Search
Search results
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Kim-Joy's Magic Bakery in Tabletop Games
Apr 8, 2022
A magical bakery in a forest co-owned by a quirky board game loving contestant on The Great British Bake Off? If there was ever a game specifically designed for my wife, this is it. She loves baking, cute card games, and that super-famous show (she was always a fan of Mary Berry). That said, I don’t think I would ever be able to live with myself if I didn’t bring this one home and share it with my wife. Let’s see what we liked and what we didn’t.
Kim-Joy’s Magic Bakery is a cooperative hand management scenario-based card game for two to five players. In it, players are employees of the Magic Bakery and are tasked with baking wondrous items to satisfy a group of customers requesting their favourite (it’s British, I’m just doing my part) dishes. The game ends once all customers have been served or are otherwise no longer in the game. Depending on the current scenario, the group scores points based on how many customers they were able to serve. All players win together or they do not win.
Setup the Customers card deck according to the number of players, shuffle them, and deal out one or two (depending on number of players as well) face up to the table to begin the Customer Row. Do NOT shuffle the Layers cards. Instead, separate them by type and place them all face-up in decks by type. Do shuffle the yellow Ingredients cards and place out five face up (or face down depending on scenario) to form the Pantry Row. Each player draws a starting hand of three Ingredient cards from the deck, and the starting player takes the Kim-Joy standee to begin!
On a turn, the active player will have choices of actions to be taken, in any order they choose, from among the following: take an Ingredient card, pass a card to another player, bake a Layer, fulfill a Customer order, or refresh the Pantry. Depending on the number of players, each turn will consist of either two or three actions being taken. Most actions are self-explanatory, but I will give a quick hit to them all. The active player may see an interesting Ingredient card in the offer row and may simply draw it into their hand for an action. Once the player has enough Ingredients to bake a Layer (by discarding the requisite Ingredient cards) they may do so for an action. If the player has a card they believe another player could utilize, they may simply pass them that card as an action – either Ingredient or Layer. The goal of the game is help fulfill customer orders, so by using an action to fulfill an order, the player discards all the necessary cards and helps the group inch one step closer to victory. At a loss and need a suggestion for an action? Discard all cards from the Ingredient Row and draw new ones.
Once each player has completed their actions, the Customer Row is shifted one space to the right and a new Customer comes into the bakery. The bakery can only accommodate three customers, so if a new hungry Customer visits, they force out the Customer who has been there the longest, and the players lose the opportunity to serve that (possibly irate) Customer. Play continues in this fashion of players completing actions working toward satisfying as many Customers as possible until there are no more Customers in the deck nor in the bakery. Players then count the number of Customers they served, and score points according to the goals set by the scenario card! As the game typically takes 15-30 minutes, player usually request another try, so be prepared for that eventuality.
Components. This is simply a card game that includes an unnecessary, but cute, standee to mark the starting player. The cards are nice, and come in two sizes. Surprisingly, the cards sport a non-linen low-gloss finish (I’m just saying that many games nowadays are linen and as thick as possible) and feature whimsical and wonderful artwork. The game as a whole is very stylish and boasts a super fun theme. I have no issues with the components, artwork, or theme here. It all works together really well.
I will definitely suggest that new bakers player their first game without the added challenges of the scenarios. They throw in some extra complexity and difficulty that younger bakers just will not appreciate. The different scenarios are all very interesting and add in a little wrinkle to the game to make it just that much more intriguing. I have enjoyed all the different scenarios I have played, though I have not played all of them. In time, my dears. In time. Luckily, the designer has aptly seen it fit to include Helpful Duck cards that act as any Ingredient card needed at the time. These little cuties are God-sends in certain situations, and can also be included in more numbers to make scenarios easier to complete.
Being big fans of the show, I knew my wife and I would love this one. It is cute, challenging, but doesn’t try to be much more than what it is. With so many games out there competing to be bigger, more complex, and more aggressive, it is so nice to settle down with a light and jolly little card game like Kim-Joy’s Magic Bakery. I feel like I am working in a bakery while I’m playing – orders are coming in too quickly and I need just one or two more actions each turn to gather ingredients and bake new layers. It’s a really great theme and a really great game regardless of theme. The weight is perfect for young and older players, and good cooperative games that are not susceptible to quarterbacking are sometimes hard to find. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a quite scrumptious 10 / 12. I wonder if Kim-Joy herself plays this game. If so, I officially challenge her to play with my wife and I… and maybe show us a couple tricks in the actual bakery as well. I could go for a killer Chocolate Bombe, Millionaire’s Shortbread, or a vegetarian Old Fashioned Trifle! And if you get THAT joke, my brother will love you.
Kim-Joy’s Magic Bakery is a cooperative hand management scenario-based card game for two to five players. In it, players are employees of the Magic Bakery and are tasked with baking wondrous items to satisfy a group of customers requesting their favourite (it’s British, I’m just doing my part) dishes. The game ends once all customers have been served or are otherwise no longer in the game. Depending on the current scenario, the group scores points based on how many customers they were able to serve. All players win together or they do not win.
Setup the Customers card deck according to the number of players, shuffle them, and deal out one or two (depending on number of players as well) face up to the table to begin the Customer Row. Do NOT shuffle the Layers cards. Instead, separate them by type and place them all face-up in decks by type. Do shuffle the yellow Ingredients cards and place out five face up (or face down depending on scenario) to form the Pantry Row. Each player draws a starting hand of three Ingredient cards from the deck, and the starting player takes the Kim-Joy standee to begin!
On a turn, the active player will have choices of actions to be taken, in any order they choose, from among the following: take an Ingredient card, pass a card to another player, bake a Layer, fulfill a Customer order, or refresh the Pantry. Depending on the number of players, each turn will consist of either two or three actions being taken. Most actions are self-explanatory, but I will give a quick hit to them all. The active player may see an interesting Ingredient card in the offer row and may simply draw it into their hand for an action. Once the player has enough Ingredients to bake a Layer (by discarding the requisite Ingredient cards) they may do so for an action. If the player has a card they believe another player could utilize, they may simply pass them that card as an action – either Ingredient or Layer. The goal of the game is help fulfill customer orders, so by using an action to fulfill an order, the player discards all the necessary cards and helps the group inch one step closer to victory. At a loss and need a suggestion for an action? Discard all cards from the Ingredient Row and draw new ones.
Once each player has completed their actions, the Customer Row is shifted one space to the right and a new Customer comes into the bakery. The bakery can only accommodate three customers, so if a new hungry Customer visits, they force out the Customer who has been there the longest, and the players lose the opportunity to serve that (possibly irate) Customer. Play continues in this fashion of players completing actions working toward satisfying as many Customers as possible until there are no more Customers in the deck nor in the bakery. Players then count the number of Customers they served, and score points according to the goals set by the scenario card! As the game typically takes 15-30 minutes, player usually request another try, so be prepared for that eventuality.
Components. This is simply a card game that includes an unnecessary, but cute, standee to mark the starting player. The cards are nice, and come in two sizes. Surprisingly, the cards sport a non-linen low-gloss finish (I’m just saying that many games nowadays are linen and as thick as possible) and feature whimsical and wonderful artwork. The game as a whole is very stylish and boasts a super fun theme. I have no issues with the components, artwork, or theme here. It all works together really well.
I will definitely suggest that new bakers player their first game without the added challenges of the scenarios. They throw in some extra complexity and difficulty that younger bakers just will not appreciate. The different scenarios are all very interesting and add in a little wrinkle to the game to make it just that much more intriguing. I have enjoyed all the different scenarios I have played, though I have not played all of them. In time, my dears. In time. Luckily, the designer has aptly seen it fit to include Helpful Duck cards that act as any Ingredient card needed at the time. These little cuties are God-sends in certain situations, and can also be included in more numbers to make scenarios easier to complete.
Being big fans of the show, I knew my wife and I would love this one. It is cute, challenging, but doesn’t try to be much more than what it is. With so many games out there competing to be bigger, more complex, and more aggressive, it is so nice to settle down with a light and jolly little card game like Kim-Joy’s Magic Bakery. I feel like I am working in a bakery while I’m playing – orders are coming in too quickly and I need just one or two more actions each turn to gather ingredients and bake new layers. It’s a really great theme and a really great game regardless of theme. The weight is perfect for young and older players, and good cooperative games that are not susceptible to quarterbacking are sometimes hard to find. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a quite scrumptious 10 / 12. I wonder if Kim-Joy herself plays this game. If so, I officially challenge her to play with my wife and I… and maybe show us a couple tricks in the actual bakery as well. I could go for a killer Chocolate Bombe, Millionaire’s Shortbread, or a vegetarian Old Fashioned Trifle! And if you get THAT joke, my brother will love you.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Ben-Hur (2016) in Movies
Feb 20, 2019
Who thought it was a good idea to remake Ben-Hur? Well, on paper, it would seem to be a possibility. Ben-Hur has been hitting our cinema screens since 1907, with three other theatrical versions before this one; a short silent effort in 1907, the 1925 silent epic and the blockbusting MGM epic from 1959.
But this follows stage plays, TV movies and even animated movies, all based on General Lee Wallace's 1880 novel of the same name. But if a comparison is to be made, let us focus on the 1959 Charlton Heston movie. That, which ran for over three and half hours, takes its time to establish characters and situations, then takes us on a journey across the Roman Empire as we follow the turmoil of Judah Ben-Hur, betrayed by his best friend, a Roman who he considered to be a brother.
This journey takes place and parallels the life and ultimate execution of Jesus Christ and with this parallel, Judah is gradually inspired to temper his vengeance against his friend turned enemy and after the famous chariot race and the hollow victory therein, he will witness the crucifixion and through several machinations, find solace in the fledgling Christian movement.
So, how does this version hold up? To the 1959 version; not very well. This two-hour action movie is centred around the chariot race from start to finish, something which happens in the second act of the 1959 version but this is NOT the conclusion, but a catalyst for the finale.
Here, even though the events play out in a similar fashion, they are rushed and none of the character moments are earned. It is as if the film was pitched soley on the concept of showing an action packed chariot race in the 21st century.
If you want to see a modern interpretation of this race, possibly cinema's greatest such sequence, then look at Star Wars: Episode I's Podrace which captures the spirit perfectly. The positioning of this race and its significance to the plot was the same in the 1925 version as well, yet the fifteen minute 1907 short pretty much cherry picked the same plot elements as this 2016 version, which is quite telling really.
There was little interest in the story, just a cynical desire to bring this iconic movie back to the big screen and milk it as they would any franchise. But Ben-Hur is a poisoned chalice, so iconic that it would have to have offered something new without losing the original feel to succeed, as this classic simply did not warrant a remake.
But if you are going to remake it, give it a mega budget, which they did not, an all star cast, again, not the case and bring on board a top director to lead this project.
Instead we have a cast of relative unknowns, with Morgan Freeman being the most notable cast member, the director of such movies as Wanted (2007) and a small budget of just $100,000,000, when a blockbuster these days is usually pushing $200,000,000.
The main selling point for the previous two Ben-Hurs was the scale. These were epics and pushed the technology, filmmaking styles and never shied away from the strong religious overtones. Here it looks like it is given little more than lip service hoping to pander to the religious right.
It failed. Darren Aronofsky's Noah (2013) made more of an impact and it divided audiences, but at least it was faithful to itself, pushed boundaries and left its mark on cinema.
But by the end, my jaw was literally on the floor as the maimed Massalia reconciled with Judah and the pair ride off into the sunset together, all forgiven....
WHAT!!!
And more importantly, what was the point? Jesus sacrified himself, (in the story) so that people like Judah would put down their swords and learn to forgive, yet in the end, Judah and Massalia sacrifice nothing as they both regain their friendship and live happily ever after. In the previous versions, Ben-Hur beat Massalia but he has the last laugh as his mother and sister have been left with leprosy, that is until Jesus' death sparks a miracle which cures them. This was his reward for seeing the error of his ways, not getting his family and his friend back.
In the end, this is not a bad action romp, very watchable and is an entertaining spectacle but ultimately forgettable. It will entertain for two hours but leaves you with nothing to think about, unlike the books, plays and films which have preceded this.
A real shame...
But this follows stage plays, TV movies and even animated movies, all based on General Lee Wallace's 1880 novel of the same name. But if a comparison is to be made, let us focus on the 1959 Charlton Heston movie. That, which ran for over three and half hours, takes its time to establish characters and situations, then takes us on a journey across the Roman Empire as we follow the turmoil of Judah Ben-Hur, betrayed by his best friend, a Roman who he considered to be a brother.
This journey takes place and parallels the life and ultimate execution of Jesus Christ and with this parallel, Judah is gradually inspired to temper his vengeance against his friend turned enemy and after the famous chariot race and the hollow victory therein, he will witness the crucifixion and through several machinations, find solace in the fledgling Christian movement.
So, how does this version hold up? To the 1959 version; not very well. This two-hour action movie is centred around the chariot race from start to finish, something which happens in the second act of the 1959 version but this is NOT the conclusion, but a catalyst for the finale.
Here, even though the events play out in a similar fashion, they are rushed and none of the character moments are earned. It is as if the film was pitched soley on the concept of showing an action packed chariot race in the 21st century.
If you want to see a modern interpretation of this race, possibly cinema's greatest such sequence, then look at Star Wars: Episode I's Podrace which captures the spirit perfectly. The positioning of this race and its significance to the plot was the same in the 1925 version as well, yet the fifteen minute 1907 short pretty much cherry picked the same plot elements as this 2016 version, which is quite telling really.
There was little interest in the story, just a cynical desire to bring this iconic movie back to the big screen and milk it as they would any franchise. But Ben-Hur is a poisoned chalice, so iconic that it would have to have offered something new without losing the original feel to succeed, as this classic simply did not warrant a remake.
But if you are going to remake it, give it a mega budget, which they did not, an all star cast, again, not the case and bring on board a top director to lead this project.
Instead we have a cast of relative unknowns, with Morgan Freeman being the most notable cast member, the director of such movies as Wanted (2007) and a small budget of just $100,000,000, when a blockbuster these days is usually pushing $200,000,000.
The main selling point for the previous two Ben-Hurs was the scale. These were epics and pushed the technology, filmmaking styles and never shied away from the strong religious overtones. Here it looks like it is given little more than lip service hoping to pander to the religious right.
It failed. Darren Aronofsky's Noah (2013) made more of an impact and it divided audiences, but at least it was faithful to itself, pushed boundaries and left its mark on cinema.
But by the end, my jaw was literally on the floor as the maimed Massalia reconciled with Judah and the pair ride off into the sunset together, all forgiven....
WHAT!!!
And more importantly, what was the point? Jesus sacrified himself, (in the story) so that people like Judah would put down their swords and learn to forgive, yet in the end, Judah and Massalia sacrifice nothing as they both regain their friendship and live happily ever after. In the previous versions, Ben-Hur beat Massalia but he has the last laugh as his mother and sister have been left with leprosy, that is until Jesus' death sparks a miracle which cures them. This was his reward for seeing the error of his ways, not getting his family and his friend back.
In the end, this is not a bad action romp, very watchable and is an entertaining spectacle but ultimately forgettable. It will entertain for two hours but leaves you with nothing to think about, unlike the books, plays and films which have preceded this.
A real shame...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Glass (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
An ambitious but flawed finale
M. Night Shyamalan is back behind the camera! Quick, run! Joking aside, Shyamalan’s career is as convoluted as his signature third-act twists. Starting off with the fabulous The Sixth Sense and then almost derailing his career with catastrophic failures like The Happening, After Earth and dare I mention it, The Last Airbender, it appeared we had all but lost that once promising directorial flair.
Thankfully in 2016’s Split, Shyamalan returned to form somewhat with a nicely paced, tense thriller starring James McAvoy as Kevin, a guy with multiple personality disorder. Of course, the infamous twist, possibly Shyamalan’s best, that this film was set in the same universe as the fabulous Unbreakable was almost too much to handle.
Fast-forward three years and Glass is the film that rounds out the surprise trilogy, bringing together McAvoy, Bruce Willis and Samuel L Jackson for the mother of all showdowns. Or that’s what the trailers would have you believe. But what’s the finished product like?
Three weeks after the conclusion of Split, Glass finds Bruce Willis’ David Dunn pursuing James McAvoy’s superhuman figure of The Beast in a series of escalating encounters, while the shadowy presence of Elijah Price (Samuel L Jackson) emerges as an orchestrator who holds secrets critical to both men. Sandwiched in between this is Sarah Paulson’s Dr Ellie Staple who desperately wants to prove that these men simply hold delusions of grandeur.
As a rule, trilogy closers generally tend to the weakest of the three films with Spider-Man 3, Return of the Jedi and X-Men: Apocalypse cementing my point and Glass unfortunately follows a similar pattern. While by no means a bad film, Shyamalan desperately tries to add too many plot threads into the mix at the end resulting in a messy climax that trips all over itself.
Thankfully, the first act, and the majority of the second live up to expectations. James McAvoy is absolutely exceptional as Kevin and his multiple personalities. Switching between them at the flash of a light, he is staggering to watch and is the highlight in a film that for the most part, gets the best out of its stars. Samuel L Jackson and Sarah Paulson are great with the former looking like he’s having an absolute blast reprising a role that’s been dormant for 19 years.
The less said about Bruce Willis the better. He seems to be sleepwalking through the entire film, so it’s probably for the best that he appears fleetingly every now and then as this is very much McAvoy’s film.
Glass is a film that is both longer and weaker than its two predecessors but can still get by on its own merits thanks to a stunning performance by James McAvoy
The script is typical Shyamalan. It’s clunky, filled with overly expositional dialogue and sometimes downright jarring, but the intriguing premise allows you to overlook this more often than not. There are some nice touches as Sarah Paulson’s character tries to explain away the powers of the main trio, making them and us as the audience doubt their superhuman abilities.
Those expecting a film packed with action will be disappointed. Glass is very much a character piece. The action that is there is well-filmed and realistic considering the film’s incredibly small budget, but it’s limited to the beginning and end of the movie, though the finale is such a mess that it’s really not worth mentioning.
Much of Glass takes place within the Raven Hill Memorial Hospital and follows Paulson’s daily studies of the trio and while this does dampen the pacing somewhat, it’s a refreshing change to the action-packed blockbusters that we have become accustomed to in the genre.
When it comes to cinematography, again, it’s typical Shyamalan. Long-tracking shots, super close-ups and peculiar camera angles are all present and correct. In Split, the impact of his unusual camerawork wasn’t too grating, but here it creates quite the distraction. There’s also another Shyamalan staple: the director’s cameo. The one in Glass is overly long and completely unnecessary, but it’s something we’ve come to expect over the last couple of decades.
Overall, Glass is a film that is both longer and weaker than its two predecessors but can still get by on its own merits thanks to a stunning performance by James McAvoy, the class brought by Samuel L Jackson and Sarah Paulson and a great sense of ambition. Unfortunately, budgetary restraints have resulted in a film that is subtle to the point of being dull and while praise should be given for effort, Glass proves to be just a little underwhelming.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/01/19/glass-review-an-ambitious-but-flawed-finale/
Thankfully in 2016’s Split, Shyamalan returned to form somewhat with a nicely paced, tense thriller starring James McAvoy as Kevin, a guy with multiple personality disorder. Of course, the infamous twist, possibly Shyamalan’s best, that this film was set in the same universe as the fabulous Unbreakable was almost too much to handle.
Fast-forward three years and Glass is the film that rounds out the surprise trilogy, bringing together McAvoy, Bruce Willis and Samuel L Jackson for the mother of all showdowns. Or that’s what the trailers would have you believe. But what’s the finished product like?
Three weeks after the conclusion of Split, Glass finds Bruce Willis’ David Dunn pursuing James McAvoy’s superhuman figure of The Beast in a series of escalating encounters, while the shadowy presence of Elijah Price (Samuel L Jackson) emerges as an orchestrator who holds secrets critical to both men. Sandwiched in between this is Sarah Paulson’s Dr Ellie Staple who desperately wants to prove that these men simply hold delusions of grandeur.
As a rule, trilogy closers generally tend to the weakest of the three films with Spider-Man 3, Return of the Jedi and X-Men: Apocalypse cementing my point and Glass unfortunately follows a similar pattern. While by no means a bad film, Shyamalan desperately tries to add too many plot threads into the mix at the end resulting in a messy climax that trips all over itself.
Thankfully, the first act, and the majority of the second live up to expectations. James McAvoy is absolutely exceptional as Kevin and his multiple personalities. Switching between them at the flash of a light, he is staggering to watch and is the highlight in a film that for the most part, gets the best out of its stars. Samuel L Jackson and Sarah Paulson are great with the former looking like he’s having an absolute blast reprising a role that’s been dormant for 19 years.
The less said about Bruce Willis the better. He seems to be sleepwalking through the entire film, so it’s probably for the best that he appears fleetingly every now and then as this is very much McAvoy’s film.
Glass is a film that is both longer and weaker than its two predecessors but can still get by on its own merits thanks to a stunning performance by James McAvoy
The script is typical Shyamalan. It’s clunky, filled with overly expositional dialogue and sometimes downright jarring, but the intriguing premise allows you to overlook this more often than not. There are some nice touches as Sarah Paulson’s character tries to explain away the powers of the main trio, making them and us as the audience doubt their superhuman abilities.
Those expecting a film packed with action will be disappointed. Glass is very much a character piece. The action that is there is well-filmed and realistic considering the film’s incredibly small budget, but it’s limited to the beginning and end of the movie, though the finale is such a mess that it’s really not worth mentioning.
Much of Glass takes place within the Raven Hill Memorial Hospital and follows Paulson’s daily studies of the trio and while this does dampen the pacing somewhat, it’s a refreshing change to the action-packed blockbusters that we have become accustomed to in the genre.
When it comes to cinematography, again, it’s typical Shyamalan. Long-tracking shots, super close-ups and peculiar camera angles are all present and correct. In Split, the impact of his unusual camerawork wasn’t too grating, but here it creates quite the distraction. There’s also another Shyamalan staple: the director’s cameo. The one in Glass is overly long and completely unnecessary, but it’s something we’ve come to expect over the last couple of decades.
Overall, Glass is a film that is both longer and weaker than its two predecessors but can still get by on its own merits thanks to a stunning performance by James McAvoy, the class brought by Samuel L Jackson and Sarah Paulson and a great sense of ambition. Unfortunately, budgetary restraints have resulted in a film that is subtle to the point of being dull and while praise should be given for effort, Glass proves to be just a little underwhelming.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/01/19/glass-review-an-ambitious-but-flawed-finale/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In 1951 Director Robert Wise helped create one of the most insightful films of the dawning Science Fiction genre. At that time, the growing theme was the good folks of Earth having to defend ourselves against all manner of evil creatures from beyond.
This tone has carried over to modern day as the notion of hostile invaders from beyond has become part of our cinematic and written culture.
The ironic thing about “The Day The Earth Stood Still” was that it was a cautionary tale that stood apart from the genre films of the day. Instead of an all out assault on humanity, a visitor named Klaatu (Michael Rennie) came to deliver a message that change was needed or else there would be dire consequences. Klaatu told the people of the earth that they must learn to live in peace and make war a thing of the past or they would run the risk of being destroyed by more powerful races that would see them as a threat to their peaceful ways.
Klaatu had a powerful robot named Gort who would destroy any hints of aggression and used him to get his message of the need for peace across.
Now in 2008, 20th Century Fox has recreated this classic tale with a star studded cast and a large production budget.
In the new version, Jennifer Connelly stars as Helen Benson, a scientist who is raising her stepson Jacob (Jaden Smith), who still mourns for his father who was recently killed while serving in the gulf. One night, Helen is taken into custody by agents who whisk her and other scientists to a secret conference where it is learned that an object in on a collision course with Manhattan and that due to a lack of warning, there is no time to evacuate the city.
Just when the gathered group prepares for the worst, the mysterious object lands in the middle of Central Park and after being surrounded by the military, produces a lone being from the interior of the spherical object. Just as Helen is about to make first contact with the being, he is shot by a nervous soldier, and before anyone knows what has happened, a giant mechanized being emerges from the sphere and incapacitates the assembled crowd with a sound wave. Just as the creature is about to take matters further he is called off by the wounded being.
The wounded being is taken to for medical care and the confounded scientists are amazed to find a human being underneath the organic suit that the being was wearing. The being grows very quickly and is soon a full grown adult.
Naturally these events are very concerning to the U.S. government and Defense Secretary Jackson (Kathy Bates). The Being identifies himself as Klaatu (Keanu Reeves), and asks to speak with the leaders of the world about a very important matter. Jackson is convinced that Klaatu is the first wave of an invasion and orders him to be interrogated in order to learn his true mission.
Klaatu is able to escape and soon finds himself on the run with Helen and in doing so, learns about humanity. As his mission is revealed, it soon becomes a race against time for Klaatu and Helen to save the world from the greatest threat it has ever known.
The setup to the new film was very good and I was fortunate enough to see the film at an Imax screen which really enhanced the visuals of the film. Sadly there was not enough action for it to hold my attention as the best visuals in the film were largely shown in the trailer.
Once the events of the plot were put into motion, I found them to be very underwhelming, and the message of the film was lost in a series of muddled dialogue and a script lacking any really tension or drama. Klaatu is supposed to be a fish out of water that learns through Helen and Jacob about the other side of humanity, the one that is not about war, death, and destruction. Yet, thanks to the lack of chemistry between Reeves and the always good Connelly the audience is left with little to root for.
When the action finally comes it is very brief and restrained and not nearly enough to save the film, which stumbles to a very awkward and predictable finale.
I had hoped that this new version would be able to up the action promised in the first film and greater delve into the origins of Klaatu as well as the message of change he brought to humanity. Instead the film loses its way and the message becomes an afterthought leaving the audience with very little.
This tone has carried over to modern day as the notion of hostile invaders from beyond has become part of our cinematic and written culture.
The ironic thing about “The Day The Earth Stood Still” was that it was a cautionary tale that stood apart from the genre films of the day. Instead of an all out assault on humanity, a visitor named Klaatu (Michael Rennie) came to deliver a message that change was needed or else there would be dire consequences. Klaatu told the people of the earth that they must learn to live in peace and make war a thing of the past or they would run the risk of being destroyed by more powerful races that would see them as a threat to their peaceful ways.
Klaatu had a powerful robot named Gort who would destroy any hints of aggression and used him to get his message of the need for peace across.
Now in 2008, 20th Century Fox has recreated this classic tale with a star studded cast and a large production budget.
In the new version, Jennifer Connelly stars as Helen Benson, a scientist who is raising her stepson Jacob (Jaden Smith), who still mourns for his father who was recently killed while serving in the gulf. One night, Helen is taken into custody by agents who whisk her and other scientists to a secret conference where it is learned that an object in on a collision course with Manhattan and that due to a lack of warning, there is no time to evacuate the city.
Just when the gathered group prepares for the worst, the mysterious object lands in the middle of Central Park and after being surrounded by the military, produces a lone being from the interior of the spherical object. Just as Helen is about to make first contact with the being, he is shot by a nervous soldier, and before anyone knows what has happened, a giant mechanized being emerges from the sphere and incapacitates the assembled crowd with a sound wave. Just as the creature is about to take matters further he is called off by the wounded being.
The wounded being is taken to for medical care and the confounded scientists are amazed to find a human being underneath the organic suit that the being was wearing. The being grows very quickly and is soon a full grown adult.
Naturally these events are very concerning to the U.S. government and Defense Secretary Jackson (Kathy Bates). The Being identifies himself as Klaatu (Keanu Reeves), and asks to speak with the leaders of the world about a very important matter. Jackson is convinced that Klaatu is the first wave of an invasion and orders him to be interrogated in order to learn his true mission.
Klaatu is able to escape and soon finds himself on the run with Helen and in doing so, learns about humanity. As his mission is revealed, it soon becomes a race against time for Klaatu and Helen to save the world from the greatest threat it has ever known.
The setup to the new film was very good and I was fortunate enough to see the film at an Imax screen which really enhanced the visuals of the film. Sadly there was not enough action for it to hold my attention as the best visuals in the film were largely shown in the trailer.
Once the events of the plot were put into motion, I found them to be very underwhelming, and the message of the film was lost in a series of muddled dialogue and a script lacking any really tension or drama. Klaatu is supposed to be a fish out of water that learns through Helen and Jacob about the other side of humanity, the one that is not about war, death, and destruction. Yet, thanks to the lack of chemistry between Reeves and the always good Connelly the audience is left with little to root for.
When the action finally comes it is very brief and restrained and not nearly enough to save the film, which stumbles to a very awkward and predictable finale.
I had hoped that this new version would be able to up the action promised in the first film and greater delve into the origins of Klaatu as well as the message of change he brought to humanity. Instead the film loses its way and the message becomes an afterthought leaving the audience with very little.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Spider-Man 2 (2004) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
There comes a time in every young persons life where they have to make a series of decisions regarding their future. For many the pressures of finance, school, work, and ever-changing social dynamic force individuals to take a look at their values and what is important, adjusting their lives as needed.
For many this is a difficult situation that is often accomplished through trial and error marking the difficult transition into adulthood. For Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire), the added pressure of dealing with his dual identity of Spider-Man has driven him to the edge.
Since Peter spends his evenings scouring New York fighting crime, his college studies and job have become seriously neglected. With difficulties paying the bills and making it to class and work on time, Peter has become weary of his life, as Spider-Man has made it close to impossible for him to lead any semblance of normality.
Further hindering Peter’s life is his strong feelings for Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst), who he keeps at a distance to protect her from reprisals from enemies of his alter ego, though it is causing him endless emotional turmoil to do so.
Faced with losing the woman of his dreams and his lives goals, Peter decides to abandon his alter ego and live life as a normal person allowing his energies to be focused on his studies and pursuit of science.
Peter’s new found freedom is interrupted by the emergence of a new villain named Dr. Octopus (Alfred Molina), who is a brilliant scientist turned evil as a result of an experiment gone awry. The Doctor has four metallic limbs grafted to his body and is capable of amazing feats of strength and copious amounts of destruction and mayhem due to his unrestrained madness.
The cause of the good doctors wrath is to complete the experiment that disabled him and avenge the loss of his wife in the accident that created him. Towards that end, the Doctor needs an abundance of financial assets and a rare fuel source that can only be provided by his former employer Harry Osborn (James Franco). Harry is only to happy to comply as he still blames Spider-Man for the death of his father in the previous film, and promises to supply the Doctor if he delivers Spider-Man to him. The recent failure of the Doctors experiment, have pushed Norman to the edge as what was to be a shining achievement for the company has now left him reeling and looking for answers, straining his relationship with Peter and Mary Jane.
What follows is a wild ride of action, romance, drama, and comedy as the tangled web that is Peter Parker’s life unfolds and it is one wild ride.
“Spider-Man 2” is a solid film that will delight fans of the first film as well as the comic and will provide a welcome presence at the theaters this Summer from the flock of big budget disappointments that have been the norm.
Sam Raimi paces the film at a slow pace to start with and allows the action and pace of the film to unfold. The film never seems in your face as despite the intense action sequences, the film remains a character driven piece as the relationship between Peter and those he cares for are central elements to the film.
As adventure films go, “Spider-Man 2” has a very complex storyline as several mature issues are developed and explored which helps round out the characters from comic book icons to people that you actually care about.
If I had to find fault with the film, and it would be nitpicking, would be that Doctor Octopus did not stand out as menacing a threat as The Green Goblin did in the last film, as he does not embody the same level of fear and evil. That being said, Maguire is amazing as he does a great job of making Peter a realistic character by showing the audience the pain and conflict as well as the joy that Peter experiences being Spider-Man.
The special effects are amazing but never overshadow the human performance and tone of the film, as after all, this is still a story about a regular guy, with regular problems and extraordinary abilities that are part gift and part curse.
The supporting work of Franco and Dunst is solid and there chemistry amongst the leads is evident. The ending of the film sets the stage perfectly for the next chapter in the series and here is hoping that the winning formula continues as “Spider-Man 2” is not only the best comic inspired film ever made, but one of the best films of the year.
For many this is a difficult situation that is often accomplished through trial and error marking the difficult transition into adulthood. For Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire), the added pressure of dealing with his dual identity of Spider-Man has driven him to the edge.
Since Peter spends his evenings scouring New York fighting crime, his college studies and job have become seriously neglected. With difficulties paying the bills and making it to class and work on time, Peter has become weary of his life, as Spider-Man has made it close to impossible for him to lead any semblance of normality.
Further hindering Peter’s life is his strong feelings for Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst), who he keeps at a distance to protect her from reprisals from enemies of his alter ego, though it is causing him endless emotional turmoil to do so.
Faced with losing the woman of his dreams and his lives goals, Peter decides to abandon his alter ego and live life as a normal person allowing his energies to be focused on his studies and pursuit of science.
Peter’s new found freedom is interrupted by the emergence of a new villain named Dr. Octopus (Alfred Molina), who is a brilliant scientist turned evil as a result of an experiment gone awry. The Doctor has four metallic limbs grafted to his body and is capable of amazing feats of strength and copious amounts of destruction and mayhem due to his unrestrained madness.
The cause of the good doctors wrath is to complete the experiment that disabled him and avenge the loss of his wife in the accident that created him. Towards that end, the Doctor needs an abundance of financial assets and a rare fuel source that can only be provided by his former employer Harry Osborn (James Franco). Harry is only to happy to comply as he still blames Spider-Man for the death of his father in the previous film, and promises to supply the Doctor if he delivers Spider-Man to him. The recent failure of the Doctors experiment, have pushed Norman to the edge as what was to be a shining achievement for the company has now left him reeling and looking for answers, straining his relationship with Peter and Mary Jane.
What follows is a wild ride of action, romance, drama, and comedy as the tangled web that is Peter Parker’s life unfolds and it is one wild ride.
“Spider-Man 2” is a solid film that will delight fans of the first film as well as the comic and will provide a welcome presence at the theaters this Summer from the flock of big budget disappointments that have been the norm.
Sam Raimi paces the film at a slow pace to start with and allows the action and pace of the film to unfold. The film never seems in your face as despite the intense action sequences, the film remains a character driven piece as the relationship between Peter and those he cares for are central elements to the film.
As adventure films go, “Spider-Man 2” has a very complex storyline as several mature issues are developed and explored which helps round out the characters from comic book icons to people that you actually care about.
If I had to find fault with the film, and it would be nitpicking, would be that Doctor Octopus did not stand out as menacing a threat as The Green Goblin did in the last film, as he does not embody the same level of fear and evil. That being said, Maguire is amazing as he does a great job of making Peter a realistic character by showing the audience the pain and conflict as well as the joy that Peter experiences being Spider-Man.
The special effects are amazing but never overshadow the human performance and tone of the film, as after all, this is still a story about a regular guy, with regular problems and extraordinary abilities that are part gift and part curse.
The supporting work of Franco and Dunst is solid and there chemistry amongst the leads is evident. The ending of the film sets the stage perfectly for the next chapter in the series and here is hoping that the winning formula continues as “Spider-Man 2” is not only the best comic inspired film ever made, but one of the best films of the year.
Steven Sklansky (231 KP) rated Battle of the Sexes (2016) in Movies
Sep 26, 2017
Good storytelling (2 more)
Amazing Cast
Tennis shots were done very well
Sports with a hint of romance
This is another sports movie I had no knowledge of going in to and I watch a lot of sports. Tennis is one that I play more then I follow. Sometimes it is fun to watch a tennis match or 2 on tv but not all the time. This match though would have be amazing to see and live through. The story of Billy Jean King is like any other women making history by doing something great in the 70's. It has been told several times using different backgrounds. The big difference with this movie though is they did not overly portray her as the victim being driven down by the man. She always had her head held high and new she could win. You never really felt sad for her during the course of the movie. She had a goal set forth and took it head on.
This movie had a story to tell and like most Based on True Story movies they add way to much drama. This movie was the opposite. It told the story from her perspective and Bobby's perspective and really kept unnecessary drama out of it. The biggest drama points was Billy's female lover. Some of it felt way over the top and you just knew what was coming. I don't mind gay couples in movies, but what I don't like is if it feels forced on to screen just for the sake of adding it. This was part of her story, just put it in there, you don't have to tease the audience that it is going to happen.
The sports part of this movie was my favorite. The back at forth on the court felt real. Which is a good thing because you never want to see look fake. There were very few cuts during the action sequences which means they were really playing tennis, unless they were professionals dressed like them. I would not be disappointed if that was the case, but it would be great if it was the real actors doing it.
All in all this was a fantastic and think everyone, men (from the 70's and earlier) and women should go and see this movie. If you know the story already you may not like it as much but see it anyway.
This movie had a story to tell and like most Based on True Story movies they add way to much drama. This movie was the opposite. It told the story from her perspective and Bobby's perspective and really kept unnecessary drama out of it. The biggest drama points was Billy's female lover. Some of it felt way over the top and you just knew what was coming. I don't mind gay couples in movies, but what I don't like is if it feels forced on to screen just for the sake of adding it. This was part of her story, just put it in there, you don't have to tease the audience that it is going to happen.
The sports part of this movie was my favorite. The back at forth on the court felt real. Which is a good thing because you never want to see look fake. There were very few cuts during the action sequences which means they were really playing tennis, unless they were professionals dressed like them. I would not be disappointed if that was the case, but it would be great if it was the real actors doing it.
All in all this was a fantastic and think everyone, men (from the 70's and earlier) and women should go and see this movie. If you know the story already you may not like it as much but see it anyway.
Felicia (44 KP) rated Ready Player One (2018) in Movies
Sep 20, 2018
Contains spoilers, click to show
I'm going to try very hard to keep my feelings about the novel out of this review about the movie, often when reading reviews I feel that the feelings of one medium influences the feelings of the other.
Ready Player One is a entertaining ride that follows the main character Wade through the virtual world of the Oasis. The creator of this virtual world is dead but he left a puzzle when he died that if the players figured out it would lead them to a series of keys that would grant them ownership of the world.
But of course nothing can just be simple, so while the players are trying to figure out the puzzle in the Oasis there are people who are trying to take them out of the real world.
The movie goes through many different phases cutting between live action and cgi to demonstrate the difference between the Oasis and the real world. So if you're a fan of CGI this probably won't annoy you too much.
One of my major complaints about the movie is that visually there is too much going on, it is a huge distraction with so much going on in the background to really pay attention to what is going on in the foreground. This could be because they were trying to give the illusion of it being a real world but in a movie setting it was just too much.
The movie is also too long, some of the challenges and scenes just take too much time and drag down the pace of the movie. But one of the Challenges, where the players go into a recreating of The Shining is actually the best part of the whole movie, it is fun, familiar, and entertaining. Moments like that really help to save the movie from the slower moments that seem to drag.
Overall the movie isn't bad but it also isn't good. I doubt it will become a classic like the novel had when it was released. But I can totally see people putting it on when hanging out with a group of friends and want some background noise. It was a really interesting and good concept but they tried to do too much with it and it really hurt the movie in the long run.
Ready Player One is a entertaining ride that follows the main character Wade through the virtual world of the Oasis. The creator of this virtual world is dead but he left a puzzle when he died that if the players figured out it would lead them to a series of keys that would grant them ownership of the world.
But of course nothing can just be simple, so while the players are trying to figure out the puzzle in the Oasis there are people who are trying to take them out of the real world.
The movie goes through many different phases cutting between live action and cgi to demonstrate the difference between the Oasis and the real world. So if you're a fan of CGI this probably won't annoy you too much.
One of my major complaints about the movie is that visually there is too much going on, it is a huge distraction with so much going on in the background to really pay attention to what is going on in the foreground. This could be because they were trying to give the illusion of it being a real world but in a movie setting it was just too much.
The movie is also too long, some of the challenges and scenes just take too much time and drag down the pace of the movie. But one of the Challenges, where the players go into a recreating of The Shining is actually the best part of the whole movie, it is fun, familiar, and entertaining. Moments like that really help to save the movie from the slower moments that seem to drag.
Overall the movie isn't bad but it also isn't good. I doubt it will become a classic like the novel had when it was released. But I can totally see people putting it on when hanging out with a group of friends and want some background noise. It was a really interesting and good concept but they tried to do too much with it and it really hurt the movie in the long run.
Ross (3284 KP) rated The Nutcracker and the Four Realms (2018) in Movies
Nov 5, 2018 (Updated Nov 5, 2018)
Slight variation on the Alice in Wonderland reboot
I'm guessing Disney want to keep going with their live action Princess films, and thought they'd hit gold with the rights to the Nutcracker for a Christmas release. Similar to the 2010 Alice in Wonderland, the film intends to act as a sequel to the original tale of the Nutcracker, where the world has fallen into disarray. Clara is the daughter of the original story's Marie, who has passed away, and looking to open the intriguing present left by her mother she finds herself following a mouse (not a rabbit!) into a strange world. She is introduced to the world her mother was made queen of, though sadly learns that the "fourth realm" (led by Helen Mirren as Mother Ginger) is at war with the other three (among them are realms led by Keira Knightley and an underused Richard E Grant).
Here Disney have taken some liberties as Clara's brother and sister take the roles and names of her mother's siblings in the original, and for no apparent reason the film based on the Russian ballet that was based on the French adaptation of the German fairy tale, is set in London. I can only assume this was to up the Festive quotient, but seems a very odd choice, despite keeping a number of the German themes.
Keira Knightley is very irritating, doing an ear-piercing impression of Queenie from Blackadder.
Neither of the actors playing Clara or the Nutcracker are very good or likeable and you find yourself bored and starting to root for Mother Ginger just to end it.
The film is too long, and drags in large parts, and all three of my kids were restless for a lot of it. And there was a definite lack of large-scale special effects, some impressive scenes but audiences expect spectacles (not 3D glasses, I mean big scenes!) these days and those were lacking.
The most enjoyable scene was the use of ballet to get Clara up to date with the world she found herself in, being quite respectful to the medium it was adapting (though I can't say how authentic it was!).
Here Disney have taken some liberties as Clara's brother and sister take the roles and names of her mother's siblings in the original, and for no apparent reason the film based on the Russian ballet that was based on the French adaptation of the German fairy tale, is set in London. I can only assume this was to up the Festive quotient, but seems a very odd choice, despite keeping a number of the German themes.
Keira Knightley is very irritating, doing an ear-piercing impression of Queenie from Blackadder.
Neither of the actors playing Clara or the Nutcracker are very good or likeable and you find yourself bored and starting to root for Mother Ginger just to end it.
The film is too long, and drags in large parts, and all three of my kids were restless for a lot of it. And there was a definite lack of large-scale special effects, some impressive scenes but audiences expect spectacles (not 3D glasses, I mean big scenes!) these days and those were lacking.
The most enjoyable scene was the use of ballet to get Clara up to date with the world she found herself in, being quite respectful to the medium it was adapting (though I can't say how authentic it was!).
Carma (21 KP) rated How to Lose a Fiancé in Books
Jun 17, 2019
Sophia is tired of being told how to live her life by her overbearing, overprotecting father. When he calls her into his office to let her know she will be sent to Greece to marry a stranger she has had enough. She doesnt care that Dions acquisition of her fathers company will save their family, according to her father. She only wants her freedom. After thinking things through she decides to be the worst possible fiancé any one man could ever imagine. That way hed be forced to send her home and shed be free to follow her dreams.
Dion cant believe he agreed to marry the daughter of the man in charge of the company he wants to acquire. His bastard of a biological fathers old company, but no one will know that little tidbit of information. He looked Sophia up online and she seemed to fit into the stereotypical corporate wife he needs. Too bad the walking disaster that heads over to him in the airport is not quite what he was expecting.
Part of Sophias plan involves dressing as wildly as she can without trying to look like she has gone off the deep end. The itchy woolen sweater she chose to change into when they landed only adds to the hideousness of it all. The look on Dions face is worth the itching. Now to fully put her plan into action, she must find a taxidermy fox.
Dion has no idea what to do with this hideous fox that has somehow made its way into his home. Soon hatching a plot with the fox we first encountered in book 1 How to win a fiance. He soon figures out what Sophia is actually up to and together they agree to find a common ground and go ahead with the wedding. Theirs could be a good friendship opportunity for each other, each getting what they desire in life.
Dion and Sophia have pasts and families that dont lend themselves to Hallmark Movie Channel heart touching sentiment. Dion loses the one father figure he has, and Sophias actual father is lacking in just about every redeeming quality. They work through it together and make their own family ties. I voluntarily read and reviewed an advance reader copy without expectations. 4 ½ stars for this newest release from Ms. London.
Dion cant believe he agreed to marry the daughter of the man in charge of the company he wants to acquire. His bastard of a biological fathers old company, but no one will know that little tidbit of information. He looked Sophia up online and she seemed to fit into the stereotypical corporate wife he needs. Too bad the walking disaster that heads over to him in the airport is not quite what he was expecting.
Part of Sophias plan involves dressing as wildly as she can without trying to look like she has gone off the deep end. The itchy woolen sweater she chose to change into when they landed only adds to the hideousness of it all. The look on Dions face is worth the itching. Now to fully put her plan into action, she must find a taxidermy fox.
Dion has no idea what to do with this hideous fox that has somehow made its way into his home. Soon hatching a plot with the fox we first encountered in book 1 How to win a fiance. He soon figures out what Sophia is actually up to and together they agree to find a common ground and go ahead with the wedding. Theirs could be a good friendship opportunity for each other, each getting what they desire in life.
Dion and Sophia have pasts and families that dont lend themselves to Hallmark Movie Channel heart touching sentiment. Dion loses the one father figure he has, and Sophias actual father is lacking in just about every redeeming quality. They work through it together and make their own family ties. I voluntarily read and reviewed an advance reader copy without expectations. 4 ½ stars for this newest release from Ms. London.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Tammy (2014) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Life for Tammy (Melissa McCarthy) is a struggle in frustration. She is an outspoken individual who is not shy about speaking her mind and acting out which is often as trouble seems to follow her everywhere.
Following one particularly bad morning, Tammy decides to move away from Illinois once and for all and when her mother offers her no real encouragement, Tammy takes to the road with her grandmother (Susan Sarandon).
Despite her health issues and love for the bottle, Tammy is happy to have the company as she admires the free spirit of her grandmother who wants to have an adventure and live life to the fullest at all times.
Of course trouble seems to find Tammy and before long she has to deal with a slew of problems as well as the increasingly self destructive behavior of her grandmother.
Complications arise when a farmer named Bobby (Mark Duplass), and his father Earl (Gary Cole), enter into the picture to provide distractions to the ladies and to make them start to see the consequences of their action.
Throw in short but solid supporting work from Kathy Bates and Dan Aykroyd, and this film should have been a laugh filled riot. Instead it stays in the bittersweet range far more than it does comedy, as many of the best jokes in the film were shown in the trailer.
I credit McCarthy, who along with Ben Falcone wrote the film, for trying to move beyond the manic comedies that she has done prior. The film is marketed as more of the same but it is not. The film drags in places as you keep waiting for the laughs to come and when they do it is very sporadic. Instead the focus in on emotions, life, and being accountable as well as other heady topics it is just a shame that McCarthy keeps having to play the lovable loser parts as to be honest they are starting to get old. I joked to my wife that a prison in the film looked much like the one in “Identity Thief”.
The film attempts to combine a buddy road trip with some deeper human issues but this is not “Thelma and Louise”, and it does seem that despite the best efforts of all involved, we have seen this trip many times before and it is one that did not need to be taken again.
http://sknr.net/2014/07/02/tammy/
Following one particularly bad morning, Tammy decides to move away from Illinois once and for all and when her mother offers her no real encouragement, Tammy takes to the road with her grandmother (Susan Sarandon).
Despite her health issues and love for the bottle, Tammy is happy to have the company as she admires the free spirit of her grandmother who wants to have an adventure and live life to the fullest at all times.
Of course trouble seems to find Tammy and before long she has to deal with a slew of problems as well as the increasingly self destructive behavior of her grandmother.
Complications arise when a farmer named Bobby (Mark Duplass), and his father Earl (Gary Cole), enter into the picture to provide distractions to the ladies and to make them start to see the consequences of their action.
Throw in short but solid supporting work from Kathy Bates and Dan Aykroyd, and this film should have been a laugh filled riot. Instead it stays in the bittersweet range far more than it does comedy, as many of the best jokes in the film were shown in the trailer.
I credit McCarthy, who along with Ben Falcone wrote the film, for trying to move beyond the manic comedies that she has done prior. The film is marketed as more of the same but it is not. The film drags in places as you keep waiting for the laughs to come and when they do it is very sporadic. Instead the focus in on emotions, life, and being accountable as well as other heady topics it is just a shame that McCarthy keeps having to play the lovable loser parts as to be honest they are starting to get old. I joked to my wife that a prison in the film looked much like the one in “Identity Thief”.
The film attempts to combine a buddy road trip with some deeper human issues but this is not “Thelma and Louise”, and it does seem that despite the best efforts of all involved, we have seen this trip many times before and it is one that did not need to be taken again.
http://sknr.net/2014/07/02/tammy/