Search
CH
Cultural Heritage of the Great War in Britain
Book
As the hundredth anniversary approaches, it is timely to reflect not only upon the Great War itself...
High on Rebellion: Inside the Underground at Max's Kansas City
Book
Max's Kansas City, an all-in-one restaurant-bar-nightclub, opened its doors in December 1965 at 213...
The Binding of Isaac: Rebirth
Games
8.0
Rate It
App
Gameplay The Binding of Isaac is a randomly generated action RPG shooter with heavy Rogue-like...
Self-Portrait with Boy
Book
A compulsively readable and electrifying debut about an ambitious young female artist who...
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
Return of The King
The Lion King is a 2019 computer-animated musical movie directed and produced by Jon Favreau. It was written by Jeff Nathanson, and produced by Fairview Entertainment and Walt Disney Pictures and distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. The film stars Donald Glover, Seth Rogen, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Beyonce and James Earl Jones.
King Mufasa (James Earl Jones) and Queen Sarabi rule over the animal kingdom with their pride of lions from Pride Rock, in the African Pride Lands. Things change with the birth of their son, Simba, the new Prince. Mufasa's younger brother, and former heir to the throne, Scar, covets the throne and plots to eliminate Mufasa and Simba, so he may become king. The battle for Pride Rock is filled with betrayal, tragedy and drama and circumstances are forever changed after the events of the stampede.
This movie was really good, but of course it was. The original Lion King was one of Disney's best animated films to date. There was a lot of build up to the release of this movie, with fans every anticipating when they could finally see this story on the big screen again. Jon Favreau did not disappoint, but there was a lot of negativity and bad review scores when it first released. I think the big problem was that in all the previews/trailers leading up to the movie coming out showed how realistic the animals looked and how they were able to recreate iconic scenes in stunning state of the art CGI, but they never showed the animals talking or singing. This for me made it difficult to get fully immersed in the film when the very realistic animals began talking and singing, but eventually it went away or I got used to it a couple minutes into the movie. Also they changed very little in this remake and it was almost literally a shot for shot or scene for scene recreation of the original Lion King, which I think bothered the critics. I personally liked little changes they made that I felt made the movie just a little bit better, like the dialogue between Mufasa's and Scar implying Mufasa's gave him the scar, Zimbabwe catching up with Nala for the journey back to Pride Rock, and Nala leading the female lions in the fight against the hyenas. I also thought it was cool how they made it more clear that one of the hyenas was the leader and it was the female and the scene where Scar makes the deal with them. Overall though I feel like they could have shown more emotion in the animals if they had chosen a style that was so detailed to look so realistic. I give this movie a 7/10. It is worth watching for nostalgia and to see it in theaters is a treat, especially when getting children or younger family members to see it for the first time, but the original is still the better film.
King Mufasa (James Earl Jones) and Queen Sarabi rule over the animal kingdom with their pride of lions from Pride Rock, in the African Pride Lands. Things change with the birth of their son, Simba, the new Prince. Mufasa's younger brother, and former heir to the throne, Scar, covets the throne and plots to eliminate Mufasa and Simba, so he may become king. The battle for Pride Rock is filled with betrayal, tragedy and drama and circumstances are forever changed after the events of the stampede.
This movie was really good, but of course it was. The original Lion King was one of Disney's best animated films to date. There was a lot of build up to the release of this movie, with fans every anticipating when they could finally see this story on the big screen again. Jon Favreau did not disappoint, but there was a lot of negativity and bad review scores when it first released. I think the big problem was that in all the previews/trailers leading up to the movie coming out showed how realistic the animals looked and how they were able to recreate iconic scenes in stunning state of the art CGI, but they never showed the animals talking or singing. This for me made it difficult to get fully immersed in the film when the very realistic animals began talking and singing, but eventually it went away or I got used to it a couple minutes into the movie. Also they changed very little in this remake and it was almost literally a shot for shot or scene for scene recreation of the original Lion King, which I think bothered the critics. I personally liked little changes they made that I felt made the movie just a little bit better, like the dialogue between Mufasa's and Scar implying Mufasa's gave him the scar, Zimbabwe catching up with Nala for the journey back to Pride Rock, and Nala leading the female lions in the fight against the hyenas. I also thought it was cool how they made it more clear that one of the hyenas was the leader and it was the female and the scene where Scar makes the deal with them. Overall though I feel like they could have shown more emotion in the animals if they had chosen a style that was so detailed to look so realistic. I give this movie a 7/10. It is worth watching for nostalgia and to see it in theaters is a treat, especially when getting children or younger family members to see it for the first time, but the original is still the better film.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Broken Hearts Gallery (2020) in Movies
Oct 8, 2020
Lucy (Geraldine Viswanathan) works in a very well-known art gallery owned by the ever so extraordinary Eva Woolf (Bernadette Peters). It has been a dream of hers since she was very young to work as a curator in a gallery and she is starting as an assistant at “The Woolf”.
She has been seeing Max (Utkarsh Ambudkar), the gallery curator for a while. Helping him with information on the artists as well as the likes and dislikes of Eva. On the night of the latest show launch, Eva asks Lucy to step to the podium and introduce Max so he could open the show. In a matter of minutes, Lucy loses her job and is dumped.
Lucy, having been through a traumatic loss, mistakenly hops into a stranger’s car under the assumption that it was her uber. She then proceeds to tell the driver of her night of disaster without registering that she is in the car of a stranger that is not her uber driver. Come to find out, the driver, Nick (Dacre Montgomery) is a budding hotelier trying to build a small boutique hotel.
He drops her off at the apartment, where her roommates immediately cocoon her in a dance that they have done oh so many times.
She has known Nadine (Phillipa Soo) and Amanda (Molly Gordon) since they were in high school. This trio is the partner in crime type of best friends. The interactions between them is so well coordinated I believed that they have been the closest of friends for ages. The same goes for Nick and his best friend Marcos (Arturo Castro).
.This film is the perfect Romantic Comedy that is very well suited for this moment in time.
It is a well-deserved salve on the dearth of darkness in cinema as of late. The lines are funny, the timing of the responses, quick and clever. It is also quirky and charming as well as emotional and sweet.
Natalie Krinsky, the Writer and Director had cast the characters perfectly. The actors drew me into the film as I laughed at their escapades, vicariously experienced celebrations. This movie was a joy to watch. It was sweet, funny, clever, and heartwarming.
Viswanathan embodied Lucy. The character is of the modern twenty something woman in hipsterville. She showed that Lucy is intelligent, imperfect and at times, insecure, but she is brave and willing to forge through anything.
The soundtrack is fantastic, the songs support the scenes and it is a veritable list of the current pop artists that are played in daily rotation.
Beyonce, Taylor Swift, Halsey, Rita Ora, Ariana Grande, and Selena Gomez who is an executive producer on the film.
If this is the direction of the modern romantic comedy, I look forward to the development of this genre as it grows. I rarely want to watch most films a second time. If you like the Romcom, this is one that is thoroughly enjoyable. Well worth the time and the ticket.
She has been seeing Max (Utkarsh Ambudkar), the gallery curator for a while. Helping him with information on the artists as well as the likes and dislikes of Eva. On the night of the latest show launch, Eva asks Lucy to step to the podium and introduce Max so he could open the show. In a matter of minutes, Lucy loses her job and is dumped.
Lucy, having been through a traumatic loss, mistakenly hops into a stranger’s car under the assumption that it was her uber. She then proceeds to tell the driver of her night of disaster without registering that she is in the car of a stranger that is not her uber driver. Come to find out, the driver, Nick (Dacre Montgomery) is a budding hotelier trying to build a small boutique hotel.
He drops her off at the apartment, where her roommates immediately cocoon her in a dance that they have done oh so many times.
She has known Nadine (Phillipa Soo) and Amanda (Molly Gordon) since they were in high school. This trio is the partner in crime type of best friends. The interactions between them is so well coordinated I believed that they have been the closest of friends for ages. The same goes for Nick and his best friend Marcos (Arturo Castro).
.This film is the perfect Romantic Comedy that is very well suited for this moment in time.
It is a well-deserved salve on the dearth of darkness in cinema as of late. The lines are funny, the timing of the responses, quick and clever. It is also quirky and charming as well as emotional and sweet.
Natalie Krinsky, the Writer and Director had cast the characters perfectly. The actors drew me into the film as I laughed at their escapades, vicariously experienced celebrations. This movie was a joy to watch. It was sweet, funny, clever, and heartwarming.
Viswanathan embodied Lucy. The character is of the modern twenty something woman in hipsterville. She showed that Lucy is intelligent, imperfect and at times, insecure, but she is brave and willing to forge through anything.
The soundtrack is fantastic, the songs support the scenes and it is a veritable list of the current pop artists that are played in daily rotation.
Beyonce, Taylor Swift, Halsey, Rita Ora, Ariana Grande, and Selena Gomez who is an executive producer on the film.
If this is the direction of the modern romantic comedy, I look forward to the development of this genre as it grows. I rarely want to watch most films a second time. If you like the Romcom, this is one that is thoroughly enjoyable. Well worth the time and the ticket.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Batman Begins (2005) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
Batman has always seemed to make great viewing and with the darker takes on him of the past to decades, great movies. This was a real treat though. It’s almost a rational take on an irrational super hero. Christopher Nolan has managed to give Batman a human face and the world he inhabits a sense of scale and realism. But that’s not to say that it is lacking in the sense of the theatrical.
Back in 2005, the hype for this film was building, with a new take on the old comic hero taking shape. Though I must admit that the design of the new Batmobile didn’t look cool to me, but I loved the concept of rooting him in a real world. The other questionable point was that lack of the big hitters in terms of the villains. The Joker, Penguin, Riddler and Catwomen were dumped in favour of The Scarecrow and Ra’s al Ghul, with only one that I, as the un-indoctrinated in comic book lore, that I had heard of being The Scarecrow.
But this was not to be a typical Batman film in any sense of the word. In June 2005, Batman was reborn and not only had the career of an independently styled filmmaker, Christopher Nolan blown into the big leagues but Blockbusters had just been redefined, an event not dis-similar in effect t those of Jaws and Star Wars in the 1970’s.
Batman, a Warner Bros. cash cow for decades, was about to cross all the main lines within the industry and a blockbuster with art house sensibilities and real intelligence was about to born. It’s not the first, but it opened the door for Nolan and his like to change the way we think about movies of this kind. It doesn’t seem to be that long ago that Marvel was dominating cinemas was some first-rate adaptations such as X-Men, Spider-man and the underrated Hulk, which in many ways may be classed as a prototype for this, with art house direction from Ang Lee.
The plot of Batman Begins isn’t really that important though that’s not to sell it short. It’s a highly developed and conceived story, packed from the opening frame to the 140th minute, but it’s simply the perfect blend of the evolution of Bruce Wayne into Batman, and the usual diabolical plans of the super-villain, only it doesn’t feel like that when you’re watching it. It feels like a well judged story about a traumatised young man, struggling to come terms with his parents murder, and his place in the world.
Luckily for him, his family are billionaires and his butler is Alfred, or more importantly, Michael Caine! There are of course a whole host of contrivances to explain how Batman’s image was forged, how the Batcave was created and where the Batmobile came from, but no-one’s suggesting that this a documentary. This is a more grounded and psychological approach to the story of a nutcase who dressed up like a bat and fights crime without a single superpower to his aid.
But it’s how Nolan brings all this together that works so well. He addresses things so subtly that you can end up missing them if you blink, or at least fail to see them coming. Wayne is turned into a flamboyant excentric to maintain a distance from his friends, if he even has any. The Batcave never ends up looking how we’d expect either, but it is full of bats if that helps and he does park his car there.
It is not until The Dark Knight that we see a Batcave of sorts and that isn’t even in the grounds of Wayne Manor. So, the direction, conception and writing are great, what about the casting? Christian Bale is Wayne/Batman for me, though the animatistic tone to his voice maybe a little overdone, but I do get it. Katie Holmes is the weakest link and am glad that she was recast for the sequel. The rest of the players are first-rate and this may well be on of the best casts ever assembled for a single film in my opinion.
Gary Oldman, so understated as Lt. Gordon, Caine as Alfred is perfect; Liam Neeson is on top form, which he isn’t always, let’s face it and Morgan Freeman, like Oldman and Caine can seemingly do no wrong. Then there’s Hans Zimmer‘s collaboration with James Newton Howard for the score which is one of Zimmer’s best. Howard is an able composer and he clearly provided many of the excellent emotional riffs, but it was Zimmer who brought this together with his dominant, strident style, colossal beats and pacing.
The look and sound of this film sets it apart from so many of its brethren. Batman Begins is a truly original, relentless and groundbreaking movie that is the best of the comic book movies by a mile, but not necessarily the best comic book adaptation. Spider-man or Watchmen for example, may qualify for the fact that they more literally reflect their respective sources but Nolan’s masterpiece is a blueprint as to how film should tackle such adaptations.
And yes, that’s right; Batman Begins is a masterpiece if ever there was one, though a slightly lesser one in comparison to its own sequel, The Dark Knight which may have completely rewritten the handbook.
Back in 2005, the hype for this film was building, with a new take on the old comic hero taking shape. Though I must admit that the design of the new Batmobile didn’t look cool to me, but I loved the concept of rooting him in a real world. The other questionable point was that lack of the big hitters in terms of the villains. The Joker, Penguin, Riddler and Catwomen were dumped in favour of The Scarecrow and Ra’s al Ghul, with only one that I, as the un-indoctrinated in comic book lore, that I had heard of being The Scarecrow.
But this was not to be a typical Batman film in any sense of the word. In June 2005, Batman was reborn and not only had the career of an independently styled filmmaker, Christopher Nolan blown into the big leagues but Blockbusters had just been redefined, an event not dis-similar in effect t those of Jaws and Star Wars in the 1970’s.
Batman, a Warner Bros. cash cow for decades, was about to cross all the main lines within the industry and a blockbuster with art house sensibilities and real intelligence was about to born. It’s not the first, but it opened the door for Nolan and his like to change the way we think about movies of this kind. It doesn’t seem to be that long ago that Marvel was dominating cinemas was some first-rate adaptations such as X-Men, Spider-man and the underrated Hulk, which in many ways may be classed as a prototype for this, with art house direction from Ang Lee.
The plot of Batman Begins isn’t really that important though that’s not to sell it short. It’s a highly developed and conceived story, packed from the opening frame to the 140th minute, but it’s simply the perfect blend of the evolution of Bruce Wayne into Batman, and the usual diabolical plans of the super-villain, only it doesn’t feel like that when you’re watching it. It feels like a well judged story about a traumatised young man, struggling to come terms with his parents murder, and his place in the world.
Luckily for him, his family are billionaires and his butler is Alfred, or more importantly, Michael Caine! There are of course a whole host of contrivances to explain how Batman’s image was forged, how the Batcave was created and where the Batmobile came from, but no-one’s suggesting that this a documentary. This is a more grounded and psychological approach to the story of a nutcase who dressed up like a bat and fights crime without a single superpower to his aid.
But it’s how Nolan brings all this together that works so well. He addresses things so subtly that you can end up missing them if you blink, or at least fail to see them coming. Wayne is turned into a flamboyant excentric to maintain a distance from his friends, if he even has any. The Batcave never ends up looking how we’d expect either, but it is full of bats if that helps and he does park his car there.
It is not until The Dark Knight that we see a Batcave of sorts and that isn’t even in the grounds of Wayne Manor. So, the direction, conception and writing are great, what about the casting? Christian Bale is Wayne/Batman for me, though the animatistic tone to his voice maybe a little overdone, but I do get it. Katie Holmes is the weakest link and am glad that she was recast for the sequel. The rest of the players are first-rate and this may well be on of the best casts ever assembled for a single film in my opinion.
Gary Oldman, so understated as Lt. Gordon, Caine as Alfred is perfect; Liam Neeson is on top form, which he isn’t always, let’s face it and Morgan Freeman, like Oldman and Caine can seemingly do no wrong. Then there’s Hans Zimmer‘s collaboration with James Newton Howard for the score which is one of Zimmer’s best. Howard is an able composer and he clearly provided many of the excellent emotional riffs, but it was Zimmer who brought this together with his dominant, strident style, colossal beats and pacing.
The look and sound of this film sets it apart from so many of its brethren. Batman Begins is a truly original, relentless and groundbreaking movie that is the best of the comic book movies by a mile, but not necessarily the best comic book adaptation. Spider-man or Watchmen for example, may qualify for the fact that they more literally reflect their respective sources but Nolan’s masterpiece is a blueprint as to how film should tackle such adaptations.
And yes, that’s right; Batman Begins is a masterpiece if ever there was one, though a slightly lesser one in comparison to its own sequel, The Dark Knight which may have completely rewritten the handbook.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Moneyball (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Baseball economics has long a source of serious debate amongst fans, players, and teams. The contentious issues of how to divide the revenue in an equitable manner led to the cancellation of the playoffs and World Series in 1994 and is still largely unresolved today. While smaller market teams are given funds from a luxury tax imposed on larger payroll teams, it still fails to provide an even competitive playing field when large market teams, such as the New York Yankees, can field teams with a $225 million-plus payroll while the smaller market teams have to make do with budgets often under $40 million.
Naturally, this has put many teams at a competitive disadvantage and most feel that they have no chance to win long-term, even as they develop cheap homegrown talent in their minor-league systems. They lose said talent to the larger market clubs once players become eligible for free agency. It is against this backdrop that the new film “Moneyball” starring Brad Pitt is set.
The film was based on the book of the same name which tells the story and philosophy of Oakland A’s general manager Billy Beane. Beane was a highly recruited baseball player at a high school who turned down a scholarship to Stanford for his shot at the major leagues. Unfortunately for Beane, his career was a major disappointment punctuated with numerous stops between the pros and the minor leagues which resulted in a very mediocre and forgettable career.
Beane got himself a job as a scout and in time worked his way to being the general manager of the Oakland A’s. As the film opens, Oakland has just lost a deciding Game 5 the New York Yankees, whose payroll at the time was almost $120 million greater than Oaklands. Adding further insult to injury, Oakland is unable to re-sign its three biggest stars as they accept large contracts with the Yankees, Red Sox, and other large market teams.
Unable to get any additional funds from his owner, Beane travels to Cleveland in an attempt to find affordable talent via trades. Beane is categorically rebuffed and told that he couldn’t afford many of the players that he’s asking about and that the ones he can afford are not be available to him.
Beane notices a young man, Peter Brand (Jonah Hill) during the negotiations, whose quiet input was heeded by the Indians, even though this is Peter’s first job since graduating from Yale with an economics degree. Beane gets Peter to confide in him about his beliefs that the traditional baseball method for evaluating talent is all wrong and that there is a better way to do it.
Intrigued, Beane hires Brand to be his assistant general manager and the two set out to rebuild the Oakland A’s on a budget. Needless to say this does not sit well with many of the talent scouts or manager Art Howe (a very believable Phillip Seymour Hoffman), who sees the recruiting of washed-up has-beens and never-weres by Beane as misguided and ridiculous.
But Beane and Brand are determined, and using statistical formula that looks at such things as on-base percentages and runs scored as opposed to batting average, home runs, and RBIs, the A’s quickly put together an unlikely team. It doesn’t immediately play out well for the hopeful general manager because Howe is unwilling to play many of the new players that have been brought on. Oakland quickly sinks to the bottom of the league, and many begin to question the sanity of Bean’s approach, to the point that even his young daughter worries that his days as a general manager are numbered.
The film does a good job at showing the inner workings of baseball and Pitt does an amazing job showing the complex nature of Beane. He is a single father dealing with the failure of his playing career, and his inability to get Oakland to be a consistant winner. He puts everything he has into this so-called outrageous scheme and is willing to see it through no matter the cost. Chris Pratt does great supporting work as Scott Hatteberg, one of Beane’s reclamation projects as does Stephen Bisop as aging major-league slugger David Justice.
The film stays very true to historical events and shows the characters as they are, flaws and all. While a true story, Peter Brand, is a fictional charcter based on Paul DePodesta who introduced Beane to the analytical principles of sabermetrics. The movie remains a very interesting character study as well as an examination of the delicate relationships between players, front offices, and ownership where wins and dollars are paramount even when many teams are struggling to make do with less.
That being said the film was a very enjoyable and realistic look at the inner workings of baseball that should not be missed.
Naturally, this has put many teams at a competitive disadvantage and most feel that they have no chance to win long-term, even as they develop cheap homegrown talent in their minor-league systems. They lose said talent to the larger market clubs once players become eligible for free agency. It is against this backdrop that the new film “Moneyball” starring Brad Pitt is set.
The film was based on the book of the same name which tells the story and philosophy of Oakland A’s general manager Billy Beane. Beane was a highly recruited baseball player at a high school who turned down a scholarship to Stanford for his shot at the major leagues. Unfortunately for Beane, his career was a major disappointment punctuated with numerous stops between the pros and the minor leagues which resulted in a very mediocre and forgettable career.
Beane got himself a job as a scout and in time worked his way to being the general manager of the Oakland A’s. As the film opens, Oakland has just lost a deciding Game 5 the New York Yankees, whose payroll at the time was almost $120 million greater than Oaklands. Adding further insult to injury, Oakland is unable to re-sign its three biggest stars as they accept large contracts with the Yankees, Red Sox, and other large market teams.
Unable to get any additional funds from his owner, Beane travels to Cleveland in an attempt to find affordable talent via trades. Beane is categorically rebuffed and told that he couldn’t afford many of the players that he’s asking about and that the ones he can afford are not be available to him.
Beane notices a young man, Peter Brand (Jonah Hill) during the negotiations, whose quiet input was heeded by the Indians, even though this is Peter’s first job since graduating from Yale with an economics degree. Beane gets Peter to confide in him about his beliefs that the traditional baseball method for evaluating talent is all wrong and that there is a better way to do it.
Intrigued, Beane hires Brand to be his assistant general manager and the two set out to rebuild the Oakland A’s on a budget. Needless to say this does not sit well with many of the talent scouts or manager Art Howe (a very believable Phillip Seymour Hoffman), who sees the recruiting of washed-up has-beens and never-weres by Beane as misguided and ridiculous.
But Beane and Brand are determined, and using statistical formula that looks at such things as on-base percentages and runs scored as opposed to batting average, home runs, and RBIs, the A’s quickly put together an unlikely team. It doesn’t immediately play out well for the hopeful general manager because Howe is unwilling to play many of the new players that have been brought on. Oakland quickly sinks to the bottom of the league, and many begin to question the sanity of Bean’s approach, to the point that even his young daughter worries that his days as a general manager are numbered.
The film does a good job at showing the inner workings of baseball and Pitt does an amazing job showing the complex nature of Beane. He is a single father dealing with the failure of his playing career, and his inability to get Oakland to be a consistant winner. He puts everything he has into this so-called outrageous scheme and is willing to see it through no matter the cost. Chris Pratt does great supporting work as Scott Hatteberg, one of Beane’s reclamation projects as does Stephen Bisop as aging major-league slugger David Justice.
The film stays very true to historical events and shows the characters as they are, flaws and all. While a true story, Peter Brand, is a fictional charcter based on Paul DePodesta who introduced Beane to the analytical principles of sabermetrics. The movie remains a very interesting character study as well as an examination of the delicate relationships between players, front offices, and ownership where wins and dollars are paramount even when many teams are struggling to make do with less.
That being said the film was a very enjoyable and realistic look at the inner workings of baseball that should not be missed.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 14, 2019
I’ve never left the cinema more unnerved than I did after watching Todd Phillips’ first foray in the superhero genre. Joker is a frequently violent, often grotesque and regularly intense portrayal of the iconic character that’s already receiving praise and backlash in equal measure from those in the critic community.
With development originally beginning way back in 2016, Joaquin Phoenix walking out of interviews and the press junket being cancelled altogether, it’s safe to say that the path to release has not been easy, but what’s the finished product like?
Forever alone in a crowd, failed comedian Arthur Fleck (Phoenix) seeks connection as he walks the streets of Gotham City. Arthur wears two masks, the one he paints for his day job as a clown, and the guise he projects in a futile attempt to feel like he’s part of the world around him. Isolated, bullied and disregarded by society, Fleck begins a slow descent into madness as he transforms into the criminal mastermind known as the Joker.
Director of The Hangover trilogy, you’d be forgiven for thinking that Phillips is an odd choice to helm a picture like this, but his darkly comedic roots shine through in Joker and add a much-needed lightness of touch over the course of the running time. Without these pockets of humour, Joker would just be far too murky, more so than it already is.
Phoenix is absolutely astounding and his physical transformation defies words. Alongside Heath Ledger, these two very different portrayals of this iconic character are fully deserving of as much recognition as possible. Arguably however, Phoenix delivers the best iteration yet and one that perhaps needed even more commitment – this is a two-hour film dedicated to the character, whereas the Joker has always been a supporting part of previous films.
From the frame devoid of any muscle, dark circles under his eyes and wrinkles etched on his face, Phoenix’s dedication to this role is on another level to anything we have seen before. As his transformation from troubled Arthur Fleck to criminal mastermind gets underway, this only serves to highlight the acting prowess of this incredible performer. Elsewhere, supporting cast members like Robert De Niro, Frances Conroy and Zazie Beets are also wonderful in their roles of varying screen-time, but as Joker is a film about the singular character, they stay in the background, and rightly so.
The script too is exceptionally written. Phillips and co-writer Scott Silver, who also wrote 8 Mile, deliver a tightly wound screenplay that is at times just too tense for its own good. This is never a film you can sit back and relax to, it feels like you’re on the edge of your seat for the full two hours. The comedic notes that I alluded to earlier nicely round off some of the sharp edges however, but make no mistake, this is a brutal and unforgiving film.
The comedic notes… nicely round off some of the sharp edges
Criticism has been levelled already about the significance this film may have on those who already actively promote the character’s actions, and it’s easy to see why people are concerned. However, as an art form, Joker doesn’t need to be processed in such a way. Yes, it’s brutal, yes, it’s bloody and yes it sometimes hits too close to home about the issues we face in the real world, but cinema is escapism and that’s what it offers.
To look at it’s clear that the very modest of budget of $55million has been put to good use. The city of Gotham feels dirty, grimy and about to erupt and this is exactly how we as the audience want it to be. The uprising is coming and with each grimace from Phoenix’s face, we get closer and closer to that critical moment.
For me that critical moment occurs a little too late into the film and with not a lot of time left after this point, Joker tries to wrap up its loose ends too quickly, but this is a miniscule criticism in a deeply impressive and immersive cinema experience.
The score too is excellent. Icelandic composer Hildur Ingveldardóttir Guðnadóttir has worked on films like The Revenant and Sicario 2 and that gritty realism she brought to those films has been replicated here. It’s a soaring orchestral score populated with some sharp string solos that work perfectly with the character.
Overall, Joker is a masterpiece. Phoenix’s performance is one of the best I’ve ever had the pleasure of witnessing in the cinema and to go alongside that commitment the audience is treated to an engrossing script and beautiful score. Where DC has failed in the past is in forgetting to carve their own niche. Marvel has the 12A game all sewn up and there’s no point in competing there. Joker is the direction that should have been taken from the very beginning and it’s one of the best films I’ve seen in years.
Brutal? Yes. Beautiful? Absolutely.
With development originally beginning way back in 2016, Joaquin Phoenix walking out of interviews and the press junket being cancelled altogether, it’s safe to say that the path to release has not been easy, but what’s the finished product like?
Forever alone in a crowd, failed comedian Arthur Fleck (Phoenix) seeks connection as he walks the streets of Gotham City. Arthur wears two masks, the one he paints for his day job as a clown, and the guise he projects in a futile attempt to feel like he’s part of the world around him. Isolated, bullied and disregarded by society, Fleck begins a slow descent into madness as he transforms into the criminal mastermind known as the Joker.
Director of The Hangover trilogy, you’d be forgiven for thinking that Phillips is an odd choice to helm a picture like this, but his darkly comedic roots shine through in Joker and add a much-needed lightness of touch over the course of the running time. Without these pockets of humour, Joker would just be far too murky, more so than it already is.
Phoenix is absolutely astounding and his physical transformation defies words. Alongside Heath Ledger, these two very different portrayals of this iconic character are fully deserving of as much recognition as possible. Arguably however, Phoenix delivers the best iteration yet and one that perhaps needed even more commitment – this is a two-hour film dedicated to the character, whereas the Joker has always been a supporting part of previous films.
From the frame devoid of any muscle, dark circles under his eyes and wrinkles etched on his face, Phoenix’s dedication to this role is on another level to anything we have seen before. As his transformation from troubled Arthur Fleck to criminal mastermind gets underway, this only serves to highlight the acting prowess of this incredible performer. Elsewhere, supporting cast members like Robert De Niro, Frances Conroy and Zazie Beets are also wonderful in their roles of varying screen-time, but as Joker is a film about the singular character, they stay in the background, and rightly so.
The script too is exceptionally written. Phillips and co-writer Scott Silver, who also wrote 8 Mile, deliver a tightly wound screenplay that is at times just too tense for its own good. This is never a film you can sit back and relax to, it feels like you’re on the edge of your seat for the full two hours. The comedic notes that I alluded to earlier nicely round off some of the sharp edges however, but make no mistake, this is a brutal and unforgiving film.
The comedic notes… nicely round off some of the sharp edges
Criticism has been levelled already about the significance this film may have on those who already actively promote the character’s actions, and it’s easy to see why people are concerned. However, as an art form, Joker doesn’t need to be processed in such a way. Yes, it’s brutal, yes, it’s bloody and yes it sometimes hits too close to home about the issues we face in the real world, but cinema is escapism and that’s what it offers.
To look at it’s clear that the very modest of budget of $55million has been put to good use. The city of Gotham feels dirty, grimy and about to erupt and this is exactly how we as the audience want it to be. The uprising is coming and with each grimace from Phoenix’s face, we get closer and closer to that critical moment.
For me that critical moment occurs a little too late into the film and with not a lot of time left after this point, Joker tries to wrap up its loose ends too quickly, but this is a miniscule criticism in a deeply impressive and immersive cinema experience.
The score too is excellent. Icelandic composer Hildur Ingveldardóttir Guðnadóttir has worked on films like The Revenant and Sicario 2 and that gritty realism she brought to those films has been replicated here. It’s a soaring orchestral score populated with some sharp string solos that work perfectly with the character.
Overall, Joker is a masterpiece. Phoenix’s performance is one of the best I’ve ever had the pleasure of witnessing in the cinema and to go alongside that commitment the audience is treated to an engrossing script and beautiful score. Where DC has failed in the past is in forgetting to carve their own niche. Marvel has the 12A game all sewn up and there’s no point in competing there. Joker is the direction that should have been taken from the very beginning and it’s one of the best films I’ve seen in years.
Brutal? Yes. Beautiful? Absolutely.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Mystic Vale in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
The Land needs you, Druid! It is plagued, barren, in need of revitalization and only your Circle can cure it and bring vivacity back to our home. Earn as many VP crystal shards as you can to defeat the other Druids and re-beautify us!
DISCLAIMER: This review focuses on vanilla Mystic Vale. We have most of the expansions in our collections, and we may do reviews on them and how they change the experience. If we do, we will either update this review or link to the expansion reviews here. -T
Okay, so the last part of my intro doesn’t quite make thematic sense, but this is a competitive game. A really good competitive game where there really isn’t a ton of direct player interaction, so if you enjoy merely messing with your opponents’ plans and just seeming like an annoying bee sting, read on.
I will also get this out of the way early: this is my first Card Crafting Game and the first of its type (that I know of, anyway). The concept is explained in the next paragraph. There are now others, but this is the grand-daddy. I was skeptical at first and was late to hop on the bandwagon here, but when I did I was really blown away. You have your own deck of cards that is exactly the same as your opponents’ decks, with a different colored back. Throw those cards into the provided clear sleeves, set up the other decks from which you will be purchasing upgrade cards, and you are setup.
The game mechanics are familiar, where you are pushing your luck to flip over cards from your deck to create a hand of cards… or bust and do nothing. Using the symbols on these cards allows you purchase cards from the current offering grid. Once you have purchased your new card(s) you must put them in the sleeves along with your starting cards to improve those starting cards! How can we do this, you ask? THE CARDS ARE SEE-THROUGH PLASTIC CARDS. Some starting cards are completely blank, and so adding to them drastically increases their value. This is a twist on the old deck building mechanic where you are no longer adding cards to make your deck more plentiful, but you are improving the sleeved cards you already have.
The art on the cards you are purchasing from the offer are printed in a way where information is split into three areas – top, middle, and bottom. So, you may have a starting card that gives you one icon worth of purchasing power with art on the top section. You grab a card to add to that another purchasing icon, with art on the bottom section. Now the next time this card comes up in your hand it is worth two icons to spend on further cards. Simple, right? Well, there are several types of purchasing icons (stars, leaves, paws, etc), not just one general icon. Some cards will furnish you with the other icons that you can use to purchase Vale cards (see photo below). These are powerful cards that can provide VPs and other actions to propel you to victory.
There’s so much in this game, even with just the vanilla base cards, that I just cannot explain everything here. So I won’t. If you have questions, do let me know. Speaking of the base game, here’s what you get.
A box. The box is decent size and will accommodate an expansion. I believe it is supposed to handle more than one, but in my experience, I wasn’t able to fit a whole lot in there with the provided insert. So I made my own. The VP tokens are great. The plastic cards are really great, but they have a strange (or familiar if you have played games like Gloom) smell to them that takes a bit to get used to smelling. Also, the cards come with a protective cling-film layer that will eventually start peeling off. These are used to facilitate printing on the plastic, and can be kept on or taken off – your preference. I’ll tell you what though. The art on this game is absolutely stellar. I really haven’t seen much better on a game, so I definitely am keeping my protective film on mine. The sleeves are decent, but I have had a few blowouts from usage. The game comes with more sleeves than is necessary, so I am hoping I never run out.
This review is long enough, but I wanted the reader to know that I hold this game in VERY high regard. It is well entrenched in my Top 10 list, and I don’t see it moving downward any time soon. The expansions definitely add a ton of replayability to it, but even as is, Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a revivified 21 / 24.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/03/15/mystic-vale-review/
DISCLAIMER: This review focuses on vanilla Mystic Vale. We have most of the expansions in our collections, and we may do reviews on them and how they change the experience. If we do, we will either update this review or link to the expansion reviews here. -T
Okay, so the last part of my intro doesn’t quite make thematic sense, but this is a competitive game. A really good competitive game where there really isn’t a ton of direct player interaction, so if you enjoy merely messing with your opponents’ plans and just seeming like an annoying bee sting, read on.
I will also get this out of the way early: this is my first Card Crafting Game and the first of its type (that I know of, anyway). The concept is explained in the next paragraph. There are now others, but this is the grand-daddy. I was skeptical at first and was late to hop on the bandwagon here, but when I did I was really blown away. You have your own deck of cards that is exactly the same as your opponents’ decks, with a different colored back. Throw those cards into the provided clear sleeves, set up the other decks from which you will be purchasing upgrade cards, and you are setup.
The game mechanics are familiar, where you are pushing your luck to flip over cards from your deck to create a hand of cards… or bust and do nothing. Using the symbols on these cards allows you purchase cards from the current offering grid. Once you have purchased your new card(s) you must put them in the sleeves along with your starting cards to improve those starting cards! How can we do this, you ask? THE CARDS ARE SEE-THROUGH PLASTIC CARDS. Some starting cards are completely blank, and so adding to them drastically increases their value. This is a twist on the old deck building mechanic where you are no longer adding cards to make your deck more plentiful, but you are improving the sleeved cards you already have.
The art on the cards you are purchasing from the offer are printed in a way where information is split into three areas – top, middle, and bottom. So, you may have a starting card that gives you one icon worth of purchasing power with art on the top section. You grab a card to add to that another purchasing icon, with art on the bottom section. Now the next time this card comes up in your hand it is worth two icons to spend on further cards. Simple, right? Well, there are several types of purchasing icons (stars, leaves, paws, etc), not just one general icon. Some cards will furnish you with the other icons that you can use to purchase Vale cards (see photo below). These are powerful cards that can provide VPs and other actions to propel you to victory.
There’s so much in this game, even with just the vanilla base cards, that I just cannot explain everything here. So I won’t. If you have questions, do let me know. Speaking of the base game, here’s what you get.
A box. The box is decent size and will accommodate an expansion. I believe it is supposed to handle more than one, but in my experience, I wasn’t able to fit a whole lot in there with the provided insert. So I made my own. The VP tokens are great. The plastic cards are really great, but they have a strange (or familiar if you have played games like Gloom) smell to them that takes a bit to get used to smelling. Also, the cards come with a protective cling-film layer that will eventually start peeling off. These are used to facilitate printing on the plastic, and can be kept on or taken off – your preference. I’ll tell you what though. The art on this game is absolutely stellar. I really haven’t seen much better on a game, so I definitely am keeping my protective film on mine. The sleeves are decent, but I have had a few blowouts from usage. The game comes with more sleeves than is necessary, so I am hoping I never run out.
This review is long enough, but I wanted the reader to know that I hold this game in VERY high regard. It is well entrenched in my Top 10 list, and I don’t see it moving downward any time soon. The expansions definitely add a ton of replayability to it, but even as is, Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a revivified 21 / 24.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/03/15/mystic-vale-review/