Search
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Crisis (2021) in Movies
Feb 19, 2021
Worth it just for Oldman
Crisis is a 2021 film from write, director and producer Nicholas Jarecki, who previously brought us 2012's Arbitrage starring Richard Gere. Crisis is a story about drugs, namely opioids, and follows three separate yet related narratives about opioids and their impact on US society. There's an undercover DEA agent posing as a drug trafficker arranging a Fentanyl smuggling operation between Canada and the US (Armie Hammer), a recovering addict architect determined to track down those responsible for her son's involvement in narcotics (Evangeline Lilly), and a university professor (Gary Oldman) who's research laboratory uncovers dangerous revelations about a new drug that they've been paid to research by a very influential drug company and their executives (Luke Evans).
The main purpose of Crisis appears to be highlighting two entirely juxtaposed real life issues with opioids - the illegal smuggling and import of street drugs and the completely legal yet questionable drugs introduced by drug companies with full support of the government. For most, neither of these stories should be particularly surprising as they're fairly common knowledge and have been featured in countless films and documentaries over the years, although I think this may be the first time the two stories have been shown together in a film. And for Crisis this really works - showing the two contrasting issues makes for a more interesting and unique story rather than concentrating solely on one that we've seen many times before, especially as its split into three separate narratives.
However, the problem with Crisis is that not all of the narratives are as engaging as intended. Evangeline Lilly puts in a wonderful and emotional performance as architect and mother Claire, but her narrative becomes a little unrealistic as she becomes bent on revenge at those responsible for involving her son in the drugs underworld. And unfortunately Armie Hammer's narrative as undercover federal agent Jake is nothing original, with a smuggling operation and drugs bust that we've seen in many other films, some of which I'm afraid have done it a lot better. The most interesting narrative though is that of Gary Oldman as Dr Tyrone Brower, whose struggle over whether to tell the truth about a new dangerous drug or take the money from his drug company employers is a surprisingly thrilling morality tale. It's helped by a superb turn from Oldman himself and a wonderful supporting role from Greg Kinnear (who I've adored since 1997's As Good As It Gets), and the verbal sparring scenes between Brower and Kinnear's university Dean are probably the best in the film. It's a shame however that Luke Evans isn't given as much to do with his part in this narrative, even with his questionable American accent.
The biggest problem I had with all of the narratives is that unlike similar films that intertwine related narratives that eventually intersect dramatically (think 2006's Best Picture Oscar winner Crash), the narratives here don't all come together in the way I was expecting, which was rather disappointing.
Cinematography-wise, director and writer Jarecki does a good job as the film looks and feels good, and really highlights the US and Canadian settings. The soundtrack only adds to the overall tense and suspenseful feel of the film, although it does feature the typical pulsing, drum beat style that seems to be standard for a modern thriller. And the script, while possibly a little clichéd especially around the drugs bust and smuggling, is good and with his supporting acting role as Jake's fellow DEA agent Stan, Nicholas Jarecki could be one to watch in future.
Overall, Crisis is a good thriller that tells the story of well-known drug issues in a different way and does well in highlighting real life concerns. For the most part it succeeds in bringing an interesting set of narratives together for a fairly gripping albeit slightly long film, and despite my preconceptions about how its intersecting storylines should play out, it is an enjoyable watch, although for the most part thanks to the talents of Gary Oldman.
The main purpose of Crisis appears to be highlighting two entirely juxtaposed real life issues with opioids - the illegal smuggling and import of street drugs and the completely legal yet questionable drugs introduced by drug companies with full support of the government. For most, neither of these stories should be particularly surprising as they're fairly common knowledge and have been featured in countless films and documentaries over the years, although I think this may be the first time the two stories have been shown together in a film. And for Crisis this really works - showing the two contrasting issues makes for a more interesting and unique story rather than concentrating solely on one that we've seen many times before, especially as its split into three separate narratives.
However, the problem with Crisis is that not all of the narratives are as engaging as intended. Evangeline Lilly puts in a wonderful and emotional performance as architect and mother Claire, but her narrative becomes a little unrealistic as she becomes bent on revenge at those responsible for involving her son in the drugs underworld. And unfortunately Armie Hammer's narrative as undercover federal agent Jake is nothing original, with a smuggling operation and drugs bust that we've seen in many other films, some of which I'm afraid have done it a lot better. The most interesting narrative though is that of Gary Oldman as Dr Tyrone Brower, whose struggle over whether to tell the truth about a new dangerous drug or take the money from his drug company employers is a surprisingly thrilling morality tale. It's helped by a superb turn from Oldman himself and a wonderful supporting role from Greg Kinnear (who I've adored since 1997's As Good As It Gets), and the verbal sparring scenes between Brower and Kinnear's university Dean are probably the best in the film. It's a shame however that Luke Evans isn't given as much to do with his part in this narrative, even with his questionable American accent.
The biggest problem I had with all of the narratives is that unlike similar films that intertwine related narratives that eventually intersect dramatically (think 2006's Best Picture Oscar winner Crash), the narratives here don't all come together in the way I was expecting, which was rather disappointing.
Cinematography-wise, director and writer Jarecki does a good job as the film looks and feels good, and really highlights the US and Canadian settings. The soundtrack only adds to the overall tense and suspenseful feel of the film, although it does feature the typical pulsing, drum beat style that seems to be standard for a modern thriller. And the script, while possibly a little clichéd especially around the drugs bust and smuggling, is good and with his supporting acting role as Jake's fellow DEA agent Stan, Nicholas Jarecki could be one to watch in future.
Overall, Crisis is a good thriller that tells the story of well-known drug issues in a different way and does well in highlighting real life concerns. For the most part it succeeds in bringing an interesting set of narratives together for a fairly gripping albeit slightly long film, and despite my preconceptions about how its intersecting storylines should play out, it is an enjoyable watch, although for the most part thanks to the talents of Gary Oldman.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Arrival (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Wow – what a surprise.
Sometimes I can get very irritated by a trailer for giving too much away (case in point, “Room” – which I recut – and more recently “Passengers”). Sometimes I can get very excited by a really good teaser trailer (case in point, “10 Cloverfield Lane”). But most of the time a “ho hum” trailer typically drives the expectation of a “ho hum” film: “Jack Reacher: Never Look Back” being a good recent example. Then there is “Arrival”…
Because the trailer for “Arrival” belies absolutely nothing about the depth and complexity of the film. At face value, it looks like a dubious “Close Encounters” wannabe, with a threat of movement towards the likes of “Independence Day” and “The 5th Wave”. Actually what you get is a film that approaches the grandeur of “Close Encounters” but interlaces it with the intellectual depth of “Inception”, the mystery of “Intersteller” and a heavy emotional jolt or two of “Up”.
Amy Adams (“Batman vs Superman”) plays Dr Louise Banks, a language teacher at a US university facing a bunch of particularly disengaged students one morning. For good reason since world news is afoot. Twelve alien craft have positioned themselves strategically around the world, hanging a few feet from the ground in just the sort of way that bricks don’t. Banks is approached by Colonel Weber (Forest Whitaker) and offered the job of trying to communicate with the aliens: where did they come from? why are they here? Banks faces the biggest challenge of her academic career in trying to devise a strategy for communication without any foundation of knowledge on what level communication even works at for them. Assisted by Ian Donelly (Jeremy Renner, “Mission Impossible IV/V”, “Avengers”), a theoretical physicist, the pair try to crack the code against a deadline set by the inexorable rise of international tensions – driven by China’s General Chang (Tzi Ma, “Veep”; “24”).
Steven Spielberg made a rare error of judgement by adding scenes in his “Special Edition” of “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” showing everyman power guy Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfuss) entering the alien spacecraft. Some things are best left to the imagination. Here, a reprise of that mistake seems inevitable, but – perversely – seems to be pulled off with mastery and aplomb. The aliens are well rendered, and the small scale nature of the set (I’m sure I’ve been in similar dingy waiting rooms in UK railway stations!) is cleverly handled by the environmental conditions.
But where the screenplay really kills it is in the emergence of the real power unleashed by the translation work. To say any more would deliver spoilers, which I won’t do. But this is a masterly piece of science-fiction writing. The screenplay was by Eric Heisserer – someone with a limited scriptwriting CV of horror film reboots/sequels such as “Final Destination 5”, “The Thing” and “A Nightmare on Elm Street” – so the portents were not good, which just adds to the surprise. If I were to be critical, some of the dialogue at times is a little TOO clever for its own good and smacks of Aaron Sorkin over-exposition: the comment about “They have a word for it in Hungary” for example went right over my head.
Denis Villeneuve (“Sicario”) deftly directs, leaving the pace of the story glacially slow in places to let the audience deduce what is going on at their own speed. This will NOT be to the liking of movie fans who like their films in a wham-bam of CGI, but was very much to my liking. The film in fact has very little exposition, giving you lots to think about after the credits roll: there were elements of the story (such as her book) that still generated debate with my better half on the drive home.
Amy Adams and Jeremy Renner are first rate and an effectively moody score by Jóhann Jóhannsson (“Sicario”; “The Theory of Everything”) round off the other high-point credits for me.
An extraordinary film, this is a must see for sci-fi fans but also for lovers of good cinema and well-crafted stories.
Because the trailer for “Arrival” belies absolutely nothing about the depth and complexity of the film. At face value, it looks like a dubious “Close Encounters” wannabe, with a threat of movement towards the likes of “Independence Day” and “The 5th Wave”. Actually what you get is a film that approaches the grandeur of “Close Encounters” but interlaces it with the intellectual depth of “Inception”, the mystery of “Intersteller” and a heavy emotional jolt or two of “Up”.
Amy Adams (“Batman vs Superman”) plays Dr Louise Banks, a language teacher at a US university facing a bunch of particularly disengaged students one morning. For good reason since world news is afoot. Twelve alien craft have positioned themselves strategically around the world, hanging a few feet from the ground in just the sort of way that bricks don’t. Banks is approached by Colonel Weber (Forest Whitaker) and offered the job of trying to communicate with the aliens: where did they come from? why are they here? Banks faces the biggest challenge of her academic career in trying to devise a strategy for communication without any foundation of knowledge on what level communication even works at for them. Assisted by Ian Donelly (Jeremy Renner, “Mission Impossible IV/V”, “Avengers”), a theoretical physicist, the pair try to crack the code against a deadline set by the inexorable rise of international tensions – driven by China’s General Chang (Tzi Ma, “Veep”; “24”).
Steven Spielberg made a rare error of judgement by adding scenes in his “Special Edition” of “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” showing everyman power guy Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfuss) entering the alien spacecraft. Some things are best left to the imagination. Here, a reprise of that mistake seems inevitable, but – perversely – seems to be pulled off with mastery and aplomb. The aliens are well rendered, and the small scale nature of the set (I’m sure I’ve been in similar dingy waiting rooms in UK railway stations!) is cleverly handled by the environmental conditions.
But where the screenplay really kills it is in the emergence of the real power unleashed by the translation work. To say any more would deliver spoilers, which I won’t do. But this is a masterly piece of science-fiction writing. The screenplay was by Eric Heisserer – someone with a limited scriptwriting CV of horror film reboots/sequels such as “Final Destination 5”, “The Thing” and “A Nightmare on Elm Street” – so the portents were not good, which just adds to the surprise. If I were to be critical, some of the dialogue at times is a little TOO clever for its own good and smacks of Aaron Sorkin over-exposition: the comment about “They have a word for it in Hungary” for example went right over my head.
Denis Villeneuve (“Sicario”) deftly directs, leaving the pace of the story glacially slow in places to let the audience deduce what is going on at their own speed. This will NOT be to the liking of movie fans who like their films in a wham-bam of CGI, but was very much to my liking. The film in fact has very little exposition, giving you lots to think about after the credits roll: there were elements of the story (such as her book) that still generated debate with my better half on the drive home.
Amy Adams and Jeremy Renner are first rate and an effectively moody score by Jóhann Jóhannsson (“Sicario”; “The Theory of Everything”) round off the other high-point credits for me.
An extraordinary film, this is a must see for sci-fi fans but also for lovers of good cinema and well-crafted stories.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated How Hard Can It Be? in Books
Mar 10, 2019 (Updated Mar 10, 2019)
Things have taken a bit of a turn for Kate Reddy--she's nearing 50, her husband has lost his job and spends most of his time cycling, and her kids are busy teenagers. With Richard out of work, Kate has to return to work. However, she finds that the financial community isn't welcoming to a woman on the cusp of fifty. When Kate decides to pretend she's seven years younger to enter the working world, she winds up working at the hedge fund she originally started. Once back at work, though, she finds herself overwhelmed dealing with everything: the unhelpful husband, the ungrateful kids, the demanding colleagues, and an unexpected appearance from an old flame.
This was a tough one for me. It was a slow read, although in its defense, I read it during a very busy time at work. I empathized with Kate's return to working motherhood--especially juggling kids and work and dealing with a male-driven workplace. I didn't enjoy the intense focus on how old Kate was, making her seem nearly decrepit at fifty. It's one thing to deal with turning the big 5-0 and its ramifications, but its another to make it seem like it's the end of the world. Even worse, while Kate could seem so strong in the workplace, she was such a pushover with her children. She was supposedly clueless with technology, unable to keep up with their exploits, and a complete doormat. (I also couldn't handle the endless endearments she used with her kids--there's only so many "sweeties" and "darlings" I can take.)
There are certainly humorous moments in the novel. This is a sequel to Pearson's first novel featuring Reddy and the parts I enjoyed here were the parts I liked about the first one: Kate's wit, her ability to take on the "big boys" at her fund, and the snippets of emails between her and her friend, Candy. There were definitely pieces of the novel that I found myself nodding along with--her moments of anxiety; her rants about how working moms are treated; some insights into kids and the social media era, etc. And Kate certainly doesn't have an easy go of it, with her clueless husband, helpless kids, crumbling house, aging parents, and stressful job.
That being said, I could see most of the plot twists coming a mile away, and you couldn't help but get frustrated that Kate couldn't see them too. Overall, while I found parts of this novel funny, refreshing, and quite apropos, I couldn't really get over Kate's obsession with her looks or her one-sided relationship with her children. In the end my rating is probably bumped up a bit for a little Kate Reddy nostalgia.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
This was a tough one for me. It was a slow read, although in its defense, I read it during a very busy time at work. I empathized with Kate's return to working motherhood--especially juggling kids and work and dealing with a male-driven workplace. I didn't enjoy the intense focus on how old Kate was, making her seem nearly decrepit at fifty. It's one thing to deal with turning the big 5-0 and its ramifications, but its another to make it seem like it's the end of the world. Even worse, while Kate could seem so strong in the workplace, she was such a pushover with her children. She was supposedly clueless with technology, unable to keep up with their exploits, and a complete doormat. (I also couldn't handle the endless endearments she used with her kids--there's only so many "sweeties" and "darlings" I can take.)
There are certainly humorous moments in the novel. This is a sequel to Pearson's first novel featuring Reddy and the parts I enjoyed here were the parts I liked about the first one: Kate's wit, her ability to take on the "big boys" at her fund, and the snippets of emails between her and her friend, Candy. There were definitely pieces of the novel that I found myself nodding along with--her moments of anxiety; her rants about how working moms are treated; some insights into kids and the social media era, etc. And Kate certainly doesn't have an easy go of it, with her clueless husband, helpless kids, crumbling house, aging parents, and stressful job.
That being said, I could see most of the plot twists coming a mile away, and you couldn't help but get frustrated that Kate couldn't see them too. Overall, while I found parts of this novel funny, refreshing, and quite apropos, I couldn't really get over Kate's obsession with her looks or her one-sided relationship with her children. In the end my rating is probably bumped up a bit for a little Kate Reddy nostalgia.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
Sassy Brit (97 KP) rated The Blind in Books
Jun 6, 2019
^^ When Sam James, a highly regarded psychologist at a notorious psychological institute, meets disturbed patient Richard, their lives take an unexpected turn as the lines between sane and sanity blur between them.
^^ As a psychological thriller this story’s different. I’m not sure ANY book will beat ‘One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest’, (which this one was compared to), but it’s still a terrific read in many ways.
^^ For a psychologist who is supposed to have her head screwed on right helping patients with their mental health problems, she has a hell of a lot of her own issues to deal with. Sam’s in an unhealthy, abusive relationship, had an unpleasant upbringing and is on the verge of becoming a full-blown alcoholic. On top of all that, she’s overloaded with cases, as all the staff are, underpaid and at risk of losing her job.
^^ Hang on! This sounds very much like the kind of things real healthcare professionals deal with! Especially when it comes to lack of funding, high staff turnover and a never-ending influx of new patients all suffering and needing help. (Can you tell I once worked in a similar healthcare environment?) It’s no wonder we can watch Sam’s health and mental stability decline before our very eyes. Not only that, she digs herself deeper into trouble making awful decisions, putting both herself and her patients at risk.
^^ What niggled me was I guessed what was going to happen quite early on. Is this only me? Or maybe, since I worked in a similar place, I saw the signs sooner? Who knows. Despite this, I still enjoyed the read, but found myself getting a little frustrated towards the end when neither Sam, nor her friend and coworker, David, could see what was happening. I guess you could say it really was ‘The blind leading the blind’.
^^ It’s a pity guessing what was about to happen, for ages, spoilt the shock ending of the last two sentences, which finally gave the game away to anyone who hadn’t already guessed. But hey, ho!
^^ I found this started off, slow, albeit in a curious way, like watching a candle burning at both ends. Then it hit the ground running midway, and by the last third I was staying up far too late at night wanting to read ‘just one more page’. Watching Sam’s life and sanity unravelling, was strangely intriguing.
Overall: For those with an interest in stories which openly talk about mental health issues, I think you’ll really enjoy this. The author shows a deep understanding of the healthcare industry and it’s clear she knows her stuff. She should do. A.F. Brady is a New York State Licensed Mental Health Counselor/Psychotherapist. She holds a Bachelor’s degree in Psychology from Brown University and two Masters degrees in Psychological Counseling from Columbia University. That’s why!
^^ As a psychological thriller this story’s different. I’m not sure ANY book will beat ‘One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest’, (which this one was compared to), but it’s still a terrific read in many ways.
^^ For a psychologist who is supposed to have her head screwed on right helping patients with their mental health problems, she has a hell of a lot of her own issues to deal with. Sam’s in an unhealthy, abusive relationship, had an unpleasant upbringing and is on the verge of becoming a full-blown alcoholic. On top of all that, she’s overloaded with cases, as all the staff are, underpaid and at risk of losing her job.
^^ Hang on! This sounds very much like the kind of things real healthcare professionals deal with! Especially when it comes to lack of funding, high staff turnover and a never-ending influx of new patients all suffering and needing help. (Can you tell I once worked in a similar healthcare environment?) It’s no wonder we can watch Sam’s health and mental stability decline before our very eyes. Not only that, she digs herself deeper into trouble making awful decisions, putting both herself and her patients at risk.
^^ What niggled me was I guessed what was going to happen quite early on. Is this only me? Or maybe, since I worked in a similar place, I saw the signs sooner? Who knows. Despite this, I still enjoyed the read, but found myself getting a little frustrated towards the end when neither Sam, nor her friend and coworker, David, could see what was happening. I guess you could say it really was ‘The blind leading the blind’.
^^ It’s a pity guessing what was about to happen, for ages, spoilt the shock ending of the last two sentences, which finally gave the game away to anyone who hadn’t already guessed. But hey, ho!
^^ I found this started off, slow, albeit in a curious way, like watching a candle burning at both ends. Then it hit the ground running midway, and by the last third I was staying up far too late at night wanting to read ‘just one more page’. Watching Sam’s life and sanity unravelling, was strangely intriguing.
Overall: For those with an interest in stories which openly talk about mental health issues, I think you’ll really enjoy this. The author shows a deep understanding of the healthcare industry and it’s clear she knows her stuff. She should do. A.F. Brady is a New York State Licensed Mental Health Counselor/Psychotherapist. She holds a Bachelor’s degree in Psychology from Brown University and two Masters degrees in Psychological Counseling from Columbia University. That’s why!
Scott Tostik (389 KP) rated 3 From Hell (2019) in Movies
Oct 21, 2019
Some things are better left alone.
Contains spoilers, click to show
I'm gonna go on record and say this first...
The movie business lost one of the greatest talents it had ever seen when Sid Haig passed away. I just wanted to say thank you to him for, not only the horror nemories, but for all the amazing characters he played over the past 60 years. Now, let the final curtain close on a phenomenal career.
Okay, now that thats over, lets review this shit show.
Rob fucking Zombie... Have I got a bone to pick with you.
Have you ever heard the saying "he went to the well too many times,"?
Such as the case woth this final installment of the Firefly films.
There was no chemisty between Bill Moseley and Richard Brake... Maybe a little... It flashed through here and there, but it never came to pass.
Sherri Moon Zombie floats along as a calmer more....medicated Baby. But she just doesnt seem to be in to it like she was previously.
Before people get on me about Zombie, I am a fan. I love his music, movies and artwork. I have always been oneof his biggest supporters. When he "destroyed" Halloween. I was there, sticking up for him until my ears bled. When people said Lords of Salem was a shitty art house movie... I was there... Holding my banner high saying "Everyone makes an art flick once in a while... Hell, Argento made a career of it. When 31 came a long... I painted my face white and punched myself til i bled out my nose and mouth... Metaphorically of course... Im not certifiable...
My point is I have stuck up for R0b Zombie for most of his directing and writing lifetime... But I can no longer do so.
This movie fell a part not too long after it started. From Otis walking the ramps of courthouses and jails spouting off lime Manson... Too Baby appearing to be more off her rocker than usual, reminding me of Aileen Wournos...
Seeing Captain Spaulding for the brief few minutes made the film worth it for me. Listening to Baby and Otis talk about him in the 2nd act nearly brought the waterfalls from the eyes... But i refrained.
Here we have a movie that could've been something special had it been made 10 years ago.
I am saddened not only by the passing of Mr. Haig, but that this movie was a let down... It had its moments of over the top gore and killer dialogue. And it has a scene that will forever be engrained in my brain. But I just can't give it apassing grade.
Never fear Mr. Zombie, I still have your back... Abd I always will. But this time I'm standing in front of you... Telling you, honestly, I didn't like it.
The movie business lost one of the greatest talents it had ever seen when Sid Haig passed away. I just wanted to say thank you to him for, not only the horror nemories, but for all the amazing characters he played over the past 60 years. Now, let the final curtain close on a phenomenal career.
Okay, now that thats over, lets review this shit show.
Rob fucking Zombie... Have I got a bone to pick with you.
Have you ever heard the saying "he went to the well too many times,"?
Such as the case woth this final installment of the Firefly films.
There was no chemisty between Bill Moseley and Richard Brake... Maybe a little... It flashed through here and there, but it never came to pass.
Sherri Moon Zombie floats along as a calmer more....medicated Baby. But she just doesnt seem to be in to it like she was previously.
Before people get on me about Zombie, I am a fan. I love his music, movies and artwork. I have always been oneof his biggest supporters. When he "destroyed" Halloween. I was there, sticking up for him until my ears bled. When people said Lords of Salem was a shitty art house movie... I was there... Holding my banner high saying "Everyone makes an art flick once in a while... Hell, Argento made a career of it. When 31 came a long... I painted my face white and punched myself til i bled out my nose and mouth... Metaphorically of course... Im not certifiable...
My point is I have stuck up for R0b Zombie for most of his directing and writing lifetime... But I can no longer do so.
This movie fell a part not too long after it started. From Otis walking the ramps of courthouses and jails spouting off lime Manson... Too Baby appearing to be more off her rocker than usual, reminding me of Aileen Wournos...
Seeing Captain Spaulding for the brief few minutes made the film worth it for me. Listening to Baby and Otis talk about him in the 2nd act nearly brought the waterfalls from the eyes... But i refrained.
Here we have a movie that could've been something special had it been made 10 years ago.
I am saddened not only by the passing of Mr. Haig, but that this movie was a let down... It had its moments of over the top gore and killer dialogue. And it has a scene that will forever be engrained in my brain. But I just can't give it apassing grade.
Never fear Mr. Zombie, I still have your back... Abd I always will. But this time I'm standing in front of you... Telling you, honestly, I didn't like it.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Robin Hood: Hero of the People in Tabletop Games
Jun 13, 2019
“Yer a hero, Travis!” … said no Hagrid to me ever in my life. However, I do enjoy playing heroes in my board games. As Robin Hood you live by few rules: rob from the rich, give to the poor, and save your fellow Merry Men. That dastardly Sheriff of Nottingham is out to foil and jail you and your crew. Can you use your skills to rob enough from the rich, recruit your fellows, and keep your bounty on your head low enough to win the game? Such is your plight in this one-player game from first-time designer, Rodney Owen.
Disclaimer: This review is for a Kickstarter preview. We are not being paid for this preview, but we were sent the game from the designer. Components and rules may be changed before the product and project is finished. -T
As this game is not yet in full production, I will paraphrase the rulebook here for you so you can get an idea of how the game plays. Then I will give my opinions on this little card game.
Robin Hood: Hero of the People is a one-player card game that is played over three phases. To win the game you must have all Merry Men and Maid Marian recruited and active, while the bounty on your head is less than 500. You lose by seeing the bounty at or above 1,000 or by playing through the entire deck of Story Cards without winning. You may set the difficulty level by choosing how much you would like the bounty to start at before you begin play (100, 200, or 300). The rulebook instructs you how to setup the game using several piles of cards to create the play area. Deal yourself three Loot (skill) cards and the game is on!
The first phase of the game is Robbing from the Rich. During this phase you draw three (or more depending on other cards currently in play) Loot cards from the big deck. These cards consist of different skills to use later – like Archery, Strength, Swords, etc. You will also find Gold and Influence cards. These Loot cards are needed to recruit Maid Marian and all the Merry Men, as well as used for negating powerful negative Story Card effects in the third phase of the game. Once you have drawn your Loot cards, you may play up to three of them into your Inventory in front of you (unless a card instructs you otherwise). Only your cards in the Inventory will be used to recruit and rescue Merry Men, or be affected by Story Cards.
You have placed your skills and bargaining cards in the Inventory. It is now time to use them to recruit your Merry Men! The second phase is the Actions phase. You have several options of actions to take on your turn, but you may only take one action. One option is to recruit Merry Men characters. Each character card begins the game face-down in a grid. The card backs show the recruitment costs (paid in skills) for each. They all have different skill cost combinations on each back so you must choose your Inventory cards carefully in the first phase. During the game some characters may become jailed through the Story Cards. Also on the backs of the character cards are the costs to rescue your friends from jail, and the costs are different than the recruitment costs. This throws a wrench into your plans as you are trying to recruit and protect all your Merry Men, just to have them thrown in jail and made unavailable to you. Curse you, Sheriff of Nottingham!
Also during this phase, in addition to recruiting and rescuing your allies, you may purchase King Richard cards, Sherwood Forest cards, or decrease your bounty. King Richard cards are very very costly (requiring up to nine skills to purchase!) but also very powerful and very helpful to your cause. There are three of these in the game and when you have used one you must discard it out of the game. Do you have an abundance of skills and Loot cards to use? Would you like to protect your Merry Men from becoming jailed? Well during this phase you may also purchase Sherwood Forest cards to begin building a hideout. It costs two Strength skills, but once you have acquired all six Sherwood Forest cards, most of the Merry Men are protected from being jailed. Huzzah! The final option you have in this phase is spending any three Loot cards from your Inventory to reduce your bounty by 100.
The third and final phase is the Story Card phase. During setup you are instructed to separate this deck into two piles, shuffle them independently, and place the Story Cards in set one on top of the story cards in set two. Set one cards are annoyances that can bleed you of skill cards or raise the bounty on your head. Annoying! The cards in set two are far worse, as they will jail your unprotected Merry Men and set you back further from victory… also whilst raising your bounty. Super annoying!! Curse you again, Sheriff!!
If no win or lose conditions have been met at this time, you will return to the first phase with this additional rule: switch your active character (you start the game with Robin Hood) with another character you have recruited in the grid. Each character has a different special ability to be used on your next turn as well as a different set of skills printed on the face that you may use as discounts for recruitment, rescues, and purchasing of King Richard and Sherwood Forest cards. Example: Much the Miller shows 1x Sword and 1x Strength. You can use his skills as a discount to purchase a Sherwood Forest card by spending just one Strength card from your Inventory. Time to stick it to the Sheriff!
So how does it all shake down? Overall I say the game is really good. It is unfinished, and has not yet made it to Kickstarter, and I suspect that has something to do with any drawbacks I have experienced. Upon reading the provided rulebook and attempting Game 1, I had several rules questions. Rodney was quick to provide answers and it made the game so much more playable and enjoyable. Since it is a solo game only, every decision you make directly impacts how the game is played (duh, right?). There’s nobody else to mess with your plans, nor help them succeed. There’s no AI or ghost player. Just you versus the game. I have played this many times now on different difficulty levels and have won and lost on each. It would seem balanced, however…
There are a few strategies I attempted to use on my different plays to see how they might add to the complexity and change the results. I noticed that I won more when I completely ignored Sherwood Forest and King Richard’s cards. Yes, one of the King Richard cards reduces the bounty by quite a bit, and that’s just in one turn, but the cost is so mighty that I rarely found them enticing enough to pull the trigger. Same goes for Sherwood Forest. Though the cards cost a paltry two Strength, I found that I needed those Strength cards to recruit or rescue my Men and could not justify spending two per card (and six total cards to build the hideout) for that protection. Your play style may vary, and I am itching to play again to try new things out. Maybe I’m wrong about Sherwood Forest. I think that’s a really great trait for a game – to have its players thinking about different strategies while not playing, and just waiting for when they can play again.
I have to say, I am very excited to see this go to Kickstarter, and to learn what Rodney has in mind for improvements to the components, or rule tweaks, and the almighty stretch goals. I might be backing this one, even though I have a great working version of it now…
Disclaimer: This review is for a Kickstarter preview. We are not being paid for this preview, but we were sent the game from the designer. Components and rules may be changed before the product and project is finished. -T
As this game is not yet in full production, I will paraphrase the rulebook here for you so you can get an idea of how the game plays. Then I will give my opinions on this little card game.
Robin Hood: Hero of the People is a one-player card game that is played over three phases. To win the game you must have all Merry Men and Maid Marian recruited and active, while the bounty on your head is less than 500. You lose by seeing the bounty at or above 1,000 or by playing through the entire deck of Story Cards without winning. You may set the difficulty level by choosing how much you would like the bounty to start at before you begin play (100, 200, or 300). The rulebook instructs you how to setup the game using several piles of cards to create the play area. Deal yourself three Loot (skill) cards and the game is on!
The first phase of the game is Robbing from the Rich. During this phase you draw three (or more depending on other cards currently in play) Loot cards from the big deck. These cards consist of different skills to use later – like Archery, Strength, Swords, etc. You will also find Gold and Influence cards. These Loot cards are needed to recruit Maid Marian and all the Merry Men, as well as used for negating powerful negative Story Card effects in the third phase of the game. Once you have drawn your Loot cards, you may play up to three of them into your Inventory in front of you (unless a card instructs you otherwise). Only your cards in the Inventory will be used to recruit and rescue Merry Men, or be affected by Story Cards.
You have placed your skills and bargaining cards in the Inventory. It is now time to use them to recruit your Merry Men! The second phase is the Actions phase. You have several options of actions to take on your turn, but you may only take one action. One option is to recruit Merry Men characters. Each character card begins the game face-down in a grid. The card backs show the recruitment costs (paid in skills) for each. They all have different skill cost combinations on each back so you must choose your Inventory cards carefully in the first phase. During the game some characters may become jailed through the Story Cards. Also on the backs of the character cards are the costs to rescue your friends from jail, and the costs are different than the recruitment costs. This throws a wrench into your plans as you are trying to recruit and protect all your Merry Men, just to have them thrown in jail and made unavailable to you. Curse you, Sheriff of Nottingham!
Also during this phase, in addition to recruiting and rescuing your allies, you may purchase King Richard cards, Sherwood Forest cards, or decrease your bounty. King Richard cards are very very costly (requiring up to nine skills to purchase!) but also very powerful and very helpful to your cause. There are three of these in the game and when you have used one you must discard it out of the game. Do you have an abundance of skills and Loot cards to use? Would you like to protect your Merry Men from becoming jailed? Well during this phase you may also purchase Sherwood Forest cards to begin building a hideout. It costs two Strength skills, but once you have acquired all six Sherwood Forest cards, most of the Merry Men are protected from being jailed. Huzzah! The final option you have in this phase is spending any three Loot cards from your Inventory to reduce your bounty by 100.
The third and final phase is the Story Card phase. During setup you are instructed to separate this deck into two piles, shuffle them independently, and place the Story Cards in set one on top of the story cards in set two. Set one cards are annoyances that can bleed you of skill cards or raise the bounty on your head. Annoying! The cards in set two are far worse, as they will jail your unprotected Merry Men and set you back further from victory… also whilst raising your bounty. Super annoying!! Curse you again, Sheriff!!
If no win or lose conditions have been met at this time, you will return to the first phase with this additional rule: switch your active character (you start the game with Robin Hood) with another character you have recruited in the grid. Each character has a different special ability to be used on your next turn as well as a different set of skills printed on the face that you may use as discounts for recruitment, rescues, and purchasing of King Richard and Sherwood Forest cards. Example: Much the Miller shows 1x Sword and 1x Strength. You can use his skills as a discount to purchase a Sherwood Forest card by spending just one Strength card from your Inventory. Time to stick it to the Sheriff!
So how does it all shake down? Overall I say the game is really good. It is unfinished, and has not yet made it to Kickstarter, and I suspect that has something to do with any drawbacks I have experienced. Upon reading the provided rulebook and attempting Game 1, I had several rules questions. Rodney was quick to provide answers and it made the game so much more playable and enjoyable. Since it is a solo game only, every decision you make directly impacts how the game is played (duh, right?). There’s nobody else to mess with your plans, nor help them succeed. There’s no AI or ghost player. Just you versus the game. I have played this many times now on different difficulty levels and have won and lost on each. It would seem balanced, however…
There are a few strategies I attempted to use on my different plays to see how they might add to the complexity and change the results. I noticed that I won more when I completely ignored Sherwood Forest and King Richard’s cards. Yes, one of the King Richard cards reduces the bounty by quite a bit, and that’s just in one turn, but the cost is so mighty that I rarely found them enticing enough to pull the trigger. Same goes for Sherwood Forest. Though the cards cost a paltry two Strength, I found that I needed those Strength cards to recruit or rescue my Men and could not justify spending two per card (and six total cards to build the hideout) for that protection. Your play style may vary, and I am itching to play again to try new things out. Maybe I’m wrong about Sherwood Forest. I think that’s a really great trait for a game – to have its players thinking about different strategies while not playing, and just waiting for when they can play again.
I have to say, I am very excited to see this go to Kickstarter, and to learn what Rodney has in mind for improvements to the components, or rule tweaks, and the almighty stretch goals. I might be backing this one, even though I have a great working version of it now…
Saffy Alexandra (89 KP) rated The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012) in Movies
Jun 15, 2019
A feel good film
I would like to first off state that I adore this film as a book, so straight off the bat I was a little worried on what would be happening with these films and how they would differ from the novel.
After watching it, I don’t know what I was so worried about especially when Peter Jackson is the one directing the films (when he did such a fantastic job at Lord of the Rings).
I think the casting for all the characters was spot on, and keeping characters that we were introduced to in Lord of the Rings the same was a fantastic (and so glad that those actors agreed to do these films). Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggin’s is/was an excellent choice that I really couldn’t see any other actor managing to incorporate Bilbo’s sassiness – because let’s face it, that Hobbit knew how to out wit someone and sass when there was need – to his vulnerability and fear of going out into the unknown. I felt he held the role with dignity and grace and made the humorous scenes even better but when he is needed for the more emotional scenes, Freeman is still fantastic at portraying all those reactions clear as day on his face pulling at your heart strings and showing you what a brilliant range he has as an actor!
Another actor I feel that needs credit is Richard Armitage as Thorin Oakenshield. Having never really seen him in any films before then I was sceptical. I really shouldn’t have been. His portrayal as the scowling and grumpy Dwarf Prince/King is next to amazing! He managed to make you fall in love with the cantankerous Dwarf, which is a feat in all of itself, by the end. This man’s range as an actor is also very good and his ability to show you what Thorin is feeling just by his eye’s is an ability that not many actors have.
Now I was unsure when we were told that this book was being made into three films, and I still feel that the films were possibly stretched out more than they should have by us being presented with characters who were not even in the books. But, I enjoyed it more than I thought I would.
To be fully truthful, knowing that this would be the end of the Middle Earth saga that Peter Jackson was doing, I was not quite ready to say goodbye to the stories that we all grew up with. So I may be biased in saying that I enjoyed having the extra screen time to devour.
The Hobbit Trilogy might not be as fantastic as Lord of the Rings, but it is a trilogy that I would happily watch over and over again. The humour, the wit, and the general good-feeling of these films is something that just makes you feel like you are coming home again after a long trip. One feel good trilogy that I’d happily recommend to anyone.
After watching it, I don’t know what I was so worried about especially when Peter Jackson is the one directing the films (when he did such a fantastic job at Lord of the Rings).
I think the casting for all the characters was spot on, and keeping characters that we were introduced to in Lord of the Rings the same was a fantastic (and so glad that those actors agreed to do these films). Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggin’s is/was an excellent choice that I really couldn’t see any other actor managing to incorporate Bilbo’s sassiness – because let’s face it, that Hobbit knew how to out wit someone and sass when there was need – to his vulnerability and fear of going out into the unknown. I felt he held the role with dignity and grace and made the humorous scenes even better but when he is needed for the more emotional scenes, Freeman is still fantastic at portraying all those reactions clear as day on his face pulling at your heart strings and showing you what a brilliant range he has as an actor!
Another actor I feel that needs credit is Richard Armitage as Thorin Oakenshield. Having never really seen him in any films before then I was sceptical. I really shouldn’t have been. His portrayal as the scowling and grumpy Dwarf Prince/King is next to amazing! He managed to make you fall in love with the cantankerous Dwarf, which is a feat in all of itself, by the end. This man’s range as an actor is also very good and his ability to show you what Thorin is feeling just by his eye’s is an ability that not many actors have.
Now I was unsure when we were told that this book was being made into three films, and I still feel that the films were possibly stretched out more than they should have by us being presented with characters who were not even in the books. But, I enjoyed it more than I thought I would.
To be fully truthful, knowing that this would be the end of the Middle Earth saga that Peter Jackson was doing, I was not quite ready to say goodbye to the stories that we all grew up with. So I may be biased in saying that I enjoyed having the extra screen time to devour.
The Hobbit Trilogy might not be as fantastic as Lord of the Rings, but it is a trilogy that I would happily watch over and over again. The humour, the wit, and the general good-feeling of these films is something that just makes you feel like you are coming home again after a long trip. One feel good trilogy that I’d happily recommend to anyone.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Life Of Pi (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
When I heard that one of my favorite books was being converted into a movie, I was a little skeptical. Add one of my favorite directors, Ang Lee, and my skepticism started to recede. As many know, Lee is renowned for his artistic vision and cinematography. I fell in love with his vision of “Sense and Sensibility,” “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,” and “Brokeback Mountain.” To me, if there was a director who could capture the beauty and imagery of this book, it was Lee.
The movie and the book are great parallels of one another. The story revolves around a young Indian boy named Piscine (“Pool” in French) who spent much of his youth in Pondicherry, a French colony of India. Much of the book, and movie, include flash-backs of Pi’s life in India – the ridicule of his name, his father’s ownership of a zoo, etc. When Pi and his family decide to move to Canada due to political concerns (the book covers much more of this, including Pi’s exploration of various spiritualties/religions), they are chartered on a ship. En route, they encounter a fierce storm which capsizes their vessel, leaving Pi on a lifeboat with a Bengal tiger, a hyena, an injured zebra, and an orangutan.
Being the only human on board with said animals, Pi naturally fears for his welfare. He observes the hyena killing the injured zebra and then turning on the orangutan. The orangutan, as one should note, cares for Pi in a very motherly fashion (remember that Pi’s whole family had drowned in the ship), and her death was very difficult for Pi to endure. Eventually, the hyena succumbs to death by the tiger. As further explained in the movie and novel, Pi names the tiger “Richard Parker” and the two of them set out to endure their lives aboard the ship in some strange sort of symbiotic relationship.
Lee’s vision transforms this novel into a brilliant masterpiece. Like “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,” you will be awed by the cinematography and artistic interpretation he presents. The young actors employed for the role of Pi (Gautam Belur, Ayush Tandon, Suraj Sharma & Irrfan Khan) are downright perfect and I particularly enjoyed Gerard Depardieu as the grizzled and difficult French cook (not a difficult stretch for him as one can imagine). Overall, as an avid lover of Yann Martel’s novel and Ang Lee’s work, I can say this is a beautiful movie and one many will enjoy (even if you haven’t read the novel – which you MUST do).
My only complaint is that while it is a beautiful representation of CGI technology, sometimes it looked a bit too manufactured and fantastical. Their work on the tiger, however, was downright genius (and I personally hate when they create CGI animals instead of working with the real thing – but in this instance it worked very well). The ending and symbolism of this work is what makes it truly a piece of art. If you’re a fan of “Inception” and “The Sixth Sense,” you will enjoy the twist at the end.
Overall, I think this is a lovely representation of the novel and a great movie all around. I highly suggest checking it out.
The movie and the book are great parallels of one another. The story revolves around a young Indian boy named Piscine (“Pool” in French) who spent much of his youth in Pondicherry, a French colony of India. Much of the book, and movie, include flash-backs of Pi’s life in India – the ridicule of his name, his father’s ownership of a zoo, etc. When Pi and his family decide to move to Canada due to political concerns (the book covers much more of this, including Pi’s exploration of various spiritualties/religions), they are chartered on a ship. En route, they encounter a fierce storm which capsizes their vessel, leaving Pi on a lifeboat with a Bengal tiger, a hyena, an injured zebra, and an orangutan.
Being the only human on board with said animals, Pi naturally fears for his welfare. He observes the hyena killing the injured zebra and then turning on the orangutan. The orangutan, as one should note, cares for Pi in a very motherly fashion (remember that Pi’s whole family had drowned in the ship), and her death was very difficult for Pi to endure. Eventually, the hyena succumbs to death by the tiger. As further explained in the movie and novel, Pi names the tiger “Richard Parker” and the two of them set out to endure their lives aboard the ship in some strange sort of symbiotic relationship.
Lee’s vision transforms this novel into a brilliant masterpiece. Like “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,” you will be awed by the cinematography and artistic interpretation he presents. The young actors employed for the role of Pi (Gautam Belur, Ayush Tandon, Suraj Sharma & Irrfan Khan) are downright perfect and I particularly enjoyed Gerard Depardieu as the grizzled and difficult French cook (not a difficult stretch for him as one can imagine). Overall, as an avid lover of Yann Martel’s novel and Ang Lee’s work, I can say this is a beautiful movie and one many will enjoy (even if you haven’t read the novel – which you MUST do).
My only complaint is that while it is a beautiful representation of CGI technology, sometimes it looked a bit too manufactured and fantastical. Their work on the tiger, however, was downright genius (and I personally hate when they create CGI animals instead of working with the real thing – but in this instance it worked very well). The ending and symbolism of this work is what makes it truly a piece of art. If you’re a fan of “Inception” and “The Sixth Sense,” you will enjoy the twist at the end.
Overall, I think this is a lovely representation of the novel and a great movie all around. I highly suggest checking it out.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Dream Horse (2021) in Movies
Jun 12, 2021
Ensemble cast (1 more)
Cinematography of racing scenes
My lovely lovely horse fails to fully engage
An extraordinary story of ambition against all the odds - based on a true story - will Dream Alliance fulfil the town's dreams, or will it all end in tears?
Positives:
- Toni Collette! Without her powerful acting presence at the heart of the piece, I think the movie would have died in a ditch. As for her Welsh accent I (as an Englishman) thought it was pretty good: on my 'Welshometer', using the scale of Richard Burton as a 10 to RDW's "Doctor Dolittle" as a 1, I'd give Ms Collette about an 8. The illustrious Mrs Movie Man (as a Welsh lady) was less impressed, but found her "tolerable" when mixed with the other Welsh-born actors!
- And what a wonderful supporting cast of well know names from all our yesterdays. Just so great to see the great Siân Phillips ("I, Claudius"), Lynda Baron ('Nurse Gladys' from "Open all Hours"), Peter Davison ("Doctor Who") and Nicholas Farrell ("Chariots of Fire") in the cast. It was also (as is traditional in these "true stories") for the actual people to appear alongside their acting counterparts in the end titles: Howard Davies in particular seemed to be chuffed to bits to be singing alongside Damien Lewis!
- Hats off to cinematographer Erik Wilson and Chris Bates (the "drone operator"), for some impressive shots. The camera angles from the turf-pumping racing scenes are very impressive.
Negatives:
- How did it make me feel? Very little at all. Which is a problem. The movie is so utterly predictable that I saw every element of the story play out way before it did. Did this happen in real life? In which case, that's annoying that life was so unrealistically predictable in its ups and downs!
- Elements of the story also felt formulaic: from the token comedy cranky old bloke (Karl Johnson) to Jan's brooding father-with-a-grudge. This latter element seems unnecessarily bolted onto the plot: poorly worked through and pretty superfluous.
Summary Thoughts on "Dream Horse": This is a feature debut for welsh-born Euros Lyn, most familiar (as a peculiar name) for popping up in the end credits of TV shows such as "Doctor Who", "Torchwood" and "His Dark Materials". And, as a great supporter of UK films, I really wanted to like this one. But it just didn't do it for me. It's also unfortunate that some of the subject material makes it unsuitable for the 6-to-8 year old horse fanatics... this is no "International Velvet".
I've seen some social media comments from people who adore the movie. And, to be clear, it's NOT a bad movie. I just personally didn't connect with me. Just goes to show that cinema really is 'horses for courses' sometimes!
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/11/dream-horse-%e2%99%abi-want-to-shower-you-in-sugar-lumps-and-ride-you-over-fences%e2%99%ab/ . Thanks).
Positives:
- Toni Collette! Without her powerful acting presence at the heart of the piece, I think the movie would have died in a ditch. As for her Welsh accent I (as an Englishman) thought it was pretty good: on my 'Welshometer', using the scale of Richard Burton as a 10 to RDW's "Doctor Dolittle" as a 1, I'd give Ms Collette about an 8. The illustrious Mrs Movie Man (as a Welsh lady) was less impressed, but found her "tolerable" when mixed with the other Welsh-born actors!
- And what a wonderful supporting cast of well know names from all our yesterdays. Just so great to see the great Siân Phillips ("I, Claudius"), Lynda Baron ('Nurse Gladys' from "Open all Hours"), Peter Davison ("Doctor Who") and Nicholas Farrell ("Chariots of Fire") in the cast. It was also (as is traditional in these "true stories") for the actual people to appear alongside their acting counterparts in the end titles: Howard Davies in particular seemed to be chuffed to bits to be singing alongside Damien Lewis!
- Hats off to cinematographer Erik Wilson and Chris Bates (the "drone operator"), for some impressive shots. The camera angles from the turf-pumping racing scenes are very impressive.
Negatives:
- How did it make me feel? Very little at all. Which is a problem. The movie is so utterly predictable that I saw every element of the story play out way before it did. Did this happen in real life? In which case, that's annoying that life was so unrealistically predictable in its ups and downs!
- Elements of the story also felt formulaic: from the token comedy cranky old bloke (Karl Johnson) to Jan's brooding father-with-a-grudge. This latter element seems unnecessarily bolted onto the plot: poorly worked through and pretty superfluous.
Summary Thoughts on "Dream Horse": This is a feature debut for welsh-born Euros Lyn, most familiar (as a peculiar name) for popping up in the end credits of TV shows such as "Doctor Who", "Torchwood" and "His Dark Materials". And, as a great supporter of UK films, I really wanted to like this one. But it just didn't do it for me. It's also unfortunate that some of the subject material makes it unsuitable for the 6-to-8 year old horse fanatics... this is no "International Velvet".
I've seen some social media comments from people who adore the movie. And, to be clear, it's NOT a bad movie. I just personally didn't connect with me. Just goes to show that cinema really is 'horses for courses' sometimes!
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/11/dream-horse-%e2%99%abi-want-to-shower-you-in-sugar-lumps-and-ride-you-over-fences%e2%99%ab/ . Thanks).
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Go Back to China (2020) in Movies
Sep 3, 2020
Couldn't Hold My Interest
I’m always on the lookout for hidden gems, especially when it comes to films starring minorities. I was hoping to find that in Go Back to China but wasn’t as impressed as I thought it would be. In the movie, a woman living in the states is forced to go to China to work for her father in his toy factory after he cuts off her trust fund.
Acting: 10
Great performances all around from a stellar Asian cast. While I don’t know much about them from previous films, I was extremely impressed with the range of Anna Akana, Richard Ng, and Lynn Chen who all shared the most screen time. They breathed a life and a realism into their characters that really made them feel like family.
Beginning: 2
Characters: 10
I appreciated that the three main characters experienced a great growth over the course of the movie. Each of them played off of each others’ personalities and experiences which gave the movie a true dynamic feel. The main character Sasha Li is likable right from jump even as a pretentious snob. She gives you a reason to stay interested in the movie.
Cinematography/Visuals: 6
The camera work is just slightly above par here. Outside of the toy factory, the setpieces are pretty bland. I honestly can’t remember any scenes that stand out or a shot that made my jaw drop. The movie instead seems content with going through the motions.
Conflict: 3
Entertainment Value: 6
Go Back to China is not without its share of entertaining moments but unfortunately those moments are too few and far between for the movie to consistently be entertaining. Just when it starts to get a bit of momentum, it finds itself going in reverse. Too much talking, not enough action. In the thick of it, it felt more like a Hallmark movie than anything else.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 8
The story moves along gracefully, albeit with a few trip-ups here and there. I always felt like the story was going somewhere at the very least. This would have worked more in the film’s favor had the story itself been a little more solid.
Plot: 5
As I mentioned above, the story definitely has a very Hallmarky-type feel. The cheese runs super high throughout. The premise is interesting, but things become very predictable very fast the longer the story plays out.
Resolution: 10
Say what you want about Hallmark movies, who doesn’t love a good Hallmark ending? All the pieces of the puzzle ended up exactly where they needed to be. If the movie had began just as strongly as it had ended, the movie would have been way more enjoyable.
Overall: 68
As a man that loves to appreciate and understand different cultures, I did love the perspective the movie provided into the life of people in China and the different hardships they face. Unfortunately, I didn’t love Go Back to China as a whole. A few tweaks here and there and this review would look a lot different.
Acting: 10
Great performances all around from a stellar Asian cast. While I don’t know much about them from previous films, I was extremely impressed with the range of Anna Akana, Richard Ng, and Lynn Chen who all shared the most screen time. They breathed a life and a realism into their characters that really made them feel like family.
Beginning: 2
Characters: 10
I appreciated that the three main characters experienced a great growth over the course of the movie. Each of them played off of each others’ personalities and experiences which gave the movie a true dynamic feel. The main character Sasha Li is likable right from jump even as a pretentious snob. She gives you a reason to stay interested in the movie.
Cinematography/Visuals: 6
The camera work is just slightly above par here. Outside of the toy factory, the setpieces are pretty bland. I honestly can’t remember any scenes that stand out or a shot that made my jaw drop. The movie instead seems content with going through the motions.
Conflict: 3
Entertainment Value: 6
Go Back to China is not without its share of entertaining moments but unfortunately those moments are too few and far between for the movie to consistently be entertaining. Just when it starts to get a bit of momentum, it finds itself going in reverse. Too much talking, not enough action. In the thick of it, it felt more like a Hallmark movie than anything else.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 8
The story moves along gracefully, albeit with a few trip-ups here and there. I always felt like the story was going somewhere at the very least. This would have worked more in the film’s favor had the story itself been a little more solid.
Plot: 5
As I mentioned above, the story definitely has a very Hallmarky-type feel. The cheese runs super high throughout. The premise is interesting, but things become very predictable very fast the longer the story plays out.
Resolution: 10
Say what you want about Hallmark movies, who doesn’t love a good Hallmark ending? All the pieces of the puzzle ended up exactly where they needed to be. If the movie had began just as strongly as it had ended, the movie would have been way more enjoyable.
Overall: 68
As a man that loves to appreciate and understand different cultures, I did love the perspective the movie provided into the life of people in China and the different hardships they face. Unfortunately, I didn’t love Go Back to China as a whole. A few tweaks here and there and this review would look a lot different.