Search
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.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Shape of Water (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A mystical tale of fish and fingers.
With perfect timing after scooping 13 Oscar nominations, “The Shape of Water” arrives for preview screenings in the UK. Is it worth all the hype?
Well, in a word, yes.
Not since Spielberg entranced the world in 1982 with a love story between an isolated and lonely child and an alien, stranded a million light-years from home, have we seen a magical fairy-tale so well told.
Cleaning up at the (box) office. Sally Hawkins and Doug Jones as the creature.
Here Lewisham’s own Sally Hawkins (“Paddington”, “Godzilla“) plays Elisa Esposito, an attractive but mousy mute living above a cinema and next door to her best friend: a struggling artist called Giles (Richard Jenkins). Sexually-frustrated, Elisa works out those tensions in the bath every morning before heading off to work as a cleaner at a government research institute. Together with partner Zelda Fuller (Octavia Spencer, “Hidden Figures“) she is asked to clean a highly secured room where a mysterious aquatic creature is being studied by the cruel and militaristic Strickland (Michael Shannon, “Midnight Special“, “Nocturnal Animals“) and the more compassionate scientist Hoffstetler. (The latter is played by Michael Stuhlbarg (“Miss Sloane“, “Steve Jobs“) in a performance that wasn’t recognised by the Academy, but for me really held the film’s story together). Elisa forms a relationship with the creature, and as the scientific investigations turn darker, she becomes determined to help him.
When you think about it, the similarities in the screenplay with E.T. are quite striking. But this is most definitely not a kid’s film, containing full frontal nudity, sex and some considerable violence, some of it “hands-over-the-eyes” worthy. Most of this violence comes courtesy of Shannon’s character, who is truly monstrous. He is uncontrollably vicious, single-minded and amoral: a hand over the mouth to silence his wife during vigourous sex cleverly belies where his true lust currently lies. (Shannon is just so convincing in all of his roles that, after “Nocturnal Animals“, it is a bit of a surprise to see that he is still alive and well!)
It’s worth pointing out for balance at this point that my wife thought this portrayal was over-egged for its villany, and she rated the film less highly than I did because of it.
Michael Shannon as evil incarnate.
So its no Oscar nomination this time for Shannon as a supporting actor. But that honour goes to Richard Jenkins, who is spectacularly good as the movie-musical-loving and pie-munching neighbour who is drawn unwillingly into Elisa’s plans. Giles is a richly fashioned character – also the film’s narrator – who struggles to fit in with the cruel and rascist 1962 world that he finds himself in. “Sometimes I think I was born too early or too late for my life” he bemoans to the creature whose loneliness he relates to. A scene in a cafe where he fastidiously wipes all traces of pie-filling from his tongue is masterfully done.
Richard Hawkins and Sally Hawkins, hatching a plan.
Octavia Spencer is also Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress, and it’s a magical partnership she shares with Hawkins, with each bouncing off each other wonderfully.
This leads to a ‘no brainer’ Oscar nomination for Sally Hawkins who delivers a star turn. She has to go through such a huge range of emotions in this film, and she genuinely makes you really care about the outcome like few films this year. It’s a little tricky since I haven’t seen “I Tonya” or “Ladybird” yet, but I would have thought that Ms Hawkins is going to possibly give Frances McDormand the closest run for her money on March 4th. My money would still be on McDormand for “3 Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri“, but the Oscar voters are bound to love “The Shape of Water”. For like “La La Land” last year, the film is (rather surprisingly for me) another love letter to Hollywood’s golden years, with Elisa and Giles living out their lives with classic movie music and dance numbers: a medium that Elisa only ever truly finds here “voice” through.
Eliza and Zelda about to give two fingers to the establishment.
In the technical categories the Oscar nominations were for Cinematography (Dan Laustsen); Film Editing (Sidney Wolinsky); Sound Editing (Nathan Robitaille and Nelson Ferreira); Sound Mixing (Glen Gauthier, Christian Cooke and Brad Zoern); Production Design (Paul D. Austerberry, Jeffrey A. Melvin and Shane Vieau); Original Score (Alexandre Desplat) and Costume Design (Luis Sequeira). And you really wouldn’t want to bet against any of these not to win, for the film is a technical delight. Right from the dreamlike opening titles (arguably, they missed a deserved nomination here for Visual Effects), the film is gorgeous to look at, with such brilliant detail in the production design that there is interesting stuff to look at in every frame. And the film editing is extraordinary: Elisa wobbles on the bucket she’s standing on, but it’s Strickland’s butt, perched on a table, that slips off. This is a film that deserves multiple repeat viewings.
The monster feeding the monster. Nick Searcy as General Hoyt with Strickland (Michael Shannon).
An the helm is the multi-talented Guillermo del Toro (“Pacific Rim”, “Crimson Peak”) who both directed and co-wrote the exceptionally smart screenplay (with Vanessa Taylor, “Divergent”) and is nominated for both. I actually found the story to be rather predictable, as regards Elisa’s story arc, but that in no way reduced my enjoyment of the film. For the “original screenplay” is nothing if not “original”…. it’s witty, intelligent and shocking at different turns.
The violence and sex won’t be for everyone… but this is a deep and rich movie experience that everyone who loves the movies should at least appreciate… hopefully in a dry cinema!
Well, in a word, yes.
Not since Spielberg entranced the world in 1982 with a love story between an isolated and lonely child and an alien, stranded a million light-years from home, have we seen a magical fairy-tale so well told.
Cleaning up at the (box) office. Sally Hawkins and Doug Jones as the creature.
Here Lewisham’s own Sally Hawkins (“Paddington”, “Godzilla“) plays Elisa Esposito, an attractive but mousy mute living above a cinema and next door to her best friend: a struggling artist called Giles (Richard Jenkins). Sexually-frustrated, Elisa works out those tensions in the bath every morning before heading off to work as a cleaner at a government research institute. Together with partner Zelda Fuller (Octavia Spencer, “Hidden Figures“) she is asked to clean a highly secured room where a mysterious aquatic creature is being studied by the cruel and militaristic Strickland (Michael Shannon, “Midnight Special“, “Nocturnal Animals“) and the more compassionate scientist Hoffstetler. (The latter is played by Michael Stuhlbarg (“Miss Sloane“, “Steve Jobs“) in a performance that wasn’t recognised by the Academy, but for me really held the film’s story together). Elisa forms a relationship with the creature, and as the scientific investigations turn darker, she becomes determined to help him.
When you think about it, the similarities in the screenplay with E.T. are quite striking. But this is most definitely not a kid’s film, containing full frontal nudity, sex and some considerable violence, some of it “hands-over-the-eyes” worthy. Most of this violence comes courtesy of Shannon’s character, who is truly monstrous. He is uncontrollably vicious, single-minded and amoral: a hand over the mouth to silence his wife during vigourous sex cleverly belies where his true lust currently lies. (Shannon is just so convincing in all of his roles that, after “Nocturnal Animals“, it is a bit of a surprise to see that he is still alive and well!)
It’s worth pointing out for balance at this point that my wife thought this portrayal was over-egged for its villany, and she rated the film less highly than I did because of it.
Michael Shannon as evil incarnate.
So its no Oscar nomination this time for Shannon as a supporting actor. But that honour goes to Richard Jenkins, who is spectacularly good as the movie-musical-loving and pie-munching neighbour who is drawn unwillingly into Elisa’s plans. Giles is a richly fashioned character – also the film’s narrator – who struggles to fit in with the cruel and rascist 1962 world that he finds himself in. “Sometimes I think I was born too early or too late for my life” he bemoans to the creature whose loneliness he relates to. A scene in a cafe where he fastidiously wipes all traces of pie-filling from his tongue is masterfully done.
Richard Hawkins and Sally Hawkins, hatching a plan.
Octavia Spencer is also Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress, and it’s a magical partnership she shares with Hawkins, with each bouncing off each other wonderfully.
This leads to a ‘no brainer’ Oscar nomination for Sally Hawkins who delivers a star turn. She has to go through such a huge range of emotions in this film, and she genuinely makes you really care about the outcome like few films this year. It’s a little tricky since I haven’t seen “I Tonya” or “Ladybird” yet, but I would have thought that Ms Hawkins is going to possibly give Frances McDormand the closest run for her money on March 4th. My money would still be on McDormand for “3 Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri“, but the Oscar voters are bound to love “The Shape of Water”. For like “La La Land” last year, the film is (rather surprisingly for me) another love letter to Hollywood’s golden years, with Elisa and Giles living out their lives with classic movie music and dance numbers: a medium that Elisa only ever truly finds here “voice” through.
Eliza and Zelda about to give two fingers to the establishment.
In the technical categories the Oscar nominations were for Cinematography (Dan Laustsen); Film Editing (Sidney Wolinsky); Sound Editing (Nathan Robitaille and Nelson Ferreira); Sound Mixing (Glen Gauthier, Christian Cooke and Brad Zoern); Production Design (Paul D. Austerberry, Jeffrey A. Melvin and Shane Vieau); Original Score (Alexandre Desplat) and Costume Design (Luis Sequeira). And you really wouldn’t want to bet against any of these not to win, for the film is a technical delight. Right from the dreamlike opening titles (arguably, they missed a deserved nomination here for Visual Effects), the film is gorgeous to look at, with such brilliant detail in the production design that there is interesting stuff to look at in every frame. And the film editing is extraordinary: Elisa wobbles on the bucket she’s standing on, but it’s Strickland’s butt, perched on a table, that slips off. This is a film that deserves multiple repeat viewings.
The monster feeding the monster. Nick Searcy as General Hoyt with Strickland (Michael Shannon).
An the helm is the multi-talented Guillermo del Toro (“Pacific Rim”, “Crimson Peak”) who both directed and co-wrote the exceptionally smart screenplay (with Vanessa Taylor, “Divergent”) and is nominated for both. I actually found the story to be rather predictable, as regards Elisa’s story arc, but that in no way reduced my enjoyment of the film. For the “original screenplay” is nothing if not “original”…. it’s witty, intelligent and shocking at different turns.
The violence and sex won’t be for everyone… but this is a deep and rich movie experience that everyone who loves the movies should at least appreciate… hopefully in a dry cinema!
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Werewolves Within (2021) in Movies
Dec 14, 2021
An incredible ensemble cast. (2 more)
Plot stays true to the classic 'whodunit' formula.
Milana Vayntrub.
Not enough horror. (2 more)
Not enough werewolves.
The burning desire for a hard R-rating.
A Sleepover with Guns
A horror comedy film based on the 2016 Red Storm Entertainment developed, Ubisoft published multiplayer VR video game of the same name, Werewolves Within keeps the same mystery/whodunit element of the game by introducing audiences to a small town under attack from a werewolf and leaving them to wonder which of the townsfolk could be the actual lycanthrope.
Directed by Josh Ruben and written by Mishna Wolff, Werewolves Within begins as Ranger Finn Wheeler (Sam Richardson) arrives in Beaverfield for his new post. Finn hits it off with the local mail carrier Cecily (Milana Vayntrub), but the rest of the town is unusually eccentric, to say the least.
There’s Trisha (Micahela Watkins) and Pete (Michael Chernus) Aderton, a couple who makes weird miniature dolls of everyone they meet and care a little too much for their dog. Devon (Cheyenne Jackson) and Joaquim (Harvey Guillén) are a homosexual couple living off the riches of a successful technological company. The town’s resident mechanic is Gwen (Sarah Burns), a crude woman whose husband Marcus (George Basil) is largely regarded as the town idiot.
Elsewhere in town, rounding out Beaverfield’s colorful cast of characters, is the clingy owner of the local lodge, Jeanine (Catherine Curtin), canine attack expert Dr. Ellis (Rebecca Henderson), oil magnate Sam (Wayne Duvall) who hopes to install a pipeline through the town at any cost, and Emerson, a ‘scary’ hunter who hates people and lives on the outskirts of town.
One night, when the power suddenly goes out and with the town’s back-up generators in a state of disrepair, everyone in town takes refuge in Jeanine’s lodge. However, after a corpse is discovered underneath the lodge’s porch and the townsfolk barricade themselves inside the building in an attempt to protect themselves from whatever may be lurking outside, the werewolf manages to attack from within.
In the aftermath of the attack, everyone begins to turn on each other, as the monster’s strike from inside the lodge provides them with a shocking revelation: Somebody in the lodge is the werewolf.
The cast works so well together. Richardson is does an excellent job of portraying Finn, a guy so nice and soft spoken that he feels like an African American Ned Flanders attempting to take charge as the authority figure.
Similarly, Vayntrub is so charming as Cecily that it makes you wonder why she hasn’t been in much else outside of AT&T commercials and the occasional voice role as Marvel’s Squirrel Girl, while Guillén is just as funny here as he is on What We Do in the Shadows, albeit in a slightly different way.
However, the most entertaining aspect of the film’s casting is the way everyone’s eccentric chemistry bounces off each other in a way that evokes this palpable sense of quirky absurdity that you can’t really find anywhere else.
The formula of Werewolves Within is a lot like Knives Out or Murder on the Orient Express, as it’s a mystery wrapped within the confines of a horror comedy, with the ensemble cast taking center stage as they dance around the comedy genre and a mild R-rating while the horror aspect is mostly reduced to sitting in the backseat and tapping you on the shoulder from time to time.
In fact, to that same mysterious end, the eponymous werewolf isn’t actually revealed until the last ten or so minutes of the film.
As someone who hasn’t played the original video game, the film adaptation of Werewolves Within was, overall, a little disappointing from a personal standpoint.
Yes, the film is more of a whodunit than a straight horror film, and thus it’s understandable why it did not lean completely into the more gory and terrifying potential of its premise. Yet, even with this fact in mind, the film still feels particularly lacking when it comes to its actual horror elements.
It’s also one of the softest R-rated films to come along in quite some time. While some aspects, such as Finn biting his tongue or saying “Heavens to Betsy” instead of dropping an F-bomb make sense, it remains frustrating nonetheless that Werewolves Within constantly feels as if it’s purposely holding itself back.
Which is a shame, because there’s more to a film like this than silly on-screen hijinks and running attempts by the audience to figure out who the killer is – after all, some of us will pay good money to see the monster you’ve advertised your entire film.
Recently, there seems to be a rising trend among modern werewolf movies to barely feature a film’s respective monster on screen. This year’s Bloodthirsty is a great example and, as much as I love the film, The Wolf of Snow Hollow did the horror/comedy concoction to a much more satisfying degree than Werewolves Within, and yet totally massacred the idea of an actual werewolf being the culprit.
At the end of the day, Werewolves Within is a film where a bunch of weirdos in some-little-nowhere-town are forcibly crammed into a lodge during a snowstorm and proceed to irritate one another to semi-humorous results as a werewolf hides among them. The film is essentially a wolf in a person’s clothing, as while Werewolves Within is fine for what it is and features some great performances here and a couple laugh-out-loud moments, its potential seems to be far greater than what we received.
Ultimately, Werewolves Within leaves horror fans starving and salivating for more.
Directed by Josh Ruben and written by Mishna Wolff, Werewolves Within begins as Ranger Finn Wheeler (Sam Richardson) arrives in Beaverfield for his new post. Finn hits it off with the local mail carrier Cecily (Milana Vayntrub), but the rest of the town is unusually eccentric, to say the least.
There’s Trisha (Micahela Watkins) and Pete (Michael Chernus) Aderton, a couple who makes weird miniature dolls of everyone they meet and care a little too much for their dog. Devon (Cheyenne Jackson) and Joaquim (Harvey Guillén) are a homosexual couple living off the riches of a successful technological company. The town’s resident mechanic is Gwen (Sarah Burns), a crude woman whose husband Marcus (George Basil) is largely regarded as the town idiot.
Elsewhere in town, rounding out Beaverfield’s colorful cast of characters, is the clingy owner of the local lodge, Jeanine (Catherine Curtin), canine attack expert Dr. Ellis (Rebecca Henderson), oil magnate Sam (Wayne Duvall) who hopes to install a pipeline through the town at any cost, and Emerson, a ‘scary’ hunter who hates people and lives on the outskirts of town.
One night, when the power suddenly goes out and with the town’s back-up generators in a state of disrepair, everyone in town takes refuge in Jeanine’s lodge. However, after a corpse is discovered underneath the lodge’s porch and the townsfolk barricade themselves inside the building in an attempt to protect themselves from whatever may be lurking outside, the werewolf manages to attack from within.
In the aftermath of the attack, everyone begins to turn on each other, as the monster’s strike from inside the lodge provides them with a shocking revelation: Somebody in the lodge is the werewolf.
The cast works so well together. Richardson is does an excellent job of portraying Finn, a guy so nice and soft spoken that he feels like an African American Ned Flanders attempting to take charge as the authority figure.
Similarly, Vayntrub is so charming as Cecily that it makes you wonder why she hasn’t been in much else outside of AT&T commercials and the occasional voice role as Marvel’s Squirrel Girl, while Guillén is just as funny here as he is on What We Do in the Shadows, albeit in a slightly different way.
However, the most entertaining aspect of the film’s casting is the way everyone’s eccentric chemistry bounces off each other in a way that evokes this palpable sense of quirky absurdity that you can’t really find anywhere else.
The formula of Werewolves Within is a lot like Knives Out or Murder on the Orient Express, as it’s a mystery wrapped within the confines of a horror comedy, with the ensemble cast taking center stage as they dance around the comedy genre and a mild R-rating while the horror aspect is mostly reduced to sitting in the backseat and tapping you on the shoulder from time to time.
In fact, to that same mysterious end, the eponymous werewolf isn’t actually revealed until the last ten or so minutes of the film.
As someone who hasn’t played the original video game, the film adaptation of Werewolves Within was, overall, a little disappointing from a personal standpoint.
Yes, the film is more of a whodunit than a straight horror film, and thus it’s understandable why it did not lean completely into the more gory and terrifying potential of its premise. Yet, even with this fact in mind, the film still feels particularly lacking when it comes to its actual horror elements.
It’s also one of the softest R-rated films to come along in quite some time. While some aspects, such as Finn biting his tongue or saying “Heavens to Betsy” instead of dropping an F-bomb make sense, it remains frustrating nonetheless that Werewolves Within constantly feels as if it’s purposely holding itself back.
Which is a shame, because there’s more to a film like this than silly on-screen hijinks and running attempts by the audience to figure out who the killer is – after all, some of us will pay good money to see the monster you’ve advertised your entire film.
Recently, there seems to be a rising trend among modern werewolf movies to barely feature a film’s respective monster on screen. This year’s Bloodthirsty is a great example and, as much as I love the film, The Wolf of Snow Hollow did the horror/comedy concoction to a much more satisfying degree than Werewolves Within, and yet totally massacred the idea of an actual werewolf being the culprit.
At the end of the day, Werewolves Within is a film where a bunch of weirdos in some-little-nowhere-town are forcibly crammed into a lodge during a snowstorm and proceed to irritate one another to semi-humorous results as a werewolf hides among them. The film is essentially a wolf in a person’s clothing, as while Werewolves Within is fine for what it is and features some great performances here and a couple laugh-out-loud moments, its potential seems to be far greater than what we received.
Ultimately, Werewolves Within leaves horror fans starving and salivating for more.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated The Incredible Hulk (2008) in Movies
May 9, 2019
"As far as I'm concerned, that man's whole body is property of the U.S. army."
I will defend this gem until the day I die.
The Incredible Hulk is without a doubt one of the most underrated, underappreciated film's that I have ever seen. There it is. I'm just putting it out there. Don't worry, I have my reasons that I'll get into but if you don't like this film, if you hate this film even, I encourage you to read this review. I encourage this because I hope to open your eyes to how beautiful and tragic The Incredible Hulk is.
For one, let's take it back to May 1962 when Stan Lee and Jack Kirby introduced to us, in his very own debut issue, the Hulk himself. According to interviews, Lee spoke of how this film truly captured the essence of the character and the comics. In those comics, General Thunderbolt Ross, along with the military, was always chasing Dr. Banner ever since the accident. This is portrayed brilliantly here by Louis Leterrier. I'm not a huge fan of his work but I got to give credit where credit's due.
I don't even know where to start for positives because there's so many. For one, Edward Norton is brilliant (yes brilliant) as Bruce Banner. His performance is so emotionally subdued, filled with great sadness and longing. They even show him suffering from PTSD, which has never been touched on with this character on film. Really great stuff on Norton's part. We also get to finally see Bruce Banner be a scientist. We've seen it in the future films sure, but not to this extent. Bruce is working with scraps, using solely his wits, in a third world country . . . just like in the comics.
The story of Hulk is really a tragic love story. I got serious King Kong vibes from the similar dynamic here and it's beautiful. The chemistry between Banner and Elizabeth Ross is great. It's so believable; two people put in an impossible situation and making it work. That's love.
Hulk's character is so well realized here. He suffers from PTSD like I said, but the actual monster himself is perfect. They even throw in a bit of a horror vibe for the first Hulk-out scene. Oh yeah, there's numerous Hulk-out scenes!!! There's so many great omages to the comics as well and I loved every bit of it.
Lastly, looking at it from a technical side it's great. The cinematography is extremely well done and a total feast for the eyes. The pacing is great and goes by like the snap of Thanos himself. The editing is top-notch. The soundtrack by Craig Armstrong is one of my favorites of all time and is so iconic and beautiful. Finally, there's a serious tone. FINALLY. There are some well incorporated jokes but unlike some other Marvel films, it's not overbearing.
As for negatives, they are almost none to nonexistent. Really just nitpicks. The taxi scene is a bit unrealistic and silly. It's the only scene of humor that felt a bit forced and silly, yet I can easily ignore it. But since this is an analysis, I had to mention it. Also, unlike Ruffalo's Hulk, Norton's Hulk doesn't look very similar to Norton himself. Again, purely a nitpick.
Overall, I absolutely love The Incredible Hulk
The Incredible Hulk is without a doubt one of the most underrated, underappreciated film's that I have ever seen. There it is. I'm just putting it out there. Don't worry, I have my reasons that I'll get into but if you don't like this film, if you hate this film even, I encourage you to read this review. I encourage this because I hope to open your eyes to how beautiful and tragic The Incredible Hulk is.
For one, let's take it back to May 1962 when Stan Lee and Jack Kirby introduced to us, in his very own debut issue, the Hulk himself. According to interviews, Lee spoke of how this film truly captured the essence of the character and the comics. In those comics, General Thunderbolt Ross, along with the military, was always chasing Dr. Banner ever since the accident. This is portrayed brilliantly here by Louis Leterrier. I'm not a huge fan of his work but I got to give credit where credit's due.
I don't even know where to start for positives because there's so many. For one, Edward Norton is brilliant (yes brilliant) as Bruce Banner. His performance is so emotionally subdued, filled with great sadness and longing. They even show him suffering from PTSD, which has never been touched on with this character on film. Really great stuff on Norton's part. We also get to finally see Bruce Banner be a scientist. We've seen it in the future films sure, but not to this extent. Bruce is working with scraps, using solely his wits, in a third world country . . . just like in the comics.
The story of Hulk is really a tragic love story. I got serious King Kong vibes from the similar dynamic here and it's beautiful. The chemistry between Banner and Elizabeth Ross is great. It's so believable; two people put in an impossible situation and making it work. That's love.
Hulk's character is so well realized here. He suffers from PTSD like I said, but the actual monster himself is perfect. They even throw in a bit of a horror vibe for the first Hulk-out scene. Oh yeah, there's numerous Hulk-out scenes!!! There's so many great omages to the comics as well and I loved every bit of it.
Lastly, looking at it from a technical side it's great. The cinematography is extremely well done and a total feast for the eyes. The pacing is great and goes by like the snap of Thanos himself. The editing is top-notch. The soundtrack by Craig Armstrong is one of my favorites of all time and is so iconic and beautiful. Finally, there's a serious tone. FINALLY. There are some well incorporated jokes but unlike some other Marvel films, it's not overbearing.
As for negatives, they are almost none to nonexistent. Really just nitpicks. The taxi scene is a bit unrealistic and silly. It's the only scene of humor that felt a bit forced and silly, yet I can easily ignore it. But since this is an analysis, I had to mention it. Also, unlike Ruffalo's Hulk, Norton's Hulk doesn't look very similar to Norton himself. Again, purely a nitpick.
Overall, I absolutely love The Incredible Hulk