Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Moonfall (2022) in Movies
Feb 3, 2022
The late ’90s and early 2000s was filled with epic, over-the-top disaster movies focusing on all methods of world-ending cataclysmic events. Alien invasions as seen in Independence Day, set on destroying all humans and snatching our planet’s remaining resources, global warming resulting in floods and freezing temperatures, even threats of asteroids crashing into the earth. While many of these movies were ridiculous and epic at times, they all focused on a singular threat facing humankind and a group of ordinary (yet somehow extraordinary) people to save the planet and ourselves. Moonfall attempts to take another stab at the formula that made these movies famous (even infamous) resulting in some mixed and head-scratching results.
Moonfall, directed by Roland Emmerich, stars Halle Berry and Patrick Wilson as a pair of NASA astronauts that are attacked by a strange mechanical swarm while performing a routine satellite repair mission from the space shuttle Endeavor in the mid-1990s. The attack resulted in the death of one of the crew members and severely damaged the shuttle. Brian Harper (Wilson) and Jo Fowler (Berry) successfully return the shuttle to earth only to see Harper take the fall for the death of his crewman and the fall guy for a coverup to prevent the citizens of earth from truly understanding what they encountered.
Fast forward to current day and a “crazy” conspiracy theorist K.C Houseman, believing the moon to be a megastructure built by aliens, discovers that the moon’s orbit is rapidly eroding. He attempts to reach out to NASA and after several unsuccessful attempts releases his findings via social media. The top minds at NASA confirm what has been identified and estimate that they have only three weeks to execute a plan to prevent the moon from crashing into the earth destroying everything and everyone. The race for the survival of the planet is quickly on which will focus on not only the NASA “team”, but each of their family members.
Let me get this out of the way first, I personally loved many of Roland Emmerich’s wildly outlandish films. I thought Independence Day was fantastic, and even though many found The Day After Tomorrow a bit to preachy and ridiculous, I still found it entertaining for what it was. So, I was excited going into Moonfall. I was ready for a fun movie that I felt would be a mindless, fun adventure which was something I had really missed in many of the movies that had come out over the past year or two. Unfortunately, my aspirations (and even the low bar I had set my expectations for) would be quickly dashed.
Moonfall is a movie that struggles throughout to find an identity. I found myself instantly comparing several of Emmerich’s films during its roughly two-hour run time. At times its reminiscent of Independence Day, with its alien destruction of earth storyline, and then quickly jumps to a disaster film about the moon crashing into the earth. It’s as though Emmerich took pages of several of his previous films and cobbled them together into some sort of Frankenstein’s monster. There are so many plots and subplots going on that you never truly know what the main threat is. It touches on everything from the birth of humanity to the overly aggressive military, to the dumbing down of NASA all at the same time. With the exception of our heroes (and of course their entire families, because why not), everyone else is just resigned to the fact that nothing can be done. Riots of course breakout, the military is quick to decide to nuke the moon is somehow going to save the planet, and no level of crazy plan is off the table.
I’m happy to forgive an outrageous plot if the actors are able to pull it off with some semblance of believability. I know none of the actions have any real-world chance of success, and I can forgive plot holes for the sake of entertainment. Unfortunately, the acting is where Moonfall really lets the audience down. Each character is portrayed in a completely over-the-top fashion, it reminded me of watching a movie that is intentionally attempting to spoof another movie. The emotions are not believable, and the lines being delivered are literally derived from popular lines of other movies. Bonus points if you can identify which movie they are from as the film progresses. The saddest part is, this movie is trying to take itself seriously, it’s not intentionally being campy, for the sake of being campy. I think the character portrayals could have been forgiven if that was the case, but it’s clearly not. It’s actually a distraction when the story of a film is already struggling to deliver.
The movie effects go from truly spectacular, to overly CGI-infused. Ironically the space shots, which you think would be the hardest to pull off are some of its best, yet the vehicle driving scenes through the snow-covered townscape are some of the worst. It’s almost as though they spent so much of their budget on the space scenes that they had no money for the earth shots, which would be fine if they didn’t literally look so bad. It’s jarring going from one area to another and makes for a very inconsistent experience the entire time.
I believe one of the biggest tragedies of the film however is the absolutely blatant product placement. Yes, I understand that product placement has sadly been a staple in the film industry since the dawn of time. Yes, I understand that when someone is using a MacBook on-screen or riding a Peloton, it’s there for a reason. Moonfall however takes this to a Hallmark movie level. If you watch a Hallmark movie sponsored by Folgers for example, there will be clear shots of the Folgers coffee on the counter, with the cast explaining how much they love Folgers’s coffee, Moonfall utilizes this very trope. Kaspersky Anti-Virus is plastered on everything, even the Space Shuttle is protected with Kaspersky Anti-virus (which some might argue has other implications, but I won’t go there), and while avoiding looters driving through the snow-packed roads, do we really need the character to explain the need for the off-road settings on their Lexus? Talking about it is one thing, but do we really need to see the dial up-close and personal? It quickly takes you from the scene to a Lexus Christmas commercial and back again.
Sadly, Moonfall is a very disappointing film. If it were released in 1998 maybe it would be a super hit and I’d feel differently about it, but the industry has moved on since then. I had gone in knowing the film wouldn’t be realistic, but I was hoping it would at least be a nice escape from what is going on in the world today. As I have stated before, I’m a huge fan of Emmerich’s films, and while Moonfall may not be his absolute worst, it is one that will quickly be forgotten. I don’t even know if it’s one I’d revisit if it premiered on HBO or Showtime. As excited as I was, I just wouldn’t be able to recommend it.
Moonfall, directed by Roland Emmerich, stars Halle Berry and Patrick Wilson as a pair of NASA astronauts that are attacked by a strange mechanical swarm while performing a routine satellite repair mission from the space shuttle Endeavor in the mid-1990s. The attack resulted in the death of one of the crew members and severely damaged the shuttle. Brian Harper (Wilson) and Jo Fowler (Berry) successfully return the shuttle to earth only to see Harper take the fall for the death of his crewman and the fall guy for a coverup to prevent the citizens of earth from truly understanding what they encountered.
Fast forward to current day and a “crazy” conspiracy theorist K.C Houseman, believing the moon to be a megastructure built by aliens, discovers that the moon’s orbit is rapidly eroding. He attempts to reach out to NASA and after several unsuccessful attempts releases his findings via social media. The top minds at NASA confirm what has been identified and estimate that they have only three weeks to execute a plan to prevent the moon from crashing into the earth destroying everything and everyone. The race for the survival of the planet is quickly on which will focus on not only the NASA “team”, but each of their family members.
Let me get this out of the way first, I personally loved many of Roland Emmerich’s wildly outlandish films. I thought Independence Day was fantastic, and even though many found The Day After Tomorrow a bit to preachy and ridiculous, I still found it entertaining for what it was. So, I was excited going into Moonfall. I was ready for a fun movie that I felt would be a mindless, fun adventure which was something I had really missed in many of the movies that had come out over the past year or two. Unfortunately, my aspirations (and even the low bar I had set my expectations for) would be quickly dashed.
Moonfall is a movie that struggles throughout to find an identity. I found myself instantly comparing several of Emmerich’s films during its roughly two-hour run time. At times its reminiscent of Independence Day, with its alien destruction of earth storyline, and then quickly jumps to a disaster film about the moon crashing into the earth. It’s as though Emmerich took pages of several of his previous films and cobbled them together into some sort of Frankenstein’s monster. There are so many plots and subplots going on that you never truly know what the main threat is. It touches on everything from the birth of humanity to the overly aggressive military, to the dumbing down of NASA all at the same time. With the exception of our heroes (and of course their entire families, because why not), everyone else is just resigned to the fact that nothing can be done. Riots of course breakout, the military is quick to decide to nuke the moon is somehow going to save the planet, and no level of crazy plan is off the table.
I’m happy to forgive an outrageous plot if the actors are able to pull it off with some semblance of believability. I know none of the actions have any real-world chance of success, and I can forgive plot holes for the sake of entertainment. Unfortunately, the acting is where Moonfall really lets the audience down. Each character is portrayed in a completely over-the-top fashion, it reminded me of watching a movie that is intentionally attempting to spoof another movie. The emotions are not believable, and the lines being delivered are literally derived from popular lines of other movies. Bonus points if you can identify which movie they are from as the film progresses. The saddest part is, this movie is trying to take itself seriously, it’s not intentionally being campy, for the sake of being campy. I think the character portrayals could have been forgiven if that was the case, but it’s clearly not. It’s actually a distraction when the story of a film is already struggling to deliver.
The movie effects go from truly spectacular, to overly CGI-infused. Ironically the space shots, which you think would be the hardest to pull off are some of its best, yet the vehicle driving scenes through the snow-covered townscape are some of the worst. It’s almost as though they spent so much of their budget on the space scenes that they had no money for the earth shots, which would be fine if they didn’t literally look so bad. It’s jarring going from one area to another and makes for a very inconsistent experience the entire time.
I believe one of the biggest tragedies of the film however is the absolutely blatant product placement. Yes, I understand that product placement has sadly been a staple in the film industry since the dawn of time. Yes, I understand that when someone is using a MacBook on-screen or riding a Peloton, it’s there for a reason. Moonfall however takes this to a Hallmark movie level. If you watch a Hallmark movie sponsored by Folgers for example, there will be clear shots of the Folgers coffee on the counter, with the cast explaining how much they love Folgers’s coffee, Moonfall utilizes this very trope. Kaspersky Anti-Virus is plastered on everything, even the Space Shuttle is protected with Kaspersky Anti-virus (which some might argue has other implications, but I won’t go there), and while avoiding looters driving through the snow-packed roads, do we really need the character to explain the need for the off-road settings on their Lexus? Talking about it is one thing, but do we really need to see the dial up-close and personal? It quickly takes you from the scene to a Lexus Christmas commercial and back again.
Sadly, Moonfall is a very disappointing film. If it were released in 1998 maybe it would be a super hit and I’d feel differently about it, but the industry has moved on since then. I had gone in knowing the film wouldn’t be realistic, but I was hoping it would at least be a nice escape from what is going on in the world today. As I have stated before, I’m a huge fan of Emmerich’s films, and while Moonfall may not be his absolute worst, it is one that will quickly be forgotten. I don’t even know if it’s one I’d revisit if it premiered on HBO or Showtime. As excited as I was, I just wouldn’t be able to recommend it.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Missing Link (2019) in Movies
Jan 21, 2020
Despite being a huge fan of Coraline and Kubo and the Two Strings, I'd managed to miss out on Missing Link, the latest movie from stop-motion masters Laika, last year when it was originally shown in cinemas. Having recently won the Golden Globe for Best Animated Feature Film, and on the receiving end of a number of other nominations, including an Oscar nom for Best Animated Feature, I was very happy to discover (by chance!) that it had now made its way onto Netflix.
Missing Link is set in Victorian England and tells the story of Sir Lionel Frost (voiced by Hugh Jackman), an adventurer with a passion for exploration and the discovery of mythical creatures. When we first meet Sir Lionel, he is on a small boat with his assistant, hoping to obtain photographic evidence of the existence of the elusive Loch Ness monster. Such evidence would hopefully grant him membership to the exclusive "Society of Great Men", which is run by Lord Piggot-Dunceby (Stephen Fry). Unfortunately, despite Nessie making an appearance to Frost, things don't quite go according to plan and he returns home without any evidence. And in need of a new assistant!
Another shot at entry into the society comes in the form of a letter, which is addressed to Frost on his return home to London. The letter describes the legendary Sasquatch and tells of sightings in the Pacific Northwest so Frost immediately makes a deal with Piggot-Dunceby that will see him accepted should he return with proof that the Sasquatch is real. But Piggot-Dunceby has no such plans to admit Frost and enlists the services of an assassin (Timothy Olyphant) to follow and eliminate him before he gets chance to make it back to England.
When Frost eventually arrives in the forest, he not only discovers the Sasquatch, but also that the Sasquatch can talk and was in fact the one who sent the letter! Sir Lionel names him "Mr. Link" and learns that he just wanted his help in finding his relatives, the Yetis who live in the Himalayas. They join forces and set off, back across America, across the Ocean and across Europe, all the while trying to avoid and outwit the deadly assassin.
Missing Link is more vibrant, more detailed and exhibits a much smoother animation style than any of the previous movies from Laika. It is an outstanding achievement from everyone involved and I am always in awe whenever I see the behind the scenes making of videos from Laika. However, despite looking amazing and featuring some very funny moments from a talented and on-form voice cast, I found Missing Link to the be the weakest in terms of story when compared to Coraline and Kubo. It's certainly not a bad movie, it just didn't grab me at any point, and I didn't feel it was particularly memorable when I'd finished it either.
Missing Link is set in Victorian England and tells the story of Sir Lionel Frost (voiced by Hugh Jackman), an adventurer with a passion for exploration and the discovery of mythical creatures. When we first meet Sir Lionel, he is on a small boat with his assistant, hoping to obtain photographic evidence of the existence of the elusive Loch Ness monster. Such evidence would hopefully grant him membership to the exclusive "Society of Great Men", which is run by Lord Piggot-Dunceby (Stephen Fry). Unfortunately, despite Nessie making an appearance to Frost, things don't quite go according to plan and he returns home without any evidence. And in need of a new assistant!
Another shot at entry into the society comes in the form of a letter, which is addressed to Frost on his return home to London. The letter describes the legendary Sasquatch and tells of sightings in the Pacific Northwest so Frost immediately makes a deal with Piggot-Dunceby that will see him accepted should he return with proof that the Sasquatch is real. But Piggot-Dunceby has no such plans to admit Frost and enlists the services of an assassin (Timothy Olyphant) to follow and eliminate him before he gets chance to make it back to England.
When Frost eventually arrives in the forest, he not only discovers the Sasquatch, but also that the Sasquatch can talk and was in fact the one who sent the letter! Sir Lionel names him "Mr. Link" and learns that he just wanted his help in finding his relatives, the Yetis who live in the Himalayas. They join forces and set off, back across America, across the Ocean and across Europe, all the while trying to avoid and outwit the deadly assassin.
Missing Link is more vibrant, more detailed and exhibits a much smoother animation style than any of the previous movies from Laika. It is an outstanding achievement from everyone involved and I am always in awe whenever I see the behind the scenes making of videos from Laika. However, despite looking amazing and featuring some very funny moments from a talented and on-form voice cast, I found Missing Link to the be the weakest in terms of story when compared to Coraline and Kubo. It's certainly not a bad movie, it just didn't grab me at any point, and I didn't feel it was particularly memorable when I'd finished it either.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Sound of Metal (2019) in Movies
Apr 13, 2021
Acting by Riz Ahmed, Paul Raci AND Olivia Cooke (2 more)
Wonderful story: show not tell!
Sound design is simply epic
When I was young, I remember being scared to death by an old black and white movie about a woman who went blind.... I remember she was travelling on a bus and the movie simulated the view through her eyes as her vision dimmed and then went black. (I've googled this without joy, so can't place the movie!) I found the concept of suddenly losing one of your key senses to be utterly terrifying. So, I was fully engaged with Ruben's issues in this movie.
I thought the movie was going to be downbeat and depressing. But, both with it's positive portrayal of the deaf community and with the extraordinary ending, I found it to be a wonderfully heart-warming tale.
Positives:
- There is just SOOO much depth to this story: a character torn from his familiar world and struggling to adapt to the changes. It's fundamentally a movie about acceptance of self. The last two minutes of the screen time are momentous: one of the best endings of a movie I can remember in recent memory. A truly religious experience.
- "Sound of Metal" won the BAFTA at the weekend for Sound, and deservedly so. It's another leading character in the film, with the editing deftly weaving between the soundscape that most of us live in and Ruben's perception. Apparently, the sound team used a hyper-sensitive microphone in Ahmed's mouth to pick up the inner noises of his body.
- Both Riz Ahmed and Paul Raci are nominated for Oscars. Simply stunning performances from both of them.
- Although not nominated, I'd lob Olivia Cooke's name into that frame too. It's almost IMPOSSIBLE to see the same actress who played "Pixie" in the body of Lou. It's a transformation akin to Charlize Theron's in "Monster". (In fact, it took me until the Paris scenes to actually recognize her!)
- Director Darius Marder - IN HIS DIRECTORIAL FEATURE DEBUT! - delivers a fabulous example of "show not tell". All of the detail is present in the film to tell the story if you look for it. You don't need dialogue to give Lou's backstory: just a casual shot of her lower arm is enough.
Negatives:
- It's a VERY minor quibble but, with a 2 hour running length, the Paris scenes dragged just a little for me. I might have chosen to do a few nips and tucks there in the 'party' scenes. But I wouldn't have wanted to lose much.
"Sound of Metal" has - I'm sure - a guaranteed slot in my Films of the Year list. Simply stunning and highly recommended, this is currently showing in the UK on Amazon Prime.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/13/sound-of-metal-dont-ignore-that-ear-bud-volume-warning-on-your-phone-kids/ )
I thought the movie was going to be downbeat and depressing. But, both with it's positive portrayal of the deaf community and with the extraordinary ending, I found it to be a wonderfully heart-warming tale.
Positives:
- There is just SOOO much depth to this story: a character torn from his familiar world and struggling to adapt to the changes. It's fundamentally a movie about acceptance of self. The last two minutes of the screen time are momentous: one of the best endings of a movie I can remember in recent memory. A truly religious experience.
- "Sound of Metal" won the BAFTA at the weekend for Sound, and deservedly so. It's another leading character in the film, with the editing deftly weaving between the soundscape that most of us live in and Ruben's perception. Apparently, the sound team used a hyper-sensitive microphone in Ahmed's mouth to pick up the inner noises of his body.
- Both Riz Ahmed and Paul Raci are nominated for Oscars. Simply stunning performances from both of them.
- Although not nominated, I'd lob Olivia Cooke's name into that frame too. It's almost IMPOSSIBLE to see the same actress who played "Pixie" in the body of Lou. It's a transformation akin to Charlize Theron's in "Monster". (In fact, it took me until the Paris scenes to actually recognize her!)
- Director Darius Marder - IN HIS DIRECTORIAL FEATURE DEBUT! - delivers a fabulous example of "show not tell". All of the detail is present in the film to tell the story if you look for it. You don't need dialogue to give Lou's backstory: just a casual shot of her lower arm is enough.
Negatives:
- It's a VERY minor quibble but, with a 2 hour running length, the Paris scenes dragged just a little for me. I might have chosen to do a few nips and tucks there in the 'party' scenes. But I wouldn't have wanted to lose much.
"Sound of Metal" has - I'm sure - a guaranteed slot in my Films of the Year list. Simply stunning and highly recommended, this is currently showing in the UK on Amazon Prime.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/13/sound-of-metal-dont-ignore-that-ear-bud-volume-warning-on-your-phone-kids/ )
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Don't Breathe 2 (2021) in Movies
Aug 18, 2021
Nicely paced direction and non stop (bloody) action (1 more)
Madelyn Grace delivers a nice and professional performance
Not very original (1 more)
Should we be rooting for Norman at all?
That kid’ll need counselling for life!
I mean. If there was ever an opportunity to come up with a clever title for a sequel, this was it right? "Breathe Again"; "Hold it for a bit longer"; "Are You Turning Blue Yet?". But no... we just get a boring old "2" at the end!
Positives:
- Five years is an awfully long time to wait for a sequel! I have to admit I needed to read through my original review for "Don't Breathe" and the synopsis on IMDB before I went to see this. But, given that it is a fairly standard schlock-horror home-invasion movie, this is a nicely pieced together movie. Debut director Sayagues, who co-wrote the first film with original director Fede Alverez, moves the action along at a non-stop pace leaving you quite exhausted by the end of the (pleasantly short) 98 minutes.
- Stephen Lang nicely retreads his monster from the first movie as a besotted but anxious parent. But particularly good I thought was Madelyn Grace who plays the 11 year old Phoenix. I never once thought "there's a child actress doing a performance". Great job!
Negatives:
- It doesn't get many brownie points for originality: the blindness dice was already rolled in the original. So here we get some re-tread scenes of "the blind man being king", with red insecticide spray replacing the darkness.
- It never feels quite right that you are supposed to be cheering on Nordstrom: someone with virtually no redeeming features (other than a love for dogs).
- The original film had a decidedly icky moment with the whole baster thing. Here we have an equally icky, if ridiculous, plot-twist, taking us into a very dark place indeed. But what is supposed to be a shock-horror moment actually had me in fits of laughter, since all I could think of was a particular scene in "Monty Python and the Meaning of Life"!
Summary Thoughts on "Don't Breathe 2": We've been here so many times before that it's almost a (bloody) paint by numbers. But I have to admit that I thought this one was well done, and a cut above the norm. The first movie made $158M on a budget of just $10M. This one has a (restrained) $15M budget, and has already made that back. Good for them. The gore factor makes it not one for the illustrious Mrs Movie Man (who wisely didn't come). But for horror fans out for a nice gory little romp, this has its attractions.
And by the way, there is a 'monkey' (post-credit scene in One Mann's Movies speak) in this one. Well, Alvarez and Sayagues aren't going to dead-end their options for a "Don't Breathe 3" are they?
(For the full graphical review, please check out onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
Positives:
- Five years is an awfully long time to wait for a sequel! I have to admit I needed to read through my original review for "Don't Breathe" and the synopsis on IMDB before I went to see this. But, given that it is a fairly standard schlock-horror home-invasion movie, this is a nicely pieced together movie. Debut director Sayagues, who co-wrote the first film with original director Fede Alverez, moves the action along at a non-stop pace leaving you quite exhausted by the end of the (pleasantly short) 98 minutes.
- Stephen Lang nicely retreads his monster from the first movie as a besotted but anxious parent. But particularly good I thought was Madelyn Grace who plays the 11 year old Phoenix. I never once thought "there's a child actress doing a performance". Great job!
Negatives:
- It doesn't get many brownie points for originality: the blindness dice was already rolled in the original. So here we get some re-tread scenes of "the blind man being king", with red insecticide spray replacing the darkness.
- It never feels quite right that you are supposed to be cheering on Nordstrom: someone with virtually no redeeming features (other than a love for dogs).
- The original film had a decidedly icky moment with the whole baster thing. Here we have an equally icky, if ridiculous, plot-twist, taking us into a very dark place indeed. But what is supposed to be a shock-horror moment actually had me in fits of laughter, since all I could think of was a particular scene in "Monty Python and the Meaning of Life"!
Summary Thoughts on "Don't Breathe 2": We've been here so many times before that it's almost a (bloody) paint by numbers. But I have to admit that I thought this one was well done, and a cut above the norm. The first movie made $158M on a budget of just $10M. This one has a (restrained) $15M budget, and has already made that back. Good for them. The gore factor makes it not one for the illustrious Mrs Movie Man (who wisely didn't come). But for horror fans out for a nice gory little romp, this has its attractions.
And by the way, there is a 'monkey' (post-credit scene in One Mann's Movies speak) in this one. Well, Alvarez and Sayagues aren't going to dead-end their options for a "Don't Breathe 3" are they?
(For the full graphical review, please check out onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated A Quiet Place: Part II (2021) in Movies
Sep 25, 2021
One of the many long time coming films from before the pandemonium finally made its way to our screens. The sequel to the film that made us uncomfortable to eat snacks while we were at the cinema... A Quiet Place Part II came out to an excited crowd going back to the movies.
The Abbots have survived the attack on their family and found a way to get the upper hand in the fight against the monsters. They need to move on, beyond the boundaries they're set up for themselves. But what is out there blocking their way? Friend or foe? There's no way of knowing.
I was sceptical about a second film, there was a perfectly good intriguing ending to the first, and sequels aren't always the follow-ups we hope for. Would there be enough to stretch out into a decent story?
Emily Blunt was Emily Blunt. The expected powerful performance, but it was nice to see her taking a slight back seat to allow other characters to take the lead... whether I enjoyed that or not.
The biggest change on that front was giving Regan a bigger piece of the action, and the chance to show the leadership that is now missing since the death of her father. And we get an interesting pairing with her and Cillian Murphy, there's a bond made that leads them to learn about each other and it was nice, while a little sad, to see her with a new father figure in her life for a while.
Murphy's character of Emmett seems far more at home with his life as a "lone survivor" than he did as a family man. He's bunkered down outside their radius and got himself a nice little set up... but... there's one very large point that is not addressed during the films, and it's quick frankly too odd (and slightly sinister) for them to have avoided. Apart from that, Emmett does unfold nicely through the film, and he really adjusts well to being reconnected with the Abbotts.
As much as I like Noah Jupe, I found Marcus to be entirely too frustrating in this film. I don't like to wish ill upon people, but, he deserved to be eaten by a monster, or at least lightly maimed. Reckless and idiotic, he quite frankly didn't deserve any kind of redemption.
Even more so than the first, this film gave me heavy Lost vibes. If you broke some of the scenes down into their vaguest detail and asked people to guess what you were talking about, I'd certainly forgive people for guessing wrong. But yet again it's a suspenseful offering, and I found it hilarious when I fell for the jump scares. Coming out to an almost instant announcement of a third film left me wondering though. What could it do from here? It really felt like it had come to a natural ending.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/09/a-quiet-place-part-ii-movie-review.html
The Abbots have survived the attack on their family and found a way to get the upper hand in the fight against the monsters. They need to move on, beyond the boundaries they're set up for themselves. But what is out there blocking their way? Friend or foe? There's no way of knowing.
I was sceptical about a second film, there was a perfectly good intriguing ending to the first, and sequels aren't always the follow-ups we hope for. Would there be enough to stretch out into a decent story?
Emily Blunt was Emily Blunt. The expected powerful performance, but it was nice to see her taking a slight back seat to allow other characters to take the lead... whether I enjoyed that or not.
The biggest change on that front was giving Regan a bigger piece of the action, and the chance to show the leadership that is now missing since the death of her father. And we get an interesting pairing with her and Cillian Murphy, there's a bond made that leads them to learn about each other and it was nice, while a little sad, to see her with a new father figure in her life for a while.
Murphy's character of Emmett seems far more at home with his life as a "lone survivor" than he did as a family man. He's bunkered down outside their radius and got himself a nice little set up... but... there's one very large point that is not addressed during the films, and it's quick frankly too odd (and slightly sinister) for them to have avoided. Apart from that, Emmett does unfold nicely through the film, and he really adjusts well to being reconnected with the Abbotts.
As much as I like Noah Jupe, I found Marcus to be entirely too frustrating in this film. I don't like to wish ill upon people, but, he deserved to be eaten by a monster, or at least lightly maimed. Reckless and idiotic, he quite frankly didn't deserve any kind of redemption.
Even more so than the first, this film gave me heavy Lost vibes. If you broke some of the scenes down into their vaguest detail and asked people to guess what you were talking about, I'd certainly forgive people for guessing wrong. But yet again it's a suspenseful offering, and I found it hilarious when I fell for the jump scares. Coming out to an almost instant announcement of a third film left me wondering though. What could it do from here? It really felt like it had come to a natural ending.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/09/a-quiet-place-part-ii-movie-review.html
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Good Liar (2019) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
Mirren and McKellen are acting in 2 different movies
In a time where large comic-book, CGI-infused monster fests are all the rage in the Cineplex, it is a welcome relief to find a cleverly written, acting-rich mystery story featuring two world class actors of "a certain age", defying the odds to make a memorable motion picture.
And...they almost succeeded.
Written by Twin Cities native Jeffrey Hatcher, THE GOOD LIAR tells the tale of a...well...good liar played by Ian McKEllen. His con-man, Roy Courtney, is a roguish scamp, bilking crooks and ne'er do wells out of their money. He then sets his sights on rich Widow Betty McLeish (Helen Mirren) and her millions of dollars.
We spend the first 3/4 of this film following Roy - and his con-man ways - and it is a pleasure to spend that time under the twinkling eyes of Sir Ian McKellen. He plays Roy with a bit of a light touch, driving down into the dirty work whenever he needs to, but spending most of his time outsmarting his opponents with a sly grin, a wry comment and a light step. He cares not for his marks, that is...until he meets Betty. And Mirren and McKellen have the ability to play off each other very well and this would have been a more effective film if both of them were acting in the same sort of film.
For, you see, McKellen is playing in a bit of light drama, landing his acting chops in a style reminiscent of con-man films like THE STING and NOW YOU SEE ME. Mirren, however, (who takes over the last 1/4 of the film) seems to be performing in a heavy drama like SOPHIE'S CHOICE or THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT'S WOMAN and I think it was the tone that each of these actors brought to their roles that drove both of these fine actors to this project.
Unfortunately, the dichotomy of the different acting styles, mood and tone ultimately derails this film and brings it down a peg from the austere heights it aspires to be.
I place the blame on Director Bill Condon (Mr. Holmes) who had two very good actors - and an interesting story - and just couldn't find the correct balance point for these actors, and this story. He also is not helped by Hatcher's script which really takes a dark turn (darker than is necessary for the story) that is a bit jarring. If this film wanted to be heavy and dark, then it shouldn't have been so light and fun at the beginning - and Sir Ian's performance needed to be heavier and darker at the beginning. Or it needed to "lighten up a bit" at the end and push Mirren's performance out of the darkness and a bit more into the light.
All-in-all it's a fine, throwback. A two actor film that is in short supplies these days - so well worth seeing. Though I will always pine for what could have been had the tone been evened out between these two veteran performers.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...they almost succeeded.
Written by Twin Cities native Jeffrey Hatcher, THE GOOD LIAR tells the tale of a...well...good liar played by Ian McKEllen. His con-man, Roy Courtney, is a roguish scamp, bilking crooks and ne'er do wells out of their money. He then sets his sights on rich Widow Betty McLeish (Helen Mirren) and her millions of dollars.
We spend the first 3/4 of this film following Roy - and his con-man ways - and it is a pleasure to spend that time under the twinkling eyes of Sir Ian McKellen. He plays Roy with a bit of a light touch, driving down into the dirty work whenever he needs to, but spending most of his time outsmarting his opponents with a sly grin, a wry comment and a light step. He cares not for his marks, that is...until he meets Betty. And Mirren and McKellen have the ability to play off each other very well and this would have been a more effective film if both of them were acting in the same sort of film.
For, you see, McKellen is playing in a bit of light drama, landing his acting chops in a style reminiscent of con-man films like THE STING and NOW YOU SEE ME. Mirren, however, (who takes over the last 1/4 of the film) seems to be performing in a heavy drama like SOPHIE'S CHOICE or THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT'S WOMAN and I think it was the tone that each of these actors brought to their roles that drove both of these fine actors to this project.
Unfortunately, the dichotomy of the different acting styles, mood and tone ultimately derails this film and brings it down a peg from the austere heights it aspires to be.
I place the blame on Director Bill Condon (Mr. Holmes) who had two very good actors - and an interesting story - and just couldn't find the correct balance point for these actors, and this story. He also is not helped by Hatcher's script which really takes a dark turn (darker than is necessary for the story) that is a bit jarring. If this film wanted to be heavy and dark, then it shouldn't have been so light and fun at the beginning - and Sir Ian's performance needed to be heavier and darker at the beginning. Or it needed to "lighten up a bit" at the end and push Mirren's performance out of the darkness and a bit more into the light.
All-in-all it's a fine, throwback. A two actor film that is in short supplies these days - so well worth seeing. Though I will always pine for what could have been had the tone been evened out between these two veteran performers.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Meg (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Fins ain’t what they used to be.
OK, OK, so I must be about the last person in the country – at least, those who want to see this at the cinema – who actually has! Maybe its something about the summer slipping into autumn that made me crave for one last summer blockbuster hoorah! In any case, I feel like a bit of a traitor, since I was very scathing about this film’s trailer when it came out. But – do you know – as a brainless piece of popcorn entertainment, I quite enjoyed it!
Jason Statham – the unthinking man’s Dwayne Johnson – plays our hero Jonas Taylor. (Jonas? Surely some sly joke?). Jonas is drinking his life away in Thailand after being traumatised by an underwater rescue mission in which he was 90% successful. (Yeah, I know. Bloody perfectionists. Hate ’em). But he is needed again, since his cute ex-wife Lori (Jessica McNamee) is stuck at the bottom of the sea being terrorised by a terrifying creature: no, not Spongebob Square Pants… the titular prehistoric shark.
Lori is working at an undersea research station – Mana One – off the coast of China, funded by the annoyingly brash billionaire Morris (Rainn Wilson, from “The Office”), who you just HOPE HOPE HOPE will get munched at some point!
Running the station (in the most shameless Hollywood/Chinese market crossover since “The Great Wall“) is Zhang (Winston Chao) assisted by his cute daughter Suyin (played by the gloriously named and very talented Bingbing Li) and his even cuter granddaughter Meiying (Sophia Cai). The race is on to use their brains and Taylor’s brawn to stop the monster from reaching the seaside resort of Sanya Bay for lunch.
The action is, of course, absurd with so many near misses for Jonas from gnashing teeth that he could be The Meg’s registered dentist. There is a really nice dynamic though built up between Jonas, his potential cross-cultural love interest Suyin and young Meiying. Suyin is a classic TimesUp heroine for 2018, with an assertive f***-you attitude and not remotely giving an inch to Statham’s hero.
But it’s young Sophia as Meying who really steals lines and steals hearts with a truly charming performance, and would get my ‘man of the match’ were it not for…
…research assistant Jaxx (Australian model, Ruby Rose). She has an absolutely extraordinary look in this film. Chiselled and tattooed, she literally looks like she has stepped out of a Final Fantasy video game… and acts well too: the complete package.
As referenced above, the Hollywood/Chinese crossover is quite striking in this film, with the Chinese beach location looking like Amity Island on crack! (Cue the overweight Chinese kid as the Jaws “Alex” replacement… who knew China had a child obesity issue too… and that they also have ‘Zoom’ ice lollies!) Unusually for a mainstream Western film, a significant number of lines in the film are in Chinese with English subtitles.
In the league table of shark movies, it is far nearer to “Deep Blue Sea” than it is to “Jaws”, the reigning league champion, and all are far in excess of the ridiculous “Sharknado”. But compared to “Deep Blue Sea”, and even compared to “Jaws” – now, astonishingly, 43 years old! – it’s a curiously bloodless concoction, presumably to guarantee it’s 12A certificate. I have seen far bloodier and more violent 12A’s, and if anything I think director Jon Turteltaub (“National Treasure”) rather overdid the sanitisation.
It’s not going to win many gongs at the Oscars, but it is a slice of movie fun nonetheless.
Jason Statham – the unthinking man’s Dwayne Johnson – plays our hero Jonas Taylor. (Jonas? Surely some sly joke?). Jonas is drinking his life away in Thailand after being traumatised by an underwater rescue mission in which he was 90% successful. (Yeah, I know. Bloody perfectionists. Hate ’em). But he is needed again, since his cute ex-wife Lori (Jessica McNamee) is stuck at the bottom of the sea being terrorised by a terrifying creature: no, not Spongebob Square Pants… the titular prehistoric shark.
Lori is working at an undersea research station – Mana One – off the coast of China, funded by the annoyingly brash billionaire Morris (Rainn Wilson, from “The Office”), who you just HOPE HOPE HOPE will get munched at some point!
Running the station (in the most shameless Hollywood/Chinese market crossover since “The Great Wall“) is Zhang (Winston Chao) assisted by his cute daughter Suyin (played by the gloriously named and very talented Bingbing Li) and his even cuter granddaughter Meiying (Sophia Cai). The race is on to use their brains and Taylor’s brawn to stop the monster from reaching the seaside resort of Sanya Bay for lunch.
The action is, of course, absurd with so many near misses for Jonas from gnashing teeth that he could be The Meg’s registered dentist. There is a really nice dynamic though built up between Jonas, his potential cross-cultural love interest Suyin and young Meiying. Suyin is a classic TimesUp heroine for 2018, with an assertive f***-you attitude and not remotely giving an inch to Statham’s hero.
But it’s young Sophia as Meying who really steals lines and steals hearts with a truly charming performance, and would get my ‘man of the match’ were it not for…
…research assistant Jaxx (Australian model, Ruby Rose). She has an absolutely extraordinary look in this film. Chiselled and tattooed, she literally looks like she has stepped out of a Final Fantasy video game… and acts well too: the complete package.
As referenced above, the Hollywood/Chinese crossover is quite striking in this film, with the Chinese beach location looking like Amity Island on crack! (Cue the overweight Chinese kid as the Jaws “Alex” replacement… who knew China had a child obesity issue too… and that they also have ‘Zoom’ ice lollies!) Unusually for a mainstream Western film, a significant number of lines in the film are in Chinese with English subtitles.
In the league table of shark movies, it is far nearer to “Deep Blue Sea” than it is to “Jaws”, the reigning league champion, and all are far in excess of the ridiculous “Sharknado”. But compared to “Deep Blue Sea”, and even compared to “Jaws” – now, astonishingly, 43 years old! – it’s a curiously bloodless concoction, presumably to guarantee it’s 12A certificate. I have seen far bloodier and more violent 12A’s, and if anything I think director Jon Turteltaub (“National Treasure”) rather overdid the sanitisation.
It’s not going to win many gongs at the Oscars, but it is a slice of movie fun nonetheless.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Assistant (2020) in Movies
May 24, 2020
Julia Garner's performance (1 more)
The tension that manages to be created through a portrayal of the mundane
The movie seems to have a lot of haters on IMDB (a rating at the time of writing of 5.9)... but I refuse to follow "the pack" on this one... I thought it was great. It manages to make the mundane incredibly tense. This is this first (semi-)fictional feature from documentary-maker Kitty Green.... and in my book she does a knock-out job.
We first meet Jane (Julia Garner) at 'God-knows-what-o-clock' in the morning as she arrives at her workplace - a New York film-production company. First to arrive every morning, she turns on the lights, turns on the screens, makes the pot of coffee and cleans off stains from her boss's couch. The stain isn't coffee. A lost gold bracelet is recovered.
For we are in a truly toxic working environment here. 'The boss' - clearly modelled on Harvey Weinstein - is a bullying tyrant who can reduce Jane and her two male assistants (Jon Orsini and Noah Robbins) to quivering wrecks. "WHAT THE F*** DID YOU SAY TO HER" barks the boss down the phone at Jane, after she has had a perfectly reasonable phone conversation with the estranged Mrs Boss.
The toxicity is pervasive though throughout Miram..., sorry...., 'the company'. Jane is almost invisible to her other co-workers who don't give her eye-contact even when she's talking to them and barely register her presence when sharing a lift.
But bullying and workplace toxicity is just part of this story. A steady stream of starlets arrive in the office, like meat deliveries to a butcher. In a chilling sequence, the photocopier churns out photos of beautiful actresses.... a paper-based equivalent of swiping-left or -right in the selection process. None of the "if you... I will" discussions are shown, but they don't need to be: the inference is clear.
Jane is smart, slim and pretty... but not in an obvious 'Hollywood way'. "You'll be OK..." says a co-worker "you're not his type".
But someone who distinctly is "his type" is Sienna (Kristine Froseth), a "very very young" aspiring waitress-come-actress from Boise, who suddenly and unexpectedly arrives as a "new assistant"... to be promptly put up in a swanky hotel room. It's time to act... and Jane approaches the company HR manager (Matthew Macfadyen)....
An old Spielberg trick is to increase tension by keeping the "monster" hidden from view: cue the tanker driver from "Duel" and (for most of the film) the shark from "Jaws". Here, the boss is felt only as a malevolent force and never seen on screen. It's an approach that works brilliantly, focusing the emotion on the effect he has on those flamed.
There is also recognition that these powerful people are also hugely intelligent and manipulative. Seeing that Jane is a valuable asset, the public berating is sometimes followed up with a private email apology.... dripping a few words of encouragement and praise like a few drops of Methadone to a drug-addict.
This is an excellent movie and thoughtfully and elegantly directed. Following a normal day in Jane's work life.... albeit a day where perhaps the penny finally drops... is immersive and engaging. And at only 88 minutes long, the movie never outstays its welcome.
The performances are first rate. Julia Garner is magnificent, and in a year where the Oscars will be "interesting", here's a good candidate for Best Actress I would suggest if not Best Picture. Garner's an actress I'm unfamiliar with: the only one of her previous flicks I've seen was Sin City 2.
Also oily and impressive is Matthew Macfadyen as the HR manager. There's also a sparse but well-used score by Tamar-kali.
The one area I found poor was in the sound design. It's clearly filmed in an office environment, rather than on a sound stage, and unfortunately the combination of the acoustics and the New York accents makes some of the dialogue really difficult to hear. An example is a discussion between two co-workers in an office kitchen, which was completely indecipherable for me.
Should I watch this? In my view, definitely, yes. It's chilling and an insight into the terrible ordeal that many professional women in the film industry, and other industries, have had to put up with before the "Me Too" lid was blown off (and many probably still do). The most telling line in the film? At the end of the "Thanks" in the end-titles: "All those who shared their experiences".
(See the full graphical review at One Mann's Movies here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/05/24/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-assistant-2020/ . Thanks).
We first meet Jane (Julia Garner) at 'God-knows-what-o-clock' in the morning as she arrives at her workplace - a New York film-production company. First to arrive every morning, she turns on the lights, turns on the screens, makes the pot of coffee and cleans off stains from her boss's couch. The stain isn't coffee. A lost gold bracelet is recovered.
For we are in a truly toxic working environment here. 'The boss' - clearly modelled on Harvey Weinstein - is a bullying tyrant who can reduce Jane and her two male assistants (Jon Orsini and Noah Robbins) to quivering wrecks. "WHAT THE F*** DID YOU SAY TO HER" barks the boss down the phone at Jane, after she has had a perfectly reasonable phone conversation with the estranged Mrs Boss.
The toxicity is pervasive though throughout Miram..., sorry...., 'the company'. Jane is almost invisible to her other co-workers who don't give her eye-contact even when she's talking to them and barely register her presence when sharing a lift.
But bullying and workplace toxicity is just part of this story. A steady stream of starlets arrive in the office, like meat deliveries to a butcher. In a chilling sequence, the photocopier churns out photos of beautiful actresses.... a paper-based equivalent of swiping-left or -right in the selection process. None of the "if you... I will" discussions are shown, but they don't need to be: the inference is clear.
Jane is smart, slim and pretty... but not in an obvious 'Hollywood way'. "You'll be OK..." says a co-worker "you're not his type".
But someone who distinctly is "his type" is Sienna (Kristine Froseth), a "very very young" aspiring waitress-come-actress from Boise, who suddenly and unexpectedly arrives as a "new assistant"... to be promptly put up in a swanky hotel room. It's time to act... and Jane approaches the company HR manager (Matthew Macfadyen)....
An old Spielberg trick is to increase tension by keeping the "monster" hidden from view: cue the tanker driver from "Duel" and (for most of the film) the shark from "Jaws". Here, the boss is felt only as a malevolent force and never seen on screen. It's an approach that works brilliantly, focusing the emotion on the effect he has on those flamed.
There is also recognition that these powerful people are also hugely intelligent and manipulative. Seeing that Jane is a valuable asset, the public berating is sometimes followed up with a private email apology.... dripping a few words of encouragement and praise like a few drops of Methadone to a drug-addict.
This is an excellent movie and thoughtfully and elegantly directed. Following a normal day in Jane's work life.... albeit a day where perhaps the penny finally drops... is immersive and engaging. And at only 88 minutes long, the movie never outstays its welcome.
The performances are first rate. Julia Garner is magnificent, and in a year where the Oscars will be "interesting", here's a good candidate for Best Actress I would suggest if not Best Picture. Garner's an actress I'm unfamiliar with: the only one of her previous flicks I've seen was Sin City 2.
Also oily and impressive is Matthew Macfadyen as the HR manager. There's also a sparse but well-used score by Tamar-kali.
The one area I found poor was in the sound design. It's clearly filmed in an office environment, rather than on a sound stage, and unfortunately the combination of the acoustics and the New York accents makes some of the dialogue really difficult to hear. An example is a discussion between two co-workers in an office kitchen, which was completely indecipherable for me.
Should I watch this? In my view, definitely, yes. It's chilling and an insight into the terrible ordeal that many professional women in the film industry, and other industries, have had to put up with before the "Me Too" lid was blown off (and many probably still do). The most telling line in the film? At the end of the "Thanks" in the end-titles: "All those who shared their experiences".
(See the full graphical review at One Mann's Movies here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/05/24/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-assistant-2020/ . Thanks).
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated The Grimm Forest in Tabletop Games
Apr 9, 2021
I am so psyched to be reviewing another board game based on fairytale lore. The Brothers Grimm material is such an enchanting (eh? eh?) theme and games can be taken in so many wonderful directions. Though I have never actually read any of the Grimm’s Fairy Tales (I know, I know), I have seen most of the movies based on the stories. I also know that the source material happens to be way darker than what Disney puts out, so when I heard we would be receiving The Grimm Forest to review, and not having really researched it much beforehand, I had a feeling it would be darker fare. But how dark does it go? Let’s find out.
The Grimm Forest is a simultaneous action selection, set collection, take that game for four family members of the infamous Three Little Pigs. As fantasy contractors players are tasked with constructing three houses as sturdy and quickly as they can. However, these contractors will have competition for limited resources, as well as the occasional interference from scary creatures and buddies of opponents. Like the baseball movie says, “If you build it, you will win the contract to build more stuff.” Or something like that.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, place the Location boards on the table for the Fields, Forest, and Brickyard (for a three-player game, as below). The First Builder Bonus tokens are placed below the matching Locations as well as the resources that can be harvested. One of each Mega Resource (5 Straw, 4 Wood, 3 Brick) are placed on the matching Location at the beginning of each round. The Friend and Fable decks are shuffled and placed nearby, as are the House sections (Floors, Walls, Roofs – Rooves?), and the Monster minis. Each player chooses a color and collects the Player board, Pig mini, and Gather cards matching that color. The first player is given the Starting Player tome token and the game may now begin!
The Grimm Forest is played over a series of rounds with each pig having a multi-step turn. Initially, however, the pigs will be deciding from which Location they would like to harvest resources by laying the corresponding Gather card from their hand to the table face-down. Once all pigs have laid their card, the Gather cards are flipped and revealed simultaneously. If any pig had chosen to also play one Fable card it would have been revealed and possibly resolved prior to this step. Players will place their Pig mini on the Location board they chose and then harvesting of resources may begin, unless a player has a Fable card that resolves at this point in the turn. If a Pig is alone in a Location they receive all resources currently found there. If Pigs share a Location then the shared minis will share the resources equally, keeping any remaining resources on the Location for the next round. If any player used a Fable card that activates at the end of the Gather phase, it is resolved now.
After the Gather phase, the Pigs will be able to take actions. On their turn, in turn order, each Pig may choose to perform two of the following actions in any order they wish (actions may be repeated except for Friend Special Actions): Draw a Fable card, Gain 1 Resource, Build, Special Actions. Drawing a Fable card is self-explanatory and players will keep their Fable cards secret from the other players. They may choose to play one of these Fable cards during the choosing of Gather cards portion of the beginning phase of a turn. A Pig may instead wish to gain one resource of their choosing and add it to their collection. As mentioned earlier, a Pig may also use their active Friend card’s (which is earned by building a Wall section) Special Action once per turn, should they have collected one earlier.
The true hero of The Grimm Forest is the Build action as this is what propels players to victory. Pigs may Build any house type they wish, as long as that type is not currently under construction elsewhere on their board. Also note that houses must be built from the ground up so Floors must be present before Walls can be built and Walls need to be constructed in order to hold up a Roof. Pigs may build these sections of houses by discarding the appropriate number and type of resources they have gathered previously: two resources for a Floor, four resources for Walls, and six resources for a Roof. Once a Pig completes construction of the first house of a type they will grab the matching First Builder Bonus token and reap its rewards.
The game continues in this fashion until one player has built three houses of any type, or multiple players have completed their three houses by the end of the round. Those tied players then check for sturdiness to break their tie: brick houses are sturdier than wood, which are sturdier than straw. The winner is the player with the sturdiest collection of houses, and then all players are invited to share a plate of bacon in celebration of the win (not in the rules, but I added that for… flavor).
Components. This game is chocked full of killer components. I do not oftentimes compliment boxes and inserts, but when a game comes with GameTrayz already, you know that the publisher cared a ton about the game. Everything sets up and tears down so much nicer and quicker with a GameTrayz insert that I wish every game would come with them. Yeah, I know, $$$. Outside of the insert (or inside?) the other components in the game are simply stellar. Everything from the card backs resembling book covers, the incredible plastic house pieces, and amazing minis, just makes this one sing when on the table. The art is done by the incredible Mr. Cuddington, and they are quickly becoming some of my favorite board game artists.
Wait, there are monster minis? But I didn’t talk about that in my overview. Well, yes, that’s correct. These monsters come into play from certain Fable cards, and when they are played it instructs the player to introduce the appropriate monster mini on the playing area. This can be done with such dramatic flair that you truly get a sense of dread that little piggies may feel. If you have seen Stranger Things (not a sponsor) and remember the part when the Demogorgon mini hits the table, then you understand how I introduce my monster minis. These monsters wreak havoc on the players and sometimes deny them resources, and other chaos to mess with pigs.
Overall, I am so enamored with this game. It has nearly everything I love about games. It has amazing theme and art. That is always big with me. The components are super high quality, as all Druid City Games/Skybound Games usually are, and the game is so smooth once it is learned. All phases and turn components work together well, and there are plenty of choices each player makes every round. The game comes with advanced rules and components as well once all players are comfortable with the base game, and I love when games come with that added complexity and difficulty.
I have nothing bad to say about this game at all, which makes me sad, because I can usually find something to improve with every game I play. Okay wait, I just thought of one: I appreciate that the player colors include both orange and purple, but then the others are blue and green. I think the player colors could have come with some different choices as I feel blue, green, and purple are within similar color bands. Maybe pink and aqua would be better choices for my taste? I don’t know, and I am sure research was done to decide on the player colors, but like I said, I needed to find SOMETHING to complain about.
So it is certainly no surprise that I love this game and rated so highly. I doubt it will ever truly break into my Top 10, but I feel it ticks all of my boxes for a great game and a 6 from me. Purple Phoenix Games as a whole gives this one a porky 15 / 18. If you are looking for a great game that is admittedly lighter, but gives great gameplay throughout, features incredible art and components, and offers opportunities for role-play then you definitely need to grab a copy of The Grimm Forest. I will be recommending this to so many gamers in the future, and I will be pushing the floor of the age suggestion on the box once my son decides he wants to learn to read. I think I am going to go try out the Advanced rules now, and remember: don’t eat an apple that a scary person gave you at the door.
The Grimm Forest is a simultaneous action selection, set collection, take that game for four family members of the infamous Three Little Pigs. As fantasy contractors players are tasked with constructing three houses as sturdy and quickly as they can. However, these contractors will have competition for limited resources, as well as the occasional interference from scary creatures and buddies of opponents. Like the baseball movie says, “If you build it, you will win the contract to build more stuff.” Or something like that.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, place the Location boards on the table for the Fields, Forest, and Brickyard (for a three-player game, as below). The First Builder Bonus tokens are placed below the matching Locations as well as the resources that can be harvested. One of each Mega Resource (5 Straw, 4 Wood, 3 Brick) are placed on the matching Location at the beginning of each round. The Friend and Fable decks are shuffled and placed nearby, as are the House sections (Floors, Walls, Roofs – Rooves?), and the Monster minis. Each player chooses a color and collects the Player board, Pig mini, and Gather cards matching that color. The first player is given the Starting Player tome token and the game may now begin!
The Grimm Forest is played over a series of rounds with each pig having a multi-step turn. Initially, however, the pigs will be deciding from which Location they would like to harvest resources by laying the corresponding Gather card from their hand to the table face-down. Once all pigs have laid their card, the Gather cards are flipped and revealed simultaneously. If any pig had chosen to also play one Fable card it would have been revealed and possibly resolved prior to this step. Players will place their Pig mini on the Location board they chose and then harvesting of resources may begin, unless a player has a Fable card that resolves at this point in the turn. If a Pig is alone in a Location they receive all resources currently found there. If Pigs share a Location then the shared minis will share the resources equally, keeping any remaining resources on the Location for the next round. If any player used a Fable card that activates at the end of the Gather phase, it is resolved now.
After the Gather phase, the Pigs will be able to take actions. On their turn, in turn order, each Pig may choose to perform two of the following actions in any order they wish (actions may be repeated except for Friend Special Actions): Draw a Fable card, Gain 1 Resource, Build, Special Actions. Drawing a Fable card is self-explanatory and players will keep their Fable cards secret from the other players. They may choose to play one of these Fable cards during the choosing of Gather cards portion of the beginning phase of a turn. A Pig may instead wish to gain one resource of their choosing and add it to their collection. As mentioned earlier, a Pig may also use their active Friend card’s (which is earned by building a Wall section) Special Action once per turn, should they have collected one earlier.
The true hero of The Grimm Forest is the Build action as this is what propels players to victory. Pigs may Build any house type they wish, as long as that type is not currently under construction elsewhere on their board. Also note that houses must be built from the ground up so Floors must be present before Walls can be built and Walls need to be constructed in order to hold up a Roof. Pigs may build these sections of houses by discarding the appropriate number and type of resources they have gathered previously: two resources for a Floor, four resources for Walls, and six resources for a Roof. Once a Pig completes construction of the first house of a type they will grab the matching First Builder Bonus token and reap its rewards.
The game continues in this fashion until one player has built three houses of any type, or multiple players have completed their three houses by the end of the round. Those tied players then check for sturdiness to break their tie: brick houses are sturdier than wood, which are sturdier than straw. The winner is the player with the sturdiest collection of houses, and then all players are invited to share a plate of bacon in celebration of the win (not in the rules, but I added that for… flavor).
Components. This game is chocked full of killer components. I do not oftentimes compliment boxes and inserts, but when a game comes with GameTrayz already, you know that the publisher cared a ton about the game. Everything sets up and tears down so much nicer and quicker with a GameTrayz insert that I wish every game would come with them. Yeah, I know, $$$. Outside of the insert (or inside?) the other components in the game are simply stellar. Everything from the card backs resembling book covers, the incredible plastic house pieces, and amazing minis, just makes this one sing when on the table. The art is done by the incredible Mr. Cuddington, and they are quickly becoming some of my favorite board game artists.
Wait, there are monster minis? But I didn’t talk about that in my overview. Well, yes, that’s correct. These monsters come into play from certain Fable cards, and when they are played it instructs the player to introduce the appropriate monster mini on the playing area. This can be done with such dramatic flair that you truly get a sense of dread that little piggies may feel. If you have seen Stranger Things (not a sponsor) and remember the part when the Demogorgon mini hits the table, then you understand how I introduce my monster minis. These monsters wreak havoc on the players and sometimes deny them resources, and other chaos to mess with pigs.
Overall, I am so enamored with this game. It has nearly everything I love about games. It has amazing theme and art. That is always big with me. The components are super high quality, as all Druid City Games/Skybound Games usually are, and the game is so smooth once it is learned. All phases and turn components work together well, and there are plenty of choices each player makes every round. The game comes with advanced rules and components as well once all players are comfortable with the base game, and I love when games come with that added complexity and difficulty.
I have nothing bad to say about this game at all, which makes me sad, because I can usually find something to improve with every game I play. Okay wait, I just thought of one: I appreciate that the player colors include both orange and purple, but then the others are blue and green. I think the player colors could have come with some different choices as I feel blue, green, and purple are within similar color bands. Maybe pink and aqua would be better choices for my taste? I don’t know, and I am sure research was done to decide on the player colors, but like I said, I needed to find SOMETHING to complain about.
So it is certainly no surprise that I love this game and rated so highly. I doubt it will ever truly break into my Top 10, but I feel it ticks all of my boxes for a great game and a 6 from me. Purple Phoenix Games as a whole gives this one a porky 15 / 18. If you are looking for a great game that is admittedly lighter, but gives great gameplay throughout, features incredible art and components, and offers opportunities for role-play then you definitely need to grab a copy of The Grimm Forest. I will be recommending this to so many gamers in the future, and I will be pushing the floor of the age suggestion on the box once my son decides he wants to learn to read. I think I am going to go try out the Advanced rules now, and remember: don’t eat an apple that a scary person gave you at the door.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated It: Chapter Two (2019) in Movies
Sep 13, 2019
I’ve always been a fan of Stephen King movies, even some of those that were not particularly good or well received. For someone who is a fan you think that would inspire me to pick up at least one of his books to get a feel for what the author truly intended over the stripped down,
“Hollywood-ised” versions. I can’t put my finger on why I haven’t, it’s not because the size of many of his novels are daunting, it’s more that as a reader I’m just not a horror book fan. So when it comes to sitting in on a Stephen king movie I have to rely on the story by it’s modified merits then to compare and contrast what IT does well (or not).
Like many before me, my first movie experience of IT was the classic mini-series featuring an incredibly creepy (and non-CGI’d version) of Pennywise portrayed by the extremely talented Tim Curry.
I even went out and purchased the mini-series before I went to see the first chapter of the remake of IT, just to see how those two compared. IT: Chapter One introduced us in great depth to the teens of the original losers club. A group of misfits, who went on their own personal crusade to attack and kill the nefarious clown while saving one of their own. A strong pact was formed and an oath sworn that if IT ever returned to Derry that the group would once again join together to put a stop to IT for good.
IT: Chapter Two picks up 27 years later, the group has moved on with their lives, all except Mike (Isaiah Mustafa as an adult and Chosen Jacobs as a younger version) who has felt a sense of responsibility to watch over the town and research how to kill IT if IT were to ever return. A horrific killing of an adult at the fair and subsequent disappearances of children alert Mike that the plague that has befallen Derry for generations has returned to feed. Mike reaches out to each of the losers reminding them that something they have all feared has come to pass.
Each when notified experience a fear that is indescribable yet for some reason the groups memories of the past have become clouded.
The now adult losers (with several flashbacks featuring the original cast) come together to remind themselves of the past, and the pact they made to protect the future. Featuring a star studded cast, Mike, Bill (James McAvoy/Jaeden Martell), Beverly (Jessica Chastain/Sophia Lillis), Ben (Jay Ryan/Jeremy Ray Taylor), Richie (Bill Hader/Finn Wolfhard), Eddie (James Ransone/Jack Dylan Grazer) and Stanley (Andy Bean/Wyatt Oleff), must battle their lost memories, their fears and the very real danger if they are to save Derry and themselves.
IT: Chapter 2 continues the incredible character building that Chapter 1 began. Where each of the young actors were perfectly cast as their book counterparts, their adult versions could easily be mistaken for the grown-up versions. This is the area where IT shines the most, the story of the losers who have grown and moved away, yet still share the unescapable bond of friendship. While an older Bill struggles (much like Stephen King himself) to come up with good endings to his stories it’s what he writes at the end of IT: Chapter 2 that really sums up the movie as a whole. To summarize, there are no good friends or bad friends, there are only friends, and chapter 2 is an example of how you take a band of misfits and turn them into heroes.
Sadly, for all the things IT does from a character side, it tends to drag on and over CGI its monster side. Pennywise the clown (portrayed brilliantly by Bill Skarsgård) brings with him all the creepiness and fear that the movie needs, even posters of his maniacal self is promoting lawsuits in other countries due to his ability to scare small children. So, it seems a bit disheartening that the studio felt it was necessary to go overboard with their CGI budgets. Many scenes go from being creepy and scary to simply being silly when our favorite clown is turned into a giant naked hag like figure. This is where I felt the mini-series did a far better job, due to its limited budget and shorter time requirements it allowed for the viewers to imagine the evil and not see it thrown out for the world to see.
IT: Chapter 2 also drags out far longer than it needed to. Make sure you get your bathroom breaks in, because the film, not counting previews, is just about 10 minutes shy of being three hours. I’m normally not one to complain about the length of a movie, as I’d rather they tell the story they want instead of trying to compress it into a shorter run time. However, in this case, it seemed entirely wasted on an overabundance of clown mutations and an extremely drawn out final battle. It’s unfortunate, because one of the most unused (and potentially interesting characters) Henry Bowers (Teach Grant/Nicholas Hamilton) is given only a few minutes of screen time and ultimately adds nothing to the movie as a whole. As I stated earlier, I haven’t read the novel, but I have to assume that he played a far bigger role in the book.
As it stands in the movie, his character is both unnecessary and completely ineffective at whatever he was attempting to do. I think some of the time taken away from the battle scenes to flesh out his (or other supporting characters) would have be time better spent.
IT: Chapter 2 is a good movie, that with some reduced special effects and better time management is just shy of being a great movie. The story of the kids, now grown up, is one of forgiveness, bravery and love. It shows how true friendship can overcome distance and time and that those things never truly vanish, even if the particulars of what separated you in the first place is a bit fuzzy. Horror movies with outrageous budgets tend to lose the spirit of what makes a true horror movie scary…it’s rarely about the effects, and more about the imagination.
That’s what makes the books typically so much better than the movies, after all, each one of us imagines our own version of what truly scares us (although clowns tend to be scary regardless of how they are portrayed). IT: Chapter 2 provides a satisfying ending to a story that began a few years ago, it suffers a bit from its budget and its use of CGI effects, but it’s still a story of what all of us losers can accomplish if we band together.
“Hollywood-ised” versions. I can’t put my finger on why I haven’t, it’s not because the size of many of his novels are daunting, it’s more that as a reader I’m just not a horror book fan. So when it comes to sitting in on a Stephen king movie I have to rely on the story by it’s modified merits then to compare and contrast what IT does well (or not).
Like many before me, my first movie experience of IT was the classic mini-series featuring an incredibly creepy (and non-CGI’d version) of Pennywise portrayed by the extremely talented Tim Curry.
I even went out and purchased the mini-series before I went to see the first chapter of the remake of IT, just to see how those two compared. IT: Chapter One introduced us in great depth to the teens of the original losers club. A group of misfits, who went on their own personal crusade to attack and kill the nefarious clown while saving one of their own. A strong pact was formed and an oath sworn that if IT ever returned to Derry that the group would once again join together to put a stop to IT for good.
IT: Chapter Two picks up 27 years later, the group has moved on with their lives, all except Mike (Isaiah Mustafa as an adult and Chosen Jacobs as a younger version) who has felt a sense of responsibility to watch over the town and research how to kill IT if IT were to ever return. A horrific killing of an adult at the fair and subsequent disappearances of children alert Mike that the plague that has befallen Derry for generations has returned to feed. Mike reaches out to each of the losers reminding them that something they have all feared has come to pass.
Each when notified experience a fear that is indescribable yet for some reason the groups memories of the past have become clouded.
The now adult losers (with several flashbacks featuring the original cast) come together to remind themselves of the past, and the pact they made to protect the future. Featuring a star studded cast, Mike, Bill (James McAvoy/Jaeden Martell), Beverly (Jessica Chastain/Sophia Lillis), Ben (Jay Ryan/Jeremy Ray Taylor), Richie (Bill Hader/Finn Wolfhard), Eddie (James Ransone/Jack Dylan Grazer) and Stanley (Andy Bean/Wyatt Oleff), must battle their lost memories, their fears and the very real danger if they are to save Derry and themselves.
IT: Chapter 2 continues the incredible character building that Chapter 1 began. Where each of the young actors were perfectly cast as their book counterparts, their adult versions could easily be mistaken for the grown-up versions. This is the area where IT shines the most, the story of the losers who have grown and moved away, yet still share the unescapable bond of friendship. While an older Bill struggles (much like Stephen King himself) to come up with good endings to his stories it’s what he writes at the end of IT: Chapter 2 that really sums up the movie as a whole. To summarize, there are no good friends or bad friends, there are only friends, and chapter 2 is an example of how you take a band of misfits and turn them into heroes.
Sadly, for all the things IT does from a character side, it tends to drag on and over CGI its monster side. Pennywise the clown (portrayed brilliantly by Bill Skarsgård) brings with him all the creepiness and fear that the movie needs, even posters of his maniacal self is promoting lawsuits in other countries due to his ability to scare small children. So, it seems a bit disheartening that the studio felt it was necessary to go overboard with their CGI budgets. Many scenes go from being creepy and scary to simply being silly when our favorite clown is turned into a giant naked hag like figure. This is where I felt the mini-series did a far better job, due to its limited budget and shorter time requirements it allowed for the viewers to imagine the evil and not see it thrown out for the world to see.
IT: Chapter 2 also drags out far longer than it needed to. Make sure you get your bathroom breaks in, because the film, not counting previews, is just about 10 minutes shy of being three hours. I’m normally not one to complain about the length of a movie, as I’d rather they tell the story they want instead of trying to compress it into a shorter run time. However, in this case, it seemed entirely wasted on an overabundance of clown mutations and an extremely drawn out final battle. It’s unfortunate, because one of the most unused (and potentially interesting characters) Henry Bowers (Teach Grant/Nicholas Hamilton) is given only a few minutes of screen time and ultimately adds nothing to the movie as a whole. As I stated earlier, I haven’t read the novel, but I have to assume that he played a far bigger role in the book.
As it stands in the movie, his character is both unnecessary and completely ineffective at whatever he was attempting to do. I think some of the time taken away from the battle scenes to flesh out his (or other supporting characters) would have be time better spent.
IT: Chapter 2 is a good movie, that with some reduced special effects and better time management is just shy of being a great movie. The story of the kids, now grown up, is one of forgiveness, bravery and love. It shows how true friendship can overcome distance and time and that those things never truly vanish, even if the particulars of what separated you in the first place is a bit fuzzy. Horror movies with outrageous budgets tend to lose the spirit of what makes a true horror movie scary…it’s rarely about the effects, and more about the imagination.
That’s what makes the books typically so much better than the movies, after all, each one of us imagines our own version of what truly scares us (although clowns tend to be scary regardless of how they are portrayed). IT: Chapter 2 provides a satisfying ending to a story that began a few years ago, it suffers a bit from its budget and its use of CGI effects, but it’s still a story of what all of us losers can accomplish if we band together.