seeing this more light-hearted side of his character. It leaves us with a little gap in his history that makes me wonder what happened to him. As ever he's a great presence and shows us just a glimpse of what's to come (or rather what we've already seen) while still being funny.
Ben Mendelsohn has made a rather large splash over the last few years in big-ticket movies. Rogue One, Ready Player One, Robin Hood and now Captain Marvel. His character of Talos is comical and warm but I found it slightly strange hearing him with his normal accent. That seems even weirder when I write it down, I guess I'm just hardwired to expect most aliens to sound American! He's definitely my stand out actor in this, he handles the twists and turns of the story wonderfully and made for an incredible surprise. There was one moment with a terrible bit of script that made me cringe at the screen but everything else made up for it.
I probably need to say something about Jude Law, that something is going to be "meh". I'm not sure that I'm fuzzed by any of his roles historically, and this isn't really any different. He also suffered from a dubious bit of script near the end of the film that feels out of place, but I'll leave that one for you to contemplate on.
I know I've been a bit of a mix so far about Captain Marvel but there are a lot of things to like about this movie. In particular, Marvel have really nailed music on the head recently, Guardians Of The Galaxy (1 not 2) and Thor: Ragnarok being two of my favourites. There's that moment of joy when you hear those old tunes, a smile crept across my face for every one of them. It was a great selection and they fitted into place amongst the story so well.
Nostalgia value is high in this one. Ahh, Blockbuster, I do miss you. There are plenty of things to spot, I'm sure that someone has already created a bingo game to go along with it... or a drinking game, "cry into your drink uncontrollably when you see Stan Lee". We obviously knew he'd filmed some cameos before he moved on into his big ol' galaxy, it was lovely to see him smiling out at us. Not only was it a fun little cameo but Marvel also did something magical with those opening titles and it made me cry... don't judge me!! I didn't cry as much as I did during the credit tribute in Once Upon A Deadpool though.
I could keep waffling, I'm fully aware that I've gone on a lot longer than normal about this one. I'll try not to keep you too much longer.
Obviously they've used some artistic license with the characters from the comics, as they do. The Skrull minions are so close to the comics, I was a little dubious about them when they popped up but they're carbon copies. The main thing that I know they changed was Nick Fury's eye, this version is better than the comics. I'd be interested to know how SLJ felt about finally being able to play Fury with both his eyes.
De-aging was used again but with much heavier usage than we've seen before. It was a bold choice doing it on one of the main characters when he's got so much screen time but I'm glad they chose this over recasting him. There weren't any of the minor oddities that were visible during Ant-Man & The Wasp's use of it, it all looked quite natural. There's no denying that Coulson might be a little overdone but *squeeeeee* little Coulson is so adorable that I don't care!
I mentioned my issues with Vers in the trailers, that wasn't the only misgiving I had. There weren't as many as the "I'm never going to see this movie" crowd (you know you're going to see it, get ahold of yourselves) but there were a few.
We've been with this series for over 10 years, this film leads into the last film in the sequence... and now they're giving us a new character? That's what I have an issue with. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea that they're bringing in a female character to clear up the mess created by the (mainly) boy's club, it's art imitating life... I'm joking, partly... but I can't help feeling like this is more of a last minute add-on. Previous new additions have appeared in other films, they've been able to interact with characters. The whole way through we've been shown teamwork and camaraderie, and throwing Captain Marvel in at the last minute flies in the face of that. But if we'd had her around before this then we probably wouldn't have needed Endgame because there would have been no distractions from what needed to be done. (Before you start on me we see that for a fact, none of Thor and Starlord's nonsense.)
For all of my waffling about it feeling separate they have clearly tried to connect her to the existing MCU. There are links in there on multiple fronts which give you hints at other films, it's quite impressive that they managed to make this without it being filled with series continuity errors.
As my last parting comment I want to say that Goose was amazing. Sadly not so hot on the CGI, I did wonder at one point if he was going to jump up and dance Garfield-style at one point. Annoyingly I already knew some details about this fluffy character before seeing the film but it just left me with anticipation. I didn't think that Fury would be a cat person though.
What you should do
If you're a Marvel fan you're going to have to see it before Endgame, but quite frankly you should want to see it. You could skip it if you really want to... but do you want to risk it? No, I didn't think so.
REMEMBER: There are two credit scenes, one in the middle and one at the end.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Of all the things I'd have to say Goose, that cute little floof would brighten my day as well as coming in handy for several reasons.
*sigh*
Let me just get this out now... I enjoyed this movie, but I also didn't like it. I know, what does that even mean? I'm going to waffle a bit and hopefully it'll become clear.
I don't have a lot of pre-knowledge about Captain Marvel, in fact, until the trailers started coming out I'd probably have asked if you meant Ms Marvel or Shazam. As always the similarities between characters and brand is a complete mess.
Brie Larson had some pretty big boots to fill as the MCU's first headlining female character. I feel a bit sorry for Black Widow to be honest, but this is probably a bit lighter than her offering would have been considering her background.
Watching the trailers for this I wasn't left wowed. Vers comes across as rather cocky and after seeing the film I don't think she needed to be that way. Part of me thinks that a difference actress would have played it better, but mainly I'm just happy that they didn't ruin it.
Samuel L. Jackson was a treat, but then when isn't he?! It was nice seeing this more light-hearted side of his character. It leaves us with a little gap in his history that makes me wonder what happened to him. As ever he's a great presence and shows us just a glimpse of what's to come (or rather what we've already seen) while still being funny.
Ben Mendelsohn has made a rather large splash over the last few years in big-ticket movies. Rogue One, Ready Player One, Robin Hood and now Captain Marvel. His character of Talos is comical and warm but I found it slightly strange hearing him with his normal accent. That seems even weirder when I write it down, I guess I'm just hardwired to expect most aliens to sound American! He's definitely my stand out actor in this, he handles the twists and turns of the story wonderfully and made for an incredible surprise. There was one moment with a terrible bit of script that made me cringe at the screen but everything else made up for it.
I probably need to say something about Jude Law, that something is going to be "meh". I'm not sure that I'm fuzzed by any of his roles historically, and this isn't really any different. He also suffered from a dubious bit of script near the end of the film that feels out of place, but I'll leave that one for you to contemplate on.
I know I've been a bit of a mix so far about Captain Marvel but there are a lot of things to like about this movie. In particular, Marvel have really nailed music on the head recently, Guardians Of The Galaxy (1 not 2) and Thor: Ragnarok being two of my favourites. There's that moment of joy when you hear those old tunes, a smile crept across my face for every one of them. It was a great selection and they fitted into place amongst the story so well.
Nostalgia value is high in this one. Ahh, Blockbuster, I do miss you. There are plenty of things to spot, I'm sure that someone has already created a bingo game to go along with it... or a drinking game, "cry into your drink uncontrollably when you see Stan Lee". We obviously knew he'd filmed some cameos before he moved on into his big ol' galaxy, it was lovely to see him smiling out at us. Not only was it a fun little cameo but Marvel also did something magical with those opening titles and it made me cry... don't judge me!! I didn't cry as much as I did during the credit tribute in Once Upon A Deadpool though.
I could keep waffling, I'm fully aware that I've gone on a lot longer than normal about this one. I'll try not to keep you too much longer.
Obviously they've used some artistic license with the characters from the comics, as they do. The Skrull minions are so close to the comics, I was a little dubious about them when they popped up but they're carbon copies. The main thing that I know they changed was Nick Fury's eye, this version is better than the comics. I'd be interested to know how SLJ felt about finally being able to play Fury with both his eyes.
De-aging was used again but with much heavier usage than we've seen before. It was a bold choice doing it on one of the main characters when he's got so much screen time but I'm glad they chose this over recasting him. There weren't any of the minor oddities that were visible during Ant-Man & The Wasp's use of it, it all looked quite natural. There's no denying that Coulson might be a little overdone but *squeeeeee* little Coulson is so adorable that I don't care!
I mentioned my issues with Vers in the trailers, that wasn't the only misgiving I had. There weren't as many as the "I'm never going to see this movie" crowd (you know you're going to see it, get ahold of yourselves) but there were a few.
We've been with this series for over 10 years, this film leads into the last film in the sequence... and now they're giving us a new character? That's what I have an issue with. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea that they're bringing in a female character to clear up the mess created by the (mainly) boy's club, it's art imitating life... I'm joking, partly... but I can't help feeling like this is more of a last minute add-on. Previous new additions have appeared in other films, they've been able to interact with characters. The whole way through we've been shown teamwork and camaraderie, and throwing Captain Marvel in at the last minute flies in the face of that. But if we'd had her around before this then we probably wouldn't have needed Endgame because there would have been no distractions from what needed to be done. (Before you start on me we see that for a fact, none of Thor and Starlord's nonsense.)
For all of my waffling about it feeling separate they have clearly tried to connect her to the existing MCU. There are links in there on multiple fronts which give you hints at other films, it's quite impressive that they managed to make this without it being filled with series continuity errors.
As my last parting comment I want to say that Goose was amazing. Sadly not so hot on the CGI, I did wonder at one point if he was going to jump up and dance Garfield-style at one point. Annoyingly I already knew some details about this fluffy character before seeing the film but it just left me with anticipation. I didn't think that Fury would be a cat person though.
What you should do
If you're a Marvel fan you're going to have to see it before Endgame, but quite frankly you should want to see it. You could skip it if you really want to... but do you want to risk it? No, I didn't think so.
REMEMBER: There are two credit scenes, one in the middle and one at the end.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Of all the things I'd have to say Goose, that cute little floof would brighten my day as well as coming in handy for several reasons.
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 7, 2019
An unapologetic masterpiece.
I wasn't sure what to expect going into this film. I'm a huge comic book fan, so the controversy and scepticism surrounding this movie, as well as the fact it's based within an established story world, had me doubting how it would work and how good the execution of it would be.
I certainly didn't expect the film I saw.
The basis for this movie is simple and effective: Arthur Fleck (played with a career-defining performance by Joaquin Phoenix) is a mentally unstable and depressed wannabe stand-up comedian working as a clown in a 1980's Gotham City. The movie is set against a backdrop of civil unrest, worker strikes and city-wide poverty, with each being exaggerated to highlight both the severity of each one for the purposes of the film, but also to shine a spotlight on how tough the real world was back then.
A potentially fatal encounter on a late-night subway acts as a catalyst for Fleck, who is shown throughout the first 20 minutes to be a man living on a knife's edge - balancing his own pitiful existence with the way society believes he should act. You get the sense that it would take nothing more than a gentle push to send him one way or the other. The subway was that push.
In a city that very much reflects the character's state of mind, this served to push more than just Arthur Fleck over the edge. Because he happened to be dressed as a clown at the time, and because the *cough* victims *cough* worked for Wayne Enterprises (ran by Thomas Wayne himself), it's seen by many as a vigilante act - someone standing up to the rich elite. This sparks outrage and rioting across the city. The idea of a man dressed as a clown standing up for the little guy becomes the poster child for a civil movement, much in the styling of "V For Vendetta (2005)".
The more Arthur Fleck struggles personally, the worse the streets of Gotham seem to get, as if society's increasing tension and unrest is somehow linked to his own state of mind. He finally realises what he has inadvertently created and begins to transform himself into the vigilante icon people already believe him to be.
Despite the slow pace of the movie, it never seems to drag. The story of Fleck's inevitable descent unfolds patiently, showing you exactly what it wants you to see, when it wants you to see it. It's a very bold and confident step for a movie which would've known how controversial it was going to be before it was even released.
The style of the film is extremely clever. The soundtrack is little more than a low-frequency hum, which plays almost constantly throughout. The camerawork is also exceptional. In every shot of Arthur Fleck, the camera centres on him before very slowly closing in on him. It's subtle, perhaps only a few millimetres per shot, but it's noticeable enough that you feel yourself being pulled in, being legitimately gripped by what you're watching. This contributes to what is, overall, a claustrophobic and sometimes unnerving experience.
There has been initial controversy about the film, with reports of people leaving the cinema during the screening for varying reasons. You see this from time to time, and the cynic in me thinks this is rarely more than clever marketing tactics. And then you see the comments from people who say they were disgusted or sickened or disturbed or whatever. I usually think it's a load of rubbish. That people are just saying that for attention. I don't honestly believe people who are that easily offended by a movie would choose to see something that is clearly going to show you all the things you don't like.
However, with "Joker (2019)", I can actually understand it. This is a truly disturbing film. Not for the violence, which has been the subject of much debate. There's actually very little violence in the movie, but when it's there, it's pretty graphic, admittedly. But honestly, it's not anywhere near as bad as a lot of things you see nowadays. No, it's disturbing because of how believable Arthur Fleck is. Seeing how unstable he is. Seeing how easy he can choose to do terrible things. It's... uncomfortable to watch at times, but only because it's so well done, so well written, you hate yourself for sympathising with him.
If I had to draw comparisons for this movie, I would have to say it's more subtle than "Watchmen (2009)", it's grittier and darker than "Taxi Driver (1976)" or "Fight Club (1999)" and much more uncompromising and unapologetic than "Natural Born Killers (1994)". It is truly a modern-day masterpiece. There are two major plot twists, both occurring in the second act, which really highlight the genius behind the screenplay. This movie is written perfectly, and executed the same way on-screen by Phoenix, who draws from both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger to create this unique take on the character which more than holds its own.
Now, before I summarise, we do need to address the whole... y'know... Batman thing. This is the Joker's origin story, after all.
So, first thing's first: this isn't a comic book movie. Not by a long way. This belongs in the same conversation as Goodfellas, not Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Todd Phillips has even stated that this is simply a stand-alone movie telling a story that needed to be told. Yes, it has references to the DC comic universe (which I will omit here for fear of venturing into spolier territory), but it's unlikely to ever cross over with DC's attempt to mimic the MCU.
The nods to the comics are infrequent but clever, touching on themes and events we already know, and in some cases, re-writing them entirely - which definitely will draw controversy with the hardcore comic fans. For example, I did question why they used the civil unrest subplot and backdrop to essentially try and make Wayne Enterprises the villain of the story, but like it or not, it was necessary and it worked like a charm.
I don't know if this was intentional or not, but there was one scene in particular towards the end of the movie where the Joker (as he is now) is riding in the back of a car with his head leaning against the window. The camera was on the wing mirror, focused on his face, and almost frame-for-frame it reminded me of the iconic scene in "The Dark Knight (2008)" where Heath Ledger's Joker is driving with his head out of the window. I'd like to think this was a gracious tribute to the performance of this character that will never be topped.
For a film that breaks the conventions of story-telling by having no real build-up or climactic ending, I have to say I can't remember a time when I was so blown away, so moved, and so affected by a movie. As close to perfect as you'll see this year.
10/10
A quick side note:
The show "13 Reasons Why" has a disclaimer at the beginning of each series from the cast that essentially warns viewers that, due to the sensitive nature of the content, it's inadvisable to watch it if you're struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts. I genuinely think this film should carry a similar notice. It's a dark, grim, unrelenting journey into one man's depressive life. While I won't ever believe listening to Marilyn Manson can make you want to shoot schoolchildren, I do think that if someone is struggling with suicidal thoughts or depression, this movie probably isn't for them. The story focuses on the media glorifying the terrible acts of someone who is mentally unstable. Yes, it's a movie. It's not real. But for someone in a very bad place themselves, this probably isn't the kind of thing you need to, or should, watch.
I certainly didn't expect the film I saw.
The basis for this movie is simple and effective: Arthur Fleck (played with a career-defining performance by Joaquin Phoenix) is a mentally unstable and depressed wannabe stand-up comedian working as a clown in a 1980's Gotham City. The movie is set against a backdrop of civil unrest, worker strikes and city-wide poverty, with each being exaggerated to highlight both the severity of each one for the purposes of the film, but also to shine a spotlight on how tough the real world was back then.
A potentially fatal encounter on a late-night subway acts as a catalyst for Fleck, who is shown throughout the first 20 minutes to be a man living on a knife's edge - balancing his own pitiful existence with the way society believes he should act. You get the sense that it would take nothing more than a gentle push to send him one way or the other. The subway was that push.
In a city that very much reflects the character's state of mind, this served to push more than just Arthur Fleck over the edge. Because he happened to be dressed as a clown at the time, and because the *cough* victims *cough* worked for Wayne Enterprises (ran by Thomas Wayne himself), it's seen by many as a vigilante act - someone standing up to the rich elite. This sparks outrage and rioting across the city. The idea of a man dressed as a clown standing up for the little guy becomes the poster child for a civil movement, much in the styling of "V For Vendetta (2005)".
The more Arthur Fleck struggles personally, the worse the streets of Gotham seem to get, as if society's increasing tension and unrest is somehow linked to his own state of mind. He finally realises what he has inadvertently created and begins to transform himself into the vigilante icon people already believe him to be.
Despite the slow pace of the movie, it never seems to drag. The story of Fleck's inevitable descent unfolds patiently, showing you exactly what it wants you to see, when it wants you to see it. It's a very bold and confident step for a movie which would've known how controversial it was going to be before it was even released.
The style of the film is extremely clever. The soundtrack is little more than a low-frequency hum, which plays almost constantly throughout. The camerawork is also exceptional. In every shot of Arthur Fleck, the camera centres on him before very slowly closing in on him. It's subtle, perhaps only a few millimetres per shot, but it's noticeable enough that you feel yourself being pulled in, being legitimately gripped by what you're watching. This contributes to what is, overall, a claustrophobic and sometimes unnerving experience.
There has been initial controversy about the film, with reports of people leaving the cinema during the screening for varying reasons. You see this from time to time, and the cynic in me thinks this is rarely more than clever marketing tactics. And then you see the comments from people who say they were disgusted or sickened or disturbed or whatever. I usually think it's a load of rubbish. That people are just saying that for attention. I don't honestly believe people who are that easily offended by a movie would choose to see something that is clearly going to show you all the things you don't like.
However, with "Joker (2019)", I can actually understand it. This is a truly disturbing film. Not for the violence, which has been the subject of much debate. There's actually very little violence in the movie, but when it's there, it's pretty graphic, admittedly. But honestly, it's not anywhere near as bad as a lot of things you see nowadays. No, it's disturbing because of how believable Arthur Fleck is. Seeing how unstable he is. Seeing how easy he can choose to do terrible things. It's... uncomfortable to watch at times, but only because it's so well done, so well written, you hate yourself for sympathising with him.
If I had to draw comparisons for this movie, I would have to say it's more subtle than "Watchmen (2009)", it's grittier and darker than "Taxi Driver (1976)" or "Fight Club (1999)" and much more uncompromising and unapologetic than "Natural Born Killers (1994)". It is truly a modern-day masterpiece. There are two major plot twists, both occurring in the second act, which really highlight the genius behind the screenplay. This movie is written perfectly, and executed the same way on-screen by Phoenix, who draws from both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger to create this unique take on the character which more than holds its own.
Now, before I summarise, we do need to address the whole... y'know... Batman thing. This is the Joker's origin story, after all.
So, first thing's first: this isn't a comic book movie. Not by a long way. This belongs in the same conversation as Goodfellas, not Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Todd Phillips has even stated that this is simply a stand-alone movie telling a story that needed to be told. Yes, it has references to the DC comic universe (which I will omit here for fear of venturing into spolier territory), but it's unlikely to ever cross over with DC's attempt to mimic the MCU.
The nods to the comics are infrequent but clever, touching on themes and events we already know, and in some cases, re-writing them entirely - which definitely will draw controversy with the hardcore comic fans. For example, I did question why they used the civil unrest subplot and backdrop to essentially try and make Wayne Enterprises the villain of the story, but like it or not, it was necessary and it worked like a charm.
I don't know if this was intentional or not, but there was one scene in particular towards the end of the movie where the Joker (as he is now) is riding in the back of a car with his head leaning against the window. The camera was on the wing mirror, focused on his face, and almost frame-for-frame it reminded me of the iconic scene in "The Dark Knight (2008)" where Heath Ledger's Joker is driving with his head out of the window. I'd like to think this was a gracious tribute to the performance of this character that will never be topped.
For a film that breaks the conventions of story-telling by having no real build-up or climactic ending, I have to say I can't remember a time when I was so blown away, so moved, and so affected by a movie. As close to perfect as you'll see this year.
10/10
A quick side note:
The show "13 Reasons Why" has a disclaimer at the beginning of each series from the cast that essentially warns viewers that, due to the sensitive nature of the content, it's inadvisable to watch it if you're struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts. I genuinely think this film should carry a similar notice. It's a dark, grim, unrelenting journey into one man's depressive life. While I won't ever believe listening to Marilyn Manson can make you want to shoot schoolchildren, I do think that if someone is struggling with suicidal thoughts or depression, this movie probably isn't for them. The story focuses on the media glorifying the terrible acts of someone who is mentally unstable. Yes, it's a movie. It's not real. But for someone in a very bad place themselves, this probably isn't the kind of thing you need to, or should, watch.