Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Foxcatcher (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
‘Foxcatcher’ stars Channing Tatum, Mark Ruffalo, Steve Carell, Sienna Miller, and Vanessa Redgrave with an appearance by Anthony Michael Hall and tells an account of Olympic Gold Medal Wrestling Champions, brothers Mark and Dave Schultz and their dealings with their millionaire coach, paranoid-schizophrenic John du Pont who eventually murdered Dave Schultz in 1996.
The film has already been received extremely well by critics and has been praised for the performances of Ruffalo, Tatum, and Carell as the three underwent complete character transformations. The film premiered in May at the Cannes Film Festival and director Bennett Miller took home the award for best director. As someone who has seen the film I can tell you that at first I didn’t recognize any of the three lead actors when their characters first appeared on screen in the movie. I would bet money on this film being nominated for Oscars, Emmys, and any other movie awards that I cannot imagine right now based on their performances alone. Channing Tatum has even been quoted as say that this was the hardest acting challenge he has had to date in his career.
In the course of the film, we see a unique look inside the mind of an Olympic athlete via Canning Tatum’s performance as Mark Schultz and how they start out as ‘pure’ and patriotic and how those athletes can be corrupted with the promise of big money for sponsorship or with the purpose of restoring and repeating the ‘glory and standing’ they experienced previously and how it reaches into their lives and the lives of the athlete’s families. Example, in the film when at coach John du Pont’s (Carell) insistence, Mark tries to convince his brother Dave (Ruffalo) to join him in putting together team ‘Foxcatcher’ to train wrestlers for the 1988 Seoul Olympics. At first, Dave declines for the reason of not wanting to uproot his family from their home. Later on though, when its of du Pont’s opinion that Mark’s efforts are unsatisfactory du Pont takes matters into his own hands and convinces Dave himself of signing on thereby alienating Mark from and then from his brother. Eventually, the brothers reconcile but this appears to enrage du Pont who’se already starting to display the symptoms associated with paranoid-schizophrenia. Which some say is the true culprit behind du Pont’s mixer of Dave Schultz.
I would personally give this film 4 out of 5 stars. Bennett Miller couldn’t have done a better job directing this film and once again, the performances by Tatum, Ruffalo, and Carell were amazing and I have no doubt that they will become major millstones in their careers. However, there is the obvious downside of knowing the outcome in this particular instance. Although I did indeed enjoy the film it was also for all intents and purposes, the film was basically a two hour march to death for the character of Dave Schultz which was a major bummer. But hey, that’s not the fault of anyone involved in the film. That’s just what happens when you watch a true crime story. That’s my only gripe in regards to the film though. I say go see it. It is a two hour film though so be sure you grab a meal and a few beverages before you hit the theater.
This is your friendly neighborhood freelance photographer ‘The CameraMan’ and on behalf of my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ , thanks for reading … and we’ll see you at the movies!
The film has already been received extremely well by critics and has been praised for the performances of Ruffalo, Tatum, and Carell as the three underwent complete character transformations. The film premiered in May at the Cannes Film Festival and director Bennett Miller took home the award for best director. As someone who has seen the film I can tell you that at first I didn’t recognize any of the three lead actors when their characters first appeared on screen in the movie. I would bet money on this film being nominated for Oscars, Emmys, and any other movie awards that I cannot imagine right now based on their performances alone. Channing Tatum has even been quoted as say that this was the hardest acting challenge he has had to date in his career.
In the course of the film, we see a unique look inside the mind of an Olympic athlete via Canning Tatum’s performance as Mark Schultz and how they start out as ‘pure’ and patriotic and how those athletes can be corrupted with the promise of big money for sponsorship or with the purpose of restoring and repeating the ‘glory and standing’ they experienced previously and how it reaches into their lives and the lives of the athlete’s families. Example, in the film when at coach John du Pont’s (Carell) insistence, Mark tries to convince his brother Dave (Ruffalo) to join him in putting together team ‘Foxcatcher’ to train wrestlers for the 1988 Seoul Olympics. At first, Dave declines for the reason of not wanting to uproot his family from their home. Later on though, when its of du Pont’s opinion that Mark’s efforts are unsatisfactory du Pont takes matters into his own hands and convinces Dave himself of signing on thereby alienating Mark from and then from his brother. Eventually, the brothers reconcile but this appears to enrage du Pont who’se already starting to display the symptoms associated with paranoid-schizophrenia. Which some say is the true culprit behind du Pont’s mixer of Dave Schultz.
I would personally give this film 4 out of 5 stars. Bennett Miller couldn’t have done a better job directing this film and once again, the performances by Tatum, Ruffalo, and Carell were amazing and I have no doubt that they will become major millstones in their careers. However, there is the obvious downside of knowing the outcome in this particular instance. Although I did indeed enjoy the film it was also for all intents and purposes, the film was basically a two hour march to death for the character of Dave Schultz which was a major bummer. But hey, that’s not the fault of anyone involved in the film. That’s just what happens when you watch a true crime story. That’s my only gripe in regards to the film though. I say go see it. It is a two hour film though so be sure you grab a meal and a few beverages before you hit the theater.
This is your friendly neighborhood freelance photographer ‘The CameraMan’ and on behalf of my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ , thanks for reading … and we’ll see you at the movies!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Irresistible (2020) in Movies
Jun 23, 2020
Jon Stewart has been fairly quiet since his retirement from The Daily Show. In a recent interview with Howard Stern he talked about being content on a farm for rescued animals and enjoying more time with his family. He also sent to that he would be doing projects that interested him. In “Irresistible” Stewart working as both Writer and Director has crafted a funny, informative, and expansive look at the political process.
Steve Carell stars as Gary Zimmer; a senior advisor to the Clinton’s who is still smarting over the recent election particularly his insistence that the “Rust Belt” was firmly in their hands and therefore opted not to devote a significant amount of time campaigning there which in turn was a key reason for their defeat.
An online video from a small farming community in Wisconsin catches Gary’s eye as it shows a former Marine farmer named Jack Hastings (Chris Cooper) challenging the local mayor at a town hall over immigration related issues and other hot topics.
Convinced that he can bring Jack over to the Democratic Party and use him as a starting point to restore the party in Wisconsin; Gary heads to the small town to make his pitch.
He quickly finds himself out of his element as the small-town community with friendly townsfolk to watch out for one another is very different than what he is used to. Gary eventually convinces Jack to run for Mayor and his involvement soon attracts the big money from the opposing side that seem to be rattled by what appears to be an insignificant small-town campaign.
Gary soon realizes that his nemesis Faith (Rose Byrne) who is his opposite for the Republican Party.
Gary and Faith have a clear history with one another and there is clearly plenty of animosity between them as each one is determined to succeed and broke their success in the face of the other.
As the campaign unfolds viewers are given a very direct look at how the political machine works from polling, demographics, special interests, fund raising, campaigning, muckraking, and using the media.
While this is often presented in a humorous way; Stewart uses a lot of simple but direct approaches to the various topics as he did on The Daily Show as a basis for further discussion.
The film takes some unexpected twists as it unfolds and the conclusion helps underscore that all parties involved often have an angle that they’re trying to work. One of the biggest messages that I took from the film was that the amount of money poured into campaigns has become more about one side beating the other rather than addressing the issues and putting the best possible people forward to represent the population.
Stewart handles the very complicated topics of the film through humor but above all used generally likable characters on all sides. Nobody was truly evil and you could clearly see much of their motivations.
The closing credits contains an interview with a political expert who discusses Superpacs and their lack of oversight and how people with ulterior motives can generate large amounts of money by manipulating the system completely within the law.
From a strong cast and entertaining story. Stewart has crafted a very solid and enjoyable film that will make you think.
Steve Carell stars as Gary Zimmer; a senior advisor to the Clinton’s who is still smarting over the recent election particularly his insistence that the “Rust Belt” was firmly in their hands and therefore opted not to devote a significant amount of time campaigning there which in turn was a key reason for their defeat.
An online video from a small farming community in Wisconsin catches Gary’s eye as it shows a former Marine farmer named Jack Hastings (Chris Cooper) challenging the local mayor at a town hall over immigration related issues and other hot topics.
Convinced that he can bring Jack over to the Democratic Party and use him as a starting point to restore the party in Wisconsin; Gary heads to the small town to make his pitch.
He quickly finds himself out of his element as the small-town community with friendly townsfolk to watch out for one another is very different than what he is used to. Gary eventually convinces Jack to run for Mayor and his involvement soon attracts the big money from the opposing side that seem to be rattled by what appears to be an insignificant small-town campaign.
Gary soon realizes that his nemesis Faith (Rose Byrne) who is his opposite for the Republican Party.
Gary and Faith have a clear history with one another and there is clearly plenty of animosity between them as each one is determined to succeed and broke their success in the face of the other.
As the campaign unfolds viewers are given a very direct look at how the political machine works from polling, demographics, special interests, fund raising, campaigning, muckraking, and using the media.
While this is often presented in a humorous way; Stewart uses a lot of simple but direct approaches to the various topics as he did on The Daily Show as a basis for further discussion.
The film takes some unexpected twists as it unfolds and the conclusion helps underscore that all parties involved often have an angle that they’re trying to work. One of the biggest messages that I took from the film was that the amount of money poured into campaigns has become more about one side beating the other rather than addressing the issues and putting the best possible people forward to represent the population.
Stewart handles the very complicated topics of the film through humor but above all used generally likable characters on all sides. Nobody was truly evil and you could clearly see much of their motivations.
The closing credits contains an interview with a political expert who discusses Superpacs and their lack of oversight and how people with ulterior motives can generate large amounts of money by manipulating the system completely within the law.
From a strong cast and entertaining story. Stewart has crafted a very solid and enjoyable film that will make you think.
Endless Frontier Saga - RPG
Games
App
Endless Frontier is the best in idle role playing games for commanding your army of knights in a...
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Steam Park: Play Dirty in Tabletop Games
Aug 20, 2021
In the expansion review series, we take a look at a game expansion to discuss whether it is a necessary purchase/addition to one’s collection.
This breakdown is for the action dice-rolling and them park-building game Steam Park’s modular expansion, Play Dirty (as in dirt, not as in adult themes). Play Dirty is a modular expansion, so some modules may be added or left out depending on comfort level and enjoyment of each module.
One major module added to this expansion is the addition of a fifth player to Steam Park. As if Steam Park wasn’t frantic enough with four, go ahead and throw in a fifth set of hands going crazy at the table! Also included are gray “Stingy Visitors,” which act as wild visitor types for color, but provide one less Danari (currency in Steam Park) but create NO DIRT. Excellent! Play Dirty also includes a new set of five stands for robots to do business: Fountain, Hall of Mirrors, Office, Shooting Gallery, and Incinerator. Along with these new stands are a set of stand reference tiles to remind players what each stand actually does in the game. Very handy.
The biggest difference-makers in the expansion box are the Ride Extensions, Park Directors, and Espionage Dice. Ride Extensions do just that – extend existing rides in one’s park, but the two different colored extensions (golden and rusty) have their own rules that are triggered depending on colors of robots upon them. The Park Directors module adds a new twist that changes the rules for an aspect of the base game for all players throughout the entire game. These are very powerful changes, and one Park Director is chosen to be used at the beginning of each game. Espionage Dice are very special in that one is added to each player’s white dice and rolled as normal throughout the game. However, the Espionage Dice cost 4 Danari to activate after the Roll Phase. The power here is that the player using the die pays one Danari less to use it when matching the face of white dice in their opponent’s pig sitting to their right. For example, to use a Build Stand face on Espionage Die will cost four Danari normally. However, should the opponent on the right have four Build Stand symbols showing on their white dice, the Espionage Die activates for free!
Must you own the Play Dirty expansion to truly enjoy your plays of Steam Park? Not at all. I do very much enjoy several of the modules in the box though. I really enjoy the powerful Park Directors because it freshens up a rule from the base game or modifies it in interesting ways. I like the new Stands that come in the box as well for additional options during play, but you MUST use the reference tiles, especially if combining all 10 Stands. The other modules are fine, but I would have been happy with just the ones I mentioned here.
Official recommendation: I remember my first play of Steam Park and falling in love with it right away. I have never felt stagnation in my future plays, but adding Play Dirty certainly is a game-changer in every sense of the term. I say definitely pick it up if you are feeling the base game no longer gives you the excitement and frenzy it once did.
This breakdown is for the action dice-rolling and them park-building game Steam Park’s modular expansion, Play Dirty (as in dirt, not as in adult themes). Play Dirty is a modular expansion, so some modules may be added or left out depending on comfort level and enjoyment of each module.
One major module added to this expansion is the addition of a fifth player to Steam Park. As if Steam Park wasn’t frantic enough with four, go ahead and throw in a fifth set of hands going crazy at the table! Also included are gray “Stingy Visitors,” which act as wild visitor types for color, but provide one less Danari (currency in Steam Park) but create NO DIRT. Excellent! Play Dirty also includes a new set of five stands for robots to do business: Fountain, Hall of Mirrors, Office, Shooting Gallery, and Incinerator. Along with these new stands are a set of stand reference tiles to remind players what each stand actually does in the game. Very handy.
The biggest difference-makers in the expansion box are the Ride Extensions, Park Directors, and Espionage Dice. Ride Extensions do just that – extend existing rides in one’s park, but the two different colored extensions (golden and rusty) have their own rules that are triggered depending on colors of robots upon them. The Park Directors module adds a new twist that changes the rules for an aspect of the base game for all players throughout the entire game. These are very powerful changes, and one Park Director is chosen to be used at the beginning of each game. Espionage Dice are very special in that one is added to each player’s white dice and rolled as normal throughout the game. However, the Espionage Dice cost 4 Danari to activate after the Roll Phase. The power here is that the player using the die pays one Danari less to use it when matching the face of white dice in their opponent’s pig sitting to their right. For example, to use a Build Stand face on Espionage Die will cost four Danari normally. However, should the opponent on the right have four Build Stand symbols showing on their white dice, the Espionage Die activates for free!
Must you own the Play Dirty expansion to truly enjoy your plays of Steam Park? Not at all. I do very much enjoy several of the modules in the box though. I really enjoy the powerful Park Directors because it freshens up a rule from the base game or modifies it in interesting ways. I like the new Stands that come in the box as well for additional options during play, but you MUST use the reference tiles, especially if combining all 10 Stands. The other modules are fine, but I would have been happy with just the ones I mentioned here.
Official recommendation: I remember my first play of Steam Park and falling in love with it right away. I have never felt stagnation in my future plays, but adding Play Dirty certainly is a game-changer in every sense of the term. I say definitely pick it up if you are feeling the base game no longer gives you the excitement and frenzy it once did.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated First Man (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
He captured a feeling. Sky with no ceiling.
A memorable event
I am a child of the 60’s, born in 1961. The “Space Race” for me was not some historical concept but a pervasive backdrop to my childhood. I still recall, at the age of 8, being marched into my junior school’s assembly hall. We all peered at the grainy black-and-white pictures of Neil Armstrong as he spoke his famously fluffed line before stepping onto the lunar surface. The event happened at 3:54am UK time, so clearly my recollection of “seeing it live” is bogus. (I read that the BBC stayed on air until 10:30 in the morning, so it was probably a ‘final review’ of the night’s events I saw). It is probably lodged in my memory less for the historical event and more due to the fact that there was TELEVISION ON IN THE MORNING! (Kids, ask your grandparents!)
A very personal connection. My personal copy of Waddington’s “Blast Off” board game, briefly shown in the film.
The plot
But back to Damien Chazelle‘s film. We start early in the 60’s with America getting well and truly kicked up the proberbial by the Russians in the space race: they fail to get the first man in space; they fail to carry out the first spacewalk. So the Americans, following the famous JFK speech, set their sights on the moon. It’s the equivalent of making a mess of cutting your toenails but then deciding to have a go at brain surgery. NASA develop the Gemini programme to practice the essential docking manoevers required as a precursor for the seemingly impossible (‘two blackboard’) mission that is Apollo.
But the price paid for such ambition is high.
Ryan Gosling plays Neil Armstrong as a dedicated, prickly, professional; altogether not a terribly likeable individual. Claire Foy plays his long-suffering wife Janet, putting her support for her husband’s dangerous profession ahead of her natural fears of becoming a single mother.
Review
There is obviously little tension to be mined from a film that has such a well-known historical context. Those with even a subliminal knowledge of the subject will be aware of the key triumphs and tragedies along the way. The script (by Josh Singer, “The Post“; “Spotlight“) is very well done in developing a creeping dread of knowing what is shortly to come.
Even with these inherent spoilers, Chazelle still manages to evoke armrest-squeezing tension into the space flight sequences. A lot of this is achieved through disorientating camera movements and flashing images that may irritate some but I found to be highly effective. (Did anyone else flash back to that excellent “Mission Space” ride at Epcot during the launch sequences?) This hand-held cinematography by Linus Sandgren (Chazelle’s “La La Land” collaborator) is matched by some utterly drop-dead gorgeous shots – beautifully framed; beautifully lit – that would be worthy of a Kaminski/Spielberg collaboration.
Those expecting a rollercoaster thrill-ride of the likes of “Apollo 13” will be disappointed. The film has more of the slow-and-long-burn feeling of “The Right Stuff” in mood and, at 141 minutes, some might even find it quite boring. There is significant time, for example, spent within the family home. These scenes include turbulent events of which I wasn’t previously aware: events that form the cornerstone of the film’s drama. For me, the balance of the personal and the historical background was perfectly done. I found it curious though that with such a family-oriented drama Chazelle chose to ditch completely any cuts away to the earthbound onlookers during the tense lunar landing sequence. (Compare and contrast with Ron Howard‘s masterly inter-cutting in the re-entry scene of “Apollo 13”). With the outcome foretold, perhaps such tension building was considered unnecessary? I’m not suggesting it was wrong to ‘stay in the moment’ with the astronauts, but it’s a bold directorial move.
Overall, the foolhardiness of NASA trying to do what they did with the 60’s technology at their disposal is well-portrayed. If you’ve been lucky enough, as I have, to view the Apollo 11 capsule in the National Air and Space museum in Washington you can’t help but be impressed by the bravery of Armstong, Aldrin and Collins in getting in that bucket of bolts and putting their lives on the line. True American heroes.
On that topic, the “flag issue” has generated much self-righteous heat within the US media; that is regarding Chazelle not showing the American flag being planted. This seems fatuous to me. Not only is the flag shown on the moon, but the film ably demonstrates the American know-how and bravery behind the mission. If Clint Eastwood had been directing he would have probably gone there: but for me it certainly didn’t need any further patriotism rubbed in the viewer’s face.
The turns
Are Oscar nominations on the cards for Ryan Gosling and Claire Foy? For me, it would be staggering if they are not: this film has “Oscar nomination” written all over it. I’d also certainly not bet against Foy winning for Best Actress: her portrayal of a wife on the edge is nothing short of brilliant. And perhaps, just perhaps, this might be Gosling’s year too.
Elsewhere there are strong supporting performances from Kyle Chandler (as Deke Slayton), Corey Stoll (as the ‘tell it how it is’ Buzz Aldrin) and Jason Clarke (as Ed White). It’s also great to see Belfast-born Ciarán Hinds in another mainstream Hollywood release.
For me, another dead cert Oscar nomination will be Justin Hurwitz for the score which is breathtakingly brilliant, not just in its compelling themes but also in its orchestration: the use of the eerie theremin and melodic harp are just brilliant together. I haven’t heard a score this year that’s more fitting to the visuals: although it’s early in the Oscar season to be calling it, I’d be very surprised if this didn’t walk away with the statuette.
Summary
Loved this. Damien Chazelle – with “Whiplash“, “La La Land” and now “First Man” – has hit all of three out of the park in my book. It’s not really a film for thrill-seekers, who might get bored, but anyone, like me, with an interest in the history of space exploration will I think lap it up: for this was surely the most memorable decade in space history… so far.
On leaving the cinema I looked up at the rising moon and marvelled once more at the audacity of man. My eyes then drifted across to the red dot that was Mars. How long I wonder? And how many dramatic film biographies still to come?
I am a child of the 60’s, born in 1961. The “Space Race” for me was not some historical concept but a pervasive backdrop to my childhood. I still recall, at the age of 8, being marched into my junior school’s assembly hall. We all peered at the grainy black-and-white pictures of Neil Armstrong as he spoke his famously fluffed line before stepping onto the lunar surface. The event happened at 3:54am UK time, so clearly my recollection of “seeing it live” is bogus. (I read that the BBC stayed on air until 10:30 in the morning, so it was probably a ‘final review’ of the night’s events I saw). It is probably lodged in my memory less for the historical event and more due to the fact that there was TELEVISION ON IN THE MORNING! (Kids, ask your grandparents!)
A very personal connection. My personal copy of Waddington’s “Blast Off” board game, briefly shown in the film.
The plot
But back to Damien Chazelle‘s film. We start early in the 60’s with America getting well and truly kicked up the proberbial by the Russians in the space race: they fail to get the first man in space; they fail to carry out the first spacewalk. So the Americans, following the famous JFK speech, set their sights on the moon. It’s the equivalent of making a mess of cutting your toenails but then deciding to have a go at brain surgery. NASA develop the Gemini programme to practice the essential docking manoevers required as a precursor for the seemingly impossible (‘two blackboard’) mission that is Apollo.
But the price paid for such ambition is high.
Ryan Gosling plays Neil Armstrong as a dedicated, prickly, professional; altogether not a terribly likeable individual. Claire Foy plays his long-suffering wife Janet, putting her support for her husband’s dangerous profession ahead of her natural fears of becoming a single mother.
Review
There is obviously little tension to be mined from a film that has such a well-known historical context. Those with even a subliminal knowledge of the subject will be aware of the key triumphs and tragedies along the way. The script (by Josh Singer, “The Post“; “Spotlight“) is very well done in developing a creeping dread of knowing what is shortly to come.
Even with these inherent spoilers, Chazelle still manages to evoke armrest-squeezing tension into the space flight sequences. A lot of this is achieved through disorientating camera movements and flashing images that may irritate some but I found to be highly effective. (Did anyone else flash back to that excellent “Mission Space” ride at Epcot during the launch sequences?) This hand-held cinematography by Linus Sandgren (Chazelle’s “La La Land” collaborator) is matched by some utterly drop-dead gorgeous shots – beautifully framed; beautifully lit – that would be worthy of a Kaminski/Spielberg collaboration.
Those expecting a rollercoaster thrill-ride of the likes of “Apollo 13” will be disappointed. The film has more of the slow-and-long-burn feeling of “The Right Stuff” in mood and, at 141 minutes, some might even find it quite boring. There is significant time, for example, spent within the family home. These scenes include turbulent events of which I wasn’t previously aware: events that form the cornerstone of the film’s drama. For me, the balance of the personal and the historical background was perfectly done. I found it curious though that with such a family-oriented drama Chazelle chose to ditch completely any cuts away to the earthbound onlookers during the tense lunar landing sequence. (Compare and contrast with Ron Howard‘s masterly inter-cutting in the re-entry scene of “Apollo 13”). With the outcome foretold, perhaps such tension building was considered unnecessary? I’m not suggesting it was wrong to ‘stay in the moment’ with the astronauts, but it’s a bold directorial move.
Overall, the foolhardiness of NASA trying to do what they did with the 60’s technology at their disposal is well-portrayed. If you’ve been lucky enough, as I have, to view the Apollo 11 capsule in the National Air and Space museum in Washington you can’t help but be impressed by the bravery of Armstong, Aldrin and Collins in getting in that bucket of bolts and putting their lives on the line. True American heroes.
On that topic, the “flag issue” has generated much self-righteous heat within the US media; that is regarding Chazelle not showing the American flag being planted. This seems fatuous to me. Not only is the flag shown on the moon, but the film ably demonstrates the American know-how and bravery behind the mission. If Clint Eastwood had been directing he would have probably gone there: but for me it certainly didn’t need any further patriotism rubbed in the viewer’s face.
The turns
Are Oscar nominations on the cards for Ryan Gosling and Claire Foy? For me, it would be staggering if they are not: this film has “Oscar nomination” written all over it. I’d also certainly not bet against Foy winning for Best Actress: her portrayal of a wife on the edge is nothing short of brilliant. And perhaps, just perhaps, this might be Gosling’s year too.
Elsewhere there are strong supporting performances from Kyle Chandler (as Deke Slayton), Corey Stoll (as the ‘tell it how it is’ Buzz Aldrin) and Jason Clarke (as Ed White). It’s also great to see Belfast-born Ciarán Hinds in another mainstream Hollywood release.
For me, another dead cert Oscar nomination will be Justin Hurwitz for the score which is breathtakingly brilliant, not just in its compelling themes but also in its orchestration: the use of the eerie theremin and melodic harp are just brilliant together. I haven’t heard a score this year that’s more fitting to the visuals: although it’s early in the Oscar season to be calling it, I’d be very surprised if this didn’t walk away with the statuette.
Summary
Loved this. Damien Chazelle – with “Whiplash“, “La La Land” and now “First Man” – has hit all of three out of the park in my book. It’s not really a film for thrill-seekers, who might get bored, but anyone, like me, with an interest in the history of space exploration will I think lap it up: for this was surely the most memorable decade in space history… so far.
On leaving the cinema I looked up at the rising moon and marvelled once more at the audacity of man. My eyes then drifted across to the red dot that was Mars. How long I wonder? And how many dramatic film biographies still to come?
Mothergamer (1568 KP) rated Animal Crossing: Happy Home Designer in Video Games
Apr 3, 2019
I love the Animal Crossing games because for me they are a lot of fun. I really enjoyed Animal Crossing: New Leaf, but I didn't like some of the time constraints that were involved. Plus that Tom Nook really has a racket running the town. I was pretty excited for Animal Crossing: Happy Home Designer the more I read about it. Then I started playing it and I absolutely loved it because there are no time constraints and it's so much fun to play. In the game you are an employee of Nook's Homes and design homes for the various animal villagers based on their interests and suggestions. You can also decide where to place a client's home when the map pops up. A mountain home, a beach house, or a desert oasis are just some of the choices. You don't just design homes however. You can also design a variety of buildings for the town such as restaurants, shops, and a school. Dragging and dropping items is a nice change from the pushing and pulling items to move them. This also makes it easier to fix mistakes or undo something. It's also easier to customize colors and patterns and as you progress you can unlock even more items for your designs.
Oh, a cute little cafe design!
You can also decorate the outside of a client's house, choosing a variety of roof colors, house colors, and items for their yard like gardens and swings. You can also revisit clients and do things like a house upgrade or even redecorate their home for them. Another cool thing is the Happy Home Network. You can upload any house or building you've designed and you can visit other people's homes and rate them. You can take pictures of your designs and post them to social media as well showing off your creative skills which is pretty neat too.
You can design an awesome yard for your clients.
There are also themed contests via the Happy Home network such as a candy house or a Halloween house. There are also Amiibo cards which look like Pokemon trading cards and they work exactly the same way that the Amiibo figures do without all that extra bulk. The Amiibo cards work exclusively with the New 3DS and New 3DS XL. If you want to use them with the old 3DS, 3DS XL, and 2DS you can use the NFC Reader/Writer accessory.
After you've designed a couple of homes, you'll get the whole introduction to the Amiibo cards and how to use them as well as having an Amiibo phone in the Nook's Homes office. You'll be prompted to use an Amiibo card and when you do you'll be sent to the client's home where you can design to your heart's content. Each Amiibo card has different characters that you can design for. Another cool feature with these is if you have friends who have Amiibo cards, you can share furniture simply by visiting a client by tapping the Amiibo card to your friend's screen and if you do it twice the character will remember all their furniture. It's a fun way to socialize and get more items for your designs.
A forest of books!
I do wish you had your own house to decorate as all the designing only happens in town or in a client's home. That's not a big deal though because you can design the buildings any way you want and I put a lot of my own personal touches in things like the school and a concert hall. There's also lots to choose from with the designs and items making for a unique and entertaining experience. This is all about creativity and just having a good time with it. I'm still playing the game, trying out all these different things as well as checking out other people's awesome designs. Animal Crossing: Happy Home Designer overall is a great game full of endless fun.
Oh, a cute little cafe design!
You can also decorate the outside of a client's house, choosing a variety of roof colors, house colors, and items for their yard like gardens and swings. You can also revisit clients and do things like a house upgrade or even redecorate their home for them. Another cool thing is the Happy Home Network. You can upload any house or building you've designed and you can visit other people's homes and rate them. You can take pictures of your designs and post them to social media as well showing off your creative skills which is pretty neat too.
You can design an awesome yard for your clients.
There are also themed contests via the Happy Home network such as a candy house or a Halloween house. There are also Amiibo cards which look like Pokemon trading cards and they work exactly the same way that the Amiibo figures do without all that extra bulk. The Amiibo cards work exclusively with the New 3DS and New 3DS XL. If you want to use them with the old 3DS, 3DS XL, and 2DS you can use the NFC Reader/Writer accessory.
After you've designed a couple of homes, you'll get the whole introduction to the Amiibo cards and how to use them as well as having an Amiibo phone in the Nook's Homes office. You'll be prompted to use an Amiibo card and when you do you'll be sent to the client's home where you can design to your heart's content. Each Amiibo card has different characters that you can design for. Another cool feature with these is if you have friends who have Amiibo cards, you can share furniture simply by visiting a client by tapping the Amiibo card to your friend's screen and if you do it twice the character will remember all their furniture. It's a fun way to socialize and get more items for your designs.
A forest of books!
I do wish you had your own house to decorate as all the designing only happens in town or in a client's home. That's not a big deal though because you can design the buildings any way you want and I put a lot of my own personal touches in things like the school and a concert hall. There's also lots to choose from with the designs and items making for a unique and entertaining experience. This is all about creativity and just having a good time with it. I'm still playing the game, trying out all these different things as well as checking out other people's awesome designs. Animal Crossing: Happy Home Designer overall is a great game full of endless fun.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Military Wives (2020) in Movies
Mar 9, 2020
Based on true events, Military Wives tells the story of how the very first military wives charity group came to be formed. That initial group was soon followed by more Military Wives groups, with some of the earlier ones even starring in 2011 BBC reality show 'The Choir', led by Gareth Malone. The Military Wives choirs have continued to grow since then and now comprise of 2000 women, located at over 70 military bases around the world, producing hit singles and albums as they go from strength to strength. The movie is directed by Peter Cattaneo, who directed The Full Monty, and the trailer really does have that traditional feel-good British comedy vibe which we seem to churn out year after year in an attempt to be "this years Full Monty". I wasn't sure if this was going to be for me, but after I found myself thoroughly enjoying Fisherman's Friends last year, I went in with an open mind.
At a UK army base, soldiers are preparing to leave for another tour in Afghanistan. As they say goodbye, we're given a chance to be introduced to the wives and families who will remain in the houses located on the base while the soldiers are away. Straight away, we get real insight into the lives of these women - trying to maintain some kind of normality, while constantly living in fear of the phone call or the knock at the door that might come at any time and turn their lives upside down. The women all vary in their experience of army life - from young, newly married wives to wives who are old hands at moving from base to base and country to country, coping without their husband for long periods of time.
Kate (Kristin Scott Thomas) is married to the regiment's colonel and assumes that she is therefore superior to all the other women on the base - jumping the queue in the small on-site grocery store and generally looking down her nose at the others. Lisa (Sharon Horgan) is much more laid back than Kate, happy to just go with the flow. She has been charged with pastoral care for the wives while their partners are away, and is more than happy just to organise the odd coffee morning or a few glasses of wine rather than anything more productive and engaging for the group. With her husband away, and having to deal with a past tragedy that we learn more about as the story unfolds, Kate decides to try and poke her nose in and organise Lisa and the other wives. Consequently, Kate and Lisa clash... regularly.
After unsuccessfully trying out knitting as a suggested activity, one of the wives suggests singing. Unfortunately though, none of the women appear to be very good at singing and the bickering between Kate and Lisa doesn't really help improve them either. While Kate reads up on vocal warm-ups and learning how to conduct a choir, Lisa digs out her old electronic keyboard and is happy just to have the group try and sing along to a few old pop songs.
Military Wives does manage to follow that traditional Full Monty template I described earlier - with a mismatched bunch of inexperienced singers who eventually manage to get it together enough to be able to perform their own song at the Royal Albert Hall. However, I did feel that the emotion and the drama surrounding these women, who could lose their husband/wife at any moment, really brought something different to the movie, something which I don't feel the trailer accurately portrays. The comedy and the feel-good factor that these trailers like to put across was a lot more subtle, and as a result I enjoyed it far more than I was expecting to.
At a UK army base, soldiers are preparing to leave for another tour in Afghanistan. As they say goodbye, we're given a chance to be introduced to the wives and families who will remain in the houses located on the base while the soldiers are away. Straight away, we get real insight into the lives of these women - trying to maintain some kind of normality, while constantly living in fear of the phone call or the knock at the door that might come at any time and turn their lives upside down. The women all vary in their experience of army life - from young, newly married wives to wives who are old hands at moving from base to base and country to country, coping without their husband for long periods of time.
Kate (Kristin Scott Thomas) is married to the regiment's colonel and assumes that she is therefore superior to all the other women on the base - jumping the queue in the small on-site grocery store and generally looking down her nose at the others. Lisa (Sharon Horgan) is much more laid back than Kate, happy to just go with the flow. She has been charged with pastoral care for the wives while their partners are away, and is more than happy just to organise the odd coffee morning or a few glasses of wine rather than anything more productive and engaging for the group. With her husband away, and having to deal with a past tragedy that we learn more about as the story unfolds, Kate decides to try and poke her nose in and organise Lisa and the other wives. Consequently, Kate and Lisa clash... regularly.
After unsuccessfully trying out knitting as a suggested activity, one of the wives suggests singing. Unfortunately though, none of the women appear to be very good at singing and the bickering between Kate and Lisa doesn't really help improve them either. While Kate reads up on vocal warm-ups and learning how to conduct a choir, Lisa digs out her old electronic keyboard and is happy just to have the group try and sing along to a few old pop songs.
Military Wives does manage to follow that traditional Full Monty template I described earlier - with a mismatched bunch of inexperienced singers who eventually manage to get it together enough to be able to perform their own song at the Royal Albert Hall. However, I did feel that the emotion and the drama surrounding these women, who could lose their husband/wife at any moment, really brought something different to the movie, something which I don't feel the trailer accurately portrays. The comedy and the feel-good factor that these trailers like to put across was a lot more subtle, and as a result I enjoyed it far more than I was expecting to.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Rock of Ages (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Rock of Ages is a film adaptation of the 2006 Chris D’Arienzo comedy rock/jukebox Broadway musical.
It is lightly satirical, a parody at times, that seems to mock our beloved 80’s rock era, while honoring its eccentricities, its tight leopard print pants, big hair, shoulder pads and over the top MTV music videos.
I like to judge a movie not only by how it makes me feel but also by how the audience reacts. This wasn’t an in-your-face-slapstick comedy, yet the whole theater roared with laughter throughout the film. To sum up the experience of Rock of Ages, it’s like watching a string of 80’s music videos mashed into a weak plot, with well-timed laughing points. Some of us laughed because we remember being the ones with those crazy hair-dos and out-of-control fashion sense and some were just laughing because this movie was so well done. It walked the fine line between super over-the-top corny and truly honoring our rock heritage. This movie does play to a specific demographic of ages 30 to 50, those who, with great nostalgia, remember how the 80’s rock and fashion revolution shaped their lives.
As the song goes, just a small town girl, Sherrie Christian played by Julianne Hough, travels to the big city in search of her dreams of becoming a singer, where she meets her city boy, Drew Boley played by Diego Boneta. Together they embark on a musical romance while working at a rock club named The Bourbon Room. Alec Baldwin plays an old rocker named Dennis Dupree struggling to keep his legend of a night club/concert hall open. Russell Brand, as always, steps in as the comic relief while playing the club owner;s assistant named Lonny. Together they work to keep The Bourbon Room afloat while dealing with a vengeful Patricia Whitmore, played by Catherine Zeta-Jones, who wishes nothing more then to see The Bourbon Room burned to the ground.
There are points in this movie when the acting, the singing and yes, even the plot, grabs you and holds your attention, much like watching the train wreck we call 80’s fashion. Its painful but you can’t look away! There were other times in this movie when the singing felt like it would go on forever. I noticed that the low points would be immediately succeeded by a very entertaining turn of events, so my attention was not lost for long. There came a point, at about the third Glee style 80’s rock mash-up, where I felt like slapping the director, Adam Shankman. Even too much of a good thing can get boring and I felt Shankman reached that point several times in the film. Luckily, he redeemed himself by bringing in Tom Cruise to play the Satan worshiping, alcoholic, megalomaniacal rock god Stacee Jaxx who went above and beyond in perfecting his role.
This movie’s soundtrack features songs and power ballads from Guns N’ Roses, Def Leppard, Bon Jovi, Journey, Twisted Sister, Pat Benetar, Scorpions, Whitesnake, Poison, REO Speedwagon, Foreigner among other epic bands giving Rock of Ages it’s 80’s jukebox musical foundation.
Mary J. Blige, Cruise, Ale Baldwin, Boneta, Hough and the whole cast of mega stars went above and beyond in selling their characters and performing stunning and accurate vocals that really pulled this movie together. The corny 80’s fashion and authentic dance numbers were the real icing on the cake. If you can sit through two hours of 80’s rock and pop nostalgia and know you will enjoy it, then definitely check this movie out.
It is lightly satirical, a parody at times, that seems to mock our beloved 80’s rock era, while honoring its eccentricities, its tight leopard print pants, big hair, shoulder pads and over the top MTV music videos.
I like to judge a movie not only by how it makes me feel but also by how the audience reacts. This wasn’t an in-your-face-slapstick comedy, yet the whole theater roared with laughter throughout the film. To sum up the experience of Rock of Ages, it’s like watching a string of 80’s music videos mashed into a weak plot, with well-timed laughing points. Some of us laughed because we remember being the ones with those crazy hair-dos and out-of-control fashion sense and some were just laughing because this movie was so well done. It walked the fine line between super over-the-top corny and truly honoring our rock heritage. This movie does play to a specific demographic of ages 30 to 50, those who, with great nostalgia, remember how the 80’s rock and fashion revolution shaped their lives.
As the song goes, just a small town girl, Sherrie Christian played by Julianne Hough, travels to the big city in search of her dreams of becoming a singer, where she meets her city boy, Drew Boley played by Diego Boneta. Together they embark on a musical romance while working at a rock club named The Bourbon Room. Alec Baldwin plays an old rocker named Dennis Dupree struggling to keep his legend of a night club/concert hall open. Russell Brand, as always, steps in as the comic relief while playing the club owner;s assistant named Lonny. Together they work to keep The Bourbon Room afloat while dealing with a vengeful Patricia Whitmore, played by Catherine Zeta-Jones, who wishes nothing more then to see The Bourbon Room burned to the ground.
There are points in this movie when the acting, the singing and yes, even the plot, grabs you and holds your attention, much like watching the train wreck we call 80’s fashion. Its painful but you can’t look away! There were other times in this movie when the singing felt like it would go on forever. I noticed that the low points would be immediately succeeded by a very entertaining turn of events, so my attention was not lost for long. There came a point, at about the third Glee style 80’s rock mash-up, where I felt like slapping the director, Adam Shankman. Even too much of a good thing can get boring and I felt Shankman reached that point several times in the film. Luckily, he redeemed himself by bringing in Tom Cruise to play the Satan worshiping, alcoholic, megalomaniacal rock god Stacee Jaxx who went above and beyond in perfecting his role.
This movie’s soundtrack features songs and power ballads from Guns N’ Roses, Def Leppard, Bon Jovi, Journey, Twisted Sister, Pat Benetar, Scorpions, Whitesnake, Poison, REO Speedwagon, Foreigner among other epic bands giving Rock of Ages it’s 80’s jukebox musical foundation.
Mary J. Blige, Cruise, Ale Baldwin, Boneta, Hough and the whole cast of mega stars went above and beyond in selling their characters and performing stunning and accurate vocals that really pulled this movie together. The corny 80’s fashion and authentic dance numbers were the real icing on the cake. If you can sit through two hours of 80’s rock and pop nostalgia and know you will enjoy it, then definitely check this movie out.
HappyFresh
Shopping and Lifestyle
App
HappyFresh is the Number 1 Online Store for Grocery Deliveries in the Southeast Asian Area! Order...
A gothic boarding school tale that falls flat
Rose Christie is nervous but excited when she's hired on as the new Head of Classics at Caldonbrae Hall, a boarding school for girls in Scotland. A renowned establishment for 150 years, Caldonbrae is a far step above Rose's current teaching gig and will offer a chance to help her mother, who is struggling with MS. Rose is the first external hire in over a decade, making her an immediate outsider, along with her youthful age. She quickly feels over her head at Caldonbrae, where the teachers and students alike seem to lord over her. But soon Rose realizes that everyone seems to be on to a secret, except her. Why did the last Classics teacher, Jane, leave so suddenly? As Rose learns more about Caldonbrae, she quickly realizes it is nothing like she expected.
"One way or another someone was going to get eaten alive here, Rose realized. She'd be damned if it was her."
I'm a sucker for boarding school stories, but this one did not live up to the promised hype for me. It grew on me a small bit by the end, but when I say this is a slow burning tale, I mean SLOW. I was incredibly tempted to "DNF" this book, but stuck with it, skimming or fast reading portions of it. The big twist, so to speak, doesn't come until halfway through (55% in fact). At that point, we have sat through lots of classics lessons and pontificating about Caldonbrae and gotten to know a lot of girls at the school.
Although, "getting to know" is probably generous, as there's a lack of character development throughout most of MADAM. There are a variety of girls at Caldonbrae thrust upon us, but I found it nearly impossible to keep many of them straight. (It doesn't help that the UK version of schooling is hard to follow, with thirds, fourths, and more tossed about, but rarely ages. Woe to us idiotic Americans!)
We know little about Rose, are offered a scarce backstory, and pieces about her father that are supposed to form her personality seem tossed in haphazardly. Instead she drove me crazy with her dithering and inability to make decisions. Most of the time I just wanted to shake her. She was in an impossible situation, perhaps, but she seemed unable to grasp anything for much of the book, or realize the seriousness of her circumstances.
I think MADAM was going for ominous and creepy--everything building up to its explosive ending (which is hinted at in the beginning pages), but it falls short. Instead, it seems more annoying and perplexing. When the twist is revealed, it's an interesting one, yes, but I couldn't help but question it, wonder how such a thing could be sustainable. MADAM just couldn't keep up the eerie tone it was trying for.
There's definite storytelling potential here, and I did find myself somewhat attached to a few of the girls by the end, when things pick up slightly. MADAM tries to align the classics (think tales of Medea and Antigone and such) with its boarding school girls, but often the tacked on tales of these mythical and classical women feel like unnecessary, added on pieces. It reaches too high, trying for a feminist angle, but falls short, with a fast ending that cannot possibly live up to all those classical, high-reaching aims.
"...she wondered how an establishment that promised to educate 'girls of the world' could somehow make its women feel so small."
Overall, there's a lot going on in MADAM, but it just didn't gel for me. I couldn't root for Rose for most of the novel, and the classic pieces inserted into the plot didn't work. There were sparks I enjoyed, but overall, this wasn't a favorite. 2.5 stars.
"One way or another someone was going to get eaten alive here, Rose realized. She'd be damned if it was her."
I'm a sucker for boarding school stories, but this one did not live up to the promised hype for me. It grew on me a small bit by the end, but when I say this is a slow burning tale, I mean SLOW. I was incredibly tempted to "DNF" this book, but stuck with it, skimming or fast reading portions of it. The big twist, so to speak, doesn't come until halfway through (55% in fact). At that point, we have sat through lots of classics lessons and pontificating about Caldonbrae and gotten to know a lot of girls at the school.
Although, "getting to know" is probably generous, as there's a lack of character development throughout most of MADAM. There are a variety of girls at Caldonbrae thrust upon us, but I found it nearly impossible to keep many of them straight. (It doesn't help that the UK version of schooling is hard to follow, with thirds, fourths, and more tossed about, but rarely ages. Woe to us idiotic Americans!)
We know little about Rose, are offered a scarce backstory, and pieces about her father that are supposed to form her personality seem tossed in haphazardly. Instead she drove me crazy with her dithering and inability to make decisions. Most of the time I just wanted to shake her. She was in an impossible situation, perhaps, but she seemed unable to grasp anything for much of the book, or realize the seriousness of her circumstances.
I think MADAM was going for ominous and creepy--everything building up to its explosive ending (which is hinted at in the beginning pages), but it falls short. Instead, it seems more annoying and perplexing. When the twist is revealed, it's an interesting one, yes, but I couldn't help but question it, wonder how such a thing could be sustainable. MADAM just couldn't keep up the eerie tone it was trying for.
There's definite storytelling potential here, and I did find myself somewhat attached to a few of the girls by the end, when things pick up slightly. MADAM tries to align the classics (think tales of Medea and Antigone and such) with its boarding school girls, but often the tacked on tales of these mythical and classical women feel like unnecessary, added on pieces. It reaches too high, trying for a feminist angle, but falls short, with a fast ending that cannot possibly live up to all those classical, high-reaching aims.
"...she wondered how an establishment that promised to educate 'girls of the world' could somehow make its women feel so small."
Overall, there's a lot going on in MADAM, but it just didn't gel for me. I couldn't root for Rose for most of the novel, and the classic pieces inserted into the plot didn't work. There were sparks I enjoyed, but overall, this wasn't a favorite. 2.5 stars.