Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated X-Men: Dark Phoenix (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
These X-Men end not with a Bang but with a Whimper
"This is how it ends,not with a bang, but with a whimper".
Running a successful movie franchise is a tricky thing. For every franchise that ends successfully (the original Harry Potter series, the recent Avengers), there are many, many more that just sort of peter out (The Hunger Games, The Maze Runner, every version of Star Trek), and, unfortunately, this run of the X-MEN is finishing up with a look of boredom and disinterest.
And that's too bad for the DARK PHOENIX story line had great, dramatic potential to go with a series of whiz-bang special effect set pieces that should have been spectacular. Telling the tale of erswhile X-Men "hero", Jean Grey, who is turned into a villain and battles her former mates, DARK PHOENIX is filled with missed opportunities.
Let's start with the lackluster Direction and lame script - both by Simon Kinberg - a Producer and sometime writer who is making his Feature Film Directorial debut with this film. He should stay with Producing. His direction is limp and uninspired which fits in well with his uninspiring dialogue and clunky interactions and plot machinations.
At least the top notch actors can save this turkey, right?
Nope. For the most part, they are just as uninspired and mediocre as the direction and writing and that is too bad for they are a strong collection of performers. James McAvoy is just lost as Charles Xavier. I can see the look in his eyes as he is thinking to himself "what is my character trying to do here"? I didn't believe for a second that he believed anything his character was saying and doing. Same goes for the usually reliable Nicholas Hoult as Hank McCoy/Beast. The script has these two at odds with each and they both act these scenes with a "we don't buy this contrived fight either" chagrined look.
The usually reliable Jessica Chastain is wasted as the main villain in this film, a mysterious figure who serves as the anti-Charles Xavier mentor to Jean Grey (Sophie Turner, more on her later). It looks to me that she was given the "George Lucas/Natalie Portman/Star Wars: Episode 1" acting guideline - be one note and monotonous and take out any hint of emotion. Which also takes out any hint of interest.
As for Turner, I'm sorry to say this about an actress that I generally loved in GAME OF THRONES, but she is just plain bad in her role as the conflicted Jean Grey. Her character is torn between the good and the bad, but instead of acting that, she says it over and over again "I don't know what's happening to me", "I feel torn". She (and Director/Writer Kinberg) violate the #1 rule in movies - "Show, don't tell". They "tell" over and over and don't take the time to show. Disappointing wouldn't begin to describe my reaction to Turner's performance.
At least Jennifer Lawrence is there to ground this film and bring some of her star power, right? Nope. She waltzes through the few scenes she has in this film with the look of "I am contractually obligated to be here".
Well...how about Even Peters who was a bit of a breakout as Quicksilver? Nope...they, inexplicably, sideline his character fairly early on in this film.
The only saving grace in this movie is the great Michael Fassbender as Magneto. He was a welcome, charismatic presence in this film that drew my attention - and interest - the second he appeared on screen. It was great to see him and I found myself rooting for him - no matter what. Doesn't matter that Magneto's presence in this film is shoe-horned in. You could take his character out of this film and the outcomes probably wouldn't change a bit. But...I don't care...at least there was someone interesting to watch.
At least there are decent action scenes, right? Nope. Kinberg chooses to use the quick/cut edit confuse the audience style of action to cover mistakes in both choreography and geography and figures a quick cut and an explosion can cover lack of emotional commitment and interesting fight choreography.
This film closes this Chapter on these X-Men and (besides Fassbender and an "AVENGERS ASSEMBLE" moment that was pretty cool) I say good riddance. With Disney's purchase of Fox and Marvel, the X-Men can now be incorporated into the Marvel Cinematic Universe and that can only be an improvement on this.
Letter Grade C+ (Fassbender's performance keeps this from being a total failure)
5 stars out of 10 and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Running a successful movie franchise is a tricky thing. For every franchise that ends successfully (the original Harry Potter series, the recent Avengers), there are many, many more that just sort of peter out (The Hunger Games, The Maze Runner, every version of Star Trek), and, unfortunately, this run of the X-MEN is finishing up with a look of boredom and disinterest.
And that's too bad for the DARK PHOENIX story line had great, dramatic potential to go with a series of whiz-bang special effect set pieces that should have been spectacular. Telling the tale of erswhile X-Men "hero", Jean Grey, who is turned into a villain and battles her former mates, DARK PHOENIX is filled with missed opportunities.
Let's start with the lackluster Direction and lame script - both by Simon Kinberg - a Producer and sometime writer who is making his Feature Film Directorial debut with this film. He should stay with Producing. His direction is limp and uninspired which fits in well with his uninspiring dialogue and clunky interactions and plot machinations.
At least the top notch actors can save this turkey, right?
Nope. For the most part, they are just as uninspired and mediocre as the direction and writing and that is too bad for they are a strong collection of performers. James McAvoy is just lost as Charles Xavier. I can see the look in his eyes as he is thinking to himself "what is my character trying to do here"? I didn't believe for a second that he believed anything his character was saying and doing. Same goes for the usually reliable Nicholas Hoult as Hank McCoy/Beast. The script has these two at odds with each and they both act these scenes with a "we don't buy this contrived fight either" chagrined look.
The usually reliable Jessica Chastain is wasted as the main villain in this film, a mysterious figure who serves as the anti-Charles Xavier mentor to Jean Grey (Sophie Turner, more on her later). It looks to me that she was given the "George Lucas/Natalie Portman/Star Wars: Episode 1" acting guideline - be one note and monotonous and take out any hint of emotion. Which also takes out any hint of interest.
As for Turner, I'm sorry to say this about an actress that I generally loved in GAME OF THRONES, but she is just plain bad in her role as the conflicted Jean Grey. Her character is torn between the good and the bad, but instead of acting that, she says it over and over again "I don't know what's happening to me", "I feel torn". She (and Director/Writer Kinberg) violate the #1 rule in movies - "Show, don't tell". They "tell" over and over and don't take the time to show. Disappointing wouldn't begin to describe my reaction to Turner's performance.
At least Jennifer Lawrence is there to ground this film and bring some of her star power, right? Nope. She waltzes through the few scenes she has in this film with the look of "I am contractually obligated to be here".
Well...how about Even Peters who was a bit of a breakout as Quicksilver? Nope...they, inexplicably, sideline his character fairly early on in this film.
The only saving grace in this movie is the great Michael Fassbender as Magneto. He was a welcome, charismatic presence in this film that drew my attention - and interest - the second he appeared on screen. It was great to see him and I found myself rooting for him - no matter what. Doesn't matter that Magneto's presence in this film is shoe-horned in. You could take his character out of this film and the outcomes probably wouldn't change a bit. But...I don't care...at least there was someone interesting to watch.
At least there are decent action scenes, right? Nope. Kinberg chooses to use the quick/cut edit confuse the audience style of action to cover mistakes in both choreography and geography and figures a quick cut and an explosion can cover lack of emotional commitment and interesting fight choreography.
This film closes this Chapter on these X-Men and (besides Fassbender and an "AVENGERS ASSEMBLE" moment that was pretty cool) I say good riddance. With Disney's purchase of Fox and Marvel, the X-Men can now be incorporated into the Marvel Cinematic Universe and that can only be an improvement on this.
Letter Grade C+ (Fassbender's performance keeps this from being a total failure)
5 stars out of 10 and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Cartagena in Tabletop Games
Dec 3, 2019
Avast and whatnot! Yar, this be a piratey-themed game of prison escape, and it be very good. You and ye mateys must escape a prison of Cartagena and reach the boat to sail to freedom! But do you have the resources available to navigate the treacherous tunnels to the outside? Or will you have to retreat to bolster your holdings for your final surge? This is Cartagena!
If you know me, you know I’m kind of a sucker for pirate games. Why? I don’t know. I’m not necessarily a fan of pirate-themed things in the real world, but it’s a gaming theme I truly enjoy. I don’t remember exactly where or from whom I heard of this game, but I am very glad I did because I really enjoy it.
During a game of Cartagena you play a “team” of pirates that are escaping a dungeon through a wacky tunnel to get to the getaway boat at the end. You do this by playing cards from your hand that match symbols printed on the tunnel tiles assembled in the middle of the table. When you play a card you must move one of your pirates – any one you wish – to the next closest unoccupied space on the board that matches the symbol on the card you played. If you play a card, let’s say a flag, and there is a pirate already on the next closest flag symbol, you keep moving your pirate along through the tunnel until you reach the next flag without a pirate on it. You have two actions on your turn and you will likely be playing two cards every turn to advance your pirates.
“Easy. This is great! But, now my starting hand is depleted and you told me I couldn’t draw a card at the end of my turn.” Correct. Herein lies the struggle and tension in the game.
If you do not have any cards in your hand, or if you just want to improve your hand, you must move one of your pirates backward through the tunnel to the next pirate behind you. If there is just one pirate when you arrive you draw one card. Two pirates two cards. Three pirates already there? Keep on truckin, matey. You need to continue backward to find a solitary or couple of pirates; there can never be more than three pirates on a space. You then take the amount of cards dependent on existing pirates and continue your turn.
Play continues like this until a player has successfully gotten their pirate crew to the boat and escapes the dungeons in Cartagena.
So like I said, I’m a sucker for pirate-themed games. However, this game could have so many other themes applied to it and it would work just as well. I do not necessarily feel like a pirate as I am playing, but I do appreciate the effort here. What I really enjoy about this game is the fact that it is mechanically very simple, so it works well with many different age groups. In fact, I am sure you can play this with gamers younger than the suggested age of 8 and be completely happy with the result. The rules are very light, the decisions are sometimes very heartbreaking if you do not plan ahead well enough. It will never be considered a brain burner, nor will it be the crown jewel of a collection or game night, but it is fun. Racing your opponents to the end of a tunnel to freedom, but also knowing that you will eventually need to regress to fuel future turns is a great little balancing exercise and I dig it, like a fine treasure chest.
Components? Well, the version we have is akin to the version on the main ratings graphic here, with that box art. The art in the game, however, is much more cartoony (see image below). It’s not BAD, but it’s not amazing either. I believe the newer version has much better art throughout. The cards are of decent quality, as are the tiles that make up the tunnel. The best components are the little pirateeples. Piraeeples? I’m never very good at the -eepling. All in all it’s a small game that packs up easily and quickly and is great to pull out pretty much any time you need a great filler. We at Purple Phoenix Games give this one a swashbuckling 13 / 18.
If you know me, you know I’m kind of a sucker for pirate games. Why? I don’t know. I’m not necessarily a fan of pirate-themed things in the real world, but it’s a gaming theme I truly enjoy. I don’t remember exactly where or from whom I heard of this game, but I am very glad I did because I really enjoy it.
During a game of Cartagena you play a “team” of pirates that are escaping a dungeon through a wacky tunnel to get to the getaway boat at the end. You do this by playing cards from your hand that match symbols printed on the tunnel tiles assembled in the middle of the table. When you play a card you must move one of your pirates – any one you wish – to the next closest unoccupied space on the board that matches the symbol on the card you played. If you play a card, let’s say a flag, and there is a pirate already on the next closest flag symbol, you keep moving your pirate along through the tunnel until you reach the next flag without a pirate on it. You have two actions on your turn and you will likely be playing two cards every turn to advance your pirates.
“Easy. This is great! But, now my starting hand is depleted and you told me I couldn’t draw a card at the end of my turn.” Correct. Herein lies the struggle and tension in the game.
If you do not have any cards in your hand, or if you just want to improve your hand, you must move one of your pirates backward through the tunnel to the next pirate behind you. If there is just one pirate when you arrive you draw one card. Two pirates two cards. Three pirates already there? Keep on truckin, matey. You need to continue backward to find a solitary or couple of pirates; there can never be more than three pirates on a space. You then take the amount of cards dependent on existing pirates and continue your turn.
Play continues like this until a player has successfully gotten their pirate crew to the boat and escapes the dungeons in Cartagena.
So like I said, I’m a sucker for pirate-themed games. However, this game could have so many other themes applied to it and it would work just as well. I do not necessarily feel like a pirate as I am playing, but I do appreciate the effort here. What I really enjoy about this game is the fact that it is mechanically very simple, so it works well with many different age groups. In fact, I am sure you can play this with gamers younger than the suggested age of 8 and be completely happy with the result. The rules are very light, the decisions are sometimes very heartbreaking if you do not plan ahead well enough. It will never be considered a brain burner, nor will it be the crown jewel of a collection or game night, but it is fun. Racing your opponents to the end of a tunnel to freedom, but also knowing that you will eventually need to regress to fuel future turns is a great little balancing exercise and I dig it, like a fine treasure chest.
Components? Well, the version we have is akin to the version on the main ratings graphic here, with that box art. The art in the game, however, is much more cartoony (see image below). It’s not BAD, but it’s not amazing either. I believe the newer version has much better art throughout. The cards are of decent quality, as are the tiles that make up the tunnel. The best components are the little pirateeples. Piraeeples? I’m never very good at the -eepling. All in all it’s a small game that packs up easily and quickly and is great to pull out pretty much any time you need a great filler. We at Purple Phoenix Games give this one a swashbuckling 13 / 18.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Little Women (2019) in Movies
Jan 3, 2020 (Updated Jan 3, 2020)
Saoirse Ronan - just mesmeric. What screen presence! (2 more)
Great supporting cast.
Alexandre Desplat soundtrack.
"God hasn't met my will yet"
Greta Gerwig's follow up to her Oscar-praised "Lady Bird" from 2017 looks set to repeat the job this year. For it's nothing short of a masterpiece of cinema.
Louisa M. Alcott's semi-autobiographical novel has been filmed before (in 1949 and 1994, together with a number of other TV versions). I've not seen any of these previous versions and (as a literary philistine) I've never read the book either. So the story was new to me and drew me in perfectly.
The March sisters - Jo (Saoirse Ronan), Meg (Emma Watson), Amy (Florence Pugh) and the youngest Beth (Eliza Scanlen) - are being brought up by their mother (Laura Dern) and Aunt (Meryl Streep) while their father (Bob Odenkirk) is away fighting in the Civil War. Also providing a helping hand is the rich neighbour Mr Lawrence (Chris Cooper), whose good-looking but indolent son 'Laurie' (Timothée Chalamet) has had the hots for tom-boy Jo for many years.
Each of the girls has a talent: for Jo it's writing, with her struggling to get her work past the grumpy publisher Mr Dashwood (Tracy Letts, from "Le Mans '66"); for Meg it's acting; for Amy it's painting; and for Beth it's music.
The film follows the lives, loves, successes and misfortunes of the sisters over two periods, split 7 years apart. It's a bumpy ride for some.
It struck me, as the big green BBFC certificate flashed onto the screen, how rare it is to find a "U - Suitable for all" (UK) certificate on a film these days. This is a film that the whole family *could* go and see. My only reservation here would be the way the film zips in and out of the two time periods at will. This might confuse the hell out of younger children. The subject matter of one part of the story may also disturb sensitive kids.
It's a really old-fashioned film - full of melodrama, love, unrequited love, death, charity, ambition and kindness - that builds to a feel-good ending that was totally corny but felt perfect in every way. We need more of this in our lives.
Wow. Just wow. The Oscar Best Actress categories are going to be a bloodied battlefield this year! There have been some GREAT roles for women on screen in the last year, and the Academy will have a job on their hands to narrow the long-list to the short-list this year. I would have tentatively forecast that Renée Zellweger might have had the Best Actor Oscar wrapped up for "Judy". But then here comes Saoirse Ronan. With phenomenal screen presence, she lights up every single scene she's in. Emma Watson and Florence Pugh are great actresses (and both here stand a stab at the Supporting Actress category), but your gaze always falls straight back to Ronan's reaction.
It's also a wonderful performance for newcomer Eliza Scanlen as the youngster Beth: I heard director Greta Gerwig comment (on Edith Bowman's excellent Soundtracking podcast) that Eliza needed less lighting than anyone else on set as she was "naturally luminous"!
Again lodging a cracking performance is the versatile Timothée Chalomet.... does the young chap make a bad film?
When you get to the end of the "cast bit", and you haven't mentioned Meryl Streep and Laura Dern yet, that says a lot!
What comes across more than anything else is just how apt this story is today to the 'girl power' times that we are currently living through. Jo in particular is the rebel of her day, fighting against the conformity of what it was in the time to be an independent woman, and specifically an independent working woman. Some of Alcott's words from the book could even today act as a rallying cry to those looking for greater change.
My reviewing year has certainly got off to a bang with this one. It's a glorious movie, utterly absorbing with ravishing cinematography by Yorick Le Saux and a brilliant soundtrack by Alexandre Desplat: both I suspect likely to feature in Oscar nominations. It's also likely to be nominated in other technical categories including Production Design, Costume and Hair & Makeup.
And I predict that this is inevitably going to be a Christmas favourite to match "The Sound of Music" and "It's a Wonderful Life" in future years.
Comes with a highly recommended tag from me.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies site here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/01/03/one-manns-movies-film-review-little-women-2019/. Thanks.)
Louisa M. Alcott's semi-autobiographical novel has been filmed before (in 1949 and 1994, together with a number of other TV versions). I've not seen any of these previous versions and (as a literary philistine) I've never read the book either. So the story was new to me and drew me in perfectly.
The March sisters - Jo (Saoirse Ronan), Meg (Emma Watson), Amy (Florence Pugh) and the youngest Beth (Eliza Scanlen) - are being brought up by their mother (Laura Dern) and Aunt (Meryl Streep) while their father (Bob Odenkirk) is away fighting in the Civil War. Also providing a helping hand is the rich neighbour Mr Lawrence (Chris Cooper), whose good-looking but indolent son 'Laurie' (Timothée Chalamet) has had the hots for tom-boy Jo for many years.
Each of the girls has a talent: for Jo it's writing, with her struggling to get her work past the grumpy publisher Mr Dashwood (Tracy Letts, from "Le Mans '66"); for Meg it's acting; for Amy it's painting; and for Beth it's music.
The film follows the lives, loves, successes and misfortunes of the sisters over two periods, split 7 years apart. It's a bumpy ride for some.
It struck me, as the big green BBFC certificate flashed onto the screen, how rare it is to find a "U - Suitable for all" (UK) certificate on a film these days. This is a film that the whole family *could* go and see. My only reservation here would be the way the film zips in and out of the two time periods at will. This might confuse the hell out of younger children. The subject matter of one part of the story may also disturb sensitive kids.
It's a really old-fashioned film - full of melodrama, love, unrequited love, death, charity, ambition and kindness - that builds to a feel-good ending that was totally corny but felt perfect in every way. We need more of this in our lives.
Wow. Just wow. The Oscar Best Actress categories are going to be a bloodied battlefield this year! There have been some GREAT roles for women on screen in the last year, and the Academy will have a job on their hands to narrow the long-list to the short-list this year. I would have tentatively forecast that Renée Zellweger might have had the Best Actor Oscar wrapped up for "Judy". But then here comes Saoirse Ronan. With phenomenal screen presence, she lights up every single scene she's in. Emma Watson and Florence Pugh are great actresses (and both here stand a stab at the Supporting Actress category), but your gaze always falls straight back to Ronan's reaction.
It's also a wonderful performance for newcomer Eliza Scanlen as the youngster Beth: I heard director Greta Gerwig comment (on Edith Bowman's excellent Soundtracking podcast) that Eliza needed less lighting than anyone else on set as she was "naturally luminous"!
Again lodging a cracking performance is the versatile Timothée Chalomet.... does the young chap make a bad film?
When you get to the end of the "cast bit", and you haven't mentioned Meryl Streep and Laura Dern yet, that says a lot!
What comes across more than anything else is just how apt this story is today to the 'girl power' times that we are currently living through. Jo in particular is the rebel of her day, fighting against the conformity of what it was in the time to be an independent woman, and specifically an independent working woman. Some of Alcott's words from the book could even today act as a rallying cry to those looking for greater change.
My reviewing year has certainly got off to a bang with this one. It's a glorious movie, utterly absorbing with ravishing cinematography by Yorick Le Saux and a brilliant soundtrack by Alexandre Desplat: both I suspect likely to feature in Oscar nominations. It's also likely to be nominated in other technical categories including Production Design, Costume and Hair & Makeup.
And I predict that this is inevitably going to be a Christmas favourite to match "The Sound of Music" and "It's a Wonderful Life" in future years.
Comes with a highly recommended tag from me.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies site here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/01/03/one-manns-movies-film-review-little-women-2019/. Thanks.)
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Big Little Lies in Books
Mar 22, 2020
After reading (and loving) What Alice Forgot by Liane Moriarty, I had wanted to read more by her. When I finally got the opportunity, I chose Big Little Lies. Liane Moriarty did not disappoint!
Many things are happening for the parents of the children that attend Pirriwee Public school. Madeline is happy go lucky, but she isn't afraid to speak her mind. Celeste is gorgeous and seems to have the perfect life, but it's what goes on behind closed doors that make her want to run away from it all. Jane, a single mom, is younger than most of the parents and has just moved to the area. With her, she brings a very big secret. As their lives intersect, things come to a head leaving one person dead. The thing is, was it murder, self defense, suicide, or just an unfortunate accident?
The plot for Big Little Lies is easy to navigate and understand. It was easy to imagine myself as a bystander in the book whilst all the action was going on around me. Most of the characters in this book lead a privileged life, so it was nice to get a sneak peek into their lives and see that they have problems as well. The pacing was done beautifully. The chapters weren't very long, so I kept telling myself one more chapter which we all know turns into many more chapters! The prose was fantastic and flowed perfectly. I kept wanting to know more and would try to guess who the character was that died. I enjoyed the dialogue that would start off most chapters where a character was talking to someone regarding the death of a character in present day. I did predict which character would end up dead though, but I suppose that was a lucky guess. There was one big plot twist I didn't see coming, and I loved that plot twist! The book ends with no cliff hangers, and all of my questions were answered.
I enjoyed every character in Big Little Lies. Each and every character was well developed and interesting to learn about. Although the story follows Madeline, Celeste, and Jane, other characters are fleshed out through their narratives. I loved how Madeline wasn't afraid to tell it like it was. She just could not hold anything back, yet people still wanted to be her friend. Her loyalty to her friends was admirable, and I would love a friend like her! Her husband, Ed, was very supportive to Madeline, and it was easy to see that he loved her. Her oldest daughter, Abigail, was an interesting one. I liked reading about her and seeing how she would turn out throughout everything. (The virginity thing sure was interesting, and I would have done exactly as Madeline!) Madeline's youngest daughter Chloe was cute. She reminded me so much of a younger Madeline. Nathan, Madeline's ex-husband, and his wife Bonnie were other characters that helped flesh out Madeline. I did like Bonnie's carefree personality though. I also loved reading about Celeste, and I felt bad for her many times with what she had to endure. Sure, to others, she had it all - looks, a huge house, a very rich and good looking husband who seemed to adore her, beautiful twin boys - but her pain was obvious throughout, and I could understand her hesitation to do the right thing. Getting to read about her thought process was interesting. Perry, Celeste's husband, came across as very charismatic. It was easy to see why everyone loved him so much. I wanted good things to happen for Jane and her little boy, Ziggy. Jane's love for Ziggy oozed from the pages. The love she had for Ziggy was so sweet. Ziggy seemed like such a cute little boy, and I just wanted to hug him and never let go especially after what happens very early on in the book.
Trigger warnings for Big Little Lies include death, drinking, drunkenness, profanity, domestic violence, violence, and sexual situations (although not graphic).
All in all, Big Little Lies is a delicious morsel of a book. It delves right into the lives of its characters who come to feel like close friends and family by the end of the book. I would definitely recommend Big Little Lies by Liane Moriarty to everyone aged 16+ who are in dire need of a fantastic read with a great cast of characters and a plot that sucks you right in!
Many things are happening for the parents of the children that attend Pirriwee Public school. Madeline is happy go lucky, but she isn't afraid to speak her mind. Celeste is gorgeous and seems to have the perfect life, but it's what goes on behind closed doors that make her want to run away from it all. Jane, a single mom, is younger than most of the parents and has just moved to the area. With her, she brings a very big secret. As their lives intersect, things come to a head leaving one person dead. The thing is, was it murder, self defense, suicide, or just an unfortunate accident?
The plot for Big Little Lies is easy to navigate and understand. It was easy to imagine myself as a bystander in the book whilst all the action was going on around me. Most of the characters in this book lead a privileged life, so it was nice to get a sneak peek into their lives and see that they have problems as well. The pacing was done beautifully. The chapters weren't very long, so I kept telling myself one more chapter which we all know turns into many more chapters! The prose was fantastic and flowed perfectly. I kept wanting to know more and would try to guess who the character was that died. I enjoyed the dialogue that would start off most chapters where a character was talking to someone regarding the death of a character in present day. I did predict which character would end up dead though, but I suppose that was a lucky guess. There was one big plot twist I didn't see coming, and I loved that plot twist! The book ends with no cliff hangers, and all of my questions were answered.
I enjoyed every character in Big Little Lies. Each and every character was well developed and interesting to learn about. Although the story follows Madeline, Celeste, and Jane, other characters are fleshed out through their narratives. I loved how Madeline wasn't afraid to tell it like it was. She just could not hold anything back, yet people still wanted to be her friend. Her loyalty to her friends was admirable, and I would love a friend like her! Her husband, Ed, was very supportive to Madeline, and it was easy to see that he loved her. Her oldest daughter, Abigail, was an interesting one. I liked reading about her and seeing how she would turn out throughout everything. (The virginity thing sure was interesting, and I would have done exactly as Madeline!) Madeline's youngest daughter Chloe was cute. She reminded me so much of a younger Madeline. Nathan, Madeline's ex-husband, and his wife Bonnie were other characters that helped flesh out Madeline. I did like Bonnie's carefree personality though. I also loved reading about Celeste, and I felt bad for her many times with what she had to endure. Sure, to others, she had it all - looks, a huge house, a very rich and good looking husband who seemed to adore her, beautiful twin boys - but her pain was obvious throughout, and I could understand her hesitation to do the right thing. Getting to read about her thought process was interesting. Perry, Celeste's husband, came across as very charismatic. It was easy to see why everyone loved him so much. I wanted good things to happen for Jane and her little boy, Ziggy. Jane's love for Ziggy oozed from the pages. The love she had for Ziggy was so sweet. Ziggy seemed like such a cute little boy, and I just wanted to hug him and never let go especially after what happens very early on in the book.
Trigger warnings for Big Little Lies include death, drinking, drunkenness, profanity, domestic violence, violence, and sexual situations (although not graphic).
All in all, Big Little Lies is a delicious morsel of a book. It delves right into the lives of its characters who come to feel like close friends and family by the end of the book. I would definitely recommend Big Little Lies by Liane Moriarty to everyone aged 16+ who are in dire need of a fantastic read with a great cast of characters and a plot that sucks you right in!
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (2019) in Movies
Aug 1, 2019
A surprisingly pleasant thrill-ride!
The Fast & The Furious franchise paused to allow two of it's most memorable, larger-than-life characters to branch out on their own with this action-packed offering of explosions and humour.
I have to admit, I had my reservations about this one. Firstly, it's basically a F&F movie... we all know what they are and what to expect, which is why we love them. Except it's not a proper F&F movie, and I was worried labelling it as part of that story universe would burden it with unrealistic expectations. Secondly, I've spent the last few months trying to avoid trailers for it, when I realised they were basically showing the entire film in them. After the first three or four, I was left genuinely concerned they had nothing left to show me. I thought there was no way they could have any eye candy that I hadn't at least seen a snapshot of.
So, I entered the cinema expecting very little. Which is probably why I left the cinema feeling very happy and satisfied.
Saying this is a F&F movie is like saying Captain America and Guardians of the Galaxy are Marvel movies. Yes, they technically are, but they are two hugely different types of movie. The similarities are obviously more prevalent here, along with the formulaic and predictable buddy-cop routine, but this film manages to confidently and successfully stand on its own two feet, and not in the shadow of Vin Diesel as I first feared.
And yes, the trailers showed snippets of pretty much every major action sequence, but weirdly, they didn't give away as much you would think. There are also some nice surprises in there. I won't spoil them, but let's just say I'm very impressed at how they managed to keep the cameos under wraps!
Okay, let's get into it. The plot (such as it is) revolves around a mysterious tech firm trying to get a hold of a deadly virus, using Idris Elba's enjoyable villain, Brixton to track it down. It takes all of five minutes for things to go sideways, leaving Hattie Shaw on the run from the bad guys. The Powers That Be (the CIA and MI6) decide they need the best bad guy trackers in the business to hunt down Brixton and retrieve this virus, and the girl... thus saving the world. The former recruits Mr. Johnson; the latter, Mr. Statham. As we know from the trailers, Vanessa Kirby portrays Shaw's sister - it becomes a family affair and we're off to the races.
The on-screen chemistry between Statham and Johnson is clear to see. The comedic dialogue they have lands a lot more than it misses. There's perhaps a bit too much gung-ho stereotyping and fan-service catchphrases, but again, you have to expect that kind of thing from a film like this.
What I liked about it was that whilst they didn't re-invent the wheel, it didn't feel like a carbon-copy of every other action film, like so many others do. It had heart. It had character. Yes, some of the stunts were silly. Yes, the bad guy being genetically-enhanced was a bit weird - blending sci-fi with real-world action whilst never actually acknowledging it took some getting used to. But the film just kinda worked. It was very good without being great. It was predictable but still managed to be enjoyable. It's a good two-hour investment of your time for an afternoon/evening out with the family.
Hobbs and Shaw is proof that whatever your criticisms, whatever your reservations, anything Dwayne Johnson touches turns to gold right now. It's also what a potential future Expendables reboot will probably look like.
Meanwhile F&F9 is now filming (sans Statham and Johnson, apparently) and with an inevitable H&S sequel surely not too far away, you can't help but wonder if they're gearing this all up to be a super-charged, car-based competitor to the MCU. The ending, two mid-credits and one post-credits scene in this film clearly set up another outing and tease a sinister, overarching enemy with ties to the character's pasts... could this be a way to link it all back to Vin Diesel and Co? Could a crossover Summer blockbuster be the only way to tell this story? If early box office figures are anything to go by here, the smart money would say yes.
Go, enjoy, eat popcorn and leave your brain and the real world in the car.
I have to admit, I had my reservations about this one. Firstly, it's basically a F&F movie... we all know what they are and what to expect, which is why we love them. Except it's not a proper F&F movie, and I was worried labelling it as part of that story universe would burden it with unrealistic expectations. Secondly, I've spent the last few months trying to avoid trailers for it, when I realised they were basically showing the entire film in them. After the first three or four, I was left genuinely concerned they had nothing left to show me. I thought there was no way they could have any eye candy that I hadn't at least seen a snapshot of.
So, I entered the cinema expecting very little. Which is probably why I left the cinema feeling very happy and satisfied.
Saying this is a F&F movie is like saying Captain America and Guardians of the Galaxy are Marvel movies. Yes, they technically are, but they are two hugely different types of movie. The similarities are obviously more prevalent here, along with the formulaic and predictable buddy-cop routine, but this film manages to confidently and successfully stand on its own two feet, and not in the shadow of Vin Diesel as I first feared.
And yes, the trailers showed snippets of pretty much every major action sequence, but weirdly, they didn't give away as much you would think. There are also some nice surprises in there. I won't spoil them, but let's just say I'm very impressed at how they managed to keep the cameos under wraps!
Okay, let's get into it. The plot (such as it is) revolves around a mysterious tech firm trying to get a hold of a deadly virus, using Idris Elba's enjoyable villain, Brixton to track it down. It takes all of five minutes for things to go sideways, leaving Hattie Shaw on the run from the bad guys. The Powers That Be (the CIA and MI6) decide they need the best bad guy trackers in the business to hunt down Brixton and retrieve this virus, and the girl... thus saving the world. The former recruits Mr. Johnson; the latter, Mr. Statham. As we know from the trailers, Vanessa Kirby portrays Shaw's sister - it becomes a family affair and we're off to the races.
The on-screen chemistry between Statham and Johnson is clear to see. The comedic dialogue they have lands a lot more than it misses. There's perhaps a bit too much gung-ho stereotyping and fan-service catchphrases, but again, you have to expect that kind of thing from a film like this.
What I liked about it was that whilst they didn't re-invent the wheel, it didn't feel like a carbon-copy of every other action film, like so many others do. It had heart. It had character. Yes, some of the stunts were silly. Yes, the bad guy being genetically-enhanced was a bit weird - blending sci-fi with real-world action whilst never actually acknowledging it took some getting used to. But the film just kinda worked. It was very good without being great. It was predictable but still managed to be enjoyable. It's a good two-hour investment of your time for an afternoon/evening out with the family.
Hobbs and Shaw is proof that whatever your criticisms, whatever your reservations, anything Dwayne Johnson touches turns to gold right now. It's also what a potential future Expendables reboot will probably look like.
Meanwhile F&F9 is now filming (sans Statham and Johnson, apparently) and with an inevitable H&S sequel surely not too far away, you can't help but wonder if they're gearing this all up to be a super-charged, car-based competitor to the MCU. The ending, two mid-credits and one post-credits scene in this film clearly set up another outing and tease a sinister, overarching enemy with ties to the character's pasts... could this be a way to link it all back to Vin Diesel and Co? Could a crossover Summer blockbuster be the only way to tell this story? If early box office figures are anything to go by here, the smart money would say yes.
Go, enjoy, eat popcorn and leave your brain and the real world in the car.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Rucksack in Tabletop Games
Jul 20, 2020 (Updated Jul 20, 2020)
Why does this always happen to you? Here you are, minding your own business when you are thrown into some strange scenario and are caught with only five ridiculous items on you. You have to survive… but how?
Rucksack is a card drafting storytelling and voting game for 4-8 players. Each player will be drafting a hand of five item cards in order to create the greatest survival story satisfying the active scenario.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and the final components may be different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to back the game through the upcoming Kickstarter campaign, order from your FLGS, or purchase through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, give each player a voting sheet and pencil. Shuffle the scenario cards into a draw deck. Shuffle the item cards into a draw deck. Flip over the top scenario card and the game is ready to be played.
The game is played over three rounds and each round is played in two halves. During the first half of the game players will be drawing one card from the item deck and deciding whether to keep or discard it. If kept, the next player will do the same. If discarded, the player will add the card to the face-up discard pile and MUST keep the next card drawn. The next player may then choose the topmost card of the discard pile or draw from the item card draw stack. This continues until all players have five cards in hand and the game then transitions into the second phase – storytelling.
Using the drafted five cards each player will explain how they would survive the active scenario, and this is the crux of the game. How would someone use tweezers, a towel, a stun grenade, binoculars, and a wine glass to last 40 days on an island full of hostile inhabitants? Well this may be exactly what you are presented with while playing Rucksack. Each player will give their ideas and pitch them to the group. Once all players have made their cases, each player will mark on their voting sheet who created the best plan to combat the scenario. After three rounds the votes are tallied and the winner is crowned! Well, not with a real crown. Unless you want. But those are sold separately.
Components. Again, we were provided a prototype copy of this game, so all comments on components should be taken with that in mind. In fact, some cards came without art or flavor text on them. This in no way detracted from our plays. The components here are a bunch of cards, a pack of golf pencils, and a pad of voting sheets. The pencils and voting sheets are fine. The cards, though not final quality and missing many art pieces, are also fine. The art style on this game is interesting and I like it. Rucksack could be played with no art and I would feel the same way about it. So in summation, the components here are good.
This is another game that I thought would be a dud upon reading the rules and knowing the people I am able to play games with currently. However, once we started playing a whole new side of these people came forth to weave these intricate stories of how someone would use marbles to help them be rescued from an uninhabited island. I found myself also prodding the creative part of my brain (that I don’t use much anymore). It has been a surprise for me that I like this one so well. I’m not usually into storytelling games, but using these item cards to help guide the final answers prove to add such a unique facet to what could have been such a disaster for our group. I am proud to have this game in my collection to scratch a very different itch that I never thought I had.
Should you be in the market for a good and light storytelling game to get the creative juices flowing and the hilarity of others’ answers out, then do consider backing or purchasing Rucksack. You will enjoy it immensely and think about it even after you’ve played. That is the sign of a great game to me.
Rucksack is a card drafting storytelling and voting game for 4-8 players. Each player will be drafting a hand of five item cards in order to create the greatest survival story satisfying the active scenario.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and the final components may be different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to back the game through the upcoming Kickstarter campaign, order from your FLGS, or purchase through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, give each player a voting sheet and pencil. Shuffle the scenario cards into a draw deck. Shuffle the item cards into a draw deck. Flip over the top scenario card and the game is ready to be played.
The game is played over three rounds and each round is played in two halves. During the first half of the game players will be drawing one card from the item deck and deciding whether to keep or discard it. If kept, the next player will do the same. If discarded, the player will add the card to the face-up discard pile and MUST keep the next card drawn. The next player may then choose the topmost card of the discard pile or draw from the item card draw stack. This continues until all players have five cards in hand and the game then transitions into the second phase – storytelling.
Using the drafted five cards each player will explain how they would survive the active scenario, and this is the crux of the game. How would someone use tweezers, a towel, a stun grenade, binoculars, and a wine glass to last 40 days on an island full of hostile inhabitants? Well this may be exactly what you are presented with while playing Rucksack. Each player will give their ideas and pitch them to the group. Once all players have made their cases, each player will mark on their voting sheet who created the best plan to combat the scenario. After three rounds the votes are tallied and the winner is crowned! Well, not with a real crown. Unless you want. But those are sold separately.
Components. Again, we were provided a prototype copy of this game, so all comments on components should be taken with that in mind. In fact, some cards came without art or flavor text on them. This in no way detracted from our plays. The components here are a bunch of cards, a pack of golf pencils, and a pad of voting sheets. The pencils and voting sheets are fine. The cards, though not final quality and missing many art pieces, are also fine. The art style on this game is interesting and I like it. Rucksack could be played with no art and I would feel the same way about it. So in summation, the components here are good.
This is another game that I thought would be a dud upon reading the rules and knowing the people I am able to play games with currently. However, once we started playing a whole new side of these people came forth to weave these intricate stories of how someone would use marbles to help them be rescued from an uninhabited island. I found myself also prodding the creative part of my brain (that I don’t use much anymore). It has been a surprise for me that I like this one so well. I’m not usually into storytelling games, but using these item cards to help guide the final answers prove to add such a unique facet to what could have been such a disaster for our group. I am proud to have this game in my collection to scratch a very different itch that I never thought I had.
Should you be in the market for a good and light storytelling game to get the creative juices flowing and the hilarity of others’ answers out, then do consider backing or purchasing Rucksack. You will enjoy it immensely and think about it even after you’ve played. That is the sign of a great game to me.
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated Detective Comics Volume 3: League of Shadows in Books
Nov 30, 2020
<i>A little bit of "backstory": I am a sucker for well-executed Ra's al Ghul story! To me, he is one of Batman's best adversaries and one of my personal faves! Add in more human, less off-the-scale like he is under Tom King's run Batman, and you've got a great treat for me! Now, that said, on to my review.</i>
<img src="https://i.imgur.com/MW33UBM.gif"; width="300" height="200">
I am still enjoying my return to reading DC's books rather than the current slop Marvel is serving up. My latest undertaking has been James Tynion IV's run on DETECTIVE COMICS. Last night, I devoured the 3rd volume, "League of Shadows", largely for the reasons in my backstory above.
I know some folks on interwebs have issues with Tynion's writing for the Dark Knight. I've read things like "bland" and "his stories go NOWHERE". I don't know which of his Batman entries they are reading, but thus far, not a one has disappointed.
This one was particularly interesting as it dealt with Cassandra Cain, a former Batgirl/now calling herself "Orphan" as that is what her parents have chosen to do, leaving her <i>orphaned</i>. Her mother is Sandra Wu-San, or as she is better known, Lady Shiva. There is no love lost between Cassandra and her mother; essentially, Shiva treats the poor girl as if she was dead, not even a product of her womb. Sad, really. But, it is good to see Cassandra and Shiva's relationship dealt with following the whole "Rebirth".
I may be in a serious minority here, but I really liked the ending (not <i>really</i> much of Spoiler), where Batman holds her in a embrace, letting her known she is not alone..ever. Sure, Bats is all about the whole "Dark Knight" and "Oooh, feel my scary presence, criminals!", but it was nice to see his human, father-esque side to his character. Much better than the way he is being handled in his main book!
Equally meaty and worthwhile was Ra's inclusion as part of the story. I found him to be well-written, feeling much like "The Demon's Head" that is his being. I was totally able to hear, in my head, his dialogue as read by David Warner, who did his voice in BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES. That definitely seems like Tynion is truly writing at the top of his game!
I was also quite pleased with the subplot of more background to Batwoman's character. I was not really that familiar with her character, other than in the animated DC film. That aside, I found her to be real and decidedly interesting, especially her relationship with her father. Again, some excellent writing from Tynion!
And speaking of Batwoman, how cool was it to see Batman assembling Bat-Family 2.0? This plot element harkened back to the Silver Age, where DETECTIVE COMICS would often do double-sized issues that focused on the then-Bat-Fam: Batman, Robin (Dick Grayson, not yet Nightwing), Batgirl, and sometimes, Elongated Man would get a story in it as well.
The new Bat-Fam consists of Batman (of course!), Batwing (Lucius Fox's son), Batwoman, Orphan (Cassandra Cain), Azrael (who I consider to be not-so-interest, leaving me to skip the last issue of this volume as it was 100% Azrael-centric), Spoiler (Stephanie Brown), Red Robin, and the-now-trying-his-hand-at-being-a-rehabilitated-good-guy Clayface. Quite a mixed bag, almost like a Skittles version of the Bat-Fam, but interesting choices for a collaborative team.
The team functions well enough, but there is some static and tension, as would be true of any team assembled such as this lot. All in all, I really dug the gang, and they really worked well together. Super-smooth idea of introducing a Bat-Fam 2.0! Bravo, James Tynion IV,you are AWESOME for doing this!
It is also worth mentioning the artists for this volume: Marcio Takara and Christian Duce. I was already familiar with Takara's delicious style from his work on Marvel's ALL-NEW WOLVERINE. Christian Duce was previously unknown to me, but after seeing his super-legit art skills, he is going to be one for me to keep an eye for going forward!
Blah, blah, blah, am I right? I could go on and on, but if you weren't reading my blathering, you could be reading this excellent Bat-book. I was going to give it 5-Stars, but I see that I was just giving them out for a while not unlike Oprah giving away new cars! So, that's it! Go already! You need to get a'readin'!
<img src="https://i.imgur.com/MW33UBM.gif"; width="300" height="200">
I am still enjoying my return to reading DC's books rather than the current slop Marvel is serving up. My latest undertaking has been James Tynion IV's run on DETECTIVE COMICS. Last night, I devoured the 3rd volume, "League of Shadows", largely for the reasons in my backstory above.
I know some folks on interwebs have issues with Tynion's writing for the Dark Knight. I've read things like "bland" and "his stories go NOWHERE". I don't know which of his Batman entries they are reading, but thus far, not a one has disappointed.
This one was particularly interesting as it dealt with Cassandra Cain, a former Batgirl/now calling herself "Orphan" as that is what her parents have chosen to do, leaving her <i>orphaned</i>. Her mother is Sandra Wu-San, or as she is better known, Lady Shiva. There is no love lost between Cassandra and her mother; essentially, Shiva treats the poor girl as if she was dead, not even a product of her womb. Sad, really. But, it is good to see Cassandra and Shiva's relationship dealt with following the whole "Rebirth".
I may be in a serious minority here, but I really liked the ending (not <i>really</i> much of Spoiler), where Batman holds her in a embrace, letting her known she is not alone..ever. Sure, Bats is all about the whole "Dark Knight" and "Oooh, feel my scary presence, criminals!", but it was nice to see his human, father-esque side to his character. Much better than the way he is being handled in his main book!
Equally meaty and worthwhile was Ra's inclusion as part of the story. I found him to be well-written, feeling much like "The Demon's Head" that is his being. I was totally able to hear, in my head, his dialogue as read by David Warner, who did his voice in BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES. That definitely seems like Tynion is truly writing at the top of his game!
I was also quite pleased with the subplot of more background to Batwoman's character. I was not really that familiar with her character, other than in the animated DC film. That aside, I found her to be real and decidedly interesting, especially her relationship with her father. Again, some excellent writing from Tynion!
And speaking of Batwoman, how cool was it to see Batman assembling Bat-Family 2.0? This plot element harkened back to the Silver Age, where DETECTIVE COMICS would often do double-sized issues that focused on the then-Bat-Fam: Batman, Robin (Dick Grayson, not yet Nightwing), Batgirl, and sometimes, Elongated Man would get a story in it as well.
The new Bat-Fam consists of Batman (of course!), Batwing (Lucius Fox's son), Batwoman, Orphan (Cassandra Cain), Azrael (who I consider to be not-so-interest, leaving me to skip the last issue of this volume as it was 100% Azrael-centric), Spoiler (Stephanie Brown), Red Robin, and the-now-trying-his-hand-at-being-a-rehabilitated-good-guy Clayface. Quite a mixed bag, almost like a Skittles version of the Bat-Fam, but interesting choices for a collaborative team.
The team functions well enough, but there is some static and tension, as would be true of any team assembled such as this lot. All in all, I really dug the gang, and they really worked well together. Super-smooth idea of introducing a Bat-Fam 2.0! Bravo, James Tynion IV,you are AWESOME for doing this!
It is also worth mentioning the artists for this volume: Marcio Takara and Christian Duce. I was already familiar with Takara's delicious style from his work on Marvel's ALL-NEW WOLVERINE. Christian Duce was previously unknown to me, but after seeing his super-legit art skills, he is going to be one for me to keep an eye for going forward!
Blah, blah, blah, am I right? I could go on and on, but if you weren't reading my blathering, you could be reading this excellent Bat-book. I was going to give it 5-Stars, but I see that I was just giving them out for a while not unlike Oprah giving away new cars! So, that's it! Go already! You need to get a'readin'!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Toy Story 4 (2019) in Movies
Jun 25, 2019
Another TOY STORY triumph for PIXAR
When I first heard that Pixar was going to make a 4th TOY STORY film, I found myself firmly in the camp of "why are they doing this? The 3rd film tied off the trilogy marvelously well and 4th film was not needed" But...I trust Pixar, and when it was revealed that both Tom Hanks and Tim Allen were back on board after reading the script, my fears were alleviated quite a bit, but I still had some unease in the pit of my stomach.
I shouldn't have worried. For TOY STORY 4 is a wonderful addition to the adventures of Woody, Buzz and gang. It fits in nicely with the other films in the series and brings just the right amount of joy, fun, adventure and emotional heft.
Picking up the adventures of these toys as they now belong to Bonnie (after being gifted to Bonnie when their original owner, Andy, went off to college at the end of Toy Story 3), things have progressed realistically enough. The "order of things" in Bonnie's room is somewhat different than in Andy's. Woody, the old Cowboy doll, is relegated (more often than not) to the closet while Bonnie plays more with Jessie, Buzz and others. Into this group comes "Forky" a plastic spork that is made into a toy by Bonnie at Kindergarten. In a nice reversal of the first Toy Story film, Woody works hard to ensure that Forky is accepted into the group.
Without revealing too much of the plot, the gang (including Woody and Forky) go on a roadtrip with Bonnie in her parents' rented RV and end up in a small-ish town where a carnival is taking place across the street from an Antique store that houses Woody's old flame, Bo Peep. New characters are introduced, old characters are given a moment (or two) to shine and adventures and shenanigans ensue, with an emotionally satisfying climax - you know, a TOY STORY film.
This one continues to progress these toys "lives" and adventures in such a smart, natural and clever way that I did not feel that I was watching the same film again. I was watching characters I love continue to live, learn, grow and progress - a very smart choice by these filmmakers.
As always, the voice cast is superb. Tim Allen (Buzz Lightyear), Joan Cusak (Jessie), Wallace Shawn (Rex), John Ratzenberger (Piggy) and even the late Don Rickles (Mr. PotatoHead) are all back and contribute greatly to the finished result. It is like putting on an old, comfortable sweater on a somewhat chilly day. You get a reassuring shiver of warmth.
But the filmmakers don't stop there - Annie Potts is back as Bo Peep (she - and the Bo Peep character - were in the original Toy Story). Add to these voices, the marvelous work by Christina Hendricks (Gabby Gabby), Key & Peele (Ducky & Bunny), Carl Weathers (all the Combat Carls) and Tony Hale (wonderfully quirky as Forky) and we have quite the ensemble of interesting, quirky characters - growing and enriching the "Universe" they are in (quite like what Marvel has done with their "Universe"). Special notice needs to be made of Keanu Reeves work as Canadian Daredevil toy Duke Kaboom (the Canadian Evil Kneivel), it is the most entertaining - to me - of all the new characters.
But...make no mistake...this film belongs to Tom Hanks as Woody. It has taken me 4 films to realize this, but Hanks good guy "everyman" portrayal of Woody is the heart and soul of these pictures and this 4th film is Woody's film - as his character comes full circle from the paranoid toy who wants to keep living his safe existence to something much, much more in this film. It isn't hyperbole of me to say that I would be just fine for Hanks to receive an Oscar nomination for his voice work in this film - he is that good.
Interestingly enough, Pixar brought in a novice Director, Josh Cooley, to helm this film. It is his first feature film directing experience, but he is a veteran Pixar face - having written INSIDE OUT and was the main Storyboard Artist for UP - his direction looks like someone who was comfortable in this medium - and with the style of film that Pixar (usually) goes for - and he does terrific work here.
I really enjoyed the journey of the characters (especially Woody) in this film. I need not have worried about Pixar making a 4th Toy Story - they nailed the landing again.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
I shouldn't have worried. For TOY STORY 4 is a wonderful addition to the adventures of Woody, Buzz and gang. It fits in nicely with the other films in the series and brings just the right amount of joy, fun, adventure and emotional heft.
Picking up the adventures of these toys as they now belong to Bonnie (after being gifted to Bonnie when their original owner, Andy, went off to college at the end of Toy Story 3), things have progressed realistically enough. The "order of things" in Bonnie's room is somewhat different than in Andy's. Woody, the old Cowboy doll, is relegated (more often than not) to the closet while Bonnie plays more with Jessie, Buzz and others. Into this group comes "Forky" a plastic spork that is made into a toy by Bonnie at Kindergarten. In a nice reversal of the first Toy Story film, Woody works hard to ensure that Forky is accepted into the group.
Without revealing too much of the plot, the gang (including Woody and Forky) go on a roadtrip with Bonnie in her parents' rented RV and end up in a small-ish town where a carnival is taking place across the street from an Antique store that houses Woody's old flame, Bo Peep. New characters are introduced, old characters are given a moment (or two) to shine and adventures and shenanigans ensue, with an emotionally satisfying climax - you know, a TOY STORY film.
This one continues to progress these toys "lives" and adventures in such a smart, natural and clever way that I did not feel that I was watching the same film again. I was watching characters I love continue to live, learn, grow and progress - a very smart choice by these filmmakers.
As always, the voice cast is superb. Tim Allen (Buzz Lightyear), Joan Cusak (Jessie), Wallace Shawn (Rex), John Ratzenberger (Piggy) and even the late Don Rickles (Mr. PotatoHead) are all back and contribute greatly to the finished result. It is like putting on an old, comfortable sweater on a somewhat chilly day. You get a reassuring shiver of warmth.
But the filmmakers don't stop there - Annie Potts is back as Bo Peep (she - and the Bo Peep character - were in the original Toy Story). Add to these voices, the marvelous work by Christina Hendricks (Gabby Gabby), Key & Peele (Ducky & Bunny), Carl Weathers (all the Combat Carls) and Tony Hale (wonderfully quirky as Forky) and we have quite the ensemble of interesting, quirky characters - growing and enriching the "Universe" they are in (quite like what Marvel has done with their "Universe"). Special notice needs to be made of Keanu Reeves work as Canadian Daredevil toy Duke Kaboom (the Canadian Evil Kneivel), it is the most entertaining - to me - of all the new characters.
But...make no mistake...this film belongs to Tom Hanks as Woody. It has taken me 4 films to realize this, but Hanks good guy "everyman" portrayal of Woody is the heart and soul of these pictures and this 4th film is Woody's film - as his character comes full circle from the paranoid toy who wants to keep living his safe existence to something much, much more in this film. It isn't hyperbole of me to say that I would be just fine for Hanks to receive an Oscar nomination for his voice work in this film - he is that good.
Interestingly enough, Pixar brought in a novice Director, Josh Cooley, to helm this film. It is his first feature film directing experience, but he is a veteran Pixar face - having written INSIDE OUT and was the main Storyboard Artist for UP - his direction looks like someone who was comfortable in this medium - and with the style of film that Pixar (usually) goes for - and he does terrific work here.
I really enjoyed the journey of the characters (especially Woody) in this film. I need not have worried about Pixar making a 4th Toy Story - they nailed the landing again.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Black Panther (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Black Ops.
There was a joke on the internet the other day that made me laugh and laugh. Virtually the only white people in “Black Panther” are the Hobbit/LOTR stars Martin Freeman and Andy Serkis…. they are the Tolkein white guys! It’s actually getting to feel quite isolating as an ‘average white guy’ at the movies! After a plethora of #SheDo films about empowered women, now comes the first black-centred Marvel film… stuffed full of powerful women too!
The setting is the hidden African kingdom of Wakanda, where due to an abundance of a an all-powerful mineral called McGuffinite… so, sorry, Vibranium… the leaders have made their city a technological marvel and developed all sorts of ad tech to help the people keep their goats well and weave their baskets better (there are a few odd scenes in this film!). T’Challa (Chadwick Boseman) succeeds his father T’Chaka (John Kani) to become the king and adopt the role of The Black Panther, being bestowed superhero powers by drinking a glass of Ribena.
But it emerges that T’Chaka has a dark secret in the form of Eric Killmonger (Michael B Jordan, “Creed“) who is determined to muscle in on the king-stuff. ‘It never rains but it pours’, and the whole of Wakanda’s secrets are in danger of being exposed by the antics of the vicious South African mercenary Ulysses Klaue (Andy Serkis, “War For The Planet Of The Apes“), trying to get his hands on vibranium to sell on to CIA operative Everett Ross (Martin Freeman, “The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies“, “The World’s End“).
After “Thor: Ragnarok“, this is back to the more seriously-played end of the superhero spectrum: there are a few jokes but it’s not overtly played for comedy. Holding the film together are some sterling performances from the ensemble cast with Michael B Jordan very good as the villain of the piece. Adding to the significant black girl power in the film are Angela Bassett (“London Has Fallen“) as the queen mother; Danai Gurira (“Wonder Woman“) as the leader of the Dora Milaje: the all-female king’s guard; and Lupita Nyong’o (“12 Years a Slave“, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens“) as the spy and love interest Nakia. But the star performance for me, and one I found absolutely spot-on as a role model for young people, was Letitia Wright (“The Commuter“) as Shuri, the king’s chief scientist. She is absolutely radiant, adding beauty, rude gestures and energy to every scene she is in.
Man of the moment Daniel Kaluuya (“Get Out“) also adds to his movie-cred as a conflicted courtier.
On the white side of the shop Andy Serkis has enormous fun as Klaue and I really wanted to see more of his character than I did. Martin Freeman feels rather lightweight and under-used, and I couldn’t quite get past his dodgy American accent.
In terms of storyline, the film is a hotch-potch of plots from multiple other films, with “The Lion King” featuring strongly (but almost in reverse!). But that’s no crime, when the Shakespearean-style narrative is good, and interpolating the strongly emotional story into the Marvel universe works well.
Where I felt a little uncomfortable is the element of racism – that is, racism *against* white people – reflected in the story. If there was a movie plot centred (basically) on the topic of whites killing blacks and taking control of every black-controlled country in the world (yes, I know, I’m British and we have historically been there!) then there would be justified uproar, and the film would be shunned.
In the technical department, I had real problems with some of the effects employed. Starting with a dodgy ‘aircraft’ shadow, things nose-dive with an astonishingly poor waterfall scene with Forest Whitaker (“Rogue One“, “Arrival“) as Zuri, green-screened against some Disneyworld cascades and hundreds of cut and pasted tribesmen randomly inserted onto the cliffs. Almost matching that is a studio-set scene in a jungle clearing, where if feels they could hardly have bothered to take the plants out of their pots. Think “Daktari” quality (kids, ask your parents/grandparents).
But overall, the film, directed by Ryan Coogler (“Creed“), is a high-energy and uniquely different take on Marvel that absolutely pays off. And it is without doubt an important movie in moving the black agenda forward into properly mainstream cinema.
The setting is the hidden African kingdom of Wakanda, where due to an abundance of a an all-powerful mineral called McGuffinite… so, sorry, Vibranium… the leaders have made their city a technological marvel and developed all sorts of ad tech to help the people keep their goats well and weave their baskets better (there are a few odd scenes in this film!). T’Challa (Chadwick Boseman) succeeds his father T’Chaka (John Kani) to become the king and adopt the role of The Black Panther, being bestowed superhero powers by drinking a glass of Ribena.
But it emerges that T’Chaka has a dark secret in the form of Eric Killmonger (Michael B Jordan, “Creed“) who is determined to muscle in on the king-stuff. ‘It never rains but it pours’, and the whole of Wakanda’s secrets are in danger of being exposed by the antics of the vicious South African mercenary Ulysses Klaue (Andy Serkis, “War For The Planet Of The Apes“), trying to get his hands on vibranium to sell on to CIA operative Everett Ross (Martin Freeman, “The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies“, “The World’s End“).
After “Thor: Ragnarok“, this is back to the more seriously-played end of the superhero spectrum: there are a few jokes but it’s not overtly played for comedy. Holding the film together are some sterling performances from the ensemble cast with Michael B Jordan very good as the villain of the piece. Adding to the significant black girl power in the film are Angela Bassett (“London Has Fallen“) as the queen mother; Danai Gurira (“Wonder Woman“) as the leader of the Dora Milaje: the all-female king’s guard; and Lupita Nyong’o (“12 Years a Slave“, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens“) as the spy and love interest Nakia. But the star performance for me, and one I found absolutely spot-on as a role model for young people, was Letitia Wright (“The Commuter“) as Shuri, the king’s chief scientist. She is absolutely radiant, adding beauty, rude gestures and energy to every scene she is in.
Man of the moment Daniel Kaluuya (“Get Out“) also adds to his movie-cred as a conflicted courtier.
On the white side of the shop Andy Serkis has enormous fun as Klaue and I really wanted to see more of his character than I did. Martin Freeman feels rather lightweight and under-used, and I couldn’t quite get past his dodgy American accent.
In terms of storyline, the film is a hotch-potch of plots from multiple other films, with “The Lion King” featuring strongly (but almost in reverse!). But that’s no crime, when the Shakespearean-style narrative is good, and interpolating the strongly emotional story into the Marvel universe works well.
Where I felt a little uncomfortable is the element of racism – that is, racism *against* white people – reflected in the story. If there was a movie plot centred (basically) on the topic of whites killing blacks and taking control of every black-controlled country in the world (yes, I know, I’m British and we have historically been there!) then there would be justified uproar, and the film would be shunned.
In the technical department, I had real problems with some of the effects employed. Starting with a dodgy ‘aircraft’ shadow, things nose-dive with an astonishingly poor waterfall scene with Forest Whitaker (“Rogue One“, “Arrival“) as Zuri, green-screened against some Disneyworld cascades and hundreds of cut and pasted tribesmen randomly inserted onto the cliffs. Almost matching that is a studio-set scene in a jungle clearing, where if feels they could hardly have bothered to take the plants out of their pots. Think “Daktari” quality (kids, ask your parents/grandparents).
But overall, the film, directed by Ryan Coogler (“Creed“), is a high-energy and uniquely different take on Marvel that absolutely pays off. And it is without doubt an important movie in moving the black agenda forward into properly mainstream cinema.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Murder on the Orient Express (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
You’ll never guess who dunnit…
There’s a big problem with Kenneth Branagh’s 2017 filming of the Hercule Poirot-based murder mystery…. and that’s the 1974 Sidney Lumet classic featuring Albert Finney in the starring role. For that film was so memorable – at least, the “who” of the “whodunnit” (no spoilers here) was so memorable – that any remake is likely to be tarnished by that knowledge. If you go into this film blissfully unaware of the plot, you are a lucky man/woman. For this is a classic Agatha Christie yarn.
The irascible, borderline OCD, but undeniably great Belgian detective, Poirot, is dragged around the world by grateful police forces to help solve unsolvable crimes. After solving a case in Jerusalem, Poirot is called back to the UK with his mode of transport being the famous Orient Express. Trapped in the mountains by an avalanche, a murder is committed and with multiple suspects and a plethora of clues it is up to Poirot to solve the case.
Branagh enjoys himself enormously as Poirot, sporting the most distractingly magnificent facial hair since Daniel Day-Lewis in “The Gangs of New York”. The moustache must have had its own trailer and make-up team!
Above all, the film is glorious to look at, featuring a rich and exotic colour palette that is reminiscent of the early colour films of the 40’s. Cinematography was by Haris Zambarloukos (“Mamma Mia” and who also collaborated with Branagh on “Thor) with lots of innovative “ceiling down” shots and artful point-of-view takes that might be annoying to some but which I consider as deserving of Oscar/BAFTA nominations.
The pictures are accompanied by a lush score by Patrick Doyle (who also scored Branagh’s “Thor”). Hats off also to the special effects crew, who made the alpine bridge scenes look decidedly more alpine than where they were actually filmed (on a specially made bridge in the Surrey Hills!).
All these technical elements combine to make the film’s early stages look and feel truly epic.
And the cast… what a cast! Dame Judi Dench (“Victoria and Abdul“); Olivia Coleman (“The Lobster“); Johnny Depp (“Black Mass“); Daisy Ridley (“Star Wars: The Force Awakens“); Penélope Cruz (“Zoolander 2“); Josh Gad (Olaf!); Derek Jacobi (“I, Claudius”); Willem Dafoe (“The Great Wall“) and Michelle Pfeiffer (“mother!“). A real case again of an “oh, it’s you” film again at the cinema – when’s the last time we saw that?
It’s also great to see young Lucy Boynton, so magnificent in last year’s excellent “Sing Street“, getting an A-list role as the twitchy and disturbed countess.
With all these ingredients in the pot, it should be great, right? Unfortunately, in my view, no, not quite. The film’s opening momentum is really not maintained by the screenplay by Michael Green (“Blade Runner 2049“; “Logan“). At heart, it’s a fairly static and “stagey” piece at best, set as it is on the rather claustrophobic train (just three carriages… on the Orient Express… really?). But the tale is made even more static by the train’s derailment in the snow. Branagh and Green try to sex up the action where they can, but there are lengthy passages of fairly repetitive dialogue. One encounter in particular between Branagh and Depp seems to last interminably: you wonder if the problem was that the director wasn’t always looking on to yell “Cut”!
All this leads to the “revelation” of the murderer as being a bit of an anticlimactic “thank heavens for that” rather than the gasping denouement it should have been. (Perhaps this would be different if you didn’t know the twist).
However, these reservations aside, it’s an enjoyable night out at the flicks, although a bit of a disappointment from the level of expectation I had for it. I can’t be too grumpy about it, given it’s a return to good old-fashioned yarn-spinning at the cinema, with great visuals and an epic cast. And that has to be good news.
For sure, Branagh does make for an amusing and engaging Poirot, even if his dialogue did need some ‘tuning in’ to. There was a suggestion at the end of the film that we might be seeing his return in “Death on the Nile” – the most lush and decorous of Peter Ustinov’s outings – which I would certainly welcome. He will have to find another 10 A-list stars though to decorate the boat, which will be a challenge for casting!
The irascible, borderline OCD, but undeniably great Belgian detective, Poirot, is dragged around the world by grateful police forces to help solve unsolvable crimes. After solving a case in Jerusalem, Poirot is called back to the UK with his mode of transport being the famous Orient Express. Trapped in the mountains by an avalanche, a murder is committed and with multiple suspects and a plethora of clues it is up to Poirot to solve the case.
Branagh enjoys himself enormously as Poirot, sporting the most distractingly magnificent facial hair since Daniel Day-Lewis in “The Gangs of New York”. The moustache must have had its own trailer and make-up team!
Above all, the film is glorious to look at, featuring a rich and exotic colour palette that is reminiscent of the early colour films of the 40’s. Cinematography was by Haris Zambarloukos (“Mamma Mia” and who also collaborated with Branagh on “Thor) with lots of innovative “ceiling down” shots and artful point-of-view takes that might be annoying to some but which I consider as deserving of Oscar/BAFTA nominations.
The pictures are accompanied by a lush score by Patrick Doyle (who also scored Branagh’s “Thor”). Hats off also to the special effects crew, who made the alpine bridge scenes look decidedly more alpine than where they were actually filmed (on a specially made bridge in the Surrey Hills!).
All these technical elements combine to make the film’s early stages look and feel truly epic.
And the cast… what a cast! Dame Judi Dench (“Victoria and Abdul“); Olivia Coleman (“The Lobster“); Johnny Depp (“Black Mass“); Daisy Ridley (“Star Wars: The Force Awakens“); Penélope Cruz (“Zoolander 2“); Josh Gad (Olaf!); Derek Jacobi (“I, Claudius”); Willem Dafoe (“The Great Wall“) and Michelle Pfeiffer (“mother!“). A real case again of an “oh, it’s you” film again at the cinema – when’s the last time we saw that?
It’s also great to see young Lucy Boynton, so magnificent in last year’s excellent “Sing Street“, getting an A-list role as the twitchy and disturbed countess.
With all these ingredients in the pot, it should be great, right? Unfortunately, in my view, no, not quite. The film’s opening momentum is really not maintained by the screenplay by Michael Green (“Blade Runner 2049“; “Logan“). At heart, it’s a fairly static and “stagey” piece at best, set as it is on the rather claustrophobic train (just three carriages… on the Orient Express… really?). But the tale is made even more static by the train’s derailment in the snow. Branagh and Green try to sex up the action where they can, but there are lengthy passages of fairly repetitive dialogue. One encounter in particular between Branagh and Depp seems to last interminably: you wonder if the problem was that the director wasn’t always looking on to yell “Cut”!
All this leads to the “revelation” of the murderer as being a bit of an anticlimactic “thank heavens for that” rather than the gasping denouement it should have been. (Perhaps this would be different if you didn’t know the twist).
However, these reservations aside, it’s an enjoyable night out at the flicks, although a bit of a disappointment from the level of expectation I had for it. I can’t be too grumpy about it, given it’s a return to good old-fashioned yarn-spinning at the cinema, with great visuals and an epic cast. And that has to be good news.
For sure, Branagh does make for an amusing and engaging Poirot, even if his dialogue did need some ‘tuning in’ to. There was a suggestion at the end of the film that we might be seeing his return in “Death on the Nile” – the most lush and decorous of Peter Ustinov’s outings – which I would certainly welcome. He will have to find another 10 A-list stars though to decorate the boat, which will be a challenge for casting!