Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Greta (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
I sat down to write up my notes for the weekend's films and I had already forgotten this one. I quite enjoyed it and yet it hasn't really stuck with me at all.
Frances, played by Chloë Grace Moretz, finds a handbag on the subway, unable to hand it in to lost property she takes it home with the intention of returning it the next day. Greta is a lonely widow whose daughter is abroad and she has nothing but her piano and photos for company. When the pair meet they connect immediately and their friendship grows. To say Greta is clingy would be an understatement and when Frances discovers a cupboard full of identical "missing" handbags she knows she needs to get some distance.
Right, so, the idea here relies on someone returning her handbag, admittedly a handbag is less suspicious than a rucksack or a suitcase, but I'm still not convinced. It relies on no one seeing her leave it when she gets up to leave, and no one spotting it when they get on at the stop, and then not a single member of staff being in the subway station to take the bag. Erica says it best, "you call the bomb squad"... yes you do, Erica.
I very much enjoyed the idea of this film, as thrillers go it's a good set up. I'm becoming increasingly frustrated by trailers though, and in this instance I think they gave you too many moments that would have given a greater impact as a surprise. It also exposed an inconsistency.
The trailer shows Frances stuck in a lift as it's being crushed. In the context of the full film it made sense, sort of, but it left the question in the trailer of whether it was slightly sci-fi. While I knew what the whole scene was trying to achieve I felt that it was too confusing given the tone everywhere else.
Isabelle Huppert gives her character of Greta a delightfully creepy vibe, always pleasant and threatening at the same time and Chloë Grace Moretz played the naive Frances convincingly, but... I didn't think either particularly hit the spot. Greta was crazy but not devious enough and Frances was bordering on cliche when it came to her naivety.
There are lots of things that caused me issues, the passage of time being a major one. There's no clear idea of how long anything takes, how long their friendship went for, how long she was kidnapped, and it's surprisingly frustrating. I also am at a loss as to why her father resorts to a private investigator over the police, in my head it's because the police are saying she's a grown up and the messages suggest she's fine, but I don't think that's ever explicitly said.
I was getting very mixed tones from the film, first it was a drama, then a thriller, and then it seemed to want to be a horror. There's one point where it gets a little gruesome and it stuck out like a sore thumb. The very end as well, without trying to give spoilers, shows something I would fully expect to see in a horror movie, and in that setting it's a great way to finish it but in Greta seemed like a step in the wrong direction.
I've mentioned before that I don't over think the film while I'm watching it, I try not to look for the twists in advance, but I actually wrote the ending in my notes. While it was satisfying I was right, it was irritating that it was so obvious.
Like I mentioned above, the concept was great and it left a lot of opportunities for a brilliant thriller, but I feel like it just kept missing the point. A lot of the intrigue was stolen by the trailer and the identity crisis with the genre just held it back from what it could have achieved.
What you should do
It's not a bad watch, certainly catch it when it goes to streaming services.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
The ability to keep a home clutter free like Erica and Frances.
Frances, played by Chloë Grace Moretz, finds a handbag on the subway, unable to hand it in to lost property she takes it home with the intention of returning it the next day. Greta is a lonely widow whose daughter is abroad and she has nothing but her piano and photos for company. When the pair meet they connect immediately and their friendship grows. To say Greta is clingy would be an understatement and when Frances discovers a cupboard full of identical "missing" handbags she knows she needs to get some distance.
Right, so, the idea here relies on someone returning her handbag, admittedly a handbag is less suspicious than a rucksack or a suitcase, but I'm still not convinced. It relies on no one seeing her leave it when she gets up to leave, and no one spotting it when they get on at the stop, and then not a single member of staff being in the subway station to take the bag. Erica says it best, "you call the bomb squad"... yes you do, Erica.
I very much enjoyed the idea of this film, as thrillers go it's a good set up. I'm becoming increasingly frustrated by trailers though, and in this instance I think they gave you too many moments that would have given a greater impact as a surprise. It also exposed an inconsistency.
The trailer shows Frances stuck in a lift as it's being crushed. In the context of the full film it made sense, sort of, but it left the question in the trailer of whether it was slightly sci-fi. While I knew what the whole scene was trying to achieve I felt that it was too confusing given the tone everywhere else.
Isabelle Huppert gives her character of Greta a delightfully creepy vibe, always pleasant and threatening at the same time and Chloë Grace Moretz played the naive Frances convincingly, but... I didn't think either particularly hit the spot. Greta was crazy but not devious enough and Frances was bordering on cliche when it came to her naivety.
There are lots of things that caused me issues, the passage of time being a major one. There's no clear idea of how long anything takes, how long their friendship went for, how long she was kidnapped, and it's surprisingly frustrating. I also am at a loss as to why her father resorts to a private investigator over the police, in my head it's because the police are saying she's a grown up and the messages suggest she's fine, but I don't think that's ever explicitly said.
I was getting very mixed tones from the film, first it was a drama, then a thriller, and then it seemed to want to be a horror. There's one point where it gets a little gruesome and it stuck out like a sore thumb. The very end as well, without trying to give spoilers, shows something I would fully expect to see in a horror movie, and in that setting it's a great way to finish it but in Greta seemed like a step in the wrong direction.
I've mentioned before that I don't over think the film while I'm watching it, I try not to look for the twists in advance, but I actually wrote the ending in my notes. While it was satisfying I was right, it was irritating that it was so obvious.
Like I mentioned above, the concept was great and it left a lot of opportunities for a brilliant thriller, but I feel like it just kept missing the point. A lot of the intrigue was stolen by the trailer and the identity crisis with the genre just held it back from what it could have achieved.
What you should do
It's not a bad watch, certainly catch it when it goes to streaming services.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
The ability to keep a home clutter free like Erica and Frances.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Rick and Morty - Season 3 in TV
Feb 29, 2020
A big thank you to Smashbomb for this fantastic prize, make sure you take a look at their giveaways for the chance to win some amazing things.
Rick and Morty continues to follow the adventures of the members of the Smith household. When Jerry asks Beth to choose between him and Rick, the strength of their marriage is tested. Jerry is confronted with the loss of his family, while Beth begins to discover her independence again. Morty and Summer deal with their parents' separation by seeking more control over their lives. Rick's nihilistic way of life continues to prevent him from bonding with his family, as he remains unable to change his self-destructive behaviour.
At the end of season 2 Rick and the Smiths have hidden on a tiny version of Earth outside of the Federation's jurisdiction, Earth has been taken over and Rick has surrendered himself to save his family. We open season 3 with Rick in the Federation's custody being interrogated and we instantly get reminded that Rick doesn't do anything without having some sort of ulterior motive.
How can you not love the series that brought us Pickle Rick? I don't for a second know how anyone could think that Rick could create a rat/insect body when he is just a pickle, but he's the smartest man on the planet so I'm willing to believe it was entirely possible.
For me, a series that takes its characters on a journey without getting bogged down in a single storyline is always my favourite. Rick and Morty certainly manages to do this with its constantly jumping scenarios. The one story that does pop up throughout this season is Beth and Jerry's divorce. Rick, despite always being a bit of a dick to everyone, has always had it out for Jerry so this news doesn't phase him at all but the rest of the family are suffering in their own ways. Throughout the series we see Summer and Morty compensating with Rick's adventures and reconciling some of their ongoing personal issues through their experiences. While none of it is realistic, it's entirely relatable.
Before watching this season I decided to rewatch seasons 1 and 2, because it's the sensible thing to do. It felt like we got much better family interaction and inclusions in season 3, I doubt if you work it out that there's much difference between them but that it's more to do with the quality of what we got. With the family going through upheaval we got a lot of stories that actually go to prove that Rick really does care deep down even if he would never openly admit it.
Morty does develop somewhat in this season, he isn't just the bumbling sidekick any more. He's learned a lot over their adventures, and while he's still not on Rick standards, there are moments where we see that he's growing. His dealings with Rick during Vindicators 3 take a step towards actually standing up for himself more and showing him that he understands more about the inner workings of Rick mind than he realises. In The Whirly Dirly Conspiracy, his part of the episode is almost like that of a Rick and Morty adventure when Morty gets to choose, he stands back and watches while Beth makes a hash of things and then swoops in at the last minute to do things that need to be done... admittedly that last bit probably isn't a good character trait to develop but he's realised that (in their messed up sort of world) sometimes someone needs to learn a lesson.
The season as a whole was very good and I liked the way that we came full circle and almost reset the universe for season four. Though I still enjoy Rick and Morty in general, this was definitely a high point for what's currently out there. Development of characters, more fun scenarios and just a little bit of fear that somewhere in a sewer a pickle is making a body out of rat parts.
Episode synopsis included here: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/rick-and-morty-season-3-tv-dvd-review.html
Rick and Morty continues to follow the adventures of the members of the Smith household. When Jerry asks Beth to choose between him and Rick, the strength of their marriage is tested. Jerry is confronted with the loss of his family, while Beth begins to discover her independence again. Morty and Summer deal with their parents' separation by seeking more control over their lives. Rick's nihilistic way of life continues to prevent him from bonding with his family, as he remains unable to change his self-destructive behaviour.
At the end of season 2 Rick and the Smiths have hidden on a tiny version of Earth outside of the Federation's jurisdiction, Earth has been taken over and Rick has surrendered himself to save his family. We open season 3 with Rick in the Federation's custody being interrogated and we instantly get reminded that Rick doesn't do anything without having some sort of ulterior motive.
How can you not love the series that brought us Pickle Rick? I don't for a second know how anyone could think that Rick could create a rat/insect body when he is just a pickle, but he's the smartest man on the planet so I'm willing to believe it was entirely possible.
For me, a series that takes its characters on a journey without getting bogged down in a single storyline is always my favourite. Rick and Morty certainly manages to do this with its constantly jumping scenarios. The one story that does pop up throughout this season is Beth and Jerry's divorce. Rick, despite always being a bit of a dick to everyone, has always had it out for Jerry so this news doesn't phase him at all but the rest of the family are suffering in their own ways. Throughout the series we see Summer and Morty compensating with Rick's adventures and reconciling some of their ongoing personal issues through their experiences. While none of it is realistic, it's entirely relatable.
Before watching this season I decided to rewatch seasons 1 and 2, because it's the sensible thing to do. It felt like we got much better family interaction and inclusions in season 3, I doubt if you work it out that there's much difference between them but that it's more to do with the quality of what we got. With the family going through upheaval we got a lot of stories that actually go to prove that Rick really does care deep down even if he would never openly admit it.
Morty does develop somewhat in this season, he isn't just the bumbling sidekick any more. He's learned a lot over their adventures, and while he's still not on Rick standards, there are moments where we see that he's growing. His dealings with Rick during Vindicators 3 take a step towards actually standing up for himself more and showing him that he understands more about the inner workings of Rick mind than he realises. In The Whirly Dirly Conspiracy, his part of the episode is almost like that of a Rick and Morty adventure when Morty gets to choose, he stands back and watches while Beth makes a hash of things and then swoops in at the last minute to do things that need to be done... admittedly that last bit probably isn't a good character trait to develop but he's realised that (in their messed up sort of world) sometimes someone needs to learn a lesson.
The season as a whole was very good and I liked the way that we came full circle and almost reset the universe for season four. Though I still enjoy Rick and Morty in general, this was definitely a high point for what's currently out there. Development of characters, more fun scenarios and just a little bit of fear that somewhere in a sewer a pickle is making a body out of rat parts.
Episode synopsis included here: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/rick-and-morty-season-3-tv-dvd-review.html
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Jack the Giant Slayer (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
The timeless children’s tale of Jack and the Beanstalk gets a high-tech update in the new film Jack the Giant Slayer. Directed by Bryan Singer, the new version mixes in special effects with romance, action, and humor to provide a refreshing update of a fairytale that should appeal to adults and children alike. Nicholas Hoult stars as Jack, a simple farmer who’s raised by his uncle after the passing of his father. As a boy, Jack enjoyed the tales of long ago, especially those of the time when giants came down from the sky and attacked the earth before being thwarted by King Eric and his magical crown.
One day while in town to sell a cart and horse and earn much-needed funds for his uncle, Jack has a chance encounter with Princess Isabelle, (Eleanor Tomlinson), which leaves Jack’s starstruck. Unbeknownst to Jack and Isabelle, there is a dastardly plot afoot as the evil Count Roderick (Stanley Tucci), plots to rule the land once he has married Isabelle. The fact that the Princess has no interest in marrying Roderick is of little interest to the King (Ian McShane), as he is anxious to provide continuity for his kingdom following the loss of his wife. While Isabelle pleads her case with her father, Jack ends up in possession of beans which, he’s told, are magical.
Upon seeing what Jack has returned with, his uncle storms off into the night hoping to sell some of Jack’s remaining family possessions in order to make the money Jack had failed to acquire. While alone, Jack again encounters the Princess, who has decided to run away rather than be forced into a marriage she does not want. As if on cue, one of the magic beans that Jack had obtained earlier becomes wet in the rain storm and whisks the cottage and Princess into the heavens high above. The King and his men send a group of guards, under the leadership of Elmont (Ewan McGregor), to ascend the beanstalk and return the Princess. Jack and Roderick also accompany the soldiers, each with their own agenda.
Upon scaling the massive stalk, the group soon discovers that they are in the realm of giants long thought to be the stuff of legends. Complications arise which forces Jack to take command of the very perilous situation and soon finds himself battling not just to save the Princess but also for the very survival of the kingdom and surrounding world.
The film has some nice moments and while the CGI stuff may be a bit childish to some, it is important to remember that this is a fairytale and as such you are not going to see a lot of character depth and intricate plot twists. Instead, the film relies on a very likable cast made up of matinée quality villains and bad guys and some very nice visual effects to convey its simple but effective formula. Hoult follows up his leading role in “Warm Bodies” effectively and with several high-profile projects in the near future, seems poised to be a leading man to keep an eye on. The supporting cast does a very good job, especially McGregor and McShane who bring a gleeful energy to their roles as does Tucci as a villain who has everything short of the twirling mustache and black hat.
The 3-D offered some very good moments in the film and really enhanced some of the battle scenes in the film. Parents with younger children may want to note that there are some elements that may be frightening to very young children but for the most part this is a kid’s film. That being said, I was surprised how much I enjoyed the movie. It’s certainly better than I expected and was, in my opinion, the best live-action retelling of fairytale in recent memory. We did get a chance to review the film in the IMAX format which certainly allowed for the impressive visuals of the film to have an even greater impact. If you’ve ever been a fan of the story then you definitely will want to take a trip up the beanstalk for this nostalgic, yet highly enjoyable, interpretation of the beloved classic.
One day while in town to sell a cart and horse and earn much-needed funds for his uncle, Jack has a chance encounter with Princess Isabelle, (Eleanor Tomlinson), which leaves Jack’s starstruck. Unbeknownst to Jack and Isabelle, there is a dastardly plot afoot as the evil Count Roderick (Stanley Tucci), plots to rule the land once he has married Isabelle. The fact that the Princess has no interest in marrying Roderick is of little interest to the King (Ian McShane), as he is anxious to provide continuity for his kingdom following the loss of his wife. While Isabelle pleads her case with her father, Jack ends up in possession of beans which, he’s told, are magical.
Upon seeing what Jack has returned with, his uncle storms off into the night hoping to sell some of Jack’s remaining family possessions in order to make the money Jack had failed to acquire. While alone, Jack again encounters the Princess, who has decided to run away rather than be forced into a marriage she does not want. As if on cue, one of the magic beans that Jack had obtained earlier becomes wet in the rain storm and whisks the cottage and Princess into the heavens high above. The King and his men send a group of guards, under the leadership of Elmont (Ewan McGregor), to ascend the beanstalk and return the Princess. Jack and Roderick also accompany the soldiers, each with their own agenda.
Upon scaling the massive stalk, the group soon discovers that they are in the realm of giants long thought to be the stuff of legends. Complications arise which forces Jack to take command of the very perilous situation and soon finds himself battling not just to save the Princess but also for the very survival of the kingdom and surrounding world.
The film has some nice moments and while the CGI stuff may be a bit childish to some, it is important to remember that this is a fairytale and as such you are not going to see a lot of character depth and intricate plot twists. Instead, the film relies on a very likable cast made up of matinée quality villains and bad guys and some very nice visual effects to convey its simple but effective formula. Hoult follows up his leading role in “Warm Bodies” effectively and with several high-profile projects in the near future, seems poised to be a leading man to keep an eye on. The supporting cast does a very good job, especially McGregor and McShane who bring a gleeful energy to their roles as does Tucci as a villain who has everything short of the twirling mustache and black hat.
The 3-D offered some very good moments in the film and really enhanced some of the battle scenes in the film. Parents with younger children may want to note that there are some elements that may be frightening to very young children but for the most part this is a kid’s film. That being said, I was surprised how much I enjoyed the movie. It’s certainly better than I expected and was, in my opinion, the best live-action retelling of fairytale in recent memory. We did get a chance to review the film in the IMAX format which certainly allowed for the impressive visuals of the film to have an even greater impact. If you’ve ever been a fan of the story then you definitely will want to take a trip up the beanstalk for this nostalgic, yet highly enjoyable, interpretation of the beloved classic.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Men in Black III (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Fifteen years after bursting onto the scene, award winning actors Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones are back in black in Men In Black 3! Alien-busting agents J (Will Smith) and K (Tommy Lee Jones) are here once again to protect the galaxy, and the people of Earth, in this action-packed, hilarious and attention-grabbing adventure that is sure to redeem itself from its previous sequel flop.
Men In Black 3 features a time travel plot, with a comedic twist, that focuses on the relationship between Agent J, and surly old character, Agent K. Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones have fantastic and seamless chemistry that makes it easy to dispel disbelief and emerse yourself into this secret world of aliens among us.
The film starts off with what seams like a casual conversation, between wise cracking charismatic Agent J and always grumpy Agent K, but soon leads to Agent K stonewalling J’s questions about K’s past by stating, “Don’t ask questions you don’t want to know the answers to.” As Will Smith’s character persists, our curiosity grows, and a conspiracy of a cover up and clues to Agent K’s dark past unfolds.
Meanwhile, one of the most feared criminals in the galaxy, Boris the Animal (Jemaine Clement), has just escaped from a maximum security prison that was built on the moon to detain him. Boris wants nothing more than to seek revenge on the person responsible for his 40 year incarceration and kill the man responsible for the loss of his arm, Agent K. Through a murderous rage Boris secures a time travel device and jumps back in time to 1969, where he rewrites history by killing K in hopes that his Boglodite alien kind will fulfill their mission to use and destroy present day Earth. The only person aware that time has been altered is, of course, Agent J who ends up traveling back in time to stop Boris the Animal. In doing so, Agent J unites with the younger Agent K (Josh Brolin) and has to work together to ultimately save mankind. Josh Brolin’s performance was spot on. He gave an uncanny impression of Jones, right down to the mannerisms and facial expressions. He was very entertaining to watch.
When I first heard about a third Men in Black movie, I didn’t expect much out of this 10 year dormant franchise. Mainly because the second movie left so little to be desired, due to its horrible storyline and less than stellar performances by the lead characters. I honestly cannot remember a single enjoyable moment from Men in Black 2, someone must have neuralized me!
Barry Sonnenfeld is back in the director’s seat, hoping to redeem himself from the disaster that was Men in Black 2. He attempts to return to the original formula that made the first Men in Black movie fun, original and entertaining. Proving to have succeeded in creating a more worthwhile storyline, there are however moments within the movie that seem a bit thrown together, times in the plot that could have been expanded upon but may have ended up on the editing room floor.
Kudos to the special effects and art direction team for once again creating amusingly and outlandish aliens that were the real stars of the show. The special effects, such as Boris’ dart spitting spider-like creature that lives inside his hand, were particularly gruesome.
Both Sonnenfeld and Smith, who serve as producers, were aiming at providing more substance to the third installment. They wanted to delve into the relationship between J and K and why K has such a bitter and distant persona, especially after having been partners for 15 years. The real reasons will shock you. I won’t spoil the surprising end, but it was a touching twist that I did not see coming. It made me appreciate both characters and had me walking out of the theater feeling pumped up from all of the action, giddy from all of the laughs and moved from the heartfelt ending. They pulled it off without being sappy, a well rounded action comedy, suitable for the whole family.
Men In Black 3 features a time travel plot, with a comedic twist, that focuses on the relationship between Agent J, and surly old character, Agent K. Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones have fantastic and seamless chemistry that makes it easy to dispel disbelief and emerse yourself into this secret world of aliens among us.
The film starts off with what seams like a casual conversation, between wise cracking charismatic Agent J and always grumpy Agent K, but soon leads to Agent K stonewalling J’s questions about K’s past by stating, “Don’t ask questions you don’t want to know the answers to.” As Will Smith’s character persists, our curiosity grows, and a conspiracy of a cover up and clues to Agent K’s dark past unfolds.
Meanwhile, one of the most feared criminals in the galaxy, Boris the Animal (Jemaine Clement), has just escaped from a maximum security prison that was built on the moon to detain him. Boris wants nothing more than to seek revenge on the person responsible for his 40 year incarceration and kill the man responsible for the loss of his arm, Agent K. Through a murderous rage Boris secures a time travel device and jumps back in time to 1969, where he rewrites history by killing K in hopes that his Boglodite alien kind will fulfill their mission to use and destroy present day Earth. The only person aware that time has been altered is, of course, Agent J who ends up traveling back in time to stop Boris the Animal. In doing so, Agent J unites with the younger Agent K (Josh Brolin) and has to work together to ultimately save mankind. Josh Brolin’s performance was spot on. He gave an uncanny impression of Jones, right down to the mannerisms and facial expressions. He was very entertaining to watch.
When I first heard about a third Men in Black movie, I didn’t expect much out of this 10 year dormant franchise. Mainly because the second movie left so little to be desired, due to its horrible storyline and less than stellar performances by the lead characters. I honestly cannot remember a single enjoyable moment from Men in Black 2, someone must have neuralized me!
Barry Sonnenfeld is back in the director’s seat, hoping to redeem himself from the disaster that was Men in Black 2. He attempts to return to the original formula that made the first Men in Black movie fun, original and entertaining. Proving to have succeeded in creating a more worthwhile storyline, there are however moments within the movie that seem a bit thrown together, times in the plot that could have been expanded upon but may have ended up on the editing room floor.
Kudos to the special effects and art direction team for once again creating amusingly and outlandish aliens that were the real stars of the show. The special effects, such as Boris’ dart spitting spider-like creature that lives inside his hand, were particularly gruesome.
Both Sonnenfeld and Smith, who serve as producers, were aiming at providing more substance to the third installment. They wanted to delve into the relationship between J and K and why K has such a bitter and distant persona, especially after having been partners for 15 years. The real reasons will shock you. I won’t spoil the surprising end, but it was a touching twist that I did not see coming. It made me appreciate both characters and had me walking out of the theater feeling pumped up from all of the action, giddy from all of the laughs and moved from the heartfelt ending. They pulled it off without being sappy, a well rounded action comedy, suitable for the whole family.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Roe v. Wade (2021) in Movies
Mar 24, 2021
Tough subject matter taken head on (1 more)
'Old-pros' Voight, Davi and Guttenberg turn up
The script is clunky and unconvincing (1 more)
Some of the supporting acting roles are ropey
A controversial look at the Supreme Court legalisation of abortion in 1973
Roe v Wade was a controversial vote by the US Supreme Court in 1973 over whether abortion should be legalized across the US, following its earlier legalization in New York state.
Following an early personal tragedy, Dr. Bernard Nathanson (Nick Loeb) is a leading abortion advocate, making a tidy living by performing abortions in New York. Together with writer and journalist Larry Lader (Jamie Kennedy) the pair lobby for the "Right to Choose": to legalize abortion across the country. They 'recruit' Norma McCorvey (Summer Joy Campbell), under the pseudonym of Jane Roe, to headline their case.
Against them are the 'Pro-Life' lobby headed by Dr. Mildred Jefferson (Stacey Nash) with Henry Wade (James DuMont), the district attorney for Dallas County, being the opposing plaintiff.
Positives:
- It's a brave team that put a movie together about such an emotionally charged subject, and Nick Loeb and crew should be congratulated for being brave enough to do so.
- As in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", this was subject matter from the era from the US 1960/1970's that I was completely unaware of, so I didn't know where the movie might go (no spoilers here).
- The movie plays its cards pretty close to its chest for most of the running time as regards whose 'side' it is on: pro-Life or pro-Choice. You see each team working their own corner, and the facts for and against are provided to the viewer (which Nick Loeb asserts have been thoroughly fact checked).
- The film comes to life most in some of the legal debates between Professor Robert Byrn (Joey Lawrence) and his students. These were the scenes which I enjoyed most, and Lawrence delivers one of the better acting performances in the movie.
- There's fun in seeing a lot of 'old pros' appearing in cameos as the supreme court judges: Jon Voight ("Mission Impossible"); Bond villain Robert Davi ("Licence to Kill"); Corbin Bernsen ("LA Law") and Steve Guttenberg ("3 Men and a Baby").
Negatives:
- There's no polite way to say this, but as a relatively low-budget movie, some of the supporting performances are on the decidedly ropy side.
- I wanted to see more of the legal debate between the members of the Supreme court.... but I suspect the shooting time available with these 'big name' actors was limited. That's a shame.
- This is not a "Trial of the Chicago 7", and the script is NOT by Aaron Sorkin. It generally lacks polish. And there is way too much "Oh, hello <<Insert full title and name of character here>>" which is distractingly unnatural (just use sub-titles!).
- Those familiar with my blog will know of my UTTER HATRED of voiceovers in movies! This is deployed throughout (by Nick Loeb) and irritated me enormously. More "Show".... less "Tell"!
- The movie doesn't know when to quit. There is a natural and dramatic "end point" to the story. But the movie tacks on multiple 'epilogue' scenes. Some of these are interesting and informative, showing broadcasts of the 'real-life' participants. Others are superfluous, and lessen the overall impact of the message. IMHO, it would have been better to end at the natural end-point of the story, then 'do a "Sully"' by dropping the real life photos and interviews as insets into the end-titles.
I'll sometimes put 'warnings' for sensitive viewers into my reviews. As the subject matter is abortion, then this may naturally self-deselect certain viewers. But to be clear, the movie does 'go there' in two short, almost subliminal, scenes that will almost certainly upset any parents that have been through any form of pre-natal loss. Watcher beware.
(For my full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/03/24/roe-v-wade-theres-a-fortune-in-abortion/. Thanks.)
Following an early personal tragedy, Dr. Bernard Nathanson (Nick Loeb) is a leading abortion advocate, making a tidy living by performing abortions in New York. Together with writer and journalist Larry Lader (Jamie Kennedy) the pair lobby for the "Right to Choose": to legalize abortion across the country. They 'recruit' Norma McCorvey (Summer Joy Campbell), under the pseudonym of Jane Roe, to headline their case.
Against them are the 'Pro-Life' lobby headed by Dr. Mildred Jefferson (Stacey Nash) with Henry Wade (James DuMont), the district attorney for Dallas County, being the opposing plaintiff.
Positives:
- It's a brave team that put a movie together about such an emotionally charged subject, and Nick Loeb and crew should be congratulated for being brave enough to do so.
- As in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", this was subject matter from the era from the US 1960/1970's that I was completely unaware of, so I didn't know where the movie might go (no spoilers here).
- The movie plays its cards pretty close to its chest for most of the running time as regards whose 'side' it is on: pro-Life or pro-Choice. You see each team working their own corner, and the facts for and against are provided to the viewer (which Nick Loeb asserts have been thoroughly fact checked).
- The film comes to life most in some of the legal debates between Professor Robert Byrn (Joey Lawrence) and his students. These were the scenes which I enjoyed most, and Lawrence delivers one of the better acting performances in the movie.
- There's fun in seeing a lot of 'old pros' appearing in cameos as the supreme court judges: Jon Voight ("Mission Impossible"); Bond villain Robert Davi ("Licence to Kill"); Corbin Bernsen ("LA Law") and Steve Guttenberg ("3 Men and a Baby").
Negatives:
- There's no polite way to say this, but as a relatively low-budget movie, some of the supporting performances are on the decidedly ropy side.
- I wanted to see more of the legal debate between the members of the Supreme court.... but I suspect the shooting time available with these 'big name' actors was limited. That's a shame.
- This is not a "Trial of the Chicago 7", and the script is NOT by Aaron Sorkin. It generally lacks polish. And there is way too much "Oh, hello <<Insert full title and name of character here>>" which is distractingly unnatural (just use sub-titles!).
- Those familiar with my blog will know of my UTTER HATRED of voiceovers in movies! This is deployed throughout (by Nick Loeb) and irritated me enormously. More "Show".... less "Tell"!
- The movie doesn't know when to quit. There is a natural and dramatic "end point" to the story. But the movie tacks on multiple 'epilogue' scenes. Some of these are interesting and informative, showing broadcasts of the 'real-life' participants. Others are superfluous, and lessen the overall impact of the message. IMHO, it would have been better to end at the natural end-point of the story, then 'do a "Sully"' by dropping the real life photos and interviews as insets into the end-titles.
I'll sometimes put 'warnings' for sensitive viewers into my reviews. As the subject matter is abortion, then this may naturally self-deselect certain viewers. But to be clear, the movie does 'go there' in two short, almost subliminal, scenes that will almost certainly upset any parents that have been through any form of pre-natal loss. Watcher beware.
(For my full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/03/24/roe-v-wade-theres-a-fortune-in-abortion/. Thanks.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Frankie (2019) in Movies
May 24, 2021
A film about death that dies on its feet.
In "Frankie", the eponymous French movie star (played by Isabelle Huppert) is dying of cancer and gathers her complex family and friends around her for one last 'family holiday' in the picturesque Portuguese town of Sintra. We follow the events of a single day of the vacation as frictions and back-stories of the players become more evident.
Positives:
- Sintra looks gorgeous: as a regular visitor to Portugal's Silver Coast, it's a place I've not yet visited. The cinematography of the region makes me want to change that.
- There are a couple of decent scenes in the movie: both involving the trustworthy Greg Kinnear: one involving him trying to sell a film idea to Frankie (who knows, but won't tell him, that she won't be around for it); and another with Kinnear and Tomei at their hotel.
Negatives:
- Where do I start.... the film is as dull as dishwater!
-- A criticism I had of the otherwise impressive "Nomadland" was that the story arc of the leading character was shallow and not very compelling. The story arc here is a bloody straight line! Virtually nothing happens in the movie and it goes nowhere. Events occur as isolated snippets in the storyline. For example, the 'loss' of an expensive bracelet is randomly lobbed into the story, but then is never referenced back in any future narrative.
-- When the ending happened (which the illustrious Mrs Movie Man referred to as a "blessing") it was a non-event. The lady behind us in the cinema exclaimed "WHAT????". And I could understand her frustration.
- The direction is distinctly lacking. Aside from the couple of decent scenes (see above), most of the shots feel like first takes, with the actors doing read-throughs of the clunky script to try to work out how to best sell the lines. "OK, time to film it for real now". But director Sachs has already shouted "Cut and Print.... now who's for some more vinos and Pastel de Nata?"! Were they aiming for some sort of naturalistic fumbling of the character's conversations? For that's how it comes across, and it's just awful.
- The script feels like a wasted opportunity. The set-up should have been a good one for an intense drama. And there are flashes (merely flashes) of potential brilliance in there: a formative step-brother/step-sister incident is based around the film "Grease", which is mirrored (either cleverly or purely through coincidence!?) in the beach-side romance of Maya (Sennia Nanua) and Portuguese holiday-maker Pedro (Manuel Sá Nogueira). And does the homosexual Michel (Pascal Greggory) have his sights on Jimmy (Brendan Gleeson)? Or Tiago? Or both? None of these potentially interesting strands ever get tied down.
- Aside from the poor script and the poor direction, some of the acting performances are unconvincing. "The Girl with all the Gifts" was a fabulous film - it made my number 2 slot of 2016! And I called out young Sennia Nanua as "one to watch for the future" as the zombie girl at the heart of the film. Here she was 17 at the time of filming. But I'm afraid I just didn't find her convincing as the moody teen. (By the way, I only single her out, since I was so impressed with her previous performance: with the exception perhaps of Kinnear, Tomei and Carloto Cotta. none of the rest of the cast consistently shine either.)
Summary Thoughts: It's a real shame that my first visit back to the cinema was such a let-down. Ira Sachs is not a director I know, but he comes with a strong reputation (for 2016's "Little Men"). But here he delivers a plain stinker. I'm afraid this movie has a word associated with it, and the word is "Avoid".
(For the full graphical review, please check out "One Mann's Movies" here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/24/frankie-a-film-about-death-that-dies-on-its-feet/. Thanks.)
Positives:
- Sintra looks gorgeous: as a regular visitor to Portugal's Silver Coast, it's a place I've not yet visited. The cinematography of the region makes me want to change that.
- There are a couple of decent scenes in the movie: both involving the trustworthy Greg Kinnear: one involving him trying to sell a film idea to Frankie (who knows, but won't tell him, that she won't be around for it); and another with Kinnear and Tomei at their hotel.
Negatives:
- Where do I start.... the film is as dull as dishwater!
-- A criticism I had of the otherwise impressive "Nomadland" was that the story arc of the leading character was shallow and not very compelling. The story arc here is a bloody straight line! Virtually nothing happens in the movie and it goes nowhere. Events occur as isolated snippets in the storyline. For example, the 'loss' of an expensive bracelet is randomly lobbed into the story, but then is never referenced back in any future narrative.
-- When the ending happened (which the illustrious Mrs Movie Man referred to as a "blessing") it was a non-event. The lady behind us in the cinema exclaimed "WHAT????". And I could understand her frustration.
- The direction is distinctly lacking. Aside from the couple of decent scenes (see above), most of the shots feel like first takes, with the actors doing read-throughs of the clunky script to try to work out how to best sell the lines. "OK, time to film it for real now". But director Sachs has already shouted "Cut and Print.... now who's for some more vinos and Pastel de Nata?"! Were they aiming for some sort of naturalistic fumbling of the character's conversations? For that's how it comes across, and it's just awful.
- The script feels like a wasted opportunity. The set-up should have been a good one for an intense drama. And there are flashes (merely flashes) of potential brilliance in there: a formative step-brother/step-sister incident is based around the film "Grease", which is mirrored (either cleverly or purely through coincidence!?) in the beach-side romance of Maya (Sennia Nanua) and Portuguese holiday-maker Pedro (Manuel Sá Nogueira). And does the homosexual Michel (Pascal Greggory) have his sights on Jimmy (Brendan Gleeson)? Or Tiago? Or both? None of these potentially interesting strands ever get tied down.
- Aside from the poor script and the poor direction, some of the acting performances are unconvincing. "The Girl with all the Gifts" was a fabulous film - it made my number 2 slot of 2016! And I called out young Sennia Nanua as "one to watch for the future" as the zombie girl at the heart of the film. Here she was 17 at the time of filming. But I'm afraid I just didn't find her convincing as the moody teen. (By the way, I only single her out, since I was so impressed with her previous performance: with the exception perhaps of Kinnear, Tomei and Carloto Cotta. none of the rest of the cast consistently shine either.)
Summary Thoughts: It's a real shame that my first visit back to the cinema was such a let-down. Ira Sachs is not a director I know, but he comes with a strong reputation (for 2016's "Little Men"). But here he delivers a plain stinker. I'm afraid this movie has a word associated with it, and the word is "Avoid".
(For the full graphical review, please check out "One Mann's Movies" here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/24/frankie-a-film-about-death-that-dies-on-its-feet/. Thanks.)
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated The Wives in Books
Oct 5, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Wives by Tarryn Fisher is a very fast-paced domestic thriller. Expect many plot twists and disturbing revelations.
Synopsis:
Thursday is married to Seth. But he has two other wives, that he sees during the week. Thursday gets to see Seth on Thursday, while the other wives each have a day for themselves as well. The main rule is - she is not supposed to know the other wives, nor contact them.
When Thursday finds the name of his newest wife, Hannah, in Seth’s pocket, she does what every woman would - looks her up. She meets up with Hannah under a false name, trying to find out more about her and the husband that they share. But Hannah is not only pregnant with Seth’s baby; she also has bruises on her body. Is Seth capable of that? The Seth she is married to?
Realising she might not know who Seth really is, Thursday is on a mission to find out as much as possible about him and the other two wives, before he realises something’s up. With many twists and turns, Thursday realises things are not as they seem. At all.
My Thoughts:
The first half of the book gives us the idea of the situation. From Thursday’s point of view, we get a glimpse of a very rare situation. How a woman feels when she is sharing a man with other women. The challenges and worries this entails. The constant battle to be better than the others, even though she doesn’t know them. The constant curiosity to know how they treat him, whether they are more beautiful than her, whether they can give him more than she can. The battle with herself, on why isn’t she enough. Why does he need other women to be happy? The loss of her baby, that changed everything.
The second half of the book is filled with plot twists, and I cannot say much more without revealing anything. It involves finding out the truth, violence, mental health hospital and many lies told by many people. I was very disappointed with the ending, and I will have to explain why below.
SPOILER ALERT - The below paragraph contains spoilers.
During the book, we kept having more and more plot twists. The story started becoming more and more twisted and tricky to unravel. And then, a few chapters before the end, the author explains this as one of Thursday’s delusions. Seth divorced her when they lost the baby, but she could never move on and started believing this delusion that he has multiple wives. However, there are many inconsistencies to this, and they are all left for us to believe they are part of Thursday’s delusions. Also, there are facts that don’t correspond. He still came to see her every Thursday (which was explained as cheating). Furthermore. he stole money from her bank account. He brewed some weird tea for her before she lost her baby. Somehow, I keep thinking that the plot became too twisted for the author as well, and she just decided to blame it all on Thursday’s delusions.
SPOILER FINISHED.
I am still unsure on how I feel about this book. Perhaps I would’ve been more satisfied if the explanation and the ending were different. The very last scene was shocking, and completely out of character. I cannot understand why this is how the book ended and I am very conflicted. This type of plot seems very similar to other books I have read before, and I don’t find it unique. However, I read this book in a day and it did intrigue me to find out more. Once you start reading, you cannot put this book down. But once you get to the ending, there is the conflict of whether it was a good ending of such a twisty book.
I definitely recommend it, if you love this genre. It will keep you on your toes. It also might make you think whether your husband has other wives as well. Just kidding :)
BLOG TOUR
This review is part of the blog tour for The Wives, organised by the HQ Team. Thank you to the publisher and the author, for sending me a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
Synopsis:
Thursday is married to Seth. But he has two other wives, that he sees during the week. Thursday gets to see Seth on Thursday, while the other wives each have a day for themselves as well. The main rule is - she is not supposed to know the other wives, nor contact them.
When Thursday finds the name of his newest wife, Hannah, in Seth’s pocket, she does what every woman would - looks her up. She meets up with Hannah under a false name, trying to find out more about her and the husband that they share. But Hannah is not only pregnant with Seth’s baby; she also has bruises on her body. Is Seth capable of that? The Seth she is married to?
Realising she might not know who Seth really is, Thursday is on a mission to find out as much as possible about him and the other two wives, before he realises something’s up. With many twists and turns, Thursday realises things are not as they seem. At all.
My Thoughts:
The first half of the book gives us the idea of the situation. From Thursday’s point of view, we get a glimpse of a very rare situation. How a woman feels when she is sharing a man with other women. The challenges and worries this entails. The constant battle to be better than the others, even though she doesn’t know them. The constant curiosity to know how they treat him, whether they are more beautiful than her, whether they can give him more than she can. The battle with herself, on why isn’t she enough. Why does he need other women to be happy? The loss of her baby, that changed everything.
The second half of the book is filled with plot twists, and I cannot say much more without revealing anything. It involves finding out the truth, violence, mental health hospital and many lies told by many people. I was very disappointed with the ending, and I will have to explain why below.
SPOILER ALERT - The below paragraph contains spoilers.
During the book, we kept having more and more plot twists. The story started becoming more and more twisted and tricky to unravel. And then, a few chapters before the end, the author explains this as one of Thursday’s delusions. Seth divorced her when they lost the baby, but she could never move on and started believing this delusion that he has multiple wives. However, there are many inconsistencies to this, and they are all left for us to believe they are part of Thursday’s delusions. Also, there are facts that don’t correspond. He still came to see her every Thursday (which was explained as cheating). Furthermore. he stole money from her bank account. He brewed some weird tea for her before she lost her baby. Somehow, I keep thinking that the plot became too twisted for the author as well, and she just decided to blame it all on Thursday’s delusions.
SPOILER FINISHED.
I am still unsure on how I feel about this book. Perhaps I would’ve been more satisfied if the explanation and the ending were different. The very last scene was shocking, and completely out of character. I cannot understand why this is how the book ended and I am very conflicted. This type of plot seems very similar to other books I have read before, and I don’t find it unique. However, I read this book in a day and it did intrigue me to find out more. Once you start reading, you cannot put this book down. But once you get to the ending, there is the conflict of whether it was a good ending of such a twisty book.
I definitely recommend it, if you love this genre. It will keep you on your toes. It also might make you think whether your husband has other wives as well. Just kidding :)
BLOG TOUR
This review is part of the blog tour for The Wives, organised by the HQ Team. Thank you to the publisher and the author, for sending me a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
Darren (1599 KP) rated From Dusk Till Dawn (1996) in Movies
Sep 2, 2019
Thoughts on From Dusk till Dawn
Characters – Seth Gecko has just been sprung from prison by his brother, he wants to get across the border to complete a deal which would see them both have freedom, he is the one that remains in control wanting to keep everything calm, which would mean not leaving a pile of bodies behind them. He does deliver the threats which would see them as a danger, though he does just want things to be simple. Richard or Ritchie is must more of a loose cannon, he is paranoid and this makes him more dangerous, as he will kill people putting their safety at risk. He is protected by his brother, as he doesn’t seem like he is capable of putting a plan together himself. Jacob was a priest that has lost his faith after his wife’s death, he I taking his family on a vacation and gets forced into helping the brothers, he wants to keep them safe, willing to risk his own life to make this happen. Kate and Scott are his children, they are dealing with their own loss the best way they know how to and being supportive to their father. Santanico is the beautiful dancer that will stop a bar with her dance, she is one of the leaders of the vampires who has been waiting for the food in human form.
Performances – George Clooney is great to see in this role, after this we only usually see him in smooth talking roles, rather than a rough criminal, showing he could become any role offered to him. Tarantino in this film is creepy and putting himself in the supporting role does hide any restrictions he might have as an actor. Harvey Keitel is great showing a character that is meant to be hating his life choice, but remaining strong for his children. Juliette Lewis and Ernest Liu are both solid enough in the supporting roles without getting too much more to work with, while Salma Hayek turns heads with her performance.
Story – The story here follows two criminals trying to get to Mexico, the family they force to help them across the border and the bar they find, filled with vampires that they must fight to survive the night. Where this story stands up on its own, is by making it a criminal tory to start with, having no hints of horror or vampires involved, as we just watch the two loose cannons trying to get to safety, by pulling the rug out from under us to thrown us into the horror idea is genius switch of pace for the story. we do have themes going on especially with the Jacob character needing to find his lost faith which finding it will become the big part in fight the vampires. The story also exists in a world where vampire stories do exist, which gives them ideas on how to fight back, which was the main attraction to the 90’s horror stories.
Action/Horror – The action in the film involves the fighting with the vampires, we get to take everything to a new level for this side of the genre, with the blood splatter in the action, which the horror gives us because we vampires which are a staple of horror, but we do focus on the action over the scares.
Settings – The film uses the getting to the location setting of the camper van which does show us the road trip feel to the film, but it is the bar that will be one that is always going to be hard to forget, being a run down biker and trucker bar.
Special Effects – The special effects are some of the best you will see in the vampire genre, it shows that you can get plenty done with practical effects, with the only weakness come from the human to vampire transformations, which look CGI and have dated.
Scene of the Movie – The battle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The transformations have dated badly.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the most fun vampire movies you will ever see, it has plenty of blood flying around the screen and will keep you entertained from start to finish.
Overall: Purely entertaining vampire movie.
Characters – Seth Gecko has just been sprung from prison by his brother, he wants to get across the border to complete a deal which would see them both have freedom, he is the one that remains in control wanting to keep everything calm, which would mean not leaving a pile of bodies behind them. He does deliver the threats which would see them as a danger, though he does just want things to be simple. Richard or Ritchie is must more of a loose cannon, he is paranoid and this makes him more dangerous, as he will kill people putting their safety at risk. He is protected by his brother, as he doesn’t seem like he is capable of putting a plan together himself. Jacob was a priest that has lost his faith after his wife’s death, he I taking his family on a vacation and gets forced into helping the brothers, he wants to keep them safe, willing to risk his own life to make this happen. Kate and Scott are his children, they are dealing with their own loss the best way they know how to and being supportive to their father. Santanico is the beautiful dancer that will stop a bar with her dance, she is one of the leaders of the vampires who has been waiting for the food in human form.
Performances – George Clooney is great to see in this role, after this we only usually see him in smooth talking roles, rather than a rough criminal, showing he could become any role offered to him. Tarantino in this film is creepy and putting himself in the supporting role does hide any restrictions he might have as an actor. Harvey Keitel is great showing a character that is meant to be hating his life choice, but remaining strong for his children. Juliette Lewis and Ernest Liu are both solid enough in the supporting roles without getting too much more to work with, while Salma Hayek turns heads with her performance.
Story – The story here follows two criminals trying to get to Mexico, the family they force to help them across the border and the bar they find, filled with vampires that they must fight to survive the night. Where this story stands up on its own, is by making it a criminal tory to start with, having no hints of horror or vampires involved, as we just watch the two loose cannons trying to get to safety, by pulling the rug out from under us to thrown us into the horror idea is genius switch of pace for the story. we do have themes going on especially with the Jacob character needing to find his lost faith which finding it will become the big part in fight the vampires. The story also exists in a world where vampire stories do exist, which gives them ideas on how to fight back, which was the main attraction to the 90’s horror stories.
Action/Horror – The action in the film involves the fighting with the vampires, we get to take everything to a new level for this side of the genre, with the blood splatter in the action, which the horror gives us because we vampires which are a staple of horror, but we do focus on the action over the scares.
Settings – The film uses the getting to the location setting of the camper van which does show us the road trip feel to the film, but it is the bar that will be one that is always going to be hard to forget, being a run down biker and trucker bar.
Special Effects – The special effects are some of the best you will see in the vampire genre, it shows that you can get plenty done with practical effects, with the only weakness come from the human to vampire transformations, which look CGI and have dated.
Scene of the Movie – The battle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The transformations have dated badly.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the most fun vampire movies you will ever see, it has plenty of blood flying around the screen and will keep you entertained from start to finish.
Overall: Purely entertaining vampire movie.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Qwixx in Tabletop Games
Aug 12, 2020
Roll-and-write games have made quite a resurgence lately, and I love it! When I was a younger man I used to enjoy Yahtzee and, though not a roll-and-write but kinda similar, Phase 10. But since my own transcendence into mature adulthood and gamerhood, simpler games just don’t cut it for me anymore. I really don’t consider myself an “elitist gamer,” but I just don’t draw enjoyment from some of the more pioneer games. So how did I get on with Qwixx? Let’s see.
The object of Qwixx is to be the player who earns the most amount of points at the end of the game. Simple. The game can end at any time in the future, so it is a furious scramble for points on each player’s turn.
To setup, hand each player a score sheet and a writing utensil (not included). Roll off to determine starting player. You are now ready to play Qwixx.
On the active player’s turn, they will roll all available dice. The player will add up the numbers rolled on the two white dice and announce to the table the sum. Using this summed number, all players (including the other non-active players) may cross off this result in any row upon their score sheet. Then the active player may add the result of ONE of the white dice to any of the other-colored dice results to use for their own score sheet. So the active player has the opportunity to cross off two numbers on their score sheet on their turn.
You see, to earn endgame points players are attempting to cross off as many numbers on their score sheets as possible. The caveat follows, however, that once a number has been crossed off within a row a player may NOT cross off any lower numbers than the highest number crossed off. Example: if I were to first cross off a 4 in the red row, I may never cross off 1, 2, or 3 of red in the future. Those options are now lost to me.
Caveat ludio! Players beware! At any time a player can “lock” a color row and remove that color die from the game. This can be done by crossing off the 12 box on the sheet. The prerequisite for this action is to have five boxes crossed off in that row. Also, should a player be unable to cross off a number on their turn, they must cross off one of the penalty boxes on their sheet for a loss of 5 points at endgame. The game ends when a player has crossed off all of their penalty boxes or players have locked the second colored row.
Components. This game is a few dice and a pad of score sheets. The dice are of normal d6 quality. The score sheets are fine, but if you really love this game, you might think about laminating some and keeping some small dry/erase markers in the box. The magnetic flip box is the coolest component of this game and you don’t really use it for anything other than storage!
So here are my thoughts on Qwixx. It is not the most exciting game. It is also not a bad game at all. It is a solid filler that can be played while carrying on a conversation (if you feel you can actually chat and math simultaneously). I don’t think I will suggest it be played too often, but if I am jonesin’ for a quick roll-and-write with a couple other people, or if I have a large game day scheduled, I will throw it in one of my bags. I am not alone on this assessment as you can see from our scores, and for these reasons Purple Phoenix Games gives Qwixx a midline 16 / 24. I think you can easily find this at Target or the like for a reasonable price, if this sounds interesting to you.
The object of Qwixx is to be the player who earns the most amount of points at the end of the game. Simple. The game can end at any time in the future, so it is a furious scramble for points on each player’s turn.
To setup, hand each player a score sheet and a writing utensil (not included). Roll off to determine starting player. You are now ready to play Qwixx.
On the active player’s turn, they will roll all available dice. The player will add up the numbers rolled on the two white dice and announce to the table the sum. Using this summed number, all players (including the other non-active players) may cross off this result in any row upon their score sheet. Then the active player may add the result of ONE of the white dice to any of the other-colored dice results to use for their own score sheet. So the active player has the opportunity to cross off two numbers on their score sheet on their turn.
You see, to earn endgame points players are attempting to cross off as many numbers on their score sheets as possible. The caveat follows, however, that once a number has been crossed off within a row a player may NOT cross off any lower numbers than the highest number crossed off. Example: if I were to first cross off a 4 in the red row, I may never cross off 1, 2, or 3 of red in the future. Those options are now lost to me.
Caveat ludio! Players beware! At any time a player can “lock” a color row and remove that color die from the game. This can be done by crossing off the 12 box on the sheet. The prerequisite for this action is to have five boxes crossed off in that row. Also, should a player be unable to cross off a number on their turn, they must cross off one of the penalty boxes on their sheet for a loss of 5 points at endgame. The game ends when a player has crossed off all of their penalty boxes or players have locked the second colored row.
Components. This game is a few dice and a pad of score sheets. The dice are of normal d6 quality. The score sheets are fine, but if you really love this game, you might think about laminating some and keeping some small dry/erase markers in the box. The magnetic flip box is the coolest component of this game and you don’t really use it for anything other than storage!
So here are my thoughts on Qwixx. It is not the most exciting game. It is also not a bad game at all. It is a solid filler that can be played while carrying on a conversation (if you feel you can actually chat and math simultaneously). I don’t think I will suggest it be played too often, but if I am jonesin’ for a quick roll-and-write with a couple other people, or if I have a large game day scheduled, I will throw it in one of my bags. I am not alone on this assessment as you can see from our scores, and for these reasons Purple Phoenix Games gives Qwixx a midline 16 / 24. I think you can easily find this at Target or the like for a reasonable price, if this sounds interesting to you.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mother! (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Welcome to the Crystal Maze.
Darren Aronosfsky’s mother! is like no other film you’ll see this year: guaranteed. As a film lover, an Aronosfsky film is a bit like root canal at the dentist: you know you really need to go ahead and do it, but you know you’re not going to be very comfortable in the process.
Jennifer Lawrence (“Passengers“, “Joy“) plays “mother!” doing up a dilapidated old house in the middle of nowhere with her much older husband “Him” (Javier Bardem, “Skyfall”). he (sorry…. He) is a world-famous poet struggling to overcome a massive writing block. The situation is making things tense between the couple, and things get worse when He inexplicably invites a homeless couple “man” (Ed Harris, “Westworld”, “The Truman Show”) and “woman” (Michelle Pfeiffer, “Stardust”) to stay at the house. As things go progressively downhill, is mother losing her mind or is all the crazy stuff going on actually happening?
Jennifer Lawrence can do no wrong at the moment, and her complexion in the film is flawless: it needs to be, since she has the camera constantly about 3 inches from her face for large chunks of the movie: I sat in the very back row, and I still wasn’t far enough away! Her portrayal of a house-proud woman getting progressively more and more irritated by her guests’ inconsiderate acts – a glass? without a table mat??! – is a joy to watch. As her DIY ‘paradise’ is progressively sullied my ‘man’ and ‘woman’, so her distress grows exponentially.
Some of the supporting acting is also superb, with Ed Harris and particularly Michelle Pfeiffer enjoying themselves immensely. Also worthy of note are the brothers played by real-life brothers Brian Gleeson and Domhnall Gleeson: the latter must never sleep since he must be *constantly* on set at the moment. One of these guys in particular is very abel! (sic).
Whereas the trailer depicts this as a kind of normal haunted house spookfest, it is actually nothing of the sort: much of the action (although far-fetched) has a reasonably rational explanation (a continuation of my theme of the “physics of horror” from my last two reviews). The film is largely seen through mother!’s eyes, and the skillful cinematographer Matthew Libatique – an Aronosfsky-regular – oppressively and relentlessly delivers a uniquely tense cinematic experience. For me, for the first two thirds of the film at least, it succeeds brilliantly.
Aronosfsky is no shirker of film controversy: having Natalie Portman perform oral sex on Natalie Portman in “Black Swan” was enough to teach you that. But in the final reels of this film, Aronosfsky doesn’t just wind the dial past 10 to the Spinal Tap 11…. he keeps going right on up to 20. There are a few scenes in movies over the years that I wish I could go back and “unsee”, and this film has one of those: a truly upsetting slice of horror, playing to your worst nightmares of loss and despair. While the religious allegory in these scenes is splatted on as heavily as the splodges of mother!’s decorative plaster, they are nonetheless extremely disturbing and bound to massively divide the cinema audience. I think it’s fair to say that this DVD is not going to have “The Perfect Gift for Mother’s Day” as its marketing strapline.
Which all leaves me… where exactly? For the first time in a long time I actually have no idea! This is a film that I was willing to give an “FF” to while I was watching it, but as time has passed and I have thought more on the environmental and religious allegories, and the portrayal of the cult worship prevalent in popular X-factor celebrity, I am warming to it despite my best instincts not to. I’m not religious, but I would love to compare notes on this one with someone with strongly Christian views.
So, I’m actually going to break all the rules (a snake told me to) and not provide any rating below at this time. I might revisit it again at Christmas* to see if I can resolve it in my mind as either a movie masterpiece or over-indulgent codswallop.
* I have, and have decided to give it 4 Fads… its a film I’ve thought about a lot over the last few months.
Jennifer Lawrence (“Passengers“, “Joy“) plays “mother!” doing up a dilapidated old house in the middle of nowhere with her much older husband “Him” (Javier Bardem, “Skyfall”). he (sorry…. He) is a world-famous poet struggling to overcome a massive writing block. The situation is making things tense between the couple, and things get worse when He inexplicably invites a homeless couple “man” (Ed Harris, “Westworld”, “The Truman Show”) and “woman” (Michelle Pfeiffer, “Stardust”) to stay at the house. As things go progressively downhill, is mother losing her mind or is all the crazy stuff going on actually happening?
Jennifer Lawrence can do no wrong at the moment, and her complexion in the film is flawless: it needs to be, since she has the camera constantly about 3 inches from her face for large chunks of the movie: I sat in the very back row, and I still wasn’t far enough away! Her portrayal of a house-proud woman getting progressively more and more irritated by her guests’ inconsiderate acts – a glass? without a table mat??! – is a joy to watch. As her DIY ‘paradise’ is progressively sullied my ‘man’ and ‘woman’, so her distress grows exponentially.
Some of the supporting acting is also superb, with Ed Harris and particularly Michelle Pfeiffer enjoying themselves immensely. Also worthy of note are the brothers played by real-life brothers Brian Gleeson and Domhnall Gleeson: the latter must never sleep since he must be *constantly* on set at the moment. One of these guys in particular is very abel! (sic).
Whereas the trailer depicts this as a kind of normal haunted house spookfest, it is actually nothing of the sort: much of the action (although far-fetched) has a reasonably rational explanation (a continuation of my theme of the “physics of horror” from my last two reviews). The film is largely seen through mother!’s eyes, and the skillful cinematographer Matthew Libatique – an Aronosfsky-regular – oppressively and relentlessly delivers a uniquely tense cinematic experience. For me, for the first two thirds of the film at least, it succeeds brilliantly.
Aronosfsky is no shirker of film controversy: having Natalie Portman perform oral sex on Natalie Portman in “Black Swan” was enough to teach you that. But in the final reels of this film, Aronosfsky doesn’t just wind the dial past 10 to the Spinal Tap 11…. he keeps going right on up to 20. There are a few scenes in movies over the years that I wish I could go back and “unsee”, and this film has one of those: a truly upsetting slice of horror, playing to your worst nightmares of loss and despair. While the religious allegory in these scenes is splatted on as heavily as the splodges of mother!’s decorative plaster, they are nonetheless extremely disturbing and bound to massively divide the cinema audience. I think it’s fair to say that this DVD is not going to have “The Perfect Gift for Mother’s Day” as its marketing strapline.
Which all leaves me… where exactly? For the first time in a long time I actually have no idea! This is a film that I was willing to give an “FF” to while I was watching it, but as time has passed and I have thought more on the environmental and religious allegories, and the portrayal of the cult worship prevalent in popular X-factor celebrity, I am warming to it despite my best instincts not to. I’m not religious, but I would love to compare notes on this one with someone with strongly Christian views.
So, I’m actually going to break all the rules (a snake told me to) and not provide any rating below at this time. I might revisit it again at Christmas* to see if I can resolve it in my mind as either a movie masterpiece or over-indulgent codswallop.
* I have, and have decided to give it 4 Fads… its a film I’ve thought about a lot over the last few months.