Search
Search results
The Strategy Builder: How to Create and Communicate More Effective Strategies
Duncan Angwin and Stephen Cummings
Book
A visual and interactive guide to building and communicating strategies that actually work YOUR...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Peaks and Valleys (2020) in Movies
Apr 29, 2021
Acting of the two leads (2 more)
Cinematography of the beautiful Alaskan wilderness
Script and direction both good
Two strangers forced to over-winter in Alaskan wilderness
In “Peaks and Valleys”, Jack (Kevin T. Bennett) is living as a recluse in a remote cabin in Alaska. His solitude is rudely interrupted by a plane which drops a naked, trussed-up and drugged-up girl into his lake. Traumatised by her experiences, the girl (Bailey, played by Kitty Mahoney) is unwilling to trust the man. But trust him she must, since they are in the Alaskan wilderness and Jack tells her that the supply plane might not come for a couple of months.
How and why was Bailey dumped from the plane? Why is Jack living all alone in the wilderness, and why is he packing a hand-gun? As tempers fray, can the pair survive each other’s company? All intriguing questions that demand answers.
Positives:
- Although it’s only a low-budget Indie-film, it has an intriguing premise that packs a punch above its weight. Since although the story is told in a linear way, the script includes ‘asides’ – told either through imagined conversations or dreams – that create a jigsaw of questions for the viewer. And the dynamic between Jack and Bailey develops in an interesting way. Overall, I was intrigued to see how the questions raised would pan out.
- I’m often disappointed that the acting in these types of Indie films is below par. To a large degree, this is not the case here. Kevin Bennett is very believable as the crusty old backwoodsman. And Kitty Mahoney, in her movie debut, delivers a smashing performance. She has real screen-presence. I’m not sure if this was a “one off” for her, or if she intends to pursue an acting career: but I really hope it’s the latter.
- Another star of the show is the dramatic Alaskan landscapes, lovingly photographed by cinematographer Bryan Pentecostes. Some of the shots are just “double-WOW”! The movie is a wonderful piece of PR for the Alaskan Tourist Board, for sure.
- Michael Dillon’s script avoids clichés and lazy wins. It would be an easy plot point to see the vulnerable young Bailey sexually exploited by the older man. But very much on topic, following the debate around “Promising Young Woman” and earning the film a welcome #notallmen hashtag, Jack makes it abundantly clear that this is not a route we’re going to go down.
- The clever script also has some nice lines that resonate: “We can’t change the wrong that’s been done to us.” growls Jack, “But we’re damned if we don’t let it change us”. But amongst the philosophical sound-bytes, the script also finds time to have some light-hearted fun at times. A nice scene to emphasise the growing relationship and mutual respect between the pair is when Jack teaches Bailey to ice-fish. Jack examines Bailey’s amateurish efforts. “It ain’t the prettiest hole, but I’d stick my pole in it” he says. “I bet you say that to all the girls” quips back Bailey.
- I enjoyed the music by Evan Evans very much too. There’s also a nice song over the end credits by Gregory Alan Isakov as well.
- Finally, a special shout-out to Garrett Martin for some very well done and quease-inducing injury make-up.
Negatives:
- For all the good aspects about the script, there are a few times, particularly early on in Jack and Bailey’s relationship, where I found the exchanges between them forced and unconvincing. This was sometimes down to the script, and sometimes down to over-stretching the acting abilities of the cast.
- The dramatic finale – although surprising and satisfying – relies on some rather unbelievable timing.
Summary Thoughts: When I start watching a low-budget Indie film, I tend to set my expectations accordingly. Often the acting is naff; the script will be hand-gnawingly awful; and/or the production values are found wanting. I was really pleasantly surprised that this movie ticked the “none of the above” box. And yes, there were a few rough edges here and there, but I’ve seen multi-million pound Hollywood blockbusters that were far worse. Michael Burns has delivered a tight and intriguing movie that sensibly sticks to a 96 minute run time, such that I was never bored.
I really enjoyed this one and recommend it. And you only need to fork out a few quid to rent it on Amazon. If you do, I’d be interested in your views.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/29/peaks-and-valleys-two-strangers-forced-to-over-winter-in-the-alaskan-wilderness/. Thanks).
How and why was Bailey dumped from the plane? Why is Jack living all alone in the wilderness, and why is he packing a hand-gun? As tempers fray, can the pair survive each other’s company? All intriguing questions that demand answers.
Positives:
- Although it’s only a low-budget Indie-film, it has an intriguing premise that packs a punch above its weight. Since although the story is told in a linear way, the script includes ‘asides’ – told either through imagined conversations or dreams – that create a jigsaw of questions for the viewer. And the dynamic between Jack and Bailey develops in an interesting way. Overall, I was intrigued to see how the questions raised would pan out.
- I’m often disappointed that the acting in these types of Indie films is below par. To a large degree, this is not the case here. Kevin Bennett is very believable as the crusty old backwoodsman. And Kitty Mahoney, in her movie debut, delivers a smashing performance. She has real screen-presence. I’m not sure if this was a “one off” for her, or if she intends to pursue an acting career: but I really hope it’s the latter.
- Another star of the show is the dramatic Alaskan landscapes, lovingly photographed by cinematographer Bryan Pentecostes. Some of the shots are just “double-WOW”! The movie is a wonderful piece of PR for the Alaskan Tourist Board, for sure.
- Michael Dillon’s script avoids clichés and lazy wins. It would be an easy plot point to see the vulnerable young Bailey sexually exploited by the older man. But very much on topic, following the debate around “Promising Young Woman” and earning the film a welcome #notallmen hashtag, Jack makes it abundantly clear that this is not a route we’re going to go down.
- The clever script also has some nice lines that resonate: “We can’t change the wrong that’s been done to us.” growls Jack, “But we’re damned if we don’t let it change us”. But amongst the philosophical sound-bytes, the script also finds time to have some light-hearted fun at times. A nice scene to emphasise the growing relationship and mutual respect between the pair is when Jack teaches Bailey to ice-fish. Jack examines Bailey’s amateurish efforts. “It ain’t the prettiest hole, but I’d stick my pole in it” he says. “I bet you say that to all the girls” quips back Bailey.
- I enjoyed the music by Evan Evans very much too. There’s also a nice song over the end credits by Gregory Alan Isakov as well.
- Finally, a special shout-out to Garrett Martin for some very well done and quease-inducing injury make-up.
Negatives:
- For all the good aspects about the script, there are a few times, particularly early on in Jack and Bailey’s relationship, where I found the exchanges between them forced and unconvincing. This was sometimes down to the script, and sometimes down to over-stretching the acting abilities of the cast.
- The dramatic finale – although surprising and satisfying – relies on some rather unbelievable timing.
Summary Thoughts: When I start watching a low-budget Indie film, I tend to set my expectations accordingly. Often the acting is naff; the script will be hand-gnawingly awful; and/or the production values are found wanting. I was really pleasantly surprised that this movie ticked the “none of the above” box. And yes, there were a few rough edges here and there, but I’ve seen multi-million pound Hollywood blockbusters that were far worse. Michael Burns has delivered a tight and intriguing movie that sensibly sticks to a 96 minute run time, such that I was never bored.
I really enjoyed this one and recommend it. And you only need to fork out a few quid to rent it on Amazon. If you do, I’d be interested in your views.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/29/peaks-and-valleys-two-strangers-forced-to-over-winter-in-the-alaskan-wilderness/. Thanks).
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
I swung between wanting to see this and not, had it been a normal world then of course I would have gone regardless, but as it is I wasn't having strong feelings about this one.
Diana's dreams come true at the hands of an ancient artefact that can grant wishes. But as a wish is given something is taken away, and when Maxwell Lord, businessman and entrepreneur, makes a wish, the world is about to learn the lesson of the phrase... "be careful what you wish for".
First off... this absolutely would have been better on the big screen. It's never been so apparent to me that a cinema experience of a film holds so much power, it's making me understand the differences in early reviews and home viewing reviews a lot more these days.
The story of WW84 is really a very simple one. Doodad does magic, people are evil, goodie must make them good again. And that somehow fills a whole 2 hour 31 minutes of film... it doesn't feel like a very satisfying experience. For all that opener, the conclusion seems to be fleeting and dare I say it... not entirely believable. Overall the whole thing doesn't get particularly deep at any point despite there being a lot of opportunities around the wishes, and there are some questionable moments that could fill several blog posts.
There's been a long pause between me writing the first part and continuing here. That pause involved me staring at my notes and contemplating just writing "meh" and finishing the review there. I'm really going to try and elaborate on my feelings though.
For a film with two villains it's not got much proper villainy in it. Barbara Minerva becoming Cheetah is massively underwhelming from what felt like a promising build-up, and Maxwell Lord, despite having the potential, was not big bad material. Neither had the drive in them to be a truly powerful force in the film, and what's the point in a villain if you can't get on board to hate them?
Kristen Wiig did give a great performance as Barbara, it was a smooth and interesting transition as she progressed, and it left me a lot less "meh" than everything else. But did anyone else just keep thinking Catwoman though?
I thought Pedro Pascal had 80's businessman down pretty well, but I found him to be a little lacklustre, and the character's story felt like the reason for that.
As with the first film, Gal Gadot is majestic on screen as Diana and Wonder Woman... but even here I found myself shrugging at what was going on, and cringing at some problematic plot points. I'm trying to work out if the appeal of the first film was partially due to the amusement of Diana discovering the world for the first time. Here she's savvy and elegant (even for the 0s), and she didn't have the same humour. Instead, we've got that role filled by Steve (Chris Pine). His discovery of the 80s world was fairly amusing, but the way in which he came back bugged me.
All in all characters really didn't grab me, out two main newbies felt very much like rip-offs of other things rather than a great recreation of their source material.
Visually the film was amazing, the bright colours, the style, all fit the era and you gotta love some parachute pants. But outside of that it just merged into other films for me.
That CGI... how can you get so many things right but somehow not do the villains? It's Steppenwolf all over again, Cheetah looked bad. Not only that, but it took an immense amount of time for us to even get to that full effect... so why wasn't it on point? How are DC incapable of animating their villains?
Will I watch this again? Probably, but I'm not overly fussed about it being anytime soon. It wasn't anywhere near as entertaining as the first for me, and didn't have enough action to cover up the disappointing story and character work. I really wish I felt strongly one way or the other on this and not having just another sitting on the fence swinging my feet review. I did appreciate some early vaguely Quidditchy vibes at the beginning though.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/01/wonder-woman-1984-movie-review.html
Diana's dreams come true at the hands of an ancient artefact that can grant wishes. But as a wish is given something is taken away, and when Maxwell Lord, businessman and entrepreneur, makes a wish, the world is about to learn the lesson of the phrase... "be careful what you wish for".
First off... this absolutely would have been better on the big screen. It's never been so apparent to me that a cinema experience of a film holds so much power, it's making me understand the differences in early reviews and home viewing reviews a lot more these days.
The story of WW84 is really a very simple one. Doodad does magic, people are evil, goodie must make them good again. And that somehow fills a whole 2 hour 31 minutes of film... it doesn't feel like a very satisfying experience. For all that opener, the conclusion seems to be fleeting and dare I say it... not entirely believable. Overall the whole thing doesn't get particularly deep at any point despite there being a lot of opportunities around the wishes, and there are some questionable moments that could fill several blog posts.
There's been a long pause between me writing the first part and continuing here. That pause involved me staring at my notes and contemplating just writing "meh" and finishing the review there. I'm really going to try and elaborate on my feelings though.
For a film with two villains it's not got much proper villainy in it. Barbara Minerva becoming Cheetah is massively underwhelming from what felt like a promising build-up, and Maxwell Lord, despite having the potential, was not big bad material. Neither had the drive in them to be a truly powerful force in the film, and what's the point in a villain if you can't get on board to hate them?
Kristen Wiig did give a great performance as Barbara, it was a smooth and interesting transition as she progressed, and it left me a lot less "meh" than everything else. But did anyone else just keep thinking Catwoman though?
I thought Pedro Pascal had 80's businessman down pretty well, but I found him to be a little lacklustre, and the character's story felt like the reason for that.
As with the first film, Gal Gadot is majestic on screen as Diana and Wonder Woman... but even here I found myself shrugging at what was going on, and cringing at some problematic plot points. I'm trying to work out if the appeal of the first film was partially due to the amusement of Diana discovering the world for the first time. Here she's savvy and elegant (even for the 0s), and she didn't have the same humour. Instead, we've got that role filled by Steve (Chris Pine). His discovery of the 80s world was fairly amusing, but the way in which he came back bugged me.
All in all characters really didn't grab me, out two main newbies felt very much like rip-offs of other things rather than a great recreation of their source material.
Visually the film was amazing, the bright colours, the style, all fit the era and you gotta love some parachute pants. But outside of that it just merged into other films for me.
That CGI... how can you get so many things right but somehow not do the villains? It's Steppenwolf all over again, Cheetah looked bad. Not only that, but it took an immense amount of time for us to even get to that full effect... so why wasn't it on point? How are DC incapable of animating their villains?
Will I watch this again? Probably, but I'm not overly fussed about it being anytime soon. It wasn't anywhere near as entertaining as the first for me, and didn't have enough action to cover up the disappointing story and character work. I really wish I felt strongly one way or the other on this and not having just another sitting on the fence swinging my feet review. I did appreciate some early vaguely Quidditchy vibes at the beginning though.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/01/wonder-woman-1984-movie-review.html
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Toy Story 4 (2019) in Movies
Jun 25, 2019
Another TOY STORY triumph for PIXAR
When I first heard that Pixar was going to make a 4th TOY STORY film, I found myself firmly in the camp of "why are they doing this? The 3rd film tied off the trilogy marvelously well and 4th film was not needed" But...I trust Pixar, and when it was revealed that both Tom Hanks and Tim Allen were back on board after reading the script, my fears were alleviated quite a bit, but I still had some unease in the pit of my stomach.
I shouldn't have worried. For TOY STORY 4 is a wonderful addition to the adventures of Woody, Buzz and gang. It fits in nicely with the other films in the series and brings just the right amount of joy, fun, adventure and emotional heft.
Picking up the adventures of these toys as they now belong to Bonnie (after being gifted to Bonnie when their original owner, Andy, went off to college at the end of Toy Story 3), things have progressed realistically enough. The "order of things" in Bonnie's room is somewhat different than in Andy's. Woody, the old Cowboy doll, is relegated (more often than not) to the closet while Bonnie plays more with Jessie, Buzz and others. Into this group comes "Forky" a plastic spork that is made into a toy by Bonnie at Kindergarten. In a nice reversal of the first Toy Story film, Woody works hard to ensure that Forky is accepted into the group.
Without revealing too much of the plot, the gang (including Woody and Forky) go on a roadtrip with Bonnie in her parents' rented RV and end up in a small-ish town where a carnival is taking place across the street from an Antique store that houses Woody's old flame, Bo Peep. New characters are introduced, old characters are given a moment (or two) to shine and adventures and shenanigans ensue, with an emotionally satisfying climax - you know, a TOY STORY film.
This one continues to progress these toys "lives" and adventures in such a smart, natural and clever way that I did not feel that I was watching the same film again. I was watching characters I love continue to live, learn, grow and progress - a very smart choice by these filmmakers.
As always, the voice cast is superb. Tim Allen (Buzz Lightyear), Joan Cusak (Jessie), Wallace Shawn (Rex), John Ratzenberger (Piggy) and even the late Don Rickles (Mr. PotatoHead) are all back and contribute greatly to the finished result. It is like putting on an old, comfortable sweater on a somewhat chilly day. You get a reassuring shiver of warmth.
But the filmmakers don't stop there - Annie Potts is back as Bo Peep (she - and the Bo Peep character - were in the original Toy Story). Add to these voices, the marvelous work by Christina Hendricks (Gabby Gabby), Key & Peele (Ducky & Bunny), Carl Weathers (all the Combat Carls) and Tony Hale (wonderfully quirky as Forky) and we have quite the ensemble of interesting, quirky characters - growing and enriching the "Universe" they are in (quite like what Marvel has done with their "Universe"). Special notice needs to be made of Keanu Reeves work as Canadian Daredevil toy Duke Kaboom (the Canadian Evil Kneivel), it is the most entertaining - to me - of all the new characters.
But...make no mistake...this film belongs to Tom Hanks as Woody. It has taken me 4 films to realize this, but Hanks good guy "everyman" portrayal of Woody is the heart and soul of these pictures and this 4th film is Woody's film - as his character comes full circle from the paranoid toy who wants to keep living his safe existence to something much, much more in this film. It isn't hyperbole of me to say that I would be just fine for Hanks to receive an Oscar nomination for his voice work in this film - he is that good.
Interestingly enough, Pixar brought in a novice Director, Josh Cooley, to helm this film. It is his first feature film directing experience, but he is a veteran Pixar face - having written INSIDE OUT and was the main Storyboard Artist for UP - his direction looks like someone who was comfortable in this medium - and with the style of film that Pixar (usually) goes for - and he does terrific work here.
I really enjoyed the journey of the characters (especially Woody) in this film. I need not have worried about Pixar making a 4th Toy Story - they nailed the landing again.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
I shouldn't have worried. For TOY STORY 4 is a wonderful addition to the adventures of Woody, Buzz and gang. It fits in nicely with the other films in the series and brings just the right amount of joy, fun, adventure and emotional heft.
Picking up the adventures of these toys as they now belong to Bonnie (after being gifted to Bonnie when their original owner, Andy, went off to college at the end of Toy Story 3), things have progressed realistically enough. The "order of things" in Bonnie's room is somewhat different than in Andy's. Woody, the old Cowboy doll, is relegated (more often than not) to the closet while Bonnie plays more with Jessie, Buzz and others. Into this group comes "Forky" a plastic spork that is made into a toy by Bonnie at Kindergarten. In a nice reversal of the first Toy Story film, Woody works hard to ensure that Forky is accepted into the group.
Without revealing too much of the plot, the gang (including Woody and Forky) go on a roadtrip with Bonnie in her parents' rented RV and end up in a small-ish town where a carnival is taking place across the street from an Antique store that houses Woody's old flame, Bo Peep. New characters are introduced, old characters are given a moment (or two) to shine and adventures and shenanigans ensue, with an emotionally satisfying climax - you know, a TOY STORY film.
This one continues to progress these toys "lives" and adventures in such a smart, natural and clever way that I did not feel that I was watching the same film again. I was watching characters I love continue to live, learn, grow and progress - a very smart choice by these filmmakers.
As always, the voice cast is superb. Tim Allen (Buzz Lightyear), Joan Cusak (Jessie), Wallace Shawn (Rex), John Ratzenberger (Piggy) and even the late Don Rickles (Mr. PotatoHead) are all back and contribute greatly to the finished result. It is like putting on an old, comfortable sweater on a somewhat chilly day. You get a reassuring shiver of warmth.
But the filmmakers don't stop there - Annie Potts is back as Bo Peep (she - and the Bo Peep character - were in the original Toy Story). Add to these voices, the marvelous work by Christina Hendricks (Gabby Gabby), Key & Peele (Ducky & Bunny), Carl Weathers (all the Combat Carls) and Tony Hale (wonderfully quirky as Forky) and we have quite the ensemble of interesting, quirky characters - growing and enriching the "Universe" they are in (quite like what Marvel has done with their "Universe"). Special notice needs to be made of Keanu Reeves work as Canadian Daredevil toy Duke Kaboom (the Canadian Evil Kneivel), it is the most entertaining - to me - of all the new characters.
But...make no mistake...this film belongs to Tom Hanks as Woody. It has taken me 4 films to realize this, but Hanks good guy "everyman" portrayal of Woody is the heart and soul of these pictures and this 4th film is Woody's film - as his character comes full circle from the paranoid toy who wants to keep living his safe existence to something much, much more in this film. It isn't hyperbole of me to say that I would be just fine for Hanks to receive an Oscar nomination for his voice work in this film - he is that good.
Interestingly enough, Pixar brought in a novice Director, Josh Cooley, to helm this film. It is his first feature film directing experience, but he is a veteran Pixar face - having written INSIDE OUT and was the main Storyboard Artist for UP - his direction looks like someone who was comfortable in this medium - and with the style of film that Pixar (usually) goes for - and he does terrific work here.
I really enjoyed the journey of the characters (especially Woody) in this film. I need not have worried about Pixar making a 4th Toy Story - they nailed the landing again.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Set a Watch in Tabletop Games
Sep 26, 2019
Purple Phoenix Games Solo Chronicles
I love a good fantasy-themed game. We’ve all, at some point in our lives, probably dreamed of being adventurers – traveling across the land, fighting monsters, and saving all of humanity. Sounds like it could maybe be fun to me. So whenever I see a game that emulates that theme, I am drawn to it. Such was definitely the case when I stumbled across Set a Watch as I was perusing Kickstarter one day, and the rest is history.
The kingdom is under attack. Hoards of creatures are amassing at locations around the realm in an attempt to resurrect ancient Unhallowed monsters. Their ultimate goal? To take control of the world. You and your fellow adventurers have been tasked with stopping this uprising. By traveling to these various locations, you will attempt to clear the area of evil-doers and maintain peace in the kingdom. Keep a vigilant watch, and your team will be successful. But if you wane for even a moment, all could be lost.
DISCLAIMER: This review uses the Deluxe version of Set a Watch that we backed on Kickstarter. Some components may differ from components found other versions. -T
Set A Watch is a cooperative game for 1-4 players in which players must secure nine locations around the realm to prevent the release of the deadly Unhallowed monsters. The party always consists of 4 adventurers, regardless of actual player count. In each round, one adventurer will stay back at camp, resting and taking strategic actions, while the other 3 adventurers take watch and fight off the creatures attempting to infiltrate the camp by using special abilities and powers to aid in battle. The game ends in victory if the adventurers have successfully secured all locations. If, at the end of a round, all adventurers on watch are exhausted, the camp is overrun and the game is lost.
So how does solo play differ from multiplayer games? It doesn’t! A solo game of Set A Watch plays identically to a multiplayer game – the solo player just controls all 4 adventurers at once instead of being split up among the players. Obviously, as a solo player, you have to make all of the decisions, which is sometimes nicer than playing with other people. You get to play whatever strategy YOU want to, without having to compromise with other players. On the flip side, that could be treacherous if your strategy is too bold/too meek or if you get in a tight spot and are at a loss for what to do next. Other than the aspect of solo decision-making, the gameplay remains unchanged. One adventurer still rests at camp while the other 3 stand watch and battle monsters.
Typically, I am not a fan of solo games in which you are forced to play multiple characters. That just feels like kind of a cop-out way to say ‘Yeah, we have a solo mode’ when in reality you’re still playing a multiplayer game, just by yourself. That being said, I actually don’t mind this aspect in Set A Watch. Why? Because there really are no ‘turns’ to track. One adventurer stays at camp and acts first, but the other 3 go to battle and act whenever/however they want. There is no real turn order. I make the characters act when and how I want them to, and that really opens the rounds up to a lot of freedom. I don’t have to sacrifice special powers/abilities because it wasn’t that character’s ‘turn’ – I can come up with some sweet combos, utilizing whichever characters I need to, to really do some damage. The lack of turns makes this a truly cooperative game, even when playing solo.
Overall, I love Set A Watch. It was, admittedly, a little intimidating at first, but once I got the hang of it, it plays great! The components are nice and sturdy, the box transforms into the game board, and the artwork is very nicely done. Set A Watch is a game I would definitely play either multiplayer or solo, and not as a last resort. The gameplay is engaging, the strategic options give you a different game every play, and the theme itself is just exciting to me. I am very happy with this Kickstarter purchase, and I look forward to any expansions/reimplementations that could be in the works!
The kingdom is under attack. Hoards of creatures are amassing at locations around the realm in an attempt to resurrect ancient Unhallowed monsters. Their ultimate goal? To take control of the world. You and your fellow adventurers have been tasked with stopping this uprising. By traveling to these various locations, you will attempt to clear the area of evil-doers and maintain peace in the kingdom. Keep a vigilant watch, and your team will be successful. But if you wane for even a moment, all could be lost.
DISCLAIMER: This review uses the Deluxe version of Set a Watch that we backed on Kickstarter. Some components may differ from components found other versions. -T
Set A Watch is a cooperative game for 1-4 players in which players must secure nine locations around the realm to prevent the release of the deadly Unhallowed monsters. The party always consists of 4 adventurers, regardless of actual player count. In each round, one adventurer will stay back at camp, resting and taking strategic actions, while the other 3 adventurers take watch and fight off the creatures attempting to infiltrate the camp by using special abilities and powers to aid in battle. The game ends in victory if the adventurers have successfully secured all locations. If, at the end of a round, all adventurers on watch are exhausted, the camp is overrun and the game is lost.
So how does solo play differ from multiplayer games? It doesn’t! A solo game of Set A Watch plays identically to a multiplayer game – the solo player just controls all 4 adventurers at once instead of being split up among the players. Obviously, as a solo player, you have to make all of the decisions, which is sometimes nicer than playing with other people. You get to play whatever strategy YOU want to, without having to compromise with other players. On the flip side, that could be treacherous if your strategy is too bold/too meek or if you get in a tight spot and are at a loss for what to do next. Other than the aspect of solo decision-making, the gameplay remains unchanged. One adventurer still rests at camp while the other 3 stand watch and battle monsters.
Typically, I am not a fan of solo games in which you are forced to play multiple characters. That just feels like kind of a cop-out way to say ‘Yeah, we have a solo mode’ when in reality you’re still playing a multiplayer game, just by yourself. That being said, I actually don’t mind this aspect in Set A Watch. Why? Because there really are no ‘turns’ to track. One adventurer stays at camp and acts first, but the other 3 go to battle and act whenever/however they want. There is no real turn order. I make the characters act when and how I want them to, and that really opens the rounds up to a lot of freedom. I don’t have to sacrifice special powers/abilities because it wasn’t that character’s ‘turn’ – I can come up with some sweet combos, utilizing whichever characters I need to, to really do some damage. The lack of turns makes this a truly cooperative game, even when playing solo.
Overall, I love Set A Watch. It was, admittedly, a little intimidating at first, but once I got the hang of it, it plays great! The components are nice and sturdy, the box transforms into the game board, and the artwork is very nicely done. Set A Watch is a game I would definitely play either multiplayer or solo, and not as a last resort. The gameplay is engaging, the strategic options give you a different game every play, and the theme itself is just exciting to me. I am very happy with this Kickstarter purchase, and I look forward to any expansions/reimplementations that could be in the works!
Darren (1599 KP) rated Ready or Not (2019) in Movies
Sep 3, 2019
Verdict: Blood Soaked Wedding
Story: Ready or Not starts on what should be Grace’s (Weaving) greatest day, her wedding day to Alex (O’Brien) which will put her into the famous gaming family Le Domas. With the wedding at Alex’s family home, she is welcomed by the likes of his brother Daniel (Brody), his father Tony (Czerny) and his mother Becky (MacDowell).
The family has an unusual tradition of playing a randomly selected game, which can be a simple game like chess, but tonight Grace selects Hide and Seek, a game which means the whole family will hunt her down before dawn, being a race for her to survive.
Thoughts on Ready or Not
Characters – Grace is a woman that was raised through the foster system, now she has met the love of her life in Alex and is hoping to be part of a family for the first time in her life. Like most people she is nervous on her wedding day, eager to impress her new family too, but nothing will prepare her for the night, where she must learn to fight to survive when her new family is hunting to capture her. Alex is the man that is going to marry Grace, he has become distant from his family, but knows the traditions that must be followed, he doesn’t give everything away to Grace, knowing it will scary her away, though he doesn’t want to get involved in everything once the game starts. Daniel is Alex’s brother, he hates being part of the family, he wants nothing to do with the game, but reluctantly agrees to play along with little to no enthusiasm, being one of the few people that will help Grace. Tony is the father of the household, he has made the family bigger that ever and wants to continue the traditions that were bought upon the family, he will do anything to make sure the tradition is upheld. We do meet other members of the family including Becky the wife of Tony, mother of the boys, her daughter Emilie alone with the spouses Fitch who will get the most laughs in the film and Charity.
Performances – Samara Weaving kills it in the leading role, first she puts up a fight, secondly, she gives us natural looking reactions to everything that is going on. Adam Brody gives us a strong performance that makes us want to be like his character in this situation. Mark O’Brien is strong, but doesn’t reach the levels of the fellow stars of the film. Henry Czerny is fun through this film, he starts welcoming, turns psychotic and soon becomes a loose cannon as things get out of control, Henry makes us want to see more from his character through this film.
Story – The story here follows a woman that is getting married, only to learn that her wedding night is going to have a twist, she must play a game with the family, with this being a extreme, hide and seek, in a battle for life. This is a story that takes the most important day in anybody’s life and turns it into a nightmare, which will see Grace needing to fight to survive against a family that will do anything to hunt her down to continue having their fame and fortune. It does show how the rich will do anything to get away with something big in their lives, even murder, while it does show us just how games can be turned into something bigger than just a board game.
Horror/Mystery – The horror in the film does come from the gore that we do see, both towards Grace and to other innocent victims in the game, one scene involving a hand is extremely difficult to watch. The mystery in the film does look at how the family is acting, like what will happen if they don’t win.
Settings – The film is set in one location, the giant mansion of the Le Domas, this shows how many different potential hiding spots we could see and how much she is playing on away ground.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are brutal to see, it is mostly all the injuries being inflicted through the film, as mentioned before the hand sequence is one that will make most wince.
Scene of the Movie – How to use a crossbow.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We do get a lot of time jumps here, considering this is taking place over about seven hours.
Final Thoughts – This is an entertaining humour filled horror that will keep you on the edge of your seat seeing if Grace will make it out alive and just what will happen next.
Overall: Fun survival horror.
Story: Ready or Not starts on what should be Grace’s (Weaving) greatest day, her wedding day to Alex (O’Brien) which will put her into the famous gaming family Le Domas. With the wedding at Alex’s family home, she is welcomed by the likes of his brother Daniel (Brody), his father Tony (Czerny) and his mother Becky (MacDowell).
The family has an unusual tradition of playing a randomly selected game, which can be a simple game like chess, but tonight Grace selects Hide and Seek, a game which means the whole family will hunt her down before dawn, being a race for her to survive.
Thoughts on Ready or Not
Characters – Grace is a woman that was raised through the foster system, now she has met the love of her life in Alex and is hoping to be part of a family for the first time in her life. Like most people she is nervous on her wedding day, eager to impress her new family too, but nothing will prepare her for the night, where she must learn to fight to survive when her new family is hunting to capture her. Alex is the man that is going to marry Grace, he has become distant from his family, but knows the traditions that must be followed, he doesn’t give everything away to Grace, knowing it will scary her away, though he doesn’t want to get involved in everything once the game starts. Daniel is Alex’s brother, he hates being part of the family, he wants nothing to do with the game, but reluctantly agrees to play along with little to no enthusiasm, being one of the few people that will help Grace. Tony is the father of the household, he has made the family bigger that ever and wants to continue the traditions that were bought upon the family, he will do anything to make sure the tradition is upheld. We do meet other members of the family including Becky the wife of Tony, mother of the boys, her daughter Emilie alone with the spouses Fitch who will get the most laughs in the film and Charity.
Performances – Samara Weaving kills it in the leading role, first she puts up a fight, secondly, she gives us natural looking reactions to everything that is going on. Adam Brody gives us a strong performance that makes us want to be like his character in this situation. Mark O’Brien is strong, but doesn’t reach the levels of the fellow stars of the film. Henry Czerny is fun through this film, he starts welcoming, turns psychotic and soon becomes a loose cannon as things get out of control, Henry makes us want to see more from his character through this film.
Story – The story here follows a woman that is getting married, only to learn that her wedding night is going to have a twist, she must play a game with the family, with this being a extreme, hide and seek, in a battle for life. This is a story that takes the most important day in anybody’s life and turns it into a nightmare, which will see Grace needing to fight to survive against a family that will do anything to hunt her down to continue having their fame and fortune. It does show how the rich will do anything to get away with something big in their lives, even murder, while it does show us just how games can be turned into something bigger than just a board game.
Horror/Mystery – The horror in the film does come from the gore that we do see, both towards Grace and to other innocent victims in the game, one scene involving a hand is extremely difficult to watch. The mystery in the film does look at how the family is acting, like what will happen if they don’t win.
Settings – The film is set in one location, the giant mansion of the Le Domas, this shows how many different potential hiding spots we could see and how much she is playing on away ground.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are brutal to see, it is mostly all the injuries being inflicted through the film, as mentioned before the hand sequence is one that will make most wince.
Scene of the Movie – How to use a crossbow.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We do get a lot of time jumps here, considering this is taking place over about seven hours.
Final Thoughts – This is an entertaining humour filled horror that will keep you on the edge of your seat seeing if Grace will make it out alive and just what will happen next.
Overall: Fun survival horror.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Castles of Mad King Ludwig in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2020
“Well why CAN’T I just have a long hallway between my garden and my porch? How else am I going to get to the stairwell?” – Nobody ever.
Castles of Mad King Ludwig is a game of castle construction in the most ridiculous fashion. Oh, there ARE rules, mind you, but what results can be a ludicrous display of asinine architectural planning but also hilarity at what monstrosity you have assembled.
DISCLAIMER: I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rule book, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy from the publisher directly or from your FLGS. Also there is an expansion to this game, but we are not reviewing it at this time. Should we review it in the future we will either update this review or post a link to the new material here. -T
Ok, stop ranting about how stupid your castles always look at game’s end. In this game you are building a castle for an eccentric (and mad) king to appease his skewed vision of stylish housing. Setup is somewhat lengthy, so I will not detail all the steps here. Determine the starting player and give them the castleeple (grr) to denote them as the first Master Builder. As Master Builder, you will draw room tile cards that dictate from which size pile you will draw room tiles. The Master Builder will then assign each room tile a cost and place the tile next to the cost for all to see. Each player will then choose a room tile to add to their castle and pay the Master Builder the cost (or choose a corridor). The Master Builder will then choose their room tile and pay the bank the cost. For every room tile that did not get chosen a coin will be placed on it as consolation for whomever purchases it in the future.
Once you have placed your room tile you score the points printed on the room, add or subtract any bonus points for placing near other specific rooms, and check for room completion. If you have connected all entryways from a room to different rooms or corridors you may receive the benefits of room completion printed on a separate completion bonus tile. These bonuses could range from re-scoring the room, drawing extra bonus cards, or even receiving room tiles for free.
Game play continues this way until the room tile cards run out. Players take note of their position on the scoring tableau and count up any bonus cards they have completed as well as placement in the face-up public goals. Score any bonus points for leftover money and allow the winner to gloat and show off their preposterous castle… thing.
Components. There are quite a lot of components for this game. You are definitely getting your money’s worth here. The cards are of good quality. The room tiles, bonus tokens, scoring tableau, coins, and main organization board are thinner stock cardboard, but they have held up really well for me. The castleeple and scoring discs are nice, and the rule book is concise and easy to read and comprehend. The artwork is nice, and the whole package it put together really well. Ok, so I honestly don’t remember what the insert looks like because I tossed it right away, but I’m sure it was fine too?
So I gave this one some crap at the top of the review for being mostly ridiculous. And it is. But, I also really really like this game. It allows me to contrive a strategy and tactics as I play, and I feel great about what I have done by the end of the game. I did not really care for Suburbia when I played it, and though this is not a copy, it is similar. Why do I like this one so much but not the other? I really do not know. The art is way better on Castles, but surely that can’t be enough to overpower the game play right? Is it the Master Builder feature? It is the different sized and shaped room tiles that allow me to make a monster on the table in front of me? Must be all of these things. As you can see, I am not alone in my enjoyment of the game as Purple Phoenix Games gives this one an absurd 15 / 18. Get this one for all your architect aficionado friends.
Castles of Mad King Ludwig is a game of castle construction in the most ridiculous fashion. Oh, there ARE rules, mind you, but what results can be a ludicrous display of asinine architectural planning but also hilarity at what monstrosity you have assembled.
DISCLAIMER: I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rule book, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy from the publisher directly or from your FLGS. Also there is an expansion to this game, but we are not reviewing it at this time. Should we review it in the future we will either update this review or post a link to the new material here. -T
Ok, stop ranting about how stupid your castles always look at game’s end. In this game you are building a castle for an eccentric (and mad) king to appease his skewed vision of stylish housing. Setup is somewhat lengthy, so I will not detail all the steps here. Determine the starting player and give them the castleeple (grr) to denote them as the first Master Builder. As Master Builder, you will draw room tile cards that dictate from which size pile you will draw room tiles. The Master Builder will then assign each room tile a cost and place the tile next to the cost for all to see. Each player will then choose a room tile to add to their castle and pay the Master Builder the cost (or choose a corridor). The Master Builder will then choose their room tile and pay the bank the cost. For every room tile that did not get chosen a coin will be placed on it as consolation for whomever purchases it in the future.
Once you have placed your room tile you score the points printed on the room, add or subtract any bonus points for placing near other specific rooms, and check for room completion. If you have connected all entryways from a room to different rooms or corridors you may receive the benefits of room completion printed on a separate completion bonus tile. These bonuses could range from re-scoring the room, drawing extra bonus cards, or even receiving room tiles for free.
Game play continues this way until the room tile cards run out. Players take note of their position on the scoring tableau and count up any bonus cards they have completed as well as placement in the face-up public goals. Score any bonus points for leftover money and allow the winner to gloat and show off their preposterous castle… thing.
Components. There are quite a lot of components for this game. You are definitely getting your money’s worth here. The cards are of good quality. The room tiles, bonus tokens, scoring tableau, coins, and main organization board are thinner stock cardboard, but they have held up really well for me. The castleeple and scoring discs are nice, and the rule book is concise and easy to read and comprehend. The artwork is nice, and the whole package it put together really well. Ok, so I honestly don’t remember what the insert looks like because I tossed it right away, but I’m sure it was fine too?
So I gave this one some crap at the top of the review for being mostly ridiculous. And it is. But, I also really really like this game. It allows me to contrive a strategy and tactics as I play, and I feel great about what I have done by the end of the game. I did not really care for Suburbia when I played it, and though this is not a copy, it is similar. Why do I like this one so much but not the other? I really do not know. The art is way better on Castles, but surely that can’t be enough to overpower the game play right? Is it the Master Builder feature? It is the different sized and shaped room tiles that allow me to make a monster on the table in front of me? Must be all of these things. As you can see, I am not alone in my enjoyment of the game as Purple Phoenix Games gives this one an absurd 15 / 18. Get this one for all your architect aficionado friends.
Lowlands
Tabletop Game
The low land is a rough area where hard-working folk make a living by the sweat of their brow. Under...
BoardGames 2018Games FarmGames
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Contented with little, wishing for more”.
Here’s a curious little British film that has some merit, both as an entertainment vehicle and as a history lesson.
Set in a split-timeline between 1941 and 1946, the film tells the story of Juliet Ashton (Lily James, “Darkest Hour“, “Baby Driver“), a young British writer who seems all at sea emotion-wise following the war. She is struggling to fit in with her high-society London life, and can’t seem to put her heart into either her publishing commitments, much to the frustration of her publisher Sidney (Matthew Goode, “The Imitation Game“, “Stoker“), or her boyfriend Mark (Glen Powell, “Hidden Figures“), the dashing and well-off American army officer.
Into this mix drops a letter out of the blue from Guernsey from a pig-farmer called Dawsey Adams (Michiel Huisman, “The Age of Adeline“, “Game of Thrones”), which leads her on a trail of discovery into the mysterious back-story of the strangely named book club. The secrets of the tightly-knit St Peter Port community, and what really happened during the Nazi occupation, come progressively to light as Juliet digs deeper.
Much as “Their Finest” shone a light on the rather invisible war efforts of the British propaganda film industry, so here we get an interesting and (I believe) relatively untapped view of the historical background of the German occupation of the Channel Islands. How many viewers I wonder, especially those outside of the UK, knew that the Nazis occupied “British” territory* during the war?
(* Well, strictly speaking, the Channel Islands are a “crown dependency” rather than being part of the UK per se).
Story-wise the screenplay splits the drama between:
the love triangle (which I almost took to be a love square at the start of the film… and to be honest I’m still not 100% sure!) between the main protagonists and;
the mystery surrounding Guernsey’s Elizabeth McKenna (Jessica Brown Findlay, “The Riot Club”, Lady Sybil from Downton Abbey).
In the first instance, you would need to be pretty dim I think, particularly if you’ve seen the trailer already, not to work out where the story is going to head! (Although, to be fair, I thought that about “Their Finest” and was woefully wrong!). I found this all rather paint-by-numbers stuff, but livened up immensely by a scene between James and Powell and a bottle of champagne which is wonderfully and refreshingly pulled off.
The second strand of the story is slightly more intriguing and provides the opportunity to see the wonderful Jessica Brown Findlay in action: it is just disappointing that she actually features so little in the film, and also disappointing that, at a crucial dramatic moment, the action moves “off-stage”. I wanted to see more of that story.
In terms of casting, Susie Figgis must have had a TERRIBLE job in casting Juliet: “Gemma Arterton not available…. hmmm… who else would fit…. think… think… think… think dammit….! Ah, yes!!” Lily James might be in danger of becoming typecast as a 40’s-style love interest. But she just fits the bill in terms of looks and mannerisms SO perfectly.
Elsewhere in the cast, Penelope Wilton (“The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“, “The BFG“) is superb as the deeply damaged Amelia; Tom Courtenay is 300% better than in his last movie outing as the cranky old postmaster; and TV’s Katherine Parkinson impresses greatly as the kooky gin-swilling Isola Pribby. All in all this is a fine ensemble cast. (With James, Goode, Wilton and Brown Findlay there, it must have also felt like a “Downton Abbey” reunion party!)
I’d also like to say that the Guernsey scenery was gloriously filmed, but as this article suggests, most of it was actually filmed in glorious Devon instead! Given the Guernsey Tourist Board have been going overboard (at least in the Southampton area) on film tie-in advertising, this feels rather like false representation! But I’m sure its equally lovely!
So in summary, it’s a thoughtful period piece, with some great acting performances and well-directed by Mike Newell (still most famous for “Four Weddings and a Funeral”). I enjoyed it but I felt it moved at a GLACIAL pace, taking over two hours to unfold, and I thought a few editing nips and tucks on the long lingering looks and leisurely strolls could have given it most impetus. But to be fair, my wife and cinema buddy for this film thought it was PERFECTLY paced, giving the story the space it needed for the drama and Juliet’s state of mind to unfold. In fact she gave it “5 Mads” as her rating… top marks! For me though a very creditable…
Set in a split-timeline between 1941 and 1946, the film tells the story of Juliet Ashton (Lily James, “Darkest Hour“, “Baby Driver“), a young British writer who seems all at sea emotion-wise following the war. She is struggling to fit in with her high-society London life, and can’t seem to put her heart into either her publishing commitments, much to the frustration of her publisher Sidney (Matthew Goode, “The Imitation Game“, “Stoker“), or her boyfriend Mark (Glen Powell, “Hidden Figures“), the dashing and well-off American army officer.
Into this mix drops a letter out of the blue from Guernsey from a pig-farmer called Dawsey Adams (Michiel Huisman, “The Age of Adeline“, “Game of Thrones”), which leads her on a trail of discovery into the mysterious back-story of the strangely named book club. The secrets of the tightly-knit St Peter Port community, and what really happened during the Nazi occupation, come progressively to light as Juliet digs deeper.
Much as “Their Finest” shone a light on the rather invisible war efforts of the British propaganda film industry, so here we get an interesting and (I believe) relatively untapped view of the historical background of the German occupation of the Channel Islands. How many viewers I wonder, especially those outside of the UK, knew that the Nazis occupied “British” territory* during the war?
(* Well, strictly speaking, the Channel Islands are a “crown dependency” rather than being part of the UK per se).
Story-wise the screenplay splits the drama between:
the love triangle (which I almost took to be a love square at the start of the film… and to be honest I’m still not 100% sure!) between the main protagonists and;
the mystery surrounding Guernsey’s Elizabeth McKenna (Jessica Brown Findlay, “The Riot Club”, Lady Sybil from Downton Abbey).
In the first instance, you would need to be pretty dim I think, particularly if you’ve seen the trailer already, not to work out where the story is going to head! (Although, to be fair, I thought that about “Their Finest” and was woefully wrong!). I found this all rather paint-by-numbers stuff, but livened up immensely by a scene between James and Powell and a bottle of champagne which is wonderfully and refreshingly pulled off.
The second strand of the story is slightly more intriguing and provides the opportunity to see the wonderful Jessica Brown Findlay in action: it is just disappointing that she actually features so little in the film, and also disappointing that, at a crucial dramatic moment, the action moves “off-stage”. I wanted to see more of that story.
In terms of casting, Susie Figgis must have had a TERRIBLE job in casting Juliet: “Gemma Arterton not available…. hmmm… who else would fit…. think… think… think… think dammit….! Ah, yes!!” Lily James might be in danger of becoming typecast as a 40’s-style love interest. But she just fits the bill in terms of looks and mannerisms SO perfectly.
Elsewhere in the cast, Penelope Wilton (“The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“, “The BFG“) is superb as the deeply damaged Amelia; Tom Courtenay is 300% better than in his last movie outing as the cranky old postmaster; and TV’s Katherine Parkinson impresses greatly as the kooky gin-swilling Isola Pribby. All in all this is a fine ensemble cast. (With James, Goode, Wilton and Brown Findlay there, it must have also felt like a “Downton Abbey” reunion party!)
I’d also like to say that the Guernsey scenery was gloriously filmed, but as this article suggests, most of it was actually filmed in glorious Devon instead! Given the Guernsey Tourist Board have been going overboard (at least in the Southampton area) on film tie-in advertising, this feels rather like false representation! But I’m sure its equally lovely!
So in summary, it’s a thoughtful period piece, with some great acting performances and well-directed by Mike Newell (still most famous for “Four Weddings and a Funeral”). I enjoyed it but I felt it moved at a GLACIAL pace, taking over two hours to unfold, and I thought a few editing nips and tucks on the long lingering looks and leisurely strolls could have given it most impetus. But to be fair, my wife and cinema buddy for this film thought it was PERFECTLY paced, giving the story the space it needed for the drama and Juliet’s state of mind to unfold. In fact she gave it “5 Mads” as her rating… top marks! For me though a very creditable…
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Sully (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
No, not “Monsters Inc 3”.
Chesley Sullenberger was just a very experienced US Airways pilot starting an everyday job flying from LaGuardia airport in New York to Charlotte when fate stepped in. Following an extensive bird strike and the loss of both engines, ‘Sully’ achieved worldwide fame by landing his aircraft and all 151 passengers and crew safely on the Hudson river. Sully is immediately acclaimed by the public as a hero; US Airways, and their insurers, however, are not necessarily as impressed given that their plane has got rather soggy when the flight data suggests it might have actually been able to make it to a landing at a number of nearby airports. So a National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) inquiry is called, where a decision against Sully could see him facing the fastest fall from grace since Icarus.
This film is obviously based on this real-life ‘Miracle on the Hudson’ and to a large extent the recreation of the crash…. sorry… “forced water landing” is both vivid and gripping. The film is certainly unlikely to make the regular list of in-flight movies for nervous passengers, but it does serve as a good training film for all of those regular airline passengers who don’t “put down their reading materials” to listen to the aircraft safety announcement.
Director Clint Eastwood has delivered a highly watchable action sequence showcasing the undisputed acting talents of Tom Hanks (playing Sully) and his Aaron Eckhard (“Olympus Has Fallen”, playing the co-pilot Jeff Skiles). This makes for a great 45 minute film. The problem is the other 51 minutes.
Where the film works well – aside from the actual recreation itself – is in representing the post-traumatic stress experienced by Sully, with his insomnia and regular flashbacks of ‘what might have happened’ (anyone still strongly affected by 9/11 will struggle with these scenes). The final NTSB hearing scenes are also well-done and suitably gripping: particularly for viewers outside of the UK where we wouldn’t have heard the outcome of the affair once the news cycle had moved on from the ‘gee-whizz’ headline event.
Where the film aquaplanes somewhat is in the padding achieved through multiple (MULTIPLE!) scenes of New Yorkers back-slapping Sully. Some of this is needed to establish the pedestal that Sully is set upon: the bar scene, for example, is well done. But all the rest of the references become just plain tiresome.
There is also a back-story focused on Sully’s financial problems and rather scratchy marriage (as portrayed) to Lorraine (Laura Linney). Linney is normally a highly-watchable actress, but here her character is just so irritating that the mood of the film plummets every time she reappears on screen.
The key problem that screenwriter Todd Komarnicki (“Elf”!!) had here is the obvious one: that as a real-event (based on Sullenberger’s own book “Highest Duty”) he would have had more scope to build tension if the flight had lasted more than 208 seconds! We end up with little visibility into the back-stories of the passengers. We get to see a father and two grown-up sons who – as fate would have it – just manage to catch the doomed plane: and we end up caring what happens to them. But this approach could have perhaps been usefully extended to feature more of the passenger back-stories (without getting the full “Airport” soap treatment).
Clint Eastwood is also clearly an All-American patriot, and in common with some of his other films he can’t help himself from putting up rather soupy statements about the self-sacrifice of New Yorkers (“the best of New York came together”): when actually the rescue teams did what they were paid to do and Ferry captains did what you or I would do if we stumbled on the scene! These sentiments might go down well in the States: in the cynical UK they tend to generate snorts of irritation.
What IS nice are a couple of “monkeys” (see Glossary) during the closing credits where the real Sully, Skiles, cabin-crew and passengers appear together in a celebration of continued life against all the odds. And just so you are aware, this is done as two separate segments during the titles, so if you don’t want to be one of those people standing in the aisles with your coat half on, then wait for the second one!
A curate’s egg of a film: great in places, but overall not as well executed as it could have been.
This film is obviously based on this real-life ‘Miracle on the Hudson’ and to a large extent the recreation of the crash…. sorry… “forced water landing” is both vivid and gripping. The film is certainly unlikely to make the regular list of in-flight movies for nervous passengers, but it does serve as a good training film for all of those regular airline passengers who don’t “put down their reading materials” to listen to the aircraft safety announcement.
Director Clint Eastwood has delivered a highly watchable action sequence showcasing the undisputed acting talents of Tom Hanks (playing Sully) and his Aaron Eckhard (“Olympus Has Fallen”, playing the co-pilot Jeff Skiles). This makes for a great 45 minute film. The problem is the other 51 minutes.
Where the film works well – aside from the actual recreation itself – is in representing the post-traumatic stress experienced by Sully, with his insomnia and regular flashbacks of ‘what might have happened’ (anyone still strongly affected by 9/11 will struggle with these scenes). The final NTSB hearing scenes are also well-done and suitably gripping: particularly for viewers outside of the UK where we wouldn’t have heard the outcome of the affair once the news cycle had moved on from the ‘gee-whizz’ headline event.
Where the film aquaplanes somewhat is in the padding achieved through multiple (MULTIPLE!) scenes of New Yorkers back-slapping Sully. Some of this is needed to establish the pedestal that Sully is set upon: the bar scene, for example, is well done. But all the rest of the references become just plain tiresome.
There is also a back-story focused on Sully’s financial problems and rather scratchy marriage (as portrayed) to Lorraine (Laura Linney). Linney is normally a highly-watchable actress, but here her character is just so irritating that the mood of the film plummets every time she reappears on screen.
The key problem that screenwriter Todd Komarnicki (“Elf”!!) had here is the obvious one: that as a real-event (based on Sullenberger’s own book “Highest Duty”) he would have had more scope to build tension if the flight had lasted more than 208 seconds! We end up with little visibility into the back-stories of the passengers. We get to see a father and two grown-up sons who – as fate would have it – just manage to catch the doomed plane: and we end up caring what happens to them. But this approach could have perhaps been usefully extended to feature more of the passenger back-stories (without getting the full “Airport” soap treatment).
Clint Eastwood is also clearly an All-American patriot, and in common with some of his other films he can’t help himself from putting up rather soupy statements about the self-sacrifice of New Yorkers (“the best of New York came together”): when actually the rescue teams did what they were paid to do and Ferry captains did what you or I would do if we stumbled on the scene! These sentiments might go down well in the States: in the cynical UK they tend to generate snorts of irritation.
What IS nice are a couple of “monkeys” (see Glossary) during the closing credits where the real Sully, Skiles, cabin-crew and passengers appear together in a celebration of continued life against all the odds. And just so you are aware, this is done as two separate segments during the titles, so if you don’t want to be one of those people standing in the aisles with your coat half on, then wait for the second one!
A curate’s egg of a film: great in places, but overall not as well executed as it could have been.