Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Horrible Bosses (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
We have all had them at some point in our life. You may even have one now. That’s right, I am talking about horrible bosses. So I was more than happy to go see Horrible Bosses, mostly to get suggestions on how to treat my subordinates. What? I never said that I was a great boss. But enough about me, the movie is about three friends whose superiors are making their lives unbearable, so they decide to murder their horrible bosses.
The three friends:
Nick Hendricks (Jason Bateman) has spent years being the dedicated, hard-working employee. He is the first to arrive at work and the last to leave. But for some reason his boss, the company president, Dave Harken (Kevin Spacey) feels the need to torment him on a daily basis. The one thing that has kept Nick going was the promotion to Vice President of Sales that his boss has been telling him that he would get. But when the day comes Dave decides that he will absorb the VP of Sales position within his own.
Dale Arbus (Charlie Day) is a caring dental hygienist who loves his job, with the one exception of his boss Dr. Julia Harris D.D.S. (Jennifer Aniston) who sexually harrasses him constantly. Now, personally, if I had a boss that looked like his boss she could sexually harass me all she wanted and I would be begging for overtime. However Dale is engaged to a wonderful woman, Stacy (Lindsay Sloane), and Dr. Harris demands that either Dale sleeps with her by the end of the week or else she will tell Stacy that Dale has been sleeping with her. Dr. Harris even has incriminating photos that she took of herself and Dale in questionable poses (of course he was unconscious during dental surgery when the pictures were taken but that’s beside the point).
Kurt Buckman (Jason Sudeikis) is an accountant at Pellit & Sons Chemical Plant. He’s dedicated, hard-working and actually loves his job and boss. But when his boss Jack Pellit (Donald Sutherland) suddenly passes away, Jack’s deranged coke-head son, Bobby (Colin Farrell) takes over and all he cares about is making as much money possible until he runs the company into the ground.
Now you may be asking “Why don’t they just quit their jobs?” They thought about that but then they bump into an old High School buddy of theirs, Kenny Sommerfeld (P.J. Byrne), and they see first-hand how hard it is to find a job.
The decision to murder:
Dale thought he had a fantastic plan on how to murder their bosses and it was rather inexpensive but that gets flushed down the toilet. Nick and Kurt were pissed at Dale for a while but luckily the GPS navigation system in Kurt’s car leads them to Dean ‘MF’ Jones (Jamie Foxx). Dean becomes their Murder Consultant and he gives them a wealth of information on how to go about getting away with murder, as well as the idea that they should murder each other’s bosses. Thus the three friends embark on an epic adventure to kill each other’s bosses and save the world.. well, at the very least, save their sanity.
The onscreen chemistry between Jason Bateman, Jason Sudeikis and Charlie Day was so amazing you would think they have been a comedy team for years and friends for even longer. It really seemed very genuine. Walking out of the theatre I overheard some people discussing who out of the three main actors did the better job and I have to agree with pretty much what they said. Though they all did great jobs Charlie Day rocked the screen just a little harder than either Jason did.
Kevin Spacey, Jennifer Aniston & Colin Farrell were phenomenal. They brought such unique flair and realism to their characters. Kevin Spacey will always be the worst boss ever, Colin Farrell will always be the guy I want to party with and Jennifer Aniston is the boss I would love to have. I will be honest, I was guilty of type casting Jennifer but after seeing her in this role, I can safely say I have learned my lesson and I will not make that mistake again. (Psst, film industry, you can learn this lesson too).
While the screen time for Donald Sutherland, Jamie Foxx, Julie Bowen, Wendell Pierce, Ron White and Bob Newhart may have been shorter than I would have preferred, those scenes were still great. There’s even a really short scene with Isaiah Mustafa (fun fact: he attended the Seattle Seahawks’ training camp in 2000) and even though he was fully clothed in the scene I swear I heard “Yum” whispered by most of audience.
There were a couple of things in the movie that I felt could have been done better unfortunately to list those parts would be a major spoiler. But overall, the movie delivered what I expected and more. It was consistently funny, relatable, highly enjoyable, clever with some twists I didn’t see coming and all the actors (regardless of screen time) shined brightly as the stars they are.
The three friends:
Nick Hendricks (Jason Bateman) has spent years being the dedicated, hard-working employee. He is the first to arrive at work and the last to leave. But for some reason his boss, the company president, Dave Harken (Kevin Spacey) feels the need to torment him on a daily basis. The one thing that has kept Nick going was the promotion to Vice President of Sales that his boss has been telling him that he would get. But when the day comes Dave decides that he will absorb the VP of Sales position within his own.
Dale Arbus (Charlie Day) is a caring dental hygienist who loves his job, with the one exception of his boss Dr. Julia Harris D.D.S. (Jennifer Aniston) who sexually harrasses him constantly. Now, personally, if I had a boss that looked like his boss she could sexually harass me all she wanted and I would be begging for overtime. However Dale is engaged to a wonderful woman, Stacy (Lindsay Sloane), and Dr. Harris demands that either Dale sleeps with her by the end of the week or else she will tell Stacy that Dale has been sleeping with her. Dr. Harris even has incriminating photos that she took of herself and Dale in questionable poses (of course he was unconscious during dental surgery when the pictures were taken but that’s beside the point).
Kurt Buckman (Jason Sudeikis) is an accountant at Pellit & Sons Chemical Plant. He’s dedicated, hard-working and actually loves his job and boss. But when his boss Jack Pellit (Donald Sutherland) suddenly passes away, Jack’s deranged coke-head son, Bobby (Colin Farrell) takes over and all he cares about is making as much money possible until he runs the company into the ground.
Now you may be asking “Why don’t they just quit their jobs?” They thought about that but then they bump into an old High School buddy of theirs, Kenny Sommerfeld (P.J. Byrne), and they see first-hand how hard it is to find a job.
The decision to murder:
Dale thought he had a fantastic plan on how to murder their bosses and it was rather inexpensive but that gets flushed down the toilet. Nick and Kurt were pissed at Dale for a while but luckily the GPS navigation system in Kurt’s car leads them to Dean ‘MF’ Jones (Jamie Foxx). Dean becomes their Murder Consultant and he gives them a wealth of information on how to go about getting away with murder, as well as the idea that they should murder each other’s bosses. Thus the three friends embark on an epic adventure to kill each other’s bosses and save the world.. well, at the very least, save their sanity.
The onscreen chemistry between Jason Bateman, Jason Sudeikis and Charlie Day was so amazing you would think they have been a comedy team for years and friends for even longer. It really seemed very genuine. Walking out of the theatre I overheard some people discussing who out of the three main actors did the better job and I have to agree with pretty much what they said. Though they all did great jobs Charlie Day rocked the screen just a little harder than either Jason did.
Kevin Spacey, Jennifer Aniston & Colin Farrell were phenomenal. They brought such unique flair and realism to their characters. Kevin Spacey will always be the worst boss ever, Colin Farrell will always be the guy I want to party with and Jennifer Aniston is the boss I would love to have. I will be honest, I was guilty of type casting Jennifer but after seeing her in this role, I can safely say I have learned my lesson and I will not make that mistake again. (Psst, film industry, you can learn this lesson too).
While the screen time for Donald Sutherland, Jamie Foxx, Julie Bowen, Wendell Pierce, Ron White and Bob Newhart may have been shorter than I would have preferred, those scenes were still great. There’s even a really short scene with Isaiah Mustafa (fun fact: he attended the Seattle Seahawks’ training camp in 2000) and even though he was fully clothed in the scene I swear I heard “Yum” whispered by most of audience.
There were a couple of things in the movie that I felt could have been done better unfortunately to list those parts would be a major spoiler. But overall, the movie delivered what I expected and more. It was consistently funny, relatable, highly enjoyable, clever with some twists I didn’t see coming and all the actors (regardless of screen time) shined brightly as the stars they are.
Kyera (8 KP) rated Eliza and Her Monsters in Books
Jan 31, 2018
I always read before I go to bed, so last night I decided to pick up Eliza and Her Monsters by Francesca Zappia. I fell in love and before I knew it, I was 50% done but I thought I could read for another 15 or so minutes – that turned into me finishing the book at midnight. I don’t regret a thing. This is a mental health book that deals with trauma, anxiety, and depression, so I would just like to give all readers a trigger warning. I personally felt that it was beautifully written, but not everyone will feel the same way so I suggest a level of caution if you think you may be triggered by these things. I wouldn’t want anyone to feel harmed by this book or any book.
Just a warning, I do talk about the relationships in this book as well as some plot points. I don’t discuss anything that wasn’t mentioned in the synopsis on the book or Goodreads, but if you haven’t read those then this is your spoiler warning.
Our main character is Eliza, the anonymous creator of the famous webcomic Monsterous Seas. She has always been more comfortable online than dealing with the real world, or real people. All of her friends are online. She has always kept her identity a secret and as the popularity of her work has grown, the fervor to learn her identity has as well.
Eliza has always been content to spend her days in school drawing and talking to no one – that is until there is a new guy in school, Wallace. Against all odds, he is a fan of Monsterous Seas and actually writes fan fiction about it. It doesn’t take long before they become friends and Wallace gets Eliza to come a little more out of her shell. Their friendship was so precious and I loved watching them bond over a story that was so important to each of their lives.
The romance aspect of the book also made me super happy – I legitimately was smiling every time they were super cute together. Even though they each had their issues to deal with, they didn’t push each other past their respective lines of security. They were supportive of one another and I think that Wallace was the perfect foil for Eliza. Yes, they had their troubles but at the end of the day, they were there for one another.
The family dynamic was completely relatable if frustrating at times. Eliza’s parents don’t truly understand what her webcomic is or how famous it is, which causes a lot of friction within the family. Her parents want to understand her more, but Eliza is very closed and protective of herself. While they may not understand the importance of it even if she took the time to explain it and what it means to the world, she doesn’t even give them the chance. Eliza is defensive and her lack of communication is what ultimately leads to the worst crisis she experiences, despite her parent's well-meaning intentions.
The most heart-warming part of the novel was the scene in which one of her brothers stood up for her and supported Eliza. It was such a precious moment and it was nice to see a positive familial connection being formed. Eliza learns throughout the novel that she never gave her family a chance and that maybe she doesn’t really know them. The growth that she experiences over the course of the novel was wonderful to see and gives you hope that (although she’s fictional) perhaps things will change for the better with her family and her life.
As a person who feels infinitely more comfortable talking to someone over the internet than in person, there were many times that I related to Eliza. I completely understand the anxiety of talking to another person, even one-on-one. I cannot imagine the stress and havoc the reveal of your identity to millions of people would have on your psyche and body. My heart broke when we found out her identity was exposed because Francesca wrote a character so real that we could feel her horror and destruction.
There was also some diversity in this book, although it wasn’t as explored as it could have been. Wallace’s family is a unique situation and I would have loved to learn more about them, but understand that it would have slowed down the pacing of the novel. I can’t say more because I don’t want this to have actual spoilers, so just go read the book. While it is not explicitly mentioned in the book, the author wrote in a tweet that she wished her portrayal of ace/demi sexuality was truly addressed. I think that would have brought a wonderful level of diversity that we don’t normally see in books and could use more of.
If it wasn’t clear from my ‘I read it in one sitting into the wee hours of the night’ tale, I absolutely loved this book. It was very relatable and as an introverted fangirl myself, I personally felt represented by this book. Even though I didn’t know about it before it was published, I definitely expect it to make my best of 2017 list. It is a contemporary that, in my opinion, honestly and respectfully tackles mental illness, family relationships and is so wonderfully written that I hope you fall in love with it as well.
Just a warning, I do talk about the relationships in this book as well as some plot points. I don’t discuss anything that wasn’t mentioned in the synopsis on the book or Goodreads, but if you haven’t read those then this is your spoiler warning.
Our main character is Eliza, the anonymous creator of the famous webcomic Monsterous Seas. She has always been more comfortable online than dealing with the real world, or real people. All of her friends are online. She has always kept her identity a secret and as the popularity of her work has grown, the fervor to learn her identity has as well.
Eliza has always been content to spend her days in school drawing and talking to no one – that is until there is a new guy in school, Wallace. Against all odds, he is a fan of Monsterous Seas and actually writes fan fiction about it. It doesn’t take long before they become friends and Wallace gets Eliza to come a little more out of her shell. Their friendship was so precious and I loved watching them bond over a story that was so important to each of their lives.
The romance aspect of the book also made me super happy – I legitimately was smiling every time they were super cute together. Even though they each had their issues to deal with, they didn’t push each other past their respective lines of security. They were supportive of one another and I think that Wallace was the perfect foil for Eliza. Yes, they had their troubles but at the end of the day, they were there for one another.
The family dynamic was completely relatable if frustrating at times. Eliza’s parents don’t truly understand what her webcomic is or how famous it is, which causes a lot of friction within the family. Her parents want to understand her more, but Eliza is very closed and protective of herself. While they may not understand the importance of it even if she took the time to explain it and what it means to the world, she doesn’t even give them the chance. Eliza is defensive and her lack of communication is what ultimately leads to the worst crisis she experiences, despite her parent's well-meaning intentions.
The most heart-warming part of the novel was the scene in which one of her brothers stood up for her and supported Eliza. It was such a precious moment and it was nice to see a positive familial connection being formed. Eliza learns throughout the novel that she never gave her family a chance and that maybe she doesn’t really know them. The growth that she experiences over the course of the novel was wonderful to see and gives you hope that (although she’s fictional) perhaps things will change for the better with her family and her life.
As a person who feels infinitely more comfortable talking to someone over the internet than in person, there were many times that I related to Eliza. I completely understand the anxiety of talking to another person, even one-on-one. I cannot imagine the stress and havoc the reveal of your identity to millions of people would have on your psyche and body. My heart broke when we found out her identity was exposed because Francesca wrote a character so real that we could feel her horror and destruction.
There was also some diversity in this book, although it wasn’t as explored as it could have been. Wallace’s family is a unique situation and I would have loved to learn more about them, but understand that it would have slowed down the pacing of the novel. I can’t say more because I don’t want this to have actual spoilers, so just go read the book. While it is not explicitly mentioned in the book, the author wrote in a tweet that she wished her portrayal of ace/demi sexuality was truly addressed. I think that would have brought a wonderful level of diversity that we don’t normally see in books and could use more of.
If it wasn’t clear from my ‘I read it in one sitting into the wee hours of the night’ tale, I absolutely loved this book. It was very relatable and as an introverted fangirl myself, I personally felt represented by this book. Even though I didn’t know about it before it was published, I definitely expect it to make my best of 2017 list. It is a contemporary that, in my opinion, honestly and respectfully tackles mental illness, family relationships and is so wonderfully written that I hope you fall in love with it as well.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans '66) (2019) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
Damon, Bale and fast cars (1 more)
Epic technical film making - cinematography, editing and sound - Oscar bait
A linear story on a circular track - but beautifully done.
Despite the love affair cinema has had with cars over the years, the sport of motor racing on film has been patchy. Too often the drama on the track has been deluged with melodrama off the track, as in John Frankenheimer's "Grand Prix" from 1966. While recent efforts such as Ron Howard's "Rush" have brought modern filming techniques to better convey the speed and excitement, it is Steve McQueen's "Le Mans" from 1971 that had previously set the bar for realism in the sport. But even there, there were a few off-track love stories to interweave into the action.
I wouldn't hesitate to suggest that "Le Mans '66" is a strong contender for the motor racing high-water mark.
The film was marketed as "Ford v Ferrari" in the US. (What... do the American distributors think their film-goers are so stupid that if "Le" is in the title they will think it sub-titled foreign language??). But it's a valid title, since the movie tells the true story of when Henry Ford... the second... (Tracy Letts) throws his toys out of the pram at Ford's faltering progress. ("James Bond does not drive a Ford". "That's because he's a degenerate!" snaps back Ford, which kind of typifies the problem"). Marketing man Lee Iacocca (Jon Bernthal) persuades retired hot-shot racer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) to take Ford's blank-cheque to build a car to win the Le Mans 24 hour race.
Shelby enlists maverick Brit racer Ken Miles (Christian Bale) to help design and drive the next-generation machine. But neither had banked on the interference of the hoards of Ford suits, led by VP Leo Beebe (Josh Lucas). An explosion is imminent! And its not just from the over-heated brake pads!
What's really odd about this film is how linear the story is. While we get to see the family life of Miles (to add necessary context to what follows) these are merely minor diversions. There are no sub-plots or flashback scenes. It just relates the history from beginning to end, enlivened by some of the best and most exciting motor-racing footage put to celluloid.
At a bladder-testing 152 minutes, this really shouldn't have worked. I should have got bored and restless. But I really didn't.
In many ways - bladders aside - I think this will appeal in particular to an older breed of movie-goer. It's a 100% 'sit back in your seat and enjoy' cinema treat.
This is the first film Matt Damon and Christian Bale have made together, and I understand that Damon specifically signed on since he wanted to work with Bale. And there is palpable chemistry there. The movie includes one of the best 'bad-fights' since Colin Firth and Hugh Grant locked horns in the Bridget Jones films. And Damon - never one of the most expressive actors in the world - here really shines.
Bale also appears to be having a whale of a time. Not having to adopt a US accent suits him, as he blasts and swears his way through various UK-specific expletives that probably passed the US-censors by! He often tends to play characters in movies that are difficult to warm to, but here - although suitably spiky and irascible - the family man really shines through and you feel a real warmth for the guy.
There's a strong supporting cast behind the leads, with Tracy Letts' fast-driving breakdown being a standout moment. I wonder how many takes they needed on that for Damon to keep a semi-straight face?! Also impressive as the son Peter Miles is Noah Jupe. If you're wondering where the hell you've seen him before, he was young (Marcus in "A Quiet Place").
Where the film comes alive is on the track, and a particular shout out should to to the technical teams. Cinematography is by Phedon Papamichael ("Walk the Line"), film editing is led by Andrew Buckland and Michael McCusker. And sound mixing - which to my ear was piston-valve perfect - is by Steven Morrow. Also worthy of note is a kick-ass driving soundtrack by Marco Beltrami that genuinely excited. These categories are fearsomly hard to predict in awards season, but you might like to listen out for those names.
If I was going to pick at any faults in the film, it would be that Ford exec Leo Beebe is painted a little too much as a "boo-hiss" pantomime villain in the piece. It could have been perhaps toned down 20% or so.
James Mangold ("Logan"; "Walk the Line") directs in style. From the rather po-faced trailer, you might think this is a "car movie that's not for me". But it really is a tremendously fun movie, with some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments mixed in with edge-of-your-seat action and some heart-rending moments.
Above all, this is a film that really benefits from the wide-screen and sound-system that only a big cinema can provide. As such this goes on my "get out and see it" list without any hesitation! It's going to make my movies of the year: and I'm off to see it again on Saturday!
Read the full review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-le-mans-66-2019/
I wouldn't hesitate to suggest that "Le Mans '66" is a strong contender for the motor racing high-water mark.
The film was marketed as "Ford v Ferrari" in the US. (What... do the American distributors think their film-goers are so stupid that if "Le" is in the title they will think it sub-titled foreign language??). But it's a valid title, since the movie tells the true story of when Henry Ford... the second... (Tracy Letts) throws his toys out of the pram at Ford's faltering progress. ("James Bond does not drive a Ford". "That's because he's a degenerate!" snaps back Ford, which kind of typifies the problem"). Marketing man Lee Iacocca (Jon Bernthal) persuades retired hot-shot racer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) to take Ford's blank-cheque to build a car to win the Le Mans 24 hour race.
Shelby enlists maverick Brit racer Ken Miles (Christian Bale) to help design and drive the next-generation machine. But neither had banked on the interference of the hoards of Ford suits, led by VP Leo Beebe (Josh Lucas). An explosion is imminent! And its not just from the over-heated brake pads!
What's really odd about this film is how linear the story is. While we get to see the family life of Miles (to add necessary context to what follows) these are merely minor diversions. There are no sub-plots or flashback scenes. It just relates the history from beginning to end, enlivened by some of the best and most exciting motor-racing footage put to celluloid.
At a bladder-testing 152 minutes, this really shouldn't have worked. I should have got bored and restless. But I really didn't.
In many ways - bladders aside - I think this will appeal in particular to an older breed of movie-goer. It's a 100% 'sit back in your seat and enjoy' cinema treat.
This is the first film Matt Damon and Christian Bale have made together, and I understand that Damon specifically signed on since he wanted to work with Bale. And there is palpable chemistry there. The movie includes one of the best 'bad-fights' since Colin Firth and Hugh Grant locked horns in the Bridget Jones films. And Damon - never one of the most expressive actors in the world - here really shines.
Bale also appears to be having a whale of a time. Not having to adopt a US accent suits him, as he blasts and swears his way through various UK-specific expletives that probably passed the US-censors by! He often tends to play characters in movies that are difficult to warm to, but here - although suitably spiky and irascible - the family man really shines through and you feel a real warmth for the guy.
There's a strong supporting cast behind the leads, with Tracy Letts' fast-driving breakdown being a standout moment. I wonder how many takes they needed on that for Damon to keep a semi-straight face?! Also impressive as the son Peter Miles is Noah Jupe. If you're wondering where the hell you've seen him before, he was young (Marcus in "A Quiet Place").
Where the film comes alive is on the track, and a particular shout out should to to the technical teams. Cinematography is by Phedon Papamichael ("Walk the Line"), film editing is led by Andrew Buckland and Michael McCusker. And sound mixing - which to my ear was piston-valve perfect - is by Steven Morrow. Also worthy of note is a kick-ass driving soundtrack by Marco Beltrami that genuinely excited. These categories are fearsomly hard to predict in awards season, but you might like to listen out for those names.
If I was going to pick at any faults in the film, it would be that Ford exec Leo Beebe is painted a little too much as a "boo-hiss" pantomime villain in the piece. It could have been perhaps toned down 20% or so.
James Mangold ("Logan"; "Walk the Line") directs in style. From the rather po-faced trailer, you might think this is a "car movie that's not for me". But it really is a tremendously fun movie, with some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments mixed in with edge-of-your-seat action and some heart-rending moments.
Above all, this is a film that really benefits from the wide-screen and sound-system that only a big cinema can provide. As such this goes on my "get out and see it" list without any hesitation! It's going to make my movies of the year: and I'm off to see it again on Saturday!
Read the full review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-le-mans-66-2019/
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Ticket to Ride in Tabletop Games
Jan 9, 2020
I am one of the remaining few who reviewers who haven’t put in their two cents on Ticket to Ride. Why? Is it bad? No. Am I lazy? No. It’s really because I don’t think I have anything new to say about it that hasn’t already been said a hundred times. So this review on this game will be a little different from me. Instead of going over the rules and such (however truncated they typically are from me) I will question how well this game has aged for me.
Ticket to Ride is one of those games that has really hit it big in the mass market. You can find it all over in big box stores, in FLGS, online, secondary market, just everywhere. But why? And for this long? Ticket to Ride (TTR) came out in 2004. A mere 15 years ago. While that doesn’t really sound like a long time, in contrast to today’s game industry it is an eternity. With thousands upon thousands of games being released into the market through direct publish, Kickstarter/crowd funding, and big releases at conventions it’s hard to believe that you can still find this hanging with the exciting, fresh new games.
What I truly believe is magical about this game is its simplicity. “You have two main options: take some cards or play some cards.” When you can start a teach of a game by saying that, your players are invested right away because they know you aren’t going to bog them down with rules upon rules. “If you decide to take cards you can take these colored train cards or you can take new route ticket cards.” So now players have two choices from gaining cards. “If you decide to play cards you need to play cards of a color and number matching whichever route between two connecting cities on the map you like.” Done. The game is explained. Yeah, you can fight me about the endgame scoring stuff like longest route and whatnot, but for new gamers, you have explained this classic in three sentences. It’s so beautiful when a game allows you to teach it so quickly.
But that surely means that this is an easy game, right? With so few rules and such. Well, no. It’s not really “easy” at all. While your main rules are light, the strategy and tactics during play can cause feelings of joy and delight as well as frustration and concern as you see someone claim the route you need to connect to two cities on the map. Of course, you can’t explain that to your new players right away. You want them to experience these feelings organically and fully. It’s what makes TTR a really great game: having your well-laid plans just shot to smithereens by the guy who can’t tell the difference between the white train cars and the wild rainbow train cars.
DISCLAIMER: I play with the 1910 expansion, which is a MUST. The larger cards are way easier to play with. See photo below with comparisons from base game on bottom with the larger 1910 cards above. YMMV, but I will always play using this expansion. -T
Components. Let’s compare components to some current or newer games. The game board is laid out really well, and the artwork is sparse and not over-busy on the board. This is a HUGE plus for me. I like nothing more than for the board to offer thematic elements and feeling without pelting my eyes with too much distraction. The cards were a bad choice. Not because the art or the quality on them is bad – because that’s not what I am saying. The size of the cards was a poor choice. I did purchase the 1910 expansion and simply will not play my copy without it. I recently played TTR for GenCan’t 2019 at my FLGS with OG base cards and found myself dreaming of the 1910 cards. The score tracker discs are of industry-standard quality for scoring discs. The plastic train car pieces are still just as wonderful to handle and play with as are many other more modern components. Seriously just as good. TTR components (and really, most of the time Days of Wonder components in general) are really great.
So do I still enjoy playing it? You betcha, don’tcha know. I still love seeing the board in front of me, agonizing over the route tickets I am dealt, and trying to decide if I should go for the New York to Los Angeles, or keep it simple with multiple routes along the Mississippi River. I still love the panic that ensues when I see people hoarding train cards, just knowing that they will soon be on the attack and their train car collection will dwindle to almost endgame levels in too few rounds for me to complete my masterpiece. I guess I still really love it.
Is Ticket to Ride my favorite game? No. But I’ll tell you what. I hadn’t played it in a couple years, and after this weekend’s play, it has moved up on my list by several spaces. It still holds a special place in my heart, and also the hearts of my team. That’s why Purple Phoenix Games gives Ticket to Ride a retrospective 20 / 24. It’s still great!
Ticket to Ride is one of those games that has really hit it big in the mass market. You can find it all over in big box stores, in FLGS, online, secondary market, just everywhere. But why? And for this long? Ticket to Ride (TTR) came out in 2004. A mere 15 years ago. While that doesn’t really sound like a long time, in contrast to today’s game industry it is an eternity. With thousands upon thousands of games being released into the market through direct publish, Kickstarter/crowd funding, and big releases at conventions it’s hard to believe that you can still find this hanging with the exciting, fresh new games.
What I truly believe is magical about this game is its simplicity. “You have two main options: take some cards or play some cards.” When you can start a teach of a game by saying that, your players are invested right away because they know you aren’t going to bog them down with rules upon rules. “If you decide to take cards you can take these colored train cards or you can take new route ticket cards.” So now players have two choices from gaining cards. “If you decide to play cards you need to play cards of a color and number matching whichever route between two connecting cities on the map you like.” Done. The game is explained. Yeah, you can fight me about the endgame scoring stuff like longest route and whatnot, but for new gamers, you have explained this classic in three sentences. It’s so beautiful when a game allows you to teach it so quickly.
But that surely means that this is an easy game, right? With so few rules and such. Well, no. It’s not really “easy” at all. While your main rules are light, the strategy and tactics during play can cause feelings of joy and delight as well as frustration and concern as you see someone claim the route you need to connect to two cities on the map. Of course, you can’t explain that to your new players right away. You want them to experience these feelings organically and fully. It’s what makes TTR a really great game: having your well-laid plans just shot to smithereens by the guy who can’t tell the difference between the white train cars and the wild rainbow train cars.
DISCLAIMER: I play with the 1910 expansion, which is a MUST. The larger cards are way easier to play with. See photo below with comparisons from base game on bottom with the larger 1910 cards above. YMMV, but I will always play using this expansion. -T
Components. Let’s compare components to some current or newer games. The game board is laid out really well, and the artwork is sparse and not over-busy on the board. This is a HUGE plus for me. I like nothing more than for the board to offer thematic elements and feeling without pelting my eyes with too much distraction. The cards were a bad choice. Not because the art or the quality on them is bad – because that’s not what I am saying. The size of the cards was a poor choice. I did purchase the 1910 expansion and simply will not play my copy without it. I recently played TTR for GenCan’t 2019 at my FLGS with OG base cards and found myself dreaming of the 1910 cards. The score tracker discs are of industry-standard quality for scoring discs. The plastic train car pieces are still just as wonderful to handle and play with as are many other more modern components. Seriously just as good. TTR components (and really, most of the time Days of Wonder components in general) are really great.
So do I still enjoy playing it? You betcha, don’tcha know. I still love seeing the board in front of me, agonizing over the route tickets I am dealt, and trying to decide if I should go for the New York to Los Angeles, or keep it simple with multiple routes along the Mississippi River. I still love the panic that ensues when I see people hoarding train cards, just knowing that they will soon be on the attack and their train car collection will dwindle to almost endgame levels in too few rounds for me to complete my masterpiece. I guess I still really love it.
Is Ticket to Ride my favorite game? No. But I’ll tell you what. I hadn’t played it in a couple years, and after this weekend’s play, it has moved up on my list by several spaces. It still holds a special place in my heart, and also the hearts of my team. That’s why Purple Phoenix Games gives Ticket to Ride a retrospective 20 / 24. It’s still great!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Farewell (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Simply brilliant. Go see it!
The Long Goodbye.
With “Downton Abbey” and now “The Farewell”, the excesses of the summer blockbusters are fading away. (Though I’m sure Rambo might have something to say about that!)
The Plot.
Billi (Awkwafina) is a young Chinese New Yorker struggling to make her way in the world. She has a place of her own to distance herself from her parents – Haiyan (“Arrival“‘s Tzi Ma) and Lu Jian (Diana Lin) – but is struggling to fund it. But despite a typically spiky teenage relationship with her parents, family is important to her.
There’s a big shock then when her beloved “Nai Nai” (Shuzhen Zhao) is diagnosed back in China with terminal cancer. The slight complication is that no-one has told her. Her younger sister (Hong Lu) has taken the decision to keep the news from her. This is in line with the Chinese saying “When people get Cancer they die”. (Based on the rationale that it is not necessarily the disease that kills you, but the fear that destroys your useful life).
The whole extended family sign up – reluctantly – to the decision. They stage a final get together back in China around the pretence of a trumped-up wedding. This is between the comically reluctant grandson Hao Hao (Han Chen) and his new Japanese girlfriend Aiko (Aoi Mizuhara).
Faced with seeing Nai Nai face-to-face, and being forced to “celebrate” together, can the family – and the emotionally attached Billi in particular – hold it together and keep the secret?
A laff a minute then?
You might naturally assume that given the subject matter that this was going to be SERIOUSLY heavy going. And in many ways you would be right. Most of us over 50 will have lost an elderly relative. And, unless it was a sudden event, you have probably been through the mental pain of having to drive away from a nursing home certain that that will be the final time you will see your loved one alive. If you are therefore not affected by this film, you are not human.
So I was frankly bracing myself.
However, the film is so beautifully put together, and the comedy – albeit some of it very dark – so brilliantly inserted that the film is an UTTER DELIGHT from start to end. There are truly insightful scenes that get under the skin of the well-developed social approach in China to family. (Like the illustrious Mrs Movie-Man, they love big family dinners around a round-table!) Although there is always the teen – Bau (Jinhang Liu) in this case – with his face permanently in his phone!
There are also scenes familiar to anyone who’s visited China. The gaggle of “helpful” taxi drivers outside the airport made me laugh out loud.
Also (unintentionally) funny are the multiple company logos at the start of the film. This is reminiscent of the classic “Family Guy” scene (I think “The Simpsons” also did a similar spoof).
Cinematic.
For such a ‘small’ film, the scale is sometimes truly cinematic. Director and writer, Lulu Wang, achieves some gloriously memorable movie moments. A stony-faced, determined march of the key players towards the camera – which could be subtitled “The Magnificent Eight” – is slo-mo’d for about 30 seconds and is utterly mesmeric.
And a scene at a cemetery is a comic masterpiece of Chinese tradition. Bau of course still has his face in his phone throughout!
This is only Lulu Wang‘s second feature, but it makes me now want to check out her first film (“Posthumous”).
Not afraid to offend either country.
What I found particularly interesting is that the film is truly multi-cultural. It’s not an American film with some local content crudely inserted to cater for the Far East markets. The film is an almost equal blend of American language and Mandarin language with subtitles.
Lulu Wang is also not afraid to upset officials in either country. Which is better: US or China? The question keeps getting posed to Billi and discussed among the family. And – as you might expect – there are positives and negatives on each side. The film doesn’t really take sides. It’s a really balanced position to take.
A quirky soundtrack.
The music is by Alex Weston, and its one of the stars of the film. It’s truly quirky with everything as diverse as a vocalised version of Beethoven’s Sonata No. 8 “Pathetique”; a karaoke version of “Killing Me Softly”; and a hugely entertaining Chinese version of Niilson’s “Without You” over the end titles.
A brilliant ensemble cast.
It’s a great ensemble cast (SAG awards, are you listening?), and everyone pulls their weight. Even the minor members of the cast are superb: Aoi Mizuhara in particular displays acute awkwardness brilliantly!
But leading the charge is Awkwafina. She was in the disappointing “Ocean’s 8” but much more memorable in “Crazy Rich Asians” as Rachel’s wacky Singapore friend. Here it’s a bravado performance that is genuinely moving. She IS the slightly sulky but emotionally crushed teen.
Sub-titles? I don’t do sub-titles.
Get a grip! Yes, this is a film that has sub-titles. But it uses them when required (unless you happen to be fluent in Mandarin that is!). There is also a large percentage of the film that is in English. It’s all eminently watchable, even for “sub-title-phobes”.
This is a feelgood film about a tough subject. The ending of the film pulls off the trick of being both devastating and uplifting at the same time.
So get yourself to the cinema and see this film! Without question, it gets my “highly recommended” tag. It’s also firmly placed itself very high up in my “Films of the Year” list.
And it’s all “based on a true lie”!
With “Downton Abbey” and now “The Farewell”, the excesses of the summer blockbusters are fading away. (Though I’m sure Rambo might have something to say about that!)
The Plot.
Billi (Awkwafina) is a young Chinese New Yorker struggling to make her way in the world. She has a place of her own to distance herself from her parents – Haiyan (“Arrival“‘s Tzi Ma) and Lu Jian (Diana Lin) – but is struggling to fund it. But despite a typically spiky teenage relationship with her parents, family is important to her.
There’s a big shock then when her beloved “Nai Nai” (Shuzhen Zhao) is diagnosed back in China with terminal cancer. The slight complication is that no-one has told her. Her younger sister (Hong Lu) has taken the decision to keep the news from her. This is in line with the Chinese saying “When people get Cancer they die”. (Based on the rationale that it is not necessarily the disease that kills you, but the fear that destroys your useful life).
The whole extended family sign up – reluctantly – to the decision. They stage a final get together back in China around the pretence of a trumped-up wedding. This is between the comically reluctant grandson Hao Hao (Han Chen) and his new Japanese girlfriend Aiko (Aoi Mizuhara).
Faced with seeing Nai Nai face-to-face, and being forced to “celebrate” together, can the family – and the emotionally attached Billi in particular – hold it together and keep the secret?
A laff a minute then?
You might naturally assume that given the subject matter that this was going to be SERIOUSLY heavy going. And in many ways you would be right. Most of us over 50 will have lost an elderly relative. And, unless it was a sudden event, you have probably been through the mental pain of having to drive away from a nursing home certain that that will be the final time you will see your loved one alive. If you are therefore not affected by this film, you are not human.
So I was frankly bracing myself.
However, the film is so beautifully put together, and the comedy – albeit some of it very dark – so brilliantly inserted that the film is an UTTER DELIGHT from start to end. There are truly insightful scenes that get under the skin of the well-developed social approach in China to family. (Like the illustrious Mrs Movie-Man, they love big family dinners around a round-table!) Although there is always the teen – Bau (Jinhang Liu) in this case – with his face permanently in his phone!
There are also scenes familiar to anyone who’s visited China. The gaggle of “helpful” taxi drivers outside the airport made me laugh out loud.
Also (unintentionally) funny are the multiple company logos at the start of the film. This is reminiscent of the classic “Family Guy” scene (I think “The Simpsons” also did a similar spoof).
Cinematic.
For such a ‘small’ film, the scale is sometimes truly cinematic. Director and writer, Lulu Wang, achieves some gloriously memorable movie moments. A stony-faced, determined march of the key players towards the camera – which could be subtitled “The Magnificent Eight” – is slo-mo’d for about 30 seconds and is utterly mesmeric.
And a scene at a cemetery is a comic masterpiece of Chinese tradition. Bau of course still has his face in his phone throughout!
This is only Lulu Wang‘s second feature, but it makes me now want to check out her first film (“Posthumous”).
Not afraid to offend either country.
What I found particularly interesting is that the film is truly multi-cultural. It’s not an American film with some local content crudely inserted to cater for the Far East markets. The film is an almost equal blend of American language and Mandarin language with subtitles.
Lulu Wang is also not afraid to upset officials in either country. Which is better: US or China? The question keeps getting posed to Billi and discussed among the family. And – as you might expect – there are positives and negatives on each side. The film doesn’t really take sides. It’s a really balanced position to take.
A quirky soundtrack.
The music is by Alex Weston, and its one of the stars of the film. It’s truly quirky with everything as diverse as a vocalised version of Beethoven’s Sonata No. 8 “Pathetique”; a karaoke version of “Killing Me Softly”; and a hugely entertaining Chinese version of Niilson’s “Without You” over the end titles.
A brilliant ensemble cast.
It’s a great ensemble cast (SAG awards, are you listening?), and everyone pulls their weight. Even the minor members of the cast are superb: Aoi Mizuhara in particular displays acute awkwardness brilliantly!
But leading the charge is Awkwafina. She was in the disappointing “Ocean’s 8” but much more memorable in “Crazy Rich Asians” as Rachel’s wacky Singapore friend. Here it’s a bravado performance that is genuinely moving. She IS the slightly sulky but emotionally crushed teen.
Sub-titles? I don’t do sub-titles.
Get a grip! Yes, this is a film that has sub-titles. But it uses them when required (unless you happen to be fluent in Mandarin that is!). There is also a large percentage of the film that is in English. It’s all eminently watchable, even for “sub-title-phobes”.
This is a feelgood film about a tough subject. The ending of the film pulls off the trick of being both devastating and uplifting at the same time.
So get yourself to the cinema and see this film! Without question, it gets my “highly recommended” tag. It’s also firmly placed itself very high up in my “Films of the Year” list.
And it’s all “based on a true lie”!
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Cruel Beauty in Books
Jan 23, 2020
I'm a sucker for fairy tales. I love retellings, myths, anything that's a complete spin from a well-known tale. I'm curious as to what authors come up with – problem is, Sleeping Beauty and Snow White needs a major upgrade or I might mentally blow a gasket one day. I promise it won't be pretty. No rants involved. Maybe a post about diversity in fairy tales instead (don't you take that post idea if no one's come up with it before o_o).
Well, Cruel Beauty is the cruel version of our beloved Disney characters. At least, that's what I thought at the very end. It's also got mythology, in which some I researched and learned new things (verification purposes). About time I'm not staring at what I learned in middle school/early high school over and over again.
Truth is, I enjoyed the concept of Cruel Beauty, but I didn't really enjoy the story... not too much. What originally caught my attention was the very fact that "Belle" is destined to marry the "Beast" ever since she was young due to a bargain her father made (reminds me of another story I can't think of currently). What I thought was even more interesting is how Rosamund Hodge bases the novel on ancient civilizations and mythology, particularly Pandora's box. Actually, I thought it was genius. I also think I've spoken too much about the book with those two words.
What started to lose my attention was this particular sentence... when Nyx – "Belle" of the story – is first married to the Gentle Lord – "Beast" of the story – and makes her entrance into his castle.
<blockquote>“I’m here!” I shouted. “Your bride! Congratulations on your marriage!”</blockquote>
I was like, really? THAT'S how you would make your entrance inside a demon's castle? Me, I would actually start plotting ways OUT of the castle, ways to avoid the Gentle Lord, etc. etc. NOT announcing, "Oh hey! I'm here! Come and feast on me!" *waves big sign*
And the Gentle Lord, no matter how much I like his humor, made a very unimpressive entrance.
<blockquote>In one moment I realized that what tickled my neck was a tuft of black hair, the blankets were a warm body, and the Gentle Lord was draped over me like a lazy cat, his head resting on my shoulder.</blockquote>
His reason?
<blockquote>“I got so bored waiting that I fell asleep too."</blockquote>
And...
<blockquote>“You were a good pillow."</blockquote>
DUDE. Sleeping on your bride when you first meet her even though you're now married? What an impressive husband you make. He could have slept next to her and not on top of her. You know, if a stranger – homeless or not – slept on top of me, I may kick said person's butt until they get off and call it self defense. I suppose some are now worried about my future. I'm completely surprised Nyx didn't mention that he was heavy, sleeping on top of her like that. Instead, this is her response shortly after:
<blockquote>“I’m sorry ,” I said, staring at the floor. “I just, my father made me promise to bring a knife, and— and—” I stuttered, acutely aware that I was half-naked in front of him. “I’m your wife! I burn for your touch! I thirst for your love!”</blockquote>
No offense, but that was so cheesy, it was bleeping hilarious. It's really obvious later from the Gentle Lord's constant mocking that Nyx should just act like herself and not the way her family wants her to act, but Nyx is completely oblivious.
Nyx, in a nutshell, is just the darker version of Belle. The semi-evil twin of Belle I may say, and it's no wonder she's named after the Greek goddess of the Night.
<blockquote>But I was a girl who had broken her sister’s heart and— for a moment— liked it. I had left somebody in torment and liked it.</blockquote>
Rosamund Hodge also implies that Nyx is well... a bit indecisive. In a conflict is more accurate. She wants to please her family – to fit in and meet up to her father's expectations even though he prefers her sister Astraia. Yet at the same time, she doesn't want to kill Ignite or whatever the Gentle Lord calls himself (the book was an e-loan and I'm basing this review off of my notes because I'm too lazy to jump on the hold list yet again) because she's in love with him. I suppose it makes sense in a way, since she wants to go with her emotions yet she's been trained her entire life to kill this one evil guy who isn't actually evil...
<blockquote>“Of course he’s evil and unforgivable.” My voice felt like it was coming from the far end of a long tunnel. “But he is the only reason I ever honored Mother with a clean heart. And if I hadn’t learnt to be kind with him, I would never have come back to beg your forgiveness and choose you over him. So gloat all you want— you deserve to watch us both suffer— but don’t you dare say I will ever be free of him. Every kindness I show you, all the rest of your life, that’s because of him. And no matter how many times I betray him, I will love him still.” </blockquote>
I mean, Nyx is living with the Gentle Lord. She could have just made her decision to live with him always and never guess his name, right?
Cruel Beauty, as much as I like the entire idea behind it, is not one of those fairy tales I find very impressive. It's very much one of those books that I roll my eyes at, especially at how the romance played out (just because I never dated a soul doesn't mean I can't tell).
------------------------
Original Rating: 3.5 out of 5
Original Review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/09/review-cruel-beauty-by-rosamund-hodge.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cG5gfBqJVzk/VA5BIojjZ9I/AAAAAAAAD1g/7srLUfpAGEU/s1600/banner.png"; /></a>
Well, Cruel Beauty is the cruel version of our beloved Disney characters. At least, that's what I thought at the very end. It's also got mythology, in which some I researched and learned new things (verification purposes). About time I'm not staring at what I learned in middle school/early high school over and over again.
Truth is, I enjoyed the concept of Cruel Beauty, but I didn't really enjoy the story... not too much. What originally caught my attention was the very fact that "Belle" is destined to marry the "Beast" ever since she was young due to a bargain her father made (reminds me of another story I can't think of currently). What I thought was even more interesting is how Rosamund Hodge bases the novel on ancient civilizations and mythology, particularly Pandora's box. Actually, I thought it was genius. I also think I've spoken too much about the book with those two words.
What started to lose my attention was this particular sentence... when Nyx – "Belle" of the story – is first married to the Gentle Lord – "Beast" of the story – and makes her entrance into his castle.
<blockquote>“I’m here!” I shouted. “Your bride! Congratulations on your marriage!”</blockquote>
I was like, really? THAT'S how you would make your entrance inside a demon's castle? Me, I would actually start plotting ways OUT of the castle, ways to avoid the Gentle Lord, etc. etc. NOT announcing, "Oh hey! I'm here! Come and feast on me!" *waves big sign*
And the Gentle Lord, no matter how much I like his humor, made a very unimpressive entrance.
<blockquote>In one moment I realized that what tickled my neck was a tuft of black hair, the blankets were a warm body, and the Gentle Lord was draped over me like a lazy cat, his head resting on my shoulder.</blockquote>
His reason?
<blockquote>“I got so bored waiting that I fell asleep too."</blockquote>
And...
<blockquote>“You were a good pillow."</blockquote>
DUDE. Sleeping on your bride when you first meet her even though you're now married? What an impressive husband you make. He could have slept next to her and not on top of her. You know, if a stranger – homeless or not – slept on top of me, I may kick said person's butt until they get off and call it self defense. I suppose some are now worried about my future. I'm completely surprised Nyx didn't mention that he was heavy, sleeping on top of her like that. Instead, this is her response shortly after:
<blockquote>“I’m sorry ,” I said, staring at the floor. “I just, my father made me promise to bring a knife, and— and—” I stuttered, acutely aware that I was half-naked in front of him. “I’m your wife! I burn for your touch! I thirst for your love!”</blockquote>
No offense, but that was so cheesy, it was bleeping hilarious. It's really obvious later from the Gentle Lord's constant mocking that Nyx should just act like herself and not the way her family wants her to act, but Nyx is completely oblivious.
Nyx, in a nutshell, is just the darker version of Belle. The semi-evil twin of Belle I may say, and it's no wonder she's named after the Greek goddess of the Night.
<blockquote>But I was a girl who had broken her sister’s heart and— for a moment— liked it. I had left somebody in torment and liked it.</blockquote>
Rosamund Hodge also implies that Nyx is well... a bit indecisive. In a conflict is more accurate. She wants to please her family – to fit in and meet up to her father's expectations even though he prefers her sister Astraia. Yet at the same time, she doesn't want to kill Ignite or whatever the Gentle Lord calls himself (the book was an e-loan and I'm basing this review off of my notes because I'm too lazy to jump on the hold list yet again) because she's in love with him. I suppose it makes sense in a way, since she wants to go with her emotions yet she's been trained her entire life to kill this one evil guy who isn't actually evil...
<blockquote>“Of course he’s evil and unforgivable.” My voice felt like it was coming from the far end of a long tunnel. “But he is the only reason I ever honored Mother with a clean heart. And if I hadn’t learnt to be kind with him, I would never have come back to beg your forgiveness and choose you over him. So gloat all you want— you deserve to watch us both suffer— but don’t you dare say I will ever be free of him. Every kindness I show you, all the rest of your life, that’s because of him. And no matter how many times I betray him, I will love him still.” </blockquote>
I mean, Nyx is living with the Gentle Lord. She could have just made her decision to live with him always and never guess his name, right?
Cruel Beauty, as much as I like the entire idea behind it, is not one of those fairy tales I find very impressive. It's very much one of those books that I roll my eyes at, especially at how the romance played out (just because I never dated a soul doesn't mean I can't tell).
------------------------
Original Rating: 3.5 out of 5
Original Review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/09/review-cruel-beauty-by-rosamund-hodge.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cG5gfBqJVzk/VA5BIojjZ9I/AAAAAAAAD1g/7srLUfpAGEU/s1600/banner.png"; /></a>
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Nov 10, 2019
Joachim Phoenix - Oscar winning performance? (1 more)
Look and feel of the film - technically brilliant
A loser's tale.
“Joker” has managed to stir up a whirlwind of controversy, centring partly around the level of violence included but also on the use of “that song” on the soundtrack. But putting aside that flurry of commentary, what of the film itself?
Man, this is a dark film! It’s as much of an anti-superhero film as this year’s “Brightburn“. The Batman legacy has addressed the mental state of the protagonists before (both that of the hero and the villains). Here we have a real study of how a mentally unstable no-hoper can be pushed over the edge by bigotry, carelessness and government cut-backs.
Indeed, there is something alarmingly prescient about the movie’s plot line, watching this as we (in the UK) are in the month of possible (or as Boris Johnson would say, definite) Brexit madness! “Is it me, or is it getting crazier out there?” Arthur Fleck muses to his social worker (Sharon Washington). And a rant by Arthur late on goes “Everybody just yells and screams at each other. Nobody’s civil anymore. Nobody thinks what it’s like to be the other guy. You think men like Thomas Wayne ever think what it’s like to be someone like me? To be somebody but themselves? They don’t. They think that we’ll just sit there and take it, like good little boys! That we won’t werewolf and go wild!” Chilling words as we possibly face a very bumpy October and November in the UK.
After reviewing “Judy” I wouldn’t be the least surprised if I’d just seen the Best Actress award bagged (by Renée Zellweger). Now, with “Joker”, surely Joachim Phoenix might bag his first (and well overdue in my book) Oscar. Although nominated before (for “Gladiator”, “Walk the Line” and “The Master”) he’s never won. Here Phoenix’s physical transformation into Arthur Fleck is SIMPLY EXTRAORDINARY. And the way he captures the (medically) induced fits of helpless laughter, ending in a sort of choking fit, is brilliant and replicated to a ‘T’ on multiple occasions.
I loved “You Were Never Really Here“, primarily due to Phoenix’s pitch-perfect performance. And “Joker” reminded me very much of Lynne Ramsey‘s film: a disturbed loner, looking after his elderly mother; with violence meted out to wrong-doers. Joe is almost the yin to Arthur Fleck’s yang: Joe is an invisible man who is very much present; Arthur is a very visible man who thinks he is invisible. There’s even comment by Fleck towards the end of the film that sometimes he thinks he’s ‘not really there at all’! (A deliberate ‘in’ joke in reference to that film?)
After some pretty piss-poor “pension grabs” in recent years, culminating in the appalling career- nadir of “Dirty Grandpa” in 2016, Robert De Niro comes good with a fine performance as the idolised but thoughtless and cruel talk-show host Murray Franklin. It’s very much a supporting role, but delivered with great aplomb.
Also great again is “Deadpool 2“‘s Zazie Beetz (a great trivia answer for an actor with three ‘z’s’ in the name). This angle of the story is deviously clever, and Zazie handles the various twists and turns brilliantly.
Movie violence needs to be taken in context to both the film’s story and to the movie’s certificate. For those expecting a light and fluffy “Avengers” style of movie, they might be shocked by what they see. True that the film definitely pushes the boundaries of what I think is acceptable in a UK15-certificate film. … I suspect there were HEATED discussions at the BBFC after this screening! The violence though seems comparable to some other 15’s I’ve seen: a DIY-store drill scene in “The Equalizer” comes to mind.
A particularly brutal scene is reminiscent of a climactic scene in “Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood“, such that Quentin Tarantino might have just cause to appeal his ‘UK18’ certificate.
You might argue about the level of violence that SHOULD be shown in a 15 certificate film. But I think the violence portrayed – given this is in the known context an origin story for a psychopathic killer – is appropriate. I personally found the Heath Ledger‘s Joker’s “pencil trick” scene in “The Dark Knight” more disturbing, given it was a 12 certificate.
I have less sympathy for the inclusion of “Rock and Roll Part 2” on the soundtrack. The fact that a convicted paedophile (I refuse to say his name) is profiting from the ticket sales is galling. This is almost deliberately courting controversy. There has been some view that this is a “traditional” chant song at US football matches (as “The Hey Song”). But most (all?) teams have now recognized the connection and stopped its use. At least here the director and producers should have more of a ‘world view’ on this.
Where “Hangover” director Todd Phillips does recover some of this respect is in the quality of the script (co-written with Scott Silver) and the direction. It’s misdirection without mis-direction! Some of the twists in the plot (no spoilers here!) I did not see coming, and certain aspects of the story (again no spoilers!) are left brilliantly (and chillingly) vague.
Sure, it borrows heavily in story-line and mood from Martin Scorsese‘s “Taxi Driver”. And I was also reminded of 1993’s Joel Schumacher flick “Falling Down” where Michael Douglas is an ordinary man pushed to the edge and beyond by a series of life’s trials. But if you want to criticise a film for “not being 100% original” then let’s start at the top of the 2019 IMDB listings and keep going! I’ve also seen comment from some that criticises the somewhat clunky overlay of the Batman back-story into the script. I also understand that view but I didn’t personally share it.
Elsewhere I would not be surprised if the movie gets garlanded with technical Oscar nominations aplenty come January. The cinematography, by Phillips-regular Lawrence Sher, is exquisite in setting the grimy 70’s tone. (I loved the retro Warner Brothers logo too). And both video and sound editing is top-notch. Not forgetting a sonorous cello-heavy soundtrack that perfectly suits the mood. Want to put a bet on which film might top the “number of Oscar nominations” list? This might not be a bad choice.
Dark and brooding, with a slow-burn start, this is a proper drama that might make action superhero fans fidgety. But I simply loved it, and would love to carve out the time to give it a re-watch. The Phoenix performance is extraordinary. Will this make my Top 10 of the year? Fingers to head, and pull the trigger…. it’s a no-brainer.
Man, this is a dark film! It’s as much of an anti-superhero film as this year’s “Brightburn“. The Batman legacy has addressed the mental state of the protagonists before (both that of the hero and the villains). Here we have a real study of how a mentally unstable no-hoper can be pushed over the edge by bigotry, carelessness and government cut-backs.
Indeed, there is something alarmingly prescient about the movie’s plot line, watching this as we (in the UK) are in the month of possible (or as Boris Johnson would say, definite) Brexit madness! “Is it me, or is it getting crazier out there?” Arthur Fleck muses to his social worker (Sharon Washington). And a rant by Arthur late on goes “Everybody just yells and screams at each other. Nobody’s civil anymore. Nobody thinks what it’s like to be the other guy. You think men like Thomas Wayne ever think what it’s like to be someone like me? To be somebody but themselves? They don’t. They think that we’ll just sit there and take it, like good little boys! That we won’t werewolf and go wild!” Chilling words as we possibly face a very bumpy October and November in the UK.
After reviewing “Judy” I wouldn’t be the least surprised if I’d just seen the Best Actress award bagged (by Renée Zellweger). Now, with “Joker”, surely Joachim Phoenix might bag his first (and well overdue in my book) Oscar. Although nominated before (for “Gladiator”, “Walk the Line” and “The Master”) he’s never won. Here Phoenix’s physical transformation into Arthur Fleck is SIMPLY EXTRAORDINARY. And the way he captures the (medically) induced fits of helpless laughter, ending in a sort of choking fit, is brilliant and replicated to a ‘T’ on multiple occasions.
I loved “You Were Never Really Here“, primarily due to Phoenix’s pitch-perfect performance. And “Joker” reminded me very much of Lynne Ramsey‘s film: a disturbed loner, looking after his elderly mother; with violence meted out to wrong-doers. Joe is almost the yin to Arthur Fleck’s yang: Joe is an invisible man who is very much present; Arthur is a very visible man who thinks he is invisible. There’s even comment by Fleck towards the end of the film that sometimes he thinks he’s ‘not really there at all’! (A deliberate ‘in’ joke in reference to that film?)
After some pretty piss-poor “pension grabs” in recent years, culminating in the appalling career- nadir of “Dirty Grandpa” in 2016, Robert De Niro comes good with a fine performance as the idolised but thoughtless and cruel talk-show host Murray Franklin. It’s very much a supporting role, but delivered with great aplomb.
Also great again is “Deadpool 2“‘s Zazie Beetz (a great trivia answer for an actor with three ‘z’s’ in the name). This angle of the story is deviously clever, and Zazie handles the various twists and turns brilliantly.
Movie violence needs to be taken in context to both the film’s story and to the movie’s certificate. For those expecting a light and fluffy “Avengers” style of movie, they might be shocked by what they see. True that the film definitely pushes the boundaries of what I think is acceptable in a UK15-certificate film. … I suspect there were HEATED discussions at the BBFC after this screening! The violence though seems comparable to some other 15’s I’ve seen: a DIY-store drill scene in “The Equalizer” comes to mind.
A particularly brutal scene is reminiscent of a climactic scene in “Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood“, such that Quentin Tarantino might have just cause to appeal his ‘UK18’ certificate.
You might argue about the level of violence that SHOULD be shown in a 15 certificate film. But I think the violence portrayed – given this is in the known context an origin story for a psychopathic killer – is appropriate. I personally found the Heath Ledger‘s Joker’s “pencil trick” scene in “The Dark Knight” more disturbing, given it was a 12 certificate.
I have less sympathy for the inclusion of “Rock and Roll Part 2” on the soundtrack. The fact that a convicted paedophile (I refuse to say his name) is profiting from the ticket sales is galling. This is almost deliberately courting controversy. There has been some view that this is a “traditional” chant song at US football matches (as “The Hey Song”). But most (all?) teams have now recognized the connection and stopped its use. At least here the director and producers should have more of a ‘world view’ on this.
Where “Hangover” director Todd Phillips does recover some of this respect is in the quality of the script (co-written with Scott Silver) and the direction. It’s misdirection without mis-direction! Some of the twists in the plot (no spoilers here!) I did not see coming, and certain aspects of the story (again no spoilers!) are left brilliantly (and chillingly) vague.
Sure, it borrows heavily in story-line and mood from Martin Scorsese‘s “Taxi Driver”. And I was also reminded of 1993’s Joel Schumacher flick “Falling Down” where Michael Douglas is an ordinary man pushed to the edge and beyond by a series of life’s trials. But if you want to criticise a film for “not being 100% original” then let’s start at the top of the 2019 IMDB listings and keep going! I’ve also seen comment from some that criticises the somewhat clunky overlay of the Batman back-story into the script. I also understand that view but I didn’t personally share it.
Elsewhere I would not be surprised if the movie gets garlanded with technical Oscar nominations aplenty come January. The cinematography, by Phillips-regular Lawrence Sher, is exquisite in setting the grimy 70’s tone. (I loved the retro Warner Brothers logo too). And both video and sound editing is top-notch. Not forgetting a sonorous cello-heavy soundtrack that perfectly suits the mood. Want to put a bet on which film might top the “number of Oscar nominations” list? This might not be a bad choice.
Dark and brooding, with a slow-burn start, this is a proper drama that might make action superhero fans fidgety. But I simply loved it, and would love to carve out the time to give it a re-watch. The Phoenix performance is extraordinary. Will this make my Top 10 of the year? Fingers to head, and pull the trigger…. it’s a no-brainer.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016) in Movies
Jul 19, 2017
Some of the lighting is well implemented (1 more)
Colin Farrell
Bad CGI (2 more)
The movies 3 leads are extremely annoying
Johnny 'oooh' Depp
Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them - Or JK Rowling and the Never Ending Quest for More Money
Contains spoilers, click to show
First off, full disclosure, I have never been a fan of the Harry Potter franchise. I’ve read a few of the books and seen a few of the movies and it just isn’t my thing. Honestly, I’m not even a fan of fantasy in general, I think Lord Of The Rings is nonsense and Game Of Thrones is vastly overrated and the last Harry Potter movie I saw was the fourth one. However, I was willing to go into this movie with a clean slate and hopefully have it win me over and unfortunately it didn’t. Also this review will contain spoilers if you care about that sort of thing.
This film is a prequel to the other Harry Potter movies, this time set in America rather than Britain and telling the story of the events that led to the great wizarding war between Dumbledore and Grindlewald. The film did have potential, to see what would have essentially been WWII fought with magic could be really cool but unfortunately all we get here is setup and that actual event we want to see will probably take place 4 or 5 movies down the line. The film opens with Eddie Redmayne’s character, Newt Scamander going to New York from London to set free one of the beasts that he keeps inside his Tardis-like brief case. Then he ends up in a bank and meets a ‘Nomaj,’ which is this film’s lazy version of a ‘muggle,’ who we learn is a simple lonely guy that just wants to open his own bakery and that’s another character cliché ticked off the list. We now have the double act of the nerdy, sniveling protagonist and the overweight sympathetic sidekick. Also, for the rest of this review I will be referring to the baker character as fat bloke and this isn’t to be derogatory, but is purely because the script relies on the, ‘fat, jolly, sympathetic, pathetic loner’ stereotype and passes it off as a character arc. If the script isn’t treating the character with any respect, then why should I? So fat bloke it is then.
So the two of them of course have the exact same briefcase and after some cartoony looking CGI animals escape from Redmayne’s case in the bank the suitcases predictably get mixed up and then the fat bloke gets his bakery loan declined and returns home with Redmayne’s suitcase, then more bad CGI animals open the case and attack the fat bloke. Redmayne’s character then gets arrested by some wizarding inspector for letting the, ‘Nomaj,’ (urgh) get away after seeing the animals in the case and is taken to the New York Wizards base, I guess? Then it’s revealed that the wizarding inspector that arrested Redmayne is a bit of a shit inspector and she is trying to redeem herself in the eyes of her superiors, so in front of this high wizard council, she confiscates the case from Redmayne and opens it only to reveal a bunch of cakes inside. Yes, really… Who writes this shit? Rowling is doing to Harry Potter what Lucas did to Star Wars during the prequels at this point.
So Redmayne gets set free and he goes to fat bloke’s house to find him lying on the floor, then some more bad CGI later the inspector turns up and they take him back to her house to meet her sister? Friend? Does it matter? She ends up becoming the love interest for fat bloke. Then for no apparent reason Redmayne and fat bloke enter the case and he shows fat bloke all this crazy shit that apparently humans aren’t supposed to see and then Redmayne does some more sniveling and decides they have to sneak out of the girls’ apartment and recapture the animals that escaped in the bank and from fat bloke’s apartment. They get a couple of the beasts back then they go to central park to find Redmayne’s horny rhino and they dress fat bloke up in a leather rhino costume and use him as rape bait then they ice skate for a bit and capture the rhino. Again, really… I am not making this shit up for satirical reasons.
Then we see a real life prick Ezra Miller playing some sort of weird emo child who is beat by his mother and we see he is working with Colin Farrell to find a big bad dark spirit that is killing people around New York. Colin Farrell is definitely the best thing about the film at this point. After this a bunch of other stupid shit happens, like Ron Perlman and John Voight coming into the movie, showing a ray of potential then being totally wasted. The movie drags in the middle, but eventually after some more fat jokes, bad CGI and sniveling, all of the creatures are captured and Ezra Miller turns into a black death cloud or some such nonsense. Then he is boosting around New York, fucking up shit as he goes and so Redmayne and Farrell follow him down to the subway to stop him. Redmayne seems to be talking him down and then Farrell shows up and essentially tells him to join the dark side. Then there is a CGI wand battle and the council from earlier show up out of nowhere and kill the black cloud of death. Then Colin Farrell gets pissed off and in the best scene in the movie murders half of the council members before he gets arrested by Eddie Redmayne with some magic handcuffs.
Then the worst part in the movie takes place. It is revealed that Colin Farrell is actually Johnny Depp in disguise. I mean he is Grindlewald in disguise but the important part for me is the replacement of Colin Farrell with Johnny Depp. Now I’m not the world’s biggest Colin Farrell fan, he is great in, ‘In Bruges,’ but other than that he is pretty meh, but he was definitely the best thing that this movie had going for it and they fucking swapped him out! With fucking Johnny-‘ooh’-Depp. As if this movie wasn’t shit enough they swapped out the best thing about it for Johnny Depp, the biggest joke in Hollywood. I’m done, fuck this movie, fuck Johnny Depp, fuck JK Rowling, fuck Harry Potter, I’m out.
Okay, let’s briefly talk about the technical side of the film before I score this thing. The whole cast of this movie is phoning it in, so the acting is fine but nothing to write home about, Farrell is the best thing in this movie, but I feel that in the sequels it will just be an ‘ooh,’ off between Depp and Redmayne. The direction is okay as the movie plods along sufficiently, but the writing is wildly inconsistent and the plot as stated above is all over the place. The lighting and cinematography in one scene are fantastic, when Farrell and Miller are conversing in a dark alleyway but other than that they are pretty mundane too. The score is suitably Harry Potter like and the CGI is also to a similar standard of the Harry Potter films. The problem with that is that the CGI was ropey and of a fairly poor standard in the Harry Potter movies 10 years ago and it doesn’t seem like it has improved much since then. This movie isn’t for me, but even from an objective standpoint, based solely from a moviemaking perspective this movie is poor.
This film is a prequel to the other Harry Potter movies, this time set in America rather than Britain and telling the story of the events that led to the great wizarding war between Dumbledore and Grindlewald. The film did have potential, to see what would have essentially been WWII fought with magic could be really cool but unfortunately all we get here is setup and that actual event we want to see will probably take place 4 or 5 movies down the line. The film opens with Eddie Redmayne’s character, Newt Scamander going to New York from London to set free one of the beasts that he keeps inside his Tardis-like brief case. Then he ends up in a bank and meets a ‘Nomaj,’ which is this film’s lazy version of a ‘muggle,’ who we learn is a simple lonely guy that just wants to open his own bakery and that’s another character cliché ticked off the list. We now have the double act of the nerdy, sniveling protagonist and the overweight sympathetic sidekick. Also, for the rest of this review I will be referring to the baker character as fat bloke and this isn’t to be derogatory, but is purely because the script relies on the, ‘fat, jolly, sympathetic, pathetic loner’ stereotype and passes it off as a character arc. If the script isn’t treating the character with any respect, then why should I? So fat bloke it is then.
So the two of them of course have the exact same briefcase and after some cartoony looking CGI animals escape from Redmayne’s case in the bank the suitcases predictably get mixed up and then the fat bloke gets his bakery loan declined and returns home with Redmayne’s suitcase, then more bad CGI animals open the case and attack the fat bloke. Redmayne’s character then gets arrested by some wizarding inspector for letting the, ‘Nomaj,’ (urgh) get away after seeing the animals in the case and is taken to the New York Wizards base, I guess? Then it’s revealed that the wizarding inspector that arrested Redmayne is a bit of a shit inspector and she is trying to redeem herself in the eyes of her superiors, so in front of this high wizard council, she confiscates the case from Redmayne and opens it only to reveal a bunch of cakes inside. Yes, really… Who writes this shit? Rowling is doing to Harry Potter what Lucas did to Star Wars during the prequels at this point.
So Redmayne gets set free and he goes to fat bloke’s house to find him lying on the floor, then some more bad CGI later the inspector turns up and they take him back to her house to meet her sister? Friend? Does it matter? She ends up becoming the love interest for fat bloke. Then for no apparent reason Redmayne and fat bloke enter the case and he shows fat bloke all this crazy shit that apparently humans aren’t supposed to see and then Redmayne does some more sniveling and decides they have to sneak out of the girls’ apartment and recapture the animals that escaped in the bank and from fat bloke’s apartment. They get a couple of the beasts back then they go to central park to find Redmayne’s horny rhino and they dress fat bloke up in a leather rhino costume and use him as rape bait then they ice skate for a bit and capture the rhino. Again, really… I am not making this shit up for satirical reasons.
Then we see a real life prick Ezra Miller playing some sort of weird emo child who is beat by his mother and we see he is working with Colin Farrell to find a big bad dark spirit that is killing people around New York. Colin Farrell is definitely the best thing about the film at this point. After this a bunch of other stupid shit happens, like Ron Perlman and John Voight coming into the movie, showing a ray of potential then being totally wasted. The movie drags in the middle, but eventually after some more fat jokes, bad CGI and sniveling, all of the creatures are captured and Ezra Miller turns into a black death cloud or some such nonsense. Then he is boosting around New York, fucking up shit as he goes and so Redmayne and Farrell follow him down to the subway to stop him. Redmayne seems to be talking him down and then Farrell shows up and essentially tells him to join the dark side. Then there is a CGI wand battle and the council from earlier show up out of nowhere and kill the black cloud of death. Then Colin Farrell gets pissed off and in the best scene in the movie murders half of the council members before he gets arrested by Eddie Redmayne with some magic handcuffs.
Then the worst part in the movie takes place. It is revealed that Colin Farrell is actually Johnny Depp in disguise. I mean he is Grindlewald in disguise but the important part for me is the replacement of Colin Farrell with Johnny Depp. Now I’m not the world’s biggest Colin Farrell fan, he is great in, ‘In Bruges,’ but other than that he is pretty meh, but he was definitely the best thing that this movie had going for it and they fucking swapped him out! With fucking Johnny-‘ooh’-Depp. As if this movie wasn’t shit enough they swapped out the best thing about it for Johnny Depp, the biggest joke in Hollywood. I’m done, fuck this movie, fuck Johnny Depp, fuck JK Rowling, fuck Harry Potter, I’m out.
Okay, let’s briefly talk about the technical side of the film before I score this thing. The whole cast of this movie is phoning it in, so the acting is fine but nothing to write home about, Farrell is the best thing in this movie, but I feel that in the sequels it will just be an ‘ooh,’ off between Depp and Redmayne. The direction is okay as the movie plods along sufficiently, but the writing is wildly inconsistent and the plot as stated above is all over the place. The lighting and cinematography in one scene are fantastic, when Farrell and Miller are conversing in a dark alleyway but other than that they are pretty mundane too. The score is suitably Harry Potter like and the CGI is also to a similar standard of the Harry Potter films. The problem with that is that the CGI was ropey and of a fairly poor standard in the Harry Potter movies 10 years ago and it doesn’t seem like it has improved much since then. This movie isn’t for me, but even from an objective standpoint, based solely from a moviemaking perspective this movie is poor.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mank (2020) in Movies
Dec 10, 2020
Cinematography - glorious to look at (1 more)
A fabulous ensemble cast, with Oldham, Seyfried, Arliss and Dance excelling
"Mank" is a biopic slice of the career of Herman Jacob Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman), the Hollywood screenwriter who was the pen behind what is regularly voted by critics as being the greatest movie of all time - "Citizen Kane". "Citizen Kane" was written in 1940 (and released the following year) and much of the action in "Mank" takes place in a retreat in the Mojave desert when Mank, crippled by a full-cast on the leg, has been 'sent' by Orson Welles (Tom Burke) to complete the screenplay without alcohol and other worldly distractions. Helping administer to his writing and care needs are English typist Rita Alexander (Lily Collins) and carer Fraulein Freda (Monika Gossmann). However, although Mank produces brilliant stuff, his speed of progress exasperates his 'minder' and editor John Houseman (Sam Troughton). (Yes, THAT John Houseman, the actor.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
Cyn Armistead (14 KP) rated Carniepunk in Books
Mar 1, 2018
As soon as I read about this collection on Kevin Hearne's Facebook, I knew I would be buying it. I don't care for carnivals at all, and every story will be related to one in some way - but there was just no way I was going to miss an Atticus and Oberon story! I even pre-ordered the book on Amazon, the first time I've ever done that. It was SO hard not to skip right ahead and read Hearne's contribution the moment the book was in my hot little hands, but I managed some discipline.
Rob Thurman's "Painted Love" opens the book. It is dark, but to be fair it isn't quite as dark as the only Thurman novel I've read, from the Cal Leandros series. I rather liked the twist. I adored the fiercely protective older sister, especially the way she is described. I'll rate this one at three.
I don't believe I've ever read anything by Delilah S. Dawson before, certainly not anything in the Blud universe, so I had no idea what to expect from "The Three Lives of Lydia." It was a far darker story than I would generally choose to read. I found the male love interest highly appealing. The portrayal of mental illness was horrific. I found it interesting that Dawson is an Atlantan as well as a fellow geeky mom, but I'm sure that I've never heard of her before. She does have a book coming out next year that looks promising, so I may give it a read. This one's a two.
Then there is the Iron Druid story! "The Demon Barker of Wheat Street" is set a few books back in the series' chronology (two weeks after "Two Ravens and One Crow"), so Granuaille isn't yet a full Druid. To make things even more interesting, Atticus accidentally offended the local elemental many years ago, so his magic doesn't work as well as usual in the area. The story isn't vital to the series, and knowledge of the series isn't necessary for enjoying it. Hearne's fans definitely won't want to miss it, though, and it could be used as a nice little taste of his style for new readers. Definitely a five.
I couldn't make it through "The Sweeter the Juice" by Mark Henry. Zombies are disgusting, but I was way squicked before the first walking dead even appeared on the scene. A one, just because there are no zeroes.
Jaye Wells is another new-to-me author, as far as I can remember at the moment. I didn't really like "The Werewife," to be honest. There was no joy anywhere in this story. There wasn't even a hint that perhaps the couple in the story had been happy together at one time. Both of them seemed pretty miserable, and I didn't like the way it ended. It didn't seem like there was any way to give them a happy ending, but that ending didn't feel "true." It gets a two, and that's only to set it apart from the previous story.
"The Cold Girl" by Rachel Caine is about an abusive teen relationship. Oh, and vampires. I'm not a Caine fan, but this story was better than some of her other work. Again, too dark for my tastes. If half stars were possible, it would have one. I'll be nice and round up to three.
The name Allison Pang sounds familiar, so maybe I've read something by her in the past. If I did, I'm certain that it wasn't set in the same world as "A Duet With Darkness," which says it is an Abby Sinclair story. I found the main character to be an annoying, immature twit, but I'm a sucker for fiction with musical influences. The music is well-done here. I don't know if I will read anything more by Ms. Pang or not - I suppose that depends on whether or not her other work has better characters and is also musical. This one gets a four.
I found "Recession of the Divine" by Hillary Jacques fascinating. The Greek inspiration was unusual. I didn't really buy the customers being quite so unquestioning of Ophelia's state, but it wasn't a major complaint overall. I was highly disappointed to find nothing but a credit in another anthology for her. But! Reading the author profiles at the end of the book pays off, because that's how I learned that she also writes as Regan Summers. Now her works published under that name are on my to-read shelf. Another five.
Jennifer Estep's "Parlor Tricks" was actually released free on Amazon a little while back to promote Carniepunk, so it was the first story I read. I enjoy the Elemental Assassin series in general, and this story is no exception. Again, knowledge of the series is not required to understand the story, and the story is not vital to the series. It is a nice little sample, though, and I enjoyed seeing Gin and Bria having a sisterly outing. I'm probably biased, but it gets a five.
I liked Kelly Meding's "Freak House" a lot, and her name sounded familiar, but the story was set in the "Strays" universe, which I was certain I had never heard of before. I actually stirred myself to look her up, and learned that I've had one of her books on my to-read list for ages, and Strays is a new series she's just starting. Djinn, werewolves, vampires, pixies, harpies, leprechauns, skinwalkers, and more, some "out" to humans, some living hidden - what's not to love? This one gets a four.
Nicole Peeler us yet another author who sounded vaguely familiar to me, and yep, there is one of her books on my to-read list (yes, it is massive, why do you ask?). It is, in fact, the first of the Jane True books, and "The Inside Man" is set in that world. Peeler's writing style dies not flow for me, but I liked Capitola Jones and her friends Shar and Moo. As clowns are indisputably evil, I had little to complain about in the story. It gets a three.
Succubus (former?) Jezzie is the main character in Jackie Kessler's story "A Chance in Hell." Obviously, the story is set her Hell on Earth series. I had to look that up, though, because while I know you're shocked, her name did not ring any bells for me. I don't actually have ALL the urban fantasy books on my to-read or read lists! The piece opens with a confusing remark about a demon eating Jezebel's face, when that definitely is not the anatomy in question. If that's a common euphemism, it is wholly new to me. Within the next couple of pages there are multiple references to the fact that she has fallen in love with a human since becoming mortal, but absolutely no explanation of how she would reconcile sex with an incubus with her human love. As much as I would prefer that it were not the case, the default assumption in our society is that people are monogamous. Therefore, when there is a deviation from that norm, the reader expects - something. Is it supposed to demonstrate that the fictional society is different? Is the character in an explicitly non-monogamous relationship? Is her love unrequited? Is the guy dead? Do demons not count? Is she just a skanky ho? Then this great love isn't mentioned again for the rest of the story, so none of the questions raised are answered. Oh. There is, in fact, a plot here, but I was so annoyed by that stuff that I almost failed to notice it. Demonic circus, yo. The whole demon thing reminds me too much of another series I've read in the past. I can't even remember the author's name, much less the title, right now, but Kessler's work feels derivative. She gets a two.
Next up is Kelly Gay - Hey look! Another author whose name I don't recognize! - with "Hell's Menagerie," a Charlie Madigan short story. Okay, this series is set in an alternate Atlanta. As an Atlanta girl, that certainly gets my attention. And Charlie is a single mother. I don't recall any other single mothers in the UF world right off. (Kate Daniels doesn't quite count, because she adopted her daughter as a teen. Although it is interesting to note that Kate is also Atlanta-based.) I was ready to like this one, based solely on what I knew of the series. Then there was a grammatical error on the second page of the story that set my teeth on edge, one which could not be chalked up to a character's voice. Add in the fact that we get a fast, "and also, Jim" style introduction to Charlie (who isn't even present in the story!), Rex, and Emma in less than two pages, and I am officially annoyed. It isn't an old matinee movie, so surely that information could have been worked in a little more naturally? Emma won me over. Mostly. There's some, "Not another super-gifted kid," reaction, but I guess if the mother is supposed to be all that it's to be expected that the daughter might be special, too. Hmm. A three.
The last piece is Seaman McGuire's "Daughter of the Midway, the Mermaid, and the Open, Lonely, Sea." Is that title a mouthful, or what? It has the feel of a Toby Daye story, although it isn't subtitled as such, and there are no fae so maybe it isn't in that universe at all. As there are other stories in the book that are set in the same world as their author's series, yet not marked in any way, lack of a subtitle can't be taken as a negative indicator, though. In any case, the story is poignant, which I've come to expect from McGuire. I didn't really like it, but I didn't dislike it, either. I couldn't "feel" Ada in any true sense. I have the same problem with Toby. A three at best.
Overall, the book was decent. The ratings only average out to 3.21, but I'm very glad to have read the stories by Hearne and Estep. Discovering Jacques/Summers was absolutely worthwhile. I really hate that I read as much of Henry's story as I did. If I could delete that from my memory, it would probably raise the rating for everything else.
Rob Thurman's "Painted Love" opens the book. It is dark, but to be fair it isn't quite as dark as the only Thurman novel I've read, from the Cal Leandros series. I rather liked the twist. I adored the fiercely protective older sister, especially the way she is described. I'll rate this one at three.
I don't believe I've ever read anything by Delilah S. Dawson before, certainly not anything in the Blud universe, so I had no idea what to expect from "The Three Lives of Lydia." It was a far darker story than I would generally choose to read. I found the male love interest highly appealing. The portrayal of mental illness was horrific. I found it interesting that Dawson is an Atlantan as well as a fellow geeky mom, but I'm sure that I've never heard of her before. She does have a book coming out next year that looks promising, so I may give it a read. This one's a two.
Then there is the Iron Druid story! "The Demon Barker of Wheat Street" is set a few books back in the series' chronology (two weeks after "Two Ravens and One Crow"), so Granuaille isn't yet a full Druid. To make things even more interesting, Atticus accidentally offended the local elemental many years ago, so his magic doesn't work as well as usual in the area. The story isn't vital to the series, and knowledge of the series isn't necessary for enjoying it. Hearne's fans definitely won't want to miss it, though, and it could be used as a nice little taste of his style for new readers. Definitely a five.
I couldn't make it through "The Sweeter the Juice" by Mark Henry. Zombies are disgusting, but I was way squicked before the first walking dead even appeared on the scene. A one, just because there are no zeroes.
Jaye Wells is another new-to-me author, as far as I can remember at the moment. I didn't really like "The Werewife," to be honest. There was no joy anywhere in this story. There wasn't even a hint that perhaps the couple in the story had been happy together at one time. Both of them seemed pretty miserable, and I didn't like the way it ended. It didn't seem like there was any way to give them a happy ending, but that ending didn't feel "true." It gets a two, and that's only to set it apart from the previous story.
"The Cold Girl" by Rachel Caine is about an abusive teen relationship. Oh, and vampires. I'm not a Caine fan, but this story was better than some of her other work. Again, too dark for my tastes. If half stars were possible, it would have one. I'll be nice and round up to three.
The name Allison Pang sounds familiar, so maybe I've read something by her in the past. If I did, I'm certain that it wasn't set in the same world as "A Duet With Darkness," which says it is an Abby Sinclair story. I found the main character to be an annoying, immature twit, but I'm a sucker for fiction with musical influences. The music is well-done here. I don't know if I will read anything more by Ms. Pang or not - I suppose that depends on whether or not her other work has better characters and is also musical. This one gets a four.
I found "Recession of the Divine" by Hillary Jacques fascinating. The Greek inspiration was unusual. I didn't really buy the customers being quite so unquestioning of Ophelia's state, but it wasn't a major complaint overall. I was highly disappointed to find nothing but a credit in another anthology for her. But! Reading the author profiles at the end of the book pays off, because that's how I learned that she also writes as Regan Summers. Now her works published under that name are on my to-read shelf. Another five.
Jennifer Estep's "Parlor Tricks" was actually released free on Amazon a little while back to promote Carniepunk, so it was the first story I read. I enjoy the Elemental Assassin series in general, and this story is no exception. Again, knowledge of the series is not required to understand the story, and the story is not vital to the series. It is a nice little sample, though, and I enjoyed seeing Gin and Bria having a sisterly outing. I'm probably biased, but it gets a five.
I liked Kelly Meding's "Freak House" a lot, and her name sounded familiar, but the story was set in the "Strays" universe, which I was certain I had never heard of before. I actually stirred myself to look her up, and learned that I've had one of her books on my to-read list for ages, and Strays is a new series she's just starting. Djinn, werewolves, vampires, pixies, harpies, leprechauns, skinwalkers, and more, some "out" to humans, some living hidden - what's not to love? This one gets a four.
Nicole Peeler us yet another author who sounded vaguely familiar to me, and yep, there is one of her books on my to-read list (yes, it is massive, why do you ask?). It is, in fact, the first of the Jane True books, and "The Inside Man" is set in that world. Peeler's writing style dies not flow for me, but I liked Capitola Jones and her friends Shar and Moo. As clowns are indisputably evil, I had little to complain about in the story. It gets a three.
Succubus (former?) Jezzie is the main character in Jackie Kessler's story "A Chance in Hell." Obviously, the story is set her Hell on Earth series. I had to look that up, though, because while I know you're shocked, her name did not ring any bells for me. I don't actually have ALL the urban fantasy books on my to-read or read lists! The piece opens with a confusing remark about a demon eating Jezebel's face, when that definitely is not the anatomy in question. If that's a common euphemism, it is wholly new to me. Within the next couple of pages there are multiple references to the fact that she has fallen in love with a human since becoming mortal, but absolutely no explanation of how she would reconcile sex with an incubus with her human love. As much as I would prefer that it were not the case, the default assumption in our society is that people are monogamous. Therefore, when there is a deviation from that norm, the reader expects - something. Is it supposed to demonstrate that the fictional society is different? Is the character in an explicitly non-monogamous relationship? Is her love unrequited? Is the guy dead? Do demons not count? Is she just a skanky ho? Then this great love isn't mentioned again for the rest of the story, so none of the questions raised are answered. Oh. There is, in fact, a plot here, but I was so annoyed by that stuff that I almost failed to notice it. Demonic circus, yo. The whole demon thing reminds me too much of another series I've read in the past. I can't even remember the author's name, much less the title, right now, but Kessler's work feels derivative. She gets a two.
Next up is Kelly Gay - Hey look! Another author whose name I don't recognize! - with "Hell's Menagerie," a Charlie Madigan short story. Okay, this series is set in an alternate Atlanta. As an Atlanta girl, that certainly gets my attention. And Charlie is a single mother. I don't recall any other single mothers in the UF world right off. (Kate Daniels doesn't quite count, because she adopted her daughter as a teen. Although it is interesting to note that Kate is also Atlanta-based.) I was ready to like this one, based solely on what I knew of the series. Then there was a grammatical error on the second page of the story that set my teeth on edge, one which could not be chalked up to a character's voice. Add in the fact that we get a fast, "and also, Jim" style introduction to Charlie (who isn't even present in the story!), Rex, and Emma in less than two pages, and I am officially annoyed. It isn't an old matinee movie, so surely that information could have been worked in a little more naturally? Emma won me over. Mostly. There's some, "Not another super-gifted kid," reaction, but I guess if the mother is supposed to be all that it's to be expected that the daughter might be special, too. Hmm. A three.
The last piece is Seaman McGuire's "Daughter of the Midway, the Mermaid, and the Open, Lonely, Sea." Is that title a mouthful, or what? It has the feel of a Toby Daye story, although it isn't subtitled as such, and there are no fae so maybe it isn't in that universe at all. As there are other stories in the book that are set in the same world as their author's series, yet not marked in any way, lack of a subtitle can't be taken as a negative indicator, though. In any case, the story is poignant, which I've come to expect from McGuire. I didn't really like it, but I didn't dislike it, either. I couldn't "feel" Ada in any true sense. I have the same problem with Toby. A three at best.
Overall, the book was decent. The ratings only average out to 3.21, but I'm very glad to have read the stories by Hearne and Estep. Discovering Jacques/Summers was absolutely worthwhile. I really hate that I read as much of Henry's story as I did. If I could delete that from my memory, it would probably raise the rating for everything else.