Search
Search results
Hey Duggee: The Big Outdoor App
Games and Education
App
**** As seen on Nick Jr. **** Welcome to the Big Outdoors, Squirrels! Introducing the latest app...
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Qwixx in Tabletop Games
Aug 12, 2020
Roll-and-write games have made quite a resurgence lately, and I love it! When I was a younger man I used to enjoy Yahtzee and, though not a roll-and-write but kinda similar, Phase 10. But since my own transcendence into mature adulthood and gamerhood, simpler games just don’t cut it for me anymore. I really don’t consider myself an “elitist gamer,” but I just don’t draw enjoyment from some of the more pioneer games. So how did I get on with Qwixx? Let’s see.
The object of Qwixx is to be the player who earns the most amount of points at the end of the game. Simple. The game can end at any time in the future, so it is a furious scramble for points on each player’s turn.
To setup, hand each player a score sheet and a writing utensil (not included). Roll off to determine starting player. You are now ready to play Qwixx.
On the active player’s turn, they will roll all available dice. The player will add up the numbers rolled on the two white dice and announce to the table the sum. Using this summed number, all players (including the other non-active players) may cross off this result in any row upon their score sheet. Then the active player may add the result of ONE of the white dice to any of the other-colored dice results to use for their own score sheet. So the active player has the opportunity to cross off two numbers on their score sheet on their turn.
You see, to earn endgame points players are attempting to cross off as many numbers on their score sheets as possible. The caveat follows, however, that once a number has been crossed off within a row a player may NOT cross off any lower numbers than the highest number crossed off. Example: if I were to first cross off a 4 in the red row, I may never cross off 1, 2, or 3 of red in the future. Those options are now lost to me.
Caveat ludio! Players beware! At any time a player can “lock” a color row and remove that color die from the game. This can be done by crossing off the 12 box on the sheet. The prerequisite for this action is to have five boxes crossed off in that row. Also, should a player be unable to cross off a number on their turn, they must cross off one of the penalty boxes on their sheet for a loss of 5 points at endgame. The game ends when a player has crossed off all of their penalty boxes or players have locked the second colored row.
Components. This game is a few dice and a pad of score sheets. The dice are of normal d6 quality. The score sheets are fine, but if you really love this game, you might think about laminating some and keeping some small dry/erase markers in the box. The magnetic flip box is the coolest component of this game and you don’t really use it for anything other than storage!
So here are my thoughts on Qwixx. It is not the most exciting game. It is also not a bad game at all. It is a solid filler that can be played while carrying on a conversation (if you feel you can actually chat and math simultaneously). I don’t think I will suggest it be played too often, but if I am jonesin’ for a quick roll-and-write with a couple other people, or if I have a large game day scheduled, I will throw it in one of my bags. I am not alone on this assessment as you can see from our scores, and for these reasons Purple Phoenix Games gives Qwixx a midline 16 / 24. I think you can easily find this at Target or the like for a reasonable price, if this sounds interesting to you.
The object of Qwixx is to be the player who earns the most amount of points at the end of the game. Simple. The game can end at any time in the future, so it is a furious scramble for points on each player’s turn.
To setup, hand each player a score sheet and a writing utensil (not included). Roll off to determine starting player. You are now ready to play Qwixx.
On the active player’s turn, they will roll all available dice. The player will add up the numbers rolled on the two white dice and announce to the table the sum. Using this summed number, all players (including the other non-active players) may cross off this result in any row upon their score sheet. Then the active player may add the result of ONE of the white dice to any of the other-colored dice results to use for their own score sheet. So the active player has the opportunity to cross off two numbers on their score sheet on their turn.
You see, to earn endgame points players are attempting to cross off as many numbers on their score sheets as possible. The caveat follows, however, that once a number has been crossed off within a row a player may NOT cross off any lower numbers than the highest number crossed off. Example: if I were to first cross off a 4 in the red row, I may never cross off 1, 2, or 3 of red in the future. Those options are now lost to me.
Caveat ludio! Players beware! At any time a player can “lock” a color row and remove that color die from the game. This can be done by crossing off the 12 box on the sheet. The prerequisite for this action is to have five boxes crossed off in that row. Also, should a player be unable to cross off a number on their turn, they must cross off one of the penalty boxes on their sheet for a loss of 5 points at endgame. The game ends when a player has crossed off all of their penalty boxes or players have locked the second colored row.
Components. This game is a few dice and a pad of score sheets. The dice are of normal d6 quality. The score sheets are fine, but if you really love this game, you might think about laminating some and keeping some small dry/erase markers in the box. The magnetic flip box is the coolest component of this game and you don’t really use it for anything other than storage!
So here are my thoughts on Qwixx. It is not the most exciting game. It is also not a bad game at all. It is a solid filler that can be played while carrying on a conversation (if you feel you can actually chat and math simultaneously). I don’t think I will suggest it be played too often, but if I am jonesin’ for a quick roll-and-write with a couple other people, or if I have a large game day scheduled, I will throw it in one of my bags. I am not alone on this assessment as you can see from our scores, and for these reasons Purple Phoenix Games gives Qwixx a midline 16 / 24. I think you can easily find this at Target or the like for a reasonable price, if this sounds interesting to you.
Yum Cha Dim Sum (Food_Hong Kong)
Food & Drink and Lifestyle
App
Yum Cha Dim Sum Pocket Guide (English-Chinese version) [ 飲茶點心 (中英文版)...
taiko no tatsujin +
Games and Music
App
Taikono Tatsujin for FREE!? You can’t miss this chance! “Taikono Tatsujin Plus” comes with...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021) in Movies
Sep 30, 2021
Venom: Let There Be Carnage Has Some Moments But Could Have Been So Much More
When audiences last saw Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy); the journalist and his parasitic symbiote Venom; had just saved the day and cemented their unusual bond with one another.
In the new film “Venom: Let There Be Carnage”; Eddie and Venom are at the end of their Honeymoon phase as Venom is lingering to be free to eat bad people and do what is natural for him. Eddie meanwhile wants a more conservative approach feeding Venom chicken and chocolate as he knows the eyes of the authorities are still upon him and he has to convince the world that Venom is dead and no longer a threat.
At the same time; serial killer Cletus Kasady (Woody Harrelson) has selected Eddie to interview him in San Quentin and the two form an unusual connection as Cletus cryptically speaks to Eddie which underlines a deeper motivation.
With the help of Venom; Eddie is able to decipher clues found on the walls of Cletus’s cell which leads authorities to several of his victims. This results in a rapid rise in status for Eddie and fast tracks Cletus for execution as his main means of leverage is now gone.
This leads to a rift where Eddie and Venom split and each has to struggle to adjust to life without one another.
At this point, the film has mainly been odd bits of whimsy between Venom and Eddie around the establishment of the plot and threat. However, things go into chaos mode when Cletus becomes infected with a Symbiote and turns into a destruction spewing death machine known as “Carnage”.
Cletus and Carnage both have their own agendas and Cletus uses Carnage to exact his revenge as well as locate a figure from his past that is as big a danger as he is.
As any fan of films of this genre knows; this scenario leads to a showdown between the central characters which are awash in abundant CGI, loud noises, and destruction. While this is not a bad thing and certainly one of the main reasons I enjoy films of this type; the film never seemed to fully click for me and as such was not as good as I thought it could have been.
In many ways, the film reminded me of how comic-based films were done before Marvel started their own studios and their phenomenal run of hits based on their work.
There have been multiple attempts to adapt comics into films over the last few decades and many of them have not lived up to expectations or failed outright. One of the biggest reasons is in my opinion is that those behind the projects were hindered by the studio, wanted to put their own spin on the material and strayed from the source; or failed to show the attributes that made the characters so appealing to fans.
What we often get is action sequences and CGI galore but without stories or characters that fully draw in the audience and fail to capture the essence of the comics.
Director Andy Serkis has done a great job with the visuals of the film but the tone seems off. The early part of the film is filled with comedic moments that are either hit or miss. Some of which was almost to the point where I wondered if it was supposed to be a parody.
The plot is fairly linear with nothing unexpected as it is simply bad guys get loose; bad guys cause death and destruction, can the heroes stop them. The climactic scene lacks any “wow” moments for me as it was mainly CGI characters rapidly moving around causing damage to one another and their environment. There was no real tension for me and the ultimate resolution seemed a bit anti-climactic.
For me the best moment of the film was a mid-credits scene that really popped as it sets up all sorts of interesting options and indicates that Venom may be about to graduate to bigger and better things.
For now; the cast is solid as is the CGI; I just wish the story was more engaging as it had the potential to be so much more.
3 stars out of 5
In the new film “Venom: Let There Be Carnage”; Eddie and Venom are at the end of their Honeymoon phase as Venom is lingering to be free to eat bad people and do what is natural for him. Eddie meanwhile wants a more conservative approach feeding Venom chicken and chocolate as he knows the eyes of the authorities are still upon him and he has to convince the world that Venom is dead and no longer a threat.
At the same time; serial killer Cletus Kasady (Woody Harrelson) has selected Eddie to interview him in San Quentin and the two form an unusual connection as Cletus cryptically speaks to Eddie which underlines a deeper motivation.
With the help of Venom; Eddie is able to decipher clues found on the walls of Cletus’s cell which leads authorities to several of his victims. This results in a rapid rise in status for Eddie and fast tracks Cletus for execution as his main means of leverage is now gone.
This leads to a rift where Eddie and Venom split and each has to struggle to adjust to life without one another.
At this point, the film has mainly been odd bits of whimsy between Venom and Eddie around the establishment of the plot and threat. However, things go into chaos mode when Cletus becomes infected with a Symbiote and turns into a destruction spewing death machine known as “Carnage”.
Cletus and Carnage both have their own agendas and Cletus uses Carnage to exact his revenge as well as locate a figure from his past that is as big a danger as he is.
As any fan of films of this genre knows; this scenario leads to a showdown between the central characters which are awash in abundant CGI, loud noises, and destruction. While this is not a bad thing and certainly one of the main reasons I enjoy films of this type; the film never seemed to fully click for me and as such was not as good as I thought it could have been.
In many ways, the film reminded me of how comic-based films were done before Marvel started their own studios and their phenomenal run of hits based on their work.
There have been multiple attempts to adapt comics into films over the last few decades and many of them have not lived up to expectations or failed outright. One of the biggest reasons is in my opinion is that those behind the projects were hindered by the studio, wanted to put their own spin on the material and strayed from the source; or failed to show the attributes that made the characters so appealing to fans.
What we often get is action sequences and CGI galore but without stories or characters that fully draw in the audience and fail to capture the essence of the comics.
Director Andy Serkis has done a great job with the visuals of the film but the tone seems off. The early part of the film is filled with comedic moments that are either hit or miss. Some of which was almost to the point where I wondered if it was supposed to be a parody.
The plot is fairly linear with nothing unexpected as it is simply bad guys get loose; bad guys cause death and destruction, can the heroes stop them. The climactic scene lacks any “wow” moments for me as it was mainly CGI characters rapidly moving around causing damage to one another and their environment. There was no real tension for me and the ultimate resolution seemed a bit anti-climactic.
For me the best moment of the film was a mid-credits scene that really popped as it sets up all sorts of interesting options and indicates that Venom may be about to graduate to bigger and better things.
For now; the cast is solid as is the CGI; I just wish the story was more engaging as it had the potential to be so much more.
3 stars out of 5
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jackie (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Spoiler! Her husband gets shot.
“Jackie” tells the story of the spiralling grief, loss and anger of Jackie Kennedy driven by the assassination of JFK in Dallas in November 1963. Hopping backwards and forwards in flashback, the film centres on the first interview given by Jackie (Natalie Portman, “Black Swan”) to a ‘Time’ journalist (Billy Crudup, “Watchmen”, “Spotlight”).
Through this interview we flashback to see Jackie as the young First Lady engaged in recording a TV special for a tour of the White House: nervous, unsure of herself and with a ‘baby girl’ voice. This contrasts with her demeanour in the interview which – although subject to emotional outburst and grief – is assured, confident and above all extremely assertive. We live the film through Jackie’s eyes as she experiences the arrival in Dallas, the traumatic events of November 22nd in Dealey Plaza, the return home to Washington and the complicated arrangement of the President’s funeral.
This is an acting tour de force for Natalie Portman, who is astonishingly emotional as the grief-stricken ex-first lady. She nails this role utterly and completely. Having already won the Golden Globe for an actress in a dramatic role, you would be a foolish man to bet against her not taking the Oscar. (I know I said just the other week that I though Emma Stone should get it for “La La Land” – as another Golden Globe winner, for the Comedy/Musical category – and a large part of my heart would still really like to see Stone win it…. But excellent as that performance was, this is a far more challenging role.)
In a key supporting role is Peter Sarsgaard (“The Magnificent Seven”) as Bobby Kennedy (although his lookalike is not one of the best: that accolade I would give to Gaspard Koenig, in an un-speaking role, as the young Ted Kennedy).
Also providing interesting support as Jackie’s priest is John Hurt (“Alien”, “Dr Who”) and, as Jackie’s close friend, the artist Bill Walton, is Richard E Grant (“Withnail and I”, who as he grows older is looking more and more like Geoffrey Rush – I was sure it was him!).
Director Pablo Larraín (whose previous work I am not familiar with) automatically assumes that EVERYONE has the background history to understand the narrative without further explanation: perhaps as this happened 54 years ago, this is a bit of a presumption for younger viewers? Naturally for people of my advanced years, these events are as burned into our collective psyches as the images in the Zapruder film.
While the film focuses predominantly, and brilliantly, on Jackie’s mental state, the film does gently question (via an outburst from Bobby) as to what JFK actually achieved in his all too short presidency – ‘Will he be remembered for resolving the Cuban missile crisis: something he originally created?’ rants Bobby. In reality, JFK is remembered in history for this assassination and the lost potential for what he might have done. I would have liked the script to have delved a little bit further into that collective soul-searching.
This is a very sombre movie in tone, from the bleak opening, with a soundtrack of sonorous strings, to the bleak weather-swept scenes at Arlington cemetery. The cinematography (by Stéphane Fontaine, “Rust and Bone”) cleverly contrasts between the vibrant hues of Jackie’s “Camelot” to the washed-out blueish tones of the post-assassination events. If you don’t feel depressed going into this film, you probably will be coming out! But the journey is a satisfying one nonetheless, and the script by Noah Oppenheim – in a SIGNIFICANT departure from his previous teen-flick screenplays for “Allegiant” and “The Maze Runner” – is both tight and thought-provoking.
Overall, a recommended watch which comes with a prediction: “And the Oscar goes to… Natalie Portman”.
Finally, note that for those of a squeamish disposition, there is a very graphic depiction of the assassination from Jackie’s point-of-view…. but this is not until nearly the end of the film, so you are reasonably safe until then!
Also as a final general whinge, could directors PLEASE place an embargo on the logos of more than two production companies coming up at the start of a film? This has about six of them and is farcical, aping the (very amusing) parody in “Family Guy” (as shown here).
Through this interview we flashback to see Jackie as the young First Lady engaged in recording a TV special for a tour of the White House: nervous, unsure of herself and with a ‘baby girl’ voice. This contrasts with her demeanour in the interview which – although subject to emotional outburst and grief – is assured, confident and above all extremely assertive. We live the film through Jackie’s eyes as she experiences the arrival in Dallas, the traumatic events of November 22nd in Dealey Plaza, the return home to Washington and the complicated arrangement of the President’s funeral.
This is an acting tour de force for Natalie Portman, who is astonishingly emotional as the grief-stricken ex-first lady. She nails this role utterly and completely. Having already won the Golden Globe for an actress in a dramatic role, you would be a foolish man to bet against her not taking the Oscar. (I know I said just the other week that I though Emma Stone should get it for “La La Land” – as another Golden Globe winner, for the Comedy/Musical category – and a large part of my heart would still really like to see Stone win it…. But excellent as that performance was, this is a far more challenging role.)
In a key supporting role is Peter Sarsgaard (“The Magnificent Seven”) as Bobby Kennedy (although his lookalike is not one of the best: that accolade I would give to Gaspard Koenig, in an un-speaking role, as the young Ted Kennedy).
Also providing interesting support as Jackie’s priest is John Hurt (“Alien”, “Dr Who”) and, as Jackie’s close friend, the artist Bill Walton, is Richard E Grant (“Withnail and I”, who as he grows older is looking more and more like Geoffrey Rush – I was sure it was him!).
Director Pablo Larraín (whose previous work I am not familiar with) automatically assumes that EVERYONE has the background history to understand the narrative without further explanation: perhaps as this happened 54 years ago, this is a bit of a presumption for younger viewers? Naturally for people of my advanced years, these events are as burned into our collective psyches as the images in the Zapruder film.
While the film focuses predominantly, and brilliantly, on Jackie’s mental state, the film does gently question (via an outburst from Bobby) as to what JFK actually achieved in his all too short presidency – ‘Will he be remembered for resolving the Cuban missile crisis: something he originally created?’ rants Bobby. In reality, JFK is remembered in history for this assassination and the lost potential for what he might have done. I would have liked the script to have delved a little bit further into that collective soul-searching.
This is a very sombre movie in tone, from the bleak opening, with a soundtrack of sonorous strings, to the bleak weather-swept scenes at Arlington cemetery. The cinematography (by Stéphane Fontaine, “Rust and Bone”) cleverly contrasts between the vibrant hues of Jackie’s “Camelot” to the washed-out blueish tones of the post-assassination events. If you don’t feel depressed going into this film, you probably will be coming out! But the journey is a satisfying one nonetheless, and the script by Noah Oppenheim – in a SIGNIFICANT departure from his previous teen-flick screenplays for “Allegiant” and “The Maze Runner” – is both tight and thought-provoking.
Overall, a recommended watch which comes with a prediction: “And the Oscar goes to… Natalie Portman”.
Finally, note that for those of a squeamish disposition, there is a very graphic depiction of the assassination from Jackie’s point-of-view…. but this is not until nearly the end of the film, so you are reasonably safe until then!
Also as a final general whinge, could directors PLEASE place an embargo on the logos of more than two production companies coming up at the start of a film? This has about six of them and is farcical, aping the (very amusing) parody in “Family Guy” (as shown here).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Hacksaw Ridge (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
In God, and Doss, we Trust.
Those dreaded words – “Based On A True Story” – emerge again from the blackness of the opening page. Actually, no. In a move that could be considered arrogant if it wasn’t so well researched, here we even lose the first two words.
When a war film is described as being “visceral” then you know you need to steel yourself mentally for what you might see. But given that this film is based around the horrendously brutal combat between the Americans and the Japanese on the Pacific island of Okinawa in 1945 this is a warning well-founded. For the battle scenes in this film are reminiscent of the opening scenes of “Saving Private Ryan” in their brutality: long gone are the war films of John Wayne where there would be a shot, a grasp of the stomach and a casual descent to earth.
But before we get to the battle itself, the film has a leisurely hour of character building which is time well spent (although it could have perhaps been trimmed a tad tighter). Desmond Doss (Andrew Garfield, “The Amazing Spiderman”, “Never Let Me Go”) grows up a God-fearing youngster in the beautiful surroundings of the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia. His alcoholic father (Hugo Weaving, “The Lord of the Rings”, “The Matrix”) has been mentally traumatised by the First World War, further strengthening Desmond’s fervent belief in following the Ten Commandments; most notably “Thou Shalt Not Kill”. But his patriotic sense of duty is also strong, and Doss signs up after Pearl Harbor and is posted to a rifle brigade that – given his refusal to even touch a rifle – puts him on a collision course with the US Army. It also (obviously) disrupts his romance with nurse sweetheart Dorothy (Teresa Palmer).
This is really two films in one, with the first half setting up extremely well the characters that make the second half so effective. For you care – really care – for what happens to most of the characters involved, especially the zealous and determined Doss who has nothing to face the Japanese hoards with but a medical bag. The feelings that comes to top of mind are awe that these real people actually had to go through this horror and hope that in today’s increasingly unstable political world we will never need to again face such inhumanity of man against man again.
Andrew Garfield really carries this film, and his Best Actor Oscar nomination is well-deserved. He is perfectly cast as the (onward) Christian soldier. Also outstanding is Hugo Weaving in an emotional and persuasive role playing opposite Rachel Griffiths (“Saving Mr Banks”) his wife. But the real acting surprise here for me was Vince Vaughn (“The Wedding Crashers”) who plays the no-nonsense platoon Sergeant Howell: never one of my favourite actors, here he brings in a warm and nuanced performance that ends with a memorable action scene.
Also worthy of specific note is Dan Oliver (“Mad Max: Fury Road”) and his team of special effects technicians, the stunt teams (led by Kyle Gardiner and Mic Rodgers), production designer Barry Robinson and the hair and makeup team, all of who collaborate to make the final half of the film so gripping.
The film marks a comeback from the film society ‘naughty step’ of Mel Gibson after his much publicised fall from grace in the mid-noughties. A Best Director Oscar nomination would appear to cement that resurrection. For this is a phenomenal achievement in direction and one that should be applauded.
The film bears closest comparison with the interesting two-film combo from Clint Eastwood – “Flags of our Fathers” (from the American viewpoint) and “Letters from Iwo Jima” (from the Japanese viewpoint). While all three films share the same blood and guts quotient, with “Hacksaw Ridge” edging this award, the Eastwood films tend to have more emotional depth and a more thought-provoking treatment of the Japanese angle. In “Hacksaw Ridge”, while the war crimes of the Japanese are clear, the war crimes of the Americans are quietly cloaked behind a cryptic line (“They didn’t make it”).
That being said, there is no crime in a rollicking good story well told, and “Hacksaw Ridge” is certainly that. This was a film I did not have high hopes for. But I was surprised to be proved wrong. Recommended.
When a war film is described as being “visceral” then you know you need to steel yourself mentally for what you might see. But given that this film is based around the horrendously brutal combat between the Americans and the Japanese on the Pacific island of Okinawa in 1945 this is a warning well-founded. For the battle scenes in this film are reminiscent of the opening scenes of “Saving Private Ryan” in their brutality: long gone are the war films of John Wayne where there would be a shot, a grasp of the stomach and a casual descent to earth.
But before we get to the battle itself, the film has a leisurely hour of character building which is time well spent (although it could have perhaps been trimmed a tad tighter). Desmond Doss (Andrew Garfield, “The Amazing Spiderman”, “Never Let Me Go”) grows up a God-fearing youngster in the beautiful surroundings of the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia. His alcoholic father (Hugo Weaving, “The Lord of the Rings”, “The Matrix”) has been mentally traumatised by the First World War, further strengthening Desmond’s fervent belief in following the Ten Commandments; most notably “Thou Shalt Not Kill”. But his patriotic sense of duty is also strong, and Doss signs up after Pearl Harbor and is posted to a rifle brigade that – given his refusal to even touch a rifle – puts him on a collision course with the US Army. It also (obviously) disrupts his romance with nurse sweetheart Dorothy (Teresa Palmer).
This is really two films in one, with the first half setting up extremely well the characters that make the second half so effective. For you care – really care – for what happens to most of the characters involved, especially the zealous and determined Doss who has nothing to face the Japanese hoards with but a medical bag. The feelings that comes to top of mind are awe that these real people actually had to go through this horror and hope that in today’s increasingly unstable political world we will never need to again face such inhumanity of man against man again.
Andrew Garfield really carries this film, and his Best Actor Oscar nomination is well-deserved. He is perfectly cast as the (onward) Christian soldier. Also outstanding is Hugo Weaving in an emotional and persuasive role playing opposite Rachel Griffiths (“Saving Mr Banks”) his wife. But the real acting surprise here for me was Vince Vaughn (“The Wedding Crashers”) who plays the no-nonsense platoon Sergeant Howell: never one of my favourite actors, here he brings in a warm and nuanced performance that ends with a memorable action scene.
Also worthy of specific note is Dan Oliver (“Mad Max: Fury Road”) and his team of special effects technicians, the stunt teams (led by Kyle Gardiner and Mic Rodgers), production designer Barry Robinson and the hair and makeup team, all of who collaborate to make the final half of the film so gripping.
The film marks a comeback from the film society ‘naughty step’ of Mel Gibson after his much publicised fall from grace in the mid-noughties. A Best Director Oscar nomination would appear to cement that resurrection. For this is a phenomenal achievement in direction and one that should be applauded.
The film bears closest comparison with the interesting two-film combo from Clint Eastwood – “Flags of our Fathers” (from the American viewpoint) and “Letters from Iwo Jima” (from the Japanese viewpoint). While all three films share the same blood and guts quotient, with “Hacksaw Ridge” edging this award, the Eastwood films tend to have more emotional depth and a more thought-provoking treatment of the Japanese angle. In “Hacksaw Ridge”, while the war crimes of the Japanese are clear, the war crimes of the Americans are quietly cloaked behind a cryptic line (“They didn’t make it”).
That being said, there is no crime in a rollicking good story well told, and “Hacksaw Ridge” is certainly that. This was a film I did not have high hopes for. But I was surprised to be proved wrong. Recommended.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Last Night in Soho (2021) in Movies
Oct 15, 2021
I was on the fence about this one. On the one hand, Edgar Wright, on the other, a cast that didn’t inspire confidence. But, if nothing else, it was going to be a spectacle.
Eloise dreams of being a fashion designer, and when she gets accepted to study fashion in London she thinks her dreams have come true. But London life isn’t quite what she hoped. When life in halls becomes too much, she finds herself an attic room to rent. Noisy roommates might have been the easier option when suddenly, every night, Eloise is transported to the 60s where the life of Sandie unfolds in front of her. Swept away in the glamour, the tables turn when Sandie’s life beings to twist into a new stark reality.
The start of Last Night in Soho pulled me in, the music had me, if nothing else I knew I’d be able to enjoy myself with the soundtrack. It’s a very nostalgic bit of listening for me having been brought up in a household that’s listening was a little more retro.
As the story develops, and Eloise along with it, you’re eager for answers. But that process feels drawn out and at some point it’s easy to see where it’s going to go before it’s properly alluded to, which took away some of the impact for me.
Our main character Eloise (played by Thomasin McKenzie), definitely has the right look and demeanour for this part. While in the end it’s a good performance though, I feel like the role would have been better suited to someone a little less on the nose. They've conveyed the mental health portion of the role nicely (the depiction of her mother felt a little Harry Potter but did get the point across), and she managed to encapsulate some of the terror, but again, it felt… cheesy? Maybe not the right word, but it was close to not giving it enough impact in the story, and I could see this working more on the horror side of things with some changes.
Ahh, Anya. Another from my list of people on the credits that make me go “meh”. I was sold with this performance though. I'm not fully on the Joy train, but I very much enjoyed this performance. Her attitude and behaviour the whole way through sold the character and… that’s it… really great. (So many things I want to say and so many that constitute spoilers.)
The supporting cast has some big names. Diana Rigg in her last performance gave a much needed edge to the scenes she was in. Matt Smith was cockney Matt Smith. My only particular call out would be for the character rather than the actor. The role of Eloise’s “boyfriend” was verging on problematic, both from a boyfriend and a writing point of view. A wet blanket of a character that seemed to be too close to comic relief without committing one way or the other. Even allowing for some sort of “support” for Eloise, this role could have been divvied out to a selection of other characters.
Last Night in Soho is stylish. The homely naive Eloise meeting glam forward Sandie really came together, and seeing Sandie’s influence seeping into the present day in the fashion and demeanour was interesting. The colours, the sets, the costumes, you can’t fault any of it.
Not being an expert in cinematic mastery behind the scenes, some of these things can escape me, but even I couldn’t miss the stunning editing and effects. Everything is seamless, and when you see some of those scenes I’m sure you’ll be blown away too.
On the technical side, this film is probably very close to a 5 star film, but with the character issues I had and the feeling that there was something missing from the ending, I’m even now not sure what my score for Last Night in Soho is going to be...
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/10/last-night-in-soho-movie-review.html
Eloise dreams of being a fashion designer, and when she gets accepted to study fashion in London she thinks her dreams have come true. But London life isn’t quite what she hoped. When life in halls becomes too much, she finds herself an attic room to rent. Noisy roommates might have been the easier option when suddenly, every night, Eloise is transported to the 60s where the life of Sandie unfolds in front of her. Swept away in the glamour, the tables turn when Sandie’s life beings to twist into a new stark reality.
The start of Last Night in Soho pulled me in, the music had me, if nothing else I knew I’d be able to enjoy myself with the soundtrack. It’s a very nostalgic bit of listening for me having been brought up in a household that’s listening was a little more retro.
As the story develops, and Eloise along with it, you’re eager for answers. But that process feels drawn out and at some point it’s easy to see where it’s going to go before it’s properly alluded to, which took away some of the impact for me.
Our main character Eloise (played by Thomasin McKenzie), definitely has the right look and demeanour for this part. While in the end it’s a good performance though, I feel like the role would have been better suited to someone a little less on the nose. They've conveyed the mental health portion of the role nicely (the depiction of her mother felt a little Harry Potter but did get the point across), and she managed to encapsulate some of the terror, but again, it felt… cheesy? Maybe not the right word, but it was close to not giving it enough impact in the story, and I could see this working more on the horror side of things with some changes.
Ahh, Anya. Another from my list of people on the credits that make me go “meh”. I was sold with this performance though. I'm not fully on the Joy train, but I very much enjoyed this performance. Her attitude and behaviour the whole way through sold the character and… that’s it… really great. (So many things I want to say and so many that constitute spoilers.)
The supporting cast has some big names. Diana Rigg in her last performance gave a much needed edge to the scenes she was in. Matt Smith was cockney Matt Smith. My only particular call out would be for the character rather than the actor. The role of Eloise’s “boyfriend” was verging on problematic, both from a boyfriend and a writing point of view. A wet blanket of a character that seemed to be too close to comic relief without committing one way or the other. Even allowing for some sort of “support” for Eloise, this role could have been divvied out to a selection of other characters.
Last Night in Soho is stylish. The homely naive Eloise meeting glam forward Sandie really came together, and seeing Sandie’s influence seeping into the present day in the fashion and demeanour was interesting. The colours, the sets, the costumes, you can’t fault any of it.
Not being an expert in cinematic mastery behind the scenes, some of these things can escape me, but even I couldn’t miss the stunning editing and effects. Everything is seamless, and when you see some of those scenes I’m sure you’ll be blown away too.
On the technical side, this film is probably very close to a 5 star film, but with the character issues I had and the feeling that there was something missing from the ending, I’m even now not sure what my score for Last Night in Soho is going to be...
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/10/last-night-in-soho-movie-review.html
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Dune (2021) in Movies
Oct 24, 2021
The Definitive Film Version for the Fans
Fans of the 1965 Frank Herbert Sci-Fi Fantasy Masterpiece DUNE can finally rejoice - the definitive film version of this novel (at least the first 1/2 of the novel) has made it’s way onto the screen.
Lush, dense, rich, well cast and acted with eye-popping visuals that should be seen on the big screen, Directer Denis Villaneuve’s DUNE is everything that a fan of the book (that would include me) has been waiting for in a film version. It IS the “Peter Jackson LORD OF THE RINGS” version of this book - finally!
The question is, how does this film work for casual fans of the book - or for the myriad moviegoers that have never read the novel it is based on.
And, I’m afraid, the answer there is “not as well”. For Dune is a dense novel, filled with mythology that does go somewhat deep in the movie. This makes the pacing of this film problematic - especially at the beginning, for the novice - but is “deep enough” for those that have read the books.
Let’s start with what works - and that is the visuals that Director Denis Villeneuve (Blade Runner 2049) and his crew put on the screen. They are incredible. Unfortunately, most casual on-lookers to this film will decide to check out this 2 hour and 35 minute epic at home for free on HBO MAX, and that would be too bad. This film needs to be seen on the biggest screen possible to totally immerse you in this world.
Villeneuve perfectly cast this film from top to bottom starting with Timothy Chalamet as the hero of this book (and series) Paul Atreides. He brings the right balance of cockiness and unease to Paul who grows into something more than the “perfect prince” as the story progresses.
He is joined by some of the finest performers working today. Rebecca Ferguson and Josh Brolin bring their star power to the roles of Paul’s Mother (who is something more than Paul’s mother) and the head of the military (who is something more than the head of the military). Both of these roles needed to be played by a strong force - and both fill this need admirably.
The always good Oscar Isaac is the right choice for the role of Paul’s father, Duke Leto Atreides, who - by story necessity - is underwritten and, therefore, this film/role does not showcase his talents.
However, Jason Mamoa SHINES as Warrior Duncan Idaho. This is one of my favorite characters from the book and Mamoa brings his “A” game to this charismatic warrior/mentor to Paul. It was the largest pleasant surprise of the performances for me.
Alas, the villains of this piece - Baron Vladimir Harkonnen (Stellan Skarsgard) and his nephew, Beast Rabban Harkonnen (Dave Bautista) are relegated to background “mustache twirling” villains, they were not able to showcase their talents in this film. But, at least, we did not get the “golden speedo” that Sting wore in the 1984 David Lynch film version.
Also, not being able to showcase their talents is Javier Bardem and Zendaya as members of the Freman (the subjugated native people of the “Dune” planet). They are both in this film, briefly, as their characters rise and shine in the 2nd half of the book - so, hopefully, we’ll get to see more of them, then.
Which is the other part of this film that will turn off the casual viewer - it only covers (by necessity) the first half of the book, so only tells half a story with no real emotional payoff. For me, a fan of the books, I was fine with this as I am eagerly anticipating the 2nd film - but as a viewer who is just gonna “check this one out”, I’m not so sure that the visuals of this film will be enough to satisfy them.
Come for the visuals, stay for the performances and the dense story and prepare for Dune: Part 2.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Lush, dense, rich, well cast and acted with eye-popping visuals that should be seen on the big screen, Directer Denis Villaneuve’s DUNE is everything that a fan of the book (that would include me) has been waiting for in a film version. It IS the “Peter Jackson LORD OF THE RINGS” version of this book - finally!
The question is, how does this film work for casual fans of the book - or for the myriad moviegoers that have never read the novel it is based on.
And, I’m afraid, the answer there is “not as well”. For Dune is a dense novel, filled with mythology that does go somewhat deep in the movie. This makes the pacing of this film problematic - especially at the beginning, for the novice - but is “deep enough” for those that have read the books.
Let’s start with what works - and that is the visuals that Director Denis Villeneuve (Blade Runner 2049) and his crew put on the screen. They are incredible. Unfortunately, most casual on-lookers to this film will decide to check out this 2 hour and 35 minute epic at home for free on HBO MAX, and that would be too bad. This film needs to be seen on the biggest screen possible to totally immerse you in this world.
Villeneuve perfectly cast this film from top to bottom starting with Timothy Chalamet as the hero of this book (and series) Paul Atreides. He brings the right balance of cockiness and unease to Paul who grows into something more than the “perfect prince” as the story progresses.
He is joined by some of the finest performers working today. Rebecca Ferguson and Josh Brolin bring their star power to the roles of Paul’s Mother (who is something more than Paul’s mother) and the head of the military (who is something more than the head of the military). Both of these roles needed to be played by a strong force - and both fill this need admirably.
The always good Oscar Isaac is the right choice for the role of Paul’s father, Duke Leto Atreides, who - by story necessity - is underwritten and, therefore, this film/role does not showcase his talents.
However, Jason Mamoa SHINES as Warrior Duncan Idaho. This is one of my favorite characters from the book and Mamoa brings his “A” game to this charismatic warrior/mentor to Paul. It was the largest pleasant surprise of the performances for me.
Alas, the villains of this piece - Baron Vladimir Harkonnen (Stellan Skarsgard) and his nephew, Beast Rabban Harkonnen (Dave Bautista) are relegated to background “mustache twirling” villains, they were not able to showcase their talents in this film. But, at least, we did not get the “golden speedo” that Sting wore in the 1984 David Lynch film version.
Also, not being able to showcase their talents is Javier Bardem and Zendaya as members of the Freman (the subjugated native people of the “Dune” planet). They are both in this film, briefly, as their characters rise and shine in the 2nd half of the book - so, hopefully, we’ll get to see more of them, then.
Which is the other part of this film that will turn off the casual viewer - it only covers (by necessity) the first half of the book, so only tells half a story with no real emotional payoff. For me, a fan of the books, I was fine with this as I am eagerly anticipating the 2nd film - but as a viewer who is just gonna “check this one out”, I’m not so sure that the visuals of this film will be enough to satisfy them.
Come for the visuals, stay for the performances and the dense story and prepare for Dune: Part 2.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)