Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bad Times at the El Royale (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Why is everyone not raving about this movie?
Imagine a ménage à trois of Agatha Christie, Alfred Hitchcock and Quentin Tarantino at the Overlook Hotel with a banging 60’s soundtrack. Got that unpleasant vision in your mind? Good! You’re halfway there to getting the feel of “Bad Times at the El Royale”. And they really are bad times!
The Plot
It’s 1969 and an oddball set of characters arrive at the faded glory of the El Royale hotel at Lake Tahoe: “a bi-state establishment” straddling the Nevada/California border: so describes the manager-cum-bellhop-cum-bartender-cum-cleaner Miles Miller (Lewis Pullman, soon to appear as Maverick in the “Top Gun” sequel). The motley crew include Laramie Seymour Sullivan, a vacuum cleaner salesman (Jon Hamm); Father Daniel Flynn, an oddly-acting priest (Jeff Bridges); Darlene Sweet, a struggling Motown-style singer (Cynthia Erivo); and Emily Summerspring, a rude and abrupt hippy-chick with attitude (Dakota Johnson). But noone is quite who they seem and their twisted and convoluted lives combine in a memorable night of surprise and violence at the El Royale.
The turns
I’ve often expressed my admiration for the Screen Actor’s Guild Awards and their category of “Best Ensemble Cast”: at a time when there are controversial suggestions of additions to the Oscars, this is one I would like to see (along with a “Best Stunt Team” award that I’ve previously lobbied for). And here is my second serious candidate for the “Best Ensemble Cast” Oscar in 2018, my first being “Three Billboards in Ebbing, Missouri” (which in their books would count as 2017 anyway!) Everyone really works hard on this film and the larger than life characters suck you into the story because of the quality and intensity of their performances.
Out in front of the pack are the simply brilliant Jeff Bridges and Cynthia Erivo, an actress new to me who has a great voice and made a big impression. Scenes between the pair are just electric. Jon Hamm is as quirkily great as ever and Dakota “not Fanning” Johnson is far better in this film than any recent stuff I’ve seen her in. Another standout was another newcomer to me – young Cailee Spaeny as Rose, looking for all the world in some scenes like a young Carey Mulligan. While we’re on lookalikes, Lewis Pullman (best known to me for “Battle of the Sexes“) looks very like Tom Holland in some scenes.
The Review
I found this film to be just enormously entertaining. It is very Tarantino-esque in its claustrophobic nature (compare it with “The Hateful 8” in that respect) and with its quirky episodic flash cards (compare with “Pulp Fiction” or “Kill Bill”) but for me was much more appetising since – although very violent – it never stooped to the queasy “blow your face off” excesses of Tarantino, that I personally find distasteful. Where it apes Hitchcock is in its intricate plotting: the story regularly throws you off-balance with some genuinely surprising twists and turns that you never see coming. And the interesting time-splicing and flashbacks also keep you on your mental toes. To say any more or to give any examples would be a spoilerish crime, so I will refrain. This is a dish best served cold (so avoid the trailer if you can).
The film has a marvellous sense of place and time and key to establishing that is some superb set design; some brilliant costumes; and – most of all – an exquisitely chosen song catalogue. The great Michael Giacchino is behind the music, and he does a truly fabulous job, not just with the song selection but also with the background music. This never seems to intrude noticeably until the end titles, when you realise it’s been insistently working on you all the time: the best sort of soundtrack.
There are some films that make you marvel how someone sat at a keyboard and got a screenplay down on paper so satisfyingly. While it could be accused of aping Tarantino somewhat, for me this is still one such film. The writer/director Drew Goddard has come from the J.J. Abrams stable of “Alias” and “Lost”, and has previously written the great screenplays for films including “Cloverfield”, “The Martian” and “World War Z“. His only previous directorial feature was “The Cabin in the Woods” (which I’ve not seen), but after this he is definitely on my movie radar: his next film will be “X-force”: a “Deadpool 2” follow-on with Ryan Reynolds, Josh Brolin and Zazie Beetz, and I can’t wait to see that.
If there’s a criticism it’s that at 141 minutes its a tad long. It never to me felt like a film that long, such was the entertainment value, but while I just loved the development of character just a few of the scenes felt a little leisurely and superfluous. Trim 10 minutes off the running time – no more – and it might have felt tighter still.
I didn’t mention one star name in “The Turns” section, and that’s Chris Hemsworth. He actually does a great job in his demanding Messianic role of Billy Lee, but I just had trouble equating the “Thor” star as being “all kinds of bad”: this felt like a slight misstep in the casting to me.
Summary
This film is without a doubt going to storm into my Top 10 for the year. It’s an entertaining delight, full of twists, turns, deliciously wordy dialogue and a satisfyingly open ending. I can’t believe this film hasn’t been top billing in multiplexes up and down the country for WEEKS on end. If you get the chance, my advice would be to seek this out before it disappears.
The Plot
It’s 1969 and an oddball set of characters arrive at the faded glory of the El Royale hotel at Lake Tahoe: “a bi-state establishment” straddling the Nevada/California border: so describes the manager-cum-bellhop-cum-bartender-cum-cleaner Miles Miller (Lewis Pullman, soon to appear as Maverick in the “Top Gun” sequel). The motley crew include Laramie Seymour Sullivan, a vacuum cleaner salesman (Jon Hamm); Father Daniel Flynn, an oddly-acting priest (Jeff Bridges); Darlene Sweet, a struggling Motown-style singer (Cynthia Erivo); and Emily Summerspring, a rude and abrupt hippy-chick with attitude (Dakota Johnson). But noone is quite who they seem and their twisted and convoluted lives combine in a memorable night of surprise and violence at the El Royale.
The turns
I’ve often expressed my admiration for the Screen Actor’s Guild Awards and their category of “Best Ensemble Cast”: at a time when there are controversial suggestions of additions to the Oscars, this is one I would like to see (along with a “Best Stunt Team” award that I’ve previously lobbied for). And here is my second serious candidate for the “Best Ensemble Cast” Oscar in 2018, my first being “Three Billboards in Ebbing, Missouri” (which in their books would count as 2017 anyway!) Everyone really works hard on this film and the larger than life characters suck you into the story because of the quality and intensity of their performances.
Out in front of the pack are the simply brilliant Jeff Bridges and Cynthia Erivo, an actress new to me who has a great voice and made a big impression. Scenes between the pair are just electric. Jon Hamm is as quirkily great as ever and Dakota “not Fanning” Johnson is far better in this film than any recent stuff I’ve seen her in. Another standout was another newcomer to me – young Cailee Spaeny as Rose, looking for all the world in some scenes like a young Carey Mulligan. While we’re on lookalikes, Lewis Pullman (best known to me for “Battle of the Sexes“) looks very like Tom Holland in some scenes.
The Review
I found this film to be just enormously entertaining. It is very Tarantino-esque in its claustrophobic nature (compare it with “The Hateful 8” in that respect) and with its quirky episodic flash cards (compare with “Pulp Fiction” or “Kill Bill”) but for me was much more appetising since – although very violent – it never stooped to the queasy “blow your face off” excesses of Tarantino, that I personally find distasteful. Where it apes Hitchcock is in its intricate plotting: the story regularly throws you off-balance with some genuinely surprising twists and turns that you never see coming. And the interesting time-splicing and flashbacks also keep you on your mental toes. To say any more or to give any examples would be a spoilerish crime, so I will refrain. This is a dish best served cold (so avoid the trailer if you can).
The film has a marvellous sense of place and time and key to establishing that is some superb set design; some brilliant costumes; and – most of all – an exquisitely chosen song catalogue. The great Michael Giacchino is behind the music, and he does a truly fabulous job, not just with the song selection but also with the background music. This never seems to intrude noticeably until the end titles, when you realise it’s been insistently working on you all the time: the best sort of soundtrack.
There are some films that make you marvel how someone sat at a keyboard and got a screenplay down on paper so satisfyingly. While it could be accused of aping Tarantino somewhat, for me this is still one such film. The writer/director Drew Goddard has come from the J.J. Abrams stable of “Alias” and “Lost”, and has previously written the great screenplays for films including “Cloverfield”, “The Martian” and “World War Z“. His only previous directorial feature was “The Cabin in the Woods” (which I’ve not seen), but after this he is definitely on my movie radar: his next film will be “X-force”: a “Deadpool 2” follow-on with Ryan Reynolds, Josh Brolin and Zazie Beetz, and I can’t wait to see that.
If there’s a criticism it’s that at 141 minutes its a tad long. It never to me felt like a film that long, such was the entertainment value, but while I just loved the development of character just a few of the scenes felt a little leisurely and superfluous. Trim 10 minutes off the running time – no more – and it might have felt tighter still.
I didn’t mention one star name in “The Turns” section, and that’s Chris Hemsworth. He actually does a great job in his demanding Messianic role of Billy Lee, but I just had trouble equating the “Thor” star as being “all kinds of bad”: this felt like a slight misstep in the casting to me.
Summary
This film is without a doubt going to storm into my Top 10 for the year. It’s an entertaining delight, full of twists, turns, deliciously wordy dialogue and a satisfyingly open ending. I can’t believe this film hasn’t been top billing in multiplexes up and down the country for WEEKS on end. If you get the chance, my advice would be to seek this out before it disappears.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Mandalorian in TV
Jan 22, 2021 (Updated Jan 22, 2021)
Being a child of Star Wars, born in ’73, whose first memory of a cinema was A New Hope in ’77, of course the entire franchise is still close to my heart. I am no superfan, however. I do not need to remember every name of every character, or know the obscure names of planets to enjoy it. I remember that deeply competitive nature back in the playground – how important it was to prove Star Wars was yours by knowing more than any other kid! Fortunately I managed to let that go shortly after The Return of the Jedi. Ok, maybe 1995.
The Mandalorian is definitely for all Star Wars fans, but it is mostly for the kids that never grew up and need those details of “the canonical Star Wars” universe in their lives. And there are plenty of them. It is a geek’s wet dream! With chat rooms and fan sites going wild in debate and argument over the smallest of Easter eggs and hints to connections across the medium. As if this is a lost historical document that sheds light on the truth of many characters and events, that until now were shrouded in darkness and speculation only.
I find that phenomenon weird and a little creepy, but I do appreciate where it comes from. For me, I am merely glad it isn’t crap. It is nice to be in the Star Wars universe without holding your face in your hands for shame of lazy storytelling and moments that shit on the spirit of the original trilogy. The first thing that pleased me about The Mandolorian is how close it is in feel to the old school trilogy. In fact it surprised me, because, despite the very modern effects and full budget of Disney behind it, it feels very old fashioned, like a TV show from around 1986, maybe. And I wonder how they have achieved that every time I watch it. It has an intangible magic about it.
In fact, the feel of the show as a whole is often a little cheap, shockingly – the posters and toys and all associated media is as glossy and crisp as all money can afford, creating an image of the show that isn’t actually what the show is. In reality it is a cross between old spaghetti westerns, with The Mandalorian cast as The Man With No Name, and episodes of The A-Team or Knightrider. I kinda like it; very nostalgic, and a smart move by Jon Favreau and the other show-runners. It appeals to middle aged audiences and new alike, because it is a knowing hybrid of all things cool and nerdy!
Design-wise, the look of The Mandalorian himself is perfect fan bait and very cool. The music goes a long way to drawing you in – Ludwig Göransson, known for his work on Black Panther and Tenet, has hit on a career defining theme that blends Clint Eastwood and Star Wars in perfect harmony. I can’t imagine the show working half as well without that theme music! The spaceships and detail of every alien and weapon and costume is meticulous (if at times a little wobbly or cheap looking), and the wider feel of background and tertiary characters is pretty damn good.
But, let’s face it… The Mandalorian is the success it has been predominantly for one reason. I could give him his real name, but if you haven’t finished it yet that would count as a huge spoiler, so I will refer to him as The Child. The temptation to use the phrase Baby Yoda is hard to resist, and has been a cultural phenomenon that only comes along once or twice in a decade, but on this I agree with the fans: it is inaccurate and misleading. The Child is fine. It’ll do until you learn his true moniker.
In season one, where the build up of story, character and mystery is superb, we see very little of The Child at first. But we cannot take our eyes off him for every second he is on screen. The whole concept is so beyond cute and incredibly strong as a hook for a Star Wars story it is almost impossible not to squeal out loud at everything he does. Who is he? Why is he? What is he capable of? How will he fit in to the longterm idea for the story? So exciting, and total genius to keep everyone watching.
It isn’t all about The Child on his own though. It is about the unlikely symbiotic bond, like father and son, that develops between the tiny, vulnerable and childlike focal point, and the increasingly confident and loyal antihero, who will stop at nothing to protect his ward, as he struggles to find his own place in the universe. After a very short time, we care more about this relationship than 90% of all romances in all of TV history.
Through danger, mayhem and a touch of comedy, we grow to adore the two of them together, and can’t bear to think of them being apart. Some trick when you realise The Child is as much a mini-muppet style prosthetic as it is added CGI for expression and detail. Perhaps another callback to our 80s sensibilities, when we accepted ETs and Gremlins and all of the residents of Mos Eisley’s cantina as real without hesitation. It doesn’t have to look real, is the point, as long as it fits the story, is cool and is fun! Which The Child totally is – for entertainment value they have got the tone of the show so right.
What doesn’t hold up that strongly to critical scrutiny though is quite a lot of the scripts, the repetitive nature of the context of many episodes and missions the duo find themselves on, the mismatch quality of the guest directors abilities, and quite a lot of the dodgy acting by supporting characters. It’s as if at some production meeting at one early point they all said, look it’s Star Wars, we make the aliens and the spaceships and the weapons look good and we can’t fail… plus we have The Child and Boba Fett’s (yes, I know) armour, we can’t fail!
The basic storyline is enough to hook it on, just about, it is the detail that sometimes feels weak and lazy. But don’t worry, any minute something cool to look at and a big fight will happen, so we’re all good! I’m sure Pedro Pascal (the actor under the armour) can’t believe his luck! He is one of the biggest stars in TV all of a sudden, for basically doing a fairly monotone voice-over performance of some seriously dodgy dialogue. That is the magic of Star Wars.
So, I came to season one late, having no access at that time to Disney plus. In fact, I watched all of season one in a day the day before the launch of season two, so the switch to a new episode to look forward to suited me well. It gave me something to look forward to on a Friday between Halloween and Christmas. Trouble was that, although still having fun with the exploits of The Kid, I was starting to weary of the plotlines, and put my viewing on hold after S2E4 in favour of the far superior scripting of His Dark Materials on BBC.
I must have needed the hiatus, because when I came back to mop it up and finish season two a few days ago I realised that I had in fact missed it. It also helped that episode 5 onwards is when the season gets really good again. Rosario Dawson as Ashoka Tano (known well by fans of The Clone Wars) was a truly great addition that the show much needed by that point.
I had no trouble after that in bingeing to the end. You could feel a climax and a revelation coming, and although the character of Moff Gideon (Giancarlo Esposito) crumbled disappointly away into nothing much, the last 15 minutes of the final episode had me slack jawed in fan wonderment. I felt 9 years old again, and I loved it! I had been amazingly lucky not to stumble upon spoilers, I guess. Amazing ending, and all faults forgiven for that unforgettable moment and feel. Wonderful stuff!
To say any more, again, is to spoil. So, let’s just talk about it privately, or, you know, in about a year when season 3 is over and it is old news. Hmmm, season 3…? I wonder where they will take that now…? Actually, properly exciting, in a back in the playground kind of way.
The Mandalorian is definitely for all Star Wars fans, but it is mostly for the kids that never grew up and need those details of “the canonical Star Wars” universe in their lives. And there are plenty of them. It is a geek’s wet dream! With chat rooms and fan sites going wild in debate and argument over the smallest of Easter eggs and hints to connections across the medium. As if this is a lost historical document that sheds light on the truth of many characters and events, that until now were shrouded in darkness and speculation only.
I find that phenomenon weird and a little creepy, but I do appreciate where it comes from. For me, I am merely glad it isn’t crap. It is nice to be in the Star Wars universe without holding your face in your hands for shame of lazy storytelling and moments that shit on the spirit of the original trilogy. The first thing that pleased me about The Mandolorian is how close it is in feel to the old school trilogy. In fact it surprised me, because, despite the very modern effects and full budget of Disney behind it, it feels very old fashioned, like a TV show from around 1986, maybe. And I wonder how they have achieved that every time I watch it. It has an intangible magic about it.
In fact, the feel of the show as a whole is often a little cheap, shockingly – the posters and toys and all associated media is as glossy and crisp as all money can afford, creating an image of the show that isn’t actually what the show is. In reality it is a cross between old spaghetti westerns, with The Mandalorian cast as The Man With No Name, and episodes of The A-Team or Knightrider. I kinda like it; very nostalgic, and a smart move by Jon Favreau and the other show-runners. It appeals to middle aged audiences and new alike, because it is a knowing hybrid of all things cool and nerdy!
Design-wise, the look of The Mandalorian himself is perfect fan bait and very cool. The music goes a long way to drawing you in – Ludwig Göransson, known for his work on Black Panther and Tenet, has hit on a career defining theme that blends Clint Eastwood and Star Wars in perfect harmony. I can’t imagine the show working half as well without that theme music! The spaceships and detail of every alien and weapon and costume is meticulous (if at times a little wobbly or cheap looking), and the wider feel of background and tertiary characters is pretty damn good.
But, let’s face it… The Mandalorian is the success it has been predominantly for one reason. I could give him his real name, but if you haven’t finished it yet that would count as a huge spoiler, so I will refer to him as The Child. The temptation to use the phrase Baby Yoda is hard to resist, and has been a cultural phenomenon that only comes along once or twice in a decade, but on this I agree with the fans: it is inaccurate and misleading. The Child is fine. It’ll do until you learn his true moniker.
In season one, where the build up of story, character and mystery is superb, we see very little of The Child at first. But we cannot take our eyes off him for every second he is on screen. The whole concept is so beyond cute and incredibly strong as a hook for a Star Wars story it is almost impossible not to squeal out loud at everything he does. Who is he? Why is he? What is he capable of? How will he fit in to the longterm idea for the story? So exciting, and total genius to keep everyone watching.
It isn’t all about The Child on his own though. It is about the unlikely symbiotic bond, like father and son, that develops between the tiny, vulnerable and childlike focal point, and the increasingly confident and loyal antihero, who will stop at nothing to protect his ward, as he struggles to find his own place in the universe. After a very short time, we care more about this relationship than 90% of all romances in all of TV history.
Through danger, mayhem and a touch of comedy, we grow to adore the two of them together, and can’t bear to think of them being apart. Some trick when you realise The Child is as much a mini-muppet style prosthetic as it is added CGI for expression and detail. Perhaps another callback to our 80s sensibilities, when we accepted ETs and Gremlins and all of the residents of Mos Eisley’s cantina as real without hesitation. It doesn’t have to look real, is the point, as long as it fits the story, is cool and is fun! Which The Child totally is – for entertainment value they have got the tone of the show so right.
What doesn’t hold up that strongly to critical scrutiny though is quite a lot of the scripts, the repetitive nature of the context of many episodes and missions the duo find themselves on, the mismatch quality of the guest directors abilities, and quite a lot of the dodgy acting by supporting characters. It’s as if at some production meeting at one early point they all said, look it’s Star Wars, we make the aliens and the spaceships and the weapons look good and we can’t fail… plus we have The Child and Boba Fett’s (yes, I know) armour, we can’t fail!
The basic storyline is enough to hook it on, just about, it is the detail that sometimes feels weak and lazy. But don’t worry, any minute something cool to look at and a big fight will happen, so we’re all good! I’m sure Pedro Pascal (the actor under the armour) can’t believe his luck! He is one of the biggest stars in TV all of a sudden, for basically doing a fairly monotone voice-over performance of some seriously dodgy dialogue. That is the magic of Star Wars.
So, I came to season one late, having no access at that time to Disney plus. In fact, I watched all of season one in a day the day before the launch of season two, so the switch to a new episode to look forward to suited me well. It gave me something to look forward to on a Friday between Halloween and Christmas. Trouble was that, although still having fun with the exploits of The Kid, I was starting to weary of the plotlines, and put my viewing on hold after S2E4 in favour of the far superior scripting of His Dark Materials on BBC.
I must have needed the hiatus, because when I came back to mop it up and finish season two a few days ago I realised that I had in fact missed it. It also helped that episode 5 onwards is when the season gets really good again. Rosario Dawson as Ashoka Tano (known well by fans of The Clone Wars) was a truly great addition that the show much needed by that point.
I had no trouble after that in bingeing to the end. You could feel a climax and a revelation coming, and although the character of Moff Gideon (Giancarlo Esposito) crumbled disappointly away into nothing much, the last 15 minutes of the final episode had me slack jawed in fan wonderment. I felt 9 years old again, and I loved it! I had been amazingly lucky not to stumble upon spoilers, I guess. Amazing ending, and all faults forgiven for that unforgettable moment and feel. Wonderful stuff!
To say any more, again, is to spoil. So, let’s just talk about it privately, or, you know, in about a year when season 3 is over and it is old news. Hmmm, season 3…? I wonder where they will take that now…? Actually, properly exciting, in a back in the playground kind of way.
Rachel King (13 KP) rated JESUS, Career Counselor: How to Find (and Keep) Your Perfect Work in Books
Feb 11, 2019
This book sat on my desk for the longest time, half-read. I am a SAHM, stay-at-home mom, and I found this book had very little to do with my "career." Jones did eventually address this in the book, but only briefly, and it makes me wonder what the author's personal views are on women who choose my career. A perfect example of this is that at the end of every element section, she lists careers she considers appropriate for those that match that element, and none of the four lists mention a SAHM. Even when she discusses those who have been forced to leave their job or choose to leave their job, she views being stuck at home as a temporary place and describes how to move out of it, never considering that maybe Jesus wants it to be permanent.
Delving into the opening of the book, it is quickly apparent that the author assumes that the reader has read the author's previous books and will use these other books to produce a mission statement, personality profile, "four greatest talents", and a vision statement. As I have not read her previous works, and don't intend to, I felt I was at a further disadvantage from benefiting from reading this book.
Another mark against the book is that Jones does not stick with only one version of the Bible to quote from, and the only time she actually states which version she is quoting from is when she quotes the KJV - every other time is a mystery.
There are many positive points to the book, such as the organization. Each of the four elements are covered in-depth, with each of the four sections containing three chapters that each focus on a single word that fits that element, all beginning with the prefix "re-". Each of these words come with a detailed definition, and each chapter provides places for the reader to take notes and answer the author's questions, such as the "Make It Yours" sections and the "Career Exercises", with each chapter ending with a prayer. The "Bonus Features" at the end of each of the four sections list additional prayers, the aforementioned list of recommended occupations, and "Summary Points" of the three words defined in each section. The last section of the book has additional "Bonus Features," which is the authors' Book Picks, a list of Internet resources, a section on resumes, and a section titled "How to Deal with Sudden Job Loss / Reversal of Fortune." I do enjoy a well-organized book.
The anecdotes were entertaining and the advice seemed good and useful to those in the job market. I did appreciate Jones' goal of making Jesus central to a person's career, even if the methods by which she approaches this seemed more New Age than Biblical, despite the scripture quotes. Her writing was also very sensitive to the reader who has lost a job or is unhappy in his or her current job, which would be an appropriate way to address the reader in the current economy.
Delving into the opening of the book, it is quickly apparent that the author assumes that the reader has read the author's previous books and will use these other books to produce a mission statement, personality profile, "four greatest talents", and a vision statement. As I have not read her previous works, and don't intend to, I felt I was at a further disadvantage from benefiting from reading this book.
Another mark against the book is that Jones does not stick with only one version of the Bible to quote from, and the only time she actually states which version she is quoting from is when she quotes the KJV - every other time is a mystery.
There are many positive points to the book, such as the organization. Each of the four elements are covered in-depth, with each of the four sections containing three chapters that each focus on a single word that fits that element, all beginning with the prefix "re-". Each of these words come with a detailed definition, and each chapter provides places for the reader to take notes and answer the author's questions, such as the "Make It Yours" sections and the "Career Exercises", with each chapter ending with a prayer. The "Bonus Features" at the end of each of the four sections list additional prayers, the aforementioned list of recommended occupations, and "Summary Points" of the three words defined in each section. The last section of the book has additional "Bonus Features," which is the authors' Book Picks, a list of Internet resources, a section on resumes, and a section titled "How to Deal with Sudden Job Loss / Reversal of Fortune." I do enjoy a well-organized book.
The anecdotes were entertaining and the advice seemed good and useful to those in the job market. I did appreciate Jones' goal of making Jesus central to a person's career, even if the methods by which she approaches this seemed more New Age than Biblical, despite the scripture quotes. Her writing was also very sensitive to the reader who has lost a job or is unhappy in his or her current job, which would be an appropriate way to address the reader in the current economy.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Dumbo (2019) in Movies
Mar 31, 2019
It's set to be a busy year for live action Disney remakes, with Aladdin and The Lion King already lined up for release this year. Kicking things off though, is this reimagining of the 1941 classic Dumbo, with Tim Burton directing.
It's 1919 and Holt Farrier (Colin Farrell) has returned from World War I, arriving by train to join the Medici Brothers Circus, where he worked before the war as a performer. But Holt has a number of issues to contend with on his return, the least of which being the loss one of his arms while in service. He's greeted at the station by his two young children, Milly and Joe, who lost their mother, Holt's wife, to influenza while he was away. On top of that, he learns that while he was away, the cash strapped circus owner, Max Medici (Danny DeVito) decided to sell the horses that were part of Holt's star act. Holt is put in charge of pregnant elephant Jumbo, with Max hoping that the arrival of a cute baby elephant will bring in the much needed crowds. It's a lot for Holt to come to terms with and adjust to.
Soon after, the baby elephant is born. But with clumsy, oversized ears, he's not quite the cute crowd pleaser they had all hoped for. Attempts to hide his ears only end in disaster, and ridicule from the circus crowds. Milly and Joe fall in love with the new arrival, and when they discover that he has the ability to use those big ears for flying, interest in him is quickly renewed.
The flying elephant not only draws in the crowds, but also the attentions of V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), who offers Max a deal for him and his circus troupe to join his huge fancy theme park. It's at this point that the movie should really begin to soar, having introduced the circus family and their new arrival. Unfortunately, the arrival of Vandevere signals a sharp downward spiral in terms of story telling. The circus cast are all but forgotten, with the story focusing instead on the tired, familiar tale of sleazy, greedy businessman who is only interested in money and success, at the expense of the poor, trusting people who believed him.
The computerised Dumbo is simply oozing cuteness and technical wizardry. The eyes and the facial expressions are wonderful and he manages to steal every scene he is in. Every time he takes flight, it is a joy to watch. Unfortunately though, this version of Dumbo is trying to add a lot more to the original story and ends up becoming bit of a drag at times. The human characters are poorly written and mostly forgettable, and the movie really only soars when Dumbo himself does. While trying to steer clear of being a straight up remake, opting instead for the addition of plot and characters, it ultimately loses a lot of the charm. As with the recent remake of Beauty and the Beast, it's another case of style over substance.
It's 1919 and Holt Farrier (Colin Farrell) has returned from World War I, arriving by train to join the Medici Brothers Circus, where he worked before the war as a performer. But Holt has a number of issues to contend with on his return, the least of which being the loss one of his arms while in service. He's greeted at the station by his two young children, Milly and Joe, who lost their mother, Holt's wife, to influenza while he was away. On top of that, he learns that while he was away, the cash strapped circus owner, Max Medici (Danny DeVito) decided to sell the horses that were part of Holt's star act. Holt is put in charge of pregnant elephant Jumbo, with Max hoping that the arrival of a cute baby elephant will bring in the much needed crowds. It's a lot for Holt to come to terms with and adjust to.
Soon after, the baby elephant is born. But with clumsy, oversized ears, he's not quite the cute crowd pleaser they had all hoped for. Attempts to hide his ears only end in disaster, and ridicule from the circus crowds. Milly and Joe fall in love with the new arrival, and when they discover that he has the ability to use those big ears for flying, interest in him is quickly renewed.
The flying elephant not only draws in the crowds, but also the attentions of V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), who offers Max a deal for him and his circus troupe to join his huge fancy theme park. It's at this point that the movie should really begin to soar, having introduced the circus family and their new arrival. Unfortunately, the arrival of Vandevere signals a sharp downward spiral in terms of story telling. The circus cast are all but forgotten, with the story focusing instead on the tired, familiar tale of sleazy, greedy businessman who is only interested in money and success, at the expense of the poor, trusting people who believed him.
The computerised Dumbo is simply oozing cuteness and technical wizardry. The eyes and the facial expressions are wonderful and he manages to steal every scene he is in. Every time he takes flight, it is a joy to watch. Unfortunately though, this version of Dumbo is trying to add a lot more to the original story and ends up becoming bit of a drag at times. The human characters are poorly written and mostly forgettable, and the movie really only soars when Dumbo himself does. While trying to steer clear of being a straight up remake, opting instead for the addition of plot and characters, it ultimately loses a lot of the charm. As with the recent remake of Beauty and the Beast, it's another case of style over substance.
Breast Health Genius
Medical and Education
App
Patient Education Genius is a paperless patient education solution that synchronizes healthcare...
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Telling Christina Goodbye in Books
Jan 23, 2020
Original Review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2013/02/review-telling-christina-goodbye-by-lurlene-mcdaniel.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Original Rating: 3.5
*Formatting and image(s) have been lost due to copy and pasting.
I hate commenting about how much the synopsis gives away. I don't find much joy in reading the book when the synopsis gives spoilers away. And I hate giving it a lower rating because of that synopsis. But as much as I want to like this book, I'm gonna have to give it a facepalm. The synopsis practically gave away EVERYTHING. From the synopsis, cover AND title, the book already gives these things away (I don't think this counts as spoilers since the synopsis already says it):
~Trisha, Christina, Cody, and Tucker are Seniors.
~Best friends, Trisha and Christina are having a great year.
~Trisha is dating Cody. Christina is dating Tucker.
~Trisha doesn't get along with Tucker.
~Christina receives a scholarship from University of Vermont.
~Tucker is controlling of Christina and wants her to stay.
~They get into a car crash after a basketball game. Trisha is injured, Cody's in a coma and Christina's dead. Yet Tucker is all injure-less.
Not to mean it in a bad way, but that gives practically the entire plot and some other stuff. Maybe even the entire book. Besides some things, such as (those who read it would know the answers already, but I'm speaking from the reader's perspective of just examining the book at the bookstore and reading the synopsis and such):
~Does Cody wake up from the coma?
~Do those effected by Christina's death find the courage to move on and heal?
~Do Trisha and Tucker get along later?
~Etc, etc. One can only know the answers to their many questions when fully reading a book.
But despite the synopsis giving so much away, Ms. McDaniel still leaves the reader, regardless of whether just staring at it at the bookstore or anyplace or have to read it due to required reading, with many questions. Props for not giving the full story away, especially the ending. And while some of us may love spoilers to the point of actually spilling beans, some of us just like to keep things detailed yet vague on what's happening because we just love the suspense building up. It would've been a triple facepalm if the synopsis gave any more away (kinda explains the meme).
If you're still thinking I'm being a bit negative, the only part I found pretty bad was how the synopsis gave it all away (I'm that person who hates too much spoilers and end up predicting and being right majority of the time. I kinda like my dose of keeping me guessing...).
In many good parts (of the pie or something good), Ms McDaniel manages to narrow in with an emotional story while weaving in the meaning of losing a cared one and to not take life fully for granted, because you never know when it will all end and it may be someone or something very close to you. (Kinda reminds me of a sad song...)
Original Rating: 3.5
*Formatting and image(s) have been lost due to copy and pasting.
I hate commenting about how much the synopsis gives away. I don't find much joy in reading the book when the synopsis gives spoilers away. And I hate giving it a lower rating because of that synopsis. But as much as I want to like this book, I'm gonna have to give it a facepalm. The synopsis practically gave away EVERYTHING. From the synopsis, cover AND title, the book already gives these things away (I don't think this counts as spoilers since the synopsis already says it):
~Trisha, Christina, Cody, and Tucker are Seniors.
~Best friends, Trisha and Christina are having a great year.
~Trisha is dating Cody. Christina is dating Tucker.
~Trisha doesn't get along with Tucker.
~Christina receives a scholarship from University of Vermont.
~Tucker is controlling of Christina and wants her to stay.
~They get into a car crash after a basketball game. Trisha is injured, Cody's in a coma and Christina's dead. Yet Tucker is all injure-less.
Not to mean it in a bad way, but that gives practically the entire plot and some other stuff. Maybe even the entire book. Besides some things, such as (those who read it would know the answers already, but I'm speaking from the reader's perspective of just examining the book at the bookstore and reading the synopsis and such):
~Does Cody wake up from the coma?
~Do those effected by Christina's death find the courage to move on and heal?
~Do Trisha and Tucker get along later?
~Etc, etc. One can only know the answers to their many questions when fully reading a book.
But despite the synopsis giving so much away, Ms. McDaniel still leaves the reader, regardless of whether just staring at it at the bookstore or anyplace or have to read it due to required reading, with many questions. Props for not giving the full story away, especially the ending. And while some of us may love spoilers to the point of actually spilling beans, some of us just like to keep things detailed yet vague on what's happening because we just love the suspense building up. It would've been a triple facepalm if the synopsis gave any more away (kinda explains the meme).
If you're still thinking I'm being a bit negative, the only part I found pretty bad was how the synopsis gave it all away (I'm that person who hates too much spoilers and end up predicting and being right majority of the time. I kinda like my dose of keeping me guessing...).
In many good parts (of the pie or something good), Ms McDaniel manages to narrow in with an emotional story while weaving in the meaning of losing a cared one and to not take life fully for granted, because you never know when it will all end and it may be someone or something very close to you. (Kinda reminds me of a sad song...)
The Man Who Walked Through Walls
Marcel Ayme, Sophie Lewis and Yann Kebbi
Book
A collection of funny and fantastical short stories, Marcel Ayme's The Man Who Walked through Walls...
Above and Below
8.3
Rate It
Tabletop Game
Your last village was ransacked by barbarians. You barely had time to pick up the baby and your...
BoardGames StoryGames LaukatGames
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated How to Train Your Dragon 2 (2014) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Watch out pixar
Dreamworks’ How to Train Your Dragon was an example of setting your expectations low and coming out pleasantly surprised. The first film proved that the studio could create animated masterpieces and it left audiences across the globe hooked.
However, expectation has never been higher for its sequel, How to Train Your Dragon 2, but does it soar to the dizzying heights of its predecessor?
Thankfully the answer is a resounding yes. From beautiful animated dragons to breathtaking aerial-bound sequences, this sequel just about surpasses the original in every way.
Following on five years after events in the first film, Dragon 2 follows a 20-year-old Hiccup, voiced wonderfully by Jay Baruchel, and his sidekick Toothless in their home town of Berk as the residents come to terms with living peacefully alongside dragons.
Being Hiccup, he is naturally curious to learn about a legendary ‘dragon master’ who can enslave the beasts to form an army and sets out to persuade him to care for the animals like the villagers. This plot point is sidetracked from the outset however as we are introduced to Valka – Hiccup’s long lost mother, voiced by a rather miscast Cate Blanchett.
The bond between Hiccup and Toothless has grown massively in the five year break between films and this makes them even more enjoyable to watch. Yes, each of the villagers has their own dragon to look after, but it is the relationship between the two primary characters which we really care about the most.
Feline similarities in Toothless will not go unnoticed, his cat-like qualities give him an air of cuteness that you wouldn’t expect to come from such a menacing and ultimately deadly creature, and it is testament to Dreamworks that they have managed to craft such a personality for a character that never speaks.
The animation is also absolutely stunning, from the crystal waters of the sea around Berk to the people and dragons themselves, everything has been given an upgrade after the first film’s success and the battle scenes are beautiful in their simplicity – there’s no worrying about losing track of characters here.
However, it’s not all smoke and mirrors, the story has real meaning. Family values are explored, the way to treat animals is also looked at brieflyrs_634x1024-140205120546-634.cate-blanchett-bp.cm.2514 and ultimately, this is about one young man’s journey to maturity.
Unfortunately, the vocal performance of Cate Blanchett detracts somewhat from the overall magic. Her peculiar Scottish accent, which travels all over Europe by the time the end credits roll, is of particular annoyance and it’s a better film when she is not playing a central part. This is a shame as the realisation that Hiccup’s mother isn’t dead should be one of great consequence, but Blanchett’s strange acting hampers the scenes.
How to Train Your Dragon is to Dreamworks what WALL-E is to Pixar, each film is one of, if not the best animated feature from either studio and Dragon 2 follows that trend. It is the rare sequel that is superior to the first film – a la Spider-Man 2.
It’s an emotional rollercoaster too, and in some places very dark, possibly too much for children, but for teenagers and adults alike, there is something to enjoy here. From the engaging plot to the mesmerising soundtrack.
Overall, How to Train Your Dragon 2 is a fine film, helped along the way by some incredible animation, amazingly deep characters and a meaningful story. Only a poor showing by Cate Blanchett stops it achieving perfection.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/07/16/watch-out-pixar-how-to-train-your-dragon-2-review/
However, expectation has never been higher for its sequel, How to Train Your Dragon 2, but does it soar to the dizzying heights of its predecessor?
Thankfully the answer is a resounding yes. From beautiful animated dragons to breathtaking aerial-bound sequences, this sequel just about surpasses the original in every way.
Following on five years after events in the first film, Dragon 2 follows a 20-year-old Hiccup, voiced wonderfully by Jay Baruchel, and his sidekick Toothless in their home town of Berk as the residents come to terms with living peacefully alongside dragons.
Being Hiccup, he is naturally curious to learn about a legendary ‘dragon master’ who can enslave the beasts to form an army and sets out to persuade him to care for the animals like the villagers. This plot point is sidetracked from the outset however as we are introduced to Valka – Hiccup’s long lost mother, voiced by a rather miscast Cate Blanchett.
The bond between Hiccup and Toothless has grown massively in the five year break between films and this makes them even more enjoyable to watch. Yes, each of the villagers has their own dragon to look after, but it is the relationship between the two primary characters which we really care about the most.
Feline similarities in Toothless will not go unnoticed, his cat-like qualities give him an air of cuteness that you wouldn’t expect to come from such a menacing and ultimately deadly creature, and it is testament to Dreamworks that they have managed to craft such a personality for a character that never speaks.
The animation is also absolutely stunning, from the crystal waters of the sea around Berk to the people and dragons themselves, everything has been given an upgrade after the first film’s success and the battle scenes are beautiful in their simplicity – there’s no worrying about losing track of characters here.
However, it’s not all smoke and mirrors, the story has real meaning. Family values are explored, the way to treat animals is also looked at brieflyrs_634x1024-140205120546-634.cate-blanchett-bp.cm.2514 and ultimately, this is about one young man’s journey to maturity.
Unfortunately, the vocal performance of Cate Blanchett detracts somewhat from the overall magic. Her peculiar Scottish accent, which travels all over Europe by the time the end credits roll, is of particular annoyance and it’s a better film when she is not playing a central part. This is a shame as the realisation that Hiccup’s mother isn’t dead should be one of great consequence, but Blanchett’s strange acting hampers the scenes.
How to Train Your Dragon is to Dreamworks what WALL-E is to Pixar, each film is one of, if not the best animated feature from either studio and Dragon 2 follows that trend. It is the rare sequel that is superior to the first film – a la Spider-Man 2.
It’s an emotional rollercoaster too, and in some places very dark, possibly too much for children, but for teenagers and adults alike, there is something to enjoy here. From the engaging plot to the mesmerising soundtrack.
Overall, How to Train Your Dragon 2 is a fine film, helped along the way by some incredible animation, amazingly deep characters and a meaningful story. Only a poor showing by Cate Blanchett stops it achieving perfection.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/07/16/watch-out-pixar-how-to-train-your-dragon-2-review/
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Jaipur in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
Finding a time when the entire group can get together to game can be rare – there always seems to be at least one person who cannot come. But fear not! Low attendance at any given game night does not automatically make it a dud! There are many excellent games for only two players, and that brings us to Jaipur!
Congratulations! You have become one of the most powerful traders in the Indian city of Jaipur – nobody can strike a deal quite like you! Only the best merchant will have the privilege of trading directly with the Maharajah (the city leader), and that is definitely you! Or at least, it was until a new competitor showed up and started swiping your customers… Will you give up your position willingly? Of course not! Through cunning strategy, you can prove that you are still the best trader the city has to offer – so let the competition begin!
In Jaipur, you and your opponent take turns buying, trading, and selling goods and camels for money. Out-sell your opponent in two out of three rounds to become the greatest tradesperson! Collect sets of the same goods to maximize your earnings, and use your camels wisely in trades as you try to anticipate the market trends. On your turn, you can take one of four actions: 1. Take a single good from the market, 2. Take all of the camels from the market, 3. Exchange goods/camels from your hand for multiple goods in the market, or 4. Sell goods. What will your strategy be? Monopolize the market in a specific good, or dabble in all goods? Try to anticipate your opponent’s strategy and throw a wrench in their plans, or mind your own business? No matter what you choose, strategy is the key to success in Jaipur, so make it count!
Jaipur is probably my favorite two-player game to date. The rules are simple enough, the mechanics (card drafting and set collection) are straight-forward, and it requires enough strategy to make it a fun challenge! Since it is a specifically two-player game, everything you do directly impacts your opponent. On your turn, not only are you trying to think of the best move for you to make, but you must also be thinking of what your opponent is trying to accomplish. If a couple of rounds pass and I see my opponent picking up silver goods, I can probably guess they’re hoping to make bank by selling a complete set. So do I pick up the next silver I see on my turn? Or do I cash in the set of diamonds that I’ve been secretly picking up each round? My strategy is constantly changing based on what cards appear in the market at any given time, and that is what elevates this technically simple game for me!
The only grievance for me with Jaipur has to do with the market distribution. The market cards are re-shuffled at the end of each round, and sometimes the shuffling is not balanced. I have lost many rounds because I am forced to take low-scoring goods or camels from a saturated market, only to reveal high-scoring goods for my opponent to take on their turn. Ultimately, that is not an issue with the game, but an issue with my poor card-shuffling ability. If anything, I try to see it as a strategic challenge – how can I best use these lowly goods to balance out the better cards my opponent has picked up? Nothing is a given in this game, and the market can completely change in a single turn!
If you want a quick but engaging game, look no further than Jaipur. It’s a solid two-player game that deserves more love! Purple Phoenix Games gives it a 16 / 18 (Bryan hasn’t played it yet).
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2018/12/28/jaipur-review/
Congratulations! You have become one of the most powerful traders in the Indian city of Jaipur – nobody can strike a deal quite like you! Only the best merchant will have the privilege of trading directly with the Maharajah (the city leader), and that is definitely you! Or at least, it was until a new competitor showed up and started swiping your customers… Will you give up your position willingly? Of course not! Through cunning strategy, you can prove that you are still the best trader the city has to offer – so let the competition begin!
In Jaipur, you and your opponent take turns buying, trading, and selling goods and camels for money. Out-sell your opponent in two out of three rounds to become the greatest tradesperson! Collect sets of the same goods to maximize your earnings, and use your camels wisely in trades as you try to anticipate the market trends. On your turn, you can take one of four actions: 1. Take a single good from the market, 2. Take all of the camels from the market, 3. Exchange goods/camels from your hand for multiple goods in the market, or 4. Sell goods. What will your strategy be? Monopolize the market in a specific good, or dabble in all goods? Try to anticipate your opponent’s strategy and throw a wrench in their plans, or mind your own business? No matter what you choose, strategy is the key to success in Jaipur, so make it count!
Jaipur is probably my favorite two-player game to date. The rules are simple enough, the mechanics (card drafting and set collection) are straight-forward, and it requires enough strategy to make it a fun challenge! Since it is a specifically two-player game, everything you do directly impacts your opponent. On your turn, not only are you trying to think of the best move for you to make, but you must also be thinking of what your opponent is trying to accomplish. If a couple of rounds pass and I see my opponent picking up silver goods, I can probably guess they’re hoping to make bank by selling a complete set. So do I pick up the next silver I see on my turn? Or do I cash in the set of diamonds that I’ve been secretly picking up each round? My strategy is constantly changing based on what cards appear in the market at any given time, and that is what elevates this technically simple game for me!
The only grievance for me with Jaipur has to do with the market distribution. The market cards are re-shuffled at the end of each round, and sometimes the shuffling is not balanced. I have lost many rounds because I am forced to take low-scoring goods or camels from a saturated market, only to reveal high-scoring goods for my opponent to take on their turn. Ultimately, that is not an issue with the game, but an issue with my poor card-shuffling ability. If anything, I try to see it as a strategic challenge – how can I best use these lowly goods to balance out the better cards my opponent has picked up? Nothing is a given in this game, and the market can completely change in a single turn!
If you want a quick but engaging game, look no further than Jaipur. It’s a solid two-player game that deserves more love! Purple Phoenix Games gives it a 16 / 18 (Bryan hasn’t played it yet).
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2018/12/28/jaipur-review/