Search
Search results
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Roar and Write! in Tabletop Games
Jul 2, 2020
Roll and write games have been surging in popularity recently among many gamers, but Purple Phoenix Games never really got too into them. The game industry has many wonderful entries now, and finding a great one may be somewhat daunting. Are we recommending Roar and Write! from Galactic Raptor Games? Read on (okay you don’t have to read too far, we love it).
A new ruler in The Animal Kingdoms is needed and it is up to you to appease the five sitting council members for consideration. By giving them exactly what they want you will be able to improve your standing and possibly rise to the top in this quick-playing dice game.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and the final components will probably be different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to back the game through the upcoming Kickstarter campaign, order from your FLGS, or purchase through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
Setup for Roar and Write! is simple. Choose a difficulty level to be played, assign the required council leaders, each with their own requirements to satisfy, deal each player a pencil, scoresheet, and one Personal Agenda card (secret goals to satisfy throughout the game). You are now ready to begin appeasing!
Roar and Write! takes place over five ages (rounds) and each age consists of three dice rolls. Each time the dice are rolled, players may choose which, or all, dice results to be used to influence the council members on their sheet. Any leftover dice results can be used in the Kingdoms area at the top of the sheet – first number is free each roll, but will cost a Council Offering spot for every Kingdom result added thereafter. Example – I use three 4s for Council Offerings, and the remaining results are two 5s and a 1. I want to use the two 5s so I mark both of them up in the Kingdom area and mark one Council Offering box with an X to decrease my ability to fill more spots there. A sacrifice and a gamble. Gotta love it!
Each Council member has unique requirements to satisfy, and players can only concentrate on one Council member per age, and choosing one early in the age to complete has advantages in extra points scored. Players also have their secret Personal Agendas (agendae?) to consider each age as well. Play continues through three rolls in each of the five ages. Once the final roll has been completed and players have done what they can to score as many points as possible, end game scoring happen to determine the winner of the game and the next ruler of the Animal Kingdom!
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of the game, and certain components will probably be adjusted throughout the course of a successful Kickstarter campaign. That said, what we were shipped is a GORGEOUS game in a Tiny Epic-sized box. The table footprint is excellently small, the artwork is simply stunning, and I truly cannot wait to see what upgrades the KS campaign will bring.
What I love about roll and writes is probably true about most games in the genre: being able to see what is rolled and create my own strategy. Players aren’t rolling to move ahead more spaces than other players. They aren’t attacking each other. They are simply trying to get the best score. To maximize the usage of the resources provided to them. That said, this game has no player interaction whatsoever. I typically frown upon games where it is, “multiplayer solitaire” (thanks Duke Alex). However, Roar and Write is so fast and so engaging, that I really didn’t have time to worry about other players, nor did I really care what they were doing. In the end, it’s all about the points, and that’s what makes this a great game – I can play it with any group size, and I have been pleasantly surprised at how happy I was to play it solo as well.
So, if you are in the market for a roll and write game that is small in size, packs a decent crunchy punch, and has simply amazing art, Roar and Write! should be next on your wish list. Please consider backing it on Kickstarter, which will be launching at the end of June, 2020. I know I’ll be on the prowl to be gifting these little cuties to my friends and family!
A new ruler in The Animal Kingdoms is needed and it is up to you to appease the five sitting council members for consideration. By giving them exactly what they want you will be able to improve your standing and possibly rise to the top in this quick-playing dice game.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and the final components will probably be different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to back the game through the upcoming Kickstarter campaign, order from your FLGS, or purchase through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
Setup for Roar and Write! is simple. Choose a difficulty level to be played, assign the required council leaders, each with their own requirements to satisfy, deal each player a pencil, scoresheet, and one Personal Agenda card (secret goals to satisfy throughout the game). You are now ready to begin appeasing!
Roar and Write! takes place over five ages (rounds) and each age consists of three dice rolls. Each time the dice are rolled, players may choose which, or all, dice results to be used to influence the council members on their sheet. Any leftover dice results can be used in the Kingdoms area at the top of the sheet – first number is free each roll, but will cost a Council Offering spot for every Kingdom result added thereafter. Example – I use three 4s for Council Offerings, and the remaining results are two 5s and a 1. I want to use the two 5s so I mark both of them up in the Kingdom area and mark one Council Offering box with an X to decrease my ability to fill more spots there. A sacrifice and a gamble. Gotta love it!
Each Council member has unique requirements to satisfy, and players can only concentrate on one Council member per age, and choosing one early in the age to complete has advantages in extra points scored. Players also have their secret Personal Agendas (agendae?) to consider each age as well. Play continues through three rolls in each of the five ages. Once the final roll has been completed and players have done what they can to score as many points as possible, end game scoring happen to determine the winner of the game and the next ruler of the Animal Kingdom!
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of the game, and certain components will probably be adjusted throughout the course of a successful Kickstarter campaign. That said, what we were shipped is a GORGEOUS game in a Tiny Epic-sized box. The table footprint is excellently small, the artwork is simply stunning, and I truly cannot wait to see what upgrades the KS campaign will bring.
What I love about roll and writes is probably true about most games in the genre: being able to see what is rolled and create my own strategy. Players aren’t rolling to move ahead more spaces than other players. They aren’t attacking each other. They are simply trying to get the best score. To maximize the usage of the resources provided to them. That said, this game has no player interaction whatsoever. I typically frown upon games where it is, “multiplayer solitaire” (thanks Duke Alex). However, Roar and Write is so fast and so engaging, that I really didn’t have time to worry about other players, nor did I really care what they were doing. In the end, it’s all about the points, and that’s what makes this a great game – I can play it with any group size, and I have been pleasantly surprised at how happy I was to play it solo as well.
So, if you are in the market for a roll and write game that is small in size, packs a decent crunchy punch, and has simply amazing art, Roar and Write! should be next on your wish list. Please consider backing it on Kickstarter, which will be launching at the end of June, 2020. I know I’ll be on the prowl to be gifting these little cuties to my friends and family!
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Crime Scene: The Vanishing at the Cecil Hotel in TV
Feb 22, 2021
Scarily glamourises internet sleuthing
Crime Scene: The Vanishing at the Cecil Hotel is the latest stylised true crime documentary from Netflix, and it’s a pretty scary watch, but not in the way you’d expect from something that has been advertised as a supernatural murder mystery.
The 4 episode documentary series focuses on a notorious hotel in downtown L.A, Hotel Cecil, and the disappearance of a Canadian student, Elisa Lam, who went missing from the hotel in unexplained circumstances and who was later found dead. On paper this has everything a true crime lover wants: CCTV footage of the victim acting strangely, a creepy hotel with a dodgy history and a lot of strange and unusual circumstances, which culminates in Elisa Lam’s decomposing body being found in a water tank on the hotel roof days after her disappearance, the same water that the hotel guests have been drinking all along. It’s a truly fascinating story and if done properly, would have been very interesting. However in the hands of director Joe Berlinger, the disappearance of Elisa Lam has been turned into a dull, drawn out affair that dangerously glamourises baseless conspiracy theories.
One of the two main problems is that this documentary has been drawn out over 4 hour long episodes, when realistically the true story of Elisa Lam’s disappearance could still have been told effectively in an hour, maybe two maximum, without detracting from the facts. And I guess that’s really the problem with The Vanishing at the Cecil Hotel, it isn’t necessarily all that concerned about the facts but rather just wants to create a film-like entertaining story, with the facts almost an afterthought crammed into the final parts of the last episode. It features lengthy and pointless interviews from other guests and tourists to try and give us a feel of what life at the Cecil was like, and these are entirely unnecessary, as some short exposition from the hotel manager or officers involved would’ve sufficed. Every part of this case is stretched so thinly that you almost lose track after having to weed out the truth and facts amongst all the irrelevant interviews and chatter. It isn’t helped by the narration of some of Elisa’s Tumblr posts, which comes across as cheesy and irritating rather than emotional and meaningful like it was probably intended.
What is most irrelevant and dangerous about this documentary, and the second main problem, is the focus on internet sleuths. These are mostly YouTubers who have spent hours dissecting every aspect of the case and have put forward many outrageous theories, all of which are completely laughable. But instead of mocking these idiots, this documentary glamourises them and their theories, and has dedicated more of it’s runtime to them than it has to any of the real life detectives and investigators involved. Watching these people wheel out one ridiculous theory after another had me wanting to throw my remote at the screen to make it stop. The theories ranged from the questionably plausible (foul player or murder) to the downright ludicrous - someone copying the film Dark Water, possible links to the Lam-Elisa TB test and a vast cover up jointly orchestrated by the police, hotel management and coroners staff are the ones that made me laugh and cringe the most.
All jokes aside, this focus on internet sleuths is extremely damaging and dangerous and this is illustrated by the awful accusations they made about Pablo Vergara aka Morbid, who’s only crime was to make music that wouldn’t be considered mainstream. If this documentary had focused on slamming these people and highlighting the dangers of them getting involved, then it would’ve redeemed itself. But it doesn’t, it gives them centre stage and debunking their theories is almost an afterthought. They aren’t even condemned for their treatment of Pablo despite the obviously long lasting effects on his mental health. These people are crazy and this only serves to highlight the huge problem with internet, video streaming sites and social media – how Joe public can ever think they know better than qualified pathologists and investigators is beyond me. And how this documentary can indulge and glamourise these people is even worse. From working a day job in the emergency services, I know how damaging this sort of interference and public perception can be.
The story of Elisa Lam’s disappearance at the Hotel Cecil is undoubtedly an interesting one. However in Crime Scene: The Vanishing at the Cecil Hotel, the real story has been mauled and disrespected by the focus and respect given to the internet sleuths and their absurd theories. I feel like I’m being generous giving it a 3, it made me so angry.
The 4 episode documentary series focuses on a notorious hotel in downtown L.A, Hotel Cecil, and the disappearance of a Canadian student, Elisa Lam, who went missing from the hotel in unexplained circumstances and who was later found dead. On paper this has everything a true crime lover wants: CCTV footage of the victim acting strangely, a creepy hotel with a dodgy history and a lot of strange and unusual circumstances, which culminates in Elisa Lam’s decomposing body being found in a water tank on the hotel roof days after her disappearance, the same water that the hotel guests have been drinking all along. It’s a truly fascinating story and if done properly, would have been very interesting. However in the hands of director Joe Berlinger, the disappearance of Elisa Lam has been turned into a dull, drawn out affair that dangerously glamourises baseless conspiracy theories.
One of the two main problems is that this documentary has been drawn out over 4 hour long episodes, when realistically the true story of Elisa Lam’s disappearance could still have been told effectively in an hour, maybe two maximum, without detracting from the facts. And I guess that’s really the problem with The Vanishing at the Cecil Hotel, it isn’t necessarily all that concerned about the facts but rather just wants to create a film-like entertaining story, with the facts almost an afterthought crammed into the final parts of the last episode. It features lengthy and pointless interviews from other guests and tourists to try and give us a feel of what life at the Cecil was like, and these are entirely unnecessary, as some short exposition from the hotel manager or officers involved would’ve sufficed. Every part of this case is stretched so thinly that you almost lose track after having to weed out the truth and facts amongst all the irrelevant interviews and chatter. It isn’t helped by the narration of some of Elisa’s Tumblr posts, which comes across as cheesy and irritating rather than emotional and meaningful like it was probably intended.
What is most irrelevant and dangerous about this documentary, and the second main problem, is the focus on internet sleuths. These are mostly YouTubers who have spent hours dissecting every aspect of the case and have put forward many outrageous theories, all of which are completely laughable. But instead of mocking these idiots, this documentary glamourises them and their theories, and has dedicated more of it’s runtime to them than it has to any of the real life detectives and investigators involved. Watching these people wheel out one ridiculous theory after another had me wanting to throw my remote at the screen to make it stop. The theories ranged from the questionably plausible (foul player or murder) to the downright ludicrous - someone copying the film Dark Water, possible links to the Lam-Elisa TB test and a vast cover up jointly orchestrated by the police, hotel management and coroners staff are the ones that made me laugh and cringe the most.
All jokes aside, this focus on internet sleuths is extremely damaging and dangerous and this is illustrated by the awful accusations they made about Pablo Vergara aka Morbid, who’s only crime was to make music that wouldn’t be considered mainstream. If this documentary had focused on slamming these people and highlighting the dangers of them getting involved, then it would’ve redeemed itself. But it doesn’t, it gives them centre stage and debunking their theories is almost an afterthought. They aren’t even condemned for their treatment of Pablo despite the obviously long lasting effects on his mental health. These people are crazy and this only serves to highlight the huge problem with internet, video streaming sites and social media – how Joe public can ever think they know better than qualified pathologists and investigators is beyond me. And how this documentary can indulge and glamourise these people is even worse. From working a day job in the emergency services, I know how damaging this sort of interference and public perception can be.
The story of Elisa Lam’s disappearance at the Hotel Cecil is undoubtedly an interesting one. However in Crime Scene: The Vanishing at the Cecil Hotel, the real story has been mauled and disrespected by the focus and respect given to the internet sleuths and their absurd theories. I feel like I’m being generous giving it a 3, it made me so angry.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Witches (2020) in Movies
Mar 6, 2021
Not a patch on the original
The Witches is a 2020 retelling of the Roald Dahl children’s story, from director Robert Zemeckis. Remakes and reboots have been commonplace in the movies for quite some time, so it’s no surprise that The Witches has been given a Hollywood makeover, especially as it has been 30 years since the original film adaptation was released in 1990. I will readily admit that the original film is a childhood favourite, so this remake has very big shows to fill.
This time round, the story has been transported to late 1960s Alabama. It follows a unnamed boy (named in the credits as simply ‘Hero Boy’), played by Jahzir Bruno, and his grandma (Octavia Spencer) as they encounter a witch in their home town, prompting her to whisk him away to a seaside resort. Unbeknownst to them, this seaside resort is also where the Grand High Witch (Anne Hathaway) is due to unveil her dastardly plans to transform the world’s children. In his bids to thwart the witches plans, Hero Boy bumps into some familiar names, greedy English boy Bruno Jenkins (Codie-Lei Eastick) and put-upon hotel manager Mr Stringer (Stanley Tucci).
I was very sceptical about this in general, and while I think my scepticism was most definitely warranted, I was at least pleasantly surprised that moving the action from England to 60s America worked. It gives the film a different vibe with a new setting (with some very good costume and set design too), yet still keeping the same base story. However I’m afraid that’s the only good change that they’ve made in this entire remake. The 60s setting works, but the hotel itself lacks the beauty and grandeur of the hotel in the original. Gone are the imposing shots of a beautiful old hotel set on top of a cliff with its gorgeous landscapes (which incidentally is a real life hotel called The Headland which is on my travel wish list), and instead replaced with something that looks good on the surface, but is sadly lacking in realism and has obviously been entirely computer generated.
And this is the major problem with The Witches (2020), it’s over reliance and overuse of CGI. Everything in this, from the mice to the hotel exteriors to the witches true appearance, are all computer generated, and not particularly well at that. The mice look pretty bad and unrealistic, but the worst of all is what they’ve done to the witches. The changes themselves may have worked had this used practical effects, but sadly the CGI only serves to highlight how ridiculous the changes are. From the missing two fingers on each hand to the elongated mouths with demon like tongues, the witches to begin with seem creepy but after this initial shock, you see how absurd and laughable they really are.
Unfortunately even the performances can’t save this adaptation. Octavia Spencer is as reliable as always and Jazhir Bruno and Codie-Lei Eastick are quite adorable, but the rest of the fairly decent cast are sadly misplaced. The usually loveable Stanley Tucci is given absolutely nothing to work with, not even giving him a chance to try and match up to Rowan Atkinson’s original Mr Stringer, and Chris Rock is sadly out of place as the voice of older Hero Mouse. However the worst offender here is Anne Hathaway. Admittedly she isn’t helped much by the poor transformations to the witches appearance, but all the CGI in the world couldn’t fix her questionable Eastern European accent and hammy performance. The fact that Angelica Huston put in a more sinister and believable performance with 90s facial prosthetics and practical effects is a credit to her and only highlights how bad a choice Hathaway was for this role.
While parts of this remake aren’t entirely condemnable, as some aspects do stick closer to Dahl’s original source material, overall it is a far inferior adaptation that loses everything that made the 1990 film such a classic. Gone are the sinister witches and the dark stories of missing children (the girl stuck in the picture is an image that has always stuck with me), instead replaced with a far too lighthearted story with an over reliance on CGI. The most worrying thing of all is that even Robert Zemeckis and Guillermo Del Toro being involved couldn’t save this.
This time round, the story has been transported to late 1960s Alabama. It follows a unnamed boy (named in the credits as simply ‘Hero Boy’), played by Jahzir Bruno, and his grandma (Octavia Spencer) as they encounter a witch in their home town, prompting her to whisk him away to a seaside resort. Unbeknownst to them, this seaside resort is also where the Grand High Witch (Anne Hathaway) is due to unveil her dastardly plans to transform the world’s children. In his bids to thwart the witches plans, Hero Boy bumps into some familiar names, greedy English boy Bruno Jenkins (Codie-Lei Eastick) and put-upon hotel manager Mr Stringer (Stanley Tucci).
I was very sceptical about this in general, and while I think my scepticism was most definitely warranted, I was at least pleasantly surprised that moving the action from England to 60s America worked. It gives the film a different vibe with a new setting (with some very good costume and set design too), yet still keeping the same base story. However I’m afraid that’s the only good change that they’ve made in this entire remake. The 60s setting works, but the hotel itself lacks the beauty and grandeur of the hotel in the original. Gone are the imposing shots of a beautiful old hotel set on top of a cliff with its gorgeous landscapes (which incidentally is a real life hotel called The Headland which is on my travel wish list), and instead replaced with something that looks good on the surface, but is sadly lacking in realism and has obviously been entirely computer generated.
And this is the major problem with The Witches (2020), it’s over reliance and overuse of CGI. Everything in this, from the mice to the hotel exteriors to the witches true appearance, are all computer generated, and not particularly well at that. The mice look pretty bad and unrealistic, but the worst of all is what they’ve done to the witches. The changes themselves may have worked had this used practical effects, but sadly the CGI only serves to highlight how ridiculous the changes are. From the missing two fingers on each hand to the elongated mouths with demon like tongues, the witches to begin with seem creepy but after this initial shock, you see how absurd and laughable they really are.
Unfortunately even the performances can’t save this adaptation. Octavia Spencer is as reliable as always and Jazhir Bruno and Codie-Lei Eastick are quite adorable, but the rest of the fairly decent cast are sadly misplaced. The usually loveable Stanley Tucci is given absolutely nothing to work with, not even giving him a chance to try and match up to Rowan Atkinson’s original Mr Stringer, and Chris Rock is sadly out of place as the voice of older Hero Mouse. However the worst offender here is Anne Hathaway. Admittedly she isn’t helped much by the poor transformations to the witches appearance, but all the CGI in the world couldn’t fix her questionable Eastern European accent and hammy performance. The fact that Angelica Huston put in a more sinister and believable performance with 90s facial prosthetics and practical effects is a credit to her and only highlights how bad a choice Hathaway was for this role.
While parts of this remake aren’t entirely condemnable, as some aspects do stick closer to Dahl’s original source material, overall it is a far inferior adaptation that loses everything that made the 1990 film such a classic. Gone are the sinister witches and the dark stories of missing children (the girl stuck in the picture is an image that has always stuck with me), instead replaced with a far too lighthearted story with an over reliance on CGI. The most worrying thing of all is that even Robert Zemeckis and Guillermo Del Toro being involved couldn’t save this.
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021) in Movies
Mar 26, 2021
Contains spoilers, click to show
Zack Snynder's Justice League is the original cut of the Justice League film that was released in 2017 which was started by by Snyder and re written / cut by Josh Whedon, cutting the film from Snyders 4 hour, R/15 rated vison to a 1.30 pg/12 rated version. The film was meant to be the big connecting point for the DC equivalent version of the MCU after following on from 'Man of Steel' and Batman vs Superman' but the Whedon cut was met with a lot of criticism as fans felt that it didn't give what was promised and so the DCCU seemed to stall, or go in a different direction with 'Birds of Prey'. We don't know if, with the release of the Snyder, the DCCU will be restarted.
Zack Snyder's Justice League follows the same basic story of the Whedon cut, after the events of 'Batman vs Superman', Batman begins to form a super hero team to be ready for the invasion Lex Luthor warned of.
The film is of a similar dark tone as the two previous films, with some humour added by Ezra Miller's Flash, and adds more back story to both the flash and Cyborg as well as more information about the villains, Steppenwolf and Darkseid.
The biggest problems of the Snyder cut is the 4 hour run time and I wonder if that would have been cut if; 1) it had been originally released without Josh Whedon's input and 2) if marvel hadn't already released the 3 hour long Avengers end game.
Any other problem I have with Justice League are minor, I'm still not sure if DC have handled the resurrection of Superman right but that's based off what they did in the comics and Snyder did... well I'll get to that in a bit.
The inclusion of Martian Manhunter was good but his first appearance in the film was a bit odd.
The last main problem I had were Stepenwolf's eye's, part way through the film his eyes seem to get too big for his face, almost giving him a cute, Anime girl look. At least until they go blue.
Zack Snyder's Justice league did a lot of things right, the inclusion on Darkseid is the big one as it makes Steppenwolf's motivation more believable and adds to the history of the DCU earth, not to mention introducing the Green Lanterns (with out CGI costumes).
Now back to Superman, I've already said that DC may have missed a trick with his resurrection but Snyder left him in his black outfit (I'm sure you se him back in his original outfit, in the present in the Whedon cut ) and anyone familiar with the 'Reign of the Superman' Comics/animated film know that the Black costumed superman is in fact the Eradicator so, depending on what DC have/had planned in Superman's future they could be planning something else, especially now the Green lanterns have been introduced .
Because of the longer runtime the new characters did seem more filled out which helped with the overall motivation and flow of the film.
Like the previous two films (I'm not counting suicide squad because it's only linked by the end scene) Justice league is quite slow paced and dark, taking time to build up to the action but the narrative does fit the pace and doesn't let it feel rushed or leave any loose ends. In fact the only part that almost felt like something was missing was when Flash repapered after breaking the speed of light however that may be because I've read a few comics and know that something normally happens when he does that.
I do hope that DCCU does continue from Zack Snyder's Justice league, if only to find out what they are planning with the whole 'nightmare future/Lois is the key' storyline they started in 'Batman vs Superman' and continued here.
Even if you have seen the Whedon cut and if you can find the time I would recommend watching the Snyder cut as there is a lot more to the film even though there are a few scenes from the Whedon cut missing and the Snyder cut does pull on a lot more law from the comics that was only hinted at in the shorter version. (I still find hard to believe they left Darkseid out of the Whedon cut considering the story they were trying to tell.)
Zack Snyder's Justice League follows the same basic story of the Whedon cut, after the events of 'Batman vs Superman', Batman begins to form a super hero team to be ready for the invasion Lex Luthor warned of.
The film is of a similar dark tone as the two previous films, with some humour added by Ezra Miller's Flash, and adds more back story to both the flash and Cyborg as well as more information about the villains, Steppenwolf and Darkseid.
The biggest problems of the Snyder cut is the 4 hour run time and I wonder if that would have been cut if; 1) it had been originally released without Josh Whedon's input and 2) if marvel hadn't already released the 3 hour long Avengers end game.
Any other problem I have with Justice League are minor, I'm still not sure if DC have handled the resurrection of Superman right but that's based off what they did in the comics and Snyder did... well I'll get to that in a bit.
The inclusion of Martian Manhunter was good but his first appearance in the film was a bit odd.
The last main problem I had were Stepenwolf's eye's, part way through the film his eyes seem to get too big for his face, almost giving him a cute, Anime girl look. At least until they go blue.
Zack Snyder's Justice league did a lot of things right, the inclusion on Darkseid is the big one as it makes Steppenwolf's motivation more believable and adds to the history of the DCU earth, not to mention introducing the Green Lanterns (with out CGI costumes).
Now back to Superman, I've already said that DC may have missed a trick with his resurrection but Snyder left him in his black outfit (I'm sure you se him back in his original outfit, in the present in the Whedon cut ) and anyone familiar with the 'Reign of the Superman' Comics/animated film know that the Black costumed superman is in fact the Eradicator so, depending on what DC have/had planned in Superman's future they could be planning something else, especially now the Green lanterns have been introduced .
Because of the longer runtime the new characters did seem more filled out which helped with the overall motivation and flow of the film.
Like the previous two films (I'm not counting suicide squad because it's only linked by the end scene) Justice league is quite slow paced and dark, taking time to build up to the action but the narrative does fit the pace and doesn't let it feel rushed or leave any loose ends. In fact the only part that almost felt like something was missing was when Flash repapered after breaking the speed of light however that may be because I've read a few comics and know that something normally happens when he does that.
I do hope that DCCU does continue from Zack Snyder's Justice league, if only to find out what they are planning with the whole 'nightmare future/Lois is the key' storyline they started in 'Batman vs Superman' and continued here.
Even if you have seen the Whedon cut and if you can find the time I would recommend watching the Snyder cut as there is a lot more to the film even though there are a few scenes from the Whedon cut missing and the Snyder cut does pull on a lot more law from the comics that was only hinted at in the shorter version. (I still find hard to believe they left Darkseid out of the Whedon cut considering the story they were trying to tell.)
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated The Invited in Books
Jun 25, 2019
A Decent Ghost Mystery
I had been eyeing The Invited by Jennifer McMahon since it first came out at the end of April. When a book club I'm in decided to make that their June read, I knew this was my opportunity to actually buy it. While it wasn't as great as I had imagined, it wasn't a bad read.
After receiving a big chunk of money from her father, Helen and her husband Nate decide to move to a small town in rural Vermont to build their own house. After buying the land at a very good price, Helen and Nate start building. It isn't long before they learn the legend of Hattie, a witch who was hanged on the bog where their house is being built. People swear the bog is haunted. Helen loves the history behind the bog and seeks out more information about Hattie which will ultimately put her and her husband in danger. Olive, a 14 year old girl, is searching for Hattie's treasure, another legend and wondering if the stories about her mother running off with another man or true. As Olive comes closer to discovering the truth about Hattie's treasure and what happened to her mother, it puts her that much closer to danger.
The plot for The Invited was interesting enough. I enjoyed learning about Hattie as well as her descendants. The book is written mostly from Olive's and Helen's point of view, but there are some characters where we get to see things from their point of view which I found intriguing. There are a few plot twists although I found them all to be easily predictable. Not one of the plot twists surprised me at all unfortunately. Still, I did enjoy reading the climax of the story and afterwards. I also enjoyed that there were no cliffhangers in this book.
I really enjoyed the character of Helen. She felt so realistic and like someone I would want to be friends with. I admired how laid back she was. I was indifferent about Nate. I just couldn't connect with him. I don't think he was written badly, but you could tell he wasn't meant to be a focal point in The Invited. I did like the character of Olive, but I felt like she was a lot younger than 14. I felt like she acted and spoke more like an 11 or 12 year old. I really had a hard time believing she was actually 14. I did admire how courageous she was and how determined on her goal whether it be to find Hattie's treasure or to find out the truth about what happened to her mother. I never really liked the character of Riley. She came across as someone who was trying too hard to be friendly. She felt too syrupy sweet. Hattie made a great ghost! There were times where I didn't trust her motives, and I couldn't figure out if I should be wary of her or if I should trust her.
The pacing for The Invited was slow throughout the majority of the book. The first few chapters were painfully slow. It was as if the author had word vomit and was describing every minute detail about the land and about Helen's inheritance. I felt like all that backstory was unneeded and definitely didn't need two or three chapters dedicated to it. After those chapters, the pacing picks up slightly, so it goes from being painfully slow to just slow. There were so many times I considered giving up on this book, but others in my book club said to keep on reading because it gets better. The pacing finally did pick up around 70 percent through the book. Once the pacing picked up, I couldn't put this book down! I had to know what would happen next even if it was predictable. (I had to make sure I had predicted correctly!)
Trigger warnings for The Invited include violence, death, murder, mentions of suicide, the occult, drug use (marijuana), drinking, some sexual references (not graphic), and profanity.
Overall, The Invited is a decent ghost story although there is more to the story than just that. It also makes for a decent mystery read. While it is mostly slow paced, the action does pick up eventually. I would recommend The Invited by Jennifer McMahon to those aged 16+ who enjoy a decent ghostly mystery.
After receiving a big chunk of money from her father, Helen and her husband Nate decide to move to a small town in rural Vermont to build their own house. After buying the land at a very good price, Helen and Nate start building. It isn't long before they learn the legend of Hattie, a witch who was hanged on the bog where their house is being built. People swear the bog is haunted. Helen loves the history behind the bog and seeks out more information about Hattie which will ultimately put her and her husband in danger. Olive, a 14 year old girl, is searching for Hattie's treasure, another legend and wondering if the stories about her mother running off with another man or true. As Olive comes closer to discovering the truth about Hattie's treasure and what happened to her mother, it puts her that much closer to danger.
The plot for The Invited was interesting enough. I enjoyed learning about Hattie as well as her descendants. The book is written mostly from Olive's and Helen's point of view, but there are some characters where we get to see things from their point of view which I found intriguing. There are a few plot twists although I found them all to be easily predictable. Not one of the plot twists surprised me at all unfortunately. Still, I did enjoy reading the climax of the story and afterwards. I also enjoyed that there were no cliffhangers in this book.
I really enjoyed the character of Helen. She felt so realistic and like someone I would want to be friends with. I admired how laid back she was. I was indifferent about Nate. I just couldn't connect with him. I don't think he was written badly, but you could tell he wasn't meant to be a focal point in The Invited. I did like the character of Olive, but I felt like she was a lot younger than 14. I felt like she acted and spoke more like an 11 or 12 year old. I really had a hard time believing she was actually 14. I did admire how courageous she was and how determined on her goal whether it be to find Hattie's treasure or to find out the truth about what happened to her mother. I never really liked the character of Riley. She came across as someone who was trying too hard to be friendly. She felt too syrupy sweet. Hattie made a great ghost! There were times where I didn't trust her motives, and I couldn't figure out if I should be wary of her or if I should trust her.
The pacing for The Invited was slow throughout the majority of the book. The first few chapters were painfully slow. It was as if the author had word vomit and was describing every minute detail about the land and about Helen's inheritance. I felt like all that backstory was unneeded and definitely didn't need two or three chapters dedicated to it. After those chapters, the pacing picks up slightly, so it goes from being painfully slow to just slow. There were so many times I considered giving up on this book, but others in my book club said to keep on reading because it gets better. The pacing finally did pick up around 70 percent through the book. Once the pacing picked up, I couldn't put this book down! I had to know what would happen next even if it was predictable. (I had to make sure I had predicted correctly!)
Trigger warnings for The Invited include violence, death, murder, mentions of suicide, the occult, drug use (marijuana), drinking, some sexual references (not graphic), and profanity.
Overall, The Invited is a decent ghost story although there is more to the story than just that. It also makes for a decent mystery read. While it is mostly slow paced, the action does pick up eventually. I would recommend The Invited by Jennifer McMahon to those aged 16+ who enjoy a decent ghostly mystery.
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Elle (2016) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
The end of 2016 is just a few short weeks away. That being said, studios and filmmakers across the world are rolling out the few remaining big budget blockbusters and potential breakout independent masterpieces before year’s end. Among them is today’s film for your consideration. A film that has already received international acclaim when it premiered in competition for the Palme d’Or at the 2016 Cannes Film Festival as well as several awards including the Gotham Independent Film Award For Best Actress, the Los Angeles Film Critics Association Award for Best Actress, a New York Film Critics Association Award for Best Actress, and a Golden Globe Award Nomination for Best Actress for the film’s star, celebrated French film and stage actress Isabelle Huppert. The film would later go on to be selected as the French entry for Best Foreign Language Film at the 89th Academy Awards.
‘Elle’ ( meaning ‘her’ or ‘she’ in French) is an internationally co-produced psychological thriller directed by Paul Verhoeven. Yes, THAT Paul Verhoeven of ‘RoboCop’ , ‘Basic Instinct’, ‘Starship Troopers’, ‘Showgirls’, and ‘Total Recall’ fame. Hold on a second. Before you take his track record of recent works into account just hear me out. The film is based on the 2012 novel “Oh …. ” by French/Armenian author Philippe Djian which won the prix Interallie literary award for a novel written by journalist. ‘Elle’ is Verhoeven’s first French language film and his first film since 2006’s ‘Black Book’.
The film stars Isabelle Huppert as business woman Michele Leblanc. Mother, divorce, and head of a video game company who is viciously attacked and raped in her home late one night by an unknown assailant wearing a ski mask. Rather than report this to the police, she quickly ‘cleans up the mess’ and carries on with life as usual. The film also features several subplots that intricately weave into the film’s main storyline. Michele has a son Vincent (Jonas Bloquet) who is engaged to his unfaithful and domineering girlfriend Josie (Alice Isaac). Their relationship is strained due to Vincent’s lack of direction and his refusal to break off the relationship with Josie who is pregnant by the man she cheated on Vincent with. Michele’s relationship with her mother is also strained due to her mother’s narcissism and preference for younger men. A point of increasing animosity between Michelle and her mother is the fact that Michelle refuses her mother’s request to visit Michelle’s father, a convicted cereal killer, in prison. Meanwhile, Michele is carrying on an affair with Robert (Christian Berkele). The husband of her business partner and best friend Anna (Anne Consigny) while at the same time developing a fixation with Patrick (Laurent Lafitte). A banker and husband of Michele’s religiously devout neighbor Rebecca (Virginie Efira). All this, combined with the turmoil going on within Michele’s company make her reluctant to involve the police in anyway.
Soon Michele grows suspicious of all the men in her life and begins to ‘stalk in reverse’ those in particular might have the strongest motivation to do her harm. At first she suspects Kurt (Lucas Prisor). A particularly resentful employee of her company and even her ex-husband Richard (Charles Berling) who Michele inadvertently pepper-sprays while he was hiding outside her home checking on her safety. Despite pleas from Richard, her friends, and fearing another media frenzy similar to the one that occurred during her childhood when her father was arrested Michele continues with life as usual on the surface. In secret though, Michele is arming herself and using her company’s resources in an attempt to find her attacker and exact her own vision of retribution in this twisted cat and mouse game.
This film is by far one of the best thrillers I’ve seen in the last few years. In my opinion, we here in America don’t partake in enough of the films our neighbors in other countries have to offer. This film doesn’t ‘play it safe’. The story plays out in a realistic and believable manner. This is another one of those rare stories where there are really no ‘happy endings’ in the situation such as depicted in the film. It’s harsh, it’s in your face, it’s plausible, the innocent unfortunately suffer along with the guilty. Punishing the guilty is never enough and sometimes harms the victim(s) even more over the course of time. The film is rated R for depictions of physical and sexual violence and clocks in just past 2 hours. If you’re searching for a well written, well directed, and even better acted film. This psychological thriller is definitely for you. I expect this film will continue to garner more acclaim and even more awards. I’m giving this one 4 out of 5 stars.
‘Elle’ ( meaning ‘her’ or ‘she’ in French) is an internationally co-produced psychological thriller directed by Paul Verhoeven. Yes, THAT Paul Verhoeven of ‘RoboCop’ , ‘Basic Instinct’, ‘Starship Troopers’, ‘Showgirls’, and ‘Total Recall’ fame. Hold on a second. Before you take his track record of recent works into account just hear me out. The film is based on the 2012 novel “Oh …. ” by French/Armenian author Philippe Djian which won the prix Interallie literary award for a novel written by journalist. ‘Elle’ is Verhoeven’s first French language film and his first film since 2006’s ‘Black Book’.
The film stars Isabelle Huppert as business woman Michele Leblanc. Mother, divorce, and head of a video game company who is viciously attacked and raped in her home late one night by an unknown assailant wearing a ski mask. Rather than report this to the police, she quickly ‘cleans up the mess’ and carries on with life as usual. The film also features several subplots that intricately weave into the film’s main storyline. Michele has a son Vincent (Jonas Bloquet) who is engaged to his unfaithful and domineering girlfriend Josie (Alice Isaac). Their relationship is strained due to Vincent’s lack of direction and his refusal to break off the relationship with Josie who is pregnant by the man she cheated on Vincent with. Michele’s relationship with her mother is also strained due to her mother’s narcissism and preference for younger men. A point of increasing animosity between Michelle and her mother is the fact that Michelle refuses her mother’s request to visit Michelle’s father, a convicted cereal killer, in prison. Meanwhile, Michele is carrying on an affair with Robert (Christian Berkele). The husband of her business partner and best friend Anna (Anne Consigny) while at the same time developing a fixation with Patrick (Laurent Lafitte). A banker and husband of Michele’s religiously devout neighbor Rebecca (Virginie Efira). All this, combined with the turmoil going on within Michele’s company make her reluctant to involve the police in anyway.
Soon Michele grows suspicious of all the men in her life and begins to ‘stalk in reverse’ those in particular might have the strongest motivation to do her harm. At first she suspects Kurt (Lucas Prisor). A particularly resentful employee of her company and even her ex-husband Richard (Charles Berling) who Michele inadvertently pepper-sprays while he was hiding outside her home checking on her safety. Despite pleas from Richard, her friends, and fearing another media frenzy similar to the one that occurred during her childhood when her father was arrested Michele continues with life as usual on the surface. In secret though, Michele is arming herself and using her company’s resources in an attempt to find her attacker and exact her own vision of retribution in this twisted cat and mouse game.
This film is by far one of the best thrillers I’ve seen in the last few years. In my opinion, we here in America don’t partake in enough of the films our neighbors in other countries have to offer. This film doesn’t ‘play it safe’. The story plays out in a realistic and believable manner. This is another one of those rare stories where there are really no ‘happy endings’ in the situation such as depicted in the film. It’s harsh, it’s in your face, it’s plausible, the innocent unfortunately suffer along with the guilty. Punishing the guilty is never enough and sometimes harms the victim(s) even more over the course of time. The film is rated R for depictions of physical and sexual violence and clocks in just past 2 hours. If you’re searching for a well written, well directed, and even better acted film. This psychological thriller is definitely for you. I expect this film will continue to garner more acclaim and even more awards. I’m giving this one 4 out of 5 stars.
Kara Skinner (332 KP) rated The Mistletoe Bride in Books
Sep 10, 2019
Sometimes we all need a little bit of a pick-me-up during the holiday season. It’s supposed to be the most wonderful time of the year and all that, but it’s frickin’ stressful. Between the in-laws and the holiday shopping (not to mention the calories. Yikes!), December can quickly turn into a jolly nightmare. However, The Mistletoe Bride is perfect for getting into the holiday season.
You see, Eve is having her own trouble this Christmas season. Two weeks before Christmas, her fiance breaks everything off with her because he had been having an affair with his secretary and had gotten her pregnant. This leaves her single and with two tickets to paradise she had been going to surprise her husband with. And she plans to do something crazy. Instead of moping at home, or going on vacation by herself, she plans on asking a perfect stranger on going on vacation with her.
Nick Christmas is shocked when a beautiful and mysterious woman asks him to go on a trip with her, and he’s a little wary, too. But after talking with her for a few minutes in a coffee shop, he’s drawn to her. He’s more than ready to go on vacation with Eve and help her forget her sorrows, but he knows there’s more to everything than an innocent holiday when she starts hearing bells in his laugh. After all, Nick is destined to become the next Santa Claus– and it looks like Eve is destined to be his bride.
First of all, “Two Tickets to Paradise” by Eddie Money will get stuck in your head when you’re reading this. So if you know the song but hate it (but why would you hate it, unless you’re insane?), this might not be the best stress reliever. (I happen to like the song just fine, so no harm done to me.)
Like I said before, this is a great pick-me-up for the holiday season. And that’s all it is: a pick me up to enjoy that will get you in the mood for Christmas. If you like made-for-TV Christmas romances, then you’ll probably like The Mistletoe Bride. It’s adorable. Eve is all innocent and vulnerable and kind, and Nick is all strong and protective and kind. He really wants to help Eve heal from the damage done from her last relationship, and he doesn’t rush her even though he knows she’s his mistletoe bride. It’s incredibly sweet. And I really like how Scarlett Jade build the magic and myth of Santa Claus like she did. Inheriting the role of Santa, a magic suit that fits all Santas perfectly, the knowledge of everyone, as if he’s a god…. it’s pretty awesome.
But the book isn’t perfect. It was anticlimactic, honestly. Yes, there was a lot of suspense what with the Winter Elf trying to destroy Christmas and the race to the altar and everything, but it was rushed. The Winter Elf didn’t even come in until later and probably just to add a little spice to the mainly bland aftermath of Eve’s and Nick’s betrothal. The big villain in the whole book just wanted to make toys for Santa’s workshop. That’s it. I mean really? It’s a romance, not a thriller, I know, but we could have drawn it out a little bit more.
There also shouldn’t have been any sex scenes in this book. I know, this is a really strange complaint for me. After all I love sex scenes and they’re never a problem, right? (But hell is not freezing over right now because the Winter Elf is too effing busy making toys for Santa to cause some damn chaos!) The thing is, the love interest is Santa. Even if he’s young and about to marry his soul mate, he should not have sex appeal. Why? Because he’s Santa. He defined at least a third of my childhood (I really love Christmas) and he’s supposed to be a jolly gift-giver who loves cookies. Having a Santa Clause with sex appeal is like having a Mickey Mouse with sex appeal. Just. Don’t. Do it.
Even Spock thinks a sexy Santa is weird.
Since I was in the right mood for this book when I read it, I’m giving it four out of five stars. But most days I would probably only give it three.
You see, Eve is having her own trouble this Christmas season. Two weeks before Christmas, her fiance breaks everything off with her because he had been having an affair with his secretary and had gotten her pregnant. This leaves her single and with two tickets to paradise she had been going to surprise her husband with. And she plans to do something crazy. Instead of moping at home, or going on vacation by herself, she plans on asking a perfect stranger on going on vacation with her.
Nick Christmas is shocked when a beautiful and mysterious woman asks him to go on a trip with her, and he’s a little wary, too. But after talking with her for a few minutes in a coffee shop, he’s drawn to her. He’s more than ready to go on vacation with Eve and help her forget her sorrows, but he knows there’s more to everything than an innocent holiday when she starts hearing bells in his laugh. After all, Nick is destined to become the next Santa Claus– and it looks like Eve is destined to be his bride.
First of all, “Two Tickets to Paradise” by Eddie Money will get stuck in your head when you’re reading this. So if you know the song but hate it (but why would you hate it, unless you’re insane?), this might not be the best stress reliever. (I happen to like the song just fine, so no harm done to me.)
Like I said before, this is a great pick-me-up for the holiday season. And that’s all it is: a pick me up to enjoy that will get you in the mood for Christmas. If you like made-for-TV Christmas romances, then you’ll probably like The Mistletoe Bride. It’s adorable. Eve is all innocent and vulnerable and kind, and Nick is all strong and protective and kind. He really wants to help Eve heal from the damage done from her last relationship, and he doesn’t rush her even though he knows she’s his mistletoe bride. It’s incredibly sweet. And I really like how Scarlett Jade build the magic and myth of Santa Claus like she did. Inheriting the role of Santa, a magic suit that fits all Santas perfectly, the knowledge of everyone, as if he’s a god…. it’s pretty awesome.
But the book isn’t perfect. It was anticlimactic, honestly. Yes, there was a lot of suspense what with the Winter Elf trying to destroy Christmas and the race to the altar and everything, but it was rushed. The Winter Elf didn’t even come in until later and probably just to add a little spice to the mainly bland aftermath of Eve’s and Nick’s betrothal. The big villain in the whole book just wanted to make toys for Santa’s workshop. That’s it. I mean really? It’s a romance, not a thriller, I know, but we could have drawn it out a little bit more.
There also shouldn’t have been any sex scenes in this book. I know, this is a really strange complaint for me. After all I love sex scenes and they’re never a problem, right? (But hell is not freezing over right now because the Winter Elf is too effing busy making toys for Santa to cause some damn chaos!) The thing is, the love interest is Santa. Even if he’s young and about to marry his soul mate, he should not have sex appeal. Why? Because he’s Santa. He defined at least a third of my childhood (I really love Christmas) and he’s supposed to be a jolly gift-giver who loves cookies. Having a Santa Clause with sex appeal is like having a Mickey Mouse with sex appeal. Just. Don’t. Do it.
Even Spock thinks a sexy Santa is weird.
Since I was in the right mood for this book when I read it, I’m giving it four out of five stars. But most days I would probably only give it three.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Upside (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Not the 5* French classic, but a fun and moving movie nonetheless.
So, the movie-going audience for this film will divide into two categories:
Category A: those that have seen the original 2011 French classic “The Intouchables” that this is based on, and;
Category B: those that haven’t.
2011 is just before I started “One Mann’s Movies”, but “The Intouchables” would have got 5* from me, no problem.
This movie joins a list of standout European movies – for example, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”; “Let The Right One In”; “Sleepless Night”; etc. – that have had Hollywood “makeovers” that don’t match up to the originals. And this is no exception. However, it’s still been well made and deserves respect as a standalone piece of movie-making.
The Plot
Based on a true story, Phillip Lacasse (Bryan Cranston) is left both paraplegic and widowed by a string of bad luck. Not that money can buy you everything, but his care arrangements are substantially helped by him being a multi-millionaire (“Not rich enough to buy The Yankees; Rich enough to buy The Mets”). This is from success in investments and writing about such investments.
Depressed, cranky and with a “DNR” that his diligent PA Yvonne (Nicole Kidman) seems unable to comply with, Phillip lashes out at anyone and everyone and so dispatches his carers with monotonous regularity. Dell Scott (Kevin Hart) is on parole, with the requirement to seek work. Due to a mix-up, he finds himself in the employ of Phillip: with the suspicion that he’s been hired because he is the very worst candidate imaginable, and thus the most likely to let Phillip shuffle off this mortal coil. But the two men’s antipathy to each other slowly thaws as they teach each other new tricks.
Pin left in the grenade
Those who have seen “The Intouchables” will fondly remember the first 5 minutes of that film: a flash-forward to a manic police car-chase featuring our protagonists (there played by François Cluzet and Omar Sy). It drops like a comedy hand-grenade to open the film. Unfortunately, you can’t help but feel a bit let down by the same re-creation in “The Upside”. It has all the same content but none of the heart.
After that rocky start, the film continues to rather stutter along. Part of the reason for this I think is Kevin Hart. It’s not that he’s particularly bad in the role: it’s just that he IS Kevin Hart, and I was constantly thinking “there’s that comedian playing that role”.
However, once the story gets into its swing, giving Cranston more of a chance to shine (which he does), then the film started to motor and my reservations about Hart started to wane. Some of these story set pieces – such as the one about the art work – are punch-the-air funny in their own right. Cranston’s timing in delivering his punchlines is immaculate.
This IS what actors do
There seems to have been some furore about the casting of Bryan Cranston as the role of the disabled millionaire instead of a disabled actor. Lord save us! He’s an actor! That’s what actors do for a living: pretend to be people they’re not! It’s also worth pointing out that François Cluzet was an able-bodied actor as well.
As already mentioned, Bryan Cranston excels in the role. Phillip goes through such a wide range of emotions from despair to pure joy and back again that you can’t help but be impressed by the performance.
On the female side of the cast, it’s really nice to see Nicole Kidman in such a quiet and understated role and it’s nicely done; Aja Naomi King does a nice job as Dell’s protective ex-girlfriend Latrice; and there’s a nice female cameo as well, which I won’t spoil since I wasn’t expecting to see her in the film.
Final Thoughts
As a standalone film it has some laugh-out-loud moments, some feelgood highs and some moments of real pathos. The audience I saw this with was small, but there was still a buzz in the room and sporadic applause as the end titles came up: God only knows that’s unusual for a film!
The director is “Limitless” and “Divergent” director Neil Burger, and it’s a perfectly fun and innocent night out at the flicks that I commend to the house in this month of celluloid awards heavyweights.
Category A: those that have seen the original 2011 French classic “The Intouchables” that this is based on, and;
Category B: those that haven’t.
2011 is just before I started “One Mann’s Movies”, but “The Intouchables” would have got 5* from me, no problem.
This movie joins a list of standout European movies – for example, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”; “Let The Right One In”; “Sleepless Night”; etc. – that have had Hollywood “makeovers” that don’t match up to the originals. And this is no exception. However, it’s still been well made and deserves respect as a standalone piece of movie-making.
The Plot
Based on a true story, Phillip Lacasse (Bryan Cranston) is left both paraplegic and widowed by a string of bad luck. Not that money can buy you everything, but his care arrangements are substantially helped by him being a multi-millionaire (“Not rich enough to buy The Yankees; Rich enough to buy The Mets”). This is from success in investments and writing about such investments.
Depressed, cranky and with a “DNR” that his diligent PA Yvonne (Nicole Kidman) seems unable to comply with, Phillip lashes out at anyone and everyone and so dispatches his carers with monotonous regularity. Dell Scott (Kevin Hart) is on parole, with the requirement to seek work. Due to a mix-up, he finds himself in the employ of Phillip: with the suspicion that he’s been hired because he is the very worst candidate imaginable, and thus the most likely to let Phillip shuffle off this mortal coil. But the two men’s antipathy to each other slowly thaws as they teach each other new tricks.
Pin left in the grenade
Those who have seen “The Intouchables” will fondly remember the first 5 minutes of that film: a flash-forward to a manic police car-chase featuring our protagonists (there played by François Cluzet and Omar Sy). It drops like a comedy hand-grenade to open the film. Unfortunately, you can’t help but feel a bit let down by the same re-creation in “The Upside”. It has all the same content but none of the heart.
After that rocky start, the film continues to rather stutter along. Part of the reason for this I think is Kevin Hart. It’s not that he’s particularly bad in the role: it’s just that he IS Kevin Hart, and I was constantly thinking “there’s that comedian playing that role”.
However, once the story gets into its swing, giving Cranston more of a chance to shine (which he does), then the film started to motor and my reservations about Hart started to wane. Some of these story set pieces – such as the one about the art work – are punch-the-air funny in their own right. Cranston’s timing in delivering his punchlines is immaculate.
This IS what actors do
There seems to have been some furore about the casting of Bryan Cranston as the role of the disabled millionaire instead of a disabled actor. Lord save us! He’s an actor! That’s what actors do for a living: pretend to be people they’re not! It’s also worth pointing out that François Cluzet was an able-bodied actor as well.
As already mentioned, Bryan Cranston excels in the role. Phillip goes through such a wide range of emotions from despair to pure joy and back again that you can’t help but be impressed by the performance.
On the female side of the cast, it’s really nice to see Nicole Kidman in such a quiet and understated role and it’s nicely done; Aja Naomi King does a nice job as Dell’s protective ex-girlfriend Latrice; and there’s a nice female cameo as well, which I won’t spoil since I wasn’t expecting to see her in the film.
Final Thoughts
As a standalone film it has some laugh-out-loud moments, some feelgood highs and some moments of real pathos. The audience I saw this with was small, but there was still a buzz in the room and sporadic applause as the end titles came up: God only knows that’s unusual for a film!
The director is “Limitless” and “Divergent” director Neil Burger, and it’s a perfectly fun and innocent night out at the flicks that I commend to the house in this month of celluloid awards heavyweights.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated King of Thieves (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
No f-ing honour among f-ing thieves.
What a cast! Micheal Caine; Jim Broadbent; Tom Courtenay; Michael Gambon; Ray Winstone; Paul Whitehouse…. Just one look at the poster and you think yes, Yes, YES! But would this be a case where my expectations would be dashed?
Having seen the film at a preview showing last night, I’m pleased to say no, it’s not. I was very much entertained.
The film tells the ridiculous true story of the “over the hill gang” – the bunch of largely pensioner-age criminals who successfully extracted what was definitely £14 million – and could have been up to £200 million – of goodies from a vault in London’s Hatton Gardens jewellery district over the Easter Bank Holiday weekend in 2015. The gang is led by the “king of thieves” – Brian (Michael Caine) – highly regarded as an ‘elder statesman’ among the London criminal scene.
Did you see Mark Kermode‘s excellent “Secrets of Cinema” series on the BBC? (If not, seek it out on a catch-up service!) The first of the series deconstructs the “Heist” movie, showing how such movies track the preparation, the execution and the progressive unravelling of the wicked scheme, typically through internal strife among the gang itself. (Pretty much as you would assume happens most of the time in real life!) Kermode points out that such movies play with our emotion in secretly wishing the bad ‘uns to succeed in doing something we would never have the bottle to ‘step out of line’ to do. “King of Thieves” nicely follows this well trodden story-arc, but – for me – does it with significantly greater style than the norm.
Yes, it’s very much a “Brit-flick”, and I’m not sure how it will play outside of the UK. But the film’s script, penned by Joe Penhall (“The Road”, “Enduring Love”), plays beautifully to the extreme age of its cast – the average age of the actors playing the gang is over 67… and that includes the 35-year old Charlie “Stardust” Cox (who is actually very good as the young foil for the older blades)! There is lots of laugh-out-loud dialogue relating to bodily deficiencies and ailments and the tendencies of old-folk to nod off at inconvenient times! However, its not very deep stuff, giving little background to the characters. And if you are of a sensitive disposition, the language used in the film is pretty extreme: F-bombs and C-bombs are dropped in every other sentence.
The film is delivered with visual style by “The Theory of Everything” director James Marsh. He cleverly reflects that all of the older leads have past records: the film nicely interweaving tiny snippets of past British crime movies to illustrate the career exploits of the now-creaky old folks. (If in the epilepsy-inducing opening titles you thought you caught a subliminal shot of the gold from “The Italian Job” – the superior 1969 version – then you were right!) As well as “The Italian Job”, the snippets also includes “The Lavender Hill Mob” and (if I’m not mistaken) the late George Sewell in “Robbery”.
It’s all delivered to a deafeningly intrusive – but in a good way – jazz-style soundtrack by the continually up-and-coming Benjamin Wallfisch.
As in the recent “The Children Act”, it is the acting of the senior leads that makes the film fly for me. Caine is just MAGNIFICENT, at the age of 85 with the same screen presence he had (as featured) stepping out of that prison in “The Italian Job”; Winstone is as good as ever in playing a menacing thug, and even gets to do a Michael Caine impression!; Gambon is hilarious as the weak-bladdered “Billy the Fish”. But it is Broadbent that really impresses: he generally appears in films as a genial but slightly ditzy old gent in films like the “Potter” series; “Paddington” and “Bridget Jones“. While he has played borderline darker roles (“The Lady in the Van” for example), he rarely goes full “Sexy Beast” evil…. but here he is borderline psycho and displays blistering form. A head-to-head unblinking confrontation between Broadbent and Caine is a high-point in the whole film… just electrifying. I’d love to see BAFTA nominations for them both in Acting/Supporting Acting categories.
In summary, it’s a sweary but stylishly-executed heist movie that has enough humour to thoroughly entertain this cinema-goer. The film is on general release in the UK from September 14th and comes with my recommendation.
Having seen the film at a preview showing last night, I’m pleased to say no, it’s not. I was very much entertained.
The film tells the ridiculous true story of the “over the hill gang” – the bunch of largely pensioner-age criminals who successfully extracted what was definitely £14 million – and could have been up to £200 million – of goodies from a vault in London’s Hatton Gardens jewellery district over the Easter Bank Holiday weekend in 2015. The gang is led by the “king of thieves” – Brian (Michael Caine) – highly regarded as an ‘elder statesman’ among the London criminal scene.
Did you see Mark Kermode‘s excellent “Secrets of Cinema” series on the BBC? (If not, seek it out on a catch-up service!) The first of the series deconstructs the “Heist” movie, showing how such movies track the preparation, the execution and the progressive unravelling of the wicked scheme, typically through internal strife among the gang itself. (Pretty much as you would assume happens most of the time in real life!) Kermode points out that such movies play with our emotion in secretly wishing the bad ‘uns to succeed in doing something we would never have the bottle to ‘step out of line’ to do. “King of Thieves” nicely follows this well trodden story-arc, but – for me – does it with significantly greater style than the norm.
Yes, it’s very much a “Brit-flick”, and I’m not sure how it will play outside of the UK. But the film’s script, penned by Joe Penhall (“The Road”, “Enduring Love”), plays beautifully to the extreme age of its cast – the average age of the actors playing the gang is over 67… and that includes the 35-year old Charlie “Stardust” Cox (who is actually very good as the young foil for the older blades)! There is lots of laugh-out-loud dialogue relating to bodily deficiencies and ailments and the tendencies of old-folk to nod off at inconvenient times! However, its not very deep stuff, giving little background to the characters. And if you are of a sensitive disposition, the language used in the film is pretty extreme: F-bombs and C-bombs are dropped in every other sentence.
The film is delivered with visual style by “The Theory of Everything” director James Marsh. He cleverly reflects that all of the older leads have past records: the film nicely interweaving tiny snippets of past British crime movies to illustrate the career exploits of the now-creaky old folks. (If in the epilepsy-inducing opening titles you thought you caught a subliminal shot of the gold from “The Italian Job” – the superior 1969 version – then you were right!) As well as “The Italian Job”, the snippets also includes “The Lavender Hill Mob” and (if I’m not mistaken) the late George Sewell in “Robbery”.
It’s all delivered to a deafeningly intrusive – but in a good way – jazz-style soundtrack by the continually up-and-coming Benjamin Wallfisch.
As in the recent “The Children Act”, it is the acting of the senior leads that makes the film fly for me. Caine is just MAGNIFICENT, at the age of 85 with the same screen presence he had (as featured) stepping out of that prison in “The Italian Job”; Winstone is as good as ever in playing a menacing thug, and even gets to do a Michael Caine impression!; Gambon is hilarious as the weak-bladdered “Billy the Fish”. But it is Broadbent that really impresses: he generally appears in films as a genial but slightly ditzy old gent in films like the “Potter” series; “Paddington” and “Bridget Jones“. While he has played borderline darker roles (“The Lady in the Van” for example), he rarely goes full “Sexy Beast” evil…. but here he is borderline psycho and displays blistering form. A head-to-head unblinking confrontation between Broadbent and Caine is a high-point in the whole film… just electrifying. I’d love to see BAFTA nominations for them both in Acting/Supporting Acting categories.
In summary, it’s a sweary but stylishly-executed heist movie that has enough humour to thoroughly entertain this cinema-goer. The film is on general release in the UK from September 14th and comes with my recommendation.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Contented with little, wishing for more”.
Here’s a curious little British film that has some merit, both as an entertainment vehicle and as a history lesson.
Set in a split-timeline between 1941 and 1946, the film tells the story of Juliet Ashton (Lily James, “Darkest Hour“, “Baby Driver“), a young British writer who seems all at sea emotion-wise following the war. She is struggling to fit in with her high-society London life, and can’t seem to put her heart into either her publishing commitments, much to the frustration of her publisher Sidney (Matthew Goode, “The Imitation Game“, “Stoker“), or her boyfriend Mark (Glen Powell, “Hidden Figures“), the dashing and well-off American army officer.
Into this mix drops a letter out of the blue from Guernsey from a pig-farmer called Dawsey Adams (Michiel Huisman, “The Age of Adeline“, “Game of Thrones”), which leads her on a trail of discovery into the mysterious back-story of the strangely named book club. The secrets of the tightly-knit St Peter Port community, and what really happened during the Nazi occupation, come progressively to light as Juliet digs deeper.
Much as “Their Finest” shone a light on the rather invisible war efforts of the British propaganda film industry, so here we get an interesting and (I believe) relatively untapped view of the historical background of the German occupation of the Channel Islands. How many viewers I wonder, especially those outside of the UK, knew that the Nazis occupied “British” territory* during the war?
(* Well, strictly speaking, the Channel Islands are a “crown dependency” rather than being part of the UK per se).
Story-wise the screenplay splits the drama between:
the love triangle (which I almost took to be a love square at the start of the film… and to be honest I’m still not 100% sure!) between the main protagonists and;
the mystery surrounding Guernsey’s Elizabeth McKenna (Jessica Brown Findlay, “The Riot Club”, Lady Sybil from Downton Abbey).
In the first instance, you would need to be pretty dim I think, particularly if you’ve seen the trailer already, not to work out where the story is going to head! (Although, to be fair, I thought that about “Their Finest” and was woefully wrong!). I found this all rather paint-by-numbers stuff, but livened up immensely by a scene between James and Powell and a bottle of champagne which is wonderfully and refreshingly pulled off.
The second strand of the story is slightly more intriguing and provides the opportunity to see the wonderful Jessica Brown Findlay in action: it is just disappointing that she actually features so little in the film, and also disappointing that, at a crucial dramatic moment, the action moves “off-stage”. I wanted to see more of that story.
In terms of casting, Susie Figgis must have had a TERRIBLE job in casting Juliet: “Gemma Arterton not available…. hmmm… who else would fit…. think… think… think… think dammit….! Ah, yes!!” Lily James might be in danger of becoming typecast as a 40’s-style love interest. But she just fits the bill in terms of looks and mannerisms SO perfectly.
Elsewhere in the cast, Penelope Wilton (“The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“, “The BFG“) is superb as the deeply damaged Amelia; Tom Courtenay is 300% better than in his last movie outing as the cranky old postmaster; and TV’s Katherine Parkinson impresses greatly as the kooky gin-swilling Isola Pribby. All in all this is a fine ensemble cast. (With James, Goode, Wilton and Brown Findlay there, it must have also felt like a “Downton Abbey” reunion party!)
I’d also like to say that the Guernsey scenery was gloriously filmed, but as this article suggests, most of it was actually filmed in glorious Devon instead! Given the Guernsey Tourist Board have been going overboard (at least in the Southampton area) on film tie-in advertising, this feels rather like false representation! But I’m sure its equally lovely!
So in summary, it’s a thoughtful period piece, with some great acting performances and well-directed by Mike Newell (still most famous for “Four Weddings and a Funeral”). I enjoyed it but I felt it moved at a GLACIAL pace, taking over two hours to unfold, and I thought a few editing nips and tucks on the long lingering looks and leisurely strolls could have given it most impetus. But to be fair, my wife and cinema buddy for this film thought it was PERFECTLY paced, giving the story the space it needed for the drama and Juliet’s state of mind to unfold. In fact she gave it “5 Mads” as her rating… top marks! For me though a very creditable…
Set in a split-timeline between 1941 and 1946, the film tells the story of Juliet Ashton (Lily James, “Darkest Hour“, “Baby Driver“), a young British writer who seems all at sea emotion-wise following the war. She is struggling to fit in with her high-society London life, and can’t seem to put her heart into either her publishing commitments, much to the frustration of her publisher Sidney (Matthew Goode, “The Imitation Game“, “Stoker“), or her boyfriend Mark (Glen Powell, “Hidden Figures“), the dashing and well-off American army officer.
Into this mix drops a letter out of the blue from Guernsey from a pig-farmer called Dawsey Adams (Michiel Huisman, “The Age of Adeline“, “Game of Thrones”), which leads her on a trail of discovery into the mysterious back-story of the strangely named book club. The secrets of the tightly-knit St Peter Port community, and what really happened during the Nazi occupation, come progressively to light as Juliet digs deeper.
Much as “Their Finest” shone a light on the rather invisible war efforts of the British propaganda film industry, so here we get an interesting and (I believe) relatively untapped view of the historical background of the German occupation of the Channel Islands. How many viewers I wonder, especially those outside of the UK, knew that the Nazis occupied “British” territory* during the war?
(* Well, strictly speaking, the Channel Islands are a “crown dependency” rather than being part of the UK per se).
Story-wise the screenplay splits the drama between:
the love triangle (which I almost took to be a love square at the start of the film… and to be honest I’m still not 100% sure!) between the main protagonists and;
the mystery surrounding Guernsey’s Elizabeth McKenna (Jessica Brown Findlay, “The Riot Club”, Lady Sybil from Downton Abbey).
In the first instance, you would need to be pretty dim I think, particularly if you’ve seen the trailer already, not to work out where the story is going to head! (Although, to be fair, I thought that about “Their Finest” and was woefully wrong!). I found this all rather paint-by-numbers stuff, but livened up immensely by a scene between James and Powell and a bottle of champagne which is wonderfully and refreshingly pulled off.
The second strand of the story is slightly more intriguing and provides the opportunity to see the wonderful Jessica Brown Findlay in action: it is just disappointing that she actually features so little in the film, and also disappointing that, at a crucial dramatic moment, the action moves “off-stage”. I wanted to see more of that story.
In terms of casting, Susie Figgis must have had a TERRIBLE job in casting Juliet: “Gemma Arterton not available…. hmmm… who else would fit…. think… think… think… think dammit….! Ah, yes!!” Lily James might be in danger of becoming typecast as a 40’s-style love interest. But she just fits the bill in terms of looks and mannerisms SO perfectly.
Elsewhere in the cast, Penelope Wilton (“The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“, “The BFG“) is superb as the deeply damaged Amelia; Tom Courtenay is 300% better than in his last movie outing as the cranky old postmaster; and TV’s Katherine Parkinson impresses greatly as the kooky gin-swilling Isola Pribby. All in all this is a fine ensemble cast. (With James, Goode, Wilton and Brown Findlay there, it must have also felt like a “Downton Abbey” reunion party!)
I’d also like to say that the Guernsey scenery was gloriously filmed, but as this article suggests, most of it was actually filmed in glorious Devon instead! Given the Guernsey Tourist Board have been going overboard (at least in the Southampton area) on film tie-in advertising, this feels rather like false representation! But I’m sure its equally lovely!
So in summary, it’s a thoughtful period piece, with some great acting performances and well-directed by Mike Newell (still most famous for “Four Weddings and a Funeral”). I enjoyed it but I felt it moved at a GLACIAL pace, taking over two hours to unfold, and I thought a few editing nips and tucks on the long lingering looks and leisurely strolls could have given it most impetus. But to be fair, my wife and cinema buddy for this film thought it was PERFECTLY paced, giving the story the space it needed for the drama and Juliet’s state of mind to unfold. In fact she gave it “5 Mads” as her rating… top marks! For me though a very creditable…