Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated All That Jazz (1979) in Movies
Oct 1, 2020
Full Blown Fosse (and that's a good thing)
After THE FRENCH CONNECTION, JAWS, MARATHON MAN and SORCERER (and, if I'm honest, JAWS II), my brother and I thought Roy Scheider was just about the toughest son-of-a-gun on the planet, so when he asked if I wanted to check out the latest "Roy Scheider flick", I jumped at the chance.
Little did either of us know that it was the semi-autobiographical Bob Fosse gem ALL THAT JAZZ. Me, being a musical theater kid, was thrilled by this unexpected spectacle while my brother (who would rather sit through C-Span than watch a musical) calls it, to this day, his "favorite" musical (granted, not a long list).
I've rewatched this film various times over the years and still liked it, but I hadn't checked it out for over 20 years at this point, so it was with some trepidation that I popped my DVD in (yes, I own the DVD, not the Blu-Ray) and sat back to see how well it holds up.
And...I shouldn't have worried, for it holds up very, very well. Not only as a film, not only as a musical, not only as a look into the life and times (and style) of Bob Fosse, but also as a looking glass into the late 1970's.
Written and Directed by famed Director/Choreographer Bob Fosse (CABARET, CHICAGO), ALL THAT JAZZ tells the (much more than) semi-autobiographical story of famed Director/Choreographer Joe Gideon (Scheider) who is pushing himself hard to finish a film and mount a Broadway show relying on booze, drugs and philandering.
The performances are strong in this film with a bevy of "Fosse regulars" strutting their stuff. From Leland Palmer (in the obvious Gwen Verdon role) to Ann Reinking (in the Ann Reinking role) to Ben Vereen (as the variety show headliner from hell) they all bring strong Broadway credentials to the screen making the musical numbers a veritable showcase of Fosse movements.
A very young Jessica Lange (in an early role that would showcase her acting chops) is mesmerizing, haunting and very, very watchable as a mysterious women in Joe's life while a very young John Lithgow shows up (and chews the scenery very, very well) as a rival director.
The surprise to me, of course, was the strong performance of Scheider in the lead role. He was Oscar-nominated for his work (deservingly so) and when he finally steps into the big finale musical number, he shows that he can hold his own (surprisingly so). He is PERFECTLY cast as Joe Gideon and he never really approached this strong work again in his career.
But, make no mistake about it, this film showcases Bob Fosse's Directing and Choreography skills - and they are excellent. The style of the film - bouncing from real life to something more ethereal - is strong, and strongly Fosse, giving a clear idea of the life and time in which these events unfold. I stated earlier that this film is a "looking glass" into the late 1970's, and I meant it. It immediately brought me back to those times - both the good and bad of it.
The musical numbers are fascinating to watch with the dancing particularly stunning as the angles and forms that the dancers make with their bodies and arms and legs are a wonder to behold. There has never been anyone like Fosse (before or since) and it is GREAT to watch a showcase of his talents.
This film was nominated for 9 Oscars - winning 4 - but losing Picture, Director (Fosse) and Actor (Scheider) to KRAMER vs. KRAMER (Picture, Director - Robert Benton and Actor - Dustin Hoffman). Now, I haven't seen Kramer vs. Kramer in a long, long time (probably not since I saw it in the theaters in 1979), but I gotta think ALL THAT JAZZ is better in all those categories.
If you haven't seen this in awhile - or if you have NEVER seen it - check out ALL THAT JAZZ, you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Little did either of us know that it was the semi-autobiographical Bob Fosse gem ALL THAT JAZZ. Me, being a musical theater kid, was thrilled by this unexpected spectacle while my brother (who would rather sit through C-Span than watch a musical) calls it, to this day, his "favorite" musical (granted, not a long list).
I've rewatched this film various times over the years and still liked it, but I hadn't checked it out for over 20 years at this point, so it was with some trepidation that I popped my DVD in (yes, I own the DVD, not the Blu-Ray) and sat back to see how well it holds up.
And...I shouldn't have worried, for it holds up very, very well. Not only as a film, not only as a musical, not only as a look into the life and times (and style) of Bob Fosse, but also as a looking glass into the late 1970's.
Written and Directed by famed Director/Choreographer Bob Fosse (CABARET, CHICAGO), ALL THAT JAZZ tells the (much more than) semi-autobiographical story of famed Director/Choreographer Joe Gideon (Scheider) who is pushing himself hard to finish a film and mount a Broadway show relying on booze, drugs and philandering.
The performances are strong in this film with a bevy of "Fosse regulars" strutting their stuff. From Leland Palmer (in the obvious Gwen Verdon role) to Ann Reinking (in the Ann Reinking role) to Ben Vereen (as the variety show headliner from hell) they all bring strong Broadway credentials to the screen making the musical numbers a veritable showcase of Fosse movements.
A very young Jessica Lange (in an early role that would showcase her acting chops) is mesmerizing, haunting and very, very watchable as a mysterious women in Joe's life while a very young John Lithgow shows up (and chews the scenery very, very well) as a rival director.
The surprise to me, of course, was the strong performance of Scheider in the lead role. He was Oscar-nominated for his work (deservingly so) and when he finally steps into the big finale musical number, he shows that he can hold his own (surprisingly so). He is PERFECTLY cast as Joe Gideon and he never really approached this strong work again in his career.
But, make no mistake about it, this film showcases Bob Fosse's Directing and Choreography skills - and they are excellent. The style of the film - bouncing from real life to something more ethereal - is strong, and strongly Fosse, giving a clear idea of the life and time in which these events unfold. I stated earlier that this film is a "looking glass" into the late 1970's, and I meant it. It immediately brought me back to those times - both the good and bad of it.
The musical numbers are fascinating to watch with the dancing particularly stunning as the angles and forms that the dancers make with their bodies and arms and legs are a wonder to behold. There has never been anyone like Fosse (before or since) and it is GREAT to watch a showcase of his talents.
This film was nominated for 9 Oscars - winning 4 - but losing Picture, Director (Fosse) and Actor (Scheider) to KRAMER vs. KRAMER (Picture, Director - Robert Benton and Actor - Dustin Hoffman). Now, I haven't seen Kramer vs. Kramer in a long, long time (probably not since I saw it in the theaters in 1979), but I gotta think ALL THAT JAZZ is better in all those categories.
If you haven't seen this in awhile - or if you have NEVER seen it - check out ALL THAT JAZZ, you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Kara Skinner (332 KP) rated Bascomville in Books
Jun 12, 2019
Genre: Contemporary, Teen
Page Count: 284
Average Goodreads Rating: 4.67 out of 5 stars
My rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars
Welcome to the life of Max Bascom, whose home is Bascomville. Bascomville has its own special kind of normal, where fathers can get job leads from their sons and Christmas dinners can end up to be Chinese take out. Max does his best to navigate Bascomville and to keep it running as smoothly as possible through good times and tragedy. And he also forms a special bond with the girl next door, Janice, who understands Bascomville despite coming from a world much different.
This book is so fabulously written. I usually don’t take review requests, but I’m glad I did for this book. It’s part romance, part literary masterpiece, and it captures “growing up” so well. I wish I had this book when I was in middle school or high school because I can relate to making your own kind of normal.
“Us? Normal?”
“How do you know we aren’t? How do we know everybody doesn’t make their own?”
She considered this for a moment then dismissed it. “If everybody made their own then nothing would be normal. Nothing could ever be normal.”
“Exactly.”
That’s my kind of definition of normal. And I think everyone needs to remember that normalcy doesn’t really exist a little bit more.
I didn’t see the plot twists coming ahead of time and I never got bored. On top of that, this book is incredibly quotable. There’s some good life advice in here, like when Max helped Janice cover up vandalism on her house:
And I knew then that ultimately we can save neither ourselves nor our loved ones from life. We can only live it.
Max is a complex character that I like and dislike. He is, ultimately, human, not a hero. He tends to overreact sometimes when Janice is involved, but for the most part he’s likeable. He’s loyal to his family, loves his little sister, and wishes for a world with a level playing field.
My favorite character is his little sister Lily, though. She actually has it worse than Max. She lives at home with her parents after Max goes to college and has to deal with her mother pretending she doesn’t exist and her father pretending to be her best friend to make up for it. Her home life is lousy at best and she practically raises herself for her last years of high school. But she’s strong enough to not break under pressure and she’s not one for self-pity.
“Fair is for dorks. I don’t need fair to make things work.”– Lily Bascom
So why only a 4.5 instead of a 5?
It’s because of the long descriptions, like this one that characterizes Mr. Birnbaum, Janice’s father, through his workshop.
I stepped inside and caught my breath. It was, to me, a foreign wonderland, this workshop. I am not a particularly handy person, and the panorama of neatly arranged rows of tools hanging on pegboards, the fittings categorized in plastic bins, the copper piping slung above the rafters, the worktables and vises and clamps and braided electrical cords all echoed the prowess of this man. I felt humbled, and strangely calm. I still wasn’t sure if I was doing the right thing but I was no longer nervous about it. I could leave disappointed, even chastised, and be all right with it. Such was the power of Sheldon Birnbaum and this place.
While these descriptions certainly add character and depth to the story, they can sometimes be a little excessive and make my attention lag. This book is certainly not a fluff book and isn’t meant to be one, but the long descriptions make it slightly more harder to get through than it has to be.
This is a good book for anyone to read and I can’t recommend it enough, especially to teens. It helps us remember that we all need to make our own normal.
Page Count: 284
Average Goodreads Rating: 4.67 out of 5 stars
My rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars
Welcome to the life of Max Bascom, whose home is Bascomville. Bascomville has its own special kind of normal, where fathers can get job leads from their sons and Christmas dinners can end up to be Chinese take out. Max does his best to navigate Bascomville and to keep it running as smoothly as possible through good times and tragedy. And he also forms a special bond with the girl next door, Janice, who understands Bascomville despite coming from a world much different.
This book is so fabulously written. I usually don’t take review requests, but I’m glad I did for this book. It’s part romance, part literary masterpiece, and it captures “growing up” so well. I wish I had this book when I was in middle school or high school because I can relate to making your own kind of normal.
“Us? Normal?”
“How do you know we aren’t? How do we know everybody doesn’t make their own?”
She considered this for a moment then dismissed it. “If everybody made their own then nothing would be normal. Nothing could ever be normal.”
“Exactly.”
That’s my kind of definition of normal. And I think everyone needs to remember that normalcy doesn’t really exist a little bit more.
I didn’t see the plot twists coming ahead of time and I never got bored. On top of that, this book is incredibly quotable. There’s some good life advice in here, like when Max helped Janice cover up vandalism on her house:
And I knew then that ultimately we can save neither ourselves nor our loved ones from life. We can only live it.
Max is a complex character that I like and dislike. He is, ultimately, human, not a hero. He tends to overreact sometimes when Janice is involved, but for the most part he’s likeable. He’s loyal to his family, loves his little sister, and wishes for a world with a level playing field.
My favorite character is his little sister Lily, though. She actually has it worse than Max. She lives at home with her parents after Max goes to college and has to deal with her mother pretending she doesn’t exist and her father pretending to be her best friend to make up for it. Her home life is lousy at best and she practically raises herself for her last years of high school. But she’s strong enough to not break under pressure and she’s not one for self-pity.
“Fair is for dorks. I don’t need fair to make things work.”– Lily Bascom
So why only a 4.5 instead of a 5?
It’s because of the long descriptions, like this one that characterizes Mr. Birnbaum, Janice’s father, through his workshop.
I stepped inside and caught my breath. It was, to me, a foreign wonderland, this workshop. I am not a particularly handy person, and the panorama of neatly arranged rows of tools hanging on pegboards, the fittings categorized in plastic bins, the copper piping slung above the rafters, the worktables and vises and clamps and braided electrical cords all echoed the prowess of this man. I felt humbled, and strangely calm. I still wasn’t sure if I was doing the right thing but I was no longer nervous about it. I could leave disappointed, even chastised, and be all right with it. Such was the power of Sheldon Birnbaum and this place.
While these descriptions certainly add character and depth to the story, they can sometimes be a little excessive and make my attention lag. This book is certainly not a fluff book and isn’t meant to be one, but the long descriptions make it slightly more harder to get through than it has to be.
This is a good book for anyone to read and I can’t recommend it enough, especially to teens. It helps us remember that we all need to make our own normal.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated This is How it Always Is in Books
Feb 1, 2018
Rosie and Penn are a bit of an amazing love story. They both knew they'd fall in love before they even met. Now they have five rambunctious kids, a farmhouse in Wisconsin, and a crazy, wonderful life. Things get a little more complicated, however, when their youngest son, Claude, starts wanting to wear a dress to preschool. Claude wants long hair with barrettes. Claude wants to be a princess when he grows up. Rosie and Penn are supportive of Claude: they just want their children to be happy, after all. But they soon realize Claude isn't just going through a phase. Claude has gender dysphoria, and their son wants to become a little girl named Poppy. The family is willing to support Poppy, but Rosie and Penn make the decision to do so in secret. But secrets don't stay kept forever.
<i>This is a fascinating, heartbreaking, and beautiful book.</i> It's filled with endearing characters, and I will certainly be recommending it to many people. I had a few issues with some of the realism aspects (more on that below), but I loved its details about raising children (of all kinds) and its humor. Penn, Rosie, and their kids are real.
Woven and embedded throughout this novel is a fairytale that Penn tells his children--starting with when his first boys were babies--and in some ways, the novel itself has its own fairytale moments. Frankel mentions that she does have a child who used to be a little boy and is now a little girl, but the story is not about her daughter. It is, she writes, "an act of imagination, an exercise in wish fulfillment." Still, you can imagine her as a supportive parent. That's certainly not everyone's experience. Does that mean everyone has to write a novel where the child's parents throw them out and society shames them? No. Would I have liked to have a seen a little more of a realistic take on how Poppy and her parents would deal with her secret and how those around her would take it? Maybe. It's not that the family doesn't have hardship, because they do, and Frankel does a good job showing that it takes a bit of a toll on her clan of brothers, as well. But--and I don't want to go into too much, as I don't want to give spoilers--I felt the resolution to the story was a bit pat. Much like Penn's fairytales, it seems to allow things to just wrap up quickly easily. So that was a little problematic for me. But, I didn't feel as irritated after reading Frankel's afterword, because I realize that this novel--for her--is indeed an "exercise in wish fulfillment." This is what she wants in the world. I won't lie: it's what I wish for as well. And perhaps reading novels like this, featuring a wonderful, precocious little boy who can become a wonderful, beautiful, mostly accepted little girl, is a great first step.
The novel is intricate and very detailed, though quite well-written. It's heartbreaking in Penn and Rosie's realization that Claude wants to be a girl and what that will mean for him and the family. They only want for their children to be happy. Frankel does an excellent job at portraying how adults and children can see the world so differently--in terms of gender and much more. As a parent, I often found myself wondering about what I'd do in their situation: it's a book that gets you thinking, for sure. In the end, I loved the family very much and was quite invested in their happiness. Again, another reason why I would have liked a slightly more developed ending after having gone through so much with them.
Still, this is a lovely, timely book. No matter some of the issues I had, I still enjoyed it and certainly recommend it.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.instagram.com/justacatandabook/">Instagram</a>; </center>
<i>This is a fascinating, heartbreaking, and beautiful book.</i> It's filled with endearing characters, and I will certainly be recommending it to many people. I had a few issues with some of the realism aspects (more on that below), but I loved its details about raising children (of all kinds) and its humor. Penn, Rosie, and their kids are real.
Woven and embedded throughout this novel is a fairytale that Penn tells his children--starting with when his first boys were babies--and in some ways, the novel itself has its own fairytale moments. Frankel mentions that she does have a child who used to be a little boy and is now a little girl, but the story is not about her daughter. It is, she writes, "an act of imagination, an exercise in wish fulfillment." Still, you can imagine her as a supportive parent. That's certainly not everyone's experience. Does that mean everyone has to write a novel where the child's parents throw them out and society shames them? No. Would I have liked to have a seen a little more of a realistic take on how Poppy and her parents would deal with her secret and how those around her would take it? Maybe. It's not that the family doesn't have hardship, because they do, and Frankel does a good job showing that it takes a bit of a toll on her clan of brothers, as well. But--and I don't want to go into too much, as I don't want to give spoilers--I felt the resolution to the story was a bit pat. Much like Penn's fairytales, it seems to allow things to just wrap up quickly easily. So that was a little problematic for me. But, I didn't feel as irritated after reading Frankel's afterword, because I realize that this novel--for her--is indeed an "exercise in wish fulfillment." This is what she wants in the world. I won't lie: it's what I wish for as well. And perhaps reading novels like this, featuring a wonderful, precocious little boy who can become a wonderful, beautiful, mostly accepted little girl, is a great first step.
The novel is intricate and very detailed, though quite well-written. It's heartbreaking in Penn and Rosie's realization that Claude wants to be a girl and what that will mean for him and the family. They only want for their children to be happy. Frankel does an excellent job at portraying how adults and children can see the world so differently--in terms of gender and much more. As a parent, I often found myself wondering about what I'd do in their situation: it's a book that gets you thinking, for sure. In the end, I loved the family very much and was quite invested in their happiness. Again, another reason why I would have liked a slightly more developed ending after having gone through so much with them.
Still, this is a lovely, timely book. No matter some of the issues I had, I still enjoyed it and certainly recommend it.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.instagram.com/justacatandabook/">Instagram</a>; </center>
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Almost Missed You in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Violet and Finn are one of those couples that everyone believes is meant to be. Their story is one entwined with fate. They met once by chance and were reunited years later. Now married, with a young son, everything seems great for the couple. While vacationing in Florida, Violet cannot believe her good fortune. So imagine her shock when she returns from a relaxing nap on the beach to find their hotel room empty: Finn has vanished, and he has taken Bear, their son, with him. Violet has no explanation for this, and the FBI is quickly involved. Meanwhile, Finn's closest friend, Caitlin--who has become Violet's dear friend too--becomes entwined in the disappearance when Finn enlists her help. Will Violet ever see her son again? And why exactly did Finn vanish from that beach?
This novel definitely sucks you in right away. It's confusing and intriguing, as you're completely puzzled as to why Finn would run off and leave his beloved wife (and why would he take their son, too). In the beginning, I did not want to stop reading: the novel was completely addictive. Strawser slowly adds in additional details that thicken the plot, making Caitlin and her husband, George, as much as a part of the story as Finn and Violet. It's told in alternating points of view (Violet, Caitlin, Finn) and time periods, including after the kidnapping incident and before, leading up to Violet and Finn's history together. This effectively builds suspense and can drive you a tad insane, as a chapter in the past ends, leaving you dangling and wanting more details.
The problem for me was that, over time, the characters almost seemed their own worst enemies. Rather than a mystery/suspense novel, the book turns more psychological (nothing necessarily wrong with that) with each character bemoaning their various choices that have led up to this point. And seriously, they've made some stupid choices. It's one of those things where you want to scream: if you'd all just have talked to each other! Communication! Some of the ways of handling things seem awfully impractical for such serious issues (case in point: just about anything Caitlin does with her life, including her way of addressing the kidnapping).
Still, the novel continues to churn out some crazy twists, making it very interesting. The unveiling of Finn's past really carries the book about 3/4 through. You're continually wondering what happened, what he owes various characters, and why on earth he'd want to leave Violet (and take Bear).
As much as I enjoyed this novel and how suspenseful it was, I was frustrated by the characters - none of whom I cared for much at all beyond Violet. (I would have just strangled Finn if possible and potentially even Caitlin.) Again, some communication could have really saved some preposterous plot movements. There are a few times where characters seem to act way out of line for their development, etc. As the book nears a close, it drags on with their in-fighting and psychological messes, versus actual excitement, which was a little disappointing. I felt like we'd been through a lot of excitement for nothing and come out at the end with little but an emotional saga. The ending is awfully pat, too, and makes you think, really?
However, I truly did enjoy most of this book and found it incredibly suspenseful. It's easy to read and draws you in immediately. Even if you don't like all the characters, you'll be intrigued by their predicaments and the entire scenario. I'd certainly be interested in what Strawser comes up with next. 3.5 stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review; it is available everywhere as of 03/28/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a></center>;
This novel definitely sucks you in right away. It's confusing and intriguing, as you're completely puzzled as to why Finn would run off and leave his beloved wife (and why would he take their son, too). In the beginning, I did not want to stop reading: the novel was completely addictive. Strawser slowly adds in additional details that thicken the plot, making Caitlin and her husband, George, as much as a part of the story as Finn and Violet. It's told in alternating points of view (Violet, Caitlin, Finn) and time periods, including after the kidnapping incident and before, leading up to Violet and Finn's history together. This effectively builds suspense and can drive you a tad insane, as a chapter in the past ends, leaving you dangling and wanting more details.
The problem for me was that, over time, the characters almost seemed their own worst enemies. Rather than a mystery/suspense novel, the book turns more psychological (nothing necessarily wrong with that) with each character bemoaning their various choices that have led up to this point. And seriously, they've made some stupid choices. It's one of those things where you want to scream: if you'd all just have talked to each other! Communication! Some of the ways of handling things seem awfully impractical for such serious issues (case in point: just about anything Caitlin does with her life, including her way of addressing the kidnapping).
Still, the novel continues to churn out some crazy twists, making it very interesting. The unveiling of Finn's past really carries the book about 3/4 through. You're continually wondering what happened, what he owes various characters, and why on earth he'd want to leave Violet (and take Bear).
As much as I enjoyed this novel and how suspenseful it was, I was frustrated by the characters - none of whom I cared for much at all beyond Violet. (I would have just strangled Finn if possible and potentially even Caitlin.) Again, some communication could have really saved some preposterous plot movements. There are a few times where characters seem to act way out of line for their development, etc. As the book nears a close, it drags on with their in-fighting and psychological messes, versus actual excitement, which was a little disappointing. I felt like we'd been through a lot of excitement for nothing and come out at the end with little but an emotional saga. The ending is awfully pat, too, and makes you think, really?
However, I truly did enjoy most of this book and found it incredibly suspenseful. It's easy to read and draws you in immediately. Even if you don't like all the characters, you'll be intrigued by their predicaments and the entire scenario. I'd certainly be interested in what Strawser comes up with next. 3.5 stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review; it is available everywhere as of 03/28/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a></center>;
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Heartbreak Kid (2007) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
It has been almost ten years since Ben Stiller teamed with the Farrelly brothers for the comedy classic “There’s Something About Mary”, which launched a series of highly successful films for Stiller who has championed the likeable loser role to the delight of audiences worldwide.
In the new film “The Heartbreak Kid”, Stiller is Eddie Cantrow, a successful owner of a San Francisco sporting goods, store who is at a crossroads in his life. At 40, Eddie is unmarried, not dating anyone, and about to attend the wedding of his former fiancé.
As if Eddie did not have enough to on his mind as he prepares for the wedding, his father (Jerry Stiller), constantly grills him on the need for him to sleep with more women and settle down. His best friend Mac (Rob Coddry) always touts the virtues of marriage and the need to do what the woman tells him to.
Shortly after the wedding, Eddie sees a lady being mugged and attempts to help her out. While things do not go as planned, he does form a connection with her and learns that her name is Lila (Malin Akerman), and despite his inability to muster the courage to ask for her number, she eventually shows up at his store looking for him.
The two begin to date and it looks like Eddie has finally found the perfect girl for him. She even shows old fashioned values by not wanting to have sex until later in their relationship, as she does not want to mess up a good thing.
The couple’s plans take an unexpected detour when Lila informs Eddie that her job plans to move her overseas for two years. When Eddie learns that her company will not transfer a married person, he musters up the courage and marries Lila after only 6 weeks of data.
The smitten couple plan to take three weeks to drive down to Cabo and stay at a resort, and enjoy their first weeks as husband and wife. Along the way, Eddie starts to see some annoying behavior arise in Lila, such as actively singing and acting along to every song on the radio, and some very acrobatic, dominate, and painful tendencies when they consummate their marriage.
As the honeymoon unfolds, Eddie becomes trapped in a nightmare, as it seems that Lila has become a crazy freak, and is not the person he though he married. Unsure what to do next, Eddie meets a lady named Miranda (Michelle Monaghan), while Lila is recovering from severe sunburn.
Intrigued by Miranda, Eddie starts to spend time with her, and soon falls for her which forces Eddie to figure out how to break the news of his marriage to Miranda, and how to get away from Lila.
In true Farrelly brother’s style, a series of outrageous and over the top events follows punctuated by some very crude and at times funny jokes and situations that push Eddie to the limits to find true love.
The film is a remake of the 1972 Neil Simon film of the same name, and while updated with more off color humor, the basic premise of the film has remained unchanged. There are some funny moments in the film and Stiller once again gets the job done as the likeable Eddie.
The problem is that for me, the film was two long, as many times there were gaps of almost twenty minutes between some of the good jokes, and I was left watching fairly dull stuff waiting for the next funny moment to arrive.
The performances in the film were eager, and the brothers did a workmanlike job of direction, as none of the cast was really challenged by the material. Even fine supporting work by Carlos Mencia as Uncle Tito did not get the chance to reach the potential his character showed. In the end, the film just had too many moments that did not work, as the jokes were too few and far between to truly be effective.
In the new film “The Heartbreak Kid”, Stiller is Eddie Cantrow, a successful owner of a San Francisco sporting goods, store who is at a crossroads in his life. At 40, Eddie is unmarried, not dating anyone, and about to attend the wedding of his former fiancé.
As if Eddie did not have enough to on his mind as he prepares for the wedding, his father (Jerry Stiller), constantly grills him on the need for him to sleep with more women and settle down. His best friend Mac (Rob Coddry) always touts the virtues of marriage and the need to do what the woman tells him to.
Shortly after the wedding, Eddie sees a lady being mugged and attempts to help her out. While things do not go as planned, he does form a connection with her and learns that her name is Lila (Malin Akerman), and despite his inability to muster the courage to ask for her number, she eventually shows up at his store looking for him.
The two begin to date and it looks like Eddie has finally found the perfect girl for him. She even shows old fashioned values by not wanting to have sex until later in their relationship, as she does not want to mess up a good thing.
The couple’s plans take an unexpected detour when Lila informs Eddie that her job plans to move her overseas for two years. When Eddie learns that her company will not transfer a married person, he musters up the courage and marries Lila after only 6 weeks of data.
The smitten couple plan to take three weeks to drive down to Cabo and stay at a resort, and enjoy their first weeks as husband and wife. Along the way, Eddie starts to see some annoying behavior arise in Lila, such as actively singing and acting along to every song on the radio, and some very acrobatic, dominate, and painful tendencies when they consummate their marriage.
As the honeymoon unfolds, Eddie becomes trapped in a nightmare, as it seems that Lila has become a crazy freak, and is not the person he though he married. Unsure what to do next, Eddie meets a lady named Miranda (Michelle Monaghan), while Lila is recovering from severe sunburn.
Intrigued by Miranda, Eddie starts to spend time with her, and soon falls for her which forces Eddie to figure out how to break the news of his marriage to Miranda, and how to get away from Lila.
In true Farrelly brother’s style, a series of outrageous and over the top events follows punctuated by some very crude and at times funny jokes and situations that push Eddie to the limits to find true love.
The film is a remake of the 1972 Neil Simon film of the same name, and while updated with more off color humor, the basic premise of the film has remained unchanged. There are some funny moments in the film and Stiller once again gets the job done as the likeable Eddie.
The problem is that for me, the film was two long, as many times there were gaps of almost twenty minutes between some of the good jokes, and I was left watching fairly dull stuff waiting for the next funny moment to arrive.
The performances in the film were eager, and the brothers did a workmanlike job of direction, as none of the cast was really challenged by the material. Even fine supporting work by Carlos Mencia as Uncle Tito did not get the chance to reach the potential his character showed. In the end, the film just had too many moments that did not work, as the jokes were too few and far between to truly be effective.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Fright Night (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Twenty-six years ago, “Fright Night” premiered in theaters and went on to become a fondly remembered title amongst horror fans. The movie cleverly combined horror and humor to create a fresh take on the vampire and teen horror genres which had started to grow stale. While the movie spawned a largely forgettable direct to video sequel, the original film has remained popular over the years. So, when I first heard that they were planning on remaking the film I was skeptical as I felt it would be very difficult to match the original film.
Boasting an impressive cast which includes Anton Yelchin, Colin Farrell, David Tennant, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, and Toni Collette, the remake does not try to reinvent the wheel, but instead takes the formula of the original and creates an entirely new entry into the saga.
For those unfamiliar with the series, Yelchin stars as Charlie Brewster, a young man who is trying to balance watching over his single mother, and his growing relationship with a girl way out of his league named Amy (Imogen Poots). He is also wrestling with becoming part of a cooler crowd at the cost of alienating his geeky former best friend, Ed, played by Christopher Mintz-Plasse.
Colin Farrell plays the handsome and suave new next door neighbor who easily charms Charlie’s mom, played by Toni Colette. Unbeknownst to his neighbors, the charming and charismatic Jerry, played by Colin Ferrell, is actually a vampire who’s come to their Las Vegas suburb to continue his nighttime hunts. Ed has become suspicious of the recent disappearances in their community and confides to Charlie that he’s had Jerry under surveillance and knows that he is a vampire.
Needless to say this does not sit well with Charlie, who distances himself further from Ed. But when Ed goes missing, Charlie decides to do some investigating of his own. Charlie turns to a local Vegas performance artist named Peter Vincent (David Tennant), whose vampire-themed show portrays him as an expert in fighting the undead. While at first skeptical over Charlie’s claims, a few devastating confrontations with Jerry and his minions forces Vincent to rethink his role. The two unlikely allies soon find themselves in a deadly race against time to defeat Jerry and save their loved ones before it’s too late.
The film cleverly combines horror and comedy and does a good job of providing some suspenseful moments in between the blood and gore, managing to squeeze in more than a few laughs along the way. While not overly scary, the visual effects work is solid and aside from the converted 3-D is a really enjoyable to watch. The film would’ve been much better had it been shot in 3-D or simply left as a 2-D film as the conversion really didn’t offer anything of value as is often the case in these lab converted efforts.
The cast works very well with one another and Farrell cheekily introduces a few new wrinkles to the vampire lore. I really enjoyed David Tennant’s performance and should they do a sequel I certainly hope that they bring him back. Anton Yelchin gives a reliable performance but I was surprised that Christopher Mintz-Plasse did not have a bigger role but he does have some memorable moments in the film. What really impressed me was that the film did not attempt to do a shot-by-shot remake of the original but instead took the premise of the original and offered a fresh take that easily could have been issued as the third chapter in the series rather than a reboot. While there were nods to the original, outside of the premise it was very much its own film.
The film is not going to set any high marks for new standards in horror nor is the plot fresh and original. It simply knows what its target audience and source material are and sets a course right down the middle without attempting to deviate too much one way or another. “Fright Night” just might be perfect for those looking for a dose of nostalgia and some highly suspenseful, fun entertainment.
Boasting an impressive cast which includes Anton Yelchin, Colin Farrell, David Tennant, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, and Toni Collette, the remake does not try to reinvent the wheel, but instead takes the formula of the original and creates an entirely new entry into the saga.
For those unfamiliar with the series, Yelchin stars as Charlie Brewster, a young man who is trying to balance watching over his single mother, and his growing relationship with a girl way out of his league named Amy (Imogen Poots). He is also wrestling with becoming part of a cooler crowd at the cost of alienating his geeky former best friend, Ed, played by Christopher Mintz-Plasse.
Colin Farrell plays the handsome and suave new next door neighbor who easily charms Charlie’s mom, played by Toni Colette. Unbeknownst to his neighbors, the charming and charismatic Jerry, played by Colin Ferrell, is actually a vampire who’s come to their Las Vegas suburb to continue his nighttime hunts. Ed has become suspicious of the recent disappearances in their community and confides to Charlie that he’s had Jerry under surveillance and knows that he is a vampire.
Needless to say this does not sit well with Charlie, who distances himself further from Ed. But when Ed goes missing, Charlie decides to do some investigating of his own. Charlie turns to a local Vegas performance artist named Peter Vincent (David Tennant), whose vampire-themed show portrays him as an expert in fighting the undead. While at first skeptical over Charlie’s claims, a few devastating confrontations with Jerry and his minions forces Vincent to rethink his role. The two unlikely allies soon find themselves in a deadly race against time to defeat Jerry and save their loved ones before it’s too late.
The film cleverly combines horror and comedy and does a good job of providing some suspenseful moments in between the blood and gore, managing to squeeze in more than a few laughs along the way. While not overly scary, the visual effects work is solid and aside from the converted 3-D is a really enjoyable to watch. The film would’ve been much better had it been shot in 3-D or simply left as a 2-D film as the conversion really didn’t offer anything of value as is often the case in these lab converted efforts.
The cast works very well with one another and Farrell cheekily introduces a few new wrinkles to the vampire lore. I really enjoyed David Tennant’s performance and should they do a sequel I certainly hope that they bring him back. Anton Yelchin gives a reliable performance but I was surprised that Christopher Mintz-Plasse did not have a bigger role but he does have some memorable moments in the film. What really impressed me was that the film did not attempt to do a shot-by-shot remake of the original but instead took the premise of the original and offered a fresh take that easily could have been issued as the third chapter in the series rather than a reboot. While there were nods to the original, outside of the premise it was very much its own film.
The film is not going to set any high marks for new standards in horror nor is the plot fresh and original. It simply knows what its target audience and source material are and sets a course right down the middle without attempting to deviate too much one way or another. “Fright Night” just might be perfect for those looking for a dose of nostalgia and some highly suspenseful, fun entertainment.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) created a post
May 18, 2018 (Updated Jun 12, 2018)
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Bandada in Tabletop Games
Jan 19, 2021
Though I may not look it, I am indeed half Mexican. That said, the word, “Bandada,” means, “Flock.” I don’t really get to flex my Spanish skills often, and it shows. I definitely looked up the word Bandada before reading the rules this time. In any case, as gamers we all belong to the same nerdy flock of people who just like to have a great time with friends, family, and some colorful cardboard and plastic. Birds and other flying creatures have been all the rage recently, but will I be adding this one to my flock of gems?
In Bandada players are attempting to catch and return birds that have escaped from the local zoo. These birds are attracted to different food morsels (namely black, blue, and yellow dice) and by manipulating the food source players may be able to catch all the right birdies and score tons of points.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
Disclaimer the second: I am previewing this using the Solo Adventure Variant, which uses many of the same rules as the main multiplayer rules with a few twists.
To setup the solo player will roll all 12 dice and sort them by color. Shuffle the bird cards and reveal three cards face-up in a market row. Grab a scoring cube for the score card, and choose which location card to play. Select (randomly or not) a bonus scoring card and the game may begin!
There are other optional variant rules that can be added to the adventure, but I will not be detailing those here.
Turns are divided into two phases: the Drafting phase and the Cleanup phase. During the Drafting phase the player will choose one of the face-up bird cards to be added to their personal bandada, perform the action described on the top of the card, and then add it to their bandada (personal tableau).
After drafting and bandada-ing the player will perform the Cleanup phase by scoring points based on the bird card abilities printed on the bottom, discarding the remaining face-up cards, and then adding three new birds cards to that market row. This phase differs from the multiplayer rules in that birds are scored once added to the bandada in multiplayer and then again during the Cleanup phase. In the solo mode they are scored only once at the end of the Cleanup phase.
The bird cards all have actions printed at the top that will manipulate the food dice in some way. Actions could simply give the birds a specific number of colored dice and adjust the value up or down. Some abilities will have the player flipping the dice to the opposite side, or adjusting multiple dice by splitting a positive or negative value. Of note in this game is that dice values wrap around the die. For example to increase the value of a 6 die it then wraps around to become a value 1. Manipulation of these food dice will make or break the game success, as I found in all my plays.
The game continues in this fashion until after the fourth full round. The player then totals their score on the score card, adds the points from the bonus card chosen at the beginning, and checks for the victory condition on the location card (the rules suggest starting in Africa). If the player has met the victory condition, the trip was a success! If, like me, the player fails to make 35 points in Africa every time, they must play again!
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of the game, but I have to say that this is a beautiful minimalistic game. It consists of primarily dice and cards. The dice are translucent and good quality, though translucent yellow with white pips can be hard to read at times. The cards are good quality as well and feature breathtaking avian art. It really does look great on the table and doesn’t take up a ton of room, so I have very few negatives here.
Gameplay is super speedy and agonizing for a solo player. Maximizing points on every turn and having to consider specific win conditions makes for a crunchy little card game that takes about 10 minutes to play. It is definitely something I will be reaching for whenever I have a spare 15 minutes. With setup and teardown I am looking at a fulfilling, if not frustrating, card game experience that can be both anxiety-triggering and also quite calming. I was not sure what to expect when I opened the box, but boy am I glad I have this little gem.
If you are in the market for a great little solo game that can also play multiplayer, looks amazing, and is quick to complete, then look no further. If you are an avian aficionado and need your board and card game collection to reflect this, check out Bandada. I need you all to also promise to write me back once you figure out how to succeed in Africa, as I just plum can’t do it. But I am going to keep trying. As I always say, a game that makes you want to play it more is a mark of a great game, and I think a great game comes in this little box.
In Bandada players are attempting to catch and return birds that have escaped from the local zoo. These birds are attracted to different food morsels (namely black, blue, and yellow dice) and by manipulating the food source players may be able to catch all the right birdies and score tons of points.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
Disclaimer the second: I am previewing this using the Solo Adventure Variant, which uses many of the same rules as the main multiplayer rules with a few twists.
To setup the solo player will roll all 12 dice and sort them by color. Shuffle the bird cards and reveal three cards face-up in a market row. Grab a scoring cube for the score card, and choose which location card to play. Select (randomly or not) a bonus scoring card and the game may begin!
There are other optional variant rules that can be added to the adventure, but I will not be detailing those here.
Turns are divided into two phases: the Drafting phase and the Cleanup phase. During the Drafting phase the player will choose one of the face-up bird cards to be added to their personal bandada, perform the action described on the top of the card, and then add it to their bandada (personal tableau).
After drafting and bandada-ing the player will perform the Cleanup phase by scoring points based on the bird card abilities printed on the bottom, discarding the remaining face-up cards, and then adding three new birds cards to that market row. This phase differs from the multiplayer rules in that birds are scored once added to the bandada in multiplayer and then again during the Cleanup phase. In the solo mode they are scored only once at the end of the Cleanup phase.
The bird cards all have actions printed at the top that will manipulate the food dice in some way. Actions could simply give the birds a specific number of colored dice and adjust the value up or down. Some abilities will have the player flipping the dice to the opposite side, or adjusting multiple dice by splitting a positive or negative value. Of note in this game is that dice values wrap around the die. For example to increase the value of a 6 die it then wraps around to become a value 1. Manipulation of these food dice will make or break the game success, as I found in all my plays.
The game continues in this fashion until after the fourth full round. The player then totals their score on the score card, adds the points from the bonus card chosen at the beginning, and checks for the victory condition on the location card (the rules suggest starting in Africa). If the player has met the victory condition, the trip was a success! If, like me, the player fails to make 35 points in Africa every time, they must play again!
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of the game, but I have to say that this is a beautiful minimalistic game. It consists of primarily dice and cards. The dice are translucent and good quality, though translucent yellow with white pips can be hard to read at times. The cards are good quality as well and feature breathtaking avian art. It really does look great on the table and doesn’t take up a ton of room, so I have very few negatives here.
Gameplay is super speedy and agonizing for a solo player. Maximizing points on every turn and having to consider specific win conditions makes for a crunchy little card game that takes about 10 minutes to play. It is definitely something I will be reaching for whenever I have a spare 15 minutes. With setup and teardown I am looking at a fulfilling, if not frustrating, card game experience that can be both anxiety-triggering and also quite calming. I was not sure what to expect when I opened the box, but boy am I glad I have this little gem.
If you are in the market for a great little solo game that can also play multiplayer, looks amazing, and is quick to complete, then look no further. If you are an avian aficionado and need your board and card game collection to reflect this, check out Bandada. I need you all to also promise to write me back once you figure out how to succeed in Africa, as I just plum can’t do it. But I am going to keep trying. As I always say, a game that makes you want to play it more is a mark of a great game, and I think a great game comes in this little box.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Citadels in Tabletop Games
Aug 13, 2021
It has been documented several times that I, Travis Lopez, would be a horrible city planner. So why do I keep playing these games that require me to build city buildings and components and why do I enjoy them so much? Well, truth be told, this is a game that I had traded for years ago, got rid of, missed terribly, and repurchased. However, this is the newer version that includes a lot more in the box. Does it mean that the game is better? More stuff means better game, right?
In Citadels players will be donning the mantle of potential Master Builders and will need to build the greatest buildings within the city and manipulate the powers of special people within its walls. The game ends when a player has built their seventh district building. The player with the most VP at this time will be crowned Master Builder and winner of Citadels!
To setup, decide which eight characters will be used in the game, gather their cards and tokens, and place their tokens in ascending order on the table. This is to remind all players which characters (and their rank) is in play. Assemble the district (building) cards per the rules and shuffle the deck. Deal each player four of these district cards along with two gold coins. The eldest player will begin the game as the current First Player (complete with crown mini) and will begin the first phase of the first round.
Citadels is played over several rounds, each with two phases played within. The first phase is the Selection Phase, where the current First Player takes the character cards, shuffles them, adds zero to two cards (dependent upon number of players) face-up on the table and one card face-down. They then choose from the cards remaining in hand which character’s powers they would like to enact for the turn. The cards are passed to the next player in line who will do the same, and so on around the table.
Once all players have chosen their character card, the Turn Phase can begin. The current First Player (the one with the crown) will announce the characters in rank order, with the lowest character going first. In a typical game using only original base characters, this is “1: Assassin.” Whomever chose the Assassin card will flip over their character card, perform its special power, and then continue with their turn. In this case, the Assassin’s special power is to announce the name of a CHARACTER to assassinate. NOTE: This does NOT mean the name of the PLAYER. So the Assassin could choose to assassinate the King character, not the Travis player. After the character has used their power, the player can continue with the rest of their turn, though some character powers may be used at any time during the player’s turn.
After the character power is used, the player will gather resources in the form of two gold coins from the bank or by drawing two district cards from the deck and choosing one to keep in hand. After this choice, the player may then build one district in their play area if they wish and if they can afford to do so. Once complete, the crowned First Player will call out the next character rank (2: Thief in our example) who will continue their turn in the same way. The game continues in this fashion until a player has built their seventh district. The round continues until all players have had an equal amount of turns. Players then count VP on district cards and bonuses per the rulebook. The player with the most VP at the end of the game is crowned the Master Builder and winner of Citadels!
Components. I have to say that I enjoyed the components in the older version of Citadels I used to have just fine. I had sleeved all my cards, and the gold coins were nice back in the day. This version, however, includes many more components and each one is higher quality than the previous version’s. The art on the cards has been updated and is much much nicer now as well. The addition of the crown mini, the character tokens, and other components not mentioned here merely increases my love for Citadels. Windrider has knocked it out of the park with this version. And that’s saying nothing about all the additional characters now included in the game! Oh boy, so much variability!
Along with that variability is the customization of the game. You can play with one of the six pre-constructed provided suggestions in the rulebook or create your own combination of different characters. With three versions of each rank, many possibilities are… possible.
I do love Citadels, and with the right group can be a show-stopper all on its own. Some players may get a little offended or sassy because there is a fair amount of Take That in Citadels with the character interactions, so if playing with people who don’t understand the difference between a game and real life, I would prep them appropriately. I love being able to outwit my opponents by drafting certain characters they didn’t think I would want. Keeping them all on their toes during the game is sneaky fun.
So for me, with the amount of replayability, high quality and excellent components, and cutthroat gameplay I simply adore Citadels. I can pull it out with different groups and have different play experiences and try to tailor the character offering to the strengths of my players, or simply use one listed in the back of the rulebook. Purple Phoenix Games gives Citadels an underhanded, yet scholarly 21 / 24. It’s a stunning, magical, wonderful game and one of Bruno Faidutti’s best ever! Surely this is already in your collection, right? If not, make it so.
In Citadels players will be donning the mantle of potential Master Builders and will need to build the greatest buildings within the city and manipulate the powers of special people within its walls. The game ends when a player has built their seventh district building. The player with the most VP at this time will be crowned Master Builder and winner of Citadels!
To setup, decide which eight characters will be used in the game, gather their cards and tokens, and place their tokens in ascending order on the table. This is to remind all players which characters (and their rank) is in play. Assemble the district (building) cards per the rules and shuffle the deck. Deal each player four of these district cards along with two gold coins. The eldest player will begin the game as the current First Player (complete with crown mini) and will begin the first phase of the first round.
Citadels is played over several rounds, each with two phases played within. The first phase is the Selection Phase, where the current First Player takes the character cards, shuffles them, adds zero to two cards (dependent upon number of players) face-up on the table and one card face-down. They then choose from the cards remaining in hand which character’s powers they would like to enact for the turn. The cards are passed to the next player in line who will do the same, and so on around the table.
Once all players have chosen their character card, the Turn Phase can begin. The current First Player (the one with the crown) will announce the characters in rank order, with the lowest character going first. In a typical game using only original base characters, this is “1: Assassin.” Whomever chose the Assassin card will flip over their character card, perform its special power, and then continue with their turn. In this case, the Assassin’s special power is to announce the name of a CHARACTER to assassinate. NOTE: This does NOT mean the name of the PLAYER. So the Assassin could choose to assassinate the King character, not the Travis player. After the character has used their power, the player can continue with the rest of their turn, though some character powers may be used at any time during the player’s turn.
After the character power is used, the player will gather resources in the form of two gold coins from the bank or by drawing two district cards from the deck and choosing one to keep in hand. After this choice, the player may then build one district in their play area if they wish and if they can afford to do so. Once complete, the crowned First Player will call out the next character rank (2: Thief in our example) who will continue their turn in the same way. The game continues in this fashion until a player has built their seventh district. The round continues until all players have had an equal amount of turns. Players then count VP on district cards and bonuses per the rulebook. The player with the most VP at the end of the game is crowned the Master Builder and winner of Citadels!
Components. I have to say that I enjoyed the components in the older version of Citadels I used to have just fine. I had sleeved all my cards, and the gold coins were nice back in the day. This version, however, includes many more components and each one is higher quality than the previous version’s. The art on the cards has been updated and is much much nicer now as well. The addition of the crown mini, the character tokens, and other components not mentioned here merely increases my love for Citadels. Windrider has knocked it out of the park with this version. And that’s saying nothing about all the additional characters now included in the game! Oh boy, so much variability!
Along with that variability is the customization of the game. You can play with one of the six pre-constructed provided suggestions in the rulebook or create your own combination of different characters. With three versions of each rank, many possibilities are… possible.
I do love Citadels, and with the right group can be a show-stopper all on its own. Some players may get a little offended or sassy because there is a fair amount of Take That in Citadels with the character interactions, so if playing with people who don’t understand the difference between a game and real life, I would prep them appropriately. I love being able to outwit my opponents by drafting certain characters they didn’t think I would want. Keeping them all on their toes during the game is sneaky fun.
So for me, with the amount of replayability, high quality and excellent components, and cutthroat gameplay I simply adore Citadels. I can pull it out with different groups and have different play experiences and try to tailor the character offering to the strengths of my players, or simply use one listed in the back of the rulebook. Purple Phoenix Games gives Citadels an underhanded, yet scholarly 21 / 24. It’s a stunning, magical, wonderful game and one of Bruno Faidutti’s best ever! Surely this is already in your collection, right? If not, make it so.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Network (1976) in Movies
Feb 9, 2018
All time classic
"I'M MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!"
One of the most famous lines in film history is as impactful today as it was when it was first uttered by fictitious news anchor Howard Beale in Paddy Chayefsky's (seemingly) parody of where TV and TV news is heading, 1976's NETWORK.
The astonishing thing about this terrific motion picture is how prescient it is. News is now entertainment. Appeal to the disaffected masses. Drive our message to the viewers. Be provocative. The 6:00 news had "less than 1 minute of hard news, the rest was sex, scandal, brutal crime sports, children with incurable diseases and lost puppies."
Sound familiar? This isn't from today, it came from this movie that was made 42 years ago as a cautionary tale of what might happen.
Besides the social ramifications, how does this film hold up? Quite well, indeed. A rare 10 star BankofMarquis film. Starting with the great Paddy Chayefsky's Oscar winning Screenplay. This was the capper on a brilliant career from Chayefsky - who also won Oscar's for his screenplay for 1972's THE HOSPITAL (I'll have to check that one out) and 1956's MARTY.
What does a terrific screenplay do? It attracts top-level talent clamoring to be in this - and they all deliver. Start with Faye Dunaway who won the Lead Actress Oscar for her role as Entertainment Head Diane Christensen - a driven, work hard, play hard individual who has the idea to make news "entertainment". Lost in the fog of time (and MOMMIE DEAREST) is the fact that in the mid-1970's, Dunaway was, perhaps, the greatest leading actress of the day and her skills are in sharp display in this film.
Joining Dunaway in terrific supporting turns are Robert Duvall, following his turns as Tom Hagen in GODFATHER I and II, as network head, Frank Hackett, Ned Beatty as Ned Jennings, President of the company that owns the network - he has a speech towards the tail end of this film that is as good - both in performance and in the way that it is shot - as anything put upon the screen - it was masterful. Speaking of masterful, Beatrice Straight won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress in one of the shortest performances to ever win. She is in this film for about 6 minutes in total - but she won her Oscar for a 5 minute scene that is, most definately Oscar-worthy.
And then there are the leading men. William Holden gives one of the last great performances of his extraordinary career as the "voice of reason in this film". He is our everyman caught up in the bizarre, absurd circumstances that evolve around him. It is his effort to try to make sense of this insanity that jumps off the screen. Holden was, deservedly, nominated for a Best Actor in a Leading Role Oscar, but lost (rightfully so) to Peter Finch's turn as crazed newsman turned prophet, Howard Beale. His maniacal (but not over the top) turn is one for the ages. If you do nothing else, see this film for his performance (but there is so, so much more to love here). Unfortunately, Finch passed away from a heart attack in between his Oscar nomination and win, and was the first posthumous winner in an acting role (sadly, Heath Ledger would join this "club" years later).
Finally, enough cannot be said about Sidney Lumet's direction. A movie like this would not succeed without a sure, steady and seasoned hand at the helm - and this is how I would describe Lumet's direction. He lets the camera roll and lets the actors and the screenplay take center stage, not drawing attention away, but adding to the themes of the film throughout - especially in Beatty's speech at the end.
NETWORK was nominated for (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Film of 1976. Did it lose out to other nominees ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN or TAXI DRIVER? Nope, it lost to ROCKY.
Let that sink in.
If you get a chance to watch (or rewatch) this film, I highly recommend you do so. For me, it was GREAT to watch this on the big screen with an audience, one of the reasons I love - and will continue to attend - the SECRET CINEMA series of films.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
One of the most famous lines in film history is as impactful today as it was when it was first uttered by fictitious news anchor Howard Beale in Paddy Chayefsky's (seemingly) parody of where TV and TV news is heading, 1976's NETWORK.
The astonishing thing about this terrific motion picture is how prescient it is. News is now entertainment. Appeal to the disaffected masses. Drive our message to the viewers. Be provocative. The 6:00 news had "less than 1 minute of hard news, the rest was sex, scandal, brutal crime sports, children with incurable diseases and lost puppies."
Sound familiar? This isn't from today, it came from this movie that was made 42 years ago as a cautionary tale of what might happen.
Besides the social ramifications, how does this film hold up? Quite well, indeed. A rare 10 star BankofMarquis film. Starting with the great Paddy Chayefsky's Oscar winning Screenplay. This was the capper on a brilliant career from Chayefsky - who also won Oscar's for his screenplay for 1972's THE HOSPITAL (I'll have to check that one out) and 1956's MARTY.
What does a terrific screenplay do? It attracts top-level talent clamoring to be in this - and they all deliver. Start with Faye Dunaway who won the Lead Actress Oscar for her role as Entertainment Head Diane Christensen - a driven, work hard, play hard individual who has the idea to make news "entertainment". Lost in the fog of time (and MOMMIE DEAREST) is the fact that in the mid-1970's, Dunaway was, perhaps, the greatest leading actress of the day and her skills are in sharp display in this film.
Joining Dunaway in terrific supporting turns are Robert Duvall, following his turns as Tom Hagen in GODFATHER I and II, as network head, Frank Hackett, Ned Beatty as Ned Jennings, President of the company that owns the network - he has a speech towards the tail end of this film that is as good - both in performance and in the way that it is shot - as anything put upon the screen - it was masterful. Speaking of masterful, Beatrice Straight won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress in one of the shortest performances to ever win. She is in this film for about 6 minutes in total - but she won her Oscar for a 5 minute scene that is, most definately Oscar-worthy.
And then there are the leading men. William Holden gives one of the last great performances of his extraordinary career as the "voice of reason in this film". He is our everyman caught up in the bizarre, absurd circumstances that evolve around him. It is his effort to try to make sense of this insanity that jumps off the screen. Holden was, deservedly, nominated for a Best Actor in a Leading Role Oscar, but lost (rightfully so) to Peter Finch's turn as crazed newsman turned prophet, Howard Beale. His maniacal (but not over the top) turn is one for the ages. If you do nothing else, see this film for his performance (but there is so, so much more to love here). Unfortunately, Finch passed away from a heart attack in between his Oscar nomination and win, and was the first posthumous winner in an acting role (sadly, Heath Ledger would join this "club" years later).
Finally, enough cannot be said about Sidney Lumet's direction. A movie like this would not succeed without a sure, steady and seasoned hand at the helm - and this is how I would describe Lumet's direction. He lets the camera roll and lets the actors and the screenplay take center stage, not drawing attention away, but adding to the themes of the film throughout - especially in Beatty's speech at the end.
NETWORK was nominated for (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Film of 1976. Did it lose out to other nominees ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN or TAXI DRIVER? Nope, it lost to ROCKY.
Let that sink in.
If you get a chance to watch (or rewatch) this film, I highly recommend you do so. For me, it was GREAT to watch this on the big screen with an audience, one of the reasons I love - and will continue to attend - the SECRET CINEMA series of films.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)