Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated 12 Years a Slave (2013) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Watching how Solomon struggles to just survive let alone becoming free again. We see how different men who have slaves treat them, some well some badly. The story shows the tragic truth about how slaves were treated and even though this story get a happy ending of freedom, most never got that chance, with this still happening in the modern world it should make everyone be thankful for the fact they are free now. The story is an inspiration story of survival and not giving up hope. (10/10)
Actor Reviews
Chiwetel Ejiofor: Solomon kidnapped and sold into slavery, not resting on the fact he will never escape he tries over the 12 years to find a way to get his own freedom before finally finding someone to trust enough. Chiwetel is brilliant in the role and fully deserved his BAFTA for best actor. (10/10)
solomon
Michael Fassbender: Edwin Epps the drunken plantation owner who abuses his slaves for his own pleasure, enforced strict rules and taking all the hope out of his slaves. Great performance from Fassbender playing a character that is driven to be hated. (9/10)
fassbender
REPORT THIS AD
Lupita Nyong’o: Patsey one of the slaves on Epps’s plantation who is his favourite as she is the best picker and also he favourite for his sexual pleasures. Great performance, showing that the hope had been taken from some of the slaves. (10/10)
lupita
Brad Pitt: Bass a free roaming labourer who doesn’t turn up to late in the film, becomes the last chance for Solomon. Only a small role but does a good job.(8/10)
pitt
Paul Dano: Tibeats, Ford’s evil slaver runner who pushes all of them to limits they shouldn’t have to go, he thinks he is better than all of the slaves, but Solomon teaches him a thing or too. Good performance from Dano showing he can fit into any role with ease. (8/10)
dano
Paul Giamatti: Freeman the slave sales man who put them all up for show so that the highest bidder will purchase them. Only a small role but affectively showing how the slavery sales were made to be glamorous for what they are doing. (7/10)
paul
REPORT THIS AD
Benedict Cumberbatch: Ford a good man who looks after his slaves, Ford purchases Solomon and is willing to listen to Solomon’s ideas to improve his work. Forced to sell on Solomon, but always looked after them all fair. Good supporting performance and his character reflexes how evil Epps is.(8/10)
benedict
Sarah Paulson: Mistress Epps the wife of Edwin, who has a dislike for Patsey but an almost sympatric side to the rest of the slaves. Good performance and the one scene with Patsey is really stand out. (9/10)
mistress epps
Director Review: Steve McQueen – Brilliant direction to tell such an amazing story of one man’s journey. (10/10)
Biography: Amazing look at how Solomon survived his ordeal. (10/10)
Drama: Stunning look at something that could have been all guns, blood and gore, but focuses on the emotions involved with the people. (10/10)
History: Good look at how people were treated during the slave times. (10/10)
Settings: Beautiful settings used to create the story. (10/10)
Suggestion: This really should be watched by all, but I do feel the more casual film fan may find it hard to watch. (Watch)
Best Part: Chiwetel Performance.
Worst Part: Some of the punishment scenes are hard to watch.
Favourite Quote: Solomon ‘I will not fall into despair! I will keep myself hardy until freedom is opportune!’
Believability: Based on Solomon’s true story. (10/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
REPORT THIS AD
Oscar Chances: Won 3 Oscars.
Box Office: $178,413,838
Budget: $20 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 13 Minutes
Tagline: The extraordinary true story of Solomon Northup.
Overall: Stunning Story
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/05/12/12-years-a-slave-2013/
Actor Reviews
Chiwetel Ejiofor: Solomon kidnapped and sold into slavery, not resting on the fact he will never escape he tries over the 12 years to find a way to get his own freedom before finally finding someone to trust enough. Chiwetel is brilliant in the role and fully deserved his BAFTA for best actor. (10/10)
solomon
Michael Fassbender: Edwin Epps the drunken plantation owner who abuses his slaves for his own pleasure, enforced strict rules and taking all the hope out of his slaves. Great performance from Fassbender playing a character that is driven to be hated. (9/10)
fassbender
REPORT THIS AD
Lupita Nyong’o: Patsey one of the slaves on Epps’s plantation who is his favourite as she is the best picker and also he favourite for his sexual pleasures. Great performance, showing that the hope had been taken from some of the slaves. (10/10)
lupita
Brad Pitt: Bass a free roaming labourer who doesn’t turn up to late in the film, becomes the last chance for Solomon. Only a small role but does a good job.(8/10)
pitt
Paul Dano: Tibeats, Ford’s evil slaver runner who pushes all of them to limits they shouldn’t have to go, he thinks he is better than all of the slaves, but Solomon teaches him a thing or too. Good performance from Dano showing he can fit into any role with ease. (8/10)
dano
Paul Giamatti: Freeman the slave sales man who put them all up for show so that the highest bidder will purchase them. Only a small role but affectively showing how the slavery sales were made to be glamorous for what they are doing. (7/10)
paul
REPORT THIS AD
Benedict Cumberbatch: Ford a good man who looks after his slaves, Ford purchases Solomon and is willing to listen to Solomon’s ideas to improve his work. Forced to sell on Solomon, but always looked after them all fair. Good supporting performance and his character reflexes how evil Epps is.(8/10)
benedict
Sarah Paulson: Mistress Epps the wife of Edwin, who has a dislike for Patsey but an almost sympatric side to the rest of the slaves. Good performance and the one scene with Patsey is really stand out. (9/10)
mistress epps
Director Review: Steve McQueen – Brilliant direction to tell such an amazing story of one man’s journey. (10/10)
Biography: Amazing look at how Solomon survived his ordeal. (10/10)
Drama: Stunning look at something that could have been all guns, blood and gore, but focuses on the emotions involved with the people. (10/10)
History: Good look at how people were treated during the slave times. (10/10)
Settings: Beautiful settings used to create the story. (10/10)
Suggestion: This really should be watched by all, but I do feel the more casual film fan may find it hard to watch. (Watch)
Best Part: Chiwetel Performance.
Worst Part: Some of the punishment scenes are hard to watch.
Favourite Quote: Solomon ‘I will not fall into despair! I will keep myself hardy until freedom is opportune!’
Believability: Based on Solomon’s true story. (10/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
REPORT THIS AD
Oscar Chances: Won 3 Oscars.
Box Office: $178,413,838
Budget: $20 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 13 Minutes
Tagline: The extraordinary true story of Solomon Northup.
Overall: Stunning Story
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/05/12/12-years-a-slave-2013/
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
Is the Bible really gospel truth?</i> This is the question the honourable, academic Robert Babcock aims to find out on his quest to find the earliest copies of the gospels in order to prove the reliability of the story of Jesus as recounted in the King James Bible. However, this is not the key focus of Stephen Taylor’s fictional novel, <i>Gospels</i>. The main character is the perfidious John Campbell-John, a rogue, imposter and swindler who flees 19th-century England in an attempt to escape from his debts.
John meets the magnanimous Robert in Venice and, despite being polar opposites, become firm friends. After being honest for the first time in his life, admitting to owing thousands of pounds in gambling debts, Robert offers John the opportunity to accompany him on his quest through the deserts of Egypt. John accepts and the pair finds themselves on an adventure of discovery and personal redemption.
John and Robert make an unlikely but excellent team. Robert’s knowledge of the Bible and ancient history is vital, however, John’s propensity for falsehoods and cunningness gets them out of a few scrapes and tricky situations. Nonetheless, it is difficult for John to give up his old ways and his insular behaviour threatens to get them in more trouble.
Fortunately, Robert’s humility begins to influence the young scoundrel, as does his penchant for historical artefacts. As the story progresses, John begins to leave his past behind and becomes interested in Robert’s work, learning new things about Egyptian culture and the origins of the Bible. However, when a new gospel comes to light that threatens the whole of Christianity, Robert does not know what to do; and only John can give him counsel.
John Campbell-John is a character that the author introduced in a previous book. However, the timelines are not sequential, therefore <i>Gospels</i> is a stand-alone novel. The time frame for this book needed to be set in 1835 to correspond with historical truths. Although Robert’s discovery of a Gospel of Thaddeus Jude is an invention of the author, the quest itself is based on the journeys of three 19th-century Bible hunters. Stephen Taylor has conducted an enormous amount of research, including the biographies of Robert Curzon, Constantin von Tischendorf and Émile Amélineau who, on separate occasions, sought the same knowledge as the fictional Robert Babcock.
Despite being titled <i>Gospels</i>, the novel, for the most part, focuses on John Campbell-John and his wicked ways. Through a first-person narrative, John explains his past, his betrayal of a friend, and his addiction to gambling. Initially, he has no qualms about his behaviour and acts only for himself and his selfish greed. Whilst Robert goes in search of knowledge, John goes on a journey of redemption, coming to terms with his previous wrongdoings. However, acknowledging these faults is not enough, he needs to turn away from these roguish ways.
It is disappointing that the narrative does not focus more on the gospels, both real and imagined. There was enormous scope for an in-depth look at the life of Jesus and the inconsistencies in the Bible. The fictitious Gospel of Thaddeus Jude evokes a similar reaction in Robert as the Non-Canonical Gospel of Thomas found in the 19th-century had on many devout Christians. There was so much potential with this direction of thought, however, the author passes over it in preference to the life of John Campbell-John.
Slow to begin but increasingly interesting as it progresses, <i>Gospels</i> is a book of many themes. History, both 19th-century and ancient; religion, although not a Christian story; and achievement and absolution combine together to produce a unique tale that takes the reader from the back alleys of London to the River Nile and the deserts of Sinai. A subtle clue in the prologue keeps readers alert as they await the conclusion of the adventure – an ending that ambiguously reveals whether John moves on from the follies of his past.
Is the Bible really gospel truth?</i> This is the question the honourable, academic Robert Babcock aims to find out on his quest to find the earliest copies of the gospels in order to prove the reliability of the story of Jesus as recounted in the King James Bible. However, this is not the key focus of Stephen Taylor’s fictional novel, <i>Gospels</i>. The main character is the perfidious John Campbell-John, a rogue, imposter and swindler who flees 19th-century England in an attempt to escape from his debts.
John meets the magnanimous Robert in Venice and, despite being polar opposites, become firm friends. After being honest for the first time in his life, admitting to owing thousands of pounds in gambling debts, Robert offers John the opportunity to accompany him on his quest through the deserts of Egypt. John accepts and the pair finds themselves on an adventure of discovery and personal redemption.
John and Robert make an unlikely but excellent team. Robert’s knowledge of the Bible and ancient history is vital, however, John’s propensity for falsehoods and cunningness gets them out of a few scrapes and tricky situations. Nonetheless, it is difficult for John to give up his old ways and his insular behaviour threatens to get them in more trouble.
Fortunately, Robert’s humility begins to influence the young scoundrel, as does his penchant for historical artefacts. As the story progresses, John begins to leave his past behind and becomes interested in Robert’s work, learning new things about Egyptian culture and the origins of the Bible. However, when a new gospel comes to light that threatens the whole of Christianity, Robert does not know what to do; and only John can give him counsel.
John Campbell-John is a character that the author introduced in a previous book. However, the timelines are not sequential, therefore <i>Gospels</i> is a stand-alone novel. The time frame for this book needed to be set in 1835 to correspond with historical truths. Although Robert’s discovery of a Gospel of Thaddeus Jude is an invention of the author, the quest itself is based on the journeys of three 19th-century Bible hunters. Stephen Taylor has conducted an enormous amount of research, including the biographies of Robert Curzon, Constantin von Tischendorf and Émile Amélineau who, on separate occasions, sought the same knowledge as the fictional Robert Babcock.
Despite being titled <i>Gospels</i>, the novel, for the most part, focuses on John Campbell-John and his wicked ways. Through a first-person narrative, John explains his past, his betrayal of a friend, and his addiction to gambling. Initially, he has no qualms about his behaviour and acts only for himself and his selfish greed. Whilst Robert goes in search of knowledge, John goes on a journey of redemption, coming to terms with his previous wrongdoings. However, acknowledging these faults is not enough, he needs to turn away from these roguish ways.
It is disappointing that the narrative does not focus more on the gospels, both real and imagined. There was enormous scope for an in-depth look at the life of Jesus and the inconsistencies in the Bible. The fictitious Gospel of Thaddeus Jude evokes a similar reaction in Robert as the Non-Canonical Gospel of Thomas found in the 19th-century had on many devout Christians. There was so much potential with this direction of thought, however, the author passes over it in preference to the life of John Campbell-John.
Slow to begin but increasingly interesting as it progresses, <i>Gospels</i> is a book of many themes. History, both 19th-century and ancient; religion, although not a Christian story; and achievement and absolution combine together to produce a unique tale that takes the reader from the back alleys of London to the River Nile and the deserts of Sinai. A subtle clue in the prologue keeps readers alert as they await the conclusion of the adventure – an ending that ambiguously reveals whether John moves on from the follies of his past.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Concussion (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Concussion has quite a few big names starring in it, as well as a few I
had never heard of.
The main cast is as follows: Will Smith as Dr. Bennet Omalu, Gugu
Mbatha-Raw as Prema Mutiso, Alec Baldwin as Dr. Julian Bailes, Albert
Brooks as Dr. Cyril Wecht, David Morse
as Mike Webster, Matthew Willig as Justin Strezelczyk, Paul Reiser as
Dr. Elliot Pellman, Arliss Howard as Dr. Joseph Maroon, Luke Wilson as
Roger Goodell, Mike O’Malley as Daniel Sullivan, Hill Harper as Spellman
Jones, Eddie Marsan as Dr. Steven DeKosky, Stephen Moyer as Dr. Ron
Hamilton, and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje as Dave Duerson.
Dr. Bennet Omalu works at the Pittsburgh coroner’s office as a forensic
pathologist along with Dr. Cyril Wecht and Daniel Sullivan. Omalu, a
highly educated Doctor hailing from Nigeria, strives to stride in the
footsteps of Dr. Wecht, and must contend with the derision thrown his
way by Sullivan.
Based on true events, the story follows Omalu in his quest to find out
the true cause of death of “Iron Mike” Webster, and subsequently team
mates and other football players that seem to go crazy for no obvious
reason.
Will Smith takes this role and immerses himself in it. His accent is
believable, his mannerisms are believable, his portrayal of the
character as a whole drew me and made me BELIEVE it.
The supporting cast are all really really great as well. Gugu Mbatha-Raw
as Smiths love interest, Prema is probably one of the quietest
characters in the movie, yet she portrays herself as Omalu’s staunch
supporter straight through the whole film.
Albert Brooks as Dr. Cyril Wecht gave a brilliant performance as a cut
and dry no-nonsense Chief Medical Examiner as well. He supports Omalu’s
research even when he must see that it may be detrimental to his own
career, and indeed, in the end, his support of Omalu does almost cost
him his entire career.
Dr. Omalus research, spending his own money to run testing in order to
find the cause of death of Mike Webster, puts him directly in the
crosshairs of the NFL. His subsequent discovery of and diagnoses of CTE
(Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy) in Webster, and other NFL players
that died by their own hands or in tragic accidents due to basically
going crazy, threatened the NFL and its entire existence, or so they
thought.
Alec Baldwin gives a great performance as a man struggling between his
love of a sport and his guilt over sending players back into a game when
they were hurt. Early in the film he is shown to say “what am I
missing”. He has run the tests he knows to run, but cannot get to the
bottom of what is clearly affecting his players. He helps Dr. Omalu in
his quest to bring the truth before the NFL and the media and the
public.
Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje as Dave Duerson has only brief moments on film,
but his contribution to the movie and his final contribution to Omalus
research at the time of his death, helps bring CTE to the forefront of
the media eye, which in turn forces the NFL to address the findings, at
least ion some level.
Will Smith is up for a Golden Globe for his role in this film and I have
to say that in my opinion it is well deserved.
I loved the movie, it had my full attention from beginning to end, and I
thought that it was very well done. It showed the seedy underside of the
NFL and the extents to which big multi-million dollar companies will go
to in order to hide any truths that might threaten their way of doing
business. During the movie I murmured under my breath to my husband
“This reminds me of the crap the tobacco industry pulled when it was
trying to deny that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer”, and I was not
surprised when in some of the later clips there were voice overs heard
from a congressional hearing basically saying the same thing.
I would give this movie 5 out of 5 stars.
had never heard of.
The main cast is as follows: Will Smith as Dr. Bennet Omalu, Gugu
Mbatha-Raw as Prema Mutiso, Alec Baldwin as Dr. Julian Bailes, Albert
Brooks as Dr. Cyril Wecht, David Morse
as Mike Webster, Matthew Willig as Justin Strezelczyk, Paul Reiser as
Dr. Elliot Pellman, Arliss Howard as Dr. Joseph Maroon, Luke Wilson as
Roger Goodell, Mike O’Malley as Daniel Sullivan, Hill Harper as Spellman
Jones, Eddie Marsan as Dr. Steven DeKosky, Stephen Moyer as Dr. Ron
Hamilton, and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje as Dave Duerson.
Dr. Bennet Omalu works at the Pittsburgh coroner’s office as a forensic
pathologist along with Dr. Cyril Wecht and Daniel Sullivan. Omalu, a
highly educated Doctor hailing from Nigeria, strives to stride in the
footsteps of Dr. Wecht, and must contend with the derision thrown his
way by Sullivan.
Based on true events, the story follows Omalu in his quest to find out
the true cause of death of “Iron Mike” Webster, and subsequently team
mates and other football players that seem to go crazy for no obvious
reason.
Will Smith takes this role and immerses himself in it. His accent is
believable, his mannerisms are believable, his portrayal of the
character as a whole drew me and made me BELIEVE it.
The supporting cast are all really really great as well. Gugu Mbatha-Raw
as Smiths love interest, Prema is probably one of the quietest
characters in the movie, yet she portrays herself as Omalu’s staunch
supporter straight through the whole film.
Albert Brooks as Dr. Cyril Wecht gave a brilliant performance as a cut
and dry no-nonsense Chief Medical Examiner as well. He supports Omalu’s
research even when he must see that it may be detrimental to his own
career, and indeed, in the end, his support of Omalu does almost cost
him his entire career.
Dr. Omalus research, spending his own money to run testing in order to
find the cause of death of Mike Webster, puts him directly in the
crosshairs of the NFL. His subsequent discovery of and diagnoses of CTE
(Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy) in Webster, and other NFL players
that died by their own hands or in tragic accidents due to basically
going crazy, threatened the NFL and its entire existence, or so they
thought.
Alec Baldwin gives a great performance as a man struggling between his
love of a sport and his guilt over sending players back into a game when
they were hurt. Early in the film he is shown to say “what am I
missing”. He has run the tests he knows to run, but cannot get to the
bottom of what is clearly affecting his players. He helps Dr. Omalu in
his quest to bring the truth before the NFL and the media and the
public.
Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje as Dave Duerson has only brief moments on film,
but his contribution to the movie and his final contribution to Omalus
research at the time of his death, helps bring CTE to the forefront of
the media eye, which in turn forces the NFL to address the findings, at
least ion some level.
Will Smith is up for a Golden Globe for his role in this film and I have
to say that in my opinion it is well deserved.
I loved the movie, it had my full attention from beginning to end, and I
thought that it was very well done. It showed the seedy underside of the
NFL and the extents to which big multi-million dollar companies will go
to in order to hide any truths that might threaten their way of doing
business. During the movie I murmured under my breath to my husband
“This reminds me of the crap the tobacco industry pulled when it was
trying to deny that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer”, and I was not
surprised when in some of the later clips there were voice overs heard
from a congressional hearing basically saying the same thing.
I would give this movie 5 out of 5 stars.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Judy (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Neither a true biopic nor a musical, a very sad and sombre film worth seeing for a sure-fire nominee for Zellweger for the Oscars.
Decline and Fall (Part 1).
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba The Movie: Mugen Train (2020) in Movies
Oct 6, 2021
Exceptional animation (2 more)
Insanely cool villains
Rengoku is the MVP
Tanjiro is still too much of a crybaby (2 more)
Zenitsu's constant shouting
The lackluster writing that haunts the series is still relevant here
Drawn to a Tasty Flame
Demon Slayer: Mugen Train is mostly an incredible anime film that not only lives up to the first season of the anime, but also successfully bridges the gap between the first season and the upcoming second season.
When it comes to anime films they are generally connected to the anime television series they’re based on by featuring the same characters or taking place in the same universe. However, the movies almost always are their own stories that don’t cross paths with the stories being told in the series. Mugen Train picks up right after the first season ends.
Tanjiro, Zenitsu, and Inosuke board the train Rengoku, the Flame Hashira, is already on. They’ve been summoned to the train because people keep disappearing and there’s said to be demons aboard including a demon who has supposedly killed several demon slayers. He has pawns, who are usually children, who infiltrate the dreams of Enmu’s victims that bypass their subconscious and destroy their spiritual core.
There is usually a drastic difference in animation quality between an anime series and its films, but Demon Slayer already features such impressive animation that it’s difficult to top it. Mugen Train features all of the glorious breathing and sword techniques animated to blissful perfection, but what it does differently with its animation lies within its backgrounds. Trees and water are either 3D elements or are somehow lifted from realistic backgrounds because they’re amazingly detailed and look genuine.
The main demon on the train, Enmu, utilizes 3D animation in unique ways. Going into too much detail will spoil the film and where the Enmu character is taken, but keep in mind a certain form of Enmu is animated in 3D. It’s pink, slimy, wet sounding, and gross. Enmu’s English voice actor sounds like he’s doing a Michael Jackson on South Park impersonation. Enmu has the ability to put people to sleep, but he feeds them pleasant dreams at first and then injects them full of the worst nightmares imaginable during their gruesome death. He has the ability to detach his left hand, which has one eye near its thumb and a talking mouth on the back of its palm.
The main issues you may have with the Demon Slayer series are still relevant here. Tanjiro still cries and whines about stuff way too much and the film suffers a bit too much from over explaining things; a trait most anime titles fall victim to. Zenitsu’s unbearable yelling about how much of a weakling he is gets tiresome, as well. But you knew all of this going into it.
The film makes up for its few shortcomings by having jaw-dropping action sequences and laugh out loud humor at every turn. Inosuke’s dream about being the real leader of the group and being the voice of reason when Tanjiro is too emotional to move on is both hilarious and justifiable. And Zenitsu fantasizing about being with Nezuko is too good. He also has bucked teeth in more than one person’s “good” dream, which is only funnier in the long run. Also, why does everyone seem to purposely call Tanjiro the wrong name?
The highlight of Mugen Train is Rengoku. His fight sequences are the highlight of the film, but he’s also hysterical. Rengoku will forever be associated with the term, “TASTY!” Rengoku has a fight at the end of the film that is lengthy, memorable, and just downright amazing. He talks in a bold and boisterous voice and is slightly ridiculous in nature; think All Might from My Hero Academia engulfed in fire.
Demon Slayer: Mugen Train won’t make you a fan of the franchise if you aren’t already, but it will absolutely strengthen your love for it if you’re already an established fan. It’s also an anime film that covers just about everything; it tries to tear at your heartstrings, it has two awesomely sinister villains, it has significantly kick-ass action sequences, and it further develops a supporting character you were only briefly introduced to previously. Mugen Train is outrageously funny and action packed and is an impressive feat of animation even if you aren’t an anime fan.
When it comes to anime films they are generally connected to the anime television series they’re based on by featuring the same characters or taking place in the same universe. However, the movies almost always are their own stories that don’t cross paths with the stories being told in the series. Mugen Train picks up right after the first season ends.
Tanjiro, Zenitsu, and Inosuke board the train Rengoku, the Flame Hashira, is already on. They’ve been summoned to the train because people keep disappearing and there’s said to be demons aboard including a demon who has supposedly killed several demon slayers. He has pawns, who are usually children, who infiltrate the dreams of Enmu’s victims that bypass their subconscious and destroy their spiritual core.
There is usually a drastic difference in animation quality between an anime series and its films, but Demon Slayer already features such impressive animation that it’s difficult to top it. Mugen Train features all of the glorious breathing and sword techniques animated to blissful perfection, but what it does differently with its animation lies within its backgrounds. Trees and water are either 3D elements or are somehow lifted from realistic backgrounds because they’re amazingly detailed and look genuine.
The main demon on the train, Enmu, utilizes 3D animation in unique ways. Going into too much detail will spoil the film and where the Enmu character is taken, but keep in mind a certain form of Enmu is animated in 3D. It’s pink, slimy, wet sounding, and gross. Enmu’s English voice actor sounds like he’s doing a Michael Jackson on South Park impersonation. Enmu has the ability to put people to sleep, but he feeds them pleasant dreams at first and then injects them full of the worst nightmares imaginable during their gruesome death. He has the ability to detach his left hand, which has one eye near its thumb and a talking mouth on the back of its palm.
The main issues you may have with the Demon Slayer series are still relevant here. Tanjiro still cries and whines about stuff way too much and the film suffers a bit too much from over explaining things; a trait most anime titles fall victim to. Zenitsu’s unbearable yelling about how much of a weakling he is gets tiresome, as well. But you knew all of this going into it.
The film makes up for its few shortcomings by having jaw-dropping action sequences and laugh out loud humor at every turn. Inosuke’s dream about being the real leader of the group and being the voice of reason when Tanjiro is too emotional to move on is both hilarious and justifiable. And Zenitsu fantasizing about being with Nezuko is too good. He also has bucked teeth in more than one person’s “good” dream, which is only funnier in the long run. Also, why does everyone seem to purposely call Tanjiro the wrong name?
The highlight of Mugen Train is Rengoku. His fight sequences are the highlight of the film, but he’s also hysterical. Rengoku will forever be associated with the term, “TASTY!” Rengoku has a fight at the end of the film that is lengthy, memorable, and just downright amazing. He talks in a bold and boisterous voice and is slightly ridiculous in nature; think All Might from My Hero Academia engulfed in fire.
Demon Slayer: Mugen Train won’t make you a fan of the franchise if you aren’t already, but it will absolutely strengthen your love for it if you’re already an established fan. It’s also an anime film that covers just about everything; it tries to tear at your heartstrings, it has two awesomely sinister villains, it has significantly kick-ass action sequences, and it further develops a supporting character you were only briefly introduced to previously. Mugen Train is outrageously funny and action packed and is an impressive feat of animation even if you aren’t an anime fan.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Dune (2021) in Movies
Oct 24, 2021
The Definitive Film Version for the Fans
Fans of the 1965 Frank Herbert Sci-Fi Fantasy Masterpiece DUNE can finally rejoice - the definitive film version of this novel (at least the first 1/2 of the novel) has made it’s way onto the screen.
Lush, dense, rich, well cast and acted with eye-popping visuals that should be seen on the big screen, Directer Denis Villaneuve’s DUNE is everything that a fan of the book (that would include me) has been waiting for in a film version. It IS the “Peter Jackson LORD OF THE RINGS” version of this book - finally!
The question is, how does this film work for casual fans of the book - or for the myriad moviegoers that have never read the novel it is based on.
And, I’m afraid, the answer there is “not as well”. For Dune is a dense novel, filled with mythology that does go somewhat deep in the movie. This makes the pacing of this film problematic - especially at the beginning, for the novice - but is “deep enough” for those that have read the books.
Let’s start with what works - and that is the visuals that Director Denis Villeneuve (Blade Runner 2049) and his crew put on the screen. They are incredible. Unfortunately, most casual on-lookers to this film will decide to check out this 2 hour and 35 minute epic at home for free on HBO MAX, and that would be too bad. This film needs to be seen on the biggest screen possible to totally immerse you in this world.
Villeneuve perfectly cast this film from top to bottom starting with Timothy Chalamet as the hero of this book (and series) Paul Atreides. He brings the right balance of cockiness and unease to Paul who grows into something more than the “perfect prince” as the story progresses.
He is joined by some of the finest performers working today. Rebecca Ferguson and Josh Brolin bring their star power to the roles of Paul’s Mother (who is something more than Paul’s mother) and the head of the military (who is something more than the head of the military). Both of these roles needed to be played by a strong force - and both fill this need admirably.
The always good Oscar Isaac is the right choice for the role of Paul’s father, Duke Leto Atreides, who - by story necessity - is underwritten and, therefore, this film/role does not showcase his talents.
However, Jason Mamoa SHINES as Warrior Duncan Idaho. This is one of my favorite characters from the book and Mamoa brings his “A” game to this charismatic warrior/mentor to Paul. It was the largest pleasant surprise of the performances for me.
Alas, the villains of this piece - Baron Vladimir Harkonnen (Stellan Skarsgard) and his nephew, Beast Rabban Harkonnen (Dave Bautista) are relegated to background “mustache twirling” villains, they were not able to showcase their talents in this film. But, at least, we did not get the “golden speedo” that Sting wore in the 1984 David Lynch film version.
Also, not being able to showcase their talents is Javier Bardem and Zendaya as members of the Freman (the subjugated native people of the “Dune” planet). They are both in this film, briefly, as their characters rise and shine in the 2nd half of the book - so, hopefully, we’ll get to see more of them, then.
Which is the other part of this film that will turn off the casual viewer - it only covers (by necessity) the first half of the book, so only tells half a story with no real emotional payoff. For me, a fan of the books, I was fine with this as I am eagerly anticipating the 2nd film - but as a viewer who is just gonna “check this one out”, I’m not so sure that the visuals of this film will be enough to satisfy them.
Come for the visuals, stay for the performances and the dense story and prepare for Dune: Part 2.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Lush, dense, rich, well cast and acted with eye-popping visuals that should be seen on the big screen, Directer Denis Villaneuve’s DUNE is everything that a fan of the book (that would include me) has been waiting for in a film version. It IS the “Peter Jackson LORD OF THE RINGS” version of this book - finally!
The question is, how does this film work for casual fans of the book - or for the myriad moviegoers that have never read the novel it is based on.
And, I’m afraid, the answer there is “not as well”. For Dune is a dense novel, filled with mythology that does go somewhat deep in the movie. This makes the pacing of this film problematic - especially at the beginning, for the novice - but is “deep enough” for those that have read the books.
Let’s start with what works - and that is the visuals that Director Denis Villeneuve (Blade Runner 2049) and his crew put on the screen. They are incredible. Unfortunately, most casual on-lookers to this film will decide to check out this 2 hour and 35 minute epic at home for free on HBO MAX, and that would be too bad. This film needs to be seen on the biggest screen possible to totally immerse you in this world.
Villeneuve perfectly cast this film from top to bottom starting with Timothy Chalamet as the hero of this book (and series) Paul Atreides. He brings the right balance of cockiness and unease to Paul who grows into something more than the “perfect prince” as the story progresses.
He is joined by some of the finest performers working today. Rebecca Ferguson and Josh Brolin bring their star power to the roles of Paul’s Mother (who is something more than Paul’s mother) and the head of the military (who is something more than the head of the military). Both of these roles needed to be played by a strong force - and both fill this need admirably.
The always good Oscar Isaac is the right choice for the role of Paul’s father, Duke Leto Atreides, who - by story necessity - is underwritten and, therefore, this film/role does not showcase his talents.
However, Jason Mamoa SHINES as Warrior Duncan Idaho. This is one of my favorite characters from the book and Mamoa brings his “A” game to this charismatic warrior/mentor to Paul. It was the largest pleasant surprise of the performances for me.
Alas, the villains of this piece - Baron Vladimir Harkonnen (Stellan Skarsgard) and his nephew, Beast Rabban Harkonnen (Dave Bautista) are relegated to background “mustache twirling” villains, they were not able to showcase their talents in this film. But, at least, we did not get the “golden speedo” that Sting wore in the 1984 David Lynch film version.
Also, not being able to showcase their talents is Javier Bardem and Zendaya as members of the Freman (the subjugated native people of the “Dune” planet). They are both in this film, briefly, as their characters rise and shine in the 2nd half of the book - so, hopefully, we’ll get to see more of them, then.
Which is the other part of this film that will turn off the casual viewer - it only covers (by necessity) the first half of the book, so only tells half a story with no real emotional payoff. For me, a fan of the books, I was fine with this as I am eagerly anticipating the 2nd film - but as a viewer who is just gonna “check this one out”, I’m not so sure that the visuals of this film will be enough to satisfy them.
Come for the visuals, stay for the performances and the dense story and prepare for Dune: Part 2.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Drive My Car (2021) in Movies
Mar 19, 2022
Raw, Pure and Honest
If I’m being honest, I purposely pushed my Oscar “homework assignment” of viewing DRIVE MY CAR to the end of the list for I saw that it was a 3 Hour Japanese Film that is a meditation on loss, grief, anger and regret set against the backdrop of a production of Chekov’s Uncle Vanya. I was ready to buckle-in for an arty “Art House” film that is not as good as the “artists” recommending it would have you believe.
And I would be wrong with that assumption as DRIVE MY CAR is the BEST FILM of 2021 with raw, pure and honest performances that draws you in and touches your heart.
Directed by Ryusuke Hamaguchi (who was Oscar Nominated for his work), DRIVE MY CAR follows a renowned Actor/Director who heads to Hiroshima to Direct a production of Uncle Vanya while grappling with the consequences of the unexpected death of his wife - and the unresolved issues of their marriage. While in Hiroshima, he is forced to accept a chauffeur for his duration there and the relationship between the two begins to unlock long dormant emotions.
Sounds like it could end up being a modern version of DRIVING MISS DAISY, right? Wrong. In the hands of Hamaguchi, from an Oscar Nominated screenplay that Hamaguchi wrote with Takamasa Oe (based on the short story by Haruki Murakami), Drive My Car becomes a character-driven drama that peels the layers of the onion back at a deliberate pace (in this case, that’s a compliment) to reveal what is at the core of the main characters.
What drew me into this film (a movie who’s 3 hour run-time seemed short to me), was the performances that Hamaguchi was able to draw out of his talented cast, they are - top to bottom - raw, honest and real. Starting with Hidetoshi Nishijima as Actor/Director Yusuke Kafuku. He plays this character with a stoic pragmatism, but it is played in such a way that you understand that there are emotions broiling underneath this façade and they, eventually, will need to find their way out. But the brilliance of this film is that when this character finally opens up, it is not a showy, “yelly” performance, it is subtle, small - and effective.
Matching Nishijima’s stoicism (at least early on) is Toko Miura as the chauffer. She is enigmatic in the early goings of the film, listening much more than talking but as Kafuku opens up, she does as well, and it is this part of the film that really drew me in.
Also, surprisingly to me, was the rehearsal/performance scenes of Uncle Vanya that are sprinkled throughout this film. I am NOT a scholar (or fan) of Chekov’s works (I find them to be too introspective) but the scenes that are shown are a mirror to what is happening to these characters outside of the theater and were affecting (particularly a scene that the company does in the park between two female characters). I’m sure a Chekov scholar could comment on the parallel themes at work here - but I am not that scholar and that did not diminish my love of this film. It does do one surprising thing - it makes me (almost) want to see a full production of Vanya…almost.
And therein lies another layer to this film - the eclectic group of performers that populate the company of actors that perform Vanya - they perform in Japanese, Mandarin, English and (in one case) sign language. I was reading the subtitles anyway (yes, please view this film in it’s original language with subtitles - you’ll feel the emotions of the actors’ performances) and this disparity between the performers enhanced what was already an intriguing film.
Not for everyone, the pace and themes of this film will turn many off early on, but if you click into the feel of this film, you will be rewarded with a very rich experience.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And I would be wrong with that assumption as DRIVE MY CAR is the BEST FILM of 2021 with raw, pure and honest performances that draws you in and touches your heart.
Directed by Ryusuke Hamaguchi (who was Oscar Nominated for his work), DRIVE MY CAR follows a renowned Actor/Director who heads to Hiroshima to Direct a production of Uncle Vanya while grappling with the consequences of the unexpected death of his wife - and the unresolved issues of their marriage. While in Hiroshima, he is forced to accept a chauffeur for his duration there and the relationship between the two begins to unlock long dormant emotions.
Sounds like it could end up being a modern version of DRIVING MISS DAISY, right? Wrong. In the hands of Hamaguchi, from an Oscar Nominated screenplay that Hamaguchi wrote with Takamasa Oe (based on the short story by Haruki Murakami), Drive My Car becomes a character-driven drama that peels the layers of the onion back at a deliberate pace (in this case, that’s a compliment) to reveal what is at the core of the main characters.
What drew me into this film (a movie who’s 3 hour run-time seemed short to me), was the performances that Hamaguchi was able to draw out of his talented cast, they are - top to bottom - raw, honest and real. Starting with Hidetoshi Nishijima as Actor/Director Yusuke Kafuku. He plays this character with a stoic pragmatism, but it is played in such a way that you understand that there are emotions broiling underneath this façade and they, eventually, will need to find their way out. But the brilliance of this film is that when this character finally opens up, it is not a showy, “yelly” performance, it is subtle, small - and effective.
Matching Nishijima’s stoicism (at least early on) is Toko Miura as the chauffer. She is enigmatic in the early goings of the film, listening much more than talking but as Kafuku opens up, she does as well, and it is this part of the film that really drew me in.
Also, surprisingly to me, was the rehearsal/performance scenes of Uncle Vanya that are sprinkled throughout this film. I am NOT a scholar (or fan) of Chekov’s works (I find them to be too introspective) but the scenes that are shown are a mirror to what is happening to these characters outside of the theater and were affecting (particularly a scene that the company does in the park between two female characters). I’m sure a Chekov scholar could comment on the parallel themes at work here - but I am not that scholar and that did not diminish my love of this film. It does do one surprising thing - it makes me (almost) want to see a full production of Vanya…almost.
And therein lies another layer to this film - the eclectic group of performers that populate the company of actors that perform Vanya - they perform in Japanese, Mandarin, English and (in one case) sign language. I was reading the subtitles anyway (yes, please view this film in it’s original language with subtitles - you’ll feel the emotions of the actors’ performances) and this disparity between the performers enhanced what was already an intriguing film.
Not for everyone, the pace and themes of this film will turn many off early on, but if you click into the feel of this film, you will be rewarded with a very rich experience.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Gerald's Game (2017) in Movies
Oct 13, 2017 (Updated Oct 13, 2017)
Top Notch Performances. (1 more)
Effective Scares.
Hard To Watch, Yet Impossible To Turn Away
Contains spoilers, click to show
After being underwhelmed by the major blockbuster release of IT, I didn’t have much hope for this small Netflix movie with a limited cast, a low budget and being an adaption of what is regarded as one of Stephen King’s lesser works. I am happy to report that I was pleasantly surprised when I sat down to watch this one, in fact I’d go as far as to say it blew me away.
This is a movie that lives and dies on the performances of the actors involved. For those of you not familiar with the story’s premise, it involves a married couple driving out to a holiday cottage in the woods for a dirty weekend. The couple is played by Carla Gugino, (Jessie,) and Bruce Greenwood, (Gerald,) who both totally nail their respective roles in the movie. Once they get to the cottage and the door is conveniently left ajar, Gerald handcuffs Jessie to the bed and goes to the bathroom to pop a Viagra. Once he comes back and explains how he has made sure the gardeners and the cleaners won’t disturb them for a few days, he takes a heart attack and collapses onto the floor and dies.
From this point on, Carla Gugino spends the vast majority of the movie handcuffed to the bed and she gives an absolutely stellar performance, possibly the best of her career. She goes though a vast array of emotions in convincing, believable form and shows everything, from despair, to sadness, to anger, to fear, to resilience. I don’t think anyone has ever been Oscar nominated for a straight-to-Netflix movie, but if there is one performance that deserves to be, it is this one.
If you haven’t seen the movie yet, please don’t read on past this point as I am going to have to delve into spoilers in order to discuss the other aspects of the movie that I enjoyed. I thought the way that Gerald appeared to Jessie as a sort of devil on her shoulder was really effective and Greenwood delivered the required level of intense cruelty perfectly. Then the fact that Jessie appeared to herself as a sort of angel on the shoulder to oppose Gerald’s negative thoughts, meant that Gugino was required to deliver a dual character performance, on top of the already challenging role of being chained to the bed.
Flashback sequences in movies can go either way for me. They usually either tend to detract from the story at hand and become an unnecessary tangent, or they compliment what is going on and add to the movie overall. Thankfully in this movie, it is the latter. The flashback scenes are uncomfortable and hard to watch, but they do add context to what is going on in the character’s mind and make for a more interesting dissection of the effect that child abuse can have on a person in later life and how psychologically, even as adults people are still affected by the dreadful things that occurred in their past.
I also thought that this film was extremely effective in terms of its fear factor. As opposed to IT, which was scary at the start, but became repetitive and managed to desensitise its audience for what to expect by the halfway mark, Gerald’s game retains an unpredictable level of uneasiness throughout.
As far as the viewer knows during the first half of the movie, the main conflict facing the protagonist is starvation and the dog that is gnawing on Gerald’s dead body, but then things take a much more sinister turn. In what is possibly the creepiest scene I have seen in a movie this year, Jessie wakes up during the night after passing out for a few hours and she looks into the corner of the room, squinting her eyes. The camera follows where she is looking and the general shape of something can be made out. Then the shape begins to move forwards into the moonlight and is revealed to be a huge, deformed man holding a trinket box. This was so unexpected and freaky, and I loved it. I thought it was so effective in the context of the movie and was executed perfectly to be as disturbing as possible. It is also a relatable scare, as we have all experienced that moment; glancing at the corner of the room, something catches our eye and looks off in the darkness, but you just brush it off and fall back asleep. Jessie’s worst fears are confirmed here though, as she really did see something in the corner of the room and she is helpless to get away from it.
It also throws a twist into a story that has so far been based in what could be a real situation. You start to wonder, is Jessie experiencing something supernatural, or is she just hallucinating due to lack of food and water? Then the Gerald hallucination asks her if ‘The Moonlight Man,’ that she saw isn’t real, then why did the dog run away when he was in the room? Just like Jessie, the audience starts to wonder if he could be real, perhaps he is death and he has come to take Jessie to hell. All of these questions add to the already intense and disturbing tone of the movie and I thought it worked perfectly.
Eventually the movie wraps up with Jessie having an epiphany that if she smashes the glass of water and cuts her wrist, the blood can help her slip her hand out of the cuffs. What follows is a gory, brutal, difficult to watch de-gloving scene that will have you wincing and watching through your fingers. Then in true Stephen King fashion, the movie goes on to reveal another twist. It is revealed that ‘The Moonlight Man,’ really was in the room with Jessie. He was a serial killer that collected various body parts form dead people and he was taking parts from Gerald’s body while Jessie was chained to the bed. I can see why this ending could be polarizing for some, but I loved it and I thought it added an extra layer of craziness to the already insane sequence of events that we just witnessed.
Overall, Gerald’s Game is fantastic. A truly unsettling, chilling Stephen King adaption that showcases fantastic performances from its cast, makes the most of its minimal setting and managed to creep me out way more than any other horror movie I have seen this year.
This is a movie that lives and dies on the performances of the actors involved. For those of you not familiar with the story’s premise, it involves a married couple driving out to a holiday cottage in the woods for a dirty weekend. The couple is played by Carla Gugino, (Jessie,) and Bruce Greenwood, (Gerald,) who both totally nail their respective roles in the movie. Once they get to the cottage and the door is conveniently left ajar, Gerald handcuffs Jessie to the bed and goes to the bathroom to pop a Viagra. Once he comes back and explains how he has made sure the gardeners and the cleaners won’t disturb them for a few days, he takes a heart attack and collapses onto the floor and dies.
From this point on, Carla Gugino spends the vast majority of the movie handcuffed to the bed and she gives an absolutely stellar performance, possibly the best of her career. She goes though a vast array of emotions in convincing, believable form and shows everything, from despair, to sadness, to anger, to fear, to resilience. I don’t think anyone has ever been Oscar nominated for a straight-to-Netflix movie, but if there is one performance that deserves to be, it is this one.
If you haven’t seen the movie yet, please don’t read on past this point as I am going to have to delve into spoilers in order to discuss the other aspects of the movie that I enjoyed. I thought the way that Gerald appeared to Jessie as a sort of devil on her shoulder was really effective and Greenwood delivered the required level of intense cruelty perfectly. Then the fact that Jessie appeared to herself as a sort of angel on the shoulder to oppose Gerald’s negative thoughts, meant that Gugino was required to deliver a dual character performance, on top of the already challenging role of being chained to the bed.
Flashback sequences in movies can go either way for me. They usually either tend to detract from the story at hand and become an unnecessary tangent, or they compliment what is going on and add to the movie overall. Thankfully in this movie, it is the latter. The flashback scenes are uncomfortable and hard to watch, but they do add context to what is going on in the character’s mind and make for a more interesting dissection of the effect that child abuse can have on a person in later life and how psychologically, even as adults people are still affected by the dreadful things that occurred in their past.
I also thought that this film was extremely effective in terms of its fear factor. As opposed to IT, which was scary at the start, but became repetitive and managed to desensitise its audience for what to expect by the halfway mark, Gerald’s game retains an unpredictable level of uneasiness throughout.
As far as the viewer knows during the first half of the movie, the main conflict facing the protagonist is starvation and the dog that is gnawing on Gerald’s dead body, but then things take a much more sinister turn. In what is possibly the creepiest scene I have seen in a movie this year, Jessie wakes up during the night after passing out for a few hours and she looks into the corner of the room, squinting her eyes. The camera follows where she is looking and the general shape of something can be made out. Then the shape begins to move forwards into the moonlight and is revealed to be a huge, deformed man holding a trinket box. This was so unexpected and freaky, and I loved it. I thought it was so effective in the context of the movie and was executed perfectly to be as disturbing as possible. It is also a relatable scare, as we have all experienced that moment; glancing at the corner of the room, something catches our eye and looks off in the darkness, but you just brush it off and fall back asleep. Jessie’s worst fears are confirmed here though, as she really did see something in the corner of the room and she is helpless to get away from it.
It also throws a twist into a story that has so far been based in what could be a real situation. You start to wonder, is Jessie experiencing something supernatural, or is she just hallucinating due to lack of food and water? Then the Gerald hallucination asks her if ‘The Moonlight Man,’ that she saw isn’t real, then why did the dog run away when he was in the room? Just like Jessie, the audience starts to wonder if he could be real, perhaps he is death and he has come to take Jessie to hell. All of these questions add to the already intense and disturbing tone of the movie and I thought it worked perfectly.
Eventually the movie wraps up with Jessie having an epiphany that if she smashes the glass of water and cuts her wrist, the blood can help her slip her hand out of the cuffs. What follows is a gory, brutal, difficult to watch de-gloving scene that will have you wincing and watching through your fingers. Then in true Stephen King fashion, the movie goes on to reveal another twist. It is revealed that ‘The Moonlight Man,’ really was in the room with Jessie. He was a serial killer that collected various body parts form dead people and he was taking parts from Gerald’s body while Jessie was chained to the bed. I can see why this ending could be polarizing for some, but I loved it and I thought it added an extra layer of craziness to the already insane sequence of events that we just witnessed.
Overall, Gerald’s Game is fantastic. A truly unsettling, chilling Stephen King adaption that showcases fantastic performances from its cast, makes the most of its minimal setting and managed to creep me out way more than any other horror movie I have seen this year.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Horreos in Tabletop Games
Jan 23, 2022
I’m not a huge history buff or anything, but I am definitely interested in my family lineage/ancestry. What does that have to do with this game? Well, with the last name Rodriguez, I’m sure you guessed that there’s some Spanish heritage in my background. My Dad will often talk about how our family originally came from Spain a loooooong time ago. Specifically from Galicia, Spain. So when I saw this ButtonShy game based on the real-life location of Galicia, my roots were calling to me and I had to get it. Hórreos gives us a small glimpse into life in 18th century Galicia – and it sounds pretty great!
Hórreos is a 2-player game in which players are competing to build the most effective and aesthetically pleasing hórreo in town. What is a hórreo? It is a building for storing grain, elevated from the ground to prevent rodents from infiltrating the structure. So in this game, players are building long and ornate hórreos that not only look stunning, but can keep the rats out of the grain! To setup for a game, each player receives 2 Action cards and the Hórreo cards are shuffled. The deck is placed between the players, and the top card is placed beside the deck to form a 2-card Market. The Leader card is placed beside the Market, facing the starting player. Pictured below is the setup for the beginning of a game.
Over a series of rounds, players will be taking 1 of 4 possible actions as they attempt to build the highest-scoring structure. Each player has 2 Action cards at their disposal. Each Action card has 2 possible Actions on it – one card is Sabotage or Plan, the other is Steal or Build. Both players will secretly choose whichever Action they wish to perform this turn, and place their card face-down in front of them. Players will then simultaneous reveal their chosen Actions, and they will be resolved in the following order – Sabotage, Plan, Steal, and Build. If a player has chosen to Sabotage, they will rotate their opponent’s Action card, forcing them to perform the other listed action this round. To perform the Plan action, the player will select one of the cards from the Market to be placed into their personal supply tableau. If you have chosen to Steal, you will select a card from your opponent’s supply, and take it into your own supply tableau. And finally, to Build is to move a card from your supply to your hórreo. Cards in your hórreo cannot be stolen. As with many other ButtonShy games, cards in your hórreo may be placed adjacent to, or even overlapping, previously played cards – cards may never be tucked under cards in your existing hórreo.
If both players have chosen the same action, the player with the Leader card facing them gets to decide which player will resolve their action first. The Leader card is then rotated to face the opposite player, and so on, for future ‘ties’. An important note – you cannot pick the same Action twice in a row, you must pick one of the other 3 Actions. So take that strategic tidbit into consideration when deciding what to do each round! The game continues in this fashion, with players selecting/simultaneously revealing Actions, resolving their Actions in order, and building their hórreo until there is 1 or fewer cards left in the Market and the players’ supplies at the end of a round. At that point, the game ends, points are tallied, and the winner is declared!
Points are scored in several ways. Most of the hórreo cards are ‘decorated’ with crosses and pikes, and each pair you have in your final hórreo will earn you points. Similarly, the number of doors in your hórreo, as well as adjacent pillars supporting your structure, will earn you points dependent upon the number (the more doors you have, the more points you earn, etc.). As mentioned earlier, you’re trying to keep these pesky rats out of your grain, so any rat pictured on your cards is worth -2 points, but each owl you have pictured eats (cancels out) one rat. And of course, whichever player has build the longest hórreo earns extra points. All points are tallied, and the player with the highest score is the winner!
I have to admit that Hórreos surprised me. The gameplay seems simple enough, so I honestly wasn’t really expecting a lot from this game. For such a small game, Hórreos is all about strategy. Each round, you only have 4 Actions from which to choose, and that really forces you to think long-term with your strategy. But at the same time, since Actions are revealed simultaneously and resolved in a set order, you have to consider what your opponent might do. For example, the Sabotage action forces the opposing player to use the other Action of their chosen card this round. Can you bluff your opponent into playing that Sabotage, forcing you to switch Actions, thus letting you perform the Action you really wanted to perform? That goes hand in hand with the fact that you cannot choose the same Action twice in a row. Can you anticipate your opponents moves to benefit your strategy? Or will you be out of touch, and thus be forced to essentially waste a turn performing an Action that you actually didn’t want to? And don’t forget the Leader card – if players both pick the same Action, the Leader can decide who resolves first. Maybe it’s strategically better to let your opponent resolve first, so then you can just negate what they just did, or vice versa.
To touch on components for a minute, this is a game of 18 cards in a wallet. So nothing out of the ordinary for ButtonShy. That being said, production quality is always top notch with these games, and I have no complaints. the cards are thick and sturdy, and the wallet is nice and supportive. The artwork is thematic and refreshing, while not being too overwhelming. Is it the most beautiful game I’ve ever seen? No. But it is aesthetically and thematically appropriate, and gives a serene and peaceful vibe. ButtonShy has yet to disappoint with their components, so I am definitely a big fan!
Hórreos is a pretty solid game. I’m not personally a huge fan of ‘take that’ type games, and there is an element of that in this gameplay. But there seems to be enough strategy needed to negate some of that direct competitiveness. The game itself is fast to teach, learn, and play, and that adds to the overall appeal. It’s not necessarily my favorite 2-player game, but it’s one that I can see myself pulling out often when I’ve got a quick minute between other games, or when I’ve got a little downtime. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a structural 4 / 6. Check it out if you’re in the market for something small, yet strategic!
Hórreos is a 2-player game in which players are competing to build the most effective and aesthetically pleasing hórreo in town. What is a hórreo? It is a building for storing grain, elevated from the ground to prevent rodents from infiltrating the structure. So in this game, players are building long and ornate hórreos that not only look stunning, but can keep the rats out of the grain! To setup for a game, each player receives 2 Action cards and the Hórreo cards are shuffled. The deck is placed between the players, and the top card is placed beside the deck to form a 2-card Market. The Leader card is placed beside the Market, facing the starting player. Pictured below is the setup for the beginning of a game.
Over a series of rounds, players will be taking 1 of 4 possible actions as they attempt to build the highest-scoring structure. Each player has 2 Action cards at their disposal. Each Action card has 2 possible Actions on it – one card is Sabotage or Plan, the other is Steal or Build. Both players will secretly choose whichever Action they wish to perform this turn, and place their card face-down in front of them. Players will then simultaneous reveal their chosen Actions, and they will be resolved in the following order – Sabotage, Plan, Steal, and Build. If a player has chosen to Sabotage, they will rotate their opponent’s Action card, forcing them to perform the other listed action this round. To perform the Plan action, the player will select one of the cards from the Market to be placed into their personal supply tableau. If you have chosen to Steal, you will select a card from your opponent’s supply, and take it into your own supply tableau. And finally, to Build is to move a card from your supply to your hórreo. Cards in your hórreo cannot be stolen. As with many other ButtonShy games, cards in your hórreo may be placed adjacent to, or even overlapping, previously played cards – cards may never be tucked under cards in your existing hórreo.
If both players have chosen the same action, the player with the Leader card facing them gets to decide which player will resolve their action first. The Leader card is then rotated to face the opposite player, and so on, for future ‘ties’. An important note – you cannot pick the same Action twice in a row, you must pick one of the other 3 Actions. So take that strategic tidbit into consideration when deciding what to do each round! The game continues in this fashion, with players selecting/simultaneously revealing Actions, resolving their Actions in order, and building their hórreo until there is 1 or fewer cards left in the Market and the players’ supplies at the end of a round. At that point, the game ends, points are tallied, and the winner is declared!
Points are scored in several ways. Most of the hórreo cards are ‘decorated’ with crosses and pikes, and each pair you have in your final hórreo will earn you points. Similarly, the number of doors in your hórreo, as well as adjacent pillars supporting your structure, will earn you points dependent upon the number (the more doors you have, the more points you earn, etc.). As mentioned earlier, you’re trying to keep these pesky rats out of your grain, so any rat pictured on your cards is worth -2 points, but each owl you have pictured eats (cancels out) one rat. And of course, whichever player has build the longest hórreo earns extra points. All points are tallied, and the player with the highest score is the winner!
I have to admit that Hórreos surprised me. The gameplay seems simple enough, so I honestly wasn’t really expecting a lot from this game. For such a small game, Hórreos is all about strategy. Each round, you only have 4 Actions from which to choose, and that really forces you to think long-term with your strategy. But at the same time, since Actions are revealed simultaneously and resolved in a set order, you have to consider what your opponent might do. For example, the Sabotage action forces the opposing player to use the other Action of their chosen card this round. Can you bluff your opponent into playing that Sabotage, forcing you to switch Actions, thus letting you perform the Action you really wanted to perform? That goes hand in hand with the fact that you cannot choose the same Action twice in a row. Can you anticipate your opponents moves to benefit your strategy? Or will you be out of touch, and thus be forced to essentially waste a turn performing an Action that you actually didn’t want to? And don’t forget the Leader card – if players both pick the same Action, the Leader can decide who resolves first. Maybe it’s strategically better to let your opponent resolve first, so then you can just negate what they just did, or vice versa.
To touch on components for a minute, this is a game of 18 cards in a wallet. So nothing out of the ordinary for ButtonShy. That being said, production quality is always top notch with these games, and I have no complaints. the cards are thick and sturdy, and the wallet is nice and supportive. The artwork is thematic and refreshing, while not being too overwhelming. Is it the most beautiful game I’ve ever seen? No. But it is aesthetically and thematically appropriate, and gives a serene and peaceful vibe. ButtonShy has yet to disappoint with their components, so I am definitely a big fan!
Hórreos is a pretty solid game. I’m not personally a huge fan of ‘take that’ type games, and there is an element of that in this gameplay. But there seems to be enough strategy needed to negate some of that direct competitiveness. The game itself is fast to teach, learn, and play, and that adds to the overall appeal. It’s not necessarily my favorite 2-player game, but it’s one that I can see myself pulling out often when I’ve got a quick minute between other games, or when I’ve got a little downtime. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a structural 4 / 6. Check it out if you’re in the market for something small, yet strategic!
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated X-Men: Apocalypse (2016) in Movies
Jul 19, 2017 (Updated Apr 16, 2021)
80's setting (2 more)
Quicksilver
Oscar Isaacs
Mutants Have Mankind Divided
This movie has had the most mixed reaction that I have seen since Batman V Superman, however I do objectively believe that X Men is a better movie and to be honest I don’t understand the mixed response Apocalypse has gotten. The year is 1983, 10 years after the last x men movie, Days Of Future Past (as in the kind of 10 years where no one ages a day,) and we know that it is 1983 because some of the young mutants go and see Return Of The Jedi in the cinema. The hairstyles and fashion statements are suitably 80’s, which is an appropriate motif to choose as it adds a more comic book feel to the movie and forces it to stick to a brighter colour pallet than some of the previous X men outings. Another positive is the return of Quicksilver, who has another awesome slow motion scene, which possibly isn’t as well choreographed as the one in DOFP, but is definitely grander in scale. While the design of Apocalypse in this movie has been heavily criticised, I didn’t feel that it took me out of the movie and I felt that Oscar Isaacs’ portrayal of the ancient mutant is another great turn by the actor and proves yet again how diverse and chameleon like he really is. The one downside of his character is that he has been significantly nerfed in terms of his powers here. He does feel powerful, but never overwhelmingly so and when the final confrontation does take place, it feels like he is holding back. This could be explained in a contrived manner by saying that he doesn’t want to kill mutants, because they are all his children, but if the success of his plan depends on it then he shouldn’t even hesitate, he should just wipe all the X Men out in an instant like we know he can.
The tone is another issue I have with the movie, it is fairly inconsistent throughout and never reaches the level of threat that it is aiming for. However, this is through no fault of the cast or the performances. MacAvoy and Fassbender stand out here as you would expect, their relationship also remains one of the most interesting parts of the plot. Isaacs’ performance is also suitably threatening and sinister, the only thing lacking in his character other than the odd design choice, is how short he is next to the other mutants. He doesn’t have to be huge like in the comics and cartoons, but making him a little bit more physically imposing with clever camera tricks would have went a long way in adding to the character. Jennifer Lawrence is fine here as usual and young Cyclops and Jean Grey are perfectly serviceable, although Sophie Turner’s American accent does come and go in certain scenes. Even Peters is typically brilliant as Quicksilver and the actress who plays Storm here is also pretty convincing, as is the young English actor who plays Angel. Nightcrawler is a welcome addition to the roster as I feel that he has been criminally underused since the second X Men movie and his power set is definitely one of the most interesting in all of the X Men movies, also the actor playing him here does a good job throughout the film. However the same can’t be said for Olivia Munn who plays Psylocke in this movie, I have disliked this actress in every role I have seen her in to date and the same goes for this one, she brings nothing to the movie and she constantly has a resting bitch face that suggests she doesn’t want to be there.
Like Civil War, X Men wasn’t anything like the comic it was based on and we didn’t get what we expected, but what we did end up getting was fresh and entertaining in it’s own right, so it’s okay that the film plots aren’t 100% faithful to the source material and that is something that Singer has been preaching since he made the first X Men movie back in 2001, which incidentally wasn’t based on any comic book and was a totally original plot. Also I love how because of the alternate timeline they are now free to do whatever they want in terms of the timing of certain events. For example, (and this is a slight spoiler, but the movie has been out for a while now so deal with it,) the Phoenix Force makes an appearance in this movie, which typically isn’t something that Jean Grey acquires until later in her life. Also the fact that we saw Wolverine escaping from Weapon X again, (again spoilers but this was in the trailers anyway so again, deal with it,) was awesome and this time we saw him being broken out by the young X Men and this time he had the comic book accurate electric headgear on while he escaped and I also loved how we saw him interact with young Jean Grey and regain some of his memories. This could also could be a change in the timeline caused by the butterfly effect as a result of the events of Days Of Future Past. This would also explain why the Magneto/Quicksilver, father/son relationship has never been discussed before, because if Apocalypse never awakened in the original X Men trilogy, then Quicksilver would have never went to the X Men mansion and therefore wouldn’t have come into contact with his dad during the final battle scene. Also Mystique looks like she is now a member and potential leader of the X Men team, rather than an enemy of the team like she was in the original movies when she was played by Rebecca Romjin. The other big change in the timeline is the death of Magneto’s family and even the fact that he had a wife and another child besides Quicksilver and Scarlett Witch.
Overall I really enjoyed this movie, however I can also see why some people would take a disliking to it, as it does require a good amount of previous knowledge of the universe, but as an X Men fan, I loved it. Also another criticism I have read is that people aren’t happy with the length of the film, stating that it is too long and it drags in, but I actually thought the pacing was spot on. Anyway as an X Men fan, I loved my time would this movie and I look forward to seeing it again and I’d recommend it to anyone who is a mutant superhero fan.
The tone is another issue I have with the movie, it is fairly inconsistent throughout and never reaches the level of threat that it is aiming for. However, this is through no fault of the cast or the performances. MacAvoy and Fassbender stand out here as you would expect, their relationship also remains one of the most interesting parts of the plot. Isaacs’ performance is also suitably threatening and sinister, the only thing lacking in his character other than the odd design choice, is how short he is next to the other mutants. He doesn’t have to be huge like in the comics and cartoons, but making him a little bit more physically imposing with clever camera tricks would have went a long way in adding to the character. Jennifer Lawrence is fine here as usual and young Cyclops and Jean Grey are perfectly serviceable, although Sophie Turner’s American accent does come and go in certain scenes. Even Peters is typically brilliant as Quicksilver and the actress who plays Storm here is also pretty convincing, as is the young English actor who plays Angel. Nightcrawler is a welcome addition to the roster as I feel that he has been criminally underused since the second X Men movie and his power set is definitely one of the most interesting in all of the X Men movies, also the actor playing him here does a good job throughout the film. However the same can’t be said for Olivia Munn who plays Psylocke in this movie, I have disliked this actress in every role I have seen her in to date and the same goes for this one, she brings nothing to the movie and she constantly has a resting bitch face that suggests she doesn’t want to be there.
Like Civil War, X Men wasn’t anything like the comic it was based on and we didn’t get what we expected, but what we did end up getting was fresh and entertaining in it’s own right, so it’s okay that the film plots aren’t 100% faithful to the source material and that is something that Singer has been preaching since he made the first X Men movie back in 2001, which incidentally wasn’t based on any comic book and was a totally original plot. Also I love how because of the alternate timeline they are now free to do whatever they want in terms of the timing of certain events. For example, (and this is a slight spoiler, but the movie has been out for a while now so deal with it,) the Phoenix Force makes an appearance in this movie, which typically isn’t something that Jean Grey acquires until later in her life. Also the fact that we saw Wolverine escaping from Weapon X again, (again spoilers but this was in the trailers anyway so again, deal with it,) was awesome and this time we saw him being broken out by the young X Men and this time he had the comic book accurate electric headgear on while he escaped and I also loved how we saw him interact with young Jean Grey and regain some of his memories. This could also could be a change in the timeline caused by the butterfly effect as a result of the events of Days Of Future Past. This would also explain why the Magneto/Quicksilver, father/son relationship has never been discussed before, because if Apocalypse never awakened in the original X Men trilogy, then Quicksilver would have never went to the X Men mansion and therefore wouldn’t have come into contact with his dad during the final battle scene. Also Mystique looks like she is now a member and potential leader of the X Men team, rather than an enemy of the team like she was in the original movies when she was played by Rebecca Romjin. The other big change in the timeline is the death of Magneto’s family and even the fact that he had a wife and another child besides Quicksilver and Scarlett Witch.
Overall I really enjoyed this movie, however I can also see why some people would take a disliking to it, as it does require a good amount of previous knowledge of the universe, but as an X Men fan, I loved it. Also another criticism I have read is that people aren’t happy with the length of the film, stating that it is too long and it drags in, but I actually thought the pacing was spot on. Anyway as an X Men fan, I loved my time would this movie and I look forward to seeing it again and I’d recommend it to anyone who is a mutant superhero fan.