Search
Search results
Jamie Towell Cook (13 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Resident Evil 2 (Remake) in Video Games
Apr 6, 2020
September 29th 1998
Raccoon City, home to the worlds leading pharmaceutical company, the Umbrella Corporation. This is the day that the city and its inhabitants would never forget.
It's been 21 years since the original release of the second installment of the Resident Evil franchise and I can honestly say time (and Capcom) have been incredibly kind to this game. Using the new RE engine that we saw in Resident Evil 7, this remake of what was already a legend of a game, gets a complete modern makeover. Now it's not just the graphics that have been pushed into the modern era: Capcom are a company who grows and learns and they have obviously listened to a lot of fan feedback. The controls are very similar to early installments of the game such as RE4, RE5 and RE6, giving you the over the shoulder perspective and the ability to aim freely, unlike RE5 and 6 though they have managed to amp up the scare tactics, taking Resident evil all they way back to its roots of being a survival horror game and not an action game (*cough, cough* RE4, 5 & 6).
The game story, if you don't already know, or are just too young to have been around for its original release, centres on two characters who by chance both meet at a gas station on that fateful night just outside the city limits. There is the rookie cop, Leon S. Kennedy, who, unluckily for him has decided to enroll into the RPD (Raccoon Police Department) or you can choose College student, motorcyclist and all round badass Claire Redfield, who has gone to Raccon City to find her brother, Chris. Who fans are bound to know if they have played basically any of the other titles out there.
Soon after Leon and Claire arrive this gas station (separately), both soon realize that there is something very strange happening. Upon investigating, they soon find out what that is.
Yep, zombies!
Now any normal people out there at this point would be running as far away as possible leaving a trail of wee behind them as they did so, that is if you aren't eaten first. However Leon and Claire hop in a car a decide heading into the city is the best course of action (SERIOUSLY??) Anyways, that's how the story sets its pace and trust me when I say, wear clean underwear when you start this game and maybe change them a few times because Capcom have learnt how to use those scare tactics quite effectively now. So fasten your seat belts, kids, it's going to be a bumpy night!
The story remains essentially the same as the original from 1998: things have been moved around slightly and some cut scenes extended but it does stay true to the masterpiece that it was for its day and age. Obviously now though, the graphics are just a beauty to behold; both Claire and Leon look amazing in their HD splendour, and the police station entrance, which has got to be the most iconic moment of the game, will take your breath away.
Although why Raccoon City has the world's most fancy police station is beyond me...
Not only have our protagonists and surroundings had the HD makeover but so have all the enemies too. Zombies, zombie dogs (Why just dogs though) and other abominable creatures that are lurking in the shadows also look truly amazing as well.
Now back in the day when Resident Evil 2 first came out it was spread out over two discs. One disc solely focused on Leon's series of events and the other on Claire's. The game's story was split into two different versions: you had Scenario A and Scenario B. Basically if you played A as either character then B would be what the other character was doing at that same time. The remake follows the same principle, allowing you to play through two different sequences of events. Completing all scenarios will give you access to the true ending and the fourth survivor mini story. The fourth survivor follows the story of an Umbrella secret service agent known as HUNK. The fourth survivors tale begins in the sewers of the forsaken city and is essentially a mini mission to escape to an extraction point and flee the city.
In addition to the main game and fourth survivor mode, there is also another mode called Ghost Survivors. Ghost survivors tells the story of different characters that are encountered in one way or another throughout the main games story and is a `what if` telling of events from their perspectives. The game play itself follows the same principles as fourth survivor mode in that timed, get from point A to point B kind of style. By playing through these modes you can unlock some extremely random accessories to make the modes more interesting.
For me, Resident Evil 2 was one of the first survival horror games i had ever played back on the PS1. I have some very fond memories of playing this game and of teaching my little brother how to play this game as well. I had my doubts when a remake was announced but i can honestly say without a shadow of a doubt that this remake is a work of art. Doing more than justice to its original and even surpassing it.
This is a title that should most definatley be in any gamers arsenal.
Raccoon City, home to the worlds leading pharmaceutical company, the Umbrella Corporation. This is the day that the city and its inhabitants would never forget.
It's been 21 years since the original release of the second installment of the Resident Evil franchise and I can honestly say time (and Capcom) have been incredibly kind to this game. Using the new RE engine that we saw in Resident Evil 7, this remake of what was already a legend of a game, gets a complete modern makeover. Now it's not just the graphics that have been pushed into the modern era: Capcom are a company who grows and learns and they have obviously listened to a lot of fan feedback. The controls are very similar to early installments of the game such as RE4, RE5 and RE6, giving you the over the shoulder perspective and the ability to aim freely, unlike RE5 and 6 though they have managed to amp up the scare tactics, taking Resident evil all they way back to its roots of being a survival horror game and not an action game (*cough, cough* RE4, 5 & 6).
The game story, if you don't already know, or are just too young to have been around for its original release, centres on two characters who by chance both meet at a gas station on that fateful night just outside the city limits. There is the rookie cop, Leon S. Kennedy, who, unluckily for him has decided to enroll into the RPD (Raccoon Police Department) or you can choose College student, motorcyclist and all round badass Claire Redfield, who has gone to Raccon City to find her brother, Chris. Who fans are bound to know if they have played basically any of the other titles out there.
Soon after Leon and Claire arrive this gas station (separately), both soon realize that there is something very strange happening. Upon investigating, they soon find out what that is.
Yep, zombies!
Now any normal people out there at this point would be running as far away as possible leaving a trail of wee behind them as they did so, that is if you aren't eaten first. However Leon and Claire hop in a car a decide heading into the city is the best course of action (SERIOUSLY??) Anyways, that's how the story sets its pace and trust me when I say, wear clean underwear when you start this game and maybe change them a few times because Capcom have learnt how to use those scare tactics quite effectively now. So fasten your seat belts, kids, it's going to be a bumpy night!
The story remains essentially the same as the original from 1998: things have been moved around slightly and some cut scenes extended but it does stay true to the masterpiece that it was for its day and age. Obviously now though, the graphics are just a beauty to behold; both Claire and Leon look amazing in their HD splendour, and the police station entrance, which has got to be the most iconic moment of the game, will take your breath away.
Although why Raccoon City has the world's most fancy police station is beyond me...
Not only have our protagonists and surroundings had the HD makeover but so have all the enemies too. Zombies, zombie dogs (Why just dogs though) and other abominable creatures that are lurking in the shadows also look truly amazing as well.
Now back in the day when Resident Evil 2 first came out it was spread out over two discs. One disc solely focused on Leon's series of events and the other on Claire's. The game's story was split into two different versions: you had Scenario A and Scenario B. Basically if you played A as either character then B would be what the other character was doing at that same time. The remake follows the same principle, allowing you to play through two different sequences of events. Completing all scenarios will give you access to the true ending and the fourth survivor mini story. The fourth survivor follows the story of an Umbrella secret service agent known as HUNK. The fourth survivors tale begins in the sewers of the forsaken city and is essentially a mini mission to escape to an extraction point and flee the city.
In addition to the main game and fourth survivor mode, there is also another mode called Ghost Survivors. Ghost survivors tells the story of different characters that are encountered in one way or another throughout the main games story and is a `what if` telling of events from their perspectives. The game play itself follows the same principles as fourth survivor mode in that timed, get from point A to point B kind of style. By playing through these modes you can unlock some extremely random accessories to make the modes more interesting.
For me, Resident Evil 2 was one of the first survival horror games i had ever played back on the PS1. I have some very fond memories of playing this game and of teaching my little brother how to play this game as well. I had my doubts when a remake was announced but i can honestly say without a shadow of a doubt that this remake is a work of art. Doing more than justice to its original and even surpassing it.
This is a title that should most definatley be in any gamers arsenal.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Ready or Not (2019) in Movies
Sep 2, 2019
I’ve always loved playing games, board games, role playing games, computer games…whatever. I remember as a kid most of the games we played were played outside, whether it was a game of capture the flag, tag, or the always entertaining game of Hide and Seek. All the games I have ever played have been played in fun, with no real stakes involved outside of maybe some pride or some friendly competition. What if there was more at stake than simply having to sit out the game for the rest of the time? What if hiding and surviving until dawn was the only way you were going to live to see the next day? I don’t know about you, but I’d make sure it was the best game of Hide and Seek I’d ever played, or it would end up being my last. Ready or Not, a dark comedy from Fox Searchlight (now Walt Disney Studios) and directed by Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett, explores what happens when a ruthless business man sells his soul to the devil for the sake of a board game empire.
Early on we are introduced to Grace. She spent her childhood bouncing from foster home to foster home, wanting a family but just never quite getting one. When she finally finds the man of her dreams Alex (Mark O’Brien) who also is one of the heirs to a giant gaming empire, she believes that all her longing for a family, even one as messed up as his, is finally paying off. Not long after the wedding it is revealed that part of the tradition to joining the family is to play a game. Alex reassures her that the game could be something as simple as checkers or possibly as complex as chess. He doesn’t know as it’s up to a special box, imbued with mystical powers that selects the game that she will be forced to play.
Upon placing the card in the box, and withdrawing it, three little words are inscribed upon it…Hide and Seek. Thinking this is simply a game, and with no further instructions, the family puts on the Hide and Seek record and begin counting to 100. Once the count is up, weapons are handed out to the “seekers” and the game begins.
Not long after finding her hiding spot, Grace quickly becomes bored of playing and comes out admitting defeat. It is only after a series of unfortunate events resulting in the deaths of some of the key players does Grace finally understand that this family plays for keeps. With the help of an unlikely ally from Alex’s brother Daniel (Adam Brody), she not only is given an opportunity to survive the night, but also learns of the pact with the devil that was made which allowed the family to acquire its great fortune. Unless they can satisfy the curse, the entire family will not live to see the sunrise.
Ready or Not takes an outstanding cast and provides them with an equally fantastic setting. Andie MacDowell portrays the creepy mother-in-law Becky, along with her equally creepy and even more unhinged husband Tony (Henry Czerny). Each character plays out their roles in the most over-the-top performances imaginable, an they pull them off more believably then I think they even had intended. Whether its Kristian Bunn as the bumbling Fitch, who is forced to YouTube how to use a crossbow and googles whether pacts with the devil are real or BS…or Elyse Levesque as the stoic Charity, who has absolutely no problem killing someone, if it means she gets to maintain her lavish lifestyle. The cast is truly what pulls the movie off, with their ability to take the absurdity and make it almost feel normal.
Ready or Not does have the occasional jump scare and is literally coated in blood throughout, but it’s the dark comedy that really sets this movie apart from many that have come before it. I don’t know if it’s wrong to laugh at things that should be completely taboo as much as I did. Ready or Not tries to make you think it’s serious, even when you know it is intentionally not. While some of the dialog might fall a bit flat, you’d be hard pressed to notice between your bursts of laughter. You know a movie does something right, when you find yourself quoting it not only immediately after it finishes, but into the next day (and at this rate probably beyond).
Ready or Not is a fun film, that’s the best way to describe it. It’s gruesome and of course violent, but it doesn’t take itself seriously and asks the same of the audience. There have been other movies who have taken this genre too seriously in the past, and lead to mixed results. Ready or Not wants you to laugh at its absurdity and take glee in the events that take place. Based on the individual characters, it’s amazing that the family has survived as long as it has…must be because that card doesn’t come up very often. If you are looking for a fun film, one that you want to laugh at (and with) you could certainly do worse than Ready or Not. It is one of the best dark comedies to come out in years, and it makes me long for the days when movies were still unique and weren’t simply attempting to reboot everything.
Early on we are introduced to Grace. She spent her childhood bouncing from foster home to foster home, wanting a family but just never quite getting one. When she finally finds the man of her dreams Alex (Mark O’Brien) who also is one of the heirs to a giant gaming empire, she believes that all her longing for a family, even one as messed up as his, is finally paying off. Not long after the wedding it is revealed that part of the tradition to joining the family is to play a game. Alex reassures her that the game could be something as simple as checkers or possibly as complex as chess. He doesn’t know as it’s up to a special box, imbued with mystical powers that selects the game that she will be forced to play.
Upon placing the card in the box, and withdrawing it, three little words are inscribed upon it…Hide and Seek. Thinking this is simply a game, and with no further instructions, the family puts on the Hide and Seek record and begin counting to 100. Once the count is up, weapons are handed out to the “seekers” and the game begins.
Not long after finding her hiding spot, Grace quickly becomes bored of playing and comes out admitting defeat. It is only after a series of unfortunate events resulting in the deaths of some of the key players does Grace finally understand that this family plays for keeps. With the help of an unlikely ally from Alex’s brother Daniel (Adam Brody), she not only is given an opportunity to survive the night, but also learns of the pact with the devil that was made which allowed the family to acquire its great fortune. Unless they can satisfy the curse, the entire family will not live to see the sunrise.
Ready or Not takes an outstanding cast and provides them with an equally fantastic setting. Andie MacDowell portrays the creepy mother-in-law Becky, along with her equally creepy and even more unhinged husband Tony (Henry Czerny). Each character plays out their roles in the most over-the-top performances imaginable, an they pull them off more believably then I think they even had intended. Whether its Kristian Bunn as the bumbling Fitch, who is forced to YouTube how to use a crossbow and googles whether pacts with the devil are real or BS…or Elyse Levesque as the stoic Charity, who has absolutely no problem killing someone, if it means she gets to maintain her lavish lifestyle. The cast is truly what pulls the movie off, with their ability to take the absurdity and make it almost feel normal.
Ready or Not does have the occasional jump scare and is literally coated in blood throughout, but it’s the dark comedy that really sets this movie apart from many that have come before it. I don’t know if it’s wrong to laugh at things that should be completely taboo as much as I did. Ready or Not tries to make you think it’s serious, even when you know it is intentionally not. While some of the dialog might fall a bit flat, you’d be hard pressed to notice between your bursts of laughter. You know a movie does something right, when you find yourself quoting it not only immediately after it finishes, but into the next day (and at this rate probably beyond).
Ready or Not is a fun film, that’s the best way to describe it. It’s gruesome and of course violent, but it doesn’t take itself seriously and asks the same of the audience. There have been other movies who have taken this genre too seriously in the past, and lead to mixed results. Ready or Not wants you to laugh at its absurdity and take glee in the events that take place. Based on the individual characters, it’s amazing that the family has survived as long as it has…must be because that card doesn’t come up very often. If you are looking for a fun film, one that you want to laugh at (and with) you could certainly do worse than Ready or Not. It is one of the best dark comedies to come out in years, and it makes me long for the days when movies were still unique and weren’t simply attempting to reboot everything.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Sully (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
No, not “Monsters Inc 3”.
Chesley Sullenberger was just a very experienced US Airways pilot starting an everyday job flying from LaGuardia airport in New York to Charlotte when fate stepped in. Following an extensive bird strike and the loss of both engines, ‘Sully’ achieved worldwide fame by landing his aircraft and all 151 passengers and crew safely on the Hudson river. Sully is immediately acclaimed by the public as a hero; US Airways, and their insurers, however, are not necessarily as impressed given that their plane has got rather soggy when the flight data suggests it might have actually been able to make it to a landing at a number of nearby airports. So a National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) inquiry is called, where a decision against Sully could see him facing the fastest fall from grace since Icarus.
This film is obviously based on this real-life ‘Miracle on the Hudson’ and to a large extent the recreation of the crash…. sorry… “forced water landing” is both vivid and gripping. The film is certainly unlikely to make the regular list of in-flight movies for nervous passengers, but it does serve as a good training film for all of those regular airline passengers who don’t “put down their reading materials” to listen to the aircraft safety announcement.
Director Clint Eastwood has delivered a highly watchable action sequence showcasing the undisputed acting talents of Tom Hanks (playing Sully) and his Aaron Eckhard (“Olympus Has Fallen”, playing the co-pilot Jeff Skiles). This makes for a great 45 minute film. The problem is the other 51 minutes.
Where the film works well – aside from the actual recreation itself – is in representing the post-traumatic stress experienced by Sully, with his insomnia and regular flashbacks of ‘what might have happened’ (anyone still strongly affected by 9/11 will struggle with these scenes). The final NTSB hearing scenes are also well-done and suitably gripping: particularly for viewers outside of the UK where we wouldn’t have heard the outcome of the affair once the news cycle had moved on from the ‘gee-whizz’ headline event.
Where the film aquaplanes somewhat is in the padding achieved through multiple (MULTIPLE!) scenes of New Yorkers back-slapping Sully. Some of this is needed to establish the pedestal that Sully is set upon: the bar scene, for example, is well done. But all the rest of the references become just plain tiresome.
There is also a back-story focused on Sully’s financial problems and rather scratchy marriage (as portrayed) to Lorraine (Laura Linney). Linney is normally a highly-watchable actress, but here her character is just so irritating that the mood of the film plummets every time she reappears on screen.
The key problem that screenwriter Todd Komarnicki (“Elf”!!) had here is the obvious one: that as a real-event (based on Sullenberger’s own book “Highest Duty”) he would have had more scope to build tension if the flight had lasted more than 208 seconds! We end up with little visibility into the back-stories of the passengers. We get to see a father and two grown-up sons who – as fate would have it – just manage to catch the doomed plane: and we end up caring what happens to them. But this approach could have perhaps been usefully extended to feature more of the passenger back-stories (without getting the full “Airport” soap treatment).
Clint Eastwood is also clearly an All-American patriot, and in common with some of his other films he can’t help himself from putting up rather soupy statements about the self-sacrifice of New Yorkers (“the best of New York came together”): when actually the rescue teams did what they were paid to do and Ferry captains did what you or I would do if we stumbled on the scene! These sentiments might go down well in the States: in the cynical UK they tend to generate snorts of irritation.
What IS nice are a couple of “monkeys” (see Glossary) during the closing credits where the real Sully, Skiles, cabin-crew and passengers appear together in a celebration of continued life against all the odds. And just so you are aware, this is done as two separate segments during the titles, so if you don’t want to be one of those people standing in the aisles with your coat half on, then wait for the second one!
A curate’s egg of a film: great in places, but overall not as well executed as it could have been.
This film is obviously based on this real-life ‘Miracle on the Hudson’ and to a large extent the recreation of the crash…. sorry… “forced water landing” is both vivid and gripping. The film is certainly unlikely to make the regular list of in-flight movies for nervous passengers, but it does serve as a good training film for all of those regular airline passengers who don’t “put down their reading materials” to listen to the aircraft safety announcement.
Director Clint Eastwood has delivered a highly watchable action sequence showcasing the undisputed acting talents of Tom Hanks (playing Sully) and his Aaron Eckhard (“Olympus Has Fallen”, playing the co-pilot Jeff Skiles). This makes for a great 45 minute film. The problem is the other 51 minutes.
Where the film works well – aside from the actual recreation itself – is in representing the post-traumatic stress experienced by Sully, with his insomnia and regular flashbacks of ‘what might have happened’ (anyone still strongly affected by 9/11 will struggle with these scenes). The final NTSB hearing scenes are also well-done and suitably gripping: particularly for viewers outside of the UK where we wouldn’t have heard the outcome of the affair once the news cycle had moved on from the ‘gee-whizz’ headline event.
Where the film aquaplanes somewhat is in the padding achieved through multiple (MULTIPLE!) scenes of New Yorkers back-slapping Sully. Some of this is needed to establish the pedestal that Sully is set upon: the bar scene, for example, is well done. But all the rest of the references become just plain tiresome.
There is also a back-story focused on Sully’s financial problems and rather scratchy marriage (as portrayed) to Lorraine (Laura Linney). Linney is normally a highly-watchable actress, but here her character is just so irritating that the mood of the film plummets every time she reappears on screen.
The key problem that screenwriter Todd Komarnicki (“Elf”!!) had here is the obvious one: that as a real-event (based on Sullenberger’s own book “Highest Duty”) he would have had more scope to build tension if the flight had lasted more than 208 seconds! We end up with little visibility into the back-stories of the passengers. We get to see a father and two grown-up sons who – as fate would have it – just manage to catch the doomed plane: and we end up caring what happens to them. But this approach could have perhaps been usefully extended to feature more of the passenger back-stories (without getting the full “Airport” soap treatment).
Clint Eastwood is also clearly an All-American patriot, and in common with some of his other films he can’t help himself from putting up rather soupy statements about the self-sacrifice of New Yorkers (“the best of New York came together”): when actually the rescue teams did what they were paid to do and Ferry captains did what you or I would do if we stumbled on the scene! These sentiments might go down well in the States: in the cynical UK they tend to generate snorts of irritation.
What IS nice are a couple of “monkeys” (see Glossary) during the closing credits where the real Sully, Skiles, cabin-crew and passengers appear together in a celebration of continued life against all the odds. And just so you are aware, this is done as two separate segments during the titles, so if you don’t want to be one of those people standing in the aisles with your coat half on, then wait for the second one!
A curate’s egg of a film: great in places, but overall not as well executed as it could have been.
Anyone who knows me knows that I am a hardcore Shakespeare fan. One of my bosses at work knows this and let me borrow her copy of this book thinking that it would interest me. Unfortunately, it fell a little flat.
I do not agree with the main argument of this biography: that William Shakespeare was, in fact, only a pen name for Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford. No. I do not agree with this claim, like so many other Shakespeare scholars and lovers because the "facts" put forth are just very thinly stretched ideas and concepts that cannot be proven.
This book, instead of pushing me to think about how this fact could even possibly be true, is more about the life of Edward de Vere and how some of the circumstances in his life would be able to loosely connect to the plays Shakespeare had written. In tying in the plays, Anderson thinks he is making a stronger claim for his argument, but is honestly just trying to connect things that are unalike to "prove" what he is thinking. As an English major, I don't really like that way of thinking much.
Most of what he was trying to argue could have been left out and, instead, just have the appendices left in there. In the approximately sixty pages of the four appendices, he stated what over three hundred pages could not. No, I do not agree with the argument he is making, but it seems like it is stronger and more coherent in the appendix.
I want to point out a specific quotation from the Appendix A on page 381 to make a point about this book. It states: The thesis of this book, the "Oxfordian" proposition that Edward de Vere was Shake-speare, is a theory built on circumstantial evidence. There is no single "smoking gun" document that leads one inexorably to the conclusion that de Vere wrote Hamlet, King Lear, the Sonnets, etc." I understand that it is difficult to try to prove a theory that many argue against (myself included), but basing your argument solely on circumstantial evidence is not the way to go. It makes the argument, at least to me, seem less realistic and, in all honesty, difficult to agree with. If you cannot prove someone is guilty solely based on circumstantial evidence, you should not try to prove a complex argument that a famous playwright was not a real person, but, in fact, a pseudonym for another historical figure around the same time.
The "facts" that de Vere's life has similar qualities to the plays written by Shakespeare leading to the thought that de Vere, himself, is Shakespeare is a stretch, and not a convincing one at that.
Overall, I did not enjoy this book and I did not find it convincing at all. It felt more like a history lesson about the background of Edward de Vere rather than any kind of argument towards the idea that he could have been Shakespeare.
In my heart of hearts, I will always believe that William Shakespeare was, in fact, a real man by the name of William Shakespeare, not some made up name for a man who wanted to keep his private life separate from the public.
I do not agree with the main argument of this biography: that William Shakespeare was, in fact, only a pen name for Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford. No. I do not agree with this claim, like so many other Shakespeare scholars and lovers because the "facts" put forth are just very thinly stretched ideas and concepts that cannot be proven.
This book, instead of pushing me to think about how this fact could even possibly be true, is more about the life of Edward de Vere and how some of the circumstances in his life would be able to loosely connect to the plays Shakespeare had written. In tying in the plays, Anderson thinks he is making a stronger claim for his argument, but is honestly just trying to connect things that are unalike to "prove" what he is thinking. As an English major, I don't really like that way of thinking much.
Most of what he was trying to argue could have been left out and, instead, just have the appendices left in there. In the approximately sixty pages of the four appendices, he stated what over three hundred pages could not. No, I do not agree with the argument he is making, but it seems like it is stronger and more coherent in the appendix.
I want to point out a specific quotation from the Appendix A on page 381 to make a point about this book. It states: The thesis of this book, the "Oxfordian" proposition that Edward de Vere was Shake-speare, is a theory built on circumstantial evidence. There is no single "smoking gun" document that leads one inexorably to the conclusion that de Vere wrote Hamlet, King Lear, the Sonnets, etc." I understand that it is difficult to try to prove a theory that many argue against (myself included), but basing your argument solely on circumstantial evidence is not the way to go. It makes the argument, at least to me, seem less realistic and, in all honesty, difficult to agree with. If you cannot prove someone is guilty solely based on circumstantial evidence, you should not try to prove a complex argument that a famous playwright was not a real person, but, in fact, a pseudonym for another historical figure around the same time.
The "facts" that de Vere's life has similar qualities to the plays written by Shakespeare leading to the thought that de Vere, himself, is Shakespeare is a stretch, and not a convincing one at that.
Overall, I did not enjoy this book and I did not find it convincing at all. It felt more like a history lesson about the background of Edward de Vere rather than any kind of argument towards the idea that he could have been Shakespeare.
In my heart of hearts, I will always believe that William Shakespeare was, in fact, a real man by the name of William Shakespeare, not some made up name for a man who wanted to keep his private life separate from the public.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Aladdin (2019) in Movies
Jan 28, 2020
Pleasantly Surprising
As I've mentioned before, I grew up during the 90s, and therefore, the Disney movies I have the fondest memories of run between Beauty & the Beast and Mulan. The original Aladdin's release in 1992 places it firmly it that era, and as such, is one that I lived as a kid. Couple this with the fact that I haven't particularly liked any of the live action Disney remakes so far, and this was one I was prepared to loathe.
But, dammit, Guy Ritchie wasn't going to let that happen! Aladdin is an adaption that is full with to the brim with positives.
The cast for one thing. Mena Massoud and Naomi Scott (as Aladdin and Jasmine) are likeable leads and carry the main bulk of the story with minimal effort. They share good chemistry and are instantly charming.
Will Smith was obviously the big talking point before the films release. I though he did a great job at bringing Genie to life. He doesn't try to imitate what Robin Williams did back in 1992, and manages to stop short of turning into a full blown Will Smith vehicle, and this results in a respectful and fun portrayal of one of Disney's most beloved characters.
Jafar (Marwan Kenzari) was fine - he never really goes full Disney villain and felt quite subdued. Both a little underwhelming, but maybe a bit more grounded?
Even the CGI characters of Apu and The Magic Carpet have a respectable amount of personality!
The CGI is actually (and maybe predictably) where one of the few negatives stems from. The CG effects use in Will Smith when he's in full blown genie mode are pretty jarring at first. I feel myself getting used to it, and accepting that it actually looked fine seeing as he is a magical being and all, but then there another close up of his face and it's terrifying again. The infamous carpet ride hand a few dodgy moments as well, but other than that, it was all pretty good. The wider shots of Agrabar looked stunning and full of colour, and the film is gorgeous looking for the most part.
I've also mentioned before that I'm not a massive musical fan, but the nostalgia in me give films like Aladdin a bit of a pass. The songs here are all fine (if you ignore the autotune here and there) and the cast all seem like they can sing mostly unaided. I didn't care much for the new song they put in - it absolutely reeked of Frozen, right down to Jasmine's posturing - and added nothing to the narrative, even if the message is an empowering one.
The film also gets a bit carried away during the pre-credits, with it's reliance on the audiences tolerance for the songs.
Other than that handful of gripes, I would say that Aladdin is safely the best of the bunch so far when it comes to these live action Disney remakes. It actually feels like that cast and crew care about what they're doing, and it's doesn't come across as a money grab anywhere near as much as say The Lion King.
If you haven't yet given it a chance due to your fondness for the original, try not to worry about that and enjoy it for what it is. It could have been a lot worse!
But, dammit, Guy Ritchie wasn't going to let that happen! Aladdin is an adaption that is full with to the brim with positives.
The cast for one thing. Mena Massoud and Naomi Scott (as Aladdin and Jasmine) are likeable leads and carry the main bulk of the story with minimal effort. They share good chemistry and are instantly charming.
Will Smith was obviously the big talking point before the films release. I though he did a great job at bringing Genie to life. He doesn't try to imitate what Robin Williams did back in 1992, and manages to stop short of turning into a full blown Will Smith vehicle, and this results in a respectful and fun portrayal of one of Disney's most beloved characters.
Jafar (Marwan Kenzari) was fine - he never really goes full Disney villain and felt quite subdued. Both a little underwhelming, but maybe a bit more grounded?
Even the CGI characters of Apu and The Magic Carpet have a respectable amount of personality!
The CGI is actually (and maybe predictably) where one of the few negatives stems from. The CG effects use in Will Smith when he's in full blown genie mode are pretty jarring at first. I feel myself getting used to it, and accepting that it actually looked fine seeing as he is a magical being and all, but then there another close up of his face and it's terrifying again. The infamous carpet ride hand a few dodgy moments as well, but other than that, it was all pretty good. The wider shots of Agrabar looked stunning and full of colour, and the film is gorgeous looking for the most part.
I've also mentioned before that I'm not a massive musical fan, but the nostalgia in me give films like Aladdin a bit of a pass. The songs here are all fine (if you ignore the autotune here and there) and the cast all seem like they can sing mostly unaided. I didn't care much for the new song they put in - it absolutely reeked of Frozen, right down to Jasmine's posturing - and added nothing to the narrative, even if the message is an empowering one.
The film also gets a bit carried away during the pre-credits, with it's reliance on the audiences tolerance for the songs.
Other than that handful of gripes, I would say that Aladdin is safely the best of the bunch so far when it comes to these live action Disney remakes. It actually feels like that cast and crew care about what they're doing, and it's doesn't come across as a money grab anywhere near as much as say The Lion King.
If you haven't yet given it a chance due to your fondness for the original, try not to worry about that and enjoy it for what it is. It could have been a lot worse!
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated The Immortal (2019) in Movies
Sep 9, 2020
You can't stop what's coming.
l'immortale is a good companion piece to possibly the greatest TV show of all time gomorra & while it does shed a bit more light on what sort of the life one of its best characters had at a younger age and where he is now i can't help but feel it's tainted one of the best twists the show has to offer overall. (WARNING: spoilers for gomorrah ahead but if your watching this anyway before you have seen the show I'd strongly advise not to). After surviving the incident on the boat at the end of season 3 Ciro begins a new life in Latvia caught working between Russian clans in Latvia. Long gone now are the days of him being a top dog & while he still has a certain celebrity status among people here he is undoubtedly someone else's bitch. He's a man that has absolutely nothing left to loose now & it's finally stating to take a toll on him mentally and physically. Marco D'Amore again is fantastic here & this time plays a more subjude Ciro. As a character he lacks confidence now & walks around with less pride & cockynes, he's not as sure of himself & personality wise he's alot quieter & socially distantanced. He also spends a lot of time thinking in silence, just remenising & taking in the scenery almost like life itself bores him now & he is just waiting for the day to come where someone puts him down. Marco D'Amore plays this character perfectly as always & as a viewer its great to see the mighty Ciro from a different light & helps us to feel his pain connecting with him in an alternative way to which we usually do. Marco D'Amore is also the director this time too & as a first film it's a really great effort but also at the same time he seems to really struggle finding an identity of his own & here lies my biggest problem with the movie. Far to often it feels like he's trying to just replicate Gomorra instead of taking the regins & putting his own spin on things (a bit like what ryan gosling did with the lost river trying to initiate nwr). Don't get me wrong is very similar to Gommora but it's not as griping, powerful, raw, gritty, impactful & full of tension like the show is & thus most of the scenes that use the same format either feel a bit hollow or off in some way. I did really enjoy the flash back scenes & seeing Ciro's upbringing & other tragidies that happen back then certainly do a great job of explaining why he's generally such a cold hearted desensitised person. What I can't understand is the main plot & that's mainly because the characters life had a fitting conclusion at the end of Gomorra season 3 so bringing him back now randomly for a movie just makes a very realistically grounded show seem a bit far fetched because while he maybe nicknamed the immortal after all he's still only human. All in all if it had just been a prequel film I think I'd of enjoyed it a lot more however if your a fan of the show & it's characters I would recommend seeing this as it definitely fills the time while waiting for season 5 & it absolutely proves Marco D'Amore shows promise as a director too.
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated Ms. Marvel: Volume 3: Crushed in Books
Nov 30, 2020
This review is really for the first three volumes, including this one.
So, first let me start off by sharing a little honesty.. I read the first volume 4 or 5 months ago. I thought it fun, but not enough to pursue reading further volumes. A lot has gone down in my life since that first outing. For those of you who either a) do not know me offline, or b) have not looked at my GR profile, I was diagnosed with RRMS (relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis) in September of last year, then two months later, we said goodbye to Lily, our 14-year-old Mini Schnauzer.
Prior to all that, I used to live a relatively structured life, with plans-of-a-sort as well as a job. I have since had to step down from my job (thanks, MS!). I have also taken to trying to lead a "sloth life". I live each day as if it were the last, preferring to not plan days in advance. I also am trying to let a lot more roll off my back, giving an honest effort to having more fun with life.
One of those things which is appearing to be helpful to my mental well-being and general happiness has been G. Willow Wilson's MS. MARVEL.
GWW took a character who was once Carol Danvers (now Captain Marvel), a superhero whose costume did nothing what so ever to aid feminism or help to have less objectifying looks for our female heroes. She gave Ms. Marvel a proper reboot, presenting us with Kamala Khan, a young Pakistani-American living in NJ. Her character is one of many who were exposed to the Terrigen Mist via a Terrigen Bomb released by Black Bolt, the Inhumans' king; her powers gained gave her the ability to be polymorphic, i.e. shape-changing.
The series presents us with an imperfect hero. Kamala struggles to balance her hero life, while hiding it from her parents. She maintains her Muslim faith, offering us glimpses into her life and much of what it entails. The handling of it is both mature yet fun, giving us a palatable, more open approach to their faith, rather than what the Idiot in the WH has tried to portray it!
Like Marvel's UNBEATABLE SQUIRREL GIRL, MM is clearly a book that, at its heart, lies a good sense of fun, as well as some good life lessons along the way. In an era where the focus appears to be "Gloom Is Good" and "The Darker The Story, The Better", it is truly refreshing to read a book like this one.
As amazing as Wilson's writing is, the series' artists - Adrian Alphona, Takeshi Miyazawa and fill-in artist Jacob Wyatt (Issues 6 and 7) - all did one heckuva job providing artwork that was as fun as the writing it was supporting. All three were different, yet they shared similarities in their rendering of Kamala and her supporting cast, helping to maintain continuity rather than breaking it via wholly dissimilar art.
I know that there only few more volumes before Wilson hands the reins to Saladin Ahmed (MILES MORALES: SPIDER-MAN, BLACK BOLT), with the art being handled by with art by Minkyu Jung. I have seen Wilson's own page, where she seemed very confident in Ahmed's future handling of Kamala's adventures. That, alone, is good enough for me!
Seriously, if you have not checked out, please, please check out the adventures of MS. MARVEL. Your heart and mind, not to mention your soul, will be more the better for it! Promise!
So, first let me start off by sharing a little honesty.. I read the first volume 4 or 5 months ago. I thought it fun, but not enough to pursue reading further volumes. A lot has gone down in my life since that first outing. For those of you who either a) do not know me offline, or b) have not looked at my GR profile, I was diagnosed with RRMS (relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis) in September of last year, then two months later, we said goodbye to Lily, our 14-year-old Mini Schnauzer.
Prior to all that, I used to live a relatively structured life, with plans-of-a-sort as well as a job. I have since had to step down from my job (thanks, MS!). I have also taken to trying to lead a "sloth life". I live each day as if it were the last, preferring to not plan days in advance. I also am trying to let a lot more roll off my back, giving an honest effort to having more fun with life.
One of those things which is appearing to be helpful to my mental well-being and general happiness has been G. Willow Wilson's MS. MARVEL.
GWW took a character who was once Carol Danvers (now Captain Marvel), a superhero whose costume did nothing what so ever to aid feminism or help to have less objectifying looks for our female heroes. She gave Ms. Marvel a proper reboot, presenting us with Kamala Khan, a young Pakistani-American living in NJ. Her character is one of many who were exposed to the Terrigen Mist via a Terrigen Bomb released by Black Bolt, the Inhumans' king; her powers gained gave her the ability to be polymorphic, i.e. shape-changing.
The series presents us with an imperfect hero. Kamala struggles to balance her hero life, while hiding it from her parents. She maintains her Muslim faith, offering us glimpses into her life and much of what it entails. The handling of it is both mature yet fun, giving us a palatable, more open approach to their faith, rather than what the Idiot in the WH has tried to portray it!
Like Marvel's UNBEATABLE SQUIRREL GIRL, MM is clearly a book that, at its heart, lies a good sense of fun, as well as some good life lessons along the way. In an era where the focus appears to be "Gloom Is Good" and "The Darker The Story, The Better", it is truly refreshing to read a book like this one.
As amazing as Wilson's writing is, the series' artists - Adrian Alphona, Takeshi Miyazawa and fill-in artist Jacob Wyatt (Issues 6 and 7) - all did one heckuva job providing artwork that was as fun as the writing it was supporting. All three were different, yet they shared similarities in their rendering of Kamala and her supporting cast, helping to maintain continuity rather than breaking it via wholly dissimilar art.
I know that there only few more volumes before Wilson hands the reins to Saladin Ahmed (MILES MORALES: SPIDER-MAN, BLACK BOLT), with the art being handled by with art by Minkyu Jung. I have seen Wilson's own page, where she seemed very confident in Ahmed's future handling of Kamala's adventures. That, alone, is good enough for me!
Seriously, if you have not checked out, please, please check out the adventures of MS. MARVEL. Your heart and mind, not to mention your soul, will be more the better for it! Promise!
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated Haunted (Harrison Investigation, #1) in Books
Feb 15, 2019
I picked up Haunted after I had finished [b:The Seance|959245|The Seance (Harrison Investigation, #5)|Heather Graham|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1255876724s/959245.jpg|944150], and I was unaware that they both feature Adam and Harrison Investigations. I'm all set to read [b:The Vision|731809|The Vision (Harrison Investigation, #3)|Heather Graham|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1177781638s/731809.jpg|717999] that I just picked up from the library. Even though I've completely juggled around the order of when they were written, it's lucky for me that they are standalones. In the prologue it gave background information about Adam's son, Josh, who was mentioned just briefly in The Seance, and he plays a big part in this book, so I was happy to find out all that information before I get to next book that features Harrison Investigations.
Now to get to the main story in Haunted...
Even though with the way Darcy was written you would think she was a Mary-Sue, she wasn't and I liked her just fine. Now Matt on the other hand, well he was a jerk, plain and simple. I never could like him much and that detracted a lot from the book. It seems that Heather Graham must make the male lead a hard-core skeptic that just will not believe (until the end of course) in anything paranormal and thinks the female lead is crazy or delusional or something. It would be nice if it was reversed or if maybe, just maybe, the hero is open-minded enough to say, well maybe there is 'something' out there that cannot be proven. *gasp* Is that even possible? Can a hero ever truly be open-minded? Not in these books. He has to be so narrow-minded that his thought-blocks must fit neatly into their right-shaped holes (e.g. triangle block into triangle hole, etc.).
I really enjoyed the whole Darcy/Josh/Adam/Ghost hunting thing. I thought the author did a good job describing how Darcy went about finding out about the ghosts and that's what made this book good. I really did like Darcy a lot and she was a sympathetic character who stood up for herself and acted like an adult with poise and class (unlike some other character I could mention). The mystery did keep me guessing because I was never quite sure who the ghost was or what had happened, although I had narrowed down who was behind everything to two people, leaning more on the actual culprit (yay me!), for lack of suspects. So overall, the mystery was very good, though I wish Ms. Graham would bring in more people so it isn't as easy to figure out. All in all, not as good as The Seance, but a good and entertaining read.
3.5 stars
I forgot to mention that there were tons of editing problems, which seem to be a mainstay in H.G.'s books. Once Clint's name is changed to Cliff and Josh was referred to as Matt, plus numerous other things that cropped up everywhere.
Now to get to the main story in Haunted...
Even though with the way Darcy was written you would think she was a Mary-Sue, she wasn't and I liked her just fine. Now Matt on the other hand, well he was a jerk, plain and simple. I never could like him much and that detracted a lot from the book. It seems that Heather Graham must make the male lead a hard-core skeptic that just will not believe (until the end of course) in anything paranormal and thinks the female lead is crazy or delusional or something. It would be nice if it was reversed or if maybe, just maybe, the hero is open-minded enough to say, well maybe there is 'something' out there that cannot be proven. *gasp* Is that even possible? Can a hero ever truly be open-minded? Not in these books. He has to be so narrow-minded that his thought-blocks must fit neatly into their right-shaped holes (e.g. triangle block into triangle hole, etc.).
I really enjoyed the whole Darcy/Josh/Adam/Ghost hunting thing. I thought the author did a good job describing how Darcy went about finding out about the ghosts and that's what made this book good. I really did like Darcy a lot and she was a sympathetic character who stood up for herself and acted like an adult with poise and class (unlike some other character I could mention). The mystery did keep me guessing because I was never quite sure who the ghost was or what had happened, although I had narrowed down who was behind everything to two people, leaning more on the actual culprit (yay me!), for lack of suspects. So overall, the mystery was very good, though I wish Ms. Graham would bring in more people so it isn't as easy to figure out. All in all, not as good as The Seance, but a good and entertaining read.
3.5 stars
I forgot to mention that there were tons of editing problems, which seem to be a mainstay in H.G.'s books. Once Clint's name is changed to Cliff and Josh was referred to as Matt, plus numerous other things that cropped up everywhere.
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated The Mountain in Books
Mar 15, 2018
I was really looking forward to this book because I’d seen loads of great reviews for it, unfortunately I did not enjoy this for a number of reasons… let me explain.
I want to start off this review on a positive note. I did initially enjoy this book. It was slow to take off and the accident in the Bletterbach was gone in seconds (when it seemed like such an important part of the plot!) but the mystery of the years old Bletterbach killings did grab my interest quite quickly and I was looking forward to knowing what the hell happened. Unfortunately, that’s where the good things I have to say end.
This book was so ridiculously drawn out and slow, it really couldn’t grab my attention for very long. I would read about 30 pages and then put it down because I was so bored by all the tedious, pointless descriptions and scene that weren’t necessary to progress the plot. Most of this novel was conversations between two people, that 90% of the time ended with no further information or revelations to the mystery. Then, the bits that weren’t people talking were extremely long, often times overly scientifics bit of information that I think were meant to be eye-opening and exciting, but instead they often confused me and were extremely boring to read.
The writing in this one was also a little weird. I always find I have a bit of trouble with translated books – they feel clunky to read – and this one felt just the same. The conversations that were had between people felt forced and unrealistic most of the time and there was no atmosphere whatsoever. When Salinger was down in the Bletterbach before the accident, there was no nail-biting edge of the seat moment, and again, when he was experiencing his panic attacks, these was no tension or feeling of claustrophobia. I was hoping this was going to give me the same creeped out, terrified feelings that The White Road did, but it let me down.
I thought that maybe while I was being put to sleep by the slow moving story, I might enjoy the characters, however I was disappointed by those too. More specifically, by Salinger, our main character. I hated him. I really, really hated him. He didn’t progress as a character after everything he had been through and no matter how many times his wife came to him angry and distraught at what he was doing. Throughout the novel he was just an awful person, always thinking about throwing a punch and being inconsiderate to other people. There really was nothing nice about him. And then the other characters in the story played such small parts that we really didn’t get to know them very well. Even Werner who seemed to play an important part of the story didn’t get much “screen” time.
In the end, I skim read the last 100 pages of this novel! I’m still counting it as a full read because I pushed myself through <b><i>t h r e e h u n d r e d</b></i> tedious pages. The conclusion of the mystery was disappointing to say the least and I’m glad I didn’t attempt to read the rest of the story.
Overall, I really didn’t enjoy this book, apart from maybe the first 50 pages. I wouldn’t recommend this one, I think there are plenty of better similar books out there that you could pick up instead.
<i>Thanks to Bookbridgr and MacLehose Press for providing me a copy in exchange for an honest review. I’m just sorry I didn’t enjoy it!</i>
I want to start off this review on a positive note. I did initially enjoy this book. It was slow to take off and the accident in the Bletterbach was gone in seconds (when it seemed like such an important part of the plot!) but the mystery of the years old Bletterbach killings did grab my interest quite quickly and I was looking forward to knowing what the hell happened. Unfortunately, that’s where the good things I have to say end.
This book was so ridiculously drawn out and slow, it really couldn’t grab my attention for very long. I would read about 30 pages and then put it down because I was so bored by all the tedious, pointless descriptions and scene that weren’t necessary to progress the plot. Most of this novel was conversations between two people, that 90% of the time ended with no further information or revelations to the mystery. Then, the bits that weren’t people talking were extremely long, often times overly scientifics bit of information that I think were meant to be eye-opening and exciting, but instead they often confused me and were extremely boring to read.
The writing in this one was also a little weird. I always find I have a bit of trouble with translated books – they feel clunky to read – and this one felt just the same. The conversations that were had between people felt forced and unrealistic most of the time and there was no atmosphere whatsoever. When Salinger was down in the Bletterbach before the accident, there was no nail-biting edge of the seat moment, and again, when he was experiencing his panic attacks, these was no tension or feeling of claustrophobia. I was hoping this was going to give me the same creeped out, terrified feelings that The White Road did, but it let me down.
I thought that maybe while I was being put to sleep by the slow moving story, I might enjoy the characters, however I was disappointed by those too. More specifically, by Salinger, our main character. I hated him. I really, really hated him. He didn’t progress as a character after everything he had been through and no matter how many times his wife came to him angry and distraught at what he was doing. Throughout the novel he was just an awful person, always thinking about throwing a punch and being inconsiderate to other people. There really was nothing nice about him. And then the other characters in the story played such small parts that we really didn’t get to know them very well. Even Werner who seemed to play an important part of the story didn’t get much “screen” time.
In the end, I skim read the last 100 pages of this novel! I’m still counting it as a full read because I pushed myself through <b><i>t h r e e h u n d r e d</b></i> tedious pages. The conclusion of the mystery was disappointing to say the least and I’m glad I didn’t attempt to read the rest of the story.
Overall, I really didn’t enjoy this book, apart from maybe the first 50 pages. I wouldn’t recommend this one, I think there are plenty of better similar books out there that you could pick up instead.
<i>Thanks to Bookbridgr and MacLehose Press for providing me a copy in exchange for an honest review. I’m just sorry I didn’t enjoy it!</i>
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Jojo Rabbit (2019) in Movies
Jan 15, 2020
Inventive, funny and poignant
Writer/Director/Actor Taika Waititi is one of the most original voices working in Film/Television today. He skewered the Vampire flick (at the height of the Twilight craze) in WHAT WE DO IN THE SHADOWS. He revived the sagging Thor saga (and some would say the Marvel Cinematic Universe) with a comedic approach to the material in THOR: RAGNAROK, and now with his latest film, JOJO RABBIT, he takes his sense of humor to a subject that is difficult to satire - Adolph Hitler and life in Nazi Germany during WW II.
And, darn it all, if he doesn't pull it off.
As seen through the eyes of a zealous 10 year old Hitler Youth named JoJo, this film follows Jojo's journey from an idealistic follower of all things Nazi Germany to the harsher realities of the world - and what the 3rd Reich means to the world.
Young Roman Griffin Davis does a marvelous job as the titular character slowly changing his character from an all out innocent devotion to Hitler (his imaginary friend as played by Waititi) to a somewhat less innocent soul. His journey is at the heart of this film and he is a winning personality to follow along with. I was drawn into his struggles and was rooting for him to "come to his senses" throughout the course of this film.
Helping him in this journey is his Mother, played in an Oscar nominated turn by Scarlett Johannson. This character has an idealism all of her own and is willing to let her child "get there in his own time". It is a strong turn by Johannson...but Oscar nominated worthy? I'm not sure.
Also joining in for fun, frolic and (by turns) seriousness is the always great Sam Rockwell (Oscar winner for 3 BILLBOARDS...)as a disillusioned German Officer, comedian Stephen Merchant (LOGAN) in an unlikely mostly serious turn as a Nazi who likes to say "Heil Hitler" and Alfie Allen (GAME OF THRONES) as a devoted German soldier (at least devoted to Rockwell's character). Waititi also uses Rebel Wilson sparingly - as she should be used - as another devouted-to-the-cause German citizen.
Adding heft and pathos to this film is Thomasin MacKenzie (THE KING) in a role that would be a spoiler to say what she is playing, but...I WILL say that she needs to succeed in this role for the film to succeed (and she does).
Also, special notice needs to be made of the performance of cherubic Archie Yates (soon to be Kevin in the reboot of the HOME ALONE franchise) as JoJo's friend Yorki - who keeps getting knocked down and steps back up over and over again. I would LOVE to see the film that would have focused on this character (in addition to this film).
And, finally, there is the Writer/Director himself, Taika Waititi as JoJo's imaginary friend, Adolph Hitler. He is all fun loving and gay at the beginning becoming more and more frantic as the film progresses - mimicking the real life events that are happening around him.
Waititi's style in this film is reminiscent of Wes Anderson in such films as THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL and MOONRISE KINGDOM and this works well here, giving this film more of a "fable" than a "realistic" look - and that is important to help set the tone for the events that follow. Waititi has a sure hand on the material (that he wrote) as the Director. He knows the tone he wants to strike and knows how to get there. He is nominated for Adapted Screenplay for his script (deservedly so) and was NOT nominated for Best Director - but his work in this area is just as good.
I did not know what to expect from this film when I walked into it, and I was more than pleasantly surprised. Give this little comedy/drama a try - I think you will be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And, darn it all, if he doesn't pull it off.
As seen through the eyes of a zealous 10 year old Hitler Youth named JoJo, this film follows Jojo's journey from an idealistic follower of all things Nazi Germany to the harsher realities of the world - and what the 3rd Reich means to the world.
Young Roman Griffin Davis does a marvelous job as the titular character slowly changing his character from an all out innocent devotion to Hitler (his imaginary friend as played by Waititi) to a somewhat less innocent soul. His journey is at the heart of this film and he is a winning personality to follow along with. I was drawn into his struggles and was rooting for him to "come to his senses" throughout the course of this film.
Helping him in this journey is his Mother, played in an Oscar nominated turn by Scarlett Johannson. This character has an idealism all of her own and is willing to let her child "get there in his own time". It is a strong turn by Johannson...but Oscar nominated worthy? I'm not sure.
Also joining in for fun, frolic and (by turns) seriousness is the always great Sam Rockwell (Oscar winner for 3 BILLBOARDS...)as a disillusioned German Officer, comedian Stephen Merchant (LOGAN) in an unlikely mostly serious turn as a Nazi who likes to say "Heil Hitler" and Alfie Allen (GAME OF THRONES) as a devoted German soldier (at least devoted to Rockwell's character). Waititi also uses Rebel Wilson sparingly - as she should be used - as another devouted-to-the-cause German citizen.
Adding heft and pathos to this film is Thomasin MacKenzie (THE KING) in a role that would be a spoiler to say what she is playing, but...I WILL say that she needs to succeed in this role for the film to succeed (and she does).
Also, special notice needs to be made of the performance of cherubic Archie Yates (soon to be Kevin in the reboot of the HOME ALONE franchise) as JoJo's friend Yorki - who keeps getting knocked down and steps back up over and over again. I would LOVE to see the film that would have focused on this character (in addition to this film).
And, finally, there is the Writer/Director himself, Taika Waititi as JoJo's imaginary friend, Adolph Hitler. He is all fun loving and gay at the beginning becoming more and more frantic as the film progresses - mimicking the real life events that are happening around him.
Waititi's style in this film is reminiscent of Wes Anderson in such films as THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL and MOONRISE KINGDOM and this works well here, giving this film more of a "fable" than a "realistic" look - and that is important to help set the tone for the events that follow. Waititi has a sure hand on the material (that he wrote) as the Director. He knows the tone he wants to strike and knows how to get there. He is nominated for Adapted Screenplay for his script (deservedly so) and was NOT nominated for Best Director - but his work in this area is just as good.
I did not know what to expect from this film when I walked into it, and I was more than pleasantly surprised. Give this little comedy/drama a try - I think you will be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)