Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Kimi (2022) in Movies
Feb 22, 2022
Better-Than-Average, but nothing more
Oscar winning Director Steven Soderbergh (TRAFFIC) could rightfully be called the current “Master of Suspense” as most of his films fall into the “Psychological Drama” category - and his latest HBO MAX film, KIMI, is a perfectly ordinary entry in his catalogue.
Starring Zoe Kravitz (BIG LITTLE LIES) in the titular role, KIMI follows an agoraphobic tech worker, in the middle of global pandemic, who thinks she might have stumbled upon a crime.
Written by veteran Screenwriter David Koepp (the OG SPIDERMAN, starring Tobey Maguire), KIMI is a better-than-average thriller with a better-than-average lead performance by Kravitz and Directed in better-than-average style by Soderbergh.
Which makes this film entertaining, somewhat interesting but nothing special.
The plot twists and turns enough that keeps you guessing, but never falls into over-the-top “you got to be kidding me” territory or something of true suspense while the performance of Kravitz is good (enough) to hold your attention without falling prey to gimmickry/tricks/twitches. It is a solid “B” performance but not better (or worse).
A highlight for me was the appearance of Robin Givens (the former Mrs. Mike Tyson) as Kravitz’/Kimi’s mother. It was good to see her get some work. On the other hand, this is counter-balanced by the horrible performance of Rita Wilson (the current Mrs. Tom Hanks) as a shady Corporate-type who does everything by twirl her mustache in her single appearance on screen.
Add on top of this some fairly pedestrian Direction by Soderbergh and you have a serviceable, passable, “good enough” film that is, mercifully, only an hour and a 1/2 long. It is one of those rare films that I wondered when it ended that if they added another 1/2 hour to this film - and added some depth to the characters (especially the villians) perhaps this would have been a better film.
But, instead, we get a pleasant (enough) diversion.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Starring Zoe Kravitz (BIG LITTLE LIES) in the titular role, KIMI follows an agoraphobic tech worker, in the middle of global pandemic, who thinks she might have stumbled upon a crime.
Written by veteran Screenwriter David Koepp (the OG SPIDERMAN, starring Tobey Maguire), KIMI is a better-than-average thriller with a better-than-average lead performance by Kravitz and Directed in better-than-average style by Soderbergh.
Which makes this film entertaining, somewhat interesting but nothing special.
The plot twists and turns enough that keeps you guessing, but never falls into over-the-top “you got to be kidding me” territory or something of true suspense while the performance of Kravitz is good (enough) to hold your attention without falling prey to gimmickry/tricks/twitches. It is a solid “B” performance but not better (or worse).
A highlight for me was the appearance of Robin Givens (the former Mrs. Mike Tyson) as Kravitz’/Kimi’s mother. It was good to see her get some work. On the other hand, this is counter-balanced by the horrible performance of Rita Wilson (the current Mrs. Tom Hanks) as a shady Corporate-type who does everything by twirl her mustache in her single appearance on screen.
Add on top of this some fairly pedestrian Direction by Soderbergh and you have a serviceable, passable, “good enough” film that is, mercifully, only an hour and a 1/2 long. It is one of those rare films that I wondered when it ended that if they added another 1/2 hour to this film - and added some depth to the characters (especially the villians) perhaps this would have been a better film.
But, instead, we get a pleasant (enough) diversion.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Luca (2021) in Movies
Jun 22, 2021
Charming but Unspectacular
Usually, a motion picture premiere by PIXAR is a major event and (most of the time) the product premiered is one of the better films debuting in that year (regardless of whether they are animated or not). But…the past 2 PIXAR films have debuted directly on the Disney+ streaming service.
One can understand SOUL debuting on-line since the world was in the midst of a global pandemic. But with LUCA, one had to scratch their heads wondering why the brass at Pixar wouldn’t give it at least a cursory theatrical release.
But, now that I’ve seen LUCA, I know why.
Luca tells the tale of a sea monster named…you got it…Luca, who ventures above the surface of the water with a friend to the human world. As a premise for this film, the Sea Monsters turn into humans when their skin is dry (and turn back into Sea Monsters when they are wet).
As Directed by Enrico Casarosa (the director of the the wonderful 2011 short animated film LA LUNA), Luca is a charming, if unspectacular, film that wears its heart - and it’s message of inclusion for ALL, no matter their differences - on it’s sleeve in a pretty overt way that doesn’t aide, nor does it detract, from the film.
Playing the lead roles of Luca and Alberto are child actors Jacob Tremblay (ROOM) and Jack Dylan Grazer (IT) and they are just like this film - charming and unspectacular. They instill these characters with youthful zest and energy…but not much else. Rising above them (and this film, if I’m being honest) is the voice work of the wonderful Maya Rudolph and the always affable Jim Gaffigan as Luca’s parents, who end up looking for Luca in the human world. To be honest, I would have rather had a film focusing on these two looking for Luca, than the movie we got.
Director Casaroso has stated that he has been inspired by the works of the great Japanese animation Director Hayao Miyazaki and it shows in some of the scenes that are absolutely breathtaking to look at while the feeling of this film is light and airy and not too terribly deep.
This is the 3rd straight film from Pixar that I have found to be “just fine, nothing special”, which is just a bit disappointing in that Pixar films were once the gold standard of animated films.
While not a standout film, Luca is an entertaining diversion and certainly one where the younger ones in the family will find fun while their parents will be entertained…enough. I have to admit, that I was not engaged with the main characters throughout the film, but was caught up at the end and found myself rooting for our heroes, so I guess Casarosa did something right.
Letter Grade:B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
One can understand SOUL debuting on-line since the world was in the midst of a global pandemic. But with LUCA, one had to scratch their heads wondering why the brass at Pixar wouldn’t give it at least a cursory theatrical release.
But, now that I’ve seen LUCA, I know why.
Luca tells the tale of a sea monster named…you got it…Luca, who ventures above the surface of the water with a friend to the human world. As a premise for this film, the Sea Monsters turn into humans when their skin is dry (and turn back into Sea Monsters when they are wet).
As Directed by Enrico Casarosa (the director of the the wonderful 2011 short animated film LA LUNA), Luca is a charming, if unspectacular, film that wears its heart - and it’s message of inclusion for ALL, no matter their differences - on it’s sleeve in a pretty overt way that doesn’t aide, nor does it detract, from the film.
Playing the lead roles of Luca and Alberto are child actors Jacob Tremblay (ROOM) and Jack Dylan Grazer (IT) and they are just like this film - charming and unspectacular. They instill these characters with youthful zest and energy…but not much else. Rising above them (and this film, if I’m being honest) is the voice work of the wonderful Maya Rudolph and the always affable Jim Gaffigan as Luca’s parents, who end up looking for Luca in the human world. To be honest, I would have rather had a film focusing on these two looking for Luca, than the movie we got.
Director Casaroso has stated that he has been inspired by the works of the great Japanese animation Director Hayao Miyazaki and it shows in some of the scenes that are absolutely breathtaking to look at while the feeling of this film is light and airy and not too terribly deep.
This is the 3rd straight film from Pixar that I have found to be “just fine, nothing special”, which is just a bit disappointing in that Pixar films were once the gold standard of animated films.
While not a standout film, Luca is an entertaining diversion and certainly one where the younger ones in the family will find fun while their parents will be entertained…enough. I have to admit, that I was not engaged with the main characters throughout the film, but was caught up at the end and found myself rooting for our heroes, so I guess Casarosa did something right.
Letter Grade:B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Greyhound (2020) in Movies
Mar 11, 2021
Hanks Does It Again
Tom Hanks interest in the men who fought in WWII is well known. From his starring role as Capt. Miller is what is (arguably) the definitive film about D-Day, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, to his Executive Producing role in, arguably, the best mini-series ever produced about WWII, BAND OF BROTHERS, Hanks has brought a face to the nameless heroes who fought in the middle of the last century.
Add his latest film GREYHOUND, to the list of films that brings a face to a heretofore unknown (at least to me) group of heroes.
Based on the book THE GOOD SHEPHERD by C.S. Forester and adapted for the screen by Hanks himself, GREYHOUND tells the story of a Commander of a U.S. Navy escort ship, helping cargo ships cross the Atlantic Ocean - an Ocean filled with enemy submarines.
Hanks, of course, plays Commander Ernest Krause, Captain of the USS Keeling, code named “Greyhound”, who is on his first mission. As one might imagine, Hanks imbues Krause with a common decency and you inherently trust Krause’s instincts as he makes split second decision after split second decision. What surprised me about Hanks in this role is his “steely resolve” in dealing with the problems. You can see his brain working as he makes pragmatic decision after pragmatic decision - sometimes not the most “human” decisions - but the right decisions after all.
This is both the strength and the problem with this film - Hanks’ character is NEVER wrong, so after awhile, the tension on the Bridge with Capt. Krause being questioned on his decisions, is never really there.
But, that is a “nit” in this film for Director Aaron Schneider has constructed a taunt and tight thriller that is non-stop action from start to finish. He wisely decided to keep the film at a tight 90 minutes and keep the action flying (versus putting in a couple of “character building scenes” that could have stretched the runtime). He does shoehorn in a flashback scene between Krause and his lady love (played by Elisabeth Shue), a scene that is not really needed, but besides this he focuses his attention on the Greyhound and it’s mission and this is a smart move that the film benefits from.
Director Schneider relies, heavily, on the Special F/X recreating the Atlantic sea battles and, for the most part, it succeeds. BUT…from time-to-time I felt like I was watching a video game - and not a film. The F/X (at times) was just not feature film quality that drew me away from the emotion and the action on the screen.
With the Global Pandemic, this film’s theatrical release was cancelled and it was put on Apple TV+(where you can find it today), so I can forgive the lower F/X results…but just a little.
All-in-all a fun thrill ride, with a terrific central performance, in a film that shows an aspect of WWII I had not previously scene portrayed on film before.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Add his latest film GREYHOUND, to the list of films that brings a face to a heretofore unknown (at least to me) group of heroes.
Based on the book THE GOOD SHEPHERD by C.S. Forester and adapted for the screen by Hanks himself, GREYHOUND tells the story of a Commander of a U.S. Navy escort ship, helping cargo ships cross the Atlantic Ocean - an Ocean filled with enemy submarines.
Hanks, of course, plays Commander Ernest Krause, Captain of the USS Keeling, code named “Greyhound”, who is on his first mission. As one might imagine, Hanks imbues Krause with a common decency and you inherently trust Krause’s instincts as he makes split second decision after split second decision. What surprised me about Hanks in this role is his “steely resolve” in dealing with the problems. You can see his brain working as he makes pragmatic decision after pragmatic decision - sometimes not the most “human” decisions - but the right decisions after all.
This is both the strength and the problem with this film - Hanks’ character is NEVER wrong, so after awhile, the tension on the Bridge with Capt. Krause being questioned on his decisions, is never really there.
But, that is a “nit” in this film for Director Aaron Schneider has constructed a taunt and tight thriller that is non-stop action from start to finish. He wisely decided to keep the film at a tight 90 minutes and keep the action flying (versus putting in a couple of “character building scenes” that could have stretched the runtime). He does shoehorn in a flashback scene between Krause and his lady love (played by Elisabeth Shue), a scene that is not really needed, but besides this he focuses his attention on the Greyhound and it’s mission and this is a smart move that the film benefits from.
Director Schneider relies, heavily, on the Special F/X recreating the Atlantic sea battles and, for the most part, it succeeds. BUT…from time-to-time I felt like I was watching a video game - and not a film. The F/X (at times) was just not feature film quality that drew me away from the emotion and the action on the screen.
With the Global Pandemic, this film’s theatrical release was cancelled and it was put on Apple TV+(where you can find it today), so I can forgive the lower F/X results…but just a little.
All-in-all a fun thrill ride, with a terrific central performance, in a film that shows an aspect of WWII I had not previously scene portrayed on film before.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Terrible Candidates in Tabletop Games
Aug 28, 2020
2020 is a year that will definitely go down in the history books for many reasons. Amidst a global pandemic, a growing civil rights movement, and a hurricane-like storm that ravaged the state of Iowa on August 10th, we ALSO find ourselves in an election year. As if things couldn’t get any crazier, right? Get in the campaigning mood by checking out Terrible Candidates, and remember to get out and vote on November 3rd, America!
Disclaimer: We were provided a copy of Terrible Candidates for the purposes of this review. The components pictured are finalized and are what come in a production copy of the game. I do not intend to rehash the entire rulebook, but rather provide an overview of the rules and general gameplay. -L
Terrible Candidates is a party game in which all players, candidates vying for the Presidency, participate in a series of public debates. At the end of the game, the player who has won the most debates is declared the new President! Setup is simple: Deal 5 Policy cards to each player, place the remaining Policy and Topic cards in the center of the table, place the Dumpster Fire of Democracy card within reach of all players to indicate the discard pile, and keep the President card off to the side.
The gameplay itself is just as simple! Select a pair of neighboring players to be the first debate Candidates. A Topic card is revealed, and the 2 Candidates select a Policy card from their hand to play in this debate. Once the Policy cards are selected, each Candidate gets 30 seconds to explain/debate their selected response to the Topic, providing as many talking points, facts (true or alternative) and other general jargon or nonsense to convince the Media (the non-Candidates for this turn) to vote for them. When both Candidates have made their debates, each member of the Media is allowed to ask one question, providing an extra chance for political shenanigans or hilarity. Once all questions have been asked, the Media votes on which Candidate they believe was the best of the pair, and that winning Candidate keeps the Topic card as their point. The game moves on to the next debate, rotating one person around the group to get a new pair of Candidates – one Candidate from the previous debate, and a new competitor. Play progresses in this manner until all players have participated in 2 debates, thus ending the round. Any players who have no Topic cards (meaning they didn’t win either of their debates in the round) is knocked out of the game, and the next round commences with the remaining players. The second round follows the steps of the first, and when all players have debated twice, the game ends. The player with the most Topic cards is declared the winner and becomes President!
I know that this game might seem like a lot, but it’s honestly not complicated. Each round works as follows: Debate, Question, Vote, and repeat until all players have done 2 debates. If there is one thing that is a must for a party game, it’s a simple set of rules and gameplay to maximize playing time, and Terrible Candidates has adhered to that policy (See what I did there?). The overall atmosphere of the game is reminiscent of CAH, but with a twist. In CAH, all players submit a card and one player is the ultimate judge for the turn, thus allowing players to cater to the personality/sense of humor of that one person. Terrible Candidates is a group effort, meaning that you have to get a majority of the votes in your favor to win the debate. Instead of focusing on one person, you have to be quick-witted and clever enough to find ways to influence all other players. That makes it feel like a more engaging game overall, since all players are involved in every step of the turn.
Obviously, this game has some political implications, but the gameplay can be whatever your group wants it to be. Playing with a group of highly political friends? Maybe it will turn into some intelligent debates and conversations throughout the night. Playing with the fam at a reunion or get-together? Go crazy, make up hilarious stories, and just have a good time. It all depends on your gaming group, and it can be whatever kind of game you want it to be – serious or silly. A caveat with this, as with CAH-esque games, is knowing your group and the kind of humor that is acceptable. Just make sure that however you decide to play, everyone involved is comfortable and having fun!
All in all, I think that Terrible Candidates is a fun and funny little game for everyone involved. As a Candidate, you put your improv skills to the test as you make ridiculous claims or present decent ideas in your 30-second time limit. As a member of the Media, you also get in on a little improv, coming up with a question to ask the Candidates, and then casting your vote for the most convincing side. This game can be so unpredictable, and that’s what helps keep it fresh, entertaining, and funny. Whether you are politically active or not, this game can result in some great times and good conversations among the group. If you’re up for it, take a chance and cast your vote for Terrible Candidates!
Disclaimer: We were provided a copy of Terrible Candidates for the purposes of this review. The components pictured are finalized and are what come in a production copy of the game. I do not intend to rehash the entire rulebook, but rather provide an overview of the rules and general gameplay. -L
Terrible Candidates is a party game in which all players, candidates vying for the Presidency, participate in a series of public debates. At the end of the game, the player who has won the most debates is declared the new President! Setup is simple: Deal 5 Policy cards to each player, place the remaining Policy and Topic cards in the center of the table, place the Dumpster Fire of Democracy card within reach of all players to indicate the discard pile, and keep the President card off to the side.
The gameplay itself is just as simple! Select a pair of neighboring players to be the first debate Candidates. A Topic card is revealed, and the 2 Candidates select a Policy card from their hand to play in this debate. Once the Policy cards are selected, each Candidate gets 30 seconds to explain/debate their selected response to the Topic, providing as many talking points, facts (true or alternative) and other general jargon or nonsense to convince the Media (the non-Candidates for this turn) to vote for them. When both Candidates have made their debates, each member of the Media is allowed to ask one question, providing an extra chance for political shenanigans or hilarity. Once all questions have been asked, the Media votes on which Candidate they believe was the best of the pair, and that winning Candidate keeps the Topic card as their point. The game moves on to the next debate, rotating one person around the group to get a new pair of Candidates – one Candidate from the previous debate, and a new competitor. Play progresses in this manner until all players have participated in 2 debates, thus ending the round. Any players who have no Topic cards (meaning they didn’t win either of their debates in the round) is knocked out of the game, and the next round commences with the remaining players. The second round follows the steps of the first, and when all players have debated twice, the game ends. The player with the most Topic cards is declared the winner and becomes President!
I know that this game might seem like a lot, but it’s honestly not complicated. Each round works as follows: Debate, Question, Vote, and repeat until all players have done 2 debates. If there is one thing that is a must for a party game, it’s a simple set of rules and gameplay to maximize playing time, and Terrible Candidates has adhered to that policy (See what I did there?). The overall atmosphere of the game is reminiscent of CAH, but with a twist. In CAH, all players submit a card and one player is the ultimate judge for the turn, thus allowing players to cater to the personality/sense of humor of that one person. Terrible Candidates is a group effort, meaning that you have to get a majority of the votes in your favor to win the debate. Instead of focusing on one person, you have to be quick-witted and clever enough to find ways to influence all other players. That makes it feel like a more engaging game overall, since all players are involved in every step of the turn.
Obviously, this game has some political implications, but the gameplay can be whatever your group wants it to be. Playing with a group of highly political friends? Maybe it will turn into some intelligent debates and conversations throughout the night. Playing with the fam at a reunion or get-together? Go crazy, make up hilarious stories, and just have a good time. It all depends on your gaming group, and it can be whatever kind of game you want it to be – serious or silly. A caveat with this, as with CAH-esque games, is knowing your group and the kind of humor that is acceptable. Just make sure that however you decide to play, everyone involved is comfortable and having fun!
All in all, I think that Terrible Candidates is a fun and funny little game for everyone involved. As a Candidate, you put your improv skills to the test as you make ridiculous claims or present decent ideas in your 30-second time limit. As a member of the Media, you also get in on a little improv, coming up with a question to ask the Candidates, and then casting your vote for the most convincing side. This game can be so unpredictable, and that’s what helps keep it fresh, entertaining, and funny. Whether you are politically active or not, this game can result in some great times and good conversations among the group. If you’re up for it, take a chance and cast your vote for Terrible Candidates!
