Search
Search results
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Fractured Dream (The Dreamer Saga, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
In all honesty, Fractured Dream felt as though I was dragging a big sack of potatoes around and trying to find a place to put them... yet finding nowhere. And it's just bad when I take a chunk out of veggie chips during 2-3 hours of complete peace and quiet when I should have taken more chunk out of the book. Apparently, the veggie chips were more interesting, because I normally have no problems reading a 400-500+ paged book.
The book had an interesting take on Fairy tales and dreams, but the execution was poor. And there were LOTS of awkwardness.
<b>Dislikes aka Awkward101</b>
~ A few people watching two lovebirds having sex in the prologue. I mean, it wasn't exactly obvious at first, but when the words "I need to see that it's done. I need to know they've conceived" pops up, it's just creepy! If you don't think so, then imagine someone walking into your bedroom at the wrong time. Yep... it's awkward. Really awkward. Sorry might not even cut it.
~ Story yes, it's the main character's name. I'm not going to call her Bob so it makes sense seems to be carefree. She laughs a lot. But while she's carefree, she's sort of knowing as well. At least, that's how it is at the beginning. Later on Story seems all depressed and not confident that she could save the world from Brink.
~ Snow White and Sleep Beauty. These days, I'm done with these two being vampires in all those retellings I'm coming across. -_- Although what's different is an interesting thought: "What if the Real Worlds tastes in literature were somehow affecting the way Fairytales translated here?"
~ The romance between Story and Nicholas is completely unrealistic. They're staring at each other from the moment they meet in Tressla. First kiss? They pretty much make out. And nearly have sex. Haven't you guys heard me complain before about this already?
YA books are definitely growing up.
What's worse is there is a sex scene later. Not exactly graphic thankfully, but no thank you? *cringes away* When I said I was fine with romance, I seriously didn't mean go all out and do THAT.
~ The awkwardness doesn't end: a woman giving birth. Yeah... I'm <s>watching</s> reading about a woman giving birth. Goodness! Where am I? I think I need to change that review policy to middle grade and young adult crossovers only now! This is so not a manual about giving birth in the olden days.
~ Story has some sort of an attitude or aura I don't really like later on in the book. She basically expects all of her followers to listen to her as though she knows best. What kind of leader is that? That makes her as bad as the villain! Yes, everyone respects the leader. But shouldn't a leader listen to opinions as well, even when it's not a democracy? Don't monarchs listen to peasants complaining? Monarchy certainly isn't a democracy. Maybe one of her followers have a better idea.
<blockquote>I am the leader here. Does no one respect that position? Her eyes were lit with a golden fire. This is not a democracy.</blockquote>
<b>Likes</b>
~ Little Red Riding Hood isn't singular. She's a plural! One in each generation! Ever seen that in a fairy tale before?
<blockquote>But Grandma Red isnt the Little Red Riding Hood shes a Little Red Riding Hood. Each generation of their family has onea woman destined to fight her Wolf at some point in her lifetime.</blockquote>
~ Thumbelina makes an appearance, and they're usually in plants. So far, there's two types Red Rose and Morning Glory. The Red Rose Thumbelina makes a big appearance as she's Story's Thumbelina.
Speaking of Thumbelinas... I do enjoy Bliss' snark and attitude. Isn't she just adorable? She's tiny yet mighty!
<blockquote>Dont you dare make me look like a Briar Rose, all dramatic and sappy and full of themselves because Shakespeare wrote about them. I am a Red Rose, you hear me? I have a rep to protect. Do not make me run off with some damned prince. I really dont think I could stomach it.</blockquote>
~ The cover! So pretty... it's so magical and enchanting! Definitely fits the aspect of the book in a way.
Fractured Dream would probably be considered more of a happy read lots of reunions with Story and some of the Tresslans. But it has a lot of awkwardness I'd rather not read about... unless I'm reading Adult romance. Obviously, this is not an adult romance novel, because if it were, I wouldn't have requested it on Netgalley in the first place.
I'll be looking into the sequel though.
---------------------
Review copy provided by the publisher for review
Original Rating: 2.5 out of 5
Original Review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/08/review-fractured-dream-by-km-randall.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>
The book had an interesting take on Fairy tales and dreams, but the execution was poor. And there were LOTS of awkwardness.
<b>Dislikes aka Awkward101</b>
~ A few people watching two lovebirds having sex in the prologue. I mean, it wasn't exactly obvious at first, but when the words "I need to see that it's done. I need to know they've conceived" pops up, it's just creepy! If you don't think so, then imagine someone walking into your bedroom at the wrong time. Yep... it's awkward. Really awkward. Sorry might not even cut it.
~ Story yes, it's the main character's name. I'm not going to call her Bob so it makes sense seems to be carefree. She laughs a lot. But while she's carefree, she's sort of knowing as well. At least, that's how it is at the beginning. Later on Story seems all depressed and not confident that she could save the world from Brink.
~ Snow White and Sleep Beauty. These days, I'm done with these two being vampires in all those retellings I'm coming across. -_- Although what's different is an interesting thought: "What if the Real Worlds tastes in literature were somehow affecting the way Fairytales translated here?"
~ The romance between Story and Nicholas is completely unrealistic. They're staring at each other from the moment they meet in Tressla. First kiss? They pretty much make out. And nearly have sex. Haven't you guys heard me complain before about this already?
YA books are definitely growing up.
What's worse is there is a sex scene later. Not exactly graphic thankfully, but no thank you? *cringes away* When I said I was fine with romance, I seriously didn't mean go all out and do THAT.
~ The awkwardness doesn't end: a woman giving birth. Yeah... I'm <s>watching</s> reading about a woman giving birth. Goodness! Where am I? I think I need to change that review policy to middle grade and young adult crossovers only now! This is so not a manual about giving birth in the olden days.
~ Story has some sort of an attitude or aura I don't really like later on in the book. She basically expects all of her followers to listen to her as though she knows best. What kind of leader is that? That makes her as bad as the villain! Yes, everyone respects the leader. But shouldn't a leader listen to opinions as well, even when it's not a democracy? Don't monarchs listen to peasants complaining? Monarchy certainly isn't a democracy. Maybe one of her followers have a better idea.
<blockquote>I am the leader here. Does no one respect that position? Her eyes were lit with a golden fire. This is not a democracy.</blockquote>
<b>Likes</b>
~ Little Red Riding Hood isn't singular. She's a plural! One in each generation! Ever seen that in a fairy tale before?
<blockquote>But Grandma Red isnt the Little Red Riding Hood shes a Little Red Riding Hood. Each generation of their family has onea woman destined to fight her Wolf at some point in her lifetime.</blockquote>
~ Thumbelina makes an appearance, and they're usually in plants. So far, there's two types Red Rose and Morning Glory. The Red Rose Thumbelina makes a big appearance as she's Story's Thumbelina.
Speaking of Thumbelinas... I do enjoy Bliss' snark and attitude. Isn't she just adorable? She's tiny yet mighty!
<blockquote>Dont you dare make me look like a Briar Rose, all dramatic and sappy and full of themselves because Shakespeare wrote about them. I am a Red Rose, you hear me? I have a rep to protect. Do not make me run off with some damned prince. I really dont think I could stomach it.</blockquote>
~ The cover! So pretty... it's so magical and enchanting! Definitely fits the aspect of the book in a way.
Fractured Dream would probably be considered more of a happy read lots of reunions with Story and some of the Tresslans. But it has a lot of awkwardness I'd rather not read about... unless I'm reading Adult romance. Obviously, this is not an adult romance novel, because if it were, I wouldn't have requested it on Netgalley in the first place.
I'll be looking into the sequel though.
---------------------
Review copy provided by the publisher for review
Original Rating: 2.5 out of 5
Original Review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/08/review-fractured-dream-by-km-randall.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>
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Hangover Part II (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
It has been two years since writer-director producer Todd Phillips unleashed the mother of all benders on audiences with The Hangover. The film about four buddies on a lost weekend in Vegas was a comedic tour de force that left audiences laughing from start to finish and went on to be the highest grossing R-rated film in history. Naturally when a film does this kind of business, thoughts turned to a sequel and Phillips has returned with the original cast and crew to follow up this comedy classic.
Plot of the film mild-mannered dentist Stu (Ed Helms), who is getting married in Thailand to the girl of his dreams. Undaunted by the fact that his fiancé’s father despises everything about him, Stu convinces his best friends Phil (Bradley Cooper), and Doug (Justin Bartha), to take the 16 hour flight to attend the ceremony. When news reaches them that a crestfallen Alan (Zach Galifianikis), is waiting for his invitation to the ceremony, Stu is reluctant because he does not want a repeat of what happened in Vegas.
But despite their misgivings, the friends decide to include Alan in the ceremony and embark to the airport for the long flight to Thailand. They’re joined at the airport by Stu’s future brother-in-law Teddy (Mason Lee), a child prodigy who was already attending Stanford at 16 and has designs on a future medical career. As Stu’s fiance explains later in the film, Teddy is their father’s “most prized possession.”
Alan takes an instant disliking to Teddy and sees him as an outsider in their “wolf pack” and doesn’t miss an opportunity to try to exclude Teddy. Upon their arrival in beautiful Thailand, the friends get through a somewhat awkward dinner with the future in-laws and relax on the beach for a bonfire and bachelor party. Phil makes sure to be extra careful to avoid any of the issues they had in Vegas and selects bottled beer that was given to them by the hotel staff and makes sure that every one of them only gets an unopened bottle to drink.
Despite these precautions, Stu, Phil, and Alan wake up the next morning in a seedy hotel with absolutely no memory of how they got there and what happened the night before. Stu now sports a fresh facial tattoo while Alan has a completely shaved head. Matters are further complicated when the group realizes that Teddy is missing and that what appears to be his severed finger is found to be floating in a bucket of water.
As if things were not bad enough, matters take an even extreme turn for the worse when a monkey and Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong), show up and add even bigger complications to the already complex situation. The group learns that Doug is safely back at the resort and waiting for their arrival at breakfast after having left the bonfire early, leaving Stu, Alan and Phil to piece together the forgotten events of the night and locate Teddy before the wedding. Along the way they run into criminals, the sleazy side of Bangkok, upset monks, and much more as they race against time to solve the mystery and locate Teddy.
What follows is a comedic adventure complete with jaw-dropping sequences that leaves the audience shocked at just how far they push the envelope. The cast works well with one another and there are some truly funny moments in the film. The biggest issue with the movie is that it must walk a fine line between using the established formula of friends trying to remember and deal with the consequences of their lost evening while not repeating itself.
This is a very tricky proposition as the film essentially follows the same plot line of the original film: a group of friends are trying to remember the previous night and locate a missing member prior to a wedding. There are also similar jokes such as Stu dealing with a tattoo instead of a missing tooth and Alan’s constant nonsensical bantering and plethora of useless information.
Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel director Todd Phillips instead focuses on the relationship of the cast and allows the unique and exotic setting to be the new character and foil for the comedy. Many times in the film it is established that Teddy must be located before “Bangkok gets him” and as such the city offers endless opportunities for the cast.
The film does drag at the three quarters mark but recovers nicely, leading to a predictable finale. While the film was not as thoroughly funny as the original, in terms of humor and storytelling, but there are still plenty of laughs and eye-popping scenes that make it an enjoyable comedy. There are rumors that Phillips has plans for third film in the series to complete the trilogy. If this is indeed the case I would welcome a third film with the understanding that more care be put into the plot to avoid rehashing previous jokes and situations.
Plot of the film mild-mannered dentist Stu (Ed Helms), who is getting married in Thailand to the girl of his dreams. Undaunted by the fact that his fiancé’s father despises everything about him, Stu convinces his best friends Phil (Bradley Cooper), and Doug (Justin Bartha), to take the 16 hour flight to attend the ceremony. When news reaches them that a crestfallen Alan (Zach Galifianikis), is waiting for his invitation to the ceremony, Stu is reluctant because he does not want a repeat of what happened in Vegas.
But despite their misgivings, the friends decide to include Alan in the ceremony and embark to the airport for the long flight to Thailand. They’re joined at the airport by Stu’s future brother-in-law Teddy (Mason Lee), a child prodigy who was already attending Stanford at 16 and has designs on a future medical career. As Stu’s fiance explains later in the film, Teddy is their father’s “most prized possession.”
Alan takes an instant disliking to Teddy and sees him as an outsider in their “wolf pack” and doesn’t miss an opportunity to try to exclude Teddy. Upon their arrival in beautiful Thailand, the friends get through a somewhat awkward dinner with the future in-laws and relax on the beach for a bonfire and bachelor party. Phil makes sure to be extra careful to avoid any of the issues they had in Vegas and selects bottled beer that was given to them by the hotel staff and makes sure that every one of them only gets an unopened bottle to drink.
Despite these precautions, Stu, Phil, and Alan wake up the next morning in a seedy hotel with absolutely no memory of how they got there and what happened the night before. Stu now sports a fresh facial tattoo while Alan has a completely shaved head. Matters are further complicated when the group realizes that Teddy is missing and that what appears to be his severed finger is found to be floating in a bucket of water.
As if things were not bad enough, matters take an even extreme turn for the worse when a monkey and Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong), show up and add even bigger complications to the already complex situation. The group learns that Doug is safely back at the resort and waiting for their arrival at breakfast after having left the bonfire early, leaving Stu, Alan and Phil to piece together the forgotten events of the night and locate Teddy before the wedding. Along the way they run into criminals, the sleazy side of Bangkok, upset monks, and much more as they race against time to solve the mystery and locate Teddy.
What follows is a comedic adventure complete with jaw-dropping sequences that leaves the audience shocked at just how far they push the envelope. The cast works well with one another and there are some truly funny moments in the film. The biggest issue with the movie is that it must walk a fine line between using the established formula of friends trying to remember and deal with the consequences of their lost evening while not repeating itself.
This is a very tricky proposition as the film essentially follows the same plot line of the original film: a group of friends are trying to remember the previous night and locate a missing member prior to a wedding. There are also similar jokes such as Stu dealing with a tattoo instead of a missing tooth and Alan’s constant nonsensical bantering and plethora of useless information.
Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel director Todd Phillips instead focuses on the relationship of the cast and allows the unique and exotic setting to be the new character and foil for the comedy. Many times in the film it is established that Teddy must be located before “Bangkok gets him” and as such the city offers endless opportunities for the cast.
The film does drag at the three quarters mark but recovers nicely, leading to a predictable finale. While the film was not as thoroughly funny as the original, in terms of humor and storytelling, but there are still plenty of laughs and eye-popping scenes that make it an enjoyable comedy. There are rumors that Phillips has plans for third film in the series to complete the trilogy. If this is indeed the case I would welcome a third film with the understanding that more care be put into the plot to avoid rehashing previous jokes and situations.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Six Minutes to Midnight (2021) in Movies
Apr 4, 2021 (Updated Apr 4, 2021)
Historical story (Potential for a great film) (1 more)
Judi Dench
B-grade spy caper antics (1 more)
Some ridiculous plot-points
A "39 Steps-esque" thriller that doesn't match its potential
In "Six Minutes to Midnight", it's the summer of 1939 (so we are in a parallel time-flow here with the events of "The Dig"). A private girl's school - the Augusta Victoria College in Bexhill-on-Sea - is run with loving care by the spinster Miss Rocholl (Judi Dench). But the 'finishing school' is unusual, in that all its teenage students are German. Indeed, they are the offspring of prominent Nazis.
When half-German English teacher Thomas Miller (Eddie Izzard) applies for a suddenly vacant position, he is taken on to share the teaching duties with Rocholl and Ilse (Carla Juri). But in snooping into the activities going on there, he finds mystery and danger.
Positives:
This is a fascinating premise for a movie that will appeal to an older generation, along the lines of "They don't make them like this anymore". It has elements of the 'good guy on the run' that struck parallels with "The 39 Steps" for me.
It's great that the school is all based on historical fact. Miss Rochol did indeed run the school, as a part of a plan to infiltrate British high-society with pro-Nazi sympathies ahead of an invasion. In real-life, one of the pupils was the god-daughter of Heinrich Himmler and one - Bettina von Ribbentrop - was the daughter of the German foreign minister.
After a comic "Family Guy"-style set of production logos to kick off with (for a full one and a half minutes!!), the pre-title sequence is a superb scene-setter. What exactly is going on here? A frantic scrabbling in a bookcase. A pier-end disappearance. The school badge (a genuine reproduction!) with its Union flag and Nazi Swastika insignia. The girls performing a ballet-like ritual on the beach with batons. (This looks to be a cracker, I thought).
Judi Dench. Superb as always.
Chris Seager does the cinematography, and impressively so. Most of Seager's CV has been TV work, so it must be delightful to be given the breadth of a cinema screen to capture landscapes like this.
I like the clever title: "Six Minutes to Midnight". I assumed it was intended solely to reflect the imminence of war. But it actually has another meaning entirely.
Negatives:
For me, was a highly frustrating film. All of the great credibility and atmosphere it builds up in the first 30 minutes, it then squanders by diving off into sub-Hitchcock spy capers.
Izzard becomes a 'man on the run', and doesn't seem credible at that. (I appreciate the irony of this statement given that this is the man who ran 32 marathons in 31 days for charity!) But Izzard is built for distance and not for speed, and some of the police chase scenes in the movie strain credibility to breaking point. Another actor might have been able to pull this off better.
There's a lack of continuity in the film: was it perhaps cut down from a much longer running time? At one point, Miller is a wanted murderer with his face plastered on the front pages. The next, kindly bus driver Charlie (Jim Broadbent) is unaccountably aiding him and Rochol seems to have assumed his innocence in later scenes.
Various spy caper clichés are mined to extreme - including those old classics 'swerve to avoid bullets'; 'gun shot but different gun'; and 'shot guy seems to live forever'. And there are double-agent 'twists' occurring that are utterly predictable.
A very specific continuity irritation for me was in an 'aircraft landing' scene. Markers are separated by nine paces (I went back and counted them!) yet a view from a plane shows them a 'runway-width' apart. This might have escaped scrutiny were it shown just once. But no... we have ground shot; air shot; ground shot; air shot..... repeatedly!
Summary thoughts: This was one of the cinema trailers that most appealed to me over a year ago, in those heady days in the sunlit-uplands of life before Covid-19. It's a movie that showed a great deal of promise, since the history is fascinating. And there is probably a really great TV serial in here: showing the 'alternate history' consequences of these high-society German girls penetrating British society and steering the war in a different direction (screenplay idea (C) RJ Mann!) But the potential is squandered with a non-credible spy caper bolted onto the side.
So with "Six Minutes to Midnight", Downton-director Andy Goddard has made a perfectly watchable 'rainy Sunday afternoon' film, that I enjoyed in part for its 'old-school' quirkiness. But it's frustrating that all the promise couldn't be transitioned into a more satisfying movie.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/04/six-minutes-to-midnight-a-39-steps-esque-thriller-but-not-quite-pulling-it-off/. Thanks).
When half-German English teacher Thomas Miller (Eddie Izzard) applies for a suddenly vacant position, he is taken on to share the teaching duties with Rocholl and Ilse (Carla Juri). But in snooping into the activities going on there, he finds mystery and danger.
Positives:
This is a fascinating premise for a movie that will appeal to an older generation, along the lines of "They don't make them like this anymore". It has elements of the 'good guy on the run' that struck parallels with "The 39 Steps" for me.
It's great that the school is all based on historical fact. Miss Rochol did indeed run the school, as a part of a plan to infiltrate British high-society with pro-Nazi sympathies ahead of an invasion. In real-life, one of the pupils was the god-daughter of Heinrich Himmler and one - Bettina von Ribbentrop - was the daughter of the German foreign minister.
After a comic "Family Guy"-style set of production logos to kick off with (for a full one and a half minutes!!), the pre-title sequence is a superb scene-setter. What exactly is going on here? A frantic scrabbling in a bookcase. A pier-end disappearance. The school badge (a genuine reproduction!) with its Union flag and Nazi Swastika insignia. The girls performing a ballet-like ritual on the beach with batons. (This looks to be a cracker, I thought).
Judi Dench. Superb as always.
Chris Seager does the cinematography, and impressively so. Most of Seager's CV has been TV work, so it must be delightful to be given the breadth of a cinema screen to capture landscapes like this.
I like the clever title: "Six Minutes to Midnight". I assumed it was intended solely to reflect the imminence of war. But it actually has another meaning entirely.
Negatives:
For me, was a highly frustrating film. All of the great credibility and atmosphere it builds up in the first 30 minutes, it then squanders by diving off into sub-Hitchcock spy capers.
Izzard becomes a 'man on the run', and doesn't seem credible at that. (I appreciate the irony of this statement given that this is the man who ran 32 marathons in 31 days for charity!) But Izzard is built for distance and not for speed, and some of the police chase scenes in the movie strain credibility to breaking point. Another actor might have been able to pull this off better.
There's a lack of continuity in the film: was it perhaps cut down from a much longer running time? At one point, Miller is a wanted murderer with his face plastered on the front pages. The next, kindly bus driver Charlie (Jim Broadbent) is unaccountably aiding him and Rochol seems to have assumed his innocence in later scenes.
Various spy caper clichés are mined to extreme - including those old classics 'swerve to avoid bullets'; 'gun shot but different gun'; and 'shot guy seems to live forever'. And there are double-agent 'twists' occurring that are utterly predictable.
A very specific continuity irritation for me was in an 'aircraft landing' scene. Markers are separated by nine paces (I went back and counted them!) yet a view from a plane shows them a 'runway-width' apart. This might have escaped scrutiny were it shown just once. But no... we have ground shot; air shot; ground shot; air shot..... repeatedly!
Summary thoughts: This was one of the cinema trailers that most appealed to me over a year ago, in those heady days in the sunlit-uplands of life before Covid-19. It's a movie that showed a great deal of promise, since the history is fascinating. And there is probably a really great TV serial in here: showing the 'alternate history' consequences of these high-society German girls penetrating British society and steering the war in a different direction (screenplay idea (C) RJ Mann!) But the potential is squandered with a non-credible spy caper bolted onto the side.
So with "Six Minutes to Midnight", Downton-director Andy Goddard has made a perfectly watchable 'rainy Sunday afternoon' film, that I enjoyed in part for its 'old-school' quirkiness. But it's frustrating that all the promise couldn't be transitioned into a more satisfying movie.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/04/six-minutes-to-midnight-a-39-steps-esque-thriller-but-not-quite-pulling-it-off/. Thanks).
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Fantastiqa in Tabletop Games
Jul 30, 2021
Ahh yes, Fantastiqa. Another to add to the list of, “I once owned, then I got rid of it, then missed it so much I had to reacquire it.” My wife loves when I do that… In any case, Fantastiqa gives players a very strange slant on deck building adventure games. Some would say the theme and its implementation will make or break it for players. Upon which side of the line do we fall?
Fantastiqa is a fantasy rock-paper-scissors style deck building adventure game. Now each of those mechanics individually can make for a wonderful children’s game. Looking upon the art in Fantastiqa will also nudge players towards that of a children’s game. Alas, Fantastiqa is not a children’s game and players will be scratching their heads for multiple reasons whilst playing it.
To setup, follow the instructions of the rulebook. There are just too many to list and explain here. Once setup, the game should look something like the photo above. Each player will have their draw decks identical to those of their opponents, and the play area is essentially a map of six locations with a statue at each location and decks of cards from which players will be drawing on their turns.
A typical turn will allow players to complete one of three different actions: Go Adventuring (where players will be using cards from their decks to subdue and recruit creatures between locations), Visit a Statue (where players can draw cards from the different decks for Beast, Artifact, and Quest cards to add to their discard piles, or pay gems to exile cards from their hands out of the game, or even pay gems to teleport to the matching statue on the other side of the board), or Complete a Quest (by discarding their appropriate cards that fulfill the quest requirements).
Turns can be very quick, or long and drawn out as players carefully choose which tactics to apply to the board on the table, while weighing the need for more powerful cards in their decks, and keeping up with the Joneses as they compete for VP on Quest cards. This is a deck builder, after all, so improving one’s deck is always the first consideration, but should a player oust those dang tea-drinking lazy dragon cards, or attempt to commit cards to a quest? The choices are quite numerous as play continues, and players realize that, again, this is no child’s game. Play continues in this fashion of players taking turns completing actions and quests until one player gains enough VP through completed quests to win the game.
Components. Every component in Fantastiqa is Fantastiq! I feel like the entire game is linen-finished, save for the little plastic gems and large statueeples. This game feels quite deluxe, and that will always be a big stamp of approval from me. One thing that can jar some players is the choice of art used between the player placards, card art, token art, and other components. They certainly don’t match at all, but I believe this tracks with the quirky nature of the theme and game overall, so I quite enjoy it. I can indeed understand why some would be opposed, but that is not how I feel at all.
I kinda bled into my final thoughts there, but I do love Fantastiqa. The theme is super weird: players answer a Help Wanted ad and long story short they meet a crazy old man who gives them a rucksack full of ordinary items: toothbrush, helmet, bat, and a dog. The dog runs away across the street and players find themselves in another world where these ordinary items are now transformed into magic wands, rams (the animals), clubs, and a dog, among other items. Players I have played with cannot accept that a spatula is a sword in the game and that just breaks immersion for them. I quite like it and the game’s wacky theme.
But the gameplay itself is also quite engaging. Traveling all over this new world subduing (and subsequently recruiting to your cause) Knights with spatulae and Giant Spiders with cat’s teeth is interesting and a fresh way to incorporate a theme into a deck builder as opposed to simply generating purchasing power and buying the cards that are wanted. The statue interactions are great ways to build up your deck as well, and keeping an eye on what quests others are gunning for as well as their personal hidden quests adds a bit of race-game feeling that some other deck builders lack. I can’t say enough great things about Fantastiqa, but completely understand how the theme may break the game for others’ enjoyment. That said, Purple Phoenix Games give this one a well-traveled 10 / 12. It’s weird, I’ll give you that, but it’s a good kind of weird. Check it out.
Fantastiqa is a fantasy rock-paper-scissors style deck building adventure game. Now each of those mechanics individually can make for a wonderful children’s game. Looking upon the art in Fantastiqa will also nudge players towards that of a children’s game. Alas, Fantastiqa is not a children’s game and players will be scratching their heads for multiple reasons whilst playing it.
To setup, follow the instructions of the rulebook. There are just too many to list and explain here. Once setup, the game should look something like the photo above. Each player will have their draw decks identical to those of their opponents, and the play area is essentially a map of six locations with a statue at each location and decks of cards from which players will be drawing on their turns.
A typical turn will allow players to complete one of three different actions: Go Adventuring (where players will be using cards from their decks to subdue and recruit creatures between locations), Visit a Statue (where players can draw cards from the different decks for Beast, Artifact, and Quest cards to add to their discard piles, or pay gems to exile cards from their hands out of the game, or even pay gems to teleport to the matching statue on the other side of the board), or Complete a Quest (by discarding their appropriate cards that fulfill the quest requirements).
Turns can be very quick, or long and drawn out as players carefully choose which tactics to apply to the board on the table, while weighing the need for more powerful cards in their decks, and keeping up with the Joneses as they compete for VP on Quest cards. This is a deck builder, after all, so improving one’s deck is always the first consideration, but should a player oust those dang tea-drinking lazy dragon cards, or attempt to commit cards to a quest? The choices are quite numerous as play continues, and players realize that, again, this is no child’s game. Play continues in this fashion of players taking turns completing actions and quests until one player gains enough VP through completed quests to win the game.
Components. Every component in Fantastiqa is Fantastiq! I feel like the entire game is linen-finished, save for the little plastic gems and large statueeples. This game feels quite deluxe, and that will always be a big stamp of approval from me. One thing that can jar some players is the choice of art used between the player placards, card art, token art, and other components. They certainly don’t match at all, but I believe this tracks with the quirky nature of the theme and game overall, so I quite enjoy it. I can indeed understand why some would be opposed, but that is not how I feel at all.
I kinda bled into my final thoughts there, but I do love Fantastiqa. The theme is super weird: players answer a Help Wanted ad and long story short they meet a crazy old man who gives them a rucksack full of ordinary items: toothbrush, helmet, bat, and a dog. The dog runs away across the street and players find themselves in another world where these ordinary items are now transformed into magic wands, rams (the animals), clubs, and a dog, among other items. Players I have played with cannot accept that a spatula is a sword in the game and that just breaks immersion for them. I quite like it and the game’s wacky theme.
But the gameplay itself is also quite engaging. Traveling all over this new world subduing (and subsequently recruiting to your cause) Knights with spatulae and Giant Spiders with cat’s teeth is interesting and a fresh way to incorporate a theme into a deck builder as opposed to simply generating purchasing power and buying the cards that are wanted. The statue interactions are great ways to build up your deck as well, and keeping an eye on what quests others are gunning for as well as their personal hidden quests adds a bit of race-game feeling that some other deck builders lack. I can’t say enough great things about Fantastiqa, but completely understand how the theme may break the game for others’ enjoyment. That said, Purple Phoenix Games give this one a well-traveled 10 / 12. It’s weird, I’ll give you that, but it’s a good kind of weird. Check it out.
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated Go the Distance: A Twisted Tale in Books
Jun 17, 2021
What if Meg had to become a Greek God?
Following on immediately from the end of the much loved Hercules film, Jen Calonita is back with a twisted tale starring our favourite D.I.D: Damsel in Distress.
Now, I LOVE sarcasm and sass so Meg has always been a firm favourite of mine. I was thrilled when I heard she would finally be getting her own story and did Calonita disappoint? No she did not!
Go The Distance is told entirely from Meg’s point of view: immersing the reader immediately in her thoughts and feelings whilst ascending to Mount Olympus with Hercules. I loved how in tune Jen Calonita was with her protagonist, right from the first few pages: there is literally SO much pomp and circumstance surrounding Meg, she is stood on a cloud for goodness sake! But does that stop her doubting herself? Doubting the budding relationship with Herc? Not a chance!
It will come as no surprise to regular readers of twisted tale novels that Calonita quickly tanks our hopes of a happy ending (makes sense- we’re only in the first few pages) as Zeus refuses Hercules’ request to be with Meg on Earth: the lightning-wielding god and his wife have waited too long for their son to re-join them, to lose him this easily. However, Hera can see how happy this mortal makes her son and so makes Meg a once-in-a-lifetime offer, complete a hero’s quest in 10 days and stay with Herc on Mount Olympus as a god for eternity.
Obviously Meg accepts- it would be a short story if she passed this opportunity up- and embarks upon an adventure like no other. As well as having to navigate the underworld, negotiate with Hades and face her ex, Meg battles monsters, befriends Gods and learns her most important lesson: that love is a strength, not a weakness.
Joining Meg on her journey are characters we know and love, such as Phil, Pegasus and Hades. It would be so easy for Jen Calonita to play it safe with these iconic characters but I am pleased to say that these guys get their own little developments too: particularly Hades as we see the character of Persephone and her impact upon his life.
Calonita also introduces us to a host of new characters, two of which are pivotal to both the reader understanding how key events in her life have created this tough armour that Meg wears so well. These are Thea, Meg’s mother and Aegeus, the man who Meg gave up her soul for. Aegeus is a bit wet in my opinion (he’s no Wonder Boy!) but the relationship Calonita creates between Meg and Thea is something precious: the reader can see the struggles faced by both women and can immediately identify where Meg got her fiery nature from.
But of course our heroine is the one who shines in this twisted tale: Meg was already a brilliant character but Calonita opens her up a little bit more and manages to break down some of her walls: along her quest Meg almost embraces her vulnerability, she learns to trust and learns that it is not a weakness to ask for and accept help. After that her quest seems to become easier- which is saying a lot in the underworld!
I also really admired that Meg doesn’t go weak at the knees at the prospect of spending eternity with Hercules, in fact she isn’t sure she wants eternity, she just wants the chance to find out! This made the underlying love story real rather than fairytale. Herc and Meg argue, they say things they regret but ultimately, they show up for each other and that’s what is important in the end.
I have seen other reviewers slating the character of Meg, saying that she is too rash and hot-headed in this twisted tale and bears little resemblance to the animated character we love. I have to say I completely disagree with these views: yes, as her quest nears its deadline then Meg becomes increasingly rash but hello, the girl gave up her soul to Hades! You can’t tell me she doesn’t have previous form for diving head-first into a situation?!
Go The Distance is an adorable novel about embracing your vulnerability and trusting those who want to help you. It teaches us that independence does not necessarily mean facing everything alone, love does not necessarily come from one stand-out moment and that it is never too late to forgive. This twisted tale is not as dark as other retellings in the series but Jen Calonita is an expert in middle-grade literature and so this is not a surprise nor a criticism.
“Two thumbs, way way up for our leading lady!”
Following on immediately from the end of the much loved Hercules film, Jen Calonita is back with a twisted tale starring our favourite D.I.D: Damsel in Distress.
Now, I LOVE sarcasm and sass so Meg has always been a firm favourite of mine. I was thrilled when I heard she would finally be getting her own story and did Calonita disappoint? No she did not!
Go The Distance is told entirely from Meg’s point of view: immersing the reader immediately in her thoughts and feelings whilst ascending to Mount Olympus with Hercules. I loved how in tune Jen Calonita was with her protagonist, right from the first few pages: there is literally SO much pomp and circumstance surrounding Meg, she is stood on a cloud for goodness sake! But does that stop her doubting herself? Doubting the budding relationship with Herc? Not a chance!
It will come as no surprise to regular readers of twisted tale novels that Calonita quickly tanks our hopes of a happy ending (makes sense- we’re only in the first few pages) as Zeus refuses Hercules’ request to be with Meg on Earth: the lightning-wielding god and his wife have waited too long for their son to re-join them, to lose him this easily. However, Hera can see how happy this mortal makes her son and so makes Meg a once-in-a-lifetime offer, complete a hero’s quest in 10 days and stay with Herc on Mount Olympus as a god for eternity.
Obviously Meg accepts- it would be a short story if she passed this opportunity up- and embarks upon an adventure like no other. As well as having to navigate the underworld, negotiate with Hades and face her ex, Meg battles monsters, befriends Gods and learns her most important lesson: that love is a strength, not a weakness.
Joining Meg on her journey are characters we know and love, such as Phil, Pegasus and Hades. It would be so easy for Jen Calonita to play it safe with these iconic characters but I am pleased to say that these guys get their own little developments too: particularly Hades as we see the character of Persephone and her impact upon his life.
Calonita also introduces us to a host of new characters, two of which are pivotal to both the reader understanding how key events in her life have created this tough armour that Meg wears so well. These are Thea, Meg’s mother and Aegeus, the man who Meg gave up her soul for. Aegeus is a bit wet in my opinion (he’s no Wonder Boy!) but the relationship Calonita creates between Meg and Thea is something precious: the reader can see the struggles faced by both women and can immediately identify where Meg got her fiery nature from.
But of course our heroine is the one who shines in this twisted tale: Meg was already a brilliant character but Calonita opens her up a little bit more and manages to break down some of her walls: along her quest Meg almost embraces her vulnerability, she learns to trust and learns that it is not a weakness to ask for and accept help. After that her quest seems to become easier- which is saying a lot in the underworld!
I also really admired that Meg doesn’t go weak at the knees at the prospect of spending eternity with Hercules, in fact she isn’t sure she wants eternity, she just wants the chance to find out! This made the underlying love story real rather than fairytale. Herc and Meg argue, they say things they regret but ultimately, they show up for each other and that’s what is important in the end.
I have seen other reviewers slating the character of Meg, saying that she is too rash and hot-headed in this twisted tale and bears little resemblance to the animated character we love. I have to say I completely disagree with these views: yes, as her quest nears its deadline then Meg becomes increasingly rash but hello, the girl gave up her soul to Hades! You can’t tell me she doesn’t have previous form for diving head-first into a situation?!
Go The Distance is an adorable novel about embracing your vulnerability and trusting those who want to help you. It teaches us that independence does not necessarily mean facing everything alone, love does not necessarily come from one stand-out moment and that it is never too late to forgive. This twisted tale is not as dark as other retellings in the series but Jen Calonita is an expert in middle-grade literature and so this is not a surprise nor a criticism.
“Two thumbs, way way up for our leading lady!”
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated The Kitchen (2019) in Movies
Aug 24, 2019
Married into a life with the mob, three women living in Hell’s Kitchen, New York City in the late ‘70s find themselves trapped in their husband’s shadows in Andrea Berloff’s debut film, The Kitchen. Based on a 2014 DC Comics graphic novel by the same name, the film focuses on these three female friends facing the aftermath of their husband’s botched crime and subsequent imprisonment. Their Italian crime family promised to take care of them while their spouses are locked away, but their measly support simply isn’t enough when they’ve got mouths to feed and bills to pay. Tired of being weak and dependent, the ladies band together to take control of their situation by trying to take over the mob.
The Kitchen stars actresses Melissa McCarthy, Tiffany Haddish, and Elisabeth Moss as the female trio who work to rise to the top of their crime family by carrying the dead weight of the lazy men who lead it. McCarthy plays Kathy Brennan, a housewife and mother of two, whose seemingly good-natured husband is clearly involved in the wrong crowd. In spite of that, she appears to have a pleasant life at home, but her heavy reliance on her husband puts her in peril once he’s locked away. On the other hand, Haddish and Moss play Ruby and Claire, who are both victimized and disrespected by their husbands, with Claire even being regularly abused. These characteristics help to define the women and their actions as they attempt to upend the male-dominated establishment.
However, despite The Kitchen’s strong set-up, the characters themselves don’t show much depth beyond this, and the film’s performances leave a lot to be desired. McCarthy felt like she was acting in an entirely different movie. I’ve never seen a more passive and unconvincing crime boss. She’s struggling with a balancing act that sees her going between being tough, funny, ruthless, submissive, and sweet. By comparison to the rest of the movie, her whole character feels off-key. Then there’s Haddish who gives the worst acting performance I’ve seen in quite some time. I’m not really a fan of her brand of humor, but I didn’t like her dramatic turn here either. She just delivers snarky lines with attitude and death glares before walking off-camera in practically every shot she’s in. It’s almost funny how cheesy and over-the-top it is. You can’t just go mean-mugging your way through a whole major motion picture and expect to be taken seriously.
On a more positive note, Moss was much more impressive as Claire, who is fed up with being beaten down and bullied, and is determined to learn how to defend herself. She partners up with Domhnall Gleeson’s hitman character Gabriel who teaches her how to kill. Their relationship ends up being perhaps the most interesting aspect of the whole movie, and it has something of a Bonnie and Clyde quality to it. I only wish we could have seen it fleshed out a bit more.
For all of its potential, especially in terms of portraying female empowerment, The Kitchen regrettably winds up being a generic, inconsistent, and lethargic affair. I personally love the premise of the film. It’s a bad ass statement to any man who has ever said that a woman’s place is in the kitchen. It sticks up a middle finger to sexism by taking the action to the criminal streets of Hell’s Kitchen where the women rise to power. Unfortunately, despite the kick-ass feminist concept, I found that the film’s attempt at empowerment never really manifests into anything meaningful.
Instead, The Kitchen feels messy and uninspired. There isn’t a single scene in the entire film that I would consider to be good. The story is thin, the suspense is absent, the setting is bland, the tone is confusing, and the characters are mostly uninspired. I hate to even say it, but while watching it, I couldn’t help but be reminded of last year’s train-wreck of a film, Gotti, starring John Travolta. I think both of these films had a lot of promise, but seriously failed to deliver. As someone who loves a good gangster movie, I feel really disappointed.
There’s ultimately very little I liked about The Kitchen. The movie lacks a pulse, and the stakes never feel significant, not even as the body count piles up. The set design shows no strong sense of place or time period. Most of the settings outside seemed to be looking at nondescript sidewalks that could have been filmed anywhere. With the setting of Hell’s Kitchen, I can’t help but immediately think of The Godfather. Similarly, the use of The Rolling Stones in the trailer evokes thoughts of Scorsese and Goodfellas. Unfortunately, this movie clearly doesn’t even come close to comparing to either of those classics. This movie’s plot is weak, the betrayals are obvious, and the ending is uncomfortably idiotic. Despite it all, however, I find myself still interested in The Kitchen’s graphic novel at least, because I can’t imagine it being this bad.
The Kitchen stars actresses Melissa McCarthy, Tiffany Haddish, and Elisabeth Moss as the female trio who work to rise to the top of their crime family by carrying the dead weight of the lazy men who lead it. McCarthy plays Kathy Brennan, a housewife and mother of two, whose seemingly good-natured husband is clearly involved in the wrong crowd. In spite of that, she appears to have a pleasant life at home, but her heavy reliance on her husband puts her in peril once he’s locked away. On the other hand, Haddish and Moss play Ruby and Claire, who are both victimized and disrespected by their husbands, with Claire even being regularly abused. These characteristics help to define the women and their actions as they attempt to upend the male-dominated establishment.
However, despite The Kitchen’s strong set-up, the characters themselves don’t show much depth beyond this, and the film’s performances leave a lot to be desired. McCarthy felt like she was acting in an entirely different movie. I’ve never seen a more passive and unconvincing crime boss. She’s struggling with a balancing act that sees her going between being tough, funny, ruthless, submissive, and sweet. By comparison to the rest of the movie, her whole character feels off-key. Then there’s Haddish who gives the worst acting performance I’ve seen in quite some time. I’m not really a fan of her brand of humor, but I didn’t like her dramatic turn here either. She just delivers snarky lines with attitude and death glares before walking off-camera in practically every shot she’s in. It’s almost funny how cheesy and over-the-top it is. You can’t just go mean-mugging your way through a whole major motion picture and expect to be taken seriously.
On a more positive note, Moss was much more impressive as Claire, who is fed up with being beaten down and bullied, and is determined to learn how to defend herself. She partners up with Domhnall Gleeson’s hitman character Gabriel who teaches her how to kill. Their relationship ends up being perhaps the most interesting aspect of the whole movie, and it has something of a Bonnie and Clyde quality to it. I only wish we could have seen it fleshed out a bit more.
For all of its potential, especially in terms of portraying female empowerment, The Kitchen regrettably winds up being a generic, inconsistent, and lethargic affair. I personally love the premise of the film. It’s a bad ass statement to any man who has ever said that a woman’s place is in the kitchen. It sticks up a middle finger to sexism by taking the action to the criminal streets of Hell’s Kitchen where the women rise to power. Unfortunately, despite the kick-ass feminist concept, I found that the film’s attempt at empowerment never really manifests into anything meaningful.
Instead, The Kitchen feels messy and uninspired. There isn’t a single scene in the entire film that I would consider to be good. The story is thin, the suspense is absent, the setting is bland, the tone is confusing, and the characters are mostly uninspired. I hate to even say it, but while watching it, I couldn’t help but be reminded of last year’s train-wreck of a film, Gotti, starring John Travolta. I think both of these films had a lot of promise, but seriously failed to deliver. As someone who loves a good gangster movie, I feel really disappointed.
There’s ultimately very little I liked about The Kitchen. The movie lacks a pulse, and the stakes never feel significant, not even as the body count piles up. The set design shows no strong sense of place or time period. Most of the settings outside seemed to be looking at nondescript sidewalks that could have been filmed anywhere. With the setting of Hell’s Kitchen, I can’t help but immediately think of The Godfather. Similarly, the use of The Rolling Stones in the trailer evokes thoughts of Scorsese and Goodfellas. Unfortunately, this movie clearly doesn’t even come close to comparing to either of those classics. This movie’s plot is weak, the betrayals are obvious, and the ending is uncomfortably idiotic. Despite it all, however, I find myself still interested in The Kitchen’s graphic novel at least, because I can’t imagine it being this bad.
The Crowning of the Fire King by Sorcerer
Album Watch
Sorcerer was formed in Stockholm, Sweden in 1988 by Johnny Hagel (Tiamat, Sundown, Lithium), Tommy...
metal
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Good popcorn nonsense.
“Remember who we are. The Shaw family. We never, never, never give up.”
(That title is especially for my friends the Shaw family!).
Well, the patchy British summer’s just about up, and autumn’s chilly fingers are touching up the UK. And yet I still hadn’t seen the summer hit “Hobbs and Shaw”! Until last night.
It’s utter nonsense of course, like most of the “Fast and Furious” films, but I have to admit it’s done with some tongue in cheek style.
The plot
A vicious cyber-soldier, Brixton (Idris Elba) tries to steal a deadly virus but is thwarted by brave MI6 agent Hattie (Vanessa Kirby). To help recover the virus, Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) is recruited in London by CIA agent Loeb (Rob Delaney, the “non-super” hero Peter in “Deadpool 2“). In an interesting piece of related casting, the Eteon Director (Champ Nightengale – LoL, a cameo for someone far more famous) recruits Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) in LA as a part of the team.
Both agents know they are heading for trouble… but do they really appreciate how much the pair hate each other’s guts?
The trail leads from London to the Ukraine to (a very picturesque) Samoa in a race against time to both defeat the undefeatable Brixton and save Hattie: now a ticking time bomb of global destruction. And Hattie has relations!
Absurd stunts.
As a “Fast and Furious” film there are of course some truly absurd car stunts involved and – unlike the Mission Impossible films – you are never quite sure what is “real” and what is CGI generated. Which is a shame.
For me, the gold standard for chases remains Tom Cruise‘s chase through Paris in “Mission Impossible: Fallout“. Here, the car chase through London – whilst impressive – never quite reaches the seat clenching tension of MI6.
And a final stunt with a helicopter is – I’m sorry – just plain ridiculous. If a chopper can partially lift 5 x load then why can’t it completely lift 1 x load. Give me a break!
To round things off, there is one of the most unbelievable “100% survival of a car crashing off a cliff” scenes in movie history!
Acting
The acting is largely from the Arnie Swartzenegger school, with Johnson and Statham giving it the old shtick. Dwayne Johnson may be one of Hollywood’s most bankable stars (the boy has done REAL good for himself), but he can’t do serious acting. His “pathos” scenes with his daughter (a vibrant Eliana Sua) are excruciating.
Dropping in as class acts are Helen Mirren as the elder Shaw and the excellent Vanessa Kirby as Hattie. Kirby gets a lot more to get her teeth into than in the last Mission Impossible movie, and is really very good. Mirren is rather too posh to be the incarcerated East End con, but is a fun turn nevertheless.
Also excellent, as always, is Eddie Marsan as the key scientist. Marsan really turns in a splendid performance in every film he’s in. He’s top of “Division 2” in my books. Never the star, but always starring.
Mexican actress Eiza González (from “Baby Driver“) also crops up as an unfeasibly good-looking Russian femme fatale.
“I hate you”. “No, I hate you”. Blah, blah, blah.
Writers Chris Morgan and Drew Pearce do a good job at keeping the script light and fluffy. The animosity between Hobbs and Shaw is played to 110%, and for me the interplay frankly became a bit tiresome. But it’s a fun-enough film to entertain, although it’s bladder-testing running time of 2 hours 17 minutes is at least 30 minutes too long. There is a natural Ukraine-based finale, but it’s not taken, and the film goes on… and on… and on…. and on. Enough already.
I’ve said many times before that comedies shouldn’t last more than 90 minutes, and although an “action film” this is fundamentally a comedy and the rule should apply. It would have been a much better film if it was compacted.
Sexism diverted.
I did criticize “Fast and Furious 8” for scenes that brazenly objectified women. And there was a moment – just one, fortunately – with a gyrating bikini-clad beauty – where I thought “uh, oh” – this franchise has not moved with the times.
But actually, this was the only scene where I thought that. Cinema has moved along massively in the last two years, driven by the “Times Up” movement. Here the women are all given pretty leading “kick-ass” roles, and they generally show the muscle-bound morons up, often saving their arses.
Final Thoughts.
It’s summer popcorn nonsense, but its well done popcorn nonsense. Probably not a film high on my list of films I want to see again, but as an entertainment vehicle it was not too shabby.
(That title is especially for my friends the Shaw family!).
Well, the patchy British summer’s just about up, and autumn’s chilly fingers are touching up the UK. And yet I still hadn’t seen the summer hit “Hobbs and Shaw”! Until last night.
It’s utter nonsense of course, like most of the “Fast and Furious” films, but I have to admit it’s done with some tongue in cheek style.
The plot
A vicious cyber-soldier, Brixton (Idris Elba) tries to steal a deadly virus but is thwarted by brave MI6 agent Hattie (Vanessa Kirby). To help recover the virus, Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) is recruited in London by CIA agent Loeb (Rob Delaney, the “non-super” hero Peter in “Deadpool 2“). In an interesting piece of related casting, the Eteon Director (Champ Nightengale – LoL, a cameo for someone far more famous) recruits Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) in LA as a part of the team.
Both agents know they are heading for trouble… but do they really appreciate how much the pair hate each other’s guts?
The trail leads from London to the Ukraine to (a very picturesque) Samoa in a race against time to both defeat the undefeatable Brixton and save Hattie: now a ticking time bomb of global destruction. And Hattie has relations!
Absurd stunts.
As a “Fast and Furious” film there are of course some truly absurd car stunts involved and – unlike the Mission Impossible films – you are never quite sure what is “real” and what is CGI generated. Which is a shame.
For me, the gold standard for chases remains Tom Cruise‘s chase through Paris in “Mission Impossible: Fallout“. Here, the car chase through London – whilst impressive – never quite reaches the seat clenching tension of MI6.
And a final stunt with a helicopter is – I’m sorry – just plain ridiculous. If a chopper can partially lift 5 x load then why can’t it completely lift 1 x load. Give me a break!
To round things off, there is one of the most unbelievable “100% survival of a car crashing off a cliff” scenes in movie history!
Acting
The acting is largely from the Arnie Swartzenegger school, with Johnson and Statham giving it the old shtick. Dwayne Johnson may be one of Hollywood’s most bankable stars (the boy has done REAL good for himself), but he can’t do serious acting. His “pathos” scenes with his daughter (a vibrant Eliana Sua) are excruciating.
Dropping in as class acts are Helen Mirren as the elder Shaw and the excellent Vanessa Kirby as Hattie. Kirby gets a lot more to get her teeth into than in the last Mission Impossible movie, and is really very good. Mirren is rather too posh to be the incarcerated East End con, but is a fun turn nevertheless.
Also excellent, as always, is Eddie Marsan as the key scientist. Marsan really turns in a splendid performance in every film he’s in. He’s top of “Division 2” in my books. Never the star, but always starring.
Mexican actress Eiza González (from “Baby Driver“) also crops up as an unfeasibly good-looking Russian femme fatale.
“I hate you”. “No, I hate you”. Blah, blah, blah.
Writers Chris Morgan and Drew Pearce do a good job at keeping the script light and fluffy. The animosity between Hobbs and Shaw is played to 110%, and for me the interplay frankly became a bit tiresome. But it’s a fun-enough film to entertain, although it’s bladder-testing running time of 2 hours 17 minutes is at least 30 minutes too long. There is a natural Ukraine-based finale, but it’s not taken, and the film goes on… and on… and on…. and on. Enough already.
I’ve said many times before that comedies shouldn’t last more than 90 minutes, and although an “action film” this is fundamentally a comedy and the rule should apply. It would have been a much better film if it was compacted.
Sexism diverted.
I did criticize “Fast and Furious 8” for scenes that brazenly objectified women. And there was a moment – just one, fortunately – with a gyrating bikini-clad beauty – where I thought “uh, oh” – this franchise has not moved with the times.
But actually, this was the only scene where I thought that. Cinema has moved along massively in the last two years, driven by the “Times Up” movement. Here the women are all given pretty leading “kick-ass” roles, and they generally show the muscle-bound morons up, often saving their arses.
Final Thoughts.
It’s summer popcorn nonsense, but its well done popcorn nonsense. Probably not a film high on my list of films I want to see again, but as an entertainment vehicle it was not too shabby.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Lestranger than fiction.
I must be one of the last people to watch this in the cinema, thanks to an irritating bout of sickness and – well – frankly total bloody apathy! For me this is the franchise that nobody asked for and nobody wanted. (Well, “nobody” is probably overstating the case, since there is probably a bunch of Potterheads out there who are shouting at me right now). But judging from the opinion of my daughter-in-law, who could win “Mastermind” with her knowledge of the original Potter series as her specialist subject, I am certainly not alone in my lack of enthusiasm.
The Plot
I’d really love to tell you about the plot. I really would! But I would struggle to pull all the multitude of strands together from J.K. Rowling’s story and coherently explain them to anyone. If Rowling had put ten thousand monkeys (not a million – it’s no bloody Shakespeare) into a room with typewriters and locked the door I wouldn’t be surprised.
Let me try at a high level….. The arch-criminal wizard Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) is being tortured in ‘Trump Tower’, but manages to escape and flees to Paris in pursuit of a mysterious circus performer called Credence (Ezra Miller) and his bewitched companion Nagini (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) played fetchingly by Claudia Kim. Someone needs to stop him, and all eyes are on Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law). But he is unable to do so, since he and Grindelwald are “closer than brothers” (nudge, nudge, wink, wink). So a reluctant and UK-grounded Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) is smuggled into the danger zone… which suits him just fine since his love Tina (Katherine Waterston) is working for the ministry there, and the couple are currently estranged due to a (topical) bout of ‘Fake News’.
Throw in a potential love triangle between Newt, his brother Theseus (Callum Turner) and old Hogwart’s schoolmate Leta Lestrange (Zoë Kravitz) and about a half dozen other sub-plots and you have… well… a complete bugger’s muggle – – sorry – – muddle.
A plot that’s all at sea
Above all, I really can’t explain the crux of the plot. A venerable diarrhoea of exposition in a crypt, during an inexplicably quiet fifteen minutes (given ‘im-who-can-be-named is next door with about a thousand other people!) left me completely bewildered. A bizarre event at sea (no spoilers) would seem to make absolutely NO SENSE when considered with another reveal at the end of the film. I thought I must have clearly missed something… or I’d just not been intelligent enough to process the information…. or…. it was actually completely bonkers! Actually, I think it’s the latter: in desperation I went on a fan site that tried to explain the plot. While it was explained there, the explanation aligned with what I thought had happened: but it made no mention of the ridiculousness of the random coincidence involved!
The turns
The film’s a mess. Which is a shame since everyone involved tries really hard. Depp oozes evil very effectively (he proves that nicely on arriving in Paris, and doubles-down about 5 minutes later: #veryverydark). Redmayne replays his Newt-act effectively but once again (and I see I made the same comments in my “Fantastic Beasts” review) his character mumbles again so much that many of his lines are unintelligible.
I also complained last time that the excellent actress Katherine Waterston was criminally underused as the tentative love interest Tina. this trend unfortunately continues unabated in this film…. you’ll struggle afterwards to write down what she actually did in this film.
Jacob (Dan Fogler) and Queenie (Alison Sudol, looking for all the world in some scenes like Rachel Weisz) reprise their roles in a sub-plot that goes nowhere in particular.
Of the newcomers, Jude Law as Dumbledore is a class-act but has very little screen time: hopefully he will get more to do next time around. Zoë Kravitz impresses as Leta.
Wizards of the screen
As you would expect from a David Yates / David Heyman Potter collaboration, the product design, costume design and special effects are all excellent. Some scenes are truly impressive – an ‘explosion’ in a Parisian garret is particularly spectacular.
But special effects alone do not a great film make. Many reviews I’ve seen complain that this was a ‘filler’ film… a set-up film for the rest of the series. And I can understand that view. If you analyse the film overall, virtually NOTHING of importance actually happens: it’s like the “Order of the Phoenix” of the prequels.
Final Thoughts
I dragged myself along to see this one because “I thought I should”. The third in the series will really need to sparkle to make me want to see it. If J.K. Rowling were to take me advice (she won’t – she NEVER returns my calls!) then she would sculpt the story-arc but leave the screenwriting to someone better. The blame for this one, I’m afraid, lies at Rowling’s door alone.
The Plot
I’d really love to tell you about the plot. I really would! But I would struggle to pull all the multitude of strands together from J.K. Rowling’s story and coherently explain them to anyone. If Rowling had put ten thousand monkeys (not a million – it’s no bloody Shakespeare) into a room with typewriters and locked the door I wouldn’t be surprised.
Let me try at a high level….. The arch-criminal wizard Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) is being tortured in ‘Trump Tower’, but manages to escape and flees to Paris in pursuit of a mysterious circus performer called Credence (Ezra Miller) and his bewitched companion Nagini (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) played fetchingly by Claudia Kim. Someone needs to stop him, and all eyes are on Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law). But he is unable to do so, since he and Grindelwald are “closer than brothers” (nudge, nudge, wink, wink). So a reluctant and UK-grounded Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) is smuggled into the danger zone… which suits him just fine since his love Tina (Katherine Waterston) is working for the ministry there, and the couple are currently estranged due to a (topical) bout of ‘Fake News’.
Throw in a potential love triangle between Newt, his brother Theseus (Callum Turner) and old Hogwart’s schoolmate Leta Lestrange (Zoë Kravitz) and about a half dozen other sub-plots and you have… well… a complete bugger’s muggle – – sorry – – muddle.
A plot that’s all at sea
Above all, I really can’t explain the crux of the plot. A venerable diarrhoea of exposition in a crypt, during an inexplicably quiet fifteen minutes (given ‘im-who-can-be-named is next door with about a thousand other people!) left me completely bewildered. A bizarre event at sea (no spoilers) would seem to make absolutely NO SENSE when considered with another reveal at the end of the film. I thought I must have clearly missed something… or I’d just not been intelligent enough to process the information…. or…. it was actually completely bonkers! Actually, I think it’s the latter: in desperation I went on a fan site that tried to explain the plot. While it was explained there, the explanation aligned with what I thought had happened: but it made no mention of the ridiculousness of the random coincidence involved!
The turns
The film’s a mess. Which is a shame since everyone involved tries really hard. Depp oozes evil very effectively (he proves that nicely on arriving in Paris, and doubles-down about 5 minutes later: #veryverydark). Redmayne replays his Newt-act effectively but once again (and I see I made the same comments in my “Fantastic Beasts” review) his character mumbles again so much that many of his lines are unintelligible.
I also complained last time that the excellent actress Katherine Waterston was criminally underused as the tentative love interest Tina. this trend unfortunately continues unabated in this film…. you’ll struggle afterwards to write down what she actually did in this film.
Jacob (Dan Fogler) and Queenie (Alison Sudol, looking for all the world in some scenes like Rachel Weisz) reprise their roles in a sub-plot that goes nowhere in particular.
Of the newcomers, Jude Law as Dumbledore is a class-act but has very little screen time: hopefully he will get more to do next time around. Zoë Kravitz impresses as Leta.
Wizards of the screen
As you would expect from a David Yates / David Heyman Potter collaboration, the product design, costume design and special effects are all excellent. Some scenes are truly impressive – an ‘explosion’ in a Parisian garret is particularly spectacular.
But special effects alone do not a great film make. Many reviews I’ve seen complain that this was a ‘filler’ film… a set-up film for the rest of the series. And I can understand that view. If you analyse the film overall, virtually NOTHING of importance actually happens: it’s like the “Order of the Phoenix” of the prequels.
Final Thoughts
I dragged myself along to see this one because “I thought I should”. The third in the series will really need to sparkle to make me want to see it. If J.K. Rowling were to take me advice (she won’t – she NEVER returns my calls!) then she would sculpt the story-arc but leave the screenwriting to someone better. The blame for this one, I’m afraid, lies at Rowling’s door alone.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Slaughterhouse Rulez (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Form-Prefect of the Dead.
The Plot
Meredith Houseman (Simon Pegg) is housemaster of Sparta house in Slaughterhouse school: an ancient public school establishment steering England’s future greats to greatness (which probably explains a lot about the current Brexit mess!). Houseman is not in a happy place, given that his girlfriend is now in deepest darkest African doing “good works” with handsome French doctors, and particularly that she is played by Margot Robbie: I would be also be sad… #punching!
New school starter Don Wallace (Finn Cole) is equally unhappy as he is a northern teen dragooned into attending the school by his well-meaning Mum (Jo Hartley). His strange room-mate Willoughby (Asa Butterfield) seems to be a chronic depressive; he is being picked on by the prefect-bully Clegg (Tom Rhys Harries); and his bed was previously occupied by a Viscount, since deceased under unpleasant circumstances that no-one wants to talk about. At least he has the distraction of the upper-sixth school goddess Clemsie Lawrence (Hermione Corfield) to take his mind off his woes.
All this washes over “The Bat” – the school’s headmaster (Michael Sheen) – since he is engrossed in some shady deal with an evil corporation doing fracking in the school grounds. The fracking though seems to be doing more than just causing a few minor earth tremors, as ancient forces are unleashed.
The Review
The movie is positioned as a “comedy/horror”, along the lines of “Shaun of the Dead”. The film also has Frost and Pegg as executive producers and they also have starring roles in the film. But there the similarities really end: this is a “Cornetto film” without a cone of solid chocolate lurking at the bottom to enjoy.
The script (by director Crispian Mills and first-time screenwriter Henry Fitzherbert) is nowhere near as sharp as the Frost/Pegg scripts for their famous collaborations. The story overall makes precious little sense: it’s a hodge-podge of elements from many Harry Potter films (especially “The Chamber of Secrets”), Lindsay Anderson’s “If…”; and Roy Boulting’s “The Guinea Pig”; with also a sprinkling of the anarchic essence of Michael Palin’s classic “Tomkinson’s Schooldays”. The whole thing never manages to gel into a cohesive whole.
After the second reel, the film completely loses sight of the plot: there’s a whole lot of running, screaming and dying going on but there’s little logic behind any of it that I could fathom. What didn’t help my comprehension of what was going on were some ‘Cornetto-esque’ sequences of manic editing. Images were thrown onto the screen so subliminally that any clever nuance was lost. I’m sure at one point there was a droll (if gross) segue at a “Roman orgy” of a girl receiving oral sex before being ‘eaten out’ in an entirely different way. But you would need a Blu-ray and a frame-by-frame pause function to get the joke.
That’s not to say that I didn’t laugh a few times along the way. There are some sight gags – for example, Wooten (Kit Connor) as the lad at the bottom of the bullying pecking order, chained to a U-bend – that made me laugh, and some running jokes – for example, Frost as the head of the anti-fracking camp offering the kids drugs at every encounter – that mildly amuse. But once again here’s a British comedy that, like the atrocious “The Brits are Coming“, thinks that “funny” largely revolves around swearing a lot – how useful that “frack” sounds so similar to another word – with added bodily dismemberment.
The turns
Pegg and Frost ham it up with their usual comedy schtick well enough, and it was quite fun to see Sheen try a comedy role for a change as the conniving and supercilious headmaster. Elsewhere all the young cast put their hearts into it, but it’s again Asa Butterfield that your eyes gravitate to, due to his striking features. I last saw Asa in the excellent if harrowing WW1 drama “Journey’s End“, and he here proves again that he is a One Mann’s Movies ‘name to watch for the future’.
Final thoughts
There’s a lot to irritate in this film. From the “z” in the title to… well… about 80% of the film. There is no nuance or subtlety to either the writing or the direction. I think that’s a great shame. The film has a good premise hidden in there. An adult comedy set around the ridiculous rules and rites of public schools (away from the light nonsense of “St Trinians”) is overdue. And the whole subject of fracking, and the conflicts surrounding the controversial techniques, hasn’t yet – to my knowledge – been explored in a fictional movie. The film does have a few very funny moments. But as a whole I left the cinema with that “wasted two hours” feeling. Not recommended.
Meredith Houseman (Simon Pegg) is housemaster of Sparta house in Slaughterhouse school: an ancient public school establishment steering England’s future greats to greatness (which probably explains a lot about the current Brexit mess!). Houseman is not in a happy place, given that his girlfriend is now in deepest darkest African doing “good works” with handsome French doctors, and particularly that she is played by Margot Robbie: I would be also be sad… #punching!
New school starter Don Wallace (Finn Cole) is equally unhappy as he is a northern teen dragooned into attending the school by his well-meaning Mum (Jo Hartley). His strange room-mate Willoughby (Asa Butterfield) seems to be a chronic depressive; he is being picked on by the prefect-bully Clegg (Tom Rhys Harries); and his bed was previously occupied by a Viscount, since deceased under unpleasant circumstances that no-one wants to talk about. At least he has the distraction of the upper-sixth school goddess Clemsie Lawrence (Hermione Corfield) to take his mind off his woes.
All this washes over “The Bat” – the school’s headmaster (Michael Sheen) – since he is engrossed in some shady deal with an evil corporation doing fracking in the school grounds. The fracking though seems to be doing more than just causing a few minor earth tremors, as ancient forces are unleashed.
The Review
The movie is positioned as a “comedy/horror”, along the lines of “Shaun of the Dead”. The film also has Frost and Pegg as executive producers and they also have starring roles in the film. But there the similarities really end: this is a “Cornetto film” without a cone of solid chocolate lurking at the bottom to enjoy.
The script (by director Crispian Mills and first-time screenwriter Henry Fitzherbert) is nowhere near as sharp as the Frost/Pegg scripts for their famous collaborations. The story overall makes precious little sense: it’s a hodge-podge of elements from many Harry Potter films (especially “The Chamber of Secrets”), Lindsay Anderson’s “If…”; and Roy Boulting’s “The Guinea Pig”; with also a sprinkling of the anarchic essence of Michael Palin’s classic “Tomkinson’s Schooldays”. The whole thing never manages to gel into a cohesive whole.
After the second reel, the film completely loses sight of the plot: there’s a whole lot of running, screaming and dying going on but there’s little logic behind any of it that I could fathom. What didn’t help my comprehension of what was going on were some ‘Cornetto-esque’ sequences of manic editing. Images were thrown onto the screen so subliminally that any clever nuance was lost. I’m sure at one point there was a droll (if gross) segue at a “Roman orgy” of a girl receiving oral sex before being ‘eaten out’ in an entirely different way. But you would need a Blu-ray and a frame-by-frame pause function to get the joke.
That’s not to say that I didn’t laugh a few times along the way. There are some sight gags – for example, Wooten (Kit Connor) as the lad at the bottom of the bullying pecking order, chained to a U-bend – that made me laugh, and some running jokes – for example, Frost as the head of the anti-fracking camp offering the kids drugs at every encounter – that mildly amuse. But once again here’s a British comedy that, like the atrocious “The Brits are Coming“, thinks that “funny” largely revolves around swearing a lot – how useful that “frack” sounds so similar to another word – with added bodily dismemberment.
The turns
Pegg and Frost ham it up with their usual comedy schtick well enough, and it was quite fun to see Sheen try a comedy role for a change as the conniving and supercilious headmaster. Elsewhere all the young cast put their hearts into it, but it’s again Asa Butterfield that your eyes gravitate to, due to his striking features. I last saw Asa in the excellent if harrowing WW1 drama “Journey’s End“, and he here proves again that he is a One Mann’s Movies ‘name to watch for the future’.
Final thoughts
There’s a lot to irritate in this film. From the “z” in the title to… well… about 80% of the film. There is no nuance or subtlety to either the writing or the direction. I think that’s a great shame. The film has a good premise hidden in there. An adult comedy set around the ridiculous rules and rites of public schools (away from the light nonsense of “St Trinians”) is overdue. And the whole subject of fracking, and the conflicts surrounding the controversial techniques, hasn’t yet – to my knowledge – been explored in a fictional movie. The film does have a few very funny moments. But as a whole I left the cinema with that “wasted two hours” feeling. Not recommended.