Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Emma (2020) in Movies
Feb 21, 2020
Anya Taylor-Joy.... mesmerising (2 more)
Gorgeous to look at; stunning locations and costumes
Witty and well-observed debut script
Simply Sublime
I loved the look of "Emma" from the trailer. And I was not disappointed. It is a simply sublime piece of comic entertainment.
Emma Woodhouse (Anya Taylor-Joy) is a rich, privileged 21 year-old looking after her elderly and quirky father (Bill Nighy) in the family stately home. She has never loved, despite the persistent presence of 'family friend' George Knightley (Johnny Flynn), but finds it entertaining to engage in matchmaking, particularly in respect to her somewhat lower class friend Harriet Smith (Mia Goth). Emma has high ambitions for Harriet... ideas significantly above what her social station and looks might suggest.
Emma has her sights on a dream.... the mystery man Frank Churchill (Callum Turner), son of wealthy local landowner Mr Weston (Rupert Graves). She has never actually met him, but is obsessed with his myth. #fangirl. As a source of immense annoyance to her, but often a source of valuable information on news of Churchill, is the village 'old maid' Miss Bates (Miranda Hart). "Such fun"!
But Emma's perfect life is about to face sticky times, as her machinations fail to yield the expected results and a stray comment, at a disastrous picnic, threatens to damage both her reputation and her social standing.
If you like your movies full of action and suspense, you are digging in the wrong place. "Emma" is slow... glacially slow... wallowing in beautiful bucolic scenes (with superb cinematography by Christopher Blauvelt); gorgeous costumes by Alexandra Byrne; and hair styling by Marese Langan.
The movie also benefits from a joyfully tight and funny script by debut screenwriter Eleanor Catton (a Man-Booker prize winner). This picks relentlessly at the strata of the class system set up by Jane Austen's novel: "Every body has their level" spits spurned suitor Mr Elton (Josh O'Connor).
I know Anya Taylor-Joy as the spirited Casey from "Split" and "Glass": she was impressive in "Split"; less so for me in the disappointing "Glass". But here, I found her UTTERLY mesmerising. She has such striking features - those eyes! - that she fully inhabits the role of the beautiful heiress who haunts multiple men sequentially. I even muttered the word "Oscar nomination" at the end of the film: though we are too early in the year to seriously go there.
An even bigger surprise was the actor playing George Knightley. Johnny Flynn has been in a number of TV shows I haven't seen, and a few films I haven't seen either (e.g. "Beast"). But I had the nagging feeling I knew him really well. The illustrious Mrs Movie Man clocked him: he's the Cineworld "plaid man"! (For those outside the UK or not patrons of Cineworld cinemas, he was the 'star' of a Cineworld advert that played over and Over AND OVER again for months on end before every film I saw. Arrrgggghhhh!).
Here, Flynn is excellent as the frustrated and brooding Austen-hunk. He even gets away with an ar*e-shot within a U-certificate!
Particularly strong in the supporting cast are Bill Nighy (being delightfully more restrained in his performance); Miranda Hart (being "Miranda", but perfectly cast) and Mia Goth (memorable for that eel-bath in "A Cure for Wellness").
And a big thank-you for a web review in the online Radio Times for naming one of the comical (and bizarrely uncredited) footmen as Angus Imrie - - the truly disturbed stepson of Claire in "Fleabag". It was driving me crazy where I knew him from!
The one criticism I would have is that I found the (perfectly fine and well-fitting) music, by David Schweitzer and Isobel Waller-Bridge (sister of Phoebe) poorly mixed within the soundtrack. There were times when I found it overly intrusive, suddenly ducking under dialogue and then BLASTING out again. Sometimes music should be at the forefront.... but more often it should be barely perceptible.
As you might guess....
...I loved this one. The story is brilliant (obsv!); the film is simply gorgeous to look at; the locations (including the village of Lower Slaughter in the Cotswolds and Wilton House - near me - in Salisbury) are magnificent and a blessing for the English Tourist Board.
All the more impressive then that this is the directorial feature of video/short director Autumn de Wilde.
This comes with a "highly recommended" from both myself and the illustrious Mrs Movie-Man.
(For the full graphical review, please check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-emma-2020/ .)
Emma Woodhouse (Anya Taylor-Joy) is a rich, privileged 21 year-old looking after her elderly and quirky father (Bill Nighy) in the family stately home. She has never loved, despite the persistent presence of 'family friend' George Knightley (Johnny Flynn), but finds it entertaining to engage in matchmaking, particularly in respect to her somewhat lower class friend Harriet Smith (Mia Goth). Emma has high ambitions for Harriet... ideas significantly above what her social station and looks might suggest.
Emma has her sights on a dream.... the mystery man Frank Churchill (Callum Turner), son of wealthy local landowner Mr Weston (Rupert Graves). She has never actually met him, but is obsessed with his myth. #fangirl. As a source of immense annoyance to her, but often a source of valuable information on news of Churchill, is the village 'old maid' Miss Bates (Miranda Hart). "Such fun"!
But Emma's perfect life is about to face sticky times, as her machinations fail to yield the expected results and a stray comment, at a disastrous picnic, threatens to damage both her reputation and her social standing.
If you like your movies full of action and suspense, you are digging in the wrong place. "Emma" is slow... glacially slow... wallowing in beautiful bucolic scenes (with superb cinematography by Christopher Blauvelt); gorgeous costumes by Alexandra Byrne; and hair styling by Marese Langan.
The movie also benefits from a joyfully tight and funny script by debut screenwriter Eleanor Catton (a Man-Booker prize winner). This picks relentlessly at the strata of the class system set up by Jane Austen's novel: "Every body has their level" spits spurned suitor Mr Elton (Josh O'Connor).
I know Anya Taylor-Joy as the spirited Casey from "Split" and "Glass": she was impressive in "Split"; less so for me in the disappointing "Glass". But here, I found her UTTERLY mesmerising. She has such striking features - those eyes! - that she fully inhabits the role of the beautiful heiress who haunts multiple men sequentially. I even muttered the word "Oscar nomination" at the end of the film: though we are too early in the year to seriously go there.
An even bigger surprise was the actor playing George Knightley. Johnny Flynn has been in a number of TV shows I haven't seen, and a few films I haven't seen either (e.g. "Beast"). But I had the nagging feeling I knew him really well. The illustrious Mrs Movie Man clocked him: he's the Cineworld "plaid man"! (For those outside the UK or not patrons of Cineworld cinemas, he was the 'star' of a Cineworld advert that played over and Over AND OVER again for months on end before every film I saw. Arrrgggghhhh!).
Here, Flynn is excellent as the frustrated and brooding Austen-hunk. He even gets away with an ar*e-shot within a U-certificate!
Particularly strong in the supporting cast are Bill Nighy (being delightfully more restrained in his performance); Miranda Hart (being "Miranda", but perfectly cast) and Mia Goth (memorable for that eel-bath in "A Cure for Wellness").
And a big thank-you for a web review in the online Radio Times for naming one of the comical (and bizarrely uncredited) footmen as Angus Imrie - - the truly disturbed stepson of Claire in "Fleabag". It was driving me crazy where I knew him from!
The one criticism I would have is that I found the (perfectly fine and well-fitting) music, by David Schweitzer and Isobel Waller-Bridge (sister of Phoebe) poorly mixed within the soundtrack. There were times when I found it overly intrusive, suddenly ducking under dialogue and then BLASTING out again. Sometimes music should be at the forefront.... but more often it should be barely perceptible.
As you might guess....
...I loved this one. The story is brilliant (obsv!); the film is simply gorgeous to look at; the locations (including the village of Lower Slaughter in the Cotswolds and Wilton House - near me - in Salisbury) are magnificent and a blessing for the English Tourist Board.
All the more impressive then that this is the directorial feature of video/short director Autumn de Wilde.
This comes with a "highly recommended" from both myself and the illustrious Mrs Movie-Man.
(For the full graphical review, please check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-emma-2020/ .)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated On the Rocks (2020) in Movies
Oct 23, 2020
Bill Murray being Bill Murray, but in sparkling form
Bill Murray is astonishing. Not just in "On the Rocks", but generally in life. Some actors - Johnny Depp, Mark Rylance, Gary Oldman, for instance - disappear completely into their characters so it takes a while to "see" who they are. Whereas with others - Bill Nighy, Tom Cruise, John Wayne, for instance - it's "Oh, there's the famous actor xxxx in a new movie". If we were grading on a scale, Bill Murray would be at the far right of the latter category. In every movie, he IS Bill Murray! In "Ghostbusters" he was the dry, laconic, wisecracking ghost hunter. In "Groundhog Day" he was the dry, laconic, wisecracking weatherman. In "The Monuments Men" he was the dry, laconic, wisecracking art historian. (In the "Zombieland" movies, he excelled himself by playing the dry, laconic, wisecracking Bill Murray!)
For many actors, that would be a problem. But Bill Murray gets away with it, because - - he's Bill freakin' Murray!! And being him is so awesome that however many times you've seen the character, you always want more.
Here's a case in point. In "On the Rocks", a chaffeured car with tinted windows rolls up. You brace yourself as the window winds slowly down. And there he is... the star. This happens quite a way into Sofia Coppola's new film. First up, we get a leisurely, but intelligent, set-up to the plot. The "Parks and Recreation" actress, Rashida Jones, plays Laura; a successful writer (currently with writer's block) married to successful businessman Dean (Marlon Wayans). The couple seem to have it all: high income; large New York apartment; two lovely young children. But Dean is always away, travelling on business - and always with his attractive co-worker "with the legs" Fiona (Jessica Henwick). Is Dean scratching the seven-year itch?
Laura's rich, art-dealing father Felix (Bill Murray) arrives, and won't take no for an answer in sniffing out the truth.
Love, love, love this movie! The pacing, the humour, the witty dialogue (it's Sofia Coppola's script) and - above all - Murray's triumphant performance all fire this well and truly into my Top 10 for the year.
Bill Murray's acting is astounding... is there an actor who spends more time in his "deep in thought" mode, with eyeballs looking at the ceiling? You could quite well believe that none of it is scripted, and he's pausing in deep thought because he really is trying to compose the next best line! A scene where, through appropriate name-dropping, he charms his way out of a traffic infringement with two New York cops is utterly absorbing.
Behind every embarrassing father is a grown-up daughter rolling her eyes. (I should know!) And Rashida Jones is perfect in the role. I'm not familiar with Jones's previous work, but she was just perfect as the foil for Murray's humour.
There's dry comedy to be had throughout "On the Rocks" which I found delightful. A running joke is Laura's drop-off and pick-ups from the local kindergarten, where she is repeatedly pinned against the wall by single-mum Vanessa (Jenny Slate) and bored to death with her moans about boyfriend-hunting on the New York scene! It's an insight that the project is led by a female writer/director, reminiscing about personal experiences!
Coppola's script also buzzes with politically incorrect views of the playboy Felix. (He reminds me strongly of an ex-work colleague: the life and soul of any party and with a charisma that is naturally attractive to women!)
For me, there was just one misstep in the movie. There's a sub-plot about the estranged relationship between Felix and Laura's mother, and the unspoken tension that lies there. This all comes to a head in a hotel bedroom, and for me personally it brought the mood of the movie down and wasn't necessary. It's a relatively minor thing. But the result was that it just took the edge off things for me in declaring it a classic.
This is one of those flicks produced for Apple, in cinemas only while en-route to their streaming service to make it eligible for Oscar consideration. And it's actually available now. This is Coppola's third outing with Murray, with the most famous being the Oscar winner "Lost in Translation". I'm actually not a mad fan of that film. But this one comes with a "Highly recommended".
(For the full graphical review, please check out the bob the movie man review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/10/23/love-on-the-rocks-aint-no-surprise/ . Thanks)
For many actors, that would be a problem. But Bill Murray gets away with it, because - - he's Bill freakin' Murray!! And being him is so awesome that however many times you've seen the character, you always want more.
Here's a case in point. In "On the Rocks", a chaffeured car with tinted windows rolls up. You brace yourself as the window winds slowly down. And there he is... the star. This happens quite a way into Sofia Coppola's new film. First up, we get a leisurely, but intelligent, set-up to the plot. The "Parks and Recreation" actress, Rashida Jones, plays Laura; a successful writer (currently with writer's block) married to successful businessman Dean (Marlon Wayans). The couple seem to have it all: high income; large New York apartment; two lovely young children. But Dean is always away, travelling on business - and always with his attractive co-worker "with the legs" Fiona (Jessica Henwick). Is Dean scratching the seven-year itch?
Laura's rich, art-dealing father Felix (Bill Murray) arrives, and won't take no for an answer in sniffing out the truth.
Love, love, love this movie! The pacing, the humour, the witty dialogue (it's Sofia Coppola's script) and - above all - Murray's triumphant performance all fire this well and truly into my Top 10 for the year.
Bill Murray's acting is astounding... is there an actor who spends more time in his "deep in thought" mode, with eyeballs looking at the ceiling? You could quite well believe that none of it is scripted, and he's pausing in deep thought because he really is trying to compose the next best line! A scene where, through appropriate name-dropping, he charms his way out of a traffic infringement with two New York cops is utterly absorbing.
Behind every embarrassing father is a grown-up daughter rolling her eyes. (I should know!) And Rashida Jones is perfect in the role. I'm not familiar with Jones's previous work, but she was just perfect as the foil for Murray's humour.
There's dry comedy to be had throughout "On the Rocks" which I found delightful. A running joke is Laura's drop-off and pick-ups from the local kindergarten, where she is repeatedly pinned against the wall by single-mum Vanessa (Jenny Slate) and bored to death with her moans about boyfriend-hunting on the New York scene! It's an insight that the project is led by a female writer/director, reminiscing about personal experiences!
Coppola's script also buzzes with politically incorrect views of the playboy Felix. (He reminds me strongly of an ex-work colleague: the life and soul of any party and with a charisma that is naturally attractive to women!)
For me, there was just one misstep in the movie. There's a sub-plot about the estranged relationship between Felix and Laura's mother, and the unspoken tension that lies there. This all comes to a head in a hotel bedroom, and for me personally it brought the mood of the movie down and wasn't necessary. It's a relatively minor thing. But the result was that it just took the edge off things for me in declaring it a classic.
This is one of those flicks produced for Apple, in cinemas only while en-route to their streaming service to make it eligible for Oscar consideration. And it's actually available now. This is Coppola's third outing with Murray, with the most famous being the Oscar winner "Lost in Translation". I'm actually not a mad fan of that film. But this one comes with a "Highly recommended".
(For the full graphical review, please check out the bob the movie man review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/10/23/love-on-the-rocks-aint-no-surprise/ . Thanks)
Kara Skinner (332 KP) rated Confessions of an Expat in Paris in Books
Sep 16, 2019
I’ve been a fan of Vicki Lesage for years. I’ve read both Confessions of a Paris Party Girl and Confessions of a Paris Potty Trainer. So I was thrilled when she contacted me for an honest review (click here to learn how to get me to review your book).
Paris Potty Girl details her first few years in Paris, from bar-hopping to getting her first apartment to meeting her husband and Paris Potty Trainer, of course, details pregnancies and getting used to parenthood.
Confessions of an Expat in Paris is an anthology of anecdotes spanning across both these eras in Vicki Lesage’s life. You’ll learn about the cheesy and downright weird pick-up lines she received from French guys as well as the time she might have eaten part of her friend’s thumb.
Yep, you read that last sentence right.
Each anecdote is paired with a drink recipe, many of which sound really good. I can’t wait to try the mulled gin recipe.
Mulled Gin
For when you need to recover from face mask fails
1 bottle of red wine
12 oz. gin
1 teaspoon honey
1 oz. orange juice
1 oz. lemon juice
1 cinnamon stick
Add all the ingredients to a pot
Stir and Simmer until honey is dissolved
Serve warm
I really enjoyed Expat in Paris. The stories are usually hilarious and sometimes just a little bit cringy in a good way. Others are sweet and make me smile, like when she was on her honeymoon with her husband.
With her first two books, I felt like there was more of an overall story instead of disjointed anecdotes. As much as I liked being able to enjoy a quick and witty snapshot of her life before I had to get back to my own, I think I preferred the more continuous storyline in Party Girl and Potty Trainer.
While some of the stories were without a doubt hilariously absurd, like her boss’s father asking about how her vaginal rejuvenation was coming along in front of her coworkers (what the everloving fuck), others were less climactic. Lesage included an entire chapter about how she’s an awkward dancer, except when she did the Dirty Dancing move with her brother on her wedding.
A perfect wedding dance move.
The dancing chapter felt more like a summary than a specific moment in her life, which made my eyes glaze over. And she only casually mentioned what could have been some good stories, like her drunkenly dancing on tabletops in public. I would have loved a complete chapter about one of those times, but they are only mentioned now and then.
Vicki Lesage often makes me laugh out loud when reading her books. Her chapter “10 Ways Living in Paris is Like Dental Work” will always make me smile. She talks about how both involve interesting flavors, a lot of paperwork, and a lot of money, and I’ll go “Oh shit, she’s right.”
Now and then, however, her jokes miss the mark. At one point she veered off-topic to stage an imaginary trial to defend herself against herself for eating so much Ben and Jerry’s ice cream and then, within the trial, she goes even more off-topic by talking about how France doesn’t have Phish Food flavor until I just wanted to skip the chapter.
As of this review, I still haven’t tried any of the drink recipes, but I trust a former hardcore drinker like Vicki Lesage to come up with some good drinks, although I don’t think I’ll ever try The Fluoride Treatment because, well, ew. Not the drink itself, but the name. Even though it’s relevant to the chapter, I’m weirdly squeamish.
However, most of these drinks are probably not for amateurs like me, who drink wine out of a box and can’t tell the difference between Stella Artois and Schlitz (I’m guessing. I’ve never actually had Schlitz. But Stella Artois tastes like every other beer to me).
With the exception of the mulled gin, most of the drink recipes require either a martini shaker or a blender. You can probably mostly pull off these recipes without either, though. Just don’t take a page out of Lesage’s book and use lite pancake syrup instead of honey.
I rate Confessions of an Expat in Paris 4 out of 5 stars. It’s a hilarious book that I recommend to anyone who wants a light-hearted memoir.
Paris Potty Girl details her first few years in Paris, from bar-hopping to getting her first apartment to meeting her husband and Paris Potty Trainer, of course, details pregnancies and getting used to parenthood.
Confessions of an Expat in Paris is an anthology of anecdotes spanning across both these eras in Vicki Lesage’s life. You’ll learn about the cheesy and downright weird pick-up lines she received from French guys as well as the time she might have eaten part of her friend’s thumb.
Yep, you read that last sentence right.
Each anecdote is paired with a drink recipe, many of which sound really good. I can’t wait to try the mulled gin recipe.
Mulled Gin
For when you need to recover from face mask fails
1 bottle of red wine
12 oz. gin
1 teaspoon honey
1 oz. orange juice
1 oz. lemon juice
1 cinnamon stick
Add all the ingredients to a pot
Stir and Simmer until honey is dissolved
Serve warm
I really enjoyed Expat in Paris. The stories are usually hilarious and sometimes just a little bit cringy in a good way. Others are sweet and make me smile, like when she was on her honeymoon with her husband.
With her first two books, I felt like there was more of an overall story instead of disjointed anecdotes. As much as I liked being able to enjoy a quick and witty snapshot of her life before I had to get back to my own, I think I preferred the more continuous storyline in Party Girl and Potty Trainer.
While some of the stories were without a doubt hilariously absurd, like her boss’s father asking about how her vaginal rejuvenation was coming along in front of her coworkers (what the everloving fuck), others were less climactic. Lesage included an entire chapter about how she’s an awkward dancer, except when she did the Dirty Dancing move with her brother on her wedding.
A perfect wedding dance move.
The dancing chapter felt more like a summary than a specific moment in her life, which made my eyes glaze over. And she only casually mentioned what could have been some good stories, like her drunkenly dancing on tabletops in public. I would have loved a complete chapter about one of those times, but they are only mentioned now and then.
Vicki Lesage often makes me laugh out loud when reading her books. Her chapter “10 Ways Living in Paris is Like Dental Work” will always make me smile. She talks about how both involve interesting flavors, a lot of paperwork, and a lot of money, and I’ll go “Oh shit, she’s right.”
Now and then, however, her jokes miss the mark. At one point she veered off-topic to stage an imaginary trial to defend herself against herself for eating so much Ben and Jerry’s ice cream and then, within the trial, she goes even more off-topic by talking about how France doesn’t have Phish Food flavor until I just wanted to skip the chapter.
As of this review, I still haven’t tried any of the drink recipes, but I trust a former hardcore drinker like Vicki Lesage to come up with some good drinks, although I don’t think I’ll ever try The Fluoride Treatment because, well, ew. Not the drink itself, but the name. Even though it’s relevant to the chapter, I’m weirdly squeamish.
However, most of these drinks are probably not for amateurs like me, who drink wine out of a box and can’t tell the difference between Stella Artois and Schlitz (I’m guessing. I’ve never actually had Schlitz. But Stella Artois tastes like every other beer to me).
With the exception of the mulled gin, most of the drink recipes require either a martini shaker or a blender. You can probably mostly pull off these recipes without either, though. Just don’t take a page out of Lesage’s book and use lite pancake syrup instead of honey.
I rate Confessions of an Expat in Paris 4 out of 5 stars. It’s a hilarious book that I recommend to anyone who wants a light-hearted memoir.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Downton Abbey (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Very little happens…. and it’s totally glorious!
The “Downton Abbey” TV show is comfortingly bland. The tales of the well-heeled Grantham family and the below-stairs antics of their servants. But for those who have followed Julian Fellowes‘ pot-boiler drama through all six seasons, and a number of Christmas specials, it’s like a favourite jumper… or rediscovering your comfy slippers just as the nights start getting colder.
But in a world where TV spin-off movies are notoriously dire, would this movie by the nail in Downton’s coffin?
Thankfully not.
It’s a glorious production! The opening of this film will, I’m sure, fill all Downton fans with utter glee. John Lunn‘s music builds progressively as a royal letter wends its way through the 1927 postal system, eventually ending up (as the famous theme finally emerges spectacularly) at the doors of Downton Abbey. (Downton is of course the gorgeous Highclere Castle near Newbury, acting as a star of the film in its own right. Somewhere I was lucky enough to visit just a couple of weeks before filming began).
The plot(s).
In a year of Thanos-crushing drama, there really is nothing very substantial going on here!
The King (George V, an almost unrecognizable Simon “Hitchhikers Guide” Jones) and Queen Mary (Geraldine James) are staying over in Downton for one night on their Yorkshire tour. This naturally sets the below-stairs staff into a bit of a tizz, as indeed it does the whole village. But their glee at involvement and recognition is a bit premature, since the royal entourage – headed by an officious Mr Wilson (David Haig) – parachute the complete gamut of staff into the location to serve the royal party, so bypassing the locals completely.
The ‘Downton massive’ are of course having none of this, and a battle-royale ensues.
Scattered as sub-plots like confetti at a wedding are a military man putting a strong arm around the potentially-risky Irish Tom Branson (Allen Leech); a family rift that erupts between Aunt Violet (Maggie Smith) and cousin (and royal lady-in-waiting) Maud Bagshaw (Imelda Staunton); a sobbing princess (Kate Phillips); an over-enthusiastic shopkeeper (Mark Addy), who is difficult to let-down gently; a plumbing emergency with romantic jealousy and sabotage involved; the sexual preferences of Barrow (Robert James-Collier) getting him into trouble; and a potential love-interest for the widowed Tom with Maud’s maid Lucy (Tuppence Middleton). (There are probably half a dozen others that I’ve forgotten!)
A huge ensemble cast.
As befits a show that has gone over six seasons, there is a huge ensemble cast involved. Inevitably, some get more air time than others. Bates (Brendan Coyle) seems to be particularly short-changed, and above stairs I thought the same was true – strangely enough – of the Crawleys (Hugh Bonneville and Elizabeth McGovern).
As for Henry Talbot (Matthew Goode), he’s hardly in it at all! Apart from some impressive camera gymnastics for his running-up-the-stairs arrival, he doesn’t make much of an impression at all. (I can only guess he had other filming commitments).
These are players that have worked together as a team for many years, and it shows.
But the acting kudos has to go to Maggie Smith who steals absolutely every scene she’s in, with genuinely witty lines – “I’ll lick the stamps myself” (LoL). Close behind though is Imelda Staunton who also turns in a very impressive performance.
Glorious photography.
The photography is fantastic throughout, with deep rich colours, pin-sharp focus and some seriously dramatic pans. A big hats off to cinematographer Ben Smithard, but also to his drone team (“The helicopter ladies”) for delivering some jaw-droppingly gorgeous shots of Highclere castle.
(By the way, I thought the picture at my local Picturehouse cinema – Harbour Lights in Southampton – was particularly stunning: I queried it with them, and they said they had changed the (very expensive) projector bulb just that day! These things clearly matter!)
Will is appeal?
If you are a Downton fan, yes, Yes, YES! I have been a moderate fan of the TV series, but went with superfans – the illustrious Mrs Movie-Man and (as a guest visitor) Miss Movie-Man. I loved it, but the two ladies were ecstatic with the movie.
Even if you have never seen an episode, it is easy to pick up and the quality of the production is so impressive I don’t think you will be disappointed.
As such, I think I need to post a blend of ratings for this one.
But in a world where TV spin-off movies are notoriously dire, would this movie by the nail in Downton’s coffin?
Thankfully not.
It’s a glorious production! The opening of this film will, I’m sure, fill all Downton fans with utter glee. John Lunn‘s music builds progressively as a royal letter wends its way through the 1927 postal system, eventually ending up (as the famous theme finally emerges spectacularly) at the doors of Downton Abbey. (Downton is of course the gorgeous Highclere Castle near Newbury, acting as a star of the film in its own right. Somewhere I was lucky enough to visit just a couple of weeks before filming began).
The plot(s).
In a year of Thanos-crushing drama, there really is nothing very substantial going on here!
The King (George V, an almost unrecognizable Simon “Hitchhikers Guide” Jones) and Queen Mary (Geraldine James) are staying over in Downton for one night on their Yorkshire tour. This naturally sets the below-stairs staff into a bit of a tizz, as indeed it does the whole village. But their glee at involvement and recognition is a bit premature, since the royal entourage – headed by an officious Mr Wilson (David Haig) – parachute the complete gamut of staff into the location to serve the royal party, so bypassing the locals completely.
The ‘Downton massive’ are of course having none of this, and a battle-royale ensues.
Scattered as sub-plots like confetti at a wedding are a military man putting a strong arm around the potentially-risky Irish Tom Branson (Allen Leech); a family rift that erupts between Aunt Violet (Maggie Smith) and cousin (and royal lady-in-waiting) Maud Bagshaw (Imelda Staunton); a sobbing princess (Kate Phillips); an over-enthusiastic shopkeeper (Mark Addy), who is difficult to let-down gently; a plumbing emergency with romantic jealousy and sabotage involved; the sexual preferences of Barrow (Robert James-Collier) getting him into trouble; and a potential love-interest for the widowed Tom with Maud’s maid Lucy (Tuppence Middleton). (There are probably half a dozen others that I’ve forgotten!)
A huge ensemble cast.
As befits a show that has gone over six seasons, there is a huge ensemble cast involved. Inevitably, some get more air time than others. Bates (Brendan Coyle) seems to be particularly short-changed, and above stairs I thought the same was true – strangely enough – of the Crawleys (Hugh Bonneville and Elizabeth McGovern).
As for Henry Talbot (Matthew Goode), he’s hardly in it at all! Apart from some impressive camera gymnastics for his running-up-the-stairs arrival, he doesn’t make much of an impression at all. (I can only guess he had other filming commitments).
These are players that have worked together as a team for many years, and it shows.
But the acting kudos has to go to Maggie Smith who steals absolutely every scene she’s in, with genuinely witty lines – “I’ll lick the stamps myself” (LoL). Close behind though is Imelda Staunton who also turns in a very impressive performance.
Glorious photography.
The photography is fantastic throughout, with deep rich colours, pin-sharp focus and some seriously dramatic pans. A big hats off to cinematographer Ben Smithard, but also to his drone team (“The helicopter ladies”) for delivering some jaw-droppingly gorgeous shots of Highclere castle.
(By the way, I thought the picture at my local Picturehouse cinema – Harbour Lights in Southampton – was particularly stunning: I queried it with them, and they said they had changed the (very expensive) projector bulb just that day! These things clearly matter!)
Will is appeal?
If you are a Downton fan, yes, Yes, YES! I have been a moderate fan of the TV series, but went with superfans – the illustrious Mrs Movie-Man and (as a guest visitor) Miss Movie-Man. I loved it, but the two ladies were ecstatic with the movie.
Even if you have never seen an episode, it is easy to pick up and the quality of the production is so impressive I don’t think you will be disappointed.
As such, I think I need to post a blend of ratings for this one.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Thor: Ragnarok (2017) in Movies
Oct 30, 2017 (Updated Oct 30, 2017)
Amazing visuals (2 more)
Witty dialogue
Surprise appearances
Inconsistent tone (2 more)
Anti climax
Wasted villain
The Worst Avenger's Best Movie
Contains spoilers, click to show
After seeing Thor: Ragnarok, I feel like the filmmakers were so paranoid about not churning out another formulaic, checklist of a Marvel movie that they chucked a whole bunch of disparate ideas into this mixing pot of a film and hoped that some of it would work. To some extent they were right; some of it does work, but some of it really doesn't. The stuff that doesn't work would probably work okay in a separate movie, but here it just provides a lack of cohesion and brings a jolting change of tone to many of the film's scenes.
Let me elaborate on what I mean and there will be spoilers from this point on. This movie should have been at least three different movies:
There should have been a movie about Hela's return to Asgard, showing her recruiting Skurge and raising her army of the dead and showing Thor and Loki being forced to put their differences aside and having to work together to defeat their more powerful, evil sister.
There should have been another movie about Thor ending up on Sakaar and having to battle Hulk and other competitors and eventually starting an uprising against the Grandmaster.
Then there should have been a third movie about Ragnarok and striving to prevent that event from occurring and defeating Surtur.
The plot elements of Ragnarok could have been split into three movies and it would mean that certain characters wouldn't have been wasted and that the big events that take place would have had more weight and gravitas to them, instead of just being brushed off in favour of getting to the next punch-line.
For example, Odin dies in this film and Thor and Loki deal with it and move on in a matter of seconds. There are no emotional repercussions whatsoever. Another example is the Warriors Three appearing in a single scene, having no dialogue and being killed in a matter of seconds of being onscreen. They attempt a character arc with Skurge, but again Karl Urban is onscreen for such a small amount of time that no resolution is felt following his sacrifice at the end of the movie. As soon as Cate Blanchett starts to show some potential as a memorable Marvel villain, the movie cuts away to yet another scene of Hulk and Thor bantering on Sakaar. Idris Elba is wasted too, having barely any dialogue and a very dull subplot. Jeff Goldblum is used purely as a gimmick and again is wasted by not having anywhere near enough screen time. I normally like seeing Tessa Thompson in things, but even she phoned it in here, with her accent taking on multiple different tones and dialects from scene to scene. Then, at the end of the movie, it is like the filmmakers suddenly remembered, 'oh that's right we need to conclude that Ragnarok subplot that we started at the beginning of the movie.' You know the FU***NG TITLE OF THE MOVIE. And so that gets tacked on at the end to sort of bring a conclusion to all of the other multiple subplots and lazily wrap up the movie.
The sheer amount of ideas that they attempted to incorporate here, makes so many elements of the movie's plot feel underdeveloped and although most of these separate parts could have worked if they were split up and fleshed out, here they all just end up falling flat by the end of the movie making the film feel anti-climatic as a whole.
Don't get me wrong, there is also a lot here that works too. I thought the cameos from Matt Damon, Luke Hemsworth and Sam Neill was awesome. I liked the Doctor Strange appearance. I like how they had Thor lose his eye and I especially like how they managed to keep that out of all of the trailer and marketing. The trailers did ruin some things though, if we didn't already know that Mjolnir was going to get destroyed through seeing the trailers, it would have had more of an impact and all the talk about the vicious rival that Thor would have to face in the gladiator ring would have been way more effective if we didn't already know that it was going to be the Hulk.
Let's end things on a high note, the visuals were spectacular and this movie is worth going to see in theatres just for this alone. The CGI was incredible and the soundtrack was pretty great too. Overall this is a fun movie, but if like me you have been invested in these characters for the last five years, to see some of them go out with a whimper and some long term story arcs come to a disappointing conclusion, is unsatisfying to say the least.
Let me elaborate on what I mean and there will be spoilers from this point on. This movie should have been at least three different movies:
There should have been a movie about Hela's return to Asgard, showing her recruiting Skurge and raising her army of the dead and showing Thor and Loki being forced to put their differences aside and having to work together to defeat their more powerful, evil sister.
There should have been another movie about Thor ending up on Sakaar and having to battle Hulk and other competitors and eventually starting an uprising against the Grandmaster.
Then there should have been a third movie about Ragnarok and striving to prevent that event from occurring and defeating Surtur.
The plot elements of Ragnarok could have been split into three movies and it would mean that certain characters wouldn't have been wasted and that the big events that take place would have had more weight and gravitas to them, instead of just being brushed off in favour of getting to the next punch-line.
For example, Odin dies in this film and Thor and Loki deal with it and move on in a matter of seconds. There are no emotional repercussions whatsoever. Another example is the Warriors Three appearing in a single scene, having no dialogue and being killed in a matter of seconds of being onscreen. They attempt a character arc with Skurge, but again Karl Urban is onscreen for such a small amount of time that no resolution is felt following his sacrifice at the end of the movie. As soon as Cate Blanchett starts to show some potential as a memorable Marvel villain, the movie cuts away to yet another scene of Hulk and Thor bantering on Sakaar. Idris Elba is wasted too, having barely any dialogue and a very dull subplot. Jeff Goldblum is used purely as a gimmick and again is wasted by not having anywhere near enough screen time. I normally like seeing Tessa Thompson in things, but even she phoned it in here, with her accent taking on multiple different tones and dialects from scene to scene. Then, at the end of the movie, it is like the filmmakers suddenly remembered, 'oh that's right we need to conclude that Ragnarok subplot that we started at the beginning of the movie.' You know the FU***NG TITLE OF THE MOVIE. And so that gets tacked on at the end to sort of bring a conclusion to all of the other multiple subplots and lazily wrap up the movie.
The sheer amount of ideas that they attempted to incorporate here, makes so many elements of the movie's plot feel underdeveloped and although most of these separate parts could have worked if they were split up and fleshed out, here they all just end up falling flat by the end of the movie making the film feel anti-climatic as a whole.
Don't get me wrong, there is also a lot here that works too. I thought the cameos from Matt Damon, Luke Hemsworth and Sam Neill was awesome. I liked the Doctor Strange appearance. I like how they had Thor lose his eye and I especially like how they managed to keep that out of all of the trailer and marketing. The trailers did ruin some things though, if we didn't already know that Mjolnir was going to get destroyed through seeing the trailers, it would have had more of an impact and all the talk about the vicious rival that Thor would have to face in the gladiator ring would have been way more effective if we didn't already know that it was going to be the Hulk.
Let's end things on a high note, the visuals were spectacular and this movie is worth going to see in theatres just for this alone. The CGI was incredible and the soundtrack was pretty great too. Overall this is a fun movie, but if like me you have been invested in these characters for the last five years, to see some of them go out with a whimper and some long term story arcs come to a disappointing conclusion, is unsatisfying to say the least.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Alice in Zombieland - White Rabbit Chronicles in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review can also be found on my blog at <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.co.uk">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>).
I've been dying to read this book since I first heard about it months ago. I love zombies because, well, zombies are just so darn cool! However, I think I built myself up a bit too much and bought in to the hype a bit too much. I didn't think the book was bad, but I didn't think it was that great either.
Alice, or Ali for short, thinks her father is crazy. He has so many rules when it comes to his daughters, especially things that involve go out during the night. He's worried about the monsters, but Alice just thinks he's going insane until one night, her whole family is killed in a car crash. It is then that she sees her first monster. Maybe her dad wasn't crazy after all. Alice will have to enlist the help of the school's bad crowd if she wants answers, and that means getting close to Cole Holland, the resident bad boy. Will Alice have her heart broken? Will she even be able to survive long enough to have her heart broken?
Okay, I absolutely, positively love, love, love the title of this book: Alice in Zombieland. It just has a certain ring to it. I'd say the title definitely describes the story. If I were to sum up this book in three words, Alice in Zombieland would be exactly what I'd say.
I do think the cover is pretty, but I feel that it's lacking. I do love the little details there are to see when you look closer at the cover, but as I said, something is missing from the cover. I think it would've been cool, maybe, to have a few zombies on the cover as well.
The world building is fantastic! Gena Showalter makes it feel as if a zombie apocalypse is actually happening or really could happen. It's so easy to get lost in Alice's world and forget that you're actually just reading a story. The author makes the world of zombies come to life, and it does get a bit scary.
The pacing is what really bothered me. I felt as if it was a bit all over the place. At the very beginning, I felt I was losing the will to live as the pacing was so slow. Then it got a bit better, then it'd get slow, then it'd get better again. My interest in this book was all over the place. I never knew what to expect in the next chapter. Was it going to be super slow or fast paced?
The dialogue was believable for the teenagers. They spoke exactly how I'd imagine teens of today to speak. However, Alice has a seven year old sister who spoke like she was at least thirteen years old. Her vocabulary, and the way she spoke were definitely not normal for a seven year old. With that said, I did enjoy the dialogue immensely especially when it came to interactions between Kat and Alice. I even loved the sarcastic interactions between Cole and Alice. There wasn't any swearing in this book which I admired.
I thought the characters were fantastic and very believable. I loved how Alice was willing to do whatever it took to avenge her family and how she wasn't willing to take anything from anybody. Cole is your typical bad boy: moody, snarly, sarcastic, etc. There is something likable about Cole, and as the story progresses, we find out a little bit about why Cole is the way he is. My favourite character had to be Kat though. I loved her witty and sarcastic sense of humour. In fact, I wish I could be like Kat. She definitely had me laughing quite a bit. The only non-believable character was Alice's little sister Emma. As stated in the previous paragraph, she didn't speak like a normal seven year old, nor did she act like an everyday seven year old. Because of that, I had a hard time relating to her as a character.
One thing I really loved about this book was the chapter names. I loved how they were zombie related but still had the Alice in Wonderland feel about them. Unfortunately, this was not enough to warrant a higher rating for this book. Perhaps it's just me though as this book does have quite high reviews, but I just couldn't enjoy it that much. I might carry on with the series in the hopes it gets better, but I'm not dying to read the next book in the series.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 14+ if I really had to recommend it. However, I'd say don't waste your money. Rent it from a library or borrow it if you really want to read it.
Alice in Zombieland (The White Rabbit Chronicles #1) by Gena Showalter gets a 3.25 out of 5 from me.
I've been dying to read this book since I first heard about it months ago. I love zombies because, well, zombies are just so darn cool! However, I think I built myself up a bit too much and bought in to the hype a bit too much. I didn't think the book was bad, but I didn't think it was that great either.
Alice, or Ali for short, thinks her father is crazy. He has so many rules when it comes to his daughters, especially things that involve go out during the night. He's worried about the monsters, but Alice just thinks he's going insane until one night, her whole family is killed in a car crash. It is then that she sees her first monster. Maybe her dad wasn't crazy after all. Alice will have to enlist the help of the school's bad crowd if she wants answers, and that means getting close to Cole Holland, the resident bad boy. Will Alice have her heart broken? Will she even be able to survive long enough to have her heart broken?
Okay, I absolutely, positively love, love, love the title of this book: Alice in Zombieland. It just has a certain ring to it. I'd say the title definitely describes the story. If I were to sum up this book in three words, Alice in Zombieland would be exactly what I'd say.
I do think the cover is pretty, but I feel that it's lacking. I do love the little details there are to see when you look closer at the cover, but as I said, something is missing from the cover. I think it would've been cool, maybe, to have a few zombies on the cover as well.
The world building is fantastic! Gena Showalter makes it feel as if a zombie apocalypse is actually happening or really could happen. It's so easy to get lost in Alice's world and forget that you're actually just reading a story. The author makes the world of zombies come to life, and it does get a bit scary.
The pacing is what really bothered me. I felt as if it was a bit all over the place. At the very beginning, I felt I was losing the will to live as the pacing was so slow. Then it got a bit better, then it'd get slow, then it'd get better again. My interest in this book was all over the place. I never knew what to expect in the next chapter. Was it going to be super slow or fast paced?
The dialogue was believable for the teenagers. They spoke exactly how I'd imagine teens of today to speak. However, Alice has a seven year old sister who spoke like she was at least thirteen years old. Her vocabulary, and the way she spoke were definitely not normal for a seven year old. With that said, I did enjoy the dialogue immensely especially when it came to interactions between Kat and Alice. I even loved the sarcastic interactions between Cole and Alice. There wasn't any swearing in this book which I admired.
I thought the characters were fantastic and very believable. I loved how Alice was willing to do whatever it took to avenge her family and how she wasn't willing to take anything from anybody. Cole is your typical bad boy: moody, snarly, sarcastic, etc. There is something likable about Cole, and as the story progresses, we find out a little bit about why Cole is the way he is. My favourite character had to be Kat though. I loved her witty and sarcastic sense of humour. In fact, I wish I could be like Kat. She definitely had me laughing quite a bit. The only non-believable character was Alice's little sister Emma. As stated in the previous paragraph, she didn't speak like a normal seven year old, nor did she act like an everyday seven year old. Because of that, I had a hard time relating to her as a character.
One thing I really loved about this book was the chapter names. I loved how they were zombie related but still had the Alice in Wonderland feel about them. Unfortunately, this was not enough to warrant a higher rating for this book. Perhaps it's just me though as this book does have quite high reviews, but I just couldn't enjoy it that much. I might carry on with the series in the hopes it gets better, but I'm not dying to read the next book in the series.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 14+ if I really had to recommend it. However, I'd say don't waste your money. Rent it from a library or borrow it if you really want to read it.
Alice in Zombieland (The White Rabbit Chronicles #1) by Gena Showalter gets a 3.25 out of 5 from me.
Louise (64 KP) rated Me Before You in Books
Jul 2, 2018
This book has all the feels and is just all round fantastic, in my eyes this book was faultless!
Lou Clark has recently just lost her job and is in desperate need to find an alternative to be able to pay rent and help support her sister, nephew and grandfather. Lou hasn’t got many skills listed on her CV after working at the ‘Buttered Bun’ so it’s difficult to find a job in the small village with decent pay. When her job seeker advises her a position has just come up for a carer/assistant for a paraplegic, Lou is hesitant, she hasn’t the faintest idea if she could do this job and concerned about having to help people to the toilet. Incredibly Lou manages to get the job, and is introduced to Will Traynor. Will is paralysed from the waist down with limited use of his hands and Lou’s job is to help him eat, drink and to just keep him company. With Will grieving for the life he used to have and Lou being a happy-go-lucky sort of gal, they begin to change each others lives in ways they did not expect.
I will start off with the characters, they were great, equally complex and just all round enjoyable to read about. Lou was just brilliant with her quirky dress code and very British humour. She made me laugh quite a lot during this book especially when she felt awkward and would say stupid things. I loved Will, yeah he was brooding and foreboding but who wouldn’t be if they were put in that situation. Will was very humourous, he was very witty and sarcastic and matched Lou, between them they had some amazing banter that just made me smile throughout this book. The one character who I didn’t particularly like was Patrick, Patrick is Lou’s boyfriend, they have been together for years and it seems they have settled into a somewhat comfortable relationship, maybe too comfortable. Patrick is obsessed with doing a triathlon/marathon, he is constantly training, Lou is always working so they don’t see much each other but what makes him unlikable is his jealousy and that he takes Lou for granted.
This book has one of the best family dynamics I have ever read and I really really loved it. Lou lives with her mum, Dad,Sister, Nephew and Grandad. The interactions between them all were so realistic and relatable and the reasons for them living the way they were is how a lot of families live nowadays. I will keep saying this but everything about the family was so British and I loved it.It made me feel proud to be British….. I dunno why but it just did.
The book is told mainly from Lou’s perspective, however you do get a chapter or two from alternative POV’s such as Camilla (Will’s mother) and I really appreciated it, however I enjoyed Lou so much that I didn’t want the other perspective. If Jojo hadn’t of done this I would probably be writing how much I would have liked an alternative POV. (Sometimes you just can’t win).
Jojo Moyes certainly opened my eyes to how people with spinal cord injuries live and how inadequate they must feel, especially as Will had such a fulfilling job and enjoyed life to the full before his accident.
The book is packed full of emotions, you had the whole awkwardness, the sarcasm and laughs. Banter between the characters and also there were sad moments and I never NEVER! cry at books. But Jojo Moyes broke me and she did the impossible…. she made me cry! It’s all down to her fantastic storytelling, character development and great writing. The book is quite big (pagewise) but due to Moyes writing style it’s a really fun, quick and easy read.
The Movie! Will I be seeing it? I am not sure! I don’t want it to be really crap and let me down. I watched the trailer and I am just not sure about the cast! When I look at Lou I will always be thinking Daenerys and I pictured Will being more attractive…..more like Patrick Dempsey (even though he is probably too old for the role) The other question that needs to be answered is, Will I be reading the sequel ‘After you’? Again I don’t know! I have heard that it’s not as good and also I don’t want anything to spoil my view of this book. Let me know if any of you have read after you and if it’s worth it. I will be looking into Jojo Moyes other books. I would give this book all the stars in the world I absolutely loved it.
I recommend this to anyone.
Overall I rated this 5 out of 5 stars
Lou Clark has recently just lost her job and is in desperate need to find an alternative to be able to pay rent and help support her sister, nephew and grandfather. Lou hasn’t got many skills listed on her CV after working at the ‘Buttered Bun’ so it’s difficult to find a job in the small village with decent pay. When her job seeker advises her a position has just come up for a carer/assistant for a paraplegic, Lou is hesitant, she hasn’t the faintest idea if she could do this job and concerned about having to help people to the toilet. Incredibly Lou manages to get the job, and is introduced to Will Traynor. Will is paralysed from the waist down with limited use of his hands and Lou’s job is to help him eat, drink and to just keep him company. With Will grieving for the life he used to have and Lou being a happy-go-lucky sort of gal, they begin to change each others lives in ways they did not expect.
I will start off with the characters, they were great, equally complex and just all round enjoyable to read about. Lou was just brilliant with her quirky dress code and very British humour. She made me laugh quite a lot during this book especially when she felt awkward and would say stupid things. I loved Will, yeah he was brooding and foreboding but who wouldn’t be if they were put in that situation. Will was very humourous, he was very witty and sarcastic and matched Lou, between them they had some amazing banter that just made me smile throughout this book. The one character who I didn’t particularly like was Patrick, Patrick is Lou’s boyfriend, they have been together for years and it seems they have settled into a somewhat comfortable relationship, maybe too comfortable. Patrick is obsessed with doing a triathlon/marathon, he is constantly training, Lou is always working so they don’t see much each other but what makes him unlikable is his jealousy and that he takes Lou for granted.
This book has one of the best family dynamics I have ever read and I really really loved it. Lou lives with her mum, Dad,Sister, Nephew and Grandad. The interactions between them all were so realistic and relatable and the reasons for them living the way they were is how a lot of families live nowadays. I will keep saying this but everything about the family was so British and I loved it.It made me feel proud to be British….. I dunno why but it just did.
The book is told mainly from Lou’s perspective, however you do get a chapter or two from alternative POV’s such as Camilla (Will’s mother) and I really appreciated it, however I enjoyed Lou so much that I didn’t want the other perspective. If Jojo hadn’t of done this I would probably be writing how much I would have liked an alternative POV. (Sometimes you just can’t win).
Jojo Moyes certainly opened my eyes to how people with spinal cord injuries live and how inadequate they must feel, especially as Will had such a fulfilling job and enjoyed life to the full before his accident.
The book is packed full of emotions, you had the whole awkwardness, the sarcasm and laughs. Banter between the characters and also there were sad moments and I never NEVER! cry at books. But Jojo Moyes broke me and she did the impossible…. she made me cry! It’s all down to her fantastic storytelling, character development and great writing. The book is quite big (pagewise) but due to Moyes writing style it’s a really fun, quick and easy read.
The Movie! Will I be seeing it? I am not sure! I don’t want it to be really crap and let me down. I watched the trailer and I am just not sure about the cast! When I look at Lou I will always be thinking Daenerys and I pictured Will being more attractive…..more like Patrick Dempsey (even though he is probably too old for the role) The other question that needs to be answered is, Will I be reading the sequel ‘After you’? Again I don’t know! I have heard that it’s not as good and also I don’t want anything to spoil my view of this book. Let me know if any of you have read after you and if it’s worth it. I will be looking into Jojo Moyes other books. I would give this book all the stars in the world I absolutely loved it.
I recommend this to anyone.
Overall I rated this 5 out of 5 stars
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Potion Explosion in Tabletop Games
Jan 6, 2020
Your senior year at Horribilorum Sorcery Academy for Witty Witches and Wizards is almost at an end, but one thing stands between you and graduation – final exams! You’ve passed everything with flying colors, and now it’s time for your final exam in Potions class. Do you have what it takes to brew the most difficult and impressive potions? Or will amateur mistakes result in inaccurate recipes and ultimate failure? The time for studying is over, and the time for potion making is NOW!
Disclaimer: There are several expansions for this game. I do not have any of them, nor do I have any gameplay experience with any of them. If and when I do get them added into my base game, I will either amend this review or write a new one! – L
Potion Explosion is a game of set collection in which players are trying to complete potions for end-game VPs. To start the game, each player takes two beaker-shaped potion tiles to be kept in their desk (play area). On your turn, you will select one marble from the dispenser and play it to one of your potions. Easy enough. The marbles are housed in an angled dispenser, so when a marble is removed from one of the tracks, the rest roll down to fill in the gaps. Neat, right? But there’s a catch. If the marble you take causes two marbles of the same color to collide as they move down the dispenser, you have triggered an explosion! That means that you are allowed to take all marbles of the same color that were involved in the explosion on that same track. Sometimes, by removing all the marbles involved in an explosion, a second explosion may be triggered! In that case, you take all of those marbles as well!
Once you’ve taken a marble (or multiple, depending on any explosions), you immediately play those onto your active Potion Tiles. You have the option of keeping up to three marbles in the Ingredient Pool on your desk to be played in later turns. Extra marbles that cannot fit on your Potion Tiles or in your Ingredient Pool are returned to the dispenser. If you complete a potion on your turn, return its corresponding marbles to the dispenser and place the Potion Tile beneath your desk, to be scored at the end of the game. Then you select another Potion Tile from the available stacks to be added to your desk. You will always have two Potion Tiles on your desk. Your turn is now over, and play continues with the next player. The game ends when a certain number of Skill Tokens (earned for completing sets of 3 identical potions, or for completing sets of 5 different potions) have been awarded to players. Play continues until everyone has had the same amount of turns, and then VPs are counted. The player with the most VP is the winner!
I’ve got to lead this off by saying that one of the things I love most about Potion Explosion are the components. The Potion Tiles are nice and thick cardboard, and the marbles are just so much fun to fiddle with throughout the game. Yeah, I may accidentally roll some off the table every once in a while, but they’re a neat addition to the game. I’ve heard that the cardboard dispenser doesn’t hold up after many plays, but I have yet to see that issue, and know that lots of people are now 3D printing dispensers for themselves to circumvent this problem.
So how does it play? Potion Explosion is relatively fast to play, and requires more strategy than meets the eye. You’re selecting and playing marbles, but you’ve also got to keep an eye on any explosion possibilities. Maybe you need 4 blue marbles – are any of the dispenser tracks loaded with blues so that you could strategically trigger an explosion? Or is your neighbor really going for red marbles, so you trigger a red explosion just to keep those from them? The marble placement in the dispenser may be random, but your manipulation of the available marbles is not. Strategy is everything here, because one mistake in marble selection could end up handing your opponents the game.
I thoroughly enjoy Potion Explosion. It’s fast to teach, fast to learn, and fun to play with all ages! The mechanism of the marble dispenser is pretty neat, and it adds an extra element to the game. This game keeps me engaged the entire time because it is just so fun to watch the marbles moving down the tracks and potentially triggering multiple explosions. Although it requires good strategy, it’s a light enough game to give your a break in between some heavier brain-burners. If you haven’t had the opportunity to try Potion Explosion yet, I would highly recommend it. Purple Phoenix Games gives it a bubbling 14 / 18.
Disclaimer: There are several expansions for this game. I do not have any of them, nor do I have any gameplay experience with any of them. If and when I do get them added into my base game, I will either amend this review or write a new one! – L
Potion Explosion is a game of set collection in which players are trying to complete potions for end-game VPs. To start the game, each player takes two beaker-shaped potion tiles to be kept in their desk (play area). On your turn, you will select one marble from the dispenser and play it to one of your potions. Easy enough. The marbles are housed in an angled dispenser, so when a marble is removed from one of the tracks, the rest roll down to fill in the gaps. Neat, right? But there’s a catch. If the marble you take causes two marbles of the same color to collide as they move down the dispenser, you have triggered an explosion! That means that you are allowed to take all marbles of the same color that were involved in the explosion on that same track. Sometimes, by removing all the marbles involved in an explosion, a second explosion may be triggered! In that case, you take all of those marbles as well!
Once you’ve taken a marble (or multiple, depending on any explosions), you immediately play those onto your active Potion Tiles. You have the option of keeping up to three marbles in the Ingredient Pool on your desk to be played in later turns. Extra marbles that cannot fit on your Potion Tiles or in your Ingredient Pool are returned to the dispenser. If you complete a potion on your turn, return its corresponding marbles to the dispenser and place the Potion Tile beneath your desk, to be scored at the end of the game. Then you select another Potion Tile from the available stacks to be added to your desk. You will always have two Potion Tiles on your desk. Your turn is now over, and play continues with the next player. The game ends when a certain number of Skill Tokens (earned for completing sets of 3 identical potions, or for completing sets of 5 different potions) have been awarded to players. Play continues until everyone has had the same amount of turns, and then VPs are counted. The player with the most VP is the winner!
I’ve got to lead this off by saying that one of the things I love most about Potion Explosion are the components. The Potion Tiles are nice and thick cardboard, and the marbles are just so much fun to fiddle with throughout the game. Yeah, I may accidentally roll some off the table every once in a while, but they’re a neat addition to the game. I’ve heard that the cardboard dispenser doesn’t hold up after many plays, but I have yet to see that issue, and know that lots of people are now 3D printing dispensers for themselves to circumvent this problem.
So how does it play? Potion Explosion is relatively fast to play, and requires more strategy than meets the eye. You’re selecting and playing marbles, but you’ve also got to keep an eye on any explosion possibilities. Maybe you need 4 blue marbles – are any of the dispenser tracks loaded with blues so that you could strategically trigger an explosion? Or is your neighbor really going for red marbles, so you trigger a red explosion just to keep those from them? The marble placement in the dispenser may be random, but your manipulation of the available marbles is not. Strategy is everything here, because one mistake in marble selection could end up handing your opponents the game.
I thoroughly enjoy Potion Explosion. It’s fast to teach, fast to learn, and fun to play with all ages! The mechanism of the marble dispenser is pretty neat, and it adds an extra element to the game. This game keeps me engaged the entire time because it is just so fun to watch the marbles moving down the tracks and potentially triggering multiple explosions. Although it requires good strategy, it’s a light enough game to give your a break in between some heavier brain-burners. If you haven’t had the opportunity to try Potion Explosion yet, I would highly recommend it. Purple Phoenix Games gives it a bubbling 14 / 18.
Jamie (131 KP) rated What To Do With A Duke in Books
Jul 22, 2017
Mild humor (1 more)
Some good discussion about marriage and women
Unstable plot (2 more)
Frustrating characters
Vulgar male lead
A misguided curse
When it comes to historical romance, I look for one of two things: one, a compelling love story with some scenes that make me blush and fan myself; or two, a light and fluffy clean romance, sometimes with a touch of humor. What I demand from all historical romances is for both the romance and the setting to be believable. I’ve started to wonder if my standards are too high. When I went into this book, with the cute cover and hints at a curse, I figured this one might fall on the fluffy side of the spectrum (the cat on the cover may have influenced this assumption). I was sadly mistaken.
The characters seem so non-committal, not just with each other, but with upholding any of the values they claim to have. Catherine was constantly complaining about how she needed peace and solitude to write, but in the first half of the novel whenever she had it she didn’t do it. She blames family for her difficulties with not being able to be the next great novelist, but the problem was really with the fact that she was not all that committed to doing it. Just like she apparently was not all that committed to being a spinster, despite preaching about it constantly. I found Catherine’s character to be frustrating at every turn and had a hard time rooting for her.
Unfortunately, the other half of this love story was hardly any better. Marcus is dreamy for all of a few minutes, until he started talking about his manhood… Which he proceeded to do all the time. Every time the narration would switch to him, inevitably a thought would end with some note about what his cock wants. I suppose Marcus’ raw desire was supposed to be tantalizing, but I honestly just found it vulgar. It didn’t help that everything about Marcus and Catherine’s romance was a lust at first sight sort of scenario. I didn’t feel any real chemistry between them, even by the end when they are apparently in love with each other I still wasn’t feeling it. Literally everything always boiled back down to sex. The rest of the story and dialogue was not even all that funny, clever, or witty, it was just two stubborn people wanting to get in each other’s pants the entire book while being really over dramatic about, well, everything.
Then there is the curse plot line, which I could suspend my belief and go with it for a while, but even that felt like it was poorly thought out. Marcus has to control his desires and avoid marriage because he’s fearful of accidentally impregnating a woman, thus ending his life. Though somehow, he has no problem with brothel women and the risk of impregnating any of them? Because bastard children can’t be heirs? Sure, at that time period they certainly had a harder go of it, but it wasn’t unheard of. And even if that was the case, didn’t the curse start with an illegitimate child born to a woman jilted by her lover? The number of plot holes was staggering and it wouldn’t have been such a big deal if it wasn’t the central focus of the story.
I also didn’t buy the mildly magical ending with the cat. No I don’t hate the cat, on the contrary the cat was perhaps the best character in the entire book. It just seemed too convenient, too hastily put together. I was also bothered by the fact that, in order to I guess create some tension, Marcus had absolutely no interest in finding out the truth about the curse. That alone basically undid all of the effort, all of the worry, all of the focus this character had on this family curse that has weighed so heavily on him for his entire life. It made absolutely no sense for his character. I don’t even want to go into how his character contradicts himself again once the mystery is solved. I hated Marcus.
I almost put this book down after the first couple of chapters, but things picked up around the half way mark. After one scene that actually made me chuckle with the eye brow waggling old ladies, I had hope that maybe the story would redeem itself with the added bit of comedy. I was disappointed that things started to go downhill again once the book attempted to flesh out the curse and develop the romance between Catherine and Marcus. Which, while I’m on that subject – I absolutely hated how that turned out. Catherine spends the entire novel preaching about never wanting to get trapped in a marriage and to never have children, then finds herself trapped. It wasn’t romantic, it was just frustrating.
On a slightly random note, I also noticed at one point an expletive is used that I was fairly certain did not exist in the context that it was used during that time period. After looking it up my assumption was correct – while the word had existed in the more vulgar sense that it is commonly used, as a curse or slang word it didn’t come about until the 1920’s. I know it’s being overly nit picky, but things like that really ruin the immersion in the time period for me.
The characters seem so non-committal, not just with each other, but with upholding any of the values they claim to have. Catherine was constantly complaining about how she needed peace and solitude to write, but in the first half of the novel whenever she had it she didn’t do it. She blames family for her difficulties with not being able to be the next great novelist, but the problem was really with the fact that she was not all that committed to doing it. Just like she apparently was not all that committed to being a spinster, despite preaching about it constantly. I found Catherine’s character to be frustrating at every turn and had a hard time rooting for her.
Unfortunately, the other half of this love story was hardly any better. Marcus is dreamy for all of a few minutes, until he started talking about his manhood… Which he proceeded to do all the time. Every time the narration would switch to him, inevitably a thought would end with some note about what his cock wants. I suppose Marcus’ raw desire was supposed to be tantalizing, but I honestly just found it vulgar. It didn’t help that everything about Marcus and Catherine’s romance was a lust at first sight sort of scenario. I didn’t feel any real chemistry between them, even by the end when they are apparently in love with each other I still wasn’t feeling it. Literally everything always boiled back down to sex. The rest of the story and dialogue was not even all that funny, clever, or witty, it was just two stubborn people wanting to get in each other’s pants the entire book while being really over dramatic about, well, everything.
Then there is the curse plot line, which I could suspend my belief and go with it for a while, but even that felt like it was poorly thought out. Marcus has to control his desires and avoid marriage because he’s fearful of accidentally impregnating a woman, thus ending his life. Though somehow, he has no problem with brothel women and the risk of impregnating any of them? Because bastard children can’t be heirs? Sure, at that time period they certainly had a harder go of it, but it wasn’t unheard of. And even if that was the case, didn’t the curse start with an illegitimate child born to a woman jilted by her lover? The number of plot holes was staggering and it wouldn’t have been such a big deal if it wasn’t the central focus of the story.
I also didn’t buy the mildly magical ending with the cat. No I don’t hate the cat, on the contrary the cat was perhaps the best character in the entire book. It just seemed too convenient, too hastily put together. I was also bothered by the fact that, in order to I guess create some tension, Marcus had absolutely no interest in finding out the truth about the curse. That alone basically undid all of the effort, all of the worry, all of the focus this character had on this family curse that has weighed so heavily on him for his entire life. It made absolutely no sense for his character. I don’t even want to go into how his character contradicts himself again once the mystery is solved. I hated Marcus.
I almost put this book down after the first couple of chapters, but things picked up around the half way mark. After one scene that actually made me chuckle with the eye brow waggling old ladies, I had hope that maybe the story would redeem itself with the added bit of comedy. I was disappointed that things started to go downhill again once the book attempted to flesh out the curse and develop the romance between Catherine and Marcus. Which, while I’m on that subject – I absolutely hated how that turned out. Catherine spends the entire novel preaching about never wanting to get trapped in a marriage and to never have children, then finds herself trapped. It wasn’t romantic, it was just frustrating.
On a slightly random note, I also noticed at one point an expletive is used that I was fairly certain did not exist in the context that it was used during that time period. After looking it up my assumption was correct – while the word had existed in the more vulgar sense that it is commonly used, as a curse or slang word it didn’t come about until the 1920’s. I know it’s being overly nit picky, but things like that really ruin the immersion in the time period for me.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Tusk (2014) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
To legions of his many fans, writer, director, producer, and podcaster Kevin Smith is a man fanboys find easy to root for. His films have become pop-culture gold to comic book, science fiction, and general geekdom fans the world over. Smith has built a career on independent films with characters that are as real as they are raw and raunchy. The crude nature of his jokes often put him in a “love them or hate them” category for many critics as it is definitely not a style that is for the masses. That being said, the films are witty, honest, and most times relatable, no matter how bad the situations and the characters become. Recently, Smith took a detour to the darker side with his film “Red State” that looked at a group of kids who became the victims of a fanatical cult leader and his followers.
While Smith was reportedly working to get funding for “Clerks 3”, an idea was presented to him during his Smodcast about a guy in rural Canada who is offering free room and board to anybody who would live with him on the condition that they wear a walrus costume from time to time. Buoyed by his followers on Twitter, Smith decided to make a horror film based on the situation even after learning that the incident in question was the result of a prank by a comedian.
In his new film Tusk, we are introduced to a successful podcaster named Wallace (Justin Long), who along with his costar Teddy (Haley Joel Osment), run a show called the Not See Party, whose name leads to several double takes and comical and uncomfortable situations down the line. Wallace’s girlfriend Ally (Genesis Rodriguez) wishes to accompany Wallace to his trip up to Canada in order to interview someone for a show.
Since Teddy is not a flyer, Wallace travels to locations to interview people and then in turn tells the stories to Teddy so the two can comment about them on air. Ally longs for the Wallace of old who was a struggling comedian as she believes that the successful Wallace is not that fun to be around as he no longer makes her a priority in life. Wallace admits as much when he discloses a series of infidelities to Teddy and dismisses them as nothing more than clearing of the head while traveling or before doing a live show for an audience.
Upon arriving in Manitoba, Wallace learns that his intended interview has befallen tragedy and faced without a topic for his next show, Wallace is intrigued by a flyer from a man offering room and board as well as plenty of stories.
Wallace makes contact with the individual and travels two hours into rural Manitoba at night to meet the man at his expansive estate. Upon meeting Howard Howe (Michael Parks), Wallace is captivated by the elderly wheelchair-bound gentleman and his tales of life at sea including meeting Ernest Hemingway during the war. As Wallace sat spellbound by the tales Howard is telling him, he soon falls unconscious as a result of being drugged by his host. Things take a very dark turn the following morning when Howard learns that he has lost a leg of which Howard proclaims was the tragic result of a spider bite. Things become a living nightmare as Wallace quickly learns just how devious and diabolical Michael’s plans are for him and trapped in a remote area his humanity and faith are slowly stripped away by the situation he finds himself in.
Teddy and Ally travel to Manitoba due to a frantic call Wallace makes and not finding much assistance from the local authorities, turn to quirky and eccentric former homicide detective Guy LaPointe (Johnny Depp), who fears that Wallace has become the victim of an elusive killer whom LaPointe has been trying to find for years.
What follows is a dark, disturbing, and utterly captivating thriller in a race against time with the very essence and humanity of Wallace hanging in the balance.
While Smith inserts his trademark humor into the film, this is very much a psychological thriller and not a comedy. Depp does a fantastic job and is almost unrecognizable in his role as a homicide detective who is scheduled to appear in a subsequent film currently shooting. While it seemed a bit of a stretch that Ally would want be involved with Wallace, there was nonetheless a good bit of chemistry between them even though the majority of their scenes are shown via flashback.
Long and Parks propel the story as it is pretty much about the dramatic struggle between the two of them. Parks is captivating and creepy while the brash Wallace gets a lesson in humanity and what truly matters in life. While some will no doubt find the subject matter highly disturbing and may be quick to dismiss the film, this is one of the more clever and enjoyable thrillers in recent years and proves that Smith is a filmmaker capable of doing things other than his trademark comedies and should be encouraged to continue to broaden his horizons.
As it stands the film should delight fans of Smith but also allows him to expand his audience into new areas as this truly is one of the more memorable and entertaining films of the year.
http://sknr.net/2014/09/19/tusk/
While Smith was reportedly working to get funding for “Clerks 3”, an idea was presented to him during his Smodcast about a guy in rural Canada who is offering free room and board to anybody who would live with him on the condition that they wear a walrus costume from time to time. Buoyed by his followers on Twitter, Smith decided to make a horror film based on the situation even after learning that the incident in question was the result of a prank by a comedian.
In his new film Tusk, we are introduced to a successful podcaster named Wallace (Justin Long), who along with his costar Teddy (Haley Joel Osment), run a show called the Not See Party, whose name leads to several double takes and comical and uncomfortable situations down the line. Wallace’s girlfriend Ally (Genesis Rodriguez) wishes to accompany Wallace to his trip up to Canada in order to interview someone for a show.
Since Teddy is not a flyer, Wallace travels to locations to interview people and then in turn tells the stories to Teddy so the two can comment about them on air. Ally longs for the Wallace of old who was a struggling comedian as she believes that the successful Wallace is not that fun to be around as he no longer makes her a priority in life. Wallace admits as much when he discloses a series of infidelities to Teddy and dismisses them as nothing more than clearing of the head while traveling or before doing a live show for an audience.
Upon arriving in Manitoba, Wallace learns that his intended interview has befallen tragedy and faced without a topic for his next show, Wallace is intrigued by a flyer from a man offering room and board as well as plenty of stories.
Wallace makes contact with the individual and travels two hours into rural Manitoba at night to meet the man at his expansive estate. Upon meeting Howard Howe (Michael Parks), Wallace is captivated by the elderly wheelchair-bound gentleman and his tales of life at sea including meeting Ernest Hemingway during the war. As Wallace sat spellbound by the tales Howard is telling him, he soon falls unconscious as a result of being drugged by his host. Things take a very dark turn the following morning when Howard learns that he has lost a leg of which Howard proclaims was the tragic result of a spider bite. Things become a living nightmare as Wallace quickly learns just how devious and diabolical Michael’s plans are for him and trapped in a remote area his humanity and faith are slowly stripped away by the situation he finds himself in.
Teddy and Ally travel to Manitoba due to a frantic call Wallace makes and not finding much assistance from the local authorities, turn to quirky and eccentric former homicide detective Guy LaPointe (Johnny Depp), who fears that Wallace has become the victim of an elusive killer whom LaPointe has been trying to find for years.
What follows is a dark, disturbing, and utterly captivating thriller in a race against time with the very essence and humanity of Wallace hanging in the balance.
While Smith inserts his trademark humor into the film, this is very much a psychological thriller and not a comedy. Depp does a fantastic job and is almost unrecognizable in his role as a homicide detective who is scheduled to appear in a subsequent film currently shooting. While it seemed a bit of a stretch that Ally would want be involved with Wallace, there was nonetheless a good bit of chemistry between them even though the majority of their scenes are shown via flashback.
Long and Parks propel the story as it is pretty much about the dramatic struggle between the two of them. Parks is captivating and creepy while the brash Wallace gets a lesson in humanity and what truly matters in life. While some will no doubt find the subject matter highly disturbing and may be quick to dismiss the film, this is one of the more clever and enjoyable thrillers in recent years and proves that Smith is a filmmaker capable of doing things other than his trademark comedies and should be encouraged to continue to broaden his horizons.
As it stands the film should delight fans of Smith but also allows him to expand his audience into new areas as this truly is one of the more memorable and entertaining films of the year.
http://sknr.net/2014/09/19/tusk/