Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Nice Guys (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
This is how it’s supposed to be done. Though it’s not the most original flick to grace the silver screen, Shane Black’s follow-up to his instant cult classic Kiss Kiss Bang Bang has everything you could want in an action/comedy romp. A solid dynamic between its two charming yet flawed leads, a strong plot that has enough twists and turns to keep you thrilled but not lost, and plenty of quotably razor-sharp dialogue. Imagine the Lethal Weapon type meets a less obtuse Inherent Vice. Besides the return of Jason Bourne in July, it will undoubtedly be the most entertaining thing you’ll see in another summer season of mediocrity. Is anybody really that interested in a ninth X-Men film?
Russell Crowe is the muscle-for-hire opposite Ryan Gosling as the P.I. referred to by his daughter as “the worst detective in the world”. They are thrust together by circumstance and, after a couple of amusing altercations, come to find out they are both involved in a larger case of conspiracy and cover-up as they race to find the girl at the center of it all. Crowe and Gosling make a winning team with chemistry in spades and, though the dialogue they’re given may not feel as fresh as what Val Kilmer and Robert Downey Jr. had to work with in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang; they still pull it off marvelously. Between Gosling’s unfortunate directorial debut, Lost River, and Crowe’s string of misfires since 2010’s Robin Hood, these were the type of roles their fading stars were in dire need of and they both certainly look at home in a 70’s-era Hollywood detective story. For Gosling especially, this is probably the most likable he’s ever been. Well done also to the casting department for finding Angourie Rice. As Gosling’s daughter, she’s does an admirably fine job of playing a girl who can stand up to an incredibly hostile world and give some back. Here’s hoping she’s got a decent agent that will keep her in rich, multi-dimensional characters.
Shane Black, already having proved that he knows his way around a screenplay or two, is firmly coming into his own as a director (though the Christmas thing has got to stop), and I’ll be eagerly anticipating his next foray behind the camera. It’s also another excellent job from Warner’s marketing team, with a trailer that gave just enough of the one-liners and snippets of action without spoiling too many of the fun and twisty plot points. The action beats and moments of violence themselves, due to a tightly-structured script, feel earned and well-placed. Not once did I get that overwhelming feeling of action fatigue I’ve been experiencing so much in film lately (I’m looking at you, Marvel). The Nice Guys is all-around great filmmaking and one I can’t wait to revisit. I wouldn’t doubt it’ll be a day-one buy for me when it hits the home video market.
Russell Crowe is the muscle-for-hire opposite Ryan Gosling as the P.I. referred to by his daughter as “the worst detective in the world”. They are thrust together by circumstance and, after a couple of amusing altercations, come to find out they are both involved in a larger case of conspiracy and cover-up as they race to find the girl at the center of it all. Crowe and Gosling make a winning team with chemistry in spades and, though the dialogue they’re given may not feel as fresh as what Val Kilmer and Robert Downey Jr. had to work with in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang; they still pull it off marvelously. Between Gosling’s unfortunate directorial debut, Lost River, and Crowe’s string of misfires since 2010’s Robin Hood, these were the type of roles their fading stars were in dire need of and they both certainly look at home in a 70’s-era Hollywood detective story. For Gosling especially, this is probably the most likable he’s ever been. Well done also to the casting department for finding Angourie Rice. As Gosling’s daughter, she’s does an admirably fine job of playing a girl who can stand up to an incredibly hostile world and give some back. Here’s hoping she’s got a decent agent that will keep her in rich, multi-dimensional characters.
Shane Black, already having proved that he knows his way around a screenplay or two, is firmly coming into his own as a director (though the Christmas thing has got to stop), and I’ll be eagerly anticipating his next foray behind the camera. It’s also another excellent job from Warner’s marketing team, with a trailer that gave just enough of the one-liners and snippets of action without spoiling too many of the fun and twisty plot points. The action beats and moments of violence themselves, due to a tightly-structured script, feel earned and well-placed. Not once did I get that overwhelming feeling of action fatigue I’ve been experiencing so much in film lately (I’m looking at you, Marvel). The Nice Guys is all-around great filmmaking and one I can’t wait to revisit. I wouldn’t doubt it’ll be a day-one buy for me when it hits the home video market.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Final Fantasy VII Remake in Video Games
Apr 28, 2020
Like many of you, Final Fantasy VII is my favourite game, ever. It was the first FF title I played all the way back in 1997, and have since played it through a silly amount of times in the years since.
The prospect of a remake was cautiously exciting to me, but any doubts I may have had were completely blown away withkn the first hour or two of play.
Final Fantasy VII Remake looks absolutely stunning. It plays on nostalgia in all the right ways as it brings characters and locations from the original straight into the modern times, and a few texture issues aside, it's one of the best looking games available.
The combat mechanics are superb as well. Fairly similar to FFXV in style, with some elements taken from XIII, make for an easily addictive play style, and one that has buckets of replayability.
There has been a lot of concerns raised about the decision to release the remakes in parts - this game is based on the first 5-6 hours of the original. Remake however, is a fully fledged gaming experience in its own right. After finishing the main story, my play time had clocked in at a respectable 42 hours, and this isn't taking into consideration endgame content, and new game plus mode. It's hefty for sure.
Nobuo Uematsu's beloved score from the original has had and incredibly crafted upgrade as well. The music score is just phenomenal, and elevates the whole thing to bigger and better heights.
This isn't to say that Remake is flawless, because it's not. The main issue that people have taken seems to be with the story (no spoilers, don't worry). A lot of the new stuff added to pad out the game is genuinely great, however, there are some big changes made to the original, which is bound to piss off die hard fans. Personally, I'm ok with it at the moment, but I do have some concerns about how it will effect future installments.
Some of the exploration is very linear, but honestly, it's something that didn't impact my enjoyment too much, especially with the likely hood of part 2 being more open.
All things considered, Remake is above and beyond what I thought we would get. It's a fantastic reimagining of a stone cold classic, and part 2 can't come soon enough. My heart is full.
The prospect of a remake was cautiously exciting to me, but any doubts I may have had were completely blown away withkn the first hour or two of play.
Final Fantasy VII Remake looks absolutely stunning. It plays on nostalgia in all the right ways as it brings characters and locations from the original straight into the modern times, and a few texture issues aside, it's one of the best looking games available.
The combat mechanics are superb as well. Fairly similar to FFXV in style, with some elements taken from XIII, make for an easily addictive play style, and one that has buckets of replayability.
There has been a lot of concerns raised about the decision to release the remakes in parts - this game is based on the first 5-6 hours of the original. Remake however, is a fully fledged gaming experience in its own right. After finishing the main story, my play time had clocked in at a respectable 42 hours, and this isn't taking into consideration endgame content, and new game plus mode. It's hefty for sure.
Nobuo Uematsu's beloved score from the original has had and incredibly crafted upgrade as well. The music score is just phenomenal, and elevates the whole thing to bigger and better heights.
This isn't to say that Remake is flawless, because it's not. The main issue that people have taken seems to be with the story (no spoilers, don't worry). A lot of the new stuff added to pad out the game is genuinely great, however, there are some big changes made to the original, which is bound to piss off die hard fans. Personally, I'm ok with it at the moment, but I do have some concerns about how it will effect future installments.
Some of the exploration is very linear, but honestly, it's something that didn't impact my enjoyment too much, especially with the likely hood of part 2 being more open.
All things considered, Remake is above and beyond what I thought we would get. It's a fantastic reimagining of a stone cold classic, and part 2 can't come soon enough. My heart is full.
Lilyn G - Sci-Fi & Scary (91 KP) rated Sarah in Books
Feb 7, 2018
Surprisingly Creepy YA Horror
Teri Polen's Sarah is a pleasingly creepy young adult horror. Fans of Supernatural will be delighted with this book. If you've ever watched any of those typical high-school rom-coms/dramas where guys make a bet to trick a girl, and boo'd at the screen, you'll enjoy Sarah. It's a twisted take on a classic plot that will make horror fans cheer. This is the version they were waiting on.
Cain and his best friend Finn are good kids that both have their heads screwed on straight. Cain took on a lot of responsibility after his dad's death, and that definitely made him grow up a bit. Finn, too, has had his share of problems. They could be the male version of Mary-Sues if Polen hadn't written in some believable flaws. But they're not perfect, and that makes all the difference. Quick tempers, wicked tongues, and Finn's desire to needle every one around him means that at any given time, someone's probably thinking about punching him. Or Cain. Or both. The rest of the characters are appropriately likable or detestable. Except for Lindsay. She's a bit of a non-entity.
I liked that the author made a few salient points in Sarah about the mindset towards sexual assault. There was more than one conversation or interaction when I just sat back in my chair and sighed after reading it. It was utterly realistic. Teenagers are, as a rule of thumb, very selfish individuals, and it seems like jocks in particular excel in this. They think they can get away with anything, and/or that the world revolves around them. It's behavior that's either never corrected, or not corrected until it's too late.
Hasn't recent events proven that if a boy can score several touchdowns per game, who cares how many girls he assaults, right? We all know they were asking for it anyways. Or if adult males make enough money, they can do anything they want to girls, because they believe they are more important than the girls are. And these types of beliefs are constantly getting reinforced in today's society.
It's disturbing and disgusting and Teri Polen shows the reader a path to douche-hood that hundreds of young men start down every day.
I did, however, have one huge problem with Sarah. Sarah, herself. Well, her dialogue to be specific. For the most part, I liked her. I liked seeing the change. I puzzled over what, exactly, was going on with her. Yes, I thought she was vengeance-crazed ghost thing, but she was a fun vengeance-crazed ghost thing. Until she opened her mouth. Pretty much every time she started talking, it was like someone just hit the 'off' button on my interest in the story.
I understand that her background means that we could expect a certain amount of dialogue that seemed unusual for her age range. I was fully willing to accept that. But Sarah presented with lines that went between disturbingly formal and super-villain monolog. Luckily, her talkative scenes appear in bursts, so for most of the story it's really not an issue.
Sarah is a book that takes a bit to get going, but overall it's an easy, enjoyable creepy read. I was definitely hooked fairly early on, and read the book in two bursts over two days. It comes in at just under 200 pages, so it's not something that demands a lot of your time. If you like horror, but don't like it too gory or scary, this will probably be a great choice. Teri Polen did a pretty solid job.
Disclaimer: I received a copy of this book from the author for review consideration.
Cain and his best friend Finn are good kids that both have their heads screwed on straight. Cain took on a lot of responsibility after his dad's death, and that definitely made him grow up a bit. Finn, too, has had his share of problems. They could be the male version of Mary-Sues if Polen hadn't written in some believable flaws. But they're not perfect, and that makes all the difference. Quick tempers, wicked tongues, and Finn's desire to needle every one around him means that at any given time, someone's probably thinking about punching him. Or Cain. Or both. The rest of the characters are appropriately likable or detestable. Except for Lindsay. She's a bit of a non-entity.
I liked that the author made a few salient points in Sarah about the mindset towards sexual assault. There was more than one conversation or interaction when I just sat back in my chair and sighed after reading it. It was utterly realistic. Teenagers are, as a rule of thumb, very selfish individuals, and it seems like jocks in particular excel in this. They think they can get away with anything, and/or that the world revolves around them. It's behavior that's either never corrected, or not corrected until it's too late.
Hasn't recent events proven that if a boy can score several touchdowns per game, who cares how many girls he assaults, right? We all know they were asking for it anyways. Or if adult males make enough money, they can do anything they want to girls, because they believe they are more important than the girls are. And these types of beliefs are constantly getting reinforced in today's society.
It's disturbing and disgusting and Teri Polen shows the reader a path to douche-hood that hundreds of young men start down every day.
I did, however, have one huge problem with Sarah. Sarah, herself. Well, her dialogue to be specific. For the most part, I liked her. I liked seeing the change. I puzzled over what, exactly, was going on with her. Yes, I thought she was vengeance-crazed ghost thing, but she was a fun vengeance-crazed ghost thing. Until she opened her mouth. Pretty much every time she started talking, it was like someone just hit the 'off' button on my interest in the story.
I understand that her background means that we could expect a certain amount of dialogue that seemed unusual for her age range. I was fully willing to accept that. But Sarah presented with lines that went between disturbingly formal and super-villain monolog. Luckily, her talkative scenes appear in bursts, so for most of the story it's really not an issue.
Sarah is a book that takes a bit to get going, but overall it's an easy, enjoyable creepy read. I was definitely hooked fairly early on, and read the book in two bursts over two days. It comes in at just under 200 pages, so it's not something that demands a lot of your time. If you like horror, but don't like it too gory or scary, this will probably be a great choice. Teri Polen did a pretty solid job.
Disclaimer: I received a copy of this book from the author for review consideration.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ocean’s 8 (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Can 8 women do the work of 11, 12 or even 13 men?
The female empowerment #SheToo implications of the title are clearly writ large for this movie! The answer of course…. is a major spoiler, so we won’t go there.
Debbie Ocean (Sandra Bullock, “Gravity“), the previously unreferenced sister of arch-scoundrel Danny Ocean (George Clooney) from the reboot trilogy, is released from prison after a 5 year stretch. This has given her plenty of time to plan her next job – a jewellry heist from the New York Met – in intricate detail. She recruits biker-chick Lou (Cate Blanchett , “Carol“) as her partner and they then proceed to recruit a team of expert crimimals: well… some are not criminals, but soon will be! Will they succeed, or will Debbie have an even longer time to plan her next heist?
Stiff as planks…. Sandra Bullock and Cate Blanchett.
The movie unfortunately is rather like watching paint dry. It’s very glossy and expensive paint, I grant you, but compared to certainly Ocean’s 11 and even Ocean’s 13 it’s not in the premier league. There’s virtually nothing about the plot that leaves you surprised. Even the twists are merely “oh”s rather than “OH!’s”.
Stylistically the film attempts to model the Soderbergh split-screen visuals of his films, doing it quite well, and is accompanied by a similar jazz-style soundtrack which works effectively. Arguably, the well-chosen music by Daniel Pemberton (“King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) is the best thing in the film.
When they said they were stealing from the Met…. perhaps I misunderstood?
Otherwise though, that’s where most of the similarities end, with there being limited character development to make you really care all that much whether the team win or lose. The script, by director Gary Ross (“The Hunger Games”) and Olivia Milch had a few clever lines that made me smile: but it’s not laugh-out-loud territory. So the story had better be good. Unfortunately, here Gary Ross’s story has so many implausible coincidences and incredulous leaps of intuition – “yeah, I’m from the hood innit but I have a grasp of magnetic resonance couplings learnt the hard way, from the street up!” – that belief is less suspended and more hung, drawn and quartered. This is not saying that the Ocean’s trilogy was without a few similar issues – reaching its nadir with Julia Roberts pretending to be Julia Roberts in “Ocean’s 12” – but this film is more consistently bonkers.
Hang on… I only count seven here?
I have to admit that the build up to the heist through the first half of the film left me sufficiently entertained, but that momentum suddenly fizzles out and the final reel becomes quite tedious. I also expected something to happen at the end, cameo-wise, that never did!
Acting wise, the best turn comes from Anne Hathaway (“Colossal“, “Les Miserables”) as a vainglorious actress but Helena Bonham Carter (“Suffragette“, “Harry Potter”) is also good value as the quirky fashion expert, coming across like some sort of ditzy Fatima Blush.
Good value – Anne Hathaway and Helena Bonham Carter.
I also liked Rihanna’s ‘Nine Ball’ character. Less successful for me was Bullock, who I felt came across as very wooden, and Blanchett, slightly less so. There are also some ‘B-list’ celebrities attending the Met-gala that are fun to watch out for, as well as two members of the earlier films’ cast.
After Diamonds but with nowhere to store an Umbrella: Rihanna knocks them dead on the red carpet.
So, it’s a disappointing effort from Gary Ross. All glitz and glamour but with little substance.
Debbie Ocean (Sandra Bullock, “Gravity“), the previously unreferenced sister of arch-scoundrel Danny Ocean (George Clooney) from the reboot trilogy, is released from prison after a 5 year stretch. This has given her plenty of time to plan her next job – a jewellry heist from the New York Met – in intricate detail. She recruits biker-chick Lou (Cate Blanchett , “Carol“) as her partner and they then proceed to recruit a team of expert crimimals: well… some are not criminals, but soon will be! Will they succeed, or will Debbie have an even longer time to plan her next heist?
Stiff as planks…. Sandra Bullock and Cate Blanchett.
The movie unfortunately is rather like watching paint dry. It’s very glossy and expensive paint, I grant you, but compared to certainly Ocean’s 11 and even Ocean’s 13 it’s not in the premier league. There’s virtually nothing about the plot that leaves you surprised. Even the twists are merely “oh”s rather than “OH!’s”.
Stylistically the film attempts to model the Soderbergh split-screen visuals of his films, doing it quite well, and is accompanied by a similar jazz-style soundtrack which works effectively. Arguably, the well-chosen music by Daniel Pemberton (“King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) is the best thing in the film.
When they said they were stealing from the Met…. perhaps I misunderstood?
Otherwise though, that’s where most of the similarities end, with there being limited character development to make you really care all that much whether the team win or lose. The script, by director Gary Ross (“The Hunger Games”) and Olivia Milch had a few clever lines that made me smile: but it’s not laugh-out-loud territory. So the story had better be good. Unfortunately, here Gary Ross’s story has so many implausible coincidences and incredulous leaps of intuition – “yeah, I’m from the hood innit but I have a grasp of magnetic resonance couplings learnt the hard way, from the street up!” – that belief is less suspended and more hung, drawn and quartered. This is not saying that the Ocean’s trilogy was without a few similar issues – reaching its nadir with Julia Roberts pretending to be Julia Roberts in “Ocean’s 12” – but this film is more consistently bonkers.
Hang on… I only count seven here?
I have to admit that the build up to the heist through the first half of the film left me sufficiently entertained, but that momentum suddenly fizzles out and the final reel becomes quite tedious. I also expected something to happen at the end, cameo-wise, that never did!
Acting wise, the best turn comes from Anne Hathaway (“Colossal“, “Les Miserables”) as a vainglorious actress but Helena Bonham Carter (“Suffragette“, “Harry Potter”) is also good value as the quirky fashion expert, coming across like some sort of ditzy Fatima Blush.
Good value – Anne Hathaway and Helena Bonham Carter.
I also liked Rihanna’s ‘Nine Ball’ character. Less successful for me was Bullock, who I felt came across as very wooden, and Blanchett, slightly less so. There are also some ‘B-list’ celebrities attending the Met-gala that are fun to watch out for, as well as two members of the earlier films’ cast.
After Diamonds but with nowhere to store an Umbrella: Rihanna knocks them dead on the red carpet.
So, it’s a disappointing effort from Gary Ross. All glitz and glamour but with little substance.
Goddess in the Stacks (553 KP) rated Bright Smoke, Cold Fire in Books
Apr 15, 2018
Fantastic Shakespeare retelling (3 more)
Excellent characters
Interesting worldbuilding
Romeo & Juliet + Zombies!
I read the description of this book somewhere and immediately requested it from the library - a re-imagining of Romeo and Juliet in a dying world with necromancers? SIGN ME UP. And it did not disappoint!
Hodge has written a few other books - Cruel Beauty, a retelling of Beauty and the Beast, and Crimson Bound, a retelling of Little Red Riding Hood. (She also has a novella that spins Cinderella.) You all know how much I like my redone Fairy Tales! Bright Smoke, Cold Fire, is a little different in that it's a Shakespeare play, instead of a fairy tale. I recently read and reviewed Miranda and Caliban, another Shakespeare reskin, but this, I think, is much better.
The Capulets have become the Catresou, and the Montagues the Mahyanai in this dark fantasy. The Ruining has killed every human outside the city of Viyara/Verona - only stopped by the mystical walls put up by a long-dead priestess and maintained by a mysterious cult of nuns.
My favorite characters in this book - and arguably the main characters - are Runajo (Rosaline) and Paris, rather than Romeo and the Juliet. (It's a title, not a name - her name was stripped from her as an infant when the magic was worked to make her "the Juliet.") The original play doesn't give either of them much time, and they are both fascinating characters in this novel - Runajo a little more than Paris, in my opinion. Runajo is a member of the Sisters of Thorns - the cult of nuns keeping the walls of Viyara up against The Ruining. When she accidentally brings the Juliet back from death, she becomes - or at least thinks she becomes - that which she and the city fear the most. A necromancer. Runajo and the Juliet both believe they will (and should) die for this crime, but still use the time they have left to try and save the city from the necromancers operating within.
Meanwhile, Paris and Romeo have found themselves bound by the magic that should have bound Romeo and Juliet, had it not gone terribly wrong. They can feel each other's emotions, see each other's memories, hear each other's thoughts. This is understandably awkward for Paris as he feels Romeo's grief for the Juliet's supposed death, and occasionally catches flashes of more intimate moments between the two. They decide to take on the city's necromancers in memory of the Juliet.
I liked how, similar to the play, Romeo and Juliet both operate for the entirety of the book under the assumption that the other one is dead. They both take risks and agree to things they would not have done if they didn't each welcome death in their own way.
I also very much enjoyed a side, non-binary character who I really want to see more of!
The book ended on an upsetting cliffhanger, which is really my only problem with it. The sequel is due out this summer (Endless Water, Starless Sky) and I will definitely be picking it up.
Great book, but you may want to wait a few months so you can immediately follow it with the sequel!
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com
Hodge has written a few other books - Cruel Beauty, a retelling of Beauty and the Beast, and Crimson Bound, a retelling of Little Red Riding Hood. (She also has a novella that spins Cinderella.) You all know how much I like my redone Fairy Tales! Bright Smoke, Cold Fire, is a little different in that it's a Shakespeare play, instead of a fairy tale. I recently read and reviewed Miranda and Caliban, another Shakespeare reskin, but this, I think, is much better.
The Capulets have become the Catresou, and the Montagues the Mahyanai in this dark fantasy. The Ruining has killed every human outside the city of Viyara/Verona - only stopped by the mystical walls put up by a long-dead priestess and maintained by a mysterious cult of nuns.
My favorite characters in this book - and arguably the main characters - are Runajo (Rosaline) and Paris, rather than Romeo and the Juliet. (It's a title, not a name - her name was stripped from her as an infant when the magic was worked to make her "the Juliet.") The original play doesn't give either of them much time, and they are both fascinating characters in this novel - Runajo a little more than Paris, in my opinion. Runajo is a member of the Sisters of Thorns - the cult of nuns keeping the walls of Viyara up against The Ruining. When she accidentally brings the Juliet back from death, she becomes - or at least thinks she becomes - that which she and the city fear the most. A necromancer. Runajo and the Juliet both believe they will (and should) die for this crime, but still use the time they have left to try and save the city from the necromancers operating within.
Meanwhile, Paris and Romeo have found themselves bound by the magic that should have bound Romeo and Juliet, had it not gone terribly wrong. They can feel each other's emotions, see each other's memories, hear each other's thoughts. This is understandably awkward for Paris as he feels Romeo's grief for the Juliet's supposed death, and occasionally catches flashes of more intimate moments between the two. They decide to take on the city's necromancers in memory of the Juliet.
I liked how, similar to the play, Romeo and Juliet both operate for the entirety of the book under the assumption that the other one is dead. They both take risks and agree to things they would not have done if they didn't each welcome death in their own way.
I also very much enjoyed a side, non-binary character who I really want to see more of!
The book ended on an upsetting cliffhanger, which is really my only problem with it. The sequel is due out this summer (Endless Water, Starless Sky) and I will definitely be picking it up.
Great book, but you may want to wait a few months so you can immediately follow it with the sequel!
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Welcome To... in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
Are there still city planners? They go by a different name nowadays right? Civil engineers? Am I thinking of the wrong thing? In any case, you get to be one of those people in Welcome To…, which has one of the strangest titles for a game, especially when you look at that box cover. Are you gonna go all in on pools? Parks? Bisses (ooh I’m not too sure about this one)? Plan out your best three-street neighborhood in this light and fun roll cardflip-and-write game.
Here is a quick overview of game play without going through the whole rule book. Divide the shuffled card deck into three equal piles. Flip over the top card of each pile. You now have setup the game and revealed the first three combinations of cards you can use on your turn (see play pic at end of this post). Do you like that 3 and Pool combo? Cool. Write a 3 on the roof of a house on any of the streets on your sheet and mark a pool there too. FLIP all the cards again. Wanna take that 9 and Park? Okay. Mark a 9 on a house, Graffitimaster, and beautify your hood with an upgraded park. FLIP. Repeat. There are other cards that will be revealed as the game goes on, but I am simplifying two turns for you.
That’s the game. Everyone takes turns at the same time using the three card combinations presented to try to get the most points for having the best barrio. There are bonus goal cards that can be achieved too, but they are completely optional (akin to building the Wonders in 7 Wonders). Have I won this game yet in all my plays? Yes, once. But it’s not really about winning or losing. You are essentially playing against yourself and just trying to get the best score you can. It’s just that the other players are doing the same thing and you have to compare scores at the end.
Okay, the good and bad. Bad first – the pencils. The game comes with several golf pencils that just don’t cut it on the papers provided. Grab a good pen or marker to see your marks. The other components in the game are great. The game play is quick, as long as you don’t suffer from AP and have to carefully plan out every possibility for every possible combination presented. That can really slow the game down. Luckily, I don’t suffer from that and most of the time I probably need to do a more thorough job thinking through my turns, but that’s my burden to bear.
Aside from those items, the game is really good. I don’t own a large number of roll-and-writes somehow (and I WAS alive during 2018), so this was a great pickup for me as a variation in the genre. Okay fine, I also Kickstarted the expansion with the different themed pages, so I’m also looking forward to that fulfillment. All in all the game is very solid, and different enough to all my other games that I will be keeping it and trying to outscore my last play every time. We at Purple Phoenix Games give this a well-planned 19 / 24.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/02/04/welcome-to-review/
Here is a quick overview of game play without going through the whole rule book. Divide the shuffled card deck into three equal piles. Flip over the top card of each pile. You now have setup the game and revealed the first three combinations of cards you can use on your turn (see play pic at end of this post). Do you like that 3 and Pool combo? Cool. Write a 3 on the roof of a house on any of the streets on your sheet and mark a pool there too. FLIP all the cards again. Wanna take that 9 and Park? Okay. Mark a 9 on a house, Graffitimaster, and beautify your hood with an upgraded park. FLIP. Repeat. There are other cards that will be revealed as the game goes on, but I am simplifying two turns for you.
That’s the game. Everyone takes turns at the same time using the three card combinations presented to try to get the most points for having the best barrio. There are bonus goal cards that can be achieved too, but they are completely optional (akin to building the Wonders in 7 Wonders). Have I won this game yet in all my plays? Yes, once. But it’s not really about winning or losing. You are essentially playing against yourself and just trying to get the best score you can. It’s just that the other players are doing the same thing and you have to compare scores at the end.
Okay, the good and bad. Bad first – the pencils. The game comes with several golf pencils that just don’t cut it on the papers provided. Grab a good pen or marker to see your marks. The other components in the game are great. The game play is quick, as long as you don’t suffer from AP and have to carefully plan out every possibility for every possible combination presented. That can really slow the game down. Luckily, I don’t suffer from that and most of the time I probably need to do a more thorough job thinking through my turns, but that’s my burden to bear.
Aside from those items, the game is really good. I don’t own a large number of roll-and-writes somehow (and I WAS alive during 2018), so this was a great pickup for me as a variation in the genre. Okay fine, I also Kickstarted the expansion with the different themed pages, so I’m also looking forward to that fulfillment. All in all the game is very solid, and different enough to all my other games that I will be keeping it and trying to outscore my last play every time. We at Purple Phoenix Games give this a well-planned 19 / 24.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/02/04/welcome-to-review/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Dolittle (2020) in Movies
Feb 23, 2020
A complete mess, but kids will probably love it.
With the words of Mark Kermode's review ringing in my ears ("It's shockingly poor... and that's the same in any language") I was bracing myself when I went to see this latest incarnation of Hugh Lofting's famous animal-chatting character. And I have to agree that it is a shocking mess of a film, given $175 million was poured into this thing. But, and I say this cautiously without first-hand empirical evidence, I *think* this is a movie that kids in the 6 to 10 age range might fall in love with.
Doctor Doolittle (Robert Downey Jnr) - famed animal doctor, with the unique ability to communicate with any animal - is now holed up in his animal sanctuary, a recluse. His beloved wife - adventurer Lily - was lost at sea (in a cartoon sequence that could have just used the same clip from "Frozen"). He's lost the will to practice; and almost lost the will to live.
Impinging on his morose life come two humans: Tommy Stubbings (Harry Collett), a reluctant hunter with a wounded squirrel, and Lady Rose (Carmel Laniado), daughter of the Queen of England. (We'll quietly ignore the coincidence that, after what looks like several years of mourning, these two independently pitch up at Chez Doolittle within ten minutes of each other!).
For the Queen (the omnipresent Jessie Buckley) is dying, and noone (other than us viewers, let in on the deal) suspect foul play might be at work in the form of Lord Thomas Badgley (the ever-reliable Jim Broadbent) and the Queen's old leech-loving doctor Blair Müdfly (a moustache-twiddling Michael Sheen).
Doolittle must engage in a perilous journey to find the only cure that will save both the Queen and his animal sanctuary - the fruit of the tree on a missing island that his long lost love was searching for.
Let's start with the most obvious point first up. Robert Downey Jnr's Welsh accent is quite the most terrible, most preposterous, most unintelligible, most offensive (to the Welsh) attempt at an accent in a mainstream film in movie history. And that's really saying something when you have Laurence Olivier's Jewish father from "The Jazz Singer" and Russell Crowe's English cum Irish cum Scottish cum Yugoslavian "Robin Hood" in the list. Why? Just why? Was it to distance this version from Rex Harrison's? (Since most younger movie goers will be going "Rex who?" at this point, this seems unlikely). It's a wholly curious decision.
It turns RDj's presence in the movie from being an asset to a liability.
The movie has had a tortuous history. Filmed in 2018 at enormous expense, the film completely bombed at test screenings so they brought in more script writers to make it funnier and did extensive additional filming.
I actually disagree with the general view that the film is unfunny. For there are a few points in the movie where I laughed out loud. A fly's miraculous, if temporary, escape was one such moment. The duck laying an egg in fright, another.
However, these seem to stand out starkly in isolation as 'the funny bits they inserted'. Much of the rest of the movie's comedy falls painfully flat.
In terms of the acting, there are the obvious visual talents on show of Michael Sheen (doing a great English accent for a Welshman.... #irony), Jim Broadbent, Jessie Buckley, Joanna Page (blink and you'll miss her) and Antonio Banderas, as the swashbuckling pirate king cum father-in-law.
But the end titles are an amazing array of "Ah!" moments as the vocal performances are revealed: Emma Thompson as the parrot; Rami Malek as the gorilla; John Cena as the polar bear; Kumail Nanjiani at the ostrich; Octavia Spencer at the duck; Tom Holland as the dog; Selena Gomez as the giraffe; Marion Cotillade as the fox, Frances de la Tour as a flatulent dragon and Ralph Fiennes as an evil tiger with mummy issues. It's a gift for future contestants on "Pointless"!
There are a lot of poe-faced critics throwing brick-bats at this movie, and to a degree it's deserved. They lavished $175 million on it, and it looked like it was going to be a thumping loss. (However, against all the odds, at the time of writing it has grossed north of $184 million. And it only opened yesterday in China. So although not stellar in the world of blockbuster movies it's not going to be a studio-killer like "Heaven's Gate").
And I suspect there's a good reason for that latent salvation. I think kids are loving this movie, driving repeat viewings and unexpected word of mouth. It is certainly a family friendly experience. There are no truly terrifying scenes that will haunt young children. A dragon-induced death, not seen on screen, is - notwithstanding the intro Frozen-esque cartoon sequence - the only obvious one in the movie and is (as above) played for laughs. There are fantastical sets and landscapes. Performing whales. A happy-ending (albeit not the one I was cynically expecting). And an extended dragon-farting scene, and what kids are not going to love that!!
Directed by Stephen Gaghan ("Syriana", but better known as a writer than a director) it's a jumbled messy bear of a movie but is in no way an unpleasant watch. I would take a grandkid along to watch this again. It even has some nuggets of gold hidden within its matted coat.
As this is primarily one for the kids, I'm giving the movie two ratings: 4/10 for adults and 8/10 for kids... the Smashbomb rating is the mean of these.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/22/doolittle-2019/ . Thanks).
Doctor Doolittle (Robert Downey Jnr) - famed animal doctor, with the unique ability to communicate with any animal - is now holed up in his animal sanctuary, a recluse. His beloved wife - adventurer Lily - was lost at sea (in a cartoon sequence that could have just used the same clip from "Frozen"). He's lost the will to practice; and almost lost the will to live.
Impinging on his morose life come two humans: Tommy Stubbings (Harry Collett), a reluctant hunter with a wounded squirrel, and Lady Rose (Carmel Laniado), daughter of the Queen of England. (We'll quietly ignore the coincidence that, after what looks like several years of mourning, these two independently pitch up at Chez Doolittle within ten minutes of each other!).
For the Queen (the omnipresent Jessie Buckley) is dying, and noone (other than us viewers, let in on the deal) suspect foul play might be at work in the form of Lord Thomas Badgley (the ever-reliable Jim Broadbent) and the Queen's old leech-loving doctor Blair Müdfly (a moustache-twiddling Michael Sheen).
Doolittle must engage in a perilous journey to find the only cure that will save both the Queen and his animal sanctuary - the fruit of the tree on a missing island that his long lost love was searching for.
Let's start with the most obvious point first up. Robert Downey Jnr's Welsh accent is quite the most terrible, most preposterous, most unintelligible, most offensive (to the Welsh) attempt at an accent in a mainstream film in movie history. And that's really saying something when you have Laurence Olivier's Jewish father from "The Jazz Singer" and Russell Crowe's English cum Irish cum Scottish cum Yugoslavian "Robin Hood" in the list. Why? Just why? Was it to distance this version from Rex Harrison's? (Since most younger movie goers will be going "Rex who?" at this point, this seems unlikely). It's a wholly curious decision.
It turns RDj's presence in the movie from being an asset to a liability.
The movie has had a tortuous history. Filmed in 2018 at enormous expense, the film completely bombed at test screenings so they brought in more script writers to make it funnier and did extensive additional filming.
I actually disagree with the general view that the film is unfunny. For there are a few points in the movie where I laughed out loud. A fly's miraculous, if temporary, escape was one such moment. The duck laying an egg in fright, another.
However, these seem to stand out starkly in isolation as 'the funny bits they inserted'. Much of the rest of the movie's comedy falls painfully flat.
In terms of the acting, there are the obvious visual talents on show of Michael Sheen (doing a great English accent for a Welshman.... #irony), Jim Broadbent, Jessie Buckley, Joanna Page (blink and you'll miss her) and Antonio Banderas, as the swashbuckling pirate king cum father-in-law.
But the end titles are an amazing array of "Ah!" moments as the vocal performances are revealed: Emma Thompson as the parrot; Rami Malek as the gorilla; John Cena as the polar bear; Kumail Nanjiani at the ostrich; Octavia Spencer at the duck; Tom Holland as the dog; Selena Gomez as the giraffe; Marion Cotillade as the fox, Frances de la Tour as a flatulent dragon and Ralph Fiennes as an evil tiger with mummy issues. It's a gift for future contestants on "Pointless"!
There are a lot of poe-faced critics throwing brick-bats at this movie, and to a degree it's deserved. They lavished $175 million on it, and it looked like it was going to be a thumping loss. (However, against all the odds, at the time of writing it has grossed north of $184 million. And it only opened yesterday in China. So although not stellar in the world of blockbuster movies it's not going to be a studio-killer like "Heaven's Gate").
And I suspect there's a good reason for that latent salvation. I think kids are loving this movie, driving repeat viewings and unexpected word of mouth. It is certainly a family friendly experience. There are no truly terrifying scenes that will haunt young children. A dragon-induced death, not seen on screen, is - notwithstanding the intro Frozen-esque cartoon sequence - the only obvious one in the movie and is (as above) played for laughs. There are fantastical sets and landscapes. Performing whales. A happy-ending (albeit not the one I was cynically expecting). And an extended dragon-farting scene, and what kids are not going to love that!!
Directed by Stephen Gaghan ("Syriana", but better known as a writer than a director) it's a jumbled messy bear of a movie but is in no way an unpleasant watch. I would take a grandkid along to watch this again. It even has some nuggets of gold hidden within its matted coat.
As this is primarily one for the kids, I'm giving the movie two ratings: 4/10 for adults and 8/10 for kids... the Smashbomb rating is the mean of these.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/22/doolittle-2019/ . Thanks).
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Last Duel (2021) in Movies
Oct 30, 2021
Doesn't Really Work
With films such as GLADIATOR, KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, ROBIN HOOD, EXODUS: GODS AND MONSTERS and the current THE LAST DUEL, Director Ridley Scott is single-handedly trying to keep alive the “Sword and Sandals” genre that was so much en vogue in the Golden Age of Hollywood.
However, he’ll have to do better than THE LAST DUEL to keep the genre going.
Starring Matt Damon, Ben Affleck, Adam Driver and Jodi Comer, THE LAST DUEL tells the tale of the…well…Last Duel in France in the 1300’s. The story tells the tale of 2 noblemen, their ups & downs and the accusation of the wife of one of them that the other raped her. The only way to solve the dispute is a duel to the death.
Following the format of such films as RASHOMON (1950) and, more recently, WRATH OF MAN (2021), THE LAST DUEL is told in 4 parts - telling the same story from different perspectives. But, unlike RASHOMON and (surprisingly) WRATH OF MAN which peeled the onion back during each different telling, adding a deeper and richer layer to the story each time, THE LAST DUEL pretty much tells the same story over and over, not really telling it differently and not really adding any layers to the story. You pretty much know before THE LAST DUEL who is innocent, who is guilty and how the duel is going to play out.
So, Director Scott will need to rely on the performances and the look and feel of the film to get the audience hooked and intrigued during this 2 hour and 32 minute epic, but the script (by Nicole Holofcener, Affleck & Damon just isn’t up to the task.
The acting is…fine. Driver fares the best out of the 4 leads - probably because he is the actor most suited for this type of film than the others. Comer’s part is underwritten and she has surprisingly little to do - which brings us to Affleck and Damon. Affleck has the showier role and provides a spark of interest in his limited time on the screen while Damon is dour and serious and trudges through the film - as does the audience.
Director Scott (ALIEN) brings professionalism to the proceedings and accurately depicts the look and feel of the time and stages the duel (and battle scenes) with a trained eye, but the characters/performances did not leave me with anyone to truly root for (or care about) and by the time we got to THE LAST DUEL, I just wanted it to be over.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
However, he’ll have to do better than THE LAST DUEL to keep the genre going.
Starring Matt Damon, Ben Affleck, Adam Driver and Jodi Comer, THE LAST DUEL tells the tale of the…well…Last Duel in France in the 1300’s. The story tells the tale of 2 noblemen, their ups & downs and the accusation of the wife of one of them that the other raped her. The only way to solve the dispute is a duel to the death.
Following the format of such films as RASHOMON (1950) and, more recently, WRATH OF MAN (2021), THE LAST DUEL is told in 4 parts - telling the same story from different perspectives. But, unlike RASHOMON and (surprisingly) WRATH OF MAN which peeled the onion back during each different telling, adding a deeper and richer layer to the story each time, THE LAST DUEL pretty much tells the same story over and over, not really telling it differently and not really adding any layers to the story. You pretty much know before THE LAST DUEL who is innocent, who is guilty and how the duel is going to play out.
So, Director Scott will need to rely on the performances and the look and feel of the film to get the audience hooked and intrigued during this 2 hour and 32 minute epic, but the script (by Nicole Holofcener, Affleck & Damon just isn’t up to the task.
The acting is…fine. Driver fares the best out of the 4 leads - probably because he is the actor most suited for this type of film than the others. Comer’s part is underwritten and she has surprisingly little to do - which brings us to Affleck and Damon. Affleck has the showier role and provides a spark of interest in his limited time on the screen while Damon is dour and serious and trudges through the film - as does the audience.
Director Scott (ALIEN) brings professionalism to the proceedings and accurately depicts the look and feel of the time and stages the duel (and battle scenes) with a trained eye, but the characters/performances did not leave me with anyone to truly root for (or care about) and by the time we got to THE LAST DUEL, I just wanted it to be over.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Lyndsey Gollogly (2893 KP) rated Next Door in Books
Jun 10, 2021
82 of 250
Kindle
Next Door
Compiled by Matt Shaw
Once read a review will be written via Smashbomb and link posted in comments
From the mind behind "MASTERS OF HORROR" comes a new horror anthology to keep you up at night!
Whilst Matt Shaw is busy producing, writing and directing the feature film NEXT DOOR he decided to put together a horror anthology of the same name, and with the same theme as the motion picture. None of the stories in this collection feature in the film; the two products are completely separate other than the central concept of exploring who does live NEXT DOOR to us?
Given the fact these are some of the biggest names in horror, you can bet that whomever is living next door probably won't be the friendliest of characters...
The year is 2019 and technology has come so far that we spend more time staring at our mobile devices, and screens in general, than getting to know our next door neighbour. Gone are the days of knowing everyone who lives on the same street, or in the same village. Instead we leave our houses, avoid eye-contact or give the bare minimum of grunts to those we see and go about our daily lives without a care for anyone else. No more street parties, no more kindly neighbours checking in on you, no more Christmas cards from the little old lady who lives across the street. There's only "us" and our technology.
This anthology takes a look at who lives NEXT DOOR and what secrets they may be keeping. And who knows, maybe it will serve as warning to you that, really, you should be paying attention to those living close-by. After all, Fred West was someone's neighbour once...
Featuring stories by:
Tim Lebbon
Shaun Hutson
Ryan C. Thomas
Jeremy Bates
David Moody
Guy N. Smith
Matthew Stokoe
Justin Woodward
Gary McMahon
Rich Hawkins
Jim Goforth
Matt Shaw
1. A Family-Friendly Neighbourhood by Ryan C Thomas
This was actually quite funny and sweet in a gruesome clever way. All the toys turning into little knife wielding creepy thing only to find out they are their kids souls! They just want to be together 😂
2. Final Feast by Guy N. Smith
Quick little story of the cannibal next door! I loved it!
3. Insurgents by Rich Hawkins
A story of a war ruined mind, a soldier dealing with his demons. Well written just not my normal read.
4. Mirror Image by David Moody
A couple move into a new house with an extra handy neighbour. I enjoyed this one funny how my husband is so crap at DIY too 😂😂
5. Neighbour Hood by Tim Lebbon
Omg this has to be the creepiest one so far and the whole reason I never use my attics’!!!
6. Dinner Date by Jeremy Bates
A bit slower than the others think I just got a little bored. Never accept dinner invitations before getting to know the guy no matter how hot he is! Silly girl!
7. Why Does Randolph Draw by Matthew Stokeoe
Got to be honest I didn’t finish it I just got so bored after page 5! Just wasn’t catching me.
8. Saturday Night Whiskey by Justin M.Woodward
This was really god and well put together a kids last cry for help from his dodgy uncle!
9. Sixteen by Jim Goforth
This felt so rushed even for a short story! Although it’s a good lesson of don’t get involved with swinging neighbours 😂
10. Pornography by Matt Saw
Haha she didn’t see that coming
11. Somewhere in Here by Gary McMahon
This was one creepy ass story and for one so short I’m throughly creeped out!!
12 By Darkness Hidden by Shaun Hutson
This was pretty good a urban legend type story. Villages can be super strange places.
I really enjoyed this compilation got some great new authors added to my list too.
Kindle
Next Door
Compiled by Matt Shaw
Once read a review will be written via Smashbomb and link posted in comments
From the mind behind "MASTERS OF HORROR" comes a new horror anthology to keep you up at night!
Whilst Matt Shaw is busy producing, writing and directing the feature film NEXT DOOR he decided to put together a horror anthology of the same name, and with the same theme as the motion picture. None of the stories in this collection feature in the film; the two products are completely separate other than the central concept of exploring who does live NEXT DOOR to us?
Given the fact these are some of the biggest names in horror, you can bet that whomever is living next door probably won't be the friendliest of characters...
The year is 2019 and technology has come so far that we spend more time staring at our mobile devices, and screens in general, than getting to know our next door neighbour. Gone are the days of knowing everyone who lives on the same street, or in the same village. Instead we leave our houses, avoid eye-contact or give the bare minimum of grunts to those we see and go about our daily lives without a care for anyone else. No more street parties, no more kindly neighbours checking in on you, no more Christmas cards from the little old lady who lives across the street. There's only "us" and our technology.
This anthology takes a look at who lives NEXT DOOR and what secrets they may be keeping. And who knows, maybe it will serve as warning to you that, really, you should be paying attention to those living close-by. After all, Fred West was someone's neighbour once...
Featuring stories by:
Tim Lebbon
Shaun Hutson
Ryan C. Thomas
Jeremy Bates
David Moody
Guy N. Smith
Matthew Stokoe
Justin Woodward
Gary McMahon
Rich Hawkins
Jim Goforth
Matt Shaw
1. A Family-Friendly Neighbourhood by Ryan C Thomas
This was actually quite funny and sweet in a gruesome clever way. All the toys turning into little knife wielding creepy thing only to find out they are their kids souls! They just want to be together 😂
2. Final Feast by Guy N. Smith
Quick little story of the cannibal next door! I loved it!
3. Insurgents by Rich Hawkins
A story of a war ruined mind, a soldier dealing with his demons. Well written just not my normal read.
4. Mirror Image by David Moody
A couple move into a new house with an extra handy neighbour. I enjoyed this one funny how my husband is so crap at DIY too 😂😂
5. Neighbour Hood by Tim Lebbon
Omg this has to be the creepiest one so far and the whole reason I never use my attics’!!!
6. Dinner Date by Jeremy Bates
A bit slower than the others think I just got a little bored. Never accept dinner invitations before getting to know the guy no matter how hot he is! Silly girl!
7. Why Does Randolph Draw by Matthew Stokeoe
Got to be honest I didn’t finish it I just got so bored after page 5! Just wasn’t catching me.
8. Saturday Night Whiskey by Justin M.Woodward
This was really god and well put together a kids last cry for help from his dodgy uncle!
9. Sixteen by Jim Goforth
This felt so rushed even for a short story! Although it’s a good lesson of don’t get involved with swinging neighbours 😂
10. Pornography by Matt Saw
Haha she didn’t see that coming
11. Somewhere in Here by Gary McMahon
This was one creepy ass story and for one so short I’m throughly creeped out!!
12 By Darkness Hidden by Shaun Hutson
This was pretty good a urban legend type story. Villages can be super strange places.
I really enjoyed this compilation got some great new authors added to my list too.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Hustlers (2019) in Movies
Sep 16, 2019
Hustlers is 'inspired by a true story' and is based on a New York Magazine article written by Jessica Pressler in 2015 titled "The Hustlers at Scores". The tagline for that article was “Here’s a modern Robin Hood story for you: a few strippers who stole from (mostly) rich, (usually) disgusting, (in their minds) pathetic men and gave to, well, themselves" - something which pretty much sums up the entire plot of the movie. You'd be forgiven for thinking you'd seen this kind of thing a hundred times before, and to be honest the trailer didn't really do it any justice either in my opinion. But, turns out that Hustlers is actually a pretty slick and hugely entertaining piece of fun, something that I wasn't expecting to like anywhere near as much as I did.
We're in 2007 and Destiny (Constance Wu) is working nights at a Manhattan strip club called Moves. Caring for her grandmother and catching up on sleep by day, it soon becomes clear that life as a stripper isn't quite as glamorous as she'd imagined it to be. With a large number of girls working at the club, competition is strong, as are the internal politics, and the clients frequenting the club are just as disgusting as you'd imagine rich drunken assholes to be. And, at the end of a shift, the money that Destiny earns is subjected to numerous deductions and penalties from the manager and doorman as they all take their cuts, leaving Destiny with not very much at all.
And then one night, as the DJ introduces her, "The one, the only, Ramona!" (Jennifer Lopez) hits the stage to show everyone how it's all done, highlighting to Destiny the kind of money she could be making if she upped her game. Dominating the main stage, Ramona masterfully works the pole as she slinks around in time to the music. And it clearly works too - dollar bills shower her, and cover the stage, while the stunned onlookers lose their minds and overreact like something out of a Tex Avery cartoon.
Destiny follows Ramona up onto the roof, where she's taking time out for a smoke break and it's not long before Ramona decides to take Destiny under her wing. Along with showing her the more dexterously impressive moves on stage, she also reveals the three levels of client who visit the club and how to best work them to your advantage. They become good friends, working together to earn more than either of them have before. But then, during 2008, the recession hits and the club no longer benefits from the wild spending habits of Wall Street's biggest earners. Destiny becomes pregnant, leaving the club along with most of the other girls, but struggles to re-enter the workforce a few years later having had no real experience outside of a strip club. And then she meets up with Ramona once more, and learns about fishing...
Fishing involves the girls leaving the confines and constraints of the club in order to lure guys in from outside. Working as a group, they lace their drinks in bars (enough to make them happy, but not really conscious enough to fully appreciate or remember what happens for the rest of the night), then bringing them back to the club. There they can freely swipe their credit cards, have a great time and make thousands of dollars per night. As Ramona sells it to Destiny and the other girls they've recruited to help them, this isn't just survival, it's revenge against all of the Wall Street workers behind the recession, who had no comeback for their actions.
Occasionally the movies flashes forward a few years, where Destiny is being interviewed by the reporter who will eventually go on to write the article on their story (played by Julia Stiles). These scenes work well as a narrative device for the movie and it's clear that, while Destiny seems to have fared pretty well financially over the years, whatever she's done to get there has all gone horribly wrong at some point.
But for now, their scam works perfectly. After the lows and struggles of life as a lowly stripper, it's a real thrill to follow these girls on their journey to expensive clothes, big flashy cars and penthouse apartments. They all become like family, even enjoying an expensive Christmas together with their real families joining them. Hustlers moves beyond its humble strip club beginnings and the camaraderie and power these women develop together feels so genuine, it really makes this movie shine. Scenes where the girls go shopping, or even work together in the kitchen to perfect their drug recipe, are a lot of fun and Hustlers features just as much humour as it does drama. Much of what makes this all work so well is down to it's cast. Hustlers features some pretty strong support, but it's the pairing of Constance Wu and Jennifer Lopez that really stands out. Both are on top form, better than anything I've seen them in before and many reviews I've read are already recommending Oscar nominations for Jennifer Lopez.
Like I say, I wasn't expecting to like this as much as I thought I would based on the trailer. What I got was a fun, exhilarating story of female empowerment with a strong, solid cast. And, as the New York Magazine article so eloquently put it, a modern Robin Hood story.
We're in 2007 and Destiny (Constance Wu) is working nights at a Manhattan strip club called Moves. Caring for her grandmother and catching up on sleep by day, it soon becomes clear that life as a stripper isn't quite as glamorous as she'd imagined it to be. With a large number of girls working at the club, competition is strong, as are the internal politics, and the clients frequenting the club are just as disgusting as you'd imagine rich drunken assholes to be. And, at the end of a shift, the money that Destiny earns is subjected to numerous deductions and penalties from the manager and doorman as they all take their cuts, leaving Destiny with not very much at all.
And then one night, as the DJ introduces her, "The one, the only, Ramona!" (Jennifer Lopez) hits the stage to show everyone how it's all done, highlighting to Destiny the kind of money she could be making if she upped her game. Dominating the main stage, Ramona masterfully works the pole as she slinks around in time to the music. And it clearly works too - dollar bills shower her, and cover the stage, while the stunned onlookers lose their minds and overreact like something out of a Tex Avery cartoon.
Destiny follows Ramona up onto the roof, where she's taking time out for a smoke break and it's not long before Ramona decides to take Destiny under her wing. Along with showing her the more dexterously impressive moves on stage, she also reveals the three levels of client who visit the club and how to best work them to your advantage. They become good friends, working together to earn more than either of them have before. But then, during 2008, the recession hits and the club no longer benefits from the wild spending habits of Wall Street's biggest earners. Destiny becomes pregnant, leaving the club along with most of the other girls, but struggles to re-enter the workforce a few years later having had no real experience outside of a strip club. And then she meets up with Ramona once more, and learns about fishing...
Fishing involves the girls leaving the confines and constraints of the club in order to lure guys in from outside. Working as a group, they lace their drinks in bars (enough to make them happy, but not really conscious enough to fully appreciate or remember what happens for the rest of the night), then bringing them back to the club. There they can freely swipe their credit cards, have a great time and make thousands of dollars per night. As Ramona sells it to Destiny and the other girls they've recruited to help them, this isn't just survival, it's revenge against all of the Wall Street workers behind the recession, who had no comeback for their actions.
Occasionally the movies flashes forward a few years, where Destiny is being interviewed by the reporter who will eventually go on to write the article on their story (played by Julia Stiles). These scenes work well as a narrative device for the movie and it's clear that, while Destiny seems to have fared pretty well financially over the years, whatever she's done to get there has all gone horribly wrong at some point.
But for now, their scam works perfectly. After the lows and struggles of life as a lowly stripper, it's a real thrill to follow these girls on their journey to expensive clothes, big flashy cars and penthouse apartments. They all become like family, even enjoying an expensive Christmas together with their real families joining them. Hustlers moves beyond its humble strip club beginnings and the camaraderie and power these women develop together feels so genuine, it really makes this movie shine. Scenes where the girls go shopping, or even work together in the kitchen to perfect their drug recipe, are a lot of fun and Hustlers features just as much humour as it does drama. Much of what makes this all work so well is down to it's cast. Hustlers features some pretty strong support, but it's the pairing of Constance Wu and Jennifer Lopez that really stands out. Both are on top form, better than anything I've seen them in before and many reviews I've read are already recommending Oscar nominations for Jennifer Lopez.
Like I say, I wasn't expecting to like this as much as I thought I would based on the trailer. What I got was a fun, exhilarating story of female empowerment with a strong, solid cast. And, as the New York Magazine article so eloquently put it, a modern Robin Hood story.