Search
Search results
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Rhino Hero in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
What’s that on top of that building? It’s a…..rhino? Yes – you’re not hallucinating! Your neighborhood caped-crusader is indeed none other than Rhino Hero! Although not necessarily the most nimble of superheroes, he always gives 100% when it comes to protecting his people!
Rhino Hero is a dexterity-based game of literal hand management in which players are trying to use their cards to build the tallest tower possible. In simple terms, picture a ‘Jenga’ of sorts mixed with building a house of cards – instead of removing lower tiles and adding them to the top, though, you’re just adding cards to the narrow tower in an attempt to build the highest possible building for our superhero to traverse! The game is very easy to learn, simple to play, and entertaining for all involved! Here’s how it works: All players start with a hand of 5 roof cards. Each player, on their turn, will first place wall cards (as indicated) on the previously played roof card. Once that is done, the active player will then choose a roof card from their hand to play on top of the newly ‘built’ walls. Play continues until either one player has played all of their roof cards, or until a player causes the tower to fall over! Dexterity is important – how steady can you keep your hand as you build the tower? But strategy is key too – some roof tiles allow players to take special actions (play an additional roof card, reverse turn order, etc.), so timing your use of these powers is essential to success! Do you have the steadiness and strategy necessary to help our Hero on his quest for justice? Or will you end up as the clumsy sidekick who ruins the plan?
I thoroughly enjoy playing Rhino Hero. It’s such a fun and lighthearted little game that I can’t help but smile every time I play! One reason it’s so great is that it is extremely simple to learn, teach, and play. Playing with new players? Try Rhino Hero. Playing with children? Try Rhino Hero. Need something short and light to play between big games? Try Rhino Hero. It’s just a nice breathe of fresh air and I am almost always down to give it a couple of plays!
Another reason why I like Rhino Hero is that it’s more than just a dexterity game. Yes, the brunt of this game is centered around carefully building the tallest tower possible, but the card abilities take it to the next level. It adds an element of strategy that keeps players engaged beyond just needing a steady hand. How can you use your cards to best benefit you, or best block your opponents? It all depends on your current roof cards, so every game can require a different strategy!
If you’re looking for a short, light game, I hope you’ll consider Rhino Hero. It’s not the most strategic or cut-throat game out there, but it will definitely keep you engaged until the end – with pumping adrenaline and shaky hands (for me, at least). Purple Phoenix Games gives Rhino Hero a rhinoriffic 16 / 24.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/05/09/rhino-hero-review/
Rhino Hero is a dexterity-based game of literal hand management in which players are trying to use their cards to build the tallest tower possible. In simple terms, picture a ‘Jenga’ of sorts mixed with building a house of cards – instead of removing lower tiles and adding them to the top, though, you’re just adding cards to the narrow tower in an attempt to build the highest possible building for our superhero to traverse! The game is very easy to learn, simple to play, and entertaining for all involved! Here’s how it works: All players start with a hand of 5 roof cards. Each player, on their turn, will first place wall cards (as indicated) on the previously played roof card. Once that is done, the active player will then choose a roof card from their hand to play on top of the newly ‘built’ walls. Play continues until either one player has played all of their roof cards, or until a player causes the tower to fall over! Dexterity is important – how steady can you keep your hand as you build the tower? But strategy is key too – some roof tiles allow players to take special actions (play an additional roof card, reverse turn order, etc.), so timing your use of these powers is essential to success! Do you have the steadiness and strategy necessary to help our Hero on his quest for justice? Or will you end up as the clumsy sidekick who ruins the plan?
I thoroughly enjoy playing Rhino Hero. It’s such a fun and lighthearted little game that I can’t help but smile every time I play! One reason it’s so great is that it is extremely simple to learn, teach, and play. Playing with new players? Try Rhino Hero. Playing with children? Try Rhino Hero. Need something short and light to play between big games? Try Rhino Hero. It’s just a nice breathe of fresh air and I am almost always down to give it a couple of plays!
Another reason why I like Rhino Hero is that it’s more than just a dexterity game. Yes, the brunt of this game is centered around carefully building the tallest tower possible, but the card abilities take it to the next level. It adds an element of strategy that keeps players engaged beyond just needing a steady hand. How can you use your cards to best benefit you, or best block your opponents? It all depends on your current roof cards, so every game can require a different strategy!
If you’re looking for a short, light game, I hope you’ll consider Rhino Hero. It’s not the most strategic or cut-throat game out there, but it will definitely keep you engaged until the end – with pumping adrenaline and shaky hands (for me, at least). Purple Phoenix Games gives Rhino Hero a rhinoriffic 16 / 24.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/05/09/rhino-hero-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Incredibles 2 (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2018
Not just a good "kids" movie, but a good "movie" movie
INCREDIBLES 2 is one of the best movies that has been released, thus far, in 2018.
Now...there is some debate as to whether that is praise of this film, or a damnation of the lackluster year (thus far) in film.
But...let's start with praising this film. Coming into Cinemas 14 years after the original film, this sequel picks up the story where the first INCREDIBLES film left off (the beauty of cartoon films - the actors don't age) and starts right off with a fun action sequence that, then, sets up the rest of the story.
Brad Bird (THE IRON GIANT) returns as the Director and Writer of this film (he also wrote and directed the first Incredibles film) and his deft touch shows through usage of humor, character, plot and action - all nicely blended to keep the film rolling along. He also was able to get wonderful performances from his talented voice cast.
Holly Hunter and Craig T. Nelson reprise their roles as "Mr & Mrs. Incredible" and hearing them banter back and forth - and seeing these two characters back on the screen - was like pulling on a pair of comfortable shoes. It was good to see/hear them again. Samuel L. Jackson is perfectly cast as their best friend/Allie Frozone and Brad Bird himself is wonderfully funny as Edna. Joining these two is Bob Odekenirk and Katherine Keener as brother and sister Winston and Evelyn Deavor - the duo that hires the Incredibles. Both are terrifically talented character performers and slid right into the swing of things here. Eli Fucile continues the "baby-talk" of Jack-Jack Incredible and Huck Milner takes over the role of Dash Incredible - both are good.
But it is the work of Sarah Vowell as angsty teen Violet Incredible that stood out for me. I had no idea who performed this character - and had vague recollections of Violet from the first film - but she is front and center and was so extremely entertainingly real as the teenage daughter that I had to look up who is the voice. To my surprise, this teenager was voiced (yet, again) by a now almost 50 year old radio journalist, critic, reporter and editor (best know for her work on NPR's THIS AMERICAN LIFE). I had no clue that I wasn't listening to a teenage girl - she is that good, and that believable. And I should know, I HAVE a teenage daughter!
While the first INCREDIBLES is my #1 Pixar film, I'll have to sit on this one for awhile to see where this one lands - pretty high up the list, I'm sure. I could quibble on a few things - the motivations of the "bad guy" is paper thin and the humor relies just a bit too much on the Jack-Jack character, but all-in-all this is a top notch Pixar film - and a top notch SuperHero film. Proving that a good Pixar movie isn't just a good "kid" movie, but a good "movie" movie as well.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars - and you take that to the BankofMarquis
Now...there is some debate as to whether that is praise of this film, or a damnation of the lackluster year (thus far) in film.
But...let's start with praising this film. Coming into Cinemas 14 years after the original film, this sequel picks up the story where the first INCREDIBLES film left off (the beauty of cartoon films - the actors don't age) and starts right off with a fun action sequence that, then, sets up the rest of the story.
Brad Bird (THE IRON GIANT) returns as the Director and Writer of this film (he also wrote and directed the first Incredibles film) and his deft touch shows through usage of humor, character, plot and action - all nicely blended to keep the film rolling along. He also was able to get wonderful performances from his talented voice cast.
Holly Hunter and Craig T. Nelson reprise their roles as "Mr & Mrs. Incredible" and hearing them banter back and forth - and seeing these two characters back on the screen - was like pulling on a pair of comfortable shoes. It was good to see/hear them again. Samuel L. Jackson is perfectly cast as their best friend/Allie Frozone and Brad Bird himself is wonderfully funny as Edna. Joining these two is Bob Odekenirk and Katherine Keener as brother and sister Winston and Evelyn Deavor - the duo that hires the Incredibles. Both are terrifically talented character performers and slid right into the swing of things here. Eli Fucile continues the "baby-talk" of Jack-Jack Incredible and Huck Milner takes over the role of Dash Incredible - both are good.
But it is the work of Sarah Vowell as angsty teen Violet Incredible that stood out for me. I had no idea who performed this character - and had vague recollections of Violet from the first film - but she is front and center and was so extremely entertainingly real as the teenage daughter that I had to look up who is the voice. To my surprise, this teenager was voiced (yet, again) by a now almost 50 year old radio journalist, critic, reporter and editor (best know for her work on NPR's THIS AMERICAN LIFE). I had no clue that I wasn't listening to a teenage girl - she is that good, and that believable. And I should know, I HAVE a teenage daughter!
While the first INCREDIBLES is my #1 Pixar film, I'll have to sit on this one for awhile to see where this one lands - pretty high up the list, I'm sure. I could quibble on a few things - the motivations of the "bad guy" is paper thin and the humor relies just a bit too much on the Jack-Jack character, but all-in-all this is a top notch Pixar film - and a top notch SuperHero film. Proving that a good Pixar movie isn't just a good "kid" movie, but a good "movie" movie as well.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars - and you take that to the BankofMarquis
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Spider-Man (2002) in Movies
Jun 30, 2019
" With great power comes great responsibility"
One of the first movies to pave the groundwork for modern superhero flicks, Spider-Man is an incredibly fun & endlessly entertaining action-adventure that brings its web-slinging hero to life on the silver screen in a truly fascinating manner after spending nearly a quarter of a century in development hell and, with its record-breaking box office performance, acts as a precursor to an era when superheroes would dominate the summer box-office.
Based on the Marvel Comics character of the same name, the story of Spider-Man follows Peter Parker; a high-school kid who after being bitten by a radioactive spider at a genetic laboratory begins to develop spider-like abilities and puts his new powers to good use by turning to crimefighting. Meanwhile, Norman Osborn experiments a power-enhancing drug on himself as a desperate attempt to preserve a military contract critical for his company's survival.
Directed by Sam Raimi, Spider-Man has all the ingredients of a summer blockbuster plus it benefits a lot from Raimi's dynamic filmmaking style that doesn't dwell on a single moment for far too long, keeps the story fresh, light-hearted & action-packed for the most part, plus never loses its initially-gained momentum. David Koepp's screenplay is no slouch either for it packs in a compelling plot & few interesting characters and the whole story is cheesy but well humoured.
The technical aspects are all brilliantly executed. Camerawork is excellent for the most part for the chosen angles, swift movements, slow-mo shots & warm colour palette are correctly employed. Editing provides a frenetic pace to its narrative, each moment has a role to play, and its 121 minutes of runtime simply flies by. Visual effects team makes use of both CGI & practical stuntwork and it's amazing just how well it has aged when compared to other effects-laden movies released back then.
Coming to the performances, Spider-Man packs in a very interesting cast in Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, Willem Dafoe, J.K. Simmons & others, and many of them are pretty convincing in their given roles. Maguire does a terrific job under Raimi's supervision, Dafoe plays Norman Osborn with finesse but that Green Goblin suit is extremely off-putting, Simmons is a near-perfect rendition of J. Jonah Jameson from the comics while both Dunst & Franco do a fine job as Mary Jane Watson & Harry Osborn, respectively.
Also worthy of admiration is Danny Elfman's outstanding score that captures just the right tone & feel of your friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man's universe and brims with tracks that seamlessly integrate into the story. On an overall scale, Spider-Man may not seem as impressive today as it did back when it made its debut on the silver screen but it still remains one of the best offerings of its category and delivers a roller-coasted ride that's enjoyable, entertaining & highly satisfying. Spider-Man is a summer popcorn extravaganza right on the money.
Based on the Marvel Comics character of the same name, the story of Spider-Man follows Peter Parker; a high-school kid who after being bitten by a radioactive spider at a genetic laboratory begins to develop spider-like abilities and puts his new powers to good use by turning to crimefighting. Meanwhile, Norman Osborn experiments a power-enhancing drug on himself as a desperate attempt to preserve a military contract critical for his company's survival.
Directed by Sam Raimi, Spider-Man has all the ingredients of a summer blockbuster plus it benefits a lot from Raimi's dynamic filmmaking style that doesn't dwell on a single moment for far too long, keeps the story fresh, light-hearted & action-packed for the most part, plus never loses its initially-gained momentum. David Koepp's screenplay is no slouch either for it packs in a compelling plot & few interesting characters and the whole story is cheesy but well humoured.
The technical aspects are all brilliantly executed. Camerawork is excellent for the most part for the chosen angles, swift movements, slow-mo shots & warm colour palette are correctly employed. Editing provides a frenetic pace to its narrative, each moment has a role to play, and its 121 minutes of runtime simply flies by. Visual effects team makes use of both CGI & practical stuntwork and it's amazing just how well it has aged when compared to other effects-laden movies released back then.
Coming to the performances, Spider-Man packs in a very interesting cast in Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, Willem Dafoe, J.K. Simmons & others, and many of them are pretty convincing in their given roles. Maguire does a terrific job under Raimi's supervision, Dafoe plays Norman Osborn with finesse but that Green Goblin suit is extremely off-putting, Simmons is a near-perfect rendition of J. Jonah Jameson from the comics while both Dunst & Franco do a fine job as Mary Jane Watson & Harry Osborn, respectively.
Also worthy of admiration is Danny Elfman's outstanding score that captures just the right tone & feel of your friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man's universe and brims with tracks that seamlessly integrate into the story. On an overall scale, Spider-Man may not seem as impressive today as it did back when it made its debut on the silver screen but it still remains one of the best offerings of its category and delivers a roller-coasted ride that's enjoyable, entertaining & highly satisfying. Spider-Man is a summer popcorn extravaganza right on the money.
JT (287 KP) rated Buried (2010) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Shot with a low budget and entirely in one location (inside Paul’s coffin), Buried is a very intense and gripping movie, which plays on the age-old human fear of being buried alive and takes it to whole new levels.
Paul not only has to deal with thoughts of his almost imminent demise, but he also has to endure the psychological torment that comes with realising that your loved ones are in terrible danger and that the people whom your life depends upon don’t really care about your fate. This is the story of Paul Conroy (Ryan Reynolds), an American contractor working on an assignment in Iraq, who wakes up in something which looks like a makeshift wooden coffin, alone, and with no recollection of when and how he ended up there. All he remembers is that he and his colleagues were attacked by a group of Iraqi insurgents.
Understandably, he begins to panic, frantically trying to escape before realising that he won’t be able to do it on his own. Whoever buried him left a mobile phone, a lighter, a knife, a torch and some glow sticks in the coffin, and such items quickly become Paul’s connection to the outside world and his only hope of survival.
This situation is so exceptional (thankfully) that the film’s real challenge is to try and represent it as realistically as possible. What would you do? Would you let the nerves get the better of you, or would your will to live step in instead, and make you stay focused in trying to save yourself?
Ryan Reynolds does an excellent job in this, his Paul Conroy is human, desperate, scared, with no superhero pretence. The direction, by Rodrigo Cortes, is vivid, realistic, and makes good use of the limited space that the coffin setting allows to show; anxious people should try watching this anyway because, while it is undoubtedly claustrophobic, Paul’s determination to stay alive and the pull of wanting to know what’s going on outside keeps the mind occupied.
The voice of Hostage Work Group operator Dan Brenner (Robert Paterson) is possibly a little too “staged” and “actorish”, making it sound somewhat fake but also sinister, going to heighten the feeling of dread. Buried manages to be scary, tense, and yet ironic in representing the ignorance, incompetence and cowardice behind the behaviours of people we are supposed to trust in dangerous situations.
The whole film maintains a focused and realistic eye on the suffering of the protagonist – because we are supposed to feel what he feels, to be there with him in his fight for life- except maybe in a few moments when it slips into “mainstream”, cheap stratagems to reiterate that Paul is a good man who doesn’t deserve his fate (for example, when he calls his ill, senile mother who lives in a home and can’t even remember him).
Definitely best watched in a cinema screen rather than on DVD, this is a film which is very well done, and interesting; you will want to see what happens of Paul but also how his story is told from the confines of his coffin buried underground.
Paul not only has to deal with thoughts of his almost imminent demise, but he also has to endure the psychological torment that comes with realising that your loved ones are in terrible danger and that the people whom your life depends upon don’t really care about your fate. This is the story of Paul Conroy (Ryan Reynolds), an American contractor working on an assignment in Iraq, who wakes up in something which looks like a makeshift wooden coffin, alone, and with no recollection of when and how he ended up there. All he remembers is that he and his colleagues were attacked by a group of Iraqi insurgents.
Understandably, he begins to panic, frantically trying to escape before realising that he won’t be able to do it on his own. Whoever buried him left a mobile phone, a lighter, a knife, a torch and some glow sticks in the coffin, and such items quickly become Paul’s connection to the outside world and his only hope of survival.
This situation is so exceptional (thankfully) that the film’s real challenge is to try and represent it as realistically as possible. What would you do? Would you let the nerves get the better of you, or would your will to live step in instead, and make you stay focused in trying to save yourself?
Ryan Reynolds does an excellent job in this, his Paul Conroy is human, desperate, scared, with no superhero pretence. The direction, by Rodrigo Cortes, is vivid, realistic, and makes good use of the limited space that the coffin setting allows to show; anxious people should try watching this anyway because, while it is undoubtedly claustrophobic, Paul’s determination to stay alive and the pull of wanting to know what’s going on outside keeps the mind occupied.
The voice of Hostage Work Group operator Dan Brenner (Robert Paterson) is possibly a little too “staged” and “actorish”, making it sound somewhat fake but also sinister, going to heighten the feeling of dread. Buried manages to be scary, tense, and yet ironic in representing the ignorance, incompetence and cowardice behind the behaviours of people we are supposed to trust in dangerous situations.
The whole film maintains a focused and realistic eye on the suffering of the protagonist – because we are supposed to feel what he feels, to be there with him in his fight for life- except maybe in a few moments when it slips into “mainstream”, cheap stratagems to reiterate that Paul is a good man who doesn’t deserve his fate (for example, when he calls his ill, senile mother who lives in a home and can’t even remember him).
Definitely best watched in a cinema screen rather than on DVD, this is a film which is very well done, and interesting; you will want to see what happens of Paul but also how his story is told from the confines of his coffin buried underground.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Suicide Squad (2021) in Movies
Aug 10, 2021
Anarchic and very funny script, with some great visual gags (1 more)
Elba, Davis and Robbie all great. As is new name Daniela Melchior.
What a difference a "The" makes! The original "Suicide Squad" from 2016 was a botched and lacklustre affair, getting just 5/10 from me. James Gunn's semi-reboot is hyper-violent, overlong, totally ludicrous but a whole bunch of fun.
Positives:
- "From the horribly beautiful mind of James Gunn" gushes the trailer. But in this case, they ain't kidding. The film is (at times) hugely inventive in its visual gags as well as its dialogue. On the DC/Marvel superhero spectrum, this is right up at the "Ragnarok" end in terms of comedy value. It made me guffaw a good dozen times.
- To match that, the action scenes are suitably ludicrous and over-the-top. They feature the most "out there" big-boss since Mr Stay Puft terrorised New York in the original "Ghostbusters"!
- All the cast seem to be having a blast, which carries you, as the audience, along with the fun. Both Viola Davis and Idris Elba add real gravitas at the middle of it all, but Robbie's reprise of Harley Quinn tends to get all the best lines and the most memorable sequences. Her petal-strewn decimation of a platoon of security guards is something to behold.
- But of the lesser-known names, it's Daniela Melchior who really stood out for me as Cleo Cazo - Ratcatcher 2. This appears to be the first non-Portuguese feature she's done, and a great future beckons I think. Such extraordinary screen presence! Loved her character too: a "millennial" who sleeps in and questions what an OHP is!
- Great music choices, as you would expect from the "Guardians of the Galaxy" guy.
Negatives:
- Like Polka-Dot's mum, the comedy style is all over the place! (You have to have watched the movie to understand that gag!). I guess that's true of any comedy, but a number of the jokes feel contrived and didn't fully land.
- There is just so much gratuitous violence in this one that I am frankly amazed that the BBFC awarded it only a UK "15" certificate (this is my second query in a row to the BBFC - they need to employ me!). I reckon this will prove to have the highest body count of any movie in 2021. It's all done in a comic-book style, but when "Army of the Dead" (review still to follow) gets an "18", I'm not quite sure why this is much different.
Summary Thoughts on "The Suicide Squad": I'd mentally set myself up to really hate this one. But the opposite turned out to be true. As a comedy it made me laugh like a drain at times, and although some of the violence went somewhat over the top for me, I thought it to be a fine summer popcorn blockbuster (but very much for adults).
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks).
Positives:
- "From the horribly beautiful mind of James Gunn" gushes the trailer. But in this case, they ain't kidding. The film is (at times) hugely inventive in its visual gags as well as its dialogue. On the DC/Marvel superhero spectrum, this is right up at the "Ragnarok" end in terms of comedy value. It made me guffaw a good dozen times.
- To match that, the action scenes are suitably ludicrous and over-the-top. They feature the most "out there" big-boss since Mr Stay Puft terrorised New York in the original "Ghostbusters"!
- All the cast seem to be having a blast, which carries you, as the audience, along with the fun. Both Viola Davis and Idris Elba add real gravitas at the middle of it all, but Robbie's reprise of Harley Quinn tends to get all the best lines and the most memorable sequences. Her petal-strewn decimation of a platoon of security guards is something to behold.
- But of the lesser-known names, it's Daniela Melchior who really stood out for me as Cleo Cazo - Ratcatcher 2. This appears to be the first non-Portuguese feature she's done, and a great future beckons I think. Such extraordinary screen presence! Loved her character too: a "millennial" who sleeps in and questions what an OHP is!
- Great music choices, as you would expect from the "Guardians of the Galaxy" guy.
Negatives:
- Like Polka-Dot's mum, the comedy style is all over the place! (You have to have watched the movie to understand that gag!). I guess that's true of any comedy, but a number of the jokes feel contrived and didn't fully land.
- There is just so much gratuitous violence in this one that I am frankly amazed that the BBFC awarded it only a UK "15" certificate (this is my second query in a row to the BBFC - they need to employ me!). I reckon this will prove to have the highest body count of any movie in 2021. It's all done in a comic-book style, but when "Army of the Dead" (review still to follow) gets an "18", I'm not quite sure why this is much different.
Summary Thoughts on "The Suicide Squad": I'd mentally set myself up to really hate this one. But the opposite turned out to be true. As a comedy it made me laugh like a drain at times, and although some of the violence went somewhat over the top for me, I thought it to be a fine summer popcorn blockbuster (but very much for adults).
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Freaky (2021) in Movies
Jul 3, 2021
No, not like the Disney version
Some B-movies really pack a much bigger punch than you would expect. "Nobody" is a perfect recent example. But movie karma needs to be balanced with something. Ladies and gentlemen - "Freaky"!
Positives:
- If you are into your "teen slasher" movies, then this is more of the same and features some innovative ways to dispatch the victims. One is certainly no way to treat a fine wine!
- Vince Vaughn has fun mincing around as his alter-ego and Kathryn Newton (soon to be in the next "Ant-Man" movie) is personable enough as the cutie-cum-serial-killer.
- It's always good to see Ferris-actor Alan Ruck on the big screen. Here, he actually plays two parts in the film. (This joke (C) One Mann's Movies.)
Negatives:
- It's flagged as "comedy/horror" but failed to meet my personal 6-laugh test. It's just not funny enough to pass muster unless, that is, you view crude dialogue as "funny". And the dialogue does get ickily crude at some points. For example, when evil-Millie ends up alone with three jocks, there's a line of misogynist dialogue (that I won't repeat) but which sets the level.
- As a Blumhouse production, the horror is ultra-gory which will put off many viewers lacking a strong stomach. But because of the associated black comedy, the horror isn't remotely tense or scary. This might be why the film only got a UK-15 certificate. But my personal view is that, with the violence and the offensive dialogue, the BBFC under called this one, and it should have been an 18.
- There's a lot of schmaltz layered on regarding the relationship between Millie and her mum (Katie Finneran, channelling a Laura Dern look). A store cubicle exchange between Finneran and Vaughn is particularly stomach-churning.
- The movie leaves logic at the door many times. A formulaic post-finale ending assumes a superhero ability to shrug off bullets.
Summary Thoughts on "Freaky": The 'body-swap idea has gone through dozens of movie versions, with Disney's "Freaky Friday" the most well known: it's actually had two outings, once in 1976 with a young Jodie Foster and Barbara Harris and again in 2003 with Lindsay Lohan and Jamie-Lee Curtis. (The latter is a firm Mann-family favourite).
This new version tries a serial-killer twist on the story, which is a good idea. But the movie fails to execute well on the concept. The director is Christopher Landon who did the "Happy Death Day" movies. This is in a similar vein. So teens who enjoyed those flicks might get a fun Saturday night out with this. But, for me, this fell between the stools of comedy and horror and is instantly forgettable.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/07/03/freaky-no-its-not-remotely-like-the-disney-version/. One Mann's Movies is also on Facebook and Tiktok (@onemannsmovies). Thanks.)
Positives:
- If you are into your "teen slasher" movies, then this is more of the same and features some innovative ways to dispatch the victims. One is certainly no way to treat a fine wine!
- Vince Vaughn has fun mincing around as his alter-ego and Kathryn Newton (soon to be in the next "Ant-Man" movie) is personable enough as the cutie-cum-serial-killer.
- It's always good to see Ferris-actor Alan Ruck on the big screen. Here, he actually plays two parts in the film. (This joke (C) One Mann's Movies.)
Negatives:
- It's flagged as "comedy/horror" but failed to meet my personal 6-laugh test. It's just not funny enough to pass muster unless, that is, you view crude dialogue as "funny". And the dialogue does get ickily crude at some points. For example, when evil-Millie ends up alone with three jocks, there's a line of misogynist dialogue (that I won't repeat) but which sets the level.
- As a Blumhouse production, the horror is ultra-gory which will put off many viewers lacking a strong stomach. But because of the associated black comedy, the horror isn't remotely tense or scary. This might be why the film only got a UK-15 certificate. But my personal view is that, with the violence and the offensive dialogue, the BBFC under called this one, and it should have been an 18.
- There's a lot of schmaltz layered on regarding the relationship between Millie and her mum (Katie Finneran, channelling a Laura Dern look). A store cubicle exchange between Finneran and Vaughn is particularly stomach-churning.
- The movie leaves logic at the door many times. A formulaic post-finale ending assumes a superhero ability to shrug off bullets.
Summary Thoughts on "Freaky": The 'body-swap idea has gone through dozens of movie versions, with Disney's "Freaky Friday" the most well known: it's actually had two outings, once in 1976 with a young Jodie Foster and Barbara Harris and again in 2003 with Lindsay Lohan and Jamie-Lee Curtis. (The latter is a firm Mann-family favourite).
This new version tries a serial-killer twist on the story, which is a good idea. But the movie fails to execute well on the concept. The director is Christopher Landon who did the "Happy Death Day" movies. This is in a similar vein. So teens who enjoyed those flicks might get a fun Saturday night out with this. But, for me, this fell between the stools of comedy and horror and is instantly forgettable.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/07/03/freaky-no-its-not-remotely-like-the-disney-version/. One Mann's Movies is also on Facebook and Tiktok (@onemannsmovies). Thanks.)
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated Avengers West Coast: Darker than Scarlet in Books
Nov 30, 2020
I took advantage of some great Marvel sales on Comixology the end of last month. It was a great opportunity to revisit HOUSE OF M (which I had own the TPB of it when still owned the physical copies, instead of the digital ones I now favor). I bought that one, WCA: DARKER THAN SCARLET, X-MEN: DECIMATION - SON OF M, DECIMATION: HOUSE OF M - THE DAY AFTER, and AVENGERS: THE CHILDREN'S CRUSADE. I started WCA: DTS the end of last week, finishing it up today.
First, I just want to open with what a refreshing breath it was to return to late 1989 for this read. It was a simpler time, in which you could tell the villains from the heroes, where heroes actually did <b>good things</b> on account of, you know, them being heroes and all, and where villains committed actual <i>dirty deeds</i>! And it was also a time when Marvel still understood that publishing good comic books didn't mean dovetailing each and every event into another event six months later, followed by *another* event six months <after> the first two!
One of the big draws for this trade was getting to see John Byrne back when he was totally on his game (not that he has ever been off his game). Seriously, it was worth it just to see him draw the 'M' fam again: Magneto, Scarlet With and Quicksilver! So, so good! And best of all? The art was actually drawn on paper, with inks, no computer aiding at that point in comic publishing!
And while his style was somewhat different that Byrne's, Paul Ryan did an equally great job as the penciller for the remainder of the story's last three issues. I had forgotten how I much I had liked his art back in the day, stirring up fond memories of his run as penciller on IRON MAN, also in the late 80s. #goodtimes
In addition to handling the art chores, Byrne also provided the writing. Equally admirable is the way Roy Thomas, and his wife Dann, took over the writing beginning with Issue #60, providing a seamless transition from Byrne. Both writers provided a fun sense, even when the danger was mounting against them, of the Avengers.
So, as much as I loved this trade, I also feel the need to let you all know the dialogue at points felt a little clunky, maybe a little dated. However, it was nothing that took away from my overall enjoyment of this volume. At points where the dialogue didn't feel all that good, I just went and re-read it with names, or words, that fit better. Again, nothing that should diminish the fun factor here, unless you are one of <i>those kind</i> of comic readers!
In concluding, I just want to say this was a good read. It is especially important, perhaps even so far as dubbing it "required reading", before starting HOUSE OF M. In an age where the fun has diminished greatly in the superhero comics, it is good to have something like this to read, which helps us escape the "doom 'n goom" of this so un-fun era!
First, I just want to open with what a refreshing breath it was to return to late 1989 for this read. It was a simpler time, in which you could tell the villains from the heroes, where heroes actually did <b>good things</b> on account of, you know, them being heroes and all, and where villains committed actual <i>dirty deeds</i>! And it was also a time when Marvel still understood that publishing good comic books didn't mean dovetailing each and every event into another event six months later, followed by *another* event six months <after> the first two!
One of the big draws for this trade was getting to see John Byrne back when he was totally on his game (not that he has ever been off his game). Seriously, it was worth it just to see him draw the 'M' fam again: Magneto, Scarlet With and Quicksilver! So, so good! And best of all? The art was actually drawn on paper, with inks, no computer aiding at that point in comic publishing!
And while his style was somewhat different that Byrne's, Paul Ryan did an equally great job as the penciller for the remainder of the story's last three issues. I had forgotten how I much I had liked his art back in the day, stirring up fond memories of his run as penciller on IRON MAN, also in the late 80s. #goodtimes
In addition to handling the art chores, Byrne also provided the writing. Equally admirable is the way Roy Thomas, and his wife Dann, took over the writing beginning with Issue #60, providing a seamless transition from Byrne. Both writers provided a fun sense, even when the danger was mounting against them, of the Avengers.
So, as much as I loved this trade, I also feel the need to let you all know the dialogue at points felt a little clunky, maybe a little dated. However, it was nothing that took away from my overall enjoyment of this volume. At points where the dialogue didn't feel all that good, I just went and re-read it with names, or words, that fit better. Again, nothing that should diminish the fun factor here, unless you are one of <i>those kind</i> of comic readers!
In concluding, I just want to say this was a good read. It is especially important, perhaps even so far as dubbing it "required reading", before starting HOUSE OF M. In an age where the fun has diminished greatly in the superhero comics, it is good to have something like this to read, which helps us escape the "doom 'n goom" of this so un-fun era!
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) in Movies
Dec 22, 2020 (Updated Jul 5, 2021)
In this sequel to the so far best film of the DCEU, Patty Jenkins dares to ask, what if Wishmaster was a family friendly superhero movie?
Wonder Woman 1984 is an overall mixed experience, but let's begin with some positives. For a start, Gal Gadot is Wonder Woman through and through. She shined in the first movie, and is just as bright the second time around. What ever plans are afoot for the future of the DCEU, she should rightly be at the forefront.
Another cast highlight is Kristen Wiig. Her character is designed to be the sympathetic good guy who yearns for more acceptance and influence on the people around her, the relatable type, who inevitably turns into the tragic antagonist. Her arc is handled so-so, and is plagued with cliché "nerdy-girl-becomes-attractive" moments, but Wiig is clearly having a blast in this role, and the movie is better for having her around.
Pedro Pascal is also here as classic DC villain Maxwell Lord. He camps it up to the max, and does well in the seedy businessman type role, but again, his arc is handled in a so-so manner.
It has some genuinely decent set pieces. Highlights include a fun (if a little drawn out) opening scene, and then the big desert car chase glimpsed in the trailers. The CGI is also pretty good (for the most part, I'll get to that in a second) and a few more out-there details (no spoilers here) lifted straight from the comics that add that extra sweet spot of nerdy delight.
This all being said, WW84 does unfortunately suffer from a few pitfalls. The big glaring problem is the pacing. This film is 2.5 hours long, and boy does it drag in places. It could have easily lost 30 minutes without impacting the story, and the end results feels bloated and a bit directionless.
As mentioned above, the effects are great for the most part, but as the trailers show, Cheetah looks a little...off when she eventually turns up. She sort of looks like a colourless CGI blob when engaged in battle, and it's a shame, because some of the close ups look great, as is the overall design of her character.
Some of the narrative beats are a bit choppy, I get the feeling that some parts were cut that could have better explained some things, and then there are some plot beats that just straight up don't make a lick of sense.
And then there's Steve Trevor... Chris Pine is enjoyable enough as per usual, but honestly, his inclusion just feels a little forced. There's an obvious morally tearing plot point as to why he's here, but I felt that overall he just added to the bloatedness. And that's without addressing weird, kind of rapey body possession thing that's going on.
I had an ok time with WW84, but it's held back by a shit tonne of unnecessary clutter that seals it's status as an inferior sequel.
Wonder Woman 1984 is an overall mixed experience, but let's begin with some positives. For a start, Gal Gadot is Wonder Woman through and through. She shined in the first movie, and is just as bright the second time around. What ever plans are afoot for the future of the DCEU, she should rightly be at the forefront.
Another cast highlight is Kristen Wiig. Her character is designed to be the sympathetic good guy who yearns for more acceptance and influence on the people around her, the relatable type, who inevitably turns into the tragic antagonist. Her arc is handled so-so, and is plagued with cliché "nerdy-girl-becomes-attractive" moments, but Wiig is clearly having a blast in this role, and the movie is better for having her around.
Pedro Pascal is also here as classic DC villain Maxwell Lord. He camps it up to the max, and does well in the seedy businessman type role, but again, his arc is handled in a so-so manner.
It has some genuinely decent set pieces. Highlights include a fun (if a little drawn out) opening scene, and then the big desert car chase glimpsed in the trailers. The CGI is also pretty good (for the most part, I'll get to that in a second) and a few more out-there details (no spoilers here) lifted straight from the comics that add that extra sweet spot of nerdy delight.
This all being said, WW84 does unfortunately suffer from a few pitfalls. The big glaring problem is the pacing. This film is 2.5 hours long, and boy does it drag in places. It could have easily lost 30 minutes without impacting the story, and the end results feels bloated and a bit directionless.
As mentioned above, the effects are great for the most part, but as the trailers show, Cheetah looks a little...off when she eventually turns up. She sort of looks like a colourless CGI blob when engaged in battle, and it's a shame, because some of the close ups look great, as is the overall design of her character.
Some of the narrative beats are a bit choppy, I get the feeling that some parts were cut that could have better explained some things, and then there are some plot beats that just straight up don't make a lick of sense.
And then there's Steve Trevor... Chris Pine is enjoyable enough as per usual, but honestly, his inclusion just feels a little forced. There's an obvious morally tearing plot point as to why he's here, but I felt that overall he just added to the bloatedness. And that's without addressing weird, kind of rapey body possession thing that's going on.
I had an ok time with WW84, but it's held back by a shit tonne of unnecessary clutter that seals it's status as an inferior sequel.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Avengers: Endgame (2019) in Movies
Apr 29, 2019
It has "all the feels"
***There will be NO SPOILERS in this review***
AVENGERS: ENDGAME is an emotionally and artistically satisfying conclusion to 11 years and 22 films of the MARVEL CINEMATIC UNIVERSE.
Closing out "Phase III" in the MCU, the concluding chapter for most of the "original" MCU characters/actors, ENDGAME picks up the Avengers story right after the conclusion of AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR - a film which saw our heroes lose the battle to Thanos, who snapped his fingers and half the living beings in the Universe vanished.
Instead of downplaying the grief that a survivor would feel, Directors Joe and Anthony Russo (veterans of many MCU films) wisely decide to "lean into" this grief which gives this film something that is surprising for a SuperHero film - emotional resonance. You grieve with these characters that you have come to know - and love - and share their pain and sorrow.
It's a wise choice for it adds a layer to this film that many Superhero films fail to achieve. Along with action, fun characters that you want to root for, interesting visuals and (are you listening DC?) - HUMOR, this film has "all the feels" (to steal a phrase) and will leave the MCU fan (both hardcore and casual) satisfied with the experience.
Also...interestingly enough...this film stands on it's own quite well. The guy next to me in the theater was a "newbie" to the MCU, dragged to the theater with his friends to be "part of the crowd" in this experience. Over the first 5 minutes he was asking his buddy a million questions about who is who and what is what...but after that he just settled into his chair and enjoyed the ride for what it is - even jumping up and cheering at a spot late in the film where EVERYONE in the sold out IMAX showing I was in was tempted to jump out of their chair and cheer (yes - there is THAT kind of moment in this film).
There is also sorrow...loss...joy...relief...tension...excitement...as I said..."all the feels". I don't usually tear up at movies, but I felt some glistening in the corners of my eyes and a lump in my throat on more than 1 occasion - sometimes with sadness, but, sometimes, with joy and exuberance. Yes! I had tears of JOY jumping out of my eyes at a few moments in this film.
But, if it is Special Effects spectacle you are looking for - no worries. There are PLENTY including a finale that is worthy of being the Final Battle in the Final Film for this Phase of the series.
And...the humor...this film has a surprisingly large amount of light, happy moments as well. I give the Russo Brothers - and the MCU - credit for realizing that humor is a good counterbalance to sorrow, action and suspense. I also give them credit for what character they decided to use as the "comic relief" in this film. It's a good choice - and the performer tapped to play the humor is equal to the task.
But, of course, none of this matters if the characters aren't interesting enough to root for - and this film has it in spades. We've watched these characters grow, develop, bond and tear apart over the course of these past 11 years, so there is quite a bit of emotional investment in the characters - and this investment pays of handsomely (again...if you are a "casual" fan or a "newbie", you'll be fine). But...if you are like me and are "into" the MCU then there is payoff after payoff in this film that is extremely satisfying.
The actors in ENDGAME are, of course, at the top of their game. They know they are capping a special moment in their careers and they "bring it". Starting, of course, with Robert Downey, Jr. as Tony Stark/Iron Man. His character goes through a wide variety of emotions through the course of this film and - if this is his last MCU film - he's going out in style. As is Chris Evans as Steve Rogers/Captain America. These two are at the heart of this film - and at the heart of the MCU - and they take center stage with aplomb, tweaking their characters while respecting all that came before. To be honest, I never really bought into the Iron Man vs. Captain America "Civil War" storyline, but they tie that up nicely.
Of course the other 4 "Original 6 Avengers" - Chris Hemsworth's THOR, Scarlett Johansson's BLACK WIDOW, Mark Ruffalo's BRUCE BANNER and Jeremy Renner's CLINT/HAWKEYE/RONIN - are on hand and they all have their moments and take their bows as appropriate throughout. I also have to give some "props" to Don Cheadle's James "Rhodey" Rhodes/WAR MACHINE - kind of an unsung performer in these films and is a welcome sight who would have been missed had he not been there.
The other "survivors of the snap" - Bradley Cooper's ROCKET RACOON, Karen Gillan's NEBULA and Paul Rudd's SCOTT LANG/ANT MAN - fit in with the "original" Avengers quite well. This group of 10 is fun to watch. Add to them Brie Larson's CAPTAIN MARVEL to mix the drink and the concoction was intoxicating to me. A small "quibble" and I do mean a "quibble" - Danai Gurira and her character OKOYE is underutlized/underused for my tastes, but...that is just a "quibble".
Oh...and James Brolin is back as "big bad" Thanos - a worthy adversary, both emotionally, intellectually and physically for this group of SuperHero's to outwit/outlast/outplay.
Finally...without giving away any plot points...this story figured out a way to reflect on/pay homage to previous films in this Universe. It was a clever way to bring back stories/characters/moments from the past and to give some of these performers and moments a nice "cameo" curtain call.
I better stop now before I give away plot points - needless to say I LOVED THIS FILM - it was a very satisfying way to say "thank you and goodbye" to 11 years (and 22 films) of marvelous film making.
I'm looking forward to what the next 11 years in the Marvel Cinematic Universe has to offer - the bar has been set at the highest level.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
AVENGERS: ENDGAME is an emotionally and artistically satisfying conclusion to 11 years and 22 films of the MARVEL CINEMATIC UNIVERSE.
Closing out "Phase III" in the MCU, the concluding chapter for most of the "original" MCU characters/actors, ENDGAME picks up the Avengers story right after the conclusion of AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR - a film which saw our heroes lose the battle to Thanos, who snapped his fingers and half the living beings in the Universe vanished.
Instead of downplaying the grief that a survivor would feel, Directors Joe and Anthony Russo (veterans of many MCU films) wisely decide to "lean into" this grief which gives this film something that is surprising for a SuperHero film - emotional resonance. You grieve with these characters that you have come to know - and love - and share their pain and sorrow.
It's a wise choice for it adds a layer to this film that many Superhero films fail to achieve. Along with action, fun characters that you want to root for, interesting visuals and (are you listening DC?) - HUMOR, this film has "all the feels" (to steal a phrase) and will leave the MCU fan (both hardcore and casual) satisfied with the experience.
Also...interestingly enough...this film stands on it's own quite well. The guy next to me in the theater was a "newbie" to the MCU, dragged to the theater with his friends to be "part of the crowd" in this experience. Over the first 5 minutes he was asking his buddy a million questions about who is who and what is what...but after that he just settled into his chair and enjoyed the ride for what it is - even jumping up and cheering at a spot late in the film where EVERYONE in the sold out IMAX showing I was in was tempted to jump out of their chair and cheer (yes - there is THAT kind of moment in this film).
There is also sorrow...loss...joy...relief...tension...excitement...as I said..."all the feels". I don't usually tear up at movies, but I felt some glistening in the corners of my eyes and a lump in my throat on more than 1 occasion - sometimes with sadness, but, sometimes, with joy and exuberance. Yes! I had tears of JOY jumping out of my eyes at a few moments in this film.
But, if it is Special Effects spectacle you are looking for - no worries. There are PLENTY including a finale that is worthy of being the Final Battle in the Final Film for this Phase of the series.
And...the humor...this film has a surprisingly large amount of light, happy moments as well. I give the Russo Brothers - and the MCU - credit for realizing that humor is a good counterbalance to sorrow, action and suspense. I also give them credit for what character they decided to use as the "comic relief" in this film. It's a good choice - and the performer tapped to play the humor is equal to the task.
But, of course, none of this matters if the characters aren't interesting enough to root for - and this film has it in spades. We've watched these characters grow, develop, bond and tear apart over the course of these past 11 years, so there is quite a bit of emotional investment in the characters - and this investment pays of handsomely (again...if you are a "casual" fan or a "newbie", you'll be fine). But...if you are like me and are "into" the MCU then there is payoff after payoff in this film that is extremely satisfying.
The actors in ENDGAME are, of course, at the top of their game. They know they are capping a special moment in their careers and they "bring it". Starting, of course, with Robert Downey, Jr. as Tony Stark/Iron Man. His character goes through a wide variety of emotions through the course of this film and - if this is his last MCU film - he's going out in style. As is Chris Evans as Steve Rogers/Captain America. These two are at the heart of this film - and at the heart of the MCU - and they take center stage with aplomb, tweaking their characters while respecting all that came before. To be honest, I never really bought into the Iron Man vs. Captain America "Civil War" storyline, but they tie that up nicely.
Of course the other 4 "Original 6 Avengers" - Chris Hemsworth's THOR, Scarlett Johansson's BLACK WIDOW, Mark Ruffalo's BRUCE BANNER and Jeremy Renner's CLINT/HAWKEYE/RONIN - are on hand and they all have their moments and take their bows as appropriate throughout. I also have to give some "props" to Don Cheadle's James "Rhodey" Rhodes/WAR MACHINE - kind of an unsung performer in these films and is a welcome sight who would have been missed had he not been there.
The other "survivors of the snap" - Bradley Cooper's ROCKET RACOON, Karen Gillan's NEBULA and Paul Rudd's SCOTT LANG/ANT MAN - fit in with the "original" Avengers quite well. This group of 10 is fun to watch. Add to them Brie Larson's CAPTAIN MARVEL to mix the drink and the concoction was intoxicating to me. A small "quibble" and I do mean a "quibble" - Danai Gurira and her character OKOYE is underutlized/underused for my tastes, but...that is just a "quibble".
Oh...and James Brolin is back as "big bad" Thanos - a worthy adversary, both emotionally, intellectually and physically for this group of SuperHero's to outwit/outlast/outplay.
Finally...without giving away any plot points...this story figured out a way to reflect on/pay homage to previous films in this Universe. It was a clever way to bring back stories/characters/moments from the past and to give some of these performers and moments a nice "cameo" curtain call.
I better stop now before I give away plot points - needless to say I LOVED THIS FILM - it was a very satisfying way to say "thank you and goodbye" to 11 years (and 22 films) of marvelous film making.
I'm looking forward to what the next 11 years in the Marvel Cinematic Universe has to offer - the bar has been set at the highest level.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Nov 10, 2019
Joachim Phoenix - Oscar winning performance? (1 more)
Look and feel of the film - technically brilliant
A loser's tale.
“Joker” has managed to stir up a whirlwind of controversy, centring partly around the level of violence included but also on the use of “that song” on the soundtrack. But putting aside that flurry of commentary, what of the film itself?
Man, this is a dark film! It’s as much of an anti-superhero film as this year’s “Brightburn“. The Batman legacy has addressed the mental state of the protagonists before (both that of the hero and the villains). Here we have a real study of how a mentally unstable no-hoper can be pushed over the edge by bigotry, carelessness and government cut-backs.
Indeed, there is something alarmingly prescient about the movie’s plot line, watching this as we (in the UK) are in the month of possible (or as Boris Johnson would say, definite) Brexit madness! “Is it me, or is it getting crazier out there?” Arthur Fleck muses to his social worker (Sharon Washington). And a rant by Arthur late on goes “Everybody just yells and screams at each other. Nobody’s civil anymore. Nobody thinks what it’s like to be the other guy. You think men like Thomas Wayne ever think what it’s like to be someone like me? To be somebody but themselves? They don’t. They think that we’ll just sit there and take it, like good little boys! That we won’t werewolf and go wild!” Chilling words as we possibly face a very bumpy October and November in the UK.
After reviewing “Judy” I wouldn’t be the least surprised if I’d just seen the Best Actress award bagged (by Renée Zellweger). Now, with “Joker”, surely Joachim Phoenix might bag his first (and well overdue in my book) Oscar. Although nominated before (for “Gladiator”, “Walk the Line” and “The Master”) he’s never won. Here Phoenix’s physical transformation into Arthur Fleck is SIMPLY EXTRAORDINARY. And the way he captures the (medically) induced fits of helpless laughter, ending in a sort of choking fit, is brilliant and replicated to a ‘T’ on multiple occasions.
I loved “You Were Never Really Here“, primarily due to Phoenix’s pitch-perfect performance. And “Joker” reminded me very much of Lynne Ramsey‘s film: a disturbed loner, looking after his elderly mother; with violence meted out to wrong-doers. Joe is almost the yin to Arthur Fleck’s yang: Joe is an invisible man who is very much present; Arthur is a very visible man who thinks he is invisible. There’s even comment by Fleck towards the end of the film that sometimes he thinks he’s ‘not really there at all’! (A deliberate ‘in’ joke in reference to that film?)
After some pretty piss-poor “pension grabs” in recent years, culminating in the appalling career- nadir of “Dirty Grandpa” in 2016, Robert De Niro comes good with a fine performance as the idolised but thoughtless and cruel talk-show host Murray Franklin. It’s very much a supporting role, but delivered with great aplomb.
Also great again is “Deadpool 2“‘s Zazie Beetz (a great trivia answer for an actor with three ‘z’s’ in the name). This angle of the story is deviously clever, and Zazie handles the various twists and turns brilliantly.
Movie violence needs to be taken in context to both the film’s story and to the movie’s certificate. For those expecting a light and fluffy “Avengers” style of movie, they might be shocked by what they see. True that the film definitely pushes the boundaries of what I think is acceptable in a UK15-certificate film. … I suspect there were HEATED discussions at the BBFC after this screening! The violence though seems comparable to some other 15’s I’ve seen: a DIY-store drill scene in “The Equalizer” comes to mind.
A particularly brutal scene is reminiscent of a climactic scene in “Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood“, such that Quentin Tarantino might have just cause to appeal his ‘UK18’ certificate.
You might argue about the level of violence that SHOULD be shown in a 15 certificate film. But I think the violence portrayed – given this is in the known context an origin story for a psychopathic killer – is appropriate. I personally found the Heath Ledger‘s Joker’s “pencil trick” scene in “The Dark Knight” more disturbing, given it was a 12 certificate.
I have less sympathy for the inclusion of “Rock and Roll Part 2” on the soundtrack. The fact that a convicted paedophile (I refuse to say his name) is profiting from the ticket sales is galling. This is almost deliberately courting controversy. There has been some view that this is a “traditional” chant song at US football matches (as “The Hey Song”). But most (all?) teams have now recognized the connection and stopped its use. At least here the director and producers should have more of a ‘world view’ on this.
Where “Hangover” director Todd Phillips does recover some of this respect is in the quality of the script (co-written with Scott Silver) and the direction. It’s misdirection without mis-direction! Some of the twists in the plot (no spoilers here!) I did not see coming, and certain aspects of the story (again no spoilers!) are left brilliantly (and chillingly) vague.
Sure, it borrows heavily in story-line and mood from Martin Scorsese‘s “Taxi Driver”. And I was also reminded of 1993’s Joel Schumacher flick “Falling Down” where Michael Douglas is an ordinary man pushed to the edge and beyond by a series of life’s trials. But if you want to criticise a film for “not being 100% original” then let’s start at the top of the 2019 IMDB listings and keep going! I’ve also seen comment from some that criticises the somewhat clunky overlay of the Batman back-story into the script. I also understand that view but I didn’t personally share it.
Elsewhere I would not be surprised if the movie gets garlanded with technical Oscar nominations aplenty come January. The cinematography, by Phillips-regular Lawrence Sher, is exquisite in setting the grimy 70’s tone. (I loved the retro Warner Brothers logo too). And both video and sound editing is top-notch. Not forgetting a sonorous cello-heavy soundtrack that perfectly suits the mood. Want to put a bet on which film might top the “number of Oscar nominations” list? This might not be a bad choice.
Dark and brooding, with a slow-burn start, this is a proper drama that might make action superhero fans fidgety. But I simply loved it, and would love to carve out the time to give it a re-watch. The Phoenix performance is extraordinary. Will this make my Top 10 of the year? Fingers to head, and pull the trigger…. it’s a no-brainer.
Man, this is a dark film! It’s as much of an anti-superhero film as this year’s “Brightburn“. The Batman legacy has addressed the mental state of the protagonists before (both that of the hero and the villains). Here we have a real study of how a mentally unstable no-hoper can be pushed over the edge by bigotry, carelessness and government cut-backs.
Indeed, there is something alarmingly prescient about the movie’s plot line, watching this as we (in the UK) are in the month of possible (or as Boris Johnson would say, definite) Brexit madness! “Is it me, or is it getting crazier out there?” Arthur Fleck muses to his social worker (Sharon Washington). And a rant by Arthur late on goes “Everybody just yells and screams at each other. Nobody’s civil anymore. Nobody thinks what it’s like to be the other guy. You think men like Thomas Wayne ever think what it’s like to be someone like me? To be somebody but themselves? They don’t. They think that we’ll just sit there and take it, like good little boys! That we won’t werewolf and go wild!” Chilling words as we possibly face a very bumpy October and November in the UK.
After reviewing “Judy” I wouldn’t be the least surprised if I’d just seen the Best Actress award bagged (by Renée Zellweger). Now, with “Joker”, surely Joachim Phoenix might bag his first (and well overdue in my book) Oscar. Although nominated before (for “Gladiator”, “Walk the Line” and “The Master”) he’s never won. Here Phoenix’s physical transformation into Arthur Fleck is SIMPLY EXTRAORDINARY. And the way he captures the (medically) induced fits of helpless laughter, ending in a sort of choking fit, is brilliant and replicated to a ‘T’ on multiple occasions.
I loved “You Were Never Really Here“, primarily due to Phoenix’s pitch-perfect performance. And “Joker” reminded me very much of Lynne Ramsey‘s film: a disturbed loner, looking after his elderly mother; with violence meted out to wrong-doers. Joe is almost the yin to Arthur Fleck’s yang: Joe is an invisible man who is very much present; Arthur is a very visible man who thinks he is invisible. There’s even comment by Fleck towards the end of the film that sometimes he thinks he’s ‘not really there at all’! (A deliberate ‘in’ joke in reference to that film?)
After some pretty piss-poor “pension grabs” in recent years, culminating in the appalling career- nadir of “Dirty Grandpa” in 2016, Robert De Niro comes good with a fine performance as the idolised but thoughtless and cruel talk-show host Murray Franklin. It’s very much a supporting role, but delivered with great aplomb.
Also great again is “Deadpool 2“‘s Zazie Beetz (a great trivia answer for an actor with three ‘z’s’ in the name). This angle of the story is deviously clever, and Zazie handles the various twists and turns brilliantly.
Movie violence needs to be taken in context to both the film’s story and to the movie’s certificate. For those expecting a light and fluffy “Avengers” style of movie, they might be shocked by what they see. True that the film definitely pushes the boundaries of what I think is acceptable in a UK15-certificate film. … I suspect there were HEATED discussions at the BBFC after this screening! The violence though seems comparable to some other 15’s I’ve seen: a DIY-store drill scene in “The Equalizer” comes to mind.
A particularly brutal scene is reminiscent of a climactic scene in “Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood“, such that Quentin Tarantino might have just cause to appeal his ‘UK18’ certificate.
You might argue about the level of violence that SHOULD be shown in a 15 certificate film. But I think the violence portrayed – given this is in the known context an origin story for a psychopathic killer – is appropriate. I personally found the Heath Ledger‘s Joker’s “pencil trick” scene in “The Dark Knight” more disturbing, given it was a 12 certificate.
I have less sympathy for the inclusion of “Rock and Roll Part 2” on the soundtrack. The fact that a convicted paedophile (I refuse to say his name) is profiting from the ticket sales is galling. This is almost deliberately courting controversy. There has been some view that this is a “traditional” chant song at US football matches (as “The Hey Song”). But most (all?) teams have now recognized the connection and stopped its use. At least here the director and producers should have more of a ‘world view’ on this.
Where “Hangover” director Todd Phillips does recover some of this respect is in the quality of the script (co-written with Scott Silver) and the direction. It’s misdirection without mis-direction! Some of the twists in the plot (no spoilers here!) I did not see coming, and certain aspects of the story (again no spoilers!) are left brilliantly (and chillingly) vague.
Sure, it borrows heavily in story-line and mood from Martin Scorsese‘s “Taxi Driver”. And I was also reminded of 1993’s Joel Schumacher flick “Falling Down” where Michael Douglas is an ordinary man pushed to the edge and beyond by a series of life’s trials. But if you want to criticise a film for “not being 100% original” then let’s start at the top of the 2019 IMDB listings and keep going! I’ve also seen comment from some that criticises the somewhat clunky overlay of the Batman back-story into the script. I also understand that view but I didn’t personally share it.
Elsewhere I would not be surprised if the movie gets garlanded with technical Oscar nominations aplenty come January. The cinematography, by Phillips-regular Lawrence Sher, is exquisite in setting the grimy 70’s tone. (I loved the retro Warner Brothers logo too). And both video and sound editing is top-notch. Not forgetting a sonorous cello-heavy soundtrack that perfectly suits the mood. Want to put a bet on which film might top the “number of Oscar nominations” list? This might not be a bad choice.
Dark and brooding, with a slow-burn start, this is a proper drama that might make action superhero fans fidgety. But I simply loved it, and would love to carve out the time to give it a re-watch. The Phoenix performance is extraordinary. Will this make my Top 10 of the year? Fingers to head, and pull the trigger…. it’s a no-brainer.
