Search
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Shape of Water (2017) in Movies
Mar 14, 2018
Beautiful, quirky love story
THE SHAPE OF WATER is the most romantic, beautiful, charming, weird and wonderful love story that I have seen in a long, long time.
The fact that the love story is between a mute woman and the Creature from the Black Lagoon makes it just that much more interesting.
From the fertile mind of Guillermo Del Toro (THE DEVIL'S BACKBONE, PAN'S LABYRINTH), TSOW answers a question that a young Del Toro had when he first saw the 1950's creature feature CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON. He thought, "what if the creature ended up with the girl?" In Del Toro's mind, the Creature was the leading man, not the generic hunk that was hunting him.
Wonderfully realized by Del Toro, TSOW tells the tale of mute cleaning woman, Eliza (Sally Hawkins) who works at a "secret Government agency" in Baltimore. When she is asked to mop blood up in a highly classified area, she soon realizes that a "creature" is being held there. It is her realization that this creature is not just "some creature", but an intelligent being that starts this lonely, mute woman and the "creature" on the road to a loving relationship.
Hawkins is mesmerizing as Eliza. Obviously, with her character being mute, she must express herself in other ways - and she does. Her eyes are truly the window to her soul and Hawkins' ability to "eye act" is astounding, she conveys more feeling with a look and a glance than most actors can with a mountain of work.
She is strongly aided by some really good co-stars - Richard Jenkins is marvelous (as always) as Eliza's neighbor/friend who, himself, has a handicap - he is a gay man in the 1950's. The strength of Jenkins' performance is that he is able to overcome the trap of "the sympathetic gay best friend" and bring to the screen a complete character. Michael Stuhlbarg is watchable (as always) as the main scientist that studies the creature. Here is an actor that has grown in my eyes and he is a "must watch" in anything he is in. Michael Shannon is a presence as the main "heavy" in this film and though his character is pretty one-note, Shannon hits that note strongly and holds our attention. Unfortunately, compared to these 3 (and Hawkins' lead role), Octavia Spencer's talents are not put to the test as Eliza's co-worker. She is capable of so much more and her character is severely underwritten.
But, while strong characters are a must in a successful film, it is Del Toro's direction and "sense of place" that embue this fable with the character and detail it needs. Set in a 1950's that is a bit more idealistic/stylized than is real, Del Toro steers us through a world that is fascinating to watch - and be in - and makes it seem almost plausible that such a creature could exist and that a woman could fall in love with him.
Much like how I fell in love with this film.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The fact that the love story is between a mute woman and the Creature from the Black Lagoon makes it just that much more interesting.
From the fertile mind of Guillermo Del Toro (THE DEVIL'S BACKBONE, PAN'S LABYRINTH), TSOW answers a question that a young Del Toro had when he first saw the 1950's creature feature CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON. He thought, "what if the creature ended up with the girl?" In Del Toro's mind, the Creature was the leading man, not the generic hunk that was hunting him.
Wonderfully realized by Del Toro, TSOW tells the tale of mute cleaning woman, Eliza (Sally Hawkins) who works at a "secret Government agency" in Baltimore. When she is asked to mop blood up in a highly classified area, she soon realizes that a "creature" is being held there. It is her realization that this creature is not just "some creature", but an intelligent being that starts this lonely, mute woman and the "creature" on the road to a loving relationship.
Hawkins is mesmerizing as Eliza. Obviously, with her character being mute, she must express herself in other ways - and she does. Her eyes are truly the window to her soul and Hawkins' ability to "eye act" is astounding, she conveys more feeling with a look and a glance than most actors can with a mountain of work.
She is strongly aided by some really good co-stars - Richard Jenkins is marvelous (as always) as Eliza's neighbor/friend who, himself, has a handicap - he is a gay man in the 1950's. The strength of Jenkins' performance is that he is able to overcome the trap of "the sympathetic gay best friend" and bring to the screen a complete character. Michael Stuhlbarg is watchable (as always) as the main scientist that studies the creature. Here is an actor that has grown in my eyes and he is a "must watch" in anything he is in. Michael Shannon is a presence as the main "heavy" in this film and though his character is pretty one-note, Shannon hits that note strongly and holds our attention. Unfortunately, compared to these 3 (and Hawkins' lead role), Octavia Spencer's talents are not put to the test as Eliza's co-worker. She is capable of so much more and her character is severely underwritten.
But, while strong characters are a must in a successful film, it is Del Toro's direction and "sense of place" that embue this fable with the character and detail it needs. Set in a 1950's that is a bit more idealistic/stylized than is real, Del Toro steers us through a world that is fascinating to watch - and be in - and makes it seem almost plausible that such a creature could exist and that a woman could fall in love with him.
Much like how I fell in love with this film.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Cinderella (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Sickly Sweet
Taking a look through Disney’s back catalogue of animation is like a lesson in film history. From Snow White to Bambi and The Lion King to The Princess & the Frog, there’s something in there for everyone to enjoy.
However, the studio has in recent times, taken to reimagining its classics as live-action adaptations with last year’s Maleficent starting a generation that will include Beauty & the Beast and a Tim Burton directed Dumbo. The latest offering is Cinderella, but does it hold a candle to its animated counterpart?
The plot of Cinderella needs no introduction, the classic tale of rags to riches and love conquering all doesn’t need an update and director Kenneth Branagh (Thor, Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit) is just the man for the job.
Following the story of young Ella as she comes to terms with the loss of her parents and the arrival of her overbearing step-cinderella_poster_a_psisters and step-mother, Cinderella is a wonderfully acted and beautifully realised film that borders on a little syrupy at times.
Downton Abbey’s Lily James takes on the title role with a brilliant Cate Blanchett giving her all as Ella’s wicked step-mother. Helena Bonham Carter also stars as Ella’s fairy godmother and brings her usual brand of crazy to the character.
What sets this adaptation apart from Angelina Jolie’s Maleficent is its stunning visuals. Where Maleficent was beautiful in its own way and suited the film’s dark tone, here Kenneth Branagh throws every colour on the spectrum at the screen in breath-taking fashion.
The outfits are to die for and the locations are an explosion of bright colours and textures that are juxtaposed exceptionally with the dark, damp quarters our princess is confined to.
Elsewhere, the performances are, on the whole, sublime. James is good in the titular role but the plodding script lets her down. She comes across, as awful as this sounds, a little idiotic and lacks the charming spirit of her animated counterpart. The same can be said for her prince, played by Richard Madden – though this could be down to the story rushing their love somewhat.
By far the standout is Cate Blanchett, who is truly mesmerising as stepmother Lady Tremaine. Her brash and ridiculously over-the-top performance suits the pantomime feel of the production down to the ground. Unfortunately, her evil is heavily restrained by the film’s U certification, even more so when compared alongside the 1950 film.
Nevertheless, the visuals are simply stunning. Everything from the palace to Ella’s iconic ball gown and all of it in between is nearly flawless with only a few lapses in cartoonish CGI letting things down – though this can be forgiven with the film’s pantomime-esque nature.
Overall, this live-action reimagining of the 1950s classic musical does not in any way attempt to better its predecessor. Instead it wishes to sit alongside it as the studio tries to pave the way for a whole new generation of children to fall in love with Disney’s princesses once again.
Only a few lapses in CGI, a plodding script and a sickly sweet tone stop it from being enjoyable for everyone in the family, instead of just the kids.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/31/sickly-sweet-cinderella-review/
However, the studio has in recent times, taken to reimagining its classics as live-action adaptations with last year’s Maleficent starting a generation that will include Beauty & the Beast and a Tim Burton directed Dumbo. The latest offering is Cinderella, but does it hold a candle to its animated counterpart?
The plot of Cinderella needs no introduction, the classic tale of rags to riches and love conquering all doesn’t need an update and director Kenneth Branagh (Thor, Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit) is just the man for the job.
Following the story of young Ella as she comes to terms with the loss of her parents and the arrival of her overbearing step-cinderella_poster_a_psisters and step-mother, Cinderella is a wonderfully acted and beautifully realised film that borders on a little syrupy at times.
Downton Abbey’s Lily James takes on the title role with a brilliant Cate Blanchett giving her all as Ella’s wicked step-mother. Helena Bonham Carter also stars as Ella’s fairy godmother and brings her usual brand of crazy to the character.
What sets this adaptation apart from Angelina Jolie’s Maleficent is its stunning visuals. Where Maleficent was beautiful in its own way and suited the film’s dark tone, here Kenneth Branagh throws every colour on the spectrum at the screen in breath-taking fashion.
The outfits are to die for and the locations are an explosion of bright colours and textures that are juxtaposed exceptionally with the dark, damp quarters our princess is confined to.
Elsewhere, the performances are, on the whole, sublime. James is good in the titular role but the plodding script lets her down. She comes across, as awful as this sounds, a little idiotic and lacks the charming spirit of her animated counterpart. The same can be said for her prince, played by Richard Madden – though this could be down to the story rushing their love somewhat.
By far the standout is Cate Blanchett, who is truly mesmerising as stepmother Lady Tremaine. Her brash and ridiculously over-the-top performance suits the pantomime feel of the production down to the ground. Unfortunately, her evil is heavily restrained by the film’s U certification, even more so when compared alongside the 1950 film.
Nevertheless, the visuals are simply stunning. Everything from the palace to Ella’s iconic ball gown and all of it in between is nearly flawless with only a few lapses in cartoonish CGI letting things down – though this can be forgiven with the film’s pantomime-esque nature.
Overall, this live-action reimagining of the 1950s classic musical does not in any way attempt to better its predecessor. Instead it wishes to sit alongside it as the studio tries to pave the way for a whole new generation of children to fall in love with Disney’s princesses once again.
Only a few lapses in CGI, a plodding script and a sickly sweet tone stop it from being enjoyable for everyone in the family, instead of just the kids.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/31/sickly-sweet-cinderella-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) in Movies
Nov 21, 2018
For the "true" Potter fan
It is a misnomer to call FANTASTIC BEASTS: THE CRIMES OF GRINDELWALD a "Harry Potter" movie. True, it is a film that takes place in the "Harry Potter-verse", but it should, more accurately, be called an "Albus Dumbledore" movie.
"Crimes of Grindelwald" (or COG as I will call it from now on) has a tone more in keeping with the later films in the Harry Potter original grouping of films. Gone is the "fun" and "whimsey" of building a world based on magic. In is a dark, grainy and grey film that focuses on relationship building that will pay off down the road. Keep in mind that this is the 2nd film of a proposed 5 film series, so there's quite a bit of "set-up" and very little payoff here.
Because of all of this, the younger members of the audience in the theater I saw COGS in were antsey in their seats (as were the "casual" Harry Potter viewers who were just there to see "Magic Battles").
But...and this is a BIG but...those of us (including me) who are "into" the world that J.K. Rowling has built were rewarded with a rich, complex tapestry of backstory and legend building, bringing in characters that were merely mentioned in the original books (and films) and filling out parts of this universe to make it much, much richer, indeed.
And that's the problem with this film - and the problem that this film is going to have in finding an audience. I have heard criticisms such as "it's too dense", "it moves too slow" and there are "too many characters". And that is justified, if you're a casual fan. If you're "into it", then those criticisms don't hold water.
I've also heard that Eddie Redmayne as Newt Scamander, the "hero" of the Fantastic Beasts franchise is too bland to hold the center of these films. I couldn't disagree more. I found that Redmayne's characterization of the magizooligist to be interesting and quirky. True, his characterization is subtle, maybe too subtle for some, but it was intriguing and interesting for me.
Returning from the first film are Katherine Waterson, Dan Fogler and Alison Sudol as comrades of Scamandars. They were "serviceable" in the first film and they are "serviceable" in the 2nd film.
It is the newcomers to this series that were of most interest to me starting with Jude Law as a young Albus Dumbledore. I liked his interpretation of this character - he has the same "mysterious" atmosphere about him that Richard Harris (and later) Michael Gambon brought to the character. Johnny Depp is also well cast as the titular bad guy, Grindelwald. Finally, Zoe Kravitz gives a strong performance as a conflicted wizard constantly battling her compulsion to be "good" and "bad".
David Yates returns to helm his 6th "Potter" film and he shows that he knows what he's doing. The world is rich (if grainy) and the action moves along as fast as the script allows. He does have a tendency to become enamored with the CGI aspects of the world he is building, but that is part of the charm of these films.
Remember, this is the 2nd of 5 films, so don't expect loose ends to be tied up. Expect cliff-hangers.
Letter Grade A- (B- if you are a casual fan)
8 (out of 10) stars (6 stars if you are a casual fan) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
"Crimes of Grindelwald" (or COG as I will call it from now on) has a tone more in keeping with the later films in the Harry Potter original grouping of films. Gone is the "fun" and "whimsey" of building a world based on magic. In is a dark, grainy and grey film that focuses on relationship building that will pay off down the road. Keep in mind that this is the 2nd film of a proposed 5 film series, so there's quite a bit of "set-up" and very little payoff here.
Because of all of this, the younger members of the audience in the theater I saw COGS in were antsey in their seats (as were the "casual" Harry Potter viewers who were just there to see "Magic Battles").
But...and this is a BIG but...those of us (including me) who are "into" the world that J.K. Rowling has built were rewarded with a rich, complex tapestry of backstory and legend building, bringing in characters that were merely mentioned in the original books (and films) and filling out parts of this universe to make it much, much richer, indeed.
And that's the problem with this film - and the problem that this film is going to have in finding an audience. I have heard criticisms such as "it's too dense", "it moves too slow" and there are "too many characters". And that is justified, if you're a casual fan. If you're "into it", then those criticisms don't hold water.
I've also heard that Eddie Redmayne as Newt Scamander, the "hero" of the Fantastic Beasts franchise is too bland to hold the center of these films. I couldn't disagree more. I found that Redmayne's characterization of the magizooligist to be interesting and quirky. True, his characterization is subtle, maybe too subtle for some, but it was intriguing and interesting for me.
Returning from the first film are Katherine Waterson, Dan Fogler and Alison Sudol as comrades of Scamandars. They were "serviceable" in the first film and they are "serviceable" in the 2nd film.
It is the newcomers to this series that were of most interest to me starting with Jude Law as a young Albus Dumbledore. I liked his interpretation of this character - he has the same "mysterious" atmosphere about him that Richard Harris (and later) Michael Gambon brought to the character. Johnny Depp is also well cast as the titular bad guy, Grindelwald. Finally, Zoe Kravitz gives a strong performance as a conflicted wizard constantly battling her compulsion to be "good" and "bad".
David Yates returns to helm his 6th "Potter" film and he shows that he knows what he's doing. The world is rich (if grainy) and the action moves along as fast as the script allows. He does have a tendency to become enamored with the CGI aspects of the world he is building, but that is part of the charm of these films.
Remember, this is the 2nd of 5 films, so don't expect loose ends to be tied up. Expect cliff-hangers.
Letter Grade A- (B- if you are a casual fan)
8 (out of 10) stars (6 stars if you are a casual fan) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Glory (1989) in Movies
Apr 14, 2020
Well acted with tense battle scenes
Every now and then, I'll watch a specific scene in a movie and when it is complete, I say to myself - "that person just won the Oscar." Such was the case for a young "up and coming' actor in the 1989 Civil War film GLORY.
Directed by Richard Zwick (LEGENDS OF THE FALL) Glory tells the true story of the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry of the Union Army in the Civil War - the first all black infantry - and stars Mathew Broderick (FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF), Cary Elwes (THE PRINCESS BRIDE), Morgan Freeman (on his way to becoming well known), Andre Braugher (in one of his first screen appearances) and Denzel Washington (who won an Oscar for his work).
Zwick does a wonderful job putting a unique spin on a standard story - ragtag group of soldiers band together, they go through bootcamp together and shift from a disparate group of individuals to a solid team - and then prove their worth in battle. This could have easily been a "paint by numbers" film but Zwick makes it something more, putting the emphasis on the soldiers and the obstacles they need to overcome and downplaying the danger and the violence. Don't get me wrong - the action sequences are intense and well made, they just aren't the point of the film.
The point of the film are the men who are involved - and the 5 leads are tremendous. Morgan Freeman shows the grace and leadership and authority that he would bring to many, many pictures. Elwes shows that he can command a screen, if given a chance and Denzel sparkles in his scenes. This picture shows a true movie star being born. But the real surprises for me on this viewing is the work of Matthew Broderick, playing a very different character than the light comedy performances we had seen from him in films like FERRIS BUELLER and on the stage that we would come to know him as in such musicals as THE PRODUCERS. This film shows that he has some wonderful acting chops and is just at home with a dramatic role as he is with a light comedic role.
But...the actor that really stood out from the others in this showing is the great Andre Braugher in his first Major Motion Picture appearance. He would go on to shine brightly in such roles as Detective Pembleton in HOMICIDE: LIFE ON THE STREETS and currently is starring as Captain Holt in BROOKLYN 99, but in Glory he was an unknown commodity and his portrayal of free, educated black man Thomas Searles - a childhood friend of both the Broderick and Elwes characters - who must adjust to being one of "the men" with this collection of uneducated former slaves and live in a tiered relationship with 2 men that are his peers and friends is heartbreaking to watch. Even though I was thrilled with Washington's Oscar (he does have the "Oscar scene" in this film), I thought Braugher's performance was just as good - maybe even better.
All of this leads the audience to a finale that is intense - and intensely personal - for you are invested in these men as they face insurmountable odds and most certain death.
I've been re-watching quite a few movies lately, and GLORY is one that hit me harder - and is better - than I remembered. Well worth checking out.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Directed by Richard Zwick (LEGENDS OF THE FALL) Glory tells the true story of the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry of the Union Army in the Civil War - the first all black infantry - and stars Mathew Broderick (FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF), Cary Elwes (THE PRINCESS BRIDE), Morgan Freeman (on his way to becoming well known), Andre Braugher (in one of his first screen appearances) and Denzel Washington (who won an Oscar for his work).
Zwick does a wonderful job putting a unique spin on a standard story - ragtag group of soldiers band together, they go through bootcamp together and shift from a disparate group of individuals to a solid team - and then prove their worth in battle. This could have easily been a "paint by numbers" film but Zwick makes it something more, putting the emphasis on the soldiers and the obstacles they need to overcome and downplaying the danger and the violence. Don't get me wrong - the action sequences are intense and well made, they just aren't the point of the film.
The point of the film are the men who are involved - and the 5 leads are tremendous. Morgan Freeman shows the grace and leadership and authority that he would bring to many, many pictures. Elwes shows that he can command a screen, if given a chance and Denzel sparkles in his scenes. This picture shows a true movie star being born. But the real surprises for me on this viewing is the work of Matthew Broderick, playing a very different character than the light comedy performances we had seen from him in films like FERRIS BUELLER and on the stage that we would come to know him as in such musicals as THE PRODUCERS. This film shows that he has some wonderful acting chops and is just at home with a dramatic role as he is with a light comedic role.
But...the actor that really stood out from the others in this showing is the great Andre Braugher in his first Major Motion Picture appearance. He would go on to shine brightly in such roles as Detective Pembleton in HOMICIDE: LIFE ON THE STREETS and currently is starring as Captain Holt in BROOKLYN 99, but in Glory he was an unknown commodity and his portrayal of free, educated black man Thomas Searles - a childhood friend of both the Broderick and Elwes characters - who must adjust to being one of "the men" with this collection of uneducated former slaves and live in a tiered relationship with 2 men that are his peers and friends is heartbreaking to watch. Even though I was thrilled with Washington's Oscar (he does have the "Oscar scene" in this film), I thought Braugher's performance was just as good - maybe even better.
All of this leads the audience to a finale that is intense - and intensely personal - for you are invested in these men as they face insurmountable odds and most certain death.
I've been re-watching quite a few movies lately, and GLORY is one that hit me harder - and is better - than I remembered. Well worth checking out.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Reading Raven HD
Education and Games
App
Help your children learn to read with their own personal reading adventure guide! ▸ Voted Most...
iLiveMath Animals Of Africa
Education and Social Networking
App
***** Featured in Top-10 iPad Education Apps by GameClassroom.com ***** Tip: If you have a white...
Allen Carr’s Easy Way to Stop Smoking
Health & Fitness and Lifestyle
App
For the first time an interactive presentation of Allen Carr’s Easyway method is available on the...
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated the PlayStation 3 version of Psychonauts in Video Games
May 8, 2020 (Updated May 8, 2020)
Whats In Your Head
Psychonauts- I remember playing this game on the oringal Xbox and PS2 and now with the second game coming out this year hopefully. At Pax East this year, I did see the Demo and it looks excellent.
Im going to review the first one. This is the PS3 remaster verison review.
Psychonauts- is a platforming game developed by Double Fine Productions that first released in 2005.
Psychonauts follows the player-character Raz (voiced by Richard Horvitz), a young boy gifted with psychic abilities who runs away from the circus to try to sneak into a summer camp for those with similar powers to become a "Psychonaut", a spy with psychic abilities. He finds that there is a sinister plot occurring at the camp that only he can stop.
The game is centered on exploring the strange and imaginative minds of various characters that Raz encounters as a Psychonaut-in-training/"Psycadet" to help them overcome their fears or memories of their past, so as to gain their help and progress in the game. Raz gains use of several psychic abilities during the game that are used for both attacking foes and solving puzzles. The player can assign three of these powers to their controller or keyboard for quick use, but all earned powers are available at any time through a selection screen.
The game includes both the "real world" of the camp and its surroundings, as well as a number of "mental worlds" which exist in the consciousness of the game's various characters.
The mental worlds have wildly differing art and level design aesthetics, but generally have a specific goal that Raz must complete to help resolve a psychological issue a character may have, allowing the game's plot to progress.
Within the mental worlds are censors that react negatively to Raz's presence and will attack him. There are also various collectibles within the mental worlds, including "figments" of the character's imagination which help increase Raz's psi ranking, "emotional baggage" which can be sorted by finding tags and bringing them to the baggage, and "memory vaults" which can unlock a short series of slides providing extra information on that character's backstory.
The story is set in fictional Whispering Rock Psychic Summer Camp, a remote US government training facility under the guise of a children's summer camp.
Psychonauts is a platform game that incorporates various adventure elements. The player controls the main character Raz in a third-person, three-dimensional view, helping Raz to uncover a mystery at the Psychonauts training camp. Raz begins with basic movement abilities such as running and jumping, but as the game progresses, Raz gains additional psychic powers such as telekinesis, levitation, invisibility, and pyrokinesis. These abilities allow the player to explore more of the camp as well as fight off enemies.
Despite being well received, Psychonauts did not sell well with only about 100,000 retail units sold at the time of release, leading to severe financial loss for Majesco and their departure from the video game market; the title was considered a commercial failure. Psychonauts since has earned a number of industry awards and gained a cult following.
Its a excellent and phenomenal game and cant wait to play the second one.
Im going to review the first one. This is the PS3 remaster verison review.
Psychonauts- is a platforming game developed by Double Fine Productions that first released in 2005.
Psychonauts follows the player-character Raz (voiced by Richard Horvitz), a young boy gifted with psychic abilities who runs away from the circus to try to sneak into a summer camp for those with similar powers to become a "Psychonaut", a spy with psychic abilities. He finds that there is a sinister plot occurring at the camp that only he can stop.
The game is centered on exploring the strange and imaginative minds of various characters that Raz encounters as a Psychonaut-in-training/"Psycadet" to help them overcome their fears or memories of their past, so as to gain their help and progress in the game. Raz gains use of several psychic abilities during the game that are used for both attacking foes and solving puzzles. The player can assign three of these powers to their controller or keyboard for quick use, but all earned powers are available at any time through a selection screen.
The game includes both the "real world" of the camp and its surroundings, as well as a number of "mental worlds" which exist in the consciousness of the game's various characters.
The mental worlds have wildly differing art and level design aesthetics, but generally have a specific goal that Raz must complete to help resolve a psychological issue a character may have, allowing the game's plot to progress.
Within the mental worlds are censors that react negatively to Raz's presence and will attack him. There are also various collectibles within the mental worlds, including "figments" of the character's imagination which help increase Raz's psi ranking, "emotional baggage" which can be sorted by finding tags and bringing them to the baggage, and "memory vaults" which can unlock a short series of slides providing extra information on that character's backstory.
The story is set in fictional Whispering Rock Psychic Summer Camp, a remote US government training facility under the guise of a children's summer camp.
Psychonauts is a platform game that incorporates various adventure elements. The player controls the main character Raz in a third-person, three-dimensional view, helping Raz to uncover a mystery at the Psychonauts training camp. Raz begins with basic movement abilities such as running and jumping, but as the game progresses, Raz gains additional psychic powers such as telekinesis, levitation, invisibility, and pyrokinesis. These abilities allow the player to explore more of the camp as well as fight off enemies.
Despite being well received, Psychonauts did not sell well with only about 100,000 retail units sold at the time of release, leading to severe financial loss for Majesco and their departure from the video game market; the title was considered a commercial failure. Psychonauts since has earned a number of industry awards and gained a cult following.
Its a excellent and phenomenal game and cant wait to play the second one.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Soul (2020) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
When Disney Pixar launches a big new title it comes with a lot of expectation – there are just so many titles in the back catalogue now that will forever be considered classics. Movies that raised and re-raised the bar of what animation and family film storytelling can be at the very, very best.
So, when it was announced that Soul would be shown worldwide on the excellent Disney plus channel on Christmas Day, it was something of a coup that made it The movie event of the year, as many of us would now have the shared memory of watching it post lunch, as we struggled to keep our own cosy souls and eyelids awake enough to properly enjoy it.
I must admit that my opinion of it after one watch is tinted by being very close to a complete food coma shutdown. I will need to watch it again to fully appreciate it, I think. The main thing about doing it at all was how perfect and special it felt to be doing it on Christmas Day – nothing has felt more Christmassy to me film-wise since they first aired Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade on BBC1 in 1992. Such a treat with quality assured is rare indeed. The question was how good would it be in comparison to our favourites?
There were rumours from early reviews that it was more mature and adult themed than usual, and this seemed entirely true from the get go. Jazz music, a mellow vibe not racing headlong after easy laughs and the themes of existential angst and, well, death… it is quite grown up, to an extent. Not that young ones won’t enjoy it at all. It is as colourful and busy and joyous as any of them. Even if they can’t take in the concepts of the story in a deeper way, there is plenty to enjoy.
What it seems like Pixar were going for here is a film families of many generations can enjoy together; the older parents and grandparents explaining and reassuring in the deeper moments, and the young ones reminding the older ones to laugh at the silly bits! It was ever thus, but now the ambition to make it really about something significant seems achievable.
The theme of separation, loss and yes, even death is all over Pixar if you look for it. Especially with the recent Coco, which I thought was their best effort for several years. What they did with the theme of death in that one and here also is view it without fear, but as a celebration of the life that came before it, and the people that were touched by that life. It is the perennial Pixar message, that something which at first seems scary and sad is actually beautiful and wonderful if you look closer and choose to see it that way. And to their work in educating kids with that message I can only applaud in awe.
The animation itself is surprising. The “real” world being almost photo real to a jaw dropping degree, whilst the characters remain stylised. But it is the choices of simpler, somehow old fashioned styles in the before and after life sections that are striking. The semi luminous colours are also breath-taking: all calm aquamarine and soft pink, for every bright red and orange of Coco, but just as vibrant.
Pete Doctor who was responsible on this scale for Monster’s Inc, Up and Inside Out, holds the dual reigns of directing and writing expertly yet again, making things that are very hard to achieve look like cracking eggs! The voice talents of Jamie Foxx and Tina Fey do exactly what is needed in the roles without ever standing out as spectacular, as do minor roles for the likes of Graham Norton and Richard Ayoade. Spectacular is not what Soul is about, it is much more about solid qualities with deeper resonance. Personally, I never arrived at the tears in the eyes revelation moment. But that might be more about how warm and full and content I was than any criticism of something missing. There is every chance it is me that missed it.
Look, I don’t think anyone is going to be putting this amongst their top 5 Pixars any time soon, but I also can’t see anyone saying they didn’t enjoy it. The consensus seems to be “hmm, interesting, I need to think about that a while and see it again a few times”. So, for now, that is exactly what I am saying too. It may well be a classic that grows in appreciation over the years, or it may be one where you go, “nah, let’s watch Monster’s Inc. again instead”. Not sure. I’ll add a postscript right here when I have seen it a second time…
So, when it was announced that Soul would be shown worldwide on the excellent Disney plus channel on Christmas Day, it was something of a coup that made it The movie event of the year, as many of us would now have the shared memory of watching it post lunch, as we struggled to keep our own cosy souls and eyelids awake enough to properly enjoy it.
I must admit that my opinion of it after one watch is tinted by being very close to a complete food coma shutdown. I will need to watch it again to fully appreciate it, I think. The main thing about doing it at all was how perfect and special it felt to be doing it on Christmas Day – nothing has felt more Christmassy to me film-wise since they first aired Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade on BBC1 in 1992. Such a treat with quality assured is rare indeed. The question was how good would it be in comparison to our favourites?
There were rumours from early reviews that it was more mature and adult themed than usual, and this seemed entirely true from the get go. Jazz music, a mellow vibe not racing headlong after easy laughs and the themes of existential angst and, well, death… it is quite grown up, to an extent. Not that young ones won’t enjoy it at all. It is as colourful and busy and joyous as any of them. Even if they can’t take in the concepts of the story in a deeper way, there is plenty to enjoy.
What it seems like Pixar were going for here is a film families of many generations can enjoy together; the older parents and grandparents explaining and reassuring in the deeper moments, and the young ones reminding the older ones to laugh at the silly bits! It was ever thus, but now the ambition to make it really about something significant seems achievable.
The theme of separation, loss and yes, even death is all over Pixar if you look for it. Especially with the recent Coco, which I thought was their best effort for several years. What they did with the theme of death in that one and here also is view it without fear, but as a celebration of the life that came before it, and the people that were touched by that life. It is the perennial Pixar message, that something which at first seems scary and sad is actually beautiful and wonderful if you look closer and choose to see it that way. And to their work in educating kids with that message I can only applaud in awe.
The animation itself is surprising. The “real” world being almost photo real to a jaw dropping degree, whilst the characters remain stylised. But it is the choices of simpler, somehow old fashioned styles in the before and after life sections that are striking. The semi luminous colours are also breath-taking: all calm aquamarine and soft pink, for every bright red and orange of Coco, but just as vibrant.
Pete Doctor who was responsible on this scale for Monster’s Inc, Up and Inside Out, holds the dual reigns of directing and writing expertly yet again, making things that are very hard to achieve look like cracking eggs! The voice talents of Jamie Foxx and Tina Fey do exactly what is needed in the roles without ever standing out as spectacular, as do minor roles for the likes of Graham Norton and Richard Ayoade. Spectacular is not what Soul is about, it is much more about solid qualities with deeper resonance. Personally, I never arrived at the tears in the eyes revelation moment. But that might be more about how warm and full and content I was than any criticism of something missing. There is every chance it is me that missed it.
Look, I don’t think anyone is going to be putting this amongst their top 5 Pixars any time soon, but I also can’t see anyone saying they didn’t enjoy it. The consensus seems to be “hmm, interesting, I need to think about that a while and see it again a few times”. So, for now, that is exactly what I am saying too. It may well be a classic that grows in appreciation over the years, or it may be one where you go, “nah, let’s watch Monster’s Inc. again instead”. Not sure. I’ll add a postscript right here when I have seen it a second time…
Rachel King (13 KP) rated Eat Pray Love: One Woman's Search for Everything in Books
Feb 11, 2019
I started this book with the warning that the author comes off as very selfish. Considering that this is a memoir, I don't really see what the big deal is. The best way for me to review this book is in three parts, since the book is divided that way. The epiphany that Gilbert has about herself at the beginning of the book I felt I could relate to in some ways - I know what it feels like to spend years gearing yourself up to do something at a certain age, only to arrive and realize that you don't want to do it - and be shocked by this realization. The specifics of her realization were quite different from mine, as I have always wanted children and I could not imagine never having any, but what bugged me was that her husband could not grasp this epiphany of hers. Luckily, the book was more about her than about her mysterious ex-husband.
As for her trip to Italy, I loved every page of it. I felt like I was living it through her words and experiences, wishing I was there with her to taste the food and learn the language. Italy has always been a dream of mine, though I intend to visit the sites, too, not just experience the food and language. I found the scene in which she is fasinated by the Italian man cursing at the soccer game to be a great example of her love for Italy and something I would probably do myself. I was only disappointed that this section was not longer and she did not go into greater detail about everything that she ate. I will certainly have to remember to try the pizza in Naples.
I found her trip to India the most difficult to get through, especially when I reached the point in which she decides to not do any traveling around India - a major disappointment for me. Richard from Texas was the highlight of this section for me, since he seemed to be the most down-to-earth of all the interesting people she meets here, and offers her the soundest advice. The focus of this section was on spirituality, but as it is heavily influenced by Eastern religions, I found myself disagreeing with many of her personal beliefs, even though I admired her dedication and determination. Her views of "kundalini shakti" are a perfect example - Christianity teaches that this is a demonic / occult practice, but Gilbert believes that it is the same thing as the Holy Spirit. This section alone is proof enough for me as to why I stay away from philosophical books.
Her final trip to Bali, Indonesia was educational in many ways, as I knew nothing about the culture and history there. Her medicine man, Ketut Liyer, was quite an interesting character, and I really felt for the young man she befriended, Yudhi, who was forced unfairly to leave the United States thanks to the Homeland Security Act. I find it interesting that she failed in completing her year of celibacy, but I'm sure those Brazilian men can be quite tempting when they want to be. Those who say that Gilbert appears very selfish in this book seem to ignore that she helped a divorced woman - an unheard-of thing in Bali - with three children, obtained a piece of land for her own home and business before Gilbert had to leave the country.
Overall, this year in the life of Elizabeth Gilbert was certainly a memorable one, and one that many, many other women would happily take her place in. I don't find her any more selfish than anyone else who is trying to find a way out of grief and depression, as well as break destructive cycles in his or her life. She was just blessed enough to be payed for the effort to document the experience.
As for her trip to Italy, I loved every page of it. I felt like I was living it through her words and experiences, wishing I was there with her to taste the food and learn the language. Italy has always been a dream of mine, though I intend to visit the sites, too, not just experience the food and language. I found the scene in which she is fasinated by the Italian man cursing at the soccer game to be a great example of her love for Italy and something I would probably do myself. I was only disappointed that this section was not longer and she did not go into greater detail about everything that she ate. I will certainly have to remember to try the pizza in Naples.
I found her trip to India the most difficult to get through, especially when I reached the point in which she decides to not do any traveling around India - a major disappointment for me. Richard from Texas was the highlight of this section for me, since he seemed to be the most down-to-earth of all the interesting people she meets here, and offers her the soundest advice. The focus of this section was on spirituality, but as it is heavily influenced by Eastern religions, I found myself disagreeing with many of her personal beliefs, even though I admired her dedication and determination. Her views of "kundalini shakti" are a perfect example - Christianity teaches that this is a demonic / occult practice, but Gilbert believes that it is the same thing as the Holy Spirit. This section alone is proof enough for me as to why I stay away from philosophical books.
Her final trip to Bali, Indonesia was educational in many ways, as I knew nothing about the culture and history there. Her medicine man, Ketut Liyer, was quite an interesting character, and I really felt for the young man she befriended, Yudhi, who was forced unfairly to leave the United States thanks to the Homeland Security Act. I find it interesting that she failed in completing her year of celibacy, but I'm sure those Brazilian men can be quite tempting when they want to be. Those who say that Gilbert appears very selfish in this book seem to ignore that she helped a divorced woman - an unheard-of thing in Bali - with three children, obtained a piece of land for her own home and business before Gilbert had to leave the country.
Overall, this year in the life of Elizabeth Gilbert was certainly a memorable one, and one that many, many other women would happily take her place in. I don't find her any more selfish than anyone else who is trying to find a way out of grief and depression, as well as break destructive cycles in his or her life. She was just blessed enough to be payed for the effort to document the experience.