Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Roma (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
“Siempre estamos solas”
Alfonso Cuarón‘s “Roma” has been lauded with praise and award’s hype, and I must admit to have been a little bit snooty about it. A black-and-white Spanish language film with subtitles that – to be honest – looks a bit dreary: can it really be that good? Having now (finally) seen it on Netflix I can confirm that’s a big YES from my point of view. It’s a novelty of a glacially slow film that grips like a vice.
A primer on 70’s Mexican History.
This is a film about ordinary life set against tumultuous times. Set in the Colonia Roma district of Mexico City (if you were puzzled, as I was, where the title came from) it is an “Upstairs, Downstairs” tale of Cleo (Yalitza Aparicio), a maid and nanny to a middle class family in the early 70’s.
There are two intertwined stories here: Cleo’s personal story and that of the family background in which she works.
Cleo has a pleasant enough life working as partners in crime in the household with Adela (Nancy García García). Life is about getting the work done (well, more of less), keeping the four children happy – to who she is devoted – and scraping enough by to spend her downtime with her martial arts boyfriend Ramón (José Manuel Guerrero Mendoza).
Meanwhile the lady of the house Senora Sofia (Marina de Tavira) has an affluent and cosseted lifestyle amid her loving family.
But times are about to change for all of the players, as events – not just the events of the ‘Mexican Dirty War’ of 1971 going on in the background – transpire to change all their lives forever.
A masterclass in framing.
It’s criminal that I wasn’t able to get to see this in the cinema. Since every frame of this movie is a masterpiece of detail. There is just so much going on that your eyes dart this way and that, and you could probably watch it five times and see more. Even the opening titles are mesmerising, as the cobbled floor becomes a screen and an airliner lazily flies across it.
Even major action sequences, that other directors would fill the screen with (“Do you KNOW how much this scene is costing for God’s sake??”), are seen as they would typically be seen in real life – second hand, from a place of hiding. This is typified by the depiction of the Corpus Christi Massacre of June ’71, where the military, and more controversially the elite El Halconazo (The Hawks) of the Mexican army, turned on a student protest. Most of the action is seen as glimpses through the windows by the characters during a shopping trip to the second floor of a department store. How this was enacted and directed is a mystery to me, but it works just brilliantly.
A masterclass in pacing and panning.
One of Cuarón’s trademarks is the long take (think “Children of Men”) and here he (literally!) goes to town with the technique. An incredibly impressive scene has Cleo and Adela running through the streets of the City to meet their lovers at the cinema. It’s a continuous pan that again defies belief in the brilliance of its execution.
Even the mundane act of Cleo tidying up the apartment is done with a glorious slow pan around the room. Some of this panning is done to set the mood for the film (“Get settled in… this is going to be a long haul”) but others manage to evoke a sense of rising dread, an example at the beach being a brilliant case in point.
The cinematography was supposed to have been done by the great Emmanuel Lubezki, but he was unavailable so Cuarón did it himself! And it’s quite brilliant. So, that’s a lesson learned then that will reduce the budget for next time!
A personal story.
Cuarón wrote the script. Of course he did… it’s his story! He’s the same age as I am, so was nine years old for the autobiographical events featured in the film (he is the kid who gets punished for eavesdropping). Numerous aspects of the film are from his own childhood, including the fact that his younger brother kept spookily coming out with things that he’d done in his past lives! It’s a painful true story of his upbringing and of the life of Liboria Rodríguez: “Libo” to whom the film is dedicated.
Where the script is delightful is in never destroying the mood with lengthy exposition. Both of the key stories evolve slowly and only gradually do you work out what’s really going on. This is grown-up cinema at its finest.
It’s also a love letter from Cuarón to the cinema of his youth, a passion that sparked his eventual career. We see a number of trips to the local fleapit, and in one cute scene we seen a clip from the Gregory Peck space epic “Marooned”: the film that inspired Cuarón’s own masterpiece “Gravity“.
A naturalistic cast.
Casting a large proportion of the cast from unknowns feels like a great risk, but its a risk that pays off handsomely, particularly in the case of Yalitza Aparicio, who is breathtakingly naturalistic. Cuarón withheld the script from his cast, so some of the “acting” is not acting at all – specifically a gruelling and heartrending scene featuring Cleo later in the film. That’s real and raw emotion on the screen.
Marina de Tavira, although an actress with a track record, is also mightily impressive as the beleaguered and troubled wife.
Final Thoughts.
This is a masterpiece, and thoroughly deserves the “Best Picture” awards it has been getting. It’s certainly my odds on favourite, as well as being my pick, for the Oscar on Sunday. Will it be for everyone? Probably not.
There are some scenes which feel slightly ostentatious. A forest fire scene is brilliantly done (“Put out the small fires kids”), but then a guy in a monster suit pulls off his head-wear and starts singing a long and mournful song. Sorry?
There will also be many I suspect who will find the leisurely pace of the film excruciating; “JUST GET ON WITH IT” I hear them yelling at the screen. But if you give it the time and let it soak in, then you WILL be moved and you WILL remember the film long after you’ve seen it.
I remain cross however that this was released through Netflix. This is a film that deserves a full and widespread cinema release in 70mm format. It’s like taking an iPhone snap of the Mona Lisa and putting the phone on display instead.
A primer on 70’s Mexican History.
This is a film about ordinary life set against tumultuous times. Set in the Colonia Roma district of Mexico City (if you were puzzled, as I was, where the title came from) it is an “Upstairs, Downstairs” tale of Cleo (Yalitza Aparicio), a maid and nanny to a middle class family in the early 70’s.
There are two intertwined stories here: Cleo’s personal story and that of the family background in which she works.
Cleo has a pleasant enough life working as partners in crime in the household with Adela (Nancy García García). Life is about getting the work done (well, more of less), keeping the four children happy – to who she is devoted – and scraping enough by to spend her downtime with her martial arts boyfriend Ramón (José Manuel Guerrero Mendoza).
Meanwhile the lady of the house Senora Sofia (Marina de Tavira) has an affluent and cosseted lifestyle amid her loving family.
But times are about to change for all of the players, as events – not just the events of the ‘Mexican Dirty War’ of 1971 going on in the background – transpire to change all their lives forever.
A masterclass in framing.
It’s criminal that I wasn’t able to get to see this in the cinema. Since every frame of this movie is a masterpiece of detail. There is just so much going on that your eyes dart this way and that, and you could probably watch it five times and see more. Even the opening titles are mesmerising, as the cobbled floor becomes a screen and an airliner lazily flies across it.
Even major action sequences, that other directors would fill the screen with (“Do you KNOW how much this scene is costing for God’s sake??”), are seen as they would typically be seen in real life – second hand, from a place of hiding. This is typified by the depiction of the Corpus Christi Massacre of June ’71, where the military, and more controversially the elite El Halconazo (The Hawks) of the Mexican army, turned on a student protest. Most of the action is seen as glimpses through the windows by the characters during a shopping trip to the second floor of a department store. How this was enacted and directed is a mystery to me, but it works just brilliantly.
A masterclass in pacing and panning.
One of Cuarón’s trademarks is the long take (think “Children of Men”) and here he (literally!) goes to town with the technique. An incredibly impressive scene has Cleo and Adela running through the streets of the City to meet their lovers at the cinema. It’s a continuous pan that again defies belief in the brilliance of its execution.
Even the mundane act of Cleo tidying up the apartment is done with a glorious slow pan around the room. Some of this panning is done to set the mood for the film (“Get settled in… this is going to be a long haul”) but others manage to evoke a sense of rising dread, an example at the beach being a brilliant case in point.
The cinematography was supposed to have been done by the great Emmanuel Lubezki, but he was unavailable so Cuarón did it himself! And it’s quite brilliant. So, that’s a lesson learned then that will reduce the budget for next time!
A personal story.
Cuarón wrote the script. Of course he did… it’s his story! He’s the same age as I am, so was nine years old for the autobiographical events featured in the film (he is the kid who gets punished for eavesdropping). Numerous aspects of the film are from his own childhood, including the fact that his younger brother kept spookily coming out with things that he’d done in his past lives! It’s a painful true story of his upbringing and of the life of Liboria Rodríguez: “Libo” to whom the film is dedicated.
Where the script is delightful is in never destroying the mood with lengthy exposition. Both of the key stories evolve slowly and only gradually do you work out what’s really going on. This is grown-up cinema at its finest.
It’s also a love letter from Cuarón to the cinema of his youth, a passion that sparked his eventual career. We see a number of trips to the local fleapit, and in one cute scene we seen a clip from the Gregory Peck space epic “Marooned”: the film that inspired Cuarón’s own masterpiece “Gravity“.
A naturalistic cast.
Casting a large proportion of the cast from unknowns feels like a great risk, but its a risk that pays off handsomely, particularly in the case of Yalitza Aparicio, who is breathtakingly naturalistic. Cuarón withheld the script from his cast, so some of the “acting” is not acting at all – specifically a gruelling and heartrending scene featuring Cleo later in the film. That’s real and raw emotion on the screen.
Marina de Tavira, although an actress with a track record, is also mightily impressive as the beleaguered and troubled wife.
Final Thoughts.
This is a masterpiece, and thoroughly deserves the “Best Picture” awards it has been getting. It’s certainly my odds on favourite, as well as being my pick, for the Oscar on Sunday. Will it be for everyone? Probably not.
There are some scenes which feel slightly ostentatious. A forest fire scene is brilliantly done (“Put out the small fires kids”), but then a guy in a monster suit pulls off his head-wear and starts singing a long and mournful song. Sorry?
There will also be many I suspect who will find the leisurely pace of the film excruciating; “JUST GET ON WITH IT” I hear them yelling at the screen. But if you give it the time and let it soak in, then you WILL be moved and you WILL remember the film long after you’ve seen it.
I remain cross however that this was released through Netflix. This is a film that deserves a full and widespread cinema release in 70mm format. It’s like taking an iPhone snap of the Mona Lisa and putting the phone on display instead.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated No Time to Die (2021) in Movies
Oct 7, 2021 (Updated Oct 10, 2021)
What a wait it’s been for Bond 25! But Daniel Craig’s last outing as Bond is finally here and I thought it was great! It has all the elements of Bond… but perhaps not as we traditionally know it.
Plot Summary:
We pick up immediately after the ending of “Spectre“, with Bond (Daniel Craig) and Madeleine (Léa Seydoux) all loved up and driving off into the sunset together. But their romantic getaway to Italy is rudely broken short by Spectre as elements of Madeleine’s past emerge to haunt the couple.
One element of that past – the horribly disfigured Lyutsifer Safin (Rami Malek) has a plan to make his mark on mankind with a biochemical weapon. And the retired Bond teams with the CIA’s Felix Leiter (a very welcome return of Jeffrey Wright) in a mission to Jamaica to combat it.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Daniel Craig, Léa Seydoux, Rami Malek, Lashana Lynch, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Ana de Armas.
Directed by: Cary Joji Fukunaga.
Written by: Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, Cary Joji Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge. (From a story by Purvis, Wade and Fukunaga).
Positives:
- The script has all the trappings of Bond: exotic locations; great stunts; thrilling action sequences; and more gadgets on show than in recent times. Yet it’s a real character piece too, delving far more into Bond’s emotions. The story running through it with Madeleine is both deep and emotional: something we haven’t seen since the Bond and Tracy romance in OHMSS. (And with Craig’s acting, he manages to pull this off far better than George Lazenby ever could!).
- I found the finale to be magnificent, bold and surprising. We’re back to the megalomaniac owning an island lair, à la Dr No. It even has its own submarine pen (a nod to Austin Power’s “Goldmember” perhaps!?). For me, the production design harks back to the superbly over-the-top Ken Adams creations of the Connery years. There are no sharks with frickin’ laser beams… but there could have been. (The set is a rather obvious redressing of the 007 stage at Pinewood, created of course for the tanker scenes in “The Spy Who Loved Me”. It even re-uses of the gantry level control room.)
- Craig is magnificent in his swan-song performance. There’s a scene, during the extended pre-credits sequence, where he’s sat in his bullet-ridden Aston just glowering for an extended period. I thought this was Craig’s acting at its best. I thought this again in a dramatic showdown scene with Rami Malek. Malek is not given a huge amount to do in the film, But what he does he does wonderfully, particularly in that electrifying scene with Craig.
- The film has a great deal more female empowerment than any previous Bond, with the tell-tale signs (although this might be a sexist presumption) of Phoebe Waller-Bridge on the script. Newcomer Lashana Lynch acquits herself well as the first female 00-agent, getting not just kick-ass action sequences but also her fair share of quips. But stealing the show is Ana de Armas (reunited with Craig of course from “Knives Out“). Her scenes in Cuba are brief but memorable, delivering a delicious mixture of action and comedy that makes you think “cast HER as the next Bond”!
- The music by Hans Zimmer! It’s a glorious soundtrack that pays deference not only to the action style of recent composers, like David Arnold and Thomas Newman, but particularly to the classic scores of John Barry. It actually incorporates not one but two classic themes from “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”, directly into the film. I’m even starting to warm to the Billie Eilish theme song, although I think it’s too similar in style to the Sam Smith offering from “Spectre“.
- The cinematography from Linus Sandgren (who did “La La Land“) is gorgeous: in turns colourful and vibrant for the Italian and Cuban scenes and cool and blue for the tense Norwegian action sequences.
Negatives:
- My main criticism is not of the film, but of the trailer(s). There are so many of the money shots from the film (particularly from the Matera-based action of the pre-title sequence) included in the trailers that I had an “OK, move on, seen this” attitude. Why did they have to spoil the movie so much? IT’S A NEW BOND… OF COURSE WE’RE GOING TO SEE IT. All you EVER needed for this is a 20-second teaser trailer. Just put white “Bond is Back” text on a black background and the Craig tunnel shot to the camera. Job done. It really infuriates me. B arbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson, PLEASE take note!
- At 163 minutes it’s the longest Bond ever and a bit of a bladder tester. But, having said that, there are no more than a few minutes here and there that I would want to trim. To do more you’d need to cut out whole episodes, and leaving Ana de Armas on the cutting room floor would have been criminal. As the illustrious Mrs Movie Man commented, “I wish they’d bring in the half time Intermission card like they used to do in the old days”. I agree. Everyone would have been a whole lot more comfortable and less fidgety.
Summary Thoughts on “No Time to Die”: Reading the comments on IMDB for the movie, I’m perplexed at the diatribe coming from supposed ‘Bond fans’ on this one. One-star review after one-star review (despite, I note, the overall film getting an overall 7.8/10 at the time of writing). In this regard, I class myself as very much a Bond fan. (My first film at the cinema was the release of “Live and Let Die” in 1973, but I then binge-watched all the other Bond films at the cinema: they used to do repeated double-features in those days). And I thought this was a fabulous Bond film. Full of drama, action, humour and deep-seated emotion. Couldn’t be better for me, and certainly on a par with “Casino Royale” and “Skyfall” for me as my favourite Craig outings.
As the end of the end credits said – “James Bond Will Return”. Who will they cast as the next Bond? And where will they take the story from here? Two of the most intriguing movie questions to take into 2022.
(For the full graphical review and video review, please search for @onemannsmovies. Thanks.)
Plot Summary:
We pick up immediately after the ending of “Spectre“, with Bond (Daniel Craig) and Madeleine (Léa Seydoux) all loved up and driving off into the sunset together. But their romantic getaway to Italy is rudely broken short by Spectre as elements of Madeleine’s past emerge to haunt the couple.
One element of that past – the horribly disfigured Lyutsifer Safin (Rami Malek) has a plan to make his mark on mankind with a biochemical weapon. And the retired Bond teams with the CIA’s Felix Leiter (a very welcome return of Jeffrey Wright) in a mission to Jamaica to combat it.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Daniel Craig, Léa Seydoux, Rami Malek, Lashana Lynch, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Ana de Armas.
Directed by: Cary Joji Fukunaga.
Written by: Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, Cary Joji Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge. (From a story by Purvis, Wade and Fukunaga).
Positives:
- The script has all the trappings of Bond: exotic locations; great stunts; thrilling action sequences; and more gadgets on show than in recent times. Yet it’s a real character piece too, delving far more into Bond’s emotions. The story running through it with Madeleine is both deep and emotional: something we haven’t seen since the Bond and Tracy romance in OHMSS. (And with Craig’s acting, he manages to pull this off far better than George Lazenby ever could!).
- I found the finale to be magnificent, bold and surprising. We’re back to the megalomaniac owning an island lair, à la Dr No. It even has its own submarine pen (a nod to Austin Power’s “Goldmember” perhaps!?). For me, the production design harks back to the superbly over-the-top Ken Adams creations of the Connery years. There are no sharks with frickin’ laser beams… but there could have been. (The set is a rather obvious redressing of the 007 stage at Pinewood, created of course for the tanker scenes in “The Spy Who Loved Me”. It even re-uses of the gantry level control room.)
- Craig is magnificent in his swan-song performance. There’s a scene, during the extended pre-credits sequence, where he’s sat in his bullet-ridden Aston just glowering for an extended period. I thought this was Craig’s acting at its best. I thought this again in a dramatic showdown scene with Rami Malek. Malek is not given a huge amount to do in the film, But what he does he does wonderfully, particularly in that electrifying scene with Craig.
- The film has a great deal more female empowerment than any previous Bond, with the tell-tale signs (although this might be a sexist presumption) of Phoebe Waller-Bridge on the script. Newcomer Lashana Lynch acquits herself well as the first female 00-agent, getting not just kick-ass action sequences but also her fair share of quips. But stealing the show is Ana de Armas (reunited with Craig of course from “Knives Out“). Her scenes in Cuba are brief but memorable, delivering a delicious mixture of action and comedy that makes you think “cast HER as the next Bond”!
- The music by Hans Zimmer! It’s a glorious soundtrack that pays deference not only to the action style of recent composers, like David Arnold and Thomas Newman, but particularly to the classic scores of John Barry. It actually incorporates not one but two classic themes from “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”, directly into the film. I’m even starting to warm to the Billie Eilish theme song, although I think it’s too similar in style to the Sam Smith offering from “Spectre“.
- The cinematography from Linus Sandgren (who did “La La Land“) is gorgeous: in turns colourful and vibrant for the Italian and Cuban scenes and cool and blue for the tense Norwegian action sequences.
Negatives:
- My main criticism is not of the film, but of the trailer(s). There are so many of the money shots from the film (particularly from the Matera-based action of the pre-title sequence) included in the trailers that I had an “OK, move on, seen this” attitude. Why did they have to spoil the movie so much? IT’S A NEW BOND… OF COURSE WE’RE GOING TO SEE IT. All you EVER needed for this is a 20-second teaser trailer. Just put white “Bond is Back” text on a black background and the Craig tunnel shot to the camera. Job done. It really infuriates me. B arbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson, PLEASE take note!
- At 163 minutes it’s the longest Bond ever and a bit of a bladder tester. But, having said that, there are no more than a few minutes here and there that I would want to trim. To do more you’d need to cut out whole episodes, and leaving Ana de Armas on the cutting room floor would have been criminal. As the illustrious Mrs Movie Man commented, “I wish they’d bring in the half time Intermission card like they used to do in the old days”. I agree. Everyone would have been a whole lot more comfortable and less fidgety.
Summary Thoughts on “No Time to Die”: Reading the comments on IMDB for the movie, I’m perplexed at the diatribe coming from supposed ‘Bond fans’ on this one. One-star review after one-star review (despite, I note, the overall film getting an overall 7.8/10 at the time of writing). In this regard, I class myself as very much a Bond fan. (My first film at the cinema was the release of “Live and Let Die” in 1973, but I then binge-watched all the other Bond films at the cinema: they used to do repeated double-features in those days). And I thought this was a fabulous Bond film. Full of drama, action, humour and deep-seated emotion. Couldn’t be better for me, and certainly on a par with “Casino Royale” and “Skyfall” for me as my favourite Craig outings.
As the end of the end credits said – “James Bond Will Return”. Who will they cast as the next Bond? And where will they take the story from here? Two of the most intriguing movie questions to take into 2022.
(For the full graphical review and video review, please search for @onemannsmovies. Thanks.)
KittyMiku (138 KP) rated Sold to the Werewolf Prince in Books
May 23, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
This book is very short and has a good thought behind it. Since the world Hannah is now trying to integrate into is all about being kind and polite at all costs, its easy to see why she would have troubles with some of it. If offending someone meant execution, any human would have a problem living there without issue. I think that is the biggest idea I found to be enjoyable in the book. I love the idea of aliens and space travel, but the view point on having to keep your tongue tied to always be able to be kind to someone is what pique my interest. However, its not just your voice and words, its in your actions too. That whole world made sure everyone at all times are kept in a pleasured and blissful state.
At first, I was intrigued on the aliens and the life on their planet, but I found my interest leading me more towards how Hannah explained how Humans act to one another and how its hard to come by people who are naturally kind and respectful. Though the idea of being executed for saying anything in any way that could offend someone is kind of hard to get behind, I also feel like its something we should all strive for anyways. I can see the disadvantages of always being kind and polite as well though. In the book, Hannah had made it clear she was never sure what would offend someone and get her possibly killed and so she kept a lot of questions and thoughts to herself. I can completely understand that. To a degree though, I think keeping unkind things or questions that could be offense to yourself to be a great idea. However, when it comes to asking things about someone's religion or culture, I would think that wouldn't create a lot of offense. After all, we are all curious about something we don't understand or don't know. It did bring up a lot of things that we allow our children to say and do that isn't kind and allows others to feel unworthy or disrespected. For example name calling. In the story Hannah had tried to explain there are ways to say something to make in endearing. She used the term "bookworm". She went on to explain that in school people called her a bookworm to be mean and hurtful, it was an insult, but at home her mother used the term endearingly because Hannah always had her nose in a book. And if we are honest with ourselves, we know this is often a true case. Kids at school can be mean and hurtful if you don't fit in, but sometimes the insults they deal can also be ones of endearment from those we love. An example of this is the label gamer. In schools being a gamer meant you didn't have a ton of friends and often were picked on because you preferred to be at home playing your games than going to parties. However, if your wife is playfully teasing you by calling you a gamer, or uses it as an endearing term, it is not hurtful at all. Isn't it funny how something so silly as a single word used to describe you can have duel purposes; Hurtful and endearing?
I think Hannah's explanation of that was pretty dead on, but that wasn't all she brought up that reminded me of how awful humans can be. She has brought up how possessive humans can be to materials, enough to kill or have a hand in killing someone else for it. This is something we actually see everyday, if we allow ourselves too. People kill other people for money and material objects. People kill animals, and we aren't talking about for food purposes, because they want to or because it will allow them to make money for certain pieces of the animal. They aren't just hurtful, they are lethal to others and their environment. I found myself cringing at how real her words were. I know these things are going on in the world, we all do, but to have it spoken out loud so bluntly makes you wish it would just stop. In the book, Hannah had stated the American Government had stated that aliens had visited and they covered it up. And Prince Tamkin had stated because of human hostile nature, they didn't see why they should bother with the humans. He said most aliens didn't see the humans worth the hassle. That brings me to question if it is possible that this is also true.
Think about it. Let's say this particular book is correct in the fact aliens exist and they gave up trying to communicate with us because of our hostile natures. Always putting ourselves first and anyone, anything else last. It would make sense in a way, don't you think? I know this is a Sci-fi romance book, but at the same time, it does make a lot of sense. Hannah had said we were egotistical and self centered, thinking we had the best technology in the universe and that we can take anything we want and its true. As a race, humans are horrible creatures. That's not to say there aren't good ones out there. Even Hannah had explained that there were groups of people who fought for the Earth and others. Just as there are people in the real world who do that same. So if Wright can have a lot of truth in the book, who is not to say she was able to come up with a reason on why aliens stay away from Earth? Even though the space travel seems still to far for us to know if that was that is a real thing or not, it is still something worth thinking about.
I do have one major compliant about the book. The intercourse scenes. There were a total of three heavily detailed scenes that I don't completely understand. Do not get my wrong, the first scene was to make it so you understood that pleasing the woman in the bedroom was extremely important and it completely proved this case. However, I do not feels that so much needed to be in the book. The story could have used more details on the alien planet and the major city they resided in. I would have loved to know more about it. I would have loved to actually have seen the different communities and wild life. I was disappointed there wasn't more but instead I got steamy intercourse scenes that would make adult movie stars blush.
I would rate this book 3 stars out of 5 stars. It had brought up a lot of topics to discuss and ponder on and definitely left me wanting more, but the intercourse scenes were over the top and just too much for me. I would have been find with just the first one and maybe shorter scenes for the others. To me it just took away from the story in a way I didn't like.
At first, I was intrigued on the aliens and the life on their planet, but I found my interest leading me more towards how Hannah explained how Humans act to one another and how its hard to come by people who are naturally kind and respectful. Though the idea of being executed for saying anything in any way that could offend someone is kind of hard to get behind, I also feel like its something we should all strive for anyways. I can see the disadvantages of always being kind and polite as well though. In the book, Hannah had made it clear she was never sure what would offend someone and get her possibly killed and so she kept a lot of questions and thoughts to herself. I can completely understand that. To a degree though, I think keeping unkind things or questions that could be offense to yourself to be a great idea. However, when it comes to asking things about someone's religion or culture, I would think that wouldn't create a lot of offense. After all, we are all curious about something we don't understand or don't know. It did bring up a lot of things that we allow our children to say and do that isn't kind and allows others to feel unworthy or disrespected. For example name calling. In the story Hannah had tried to explain there are ways to say something to make in endearing. She used the term "bookworm". She went on to explain that in school people called her a bookworm to be mean and hurtful, it was an insult, but at home her mother used the term endearingly because Hannah always had her nose in a book. And if we are honest with ourselves, we know this is often a true case. Kids at school can be mean and hurtful if you don't fit in, but sometimes the insults they deal can also be ones of endearment from those we love. An example of this is the label gamer. In schools being a gamer meant you didn't have a ton of friends and often were picked on because you preferred to be at home playing your games than going to parties. However, if your wife is playfully teasing you by calling you a gamer, or uses it as an endearing term, it is not hurtful at all. Isn't it funny how something so silly as a single word used to describe you can have duel purposes; Hurtful and endearing?
I think Hannah's explanation of that was pretty dead on, but that wasn't all she brought up that reminded me of how awful humans can be. She has brought up how possessive humans can be to materials, enough to kill or have a hand in killing someone else for it. This is something we actually see everyday, if we allow ourselves too. People kill other people for money and material objects. People kill animals, and we aren't talking about for food purposes, because they want to or because it will allow them to make money for certain pieces of the animal. They aren't just hurtful, they are lethal to others and their environment. I found myself cringing at how real her words were. I know these things are going on in the world, we all do, but to have it spoken out loud so bluntly makes you wish it would just stop. In the book, Hannah had stated the American Government had stated that aliens had visited and they covered it up. And Prince Tamkin had stated because of human hostile nature, they didn't see why they should bother with the humans. He said most aliens didn't see the humans worth the hassle. That brings me to question if it is possible that this is also true.
Think about it. Let's say this particular book is correct in the fact aliens exist and they gave up trying to communicate with us because of our hostile natures. Always putting ourselves first and anyone, anything else last. It would make sense in a way, don't you think? I know this is a Sci-fi romance book, but at the same time, it does make a lot of sense. Hannah had said we were egotistical and self centered, thinking we had the best technology in the universe and that we can take anything we want and its true. As a race, humans are horrible creatures. That's not to say there aren't good ones out there. Even Hannah had explained that there were groups of people who fought for the Earth and others. Just as there are people in the real world who do that same. So if Wright can have a lot of truth in the book, who is not to say she was able to come up with a reason on why aliens stay away from Earth? Even though the space travel seems still to far for us to know if that was that is a real thing or not, it is still something worth thinking about.
I do have one major compliant about the book. The intercourse scenes. There were a total of three heavily detailed scenes that I don't completely understand. Do not get my wrong, the first scene was to make it so you understood that pleasing the woman in the bedroom was extremely important and it completely proved this case. However, I do not feels that so much needed to be in the book. The story could have used more details on the alien planet and the major city they resided in. I would have loved to know more about it. I would have loved to actually have seen the different communities and wild life. I was disappointed there wasn't more but instead I got steamy intercourse scenes that would make adult movie stars blush.
I would rate this book 3 stars out of 5 stars. It had brought up a lot of topics to discuss and ponder on and definitely left me wanting more, but the intercourse scenes were over the top and just too much for me. I would have been find with just the first one and maybe shorter scenes for the others. To me it just took away from the story in a way I didn't like.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Trogdor!!: The Board Game in Tabletop Games
Aug 8, 2019
I cannot possible explain to you how many hours of my college career were spent LMBO at the homestarrunner.com website. Teen Girl Squad. Strong Bad E-mails. The incredible Halloween episodes. If you know what I’m talking about, I hope you enjoyed some sense of beautiful nostalgia just now. So when I saw that someone was making a board game based on a secondary (or a thirdedary) character from one of my favorite websites from my not-so-youth I knew it would be mine someday. That day has come and I am here to report my thoughts on Trogdor!! The Board Game.
Trogdor!! The Board Game, which I’m just gonna start calling Trogdor!!, is a cooperative area burninating puzzle adventure game for only the coolest of the cool. The twist on this game, if you are unfamiliar with Trogdor or Homsar, is that the players are all essentially cultists who assist Trogdor to burninate the countryside, all the cottages, and chomp the peasants or send them to the Void.
DISCLAIMER: Though this was Kickstarted, I did not splurge on the deluxe version, so I have the meepled version and it does just fine. Furthermore, I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rule book, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy from the publisher directly or from your FLGS. -T
To setup the game (and I found this part tedious) lay out the countryside tiles according to one of the suggested layouts in the back of the rule book or simply wherever you want in a 5×5 grid. This is your game board now. Also place out the thatched-roof cottages, peasants, knights, and archers. Trogdor starts the game in the middle tile, prepped for his burnination run. Each player also receives a Keeper of Trogdor persona card that provides special abilities, an item card that can be used during play, and an action card that determines how many action points a player may use as well as possibly special abilities to use for the turn. Troghammer starts the game on the Trog-meter, ready to come onto the board to wreak hammery havoc on our hero.
A turn consists of two phases. The first phase has the current player drawing an action card which intimates the number of action points (AP) the player can use for actions: Move Trogdor one space orthogonally, Chomp a peasant to increase health, Burninate a tile/cottage/peasant, Burrow into a tunnel and pop out the other side, or Hide in the mountains. Movement is easy: move Trogdor one space per AP you’d like to spend. Chomping requires Trogdor to be on the same tile as a peasant, but then you can chow down on them to increase our deity’s health bar. Burninating also requires Trogdor to be on the same tile as the tile/cottage/peasant you want to burninate. The Lake tile has special burninating rules, as do thatched-roof cottages. I will also allow you to learn about burninating peasants on your own, as it is pretty amazing. Burrowing requires Trogdor to be on a tunnel tile and spend an AP to teleport to the other tunnel (a la Small World). Trogdor may also simply Hide on a mountain tile to be protected from the attackers that act during the next phase. If players to not like either the action card they were dealt or the card they drew, they may simply discard a card to take their turn with 5 AP and no special abilities.
The next phase is where the board elements do their thang. The active player will draw and play a movement card. From instructions on this card the board may spawn more peasants, will move the peasants, will move the knights and also archers. Peasants do not fight Trogdor, but they can possibly repair burninated tiles. Knights WILL hurt Trogdor whenever they pass through or end their turn on the same tile as Trogdor. Knights will also automatically repair any burninated thatched-roof cottages they pass through. Troghammer is a special knight who only comes into play once Trogdor is hurt the first time. Archers will attack an entire column or row depending on which direction they were traveling when they ended their movement. If Trogdor still has peasants on the Trog-meter (representing health), then the next player takes their turn. If Trogdor has no more health and he is hit again, he enters a fiery RAGE! I will let you discover what happens during this event also.
The players win when all the tiles, cottages, and peasants have been burninated or eliminated from the board. They lose when Trogdor is defeated and they have not completed their victory conditions.
Components. It’s always so hard to really know exactly what you will be receiving when you Kickstart a game. Especially from a company not known for board games, and which has never produced a board game. So, I was anticipating something entirely different as I was opening my box. This is what I received: excellent tiles with UV spot on each side (super fancy!). I usually don’t care about UV spot anywhere on my game, but that seems to be en vogue now, so I’ll just try to enjoy it when I can. The other cardboard bits are great too. The cards are of great quality, but I went ahead and sleeved the action and movement cards since I knew they would be handled quite a bit. The Trogeeples (jeez) all are of great quality, and I really appreciate the additional Trogdor meeples included. I had a big chuckle about that. The artwork is comical (like in a comic) and I also appreciated all the Strong Bad enhancements as well. The only negative I have about the components of the game is the ridiculous thin box of air that was included as a buffer near the insert. I threw it out, put my sleeved action and movement cards in a plastic deck box in its place and now I’m much happier.
Overall, I had such a blast playing this game. Is it mostly due to nostalgia and reverie? Perhaps. But, Bryan was playing this with us and he didn’t know anything about Trogdor or Homestar Runner. He also really enjoyed the game, so I think the level of familiarity doesn’t matter. Obviously I did not explain EVERY rule to the game, but hopefully by my quick description my readers get a good idea of how the game plays. I can honestly say that I love love love this game and will treasure it always. If/when I see this at my FLGS I may just buy up all the copies to give as gifts. It’s really good. That’s why Purple Phoenix Games give this one an MSG’d 15 / 18. Oh, and you’re welcome for my holding back of all the quotes I COULD HAVE put in this review. I could have really earned my nerd card renewal.
Trogdor!! The Board Game, which I’m just gonna start calling Trogdor!!, is a cooperative area burninating puzzle adventure game for only the coolest of the cool. The twist on this game, if you are unfamiliar with Trogdor or Homsar, is that the players are all essentially cultists who assist Trogdor to burninate the countryside, all the cottages, and chomp the peasants or send them to the Void.
DISCLAIMER: Though this was Kickstarted, I did not splurge on the deluxe version, so I have the meepled version and it does just fine. Furthermore, I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rule book, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy from the publisher directly or from your FLGS. -T
To setup the game (and I found this part tedious) lay out the countryside tiles according to one of the suggested layouts in the back of the rule book or simply wherever you want in a 5×5 grid. This is your game board now. Also place out the thatched-roof cottages, peasants, knights, and archers. Trogdor starts the game in the middle tile, prepped for his burnination run. Each player also receives a Keeper of Trogdor persona card that provides special abilities, an item card that can be used during play, and an action card that determines how many action points a player may use as well as possibly special abilities to use for the turn. Troghammer starts the game on the Trog-meter, ready to come onto the board to wreak hammery havoc on our hero.
A turn consists of two phases. The first phase has the current player drawing an action card which intimates the number of action points (AP) the player can use for actions: Move Trogdor one space orthogonally, Chomp a peasant to increase health, Burninate a tile/cottage/peasant, Burrow into a tunnel and pop out the other side, or Hide in the mountains. Movement is easy: move Trogdor one space per AP you’d like to spend. Chomping requires Trogdor to be on the same tile as a peasant, but then you can chow down on them to increase our deity’s health bar. Burninating also requires Trogdor to be on the same tile as the tile/cottage/peasant you want to burninate. The Lake tile has special burninating rules, as do thatched-roof cottages. I will also allow you to learn about burninating peasants on your own, as it is pretty amazing. Burrowing requires Trogdor to be on a tunnel tile and spend an AP to teleport to the other tunnel (a la Small World). Trogdor may also simply Hide on a mountain tile to be protected from the attackers that act during the next phase. If players to not like either the action card they were dealt or the card they drew, they may simply discard a card to take their turn with 5 AP and no special abilities.
The next phase is where the board elements do their thang. The active player will draw and play a movement card. From instructions on this card the board may spawn more peasants, will move the peasants, will move the knights and also archers. Peasants do not fight Trogdor, but they can possibly repair burninated tiles. Knights WILL hurt Trogdor whenever they pass through or end their turn on the same tile as Trogdor. Knights will also automatically repair any burninated thatched-roof cottages they pass through. Troghammer is a special knight who only comes into play once Trogdor is hurt the first time. Archers will attack an entire column or row depending on which direction they were traveling when they ended their movement. If Trogdor still has peasants on the Trog-meter (representing health), then the next player takes their turn. If Trogdor has no more health and he is hit again, he enters a fiery RAGE! I will let you discover what happens during this event also.
The players win when all the tiles, cottages, and peasants have been burninated or eliminated from the board. They lose when Trogdor is defeated and they have not completed their victory conditions.
Components. It’s always so hard to really know exactly what you will be receiving when you Kickstart a game. Especially from a company not known for board games, and which has never produced a board game. So, I was anticipating something entirely different as I was opening my box. This is what I received: excellent tiles with UV spot on each side (super fancy!). I usually don’t care about UV spot anywhere on my game, but that seems to be en vogue now, so I’ll just try to enjoy it when I can. The other cardboard bits are great too. The cards are of great quality, but I went ahead and sleeved the action and movement cards since I knew they would be handled quite a bit. The Trogeeples (jeez) all are of great quality, and I really appreciate the additional Trogdor meeples included. I had a big chuckle about that. The artwork is comical (like in a comic) and I also appreciated all the Strong Bad enhancements as well. The only negative I have about the components of the game is the ridiculous thin box of air that was included as a buffer near the insert. I threw it out, put my sleeved action and movement cards in a plastic deck box in its place and now I’m much happier.
Overall, I had such a blast playing this game. Is it mostly due to nostalgia and reverie? Perhaps. But, Bryan was playing this with us and he didn’t know anything about Trogdor or Homestar Runner. He also really enjoyed the game, so I think the level of familiarity doesn’t matter. Obviously I did not explain EVERY rule to the game, but hopefully by my quick description my readers get a good idea of how the game plays. I can honestly say that I love love love this game and will treasure it always. If/when I see this at my FLGS I may just buy up all the copies to give as gifts. It’s really good. That’s why Purple Phoenix Games give this one an MSG’d 15 / 18. Oh, and you’re welcome for my holding back of all the quotes I COULD HAVE put in this review. I could have really earned my nerd card renewal.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Eon: Dragoneye Reborn (Eon, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
Both books are extremely long, but Eon and Eona are one of the best dragon books I've read - out of the few I've read so far.
Eon does start out pretty slow. It takes awhile for something to happen, and there's a political struggle for a good chunk in the middle - a complete (and perhaps unnecessary at times) possibility as to why the book was extremely long in the first place.
Eona, as Eon at the time, was an extremely annoying character. It takes her AGES to connect all the dots and she's extremely desperate to fit in. It's almost as though she hates being a female, even though she gets points for being a sword-wielding, kick-butt, no-nonsense character.
Eona, on the other hand, is longer than Eon. After the events of Eon, the Empire of Celestial Dragons are in chaos, and Eona and her allies are on the run.
Eon has now stopped with her disguise, but I don't like her any better than I liked Eona puttering around like a boy. In Eon, Eona was just desperate to fit in and make herself seem worthy. In the sequel, Eona just argues FAR too much with Kygo.
Eona, however long, definitely makes up for the many dull moments in the first book. It's much more engrossing and action-packed, bringing a fantastic end to two very long books.
<b>Eon</b> - Full Review
Blog: <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/12/review-eon-by-alison-goodman.html">http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/12/review-eon-by-alison-goodman.html</a>;
Goodreads: <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1038182170?book_show_action=false">https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1038182170?book_show_action=false</a>;
<b>Eona</b> - Full Review
Blog: <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2015/01/review-eona-by-alison-goodman.html">http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2015/01/review-eona-by-alison-goodman.html</a>;
Goodreads: <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1134057091?book_show_action=false">https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1134057091?book_show_action=false</a>;
Merged review:
The entire idea behind Eon, according to the Alison Goodman's note at the very last page of the book, was inspired by the cultures and histories of China and Japan. Of course I would be completely excited because I'm Chinese myself and dragons are wonderfully majestic and mystic creatures. I had to read it!
I also had to read it because I would then have the opportunity to not only debate with the only guy in book club (who actually recommended the book to me in the first place... are you happy?), but I would also get to throw a book at said guy. Actually, it would be throwing the book first, run away, and then maybe debate about it. But one can't debate when one runs away.
In reality, I did get the chance to smack him with Eon. He then "abused" me with his scarf throughout Lit class. One day, I plan to steal that scarf and hide it.
I don't intend to ever give it back either.
Eon is a fabulous idea. And I mean, phenomenal. The best dragon book I've ever read despite the flaws and not so phenomenal things, even though the amount of dragon books I've read in the past is relatively small. Goodman has certainly done a fantastic job with the world building of the Empire of Celestial Dragons and the dragons itself – a brief history of the Dragoneyes and the Dragons are compressed at the very beginning of the book (it was a bit confusing to me) and the rest is filled in throughout the process of the book.
I have to say I'm impressed. Quite impressed compared to my latest reads (Okay, they're not shabby, but I wasn't overly excited about them either).
The beginning of the book lacked a bit of what would have made the book so much better. All Eon and the other Dragoneye candidates do is train, train, train. Eon is made fun of by everyone – including his Swordmaster! – because he's not like the others, etc. Basically, life is all about that misery for Eon and the book follows the same pattern over and over again: train, disdain, train, disdain, train, disdain.
Oh, and it doesn't help he's really a girl, though approximately 99.9% of the people don't know (they do know he's crippled). I'm pretty confused as to what gender to use in this particular review. That, however, does not mean I'm a sexist. All I can say to this entire ordeal is the mere fact that it seems Eon is trying too hard to hide her true self. Not a problem with me because of the time period Goodman sets Eon in. But with the amount of Sun drugs she takes later in the book – I think those so called Sun drugs are simply crack – in an attempt to connect with the Mirror Dragon, it's really obvious Eon is desperate enough to fit in and prove herself worthy of being a part of the Dragoneye council.
It's not until the anticipation of finding out who the new Rat Dragoneye apprentice will be does the book become interesting. The majority of the rest becomes more of a political struggle among the Dragoneye council and the Empire of Celestial Dragons as Eon continues her training as the one and only Mirror Dragoneye since the last 500 years, with the pressure of the Emperor's supporters resting on her shoulders.
Quite a burden to bear. Plus, the middle seemed to drag a bit (read: political struggle). It even got to the point where I actually thought Eon would be better off if the story had been split into two books and the series into a trilogy instead of duology.
It didn't help with Eon as a character either. She is, by far, one of the most annoying characters I've ever met. Here's a bit of a sidenote: There aren't many Asians as main characters. They're usually the peeps on the sidelines, and even that rarely happens. When they ARE main characters, they're usually a sword-wielding, kick-butt, no-nonsense type of character (or they seem to be annoyingly stereotyped and I hate it, so I don't even bother reading it in the first place). And while Goodman does incorporate all of that in Eon's character (the kick-butt, not the stereotype), it was still very annoying to see Eon puttering about and taking forever to connect the dots (read: desperate to fit in).
The ending gets better – much better – than the beginning and the middle (read: beginning = training + disdain, middle = political struggle + desperation). The fantastic ending probably made up for the hiccups earlier throughout and possibly changed my mind about wanting to split the book in half. Eon is a semi-phenomenal ending to a phenomenal idea in a not so phenomenal first book in a duology, and I've yet to decide whether I should give the sequel a whirl to see if it improves compared to Eon.
<blockquote>Friendship is not something that can be forced.</blockquote>
(Except for one of my friends. According to him, he forced his way into us being friends. *sigh*)
--------------------
Original Review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/12/review-eon-by-alison-goodman.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cG5gfBqJVzk/VA5BIojjZ9I/AAAAAAAAD1g/7srLUfpAGEU/s1600/banner.png"; /></a>
Eon does start out pretty slow. It takes awhile for something to happen, and there's a political struggle for a good chunk in the middle - a complete (and perhaps unnecessary at times) possibility as to why the book was extremely long in the first place.
Eona, as Eon at the time, was an extremely annoying character. It takes her AGES to connect all the dots and she's extremely desperate to fit in. It's almost as though she hates being a female, even though she gets points for being a sword-wielding, kick-butt, no-nonsense character.
Eona, on the other hand, is longer than Eon. After the events of Eon, the Empire of Celestial Dragons are in chaos, and Eona and her allies are on the run.
Eon has now stopped with her disguise, but I don't like her any better than I liked Eona puttering around like a boy. In Eon, Eona was just desperate to fit in and make herself seem worthy. In the sequel, Eona just argues FAR too much with Kygo.
Eona, however long, definitely makes up for the many dull moments in the first book. It's much more engrossing and action-packed, bringing a fantastic end to two very long books.
<b>Eon</b> - Full Review
Blog: <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/12/review-eon-by-alison-goodman.html">http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/12/review-eon-by-alison-goodman.html</a>;
Goodreads: <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1038182170?book_show_action=false">https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1038182170?book_show_action=false</a>;
<b>Eona</b> - Full Review
Blog: <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2015/01/review-eona-by-alison-goodman.html">http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2015/01/review-eona-by-alison-goodman.html</a>;
Goodreads: <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1134057091?book_show_action=false">https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1134057091?book_show_action=false</a>;
Merged review:
The entire idea behind Eon, according to the Alison Goodman's note at the very last page of the book, was inspired by the cultures and histories of China and Japan. Of course I would be completely excited because I'm Chinese myself and dragons are wonderfully majestic and mystic creatures. I had to read it!
I also had to read it because I would then have the opportunity to not only debate with the only guy in book club (who actually recommended the book to me in the first place... are you happy?), but I would also get to throw a book at said guy. Actually, it would be throwing the book first, run away, and then maybe debate about it. But one can't debate when one runs away.
In reality, I did get the chance to smack him with Eon. He then "abused" me with his scarf throughout Lit class. One day, I plan to steal that scarf and hide it.
I don't intend to ever give it back either.
Eon is a fabulous idea. And I mean, phenomenal. The best dragon book I've ever read despite the flaws and not so phenomenal things, even though the amount of dragon books I've read in the past is relatively small. Goodman has certainly done a fantastic job with the world building of the Empire of Celestial Dragons and the dragons itself – a brief history of the Dragoneyes and the Dragons are compressed at the very beginning of the book (it was a bit confusing to me) and the rest is filled in throughout the process of the book.
I have to say I'm impressed. Quite impressed compared to my latest reads (Okay, they're not shabby, but I wasn't overly excited about them either).
The beginning of the book lacked a bit of what would have made the book so much better. All Eon and the other Dragoneye candidates do is train, train, train. Eon is made fun of by everyone – including his Swordmaster! – because he's not like the others, etc. Basically, life is all about that misery for Eon and the book follows the same pattern over and over again: train, disdain, train, disdain, train, disdain.
Oh, and it doesn't help he's really a girl, though approximately 99.9% of the people don't know (they do know he's crippled). I'm pretty confused as to what gender to use in this particular review. That, however, does not mean I'm a sexist. All I can say to this entire ordeal is the mere fact that it seems Eon is trying too hard to hide her true self. Not a problem with me because of the time period Goodman sets Eon in. But with the amount of Sun drugs she takes later in the book – I think those so called Sun drugs are simply crack – in an attempt to connect with the Mirror Dragon, it's really obvious Eon is desperate enough to fit in and prove herself worthy of being a part of the Dragoneye council.
It's not until the anticipation of finding out who the new Rat Dragoneye apprentice will be does the book become interesting. The majority of the rest becomes more of a political struggle among the Dragoneye council and the Empire of Celestial Dragons as Eon continues her training as the one and only Mirror Dragoneye since the last 500 years, with the pressure of the Emperor's supporters resting on her shoulders.
Quite a burden to bear. Plus, the middle seemed to drag a bit (read: political struggle). It even got to the point where I actually thought Eon would be better off if the story had been split into two books and the series into a trilogy instead of duology.
It didn't help with Eon as a character either. She is, by far, one of the most annoying characters I've ever met. Here's a bit of a sidenote: There aren't many Asians as main characters. They're usually the peeps on the sidelines, and even that rarely happens. When they ARE main characters, they're usually a sword-wielding, kick-butt, no-nonsense type of character (or they seem to be annoyingly stereotyped and I hate it, so I don't even bother reading it in the first place). And while Goodman does incorporate all of that in Eon's character (the kick-butt, not the stereotype), it was still very annoying to see Eon puttering about and taking forever to connect the dots (read: desperate to fit in).
The ending gets better – much better – than the beginning and the middle (read: beginning = training + disdain, middle = political struggle + desperation). The fantastic ending probably made up for the hiccups earlier throughout and possibly changed my mind about wanting to split the book in half. Eon is a semi-phenomenal ending to a phenomenal idea in a not so phenomenal first book in a duology, and I've yet to decide whether I should give the sequel a whirl to see if it improves compared to Eon.
<blockquote>Friendship is not something that can be forced.</blockquote>
(Except for one of my friends. According to him, he forced his way into us being friends. *sigh*)
--------------------
Original Review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/12/review-eon-by-alison-goodman.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cG5gfBqJVzk/VA5BIojjZ9I/AAAAAAAAD1g/7srLUfpAGEU/s1600/banner.png"; /></a>
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Ghoulash: The Game of Card Calamity in Tabletop Games
Sep 3, 2019
Ghoulash! I cannot say that word without using a Dracula-esque accent nor without my tummy grumbling (goulash is a yummy traditional Hungarian dish). Anyway, lunch time hangriness aside, Ghoulash is not a new game. In fact, the original version of Ghoulash was released in 2001 under Ghoulash Games. It is a pen-and-paper dungeon crawler for 2 players that we are reviewing as well. This game we are reviewing here is a card version prototype. So how does it play?
In Ghoulash: The Game of Card Calamity (which I will shorten to Ghoulash for the purpose of this review – even though there is the OG Ghoulash as well, I think you know what I’m talking about) players are Ghoul hunters. Ghouls are monstrous green blobsters that are coming for you. You fight them by shooting Ghoo, a purply substance, at them to exploit their weak spots and vanquish them. The first Ghoul hunter to reach 10 Victory Points (VPs) will be crowned the winner!
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. As this is a preview copy of the game, I do not know if the final rules or components will be similar or different to what we were provided. -T
To setup the game, shuffle the deck and place a 6×3 grid of cards in the middle of the table. This is the “floor” and will be the game board for the duration of the game. When the floor is out of cards (I will explain), set out a new 6×3 grid floor and continue play. Deal each hunter a hand of seven cards and you are ready to play!
Each of the face down cards that comprise the floor are opportunities for encounters. You, as a Ghoul hunter, will enter the floor from any border card. On your turn you may fill your hand up to your current hand limit – which changes based on whether you have taken wounds or not. Next you must move orthogonally onto a space that contains a card or an empty space, but you must move – or take your Action first, THEN move. If you move to a space with a card, you encounter the card. Depending on what type of card is flipped face up you will be taking cards into your hand, following Command instructions, or fighting Ghouls. When you have finished your turn it is the next hunter’s turn.
Should your flipped card reveal an Action or Special card, you simply collect the card into your hand. If the flipped card is an Battle card (which has Ghoo splats – like the ones pictured above on the far right), you must follow the Command instructions at the bottom of the card before collecting to your hand. And if it’s a Ghoul you will begin battle!
Battling Ghouls is mechanically simple, but the overall battle may not be. When you face a Ghoul its card will tell you what the strength of the monster is (the white number). It could have four, five, or six hit points (HPs). To vanquish the Ghoul you will need to play cards whose Ghoo value (splats) is equal to or greater than the Ghoul’s HP amount. From this point the other hunters can intervene in the battle by playing cards whose battle Ghoo tips the scales toward the Ghoul thus making it more difficult to defeat (a la the ganging up mechanic in Munchkin). As only one hunter may affect the battle in this way, it is the player’s cards whose strength is greater that wins the challenge. Now the original combatant must spend more Ghoo cards to overcome the super-buffed Ghoul. Should the hunter prevail they will collect the Ghoul card and display it in front of them to show the table how many VPs they have earned. If the hunter is unsuccessful in the battle, they suffer wounds in the amount of VPs that would have been awarded with a successful battle (the green dots at the bottom of the card). Wounds are reflected by cards in hand, so if a hunter suffers two wounds, their hand limit is now five instead of the original seven. Play continues in this fashion until a hunter has accumulated 10 VPs and earned victory!
Components. Per my disclaimer, the game that was sent to us is a prototype version of the completed game, so components may (and probably will) change or be improved as a result of further development, and/or a successful Kickstarter campaign. That said, I can comment only on the components that were provided to us. The game is a deck of cards in a deck box. The cards themselves are of fine quality. The art upon them is okay. Nothing too stellar, but it gets the job done. I think the art is one thing that can be improved with development. Don’t get me wrong, the art is not at all bad. Perhaps it’s the card layout or graphic design. Something with a bit more punch would be appreciated.
Our thoughts on this one are that it needs some sprucing up a bit. Yes, it is in prototype format currently, and we know that. The card design needs to be updated a bit, but the game itself was also lacking a bit. One of the major concerns we had when playing through it was the card grid of the floor. We did not use any sort of player marker, token, meeple, or anything to mark our locations, and I really think that may have helped. We just had a hard time visualizing where our hunter was in relation to the face-down cards and how many turns it would take us to travel to them. There were several times where we just guessed as to who was actually closer and they were able to encounter the card. I am unsure how to fix that without supplying a grid or some sort of tracker. We should have maybe just played with meeples or dice for position markers. Oh heck I just thought of this: we could have also placed out dice or whatever on an x and y axis to denote where floor cards should be. Ugh. Battles were run somewhat smoothly, even though there were times where I was down to one card because I had suffered so many wounds and I could not get a First-Aid Kit to save my life (literally). The battle challenges did not work with us and we were trying to find a good way to make them happen, but our minds must not have been at their peak. We weren’t quite sure if, like in Munchkin, you could just add one card to your challenge total, or if you had to commit the entire bunch of cards you wish to play. It is not clear in the rules, so we went with our guts.
Overall, this could be a good dungeon crawler type card game. The theme is good, but for us it didn’t quite click…yet. If it sounds like something you would like to have in your collection, check Kickstarter for the campaign (if Ghoulash Games decides to crowd-fund this), contact the publisher directly, or (depending on date you read this) purchase from your FLGS. Oh, and keep the Ghoo Gone away – this time Ghoo is good for your health!
In Ghoulash: The Game of Card Calamity (which I will shorten to Ghoulash for the purpose of this review – even though there is the OG Ghoulash as well, I think you know what I’m talking about) players are Ghoul hunters. Ghouls are monstrous green blobsters that are coming for you. You fight them by shooting Ghoo, a purply substance, at them to exploit their weak spots and vanquish them. The first Ghoul hunter to reach 10 Victory Points (VPs) will be crowned the winner!
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. As this is a preview copy of the game, I do not know if the final rules or components will be similar or different to what we were provided. -T
To setup the game, shuffle the deck and place a 6×3 grid of cards in the middle of the table. This is the “floor” and will be the game board for the duration of the game. When the floor is out of cards (I will explain), set out a new 6×3 grid floor and continue play. Deal each hunter a hand of seven cards and you are ready to play!
Each of the face down cards that comprise the floor are opportunities for encounters. You, as a Ghoul hunter, will enter the floor from any border card. On your turn you may fill your hand up to your current hand limit – which changes based on whether you have taken wounds or not. Next you must move orthogonally onto a space that contains a card or an empty space, but you must move – or take your Action first, THEN move. If you move to a space with a card, you encounter the card. Depending on what type of card is flipped face up you will be taking cards into your hand, following Command instructions, or fighting Ghouls. When you have finished your turn it is the next hunter’s turn.
Should your flipped card reveal an Action or Special card, you simply collect the card into your hand. If the flipped card is an Battle card (which has Ghoo splats – like the ones pictured above on the far right), you must follow the Command instructions at the bottom of the card before collecting to your hand. And if it’s a Ghoul you will begin battle!
Battling Ghouls is mechanically simple, but the overall battle may not be. When you face a Ghoul its card will tell you what the strength of the monster is (the white number). It could have four, five, or six hit points (HPs). To vanquish the Ghoul you will need to play cards whose Ghoo value (splats) is equal to or greater than the Ghoul’s HP amount. From this point the other hunters can intervene in the battle by playing cards whose battle Ghoo tips the scales toward the Ghoul thus making it more difficult to defeat (a la the ganging up mechanic in Munchkin). As only one hunter may affect the battle in this way, it is the player’s cards whose strength is greater that wins the challenge. Now the original combatant must spend more Ghoo cards to overcome the super-buffed Ghoul. Should the hunter prevail they will collect the Ghoul card and display it in front of them to show the table how many VPs they have earned. If the hunter is unsuccessful in the battle, they suffer wounds in the amount of VPs that would have been awarded with a successful battle (the green dots at the bottom of the card). Wounds are reflected by cards in hand, so if a hunter suffers two wounds, their hand limit is now five instead of the original seven. Play continues in this fashion until a hunter has accumulated 10 VPs and earned victory!
Components. Per my disclaimer, the game that was sent to us is a prototype version of the completed game, so components may (and probably will) change or be improved as a result of further development, and/or a successful Kickstarter campaign. That said, I can comment only on the components that were provided to us. The game is a deck of cards in a deck box. The cards themselves are of fine quality. The art upon them is okay. Nothing too stellar, but it gets the job done. I think the art is one thing that can be improved with development. Don’t get me wrong, the art is not at all bad. Perhaps it’s the card layout or graphic design. Something with a bit more punch would be appreciated.
Our thoughts on this one are that it needs some sprucing up a bit. Yes, it is in prototype format currently, and we know that. The card design needs to be updated a bit, but the game itself was also lacking a bit. One of the major concerns we had when playing through it was the card grid of the floor. We did not use any sort of player marker, token, meeple, or anything to mark our locations, and I really think that may have helped. We just had a hard time visualizing where our hunter was in relation to the face-down cards and how many turns it would take us to travel to them. There were several times where we just guessed as to who was actually closer and they were able to encounter the card. I am unsure how to fix that without supplying a grid or some sort of tracker. We should have maybe just played with meeples or dice for position markers. Oh heck I just thought of this: we could have also placed out dice or whatever on an x and y axis to denote where floor cards should be. Ugh. Battles were run somewhat smoothly, even though there were times where I was down to one card because I had suffered so many wounds and I could not get a First-Aid Kit to save my life (literally). The battle challenges did not work with us and we were trying to find a good way to make them happen, but our minds must not have been at their peak. We weren’t quite sure if, like in Munchkin, you could just add one card to your challenge total, or if you had to commit the entire bunch of cards you wish to play. It is not clear in the rules, so we went with our guts.
Overall, this could be a good dungeon crawler type card game. The theme is good, but for us it didn’t quite click…yet. If it sounds like something you would like to have in your collection, check Kickstarter for the campaign (if Ghoulash Games decides to crowd-fund this), contact the publisher directly, or (depending on date you read this) purchase from your FLGS. Oh, and keep the Ghoo Gone away – this time Ghoo is good for your health!
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Shadows of Kilforth: A Fantasy Quest Game in Tabletop Games
Sep 3, 2020
Have you ever sat down to read a rulebook and had to split it up into several reading sessions? I have multiple times. This happened just recently when I sat down to learn Shadows of Kilforth. Granted, I have two kids that take up the majority of my time and they provide plenty of adorable distraction, but even still, this absolute unit of a rulebook took me a good few days to actually finish. Was the time and effort worth it in the end? Yes. Absolutely. Keep reading.
Shadows of Kilforth is subtitled, “A Fantasy Quest Game.” Right there in the title you find out exactly what you are up against in the very foreboding but unassumingly-sized box. A game set in a fantasy world that is focused on questing. I have to admit up front that this review will be treated a little differently as the rulebook is hefty and nobody wants to read a thorough rules essay on Shadows. So I will give you a very high-level overview of the main steps and then give you my thoughts on how it all works together.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
Shadows of Kilforth is essentially a card and dice RPG-esque adventure game with an Asian-style theme but set in a fantasy world where locations will be devastated into gloom (building upon the first in the series Gloom of Kilforth). The players, as the heroes, have the daunting task of journeying throughout Kilforth’s 25 locations to collect items, allies, spells, and titles to overcome main quests and subquests before every location falls into gloom. These quests usually have the players gathering specific card types to satisfy and complete. Once main player storyline quests, called Sagas, are completed the hero levels up and when they complete their fourth quest in their main Saga they may attempt their Finale and then may finally assault the big boss, the Ancient.
Each turn players have Action Points (AP) to spend on doing different actions: movement, discovering rumours (yes, I know it’s the Queen’s English), confrontations, and regaling a Saga chapter, among several others. Some actions are free actions, called Deeds. These include resolving loot tokens, assaulting an ancient, exchanging items between players, and several others. By using combinations of Actions and Deeds players will be able to travel around collecting those items, allies, and so forth needed to complete their Saga chapters.
To complete objectives and quests, players will typically be rolling dice to meet requirements on the cards. This, as all role-players know, can be either supremely lucky or incredibly and predictably debilitating. Skill checks are abundant in Shadows and diversifying characters may or may not have advantages by being able to complete Fight, Study, Sneak, and Influence tests. Players will win if they can complete their Sagas and defeat the Ancient before all of the locations fall into gloom, signaling the end of the game.
All this, again, is very high-level and there are many intricacies in Shadows that I just cannot go over for the sake of time and the health of my typing fingers. But, the game can be played solo, cooperatively, or competitively. So depending on the mode of play and number of players Shadows can range from a 45 minute foray to multi-hour epics. This is why I have played this solo with one character for my plays.
Components. Shadows of Kilforth is very card-heavy, but also includes other goodies. The cards themselves are firstly quite numerous, but also good quality. I can see myself sleeving this and loving every minute of that process. Aside from the cards, the game includes standees for player pieces on the card map, wooden components to track HP, AP, Fate, Obstacles, Gold, Hidden characters, great swirly 6d6, and also cardboard chits for Loot tokens. I haven’t even mentioned the art yet and that may be the most stunning component in this game! I LOVE a game with great art, and Shadows has simply amazing art. This is not usually my style of game art either, but it is so pleasing and everything makes sense and gets me immersed in the game. Everything provided is wonderful quality and an absolute joy to use during play.
Ok so like always, we place our ratings graphic right at the top of our posts so our readers can see right away what we think of the game. As you can tell, I love Shadows of Kilforth. It has essences of so many games I enjoy pieced together in a very attractive and captivating package. The movement and subsequent destruction of map-cards are reminiscent of Forbidden Island/Desert and Tiny Epic Defenders, which I really love (don’t hate – it’s a good game). The gathering of select card types and returning to a location to complete feels like fetch quests in MMORPGs (Final Fantasy XI being my main squeeze for many years). Obviously dice skill checks and level ups from tabletop RPGs are in there as well.
Shadows is just such a great collection of mechanics that I love that I can see myself playing this game over and over and over. Caveat: I will never play this any way other than absolutely solo. My first play, yes a learning session, was just shy of two hours from setup to tear-down. Adding players will increase game length, and playing with AP-prone friends is a no-go for me on Shadows; I had to reference both the excellent provided cheat sheet and the rulebook throughout the play but I eventually got the hang of it and was able to fly through. I may play this solo but with multiple characters cooperatively someday, but I do not wish to play this with other people. Ever.
So here’s my final thought. Shadow of Kilforth is a beefy game, but is well worth the time and effort to learn and play a couple times before passing judgment. It has everything I love in a game and I can’t stop thinking about it. I want to play all the different Race/Class combinations and just dunk on all the Ancients. If only my dice didn’t hate me so much. I will certainly be keeping this one forever, and if you are a fan of fantasy themed adventure card games with heavy use of dice and cool components, DEFINITELY take a look at Shadows of Kilforth. As I am the only one who has played this, I speak for the team in saying Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a 6 / 6. Treat yoself to this one, folks.
Shadows of Kilforth is subtitled, “A Fantasy Quest Game.” Right there in the title you find out exactly what you are up against in the very foreboding but unassumingly-sized box. A game set in a fantasy world that is focused on questing. I have to admit up front that this review will be treated a little differently as the rulebook is hefty and nobody wants to read a thorough rules essay on Shadows. So I will give you a very high-level overview of the main steps and then give you my thoughts on how it all works together.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
Shadows of Kilforth is essentially a card and dice RPG-esque adventure game with an Asian-style theme but set in a fantasy world where locations will be devastated into gloom (building upon the first in the series Gloom of Kilforth). The players, as the heroes, have the daunting task of journeying throughout Kilforth’s 25 locations to collect items, allies, spells, and titles to overcome main quests and subquests before every location falls into gloom. These quests usually have the players gathering specific card types to satisfy and complete. Once main player storyline quests, called Sagas, are completed the hero levels up and when they complete their fourth quest in their main Saga they may attempt their Finale and then may finally assault the big boss, the Ancient.
Each turn players have Action Points (AP) to spend on doing different actions: movement, discovering rumours (yes, I know it’s the Queen’s English), confrontations, and regaling a Saga chapter, among several others. Some actions are free actions, called Deeds. These include resolving loot tokens, assaulting an ancient, exchanging items between players, and several others. By using combinations of Actions and Deeds players will be able to travel around collecting those items, allies, and so forth needed to complete their Saga chapters.
To complete objectives and quests, players will typically be rolling dice to meet requirements on the cards. This, as all role-players know, can be either supremely lucky or incredibly and predictably debilitating. Skill checks are abundant in Shadows and diversifying characters may or may not have advantages by being able to complete Fight, Study, Sneak, and Influence tests. Players will win if they can complete their Sagas and defeat the Ancient before all of the locations fall into gloom, signaling the end of the game.
All this, again, is very high-level and there are many intricacies in Shadows that I just cannot go over for the sake of time and the health of my typing fingers. But, the game can be played solo, cooperatively, or competitively. So depending on the mode of play and number of players Shadows can range from a 45 minute foray to multi-hour epics. This is why I have played this solo with one character for my plays.
Components. Shadows of Kilforth is very card-heavy, but also includes other goodies. The cards themselves are firstly quite numerous, but also good quality. I can see myself sleeving this and loving every minute of that process. Aside from the cards, the game includes standees for player pieces on the card map, wooden components to track HP, AP, Fate, Obstacles, Gold, Hidden characters, great swirly 6d6, and also cardboard chits for Loot tokens. I haven’t even mentioned the art yet and that may be the most stunning component in this game! I LOVE a game with great art, and Shadows has simply amazing art. This is not usually my style of game art either, but it is so pleasing and everything makes sense and gets me immersed in the game. Everything provided is wonderful quality and an absolute joy to use during play.
Ok so like always, we place our ratings graphic right at the top of our posts so our readers can see right away what we think of the game. As you can tell, I love Shadows of Kilforth. It has essences of so many games I enjoy pieced together in a very attractive and captivating package. The movement and subsequent destruction of map-cards are reminiscent of Forbidden Island/Desert and Tiny Epic Defenders, which I really love (don’t hate – it’s a good game). The gathering of select card types and returning to a location to complete feels like fetch quests in MMORPGs (Final Fantasy XI being my main squeeze for many years). Obviously dice skill checks and level ups from tabletop RPGs are in there as well.
Shadows is just such a great collection of mechanics that I love that I can see myself playing this game over and over and over. Caveat: I will never play this any way other than absolutely solo. My first play, yes a learning session, was just shy of two hours from setup to tear-down. Adding players will increase game length, and playing with AP-prone friends is a no-go for me on Shadows; I had to reference both the excellent provided cheat sheet and the rulebook throughout the play but I eventually got the hang of it and was able to fly through. I may play this solo but with multiple characters cooperatively someday, but I do not wish to play this with other people. Ever.
So here’s my final thought. Shadow of Kilforth is a beefy game, but is well worth the time and effort to learn and play a couple times before passing judgment. It has everything I love in a game and I can’t stop thinking about it. I want to play all the different Race/Class combinations and just dunk on all the Ancients. If only my dice didn’t hate me so much. I will certainly be keeping this one forever, and if you are a fan of fantasy themed adventure card games with heavy use of dice and cool components, DEFINITELY take a look at Shadows of Kilforth. As I am the only one who has played this, I speak for the team in saying Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a 6 / 6. Treat yoself to this one, folks.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Artemis Fowl (2020) in Movies
Jun 13, 2020
Disney: "We're making a film of Artemis Fowl!"
Me: *wildly switches from happiness to devastation about the possibilities*
Artemis Fowl's father, Artemis Fowl Snr., has gone missing, the media is portraying him as a criminal and calling for answers. Shocked and confused by what's happening Artemis Jnr. receives a phone call from his father's kidnapper and must hand over an item to secure his release. But he's no idea what the item is, or where, he's about to learn a great deal about fantastical things in a very short space of time and meet an odd selection of new friends.
So... I'm going to break this down into two parts, the first bit will be just about the film and the second will be me ranting about the film in conjunction with the book... *calm thoughts* Let us begin.
From the very beginning I was thrown, the opening in no way seems like a family film and I was wondering if by avoiding reading about it all beforehand that I'd got the wrong idea about what to expect.
With such a good cast backing up our newcomers I had medium hopes for what was going to hit our screens...
Ferdia Shaw takes on the part of Artemis Fowl Jnr., putting aside the comparison between the two versions until later, the performance isn't bad but it's quite forgettable. The same sadly goes for Lara McDonnell as Holly Short. Neither one has much of a presence on screen and I think that's mostly to do with the fact that Artemis and Holly are both rather bland in the whole story.
There's something oddly appealing about Josh Gad as Mulch but I'm not sure that giving him such a large role as narrator worked. It's never really clear why he's given that role and the scene's where we cut back to him talking are given a strange noir look that doesn't match with the rest of the film. Even so, I'm willing to concede that he's my favourite character as he has just enough humour to carry it.
Judi Dench as Commander Root was a little bit of a challenge to see. Root is a gruff but caring character, the trouble come in the fact that the change comes quite unnaturally at times.
One of the main failings is that there are times when the script feels poor, the dialogue is a little forced and doesn't fit with the characters, couple that with a variety of scenes that don't fit with the style of everything else and the fact that some pieces could be removed without really affecting anything around it and I'm left less than inspired by the film.
I did like the look of Haven City, the animation of the overhead view looked really promising. As we got into the city though I couldn't help but think it looked a little cheap and the aesthetic wasn't great. Effects, in general, were not good if I'm honest, particularly when you get to the siege on Fowl manor, when the siege is ending it comes with some chaos that is a perfect example of this coupled with another example of how the story glosses over an explanation of what's happening that could have offered some extra development for characters. (Specifically in this instance, Foley, who was woefully underused. He might not have been as majestic as a Brosnan centaur but he deserved better than the film gave him.)
By the end a lot of things get resolved seemingly by fairy magic because it's not clear how any of it happens. Potentially it's something that I wouldn't have noticed as there's a certain amount of this kind of wrapping up that you can forgive, but by this point I was so frustrated by everything that I was spotting everything.
I'm aware I'm waffling more than I intended so let me "briefly" mention things regarding the book...
The film is, in my opinion, only vaguely based on the book. It has kept ideas and pieces of story while removing and adding characters to varying degrees. Notably Artemis' mother is gone and his father is there instead. Removing mum makes Juliet's inclusion surplus to requirements, I can understand wanting to keep her for a young female character for viewers to identify with, but the role she ends up with is bland and in no way lives up to the book's version. The blandness also extends to her brother, Butler, and that's partly because of the major change they made...
Artemis. He is barely recognisable in comparison. He's a jeans-wearing, surfing, tween? He's much more casual than the original and this fluffier version doesn't have the same edge that book Artemis does. In their revamp they have changed his story and I very quickly felt like it could have been a sequel to the books, Artemis Snr. felt more like the Artemis from the books grown up and he was teaching his son about all the things he learnt. Part of the thing I enjoyed about the books is that Artemis was always an anti-hero of sorts, he was very difficult to like at times because of his actions, film Artemis is a little bit jumbled in this respect as they give him a very clear reason for the things he does so when he tries to show that tough side it doesn't have any impact.
There are a lot of differences, but I will leave that analysis for someone who is much more thorough at scouring the books and film than I am. I'll be keeping my eye out for other reviews with the comparisons in, if you spot any then please leave a link in the comments below.
When it came to scoring this I thought about it on two levels.
As a film from such a big company I was quite shocked by the quality of script and effects, there was a baddie that didn't really participate in anything and there were scenes and characters which weren't needed... and to finish it off in such an obvious set up for a sequel... I was done. I had marked it down for a generous score of 2 stars, that's normally my "I didn't like it but I can see why other people might" score, but I can't quite see what would appeal to people in it if I'm honest.
As an adaptation of the book I was too frustrated by the changes they made to Artemis, they essentially changed the fundamentals of the character and that had a knock-on effect to other characters as well. No one came out unscathed, but even though Mulch was heavily adapted I was glad that some of his humour was still there. Scoring on this basis I would have given it 1 star, but again, that felt generous to me.
In the end I will always score something on my enjoyment, in this instance it seems fair to even out the two scores. They've taken a great book and removed most of its personality, the final product was not exciting to watch and I don't think I could bring myself to watch a sequel.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/artemis-fowl-movie-review.html
Me: *wildly switches from happiness to devastation about the possibilities*
Artemis Fowl's father, Artemis Fowl Snr., has gone missing, the media is portraying him as a criminal and calling for answers. Shocked and confused by what's happening Artemis Jnr. receives a phone call from his father's kidnapper and must hand over an item to secure his release. But he's no idea what the item is, or where, he's about to learn a great deal about fantastical things in a very short space of time and meet an odd selection of new friends.
So... I'm going to break this down into two parts, the first bit will be just about the film and the second will be me ranting about the film in conjunction with the book... *calm thoughts* Let us begin.
From the very beginning I was thrown, the opening in no way seems like a family film and I was wondering if by avoiding reading about it all beforehand that I'd got the wrong idea about what to expect.
With such a good cast backing up our newcomers I had medium hopes for what was going to hit our screens...
Ferdia Shaw takes on the part of Artemis Fowl Jnr., putting aside the comparison between the two versions until later, the performance isn't bad but it's quite forgettable. The same sadly goes for Lara McDonnell as Holly Short. Neither one has much of a presence on screen and I think that's mostly to do with the fact that Artemis and Holly are both rather bland in the whole story.
There's something oddly appealing about Josh Gad as Mulch but I'm not sure that giving him such a large role as narrator worked. It's never really clear why he's given that role and the scene's where we cut back to him talking are given a strange noir look that doesn't match with the rest of the film. Even so, I'm willing to concede that he's my favourite character as he has just enough humour to carry it.
Judi Dench as Commander Root was a little bit of a challenge to see. Root is a gruff but caring character, the trouble come in the fact that the change comes quite unnaturally at times.
One of the main failings is that there are times when the script feels poor, the dialogue is a little forced and doesn't fit with the characters, couple that with a variety of scenes that don't fit with the style of everything else and the fact that some pieces could be removed without really affecting anything around it and I'm left less than inspired by the film.
I did like the look of Haven City, the animation of the overhead view looked really promising. As we got into the city though I couldn't help but think it looked a little cheap and the aesthetic wasn't great. Effects, in general, were not good if I'm honest, particularly when you get to the siege on Fowl manor, when the siege is ending it comes with some chaos that is a perfect example of this coupled with another example of how the story glosses over an explanation of what's happening that could have offered some extra development for characters. (Specifically in this instance, Foley, who was woefully underused. He might not have been as majestic as a Brosnan centaur but he deserved better than the film gave him.)
By the end a lot of things get resolved seemingly by fairy magic because it's not clear how any of it happens. Potentially it's something that I wouldn't have noticed as there's a certain amount of this kind of wrapping up that you can forgive, but by this point I was so frustrated by everything that I was spotting everything.
I'm aware I'm waffling more than I intended so let me "briefly" mention things regarding the book...
The film is, in my opinion, only vaguely based on the book. It has kept ideas and pieces of story while removing and adding characters to varying degrees. Notably Artemis' mother is gone and his father is there instead. Removing mum makes Juliet's inclusion surplus to requirements, I can understand wanting to keep her for a young female character for viewers to identify with, but the role she ends up with is bland and in no way lives up to the book's version. The blandness also extends to her brother, Butler, and that's partly because of the major change they made...
Artemis. He is barely recognisable in comparison. He's a jeans-wearing, surfing, tween? He's much more casual than the original and this fluffier version doesn't have the same edge that book Artemis does. In their revamp they have changed his story and I very quickly felt like it could have been a sequel to the books, Artemis Snr. felt more like the Artemis from the books grown up and he was teaching his son about all the things he learnt. Part of the thing I enjoyed about the books is that Artemis was always an anti-hero of sorts, he was very difficult to like at times because of his actions, film Artemis is a little bit jumbled in this respect as they give him a very clear reason for the things he does so when he tries to show that tough side it doesn't have any impact.
There are a lot of differences, but I will leave that analysis for someone who is much more thorough at scouring the books and film than I am. I'll be keeping my eye out for other reviews with the comparisons in, if you spot any then please leave a link in the comments below.
When it came to scoring this I thought about it on two levels.
As a film from such a big company I was quite shocked by the quality of script and effects, there was a baddie that didn't really participate in anything and there were scenes and characters which weren't needed... and to finish it off in such an obvious set up for a sequel... I was done. I had marked it down for a generous score of 2 stars, that's normally my "I didn't like it but I can see why other people might" score, but I can't quite see what would appeal to people in it if I'm honest.
As an adaptation of the book I was too frustrated by the changes they made to Artemis, they essentially changed the fundamentals of the character and that had a knock-on effect to other characters as well. No one came out unscathed, but even though Mulch was heavily adapted I was glad that some of his humour was still there. Scoring on this basis I would have given it 1 star, but again, that felt generous to me.
In the end I will always score something on my enjoyment, in this instance it seems fair to even out the two scores. They've taken a great book and removed most of its personality, the final product was not exciting to watch and I don't think I could bring myself to watch a sequel.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/artemis-fowl-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Shazam! (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Zoltar Rides Again!
All work and no play makes Bob the Movie Man a dull reviewer. Due to work commitments, this is the first film I’ve been able to see at the cinema for over a month. There’s a whole slew of films I wanted to see that have already come and gone. Big sigh. So I might be about the last of the crowd to review this, but I’m glad I caught it before it shuffled off its silver screen coil.
Every review I’ve seen of this starts off with the hackneyed comment that “At last, DC have produced a fun film” – so I won’t (even though it’s true!).
The Plot
“Shazam!” harks back, strongly, to the vehicle that helped launch Tom Hanks‘ illustrious career – Penny Marshall’s “Big” from 1988. In that film the young teen Josh (David Moscow) visits a deserted fairground where “Zoltar” mystically (and without explanation) morphs Josh into his adult self (Hanks). Much fun is had with Hanks showing his best friend Billy the joys (and sometimes otherwise) of booze, girls and other adult pastimes. In similar vein, in “Shazam!” we see the parent-less Billy Batson (Asher Angel) hijacked on a Philadelphia subway train and transformed into a DC superhero as a last-gasp effort of the ancient-wizard (Djimon Hounsou) to find someone ‘good’ to pass his magic onto. “Grab onto my staff with both hands” (Ugh) and say my name – “Juman….”…. no, sorry, wrong film…. “Shazam!”. And as in “Big”, Billy has to explore his new superhero powers with the only person vaguely close to him; his new foster-brother Freddie (Jack Dylan Grazer from “It”).
Billy is not the first to have met the wizard – not by a long shot. There has been a long line of potential candidates examined and rejected on this road, one of which, back in 1974, was the unhappy youngster Thaddeus Sivana (Ethan Pugiotto, but now grown up as Mark Cross), who has a seething chip on his shoulder as big as the Liberty Bell. Gaining evil super-powers of his own, the race is on to see if Dr Sivana can track down the fledgling Billy before he can learn to master his superhero skills and so take him down.
Wizards with red capes?
With the loose exception of possibly Scarlet Witch, I don’t think it’s actually ever been explored before that “superheroes” are actually “magicians” with different coloured capes… it’s a novel take. Before the Marvel/DC wheels eventually come off – which before another twenty years are up they surely must? – will we see a “Harry Potter vs Superman” crossover? “YOUR MOTHER’S NAME WAS LILY AND MINE WAS MARTHA…. L AND M ARE NEXT TO EACH OTHER IN THE DICTIONARY!!!!” The mind boggles.
What does make “Shazam!” interesting is that the story is consciously set in a DC world where Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman and the rest all live and breathe. Freddie has a Bat-a-rang (“only a replica”) and a carefully shrink-wrapped squashed bullet that had impacted on Superman’s body. So when Billy – in superhero form – makes his appearances on the streets of Philly, this makes “Shazam” an “oh look, there’s another one” curiosity rather than an out-and-out marvel.
(Source: Warner Brothers). Lightning from the fingers! Proving very useful for Shazam’s own….
Much fun is obviously had with “Shazam” testing out his powers. Freddie’s Youtube videos gather thousands of hits baas Billy tries to fly; tries to burn; tries to use his “laser sight”; etc.
What works well.
It’s a fun flick that delivers the Marvel laughs of “Ragnarok” and “Ant Man” without ever really getting to the gravitas of either. The screenplay writer (Henry Gayden) is clearly a lover of cinema, as there are numerous references to other movies scattered throughout the film: the victory run of “Rocky” (obviously); the cracking windshield of “The Lost World”; the scary-gross-out body disintegrations of “Indiana Jones”; the portal entry doors of “Monsters, Inc”. Even making an appearance briefly, as a respectful nod presumably to the story’s plagiarism, is the toy-store floor piano of “Big”. There are probably a load of other movie Easter Eggs that I missed.
Playing Billy, the relatively unknown Zachary Levi also charms in a similarly goofball way as Hanks did all those years ago. (Actually, he’s more reminiscent of the wide-eyed delight of Brendan Fraser’s “George of the Jungle” rather than Hanks). In turns, his character is genuinely delighted then shocked at his successes and failures (“Leaping buildings with a single bound” – LOL!). Also holding up their own admirably are the young leads Asher Angel and Jack Dylan Grazer.
Mark Cross, although having flaunted with being the good guy in the “Kingsman” films, is now firmly back in baddie territory as the “supervillain”: and very good he is at it too; I thought he was the best thing in the whole film.
Finally, the movie’s got a satisfying story arc, with Billy undergoing an emotional journey that emphasises the importance of family. But it’s not done in a slushy manipulative way.
What works less well.
As many of you know, I have a few rules-of-thumb for movies, one of which is that a comedy had better by bloody good if it’s going to have a run-time of much more than 90 minutes. At 132 minutes, “Shazam!” overstayed its welcome for me by a good 20 or 30 minutes. Director David F. Sandberg could have made a much tighter and better film if he had wielded the editing knife a bit more freely. I typically enjoy getting backstory to characters, and in many ways this film delivers where many don’t. The pre-credit scenes with Thaddeus nicely paint the character for his (hideous) actions that follow. However, Billy is over-burdened with backstory, and it takes wayyyyyyy too long for the “Shazam!” to happen and the fun to begin. We also lapse into an overlong superhero finale. I didn’t actually see the twist in the plot coming, which was good, but once there then the denouement could and should have been much swifter.
The film also has its scary moments and deserves its 12A certificate. As a film rather painted as kid-friendly from the trailer and the poster, there is probably the potential to traumatise young children here, particularly in a terrifying scene in a board room (with a view). As well as the physical scares there is also a dark streak running under the story that reminded me of both the original “Jumanji” and “Ghostbusters”. Parents beware.
Monkeys?
Following on from the Marvel expectations, there are a couple of “monkeys” (see Glossary) in the title roll: one mid-titles, featuring Dr Sivana and implying an undoubted sequel, and one right at the end pointing fun at the otherwise ignored “Aquaman”.
Final thoughts.
It’s clearly been a long overdue hit for DC, and on the whole I enjoyed it. If the film had been a bit tighter, this would have had the potential to be a classic.
Every review I’ve seen of this starts off with the hackneyed comment that “At last, DC have produced a fun film” – so I won’t (even though it’s true!).
The Plot
“Shazam!” harks back, strongly, to the vehicle that helped launch Tom Hanks‘ illustrious career – Penny Marshall’s “Big” from 1988. In that film the young teen Josh (David Moscow) visits a deserted fairground where “Zoltar” mystically (and without explanation) morphs Josh into his adult self (Hanks). Much fun is had with Hanks showing his best friend Billy the joys (and sometimes otherwise) of booze, girls and other adult pastimes. In similar vein, in “Shazam!” we see the parent-less Billy Batson (Asher Angel) hijacked on a Philadelphia subway train and transformed into a DC superhero as a last-gasp effort of the ancient-wizard (Djimon Hounsou) to find someone ‘good’ to pass his magic onto. “Grab onto my staff with both hands” (Ugh) and say my name – “Juman….”…. no, sorry, wrong film…. “Shazam!”. And as in “Big”, Billy has to explore his new superhero powers with the only person vaguely close to him; his new foster-brother Freddie (Jack Dylan Grazer from “It”).
Billy is not the first to have met the wizard – not by a long shot. There has been a long line of potential candidates examined and rejected on this road, one of which, back in 1974, was the unhappy youngster Thaddeus Sivana (Ethan Pugiotto, but now grown up as Mark Cross), who has a seething chip on his shoulder as big as the Liberty Bell. Gaining evil super-powers of his own, the race is on to see if Dr Sivana can track down the fledgling Billy before he can learn to master his superhero skills and so take him down.
Wizards with red capes?
With the loose exception of possibly Scarlet Witch, I don’t think it’s actually ever been explored before that “superheroes” are actually “magicians” with different coloured capes… it’s a novel take. Before the Marvel/DC wheels eventually come off – which before another twenty years are up they surely must? – will we see a “Harry Potter vs Superman” crossover? “YOUR MOTHER’S NAME WAS LILY AND MINE WAS MARTHA…. L AND M ARE NEXT TO EACH OTHER IN THE DICTIONARY!!!!” The mind boggles.
What does make “Shazam!” interesting is that the story is consciously set in a DC world where Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman and the rest all live and breathe. Freddie has a Bat-a-rang (“only a replica”) and a carefully shrink-wrapped squashed bullet that had impacted on Superman’s body. So when Billy – in superhero form – makes his appearances on the streets of Philly, this makes “Shazam” an “oh look, there’s another one” curiosity rather than an out-and-out marvel.
(Source: Warner Brothers). Lightning from the fingers! Proving very useful for Shazam’s own….
Much fun is obviously had with “Shazam” testing out his powers. Freddie’s Youtube videos gather thousands of hits baas Billy tries to fly; tries to burn; tries to use his “laser sight”; etc.
What works well.
It’s a fun flick that delivers the Marvel laughs of “Ragnarok” and “Ant Man” without ever really getting to the gravitas of either. The screenplay writer (Henry Gayden) is clearly a lover of cinema, as there are numerous references to other movies scattered throughout the film: the victory run of “Rocky” (obviously); the cracking windshield of “The Lost World”; the scary-gross-out body disintegrations of “Indiana Jones”; the portal entry doors of “Monsters, Inc”. Even making an appearance briefly, as a respectful nod presumably to the story’s plagiarism, is the toy-store floor piano of “Big”. There are probably a load of other movie Easter Eggs that I missed.
Playing Billy, the relatively unknown Zachary Levi also charms in a similarly goofball way as Hanks did all those years ago. (Actually, he’s more reminiscent of the wide-eyed delight of Brendan Fraser’s “George of the Jungle” rather than Hanks). In turns, his character is genuinely delighted then shocked at his successes and failures (“Leaping buildings with a single bound” – LOL!). Also holding up their own admirably are the young leads Asher Angel and Jack Dylan Grazer.
Mark Cross, although having flaunted with being the good guy in the “Kingsman” films, is now firmly back in baddie territory as the “supervillain”: and very good he is at it too; I thought he was the best thing in the whole film.
Finally, the movie’s got a satisfying story arc, with Billy undergoing an emotional journey that emphasises the importance of family. But it’s not done in a slushy manipulative way.
What works less well.
As many of you know, I have a few rules-of-thumb for movies, one of which is that a comedy had better by bloody good if it’s going to have a run-time of much more than 90 minutes. At 132 minutes, “Shazam!” overstayed its welcome for me by a good 20 or 30 minutes. Director David F. Sandberg could have made a much tighter and better film if he had wielded the editing knife a bit more freely. I typically enjoy getting backstory to characters, and in many ways this film delivers where many don’t. The pre-credit scenes with Thaddeus nicely paint the character for his (hideous) actions that follow. However, Billy is over-burdened with backstory, and it takes wayyyyyyy too long for the “Shazam!” to happen and the fun to begin. We also lapse into an overlong superhero finale. I didn’t actually see the twist in the plot coming, which was good, but once there then the denouement could and should have been much swifter.
The film also has its scary moments and deserves its 12A certificate. As a film rather painted as kid-friendly from the trailer and the poster, there is probably the potential to traumatise young children here, particularly in a terrifying scene in a board room (with a view). As well as the physical scares there is also a dark streak running under the story that reminded me of both the original “Jumanji” and “Ghostbusters”. Parents beware.
Monkeys?
Following on from the Marvel expectations, there are a couple of “monkeys” (see Glossary) in the title roll: one mid-titles, featuring Dr Sivana and implying an undoubted sequel, and one right at the end pointing fun at the otherwise ignored “Aquaman”.
Final thoughts.
It’s clearly been a long overdue hit for DC, and on the whole I enjoyed it. If the film had been a bit tighter, this would have had the potential to be a classic.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated If Beale Street Could Talk (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Love and Rage against the machine.
The baby asked,
‘Is there not one righteous among them?”
― James Baldwin, If Beale Street Could Talk
Beale Street refers to the jumpin’ heart of Memphis where Louis Armstrong was born. As explained in text from Baldwin’s source book (requiring a speed read!) it’s used as a metaphor for the birthplace of every black person in America. (“Every black person in America was born on Beale Street“). But the story is set in Harlem, New York, and with this intellectual stretch, before I even get past the title, I am immediately reaching for the “P-word”, of which more later.
The Plot
Tish (KiKi Layne) is 19 and in love with her lifelong friend ‘Fonny’ (Stephan James). So much in love in fact (and so careless) that Tish is now pregnant with his child. Tish must break this news to both families herself, since Fonny is inside awaiting trial for a vicious rape that he claims he didn’t commit. Tish and their joint families are trying to help, but can Fonny be released in time to see the birth of his child? Or are the institutions so set against him that release is impossible and death row might await?
Interwoven with Love and Anger
At its heart, this film portrays a truly beautiful love story. Tish and Fonny (both adorably played by the young leads) are friends becoming more than friends. We see their emerging love through flashback scenes. Some of these, particularly one on a metro train, are exquisitely done; long gazes into eyes, starting as one thing and ending as another.
In another scene, Fonny takes Tish’s virginity, and it’s done with style, taste and finesse. For younger teens this should be compulsory viewing as an antidote to all the horrible porn they are seeing on the internet: THIS is what sex, based on a foundation of true love, is all about. (The film is UK15 rated for “infrequent very strong language, strong sex” – I actually agree with the rating for the language (and actually I think an act of marital violence should also have also been referenced)…. but not for the sex, which should be 12A).
It’s a love story then? Well, yes, but offset against that, it’s a very angry film, seething with rage about how the police force and the justice system is set ‘against the black man’. Director Barry Jenkins (of – eventual – Oscar winner “Moonlight” fame) has a message to impart and he is intent on imparting it.
A great ensemble performance
The film didn’t get a SAG nomination for the ensemble cast, but it almost feels that they missed out here. As well as the two young leads being spectacular, the whole of the rest of the cast really gel well together, particularly the respective parents: Colman Domingo (“Selma“) as Tish’s father Joseph; Regina King as Tish’s mother Sharon; Michael Beach (“Patriots Day“) as Fonny’s father Frank and Aunjanue Ellis as his bible-bashing mother. A dramatic scene where they all collectively hear the news about the pregnancy is both comical and shocking in equal measure.
Poor sound mixing
If this film gets an Oscar nomination for sound, I’ll frankly be cross! There is significant use of sonorous, bass-heavy music and effects (including a lovely cello theme by Nicholas Britell) – all very effective; there is a lot of earnest and quietly spoken dialogue between the characters – also moody and effective. Unfortunately the two are mixed together in some scenes and frankly I couldn’t make out what was being said. Most frustrating.
In addition, there is voiceover narration from Tish (if you follow my blog regularly you KNOW what I think about that!). Actually, this isn’t as overly intrusive as in films like “The Hate U Give“, but it sounds like it was recorded in a dustbin! It’s a bit like that effect you get with headphones where the plug isn’t quite in the socket, and everything sounds way off and tinny. When combined with Layne’s accent the effect, again, made the dialogue difficult to comprehend.
The c-word and the n-word
There’s a degree of bad language in the film, albeit mild in comparison to “The Favourite“! Tish’s sister (Teyonah Parris) uses the c-word in one very funny dissing of Fonny’s ‘up-themselves’ sisters (Ebony Obsidian and Dominique Thorne). But the n-word is used repeatedly during the film, and that I can never get used to. I ‘get it’ (in the sense that I understand the perception) that this is a word that ‘only black people can use between themselves’. But this just feels elitist and wrong to me. At a time when Viggo Mortensen gets crucified for using it once (while being descriptive and in-context) during a press junket for “Green Book“, I just feel that if a word is taboo it should be taboo, period.
The p-word
My p-word here is “pretentious”. Barry Jenkins clearly feels he has something to prove after the success of “Moonlight“, and there are certainly moments of directorial brilliance in the film. As previously mentioned, the sex scene is one of the best I’ve seen in a long while. Also beautifully done are a birthing scene and two confrontational scenes in Puerto Rico. But there are also moments that seem to be staged, artificial and too ‘arty’ for their own good. Any hidden meaning behind them completely passed me by. (Examples are Sharon’s wig scene and a pan around Fonny’s wood sculpture). It all seems to be “trying too hard”.
Hate for the police is also writ large on the film, with every discriminatory police officer in the whole of the US embodied in the wicked sneering face of the police office Bell (Ed Skrein).
A platform that should be used for more than ranting
This is a film written and directed by an American black man (Jenkins) and largely fully cast with American black people. And I’m a white Englishman commenting on it. I’m clearly unqualified to pass judgement on how black America really feels about things! But comment I will from this fug of ignorance.
It feels to me that the “Black Lives Movement” has given, at long last, black film-makers like Jenkins a platform in cinema to present from. This is a great thing. But I’m sensing that at the moment the tone of the output from that platform (such as this film) seems to me heavily tinged with anger: a scream of frustration about the system and racial injustice over the years. It’s the film-makers right to make films about subjects dear to them. And I’m sure this summer we’ll sadly again see atrocities as previously seen in the likes of Ferguson and Dallas, fuelling the fire of hate. But I would personally really like to see someone like Jenkins use his undoubted talents to make a more uplifting film: a film reflecting the more positive strives that are happening in society, allowing for people of all races and all sexual orientations to make their way in business (not drug-running or crime!) and/or life in general. Those good news stories – the positive side of race relations – are out there and my view is that someone like Barry Jenkins should be telling them.
Final thoughts
I wasn’t as much of a fan of “Moonlight” as the Academy, and this film also left me conflicted. The film is well-made and the cast is very engaging. It also has a love story at its heart that is moody but well-done. Overall though the movie felt over-engineered and a little pretentious, and that knocked it down a few pegs for me.
‘Is there not one righteous among them?”
― James Baldwin, If Beale Street Could Talk
Beale Street refers to the jumpin’ heart of Memphis where Louis Armstrong was born. As explained in text from Baldwin’s source book (requiring a speed read!) it’s used as a metaphor for the birthplace of every black person in America. (“Every black person in America was born on Beale Street“). But the story is set in Harlem, New York, and with this intellectual stretch, before I even get past the title, I am immediately reaching for the “P-word”, of which more later.
The Plot
Tish (KiKi Layne) is 19 and in love with her lifelong friend ‘Fonny’ (Stephan James). So much in love in fact (and so careless) that Tish is now pregnant with his child. Tish must break this news to both families herself, since Fonny is inside awaiting trial for a vicious rape that he claims he didn’t commit. Tish and their joint families are trying to help, but can Fonny be released in time to see the birth of his child? Or are the institutions so set against him that release is impossible and death row might await?
Interwoven with Love and Anger
At its heart, this film portrays a truly beautiful love story. Tish and Fonny (both adorably played by the young leads) are friends becoming more than friends. We see their emerging love through flashback scenes. Some of these, particularly one on a metro train, are exquisitely done; long gazes into eyes, starting as one thing and ending as another.
In another scene, Fonny takes Tish’s virginity, and it’s done with style, taste and finesse. For younger teens this should be compulsory viewing as an antidote to all the horrible porn they are seeing on the internet: THIS is what sex, based on a foundation of true love, is all about. (The film is UK15 rated for “infrequent very strong language, strong sex” – I actually agree with the rating for the language (and actually I think an act of marital violence should also have also been referenced)…. but not for the sex, which should be 12A).
It’s a love story then? Well, yes, but offset against that, it’s a very angry film, seething with rage about how the police force and the justice system is set ‘against the black man’. Director Barry Jenkins (of – eventual – Oscar winner “Moonlight” fame) has a message to impart and he is intent on imparting it.
A great ensemble performance
The film didn’t get a SAG nomination for the ensemble cast, but it almost feels that they missed out here. As well as the two young leads being spectacular, the whole of the rest of the cast really gel well together, particularly the respective parents: Colman Domingo (“Selma“) as Tish’s father Joseph; Regina King as Tish’s mother Sharon; Michael Beach (“Patriots Day“) as Fonny’s father Frank and Aunjanue Ellis as his bible-bashing mother. A dramatic scene where they all collectively hear the news about the pregnancy is both comical and shocking in equal measure.
Poor sound mixing
If this film gets an Oscar nomination for sound, I’ll frankly be cross! There is significant use of sonorous, bass-heavy music and effects (including a lovely cello theme by Nicholas Britell) – all very effective; there is a lot of earnest and quietly spoken dialogue between the characters – also moody and effective. Unfortunately the two are mixed together in some scenes and frankly I couldn’t make out what was being said. Most frustrating.
In addition, there is voiceover narration from Tish (if you follow my blog regularly you KNOW what I think about that!). Actually, this isn’t as overly intrusive as in films like “The Hate U Give“, but it sounds like it was recorded in a dustbin! It’s a bit like that effect you get with headphones where the plug isn’t quite in the socket, and everything sounds way off and tinny. When combined with Layne’s accent the effect, again, made the dialogue difficult to comprehend.
The c-word and the n-word
There’s a degree of bad language in the film, albeit mild in comparison to “The Favourite“! Tish’s sister (Teyonah Parris) uses the c-word in one very funny dissing of Fonny’s ‘up-themselves’ sisters (Ebony Obsidian and Dominique Thorne). But the n-word is used repeatedly during the film, and that I can never get used to. I ‘get it’ (in the sense that I understand the perception) that this is a word that ‘only black people can use between themselves’. But this just feels elitist and wrong to me. At a time when Viggo Mortensen gets crucified for using it once (while being descriptive and in-context) during a press junket for “Green Book“, I just feel that if a word is taboo it should be taboo, period.
The p-word
My p-word here is “pretentious”. Barry Jenkins clearly feels he has something to prove after the success of “Moonlight“, and there are certainly moments of directorial brilliance in the film. As previously mentioned, the sex scene is one of the best I’ve seen in a long while. Also beautifully done are a birthing scene and two confrontational scenes in Puerto Rico. But there are also moments that seem to be staged, artificial and too ‘arty’ for their own good. Any hidden meaning behind them completely passed me by. (Examples are Sharon’s wig scene and a pan around Fonny’s wood sculpture). It all seems to be “trying too hard”.
Hate for the police is also writ large on the film, with every discriminatory police officer in the whole of the US embodied in the wicked sneering face of the police office Bell (Ed Skrein).
A platform that should be used for more than ranting
This is a film written and directed by an American black man (Jenkins) and largely fully cast with American black people. And I’m a white Englishman commenting on it. I’m clearly unqualified to pass judgement on how black America really feels about things! But comment I will from this fug of ignorance.
It feels to me that the “Black Lives Movement” has given, at long last, black film-makers like Jenkins a platform in cinema to present from. This is a great thing. But I’m sensing that at the moment the tone of the output from that platform (such as this film) seems to me heavily tinged with anger: a scream of frustration about the system and racial injustice over the years. It’s the film-makers right to make films about subjects dear to them. And I’m sure this summer we’ll sadly again see atrocities as previously seen in the likes of Ferguson and Dallas, fuelling the fire of hate. But I would personally really like to see someone like Jenkins use his undoubted talents to make a more uplifting film: a film reflecting the more positive strives that are happening in society, allowing for people of all races and all sexual orientations to make their way in business (not drug-running or crime!) and/or life in general. Those good news stories – the positive side of race relations – are out there and my view is that someone like Barry Jenkins should be telling them.
Final thoughts
I wasn’t as much of a fan of “Moonlight” as the Academy, and this film also left me conflicted. The film is well-made and the cast is very engaging. It also has a love story at its heart that is moody but well-done. Overall though the movie felt over-engineered and a little pretentious, and that knocked it down a few pegs for me.