Search
Search results
Ande Thomas (69 KP) rated The Time Traveler's Wife in Books
May 30, 2019
I've been thinking a lot about what I would write about <i>The Time Traveler's Wife,</i> partly because it seems one usually falls into one of two camps: Love it, hate it. It turns out, I belong to the latter. I won't bother with the sci-fi elements, the could he/couldn't he, the exploration of time travel as a plot device - I'm always willing to engage with a story as long as it follows it's own rules. My problems run deeper.
Spoilers abound.
<spoiler>
First, I'd be remiss not to at least acknowledge the creepy factor of a 40 year old naked man befriending a 6 year old girl. It's been discussed ad nauseum, but I've got to put my two cents in.
The whole experience reeks of grooming. Henry shows up, naked, in a young girl's life and (although true) casually explains that he's a <i>time traveler</i>. Her imagination is hooked. Her very own secret Magic Man. Over the following years, their friendship blossoms, and Henry refuses to tell her anything about the future. He is friendly, charming even, and always respectful. But he remains an enigma. Clare is pulled in by the mystery of the Magic Man. All she knows are the dates of his future arrivals. Until one day he begins to break his rule and tell her that they will be together. They'll get married and be in love and have a life. What changed? Why is he suddenly willing to tell her snippets of her future life? Puberty. She admits her desire to be with him and he basically says "keep waiting, it'll happen."
From that moment, her life has been decided - by Henry, and for Henry. Clare spends the entirety of her teenage existence (and beyond) waiting on Henry. The whole of her character arc is basically one big middle finger to the Bechdel test. Henry leads her by a leash with clues and vague promises of the future. We'll be together when you're older (we're destined). We'll have sex on your 18th birthday (wait for me). We'll meet in Chicago (move to Chicago). Even after his dying breath, he subtly slides direction her way. "I hope you move on, but by the way, I'll drop by when you're EIGHTY. But by all means...move on." Is it coincidence that Henry's time traveling mimics an emotionally abusive relationship? Clare tells us, "Henry is an artist of another sort, a disappearing artist. Our life together in this too-small apartment is punctuated by Henry’s small absences. Sometimes he disappears unobtrusively . . . Sometimes it’s frightening." Sure, you say, but he can't help it. He wants to be there for her. <i>It's just the way he is.</i> It's not even hinted at. Multiple people tell Clare <b>to her face</b> that Henry is bad news. But she won't hear it, because he spent her entire childhood molding her into his wife.
The author doesn't hide the allusion to Homer. Rather, she beats us over the head with it. And sure, it makes sense; Clare is the patiently waiting wife, Henry the distant traveler. Even Alba takes up her role as Telemachus, going on her own journeys in search of her father. But do we need both main characters referring to Henry by name, as Odysseus? We get it, girl. You want to write your own romantic Odyssey. Ease up.
Oh, and by the way - Clare's quote above? That's one of her first comments on married life. Her first thoughts after the wedding are "Why is my husband always gone? Why am I always afraid for him?" Henry's first thoughts? "How can Clare listen to Cheap Trick?" Let me remind you that this is the guy who's willing to rattle off a comprehensive list of early punk before jumping up to join in singing a Prince song, but he's upset that his wife listens to The Eagles instead of some obscure as hell French punk band. Also, this man who is thrilled to share musical tastes with a young teen with a mohawk then laments that the kid can't find his own music and has to take his? He preaches the meaning of punk before privately questioning why those kids want to be punk? Here's a guy who's entire life was shaped by music - both of his parents made livings playing music written before they were even born, yet he can't comprehend why two preteens could (or should) like The Clash, or why Clare would like The Beatles. <i>Stay in your own time,</i> he is essentially saying, <i>leave the time traveling to me.</i>
The guy doesn't even realize the pain he causes. Ingrid asks him "Why were you so mean to me?" "Was I," he says, "I didn't want to be." I know, I know. Everyone around her didn't want him to see her or speak to her. But need I remind you - dude time travels and frequently gives himself tips from the future. "Hey pal, take it easy on Ingrid," or "Bro, Ingrid is really shaken up, don't listen to her family or doctor, she needs some closure." But of course, nothing can really change, everything is the way it is.
This is all before I even begin to mention how much Niffenegger LOVES to name-drop. Of course there's the aforementioned punk band name-vomit, mentions of Henry's parents' work can't go by without naming a specific piece, despite adding nothing to the story or our understanding of the characters, there are two separate references to Claude Levi-Strauss (why?), and various other casual mentions of figures that seem to serve no purpose other than to prove that Henry is smart, and knows smart people things.
</spoiler>
I wanted to like this book more, I thought it had a fascinating premise and an interesting perspective. Obviously, I'm not a regular consumer of romance, and I realize that the problems I have with this book are problems shared by a large portion of the genre. But I am positive that we can have a love story that isn't mired by (at best) morally ambiguous relationships. I understand it was a different world when it was published, and that's not directly anyone's fault. Questions of consent and power and respect have been thrust into the spotlight in the short years since this book was published, but that's the lens with which I have to peer through. Stop glorifying these vapid, and frankly, abusive relationships as the paragon of romance. We're better than this. We need to be.
Spoilers abound.
<spoiler>
First, I'd be remiss not to at least acknowledge the creepy factor of a 40 year old naked man befriending a 6 year old girl. It's been discussed ad nauseum, but I've got to put my two cents in.
The whole experience reeks of grooming. Henry shows up, naked, in a young girl's life and (although true) casually explains that he's a <i>time traveler</i>. Her imagination is hooked. Her very own secret Magic Man. Over the following years, their friendship blossoms, and Henry refuses to tell her anything about the future. He is friendly, charming even, and always respectful. But he remains an enigma. Clare is pulled in by the mystery of the Magic Man. All she knows are the dates of his future arrivals. Until one day he begins to break his rule and tell her that they will be together. They'll get married and be in love and have a life. What changed? Why is he suddenly willing to tell her snippets of her future life? Puberty. She admits her desire to be with him and he basically says "keep waiting, it'll happen."
From that moment, her life has been decided - by Henry, and for Henry. Clare spends the entirety of her teenage existence (and beyond) waiting on Henry. The whole of her character arc is basically one big middle finger to the Bechdel test. Henry leads her by a leash with clues and vague promises of the future. We'll be together when you're older (we're destined). We'll have sex on your 18th birthday (wait for me). We'll meet in Chicago (move to Chicago). Even after his dying breath, he subtly slides direction her way. "I hope you move on, but by the way, I'll drop by when you're EIGHTY. But by all means...move on." Is it coincidence that Henry's time traveling mimics an emotionally abusive relationship? Clare tells us, "Henry is an artist of another sort, a disappearing artist. Our life together in this too-small apartment is punctuated by Henry’s small absences. Sometimes he disappears unobtrusively . . . Sometimes it’s frightening." Sure, you say, but he can't help it. He wants to be there for her. <i>It's just the way he is.</i> It's not even hinted at. Multiple people tell Clare <b>to her face</b> that Henry is bad news. But she won't hear it, because he spent her entire childhood molding her into his wife.
The author doesn't hide the allusion to Homer. Rather, she beats us over the head with it. And sure, it makes sense; Clare is the patiently waiting wife, Henry the distant traveler. Even Alba takes up her role as Telemachus, going on her own journeys in search of her father. But do we need both main characters referring to Henry by name, as Odysseus? We get it, girl. You want to write your own romantic Odyssey. Ease up.
Oh, and by the way - Clare's quote above? That's one of her first comments on married life. Her first thoughts after the wedding are "Why is my husband always gone? Why am I always afraid for him?" Henry's first thoughts? "How can Clare listen to Cheap Trick?" Let me remind you that this is the guy who's willing to rattle off a comprehensive list of early punk before jumping up to join in singing a Prince song, but he's upset that his wife listens to The Eagles instead of some obscure as hell French punk band. Also, this man who is thrilled to share musical tastes with a young teen with a mohawk then laments that the kid can't find his own music and has to take his? He preaches the meaning of punk before privately questioning why those kids want to be punk? Here's a guy who's entire life was shaped by music - both of his parents made livings playing music written before they were even born, yet he can't comprehend why two preteens could (or should) like The Clash, or why Clare would like The Beatles. <i>Stay in your own time,</i> he is essentially saying, <i>leave the time traveling to me.</i>
The guy doesn't even realize the pain he causes. Ingrid asks him "Why were you so mean to me?" "Was I," he says, "I didn't want to be." I know, I know. Everyone around her didn't want him to see her or speak to her. But need I remind you - dude time travels and frequently gives himself tips from the future. "Hey pal, take it easy on Ingrid," or "Bro, Ingrid is really shaken up, don't listen to her family or doctor, she needs some closure." But of course, nothing can really change, everything is the way it is.
This is all before I even begin to mention how much Niffenegger LOVES to name-drop. Of course there's the aforementioned punk band name-vomit, mentions of Henry's parents' work can't go by without naming a specific piece, despite adding nothing to the story or our understanding of the characters, there are two separate references to Claude Levi-Strauss (why?), and various other casual mentions of figures that seem to serve no purpose other than to prove that Henry is smart, and knows smart people things.
</spoiler>
I wanted to like this book more, I thought it had a fascinating premise and an interesting perspective. Obviously, I'm not a regular consumer of romance, and I realize that the problems I have with this book are problems shared by a large portion of the genre. But I am positive that we can have a love story that isn't mired by (at best) morally ambiguous relationships. I understand it was a different world when it was published, and that's not directly anyone's fault. Questions of consent and power and respect have been thrust into the spotlight in the short years since this book was published, but that's the lens with which I have to peer through. Stop glorifying these vapid, and frankly, abusive relationships as the paragon of romance. We're better than this. We need to be.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Front Runner (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Candidate for a downfall.
We can all probably rattle off some of the classics movies with US politics as their backdrop. For me, “All the President’s Men”; “Primary Colors”; and “Frost/Nixon” might make that list. In the next tier down there are many great drama/thrillers – “Miss Sloane“; “The Post“; “The Ides of March”; “The American President”; “JFK” – and even some pretty funny comedies – “Dave” and “My Fellow Americans” for example. It’s actually quite difficult to think of many films on the subject that are outright dire, proving it remains a fertile ground for film-makers.
“The Front Runner” fortunately avoids this last category, but it’s certainly not good enough to make it into the ‘classics’ list either.
A true story.
The film is based on the true-story of US presidential hopeful Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) and if you are NOT aware of the historical background then you might want to skip the rest of this review – and indeed all others – so you can see the film first and let the history come as a surprise to you.
Hart was younger than most candidates: good-looking, floppy-haired and refreshingly matter of fact in his dealings with the public and the press. Any interviews had to be about his politics: not about his family life with wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and teenage daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever).
Unfortunately, Hart has a weakness for a pretty face (or ten) and his marriage is rocky as a result: “Just don’t embarrass me” is Lee’s one requirement. His “nothing to hide” line to an intelligent Washington Post reporter – AJ Parker (a well cast Mamoudou Athie) – leads to a half-arsed stake-out by Miami Herald reporters and incriminating pictures linking Hart to a Miami pharmaceutical saleswoman Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As the growing press tsunami rises, and his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) gets more and more frustrated with him, can his candidacy survive and will his (now very much embarrassed) wife stick by him?
The turns.
Hugh Jackman is perfectly cast here; very believable as the self-centred, self-righteous and stubborn politician. But this central performance is surrounded by a strong team of supporting players. Vera Farmiga is superb as the wounded wife. Sara Paxton is heartbreaking as the intelligent college girl unfairly portrayed as a “slapper” by the media. The scenes between her and Hart-staffer Irene (Molly Ephraim), trying desperately to support her as best she can, are very nicely done. J.K Simmons as campaign manager Bill Dixon is as reliable as ever. And Alfred Molina turns up as the latest film incarnation of The Post’s Ben Bradlee – surely one of the most oft portrayed real-life journalists in film history.
“What did they just say”?
The biggest cause of dissatisfaction I have with the film is with the sound mixing. Was this a deliberate act by director Jason Reitman, to reflect the chaotic nature of political campaigning? Whether it was deliberate or not, much of the film’s dialogue – particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film – is drowned out by background noise. Sometimes I just longed for subtitles!
Just a little bit dull.
The screenplay, by Matt Bai (from his source book), Jay Carson (a Clinton staffer) and director Jason Reitman might align with the history, but the big problem is that the story’s just a little bit dull, particularly by today’s levels of scandal. This suffers the same fate as “House of Cards” (even before the Kevin Spacey allegations) in that the shocking realities of the Trump-era have progressively neutered the shock-factor of the fiction: to the point where it starts to become boring. Here, only once or twice does the screenplay hit a winning beat: for me, it was the scenes between Donna Rice and Irene Kelly and the dramatic press conference towards the end of the film. The rest of the time, the screenplay was perfectly serviceable but nothing spectacular.
When is a politician’s personal life private?
A core tenet of the film is Hart’s view that politics should be about the policies and not about the personality. Looking at the subject nowadays, it’s clearly a ridiculously idealistic viewpoint. Of course it matters. Politicians need to be trusted by their constituents (yeah, like that’s the case in the UK and the US at the moment!) and whether or not they slap their wives around or sleep with farm animals is clearly a material factor in that relationship. But this was clearly not as much the case in the 70’s as it is today, and the suggestion is that the Hart case was a turning point and a wake-up call to politicians around the world. (An interesting article by the Washington Post itself points out that this is also a simplistic view: that Hart should have been well aware of the dangerous game he was playing.)
Fidelity in politics.
Do you think that powerful politicos are driven to infidelity because they are powerful? Or that it is a characteristic of men who have the charisma to become political leaders in the first place? Such was the discussion my wife and I had in the car home after this film. Nature or political nurture? I’m still not sure.
It’s worth pointing out that to this day both Hart and Rice (interestingly, an alleged ex-girlfriend of Eagles front-man Don Henley) stick to their story that they never had sex.
Final thoughts.
The film’s perfectly watchable, has great acting, but is a little bit of a non-event. The end titles came and I thought “OK, that’s that then”…. nothing more. If you’re a fan of this style of historical political film then you probably won’t be disappointed by it; if not, probably best to wait and catch this on the TV.
“The Front Runner” fortunately avoids this last category, but it’s certainly not good enough to make it into the ‘classics’ list either.
A true story.
The film is based on the true-story of US presidential hopeful Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) and if you are NOT aware of the historical background then you might want to skip the rest of this review – and indeed all others – so you can see the film first and let the history come as a surprise to you.
Hart was younger than most candidates: good-looking, floppy-haired and refreshingly matter of fact in his dealings with the public and the press. Any interviews had to be about his politics: not about his family life with wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and teenage daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever).
Unfortunately, Hart has a weakness for a pretty face (or ten) and his marriage is rocky as a result: “Just don’t embarrass me” is Lee’s one requirement. His “nothing to hide” line to an intelligent Washington Post reporter – AJ Parker (a well cast Mamoudou Athie) – leads to a half-arsed stake-out by Miami Herald reporters and incriminating pictures linking Hart to a Miami pharmaceutical saleswoman Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As the growing press tsunami rises, and his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) gets more and more frustrated with him, can his candidacy survive and will his (now very much embarrassed) wife stick by him?
The turns.
Hugh Jackman is perfectly cast here; very believable as the self-centred, self-righteous and stubborn politician. But this central performance is surrounded by a strong team of supporting players. Vera Farmiga is superb as the wounded wife. Sara Paxton is heartbreaking as the intelligent college girl unfairly portrayed as a “slapper” by the media. The scenes between her and Hart-staffer Irene (Molly Ephraim), trying desperately to support her as best she can, are very nicely done. J.K Simmons as campaign manager Bill Dixon is as reliable as ever. And Alfred Molina turns up as the latest film incarnation of The Post’s Ben Bradlee – surely one of the most oft portrayed real-life journalists in film history.
“What did they just say”?
The biggest cause of dissatisfaction I have with the film is with the sound mixing. Was this a deliberate act by director Jason Reitman, to reflect the chaotic nature of political campaigning? Whether it was deliberate or not, much of the film’s dialogue – particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film – is drowned out by background noise. Sometimes I just longed for subtitles!
Just a little bit dull.
The screenplay, by Matt Bai (from his source book), Jay Carson (a Clinton staffer) and director Jason Reitman might align with the history, but the big problem is that the story’s just a little bit dull, particularly by today’s levels of scandal. This suffers the same fate as “House of Cards” (even before the Kevin Spacey allegations) in that the shocking realities of the Trump-era have progressively neutered the shock-factor of the fiction: to the point where it starts to become boring. Here, only once or twice does the screenplay hit a winning beat: for me, it was the scenes between Donna Rice and Irene Kelly and the dramatic press conference towards the end of the film. The rest of the time, the screenplay was perfectly serviceable but nothing spectacular.
When is a politician’s personal life private?
A core tenet of the film is Hart’s view that politics should be about the policies and not about the personality. Looking at the subject nowadays, it’s clearly a ridiculously idealistic viewpoint. Of course it matters. Politicians need to be trusted by their constituents (yeah, like that’s the case in the UK and the US at the moment!) and whether or not they slap their wives around or sleep with farm animals is clearly a material factor in that relationship. But this was clearly not as much the case in the 70’s as it is today, and the suggestion is that the Hart case was a turning point and a wake-up call to politicians around the world. (An interesting article by the Washington Post itself points out that this is also a simplistic view: that Hart should have been well aware of the dangerous game he was playing.)
Fidelity in politics.
Do you think that powerful politicos are driven to infidelity because they are powerful? Or that it is a characteristic of men who have the charisma to become political leaders in the first place? Such was the discussion my wife and I had in the car home after this film. Nature or political nurture? I’m still not sure.
It’s worth pointing out that to this day both Hart and Rice (interestingly, an alleged ex-girlfriend of Eagles front-man Don Henley) stick to their story that they never had sex.
Final thoughts.
The film’s perfectly watchable, has great acting, but is a little bit of a non-event. The end titles came and I thought “OK, that’s that then”…. nothing more. If you’re a fan of this style of historical political film then you probably won’t be disappointed by it; if not, probably best to wait and catch this on the TV.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Eight Legged Freaks (2002) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Story: Eight Legged Freaks starts by showing us the Mike Parker (Terra) visiting Joshua the spider expert of the town who has been feeding his spiders enlarged crickets and of course they now escape. One week later when Mike goes to return his mother Sheriff Samantha Parker (Wuhrer) stops the visit because of waste being dumped into the local watering hole.
With this we get to see the rebellious teenage daughter Ashley (Johansson) who is dating bad boy biker Bret (Czuchry) step-son of Mayor Wade (Rippy) who is trying to cover up the fact the town is nearly broke. Chris McCormick (Arquette) a local who returned to town after his father’s death refusing to sell the mine in a deal which could save the town.
When Mike makes it back to Joshua’s he learns of the super-sized spiders that have been released into this small town, the resident must now fight against the spiders that have infested the town.
Thoughts on Eight Legged Freaks
Characters/Performance – Chris McCormick returns to his hometown to claim what is his, the mine, he also needs to make up for the mistakes he has made and this gives him the perfect chance too. Sheriff Parker is a single mother of two trying to keep the local community together and being the former love interest of Chris. Mike is the expert on everything going on playing out as the reminder to all the different spiders attacking styles. Ashley is the bad girl daughter of Samantha who is mostly trying to discover who she is. We have the rest of the town which includes the conspiracy crazed radio host, the greedy mayor the comic relief deputy.
Performance wise, David Arquette is great in this leading role managing the comedy side of everything as well as the action horror when needed. Kari Wuhrer fits the part of sexy sheriff very well too. Both Scott Terra and Scarlett Johansson are good choices too. The rest of the actors all give good performances to fit the films mentality.
Story – Small town gets invaded by giant spiders thanks to cost cutting measures. We do have a reluctantly hero needing to help save the day but otherwise this is everything you need in a creature feature, plenty of potential victims, plenty of creature and plenty of laughs.
Action/Comedy/Horror – The action is all big and plans into the idea of the comedy being used in the creature feature side of the film.
Settings – The small town setting helps with the story telling here because they have no communication with the outside world after the attack starts and not many escape routes of places to hide.
Special Effects – We have a mix of practical and CGI here which all help create the low budget feel behind this film and while moments have dated other parts are all fun.
Final Thoughts – This is by far one of my favourite creature features out there, it is fun, over the top and filled with perfect comic timing, never trying to be serious.
Overall: Purely fun creature feature.
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/10/27/a-z-halloween-horror-eight-legged-freaks-2002/
With this we get to see the rebellious teenage daughter Ashley (Johansson) who is dating bad boy biker Bret (Czuchry) step-son of Mayor Wade (Rippy) who is trying to cover up the fact the town is nearly broke. Chris McCormick (Arquette) a local who returned to town after his father’s death refusing to sell the mine in a deal which could save the town.
When Mike makes it back to Joshua’s he learns of the super-sized spiders that have been released into this small town, the resident must now fight against the spiders that have infested the town.
Thoughts on Eight Legged Freaks
Characters/Performance – Chris McCormick returns to his hometown to claim what is his, the mine, he also needs to make up for the mistakes he has made and this gives him the perfect chance too. Sheriff Parker is a single mother of two trying to keep the local community together and being the former love interest of Chris. Mike is the expert on everything going on playing out as the reminder to all the different spiders attacking styles. Ashley is the bad girl daughter of Samantha who is mostly trying to discover who she is. We have the rest of the town which includes the conspiracy crazed radio host, the greedy mayor the comic relief deputy.
Performance wise, David Arquette is great in this leading role managing the comedy side of everything as well as the action horror when needed. Kari Wuhrer fits the part of sexy sheriff very well too. Both Scott Terra and Scarlett Johansson are good choices too. The rest of the actors all give good performances to fit the films mentality.
Story – Small town gets invaded by giant spiders thanks to cost cutting measures. We do have a reluctantly hero needing to help save the day but otherwise this is everything you need in a creature feature, plenty of potential victims, plenty of creature and plenty of laughs.
Action/Comedy/Horror – The action is all big and plans into the idea of the comedy being used in the creature feature side of the film.
Settings – The small town setting helps with the story telling here because they have no communication with the outside world after the attack starts and not many escape routes of places to hide.
Special Effects – We have a mix of practical and CGI here which all help create the low budget feel behind this film and while moments have dated other parts are all fun.
Final Thoughts – This is by far one of my favourite creature features out there, it is fun, over the top and filled with perfect comic timing, never trying to be serious.
Overall: Purely fun creature feature.
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/10/27/a-z-halloween-horror-eight-legged-freaks-2002/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Muppets Most Wanted (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
It was nostalgia and curiousity that made the Muppets successful return to the big screen in 2011 such a hit. Parents wanted to introduce their kids to the dysfunctional entertainers of their childhood, and the adults who grew up on the Muppets wanted to see if the crazy bunch could still make them laugh. With the help of celebrity cameos and catchy parodies of popular songs, I remember thoroughly enjoying the Muppets’ comeback.
Three years in real time means just a few seconds in Muppet-land. Muppets Most Wanted begins where the last movie ended. Riding high on their successful return to stage, the Muppets are approached by a promoter named Dominic Badguy. played by Ricky Gervais, who convinces the Muppets to take their show on a worldwide tour. Despite his misgivings, Kermit agrees and soon the gang is traveling across the Atlantic.
Of course, no surprise Badguy has ulterior motives, which involve switching Kermit with an imprisoned doppelganger named Constantine, the word’s most dangerous frog. He and Kermit are identical, except for a mole Constantine must hide to trick Kermit’s friends into believing he’s Kermit, because his awkward American accent isn’t a dead giveaway at all. With awful accents themselves, Ty Burrell and Tina Fey play a French detective and a Russian prison warden who provide some of the human comic relief.
Riddled with funny moments and entertaining musical numbers, this sequel meets the expectations of most sequels. Even the Muppets know sequels are rarely as good as the original – they even sing about it. The movie has the silly capers and signature acts the Muppets know how to deliver, which will keep the kids entertained. The curiousity factor may not motivate, and nostalgic feelings may have waned a bit, but like its predecessor, the revolving door of celebrity cameos is what will keep the adults interested.
3 out of 5
Review by Barnetty Kushner
Muppets Most Wanted is the eighth big screen Muppets adventure, which carries the warmth and charm that we come to find with the Jim Henson created lovable characters. What sets this film apart from the 2011 reboot “Muppet Movie,” is that the characters are the forefront of the entire story and their human counterparts serve as secondary.
This time they are no longer worried about reuniting or trying to reintroduce themselves, the Muppets are on a world tour with their new Tour Manager, Dominic Badguy (Ricky Gervais). Dominic arranges a European tour for the Muppets with the ulterior motive of trying to replace Kermit with a look-a-like frog named Constantine, a wanted criminal who escapes prison and uses the Muppet tour as a cover to stage a multi-national heist ultimately ending with stealing the crown jewels. While Constantine attempts to play the role of ‘head muppet ‘, poor Kermit gets whisked away to the gulag, a maximum security prison located in Siberia, Russia where he has to contend with the warden, Nadya (Tina Fey). Due to Kermit’s good hearted nature and excellent stage show management skills, the prisoners and Nadya quickly realize that Kermit is not Constantine and forces him to direct the prison’s annual “Gulag Review.”
Even though the storyline is a bit drab, the production numbers are epic-from the “everybody knows a sequel is never quite as good” opener, the Miss Piggy/Celion Dion duet number, to the Siberian prisoners 1980’s Chorus Line show stopping dance sequence. In true Muppets tradition, this movie is peppered with dozens of amusing celebrity cameos along with a spirited stew of wordplay, slapstick comedic jokes. You can’t help but feel a sense of nostalgia back the days from your childhood of waking up Saturday mornings and watching “The Muppet Show.” Kids will enjoy the movie, adults will laugh out loud at all the bad puns, and hopefully in the end they will have succeeded in connecting the new generation to the charm of the Muppets, in a world more that is more familiar with CGI and 3-D animation.
Three years in real time means just a few seconds in Muppet-land. Muppets Most Wanted begins where the last movie ended. Riding high on their successful return to stage, the Muppets are approached by a promoter named Dominic Badguy. played by Ricky Gervais, who convinces the Muppets to take their show on a worldwide tour. Despite his misgivings, Kermit agrees and soon the gang is traveling across the Atlantic.
Of course, no surprise Badguy has ulterior motives, which involve switching Kermit with an imprisoned doppelganger named Constantine, the word’s most dangerous frog. He and Kermit are identical, except for a mole Constantine must hide to trick Kermit’s friends into believing he’s Kermit, because his awkward American accent isn’t a dead giveaway at all. With awful accents themselves, Ty Burrell and Tina Fey play a French detective and a Russian prison warden who provide some of the human comic relief.
Riddled with funny moments and entertaining musical numbers, this sequel meets the expectations of most sequels. Even the Muppets know sequels are rarely as good as the original – they even sing about it. The movie has the silly capers and signature acts the Muppets know how to deliver, which will keep the kids entertained. The curiousity factor may not motivate, and nostalgic feelings may have waned a bit, but like its predecessor, the revolving door of celebrity cameos is what will keep the adults interested.
3 out of 5
Review by Barnetty Kushner
Muppets Most Wanted is the eighth big screen Muppets adventure, which carries the warmth and charm that we come to find with the Jim Henson created lovable characters. What sets this film apart from the 2011 reboot “Muppet Movie,” is that the characters are the forefront of the entire story and their human counterparts serve as secondary.
This time they are no longer worried about reuniting or trying to reintroduce themselves, the Muppets are on a world tour with their new Tour Manager, Dominic Badguy (Ricky Gervais). Dominic arranges a European tour for the Muppets with the ulterior motive of trying to replace Kermit with a look-a-like frog named Constantine, a wanted criminal who escapes prison and uses the Muppet tour as a cover to stage a multi-national heist ultimately ending with stealing the crown jewels. While Constantine attempts to play the role of ‘head muppet ‘, poor Kermit gets whisked away to the gulag, a maximum security prison located in Siberia, Russia where he has to contend with the warden, Nadya (Tina Fey). Due to Kermit’s good hearted nature and excellent stage show management skills, the prisoners and Nadya quickly realize that Kermit is not Constantine and forces him to direct the prison’s annual “Gulag Review.”
Even though the storyline is a bit drab, the production numbers are epic-from the “everybody knows a sequel is never quite as good” opener, the Miss Piggy/Celion Dion duet number, to the Siberian prisoners 1980’s Chorus Line show stopping dance sequence. In true Muppets tradition, this movie is peppered with dozens of amusing celebrity cameos along with a spirited stew of wordplay, slapstick comedic jokes. You can’t help but feel a sense of nostalgia back the days from your childhood of waking up Saturday mornings and watching “The Muppet Show.” Kids will enjoy the movie, adults will laugh out loud at all the bad puns, and hopefully in the end they will have succeeded in connecting the new generation to the charm of the Muppets, in a world more that is more familiar with CGI and 3-D animation.
JT (287 KP) rated RoboCop (2014) in Movies
Mar 17, 2020
Reboot taints the original's good name
If you’re going to remake one of the 80s most iconic action films you’ve got to do it with some balls. Sadly José Padilha dropped this particular ball, pretty spectacularly in fact, to give us a sorry remake and leave fans of the original baying for blood (something which was missing in this).
It’s a story that was disjointed, rushed and ill-conceived in every possible way, with a leading actor who was miscast and non-believable in the role he was trusted to uphold. Kinnaman is Alex Murphy a Detroit Detective whose ill-fated sting operation ends badly after his cover is blown leaving him high on the villains most wanted list.
In the background is OmniCorp a leading company in robot technology priding itself on making the world a safer place with drones and the all too familiar ED-209 looking to serve and protect. Lead by CEO Raymond Sellars (Michael Keaton) the initiative has not reached American soil due to Government legislation and a bill that prohibits the use of robots on the streets.
Needing a new way to reach the public, Sellars turns to Murphy as a part-man part machine creation to reach out and grab justice by the throat and give America the hope it longs for, and a hero to put their faith in. The PG-13 rating and lack of graphic violence is stark contrast to the original, while the action scenes might be slick and bolstered with nifty CGI it does little to hide the fact that there isn’t a drop of claret anywhere to be seen.
While not completely adhering to the original it nods in its direction a few times, but only because it has to appease the die-hard fan. Once Robocop is up and about after being resurrected under the watchful eye of Dr Dennett Norton (Gary Oldman) he goes on a quick hunt to bring the perpetrators who tried to have him killed to justice.
Unlike Clarence J. Boddicker, Antoine Vallon (Patrick Garrow) is only a bit part villain, hopelessly moving illegal guns around the city he’s duly finished off in one of the film’s more colourful action shoot outs. The film is comical but not in a good way when Murphy demands to see what is behind the suit you almost laugh and then hang your head that Padilha could have included and thought up such a ridiculous scene.
Supporting cast do little to add much either, Samuel L. Jackson waves his arms and shouts a lot like a current affairs news anchor that in some way pays homage to the cut to’s of the Casey Wong era. Abbie Cornish is shockingly bad, and Jackie Earle Haley as much so, all in all, a pity. Only Oldman provides any shinning light in something that was slumping before it had even made it halfway through.
Robocop continues his quest back into the Detroit Police department, where corruption is rife and all trailing back to OmniCorps big cheese in charge, culminating in a finale that does little to finish on a high note. Paul Verhoeven will be able to rest easy at night knowing that his 1987 classic will continue to live long in the memory of true Robocop fans, while its 2014 compatriot should be cast aside into the recycle bin.
It’s a story that was disjointed, rushed and ill-conceived in every possible way, with a leading actor who was miscast and non-believable in the role he was trusted to uphold. Kinnaman is Alex Murphy a Detroit Detective whose ill-fated sting operation ends badly after his cover is blown leaving him high on the villains most wanted list.
In the background is OmniCorp a leading company in robot technology priding itself on making the world a safer place with drones and the all too familiar ED-209 looking to serve and protect. Lead by CEO Raymond Sellars (Michael Keaton) the initiative has not reached American soil due to Government legislation and a bill that prohibits the use of robots on the streets.
Needing a new way to reach the public, Sellars turns to Murphy as a part-man part machine creation to reach out and grab justice by the throat and give America the hope it longs for, and a hero to put their faith in. The PG-13 rating and lack of graphic violence is stark contrast to the original, while the action scenes might be slick and bolstered with nifty CGI it does little to hide the fact that there isn’t a drop of claret anywhere to be seen.
While not completely adhering to the original it nods in its direction a few times, but only because it has to appease the die-hard fan. Once Robocop is up and about after being resurrected under the watchful eye of Dr Dennett Norton (Gary Oldman) he goes on a quick hunt to bring the perpetrators who tried to have him killed to justice.
Unlike Clarence J. Boddicker, Antoine Vallon (Patrick Garrow) is only a bit part villain, hopelessly moving illegal guns around the city he’s duly finished off in one of the film’s more colourful action shoot outs. The film is comical but not in a good way when Murphy demands to see what is behind the suit you almost laugh and then hang your head that Padilha could have included and thought up such a ridiculous scene.
Supporting cast do little to add much either, Samuel L. Jackson waves his arms and shouts a lot like a current affairs news anchor that in some way pays homage to the cut to’s of the Casey Wong era. Abbie Cornish is shockingly bad, and Jackie Earle Haley as much so, all in all, a pity. Only Oldman provides any shinning light in something that was slumping before it had even made it halfway through.
Robocop continues his quest back into the Detroit Police department, where corruption is rife and all trailing back to OmniCorps big cheese in charge, culminating in a finale that does little to finish on a high note. Paul Verhoeven will be able to rest easy at night knowing that his 1987 classic will continue to live long in the memory of true Robocop fans, while its 2014 compatriot should be cast aside into the recycle bin.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Xenophobia (2019) in Movies
Aug 5, 2019
Story: Xenophobia starts as we head to an alien support group after Eric (Powell) has his own experience of the unexplained. The group has been meeting for years and to make him feel welcome, they let him know about their own experiences, first up is Becky (Renton) who on a camping trip with her husband and dogs get a visit that will change the world forever.
The next story follows a new member Karen (Stevens) who believes her daughter has been abducted by aliens after receiving a worrying video message, we follow the night which led up to the disappearance of the daughter, which is filled with strange occurrences.
The third story comes from Kara (Sterling) who has been running from her abusive husband, to a hide away for women of abuse, with Adrian (Perez) leading the protection for the women, only for them to find themselves stuck in a world they couldn’t have imagined.
Thoughts on Xenophobia
Performances – When we look at the performances in the film we get the type of performances we are expecting in the b-movie style of movies, we have moments that are over the top, while others bring us the grounded performance we need.
Story – The story here is an anthology of alien encounters that are connected by the support group, each member does have their own story, which gives us a chance to break down the different stories. First up was Pinnacles which might be one of the quickest stories, but it does let us see just how a typical alien encounter might come about, it is simple and does what it needs to, to send Eric to the support group. Doomsday is one that starts like you would imagine, only to go down a very different path which will shock along the way. Star Child is the story that embraces the b-movie style the movie gets through, it does feel like the campiest of the anthology. The Sullivan House is the biggest of the stories, it has a bigger message going on, which is all the more interesting despite the clear alien heading their way at some point. For an overall anthology this is on the similar levels as the VHS film only for it to only focus on aliens, each one will have a different look.
Sci-Fi – The sci-fi side of this film focuses on the different aliens that are visiting the humans, each one does have a unique look which is great to see, something different.
Settings – The film does give us the normal locations for alien encounters, be it a remote house, the woods or a cabin in the woods, yeah nothing overly difficult, but they do work.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are a mixed bag, the practical ones all look great, which is nice to see, certain CGI moments do just look out of place though.
Scene of the Movie – The Sullivan House.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The CGI moments are weak.
Final Thoughts – This is an entertaining alien anthology film, it is nice that they are all connected in some way which helps with the meeting, rather than just having random stories.
Overall: Anthology to enjoy.
The next story follows a new member Karen (Stevens) who believes her daughter has been abducted by aliens after receiving a worrying video message, we follow the night which led up to the disappearance of the daughter, which is filled with strange occurrences.
The third story comes from Kara (Sterling) who has been running from her abusive husband, to a hide away for women of abuse, with Adrian (Perez) leading the protection for the women, only for them to find themselves stuck in a world they couldn’t have imagined.
Thoughts on Xenophobia
Performances – When we look at the performances in the film we get the type of performances we are expecting in the b-movie style of movies, we have moments that are over the top, while others bring us the grounded performance we need.
Story – The story here is an anthology of alien encounters that are connected by the support group, each member does have their own story, which gives us a chance to break down the different stories. First up was Pinnacles which might be one of the quickest stories, but it does let us see just how a typical alien encounter might come about, it is simple and does what it needs to, to send Eric to the support group. Doomsday is one that starts like you would imagine, only to go down a very different path which will shock along the way. Star Child is the story that embraces the b-movie style the movie gets through, it does feel like the campiest of the anthology. The Sullivan House is the biggest of the stories, it has a bigger message going on, which is all the more interesting despite the clear alien heading their way at some point. For an overall anthology this is on the similar levels as the VHS film only for it to only focus on aliens, each one will have a different look.
Sci-Fi – The sci-fi side of this film focuses on the different aliens that are visiting the humans, each one does have a unique look which is great to see, something different.
Settings – The film does give us the normal locations for alien encounters, be it a remote house, the woods or a cabin in the woods, yeah nothing overly difficult, but they do work.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are a mixed bag, the practical ones all look great, which is nice to see, certain CGI moments do just look out of place though.
Scene of the Movie – The Sullivan House.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The CGI moments are weak.
Final Thoughts – This is an entertaining alien anthology film, it is nice that they are all connected in some way which helps with the meeting, rather than just having random stories.
Overall: Anthology to enjoy.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pacific Rim: Uprising (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Absolutely Bonkers
2013’s Pacific Rim was one of the most underrated films of the year. Lumbered in the same category as the Transformers series for its seemingly simple premise about robots fighting giant monsters, it had a lukewarm performance at the box office.
For those movie buffs reading this, you’ll of course know the film was directed by the Oscar-winning Guillermo Del Toro and with that came his signature quirks and visual sense of style. Oh yes, Pacific Rim was much more than a mish-mash of action.
A sequel looked very unlikely given the mediocre reception it received and then Del Toro passed on the idea altogether, instead focusing on the film that earned him a Best Director award at this year’s Oscars, The Shape of Water. I’m not going to pretend that was the wrong decision because it clearly wasn’t.
Nevertheless, Universal and Legendary pictures, with help from Del Toro handpicked little-known director Steven S. DeKnight to helm this second instalment in the new series, Pacific Rim: Uprising. It’s taken five years and $150million to get here. Was it worth it?
Jake Pentecost (John Boyega) is a once-promising Jaeger pilot whose legendary father gave his life to secure humanity’s victory against the monstrous Kaiju. Jake has since abandoned his training only to become caught up in a criminal underworld. But when an even more unstoppable threat is unleashed to tear through cities and bring the world to its knees, Jake is given one last chance by his estranged sister, Mako Mori (Rinko Kikuchi), to live up to his father’s legacy.
Coming hot off the heels of his performance in Star Wars: The Last Jedi, John Boyega channels his franchise father, Idris Elba, reasonably well and his estranged relationship with the former jaeger pilot is discussed, albeit briefly. Boyega is still discovering himself as a leading star and it’s films like Pacific Rim and Star Wars that he continues to impress in.
Here, he plays a cocky, arrogant young man who has lost his way until he’s given a second chance by returnee Mako (Kikuchi). It’s nice to see her and both Charlie Day’s Newton Geiszler and Burn Gorman’s Hermann Gottlieb return to this new series.
The inclusion of the film’s previous stars doesn’t feel unnecessarily shoe-horned in and this is a welcome change to many other films that try the same trick. Gorman and Day in particular provide some decent comic relief throughout. The weakest link over the course of the film is Scott Eastwood’s Ranger Lambert. His forced backstory with Boyega’s Pentecost isn’t particularly engaging.
The finale is punch-the-air fun and beautifully filmed in and around Tokyo
Setting the action a decade after the events of the first film is a good way to freshen things up and Uprising feels all the better for it. The world is continuing to recover from the previous war and this change in atmosphere lends a new dynamic to the film. It certainly looks and sounds a lot like its predecessor, but Uprising is a very different beast, both in storytelling and the way it presents that story.
Where Pacific Rimwas a paint-by-numbers adventure transformed by Del Toro’s stunning visual acuity, Uprising is a well-plotted movie that lacks its previous director’s soft touch. Director Steven S. DeKnight rightly carves his own path with the visuals but sometimes this is at the cost of the charm that made the original such an unexpected delight. The plot is actually much better than that of its predecessor with numerous twists and turns that create a fun atmosphere for the audience, but with four writers working on it, you’d expect nothing less.
There are some Del-Toro-isms still present however and these remind us that this is very much more than a Michael Bay Transformers film. The special effects are excellent and with De Knight’s decision to film as much as possible during the day (a stark contrast to Del Toro) there really is nowhere to hide. The jaegers and Kaiju are all as detailed as you would expect from a movie costing $150million.
At 111 minutes, Pacific Rim: Uprising zips along briskly and rarely leaves you wanting. The finale is punch-the-air fun and beautifully filmed in and around Tokyo. It may be a cynical marketing ploy to set portions of the film in Japan and China in order to appease international audiences, but it does lend itself to some lovely scenery.
Overall, Pacific Rim: Uprising is a film that manages to build upon its predecessor’s strong foundations, yet still manages to feel very much part of its universe. Sequels, especially to films that don’t perform well are risky business as movie studios try to save as much cash as possible, but thankfully Uprising is a fully-realised and confidently filmed second instalment. It’s loud, brash and completely unashamed of what it tries to be, but sometimes that’s all you want from a visit to the cinema. Call it Classy Transformers and you won’t be far from spot on.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/03/24/pacific-rim-uprising-absolutely-bonkers/
For those movie buffs reading this, you’ll of course know the film was directed by the Oscar-winning Guillermo Del Toro and with that came his signature quirks and visual sense of style. Oh yes, Pacific Rim was much more than a mish-mash of action.
A sequel looked very unlikely given the mediocre reception it received and then Del Toro passed on the idea altogether, instead focusing on the film that earned him a Best Director award at this year’s Oscars, The Shape of Water. I’m not going to pretend that was the wrong decision because it clearly wasn’t.
Nevertheless, Universal and Legendary pictures, with help from Del Toro handpicked little-known director Steven S. DeKnight to helm this second instalment in the new series, Pacific Rim: Uprising. It’s taken five years and $150million to get here. Was it worth it?
Jake Pentecost (John Boyega) is a once-promising Jaeger pilot whose legendary father gave his life to secure humanity’s victory against the monstrous Kaiju. Jake has since abandoned his training only to become caught up in a criminal underworld. But when an even more unstoppable threat is unleashed to tear through cities and bring the world to its knees, Jake is given one last chance by his estranged sister, Mako Mori (Rinko Kikuchi), to live up to his father’s legacy.
Coming hot off the heels of his performance in Star Wars: The Last Jedi, John Boyega channels his franchise father, Idris Elba, reasonably well and his estranged relationship with the former jaeger pilot is discussed, albeit briefly. Boyega is still discovering himself as a leading star and it’s films like Pacific Rim and Star Wars that he continues to impress in.
Here, he plays a cocky, arrogant young man who has lost his way until he’s given a second chance by returnee Mako (Kikuchi). It’s nice to see her and both Charlie Day’s Newton Geiszler and Burn Gorman’s Hermann Gottlieb return to this new series.
The inclusion of the film’s previous stars doesn’t feel unnecessarily shoe-horned in and this is a welcome change to many other films that try the same trick. Gorman and Day in particular provide some decent comic relief throughout. The weakest link over the course of the film is Scott Eastwood’s Ranger Lambert. His forced backstory with Boyega’s Pentecost isn’t particularly engaging.
The finale is punch-the-air fun and beautifully filmed in and around Tokyo
Setting the action a decade after the events of the first film is a good way to freshen things up and Uprising feels all the better for it. The world is continuing to recover from the previous war and this change in atmosphere lends a new dynamic to the film. It certainly looks and sounds a lot like its predecessor, but Uprising is a very different beast, both in storytelling and the way it presents that story.
Where Pacific Rimwas a paint-by-numbers adventure transformed by Del Toro’s stunning visual acuity, Uprising is a well-plotted movie that lacks its previous director’s soft touch. Director Steven S. DeKnight rightly carves his own path with the visuals but sometimes this is at the cost of the charm that made the original such an unexpected delight. The plot is actually much better than that of its predecessor with numerous twists and turns that create a fun atmosphere for the audience, but with four writers working on it, you’d expect nothing less.
There are some Del-Toro-isms still present however and these remind us that this is very much more than a Michael Bay Transformers film. The special effects are excellent and with De Knight’s decision to film as much as possible during the day (a stark contrast to Del Toro) there really is nowhere to hide. The jaegers and Kaiju are all as detailed as you would expect from a movie costing $150million.
At 111 minutes, Pacific Rim: Uprising zips along briskly and rarely leaves you wanting. The finale is punch-the-air fun and beautifully filmed in and around Tokyo. It may be a cynical marketing ploy to set portions of the film in Japan and China in order to appease international audiences, but it does lend itself to some lovely scenery.
Overall, Pacific Rim: Uprising is a film that manages to build upon its predecessor’s strong foundations, yet still manages to feel very much part of its universe. Sequels, especially to films that don’t perform well are risky business as movie studios try to save as much cash as possible, but thankfully Uprising is a fully-realised and confidently filmed second instalment. It’s loud, brash and completely unashamed of what it tries to be, but sometimes that’s all you want from a visit to the cinema. Call it Classy Transformers and you won’t be far from spot on.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/03/24/pacific-rim-uprising-absolutely-bonkers/
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Alone (2020) in Movies
Nov 7, 2020
Fails To Live Up To It's Clone #Alive, Even Though It Was Made First (5/10)
Contains spoilers, click to show
Alone is a 2020 Survival/Horror movie directed by Johnny Martin and written by Matt Naylor. It was produced by Grindstone Entertainment Group and HIG Productions and distributed by Lionsgate. Producers who worked on the film include Rabih Aridi, Anne Jordan, and Johnny Martin. The movie stars Tyler Posey, Summer Spiro and Donald Sutherland.
Aiden (Tyler Posey) who lives alone in an apartment complex, learns of a mysterious rapidly-spreading disease that's causing its victims to attack and eat uninfected people. From his balcony, he can see his neighbors fleeing and others attacking one another. The news reports for people to hide and stay inside so he barricades himself inside his apartment and starts rationing food. His complex is overrun by those that are infected, and with the world falling apart into chaos, he is left completely alone fighting for his life and dealing with complete isolation.
This movie got me so confused in the beginning and not because it was confusing but because it was so similar to #Alive. I mean everything was happening the same in the movie, so much so that I was starting to believe they were made by the same company or something. I looked it up and what I found was that Alone was actually made before it's Korean counterpart #Alive and that #Alive was based off of the same script for Alone. That being said, I would have to say that #Alive is the better film. Alone is not a bad zombie film but having seen #Alive first, Alone fails to live up to it's Korean rival. There were some pretty cool scenes and the movie didn't lack action although it is a little slow paced here and there but just seemed lacking on a couple of fronts. I want to say more but I'm going to save it for the spoiler section. As is I give this movie a 5/10. It's a decent movie and good zombie movie but didn't do anything to go above and beyond. Felt like your average zombie film.
Spoiler Section Review:
So this movie really freaked me out because of how everything plot wise was happening exactly like the movie #Alive. Like how first thing in the movie he starts seeing neighbors going berserk and attacking people, then how he hears the report on the news and how a neighbor barges into his apartment to escape the infected on his floor. It even unfolds the same way from there that the guy is bitten and infected already and how Aiden (Tyler Posey) goes to the kitchen for a knife and kicks the guy out of his apartment as he is transforming into a zombie. So many things happen the exact same from the movie #Alive like how he runs out of food and water, how he tries to kill himself and how he finds out that there is another survivor in the complex which is a girl (Summer Spiro) who he starts communicating with and helps him mentally from going stir crazy. The similarities made this movie way more predictable then normal but I was still going along for the ride because it was interesting enough for a first time watch but I don't feel there is really anything to watch this movie a second time for. Aiden's personality and character were pretty dull and didn't make you empathize with him much. Summer Spiro as Eva was more charming but also didn't have alot to get you invested in her character. The zombies or infected were pretty horrible too with most looking like they were just people who twitched and ran around and less like actual zombies. Also I have a hang up on zombies that don't eat people but look like they just want to spread a disease/virus and I felt like for some of them in this movie it looked liked they weren't really eating their victims. This movie wasn't as scary or cool as #Alive but like I said it's not terrible but suffers from a lot of things that could have been done different. I gave this movie a 5/10.
Aiden (Tyler Posey) who lives alone in an apartment complex, learns of a mysterious rapidly-spreading disease that's causing its victims to attack and eat uninfected people. From his balcony, he can see his neighbors fleeing and others attacking one another. The news reports for people to hide and stay inside so he barricades himself inside his apartment and starts rationing food. His complex is overrun by those that are infected, and with the world falling apart into chaos, he is left completely alone fighting for his life and dealing with complete isolation.
This movie got me so confused in the beginning and not because it was confusing but because it was so similar to #Alive. I mean everything was happening the same in the movie, so much so that I was starting to believe they were made by the same company or something. I looked it up and what I found was that Alone was actually made before it's Korean counterpart #Alive and that #Alive was based off of the same script for Alone. That being said, I would have to say that #Alive is the better film. Alone is not a bad zombie film but having seen #Alive first, Alone fails to live up to it's Korean rival. There were some pretty cool scenes and the movie didn't lack action although it is a little slow paced here and there but just seemed lacking on a couple of fronts. I want to say more but I'm going to save it for the spoiler section. As is I give this movie a 5/10. It's a decent movie and good zombie movie but didn't do anything to go above and beyond. Felt like your average zombie film.
Spoiler Section Review:
So this movie really freaked me out because of how everything plot wise was happening exactly like the movie #Alive. Like how first thing in the movie he starts seeing neighbors going berserk and attacking people, then how he hears the report on the news and how a neighbor barges into his apartment to escape the infected on his floor. It even unfolds the same way from there that the guy is bitten and infected already and how Aiden (Tyler Posey) goes to the kitchen for a knife and kicks the guy out of his apartment as he is transforming into a zombie. So many things happen the exact same from the movie #Alive like how he runs out of food and water, how he tries to kill himself and how he finds out that there is another survivor in the complex which is a girl (Summer Spiro) who he starts communicating with and helps him mentally from going stir crazy. The similarities made this movie way more predictable then normal but I was still going along for the ride because it was interesting enough for a first time watch but I don't feel there is really anything to watch this movie a second time for. Aiden's personality and character were pretty dull and didn't make you empathize with him much. Summer Spiro as Eva was more charming but also didn't have alot to get you invested in her character. The zombies or infected were pretty horrible too with most looking like they were just people who twitched and ran around and less like actual zombies. Also I have a hang up on zombies that don't eat people but look like they just want to spread a disease/virus and I felt like for some of them in this movie it looked liked they weren't really eating their victims. This movie wasn't as scary or cool as #Alive but like I said it's not terrible but suffers from a lot of things that could have been done different. I gave this movie a 5/10.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Small Islands in Tabletop Games
Oct 13, 2021
I have often wished to have been born in a different era of time. For me, I would have loved to have seen the birth of jazz in the US early 20th century. Or to witness the Renaissance first-hand. Another wish of mine was always to somehow discover something amazing. Like an island, or an unknown mountain range, or a new species of animal. That is so exciting to me, and I would have really loved to have just been around during these times. So along comes Small Islands, and my dreams have been woven into a board game about discovering new islands. That means the game is good, right?
Small Islands is a tile placement exploration game for one to four players. In it, players are explorers tasked with discovering resource-rich new islands upon which their clans may either exploit or inhabit. However, it’s each clan for themselves, and the players all need those precious resources. In the solo game, the player’s AI opponent is Alexis Allard, designer of the game. He has goal cards to be used and finishing point totals that the solo player will be attempting to beat during the course of the game.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, the player claims their player color and assigns Alexis with his color. They take all the components for each player and places them on the table. The starting tiles (that feature flying seagulls) are placed on the table in any orientation that is legal for play: islands need to connect, and seas need to flow from one tile to the next, as seen below. The Landscape tiles are to be shuffled and placed within reach. The four ship tiles are displayed, with all ships on their gray side, save for the solo player’s chosen color. The Navigation tile is placed below the ship tiles, and the beginning three Landscape tiles are placed in a row beside it. The small stack of Objective cards are shuffled and placed nearby, with the player drawing one to begin. They also draw two Landscape to start. For solo play, one Alexis difficulty card is chosen, and his deck of Explore and Land cards is built accordingly. The Prestige (VP) tokens are (apparently when I play) just thrown on the table and gathered in a loose pile. The game may now begin!
Small Islands is played over four rounds, with several turns being played per round. The solo player begins each round with their turn. A turn is divided into three phases: Preparation, Exploration, Reward. The Preparation phase has the player populating the Navigation Tile with six Landscape tiles face-down as a draw stack. The player then draws two Objective cards to add to their one they are currently holding. From these three cards the player will choose one to become their current objective for the round, one to be saved for a future round, and one to be discarded back to the stack. These Objective cards provide a strategy to guide the player through the current round, and also setup future rounds for scoring purposes. Upon them are icons that will award the player with points for scoring islands containing specific combinations of resources.
During the Exploration phase in the solo game, the player takes their turn first, and then Alexis will take his. A typical Exploration phase has a player deciding if they will Explore a tile or Land a ship. To Explore a tile, the player chooses one of the face-up Landscape tiles from the market/offer row and, along with their two held tiles, choose one to add to the play area. These tiles may be rotated in any fashion, as long as they can be legally placed: island edges are to be extended, sea spaces connected, et al. It is also at this time the player may place one of their Bonus Tokens upon any tile on the play area. These Bonus Tokens are resource icons that cover up existing icons on a tile, or directly over another Bonus Token. A player would do this in order to affect the balance of icons on a given island for scoring purposes.
Should the Navigation tile be empty of Landscape tiles and the player wish, they may instead Land a ship, thus ending the Exploration phase. The player chooses any of the ship tiles, and places it legally on the play area (in a sea space, as shown below). Once the player ends the phase, the game progresses to the Reward phase.
After the player takes their turn during the Exploration phase, Alexis takes his turn. This is done by drawing an Expedition card from his stack and following its instructions. The Expedition card will show whether Alexis would like to Explore or Land, which Landscape tile he would like to draw, and where he would like to place it – in relation to where the last player tile was placed.
During the Reward phase, the player will place any of their clan houseeples they wish on any island upon which they have not placed a houseeple previously. Then, consulting their Objective card, score points for successfully satisfying the card’s requirements. For Alexis, the player will draw a new Expedition card from Alexis’s stack, note the icons present on the Mission area of the card, and place Alexis houseeples upon islands that satisfy its requirements.
The game continues in this fashion until the fourth round is complete. The player totals their Prestige points (VP) and if they score more than Alexis, they win! The player must then take a picture of their archipelago they built and send it to the designer directly and gloat to them about their massive victory. Or simply rest in the satisfaction of having played the game well. Whichever.
Components. This game has a lot of components, and they are mostly cardboard and houseeples. The cardstock and board are good quality, as I have come to expect from Lucky Duck Games, and the houseeples are all different shapes for each clan color. I find that a nice and unnecessary, but very cool, touch. The art in this one is simply amazing. I mean, look at these photos! Everything from the color scheme to the art style all mesh well and give a well-considered polish to a great theme.
Okay, I won’t even hide it – I LOOOOOOVE this game. I never really liked Carcassonne very much, but Small Islands gives a similar feel, but executes everything so much better. Even with the solo rules. There are so many options available at any one time, and having a random Alexis game each time you play is just so satisfying. I feel like I could keep this game forever and not play the same game twice. Ever. And I think that I would WANT to play this one forever. Yes, I think this is a solid fit for my collection indeed, and I can see it working for so many different gamer types.
Having Alexis constantly applying the pressure to maximize and strategize every turn is delicious, and having almost zero conflict with him as we both explore is welcome. You know when you start the game how many points Alexis will score at the end of the game, so having that knowledge really makes you consider all the options available. It just works on so many levels.
If you are looking for a light-hearted, but with some great decisions to be made, then I strongly urge you to check out Small Islands. I knew immediately that this was a game for me. It’s on the lighter side without being too simple, I get to build a thing and admire it at the end of the game, and I have an opponent who just wants to see me win because he designed the game! I’m in and out in less than an hour and feel content that I was able to have a great experience with a well-designed game. I cannot wait to introduce this to all my friends and family gamers so they can fall in love with it as well.
Small Islands is a tile placement exploration game for one to four players. In it, players are explorers tasked with discovering resource-rich new islands upon which their clans may either exploit or inhabit. However, it’s each clan for themselves, and the players all need those precious resources. In the solo game, the player’s AI opponent is Alexis Allard, designer of the game. He has goal cards to be used and finishing point totals that the solo player will be attempting to beat during the course of the game.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, the player claims their player color and assigns Alexis with his color. They take all the components for each player and places them on the table. The starting tiles (that feature flying seagulls) are placed on the table in any orientation that is legal for play: islands need to connect, and seas need to flow from one tile to the next, as seen below. The Landscape tiles are to be shuffled and placed within reach. The four ship tiles are displayed, with all ships on their gray side, save for the solo player’s chosen color. The Navigation tile is placed below the ship tiles, and the beginning three Landscape tiles are placed in a row beside it. The small stack of Objective cards are shuffled and placed nearby, with the player drawing one to begin. They also draw two Landscape to start. For solo play, one Alexis difficulty card is chosen, and his deck of Explore and Land cards is built accordingly. The Prestige (VP) tokens are (apparently when I play) just thrown on the table and gathered in a loose pile. The game may now begin!
Small Islands is played over four rounds, with several turns being played per round. The solo player begins each round with their turn. A turn is divided into three phases: Preparation, Exploration, Reward. The Preparation phase has the player populating the Navigation Tile with six Landscape tiles face-down as a draw stack. The player then draws two Objective cards to add to their one they are currently holding. From these three cards the player will choose one to become their current objective for the round, one to be saved for a future round, and one to be discarded back to the stack. These Objective cards provide a strategy to guide the player through the current round, and also setup future rounds for scoring purposes. Upon them are icons that will award the player with points for scoring islands containing specific combinations of resources.
During the Exploration phase in the solo game, the player takes their turn first, and then Alexis will take his. A typical Exploration phase has a player deciding if they will Explore a tile or Land a ship. To Explore a tile, the player chooses one of the face-up Landscape tiles from the market/offer row and, along with their two held tiles, choose one to add to the play area. These tiles may be rotated in any fashion, as long as they can be legally placed: island edges are to be extended, sea spaces connected, et al. It is also at this time the player may place one of their Bonus Tokens upon any tile on the play area. These Bonus Tokens are resource icons that cover up existing icons on a tile, or directly over another Bonus Token. A player would do this in order to affect the balance of icons on a given island for scoring purposes.
Should the Navigation tile be empty of Landscape tiles and the player wish, they may instead Land a ship, thus ending the Exploration phase. The player chooses any of the ship tiles, and places it legally on the play area (in a sea space, as shown below). Once the player ends the phase, the game progresses to the Reward phase.
After the player takes their turn during the Exploration phase, Alexis takes his turn. This is done by drawing an Expedition card from his stack and following its instructions. The Expedition card will show whether Alexis would like to Explore or Land, which Landscape tile he would like to draw, and where he would like to place it – in relation to where the last player tile was placed.
During the Reward phase, the player will place any of their clan houseeples they wish on any island upon which they have not placed a houseeple previously. Then, consulting their Objective card, score points for successfully satisfying the card’s requirements. For Alexis, the player will draw a new Expedition card from Alexis’s stack, note the icons present on the Mission area of the card, and place Alexis houseeples upon islands that satisfy its requirements.
The game continues in this fashion until the fourth round is complete. The player totals their Prestige points (VP) and if they score more than Alexis, they win! The player must then take a picture of their archipelago they built and send it to the designer directly and gloat to them about their massive victory. Or simply rest in the satisfaction of having played the game well. Whichever.
Components. This game has a lot of components, and they are mostly cardboard and houseeples. The cardstock and board are good quality, as I have come to expect from Lucky Duck Games, and the houseeples are all different shapes for each clan color. I find that a nice and unnecessary, but very cool, touch. The art in this one is simply amazing. I mean, look at these photos! Everything from the color scheme to the art style all mesh well and give a well-considered polish to a great theme.
Okay, I won’t even hide it – I LOOOOOOVE this game. I never really liked Carcassonne very much, but Small Islands gives a similar feel, but executes everything so much better. Even with the solo rules. There are so many options available at any one time, and having a random Alexis game each time you play is just so satisfying. I feel like I could keep this game forever and not play the same game twice. Ever. And I think that I would WANT to play this one forever. Yes, I think this is a solid fit for my collection indeed, and I can see it working for so many different gamer types.
Having Alexis constantly applying the pressure to maximize and strategize every turn is delicious, and having almost zero conflict with him as we both explore is welcome. You know when you start the game how many points Alexis will score at the end of the game, so having that knowledge really makes you consider all the options available. It just works on so many levels.
If you are looking for a light-hearted, but with some great decisions to be made, then I strongly urge you to check out Small Islands. I knew immediately that this was a game for me. It’s on the lighter side without being too simple, I get to build a thing and admire it at the end of the game, and I have an opponent who just wants to see me win because he designed the game! I’m in and out in less than an hour and feel content that I was able to have a great experience with a well-designed game. I cannot wait to introduce this to all my friends and family gamers so they can fall in love with it as well.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated The Water Babies in Books
Oct 9, 2017
Worryingly Controversial
This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
This year (2017), Calla Editions are printing a new hardback version of the original 1863 children’s classic The Water Babies written by the Anglican clergyman, Charles Kingsley (1819-75). Subtitled “A Fairytale for a land-baby” the book was intended for Kingsley’s youngest son and therefore was targeted at a juvenile demographic. However, as a result of the 1800’s vernacular and particularly deep themes, it has become more appropriate for older readers. With full-colour illustrations by Jessie Wilcox Smith (1863-1935) from the height of the golden age of illustration, this edition promises to be a collector’s item.
Charles Kingsley, the founder of England’s Christian Socialist movement, was exceedingly interested in the plight of the working class, particularly of the abuse and protection of children. This is reflected in his story about Tom, the ten-year-old London chimney sweep, who suffers ill-treatment at the hands of his employer. Tom, who has known nothing but the sooty streets of London, is embarrassed after scaring a beautiful young girl with his grimy appearance. Running away through a countryside he is unfamiliar with, Tom dives into a river to wash, however, falls asleep in the water.
On awakening, Tom discovers he has been transformed into a water baby; he can live and breathe amongst all the fishes and other mystical water creatures. Forgetting his horrible past, Tom is soon frolicking with the characters he meets, teasing and provoking unsuspecting individuals. But the fairies in charge of water babies are determined to teach him many lessons about truth, mercy, justice and courage.
The Water Babies is a morality fable with fairy-tale-like qualities. It educates young readers about the consequences of their actions but also enlightens them about the cruelty of some adults. Kingsley often talks to the reader (in this instance his son), drawing them into the story and making the scenarios as relatable as possible. The magical underwater setting is merely a veil to hide the lessons Kingsley is attempting to preach.
For the adult reader, Kingsley has a much more political message. Written at the time of political and scientific advancement, particularly in respect to the concept of natural selection, Kingsley attempts to ridicule the ideas of thinkers such as Charles Darwin by producing a satirical narrative. He suggests that scientists are fools who use unnecessarily long and foreign terms, evidenced by his use of the made-up subject of Necrobioneopalæonthydrochthonanthropopithekology. He also goes as far as to mock the majority of adults and appears to be completely anti-Irish people.
In some instances, Charles Kingsley goes too far in his satire, resulting in something that would not be accepted by publishers today. In order for Tom to be the hero of the story, adults need to be viewed as less than good – people who need to be punished for their discourteous treatment of children, which in this instance, they are, and quite graphically. But the most controversial theme explored is death. The more naïve may not cotton on to the fact that Tom falling asleep in the river equates to drowning, yet that is exactly what happened. Only through death can one become a water baby. To make matters slightly more alarming, Kingsley does not see this death as a bad thing; he describes Tom’s new life as something far better than life on earth – coming from a clergyman this is understandable – which suggests that death is better than living for an abused child.
Despite these controversies, Kingsley’s prose is humorous and entertaining - far more mind-boggling than you may initially expect. With characters named Mrs Bedonebyasyoudid and Professor Ptthmllnsprts, there is plenty to make readers laugh. Some of the hilarities may go above the heads of children since the jargon is no longer used in today’s society, however, adults will be able to appreciate the comical aspect.
Over 150 years old, The Water Babies has remained a classic. It reveals the political, scientific and social situations of the mid-1800s, yet it contains wisdom that is still relevant today. As Kingsley’s daughter Rose says in the introduction, “What a fine thing it is to love truth, mercy, justice, courage, and all things noble and of good report.” No matter how peculiar this novel is, it says a lot about the virtues of our character.
This year (2017), Calla Editions are printing a new hardback version of the original 1863 children’s classic The Water Babies written by the Anglican clergyman, Charles Kingsley (1819-75). Subtitled “A Fairytale for a land-baby” the book was intended for Kingsley’s youngest son and therefore was targeted at a juvenile demographic. However, as a result of the 1800’s vernacular and particularly deep themes, it has become more appropriate for older readers. With full-colour illustrations by Jessie Wilcox Smith (1863-1935) from the height of the golden age of illustration, this edition promises to be a collector’s item.
Charles Kingsley, the founder of England’s Christian Socialist movement, was exceedingly interested in the plight of the working class, particularly of the abuse and protection of children. This is reflected in his story about Tom, the ten-year-old London chimney sweep, who suffers ill-treatment at the hands of his employer. Tom, who has known nothing but the sooty streets of London, is embarrassed after scaring a beautiful young girl with his grimy appearance. Running away through a countryside he is unfamiliar with, Tom dives into a river to wash, however, falls asleep in the water.
On awakening, Tom discovers he has been transformed into a water baby; he can live and breathe amongst all the fishes and other mystical water creatures. Forgetting his horrible past, Tom is soon frolicking with the characters he meets, teasing and provoking unsuspecting individuals. But the fairies in charge of water babies are determined to teach him many lessons about truth, mercy, justice and courage.
The Water Babies is a morality fable with fairy-tale-like qualities. It educates young readers about the consequences of their actions but also enlightens them about the cruelty of some adults. Kingsley often talks to the reader (in this instance his son), drawing them into the story and making the scenarios as relatable as possible. The magical underwater setting is merely a veil to hide the lessons Kingsley is attempting to preach.
For the adult reader, Kingsley has a much more political message. Written at the time of political and scientific advancement, particularly in respect to the concept of natural selection, Kingsley attempts to ridicule the ideas of thinkers such as Charles Darwin by producing a satirical narrative. He suggests that scientists are fools who use unnecessarily long and foreign terms, evidenced by his use of the made-up subject of Necrobioneopalæonthydrochthonanthropopithekology. He also goes as far as to mock the majority of adults and appears to be completely anti-Irish people.
In some instances, Charles Kingsley goes too far in his satire, resulting in something that would not be accepted by publishers today. In order for Tom to be the hero of the story, adults need to be viewed as less than good – people who need to be punished for their discourteous treatment of children, which in this instance, they are, and quite graphically. But the most controversial theme explored is death. The more naïve may not cotton on to the fact that Tom falling asleep in the river equates to drowning, yet that is exactly what happened. Only through death can one become a water baby. To make matters slightly more alarming, Kingsley does not see this death as a bad thing; he describes Tom’s new life as something far better than life on earth – coming from a clergyman this is understandable – which suggests that death is better than living for an abused child.
Despite these controversies, Kingsley’s prose is humorous and entertaining - far more mind-boggling than you may initially expect. With characters named Mrs Bedonebyasyoudid and Professor Ptthmllnsprts, there is plenty to make readers laugh. Some of the hilarities may go above the heads of children since the jargon is no longer used in today’s society, however, adults will be able to appreciate the comical aspect.
Over 150 years old, The Water Babies has remained a classic. It reveals the political, scientific and social situations of the mid-1800s, yet it contains wisdom that is still relevant today. As Kingsley’s daughter Rose says in the introduction, “What a fine thing it is to love truth, mercy, justice, courage, and all things noble and of good report.” No matter how peculiar this novel is, it says a lot about the virtues of our character.