Search
Search results
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Black Panther (2018) in Movies
Mar 5, 2018
Epic
There is so much to love about Black Panther that it's taken me awhile to figure out where to begin. I guess I'll start with the message. A message that leaves us with two options: We can all spend the rest of our lives hating each other or we can choose to work together. That's not just a message for black people, which the cast predominately represents, but a message for the human race.
The film would be nothing without the powerful cast surrounding it. Their performances were both memorable and deep. I could spend this entire review going into depth on the effect of each actor/actresses performance on the film, but instead I want to take a moment to recognize one particular actress who has been in the game for decades: Angela Bassett. She absolutely nails the role of Queen mother Ramonda. Because the other roles are so strong, her performance may go unnoticed but not by me. She's a picture of calm, always displaying the perfect amount of strength in her position of power. Her vulnerability doesn't diminish her role of power in this matriarchal society.
Critics and fans alike have been complaining about one-dimensional villains for years in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. You won't find that in Black Panther as Killmonger (Michael B. Jordan) is extremely well-developed. The best villains make you sensitive to their plight. Not only did I understand where Killmonger was coming from, there were plenty of moments where I wondered whether or not he was wrong.
As much as the film creates a strong feeling of black empowerment, Black Panther creates a strong sense of women's empowerment as well. The Wakandan tribes revolve around a king, yet the society would be nothing without the strong matriarchal figures that keep things running smoothly. There is a scene in the beginning of the film where N'Jobu (Sterling K. Brown) is discussing underdealings in his apartment when there is a knock at his door. When asked if he should open the door, he responds, "They won't ask twice." You can read the fear in his eyes as he understands the power of the women waiting behind that door. The more of the film you watch, the more you understand the justification behind that fear.
The conflict in the film wasn't created, but happened naturally as a result of flawed characters with depth and strong minds. W'Kabi (Daniel Kaluuya) loves his people but has a heart for vengeance which begins to consume him. His story is just one of many revolving pieces that provide layers to the story.
The set pieces throughout the film were absolutely stunning. From its beautiful waterfall overlooks to the wintery mountains of the Jabari Tribe, you can't help but feel the magic in this place. The casino set piece was easily my favorite, a location that's seedy on the outside yet full of glamour and ritz within.
Now for my one minor gripe: I can't go into detail without ruining the film for those that haven't seen it, but there was one particular relationship that I felt should have been fleshed out a bit more, especially since it impacted the tide of the movie as a whole. The original cut of this film is four hours long and I've read that my issue is a non-issue in that version so I won't deduct too much. Not to mention, there are so many moments that they got right, particularly in the action front, that it's hard being too picky. Even the fight scenes and sprawling battles (rhinos in vibranium armor? Yes, please!) are original, breathing fresh life into the MCU the same way Doctor Strange did.
At the heart of everything, Black Panther is shaped by memorable, powerful moments that impact the way you look at the movie. Killmonger's dream sequence is probably the most powerful scene in an MCU movie yet, just edging out the final confrontation between Vision and Ultron in Avengers: Age of Ultron. The film is a double threat as it not only packs a strong action punch, but an introspective one as well.
Wakanda is crowning a new king, but there is one who would oppose the throne for reasons of his own. One, coincidentally, is the same amount of points that I deducted from my rating. Just amazing, Black Panther gets a 99 from me.
The film would be nothing without the powerful cast surrounding it. Their performances were both memorable and deep. I could spend this entire review going into depth on the effect of each actor/actresses performance on the film, but instead I want to take a moment to recognize one particular actress who has been in the game for decades: Angela Bassett. She absolutely nails the role of Queen mother Ramonda. Because the other roles are so strong, her performance may go unnoticed but not by me. She's a picture of calm, always displaying the perfect amount of strength in her position of power. Her vulnerability doesn't diminish her role of power in this matriarchal society.
Critics and fans alike have been complaining about one-dimensional villains for years in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. You won't find that in Black Panther as Killmonger (Michael B. Jordan) is extremely well-developed. The best villains make you sensitive to their plight. Not only did I understand where Killmonger was coming from, there were plenty of moments where I wondered whether or not he was wrong.
As much as the film creates a strong feeling of black empowerment, Black Panther creates a strong sense of women's empowerment as well. The Wakandan tribes revolve around a king, yet the society would be nothing without the strong matriarchal figures that keep things running smoothly. There is a scene in the beginning of the film where N'Jobu (Sterling K. Brown) is discussing underdealings in his apartment when there is a knock at his door. When asked if he should open the door, he responds, "They won't ask twice." You can read the fear in his eyes as he understands the power of the women waiting behind that door. The more of the film you watch, the more you understand the justification behind that fear.
The conflict in the film wasn't created, but happened naturally as a result of flawed characters with depth and strong minds. W'Kabi (Daniel Kaluuya) loves his people but has a heart for vengeance which begins to consume him. His story is just one of many revolving pieces that provide layers to the story.
The set pieces throughout the film were absolutely stunning. From its beautiful waterfall overlooks to the wintery mountains of the Jabari Tribe, you can't help but feel the magic in this place. The casino set piece was easily my favorite, a location that's seedy on the outside yet full of glamour and ritz within.
Now for my one minor gripe: I can't go into detail without ruining the film for those that haven't seen it, but there was one particular relationship that I felt should have been fleshed out a bit more, especially since it impacted the tide of the movie as a whole. The original cut of this film is four hours long and I've read that my issue is a non-issue in that version so I won't deduct too much. Not to mention, there are so many moments that they got right, particularly in the action front, that it's hard being too picky. Even the fight scenes and sprawling battles (rhinos in vibranium armor? Yes, please!) are original, breathing fresh life into the MCU the same way Doctor Strange did.
At the heart of everything, Black Panther is shaped by memorable, powerful moments that impact the way you look at the movie. Killmonger's dream sequence is probably the most powerful scene in an MCU movie yet, just edging out the final confrontation between Vision and Ultron in Avengers: Age of Ultron. The film is a double threat as it not only packs a strong action punch, but an introspective one as well.
Wakanda is crowning a new king, but there is one who would oppose the throne for reasons of his own. One, coincidentally, is the same amount of points that I deducted from my rating. Just amazing, Black Panther gets a 99 from me.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Getting A Life, Even If You're Dead (No Going Back, #1) in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review can also be found on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com/">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>).
I've been wanting to read this book for awhile. I love books with ghosts in them. I had high hopes for this book, but it just turned out to be an mediocre read.
Right away, the title of this book suggests that it's not going to be a scary book or one that takes itself too seriously. I do like the title, and I found it very interesting.
I like the cover. I think it suits a young adult book, and the cover fits with the setting of the book.
The world building was alright. I just felt that the ghosts were able to do too many things such as they were able to manipulate objects in the living world. They could move things, open doors, log on to Facebook, etc. It was the logging on to Facebook that really got to me. The ghosts even had their own Facebook pages! They could even write on others' Facebook profiles. I just think that because the ghosts were able to do too much, they would've been discovered in a real world setting.
The pacing was just alright. It wasn't too fast, and it wasn't too slow. It was just kind of there. I found myself not really in a rush to find out what would happen next.
I did enjoy the idea of the plot. I like how Kendra is able to see her dead best friend and then realizes she can actually see ghosts. I like how there was a mystery incorporated in the book. There was also romance going on with all the characters. However, I just felt as if there was too much going on with the plot. Perhaps this book would've been better without the romance especially the romance between Loic and Amber. I also felt as if the mystery about how Loic died wasn't that big of a mystery at all. I had correctly predicted the mystery surrounding Loic's death from the very beginning. There is a small plot twist towards the end, but it's not a major one. The author does leave the ending of this book open for the next book in the series, but I think this book could work well as a stand alone.
I didn't really connect with any of the characters, but I did enjoy them. My favorite character was Amber. To me, she felt the most realistic. It was good to see the wide range of emotions she was feeling throughout the book. I enjoyed her zest for life (even if she was dead). I also liked Pierrot. He seemed like a sweet boy, and it was clear how much he loved his brother. As for Kendra, I didn't like the way she treated her mother. I found her to be a bit disrespectful and a bit spoiled. I also didn't really care for Loic. To me, he came across as very whiny and a little bit selfish. I get that he just died and wanted answers, but it's like he just wanted everything to happen all at once. He was a very impatient boy.
I felt that the dialogue fit in more with a middle grade book rather then a young adult book. The way the characters thought and spoke made them seem like they were around thirteen or fourteen as opposed to being around seventeen years old. I also felt the dialogue didn't fit in with a modern day story. I can understand Amber using words that people don't really say anymore being as she died in the 1980s (although she's been a ghost, so surely she would've picked up the modern day lingo), but even Kendra used odd words such as the word "crimmers" (or something to that effect) when she was shocked about something. There's not really any violence, but there is some swearing. There's also no sexual references besides kissing.
Overall, Getting a Life, Even If You're Dead by Beth Watson is just an alright read. It's not great, but it's definitely not a bad read by any means. I believe that if the ghosts were a bit more believable and the book was written in more of a young adult tone, it could've been much better. I probably will read the next book in the series simply because it will focus on Amber.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 13+ who are like the mystery genre but also like their books with a little bit of romance.
(I received a free paperback of this book from the author in exchange for a fair and honest review).
I've been wanting to read this book for awhile. I love books with ghosts in them. I had high hopes for this book, but it just turned out to be an mediocre read.
Right away, the title of this book suggests that it's not going to be a scary book or one that takes itself too seriously. I do like the title, and I found it very interesting.
I like the cover. I think it suits a young adult book, and the cover fits with the setting of the book.
The world building was alright. I just felt that the ghosts were able to do too many things such as they were able to manipulate objects in the living world. They could move things, open doors, log on to Facebook, etc. It was the logging on to Facebook that really got to me. The ghosts even had their own Facebook pages! They could even write on others' Facebook profiles. I just think that because the ghosts were able to do too much, they would've been discovered in a real world setting.
The pacing was just alright. It wasn't too fast, and it wasn't too slow. It was just kind of there. I found myself not really in a rush to find out what would happen next.
I did enjoy the idea of the plot. I like how Kendra is able to see her dead best friend and then realizes she can actually see ghosts. I like how there was a mystery incorporated in the book. There was also romance going on with all the characters. However, I just felt as if there was too much going on with the plot. Perhaps this book would've been better without the romance especially the romance between Loic and Amber. I also felt as if the mystery about how Loic died wasn't that big of a mystery at all. I had correctly predicted the mystery surrounding Loic's death from the very beginning. There is a small plot twist towards the end, but it's not a major one. The author does leave the ending of this book open for the next book in the series, but I think this book could work well as a stand alone.
I didn't really connect with any of the characters, but I did enjoy them. My favorite character was Amber. To me, she felt the most realistic. It was good to see the wide range of emotions she was feeling throughout the book. I enjoyed her zest for life (even if she was dead). I also liked Pierrot. He seemed like a sweet boy, and it was clear how much he loved his brother. As for Kendra, I didn't like the way she treated her mother. I found her to be a bit disrespectful and a bit spoiled. I also didn't really care for Loic. To me, he came across as very whiny and a little bit selfish. I get that he just died and wanted answers, but it's like he just wanted everything to happen all at once. He was a very impatient boy.
I felt that the dialogue fit in more with a middle grade book rather then a young adult book. The way the characters thought and spoke made them seem like they were around thirteen or fourteen as opposed to being around seventeen years old. I also felt the dialogue didn't fit in with a modern day story. I can understand Amber using words that people don't really say anymore being as she died in the 1980s (although she's been a ghost, so surely she would've picked up the modern day lingo), but even Kendra used odd words such as the word "crimmers" (or something to that effect) when she was shocked about something. There's not really any violence, but there is some swearing. There's also no sexual references besides kissing.
Overall, Getting a Life, Even If You're Dead by Beth Watson is just an alright read. It's not great, but it's definitely not a bad read by any means. I believe that if the ghosts were a bit more believable and the book was written in more of a young adult tone, it could've been much better. I probably will read the next book in the series simply because it will focus on Amber.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 13+ who are like the mystery genre but also like their books with a little bit of romance.
(I received a free paperback of this book from the author in exchange for a fair and honest review).
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Sharp Objects in TV
Oct 4, 2018 (Updated Oct 4, 2018)
Boring and drawn out (1 more)
Terrible ending
Overrated and Slow
Contains spoilers, click to show
I was looking forward to Sharp Objects when it premiered earlier this year. I love a whodunit thriller and am a fan of Gone Girl, Gillian Flynn's other adapted novel. I also read a bunch of glowing reviews before I dove into this series that promised an engaging, gripping story, which just made me more excited to get through the show.
Unfortunately, gripping isn't the word I would choose to describe this show. Engaging maybe, in that even though none of the characters that you are following are very likable, you do have a morbid curiosity to see what is going to happen to them. To be honest though, this series is only 8 episodes long and it was a slog to try and get through. Each episode drags something awful, to the point that 3 episodes in, I was ready to give up on this series. Then my girlfriend reminded me that it is only a limited series and will be worth sticking with to find out who the killer is in the end. Well, she was wrong about that last part, but we'll get back to that later.
I am not a huge Amy Adams fan, I feel that other than Arrival, she pretty much does the exact same thing in any role she is in. In this, she actually puts in a decent performance, it's more the way that her character is written that I take issue with. Camille is a whiney, dour character that is a drag to watch and none of the characters around her are any better. Her mother is a bitter, nasty old cow and her younger sister is an arrogant, immature little shit.
I haven't read the book, so I don't know if the pacing issues that the show has are inherent to the source material or the fault of the filmmakers. Either way, they are present and they are a detriment to this show. Every episode ends on an ambiguously exciting moment in order to keep you watching, then when the following episode picks up, it doesn't address whatever mad shit it just dropped on you at the end of the previous episode, to the point that I was left wondering a few times if I had actually missed out an episode in-between. Then it just drones on for another dull hour before dropping another inexplicable, shocking moment and it rinses and repeats this process throughout the entire series.
*SPOILERS FROM HERE ON*
This also applies to the last episode, which ends with such a nonsensical, out-of-nowhere twist that is never justified or explained. It is a classic example of having a twist, simply for the sake of ending on a twist. A good twist ending makes a reveal that causes everything that the viewer has seen so far click into place, it explains everything at once and that is why endings to stories like Fight Club, Mr Robot and The Sixth Sense are so satisfying. This makes the viewer want to go back and re-watch the film or series again with the new knowledge of what is going to happen in their mind in order to see it from a different perspective and spot the hints that point towards the big reveal. A bad twist ending drops a bomb abruptly and offers no explanation to the bombshell and leaves the viewer baffled and annoyed.
That is what happens with Sharp Objects' ending. There is absolutely no precedent to Amma being the killer. When Adora got arrested, it was underwhelming but there was at least some precedent for Adora to be the killer based on her other messed up behaviour, which provided some explanation, but Amma makes literally no sense. They could honestly have picked any other character on the show to be the killer and it would have made more sense. There is a weird post credits scene that I feel that was put in as a half-arsed explanation for the nonsensical twist, but it really doesn't help matters any. Again, I haven't read the book so I don't know if the ending plays out the same way as the source material, or if it makes any more sense in the book, but in the show it is a mess.
Overall this is a slow burn that isn't even worth the slog of getting through thanks to a hugely disappointing payoff. The ending is the main reason that this only gets a 5. One of the most overrated things I've seen this year.
Unfortunately, gripping isn't the word I would choose to describe this show. Engaging maybe, in that even though none of the characters that you are following are very likable, you do have a morbid curiosity to see what is going to happen to them. To be honest though, this series is only 8 episodes long and it was a slog to try and get through. Each episode drags something awful, to the point that 3 episodes in, I was ready to give up on this series. Then my girlfriend reminded me that it is only a limited series and will be worth sticking with to find out who the killer is in the end. Well, she was wrong about that last part, but we'll get back to that later.
I am not a huge Amy Adams fan, I feel that other than Arrival, she pretty much does the exact same thing in any role she is in. In this, she actually puts in a decent performance, it's more the way that her character is written that I take issue with. Camille is a whiney, dour character that is a drag to watch and none of the characters around her are any better. Her mother is a bitter, nasty old cow and her younger sister is an arrogant, immature little shit.
I haven't read the book, so I don't know if the pacing issues that the show has are inherent to the source material or the fault of the filmmakers. Either way, they are present and they are a detriment to this show. Every episode ends on an ambiguously exciting moment in order to keep you watching, then when the following episode picks up, it doesn't address whatever mad shit it just dropped on you at the end of the previous episode, to the point that I was left wondering a few times if I had actually missed out an episode in-between. Then it just drones on for another dull hour before dropping another inexplicable, shocking moment and it rinses and repeats this process throughout the entire series.
*SPOILERS FROM HERE ON*
This also applies to the last episode, which ends with such a nonsensical, out-of-nowhere twist that is never justified or explained. It is a classic example of having a twist, simply for the sake of ending on a twist. A good twist ending makes a reveal that causes everything that the viewer has seen so far click into place, it explains everything at once and that is why endings to stories like Fight Club, Mr Robot and The Sixth Sense are so satisfying. This makes the viewer want to go back and re-watch the film or series again with the new knowledge of what is going to happen in their mind in order to see it from a different perspective and spot the hints that point towards the big reveal. A bad twist ending drops a bomb abruptly and offers no explanation to the bombshell and leaves the viewer baffled and annoyed.
That is what happens with Sharp Objects' ending. There is absolutely no precedent to Amma being the killer. When Adora got arrested, it was underwhelming but there was at least some precedent for Adora to be the killer based on her other messed up behaviour, which provided some explanation, but Amma makes literally no sense. They could honestly have picked any other character on the show to be the killer and it would have made more sense. There is a weird post credits scene that I feel that was put in as a half-arsed explanation for the nonsensical twist, but it really doesn't help matters any. Again, I haven't read the book so I don't know if the ending plays out the same way as the source material, or if it makes any more sense in the book, but in the show it is a mess.
Overall this is a slow burn that isn't even worth the slog of getting through thanks to a hugely disappointing payoff. The ending is the main reason that this only gets a 5. One of the most overrated things I've seen this year.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Kitchen (2019) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
Times are tough in Hells Kitchen, people need to diversify to stay on top. Three gangsters decide to do just that but manage to fall on the wrong side of the law on their first outing. As they are locked up their wives are left to pick up the pieces. They'll be looked after, that's the promise they hear but the money they get won't even cover their rent.
The three women are desperate but see an opportunity in the gap their imprisoned husbands have left. What the mob needs is a woman's touch.
Melissa McCarthy amuses me, her comedy really hits the spot, then she appeared in Can You Ever Forgive Me? and I was so happy to see she could do drama too. Tiffany Haddish was much the same, I've seen her in lots of comedy and find her to be entertaining (if a little over played) so when her name popped up on this I was interested to see how she handled "sensible". I was very pleased with the result, but we'll get there.
The look of everything in The Kitchen felt spot on. All the little touches really pulled the 70's feel together and gace each character their own vibe that lined up perfectly with their development through the film.
Music certainly helped on this front, though part of me was sad that they used "It's A Man's Man's Man's World." I know it fits perfectly with the tone and the subject but it felt so cliché for that to be the first thing we go and I actually sighed when it came on.
Our three wives make an interesting mix as a team, a collection that you couldn't see being friends under normal circumstances but they've been brought together out of necessity. I liked the way we got to see their lives unfold from the beginning. Their home life with their husbands and then their reactions as the men are charged. Kathy looking upset, Ruby with a look of disappointment that he should have been smarter, and Claire's smile as the court gives her a reprieve from his violence.
We see their progression to becoming a success in town happen quite quickly on screen and I thought that worked well. It left all the internal politics out until there was something bigger at stake to deal with.
The women all take on a path of their own, it diversifies their abilities but you know that something has to give. Every little piece that's added to their story felt like it was right to be there, nothing was unnecessary.
There's a certain amount of stereotype acting in The Kitchen but it works well when it comes to the gangs and their interactions together. Both Kathy (McCarthy) and Ruby (Haddish) have that in them too at one point or another but it's a little less evident in general.
As I said at the beginning, Melissa McCarthy's step into drama had been a hit with me and her portrayal of Kathy was no different. She went from an attentive wife and mother who minds her own business to a mob boss and entrepeneur, it's such a smooth transition that you'd wonder if she was doing something fishy on the side already.
Tiffany Haddish was amazing too, her dramatic skills really brought Ruby to life and it was a wonderfully believable performance.
Then there's Claire played by Elisabeth Moss. She's had great success in The Handmaid's Tale and I do binge watch that once the series is out, but truth be told I don't really like they way she brings her character in either to life. Claire is a woman abused by her husband, she's attacked by a homeless man and then "rescued" by Gabriel, a hitman who has skills that become and obsession for her. Her transition is the only one that doesn't sit right, yes I believe she'd try to take back her power wherever she could but her whole arc seems a little crazy.
As a crime drama it's probably missing something to take it over the line into an amazing effort but I enjoyed it for the most part. It didn't leave things unanswered and with so many different strands going on that was entirely possible.
Passing comment... I love Common, he needs to be in all the things.
What you should do
It's worth a watch when it hits streaming sites.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Some quality retro clothing.
The three women are desperate but see an opportunity in the gap their imprisoned husbands have left. What the mob needs is a woman's touch.
Melissa McCarthy amuses me, her comedy really hits the spot, then she appeared in Can You Ever Forgive Me? and I was so happy to see she could do drama too. Tiffany Haddish was much the same, I've seen her in lots of comedy and find her to be entertaining (if a little over played) so when her name popped up on this I was interested to see how she handled "sensible". I was very pleased with the result, but we'll get there.
The look of everything in The Kitchen felt spot on. All the little touches really pulled the 70's feel together and gace each character their own vibe that lined up perfectly with their development through the film.
Music certainly helped on this front, though part of me was sad that they used "It's A Man's Man's Man's World." I know it fits perfectly with the tone and the subject but it felt so cliché for that to be the first thing we go and I actually sighed when it came on.
Our three wives make an interesting mix as a team, a collection that you couldn't see being friends under normal circumstances but they've been brought together out of necessity. I liked the way we got to see their lives unfold from the beginning. Their home life with their husbands and then their reactions as the men are charged. Kathy looking upset, Ruby with a look of disappointment that he should have been smarter, and Claire's smile as the court gives her a reprieve from his violence.
We see their progression to becoming a success in town happen quite quickly on screen and I thought that worked well. It left all the internal politics out until there was something bigger at stake to deal with.
The women all take on a path of their own, it diversifies their abilities but you know that something has to give. Every little piece that's added to their story felt like it was right to be there, nothing was unnecessary.
There's a certain amount of stereotype acting in The Kitchen but it works well when it comes to the gangs and their interactions together. Both Kathy (McCarthy) and Ruby (Haddish) have that in them too at one point or another but it's a little less evident in general.
As I said at the beginning, Melissa McCarthy's step into drama had been a hit with me and her portrayal of Kathy was no different. She went from an attentive wife and mother who minds her own business to a mob boss and entrepeneur, it's such a smooth transition that you'd wonder if she was doing something fishy on the side already.
Tiffany Haddish was amazing too, her dramatic skills really brought Ruby to life and it was a wonderfully believable performance.
Then there's Claire played by Elisabeth Moss. She's had great success in The Handmaid's Tale and I do binge watch that once the series is out, but truth be told I don't really like they way she brings her character in either to life. Claire is a woman abused by her husband, she's attacked by a homeless man and then "rescued" by Gabriel, a hitman who has skills that become and obsession for her. Her transition is the only one that doesn't sit right, yes I believe she'd try to take back her power wherever she could but her whole arc seems a little crazy.
As a crime drama it's probably missing something to take it over the line into an amazing effort but I enjoyed it for the most part. It didn't leave things unanswered and with so many different strands going on that was entirely possible.
Passing comment... I love Common, he needs to be in all the things.
What you should do
It's worth a watch when it hits streaming sites.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Some quality retro clothing.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Reef in Tabletop Games
Aug 1, 2019
Ahh ze coral reef. How beauteous is her expanse, and so nurturing for her oceanic inhabitants. We must endeavor to protect her and rebuild her as best we can to foster wildlife and entreat Mother Nature. We shall do this by selecting only the best coral combinations to satisfy the dying environment.
Reef is an abstract hand management, pattern building game that challenges the players to become coral reef architects and rebuild our fragile underwater ecosystem. This is a lofty goal, as our coral reefs in the real world are hurting for rejuvenation something fierce.
DISCLAIMER: I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rule book, 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 from the publisher directly or from your FLGS. -T
Setup is easy: shuffle the player mats and deal one to each player. The player that received the one board containing the starfish will be the starting player. Deal the players one of each colored coral piece, two cards from the deck, and 3 VP tokens. Place your reef chunks in the middle of your board in any order and you are ready to play!
On your turn you can do one of two things: draw a card or play a card. There are three cards face up to form the offer row, or a player can pay a VP token to the card with the lowest printed VP total to take the face up card on top of the draw pile (a la Small World). When you play a card, you immediately take the coral pieces on the card and place them on your play mat. The pieces can be stacked on other pieces of the same or different color, or on a blank spot on the mat. Once done, you check the card you played for any scoring conditions you may have met from your play mat. I will not go into detail about scoring, but there are several types of scoring that are employed in a game of Reef. The game continues in this manner until all of one color of coral pieces are used up. Players finish the round and then count their VP tokens. The winner is the player with the most VPs.
Components. The box is, what, normal sized? And the art on it is wonderful. So colorful and instantly recognizable. In fact, the art on the game in its entirety is truly amazing. I love it! The cards are of fine quality, but since they are handled a bit I sleeved mine. The VP tokens are of good quality, and I like that the pieces aren’t just perfect circles. It’s not a huge deal, but it helps with immersion just that much more. Same for the player mats. They could have been just as effective with square mats, but just that bit of wave makes it more enjoyable to play on for me. The big chunky coral pieces are so fun to play with, and handle, and, honestly, drop. They are very satisfying and great for those with colorblindness since they are all different shapes for the different colors they represent. All in all, Next Move Games knocks it out of the park on components AGAIN!
As you can tell by our score, we really like this game a lot. The first time I played it, my father-in-law used an interesting strategy and won the game. The next time I played it, I tried to use that same strategy and came in 3rd place. So, I chalked that win up to luck of the (card) draw and am now seeking more varied strategies to become the King of Reef. This is perhaps what also keeps the game from being a Golden Feather Award winner – I can play my game strategy and you can play yours, but that’s it. There is no real player interaction. As one Duke of Dice Alex would sing it, Reef is actually just “multiplayer solitaire.” While that is completely appropriate and non-offensive, I believe that with some more player interaction I would be more apt to bump this one to a 6. That said, we at Purple Phoenix Games give Reef a well-deserved bubbly score of 15 / 18. Emerson has himself another hit and I am proud to have it in my collection. You should grab it too, maybe.
Reef is an abstract hand management, pattern building game that challenges the players to become coral reef architects and rebuild our fragile underwater ecosystem. This is a lofty goal, as our coral reefs in the real world are hurting for rejuvenation something fierce.
DISCLAIMER: I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rule book, 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 from the publisher directly or from your FLGS. -T
Setup is easy: shuffle the player mats and deal one to each player. The player that received the one board containing the starfish will be the starting player. Deal the players one of each colored coral piece, two cards from the deck, and 3 VP tokens. Place your reef chunks in the middle of your board in any order and you are ready to play!
On your turn you can do one of two things: draw a card or play a card. There are three cards face up to form the offer row, or a player can pay a VP token to the card with the lowest printed VP total to take the face up card on top of the draw pile (a la Small World). When you play a card, you immediately take the coral pieces on the card and place them on your play mat. The pieces can be stacked on other pieces of the same or different color, or on a blank spot on the mat. Once done, you check the card you played for any scoring conditions you may have met from your play mat. I will not go into detail about scoring, but there are several types of scoring that are employed in a game of Reef. The game continues in this manner until all of one color of coral pieces are used up. Players finish the round and then count their VP tokens. The winner is the player with the most VPs.
Components. The box is, what, normal sized? And the art on it is wonderful. So colorful and instantly recognizable. In fact, the art on the game in its entirety is truly amazing. I love it! The cards are of fine quality, but since they are handled a bit I sleeved mine. The VP tokens are of good quality, and I like that the pieces aren’t just perfect circles. It’s not a huge deal, but it helps with immersion just that much more. Same for the player mats. They could have been just as effective with square mats, but just that bit of wave makes it more enjoyable to play on for me. The big chunky coral pieces are so fun to play with, and handle, and, honestly, drop. They are very satisfying and great for those with colorblindness since they are all different shapes for the different colors they represent. All in all, Next Move Games knocks it out of the park on components AGAIN!
As you can tell by our score, we really like this game a lot. The first time I played it, my father-in-law used an interesting strategy and won the game. The next time I played it, I tried to use that same strategy and came in 3rd place. So, I chalked that win up to luck of the (card) draw and am now seeking more varied strategies to become the King of Reef. This is perhaps what also keeps the game from being a Golden Feather Award winner – I can play my game strategy and you can play yours, but that’s it. There is no real player interaction. As one Duke of Dice Alex would sing it, Reef is actually just “multiplayer solitaire.” While that is completely appropriate and non-offensive, I believe that with some more player interaction I would be more apt to bump this one to a 6. That said, we at Purple Phoenix Games give Reef a well-deserved bubbly score of 15 / 18. Emerson has himself another hit and I am proud to have it in my collection. You should grab it too, maybe.
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Graveyard Book in Books
Sep 30, 2019
A different look at ghosts (1 more)
Flow of writing is great
Questions left unanswered (1 more)
There won't be a sequel
Neil Gaiman knows how to turn an innocent childhood into a terror-filled one. 'The Graveyard Book' revolves around a young boy named Nobody Owens. What makes him different from everyone else is that he lives in a graveyard where he's being raised by the ghostly residents. Nobody, or Bod (as his friends call him), ended up here after his family was brutally murdered, which actually doesn't seem to bother him too much throughout the story. Right from the beginning, readers get to follow the murderer as he makes his way through Bod's house, killing all the members of the family except for Bod, who fortunately manages to get away.
Yet, when Bod showed up at the graveyard, not all the residents wanted to keep the boy, but when a woman in grey appears, she settles the argument by telling them to keep him - - - bringing in the woman in grey seemed as though it only happened to introduce the character, which, unfortunately she is only seen one other time throughout the entire novel; this character really wasn't necessary. When Bod is kept, he is given the "Freedom of the Graveyard," which gives him the ability to see and talk to ghosts, as well as other things. This makes for a very intriguing adventure for us readers.
This book is almost flawless with the concept being very original. I honestly have nothing bad to say about the story. Gaiman doesn't use the usual horror tropes, instead he describes horrific events through the eyes of Bod, as he becomes more familiar with the world outside of the graveyard. Gaiman explains all of Bod's natural needs effortlessly within a graveyard, such as Bod learning to read and spell by using the letters on headstones. This book will surely change the way you look at graveyards for the rest of your life, if you hadn't already seen them in this way. 'The Graveyard Book' is a different type of ghost story, where the reader isn't afraid of the spirits, but rather of the living.
Later on in 'the Graveyard Book,' we meet a character named Scarlett. She is one of the only friends that Bod makes who is alive. For the majority of the book, Scarlett believes that Bod is just her imaginary friend, as her mother brings her to the graveyard every day to play (by this time, it is a claimed nature reserve) . But later on, when Scarlett returns as a teenager, she realizes that Bod is actually a real person. My only complaint about Scarlett's character is that the reader gets to see her dream walk- - - something we have been told only ghosts, supernatural creatures and Bod can do- - - yet, this is never explained why she is able to do this. It leaves one to wonder if Scarlett is a supernatural being or just a human with a particular ability?
" One grave in every graveyard belongs to the ghouls. Wander any graveyard long enough and you will find it- - - waterstained and bulging, with cracked or broken stone, scraggly grass or rank weeds about it, and a feeling, when you reach it, of abandonment. It may be colder than the other gravestones, too, and the name on the stone is all too often impossible to read. If there is a statue on the grave it will be headless or so scabbed with fungus and lichens as to look like a fungus itself. If one grave in a graveyard looks like a target for petty vandals, that is the ghoul-gate. If the grave makes you want to be somewhere else, that is the ghoul-gate. " The ghoul-gate has it's own entire scene in the book, but I wish the ghouls had been in the story quite a bit more. Overall, Gaiman wrote a very pleasing book that looks at ghosts in a different light. He brings up real life fears and fictional ones as well. Unfortunately, the book was written in 2008, and it doesn't seem that Gaiman is working on a sequel, so some questions may never be answered for the readers.
I really liked this book, and I think readers who enjoy paranormal aspects will love this story, too. As far as a ghost story goes, this one I highly recommend, but if you are looking for scares, I suggest you look elsewhere.
Yet, when Bod showed up at the graveyard, not all the residents wanted to keep the boy, but when a woman in grey appears, she settles the argument by telling them to keep him - - - bringing in the woman in grey seemed as though it only happened to introduce the character, which, unfortunately she is only seen one other time throughout the entire novel; this character really wasn't necessary. When Bod is kept, he is given the "Freedom of the Graveyard," which gives him the ability to see and talk to ghosts, as well as other things. This makes for a very intriguing adventure for us readers.
This book is almost flawless with the concept being very original. I honestly have nothing bad to say about the story. Gaiman doesn't use the usual horror tropes, instead he describes horrific events through the eyes of Bod, as he becomes more familiar with the world outside of the graveyard. Gaiman explains all of Bod's natural needs effortlessly within a graveyard, such as Bod learning to read and spell by using the letters on headstones. This book will surely change the way you look at graveyards for the rest of your life, if you hadn't already seen them in this way. 'The Graveyard Book' is a different type of ghost story, where the reader isn't afraid of the spirits, but rather of the living.
Later on in 'the Graveyard Book,' we meet a character named Scarlett. She is one of the only friends that Bod makes who is alive. For the majority of the book, Scarlett believes that Bod is just her imaginary friend, as her mother brings her to the graveyard every day to play (by this time, it is a claimed nature reserve) . But later on, when Scarlett returns as a teenager, she realizes that Bod is actually a real person. My only complaint about Scarlett's character is that the reader gets to see her dream walk- - - something we have been told only ghosts, supernatural creatures and Bod can do- - - yet, this is never explained why she is able to do this. It leaves one to wonder if Scarlett is a supernatural being or just a human with a particular ability?
" One grave in every graveyard belongs to the ghouls. Wander any graveyard long enough and you will find it- - - waterstained and bulging, with cracked or broken stone, scraggly grass or rank weeds about it, and a feeling, when you reach it, of abandonment. It may be colder than the other gravestones, too, and the name on the stone is all too often impossible to read. If there is a statue on the grave it will be headless or so scabbed with fungus and lichens as to look like a fungus itself. If one grave in a graveyard looks like a target for petty vandals, that is the ghoul-gate. If the grave makes you want to be somewhere else, that is the ghoul-gate. " The ghoul-gate has it's own entire scene in the book, but I wish the ghouls had been in the story quite a bit more. Overall, Gaiman wrote a very pleasing book that looks at ghosts in a different light. He brings up real life fears and fictional ones as well. Unfortunately, the book was written in 2008, and it doesn't seem that Gaiman is working on a sequel, so some questions may never be answered for the readers.
I really liked this book, and I think readers who enjoy paranormal aspects will love this story, too. As far as a ghost story goes, this one I highly recommend, but if you are looking for scares, I suggest you look elsewhere.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Jojo Rabbit (2019) in Movies
Oct 8, 2019
Roman Griffin Davis stars as Jojo Betzler in Taika Waititi’s black comedy Jojo Rabbit. Along with his second best friend Yorki (Archie Yates), Jojo is a part of a Nazi training camp for young boys and girls to become the men and women suited for Hitler supporting soldiers. Meanwhile, Jojo’s mom Rosie (Scarlett Johansson) is secretly hiding a young Jewish girl named Elsa (Thomasin McKenzie) within the walls of their home. Jojo, who is incredibly adamant about Hitler becoming his first best friend, has Hitler as an imaginary friend (portrayed by Taika Waititi) who shows up whenever Jojo seems to need a pep talk.
Based on the 2008 novel Caging Skies by Christine Leunens, Jojo Rabbit is a bonkers twist on one of the most devastating wars and tyrannical madmen in history. On the surface, the film is about a child attempting to become a Nazi because he views HItler as this great leader. He has to attempt to learn to kill, hate Jews, and essentially ignore all of his morals in order to just fit in with an army who believes they are the superior race. The intriguing aspect is that Waititi injects this unexpected tenderness and has concocted a film that has a heartbeat that is entirely too human and too genuine for any sort of project involving the likes of Adolf Hitler.
The Jojo/Hitler dynamic is an incredibly playful one. Hitler only seems to show up when something doesn’t go according to plan for Jojo or he needs some words of encouragement when times get tough. Hitler is a figment of Jojo’s imagination and is completely reactionary to Jojo’s world. If Jojo gets scared, Hitler shows up to remind him why he’s risking his own self comfort. While Waititi is funny and awkwardly charming as Hitler, which is an odd thing to say in itself, don’t overlook Archie Yates. Roman Griffin Davis encapsulates this innocence that even Elsa describes as something along the lines of a ten year old playing dress up with his friends in order to join a club. But Yates often plays off of Davis humorously and amusingly and will likely be forgotten about by some by the time they leave the theater.
Seemingly tapping into his inspiration for Gentlemen Broncos, Sam Rockwell portrays Captain Klenzendorf - a former war veteran who lost an eye and is now forced to teach children how to be soldiers. He has this strange tension on the verge of romance thing going on with his right hand man Finkel (Alfie Allen) and has extravagant taste with intricate ideas for his new uniform. Rockwell and Allen are hilarious and outshine Rebel Wilson’s Fräulein Rahm who never seems to serve much purpose before or after her line about, “having 18 kids for Germany.”
The sweet nature of Jojo Rabbit is expanded upon with the mother/son relationship between Rosie and Jojo. They have completely different viewpoints of a world on the verge of total annihilation where Jojo is slowly nudged into his mother’s mindset. It’s not so much a brainwashing as it is Jojo coming to terms with how he feels about people. Jojo Rabbit defines who we all are on the inside and simply explores the path anyone with an everyday beating heart (not rooted by a tiny mustache) would travel down over the course of their youth.
It’s kind of extraordinary that Jojo Rabbit has been released during a time when Fox Searchlight Pictures is owned by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures where a guy directing two of the biggest Thor movies did a side project where he plays Hitler and never had to attempt to keep that a secret. Waititi puts Jojo Betzler through the ringer by blowing him up repeatedly and throwing him down a flight of stairs all while being bullied and pushed around the entire time. But dammit if Jojo Rabbit isn’t one of the most heartfelt and imaginative fairy tales of the year.
This is a film where storytelling, embellishing and elongating false reputations, and glorifying urban myths is the driving force of entertainment. Underneath its layers of SS uniforms, dangerous pistols, and knives you should never leave home without, Jojo Rabbit is a touching film about human compassion with an intimacy that is absolutely unparalleled. Categorized somewhere between Wes Anderson’s Moonrise Kingdom and an imaginative concept that is an obvious homage to Calvin and Hobbes, love feels like it’s the only thing spreading across the world more powerful than war and Jojo Rabbit is more than happy to hype you up and throw you in love’s way without remorse.
Based on the 2008 novel Caging Skies by Christine Leunens, Jojo Rabbit is a bonkers twist on one of the most devastating wars and tyrannical madmen in history. On the surface, the film is about a child attempting to become a Nazi because he views HItler as this great leader. He has to attempt to learn to kill, hate Jews, and essentially ignore all of his morals in order to just fit in with an army who believes they are the superior race. The intriguing aspect is that Waititi injects this unexpected tenderness and has concocted a film that has a heartbeat that is entirely too human and too genuine for any sort of project involving the likes of Adolf Hitler.
The Jojo/Hitler dynamic is an incredibly playful one. Hitler only seems to show up when something doesn’t go according to plan for Jojo or he needs some words of encouragement when times get tough. Hitler is a figment of Jojo’s imagination and is completely reactionary to Jojo’s world. If Jojo gets scared, Hitler shows up to remind him why he’s risking his own self comfort. While Waititi is funny and awkwardly charming as Hitler, which is an odd thing to say in itself, don’t overlook Archie Yates. Roman Griffin Davis encapsulates this innocence that even Elsa describes as something along the lines of a ten year old playing dress up with his friends in order to join a club. But Yates often plays off of Davis humorously and amusingly and will likely be forgotten about by some by the time they leave the theater.
Seemingly tapping into his inspiration for Gentlemen Broncos, Sam Rockwell portrays Captain Klenzendorf - a former war veteran who lost an eye and is now forced to teach children how to be soldiers. He has this strange tension on the verge of romance thing going on with his right hand man Finkel (Alfie Allen) and has extravagant taste with intricate ideas for his new uniform. Rockwell and Allen are hilarious and outshine Rebel Wilson’s Fräulein Rahm who never seems to serve much purpose before or after her line about, “having 18 kids for Germany.”
The sweet nature of Jojo Rabbit is expanded upon with the mother/son relationship between Rosie and Jojo. They have completely different viewpoints of a world on the verge of total annihilation where Jojo is slowly nudged into his mother’s mindset. It’s not so much a brainwashing as it is Jojo coming to terms with how he feels about people. Jojo Rabbit defines who we all are on the inside and simply explores the path anyone with an everyday beating heart (not rooted by a tiny mustache) would travel down over the course of their youth.
It’s kind of extraordinary that Jojo Rabbit has been released during a time when Fox Searchlight Pictures is owned by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures where a guy directing two of the biggest Thor movies did a side project where he plays Hitler and never had to attempt to keep that a secret. Waititi puts Jojo Betzler through the ringer by blowing him up repeatedly and throwing him down a flight of stairs all while being bullied and pushed around the entire time. But dammit if Jojo Rabbit isn’t one of the most heartfelt and imaginative fairy tales of the year.
This is a film where storytelling, embellishing and elongating false reputations, and glorifying urban myths is the driving force of entertainment. Underneath its layers of SS uniforms, dangerous pistols, and knives you should never leave home without, Jojo Rabbit is a touching film about human compassion with an intimacy that is absolutely unparalleled. Categorized somewhere between Wes Anderson’s Moonrise Kingdom and an imaginative concept that is an obvious homage to Calvin and Hobbes, love feels like it’s the only thing spreading across the world more powerful than war and Jojo Rabbit is more than happy to hype you up and throw you in love’s way without remorse.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 10, 2019
Joaquin's Performance Elevates This Film
Give Joaquin Phoenix the Oscar right now. His bravura performance as the titular character in JOKER is one for the ages. He is on the screen in every scene of this film and captivates and repulses you at the same time. This performance raises this film to another level.
The question is - what level was this film at, and where does this performance raise it to?
Set in Gotham City right around the time of the murder of Bruce Wayne's parents, JOKER tells the origin story of...well...a character that calls himself JOKER. This sad sack, with the name of Arthur Fleck, is a part-time clown (standing outside of store closings with a spinning sign or going to Children's Hospital). We watch his origins as he rises (or perhaps...falls?) to the anarchic symbol that is JOKER. And that's the interesting thing about this film. You are watching the fall of a man and the rise of a symbol - does Fleck find comfort or madness in this journey - or, perhaps, maybe he finds comfort in madness?
Embodying this broken spirit that keeps getting up despite whatever beatings (sometimes physical, sometimes mental, always with the potential to finally break him) is the unique talent that is Joaquin Phoenix. You can tell from his portrayal of Arthur that there is something just "off" with him and you continually wait for the breaking point that will drive him down the road of JOKER. But it is not only his acting that is on display here, it the manipulation and movements of his body that is amazing and outstanding. Much like a professional dancer, Phoenix/Fleck waltzes through this film like there is a musical score that only he can hear - and that is both fascinating and disturbing at the same time. There is a fine line that needs to be trod here, for if you don't, this character and performance can easily be one of total madness (a.k.a. Jack Nicholson as Jack Torrance in the SHINING) but Phoenix balances sanity/insanity very well and you are waiting for the final blow that will send him, inevitably, over the edge. It's like watching a ticking time bomb that you cannot see the clock counting down to zero - but count down to zero you are sure it will do.
Exchanging blows with Phoenix for about 1/3 of this film is Robert DeNiro as talk show host Murray Franklin (think a meaner version of Johnny Carson). DeNiro is VERY good in this role and it is good to see that he still can "bring it" as a serious actor when he wants to. Unfortunately, DeNiro's character isn't really in the first 2/3 of this film and that's too bad. Phoenix' Arthur Fleck is a force to be reckoned with and he really could have used another character just as strong to play against.
Unfortunately, Writer/Director Todd Phillips (THE HANGOVER films) doesn't really give Phoenix anyone strong to play against for the first 2/3 of this film though Frances Conroy (overbearing mother), Zazie Beetz (potential love interest) and Brett Cullen (billionaire Thomas Wayne, father of Bruce) come and go in all too brief appearances that never really are on screen long enough to stand their ground (though Conroy comes close). This makes the first part of this film very on-sided, dreary, depressing and dark. I get that Director/Writer Phillips was going for the "Decaying of Gotham" theme as seen through the eyes of Fleck, but it became a slog after awhile. I wanted to yell at the screen at about the 1 hour mark "All right, I get it!"
Now...to give Phillips credit, he creates an interesting version of this world that we all know well (through the Dark Knight and various other DC Universe films), so I give him points for originality. And...he really NAILS the ending (the last 1/3 of the film - the part WITH DeNiro). I thought it was effective and potent and left it's mark.
Which brings me back to my opening thought. Phoenix raises this film up with his performance - the question is "from where to where". I'd have to say (because of the slowness of the first 2/3 of this film) that Phoenix fearless performance raises this dark and dreary film from a "C" to a "B". So with that in mind, I give JOKER...
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The question is - what level was this film at, and where does this performance raise it to?
Set in Gotham City right around the time of the murder of Bruce Wayne's parents, JOKER tells the origin story of...well...a character that calls himself JOKER. This sad sack, with the name of Arthur Fleck, is a part-time clown (standing outside of store closings with a spinning sign or going to Children's Hospital). We watch his origins as he rises (or perhaps...falls?) to the anarchic symbol that is JOKER. And that's the interesting thing about this film. You are watching the fall of a man and the rise of a symbol - does Fleck find comfort or madness in this journey - or, perhaps, maybe he finds comfort in madness?
Embodying this broken spirit that keeps getting up despite whatever beatings (sometimes physical, sometimes mental, always with the potential to finally break him) is the unique talent that is Joaquin Phoenix. You can tell from his portrayal of Arthur that there is something just "off" with him and you continually wait for the breaking point that will drive him down the road of JOKER. But it is not only his acting that is on display here, it the manipulation and movements of his body that is amazing and outstanding. Much like a professional dancer, Phoenix/Fleck waltzes through this film like there is a musical score that only he can hear - and that is both fascinating and disturbing at the same time. There is a fine line that needs to be trod here, for if you don't, this character and performance can easily be one of total madness (a.k.a. Jack Nicholson as Jack Torrance in the SHINING) but Phoenix balances sanity/insanity very well and you are waiting for the final blow that will send him, inevitably, over the edge. It's like watching a ticking time bomb that you cannot see the clock counting down to zero - but count down to zero you are sure it will do.
Exchanging blows with Phoenix for about 1/3 of this film is Robert DeNiro as talk show host Murray Franklin (think a meaner version of Johnny Carson). DeNiro is VERY good in this role and it is good to see that he still can "bring it" as a serious actor when he wants to. Unfortunately, DeNiro's character isn't really in the first 2/3 of this film and that's too bad. Phoenix' Arthur Fleck is a force to be reckoned with and he really could have used another character just as strong to play against.
Unfortunately, Writer/Director Todd Phillips (THE HANGOVER films) doesn't really give Phoenix anyone strong to play against for the first 2/3 of this film though Frances Conroy (overbearing mother), Zazie Beetz (potential love interest) and Brett Cullen (billionaire Thomas Wayne, father of Bruce) come and go in all too brief appearances that never really are on screen long enough to stand their ground (though Conroy comes close). This makes the first part of this film very on-sided, dreary, depressing and dark. I get that Director/Writer Phillips was going for the "Decaying of Gotham" theme as seen through the eyes of Fleck, but it became a slog after awhile. I wanted to yell at the screen at about the 1 hour mark "All right, I get it!"
Now...to give Phillips credit, he creates an interesting version of this world that we all know well (through the Dark Knight and various other DC Universe films), so I give him points for originality. And...he really NAILS the ending (the last 1/3 of the film - the part WITH DeNiro). I thought it was effective and potent and left it's mark.
Which brings me back to my opening thought. Phoenix raises this film up with his performance - the question is "from where to where". I'd have to say (because of the slowness of the first 2/3 of this film) that Phoenix fearless performance raises this dark and dreary film from a "C" to a "B". So with that in mind, I give JOKER...
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Black Panther (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Black Ops.
There was a joke on the internet the other day that made me laugh and laugh. Virtually the only white people in “Black Panther” are the Hobbit/LOTR stars Martin Freeman and Andy Serkis…. they are the Tolkein white guys! It’s actually getting to feel quite isolating as an ‘average white guy’ at the movies! After a plethora of #SheDo films about empowered women, now comes the first black-centred Marvel film… stuffed full of powerful women too!
The setting is the hidden African kingdom of Wakanda, where due to an abundance of a an all-powerful mineral called McGuffinite… so, sorry, Vibranium… the leaders have made their city a technological marvel and developed all sorts of ad tech to help the people keep their goats well and weave their baskets better (there are a few odd scenes in this film!). T’Challa (Chadwick Boseman) succeeds his father T’Chaka (John Kani) to become the king and adopt the role of The Black Panther, being bestowed superhero powers by drinking a glass of Ribena.
But it emerges that T’Chaka has a dark secret in the form of Eric Killmonger (Michael B Jordan, “Creed“) who is determined to muscle in on the king-stuff. ‘It never rains but it pours’, and the whole of Wakanda’s secrets are in danger of being exposed by the antics of the vicious South African mercenary Ulysses Klaue (Andy Serkis, “War For The Planet Of The Apes“), trying to get his hands on vibranium to sell on to CIA operative Everett Ross (Martin Freeman, “The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies“, “The World’s End“).
After “Thor: Ragnarok“, this is back to the more seriously-played end of the superhero spectrum: there are a few jokes but it’s not overtly played for comedy. Holding the film together are some sterling performances from the ensemble cast with Michael B Jordan very good as the villain of the piece. Adding to the significant black girl power in the film are Angela Bassett (“London Has Fallen“) as the queen mother; Danai Gurira (“Wonder Woman“) as the leader of the Dora Milaje: the all-female king’s guard; and Lupita Nyong’o (“12 Years a Slave“, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens“) as the spy and love interest Nakia. But the star performance for me, and one I found absolutely spot-on as a role model for young people, was Letitia Wright (“The Commuter“) as Shuri, the king’s chief scientist. She is absolutely radiant, adding beauty, rude gestures and energy to every scene she is in.
Man of the moment Daniel Kaluuya (“Get Out“) also adds to his movie-cred as a conflicted courtier.
On the white side of the shop Andy Serkis has enormous fun as Klaue and I really wanted to see more of his character than I did. Martin Freeman feels rather lightweight and under-used, and I couldn’t quite get past his dodgy American accent.
In terms of storyline, the film is a hotch-potch of plots from multiple other films, with “The Lion King” featuring strongly (but almost in reverse!). But that’s no crime, when the Shakespearean-style narrative is good, and interpolating the strongly emotional story into the Marvel universe works well.
Where I felt a little uncomfortable is the element of racism – that is, racism *against* white people – reflected in the story. If there was a movie plot centred (basically) on the topic of whites killing blacks and taking control of every black-controlled country in the world (yes, I know, I’m British and we have historically been there!) then there would be justified uproar, and the film would be shunned.
In the technical department, I had real problems with some of the effects employed. Starting with a dodgy ‘aircraft’ shadow, things nose-dive with an astonishingly poor waterfall scene with Forest Whitaker (“Rogue One“, “Arrival“) as Zuri, green-screened against some Disneyworld cascades and hundreds of cut and pasted tribesmen randomly inserted onto the cliffs. Almost matching that is a studio-set scene in a jungle clearing, where if feels they could hardly have bothered to take the plants out of their pots. Think “Daktari” quality (kids, ask your parents/grandparents).
But overall, the film, directed by Ryan Coogler (“Creed“), is a high-energy and uniquely different take on Marvel that absolutely pays off. And it is without doubt an important movie in moving the black agenda forward into properly mainstream cinema.
The setting is the hidden African kingdom of Wakanda, where due to an abundance of a an all-powerful mineral called McGuffinite… so, sorry, Vibranium… the leaders have made their city a technological marvel and developed all sorts of ad tech to help the people keep their goats well and weave their baskets better (there are a few odd scenes in this film!). T’Challa (Chadwick Boseman) succeeds his father T’Chaka (John Kani) to become the king and adopt the role of The Black Panther, being bestowed superhero powers by drinking a glass of Ribena.
But it emerges that T’Chaka has a dark secret in the form of Eric Killmonger (Michael B Jordan, “Creed“) who is determined to muscle in on the king-stuff. ‘It never rains but it pours’, and the whole of Wakanda’s secrets are in danger of being exposed by the antics of the vicious South African mercenary Ulysses Klaue (Andy Serkis, “War For The Planet Of The Apes“), trying to get his hands on vibranium to sell on to CIA operative Everett Ross (Martin Freeman, “The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies“, “The World’s End“).
After “Thor: Ragnarok“, this is back to the more seriously-played end of the superhero spectrum: there are a few jokes but it’s not overtly played for comedy. Holding the film together are some sterling performances from the ensemble cast with Michael B Jordan very good as the villain of the piece. Adding to the significant black girl power in the film are Angela Bassett (“London Has Fallen“) as the queen mother; Danai Gurira (“Wonder Woman“) as the leader of the Dora Milaje: the all-female king’s guard; and Lupita Nyong’o (“12 Years a Slave“, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens“) as the spy and love interest Nakia. But the star performance for me, and one I found absolutely spot-on as a role model for young people, was Letitia Wright (“The Commuter“) as Shuri, the king’s chief scientist. She is absolutely radiant, adding beauty, rude gestures and energy to every scene she is in.
Man of the moment Daniel Kaluuya (“Get Out“) also adds to his movie-cred as a conflicted courtier.
On the white side of the shop Andy Serkis has enormous fun as Klaue and I really wanted to see more of his character than I did. Martin Freeman feels rather lightweight and under-used, and I couldn’t quite get past his dodgy American accent.
In terms of storyline, the film is a hotch-potch of plots from multiple other films, with “The Lion King” featuring strongly (but almost in reverse!). But that’s no crime, when the Shakespearean-style narrative is good, and interpolating the strongly emotional story into the Marvel universe works well.
Where I felt a little uncomfortable is the element of racism – that is, racism *against* white people – reflected in the story. If there was a movie plot centred (basically) on the topic of whites killing blacks and taking control of every black-controlled country in the world (yes, I know, I’m British and we have historically been there!) then there would be justified uproar, and the film would be shunned.
In the technical department, I had real problems with some of the effects employed. Starting with a dodgy ‘aircraft’ shadow, things nose-dive with an astonishingly poor waterfall scene with Forest Whitaker (“Rogue One“, “Arrival“) as Zuri, green-screened against some Disneyworld cascades and hundreds of cut and pasted tribesmen randomly inserted onto the cliffs. Almost matching that is a studio-set scene in a jungle clearing, where if feels they could hardly have bothered to take the plants out of their pots. Think “Daktari” quality (kids, ask your parents/grandparents).
But overall, the film, directed by Ryan Coogler (“Creed“), is a high-energy and uniquely different take on Marvel that absolutely pays off. And it is without doubt an important movie in moving the black agenda forward into properly mainstream cinema.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Lion (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Lost in Train-station.
As January progresses, the quality Oscar films just keep on coming! India’s vibrant and teeming tapestry of life is a natural gift for film-makers, without a word needing to be spoken, and director Garth Davis – in an impressive feature film debut – utilizes that backdrop to the max.
In a true life story, five-year-old Saroo (Sunny Pawar, in an astonishingly adept child performance) is accidentally separated from his family in the Madhya Pradesh region of Western India and goes on a journey by train of hundreds of miles to Calcutta: a city full of people who don’t even speak his language.
Lost, alone and facing the perils of a street child in a dangerous city, Saroo is eventually adopted by a kindly Australian couple (played by Nicole Kidman (“Before I Go To Sleep“) and David Wenham (Faramir in “The Lord of the Rings”)).
Growing up in a comfortable, loving, but not – ultimately – idyllic home environment, Saroo (now Dev Patel, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) grows up and in his late teens goes to Melbourne University to study Hotel Management (Dev Patel? Hotel Management? What were the odds?!). While there, memories of the past resurface and an obsessive need to trace his Indian origins takes hold, disrupting both his career plans and his relationship with the love of his life Lucy (Rooney Mara, “Carol“). But with a remembered home-town name that doesn’t exist, only hazy memories of the train station he departed from, and thousands and thousands of train stations across India, how could he ever succeed?
India is enormously photogenic and cinematographer Greig Fraser (“Rogue One“, “Foxcatcher“) takes the maximum advantage of that with some memorable and dramatic landscapes: work that has been Oscar nominated. Also Oscar nominated and contributing strongly to the look and feel of the film is a well-judged and effectively used piano score by Volker Bertelmann and Dustin O’Halloran.
In the acting stakes, Dev Patel gives his best ever performance and his Oscar nomination – curiously for Best Supporting actor since, I presume, Sunny Pawar has the most screen time – is very well deserved. A moving performance, particularly at the tearful end of the movie, for which a box of tissues is recommended.
Nicole Kidman, not an actress I have ever hugely warmed to, is excellent here as the fragile adoptive mother, despite having to sport a crazy red curly wig. Another Oscar nomination.
Also worthy of note is young Abhishek Bharate as Saroo’s brother Guddu: the touching chemistry between the thieving young rascals at the start of the movie grounds the whole family relationship that’s sets up the emotional heart of the subsequent quest.
Luke Davies’ adapted screenplay is also Oscar nominated, although perhaps not as deserving to win as some of the other nominees. I would (naively perhaps) assume that adapting a screenplay from a true-life story must be an easier task, since the facts have to speak for themselves. But besides that, while the first half of the film, with the scenes in India, is exceptionally good, the Australian section became a more patchy with the motivations of Saroo’s actions and the impact they have on his adoptive family not feeling completely fleshed out.
While I’m sure being a street urchin in Calcutta in the mid-80’s was a horribly difficult and perilous existence, the screenplay paints the sense that that almost EVERY male in the city is either a pedophile or hopelessly corrupt: something that if I was a Calcutta resident I would likely take offence to.
However, this is a hugely involving and enjoyable movie, and a “Best Film” rounds off the impressive haul of six Oscar nominations. You might be cynical and view the subject matter as being comfortable Oscar-bait… but you can hardly argue about the absolute quality of the film-making on show here.
By the way, if you are curious as to where the title of the film comes from, you need to wait until the end titles: a masterly touch that I really liked!
The end titles also lay out the fact that the perils of street kids in India is still real and present, and the film is supporting charitable work to help. If you were moved by the film (as I was) you can make a donation at http://lionmovie.com (as I did)!
Highly recommended.
In a true life story, five-year-old Saroo (Sunny Pawar, in an astonishingly adept child performance) is accidentally separated from his family in the Madhya Pradesh region of Western India and goes on a journey by train of hundreds of miles to Calcutta: a city full of people who don’t even speak his language.
Lost, alone and facing the perils of a street child in a dangerous city, Saroo is eventually adopted by a kindly Australian couple (played by Nicole Kidman (“Before I Go To Sleep“) and David Wenham (Faramir in “The Lord of the Rings”)).
Growing up in a comfortable, loving, but not – ultimately – idyllic home environment, Saroo (now Dev Patel, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) grows up and in his late teens goes to Melbourne University to study Hotel Management (Dev Patel? Hotel Management? What were the odds?!). While there, memories of the past resurface and an obsessive need to trace his Indian origins takes hold, disrupting both his career plans and his relationship with the love of his life Lucy (Rooney Mara, “Carol“). But with a remembered home-town name that doesn’t exist, only hazy memories of the train station he departed from, and thousands and thousands of train stations across India, how could he ever succeed?
India is enormously photogenic and cinematographer Greig Fraser (“Rogue One“, “Foxcatcher“) takes the maximum advantage of that with some memorable and dramatic landscapes: work that has been Oscar nominated. Also Oscar nominated and contributing strongly to the look and feel of the film is a well-judged and effectively used piano score by Volker Bertelmann and Dustin O’Halloran.
In the acting stakes, Dev Patel gives his best ever performance and his Oscar nomination – curiously for Best Supporting actor since, I presume, Sunny Pawar has the most screen time – is very well deserved. A moving performance, particularly at the tearful end of the movie, for which a box of tissues is recommended.
Nicole Kidman, not an actress I have ever hugely warmed to, is excellent here as the fragile adoptive mother, despite having to sport a crazy red curly wig. Another Oscar nomination.
Also worthy of note is young Abhishek Bharate as Saroo’s brother Guddu: the touching chemistry between the thieving young rascals at the start of the movie grounds the whole family relationship that’s sets up the emotional heart of the subsequent quest.
Luke Davies’ adapted screenplay is also Oscar nominated, although perhaps not as deserving to win as some of the other nominees. I would (naively perhaps) assume that adapting a screenplay from a true-life story must be an easier task, since the facts have to speak for themselves. But besides that, while the first half of the film, with the scenes in India, is exceptionally good, the Australian section became a more patchy with the motivations of Saroo’s actions and the impact they have on his adoptive family not feeling completely fleshed out.
While I’m sure being a street urchin in Calcutta in the mid-80’s was a horribly difficult and perilous existence, the screenplay paints the sense that that almost EVERY male in the city is either a pedophile or hopelessly corrupt: something that if I was a Calcutta resident I would likely take offence to.
However, this is a hugely involving and enjoyable movie, and a “Best Film” rounds off the impressive haul of six Oscar nominations. You might be cynical and view the subject matter as being comfortable Oscar-bait… but you can hardly argue about the absolute quality of the film-making on show here.
By the way, if you are curious as to where the title of the film comes from, you need to wait until the end titles: a masterly touch that I really liked!
The end titles also lay out the fact that the perils of street kids in India is still real and present, and the film is supporting charitable work to help. If you were moved by the film (as I was) you can make a donation at http://lionmovie.com (as I did)!
Highly recommended.