Search
Search results
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Truth Seekers - Season 1 in TV
Nov 8, 2020
Enjoyably British
Truth Seekers is the latest collaboration from Nick Frost and Simon Pegg, and centres around employees of a network services provider who run a YouTube channel as amateur paranormal investigators.
The series follows Gus Roberts (Nick Frost), the top installation engineer for network provider Smyle. He lives with his dad (Malcolm McDowell) and investigates paranormal activities in his spare time, running his own YouTube channel as ‘The Truth Seeker’. His boss Dave (Simon Pegg) pairs Gus with a new employee Elton John (Samson Kayo), and Truth Seekers follows the pair as they increasingly encounter paranormal and mysterious entities as they go about their daily work, including a haunted young woman called Astrid (Emma D’Arcy).
Truth Seekers starts off as a case by episode series, with a new spooky encounter every time (think Supernatural but very British) and then mid-way works into a bigger overall plot involving Julian Barratt’s Dr Peter Toynbee that seems to tie all the earlier elements together. As a supernatural horror show, this works really well. It doesn’t rely on typical jump scares, and instead uses well known horror situations to be as creepy as possible. Admittedly this is a tad cliched – think of all the known supernatural experiences you’d expect to see (psychiatric hospitals, hotels, demons and satanic books to name a few) and you’ll definitely find them here. However this doesn’t matter as they’re done well and in such a smart, creepy and very British way. Even the special effects are impressive for something that looks like it should be fairly low budget.
Whilst this is made out to be a horror comedy, it’s the comedy side that appears to be a little lacking. Don’t get me wrong, this has its’s funny and witty moments and seems to relish all of the pop culture references it throws in at every opportunity, however it doesn’t seem quite as edgy and quick witted as Frost and Pegg’s previous collaborations. Frost delivers his usual deadpan style well and is ably supported by Samson Kayo’s Elton as his rather adorable and unwitting partner. The standout though is unsurprisingly Malcolm McDowell as Gus’ dad Richard. Right from the first episode McDowell shines and is an absolute riot. Every scene he’s in gives rise to so many laughs and in particular there’s one scene featuring him going upstairs on a stair lift so slowly that nearly had me crying with laughter. But despite this the humour is maybe a little lacking from what we’d expect. I also felt like some of the pop culture references were a little forced and unnatural, which is a shame as there were also a lot that worked quite well – nods to Aliens and The Shawshank Redemption were particularly appreciated.
Truth Seekers may be lacking a little in humour, but what is there is adeptly delivered by a rather stellar cast. Pegg takes a backseat as boss Dave with an atrocious hairpiece and there are some small roles for Kelly MacDonald, Susie Wokoma and Julian Barratt, but everyone puts in a great performance no matter the screen time. McDowell undoubtedly steals the show, but the main trio of Frost, Kayo and D’Arcy carry the show well between them.
What surprised me the most about Truth Seekers is how short it was. A mere eight episodes running at 30 minutes each doesn’t seem like enough – by the end of the eighth episode I was shocked to see there wasn’t any more, although the final scenes do at least set this up for a second series that will hopefully come to fruition. I was a little concerned about the main plot involving Toynbee as it did get a little convoluted towards the end, and the final scenes do nothing but add to this and hint at a much bigger story going on. This could end up being rather good, but it could also turn what is by and large a very enjoyable British supernatural series into something rather crazy and confused. Only series two will tell.
The series follows Gus Roberts (Nick Frost), the top installation engineer for network provider Smyle. He lives with his dad (Malcolm McDowell) and investigates paranormal activities in his spare time, running his own YouTube channel as ‘The Truth Seeker’. His boss Dave (Simon Pegg) pairs Gus with a new employee Elton John (Samson Kayo), and Truth Seekers follows the pair as they increasingly encounter paranormal and mysterious entities as they go about their daily work, including a haunted young woman called Astrid (Emma D’Arcy).
Truth Seekers starts off as a case by episode series, with a new spooky encounter every time (think Supernatural but very British) and then mid-way works into a bigger overall plot involving Julian Barratt’s Dr Peter Toynbee that seems to tie all the earlier elements together. As a supernatural horror show, this works really well. It doesn’t rely on typical jump scares, and instead uses well known horror situations to be as creepy as possible. Admittedly this is a tad cliched – think of all the known supernatural experiences you’d expect to see (psychiatric hospitals, hotels, demons and satanic books to name a few) and you’ll definitely find them here. However this doesn’t matter as they’re done well and in such a smart, creepy and very British way. Even the special effects are impressive for something that looks like it should be fairly low budget.
Whilst this is made out to be a horror comedy, it’s the comedy side that appears to be a little lacking. Don’t get me wrong, this has its’s funny and witty moments and seems to relish all of the pop culture references it throws in at every opportunity, however it doesn’t seem quite as edgy and quick witted as Frost and Pegg’s previous collaborations. Frost delivers his usual deadpan style well and is ably supported by Samson Kayo’s Elton as his rather adorable and unwitting partner. The standout though is unsurprisingly Malcolm McDowell as Gus’ dad Richard. Right from the first episode McDowell shines and is an absolute riot. Every scene he’s in gives rise to so many laughs and in particular there’s one scene featuring him going upstairs on a stair lift so slowly that nearly had me crying with laughter. But despite this the humour is maybe a little lacking from what we’d expect. I also felt like some of the pop culture references were a little forced and unnatural, which is a shame as there were also a lot that worked quite well – nods to Aliens and The Shawshank Redemption were particularly appreciated.
Truth Seekers may be lacking a little in humour, but what is there is adeptly delivered by a rather stellar cast. Pegg takes a backseat as boss Dave with an atrocious hairpiece and there are some small roles for Kelly MacDonald, Susie Wokoma and Julian Barratt, but everyone puts in a great performance no matter the screen time. McDowell undoubtedly steals the show, but the main trio of Frost, Kayo and D’Arcy carry the show well between them.
What surprised me the most about Truth Seekers is how short it was. A mere eight episodes running at 30 minutes each doesn’t seem like enough – by the end of the eighth episode I was shocked to see there wasn’t any more, although the final scenes do at least set this up for a second series that will hopefully come to fruition. I was a little concerned about the main plot involving Toynbee as it did get a little convoluted towards the end, and the final scenes do nothing but add to this and hint at a much bigger story going on. This could end up being rather good, but it could also turn what is by and large a very enjoyable British supernatural series into something rather crazy and confused. Only series two will tell.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Seinfeld - Season 1 in TV
Jan 22, 2021
I always assumed I wouldn’t like Seinfeld in the 90s. In fact I was opposed to the very idea of it on principle. And that principle was: I’ve never heard of this guy as a comedian, and American stand-up usually isn’t funny. I never saw a single episode until six months ago – in my head it was some dumb, canned laughter show with very forced scripts and little charm. I just didn’t get why it was always quoted amongst the best sitcoms of all time, and I wasn’t willing to find out. This is called “being ignorant”. Guilty.
One random day with nothing else inspiring me I finally took the plunge and put an episode on. Guess what happened? I laughed, I found it completely charming and witty and easy to watch, with some great lines and likeable characters. 3 hours later I had done 6 episodes and was as hooked as anyone can be with anything. It was just so nostalgically and completely 90s! And I loved that!
A show doesn’t run for 9 years and over 170 episodes without being some kind of special, especially taking into account the depreciation due to being dated, as all sitcoms eventually are, and it really is quite remarkable – deserving of a place in the conversation of the greatest ever American half hour shows. Sure, there is an element early on in the preoccupation with everyone’s sex life and dating habits that is a little creepy in 2020, but I am totally willing to forgive it.
Shows that are hyper aware of themselves and the audience are odd creatures the minute they take themselves too seriously, and Seinfeld never does that. It knows it is trivial, essentially about nothing and going nowhere, and style-wise it is always winking at us for being in on the joke and a part of it, even to the point of applauding new characters on their entrance, which is a uniquely American thing to do.
The secret of the show is undoubtedly the chemistry of the four leads, so mismatched that it someone works a spell and creates magic, much in the same way Friends managed to do, times six. Jerry Seinfeld himself is a very likeable everyman, and the schtick of each show beginning and ending with 30 seconds of stand up is a gimmick that grows on you, as does everything about it: the more you watch, the more you love it for what it is.
Jason Alexander as the balding, quirky, self-conscious, opinionated best friend is perhaps my least favourite of the regular quartet, but he has some amazing moments over the course of things, and plays great dead-pan. But the other two are on a plane of equal genius. The verbal timing of the super cute, super smart Julia Louis-Dreyfus as Elaine (who I have fallen in love with a little bit in 1993) and the physical slapstick timing of Michael Richards as Cosmo Kramer (surely one of the most memorable characters in sitcom history) have both left me aching with laughter time after time after time. Just a glance or an expression is often enough.
And the great thing is, it never seems to get old. They are always finding new ways and new situations that keep it fresh. Some trick! Even in the final season of the 9, when there is a small melancholia creeping in because they all know it is coming to an end, it still manages to create moments that aren’t just repeats of previous gags. Which means, as future background watching it is 100% perfect. Leave it on whilst doing something else, look up once in a while, and like the best of all long running US comedy shows each episode is indistinguishable from any other in the best way – it is like having a friend in the room.
I can’t imagine ever saying it is amongst my very favourites, maybe because I missed out on it first time around – which I put down to an inherent middle aged appeal, rather than a youth appeal – but I wouldn’t also ever argue with anyone that did say that it was one of their favourites. Because I get it now. And I’m so glad I got to do it, no matter how late to the party!
One random day with nothing else inspiring me I finally took the plunge and put an episode on. Guess what happened? I laughed, I found it completely charming and witty and easy to watch, with some great lines and likeable characters. 3 hours later I had done 6 episodes and was as hooked as anyone can be with anything. It was just so nostalgically and completely 90s! And I loved that!
A show doesn’t run for 9 years and over 170 episodes without being some kind of special, especially taking into account the depreciation due to being dated, as all sitcoms eventually are, and it really is quite remarkable – deserving of a place in the conversation of the greatest ever American half hour shows. Sure, there is an element early on in the preoccupation with everyone’s sex life and dating habits that is a little creepy in 2020, but I am totally willing to forgive it.
Shows that are hyper aware of themselves and the audience are odd creatures the minute they take themselves too seriously, and Seinfeld never does that. It knows it is trivial, essentially about nothing and going nowhere, and style-wise it is always winking at us for being in on the joke and a part of it, even to the point of applauding new characters on their entrance, which is a uniquely American thing to do.
The secret of the show is undoubtedly the chemistry of the four leads, so mismatched that it someone works a spell and creates magic, much in the same way Friends managed to do, times six. Jerry Seinfeld himself is a very likeable everyman, and the schtick of each show beginning and ending with 30 seconds of stand up is a gimmick that grows on you, as does everything about it: the more you watch, the more you love it for what it is.
Jason Alexander as the balding, quirky, self-conscious, opinionated best friend is perhaps my least favourite of the regular quartet, but he has some amazing moments over the course of things, and plays great dead-pan. But the other two are on a plane of equal genius. The verbal timing of the super cute, super smart Julia Louis-Dreyfus as Elaine (who I have fallen in love with a little bit in 1993) and the physical slapstick timing of Michael Richards as Cosmo Kramer (surely one of the most memorable characters in sitcom history) have both left me aching with laughter time after time after time. Just a glance or an expression is often enough.
And the great thing is, it never seems to get old. They are always finding new ways and new situations that keep it fresh. Some trick! Even in the final season of the 9, when there is a small melancholia creeping in because they all know it is coming to an end, it still manages to create moments that aren’t just repeats of previous gags. Which means, as future background watching it is 100% perfect. Leave it on whilst doing something else, look up once in a while, and like the best of all long running US comedy shows each episode is indistinguishable from any other in the best way – it is like having a friend in the room.
I can’t imagine ever saying it is amongst my very favourites, maybe because I missed out on it first time around – which I put down to an inherent middle aged appeal, rather than a youth appeal – but I wouldn’t also ever argue with anyone that did say that it was one of their favourites. Because I get it now. And I’m so glad I got to do it, no matter how late to the party!
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Jojo Rabbit (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Another favourite from the awards season that came with some strong acclaim from amongst friends and trusted reviewers, WWII satire Jojo Rabbit, from the likeable and unique mind of Taika Waititi, was always high on my list as a must see movie.
I have followed the Kiwi’s original output since way back, and always enjoyed his quirky sense of humour and childlike charm. Either Eagle vs Shark or The Flight of the Conchords would have been my first encounter; and by the time of Hunt for the Wilderpeople and Thor: Ragnarok I had become a tentative fan. Never entirely bowled over by his style and content in the same way as, say, Wes Anderson (to whom some compare his outlook on the creative world), and never rolling around on the floor in hysterics at his naivety and comedy of manners, nevertheless, I like the guy a lot.
So when I heard he had adapted a fantasy novel about Nazi Germany from the point of view of a child, and would be playing Hitler himself, I knew instantly where he would be pitching this. The idea of it being offensive in any way was not a concern or even a thought, and anyone that did react that way is just… ridiculous and deliberately missing the point for the sake of finding something to be outraged about.
Of course subjects of genocide, political repression and evil existing in the world should and must be treated with a sensitivity to a degree, and amongst the silly lampooning and most extreme moments of satire that care is evident. There are moments of real gravity and tenderness in the mix here, thanks in large to some wonderful performances from the adult actors, notably the ever reliable Sam Rockwell and the increasingly strong and impressive Scarlett Johansson, who picked up her second Oscar nomination for this, after Marriage Story ticked the box for true drama.
The film focuses and relies on young Roman Griffin Davis as the eponymous Jojo, a happy little boy who sees goodness and light in an ever darkening world around him. Waititi as director works well with kids, placing the idea of charm and likability above acting prowess per se. And that is both the strength and ultimate weakness of this premise. He is charming and likeable, and cute and sweet and very watchable, but his inexperience in front of the camera and ability to find a range of emotions is often tested beyond his tender years, and can therefore break the magic spell that is woven in the best scenes.
The humour itself also doesn’t always hit the mark. Sometimes it is merely amusing rather than something laugh out loud funny, much as an average Mel Brooks film always was. And that can lead to a feel of something uneven and rambling, as the story struggles to find what it really wants to say. In its final moments it does land on an overlying message that leaves you with a winning impression, and you leave feeling that you saw something you enjoyed, but not something you would unreservedly recommend to everyone. In fact if someone said they didn’t enjoy it, or get the joke at all, then I would respect that view.
Under a microscope of scrutiny it doesn’t hold up that well, and I wonder how a few years of distance will treat it, once our sensibilities shift again with time. There are a few moments when the heart of the film connects with it’s silly bone and resonates, but not nearly enough. I personally wanted more of that. But, sadly, whenever JoJo threatens to grow up it retreats back into childhood and shies away from commenting on anything serious or truly meaningful. But, of course, that is not the point. As an entertainment it is a wonderful, unique and lovely film. And that should really be all that it is judged by.
In conclusion, a curiosity I will look forward to watching again, but don’t think quite makes the grade as an instant classic. It only reinforced however how much I like Rockwell and Johansson, and will always be curious about what Waititi is up to next.
I have followed the Kiwi’s original output since way back, and always enjoyed his quirky sense of humour and childlike charm. Either Eagle vs Shark or The Flight of the Conchords would have been my first encounter; and by the time of Hunt for the Wilderpeople and Thor: Ragnarok I had become a tentative fan. Never entirely bowled over by his style and content in the same way as, say, Wes Anderson (to whom some compare his outlook on the creative world), and never rolling around on the floor in hysterics at his naivety and comedy of manners, nevertheless, I like the guy a lot.
So when I heard he had adapted a fantasy novel about Nazi Germany from the point of view of a child, and would be playing Hitler himself, I knew instantly where he would be pitching this. The idea of it being offensive in any way was not a concern or even a thought, and anyone that did react that way is just… ridiculous and deliberately missing the point for the sake of finding something to be outraged about.
Of course subjects of genocide, political repression and evil existing in the world should and must be treated with a sensitivity to a degree, and amongst the silly lampooning and most extreme moments of satire that care is evident. There are moments of real gravity and tenderness in the mix here, thanks in large to some wonderful performances from the adult actors, notably the ever reliable Sam Rockwell and the increasingly strong and impressive Scarlett Johansson, who picked up her second Oscar nomination for this, after Marriage Story ticked the box for true drama.
The film focuses and relies on young Roman Griffin Davis as the eponymous Jojo, a happy little boy who sees goodness and light in an ever darkening world around him. Waititi as director works well with kids, placing the idea of charm and likability above acting prowess per se. And that is both the strength and ultimate weakness of this premise. He is charming and likeable, and cute and sweet and very watchable, but his inexperience in front of the camera and ability to find a range of emotions is often tested beyond his tender years, and can therefore break the magic spell that is woven in the best scenes.
The humour itself also doesn’t always hit the mark. Sometimes it is merely amusing rather than something laugh out loud funny, much as an average Mel Brooks film always was. And that can lead to a feel of something uneven and rambling, as the story struggles to find what it really wants to say. In its final moments it does land on an overlying message that leaves you with a winning impression, and you leave feeling that you saw something you enjoyed, but not something you would unreservedly recommend to everyone. In fact if someone said they didn’t enjoy it, or get the joke at all, then I would respect that view.
Under a microscope of scrutiny it doesn’t hold up that well, and I wonder how a few years of distance will treat it, once our sensibilities shift again with time. There are a few moments when the heart of the film connects with it’s silly bone and resonates, but not nearly enough. I personally wanted more of that. But, sadly, whenever JoJo threatens to grow up it retreats back into childhood and shies away from commenting on anything serious or truly meaningful. But, of course, that is not the point. As an entertainment it is a wonderful, unique and lovely film. And that should really be all that it is judged by.
In conclusion, a curiosity I will look forward to watching again, but don’t think quite makes the grade as an instant classic. It only reinforced however how much I like Rockwell and Johansson, and will always be curious about what Waititi is up to next.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Love, Simon (2018) in Movies
Jun 29, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Simon Spier keeps a huge secret from his family, his friends, and all of his classmates: he's gay. When that secret is threatened, Simon must face everyone and come to terms with his identity.
I had been looking forward to this one, book adaptation... of course I was going to be... so getting this as our secret screening was fun great. But it really divided the pack and there was much discussion online about it after. But not so much about the film. I'm going to get the grumpy portion of this out of the way first.
I think this is only the second secret screening I've been to. The first one was Molly's Game, which again, was one I'd been looking forward to seeing, and when the card came up at the beginning I think only one person left. It certainly wasn't many. The card comes up for this one... well, it was like a mass exodus. Without the film even rolling I think we lost about half a dozen people. After the first couple of minutes we lost another load. It was that second lot that made me lose faith in humanity a little, because it wasn't more than seconds after Simon says that he's gay that I heard disapproving noises and footsteps trotting out of seats.
Most people online said the same thing about their cinemas. And I know that you don't have to watch every film ever made. But don't just turn your nose up at it because (and here's me being optimistic) it's a young adult film/novel. If you turned your nose up at it because its main character is gay... well... welcome to the real world, they're here, they're queer, and they're here to stay.
I was pleased to see that lots of people gave it a chance, and many seemed to enjoy it. There was a lot of hate for it from others though, and honestly, when you read the comments for it... well, just don't read the comments. For every good there is a bad, but most of the bad either just walked out or don't really give much in the way of a genuine excuse. Several feel like they're being cheated by Cineworld for showing things that aren't blockbusters... people... this isn't how these things work. Trust me, the company comes to the middle man who presents it to the consumer. Business 101. Companies know that you're going to pay to see their big blockbusters and buy their merchandise... why would they give it to you for free? (Yes I know we all have Unlimited cards and essentially get them for free, but you get my meaning.) There's already hype around them, they don't need more. Anyway, away from my rant.
Love, Simon was a wonderful film, and despite what some are saying, (sorry, swerving into rant territory there again) it was laugh out loud funny... and everyone was laughing. Except those people who left without giving it a chance... wow, sorry, I just can't let this go.
If you haven't quite forgotten your teenage years you'll see lots of bits in this that really ring a bell. Those awkward moments, the crushes, the annoying teachers, the pain. If you've experienced any of them then there will be bits that you physically react to. You can feel the emotions that are running around the characters, you know the decisions they're making are good, bad and terrible, and you can almost see the future. As the story unfolds you really do get pulled along with Simon. You feel his pain and you feel his joy.
A genuine smile inducing film. I think you can see my favourite bit in one of the trailers... straight people not having to come out... it honestly cracked me up.
Of course the book is in the TBR, I'll get round to it eventually. But regardless of how it stacks up next to the book is was a wonderful film. You can only hope that it is enlightening to some that watch it, and helpful to others.
I had been looking forward to this one, book adaptation... of course I was going to be... so getting this as our secret screening was fun great. But it really divided the pack and there was much discussion online about it after. But not so much about the film. I'm going to get the grumpy portion of this out of the way first.
I think this is only the second secret screening I've been to. The first one was Molly's Game, which again, was one I'd been looking forward to seeing, and when the card came up at the beginning I think only one person left. It certainly wasn't many. The card comes up for this one... well, it was like a mass exodus. Without the film even rolling I think we lost about half a dozen people. After the first couple of minutes we lost another load. It was that second lot that made me lose faith in humanity a little, because it wasn't more than seconds after Simon says that he's gay that I heard disapproving noises and footsteps trotting out of seats.
Most people online said the same thing about their cinemas. And I know that you don't have to watch every film ever made. But don't just turn your nose up at it because (and here's me being optimistic) it's a young adult film/novel. If you turned your nose up at it because its main character is gay... well... welcome to the real world, they're here, they're queer, and they're here to stay.
I was pleased to see that lots of people gave it a chance, and many seemed to enjoy it. There was a lot of hate for it from others though, and honestly, when you read the comments for it... well, just don't read the comments. For every good there is a bad, but most of the bad either just walked out or don't really give much in the way of a genuine excuse. Several feel like they're being cheated by Cineworld for showing things that aren't blockbusters... people... this isn't how these things work. Trust me, the company comes to the middle man who presents it to the consumer. Business 101. Companies know that you're going to pay to see their big blockbusters and buy their merchandise... why would they give it to you for free? (Yes I know we all have Unlimited cards and essentially get them for free, but you get my meaning.) There's already hype around them, they don't need more. Anyway, away from my rant.
Love, Simon was a wonderful film, and despite what some are saying, (sorry, swerving into rant territory there again) it was laugh out loud funny... and everyone was laughing. Except those people who left without giving it a chance... wow, sorry, I just can't let this go.
If you haven't quite forgotten your teenage years you'll see lots of bits in this that really ring a bell. Those awkward moments, the crushes, the annoying teachers, the pain. If you've experienced any of them then there will be bits that you physically react to. You can feel the emotions that are running around the characters, you know the decisions they're making are good, bad and terrible, and you can almost see the future. As the story unfolds you really do get pulled along with Simon. You feel his pain and you feel his joy.
A genuine smile inducing film. I think you can see my favourite bit in one of the trailers... straight people not having to come out... it honestly cracked me up.
Of course the book is in the TBR, I'll get round to it eventually. But regardless of how it stacks up next to the book is was a wonderful film. You can only hope that it is enlightening to some that watch it, and helpful to others.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Composure in Tabletop Games
Sep 5, 2019
Sometimes you just identify with something so strongly that you have to respond to the call for action. Such was the case when I was contacted about reviewing Composure. Here’s what hooked me, “We started as just a couple buddies that didn’t think Cards Against Humanity was that funny.” If you know me or my game tastes, you would know that CAH is my ultimate least favorite game of all time. It’s just gross for the sake of being gross. Not a fan at all. So when we were sent Composure, I was hailing it to the group as the CAH-killer. Is it?
In Composure, the name of the game is keeping your composure while discussing subjects that may toe the line of offensive to some people. If you can answer difficult questions with a straight face, you may score VPs in the form of poker chips (included). If not, no chips. In fact, you pay chips to the pot when you laugh or get upset or just break composure.
To setup, deal each player 10 cards and 10 poker chips. You are now ready to play.
To start a round, everyone antes up a chip to the pot. When it is your turn to be the Dealer, you will choose a card from your hand and challenge another player to answer the question or scenario on your chosen card. Try to match up your card with the player you know with whom it will strike a chord and watch the devastation unfold. If anyone breaks composure, pay the pot. If you can answer without breaking composure, the Dealer awards you with chip(s). That’s the game. We just played until we got through our entire hands, but you can house rule end times/rounds.
Components. This game consists of a ton of cards and a ton of poker chips. Mine also came with a glamorous sheer sparkly bag into which I put the chips after playing. The cards are all fine quality, and the chips are standard white plastic poker chips. There really is no “art” to be had aside from the publisher’s logo on the cards and chip stickers. Nobody purchases CAH for the art, so nobody will purchase Composure for the art.
I think it must be me. I think because I toe the line of offensiveness on the daily that people with whom I play games come to expect that I will say something off-color or very dangerously close to offensive. Therefore, when I have played this game, the offensiveness was somewhat eschewed simply by my presence at the table. Don’t get me wrong, I am incredibly inclusive and I love all people, but I’ll probably say something stupid that I expect to be hilarious, but comes across as a little (or a whole ton) harsh and uncaring. That said, my game-mates are immune to this type of carrying on and so the game came across a little flat for us. This is NOT a knock on the game. I think it’s a case of game to gamer mismatch.
So here’s what I think. Composure IS a replacement for CAH for me. But then again, so is 52 Card Pickup. Now, while I do not own CAH, my brother Bryan does and that fills a niche for his collection. I did not have any offensive card games in my collection, so this will suit my needs in that area quite nicely. I don’t like the rudeness of CAH, but I get the same taste from this game without the punishment of having to play the former.
If you are looking for something that comes in an aggressive green color to knock off that disgusting big black box, then this is your game. If I were to house rule some stuff, I would have a discard and replace mechanic so that I can load my hand with group-appropriate cards and not be stuck with stinkers. That said, Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a sturdy 6 / 12. If you’re like me, ditch the crap and get yourself a real slightly-offensive card game.
In Composure, the name of the game is keeping your composure while discussing subjects that may toe the line of offensive to some people. If you can answer difficult questions with a straight face, you may score VPs in the form of poker chips (included). If not, no chips. In fact, you pay chips to the pot when you laugh or get upset or just break composure.
To setup, deal each player 10 cards and 10 poker chips. You are now ready to play.
To start a round, everyone antes up a chip to the pot. When it is your turn to be the Dealer, you will choose a card from your hand and challenge another player to answer the question or scenario on your chosen card. Try to match up your card with the player you know with whom it will strike a chord and watch the devastation unfold. If anyone breaks composure, pay the pot. If you can answer without breaking composure, the Dealer awards you with chip(s). That’s the game. We just played until we got through our entire hands, but you can house rule end times/rounds.
Components. This game consists of a ton of cards and a ton of poker chips. Mine also came with a glamorous sheer sparkly bag into which I put the chips after playing. The cards are all fine quality, and the chips are standard white plastic poker chips. There really is no “art” to be had aside from the publisher’s logo on the cards and chip stickers. Nobody purchases CAH for the art, so nobody will purchase Composure for the art.
I think it must be me. I think because I toe the line of offensiveness on the daily that people with whom I play games come to expect that I will say something off-color or very dangerously close to offensive. Therefore, when I have played this game, the offensiveness was somewhat eschewed simply by my presence at the table. Don’t get me wrong, I am incredibly inclusive and I love all people, but I’ll probably say something stupid that I expect to be hilarious, but comes across as a little (or a whole ton) harsh and uncaring. That said, my game-mates are immune to this type of carrying on and so the game came across a little flat for us. This is NOT a knock on the game. I think it’s a case of game to gamer mismatch.
So here’s what I think. Composure IS a replacement for CAH for me. But then again, so is 52 Card Pickup. Now, while I do not own CAH, my brother Bryan does and that fills a niche for his collection. I did not have any offensive card games in my collection, so this will suit my needs in that area quite nicely. I don’t like the rudeness of CAH, but I get the same taste from this game without the punishment of having to play the former.
If you are looking for something that comes in an aggressive green color to knock off that disgusting big black box, then this is your game. If I were to house rule some stuff, I would have a discard and replace mechanic so that I can load my hand with group-appropriate cards and not be stuck with stinkers. That said, Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a sturdy 6 / 12. If you’re like me, ditch the crap and get yourself a real slightly-offensive card game.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Chat Love in Books
Oct 2, 2020
I wanted to read this book immediately after reading the synopsis, and I was honoured when the author, Justine Faeth, approached me and sent me an ebook copy in exchange for an honest review.
The book synopsis is a very promising one. Lucia is having trouble finding a man. After a few disastrous dates, she chooses to follow her friend’s advice and tries Chat Love, an online dating service.
As promising as the synopsis sounds, this book didn’t quite deliver. With Chat Love, I found the whole setting of the book unrealistic. There is a nice background story and a great idea, but it hasn’t been properly executed.
Lucia is an Italian lady. She is a city girl and a business woman. She is searching for love. See, Lucia is under pressure by her Italian family to get married. And I can completely understand that pressure, being born in a country where I have met people with similar beliefs. Lucia’s family thinks that a woman is made to be a mother, and not have a career. They think that if you are thirty and you haven’t got a boyfriend yet, you are useless and unworthy.
And I completely agree with Lucia when she tries to stand up to them and tell them how it’s important for her to find a man she will really love, not just marry in order to please her family. In some scenes though, it appears as if she hates her family, and has very bad attitude towards them. I understand completely where her frustration comes from.
But then, on the other hand, we have a Lucia that is being a hypocrite.
And while this whole book seems like she is searching for her true love, when someone appears and cares about her, she is acting as if she’s not interested. Woman, WHAT DO YOU WANT? She wants true love, and she doesn’t want to be used as a one-night stand, which is completely acceptable. But going on a date with a man for the first time, and telling him you want to get serious is creepy. Even if that is your long-term goal, you DO NOT say it on the first date. It scares people away. It makes people think you are a creep.
Also, given the fact that the synopsis promises an online app, this left me disappointed. During this book, we don’t get to really see a single chat happen through this app. Apart from a few letters from Jake. Honestly, I expected a back and forth conversations with men before a date happens. In the book, we get to see Lucia dating a lot of men. I didn’t stop to count them, but there must’ve been around twenty dates. And all these men had something wrong with them. But she never screwed up.
I will be honest with you now, and you people need to be honest with yourselves. In your life, you will meet people, and some people will make you giggle. Others might make you gag. But sometimes, the reason for a bad date is you. I am only trying to be honest here. I have screwed up a few dates myself, and you must have done the same thing too. That’s life though. We have to move on and try not to blame others for our mistakes. I wish this been represented in this book.
I really wish I loved this book.
I have mixed feelings, because despite all, this book did make me think and bring up discussions with people around the various topics, from family beliefs, to being creepy on first dates, to finding out what you really like. In a summary, as much as I didn’t enjoy it, I also am grateful for this book, for bringing out a lot of things to think about.
If you love chick-lit and short romance funny novels, you might enjoy it. If you think any of this discussion points is intriguing, you might enjoy it. I would love to have a chat and see what you think of this book.
The book synopsis is a very promising one. Lucia is having trouble finding a man. After a few disastrous dates, she chooses to follow her friend’s advice and tries Chat Love, an online dating service.
As promising as the synopsis sounds, this book didn’t quite deliver. With Chat Love, I found the whole setting of the book unrealistic. There is a nice background story and a great idea, but it hasn’t been properly executed.
Lucia is an Italian lady. She is a city girl and a business woman. She is searching for love. See, Lucia is under pressure by her Italian family to get married. And I can completely understand that pressure, being born in a country where I have met people with similar beliefs. Lucia’s family thinks that a woman is made to be a mother, and not have a career. They think that if you are thirty and you haven’t got a boyfriend yet, you are useless and unworthy.
And I completely agree with Lucia when she tries to stand up to them and tell them how it’s important for her to find a man she will really love, not just marry in order to please her family. In some scenes though, it appears as if she hates her family, and has very bad attitude towards them. I understand completely where her frustration comes from.
But then, on the other hand, we have a Lucia that is being a hypocrite.
And while this whole book seems like she is searching for her true love, when someone appears and cares about her, she is acting as if she’s not interested. Woman, WHAT DO YOU WANT? She wants true love, and she doesn’t want to be used as a one-night stand, which is completely acceptable. But going on a date with a man for the first time, and telling him you want to get serious is creepy. Even if that is your long-term goal, you DO NOT say it on the first date. It scares people away. It makes people think you are a creep.
Also, given the fact that the synopsis promises an online app, this left me disappointed. During this book, we don’t get to really see a single chat happen through this app. Apart from a few letters from Jake. Honestly, I expected a back and forth conversations with men before a date happens. In the book, we get to see Lucia dating a lot of men. I didn’t stop to count them, but there must’ve been around twenty dates. And all these men had something wrong with them. But she never screwed up.
I will be honest with you now, and you people need to be honest with yourselves. In your life, you will meet people, and some people will make you giggle. Others might make you gag. But sometimes, the reason for a bad date is you. I am only trying to be honest here. I have screwed up a few dates myself, and you must have done the same thing too. That’s life though. We have to move on and try not to blame others for our mistakes. I wish this been represented in this book.
I really wish I loved this book.
I have mixed feelings, because despite all, this book did make me think and bring up discussions with people around the various topics, from family beliefs, to being creepy on first dates, to finding out what you really like. In a summary, as much as I didn’t enjoy it, I also am grateful for this book, for bringing out a lot of things to think about.
If you love chick-lit and short romance funny novels, you might enjoy it. If you think any of this discussion points is intriguing, you might enjoy it. I would love to have a chat and see what you think of this book.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Instant Karma (2021) in Movies
Sep 6, 2021
Neat idea for a movie (1 more)
Samantha Belle
Script is rambling and needs much tightening up (1 more)
Acting is often sub-par
You’ve got to admire the effort here.
Positives:
- There’s a quirky joy behind the story and it did keep me watching until the end to find out how it turned out.
- I enjoyed Samantha Belle’s performance. Whilst she has a few rough acting edges, she channelled a sort of cross between Ally Sheedy and Geena Davis that was cute. Elsewhere in the cast, Karl Haas (as Harry, the homeless guy) and Keegan Luther as the luckless Emilio gave, for me, the most naturalistic (and therefore best) performances.
- There’s an ending that, while feeling inconclusive and circuitous, did at least leave me with a smile on my face. (I hope permission was gained for the use of the name in the end titles!).
Negatives:
- If you watch, for example, “The Father” you quickly appreciate that the reason Anthony Hopkins and Olivia Colman are so GREAT in the movie is you NEVER get the feeling that they are acting. Unfortunately, in “Instant Karma”, while I appreciate that all of the cast are giving of their best, almost EVERYONE appears to be acting. While it’s seldom ‘hold your head in your hands’ terrible, the chasm of skill between this cast and the top-flight is vast. - - The script doesn’t help this by introducing a torrent of different ‘rider’ cast, many of whom should never have been put in front of a camera to deliver lines.
- While the story has potential, the script rambles around and never quite decides what genre it’s going for. Drama? It’s not dramatic enough. Thriller? It tries to go that way in the final reel, but never convincingly (and WHATEVER HAPPENED TO POOR EMILIO????). Comedy? Humourous at times maybe, but never laugh-out-loud funny. (It actually might have made a pretty good comedy – a variant on the “Do you think I asked for a million ducks?” bar joke! This idea (C) Bob Mann 2021!).
- The script is also incomplete and tonally inconsistent. There are sub-plots (e.g. Emilio’s request for the money) that are never fleshed out. And Samantha seems to veer from excitable and supportive sexy wife to full-on psycho-bitch-marital-nightmare from scene to scene.
- When you’ve got a loose script, and a cast with limited experience, don’t over-egg the pudding! The movie is 115 minutes long: I would personally have gone to town in the editing room and got it down to sub-90 minutes. The overall concoction would have been much better. As it is, we have far too many instances of “Karma” in the first half of the film and some ‘filler’ scenes that go on and on (and on and on) without adding anything to the story. For example, there is a ‘spending spree’ montage that, while very nicely put together, goes on for almost two whole minutes. Chop, chop, chop!
- Technically, the sound needs more work. There’s a lot of noise on the soundtrack and some poorly mixed music cues. Lighting inside the car was also an issue in some scenes.
Summary Thoughts on “Instant Karma”: I enjoyed watching this one more than my long list of “suggested improvements” might suggest.
I remain in awe of a team, with a limited budget, being able to project manage a movie like this to completion. And especially since this was filmed during the pandemic and in the searing heat of an Arizona summer, with the temperature rising to 117 degrees. As such, I hate to fire as many negatives at the film as I have, but I have to review things on a level playing field. With so many rough edges, I can’t give it a better rating than I have, but it gets an A+ for effort, and it’s far from being the worst film I’ve seen so far in 2021.
(For the full graphical review, check out #onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks)
- There’s a quirky joy behind the story and it did keep me watching until the end to find out how it turned out.
- I enjoyed Samantha Belle’s performance. Whilst she has a few rough acting edges, she channelled a sort of cross between Ally Sheedy and Geena Davis that was cute. Elsewhere in the cast, Karl Haas (as Harry, the homeless guy) and Keegan Luther as the luckless Emilio gave, for me, the most naturalistic (and therefore best) performances.
- There’s an ending that, while feeling inconclusive and circuitous, did at least leave me with a smile on my face. (I hope permission was gained for the use of the name in the end titles!).
Negatives:
- If you watch, for example, “The Father” you quickly appreciate that the reason Anthony Hopkins and Olivia Colman are so GREAT in the movie is you NEVER get the feeling that they are acting. Unfortunately, in “Instant Karma”, while I appreciate that all of the cast are giving of their best, almost EVERYONE appears to be acting. While it’s seldom ‘hold your head in your hands’ terrible, the chasm of skill between this cast and the top-flight is vast. - - The script doesn’t help this by introducing a torrent of different ‘rider’ cast, many of whom should never have been put in front of a camera to deliver lines.
- While the story has potential, the script rambles around and never quite decides what genre it’s going for. Drama? It’s not dramatic enough. Thriller? It tries to go that way in the final reel, but never convincingly (and WHATEVER HAPPENED TO POOR EMILIO????). Comedy? Humourous at times maybe, but never laugh-out-loud funny. (It actually might have made a pretty good comedy – a variant on the “Do you think I asked for a million ducks?” bar joke! This idea (C) Bob Mann 2021!).
- The script is also incomplete and tonally inconsistent. There are sub-plots (e.g. Emilio’s request for the money) that are never fleshed out. And Samantha seems to veer from excitable and supportive sexy wife to full-on psycho-bitch-marital-nightmare from scene to scene.
- When you’ve got a loose script, and a cast with limited experience, don’t over-egg the pudding! The movie is 115 minutes long: I would personally have gone to town in the editing room and got it down to sub-90 minutes. The overall concoction would have been much better. As it is, we have far too many instances of “Karma” in the first half of the film and some ‘filler’ scenes that go on and on (and on and on) without adding anything to the story. For example, there is a ‘spending spree’ montage that, while very nicely put together, goes on for almost two whole minutes. Chop, chop, chop!
- Technically, the sound needs more work. There’s a lot of noise on the soundtrack and some poorly mixed music cues. Lighting inside the car was also an issue in some scenes.
Summary Thoughts on “Instant Karma”: I enjoyed watching this one more than my long list of “suggested improvements” might suggest.
I remain in awe of a team, with a limited budget, being able to project manage a movie like this to completion. And especially since this was filmed during the pandemic and in the searing heat of an Arizona summer, with the temperature rising to 117 degrees. As such, I hate to fire as many negatives at the film as I have, but I have to review things on a level playing field. With so many rough edges, I can’t give it a better rating than I have, but it gets an A+ for effort, and it’s far from being the worst film I’ve seen so far in 2021.
(For the full graphical review, check out #onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks)
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Loki in TV
Sep 6, 2021
Great Cast & Acting (2 more)
Superb CGI & Special Effects
Excellent Plot and Story
Filled With Glorious Purpose, and Lived Up To The Hype
During the events of Marvel's Endgame, Loki (Tom Hiddleston) escaped using the Tesseract when the Avengers went back in time. Many fans wondered what happened to this "alternate" Loki, as the Loki in the present timeline met his demise at the hands of Thanos. This "Loki" is captured by the TVA (Time Variance Authority), a mysterious bureaucratic organization that monitors the timeline and exists outside of time and space itself. He's put on trial before Judge Renslayer (Gugu Mbatha-Raw) where he is found guilty for his crimes against the "sacred timeline" and sentenced to be "pruned". However, Agent Mobius (Owen Wilson) enters the picture and Loki is given a choice to help fix the timeline and stop a great threat or face being erased from existence for being a "time variant". He agrees to help Mobius hunt down another Loki variant who has killed several TVA agents and has become a serious problem for the TVA.
So usually going into a movie or show with high expectations is a guarantee to be disappointed but I'm so glad this show wasn't a disappointment. First off, I was super excited for this highly anticipated series since Marvel was finally going to answer the question of "What happened to the "other" Loki?". The third Disney Plus series to be released after Wandavision, and The Falcon and The Winter Soldier, Loki brings us more of Tom Hiddleston and the fan favorite character Loki. Loki was a really great show that I enjoyed every episode of. There was so much that it did right. It had great actors like Owen Wilson and Gugu Mbatha-Raw and acting with great performances by Tom Hiddleston and Sophia Di Martino who had really good chemistry. It had awesome special effects and CGI throughout the whole show from the incredible views of the TVA and Lamentis-1, to the animated character Miss Minutes, to the amazing intro of the final episode. It also had an excellent plot and story that kept the show going at a good pace, with a nice mystery that kept you intrigued and hooked with a twist at the end of every episode. It also had movie quality cinematography you expect from a big budget blockbuster and definitely felt like this could have just as easily been on the big screen in theaters as it was on Disney plus. The first episode starts off with Loki finding out who and what the TVA are and what they want with him. Which is to help them hunt down a Loki variant. It feels like there was a lot of attention to the plot and detail of the storytelling, although a lot of it was building up what was to come, I think it did a superb job of setting the vibe and feel of the series and the storyline from the first episode on. I really liked Owen Wilson and his character agent Mobius, he came off as serious but funny in a aloof kind of way. Kind of reminded me of a teacher who is nice until you start giving them trouble and they have think of some way to deal with you. There was a really good mix of humor and emotion and action as well, although some episodes were more action heavy than others. The music and score were very fitting of the MCU but with a clear influence of Loki's personality in it as well as the mystery and grandness of the plot and story. So without giving away any spoilers in this section I give this series a 8/10 and my "Must See Seal of Approval". I know this review is super late to the party but if you're late too and haven't seen this show you need to definitely check it out.
So usually going into a movie or show with high expectations is a guarantee to be disappointed but I'm so glad this show wasn't a disappointment. First off, I was super excited for this highly anticipated series since Marvel was finally going to answer the question of "What happened to the "other" Loki?". The third Disney Plus series to be released after Wandavision, and The Falcon and The Winter Soldier, Loki brings us more of Tom Hiddleston and the fan favorite character Loki. Loki was a really great show that I enjoyed every episode of. There was so much that it did right. It had great actors like Owen Wilson and Gugu Mbatha-Raw and acting with great performances by Tom Hiddleston and Sophia Di Martino who had really good chemistry. It had awesome special effects and CGI throughout the whole show from the incredible views of the TVA and Lamentis-1, to the animated character Miss Minutes, to the amazing intro of the final episode. It also had an excellent plot and story that kept the show going at a good pace, with a nice mystery that kept you intrigued and hooked with a twist at the end of every episode. It also had movie quality cinematography you expect from a big budget blockbuster and definitely felt like this could have just as easily been on the big screen in theaters as it was on Disney plus. The first episode starts off with Loki finding out who and what the TVA are and what they want with him. Which is to help them hunt down a Loki variant. It feels like there was a lot of attention to the plot and detail of the storytelling, although a lot of it was building up what was to come, I think it did a superb job of setting the vibe and feel of the series and the storyline from the first episode on. I really liked Owen Wilson and his character agent Mobius, he came off as serious but funny in a aloof kind of way. Kind of reminded me of a teacher who is nice until you start giving them trouble and they have think of some way to deal with you. There was a really good mix of humor and emotion and action as well, although some episodes were more action heavy than others. The music and score were very fitting of the MCU but with a clear influence of Loki's personality in it as well as the mystery and grandness of the plot and story. So without giving away any spoilers in this section I give this series a 8/10 and my "Must See Seal of Approval". I know this review is super late to the party but if you're late too and haven't seen this show you need to definitely check it out.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Long Shot (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
#Punching.
#Punching refers to an in-family joke….. my WhatsApp reply to my son when he sent me a picture of his new “Brazilian supermodel girlfriend” (she’s not). Bronwyn is now my daughter-in-law!
Similarly, the ‘out-there’ journalist Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan) has been holding a candle for the glacial ice-queen Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron) for nearly twenty years. At the age of 16 she was his babysitter. Always with an interest in school issues, she has now risen to the dizzy heights of secretary (“of State”) to the President of the United States (Bob Odenkirk). With Charlotte getting the opportunity to run for President, fate arranges for Fred to get hired as a speechwriter on the team to help inject some necessary humour into Charlotte’s icy public persona. But in terms of romantic options, the shell-suited Fred is surely #punching isn’t he?
A rare thing.
Getting the balance right for a “romantic comedy” is a tricky job, but “Long Shot” just about gets it spot on. The comedy is sharp with a whole heap of great lines, some of which will need a second watch to catch. It’s also pleasingly politically incorrect, with US news anchors in particular being lampooned for their appallingly sexist language.
Just occasionally, the humour flips into Farrelly-levels of dubious taste (one “Mary-style” incident in particular was, for me, very funny but might test some viewer’s “ugh” button). The film also earns its UK15 certificate from the extensive array of “F” words utilized, and for some casual drug use.
Romantically, the film harks back to a classic blockbuster of 1990, but is well done and touching.
Writing and Directing
The sharp and tight screenplay was written by Dan Sterling, who wrote the internationally controversial Seth Rogen/James Franco comedy “The Interview” from 2014, and Liz Hannah, whose movie screenplay debut was the Spielberg drama “The Post“.
Behind the camera is Jonathan Levine, who previously directed the pretty awful “Snatched” from 2017 (a film I have started watching on a plane but never finished) but on the flip side he has on his bio the interesting rom-com-zombie film “Warm Bodies” and the moving cancer comedy “50:50”, also with Rogan, from 2011.
Also worthy of note in the technical department is the cinematography by Yves Bélanger (“The Mule“, “Brooklyn“, “Dallas Buyers Club“) with some lovely angles and tracking shots (a kitchen dance scene has an impressively leisurely track-away).
The Cast
Seth Rogen is a bit of an acquired taste: he’s like the US version of Johnny Vegas. Here he is suitably geeky when he needs to be, but has the range to make some of the pathos work in the inevitable “downer” scenes. Theron is absolutely gorgeous on-screen (although unlike the US anchors I OBVIOUSLY also appreciate her style and acting ability!). She really is the Grace Kelly of the modern age. She’s no stranger to comedy, having been in the other Seth (Macfarlane)’s “A Million Ways to Die in the West“. But she seems to be more comfortable with this material, and again gets the mix of comedy, romance and drama spot-on.
The strong supporting cast includes the unknown (to me) June Diane Raphael who is very effective at the cock-blocking Maggie, Charlotte’s aide; O’Shea Jackson Jr. as Fred’s buddy Lance; and Ravi Patel as the staffer Tom.
But winning the prize for the most unrecognizable cast member was Andy Serkis as the wizened old Rupert Murdoch-style media tycoon Parker Wembley: I genuinely got a shock as the titles rolled that this was him.
Final thoughts.
Although possibly causing offence to some, this is a fine example of a US comedy that delivers consistent laughs. Most of the audience chatter coming out of the screening was positive. At just over 2 hours, it breaks my “90 minute comedy” rule, but just about gets away with it. It’s not quite for me at the bar of “Game Night“, but it’s pretty close. Recommended.
#Punching refers to an in-family joke….. my WhatsApp reply to my son when he sent me a picture of his new “Brazilian supermodel girlfriend” (she’s not). Bronwyn is now my daughter-in-law!
Similarly, the ‘out-there’ journalist Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan) has been holding a candle for the glacial ice-queen Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron) for nearly twenty years. At the age of 16 she was his babysitter. Always with an interest in school issues, she has now risen to the dizzy heights of secretary (“of State”) to the President of the United States (Bob Odenkirk). With Charlotte getting the opportunity to run for President, fate arranges for Fred to get hired as a speechwriter on the team to help inject some necessary humour into Charlotte’s icy public persona. But in terms of romantic options, the shell-suited Fred is surely #punching isn’t he?
A rare thing.
Getting the balance right for a “romantic comedy” is a tricky job, but “Long Shot” just about gets it spot on. The comedy is sharp with a whole heap of great lines, some of which will need a second watch to catch. It’s also pleasingly politically incorrect, with US news anchors in particular being lampooned for their appallingly sexist language.
Just occasionally, the humour flips into Farrelly-levels of dubious taste (one “Mary-style” incident in particular was, for me, very funny but might test some viewer’s “ugh” button). The film also earns its UK15 certificate from the extensive array of “F” words utilized, and for some casual drug use.
Romantically, the film harks back to a classic blockbuster of 1990, but is well done and touching.
Writing and Directing
The sharp and tight screenplay was written by Dan Sterling, who wrote the internationally controversial Seth Rogen/James Franco comedy “The Interview” from 2014, and Liz Hannah, whose movie screenplay debut was the Spielberg drama “The Post“.
Behind the camera is Jonathan Levine, who previously directed the pretty awful “Snatched” from 2017 (a film I have started watching on a plane but never finished) but on the flip side he has on his bio the interesting rom-com-zombie film “Warm Bodies” and the moving cancer comedy “50:50”, also with Rogan, from 2011.
Also worthy of note in the technical department is the cinematography by Yves Bélanger (“The Mule“, “Brooklyn“, “Dallas Buyers Club“) with some lovely angles and tracking shots (a kitchen dance scene has an impressively leisurely track-away).
The Cast
Seth Rogen is a bit of an acquired taste: he’s like the US version of Johnny Vegas. Here he is suitably geeky when he needs to be, but has the range to make some of the pathos work in the inevitable “downer” scenes. Theron is absolutely gorgeous on-screen (although unlike the US anchors I OBVIOUSLY also appreciate her style and acting ability!). She really is the Grace Kelly of the modern age. She’s no stranger to comedy, having been in the other Seth (Macfarlane)’s “A Million Ways to Die in the West“. But she seems to be more comfortable with this material, and again gets the mix of comedy, romance and drama spot-on.
The strong supporting cast includes the unknown (to me) June Diane Raphael who is very effective at the cock-blocking Maggie, Charlotte’s aide; O’Shea Jackson Jr. as Fred’s buddy Lance; and Ravi Patel as the staffer Tom.
But winning the prize for the most unrecognizable cast member was Andy Serkis as the wizened old Rupert Murdoch-style media tycoon Parker Wembley: I genuinely got a shock as the titles rolled that this was him.
Final thoughts.
Although possibly causing offence to some, this is a fine example of a US comedy that delivers consistent laughs. Most of the audience chatter coming out of the screening was positive. At just over 2 hours, it breaks my “90 minute comedy” rule, but just about gets away with it. It’s not quite for me at the bar of “Game Night“, but it’s pretty close. Recommended.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Stan & Ollie (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
When the laughter has to end.
The problem with any comedy double act is that if illness or death get in the way (think Dustin Gee and Les Dennis; or Morecambe and Wise) the wheels can come off for the other partner. “Stan and Ollie” tells the story of the comic duo starting in 1937 when they reached their peak of global popularity, albeit when Laurel was hardly on speaking terms with their long-term producer Hal Roach (Danny Huston).
As you might guess from this, the emotional direction for the film is downwards, but not necessarily in a totally depressing way. The film depicts the duo’s tour of Laurel’s native country (he was born in Lancashire) and this has its ups as well as its downs.
Not knowing their life story, this is one where when the trailer came on I shut my eyes and plugged my ears so as to avoid spoilers: as such I will say nothing further on the details of the plot.
My wife and I were reminiscing after seeing this flick about how our parents used to crack up over the film antics of Laurel and Hardy. And they were, in their own slapstick way, very funny indeed. The film manages to recreate (impecably) some of their more famous routines and parodies others: their travel trunk gallops to the bottom of the station steps, mimicking the famous scenes with a piano from 1932’s “The Music Box”. “Do we really need that trunk” Hardy deadpans to Laurel.
The turns
There are four star turns at the heart of the film and they are John C. Reilly as Ollie; Steve Coogan as Stan; Shirley Henderson (forever to be referenced as “Moaning Myrtle”) as Ollie’s wife Lucille and Nina Arianda (so memorable as the ‘pointer outer’ in the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ segment of “Florence Foster Jenkins“) as Stan’s latest wife Ida.
Coogan and Reilly do an outstanding job of impersonating the comic duo. Both are simply brilliant, playing up to their public personas when visible but subtly delivering similar traits in private. Of the two, John C. Reilly’s performance is the most memorable: he IS Oliver Hardy. Not taking too much away from the other performance, but there are a few times when Coogan poked through the illusion (like a Partridge sticking its head out from a Pear Tree you might say).
Henderson and Arianda also add tremendous heart to the drama, and Arianda’s Ida in particular is hilarious. Also delivering a fabulous supporting role is Rufus Jones as the famous impressario Bernard Delfont: all smarm and Machiavellian chicanery that adds a different shape of comedy to the film.
Another Fine Mess?
Actually, no: it’s one of those pleasant and untaxing cinema experiences that older audiences in particular will really enjoy. However, the film’s far from perfect in my view: the flash-forwards/flash-backs I felt made the story bitty and disjointed; and ultimately the life story of the duo doesn’t have a huge depth of drama in it to amaze or excite, the way that 2004’s “Beyond the Sea” (the biopic of Bobby Darin) did for example. But the film never gets boring or disappoints.
I’d like to say that the script by Jeff Pope (“Philomena“) is historically accurate, but a look at the wikipedia entries for the pair show that it was far from that. Yes, the tours of the UK and Europe did happen, but over multiple years and the actual events in their lives are telescoped into a single trip for dramatic purposes. But I think the essence of the pair comes across nicely. Laurel’s wikipedia entry records a nice death-bed scene that sums up the guy:
“Minutes before his death, he told his nurse that he would not mind going skiing, and she replied that she was not aware that he was a skier. “I’m not,” said Laurel, “I’d rather be doing that than this!” A few minutes later, the nurse looked in on him again and found that he had died quietly in his armchair.”
“Stan and Ollie” has a few preview screenings before the New Year, but goes on UK general release on January 11th. Recommended.
As you might guess from this, the emotional direction for the film is downwards, but not necessarily in a totally depressing way. The film depicts the duo’s tour of Laurel’s native country (he was born in Lancashire) and this has its ups as well as its downs.
Not knowing their life story, this is one where when the trailer came on I shut my eyes and plugged my ears so as to avoid spoilers: as such I will say nothing further on the details of the plot.
My wife and I were reminiscing after seeing this flick about how our parents used to crack up over the film antics of Laurel and Hardy. And they were, in their own slapstick way, very funny indeed. The film manages to recreate (impecably) some of their more famous routines and parodies others: their travel trunk gallops to the bottom of the station steps, mimicking the famous scenes with a piano from 1932’s “The Music Box”. “Do we really need that trunk” Hardy deadpans to Laurel.
The turns
There are four star turns at the heart of the film and they are John C. Reilly as Ollie; Steve Coogan as Stan; Shirley Henderson (forever to be referenced as “Moaning Myrtle”) as Ollie’s wife Lucille and Nina Arianda (so memorable as the ‘pointer outer’ in the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ segment of “Florence Foster Jenkins“) as Stan’s latest wife Ida.
Coogan and Reilly do an outstanding job of impersonating the comic duo. Both are simply brilliant, playing up to their public personas when visible but subtly delivering similar traits in private. Of the two, John C. Reilly’s performance is the most memorable: he IS Oliver Hardy. Not taking too much away from the other performance, but there are a few times when Coogan poked through the illusion (like a Partridge sticking its head out from a Pear Tree you might say).
Henderson and Arianda also add tremendous heart to the drama, and Arianda’s Ida in particular is hilarious. Also delivering a fabulous supporting role is Rufus Jones as the famous impressario Bernard Delfont: all smarm and Machiavellian chicanery that adds a different shape of comedy to the film.
Another Fine Mess?
Actually, no: it’s one of those pleasant and untaxing cinema experiences that older audiences in particular will really enjoy. However, the film’s far from perfect in my view: the flash-forwards/flash-backs I felt made the story bitty and disjointed; and ultimately the life story of the duo doesn’t have a huge depth of drama in it to amaze or excite, the way that 2004’s “Beyond the Sea” (the biopic of Bobby Darin) did for example. But the film never gets boring or disappoints.
I’d like to say that the script by Jeff Pope (“Philomena“) is historically accurate, but a look at the wikipedia entries for the pair show that it was far from that. Yes, the tours of the UK and Europe did happen, but over multiple years and the actual events in their lives are telescoped into a single trip for dramatic purposes. But I think the essence of the pair comes across nicely. Laurel’s wikipedia entry records a nice death-bed scene that sums up the guy:
“Minutes before his death, he told his nurse that he would not mind going skiing, and she replied that she was not aware that he was a skier. “I’m not,” said Laurel, “I’d rather be doing that than this!” A few minutes later, the nurse looked in on him again and found that he had died quietly in his armchair.”
“Stan and Ollie” has a few preview screenings before the New Year, but goes on UK general release on January 11th. Recommended.