Search
Search results
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Bellum Magica in Tabletop Games
Jan 1, 2022
One of the many recent trends in board games has been that of playing as the villains in the game’s lore. One of the bigger games that I remember employing this little shift is Legendary: Marvel Villains, and another that I truly enjoy is Disney Villainous. There is just something about playing as the bad guys in a game that is designed for the bad guys to finally win. Enter Bellum Magica, a game that I didn’t even realize existed until it arrived on my door step from Blue Orange Games. I wonder, will this one find its way into my collection permanently?
Bellum Magica is a medieval fantasy engine building game for two to five players. In it, players are evil lords waging war on a local village and each other in an attempt to becoming the richest lord of all. The winner is the player who earns the most VP from treasure chests looted during the game.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, each player chooses a castle board and is randomly dealt two goblin cards to be added to the castle. These goblin cards have icons on the left and the right of the main character art, and will slide beneath the main castle board on either side to activate their icons for the duration. Next, the human kingdom (that will inevitably be attacked by players) is setup per number of players and placed on the table. The two different creature decks are shuffled and two cards from each pile are revealed. The other tokens are placed in the insert “token reserves” and are available to all. The first player takes the die and is known as the Captain. The game is now setup and ready to begin!
Each turn consists of six phases and, luckily, the game comes with a couple player aids to remind players of the order. First, the Captain rolls the die to Choose an active horde. Whichever result is rolled will then activate the corresponding line on the castle board, with all icons activating during the turn. If a player is unsatisfied with the rolled result, they may discard a barrel token in order to buy a round of drinks for the Captain, forcing them to re-roll the die. The Captain may also discard a Confusion Spell token in order to re-roll the die as well. These items are earned later in the game from different actions. Next, all players Gather resources (collect items) shown on the line that is activated on their castle board and any cards that have been added to alter these items (see photo below). Players will compare treasure map icons shown on the active line, and Call back their scouts who have gone in search of treasure chests. The player with the most icons will collect a metal chest, and if players are tied for the most, they each instead collect a wooden chest.
Once all items have been collected, players may enact the Attack action in turn order. Depending on the number and types of sword icons showing on the right side of players’ castle boards, they may choose to attack one of the face-up kingdom cards in the offer OR may choose to instead attack another player. In order to attack, the player will need to possess at least as many normal swords and/or magic swords as are showing on the kingdom card or on an opponent’s castle board. By successfully attacking, the player will collect spoils shown on the kingdom card, or may steal a treasure from an opponent, provided the attacker also possesses a thief icon on the active line.
When attacks are all resolved, players may next Recruit creatures from the setup creature decks by paying the recruitment costs (in food and glyph tokens). Players then decide under which side of their castle board they will slide the newly-acquired creature to aid in their efforts on future turns. These creatures can provide more resources or more attacking icons, depending on the side added.
After all these phases have been completed, the End of the Turn phase aptly finishes the turn. Cards are replenished and the new Captain is passed the die. Play continues in this fashion until one player has ten treasure chests at the end of an Attack phase. The player with the most VP from collected treasure chests is the winner!
Components. This game boasts some excellent artwork and some of the cutest little tokens I’ve seen. Firstly, the art is simply amazing. I love the looks of it, and the game is beautiful on the table once setup and playing. There are three types of wooden tokens that just make me smile while playing with them: little chicken legs, beer barrels, and cool little purple glyphs. I honestly wish they were bigger, but I understand cost of manufacturing places limitations when trying to keep products within a certain price point. All said, though, the components are great with this one!
I have one super tiny rule shrug: the addition of the Confuse Spell token and its rules. Now, I think I understand WHY it exists – these can be used every turn a player is Captain. So, it acts like a beer barrel, but is useful on future turns when you are Captain. If players are good at the game, and if you play with the full complement of players, you may not have many turns as Captain before someone wins, so I guess I don’t fully agree with the necessity of the Confusion Spells… except to further instill the fantasy theme.
That said, I still really enjoy Bellum Magica as a gateway-level engine builder. The more cards you add to your castle board, the better opportunities you give yourself to gain more and more resources throughout each turn. I have found that getting yourself a magic sword icon or more as soon as possible helps setup bigger turns and can be the difference between victory and embarrassment. As the kingdom cards start running out, their difficulty level increases, so having those extra magic swords come in handy big time. Also, investing in thief icons to be able to control other players’ treasure chest hoards may be invaluable. There are many ways to craft each turn to maximize effectiveness, and that helps keep Bellum Magica relevant and exciting to play.
It is probably no surprise by now, but I do enjoy playing Bellum Magica. When I first tried reading the rules I was a bit confused and wasn’t quite sure what the point was, but as I started playing more and more, the rules are really just pared down, almost like an outline or first draft. If you can stick with it and get it to the table, I believe you will find a very capable gateway engine building game with an accessible theme and great art and components. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one metal treasure chested 4 / 6. I do believe I will continue to love it more and more as I play it more and more. If you align with my board game tastes, this is an easy one to recommend. If you and I normally align somewhat, then I might suggest playing someone else’s copy before grabbing one of your own right away. I am more into gateway-weighted games than most reviewers, I’m sure, so this might be a bit lighter than your normal fare. In any case, I think this one needs to be played. A lot. If you ever see me out and about, or at a convention, let me know that you want to play this with me and I will not turn down the opportunity.
Bellum Magica is a medieval fantasy engine building game for two to five players. In it, players are evil lords waging war on a local village and each other in an attempt to becoming the richest lord of all. The winner is the player who earns the most VP from treasure chests looted during the game.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, each player chooses a castle board and is randomly dealt two goblin cards to be added to the castle. These goblin cards have icons on the left and the right of the main character art, and will slide beneath the main castle board on either side to activate their icons for the duration. Next, the human kingdom (that will inevitably be attacked by players) is setup per number of players and placed on the table. The two different creature decks are shuffled and two cards from each pile are revealed. The other tokens are placed in the insert “token reserves” and are available to all. The first player takes the die and is known as the Captain. The game is now setup and ready to begin!
Each turn consists of six phases and, luckily, the game comes with a couple player aids to remind players of the order. First, the Captain rolls the die to Choose an active horde. Whichever result is rolled will then activate the corresponding line on the castle board, with all icons activating during the turn. If a player is unsatisfied with the rolled result, they may discard a barrel token in order to buy a round of drinks for the Captain, forcing them to re-roll the die. The Captain may also discard a Confusion Spell token in order to re-roll the die as well. These items are earned later in the game from different actions. Next, all players Gather resources (collect items) shown on the line that is activated on their castle board and any cards that have been added to alter these items (see photo below). Players will compare treasure map icons shown on the active line, and Call back their scouts who have gone in search of treasure chests. The player with the most icons will collect a metal chest, and if players are tied for the most, they each instead collect a wooden chest.
Once all items have been collected, players may enact the Attack action in turn order. Depending on the number and types of sword icons showing on the right side of players’ castle boards, they may choose to attack one of the face-up kingdom cards in the offer OR may choose to instead attack another player. In order to attack, the player will need to possess at least as many normal swords and/or magic swords as are showing on the kingdom card or on an opponent’s castle board. By successfully attacking, the player will collect spoils shown on the kingdom card, or may steal a treasure from an opponent, provided the attacker also possesses a thief icon on the active line.
When attacks are all resolved, players may next Recruit creatures from the setup creature decks by paying the recruitment costs (in food and glyph tokens). Players then decide under which side of their castle board they will slide the newly-acquired creature to aid in their efforts on future turns. These creatures can provide more resources or more attacking icons, depending on the side added.
After all these phases have been completed, the End of the Turn phase aptly finishes the turn. Cards are replenished and the new Captain is passed the die. Play continues in this fashion until one player has ten treasure chests at the end of an Attack phase. The player with the most VP from collected treasure chests is the winner!
Components. This game boasts some excellent artwork and some of the cutest little tokens I’ve seen. Firstly, the art is simply amazing. I love the looks of it, and the game is beautiful on the table once setup and playing. There are three types of wooden tokens that just make me smile while playing with them: little chicken legs, beer barrels, and cool little purple glyphs. I honestly wish they were bigger, but I understand cost of manufacturing places limitations when trying to keep products within a certain price point. All said, though, the components are great with this one!
I have one super tiny rule shrug: the addition of the Confuse Spell token and its rules. Now, I think I understand WHY it exists – these can be used every turn a player is Captain. So, it acts like a beer barrel, but is useful on future turns when you are Captain. If players are good at the game, and if you play with the full complement of players, you may not have many turns as Captain before someone wins, so I guess I don’t fully agree with the necessity of the Confusion Spells… except to further instill the fantasy theme.
That said, I still really enjoy Bellum Magica as a gateway-level engine builder. The more cards you add to your castle board, the better opportunities you give yourself to gain more and more resources throughout each turn. I have found that getting yourself a magic sword icon or more as soon as possible helps setup bigger turns and can be the difference between victory and embarrassment. As the kingdom cards start running out, their difficulty level increases, so having those extra magic swords come in handy big time. Also, investing in thief icons to be able to control other players’ treasure chest hoards may be invaluable. There are many ways to craft each turn to maximize effectiveness, and that helps keep Bellum Magica relevant and exciting to play.
It is probably no surprise by now, but I do enjoy playing Bellum Magica. When I first tried reading the rules I was a bit confused and wasn’t quite sure what the point was, but as I started playing more and more, the rules are really just pared down, almost like an outline or first draft. If you can stick with it and get it to the table, I believe you will find a very capable gateway engine building game with an accessible theme and great art and components. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one metal treasure chested 4 / 6. I do believe I will continue to love it more and more as I play it more and more. If you align with my board game tastes, this is an easy one to recommend. If you and I normally align somewhat, then I might suggest playing someone else’s copy before grabbing one of your own right away. I am more into gateway-weighted games than most reviewers, I’m sure, so this might be a bit lighter than your normal fare. In any case, I think this one needs to be played. A lot. If you ever see me out and about, or at a convention, let me know that you want to play this with me and I will not turn down the opportunity.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Schrodinger's Film
There is a thought experiment that is used to help make sense of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Say you have a cat, a box and a fragile vial of poison. You put the cat and the poison in the box knowing that the vial may break, you lunatic.
At this point, so goes the thought experiment, until we can perceive whether or not the cat is dead, the cat is dead AND alive simultaneously, and it is only when you look into the box that you know whether you have a friend for life or a Korean meal.
I bring this up because I often insist that I prefer a bad movie with great moments than a movie that’s adequate across the board, but Guy Ritchie’s most recent film certainly puts that to the test. It’s almost my favourite film of the year but is full of nigh-unforgiveable blunders that I don’t think I can watch it again. But I don’t regret seeing it. King Arthur is both good and not good and the cat is still in the box.
Well, I might as well start with what’s good about the film. For one, the character of Arthur himself has a pretty interesting arc. Normally interpretations of the Arthur myth focus on the King bit, so despite it being yet another origin story, it at least is for a character who rarely gets one, and it’s an interesting spin on the reluctant hero arc.
In addition, the world itself feels like it desperately needs a hero. You get the sense that this world is falling apart, which is much better than some other chosen one narratives like Harry Potter, where even when Voldemort took over the wizarding world he didn’t seem to do anything. Also, this is a fantasy film that isn’t just Lord of the Rings again, but a more Celtic mystic mythology that is ripe for exploration.
Then there’s Jude Law, who is so moustache-twirlingly evil that he’s hilarious. He’s clearly having the time of his life playing this cartoon super villain and making him campy enough to be fun while still threatening and compelling when he needs to be.
Shame about the rest of the cast, who all have the same personality, that of “Ah’m just one o’ tha lads, apples and pears, apples and pears.” It’s like a Chelsea game but set in the Dark Ages. So it’s identical to a Chelsea game. The only exception is Astrid Frizbee’s mage, whose intense magic power is so devastating that she manages to put a sleep spell on the audience every time she opens her noise-hole and lets out a monotone bored drone.
There’s also the action, and Hollywood, we need to talk. I thought that shaky cam was just a phase, but I’ve seen you doing it again, and you need to stop. I’ve played VR games where you do nothing but ride particularly unstable cows and came out the other end less motion sick than your sword fighting scenes. Come on, you’re better than this, and we just what’s best for you, so just buy a steady-cam already.
Maybe it’s Guy Ritchie himself, though. Nothing in the film seems to last longer than three minutes aside Arthur’s whining. Sometimes it works, like the very snappy but informative way we see Arthur grow from stupid baby to stupid adult, and sometimes it’s stupid, like when an entire other movie’s worth of content gets squashed into an uninspired montage.
But that’s the great dilemma; the montages are good and bad, like the movie itself. You will only enjoy the movie if you enjoy the movie but if you don’t then you won’t. I write this piece a defeated critic, ladies and gentlemen. Is it worth seeing? I don’t really know. A bigger fan of Guy Ritchie or quantum mechanics than I will probably get something out of it and there are worse movies out there, but it also can’t help but disappoint somehow. The cat isn’t dead, but it has a bit of a cold.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/25/schrodingers-film-king-arthur-legend-of-the-sword-review/
At this point, so goes the thought experiment, until we can perceive whether or not the cat is dead, the cat is dead AND alive simultaneously, and it is only when you look into the box that you know whether you have a friend for life or a Korean meal.
I bring this up because I often insist that I prefer a bad movie with great moments than a movie that’s adequate across the board, but Guy Ritchie’s most recent film certainly puts that to the test. It’s almost my favourite film of the year but is full of nigh-unforgiveable blunders that I don’t think I can watch it again. But I don’t regret seeing it. King Arthur is both good and not good and the cat is still in the box.
Well, I might as well start with what’s good about the film. For one, the character of Arthur himself has a pretty interesting arc. Normally interpretations of the Arthur myth focus on the King bit, so despite it being yet another origin story, it at least is for a character who rarely gets one, and it’s an interesting spin on the reluctant hero arc.
In addition, the world itself feels like it desperately needs a hero. You get the sense that this world is falling apart, which is much better than some other chosen one narratives like Harry Potter, where even when Voldemort took over the wizarding world he didn’t seem to do anything. Also, this is a fantasy film that isn’t just Lord of the Rings again, but a more Celtic mystic mythology that is ripe for exploration.
Then there’s Jude Law, who is so moustache-twirlingly evil that he’s hilarious. He’s clearly having the time of his life playing this cartoon super villain and making him campy enough to be fun while still threatening and compelling when he needs to be.
Shame about the rest of the cast, who all have the same personality, that of “Ah’m just one o’ tha lads, apples and pears, apples and pears.” It’s like a Chelsea game but set in the Dark Ages. So it’s identical to a Chelsea game. The only exception is Astrid Frizbee’s mage, whose intense magic power is so devastating that she manages to put a sleep spell on the audience every time she opens her noise-hole and lets out a monotone bored drone.
There’s also the action, and Hollywood, we need to talk. I thought that shaky cam was just a phase, but I’ve seen you doing it again, and you need to stop. I’ve played VR games where you do nothing but ride particularly unstable cows and came out the other end less motion sick than your sword fighting scenes. Come on, you’re better than this, and we just what’s best for you, so just buy a steady-cam already.
Maybe it’s Guy Ritchie himself, though. Nothing in the film seems to last longer than three minutes aside Arthur’s whining. Sometimes it works, like the very snappy but informative way we see Arthur grow from stupid baby to stupid adult, and sometimes it’s stupid, like when an entire other movie’s worth of content gets squashed into an uninspired montage.
But that’s the great dilemma; the montages are good and bad, like the movie itself. You will only enjoy the movie if you enjoy the movie but if you don’t then you won’t. I write this piece a defeated critic, ladies and gentlemen. Is it worth seeing? I don’t really know. A bigger fan of Guy Ritchie or quantum mechanics than I will probably get something out of it and there are worse movies out there, but it also can’t help but disappoint somehow. The cat isn’t dead, but it has a bit of a cold.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/25/schrodingers-film-king-arthur-legend-of-the-sword-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
The much anticipated second film in Peter Jackson’s Hobbit Trilogy has arrived in time to reap box office gold much the way the previous films based on Tolkien’s works have. The film continues the adventure started in the previous film and finds the band of adventurers chased by a pack of Orcs and faced with the deadly and dark Mirkwood Forest as they attempt to reach The Lonely Mountain in time.
The journey is long and filled with peril as everything from Orcs to giant spiders stand in the way and should the group be successful in reaching their destination, there is the little matter of a giant and very nasty dragon named Smaug to contend with.
Undaunted the group press on despite finding danger a constant companion and once again give us a series staples of endless shots of them walking and walking in locales lifted from the Tourism New Zealand film room in between the amazing visual work that makes up the battle sequence and other-worldly visuals of the film.
Bilbo (Martin Freeman), is becoming more and more under the spell of the ring he obtained in the previous film and Gandalf (Sir Ian McKellen), suspects that darker forces are growing and sets off to confirm his suspicions. This divides the film into two quest centric storylines that are sure to cause some division amongst fans of the series.
The film does manage to hold your attention throughout its 2.5 hr plus run time and does have a very enjoyable finale act as the arrival of Smug (Benedict Cumberbatch), for me has been honestly the most enjoyable of any of the four prior films in the series to date. His interactions with Bilbo and the group flesh him out to be more than a creation of CGI, but rather infuse him with a evil and complexity that make him a very compelling and dynamic character.
Despite the strong cast and amazing visual FX in the film that is captured very well by the 3D filming Jackson used, the movie does have it’s share of frustrations.
Jackson has once again loaded the film with tons of characters, scenarios, and padding that easily make up more than half of the film. The idea seems to be to show a greater connection to the original LOTR films and the inclusion of Orlando Bloom as Legolas and Evangeline Lilly as Tauriel is bound to cause controversy. On one hand it was great to see the two characters and the great amounts of action they brought to the film, but the entire time I kept thinking that there was no need for most of this extra stuff as it was included simply to stretch out the film in order to justify a third movie and ensure another big box office.
When the film reaches it’s conclusion it was very clear to me that they could have completed the film in two films had the removed all of the padding and fluff and stuck to the source material. Segments are drawn out or included that really do not need to be there no matter how exciting and visually appealing they may be.
When the film was first announced it was planned to be two films but was later expanded to three when Jackson took over as Director following the departure of Guillermo del Toro. If one film was sufficient to capture each book in the original series than three films for this one book is simply overkill to me and it undermines the source material.
That being said, I did enjoy the film as it works best for me if I look at it as “inspired by’ rather than a cinematic translation of the book and in doing so I was able to get caught up in the action of the film and the character’s.
In the end the film is a true delight filled with plenty of action and adventure and will keep fans old and new entertained as despite the issues I had with it, it was one of the better action/fantasy films of the year and is a great technological achievement.
http://sknr.net/2013/12/13/the-hobbit-the-desolation-of-smaug/
The journey is long and filled with peril as everything from Orcs to giant spiders stand in the way and should the group be successful in reaching their destination, there is the little matter of a giant and very nasty dragon named Smaug to contend with.
Undaunted the group press on despite finding danger a constant companion and once again give us a series staples of endless shots of them walking and walking in locales lifted from the Tourism New Zealand film room in between the amazing visual work that makes up the battle sequence and other-worldly visuals of the film.
Bilbo (Martin Freeman), is becoming more and more under the spell of the ring he obtained in the previous film and Gandalf (Sir Ian McKellen), suspects that darker forces are growing and sets off to confirm his suspicions. This divides the film into two quest centric storylines that are sure to cause some division amongst fans of the series.
The film does manage to hold your attention throughout its 2.5 hr plus run time and does have a very enjoyable finale act as the arrival of Smug (Benedict Cumberbatch), for me has been honestly the most enjoyable of any of the four prior films in the series to date. His interactions with Bilbo and the group flesh him out to be more than a creation of CGI, but rather infuse him with a evil and complexity that make him a very compelling and dynamic character.
Despite the strong cast and amazing visual FX in the film that is captured very well by the 3D filming Jackson used, the movie does have it’s share of frustrations.
Jackson has once again loaded the film with tons of characters, scenarios, and padding that easily make up more than half of the film. The idea seems to be to show a greater connection to the original LOTR films and the inclusion of Orlando Bloom as Legolas and Evangeline Lilly as Tauriel is bound to cause controversy. On one hand it was great to see the two characters and the great amounts of action they brought to the film, but the entire time I kept thinking that there was no need for most of this extra stuff as it was included simply to stretch out the film in order to justify a third movie and ensure another big box office.
When the film reaches it’s conclusion it was very clear to me that they could have completed the film in two films had the removed all of the padding and fluff and stuck to the source material. Segments are drawn out or included that really do not need to be there no matter how exciting and visually appealing they may be.
When the film was first announced it was planned to be two films but was later expanded to three when Jackson took over as Director following the departure of Guillermo del Toro. If one film was sufficient to capture each book in the original series than three films for this one book is simply overkill to me and it undermines the source material.
That being said, I did enjoy the film as it works best for me if I look at it as “inspired by’ rather than a cinematic translation of the book and in doing so I was able to get caught up in the action of the film and the character’s.
In the end the film is a true delight filled with plenty of action and adventure and will keep fans old and new entertained as despite the issues I had with it, it was one of the better action/fantasy films of the year and is a great technological achievement.
http://sknr.net/2013/12/13/the-hobbit-the-desolation-of-smaug/
Ross (3282 KP) rated Cold Iron (Masters & Mages #1) in Books
Jan 22, 2019
Elaborate prose and an unsettling amount of "wait and see" damaged my enjoyment
This book feels like your standard coming-of-age fantasy - young man from a simple village finds himself in the big city destined for greatness and surrounds himself with strong watchers while he grows into his potential. It is that and it is so much more.
The story that is told is how Aranthur, this young man (selected from his village to attend the big city university) finds himself in the midst of conflict and significant events in the empire's changing status. The idea of fate dictating that this one man would be at the centre of things (see Wheel of Time) is not one that is explored here. While it is hinted at (he is frequently told off for ending up in unusual circumstances), it isn't overly laboured. Nobody tells him he was chosen or anything like that. Instead he gradually learns that he has found himself at the centre of political intrigue, plotting, counter-plotting, conspiracies and war.
This book is not about Aranthur. He is just the focal point of the book, the story is so much bigger than him. This meant it did at times become a little hard to take that he always just happened to meet the right person, go to the right place at the right time in order to witness or participate in a number of significant plot events. In hindsight, this is largely all explained as some hidden agenda and him being put in those places to make those decisions but at the time it was a little jarring.
The narrative is more akin to Robert Jordan than many contemporary writers - so much overly elaborate description of people, places, clothes, horses, weapons etc. At times this adds to the reading experience but I found it over-used and made the book feel like a much longer read (I was shocked when I found out it was just under 450 pages - it reads like around 700). Also, so much of the narrative is in either italics (to show it is a magic/majick/magik delete as appropriate) or is in some odd variation of French ("gonne" for gun, "quaveh" for coffee etc) to become irritating. At times the book is more like a decent fantasy tale or conspiracy and intrigue which has been edited by a historical re-enactment nut. Given this is fictional and the world is the author's to do with as he wishes, forcing some historical accuracy at the expense of reader enjoyment seemed an odd decision to make.
The magical system seems fairly standard fantasy fayre, albeit it is not described or explored in any detail, people just suddenly do things which haven't previously been mentioned. A large aspect of the book is Aranthur's being chosen to translate an ancient text to decode the magical secrets hidden there. I think in all he decodes three of these, and uses them, but there is no mention of them until he has to use them in a fight. It could just be that I have been reading a lot of LitRPG recently, where every spell is described in intimate detail and its uses are discussed way in advance of being needed in combat, but I felt like it was something of an afterthought or rescue from a plot dead-end ("oh sod it, say he done a magic").
While I did enjoy this book on the whole, the narrative style and the focus being on clothes rather than describing the interesting aspects of the world were to its detriment. Also, the book is written as two "books" (chapters), the first "book" covers around 80% and all in one long chapter without breaks. To my mind, ending there would have sufficed. The final 20% in "book 2" felt like part epilogue, part sequel and should maybe have been split as such.
My advice to anyone reading this, is to suspend disbelief that little bit further and trust that things do largely get explained satisfactorily before the end.
The story that is told is how Aranthur, this young man (selected from his village to attend the big city university) finds himself in the midst of conflict and significant events in the empire's changing status. The idea of fate dictating that this one man would be at the centre of things (see Wheel of Time) is not one that is explored here. While it is hinted at (he is frequently told off for ending up in unusual circumstances), it isn't overly laboured. Nobody tells him he was chosen or anything like that. Instead he gradually learns that he has found himself at the centre of political intrigue, plotting, counter-plotting, conspiracies and war.
This book is not about Aranthur. He is just the focal point of the book, the story is so much bigger than him. This meant it did at times become a little hard to take that he always just happened to meet the right person, go to the right place at the right time in order to witness or participate in a number of significant plot events. In hindsight, this is largely all explained as some hidden agenda and him being put in those places to make those decisions but at the time it was a little jarring.
The narrative is more akin to Robert Jordan than many contemporary writers - so much overly elaborate description of people, places, clothes, horses, weapons etc. At times this adds to the reading experience but I found it over-used and made the book feel like a much longer read (I was shocked when I found out it was just under 450 pages - it reads like around 700). Also, so much of the narrative is in either italics (to show it is a magic/majick/magik delete as appropriate) or is in some odd variation of French ("gonne" for gun, "quaveh" for coffee etc) to become irritating. At times the book is more like a decent fantasy tale or conspiracy and intrigue which has been edited by a historical re-enactment nut. Given this is fictional and the world is the author's to do with as he wishes, forcing some historical accuracy at the expense of reader enjoyment seemed an odd decision to make.
The magical system seems fairly standard fantasy fayre, albeit it is not described or explored in any detail, people just suddenly do things which haven't previously been mentioned. A large aspect of the book is Aranthur's being chosen to translate an ancient text to decode the magical secrets hidden there. I think in all he decodes three of these, and uses them, but there is no mention of them until he has to use them in a fight. It could just be that I have been reading a lot of LitRPG recently, where every spell is described in intimate detail and its uses are discussed way in advance of being needed in combat, but I felt like it was something of an afterthought or rescue from a plot dead-end ("oh sod it, say he done a magic").
While I did enjoy this book on the whole, the narrative style and the focus being on clothes rather than describing the interesting aspects of the world were to its detriment. Also, the book is written as two "books" (chapters), the first "book" covers around 80% and all in one long chapter without breaks. To my mind, ending there would have sufficed. The final 20% in "book 2" felt like part epilogue, part sequel and should maybe have been split as such.
My advice to anyone reading this, is to suspend disbelief that little bit further and trust that things do largely get explained satisfactorily before the end.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Onward (2020) in Movies
Mar 15, 2020
I had very mixed feelings about Onward after seeing the trailer, it didn't feel like Pixar and if you'd shown it to me out of context I'd never have guessed it was them.
It's Ian's 16th birthday and things aren't exactly going to plan. To cheer him up his mum gives him and his brother a present left for them by their late father. In a world that has forgotten magic, their father had still believed, and he's leaving them a way that will allow them to see him again. When the only way to complete the spell means finding something long forgotten the brothers must embark on a quest, one that older brother Barley has been preparing for his whole life.
Onward starts with a great potted history of magic in their world and how it's been replaced by modern amenities. It feels like they made a very quick change but I liked it over the sped-up timeline over many years, it actually summed up a more modern way of abandoning things that aren't convenient. It also allows you to have fun little moments of thinking about how things changed when you see flashes of their past during the film.
With Pixar you know that you're going to get that sentiment and deeper meaning that induces bucketloads of tears and in Onward it's a strong message about family and how the past weighs down on what's actually happening in the present. None of that meaning really feels like it's there until very late in the film though, the beginning is more like some generic off-brand fantasy adventure, and though the two ends fit together they don't seem like they belong together.
The mix of characters is fun but we don't get a proper introduction to who, or what, many of them are. It's a shame that with such a varied selection of creatures that most are just relegated to being quirky looking with no real function. There were at least things to appreciate from some of them, Colt counting I thought was a fun touch, and I loved Corey the Manticore, her whole transition through the film was funny and very entertaining.
Chris Pratt as Barley was the only spot on bit of casting for me, his happy-go-lucky demeanour fits the character and we're treated to some of that Starlord adventure. (My favourite Barley scene was definitely the bridge). Everyone else kind of felt a little... meh? I wasn't wowed, I wasn't hooked in trying to work out who the voices were, it all felt a little bland. Partly I think that's because I never felt like I learned anything about them. Sure, some bits were fun, but through most of the film I wasn't really bothered what happened to any of them.
The journey that brothers Ian and Barley go on is full of twists and turns, they're amusing but nothing we haven't really seen before. As I mentioned, the emotional payoff doesn't appear until very late, and it did reduce me to tears, but it could have been so much more. The build-up to it had no real substance, especially when you consider how meaningful it's conclusion is.
In fact, the build-up could have offered up so many different things. For a fantasy story with magic and mythical creatures it holds little to no magical feeling. There's no real spectacle or pizzazz to anything. When I think of magic in other films I get wonder and joy, but in Onward it's done more for jokes. Even at the climax of the film it takes on so much humour that it detracts from the emotions.
Dan Scalon's story is partly based on his own experiences (I'm assuming with less mythical creature though)... and that story is peak Pixar... but the world created around it isn't strong enough for the sentiment it portrays. Taking such a powerful message about family and bundling it up in something that doesn't have the usual Pixar strength and heart feels like a travesty to me.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/onward-movie-review.html
It's Ian's 16th birthday and things aren't exactly going to plan. To cheer him up his mum gives him and his brother a present left for them by their late father. In a world that has forgotten magic, their father had still believed, and he's leaving them a way that will allow them to see him again. When the only way to complete the spell means finding something long forgotten the brothers must embark on a quest, one that older brother Barley has been preparing for his whole life.
Onward starts with a great potted history of magic in their world and how it's been replaced by modern amenities. It feels like they made a very quick change but I liked it over the sped-up timeline over many years, it actually summed up a more modern way of abandoning things that aren't convenient. It also allows you to have fun little moments of thinking about how things changed when you see flashes of their past during the film.
With Pixar you know that you're going to get that sentiment and deeper meaning that induces bucketloads of tears and in Onward it's a strong message about family and how the past weighs down on what's actually happening in the present. None of that meaning really feels like it's there until very late in the film though, the beginning is more like some generic off-brand fantasy adventure, and though the two ends fit together they don't seem like they belong together.
The mix of characters is fun but we don't get a proper introduction to who, or what, many of them are. It's a shame that with such a varied selection of creatures that most are just relegated to being quirky looking with no real function. There were at least things to appreciate from some of them, Colt counting I thought was a fun touch, and I loved Corey the Manticore, her whole transition through the film was funny and very entertaining.
Chris Pratt as Barley was the only spot on bit of casting for me, his happy-go-lucky demeanour fits the character and we're treated to some of that Starlord adventure. (My favourite Barley scene was definitely the bridge). Everyone else kind of felt a little... meh? I wasn't wowed, I wasn't hooked in trying to work out who the voices were, it all felt a little bland. Partly I think that's because I never felt like I learned anything about them. Sure, some bits were fun, but through most of the film I wasn't really bothered what happened to any of them.
The journey that brothers Ian and Barley go on is full of twists and turns, they're amusing but nothing we haven't really seen before. As I mentioned, the emotional payoff doesn't appear until very late, and it did reduce me to tears, but it could have been so much more. The build-up to it had no real substance, especially when you consider how meaningful it's conclusion is.
In fact, the build-up could have offered up so many different things. For a fantasy story with magic and mythical creatures it holds little to no magical feeling. There's no real spectacle or pizzazz to anything. When I think of magic in other films I get wonder and joy, but in Onward it's done more for jokes. Even at the climax of the film it takes on so much humour that it detracts from the emotions.
Dan Scalon's story is partly based on his own experiences (I'm assuming with less mythical creature though)... and that story is peak Pixar... but the world created around it isn't strong enough for the sentiment it portrays. Taking such a powerful message about family and bundling it up in something that doesn't have the usual Pixar strength and heart feels like a travesty to me.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/onward-movie-review.html
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Cider House Rules (1999) in Movies
Apr 26, 2020
Great acting, great writing, great directing
When we do our "Secret Cinema" adventures at our house (one person picks the film and the rest of the family doesn't know what it is until it starts running), we try to give clues. This film was nominated for 7 Oscars for the 1999 season, winning 2 - including a 2nd BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR OSCAR for a veteran actor. It is based on a wonderful novel and features 3 young actors well before they became stars.
Sound interesting? Then check out THE CIDER HOUSE RULES.
Based on the novel by John Irving, THE CIDER HOUSE RULES follows the life of Homer Wells (a pre-SPIDERMAN Tobey Maguire), a young orphan who is raised/mentored by the head of his Orphanage, Dr. Wilbur Larch (Michael Caine). When Homer decides to leave the orphanage and experience the world, he learns quite a bit about life including THE CIDER HOUSE RULES.
This is one of those "coming of age/follow a person through their life"-type films that relies heavily on style, substance and the performance of the actors on the screen. And under the Direction of Swedish Director Lasse Hallstrom and with words of the Screenplay by the author of the novel, John Irving, and with terrific actors like Maguire and Caine (amongst others) speaking those lines - a spell is cast and a heartwarming, life-affirming experience unfolds.
Caine won his 2nd Oscar for his role as Dr. Larch. This is a complex character who has his own, very certain, views on the world and is uncompromising in his care for others. It is a wonderful performance - even taking into account the peculiar Maine/United States accent Caine puts on. His character's empathy, strength and vulnerability are at play throughout this performance and he is a very deserving recipient of the Oscar.
A very young Charlize Theron and a (then) unknown Paul Rudd are engaging, charming and extremely photogenic as a young couple that Homer leaves the orphanage to see the world with. Rudd is the embodiment of the "nice guy" in this film - you can see the seeds of a career of playing "the nice guy" in this performance. Theron radiates beauty, power and a self-reliance that shows the strong actress she will become. While Homer's relationship with Dr. Larch is the heart and conflict of this film, the trio of McGuire/Theron/Rudd are the soul. The film also features a bevy of strong character actors in smaller roles that prop this film up. Jane Alexander, Kathy Baker, J.K. Simmons, Kate Nelligan and Delroy Lindo all shine in smaller roles - as do some of the child actors that portray other orphans like Keiran Caulkin and (especially) Per Erik Sullivan as the physically compromised Fuzzy.
But...none of this works if Maguire doesn't hold this film together (for we see this world/film through his eyes and he is in every scene) and he brings it. He has a quiet charm and innocence that helps bring us into his world in a welcoming way. Certainly, the awkwardness that Homer shows around Theron will be in evidence when he plays Peter Parker years later, but it is the inner strength that Maguire shows that really makes this character shine.
John Irving wrote the screen play based on his novel - and the results are satisfying, both to those who've never read the book (or have encountered an Irving novel/book before) or veteran readers/lovers of Irving's work (like myself).
All of this is wrapped in a package by Director Lasse Hallstrom (MY LIFE AS A DOG) in a charming, loving way that show the people, events and times through a lens that amplifies the proceedings in a way that is welcoming and engaging.
It is always a bit of a concern of mine to revisit a film that I remember fondly, but in this case, I am glad I jumped at the chance to revisit this charming film.
And you'll be glad you did, too.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Sound interesting? Then check out THE CIDER HOUSE RULES.
Based on the novel by John Irving, THE CIDER HOUSE RULES follows the life of Homer Wells (a pre-SPIDERMAN Tobey Maguire), a young orphan who is raised/mentored by the head of his Orphanage, Dr. Wilbur Larch (Michael Caine). When Homer decides to leave the orphanage and experience the world, he learns quite a bit about life including THE CIDER HOUSE RULES.
This is one of those "coming of age/follow a person through their life"-type films that relies heavily on style, substance and the performance of the actors on the screen. And under the Direction of Swedish Director Lasse Hallstrom and with words of the Screenplay by the author of the novel, John Irving, and with terrific actors like Maguire and Caine (amongst others) speaking those lines - a spell is cast and a heartwarming, life-affirming experience unfolds.
Caine won his 2nd Oscar for his role as Dr. Larch. This is a complex character who has his own, very certain, views on the world and is uncompromising in his care for others. It is a wonderful performance - even taking into account the peculiar Maine/United States accent Caine puts on. His character's empathy, strength and vulnerability are at play throughout this performance and he is a very deserving recipient of the Oscar.
A very young Charlize Theron and a (then) unknown Paul Rudd are engaging, charming and extremely photogenic as a young couple that Homer leaves the orphanage to see the world with. Rudd is the embodiment of the "nice guy" in this film - you can see the seeds of a career of playing "the nice guy" in this performance. Theron radiates beauty, power and a self-reliance that shows the strong actress she will become. While Homer's relationship with Dr. Larch is the heart and conflict of this film, the trio of McGuire/Theron/Rudd are the soul. The film also features a bevy of strong character actors in smaller roles that prop this film up. Jane Alexander, Kathy Baker, J.K. Simmons, Kate Nelligan and Delroy Lindo all shine in smaller roles - as do some of the child actors that portray other orphans like Keiran Caulkin and (especially) Per Erik Sullivan as the physically compromised Fuzzy.
But...none of this works if Maguire doesn't hold this film together (for we see this world/film through his eyes and he is in every scene) and he brings it. He has a quiet charm and innocence that helps bring us into his world in a welcoming way. Certainly, the awkwardness that Homer shows around Theron will be in evidence when he plays Peter Parker years later, but it is the inner strength that Maguire shows that really makes this character shine.
John Irving wrote the screen play based on his novel - and the results are satisfying, both to those who've never read the book (or have encountered an Irving novel/book before) or veteran readers/lovers of Irving's work (like myself).
All of this is wrapped in a package by Director Lasse Hallstrom (MY LIFE AS A DOG) in a charming, loving way that show the people, events and times through a lens that amplifies the proceedings in a way that is welcoming and engaging.
It is always a bit of a concern of mine to revisit a film that I remember fondly, but in this case, I am glad I jumped at the chance to revisit this charming film.
And you'll be glad you did, too.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Seinfeld - Season 1 in TV
Jan 22, 2021
I always assumed I wouldn’t like Seinfeld in the 90s. In fact I was opposed to the very idea of it on principle. And that principle was: I’ve never heard of this guy as a comedian, and American stand-up usually isn’t funny. I never saw a single episode until six months ago – in my head it was some dumb, canned laughter show with very forced scripts and little charm. I just didn’t get why it was always quoted amongst the best sitcoms of all time, and I wasn’t willing to find out. This is called “being ignorant”. Guilty.
One random day with nothing else inspiring me I finally took the plunge and put an episode on. Guess what happened? I laughed, I found it completely charming and witty and easy to watch, with some great lines and likeable characters. 3 hours later I had done 6 episodes and was as hooked as anyone can be with anything. It was just so nostalgically and completely 90s! And I loved that!
A show doesn’t run for 9 years and over 170 episodes without being some kind of special, especially taking into account the depreciation due to being dated, as all sitcoms eventually are, and it really is quite remarkable – deserving of a place in the conversation of the greatest ever American half hour shows. Sure, there is an element early on in the preoccupation with everyone’s sex life and dating habits that is a little creepy in 2020, but I am totally willing to forgive it.
Shows that are hyper aware of themselves and the audience are odd creatures the minute they take themselves too seriously, and Seinfeld never does that. It knows it is trivial, essentially about nothing and going nowhere, and style-wise it is always winking at us for being in on the joke and a part of it, even to the point of applauding new characters on their entrance, which is a uniquely American thing to do.
The secret of the show is undoubtedly the chemistry of the four leads, so mismatched that it someone works a spell and creates magic, much in the same way Friends managed to do, times six. Jerry Seinfeld himself is a very likeable everyman, and the schtick of each show beginning and ending with 30 seconds of stand up is a gimmick that grows on you, as does everything about it: the more you watch, the more you love it for what it is.
Jason Alexander as the balding, quirky, self-conscious, opinionated best friend is perhaps my least favourite of the regular quartet, but he has some amazing moments over the course of things, and plays great dead-pan. But the other two are on a plane of equal genius. The verbal timing of the super cute, super smart Julia Louis-Dreyfus as Elaine (who I have fallen in love with a little bit in 1993) and the physical slapstick timing of Michael Richards as Cosmo Kramer (surely one of the most memorable characters in sitcom history) have both left me aching with laughter time after time after time. Just a glance or an expression is often enough.
And the great thing is, it never seems to get old. They are always finding new ways and new situations that keep it fresh. Some trick! Even in the final season of the 9, when there is a small melancholia creeping in because they all know it is coming to an end, it still manages to create moments that aren’t just repeats of previous gags. Which means, as future background watching it is 100% perfect. Leave it on whilst doing something else, look up once in a while, and like the best of all long running US comedy shows each episode is indistinguishable from any other in the best way – it is like having a friend in the room.
I can’t imagine ever saying it is amongst my very favourites, maybe because I missed out on it first time around – which I put down to an inherent middle aged appeal, rather than a youth appeal – but I wouldn’t also ever argue with anyone that did say that it was one of their favourites. Because I get it now. And I’m so glad I got to do it, no matter how late to the party!
One random day with nothing else inspiring me I finally took the plunge and put an episode on. Guess what happened? I laughed, I found it completely charming and witty and easy to watch, with some great lines and likeable characters. 3 hours later I had done 6 episodes and was as hooked as anyone can be with anything. It was just so nostalgically and completely 90s! And I loved that!
A show doesn’t run for 9 years and over 170 episodes without being some kind of special, especially taking into account the depreciation due to being dated, as all sitcoms eventually are, and it really is quite remarkable – deserving of a place in the conversation of the greatest ever American half hour shows. Sure, there is an element early on in the preoccupation with everyone’s sex life and dating habits that is a little creepy in 2020, but I am totally willing to forgive it.
Shows that are hyper aware of themselves and the audience are odd creatures the minute they take themselves too seriously, and Seinfeld never does that. It knows it is trivial, essentially about nothing and going nowhere, and style-wise it is always winking at us for being in on the joke and a part of it, even to the point of applauding new characters on their entrance, which is a uniquely American thing to do.
The secret of the show is undoubtedly the chemistry of the four leads, so mismatched that it someone works a spell and creates magic, much in the same way Friends managed to do, times six. Jerry Seinfeld himself is a very likeable everyman, and the schtick of each show beginning and ending with 30 seconds of stand up is a gimmick that grows on you, as does everything about it: the more you watch, the more you love it for what it is.
Jason Alexander as the balding, quirky, self-conscious, opinionated best friend is perhaps my least favourite of the regular quartet, but he has some amazing moments over the course of things, and plays great dead-pan. But the other two are on a plane of equal genius. The verbal timing of the super cute, super smart Julia Louis-Dreyfus as Elaine (who I have fallen in love with a little bit in 1993) and the physical slapstick timing of Michael Richards as Cosmo Kramer (surely one of the most memorable characters in sitcom history) have both left me aching with laughter time after time after time. Just a glance or an expression is often enough.
And the great thing is, it never seems to get old. They are always finding new ways and new situations that keep it fresh. Some trick! Even in the final season of the 9, when there is a small melancholia creeping in because they all know it is coming to an end, it still manages to create moments that aren’t just repeats of previous gags. Which means, as future background watching it is 100% perfect. Leave it on whilst doing something else, look up once in a while, and like the best of all long running US comedy shows each episode is indistinguishable from any other in the best way – it is like having a friend in the room.
I can’t imagine ever saying it is amongst my very favourites, maybe because I missed out on it first time around – which I put down to an inherent middle aged appeal, rather than a youth appeal – but I wouldn’t also ever argue with anyone that did say that it was one of their favourites. Because I get it now. And I’m so glad I got to do it, no matter how late to the party!
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Jojo Rabbit (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Another favourite from the awards season that came with some strong acclaim from amongst friends and trusted reviewers, WWII satire Jojo Rabbit, from the likeable and unique mind of Taika Waititi, was always high on my list as a must see movie.
I have followed the Kiwi’s original output since way back, and always enjoyed his quirky sense of humour and childlike charm. Either Eagle vs Shark or The Flight of the Conchords would have been my first encounter; and by the time of Hunt for the Wilderpeople and Thor: Ragnarok I had become a tentative fan. Never entirely bowled over by his style and content in the same way as, say, Wes Anderson (to whom some compare his outlook on the creative world), and never rolling around on the floor in hysterics at his naivety and comedy of manners, nevertheless, I like the guy a lot.
So when I heard he had adapted a fantasy novel about Nazi Germany from the point of view of a child, and would be playing Hitler himself, I knew instantly where he would be pitching this. The idea of it being offensive in any way was not a concern or even a thought, and anyone that did react that way is just… ridiculous and deliberately missing the point for the sake of finding something to be outraged about.
Of course subjects of genocide, political repression and evil existing in the world should and must be treated with a sensitivity to a degree, and amongst the silly lampooning and most extreme moments of satire that care is evident. There are moments of real gravity and tenderness in the mix here, thanks in large to some wonderful performances from the adult actors, notably the ever reliable Sam Rockwell and the increasingly strong and impressive Scarlett Johansson, who picked up her second Oscar nomination for this, after Marriage Story ticked the box for true drama.
The film focuses and relies on young Roman Griffin Davis as the eponymous Jojo, a happy little boy who sees goodness and light in an ever darkening world around him. Waititi as director works well with kids, placing the idea of charm and likability above acting prowess per se. And that is both the strength and ultimate weakness of this premise. He is charming and likeable, and cute and sweet and very watchable, but his inexperience in front of the camera and ability to find a range of emotions is often tested beyond his tender years, and can therefore break the magic spell that is woven in the best scenes.
The humour itself also doesn’t always hit the mark. Sometimes it is merely amusing rather than something laugh out loud funny, much as an average Mel Brooks film always was. And that can lead to a feel of something uneven and rambling, as the story struggles to find what it really wants to say. In its final moments it does land on an overlying message that leaves you with a winning impression, and you leave feeling that you saw something you enjoyed, but not something you would unreservedly recommend to everyone. In fact if someone said they didn’t enjoy it, or get the joke at all, then I would respect that view.
Under a microscope of scrutiny it doesn’t hold up that well, and I wonder how a few years of distance will treat it, once our sensibilities shift again with time. There are a few moments when the heart of the film connects with it’s silly bone and resonates, but not nearly enough. I personally wanted more of that. But, sadly, whenever JoJo threatens to grow up it retreats back into childhood and shies away from commenting on anything serious or truly meaningful. But, of course, that is not the point. As an entertainment it is a wonderful, unique and lovely film. And that should really be all that it is judged by.
In conclusion, a curiosity I will look forward to watching again, but don’t think quite makes the grade as an instant classic. It only reinforced however how much I like Rockwell and Johansson, and will always be curious about what Waititi is up to next.
I have followed the Kiwi’s original output since way back, and always enjoyed his quirky sense of humour and childlike charm. Either Eagle vs Shark or The Flight of the Conchords would have been my first encounter; and by the time of Hunt for the Wilderpeople and Thor: Ragnarok I had become a tentative fan. Never entirely bowled over by his style and content in the same way as, say, Wes Anderson (to whom some compare his outlook on the creative world), and never rolling around on the floor in hysterics at his naivety and comedy of manners, nevertheless, I like the guy a lot.
So when I heard he had adapted a fantasy novel about Nazi Germany from the point of view of a child, and would be playing Hitler himself, I knew instantly where he would be pitching this. The idea of it being offensive in any way was not a concern or even a thought, and anyone that did react that way is just… ridiculous and deliberately missing the point for the sake of finding something to be outraged about.
Of course subjects of genocide, political repression and evil existing in the world should and must be treated with a sensitivity to a degree, and amongst the silly lampooning and most extreme moments of satire that care is evident. There are moments of real gravity and tenderness in the mix here, thanks in large to some wonderful performances from the adult actors, notably the ever reliable Sam Rockwell and the increasingly strong and impressive Scarlett Johansson, who picked up her second Oscar nomination for this, after Marriage Story ticked the box for true drama.
The film focuses and relies on young Roman Griffin Davis as the eponymous Jojo, a happy little boy who sees goodness and light in an ever darkening world around him. Waititi as director works well with kids, placing the idea of charm and likability above acting prowess per se. And that is both the strength and ultimate weakness of this premise. He is charming and likeable, and cute and sweet and very watchable, but his inexperience in front of the camera and ability to find a range of emotions is often tested beyond his tender years, and can therefore break the magic spell that is woven in the best scenes.
The humour itself also doesn’t always hit the mark. Sometimes it is merely amusing rather than something laugh out loud funny, much as an average Mel Brooks film always was. And that can lead to a feel of something uneven and rambling, as the story struggles to find what it really wants to say. In its final moments it does land on an overlying message that leaves you with a winning impression, and you leave feeling that you saw something you enjoyed, but not something you would unreservedly recommend to everyone. In fact if someone said they didn’t enjoy it, or get the joke at all, then I would respect that view.
Under a microscope of scrutiny it doesn’t hold up that well, and I wonder how a few years of distance will treat it, once our sensibilities shift again with time. There are a few moments when the heart of the film connects with it’s silly bone and resonates, but not nearly enough. I personally wanted more of that. But, sadly, whenever JoJo threatens to grow up it retreats back into childhood and shies away from commenting on anything serious or truly meaningful. But, of course, that is not the point. As an entertainment it is a wonderful, unique and lovely film. And that should really be all that it is judged by.
In conclusion, a curiosity I will look forward to watching again, but don’t think quite makes the grade as an instant classic. It only reinforced however how much I like Rockwell and Johansson, and will always be curious about what Waititi is up to next.
The Wheels On The Bus Musical
Education and Games
App
~~> 12 fabulous games including the full sing along in one great kids app! ~~> 11 beautiful verses...
InMyBar - Drink & Cocktail Recipes
Food & Drink and Lifestyle
App
InMyBar is the best drink & cocktail app available because it can tell you what you can make with...