Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Seven Psychopaths (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Unfamiliar with writer and director Martin McDonagh’s previous gangster film In Burges, I was not exactly sure what I was getting into when watching Seven Psychopaths. I had seen a few trailers and was looking forward to what looked like a quirky new movie that I hoped delivered at least a few solid one-liners but was not expecting much more. Well, I am delighted to say that McDonagh delivers a fantastic self-referential crime caper that is one part Pulp Fiction and one part a meta episode of NBC’s TV show Community.
This self-aware film has a story that is hilarious in its antics and creates a world where these characters come to life. Colin Farrell (In Burges) plays Marty, an alcoholic film writer suffering from a terrible case of writer’s block. He has the title for his next film Seven Psychopaths but little more. However in spite of what the title suggest, Marty does not want his film to be violent. He wants his main psychopath to love more than kill, whch is what appears to be giving Marty the writing block in the first place. Enter Marty’s good friend Bill played by Sam Rockwell (Iron Man 2). In an effort to help Marty find inspiration for the characters in his story, Billy encourages and informs Marty of various psychopathic stories he is aware of. He even goes so far as putting a “psycho story” want ad in the paper, asking psycho’s to come to Marty’s house and tell their story. This causes Marty to spend the length of the film trying to create the characters for his story from the crazy interactions going on around him.
While based on “real life” people, these characters are introduced through individual dramatized stories about them complete with glorified over the top cartoon like violence that hits home as visual comedy. From the Quaker psychopath who stalks his daughter’s killer, to the psychopath who spent his youth killing other psycho killers, to the Vietnamese Psychopath who just seems crazy for most of the movie. These stories give us a glimpse into the psychopathic mind of Marty and friends and help create a visual world where anything seems possible from these characters.
In addition to these characters, Marty has to deal with a “real life” shih-tzu-loving psycho gangster Charlie played by Woody Harrelson (Natural Born Killers), when Billy and friend Hans (Christopher Walken, Poolhall Junkies) “accidently” kidnap Charlie’s dog in their regular dog-napping scheme to collect a found reward from owners. This interaction with Charlie helps Marty, Billy and Hans figure out the story to Seven Psychopaths that borrows from their own in-film “real life” experience.
The ensemble cast all hit their mark in his film. Each shows us enough of their characters to fit their quirky stereotypes but gives us something memorable about each. No more is this shown through Rockwell’s performance of Billy that builds on his lunacy throughout the film until his shining moment, a scene where he is telling Marty how he would finish his story. In addition, Walken delivers his best performance in years with his traditional over the top serious but hysterical Walken Style. Any fan of his should not miss this film.
Seven Psychopaths turned out to be an enjoyable experience and thrill ride from start to finish. The ensemble cast breathes life into the crazy characters that help move along the action. It is a film that is self-aware and does not take its self too seriously. As such, we are delivered an eccentric but entertaining film experience that anyone looking for a change of pace should not miss.
This self-aware film has a story that is hilarious in its antics and creates a world where these characters come to life. Colin Farrell (In Burges) plays Marty, an alcoholic film writer suffering from a terrible case of writer’s block. He has the title for his next film Seven Psychopaths but little more. However in spite of what the title suggest, Marty does not want his film to be violent. He wants his main psychopath to love more than kill, whch is what appears to be giving Marty the writing block in the first place. Enter Marty’s good friend Bill played by Sam Rockwell (Iron Man 2). In an effort to help Marty find inspiration for the characters in his story, Billy encourages and informs Marty of various psychopathic stories he is aware of. He even goes so far as putting a “psycho story” want ad in the paper, asking psycho’s to come to Marty’s house and tell their story. This causes Marty to spend the length of the film trying to create the characters for his story from the crazy interactions going on around him.
While based on “real life” people, these characters are introduced through individual dramatized stories about them complete with glorified over the top cartoon like violence that hits home as visual comedy. From the Quaker psychopath who stalks his daughter’s killer, to the psychopath who spent his youth killing other psycho killers, to the Vietnamese Psychopath who just seems crazy for most of the movie. These stories give us a glimpse into the psychopathic mind of Marty and friends and help create a visual world where anything seems possible from these characters.
In addition to these characters, Marty has to deal with a “real life” shih-tzu-loving psycho gangster Charlie played by Woody Harrelson (Natural Born Killers), when Billy and friend Hans (Christopher Walken, Poolhall Junkies) “accidently” kidnap Charlie’s dog in their regular dog-napping scheme to collect a found reward from owners. This interaction with Charlie helps Marty, Billy and Hans figure out the story to Seven Psychopaths that borrows from their own in-film “real life” experience.
The ensemble cast all hit their mark in his film. Each shows us enough of their characters to fit their quirky stereotypes but gives us something memorable about each. No more is this shown through Rockwell’s performance of Billy that builds on his lunacy throughout the film until his shining moment, a scene where he is telling Marty how he would finish his story. In addition, Walken delivers his best performance in years with his traditional over the top serious but hysterical Walken Style. Any fan of his should not miss this film.
Seven Psychopaths turned out to be an enjoyable experience and thrill ride from start to finish. The ensemble cast breathes life into the crazy characters that help move along the action. It is a film that is self-aware and does not take its self too seriously. As such, we are delivered an eccentric but entertaining film experience that anyone looking for a change of pace should not miss.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Nine in Books
Sep 13, 2020
I've been a fan of Rachelle Dekker ever since I read The Girl Behind the Red Rope. When I saw that Rachelle Dekker had released a new book entitled Nine, I knew it was a book that I needed to read. I was so glad I picked this book up!
I felt that the plot to Nine was solid. Zoe Johnson is busy working at her mundane job as a waitress when a young 17 year old girl shows up. From the get go, Zoe is protective of this young girl named Lucy who appears naive, scared, confused, and willing to trust anyone. However, trying to protect Lucy will have a high cost as Lucy is much more than she appears to be.
I read Nine in about a day. The pacing was so spot on that I didn't want to put this book down. The action starts out right in the first chapter and just carries on throughout the book. From the very first page, I was sucked into this suspenseful world Rachelle Dekker had masterfully created. Though it does have some similarities with the video game/movie Resident Evil (sans zombies), Dekker did a fantastic job at making the plot line feel original although it's been done many times before. There are a few plot twists including one that links back to The Girl Behind the Red Rope which I was very excited to read about! Yes, some of the plot twists are a bit predictable, but Nine is a very interesting story nonetheless.
I have to gush about the characters in Nine now. Dekker did an amazing job making her characters feel fleshed out. I felt as if the characters in Nine were people I actually knew in real life; that's how realistic these characters were written. I loved Zoe's character. Even though she had a sad story and baggage of her own, it was refreshing to see her actually put her trust and care about someone else. I will say I would have liked to know more about her brother Stephen and read more in detail about what happened to him. Perhaps Dekker will write a story about Stephen another time. Anyway, Zoe was an amazing character, and I could always feel what she felt from elation to deep sadness and more. Although Olivia isn't in the book very much, I also loved Olivia and how much she sacrificed for a certain experiment. Lucy was my favorite character, and it was interesting to be able to see her thought process starting in part two of Nine. Reading about her internal struggle with how she was raised versus who she wanted to be felt very emotional to me. We have all had that struggle with ourselves to become a better version of ourself. Seeley was a bit of a wild card. Sometimes I loved him, and other times I hated him although I could understand why he was doing what he did (not that it was justified for most of it). I would have hated to have the same ultimatum given to me as Hammon gave Seeley. Even all the minor characters (especially McCoy) I really enjoyed. Every character added to the story and fleshed it out even more.
Trigger warnings for Nine include violence (including gun violence), torture, and murder.
Overall, Nine is an emotional story with a positive message that really makes you think about how you can change no matter your given circumstances. Nine would make a fantastic movie or tv series, and I know I would watch it should anyone ever do that. I would definitely recommend Nine by Rachelle Dekker to those aged 16+ that love highly suspenseful stories that include a positive message.
--
(A special thank you to Revell for providing me with a paperback of Nine by Rachelle Dekker in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
I felt that the plot to Nine was solid. Zoe Johnson is busy working at her mundane job as a waitress when a young 17 year old girl shows up. From the get go, Zoe is protective of this young girl named Lucy who appears naive, scared, confused, and willing to trust anyone. However, trying to protect Lucy will have a high cost as Lucy is much more than she appears to be.
I read Nine in about a day. The pacing was so spot on that I didn't want to put this book down. The action starts out right in the first chapter and just carries on throughout the book. From the very first page, I was sucked into this suspenseful world Rachelle Dekker had masterfully created. Though it does have some similarities with the video game/movie Resident Evil (sans zombies), Dekker did a fantastic job at making the plot line feel original although it's been done many times before. There are a few plot twists including one that links back to The Girl Behind the Red Rope which I was very excited to read about! Yes, some of the plot twists are a bit predictable, but Nine is a very interesting story nonetheless.
I have to gush about the characters in Nine now. Dekker did an amazing job making her characters feel fleshed out. I felt as if the characters in Nine were people I actually knew in real life; that's how realistic these characters were written. I loved Zoe's character. Even though she had a sad story and baggage of her own, it was refreshing to see her actually put her trust and care about someone else. I will say I would have liked to know more about her brother Stephen and read more in detail about what happened to him. Perhaps Dekker will write a story about Stephen another time. Anyway, Zoe was an amazing character, and I could always feel what she felt from elation to deep sadness and more. Although Olivia isn't in the book very much, I also loved Olivia and how much she sacrificed for a certain experiment. Lucy was my favorite character, and it was interesting to be able to see her thought process starting in part two of Nine. Reading about her internal struggle with how she was raised versus who she wanted to be felt very emotional to me. We have all had that struggle with ourselves to become a better version of ourself. Seeley was a bit of a wild card. Sometimes I loved him, and other times I hated him although I could understand why he was doing what he did (not that it was justified for most of it). I would have hated to have the same ultimatum given to me as Hammon gave Seeley. Even all the minor characters (especially McCoy) I really enjoyed. Every character added to the story and fleshed it out even more.
Trigger warnings for Nine include violence (including gun violence), torture, and murder.
Overall, Nine is an emotional story with a positive message that really makes you think about how you can change no matter your given circumstances. Nine would make a fantastic movie or tv series, and I know I would watch it should anyone ever do that. I would definitely recommend Nine by Rachelle Dekker to those aged 16+ that love highly suspenseful stories that include a positive message.
--
(A special thank you to Revell for providing me with a paperback of Nine by Rachelle Dekker in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
Lee (2222 KP) rated Max Winslow and the House of Secrets (2019) in Movies
Oct 13, 2020
Max Winslow and the House of Secrets is a family film, very much in the vein of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Maxine Winslow (Sydne Mikelle), or Max for short, is our Charlie Bucket, coming from a single-parent family and living with a mother who is struggling with debt. Tech-savvy Max is also a skilled hacker, demonstrating this by taking control of her neighbours video doorbell and making it ring so that he comes running outside. Kind of like a modern-day Knock-Down Ginger.
Max heads into school, where we’re introduced to some more teens who are set to join her later on, including a social-media obsessed girl, a boy addicted to gaming and a boy who enjoys trolling people online. As they settle down at their desks, the face of eccentric billionaire Atticus Virtue (Chad Michael Murray) takes over all of the TV screens throughout the school. He tells them that five students are to be selected to spend the night in his high tech mansion, and undertake a series of games, with the winner becoming the new owner of the mansion. When the confirmation text messages start coming through to the student phones later that day, we already know most of those that receive the big green tick on their screens, so they head off to the mansion, ready to spend the night.
Atticus himself isn’t at the mansion to greet the group. Instead, an AI named Haven (voiced by Marina Sirtis) opens the door for them, orders a takeaway delivery and gives them their instructions for the night. Basically, whoever solves the most puzzles and earns the highest score wins the mansion!
The puzzles start off ridiculously hard, with a locked door requiring a six-digit code to open, and only three attempts allowed. Max spots three jars of candy in the room and automatically decides that the total pieces of candy in each jar can be combined into a six-digit number, obviously. And you’re not supposed to think about how she managed to get them in the right order, or why the plate of cookies on the table wasn’t included in the code…
From there, the points come a lot easier for the team, such as simply putting on a pair of sunglasses(!), before turning slightly sinister as the group separates and everyone heads off on their own. Haven begins to go a little bit rogue, although with her monotone delivery of thinly veiled threats, she never really comes across as scary as I think she is meant to be. The games become a way of showing each individual the error of their ways - narcissistic Sophia is trapped in a bathroom talking to her mirror reflection, which has now turned into a nastier version of herself, while others are trapped in VR scenarios designed to show them where they’ve gone wrong in life.
It’s at this point that the movie struggles. The VR recreations are mostly dull, while other scenes utilise some pretty dodgy VFX and there’s never any real feeling of peril or threat. The young cast, for the most part, give some pretty good performances. However, with a mediocre script, none of them is really given very much to work with. Consequently, some of them, particularly the character of Max, feel a little wasted, not fleshed out enough.
While entertaining at times, Max Winslow and the House of Secrets is too scary for young children and not dramatic or scary enough for adults to really enjoy. Hopefully, though, the teen audience that this is squarely aimed at will pick up on the strong moral messages at the heart of the movie and will manage to gain some enjoyment from it.
Max heads into school, where we’re introduced to some more teens who are set to join her later on, including a social-media obsessed girl, a boy addicted to gaming and a boy who enjoys trolling people online. As they settle down at their desks, the face of eccentric billionaire Atticus Virtue (Chad Michael Murray) takes over all of the TV screens throughout the school. He tells them that five students are to be selected to spend the night in his high tech mansion, and undertake a series of games, with the winner becoming the new owner of the mansion. When the confirmation text messages start coming through to the student phones later that day, we already know most of those that receive the big green tick on their screens, so they head off to the mansion, ready to spend the night.
Atticus himself isn’t at the mansion to greet the group. Instead, an AI named Haven (voiced by Marina Sirtis) opens the door for them, orders a takeaway delivery and gives them their instructions for the night. Basically, whoever solves the most puzzles and earns the highest score wins the mansion!
The puzzles start off ridiculously hard, with a locked door requiring a six-digit code to open, and only three attempts allowed. Max spots three jars of candy in the room and automatically decides that the total pieces of candy in each jar can be combined into a six-digit number, obviously. And you’re not supposed to think about how she managed to get them in the right order, or why the plate of cookies on the table wasn’t included in the code…
From there, the points come a lot easier for the team, such as simply putting on a pair of sunglasses(!), before turning slightly sinister as the group separates and everyone heads off on their own. Haven begins to go a little bit rogue, although with her monotone delivery of thinly veiled threats, she never really comes across as scary as I think she is meant to be. The games become a way of showing each individual the error of their ways - narcissistic Sophia is trapped in a bathroom talking to her mirror reflection, which has now turned into a nastier version of herself, while others are trapped in VR scenarios designed to show them where they’ve gone wrong in life.
It’s at this point that the movie struggles. The VR recreations are mostly dull, while other scenes utilise some pretty dodgy VFX and there’s never any real feeling of peril or threat. The young cast, for the most part, give some pretty good performances. However, with a mediocre script, none of them is really given very much to work with. Consequently, some of them, particularly the character of Max, feel a little wasted, not fleshed out enough.
While entertaining at times, Max Winslow and the House of Secrets is too scary for young children and not dramatic or scary enough for adults to really enjoy. Hopefully, though, the teen audience that this is squarely aimed at will pick up on the strong moral messages at the heart of the movie and will manage to gain some enjoyment from it.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Snowpiercer (2013) in Movies
Jun 7, 2020
You know when someone tells you you should watch something... and then someone else does... and after every new "oh my god, you haven't seen it?!" you become more stubborn about watching it? That's exactly why it has taken me so long to watch Snowpiercer.
With the world on the edge of a complete climate collapse scientists launched what they hoped was the solution to the crisis, they would cool the atmosphere and save everyone... but their solution proved to be the world's undoing. What's left of the human race now rides a purpose-built train outrunning an icy end. The people of the tail section are living a terrible life, no natural light, barely any food... they want things to change, but the rest of the train has other ideas.
There's an all star cast on board for Snowpiercer, they've definitely not scrimped in that department. Together everyone works, even with some strong character personalities.
Chris Evans plays our lead, Curtis. Evans can do a lot of different genres but this sort of science fiction didn't seem to suit him. Curtis is a flawed character by design but at no point did he feel like someone to get behind, it's possible to like a flawed leader but this one didn't have the strength to make it convincing.
Tilda Swinton pops up and gives us the much expected slightly nuts performance that only she could muster. While I enjoyed it I'm not sure what it added to the proceedings apart from a very over the top sci-fi edge.
In the confined spaces of the train you get a great sense of how they're living and the cameras are placed in such a way that it never feels claustrophobic. Even in the tail section where you'd expect that, the closeness boosts the bond between characters and the way their planning comes together.
The film has a very clear divide when it comes to life both inside and out of the train. The sweeping bright white landscape with the dark and vibrant interiors, the dull tones of the tail to the richness of the ticketed sections. There's a lot to see in all of it and I'm certainly keen to give it another watch to try and pick out more details from inside the train and what's hidden in the snow... though I have some issues believing that some of that stuff would have still been visible with the wind and weather... but anyway.
There's some movie "magic" that I have a problem with in Snowpiercer, specifically a shoot-out scene that I actively dislike because it's ridiculous. I happily suspend my logical thinking for so many things but this scene annoyed me a lot, there were so many alternative ways to do it that would have been believable... ugh... *deep breath*. I'm going to stop on that now to avoid ranting and spoilers.
It's a great idea and the original story from the graphic novel is an excellent piece to work off, and while the adaptation might not be faithful to that it does add something that's necessary for a single film format. Because of the story and the design of the set there's automatically a natural progression to everything but the film isn't entirely balanced. The beginning feels very heavy and drawn out then we get a sprint for the finish. There's a lot of opportunity for expanded story in the middle but it's not taken up, including it may have changed the tone of the film as it definitely wasn't in keeping with the rest but it would have been interesting to find out more about it. (This is one thing I'm hoping we get to see a bit more of in the TV show.)
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/snowpiercer-movie-review.html
With the world on the edge of a complete climate collapse scientists launched what they hoped was the solution to the crisis, they would cool the atmosphere and save everyone... but their solution proved to be the world's undoing. What's left of the human race now rides a purpose-built train outrunning an icy end. The people of the tail section are living a terrible life, no natural light, barely any food... they want things to change, but the rest of the train has other ideas.
There's an all star cast on board for Snowpiercer, they've definitely not scrimped in that department. Together everyone works, even with some strong character personalities.
Chris Evans plays our lead, Curtis. Evans can do a lot of different genres but this sort of science fiction didn't seem to suit him. Curtis is a flawed character by design but at no point did he feel like someone to get behind, it's possible to like a flawed leader but this one didn't have the strength to make it convincing.
Tilda Swinton pops up and gives us the much expected slightly nuts performance that only she could muster. While I enjoyed it I'm not sure what it added to the proceedings apart from a very over the top sci-fi edge.
In the confined spaces of the train you get a great sense of how they're living and the cameras are placed in such a way that it never feels claustrophobic. Even in the tail section where you'd expect that, the closeness boosts the bond between characters and the way their planning comes together.
The film has a very clear divide when it comes to life both inside and out of the train. The sweeping bright white landscape with the dark and vibrant interiors, the dull tones of the tail to the richness of the ticketed sections. There's a lot to see in all of it and I'm certainly keen to give it another watch to try and pick out more details from inside the train and what's hidden in the snow... though I have some issues believing that some of that stuff would have still been visible with the wind and weather... but anyway.
There's some movie "magic" that I have a problem with in Snowpiercer, specifically a shoot-out scene that I actively dislike because it's ridiculous. I happily suspend my logical thinking for so many things but this scene annoyed me a lot, there were so many alternative ways to do it that would have been believable... ugh... *deep breath*. I'm going to stop on that now to avoid ranting and spoilers.
It's a great idea and the original story from the graphic novel is an excellent piece to work off, and while the adaptation might not be faithful to that it does add something that's necessary for a single film format. Because of the story and the design of the set there's automatically a natural progression to everything but the film isn't entirely balanced. The beginning feels very heavy and drawn out then we get a sprint for the finish. There's a lot of opportunity for expanded story in the middle but it's not taken up, including it may have changed the tone of the film as it definitely wasn't in keeping with the rest but it would have been interesting to find out more about it. (This is one thing I'm hoping we get to see a bit more of in the TV show.)
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/snowpiercer-movie-review.html
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Fantasy Island (2020) in Movies
May 5, 2020
Michael Peña and Maggie Q in a film... I'm in. This was high up my watchlist even though Blumhouse and I don't always see eye to eye.
A group of strangers arrive on an island, this experience will give them their deepest desires. Wish for it and you can live it, all you have to do is see it through to the end on Fantasy Island.
Evidently, Nic Cage turned down the role of Mr Roarke... I didn't know that he turned down any roles so that (if true) should have been a massive warning sign.
I do have to wonder how some of these stories come about. This is based on the 70's TV show of the same name which was entirely not scary as far as I know. Is there a giant bingo cage full of ping pong balls inscribed with names of old shows and films? Do they just let studios try their luck to spin whatever they get to their niche?
Twisting this tale is a pretty good idea, though I'm not really sure why an island would want to do that to people, but what do I know about malevolent black goop spirits? I was generally on board with the storyline and I thought it wove them together quite well but that ending... are you kidding me? There was some speculation thrown out about what was going on and that thread was believable. The one they gave us was laughable, the absolute worst choice. Had they done a small reshuffle they could have given a much less ridiculous conclusion.
There are a lot of different threads and each one has its moments, as daft as they might be they come together quite well even when the filler is poor.
Maggie Q's performance as Gwen felt like the most believable out of the whole ensemble, but that's not really a surprise from her. Gwen is basically the only decent person in the group and throughout her stay she is the one that's grounded and tries to deal with her situation. That should give us something good to work off... but she's kind of bland on screen compared to everything else.
Michael Peña is always a pull to a movie for me, but Roarke's story wasn't all the effective. Had he been a construct of the island then there might have been something in it, but as it was you didn't get any real struggle with his actions, I couldn't see how a character that wasn't portrayed as actively evil could go along with any of it even given his background.
While the rest of the cast is filled with faces you'd know there isn't really a great performance to be seen. From unlikeable characters to a script that's not amusing when it tries to be, what's left of the film is plain in a glossy kind of way, and by that I mean it's got the makings of something good but misses anything that could have made an impact. The effects are fine for the most part and the sets are fine when you take into consideration they're supposed to be a fantasy and don't need to fit together perfectly. The exception is Roarke's door that Maggie Q interacts with, I liked that move and I don't know whether the rest of the film might have benefitted from something similar.
Bits of the film are quite good and could have made for an exciting watch, but that ending was so frustrating that any enjoyment went straight out the window and any thrill from what I'd already seen was gone. Also, considering it is classified as horror there wasn't really enough, or anything of quality, too make that a reality. Untapped potential in abundance here.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/05/fantasy-island-movie-review.html
A group of strangers arrive on an island, this experience will give them their deepest desires. Wish for it and you can live it, all you have to do is see it through to the end on Fantasy Island.
Evidently, Nic Cage turned down the role of Mr Roarke... I didn't know that he turned down any roles so that (if true) should have been a massive warning sign.
I do have to wonder how some of these stories come about. This is based on the 70's TV show of the same name which was entirely not scary as far as I know. Is there a giant bingo cage full of ping pong balls inscribed with names of old shows and films? Do they just let studios try their luck to spin whatever they get to their niche?
Twisting this tale is a pretty good idea, though I'm not really sure why an island would want to do that to people, but what do I know about malevolent black goop spirits? I was generally on board with the storyline and I thought it wove them together quite well but that ending... are you kidding me? There was some speculation thrown out about what was going on and that thread was believable. The one they gave us was laughable, the absolute worst choice. Had they done a small reshuffle they could have given a much less ridiculous conclusion.
There are a lot of different threads and each one has its moments, as daft as they might be they come together quite well even when the filler is poor.
Maggie Q's performance as Gwen felt like the most believable out of the whole ensemble, but that's not really a surprise from her. Gwen is basically the only decent person in the group and throughout her stay she is the one that's grounded and tries to deal with her situation. That should give us something good to work off... but she's kind of bland on screen compared to everything else.
Michael Peña is always a pull to a movie for me, but Roarke's story wasn't all the effective. Had he been a construct of the island then there might have been something in it, but as it was you didn't get any real struggle with his actions, I couldn't see how a character that wasn't portrayed as actively evil could go along with any of it even given his background.
While the rest of the cast is filled with faces you'd know there isn't really a great performance to be seen. From unlikeable characters to a script that's not amusing when it tries to be, what's left of the film is plain in a glossy kind of way, and by that I mean it's got the makings of something good but misses anything that could have made an impact. The effects are fine for the most part and the sets are fine when you take into consideration they're supposed to be a fantasy and don't need to fit together perfectly. The exception is Roarke's door that Maggie Q interacts with, I liked that move and I don't know whether the rest of the film might have benefitted from something similar.
Bits of the film are quite good and could have made for an exciting watch, but that ending was so frustrating that any enjoyment went straight out the window and any thrill from what I'd already seen was gone. Also, considering it is classified as horror there wasn't really enough, or anything of quality, too make that a reality. Untapped potential in abundance here.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/05/fantasy-island-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Life Itself (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Love Actually with all the saccharine squeezed out.
Not the documentary of the same name from 2014 about the critic Rogert Ebert. This is an Amazon Studios/Sky Cinema Original Film (trying to follow where Netflix is boldly going), and as such it only had a very limited release in UK cinemas which I managed to miss.
The plot.
This is an anthology film in the style of “Crash” or – actually, “Love Actually” – featuring a series of inter-linked stories. We start with a depressed Will (Oscar Isaac) flashing back to his apparently idyllic life with pregnant wife Abby (Olivia Wilde). Apparantly? Well, perhaps the narrator is unreliable. So what actually happened? Where is Abby now? Where is his child?
Mid-film we switch into a Spanish-language section, set in Spain, featuring an ambitious olive-picker Javier González (Sergio Peris-Mencheta), his sweetheart Isabel (Laia Costa) and his employer Mr. Saccione (Antonio Banderas).
(“What the F!”, you are saying to yourself at this point, “How is this all related?”).
To say any more would provide spoilers: but, confused as you may be, it’s a journey worth sticking with.
Messing with time and your mind.
The film plays fast and loose with chronology and we zap backwards and forwards through the story which can be unsettling. It’s a film that keeps you on your toes, and you need to listen to director/writer Dan Fogelman‘s dialogue as there are clues as to where you are going next. It’s certainly not the ‘sit-back-and-relax’ “rom-com” that I mistakenly sold it to my wife as for our evening viewing!
A star of the film is the editor Julie Monroe (“Midnight Special“). There are some significant twists in the film, some of which are well signposted; others very much not so!
The turns
Has Oscar Isaac done a bad film? (I’m sure some haters of the latest Star Wars episodes might have an answer!). Here he has to execute an enormous range and he just about pulls it off. Olivia Wilde is also convincing as Abby.
In the Spanish section, Antonio Banderas is as impressive as you expect, and Laia Costa – an actress not previously known to me – is initially good as the young love interest, but I thought she was rather over-extended in the later scenes in her story.
Elsewhere, the rising star Olivia Cooke again impresses as a troubled teen; Annette Bening is a psychologist; “Homeland”‘s Mandy Patinkin plays Will’s father; and an f-ing and blinding Samuel L Jackson even appears at the start of the film (a blink and you’d miss it line of dialogue explains the context).
Good?
I wasn’t expecting to, but I really enjoyed this one. I’ve read some completely eviscerating reviews of the movie, but I’ve not sure where those were coming from. I found it a non-standard journey requiring a level of intelligence to appreciate the nuances of the script. My guess would be that many of the naysayers on IMDB never made it past the Spanish interlude. Others will not have liked the coincidence in the final reel (no spoilers). I do appreciate that it needs a suspension of belief. But this is a movie about the random coincidences of life. I remember running into a work colleague on the backstreets of Lone Pine in California, 5,271 miles away from where we both worked. Coincidences DO happen.
I’m not a fan of this whole new “almost straight to streaming” approach: I wish I could have seen this one on the big screen. But my view would be that it’s well worth catching if you have access to Amazon or Sky services (Sky or Now TV in the UK).
The plot.
This is an anthology film in the style of “Crash” or – actually, “Love Actually” – featuring a series of inter-linked stories. We start with a depressed Will (Oscar Isaac) flashing back to his apparently idyllic life with pregnant wife Abby (Olivia Wilde). Apparantly? Well, perhaps the narrator is unreliable. So what actually happened? Where is Abby now? Where is his child?
Mid-film we switch into a Spanish-language section, set in Spain, featuring an ambitious olive-picker Javier González (Sergio Peris-Mencheta), his sweetheart Isabel (Laia Costa) and his employer Mr. Saccione (Antonio Banderas).
(“What the F!”, you are saying to yourself at this point, “How is this all related?”).
To say any more would provide spoilers: but, confused as you may be, it’s a journey worth sticking with.
Messing with time and your mind.
The film plays fast and loose with chronology and we zap backwards and forwards through the story which can be unsettling. It’s a film that keeps you on your toes, and you need to listen to director/writer Dan Fogelman‘s dialogue as there are clues as to where you are going next. It’s certainly not the ‘sit-back-and-relax’ “rom-com” that I mistakenly sold it to my wife as for our evening viewing!
A star of the film is the editor Julie Monroe (“Midnight Special“). There are some significant twists in the film, some of which are well signposted; others very much not so!
The turns
Has Oscar Isaac done a bad film? (I’m sure some haters of the latest Star Wars episodes might have an answer!). Here he has to execute an enormous range and he just about pulls it off. Olivia Wilde is also convincing as Abby.
In the Spanish section, Antonio Banderas is as impressive as you expect, and Laia Costa – an actress not previously known to me – is initially good as the young love interest, but I thought she was rather over-extended in the later scenes in her story.
Elsewhere, the rising star Olivia Cooke again impresses as a troubled teen; Annette Bening is a psychologist; “Homeland”‘s Mandy Patinkin plays Will’s father; and an f-ing and blinding Samuel L Jackson even appears at the start of the film (a blink and you’d miss it line of dialogue explains the context).
Good?
I wasn’t expecting to, but I really enjoyed this one. I’ve read some completely eviscerating reviews of the movie, but I’ve not sure where those were coming from. I found it a non-standard journey requiring a level of intelligence to appreciate the nuances of the script. My guess would be that many of the naysayers on IMDB never made it past the Spanish interlude. Others will not have liked the coincidence in the final reel (no spoilers). I do appreciate that it needs a suspension of belief. But this is a movie about the random coincidences of life. I remember running into a work colleague on the backstreets of Lone Pine in California, 5,271 miles away from where we both worked. Coincidences DO happen.
I’m not a fan of this whole new “almost straight to streaming” approach: I wish I could have seen this one on the big screen. But my view would be that it’s well worth catching if you have access to Amazon or Sky services (Sky or Now TV in the UK).
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated FIRESTARTER (2022) in Movies
May 21, 2022
Commits the Biggest Film Crime - It's Boring
Sometimes, I watch a movie, so you don’t have to.
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated On Chesil Beach (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Flawed but moving tale of a bygone sexual era.
As you might notice from my lack of recent posts, the day job is getting in a way a bit at the moment. But one film I wanted to catch was this adaptation of Ian McEwan’s novel. What’s both an advantage and a disadvantage of catching a film late is that you can’t help avoid absorbing some of the reviews of others: Kevin Maher of the Times gave this a rather sniffy two stars; Amy from “Oh That Film Blog” was much more measured (an excellent review: man, that girl can write!). Last night, I actually ended up enjoying the film much more than I was expecting to.
Set against Dorset’s spectacular shingle bank of Chesil Beach (which is a bitch to walk along!) the story, set primarily in 1962, joins two newly-weds Florence (Saoirse Ronan, “Brooklyn“, “Lady Bird“) and Edward (Billy Howle, “Dunkirk“) about to embark on the sexual adventure of their consummation at a seaside hotel. The timing of the film is critical: 1962 really marked the watershed between the staid conservatism and goody-two-shoes-ness of the 50’s and the sexual liberation of the swinging sixties. Sex before marriage was frowned upon. The problem for Florence and Edward is that sex after marriage is looking pretty unlikely too! For the inexperienced couple have more hang-ups about sex than there are pebbles on the beach.
The lead-up to their union is squirm-inducing to watch: a silent silver-service meal in their room; incompetent fumbling with zippers; shoes that refuse to come off. To prolong the agony for the viewer, we work through flashbacks of their first meeting at Oxford University and their dysfunctional family lives: for Florence a bullying father and mother (Samuel West and Emily Watson) and for Edward a loving but stressed father (TV regular, Adrian Scarborough) due to a mentally impaired mother (Anne-Marie Duff, “Suffragette“, “Before I Go To Sleep“).
As Ian McEwan is known to do (as per the end of “Atonement” for example), there are a couple of clever “Oh My God” twists in the tale: one merely hinted at in flashback; another involving a record-buying child that is also unresolved but begs a massive question.
The first half of the film is undoubtedly better than the last: while the screenplay is going for the “if only” twist of films like “Sliding Doors” and “La La Land“, the film over-stretches with some dodgy make-up where alternative actors would have been a far better choice. The ending still had the power to move me though.
Saoirse Ronan is magnificent: I don’t think I’ve seen the young Irish-American in a film I didn’t enjoy. Here she is back with a McEwan adaptation again and bleeds discomfort with every line of her face. Her desperate longing to talk to someone – such as the kindly probing vicar – is constantly counteracted by her shame and embarassment. Howle also holds his own well (no pun intended) but when up against the acting tour de force of Ronan he is always going to appear in second place.
A brave performance comes from Anne-Marie Duff who shines as the mentally wayward mother. The flashback where we see how she came to be that way is wholly predicatable but still manages to shock. And Duff is part of a strong ensemble cast who all do their bit.
Another star of the show for me is the photography by Sean Bobbitt (“12 Years a Slave“) which portrays the windswept Dorset beach beautifully but manages to get the frame close and claustrophobic when it needs to be. Wide panoramas with characters barely on the left and right of the frame will play havoc with DVD ratios on TV, but work superbly on the big screen.
Directed by stage-director Dominic Cooke, in his movie-directing debut, this is a brave story to try to move from page to screen and while it is not without faults it is a ball-achingly sad tale that moved me. Recommended if you enjoyed the similarly sad tale of “Atonement”.
Set against Dorset’s spectacular shingle bank of Chesil Beach (which is a bitch to walk along!) the story, set primarily in 1962, joins two newly-weds Florence (Saoirse Ronan, “Brooklyn“, “Lady Bird“) and Edward (Billy Howle, “Dunkirk“) about to embark on the sexual adventure of their consummation at a seaside hotel. The timing of the film is critical: 1962 really marked the watershed between the staid conservatism and goody-two-shoes-ness of the 50’s and the sexual liberation of the swinging sixties. Sex before marriage was frowned upon. The problem for Florence and Edward is that sex after marriage is looking pretty unlikely too! For the inexperienced couple have more hang-ups about sex than there are pebbles on the beach.
The lead-up to their union is squirm-inducing to watch: a silent silver-service meal in their room; incompetent fumbling with zippers; shoes that refuse to come off. To prolong the agony for the viewer, we work through flashbacks of their first meeting at Oxford University and their dysfunctional family lives: for Florence a bullying father and mother (Samuel West and Emily Watson) and for Edward a loving but stressed father (TV regular, Adrian Scarborough) due to a mentally impaired mother (Anne-Marie Duff, “Suffragette“, “Before I Go To Sleep“).
As Ian McEwan is known to do (as per the end of “Atonement” for example), there are a couple of clever “Oh My God” twists in the tale: one merely hinted at in flashback; another involving a record-buying child that is also unresolved but begs a massive question.
The first half of the film is undoubtedly better than the last: while the screenplay is going for the “if only” twist of films like “Sliding Doors” and “La La Land“, the film over-stretches with some dodgy make-up where alternative actors would have been a far better choice. The ending still had the power to move me though.
Saoirse Ronan is magnificent: I don’t think I’ve seen the young Irish-American in a film I didn’t enjoy. Here she is back with a McEwan adaptation again and bleeds discomfort with every line of her face. Her desperate longing to talk to someone – such as the kindly probing vicar – is constantly counteracted by her shame and embarassment. Howle also holds his own well (no pun intended) but when up against the acting tour de force of Ronan he is always going to appear in second place.
A brave performance comes from Anne-Marie Duff who shines as the mentally wayward mother. The flashback where we see how she came to be that way is wholly predicatable but still manages to shock. And Duff is part of a strong ensemble cast who all do their bit.
Another star of the show for me is the photography by Sean Bobbitt (“12 Years a Slave“) which portrays the windswept Dorset beach beautifully but manages to get the frame close and claustrophobic when it needs to be. Wide panoramas with characters barely on the left and right of the frame will play havoc with DVD ratios on TV, but work superbly on the big screen.
Directed by stage-director Dominic Cooke, in his movie-directing debut, this is a brave story to try to move from page to screen and while it is not without faults it is a ball-achingly sad tale that moved me. Recommended if you enjoyed the similarly sad tale of “Atonement”.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Horrified: Universal Monsters Strategy Board Game in Tabletop Games
Aug 6, 2021
I was a child a long time ago. Okay, not THAT long ago, but I remember being frightened of a great many thing on TV: Michael Jackson’s “Thriller” music video, the TV show “V,” and so many others. I still to this day have not watched an entire old school Universal Studios Monster movie. However, I used to live in California for part of my childhood and my family had season passes to Universal Studios and we would go quite a lot, so I have always been familiar with the monsters. So when I saw a game was being crafted featuring these lovable, but in a nostalgic way, creatures I knew I just had to have it.
Horrified is a pickup and deliver, action points, cooperative game with dice and miniatures utilizing a variable setup. In it players take on the role of a hero in a monster movie – but not just A monster movie, but SEVERAL monsters will be haunting the town! It is the heroes’ goal to defeat the monsters before the Terror Marker reaches maximum or the heroes run out of time and the monsters take over the town.
To setup, place the board on the table and draw 12 Item tokens from the bag. Place these Items on the board in the specified location printed on the Item. Depending on how many players (for this review I will be using the Solo rules in the rule book) place the Terror Marker appropriately on the board – the photo above was taken before I realized that it starts on three in the Solo game. Choose the monsters to be faced and place their mats near the board. The rulebook states where the monster minis will start the game. Place the Frenzy token on the lowest Frenzy-numbered monster. Shuffle the Monster and Perk decks of cards separately and deal each player one Perk card. Each player chooses or is randomly dealt a character badge and places the standee in the appropriate location on the board. The game may now begin!
Players will be taking turns traveling the town, picking up Items, attempting to defeat the monsters per their defeat instructions on their mats, delivering villagers that randomly appear to their safe locations, and keeping the Terror Marker in the acceptable range. Each character has a certain number of actions that can be taken on their turns, but any Perk cards used are spent as a bonus action on the hero’s turn. The hero actions are: Move (one space along the lit pathways, even with a villager in tow), Guide (a villager one space away from the hero), Pick Up (Items from locations), Share (Items from player to player – not needed in a Solo game), Special Action (if the character being played has one on their badge), Advance (complete a task on the Monster mat to move one step closer to defeat), and Defeat (once all the tasks are complete and the player has enough Items to defeat the Monster at the same location). Once a hero has used up all their Action Points per their badge, it will be the Monster phase.
Monster phases begin with a draw from the Monster deck. Upon the card will be a number printed on the top which instructs players as to how many Items to draw and place from the bag. Next, players will read the text on the card and complete any instructions. Finally, the Monsters will strike. At the bottom of the card will be printed several icons pertaining to Monsters individually and also the Monster who happens to currently be Frenzied. These icons instruct players to move certain Monsters and if they share a space with a hero or villager, to roll the attack dice. One hit from a Monster defeats either a villager or hero (unless the hero discards any Item to block the attack). If a hero or villager is defeated, the Terror Marker moves up a space toward ultimate doom. Play then is passed to the players again. The game continues in this fashion until one of the game end conditions is met and the heroe(s) win or the Monsters succeed in their hostile haunted takeover.
Components. I’d like to start with the art. I love it. The art has a very 1930s Hollywood style and is simply beautiful. The colors are vibrant, where color is used, and the board is stunning. All of the cardboard components are top notch quality, and the Monster minis are fab. Obviously it would be great for all the heroes and villagers to have minis as well, but there is text printed on those standees that just can’t translate to a miniature. All in all, the components here are wonderful and high quality.
The gameplay is also wonderful and high quality. The solo game from which these photos are taken I randomly drew the Mayor character and decided to hit the town with Dracula, The Creature from the Black Lagoon, and The Invisible Man. That’s a Standard game in the rules. The Mayor is great because she is able to take five actions on her turn (plus Perks), but she has no special abilities. That is both a blessing and a curse and wonderfully balanced. I would say I finished the game needing just one or two more Monster cards to draw before all three baddies were defeated. But, that’s the difficulty of having three Monsters showing. With just two Monsters I would have won handily, but maybe would not have enjoyed it as much and written it off as too easy. Luckily I always learn games on normal standard difficulty first.
Traipsing around town picking up Items and ushering villagers to their safe spaces sounds relaxing, but when the Monsters are on your trail and ready to Strike it adds a layer of anxiety that is just delicious. I admit I probably spent too much time trying to save every villager and that’s partly why I failed at this one game. Also I miscalculated how many extra Items to have on hand when attempting to Advance the Monster tasks. Couple those with my strategy to concentrate on defeating one Monster at a time and, well, that’s a losing strategy it seems.
The gameplay is so much fun, and the components are so wonderful to play with, it’s really no surprise I enjoy this game as much as I do. I have purposely left out some rules for readers to enjoy discovering themselves, but this is a tight game with pressure from different fronts to complete objectives. It’s the kind of game where even with a loss you find yourself wanting to try again right away. And that’s a sing of an excellent game. Purple Phoenix Games gives this very high ratings, even as a solo experience. If you need more horror-style adventure games in your collection, please check out Horrified. It’s not really that scary to play, but you will certainly be haunted by your choices you make throughout the game.
Horrified is a pickup and deliver, action points, cooperative game with dice and miniatures utilizing a variable setup. In it players take on the role of a hero in a monster movie – but not just A monster movie, but SEVERAL monsters will be haunting the town! It is the heroes’ goal to defeat the monsters before the Terror Marker reaches maximum or the heroes run out of time and the monsters take over the town.
To setup, place the board on the table and draw 12 Item tokens from the bag. Place these Items on the board in the specified location printed on the Item. Depending on how many players (for this review I will be using the Solo rules in the rule book) place the Terror Marker appropriately on the board – the photo above was taken before I realized that it starts on three in the Solo game. Choose the monsters to be faced and place their mats near the board. The rulebook states where the monster minis will start the game. Place the Frenzy token on the lowest Frenzy-numbered monster. Shuffle the Monster and Perk decks of cards separately and deal each player one Perk card. Each player chooses or is randomly dealt a character badge and places the standee in the appropriate location on the board. The game may now begin!
Players will be taking turns traveling the town, picking up Items, attempting to defeat the monsters per their defeat instructions on their mats, delivering villagers that randomly appear to their safe locations, and keeping the Terror Marker in the acceptable range. Each character has a certain number of actions that can be taken on their turns, but any Perk cards used are spent as a bonus action on the hero’s turn. The hero actions are: Move (one space along the lit pathways, even with a villager in tow), Guide (a villager one space away from the hero), Pick Up (Items from locations), Share (Items from player to player – not needed in a Solo game), Special Action (if the character being played has one on their badge), Advance (complete a task on the Monster mat to move one step closer to defeat), and Defeat (once all the tasks are complete and the player has enough Items to defeat the Monster at the same location). Once a hero has used up all their Action Points per their badge, it will be the Monster phase.
Monster phases begin with a draw from the Monster deck. Upon the card will be a number printed on the top which instructs players as to how many Items to draw and place from the bag. Next, players will read the text on the card and complete any instructions. Finally, the Monsters will strike. At the bottom of the card will be printed several icons pertaining to Monsters individually and also the Monster who happens to currently be Frenzied. These icons instruct players to move certain Monsters and if they share a space with a hero or villager, to roll the attack dice. One hit from a Monster defeats either a villager or hero (unless the hero discards any Item to block the attack). If a hero or villager is defeated, the Terror Marker moves up a space toward ultimate doom. Play then is passed to the players again. The game continues in this fashion until one of the game end conditions is met and the heroe(s) win or the Monsters succeed in their hostile haunted takeover.
Components. I’d like to start with the art. I love it. The art has a very 1930s Hollywood style and is simply beautiful. The colors are vibrant, where color is used, and the board is stunning. All of the cardboard components are top notch quality, and the Monster minis are fab. Obviously it would be great for all the heroes and villagers to have minis as well, but there is text printed on those standees that just can’t translate to a miniature. All in all, the components here are wonderful and high quality.
The gameplay is also wonderful and high quality. The solo game from which these photos are taken I randomly drew the Mayor character and decided to hit the town with Dracula, The Creature from the Black Lagoon, and The Invisible Man. That’s a Standard game in the rules. The Mayor is great because she is able to take five actions on her turn (plus Perks), but she has no special abilities. That is both a blessing and a curse and wonderfully balanced. I would say I finished the game needing just one or two more Monster cards to draw before all three baddies were defeated. But, that’s the difficulty of having three Monsters showing. With just two Monsters I would have won handily, but maybe would not have enjoyed it as much and written it off as too easy. Luckily I always learn games on normal standard difficulty first.
Traipsing around town picking up Items and ushering villagers to their safe spaces sounds relaxing, but when the Monsters are on your trail and ready to Strike it adds a layer of anxiety that is just delicious. I admit I probably spent too much time trying to save every villager and that’s partly why I failed at this one game. Also I miscalculated how many extra Items to have on hand when attempting to Advance the Monster tasks. Couple those with my strategy to concentrate on defeating one Monster at a time and, well, that’s a losing strategy it seems.
The gameplay is so much fun, and the components are so wonderful to play with, it’s really no surprise I enjoy this game as much as I do. I have purposely left out some rules for readers to enjoy discovering themselves, but this is a tight game with pressure from different fronts to complete objectives. It’s the kind of game where even with a loss you find yourself wanting to try again right away. And that’s a sing of an excellent game. Purple Phoenix Games gives this very high ratings, even as a solo experience. If you need more horror-style adventure games in your collection, please check out Horrified. It’s not really that scary to play, but you will certainly be haunted by your choices you make throughout the game.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Richard Jewell (2019) in Movies
Jan 15, 2020
Richard Jewell tells the true story of a security guard, hailed a hero for spotting a suspicious package at the 1996 Olympic games in Atlanta, before going on to be accused of masterminding the whole thing and having his life turned upside down by the media and the FBI. Directed by Clint Eastwood, Richard Jewell is another one of those stories from recent history that I knew very few details about, other than there was a bombing at the Olympics, and it's a story that clearly deserves to be told.
We start by getting to know a bit about Richard Jewell (Paul Walter Hauser) and how he eventually found himself working security at such a high profile event. When we first meet Richard, he's working as a supply clerk for a public law firm in 1986. He meets attorney Watson Bryant (Sam Rockwell), who can be heard from across the other side of the office loudly and angrily shouting at somebody on the phone. He's not much friendlier to Richard when he puts the phone down either, discovering that Richard has very kindly replaced some stationery in his desk drawers, and even added some more Snickers bars in there after noticing empty wrappers in Watson's bin. But the pair do eventually build up a good rapport, even sharing an interest in playing video games at a local arcade during their lunch breaks.
Richard eventually leaves the firm to become a security guard at a college. With dreams of some day working his way up into law enforcement, Richard takes his role a bit too seriously, resulting in a number of complaints being made to the dean and his subsequent dismissal. Having moved in with his mother Bobi (Kathy Bates) in Atlanta, Richard lands a job working security at the Olympic games, working alongside police officers in Centennial Park during a number of events. His mother joins him to enjoy a Kenny Rogers concert one night, and then a few nights later Richard gets to work while his favourite group are playing. It's during that time, while trying to move on a group of drunk and rowdy boys, that Richard notices a suspicious backpack beneath a nearby bench. Police are alerted, and the backpack is determined to be carrying a bomb. As Richard and the police officers try to disperse the crowd, the bomb detonates and casualties are much lower than they could have been. Richard is hailed a hero.
As Richard quickly begins appearing on TV, and being offered book deals, the FBI begin their investigation. Agent Shaw (Jon Hamm) was there when the bomb went off and feels responsible for something that happened on his watch, so is determined to find the man responsible. It's not long before they decide that Richard fits the profile of previous bombers - a wannabe police officer who carries out attacks and then seeks fame and glory by helping out his victims. The situation isn't helped when ballsy reporter Kathy Scruggs (Olivia Wilde), who will go to any lengths to get her story, including sleeping around, publishes a front page story declaring Richard to be prime suspect with the FBI. From there, Richard's life, along with his mothers, is sent into turmoil and Richard is forced to contact old friend Watson Bryant to see if he'll help defend him as his lawyer.
The dynamic between Richard and Watson is what really made this movie for me. They're old friends, but clearly two very different people - Watson doesn't take any crap from anyone while Richard is a kindly, thoughtful man who just wants to help everyone, so ends up not doing himself any favours. On one occasion, Watson tells Richard not to say a word while the FBI are searching his home, and then Richard proceeds to talk to them all about anything and everything, blissfully ignorant of the glares he's receiving from Watson. There's a lot of humour in Richard Jewell, which I wasn't really expecting, and while it did make for an enjoyable movie, I felt it detracted a little from the drama and tension at times. Outside of that, both Jon Hamm and Kathy Bates were perfect in their roles, Kathy Bates this week receiving an Oscar nomination for her performance.
As the movie progresses, the injustice of it all is truly incredible. Just by Watson walking the route from the phone-booth where the warning call originated and the location where Richard was when the bomb went off, it was clear that he couldn't have done it. He even passed a polygraph test and yet he still continued to be hounded in the absence of any other leads or suspects, as he was just an easy target. It's an enjoyable watch, and certainly an important story, but because of the humour I described earlier, it just didn't have enough intensity or drama to make a bigger impact on me.
We start by getting to know a bit about Richard Jewell (Paul Walter Hauser) and how he eventually found himself working security at such a high profile event. When we first meet Richard, he's working as a supply clerk for a public law firm in 1986. He meets attorney Watson Bryant (Sam Rockwell), who can be heard from across the other side of the office loudly and angrily shouting at somebody on the phone. He's not much friendlier to Richard when he puts the phone down either, discovering that Richard has very kindly replaced some stationery in his desk drawers, and even added some more Snickers bars in there after noticing empty wrappers in Watson's bin. But the pair do eventually build up a good rapport, even sharing an interest in playing video games at a local arcade during their lunch breaks.
Richard eventually leaves the firm to become a security guard at a college. With dreams of some day working his way up into law enforcement, Richard takes his role a bit too seriously, resulting in a number of complaints being made to the dean and his subsequent dismissal. Having moved in with his mother Bobi (Kathy Bates) in Atlanta, Richard lands a job working security at the Olympic games, working alongside police officers in Centennial Park during a number of events. His mother joins him to enjoy a Kenny Rogers concert one night, and then a few nights later Richard gets to work while his favourite group are playing. It's during that time, while trying to move on a group of drunk and rowdy boys, that Richard notices a suspicious backpack beneath a nearby bench. Police are alerted, and the backpack is determined to be carrying a bomb. As Richard and the police officers try to disperse the crowd, the bomb detonates and casualties are much lower than they could have been. Richard is hailed a hero.
As Richard quickly begins appearing on TV, and being offered book deals, the FBI begin their investigation. Agent Shaw (Jon Hamm) was there when the bomb went off and feels responsible for something that happened on his watch, so is determined to find the man responsible. It's not long before they decide that Richard fits the profile of previous bombers - a wannabe police officer who carries out attacks and then seeks fame and glory by helping out his victims. The situation isn't helped when ballsy reporter Kathy Scruggs (Olivia Wilde), who will go to any lengths to get her story, including sleeping around, publishes a front page story declaring Richard to be prime suspect with the FBI. From there, Richard's life, along with his mothers, is sent into turmoil and Richard is forced to contact old friend Watson Bryant to see if he'll help defend him as his lawyer.
The dynamic between Richard and Watson is what really made this movie for me. They're old friends, but clearly two very different people - Watson doesn't take any crap from anyone while Richard is a kindly, thoughtful man who just wants to help everyone, so ends up not doing himself any favours. On one occasion, Watson tells Richard not to say a word while the FBI are searching his home, and then Richard proceeds to talk to them all about anything and everything, blissfully ignorant of the glares he's receiving from Watson. There's a lot of humour in Richard Jewell, which I wasn't really expecting, and while it did make for an enjoyable movie, I felt it detracted a little from the drama and tension at times. Outside of that, both Jon Hamm and Kathy Bates were perfect in their roles, Kathy Bates this week receiving an Oscar nomination for her performance.
As the movie progresses, the injustice of it all is truly incredible. Just by Watson walking the route from the phone-booth where the warning call originated and the location where Richard was when the bomb went off, it was clear that he couldn't have done it. He even passed a polygraph test and yet he still continued to be hounded in the absence of any other leads or suspects, as he was just an easy target. It's an enjoyable watch, and certainly an important story, but because of the humour I described earlier, it just didn't have enough intensity or drama to make a bigger impact on me.