Search
Search results
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Kim-Joy's Magic Bakery in Tabletop Games
Apr 8, 2022
A magical bakery in a forest co-owned by a quirky board game loving contestant on The Great British Bake Off? If there was ever a game specifically designed for my wife, this is it. She loves baking, cute card games, and that super-famous show (she was always a fan of Mary Berry). That said, I don’t think I would ever be able to live with myself if I didn’t bring this one home and share it with my wife. Let’s see what we liked and what we didn’t.
Kim-Joy’s Magic Bakery is a cooperative hand management scenario-based card game for two to five players. In it, players are employees of the Magic Bakery and are tasked with baking wondrous items to satisfy a group of customers requesting their favourite (it’s British, I’m just doing my part) dishes. The game ends once all customers have been served or are otherwise no longer in the game. Depending on the current scenario, the group scores points based on how many customers they were able to serve. All players win together or they do not win.
Setup the Customers card deck according to the number of players, shuffle them, and deal out one or two (depending on number of players as well) face up to the table to begin the Customer Row. Do NOT shuffle the Layers cards. Instead, separate them by type and place them all face-up in decks by type. Do shuffle the yellow Ingredients cards and place out five face up (or face down depending on scenario) to form the Pantry Row. Each player draws a starting hand of three Ingredient cards from the deck, and the starting player takes the Kim-Joy standee to begin!
On a turn, the active player will have choices of actions to be taken, in any order they choose, from among the following: take an Ingredient card, pass a card to another player, bake a Layer, fulfill a Customer order, or refresh the Pantry. Depending on the number of players, each turn will consist of either two or three actions being taken. Most actions are self-explanatory, but I will give a quick hit to them all. The active player may see an interesting Ingredient card in the offer row and may simply draw it into their hand for an action. Once the player has enough Ingredients to bake a Layer (by discarding the requisite Ingredient cards) they may do so for an action. If the player has a card they believe another player could utilize, they may simply pass them that card as an action – either Ingredient or Layer. The goal of the game is help fulfill customer orders, so by using an action to fulfill an order, the player discards all the necessary cards and helps the group inch one step closer to victory. At a loss and need a suggestion for an action? Discard all cards from the Ingredient Row and draw new ones.
Once each player has completed their actions, the Customer Row is shifted one space to the right and a new Customer comes into the bakery. The bakery can only accommodate three customers, so if a new hungry Customer visits, they force out the Customer who has been there the longest, and the players lose the opportunity to serve that (possibly irate) Customer. Play continues in this fashion of players completing actions working toward satisfying as many Customers as possible until there are no more Customers in the deck nor in the bakery. Players then count the number of Customers they served, and score points according to the goals set by the scenario card! As the game typically takes 15-30 minutes, player usually request another try, so be prepared for that eventuality.
Components. This is simply a card game that includes an unnecessary, but cute, standee to mark the starting player. The cards are nice, and come in two sizes. Surprisingly, the cards sport a non-linen low-gloss finish (I’m just saying that many games nowadays are linen and as thick as possible) and feature whimsical and wonderful artwork. The game as a whole is very stylish and boasts a super fun theme. I have no issues with the components, artwork, or theme here. It all works together really well.
I will definitely suggest that new bakers player their first game without the added challenges of the scenarios. They throw in some extra complexity and difficulty that younger bakers just will not appreciate. The different scenarios are all very interesting and add in a little wrinkle to the game to make it just that much more intriguing. I have enjoyed all the different scenarios I have played, though I have not played all of them. In time, my dears. In time. Luckily, the designer has aptly seen it fit to include Helpful Duck cards that act as any Ingredient card needed at the time. These little cuties are God-sends in certain situations, and can also be included in more numbers to make scenarios easier to complete.
Being big fans of the show, I knew my wife and I would love this one. It is cute, challenging, but doesn’t try to be much more than what it is. With so many games out there competing to be bigger, more complex, and more aggressive, it is so nice to settle down with a light and jolly little card game like Kim-Joy’s Magic Bakery. I feel like I am working in a bakery while I’m playing – orders are coming in too quickly and I need just one or two more actions each turn to gather ingredients and bake new layers. It’s a really great theme and a really great game regardless of theme. The weight is perfect for young and older players, and good cooperative games that are not susceptible to quarterbacking are sometimes hard to find. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a quite scrumptious 10 / 12. I wonder if Kim-Joy herself plays this game. If so, I officially challenge her to play with my wife and I… and maybe show us a couple tricks in the actual bakery as well. I could go for a killer Chocolate Bombe, Millionaire’s Shortbread, or a vegetarian Old Fashioned Trifle! And if you get THAT joke, my brother will love you.
Kim-Joy’s Magic Bakery is a cooperative hand management scenario-based card game for two to five players. In it, players are employees of the Magic Bakery and are tasked with baking wondrous items to satisfy a group of customers requesting their favourite (it’s British, I’m just doing my part) dishes. The game ends once all customers have been served or are otherwise no longer in the game. Depending on the current scenario, the group scores points based on how many customers they were able to serve. All players win together or they do not win.
Setup the Customers card deck according to the number of players, shuffle them, and deal out one or two (depending on number of players as well) face up to the table to begin the Customer Row. Do NOT shuffle the Layers cards. Instead, separate them by type and place them all face-up in decks by type. Do shuffle the yellow Ingredients cards and place out five face up (or face down depending on scenario) to form the Pantry Row. Each player draws a starting hand of three Ingredient cards from the deck, and the starting player takes the Kim-Joy standee to begin!
On a turn, the active player will have choices of actions to be taken, in any order they choose, from among the following: take an Ingredient card, pass a card to another player, bake a Layer, fulfill a Customer order, or refresh the Pantry. Depending on the number of players, each turn will consist of either two or three actions being taken. Most actions are self-explanatory, but I will give a quick hit to them all. The active player may see an interesting Ingredient card in the offer row and may simply draw it into their hand for an action. Once the player has enough Ingredients to bake a Layer (by discarding the requisite Ingredient cards) they may do so for an action. If the player has a card they believe another player could utilize, they may simply pass them that card as an action – either Ingredient or Layer. The goal of the game is help fulfill customer orders, so by using an action to fulfill an order, the player discards all the necessary cards and helps the group inch one step closer to victory. At a loss and need a suggestion for an action? Discard all cards from the Ingredient Row and draw new ones.
Once each player has completed their actions, the Customer Row is shifted one space to the right and a new Customer comes into the bakery. The bakery can only accommodate three customers, so if a new hungry Customer visits, they force out the Customer who has been there the longest, and the players lose the opportunity to serve that (possibly irate) Customer. Play continues in this fashion of players completing actions working toward satisfying as many Customers as possible until there are no more Customers in the deck nor in the bakery. Players then count the number of Customers they served, and score points according to the goals set by the scenario card! As the game typically takes 15-30 minutes, player usually request another try, so be prepared for that eventuality.
Components. This is simply a card game that includes an unnecessary, but cute, standee to mark the starting player. The cards are nice, and come in two sizes. Surprisingly, the cards sport a non-linen low-gloss finish (I’m just saying that many games nowadays are linen and as thick as possible) and feature whimsical and wonderful artwork. The game as a whole is very stylish and boasts a super fun theme. I have no issues with the components, artwork, or theme here. It all works together really well.
I will definitely suggest that new bakers player their first game without the added challenges of the scenarios. They throw in some extra complexity and difficulty that younger bakers just will not appreciate. The different scenarios are all very interesting and add in a little wrinkle to the game to make it just that much more intriguing. I have enjoyed all the different scenarios I have played, though I have not played all of them. In time, my dears. In time. Luckily, the designer has aptly seen it fit to include Helpful Duck cards that act as any Ingredient card needed at the time. These little cuties are God-sends in certain situations, and can also be included in more numbers to make scenarios easier to complete.
Being big fans of the show, I knew my wife and I would love this one. It is cute, challenging, but doesn’t try to be much more than what it is. With so many games out there competing to be bigger, more complex, and more aggressive, it is so nice to settle down with a light and jolly little card game like Kim-Joy’s Magic Bakery. I feel like I am working in a bakery while I’m playing – orders are coming in too quickly and I need just one or two more actions each turn to gather ingredients and bake new layers. It’s a really great theme and a really great game regardless of theme. The weight is perfect for young and older players, and good cooperative games that are not susceptible to quarterbacking are sometimes hard to find. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a quite scrumptious 10 / 12. I wonder if Kim-Joy herself plays this game. If so, I officially challenge her to play with my wife and I… and maybe show us a couple tricks in the actual bakery as well. I could go for a killer Chocolate Bombe, Millionaire’s Shortbread, or a vegetarian Old Fashioned Trifle! And if you get THAT joke, my brother will love you.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated V for Vendetta (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
On a dark and silent night, a young woman named Evey (Natalie Portman), treads carefully through the streets of London unaware of the direction her life is about to take. As an attractive young lady, sneaking out of her home after curfew is filled with peril, especially when she is confronted by a gang of local thugs who happen to work for the government. Despite her protests, the men set up Evey only to be confronted by a masked figure.
The masked figure quickly dispatches the assailants and offers to escort Evey to safety. Despite being scared, Evey does accompany the figure to a rooftop where she is treated to a spectacular explosion set to music.
Thus begins V for Vendetta a film that mixes “The Phantom of the Opera” “Beauty and the Beast” and ?” to create a gothic love story and biting social commentary about the dangers of governmental control and censorship in a society gone awry.
In London of the near future, it is learned that a series of terrorist attacks have left thousands dead which resulted in stricter governmental controls and intrusions into privacy and lifestyles. Those who did not conform nor meet expectations often vanished never to be heard from again. Such was the case of Evey’s parents who decided to protest governmental policies and soon found themselves beaten and whisked away in the night.
Behind all of the oppression is a man named Adam Sutler (John Hurt), a monomaniacal leader who rules with an iron fist and an extreme agenda that he has manipulated to make himself and unopposed ruler of the nation.
While most of the population lives in fear of Sutler and his men, there is one who does not, a mysterious masked figure named V (Hugo Weaving), who dons a Guy Fawkes mask in tribute to the man who centuries ago attempted to destroy Parliament. When V is able to temporarily gain control of the television network for the government, he is able to broadcast his message to the people that the time has come to take back their lives and society and stop living in fear. Towards this end, V pledges to the masses that he will destroy Parliament in 1 year and that the people should gather to watch the destruction unfold.
This bold proclamation causes Sutler to stop at nothing to capture V and he tasks his Chief Inspector Finch (Stephen Rea), to locate V. Since Evey worked at the television station and was observed helping V on a security monitor, Finch decides to locate Evey and force her to reveal the locale of the mysterious vigilante.
This task proves difficult as V has taken Evey into his protection and forces her to live in his luxurious yet secluded home in order to avoid the police forces.
It is during this time that Evey learns that V is a study in contrast. On one hand he is a very sophisticated person with a taste for the arts, culture, and a desire to see people free to live their lives as they desire.
During this time V also kills top members of the political party and with the discovery of each new victim, he becomes an even bigger target of a very irate Sutler.
All of which culminates in a race against the clock for V to complete his plan and exact his revenge for past wrongdoings done to him which propels the film to its climatic finale.
While the film is an interesting and at times enjoyable film it is hampered in some ways by a marketing program where early trailers showed the film to be an action filled romp. The truth is there is about 15-20 minutes of action in the films nearly 2hr and 10 minute run time which allows the majority of the film to be spent on the interaction between V and Evey.
While this is interesting and does bring in elements of “Phantom” and “Beauty” as I mentioned earlier, it is at the sacrifice of what I think are important factors. For example we learn a bit about why V is on his vendetta but serious questions from that are not answered. We do not learn the full what, where and why, on his situation. I am trying hard to avoid spoilers here so suffice it to say there are some very important questions about what was done to him, how he survived and so on that need to be answered but are not.
The action sequences though few and far between are well staged and Weaving and Portman have a great chemistry with one another and do make interesting and compelling characters.
The main strength of the film is the message that people need to be aware of what is going on around them and not be so willing to accept everything they are told at face value. There is a real sense of counter-culture with the film as the prevalent theme of question and if needed defy authority permeates the film.
The script written by the Wachowski brothers of The Matrix trilogy fame has chosen to tone down the gimmicky of bullet time effects and instead focus on a character driven drama with a message and it is one that resounds loudly and clearly.
The masked figure quickly dispatches the assailants and offers to escort Evey to safety. Despite being scared, Evey does accompany the figure to a rooftop where she is treated to a spectacular explosion set to music.
Thus begins V for Vendetta a film that mixes “The Phantom of the Opera” “Beauty and the Beast” and ?” to create a gothic love story and biting social commentary about the dangers of governmental control and censorship in a society gone awry.
In London of the near future, it is learned that a series of terrorist attacks have left thousands dead which resulted in stricter governmental controls and intrusions into privacy and lifestyles. Those who did not conform nor meet expectations often vanished never to be heard from again. Such was the case of Evey’s parents who decided to protest governmental policies and soon found themselves beaten and whisked away in the night.
Behind all of the oppression is a man named Adam Sutler (John Hurt), a monomaniacal leader who rules with an iron fist and an extreme agenda that he has manipulated to make himself and unopposed ruler of the nation.
While most of the population lives in fear of Sutler and his men, there is one who does not, a mysterious masked figure named V (Hugo Weaving), who dons a Guy Fawkes mask in tribute to the man who centuries ago attempted to destroy Parliament. When V is able to temporarily gain control of the television network for the government, he is able to broadcast his message to the people that the time has come to take back their lives and society and stop living in fear. Towards this end, V pledges to the masses that he will destroy Parliament in 1 year and that the people should gather to watch the destruction unfold.
This bold proclamation causes Sutler to stop at nothing to capture V and he tasks his Chief Inspector Finch (Stephen Rea), to locate V. Since Evey worked at the television station and was observed helping V on a security monitor, Finch decides to locate Evey and force her to reveal the locale of the mysterious vigilante.
This task proves difficult as V has taken Evey into his protection and forces her to live in his luxurious yet secluded home in order to avoid the police forces.
It is during this time that Evey learns that V is a study in contrast. On one hand he is a very sophisticated person with a taste for the arts, culture, and a desire to see people free to live their lives as they desire.
During this time V also kills top members of the political party and with the discovery of each new victim, he becomes an even bigger target of a very irate Sutler.
All of which culminates in a race against the clock for V to complete his plan and exact his revenge for past wrongdoings done to him which propels the film to its climatic finale.
While the film is an interesting and at times enjoyable film it is hampered in some ways by a marketing program where early trailers showed the film to be an action filled romp. The truth is there is about 15-20 minutes of action in the films nearly 2hr and 10 minute run time which allows the majority of the film to be spent on the interaction between V and Evey.
While this is interesting and does bring in elements of “Phantom” and “Beauty” as I mentioned earlier, it is at the sacrifice of what I think are important factors. For example we learn a bit about why V is on his vendetta but serious questions from that are not answered. We do not learn the full what, where and why, on his situation. I am trying hard to avoid spoilers here so suffice it to say there are some very important questions about what was done to him, how he survived and so on that need to be answered but are not.
The action sequences though few and far between are well staged and Weaving and Portman have a great chemistry with one another and do make interesting and compelling characters.
The main strength of the film is the message that people need to be aware of what is going on around them and not be so willing to accept everything they are told at face value. There is a real sense of counter-culture with the film as the prevalent theme of question and if needed defy authority permeates the film.
The script written by the Wachowski brothers of The Matrix trilogy fame has chosen to tone down the gimmicky of bullet time effects and instead focus on a character driven drama with a message and it is one that resounds loudly and clearly.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Wordslingers: The Story of Self-Publishing (2021) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
They say that everyone has a book in them. I guess the key question is whether anyone else wants to read it. Such is the subject of this new documentary from A. Brooks Bennett. As a publisher says at one point “Writing a book is a creative act; publishing a book is a business”.
The democratization of publishing
The internet has brought many advantages to modern life, but perhaps one of the most interesting is the democratization of publishing. No longer is control in the hands of publishing houses, who might glance at and immediately dismiss new ideas in literature. It’s worth remembering that 12 publishing houses turned down J.K. Rowling’s draft for Harry Potter! Now anyone can be creative in writing and self-publish on the web. My own wife – Sue Mann – did just this, self-publishing the WW1 poems and reminiscences of two of her great-uncles. (It’s available from all good bookshops… oh, no…. actually just from here!) Are the poems artistically any good? I have no idea! Will it sell many copies? Clearly not! Was it a personal goal achieved in honouring their memory? Absolutely! Different people want different things from the medium.
Very ‘American’.
It’s probably down to the pioneer spirit, but as a generalisation Americans seem far more ambitious than Brits: or at least, more OPENLY ambitious. Whereas most Brits will quietly get on with building their careers, some Americans will go hell-for-leather towards their vision of “success” no matter the cost: no guts; no glory; and be noisy about it!
But for every J.K. Rowling or Bill Bryson there are several thousand writers who have ‘failed to launch’.
Here we follow two budding authors – one from California; the other from North Carolina – self-publishing their work and seeking sales.
One – Giles A (“Andy”) Anderson – has self-published a seemingly disturbing work called “Vidu” – the first of what he hopes will be a five-part series. He first talks from a ghoulish bookstore, speaking psycho-babble with the requisite hyperbole of an ‘artiste’. (It suggests how the books might read… but perhaps that’s misjudging). It comes then as a surprise when we find he doesn’t live alone in a coffin playing video games on his own, but has a lovely wife and two young and perfectly normal children. So his book is an “off the beaten track kinda book”, but the man seems well-grounded and following his dream in bite-size pieces.
Moral: Avoid the Travel Books
As is often the case though, the documentary homes in on, and spends most of its time with, the other author – Adam Shephard. Shephard is struggling to launch as an author and also – in parallel – wrestling with the Green Card process for his supportive and vivacious Croatian wife Ivana. The problem is that Shephard has written an extended travel blog: ten-a-penny on sites like WordPress.
I read a Forbes article last year that reported that – astonishingly – in a survey 11% of American respondents had never travelled outside of their home state and 40% had never left the country. For such a well-heeled country, the US is incredibly insular. So Shephard’s vision is to encourage youngsters to step outside of their comfort zone and jump on that plane to Guatemala. It’s a fine objective. But does anyone want to listen? And – crucially – is the book any good and commercial enough? As the famous ‘founder of self-publishing’, the late Dan Poynter (to who the film is dedicated) says “You can’t make any money off a travel book”.
The film never goes as far as having either of the featured books critically reviewed: that might have added some extra spice to the story (and possibly provoked some painful reactions). But the piles of unopened boxes in Adam’s clinically white storage facility rather speaks for itself. Since Shephard never seems to do anything by halves, the boxes are piled high and thus the fall from grace is hard, long…. and absolutely riveting. (Ivana’s support and love in such difficult circumstances is commendable: he is a truly blessed man).
Jaw-dropping Walmart scene
At least at the start of the film, Adam’s self-belief and confidence in himself is infectious. The peak of his bravado, and a jaw-dropping highpoint in the movie for me, was a scene filmed in Walmart. Shephard, in a case of “reverse shoplifting”, sneaks HIS books onto the bookshelves of Walmart. What happens when they then try to buy one? It’s a real eye-opener and worth watching the documentary for in its own right.
It’s an interesting legal position: if Walmart were to be upset about this scene, what on earth could they charge them with!? Littering?
Highs and lows.
Shephard seems to have talent as a speaker, and it struck me that he would be genuinely suited to a job in sales. In the movie we see him performing self-confidence-building pitches to young people (and, boy, could we sometimes use that in the UK post-Brexit). A few books sold. But another event barely breaking even. The pattern becomes familiar and, in a way, rather tragic.
There are unexpected highs and lows for Adam and Ivana along the way though, unrelated to the publishing story, and the filmmaker skillfully weaves them into the narrative to good effect.
Thought-provoking.
I watched this on a whim and thought I’d probably switch off after 10 minutes. Documentaries normally are not my thing! But no. It had me gripped to see how things would turn out – like watching a slow-motion car crash! The journey was well-worth the ride: a real page-turner you might say.
The democratization of publishing
The internet has brought many advantages to modern life, but perhaps one of the most interesting is the democratization of publishing. No longer is control in the hands of publishing houses, who might glance at and immediately dismiss new ideas in literature. It’s worth remembering that 12 publishing houses turned down J.K. Rowling’s draft for Harry Potter! Now anyone can be creative in writing and self-publish on the web. My own wife – Sue Mann – did just this, self-publishing the WW1 poems and reminiscences of two of her great-uncles. (It’s available from all good bookshops… oh, no…. actually just from here!) Are the poems artistically any good? I have no idea! Will it sell many copies? Clearly not! Was it a personal goal achieved in honouring their memory? Absolutely! Different people want different things from the medium.
Very ‘American’.
It’s probably down to the pioneer spirit, but as a generalisation Americans seem far more ambitious than Brits: or at least, more OPENLY ambitious. Whereas most Brits will quietly get on with building their careers, some Americans will go hell-for-leather towards their vision of “success” no matter the cost: no guts; no glory; and be noisy about it!
But for every J.K. Rowling or Bill Bryson there are several thousand writers who have ‘failed to launch’.
Here we follow two budding authors – one from California; the other from North Carolina – self-publishing their work and seeking sales.
One – Giles A (“Andy”) Anderson – has self-published a seemingly disturbing work called “Vidu” – the first of what he hopes will be a five-part series. He first talks from a ghoulish bookstore, speaking psycho-babble with the requisite hyperbole of an ‘artiste’. (It suggests how the books might read… but perhaps that’s misjudging). It comes then as a surprise when we find he doesn’t live alone in a coffin playing video games on his own, but has a lovely wife and two young and perfectly normal children. So his book is an “off the beaten track kinda book”, but the man seems well-grounded and following his dream in bite-size pieces.
Moral: Avoid the Travel Books
As is often the case though, the documentary homes in on, and spends most of its time with, the other author – Adam Shephard. Shephard is struggling to launch as an author and also – in parallel – wrestling with the Green Card process for his supportive and vivacious Croatian wife Ivana. The problem is that Shephard has written an extended travel blog: ten-a-penny on sites like WordPress.
I read a Forbes article last year that reported that – astonishingly – in a survey 11% of American respondents had never travelled outside of their home state and 40% had never left the country. For such a well-heeled country, the US is incredibly insular. So Shephard’s vision is to encourage youngsters to step outside of their comfort zone and jump on that plane to Guatemala. It’s a fine objective. But does anyone want to listen? And – crucially – is the book any good and commercial enough? As the famous ‘founder of self-publishing’, the late Dan Poynter (to who the film is dedicated) says “You can’t make any money off a travel book”.
The film never goes as far as having either of the featured books critically reviewed: that might have added some extra spice to the story (and possibly provoked some painful reactions). But the piles of unopened boxes in Adam’s clinically white storage facility rather speaks for itself. Since Shephard never seems to do anything by halves, the boxes are piled high and thus the fall from grace is hard, long…. and absolutely riveting. (Ivana’s support and love in such difficult circumstances is commendable: he is a truly blessed man).
Jaw-dropping Walmart scene
At least at the start of the film, Adam’s self-belief and confidence in himself is infectious. The peak of his bravado, and a jaw-dropping highpoint in the movie for me, was a scene filmed in Walmart. Shephard, in a case of “reverse shoplifting”, sneaks HIS books onto the bookshelves of Walmart. What happens when they then try to buy one? It’s a real eye-opener and worth watching the documentary for in its own right.
It’s an interesting legal position: if Walmart were to be upset about this scene, what on earth could they charge them with!? Littering?
Highs and lows.
Shephard seems to have talent as a speaker, and it struck me that he would be genuinely suited to a job in sales. In the movie we see him performing self-confidence-building pitches to young people (and, boy, could we sometimes use that in the UK post-Brexit). A few books sold. But another event barely breaking even. The pattern becomes familiar and, in a way, rather tragic.
There are unexpected highs and lows for Adam and Ivana along the way though, unrelated to the publishing story, and the filmmaker skillfully weaves them into the narrative to good effect.
Thought-provoking.
I watched this on a whim and thought I’d probably switch off after 10 minutes. Documentaries normally are not my thing! But no. It had me gripped to see how things would turn out – like watching a slow-motion car crash! The journey was well-worth the ride: a real page-turner you might say.
HeartWatch. Heart & Activity Monitor for Watch
Health & Fitness and Medical
App
"HeartWatch is so good, you’d think Apple built the app itself." John Patrick Pullen, Time...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
When I first heard that Warner Bros. was planning a series of films based on the classic DC Comics characters akin to what Marvel has successfully done, I was intrigued with the possibilities. With the release of Batman Vs Superman: Dawn of Justice, we get the first look into that universe and I have to say it is one that has more than a few stumbles.
The film follows Superman (Henry Cavill), as he deals with a plot that is set to discredit him and make the people of the world fearful of him and his abilities.
One person affected by this is Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck), who has seen firsthand the devastation that Superman is capable of after seeing the city practically destroyed in the events that culminated in “Superman: Man of Steel”.
Wayne has devised a plan for his alter-ego Batman to put a stop to Superman before he can become an even greater threat to the public and despite the urgings of his butler Alfred (Jeremy Irons), Batman continues with his plan.
As if this was not enough for Superman to contend with, neurotic tech giant Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg), has decided to manipulate events into a larger and even more dangerous game as he has set his sights clearly on Superman but would also love to see Batman removed in the process.
One would think that with a premise such as this it would be a non-stop action fest that would thrill fans from start to finish. Sadly this is not the case. The first hour and change of the film plods along with little action and we get a cast, some of whom I believe are badly miscast, plodding along and blandly brooding. The characters are so unlikeable that I found myself not caring for them or their fates and was shocked how a film with so much potential and a reported $250 million budget could be so under-whelming.
The final part of the film is non-stop action but Director Zack Snyder allows his film to become awash in all the Hollywood action film stereotypes. I thought I was watching an over-the-top special effects reel as all of the action unfolded, it was very hard to get overly thrilled about it despite the skill that went into crafting it.
Affleck does a passable job in the role and hopefully as he has more outings he will grow on me, but I just never really embraced him in the part. His Batman acts out of character in many sequences as he jumps to an extreme conclusion without taking the steps in between. Eisenberg is so neurotic and annoying that you just want to slap him. He is so difficult to watch. The biggest issue I have is with Cavill. He is just so bland and uninteresting to me as Superman. Yes, I know it is unfair to compare him to Christopher Reeves, but even Brandon Routh did a more acceptable portrayal of Superman. He just is not very interesting to watch in the role, with his monotone delivery and lack of facial expressions. I want heroes that I can get behind and care about, not one-dimensional characters that do little to generate my interest and sympathy.
The most telling thing for me was for an audience that was so keyed up at the start of the film, they were pretty silent for most of it, save for when a certain character appeared and even at the end of the film, offered only a small round of applause.
The film did try to be epic in scale and it is clear that this is just the opening round of a much larger series, but for now, I could not help but feel disappointed with the result and I would be shocked if the next offerings from Marvel are not considerably better than this film.
http://sknr.net/2016/03/23/81808/
The film follows Superman (Henry Cavill), as he deals with a plot that is set to discredit him and make the people of the world fearful of him and his abilities.
One person affected by this is Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck), who has seen firsthand the devastation that Superman is capable of after seeing the city practically destroyed in the events that culminated in “Superman: Man of Steel”.
Wayne has devised a plan for his alter-ego Batman to put a stop to Superman before he can become an even greater threat to the public and despite the urgings of his butler Alfred (Jeremy Irons), Batman continues with his plan.
As if this was not enough for Superman to contend with, neurotic tech giant Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg), has decided to manipulate events into a larger and even more dangerous game as he has set his sights clearly on Superman but would also love to see Batman removed in the process.
One would think that with a premise such as this it would be a non-stop action fest that would thrill fans from start to finish. Sadly this is not the case. The first hour and change of the film plods along with little action and we get a cast, some of whom I believe are badly miscast, plodding along and blandly brooding. The characters are so unlikeable that I found myself not caring for them or their fates and was shocked how a film with so much potential and a reported $250 million budget could be so under-whelming.
The final part of the film is non-stop action but Director Zack Snyder allows his film to become awash in all the Hollywood action film stereotypes. I thought I was watching an over-the-top special effects reel as all of the action unfolded, it was very hard to get overly thrilled about it despite the skill that went into crafting it.
Affleck does a passable job in the role and hopefully as he has more outings he will grow on me, but I just never really embraced him in the part. His Batman acts out of character in many sequences as he jumps to an extreme conclusion without taking the steps in between. Eisenberg is so neurotic and annoying that you just want to slap him. He is so difficult to watch. The biggest issue I have is with Cavill. He is just so bland and uninteresting to me as Superman. Yes, I know it is unfair to compare him to Christopher Reeves, but even Brandon Routh did a more acceptable portrayal of Superman. He just is not very interesting to watch in the role, with his monotone delivery and lack of facial expressions. I want heroes that I can get behind and care about, not one-dimensional characters that do little to generate my interest and sympathy.
The most telling thing for me was for an audience that was so keyed up at the start of the film, they were pretty silent for most of it, save for when a certain character appeared and even at the end of the film, offered only a small round of applause.
The film did try to be epic in scale and it is clear that this is just the opening round of a much larger series, but for now, I could not help but feel disappointed with the result and I would be shocked if the next offerings from Marvel are not considerably better than this film.
http://sknr.net/2016/03/23/81808/
Hazel (1853 KP) rated In a Land of Paper Gods in Books
May 25, 2017
Better than expected
I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
“My name is Henrietta S. Robertson. That’s my English name… My Chinese name is Ming-Mei.”
As the child of members of the Interior Alliance Mission, Henrietta has grown up between two cultures: English and Chinese. From the age of six she was sent to boarding school on a mountain in the Jiangxi Province, where four years later she remains as a small, pale, lonely girl.
For a girl as young as ten, Etta has a big imagination. She decides that God has called her to be a prophetess, and encourages the other girls in Dormitory A to join her in a Prophetess Club. This results is Etta getting into all sorts of trouble as she naively goes about inventing prophecies; all the while the Second Sino-Japanese War gets closer and closer to their mountain sanctuary.
Told mostly from Etta’s point of view, In a Land of Paper Gods is a hilarious historical novel about a young girl’s innocence. A large part of the story is about the missionary school rather than the ongoing war, therefore the focus is on Etta’s interpretation of the bible and her understanding of the differences between Western Christian and Chinese culture. However, once America joins the war effort, it is shockingly quick how the tale can go from humorous to heartbreaking.
The other character who plays a large part in this novel is Muriel, a dorm aunty, whom Etta regards highly. Muriel wanted to be a missionary but instead has found herself working at the Lushan school, keeping an eye on the ten and eleven year old girls. Although most of the book is written in Etta’s first person narrative, Rebecca Mackenzie has also included the occasional diary entry from Aunty Muriel. Since these are so few, it is not clear what their purpose is, as the story could easily continue without them.
Despite being an historical novel, In a Land of Paper Gods focuses less on fact and more on the impact the times had on a young girl. It is interesting to see the character development of Etta as she goes from a naughty, attention-seeking schoolgirl, to a young woman who must fend for herself. All the while she has her belief in God to resort to for explanations about the world she is living in. The reader also witnesses the growth of a relationship between Aunty Muriel and Etta. To begin with it is that of an adult and child, however it ends with them being equals in their suffering.
In a Land of Paper Gods is a pleasure to read. It is comically entertaining to begin with as the reader grows to love the characters, particularly mischievous Etta. It is hard to put the book down due to pure delight of the storyline, yet when the story turns darker it is just as difficult to put down, as we want to find out if the characters are going to be okay.
For some people, the Christian content will not mean anything, however it is possible to enjoy the novel without a religious background. For those, like myself, who do have a Christian upbringing, this aspect makes the story even better. Readers may recognize themselves or of their childhood in Etta, particularly her understanding of the bible.
Overall I loved this book. I was not sure what to expect, and have often found historical novels set in China to be rather dull. Therefore I was pleasantly surprised to discover how good this book was. I encourage others to read In a Land of Paper Gods, and I look forward to reading what Mackenzie writes next.
“My name is Henrietta S. Robertson. That’s my English name… My Chinese name is Ming-Mei.”
As the child of members of the Interior Alliance Mission, Henrietta has grown up between two cultures: English and Chinese. From the age of six she was sent to boarding school on a mountain in the Jiangxi Province, where four years later she remains as a small, pale, lonely girl.
For a girl as young as ten, Etta has a big imagination. She decides that God has called her to be a prophetess, and encourages the other girls in Dormitory A to join her in a Prophetess Club. This results is Etta getting into all sorts of trouble as she naively goes about inventing prophecies; all the while the Second Sino-Japanese War gets closer and closer to their mountain sanctuary.
Told mostly from Etta’s point of view, In a Land of Paper Gods is a hilarious historical novel about a young girl’s innocence. A large part of the story is about the missionary school rather than the ongoing war, therefore the focus is on Etta’s interpretation of the bible and her understanding of the differences between Western Christian and Chinese culture. However, once America joins the war effort, it is shockingly quick how the tale can go from humorous to heartbreaking.
The other character who plays a large part in this novel is Muriel, a dorm aunty, whom Etta regards highly. Muriel wanted to be a missionary but instead has found herself working at the Lushan school, keeping an eye on the ten and eleven year old girls. Although most of the book is written in Etta’s first person narrative, Rebecca Mackenzie has also included the occasional diary entry from Aunty Muriel. Since these are so few, it is not clear what their purpose is, as the story could easily continue without them.
Despite being an historical novel, In a Land of Paper Gods focuses less on fact and more on the impact the times had on a young girl. It is interesting to see the character development of Etta as she goes from a naughty, attention-seeking schoolgirl, to a young woman who must fend for herself. All the while she has her belief in God to resort to for explanations about the world she is living in. The reader also witnesses the growth of a relationship between Aunty Muriel and Etta. To begin with it is that of an adult and child, however it ends with them being equals in their suffering.
In a Land of Paper Gods is a pleasure to read. It is comically entertaining to begin with as the reader grows to love the characters, particularly mischievous Etta. It is hard to put the book down due to pure delight of the storyline, yet when the story turns darker it is just as difficult to put down, as we want to find out if the characters are going to be okay.
For some people, the Christian content will not mean anything, however it is possible to enjoy the novel without a religious background. For those, like myself, who do have a Christian upbringing, this aspect makes the story even better. Readers may recognize themselves or of their childhood in Etta, particularly her understanding of the bible.
Overall I loved this book. I was not sure what to expect, and have often found historical novels set in China to be rather dull. Therefore I was pleasantly surprised to discover how good this book was. I encourage others to read In a Land of Paper Gods, and I look forward to reading what Mackenzie writes next.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated In a Land of Paper Gods in Books
Dec 17, 2018
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
“My name is Henrietta S. Robertson. That’s my English name… My Chinese name is Ming-Mei.”</i>
As the child of members of the Interior Alliance Mission, Henrietta has grown up between two cultures: English and Chinese. From the age of six she was sent to boarding school on a mountain in the Jiangxi Province, where four years later she remains as a small, pale, lonely girl.
For a girl as young as ten, Etta has a big imagination. She decides that God has called her to be a prophetess, and encourages the other girls in Dormitory A to join her in a Prophetess Club. This results is Etta getting into all sorts of trouble as she naively goes about inventing prophecies; all the while the Second Sino-Japanese War gets closer and closer to their mountain sanctuary.
Told mostly from Etta’s point of view, <i>In a Land of Paper Gods</i> is a hilarious historical novel about a young girl’s innocence. A large part of the story is about the missionary school rather than the ongoing war, therefore the focus is on Etta’s interpretation of the bible and her understanding of the differences between Western Christian and Chinese culture. However, once America joins the war effort, it is shockingly quick how the tale can go from humorous to heartbreaking.
The other character who plays a large part in this novel is Muriel, a dorm aunty, whom Etta regards highly. Muriel wanted to be a missionary but instead has found herself working at the Lushan school, keeping an eye on the ten and eleven year old girls. Although most of the book is written in Etta’s first person narrative, Rebecca Mackenzie has also included the occasional diary entry from Aunty Muriel. Since these are so few, it is not clear what their purpose is, as the story could easily continue without them.
Despite being an historical novel, <i>In a Land of Paper Gods </i>focuses less on fact and more on the impact the times had on a young girl. It is interesting to see the character development of Etta as she goes from a naughty, attention-seeking schoolgirl, to a young woman who must fend for herself. All the while she has her belief in God to resort to for explanations about the world she is living in. The reader also witnesses the growth of a relationship between Aunty Muriel and Etta. To begin with it is that of an adult and child, however it ends with them being equals in their suffering.
<i>In a Land of Paper Gods</i> is a pleasure to read. It is comically entertaining to begin with as the reader grows to love the characters, particularly mischievous Etta. It is hard to put the book down due to pure delight of the storyline, yet when the story turns darker it is just as difficult to put down, as we want to find out if the characters are going to be okay.
For some people, the Christian content will not mean anything, however it is possible to enjoy the novel without a religious background. For those, like myself, who do have a Christian upbringing, this aspect makes the story even better. Readers may recognize themselves or of their childhood in Etta, particularly her understanding of the bible.
Overall I loved this book. I was not sure what to expect, and have often found historical novels set in China to be rather dull. Therefore I was pleasantly surprised to discover how good this book was. I encourage others to read <i>In a Land of Paper Gods</i>, and I look forward to reading what Mackenzie writes next.
“My name is Henrietta S. Robertson. That’s my English name… My Chinese name is Ming-Mei.”</i>
As the child of members of the Interior Alliance Mission, Henrietta has grown up between two cultures: English and Chinese. From the age of six she was sent to boarding school on a mountain in the Jiangxi Province, where four years later she remains as a small, pale, lonely girl.
For a girl as young as ten, Etta has a big imagination. She decides that God has called her to be a prophetess, and encourages the other girls in Dormitory A to join her in a Prophetess Club. This results is Etta getting into all sorts of trouble as she naively goes about inventing prophecies; all the while the Second Sino-Japanese War gets closer and closer to their mountain sanctuary.
Told mostly from Etta’s point of view, <i>In a Land of Paper Gods</i> is a hilarious historical novel about a young girl’s innocence. A large part of the story is about the missionary school rather than the ongoing war, therefore the focus is on Etta’s interpretation of the bible and her understanding of the differences between Western Christian and Chinese culture. However, once America joins the war effort, it is shockingly quick how the tale can go from humorous to heartbreaking.
The other character who plays a large part in this novel is Muriel, a dorm aunty, whom Etta regards highly. Muriel wanted to be a missionary but instead has found herself working at the Lushan school, keeping an eye on the ten and eleven year old girls. Although most of the book is written in Etta’s first person narrative, Rebecca Mackenzie has also included the occasional diary entry from Aunty Muriel. Since these are so few, it is not clear what their purpose is, as the story could easily continue without them.
Despite being an historical novel, <i>In a Land of Paper Gods </i>focuses less on fact and more on the impact the times had on a young girl. It is interesting to see the character development of Etta as she goes from a naughty, attention-seeking schoolgirl, to a young woman who must fend for herself. All the while she has her belief in God to resort to for explanations about the world she is living in. The reader also witnesses the growth of a relationship between Aunty Muriel and Etta. To begin with it is that of an adult and child, however it ends with them being equals in their suffering.
<i>In a Land of Paper Gods</i> is a pleasure to read. It is comically entertaining to begin with as the reader grows to love the characters, particularly mischievous Etta. It is hard to put the book down due to pure delight of the storyline, yet when the story turns darker it is just as difficult to put down, as we want to find out if the characters are going to be okay.
For some people, the Christian content will not mean anything, however it is possible to enjoy the novel without a religious background. For those, like myself, who do have a Christian upbringing, this aspect makes the story even better. Readers may recognize themselves or of their childhood in Etta, particularly her understanding of the bible.
Overall I loved this book. I was not sure what to expect, and have often found historical novels set in China to be rather dull. Therefore I was pleasantly surprised to discover how good this book was. I encourage others to read <i>In a Land of Paper Gods</i>, and I look forward to reading what Mackenzie writes next.
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.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Palm Springs (2020) in Movies
Apr 14, 2021
Cristin Milioti - a breakout comedy role (1 more)
Nice variants on Groundhog Day
Did anyone order Groundhog for Two?
Nyles (Andy Samberg) is reliving the same day over and over again at a wedding in Palm Springs. Suddenly joining him in the loop is fellow wedding guest Sarah (Cristin Milioti). The no-hoper man has given up trying to find a way to break the spell. Can the more intelligent woman succeed? Or if not, can they find satisfaction and – who knows – love in the never-ending grind of eternity?
Positives:
- So, it's obviously a retread of "Groundhog Day" (so 1/5 for originality), but it has some fresh fun with the concept.
- It starts off at the "town dance" stage of G/D, where Bill Murray's character has lived enough lives to perfect everything. This is a smart move, and allows those of the audience 'in the know' (which I would guess is 80%+) the joy of getting to the fun bits early.
- It also luxuriates in having two (actually, more than two) people experiencing the 'phenomenon'. This leads to some truly hilarious scenes of Nyles and Sarah living life to the max.
- Because this dynamic duo can talk to each other, we get deeper existential discussion about the downsides of eternity and what life is all about.
- The best comedies also have some element of pathos as well, to mix the highs with some lows, and this movie does that nicely. The despair felt by Nyles at one point in the movie is heartfelt and moving.
- The element of female empowerment in here (no spoilers) is very 2020's and entertaining.
- The mushroom-induced hallucinations (again, no spoilers) made me laugh.
- I wasn't familiar with either Samberg (who is a regular in TVs "Brooklyn Nine-Nine") or Milioti. Samberg was fine, but came across a bit "Saturday Night Live cookie-cutter". Milioti though is a real comedic find, nicely filling the sort of young-kooky-woman space that the younger Sarah Silverman used to do in movies. One to watch.
Negatives:
- The movie starts off at such a pace that the minority of the audience not familiar with the "Groundhog Day" concepts will have a "WTF" attitude and possibly turn them off during the first 20 minutes. (There is explanation, but it takes this long).
- The movie is rude. Very rude. This doesn't bother me, but it does shift the viewing options away from the "Groundhog Day" set and more towards the "Hangover" set. This will limit the audience, so I'm not sure it was a wise move by the writers.
Thoughts:
Of all the films showing this week, this one seems to have the most hype through social media: "SEE THIS, YOU'LL LOVE IT" screamed the posts. And - don't get me wrong - it's pretty good and has more than the requisite half-dozen laugh-out-loud moments to merit being called a comedy. But - perhaps my expectations were too high - it's no where near, in my book anyway the 5* classic that "Groundhog Day" was. Any any movie that borrows so much from the plot of that film has to be prepared to be directly compared and rated against it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the version on One Mann's Movies here: https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/14/palm-springs-did-anyone-order-groundhog-for-two/ . Thanks).
Positives:
- So, it's obviously a retread of "Groundhog Day" (so 1/5 for originality), but it has some fresh fun with the concept.
- It starts off at the "town dance" stage of G/D, where Bill Murray's character has lived enough lives to perfect everything. This is a smart move, and allows those of the audience 'in the know' (which I would guess is 80%+) the joy of getting to the fun bits early.
- It also luxuriates in having two (actually, more than two) people experiencing the 'phenomenon'. This leads to some truly hilarious scenes of Nyles and Sarah living life to the max.
- Because this dynamic duo can talk to each other, we get deeper existential discussion about the downsides of eternity and what life is all about.
- The best comedies also have some element of pathos as well, to mix the highs with some lows, and this movie does that nicely. The despair felt by Nyles at one point in the movie is heartfelt and moving.
- The element of female empowerment in here (no spoilers) is very 2020's and entertaining.
- The mushroom-induced hallucinations (again, no spoilers) made me laugh.
- I wasn't familiar with either Samberg (who is a regular in TVs "Brooklyn Nine-Nine") or Milioti. Samberg was fine, but came across a bit "Saturday Night Live cookie-cutter". Milioti though is a real comedic find, nicely filling the sort of young-kooky-woman space that the younger Sarah Silverman used to do in movies. One to watch.
Negatives:
- The movie starts off at such a pace that the minority of the audience not familiar with the "Groundhog Day" concepts will have a "WTF" attitude and possibly turn them off during the first 20 minutes. (There is explanation, but it takes this long).
- The movie is rude. Very rude. This doesn't bother me, but it does shift the viewing options away from the "Groundhog Day" set and more towards the "Hangover" set. This will limit the audience, so I'm not sure it was a wise move by the writers.
Thoughts:
Of all the films showing this week, this one seems to have the most hype through social media: "SEE THIS, YOU'LL LOVE IT" screamed the posts. And - don't get me wrong - it's pretty good and has more than the requisite half-dozen laugh-out-loud moments to merit being called a comedy. But - perhaps my expectations were too high - it's no where near, in my book anyway the 5* classic that "Groundhog Day" was. Any any movie that borrows so much from the plot of that film has to be prepared to be directly compared and rated against it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the version on One Mann's Movies here: https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/14/palm-springs-did-anyone-order-groundhog-for-two/ . Thanks).
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 20, 2019 (Updated Jul 20, 2019)
Disney's 1994 animated version of The Lion King was a huge hit. Not only did it win Academy Awards for original score (courtesy of the amazing Hans Zimmer) but also for original song "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" by Elton John & Tim Rice. It also won a Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy and went on to become a huge Broadway stage show in 1997, winning further awards and proving to be one of the most popular shows ever. Some movie sequels quietly came and went, along with a couple of TV series, but it's the original movie which is still loved by millions to this day. While Disney currently feels the need to rework their animated back catalogue, and with considerable advances in photorealistic computer animation technology, it was only a matter of time before The Lion King had it's turn in landing a remake.
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, Beyoncé as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, Beyoncé as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
