Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Assistant (2020) in Movies
May 24, 2020
Julia Garner's performance (1 more)
The tension that manages to be created through a portrayal of the mundane
The movie seems to have a lot of haters on IMDB (a rating at the time of writing of 5.9)... but I refuse to follow "the pack" on this one... I thought it was great. It manages to make the mundane incredibly tense. This is this first (semi-)fictional feature from documentary-maker Kitty Green.... and in my book she does a knock-out job.
We first meet Jane (Julia Garner) at 'God-knows-what-o-clock' in the morning as she arrives at her workplace - a New York film-production company. First to arrive every morning, she turns on the lights, turns on the screens, makes the pot of coffee and cleans off stains from her boss's couch. The stain isn't coffee. A lost gold bracelet is recovered.
For we are in a truly toxic working environment here. 'The boss' - clearly modelled on Harvey Weinstein - is a bullying tyrant who can reduce Jane and her two male assistants (Jon Orsini and Noah Robbins) to quivering wrecks. "WHAT THE F*** DID YOU SAY TO HER" barks the boss down the phone at Jane, after she has had a perfectly reasonable phone conversation with the estranged Mrs Boss.
The toxicity is pervasive though throughout Miram..., sorry...., 'the company'. Jane is almost invisible to her other co-workers who don't give her eye-contact even when she's talking to them and barely register her presence when sharing a lift.
But bullying and workplace toxicity is just part of this story. A steady stream of starlets arrive in the office, like meat deliveries to a butcher. In a chilling sequence, the photocopier churns out photos of beautiful actresses.... a paper-based equivalent of swiping-left or -right in the selection process. None of the "if you... I will" discussions are shown, but they don't need to be: the inference is clear.
Jane is smart, slim and pretty... but not in an obvious 'Hollywood way'. "You'll be OK..." says a co-worker "you're not his type".
But someone who distinctly is "his type" is Sienna (Kristine Froseth), a "very very young" aspiring waitress-come-actress from Boise, who suddenly and unexpectedly arrives as a "new assistant"... to be promptly put up in a swanky hotel room. It's time to act... and Jane approaches the company HR manager (Matthew Macfadyen)....
An old Spielberg trick is to increase tension by keeping the "monster" hidden from view: cue the tanker driver from "Duel" and (for most of the film) the shark from "Jaws". Here, the boss is felt only as a malevolent force and never seen on screen. It's an approach that works brilliantly, focusing the emotion on the effect he has on those flamed.
There is also recognition that these powerful people are also hugely intelligent and manipulative. Seeing that Jane is a valuable asset, the public berating is sometimes followed up with a private email apology.... dripping a few words of encouragement and praise like a few drops of Methadone to a drug-addict.
This is an excellent movie and thoughtfully and elegantly directed. Following a normal day in Jane's work life.... albeit a day where perhaps the penny finally drops... is immersive and engaging. And at only 88 minutes long, the movie never outstays its welcome.
The performances are first rate. Julia Garner is magnificent, and in a year where the Oscars will be "interesting", here's a good candidate for Best Actress I would suggest if not Best Picture. Garner's an actress I'm unfamiliar with: the only one of her previous flicks I've seen was Sin City 2.
Also oily and impressive is Matthew Macfadyen as the HR manager. There's also a sparse but well-used score by Tamar-kali.
The one area I found poor was in the sound design. It's clearly filmed in an office environment, rather than on a sound stage, and unfortunately the combination of the acoustics and the New York accents makes some of the dialogue really difficult to hear. An example is a discussion between two co-workers in an office kitchen, which was completely indecipherable for me.
Should I watch this? In my view, definitely, yes. It's chilling and an insight into the terrible ordeal that many professional women in the film industry, and other industries, have had to put up with before the "Me Too" lid was blown off (and many probably still do). The most telling line in the film? At the end of the "Thanks" in the end-titles: "All those who shared their experiences".
(See the full graphical review at One Mann's Movies here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/05/24/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-assistant-2020/ . Thanks).
We first meet Jane (Julia Garner) at 'God-knows-what-o-clock' in the morning as she arrives at her workplace - a New York film-production company. First to arrive every morning, she turns on the lights, turns on the screens, makes the pot of coffee and cleans off stains from her boss's couch. The stain isn't coffee. A lost gold bracelet is recovered.
For we are in a truly toxic working environment here. 'The boss' - clearly modelled on Harvey Weinstein - is a bullying tyrant who can reduce Jane and her two male assistants (Jon Orsini and Noah Robbins) to quivering wrecks. "WHAT THE F*** DID YOU SAY TO HER" barks the boss down the phone at Jane, after she has had a perfectly reasonable phone conversation with the estranged Mrs Boss.
The toxicity is pervasive though throughout Miram..., sorry...., 'the company'. Jane is almost invisible to her other co-workers who don't give her eye-contact even when she's talking to them and barely register her presence when sharing a lift.
But bullying and workplace toxicity is just part of this story. A steady stream of starlets arrive in the office, like meat deliveries to a butcher. In a chilling sequence, the photocopier churns out photos of beautiful actresses.... a paper-based equivalent of swiping-left or -right in the selection process. None of the "if you... I will" discussions are shown, but they don't need to be: the inference is clear.
Jane is smart, slim and pretty... but not in an obvious 'Hollywood way'. "You'll be OK..." says a co-worker "you're not his type".
But someone who distinctly is "his type" is Sienna (Kristine Froseth), a "very very young" aspiring waitress-come-actress from Boise, who suddenly and unexpectedly arrives as a "new assistant"... to be promptly put up in a swanky hotel room. It's time to act... and Jane approaches the company HR manager (Matthew Macfadyen)....
An old Spielberg trick is to increase tension by keeping the "monster" hidden from view: cue the tanker driver from "Duel" and (for most of the film) the shark from "Jaws". Here, the boss is felt only as a malevolent force and never seen on screen. It's an approach that works brilliantly, focusing the emotion on the effect he has on those flamed.
There is also recognition that these powerful people are also hugely intelligent and manipulative. Seeing that Jane is a valuable asset, the public berating is sometimes followed up with a private email apology.... dripping a few words of encouragement and praise like a few drops of Methadone to a drug-addict.
This is an excellent movie and thoughtfully and elegantly directed. Following a normal day in Jane's work life.... albeit a day where perhaps the penny finally drops... is immersive and engaging. And at only 88 minutes long, the movie never outstays its welcome.
The performances are first rate. Julia Garner is magnificent, and in a year where the Oscars will be "interesting", here's a good candidate for Best Actress I would suggest if not Best Picture. Garner's an actress I'm unfamiliar with: the only one of her previous flicks I've seen was Sin City 2.
Also oily and impressive is Matthew Macfadyen as the HR manager. There's also a sparse but well-used score by Tamar-kali.
The one area I found poor was in the sound design. It's clearly filmed in an office environment, rather than on a sound stage, and unfortunately the combination of the acoustics and the New York accents makes some of the dialogue really difficult to hear. An example is a discussion between two co-workers in an office kitchen, which was completely indecipherable for me.
Should I watch this? In my view, definitely, yes. It's chilling and an insight into the terrible ordeal that many professional women in the film industry, and other industries, have had to put up with before the "Me Too" lid was blown off (and many probably still do). The most telling line in the film? At the end of the "Thanks" in the end-titles: "All those who shared their experiences".
(See the full graphical review at One Mann's Movies here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/05/24/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-assistant-2020/ . Thanks).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A Quiet Place (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“There’s a kind of hush, all over the world tonight”.
What a masterpiece this is! The most novel, the most tense, the most exhilarating, the most edge-of-your-seat Indie horror movie I could hope to see this year.
It’s 2020 and 89 days after “it” happens, the world is a very different place. Making any noise at all becomes a death sentence…. that bad cold could kill you and nothing seems to be able to prevent mankind from being annihilated one sneeze at a time.
In what could be a nice “Cloverfield”-style series, the action here focuses in on the resourceful Abbott family: the father Lee (John Krasinski, “Away We Go”) is handy with electronics and back-woods skills; the mother Evelyn (Emily Blunt, “The Girl on the Train“; “Edge of Tomorrow“) has medical training. So they are well suited then to take care of their offspring: the profoundly deaf Regan (Millicent Simmonds); Marcus (Noah Jupe); and their youngest Beau (a cute Cade Woodward). It’s a battle of brains against vicious, relentless and malevolent alien brawn: how far will Lee and Evelyn go to keep their family safe?
Man, this is a tense film! It doesn’t pull its punches from the get-go and thereafter there is an air of brooding and ever-building menace that gets right under your skin. This is certainly not helped by the fact that there is a ticking clock of an oncoming ‘event’ – no spoilers here – to worry about. As incessantly and inevitably as the rising tide in “The Shallows” a clock ticks down. Thank heavens then that the ‘event’ and the outcome of that ‘event’ are both traditionally such quiet affairs!
While all of the buzz at the moment is on the 80’s Easter Eggs in “Ready Player One”, here is a movie packed with delights for movie lovers. There are recognisable elements here from such classics as “The Road”, “Signs”, “Witness”, “Alien”, “Jurassic Park”, “Jaws”…. even (traumatically) “Home Alone”! So is it then just a rag-bag collection of stolen moments from other films? No – not at all. This stands tall and proud as a master work in its own right, the standout and unique quality of the movie being its use (or rather absence) of sound… something that works so magnificently as a concept in a movie-theatre.
I was lucky enough in the late September of 1979 to see (at 10 am in the morning as I remember!) in the Odeon Leicester Square in London, the first ever UK (and probably worldwide) showing of a little film called “Alien”. The cinema was pretty empty, but I have never sat through such an electric viewing. This had some of the same aura about it: a hushed audience, totally gripped. (I agree with Simon Mayo and Ali Plumb on this though that all snacks, and especially popcorn in scrapy SCRAPY cardboard boxes, should be banned from these screenings… I had to physically move seats away a noisy muncher as the film started!). But for sure, distractions accepted, this is a classic communal movie experience and so is a movie you should most DEFINITELY see in the cinema.
If there is one Oscar for February 2019 that I think should already be a shoe-in for a nomination, if not a win, it is the sound team led by Erik Aadahl and Ethan Van der Ryn: breathtakingly spectacular. This is assisted enormously by the musical score of Marco Beltrami (“Logan“, “The Shallows“) which helps augment and annotate the action jump-scares brilliantly.
Another critical member of the crew for a film like this is the editor, and here Christopher Tellefsen (“Joy“) delivers the goods with tight and effective execution of those cuts (the film sort!) that made me vertically leave my seat at least a couple of times.
Real life couple Krasinski and Blunt share such obvious and tender chemistry that it is impossible to not get emotionally involved. A shared iPhone listening moment, as a lull in the action, is very moving. Millicent Simmonds, who is actually deaf from childhood in an inspired piece of storytelling/casting, is also an acting force to be reckoned with: her only other movie is last year’s “Wonderstruck” that I have yet to see.
Writers Bryan Woods and Scott Beck (with contribution to the screenplay from Krasinski) also deserve praise for an intelligent and highly satisfying plot that never fails to disappoint to the last drop. Every detail, down to the painted footsteps on the un-squeaky floorboards, is just pitch-perfect. It’s also a film that very wisely doesn’t outstay its welcome: 90 minutes of such adrenaline is almost too much for anyone to stand! Krasinski as director keeps everything deliciously tight during that running time with no time to breath, particularly in the frenetic final reel.
I’ve gushed enough. This is a must see for sci-fi and horror fans of all ages. And with a “BvS quotient” of just 6.8%, it’s enormously good value for money. Go see it!
It’s 2020 and 89 days after “it” happens, the world is a very different place. Making any noise at all becomes a death sentence…. that bad cold could kill you and nothing seems to be able to prevent mankind from being annihilated one sneeze at a time.
In what could be a nice “Cloverfield”-style series, the action here focuses in on the resourceful Abbott family: the father Lee (John Krasinski, “Away We Go”) is handy with electronics and back-woods skills; the mother Evelyn (Emily Blunt, “The Girl on the Train“; “Edge of Tomorrow“) has medical training. So they are well suited then to take care of their offspring: the profoundly deaf Regan (Millicent Simmonds); Marcus (Noah Jupe); and their youngest Beau (a cute Cade Woodward). It’s a battle of brains against vicious, relentless and malevolent alien brawn: how far will Lee and Evelyn go to keep their family safe?
Man, this is a tense film! It doesn’t pull its punches from the get-go and thereafter there is an air of brooding and ever-building menace that gets right under your skin. This is certainly not helped by the fact that there is a ticking clock of an oncoming ‘event’ – no spoilers here – to worry about. As incessantly and inevitably as the rising tide in “The Shallows” a clock ticks down. Thank heavens then that the ‘event’ and the outcome of that ‘event’ are both traditionally such quiet affairs!
While all of the buzz at the moment is on the 80’s Easter Eggs in “Ready Player One”, here is a movie packed with delights for movie lovers. There are recognisable elements here from such classics as “The Road”, “Signs”, “Witness”, “Alien”, “Jurassic Park”, “Jaws”…. even (traumatically) “Home Alone”! So is it then just a rag-bag collection of stolen moments from other films? No – not at all. This stands tall and proud as a master work in its own right, the standout and unique quality of the movie being its use (or rather absence) of sound… something that works so magnificently as a concept in a movie-theatre.
I was lucky enough in the late September of 1979 to see (at 10 am in the morning as I remember!) in the Odeon Leicester Square in London, the first ever UK (and probably worldwide) showing of a little film called “Alien”. The cinema was pretty empty, but I have never sat through such an electric viewing. This had some of the same aura about it: a hushed audience, totally gripped. (I agree with Simon Mayo and Ali Plumb on this though that all snacks, and especially popcorn in scrapy SCRAPY cardboard boxes, should be banned from these screenings… I had to physically move seats away a noisy muncher as the film started!). But for sure, distractions accepted, this is a classic communal movie experience and so is a movie you should most DEFINITELY see in the cinema.
If there is one Oscar for February 2019 that I think should already be a shoe-in for a nomination, if not a win, it is the sound team led by Erik Aadahl and Ethan Van der Ryn: breathtakingly spectacular. This is assisted enormously by the musical score of Marco Beltrami (“Logan“, “The Shallows“) which helps augment and annotate the action jump-scares brilliantly.
Another critical member of the crew for a film like this is the editor, and here Christopher Tellefsen (“Joy“) delivers the goods with tight and effective execution of those cuts (the film sort!) that made me vertically leave my seat at least a couple of times.
Real life couple Krasinski and Blunt share such obvious and tender chemistry that it is impossible to not get emotionally involved. A shared iPhone listening moment, as a lull in the action, is very moving. Millicent Simmonds, who is actually deaf from childhood in an inspired piece of storytelling/casting, is also an acting force to be reckoned with: her only other movie is last year’s “Wonderstruck” that I have yet to see.
Writers Bryan Woods and Scott Beck (with contribution to the screenplay from Krasinski) also deserve praise for an intelligent and highly satisfying plot that never fails to disappoint to the last drop. Every detail, down to the painted footsteps on the un-squeaky floorboards, is just pitch-perfect. It’s also a film that very wisely doesn’t outstay its welcome: 90 minutes of such adrenaline is almost too much for anyone to stand! Krasinski as director keeps everything deliciously tight during that running time with no time to breath, particularly in the frenetic final reel.
I’ve gushed enough. This is a must see for sci-fi and horror fans of all ages. And with a “BvS quotient” of just 6.8%, it’s enormously good value for money. Go see it!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Black Adam (2022) in Movies
Oct 25, 2022
About As Middle-Of-The-Road As You Can Get
The DC Extended Universe (DCEU) has been criticized by many (including the BankofMarquis) for being too dark, dour and somber. The powers-that-be at DC clearly have heard that criticism and with their latest installment - BLACK ADAM - they ditched that grim tone.
If only they would have spent time on character and plot development instead of blowing things up and dispatching nameless/faceless henchmen.
Based on a DC Comics character the BankofMarquis knew nothing about - and featuring SOME characters from DC that the BankofMarquis had heard of (o’k, one character, Hawkman), BLACK ADAM stars Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson as the titular anti-hero who comes out of hibernation after about 5,000 years to exact vengeance on those who wronged him.
It’s a tricky line to walk when you are working with an anti-hero bent on death and destruction, but it can be done if you bring some humanity and humility to the character and have this anti-hero character go on some sort of journey of discovery along the way.
While this film succeeds for the most part in bringing a lighter tone and some fun to the proceedings, it seems that Director Jaume Collet-Serra (Orphan) and the trio of writers that penned this weak script opted to play it safe and didn’t go too dark (at the beginning) or too “Super-Heroey” (if that is a word) at the end, so what you get is a safe, middle-of-the-road entertainment that is “good enough” and (this is damning with faint praise), one of the better offerings in the DCEU.
Let’s start with the Johnson in the titular role. The film (and film-makers) play down Johnson’s inherent charm throughout the film - to the detriment of all. Johnson plays Black Adam with a focus of purpose and a lack of awareness and humor. While this could have been played with great effect neither Johnson nor Director Collet-Serra leans into this enough to make it a strong part of the offering. True, Johnson’s inherent charisma and screen presence shines through no matter how much it is attempted to be tamped down, but the character just comes off as plain vanilla.
Of course, Johnson’s physical form has never looked better and he excels in the action sequences - which are plentiful and full of explosions and destruction (destruction that is never commented on). These scenes overwhelm the story and the plot - and is one of the reasons that this film doesn’t rise above decent. It has lots of blowing things up and SuperHeroes going “smashy-smashy” with no real emotional resonance or consequence to them.
As for the other actors in this film, Aldis Hodge (ONE NIGHT IN MIAMI) is strong as the only DC Character previous known to the BankofMarquis - Hawkman. He is a welcome addition to this universe and it would be great if he showed up in more DCEU films - including adding him to any Justice League films.
Sarah Shahi (PERSON OF INTEREST on TV) is always a welcome sight in a film - and she more than capably fills in as the representative of the filmgoing audience as the human who is wrapped up the proceedings of these SuperHeroes while Mohammed Amer (the TV series RAMY) provides strong comic relief as Shahi’s brother.
Unfortunately, the film felt the need to put in 2 teenage Superheroes (I guess to appeal to their target audience) in the guise of Atom Smasher, Noah Centineo (THE PERFECT DATE) and Cyclone, Quintessa Swindell (the TV Series IN TREATMENT). These are both decent enough - and good looking enough - performers to put on screen, and they both would look good in a CW TV Series like THE FLASH, but their characters are pointless in this film. They are add-ons that don’t really add anything to the events.
And then there is good ol’ former James Bond Pierce Brosnan as Dr. Fate, a character the BankofMarquis knew nothing about before this film, but now am clamoring for a standalone movie for Brosnan and this character. He was the best thing in this move and this veteran actor understood the assignment, bringing humor and gravitas when needed while doling out sage advice - Obi-Wan style - to both Hawkman and Black Adam throughout the film.
All-in-all, a decent time at the theater (the DCEU has certainly done worse), but, in the end, BLACK ADAM is as disposable as Cotton Candy, fun while it lasts, but not anything that will stay with you for any length of time.
Letter Grade: B (the most solid “B” that a film can have).
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
If only they would have spent time on character and plot development instead of blowing things up and dispatching nameless/faceless henchmen.
Based on a DC Comics character the BankofMarquis knew nothing about - and featuring SOME characters from DC that the BankofMarquis had heard of (o’k, one character, Hawkman), BLACK ADAM stars Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson as the titular anti-hero who comes out of hibernation after about 5,000 years to exact vengeance on those who wronged him.
It’s a tricky line to walk when you are working with an anti-hero bent on death and destruction, but it can be done if you bring some humanity and humility to the character and have this anti-hero character go on some sort of journey of discovery along the way.
While this film succeeds for the most part in bringing a lighter tone and some fun to the proceedings, it seems that Director Jaume Collet-Serra (Orphan) and the trio of writers that penned this weak script opted to play it safe and didn’t go too dark (at the beginning) or too “Super-Heroey” (if that is a word) at the end, so what you get is a safe, middle-of-the-road entertainment that is “good enough” and (this is damning with faint praise), one of the better offerings in the DCEU.
Let’s start with the Johnson in the titular role. The film (and film-makers) play down Johnson’s inherent charm throughout the film - to the detriment of all. Johnson plays Black Adam with a focus of purpose and a lack of awareness and humor. While this could have been played with great effect neither Johnson nor Director Collet-Serra leans into this enough to make it a strong part of the offering. True, Johnson’s inherent charisma and screen presence shines through no matter how much it is attempted to be tamped down, but the character just comes off as plain vanilla.
Of course, Johnson’s physical form has never looked better and he excels in the action sequences - which are plentiful and full of explosions and destruction (destruction that is never commented on). These scenes overwhelm the story and the plot - and is one of the reasons that this film doesn’t rise above decent. It has lots of blowing things up and SuperHeroes going “smashy-smashy” with no real emotional resonance or consequence to them.
As for the other actors in this film, Aldis Hodge (ONE NIGHT IN MIAMI) is strong as the only DC Character previous known to the BankofMarquis - Hawkman. He is a welcome addition to this universe and it would be great if he showed up in more DCEU films - including adding him to any Justice League films.
Sarah Shahi (PERSON OF INTEREST on TV) is always a welcome sight in a film - and she more than capably fills in as the representative of the filmgoing audience as the human who is wrapped up the proceedings of these SuperHeroes while Mohammed Amer (the TV series RAMY) provides strong comic relief as Shahi’s brother.
Unfortunately, the film felt the need to put in 2 teenage Superheroes (I guess to appeal to their target audience) in the guise of Atom Smasher, Noah Centineo (THE PERFECT DATE) and Cyclone, Quintessa Swindell (the TV Series IN TREATMENT). These are both decent enough - and good looking enough - performers to put on screen, and they both would look good in a CW TV Series like THE FLASH, but their characters are pointless in this film. They are add-ons that don’t really add anything to the events.
And then there is good ol’ former James Bond Pierce Brosnan as Dr. Fate, a character the BankofMarquis knew nothing about before this film, but now am clamoring for a standalone movie for Brosnan and this character. He was the best thing in this move and this veteran actor understood the assignment, bringing humor and gravitas when needed while doling out sage advice - Obi-Wan style - to both Hawkman and Black Adam throughout the film.
All-in-all, a decent time at the theater (the DCEU has certainly done worse), but, in the end, BLACK ADAM is as disposable as Cotton Candy, fun while it lasts, but not anything that will stay with you for any length of time.
Letter Grade: B (the most solid “B” that a film can have).
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Avengers: Endgame (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
The MCU will never be the same again
I’m not going to sit here and tell you that Avengers: Endgame is the best movie of the MCU, because frankly; it isn’t. It’s not even in my top three. However, as a culmination of everything Marvel has been working up to since 2008, it has to be applauded.
From a technical standpoint, Endgame is like nothing else we’ve ever seen come to the big screen, with a cast that pushes the film to breaking point, characters we remember from movies past and some we had perhaps forgotten about hit the screen in epic fashion. But how good is the finished product?
Adrift in space with no food or water, Tony Stark sends a message to Pepper Potts as his oxygen supply starts to dwindle. Meanwhile, the remaining Avengers – Thor, Black Widow, Captain America and Bruce Banner – must figure out a way to bring back their vanquished allies for an epic showdown with Thanos – the evil demigod who decimated the planet and the universe.
Directors Joe and Anthony Russo, who have by this point, helmed four MCU movies including the brilliant Captain America: Civil War are a safe pair of hands for this incredible feat of film-making, even if the movie feels overstuffed from time to time.
The film starts off exceptionally, with beautiful cinematography lending itself to some intriguing character development. Let’s not forget that we’ve been growing with some of these characters for 10 years and yet Endgame still manages to surprise and delight with new facets of their personalities.
This is helped of course by the tightly written script, but is mainly down to the actors who portray these icons of cinema. Robert Downey Jr is the best he’s been since the solo Iron Man movies and both Chris Evans and Hemsworth are immensely likeable as Captain America and Thor respectively. Unfortunately, Thor’s character arc here is a little disappointing as the Russo’s turn him into the butt of too many jokes – he is the god of thunder after all.
Where the film does suffer is with some of the newer characters. Brie Larson’s irritating Carol Danvers gets far too much screen time for someone so new to the franchise, and this sometimes feels at the expense of better, more established fan favourites. There’s nothing particularly wrong with her Captain Marvel, but she’s wooden and remains unlikeable, as she did in her solo outing earlier this year.
One individual that does standout however is Karen Gillan’s, Nebula. Always a secondary character up to this point, it’s fantastic to see her blossom and fully embody the personality of the troubled cyborg. In fact, she’s probably the best character across the entire running time.
Moments that should have more poignancy don’t get the respect they deserve
Josh Brolin’s Thanos is as intimidating as ever, though perhaps not as much as he was in last year’s Infinity War. And while the script-writing and humour are as spot on as you can imagine for a movie baring the MCU badge of honour, the Russo brothers are forced to re-write some of the franchise’s own rules – for plot reasons of course.
For fans of the entire universe, this proves unnerving but as with any series that’s lasted this long, some artistic license needs to be taken to keep it feeling fresh.
One thing that can’t be criticised however is the pacing. For a film a little over three hours long, Endgame never feels dull. Sure, there are moments that could have been trimmed down, but from thrilling set piece to thrilling set piece, the film steamrolls itself into a final hour that will have your jaw hitting the floor numerous times.
From a special effects standpoint, Endgame deserves praise. It would be easy to criticise the film for overflowing with CGI rather than the practical effects that the Star Wars and Jurassic franchises rely on, but this would be doing a disservice to the wonderful work the effects teams have done on this film. At no point are you under the illusion that this is all real, but it’s the best the MCU has been, especially towards the finale.
Nevertheless, the sheer scope of the film proves to be its undoing at times. Moments that should have more poignancy don’t get the respect they deserve and the number of characters vying for screen time naturally means some sacrifices needed to be made here and there.
Overall, Avengers: Endgame is a fitting tribute to the 21 films that came before it and acts as a cathartic exercise, putting to rest over a decade of thrilling, emotional and exciting movies. It’s action packed to the point of being exhausting and is, if you’ll pardon the pun, a technical marvel, but it just doesn’t quite hit the same heights as Infinity War and dare I say it, Thor: Ragnarok. As I stated at the beginning of this review, it would be easy for me to say Endgame is the best film in the franchise, but that would be doing a disservice to you the readers and the incredible films that truly deserve that title.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/04/27/avengers-endgame-review-the-mcu-will-never-be-the-same-again/
From a technical standpoint, Endgame is like nothing else we’ve ever seen come to the big screen, with a cast that pushes the film to breaking point, characters we remember from movies past and some we had perhaps forgotten about hit the screen in epic fashion. But how good is the finished product?
Adrift in space with no food or water, Tony Stark sends a message to Pepper Potts as his oxygen supply starts to dwindle. Meanwhile, the remaining Avengers – Thor, Black Widow, Captain America and Bruce Banner – must figure out a way to bring back their vanquished allies for an epic showdown with Thanos – the evil demigod who decimated the planet and the universe.
Directors Joe and Anthony Russo, who have by this point, helmed four MCU movies including the brilliant Captain America: Civil War are a safe pair of hands for this incredible feat of film-making, even if the movie feels overstuffed from time to time.
The film starts off exceptionally, with beautiful cinematography lending itself to some intriguing character development. Let’s not forget that we’ve been growing with some of these characters for 10 years and yet Endgame still manages to surprise and delight with new facets of their personalities.
This is helped of course by the tightly written script, but is mainly down to the actors who portray these icons of cinema. Robert Downey Jr is the best he’s been since the solo Iron Man movies and both Chris Evans and Hemsworth are immensely likeable as Captain America and Thor respectively. Unfortunately, Thor’s character arc here is a little disappointing as the Russo’s turn him into the butt of too many jokes – he is the god of thunder after all.
Where the film does suffer is with some of the newer characters. Brie Larson’s irritating Carol Danvers gets far too much screen time for someone so new to the franchise, and this sometimes feels at the expense of better, more established fan favourites. There’s nothing particularly wrong with her Captain Marvel, but she’s wooden and remains unlikeable, as she did in her solo outing earlier this year.
One individual that does standout however is Karen Gillan’s, Nebula. Always a secondary character up to this point, it’s fantastic to see her blossom and fully embody the personality of the troubled cyborg. In fact, she’s probably the best character across the entire running time.
Moments that should have more poignancy don’t get the respect they deserve
Josh Brolin’s Thanos is as intimidating as ever, though perhaps not as much as he was in last year’s Infinity War. And while the script-writing and humour are as spot on as you can imagine for a movie baring the MCU badge of honour, the Russo brothers are forced to re-write some of the franchise’s own rules – for plot reasons of course.
For fans of the entire universe, this proves unnerving but as with any series that’s lasted this long, some artistic license needs to be taken to keep it feeling fresh.
One thing that can’t be criticised however is the pacing. For a film a little over three hours long, Endgame never feels dull. Sure, there are moments that could have been trimmed down, but from thrilling set piece to thrilling set piece, the film steamrolls itself into a final hour that will have your jaw hitting the floor numerous times.
From a special effects standpoint, Endgame deserves praise. It would be easy to criticise the film for overflowing with CGI rather than the practical effects that the Star Wars and Jurassic franchises rely on, but this would be doing a disservice to the wonderful work the effects teams have done on this film. At no point are you under the illusion that this is all real, but it’s the best the MCU has been, especially towards the finale.
Nevertheless, the sheer scope of the film proves to be its undoing at times. Moments that should have more poignancy don’t get the respect they deserve and the number of characters vying for screen time naturally means some sacrifices needed to be made here and there.
Overall, Avengers: Endgame is a fitting tribute to the 21 films that came before it and acts as a cathartic exercise, putting to rest over a decade of thrilling, emotional and exciting movies. It’s action packed to the point of being exhausting and is, if you’ll pardon the pun, a technical marvel, but it just doesn’t quite hit the same heights as Infinity War and dare I say it, Thor: Ragnarok. As I stated at the beginning of this review, it would be easy for me to say Endgame is the best film in the franchise, but that would be doing a disservice to you the readers and the incredible films that truly deserve that title.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/04/27/avengers-endgame-review-the-mcu-will-never-be-the-same-again/
Darren (1599 KP) rated Aliens (1986) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Aliens starts when Ripley (Weaver) is finally rescued from her hyper sleep, only to find out that she has been sleeping for centuries, questioned for her action on the spacecraft she learns that the same planet LV-426 has been colonised with no problems from any alien species. We get to see how the colony is building on the planet which includes us watching Newt (Henn) and her family being the ones to find the alien ship.
The company representative Burke (Reiser) looks to recruit Ripley into helping them once the company loses connect with the colony, this time armed with marines led by Lieutenant Gorman (Hope). The elite unit including Corporal Hicks (Biehn), Private Hudson (Paxton), Private Vasquez (Goldstein) and Private Drake (Rolston) to mention a few is armed to the teeth ready for any combat needed, but it is the android Bishop (Henriksen) that cause Ripley the worries especially after what happened last time she was on a mission with one.
Once at the colony the soldiers find the place abandoned at first until they find Newt only to learn the truth about what happened at the base. The unit find themselves under attack from multiply xenomorphs and only Ripley knows how to fight them off.
Aliens is the sequel to one of the greatest horror movies that actually takes the film in a different direction by adding action element. This doesn’t take away anything because if the sequel had just been on one ship with limited weapons it simply would have been a remake feeling, this story feels fresh because we already know the basics of what our heroes are up against we just needed to learn how they will deal with them this time. When it comes to the story it once again is simple soldiers versus aliens in a battle to survive which all works perfectly for this classic 30 years later.
Actor Review
Sigourney Weaver: Ripley is the lone survivor from the events of the first film, she has been in hyper sleep for years. She is charged for her actions as no evidence of any alien life form is discovered in the wreck, dealing with all the side effects we get to see how she is getting on with her life again. All this changes when the company that blamed her turned to her for help on the same planet that we first met a xenomorph. When things go wrong she takes charge of the situation while trying to protect a little girl. Sigourney was nominated for an Oscar for this performance and it would hard not to praise her brilliant performance.ripley
Carrie Henn: Newt is the little girl that was living on the colony before the attack, she is also the lone survivor once the soldiers turn up to deal with the situation. She has survived by hiding and offers the soldiers much needed advice on where to survive. Carrie is great in this role for such a young actress at the time.
Michael Biehn: Corporal Hicks has to take charge of the soldiers once his seniors become incapacitated. He will listen to Ripley and make the right decisions when it comes to fighting the xenomorphs. Michael is great in this role where he actually plays the sensible soldier.
Lance Henriksen: Bishop is the android on the mission, he is instantly disliked by Ripley but this time we only see good from the android who is willing to risk his own life to save the humans. Lance is great as this android keeping the emotionless expression throughout.
Support Cast: Aliens has a supporting cast that is mostly the soldiers who are generic in their own way along with the company man that also works for this film very well.
Director Review: James Cameron – James is a director that always makes classics and this could well be his best.
Action: Aliens is filled with combat driven action which comes off very nicely in the confined spaces.
Horror: Aliens is still filled with horror of isolation on the planet being hunted down by an alien enemy.
Sci-Fi: Aliens puts our characters in space and a new planet ticking off all of the sci-fi elements to make this an action sci-fi film.
Settings: Aliens creates a larger isolation idea with the characters being trapped on a base rather than a ship with no escape from the enemy.
Special Effects: Aliens has stunning effects that still stand the test of time.xena
Suggestion: Aliens is one I do feel everyone should have watched at least once in a lifetime. (Watch)
Best Part: First meeting the aliens.
Worst Part: Depends which cut you watch, the shorter cut takes away a lot of back story.
Action Scene Of The Film: Final fight.
Favourite Quote: Ripley ‘Get away from her you bitch’
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: Yes
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: Won Two Oscars for Best Sound Effects and Visual Effects.
Box Office: $85 Million
Budget: $ 18.5 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 34 Minutes
Tagline: There are some places in the universe you don’t go alone.
Trivia: The knife trick scene was not in the original shooting script. According to Lance Henriksen, the adding of Hudson’s hand to the knife trick was discussed with almost everyone, except Bill Paxton.
Overall: Stunning sci-fi action horror that really comes off as the true classic
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/05/25/aliens-1986/
The company representative Burke (Reiser) looks to recruit Ripley into helping them once the company loses connect with the colony, this time armed with marines led by Lieutenant Gorman (Hope). The elite unit including Corporal Hicks (Biehn), Private Hudson (Paxton), Private Vasquez (Goldstein) and Private Drake (Rolston) to mention a few is armed to the teeth ready for any combat needed, but it is the android Bishop (Henriksen) that cause Ripley the worries especially after what happened last time she was on a mission with one.
Once at the colony the soldiers find the place abandoned at first until they find Newt only to learn the truth about what happened at the base. The unit find themselves under attack from multiply xenomorphs and only Ripley knows how to fight them off.
Aliens is the sequel to one of the greatest horror movies that actually takes the film in a different direction by adding action element. This doesn’t take away anything because if the sequel had just been on one ship with limited weapons it simply would have been a remake feeling, this story feels fresh because we already know the basics of what our heroes are up against we just needed to learn how they will deal with them this time. When it comes to the story it once again is simple soldiers versus aliens in a battle to survive which all works perfectly for this classic 30 years later.
Actor Review
Sigourney Weaver: Ripley is the lone survivor from the events of the first film, she has been in hyper sleep for years. She is charged for her actions as no evidence of any alien life form is discovered in the wreck, dealing with all the side effects we get to see how she is getting on with her life again. All this changes when the company that blamed her turned to her for help on the same planet that we first met a xenomorph. When things go wrong she takes charge of the situation while trying to protect a little girl. Sigourney was nominated for an Oscar for this performance and it would hard not to praise her brilliant performance.ripley
Carrie Henn: Newt is the little girl that was living on the colony before the attack, she is also the lone survivor once the soldiers turn up to deal with the situation. She has survived by hiding and offers the soldiers much needed advice on where to survive. Carrie is great in this role for such a young actress at the time.
Michael Biehn: Corporal Hicks has to take charge of the soldiers once his seniors become incapacitated. He will listen to Ripley and make the right decisions when it comes to fighting the xenomorphs. Michael is great in this role where he actually plays the sensible soldier.
Lance Henriksen: Bishop is the android on the mission, he is instantly disliked by Ripley but this time we only see good from the android who is willing to risk his own life to save the humans. Lance is great as this android keeping the emotionless expression throughout.
Support Cast: Aliens has a supporting cast that is mostly the soldiers who are generic in their own way along with the company man that also works for this film very well.
Director Review: James Cameron – James is a director that always makes classics and this could well be his best.
Action: Aliens is filled with combat driven action which comes off very nicely in the confined spaces.
Horror: Aliens is still filled with horror of isolation on the planet being hunted down by an alien enemy.
Sci-Fi: Aliens puts our characters in space and a new planet ticking off all of the sci-fi elements to make this an action sci-fi film.
Settings: Aliens creates a larger isolation idea with the characters being trapped on a base rather than a ship with no escape from the enemy.
Special Effects: Aliens has stunning effects that still stand the test of time.xena
Suggestion: Aliens is one I do feel everyone should have watched at least once in a lifetime. (Watch)
Best Part: First meeting the aliens.
Worst Part: Depends which cut you watch, the shorter cut takes away a lot of back story.
Action Scene Of The Film: Final fight.
Favourite Quote: Ripley ‘Get away from her you bitch’
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: Yes
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: Won Two Oscars for Best Sound Effects and Visual Effects.
Box Office: $85 Million
Budget: $ 18.5 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 34 Minutes
Tagline: There are some places in the universe you don’t go alone.
Trivia: The knife trick scene was not in the original shooting script. According to Lance Henriksen, the adding of Hudson’s hand to the knife trick was discussed with almost everyone, except Bill Paxton.
Overall: Stunning sci-fi action horror that really comes off as the true classic
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/05/25/aliens-1986/
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated The Passion of the Christ (2004) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Perhaps the most controversial film of our time “The Passion of the Christ” has arrived amidst much speculation and controversy. Not since “The Last Temptation of Christ” has a film garnered so much controversy and that film did not have a mega-star like Mel Gibson attached to it nor a wide-release reported to reach 2500 screens in the U.S. alone.
The film shows the final hours of Jesus leading to his crucifixion and subsequent resurrection. The film opens with Jesus (Jim Caviezel), and some of his Disciples in the garden as Jesus contemplates what is to come and prays that this burden be passed from him if it is Gods will. Jesus is visibly afraid and is unsure of what to do, as he knows Judas has betrayed him and that troops are on the way to arrest him.
Jesus is soon arrested and is beaten and taken before the Jewish elders to be accused of heresy for teaching beliefs which contradict the locale doctrine and for encouraging others to follow his teachings.
Jesus is soon taken before the Roman consul who decides to punish not execute Jesus, as he does not believe his crimes are worthy of death. Politics soon envelope the situation as the Romans fear an uprising if the wishes of the council are not followed forcing Jesus to be ordered for crucifixion.
While I am not one to give away vital parts to a films story, I take it that the majority of readers will know at least this much of the story. The emphasis on the film is on what Jesus had to endure during the final hours of his life and the untold suffering and brutality that were put upon him for his beliefs.
Much has been made of the films intense and graphic violence and I am not going to sugar coat this. The film is very intense and very violent and on more than once occasion caused me to start tearing as the film is very emotional and it is hard to watch a person suffer especially one who many believe devoted his life for the betterment of all of us regardless of faith. I have always been one that believes that all people are entitled to their beliefs and that no group has the right to say that there way is the only way and that others are wrong for not following them.
In many ways, the film drives this point home as Jesus prays for the forgiveness of those who are killing him even though they do not share his faith. The man who was killed as a threat to the society and doctrines of the community never wavered in his love for his fellow man and retained his compassion to the very end.
Gibson is to be commended for making a powerful and emotional film that can be enjoyed by people of all faiths. The film is a visual masterpiece that is highly detailed and is the most accurate depiction of the final hours of Christ ever committed to film. The use of Latin and Aramaic in combination with subtitles underscores attention to detail that Gibson put into his labor of love and as such, he deserves praise for crafting this film regardless of your opinion on the films content. This is a bold and passionate film that attempts to tell the story in the way that it happened as accurately as possible. While some of the scenes may be very difficult to watch, you will not soon forget the images and will have a hard time not being emotionally moved by the work. This is not a film that blames any group for the death of Jesus; it is simply an account as to how and why it happened. The film also serves as a message that we should all embrace and tolerate the differences in our neighbors as when we do not, atrocities can happen. As a student of history, I found myself pondering during the film in regards to what would happen if a figure arrived today that encouraged others to follow a new path and not those of the traditional religions. If said person were to become widely know and develop a large following what would happen? Would they be called a cult and prosecuted, would they be ridiculed, or would they be killed? This troubled me as I think that despite nearly 2000 years of progress there are those who would resort to violence. Such is the case of the film. The majority did not want to see Jesus killed; it was a strong and vocal minority of the population who wanted to protect their interests. The film is not anti-Semitic and does not blame any group for the death of Jesus and emphasizes that his death was in order to absolve sin and blame.
The film makes you think and in this day of disposable films, it is nice to see that despite the controversy and lack of commercial nature of the film, Gibson put his heart into the production and created one of the best films of the decade. Gibson is a master storyteller and shows that he is a gifted director and producer and should be praised for his craft.
The film shows the final hours of Jesus leading to his crucifixion and subsequent resurrection. The film opens with Jesus (Jim Caviezel), and some of his Disciples in the garden as Jesus contemplates what is to come and prays that this burden be passed from him if it is Gods will. Jesus is visibly afraid and is unsure of what to do, as he knows Judas has betrayed him and that troops are on the way to arrest him.
Jesus is soon arrested and is beaten and taken before the Jewish elders to be accused of heresy for teaching beliefs which contradict the locale doctrine and for encouraging others to follow his teachings.
Jesus is soon taken before the Roman consul who decides to punish not execute Jesus, as he does not believe his crimes are worthy of death. Politics soon envelope the situation as the Romans fear an uprising if the wishes of the council are not followed forcing Jesus to be ordered for crucifixion.
While I am not one to give away vital parts to a films story, I take it that the majority of readers will know at least this much of the story. The emphasis on the film is on what Jesus had to endure during the final hours of his life and the untold suffering and brutality that were put upon him for his beliefs.
Much has been made of the films intense and graphic violence and I am not going to sugar coat this. The film is very intense and very violent and on more than once occasion caused me to start tearing as the film is very emotional and it is hard to watch a person suffer especially one who many believe devoted his life for the betterment of all of us regardless of faith. I have always been one that believes that all people are entitled to their beliefs and that no group has the right to say that there way is the only way and that others are wrong for not following them.
In many ways, the film drives this point home as Jesus prays for the forgiveness of those who are killing him even though they do not share his faith. The man who was killed as a threat to the society and doctrines of the community never wavered in his love for his fellow man and retained his compassion to the very end.
Gibson is to be commended for making a powerful and emotional film that can be enjoyed by people of all faiths. The film is a visual masterpiece that is highly detailed and is the most accurate depiction of the final hours of Christ ever committed to film. The use of Latin and Aramaic in combination with subtitles underscores attention to detail that Gibson put into his labor of love and as such, he deserves praise for crafting this film regardless of your opinion on the films content. This is a bold and passionate film that attempts to tell the story in the way that it happened as accurately as possible. While some of the scenes may be very difficult to watch, you will not soon forget the images and will have a hard time not being emotionally moved by the work. This is not a film that blames any group for the death of Jesus; it is simply an account as to how and why it happened. The film also serves as a message that we should all embrace and tolerate the differences in our neighbors as when we do not, atrocities can happen. As a student of history, I found myself pondering during the film in regards to what would happen if a figure arrived today that encouraged others to follow a new path and not those of the traditional religions. If said person were to become widely know and develop a large following what would happen? Would they be called a cult and prosecuted, would they be ridiculed, or would they be killed? This troubled me as I think that despite nearly 2000 years of progress there are those who would resort to violence. Such is the case of the film. The majority did not want to see Jesus killed; it was a strong and vocal minority of the population who wanted to protect their interests. The film is not anti-Semitic and does not blame any group for the death of Jesus and emphasizes that his death was in order to absolve sin and blame.
The film makes you think and in this day of disposable films, it is nice to see that despite the controversy and lack of commercial nature of the film, Gibson put his heart into the production and created one of the best films of the decade. Gibson is a master storyteller and shows that he is a gifted director and producer and should be praised for his craft.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Boba Boss in Tabletop Games
Nov 21, 2019 (Updated Nov 21, 2019)
If you are a fan of Purple Phoenix Games then you probably know of our love affair with Happy Salmon. It’s an excellent dexterity card game and it just works in so many different situations. So when I saw the promo video for Boba Boss (linked below) I thought that we might have a contender on our hands. Was I right?
Boba Boss is a quick-playing modular action/dexterity card game of filling your orders for demanding customers of your delicious boba tea. You appease them by filling their order cups with brew, but your opponents are also trying to fill their cups as quickly as possible. Are you able to complete your orders before your competitors?
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know if the final components will be similar or different, or if the Kickstarter campaign will alter or add anything through stretch goals. -T
To setup, you will need to decide which modules of the game you wish to incorporate. The game comes ready to play out of the box for an easier first game. I suggest you play this way to get familiar with how the game plays before you start adding in different modules. Or don’t. I’m not your mother.
Once the game is setup your objective is this: fill all your cups. You do this by frantically flipping cards from your deck hoping to get Straw cards. One straw will fill one cup. Two straws will fill two cups. Play needs to be brisk because the other players are flipping over cards as well and some of them will instruct the player to unflip (re-flip? Probably the same thing…) your readied tea card. This means that you must hope to flip over more straw cards to fill your cups.
There are three ways to play Boba Boss and they all have to do with the spill cards. These are cards that will have text on them in different colors. The three modes of play are identified by using three aspects of the spill cards: splatter color, text color, text text. So a spill card could have a red background (splatter color). If the round is played using splatter color and you flip over one with a red splatter color, you may unflip a readied red cup. The next round you may choose to play these cards with the text color. Each card will also have bubble text in different colors. So maybe that same red splatter card will have green text, so you would unflip a readied green tea card. And the final mode is text text. This means that same card may have the text in green but the word actually spells out “purple,” in which case you will unflip a purple player’s readied tea card. Play continues in this fashion until someone yells, “BOBA!” indicating they have two or less cups to fill. Once a player has filled all their cups they must yell, “BOBA BOSS!” And then they are crowned the victor.
This is just the base base game. Like I said, this game is modular in that you can add different dimensions of difficulty to it to have just a ridiculously confusing and frenzied play experience. One such module will add “optional flavors” to your game to increase the chaos and replayability. One example is shown below – “Karatea” (karate). When you draw and play Karatea you are to kick (flick) another player’s tea cup card where they will need to reset it to continue play. This just increases the time needed for the kicked player to win and just causes mayhem in the process. These extra flavor cards were provided to us but we just could not get all of them into play. The “Royaltea” and “Tea Rex” cards are favorites of ours.
Components. Again, we were provided with a prototype version of this game, so components may end up being very different from what we played with. This game is a box of a ton of cards. Thankfully the cards provided were glossy because they are handled A LOT. The glossy protection will help with survival of the game while being obsessively played. We appreciate that. The art is great on the cards, and the colors are fabulous. No issues with components from us, even in this prototype version.
As if we didn’t already have enough stress in our lives, along comes Boba Boss and makes us sweat in the first 60 seconds. This game is such an adrenaline rush as you are trying to fill customer orders for boba tea. Playing with three different game modes and tons of different cards to be added in modular fashion makes for an excellent balance of chaos and brain adaptation that you just don’t get anywhere else. Honestly, as you can see from our preview, we had so much fun playing that we didn’t have time to take photos of much of the game, but we hope in adding our photo along with a graphic and video from the publisher that you will forgive us. We are very excited to watch this Kickstarter campaign and hopefully our readers will give it a chance. It fills a unique niche and earns a place next to our beloved Happy Salmon. High praise for a great game.
Boba Boss is a quick-playing modular action/dexterity card game of filling your orders for demanding customers of your delicious boba tea. You appease them by filling their order cups with brew, but your opponents are also trying to fill their cups as quickly as possible. Are you able to complete your orders before your competitors?
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know if the final components will be similar or different, or if the Kickstarter campaign will alter or add anything through stretch goals. -T
To setup, you will need to decide which modules of the game you wish to incorporate. The game comes ready to play out of the box for an easier first game. I suggest you play this way to get familiar with how the game plays before you start adding in different modules. Or don’t. I’m not your mother.
Once the game is setup your objective is this: fill all your cups. You do this by frantically flipping cards from your deck hoping to get Straw cards. One straw will fill one cup. Two straws will fill two cups. Play needs to be brisk because the other players are flipping over cards as well and some of them will instruct the player to unflip (re-flip? Probably the same thing…) your readied tea card. This means that you must hope to flip over more straw cards to fill your cups.
There are three ways to play Boba Boss and they all have to do with the spill cards. These are cards that will have text on them in different colors. The three modes of play are identified by using three aspects of the spill cards: splatter color, text color, text text. So a spill card could have a red background (splatter color). If the round is played using splatter color and you flip over one with a red splatter color, you may unflip a readied red cup. The next round you may choose to play these cards with the text color. Each card will also have bubble text in different colors. So maybe that same red splatter card will have green text, so you would unflip a readied green tea card. And the final mode is text text. This means that same card may have the text in green but the word actually spells out “purple,” in which case you will unflip a purple player’s readied tea card. Play continues in this fashion until someone yells, “BOBA!” indicating they have two or less cups to fill. Once a player has filled all their cups they must yell, “BOBA BOSS!” And then they are crowned the victor.
This is just the base base game. Like I said, this game is modular in that you can add different dimensions of difficulty to it to have just a ridiculously confusing and frenzied play experience. One such module will add “optional flavors” to your game to increase the chaos and replayability. One example is shown below – “Karatea” (karate). When you draw and play Karatea you are to kick (flick) another player’s tea cup card where they will need to reset it to continue play. This just increases the time needed for the kicked player to win and just causes mayhem in the process. These extra flavor cards were provided to us but we just could not get all of them into play. The “Royaltea” and “Tea Rex” cards are favorites of ours.
Components. Again, we were provided with a prototype version of this game, so components may end up being very different from what we played with. This game is a box of a ton of cards. Thankfully the cards provided were glossy because they are handled A LOT. The glossy protection will help with survival of the game while being obsessively played. We appreciate that. The art is great on the cards, and the colors are fabulous. No issues with components from us, even in this prototype version.
As if we didn’t already have enough stress in our lives, along comes Boba Boss and makes us sweat in the first 60 seconds. This game is such an adrenaline rush as you are trying to fill customer orders for boba tea. Playing with three different game modes and tons of different cards to be added in modular fashion makes for an excellent balance of chaos and brain adaptation that you just don’t get anywhere else. Honestly, as you can see from our preview, we had so much fun playing that we didn’t have time to take photos of much of the game, but we hope in adding our photo along with a graphic and video from the publisher that you will forgive us. We are very excited to watch this Kickstarter campaign and hopefully our readers will give it a chance. It fills a unique niche and earns a place next to our beloved Happy Salmon. High praise for a great game.
Service-Oriented Architecture: Concepts, Technology, and Design
Book
"Service Oriented Architecture is a hot, but often misunderstood topic in IT today. Thomas...
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Parasite (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021 (Updated Jan 22, 2021)
Hello there! It’s been six weeks since my last post – Covid 19 related restriction issues sent me to a very odd place mentally and it has taken me a while to snap out of it enough to have the energy and will to keep writing these reviews. But what better way to recomense than with the history making Best Picture film from earlier in this strange year of 2020, before all the things that changed our way of thinking began?
The hype surrounding this movie in January was immense, for a film coming from Korea out of the blue, with an image and plot that didn’t fit into any of the normal marketing boxes. Every review ranged from this is incredible to… just see it for yourself. Nothing could have been more intriguing. I was certainly hooked on the idea, although by the time the Oscars came around I still hadn’t managed to see it at the cinema.
I found it fascinating that the academy had chosen 2020 as the year to change the dodgy sounding “Best Foreign Language film” to “Best International film”. It was about time, really, to acknowledge the us and them philosophy of world cinema didn’t really wash. And as the sublime Roma had paved the way for non English films to be considered again in all the main categories as serious contenders, I just had a feeling this was the year Oscar would make a statement with this film.
And so it turned out to be. It was a strong year. At the time I was a huge Joker advocate, having not yet seen 1917 either. Looking back now, I think, although not as perfect as Roma the year before, Parasite certainly deserves the praise and accolades it garnered from all around the world. Although any of those 3 films (Parasite, 1917 and Joker) would have been obvious winners in any other less competitive year.
So what is it about Parasite that raises it above the masses? Well, for a start it looks both beautiful and awe inspiring in every shot. Each image is designed and framed expertly to create a montage of mood and form that holds the multi-layered storytelling in place. Rarely have I seen such a well balanced and crisp visual design for a film, of any kind. Even with the subtitles off there is plenty to engage the eye and mind here. But it’s real secret is how it draws you in to believing you are watching one kind of satirical drama for about 40 minutes and then punches you in the solar plexus with the revelation that it has mutated into something darker, weirder and more entertaining on every level.
The “twist” when it comes along is so well placed and unexpected, even if you are told to expect one, that it entirely transforms your experience. You have been engaging with social issues and a basic satire on the rich vs the poor, where true power is a good wifi signal, and then, blam, you are watching a modern horror story with truly disturbing ramifications. I found this gear shift riveting and striking in a way that I can’t remember from a film in a long time.
But, looking back on it after several months, is that tonal shift really a strength? Some criticism, however minor in the scheme of things, did point this out, that what we get with Parasite is an unfocused and confused mix of genres that doesn’t entirely cohere. I mean, I see that, but have to disagree, simply because the writing at every point is too intelligent and sharp to give a damn about staying still and balanced on just one idea. Parasite is an exercise in energetic chaos that juggles many balls, all as interesting as one another, without dropping any of them.
Poverty, class, elitism, generational gaps, vanity, work ethics and morality, roles within a family unit, loyalty, weakness, revenge and bitterness are all themes here, and many more. Start going down the alley of one conversation that Parasite starts and end up somewhere entirely different in just a few sentences. And that is why it is worth seeing, several times. And that is why it works and was rewarded.
Is it a film I will be keen to see over again as the years pass? Yes and no. I’d probably be most interested to see it with someone who hasn’t seen it, to see their reaction. But I’m much less likely to give it multiple watches than the previous mentioned Joker and 1917, or indeed Roma, which I just can’t help comparing it to, even though they have virtually nothing in common, as I wish it had been Roma that made history at the awards rather than this. Of course, it is personal taste at that level of quality, but I believe Roma to be the better film.
If nothing else, however, Parasite marks the graduation of Bong Joon Ho, from a quirky filmmaker, whose interesting but not quite great near misses include The Host, Snowpiercer and Okja – all entertaining but flawed – to an auteur of considerable skill. Will the elements of his mind and vision ever align this well again. I hope so. I’ll be looking out for it, as will the rest of the world now.
The hype surrounding this movie in January was immense, for a film coming from Korea out of the blue, with an image and plot that didn’t fit into any of the normal marketing boxes. Every review ranged from this is incredible to… just see it for yourself. Nothing could have been more intriguing. I was certainly hooked on the idea, although by the time the Oscars came around I still hadn’t managed to see it at the cinema.
I found it fascinating that the academy had chosen 2020 as the year to change the dodgy sounding “Best Foreign Language film” to “Best International film”. It was about time, really, to acknowledge the us and them philosophy of world cinema didn’t really wash. And as the sublime Roma had paved the way for non English films to be considered again in all the main categories as serious contenders, I just had a feeling this was the year Oscar would make a statement with this film.
And so it turned out to be. It was a strong year. At the time I was a huge Joker advocate, having not yet seen 1917 either. Looking back now, I think, although not as perfect as Roma the year before, Parasite certainly deserves the praise and accolades it garnered from all around the world. Although any of those 3 films (Parasite, 1917 and Joker) would have been obvious winners in any other less competitive year.
So what is it about Parasite that raises it above the masses? Well, for a start it looks both beautiful and awe inspiring in every shot. Each image is designed and framed expertly to create a montage of mood and form that holds the multi-layered storytelling in place. Rarely have I seen such a well balanced and crisp visual design for a film, of any kind. Even with the subtitles off there is plenty to engage the eye and mind here. But it’s real secret is how it draws you in to believing you are watching one kind of satirical drama for about 40 minutes and then punches you in the solar plexus with the revelation that it has mutated into something darker, weirder and more entertaining on every level.
The “twist” when it comes along is so well placed and unexpected, even if you are told to expect one, that it entirely transforms your experience. You have been engaging with social issues and a basic satire on the rich vs the poor, where true power is a good wifi signal, and then, blam, you are watching a modern horror story with truly disturbing ramifications. I found this gear shift riveting and striking in a way that I can’t remember from a film in a long time.
But, looking back on it after several months, is that tonal shift really a strength? Some criticism, however minor in the scheme of things, did point this out, that what we get with Parasite is an unfocused and confused mix of genres that doesn’t entirely cohere. I mean, I see that, but have to disagree, simply because the writing at every point is too intelligent and sharp to give a damn about staying still and balanced on just one idea. Parasite is an exercise in energetic chaos that juggles many balls, all as interesting as one another, without dropping any of them.
Poverty, class, elitism, generational gaps, vanity, work ethics and morality, roles within a family unit, loyalty, weakness, revenge and bitterness are all themes here, and many more. Start going down the alley of one conversation that Parasite starts and end up somewhere entirely different in just a few sentences. And that is why it is worth seeing, several times. And that is why it works and was rewarded.
Is it a film I will be keen to see over again as the years pass? Yes and no. I’d probably be most interested to see it with someone who hasn’t seen it, to see their reaction. But I’m much less likely to give it multiple watches than the previous mentioned Joker and 1917, or indeed Roma, which I just can’t help comparing it to, even though they have virtually nothing in common, as I wish it had been Roma that made history at the awards rather than this. Of course, it is personal taste at that level of quality, but I believe Roma to be the better film.
If nothing else, however, Parasite marks the graduation of Bong Joon Ho, from a quirky filmmaker, whose interesting but not quite great near misses include The Host, Snowpiercer and Okja – all entertaining but flawed – to an auteur of considerable skill. Will the elements of his mind and vision ever align this well again. I hope so. I’ll be looking out for it, as will the rest of the world now.
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated The Greatest Showman (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
I can’t claim to know much about musicals. I don’t actively avoid them, but I don’t go out of my way to see them either. The few that I have seen and liked don’t seem to sit well with the musical theater crowd either. For instance, recently in conversation my defense of Russell Crowe as Javert in the latest adaptation of Les Misérables was shot down in a matter of seconds. My wife, with some frequency, reminds me that my (until now) secret admiration of Tim Burton’s Sweeney Todd is something that should never be declared in a public forum. For me, one of the best achievements in musical film will always be South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut; and though there is a general positivity about it, I’ve never seen it taken all that seriously as a contemporary musical (it was certainly a hell of a lot more memorable than 2003’s Best Picture winner, Chicago). So, if you haven’t already decided my opinion will be moot and stopped reading, I will, with the limited appreciation I have for this genre, give The Greatest Showman the fairest shake I can.
At a surprisingly short hour and forty-five minutes, this high-concept imagining of the meteoric rise of P.T. Barnum (Hugh Jackman), from the impoverished son of a tailor to one of the biggest names in the history of entertainment, should absolutely fly by. Tragically, it doesn’t. Beginning with an irresponsibly rushed first act that condenses decades of backstory into a few minutes, it dramatically stops dead between its second and third acts as we’re subjected to three songs in a row that not all that subtly beat us over the head with the inevitably that our leads are going to have to face some predictable, life-changing conflict before the big finale. Showman also suffers from the delusion that period pieces will be more engaging and relatable with a modern-inspired soundtrack, à la Baz Luhrmann’s misguided attempt at The Great Gatsby. The idea being that the music of the time, though antiquated to us now, would have sounded modern to people then, so why not put modern music, whether original or sourced, over period images in an attempt to bridge the gap between their world and ours? It’s a concept that might sound great on paper, but as Luhrmann already proved, the final results don’t so much complement each other as they expose each other’s weaknesses.
Its major flaw though, and why The Greatest Showman fails to be a great anything, is the insistence on force-feeding moments of attempted catharsis every 15-20 minutes, having earned almost none of them. A great many of the numbers are presented as such grand, climactic set pieces that they don’t feel as though they are working to serve a cohesive, larger whole. We are inundated with a blur of crescendo after crescendo and left little time to reflect on what we have just seen and heard before the film clumsily bounds off to the next song-and-dance laden plot point; and if you asked me to name any of the individual tunes now three days later, I’d be hard-pressed to do so. It’s an odd juxtaposition, and one I’ve very rarely experienced, wanting so badly for a film to end and at the same time wishing it had been given more time to fully realize its scope. Keep your ears open as well for an ill-advised line in which Barnum proudly compares himself to Napoleon. Isn’t Barnum supposed to be the “hero” of this piece, someone we are supposed to identify with and for whom we want to find success? Somebody please provide Showman’s writers a history lesson that didn’t just come off a Wikipedia page (for Barnum and Napoleon’s sakes).
With any negative criticism, I do like to try and go out on something positive, and if I have to concede anything to this movie, it’s that it finds its footing, albeit temporarily, while addressing issues of equality. Showman shines in the few moments where the supporting players portraying Barnum’s “oddities”, Keala Settle as Lettie Lutz in particular, are given the opportunity to stand toe-to-toe with the leads and, in many of these scenes, they rise above even the likes of Hugh Jackman. Another member of the cast who merits a little bit of praise (and I reserve the right to retract this at any time of my choosing, more than likely with whatever juvenile comedy he’ll be seen in next) is Zac Efron. Exposure to the likes of Nicole Kidman and John Cusack in 2012’s sadly overlooked The Paperboy, may finally be yielding results as he is the only lead who leaves an impression. Though his journey as a high society playwright begrudgingly brought into Barnum’s world definitely leans heavily on the saccharine side, it does provide a break of plausibility in amongst the unbridled chaos of the rest of the picture. I wouldn’t doubt that there is a much better movie that could have been made from expanding into its own feature the subplot of his character bucking the expectations of his status to fall in love with a circus performer.
At a surprisingly short hour and forty-five minutes, this high-concept imagining of the meteoric rise of P.T. Barnum (Hugh Jackman), from the impoverished son of a tailor to one of the biggest names in the history of entertainment, should absolutely fly by. Tragically, it doesn’t. Beginning with an irresponsibly rushed first act that condenses decades of backstory into a few minutes, it dramatically stops dead between its second and third acts as we’re subjected to three songs in a row that not all that subtly beat us over the head with the inevitably that our leads are going to have to face some predictable, life-changing conflict before the big finale. Showman also suffers from the delusion that period pieces will be more engaging and relatable with a modern-inspired soundtrack, à la Baz Luhrmann’s misguided attempt at The Great Gatsby. The idea being that the music of the time, though antiquated to us now, would have sounded modern to people then, so why not put modern music, whether original or sourced, over period images in an attempt to bridge the gap between their world and ours? It’s a concept that might sound great on paper, but as Luhrmann already proved, the final results don’t so much complement each other as they expose each other’s weaknesses.
Its major flaw though, and why The Greatest Showman fails to be a great anything, is the insistence on force-feeding moments of attempted catharsis every 15-20 minutes, having earned almost none of them. A great many of the numbers are presented as such grand, climactic set pieces that they don’t feel as though they are working to serve a cohesive, larger whole. We are inundated with a blur of crescendo after crescendo and left little time to reflect on what we have just seen and heard before the film clumsily bounds off to the next song-and-dance laden plot point; and if you asked me to name any of the individual tunes now three days later, I’d be hard-pressed to do so. It’s an odd juxtaposition, and one I’ve very rarely experienced, wanting so badly for a film to end and at the same time wishing it had been given more time to fully realize its scope. Keep your ears open as well for an ill-advised line in which Barnum proudly compares himself to Napoleon. Isn’t Barnum supposed to be the “hero” of this piece, someone we are supposed to identify with and for whom we want to find success? Somebody please provide Showman’s writers a history lesson that didn’t just come off a Wikipedia page (for Barnum and Napoleon’s sakes).
With any negative criticism, I do like to try and go out on something positive, and if I have to concede anything to this movie, it’s that it finds its footing, albeit temporarily, while addressing issues of equality. Showman shines in the few moments where the supporting players portraying Barnum’s “oddities”, Keala Settle as Lettie Lutz in particular, are given the opportunity to stand toe-to-toe with the leads and, in many of these scenes, they rise above even the likes of Hugh Jackman. Another member of the cast who merits a little bit of praise (and I reserve the right to retract this at any time of my choosing, more than likely with whatever juvenile comedy he’ll be seen in next) is Zac Efron. Exposure to the likes of Nicole Kidman and John Cusack in 2012’s sadly overlooked The Paperboy, may finally be yielding results as he is the only lead who leaves an impression. Though his journey as a high society playwright begrudgingly brought into Barnum’s world definitely leans heavily on the saccharine side, it does provide a break of plausibility in amongst the unbridled chaos of the rest of the picture. I wouldn’t doubt that there is a much better movie that could have been made from expanding into its own feature the subplot of his character bucking the expectations of his status to fall in love with a circus performer.