Search
Search results
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
Nancy Thompson (Heather Langenkamp) and her friends have more on their plate to worry about than typical high school drama. A child murderer named Fred Krueger (Robert Englund) was killed by the parents residing on Elm Street after they took matters into their own hands when the justice system failed to get the redemption the parents so desperately seeked. That was thought to be the end of it and everyone tried to move on with their lives. That is until Nancy, her boyfriend Glen (Johnny Depp), her best friend Tina (Amanda Wyss), and Tina's boyfriend Rod (Jsu Garcia) begin having nightmares about the same man. A man wearing a red and green striped sweater, brown fedora, and a four finger-bladed leather glove. Could Fred Krueger really be exacting his revenge from beyond the grave and in the dreams of his victims?
Wes Craven is probably best known for the Scream franchise since it's the most successful set of films he's ever been a part of, at least as far as the box office is concerned, but there was another film that he created that spawned seven sequels and a remake. A film that is looked at as a horror classic and is considered to be the first commercially successful release from New Line Cinema. That film is A Nightmare on Elm Street.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is looked at by some (including myself) as the best film in the franchise. While most of the sequels feature a Freddy that is more interested in cracking a joke than being an intimidating serial killer, the original film is where he seems to shine brightest. He seems to always be lurking in the shadows making it nearly impossible to get a clear look at his face. Remember when films left a bit of a mystery to things rather than being entirely realistic and showing every little detail when it came to gore? Well, this is a good example.
The deaths of Tina and Glen could arguably be reason alone to watch the film. Tina's death is so original and so well done. One of the reasons it still holds up today is because it was done with practical effects. The same can be said about Glen's death. The only thing more impressive than his death is the fact that it's Johnny Depp's debut. Both deaths are two of the most memorable in horror film history.
Despite A Nightmare on Elm Street being one of the most influential horror films of our time, it still has that cheesiness associated with most horror films that come out of the eighties. Bad acting (Heather Langenkamp especially. The "Screw your pass!" scene is a good example, but is hilarious in its own right) and dated special effects being the best examples. While the practical effects are a good thing and are much preferred over CGI, some of them haven't aged well over the past 26 years. The scene of Freddy chasing Tina is probably the best example of this. His arms stretching inhuman lengths to scratch the walls and Tina ripping off his face just didn't hold up as well as other effects in the film.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is a beloved horror classic that gave birth to one of the most iconic serial killers in the genre. The original film features some of the most creative deaths and practical effects (seeing Freddy in the wall above Nancy's bed in the beginning of the film is one of the best scenes) to come out of any horror film held in such high regard. The film's charm will go over a lot of people's heads who look into it for the first time after seeing the remake which will probably result in the film getting more flack than it deserves. But nevertheless, it's hard to deny the impact Freddy and Wes Craven have had on this genre thanks to this film.
Special Features: The two-disc Infinifilm is packed with extras including:
Feature commentary including a variety of topics: the financial problems the film had with writer/director Wes Craven, producer Bob Shaye, actor John Saxon, and cinematographer Jacques Haitkin sharing their thoughts, Heather Langenkamp and Wes Craven talk about how great it was to work with Johnny Depp, Amanda Wyss goes into detail about not knowing much about the horror genre before taking her role as Tina, a discussion of how Robert Englund got the role of Fred Krueger and Englund shares his thoughts on the Fred Krueger character. Everything from the problems the film had to Freddy's popularity to the film's reputation and more are discussed by the cast and crew.
Original commentary includes Heather Langenkamp, John Saxon, Wes Craven, and Jacques Haitkin.
Beyond the Movie Features include The House That Freddy Built: The Legacy of New Line Horror and Night Terrors: The Origins of Wes Craven's Nightmares.
All Access Pass Features include three alternate endings, Never Sleep Again: The making of A Nightmare on Elm Street, a trivia challenge and the theatrical trailer.
There's also Infinifilm bonus features that can be accessed while the film is playing and the original screenplay can be viewed as a DVD-ROM feature.
The film is remastered and restored from the original film negative and is presented in both Dolby Digital 5.1-EX surround sound and DTS-ES 6.1 Surround Sound.
Wes Craven is probably best known for the Scream franchise since it's the most successful set of films he's ever been a part of, at least as far as the box office is concerned, but there was another film that he created that spawned seven sequels and a remake. A film that is looked at as a horror classic and is considered to be the first commercially successful release from New Line Cinema. That film is A Nightmare on Elm Street.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is looked at by some (including myself) as the best film in the franchise. While most of the sequels feature a Freddy that is more interested in cracking a joke than being an intimidating serial killer, the original film is where he seems to shine brightest. He seems to always be lurking in the shadows making it nearly impossible to get a clear look at his face. Remember when films left a bit of a mystery to things rather than being entirely realistic and showing every little detail when it came to gore? Well, this is a good example.
The deaths of Tina and Glen could arguably be reason alone to watch the film. Tina's death is so original and so well done. One of the reasons it still holds up today is because it was done with practical effects. The same can be said about Glen's death. The only thing more impressive than his death is the fact that it's Johnny Depp's debut. Both deaths are two of the most memorable in horror film history.
Despite A Nightmare on Elm Street being one of the most influential horror films of our time, it still has that cheesiness associated with most horror films that come out of the eighties. Bad acting (Heather Langenkamp especially. The "Screw your pass!" scene is a good example, but is hilarious in its own right) and dated special effects being the best examples. While the practical effects are a good thing and are much preferred over CGI, some of them haven't aged well over the past 26 years. The scene of Freddy chasing Tina is probably the best example of this. His arms stretching inhuman lengths to scratch the walls and Tina ripping off his face just didn't hold up as well as other effects in the film.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is a beloved horror classic that gave birth to one of the most iconic serial killers in the genre. The original film features some of the most creative deaths and practical effects (seeing Freddy in the wall above Nancy's bed in the beginning of the film is one of the best scenes) to come out of any horror film held in such high regard. The film's charm will go over a lot of people's heads who look into it for the first time after seeing the remake which will probably result in the film getting more flack than it deserves. But nevertheless, it's hard to deny the impact Freddy and Wes Craven have had on this genre thanks to this film.
Special Features: The two-disc Infinifilm is packed with extras including:
Feature commentary including a variety of topics: the financial problems the film had with writer/director Wes Craven, producer Bob Shaye, actor John Saxon, and cinematographer Jacques Haitkin sharing their thoughts, Heather Langenkamp and Wes Craven talk about how great it was to work with Johnny Depp, Amanda Wyss goes into detail about not knowing much about the horror genre before taking her role as Tina, a discussion of how Robert Englund got the role of Fred Krueger and Englund shares his thoughts on the Fred Krueger character. Everything from the problems the film had to Freddy's popularity to the film's reputation and more are discussed by the cast and crew.
Original commentary includes Heather Langenkamp, John Saxon, Wes Craven, and Jacques Haitkin.
Beyond the Movie Features include The House That Freddy Built: The Legacy of New Line Horror and Night Terrors: The Origins of Wes Craven's Nightmares.
All Access Pass Features include three alternate endings, Never Sleep Again: The making of A Nightmare on Elm Street, a trivia challenge and the theatrical trailer.
There's also Infinifilm bonus features that can be accessed while the film is playing and the original screenplay can be viewed as a DVD-ROM feature.
The film is remastered and restored from the original film negative and is presented in both Dolby Digital 5.1-EX surround sound and DTS-ES 6.1 Surround Sound.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Lucid in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<b><i>I received this book for free from Xpresso Book Tours in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.</i></b>
<i>Lucid</i> is really weird it's <b>not exactly a book with contents that I usually come across.</b> The last time I actually read a book that dealt with dreams was <i><a title="The Vault of Dreamers by Caragh M. O'Brien" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/arc-review-the-vault-of-dreamers-by-caragh-m-obrien/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Vault of Dreamers</a></i>. <i>Lucid</i> kind of... <b>throws in dreams and nightmares together</b> when Lori Blaine's psychologist encourages her to finally go through a door reoccurring in her dreams for years. When Lori does, she is plunged into another world entirely where danger lurks around every corner.
<b>Bonansinga writes in a different style than what you might be used to.</b> As I read <i>Lucid</i>, <b>I felt like I was watching an episode of a TV series, or just merely an actress reading a script.</b> While Lori is our main character most of the time, <b>the author shifts outside of the character's thoughts every so often</b> and focuses on the dialogue and actions of the people around her. There's are a few moments where it's <b>almost as though there's a narrator observing everything going on but accidentally slips up and quickly tries to fix everything by repositioning the camera. Meanwhile, the characters, or "actors," pretend not to notice.</b>
<blockquote style="text-align: left;">They swerved around the body, which lay in a heap near the shouldergiving it a wide berthand then roared off into the night.
They never saw the body behind them casually sit up, rise to its feet, and walk away.
I promise Ill tell you everything, Lori was saying, searching through the glove box, as the damaged Geo chugged down a hill.</blockquote>
I've also <b>never seen so many caps in a book before.</b> I don't mean the first letter in every sentence, I mean the I'M YELLING AT YOU THOUGH INTERMASPACE kind. (Or <a title="Daughter of Deep Silence by Carrie Ryan" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/dnf-review-daughter-of-deep-silence-by-carrie-ryan/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">my brain is raging at a book.</a> It's not necessarily one I didn't finish.)
<i>Lucid</i> is very <b>action-packed and vivid, but I don't really feel like this is a stand alone.</b> There's a pretty solid ending, but there may be a subtle loose end or two (I'll have to mull it over in my brain). <b>The dream world, however...</b>
I'm still very confused. I know there are five stages of sleep: brain activity slows down in the first, brain activity is everywhere in the second as the body transitions into the third stage, where brain activity is low. The fourth stage is similar to the third stage as the body prepares for the fifth stage, which is known as REM, or rapid eye movement, and dreams come alive.
I totally summarized that part. I probably came across this on a boring day and didn't remember anything but rapid eye movement is where dreams occur. REM is also a unit of measurement measuring the amount of radiation absorbed by human tissue. *drum rolls* I promise I'm not showing off.
Anyhoo, back to this whole dream world thing Bonansinga built <i>Lucid</i> on. According to the book, <b>there are three dimensions.</b> There's <b>WAKEworld</b>, which I assume is when all of us are awake and slouching in office/desk chairs (or curled up with a good book); <b>REMspace</b>, which I assume is the dream world and where you dream; and then there's <b>LIMBOspace/LIMBOworld</b>, which, knowing the word limbo, it's the middle world between dreams and wakefulness.
<b>I get the gist. But I don't <i>understand</i> how this whole LIMBOspace/LIMBOworld works.</b> I mean, <b>is it connected to that in-between where you're not living or dead,</b> because it's connected to comatose states? <b>What happens if Lori actually "ran out of time?"</b> She'll be a vegetable, most likely, but <b>if she runs out of time... is she a vegetable forever until her body is just a pile of bones and dust somewhere? But then what happens when you <i>are</i> a pile of bones and dust somewhere? Do you continue existing in this LIMBOspace, or do you just disappear?</b>
I could be over thinking this and taking it a curious step further than what is actually necessary (I would still wonder about that connection to comatose states though). <b><i>Lucid</i> has mind-boggling and creepy moments throughout the book, but it's really just similar to someone trying to stop demons entering the real world. Bonansinga just takes it from a dream level rather than an inferno one.</b> Points given for a unique take on an overused plot.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-lucid-by-jay-bonansinga/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<i>Lucid</i> is really weird it's <b>not exactly a book with contents that I usually come across.</b> The last time I actually read a book that dealt with dreams was <i><a title="The Vault of Dreamers by Caragh M. O'Brien" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/arc-review-the-vault-of-dreamers-by-caragh-m-obrien/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Vault of Dreamers</a></i>. <i>Lucid</i> kind of... <b>throws in dreams and nightmares together</b> when Lori Blaine's psychologist encourages her to finally go through a door reoccurring in her dreams for years. When Lori does, she is plunged into another world entirely where danger lurks around every corner.
<b>Bonansinga writes in a different style than what you might be used to.</b> As I read <i>Lucid</i>, <b>I felt like I was watching an episode of a TV series, or just merely an actress reading a script.</b> While Lori is our main character most of the time, <b>the author shifts outside of the character's thoughts every so often</b> and focuses on the dialogue and actions of the people around her. There's are a few moments where it's <b>almost as though there's a narrator observing everything going on but accidentally slips up and quickly tries to fix everything by repositioning the camera. Meanwhile, the characters, or "actors," pretend not to notice.</b>
<blockquote style="text-align: left;">They swerved around the body, which lay in a heap near the shouldergiving it a wide berthand then roared off into the night.
They never saw the body behind them casually sit up, rise to its feet, and walk away.
I promise Ill tell you everything, Lori was saying, searching through the glove box, as the damaged Geo chugged down a hill.</blockquote>
I've also <b>never seen so many caps in a book before.</b> I don't mean the first letter in every sentence, I mean the I'M YELLING AT YOU THOUGH INTERMASPACE kind. (Or <a title="Daughter of Deep Silence by Carrie Ryan" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/dnf-review-daughter-of-deep-silence-by-carrie-ryan/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">my brain is raging at a book.</a> It's not necessarily one I didn't finish.)
<i>Lucid</i> is very <b>action-packed and vivid, but I don't really feel like this is a stand alone.</b> There's a pretty solid ending, but there may be a subtle loose end or two (I'll have to mull it over in my brain). <b>The dream world, however...</b>
I'm still very confused. I know there are five stages of sleep: brain activity slows down in the first, brain activity is everywhere in the second as the body transitions into the third stage, where brain activity is low. The fourth stage is similar to the third stage as the body prepares for the fifth stage, which is known as REM, or rapid eye movement, and dreams come alive.
I totally summarized that part. I probably came across this on a boring day and didn't remember anything but rapid eye movement is where dreams occur. REM is also a unit of measurement measuring the amount of radiation absorbed by human tissue. *drum rolls* I promise I'm not showing off.
Anyhoo, back to this whole dream world thing Bonansinga built <i>Lucid</i> on. According to the book, <b>there are three dimensions.</b> There's <b>WAKEworld</b>, which I assume is when all of us are awake and slouching in office/desk chairs (or curled up with a good book); <b>REMspace</b>, which I assume is the dream world and where you dream; and then there's <b>LIMBOspace/LIMBOworld</b>, which, knowing the word limbo, it's the middle world between dreams and wakefulness.
<b>I get the gist. But I don't <i>understand</i> how this whole LIMBOspace/LIMBOworld works.</b> I mean, <b>is it connected to that in-between where you're not living or dead,</b> because it's connected to comatose states? <b>What happens if Lori actually "ran out of time?"</b> She'll be a vegetable, most likely, but <b>if she runs out of time... is she a vegetable forever until her body is just a pile of bones and dust somewhere? But then what happens when you <i>are</i> a pile of bones and dust somewhere? Do you continue existing in this LIMBOspace, or do you just disappear?</b>
I could be over thinking this and taking it a curious step further than what is actually necessary (I would still wonder about that connection to comatose states though). <b><i>Lucid</i> has mind-boggling and creepy moments throughout the book, but it's really just similar to someone trying to stop demons entering the real world. Bonansinga just takes it from a dream level rather than an inferno one.</b> Points given for a unique take on an overused plot.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-lucid-by-jay-bonansinga/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Lee (2222 KP) rated Hustlers (2019) in Movies
Sep 16, 2019
Hustlers is 'inspired by a true story' and is based on a New York Magazine article written by Jessica Pressler in 2015 titled "The Hustlers at Scores". The tagline for that article was “Here’s a modern Robin Hood story for you: a few strippers who stole from (mostly) rich, (usually) disgusting, (in their minds) pathetic men and gave to, well, themselves" - something which pretty much sums up the entire plot of the movie. You'd be forgiven for thinking you'd seen this kind of thing a hundred times before, and to be honest the trailer didn't really do it any justice either in my opinion. But, turns out that Hustlers is actually a pretty slick and hugely entertaining piece of fun, something that I wasn't expecting to like anywhere near as much as I did.
We're in 2007 and Destiny (Constance Wu) is working nights at a Manhattan strip club called Moves. Caring for her grandmother and catching up on sleep by day, it soon becomes clear that life as a stripper isn't quite as glamorous as she'd imagined it to be. With a large number of girls working at the club, competition is strong, as are the internal politics, and the clients frequenting the club are just as disgusting as you'd imagine rich drunken assholes to be. And, at the end of a shift, the money that Destiny earns is subjected to numerous deductions and penalties from the manager and doorman as they all take their cuts, leaving Destiny with not very much at all.
And then one night, as the DJ introduces her, "The one, the only, Ramona!" (Jennifer Lopez) hits the stage to show everyone how it's all done, highlighting to Destiny the kind of money she could be making if she upped her game. Dominating the main stage, Ramona masterfully works the pole as she slinks around in time to the music. And it clearly works too - dollar bills shower her, and cover the stage, while the stunned onlookers lose their minds and overreact like something out of a Tex Avery cartoon.
Destiny follows Ramona up onto the roof, where she's taking time out for a smoke break and it's not long before Ramona decides to take Destiny under her wing. Along with showing her the more dexterously impressive moves on stage, she also reveals the three levels of client who visit the club and how to best work them to your advantage. They become good friends, working together to earn more than either of them have before. But then, during 2008, the recession hits and the club no longer benefits from the wild spending habits of Wall Street's biggest earners. Destiny becomes pregnant, leaving the club along with most of the other girls, but struggles to re-enter the workforce a few years later having had no real experience outside of a strip club. And then she meets up with Ramona once more, and learns about fishing...
Fishing involves the girls leaving the confines and constraints of the club in order to lure guys in from outside. Working as a group, they lace their drinks in bars (enough to make them happy, but not really conscious enough to fully appreciate or remember what happens for the rest of the night), then bringing them back to the club. There they can freely swipe their credit cards, have a great time and make thousands of dollars per night. As Ramona sells it to Destiny and the other girls they've recruited to help them, this isn't just survival, it's revenge against all of the Wall Street workers behind the recession, who had no comeback for their actions.
Occasionally the movies flashes forward a few years, where Destiny is being interviewed by the reporter who will eventually go on to write the article on their story (played by Julia Stiles). These scenes work well as a narrative device for the movie and it's clear that, while Destiny seems to have fared pretty well financially over the years, whatever she's done to get there has all gone horribly wrong at some point.
But for now, their scam works perfectly. After the lows and struggles of life as a lowly stripper, it's a real thrill to follow these girls on their journey to expensive clothes, big flashy cars and penthouse apartments. They all become like family, even enjoying an expensive Christmas together with their real families joining them. Hustlers moves beyond its humble strip club beginnings and the camaraderie and power these women develop together feels so genuine, it really makes this movie shine. Scenes where the girls go shopping, or even work together in the kitchen to perfect their drug recipe, are a lot of fun and Hustlers features just as much humour as it does drama. Much of what makes this all work so well is down to it's cast. Hustlers features some pretty strong support, but it's the pairing of Constance Wu and Jennifer Lopez that really stands out. Both are on top form, better than anything I've seen them in before and many reviews I've read are already recommending Oscar nominations for Jennifer Lopez.
Like I say, I wasn't expecting to like this as much as I thought I would based on the trailer. What I got was a fun, exhilarating story of female empowerment with a strong, solid cast. And, as the New York Magazine article so eloquently put it, a modern Robin Hood story.
We're in 2007 and Destiny (Constance Wu) is working nights at a Manhattan strip club called Moves. Caring for her grandmother and catching up on sleep by day, it soon becomes clear that life as a stripper isn't quite as glamorous as she'd imagined it to be. With a large number of girls working at the club, competition is strong, as are the internal politics, and the clients frequenting the club are just as disgusting as you'd imagine rich drunken assholes to be. And, at the end of a shift, the money that Destiny earns is subjected to numerous deductions and penalties from the manager and doorman as they all take their cuts, leaving Destiny with not very much at all.
And then one night, as the DJ introduces her, "The one, the only, Ramona!" (Jennifer Lopez) hits the stage to show everyone how it's all done, highlighting to Destiny the kind of money she could be making if she upped her game. Dominating the main stage, Ramona masterfully works the pole as she slinks around in time to the music. And it clearly works too - dollar bills shower her, and cover the stage, while the stunned onlookers lose their minds and overreact like something out of a Tex Avery cartoon.
Destiny follows Ramona up onto the roof, where she's taking time out for a smoke break and it's not long before Ramona decides to take Destiny under her wing. Along with showing her the more dexterously impressive moves on stage, she also reveals the three levels of client who visit the club and how to best work them to your advantage. They become good friends, working together to earn more than either of them have before. But then, during 2008, the recession hits and the club no longer benefits from the wild spending habits of Wall Street's biggest earners. Destiny becomes pregnant, leaving the club along with most of the other girls, but struggles to re-enter the workforce a few years later having had no real experience outside of a strip club. And then she meets up with Ramona once more, and learns about fishing...
Fishing involves the girls leaving the confines and constraints of the club in order to lure guys in from outside. Working as a group, they lace their drinks in bars (enough to make them happy, but not really conscious enough to fully appreciate or remember what happens for the rest of the night), then bringing them back to the club. There they can freely swipe their credit cards, have a great time and make thousands of dollars per night. As Ramona sells it to Destiny and the other girls they've recruited to help them, this isn't just survival, it's revenge against all of the Wall Street workers behind the recession, who had no comeback for their actions.
Occasionally the movies flashes forward a few years, where Destiny is being interviewed by the reporter who will eventually go on to write the article on their story (played by Julia Stiles). These scenes work well as a narrative device for the movie and it's clear that, while Destiny seems to have fared pretty well financially over the years, whatever she's done to get there has all gone horribly wrong at some point.
But for now, their scam works perfectly. After the lows and struggles of life as a lowly stripper, it's a real thrill to follow these girls on their journey to expensive clothes, big flashy cars and penthouse apartments. They all become like family, even enjoying an expensive Christmas together with their real families joining them. Hustlers moves beyond its humble strip club beginnings and the camaraderie and power these women develop together feels so genuine, it really makes this movie shine. Scenes where the girls go shopping, or even work together in the kitchen to perfect their drug recipe, are a lot of fun and Hustlers features just as much humour as it does drama. Much of what makes this all work so well is down to it's cast. Hustlers features some pretty strong support, but it's the pairing of Constance Wu and Jennifer Lopez that really stands out. Both are on top form, better than anything I've seen them in before and many reviews I've read are already recommending Oscar nominations for Jennifer Lopez.
Like I say, I wasn't expecting to like this as much as I thought I would based on the trailer. What I got was a fun, exhilarating story of female empowerment with a strong, solid cast. And, as the New York Magazine article so eloquently put it, a modern Robin Hood story.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Lightyear (2022) in Movies
Jun 17, 2022
Visually gorgeous animation (2 more)
Sox
Designs of the insects, robots, and especially Zurg
Too much Star Wars influence (1 more)
Writing is a bit underwhelming
A Visually Gorgeous Nod to Science Fiction
Lightyear has a simple premise that fits it into the Toy Story timeline while also giving the film the freedom to creatively do just about whatever it wants. This on-screen version of Buzz Lightyear is what inspired the toy and this film was Andy’s favorite film.
Test pilot Buzz Lightyear (now voiced by Chris Evans) wakes up from hyper sleep to research and explore a nearby planet that is off the course of his ship’s destination. The mission results in Buzz’s entire crew being marooned on a planet overrun by giant insects and bothersome vines. With guilt weighing heavily on his shoulders, Buzz takes it upon himself to be the pilot responsible for hyper speed tests.
After spending a year on the planet, there’s finally enough resources for a test flight. But the mission fails and when Buzz returns, four years have passed. Intending to finish the mission despite the consequences, Buzz pilots test flight after test flight as each mission results in years passing while he’s away. He watches his friends age and die until he finally returns to a planet that now cowers to the ominous Zurg and his battalion of relentlessly inhuman robots.
After co-directing Finding Dory and while working as an animator for Pixar since 1998’s A Bug’s Life, Lightyear is the directorial debut of Angus MacLane. Written by MacLane, Matthew Aldrich (Coco), and Jason Headley (Onward), Lightyear is receiving a lot of backlash for including a same sex relationship as well as an on-screen lesbian kiss (some countries are refusing to release the film in theaters because of it). The relationship involves another Space Ranger named Alisha Hawthorne (Uzo Aduba, Orange is the New Black, Steven Universe). Hawthorne and the life she builds on a planet she is essentially stuck on ends up being the inspiration for not only Buzz, but as well as Alisha’s granddaughter, Izzy (Keke Palmer). Even if you’re against homosexuality, Alisha’s relationship is undeniably the most sentimental aspect of the film. Lightyear wouldn’t be the same without its inclusion.
The film does some different stuff with Zurg as far as who he is and how he relates to Buzz that may or may not retcon what was established in Toy Story 2. Both the story and the writing of the film seem to play it safe as they take a predictable approach to what essentially could have been something more unique. The discussion that’s been floating around about the film is that the jokes, sillier moments, and more absurd lines of dialogue seem to always disrupt the film whenever it tries to take a step towards being a thrilling sci-fi film. It’s difficult to argue with this statement, especially since Mo Morrison’s (Taika Waititi) whole purpose in the film is to broadcast his incompetence and the film revolves around a team of misfits attempting to save the planet despite their shortcomings.
The film is visually one of the year’s best looking films; animated or otherwise. Taking inspiration from early sci-fi films and space operas like Star Wars, Angus MacLane wanted Lightyear to look, “cinematic,” and, “chunky.” If you see the film in IMAX, this is the first animated film to ever have sequences shown in the 1.43:1 aspect ratio (it’s usually 2.39:1) as visual effects supervisor Jane Yen states that a virtual IMAX camera was developed to shoot said sequences, which were then cropped to standard definition. The film is gorgeous and even looks different in comparison to other Pixar films. With its lush colors, heavy use of shadows, bright lighting for highlights, and character designs for insects and robots that seem to be directly inspired by the likes of Starship Troopers and Gundam, Lightyear is a visually delicious treat.
Angus MacLane has his love for Star Wars showcased a bit too often in Lightyear as certain sequences seem to be directly lifted from the George Lucas created franchise. Many of Zurg’s scenes are a direct homage to various Darth Vader sequences in the Star Wars films. When Buzz is carried upside down by a Zyclops as Izzy and the others try to help him free borrows heavily from The Empire Strikes Back when Luke is hanging upside down in the icy Wampa cave; Buzz is even wearing an orange and white outfit that resembles Luke’s when he pilots the X-Wing. The love for Star Wars is as much a hindrance as it is an inspiration. The film spends more time referencing its origins rather than putting more of a focus on establishing its own identity.
Sox is legitimately the most fun character of the film. He’s humorous and resourceful; a robot cat that is Buzz’s most useful tool and companion. If Disney doesn’t resurrect Teddy Ruxpin technology for a new Sox animatronic toy then it will end up being wasted potential to a soul crushing extent.
Like Toy Story 4, Lightyear is an unnecessary installment to the Toy Story franchise, but is enjoyable nevertheless. Its homage to science fiction makes the animated film feel more like a sci-fi actioner rather than an animated film the majority of the time. It has a rich and palpable atmosphere that is gorgeously animated and is filled with the laugh out loud and heartfelt moments Pixar is typically known for.
Test pilot Buzz Lightyear (now voiced by Chris Evans) wakes up from hyper sleep to research and explore a nearby planet that is off the course of his ship’s destination. The mission results in Buzz’s entire crew being marooned on a planet overrun by giant insects and bothersome vines. With guilt weighing heavily on his shoulders, Buzz takes it upon himself to be the pilot responsible for hyper speed tests.
After spending a year on the planet, there’s finally enough resources for a test flight. But the mission fails and when Buzz returns, four years have passed. Intending to finish the mission despite the consequences, Buzz pilots test flight after test flight as each mission results in years passing while he’s away. He watches his friends age and die until he finally returns to a planet that now cowers to the ominous Zurg and his battalion of relentlessly inhuman robots.
After co-directing Finding Dory and while working as an animator for Pixar since 1998’s A Bug’s Life, Lightyear is the directorial debut of Angus MacLane. Written by MacLane, Matthew Aldrich (Coco), and Jason Headley (Onward), Lightyear is receiving a lot of backlash for including a same sex relationship as well as an on-screen lesbian kiss (some countries are refusing to release the film in theaters because of it). The relationship involves another Space Ranger named Alisha Hawthorne (Uzo Aduba, Orange is the New Black, Steven Universe). Hawthorne and the life she builds on a planet she is essentially stuck on ends up being the inspiration for not only Buzz, but as well as Alisha’s granddaughter, Izzy (Keke Palmer). Even if you’re against homosexuality, Alisha’s relationship is undeniably the most sentimental aspect of the film. Lightyear wouldn’t be the same without its inclusion.
The film does some different stuff with Zurg as far as who he is and how he relates to Buzz that may or may not retcon what was established in Toy Story 2. Both the story and the writing of the film seem to play it safe as they take a predictable approach to what essentially could have been something more unique. The discussion that’s been floating around about the film is that the jokes, sillier moments, and more absurd lines of dialogue seem to always disrupt the film whenever it tries to take a step towards being a thrilling sci-fi film. It’s difficult to argue with this statement, especially since Mo Morrison’s (Taika Waititi) whole purpose in the film is to broadcast his incompetence and the film revolves around a team of misfits attempting to save the planet despite their shortcomings.
The film is visually one of the year’s best looking films; animated or otherwise. Taking inspiration from early sci-fi films and space operas like Star Wars, Angus MacLane wanted Lightyear to look, “cinematic,” and, “chunky.” If you see the film in IMAX, this is the first animated film to ever have sequences shown in the 1.43:1 aspect ratio (it’s usually 2.39:1) as visual effects supervisor Jane Yen states that a virtual IMAX camera was developed to shoot said sequences, which were then cropped to standard definition. The film is gorgeous and even looks different in comparison to other Pixar films. With its lush colors, heavy use of shadows, bright lighting for highlights, and character designs for insects and robots that seem to be directly inspired by the likes of Starship Troopers and Gundam, Lightyear is a visually delicious treat.
Angus MacLane has his love for Star Wars showcased a bit too often in Lightyear as certain sequences seem to be directly lifted from the George Lucas created franchise. Many of Zurg’s scenes are a direct homage to various Darth Vader sequences in the Star Wars films. When Buzz is carried upside down by a Zyclops as Izzy and the others try to help him free borrows heavily from The Empire Strikes Back when Luke is hanging upside down in the icy Wampa cave; Buzz is even wearing an orange and white outfit that resembles Luke’s when he pilots the X-Wing. The love for Star Wars is as much a hindrance as it is an inspiration. The film spends more time referencing its origins rather than putting more of a focus on establishing its own identity.
Sox is legitimately the most fun character of the film. He’s humorous and resourceful; a robot cat that is Buzz’s most useful tool and companion. If Disney doesn’t resurrect Teddy Ruxpin technology for a new Sox animatronic toy then it will end up being wasted potential to a soul crushing extent.
Like Toy Story 4, Lightyear is an unnecessary installment to the Toy Story franchise, but is enjoyable nevertheless. Its homage to science fiction makes the animated film feel more like a sci-fi actioner rather than an animated film the majority of the time. It has a rich and palpable atmosphere that is gorgeously animated and is filled with the laugh out loud and heartfelt moments Pixar is typically known for.
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Founder (2017) in Movies
Jul 26, 2017
These days McDonalds is everywhere. You don’t have to travel too far before you see those familiar golden arches – in fact, there are three of them within a two mile radius of my home! I’m not personally a big fan of them, but that’s not to say I haven’t enjoyed the odd meal occasionally when in a hurry. It’s one of those things that’s just always been there in life, taken for granted without much of a thought as to how it all came to be so huge. Turns out there’s a pretty interesting story to be told involving a couple of pioneering brothers, and the guy who eventually completely screwed them over…
Michael Keaton is Ray Kroc, a hardworking salesman who always seems to be on the road while his bored wife (Laura Dern) is at home. Repeatedly getting the brush off from restaurant owners who don’t want to buy his amazing new five-spindled milkshake machine and frustrated by the slow, unreliable service from the drive-ins where he goes to get his lunch. For this part of the movie, we’re actually pretty sympathetic with Ray as he struggles in his lonely, boring, unfullfilling job, listening to motivational records in motel rooms as he drifts off to sleep. And then he gets a call from two brothers, Dick and Mac McDonald. They don’t just want to buy one of his milkshake machines, they want to buy at least six in order to cope with demand in their restaurant. Ray puts down the phone and his mind immediately goes into overdrive – what kind of restaurant have these guys got that’s producing this kind of demand? He pulls out a map and looks them up – they’re in San Bernadino California, so he heads off in his car to pay them a visit.
When he arrives, the place is packed with customers queuing for food. As Ray joins the queue a woman assures him that he won’t have to wait long and sure enough, after placing his 15 cent order for a burger, fries and soft drink (bargain!), he promptly gets his order within 30 seconds – served in a paper bag, no plates, no cutlery. He thinks there must be some mistake and it’s pretty amusing to see the bemused look on his face as he struggles to accept the concept that we now all take for granted. Fast, cheap food that you can eat absolutely anywhere you want – in your car, at the park, it’s up to you.
Ray offers to take the brothers out to dinner so that he can hear their story. It’s a wonderful, captivating story too, one that could so easily have been the entire movie. The brothers have such a good rapport as they passionately talk about what they’ve worked to achieve. Moving their restaurant to where it is now, developing their own machines for applying perfect amounts of ketchup and mustard into each bun and spending six hours sketching out potential restaurant layouts on a tennis court while their restaurant staff choreograph their optimised cooking routines. Everything has been tweaked to perfection, even down to the exact cooking time and temperature for their fries. After sleeping on all this information, Ray goes back to the brothers early the next morning and offers them the idea of franchising. But, it’s something they’ve dabbled in before and gave up on, having felt that they had no control over the quality and attention to detail that they pride themselves on in their own restaurant. Eventually Ray wins them over though and a contract is drawn up. The brothers get final say on everything and get half a percent of the profits but it’s up to Ray to setup the franchises and find the people to run them.
It’s a slow, hard process though and although Ray does setup a few successful restaurants, he soon becomes frustrated at the lack of money he seems to be making and the lack of control he has on the decision making process whenever he wants to save costs. The McDonald brothers just seem to keep saying ‘no’! But after he receives some business advice, telling him he should be concentrating on buying the land that the restaurants are on rather than the burgers being cooked, the tide begins to turn. He eventually becomes powerful enough to overpower the brothers, trademark their name, and generally take credit for everything the brothers worked for and built, eventually putting them out of business.
Kroc becomes ruthless, and a complete arsehole. The brothers did eventually make some decent money out of their final deal with Ray, but it certainly wasn’t the 100 million dollars a year they could have been making if they’d been treated right. You really feel for them, as they completely lose control of everything. But you can’t help wondering if things would have worked out that much different for them if they had never met Ray at all. Their restaurant will certainly have continued to do well for a while, but by focusing on just their one restaurant, how long before somebody else stole their idea and ran with it, somebody with the drive and vision to make real money like Ray, leaving them with no money settlement at all? After all, as the motivational LP that Ray listens to clearly pointed out at the start of the movie, “Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence, talent will not, nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent …”.
Michael Keaton is Ray Kroc, a hardworking salesman who always seems to be on the road while his bored wife (Laura Dern) is at home. Repeatedly getting the brush off from restaurant owners who don’t want to buy his amazing new five-spindled milkshake machine and frustrated by the slow, unreliable service from the drive-ins where he goes to get his lunch. For this part of the movie, we’re actually pretty sympathetic with Ray as he struggles in his lonely, boring, unfullfilling job, listening to motivational records in motel rooms as he drifts off to sleep. And then he gets a call from two brothers, Dick and Mac McDonald. They don’t just want to buy one of his milkshake machines, they want to buy at least six in order to cope with demand in their restaurant. Ray puts down the phone and his mind immediately goes into overdrive – what kind of restaurant have these guys got that’s producing this kind of demand? He pulls out a map and looks them up – they’re in San Bernadino California, so he heads off in his car to pay them a visit.
When he arrives, the place is packed with customers queuing for food. As Ray joins the queue a woman assures him that he won’t have to wait long and sure enough, after placing his 15 cent order for a burger, fries and soft drink (bargain!), he promptly gets his order within 30 seconds – served in a paper bag, no plates, no cutlery. He thinks there must be some mistake and it’s pretty amusing to see the bemused look on his face as he struggles to accept the concept that we now all take for granted. Fast, cheap food that you can eat absolutely anywhere you want – in your car, at the park, it’s up to you.
Ray offers to take the brothers out to dinner so that he can hear their story. It’s a wonderful, captivating story too, one that could so easily have been the entire movie. The brothers have such a good rapport as they passionately talk about what they’ve worked to achieve. Moving their restaurant to where it is now, developing their own machines for applying perfect amounts of ketchup and mustard into each bun and spending six hours sketching out potential restaurant layouts on a tennis court while their restaurant staff choreograph their optimised cooking routines. Everything has been tweaked to perfection, even down to the exact cooking time and temperature for their fries. After sleeping on all this information, Ray goes back to the brothers early the next morning and offers them the idea of franchising. But, it’s something they’ve dabbled in before and gave up on, having felt that they had no control over the quality and attention to detail that they pride themselves on in their own restaurant. Eventually Ray wins them over though and a contract is drawn up. The brothers get final say on everything and get half a percent of the profits but it’s up to Ray to setup the franchises and find the people to run them.
It’s a slow, hard process though and although Ray does setup a few successful restaurants, he soon becomes frustrated at the lack of money he seems to be making and the lack of control he has on the decision making process whenever he wants to save costs. The McDonald brothers just seem to keep saying ‘no’! But after he receives some business advice, telling him he should be concentrating on buying the land that the restaurants are on rather than the burgers being cooked, the tide begins to turn. He eventually becomes powerful enough to overpower the brothers, trademark their name, and generally take credit for everything the brothers worked for and built, eventually putting them out of business.
Kroc becomes ruthless, and a complete arsehole. The brothers did eventually make some decent money out of their final deal with Ray, but it certainly wasn’t the 100 million dollars a year they could have been making if they’d been treated right. You really feel for them, as they completely lose control of everything. But you can’t help wondering if things would have worked out that much different for them if they had never met Ray at all. Their restaurant will certainly have continued to do well for a while, but by focusing on just their one restaurant, how long before somebody else stole their idea and ran with it, somebody with the drive and vision to make real money like Ray, leaving them with no money settlement at all? After all, as the motivational LP that Ray listens to clearly pointed out at the start of the movie, “Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence, talent will not, nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent …”.
okletmereviewit (4 KP) rated Kubo and the Two Strings (2016) in Movies
May 11, 2018
A great film for any family night
Contains spoilers, click to show
Kubo and the two strings is a heart warming, coming of age movie, for the whole family. Adults, you will appericate the story line and the plight that Kubo undergoes. Kids will love the animation and the characters. From the moment that the movie started, I fought back the tears. You see a mother and baby in the middle of the ocean one moment and the next, you see them ship wrecked on a beach. You skip forward a few years to when Kubo is about the age of ten. He is now a caregiver for his mother who you come to understand as mentally ill, with something like alzheimer's or dementia. Daily young Kubo goes into the neighboring village and tells fantastic stories of a Samurai Knight, and how he battles the evil Moon King and his army, all while playing his Sangen (a Japanese Guitar) and creating Origami creatures for the story. But as the bells ring for night to come forth, Kubo runs home.
It seems that his mother only "comes to life" when its night time. And then shortly there after returns to a catatonic state. One day while in the village an old beggar woman who befriended him tells him a story of how she speaks with her dead husband at night during a certain ritual. Kubo, who is confused and longing to know anything about his father who was said to be the greatest Samurai, goes to the ancestral resting place and tries to summon his father.
Time gets away from him and night befalls rather quickly. Soon two masked spectral spirits appear, and tell him that they are his aunts. Kubo is then told the reason he is missing an eye is due to his grandfather who only wanted to have his other eye so that he could join them in the heavens. Kubo begins running back to the village. The two spirits attack and destroy the village. When they are almost upon him, his mother shows up and uses the last of her magics to activate a totem and to create wings to whisk him away to safety, far away from his blood thirsty aunts. Kubo then wakes up in a vast frozen waste land with a monkey looking after him. The monkey begins to address Kubo, telling him that they need to go on this quest to find a magical suite of armor that his father once wore. So Kubo and Monkey set off on a quest. Kubo is awaken by the monkey, saying that the origami papers that he carried in his pack, were flying around and that in his sleep he created an origami Samurai. The same Samurai from his stories. This little paper guardian, shows them the way to the armor's pieces, which consist of a sword, a breast plate, and a helmet. Along the way they come across a Beetle who was once a Samurai who was cursed to live the rest of his life as a beetle. After that the unlikely foursome come across a cave that has the sword in it. But much like Kubos life, it was not an easy task to retrieve it as it awakened a tall skeleton warrior, which they had to defeat. They then come to a large body of water, which Kubo uses his magic and his Samgen to create a boat made out of leaves. Monkey exclaims to him how his power is growing. As they set sail, the little paper Samurai point out that the breast plate is at the bottom of the water. Kubo remembering a story that his mother told him, of eyes that show you what you want to see most, lived at the bottom of the water. Beetle offers to dive in and look for the breast plate as "beetles can hold their breaths for a really long time under water, and are great swimmers." After quite some time passes Kubo dives in after Beetle and the breast plate. Monkey is then attacked by one of the evil aunts. While Kubo is under the water he finds the breast plate, and the eyes. They show him that the Monkey is actually his mother in the form of a spirit totem (MIND BLOWN)...Becoming dazzled by the eyes, he begins to drowned. Beetle swoops in and begins shooting the eyes and rescues Kubo. During this time Monkey is battling one of the aunts and defeats her. Kubo and the gang then continue their quest to find the helmet, which is back at his fathers fort. Once back at the fort one of the aunts reveals to Kubo and to Monkey that Beetle is actually Kubos father. So Kubo now armed with this new knowledge is able to defeat his aunt, but not after losing both his parents again. Kubo then uses his magic, to fly back to his village to adorn the helmet to complete his suite of armor. He then has to battle his grandfather The Moon King. At which point The Moon King transforms into a giant centipede like demon. Kubo uses his wits, and magic, to defeat his grandfather and makes him mortal. In his mortal state he loses his memories, and the village people tell him how he was a just and honest man, and how he was kind. The story ends on an upswing.
Over all the movie was really good. I love how engaging it was, and all the attention to detail they provided in it since it was a stop motion claymation. I highly recommend this for any family night.
It seems that his mother only "comes to life" when its night time. And then shortly there after returns to a catatonic state. One day while in the village an old beggar woman who befriended him tells him a story of how she speaks with her dead husband at night during a certain ritual. Kubo, who is confused and longing to know anything about his father who was said to be the greatest Samurai, goes to the ancestral resting place and tries to summon his father.
Time gets away from him and night befalls rather quickly. Soon two masked spectral spirits appear, and tell him that they are his aunts. Kubo is then told the reason he is missing an eye is due to his grandfather who only wanted to have his other eye so that he could join them in the heavens. Kubo begins running back to the village. The two spirits attack and destroy the village. When they are almost upon him, his mother shows up and uses the last of her magics to activate a totem and to create wings to whisk him away to safety, far away from his blood thirsty aunts. Kubo then wakes up in a vast frozen waste land with a monkey looking after him. The monkey begins to address Kubo, telling him that they need to go on this quest to find a magical suite of armor that his father once wore. So Kubo and Monkey set off on a quest. Kubo is awaken by the monkey, saying that the origami papers that he carried in his pack, were flying around and that in his sleep he created an origami Samurai. The same Samurai from his stories. This little paper guardian, shows them the way to the armor's pieces, which consist of a sword, a breast plate, and a helmet. Along the way they come across a Beetle who was once a Samurai who was cursed to live the rest of his life as a beetle. After that the unlikely foursome come across a cave that has the sword in it. But much like Kubos life, it was not an easy task to retrieve it as it awakened a tall skeleton warrior, which they had to defeat. They then come to a large body of water, which Kubo uses his magic and his Samgen to create a boat made out of leaves. Monkey exclaims to him how his power is growing. As they set sail, the little paper Samurai point out that the breast plate is at the bottom of the water. Kubo remembering a story that his mother told him, of eyes that show you what you want to see most, lived at the bottom of the water. Beetle offers to dive in and look for the breast plate as "beetles can hold their breaths for a really long time under water, and are great swimmers." After quite some time passes Kubo dives in after Beetle and the breast plate. Monkey is then attacked by one of the evil aunts. While Kubo is under the water he finds the breast plate, and the eyes. They show him that the Monkey is actually his mother in the form of a spirit totem (MIND BLOWN)...Becoming dazzled by the eyes, he begins to drowned. Beetle swoops in and begins shooting the eyes and rescues Kubo. During this time Monkey is battling one of the aunts and defeats her. Kubo and the gang then continue their quest to find the helmet, which is back at his fathers fort. Once back at the fort one of the aunts reveals to Kubo and to Monkey that Beetle is actually Kubos father. So Kubo now armed with this new knowledge is able to defeat his aunt, but not after losing both his parents again. Kubo then uses his magic, to fly back to his village to adorn the helmet to complete his suite of armor. He then has to battle his grandfather The Moon King. At which point The Moon King transforms into a giant centipede like demon. Kubo uses his wits, and magic, to defeat his grandfather and makes him mortal. In his mortal state he loses his memories, and the village people tell him how he was a just and honest man, and how he was kind. The story ends on an upswing.
Over all the movie was really good. I love how engaging it was, and all the attention to detail they provided in it since it was a stop motion claymation. I highly recommend this for any family night.
Cassie Osbourne (6 KP) rated The Toymaker in Books
Nov 9, 2018
As a kid who was into books with a dark, almost gothic feel to them when I picked this up at the age of thirteen I really loved it. What wasn't to like? Very creepy cover, exciting concepts, dark scenes and mortal peril - it had all of those boxes ticked. Yes, I can safely say that teenage me thought this book was excellent. So when I found this book under my bed a few weeks ago, I decided to give the book another read to see if it was as good as I remembered.
Sadly it wasn't. Don't get me wrong, this is still a good book (although three stars it is the higher end) but reading it eight years on there are particular aspects of this book that my adult brain has picked out more than my teen one.
The characters are alright; I suppose, but they are incredibly simplistic with very little character development. Katta (a joint protagonist with Mathias) is the only character who feels like she could be more interesting and have a little more about her than the rest, but I was still very unsure about whether I liked her or not (and the way she speaks really annoyed me). I would also have liked to see some more complex relationships - especially between Koenig and Stefan and Katta and Stefan (whose relationship was a very simplistic 'I hate you because of X' but nothing beyond that so got quite boring after a while). However, this is a kid's/young teen's book and didn't bother me too much when I first read it so I guess I can cut it a little slack.
The atmosphere was the thing that I most remembered this book for (there still being a couple of chapters fixed in my mind for how creepy they were), and I'm glad to say that this really held up. The book is dark most of the way through, and the sections/chapters where de Quidt really sees how dark he can be are the best and most memorable parts of the book. Any chapter with Marguerite is brilliant and I absolutely loved the carnival sections. Any bit where it's just Katta on her own away from the rest of the group is really dark (a little seedy perhaps) and just great. The one thing that is perhaps a little too far for me personally is the very vivid and graphic descriptions of the injuries/wounds (and there are a lot) and how they feel which, for someone like me who is a bit squeamish, can be a bit much. It was really nice that the thing that I most remembered the book for is still as great as when I first read it.
For the most part, the writing style is good. There are, however, occasional moments when the wording/phrasing and punctuation are a bit off or clunky. This makes it quite confusing at times and is a little distracting but I think this might be a translation (maybe) so I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. This is the only thing that I can really remember bugging me when I was thirteen.
The plot is pretty good for what it is (four people solving a mystery about a blank piece of paper while villains follow and try to stop them) but I felt like this was more a sort of vehicle for creating a creepy atmosphere, which is no bad thing really. I have to say that when I found the book after so many years, I honestly couldn't remember the plot and I daresay I'll have forgotten it again in a few months time.
The intrigue with which this book grips the reader is, in no small part, down to the atmosphere that is created. I am someone who gets distracted very quickly, especially when reading, but when I picked this book up, I would find myself not able to put it down unless I was called away from it or found that it was 1 am and I should probably get some sleep. This is an excellent sign in any book but especially one aimed at teenagers.
The logic in 'The Toymaker' is hit and miss at best. The characters are wounded for what seems like forever but they don't really succumb to them apart from getting a little paler and being in pain most of the time. There are also lots of things that are not explained or just flat out make no sense. Yes, there is a bit of magic in the story but there still has to be some kind of logic or explanation for it rather than it being used as a kind of jarring deus ex machina to quickly (and a bit clumsily and lazily) move the story along. I can't really say whether or not this bothered me when I read it eight years ago because it's all tied up with the plot and, like I said earlier, I didn't really remember much of it.
Overall, I did enjoy this book. I enjoyed delving back into Jeremy de Quidt's dark and creepy world and it was great revisiting, what I call, a nostalgia read but I think that now it is time to give my copy to a charity shop so another younger teenager can find and enjoy it while it's space on my bookshelf can be given to a book that I will enjoy as an adult.
Characters: 5.5/10
Atmosphere: 9/10
Writing Style: 7/10
Plot: 6/10
Intrigue: 8/10
Logic: 4.5/10
Enjoyment: 7/10
Sadly it wasn't. Don't get me wrong, this is still a good book (although three stars it is the higher end) but reading it eight years on there are particular aspects of this book that my adult brain has picked out more than my teen one.
The characters are alright; I suppose, but they are incredibly simplistic with very little character development. Katta (a joint protagonist with Mathias) is the only character who feels like she could be more interesting and have a little more about her than the rest, but I was still very unsure about whether I liked her or not (and the way she speaks really annoyed me). I would also have liked to see some more complex relationships - especially between Koenig and Stefan and Katta and Stefan (whose relationship was a very simplistic 'I hate you because of X' but nothing beyond that so got quite boring after a while). However, this is a kid's/young teen's book and didn't bother me too much when I first read it so I guess I can cut it a little slack.
The atmosphere was the thing that I most remembered this book for (there still being a couple of chapters fixed in my mind for how creepy they were), and I'm glad to say that this really held up. The book is dark most of the way through, and the sections/chapters where de Quidt really sees how dark he can be are the best and most memorable parts of the book. Any chapter with Marguerite is brilliant and I absolutely loved the carnival sections. Any bit where it's just Katta on her own away from the rest of the group is really dark (a little seedy perhaps) and just great. The one thing that is perhaps a little too far for me personally is the very vivid and graphic descriptions of the injuries/wounds (and there are a lot) and how they feel which, for someone like me who is a bit squeamish, can be a bit much. It was really nice that the thing that I most remembered the book for is still as great as when I first read it.
For the most part, the writing style is good. There are, however, occasional moments when the wording/phrasing and punctuation are a bit off or clunky. This makes it quite confusing at times and is a little distracting but I think this might be a translation (maybe) so I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. This is the only thing that I can really remember bugging me when I was thirteen.
The plot is pretty good for what it is (four people solving a mystery about a blank piece of paper while villains follow and try to stop them) but I felt like this was more a sort of vehicle for creating a creepy atmosphere, which is no bad thing really. I have to say that when I found the book after so many years, I honestly couldn't remember the plot and I daresay I'll have forgotten it again in a few months time.
The intrigue with which this book grips the reader is, in no small part, down to the atmosphere that is created. I am someone who gets distracted very quickly, especially when reading, but when I picked this book up, I would find myself not able to put it down unless I was called away from it or found that it was 1 am and I should probably get some sleep. This is an excellent sign in any book but especially one aimed at teenagers.
The logic in 'The Toymaker' is hit and miss at best. The characters are wounded for what seems like forever but they don't really succumb to them apart from getting a little paler and being in pain most of the time. There are also lots of things that are not explained or just flat out make no sense. Yes, there is a bit of magic in the story but there still has to be some kind of logic or explanation for it rather than it being used as a kind of jarring deus ex machina to quickly (and a bit clumsily and lazily) move the story along. I can't really say whether or not this bothered me when I read it eight years ago because it's all tied up with the plot and, like I said earlier, I didn't really remember much of it.
Overall, I did enjoy this book. I enjoyed delving back into Jeremy de Quidt's dark and creepy world and it was great revisiting, what I call, a nostalgia read but I think that now it is time to give my copy to a charity shop so another younger teenager can find and enjoy it while it's space on my bookshelf can be given to a book that I will enjoy as an adult.
Characters: 5.5/10
Atmosphere: 9/10
Writing Style: 7/10
Plot: 6/10
Intrigue: 8/10
Logic: 4.5/10
Enjoyment: 7/10
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Dice Town in Tabletop Games
Aug 13, 2019 (Updated Jun 24, 2021)
Hoo doggie! That’s definitely what we say in the 1800s Wild West! Yeuuuup, it’s time to take over this here town and call it ours. What are you waitin’ fer? If you ain’t helpin’ me, then you ken giiiiiiit out. This here’s mine now, just gotta… convince the people. *whistles at a horse to giddyup*
Dice Town is a rootin’-tootin’ dice chuckin’ game relying heavily on poker and card majority. Each player is trying to gain the most money, gold nuggets, and property cards to beef up their VP totals once the game ends to become the baddest dude in the West.
To setup, place the town board in the middle of the table and populate its different areas with their components: the Gold Mine receives all the gold nuggets, the Bank receives $3 initially, the General Store receives all the cards of its deck with three property cards will be displayed next to Town Hall, and Doc Badluck will receive its deck with two cards displayed. Each player will receive a dice cup, five dice, and $8 to start. The youngest player received the Sheriff badge card and the game may begin!
Turns are taken simultaneously among all players. Players will roll their dice using the dice cup and choose one result to keep. They may keep more dice by paying $1 for each die kept, or they may pay $1 to keep zero dice and try again. Players are attempting to roll the best poker hand during these turns to set themselves up for the next phase of the game – actions.
Once all players are finished keeping dice and building poker hands, they move to the actions phase. Beginning with the Gold Mine and moving left to right, each area of town will be resolved based on the players’ results. The player with the most 9s rolled will take nuggets from the Gold Mine equal to the number of 9s rolled. The player with the most 10s will take the money at the bank. Most Jacks will draw General Store cards (that can mess with other players or help the holder) equal to the number of Jacks rolled and choose one card to keep. The most Queens will summon a lady at the Saloon to help steal any General Store or property card from another player. Most Kings will be the new Sheriff in town and will break all ties (and also can be bribed). Whomever was able to build the best poker hand will be able to claim the property card at the bottom of the display and one additional property for each Ace rolled. Finally, if a player was not able to win anything up to this point, they will be able to claim a card from Doc Badluck which can be very powerful.
Play continues in this fashion until either the supply of gold nuggets has run dry or all of the property cards have been doled out. Players will score VPs for nuggets, certain General Store cards, one VP per $2 cash, $5 from being Sheriff at the game end, and VP printed on property cards owned. Once the winner is determined, that player must now challenge the losing players to a duel at high noon. Or just gloat a lot.
Components. As you can see in the photos, the component quality is excellent, as with most Matagot titles. The dice cups are sturdy plastic, the embossed poker dice are awesome, the gold nuggets are great as well! I like the quirky cartoony art style. What I do not like about Dice Town components are the cards. They are super glossy, and that’s heck for taking photos and I just don’t enjoy the feel of them as much as the nice linen-finishes. It doesn’t break the game for me or make me enjoy playing it less, I just prefer other types of finishes on cards.
I really like Dice Town. I have always had a great time when playing, and I have even acquired it twice now. I sold my first edition copy via a BGG auction (I was addicted to auctions several years back) and missed it, so I was able to grab a second edition copy last year. I haven’t regretted reacquiring it and though I rated it a 4 I don’t see this ever leaving my collection again. I love the American West theme, and I love the way the dice cups feel and sound as players are slamming them on the table. But also I hate the way the dice cups sound as players are slamming them on the table when my children are trying to sleep or without some type of buffer material between the cups and a hard table top.
The second edition printing is definitely the way to go when deciding whether to purchase Dice Town. Everything is upgraded, and the rules have been tweaked a bit for the better. I don’t really know why I like American West in my board games so much because I can’t stand Western style movies or books, but I can’t get enough of them in my games. If you and I share preferences on games and themes and components, try to grab a copy of Dice Town. You will certain like it quite a bit. We do. Purple Phoenix Games give this one a 12 / 18. While that doesn’t seem like a great score, we would rather have access to it than not. And with so many games out there, earning a place on my shelf is a big deal for a game. So enjoy!
Dice Town is a rootin’-tootin’ dice chuckin’ game relying heavily on poker and card majority. Each player is trying to gain the most money, gold nuggets, and property cards to beef up their VP totals once the game ends to become the baddest dude in the West.
To setup, place the town board in the middle of the table and populate its different areas with their components: the Gold Mine receives all the gold nuggets, the Bank receives $3 initially, the General Store receives all the cards of its deck with three property cards will be displayed next to Town Hall, and Doc Badluck will receive its deck with two cards displayed. Each player will receive a dice cup, five dice, and $8 to start. The youngest player received the Sheriff badge card and the game may begin!
Turns are taken simultaneously among all players. Players will roll their dice using the dice cup and choose one result to keep. They may keep more dice by paying $1 for each die kept, or they may pay $1 to keep zero dice and try again. Players are attempting to roll the best poker hand during these turns to set themselves up for the next phase of the game – actions.
Once all players are finished keeping dice and building poker hands, they move to the actions phase. Beginning with the Gold Mine and moving left to right, each area of town will be resolved based on the players’ results. The player with the most 9s rolled will take nuggets from the Gold Mine equal to the number of 9s rolled. The player with the most 10s will take the money at the bank. Most Jacks will draw General Store cards (that can mess with other players or help the holder) equal to the number of Jacks rolled and choose one card to keep. The most Queens will summon a lady at the Saloon to help steal any General Store or property card from another player. Most Kings will be the new Sheriff in town and will break all ties (and also can be bribed). Whomever was able to build the best poker hand will be able to claim the property card at the bottom of the display and one additional property for each Ace rolled. Finally, if a player was not able to win anything up to this point, they will be able to claim a card from Doc Badluck which can be very powerful.
Play continues in this fashion until either the supply of gold nuggets has run dry or all of the property cards have been doled out. Players will score VPs for nuggets, certain General Store cards, one VP per $2 cash, $5 from being Sheriff at the game end, and VP printed on property cards owned. Once the winner is determined, that player must now challenge the losing players to a duel at high noon. Or just gloat a lot.
Components. As you can see in the photos, the component quality is excellent, as with most Matagot titles. The dice cups are sturdy plastic, the embossed poker dice are awesome, the gold nuggets are great as well! I like the quirky cartoony art style. What I do not like about Dice Town components are the cards. They are super glossy, and that’s heck for taking photos and I just don’t enjoy the feel of them as much as the nice linen-finishes. It doesn’t break the game for me or make me enjoy playing it less, I just prefer other types of finishes on cards.
I really like Dice Town. I have always had a great time when playing, and I have even acquired it twice now. I sold my first edition copy via a BGG auction (I was addicted to auctions several years back) and missed it, so I was able to grab a second edition copy last year. I haven’t regretted reacquiring it and though I rated it a 4 I don’t see this ever leaving my collection again. I love the American West theme, and I love the way the dice cups feel and sound as players are slamming them on the table. But also I hate the way the dice cups sound as players are slamming them on the table when my children are trying to sleep or without some type of buffer material between the cups and a hard table top.
The second edition printing is definitely the way to go when deciding whether to purchase Dice Town. Everything is upgraded, and the rules have been tweaked a bit for the better. I don’t really know why I like American West in my board games so much because I can’t stand Western style movies or books, but I can’t get enough of them in my games. If you and I share preferences on games and themes and components, try to grab a copy of Dice Town. You will certain like it quite a bit. We do. Purple Phoenix Games give this one a 12 / 18. While that doesn’t seem like a great score, we would rather have access to it than not. And with so many games out there, earning a place on my shelf is a big deal for a game. So enjoy!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Marriage Story (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
One Mann’s Movies Review of “Marriage Story” – a “Kramer vs Kramer lite” in my book, albeit with some great acting performances.
K vs K Lite.
For me, mention the phrase “divorce movie” and there’s only one film that comes to mind – the Oscar-laden classic from 1979 starring an immaculate Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep. THAT toy plane; THOSE stiches! (Gulp). This is the yardstick by which I judge such movies… and to be honest, “Marriage Story” didn’t measure up.
The story.
We start the movie seeing the apparently idyllic married life of theatre impresario Charlie (Adam Driver) and his lead actress and muse Nicole (Scarlett Johansson), together bringing up their young child. But spin forwards and the pair are in the middle of an ‘amicable’ separation, with Nicole returning to her home roots in California and Charlie having an expensive commute to and from New York where he’s struggling to premiere his show on Broadway.
But despite an agreement to keep lawyers out of the equation, Nicole is persuaded to lawyer up with Nora Fanshaw (Laura Dern) tightening up the legal screws until Charlie’s life risks being torn apart. It’s time for him to fight back.
Well regarded by the Academy.
As for “Kramer vs Kramer”, this is a movie that has been garlanded with multiple Oscar nominations. Both Driver and Johansson are nominated in the lead acting roles and Laura Dern seems to be favourite for the Best Supporting Actress gong (after winning the Golden Globe and the BAFTA). Three more Oscar nominations come for the score (by Randy Newman); the original screenplay (by director Noah Baumbach); and a Best Film nomination.
Both leads deliver really emotional performances, with Johansson in particular being very believable in the role. But who knew she was so short?! She always strikes me as a statuesque beauty, but she’s only 5′ 3” and it’s particularly noticeable in a scene filmed at Warner Brothers Studios.
It’s also fabulous to see both the great Alan Alda (here showing signs of his Parkinson’s) and Ray Liotta on screen again, as both low-rent and top-dollar lawyers respectively.
But WHY exactly are they divorcing?
I found the whole set up of the movie as frustrating. There seemed no clear understanding of why the separation is happening. True there is an affair involved (and Mrs Movie Man and I have always lived our nearly 40 years of marriage with the understanding that a “one strike” rule applies). But notwithstanding that, it seems to be more of a ‘drifting apart’ that’s gone on. I just wanted to give them a good shaking and get them to work it out!
This is all obviously unfair – because (and I also know this from experience) that in many marriages ‘shit happens’: some people do just want to do different things; feel suffocated; etc. And – thinking about it – I’m not sure there was any real reason given for Meryl Streep‘s departure in K vs K: which was part of the reason for Dustin Hoffman‘s character’s frustration.
Who do you sympathise with?
This is a movie where the audience is bound to take a side. But for me, there was only one side to take and that was Charlie’s. The actions of Nicole seem reprehensible and unforgivable, and when there are lines to be crossed she seems to have little hesitation in crossing them.
Many people seem to rave about this movie, but…
…I found the pace to be inconsistent. At one point, the story just stops for a soulful rendition by Charlie of a song in a bar, and I frankly just got bored with it. And while there’s a steady build up of the legal case involved, suddenly we seem to skip to a resolution without any real rationale for it. Or did I fall asleep??
A further irritation for me was Julie Hagerty as Nicole’s mum Sandra. She does the kooky mum turn that she did perfectly well in last year’s funny “Instant Family“, but its a role that really didn’t seem to fit in this movie. There’s an element of slapstick comedy in these scenes that just didn’t suit the general tone of the movie.
Overall, I just don’t share the love for this movie. Given the choice, I’d much rather watch Kramer vs Kramer again.
And what was that punchline?
By the way, Alan Alda is a fantastic comedian, and really knows how to deliver a joke. In this movie he’s regaling Charlie with a long-winded story (on the clock) when Charlie interrupts him. How did it end…. Alda revealed the full joke after a press screening at the New York Film Festival… and it’s a corker!
This woman’s at her hairdresser’s, and she says, “I’m going to Rome on holiday.”
He says, “Oh really, what airline are you taking?”
She says, “Alitalia.”
He says, “Alitalia, are you crazy? That’s terrible, don’t take that.”
He says, “Where are you gonna stay?”
She says, “I’m gonna stay at The Hassler.”
“The Hassler! What, are you kidding? They’re renovating the Hassler. You’ll hear hammering all night long. You won’t sleep! What are you gonna see?”
She says, “I think I’m going to try to go to the Vatican.” “The Vatican? You’ll be standing in line all day long—”
(Charlie interrupts at this point, but the joke goes on)
So she goes to Rome. She comes back, and the hairdresser says, “How was it?”
She says, “It was a great trip, it was wonderful.”
“How was the Vatican?”
“Wonderful! We happened to meet the Pope.”
“You met the Pope?”
“Yeah, and he spoke to me.”
“What did he say to you?”
“He said, ‘Where’d you get that f***ing haircut?’”
LOL!
For me, mention the phrase “divorce movie” and there’s only one film that comes to mind – the Oscar-laden classic from 1979 starring an immaculate Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep. THAT toy plane; THOSE stiches! (Gulp). This is the yardstick by which I judge such movies… and to be honest, “Marriage Story” didn’t measure up.
The story.
We start the movie seeing the apparently idyllic married life of theatre impresario Charlie (Adam Driver) and his lead actress and muse Nicole (Scarlett Johansson), together bringing up their young child. But spin forwards and the pair are in the middle of an ‘amicable’ separation, with Nicole returning to her home roots in California and Charlie having an expensive commute to and from New York where he’s struggling to premiere his show on Broadway.
But despite an agreement to keep lawyers out of the equation, Nicole is persuaded to lawyer up with Nora Fanshaw (Laura Dern) tightening up the legal screws until Charlie’s life risks being torn apart. It’s time for him to fight back.
Well regarded by the Academy.
As for “Kramer vs Kramer”, this is a movie that has been garlanded with multiple Oscar nominations. Both Driver and Johansson are nominated in the lead acting roles and Laura Dern seems to be favourite for the Best Supporting Actress gong (after winning the Golden Globe and the BAFTA). Three more Oscar nominations come for the score (by Randy Newman); the original screenplay (by director Noah Baumbach); and a Best Film nomination.
Both leads deliver really emotional performances, with Johansson in particular being very believable in the role. But who knew she was so short?! She always strikes me as a statuesque beauty, but she’s only 5′ 3” and it’s particularly noticeable in a scene filmed at Warner Brothers Studios.
It’s also fabulous to see both the great Alan Alda (here showing signs of his Parkinson’s) and Ray Liotta on screen again, as both low-rent and top-dollar lawyers respectively.
But WHY exactly are they divorcing?
I found the whole set up of the movie as frustrating. There seemed no clear understanding of why the separation is happening. True there is an affair involved (and Mrs Movie Man and I have always lived our nearly 40 years of marriage with the understanding that a “one strike” rule applies). But notwithstanding that, it seems to be more of a ‘drifting apart’ that’s gone on. I just wanted to give them a good shaking and get them to work it out!
This is all obviously unfair – because (and I also know this from experience) that in many marriages ‘shit happens’: some people do just want to do different things; feel suffocated; etc. And – thinking about it – I’m not sure there was any real reason given for Meryl Streep‘s departure in K vs K: which was part of the reason for Dustin Hoffman‘s character’s frustration.
Who do you sympathise with?
This is a movie where the audience is bound to take a side. But for me, there was only one side to take and that was Charlie’s. The actions of Nicole seem reprehensible and unforgivable, and when there are lines to be crossed she seems to have little hesitation in crossing them.
Many people seem to rave about this movie, but…
…I found the pace to be inconsistent. At one point, the story just stops for a soulful rendition by Charlie of a song in a bar, and I frankly just got bored with it. And while there’s a steady build up of the legal case involved, suddenly we seem to skip to a resolution without any real rationale for it. Or did I fall asleep??
A further irritation for me was Julie Hagerty as Nicole’s mum Sandra. She does the kooky mum turn that she did perfectly well in last year’s funny “Instant Family“, but its a role that really didn’t seem to fit in this movie. There’s an element of slapstick comedy in these scenes that just didn’t suit the general tone of the movie.
Overall, I just don’t share the love for this movie. Given the choice, I’d much rather watch Kramer vs Kramer again.
And what was that punchline?
By the way, Alan Alda is a fantastic comedian, and really knows how to deliver a joke. In this movie he’s regaling Charlie with a long-winded story (on the clock) when Charlie interrupts him. How did it end…. Alda revealed the full joke after a press screening at the New York Film Festival… and it’s a corker!
This woman’s at her hairdresser’s, and she says, “I’m going to Rome on holiday.”
He says, “Oh really, what airline are you taking?”
She says, “Alitalia.”
He says, “Alitalia, are you crazy? That’s terrible, don’t take that.”
He says, “Where are you gonna stay?”
She says, “I’m gonna stay at The Hassler.”
“The Hassler! What, are you kidding? They’re renovating the Hassler. You’ll hear hammering all night long. You won’t sleep! What are you gonna see?”
She says, “I think I’m going to try to go to the Vatican.” “The Vatican? You’ll be standing in line all day long—”
(Charlie interrupts at this point, but the joke goes on)
So she goes to Rome. She comes back, and the hairdresser says, “How was it?”
She says, “It was a great trip, it was wonderful.”
“How was the Vatican?”
“Wonderful! We happened to meet the Pope.”
“You met the Pope?”
“Yeah, and he spoke to me.”
“What did he say to you?”
“He said, ‘Where’d you get that f***ing haircut?’”
LOL!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Front Runner (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Candidate for a downfall.
We can all probably rattle off some of the classics movies with US politics as their backdrop. For me, “All the President’s Men”; “Primary Colors”; and “Frost/Nixon” might make that list. In the next tier down there are many great drama/thrillers – “Miss Sloane“; “The Post“; “The Ides of March”; “The American President”; “JFK” – and even some pretty funny comedies – “Dave” and “My Fellow Americans” for example. It’s actually quite difficult to think of many films on the subject that are outright dire, proving it remains a fertile ground for film-makers.
“The Front Runner” fortunately avoids this last category, but it’s certainly not good enough to make it into the ‘classics’ list either.
A true story.
The film is based on the true-story of US presidential hopeful Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) and if you are NOT aware of the historical background then you might want to skip the rest of this review – and indeed all others – so you can see the film first and let the history come as a surprise to you.
Hart was younger than most candidates: good-looking, floppy-haired and refreshingly matter of fact in his dealings with the public and the press. Any interviews had to be about his politics: not about his family life with wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and teenage daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever).
Unfortunately, Hart has a weakness for a pretty face (or ten) and his marriage is rocky as a result: “Just don’t embarrass me” is Lee’s one requirement. His “nothing to hide” line to an intelligent Washington Post reporter – AJ Parker (a well cast Mamoudou Athie) – leads to a half-arsed stake-out by Miami Herald reporters and incriminating pictures linking Hart to a Miami pharmaceutical saleswoman Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As the growing press tsunami rises, and his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) gets more and more frustrated with him, can his candidacy survive and will his (now very much embarrassed) wife stick by him?
The turns.
Hugh Jackman is perfectly cast here; very believable as the self-centred, self-righteous and stubborn politician. But this central performance is surrounded by a strong team of supporting players. Vera Farmiga is superb as the wounded wife. Sara Paxton is heartbreaking as the intelligent college girl unfairly portrayed as a “slapper” by the media. The scenes between her and Hart-staffer Irene (Molly Ephraim), trying desperately to support her as best she can, are very nicely done. J.K Simmons as campaign manager Bill Dixon is as reliable as ever. And Alfred Molina turns up as the latest film incarnation of The Post’s Ben Bradlee – surely one of the most oft portrayed real-life journalists in film history.
“What did they just say”?
The biggest cause of dissatisfaction I have with the film is with the sound mixing. Was this a deliberate act by director Jason Reitman, to reflect the chaotic nature of political campaigning? Whether it was deliberate or not, much of the film’s dialogue – particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film – is drowned out by background noise. Sometimes I just longed for subtitles!
Just a little bit dull.
The screenplay, by Matt Bai (from his source book), Jay Carson (a Clinton staffer) and director Jason Reitman might align with the history, but the big problem is that the story’s just a little bit dull, particularly by today’s levels of scandal. This suffers the same fate as “House of Cards” (even before the Kevin Spacey allegations) in that the shocking realities of the Trump-era have progressively neutered the shock-factor of the fiction: to the point where it starts to become boring. Here, only once or twice does the screenplay hit a winning beat: for me, it was the scenes between Donna Rice and Irene Kelly and the dramatic press conference towards the end of the film. The rest of the time, the screenplay was perfectly serviceable but nothing spectacular.
When is a politician’s personal life private?
A core tenet of the film is Hart’s view that politics should be about the policies and not about the personality. Looking at the subject nowadays, it’s clearly a ridiculously idealistic viewpoint. Of course it matters. Politicians need to be trusted by their constituents (yeah, like that’s the case in the UK and the US at the moment!) and whether or not they slap their wives around or sleep with farm animals is clearly a material factor in that relationship. But this was clearly not as much the case in the 70’s as it is today, and the suggestion is that the Hart case was a turning point and a wake-up call to politicians around the world. (An interesting article by the Washington Post itself points out that this is also a simplistic view: that Hart should have been well aware of the dangerous game he was playing.)
Fidelity in politics.
Do you think that powerful politicos are driven to infidelity because they are powerful? Or that it is a characteristic of men who have the charisma to become political leaders in the first place? Such was the discussion my wife and I had in the car home after this film. Nature or political nurture? I’m still not sure.
It’s worth pointing out that to this day both Hart and Rice (interestingly, an alleged ex-girlfriend of Eagles front-man Don Henley) stick to their story that they never had sex.
Final thoughts.
The film’s perfectly watchable, has great acting, but is a little bit of a non-event. The end titles came and I thought “OK, that’s that then”…. nothing more. If you’re a fan of this style of historical political film then you probably won’t be disappointed by it; if not, probably best to wait and catch this on the TV.
“The Front Runner” fortunately avoids this last category, but it’s certainly not good enough to make it into the ‘classics’ list either.
A true story.
The film is based on the true-story of US presidential hopeful Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) and if you are NOT aware of the historical background then you might want to skip the rest of this review – and indeed all others – so you can see the film first and let the history come as a surprise to you.
Hart was younger than most candidates: good-looking, floppy-haired and refreshingly matter of fact in his dealings with the public and the press. Any interviews had to be about his politics: not about his family life with wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and teenage daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever).
Unfortunately, Hart has a weakness for a pretty face (or ten) and his marriage is rocky as a result: “Just don’t embarrass me” is Lee’s one requirement. His “nothing to hide” line to an intelligent Washington Post reporter – AJ Parker (a well cast Mamoudou Athie) – leads to a half-arsed stake-out by Miami Herald reporters and incriminating pictures linking Hart to a Miami pharmaceutical saleswoman Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As the growing press tsunami rises, and his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) gets more and more frustrated with him, can his candidacy survive and will his (now very much embarrassed) wife stick by him?
The turns.
Hugh Jackman is perfectly cast here; very believable as the self-centred, self-righteous and stubborn politician. But this central performance is surrounded by a strong team of supporting players. Vera Farmiga is superb as the wounded wife. Sara Paxton is heartbreaking as the intelligent college girl unfairly portrayed as a “slapper” by the media. The scenes between her and Hart-staffer Irene (Molly Ephraim), trying desperately to support her as best she can, are very nicely done. J.K Simmons as campaign manager Bill Dixon is as reliable as ever. And Alfred Molina turns up as the latest film incarnation of The Post’s Ben Bradlee – surely one of the most oft portrayed real-life journalists in film history.
“What did they just say”?
The biggest cause of dissatisfaction I have with the film is with the sound mixing. Was this a deliberate act by director Jason Reitman, to reflect the chaotic nature of political campaigning? Whether it was deliberate or not, much of the film’s dialogue – particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film – is drowned out by background noise. Sometimes I just longed for subtitles!
Just a little bit dull.
The screenplay, by Matt Bai (from his source book), Jay Carson (a Clinton staffer) and director Jason Reitman might align with the history, but the big problem is that the story’s just a little bit dull, particularly by today’s levels of scandal. This suffers the same fate as “House of Cards” (even before the Kevin Spacey allegations) in that the shocking realities of the Trump-era have progressively neutered the shock-factor of the fiction: to the point where it starts to become boring. Here, only once or twice does the screenplay hit a winning beat: for me, it was the scenes between Donna Rice and Irene Kelly and the dramatic press conference towards the end of the film. The rest of the time, the screenplay was perfectly serviceable but nothing spectacular.
When is a politician’s personal life private?
A core tenet of the film is Hart’s view that politics should be about the policies and not about the personality. Looking at the subject nowadays, it’s clearly a ridiculously idealistic viewpoint. Of course it matters. Politicians need to be trusted by their constituents (yeah, like that’s the case in the UK and the US at the moment!) and whether or not they slap their wives around or sleep with farm animals is clearly a material factor in that relationship. But this was clearly not as much the case in the 70’s as it is today, and the suggestion is that the Hart case was a turning point and a wake-up call to politicians around the world. (An interesting article by the Washington Post itself points out that this is also a simplistic view: that Hart should have been well aware of the dangerous game he was playing.)
Fidelity in politics.
Do you think that powerful politicos are driven to infidelity because they are powerful? Or that it is a characteristic of men who have the charisma to become political leaders in the first place? Such was the discussion my wife and I had in the car home after this film. Nature or political nurture? I’m still not sure.
It’s worth pointing out that to this day both Hart and Rice (interestingly, an alleged ex-girlfriend of Eagles front-man Don Henley) stick to their story that they never had sex.
Final thoughts.
The film’s perfectly watchable, has great acting, but is a little bit of a non-event. The end titles came and I thought “OK, that’s that then”…. nothing more. If you’re a fan of this style of historical political film then you probably won’t be disappointed by it; if not, probably best to wait and catch this on the TV.