Search

Search only in certain items:

Sonic the Hedgehog (2020)
Sonic the Hedgehog (2020)
2020 | Action, Adventure, Animation
Not as bad as expected
Sonic the Hedgehog is a legend, a gaming institution, and adapting him for the big screen was always going to be a tall order. This was proved when the trailer for this 2020 release first dropped in 2019 - the original appearance of Sonic faced such outcry and derision that studio Paramount did the unexpected and completely overhauled Sonic's looks. The result in the final film released in February of this year is a character that looks very much like the Sonic we know and love, but in a storyline and film that is sadly rather lacking.

Sonic the Hedgehog was directed by Jeff Fowler and stars James Marsden and Jim Carrey as the humans, with Ben Schwartz voicing the animated Sonic. The plot unfortunately is the entirely predictable buddy story you'd expect when a CGI character gets thrown into the real world - Sonic befriends a human, experiences all the fun earth has to offer before being hunted by an evil villain, and at the end everyone learns the value of friendship. So far, so generic and for me this was the biggest disappointment about this entire film. The script, the plot, the animation, it was all just so average.

Having seen the surprisingly good Detective Pikachu the previous year, which managed to seamlessly blend the real world with animated characters in a better than average story, I'd hoped Sonic would follow in the same vein but I'm sad to say it didn't. Yes Sonic looks a million times better than he did initially (the teeth in the original version are the stuff of nightmares), but he still looks too animated and cartoonish for the real world. The Pokémon in Warner Bros' film looked real, but Sonic just looks out of place. He isn't helped with Ben Schwartz's rather unconvincing voice which feels ill-fitting too, personally I think they should've done a Pikachu and Ryan Reynolds and gone with a completely outlandish OTT voice. It's a shame as the rest of the scenery and action based CGI are actually quite good, although the slow motion scenes have been done before and so much better (X-Men: Days of Future Past).

To be fair, despite a sometimes dodgy script, the human cast do at least do their best. James Marsden has surprisingly good chemistry with an animated hedgehog, although it's Jim Carrey as Dr Robotnik that steals the show. Whilst his Robotnik isn't quite the rounded Eggman of the games, Carrey's performance is wonderfully wacky, sinister and completely over the top, and is responsible for virtually all of the laughs here. He's having an absolute whale of a time and this really draws us in as viewers and makes us have fun too. He's the Carrey we know from the 90s, his performance so akin to those of Ace Ventura and The Mask that you can't help but love the exaggerated show he gives here.

Paramount has also done a good job of including some nostalgic nods to the games, from the gold rings in the opening Paramount logo to Sonic's red sneakers. Even the final battle between Sonic and Robotnik had me squealing with joy at how much it reminded me of the actions you undertake to defeat the boss battles. There are some aspects of the games that are missing, most noticeably the Badniks (Robotnik's creature like robots) and Sonic's friends, who have sadly been left for a blatant sequel baiting end credits scene for a sequel we may never see. I also found Robotnik's machines and vehicles to be a little too technologically advanced and was disappointed not to see some that were more reminiscent of the wacky contraptions from the games.

This adaptation of Sonic the Hedgehog isn't the best, and to be frank it could have been done so much better. That said, it still held my attention for its 100min run time and could never be called dull, even if it was a little too puerile to be anything better than average.
  
Marriage Story (2019)
Marriage Story (2019)
2019 | Comedy, Drama
Well Acted Scenes Do Not A Good Movie Make
Noah Baumbach is one of those filmmakers that is highly regarded in the "Art House" community for his semi-autobiographical humanistic films. These are domestic dramas heavy on dialogue - the type of film that "A-List" Actors swarm to perform in for the acting challenges it brings. His latest, MARRIAGE STORY, is no exception as it follows the dissolution of a marriage and the struggles of the 2 main players involved. The husband and wife are written realistically (according to Baumbach) with moments of pathos and moments of repulsion thrown in at equal measure.

So, naturally, Baumbach (THE SQUID AND THE WHALE) was able to draw 2 of the better performers working in film today to play the leads - Scarlett Johannson and Adam Driver - and they deliver the goods (along with Laura Dern) - all 3 were deserved Oscar nominees - and the performances of ALL of the actors on screen are worth watching.

But...that's about all this film has going for it. For I found the first hour and a half of this film tedious with (at times) preposterous dialogue that looked good on paper - and was enthusiastically performed - but wrang (at least to me) as unrealistic. Consequently, this film is filled with well acted scenes that I kept saying to myself - "that was a well acted scene and that was an interesting choice that that actor made in that scene", but I found that these disparate scenes in this part of the film did not hold together as a movie. It seemed to me a series of acting class scenes and not a film.

And, for that, I blame Writer/Director Baumbach. This film, purportedly, parallels his divorce from actress Jennifer Jason Leigh (HATEFUL 8) and it shows. It's a little too "on the nose" and "inside baseball" for my tastes. The dialogue, at times, was "too cute" and the pacing was deliberate - which is a nice way of saying "slow".

What saves this film is the performances. Johannson dominates the first part of this film and she brings her "A" game, bringing a strength and awakening purpose to her character that will have you rooting for her - at the beginning. The first half of the film (for the most part) is Johannson's film and is what gives her her Oscar nomination (she won't win), but she deserves the nomination.

Laura Dern is also Oscar nominated for her role as Johannson's Divorce Attorney. Bright, funny, articulate and a shark in the courtroom and boardroom, Dern's character was fascinating to watch onscreen. While I thought this performance was "fine" and I was "okay" with it getting an Oscar nomination, I kept waiting for the "Oscar scene" for this supporting character - and about 2/3 of the way into the film this character had that moment - and Dern killed it. I would now say Dern is the deserved frontrunner for Best Supporting Actress (ironically, over Johansson who is ALSO nominated for Supporting Actress for JoJo Rabbit).

This scene propels the last 1/3 of this film into interesting territory - a place that this film had not gone to thus far. I was sucked into this last part and I think it is in no small reason due to the fact that this part of the film is driven (no pun intended) by Adam Driver's character. I've always found Driver to be a fascinating actor and while his character was not front and center much in the first part of the film, he commands center stage in the last part and I could not take my eyes off of his powerful performance. In a strong year of Best Acting performances, he shines and I would be happily surprised and satisfied if he won the Best Actor Oscar.

Alan Alda, as usual, brings an interesting character to the screen as does Julie Hagerty (remember her from AIRPLANE?) as Scarlett's mother. The surprise to me was the strong play of Ray Liotta as one of Driver's lawyers - it is his best work in quite some time and shows he does have some acting chops. Finally, good ol' Wallace Shawn (the "inconceivable" Count Visini in PRINCESS BRIDE) was fun - and annoying - in his scenes.

So...if you want to see some good acting in scenes that I am sure will end up as good scenes in an acting class performed very strongly, then check out MARRIAGE STORY. Just make sure you are well rested. A fast-paced romp it is not.

Letter Grade: B (for the strong performances)

7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
  
Marriage Story (2019)
Marriage Story (2019)
2019 | Comedy, Drama
To say I found this hard to watch could not be more understated. Any adult that has risked their whole life on a true love that runs its course and then fails must surely feel the same. It happens to most of us once or twice in a lifetime, and resonates forever. Such is the level of truth and sadness on display in Noah Baumbach’s beautifully written and directed tale of two people in turmoil, whose biggest obstacle is not one another, but the dispassion and ineffectiveness of legality, and even friends and family, to resolve big issues of a personal nature.

As with the obvious reference point of the seminal take on divorce, Robert Benton’s 1979 Oscar winner Kramer Vs. Kramer, the point is not at all about taking sides and choosing a winner… because everyone loses in a break-up. The only thing you can hope is that it doesn’t tear the child / children apart, and that at least some memory of the love that once was isn’t entirely forgotten. You also hope that you will survive, once you realise you are not part of a whole any more, and you must now figure out who you are and where to go. Even the grief of death is sometimes not as devastating. And this beyond mature film acknowledges that.

Not that it is all doom and gloom. There is some real humour and joy wrapped up inside the detail of Marriage Story’s script. As you would expect from the guy who gave us the massively under-rated The Squid and the Whale, from 2005. It assumes an emotional intelligence similar to the best films of Woody Allen, with which he clearly shares some sense of creative style and sensibility. But let’s not open that can of worms at this juncture.

The idea that Scarlett Johansson can even be thought of as a double Oscar nominee this year may be galling to some naysayers, but it comes as no surprise to me at all. Despite a career touching on the lighter side of cinema, there are some bold artistic choices in there too, and personally I have always seen that potential. As Nicole, she not only creates a fully rounded character different from anything I have ever seen her do; believable and interesting in every way, but also holds her own against one of the major talents working in film today – Mr Adam Driver. And that is no mean feat! Another balance comparison that can be made to the epic battle of Streep Vs Hoffman, decades before. And as with Streep before her, there are moments where we entirely see her side of things and stop questioning male vs female politics and just see the person battling underneath it all.

However, and not remotely because I am likely to relate to the male point of view, the work Adam Driver is doing here is close to transcendent! I have made no secret of wanting Joaquin Phoenix to win every accolade going for his turn in Joker. And what a shame the two have to be compared, because Driver’s work here is second to none! I find it so completely exciting for the future of cinema that he is out there doing his thing – evidently, it is about as breath-taking as screen acting has ever been!

It is not only his ability to convey vulnerability and humanity in every role he takes on; it his control that really impresses. To such an extent that I begin to wonder if there is anything he could not do better than 99% of anyone working today, if well cast. Make no mistake, at any level, this is one of hell of a talent, making the right choices in the roles he does at almost every crossroads. Consider the latest Star Wars trilogy without him, and ponder what weak popcorn fare it might have been without him?

Marriage Story as a complete piece is worthy of dissection and multiple re-watches. I am happy to say that, only hours after seeing it myself. There simply isn’t a doubt. As a serious commentary on break-ups then it may be, at the moment, tertiary in my mind to both the aforementioned Kramer Vs Kramer and the sickeningly sad Blue Valentine. But, it is perhaps more real than either of those, and will certainly build in my psyche as time passes.

In conclusion: Yes! I have no inclination to fault it. And may have more to say at a different point…
  
Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans '66) (2019)
Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans '66) (2019)
2019 | Action, Biography, Drama, Sport
Damon, Bale and fast cars (1 more)
Epic technical film making - cinematography, editing and sound - Oscar bait
Virtually nothing (0 more)
A linear story on a circular track - but beautifully done.
Despite the love affair cinema has had with cars over the years, the sport of motor racing on film has been patchy. Too often the drama on the track has been deluged with melodrama off the track, as in John Frankenheimer's "Grand Prix" from 1966. While recent efforts such as Ron Howard's "Rush" have brought modern filming techniques to better convey the speed and excitement, it is Steve McQueen's "Le Mans" from 1971 that had previously set the bar for realism in the sport. But even there, there were a few off-track love stories to interweave into the action.

I wouldn't hesitate to suggest that "Le Mans '66" is a strong contender for the motor racing high-water mark.

The film was marketed as "Ford v Ferrari" in the US. (What... do the American distributors think their film-goers are so stupid that if "Le" is in the title they will think it sub-titled foreign language??). But it's a valid title, since the movie tells the true story of when Henry Ford... the second... (Tracy Letts) throws his toys out of the pram at Ford's faltering progress. ("James Bond does not drive a Ford". "That's because he's a degenerate!" snaps back Ford, which kind of typifies the problem"). Marketing man Lee Iacocca (Jon Bernthal) persuades retired hot-shot racer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) to take Ford's blank-cheque to build a car to win the Le Mans 24 hour race.

Shelby enlists maverick Brit racer Ken Miles (Christian Bale) to help design and drive the next-generation machine. But neither had banked on the interference of the hoards of Ford suits, led by VP Leo Beebe (Josh Lucas). An explosion is imminent! And its not just from the over-heated brake pads!

What's really odd about this film is how linear the story is. While we get to see the family life of Miles (to add necessary context to what follows) these are merely minor diversions. There are no sub-plots or flashback scenes. It just relates the history from beginning to end, enlivened by some of the best and most exciting motor-racing footage put to celluloid.

At a bladder-testing 152 minutes, this really shouldn't have worked. I should have got bored and restless. But I really didn't.

In many ways - bladders aside - I think this will appeal in particular to an older breed of movie-goer. It's a 100% 'sit back in your seat and enjoy' cinema treat.

This is the first film Matt Damon and Christian Bale have made together, and I understand that Damon specifically signed on since he wanted to work with Bale. And there is palpable chemistry there. The movie includes one of the best 'bad-fights' since Colin Firth and Hugh Grant locked horns in the Bridget Jones films. And Damon - never one of the most expressive actors in the world - here really shines.

Bale also appears to be having a whale of a time. Not having to adopt a US accent suits him, as he blasts and swears his way through various UK-specific expletives that probably passed the US-censors by! He often tends to play characters in movies that are difficult to warm to, but here - although suitably spiky and irascible - the family man really shines through and you feel a real warmth for the guy.

There's a strong supporting cast behind the leads, with Tracy Letts' fast-driving breakdown being a standout moment. I wonder how many takes they needed on that for Damon to keep a semi-straight face?! Also impressive as the son Peter Miles is Noah Jupe. If you're wondering where the hell you've seen him before, he was young (Marcus in "A Quiet Place").

Where the film comes alive is on the track, and a particular shout out should to to the technical teams. Cinematography is by Phedon Papamichael ("Walk the Line"), film editing is led by Andrew Buckland and Michael McCusker. And sound mixing - which to my ear was piston-valve perfect - is by Steven Morrow. Also worthy of note is a kick-ass driving soundtrack by Marco Beltrami that genuinely excited. These categories are fearsomly hard to predict in awards season, but you might like to listen out for those names.

If I was going to pick at any faults in the film, it would be that Ford exec Leo Beebe is painted a little too much as a "boo-hiss" pantomime villain in the piece. It could have been perhaps toned down 20% or so.

James Mangold ("Logan"; "Walk the Line") directs in style. From the rather po-faced trailer, you might think this is a "car movie that's not for me". But it really is a tremendously fun movie, with some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments mixed in with edge-of-your-seat action and some heart-rending moments.

Above all, this is a film that really benefits from the wide-screen and sound-system that only a big cinema can provide. As such this goes on my "get out and see it" list without any hesitation! It's going to make my movies of the year: and I'm off to see it again on Saturday!

Read the full review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-le-mans-66-2019/
  
Survive: Escape from Atlantis!
Survive: Escape from Atlantis!
1982 | Adventure, Animals, Bluff, Nautical
I have never been on a sinking anything. Sure, I have flipped over kayaks, and paddle-boards, and anything else that requires me to balance on top of water. But I cannot imagine the terror of being on an island that just… sinks into the deep. Oh also running out of room and having to swim to safe land. Oh also while sharks, whales, and sea monsters are chasing me. You know what? Maybe I’m cool with being located in the Midwest. I’ll just play this game and live vicariously through the esceeples (escaping meeples? I need a handbook for these -eeple terms).

Survive: Escape from Atlantis! (which I now will call Survive) is an competitive adventure game featuring action points, grid movement, secret unit deployment, dice rolls, and lots of take-that. And little boats. It also can destroy friendships and ruin evenings. Play at your own risk.

DISCLAIMER: There are several expansions to this game, but we are not reviewing them at this time. We ARE including the 5-6 player mini expansion, however. Should we review the others in the future we will either update this review or post a link to the new material here. Also, I do not intend to detail every rule in the book, but give our readers an idea of how the game plays and our thoughts on it. -T


To setup a game of Survive, each player will choose a color and take into their supply all the meeples of that color and two boats. Place all the terrain tiles randomly (and face down) within the bolded line on the board to create the central island. Place out the sea serpents on the sea serpent spots as menacingly as possible. Players then take turns placing their numbered meeples on terrain tiles until all meeples have been placed, and their boateeples on any water space near the island they wish. Keep aside the shark, whale, and dolphin meeples for later. Give the die to the first player and you are ready to play.
On a player’s turn they will 1. Play any tiles from their hand, 2. Move meeples, 3. Remove terrain a tile, 4. Roll the die and move creatures. At the beginning of the game nobody will have any tiles in hand to play, so skip this step if there are no tiles in hand. On subsequent turns players may have collected tiles as a result of the #3 action, and now is the time to play those. Typically they are beneficial for the active player or detrimental to the opponents. Next, the active player will move their meeples in any combination three total board hexes. This can be done with one or more meeples on land or in the water. There are movement restrictions that I will not cover here. After movement, the active player will remove one of the terrain tiles with the lowest elevation (sand, forest, then mountain tiles). The player flips over the tile and will play it immediately if it shows an arrow, or keeps it in hand if it shows a hand icon. Finally, the active player will roll the red die and move creatures per the movement table printed on the board.

Creature movement creates the tension in the game (as if fighting over the boats wasn’t enough). You see, when sharks enter the board and are moved, they are hungry for swimmer meeples (obv). Whales are hungry(?) for boats and will destroy them but fling the meeples aboard into the water to become swimmers. Sea serpents don’t care. They will eat swimmers and manned boats… but they’re the slowest movers. So consider that.


Play continues in this fashion until the either all meeples have been removed from the play grid, or a player flips over the volcano mountain tile and ends the game. Any meeples who have made it to the safety of the outer islands are worth the VP printed on their bottoms. Wait, not the butts. The bottom of the meeples. Which I guess are the feet.
Components. To reiterate, in case it was missed, we are reviewing the 2010 Stronghold edition. There is a newer version, and it seems to look a little better but plays the same. However, I love the components of this version too. The meeples are fine, the creatures are cool, the varying thicknesses of the terrain tiles makes for an interesting mini-3D look, and the board is great without being too busy and distracting. I have absolutely no issues with these components and think they are super.

Now, you may have read in my intro that this game may ruin friendships and the evening, and I really am not joking about this. I have played this so many times where at least one person becomes completely angered by the chomping of the shark or the horrible movement of the sea serpent adjacent to their boat. It’s just a game, and it’s inevitable in this one – your meeples will get eaten. It’s gonna happen! When I teach this now I try to make that apparent right away because it is then not viewed as absolutely treachery when it happens to newer players. Should you be playing with sensitive gamers, please instruct them early that it WILL happen or you’re gonna have a bad time.

However, this game is great! I love it now as much as I ever have. It’s an older horse for me, but one of which I will never tire. I can and love to play it with new gamers, especially the ones that are hoping to join the inner circle. If you can hang through a game of Survive without being angered and taking it all in stride, you are welcome at my table ANY time. That said, as you can see by our ratings, Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a mighty and well-deserved 21 / 24. If you enjoy games that upset your players and want a cool theme on it, check out Survive: Escape from Atlantis!