Search
Search results
Dwarf Fotress
7.3
Rate It
Video Game Watch
Dwarf Fortress is a single-player fantasy game. You can control a dwarven outpost or an adventurer...
News Explorer
News and Entertainment
App
News Explorer is a powerful yet remarkably easy-to-use RSS, JSON, Atom and Twitter newsreader with...
Kandy Entertainment Magazine
Entertainment and Magazines & Newspapers
App
Welcome to Kandy Magazine - America's choice for a men's magazine. Made in the USA. Who loves...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated People Just Do Nothing: Big in Japan (2021) in Movies
Aug 20, 2021
Good jokes, most of which land (1 more)
Enough David Brent/Partridge moments to make you cringe
As a PJDN virgin, I still laughed a lot!
It’s brave then that such a relatively niche UK TV show should have a go at ‘jumping the shark’ onto the big screen. Would fans like it? And, just as importantly, would newcomers to the characters, like me, be able to enjoy the film as a standalone entity? The answer to the last question is a qualified “yes”.
Positives:
- It well-surpasses the “6 laugh test” for a comedy. There are some scenes that I found extremely funny, with others that rated highly for me on the David Brent / Alan Partridge scale of cringiness.
- I’ve seen comment that the story is "silly" and “unbelievable”. But having experienced the crazy clash between English and Japanese culture first hand, it strikes me as very true to form! The way in which the Japanese music execs try to stylise the ground as a ‘boy band’ (“Bang Boys”!), which Grindah greedily goes along with, is a nice satire on the music industry asserting its brand over musician’s art.
- A subplot of a love story beween the inept Steves and the cute Japanese translator Ishika (Ayumi Itô) is nicely done and strangely touching.
- The good news is that you don’t need any previous experience of the characters to get fun out of the movie: you can jump right in. That being said though, I’m sure fans of the series will get more out of this than I did.
Negatives:
- While the ending was uplifting, I was itching to know what fallout (or success?) there was from the event we witnessed. Perhaps if its a box office success (unlikely I think!) then there will be a sequel.
Summary Thoughts on “People Just Do Nothing: Big in Japan”: IMDB is littered with disastrous reviews of British TV shows that have tried and failed to make the leap from the small screen to the big screen. “On the Buses”; “Are You Being Served?”; “Steptoe and Son”; “Please Sir”; “Love Thy Neighbour” – the list is endless. They are mostly all horribly unfunny. Even the great “Morecambe and Wise”, although showing occasional moments of brilliance, struggled to fully land any of their three big-screen outings.
The ‘go-to’ of many of these efforts was to “go abroad”: take the well-loved characters and put them into a ‘bigger’ and stranger pool. So “People Just Do Nothing: Big in Japan” was following a well-trodden path here. It’s a tribute to the team and their TV-series director Jack Clough, in his feature debut, that they pretty much pull it off.
I’d like to agree with Kevin Maher of “The Times” that the movie is full of “Japanese stereotypes… drunken businessmen, passive giggling women etc”. But having travelled extensively on business in Japan, it seems pretty close to the mark with its observations to me! More importantly, the film never seems to be particularly derogatory or disrespectful of the culture. For example, they take their shoes off too much!
Key to its box office success will be whether or not it can attract an audience outside of its niche TV fan-bases. As a member of that sub-group, I really wasn’t expecting to enjoy this one, but I actually did. It was good fun, and if you want a good laugh at the cinema – a pretty rare thing – then I’d recommend this one, even if – like me – you haven’t seen the original TV show.
(For the full graphical review, please check out onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks!)
Positives:
- It well-surpasses the “6 laugh test” for a comedy. There are some scenes that I found extremely funny, with others that rated highly for me on the David Brent / Alan Partridge scale of cringiness.
- I’ve seen comment that the story is "silly" and “unbelievable”. But having experienced the crazy clash between English and Japanese culture first hand, it strikes me as very true to form! The way in which the Japanese music execs try to stylise the ground as a ‘boy band’ (“Bang Boys”!), which Grindah greedily goes along with, is a nice satire on the music industry asserting its brand over musician’s art.
- A subplot of a love story beween the inept Steves and the cute Japanese translator Ishika (Ayumi Itô) is nicely done and strangely touching.
- The good news is that you don’t need any previous experience of the characters to get fun out of the movie: you can jump right in. That being said though, I’m sure fans of the series will get more out of this than I did.
Negatives:
- While the ending was uplifting, I was itching to know what fallout (or success?) there was from the event we witnessed. Perhaps if its a box office success (unlikely I think!) then there will be a sequel.
Summary Thoughts on “People Just Do Nothing: Big in Japan”: IMDB is littered with disastrous reviews of British TV shows that have tried and failed to make the leap from the small screen to the big screen. “On the Buses”; “Are You Being Served?”; “Steptoe and Son”; “Please Sir”; “Love Thy Neighbour” – the list is endless. They are mostly all horribly unfunny. Even the great “Morecambe and Wise”, although showing occasional moments of brilliance, struggled to fully land any of their three big-screen outings.
The ‘go-to’ of many of these efforts was to “go abroad”: take the well-loved characters and put them into a ‘bigger’ and stranger pool. So “People Just Do Nothing: Big in Japan” was following a well-trodden path here. It’s a tribute to the team and their TV-series director Jack Clough, in his feature debut, that they pretty much pull it off.
I’d like to agree with Kevin Maher of “The Times” that the movie is full of “Japanese stereotypes… drunken businessmen, passive giggling women etc”. But having travelled extensively on business in Japan, it seems pretty close to the mark with its observations to me! More importantly, the film never seems to be particularly derogatory or disrespectful of the culture. For example, they take their shoes off too much!
Key to its box office success will be whether or not it can attract an audience outside of its niche TV fan-bases. As a member of that sub-group, I really wasn’t expecting to enjoy this one, but I actually did. It was good fun, and if you want a good laugh at the cinema – a pretty rare thing – then I’d recommend this one, even if – like me – you haven’t seen the original TV show.
(For the full graphical review, please check out onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks!)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings (2021) in Movies
Sep 16, 2021
Relationship between Shaun and Katy (1 more)
Great Shakespearean level of story
Ten rings to rule them all
Positives:
- This is Marvel at its best. A script (with Shakespearean undertones) that melds action with good character development and laugh-out-loud feel-good dialogue. The great thing is that you don't need to be a Marvel nerd to enjoy this one. Yes, there are some fabulous Easter Eggs for Marvel fans (and a wonderful return of a character from one of the early films). But it's almost a standalone feature in its own right.
- The action sequences are top-notch, particularly an early fight on a careering San Francisco "bendy-bus". Some great martial-arts reminiscent of "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon", made more exciting by the fact that the impressive Simu Liu did all his own stunts.
- The relationship built between Shaun and Katy is wonderful, and the actors deliver on it brilliantly: no wonder when you have the exceptional Awkwafina on the other end of it. Similarly, the relationship built between Shang-Chi and his father is powerful, thanks to some wonderful acting from Tony Chiu-Wai Leung. So good in the gripping (and erotic) 'Lust, Caution', I believe this is his first English-speaking film.
- With the odd exception (see below), the special effects are top-notch.
Negatives:
- I thought this was 5* all the way until the final reel, when we descended into a CGI-driven "Godzilla vs Kong" finale. I hate CGI that's just a blur of action across the screen where you're struggling to understand what's going on. Less would be more here for me.
- The movie makes extensive use of 'flashbacks' and, for me, there was a bit too much heavy-handedness in their use. I muttered "enough already" to a few of them, since they were taking us out of the movie's current narrative.
- There were a couple of effects that looked like the intern at the special effects company had put them together during a coffee break. An early plunge of a jeep into a forest and some rather obvious green-screen stuff in the finale. Surprised that these weren't caught and redone.
Timeline?: So, it took more of a Marvel nerd than I am (my wonderful daughter-in-law Bronwyn) to point out that although this film is set (largely) in the "Present Day", the events of "Avengers: Endgame" actually happen in 2023. So in the Marvel timeline, this is set in between Thanos's "blip" and "the return". This is the reason why Wong is present but not Doctor Strange, for example.
Summary Thoughts: Marvel goes East! This is a really entertaining addition to the franchise, mixing Marvel action with Eastern mysticism and martial arts. It's an impressive job by director and co-writer Destin Daniel Cretton, in only his second feature (he did "Just Mercy" in 2019).
As a Marvel film, there are of course end-credit scenes ("monkeys" in onemannsmovies speak). A mid-title one is the best, bringing some additional Marvel characters into the mix. And there's a post-credits one which sets up for further sequels but which I found rather irritating.
It's ironic that a Marvel movie so right for the Chinese market - the first to be headlined by an Asian actor and with substantial Mandarin dialogue - might not get a release in China. According to this report, this appears to be for two reasons: firstly that the actor Simu Liu made some derogatory remarks about China in the past, and secondly that in the comics Shang Chi's father is Fu Manchu - a Western-derived character with racial overtones.
This doesn't seem to have hurt it so far. After less than two weeks of opening, it has made $262 million on a budget estimated to be $150-200 million.
(For the full graphical review and video check out #onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks).
- This is Marvel at its best. A script (with Shakespearean undertones) that melds action with good character development and laugh-out-loud feel-good dialogue. The great thing is that you don't need to be a Marvel nerd to enjoy this one. Yes, there are some fabulous Easter Eggs for Marvel fans (and a wonderful return of a character from one of the early films). But it's almost a standalone feature in its own right.
- The action sequences are top-notch, particularly an early fight on a careering San Francisco "bendy-bus". Some great martial-arts reminiscent of "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon", made more exciting by the fact that the impressive Simu Liu did all his own stunts.
- The relationship built between Shaun and Katy is wonderful, and the actors deliver on it brilliantly: no wonder when you have the exceptional Awkwafina on the other end of it. Similarly, the relationship built between Shang-Chi and his father is powerful, thanks to some wonderful acting from Tony Chiu-Wai Leung. So good in the gripping (and erotic) 'Lust, Caution', I believe this is his first English-speaking film.
- With the odd exception (see below), the special effects are top-notch.
Negatives:
- I thought this was 5* all the way until the final reel, when we descended into a CGI-driven "Godzilla vs Kong" finale. I hate CGI that's just a blur of action across the screen where you're struggling to understand what's going on. Less would be more here for me.
- The movie makes extensive use of 'flashbacks' and, for me, there was a bit too much heavy-handedness in their use. I muttered "enough already" to a few of them, since they were taking us out of the movie's current narrative.
- There were a couple of effects that looked like the intern at the special effects company had put them together during a coffee break. An early plunge of a jeep into a forest and some rather obvious green-screen stuff in the finale. Surprised that these weren't caught and redone.
Timeline?: So, it took more of a Marvel nerd than I am (my wonderful daughter-in-law Bronwyn) to point out that although this film is set (largely) in the "Present Day", the events of "Avengers: Endgame" actually happen in 2023. So in the Marvel timeline, this is set in between Thanos's "blip" and "the return". This is the reason why Wong is present but not Doctor Strange, for example.
Summary Thoughts: Marvel goes East! This is a really entertaining addition to the franchise, mixing Marvel action with Eastern mysticism and martial arts. It's an impressive job by director and co-writer Destin Daniel Cretton, in only his second feature (he did "Just Mercy" in 2019).
As a Marvel film, there are of course end-credit scenes ("monkeys" in onemannsmovies speak). A mid-title one is the best, bringing some additional Marvel characters into the mix. And there's a post-credits one which sets up for further sequels but which I found rather irritating.
It's ironic that a Marvel movie so right for the Chinese market - the first to be headlined by an Asian actor and with substantial Mandarin dialogue - might not get a release in China. According to this report, this appears to be for two reasons: firstly that the actor Simu Liu made some derogatory remarks about China in the past, and secondly that in the comics Shang Chi's father is Fu Manchu - a Western-derived character with racial overtones.
This doesn't seem to have hurt it so far. After less than two weeks of opening, it has made $262 million on a budget estimated to be $150-200 million.
(For the full graphical review and video check out #onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Live By Night (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Sleep by day…”.
Ben Affleck’s new movie could best be described as “sprawling”. In both directing and writing the screenplay (based on a novel by Dennis Lehane), Affleck has aimed for a “Godfather” style gangster epic and missed: not missed by a country mile, but missed nonetheless.
Morally bankrupted by his experiences in the trenches, Joe Coughlin (Affleck) returns to Boston to pick and choose which social rules he wants to follow. Not sociopathic per se, as he has a strong personal code of conduct, but Coughlin turns to robbery walking a delicate path between the warring mob factions of the Irish community, led by Albert White (the excellent Robert Glenister from TV’s “Hustle”), and the Italian community, led by Maso Pescatore (Remo Girone). Trying to keep him out of jail is his father (“Harry Potter”’s Brendan Gleeson) who – usefully – is the Deputy Police Chief. Life gets complicated when he falls in love with White’s moll, Emma Gould (Sienna Miller). The scene is set for a drama stretching from Boston to the hot and steamy Everglades over a period of the next twenty years.
Although a watchable popcorn film, the choppy episodic nature of the movie is hugely frustrating, with no compelling story arc to glue all of the disparate parts together. The (often very violent) action scenes are very well done and exciting but as a viewer you don’t feel invested in a ‘journey’ from the beginning of the film to the (unsatisfactory) ending. In my experience it’s never a good sign when the writer considers it necessary to add a voiceover to the soundtrack, and here Affleck mutters truisms about his thoughts and motives that irritate more than illuminate.
The sheer volume of players in the piece (there are about three film’s worth in here) and the resulting minimal screen time given to each allows no time for character development. Unfortunately the result is that you really care very little about whether people live or die and big plot developments land as rather an “oh” than an “OH!”.
Affleck puts in a great turn as the autistic central character whose condition results in a cold, calculating demeanor and a complete lack of emotion reflecting on his face. Oh, hang on… no, wait a minute… sorry… I’ve got the wrong film…. I’m thinking about “The Accountant”. I don’t know whether he filmed these films in parallel. I generally enjoy Ben Affleck’s work (he was excellent in “The Town”) but for 95% of this film his part could have been completed by a burly extra with an Affleck mask on. In terms of acting range, his facial muscles barely get to a “2” on the scale. Given the double problem that he is barely credible as the “young man” returning mentally wounded from the trenches, then in my opinion he would have been better to have focused on the writing and directing and found a lead of the likes of an Andrew Garfield to fill Coughlin’s shoes.
That’s not to say there is not some good acting present in the rest of the cast’s all too brief supporting roles. Elle Fanning (“Trumbo”, “Maleficent”) in particular shines as the Southern belle Loretta Figgis: a religious zealot driving her police chief father (Chris Cooper, “The Bourne Identity”) to distraction. Cooper also delivers a star turn as the moral but pragmatic law-man.
Sienna Miller (“Foxcatcher”) delivers a passable Cork accent and does her best to develop some believable chemistry with the rock-like Affleck. Zoe Saldana (“Star Trek”) is equally effective as a Cuban humanitarian.
In summary, it’s sprawlingly watchable… but overall a disappointment, with Affleck over-reaching. One day we surely will get a gangster film the likes of another “Godfather”, “Goodfellas” or “Untouchables”. Although this has its moments, unfortunately it’s more towards the “Public Enemies” end of the genre spectrum.
Morally bankrupted by his experiences in the trenches, Joe Coughlin (Affleck) returns to Boston to pick and choose which social rules he wants to follow. Not sociopathic per se, as he has a strong personal code of conduct, but Coughlin turns to robbery walking a delicate path between the warring mob factions of the Irish community, led by Albert White (the excellent Robert Glenister from TV’s “Hustle”), and the Italian community, led by Maso Pescatore (Remo Girone). Trying to keep him out of jail is his father (“Harry Potter”’s Brendan Gleeson) who – usefully – is the Deputy Police Chief. Life gets complicated when he falls in love with White’s moll, Emma Gould (Sienna Miller). The scene is set for a drama stretching from Boston to the hot and steamy Everglades over a period of the next twenty years.
Although a watchable popcorn film, the choppy episodic nature of the movie is hugely frustrating, with no compelling story arc to glue all of the disparate parts together. The (often very violent) action scenes are very well done and exciting but as a viewer you don’t feel invested in a ‘journey’ from the beginning of the film to the (unsatisfactory) ending. In my experience it’s never a good sign when the writer considers it necessary to add a voiceover to the soundtrack, and here Affleck mutters truisms about his thoughts and motives that irritate more than illuminate.
The sheer volume of players in the piece (there are about three film’s worth in here) and the resulting minimal screen time given to each allows no time for character development. Unfortunately the result is that you really care very little about whether people live or die and big plot developments land as rather an “oh” than an “OH!”.
Affleck puts in a great turn as the autistic central character whose condition results in a cold, calculating demeanor and a complete lack of emotion reflecting on his face. Oh, hang on… no, wait a minute… sorry… I’ve got the wrong film…. I’m thinking about “The Accountant”. I don’t know whether he filmed these films in parallel. I generally enjoy Ben Affleck’s work (he was excellent in “The Town”) but for 95% of this film his part could have been completed by a burly extra with an Affleck mask on. In terms of acting range, his facial muscles barely get to a “2” on the scale. Given the double problem that he is barely credible as the “young man” returning mentally wounded from the trenches, then in my opinion he would have been better to have focused on the writing and directing and found a lead of the likes of an Andrew Garfield to fill Coughlin’s shoes.
That’s not to say there is not some good acting present in the rest of the cast’s all too brief supporting roles. Elle Fanning (“Trumbo”, “Maleficent”) in particular shines as the Southern belle Loretta Figgis: a religious zealot driving her police chief father (Chris Cooper, “The Bourne Identity”) to distraction. Cooper also delivers a star turn as the moral but pragmatic law-man.
Sienna Miller (“Foxcatcher”) delivers a passable Cork accent and does her best to develop some believable chemistry with the rock-like Affleck. Zoe Saldana (“Star Trek”) is equally effective as a Cuban humanitarian.
In summary, it’s sprawlingly watchable… but overall a disappointment, with Affleck over-reaching. One day we surely will get a gangster film the likes of another “Godfather”, “Goodfellas” or “Untouchables”. Although this has its moments, unfortunately it’s more towards the “Public Enemies” end of the genre spectrum.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Army of Thieves (2021) in Movies
Nov 4, 2021
“Did He Just Say Gulp?”
I have Covid-19, and am confined to quarters. So time to catch up on some streaming films. New on Netflix is “Army of Thieves”, a quirky prequel, of sorts, to Zac Snyder’s “Army of the Dead“.
Plot Summary:
Sebastian Schlencht-Wöhnert (Matthias Schweighöfer) is a geek obsessed with the work of legendary safe-manufacturer Hans Wagner whose magnum opus was a series of four intricate safes named after the four parts of his namesake’s Ring cycle: The Rhinegold, The Valkyrie, Siegfried and Götterdämmerung.
Seeking more the glory of cracking the legendary safes (rather than the riches within), high-class jewel-thief Gwendoline (Nathalie Emmanuel) teams with Sebastian to crack the three known safes (in Paris, Prague and St Moritz) before they are officially ‘retired’. Together with Korina (Ruby O. Fee), muscle-man Brad (Stuart Martin) and getaway driver Rolph (Guz Khan) the gang try to stay one step ahead of obsessed Interpol agent Delacroix (Jonathan Cohen).
Certification:
US: TV-MA. UK: 15.
Talent:
Starring: Matthias Schweighöfer, Nathalie Emmanuel, Ruby O. Fee, Stuart Martin, Guz Khan, Jonathan Cohen.
Directed by: Matthias Schweighöfer.
Written by: Shay Hatten (from a story by Shay Hatten and Zack Snyder).
“Army of Thieves” Review: Positives:
I really wasn’t expecting much from this offering. For me, the character of Dieter in “Army of the Dead” was an annoyingly quirky comedy character in a zombie-actioner that you just wanted to punch in the face…. repeatedly. But in contrast, this Dieter-centric film is deliberately quirky throughout and it just all worked for me. Under his own direction, Schweighöfer’s Sebastian/Dieter becomes a genuinely quirky, lovelorn and loveable loser that you want to root for.
The look and feel of the film is utterly glorious. The wonderful cinematography by Bernhard Jasper makes the introduction to the European locations feel Bond-like and the combination of Production Design and Special Effects make the safe-cracking scenes tense, dynamic and beautiful to watch. It’s all nicely rounded off by a quirky Steve Mazzaro / Hans Zimmer score.
Shay Hatten’s script delivers a nice balance of action and exposition. It actually – shock horror – takes time to flesh out some character behind the generic heist-movie stereotypes. Setting the movie in the same timeline as the emerging Nevada zombie-apocalypse as “Army of the Dead” is neat: (although those expecting extensive zombie-action will feel short-changed). And having the Las Vegas safe as the mythical Götterdämmerung is a nice touch. Above all – “SURPRISE!!!” – the script surpassed the essential six-laughs test.
The acting is above par, with Schweighöfer putting in a fabulous turn and the stunningly beautiful Nathalie Emmanuel (best known for being Ramsey in the Fast and Furious series) gets to be a lot more than mere window-dressing here. Stuart Martin is notable here for looking astonishingly like Hugh Jackman…. I mean, really, they could be twins.
Negatives:
I mean, honestly, there are more holes in this story than a St Moritz swiss-cheese. Why would all of the safes, owned by different private institutions, be being “decommissioned” due to a Zombie outbreak on the other side of the world? Can the Interpol team really be that incompetent? And however clever he is, I don’t buy that you can open safes like that!
Although I liked the balance of the script overall, the story is pretty simplistic and linear.
Summary Thoughts on “Army of Thieves”
Sometimes a little movie appears that surprises and delights you, and this was one of those for me. It’s not big and it’s not clever. But it is very nicely made, thoroughly entertained me and was – for me – way better than its source movie. A recommended watch on Netflix.
Plot Summary:
Sebastian Schlencht-Wöhnert (Matthias Schweighöfer) is a geek obsessed with the work of legendary safe-manufacturer Hans Wagner whose magnum opus was a series of four intricate safes named after the four parts of his namesake’s Ring cycle: The Rhinegold, The Valkyrie, Siegfried and Götterdämmerung.
Seeking more the glory of cracking the legendary safes (rather than the riches within), high-class jewel-thief Gwendoline (Nathalie Emmanuel) teams with Sebastian to crack the three known safes (in Paris, Prague and St Moritz) before they are officially ‘retired’. Together with Korina (Ruby O. Fee), muscle-man Brad (Stuart Martin) and getaway driver Rolph (Guz Khan) the gang try to stay one step ahead of obsessed Interpol agent Delacroix (Jonathan Cohen).
Certification:
US: TV-MA. UK: 15.
Talent:
Starring: Matthias Schweighöfer, Nathalie Emmanuel, Ruby O. Fee, Stuart Martin, Guz Khan, Jonathan Cohen.
Directed by: Matthias Schweighöfer.
Written by: Shay Hatten (from a story by Shay Hatten and Zack Snyder).
“Army of Thieves” Review: Positives:
I really wasn’t expecting much from this offering. For me, the character of Dieter in “Army of the Dead” was an annoyingly quirky comedy character in a zombie-actioner that you just wanted to punch in the face…. repeatedly. But in contrast, this Dieter-centric film is deliberately quirky throughout and it just all worked for me. Under his own direction, Schweighöfer’s Sebastian/Dieter becomes a genuinely quirky, lovelorn and loveable loser that you want to root for.
The look and feel of the film is utterly glorious. The wonderful cinematography by Bernhard Jasper makes the introduction to the European locations feel Bond-like and the combination of Production Design and Special Effects make the safe-cracking scenes tense, dynamic and beautiful to watch. It’s all nicely rounded off by a quirky Steve Mazzaro / Hans Zimmer score.
Shay Hatten’s script delivers a nice balance of action and exposition. It actually – shock horror – takes time to flesh out some character behind the generic heist-movie stereotypes. Setting the movie in the same timeline as the emerging Nevada zombie-apocalypse as “Army of the Dead” is neat: (although those expecting extensive zombie-action will feel short-changed). And having the Las Vegas safe as the mythical Götterdämmerung is a nice touch. Above all – “SURPRISE!!!” – the script surpassed the essential six-laughs test.
The acting is above par, with Schweighöfer putting in a fabulous turn and the stunningly beautiful Nathalie Emmanuel (best known for being Ramsey in the Fast and Furious series) gets to be a lot more than mere window-dressing here. Stuart Martin is notable here for looking astonishingly like Hugh Jackman…. I mean, really, they could be twins.
Negatives:
I mean, honestly, there are more holes in this story than a St Moritz swiss-cheese. Why would all of the safes, owned by different private institutions, be being “decommissioned” due to a Zombie outbreak on the other side of the world? Can the Interpol team really be that incompetent? And however clever he is, I don’t buy that you can open safes like that!
Although I liked the balance of the script overall, the story is pretty simplistic and linear.
Summary Thoughts on “Army of Thieves”
Sometimes a little movie appears that surprises and delights you, and this was one of those for me. It’s not big and it’s not clever. But it is very nicely made, thoroughly entertained me and was – for me – way better than its source movie. A recommended watch on Netflix.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021) in Movies
Oct 28, 2021
Lots of hens… but turkeys would be more appropriate.
I was not a great fan of the original Venom, although I did find aspects of it to like. Unfortunately, for me, the sequel – “Venom: Let There Be Carnage” – delivered even less. And I found aspects of it positively distasteful.
Plot Summary:
Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) is living uncomfortably in San Francisco with his symbiotic friend Venom. Anne (Michelle Williams), his ex-girlfriend, and her new fiancee Dan (Reid Scott) are keeping his secret.
With Venom’s help, Eddie gets the evidence needed to send the psychopathic mass murderer Cletus Kasady (Woody Harrelson) to the electric chair. But with a lost love, Frances (Naomie Harris), to rescue and a burning desire for revenge against Brock and Detective Mulligan (Stephen Graham) who captured him, Kasady is not going to go quietly into the night.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 15.
Talent:
Starring: Tom Hardy, Michelle Williams, Woody Harrelson, Naomie Harris, Reid Scott, Stephen Graham.
Directed by: Andy Serkis.
Written by: Kelly Marcel and Tom Hardy.
“Venom: Let There Be Carnage” Review: Positives:
While most of the cast seem to be doing sequel-paint-by-numbers, I thought Naomie Harris was superb as the shrieking ‘X-woman-style’ villain. (I’m embarrassed to say that it took me until the end titles to realise she WAS Naomie Harris!)
Some of the comedy lines between Brock and Venom made me chuckle.
Negatives:
My main beef was with the script and that came down to two primary issues:
Firstly, virtually nothing happens. It’s not too much of an understatement to say that the whole plot can be summarized as a) a villain is introduced; b) the villain teams with another villain and c) Venom defeats them. It’s just all so bland and linear, without any sort of discernable story arc.
For a movie pitched more at the comedy end of the Marvel spectrum, the script is unpleasantly violent. (And, yes, before Marvel fan-boys attack me with comments, I know that this Sony/Marvel offering is NOT part of the official universe). There are numerous points at which I thought “Ugh!” and a nasty taste entered my mouth: the butchering of a ‘Family man’ prison guard, pleading for his life; the brains of a very polite young grocery store boy being senselessly smashed in; and the massacre of a priest in his own cathedral. (Actually, I have no idea what happened with the priest during the “power-up” scene – – a cut by the censors perhaps?) My issue is that, tonally speaking, there is a horrible mismatch between these unnecessarily violent scenes and the lighthearted and flippant nature of the rest. It’s like putting a vicious gang-bang rape in the middle of “Ant Man“.
Sorry. I know he has a lot of fans, but I’m not a great fan of Tom Hardy’s acting style here. “Legend” proved what class he could deliver. But this performance seems to be streets away from that. An acting colleague last week commented that he was looking forward to the interactions between Hardy and Harrelson. But I found both to be underwhelming.
I found the visual effects for the emerged Venom to be utterly unconvincing. There were times when it looked like nothing more than a puppet on strings.
I’m normally a fan of Marco Beltrami‘s scores. But I found the music in here to be intrusive and distracting. And that’s before some (to my ears) pretty awful rap-based tracks over the closing titles.
Summary Thoughts on “Venom: Let There Be Carnage”
You’ll already judge from my balance of comments that this one just didn’t work for me. Even as a “park your brain at the door” action movie, I thought it felt lazy and lacklustre.
My advice? Save your money and go and watch “The Last Duel” instead.
Plot Summary:
Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) is living uncomfortably in San Francisco with his symbiotic friend Venom. Anne (Michelle Williams), his ex-girlfriend, and her new fiancee Dan (Reid Scott) are keeping his secret.
With Venom’s help, Eddie gets the evidence needed to send the psychopathic mass murderer Cletus Kasady (Woody Harrelson) to the electric chair. But with a lost love, Frances (Naomie Harris), to rescue and a burning desire for revenge against Brock and Detective Mulligan (Stephen Graham) who captured him, Kasady is not going to go quietly into the night.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 15.
Talent:
Starring: Tom Hardy, Michelle Williams, Woody Harrelson, Naomie Harris, Reid Scott, Stephen Graham.
Directed by: Andy Serkis.
Written by: Kelly Marcel and Tom Hardy.
“Venom: Let There Be Carnage” Review: Positives:
While most of the cast seem to be doing sequel-paint-by-numbers, I thought Naomie Harris was superb as the shrieking ‘X-woman-style’ villain. (I’m embarrassed to say that it took me until the end titles to realise she WAS Naomie Harris!)
Some of the comedy lines between Brock and Venom made me chuckle.
Negatives:
My main beef was with the script and that came down to two primary issues:
Firstly, virtually nothing happens. It’s not too much of an understatement to say that the whole plot can be summarized as a) a villain is introduced; b) the villain teams with another villain and c) Venom defeats them. It’s just all so bland and linear, without any sort of discernable story arc.
For a movie pitched more at the comedy end of the Marvel spectrum, the script is unpleasantly violent. (And, yes, before Marvel fan-boys attack me with comments, I know that this Sony/Marvel offering is NOT part of the official universe). There are numerous points at which I thought “Ugh!” and a nasty taste entered my mouth: the butchering of a ‘Family man’ prison guard, pleading for his life; the brains of a very polite young grocery store boy being senselessly smashed in; and the massacre of a priest in his own cathedral. (Actually, I have no idea what happened with the priest during the “power-up” scene – – a cut by the censors perhaps?) My issue is that, tonally speaking, there is a horrible mismatch between these unnecessarily violent scenes and the lighthearted and flippant nature of the rest. It’s like putting a vicious gang-bang rape in the middle of “Ant Man“.
Sorry. I know he has a lot of fans, but I’m not a great fan of Tom Hardy’s acting style here. “Legend” proved what class he could deliver. But this performance seems to be streets away from that. An acting colleague last week commented that he was looking forward to the interactions between Hardy and Harrelson. But I found both to be underwhelming.
I found the visual effects for the emerged Venom to be utterly unconvincing. There were times when it looked like nothing more than a puppet on strings.
I’m normally a fan of Marco Beltrami‘s scores. But I found the music in here to be intrusive and distracting. And that’s before some (to my ears) pretty awful rap-based tracks over the closing titles.
Summary Thoughts on “Venom: Let There Be Carnage”
You’ll already judge from my balance of comments that this one just didn’t work for me. Even as a “park your brain at the door” action movie, I thought it felt lazy and lacklustre.
My advice? Save your money and go and watch “The Last Duel” instead.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Last Duel (2021) in Movies
Oct 28, 2021
Three nuanced perspectives on a winter’s tale.
In Ridley Scott’s new movie “The Last Duel” we are in the late 14th century in France. And – apart from in one scene – it appears to be perpetual winter!
Plot Summary:
Widowed Jean de Carrouges (Matt Damon) is a battle-hardened warrior, loyal to King Charles VI of France (Alex Lawther). He is becoming progressively estranged from his one-time friend Jacques Le Gris (Adam Driver), a personal favourite of Normandy ruler Pierre d’Alençon (Ben Affleck).
But Carrouges’ lovely new wife Marguerite (Jodie Comer) accuses Le Gris of a terrible crime. But who is telling the truth? Only God can decide, as Carrouges and Le Gris must duel to the death.
Certification:
US: R. UK: 18.
Talent:
Starring: Jodie Comer, Matt Damon, Adam Driver, Ben Affleck.
Directed by: Ridley Scott.
Written by: Matt Damon, Ben Affleck and Nicole Holofcener.
“The Last Duel” Review: Positives:
It’s an intriguing script – the first collaboration between Damon and Affleck since their Oscar-winning “Good Will Hunting” from 25 years ago. It presents 3 different versions of “the truth” from three different perspectives. (One of these – Marguerite’s version – is suggested as being the ‘actual’ truth through a clever delayed fade of the chapter title). Many of the same scenes are repeated in each variant: sometimes with obvious differences in fact; sometimes with the slightest nuance of tone or expression; and sometimes with no change to the visuals, but with the benefit of hearing the dialogue being spoken. Very clever.
“Killing Eve”‘s Jodie Comer is just brilliant here. She is the master of nuanced expression, and she genuinely deserves an Oscar nomination for this work. Combined with her great and fun role in the surprise summer hit “Free Guy“, Comer is surely on a path to movie acting greatness.
Damon, Driver and Affleck also have great fun with their roles: they are all eminently watchable and this is a study in acting greatness. But I particularly loved Alex Lawther’s turn as the king: all excitable childish power in the body of a young adult.
Battle scenes and the final duel are delivered in visceral nature reminiscent of Ridley Scott’s famous battle and arena scenes in “Gladiator”.
Excellent production design and special effects on show here. Another Oscar nomination perhaps? The movie was filmed in the Dordogne region of France and also – after a 2020 Covid lockdown – in Ireland.
Negatives:
At two and a half hours it’s another long film (is October 2021 designated long film month??). And although the nuances between the different versions of reality are fascinating, there’s a degree of tedium involved in rehashing the same scenes (in some cases) for the third time. Arguably I think a few of these re-versions could have been omitted to reduce the bladder-testing run time.
Summary Thoughts on “The Last Duel”
This is Ridley Scott back on top form again. I found this a gripping watch. As the film opens, we are teased with the start of the ‘boss level’ duel between Damon and Driver. But these final dramatic scenes are the emotional lynchpin of the movie since only then do you understand the background and the ramifications of the fight.
Evidently, 14th Century France was NOT a great time for sexual equality. Women were merely chattels, denied not only fair play and self-determination, but also the bedroom niceties of foreplay and, in most cases, orgasms. As the story was based on real events, the courage and determination of Marguerite of Carrouges were extraordinary. And Jodie Comer’s portrayal of her wonderfully demonstrates, yet again, why she is the UK’s most exciting acting export for many years.
Plot Summary:
Widowed Jean de Carrouges (Matt Damon) is a battle-hardened warrior, loyal to King Charles VI of France (Alex Lawther). He is becoming progressively estranged from his one-time friend Jacques Le Gris (Adam Driver), a personal favourite of Normandy ruler Pierre d’Alençon (Ben Affleck).
But Carrouges’ lovely new wife Marguerite (Jodie Comer) accuses Le Gris of a terrible crime. But who is telling the truth? Only God can decide, as Carrouges and Le Gris must duel to the death.
Certification:
US: R. UK: 18.
Talent:
Starring: Jodie Comer, Matt Damon, Adam Driver, Ben Affleck.
Directed by: Ridley Scott.
Written by: Matt Damon, Ben Affleck and Nicole Holofcener.
“The Last Duel” Review: Positives:
It’s an intriguing script – the first collaboration between Damon and Affleck since their Oscar-winning “Good Will Hunting” from 25 years ago. It presents 3 different versions of “the truth” from three different perspectives. (One of these – Marguerite’s version – is suggested as being the ‘actual’ truth through a clever delayed fade of the chapter title). Many of the same scenes are repeated in each variant: sometimes with obvious differences in fact; sometimes with the slightest nuance of tone or expression; and sometimes with no change to the visuals, but with the benefit of hearing the dialogue being spoken. Very clever.
“Killing Eve”‘s Jodie Comer is just brilliant here. She is the master of nuanced expression, and she genuinely deserves an Oscar nomination for this work. Combined with her great and fun role in the surprise summer hit “Free Guy“, Comer is surely on a path to movie acting greatness.
Damon, Driver and Affleck also have great fun with their roles: they are all eminently watchable and this is a study in acting greatness. But I particularly loved Alex Lawther’s turn as the king: all excitable childish power in the body of a young adult.
Battle scenes and the final duel are delivered in visceral nature reminiscent of Ridley Scott’s famous battle and arena scenes in “Gladiator”.
Excellent production design and special effects on show here. Another Oscar nomination perhaps? The movie was filmed in the Dordogne region of France and also – after a 2020 Covid lockdown – in Ireland.
Negatives:
At two and a half hours it’s another long film (is October 2021 designated long film month??). And although the nuances between the different versions of reality are fascinating, there’s a degree of tedium involved in rehashing the same scenes (in some cases) for the third time. Arguably I think a few of these re-versions could have been omitted to reduce the bladder-testing run time.
Summary Thoughts on “The Last Duel”
This is Ridley Scott back on top form again. I found this a gripping watch. As the film opens, we are teased with the start of the ‘boss level’ duel between Damon and Driver. But these final dramatic scenes are the emotional lynchpin of the movie since only then do you understand the background and the ramifications of the fight.
Evidently, 14th Century France was NOT a great time for sexual equality. Women were merely chattels, denied not only fair play and self-determination, but also the bedroom niceties of foreplay and, in most cases, orgasms. As the story was based on real events, the courage and determination of Marguerite of Carrouges were extraordinary. And Jodie Comer’s portrayal of her wonderfully demonstrates, yet again, why she is the UK’s most exciting acting export for many years.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Lost Ruins of Arnak in Tabletop Games
Feb 7, 2021
If you are reading this review, chances are you have heard something about the board game “Lost Ruins of Arnak.” If not, continue forward, as there’s a lot to discover in this jungle adventure experience. “Lost Ruins of Arnak” for those that have not already been exposed to the exciting hype leading up to its release date, is a board game that delves deep into the jungle, not unlike a 1980’s Indiana Jones film. It has treasure, hidden idols, lost artifacts, guardians of the jungle, and exploration in the form of a very large game board. The box boasts of multiple gaming mechanisms that all work in tandem for one epic journey. From deckbuilding, exploration, worker placement, to resource management this game throws the entire kitchen at the players. Whether that is a positive or negative is up to each player. I share my thoughts at the very bottom if you want to skip past the gameplay portion of the review.
Players, or “archaeologists” as the game coins them, will have only 5 rounds to explore as much of the board as possible, which includes a hidden temple as well as the jungle proper. At the end of the 5 rounds, players will add up all victory points they have obtained from the temple, any treasure they have left, points on any cards collected, and guardians they have overcome.
“Lost Ruins of Arnak” takes place on, well… Arnak. It’s a fictional jungle that is teeming with wild animals and guardians which keep watch over various treasures all over the expansive island, from here forward referred to as the giant game board. These guardians appear when you explore a new jungle tile for the first time. They attack only if you stay in the location longer than a turn OR if you return to the location on a subsequent turn. If you eliminate a guardian, they provide a couple victory points towards your overall total at the end of the game, and a slight bonus when collecting artifacts from other locations later. Being attacked by a guardian isn’t the end of the world, but can have detrimental effects on your personal deck of cards if you fail to overcome a guardian too many times.
While in the jungle, you may place a single meeple, or “archaeologist” on your turn to discover a new area, or visit a previously discovered one. These new areas contain a guardian and some sort of gold amount or trinket (idols, artifacts, or jewels). These items can be used to push your token further through the hidden temple (see below) OR to purchase cards to improve your play deck going forward. While navigating this mysterious jungle can seem exciting at first glance, you have to be careful not to let your gold fever take over, as it may leave you with minimal points by not using some worker placement to explore the mysterious temple ruins further.
While the jungle takes up a majority of the board, there is a temple which players navigate through simultaneously on the right hand side of the giant board. While it isn’t as visually appealing as the jungle portion of the board, it serves by far the highest purpose by scoring victory points. As your token travels through this temple, more and more treasure (victory points) await. It is not suggested in the rulebook, but should be noted that failing to spend ample treasure to work your way through the temple is almost a sure-fire means of not having a chance to win the game. The mechanic of exploring the temple is unique, but can be costly in terms of managing your resources properly. In my opinion, this takes away from the luster of traversing through a hidden temple and finding as much fat loots as possible. Rather, it feels like another board game I own, where you are furiously chucking dice just trying to get through with no time to look around.
The final mechanic of the game, which, as I read reviews myself prior to purchase, thought would be more prominent, is the deck building mechanic. You are provided a few cards at the start, which is similar to most any deckbuilding game. These basic cards are your first few resources to use for traveling around the board OR for their monetary value in either gold or scrolls. Using the cards for travel allow you to explore different levels of the jungle on the game board. The lower areas of the board require less travel points, while the more lucrative spaces higher up in the jungle require more. To get more travel points, you will need better cards from the decks provided. By using your gold, also an aspect of each card, you may purchase stronger cards from the supply. So, there is a balance you must find between using your cards for travel or for purchases each turn. This can be very limiting with only having the 5 rounds in which to play.
My final thoughts: I am a total sucker for pretty much anything that says the words “deck building” on them, and this game was no exception. I went into this game thinking there was going to be this new way of using a deck building mechanic to also explore a really well crafted game board. I could not have been more wrong. The deck building aspect got so lost in the other mechanics, that I felt like I rarely had the opportunity to actually build my deck. After 3-4 plays of this game, with varying player counts from 2-4, I always ended up with a deck no bigger than about 15-20 cards. When I think deck build, I think of those powerhouses like Marvel Legendary, Ascension, or Star Realms where you are really transforming your deck into a large deck by the end. On top of that, most highly regarded deck builders require you to strategize somewhat in which cards that you buy to compliment your current deck further. Arnak completely leaves both of these elements out. Most times I found myself only able to purchase 1 card in the supply due to lack of resources that I did not have any choice in how that card would compliment my deck or not. It was merely just collecting a card to try and give my deck any sort of a distinct advantage going forward. Now, don’t get me wrong, like the game board, the artwork on the cards is stunning. By far this saves the poor mechanism of the actual cards themselves.
To me, the amount of mechanisms in the game is what gets in its own way. Its that classic, everything but the kitchen sink expression. The exploration gets in the way of the deck-building, which gets in the way of the worker placement, which gets in the way of the resource management. When I found myself wanting to build my deck, it was more crucial that I move up the temple one step. When I wanted to move up the temple, I was missing a certain idol, so I had to resort to wasting cards for gold to purchase a card for my deck that I really didn’t want. So while I think the premise is really thrilling for what this game could have been, in my opinion it just fell short. I left me wanting to explore the upper part of the jungle I never got to. I left me wanting to look at more of the artwork on the cards I never was able to purchase. In the end, I made it to the top of the temple. I couldn’t wait to enjoy my heaping pile of fat loots that awaited my studded archaeologist. However, once I turned over the treasure token, I only acquired another measly 12 victory points. This feeling left me wanting more from this game that was so hyped for its gameplay. I no longer felt like Indiana Jones, and more like I was in a bad B movie hoping for a better acting career.
Players, or “archaeologists” as the game coins them, will have only 5 rounds to explore as much of the board as possible, which includes a hidden temple as well as the jungle proper. At the end of the 5 rounds, players will add up all victory points they have obtained from the temple, any treasure they have left, points on any cards collected, and guardians they have overcome.
“Lost Ruins of Arnak” takes place on, well… Arnak. It’s a fictional jungle that is teeming with wild animals and guardians which keep watch over various treasures all over the expansive island, from here forward referred to as the giant game board. These guardians appear when you explore a new jungle tile for the first time. They attack only if you stay in the location longer than a turn OR if you return to the location on a subsequent turn. If you eliminate a guardian, they provide a couple victory points towards your overall total at the end of the game, and a slight bonus when collecting artifacts from other locations later. Being attacked by a guardian isn’t the end of the world, but can have detrimental effects on your personal deck of cards if you fail to overcome a guardian too many times.
While in the jungle, you may place a single meeple, or “archaeologist” on your turn to discover a new area, or visit a previously discovered one. These new areas contain a guardian and some sort of gold amount or trinket (idols, artifacts, or jewels). These items can be used to push your token further through the hidden temple (see below) OR to purchase cards to improve your play deck going forward. While navigating this mysterious jungle can seem exciting at first glance, you have to be careful not to let your gold fever take over, as it may leave you with minimal points by not using some worker placement to explore the mysterious temple ruins further.
While the jungle takes up a majority of the board, there is a temple which players navigate through simultaneously on the right hand side of the giant board. While it isn’t as visually appealing as the jungle portion of the board, it serves by far the highest purpose by scoring victory points. As your token travels through this temple, more and more treasure (victory points) await. It is not suggested in the rulebook, but should be noted that failing to spend ample treasure to work your way through the temple is almost a sure-fire means of not having a chance to win the game. The mechanic of exploring the temple is unique, but can be costly in terms of managing your resources properly. In my opinion, this takes away from the luster of traversing through a hidden temple and finding as much fat loots as possible. Rather, it feels like another board game I own, where you are furiously chucking dice just trying to get through with no time to look around.
The final mechanic of the game, which, as I read reviews myself prior to purchase, thought would be more prominent, is the deck building mechanic. You are provided a few cards at the start, which is similar to most any deckbuilding game. These basic cards are your first few resources to use for traveling around the board OR for their monetary value in either gold or scrolls. Using the cards for travel allow you to explore different levels of the jungle on the game board. The lower areas of the board require less travel points, while the more lucrative spaces higher up in the jungle require more. To get more travel points, you will need better cards from the decks provided. By using your gold, also an aspect of each card, you may purchase stronger cards from the supply. So, there is a balance you must find between using your cards for travel or for purchases each turn. This can be very limiting with only having the 5 rounds in which to play.
My final thoughts: I am a total sucker for pretty much anything that says the words “deck building” on them, and this game was no exception. I went into this game thinking there was going to be this new way of using a deck building mechanic to also explore a really well crafted game board. I could not have been more wrong. The deck building aspect got so lost in the other mechanics, that I felt like I rarely had the opportunity to actually build my deck. After 3-4 plays of this game, with varying player counts from 2-4, I always ended up with a deck no bigger than about 15-20 cards. When I think deck build, I think of those powerhouses like Marvel Legendary, Ascension, or Star Realms where you are really transforming your deck into a large deck by the end. On top of that, most highly regarded deck builders require you to strategize somewhat in which cards that you buy to compliment your current deck further. Arnak completely leaves both of these elements out. Most times I found myself only able to purchase 1 card in the supply due to lack of resources that I did not have any choice in how that card would compliment my deck or not. It was merely just collecting a card to try and give my deck any sort of a distinct advantage going forward. Now, don’t get me wrong, like the game board, the artwork on the cards is stunning. By far this saves the poor mechanism of the actual cards themselves.
To me, the amount of mechanisms in the game is what gets in its own way. Its that classic, everything but the kitchen sink expression. The exploration gets in the way of the deck-building, which gets in the way of the worker placement, which gets in the way of the resource management. When I found myself wanting to build my deck, it was more crucial that I move up the temple one step. When I wanted to move up the temple, I was missing a certain idol, so I had to resort to wasting cards for gold to purchase a card for my deck that I really didn’t want. So while I think the premise is really thrilling for what this game could have been, in my opinion it just fell short. I left me wanting to explore the upper part of the jungle I never got to. I left me wanting to look at more of the artwork on the cards I never was able to purchase. In the end, I made it to the top of the temple. I couldn’t wait to enjoy my heaping pile of fat loots that awaited my studded archaeologist. However, once I turned over the treasure token, I only acquired another measly 12 victory points. This feeling left me wanting more from this game that was so hyped for its gameplay. I no longer felt like Indiana Jones, and more like I was in a bad B movie hoping for a better acting career.
