Search
Search results
Awix (3310 KP) rated Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018) in Movies
Jan 2, 2019
It seems only appropriate to close out the year which saw the passing of Stan Lee and Steve Ditko with a film celebrating their most successful creation; the result is a movie which appears to be under-performing at the box office simply because it's animated (a regrettable prejudice which I sometimes suffer from myself). On one level this is yet another Spider-Man origin story, the novelty value comes from the fact that the Spider-Man in question is the Ultimate version (Miles Morales) and the plot involves a hole being blown in the universe and numerous other Spider-People from parallel worlds being sucked through. Some of these are very weird.
Rock-solid storytelling, huge visual imagination and some very good jokes come together to make a film which works really well on virtually every level; there's perhaps not enough of the Nicolas Cage Spider-Man but you can't have everything. Not sure where they're going to go with the sequel (the novelty value of this film makes it a tough act to follow) but it does at least suggest possibilities for a meta-franchise based just on Spider-Man. A worthy and touching tribute to Stan and Steve.
Rock-solid storytelling, huge visual imagination and some very good jokes come together to make a film which works really well on virtually every level; there's perhaps not enough of the Nicolas Cage Spider-Man but you can't have everything. Not sure where they're going to go with the sequel (the novelty value of this film makes it a tough act to follow) but it does at least suggest possibilities for a meta-franchise based just on Spider-Man. A worthy and touching tribute to Stan and Steve.
Nick McCabe recommended If I Could Only Remember My Name by David Crosby in Music (curated)
JT (287 KP) rated Escape From L.A. (1996) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
John Carpenter’s offering into the world of sequels couldn’t have been worse. Kurt Russell said he had a desire to play Snake Plissken once again and to be honest I wished he hadn’t bothered.
I had a hard enough time to muster the energy to watch this, and even more to award it a one star rating. I have made my way through bad films over the years but this one really takes the title. After Carpenter’s engrossing and dark Escape from New York hit screens in 1981 a sequel was always going to be on the cards, but maybe they waited too long for it.
The plot is similar to the first, Plissken is yet again asked to save the day despite being injected with a virus that will kill him in within nine hours, although giving him ample time to save the day. This time he has to enter L.A. now separated from America after an earthquake and where the worst of the worst are sent, there he must retrieve a black box containing controls to a super weapon.
I had a hard enough time to muster the energy to watch this, and even more to award it a one star rating
What really wound me up about this film were the most shoddy special effects ever! When you take into consideration that this came out at a similar time to the very excellent Independence Day whose CGI effects were second to none for the time, there was no comparison.
You have to wonder what Carpenter’s budget of $50,000,0000 went towards, Plissken’s underwater entry into L.A. is hilarious and is even worth the watch just for that alone.
The addition of a few more well known characters do manage to brighten the proceedings, such as Steve Buscemi as Map to the Stars Eddie and Bruce Campbell as Surgeon General of Beverly Hills, but they do very little to save this from being a complete disaster.
Russell allegedly wrote the ending to this, and to be honest it shows. If you were a fan of the first then I would leave this one well alone!
I had a hard enough time to muster the energy to watch this, and even more to award it a one star rating. I have made my way through bad films over the years but this one really takes the title. After Carpenter’s engrossing and dark Escape from New York hit screens in 1981 a sequel was always going to be on the cards, but maybe they waited too long for it.
The plot is similar to the first, Plissken is yet again asked to save the day despite being injected with a virus that will kill him in within nine hours, although giving him ample time to save the day. This time he has to enter L.A. now separated from America after an earthquake and where the worst of the worst are sent, there he must retrieve a black box containing controls to a super weapon.
I had a hard enough time to muster the energy to watch this, and even more to award it a one star rating
What really wound me up about this film were the most shoddy special effects ever! When you take into consideration that this came out at a similar time to the very excellent Independence Day whose CGI effects were second to none for the time, there was no comparison.
You have to wonder what Carpenter’s budget of $50,000,0000 went towards, Plissken’s underwater entry into L.A. is hilarious and is even worth the watch just for that alone.
The addition of a few more well known characters do manage to brighten the proceedings, such as Steve Buscemi as Map to the Stars Eddie and Bruce Campbell as Surgeon General of Beverly Hills, but they do very little to save this from being a complete disaster.
Russell allegedly wrote the ending to this, and to be honest it shows. If you were a fan of the first then I would leave this one well alone!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Free Birds (2013) in Movies
Nov 26, 2020
A Fun Thanksgiving Flick
When asked to list films worth watching that have a Thanksgiving theme, the BankofMarquis likes to pull out a little animated gem that came and went pretty quickly in 2013 - FREE BIRDS - starring the voices of Owen Wilson and Woody Harrelson as 2 turkeys that go back in time in an egg-shaped time machine named STEVE (voiced by George Takei - more on that later) to stop the first Thanksgiving. This film succeeds more than it doesn't.
The first full length animated feature film from REEL FX (one of only 2 they have put out thus far) FREE BIRDS suffers from that kiss of death - multiple writers revising the script over time. Directed by JImmy Hayward (HORTON HEARS A WHO), who is also credited with writing this film alongside long time Kevin Smith collaborator Scott Mosier,FREE BIRDS is actually a pretty fun film, despite the disjointedness of the plot.
Credit should go to the stellar voice cast, led by Owen Wilson and Woody Harrelson. They have tremendous chemistry together and are a fun pair to watch. Joining them is the always dependable Amy Poehler (who would shine as the voice of Joy years later in Pixar's INSIDE OUT). It was fun spending an hour and a half with these 3 - and the others in this cast: Colm Meaney, David Keith and Dan Fogler.
But, for me, the star of this film is Star Trek's George Takei as the voice of S.T.E.V.E (the egg-shaped time machine device). He understands what type of film he is in and delivers just the right blend of comedy and seriousness that helps elevate the proceedings. And that is good for, as I stated above, the plot is a bit disjointed, so I would recommend you just sit back, relax and enjoy the ride.
The critics panned this film, but it made over $110 million at the box office (more than doubling it's production cost), so many, many moviegoers had the same, fun experience that I did.
And...you will, too...if you give FREE BIRDS a try.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The first full length animated feature film from REEL FX (one of only 2 they have put out thus far) FREE BIRDS suffers from that kiss of death - multiple writers revising the script over time. Directed by JImmy Hayward (HORTON HEARS A WHO), who is also credited with writing this film alongside long time Kevin Smith collaborator Scott Mosier,FREE BIRDS is actually a pretty fun film, despite the disjointedness of the plot.
Credit should go to the stellar voice cast, led by Owen Wilson and Woody Harrelson. They have tremendous chemistry together and are a fun pair to watch. Joining them is the always dependable Amy Poehler (who would shine as the voice of Joy years later in Pixar's INSIDE OUT). It was fun spending an hour and a half with these 3 - and the others in this cast: Colm Meaney, David Keith and Dan Fogler.
But, for me, the star of this film is Star Trek's George Takei as the voice of S.T.E.V.E (the egg-shaped time machine device). He understands what type of film he is in and delivers just the right blend of comedy and seriousness that helps elevate the proceedings. And that is good for, as I stated above, the plot is a bit disjointed, so I would recommend you just sit back, relax and enjoy the ride.
The critics panned this film, but it made over $110 million at the box office (more than doubling it's production cost), so many, many moviegoers had the same, fun experience that I did.
And...you will, too...if you give FREE BIRDS a try.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Mark Jaye (65 KP) rated Avengers: Endgame (2019) in Movies
May 13, 2019
Ending The Game
Contains spoilers, click to show
Avengers: Endgame - the concluding installment of the Marvel Cinematic Universe's 'Infinity Saga', has made box office history, breaking a number of records on its' journey (thus far) of becoming the second highest grossing movie ever in a short period of time. Bringing together the story threads of 21 films before it 'Endgame' had a number of hurdles to overcome - not only did the Russo Brothers have to find a satisfying way to reverse the effects of 'The Decimation' (if you have to ask then you're probably reading the wrong review!) but they had to do so in a way that did not lessen the impact of 'Infinity War', whilst bringing to a close a number of character arcs for many well respected and founding members of Marvel's flagship superhero team and setting the course and direction for whatever comes next.
The question is, did it succeed?
At the time of writing 'Endgame' has been in cinemas for over two weeks and all embargoes pertaining to spoilers have since been rescinded. It is on that note that I will make the following SPOILER ALERT and advise anyone yet to see the movie (is there actually anyone out there daring to call themselves a fan who hasn't seen it?!) to leave now.....
Endgame picks up a few short weeks after the events of 'Infinity War' and depicts the surviving heroes of Thanos's snap coming up again him once again. The encounter is very short lived but doesn't go as planned/hoped effectively destroying all hope for returning the vanished. Que a five year time-jump..
Steve Rogers heads up a support group for the survivors, Natasha Romanoff directs the remaining Avengers refusing to move on, Tony Stark and Pepper Potts are living a quiet life raising their daughter, Thor has spiraled into despair at New Asgard effectively leaving Valkyrie in charge, Clint Barton has become the blood-thirsty vigilante Ronin - tracking down and eliminating those criminals who escaped the decimation when his family didn't, and Bruce Banner has found a way to merge personalities with the Hulk allowing both to co-exist as one (Professor Hulk).
Things look pretty grim until AntMan (Scott Lang) returns - quite accidentally, from the Quantum Realm bringing with him the key to bringing everyone back and reversing Thanos's decimation. And that's where time travel appears...
The Avengers must travel back to key moments in their history to remove the Infinity Stones and bring them to the present where Stark and Banner create their own Gauntlet to house them. This involves the second act of the movie displaying some time travel shenanigans as our heroes interact with events - and themselves, of previously seen movies. Such encounters include revisiting the events of Avengers Assemble, Thor:The Dark World, and Guardians Of The Galaxy. Don't expect a retread of the 'Back To The Future' franchise however, as Avengers: Endgame creates its' own rules for time travel. Basically, going back in time and interfering with established events does not alter the future - instead it creates a branched reality (think parallel timeline), however traversing the Quantum Realm will still return you to the original timeline you came from. In other words, go back in time kill Thanos, return to the future and you've changed nothing.... Simple, right?!
That's the basic gist, and all I'll give you for now.
Whilst this does follow on from 'Infinity War', 'Endgame' is stylistically and tonally a different movie. Whereas the former threw us straight into the thick of the action and never let up until the devastating conclusion, throwing a cavalcade of heroes at us in a relentless fashion, 'Endgame' scales it all back (for two thirds of the running time at least) focusing on the original six core Avengers (with strong support from Don Cheadle's War Machine, Karen Gillan as Nebula, Paul Rudd (returning as AntMan), and of course, Rocket Raccoon! With the preceding movie been Captain Marvel you would be forgiven for thinking Brie Larson would play a strong role in this movie, however - with a throwaway line earlier on justifying her absence, Carol Danvers features for all of around fifteen minutes! That's not to say she doesn't make an impact when she does I might add! Given the downbeat tone to 'Endgame' there is a lot of humour from start to finish - Chris Hemsworth, Paul Rudd, Bradley Cooper, I'm looking at you most here!, which in no way detracts from the weight of what's at sake here.
Josh Brolin is back as Thanos, and Thanos...that's right, two versions of the mad Titan appear. The one whom our heroes go up against during the final third act is a past version who travels forward in time to present after seeing into his own future and witnessing the efforts of Earth's Mightiest Heroes and the lengths they are prepared to go to in order to 'decimate' his plans. This is a Thanos whom I would deem more ruthless that 'Infinity War's' protagonist, a Thanos now determined to erase ALL life in the Universe.
I imagine the biggest question - well, one biggie amongst many, fans going into this movie blind had concerned who would return after the shocking climax to 'Infinity War' (along with whether those who died in that movie stayed that way). There was never any doubt - was there, that the vanished would return? It isn't that much of a spoiler then to reveal that the final thirty minutes or so of 'Endgame' features every MCU hero on screen together embroiled in the biggest fight of their lives. And what a visual delight it is. The visuals in this film are fantastic and the final battle rivals anything Peter Jackson gave us.
I was fortunate enough to see 'Endgame' at the first screening (pre-midnight) at a local cinema and what an experience it was - a mini comic con. The atmosphere was electric and it was a highly memorable experience.
Everyone involved in this movie deserves kudos, for this lifelong superhero fanboy Avengers: Endgame is the best movie....ever.
If I may digress somewhat, there has been much confusion reported concerning the movie's ending, namely the resolution to Steve Rogers' story. Having returned the Infinity Stones to their rightful place in the MCU timeline Cap chooses to remain in the past (circa 1940-ish) and to live out his life with Peggy Carter (the final shot shows the two having that well overdue dance). Whilst the perfect sendoff this has left many conflicted as to the implications with some reviewers claiming this goes against the rules established earlier in the movie relating to the use of time travel. It really isn't that complicated. Essentially there are two theories at play that can explain the climax.
The first is that Steve simply lived out a life in secrecy within the established continuity, choosing not to involve himself in major events. This does not contradict what we've seen so far - back in 'The Winter Soldier' we see archive footage of Peggy from the nineteen fifties in which she talks about Captain America saving her (un-named) husband during the war. It isn't really a reach of the imagination to suspect that Cap and this man are one and the same. In the same movie, present day Steve visits a dying Peggy - clearly suffering the effects of dementia, who apologises to him for the life he didn't have. Could this be a reference to the man she married having to live a life of secrecy, choosing to stay out of the fight for fear of creating a divergent reality? Given that the movie establishes that actions in the past will not change the future (within the main timeline) Steve's interference would not change anything in 'our' reality anyhow.
The second theory is that Steve created a branched reality by reuniting with Peggy and lived a fulfilling life in that alternate timeline, only returning to the main timeline an old man when the time was right to handover the shield to Sam Wilson/Falcon (as seen at the end of the movie). Sure, this raises questions as to how Steve was able to cross realities but to be honest - that's a story for another time and the answer isn't important (for now).
Further confusing things is the fact that the Writers and Directors cannot seemingly agree, with Marcus and McFeely disputing the alternate reality theory that the Russo brothers subscribe to. You could argue that surely it is the Writer's view that counts, as..after all, they wrote it! Well, yes and no. The directors translate their understanding of the written word onto the screen and it has been reported that additional material was filmed after test audiences struggled with the time travel aspects of the film. Therefore it's not that hard to believe that the film - and that ending, were shot in a way that supported the film-makers understanding. I subscribe to the former - the romantic in me and all that, with Steve's story coming full circle with the revelation that he was always there with Peggy. Either way, both theories work and preserve the integrity of what has come before.
In any regard it's the perfect ending for Captain America!
So, to conclude....did it succeed? OH YES!!
The question is, did it succeed?
At the time of writing 'Endgame' has been in cinemas for over two weeks and all embargoes pertaining to spoilers have since been rescinded. It is on that note that I will make the following SPOILER ALERT and advise anyone yet to see the movie (is there actually anyone out there daring to call themselves a fan who hasn't seen it?!) to leave now.....
Endgame picks up a few short weeks after the events of 'Infinity War' and depicts the surviving heroes of Thanos's snap coming up again him once again. The encounter is very short lived but doesn't go as planned/hoped effectively destroying all hope for returning the vanished. Que a five year time-jump..
Steve Rogers heads up a support group for the survivors, Natasha Romanoff directs the remaining Avengers refusing to move on, Tony Stark and Pepper Potts are living a quiet life raising their daughter, Thor has spiraled into despair at New Asgard effectively leaving Valkyrie in charge, Clint Barton has become the blood-thirsty vigilante Ronin - tracking down and eliminating those criminals who escaped the decimation when his family didn't, and Bruce Banner has found a way to merge personalities with the Hulk allowing both to co-exist as one (Professor Hulk).
Things look pretty grim until AntMan (Scott Lang) returns - quite accidentally, from the Quantum Realm bringing with him the key to bringing everyone back and reversing Thanos's decimation. And that's where time travel appears...
The Avengers must travel back to key moments in their history to remove the Infinity Stones and bring them to the present where Stark and Banner create their own Gauntlet to house them. This involves the second act of the movie displaying some time travel shenanigans as our heroes interact with events - and themselves, of previously seen movies. Such encounters include revisiting the events of Avengers Assemble, Thor:The Dark World, and Guardians Of The Galaxy. Don't expect a retread of the 'Back To The Future' franchise however, as Avengers: Endgame creates its' own rules for time travel. Basically, going back in time and interfering with established events does not alter the future - instead it creates a branched reality (think parallel timeline), however traversing the Quantum Realm will still return you to the original timeline you came from. In other words, go back in time kill Thanos, return to the future and you've changed nothing.... Simple, right?!
That's the basic gist, and all I'll give you for now.
Whilst this does follow on from 'Infinity War', 'Endgame' is stylistically and tonally a different movie. Whereas the former threw us straight into the thick of the action and never let up until the devastating conclusion, throwing a cavalcade of heroes at us in a relentless fashion, 'Endgame' scales it all back (for two thirds of the running time at least) focusing on the original six core Avengers (with strong support from Don Cheadle's War Machine, Karen Gillan as Nebula, Paul Rudd (returning as AntMan), and of course, Rocket Raccoon! With the preceding movie been Captain Marvel you would be forgiven for thinking Brie Larson would play a strong role in this movie, however - with a throwaway line earlier on justifying her absence, Carol Danvers features for all of around fifteen minutes! That's not to say she doesn't make an impact when she does I might add! Given the downbeat tone to 'Endgame' there is a lot of humour from start to finish - Chris Hemsworth, Paul Rudd, Bradley Cooper, I'm looking at you most here!, which in no way detracts from the weight of what's at sake here.
Josh Brolin is back as Thanos, and Thanos...that's right, two versions of the mad Titan appear. The one whom our heroes go up against during the final third act is a past version who travels forward in time to present after seeing into his own future and witnessing the efforts of Earth's Mightiest Heroes and the lengths they are prepared to go to in order to 'decimate' his plans. This is a Thanos whom I would deem more ruthless that 'Infinity War's' protagonist, a Thanos now determined to erase ALL life in the Universe.
I imagine the biggest question - well, one biggie amongst many, fans going into this movie blind had concerned who would return after the shocking climax to 'Infinity War' (along with whether those who died in that movie stayed that way). There was never any doubt - was there, that the vanished would return? It isn't that much of a spoiler then to reveal that the final thirty minutes or so of 'Endgame' features every MCU hero on screen together embroiled in the biggest fight of their lives. And what a visual delight it is. The visuals in this film are fantastic and the final battle rivals anything Peter Jackson gave us.
I was fortunate enough to see 'Endgame' at the first screening (pre-midnight) at a local cinema and what an experience it was - a mini comic con. The atmosphere was electric and it was a highly memorable experience.
Everyone involved in this movie deserves kudos, for this lifelong superhero fanboy Avengers: Endgame is the best movie....ever.
If I may digress somewhat, there has been much confusion reported concerning the movie's ending, namely the resolution to Steve Rogers' story. Having returned the Infinity Stones to their rightful place in the MCU timeline Cap chooses to remain in the past (circa 1940-ish) and to live out his life with Peggy Carter (the final shot shows the two having that well overdue dance). Whilst the perfect sendoff this has left many conflicted as to the implications with some reviewers claiming this goes against the rules established earlier in the movie relating to the use of time travel. It really isn't that complicated. Essentially there are two theories at play that can explain the climax.
The first is that Steve simply lived out a life in secrecy within the established continuity, choosing not to involve himself in major events. This does not contradict what we've seen so far - back in 'The Winter Soldier' we see archive footage of Peggy from the nineteen fifties in which she talks about Captain America saving her (un-named) husband during the war. It isn't really a reach of the imagination to suspect that Cap and this man are one and the same. In the same movie, present day Steve visits a dying Peggy - clearly suffering the effects of dementia, who apologises to him for the life he didn't have. Could this be a reference to the man she married having to live a life of secrecy, choosing to stay out of the fight for fear of creating a divergent reality? Given that the movie establishes that actions in the past will not change the future (within the main timeline) Steve's interference would not change anything in 'our' reality anyhow.
The second theory is that Steve created a branched reality by reuniting with Peggy and lived a fulfilling life in that alternate timeline, only returning to the main timeline an old man when the time was right to handover the shield to Sam Wilson/Falcon (as seen at the end of the movie). Sure, this raises questions as to how Steve was able to cross realities but to be honest - that's a story for another time and the answer isn't important (for now).
Further confusing things is the fact that the Writers and Directors cannot seemingly agree, with Marcus and McFeely disputing the alternate reality theory that the Russo brothers subscribe to. You could argue that surely it is the Writer's view that counts, as..after all, they wrote it! Well, yes and no. The directors translate their understanding of the written word onto the screen and it has been reported that additional material was filmed after test audiences struggled with the time travel aspects of the film. Therefore it's not that hard to believe that the film - and that ending, were shot in a way that supported the film-makers understanding. I subscribe to the former - the romantic in me and all that, with Steve's story coming full circle with the revelation that he was always there with Peggy. Either way, both theories work and preserve the integrity of what has come before.
In any regard it's the perfect ending for Captain America!
So, to conclude....did it succeed? OH YES!!
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Nanuk in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
Oh, Nanuk. Why are you so disliked? Is it because some gamers can’t separate Steve Jackson Games from Munchkin? Are you then destined to just be “okay” because your cousin is so polarizing? No. I will stand up for you AND your other cousin Revolution! (review coming)! You are a good game. Repeat after me, “I am a good game.” Good. ?
Nanuk, technically, is a polar bear. The same found on the cover of the game box. He is attempting to nom on an Inuit hunter. But worry not, in this game Nanuk does not eat people. Just the animals that have been hunted by the people to be brought back to the village as a result of your pig-headed boasting. Oh, you say you can bring back 17 fish in three days? I say you’re doomed.
I do not want to get in a habit of explaining games in my reviews, but I feel like Nanuk could benefit from it, so I will be quickly paraphrasing.
In Nanuk play goes around the table where each player must increase either the number of animals (and you can change the animal type) or the number of days of “the Hunt.” Example, I increase the current boast from three deer in one day to four birds in one day. Once a player no longer thinks the combination of animals and days will a successful hunt make, they must flip over their voting token to the doomed side. The last player to have upped the ante is the Hunt Leader and the naysayer is the, idk, Doom Leader I think. Then everyone evaluates the animal and Inuksuk (the awesome humanoid stone statue) cards to determine if they should join the Hunt or Doom team, flipping their voting token thusly. Every player then must contribute at least one card from their hand that will be shuffled together as the results of the Hunt. Should the boast parameters be met between the cards contributed and cards drawn from the deck (equal to the number of days boasted) the Hunt team wins and spoils are split among the team members. If not, the Doom team wins the spoils. At the end of the game you are hoping to have amassed sets and pairs of animals to score the most VP. There are a couple other rules that I will leave you to discover, but that is the… meat… of them.
I received my copy of Nanuk cheaply from a BGG auction many years ago. I was not sure exactly what to expect of it, but I was diggin the cover art. Once we played it, and played it again, and more, I began to love it more and more. It’s not a long game, the rules are relatively simple, and it is very much a social game. I wouldn’t necessarily call it a “party game” because that term just has different connotations to me, but it will play 5-8 players quite comfortably. Many times I have a group of 6 or more and this always delivers. Please give this one a try and I know you will enjoy it.
Someday we will start making lists and such, and this will go on my list of favorite games that support a larger play count. That said, Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a 12 / 18 (because Laura has not yet played it).
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/01/16/nanuk-review/
Nanuk, technically, is a polar bear. The same found on the cover of the game box. He is attempting to nom on an Inuit hunter. But worry not, in this game Nanuk does not eat people. Just the animals that have been hunted by the people to be brought back to the village as a result of your pig-headed boasting. Oh, you say you can bring back 17 fish in three days? I say you’re doomed.
I do not want to get in a habit of explaining games in my reviews, but I feel like Nanuk could benefit from it, so I will be quickly paraphrasing.
In Nanuk play goes around the table where each player must increase either the number of animals (and you can change the animal type) or the number of days of “the Hunt.” Example, I increase the current boast from three deer in one day to four birds in one day. Once a player no longer thinks the combination of animals and days will a successful hunt make, they must flip over their voting token to the doomed side. The last player to have upped the ante is the Hunt Leader and the naysayer is the, idk, Doom Leader I think. Then everyone evaluates the animal and Inuksuk (the awesome humanoid stone statue) cards to determine if they should join the Hunt or Doom team, flipping their voting token thusly. Every player then must contribute at least one card from their hand that will be shuffled together as the results of the Hunt. Should the boast parameters be met between the cards contributed and cards drawn from the deck (equal to the number of days boasted) the Hunt team wins and spoils are split among the team members. If not, the Doom team wins the spoils. At the end of the game you are hoping to have amassed sets and pairs of animals to score the most VP. There are a couple other rules that I will leave you to discover, but that is the… meat… of them.
I received my copy of Nanuk cheaply from a BGG auction many years ago. I was not sure exactly what to expect of it, but I was diggin the cover art. Once we played it, and played it again, and more, I began to love it more and more. It’s not a long game, the rules are relatively simple, and it is very much a social game. I wouldn’t necessarily call it a “party game” because that term just has different connotations to me, but it will play 5-8 players quite comfortably. Many times I have a group of 6 or more and this always delivers. Please give this one a try and I know you will enjoy it.
Someday we will start making lists and such, and this will go on my list of favorite games that support a larger play count. That said, Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a 12 / 18 (because Laura has not yet played it).
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/01/16/nanuk-review/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ready Player One (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Virtually brilliant with Easter Eggs a plenty.
Of all the Spielberg films of recent years – and possibly with the exception of “The BFG” – this was the film whose trailer disconcerted me the most. It really looked dire: CGI over heart; gimmicks over substance. I was right about ‘The BFG”, one of my least favourite Spielberg flicks. I was definitely wrong about “Ready Player One”: it’s a blast.
The film is fun in continually throwing surprises at you, including those actors not included in the trailer and only on small print on the poster. So I won’t spoil that here for you (you can of course look them up on imdb if you want to: but I suggest you try to see this one ‘cold’).
It’s 2044, and the majority of the population have taken the next logical step of video gaming and virtual reality and retreated into their own headsets, living out their lives primarily as avatars within the fanciful landscapes of “The Oasis”. You can “be” anyone and (subject to gaining the necessary credits) “do” anything there.
When the housing market is stacked against you. Columbus Ohio circa 2044.
The Oasis was the brainchild of a (Steve Wozniak-like) genius called James Halliday (played in enormous style by “Actor R”) and supported by his (Steve Jobs-like) business partner Ogden Morrow (“Actor P”). The two had a big falling out leaving Halliday in total control of the Oasis. But he died, and his dying “game” was to devise a devious competition that left a trail of three virtual keys in the Oasis leading to an ‘easter egg’: which if found would provide the finder with total ownership of the Oasis and the trillions of dollars that it is worth.
But the game is not only played by amateur “gunters” (egg-hunters) like our hero Wade Watts (Tye Sheridan, “X-Men: Apocalypse“) and his in-Oasis flirting partner Samantha (Olivia Cooke, “Me and Earl and the Dying Girl”); there are big corporate game-hunters involved like IoI (that’s eye-oh-eye, not one-oh-one as I assumed from the trailer) who fill warehouses with combinations of nerd-consultants and professional game players to try to find the keys before anyone else. Which hardly seems fair does it? Ruthless boss Sorrento (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“) and his tough-as-nails hench-woman F’Nale Zandor (Hannah John-Kamen, “Tomb Raider“) really couldn’t give a toss!
In the future, everyone is reaching out for something.
What follows is two-hours of high-octane game-play and eye-popping 3D (it is good in 3D by the way) that melds a baseline of “Avatar” with soupçons of “Tron”, “Minority Report” and Dan Brown novels. But its a blend that works.
I was afraid as I said that CGI would squash flat any hope of character development and story, and – yes – to be sure this is ‘suppressed’ a bit. You never get to really know many of the ‘pack’ members to any great level other than Wade and Samantha. And exactly what drives the corporate protagonists, other than “corporate greed”, is not particularly clear. What gives the film heart though are the performances of “Actor P” and (particularly) “Actor R”, who again steals every scene he is in. For their limited screen time together, the pair bounce off each other in a delightful way.
I have to make a confession at this point that I spent the whole film thinking “Miles Teller is way too old for the part of Wade”! Tye Sheridan (who I think *does* bear a likeness!) is actually much more age appropriate, and is fine in the role. But the star performance for me, out of the youngsters at least, was Oldham’s-own Olivia Cooke, who has a genuinely magnetic screen presence. She is most definitely a name to watch for the future.
Ready Player One
Young star of the show for me – Olivia Cooke as Samantha.
Lena Waithe (“Master of None”) plays Wade’s inventor friend Helen.
The story, although simple and quite one-dimensional, in the main intrigues: there is nothing like a Mario-style chase for keys to entertain when it is done well (I am so old and crusty that in my day it was “Manic Miner” on a ZX-Spectrum!).
He’s iron and he’s just gigantic! Reb’s creation becomes a force to be reckoned with when needed.
And there’s not just one “Easter Egg” in this film: the film is rammed to the rafters with throwbacks to classic pop-culture icons of past decades, and particularly the 80’s…. the film could have been subtitled “I ❤ 80’s”. Some of these are subliminal (Mayor Goldie Wilson anyone?), and others are more prominent but very clever: “The Zemekis cube” and “The Holy Hand Grenade” being prime examples. This is a film that deserves buying on Blu-ray and then slo-mo-ing through! The nostalgia extends to the music by Alan Silvestri, with occasional motifs from his most famous soundtrack!
For me though, the highspot of the film is a journey into a recreation of a classic ’80’s film which – while a scary sequence, earning for sure its 12A UK rating – is done with verve and chutzpah.
Wade’s avatar, Parzival.
Although a little overlong (2 hours 20 mins) and getting rather over-blown and LOTR-esque in the finale, the ending is very satisfying – roll on Tuesdays and Thursdays!
Spielberg’s recent films have been largely solid and well-constructed watches (“The Post” and “Bridge of Spies” for example) but they have been more niche than mainstream box office draws. I firmly predict that “Ready Player One” will change that: here Spielberg has a sure-fire hit on his hands and word of mouth (rather than the ho-hum trailer) should assure that.
The film is fun in continually throwing surprises at you, including those actors not included in the trailer and only on small print on the poster. So I won’t spoil that here for you (you can of course look them up on imdb if you want to: but I suggest you try to see this one ‘cold’).
It’s 2044, and the majority of the population have taken the next logical step of video gaming and virtual reality and retreated into their own headsets, living out their lives primarily as avatars within the fanciful landscapes of “The Oasis”. You can “be” anyone and (subject to gaining the necessary credits) “do” anything there.
When the housing market is stacked against you. Columbus Ohio circa 2044.
The Oasis was the brainchild of a (Steve Wozniak-like) genius called James Halliday (played in enormous style by “Actor R”) and supported by his (Steve Jobs-like) business partner Ogden Morrow (“Actor P”). The two had a big falling out leaving Halliday in total control of the Oasis. But he died, and his dying “game” was to devise a devious competition that left a trail of three virtual keys in the Oasis leading to an ‘easter egg’: which if found would provide the finder with total ownership of the Oasis and the trillions of dollars that it is worth.
But the game is not only played by amateur “gunters” (egg-hunters) like our hero Wade Watts (Tye Sheridan, “X-Men: Apocalypse“) and his in-Oasis flirting partner Samantha (Olivia Cooke, “Me and Earl and the Dying Girl”); there are big corporate game-hunters involved like IoI (that’s eye-oh-eye, not one-oh-one as I assumed from the trailer) who fill warehouses with combinations of nerd-consultants and professional game players to try to find the keys before anyone else. Which hardly seems fair does it? Ruthless boss Sorrento (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“) and his tough-as-nails hench-woman F’Nale Zandor (Hannah John-Kamen, “Tomb Raider“) really couldn’t give a toss!
In the future, everyone is reaching out for something.
What follows is two-hours of high-octane game-play and eye-popping 3D (it is good in 3D by the way) that melds a baseline of “Avatar” with soupçons of “Tron”, “Minority Report” and Dan Brown novels. But its a blend that works.
I was afraid as I said that CGI would squash flat any hope of character development and story, and – yes – to be sure this is ‘suppressed’ a bit. You never get to really know many of the ‘pack’ members to any great level other than Wade and Samantha. And exactly what drives the corporate protagonists, other than “corporate greed”, is not particularly clear. What gives the film heart though are the performances of “Actor P” and (particularly) “Actor R”, who again steals every scene he is in. For their limited screen time together, the pair bounce off each other in a delightful way.
I have to make a confession at this point that I spent the whole film thinking “Miles Teller is way too old for the part of Wade”! Tye Sheridan (who I think *does* bear a likeness!) is actually much more age appropriate, and is fine in the role. But the star performance for me, out of the youngsters at least, was Oldham’s-own Olivia Cooke, who has a genuinely magnetic screen presence. She is most definitely a name to watch for the future.
Ready Player One
Young star of the show for me – Olivia Cooke as Samantha.
Lena Waithe (“Master of None”) plays Wade’s inventor friend Helen.
The story, although simple and quite one-dimensional, in the main intrigues: there is nothing like a Mario-style chase for keys to entertain when it is done well (I am so old and crusty that in my day it was “Manic Miner” on a ZX-Spectrum!).
He’s iron and he’s just gigantic! Reb’s creation becomes a force to be reckoned with when needed.
And there’s not just one “Easter Egg” in this film: the film is rammed to the rafters with throwbacks to classic pop-culture icons of past decades, and particularly the 80’s…. the film could have been subtitled “I ❤ 80’s”. Some of these are subliminal (Mayor Goldie Wilson anyone?), and others are more prominent but very clever: “The Zemekis cube” and “The Holy Hand Grenade” being prime examples. This is a film that deserves buying on Blu-ray and then slo-mo-ing through! The nostalgia extends to the music by Alan Silvestri, with occasional motifs from his most famous soundtrack!
For me though, the highspot of the film is a journey into a recreation of a classic ’80’s film which – while a scary sequence, earning for sure its 12A UK rating – is done with verve and chutzpah.
Wade’s avatar, Parzival.
Although a little overlong (2 hours 20 mins) and getting rather over-blown and LOTR-esque in the finale, the ending is very satisfying – roll on Tuesdays and Thursdays!
Spielberg’s recent films have been largely solid and well-constructed watches (“The Post” and “Bridge of Spies” for example) but they have been more niche than mainstream box office draws. I firmly predict that “Ready Player One” will change that: here Spielberg has a sure-fire hit on his hands and word of mouth (rather than the ho-hum trailer) should assure that.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Bob Ross: Art of Chill Game in Tabletop Games
Jun 30, 2021
Bob Ross is a household name in the United States and has been for quite a while. The man is a legend and part of the Trinity of Mankind (which also includes Mister Rogers and Steve Irwin). Anyone who has watched this man paint instantly recognizes a beautiful human being with extreme talent and the ability to lull audiences into a state of euphoria as he paints mountains, creeks, cabins, and trees. And of course, every one should have a friend. His wholesomeness goes to 11! So what do I find one day whilst perusing the strange board game wares in my local Target one day three years ago but a Bob Ross game. I wasn’t expecting much, but had to have it for nostalgic reasons. Was my money wasted or is there something in this box worth actually playing?
Bob Ross: Art of Chill is a set collection, hand management, card drafting game that has its players attempting to complete masterful paintings before the master does in order to collect bonus “chill points” to win the game. Whomever manages to reach ultimate chill status will be victorious and can return to feeding Peapod, their rascally pocket squirrel.
To setup, place the easel and one of the shuffled painting panels upon it. Place the other panels (paintings) nearby. Place the main scoreboard nearby as well and place the shuffled Chill Cards on its space upon the board. The Technique Cards deck and the Art Supplies Card decks will be shuffled separately and placed below the board with four cards from each deck revealed as an offer. Place the Bob Mover (Bobeeple) on the easel in the first location printed on the panel. Each player will receive a palette, the scoring cube of their color to be placed on the scoreboard, the three Feature Markers, and three random Art Supplies Cards. The game may now begin!
On a turn players will be rolling the Bob die and carrying out its action. These actions are playing a paint card from hand onto their palette, drawing one Art Supplies Card from the deck to their hand, performing one free Action prior to the Action phase, or resolving the Bob die face. The Bob die face requires players to reveal a new Chill Card and resolve its immediate effects, or effects that will remain in play until a new Chill Card is revealed. Secondly, the Bobeeple will move to the next printed stopping point on the panel.
Once the die has been rolled and resolved, the active player will be able to take any three actions available in any order: Draw an Art Supplies Card (from the deck or from the offer), Sweep the Art Supplies Card (discard all face-up cards and reveal four new ones), Apply Paint to Your Palette (by placing it on your palette from your hand of cards), Wash Your Palette (by discarding cards from one of the palette areas to clear it), Earn a Technique Card (by discarding two like-cards from the hand of cards in order to score more VP for painting features in the future), or Paint a Feature (by discarding the required brush from the player’s hand of cards and the correct matching paints already applied to their palette).
Once complete, the next player will take their turn of rolling the die and completing three actions. Should players paint a feature on the panel before Bob moves to that spot on the panel the player(s) will gain extra bonus Chill points. Players may still paint features for points if Bob already has as well, they just will not receive the bonus Bob points. Turns will continue in this fashion until the moment one player has reached ultimate Chill and won the game.
Components. This game has a fair amount of components and I am happy to say they are all great! The cardboard components (palettes, score board) are good. The cards are all lovely linen-finished. The other player components are fine as well. The painting panels are excellent and feature actual Bob Ross masterpieces, and there are 15 double-sided panels in the box! The coolest component is certainly the easel though. It seems to be a somewhat real and functional easel (not that you would really want to paint on it) and it amps up the table appeal when setup and in play. I love the components and I am so glad that Big G Creative made a Bob Ross game with beautiful components. Anything less would be sacrilege.
It probably comes as no surprise that I love this game. I have always loved watching Bob Ross from when I was a child even up through my adulthood and I am relieved to be able to still watch him in action via Netflix. The game, though, is rather surprising. I certainly wasn’t expecting to like this as much as I do and was quite shocked to find out that there was actual substance in a Bob Ross game. Especially when it was stationed next to “games” like Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, Throw Throw Burrito, and the like. I enjoy the nostalgia in seeing my favorite colors in my hands like Phthalo Blue, Cadmium Orange, and Sap Green.
I don’t know if I would really consider this a gateway game, though I believe it really depends on the gamers with whom you are playing. There will be many times when you are concentrating on collecting the colors needed to finish a feature before Bob only to frustratingly never see that color on offer nor in the cards you draw and then the painting has to be refreshed because people can’t seem to stop rolling Bob on the die. However, if you play with people who can literally chill when things don’t go their way, this is a gem. Purple Phoenix Games gives Bob Ross: Art of Chill a 21 / 24. The only thing missing here is a way to, “beat the devil out of it,” and it would make my heart sing.
Bob Ross: Art of Chill is a set collection, hand management, card drafting game that has its players attempting to complete masterful paintings before the master does in order to collect bonus “chill points” to win the game. Whomever manages to reach ultimate chill status will be victorious and can return to feeding Peapod, their rascally pocket squirrel.
To setup, place the easel and one of the shuffled painting panels upon it. Place the other panels (paintings) nearby. Place the main scoreboard nearby as well and place the shuffled Chill Cards on its space upon the board. The Technique Cards deck and the Art Supplies Card decks will be shuffled separately and placed below the board with four cards from each deck revealed as an offer. Place the Bob Mover (Bobeeple) on the easel in the first location printed on the panel. Each player will receive a palette, the scoring cube of their color to be placed on the scoreboard, the three Feature Markers, and three random Art Supplies Cards. The game may now begin!
On a turn players will be rolling the Bob die and carrying out its action. These actions are playing a paint card from hand onto their palette, drawing one Art Supplies Card from the deck to their hand, performing one free Action prior to the Action phase, or resolving the Bob die face. The Bob die face requires players to reveal a new Chill Card and resolve its immediate effects, or effects that will remain in play until a new Chill Card is revealed. Secondly, the Bobeeple will move to the next printed stopping point on the panel.
Once the die has been rolled and resolved, the active player will be able to take any three actions available in any order: Draw an Art Supplies Card (from the deck or from the offer), Sweep the Art Supplies Card (discard all face-up cards and reveal four new ones), Apply Paint to Your Palette (by placing it on your palette from your hand of cards), Wash Your Palette (by discarding cards from one of the palette areas to clear it), Earn a Technique Card (by discarding two like-cards from the hand of cards in order to score more VP for painting features in the future), or Paint a Feature (by discarding the required brush from the player’s hand of cards and the correct matching paints already applied to their palette).
Once complete, the next player will take their turn of rolling the die and completing three actions. Should players paint a feature on the panel before Bob moves to that spot on the panel the player(s) will gain extra bonus Chill points. Players may still paint features for points if Bob already has as well, they just will not receive the bonus Bob points. Turns will continue in this fashion until the moment one player has reached ultimate Chill and won the game.
Components. This game has a fair amount of components and I am happy to say they are all great! The cardboard components (palettes, score board) are good. The cards are all lovely linen-finished. The other player components are fine as well. The painting panels are excellent and feature actual Bob Ross masterpieces, and there are 15 double-sided panels in the box! The coolest component is certainly the easel though. It seems to be a somewhat real and functional easel (not that you would really want to paint on it) and it amps up the table appeal when setup and in play. I love the components and I am so glad that Big G Creative made a Bob Ross game with beautiful components. Anything less would be sacrilege.
It probably comes as no surprise that I love this game. I have always loved watching Bob Ross from when I was a child even up through my adulthood and I am relieved to be able to still watch him in action via Netflix. The game, though, is rather surprising. I certainly wasn’t expecting to like this as much as I do and was quite shocked to find out that there was actual substance in a Bob Ross game. Especially when it was stationed next to “games” like Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, Throw Throw Burrito, and the like. I enjoy the nostalgia in seeing my favorite colors in my hands like Phthalo Blue, Cadmium Orange, and Sap Green.
I don’t know if I would really consider this a gateway game, though I believe it really depends on the gamers with whom you are playing. There will be many times when you are concentrating on collecting the colors needed to finish a feature before Bob only to frustratingly never see that color on offer nor in the cards you draw and then the painting has to be refreshed because people can’t seem to stop rolling Bob on the die. However, if you play with people who can literally chill when things don’t go their way, this is a gem. Purple Phoenix Games gives Bob Ross: Art of Chill a 21 / 24. The only thing missing here is a way to, “beat the devil out of it,” and it would make my heart sing.
Darren (1599 KP) rated 12 Years a Slave (2013) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Watching how Solomon struggles to just survive let alone becoming free again. We see how different men who have slaves treat them, some well some badly. The story shows the tragic truth about how slaves were treated and even though this story get a happy ending of freedom, most never got that chance, with this still happening in the modern world it should make everyone be thankful for the fact they are free now. The story is an inspiration story of survival and not giving up hope. (10/10)
Actor Reviews
Chiwetel Ejiofor: Solomon kidnapped and sold into slavery, not resting on the fact he will never escape he tries over the 12 years to find a way to get his own freedom before finally finding someone to trust enough. Chiwetel is brilliant in the role and fully deserved his BAFTA for best actor. (10/10)
solomon
Michael Fassbender: Edwin Epps the drunken plantation owner who abuses his slaves for his own pleasure, enforced strict rules and taking all the hope out of his slaves. Great performance from Fassbender playing a character that is driven to be hated. (9/10)
fassbender
REPORT THIS AD
Lupita Nyong’o: Patsey one of the slaves on Epps’s plantation who is his favourite as she is the best picker and also he favourite for his sexual pleasures. Great performance, showing that the hope had been taken from some of the slaves. (10/10)
lupita
Brad Pitt: Bass a free roaming labourer who doesn’t turn up to late in the film, becomes the last chance for Solomon. Only a small role but does a good job.(8/10)
pitt
Paul Dano: Tibeats, Ford’s evil slaver runner who pushes all of them to limits they shouldn’t have to go, he thinks he is better than all of the slaves, but Solomon teaches him a thing or too. Good performance from Dano showing he can fit into any role with ease. (8/10)
dano
Paul Giamatti: Freeman the slave sales man who put them all up for show so that the highest bidder will purchase them. Only a small role but affectively showing how the slavery sales were made to be glamorous for what they are doing. (7/10)
paul
REPORT THIS AD
Benedict Cumberbatch: Ford a good man who looks after his slaves, Ford purchases Solomon and is willing to listen to Solomon’s ideas to improve his work. Forced to sell on Solomon, but always looked after them all fair. Good supporting performance and his character reflexes how evil Epps is.(8/10)
benedict
Sarah Paulson: Mistress Epps the wife of Edwin, who has a dislike for Patsey but an almost sympatric side to the rest of the slaves. Good performance and the one scene with Patsey is really stand out. (9/10)
mistress epps
Director Review: Steve McQueen – Brilliant direction to tell such an amazing story of one man’s journey. (10/10)
Biography: Amazing look at how Solomon survived his ordeal. (10/10)
Drama: Stunning look at something that could have been all guns, blood and gore, but focuses on the emotions involved with the people. (10/10)
History: Good look at how people were treated during the slave times. (10/10)
Settings: Beautiful settings used to create the story. (10/10)
Suggestion: This really should be watched by all, but I do feel the more casual film fan may find it hard to watch. (Watch)
Best Part: Chiwetel Performance.
Worst Part: Some of the punishment scenes are hard to watch.
Favourite Quote: Solomon ‘I will not fall into despair! I will keep myself hardy until freedom is opportune!’
Believability: Based on Solomon’s true story. (10/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
REPORT THIS AD
Oscar Chances: Won 3 Oscars.
Box Office: $178,413,838
Budget: $20 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 13 Minutes
Tagline: The extraordinary true story of Solomon Northup.
Overall: Stunning Story
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/05/12/12-years-a-slave-2013/
Actor Reviews
Chiwetel Ejiofor: Solomon kidnapped and sold into slavery, not resting on the fact he will never escape he tries over the 12 years to find a way to get his own freedom before finally finding someone to trust enough. Chiwetel is brilliant in the role and fully deserved his BAFTA for best actor. (10/10)
solomon
Michael Fassbender: Edwin Epps the drunken plantation owner who abuses his slaves for his own pleasure, enforced strict rules and taking all the hope out of his slaves. Great performance from Fassbender playing a character that is driven to be hated. (9/10)
fassbender
REPORT THIS AD
Lupita Nyong’o: Patsey one of the slaves on Epps’s plantation who is his favourite as she is the best picker and also he favourite for his sexual pleasures. Great performance, showing that the hope had been taken from some of the slaves. (10/10)
lupita
Brad Pitt: Bass a free roaming labourer who doesn’t turn up to late in the film, becomes the last chance for Solomon. Only a small role but does a good job.(8/10)
pitt
Paul Dano: Tibeats, Ford’s evil slaver runner who pushes all of them to limits they shouldn’t have to go, he thinks he is better than all of the slaves, but Solomon teaches him a thing or too. Good performance from Dano showing he can fit into any role with ease. (8/10)
dano
Paul Giamatti: Freeman the slave sales man who put them all up for show so that the highest bidder will purchase them. Only a small role but affectively showing how the slavery sales were made to be glamorous for what they are doing. (7/10)
paul
REPORT THIS AD
Benedict Cumberbatch: Ford a good man who looks after his slaves, Ford purchases Solomon and is willing to listen to Solomon’s ideas to improve his work. Forced to sell on Solomon, but always looked after them all fair. Good supporting performance and his character reflexes how evil Epps is.(8/10)
benedict
Sarah Paulson: Mistress Epps the wife of Edwin, who has a dislike for Patsey but an almost sympatric side to the rest of the slaves. Good performance and the one scene with Patsey is really stand out. (9/10)
mistress epps
Director Review: Steve McQueen – Brilliant direction to tell such an amazing story of one man’s journey. (10/10)
Biography: Amazing look at how Solomon survived his ordeal. (10/10)
Drama: Stunning look at something that could have been all guns, blood and gore, but focuses on the emotions involved with the people. (10/10)
History: Good look at how people were treated during the slave times. (10/10)
Settings: Beautiful settings used to create the story. (10/10)
Suggestion: This really should be watched by all, but I do feel the more casual film fan may find it hard to watch. (Watch)
Best Part: Chiwetel Performance.
Worst Part: Some of the punishment scenes are hard to watch.
Favourite Quote: Solomon ‘I will not fall into despair! I will keep myself hardy until freedom is opportune!’
Believability: Based on Solomon’s true story. (10/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
REPORT THIS AD
Oscar Chances: Won 3 Oscars.
Box Office: $178,413,838
Budget: $20 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 13 Minutes
Tagline: The extraordinary true story of Solomon Northup.
Overall: Stunning Story
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/05/12/12-years-a-slave-2013/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Stan & Ollie (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
When the laughter has to end.
The problem with any comedy double act is that if illness or death get in the way (think Dustin Gee and Les Dennis; or Morecambe and Wise) the wheels can come off for the other partner. “Stan and Ollie” tells the story of the comic duo starting in 1937 when they reached their peak of global popularity, albeit when Laurel was hardly on speaking terms with their long-term producer Hal Roach (Danny Huston).
As you might guess from this, the emotional direction for the film is downwards, but not necessarily in a totally depressing way. The film depicts the duo’s tour of Laurel’s native country (he was born in Lancashire) and this has its ups as well as its downs.
Not knowing their life story, this is one where when the trailer came on I shut my eyes and plugged my ears so as to avoid spoilers: as such I will say nothing further on the details of the plot.
My wife and I were reminiscing after seeing this flick about how our parents used to crack up over the film antics of Laurel and Hardy. And they were, in their own slapstick way, very funny indeed. The film manages to recreate (impecably) some of their more famous routines and parodies others: their travel trunk gallops to the bottom of the station steps, mimicking the famous scenes with a piano from 1932’s “The Music Box”. “Do we really need that trunk” Hardy deadpans to Laurel.
The turns
There are four star turns at the heart of the film and they are John C. Reilly as Ollie; Steve Coogan as Stan; Shirley Henderson (forever to be referenced as “Moaning Myrtle”) as Ollie’s wife Lucille and Nina Arianda (so memorable as the ‘pointer outer’ in the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ segment of “Florence Foster Jenkins“) as Stan’s latest wife Ida.
Coogan and Reilly do an outstanding job of impersonating the comic duo. Both are simply brilliant, playing up to their public personas when visible but subtly delivering similar traits in private. Of the two, John C. Reilly’s performance is the most memorable: he IS Oliver Hardy. Not taking too much away from the other performance, but there are a few times when Coogan poked through the illusion (like a Partridge sticking its head out from a Pear Tree you might say).
Henderson and Arianda also add tremendous heart to the drama, and Arianda’s Ida in particular is hilarious. Also delivering a fabulous supporting role is Rufus Jones as the famous impressario Bernard Delfont: all smarm and Machiavellian chicanery that adds a different shape of comedy to the film.
Another Fine Mess?
Actually, no: it’s one of those pleasant and untaxing cinema experiences that older audiences in particular will really enjoy. However, the film’s far from perfect in my view: the flash-forwards/flash-backs I felt made the story bitty and disjointed; and ultimately the life story of the duo doesn’t have a huge depth of drama in it to amaze or excite, the way that 2004’s “Beyond the Sea” (the biopic of Bobby Darin) did for example. But the film never gets boring or disappoints.
I’d like to say that the script by Jeff Pope (“Philomena“) is historically accurate, but a look at the wikipedia entries for the pair show that it was far from that. Yes, the tours of the UK and Europe did happen, but over multiple years and the actual events in their lives are telescoped into a single trip for dramatic purposes. But I think the essence of the pair comes across nicely. Laurel’s wikipedia entry records a nice death-bed scene that sums up the guy:
“Minutes before his death, he told his nurse that he would not mind going skiing, and she replied that she was not aware that he was a skier. “I’m not,” said Laurel, “I’d rather be doing that than this!” A few minutes later, the nurse looked in on him again and found that he had died quietly in his armchair.”
“Stan and Ollie” has a few preview screenings before the New Year, but goes on UK general release on January 11th. Recommended.
As you might guess from this, the emotional direction for the film is downwards, but not necessarily in a totally depressing way. The film depicts the duo’s tour of Laurel’s native country (he was born in Lancashire) and this has its ups as well as its downs.
Not knowing their life story, this is one where when the trailer came on I shut my eyes and plugged my ears so as to avoid spoilers: as such I will say nothing further on the details of the plot.
My wife and I were reminiscing after seeing this flick about how our parents used to crack up over the film antics of Laurel and Hardy. And they were, in their own slapstick way, very funny indeed. The film manages to recreate (impecably) some of their more famous routines and parodies others: their travel trunk gallops to the bottom of the station steps, mimicking the famous scenes with a piano from 1932’s “The Music Box”. “Do we really need that trunk” Hardy deadpans to Laurel.
The turns
There are four star turns at the heart of the film and they are John C. Reilly as Ollie; Steve Coogan as Stan; Shirley Henderson (forever to be referenced as “Moaning Myrtle”) as Ollie’s wife Lucille and Nina Arianda (so memorable as the ‘pointer outer’ in the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ segment of “Florence Foster Jenkins“) as Stan’s latest wife Ida.
Coogan and Reilly do an outstanding job of impersonating the comic duo. Both are simply brilliant, playing up to their public personas when visible but subtly delivering similar traits in private. Of the two, John C. Reilly’s performance is the most memorable: he IS Oliver Hardy. Not taking too much away from the other performance, but there are a few times when Coogan poked through the illusion (like a Partridge sticking its head out from a Pear Tree you might say).
Henderson and Arianda also add tremendous heart to the drama, and Arianda’s Ida in particular is hilarious. Also delivering a fabulous supporting role is Rufus Jones as the famous impressario Bernard Delfont: all smarm and Machiavellian chicanery that adds a different shape of comedy to the film.
Another Fine Mess?
Actually, no: it’s one of those pleasant and untaxing cinema experiences that older audiences in particular will really enjoy. However, the film’s far from perfect in my view: the flash-forwards/flash-backs I felt made the story bitty and disjointed; and ultimately the life story of the duo doesn’t have a huge depth of drama in it to amaze or excite, the way that 2004’s “Beyond the Sea” (the biopic of Bobby Darin) did for example. But the film never gets boring or disappoints.
I’d like to say that the script by Jeff Pope (“Philomena“) is historically accurate, but a look at the wikipedia entries for the pair show that it was far from that. Yes, the tours of the UK and Europe did happen, but over multiple years and the actual events in their lives are telescoped into a single trip for dramatic purposes. But I think the essence of the pair comes across nicely. Laurel’s wikipedia entry records a nice death-bed scene that sums up the guy:
“Minutes before his death, he told his nurse that he would not mind going skiing, and she replied that she was not aware that he was a skier. “I’m not,” said Laurel, “I’d rather be doing that than this!” A few minutes later, the nurse looked in on him again and found that he had died quietly in his armchair.”
“Stan and Ollie” has a few preview screenings before the New Year, but goes on UK general release on January 11th. Recommended.