Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Post (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Landing the Hindenburg in a Thunderstorm.
What a combination: Streep, Hanks, Spielberg, Kaminski behind the camera, Williams behind the notes. What could possibly go wrong?
Nothing as it turns out. After, for me, the disappointment of “The BFG” here is Spielberg on firm ground and at the height of his game.
It’s 1971 and the New York Times is in trouble for publishing what became known as “The Pentagon Papers”: a damning account of multiple administration’s dodgy dealings around the Vietnam War, put together by Robert McNamara (Bruce Greenwood, “Star Trek: Into Darkness“) and meant for “posterity” – not for publication! Watching from the sidelines with frustration at their competitor’s scoop are the Washington Post’s editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“, “Inferno“) and the new owner Kay Graham (Meryl Streep, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “Suffragette“). With immaculate timing, Graham is taking the paper public, so needs the newspaper embroiled in any sort of scandal like a hole in the head. But with the US First Amendment under pressure, will Graham and Bradlee put their business and their freedom at risk by publishing and being damned?
Bradlee (Tom Hanks) and Graham (Meryl Streep) in the Washington Post’s newsroom.
Both of the leads play characters that are quite strikingly out of character from their normal roles.
In a seamingly endless run of ‘kick-ass’ women in the movie driving seat, here I expected Streep to be in full “Iron Lady” mode, but in fact she starts the film as quite the opposite: nervous, timid, vascillating. For although the story is about “The Washington Post” and “The Pentagon Papers”, the real story is about Graham herself (Liz Hannah’s script is actually based on Graham’s autobiography). In many ways it’s about a woman, in a male world, overcoming her fear and finding her own voice. As has been demonstrated in many recent films (“Hidden Figures” for example) the working world for woman has changed so markedly since the 60’s and 70’s that it’s almost impossible to relate to these chavenistic attitudes. Graham is repeatedly downtrodden as “not good enough” by her underlings within earshot, and then thanks them “for their frankness”. When the women folk retire at dinner, to let the men-folk talk politics, Graham meekly goes with them. Even her father, for God’s sake, left the newspaper not to her but to her (now late) husband! It’s no surprise then that she is coming from a pretty low base of self-confidence, and her journey in the film – as expertly played by Streep – is an extraordinarily rousing one.
The real deal: Ben Bradlee and Kay Graham.
Hanks, normally the guy you’d most like to invite round for dinner (@tomhanks if you happen to be reading this sir, that’s a genuine invitation… we make a mean lasagne here!) also plays somewhat outside of his normal character here. As Bradlee, he is snappy, brusque and businesslike. Although I don’t think he could ever quite match the irascibility of the character’s portrayal by Jason Robards in the classic “All the President’s Men” – who could? – its a character with real screen presence.
The similarities with Alan J Pakula’s 1976 classic Watergate movie – one of my personal favourites – don’t stop there. The same sets that were once populated by Redford and Hoffman are gloriously reproduced with Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski delivering great tracking shots through the newsroom. (Watch out for Sacha Spielberg – daughter of Stephen and Kate Capshaw – who also turns up there delivering a package).
The scoop revealed: Odenkirk, Hanks and David Cross get the low-down.
The supporting cast includes Sarah Paulson (so memorable in “The Trial of O.J. Simpson”) as Bradlee’s wife Tony, Bradley Whitford (“The West Wing”, “Get Out“) and Tracy Letts (“The Big Short“) as two of Graham’s board advisors and Jesse Plemons (“The Program“, “Bridge of Spies“) as the lead legal advisor. Particularly impressive though is Bob Odenkirk (“Breaking Bad”) as Ben Bagdikian, Bradlee’s lead investigative reporter on the case: all stress, loose change and paranoia in his dealings with the leaky Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys).
Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk) ordering a drink for himself and his travelling companion.
In a memorable piece of casting Richard Nixon is played by…. Richard Nixon. Although a silluohetted Curzon Dobell stalks the Oval office, the ex-president’s original phone recordings are played on the soundtrack. (There, I knew those recordings would be useful for something… thank heavens he kept them all!)
The film also demonstrates in fascinating style the newsprint business of yesteryear. When I click a button on my PC and a beautifully laser-printed page streams out of my Epson printer, it still seems like witchcraft to me! But it is extraordinary to think that newspapers in those days were put together by typesetters manually building up the pages from embossed metal letters laboriously slotted into a frame. Brilliantly evocative.
Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys) takes a risk.
If Spielberg has a fault, it is one of sentimentality – something that is pointed out in Susan Lacy’s superb HBO documentary on Spielberg (something I have yet to write a review on, but if you like Spielberg you should definitely seek out). Here he falls into that trap again, with an unnecessary bedroom scene between Graham and her daughter tipping the screenplay into mawkishness. It’s unnecessary since we don’t need the points raised rammed down our throats again. It’s something repeated in a rather bizarre final scene with Graham walking down the steps of the supreme court with admiring woman – only woman – watching her. These irritations tarnish for me what could have been a top-rated film.
But the movie is an impressive watch and older viewers, and anyone interested in American political history will, I think, love it. The film, especially with its nice epilogue, did make me immediately want to come home and put “All the President’s Men” on again… which is never a bad thing. Highly recommended.
Nothing as it turns out. After, for me, the disappointment of “The BFG” here is Spielberg on firm ground and at the height of his game.
It’s 1971 and the New York Times is in trouble for publishing what became known as “The Pentagon Papers”: a damning account of multiple administration’s dodgy dealings around the Vietnam War, put together by Robert McNamara (Bruce Greenwood, “Star Trek: Into Darkness“) and meant for “posterity” – not for publication! Watching from the sidelines with frustration at their competitor’s scoop are the Washington Post’s editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“, “Inferno“) and the new owner Kay Graham (Meryl Streep, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “Suffragette“). With immaculate timing, Graham is taking the paper public, so needs the newspaper embroiled in any sort of scandal like a hole in the head. But with the US First Amendment under pressure, will Graham and Bradlee put their business and their freedom at risk by publishing and being damned?
Bradlee (Tom Hanks) and Graham (Meryl Streep) in the Washington Post’s newsroom.
Both of the leads play characters that are quite strikingly out of character from their normal roles.
In a seamingly endless run of ‘kick-ass’ women in the movie driving seat, here I expected Streep to be in full “Iron Lady” mode, but in fact she starts the film as quite the opposite: nervous, timid, vascillating. For although the story is about “The Washington Post” and “The Pentagon Papers”, the real story is about Graham herself (Liz Hannah’s script is actually based on Graham’s autobiography). In many ways it’s about a woman, in a male world, overcoming her fear and finding her own voice. As has been demonstrated in many recent films (“Hidden Figures” for example) the working world for woman has changed so markedly since the 60’s and 70’s that it’s almost impossible to relate to these chavenistic attitudes. Graham is repeatedly downtrodden as “not good enough” by her underlings within earshot, and then thanks them “for their frankness”. When the women folk retire at dinner, to let the men-folk talk politics, Graham meekly goes with them. Even her father, for God’s sake, left the newspaper not to her but to her (now late) husband! It’s no surprise then that she is coming from a pretty low base of self-confidence, and her journey in the film – as expertly played by Streep – is an extraordinarily rousing one.
The real deal: Ben Bradlee and Kay Graham.
Hanks, normally the guy you’d most like to invite round for dinner (@tomhanks if you happen to be reading this sir, that’s a genuine invitation… we make a mean lasagne here!) also plays somewhat outside of his normal character here. As Bradlee, he is snappy, brusque and businesslike. Although I don’t think he could ever quite match the irascibility of the character’s portrayal by Jason Robards in the classic “All the President’s Men” – who could? – its a character with real screen presence.
The similarities with Alan J Pakula’s 1976 classic Watergate movie – one of my personal favourites – don’t stop there. The same sets that were once populated by Redford and Hoffman are gloriously reproduced with Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski delivering great tracking shots through the newsroom. (Watch out for Sacha Spielberg – daughter of Stephen and Kate Capshaw – who also turns up there delivering a package).
The scoop revealed: Odenkirk, Hanks and David Cross get the low-down.
The supporting cast includes Sarah Paulson (so memorable in “The Trial of O.J. Simpson”) as Bradlee’s wife Tony, Bradley Whitford (“The West Wing”, “Get Out“) and Tracy Letts (“The Big Short“) as two of Graham’s board advisors and Jesse Plemons (“The Program“, “Bridge of Spies“) as the lead legal advisor. Particularly impressive though is Bob Odenkirk (“Breaking Bad”) as Ben Bagdikian, Bradlee’s lead investigative reporter on the case: all stress, loose change and paranoia in his dealings with the leaky Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys).
Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk) ordering a drink for himself and his travelling companion.
In a memorable piece of casting Richard Nixon is played by…. Richard Nixon. Although a silluohetted Curzon Dobell stalks the Oval office, the ex-president’s original phone recordings are played on the soundtrack. (There, I knew those recordings would be useful for something… thank heavens he kept them all!)
The film also demonstrates in fascinating style the newsprint business of yesteryear. When I click a button on my PC and a beautifully laser-printed page streams out of my Epson printer, it still seems like witchcraft to me! But it is extraordinary to think that newspapers in those days were put together by typesetters manually building up the pages from embossed metal letters laboriously slotted into a frame. Brilliantly evocative.
Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys) takes a risk.
If Spielberg has a fault, it is one of sentimentality – something that is pointed out in Susan Lacy’s superb HBO documentary on Spielberg (something I have yet to write a review on, but if you like Spielberg you should definitely seek out). Here he falls into that trap again, with an unnecessary bedroom scene between Graham and her daughter tipping the screenplay into mawkishness. It’s unnecessary since we don’t need the points raised rammed down our throats again. It’s something repeated in a rather bizarre final scene with Graham walking down the steps of the supreme court with admiring woman – only woman – watching her. These irritations tarnish for me what could have been a top-rated film.
But the movie is an impressive watch and older viewers, and anyone interested in American political history will, I think, love it. The film, especially with its nice epilogue, did make me immediately want to come home and put “All the President’s Men” on again… which is never a bad thing. Highly recommended.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Independence Day: Resurgence (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Why Will Smith is a wise, wise man.
I’m catching up on a few of the big films I missed during 2016. But Roland Emmerich has a lot to answer for with this one. Twenty years after Independence Day smashed the summer box office of 1996, the aliens are back: bigger and badder than ever. Steven Hiller (Will Smith) is no longer on the scene but, to give Emmerich a little credit, he has gathered an impressive array of the original stars to return led by Hiller’s wife Jasmine (Vivica Fox), President Whitmore (Bill Pullman), Dr Okun (Brent Spiner), David Levinson (Jeff Goldblum) and his dad (Judd Hirsch). The great Robert Loggia even turns up, who played the original General Grey, looking like he is about to expire (which unfortunately he did late last year, and the film is in memorial to him). All of them have weathered over the years apart from Judd Hirsch who must have a picture in his attic.
Playing the new generation (Hiller’s young son Dylan and the president’s daughter Patricia) are Jessie Usher and the comely Maika Monroe respectively, the latter having the pout of a young Jessica Alba and showing promise. Rounding off the young ‘uns, and playing an enormously irritating hunk/hero and his sidekick buddy are Jake (Liam Hemsworth – yes, younger brother of Chris) and Floyd (Nicolas Wright). And with the obvious needs of summer blockbusters to appeal to the ravenous Chinese market there is also Shanghai-born Angelababy as a young hotshot pilot and Chin Han as her uncle, moonbase commander Commander Jiang.
It’s hard to know where to start with criticism of this film. It’s like you’ve caught someone desecrating the grave of a dearly departed relative. The plot is ludicrous…. Uh oh…here comes another One Mann’s Movies Showcase Theatre….
The scene: onboard the alien craft high above central Asia
DRONE K’FAALL: “The use of the anti-gravity weapon worked a treat your Majesty. We have ripped up Shanghai and dumped in from a great height on London! Take that Queenie! All hail our weapons superiority! I take it we should just ‘rinse and repeat’ around the world to wipe them all out? ”
QUEEN ALIEN BEE: “No K’Fall. Let’s land in the Atlantic and then go fight them one-on-one with our little ships in the desert near Area 51.”
DRONE K’FALL: “B-b-b-but your Majesty, with our gravity weapon we could eliminate all threat, drill out the earth’s core and find what we came here for in perfect safety!”.
QUEEN ALIEN BEE: “No… that’s just what they’ll be expecting us to do…”
I thought the Oscar for the dumbest aliens of the year was a shoe-in for the ones who chose a similar tactic in “The 5th Wave” – but no… we have another contender for the crown. This ridiculous London-based CGI sequence – a virtual re-shoot of the ridiculous CGI sequence in Emmerich’s “2012” where John Cusack is fleeing by plane a collapsing Los Angeles – is mitigated only by Goldblum’s witty comment about them “Always going for the landmarks” – the best line in the film.
Elsewhere, the story and screenplay – by an army of writers (never a good sign) – is risible and an insult to intelligence, alien or otherwise. The ludicrous plot points go on and on…
Why on earth is the single landed alien craft from 1996 owned by an African warlord? If mankind have ‘benefited’ so much from the alien technology that must surely have been through the UN-dismantling of that ship?
There seems to be no logical connection between the “visions” (stolen from “Close Encounters”) and the alien craft. The visions might have well have been of the alien’s last shopping list (“six cans of Kraag beans; one bottle of Vollufi ale; … “);
The alien craft is big enough to span the WHOLE Atlantic when it lands, but – who would believe it? – comes to a stop with its edge in Washington JUST ENOUGH to dip the White House flag to a jaunty angle. #cringe;
The alien ship – apparently open to the elements – allows our heroic hunks to wander around without spacesuits;
Breathless… or not. Jessie T Usher and Liam Hemsworth (foreground) not dying of asphyxiation or cold.
At one point it looked like our curvaceous heroine was going to defeat the alien queen in good ol’ Wild West fashion armed only with a handgun (but no, my head could come out of my hands again);
And don’t even get me started on the opening “excitement” about propping up a collapsing supergun on the moon with a spaceship. Gerry Anderson would be spinning in his grave.
The dialogue is little better. The original “Independence Day” was probably most famous for two scenes: the impressive destruction of the White House and Bill Paxton’s ludicrously corny “We will not go quietly into the night” speech. Here trying to go one better we have not just one version of this but two with William Fichner’s General Adams chipping one in from the rough before Paxton delivers an impromptu hanger speech that is toe-curlingly excruciating.
Much of the acting is of the “I really don’t want to be here but it’s good for the pension” variety with Paxton and Goldblum going through the motions and Charlotte Gainsborough being horribly miscast as a French anthropologist running around the world on the trail of Pokemon Go characters… or symbols… or something. Only Brent Spiner and Judd Hirsch really get into their stride with likeably over-the-top performances.
Goldblum and Charlotte Gainsborough. A less likely historic romantic attachment its difficult to imagine.
If this was a standalone story it might scrape a double-Fad… but as it so horrendously sullies a classic movie experience it incurs my cinematic wrath. It might have made Roland Emmer-richer (sic)…. but my recommendation would be to get a big bag of popcorn, the original 1996 movie on DVD and enjoy. Avoid, avoid, avoid.
Playing the new generation (Hiller’s young son Dylan and the president’s daughter Patricia) are Jessie Usher and the comely Maika Monroe respectively, the latter having the pout of a young Jessica Alba and showing promise. Rounding off the young ‘uns, and playing an enormously irritating hunk/hero and his sidekick buddy are Jake (Liam Hemsworth – yes, younger brother of Chris) and Floyd (Nicolas Wright). And with the obvious needs of summer blockbusters to appeal to the ravenous Chinese market there is also Shanghai-born Angelababy as a young hotshot pilot and Chin Han as her uncle, moonbase commander Commander Jiang.
It’s hard to know where to start with criticism of this film. It’s like you’ve caught someone desecrating the grave of a dearly departed relative. The plot is ludicrous…. Uh oh…here comes another One Mann’s Movies Showcase Theatre….
The scene: onboard the alien craft high above central Asia
DRONE K’FAALL: “The use of the anti-gravity weapon worked a treat your Majesty. We have ripped up Shanghai and dumped in from a great height on London! Take that Queenie! All hail our weapons superiority! I take it we should just ‘rinse and repeat’ around the world to wipe them all out? ”
QUEEN ALIEN BEE: “No K’Fall. Let’s land in the Atlantic and then go fight them one-on-one with our little ships in the desert near Area 51.”
DRONE K’FALL: “B-b-b-but your Majesty, with our gravity weapon we could eliminate all threat, drill out the earth’s core and find what we came here for in perfect safety!”.
QUEEN ALIEN BEE: “No… that’s just what they’ll be expecting us to do…”
I thought the Oscar for the dumbest aliens of the year was a shoe-in for the ones who chose a similar tactic in “The 5th Wave” – but no… we have another contender for the crown. This ridiculous London-based CGI sequence – a virtual re-shoot of the ridiculous CGI sequence in Emmerich’s “2012” where John Cusack is fleeing by plane a collapsing Los Angeles – is mitigated only by Goldblum’s witty comment about them “Always going for the landmarks” – the best line in the film.
Elsewhere, the story and screenplay – by an army of writers (never a good sign) – is risible and an insult to intelligence, alien or otherwise. The ludicrous plot points go on and on…
Why on earth is the single landed alien craft from 1996 owned by an African warlord? If mankind have ‘benefited’ so much from the alien technology that must surely have been through the UN-dismantling of that ship?
There seems to be no logical connection between the “visions” (stolen from “Close Encounters”) and the alien craft. The visions might have well have been of the alien’s last shopping list (“six cans of Kraag beans; one bottle of Vollufi ale; … “);
The alien craft is big enough to span the WHOLE Atlantic when it lands, but – who would believe it? – comes to a stop with its edge in Washington JUST ENOUGH to dip the White House flag to a jaunty angle. #cringe;
The alien ship – apparently open to the elements – allows our heroic hunks to wander around without spacesuits;
Breathless… or not. Jessie T Usher and Liam Hemsworth (foreground) not dying of asphyxiation or cold.
At one point it looked like our curvaceous heroine was going to defeat the alien queen in good ol’ Wild West fashion armed only with a handgun (but no, my head could come out of my hands again);
And don’t even get me started on the opening “excitement” about propping up a collapsing supergun on the moon with a spaceship. Gerry Anderson would be spinning in his grave.
The dialogue is little better. The original “Independence Day” was probably most famous for two scenes: the impressive destruction of the White House and Bill Paxton’s ludicrously corny “We will not go quietly into the night” speech. Here trying to go one better we have not just one version of this but two with William Fichner’s General Adams chipping one in from the rough before Paxton delivers an impromptu hanger speech that is toe-curlingly excruciating.
Much of the acting is of the “I really don’t want to be here but it’s good for the pension” variety with Paxton and Goldblum going through the motions and Charlotte Gainsborough being horribly miscast as a French anthropologist running around the world on the trail of Pokemon Go characters… or symbols… or something. Only Brent Spiner and Judd Hirsch really get into their stride with likeably over-the-top performances.
Goldblum and Charlotte Gainsborough. A less likely historic romantic attachment its difficult to imagine.
If this was a standalone story it might scrape a double-Fad… but as it so horrendously sullies a classic movie experience it incurs my cinematic wrath. It might have made Roland Emmer-richer (sic)…. but my recommendation would be to get a big bag of popcorn, the original 1996 movie on DVD and enjoy. Avoid, avoid, avoid.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Free Guy (2021) in Movies
Dec 14, 2021 (Updated Dec 14, 2021)
Taika Waititi. (2 more)
The cameos.
Impressive special effects.
Not as funny as it could have been. (2 more)
Love being the "hokey" solution.
Mouser.
Artificial Excellence
Filmed in 2019 and finally seeing release after five separate delays from its original July 2020 premiere date, Free Guy is a sci-fi action comedy directed by Shawn Levy (Real Steal, the Night at the Museum trilogy) and written by Matt Lieberman (Scoob!) and Zak Penn (Ready Player One), which follows the life of Guy (Ryan Reynolds), an NPC that and lives and works as a bank teller in Free City.
Completely content with every day being exactly the same as the day before, Guy’s life is changed forever following a chance encounter with a ‘Sunglasses Person’ (the film’s term for player characters) named Molotov Girl (Jodie Comer).
An homage to Grand Theft Auto’s Vice City, with some elements from Fortnite sprinkled in for good measure, Free City is located within a video game of the same name, and boasts a population of various NPCs (non-player characters) as they go through their daily routines completely unaware that they’re stuck within the confines of a video game.
These NPCs cater to the whim of the Sunglasses People, who are seen as unapproachable heroes, but in actuality are just players from the real world who want to loot, steal, and cause chaos in order to achieve virtual richness in free city.
Ryan Reynolds’ real-life demeanor and sense of humor are so similar to his portrayal of Deadpool that almost anything Reynolds has done since 2016 has undoubtedly reminded you of The Merc With A Mouth.
To that end, in Free Guy, Reynolds’ narration of his own story, combined with the film’s explosive action, will definitely have filmgoers reminiscing about Marvel’s pair of R-rated X-men spin-offs – an inevitable circumstance of being a successful actor and allowing oneself to be typecast into roles similar to their most popular one.
While there are some laugh out loud moments in Free Guy, the “Oh, he found the button,” scene being the most notable, the film simply isn’t as funny as you think it’s going to be.
There’s no arguing that Free Guy is amusing to a certain extent, but its repeated gags and attempts at humor, more often than not, fall flat. Taika Waititi’s Antwan character, the man calling the shots when it comes to Free City’s game development, is a highlight of the film.
However, the promotional clip of Waititi’s outtakes released to hype the film, whose content supposedly made it into the film (spoiler alert: they didn’t), is better than any of Antwan’s actual lines of dialogue in the theatrical cut.
The cameos in Free Guy are some of the best surprises to stumble onto while seeing the film. They won’t be spoiled here, though some of them have been spoiled on the internet already, but there are a couple of really fun ones that are so much more entertaining if you go in not expecting them.
In fact, one of the lengthier such cameos, which extends across multiple scenes and features in several minutes of screen time, is a major source for hilarity in Free Guy.
The premise of Free Guy a A background character in a video game becomes sentient – is its most promising aspect. Guy, motivated by a desire to get more out of life than the daily routine he’s accustomed to, essentially betters himself simply because he wants to. In a way, it’s an I, Robot kind of concept burrito’d within a world that would fit within the walls of Ready Player One.
Surprisingly, given its filming before the outbreak of the pandemic, the film is also extremely relatable to how our reality is still under the thumb of an unpredictable coronavirus. Guy being trapped within the walls of Free City and wanting more out of life is an awfully similar sentiment to wanting everything back to normal after being stuck in months-long lockdowns.
Yet, Free Guy’s solid special effects, absurd humor, and surprisingly effective cameos are nearly derailed by how much time it devotes to the its love story.
Guy’s big awakening all comes down to finding the girl of his dreams, which then branches off into a different sort of relationship in the real world that was right under two character’s noses from the start. It feels like it was meant to be this sort of revelation in the film, but comes off as this, “Duh,” moment anyone besides the writers could have predicted.
Speaking of the film’s writing, the character of Mouser (Utkarsh Ambudkar) is so poorly written that it’s unbearable and exhausting.
A developer working alongside Antwan and Keys (Joe Kerry), Mouser comes off a rival to the later, acting like he can do Keys’ job better than Keys can and constantly breaking his balls from the moment he is introduced. Throughout the film, Mouser wants to do nothing more than whatever Antwan says, even if it’s morally reprehensible.
But, predictably, in the film’s final moments, Mouser is suddenly Keys’ best friend, wanting to do what’s right all for the sake of a happy ending.
Ultimately, while Free Guy has an amazing concept, it’s trapped within a massively underwhelming execution.
Admittedly, the film looks like it was an absolute blast to make, but also incredibly expensive. This tall budget, combined with public hesitancy to return to theaters and the Delta variant of COVID seemingly on the verge of backtracking all the progress we’ve made since the vaccine became readily available to the public, it makes you wonder if Free Guy has any sort of chance of making a respectable amount of money at the box office or even just breaking even.
Note: This was originally written when the film opened in theaters. Free Guy would go on to make $331.5 million on a $100-$125 million budget. A sequel is currently in the works.
Completely content with every day being exactly the same as the day before, Guy’s life is changed forever following a chance encounter with a ‘Sunglasses Person’ (the film’s term for player characters) named Molotov Girl (Jodie Comer).
An homage to Grand Theft Auto’s Vice City, with some elements from Fortnite sprinkled in for good measure, Free City is located within a video game of the same name, and boasts a population of various NPCs (non-player characters) as they go through their daily routines completely unaware that they’re stuck within the confines of a video game.
These NPCs cater to the whim of the Sunglasses People, who are seen as unapproachable heroes, but in actuality are just players from the real world who want to loot, steal, and cause chaos in order to achieve virtual richness in free city.
Ryan Reynolds’ real-life demeanor and sense of humor are so similar to his portrayal of Deadpool that almost anything Reynolds has done since 2016 has undoubtedly reminded you of The Merc With A Mouth.
To that end, in Free Guy, Reynolds’ narration of his own story, combined with the film’s explosive action, will definitely have filmgoers reminiscing about Marvel’s pair of R-rated X-men spin-offs – an inevitable circumstance of being a successful actor and allowing oneself to be typecast into roles similar to their most popular one.
While there are some laugh out loud moments in Free Guy, the “Oh, he found the button,” scene being the most notable, the film simply isn’t as funny as you think it’s going to be.
There’s no arguing that Free Guy is amusing to a certain extent, but its repeated gags and attempts at humor, more often than not, fall flat. Taika Waititi’s Antwan character, the man calling the shots when it comes to Free City’s game development, is a highlight of the film.
However, the promotional clip of Waititi’s outtakes released to hype the film, whose content supposedly made it into the film (spoiler alert: they didn’t), is better than any of Antwan’s actual lines of dialogue in the theatrical cut.
The cameos in Free Guy are some of the best surprises to stumble onto while seeing the film. They won’t be spoiled here, though some of them have been spoiled on the internet already, but there are a couple of really fun ones that are so much more entertaining if you go in not expecting them.
In fact, one of the lengthier such cameos, which extends across multiple scenes and features in several minutes of screen time, is a major source for hilarity in Free Guy.
The premise of Free Guy a A background character in a video game becomes sentient – is its most promising aspect. Guy, motivated by a desire to get more out of life than the daily routine he’s accustomed to, essentially betters himself simply because he wants to. In a way, it’s an I, Robot kind of concept burrito’d within a world that would fit within the walls of Ready Player One.
Surprisingly, given its filming before the outbreak of the pandemic, the film is also extremely relatable to how our reality is still under the thumb of an unpredictable coronavirus. Guy being trapped within the walls of Free City and wanting more out of life is an awfully similar sentiment to wanting everything back to normal after being stuck in months-long lockdowns.
Yet, Free Guy’s solid special effects, absurd humor, and surprisingly effective cameos are nearly derailed by how much time it devotes to the its love story.
Guy’s big awakening all comes down to finding the girl of his dreams, which then branches off into a different sort of relationship in the real world that was right under two character’s noses from the start. It feels like it was meant to be this sort of revelation in the film, but comes off as this, “Duh,” moment anyone besides the writers could have predicted.
Speaking of the film’s writing, the character of Mouser (Utkarsh Ambudkar) is so poorly written that it’s unbearable and exhausting.
A developer working alongside Antwan and Keys (Joe Kerry), Mouser comes off a rival to the later, acting like he can do Keys’ job better than Keys can and constantly breaking his balls from the moment he is introduced. Throughout the film, Mouser wants to do nothing more than whatever Antwan says, even if it’s morally reprehensible.
But, predictably, in the film’s final moments, Mouser is suddenly Keys’ best friend, wanting to do what’s right all for the sake of a happy ending.
Ultimately, while Free Guy has an amazing concept, it’s trapped within a massively underwhelming execution.
Admittedly, the film looks like it was an absolute blast to make, but also incredibly expensive. This tall budget, combined with public hesitancy to return to theaters and the Delta variant of COVID seemingly on the verge of backtracking all the progress we’ve made since the vaccine became readily available to the public, it makes you wonder if Free Guy has any sort of chance of making a respectable amount of money at the box office or even just breaking even.
Note: This was originally written when the film opened in theaters. Free Guy would go on to make $331.5 million on a $100-$125 million budget. A sequel is currently in the works.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Ready Player One (2018) in Movies
Sep 20, 2018 (Updated Sep 20, 2018)
Not Quite Ready
I saw this movie in the cinema back when it came out in March earlier this year and I honestly didn't feel ready to review it after a single viewing because of all of the references etc that there was to take in. After watching the movie a couple more times and watching a bunch of Easter Egg videos on Youtube, I feel more equipped to discuss the film.
Up top, I never read the book that this film is based on. It has been recommended to me quite a few times, but I have never gotten around to reading it, so I was going into this with no pre-conceived ideas of what it was going to be other than what I had seen in the various trailers for the movie.
Let's start with the good stuff. Although I have some issues with the overabundance of CGI onscreen, as a 3d animator myself I was extremely impressed at the sheer quality of the animation in the movie. I know that this thing had a pretty high budget behind it, but still the level of quality in the animation is really high throughout the film. The references are also pretty cool, at least for the first third of the movie but the novelty of seeing some of your favourite pop culture characters does wear off after a while and ends up feeling like a cheap gimmick before too long. Finally, if all you are looking for is a big dumb fun blockbuster, then this movie provides that in spades.
Ok, onto the stuff that bothered me. As I said above, although the quality of the CGI is pretty incredible, the vast amount of it gets tiresome after a while. I also don't like the character designs at all, Parzival looks like a rejected piece of Final Fantasy artwork, Art3mis looks like a stereotypical version of a what a middle aged man thinks a cool hacker looks like with a weird resemblance to a feline, Aech just looked chunky and awkward, like something from a last-gen Gears Of War game, I-R0k's weird, edgy, fantasy-based design didn't fit his voice or the tone of the scenes he appeared in and Sorrento's avatar just looked distractingly like a dastardly Clark Kent for some reason. Also, these original character designs seemed oddly out of place being surrounded by other characters from franchises that we already know like DC and Mortal Kombat, none of it meshed well.
From this point on I am going to delve into some mid-movie spoilers, so here's your warning.
It really annoyed me how they kept touching on the idea that someone in the Oasis might not necessarily look the same as they do in real life and if you ever met them in real life you would be sorely disappointed, only for the reason for all of this to be a birthmark on Olivia Cooke's character's face. The way that they make her out to some sort of beast-like monster because of a slight skin-irregularity is ridiculous and also kinda offensive. Also, we are told during the movie's opening sequence that the Oasis is a worldwide thing, where people from anywhere on the planet can meet up online and fight together or kill each other for coins, then halfway through the movie, all of the characters meet up in a small ice cream truck in the real world and it turns out that they all live within a few miles of each other. It just made the whole thing feel really small scale. Another issue is that the movie is only 6 months old at this point and it already feels slightly dated. I don't see this movie ageing very well at all and this is both due to the CGI and the references that they choose to include.
Lastly, as I said earlier, if what you want out of this movie is mindless fun, then you'll walk away satisfied, the problem with that is that the movie seems to want to be more than that. The way that the movie treats itself and the way it was marketed along with the fact that it's got Spielberg in the director's chair, signifies that the filmmakers were intending for this to be this generation's Back To The Future or Star Wars and on that front it totally fails. In these other movies that this film is aspiring to be, you care about what happens to the characters and want to see where they go, whereas here the audience cares way more about seeing the next popular franchise references than anything that happens to the main characters at the heart of this story and once you've seen the film, you are going to leave talking about the characters that appeared from outside franchises rather than the ones created for this story. The characters are also instantly forgettable, for example I have seen this film three times now and still couldn't tell you the real world names of any of the characters other than Wade Watts and Sorrento and that's only because he has the same name in the real world as he does in the Oasis. I also don't care if I ever see any of these characters again if I'm being honest. I'm sure there is probably a sequel to this already being planned seeing as it made a bunch of money at the box office and there is apparently a sequel book in the works, but frankly I wouldn't care if I never saw any of these characters again and I don't care where the story is going either.
In conclusion, Ready Player One doesn't achieve the goal that it sets for itself of being a modern sci-fi classic, but there is a lot of fun to be had here along with some impressive animation to boot. The movie has a fairly shallow, hollow feel to it throughout, as if we are scratching the surface of something potentially engaging and worth investing in, but the filmmakers constantly keep distracting us with flashy visuals and obscure pop culture references. If the movie committed to telling a more original story rather than being obsessed with the 80's classics it is exploiting, then it may be more worthwhile. Also, it's definitely not Spielberg's best, this may be a bit harsh but it's probably closer to Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull than Raiders Of The Lost Ark. I wish that Smashbomb had a half star rating system, because although I feel that the movie was better than a 6, I don't like it enough to give it a 7, so a 6.5 would sum up how I felt about the film more accurately.
Up top, I never read the book that this film is based on. It has been recommended to me quite a few times, but I have never gotten around to reading it, so I was going into this with no pre-conceived ideas of what it was going to be other than what I had seen in the various trailers for the movie.
Let's start with the good stuff. Although I have some issues with the overabundance of CGI onscreen, as a 3d animator myself I was extremely impressed at the sheer quality of the animation in the movie. I know that this thing had a pretty high budget behind it, but still the level of quality in the animation is really high throughout the film. The references are also pretty cool, at least for the first third of the movie but the novelty of seeing some of your favourite pop culture characters does wear off after a while and ends up feeling like a cheap gimmick before too long. Finally, if all you are looking for is a big dumb fun blockbuster, then this movie provides that in spades.
Ok, onto the stuff that bothered me. As I said above, although the quality of the CGI is pretty incredible, the vast amount of it gets tiresome after a while. I also don't like the character designs at all, Parzival looks like a rejected piece of Final Fantasy artwork, Art3mis looks like a stereotypical version of a what a middle aged man thinks a cool hacker looks like with a weird resemblance to a feline, Aech just looked chunky and awkward, like something from a last-gen Gears Of War game, I-R0k's weird, edgy, fantasy-based design didn't fit his voice or the tone of the scenes he appeared in and Sorrento's avatar just looked distractingly like a dastardly Clark Kent for some reason. Also, these original character designs seemed oddly out of place being surrounded by other characters from franchises that we already know like DC and Mortal Kombat, none of it meshed well.
From this point on I am going to delve into some mid-movie spoilers, so here's your warning.
It really annoyed me how they kept touching on the idea that someone in the Oasis might not necessarily look the same as they do in real life and if you ever met them in real life you would be sorely disappointed, only for the reason for all of this to be a birthmark on Olivia Cooke's character's face. The way that they make her out to some sort of beast-like monster because of a slight skin-irregularity is ridiculous and also kinda offensive. Also, we are told during the movie's opening sequence that the Oasis is a worldwide thing, where people from anywhere on the planet can meet up online and fight together or kill each other for coins, then halfway through the movie, all of the characters meet up in a small ice cream truck in the real world and it turns out that they all live within a few miles of each other. It just made the whole thing feel really small scale. Another issue is that the movie is only 6 months old at this point and it already feels slightly dated. I don't see this movie ageing very well at all and this is both due to the CGI and the references that they choose to include.
Lastly, as I said earlier, if what you want out of this movie is mindless fun, then you'll walk away satisfied, the problem with that is that the movie seems to want to be more than that. The way that the movie treats itself and the way it was marketed along with the fact that it's got Spielberg in the director's chair, signifies that the filmmakers were intending for this to be this generation's Back To The Future or Star Wars and on that front it totally fails. In these other movies that this film is aspiring to be, you care about what happens to the characters and want to see where they go, whereas here the audience cares way more about seeing the next popular franchise references than anything that happens to the main characters at the heart of this story and once you've seen the film, you are going to leave talking about the characters that appeared from outside franchises rather than the ones created for this story. The characters are also instantly forgettable, for example I have seen this film three times now and still couldn't tell you the real world names of any of the characters other than Wade Watts and Sorrento and that's only because he has the same name in the real world as he does in the Oasis. I also don't care if I ever see any of these characters again if I'm being honest. I'm sure there is probably a sequel to this already being planned seeing as it made a bunch of money at the box office and there is apparently a sequel book in the works, but frankly I wouldn't care if I never saw any of these characters again and I don't care where the story is going either.
In conclusion, Ready Player One doesn't achieve the goal that it sets for itself of being a modern sci-fi classic, but there is a lot of fun to be had here along with some impressive animation to boot. The movie has a fairly shallow, hollow feel to it throughout, as if we are scratching the surface of something potentially engaging and worth investing in, but the filmmakers constantly keep distracting us with flashy visuals and obscure pop culture references. If the movie committed to telling a more original story rather than being obsessed with the 80's classics it is exploiting, then it may be more worthwhile. Also, it's definitely not Spielberg's best, this may be a bit harsh but it's probably closer to Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull than Raiders Of The Lost Ark. I wish that Smashbomb had a half star rating system, because although I feel that the movie was better than a 6, I don't like it enough to give it a 7, so a 6.5 would sum up how I felt about the film more accurately.
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Institute in Books
Oct 24, 2019
Likable characters (1 more)
Paranormal
Sexualizing children (1 more)
Not a regular King story
At around 95 novels, Stephen King, who is one of the most well-known authors of our time, debuts a possible new novel series about psychic children. 'The Institute' mostly takes place in a hidden facility located in a wooded area of Maine,where readers follow a kidnapped child prodigy named Luke Ellis, and the government experiments that are inflicted on him to heighten his psychic powers.
So why is the government kidnapping children to conduct psychic research on them? At first, it may seem just that: psychic research, because psychic powers seem to be more powerful in young children than adults, but nothing is what it seems. As the boss of this Institute says to the children: " ' There's a war going on, and you have been called upon to serve your country.' " A few sentences later, and she explains it a little more in depth for Ellis: " ' This is not an arms race but a mind race, and if we lose, the consequences would be more than dire; they would be unimaginable. You may only be twelve, but you are a soldier in an undeclared war. The same is true of Kalisha and the others. Do you like it? Of course not. Draftees never do, and draftees sometimes need to be taught that there are consequences for not following orders. I believe you've already had one lesson in that regard. If you're as bright as your records say you are, perhaps you won't need another. If you do, however, you'll get it. This is not your home. This is not your school. You will not simply be given an extra chore or sent to the principal's office or given detention; you will be punished. Clear? ' "
King writes in a third-person point-of-view, which makes it a little disturbing that when any female character he introduces (including girls as young as 11-years-old) are usually introduced by their breast size. It's not uncommon for male writers to introduce female characters this way, but when most of them are children, it can be very off putting for readers. One scene, King makes Ellis notice that Kalisha has 'her hands on her mostly nonexistent hips,' then writes about the character Helen in the same scene: " Another door opened and Helen Simms appeared, clad - - - sort of - - - in what Luke believed were called babydoll pajamas. She had hips, plus other interesting equipment. " Both of these characters are only twelve-years-old.
Aside from the children, King also introduces an important character named Tim Jamieson. This character starts the novel off before readers meet Ellis; we learn that he is a former cop who is traveling to New York while taking odd jobs on his way there, including a night knocker job in DuPray, South Carolina (which becomes very important later on in the story) .
Avery, my personal favorite character in the book, is a ten-year-old who acts like a five-year-old, " The screamer was a little boy in Star Wars pajamas, hammering on doors with small fists that went up and down like pistons. Ten? Avery Dixon looked six, seven at most. The crotch and one leg of his pajama pants were wet and sticking to him. " Dixon and Kalisha are both in the Institute for telepathy. " 'You know so,' Kalisha said, and began to stroke the little boy's [Dixon] hair again. Like had a sense - - - maybe bullshit, maybe not - - - that a lot was going on between them. Inside traffic. " And quickly, the group of children become protective of Dixon, " 'But you need to take care of this one for as long as you can. When I think of Tony or Zeke or that bitch Winona hitting Avery, it makes me want to cry. ' " Kalisha confides in Ellis.
Kalisha, one of the other children that has been kidnapped, is another very likable character that seems to keep all of the other kids' spirits up by either keeping them out of trouble with advice or stopping small fights between them. Another kid named Nicky, the troublemaker of the group, is the stereo-typical bad boy. He gets involved in fistfights with the orderlies that work at the Institute, taking quite a bit of abuse in return. But eventually, the rebelliousness catches up with him, leading him to be moved from Front Half to the dreaded Back Half.
Readers later learn that Back Half is worse than Front Half. Most questions we may have about why the Institute is abusing these children are all answered when readers get to see into Back Half from Kalisha's point-of-view. But what is left unanswered is exactly how many children have been through the Institute? From the amount of children seen just in this story, the numbers could be in the hundreds of thousands!
But, as expected, the children come up with a plan to escape - - - with giving as little detail as possible, an orderlie at the Institute is helped by one of the children with a personal problem, and in return, this orderlie decides to help one of them escape and reveal everything that is the Institute. The instance the escape starts being discussed is when the book really picks up.
King's writing of the abuse our characters sustain is very real (" When Stevie Whipple asked where he'd been and what was wrong, Luke just shook his head. He didn't want to talk about the tank. Not now, not ever. He supposed it was like being in a war. You got drafted, you went, but you didn't want to talk about what you'd seen, or what had happened to you there." ) The scene in which Ellis refuses to speak of is where the orderlie Zeke is trying to make Ellis confess that he is not only telekinesis, but also telepathic: "Zeke hauled him up by the hair. His white tunic was soaked. He looked fixedly at Luke. 'I'm going to put you down again, Luke. Again and again and again. I'll put you down until you drown and then we'll resuscitate you and drown you again and resuscitate you again. Last chance: what number am I thinking of?' "
King brings up a fictional belief that strikes fear in parents everywhere: children being kidnapped for government experiments. Readers witness Ellis' parents being killed, Kalisha being a surrogate mother to kids she barely knows, Nicky being beaten by adults when he refuses to get 'shots for dots,' night terrors, suicide, zap sticks and murder.
This book doesn't read like a regular King book; even with the paranormal aspects occurring in it, it doesn't add up to much. The horror aspect is more in the form of child abuse then paranormal moments. I would only recommend this book to fans of Netflix's 'Stranger Things' and Patterson's 'Maximum Ride.' I don't think I would read this again.
So why is the government kidnapping children to conduct psychic research on them? At first, it may seem just that: psychic research, because psychic powers seem to be more powerful in young children than adults, but nothing is what it seems. As the boss of this Institute says to the children: " ' There's a war going on, and you have been called upon to serve your country.' " A few sentences later, and she explains it a little more in depth for Ellis: " ' This is not an arms race but a mind race, and if we lose, the consequences would be more than dire; they would be unimaginable. You may only be twelve, but you are a soldier in an undeclared war. The same is true of Kalisha and the others. Do you like it? Of course not. Draftees never do, and draftees sometimes need to be taught that there are consequences for not following orders. I believe you've already had one lesson in that regard. If you're as bright as your records say you are, perhaps you won't need another. If you do, however, you'll get it. This is not your home. This is not your school. You will not simply be given an extra chore or sent to the principal's office or given detention; you will be punished. Clear? ' "
King writes in a third-person point-of-view, which makes it a little disturbing that when any female character he introduces (including girls as young as 11-years-old) are usually introduced by their breast size. It's not uncommon for male writers to introduce female characters this way, but when most of them are children, it can be very off putting for readers. One scene, King makes Ellis notice that Kalisha has 'her hands on her mostly nonexistent hips,' then writes about the character Helen in the same scene: " Another door opened and Helen Simms appeared, clad - - - sort of - - - in what Luke believed were called babydoll pajamas. She had hips, plus other interesting equipment. " Both of these characters are only twelve-years-old.
Aside from the children, King also introduces an important character named Tim Jamieson. This character starts the novel off before readers meet Ellis; we learn that he is a former cop who is traveling to New York while taking odd jobs on his way there, including a night knocker job in DuPray, South Carolina (which becomes very important later on in the story) .
Avery, my personal favorite character in the book, is a ten-year-old who acts like a five-year-old, " The screamer was a little boy in Star Wars pajamas, hammering on doors with small fists that went up and down like pistons. Ten? Avery Dixon looked six, seven at most. The crotch and one leg of his pajama pants were wet and sticking to him. " Dixon and Kalisha are both in the Institute for telepathy. " 'You know so,' Kalisha said, and began to stroke the little boy's [Dixon] hair again. Like had a sense - - - maybe bullshit, maybe not - - - that a lot was going on between them. Inside traffic. " And quickly, the group of children become protective of Dixon, " 'But you need to take care of this one for as long as you can. When I think of Tony or Zeke or that bitch Winona hitting Avery, it makes me want to cry. ' " Kalisha confides in Ellis.
Kalisha, one of the other children that has been kidnapped, is another very likable character that seems to keep all of the other kids' spirits up by either keeping them out of trouble with advice or stopping small fights between them. Another kid named Nicky, the troublemaker of the group, is the stereo-typical bad boy. He gets involved in fistfights with the orderlies that work at the Institute, taking quite a bit of abuse in return. But eventually, the rebelliousness catches up with him, leading him to be moved from Front Half to the dreaded Back Half.
Readers later learn that Back Half is worse than Front Half. Most questions we may have about why the Institute is abusing these children are all answered when readers get to see into Back Half from Kalisha's point-of-view. But what is left unanswered is exactly how many children have been through the Institute? From the amount of children seen just in this story, the numbers could be in the hundreds of thousands!
But, as expected, the children come up with a plan to escape - - - with giving as little detail as possible, an orderlie at the Institute is helped by one of the children with a personal problem, and in return, this orderlie decides to help one of them escape and reveal everything that is the Institute. The instance the escape starts being discussed is when the book really picks up.
King's writing of the abuse our characters sustain is very real (" When Stevie Whipple asked where he'd been and what was wrong, Luke just shook his head. He didn't want to talk about the tank. Not now, not ever. He supposed it was like being in a war. You got drafted, you went, but you didn't want to talk about what you'd seen, or what had happened to you there." ) The scene in which Ellis refuses to speak of is where the orderlie Zeke is trying to make Ellis confess that he is not only telekinesis, but also telepathic: "Zeke hauled him up by the hair. His white tunic was soaked. He looked fixedly at Luke. 'I'm going to put you down again, Luke. Again and again and again. I'll put you down until you drown and then we'll resuscitate you and drown you again and resuscitate you again. Last chance: what number am I thinking of?' "
King brings up a fictional belief that strikes fear in parents everywhere: children being kidnapped for government experiments. Readers witness Ellis' parents being killed, Kalisha being a surrogate mother to kids she barely knows, Nicky being beaten by adults when he refuses to get 'shots for dots,' night terrors, suicide, zap sticks and murder.
This book doesn't read like a regular King book; even with the paranormal aspects occurring in it, it doesn't add up to much. The horror aspect is more in the form of child abuse then paranormal moments. I would only recommend this book to fans of Netflix's 'Stranger Things' and Patterson's 'Maximum Ride.' I don't think I would read this again.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Chronicles of Crime: 1900 in Tabletop Games
Apr 23, 2021
WARNING: Extremely minor spoilers ahead (in the photos)! Don’t say I didn’t warn you (they aren’t big spoilers).
If you have been following us for a while now you have probably noticed we have published another title from the Millennium Series – Chronicles of Crime: 1400. While that title takes place in the year, well, 1400, this new title is set 500 years later in Paris. How do these games compare? What about the link to the original Chronicles of Crime (review to be posted later)? Should one purchase copies of all Chronicles of Crime games?
Chronicles of Crime: 1900 (which I shall refer to as CoC1900 from here) is a cooperative campaign, deduction, storytelling, puzzle solving adventure game, but I prefer to play it, and its relatives, solo. In it, the player(s) take control of the journalist Victor Lavel, a descendent of the main character from CoC1400. Victor has a limited amount of time to complete his investigation and return the scoop to the local newspaper by which he is employed. Players will be tackling the investigations of our noble hero in attempts to solve the case that is presented.
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 main card holder board on the table. Anywhere. I called it. Next, keep the card decks in order (or don’t) and place them near the board. Similarly, place the location boards on the table and ready the main newspaper board for play. Launch the Chronicles of Crime app on a device, choose 1900, and select the scenario you wish to play. The app will drive the remainder of the game, so hold onto your butts!
How do I explain this game succinctly? Well, each of the cases will involve players traveling to different Location Boards and meeting Characters at these locations. Many cases will be involving several Special Items and, new for the 1900 version, Puzzle Cards that players will need to solve or use in special ways in order to progress with certain leads. These Puzzle Cards do not really give the story away or anything, but are merely tools to be used to help solve the cases.
By using the app and scanning the QR codes on the boards and cards players will be learning about the case, viewing the scene of the crime(s), inspecting items, and chatting up locals for information. Play will continue not so much in “rounds” but until the players have enough evidence and a good handle on the situation enough to return to the paper’s office to report to their coworkers all the details of the crime(s) by scanning answers to their questions about the case. The app then assesses the accuracy of the answers and outputs a score. Based on the score achieved players can play again to pick up clues they missed along the way or try another scenario entirely.
Components. As with all CoC games I have played, the components are simply wonderful. Most of what is in the box is cardstock of varying thickness, but the art is what really stands out. This is a gorgeous game and when it is displayed on the table, people become fascinated by its presence. Then when the onlookers see an app driving the gameplay they are hooked. I have heard complaints from other reviewers that the Character cards in the game are lacking in variation, and I would have to agree. Yes, it is set in 1900 Paris, but all the Character cards feature white people, most of whom seem to be upper crust, and with most of the males sporting an awful mustache. So I get that complaint and agree. With inclusivity and diversity being major hot issues currently, you would expect to see more of it in our industry. I would have liked to have come across more diverse characters, and maybe a mini expansion can add many alternate art characters to the game.
All in all I loved this theme of Chronicles of Crime. Being set in Paris and following a young investigative journalist is a nice twist on the protagonists commonly featured in these games. The gameplay is the same as previous versions of CoC, save for the new Puzzle cards. I do enjoy their addition, and look to find more of these in future versions. I love the Chronicles of Crime system so I was bound to love this one as well.
Now, should you buy this version if you already have base Chronicles of Crime? Sure! Why? I like this one because it adds a different mechanic to the game with all-new scenarios, and I enjoy having more of a good thing. I think I personally prefer the theme in 1400 more, but 1900 is a great addition to the family. If you are someone who has and enjoys the base CoC, or any of its iterations, and are looking for more content to devour, then definitely grab a copy of 1900. If you are new to the system, I say go ahead and start with 1900. The Puzzle cards do not add enough complexity to take it out of reach for beginner gamers or those who enjoy lighter games, but certainly add a new and welcome layer to the series. Purple Phoenix Games certainly recommends this one to all our fans. Can’t get enough Chronicles of Crime? Grab 1900. Want to start in the series but London or Medieval times don’t do it for you? Grab 1900. Like tons of portraits of mustachioed white dudes and floofy ladies? Grab 1900. Whatever your motivation, play the game and let me know how you score. I am not advertising my first score here because I am mortified by my performance. (I did get better on subsequent plays.)
If you have been following us for a while now you have probably noticed we have published another title from the Millennium Series – Chronicles of Crime: 1400. While that title takes place in the year, well, 1400, this new title is set 500 years later in Paris. How do these games compare? What about the link to the original Chronicles of Crime (review to be posted later)? Should one purchase copies of all Chronicles of Crime games?
Chronicles of Crime: 1900 (which I shall refer to as CoC1900 from here) is a cooperative campaign, deduction, storytelling, puzzle solving adventure game, but I prefer to play it, and its relatives, solo. In it, the player(s) take control of the journalist Victor Lavel, a descendent of the main character from CoC1400. Victor has a limited amount of time to complete his investigation and return the scoop to the local newspaper by which he is employed. Players will be tackling the investigations of our noble hero in attempts to solve the case that is presented.
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 main card holder board on the table. Anywhere. I called it. Next, keep the card decks in order (or don’t) and place them near the board. Similarly, place the location boards on the table and ready the main newspaper board for play. Launch the Chronicles of Crime app on a device, choose 1900, and select the scenario you wish to play. The app will drive the remainder of the game, so hold onto your butts!
How do I explain this game succinctly? Well, each of the cases will involve players traveling to different Location Boards and meeting Characters at these locations. Many cases will be involving several Special Items and, new for the 1900 version, Puzzle Cards that players will need to solve or use in special ways in order to progress with certain leads. These Puzzle Cards do not really give the story away or anything, but are merely tools to be used to help solve the cases.
By using the app and scanning the QR codes on the boards and cards players will be learning about the case, viewing the scene of the crime(s), inspecting items, and chatting up locals for information. Play will continue not so much in “rounds” but until the players have enough evidence and a good handle on the situation enough to return to the paper’s office to report to their coworkers all the details of the crime(s) by scanning answers to their questions about the case. The app then assesses the accuracy of the answers and outputs a score. Based on the score achieved players can play again to pick up clues they missed along the way or try another scenario entirely.
Components. As with all CoC games I have played, the components are simply wonderful. Most of what is in the box is cardstock of varying thickness, but the art is what really stands out. This is a gorgeous game and when it is displayed on the table, people become fascinated by its presence. Then when the onlookers see an app driving the gameplay they are hooked. I have heard complaints from other reviewers that the Character cards in the game are lacking in variation, and I would have to agree. Yes, it is set in 1900 Paris, but all the Character cards feature white people, most of whom seem to be upper crust, and with most of the males sporting an awful mustache. So I get that complaint and agree. With inclusivity and diversity being major hot issues currently, you would expect to see more of it in our industry. I would have liked to have come across more diverse characters, and maybe a mini expansion can add many alternate art characters to the game.
All in all I loved this theme of Chronicles of Crime. Being set in Paris and following a young investigative journalist is a nice twist on the protagonists commonly featured in these games. The gameplay is the same as previous versions of CoC, save for the new Puzzle cards. I do enjoy their addition, and look to find more of these in future versions. I love the Chronicles of Crime system so I was bound to love this one as well.
Now, should you buy this version if you already have base Chronicles of Crime? Sure! Why? I like this one because it adds a different mechanic to the game with all-new scenarios, and I enjoy having more of a good thing. I think I personally prefer the theme in 1400 more, but 1900 is a great addition to the family. If you are someone who has and enjoys the base CoC, or any of its iterations, and are looking for more content to devour, then definitely grab a copy of 1900. If you are new to the system, I say go ahead and start with 1900. The Puzzle cards do not add enough complexity to take it out of reach for beginner gamers or those who enjoy lighter games, but certainly add a new and welcome layer to the series. Purple Phoenix Games certainly recommends this one to all our fans. Can’t get enough Chronicles of Crime? Grab 1900. Want to start in the series but London or Medieval times don’t do it for you? Grab 1900. Like tons of portraits of mustachioed white dudes and floofy ladies? Grab 1900. Whatever your motivation, play the game and let me know how you score. I am not advertising my first score here because I am mortified by my performance. (I did get better on subsequent plays.)
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated You're Pulling My Leg! in Tabletop Games
Aug 3, 2020
At the time I am writing this preview, the world is in the midst of a pandemic. That being said, the need for social distancing and quarantining has really affected the board gaming world. Without being able to have normal game nights, gamers must be creative in figuring out how to continue to play together, while still maintaining safe and healthy distances from one another. And one game that offers a solution is You’re Pulling My Leg!
Disclaimer: We were provided a copy of this book for the purposes of this preview. The pictures below show the final production copy you can expect to receive when ordering this game. Check out the publisher’s website to get your hands on this unique party game! -L
You’re Pulling My Leg! is a party game of bluffing and storytelling in which players are trying to be the first to earn 21 points. The rules are simple, the gameplay is straightforward, and it can even be played remotely!
To setup the game, every player needs a coin and a way to keep track of their score (paper/pencil, notes on a phone, etc.). Every player begins the game with 7 points. To start the game, choose a player to be the first Storyteller. The Storyteller selects a card from the book, reads the three questions on their chosen card, and chooses 1 to answer. The Storyteller then flips their coin – if HEADS, the answer must be a true story, but if TAILS, the answer must be false and untrue in essence. Only the Storyteller knows the result of the coin flip. The Storyteller proceeds to answer the question, telling a story dictated by their coin flip result.
After the Storyteller has told their response to the chosen question, the remaining players will vote (with points) on whether they believe the story was true or false. Players can vote with up to 3 points, and votes are revealed simultaneously. If you believe the story is TRUE, you vote with 1, 2, or 3 fingers pointing UP, and if you believe the story is FALSE, you vote with 1, 2, or 3 fingers pointing DOWN. After everyone has voted, the Storyteller reveals whether the story was true or false, and points are added/deducted accordingly. If a player voted correctly, they add the number of points with which they voted to their score. If they voted incorrectly, subtract the voted points from their score. The Storyteller can earn 1 point for each other player they have fooled, up to a maximum of 3 points per story. After tallying points, choose a new Storyteller and begin again – each player should have a chance to be the Storyteller once before repeating Storytellers. Play continues in this fashion until one player has scored 21 points, and is declared the winner!
At this point in my life, the thing I love about You’re Pulling My Leg! the most is that it can be played remotely. Everybody does not need to have an individual copy of the book to play via video chat or conference call. As long as one person has the book, your group can play! Instead of having each player read their own cards then, the owner of the book reads the cards aloud and the Storyteller chooses their question that way. The only supplies needed, apart from 1 copy of the book, are a coin and a way to track your score. Easy as pie. Another aspect of this game that I really enjoy is that it is pretty light-hearted in nature. Yes, there is an element of deception and bluffing, but it is all done in a light and quirky way. I especially enjoy this because I am a notoriously bad liar, and most bluffing games stress me out. But the ability to choose my question, and then weave a (hopefully) convincing story for my opponents takes some of that pressure off and allows me to really be creative and have fun.
That being said, one tricky thing about this game is that when coming up with a false story, if must be false in essence. You cannot tell a mostly true story with a few trivial details changed. People who have trouble with storytelling or improv-type scenarios might have some difficulty in coming up with an appropriate story for the different questions. Just something to be aware of – you have to be able to come up with a story on the fly, with no hints or help whatsoever. Another tricky, yet usually fun, aspect of this game is that some cards have a Wild feature which can immediately affect someone’s score. For example, one Wild feature might say “Player with the longest hair gains 3 points.” That goes into effect immediately once the card is selected, and can put a fun twist and some good-natured take-that into this storytelling game. The process of voting with points adds an element of strategy as well. How confident are you that someone’s story is TRUE? Are you willing to bet 3 points on it? It’s a balance of risk and reward, and that adds excitement to the game table.
Let me touch on components for a minute. This game is a book, where each page contains 3 cards. You can start at card #1 or select a random page and pick a card there, but there are 225 cards from which to choose! On every other page there is also a blank page titled “Game Highlights,” and this space is for you to write down any particularly hilarious or creative responses someone may have come up with in response to a card. It’s not a game requirement, but just an element of fun for future reminiscence. The quality of the book is pretty good, and I know it is sturdy enough to withstand lots of travel and play.
So all-in-all, I think that You’re Pulling My Leg is a great and light little game to get your creative juices flowing. If you need an ice-breaker for a game night, this would definitely be a great one to get to know your gaming comrades. Is it a game I will pull out at every game night? No. But it is a fun and light-hearted game that I can see myself pulling out with different gaming groups on several occasions. Whether a family reunion, office party, or friend Zoom call, this game is one that will entertain all involved. If you’re looking for something unique, fun, and relatively simple overall, give You’re Pulling My Leg! a shot. It might just open the door to storytelling based games for you!
Disclaimer: We were provided a copy of this book for the purposes of this preview. The pictures below show the final production copy you can expect to receive when ordering this game. Check out the publisher’s website to get your hands on this unique party game! -L
You’re Pulling My Leg! is a party game of bluffing and storytelling in which players are trying to be the first to earn 21 points. The rules are simple, the gameplay is straightforward, and it can even be played remotely!
To setup the game, every player needs a coin and a way to keep track of their score (paper/pencil, notes on a phone, etc.). Every player begins the game with 7 points. To start the game, choose a player to be the first Storyteller. The Storyteller selects a card from the book, reads the three questions on their chosen card, and chooses 1 to answer. The Storyteller then flips their coin – if HEADS, the answer must be a true story, but if TAILS, the answer must be false and untrue in essence. Only the Storyteller knows the result of the coin flip. The Storyteller proceeds to answer the question, telling a story dictated by their coin flip result.
After the Storyteller has told their response to the chosen question, the remaining players will vote (with points) on whether they believe the story was true or false. Players can vote with up to 3 points, and votes are revealed simultaneously. If you believe the story is TRUE, you vote with 1, 2, or 3 fingers pointing UP, and if you believe the story is FALSE, you vote with 1, 2, or 3 fingers pointing DOWN. After everyone has voted, the Storyteller reveals whether the story was true or false, and points are added/deducted accordingly. If a player voted correctly, they add the number of points with which they voted to their score. If they voted incorrectly, subtract the voted points from their score. The Storyteller can earn 1 point for each other player they have fooled, up to a maximum of 3 points per story. After tallying points, choose a new Storyteller and begin again – each player should have a chance to be the Storyteller once before repeating Storytellers. Play continues in this fashion until one player has scored 21 points, and is declared the winner!
At this point in my life, the thing I love about You’re Pulling My Leg! the most is that it can be played remotely. Everybody does not need to have an individual copy of the book to play via video chat or conference call. As long as one person has the book, your group can play! Instead of having each player read their own cards then, the owner of the book reads the cards aloud and the Storyteller chooses their question that way. The only supplies needed, apart from 1 copy of the book, are a coin and a way to track your score. Easy as pie. Another aspect of this game that I really enjoy is that it is pretty light-hearted in nature. Yes, there is an element of deception and bluffing, but it is all done in a light and quirky way. I especially enjoy this because I am a notoriously bad liar, and most bluffing games stress me out. But the ability to choose my question, and then weave a (hopefully) convincing story for my opponents takes some of that pressure off and allows me to really be creative and have fun.
That being said, one tricky thing about this game is that when coming up with a false story, if must be false in essence. You cannot tell a mostly true story with a few trivial details changed. People who have trouble with storytelling or improv-type scenarios might have some difficulty in coming up with an appropriate story for the different questions. Just something to be aware of – you have to be able to come up with a story on the fly, with no hints or help whatsoever. Another tricky, yet usually fun, aspect of this game is that some cards have a Wild feature which can immediately affect someone’s score. For example, one Wild feature might say “Player with the longest hair gains 3 points.” That goes into effect immediately once the card is selected, and can put a fun twist and some good-natured take-that into this storytelling game. The process of voting with points adds an element of strategy as well. How confident are you that someone’s story is TRUE? Are you willing to bet 3 points on it? It’s a balance of risk and reward, and that adds excitement to the game table.
Let me touch on components for a minute. This game is a book, where each page contains 3 cards. You can start at card #1 or select a random page and pick a card there, but there are 225 cards from which to choose! On every other page there is also a blank page titled “Game Highlights,” and this space is for you to write down any particularly hilarious or creative responses someone may have come up with in response to a card. It’s not a game requirement, but just an element of fun for future reminiscence. The quality of the book is pretty good, and I know it is sturdy enough to withstand lots of travel and play.
So all-in-all, I think that You’re Pulling My Leg is a great and light little game to get your creative juices flowing. If you need an ice-breaker for a game night, this would definitely be a great one to get to know your gaming comrades. Is it a game I will pull out at every game night? No. But it is a fun and light-hearted game that I can see myself pulling out with different gaming groups on several occasions. Whether a family reunion, office party, or friend Zoom call, this game is one that will entertain all involved. If you’re looking for something unique, fun, and relatively simple overall, give You’re Pulling My Leg! a shot. It might just open the door to storytelling based games for you!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Darkest Hour (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Not buggering it up.
As Doctor Who repeatedly points out, time is most definitely a tricksy thing. As I think I’ve commented on before, the events of 1940-45 are not in my lifetime but were sufficiently fresh to my parents that they were still actively talked about… so they still appear “current” to me. But I find it astonishing to realize that to a teen viewer this film is equivalent in timeframe to the sinking of the Titanic! #ancienthistory! So I suspect your connection to this film will be strongly affected by your age, and that was definitely reflected in the average age at my showing which must have been at least 60.
It’s 1940 and Western Europe is under siege. Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup, “The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“) is the Conservative Prime Minister but is voted out of office in an attempt to form a grand coalition government with Labour leader Clement Atlee (David Schofield). Despite appearing a shoe-in for the role, Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) turns it down, thinking that his alternative (and bête noire) would drink from the poisoned chalice and be quickly be out of his (and Chamberlain’s) hair. For that alternative choice is the volatile and unpredictable Churchill (Gary Oldman), grudgingly invited into the job by King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“). With the Nazi’s bearing down on the 300,000 encircled troops at Dunkirk, and with calls from his war cabinet to capitulate and seek terms of settlement, this is indeed both Churchill’s, and the country’s, ‘darkest hour’.
Despite the woeful lack of historical knowledge among today’s youngsters, most will be at least aware of the story of Dunkirk, with many having absorbed Christopher Nolan’s film of last summer. This film is almost the matching bookend to that film, showing the terrifying behind-closed-door events that led up to that miracle. For it was terrifying seeing how close Britain came to the brink, and I’m not sure even I really appreciated that before. While this might have been a “thriller” if it had been a fictional story, we well know the outcome of the story: but even with this knowledge I still found the film to be extremely tense and claustrophobic as the net draws in around Churchill’s firmly-held beliefs.
Gary Oldman’s performance is extraordinary, and his award nominations are well-deserved. We have grown so used to some of his more over-the-top Russian portrayals in films like “Air Force One” and last year’s (pretty poor) “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” that it is easy to forget what a nuanced and flexible actor he is. Ever since that “No, surely not!” moment of that first glimpse of the film’s trailer, it has almost been impossible to ‘see’ Oldman behind the brilliant make-up of the character (Kazuhiro Tsuji gets a special credit for it). But his eyes are in there, and there are some extreme close-ups (for example, during a bizarre and tense phone call with Roosevelt (David Strathairn)) when you suddenly see “There you are!”.
The supportive wife – Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas) gives Winston (Gary Oldman) a hug.
While I have nothing against Brian Cox as an actor, I far prefer the portrayal of Churchill on show here compared to last year’s “Churchill“: true that that film was set three or four stressful years later, but Cox’s Churchill was portrayed as an incompetent fool, an embarrassment to the establishment that have to work around him. Oldman’s Churchill is irascible, unreasonable, but undeniably a leader and a great orator.
Mirroring “Churchill” though, the action is seen through the eyes of Churchill’s put-upon secretary, here played delightfully by Lily James (“Downton Abbey”, “Baby Driver“) who perfectly looks and sounds the part. The character is more successful than that of Ella Purnell’s Garrett in that she is given more room to develop her character and for the audience to warm to her. Oldman is getting all the kudos, but Lily James really deserves some for her touching and engaging performance here.
Perfectly cast: Lily James as Churchill’s secretary Elizabeth Layton.
Also in Oldman’s shadow is the always marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “The English Patient”) as Clemmie Churchill, expressing all the love and frustration associated with being a long-suffering wife to an over-worked husband in the public service.
At the pen is “The Theory of Everything” writer Anthony McCarten, and I’d like to say its a great script but with most of the best lines (“a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – LoL) coming from Winston himself it’s difficult to tell. Some of the scenes can get a bit laborious and at 125 minutes – though not long by any means – the script could still perhaps have had a nip and tuck here and there.
Where some of this time is well spent though is in some sedate shots of London street life, across two separate scenes panning across everyday folk as the stresses of war start to become more evident. This is just one of the areas where director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride and Prejudice”) shows considerable panache, ably assisted by the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (“Inside Llewyn Davis“): a boy closes his telescope-fingers around Churchill’s plane; a bomb’s eye-view of the beleaguered Brigadier Nicholson in Calais; and – very impressively – the smoky imperiousness of the House of Commons set.
An atmospheric chamber: the recreation of the wartime House of Commons is spectacular (with production design by Sarah Greenwood (“Anna Karenina”, “Atonement”)).
And most-importantly Wright delivers what Christopher Nolan couldn’t deliver in “Dunkirk“: a properly CGI’d vista of hundred of small boats crossing the channel to Dunkirk. Now THAT is a scene that Kenneth Branagh could justly have looked in awe at!!!
There are a number of scenes that require disbelief to be suspended though: the biggest one being a tube train ride – very moving and effective I must say – but one that features the longest journey between any two stations on the District Line than has ever been experienced!
One stop on the District Line via Westminster…. via Harrow-on-the-Hill!
So this is a great film for really reliving a knife-edge moment in British history, and is highly recommended particularly for older viewers. If I’m honest though, between “Darkest Hour”, “Churchill” and John Lithgow’s excellent portrayal in “The Crown” I’m all over portrayals of the great man for a few years. Can we please move on now Hollywood?
It’s 1940 and Western Europe is under siege. Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup, “The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“) is the Conservative Prime Minister but is voted out of office in an attempt to form a grand coalition government with Labour leader Clement Atlee (David Schofield). Despite appearing a shoe-in for the role, Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) turns it down, thinking that his alternative (and bête noire) would drink from the poisoned chalice and be quickly be out of his (and Chamberlain’s) hair. For that alternative choice is the volatile and unpredictable Churchill (Gary Oldman), grudgingly invited into the job by King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“). With the Nazi’s bearing down on the 300,000 encircled troops at Dunkirk, and with calls from his war cabinet to capitulate and seek terms of settlement, this is indeed both Churchill’s, and the country’s, ‘darkest hour’.
Despite the woeful lack of historical knowledge among today’s youngsters, most will be at least aware of the story of Dunkirk, with many having absorbed Christopher Nolan’s film of last summer. This film is almost the matching bookend to that film, showing the terrifying behind-closed-door events that led up to that miracle. For it was terrifying seeing how close Britain came to the brink, and I’m not sure even I really appreciated that before. While this might have been a “thriller” if it had been a fictional story, we well know the outcome of the story: but even with this knowledge I still found the film to be extremely tense and claustrophobic as the net draws in around Churchill’s firmly-held beliefs.
Gary Oldman’s performance is extraordinary, and his award nominations are well-deserved. We have grown so used to some of his more over-the-top Russian portrayals in films like “Air Force One” and last year’s (pretty poor) “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” that it is easy to forget what a nuanced and flexible actor he is. Ever since that “No, surely not!” moment of that first glimpse of the film’s trailer, it has almost been impossible to ‘see’ Oldman behind the brilliant make-up of the character (Kazuhiro Tsuji gets a special credit for it). But his eyes are in there, and there are some extreme close-ups (for example, during a bizarre and tense phone call with Roosevelt (David Strathairn)) when you suddenly see “There you are!”.
The supportive wife – Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas) gives Winston (Gary Oldman) a hug.
While I have nothing against Brian Cox as an actor, I far prefer the portrayal of Churchill on show here compared to last year’s “Churchill“: true that that film was set three or four stressful years later, but Cox’s Churchill was portrayed as an incompetent fool, an embarrassment to the establishment that have to work around him. Oldman’s Churchill is irascible, unreasonable, but undeniably a leader and a great orator.
Mirroring “Churchill” though, the action is seen through the eyes of Churchill’s put-upon secretary, here played delightfully by Lily James (“Downton Abbey”, “Baby Driver“) who perfectly looks and sounds the part. The character is more successful than that of Ella Purnell’s Garrett in that she is given more room to develop her character and for the audience to warm to her. Oldman is getting all the kudos, but Lily James really deserves some for her touching and engaging performance here.
Perfectly cast: Lily James as Churchill’s secretary Elizabeth Layton.
Also in Oldman’s shadow is the always marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “The English Patient”) as Clemmie Churchill, expressing all the love and frustration associated with being a long-suffering wife to an over-worked husband in the public service.
At the pen is “The Theory of Everything” writer Anthony McCarten, and I’d like to say its a great script but with most of the best lines (“a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – LoL) coming from Winston himself it’s difficult to tell. Some of the scenes can get a bit laborious and at 125 minutes – though not long by any means – the script could still perhaps have had a nip and tuck here and there.
Where some of this time is well spent though is in some sedate shots of London street life, across two separate scenes panning across everyday folk as the stresses of war start to become more evident. This is just one of the areas where director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride and Prejudice”) shows considerable panache, ably assisted by the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (“Inside Llewyn Davis“): a boy closes his telescope-fingers around Churchill’s plane; a bomb’s eye-view of the beleaguered Brigadier Nicholson in Calais; and – very impressively – the smoky imperiousness of the House of Commons set.
An atmospheric chamber: the recreation of the wartime House of Commons is spectacular (with production design by Sarah Greenwood (“Anna Karenina”, “Atonement”)).
And most-importantly Wright delivers what Christopher Nolan couldn’t deliver in “Dunkirk“: a properly CGI’d vista of hundred of small boats crossing the channel to Dunkirk. Now THAT is a scene that Kenneth Branagh could justly have looked in awe at!!!
There are a number of scenes that require disbelief to be suspended though: the biggest one being a tube train ride – very moving and effective I must say – but one that features the longest journey between any two stations on the District Line than has ever been experienced!
One stop on the District Line via Westminster…. via Harrow-on-the-Hill!
So this is a great film for really reliving a knife-edge moment in British history, and is highly recommended particularly for older viewers. If I’m honest though, between “Darkest Hour”, “Churchill” and John Lithgow’s excellent portrayal in “The Crown” I’m all over portrayals of the great man for a few years. Can we please move on now Hollywood?
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Wonder Woman (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“What first attracted you Dr Mann to the movie with the scantily-clad Amazonians?”
Amazonians deliver! And how. The much anticipated new Wonder Woman movie is with us, and for once the film lives up to the wall-to-wall marketing hype.
With a heavy dose of mythology, Diana is growing up as the cossetted daughter of Hippolyta (Connie Nielsen, “Gladiator”), the Queen of the Amazons, on the hidden paradise island of Themyscira. Trained up as a warrior by Hippolyta’s sister, General Antiope (Robin Wright of “House of Cards”), Diana is clearly something special. Her ego is reinforced by the knowledge that she was made of clay with life breathed into her by the God Zeus. It’s enough to turn a girl’s head!
It’s 1917 and the man-free paradise is shaken up when an American spy by the name of Steve Trevor (Chris Pine, “Star Trek: Beyond“) crash-lands in the waters off Themyscira. (And yes… you didn’t mishear me… this film genuinely features a hero with both the names “Steve” and ‘Trevor”). Prince Eric – no, sorry, wrong film – is saved and awakened on the beach by Diana as the others arrive. “Thank God!”, say the Amazonians. “At last, someone to process the 200 year backlog of washing and ironing”!
But Steve (an “above average specimen”, LOL) is not long for paradise as he needs to return to the war with the results of his spy-work: a chemistry book stolen from the gorgeously deformed Dr Maru (Elena Anaya), gas-developer for the evil General Ludendorff (Danny Huston). Seeing Ludendorff to be her God-like nemesis Ares, Diana returns with Steve to the WW1 battlefields with the intent of killing the God of War and so ending the ‘war to end all wars’.
Much ‘fish out of water’ fun is had with Diana meeting civilised London society, although perhaps this section of the film doesn’t quite live up to its full potential: having ice cream for the first time, without any sign of surprise, all she can come up with is an amusing but rather lame “You must be very proud”.
But where the film really accelerates into awesomeness is when Diana reaches ‘The Front’. She emerges from the trenches like some shimmering vision of hotness, to set male and lesbian hearts a flutter. Its the most memorable trench-exit since the finale of “Black Adder 4”, and the subsequent scenes of Diana single-handedly facing the German guns is for me one of the most compelling and enjoyable scenes in any recent DC or Marvel movie.
Holding all this together is the ex-Israeli army-trainer Gal Gadot in the title role. And man oh man, what a Gal! Statuesque, athletic but also sweet, charming and emotionally fragile she completely owns this role from beginning to end. Gadot made a memorable entry in the otherwise poor “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” (#marthagate #neverforget #neverforgive) but nothing prepares you for just how great she is in this outing. In fact, I’ll go as far as saying that this film, although having a UK 12 certificate, is a film of immense danger to heterosexual teenagers of any age (#humor):
All boys will be cast into a lifetime of misery, never able to find a woman that can possibly live up to the impossibly perfect vision of Diana Prince, tearing up the German army with fists and whip!;
All girls WILL BECOME LESBIANS AFTER WATCHING THIS FILM!
Parents: you have been warned! 🙂
Chris Pine – the thinking women’s Chris Pratt – once again proves himself as a talented actor who manages to successfully morph to inhabit the role he plays. Much as he did in the excellent “Hell or High Water“, not once did I equate him to be James Tiberius Kirk after the first 5 minutes.
Effective in supporting roles are David Thewlis (“Harry Potter”) as a ‘helpful’ army bod and an almost unrecognisable Lucy Davis (“The Office”) as Etta, Steve’s comedic secretary. Steve’s rather unlikely sidekicks of Sameer (Said Taghmaoui, “American Hustle“), Charlie (Ewen Bremner, “Trainspotting”) and ‘The Chief’ (Eugene Brave Rock “The Revenant“) all rather fade into the woodwork by comparison.
I saw the film in 3D (“careful now… you could take an eye out with those things”) and very good it was too. Aside from some rather unnecessary Amazonian arrows, its never feels overdone, and elements of it were extremely effective.
Another star of the show is the superb Wonder Woman theme by Hans Zimmer, here rolled out by the film’s composer Rupert Gregson-Williams (“Hacksaw Ridge“). Unfortunately, the rest of the soundtrack is not particularly memorable.
The film shifts into more traditional yawn-worthy ‘superhero finale’ mode in the last twenty minutes, which is a bit of a shame. It’s also really curious that for such a sexually charged film there is an almost complete absence of ‘lurrve’ on show. The one love scene coquettishly fades to a view of the outside window. Was this to protect the film’s family friendly rating (probably) or that the director didn’t want to show her heroine in a remotely submissive position (possibly)? More frustratingly, the morning after there is no mention of it at all! (“Move along, nothing to see here”). I at least wanted some sort of recognition that a human/God liaison had taken place: Steve grimacing a bit when he sits down; or Diana on the blower to Themyscira saying “Yes, you were right Mum. 5 minutes in, and it just snapped clean off!”
I know my friend David Moody (of markanddave vblog fame, and a big DC/Marvel fan) was generally disappointed with the film. Conversely, Amy Andrews from the ever-excellent Oh That Film Blog loved it. I’m with Amy on this one, and greatly enjoyed it as a well-constructed action rollercoaster. The nearly two and a half hours sped by. By the way (and I took one for the team here) there is no “monkey” at the end of the film’s credit to hang on for.
Patty Jenkins (“Monster”) directs and knows the audience she is aiming to please. One can only imagine the empowering impact this film will have on young girls, crossing their wrists to ‘THAT’ music and, in their imagination, casting terrorists into the hell that they should be consigned to. In this week of yet more Isis atrocity in London, Wonder Woman is a role-model we could all stand and salute: “I believe in love” too.
With a heavy dose of mythology, Diana is growing up as the cossetted daughter of Hippolyta (Connie Nielsen, “Gladiator”), the Queen of the Amazons, on the hidden paradise island of Themyscira. Trained up as a warrior by Hippolyta’s sister, General Antiope (Robin Wright of “House of Cards”), Diana is clearly something special. Her ego is reinforced by the knowledge that she was made of clay with life breathed into her by the God Zeus. It’s enough to turn a girl’s head!
It’s 1917 and the man-free paradise is shaken up when an American spy by the name of Steve Trevor (Chris Pine, “Star Trek: Beyond“) crash-lands in the waters off Themyscira. (And yes… you didn’t mishear me… this film genuinely features a hero with both the names “Steve” and ‘Trevor”). Prince Eric – no, sorry, wrong film – is saved and awakened on the beach by Diana as the others arrive. “Thank God!”, say the Amazonians. “At last, someone to process the 200 year backlog of washing and ironing”!
But Steve (an “above average specimen”, LOL) is not long for paradise as he needs to return to the war with the results of his spy-work: a chemistry book stolen from the gorgeously deformed Dr Maru (Elena Anaya), gas-developer for the evil General Ludendorff (Danny Huston). Seeing Ludendorff to be her God-like nemesis Ares, Diana returns with Steve to the WW1 battlefields with the intent of killing the God of War and so ending the ‘war to end all wars’.
Much ‘fish out of water’ fun is had with Diana meeting civilised London society, although perhaps this section of the film doesn’t quite live up to its full potential: having ice cream for the first time, without any sign of surprise, all she can come up with is an amusing but rather lame “You must be very proud”.
But where the film really accelerates into awesomeness is when Diana reaches ‘The Front’. She emerges from the trenches like some shimmering vision of hotness, to set male and lesbian hearts a flutter. Its the most memorable trench-exit since the finale of “Black Adder 4”, and the subsequent scenes of Diana single-handedly facing the German guns is for me one of the most compelling and enjoyable scenes in any recent DC or Marvel movie.
Holding all this together is the ex-Israeli army-trainer Gal Gadot in the title role. And man oh man, what a Gal! Statuesque, athletic but also sweet, charming and emotionally fragile she completely owns this role from beginning to end. Gadot made a memorable entry in the otherwise poor “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” (#marthagate #neverforget #neverforgive) but nothing prepares you for just how great she is in this outing. In fact, I’ll go as far as saying that this film, although having a UK 12 certificate, is a film of immense danger to heterosexual teenagers of any age (#humor):
All boys will be cast into a lifetime of misery, never able to find a woman that can possibly live up to the impossibly perfect vision of Diana Prince, tearing up the German army with fists and whip!;
All girls WILL BECOME LESBIANS AFTER WATCHING THIS FILM!
Parents: you have been warned! 🙂
Chris Pine – the thinking women’s Chris Pratt – once again proves himself as a talented actor who manages to successfully morph to inhabit the role he plays. Much as he did in the excellent “Hell or High Water“, not once did I equate him to be James Tiberius Kirk after the first 5 minutes.
Effective in supporting roles are David Thewlis (“Harry Potter”) as a ‘helpful’ army bod and an almost unrecognisable Lucy Davis (“The Office”) as Etta, Steve’s comedic secretary. Steve’s rather unlikely sidekicks of Sameer (Said Taghmaoui, “American Hustle“), Charlie (Ewen Bremner, “Trainspotting”) and ‘The Chief’ (Eugene Brave Rock “The Revenant“) all rather fade into the woodwork by comparison.
I saw the film in 3D (“careful now… you could take an eye out with those things”) and very good it was too. Aside from some rather unnecessary Amazonian arrows, its never feels overdone, and elements of it were extremely effective.
Another star of the show is the superb Wonder Woman theme by Hans Zimmer, here rolled out by the film’s composer Rupert Gregson-Williams (“Hacksaw Ridge“). Unfortunately, the rest of the soundtrack is not particularly memorable.
The film shifts into more traditional yawn-worthy ‘superhero finale’ mode in the last twenty minutes, which is a bit of a shame. It’s also really curious that for such a sexually charged film there is an almost complete absence of ‘lurrve’ on show. The one love scene coquettishly fades to a view of the outside window. Was this to protect the film’s family friendly rating (probably) or that the director didn’t want to show her heroine in a remotely submissive position (possibly)? More frustratingly, the morning after there is no mention of it at all! (“Move along, nothing to see here”). I at least wanted some sort of recognition that a human/God liaison had taken place: Steve grimacing a bit when he sits down; or Diana on the blower to Themyscira saying “Yes, you were right Mum. 5 minutes in, and it just snapped clean off!”
I know my friend David Moody (of markanddave vblog fame, and a big DC/Marvel fan) was generally disappointed with the film. Conversely, Amy Andrews from the ever-excellent Oh That Film Blog loved it. I’m with Amy on this one, and greatly enjoyed it as a well-constructed action rollercoaster. The nearly two and a half hours sped by. By the way (and I took one for the team here) there is no “monkey” at the end of the film’s credit to hang on for.
Patty Jenkins (“Monster”) directs and knows the audience she is aiming to please. One can only imagine the empowering impact this film will have on young girls, crossing their wrists to ‘THAT’ music and, in their imagination, casting terrorists into the hell that they should be consigned to. In this week of yet more Isis atrocity in London, Wonder Woman is a role-model we could all stand and salute: “I believe in love” too.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated King Kong (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Following up the box office and Oscar success of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy is an undertaking that is sure to have its dangers. Expectations of the fans notwithstanding, the ability to recapture the magic of the trilogy could be akin to capturing lightning in a bottle. When it was announced that Peter Jackson would follow his Oscar success by doing yet another adaptation of King Kong, there were plenty of questions amidst the excitement.
When an earlier remake was a critical and commercial bomb, “Would Jackson be able to do justice to one of the all time classics?” was one of the biggest questions. When it was announced that comedian Jack Black would be in the film, people began to wonder what Jackson had brewing. Black, as well as Academy Award winner Adrian Brody were seen as offbeat choices. As the release date for the film neared, so did speculation over the look of the film, the running time, and its decision to follow the screenplay of the original rather than adapt to a modern setting.
The film follows a filmmaker named Carl Denham (Jack Black), who in an act of desperation flees New York for a mysterious and uncharted island in an attempt to finish his latest movie before the studio can shut him down. Amidst the backdrop of the Great Depression, it is clear that Denham knows that failure now could be the end of his livelihood and his long term future. As he embarks on his fly by night production, Denham encounters Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts), a recently unemployed Vaudeville performer who is enticed into the film in the hopes of meeting its writer Jack Driscoll (Adrian Brody). It seems that Ann has long coveted a part in Driscoll’s plays and hopes that by meeting him, she will obtain her long sought after audition.
With the cops and studio hot on their heels, the cast and crew board a tramp steamer named “The Venture” as they set off for the mysterious island that is known only to Denham via a mysterious map he obtained through methods unknown.
As the voyage unwinds, not only does Denham get the chance to film segments of the film, but Ann and a stranded Jack find themselves becoming an item. Jack is inspired by Ann, and he works like a man inspired turning out page after page of material for various projects which he hopes Ann will star.
Eventually the ship finds its way to the mysterious Skull Island surrounded in fog, and the crew venture ashore to take in the bizarre and exotic land that has previously been unexplored. Upon finding a fortified wall and settlement the crew has a run in with some dangerous natives which in turn leads to Ann being kidnapped and offered up sacrificial style to a gigantic creature the Islanders refer to as Kong. Undaunted, Jack and the crew set off to rescue Ann while Denham shoots footage along the way, as the island offers visuals the likes of which have never been seen by mankind.
Along the way, the crew encounters deadly creatures and obstacles at every turn, as does Ann who plays a dangerous game of cat and mouse with Kong as she comes to grips with her situation. Kong is taken with the lovely Ann and protects her against numerous dangers including a pack of Tyrannosauruses in one of the film’s best action sequences.
Of course few will be surprised at the final act of the film so I will leave it to say that the fish out of water nature of the previous versions remains intact as Kong finds himself dealing with an urban jungle which leads to a spectacular finale atop the Empire State Building.
In many ways Jackson’s film is three separate films. The first hour of the film is an interesting and, at times witty, character piece where the lead characters assemble. The look of the city is amazing, making it very clear that enormous amounts of effort went into crafting the look of Depression Era New York, and to remind the audience that Prohibition was also in effect. The interplay between the characters is decent.Black does standout work as the slick Denham, as does Watts as the wholesome and lovable Ann.
The second hour of the film is the special effects showcase where the mysteries of Skull Island and Kong are shown complete with all manner of CGI creatures and action sequences. While most of them are well staged, I could not help but note that on more than one occasion the CGI backdrops did not match up well with their live action counterparts. There is one scene of a stampede where it looked like the actors had been drawn in and that they were running in place as they clearly did not mesh with the spectacle behind them.
Throughout the film this occurrence happened more and more which really had me wondering if the effects house was overtaxed. A film with a budget reportedly over 100 million should not have these technical issues. Thankfully Kong himself is a wonder, with everything from his expressive eyes and facial features, captured in a remarkable way. It is just a shame that the other effects did not get the same treatment as the films namesake, as he truly is a site to behold. Andy Serkis who did the character mannerisms for the animators program did a phenomenal job. The movements of Kong progress with a strength and agility that bellies a simian rather than a skilled performer.
I do not want it to sound as if I did not enjoy the film, as much of the film worked very well, technical issues aside. What my biggest issue with the film was that at over 3 Hours, it was far too long for the material to support. We get numerous scenes of Ann and Kong flirting, bonding, fighting, running, and more. What is cute the first couple of times becomes dull the more it is repeated. It is obvious that they have a bond; we do not need to see it over and over ad nauseum to get the message. Also, the character development and interplay between the characters that was so effective in the first part of the film all but vanishes amidst the effects.
The finale of the film is a rousing success as the daring visuals and camera angles are very inventive and thrilling. This segment with its fury of motion and sound will have viewers on the edge of their seat as it certainly delivers the goods. The biggest issue again is having to sit through three hours to get to it. Anyone who has seen either version of Kong knows exactly where the film is heading, and after two hours of screen time I found myself wishing they would just hurry up and get to it.
Jackson has crafted a very entertaining and lavish film that packs its share of thrills. What the film needed is someone to reign in Jackson and his boundless enthusiasm for the project to remind him that sometimes less is more. Jackson has said that he had over 4 hours worth of material filmed but trimmed it down to its current running time. When the film is almost twice the running time of the original, I found myself thinking that minus 45 minutes the same story could have been told.
Despite the flaws and the hype, King Kong is a solid film that for me was more satisfying in many ways than any of the “Rings” films. While not quite a masterpiece, this Kong is worthy of the name and pedigree of the timeless original that inspired it.
When an earlier remake was a critical and commercial bomb, “Would Jackson be able to do justice to one of the all time classics?” was one of the biggest questions. When it was announced that comedian Jack Black would be in the film, people began to wonder what Jackson had brewing. Black, as well as Academy Award winner Adrian Brody were seen as offbeat choices. As the release date for the film neared, so did speculation over the look of the film, the running time, and its decision to follow the screenplay of the original rather than adapt to a modern setting.
The film follows a filmmaker named Carl Denham (Jack Black), who in an act of desperation flees New York for a mysterious and uncharted island in an attempt to finish his latest movie before the studio can shut him down. Amidst the backdrop of the Great Depression, it is clear that Denham knows that failure now could be the end of his livelihood and his long term future. As he embarks on his fly by night production, Denham encounters Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts), a recently unemployed Vaudeville performer who is enticed into the film in the hopes of meeting its writer Jack Driscoll (Adrian Brody). It seems that Ann has long coveted a part in Driscoll’s plays and hopes that by meeting him, she will obtain her long sought after audition.
With the cops and studio hot on their heels, the cast and crew board a tramp steamer named “The Venture” as they set off for the mysterious island that is known only to Denham via a mysterious map he obtained through methods unknown.
As the voyage unwinds, not only does Denham get the chance to film segments of the film, but Ann and a stranded Jack find themselves becoming an item. Jack is inspired by Ann, and he works like a man inspired turning out page after page of material for various projects which he hopes Ann will star.
Eventually the ship finds its way to the mysterious Skull Island surrounded in fog, and the crew venture ashore to take in the bizarre and exotic land that has previously been unexplored. Upon finding a fortified wall and settlement the crew has a run in with some dangerous natives which in turn leads to Ann being kidnapped and offered up sacrificial style to a gigantic creature the Islanders refer to as Kong. Undaunted, Jack and the crew set off to rescue Ann while Denham shoots footage along the way, as the island offers visuals the likes of which have never been seen by mankind.
Along the way, the crew encounters deadly creatures and obstacles at every turn, as does Ann who plays a dangerous game of cat and mouse with Kong as she comes to grips with her situation. Kong is taken with the lovely Ann and protects her against numerous dangers including a pack of Tyrannosauruses in one of the film’s best action sequences.
Of course few will be surprised at the final act of the film so I will leave it to say that the fish out of water nature of the previous versions remains intact as Kong finds himself dealing with an urban jungle which leads to a spectacular finale atop the Empire State Building.
In many ways Jackson’s film is three separate films. The first hour of the film is an interesting and, at times witty, character piece where the lead characters assemble. The look of the city is amazing, making it very clear that enormous amounts of effort went into crafting the look of Depression Era New York, and to remind the audience that Prohibition was also in effect. The interplay between the characters is decent.Black does standout work as the slick Denham, as does Watts as the wholesome and lovable Ann.
The second hour of the film is the special effects showcase where the mysteries of Skull Island and Kong are shown complete with all manner of CGI creatures and action sequences. While most of them are well staged, I could not help but note that on more than one occasion the CGI backdrops did not match up well with their live action counterparts. There is one scene of a stampede where it looked like the actors had been drawn in and that they were running in place as they clearly did not mesh with the spectacle behind them.
Throughout the film this occurrence happened more and more which really had me wondering if the effects house was overtaxed. A film with a budget reportedly over 100 million should not have these technical issues. Thankfully Kong himself is a wonder, with everything from his expressive eyes and facial features, captured in a remarkable way. It is just a shame that the other effects did not get the same treatment as the films namesake, as he truly is a site to behold. Andy Serkis who did the character mannerisms for the animators program did a phenomenal job. The movements of Kong progress with a strength and agility that bellies a simian rather than a skilled performer.
I do not want it to sound as if I did not enjoy the film, as much of the film worked very well, technical issues aside. What my biggest issue with the film was that at over 3 Hours, it was far too long for the material to support. We get numerous scenes of Ann and Kong flirting, bonding, fighting, running, and more. What is cute the first couple of times becomes dull the more it is repeated. It is obvious that they have a bond; we do not need to see it over and over ad nauseum to get the message. Also, the character development and interplay between the characters that was so effective in the first part of the film all but vanishes amidst the effects.
The finale of the film is a rousing success as the daring visuals and camera angles are very inventive and thrilling. This segment with its fury of motion and sound will have viewers on the edge of their seat as it certainly delivers the goods. The biggest issue again is having to sit through three hours to get to it. Anyone who has seen either version of Kong knows exactly where the film is heading, and after two hours of screen time I found myself wishing they would just hurry up and get to it.
Jackson has crafted a very entertaining and lavish film that packs its share of thrills. What the film needed is someone to reign in Jackson and his boundless enthusiasm for the project to remind him that sometimes less is more. Jackson has said that he had over 4 hours worth of material filmed but trimmed it down to its current running time. When the film is almost twice the running time of the original, I found myself thinking that minus 45 minutes the same story could have been told.
Despite the flaws and the hype, King Kong is a solid film that for me was more satisfying in many ways than any of the “Rings” films. While not quite a masterpiece, this Kong is worthy of the name and pedigree of the timeless original that inspired it.