Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Front Runner (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Candidate for a downfall.
We can all probably rattle off some of the classics movies with US politics as their backdrop. For me, “All the President’s Men”; “Primary Colors”; and “Frost/Nixon” might make that list. In the next tier down there are many great drama/thrillers – “Miss Sloane“; “The Post“; “The Ides of March”; “The American President”; “JFK” – and even some pretty funny comedies – “Dave” and “My Fellow Americans” for example. It’s actually quite difficult to think of many films on the subject that are outright dire, proving it remains a fertile ground for film-makers.
“The Front Runner” fortunately avoids this last category, but it’s certainly not good enough to make it into the ‘classics’ list either.
A true story.
The film is based on the true-story of US presidential hopeful Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) and if you are NOT aware of the historical background then you might want to skip the rest of this review – and indeed all others – so you can see the film first and let the history come as a surprise to you.
Hart was younger than most candidates: good-looking, floppy-haired and refreshingly matter of fact in his dealings with the public and the press. Any interviews had to be about his politics: not about his family life with wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and teenage daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever).
Unfortunately, Hart has a weakness for a pretty face (or ten) and his marriage is rocky as a result: “Just don’t embarrass me” is Lee’s one requirement. His “nothing to hide” line to an intelligent Washington Post reporter – AJ Parker (a well cast Mamoudou Athie) – leads to a half-arsed stake-out by Miami Herald reporters and incriminating pictures linking Hart to a Miami pharmaceutical saleswoman Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As the growing press tsunami rises, and his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) gets more and more frustrated with him, can his candidacy survive and will his (now very much embarrassed) wife stick by him?
The turns.
Hugh Jackman is perfectly cast here; very believable as the self-centred, self-righteous and stubborn politician. But this central performance is surrounded by a strong team of supporting players. Vera Farmiga is superb as the wounded wife. Sara Paxton is heartbreaking as the intelligent college girl unfairly portrayed as a “slapper” by the media. The scenes between her and Hart-staffer Irene (Molly Ephraim), trying desperately to support her as best she can, are very nicely done. J.K Simmons as campaign manager Bill Dixon is as reliable as ever. And Alfred Molina turns up as the latest film incarnation of The Post’s Ben Bradlee – surely one of the most oft portrayed real-life journalists in film history.
“What did they just say”?
The biggest cause of dissatisfaction I have with the film is with the sound mixing. Was this a deliberate act by director Jason Reitman, to reflect the chaotic nature of political campaigning? Whether it was deliberate or not, much of the film’s dialogue – particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film – is drowned out by background noise. Sometimes I just longed for subtitles!
Just a little bit dull.
The screenplay, by Matt Bai (from his source book), Jay Carson (a Clinton staffer) and director Jason Reitman might align with the history, but the big problem is that the story’s just a little bit dull, particularly by today’s levels of scandal. This suffers the same fate as “House of Cards” (even before the Kevin Spacey allegations) in that the shocking realities of the Trump-era have progressively neutered the shock-factor of the fiction: to the point where it starts to become boring. Here, only once or twice does the screenplay hit a winning beat: for me, it was the scenes between Donna Rice and Irene Kelly and the dramatic press conference towards the end of the film. The rest of the time, the screenplay was perfectly serviceable but nothing spectacular.
When is a politician’s personal life private?
A core tenet of the film is Hart’s view that politics should be about the policies and not about the personality. Looking at the subject nowadays, it’s clearly a ridiculously idealistic viewpoint. Of course it matters. Politicians need to be trusted by their constituents (yeah, like that’s the case in the UK and the US at the moment!) and whether or not they slap their wives around or sleep with farm animals is clearly a material factor in that relationship. But this was clearly not as much the case in the 70’s as it is today, and the suggestion is that the Hart case was a turning point and a wake-up call to politicians around the world. (An interesting article by the Washington Post itself points out that this is also a simplistic view: that Hart should have been well aware of the dangerous game he was playing.)
Fidelity in politics.
Do you think that powerful politicos are driven to infidelity because they are powerful? Or that it is a characteristic of men who have the charisma to become political leaders in the first place? Such was the discussion my wife and I had in the car home after this film. Nature or political nurture? I’m still not sure.
It’s worth pointing out that to this day both Hart and Rice (interestingly, an alleged ex-girlfriend of Eagles front-man Don Henley) stick to their story that they never had sex.
Final thoughts.
The film’s perfectly watchable, has great acting, but is a little bit of a non-event. The end titles came and I thought “OK, that’s that then”…. nothing more. If you’re a fan of this style of historical political film then you probably won’t be disappointed by it; if not, probably best to wait and catch this on the TV.
“The Front Runner” fortunately avoids this last category, but it’s certainly not good enough to make it into the ‘classics’ list either.
A true story.
The film is based on the true-story of US presidential hopeful Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) and if you are NOT aware of the historical background then you might want to skip the rest of this review – and indeed all others – so you can see the film first and let the history come as a surprise to you.
Hart was younger than most candidates: good-looking, floppy-haired and refreshingly matter of fact in his dealings with the public and the press. Any interviews had to be about his politics: not about his family life with wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and teenage daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever).
Unfortunately, Hart has a weakness for a pretty face (or ten) and his marriage is rocky as a result: “Just don’t embarrass me” is Lee’s one requirement. His “nothing to hide” line to an intelligent Washington Post reporter – AJ Parker (a well cast Mamoudou Athie) – leads to a half-arsed stake-out by Miami Herald reporters and incriminating pictures linking Hart to a Miami pharmaceutical saleswoman Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As the growing press tsunami rises, and his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) gets more and more frustrated with him, can his candidacy survive and will his (now very much embarrassed) wife stick by him?
The turns.
Hugh Jackman is perfectly cast here; very believable as the self-centred, self-righteous and stubborn politician. But this central performance is surrounded by a strong team of supporting players. Vera Farmiga is superb as the wounded wife. Sara Paxton is heartbreaking as the intelligent college girl unfairly portrayed as a “slapper” by the media. The scenes between her and Hart-staffer Irene (Molly Ephraim), trying desperately to support her as best she can, are very nicely done. J.K Simmons as campaign manager Bill Dixon is as reliable as ever. And Alfred Molina turns up as the latest film incarnation of The Post’s Ben Bradlee – surely one of the most oft portrayed real-life journalists in film history.
“What did they just say”?
The biggest cause of dissatisfaction I have with the film is with the sound mixing. Was this a deliberate act by director Jason Reitman, to reflect the chaotic nature of political campaigning? Whether it was deliberate or not, much of the film’s dialogue – particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film – is drowned out by background noise. Sometimes I just longed for subtitles!
Just a little bit dull.
The screenplay, by Matt Bai (from his source book), Jay Carson (a Clinton staffer) and director Jason Reitman might align with the history, but the big problem is that the story’s just a little bit dull, particularly by today’s levels of scandal. This suffers the same fate as “House of Cards” (even before the Kevin Spacey allegations) in that the shocking realities of the Trump-era have progressively neutered the shock-factor of the fiction: to the point where it starts to become boring. Here, only once or twice does the screenplay hit a winning beat: for me, it was the scenes between Donna Rice and Irene Kelly and the dramatic press conference towards the end of the film. The rest of the time, the screenplay was perfectly serviceable but nothing spectacular.
When is a politician’s personal life private?
A core tenet of the film is Hart’s view that politics should be about the policies and not about the personality. Looking at the subject nowadays, it’s clearly a ridiculously idealistic viewpoint. Of course it matters. Politicians need to be trusted by their constituents (yeah, like that’s the case in the UK and the US at the moment!) and whether or not they slap their wives around or sleep with farm animals is clearly a material factor in that relationship. But this was clearly not as much the case in the 70’s as it is today, and the suggestion is that the Hart case was a turning point and a wake-up call to politicians around the world. (An interesting article by the Washington Post itself points out that this is also a simplistic view: that Hart should have been well aware of the dangerous game he was playing.)
Fidelity in politics.
Do you think that powerful politicos are driven to infidelity because they are powerful? Or that it is a characteristic of men who have the charisma to become political leaders in the first place? Such was the discussion my wife and I had in the car home after this film. Nature or political nurture? I’m still not sure.
It’s worth pointing out that to this day both Hart and Rice (interestingly, an alleged ex-girlfriend of Eagles front-man Don Henley) stick to their story that they never had sex.
Final thoughts.
The film’s perfectly watchable, has great acting, but is a little bit of a non-event. The end titles came and I thought “OK, that’s that then”…. nothing more. If you’re a fan of this style of historical political film then you probably won’t be disappointed by it; if not, probably best to wait and catch this on the TV.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (2019) in Movies
Aug 11, 2019 (Updated Aug 11, 2019)
The monsters. (1 more)
Special effects - blend of CG and practical.
The Pale Lady. (2 more)
Basic rinse and repeat horror formula.
No emotional attachment to characters.
Fishing for Turds
Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is probably considered the introduction to horror fiction for anyone who was in middle school in the mid to late 1990s. I distinctly remember checking out at least one of the books before I was a teenager, but the story that has stuck with me multiple decades later has and always will be, “The Red Spot.” The thing about the Scary Stories books is that they were just these random collections of creepy tales meant to make the reader anxious, uneasy, or even frightened, so the fact that somebody attempted to make a coherent film out of a jumbled mix of stories from all three books is kind of incredible.
The horror film directed by André Øvredal (Trollhunter, The Autopsy of Jane Doe) follows a group of teenagers in the small town of Mill Valley, Pennsylvania during Halloween in 1968. Stella (Zoe Colletti) is a die-hard fan of the horror genre, Auggie (Gabriel Rush) is a bit too infatuated with girls for his own good, and Chuck (Austin Zajur) lives on candy and pranks when he’s not driving his older sister Ruth (Natalie Ganzhorn) insane. They cross paths with a mysterious drifter named Ramon (Michael Garza) who joins the group seemingly out of boredom.
They initially use trick or treating as a front for revenge against local jock and full-time bully Tommy (Austin Abrams), which leads them to a condemned and rumored to be haunted house of the Bellows family. Sarah Bellows lived in isolation and dramatically killed herself because of her family. Sarah turned her devastating life into inspiration for a series of terrifying stories. After Stella discovers the book Sarah wrote her stories in, strange things begin happening in Mill Valley and everyone in the Bellows house from that night becomes a target.
The monsters of the film attempt to be as explicitly accurate as possible to Stephen Gammell’s original illustrations from the Scary Stories books. This typically pays off, especially with Harold the Scarecrow and The Toe Monster but it seems to backfire with The Pale Lady. While she does still look like a living incarnation of Gammell’s artwork, the story has the weakest conclusion of the entire film. Scary Stories makes up for this by introducing The Jangly Man, who is seriously worth the price of admission alone even if you typically can’t understand a word that he says. The Jangly Man contorts his body in the most inhuman of ways, can separate all of his limbs from his torso, and has this bloodcurdling voice that rattles your insides.
There’s been an emphasis on the lack of a narrative in Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark. That may be true, but the film is based on a trilogy of books that is close to thirty years old and is supposed to be aimed at younger readers. The film adapts the stories in a way that isn’t totally successful, but it is surprisingly great at times. Despite some recognizable names in the supporting cast such as Dean Norris (Breaking Bad), Gil Bellows (The Shawshank Redemption), and Lorraine Toussaint (Orange is the New Black), the main cast is mostly filled with unknowns. Some reviews claim that the acting isn’t up to par, but I was pleasantly surprised. Austin Zajur can be annoying as the mischievous Chuck, but he was also rather humorous the majority of the time. Zoe Colletti goes a little overboard when she cries, but she’s also solid when she gushes over horror. Austin Abrams is seriously nasty as Tommy. He is always sweaty and has no remorse for anyone. He takes bullying to frightening heights.
I guess I expected the film to be corny (pun intended) with lame PG-13 kills and a cast that had no idea what they were doing. The film managed to make me a fan during the Harold segment. That surround sound in the cornfield is masterful with the wind blowing through corn stalks in every direction and the rusty creaking of the scarecrow as he tries to walk. How these teenagers are terrorized manages to transcend what movie ratings typically mean for a given film; this would be unsettling regardless of what it’s rated or how old the viewer is.
Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is not a perfect horror anthology since it’s extremely simple in concept. A monster shows up, a kid disappears, and then it’s rinse and repeat for an hour and 47 minutes. At the same time though, it’s probably the scariest film of the summer and could potentially become the next big horror franchise. Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark could easily take over where the Final Destination films left off or even be this generation’s answer to that. The practical effects mixed with just the right amount of CGI for the monsters are what really sell the film. Despite being as disjointed and unnatural as The Jangly Man, Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is way more amusing and eerie than it has any right to be.
The horror film directed by André Øvredal (Trollhunter, The Autopsy of Jane Doe) follows a group of teenagers in the small town of Mill Valley, Pennsylvania during Halloween in 1968. Stella (Zoe Colletti) is a die-hard fan of the horror genre, Auggie (Gabriel Rush) is a bit too infatuated with girls for his own good, and Chuck (Austin Zajur) lives on candy and pranks when he’s not driving his older sister Ruth (Natalie Ganzhorn) insane. They cross paths with a mysterious drifter named Ramon (Michael Garza) who joins the group seemingly out of boredom.
They initially use trick or treating as a front for revenge against local jock and full-time bully Tommy (Austin Abrams), which leads them to a condemned and rumored to be haunted house of the Bellows family. Sarah Bellows lived in isolation and dramatically killed herself because of her family. Sarah turned her devastating life into inspiration for a series of terrifying stories. After Stella discovers the book Sarah wrote her stories in, strange things begin happening in Mill Valley and everyone in the Bellows house from that night becomes a target.
The monsters of the film attempt to be as explicitly accurate as possible to Stephen Gammell’s original illustrations from the Scary Stories books. This typically pays off, especially with Harold the Scarecrow and The Toe Monster but it seems to backfire with The Pale Lady. While she does still look like a living incarnation of Gammell’s artwork, the story has the weakest conclusion of the entire film. Scary Stories makes up for this by introducing The Jangly Man, who is seriously worth the price of admission alone even if you typically can’t understand a word that he says. The Jangly Man contorts his body in the most inhuman of ways, can separate all of his limbs from his torso, and has this bloodcurdling voice that rattles your insides.
There’s been an emphasis on the lack of a narrative in Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark. That may be true, but the film is based on a trilogy of books that is close to thirty years old and is supposed to be aimed at younger readers. The film adapts the stories in a way that isn’t totally successful, but it is surprisingly great at times. Despite some recognizable names in the supporting cast such as Dean Norris (Breaking Bad), Gil Bellows (The Shawshank Redemption), and Lorraine Toussaint (Orange is the New Black), the main cast is mostly filled with unknowns. Some reviews claim that the acting isn’t up to par, but I was pleasantly surprised. Austin Zajur can be annoying as the mischievous Chuck, but he was also rather humorous the majority of the time. Zoe Colletti goes a little overboard when she cries, but she’s also solid when she gushes over horror. Austin Abrams is seriously nasty as Tommy. He is always sweaty and has no remorse for anyone. He takes bullying to frightening heights.
I guess I expected the film to be corny (pun intended) with lame PG-13 kills and a cast that had no idea what they were doing. The film managed to make me a fan during the Harold segment. That surround sound in the cornfield is masterful with the wind blowing through corn stalks in every direction and the rusty creaking of the scarecrow as he tries to walk. How these teenagers are terrorized manages to transcend what movie ratings typically mean for a given film; this would be unsettling regardless of what it’s rated or how old the viewer is.
Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is not a perfect horror anthology since it’s extremely simple in concept. A monster shows up, a kid disappears, and then it’s rinse and repeat for an hour and 47 minutes. At the same time though, it’s probably the scariest film of the summer and could potentially become the next big horror franchise. Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark could easily take over where the Final Destination films left off or even be this generation’s answer to that. The practical effects mixed with just the right amount of CGI for the monsters are what really sell the film. Despite being as disjointed and unnatural as The Jangly Man, Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is way more amusing and eerie than it has any right to be.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Immortal Writers in Books
Dec 17, 2018
<i>This ARC was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review </i>
Words are the most powerful form of magic. Jill Bowers creates a unique fantasy concept in this soon to be published adventure novel. When <i>Immortal Writers</i> begins, the genre is similar to many contemporary novels: characters living normal day-to-day lives. Eighteen-year-old Liz has just landed back in her hometown after touring to promote her new novel, the next in a popular fantasy series that won her the Best Young Fantasy Award. All she wants is to return to her apartment and go to bed, so being kidnapped was not part of her plan. Especially not being kidnapped by the formidable William Shakespeare.
What Liz and readers both learn next is a brilliant, awe-inspiring idea. Imagine that all the world’s most famous authors were immortal and lived together in a magical castle manipulated by the science fiction novelists. That is what Liz suddenly has to come to terms with. Although she is only young, her books show so much potential that she is already initiated into the Immortal Writers. But it is not only legendary writers inhabiting this fortress. When an author becomes immortal, their characters become real. Liz is shocked to come face to face with the handsome hero of her story as well as a few of her supporting characters. However that is not all that has crossed over into reality.
As well as the goodies, the evil characters have also been brought into the world. Kenric, Liz’s antagonist, has hidden himself nearby with hundreds of dragons. He wants dominion over the entire planet and the only person that can stop him is Liz herself. So begins an adventure of learning to use magic, sword fights, dragon attacks and inevitable, heart wrenching causalities.
As a writer, Jill Bowers has not quite got the level of standard that the top authors have achieved. This is evident from the lack of description and awkwardness of the prose throughout the first few chapters. Once the storyline is well under way it becomes a lot easier to read; whether her writing improves is debatable, but her imagination captures the readers attention and provides a thoroughly entertaining narrative.
It is not solely the plot, characters and action that will stay in readers’ minds – the overall concept is fantastic. Who would not want their favourite authors to live forever? I would love to meet a William Shakespeare who has adapted himself to modern day living. Even more exciting is the possibility of meeting fictional characters. Each reader is bound to start daydreaming about which of their most loved books they would like to become real. How great would it be to meet Harry Potter, or see a unicorn, or eat some chocolate made by Willy Wonka, or… the possibilities are endless.
<i>Immortal Writers</i> is the first novel in a series so there will be more books that focus on this amazing idea. From the preview at the end of this copy, it appears that the following book will be about different authors/characters, therefore will provide a whole new outline to wrap our heads around.
Fantasy fans should definitely seek out this series. The writing may not exactly be up to par, but the general storyline is unquestionably worth it. Encompassing, contemporary, adventure and romance genres, <i>Immortal Writers</i> is an incredible fantasy story based in the “real” world.
Words are the most powerful form of magic. Jill Bowers creates a unique fantasy concept in this soon to be published adventure novel. When <i>Immortal Writers</i> begins, the genre is similar to many contemporary novels: characters living normal day-to-day lives. Eighteen-year-old Liz has just landed back in her hometown after touring to promote her new novel, the next in a popular fantasy series that won her the Best Young Fantasy Award. All she wants is to return to her apartment and go to bed, so being kidnapped was not part of her plan. Especially not being kidnapped by the formidable William Shakespeare.
What Liz and readers both learn next is a brilliant, awe-inspiring idea. Imagine that all the world’s most famous authors were immortal and lived together in a magical castle manipulated by the science fiction novelists. That is what Liz suddenly has to come to terms with. Although she is only young, her books show so much potential that she is already initiated into the Immortal Writers. But it is not only legendary writers inhabiting this fortress. When an author becomes immortal, their characters become real. Liz is shocked to come face to face with the handsome hero of her story as well as a few of her supporting characters. However that is not all that has crossed over into reality.
As well as the goodies, the evil characters have also been brought into the world. Kenric, Liz’s antagonist, has hidden himself nearby with hundreds of dragons. He wants dominion over the entire planet and the only person that can stop him is Liz herself. So begins an adventure of learning to use magic, sword fights, dragon attacks and inevitable, heart wrenching causalities.
As a writer, Jill Bowers has not quite got the level of standard that the top authors have achieved. This is evident from the lack of description and awkwardness of the prose throughout the first few chapters. Once the storyline is well under way it becomes a lot easier to read; whether her writing improves is debatable, but her imagination captures the readers attention and provides a thoroughly entertaining narrative.
It is not solely the plot, characters and action that will stay in readers’ minds – the overall concept is fantastic. Who would not want their favourite authors to live forever? I would love to meet a William Shakespeare who has adapted himself to modern day living. Even more exciting is the possibility of meeting fictional characters. Each reader is bound to start daydreaming about which of their most loved books they would like to become real. How great would it be to meet Harry Potter, or see a unicorn, or eat some chocolate made by Willy Wonka, or… the possibilities are endless.
<i>Immortal Writers</i> is the first novel in a series so there will be more books that focus on this amazing idea. From the preview at the end of this copy, it appears that the following book will be about different authors/characters, therefore will provide a whole new outline to wrap our heads around.
Fantasy fans should definitely seek out this series. The writing may not exactly be up to par, but the general storyline is unquestionably worth it. Encompassing, contemporary, adventure and romance genres, <i>Immortal Writers</i> is an incredible fantasy story based in the “real” world.
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated Double Love (Sweet Valley High, #1) in Books
Feb 15, 2019
<u><b>SVH: WTF?</b></u>
<b>Cover Models:</b> Jessica and Elizabeth
<b>Page count:</b> 182
<b>Special Event:</b> Some sorority thing.
<b>Number of times "a hundred and thirty-seven" was mentioned:</b> Two, plus five hundred and thirty-seven and seven hundred and thirty-seven. See below.
<b>Mental Illness Winner of the Week:</b> Jessica. Is there any surprise there?
<b>Jessica's Bitchyness scale:</b> ***** (out of five)
<b>WTFery Meter:</b> ****1/2 stars (out of five)
-------------------------
<b>Quotes & Snarky comments:</b>
What a peach:<blockquote>"How can you be best friends with somebody as blah as Eeny Rollins? I don't want you to go over there. Somebody might think it was <i>me</i> talking to her." - Jessica Wakefield, page 18</blockquote>Jessica's thoughts about Liz's lack of enthusiasm at being accepted into the sorority, Pi Beta Alpha: <blockquote>"No big deal? Elizabeth, how can you say that? How can you even think it? You've got to be seven hundred and thirty-seven kinds of idiots not to be excited about associating with the best girls at Sweet Valley High. What's wrong with you?" - page 34/5</blockquote>Isn't she simply the sweetest girl in the world? (note: Enid was also accepted.)
On butting into their brother's, Steven, love life: <blockquote>"You can do whatever you want, Elizabeth Wakefield, but it's just not in my nature to be cold and selfish when it comes to the happiness of a member of my family!" - page 39</blockquote>This as she attempts to steal Todd away from Liz the whole book. Yeah, real selfless of ya, Jess.<blockquote>"He has got to be the most wonderful boy in a hundred and thirty-seven states!" - Jessica, page 108</blockquote> Uh, she does realize there are only 50, right?<blockquote>Elizabeth wondered how her sister could possibly descend from cloud nine with Todd Wilkins to the pits of depression so fast and simply because she had to do a little thing like help fix dinner. - page 108</blockquote>I bet a psychologist (or a whole team of them) is the only one that could help you figure that out, Liz. What follows immediately afterward sees Jessica having a complete meltdown. Seriously.
<blockquote>"This family has got to be the biggest bummer in five hundred and thirty-seven cities!" - Jess, page 111</blockquote><blockquote>"You selfish little twerp," Steven said, glaring at Jessica. - page 114</blockquote>Hear, hear! Way to go Steve!
<blockquote>"I'll never forgive you, not if I live to be a hundred and thirty-seven years." - Jessica, page 182</blockquote>Aah! Please don't live that long, please. 8O
<b>Final thoughts:</b>
Elizabeth = Goody-two-shoes doormat.
Jessica = Satan incarnate.
Sounds like a bad sitcom.
<b>Disclaimer:</b> I am not a teenager or preteen, but an adult. Supposedly. Everyone keeps telling me I am but I'm not sure I'm buying what they're selling. Therefore my views are based from that perspective rather than someone in the target age range. I inhaled these suckers when I was young, hale, and hearty, so in an apparent moment of weakness have decided to re-visit one of my favorite old series in a fondly-remembered, tongue-in-cheek, and mostly sarcastic approach. So since I couldn't manage to devise a rating system for SVH books, I came up with this little way to have some fun, which is in the review form you've (hopefully) just read. Why else would you be reading this if you hadn't read all the way through anyway? Sometimes me not so bright. ;P
Next review: <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/166889313"><b>Secrets</b></a>;
<b>Cover Models:</b> Jessica and Elizabeth
<b>Page count:</b> 182
<b>Special Event:</b> Some sorority thing.
<b>Number of times "a hundred and thirty-seven" was mentioned:</b> Two, plus five hundred and thirty-seven and seven hundred and thirty-seven. See below.
<b>Mental Illness Winner of the Week:</b> Jessica. Is there any surprise there?
<b>Jessica's Bitchyness scale:</b> ***** (out of five)
<b>WTFery Meter:</b> ****1/2 stars (out of five)
-------------------------
<b>Quotes & Snarky comments:</b>
What a peach:<blockquote>"How can you be best friends with somebody as blah as Eeny Rollins? I don't want you to go over there. Somebody might think it was <i>me</i> talking to her." - Jessica Wakefield, page 18</blockquote>Jessica's thoughts about Liz's lack of enthusiasm at being accepted into the sorority, Pi Beta Alpha: <blockquote>"No big deal? Elizabeth, how can you say that? How can you even think it? You've got to be seven hundred and thirty-seven kinds of idiots not to be excited about associating with the best girls at Sweet Valley High. What's wrong with you?" - page 34/5</blockquote>Isn't she simply the sweetest girl in the world? (note: Enid was also accepted.)
On butting into their brother's, Steven, love life: <blockquote>"You can do whatever you want, Elizabeth Wakefield, but it's just not in my nature to be cold and selfish when it comes to the happiness of a member of my family!" - page 39</blockquote>This as she attempts to steal Todd away from Liz the whole book. Yeah, real selfless of ya, Jess.<blockquote>"He has got to be the most wonderful boy in a hundred and thirty-seven states!" - Jessica, page 108</blockquote> Uh, she does realize there are only 50, right?<blockquote>Elizabeth wondered how her sister could possibly descend from cloud nine with Todd Wilkins to the pits of depression so fast and simply because she had to do a little thing like help fix dinner. - page 108</blockquote>I bet a psychologist (or a whole team of them) is the only one that could help you figure that out, Liz. What follows immediately afterward sees Jessica having a complete meltdown. Seriously.
<blockquote>"This family has got to be the biggest bummer in five hundred and thirty-seven cities!" - Jess, page 111</blockquote><blockquote>"You selfish little twerp," Steven said, glaring at Jessica. - page 114</blockquote>Hear, hear! Way to go Steve!
<blockquote>"I'll never forgive you, not if I live to be a hundred and thirty-seven years." - Jessica, page 182</blockquote>Aah! Please don't live that long, please. 8O
<b>Final thoughts:</b>
Elizabeth = Goody-two-shoes doormat.
Jessica = Satan incarnate.
Sounds like a bad sitcom.
<b>Disclaimer:</b> I am not a teenager or preteen, but an adult. Supposedly. Everyone keeps telling me I am but I'm not sure I'm buying what they're selling. Therefore my views are based from that perspective rather than someone in the target age range. I inhaled these suckers when I was young, hale, and hearty, so in an apparent moment of weakness have decided to re-visit one of my favorite old series in a fondly-remembered, tongue-in-cheek, and mostly sarcastic approach. So since I couldn't manage to devise a rating system for SVH books, I came up with this little way to have some fun, which is in the review form you've (hopefully) just read. Why else would you be reading this if you hadn't read all the way through anyway? Sometimes me not so bright. ;P
Next review: <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/166889313"><b>Secrets</b></a>;
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
The Hunger Games franchise has come at a time that is almost certain to gather box-office success. After Harry Potter finished two years ago and The Twilight Saga bowed out just 12 months ago, teenagers and young adults have been craving for a new series of blockbusters to ‘sink their teeth into’.
The first film of this new dawn, based on Suzanne Collins’ successful book, was released in March last year and greeted with warm reviews and a staggering box-office performance, a gross just shy of $700m to be a little more precise.
However, rumoured tensions between director Gary Ross and studio Color Force meant that despite its impressive takings, he was not to helm its sequel, Catching Fire. Taking over from him is Francis Lawrence, director of I am Legend, Constantine and Water for Elephants, but can he better what preceded him?
The series centres around an annual ‘games’, in which people aged between 12 and 18 must fight to the death in a custom made arena, leaving only one victor, who is showered with riches for the rest of their lives.
Jennifer Lawrence, returning to the series after her first Oscar win this year, plays Katniss Everdeen, a plucky young teen who fresh from winning the previous Hunger Games tournament alongside her beau Peeta Mellark, played by Josh Hutcherson, travel through the land of Panem (a post-apocalyptic America) to spread their story and persuade others to take part in the vicious tournament.
However, after angering the Capitol, run by cold-hearted President Snow (Donald Sutherland) who becomes increasingly concerned that an up-rising is brewing, it is decided that previous victors must once again take part, to show that even they are not above the law.
For those fresh to the series, I warn you not to watch this film without seeing the first, as much of the plot will be near incomprehensible and your enjoyment will suffer as a result.
The film starts slowly, giving enough backstory before the inevitable return to the arena. Thankfully despite its large running time of 146 minutes, it never falters and after allowing the audience to see how the world has changed, it is back into the new and improved arena for the 75th Hunger Games.
Gone is the shaky handy-cam of director Gary Ross, and in its place we are treated to sweeping shots of numerous landscapes; from the coal-mining community of District 12, to the bright lights of the Capitol and even the large arena which has been given a radical overhaul to make it even more challenging than ever.
The acting is simply sublime by all accounts. Jennifer Lawrence, fresh from the honour of an Oscar plays Katniss with such a subtle grace that she is mesmerising to watch, a real treat for fans of J-Law and of course Suzanne Collins’ character. Liam Hemsworth returns to the series as Katniss’ secret love interest Gale, but he is sorely underused. Josh Hutcherson’s Peeta Mellark is as irritating as ever and lacks a backbone, but this is more to do with the script than Hutcherson’s abilities as an actor.
Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, Stanley Tucci also return, with the latter being a real stand-out in a film which is filled with quirky and unusual characters.
Those of you who have read my review of the previous film will know that I wasn’t a fan of its lacklustre special effects. Thankfully my prayers were answered and due to a budget that has almost doubled, the effects are glorious. The Capitol is perhaps the best use of the CGI, where the first film looked like a Star Wars: Episode I rip-off, here we really feel like the city is living and breathing for the very first time.
Unfortunately, it seems like the special effects team are still struggling with CGI fire as the computer generated flames are still laughable in their realism.
At 146 minutes, Catching Fire was always going to numb your backside, but you don’t care, the film is an absolute treat to watch. Director Francis Lawrence has retained the violent nature of the series despite its ridiculous 12A certification and manages to get around those limitations with style and flair.
Yes, if I was pushed I’d say it was a little over-long, the CGI flames still look ridiculous and the ending is far too abrupt, but if those are the only faults I can find in a film, then clearly it is more than worth the increasingly expensive price of a cinema admission ticket.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2013/11/23/hunger-games-catching-fire-review/
The first film of this new dawn, based on Suzanne Collins’ successful book, was released in March last year and greeted with warm reviews and a staggering box-office performance, a gross just shy of $700m to be a little more precise.
However, rumoured tensions between director Gary Ross and studio Color Force meant that despite its impressive takings, he was not to helm its sequel, Catching Fire. Taking over from him is Francis Lawrence, director of I am Legend, Constantine and Water for Elephants, but can he better what preceded him?
The series centres around an annual ‘games’, in which people aged between 12 and 18 must fight to the death in a custom made arena, leaving only one victor, who is showered with riches for the rest of their lives.
Jennifer Lawrence, returning to the series after her first Oscar win this year, plays Katniss Everdeen, a plucky young teen who fresh from winning the previous Hunger Games tournament alongside her beau Peeta Mellark, played by Josh Hutcherson, travel through the land of Panem (a post-apocalyptic America) to spread their story and persuade others to take part in the vicious tournament.
However, after angering the Capitol, run by cold-hearted President Snow (Donald Sutherland) who becomes increasingly concerned that an up-rising is brewing, it is decided that previous victors must once again take part, to show that even they are not above the law.
For those fresh to the series, I warn you not to watch this film without seeing the first, as much of the plot will be near incomprehensible and your enjoyment will suffer as a result.
The film starts slowly, giving enough backstory before the inevitable return to the arena. Thankfully despite its large running time of 146 minutes, it never falters and after allowing the audience to see how the world has changed, it is back into the new and improved arena for the 75th Hunger Games.
Gone is the shaky handy-cam of director Gary Ross, and in its place we are treated to sweeping shots of numerous landscapes; from the coal-mining community of District 12, to the bright lights of the Capitol and even the large arena which has been given a radical overhaul to make it even more challenging than ever.
The acting is simply sublime by all accounts. Jennifer Lawrence, fresh from the honour of an Oscar plays Katniss with such a subtle grace that she is mesmerising to watch, a real treat for fans of J-Law and of course Suzanne Collins’ character. Liam Hemsworth returns to the series as Katniss’ secret love interest Gale, but he is sorely underused. Josh Hutcherson’s Peeta Mellark is as irritating as ever and lacks a backbone, but this is more to do with the script than Hutcherson’s abilities as an actor.
Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, Stanley Tucci also return, with the latter being a real stand-out in a film which is filled with quirky and unusual characters.
Those of you who have read my review of the previous film will know that I wasn’t a fan of its lacklustre special effects. Thankfully my prayers were answered and due to a budget that has almost doubled, the effects are glorious. The Capitol is perhaps the best use of the CGI, where the first film looked like a Star Wars: Episode I rip-off, here we really feel like the city is living and breathing for the very first time.
Unfortunately, it seems like the special effects team are still struggling with CGI fire as the computer generated flames are still laughable in their realism.
At 146 minutes, Catching Fire was always going to numb your backside, but you don’t care, the film is an absolute treat to watch. Director Francis Lawrence has retained the violent nature of the series despite its ridiculous 12A certification and manages to get around those limitations with style and flair.
Yes, if I was pushed I’d say it was a little over-long, the CGI flames still look ridiculous and the ending is far too abrupt, but if those are the only faults I can find in a film, then clearly it is more than worth the increasingly expensive price of a cinema admission ticket.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2013/11/23/hunger-games-catching-fire-review/
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016) in Movies
Jul 19, 2017
Darth Vader (1 more)
Fits nicely with the rest of the series
What's Old Is New
So our yearly Star Wars movie has arrived and after a complicated production it has released to rave reviews, with some outlets going as far as to compare it in quality to Empire Strikes Back, (which is widely considered to be the superior Star Wars film,) and it has even garnered a fair amount of Oscar buzz. This, along with the fact it’s a Star Wars movie meant that my expectations for this were pretty high going in and after seeing the movie there are parts of the flick that I loved and parts that I didn’t. When I wrote my Force Awakens review last year, I wrote both a spoiler free and a spoiler filled version of the review, but this year I have less time on my hands, so from this point on this will be a spoiler filled review, but the movie has been out for almost a week at the time of writing this, so if you haven’t seen the movie yet and are reading my review, well that is your own fault.
This movie for the most part impressed me. I loved how well it tied into A New Hope and how it actually fixed that movie’s biggest plothole by explaining that the weak point in the Death Star was installed on purpose by Galen Erso while designing the battle station under the Empire’s thumb, so that the Rebels would have a chance to destroy it. I loved how the movie had the balls to kills off the entire crew of the Rogue One team at the end of the movie and that corridor scene at the end with Vader was possibly the best scene I’ve seen in the cinema this year, it’s definitely up there with the airport scene in Civil War. Those are the stand out positives of the movie for me, however there were also a few flaws throughout the film.
First of all, that Grand Mof Tarkin CGI recreation of Peter Cushing was awful, the whole thing looked like a character from the Star Wars animated series. When he is first introduced it is through a glass reflection on a window he is looking out of and in that part of the scene it was fairly convincing, however he then turns around and the camera moves to a medium close up shot and all of a sudden it feels like watching a video game cutscene. Guy Henry was the actor who did the motion capture for Tarkin and that actor actually looks relatively similar to Peter Cushing, so why they didn’t just apply some makeup to Guy Henry and dye his hair gray to resemble Cushing more and recast the Tarkin role is a mystery to me, it would have also been a lot cheaper than the method that they went with. Either that or he should have only been seen in the reflection of the glass, since that was the only time that the CGI effect actually looked convincing. However, I did think that the CGI recreation of 1970’s Carrie Fischer at the end of the movie was very convincing and if it wasn’t for the movement in her mouth, I wouldn’t have known that was a CGI character. Another flaw I had with the movie was the how rushed and choppy the first act was, the characters were all introduced quickly and vaguely, then it took them ages to actually form up as a team. I get that introducing a whole cast of brand new characters in a short space of time isn’t easy, but Tarantino pulls it off in Hateful 8 and Inglorious Bastards and it works a lot better than it works here.
In a lot of ways Rogue One is a contrast to Force Awakens. In Force Awakens, the plot was essentially the same as A New Hope and was a fairly by the book, traditional Star Wars story, but the characters were what made that movie, if Poe Dameron, Rey, Finn, Kylo Ren, Han and Chewie weren’t as well written, that movie would have been mediocre at best. In Rogue One, the characters are pretty shallow and underdeveloped and they are introduced quickly and by the end of the movie none of them have really had a proper character arc. However that is not what this movie is about, this film is about a team of people coming together in order to complete a task to set up the events of the original trilogy and in that sense this movie does what it sets out to do. An example of this is the robot character K2SO, who I thought was going to start off with no humanity, then over the course of the movie realize the value of human life and then sacrifice himself for the greater good at the movie’s climax, but it turns out that the only real reason that he is helping the Rebels, is because he has been programmed to do so. This I feel sums up the level of character development present in the movie and demonstrates that it is not necessary in the film as that isn’t the movie’s purpose. What Force Awakens lacked in an original plot, it made up for in character development and what Rogue One lacks in character development, it makes up for in plot and setup, so both movies have their strengths and their flaws. Bearing in mind that I have only seen Rogue One once so far, I currently prefer Force Awakens to Rogue One, but then I prefer Return of the Jedi to Empire, so maybe that’s just me.
The writing moves the story along at a brisk pace, but it is effective in that you are constantly kept aware of where we are and what is happening at least from the end of the first act onwards. The performances are also suitable to the characters in each role, but I wouldn’t say anyone was incredible, my personal favourite was Cassian, the Alliance’s trigger finger who had shades of Han Solo thrown in as well. While watching Diego Luna’s performance, I actually thought he would be a good pick to play Nathan Drake in the Uncharted movie. The lighting in the film is well used and the CGI is spectacular for the most part other than weird waxwork Peter Cushing. The space battles are breathtaking and the action on the ground is also exciting.
Now, let’s talk about the characters that weren’t part of the Rogue One team. Forest Whittaker and Mads Mikkelson are two of my favourite actors working in Hollywood today and they are both in this movie, but I feel that both could have been used more. When they are onscreen, they are brilliant, it’s just a pity they make up such a small part of the movie. Whittaker appears only to be killed off minutes later and Mikkelson is only in two major scenes outside of a brief hologram appearance and then also gets killed off unceremoniously. The reason that a lot of people will go and see this movie however, will be to see Darth Vader. He isn’t in the movie much, but when he is it is fantastic. All of this reminds me a lot of Edwards’ last movie Godzilla, where Bryan Cranston and the monster were clearly the best parts of that movie, but for some reason were hardly in the thing. It’s as if Edwards has this idea in his head that less is always more and if he doesn’t show what people want to see in the movie for more than a few minutes at a time, then he is being original and artistic. While I understand this way of thinking from an auteur perspective, it’s fucking Star Wars and Godzilla mate, just give the people what they want. It is far less of an issue here however, since the rest of the cast in Rogue One are far more compelling than the rest of the cast in Godzilla.
Anyway, back to Vader. We first see Vader when Krennic goes to see him in his Imperial Castle in Mustafar, the same location that he was relieved of his limbs and burnt alive in a pool of lava. The way he is introduced is awesome, when Krennic arrives one of Vader’s cloaked minions enters a large room containing an ominous bacta tank, which we see Vader floating in without his suit on. This is the most vulnerable we have ever seen Vader since we saw him getting his suit fitted for the first time in Revenge Of The Sith. The tank empties and we see Vader’s stumps where his arms and legs once were and we see the burnt skin that covers his torso. Then we cut to him in full costume, complete with the classic James Earl Jones voice and force choking Krennic. He then disappears again for most of the movie, until the second to last scene where he is at his most powerful and this could genuinely be my favourite Vader scene of all time, perhaps even beating the infamous, ‘I am your father,’ scene from Empire. Vader in this scene is pure raw anger and power and the way the scene is shot and lit is fucking perfect, the audio and the editing fantastic also. The scene opens with a dark corridor with Rebels scrambling to get the hard drive containing the Death Star plans to the other end of the corridor and onto the ship that Leia is on, so that she can go on to get the plans into R2 in order to kick off A New Hope’s events. At first you wonder why the Rebels are in such a panic then you hear the terrifying breathing from Vader’s suit, but he still isn’t shown. Then the first and only lightsaber in the movie is sparked and it illuminates Vader in all of his terrifying glory before he starts tearing through the Rebels like a monster in a horror movie. This minute long scene is one of the best I’ve seen this year and it alone made the ticket price worth it for me.
Overall, Rogue One was essentially what I thought it would be based on the trailers. I don’t personally understand the overblown critical fanfare that the movie is receiving, but I’m glad that Star Wars fans like it. There are many parts of the movie that could be considered polarizing, such as the lack of Vader scenes, the dodgy Tarkin CGI, the fact that the entire Rogue One squad is killed off at the end of the movie, the absence of an opening crawl and Forest Whittaker’s raspy voice, which admittedly takes a bit of getting used to. Some of these elements I loved and some I hated, but for the most part this is an enjoyable addition to the Star Wars saga, I love how well it ties into and sets up the events of the films following this one and it was an added bonus that they actually resolved some of the original trilogy’s flaws. As I said earlier, I still prefer The Force Awakens to this, but I can see how an argument could be made for this one being a better movie.
This movie for the most part impressed me. I loved how well it tied into A New Hope and how it actually fixed that movie’s biggest plothole by explaining that the weak point in the Death Star was installed on purpose by Galen Erso while designing the battle station under the Empire’s thumb, so that the Rebels would have a chance to destroy it. I loved how the movie had the balls to kills off the entire crew of the Rogue One team at the end of the movie and that corridor scene at the end with Vader was possibly the best scene I’ve seen in the cinema this year, it’s definitely up there with the airport scene in Civil War. Those are the stand out positives of the movie for me, however there were also a few flaws throughout the film.
First of all, that Grand Mof Tarkin CGI recreation of Peter Cushing was awful, the whole thing looked like a character from the Star Wars animated series. When he is first introduced it is through a glass reflection on a window he is looking out of and in that part of the scene it was fairly convincing, however he then turns around and the camera moves to a medium close up shot and all of a sudden it feels like watching a video game cutscene. Guy Henry was the actor who did the motion capture for Tarkin and that actor actually looks relatively similar to Peter Cushing, so why they didn’t just apply some makeup to Guy Henry and dye his hair gray to resemble Cushing more and recast the Tarkin role is a mystery to me, it would have also been a lot cheaper than the method that they went with. Either that or he should have only been seen in the reflection of the glass, since that was the only time that the CGI effect actually looked convincing. However, I did think that the CGI recreation of 1970’s Carrie Fischer at the end of the movie was very convincing and if it wasn’t for the movement in her mouth, I wouldn’t have known that was a CGI character. Another flaw I had with the movie was the how rushed and choppy the first act was, the characters were all introduced quickly and vaguely, then it took them ages to actually form up as a team. I get that introducing a whole cast of brand new characters in a short space of time isn’t easy, but Tarantino pulls it off in Hateful 8 and Inglorious Bastards and it works a lot better than it works here.
In a lot of ways Rogue One is a contrast to Force Awakens. In Force Awakens, the plot was essentially the same as A New Hope and was a fairly by the book, traditional Star Wars story, but the characters were what made that movie, if Poe Dameron, Rey, Finn, Kylo Ren, Han and Chewie weren’t as well written, that movie would have been mediocre at best. In Rogue One, the characters are pretty shallow and underdeveloped and they are introduced quickly and by the end of the movie none of them have really had a proper character arc. However that is not what this movie is about, this film is about a team of people coming together in order to complete a task to set up the events of the original trilogy and in that sense this movie does what it sets out to do. An example of this is the robot character K2SO, who I thought was going to start off with no humanity, then over the course of the movie realize the value of human life and then sacrifice himself for the greater good at the movie’s climax, but it turns out that the only real reason that he is helping the Rebels, is because he has been programmed to do so. This I feel sums up the level of character development present in the movie and demonstrates that it is not necessary in the film as that isn’t the movie’s purpose. What Force Awakens lacked in an original plot, it made up for in character development and what Rogue One lacks in character development, it makes up for in plot and setup, so both movies have their strengths and their flaws. Bearing in mind that I have only seen Rogue One once so far, I currently prefer Force Awakens to Rogue One, but then I prefer Return of the Jedi to Empire, so maybe that’s just me.
The writing moves the story along at a brisk pace, but it is effective in that you are constantly kept aware of where we are and what is happening at least from the end of the first act onwards. The performances are also suitable to the characters in each role, but I wouldn’t say anyone was incredible, my personal favourite was Cassian, the Alliance’s trigger finger who had shades of Han Solo thrown in as well. While watching Diego Luna’s performance, I actually thought he would be a good pick to play Nathan Drake in the Uncharted movie. The lighting in the film is well used and the CGI is spectacular for the most part other than weird waxwork Peter Cushing. The space battles are breathtaking and the action on the ground is also exciting.
Now, let’s talk about the characters that weren’t part of the Rogue One team. Forest Whittaker and Mads Mikkelson are two of my favourite actors working in Hollywood today and they are both in this movie, but I feel that both could have been used more. When they are onscreen, they are brilliant, it’s just a pity they make up such a small part of the movie. Whittaker appears only to be killed off minutes later and Mikkelson is only in two major scenes outside of a brief hologram appearance and then also gets killed off unceremoniously. The reason that a lot of people will go and see this movie however, will be to see Darth Vader. He isn’t in the movie much, but when he is it is fantastic. All of this reminds me a lot of Edwards’ last movie Godzilla, where Bryan Cranston and the monster were clearly the best parts of that movie, but for some reason were hardly in the thing. It’s as if Edwards has this idea in his head that less is always more and if he doesn’t show what people want to see in the movie for more than a few minutes at a time, then he is being original and artistic. While I understand this way of thinking from an auteur perspective, it’s fucking Star Wars and Godzilla mate, just give the people what they want. It is far less of an issue here however, since the rest of the cast in Rogue One are far more compelling than the rest of the cast in Godzilla.
Anyway, back to Vader. We first see Vader when Krennic goes to see him in his Imperial Castle in Mustafar, the same location that he was relieved of his limbs and burnt alive in a pool of lava. The way he is introduced is awesome, when Krennic arrives one of Vader’s cloaked minions enters a large room containing an ominous bacta tank, which we see Vader floating in without his suit on. This is the most vulnerable we have ever seen Vader since we saw him getting his suit fitted for the first time in Revenge Of The Sith. The tank empties and we see Vader’s stumps where his arms and legs once were and we see the burnt skin that covers his torso. Then we cut to him in full costume, complete with the classic James Earl Jones voice and force choking Krennic. He then disappears again for most of the movie, until the second to last scene where he is at his most powerful and this could genuinely be my favourite Vader scene of all time, perhaps even beating the infamous, ‘I am your father,’ scene from Empire. Vader in this scene is pure raw anger and power and the way the scene is shot and lit is fucking perfect, the audio and the editing fantastic also. The scene opens with a dark corridor with Rebels scrambling to get the hard drive containing the Death Star plans to the other end of the corridor and onto the ship that Leia is on, so that she can go on to get the plans into R2 in order to kick off A New Hope’s events. At first you wonder why the Rebels are in such a panic then you hear the terrifying breathing from Vader’s suit, but he still isn’t shown. Then the first and only lightsaber in the movie is sparked and it illuminates Vader in all of his terrifying glory before he starts tearing through the Rebels like a monster in a horror movie. This minute long scene is one of the best I’ve seen this year and it alone made the ticket price worth it for me.
Overall, Rogue One was essentially what I thought it would be based on the trailers. I don’t personally understand the overblown critical fanfare that the movie is receiving, but I’m glad that Star Wars fans like it. There are many parts of the movie that could be considered polarizing, such as the lack of Vader scenes, the dodgy Tarkin CGI, the fact that the entire Rogue One squad is killed off at the end of the movie, the absence of an opening crawl and Forest Whittaker’s raspy voice, which admittedly takes a bit of getting used to. Some of these elements I loved and some I hated, but for the most part this is an enjoyable addition to the Star Wars saga, I love how well it ties into and sets up the events of the films following this one and it was an added bonus that they actually resolved some of the original trilogy’s flaws. As I said earlier, I still prefer The Force Awakens to this, but I can see how an argument could be made for this one being a better movie.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Gunman (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Today, we have an action film on deck for you and ‘no’ it doesn’t star Matt Damon or Jason Statham. This latest film ‘The Gunman’ stars none other than Sean Penn?! Yes, Sean Penn has decided to step into the action genre in his latest film.
Starring Sean Penn, Javier Bardem, Idris Elba, Jasmine Trinca, Ray Winstone, Peter Franzén, Mark Rylance, and based upon the 1981 book ‘The Prone Gunman’ by Jean-Patrick Manchette
‘The Gunman’ is set in the chaos that is modern Africa where civil unrest and war are day-to-day occurrences and western countries and multi-national conglomerates fight for control of the continent’s vital resources. Within this backdrop we find the character of Jim “Twink” Terrier (Penn). A corporate mercenary AKA security contractor on his last ‘assignment’ forced to leave
behind the woman he loves after going into hiding once his final assignment is complete. Now, years later after he has returned in secret to Africa he is forced go on the hunt again after nearly being killed and confront his former boss Felix (Bardem) who may or may not hold the key to finding those responsible. As in the world of espionage however, no one can be trusted. With corporate interests, international law enforcement, and his deteriorating health Terrier is racing against the clock to ensure that the world knows the whole story and perhaps find his long lost love before it’s too late.
Penn is obviously known for his dramatic roles. To say he is ‘legendary’ is pretty accurate.
After seeing this movie, I think it’s safe to say it’s likely we could see him in more action movies. The movie was a bit rough around the edges and perhaps 15 to 20 minutes longer than it needed to be. I felt like Bardem’s presence in the film was ‘wasted’. His character was quiet, spoke very little, and when they did give the character significant time in front of the camera he was drunk for most of it. Bardem has become legendary in his own right and I was hoping for a lot more for his character. The movie was NOT terrible though. One thing that impressed me was the fact that the filmmakers and the writers had the ‘guts’ to include mention of the type of thing that’s going on in Africa right now with corporations fighting for the continents resources and using the civil unrest to their advantage as part of the storyline.
All in all, I’d give the film 3 out of 5 stars. Catch the matinee or order it online. It’s not much when you compare it to something from the ‘Bourne’ or ‘Bond’ franchises. What you see in ‘The Gunman’ is the kind of action film that’s not outside the realm of possibility in real life.
On behalf of my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ this is ‘The CameraMan’ saying thanks for reading … and we’ll see you at the movies.
Second Review by Jennifer Fiduccia
The Gunman, stars Sean Penn as James Terrier, Javier Bardem as Felix, Idris Elba as Barnes, Ray Winstone as Stanley, Mark Rylance as Cox and Jasmine Trinca as Annie.
The movie starts out by showing the men all working together as guards for a humanitarian effort in Congo but we are quickly led to believe that they might also be ‘up to something’
Annie is Jims’ fiancé, but it is overly obvious that Felix is jealous and wishes she were his.
Our beliefs become justified when we see the group of guys get orders to assassinate the Minister of Mining, and its a sort of blind draw as to who has to do the actual shooting. Whoever gets picked must then leave the country. It is revealed that that is how Felix wants it to be.
Terrier draws the short straw so to speak, and must carry out the assassination, and then flee the country.
The movie then skips ahead to 8 years later, and sees Jim once again helping a humanitarian effort in Africa, digging wells.
As he works, his group is suddenly attacked by a group of mercenaries, and Jim manages to fight them off and kill them.
He then begins to hunt down his old team mates in an attempt to try and figure out who tried to kill him and why.
The action in the movie is good, and fast paced, the stunts were well done. None of the stunts seemed ‘unbelievable’ given the circumstances they were put in.
The relationships between the characters could have been better fleshed out, and I was confused most of the way through the movie as to who was after Jim and why, but I guess that was intended in the plot.
Overall, if you are looking for a decent action film with a bunch of shooting and car chases, this will fit the bill.
I’d give the movie 3 out of 5 stars, specifically in the category of ‘action films’.
Starring Sean Penn, Javier Bardem, Idris Elba, Jasmine Trinca, Ray Winstone, Peter Franzén, Mark Rylance, and based upon the 1981 book ‘The Prone Gunman’ by Jean-Patrick Manchette
‘The Gunman’ is set in the chaos that is modern Africa where civil unrest and war are day-to-day occurrences and western countries and multi-national conglomerates fight for control of the continent’s vital resources. Within this backdrop we find the character of Jim “Twink” Terrier (Penn). A corporate mercenary AKA security contractor on his last ‘assignment’ forced to leave
behind the woman he loves after going into hiding once his final assignment is complete. Now, years later after he has returned in secret to Africa he is forced go on the hunt again after nearly being killed and confront his former boss Felix (Bardem) who may or may not hold the key to finding those responsible. As in the world of espionage however, no one can be trusted. With corporate interests, international law enforcement, and his deteriorating health Terrier is racing against the clock to ensure that the world knows the whole story and perhaps find his long lost love before it’s too late.
Penn is obviously known for his dramatic roles. To say he is ‘legendary’ is pretty accurate.
After seeing this movie, I think it’s safe to say it’s likely we could see him in more action movies. The movie was a bit rough around the edges and perhaps 15 to 20 minutes longer than it needed to be. I felt like Bardem’s presence in the film was ‘wasted’. His character was quiet, spoke very little, and when they did give the character significant time in front of the camera he was drunk for most of it. Bardem has become legendary in his own right and I was hoping for a lot more for his character. The movie was NOT terrible though. One thing that impressed me was the fact that the filmmakers and the writers had the ‘guts’ to include mention of the type of thing that’s going on in Africa right now with corporations fighting for the continents resources and using the civil unrest to their advantage as part of the storyline.
All in all, I’d give the film 3 out of 5 stars. Catch the matinee or order it online. It’s not much when you compare it to something from the ‘Bourne’ or ‘Bond’ franchises. What you see in ‘The Gunman’ is the kind of action film that’s not outside the realm of possibility in real life.
On behalf of my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ this is ‘The CameraMan’ saying thanks for reading … and we’ll see you at the movies.
Second Review by Jennifer Fiduccia
The Gunman, stars Sean Penn as James Terrier, Javier Bardem as Felix, Idris Elba as Barnes, Ray Winstone as Stanley, Mark Rylance as Cox and Jasmine Trinca as Annie.
The movie starts out by showing the men all working together as guards for a humanitarian effort in Congo but we are quickly led to believe that they might also be ‘up to something’
Annie is Jims’ fiancé, but it is overly obvious that Felix is jealous and wishes she were his.
Our beliefs become justified when we see the group of guys get orders to assassinate the Minister of Mining, and its a sort of blind draw as to who has to do the actual shooting. Whoever gets picked must then leave the country. It is revealed that that is how Felix wants it to be.
Terrier draws the short straw so to speak, and must carry out the assassination, and then flee the country.
The movie then skips ahead to 8 years later, and sees Jim once again helping a humanitarian effort in Africa, digging wells.
As he works, his group is suddenly attacked by a group of mercenaries, and Jim manages to fight them off and kill them.
He then begins to hunt down his old team mates in an attempt to try and figure out who tried to kill him and why.
The action in the movie is good, and fast paced, the stunts were well done. None of the stunts seemed ‘unbelievable’ given the circumstances they were put in.
The relationships between the characters could have been better fleshed out, and I was confused most of the way through the movie as to who was after Jim and why, but I guess that was intended in the plot.
Overall, if you are looking for a decent action film with a bunch of shooting and car chases, this will fit the bill.
I’d give the movie 3 out of 5 stars, specifically in the category of ‘action films’.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Machine Gun Preacher (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
“Machine Gun Preacher” stars Gerard Butler, Michelle Monaghan, Kathy Baker, Michael Shannon, Madeline Carrol, and is directed by Marc Foster (previously directed “The Kite Runner” , “Quantum Of Solace” , “Monsters Ball” , and “Finding Neverland”).
The movie follows the true life story of Sam Childers (Gerard Butler) a former biker gang member/drug dealer who, at a major crossroads in his life, experiences a spirtial awakening and becomes a devoted preacher and family man. One day, after hearing another preacher speak about the plight of the thousands of kidnapped and orphaned children in africa as the result of civil war, Childers makes the life changing decision to go to Africa and assist in the building and repair of homes and ‘safe zones’ for refugees that have been damaged or destroyed by the chaos engulfing the countries of Sudan and Uganda. However, upon seeing the destruction and widespread horror inflicted upon the people (in particular the children) Childers decides he cannot stand idly by and do nothing to help.
Ignoring the warnings of overwhlemed peacekeepers and aid workers in the area, Sam decides to construct an orhanage where he thinks it’s needed the most – right in the center of the most volitile area in the Sudan, which also happens to be controlled by the brutal and ultra-violent LRA (Lord’s Resistance Army). The LRA roam from village to village kidnapping children and forcing them to become soliders for the LRA or even worse. In the beginning, Childers meets with success finding as many orphaned children as he can and ferrying them to his orphanage where they find food, shelter, and medical aid. But it is not enough. After several attacks and ambushes, Childers decides he cannot let the LRA continue to sadistically destroy lives. Sam begins to lead missions deep into LRA territory, taking the fight to the enemy while struggling with the knowledge that the situation grows darker every day for the people he is trying to help – in the Sudan and for his family back home.
This movie is definately intense and NOT for the faint of heart. I have not had the chance to read Sam Childers book which the movie is supposedly based on. As far as redemption tales go, this as realistic as it gets, in the sense that sometimes in order to find the salvation or spiritual awakening you seek, you’re forced to sacrifice all and risk losing everything you hold dear in this life in order to find it. Even with the knowledge that once you arrive at the end of that journey, you may not find the awakening you so desperately fought for.
The performances in this movie were all excellent. Kudos to Gerard Butler and Michelle Monaghan in particular. The young actors who portrayed the orphans and child soldiers definately knocked it out of the park as well. Butler also produced the movie which lends more credence to the whole theory that if one of the lead actors has a hand in the behind-the-scences work of the movie, chances are it’ll be a movie worth seein’. I’d encourage you to go see it regardless of the time of day in theaters or grab it on DVD. Rated R for extreme violence throughout and some sexual content.
The movie follows the true life story of Sam Childers (Gerard Butler) a former biker gang member/drug dealer who, at a major crossroads in his life, experiences a spirtial awakening and becomes a devoted preacher and family man. One day, after hearing another preacher speak about the plight of the thousands of kidnapped and orphaned children in africa as the result of civil war, Childers makes the life changing decision to go to Africa and assist in the building and repair of homes and ‘safe zones’ for refugees that have been damaged or destroyed by the chaos engulfing the countries of Sudan and Uganda. However, upon seeing the destruction and widespread horror inflicted upon the people (in particular the children) Childers decides he cannot stand idly by and do nothing to help.
Ignoring the warnings of overwhlemed peacekeepers and aid workers in the area, Sam decides to construct an orhanage where he thinks it’s needed the most – right in the center of the most volitile area in the Sudan, which also happens to be controlled by the brutal and ultra-violent LRA (Lord’s Resistance Army). The LRA roam from village to village kidnapping children and forcing them to become soliders for the LRA or even worse. In the beginning, Childers meets with success finding as many orphaned children as he can and ferrying them to his orphanage where they find food, shelter, and medical aid. But it is not enough. After several attacks and ambushes, Childers decides he cannot let the LRA continue to sadistically destroy lives. Sam begins to lead missions deep into LRA territory, taking the fight to the enemy while struggling with the knowledge that the situation grows darker every day for the people he is trying to help – in the Sudan and for his family back home.
This movie is definately intense and NOT for the faint of heart. I have not had the chance to read Sam Childers book which the movie is supposedly based on. As far as redemption tales go, this as realistic as it gets, in the sense that sometimes in order to find the salvation or spiritual awakening you seek, you’re forced to sacrifice all and risk losing everything you hold dear in this life in order to find it. Even with the knowledge that once you arrive at the end of that journey, you may not find the awakening you so desperately fought for.
The performances in this movie were all excellent. Kudos to Gerard Butler and Michelle Monaghan in particular. The young actors who portrayed the orphans and child soldiers definately knocked it out of the park as well. Butler also produced the movie which lends more credence to the whole theory that if one of the lead actors has a hand in the behind-the-scences work of the movie, chances are it’ll be a movie worth seein’. I’d encourage you to go see it regardless of the time of day in theaters or grab it on DVD. Rated R for extreme violence throughout and some sexual content.
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated Scarlet Princess in Books
Aug 30, 2021
Death was a hefty price to pay for vodka.
I mean with an opening line like that you know it’s going to be a great book right?!
Regular readers will know I’m a bit of an ElBin fangirl and often devour their books in 1 or 2 days. Scarlet Princess was no exception: I kept my kids fed and held down my full-time job for the day but the rest of the time was spent reading this amazing return into the Lochlann world.
Scarlet Princess is the first in the Lochlann Feuds series which is based approximately 20 years after Autumn’s Reign, the final in the Lochlann Treaty series. However, you don’t have to read the Lochlann Treaty in order to read Scarlet Princess: the world building, plot and characters shine just as brightly for this to be a standalone novel.
“It’s a lotus flower. They’re rare, complex flowers. Difficult to keep alive.”
“That doesn’t sound like anyone I know”
Scarlet Princess introduces us to Rowan, the Princess of Lochlann and her cousin Davin, whom we briefly met in the Lochlann Treaty. The cousins give the impression that they either go looking for trouble, or trouble just finds them! Therefore, it shouldn’t be so surprising that when we meet them, Rowan and Davin are just about to find themselves imprisoned in the neighbouring kingdom of Socair.
Sadly, Socair and Lochlann don’t have the friendliest history so getting home will be no easy feat for the cousins, if they can escape death first.
“Amicable and accommodating, Princess. I wonder if you are capable of either.“
Rowan is, without a doubt, a product of her parents: with her fiery red curls and equally fiery attitude it is easy for us to assume that Rowan takes after her father but then you find yourself internally shouting (or externally- no judgement) “why did you do that?!” and suddenly you see her mother's emotional, impulsive nature.
The smart mouth and the booziness? Well that’s just what makes Rowan, Rowan! And we love her for it!
“Am I boring you Princess Rowan?” He sighed.
“Always”
As Rowan’s journey continues though we see that she has been deeply affected by her parents’ quest for love. Our princess is quite closed off to love and is happy for a marriage to be arranged for her. At her young age Rowan equates love with warring kingdoms, losing children, losing husbands: ultimately, she equates love with loss.
Maybe that is why Rowan hides behind a mask of sarcasm and glib comments, seldom ever facing the reality of her predicament until it is too late.
I didn’t want the kind of love that could break you.
Behind her sarcasm though it is clear Rowan cares deeply about issues such as poverty and equality. She is forced to see that her life is very different in Lochlann, where villagers are not suffering and are looked after by their leaders; women are not seen as quiet mice who need protecting as they are in Socair. Maybe, just maybe, her life in Lochlann wasn’t as bad as she thought? But will Rowan ever see Lochlann again?
Besides, I never had been good at making the smart choice.
The cast of characters surrounding Rowan are equally as amazing as our princess. Davin is a ladies’ man just like his father, Iiro is authoritative one minute but then casually tortures his brother sensibilities the next and Mila is a great friend who comes swooping into Rowan’s life – there is definitely more to Mila than meets the eye though.
Rowan’s escort through Socair and the poor soul on the other end of most of her sarcasm is Lord Theodore, her captor and the heir to the Elk clan. Theo is fair where Rowan is fiery; stoic where she is scandalous and the tension between them …. oof it’s enough to make you swoon!
“You know when something just catches your attention and you can’t explain it?“
I loved revisiting Lochlann only to be immersed in the Kingdom of Socair: the mysterious enemy lurking behind the mountain. The 9 clans created a whole new dynamic from the previous books and the plot arc could have easily got lost within all the clan politics but it flowed beautifully.
All I will say is that I really shouldn’t trust Robin and Elle with happy endings – they will always rip it away with a few chapters to go. These two are the Queens of cliff-hangers!
Grab your copy of Scarlet Princess on August 27th 2021. Devour it in one day and then join me anxiously anticipating the sequel, Tarnished Crown in November 2021.
I mean with an opening line like that you know it’s going to be a great book right?!
Regular readers will know I’m a bit of an ElBin fangirl and often devour their books in 1 or 2 days. Scarlet Princess was no exception: I kept my kids fed and held down my full-time job for the day but the rest of the time was spent reading this amazing return into the Lochlann world.
Scarlet Princess is the first in the Lochlann Feuds series which is based approximately 20 years after Autumn’s Reign, the final in the Lochlann Treaty series. However, you don’t have to read the Lochlann Treaty in order to read Scarlet Princess: the world building, plot and characters shine just as brightly for this to be a standalone novel.
“It’s a lotus flower. They’re rare, complex flowers. Difficult to keep alive.”
“That doesn’t sound like anyone I know”
Scarlet Princess introduces us to Rowan, the Princess of Lochlann and her cousin Davin, whom we briefly met in the Lochlann Treaty. The cousins give the impression that they either go looking for trouble, or trouble just finds them! Therefore, it shouldn’t be so surprising that when we meet them, Rowan and Davin are just about to find themselves imprisoned in the neighbouring kingdom of Socair.
Sadly, Socair and Lochlann don’t have the friendliest history so getting home will be no easy feat for the cousins, if they can escape death first.
“Amicable and accommodating, Princess. I wonder if you are capable of either.“
Rowan is, without a doubt, a product of her parents: with her fiery red curls and equally fiery attitude it is easy for us to assume that Rowan takes after her father but then you find yourself internally shouting (or externally- no judgement) “why did you do that?!” and suddenly you see her mother's emotional, impulsive nature.
The smart mouth and the booziness? Well that’s just what makes Rowan, Rowan! And we love her for it!
“Am I boring you Princess Rowan?” He sighed.
“Always”
As Rowan’s journey continues though we see that she has been deeply affected by her parents’ quest for love. Our princess is quite closed off to love and is happy for a marriage to be arranged for her. At her young age Rowan equates love with warring kingdoms, losing children, losing husbands: ultimately, she equates love with loss.
Maybe that is why Rowan hides behind a mask of sarcasm and glib comments, seldom ever facing the reality of her predicament until it is too late.
I didn’t want the kind of love that could break you.
Behind her sarcasm though it is clear Rowan cares deeply about issues such as poverty and equality. She is forced to see that her life is very different in Lochlann, where villagers are not suffering and are looked after by their leaders; women are not seen as quiet mice who need protecting as they are in Socair. Maybe, just maybe, her life in Lochlann wasn’t as bad as she thought? But will Rowan ever see Lochlann again?
Besides, I never had been good at making the smart choice.
The cast of characters surrounding Rowan are equally as amazing as our princess. Davin is a ladies’ man just like his father, Iiro is authoritative one minute but then casually tortures his brother sensibilities the next and Mila is a great friend who comes swooping into Rowan’s life – there is definitely more to Mila than meets the eye though.
Rowan’s escort through Socair and the poor soul on the other end of most of her sarcasm is Lord Theodore, her captor and the heir to the Elk clan. Theo is fair where Rowan is fiery; stoic where she is scandalous and the tension between them …. oof it’s enough to make you swoon!
“You know when something just catches your attention and you can’t explain it?“
I loved revisiting Lochlann only to be immersed in the Kingdom of Socair: the mysterious enemy lurking behind the mountain. The 9 clans created a whole new dynamic from the previous books and the plot arc could have easily got lost within all the clan politics but it flowed beautifully.
All I will say is that I really shouldn’t trust Robin and Elle with happy endings – they will always rip it away with a few chapters to go. These two are the Queens of cliff-hangers!
Grab your copy of Scarlet Princess on August 27th 2021. Devour it in one day and then join me anxiously anticipating the sequel, Tarnished Crown in November 2021.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Clue (1985) in Movies
Nov 3, 2020
The Multiple Endings (2 more)
The Cast
The Humor
All Time Favorites
Ive seen Clue about nine times now and it has become a tradition to watch Clue every October. I remember watching clue the first time and i laughed my ass off and i still do that. The humor is excellent, the cast is excellent, the multiple endings are excellent. Everything about Clue is excellent.
The plot: Based on the popular board game, this comedy begins at a dinner party hosted by Mr. Boddy (Lee Ving), where he admits to blackmailing his visitors. These guests, who have been given aliases, are Mrs. Peacock (Eileen Brennan), Miss Scarlet (Lesley Ann Warren), Mr. Green (Michael McKean), professor Plum (Christopher Lloyd), Mrs. White (Madeline Kahn) and Col. Mustard (Martin Mull). When Boddy turns up murdered, all are suspects, and together they try to figure out who is the killer.
The film was produced by Debra Hill and the story was by John Landis.
In keeping with the nature of the board game, the theatrical release included three possible endings, with different theaters receiving one of the three endings. In the film's home video release, all three endings were included.
The multiple-ending concept was developed by John Landis, who claimed in an interview to have invited playwright Tom Stoppard, writer and composer Stephen Sondheim, and actor Anthony Perkins to write the screenplay. The script was ultimately finished by director Jonathan Lynn.
A fourth ending was filmed, but Lynn removed it because as he later stated, "It really wasn't very good. I looked at it, and I thought, 'No, no, no, we've got to get rid of that.'" In the unused fourth ending, Wadsworth committed all of the murders. He was motivated by his desire for perfection. Having failed to be either the perfect husband or the perfect butler, he decided to be the perfect murderer instead. Wadsworth reports that he poisoned the champagne the guests had drunk earlier so they would soon die, leaving no witnesses. The police and the FBI arrive and Wadsworth is arrested. He breaks free and steals a police car, but his escape is thwarted when three police dogs lunge from the back seat. This ending is documented in Clue: The Storybook, a tie-in book released in conjunction with the film.
Carrie Fisher was originally contracted to portray Miss Scarlet, but withdrew to enter treatment for drug and alcohol addiction. Jonathan Lynn's first choice for the role of Wadsworth was Leonard Rossiter, but he died before filming commenced. The second choice was Rowan Atkinson, but it was decided that he wasn't well known enough at the time, so Tim Curry was eventually cast.
Mrs. White's famous "Flames" speech was improvised by Madeline Kahn.
A documentary about the movie is being made, including interviews already filmed with the director, writer, and several cast members including Lesley Ann Warren, Michael McKean, Colleen Camp, and Lee Ving.
I love Clue, it is one of my all time favorite films. In my top ten best films of all time at number #3 and just excellent.
Happy Halloween everybody.
The plot: Based on the popular board game, this comedy begins at a dinner party hosted by Mr. Boddy (Lee Ving), where he admits to blackmailing his visitors. These guests, who have been given aliases, are Mrs. Peacock (Eileen Brennan), Miss Scarlet (Lesley Ann Warren), Mr. Green (Michael McKean), professor Plum (Christopher Lloyd), Mrs. White (Madeline Kahn) and Col. Mustard (Martin Mull). When Boddy turns up murdered, all are suspects, and together they try to figure out who is the killer.
The film was produced by Debra Hill and the story was by John Landis.
In keeping with the nature of the board game, the theatrical release included three possible endings, with different theaters receiving one of the three endings. In the film's home video release, all three endings were included.
The multiple-ending concept was developed by John Landis, who claimed in an interview to have invited playwright Tom Stoppard, writer and composer Stephen Sondheim, and actor Anthony Perkins to write the screenplay. The script was ultimately finished by director Jonathan Lynn.
A fourth ending was filmed, but Lynn removed it because as he later stated, "It really wasn't very good. I looked at it, and I thought, 'No, no, no, we've got to get rid of that.'" In the unused fourth ending, Wadsworth committed all of the murders. He was motivated by his desire for perfection. Having failed to be either the perfect husband or the perfect butler, he decided to be the perfect murderer instead. Wadsworth reports that he poisoned the champagne the guests had drunk earlier so they would soon die, leaving no witnesses. The police and the FBI arrive and Wadsworth is arrested. He breaks free and steals a police car, but his escape is thwarted when three police dogs lunge from the back seat. This ending is documented in Clue: The Storybook, a tie-in book released in conjunction with the film.
Carrie Fisher was originally contracted to portray Miss Scarlet, but withdrew to enter treatment for drug and alcohol addiction. Jonathan Lynn's first choice for the role of Wadsworth was Leonard Rossiter, but he died before filming commenced. The second choice was Rowan Atkinson, but it was decided that he wasn't well known enough at the time, so Tim Curry was eventually cast.
Mrs. White's famous "Flames" speech was improvised by Madeline Kahn.
A documentary about the movie is being made, including interviews already filmed with the director, writer, and several cast members including Lesley Ann Warren, Michael McKean, Colleen Camp, and Lee Ving.
I love Clue, it is one of my all time favorite films. In my top ten best films of all time at number #3 and just excellent.
Happy Halloween everybody.