Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated 21 Jump Street (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Back in 1987, the fledgling Fox Network debuted, offering entertainment on Saturday and Sunday evenings aimed at a younger audience. One of the network’s first breakout shows was a police drama with young cops and plenty of action, a show named 21 Jump Street. The show featured a cast of largely unknowns who quickly bolted to overnight notoriety, most notably its star Johnny Depp who, much to his chagrin, became a pinup boy and sex symbol for the show.
The show mixed humor, action, and romance. It followed a team of young officers who were part of a special undercover unit that infiltrated high schools and colleges where they posed as students to solve various campus crimes. Johnny Depp left the show after the fourth season, wanting to be taken seriously as a legitimate actor. The show soon ended one year later. Despite having run only five seasons and having a short-lived spinoff series for star Richard Grieco, “21 Jump Street” remained a pop-culture hit 25 years later.
As such, I had a lot of skepticism when I first heard that Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum would be bringing an updated, raunchier version to the big screen that was heavy on laughs and would definitely aim for an R-rated. This theatrical version stars Hill as Officer Schmidt and Tatum as Officer Jenko, two young officers who met while in high school and, despite being on opposite ends of the social spectrum, bonded and became close friends during their time at the police academy years after graduation. When the duo find their lives as bike cops not as exciting as they had hoped and after they bungle their first chance at a significant arrest, the duo find themselves reassigned to the revived Jump Street project.
Schmidt, in spite of his misgivings, decides to face his fear of the horror that was high school decides to give it another chance. Jenko is soon horrified to see that the social structure that he dominated back in his day has clearly turned upside down. Jocks are no longer the big men on campus, replaced by sensitive New Age types. Nerds that he preyed upon are now the cool kids in school.
After the death of a student who took a new designer drug he bought at school, Schmidt and Jenko are assigned to find the dealers, infiltrate the gang and get to the bottom of the drug distribution ring and stop it at all costs. This proves to be easier said than done, especially for Schmidt. He begins to really relish his new found popularity in school and he starts to live the high school experience that he only dreamed about back in his day. Further complicating matters is Molly (Brie Larson), an attractive high school senior who quickly catches Schmidt’s attention and becomes a focal point of his day-to-day activities.
Jenko, on the other hand, finds himself struggling as the former high school kingpin now finds himself a social outcast, spending much of his time with the chemistry nerds trying to find a way to work the social structure to get to the bottom of the school’s drug trade.
Now what would be a simple assignment for two seasoned cops becomes completely unhinged for the to raw recruits who become more obsessed with social status than their mission and take extreme measures to ingratiate themselves with their new classmates. This all comes at a cost as their bond becomes strained due to Schmidt’s rapidly ascending social status and their continued inability to crack the case.
Now this is a premise that has been done countless times in numerous cop films. “21 Jump Street” has a bold and fresh formula that deftly mixes elements of the gross-out teen comedy with an action-adventure film. While the film drags a bit in the middle, there are some incredibly funny jokes throughout the film. The action in the film is solid and fits well with the story rather than trying to spice things up with random explosions.
I loved how the film, based on a story co-written by Jonah Hill, and produced by both Hill and Tatum, took a fresh approach to the subject matter but also respectfully made fun of the source material, banking on nostalgia while updating it for a younger audience.
I can easily say this was probably Jonah Hill’s best comedy to date as they were numerous laugh out loud moments in the film and he and Tatum make a fantastic duo, playing extremely well off one another. There are also several cameos in the film and strong supporting work from Ice Cube, who plays the extremely agitated captain of the inept cops placed under his command. The film sets up very well for a sequel and I understand that there’s already preparation underway should this one do well at the box office.
“21 Jump Street” is easily the funniest movie I’ve seen this year. I have not laughed this much, for all the right reasons, in quite a long time. Hip and fresh again, there’s plenty of bounce left in “21 Jump Street.”
The show mixed humor, action, and romance. It followed a team of young officers who were part of a special undercover unit that infiltrated high schools and colleges where they posed as students to solve various campus crimes. Johnny Depp left the show after the fourth season, wanting to be taken seriously as a legitimate actor. The show soon ended one year later. Despite having run only five seasons and having a short-lived spinoff series for star Richard Grieco, “21 Jump Street” remained a pop-culture hit 25 years later.
As such, I had a lot of skepticism when I first heard that Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum would be bringing an updated, raunchier version to the big screen that was heavy on laughs and would definitely aim for an R-rated. This theatrical version stars Hill as Officer Schmidt and Tatum as Officer Jenko, two young officers who met while in high school and, despite being on opposite ends of the social spectrum, bonded and became close friends during their time at the police academy years after graduation. When the duo find their lives as bike cops not as exciting as they had hoped and after they bungle their first chance at a significant arrest, the duo find themselves reassigned to the revived Jump Street project.
Schmidt, in spite of his misgivings, decides to face his fear of the horror that was high school decides to give it another chance. Jenko is soon horrified to see that the social structure that he dominated back in his day has clearly turned upside down. Jocks are no longer the big men on campus, replaced by sensitive New Age types. Nerds that he preyed upon are now the cool kids in school.
After the death of a student who took a new designer drug he bought at school, Schmidt and Jenko are assigned to find the dealers, infiltrate the gang and get to the bottom of the drug distribution ring and stop it at all costs. This proves to be easier said than done, especially for Schmidt. He begins to really relish his new found popularity in school and he starts to live the high school experience that he only dreamed about back in his day. Further complicating matters is Molly (Brie Larson), an attractive high school senior who quickly catches Schmidt’s attention and becomes a focal point of his day-to-day activities.
Jenko, on the other hand, finds himself struggling as the former high school kingpin now finds himself a social outcast, spending much of his time with the chemistry nerds trying to find a way to work the social structure to get to the bottom of the school’s drug trade.
Now what would be a simple assignment for two seasoned cops becomes completely unhinged for the to raw recruits who become more obsessed with social status than their mission and take extreme measures to ingratiate themselves with their new classmates. This all comes at a cost as their bond becomes strained due to Schmidt’s rapidly ascending social status and their continued inability to crack the case.
Now this is a premise that has been done countless times in numerous cop films. “21 Jump Street” has a bold and fresh formula that deftly mixes elements of the gross-out teen comedy with an action-adventure film. While the film drags a bit in the middle, there are some incredibly funny jokes throughout the film. The action in the film is solid and fits well with the story rather than trying to spice things up with random explosions.
I loved how the film, based on a story co-written by Jonah Hill, and produced by both Hill and Tatum, took a fresh approach to the subject matter but also respectfully made fun of the source material, banking on nostalgia while updating it for a younger audience.
I can easily say this was probably Jonah Hill’s best comedy to date as they were numerous laugh out loud moments in the film and he and Tatum make a fantastic duo, playing extremely well off one another. There are also several cameos in the film and strong supporting work from Ice Cube, who plays the extremely agitated captain of the inept cops placed under his command. The film sets up very well for a sequel and I understand that there’s already preparation underway should this one do well at the box office.
“21 Jump Street” is easily the funniest movie I’ve seen this year. I have not laughed this much, for all the right reasons, in quite a long time. Hip and fresh again, there’s plenty of bounce left in “21 Jump Street.”
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Mountain Goats in Tabletop Games
Mar 14, 2021
Fun fact about me: I thoroughly enjoy watching nature documentaries. I just think they’re so fascinating and I love getting to see all different kinds of animals from across the world. Some of my favorites have definitely been mountain goats. You know, those goats that somehow end up way up high on mountainsides that are basically sheer cliffs? How do they get up there? How do they not fall?? Maybe it’s just me, but those goats are extra intriguing to me. Along comes a game called Mountain Goats, so obviously, I had to try it.
Mountain Goats is a game in which players are racing to the top of 6 different mountains with their goats, in a bid to be the ‘king of the hill,’ if you will. To setup the game, lay out the Mountain cards into a grid, as described in the rules. Place the point tokens at the top of their corresponding Mountain cards, set the Bonus point tokens to the side, and all players place one Goat meeple at the bottom of each set of Mountain cards. The game is now ready to start.
On your turn, you will roll the 4 dice of the game. Using those results, you will create groups of dice, in which the dice total dictates which of your Goats is moved. Once you have created your groups, you will move your Goat up one space on the corresponding Mountain. (For example, if one of my dice groups is a 3 and a 2, then I will move my Goat on Mountain 5 up one space). After moving all of your affected Goats, pass the dice to the next player. Simple, right? Yep! Now here’s where it gets interesting. If you get a Goat to the top of a Mountain, you will collect a Point token from the corresponding pile. If an opponent is already at the top of a Mountain and you are able to move there, then you kick your opponent back to the bottom of that mountain, and claim the top spot for yourself, collecting a Point token as normal! AND if you create a dice set for a Mountain on which you are already at the top, you get to collect an additional Point token and keep your Goat at the top. How long can you hang onto that top spot? I guess you’ll find out. If/when you collect at least 1 Point token from each of the 6 Mountains, you get to claim the highest-value Bonus point token still available.
Play continues in this manner until either all of the Bonus point tokens have been claimed, or when 3 Mountains have no more Point tokens remaining. Players count up all of their collected points, and the player with the highest score is the winner.
The thing I like about Mountain Goats the most is that it is so fast and easy to play/teach. The concept is easy to grasp, the mechanics are simple, and the gameplay is engaging. So right off the bat, this is a solid game for me. The next thing I like is that even though it is such a small, light game, you’ve still got to have a strategy to succeed. With the Mountains numbered 5-10, you really have to think about how you want to group your dice. If your total falls below 5 or over 10, it won’t move any Goats! So if you’ve got a 6, 6, 5, and 2, how can you best maximize your movement? Are you willing to sacrifice a die because it doesn’t necessarily work with your strategy this turn? Or do you want to move as many Goats as possible every turn? It’s really up to you, and that strategic flexibility heightens the gameplay for me.
The other thing I really like about Mountain Goats is the amount of player interaction, in a sort of take-that way. When you reach the top of a Mountain, if an opponent is already there, they get kicked back to the bottom! So not only do they have to start the climb over again, but they can’t just sit pretty collecting Point tokens when possible. For me, the slight take-that element in this game is more friendly than cutthroat, and that really makes the overall gameplay experience more positive. Starting over from the bottom is, at most, only 4 cards from the top, so getting kicked down isn’t totally detrimental to the game atmosphere.
Components. They’re great! The cards are nice and sturdy, the artwork colorful and numbering clear. The Point tokens are nice thick cardboard, the dice are big and clear, and the Goat meeples are chunky and fun to manipulate. I have yet to see a game from BoardGameTables.com that has poor production quality, and Mountain Goats is no exception.
All in all, I think this is a great and fun little game. The concept is cute, the gameplay itself is fun and engaging, and the small footprint and short playtime make it an enjoyable little game. And since the gist of the game is just counting/numbers, it can be played with relatively young gamers, which makes it a good family-friendly filler game. Purple Phoenix Games gives Mountain Goats an ascending 9 / 12. Give it a shot and see if you’ve got what it takes to come out on top!
Mountain Goats is a game in which players are racing to the top of 6 different mountains with their goats, in a bid to be the ‘king of the hill,’ if you will. To setup the game, lay out the Mountain cards into a grid, as described in the rules. Place the point tokens at the top of their corresponding Mountain cards, set the Bonus point tokens to the side, and all players place one Goat meeple at the bottom of each set of Mountain cards. The game is now ready to start.
On your turn, you will roll the 4 dice of the game. Using those results, you will create groups of dice, in which the dice total dictates which of your Goats is moved. Once you have created your groups, you will move your Goat up one space on the corresponding Mountain. (For example, if one of my dice groups is a 3 and a 2, then I will move my Goat on Mountain 5 up one space). After moving all of your affected Goats, pass the dice to the next player. Simple, right? Yep! Now here’s where it gets interesting. If you get a Goat to the top of a Mountain, you will collect a Point token from the corresponding pile. If an opponent is already at the top of a Mountain and you are able to move there, then you kick your opponent back to the bottom of that mountain, and claim the top spot for yourself, collecting a Point token as normal! AND if you create a dice set for a Mountain on which you are already at the top, you get to collect an additional Point token and keep your Goat at the top. How long can you hang onto that top spot? I guess you’ll find out. If/when you collect at least 1 Point token from each of the 6 Mountains, you get to claim the highest-value Bonus point token still available.
Play continues in this manner until either all of the Bonus point tokens have been claimed, or when 3 Mountains have no more Point tokens remaining. Players count up all of their collected points, and the player with the highest score is the winner.
The thing I like about Mountain Goats the most is that it is so fast and easy to play/teach. The concept is easy to grasp, the mechanics are simple, and the gameplay is engaging. So right off the bat, this is a solid game for me. The next thing I like is that even though it is such a small, light game, you’ve still got to have a strategy to succeed. With the Mountains numbered 5-10, you really have to think about how you want to group your dice. If your total falls below 5 or over 10, it won’t move any Goats! So if you’ve got a 6, 6, 5, and 2, how can you best maximize your movement? Are you willing to sacrifice a die because it doesn’t necessarily work with your strategy this turn? Or do you want to move as many Goats as possible every turn? It’s really up to you, and that strategic flexibility heightens the gameplay for me.
The other thing I really like about Mountain Goats is the amount of player interaction, in a sort of take-that way. When you reach the top of a Mountain, if an opponent is already there, they get kicked back to the bottom! So not only do they have to start the climb over again, but they can’t just sit pretty collecting Point tokens when possible. For me, the slight take-that element in this game is more friendly than cutthroat, and that really makes the overall gameplay experience more positive. Starting over from the bottom is, at most, only 4 cards from the top, so getting kicked down isn’t totally detrimental to the game atmosphere.
Components. They’re great! The cards are nice and sturdy, the artwork colorful and numbering clear. The Point tokens are nice thick cardboard, the dice are big and clear, and the Goat meeples are chunky and fun to manipulate. I have yet to see a game from BoardGameTables.com that has poor production quality, and Mountain Goats is no exception.
All in all, I think this is a great and fun little game. The concept is cute, the gameplay itself is fun and engaging, and the small footprint and short playtime make it an enjoyable little game. And since the gist of the game is just counting/numbers, it can be played with relatively young gamers, which makes it a good family-friendly filler game. Purple Phoenix Games gives Mountain Goats an ascending 9 / 12. Give it a shot and see if you’ve got what it takes to come out on top!
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Toy Story 4 (2019) in Movies
Feb 11, 2021
The rule of threes is a pretty solid philosophy. We find things repeated in triplicate satisfying and complete. There is no rule of four, it isn’t a thing. Four is usually one too many… and this was the fear for all Pixar and Toy Story fans when this project was announced, fairly unexpectedly, in 2018. Toy Story 3 was a beautiful and heart-rending end to the saga of Woody, Buzz and co. It was an end. Wasn’t it? Everything worth saying had been said, and it was all tied up in a plastic bow rather perfectly.
Well, Pixar are innovators and pioneers of the highest order, so maybe we should just trust that they know what they are doing (apart from the Cars series). Please don’t ruin it all, is all we asked, with fingers crossed. So many franchises and beloved event movies have had their legacy shat on by one too many sequels. Die Hard, Alien, Star Wars, The Terminator, etc, etc. Isn’t it best to leave well alone and concentrate on new ideas and new directions?
All the usual voice actors, Mr Hanks and Mr Allen, were back on board, with some intriguing additions in guest stars such as Christina Hendricks and Keanu Reeves, as Gabby Gabby and Duke Caboom, respectively. There was also a new director in Josh Cooley, who had been part of the team since story boarding The Incredibles in 2003, and graduating to writer and actor on Inside Out. It’s good to know Pixar look after their own with these kind of opportunities, but was this the right film and series to be making a debut in? A lot of pressure, you would think.
So, firstly, by now we know the entire world breathed a sigh of relief that it wasn’t terrible. Not only wasn’t it terrible, but it was a heck of a lot of fun! I mean, a lot! It went on to win the Oscar for best animated film, and everyone that went on to watch it after its cinema release unanimously says: “Hey, this is much better than I thought… maybe even my second favourite out of the four”. And it is true! It’s not just good enough, it is great. I loved it.
I tend to save my animation for Sundays. I don’t know why, but that feels like the best day to indulge my inner child and sense of sentimental wonder. From minute one I was into this film. As soon as you see and hear your old friends in the toy box, it doesn’t take long to feel at home in this world of talking, walking, feeling, fearing, loving characters. They are so well drawn, in all senses, it is hard to think of animated entities so adored and part of the family. I laughed, I cried, I felt excited and worried and tense and ultimately warmed up with joy. It has it all.
Not to say it merely repeats the best tricks of the first three, it doesn’t. In fact, there are a lot of differences here. It feels a little more mature, like we have all grown up together and have no need to be patronised or expositioned at. It assumes we know these people (yes, I think of them as people, that is why it works) and can leap into their lives at any point. Woody, who is of course the beating heart of the show, has been a friend, a paramour and brother before, but now he is a father figure too, an evolution that reflects life. And these guys know how effective that is going to be.
There is a slight concern regarding his adopted ward, the controversial “Forky”, who seemed a little childish and simplistic in theory… but that becomes a wonderful part of the whole point… no spoilers. I’d understand if the character grated a tiny touch at first; it kinda did with me. But the laughs are there eventually, and some of them are big laughs! Fear not, it works. Not perfect, but it works. Although why it isn’t called “Sporky” I do not know… it is clearly a spork and not a fork. Oh, yes, I know why, it is because that is what Bonnie calls him, and she is a child. Genius. I was wrong.
The plot, such as it is, is an adventure story worthy of Indiana Jones at points, and it moves along at an exciting clip for sure! Gabby Gabby is gloriously sinister, as are her ventriloquist dummy henchmen; Duke Caboom is hilarious and has probably the best light relief moments; but there is also the duo of “Ducky” and “Bunny” to enjoy on a more surreal and perhaps more adult level. Even when you see where it is going, it has the ability to surprise you, which is terrific film-making art in any animation, or anything full stop. Not least, the final 10 minutes, which break the heart in the best way, just as all the previous films have done. The thought of where they leave it brings a lump to my throat even now!
In short. If you haven’t seen it: do. If you have, watch it again as part of a Toy Story marathon and see exactly how different it is from start to finish, and just how many themes and ideas it has covered in its 25 year existence. Bravo Pixar, you did it again!
Well, Pixar are innovators and pioneers of the highest order, so maybe we should just trust that they know what they are doing (apart from the Cars series). Please don’t ruin it all, is all we asked, with fingers crossed. So many franchises and beloved event movies have had their legacy shat on by one too many sequels. Die Hard, Alien, Star Wars, The Terminator, etc, etc. Isn’t it best to leave well alone and concentrate on new ideas and new directions?
All the usual voice actors, Mr Hanks and Mr Allen, were back on board, with some intriguing additions in guest stars such as Christina Hendricks and Keanu Reeves, as Gabby Gabby and Duke Caboom, respectively. There was also a new director in Josh Cooley, who had been part of the team since story boarding The Incredibles in 2003, and graduating to writer and actor on Inside Out. It’s good to know Pixar look after their own with these kind of opportunities, but was this the right film and series to be making a debut in? A lot of pressure, you would think.
So, firstly, by now we know the entire world breathed a sigh of relief that it wasn’t terrible. Not only wasn’t it terrible, but it was a heck of a lot of fun! I mean, a lot! It went on to win the Oscar for best animated film, and everyone that went on to watch it after its cinema release unanimously says: “Hey, this is much better than I thought… maybe even my second favourite out of the four”. And it is true! It’s not just good enough, it is great. I loved it.
I tend to save my animation for Sundays. I don’t know why, but that feels like the best day to indulge my inner child and sense of sentimental wonder. From minute one I was into this film. As soon as you see and hear your old friends in the toy box, it doesn’t take long to feel at home in this world of talking, walking, feeling, fearing, loving characters. They are so well drawn, in all senses, it is hard to think of animated entities so adored and part of the family. I laughed, I cried, I felt excited and worried and tense and ultimately warmed up with joy. It has it all.
Not to say it merely repeats the best tricks of the first three, it doesn’t. In fact, there are a lot of differences here. It feels a little more mature, like we have all grown up together and have no need to be patronised or expositioned at. It assumes we know these people (yes, I think of them as people, that is why it works) and can leap into their lives at any point. Woody, who is of course the beating heart of the show, has been a friend, a paramour and brother before, but now he is a father figure too, an evolution that reflects life. And these guys know how effective that is going to be.
There is a slight concern regarding his adopted ward, the controversial “Forky”, who seemed a little childish and simplistic in theory… but that becomes a wonderful part of the whole point… no spoilers. I’d understand if the character grated a tiny touch at first; it kinda did with me. But the laughs are there eventually, and some of them are big laughs! Fear not, it works. Not perfect, but it works. Although why it isn’t called “Sporky” I do not know… it is clearly a spork and not a fork. Oh, yes, I know why, it is because that is what Bonnie calls him, and she is a child. Genius. I was wrong.
The plot, such as it is, is an adventure story worthy of Indiana Jones at points, and it moves along at an exciting clip for sure! Gabby Gabby is gloriously sinister, as are her ventriloquist dummy henchmen; Duke Caboom is hilarious and has probably the best light relief moments; but there is also the duo of “Ducky” and “Bunny” to enjoy on a more surreal and perhaps more adult level. Even when you see where it is going, it has the ability to surprise you, which is terrific film-making art in any animation, or anything full stop. Not least, the final 10 minutes, which break the heart in the best way, just as all the previous films have done. The thought of where they leave it brings a lump to my throat even now!
In short. If you haven’t seen it: do. If you have, watch it again as part of a Toy Story marathon and see exactly how different it is from start to finish, and just how many themes and ideas it has covered in its 25 year existence. Bravo Pixar, you did it again!
Lee Ronaldo recommended Blind Joe Death by John Fahey in Music (curated)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated BlacKkKlansman (2018) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
I have had my issues with Spike Lee as a filmmaker over the years. It always seemed like his next film was the most “important” one, and that he didn’t make a film if it didn’t have something to say about race and the oppression of African Americans. Which in itself is not a problem, as long as that point isn’t laboured to the detriment of all other aspects of the film. My problem wasn’t the message, it was that a lot of the films were dull or just not that great.
I like Malcolm X to a point, but it is overlong and uneven. I think Do the Right Thing is a fine example of indie bravura, but also has faults. Of the rest, I really only rate 25th Hour and Inside Man, both of which are entertaining movies that move tentatively away from full on politics and therefore avoid the trap of being bombastic. In short, I’ve always wanted to like him as a director a lot more than I do.
The thing that drew me to BlacKkKlansman more than Lee, or the yet little known John David Washington, was the 100% dependable Adam Driver. I have yet to see a performance of his I didn’t like, and I’d heard that he was the standout of this film too, so it went on my list of must sees. And, yes, he is excellent, of course he is – there’s something about how easy and relaxed he can be within a character that is very rare. I’d suggest he is one of the very best male actors of that age group working today.
Now, obviously, it is entirely intentional that the two leads and eventual partners in the film are black and white… but the idea that this is a problem, or a thing at all, is not addressed as the only issue; in BlacKkKlansman it isn’t being black or white or anything else that defines you, it is what you do, what you say and what you stand for. And that idea is so crystal clear and well achieved that as an entertainment the film can then go anywhere it wants around that framework. Which it revels in doing.
It is both a good looking film and an exciting one; funny when it wants to be, smart all the time, and razor serious when it needs to be. A balancing act not to be sniffed at! And one that Lee has struggled with in the past. Here he nails the tone so well that it feels like his entire back catalogue was just a training exercise to get him to this point. I wouldn’t say it’s a masterpiece, but it is a damn fine work of art on many levels.
Washington as the focus of the tale, which also functions perfectly as an undercover cop movie of basic intent, i.e. infiltrate the bad guys and take them down, is perfectly cast and believable from minute one. His chemistry with the insanely gorgeous and talented Laura Harrier is a highlight, especially watching them dance and move with absolute cool in those 70s clothes and hairstyles. This movie has serious style that leaves you in no doubt that the black sub-culture is where it’s at, and the stupid bigoted klansmen are shown up as ridiculous as much as dangerous.
Every trope and icon of the Blacksploitation era is referenced and reclaimed as cool. Perhaps to a degree I am not aware of, as I’ve only seen one or two obvious examples in my time. We are given the tease to follow the notion that racism of this kind was a thing of the past, specifically related to the 70s and now it’s better in many ways. Before we are hit with the hammer blow of realisation at the very end of the film, where a juxtaposition of fantasy and horrific reality collide to magnificently shocking and depressing effect.
I felt after seeing it that I had been cleverly schooled. As in, I’m glad you enjoyed this, now go away and really think about it… and it worked, because I have tried to think about it more than I have before. And feel just that little bit more educated to a problem that is worldwide, but has never really felt directly part of my world.
Discussing anything related to the BLM movement in 2020 feels important and complicated in so many ways. It is an emotive subject that I’d feel I mostly want to avoid for fear of saying the wrong thing. Even though the basic idea of human rights and basic rights for all people has always been a no brainer; prejudice and hate crimes and fear are wrong, and we collectively must do whatever we can to educate ourselves and others not to make the mistakes of the past. Can a movie do that? No of course not, but it can open the door to dialogue that might not have happened otherwise.
Lee isn’t scared of what you think of this film, or any argument you may have against it. He knows his subject, and you feel that confidence in every scene. He doesn’t want to lecture you, or scream at you in despair, he wants to tell you an entertaining story that comes with a whole side discussion if you want it. Which is so much more powerful than any tactic he has tried before. And I think it works. I’d recommend anyone watch this, without hesitation.
I like Malcolm X to a point, but it is overlong and uneven. I think Do the Right Thing is a fine example of indie bravura, but also has faults. Of the rest, I really only rate 25th Hour and Inside Man, both of which are entertaining movies that move tentatively away from full on politics and therefore avoid the trap of being bombastic. In short, I’ve always wanted to like him as a director a lot more than I do.
The thing that drew me to BlacKkKlansman more than Lee, or the yet little known John David Washington, was the 100% dependable Adam Driver. I have yet to see a performance of his I didn’t like, and I’d heard that he was the standout of this film too, so it went on my list of must sees. And, yes, he is excellent, of course he is – there’s something about how easy and relaxed he can be within a character that is very rare. I’d suggest he is one of the very best male actors of that age group working today.
Now, obviously, it is entirely intentional that the two leads and eventual partners in the film are black and white… but the idea that this is a problem, or a thing at all, is not addressed as the only issue; in BlacKkKlansman it isn’t being black or white or anything else that defines you, it is what you do, what you say and what you stand for. And that idea is so crystal clear and well achieved that as an entertainment the film can then go anywhere it wants around that framework. Which it revels in doing.
It is both a good looking film and an exciting one; funny when it wants to be, smart all the time, and razor serious when it needs to be. A balancing act not to be sniffed at! And one that Lee has struggled with in the past. Here he nails the tone so well that it feels like his entire back catalogue was just a training exercise to get him to this point. I wouldn’t say it’s a masterpiece, but it is a damn fine work of art on many levels.
Washington as the focus of the tale, which also functions perfectly as an undercover cop movie of basic intent, i.e. infiltrate the bad guys and take them down, is perfectly cast and believable from minute one. His chemistry with the insanely gorgeous and talented Laura Harrier is a highlight, especially watching them dance and move with absolute cool in those 70s clothes and hairstyles. This movie has serious style that leaves you in no doubt that the black sub-culture is where it’s at, and the stupid bigoted klansmen are shown up as ridiculous as much as dangerous.
Every trope and icon of the Blacksploitation era is referenced and reclaimed as cool. Perhaps to a degree I am not aware of, as I’ve only seen one or two obvious examples in my time. We are given the tease to follow the notion that racism of this kind was a thing of the past, specifically related to the 70s and now it’s better in many ways. Before we are hit with the hammer blow of realisation at the very end of the film, where a juxtaposition of fantasy and horrific reality collide to magnificently shocking and depressing effect.
I felt after seeing it that I had been cleverly schooled. As in, I’m glad you enjoyed this, now go away and really think about it… and it worked, because I have tried to think about it more than I have before. And feel just that little bit more educated to a problem that is worldwide, but has never really felt directly part of my world.
Discussing anything related to the BLM movement in 2020 feels important and complicated in so many ways. It is an emotive subject that I’d feel I mostly want to avoid for fear of saying the wrong thing. Even though the basic idea of human rights and basic rights for all people has always been a no brainer; prejudice and hate crimes and fear are wrong, and we collectively must do whatever we can to educate ourselves and others not to make the mistakes of the past. Can a movie do that? No of course not, but it can open the door to dialogue that might not have happened otherwise.
Lee isn’t scared of what you think of this film, or any argument you may have against it. He knows his subject, and you feel that confidence in every scene. He doesn’t want to lecture you, or scream at you in despair, he wants to tell you an entertaining story that comes with a whole side discussion if you want it. Which is so much more powerful than any tactic he has tried before. And I think it works. I’d recommend anyone watch this, without hesitation.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated ICECOOL in Tabletop Games
Jun 25, 2019 (Updated Aug 13, 2020)
Moving components around the board/play area is a staple of most board games. As board games have evolved, that mechanic has maintained an integral role in many games. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, right? Well just because it’s not broken, doesn’t mean it can’t use a little innovation….and that’s where ICECOOL comes into play.
You and your Penguin buddies are so hungry that you decide to skip out on class early to go grab some snacks. But you’ve forgotten about the Hall Monitor! Their mission is to catch any unauthorized hall wanderers and send them back to class. Can you outmaneuver the Hall Monitor, or will you be caught and forced to go hungry until the end of class?
Disclaimer: I do not intend to rehash the rulebook in its entirety in this review, but rather provide a general overview of the rules and gameplay. To read the rules more in-depth, grab a copy of the game from your FLGS! -L
ICECOOL is a dexterity game in which players are trying to amass the most points over a number of rounds. Here’s how a round plays out. Select one player to be the Hall Monitor (called the Catcher) for the first round, and place their Penguin pawn in the kitchen box. All other players, aka the Runners, take their 3 colored fish tokens and attach them to the three corresponding doorways, and begin with their Penguin pawns in the classroom box. As a Runner, your goal is to collect your 3 fish tokens from their doorways. How do you do that? Flick your Penguin through a fish doorway to collect your snack. Yes, you read that right – flick. In this game, all movement is achieved by literally flicking your pieces throughout the boxes. To collect a fish, you must pass through the corresponding doorway completely in one single flick. Each time you collect a fish, draw the top card from the fish deck and keep it hidden from your opponents. Your other goal? Avoid the Catcher. If at any point, your Penguin comes into contact with the Catcher, you must forfeit your Hall Pass to the Catcher.
As the Catcher, your goal is to collect the Hall Pass of every other player. You achieve this goal by flicking your Penguin into any of the Runners. Turn order is as follows: Runners-Catcher, Runners-Catcher, etc., until the end of the round is triggered. The round is over when the Catcher has collected Hall Passes from every other player, or any Runner has collected all 3 of their fish. At the end of the round, each player collects 1 fish card per Hall Pass in their possession. So if you were caught by the Catcher, you’re outta luck! For the next round a new player is selected to be the Catcher, and play continues as above. The game ends once every player has taken a turn as the Catcher. Count up the points from your collected fish cards, and the player with the most points wins!
So a game of flicking Penguins around some boxes – sounds pretty simple, right? Yes and no. ICECOOL admittedly does not really require any serious strategy. Yes, you are trying to collect all 3 of your fish, but you’re mainly playing keep-away from the Catcher. And as the Catcher, you’re “It” in this quasi-game of Tag. So strategic, this is not. On the other hand, mastering the art of flicking your Penguin is a long and arduous process. Ok, it’s not arduous, but it is tricky to master! ICECOOL really puts your dexterity to the test to see if you have the proper form and control to move your Penguin to exactly where you want it to go. Half of the fun of this game is all the whiffed flicks and the comically accidental misdirections. The rulebook offers some flicking techniques to try out before your first game, and they are actually pretty helpful. I’ve not yet been able to achieve the jumping flick, but maybe one day I will rise to that level.
One other super neat thing about ICECOOL is the game setup. You’re playing with boxes of varying sizes. But here’s the kicker: they all nest into each other!!! So for storing, it looks like you just have one box. But in reality, there are 4 other boxes hidden inside. This concept is not one I’ve seen before in any other game, so that just makes ICECOOL a little bit more unique and interesting for me. Since I’m talking about the boxes, let me touch on components. The boxes are all of great quality, and are sturdy enough to hold up to clashing penguins. The Penguins themselves are good solid plastic, and I know they will last forever. Be careful though, flicking too hard might hurt your fingers! The deck of fish cards are a standard card quality. The artwork of the game is cute and thematic, and overall it’s a fun, immersive experience.
ICECOOL is not a game that I pull off the shelf at every game night. But it is one that is light enough, and entertaining enough, that it certainly gets a good amount of gameplay from my collection. Whether you are using it as a nice, short filler game, or you’re playing with some young’uns, it makes for a happy atmosphere full of energy and happiness. And that’s why Purple Phoenix Games gives ICECOOL a brrrrrrrrrilliant 18 / 24.
You and your Penguin buddies are so hungry that you decide to skip out on class early to go grab some snacks. But you’ve forgotten about the Hall Monitor! Their mission is to catch any unauthorized hall wanderers and send them back to class. Can you outmaneuver the Hall Monitor, or will you be caught and forced to go hungry until the end of class?
Disclaimer: I do not intend to rehash the rulebook in its entirety in this review, but rather provide a general overview of the rules and gameplay. To read the rules more in-depth, grab a copy of the game from your FLGS! -L
ICECOOL is a dexterity game in which players are trying to amass the most points over a number of rounds. Here’s how a round plays out. Select one player to be the Hall Monitor (called the Catcher) for the first round, and place their Penguin pawn in the kitchen box. All other players, aka the Runners, take their 3 colored fish tokens and attach them to the three corresponding doorways, and begin with their Penguin pawns in the classroom box. As a Runner, your goal is to collect your 3 fish tokens from their doorways. How do you do that? Flick your Penguin through a fish doorway to collect your snack. Yes, you read that right – flick. In this game, all movement is achieved by literally flicking your pieces throughout the boxes. To collect a fish, you must pass through the corresponding doorway completely in one single flick. Each time you collect a fish, draw the top card from the fish deck and keep it hidden from your opponents. Your other goal? Avoid the Catcher. If at any point, your Penguin comes into contact with the Catcher, you must forfeit your Hall Pass to the Catcher.
As the Catcher, your goal is to collect the Hall Pass of every other player. You achieve this goal by flicking your Penguin into any of the Runners. Turn order is as follows: Runners-Catcher, Runners-Catcher, etc., until the end of the round is triggered. The round is over when the Catcher has collected Hall Passes from every other player, or any Runner has collected all 3 of their fish. At the end of the round, each player collects 1 fish card per Hall Pass in their possession. So if you were caught by the Catcher, you’re outta luck! For the next round a new player is selected to be the Catcher, and play continues as above. The game ends once every player has taken a turn as the Catcher. Count up the points from your collected fish cards, and the player with the most points wins!
So a game of flicking Penguins around some boxes – sounds pretty simple, right? Yes and no. ICECOOL admittedly does not really require any serious strategy. Yes, you are trying to collect all 3 of your fish, but you’re mainly playing keep-away from the Catcher. And as the Catcher, you’re “It” in this quasi-game of Tag. So strategic, this is not. On the other hand, mastering the art of flicking your Penguin is a long and arduous process. Ok, it’s not arduous, but it is tricky to master! ICECOOL really puts your dexterity to the test to see if you have the proper form and control to move your Penguin to exactly where you want it to go. Half of the fun of this game is all the whiffed flicks and the comically accidental misdirections. The rulebook offers some flicking techniques to try out before your first game, and they are actually pretty helpful. I’ve not yet been able to achieve the jumping flick, but maybe one day I will rise to that level.
One other super neat thing about ICECOOL is the game setup. You’re playing with boxes of varying sizes. But here’s the kicker: they all nest into each other!!! So for storing, it looks like you just have one box. But in reality, there are 4 other boxes hidden inside. This concept is not one I’ve seen before in any other game, so that just makes ICECOOL a little bit more unique and interesting for me. Since I’m talking about the boxes, let me touch on components. The boxes are all of great quality, and are sturdy enough to hold up to clashing penguins. The Penguins themselves are good solid plastic, and I know they will last forever. Be careful though, flicking too hard might hurt your fingers! The deck of fish cards are a standard card quality. The artwork of the game is cute and thematic, and overall it’s a fun, immersive experience.
ICECOOL is not a game that I pull off the shelf at every game night. But it is one that is light enough, and entertaining enough, that it certainly gets a good amount of gameplay from my collection. Whether you are using it as a nice, short filler game, or you’re playing with some young’uns, it makes for a happy atmosphere full of energy and happiness. And that’s why Purple Phoenix Games gives ICECOOL a brrrrrrrrrilliant 18 / 24.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Greatest Showman (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
I can’t claim to know much about musicals. I don’t actively avoid them, but I don’t go out of my way to see them either. The few that I have seen and liked don’t seem to sit well with the musical theater crowd either. For instance, recently in conversation my defense of Russell Crowe as Javert in the latest adaptation of Les Misérables was shot down in a matter of seconds. My wife, with some frequency, reminds me that my (until now) secret admiration of Tim Burton’s Sweeney Todd is something that should never be declared in a public forum. For me, one of the best achievements in musical film will always be South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut; and though there is a general positivity about it, I’ve never seen it taken all that seriously as a contemporary musical (it was certainly a hell of a lot more memorable than 2003’s Best Picture winner, Chicago). So, if you haven’t already decided my opinion will be moot and stopped reading, I will, with the limited appreciation I have for this genre, give The Greatest Showman the fairest shake I can.
At a surprisingly short hour and forty-five minutes, this high-concept imagining of the meteoric rise of P.T. Barnum (Hugh Jackman), from the impoverished son of a tailor to one of the biggest names in the history of entertainment, should absolutely fly by. Tragically, it doesn’t. Beginning with an irresponsibly rushed first act that condenses decades of backstory into a few minutes, it dramatically stops dead between its second and third acts as we’re subjected to three songs in a row that not all that subtly beat us over the head with the inevitably that our leads are going to have to face some predictable, life-changing conflict before the big finale. Showman also suffers from the delusion that period pieces will be more engaging and relatable with a modern-inspired soundtrack, à la Baz Luhrmann’s misguided attempt at The Great Gatsby. The idea being that the music of the time, though antiquated to us now, would have sounded modern to people then, so why not put modern music, whether original or sourced, over period images in an attempt to bridge the gap between their world and ours? It’s a concept that might sound great on paper, but as Luhrmann already proved, the final results don’t so much complement each other as they expose each other’s weaknesses.
Its major flaw though, and why The Greatest Showman fails to be a great anything, is the insistence on force-feeding moments of attempted catharsis every 15-20 minutes, having earned almost none of them. A great many of the numbers are presented as such grand, climactic set pieces that they don’t feel as though they are working to serve a cohesive, larger whole. We are inundated with a blur of crescendo after crescendo and left little time to reflect on what we have just seen and heard before the film clumsily bounds off to the next song-and-dance laden plot point; and if you asked me to name any of the individual tunes now three days later, I’d be hard-pressed to do so. It’s an odd juxtaposition, and one I’ve very rarely experienced, wanting so badly for a film to end and at the same time wishing it had been given more time to fully realize its scope. Keep your ears open as well for an ill-advised line in which Barnum proudly compares himself to Napoleon. Isn’t Barnum supposed to be the “hero” of this piece, someone we are supposed to identify with and for whom we want to find success? Somebody please provide Showman’s writers a history lesson that didn’t just come off a Wikipedia page (for Barnum and Napoleon’s sakes).
With any negative criticism, I do like to try and go out on something positive, and if I have to concede anything to this movie, it’s that it finds its footing, albeit temporarily, while addressing issues of equality. Showman shines in the few moments where the supporting players portraying Barnum’s “oddities”, Keala Settle as Lettie Lutz in particular, are given the opportunity to stand toe-to-toe with the leads and, in many of these scenes, they rise above even the likes of Hugh Jackman. Another member of the cast who merits a little bit of praise (and I reserve the right to retract this at any time of my choosing, more than likely with whatever juvenile comedy he’ll be seen in next) is Zac Efron. Exposure to the likes of Nicole Kidman and John Cusack in 2012’s sadly overlooked The Paperboy, may finally be yielding results as he is the only lead who leaves an impression. Though his journey as a high society playwright begrudgingly brought into Barnum’s world definitely leans heavily on the saccharine side, it does provide a break of plausibility in amongst the unbridled chaos of the rest of the picture. I wouldn’t doubt that there is a much better movie that could have been made from expanding into its own feature the subplot of his character bucking the expectations of his status to fall in love with a circus performer.
At a surprisingly short hour and forty-five minutes, this high-concept imagining of the meteoric rise of P.T. Barnum (Hugh Jackman), from the impoverished son of a tailor to one of the biggest names in the history of entertainment, should absolutely fly by. Tragically, it doesn’t. Beginning with an irresponsibly rushed first act that condenses decades of backstory into a few minutes, it dramatically stops dead between its second and third acts as we’re subjected to three songs in a row that not all that subtly beat us over the head with the inevitably that our leads are going to have to face some predictable, life-changing conflict before the big finale. Showman also suffers from the delusion that period pieces will be more engaging and relatable with a modern-inspired soundtrack, à la Baz Luhrmann’s misguided attempt at The Great Gatsby. The idea being that the music of the time, though antiquated to us now, would have sounded modern to people then, so why not put modern music, whether original or sourced, over period images in an attempt to bridge the gap between their world and ours? It’s a concept that might sound great on paper, but as Luhrmann already proved, the final results don’t so much complement each other as they expose each other’s weaknesses.
Its major flaw though, and why The Greatest Showman fails to be a great anything, is the insistence on force-feeding moments of attempted catharsis every 15-20 minutes, having earned almost none of them. A great many of the numbers are presented as such grand, climactic set pieces that they don’t feel as though they are working to serve a cohesive, larger whole. We are inundated with a blur of crescendo after crescendo and left little time to reflect on what we have just seen and heard before the film clumsily bounds off to the next song-and-dance laden plot point; and if you asked me to name any of the individual tunes now three days later, I’d be hard-pressed to do so. It’s an odd juxtaposition, and one I’ve very rarely experienced, wanting so badly for a film to end and at the same time wishing it had been given more time to fully realize its scope. Keep your ears open as well for an ill-advised line in which Barnum proudly compares himself to Napoleon. Isn’t Barnum supposed to be the “hero” of this piece, someone we are supposed to identify with and for whom we want to find success? Somebody please provide Showman’s writers a history lesson that didn’t just come off a Wikipedia page (for Barnum and Napoleon’s sakes).
With any negative criticism, I do like to try and go out on something positive, and if I have to concede anything to this movie, it’s that it finds its footing, albeit temporarily, while addressing issues of equality. Showman shines in the few moments where the supporting players portraying Barnum’s “oddities”, Keala Settle as Lettie Lutz in particular, are given the opportunity to stand toe-to-toe with the leads and, in many of these scenes, they rise above even the likes of Hugh Jackman. Another member of the cast who merits a little bit of praise (and I reserve the right to retract this at any time of my choosing, more than likely with whatever juvenile comedy he’ll be seen in next) is Zac Efron. Exposure to the likes of Nicole Kidman and John Cusack in 2012’s sadly overlooked The Paperboy, may finally be yielding results as he is the only lead who leaves an impression. Though his journey as a high society playwright begrudgingly brought into Barnum’s world definitely leans heavily on the saccharine side, it does provide a break of plausibility in amongst the unbridled chaos of the rest of the picture. I wouldn’t doubt that there is a much better movie that could have been made from expanding into its own feature the subplot of his character bucking the expectations of his status to fall in love with a circus performer.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Angel Thieves in Books
Sep 8, 2019
I really enjoyed Kathi Appelt's writing style in her children's picture book Max Attacks, so when the chance to read and review her Young Adult novel Angel Thieves presented itself, I decided to give it a read. I'm really glad I did because I fell head over heels in love with this book!
I very much enjoyed the plot of Angel Thieves and found myself immersed in the story from the very first page. It is told from different perspectives including humans, an ocelot, and a bayou which definitely made this book even more interesting! The narrative is told from 1845 through to present time. It all takes place in Houston, Texas. Every perspective is interwoven with each other. We learn about a teenage crush, a father and son duo who steal marble angel statues to make a living, an ocelot who was poached from her home and caught in a hurricane where she's left starving and unable to escape from her cage, a former slave who is trying to help her young daughters escape from being slaves themselves, a bayou who has seen it all, and some other points of view from others throughout Angel Thieves. I was constantly memorized by each chapter, and I was on pins and needles wondering what would happen next. It also helps that the author, Kathi Appelt, is such a fabulous writer who makes all her words come to life with her extraordinary talent! There weren't any major plot twists, but this isn't a book that needs to rely on plot twists to keep it interesting. The writing itself is strong enough to hold its own. There are no cliff hangers, but I would have liked to know a little more about Achsah and her children. There is some mention of them at the end, but I was heavily invested in Achsah's story where I really wanted to know more. However, this doesn't take away from the appeal of the book by no means. Because the prose is so beautifully written, the pacing flows very well. The chapters are mostly all short as well, so it's easy to read this book in one sitting. The world building was done fantastically, and it was obvious that Kathi Appelt had done her research when it came to the plot of her story. In fact, I even learned something when it came to Texas history! I'm also grateful that Kathi Appelt included an author's note at the end of Angel Thieves. It's definitely worth reading even if you don't normally read author's notes. This will give you more of an insight about the real life history that her book is based upon.
I felt like the characters in Angel Thieves were well written and fleshed out perfectly. Kathi Appelt even made a bayou feel like a real person which goes to show how much of a talented writer she really is! I felt Soleil's frustrations with trying to get Cade's attention and her hurt when it came to losing someone close to her. I felt her joy when she was happy. Cade was a great character too. I loved his relationship with his dad. It was obvious how close the two were. It was interesting to see Cade's conflicting emotions when it came to stealing marble angels. One one hand, he wanted to make his dad happy, but he also knew that what they were doing wasn't right. I enjoyed reading about how he dealt with his feelings about that. Zorra, I absolutely loved. My heart went out to this lovely little ocelot who was helpless and taken from everything she'd ever known. I was always hoping she'd be rescued when her next chapter was up. Out of all the characters, my favorite to read about was Achsah. As a mother, I could relate to wanting to keep her children safe no matter what. As a former slave, she had her freedom when her master died, but her daughters were to become slaves to her master's friend. Achsah couldn't and wouldn't let this happen, so she risked everything to keep her girls safe. I felt like Achsah had the most interesting story to tell. I was constantly wishing good things for Achsah and her two little girls. Unfortunately, Achsah's story is based in truth on what happened with a lot of slaves during that horrible period in American history.
Trigger warnings for Angel Thieves include slavery, minor profanity, stealing, a mention of child rape (although not graphic), and some violence (nothing too graphic).
All in all, Angel Thieves is highly interesting read that is also partly educational. It definitely taught me things about Texas that I didn't even know, and I grew up in Texas! Angel Thieves also has such strong characters, and Kathi Appelt's love for this story is apparent on each page. I would definitely recommend Angel Thieves by Kathi Appelt to those aged 14 and older who love getting lost in a good book. This is one book that's very easy to get lost in! An easy 5 out of 5 stars for Angel Thieves!
--
(A special thank you to Kathi Appelt for providing me with a hardback of Angel Thieves in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
I very much enjoyed the plot of Angel Thieves and found myself immersed in the story from the very first page. It is told from different perspectives including humans, an ocelot, and a bayou which definitely made this book even more interesting! The narrative is told from 1845 through to present time. It all takes place in Houston, Texas. Every perspective is interwoven with each other. We learn about a teenage crush, a father and son duo who steal marble angel statues to make a living, an ocelot who was poached from her home and caught in a hurricane where she's left starving and unable to escape from her cage, a former slave who is trying to help her young daughters escape from being slaves themselves, a bayou who has seen it all, and some other points of view from others throughout Angel Thieves. I was constantly memorized by each chapter, and I was on pins and needles wondering what would happen next. It also helps that the author, Kathi Appelt, is such a fabulous writer who makes all her words come to life with her extraordinary talent! There weren't any major plot twists, but this isn't a book that needs to rely on plot twists to keep it interesting. The writing itself is strong enough to hold its own. There are no cliff hangers, but I would have liked to know a little more about Achsah and her children. There is some mention of them at the end, but I was heavily invested in Achsah's story where I really wanted to know more. However, this doesn't take away from the appeal of the book by no means. Because the prose is so beautifully written, the pacing flows very well. The chapters are mostly all short as well, so it's easy to read this book in one sitting. The world building was done fantastically, and it was obvious that Kathi Appelt had done her research when it came to the plot of her story. In fact, I even learned something when it came to Texas history! I'm also grateful that Kathi Appelt included an author's note at the end of Angel Thieves. It's definitely worth reading even if you don't normally read author's notes. This will give you more of an insight about the real life history that her book is based upon.
I felt like the characters in Angel Thieves were well written and fleshed out perfectly. Kathi Appelt even made a bayou feel like a real person which goes to show how much of a talented writer she really is! I felt Soleil's frustrations with trying to get Cade's attention and her hurt when it came to losing someone close to her. I felt her joy when she was happy. Cade was a great character too. I loved his relationship with his dad. It was obvious how close the two were. It was interesting to see Cade's conflicting emotions when it came to stealing marble angels. One one hand, he wanted to make his dad happy, but he also knew that what they were doing wasn't right. I enjoyed reading about how he dealt with his feelings about that. Zorra, I absolutely loved. My heart went out to this lovely little ocelot who was helpless and taken from everything she'd ever known. I was always hoping she'd be rescued when her next chapter was up. Out of all the characters, my favorite to read about was Achsah. As a mother, I could relate to wanting to keep her children safe no matter what. As a former slave, she had her freedom when her master died, but her daughters were to become slaves to her master's friend. Achsah couldn't and wouldn't let this happen, so she risked everything to keep her girls safe. I felt like Achsah had the most interesting story to tell. I was constantly wishing good things for Achsah and her two little girls. Unfortunately, Achsah's story is based in truth on what happened with a lot of slaves during that horrible period in American history.
Trigger warnings for Angel Thieves include slavery, minor profanity, stealing, a mention of child rape (although not graphic), and some violence (nothing too graphic).
All in all, Angel Thieves is highly interesting read that is also partly educational. It definitely taught me things about Texas that I didn't even know, and I grew up in Texas! Angel Thieves also has such strong characters, and Kathi Appelt's love for this story is apparent on each page. I would definitely recommend Angel Thieves by Kathi Appelt to those aged 14 and older who love getting lost in a good book. This is one book that's very easy to get lost in! An easy 5 out of 5 stars for Angel Thieves!
--
(A special thank you to Kathi Appelt for providing me with a hardback of Angel Thieves in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
Writing (3 more)
No character development
Too many inconsistencies
Too many chapters
Errin Stowell's new novel series starts with Covet Not which is about a middle-aged lawyer named Sam Sparks - - - who is referred to as Sparks nearly the entire story - - - whose fiancee goes missing and he then becomes the prime suspect. Before everything happens though, readers see that Sparks spends his time trying to defend the elderly from home foreclosures as a small-time lawyer.
If this sounds like a synopsis for a John Grisham novel, you wouldn't be far off because Stowell has the potential to be the next one. This is only the first novel I've read by Stowell, but the one thing I noticed mostly in this story was the amount of inconsistencies and amateur writing mistakes; with better editing and consistency, his books could very well hit mainstream.
Also, Covet Not had so many chapters, so much so that scenes were chopped in half and made into entirely new chapters. The book ended up having 48 chapters within 158 pages. This amount could have easily been shortened and helped with the flow of the story if Stowell had just continued onwards with scenes rather then cutting them short or just skipping parts completely.
The novel starts with a man called Skinny who is enjoying his growing infamy on the dark web (he records himself murdering women then uploads it for his audience to enjoy). Here is how Stowell describes Skinny's thought process:
" Skinny took a black ski mask from the duffel bag and put it on before carrying the bag into the camera's frame and placing it near the woman. He began unpacking other items from the bag. It was slow work, deliberately slow for the camera. Skinny intended to have a before and after view for each tool. It was important to show the proper use of tools. The viewers always appreciated that. "
When we switch over to Sparks, we find him after a long day of work, speaking with a journalist named Gina, his fiancee, who is telling him one of her co-workers stole her story, but no one has heard from her in two days. Yet, they both agree that she's probably holed up with one of the producers, and instead, get into a small argument about Sparks never supporting Gina - - - a constant habit of arguing is almost every interaction between the two throughout the entire novel.
Soon after, Sparks introduces us to his uncle Jimmy, who is being housed at a retirement home: " The old man was seated in a wheelchair; his left leg had been amputated just below the knee a few years before, the result of allowing an ingrown toenail to fester to gangrene. Jimmy's barrel chest and solid upper body contrasted with his wasting legs. "
As Sparks continues to visit his uncle in the retirement home, he keeps running into a cute nurse named Darlene, who quickly sets her sights on him. She goes so far out of her way to get Sparks and Gina to separate that she sends him nude photos of herself from a burner phone. Fortunately, Sparks has bigger fish to fry when he hears over his car radio that Gina's co-worker was now being treated as a missing person case, causing Sparks to quickly jump to the conclusion that Gina possibly was responsible for it.
However, Stowell throws in an expected curveball by making our villain, Skinny, work at the retirement home. When he comes in to take care of a patient while Sparks is present, it's too easy to guess that this patient was going to end up dead soon. Sparks, expectedly, has a bad feeling about this male nurse, but dismisses it and believes that the patient died by natural causes. Life goes on.
Stowell's novel, with a great plot, was just too focused on ending the story, that after page 50, it seemed as if Stowell didn't care what happened to these characters, just as long as he finished the book. At one point, readers are told that Sparks doesn't drink alcohol, but it's never explained why he doesn't which would have given a bite of character development; another scene, Sparks finds a phone, but doesn't want to give it to police, instead he states that he has a 'friend' in the police department who can go through it as a favor, but this 'friend' is completely forgotten, as if Sparks never mentioned him, and the former is left dumbfounded as to how to get into the phone.
There's a story here and characters that could be more well-rounded, but I honestly found myself not caring the least bit about any of the characters' well-being, especially Sparks - - - someone who comes off as inept, someone who has to be told what to do in order for anything to get done - - - he's like a lost child running blindly throughout the book. The story needs to be longer with more emphasis given to mundane scenes that will allow readers to chew on a piece of Sparks' daily life because, by the end of the book, we needed a full picture of every major character, not a Jackson Pollock.
If this sounds like a synopsis for a John Grisham novel, you wouldn't be far off because Stowell has the potential to be the next one. This is only the first novel I've read by Stowell, but the one thing I noticed mostly in this story was the amount of inconsistencies and amateur writing mistakes; with better editing and consistency, his books could very well hit mainstream.
Also, Covet Not had so many chapters, so much so that scenes were chopped in half and made into entirely new chapters. The book ended up having 48 chapters within 158 pages. This amount could have easily been shortened and helped with the flow of the story if Stowell had just continued onwards with scenes rather then cutting them short or just skipping parts completely.
The novel starts with a man called Skinny who is enjoying his growing infamy on the dark web (he records himself murdering women then uploads it for his audience to enjoy). Here is how Stowell describes Skinny's thought process:
" Skinny took a black ski mask from the duffel bag and put it on before carrying the bag into the camera's frame and placing it near the woman. He began unpacking other items from the bag. It was slow work, deliberately slow for the camera. Skinny intended to have a before and after view for each tool. It was important to show the proper use of tools. The viewers always appreciated that. "
When we switch over to Sparks, we find him after a long day of work, speaking with a journalist named Gina, his fiancee, who is telling him one of her co-workers stole her story, but no one has heard from her in two days. Yet, they both agree that she's probably holed up with one of the producers, and instead, get into a small argument about Sparks never supporting Gina - - - a constant habit of arguing is almost every interaction between the two throughout the entire novel.
Soon after, Sparks introduces us to his uncle Jimmy, who is being housed at a retirement home: " The old man was seated in a wheelchair; his left leg had been amputated just below the knee a few years before, the result of allowing an ingrown toenail to fester to gangrene. Jimmy's barrel chest and solid upper body contrasted with his wasting legs. "
As Sparks continues to visit his uncle in the retirement home, he keeps running into a cute nurse named Darlene, who quickly sets her sights on him. She goes so far out of her way to get Sparks and Gina to separate that she sends him nude photos of herself from a burner phone. Fortunately, Sparks has bigger fish to fry when he hears over his car radio that Gina's co-worker was now being treated as a missing person case, causing Sparks to quickly jump to the conclusion that Gina possibly was responsible for it.
However, Stowell throws in an expected curveball by making our villain, Skinny, work at the retirement home. When he comes in to take care of a patient while Sparks is present, it's too easy to guess that this patient was going to end up dead soon. Sparks, expectedly, has a bad feeling about this male nurse, but dismisses it and believes that the patient died by natural causes. Life goes on.
Stowell's novel, with a great plot, was just too focused on ending the story, that after page 50, it seemed as if Stowell didn't care what happened to these characters, just as long as he finished the book. At one point, readers are told that Sparks doesn't drink alcohol, but it's never explained why he doesn't which would have given a bite of character development; another scene, Sparks finds a phone, but doesn't want to give it to police, instead he states that he has a 'friend' in the police department who can go through it as a favor, but this 'friend' is completely forgotten, as if Sparks never mentioned him, and the former is left dumbfounded as to how to get into the phone.
There's a story here and characters that could be more well-rounded, but I honestly found myself not caring the least bit about any of the characters' well-being, especially Sparks - - - someone who comes off as inept, someone who has to be told what to do in order for anything to get done - - - he's like a lost child running blindly throughout the book. The story needs to be longer with more emphasis given to mundane scenes that will allow readers to chew on a piece of Sparks' daily life because, by the end of the book, we needed a full picture of every major character, not a Jackson Pollock.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated The Black Phone (2022) in Movies
Jun 26, 2022
Ethan Hawke (2 more)
Madeleine McGraw
Leaves much of the horror to the audience's imagination
Writing is a bit silly at times (1 more)
Teases more story elements and horror than it reveals
A Juvenile Curtain Call of Death
Somewhere in North Denver in 1978, The Black Phone sees Finney (Mason Thames) and his sister Gwen (Madeleine McGraw) attempting to survive constant bullying at school and the abuse of an alcoholic father (played by Jeremy Davies). The missing kids in town are said to be a result of The Grabber (Ethan Hawke); a man who drives around in a black van with black balloons kidnapping and eventually killing kids. When Finney is suddenly taken by The Grabber, he’s told that the black phone in his room doesn’t work but then the phone rings.
Based on the short story of the same name by Joe Hill, The Black Phone is directed by Scott Derrickson (Doctor Strange, Sinister) and written by Derrickson and C. Robert Cargill (the two have been collaborating together on everything Derrickson has done since Sinister). What’s interesting is The Black Phone has mastered the art of subtlety and teasing its audience. The Grabber is introduced in the film similar to the shark in Jaws. You only see glimpses of him for the first third of the film. The black van will come into frame and the screen will immediately fade to black. The Grabber will park and get out of his van to abduct a kid, but he’ll purposely be out of focus. The Grabber lurks in the background like a shark waiting for that first drop of blood, which is essentially when Finney walks by alone.
The unfortunate aspect is that it feels like something is missing. The supernatural horror film keeps building and building that when the finale rolls around it feels like it isn’t a big enough payoff. Most of the violence and kills aren’t seen since the film deals with child and teenager victims. The audience is shown the end result instead; the wounds sustained by the victims that call Finney, The Grabber’s game of Naughty Boy, and Gwen being whipped with a belt by her father (you see him holding the belt and her crying, but we never see the contact). There’s artistry to leaving some things to the viewer’s imagination. In a time where horror has evolved into showing its audience every gruesome detail it’s become a forgotten art. It could also be a personal preference, but it feels like The Black Phone teases more than it reveals.
The writing of the film is as genius as it is ridiculous. Most of it is very good, especially with what Finney is building up to in the basement. The unveiling of the location of The Grabber’s house is silly though, especially since an entire police squad didn’t make the connection. Finney and Gwen’s mom is never seen since she’s passed during the events of the film, but she is mentioned. She apparently heard things and seen things that ended up in a fatal situation for her. Gwen has visions of The Grabber while she sleeps and Finney is able to receive phone calls from The Grabber’s victims because of the relation to their mom. This leads to one of the greatest lines in the film when Finney asks why no one has ever called before. “The phone rang, but no one heard it.”
Ethan Hawke’s performance is so mesmerizing that you wish he had more screen time. Even his motive behind what he intends to do with his victims is hinted at, but not really clarified. With all of the bodies piling up and the amount of phone calls Finney receives, the end result is always the same. The Grabber is slightly flamboyant in his demeanor and particular about how everything should play out. His mask and the fact that it resembles the comedy and tragedy masks that tend to symbolize the theater hint at this all being a performance for him. Things not going his way is like someone fumbling over their lines; it’s unforgivable.
Madeleine McGraw is not so secretly the best part of the film. Her career before The Black Phone has mostly been in voice acting (Cars 3, Toy Story 4, The Mitchells vs The Machines) and playing younger versions of other characters (Pacific Rim: Uprising, Ant-Man and the Wasp). McGraw gets a fair amount of screen time here and Gwen is an incredibly resourceful character and arguably the film’s biggest asset. McGraw’s performance is genuine as you believe every word she says. She’s hilarious as she has the best lines of dialogue in the film. Her portrayal of sadness and anguish is top notch as well as she has the most powerful and emotional sequence in the film that breaks your heart and only makes you sympathize with both her and Finney.
With supernatural dread lifted from the likes of Stir of Echoes and The Sixth Sense, The Black Phone features a breakthrough performance from Madeleine McGraw while Ethan Hawke’s hauntingly memorable turn as The Grabber is felt in a hair-raising sense; like someone who has unknowingly snuck up behind you and waits in your peripheral for that dramatic reveal. The Black Phone is a solid, pulse racing horror film that packs a punch, but seems like the type of film that simply won’t be as delectable on repeat viewings.
Based on the short story of the same name by Joe Hill, The Black Phone is directed by Scott Derrickson (Doctor Strange, Sinister) and written by Derrickson and C. Robert Cargill (the two have been collaborating together on everything Derrickson has done since Sinister). What’s interesting is The Black Phone has mastered the art of subtlety and teasing its audience. The Grabber is introduced in the film similar to the shark in Jaws. You only see glimpses of him for the first third of the film. The black van will come into frame and the screen will immediately fade to black. The Grabber will park and get out of his van to abduct a kid, but he’ll purposely be out of focus. The Grabber lurks in the background like a shark waiting for that first drop of blood, which is essentially when Finney walks by alone.
The unfortunate aspect is that it feels like something is missing. The supernatural horror film keeps building and building that when the finale rolls around it feels like it isn’t a big enough payoff. Most of the violence and kills aren’t seen since the film deals with child and teenager victims. The audience is shown the end result instead; the wounds sustained by the victims that call Finney, The Grabber’s game of Naughty Boy, and Gwen being whipped with a belt by her father (you see him holding the belt and her crying, but we never see the contact). There’s artistry to leaving some things to the viewer’s imagination. In a time where horror has evolved into showing its audience every gruesome detail it’s become a forgotten art. It could also be a personal preference, but it feels like The Black Phone teases more than it reveals.
The writing of the film is as genius as it is ridiculous. Most of it is very good, especially with what Finney is building up to in the basement. The unveiling of the location of The Grabber’s house is silly though, especially since an entire police squad didn’t make the connection. Finney and Gwen’s mom is never seen since she’s passed during the events of the film, but she is mentioned. She apparently heard things and seen things that ended up in a fatal situation for her. Gwen has visions of The Grabber while she sleeps and Finney is able to receive phone calls from The Grabber’s victims because of the relation to their mom. This leads to one of the greatest lines in the film when Finney asks why no one has ever called before. “The phone rang, but no one heard it.”
Ethan Hawke’s performance is so mesmerizing that you wish he had more screen time. Even his motive behind what he intends to do with his victims is hinted at, but not really clarified. With all of the bodies piling up and the amount of phone calls Finney receives, the end result is always the same. The Grabber is slightly flamboyant in his demeanor and particular about how everything should play out. His mask and the fact that it resembles the comedy and tragedy masks that tend to symbolize the theater hint at this all being a performance for him. Things not going his way is like someone fumbling over their lines; it’s unforgivable.
Madeleine McGraw is not so secretly the best part of the film. Her career before The Black Phone has mostly been in voice acting (Cars 3, Toy Story 4, The Mitchells vs The Machines) and playing younger versions of other characters (Pacific Rim: Uprising, Ant-Man and the Wasp). McGraw gets a fair amount of screen time here and Gwen is an incredibly resourceful character and arguably the film’s biggest asset. McGraw’s performance is genuine as you believe every word she says. She’s hilarious as she has the best lines of dialogue in the film. Her portrayal of sadness and anguish is top notch as well as she has the most powerful and emotional sequence in the film that breaks your heart and only makes you sympathize with both her and Finney.
With supernatural dread lifted from the likes of Stir of Echoes and The Sixth Sense, The Black Phone features a breakthrough performance from Madeleine McGraw while Ethan Hawke’s hauntingly memorable turn as The Grabber is felt in a hair-raising sense; like someone who has unknowingly snuck up behind you and waits in your peripheral for that dramatic reveal. The Black Phone is a solid, pulse racing horror film that packs a punch, but seems like the type of film that simply won’t be as delectable on repeat viewings.