Search
Search results
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Supernatural - Season 1 in TV
Apr 20, 2017
Great Character development (2 more)
Brilliant take on the myths/legends lore
Somewhat educational
Saving People, Hunting Things, The Family Business...
Supernatural Season One first aired in 2005, and I was only 10 years old when I first watched it with my Dad. I didn't sleep for right for ages and didn't look in a mirror for a long time. However, now when I watch it, this show still has the horror factor but my brain has grown accustomed to the genre so it doesn't necessarily frighten me these days but it is very creepy.
The first thing I loved about this show was that the lore's it followed were real from the legend of Bloody Mary, to the Woman in White and even a Wendigo. I knew about these legends but this show taught me more about what people believed about them and how they came to be, so this show is somewhat educational as well as being a great action horror drama show.
SPOILERS AHEAD!
So in Season One we are introduced to a family who witness the death of their mother/wife as she bursts into a fiery explosion on the ceiling of baby Sam's nursery room. Fast forward years later and Sam's in college/university and has left his past behind him until his brother Dean shows up to tell him their Dad has gone missing after a 'Hunting' trip.
This is where we learn that Sam, Dean and their Father, were actual in the life of Hunters who hunt down demons, ghosts/spirits, and monsters.
This show takes you one a journey with Sam and Dean saving lives from all sorts of strange and horrifying evil beings, who don't always turn out to be an evil being, just tortured or maybe even a being trying to warn them of a greater evil.
The effects are on par with a lot of big budget movies, even better than some of the most recent box office hits and in 2005, that says a lot about how the show can only get better with age. And it has!
Writer Eric Kripke truly did create something spectacular and to say that it's still running to this day, with a whole 12 seasons finished and a 13th season coming soon, it's hard to believe that it can still stay fresh and entertaining with this genre, but when you watch this show I guarantee you'll be entertained as there are dozens of pop culture references in every episode from X- Files to Lord of the Rings and many more, and with soundtracks that include rock and metal bands such as AC/DC it's hard to wrap your head around just how awesome this show is.
Many episodes are either named after movies ("Children Shouldn't Play with Dead Things", "The Usual Suspects", "I Know What You Did Last Summer") or classic rock songs ("In My Time of Dying", "Born Under a Bad Sign", "What is and What Should Never Be", "Sympathy For The Devil", "When The Levee Breaks"). - Copied from IMDB
The on screen chemistry between characters is brilliant and more often than not, even in serious situations, it can become hilarious with cheesy one liners or pop culture references used with perfect timing to lighten the mood of the show.
Sam and Dean (portrayed by Jared Padalecki and Jensen Ackles) have some of the best character development that I've seen in a show, and sometimes throughout the different series' the formula of arguing, falling out, and coming back to one another, can become somewhat tedious and repetitive making you scream at the TV saying "WHY!? YOU KNOW YOU'RE JUST GOING TO REALIZE YOU NEED EACH OTHER!" but if you think about it, that's how brothers would be in this situation. Having to spend every day with your brother on the road fighting the unthinkable, it would be stressful and tensions would run high, but you'd soon realize that after everything you've been through, who else could you feel comfortable around?
If you're into the paranormal or want to start learning more about different paranormal legends then this is the show for you.
TIP: For further entertainment, watch the bloopers. Some of the most hilarious clips I have ever seen from a show ;)
The first thing I loved about this show was that the lore's it followed were real from the legend of Bloody Mary, to the Woman in White and even a Wendigo. I knew about these legends but this show taught me more about what people believed about them and how they came to be, so this show is somewhat educational as well as being a great action horror drama show.
SPOILERS AHEAD!
So in Season One we are introduced to a family who witness the death of their mother/wife as she bursts into a fiery explosion on the ceiling of baby Sam's nursery room. Fast forward years later and Sam's in college/university and has left his past behind him until his brother Dean shows up to tell him their Dad has gone missing after a 'Hunting' trip.
This is where we learn that Sam, Dean and their Father, were actual in the life of Hunters who hunt down demons, ghosts/spirits, and monsters.
This show takes you one a journey with Sam and Dean saving lives from all sorts of strange and horrifying evil beings, who don't always turn out to be an evil being, just tortured or maybe even a being trying to warn them of a greater evil.
The effects are on par with a lot of big budget movies, even better than some of the most recent box office hits and in 2005, that says a lot about how the show can only get better with age. And it has!
Writer Eric Kripke truly did create something spectacular and to say that it's still running to this day, with a whole 12 seasons finished and a 13th season coming soon, it's hard to believe that it can still stay fresh and entertaining with this genre, but when you watch this show I guarantee you'll be entertained as there are dozens of pop culture references in every episode from X- Files to Lord of the Rings and many more, and with soundtracks that include rock and metal bands such as AC/DC it's hard to wrap your head around just how awesome this show is.
Many episodes are either named after movies ("Children Shouldn't Play with Dead Things", "The Usual Suspects", "I Know What You Did Last Summer") or classic rock songs ("In My Time of Dying", "Born Under a Bad Sign", "What is and What Should Never Be", "Sympathy For The Devil", "When The Levee Breaks"). - Copied from IMDB
The on screen chemistry between characters is brilliant and more often than not, even in serious situations, it can become hilarious with cheesy one liners or pop culture references used with perfect timing to lighten the mood of the show.
Sam and Dean (portrayed by Jared Padalecki and Jensen Ackles) have some of the best character development that I've seen in a show, and sometimes throughout the different series' the formula of arguing, falling out, and coming back to one another, can become somewhat tedious and repetitive making you scream at the TV saying "WHY!? YOU KNOW YOU'RE JUST GOING TO REALIZE YOU NEED EACH OTHER!" but if you think about it, that's how brothers would be in this situation. Having to spend every day with your brother on the road fighting the unthinkable, it would be stressful and tensions would run high, but you'd soon realize that after everything you've been through, who else could you feel comfortable around?
If you're into the paranormal or want to start learning more about different paranormal legends then this is the show for you.
TIP: For further entertainment, watch the bloopers. Some of the most hilarious clips I have ever seen from a show ;)
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Almost Missed You in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Violet and Finn are one of those couples that everyone believes is meant to be. Their story is one entwined with fate. They met once by chance and were reunited years later. Now married, with a young son, everything seems great for the couple. While vacationing in Florida, Violet cannot believe her good fortune. So imagine her shock when she returns from a relaxing nap on the beach to find their hotel room empty: Finn has vanished, and he has taken Bear, their son, with him. Violet has no explanation for this, and the FBI is quickly involved. Meanwhile, Finn's closest friend, Caitlin--who has become Violet's dear friend too--becomes entwined in the disappearance when Finn enlists her help. Will Violet ever see her son again? And why exactly did Finn vanish from that beach?
This novel definitely sucks you in right away. It's confusing and intriguing, as you're completely puzzled as to why Finn would run off and leave his beloved wife (and why would he take their son, too). In the beginning, I did not want to stop reading: the novel was completely addictive. Strawser slowly adds in additional details that thicken the plot, making Caitlin and her husband, George, as much as a part of the story as Finn and Violet. It's told in alternating points of view (Violet, Caitlin, Finn) and time periods, including after the kidnapping incident and before, leading up to Violet and Finn's history together. This effectively builds suspense and can drive you a tad insane, as a chapter in the past ends, leaving you dangling and wanting more details.
The problem for me was that, over time, the characters almost seemed their own worst enemies. Rather than a mystery/suspense novel, the book turns more psychological (nothing necessarily wrong with that) with each character bemoaning their various choices that have led up to this point. And seriously, they've made some stupid choices. It's one of those things where you want to scream: if you'd all just have talked to each other! Communication! Some of the ways of handling things seem awfully impractical for such serious issues (case in point: just about anything Caitlin does with her life, including her way of addressing the kidnapping).
Still, the novel continues to churn out some crazy twists, making it very interesting. The unveiling of Finn's past really carries the book about 3/4 through. You're continually wondering what happened, what he owes various characters, and why on earth he'd want to leave Violet (and take Bear).
As much as I enjoyed this novel and how suspenseful it was, I was frustrated by the characters - none of whom I cared for much at all beyond Violet. (I would have just strangled Finn if possible and potentially even Caitlin.) Again, some communication could have really saved some preposterous plot movements. There are a few times where characters seem to act way out of line for their development, etc. As the book nears a close, it drags on with their in-fighting and psychological messes, versus actual excitement, which was a little disappointing. I felt like we'd been through a lot of excitement for nothing and come out at the end with little but an emotional saga. The ending is awfully pat, too, and makes you think, really?
However, I truly did enjoy most of this book and found it incredibly suspenseful. It's easy to read and draws you in immediately. Even if you don't like all the characters, you'll be intrigued by their predicaments and the entire scenario. I'd certainly be interested in what Strawser comes up with next. 3.5 stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review; it is available everywhere as of 03/28/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a></center>;
This novel definitely sucks you in right away. It's confusing and intriguing, as you're completely puzzled as to why Finn would run off and leave his beloved wife (and why would he take their son, too). In the beginning, I did not want to stop reading: the novel was completely addictive. Strawser slowly adds in additional details that thicken the plot, making Caitlin and her husband, George, as much as a part of the story as Finn and Violet. It's told in alternating points of view (Violet, Caitlin, Finn) and time periods, including after the kidnapping incident and before, leading up to Violet and Finn's history together. This effectively builds suspense and can drive you a tad insane, as a chapter in the past ends, leaving you dangling and wanting more details.
The problem for me was that, over time, the characters almost seemed their own worst enemies. Rather than a mystery/suspense novel, the book turns more psychological (nothing necessarily wrong with that) with each character bemoaning their various choices that have led up to this point. And seriously, they've made some stupid choices. It's one of those things where you want to scream: if you'd all just have talked to each other! Communication! Some of the ways of handling things seem awfully impractical for such serious issues (case in point: just about anything Caitlin does with her life, including her way of addressing the kidnapping).
Still, the novel continues to churn out some crazy twists, making it very interesting. The unveiling of Finn's past really carries the book about 3/4 through. You're continually wondering what happened, what he owes various characters, and why on earth he'd want to leave Violet (and take Bear).
As much as I enjoyed this novel and how suspenseful it was, I was frustrated by the characters - none of whom I cared for much at all beyond Violet. (I would have just strangled Finn if possible and potentially even Caitlin.) Again, some communication could have really saved some preposterous plot movements. There are a few times where characters seem to act way out of line for their development, etc. As the book nears a close, it drags on with their in-fighting and psychological messes, versus actual excitement, which was a little disappointing. I felt like we'd been through a lot of excitement for nothing and come out at the end with little but an emotional saga. The ending is awfully pat, too, and makes you think, really?
However, I truly did enjoy most of this book and found it incredibly suspenseful. It's easy to read and draws you in immediately. Even if you don't like all the characters, you'll be intrigued by their predicaments and the entire scenario. I'd certainly be interested in what Strawser comes up with next. 3.5 stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review; it is available everywhere as of 03/28/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a></center>;
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Chandrea: The Return of the Avatar Queen (Averill, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
I was overly excited to review Marlene Wynn's The Return of the Avatar Queen when I heard what genre it fell in the New Adult world: fantasy. NOT Contemporary or Romance (or both!) like most seem to be these days. Really, the only New Adult book I've come across that's something other than Contemporary is the Everlast Trilogy by Juliana Haygert (among a few others).
The first in the Averill series is just another step towards some more diversity in the ever growing pool of New Adult books. But here are a few reasons why you should take a moment and read Marlene Wynn's debut novel:
Character Development and World Building Here's what is probably one of the most difficult things in fantasy and paranormal novels: developing the world the entire world, because in a fantasy book, most worlds are fictional and completely made up! Wynn has it patted down nicely enough within the book that it's not necessary to have a separate dictionary. I definitely feel as though I know enough about the world of Itova as Chandrea does, and the characters don't feel as though they're miles away from me.
<img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NQ6pA2Tm_Sk/VIi50dboa_I/AAAAAAAAEEg/IQqffnS_y1w/s1600/awesome.gif"; height="180" width="320">
It's Funny I had the highlight of my book week while reading Wynn's novel, but whenever there are flying raccoons, I can't really help but find it hilarious. It definitely helps when Shawn becomes a major character and lightens things up. He's just a fantastic edition to the book and he seems to make the lighter side of Chandrea come out as well I certainly hope the author won't kill him off anytime soon. Not that I actually have a say, of course.
<blockquote>If you dont, I wont bathe, and Ill sleep curled up right next to you, in all my stinky glory.</blockquote>
Of course, it's definitely not as hilarious as something I saw in a NCRA magazine about a month ago, or finding out what "bae" really means in another language.
No Surprises This is more of something I really disliked about The Return of the Avatar Queen rather than something I liked. As much as I love knowing all the side characters' history, I really think I would have enjoyed my reading experience more if there were less views. With the amount of views (which, by the way, is quite a lot), I feel as though I'm one step ahead and the author loses the element of surprise. Whatever seems likely to happen in the future to a character or two is already expected by the reader.
Last time I checked, not being surprised does not dwell well. But credit to Wynn for not making me feel like Hansel and Gretel with bread baked by Peeta, to which I turn into crumbs (the bread, not Peeta). Two facts: 1) I like surprises in books. 2) I don't necessarily like surprises in real life.
Here's a little elaboration on #2: A good friend of mine I call him Mr. Pokey and yes, he's probably related to Lupe. AKA Miss. Pokey. volunteered to take me to chess tournaments. A few days later, his mom said she could take both of us, but said friend told our coach that I could go without telling me about it first. As a result, I'm have been plotting his demise. Would I really do it? No, but sometimes I want to throw something at his infuriatingly overconfident face.
So here's a word of advice: Don't try to make decisions for others without telling them about it first. At least, don't make decisions for me unless you're my mom. You could regret it dearly.
Basically, you won't really regret reading The Return of the Avatar Queen. Marlene Wynn's debut novel shows a lot of promise in the future and I'm curious as to where the storyline goes from here on out.
-------------------
Review copy provided by the author for the blog tour
Original Rating: 3.5
Original review posted on <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/12/blog-tour-chandrea-the-return-of-the-avatar-queen-by-marlene-wynn-review-and-giveaway.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>
The first in the Averill series is just another step towards some more diversity in the ever growing pool of New Adult books. But here are a few reasons why you should take a moment and read Marlene Wynn's debut novel:
Character Development and World Building Here's what is probably one of the most difficult things in fantasy and paranormal novels: developing the world the entire world, because in a fantasy book, most worlds are fictional and completely made up! Wynn has it patted down nicely enough within the book that it's not necessary to have a separate dictionary. I definitely feel as though I know enough about the world of Itova as Chandrea does, and the characters don't feel as though they're miles away from me.
<img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NQ6pA2Tm_Sk/VIi50dboa_I/AAAAAAAAEEg/IQqffnS_y1w/s1600/awesome.gif"; height="180" width="320">
It's Funny I had the highlight of my book week while reading Wynn's novel, but whenever there are flying raccoons, I can't really help but find it hilarious. It definitely helps when Shawn becomes a major character and lightens things up. He's just a fantastic edition to the book and he seems to make the lighter side of Chandrea come out as well I certainly hope the author won't kill him off anytime soon. Not that I actually have a say, of course.
<blockquote>If you dont, I wont bathe, and Ill sleep curled up right next to you, in all my stinky glory.</blockquote>
Of course, it's definitely not as hilarious as something I saw in a NCRA magazine about a month ago, or finding out what "bae" really means in another language.
No Surprises This is more of something I really disliked about The Return of the Avatar Queen rather than something I liked. As much as I love knowing all the side characters' history, I really think I would have enjoyed my reading experience more if there were less views. With the amount of views (which, by the way, is quite a lot), I feel as though I'm one step ahead and the author loses the element of surprise. Whatever seems likely to happen in the future to a character or two is already expected by the reader.
Last time I checked, not being surprised does not dwell well. But credit to Wynn for not making me feel like Hansel and Gretel with bread baked by Peeta, to which I turn into crumbs (the bread, not Peeta). Two facts: 1) I like surprises in books. 2) I don't necessarily like surprises in real life.
Here's a little elaboration on #2: A good friend of mine I call him Mr. Pokey and yes, he's probably related to Lupe. AKA Miss. Pokey. volunteered to take me to chess tournaments. A few days later, his mom said she could take both of us, but said friend told our coach that I could go without telling me about it first. As a result, I'm have been plotting his demise. Would I really do it? No, but sometimes I want to throw something at his infuriatingly overconfident face.
So here's a word of advice: Don't try to make decisions for others without telling them about it first. At least, don't make decisions for me unless you're my mom. You could regret it dearly.
Basically, you won't really regret reading The Return of the Avatar Queen. Marlene Wynn's debut novel shows a lot of promise in the future and I'm curious as to where the storyline goes from here on out.
-------------------
Review copy provided by the author for the blog tour
Original Rating: 3.5
Original review posted on <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/12/blog-tour-chandrea-the-return-of-the-avatar-queen-by-marlene-wynn-review-and-giveaway.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 Crazy Rich Asians (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Singapore Bling.
I’ve been catching up on films that I missed at the cinema during 2018. And this is one of the ones I most wanted to see but missed due to work commitments.
The Plot.
Rachel (Constance Wu) and Nick (Henry Golding) are young New Yorker professionals in love: Rachel is a successful economics professor and Nick… well, I’m not sure we ever find out what Nick ever does for a job, but his dress and confidence imply he’s doing well. Nick has an announcement: that his best friend Colin (Chris Pang) is getting married in Singapore and he invites Rachel to join him and meet his parents.
The trip discloses something previously hidden to Rachel: that Nick is actually heir to one of the richest families in Singapore. Indeed, as they got their money from property, the family effectively BUILT Singapore! But once in Singapore, life becomes hard for Rachel. She has to deal with the “not good enough for my Nick” disapproval of Nick’s family (led by Nick’s mother, the imperious Eleanor (Michelle Yeoh). Not only that, but thanks to Nick’s eligible-batchelor status and the pervasive nature of social media, everyone in Singapore knows about Nick and Rachel. As such, many of the ‘hens’ of Colin’s fiancee Araminta have it in for Rachel. (Araminta is played by Sonoya Mizuno, so memorable in “Ex Machina“).
Layers of rich characters.
This is not your average rom-com. Because here there’s a depth of characters within Nick’s broader family to entertain, each with their own set of quirks and issues. The dynamic of the family matriarch, grandmother (Lisa Lu), with the rest of the family is also fascinating; Friend or foe for Rachel? – it’s often difficult to tell.
Also entertaining is the introduction of Rachel’s old college room-mate Peil Lin Goh (a superbly over-the-top bonkers performance by Awkwafina) and her ‘nouveau-riche’ family. Her father (Ken Jeong) is simply hilarious in a bat-shit crazy sort of way.
But it’s the two engaging leads that impress most, particularly Henry Golding. Prior to this – his debut movie role – he was a Malaysian TV travel reporter! (He of course followed this performance up a month later with his equally impressive role as Blake Lively’s husband in “A Simple Favour“).
As sponsored by the Singapore tourist board.
Much of the action could be lifted from “My Best Friend’s Wedding”, “Meet the Parents” or “Mean Girls”. But it’s all given a refreshing asian facelift with its Singapore setting.
Singapore is one of my favourite cities: safe, clean and vibrant and with drop-dead gorgeous architecture. And I actually saw this movie while flying back out of Singapore itself. As such, I reflected on just what a great promotional flick for the tourist industry it was. From the wedding party at the Gardens by the Bay to the utterly jaw-dropping infinity pool at the “ship-hotel” (the Marina Bay Sands hotel, featured through a stunning fireworks-infused drone shot), all convey the excitement of the place.
A fun feel-good classic.
What’s impressive about the sharp writing is that this is the movie screenplay debut for co-writers Peter Chiarelli and Adele Lim. It’s a movie that makes you occasionally sit up and go ‘wow’. As an example, there’s a quirky ‘social media tsunami’ scene in the first 10 minutes. But the movie then builds with character-development stories that, while not particularly novel, are engagingly well-written and well delivered by the enthusiastic ensemble cast.
The director is John M Chu, whose less-than-stellar CV includes “GI: Joe” and “Now You See Me 2”, but here delivers a breathless momentum that lasts to the final scene.
The perfect wife and the perfect husband? Michael (Pierre Png), the boy who married well (which feels a plot borrowed from “Lost”), with the lovely Astrid (Gemma Chan). (Source: Warner Brothers).
And it’s that denouement that got to me. I don’t tend to get slushy about these sort of romantic comedies. But there’s a “reveal” in the final few minutes of the movie that completely surprised me (even though it should have been obvious!). It actually made me well-up!
It didn’t make a big dent in the awards nominations. But for fans of quirky romantic comedies it’s a recommended watch. It’s really difficult to dislike!
The Plot.
Rachel (Constance Wu) and Nick (Henry Golding) are young New Yorker professionals in love: Rachel is a successful economics professor and Nick… well, I’m not sure we ever find out what Nick ever does for a job, but his dress and confidence imply he’s doing well. Nick has an announcement: that his best friend Colin (Chris Pang) is getting married in Singapore and he invites Rachel to join him and meet his parents.
The trip discloses something previously hidden to Rachel: that Nick is actually heir to one of the richest families in Singapore. Indeed, as they got their money from property, the family effectively BUILT Singapore! But once in Singapore, life becomes hard for Rachel. She has to deal with the “not good enough for my Nick” disapproval of Nick’s family (led by Nick’s mother, the imperious Eleanor (Michelle Yeoh). Not only that, but thanks to Nick’s eligible-batchelor status and the pervasive nature of social media, everyone in Singapore knows about Nick and Rachel. As such, many of the ‘hens’ of Colin’s fiancee Araminta have it in for Rachel. (Araminta is played by Sonoya Mizuno, so memorable in “Ex Machina“).
Layers of rich characters.
This is not your average rom-com. Because here there’s a depth of characters within Nick’s broader family to entertain, each with their own set of quirks and issues. The dynamic of the family matriarch, grandmother (Lisa Lu), with the rest of the family is also fascinating; Friend or foe for Rachel? – it’s often difficult to tell.
Also entertaining is the introduction of Rachel’s old college room-mate Peil Lin Goh (a superbly over-the-top bonkers performance by Awkwafina) and her ‘nouveau-riche’ family. Her father (Ken Jeong) is simply hilarious in a bat-shit crazy sort of way.
But it’s the two engaging leads that impress most, particularly Henry Golding. Prior to this – his debut movie role – he was a Malaysian TV travel reporter! (He of course followed this performance up a month later with his equally impressive role as Blake Lively’s husband in “A Simple Favour“).
As sponsored by the Singapore tourist board.
Much of the action could be lifted from “My Best Friend’s Wedding”, “Meet the Parents” or “Mean Girls”. But it’s all given a refreshing asian facelift with its Singapore setting.
Singapore is one of my favourite cities: safe, clean and vibrant and with drop-dead gorgeous architecture. And I actually saw this movie while flying back out of Singapore itself. As such, I reflected on just what a great promotional flick for the tourist industry it was. From the wedding party at the Gardens by the Bay to the utterly jaw-dropping infinity pool at the “ship-hotel” (the Marina Bay Sands hotel, featured through a stunning fireworks-infused drone shot), all convey the excitement of the place.
A fun feel-good classic.
What’s impressive about the sharp writing is that this is the movie screenplay debut for co-writers Peter Chiarelli and Adele Lim. It’s a movie that makes you occasionally sit up and go ‘wow’. As an example, there’s a quirky ‘social media tsunami’ scene in the first 10 minutes. But the movie then builds with character-development stories that, while not particularly novel, are engagingly well-written and well delivered by the enthusiastic ensemble cast.
The director is John M Chu, whose less-than-stellar CV includes “GI: Joe” and “Now You See Me 2”, but here delivers a breathless momentum that lasts to the final scene.
The perfect wife and the perfect husband? Michael (Pierre Png), the boy who married well (which feels a plot borrowed from “Lost”), with the lovely Astrid (Gemma Chan). (Source: Warner Brothers).
And it’s that denouement that got to me. I don’t tend to get slushy about these sort of romantic comedies. But there’s a “reveal” in the final few minutes of the movie that completely surprised me (even though it should have been obvious!). It actually made me well-up!
It didn’t make a big dent in the awards nominations. But for fans of quirky romantic comedies it’s a recommended watch. It’s really difficult to dislike!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Baby Driver (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A summer film so cool that air-con is optional.
Sorry for the lack of posts folks…. with a holiday in sunny Portugal, I’ve not been to the pics for weeks!
There’s something inherently appealing about the concept of a getaway driver. A skillful ‘bad-boy’, but not normally bad enough to actually DO the nasty crime stuff…. merely be an active accomplice to it. As a result, it’s a subject that the movies have returned to time after time. I’m old and crusty enough to remember being wowed at seeing Ryan O’Neal in Walter Hill’s “Driver” on the big screen in 1978. And well before that, as a kid, my poor departed mother used to be driven crazy by me begging her to take me to see “The Italian Job” (the original 1969 version) YET again… probably the greatest getaway chase in movie history: I must have seen that film at least 20 times in the cinema. Of course more recently we’ve also had Ryan Gosling and Carey Mulligan in “Drive” on the same theme. Any I’ve forgotten?
But with Edgar Wright at the helm, a big name cast and an enticing trailer, I had high expectations for “Baby Driver” – and boy was I happy! This is such a seriously cool film on so many levels.
Opening with a bank heist followed by a kick-ass car chase, we follow ‘Baby’ (Ansel Elgort, “Allegiant”, “The Fault in our Stars”) as a tinnitus-suffering, music-infused getaway driver under the thumb of the criminal overlord Doc (Kevin Spacey, in icy Frank Underwood mode). Doc recruits an ever-changing mix-tape of villains for each job, including the psychopathic and appropriately named ‘Bats’ (Jamie Foxx, “Sleepless”), the chillingly dangerous Buddy (Jon Hamm, “Mad Men”, “Keeping Up With The Joneses”) and his “Bonnie-style” wife ‘Darling’ (Eiza González) and the moderately incompetent JD (Lanny Joon) (who changed his neck tattoo of “HATE” to “HAT” since it improved his job prospects… LOL…. “everybody loves a hat”!).
Baby’s life gets more complicated when the hoods become aware of his fledgling relationship with fellow-orphan Debora (Lily James) a waitress in a diner and another lever to keep Baby locked into the job that he is just so, so good at.
On the surface this might be perceived as being just another good excuse for a lot of CGI-driven car stunts in the style of “The Fate of the Furious”. But no. Firstly, as Edgar Wright declared before the special screening I saw, all of the car stunts were actually performed for real on the mean streets of Atlanta (and hats off to the film’s stunt coordinator Robert Nagle and his team for these). And secondly, the car scenes are almost secondary to the fabulous story and character development in the film. The script (also by Edgar Wright) is just brilliant. There are genuinely laugh-out loud moments in the movie, with one of the highlights for me being JD tasked with procuring Michael Myers “Halloween” masks for a heist. If you don’t find this scene hilarious, you are not human – official.
The only misstep for me in the script was an unbelievable event (both in terms of likelihood and – particularly – timing) during a closing car park fight***.
Elgort is really strong in the lead role, and suggested to me that if the role of the young Han Solo in the upcoming Star Wars spin-off hadn’t already gone to Alden Ehrenreich, then here was a very strong contender. All of the supporting roles are strong (as you would expect from such a stellar cast) with Jon Hamm being a standout, appearing truly demonic in the closing scenes. The one role I was less sure about in the film was that of Lily James, whose performance as the ‘sweet as apple pie’ waitress seemed a little too “animated” for the big screen in the early scenes – I remember an acting class by Michael Caine where he advised that given the size of movie screens it’s often the case that “stillness is good”. What works well on the small screen (I am a big fan of her roles in historical TV dramas like “Downton Abbey” and the impeccable “War and Peace”) perhaps sometimes needs modifying for the wide-screen experience. I greatly warmed to her portrayal in the action sequences later on though: she’s a great actress and one that this film can hopefully now propel into the higher echelons in Hollywood.
Another star of the film is the fabulous soundtrack coordinated by Oscar-winner Steven Price (“Gravity“) featuring (amongst many other classics) Queen’s “Brighton Rock”, Golden Earring’s “Radar Love”, the Simon and Garfunkel classic (obviously) and Bob & Earl’s “Harlem Shuffle”, all used to brilliant effect. This latter track leads me on to some early Oscar predictions: if this film doesn’t get nominated this year for Oscars for Best Editing (Jonathan Amos and Paul Machliss, “Scott Pilgrim vs the World”) and Best Sound Editing (Julian Slater), then there is no God! The “Harlem Shuffle” coffee run sequence is a masterclass in editing and direction. Starting off with what I thought might turn into a tribute to “Saturday Night Fever”, the scene neatly takes on a style all of its own. It’s use of – erm – “subtitles” is just brilliant.
The often subtle, and occasionally not so subtle, edits between scenes are also truly masterful, making this moviegoer laugh-out-loud with delight periodically at the movie-making skill on display.
All of this is orchestrated by Edgar Wright as director who – for me – has been a little inconsistent over the years (loved, loved, loved “Shaun of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz”; “The World’s End” – not so much). Here, he delivers in spades and this film rockets immediately into my Films of the Year list for 2017. Awe inspiring.
Beg, steal, borrow, rob a bank – – do what you have to, but make sure you catch this film on the big screen.
There’s something inherently appealing about the concept of a getaway driver. A skillful ‘bad-boy’, but not normally bad enough to actually DO the nasty crime stuff…. merely be an active accomplice to it. As a result, it’s a subject that the movies have returned to time after time. I’m old and crusty enough to remember being wowed at seeing Ryan O’Neal in Walter Hill’s “Driver” on the big screen in 1978. And well before that, as a kid, my poor departed mother used to be driven crazy by me begging her to take me to see “The Italian Job” (the original 1969 version) YET again… probably the greatest getaway chase in movie history: I must have seen that film at least 20 times in the cinema. Of course more recently we’ve also had Ryan Gosling and Carey Mulligan in “Drive” on the same theme. Any I’ve forgotten?
But with Edgar Wright at the helm, a big name cast and an enticing trailer, I had high expectations for “Baby Driver” – and boy was I happy! This is such a seriously cool film on so many levels.
Opening with a bank heist followed by a kick-ass car chase, we follow ‘Baby’ (Ansel Elgort, “Allegiant”, “The Fault in our Stars”) as a tinnitus-suffering, music-infused getaway driver under the thumb of the criminal overlord Doc (Kevin Spacey, in icy Frank Underwood mode). Doc recruits an ever-changing mix-tape of villains for each job, including the psychopathic and appropriately named ‘Bats’ (Jamie Foxx, “Sleepless”), the chillingly dangerous Buddy (Jon Hamm, “Mad Men”, “Keeping Up With The Joneses”) and his “Bonnie-style” wife ‘Darling’ (Eiza González) and the moderately incompetent JD (Lanny Joon) (who changed his neck tattoo of “HATE” to “HAT” since it improved his job prospects… LOL…. “everybody loves a hat”!).
Baby’s life gets more complicated when the hoods become aware of his fledgling relationship with fellow-orphan Debora (Lily James) a waitress in a diner and another lever to keep Baby locked into the job that he is just so, so good at.
On the surface this might be perceived as being just another good excuse for a lot of CGI-driven car stunts in the style of “The Fate of the Furious”. But no. Firstly, as Edgar Wright declared before the special screening I saw, all of the car stunts were actually performed for real on the mean streets of Atlanta (and hats off to the film’s stunt coordinator Robert Nagle and his team for these). And secondly, the car scenes are almost secondary to the fabulous story and character development in the film. The script (also by Edgar Wright) is just brilliant. There are genuinely laugh-out loud moments in the movie, with one of the highlights for me being JD tasked with procuring Michael Myers “Halloween” masks for a heist. If you don’t find this scene hilarious, you are not human – official.
The only misstep for me in the script was an unbelievable event (both in terms of likelihood and – particularly – timing) during a closing car park fight***.
Elgort is really strong in the lead role, and suggested to me that if the role of the young Han Solo in the upcoming Star Wars spin-off hadn’t already gone to Alden Ehrenreich, then here was a very strong contender. All of the supporting roles are strong (as you would expect from such a stellar cast) with Jon Hamm being a standout, appearing truly demonic in the closing scenes. The one role I was less sure about in the film was that of Lily James, whose performance as the ‘sweet as apple pie’ waitress seemed a little too “animated” for the big screen in the early scenes – I remember an acting class by Michael Caine where he advised that given the size of movie screens it’s often the case that “stillness is good”. What works well on the small screen (I am a big fan of her roles in historical TV dramas like “Downton Abbey” and the impeccable “War and Peace”) perhaps sometimes needs modifying for the wide-screen experience. I greatly warmed to her portrayal in the action sequences later on though: she’s a great actress and one that this film can hopefully now propel into the higher echelons in Hollywood.
Another star of the film is the fabulous soundtrack coordinated by Oscar-winner Steven Price (“Gravity“) featuring (amongst many other classics) Queen’s “Brighton Rock”, Golden Earring’s “Radar Love”, the Simon and Garfunkel classic (obviously) and Bob & Earl’s “Harlem Shuffle”, all used to brilliant effect. This latter track leads me on to some early Oscar predictions: if this film doesn’t get nominated this year for Oscars for Best Editing (Jonathan Amos and Paul Machliss, “Scott Pilgrim vs the World”) and Best Sound Editing (Julian Slater), then there is no God! The “Harlem Shuffle” coffee run sequence is a masterclass in editing and direction. Starting off with what I thought might turn into a tribute to “Saturday Night Fever”, the scene neatly takes on a style all of its own. It’s use of – erm – “subtitles” is just brilliant.
The often subtle, and occasionally not so subtle, edits between scenes are also truly masterful, making this moviegoer laugh-out-loud with delight periodically at the movie-making skill on display.
All of this is orchestrated by Edgar Wright as director who – for me – has been a little inconsistent over the years (loved, loved, loved “Shaun of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz”; “The World’s End” – not so much). Here, he delivers in spades and this film rockets immediately into my Films of the Year list for 2017. Awe inspiring.
Beg, steal, borrow, rob a bank – – do what you have to, but make sure you catch this film on the big screen.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Throw Octopus in Tabletop Games
Dec 18, 2021
It’s a great sign when your 5-year-old wants to play a game over, and over, and over, and over… right? Especially if you also really enjoy playing? You never really know what to expect with new games and, luckily, this one is great… especially if you have kiddos or uptight friends.
In Throw Octopus, players are underwater city planners. Of sorts. Depending on the mode of play, players will attempt to rid themselves of their hand of seascape tiles, which depict wonky underwater creatures. The first player to shed their entire hand of tiles will be the winner!
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, chuck the tiles into a giant face-down pile and swirl them around to shuffle. Or try to riffle-shuffle, like, a thousand little cardboard tiles. Good luck. From the pile each player will choose eight tiles for their starting hand. Eight tiles, eight octopus tentacles. Coincidence? Also shuffle the Octopus Cards and place in a draw pile nearby. Flip over one of the tiles from the pile to serve as the starting tile. Youngest player goes first, and the game is ready to play!
On a turn, players will try to play one of their tiles to the ever-growing seascape being built on the table. Only by adding a tile from their hand to an appropriate place within the seascape can hands dwindle. At times a player will play a tile to the seascape depicting an octopus icon. After placing this tile, the active player will draw a card from the deck and either perform its action immediately or save it to be used at a later time (the card will instruct the players which to do). These cards could have players drawing more tiles, forcing other players to draw tiles, giving the active player the ability to manipulate tiles already placed in the seascape, or THROWING THE ADORABLE PLUSH OCTOPUS that comes with the game at an opponent. When the octopus is thrown at a player, they must immediately draw two tiles and skip their next turn. Should a player not have any other play, they must draw a tile from the pile and pass play to the next player.
As players are gaining and playing tiles to the board, the seascape is constantly changing, thus reflecting the real-life constantly-changing seascapes across the world. I may be reading too much into it. In any case, once a player places their final tile, they win and may challenge the players to a rematch immediately.
Recently added two-player rules allow for Speed Octopus play. In this mode, players are attempting to add to their own seascapes, and when they cannot play a card, they must discard a tile from their hand to their box top/bottom and draw a new tile from the shared pile. Once the game ends by players unable to play legally, points are scored for completed creatures in their personal board and negative points are earned for each tile in their box top/bottom. In this mode the cards and plushie are not used, but we house-ruled the usage of a Throw Octopus each time a creature was completed, just to further humiliate the other player.
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of the game, but what we received was a box full of tiles, cards, and just the cutest little octoplushie we have ever seen. I really hope that all copies of the game come with this style of octopus, as my daughter immediately confiscated it the first few nights to sleep with her, no joke. I can only imagine the upgrades this will receive as a result of a successful Kickstarter campaign.
This is a silly, and sometimes frantic, tile laying game with take that and dexterity elements. Throwing the octopus and seeing the finished seascape at the end of the game are so satisfying. The art is great, and the concept is unique. I just know we will be playing this game for years to come. Again, if you happen to have littles in your your life or uptight friends, this is the game for you.
In Throw Octopus, players are underwater city planners. Of sorts. Depending on the mode of play, players will attempt to rid themselves of their hand of seascape tiles, which depict wonky underwater creatures. The first player to shed their entire hand of tiles will be the winner!
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, chuck the tiles into a giant face-down pile and swirl them around to shuffle. Or try to riffle-shuffle, like, a thousand little cardboard tiles. Good luck. From the pile each player will choose eight tiles for their starting hand. Eight tiles, eight octopus tentacles. Coincidence? Also shuffle the Octopus Cards and place in a draw pile nearby. Flip over one of the tiles from the pile to serve as the starting tile. Youngest player goes first, and the game is ready to play!
On a turn, players will try to play one of their tiles to the ever-growing seascape being built on the table. Only by adding a tile from their hand to an appropriate place within the seascape can hands dwindle. At times a player will play a tile to the seascape depicting an octopus icon. After placing this tile, the active player will draw a card from the deck and either perform its action immediately or save it to be used at a later time (the card will instruct the players which to do). These cards could have players drawing more tiles, forcing other players to draw tiles, giving the active player the ability to manipulate tiles already placed in the seascape, or THROWING THE ADORABLE PLUSH OCTOPUS that comes with the game at an opponent. When the octopus is thrown at a player, they must immediately draw two tiles and skip their next turn. Should a player not have any other play, they must draw a tile from the pile and pass play to the next player.
As players are gaining and playing tiles to the board, the seascape is constantly changing, thus reflecting the real-life constantly-changing seascapes across the world. I may be reading too much into it. In any case, once a player places their final tile, they win and may challenge the players to a rematch immediately.
Recently added two-player rules allow for Speed Octopus play. In this mode, players are attempting to add to their own seascapes, and when they cannot play a card, they must discard a tile from their hand to their box top/bottom and draw a new tile from the shared pile. Once the game ends by players unable to play legally, points are scored for completed creatures in their personal board and negative points are earned for each tile in their box top/bottom. In this mode the cards and plushie are not used, but we house-ruled the usage of a Throw Octopus each time a creature was completed, just to further humiliate the other player.
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of the game, but what we received was a box full of tiles, cards, and just the cutest little octoplushie we have ever seen. I really hope that all copies of the game come with this style of octopus, as my daughter immediately confiscated it the first few nights to sleep with her, no joke. I can only imagine the upgrades this will receive as a result of a successful Kickstarter campaign.
This is a silly, and sometimes frantic, tile laying game with take that and dexterity elements. Throwing the octopus and seeing the finished seascape at the end of the game are so satisfying. The art is great, and the concept is unique. I just know we will be playing this game for years to come. Again, if you happen to have littles in your your life or uptight friends, this is the game for you.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Comedian (2017) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
Welcome to the year 2017 …. Another year which promises to bring you HUGE blockbuster theatrical releases including long awaited sequels, groundbreaking independent films, and breakout performances from some of cinemas great veterans as well as its rookie newcomers!
Alright … alright … that’s your standard P.R. HYPE. Not that it’s entirely untrue but let’s face it, we all have a pretty good idea as to what’s in store for us this year am I right?
Today’s film is amongst 2016s ‘leftovers’ if you will. No that that’s a bad thing. Example … leftover pizza. I don’t know one individual who doesn’t like leftover pizza. You can think of this film as such.
The selection we present to you is the dramatic comedy ‘The Comedians’. The latest from film legend Robert De Niro. The film premiered at the AFI Fest on November 11th and will be released in theaters on February 3rd. Directed by Taylor Hackford (An Officer And A Gentleman, RAY) and written by Lewis Friedman, comedian Jeff Ross, Art Linson, and Richard LaGravenese (The Fisher King) the film features an all star cast including Robert DeNiro, Leslie Mann, Harvey Keitel, Danny DeVito, Veronica Ferres, Patti LuPone, Edie Falco, Cloris Leachman, Charles Gordin, Jim Norton, Gilbert Gottfried, Jimmie Walker, Brett Butler, Lois Smith, Happy Anderson, Hannibal Buress, and an appearance by Billy Crystal.
DeNiro is Jack ‘Jackie’ Burke. A comedic legend best known for his iconic T.V. role decades before who has spent the years since then attempting to reinvent himself as an ‘insult’ comic. Despite rave performances and praise from fans and his fellow comedians, he is still frustrated that he cannot escape from the shadow of his television career and the mistakes he made during those years as a husband, father, and brother. During a performance at a comedy club on the outskirts of New York City he berates a husband and wife in the audience who are filming him for their internet show without his permission and later attacks the husband. At his court hearing, he is offered a plea deal but upon learning that part of the plea involves apologizing to the husband and wife he openly berates them in the courtroom and is sentenced to 30 days in jail plus community service. Once out of jail, Jackie begins his community service serving meals to the homeless while fine tuning his act at a local church. However, since he has not worked and has no money he pays a call upon his estranged brother whom he has not visited in ages to ask for a loan.
Jackie’s brother agrees but only if Jackie will appear at his niece’s wedding. Late one evening at the church he meets Harmony (Mann) whom is also serving community service for assault and battery. Shortly after, Harmony and Jackie make the rounds at some of the New York comedy clubs where Jackie is still ‘welcome’ after which Jackie proposes a trade of sorts, Harmony will be Jackie’s date to his niece’s wedding if Jackie will appear at the dinner to celebrate the birthday of Harmony’s father (Keitel) who is a huge fan of Jackie’s television persona. At the wedding, Jackie performed a variation of his stand-up act to the delight of his niece and her fiancé while simultaneously offending the majority of the other family members. A few days later, Jackie accompanies Harmony to her father’s birthday dinner only to become aggravated when Harmony’s father insists Jackie reenact his T.V. character’s. Jackie responds by sarcastically professing his intentions to sleep with Harmony. Without giving everything away, what follows is a re-awakening of sorts in which Jackie comes to terms with the inevitability that he will always be known for the one role he tries so desperately to get away from and realizes that if he wants to distances himself from it, he’s going to have to embrace the character.
Despite the all star cast and the fact there were indeed many laughs in the film, it was honestly a waste at the end. This could’ve been an amazing film but it was lacking in its story. The script just didn’t have the ‘heart’ to combine with the premise and the great performances given by the actors. It’s not that they didn’t try, the film just failed to measure up. The acting was great, the directing was good, and there were indeed a few laughs here and there …. it just didn’t have any life to it. Heaven forbid I criticize a DeNiro film, but I can’t give this one more than two out of five stars. I REALLY wanted to like the film, I just didn’t. If it shows up in your digital cable package, go ahead and give it a try. Rent it on iTunes even. Honestly though, I can’t see myself buying the movie.
Alright … alright … that’s your standard P.R. HYPE. Not that it’s entirely untrue but let’s face it, we all have a pretty good idea as to what’s in store for us this year am I right?
Today’s film is amongst 2016s ‘leftovers’ if you will. No that that’s a bad thing. Example … leftover pizza. I don’t know one individual who doesn’t like leftover pizza. You can think of this film as such.
The selection we present to you is the dramatic comedy ‘The Comedians’. The latest from film legend Robert De Niro. The film premiered at the AFI Fest on November 11th and will be released in theaters on February 3rd. Directed by Taylor Hackford (An Officer And A Gentleman, RAY) and written by Lewis Friedman, comedian Jeff Ross, Art Linson, and Richard LaGravenese (The Fisher King) the film features an all star cast including Robert DeNiro, Leslie Mann, Harvey Keitel, Danny DeVito, Veronica Ferres, Patti LuPone, Edie Falco, Cloris Leachman, Charles Gordin, Jim Norton, Gilbert Gottfried, Jimmie Walker, Brett Butler, Lois Smith, Happy Anderson, Hannibal Buress, and an appearance by Billy Crystal.
DeNiro is Jack ‘Jackie’ Burke. A comedic legend best known for his iconic T.V. role decades before who has spent the years since then attempting to reinvent himself as an ‘insult’ comic. Despite rave performances and praise from fans and his fellow comedians, he is still frustrated that he cannot escape from the shadow of his television career and the mistakes he made during those years as a husband, father, and brother. During a performance at a comedy club on the outskirts of New York City he berates a husband and wife in the audience who are filming him for their internet show without his permission and later attacks the husband. At his court hearing, he is offered a plea deal but upon learning that part of the plea involves apologizing to the husband and wife he openly berates them in the courtroom and is sentenced to 30 days in jail plus community service. Once out of jail, Jackie begins his community service serving meals to the homeless while fine tuning his act at a local church. However, since he has not worked and has no money he pays a call upon his estranged brother whom he has not visited in ages to ask for a loan.
Jackie’s brother agrees but only if Jackie will appear at his niece’s wedding. Late one evening at the church he meets Harmony (Mann) whom is also serving community service for assault and battery. Shortly after, Harmony and Jackie make the rounds at some of the New York comedy clubs where Jackie is still ‘welcome’ after which Jackie proposes a trade of sorts, Harmony will be Jackie’s date to his niece’s wedding if Jackie will appear at the dinner to celebrate the birthday of Harmony’s father (Keitel) who is a huge fan of Jackie’s television persona. At the wedding, Jackie performed a variation of his stand-up act to the delight of his niece and her fiancé while simultaneously offending the majority of the other family members. A few days later, Jackie accompanies Harmony to her father’s birthday dinner only to become aggravated when Harmony’s father insists Jackie reenact his T.V. character’s. Jackie responds by sarcastically professing his intentions to sleep with Harmony. Without giving everything away, what follows is a re-awakening of sorts in which Jackie comes to terms with the inevitability that he will always be known for the one role he tries so desperately to get away from and realizes that if he wants to distances himself from it, he’s going to have to embrace the character.
Despite the all star cast and the fact there were indeed many laughs in the film, it was honestly a waste at the end. This could’ve been an amazing film but it was lacking in its story. The script just didn’t have the ‘heart’ to combine with the premise and the great performances given by the actors. It’s not that they didn’t try, the film just failed to measure up. The acting was great, the directing was good, and there were indeed a few laughs here and there …. it just didn’t have any life to it. Heaven forbid I criticize a DeNiro film, but I can’t give this one more than two out of five stars. I REALLY wanted to like the film, I just didn’t. If it shows up in your digital cable package, go ahead and give it a try. Rent it on iTunes even. Honestly though, I can’t see myself buying the movie.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Vice (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
A patronising mess of a film
If you want to learn how to completely and utterly fail at satire, look no further than Adam McKay’s Vice. It honestly does pain me to say this was one of the worst experiences I’ve ever had in the cinema. As a matter of fact, I was seconds away from walking out at one point. But, like any good critic, I stayed in my seat. I hoped and prayed it would get better… but it didn’t. If anything, it snowballed.
Vice is a ‘comedy’ (I’ve put this in quotation marks because there’s nothing funny about it) biopic about former American Vice President, Dick Cheney. The film attempts to give us further insight into his life, and how he got away with all the horrible things he did whilst in office. On paper, it actually sounds pretty appealing, especially for someone like me who knows very little about the man. On screen, it is an entirely different experience. 24 hours later, I’m still shocked by how appalling it was.
So, what has Vice done to receive such a scathing review from me? First and foremost, the dialogue is horrendously condescending and talks to the audience like they’re complete idiots. I have never seen such a patronising and immature biopic in my entire life. I’m not sure what’s more obnoxious: Cheney himself or the tone of the film. Maybe they’re on par with each other. I was barely half an hour into this when I was already starting to feel angry about the way they addressed things. You can give your audience context without talking down to them. The film did everything it could to seem edgy and like it was giving the audience the finger, but I just sat there cringing the whole time. It failed.
Secondly, the narrative is all over the place. I’m perfectly fine with non-linear stories, provided they actually make sense. Vice doesn’t know whether it’s coming or going, and changes between the past and future constantly. The pacing is an absolute shambles and makes the film feel longer than it actually is. It runs at just over 2 hours, but feels so much longer than that. I have never wanted a film to end so badly. In fact, I was ready to get up and leave when they decided to throw in a fake ending in an attempt to be funny. Yes, that actually happens. No, I didn’t laugh.
Don’t even get me started on the way it sloppily splices random pictures and video clips throughout the film, making me wonder who on earth nominated this for Best Editing. Are they okay? Without spoiling this too much, Vice’s editing is incredibly jarring and decides to patronise the audience even further by giving visual aids to the idioms that are described by the narrator. At one point it even tries to condescendingly explain Guantanamo Bay, which just caused me to facepalm. What were you thinking guys?
Having said all of this, does the film have some redeeming features? Sure. The quality of the acting is good, I enjoyed Christian Bale as Cheney and Amy Adams as his equally awful wife, Lynne. I also enjoyed Steve Carell as Donald Rumsfeld and Sam Rockwell as George W Bush. It is a shame to waste such great talent on a script as weak as this one. If someone had written this better, maybe I would’ve enjoyed it a lot more. Sadly, I’m stuck with this one. I’m baffled by how anyone can consider this to be a well written script. If anyone wants to enlighten me, by all means, try.
If I never have to watch Vice again, I’ll be fine with that. I feel completely let down by McKay, and this hurts more considering I like some of his other films such as Anchorman and Step Brothers. He’s better than this, and I hope he can redeem himself with whatever he creates next.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/02/03/a-patronising-mess-of-a-film-my-review-of-vice/
Vice is a ‘comedy’ (I’ve put this in quotation marks because there’s nothing funny about it) biopic about former American Vice President, Dick Cheney. The film attempts to give us further insight into his life, and how he got away with all the horrible things he did whilst in office. On paper, it actually sounds pretty appealing, especially for someone like me who knows very little about the man. On screen, it is an entirely different experience. 24 hours later, I’m still shocked by how appalling it was.
So, what has Vice done to receive such a scathing review from me? First and foremost, the dialogue is horrendously condescending and talks to the audience like they’re complete idiots. I have never seen such a patronising and immature biopic in my entire life. I’m not sure what’s more obnoxious: Cheney himself or the tone of the film. Maybe they’re on par with each other. I was barely half an hour into this when I was already starting to feel angry about the way they addressed things. You can give your audience context without talking down to them. The film did everything it could to seem edgy and like it was giving the audience the finger, but I just sat there cringing the whole time. It failed.
Secondly, the narrative is all over the place. I’m perfectly fine with non-linear stories, provided they actually make sense. Vice doesn’t know whether it’s coming or going, and changes between the past and future constantly. The pacing is an absolute shambles and makes the film feel longer than it actually is. It runs at just over 2 hours, but feels so much longer than that. I have never wanted a film to end so badly. In fact, I was ready to get up and leave when they decided to throw in a fake ending in an attempt to be funny. Yes, that actually happens. No, I didn’t laugh.
Don’t even get me started on the way it sloppily splices random pictures and video clips throughout the film, making me wonder who on earth nominated this for Best Editing. Are they okay? Without spoiling this too much, Vice’s editing is incredibly jarring and decides to patronise the audience even further by giving visual aids to the idioms that are described by the narrator. At one point it even tries to condescendingly explain Guantanamo Bay, which just caused me to facepalm. What were you thinking guys?
Having said all of this, does the film have some redeeming features? Sure. The quality of the acting is good, I enjoyed Christian Bale as Cheney and Amy Adams as his equally awful wife, Lynne. I also enjoyed Steve Carell as Donald Rumsfeld and Sam Rockwell as George W Bush. It is a shame to waste such great talent on a script as weak as this one. If someone had written this better, maybe I would’ve enjoyed it a lot more. Sadly, I’m stuck with this one. I’m baffled by how anyone can consider this to be a well written script. If anyone wants to enlighten me, by all means, try.
If I never have to watch Vice again, I’ll be fine with that. I feel completely let down by McKay, and this hurts more considering I like some of his other films such as Anchorman and Step Brothers. He’s better than this, and I hope he can redeem himself with whatever he creates next.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/02/03/a-patronising-mess-of-a-film-my-review-of-vice/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Goosebumps (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
I think I speak for most of my generation when I say I grew up on Goosebumps. Many a night I lay terrified and awake after reading one of the twisty tales concocted from the mind of R.L. Stine. Naturally, when Sony announced a Goosebumps movie, I was fearful. But they also had many different stories to tell as there were countless books in the series, all with a different monster. And then they went gave us the plot to the film… I was still fearful.
Goosebumps introduces us to Zach (Dylan Minnette) who, along with his mother, Gale (Amy Ryan), moved to the small town of Madison, Delaware one year after his father passed away. With quick resolve, Zach meets his neighbor, Hannah (Odeya Rush), whom he finds very intriguing. And as any protective father would do, Hannah’s creepy father (Jack Black) tries to scare off Zach. But as Zach is trying to get to the bottom of exactly who this family is, he discovers locked Goosebumps manuscripts in Hannah’s father’s study. Accidentally opening The Abominable Snowman of Pasadena, Zach soon discovers that there is something special about these manuscripts as the stories themselves, or rather the monsters from them, begin to come to life… for real. Can Zach, Hannah and her Father, along with the bumbling Champ (Ryan Lee), save Madison from the monsters? Watch and see.
I had to constantly remind myself of the target audience for this film for about an hour after seeing it. I was hoping for so much more, and while it had mildly entertaining moments, I have feeling that this film is going to fall flat for most adults. Jack Black played the same part he has become really good at over the years, and it almost seems like he is basically playing it straight now. But it was kind of awesome to see some of the ideas of these books come to life, and with the evil Slappy the dummy (voiced by Black) at the helm, things did truly get out of hand. But I just found myself picking out plot holes and inconsistencies in the movie, which is highly unlike me. I may realize things like that much later after watching for most films, but this one I was noticing everything as I was watching it. This doesn’t bode well at all. For example, Hannah takes Zach to an abandoned carnival that was right in the middle of the woods. Hannah explains that they ran out of money before they finished building. So first, no one builds a permanent carnival like this in the middle of the woods, where the trees would interfere with pretty much everything the way it was set up. And it’s not like the trees grew up around the carnival, the technology was too new and the trees too big for that to make any sense. The other thing is, Hannah pulls a big lever and gets power to the carnival to light it up. First, why is there even power to an abandoned carnival? And let’s say we just accept that there is power to this place, we’re missing the second part. Hannah indicates that she visits the place often, but why haven’t the cops showed up to investigate why there was power at this abandoned carnival. The lights were clearly visible for miles, especially from up on top of the Ferris Wheel where we find Hannah and Zach.
But again… I remind myself of the intended audience. There were many youngsters in the screening with us. And most, if not all, really enjoyed the film. There was a continuous stream of laughter or gasps, as appropriate for the feel of the movie, and many after the film were incredibly happy. So I cannot say they missed their mark.
Ultimately, I ask myself the same question I always do: will I buy the movie on home release? The answer is probably yes, as I know a couple kids who would really enjoy the film, but I wouldn’t be making the purchase if it were just me in the picture. I give it 3 out of 5 stars. I would have given it a two, but I bring myself back to thinking about the target audience. And they definitely knocked it out of the water in that demographic.
Goosebumps introduces us to Zach (Dylan Minnette) who, along with his mother, Gale (Amy Ryan), moved to the small town of Madison, Delaware one year after his father passed away. With quick resolve, Zach meets his neighbor, Hannah (Odeya Rush), whom he finds very intriguing. And as any protective father would do, Hannah’s creepy father (Jack Black) tries to scare off Zach. But as Zach is trying to get to the bottom of exactly who this family is, he discovers locked Goosebumps manuscripts in Hannah’s father’s study. Accidentally opening The Abominable Snowman of Pasadena, Zach soon discovers that there is something special about these manuscripts as the stories themselves, or rather the monsters from them, begin to come to life… for real. Can Zach, Hannah and her Father, along with the bumbling Champ (Ryan Lee), save Madison from the monsters? Watch and see.
I had to constantly remind myself of the target audience for this film for about an hour after seeing it. I was hoping for so much more, and while it had mildly entertaining moments, I have feeling that this film is going to fall flat for most adults. Jack Black played the same part he has become really good at over the years, and it almost seems like he is basically playing it straight now. But it was kind of awesome to see some of the ideas of these books come to life, and with the evil Slappy the dummy (voiced by Black) at the helm, things did truly get out of hand. But I just found myself picking out plot holes and inconsistencies in the movie, which is highly unlike me. I may realize things like that much later after watching for most films, but this one I was noticing everything as I was watching it. This doesn’t bode well at all. For example, Hannah takes Zach to an abandoned carnival that was right in the middle of the woods. Hannah explains that they ran out of money before they finished building. So first, no one builds a permanent carnival like this in the middle of the woods, where the trees would interfere with pretty much everything the way it was set up. And it’s not like the trees grew up around the carnival, the technology was too new and the trees too big for that to make any sense. The other thing is, Hannah pulls a big lever and gets power to the carnival to light it up. First, why is there even power to an abandoned carnival? And let’s say we just accept that there is power to this place, we’re missing the second part. Hannah indicates that she visits the place often, but why haven’t the cops showed up to investigate why there was power at this abandoned carnival. The lights were clearly visible for miles, especially from up on top of the Ferris Wheel where we find Hannah and Zach.
But again… I remind myself of the intended audience. There were many youngsters in the screening with us. And most, if not all, really enjoyed the film. There was a continuous stream of laughter or gasps, as appropriate for the feel of the movie, and many after the film were incredibly happy. So I cannot say they missed their mark.
Ultimately, I ask myself the same question I always do: will I buy the movie on home release? The answer is probably yes, as I know a couple kids who would really enjoy the film, but I wouldn’t be making the purchase if it were just me in the picture. I give it 3 out of 5 stars. I would have given it a two, but I bring myself back to thinking about the target audience. And they definitely knocked it out of the water in that demographic.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated The Big Trail (1930) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
“The Indians are my friends…” Breck Coleman – John Wayne
Not exactly a statement that would exemplify the Career of a man rightly or wrongly associated as being the Cowboy of the Cowboy and Indian movies. But there is no doubt that John Wayne was certainly one of the biggest western stars of cinema.
And The Big Trail is where it really begins for Wayne, but this 1930’s classic was a box office failure, coming not only at the dawn of sound film, but at the time of The Great Depression. It would be another decade by the time “The Duke” wold be born and John Wayne would take his crown as the western superstar which we all know today.
But The Big Trail, originally entitled The Oregon Trail, is not really a John Wayne vehicle. He was a relative unknown actor alongside stage talent, many of whom were drafted into Hollywood at this time simply because they could give a decent vocal performance, as many a silent star was falling, failing to adapt the talkies.
But again, sound is not the selling point of this movie. This was one of a handful of films which pioneered the 70mm film format, in this case, Fox Grandeur, or Grandeur 70. A none anamorphic widescreen format, which whilst not the first attempt, nor the first 70mm film format, it was the nearest to which would succeed later.
2oth Century Fox would change cinema in 1953 with the release of the first CinemaScope film, The Robe, a year after the debut of Cinerama, but Grandeur more closest resembles Todd AO, a format which is still technically used today though in a somewhat different way. The secret to CinemaScope’s later success was in many ways the reason for the failure of Grandeur and that was the fact that CinemaScope was an anamorphic process, screening the image from a regular 35mm film and expanding with the lens, therefore making it a lot cheaper to adapt existing projectors and auditoriums.
Grandeur on the other hand was a larger film format and required a complete upgrade to theatres and therefore, especially at the dawn of the depression era, was financially untenable. Only two theatres in the U.S. would ever show this film in its widescreen glory, with rest showing the alternate 35mm Academy version.
And this film, had SIX versions shot simultaneously, in four different languages, 35mm and 70mm, each requiring different takes with different cameras or casts. This was an incredible feet but one which would soon be reduced with the use of audio dubbing, subtitles and ability to pan and scan.
The problem with this film is simple. It has a loose plot but no real twists and turns. This is almost a documentary following the wagon train trail across the west as group of pioneers make their way to the better life and building the United States, or at least personifying the romantic version of it.
But the film’s pacing and visual style works best through the widescreen lens, a beautiful journey with the untamed west as backdrop, but this is not the the version that most people have seen. The majority only saw the 35mm version which is 20 minutes shorter, edited more quickly and simply doesn’t have the visual flare of the Grandeur version. And without this vast visual canvas, the thousands of extras and props are almost cut from the film, a film with now feels a bit pointless and bit wayward.
Starring an unknown, though despite his hammy acting, Wayne manages to hold his own, the pacing is rushed and the fact that this is an epic journey which we are embarking on with them is somewhat lost.
The widescreen version’s main failing is the sound, which is inferior and poorly mixed in comparison to the 35mm cut, which is crisper and louder, but sound was never going to this movie’s strength and it was still rudimentary at this point. But on a visual level, considering the age of the print, the cinematography is up there as being some of the best, with scale and dare I say, “grandeur” about it.
This is an interesting film to watch now, though unless you are a strong western fan, I would say that it will not thrill, though as a peace of cinematic history, it is littered with footnotes and it very watchable.
And The Big Trail is where it really begins for Wayne, but this 1930’s classic was a box office failure, coming not only at the dawn of sound film, but at the time of The Great Depression. It would be another decade by the time “The Duke” wold be born and John Wayne would take his crown as the western superstar which we all know today.
But The Big Trail, originally entitled The Oregon Trail, is not really a John Wayne vehicle. He was a relative unknown actor alongside stage talent, many of whom were drafted into Hollywood at this time simply because they could give a decent vocal performance, as many a silent star was falling, failing to adapt the talkies.
But again, sound is not the selling point of this movie. This was one of a handful of films which pioneered the 70mm film format, in this case, Fox Grandeur, or Grandeur 70. A none anamorphic widescreen format, which whilst not the first attempt, nor the first 70mm film format, it was the nearest to which would succeed later.
2oth Century Fox would change cinema in 1953 with the release of the first CinemaScope film, The Robe, a year after the debut of Cinerama, but Grandeur more closest resembles Todd AO, a format which is still technically used today though in a somewhat different way. The secret to CinemaScope’s later success was in many ways the reason for the failure of Grandeur and that was the fact that CinemaScope was an anamorphic process, screening the image from a regular 35mm film and expanding with the lens, therefore making it a lot cheaper to adapt existing projectors and auditoriums.
Grandeur on the other hand was a larger film format and required a complete upgrade to theatres and therefore, especially at the dawn of the depression era, was financially untenable. Only two theatres in the U.S. would ever show this film in its widescreen glory, with rest showing the alternate 35mm Academy version.
And this film, had SIX versions shot simultaneously, in four different languages, 35mm and 70mm, each requiring different takes with different cameras or casts. This was an incredible feet but one which would soon be reduced with the use of audio dubbing, subtitles and ability to pan and scan.
The problem with this film is simple. It has a loose plot but no real twists and turns. This is almost a documentary following the wagon train trail across the west as group of pioneers make their way to the better life and building the United States, or at least personifying the romantic version of it.
But the film’s pacing and visual style works best through the widescreen lens, a beautiful journey with the untamed west as backdrop, but this is not the the version that most people have seen. The majority only saw the 35mm version which is 20 minutes shorter, edited more quickly and simply doesn’t have the visual flare of the Grandeur version. And without this vast visual canvas, the thousands of extras and props are almost cut from the film, a film with now feels a bit pointless and bit wayward.
Starring an unknown, though despite his hammy acting, Wayne manages to hold his own, the pacing is rushed and the fact that this is an epic journey which we are embarking on with them is somewhat lost.
The widescreen version’s main failing is the sound, which is inferior and poorly mixed in comparison to the 35mm cut, which is crisper and louder, but sound was never going to this movie’s strength and it was still rudimentary at this point. But on a visual level, considering the age of the print, the cinematography is up there as being some of the best, with scale and dare I say, “grandeur” about it.
This is an interesting film to watch now, though unless you are a strong western fan, I would say that it will not thrill, though as a peace of cinematic history, it is littered with footnotes and it very watchable.