Search
Search results
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943) in Movies
Oct 15, 2020
Lon Chaney Jr. (1 more)
Bela Lugosi
Huge Disappointment
Contains spoilers, click to show
Frankenstien Meets The Wolf Man- was a huge disappointment but ill get to that later. First lets talk about the film.
The plot: Lawrence Stewart Talbot (Lon Chaney Jr.) is plagued by a physical oddity that turns him into a crazed werewolf after sundown. His desire to rid himself of this ailment leads him to the castle owned by mad scientist Dr. Frankenstein. Frankenstein, it turns out, is now dead, yet Talbot believes that the scientist's daughter, Baroness Elsa Frankenstein (Ilona Massey), can help him. However, his quest to right himself puts him on a collision course with Frankenstein's monster (Bela Lugosi).
This was the first of a series of "ensemble" monster films combining characters from several film series. This film, therefore, is both the fifth in the series of films based upon Mary Shelley's 1818 book Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus, directly after The Ghost of Frankenstein, and a sequel to The Wolf Man.
As ultimately edited and released, Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man is told in two almost equal parts. The opening scenes tell the story of Talbot's resurrection, killing spree, hospitalization, and escape across Europe. Much time is spent with a secondary policeman, Inspector Owen, and on scenes with a desperate Talbot hospitalized by Dr. Mannering. The discovery of the Monster and pursuit of Dr. Frankenstein's scientific notes do not begin until thirty-five minutes into the film. The second half introduces the Monster, Elsa, and the village of Vasaria and its inhabitants.
Immediately following his success in Dracula, Bela Lugosi had been the first choice to play the Monster in Universal's original Frankenstein film, but Lugosi famously turned down the nonspeaking, heavily made-up role: as conceived by the original director Robert Florey, the Monster was nothing more than a mindless killing machine and not suitable for Lugosi's rising stardom and career as a leading actor, and the original make-up for Lugosi's screen test was closely based on the doll-like clay robot in The Golem.
Eight years later, Lugosi joined the film as the Monster's twisted companion Ygor in Son of Frankenstein. He returned to the role in the sequel, The Ghost of Frankenstein, in which Ygor's brain is implanted into the Monster (now Chaney), causing the creature to take on Lugosi/Ygor's voice. After plans for Chaney to play both the Monster and the Wolf Man in the next film fell through for logistical reasons (Chaney demurred), the natural next step was for Lugosi, who turned 60 during the film's production, to take on the part that he once was slated to originate.
The original script — and indeed the film as originally filmed — had the Monster performing dialogue throughout the film, including references to the events of Ghost and indicating that the Monster is now blind (a side effect of the brain transplant as revealed at the end of the previous film, and the reason for his iconic stiff-armed "Frankenstein walk"). According to Siodmak, a studio screening audience reacted negatively to this, finding the idea of the Monster speaking with a Hungarian accent unintentionally funny (although the Monster spoke with Lugosi's voice at the end of Ghost, the audiences had been carefully prepared for it by the plot of the film). This has been generally accepted as the reason virtually all scenes in which Lugosi speaks were deleted (though two brief scenes remain in the film that show Lugosi's mouth moving without sound). All references to his being blind were also eliminated, rendering the Monster's groping gestures unmotivated for those unfamiliar with the ending of the previous film. Close-ups of Lugosi's eyes during the revitalization scene and his evil, knowing leer to Patric Knowles were supposed to indicate that his vision had been restored, but in the ultimate context of the film this means nothing. Consequently, Lugosi is onscreen literally for only a few minutes, leaving the Wolf Man as the film's primary focus.
Lugosi suffered exhaustion at some point during the filming, and his absence from the set, combined with his physical limitations at age 60, required the liberal use of stand-ins.
This would be the final Universal horror film in which the Monster played a major role; in the subsequent films The House of Frankenstein and House of Dracula, the Monster, played by Glenn Strange, is brought back to life only in the final scenes (in the 1948 Universal comedy Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (the second and final film in which Lugosi plays Dracula), Strange has a larger role and the creature once again speaks, albeit with very limited dialogue, twice muttering, "Yes, Master."). It was also the last Universal horror film to feature an actual member of the Frankenstein family as a character.
A tribute to this meeting of two horror film legends happens near the beginning of the film Alien vs. Predator, when this film is seen playing on a television at the satellite receiving station. In the US version of the 1962 film King Kong vs. Godzilla (another pairing of prominent monsters), the music from the fight scene at the end of the film also plays during the final fight between Godzilla and Kong.
So the reason why this movie was a huge disappointments that it was universal first ensemble. A meet between two iconic monsters and boy did it disappointment. Their didnt meet until the last 5 minutes, no scratch that the last minute. Yes you read that right, the last minute their meet. Huge disappointment. It was also slow. I dont recordmend watching this one and skip it. The only reason im giving it a 5 is because of Lon Chaney Jr. and Bela Lugosi.
The plot: Lawrence Stewart Talbot (Lon Chaney Jr.) is plagued by a physical oddity that turns him into a crazed werewolf after sundown. His desire to rid himself of this ailment leads him to the castle owned by mad scientist Dr. Frankenstein. Frankenstein, it turns out, is now dead, yet Talbot believes that the scientist's daughter, Baroness Elsa Frankenstein (Ilona Massey), can help him. However, his quest to right himself puts him on a collision course with Frankenstein's monster (Bela Lugosi).
This was the first of a series of "ensemble" monster films combining characters from several film series. This film, therefore, is both the fifth in the series of films based upon Mary Shelley's 1818 book Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus, directly after The Ghost of Frankenstein, and a sequel to The Wolf Man.
As ultimately edited and released, Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man is told in two almost equal parts. The opening scenes tell the story of Talbot's resurrection, killing spree, hospitalization, and escape across Europe. Much time is spent with a secondary policeman, Inspector Owen, and on scenes with a desperate Talbot hospitalized by Dr. Mannering. The discovery of the Monster and pursuit of Dr. Frankenstein's scientific notes do not begin until thirty-five minutes into the film. The second half introduces the Monster, Elsa, and the village of Vasaria and its inhabitants.
Immediately following his success in Dracula, Bela Lugosi had been the first choice to play the Monster in Universal's original Frankenstein film, but Lugosi famously turned down the nonspeaking, heavily made-up role: as conceived by the original director Robert Florey, the Monster was nothing more than a mindless killing machine and not suitable for Lugosi's rising stardom and career as a leading actor, and the original make-up for Lugosi's screen test was closely based on the doll-like clay robot in The Golem.
Eight years later, Lugosi joined the film as the Monster's twisted companion Ygor in Son of Frankenstein. He returned to the role in the sequel, The Ghost of Frankenstein, in which Ygor's brain is implanted into the Monster (now Chaney), causing the creature to take on Lugosi/Ygor's voice. After plans for Chaney to play both the Monster and the Wolf Man in the next film fell through for logistical reasons (Chaney demurred), the natural next step was for Lugosi, who turned 60 during the film's production, to take on the part that he once was slated to originate.
The original script — and indeed the film as originally filmed — had the Monster performing dialogue throughout the film, including references to the events of Ghost and indicating that the Monster is now blind (a side effect of the brain transplant as revealed at the end of the previous film, and the reason for his iconic stiff-armed "Frankenstein walk"). According to Siodmak, a studio screening audience reacted negatively to this, finding the idea of the Monster speaking with a Hungarian accent unintentionally funny (although the Monster spoke with Lugosi's voice at the end of Ghost, the audiences had been carefully prepared for it by the plot of the film). This has been generally accepted as the reason virtually all scenes in which Lugosi speaks were deleted (though two brief scenes remain in the film that show Lugosi's mouth moving without sound). All references to his being blind were also eliminated, rendering the Monster's groping gestures unmotivated for those unfamiliar with the ending of the previous film. Close-ups of Lugosi's eyes during the revitalization scene and his evil, knowing leer to Patric Knowles were supposed to indicate that his vision had been restored, but in the ultimate context of the film this means nothing. Consequently, Lugosi is onscreen literally for only a few minutes, leaving the Wolf Man as the film's primary focus.
Lugosi suffered exhaustion at some point during the filming, and his absence from the set, combined with his physical limitations at age 60, required the liberal use of stand-ins.
This would be the final Universal horror film in which the Monster played a major role; in the subsequent films The House of Frankenstein and House of Dracula, the Monster, played by Glenn Strange, is brought back to life only in the final scenes (in the 1948 Universal comedy Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (the second and final film in which Lugosi plays Dracula), Strange has a larger role and the creature once again speaks, albeit with very limited dialogue, twice muttering, "Yes, Master."). It was also the last Universal horror film to feature an actual member of the Frankenstein family as a character.
A tribute to this meeting of two horror film legends happens near the beginning of the film Alien vs. Predator, when this film is seen playing on a television at the satellite receiving station. In the US version of the 1962 film King Kong vs. Godzilla (another pairing of prominent monsters), the music from the fight scene at the end of the film also plays during the final fight between Godzilla and Kong.
So the reason why this movie was a huge disappointments that it was universal first ensemble. A meet between two iconic monsters and boy did it disappointment. Their didnt meet until the last 5 minutes, no scratch that the last minute. Yes you read that right, the last minute their meet. Huge disappointment. It was also slow. I dont recordmend watching this one and skip it. The only reason im giving it a 5 is because of Lon Chaney Jr. and Bela Lugosi.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Marriage Story (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
One Mann’s Movies Review of “Marriage Story” – a “Kramer vs Kramer lite” in my book, albeit with some great acting performances.
K vs K Lite.
For me, mention the phrase “divorce movie” and there’s only one film that comes to mind – the Oscar-laden classic from 1979 starring an immaculate Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep. THAT toy plane; THOSE stiches! (Gulp). This is the yardstick by which I judge such movies… and to be honest, “Marriage Story” didn’t measure up.
The story.
We start the movie seeing the apparently idyllic married life of theatre impresario Charlie (Adam Driver) and his lead actress and muse Nicole (Scarlett Johansson), together bringing up their young child. But spin forwards and the pair are in the middle of an ‘amicable’ separation, with Nicole returning to her home roots in California and Charlie having an expensive commute to and from New York where he’s struggling to premiere his show on Broadway.
But despite an agreement to keep lawyers out of the equation, Nicole is persuaded to lawyer up with Nora Fanshaw (Laura Dern) tightening up the legal screws until Charlie’s life risks being torn apart. It’s time for him to fight back.
Well regarded by the Academy.
As for “Kramer vs Kramer”, this is a movie that has been garlanded with multiple Oscar nominations. Both Driver and Johansson are nominated in the lead acting roles and Laura Dern seems to be favourite for the Best Supporting Actress gong (after winning the Golden Globe and the BAFTA). Three more Oscar nominations come for the score (by Randy Newman); the original screenplay (by director Noah Baumbach); and a Best Film nomination.
Both leads deliver really emotional performances, with Johansson in particular being very believable in the role. But who knew she was so short?! She always strikes me as a statuesque beauty, but she’s only 5′ 3” and it’s particularly noticeable in a scene filmed at Warner Brothers Studios.
It’s also fabulous to see both the great Alan Alda (here showing signs of his Parkinson’s) and Ray Liotta on screen again, as both low-rent and top-dollar lawyers respectively.
But WHY exactly are they divorcing?
I found the whole set up of the movie as frustrating. There seemed no clear understanding of why the separation is happening. True there is an affair involved (and Mrs Movie Man and I have always lived our nearly 40 years of marriage with the understanding that a “one strike” rule applies). But notwithstanding that, it seems to be more of a ‘drifting apart’ that’s gone on. I just wanted to give them a good shaking and get them to work it out!
This is all obviously unfair – because (and I also know this from experience) that in many marriages ‘shit happens’: some people do just want to do different things; feel suffocated; etc. And – thinking about it – I’m not sure there was any real reason given for Meryl Streep‘s departure in K vs K: which was part of the reason for Dustin Hoffman‘s character’s frustration.
Who do you sympathise with?
This is a movie where the audience is bound to take a side. But for me, there was only one side to take and that was Charlie’s. The actions of Nicole seem reprehensible and unforgivable, and when there are lines to be crossed she seems to have little hesitation in crossing them.
Many people seem to rave about this movie, but…
…I found the pace to be inconsistent. At one point, the story just stops for a soulful rendition by Charlie of a song in a bar, and I frankly just got bored with it. And while there’s a steady build up of the legal case involved, suddenly we seem to skip to a resolution without any real rationale for it. Or did I fall asleep??
A further irritation for me was Julie Hagerty as Nicole’s mum Sandra. She does the kooky mum turn that she did perfectly well in last year’s funny “Instant Family“, but its a role that really didn’t seem to fit in this movie. There’s an element of slapstick comedy in these scenes that just didn’t suit the general tone of the movie.
Overall, I just don’t share the love for this movie. Given the choice, I’d much rather watch Kramer vs Kramer again.
And what was that punchline?
By the way, Alan Alda is a fantastic comedian, and really knows how to deliver a joke. In this movie he’s regaling Charlie with a long-winded story (on the clock) when Charlie interrupts him. How did it end…. Alda revealed the full joke after a press screening at the New York Film Festival… and it’s a corker!
This woman’s at her hairdresser’s, and she says, “I’m going to Rome on holiday.”
He says, “Oh really, what airline are you taking?”
She says, “Alitalia.”
He says, “Alitalia, are you crazy? That’s terrible, don’t take that.”
He says, “Where are you gonna stay?”
She says, “I’m gonna stay at The Hassler.”
“The Hassler! What, are you kidding? They’re renovating the Hassler. You’ll hear hammering all night long. You won’t sleep! What are you gonna see?”
She says, “I think I’m going to try to go to the Vatican.” “The Vatican? You’ll be standing in line all day long—”
(Charlie interrupts at this point, but the joke goes on)
So she goes to Rome. She comes back, and the hairdresser says, “How was it?”
She says, “It was a great trip, it was wonderful.”
“How was the Vatican?”
“Wonderful! We happened to meet the Pope.”
“You met the Pope?”
“Yeah, and he spoke to me.”
“What did he say to you?”
“He said, ‘Where’d you get that f***ing haircut?’”
LOL!
For me, mention the phrase “divorce movie” and there’s only one film that comes to mind – the Oscar-laden classic from 1979 starring an immaculate Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep. THAT toy plane; THOSE stiches! (Gulp). This is the yardstick by which I judge such movies… and to be honest, “Marriage Story” didn’t measure up.
The story.
We start the movie seeing the apparently idyllic married life of theatre impresario Charlie (Adam Driver) and his lead actress and muse Nicole (Scarlett Johansson), together bringing up their young child. But spin forwards and the pair are in the middle of an ‘amicable’ separation, with Nicole returning to her home roots in California and Charlie having an expensive commute to and from New York where he’s struggling to premiere his show on Broadway.
But despite an agreement to keep lawyers out of the equation, Nicole is persuaded to lawyer up with Nora Fanshaw (Laura Dern) tightening up the legal screws until Charlie’s life risks being torn apart. It’s time for him to fight back.
Well regarded by the Academy.
As for “Kramer vs Kramer”, this is a movie that has been garlanded with multiple Oscar nominations. Both Driver and Johansson are nominated in the lead acting roles and Laura Dern seems to be favourite for the Best Supporting Actress gong (after winning the Golden Globe and the BAFTA). Three more Oscar nominations come for the score (by Randy Newman); the original screenplay (by director Noah Baumbach); and a Best Film nomination.
Both leads deliver really emotional performances, with Johansson in particular being very believable in the role. But who knew she was so short?! She always strikes me as a statuesque beauty, but she’s only 5′ 3” and it’s particularly noticeable in a scene filmed at Warner Brothers Studios.
It’s also fabulous to see both the great Alan Alda (here showing signs of his Parkinson’s) and Ray Liotta on screen again, as both low-rent and top-dollar lawyers respectively.
But WHY exactly are they divorcing?
I found the whole set up of the movie as frustrating. There seemed no clear understanding of why the separation is happening. True there is an affair involved (and Mrs Movie Man and I have always lived our nearly 40 years of marriage with the understanding that a “one strike” rule applies). But notwithstanding that, it seems to be more of a ‘drifting apart’ that’s gone on. I just wanted to give them a good shaking and get them to work it out!
This is all obviously unfair – because (and I also know this from experience) that in many marriages ‘shit happens’: some people do just want to do different things; feel suffocated; etc. And – thinking about it – I’m not sure there was any real reason given for Meryl Streep‘s departure in K vs K: which was part of the reason for Dustin Hoffman‘s character’s frustration.
Who do you sympathise with?
This is a movie where the audience is bound to take a side. But for me, there was only one side to take and that was Charlie’s. The actions of Nicole seem reprehensible and unforgivable, and when there are lines to be crossed she seems to have little hesitation in crossing them.
Many people seem to rave about this movie, but…
…I found the pace to be inconsistent. At one point, the story just stops for a soulful rendition by Charlie of a song in a bar, and I frankly just got bored with it. And while there’s a steady build up of the legal case involved, suddenly we seem to skip to a resolution without any real rationale for it. Or did I fall asleep??
A further irritation for me was Julie Hagerty as Nicole’s mum Sandra. She does the kooky mum turn that she did perfectly well in last year’s funny “Instant Family“, but its a role that really didn’t seem to fit in this movie. There’s an element of slapstick comedy in these scenes that just didn’t suit the general tone of the movie.
Overall, I just don’t share the love for this movie. Given the choice, I’d much rather watch Kramer vs Kramer again.
And what was that punchline?
By the way, Alan Alda is a fantastic comedian, and really knows how to deliver a joke. In this movie he’s regaling Charlie with a long-winded story (on the clock) when Charlie interrupts him. How did it end…. Alda revealed the full joke after a press screening at the New York Film Festival… and it’s a corker!
This woman’s at her hairdresser’s, and she says, “I’m going to Rome on holiday.”
He says, “Oh really, what airline are you taking?”
She says, “Alitalia.”
He says, “Alitalia, are you crazy? That’s terrible, don’t take that.”
He says, “Where are you gonna stay?”
She says, “I’m gonna stay at The Hassler.”
“The Hassler! What, are you kidding? They’re renovating the Hassler. You’ll hear hammering all night long. You won’t sleep! What are you gonna see?”
She says, “I think I’m going to try to go to the Vatican.” “The Vatican? You’ll be standing in line all day long—”
(Charlie interrupts at this point, but the joke goes on)
So she goes to Rome. She comes back, and the hairdresser says, “How was it?”
She says, “It was a great trip, it was wonderful.”
“How was the Vatican?”
“Wonderful! We happened to meet the Pope.”
“You met the Pope?”
“Yeah, and he spoke to me.”
“What did he say to you?”
“He said, ‘Where’d you get that f***ing haircut?’”
LOL!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Front Runner (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Candidate for a downfall.
We can all probably rattle off some of the classics movies with US politics as their backdrop. For me, “All the President’s Men”; “Primary Colors”; and “Frost/Nixon” might make that list. In the next tier down there are many great drama/thrillers – “Miss Sloane“; “The Post“; “The Ides of March”; “The American President”; “JFK” – and even some pretty funny comedies – “Dave” and “My Fellow Americans” for example. It’s actually quite difficult to think of many films on the subject that are outright dire, proving it remains a fertile ground for film-makers.
“The Front Runner” fortunately avoids this last category, but it’s certainly not good enough to make it into the ‘classics’ list either.
A true story.
The film is based on the true-story of US presidential hopeful Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) and if you are NOT aware of the historical background then you might want to skip the rest of this review – and indeed all others – so you can see the film first and let the history come as a surprise to you.
Hart was younger than most candidates: good-looking, floppy-haired and refreshingly matter of fact in his dealings with the public and the press. Any interviews had to be about his politics: not about his family life with wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and teenage daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever).
Unfortunately, Hart has a weakness for a pretty face (or ten) and his marriage is rocky as a result: “Just don’t embarrass me” is Lee’s one requirement. His “nothing to hide” line to an intelligent Washington Post reporter – AJ Parker (a well cast Mamoudou Athie) – leads to a half-arsed stake-out by Miami Herald reporters and incriminating pictures linking Hart to a Miami pharmaceutical saleswoman Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As the growing press tsunami rises, and his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) gets more and more frustrated with him, can his candidacy survive and will his (now very much embarrassed) wife stick by him?
The turns.
Hugh Jackman is perfectly cast here; very believable as the self-centred, self-righteous and stubborn politician. But this central performance is surrounded by a strong team of supporting players. Vera Farmiga is superb as the wounded wife. Sara Paxton is heartbreaking as the intelligent college girl unfairly portrayed as a “slapper” by the media. The scenes between her and Hart-staffer Irene (Molly Ephraim), trying desperately to support her as best she can, are very nicely done. J.K Simmons as campaign manager Bill Dixon is as reliable as ever. And Alfred Molina turns up as the latest film incarnation of The Post’s Ben Bradlee – surely one of the most oft portrayed real-life journalists in film history.
“What did they just say”?
The biggest cause of dissatisfaction I have with the film is with the sound mixing. Was this a deliberate act by director Jason Reitman, to reflect the chaotic nature of political campaigning? Whether it was deliberate or not, much of the film’s dialogue – particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film – is drowned out by background noise. Sometimes I just longed for subtitles!
Just a little bit dull.
The screenplay, by Matt Bai (from his source book), Jay Carson (a Clinton staffer) and director Jason Reitman might align with the history, but the big problem is that the story’s just a little bit dull, particularly by today’s levels of scandal. This suffers the same fate as “House of Cards” (even before the Kevin Spacey allegations) in that the shocking realities of the Trump-era have progressively neutered the shock-factor of the fiction: to the point where it starts to become boring. Here, only once or twice does the screenplay hit a winning beat: for me, it was the scenes between Donna Rice and Irene Kelly and the dramatic press conference towards the end of the film. The rest of the time, the screenplay was perfectly serviceable but nothing spectacular.
When is a politician’s personal life private?
A core tenet of the film is Hart’s view that politics should be about the policies and not about the personality. Looking at the subject nowadays, it’s clearly a ridiculously idealistic viewpoint. Of course it matters. Politicians need to be trusted by their constituents (yeah, like that’s the case in the UK and the US at the moment!) and whether or not they slap their wives around or sleep with farm animals is clearly a material factor in that relationship. But this was clearly not as much the case in the 70’s as it is today, and the suggestion is that the Hart case was a turning point and a wake-up call to politicians around the world. (An interesting article by the Washington Post itself points out that this is also a simplistic view: that Hart should have been well aware of the dangerous game he was playing.)
Fidelity in politics.
Do you think that powerful politicos are driven to infidelity because they are powerful? Or that it is a characteristic of men who have the charisma to become political leaders in the first place? Such was the discussion my wife and I had in the car home after this film. Nature or political nurture? I’m still not sure.
It’s worth pointing out that to this day both Hart and Rice (interestingly, an alleged ex-girlfriend of Eagles front-man Don Henley) stick to their story that they never had sex.
Final thoughts.
The film’s perfectly watchable, has great acting, but is a little bit of a non-event. The end titles came and I thought “OK, that’s that then”…. nothing more. If you’re a fan of this style of historical political film then you probably won’t be disappointed by it; if not, probably best to wait and catch this on the TV.
“The Front Runner” fortunately avoids this last category, but it’s certainly not good enough to make it into the ‘classics’ list either.
A true story.
The film is based on the true-story of US presidential hopeful Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) and if you are NOT aware of the historical background then you might want to skip the rest of this review – and indeed all others – so you can see the film first and let the history come as a surprise to you.
Hart was younger than most candidates: good-looking, floppy-haired and refreshingly matter of fact in his dealings with the public and the press. Any interviews had to be about his politics: not about his family life with wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and teenage daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever).
Unfortunately, Hart has a weakness for a pretty face (or ten) and his marriage is rocky as a result: “Just don’t embarrass me” is Lee’s one requirement. His “nothing to hide” line to an intelligent Washington Post reporter – AJ Parker (a well cast Mamoudou Athie) – leads to a half-arsed stake-out by Miami Herald reporters and incriminating pictures linking Hart to a Miami pharmaceutical saleswoman Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As the growing press tsunami rises, and his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) gets more and more frustrated with him, can his candidacy survive and will his (now very much embarrassed) wife stick by him?
The turns.
Hugh Jackman is perfectly cast here; very believable as the self-centred, self-righteous and stubborn politician. But this central performance is surrounded by a strong team of supporting players. Vera Farmiga is superb as the wounded wife. Sara Paxton is heartbreaking as the intelligent college girl unfairly portrayed as a “slapper” by the media. The scenes between her and Hart-staffer Irene (Molly Ephraim), trying desperately to support her as best she can, are very nicely done. J.K Simmons as campaign manager Bill Dixon is as reliable as ever. And Alfred Molina turns up as the latest film incarnation of The Post’s Ben Bradlee – surely one of the most oft portrayed real-life journalists in film history.
“What did they just say”?
The biggest cause of dissatisfaction I have with the film is with the sound mixing. Was this a deliberate act by director Jason Reitman, to reflect the chaotic nature of political campaigning? Whether it was deliberate or not, much of the film’s dialogue – particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film – is drowned out by background noise. Sometimes I just longed for subtitles!
Just a little bit dull.
The screenplay, by Matt Bai (from his source book), Jay Carson (a Clinton staffer) and director Jason Reitman might align with the history, but the big problem is that the story’s just a little bit dull, particularly by today’s levels of scandal. This suffers the same fate as “House of Cards” (even before the Kevin Spacey allegations) in that the shocking realities of the Trump-era have progressively neutered the shock-factor of the fiction: to the point where it starts to become boring. Here, only once or twice does the screenplay hit a winning beat: for me, it was the scenes between Donna Rice and Irene Kelly and the dramatic press conference towards the end of the film. The rest of the time, the screenplay was perfectly serviceable but nothing spectacular.
When is a politician’s personal life private?
A core tenet of the film is Hart’s view that politics should be about the policies and not about the personality. Looking at the subject nowadays, it’s clearly a ridiculously idealistic viewpoint. Of course it matters. Politicians need to be trusted by their constituents (yeah, like that’s the case in the UK and the US at the moment!) and whether or not they slap their wives around or sleep with farm animals is clearly a material factor in that relationship. But this was clearly not as much the case in the 70’s as it is today, and the suggestion is that the Hart case was a turning point and a wake-up call to politicians around the world. (An interesting article by the Washington Post itself points out that this is also a simplistic view: that Hart should have been well aware of the dangerous game he was playing.)
Fidelity in politics.
Do you think that powerful politicos are driven to infidelity because they are powerful? Or that it is a characteristic of men who have the charisma to become political leaders in the first place? Such was the discussion my wife and I had in the car home after this film. Nature or political nurture? I’m still not sure.
It’s worth pointing out that to this day both Hart and Rice (interestingly, an alleged ex-girlfriend of Eagles front-man Don Henley) stick to their story that they never had sex.
Final thoughts.
The film’s perfectly watchable, has great acting, but is a little bit of a non-event. The end titles came and I thought “OK, that’s that then”…. nothing more. If you’re a fan of this style of historical political film then you probably won’t be disappointed by it; if not, probably best to wait and catch this on the TV.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Firefly Adventures: Brigands and Browncoats in Tabletop Games
Sep 1, 2021
Okay! Yes. Firefly, a great IP. Check! Gale Force Nine, a publisher that brought a previous Firefly game to life and was pretty darn good. Check! Solo, Cooperative, or Competitive? Check! So far so good, so how does it stack up and have I finally found my gorram Firefly love?
Firefly Adventures: Brigands and Browncoats (from here just Firefly) is a miniatures skirmish game that can be played as a one-off game experience or as a campaign style story game. In it players will either control one or more Crew (the heroes of the show) or all of the Goons (the bad guys). For the solo experience I will be detailing here the solo player will control all characters on both sides. The Crew will be attempting to pull off The Rescue Job by rescuing an injured comrade hostage stashed in one of the 10 buildings on the board. After the hostage has been rescued all Crew and hostage must make it to the landing pad area before time for the Job runs out.
To setup, follow the instructions on the included Job pamphlet (there are four included in the box). The beginning of the Job will look similar to the photo below, though other components outside the board setup may be in whatever location fits the player best. After Equipment cards have been revealed and shopping completed, the game may begin in earnest, and best be quick – you only have 50 Moments to complete the Job!
Firefly is a turn-based minis game, but turns will probably never be in the same order. Each action taken by a character costs Moments in time, tracked by the brown Moments tracker around the board. Each character, be they Crew or Goons, will have their own Time Marker to show where in the 50 Moments the character currently resides. The character whose Time Marker is furthest in the rear of the pack will take their turn next. On a turn characters will have several choices of actions to take: Move, Complete a Test, Heal, Assist, or even Brawl and Shoot!
This Job focuses on gathering Intel from a terminal in one of the buildings or by chatting up nearby Cowboys. These Intel chips may be turned in for information to help narrow down exactly in which building the hostage is being held. Along the way, however, certain events may cause the Crew to have to “act heroic,” which means swapping out their gray “casual” mini for their green “heroic” mini in order to complete the event. Funny thing though, once a Crew member acts heroic, if ending their turn within line of sight of a Goon, that Goon becomes Alerted and joins the Timeline with their own mini and Time Marker. The Goons will now be trying to take out the beloved Crew member! As in the photo below, poor Mal is being surrounded by Goons with Zoe and Jayne nearby to help.
When all is said and done, Crew and Goons will be taking actions and spending Moments to do so. Should the Crew get to the landing pad with the hostage in tow the Crew wins! However, if time runs out on the Job (as it did with me twice) then the Job has failed. In either case the Crew may receive Rewards in various amounts of credits or Intel or other rewards that they may carry with to the next Job if playing a Story (several Jobs in succession).
Components. I am a HUGE fan of the components in this box. Not only are the minis great, the tokens chunky, and the artwork very good, but each 3D building is pre-assembled right out of the box. They nest very tightly and neatly within the box (whose bottom is also a very large building), but you will need to provide a bunch of baggies or other storage means because all the small components will be dumped into these buildings otherwise. I love all the components in this game, and they are all wonderful to handle… except one – the Time Markers. These are the tokens that represent the characters on the Moments tracker. As characters move along the tracker their Time Markers will be placed on a blank spot, or more often than not, on top of a stack of other Markers. No problem usually, unless your big man-hands tend not to be dextrous enough to grab the top Marker cleanly off the stack and it causes a giant mess of Time Markers on the board. I mean, not that it happened to me several times, of course…
In any case, Firefly is a marvelous scenario-based minis game that I have had nothing but great times playing – even solo! I honestly cannot imagine having more fun by adding more players, so this may be another “solo only” game for me. I will probably try it with my wife, maybe, or someone else once the COVID is gone. I love being able to figure out how best to maneuver each character in order to achieve the goals of the Job, but then something always causing me to have to act heroic and end my turn in LOS of a Goon, so now they are coming after me. I would not necessarily compare it to an action-programming game where you make plans only to have randomness obliterate them, but it certainly adds a giant amount of tactics to the game. In fact, during one play Mal alerted four Cowboys at once, and then the game was no longer a strategic stealthy experience but an all-out melee just to survive. I lost the Job, but only by a few Moments.
Ahh, this one is fabulous, and I am so happy that I have finally found that perfect-for-me Firefly game. If you are a fan of the Firefly mythos and are looking for a game that does it justice while having a ton of replayability, then please check out Firefly Adventures: Brigands and Browncoats. I am seriously also considering purchasing the expansions to add Book, Inara, Simon, and River. I mean, how could you NOT want to add River to your game?? I’ll be in my bunk.
Firefly Adventures: Brigands and Browncoats (from here just Firefly) is a miniatures skirmish game that can be played as a one-off game experience or as a campaign style story game. In it players will either control one or more Crew (the heroes of the show) or all of the Goons (the bad guys). For the solo experience I will be detailing here the solo player will control all characters on both sides. The Crew will be attempting to pull off The Rescue Job by rescuing an injured comrade hostage stashed in one of the 10 buildings on the board. After the hostage has been rescued all Crew and hostage must make it to the landing pad area before time for the Job runs out.
To setup, follow the instructions on the included Job pamphlet (there are four included in the box). The beginning of the Job will look similar to the photo below, though other components outside the board setup may be in whatever location fits the player best. After Equipment cards have been revealed and shopping completed, the game may begin in earnest, and best be quick – you only have 50 Moments to complete the Job!
Firefly is a turn-based minis game, but turns will probably never be in the same order. Each action taken by a character costs Moments in time, tracked by the brown Moments tracker around the board. Each character, be they Crew or Goons, will have their own Time Marker to show where in the 50 Moments the character currently resides. The character whose Time Marker is furthest in the rear of the pack will take their turn next. On a turn characters will have several choices of actions to take: Move, Complete a Test, Heal, Assist, or even Brawl and Shoot!
This Job focuses on gathering Intel from a terminal in one of the buildings or by chatting up nearby Cowboys. These Intel chips may be turned in for information to help narrow down exactly in which building the hostage is being held. Along the way, however, certain events may cause the Crew to have to “act heroic,” which means swapping out their gray “casual” mini for their green “heroic” mini in order to complete the event. Funny thing though, once a Crew member acts heroic, if ending their turn within line of sight of a Goon, that Goon becomes Alerted and joins the Timeline with their own mini and Time Marker. The Goons will now be trying to take out the beloved Crew member! As in the photo below, poor Mal is being surrounded by Goons with Zoe and Jayne nearby to help.
When all is said and done, Crew and Goons will be taking actions and spending Moments to do so. Should the Crew get to the landing pad with the hostage in tow the Crew wins! However, if time runs out on the Job (as it did with me twice) then the Job has failed. In either case the Crew may receive Rewards in various amounts of credits or Intel or other rewards that they may carry with to the next Job if playing a Story (several Jobs in succession).
Components. I am a HUGE fan of the components in this box. Not only are the minis great, the tokens chunky, and the artwork very good, but each 3D building is pre-assembled right out of the box. They nest very tightly and neatly within the box (whose bottom is also a very large building), but you will need to provide a bunch of baggies or other storage means because all the small components will be dumped into these buildings otherwise. I love all the components in this game, and they are all wonderful to handle… except one – the Time Markers. These are the tokens that represent the characters on the Moments tracker. As characters move along the tracker their Time Markers will be placed on a blank spot, or more often than not, on top of a stack of other Markers. No problem usually, unless your big man-hands tend not to be dextrous enough to grab the top Marker cleanly off the stack and it causes a giant mess of Time Markers on the board. I mean, not that it happened to me several times, of course…
In any case, Firefly is a marvelous scenario-based minis game that I have had nothing but great times playing – even solo! I honestly cannot imagine having more fun by adding more players, so this may be another “solo only” game for me. I will probably try it with my wife, maybe, or someone else once the COVID is gone. I love being able to figure out how best to maneuver each character in order to achieve the goals of the Job, but then something always causing me to have to act heroic and end my turn in LOS of a Goon, so now they are coming after me. I would not necessarily compare it to an action-programming game where you make plans only to have randomness obliterate them, but it certainly adds a giant amount of tactics to the game. In fact, during one play Mal alerted four Cowboys at once, and then the game was no longer a strategic stealthy experience but an all-out melee just to survive. I lost the Job, but only by a few Moments.
Ahh, this one is fabulous, and I am so happy that I have finally found that perfect-for-me Firefly game. If you are a fan of the Firefly mythos and are looking for a game that does it justice while having a ton of replayability, then please check out Firefly Adventures: Brigands and Browncoats. I am seriously also considering purchasing the expansions to add Book, Inara, Simon, and River. I mean, how could you NOT want to add River to your game?? I’ll be in my bunk.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Munchkin in Tabletop Games
Jan 6, 2020
A “Munchkin,” in gamer terms, is someone who is only out to better themselves with treasure and power at the expense of everyone else in their adventuring party. That rings so very true in the Munchkin line of games, as you are trying to be the first to gain 10th Level in a VERY loosely-based RPG setting. OG vanilla Munchkin (pictured above) was my first entry into hobby board gaming. Many many games later I ask myself: How has this system of games aged for me as my gaming tastes have changed? Let’s see.
In Munchkin games, you are trying to become the first player to reach 10th Level. That’s the goal. You take on the persona of a 1st Level basic human (no Starbucks jokes please) who will be adventuring with a party of your opponents through a dungeon. You will be kicking down doors, fighting monsters, placing curses on your fellow party members, and buffing yourself with cards featuring funny art and punny references. Your party mates are also trying to achieve 10th Level and will do everything they can to block your progress, so be prepared!
DISCLAIMER: This review is not for a specific game within the Munchkin universe, but for the system as a whole. All Munchkin games will pretty much use similar, if not exactly the same, rules to play the game with minor variations and different theming. I will be using The Good, The Bad, and The Munchkin for my review as it is one of the two versions I still own of the franchise. Also, I will not be detailing every rule in the book(s), but giving a brief overview of how the game plays. -T
Setup is easy: shuffle the deck of Door cards and the deck of Treasure cards. Deal cards to the players for their opening hands and keep the included die handy.
Your turn consists of just a few phases: Open a Door, Look for Trouble, Loot the Room, and Charity. To Open a Door, flip over the top card of the Door deck. If it is a monster you must fight it or run. If not a monster, you can move on to the next phase. If it IS a monster, prepare for combat. Combat is simple in that you add up all your bonuses from your gear cards you have attached to your character and try to beat the strength of the monster. Your party mates can screw with you during combat by adding strength to the monster or adding monsters to the fight to make it a more difficult encounter. If you win, you gain a Level on the spot. Some monsters are worth even more than one Level. If you did not encounter a monster, you will add the non-monster card you drew to your hand and you may Look for Trouble by playing a monster card from your hand to initiate a combat. This fight will work the same way and you will be susceptible to pile-ons as before. You may Loot the Room if you defeated a monster on your turn by drawing Treasure cards equal to the printed reward on the bottom of the monster card you defeated. If you defeated the monster yourself, unaided, these are drawn in secret. If you were given help by your mates then you may have to split up the loot per any agreements made. These cards are usually very advantageous to you so they are usually very valuable to others as they attempt to steal away your goods. If you did not fight a monster yet this turn, you may draw another secret card from the Door deck to add to your hand. Should your hand size climb above your limit (dictated by your Race card, if any) you will slide into the Charity phase to relieve your hand of extra cards. Give all excess cards to the player of lowest Level, or split them among those that share the lowest Level. It is now the next player’s turn and you continue play until someone reaches 10th Level.
Components. It’s a bunch of cards and one die. The cards are of okay quality. Nothing to write home about. The die is nice with one of the faces having the Munchkin logo head imprinted on it. It will also have a color scheme that matches the version of Munchkin you are playing, so it’s easy to match them back up if they become integrated with each other. Overall, the components are fine, but not wonderful. That’s probably why these are pretty inexpensive to purchase.
Okay, so like I said earlier the original vanilla Munchkin was the first hobby board game I ever purchased. My friends and family had no idea hobby games existed, so there was actually a pretty steep learning curve for us. Once we figured it out, however, we began to play it a ton and really love it! The cards are cute, the game play is pretty easy if you have played hobby games before, and the puns kept us rolling for a good while. There was a time when I owned every version of Munchkin in circulation and we never even played half of them. Seeing this I got rid of them through BGG Auctions. I have The Good, The Bad, and The Munchkin and Munchkin Zombies right now and I feel that will be plenty for me from here on out – unless they make a Doctor Who or Firefly set or something /*checks warehouse23 to find out if these are available/.
Do I still love Munchkin? No, not really. I LIKE it, but I don’t really want to play it all the time any more. Why? Well, as my gamer experience increases and I level up, my game tastes also level up. I see why people enjoy and even love this game system. I myself loved it for a time. But there are better games out there that accomplish the same feelings without being as sophomoric and have better choices to be made. Will I still play these games? Heck yeah! If someone asks to play a Munchkin game I am all in. I have different tastes and preferences now, but I’m no snob. Just come prepared, because I won’t go easy on you.
We at Purple Phoenix Games give this family of titles a backstabby 16 / 24.
In Munchkin games, you are trying to become the first player to reach 10th Level. That’s the goal. You take on the persona of a 1st Level basic human (no Starbucks jokes please) who will be adventuring with a party of your opponents through a dungeon. You will be kicking down doors, fighting monsters, placing curses on your fellow party members, and buffing yourself with cards featuring funny art and punny references. Your party mates are also trying to achieve 10th Level and will do everything they can to block your progress, so be prepared!
DISCLAIMER: This review is not for a specific game within the Munchkin universe, but for the system as a whole. All Munchkin games will pretty much use similar, if not exactly the same, rules to play the game with minor variations and different theming. I will be using The Good, The Bad, and The Munchkin for my review as it is one of the two versions I still own of the franchise. Also, I will not be detailing every rule in the book(s), but giving a brief overview of how the game plays. -T
Setup is easy: shuffle the deck of Door cards and the deck of Treasure cards. Deal cards to the players for their opening hands and keep the included die handy.
Your turn consists of just a few phases: Open a Door, Look for Trouble, Loot the Room, and Charity. To Open a Door, flip over the top card of the Door deck. If it is a monster you must fight it or run. If not a monster, you can move on to the next phase. If it IS a monster, prepare for combat. Combat is simple in that you add up all your bonuses from your gear cards you have attached to your character and try to beat the strength of the monster. Your party mates can screw with you during combat by adding strength to the monster or adding monsters to the fight to make it a more difficult encounter. If you win, you gain a Level on the spot. Some monsters are worth even more than one Level. If you did not encounter a monster, you will add the non-monster card you drew to your hand and you may Look for Trouble by playing a monster card from your hand to initiate a combat. This fight will work the same way and you will be susceptible to pile-ons as before. You may Loot the Room if you defeated a monster on your turn by drawing Treasure cards equal to the printed reward on the bottom of the monster card you defeated. If you defeated the monster yourself, unaided, these are drawn in secret. If you were given help by your mates then you may have to split up the loot per any agreements made. These cards are usually very advantageous to you so they are usually very valuable to others as they attempt to steal away your goods. If you did not fight a monster yet this turn, you may draw another secret card from the Door deck to add to your hand. Should your hand size climb above your limit (dictated by your Race card, if any) you will slide into the Charity phase to relieve your hand of extra cards. Give all excess cards to the player of lowest Level, or split them among those that share the lowest Level. It is now the next player’s turn and you continue play until someone reaches 10th Level.
Components. It’s a bunch of cards and one die. The cards are of okay quality. Nothing to write home about. The die is nice with one of the faces having the Munchkin logo head imprinted on it. It will also have a color scheme that matches the version of Munchkin you are playing, so it’s easy to match them back up if they become integrated with each other. Overall, the components are fine, but not wonderful. That’s probably why these are pretty inexpensive to purchase.
Okay, so like I said earlier the original vanilla Munchkin was the first hobby board game I ever purchased. My friends and family had no idea hobby games existed, so there was actually a pretty steep learning curve for us. Once we figured it out, however, we began to play it a ton and really love it! The cards are cute, the game play is pretty easy if you have played hobby games before, and the puns kept us rolling for a good while. There was a time when I owned every version of Munchkin in circulation and we never even played half of them. Seeing this I got rid of them through BGG Auctions. I have The Good, The Bad, and The Munchkin and Munchkin Zombies right now and I feel that will be plenty for me from here on out – unless they make a Doctor Who or Firefly set or something /*checks warehouse23 to find out if these are available/.
Do I still love Munchkin? No, not really. I LIKE it, but I don’t really want to play it all the time any more. Why? Well, as my gamer experience increases and I level up, my game tastes also level up. I see why people enjoy and even love this game system. I myself loved it for a time. But there are better games out there that accomplish the same feelings without being as sophomoric and have better choices to be made. Will I still play these games? Heck yeah! If someone asks to play a Munchkin game I am all in. I have different tastes and preferences now, but I’m no snob. Just come prepared, because I won’t go easy on you.
We at Purple Phoenix Games give this family of titles a backstabby 16 / 24.
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated If I Stay (2014) in Movies
Jun 28, 2019
The film's "live or die" premise is dumb, dangerous, and downright offensive. (4 more)
A totally lousy and illogical love story that lacks any heart.
The dialogue is almost as bad as Adam's 8-year-old-grade-level music lyrics.
It's far too frustrating and bland to be emotionally effective. The only pity I felt was for myself for having to sit through it for two hours.
If I Stay is unforgivable and reprehensible garbage. It should be avoided like the plague.
Had I not seen this film with a friend, it would have been the first movie I’ve ever walked out of. I haven’t hated a movie this much all year. If I Stay disappoints and offends on nearly every conceivable level.
Imagine yourself in a situation where your whole life is turned upside-down in an instant, and nothing will ever be the same again. That’s the troubling position young Mia Hall is faced with in If I Stay, after her and her family are involved in a terrible car accident. Mia wakes up from the crash, only to discover that she’s having some sort of transcendental experience, where she sees her own lifeless body being treated by paramedics. In her ghost-like form, no one is able to see or hear her, leaving her helpless as she watches her tragedy unfold. The devastating crash put her into a comatose state, and as she teeters on the verge of life and death, she’s informed by her nurse that whether or not she lives is entirely predicated on her will to survive. Based on the young adult novel by Gayle Forman, If I Stay asks us if life is still worth living even when all hope appears to be lost. Whether it’s really even worth it to endure life’s cruel hardship and heartache, and to muster the courage to face another day.
Well, if you answered that question with a resounding “yes!”, then like me, you’ll probably find this movie to be pretty darn stupid. Actually, regardless of your opinion on the matter, I think it would be hard for anyone to escape the fact that this movie is pretty darn stupid. However, as much as I find the central question of the movie to be absurd and even offensive, it didn’t detract from my interest in seeing the film. So let’s not make the assumption that I disliked this movie from the get-go, because that’s really just not true. Even though I may disagree with it, I can certainly sympathize with the idea of a teenager who is experiencing a life-shattering trauma and is afraid to continue living on afterward. However, I would personally argue that she hasn’t actually experienced any of that at all. She’s living in an extra dimensional safe-zone. Her horror can’t be real unless she makes it real by returning to life to face it. To look at it another way, couldn’t we say that if she chose death instead, that she never would have experienced the tragedy at all since she was stuck in a coma, and that she would be dead without ever knowing the fate of her family? That’s what I think, though I’ll admit it’s rather complicated as it draws upon unanswerable questions. To be frank, it’s a bogus scenario for a bogus movie that isn’t even worthy of that much thought, and clearly wasn’t ever given that much thought.
Before I digress on this topic, I’d like to look into a few of its implications, because I think it’s sending a terrible and dangerous message to its viewers, particularly the teenagers it’s targeted to. Basically, I believe the film is implying that death is a perfectly okay alternative to facing an undesirable change. I find that very idea to be immoral, irresponsible, and horribly atrocious. “Sorry your dad died, Timmy. If you can’t bear to live another day and want to end it all right here, well that’s okay with us. We understand and we won’t judge!” Are you kidding me? What kind of a message are they trying to send here? “Bad day? Just give up! Things are great here in Heaven! Join us today!” Is that really what they’re trying to tell us? How is anyone possibly okay with this? The film is essentially preaching that killing yourself is a perfectly acceptable option when life gets hard, and I have a really big problem with that. Whether we want to think about it or not, suicide is always an option we have in life, but that doesn’t mean that we should encourage it or try to pretend that it’s ever a favorable opportunity. Mia doesn’t even know what life will be like if she wakes up because she hasn’t lived it yet. Her fears are fully based off of negative assumptions. Yeah, maybe things will be really hard if she comes out of her coma. Maybe she’ll wish she was dead. Or maybe she’ll go through some difficult times, but then maybe things will get better and she’ll pick up the pieces and end up living a wonderful and happy life. Had she actually endured this new life and struggled with thoughts about suicide, I think it would have made for a far more compelling narrative, rather than all of this hypothetic nonsense. Either way, good or bad, life goes on. It’s up to us to adapt to it. Where there is hope, there is always possibility. With all that said, I would still contend that If I Stay’s premise is only the tip of the iceberg of its problems. This supposed tear-jerked failed to stir up any sympathy or sadness from me, and there are a few major reasons why.
First of all, it completely fails as a love story. The film is almost entirely devoid of romance, and has no believable connection between Mia and her boyfriend, Adam. Rather than being a Prince Charming type, Adam’s mostly just a jerk that she shouldn’t be wasting her time with in the first place. Yet the movie tries to make you believe that it’s love, and that this is what all normal relationships are like. It’s a complete crock. Movies like this give girls a false understanding of what love should be, and I find that to be an unforgivable offense. Adam’s the local hot shot rocker who falls for Mia, the talented young cello player who aspires to go to the renowned music school Julliard in New York. Adam manages to win her heart and the two of them start dating. Unfortunately though, their relationship can be pretty unpleasant to watch. Adam’s living the life of a local rock star and is blindly dragging Mia along for the ride, introducing the sweet, young girl to a world of parties, sex, and alcohol. Adam’s utterly oblivious to her disinterest in such a lifestyle and he rarely shows any concern for her feelings anyway. Yet she’s so foolishly committed to him that she follows this path of corruption, all for a guy who only thinks about himself. I thought this was supposed to be a love story, but it’s severely lacking in the love department. Just because Adam occasionally does something nice, we’re supposed to think he’s a good guy and forgive him for the majority of the time when he’s a lousy boyfriend and a loser? Of course, how romantic! Their whole relationship is lifeless and immensely frustrating. If living with him was my alternative to death, believe me, I’d choose death without hesitation.
Had I not seen this film with a friend, it would have been the first movie I’ve ever walked out of. I haven’t hated a movie this much all year. Even with my friend there, I still thought about leaving, then had a good laugh about the film’s title being so perfectly appropriate, as I contemplated to myself whether or not I should go. As much as I wanted to leave, I stuck it out all the way to the end. Then the entire audience ended up laughing at the ending, which goes to show I was far from the only one that thought this movie was a complete joke and waste of time. I had more than a few laughs at the film’s expense, from its dumb and derivative dialogue, to the way Chloe Grace Moretz slightly crosses her eyes whenever she’s upset. While I think I still remained open-minded about the film despite my issues with the story, I really don’t think the film itself was any good, nor does it appear to serve any purpose. Seriously, what’s the point of this movie? To give people hope that you can overcome obstacles in life? To justify suicide? I don’t know. Halfway through the movie, I was so disengaged from it that I was imagining how fun it would be to do cartwheels in the theater. That must be the lesson that I learned from all this. Well, that and to steer clear of crummy musicians, I suppose. While I’ve heard a lot of praise about the film’s soundtrack, I thought Adam’s band was quite horrendous. They do have a moment of redemption when they cover a Smashing Pumpkins song, which may have been the only good moment in this otherwise pitiful movie. I also found the lyrics of that song to be unusually appropriate to my misery when they said, “I’ll rip my eyes out, before I get out.” It’s almost funny that this might have been the only moment of the movie I could actually relate to: the thought of ripping my eyes out before being able to leave.
If I Stay is a movie that disappoints and offends on nearly every conceivable level. The saddest thing about this film is that garbage like this actually exists. Its pro-death agenda is just plain horrible and ill-conceived. It also troubles me greatly to think that teenage girls might watch this film and think that Mia and Adam’s tumultuous relationship is a desirable model of love. Lastly, I’d like to note that the If I Stay novel does have a follow-up book titled Where She Went. Wherever she goes, I sure hope it’s not back to theaters. If I have to sit through another If I Stay movie, I might just give up on life myself.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 9.5.14.)
Well, if you answered that question with a resounding “yes!”, then like me, you’ll probably find this movie to be pretty darn stupid. Actually, regardless of your opinion on the matter, I think it would be hard for anyone to escape the fact that this movie is pretty darn stupid. However, as much as I find the central question of the movie to be absurd and even offensive, it didn’t detract from my interest in seeing the film. So let’s not make the assumption that I disliked this movie from the get-go, because that’s really just not true. Even though I may disagree with it, I can certainly sympathize with the idea of a teenager who is experiencing a life-shattering trauma and is afraid to continue living on afterward. However, I would personally argue that she hasn’t actually experienced any of that at all. She’s living in an extra dimensional safe-zone. Her horror can’t be real unless she makes it real by returning to life to face it. To look at it another way, couldn’t we say that if she chose death instead, that she never would have experienced the tragedy at all since she was stuck in a coma, and that she would be dead without ever knowing the fate of her family? That’s what I think, though I’ll admit it’s rather complicated as it draws upon unanswerable questions. To be frank, it’s a bogus scenario for a bogus movie that isn’t even worthy of that much thought, and clearly wasn’t ever given that much thought.
Before I digress on this topic, I’d like to look into a few of its implications, because I think it’s sending a terrible and dangerous message to its viewers, particularly the teenagers it’s targeted to. Basically, I believe the film is implying that death is a perfectly okay alternative to facing an undesirable change. I find that very idea to be immoral, irresponsible, and horribly atrocious. “Sorry your dad died, Timmy. If you can’t bear to live another day and want to end it all right here, well that’s okay with us. We understand and we won’t judge!” Are you kidding me? What kind of a message are they trying to send here? “Bad day? Just give up! Things are great here in Heaven! Join us today!” Is that really what they’re trying to tell us? How is anyone possibly okay with this? The film is essentially preaching that killing yourself is a perfectly acceptable option when life gets hard, and I have a really big problem with that. Whether we want to think about it or not, suicide is always an option we have in life, but that doesn’t mean that we should encourage it or try to pretend that it’s ever a favorable opportunity. Mia doesn’t even know what life will be like if she wakes up because she hasn’t lived it yet. Her fears are fully based off of negative assumptions. Yeah, maybe things will be really hard if she comes out of her coma. Maybe she’ll wish she was dead. Or maybe she’ll go through some difficult times, but then maybe things will get better and she’ll pick up the pieces and end up living a wonderful and happy life. Had she actually endured this new life and struggled with thoughts about suicide, I think it would have made for a far more compelling narrative, rather than all of this hypothetic nonsense. Either way, good or bad, life goes on. It’s up to us to adapt to it. Where there is hope, there is always possibility. With all that said, I would still contend that If I Stay’s premise is only the tip of the iceberg of its problems. This supposed tear-jerked failed to stir up any sympathy or sadness from me, and there are a few major reasons why.
First of all, it completely fails as a love story. The film is almost entirely devoid of romance, and has no believable connection between Mia and her boyfriend, Adam. Rather than being a Prince Charming type, Adam’s mostly just a jerk that she shouldn’t be wasting her time with in the first place. Yet the movie tries to make you believe that it’s love, and that this is what all normal relationships are like. It’s a complete crock. Movies like this give girls a false understanding of what love should be, and I find that to be an unforgivable offense. Adam’s the local hot shot rocker who falls for Mia, the talented young cello player who aspires to go to the renowned music school Julliard in New York. Adam manages to win her heart and the two of them start dating. Unfortunately though, their relationship can be pretty unpleasant to watch. Adam’s living the life of a local rock star and is blindly dragging Mia along for the ride, introducing the sweet, young girl to a world of parties, sex, and alcohol. Adam’s utterly oblivious to her disinterest in such a lifestyle and he rarely shows any concern for her feelings anyway. Yet she’s so foolishly committed to him that she follows this path of corruption, all for a guy who only thinks about himself. I thought this was supposed to be a love story, but it’s severely lacking in the love department. Just because Adam occasionally does something nice, we’re supposed to think he’s a good guy and forgive him for the majority of the time when he’s a lousy boyfriend and a loser? Of course, how romantic! Their whole relationship is lifeless and immensely frustrating. If living with him was my alternative to death, believe me, I’d choose death without hesitation.
Had I not seen this film with a friend, it would have been the first movie I’ve ever walked out of. I haven’t hated a movie this much all year. Even with my friend there, I still thought about leaving, then had a good laugh about the film’s title being so perfectly appropriate, as I contemplated to myself whether or not I should go. As much as I wanted to leave, I stuck it out all the way to the end. Then the entire audience ended up laughing at the ending, which goes to show I was far from the only one that thought this movie was a complete joke and waste of time. I had more than a few laughs at the film’s expense, from its dumb and derivative dialogue, to the way Chloe Grace Moretz slightly crosses her eyes whenever she’s upset. While I think I still remained open-minded about the film despite my issues with the story, I really don’t think the film itself was any good, nor does it appear to serve any purpose. Seriously, what’s the point of this movie? To give people hope that you can overcome obstacles in life? To justify suicide? I don’t know. Halfway through the movie, I was so disengaged from it that I was imagining how fun it would be to do cartwheels in the theater. That must be the lesson that I learned from all this. Well, that and to steer clear of crummy musicians, I suppose. While I’ve heard a lot of praise about the film’s soundtrack, I thought Adam’s band was quite horrendous. They do have a moment of redemption when they cover a Smashing Pumpkins song, which may have been the only good moment in this otherwise pitiful movie. I also found the lyrics of that song to be unusually appropriate to my misery when they said, “I’ll rip my eyes out, before I get out.” It’s almost funny that this might have been the only moment of the movie I could actually relate to: the thought of ripping my eyes out before being able to leave.
If I Stay is a movie that disappoints and offends on nearly every conceivable level. The saddest thing about this film is that garbage like this actually exists. Its pro-death agenda is just plain horrible and ill-conceived. It also troubles me greatly to think that teenage girls might watch this film and think that Mia and Adam’s tumultuous relationship is a desirable model of love. Lastly, I’d like to note that the If I Stay novel does have a follow-up book titled Where She Went. Wherever she goes, I sure hope it’s not back to theaters. If I have to sit through another If I Stay movie, I might just give up on life myself.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 9.5.14.)