Search
Search results
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Calico in Tabletop Games
Oct 3, 2019
Cats. You love them. I tolerate them. I’m a dog person. While cats are the first things I think of when I hear the word Calico, it actually is also referencing a printed pattern. In this case, Calico refers to the printed fabrics to be woven into a quilt as well as the fluffy and mostly-indifferent mammalian species. Let’s take a closer look at Calico.
Calico is a game of tile drafting, tile placement, pattern recognition, with a hint of point salad. Now, not everything you do will score you points, but there are many ways to score. This game plays equally well solo as it does with a group, but how does one play it?
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. As this is a preview copy of the game, I do not know if the final rules or components will be similar or different to what we were provided. -T
To setup, each player chooses a quilt board that has a different colored stitching printed on it. This is the player’s color. Each player will receive their goal tiles of matching color and choose three of these to place on their boards in the starting positions (the rule book also details a recommended first game placement and tile choice). These tiles show the requirements to score them and how many points each scoring tile is worth. Three cat placards are chosen that will be visiting your quilt sections and who score differently from each other. Place the corresponding cat tokens nearby and randomly assign two black-and-white patter tokens to each cat under their placard. Place the cute rainbow tile and matching button tokens nearby. Shuffle the quilt patch tiles and place them in a pile or stack at the middle of the table. From this collection deal two per player, and draw and reveal three more face up to be the offer row. You are now ready to play.
On your turn you will place a tile from your hand, check for scoring, and then draw a new patch tile to your hand. You may place either of your tiles anywhere on your board in any orientation you like. Complete freedom! In order to score points, however, you will want to be strategic in where tiles are placed. You see, the scoring tiles you placed at setup will dictate how they score. Some tiles score when you have two sets of three similar tiles. Tiles are similar either by matching their patterns or their tile colors. Some tiles score when you have placed NO matches at all. Each of these tiles will score points based on whether you satisfied its requirements by color, by shape, or both. Example: a scoring tile says AAA-BBB. This means it wants two sets of three matching patch tiles surrounding it – and ONLY the tiles surrounding it. It also has printed scores of 8 and 13. This means that if you have two sets of tiles that match by color only (but not pattern) you will score 8 points. Should you match three tiles’ colors but also match three tiles’ patterns you will score 13 points.
It is important to note here that the six tiles surrounding the score tile do not have to match exactly. So you do not have to have three yellow tiles with ivy pattern. You need to have three yellow tiles (if you chose yellow for this example) and three tiles that have the ivy pattern. Your other set can be three blue tiles with three stripes patterns. As long as you have these sets from the six surrounding tiles you will score what is on that tile.
The cats come into play when you satisfy their scoring requirement printed on their placard. So Thimble, the actual Calico cat, will visit a portion of your quilt when you have placed three tiles adjacent to each other with their preferred pattern. In the example shown Thimble likes ferns and polka dots. So whenever you have three or more connecting tiles that share one of these patterns you will grab a Thimble token and place it on one of the tiles on your board. Each cat will have different scoring requirements and patterns of which to be aware.
Similarly, but with colors, are the rainbow scoring button tokens. Each patch tile contains a color and a pattern. Cats are attracted to patterns, whereas buttons are sewn onto similar colored tiles. Match up three tiles of the same color and you can sew a button onto your quilt. Buttons are worth 3 points and they just look great on your quilt.
Play continues in this fashion until all quilts are completed. Players then tally up their scores and determine the winner of Calico!
Components. Again, we were provided a prototype of this game, so I will not comment too much on the components as they will probably change from now until production. But, I am able to comment on the art and visual aspects. The art is by Beth Sobel. Do I need to say more at this point? Yes? Ok. So the illustrations of the cats are wonderful. The sleepy little space heaters are depicted so well and they really are cute (I mean, if you’re into cats). The patterns and colors on the quilt tiles and buttons are absolutely fantastic. Just seeing it on the table makes me excited to play it, and for a game about quilts and cats that is REALLY saying something. The art and visual appeal of this game is truly off the charts.
I am not colorblind, but I do appreciate when designers consider options for gamers who are. In Calico, though you are playing for and concentrating on patterns and colors, the tiles are also printed with icons that match the shapes of the buttons to be claimed. As you can see in our photos, yellow tiles have a crescent moon, which match the crescent moon button you claim. The purple tiles have a ghost? Onion? Jawless skull? Blueberry? Whatever it is, it also matched the token you claim for the rainbow bonus points. I like this. I like this a lot.
So do we like playing it? I have played several games of this solo as well as with a group, and it truly is fantastic. It’s one of those games that you can go nutty trying to figure out the optimal play, or you can just play it casually to come up with the prettiest end result. Granted, you probably will not win much, but golly look at your quilt! You can play Calico with ANY gamer type: beginner, casual, hard core, and industry personalities. And I believe that every one who plays this will have a great time and salivate for more plays (cats salivate, right? Or is that a dog-only thing?). I am very excited to see what Flatout Games has in store for this one on Kickstarter, and I would be happy to play with anyone who asks, or as part of anyone’s gaming event.
Calico is a game of tile drafting, tile placement, pattern recognition, with a hint of point salad. Now, not everything you do will score you points, but there are many ways to score. This game plays equally well solo as it does with a group, but how does one play it?
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. As this is a preview copy of the game, I do not know if the final rules or components will be similar or different to what we were provided. -T
To setup, each player chooses a quilt board that has a different colored stitching printed on it. This is the player’s color. Each player will receive their goal tiles of matching color and choose three of these to place on their boards in the starting positions (the rule book also details a recommended first game placement and tile choice). These tiles show the requirements to score them and how many points each scoring tile is worth. Three cat placards are chosen that will be visiting your quilt sections and who score differently from each other. Place the corresponding cat tokens nearby and randomly assign two black-and-white patter tokens to each cat under their placard. Place the cute rainbow tile and matching button tokens nearby. Shuffle the quilt patch tiles and place them in a pile or stack at the middle of the table. From this collection deal two per player, and draw and reveal three more face up to be the offer row. You are now ready to play.
On your turn you will place a tile from your hand, check for scoring, and then draw a new patch tile to your hand. You may place either of your tiles anywhere on your board in any orientation you like. Complete freedom! In order to score points, however, you will want to be strategic in where tiles are placed. You see, the scoring tiles you placed at setup will dictate how they score. Some tiles score when you have two sets of three similar tiles. Tiles are similar either by matching their patterns or their tile colors. Some tiles score when you have placed NO matches at all. Each of these tiles will score points based on whether you satisfied its requirements by color, by shape, or both. Example: a scoring tile says AAA-BBB. This means it wants two sets of three matching patch tiles surrounding it – and ONLY the tiles surrounding it. It also has printed scores of 8 and 13. This means that if you have two sets of tiles that match by color only (but not pattern) you will score 8 points. Should you match three tiles’ colors but also match three tiles’ patterns you will score 13 points.
It is important to note here that the six tiles surrounding the score tile do not have to match exactly. So you do not have to have three yellow tiles with ivy pattern. You need to have three yellow tiles (if you chose yellow for this example) and three tiles that have the ivy pattern. Your other set can be three blue tiles with three stripes patterns. As long as you have these sets from the six surrounding tiles you will score what is on that tile.
The cats come into play when you satisfy their scoring requirement printed on their placard. So Thimble, the actual Calico cat, will visit a portion of your quilt when you have placed three tiles adjacent to each other with their preferred pattern. In the example shown Thimble likes ferns and polka dots. So whenever you have three or more connecting tiles that share one of these patterns you will grab a Thimble token and place it on one of the tiles on your board. Each cat will have different scoring requirements and patterns of which to be aware.
Similarly, but with colors, are the rainbow scoring button tokens. Each patch tile contains a color and a pattern. Cats are attracted to patterns, whereas buttons are sewn onto similar colored tiles. Match up three tiles of the same color and you can sew a button onto your quilt. Buttons are worth 3 points and they just look great on your quilt.
Play continues in this fashion until all quilts are completed. Players then tally up their scores and determine the winner of Calico!
Components. Again, we were provided a prototype of this game, so I will not comment too much on the components as they will probably change from now until production. But, I am able to comment on the art and visual aspects. The art is by Beth Sobel. Do I need to say more at this point? Yes? Ok. So the illustrations of the cats are wonderful. The sleepy little space heaters are depicted so well and they really are cute (I mean, if you’re into cats). The patterns and colors on the quilt tiles and buttons are absolutely fantastic. Just seeing it on the table makes me excited to play it, and for a game about quilts and cats that is REALLY saying something. The art and visual appeal of this game is truly off the charts.
I am not colorblind, but I do appreciate when designers consider options for gamers who are. In Calico, though you are playing for and concentrating on patterns and colors, the tiles are also printed with icons that match the shapes of the buttons to be claimed. As you can see in our photos, yellow tiles have a crescent moon, which match the crescent moon button you claim. The purple tiles have a ghost? Onion? Jawless skull? Blueberry? Whatever it is, it also matched the token you claim for the rainbow bonus points. I like this. I like this a lot.
So do we like playing it? I have played several games of this solo as well as with a group, and it truly is fantastic. It’s one of those games that you can go nutty trying to figure out the optimal play, or you can just play it casually to come up with the prettiest end result. Granted, you probably will not win much, but golly look at your quilt! You can play Calico with ANY gamer type: beginner, casual, hard core, and industry personalities. And I believe that every one who plays this will have a great time and salivate for more plays (cats salivate, right? Or is that a dog-only thing?). I am very excited to see what Flatout Games has in store for this one on Kickstarter, and I would be happy to play with anyone who asks, or as part of anyone’s gaming event.
James Dean Bradfield recommended Slow Dazzle by John Cale in Music (curated)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Thor: Ragnarok (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
Utterly preposterous
Thor is arguably one of Marvel’s strongest characters. Played by the superb Chris Hemsworth since 2011, the God of thunder is one of the MCUs most popular assets.
It’s unfortunate then that he’s been lambasted with the weakest solo films of the entire series, the son of Odin really has deserved much better.
Thor’s inception in the first of his three solo outings was a competent if unremarkable origins story and the less said about Thor: The Dark World, which remains the poorest film of the entire MCU, the better. Now, just in time for Infinity War,Thor: Ragnarok rolls into cinemas. But does it do its leading man justice?Imprisoned on the other side of the universe, the mighty Thor (Hemsworth) finds himself in a deadly gladiatorial contest that pits him against the Hulk (Bruce Banner), his former ally and fellow Avenger. Thor’s quest for survival leads him in a race against time to prevent the all-powerful goddess of death, Hela, (Cate Blanchett) from destroying his home world and the Asgardian civilisation.
This third film for our mighty Avenger is really something. A film more akin to Guardians of the Galaxy than its overly stuffy predecessors. Director Taika Waititi in his first big-budget feature has managed what many had thought was impossible, he’s given Thor a rather brilliant movie.
But how? Well, he’s realised what no-one else has. The premise surrounding our titular hero is utterly ridiculous. Rather than shy away from that and create something serious, he’s embraced it with humour, music and my goodness, a lot of colour.
If you thought Guardians of the Galaxy used every colour on the spectrum, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Thor: Ragnarok is quite something to watch. From the gold-tipped spears of Asgard that glisten like never before, to the trash-topped planet of Sakaar, everything is dripping in colour.
“Casting Goldblum in the role of an immortal game-player really is an inspired choice.”
Speaking of Sakaar, it contains one of the MCUs best new additions: Jeff Goldbum. Sorry, I mean the Grandmaster. Casting Goldblum in the role of an immortal game-player really is an inspired choice. The 65-year-old legend has made a career on playing himself and it works exceptionally well here. His improvisation is absolutely spot on.
Ragnarok throws up a few other surprises too. One being that Chris Hemsworth is absolutely hilarious. He and Tom Hiddleston bounce off each other incredibly well and we see real chemistry – the chemistry that should have been evident from the start. Cate Blanchett also turns the cheese up to 11 as the latest throwaway Marvel villain, Hela.
She fares better than the majority of Marvel villains and is certainly more interesting than Christopher Eccelston’s, Malekith, but they never quite make the impact that the scriptwriters were clearly looking for. Nevertheless, Blanchett is excellent.
Thankfully, Thor: Ragnarok doesn’t suffer from the absence of Natalie Portman’s dull Jane Foster, and though she is referenced early on, newcomer Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie provides a fitting replacement and possible future love-interest for our intrepid hero.
Unfortunately, it’s not all good news. Surprisingly the first 30 minutes feel incredibly rushed as numerous loose storylines are brought together and the improvised nature of the script lends itself to a little too much humour. Yes, we get it, Marvel films are funny, but this should not be at the expense of the more emotional sequences that the movie tries to put across.
Nevertheless, Thor: Ragnarok is a resounding success, created by a man who clearly has a passion for this corner of the MCU. He manages to make an absolutely preposterous film – and that’s exactly how Thor should be. Take a bow Mr. Waititi.
A little tip – there are two end credit sequences waiting for you. You’re welcome.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/10/26/thor-ragnarok-review/
It’s unfortunate then that he’s been lambasted with the weakest solo films of the entire series, the son of Odin really has deserved much better.
Thor’s inception in the first of his three solo outings was a competent if unremarkable origins story and the less said about Thor: The Dark World, which remains the poorest film of the entire MCU, the better. Now, just in time for Infinity War,Thor: Ragnarok rolls into cinemas. But does it do its leading man justice?Imprisoned on the other side of the universe, the mighty Thor (Hemsworth) finds himself in a deadly gladiatorial contest that pits him against the Hulk (Bruce Banner), his former ally and fellow Avenger. Thor’s quest for survival leads him in a race against time to prevent the all-powerful goddess of death, Hela, (Cate Blanchett) from destroying his home world and the Asgardian civilisation.
This third film for our mighty Avenger is really something. A film more akin to Guardians of the Galaxy than its overly stuffy predecessors. Director Taika Waititi in his first big-budget feature has managed what many had thought was impossible, he’s given Thor a rather brilliant movie.
But how? Well, he’s realised what no-one else has. The premise surrounding our titular hero is utterly ridiculous. Rather than shy away from that and create something serious, he’s embraced it with humour, music and my goodness, a lot of colour.
If you thought Guardians of the Galaxy used every colour on the spectrum, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Thor: Ragnarok is quite something to watch. From the gold-tipped spears of Asgard that glisten like never before, to the trash-topped planet of Sakaar, everything is dripping in colour.
“Casting Goldblum in the role of an immortal game-player really is an inspired choice.”
Speaking of Sakaar, it contains one of the MCUs best new additions: Jeff Goldbum. Sorry, I mean the Grandmaster. Casting Goldblum in the role of an immortal game-player really is an inspired choice. The 65-year-old legend has made a career on playing himself and it works exceptionally well here. His improvisation is absolutely spot on.
Ragnarok throws up a few other surprises too. One being that Chris Hemsworth is absolutely hilarious. He and Tom Hiddleston bounce off each other incredibly well and we see real chemistry – the chemistry that should have been evident from the start. Cate Blanchett also turns the cheese up to 11 as the latest throwaway Marvel villain, Hela.
She fares better than the majority of Marvel villains and is certainly more interesting than Christopher Eccelston’s, Malekith, but they never quite make the impact that the scriptwriters were clearly looking for. Nevertheless, Blanchett is excellent.
Thankfully, Thor: Ragnarok doesn’t suffer from the absence of Natalie Portman’s dull Jane Foster, and though she is referenced early on, newcomer Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie provides a fitting replacement and possible future love-interest for our intrepid hero.
Unfortunately, it’s not all good news. Surprisingly the first 30 minutes feel incredibly rushed as numerous loose storylines are brought together and the improvised nature of the script lends itself to a little too much humour. Yes, we get it, Marvel films are funny, but this should not be at the expense of the more emotional sequences that the movie tries to put across.
Nevertheless, Thor: Ragnarok is a resounding success, created by a man who clearly has a passion for this corner of the MCU. He manages to make an absolutely preposterous film – and that’s exactly how Thor should be. Take a bow Mr. Waititi.
A little tip – there are two end credit sequences waiting for you. You’re welcome.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/10/26/thor-ragnarok-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Cocaine Bear (2023) in Movies
Mar 21, 2023
A Ton of Fun
When one decides to watch a film entitled COCAINE BEAR, one pretty much knows what one is getting themselves into.
And, fortunately, Director Elizabeth Banks knew exactly what type of film she was making and her (and her game cast) were up to the challenge…and the fun.
Based on a true event, where a cocaine smuggler fell to his death when his parachute failed to open, COCAINE BEAR posits the “what if” position of what would happen if a Bear ingested it and became aggressive and addicted to cocaine? This fun film takes us through that scenario.
Banks (Director of the PITCH PERFECT films) is the perfect person to helm this film, for she has her tongue planted firmly in her cheek and wisely walked the line between making it violent enough for idiots like me to enjoy and not TOO violent so that the target audience – I would assume that would be teenage boys – can attend as well. She paces the film briskly enough for the audience to not ask too many questions, and the film is short enough to be enjoyable, without beating the premise into the ground.
Jesse Tyler Ferguson (MODERN FAMILY), Kristofer Jivju (Tormand in GAME OF THRONES), Isiah Whitlock, Jr (BLACK KKKLANSMAN). and O’Shea Jackson, Jr (STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON) are all in on the fun and they look like they are having a GREAT time playing in this sandbox. As do Keri Russell, Matthew Rhys and the always-great Margo Martindale (forming a mini THE AMERICANS reunion). Martindale almost steals the film from the COCAINE BEAR…almost.
Special notice needs to be made of the work of Aiden Ehrenriech (erstwhile Hans Sole in SOLO: A STAR WARS STORY). He is one of those performers who looks like he is trying too hard to please, but not in this film. He looks comfortable and relaxed and this just might be the best performance of his career. The same can NOT be said for the late Ray Liotta (in his last film role). While not his best performance (that would be GOODFELLAS), it is a “classic Liotta” in that he plays the drug dealer who is looking for his lost cocaine with zest, energy and unapologetically. It’s a shame that we lost this wonderful film presence.
But…all of these performers play second fiddle to the titular character – the CGI creation that is COCAINE BEAR. Bravo to the company that did the effect in this film, they make the out-of-control bear believable while the character is doing unbelievable things.
A fun “B” flick in every sense of the word – COCAINE BEAR is a ton of fun (I laughed out loud LOUDLY a couple of times). Just know before you view it, what kind of film you are watching.
Letter Grade: B (of course)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And, fortunately, Director Elizabeth Banks knew exactly what type of film she was making and her (and her game cast) were up to the challenge…and the fun.
Based on a true event, where a cocaine smuggler fell to his death when his parachute failed to open, COCAINE BEAR posits the “what if” position of what would happen if a Bear ingested it and became aggressive and addicted to cocaine? This fun film takes us through that scenario.
Banks (Director of the PITCH PERFECT films) is the perfect person to helm this film, for she has her tongue planted firmly in her cheek and wisely walked the line between making it violent enough for idiots like me to enjoy and not TOO violent so that the target audience – I would assume that would be teenage boys – can attend as well. She paces the film briskly enough for the audience to not ask too many questions, and the film is short enough to be enjoyable, without beating the premise into the ground.
Jesse Tyler Ferguson (MODERN FAMILY), Kristofer Jivju (Tormand in GAME OF THRONES), Isiah Whitlock, Jr (BLACK KKKLANSMAN). and O’Shea Jackson, Jr (STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON) are all in on the fun and they look like they are having a GREAT time playing in this sandbox. As do Keri Russell, Matthew Rhys and the always-great Margo Martindale (forming a mini THE AMERICANS reunion). Martindale almost steals the film from the COCAINE BEAR…almost.
Special notice needs to be made of the work of Aiden Ehrenriech (erstwhile Hans Sole in SOLO: A STAR WARS STORY). He is one of those performers who looks like he is trying too hard to please, but not in this film. He looks comfortable and relaxed and this just might be the best performance of his career. The same can NOT be said for the late Ray Liotta (in his last film role). While not his best performance (that would be GOODFELLAS), it is a “classic Liotta” in that he plays the drug dealer who is looking for his lost cocaine with zest, energy and unapologetically. It’s a shame that we lost this wonderful film presence.
But…all of these performers play second fiddle to the titular character – the CGI creation that is COCAINE BEAR. Bravo to the company that did the effect in this film, they make the out-of-control bear believable while the character is doing unbelievable things.
A fun “B” flick in every sense of the word – COCAINE BEAR is a ton of fun (I laughed out loud LOUDLY a couple of times). Just know before you view it, what kind of film you are watching.
Letter Grade: B (of course)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
MichaelS (0 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
Feb 20, 2018
"Meanwhile, at the Hall Of Justice..."
This movie is the culmination of a childhood full of Saturday mornings in front of the tv in pajamas with a bowl of cereal. "Superfriends" was superheroes at it's most basic. The bad guys wanted to take over or destroy the world and the good guys have to stop them. That was the depth of the plots for both those classic cartoons, and this movie. It's pure cartoon fun brought to life, and I loved every minute of it.
The plot only serves as a reason for these heroes to come together. So you can say that story is not a top priority. Character is the name of the game here, and on that level, the movie is gold. Each character is fully realized, with their own individual situation they need to grow from. Every hero is given his or her moment to shine as an individual. When they stand as a team, it's some of the best superhero action we've ever gotten.
The performances of the League members is spot on across the board. Every character is presented exactly the way they should be. Ben Affleck continues to prove all the doubters wrong, by giving us the best live action version of Batman we've ever seen. Right from the start you see how he demands fear from evildoers, but filled with hope for the good things in the world. Gal Gadot IS Wonder Woman. If there was any doubt left after her solo movie, it should be thoroughly erased now. She's strong in body, mind, and spirit. Jason Mamoa forever erases the idea of Aquaman being the wimpiest superhero. His "surfer dude" take on the character brings all the recklessness and abandon you'd expect from a beach bum. He's almost like a Spartan soldier that lives for the excitement of battle. Ezra Miller brings a youthful excitement of someone who is simply jazzed by what he, and others, can do with their abilities. He's almost the comic relief until you realize that the excited reactions he gives to everything is exactly what we would to if we were dropped in that situation.
SPOILER TERRITORY....skip to "END SPOILERS" if you don't want anything ruined
Although it should really come as no surprise to anyone, Superman does indeed return from the dead in this movie. Not only is that he's resurrected very cool, but the aftermath gives us the best fight scene of the film. Superman vs The Justice League. 'nuff said? I've always loved Henry Cavill as Superman, but now he owns the role. He has grown from a man filled with self doubt, trying to find his place in the world, to a man who now fully realizes who he is, and what purpose he serves to mankind. Lots of great Superman stuff in this movie, and that is the thing I'm most thankful for.
END SPOILERS
This is the most fun I've had with a superhero movie in a long time. It may not have the deepest plot, but that is fine with me, because this is truly a comic book come to life. It's full of the action and joyful spirit that the boy in me tuned into every weekend. Now, if the post credit scene in the movie delivers, it REALLY will be everything that the classic Challenges Of The Superfriends, and reduce me to that boy in pajamas again, cereal in hand, and a smile on my face.
The plot only serves as a reason for these heroes to come together. So you can say that story is not a top priority. Character is the name of the game here, and on that level, the movie is gold. Each character is fully realized, with their own individual situation they need to grow from. Every hero is given his or her moment to shine as an individual. When they stand as a team, it's some of the best superhero action we've ever gotten.
The performances of the League members is spot on across the board. Every character is presented exactly the way they should be. Ben Affleck continues to prove all the doubters wrong, by giving us the best live action version of Batman we've ever seen. Right from the start you see how he demands fear from evildoers, but filled with hope for the good things in the world. Gal Gadot IS Wonder Woman. If there was any doubt left after her solo movie, it should be thoroughly erased now. She's strong in body, mind, and spirit. Jason Mamoa forever erases the idea of Aquaman being the wimpiest superhero. His "surfer dude" take on the character brings all the recklessness and abandon you'd expect from a beach bum. He's almost like a Spartan soldier that lives for the excitement of battle. Ezra Miller brings a youthful excitement of someone who is simply jazzed by what he, and others, can do with their abilities. He's almost the comic relief until you realize that the excited reactions he gives to everything is exactly what we would to if we were dropped in that situation.
SPOILER TERRITORY....skip to "END SPOILERS" if you don't want anything ruined
Although it should really come as no surprise to anyone, Superman does indeed return from the dead in this movie. Not only is that he's resurrected very cool, but the aftermath gives us the best fight scene of the film. Superman vs The Justice League. 'nuff said? I've always loved Henry Cavill as Superman, but now he owns the role. He has grown from a man filled with self doubt, trying to find his place in the world, to a man who now fully realizes who he is, and what purpose he serves to mankind. Lots of great Superman stuff in this movie, and that is the thing I'm most thankful for.
END SPOILERS
This is the most fun I've had with a superhero movie in a long time. It may not have the deepest plot, but that is fine with me, because this is truly a comic book come to life. It's full of the action and joyful spirit that the boy in me tuned into every weekend. Now, if the post credit scene in the movie delivers, it REALLY will be everything that the classic Challenges Of The Superfriends, and reduce me to that boy in pajamas again, cereal in hand, and a smile on my face.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated The People Vs. Larry Flynt (1996) in Movies
Sep 14, 2019
The tragedy. The comedy. The pornography.
Not many filmmakers can say they won two Oscars and for Best Director in two different decades and were nominated a third time in a different decade. The recently deceased movie maestro Milos Forman is one that could.
This time he decides to take on a subject he is passionate about through the lens of someone he doesn't particularly like. It is hard to believe the real Larry Flynt became a poster child for free speech and freedom of expression just so he could peddle Hustler magazine which showed every variety of "smut", "vile" and immoral behavior and imagery which makes most people disgusted. They even featured a cartoon depicting the characters from "The Wizard of Oz" getting it on with each other!
Larry Flynt started with his brother managing a strip club, but dreaming for something more. Larry decided he would publish a "newsletter" to increase awareness of the club. Upon publication, people became interested in viewing and subscribing to its controversial content, thus an empire was born.
From this club Larry also met his latest dancer soon to be wife, Althea.
The hits started coming almost immediately with different groups causing trouble for Larry and having him arrested. His legal battles soon began as well. His lawyer is not able to control his increasingly belligerent client who shows no respect for the court and openly mocked and disrespected it. Unfortunately, after one of his court appearances, he and his lawyer were shot by a sniper leaving Larry paralyzed from the waist down.
Larry didn't let up; however, deciding instead to take on Reverend Jerry Falwell in Hustler which would ultimately end up with his case being seen at the US Supreme Court.
No stranger to telling a keen biography (Amadeus ranks among the greatest biopics in movie history), director Forman manages to fashion a true tale with such fervor and passion, you get drawn in almost immediately. Even if you hate Larry's message and attitude, you must ultimately completely agree with his right to express it.
Woody Harrelson began getting noticed as a dramatic actor in 1994 with Natural Born Killers and continues to this day including blockbusters like Solo and The Hunger Games franchise as well as meaningful dramatic roles in recent films like Three Billboards and Game Change, Hard to believe the numskull from Cheers has blossomed into a full fledged movie star. His Academy Award nominated performance in this film is so well deserved. He is able to make Larry Flynt repulsive and sympathetic, rude and adorable as well as repugnant and charming all at the same time.
Courtney Love comes form nowhere and plays Larry's wife Althea with energy and really give it her all showing herself as the woman who would stand by her husband no matter what and up against the system. An early performance from Edward Norton is also welcome coming right on the heels of his breakout role in Primal Fear.
The courtroom scenes and not revolutionary, however, the drama and intensity are there broken up by Larry's quips and infant like behavior.
A very entertaining watch from a true master filmmaker highly recommended.
This time he decides to take on a subject he is passionate about through the lens of someone he doesn't particularly like. It is hard to believe the real Larry Flynt became a poster child for free speech and freedom of expression just so he could peddle Hustler magazine which showed every variety of "smut", "vile" and immoral behavior and imagery which makes most people disgusted. They even featured a cartoon depicting the characters from "The Wizard of Oz" getting it on with each other!
Larry Flynt started with his brother managing a strip club, but dreaming for something more. Larry decided he would publish a "newsletter" to increase awareness of the club. Upon publication, people became interested in viewing and subscribing to its controversial content, thus an empire was born.
From this club Larry also met his latest dancer soon to be wife, Althea.
The hits started coming almost immediately with different groups causing trouble for Larry and having him arrested. His legal battles soon began as well. His lawyer is not able to control his increasingly belligerent client who shows no respect for the court and openly mocked and disrespected it. Unfortunately, after one of his court appearances, he and his lawyer were shot by a sniper leaving Larry paralyzed from the waist down.
Larry didn't let up; however, deciding instead to take on Reverend Jerry Falwell in Hustler which would ultimately end up with his case being seen at the US Supreme Court.
No stranger to telling a keen biography (Amadeus ranks among the greatest biopics in movie history), director Forman manages to fashion a true tale with such fervor and passion, you get drawn in almost immediately. Even if you hate Larry's message and attitude, you must ultimately completely agree with his right to express it.
Woody Harrelson began getting noticed as a dramatic actor in 1994 with Natural Born Killers and continues to this day including blockbusters like Solo and The Hunger Games franchise as well as meaningful dramatic roles in recent films like Three Billboards and Game Change, Hard to believe the numskull from Cheers has blossomed into a full fledged movie star. His Academy Award nominated performance in this film is so well deserved. He is able to make Larry Flynt repulsive and sympathetic, rude and adorable as well as repugnant and charming all at the same time.
Courtney Love comes form nowhere and plays Larry's wife Althea with energy and really give it her all showing herself as the woman who would stand by her husband no matter what and up against the system. An early performance from Edward Norton is also welcome coming right on the heels of his breakout role in Primal Fear.
The courtroom scenes and not revolutionary, however, the drama and intensity are there broken up by Larry's quips and infant like behavior.
A very entertaining watch from a true master filmmaker highly recommended.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Thor: Ragnarok (2017) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
One of the biggest challenges with an ongoing series is crafting a story that is on par or better than the prior offering and that the characters continue to grow so audiences do not get a rehash of what they have seen before.
With “Thor Ragnarok” Chris Hemsworth has returned for his third solo outing, and fifth outing overall as the heroic Asgardian warrior Thor.
This time out Thor is on his quest to track down the Infinity Stones and finds himself plagued by visions of Ragnarok: a legend detailing the fiery destruction of his home of Asgard.
With an action laden opening, Thor believes he has ended the threat and returns home to find his father Odin (Sir Anthony Hopkins), has been sent to Earth and his evil brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) assuming his place.
Thor ventures to Earth with his brother which sets a series of events into motion, the result of which unleashes the long imprisoned Hela (Cate Blanchett), who plans the subjugation of Thor and Asgard. Naturally Thor is not going to put up with this, but finds himself mid battle knocked out of his transit home and on a remote world called Sakaar.
As if being stranded far from home is not enough of a challenge, Thor is forced to become a gladiator for the erratic Grandmaster (Jeff Goldblum), whom Loki has managed to charm and become a part of his inner circle.
As fate has it, Thor becomes matched with The Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), and must find a way to survive and make his way home before Hella can destroy all that he holds precious.
The film is the best of the Thor films and it is engaging from start to finish. There is a significant amount of humor in the film but it does not feel forced and is very appropriate to many of the scenes. The film also has plenty of action and the blend between comedy and action is deftly handed by Director TaiKa Waititi who never lets the film become a parody of itself nor take itself too seriously at times. He knows when there is a time to laugh and when there is a time to be deathly serious.
This allows for a deeper and more enjoyable and engaging Thor than has been previously seen. He is not as one-dimensional as he has been in the past as the strong, quick to anger muscle that I would love to see explored in further outings.
I had worried from the trailers that the movie might be more of a video game as it seemed heavily dependent on retro style CGI and camp humor which made it seem like something out of the 80s. While there are elements of that, the film mixes the old and new to create one of the most authentic and enjoyable comic adaptations seen to date. It continues the winning formula of Marvel Studios and of course, sets up the next outing for Thor in “Avengers: Infinity War” as well as the larger Marvel Universe as we a whole. The film also has some great cameos and I am curious to see how the addition of the newly introduced characters will be explored down the road. The return of Hiddleston was also a real treat as he is so good as the mercurial but always sly and dangerous Loki that he commands your complete attention every time he appears on screen.
Marvel has once again set very high standards for comic based movies and has again delivered another winner that you will not want to miss.
http://sknr.net/2017/11/01/thor-ragnarok-2/
With “Thor Ragnarok” Chris Hemsworth has returned for his third solo outing, and fifth outing overall as the heroic Asgardian warrior Thor.
This time out Thor is on his quest to track down the Infinity Stones and finds himself plagued by visions of Ragnarok: a legend detailing the fiery destruction of his home of Asgard.
With an action laden opening, Thor believes he has ended the threat and returns home to find his father Odin (Sir Anthony Hopkins), has been sent to Earth and his evil brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) assuming his place.
Thor ventures to Earth with his brother which sets a series of events into motion, the result of which unleashes the long imprisoned Hela (Cate Blanchett), who plans the subjugation of Thor and Asgard. Naturally Thor is not going to put up with this, but finds himself mid battle knocked out of his transit home and on a remote world called Sakaar.
As if being stranded far from home is not enough of a challenge, Thor is forced to become a gladiator for the erratic Grandmaster (Jeff Goldblum), whom Loki has managed to charm and become a part of his inner circle.
As fate has it, Thor becomes matched with The Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), and must find a way to survive and make his way home before Hella can destroy all that he holds precious.
The film is the best of the Thor films and it is engaging from start to finish. There is a significant amount of humor in the film but it does not feel forced and is very appropriate to many of the scenes. The film also has plenty of action and the blend between comedy and action is deftly handed by Director TaiKa Waititi who never lets the film become a parody of itself nor take itself too seriously at times. He knows when there is a time to laugh and when there is a time to be deathly serious.
This allows for a deeper and more enjoyable and engaging Thor than has been previously seen. He is not as one-dimensional as he has been in the past as the strong, quick to anger muscle that I would love to see explored in further outings.
I had worried from the trailers that the movie might be more of a video game as it seemed heavily dependent on retro style CGI and camp humor which made it seem like something out of the 80s. While there are elements of that, the film mixes the old and new to create one of the most authentic and enjoyable comic adaptations seen to date. It continues the winning formula of Marvel Studios and of course, sets up the next outing for Thor in “Avengers: Infinity War” as well as the larger Marvel Universe as we a whole. The film also has some great cameos and I am curious to see how the addition of the newly introduced characters will be explored down the road. The return of Hiddleston was also a real treat as he is so good as the mercurial but always sly and dangerous Loki that he commands your complete attention every time he appears on screen.
Marvel has once again set very high standards for comic based movies and has again delivered another winner that you will not want to miss.
http://sknr.net/2017/11/01/thor-ragnarok-2/
Darren (1599 KP) rated Alone in the Dark (2005) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: I am going to first look at this only as a story, no opinions on the CGI or casting choices. If you were to look at the story as a solo idea you get a solid action horror. Now I hear people going ‘no its just crap’ so let’s look at the details. First off we have an idea of scientific experiment on children to create sleepers, but something goes wrong so we don’t see why it happened until more discoveries in the future. Then we have a search for hidden treasures of a lost ancient people. Add in a paranormal investigator, a secret government paranormal investigating team and the search for a truth. Now looking at those factors we should have a good story not special but enjoyable. Now with terrible casting decisions, awful CGI and a script that could have been written but a child everything goes south fast. As an idea for a story this is good, but as an execution of a story it’s bad. (5/10)
Actor Review
Christian Slater: Edward Carnby a paranormal investigator who has been trying to uncover the truth about his childhood, this puts him in danger as this time he has got closer than ever before. He must team up with his old organisation to final uncover the truth that has lost him the memories of his childhood. Slater strolls for this role without showing any of the skills that made him a star in the early 90s. (5/10)
slater
Tara Reid: Aline Cedrac assistant curator at the museum who also happens to be Edward’s girlfriend, she gets caught up in the middle of the battle after she uncover the location of the door. Going to take a deep breath before going for this one, just no how did this happen? Try your luck in romantic comedies. (2/10)
reid
Stephen Dorff: Commander Burke leader of a military team trying to keep the monsters away from the public, old partner of Edward but after seeing the truth he teams up with them to uncover the truth. Stephen can act and has proven it many times, just need to give him something to work with. (4/10)
dorff
Frank C Turner: Sam an old connection within the organisation that still communicates with Edward, he fills in the science gaps and you can guess what happens to him by the end. Basic supporting performance. (4/10)
fisher
Matthew Walker: Professor Hudgens scientist trying to open the door to the truth about the ancient people, he will do anything to get his answers including sacrificing anybody who gets in his way. As villains go this is generic one that doesn’t need too much to make them special. (4/10)
profes
Director Review: Uwe Boll – He not only managed to mess up a relatively easy story with awful CGI and lack of directing ideas. (2/10)
Action: Plenty of guns being fired, not sure if they ever hit anything as everything is in the pitch black. (3/10)
Horror: Doesn’t give you any scares, frights, well made with the acting. (1/10)
Settings: The settings used for the gun fights are used well, because they would make real settings for such a discover if someone wanted to keep it quiet. (6/10)
Special Effects: Terrible special effects that I only saw one good one and that was a soldier’s head split in two. (1/10)
Suggestion: I think if you are bored one night and this is on it would be acceptable to watch it as it slips close to the line of so bad you have to see. (Late Night TV)
Best Part: The idea
Worst Part: The CGI, Acting and Execution of the idea.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Actually has one sequel
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $10 Million
Budget: $20 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 39 Minutes
Tagline: Can mankind defeat the army of darkness unleashed by an ancient evil cult?
Overall: Not only did this film destroy the source material, it ruined any chance the video game had of returning.
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/11/09/alone-in-the-dark-2005/
Actor Review
Christian Slater: Edward Carnby a paranormal investigator who has been trying to uncover the truth about his childhood, this puts him in danger as this time he has got closer than ever before. He must team up with his old organisation to final uncover the truth that has lost him the memories of his childhood. Slater strolls for this role without showing any of the skills that made him a star in the early 90s. (5/10)
slater
Tara Reid: Aline Cedrac assistant curator at the museum who also happens to be Edward’s girlfriend, she gets caught up in the middle of the battle after she uncover the location of the door. Going to take a deep breath before going for this one, just no how did this happen? Try your luck in romantic comedies. (2/10)
reid
Stephen Dorff: Commander Burke leader of a military team trying to keep the monsters away from the public, old partner of Edward but after seeing the truth he teams up with them to uncover the truth. Stephen can act and has proven it many times, just need to give him something to work with. (4/10)
dorff
Frank C Turner: Sam an old connection within the organisation that still communicates with Edward, he fills in the science gaps and you can guess what happens to him by the end. Basic supporting performance. (4/10)
fisher
Matthew Walker: Professor Hudgens scientist trying to open the door to the truth about the ancient people, he will do anything to get his answers including sacrificing anybody who gets in his way. As villains go this is generic one that doesn’t need too much to make them special. (4/10)
profes
Director Review: Uwe Boll – He not only managed to mess up a relatively easy story with awful CGI and lack of directing ideas. (2/10)
Action: Plenty of guns being fired, not sure if they ever hit anything as everything is in the pitch black. (3/10)
Horror: Doesn’t give you any scares, frights, well made with the acting. (1/10)
Settings: The settings used for the gun fights are used well, because they would make real settings for such a discover if someone wanted to keep it quiet. (6/10)
Special Effects: Terrible special effects that I only saw one good one and that was a soldier’s head split in two. (1/10)
Suggestion: I think if you are bored one night and this is on it would be acceptable to watch it as it slips close to the line of so bad you have to see. (Late Night TV)
Best Part: The idea
Worst Part: The CGI, Acting and Execution of the idea.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Actually has one sequel
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $10 Million
Budget: $20 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 39 Minutes
Tagline: Can mankind defeat the army of darkness unleashed by an ancient evil cult?
Overall: Not only did this film destroy the source material, it ruined any chance the video game had of returning.
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/11/09/alone-in-the-dark-2005/
Lee (2222 KP) rated Sonic the Hedgehog (2020) in Movies
Feb 17, 2020
It’s been a very long time since I played the Sonic the Hedgehog video games on my brothers SEGA Megadrive. I was, and always have been, a Nintendo guy, so since then my only experience of Sonic has been when he joins forces with Mario and Co for Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games. I do have good memories of his solo outings though, and he is clearly an enduring and popular character, ideally suited for a CGI/live action movie.
When we first meet Sonic, he’s a young hedgehog on his home world, zipping about the place without a care in the world and being mentored by an owl called Longclaw. Before we get a chance to learn anything about Longclaw and the world that he and Sonic inhabit, some bad guy echidnas show up, looking to get their hands on Sonic and his speedy powers. Longclaw gives Sonic a bag of rings that can be used to open a portal to another world, and after opening one for him to escape through, tells him to use one whenever he is in danger of being captured.
Cut to Green Hills, Montana where we meet local sheriff Tom Wachowski (James Marsden) and his wife Maddie (Tika Sumpter). Tom has been accepted, pending background checks, into the San Francisco police department, and he and Maddie are currently in the process of looking at houses there. We also learn that a now grown up Sonic has found his way into our world and has been living in hiding in Green Hills for some time now. The local crazy old man, Crazy Carl, claims to have seen a ‘blue devil’ on a number of occasions, but otherwise Sonic has managed to stay hidden. He’s even got himself a little underground man cave, and has become quite attached to Tom and Maddie, observing and following their every day lives from afar.
When Sonic manages to cause a city-wide power outage one evening, he draws the attention of the government, who bring in mad scientist Dr Robotnik (Jim Carrey) to investigate. When the gold rings that Sonic needs to transport to another world are mislaid, and as Robotnik and his team close in on him, Sonic makes himself known to an unsuspecting Tom and asks for his help. The movie then becomes a road trip, with them both on the run, evading Dr Robotnik and searching for the gold rings.
The CGI representation of Sonic had been something of a hot talking point, ever since the release of the first trailer sparked a huge online backlash. Looking more human, with smaller eyes, and longer limbs, the reaction of horror by anyone vaguely familiar with the character was enough to make director Jeff Fowler stand up and take notice, and the release date of the movie was pushed back to allow for some serious rework by the VFX team. Thankfully, when the new trailer was released, it was to a much more positive reaction, and rightfully so - Sonic was now much more aligned to his video game persona and on the receiving end of some pretty decent marketing material and promotion to back it all up. Ben Schwartz provides the voice for Sonic, giving him a wonderful childlike quality - in awe of the world around him, funny and confident in his abilities, but never really coming across as an annoying brat.
Jim Carrey brings to Robotnik the kind of madcap comedy that he we haven’t seen from him in a long time and is a delight in every scene he features. James Marsden is no stranger to appearing alongside CGI characters in children’s movies, and does his part well once again. Outside of that, the rest of the cast don’t get much to work with and kind of just fade into the background.
Overall, Sonic the Hedgehog is a fairly enjoyable movie, but it’s also instantly forgettable. It’s been a couple of days since I saw it and, apart from a couple of fun action scenes along the way, and the climactic showdown, I really don’t remember very much about it. If you’ve seen the wonderful scenes in the X-Men movies where QuickSilver zips around, interacting with characters and scenery as though time has stood still, then there are a few scenes just like that for you to enjoy. It’s a much better movie than I was expecting to see, but ultimately I think it could have been a hello a lot worse if they’d stuck to their guns with the original character design.
When we first meet Sonic, he’s a young hedgehog on his home world, zipping about the place without a care in the world and being mentored by an owl called Longclaw. Before we get a chance to learn anything about Longclaw and the world that he and Sonic inhabit, some bad guy echidnas show up, looking to get their hands on Sonic and his speedy powers. Longclaw gives Sonic a bag of rings that can be used to open a portal to another world, and after opening one for him to escape through, tells him to use one whenever he is in danger of being captured.
Cut to Green Hills, Montana where we meet local sheriff Tom Wachowski (James Marsden) and his wife Maddie (Tika Sumpter). Tom has been accepted, pending background checks, into the San Francisco police department, and he and Maddie are currently in the process of looking at houses there. We also learn that a now grown up Sonic has found his way into our world and has been living in hiding in Green Hills for some time now. The local crazy old man, Crazy Carl, claims to have seen a ‘blue devil’ on a number of occasions, but otherwise Sonic has managed to stay hidden. He’s even got himself a little underground man cave, and has become quite attached to Tom and Maddie, observing and following their every day lives from afar.
When Sonic manages to cause a city-wide power outage one evening, he draws the attention of the government, who bring in mad scientist Dr Robotnik (Jim Carrey) to investigate. When the gold rings that Sonic needs to transport to another world are mislaid, and as Robotnik and his team close in on him, Sonic makes himself known to an unsuspecting Tom and asks for his help. The movie then becomes a road trip, with them both on the run, evading Dr Robotnik and searching for the gold rings.
The CGI representation of Sonic had been something of a hot talking point, ever since the release of the first trailer sparked a huge online backlash. Looking more human, with smaller eyes, and longer limbs, the reaction of horror by anyone vaguely familiar with the character was enough to make director Jeff Fowler stand up and take notice, and the release date of the movie was pushed back to allow for some serious rework by the VFX team. Thankfully, when the new trailer was released, it was to a much more positive reaction, and rightfully so - Sonic was now much more aligned to his video game persona and on the receiving end of some pretty decent marketing material and promotion to back it all up. Ben Schwartz provides the voice for Sonic, giving him a wonderful childlike quality - in awe of the world around him, funny and confident in his abilities, but never really coming across as an annoying brat.
Jim Carrey brings to Robotnik the kind of madcap comedy that he we haven’t seen from him in a long time and is a delight in every scene he features. James Marsden is no stranger to appearing alongside CGI characters in children’s movies, and does his part well once again. Outside of that, the rest of the cast don’t get much to work with and kind of just fade into the background.
Overall, Sonic the Hedgehog is a fairly enjoyable movie, but it’s also instantly forgettable. It’s been a couple of days since I saw it and, apart from a couple of fun action scenes along the way, and the climactic showdown, I really don’t remember very much about it. If you’ve seen the wonderful scenes in the X-Men movies where QuickSilver zips around, interacting with characters and scenery as though time has stood still, then there are a few scenes just like that for you to enjoy. It’s a much better movie than I was expecting to see, but ultimately I think it could have been a hello a lot worse if they’d stuck to their guns with the original character design.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Last Christmas (2019) in Movies
Nov 25, 2019
Alas, Christmas
Oh Dear! Now I wouldn't go as far as saying I had "high hopes" for this film, but as a real fan of the goo-fest that is "Love Actually" I at least thought this might fill some seasonal void in the run up to the festive season. "Best Christmas film of the decade!!" screams the marketing. Er... no.
This review will be spoiler free.
The plot: Kate (Emilia Clarke) is an immigrant from the former-Yugoslavia now living in London. She has a dead-end job working for "Santa" (Michelle Yeoh) in a Christmas shop in Covent Garden. She is perennially lubricated both with drink and other bodily fluids thanks to her hedonistic lifestyle. And she really likes George Michael.
But life just seems vacuous and to have no purpose for her anymore. Her composure is not helped by her mother (Emma Thompson) constantly fussing about her health, since Kate has only recently recovered from a serious illness.
Dropping into her life then comes Tom (Henry Golding). Smartly dressed and calmly reassuring, Tom seems to have the potential to start turning Kate's life around. But is she prepared to listen?
There are startling similarities here with Phoebe Waller-Bridge's triumphant tribute to hedonistic 30-something sex-addicted females everywhere.... "Fleabag". Kate is similarly louche, hopping from bed to bed in a heartbeat. She has a dysfunctional family and - most strikingly - she has a particularly difficult relationship with her high-achieving sister. This is not helped by a remarkable similarity between the actress playing Marta (Lydia Leonard ) and Fleabag's Clare (Sian Clifford). But whereas Fleabag is both brilliantly written, heart-rending and hilarious, this simply is not.
There were a total of two laughs in the movie for me. Period. Both were lines delivered by Emma Thompson, and if you've seen the film you probably know the ones. Now, I'm aware that Thompson co-wrote the script and she is, of course, a national acting treasure. But here the script is clunky and all of the "comic" scenes are so laboured and forced that they land like leaden weights.
And some of it makes no sense whatsoever. There is some strange Danish sauerkraut salesman (Peter Mygind) with a crush on "Santa". He suddenly appears in the shop acting like some escaped mental patient. When he first appears, acting bizarrely, you think, "oh, there must be some fascinating backstory between these two - a murky past they are trying to rekindle". But no! This is the first time they have EVER met? It's completely bonkers!
Much was made of this being Michelle Yeoh's "first comedy". Sorry, but if she proves anything here it is that she is not a comic actress.
Emilia Clarke is still looking to land in a decent mainstream role outside "Game of Thrones", after a failed Terminator sequel, a half-decent weepie ("Me Before You") and the commercial failure that was "Solo". Here she certainly looks curvaciously cute as the Christmas elf. But unfortunately cute can't save her from the car-crash of a script.
Similarly Henry Golding is well-dressed eye-candy for the ladies, almost doing a re-tread of his cool and laid-back character from the excellent "Crazy Rich Asians". Without the same need to be "zany", he fairs slightly better from the script. But again, this feels like one to shuffle into a quiet corner of his CV.
What can I say that's even remotely good about this? Three things:
1) London. It looks glorious, decked out in lights like some chocolate-box-cover cum tourist-board publicity shot. London is one of the most photogenic cities on the planet, and I could relate to Tom's mantra to "look up" and see all of the architectural quirks and foibles that exist around every corner in that wonderful city;
2) The payoff. Exactly when you get the payoff will depend on how much you know going in (if you've managed to avoid the trailer... continue to avoid it!) and how attentive you are. There's an "aha!" moment. And it's nicely played out.
3) There's a topical xenophobic Brexit angle, that's a little clumsy in the exposition but - in my view - is good for the telling.
This is a movie desperately trying to blend "Love Actually" with another Christmas classic (no... not "Die Hard"... but to say more would introduce spoilers!) But in my view it misses badly.
The director is Paul Feig, famous for "Bridesmaids" and "Spy" and infamous for the female "Ghostbusters" reboot.
There are clearly lovers of this film. At the time of writing it has made an impressive $51M on its $25M budget. But I went with another three cinema-goers from my family, all of differing ages and sentiments: and we all universally agreed on the rating for this one.
(For the graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/25/one-manns-movies-film-review-last-christmas-2019/ . Thanks).
This review will be spoiler free.
The plot: Kate (Emilia Clarke) is an immigrant from the former-Yugoslavia now living in London. She has a dead-end job working for "Santa" (Michelle Yeoh) in a Christmas shop in Covent Garden. She is perennially lubricated both with drink and other bodily fluids thanks to her hedonistic lifestyle. And she really likes George Michael.
But life just seems vacuous and to have no purpose for her anymore. Her composure is not helped by her mother (Emma Thompson) constantly fussing about her health, since Kate has only recently recovered from a serious illness.
Dropping into her life then comes Tom (Henry Golding). Smartly dressed and calmly reassuring, Tom seems to have the potential to start turning Kate's life around. But is she prepared to listen?
There are startling similarities here with Phoebe Waller-Bridge's triumphant tribute to hedonistic 30-something sex-addicted females everywhere.... "Fleabag". Kate is similarly louche, hopping from bed to bed in a heartbeat. She has a dysfunctional family and - most strikingly - she has a particularly difficult relationship with her high-achieving sister. This is not helped by a remarkable similarity between the actress playing Marta (Lydia Leonard ) and Fleabag's Clare (Sian Clifford). But whereas Fleabag is both brilliantly written, heart-rending and hilarious, this simply is not.
There were a total of two laughs in the movie for me. Period. Both were lines delivered by Emma Thompson, and if you've seen the film you probably know the ones. Now, I'm aware that Thompson co-wrote the script and she is, of course, a national acting treasure. But here the script is clunky and all of the "comic" scenes are so laboured and forced that they land like leaden weights.
And some of it makes no sense whatsoever. There is some strange Danish sauerkraut salesman (Peter Mygind) with a crush on "Santa". He suddenly appears in the shop acting like some escaped mental patient. When he first appears, acting bizarrely, you think, "oh, there must be some fascinating backstory between these two - a murky past they are trying to rekindle". But no! This is the first time they have EVER met? It's completely bonkers!
Much was made of this being Michelle Yeoh's "first comedy". Sorry, but if she proves anything here it is that she is not a comic actress.
Emilia Clarke is still looking to land in a decent mainstream role outside "Game of Thrones", after a failed Terminator sequel, a half-decent weepie ("Me Before You") and the commercial failure that was "Solo". Here she certainly looks curvaciously cute as the Christmas elf. But unfortunately cute can't save her from the car-crash of a script.
Similarly Henry Golding is well-dressed eye-candy for the ladies, almost doing a re-tread of his cool and laid-back character from the excellent "Crazy Rich Asians". Without the same need to be "zany", he fairs slightly better from the script. But again, this feels like one to shuffle into a quiet corner of his CV.
What can I say that's even remotely good about this? Three things:
1) London. It looks glorious, decked out in lights like some chocolate-box-cover cum tourist-board publicity shot. London is one of the most photogenic cities on the planet, and I could relate to Tom's mantra to "look up" and see all of the architectural quirks and foibles that exist around every corner in that wonderful city;
2) The payoff. Exactly when you get the payoff will depend on how much you know going in (if you've managed to avoid the trailer... continue to avoid it!) and how attentive you are. There's an "aha!" moment. And it's nicely played out.
3) There's a topical xenophobic Brexit angle, that's a little clumsy in the exposition but - in my view - is good for the telling.
This is a movie desperately trying to blend "Love Actually" with another Christmas classic (no... not "Die Hard"... but to say more would introduce spoilers!) But in my view it misses badly.
The director is Paul Feig, famous for "Bridesmaids" and "Spy" and infamous for the female "Ghostbusters" reboot.
There are clearly lovers of this film. At the time of writing it has made an impressive $51M on its $25M budget. But I went with another three cinema-goers from my family, all of differing ages and sentiments: and we all universally agreed on the rating for this one.
(For the graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/25/one-manns-movies-film-review-last-christmas-2019/ . Thanks).
