Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Accountant (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Rain Man with a Kalashnikov.
(Another Bob the Movie Man Showcase Theatre).
The scene: studio execs in a board room in Warner Brothers. Greg Silverman, head of Creative Development walks into the room full of his most creative guys and slams a script by Bill Dubuque onto the table.
Silverman: “Affleck needs a real zinger of a film to follow his Batman work and this is it… but we we need a really riveting title… something to grab everyone’s attention and get them begging to pay their ticket money to see. Hit me!”
Creative 1: “The Autist?”
Silverman: “Like your thinking…. good Oscar associations… but perhaps a tad non-PC.”
Creative 2: “Under the Skin?”
Silverman: “Been done. Besides, don’t want everyone thinking they’re going to see THAT much of Johansson again”
A grey looking financial director, sitting in the corner: “Er… sir… I’ve got an idea….”
=====
So… it’s not the most PR-friendly title in the world, but it is a whole lot more interesting than it sounds. Ben Affleck plays the titular accountant (who may or may not be called Christian Wolff) – a sort of evil Jack Reacher of the financial world: off-the-grid behind multiple aliases and with financial fingers in more murky pies around the world than seems tasteful.
Not only is he a mathematical genius with the numbers, but is also extremely handy with his fists and an arsenal of high powered weaponry he keeps in his executive trailer home… ready to up-roots and disappear at any time.
Supported over the phone by a mysterious ‘Pepper-Potts-style’ personal assistant, who appears more machine than person, Affleck is guided from job to job, dropping in the occasional “normal” job to keep the authorities off his tail. One of these is for a bio-technology company headed up by Lamar Black (John Lithgow) who brings him in – against the wishes of his FD and long term friend Ed Chilton (Andy Umberger) – since all appears not quite right in the books. Junior accountant Dana Cummings (Anna “Pitch Perfect” Kendrick) is the young lady who has seen the discrepancy but can’t track it down in the labyrinthine accounts.
This so called ‘safe’ job lands both him and Dana in extreme danger as person or persons unknown, fronted by a hired ‘heavy’ played by Jon Bernthal, try to prevent some dodgy activities coming to the surface.
As a parallel thread, the head of the Treasury Department’s Crime Enforcement Division, Ray King (J.K. Simmons, “Whiplash”) strong-arms (for no readily apparent reason) analyst Marybeth Medina (an impressive Cynthia Addai-Robinson) into pursuing Wolff. With a keen intellect and a strong incentive she begins to close in.
Directed by Gavin O’ Connor, this – for me – is a frustratingly inconsistent film. When it flies, it really flies well, both at an action level and at a dramatic level. The flashback scenes to Wolff’s childhood are well done, showing how the autistic and needy youngster who needed compassion, quiet and understanding got the exact opposite from his militaristic father (Robert C Treveiler) to ‘jolt him out of’ his condition. It is easy to understand how he turned out the way he did.
On the flip side, the plot progression almost deliberately shines a spotlight on some questions (no spoilers) that if you ask them you immediately see the answers, resulting in most of the rest of the plot falling into place without shock or surprise. There was only one genuine twist for me, right at the end of the film, that I didn’t see coming.
The script by Bill Dubuque (“The Judge”) delivers some really nice scenes between Affleck and Kendrick, some smart (and genuinely funny) one-liners and one of the best abruptly ended speeches since Samuel L. Jackson’s in “Deep Blue Sea”. However, the whole Treasury Investigation story-line (however good it is to see J.K. Simmons act) is somewhat superfluous to the whole thing and just doesn’t work.
Kendrick and Affleck have good chemistry, with Affleck trying desperately to breathe some likeability into what is a pretty cold and calculating character. It’s hard though to empathise with someone who – albeit indirectly – is the source of such misery around the world through drugs, terrorism, dictatorships and God-knows what else. Kendrick plays kooky and naive really well, but she really ought to get some protocols sorted out around letting people into her apartment: she really doesn’t seem to learn!
It’s a nice idea and entertaining to watch, but the delivery is flawed.
The scene: studio execs in a board room in Warner Brothers. Greg Silverman, head of Creative Development walks into the room full of his most creative guys and slams a script by Bill Dubuque onto the table.
Silverman: “Affleck needs a real zinger of a film to follow his Batman work and this is it… but we we need a really riveting title… something to grab everyone’s attention and get them begging to pay their ticket money to see. Hit me!”
Creative 1: “The Autist?”
Silverman: “Like your thinking…. good Oscar associations… but perhaps a tad non-PC.”
Creative 2: “Under the Skin?”
Silverman: “Been done. Besides, don’t want everyone thinking they’re going to see THAT much of Johansson again”
A grey looking financial director, sitting in the corner: “Er… sir… I’ve got an idea….”
=====
So… it’s not the most PR-friendly title in the world, but it is a whole lot more interesting than it sounds. Ben Affleck plays the titular accountant (who may or may not be called Christian Wolff) – a sort of evil Jack Reacher of the financial world: off-the-grid behind multiple aliases and with financial fingers in more murky pies around the world than seems tasteful.
Not only is he a mathematical genius with the numbers, but is also extremely handy with his fists and an arsenal of high powered weaponry he keeps in his executive trailer home… ready to up-roots and disappear at any time.
Supported over the phone by a mysterious ‘Pepper-Potts-style’ personal assistant, who appears more machine than person, Affleck is guided from job to job, dropping in the occasional “normal” job to keep the authorities off his tail. One of these is for a bio-technology company headed up by Lamar Black (John Lithgow) who brings him in – against the wishes of his FD and long term friend Ed Chilton (Andy Umberger) – since all appears not quite right in the books. Junior accountant Dana Cummings (Anna “Pitch Perfect” Kendrick) is the young lady who has seen the discrepancy but can’t track it down in the labyrinthine accounts.
This so called ‘safe’ job lands both him and Dana in extreme danger as person or persons unknown, fronted by a hired ‘heavy’ played by Jon Bernthal, try to prevent some dodgy activities coming to the surface.
As a parallel thread, the head of the Treasury Department’s Crime Enforcement Division, Ray King (J.K. Simmons, “Whiplash”) strong-arms (for no readily apparent reason) analyst Marybeth Medina (an impressive Cynthia Addai-Robinson) into pursuing Wolff. With a keen intellect and a strong incentive she begins to close in.
Directed by Gavin O’ Connor, this – for me – is a frustratingly inconsistent film. When it flies, it really flies well, both at an action level and at a dramatic level. The flashback scenes to Wolff’s childhood are well done, showing how the autistic and needy youngster who needed compassion, quiet and understanding got the exact opposite from his militaristic father (Robert C Treveiler) to ‘jolt him out of’ his condition. It is easy to understand how he turned out the way he did.
On the flip side, the plot progression almost deliberately shines a spotlight on some questions (no spoilers) that if you ask them you immediately see the answers, resulting in most of the rest of the plot falling into place without shock or surprise. There was only one genuine twist for me, right at the end of the film, that I didn’t see coming.
The script by Bill Dubuque (“The Judge”) delivers some really nice scenes between Affleck and Kendrick, some smart (and genuinely funny) one-liners and one of the best abruptly ended speeches since Samuel L. Jackson’s in “Deep Blue Sea”. However, the whole Treasury Investigation story-line (however good it is to see J.K. Simmons act) is somewhat superfluous to the whole thing and just doesn’t work.
Kendrick and Affleck have good chemistry, with Affleck trying desperately to breathe some likeability into what is a pretty cold and calculating character. It’s hard though to empathise with someone who – albeit indirectly – is the source of such misery around the world through drugs, terrorism, dictatorships and God-knows what else. Kendrick plays kooky and naive really well, but she really ought to get some protocols sorted out around letting people into her apartment: she really doesn’t seem to learn!
It’s a nice idea and entertaining to watch, but the delivery is flawed.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated World War Z (2013) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Brad Pitt has become one of Hollywood’s best loved actors over the years and it isn’t difficult to see why. His chiselled good looks, slick blonde hair and quiet confidence have all ensured he is never short of work. Here, he teams up with director Marc Forster who helmed the disappointing James Bond sequel, Quantum of Solace, in the latest zombie film to hit the screens; World War Z, but is it any good?
Pitt plays Gerry Lane, a former UN investigator who has chosen the quiet life and retired early to spend more time with his wife and children. Whilst taking his wife Karin and two daughters Rachel and Constance out in the car, they become stuck in heavy traffic which marks the start of the mayhem. From then on this 116 minute thrill ride puts the viewer on the edge of their seat more times than an Alton Towers rollercoaster.
After fleeing the hordes of ridiculously fast and ridiculously terrifying undead, Lane and his family board a US aircraft carrier where they are told they will be safe; however, as always, there is a price to pay. Gerry must start work once again to try and find the epicentre of the zombie virus – otherwise, the entire world will be lost. From here, Gerry’s mission is to travel across the globe trying to find what it is that has infected nearly 100% of the planet’s population.
What plays out could be described as a formulaic horror film, but it is so much more than that. Whilst it’s true that there isn’t enough character development, in fact there is only 5 minutes of it right at the beginning, director Marc Forster has cleverly allowed the audience to make up their own minds about the family’s back story and whether we care if they survive or not.
World War Z is not a film for the faint hearted, and whilst blood and guts are quite sparse for a movie with a 15 certificate, there are some truly terrifying moments, many of which will have your heart pumping through your chest.
There are scenes here that really get the adrenaline flowing, one of which involving a stowaway zombie onboard a commercial jet will leave you biting your lip, grabbing your seat and looking through your fingers in shock, horror and intense excitement. It’s safe to say I came away with very bitten fingernails.
Special effects are on par with some of the better blockbusters of the last couple of years. They aren’t as in your face as those in Transformers, nor as lacklustre as the CGI in I am Legend, they are right in the middle and because the effect is used incredibly subtly, you don’t notice when extras stop playing the zombies and the animators take over.
However, it is in the acting that this film really succeeds. Pitt is fantastic as Gerry Lane, his quiet sense of confidence never turns into arrogance as he fights for survival and this will hold the character in high esteem with audiences. He doesn’t pretend to be an action hero, heck, he even makes the kind of mistakes that any human would do if they were under pressure, and thankfully he does all of this beautifully; his characterisation is absolute perfection. The rest of his family are also excellent, Abigail Hargrove and Sterling Jerins who play Rachel and Constance respectively are very good indeed; you truly believe they are missing their father and cannot wait to see him return. The rest of the cast do very well with the limited roles they have, but let’s not forget that this is a Brad Pitt one-man show and he is more than up to the job.
Unfortunately, the cinematography really lets the film down. There is far too much handy-cam in the first 30 minutes, something which I hate. Directors often use it to sustain a sense of alarm and terror, but Marc Forster has used it to such an extent here that it made me feel physically sick. Moreover, whilst the story is solid, it is nothing more than that, and often the plot takes a back seat to the impressive action pieces meaning that the film seems to go through the motions of 10 minutes plot, 10 action, and so on.
Overall, World War Z is a very impressive film. The sheer scale of the virus means that Marc Forster has utilised some beautiful scenery from across the globe. Whilst it may be slightly too long for a zombie film at just under 2 hours, and have a distinct lack of character development; the impressive story, brilliant acting and very good special effects help lift it above the norm. This is a ride better than any rollercoaster, and is 100% worth the increasingly expensive price of a cinema admission ticket.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2013/06/22/world-war-z-review-2013/
Pitt plays Gerry Lane, a former UN investigator who has chosen the quiet life and retired early to spend more time with his wife and children. Whilst taking his wife Karin and two daughters Rachel and Constance out in the car, they become stuck in heavy traffic which marks the start of the mayhem. From then on this 116 minute thrill ride puts the viewer on the edge of their seat more times than an Alton Towers rollercoaster.
After fleeing the hordes of ridiculously fast and ridiculously terrifying undead, Lane and his family board a US aircraft carrier where they are told they will be safe; however, as always, there is a price to pay. Gerry must start work once again to try and find the epicentre of the zombie virus – otherwise, the entire world will be lost. From here, Gerry’s mission is to travel across the globe trying to find what it is that has infected nearly 100% of the planet’s population.
What plays out could be described as a formulaic horror film, but it is so much more than that. Whilst it’s true that there isn’t enough character development, in fact there is only 5 minutes of it right at the beginning, director Marc Forster has cleverly allowed the audience to make up their own minds about the family’s back story and whether we care if they survive or not.
World War Z is not a film for the faint hearted, and whilst blood and guts are quite sparse for a movie with a 15 certificate, there are some truly terrifying moments, many of which will have your heart pumping through your chest.
There are scenes here that really get the adrenaline flowing, one of which involving a stowaway zombie onboard a commercial jet will leave you biting your lip, grabbing your seat and looking through your fingers in shock, horror and intense excitement. It’s safe to say I came away with very bitten fingernails.
Special effects are on par with some of the better blockbusters of the last couple of years. They aren’t as in your face as those in Transformers, nor as lacklustre as the CGI in I am Legend, they are right in the middle and because the effect is used incredibly subtly, you don’t notice when extras stop playing the zombies and the animators take over.
However, it is in the acting that this film really succeeds. Pitt is fantastic as Gerry Lane, his quiet sense of confidence never turns into arrogance as he fights for survival and this will hold the character in high esteem with audiences. He doesn’t pretend to be an action hero, heck, he even makes the kind of mistakes that any human would do if they were under pressure, and thankfully he does all of this beautifully; his characterisation is absolute perfection. The rest of his family are also excellent, Abigail Hargrove and Sterling Jerins who play Rachel and Constance respectively are very good indeed; you truly believe they are missing their father and cannot wait to see him return. The rest of the cast do very well with the limited roles they have, but let’s not forget that this is a Brad Pitt one-man show and he is more than up to the job.
Unfortunately, the cinematography really lets the film down. There is far too much handy-cam in the first 30 minutes, something which I hate. Directors often use it to sustain a sense of alarm and terror, but Marc Forster has used it to such an extent here that it made me feel physically sick. Moreover, whilst the story is solid, it is nothing more than that, and often the plot takes a back seat to the impressive action pieces meaning that the film seems to go through the motions of 10 minutes plot, 10 action, and so on.
Overall, World War Z is a very impressive film. The sheer scale of the virus means that Marc Forster has utilised some beautiful scenery from across the globe. Whilst it may be slightly too long for a zombie film at just under 2 hours, and have a distinct lack of character development; the impressive story, brilliant acting and very good special effects help lift it above the norm. This is a ride better than any rollercoaster, and is 100% worth the increasingly expensive price of a cinema admission ticket.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2013/06/22/world-war-z-review-2013/
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Raccoon Tycoon in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
ALERT! This game has railroads! ALERT #2! This is NOT a train game! That makes ME feel lots better. Right now in my life train games and war games scare me. I don’t have the time, and frankly I do not think I am quite smart enough for either. But then this game comes along and it looks intimidating at first. Like games I am not smart enough to play, and that’s a huge compliment. Not because I think I am smart, but because this game seems like it would be way more complex than it actually is.
Technically, the players are these cute little Victorian-era anthropomorphized animals trying to become the wealthiest of all Astorians (the city is called Astoria). This is measured by Victory Points. You gain VPs in several ways and the actions you take on your turn are limited.
What are these actions you can take on your turn? You may take one action on your turn: play a card from your hand to receive commodities (in really great meeples) and increase the price of commodities to be sold, sell commodities from your supply and decrease the price of the commodities by the number sold, purchase a town card using commodities, purchase a building using money earned, or begin an auction of a railroad using money. Each of these actions ultimately affects your opponents as they either adjust the market price of commodities, removes certain coveted assets from the offer, or otherwise depletes their resources. Also, there are mission cards in the box that are just not referenced in the rulebook, but two are to be dealt to the players and one chosen as a hidden goal for endgame scoring.
I will be honest. I would not normally be attracted to this style of game, and I may not have ever purchased it in the wild based on the box. I have zero games like it in my collection, and have not really played many that are similar. BUT, I absolutely love this game. Once you get the hang of the different actions you can really start planning ahead and creating your strategy based on what your opponents are doing and how the commodity market is shaping up. You can block opponents from monopolizing similar types of railroads, preventing them from scoring bulk points. You can just concentrate on liquidating assets for maximum return. All of this can be done by completing just one action on your turn, and it keeps you interested in what your opponents are doing as well. That is a mark of a great game. This isn’t just multiplayer solitaire at all.
Components. The box has really really great artwork on it. In fact, the whole game LOOKS incredible. I have seen some remarks that the artwork on the building tiles is in a different style from the rest of the game and it detracts from their enjoyment and immersion. I disagree. When we played the first time I asked if my opponent noticed the difference in art style and if it detracted from the enjoyment of the game. Nope. The game board is good quality and laid out well. The commodities tokens are really great. I do wish, however, that the meeple shape matched that of the icon shown throughout the game. This is apparent in coal and iron, specifically. The others are fine and they match well enough, but there is a missed opportunity. The town and railroad cards are of good quality, and the building tiles are very thick and chunky – and ultimately not necessary to be so since you don’t really handle them much, but it’s always nice to have deluxe-feeling components. The paper money is of good quality – for paper money, that is. The best component of the game – the 1st player marker. I didn’t get it in the shot below because it just woodent (I did that on purpose) fit! It is a HUGE brown raccoon meeple and it’s marvelous. Know what else I really appreciate? THERE IS NO INSERT. Nothing to throw away as soon as you open the box because undoubtedly once you punch everything and try to put it in the useless insert there is no way so you just throw it away anyway and are left feeling like maybe they could have saved some time and money not worrying about an insert that is actually pointless and detrimental to setup and teardown (I’m looking at you, pointless Fantasy Flight box-space-eater inserts).
I don’t know if you can tell from my verbosity in this review, but I adore this game. It is sleek, it is well-produced, and ultimately it is incredibly fun to play. We at Purple Phoenix Games give this one a VERY enthusiastic 14 / 18.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/03/01/raccoon-tycoon-review/
Technically, the players are these cute little Victorian-era anthropomorphized animals trying to become the wealthiest of all Astorians (the city is called Astoria). This is measured by Victory Points. You gain VPs in several ways and the actions you take on your turn are limited.
What are these actions you can take on your turn? You may take one action on your turn: play a card from your hand to receive commodities (in really great meeples) and increase the price of commodities to be sold, sell commodities from your supply and decrease the price of the commodities by the number sold, purchase a town card using commodities, purchase a building using money earned, or begin an auction of a railroad using money. Each of these actions ultimately affects your opponents as they either adjust the market price of commodities, removes certain coveted assets from the offer, or otherwise depletes their resources. Also, there are mission cards in the box that are just not referenced in the rulebook, but two are to be dealt to the players and one chosen as a hidden goal for endgame scoring.
I will be honest. I would not normally be attracted to this style of game, and I may not have ever purchased it in the wild based on the box. I have zero games like it in my collection, and have not really played many that are similar. BUT, I absolutely love this game. Once you get the hang of the different actions you can really start planning ahead and creating your strategy based on what your opponents are doing and how the commodity market is shaping up. You can block opponents from monopolizing similar types of railroads, preventing them from scoring bulk points. You can just concentrate on liquidating assets for maximum return. All of this can be done by completing just one action on your turn, and it keeps you interested in what your opponents are doing as well. That is a mark of a great game. This isn’t just multiplayer solitaire at all.
Components. The box has really really great artwork on it. In fact, the whole game LOOKS incredible. I have seen some remarks that the artwork on the building tiles is in a different style from the rest of the game and it detracts from their enjoyment and immersion. I disagree. When we played the first time I asked if my opponent noticed the difference in art style and if it detracted from the enjoyment of the game. Nope. The game board is good quality and laid out well. The commodities tokens are really great. I do wish, however, that the meeple shape matched that of the icon shown throughout the game. This is apparent in coal and iron, specifically. The others are fine and they match well enough, but there is a missed opportunity. The town and railroad cards are of good quality, and the building tiles are very thick and chunky – and ultimately not necessary to be so since you don’t really handle them much, but it’s always nice to have deluxe-feeling components. The paper money is of good quality – for paper money, that is. The best component of the game – the 1st player marker. I didn’t get it in the shot below because it just woodent (I did that on purpose) fit! It is a HUGE brown raccoon meeple and it’s marvelous. Know what else I really appreciate? THERE IS NO INSERT. Nothing to throw away as soon as you open the box because undoubtedly once you punch everything and try to put it in the useless insert there is no way so you just throw it away anyway and are left feeling like maybe they could have saved some time and money not worrying about an insert that is actually pointless and detrimental to setup and teardown (I’m looking at you, pointless Fantasy Flight box-space-eater inserts).
I don’t know if you can tell from my verbosity in this review, but I adore this game. It is sleek, it is well-produced, and ultimately it is incredibly fun to play. We at Purple Phoenix Games give this one a VERY enthusiastic 14 / 18.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/03/01/raccoon-tycoon-review/
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Sprawlopolis in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
One of the best parts of the board gaming experience is finding a fun group of people with whom to play! Sometimes, though, coordinating a game night is easier said than done. We all must occasionally forego the group experience and face the world as the Lonely Only. But fear not! The world of solo-play is a vast and exciting realm! What follows is a chronicle of my journey into the solo-playing world – notes on gameplay, mechanics, rules, difficulty, and overall experience with solo variations of commonly multiplayer games! I hope this will provide some insight as you continue to grow your collection, or explore your already owned games!
If you had the chance to design a city, how would you do it? Would you have a park on every block for some nice greenery, or do you think a large commercial district will bring in more people? What about housing – would people live right in the heart of the city, or would they live more on the outskirts? The day has finally come where those decisions are up to you! Well, mostly. You’ve been hired to help design the ultimate city! The city officials have given you some specific requirements, but beyond that, the plans are up to you! Can you meet their needs while also maximizing your space? It’s time to put your skills to the test and build the best city ever!
Sprawlopolis is a cooperative card placement game of only 18 cards. Given 3 random scoring conditions, you must draw and play cards into the city to fulfill those requirements. Meet or exceed their score, and you win the game! Fail to do so, and you have not succeeded in building the city up to specifications. Be careful how you decide to place your cards, however, because depending on the scoring conditions in play, certain placements could result in negative points at the end of the game. Working together, you and your team must decide which cards to play at what time to ensure that the requirements are all met. Solo play is identical to cooperative play, except that you just always have a hand of 3 cards from which to play. The score to beat each game is dependent on the scoring conditions, so this game isn’t just another beat-your-own-high-score game – you actually have a specific number in mind.
For a game with only 18 cards, there is a lot of variability in Sprawlopolis. I have yet to play 2 identical games. The layout of each card is unique, as are all of the scoring conditions, so the possibilities are endless… almost! I also enjoy playing this game solo because it requires a decent amount of strategy. Three things factor into your final score (the scoring conditions, block groupings, and roads) and it is impossible to succeed by focusing on only one of them. Your strategy is always changing based on the cards in your hand, and you really have to think about how to best utilize each card for maximum end-game points. Depending on when and where you play a card, it could change the entire city so you have to be thinking about the big picture, literally! And a neat thing about Sprawlopolis is that you can overlap cards. So maybe a card you played earlier is not really ideal anymore, given your current hand, so you can just cover up either a portion of it or the entire card!
The hardest thing about Sprawlopolis for me is that certain combinations of scoring conditions can be difficult to complete. One may give you points for a certain type of city block, but then another may take away as many, or more, points for that same type of city block. Or one gives you points for certain roads, but all roads result in negative points during end-game scoring. Since the scoring conditions are chosen randomly, there’s not really a way to negate this unless you just re-draw those cards. You usually can’t just look at a scoring condition combination and know if it will be difficult or not either – you just have to try it. I’m not saying they’re impossible necessarily, just harder to successfully complete.
Overall, I think Sprawlopolis is a neat game. It’s fast and easy to learn, yet strategic enough to keep you coming back for more games. I like to use it as a nice light filler game between some bigger games, or I just like to play it if I’ve got a quick 15 minutes to spare! Sprawlopolis is a fun game to play with a group, and it’s also a fun game to play solo. In my arsenal of solo games, it’s definitely one on standby.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/02/11/solo-chronicles-sprawlopolis/
If you had the chance to design a city, how would you do it? Would you have a park on every block for some nice greenery, or do you think a large commercial district will bring in more people? What about housing – would people live right in the heart of the city, or would they live more on the outskirts? The day has finally come where those decisions are up to you! Well, mostly. You’ve been hired to help design the ultimate city! The city officials have given you some specific requirements, but beyond that, the plans are up to you! Can you meet their needs while also maximizing your space? It’s time to put your skills to the test and build the best city ever!
Sprawlopolis is a cooperative card placement game of only 18 cards. Given 3 random scoring conditions, you must draw and play cards into the city to fulfill those requirements. Meet or exceed their score, and you win the game! Fail to do so, and you have not succeeded in building the city up to specifications. Be careful how you decide to place your cards, however, because depending on the scoring conditions in play, certain placements could result in negative points at the end of the game. Working together, you and your team must decide which cards to play at what time to ensure that the requirements are all met. Solo play is identical to cooperative play, except that you just always have a hand of 3 cards from which to play. The score to beat each game is dependent on the scoring conditions, so this game isn’t just another beat-your-own-high-score game – you actually have a specific number in mind.
For a game with only 18 cards, there is a lot of variability in Sprawlopolis. I have yet to play 2 identical games. The layout of each card is unique, as are all of the scoring conditions, so the possibilities are endless… almost! I also enjoy playing this game solo because it requires a decent amount of strategy. Three things factor into your final score (the scoring conditions, block groupings, and roads) and it is impossible to succeed by focusing on only one of them. Your strategy is always changing based on the cards in your hand, and you really have to think about how to best utilize each card for maximum end-game points. Depending on when and where you play a card, it could change the entire city so you have to be thinking about the big picture, literally! And a neat thing about Sprawlopolis is that you can overlap cards. So maybe a card you played earlier is not really ideal anymore, given your current hand, so you can just cover up either a portion of it or the entire card!
The hardest thing about Sprawlopolis for me is that certain combinations of scoring conditions can be difficult to complete. One may give you points for a certain type of city block, but then another may take away as many, or more, points for that same type of city block. Or one gives you points for certain roads, but all roads result in negative points during end-game scoring. Since the scoring conditions are chosen randomly, there’s not really a way to negate this unless you just re-draw those cards. You usually can’t just look at a scoring condition combination and know if it will be difficult or not either – you just have to try it. I’m not saying they’re impossible necessarily, just harder to successfully complete.
Overall, I think Sprawlopolis is a neat game. It’s fast and easy to learn, yet strategic enough to keep you coming back for more games. I like to use it as a nice light filler game between some bigger games, or I just like to play it if I’ve got a quick 15 minutes to spare! Sprawlopolis is a fun game to play with a group, and it’s also a fun game to play solo. In my arsenal of solo games, it’s definitely one on standby.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/02/11/solo-chronicles-sprawlopolis/
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Samurai Spirit in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
One of the best parts of the board gaming experience is finding a fun group of people with whom to play! Sometimes, though, coordinating a game night is easier said than done. We all must occasionally forego the group experience and face the world as the Lonely Only. But fear not! The world of solo-play is a vast and exciting realm! What follows is a chronicle of my journey into the solo-playing world – notes on gameplay, mechanics, rules, difficulty, and overall experience with solo variations of commonly multiplayer games! I hope this will provide some insight as you continue to grow your collection, or explore your already owned games!
As a Samurai, you spend your life traveling across the land to help those in need. Most recently, you and a handful of other Samurai have been contracted by a small village to defend them against a clan of invading raiders. Only by working together, and by using your extensive training, will you succeed in keeping this village safe!
Samurai Spirit is a cooperative game of press-your-luck. Players take on the role of a Samurai, each with a unique power, and take turns drawing cards and fighting off the invaders or offering support to your fellow Samurai. Invaders can have recurring negative effects, so strategize wisely on how best to combat them and see how far you can push your luck each round. If you are able to survive through 3 rounds (waves) of invaders with at least one surviving farmstead and family, the Samurai are victorious and the village is saved! If any of the Samurai are killed, or the village has been completely destroyed by invaders, then the game is lost. As a solo game, Samurai Spirit plays essentially the same as in group play, with only 2 main differences – the solo player controls 2 Samurai instead of 1, and the support tokens from the unused Samurai are each available for use once during the game.
For such a neat theme, this game falls short for me. It seems simple enough, but there are areas of ambiguity in the rules that lead to some confusion. For starters, the text size is so small that I am not able to find any information at a quick glance! The text itself is not always clear either – like when, at the end of a round, the rules say to collect all cards used this round, does that include cards that have been discarded due to Samurai abilities? How about the cards of the Intruder stack that are presumably discarded after being revealed? The rulebook offers no clarification, and I honestly still don’t know the right answer.
The order/layout of the rules feels mismatched too – relevant information is not always grouped together, and I find myself flipping between several pages at a time trying to figure out one single thing. For example, in the ‘Fight’ action description, it says that if you reach your Kiai value exactly, you can activate your Kiai ability. You have to turn the page to a different section to see exactly what activating that ability means, and then you have to flip an additional 2 more pages to see what each individual Kiai ability is! Why not just put them all in one place? It would certainly be easier to understand if all relevant information was grouped together.
The prominent mechanic of Samurai Spirit is press-your-luck, and I would definitely say that this game is very luck-based. When setting up the game, the initial deck of cards is randomly selected and that can impact whether or not you are able to complete certain requirements each round – if there aren’t enough hat/farm/doll cards for each Samurai, you are guaranteed to incur a penalty at the end of every round. Actual gameplay is very luck-based too, and for me it feels like there are no good ways to strategize – your choices are all dependent on the luck of the draw. You can push your luck to draw more cards and use special abilities, but since you are suffering from recurring penalties each turn, it feels futile to keep going at a certain point.
For me, Samurai Spirit is repetitive and kind of boring – suffer penalty, draw card, and repeat until you eventually pass or the deck runs out. It’s like a too-complicated version of blackjack in which the deck is stacked against you. It’s such a bummer because the theme and artwork are neat, and the gameplay (in theory, at least) should be effective. But the actual execution is too reliant on luck to be successful.
I do quite a bit of solo gaming, but this game is never one that I willingly decide to play. I honestly only broke it out recently as a refresher for this review. Perhaps it is better at higher player counts, but since that is not where most of my gaming occurs, Samurai Spirit is a dud for me.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/02/06/solo-chronicles-samurai-spirit/
As a Samurai, you spend your life traveling across the land to help those in need. Most recently, you and a handful of other Samurai have been contracted by a small village to defend them against a clan of invading raiders. Only by working together, and by using your extensive training, will you succeed in keeping this village safe!
Samurai Spirit is a cooperative game of press-your-luck. Players take on the role of a Samurai, each with a unique power, and take turns drawing cards and fighting off the invaders or offering support to your fellow Samurai. Invaders can have recurring negative effects, so strategize wisely on how best to combat them and see how far you can push your luck each round. If you are able to survive through 3 rounds (waves) of invaders with at least one surviving farmstead and family, the Samurai are victorious and the village is saved! If any of the Samurai are killed, or the village has been completely destroyed by invaders, then the game is lost. As a solo game, Samurai Spirit plays essentially the same as in group play, with only 2 main differences – the solo player controls 2 Samurai instead of 1, and the support tokens from the unused Samurai are each available for use once during the game.
For such a neat theme, this game falls short for me. It seems simple enough, but there are areas of ambiguity in the rules that lead to some confusion. For starters, the text size is so small that I am not able to find any information at a quick glance! The text itself is not always clear either – like when, at the end of a round, the rules say to collect all cards used this round, does that include cards that have been discarded due to Samurai abilities? How about the cards of the Intruder stack that are presumably discarded after being revealed? The rulebook offers no clarification, and I honestly still don’t know the right answer.
The order/layout of the rules feels mismatched too – relevant information is not always grouped together, and I find myself flipping between several pages at a time trying to figure out one single thing. For example, in the ‘Fight’ action description, it says that if you reach your Kiai value exactly, you can activate your Kiai ability. You have to turn the page to a different section to see exactly what activating that ability means, and then you have to flip an additional 2 more pages to see what each individual Kiai ability is! Why not just put them all in one place? It would certainly be easier to understand if all relevant information was grouped together.
The prominent mechanic of Samurai Spirit is press-your-luck, and I would definitely say that this game is very luck-based. When setting up the game, the initial deck of cards is randomly selected and that can impact whether or not you are able to complete certain requirements each round – if there aren’t enough hat/farm/doll cards for each Samurai, you are guaranteed to incur a penalty at the end of every round. Actual gameplay is very luck-based too, and for me it feels like there are no good ways to strategize – your choices are all dependent on the luck of the draw. You can push your luck to draw more cards and use special abilities, but since you are suffering from recurring penalties each turn, it feels futile to keep going at a certain point.
For me, Samurai Spirit is repetitive and kind of boring – suffer penalty, draw card, and repeat until you eventually pass or the deck runs out. It’s like a too-complicated version of blackjack in which the deck is stacked against you. It’s such a bummer because the theme and artwork are neat, and the gameplay (in theory, at least) should be effective. But the actual execution is too reliant on luck to be successful.
I do quite a bit of solo gaming, but this game is never one that I willingly decide to play. I honestly only broke it out recently as a refresher for this review. Perhaps it is better at higher player counts, but since that is not where most of my gaming occurs, Samurai Spirit is a dud for me.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/02/06/solo-chronicles-samurai-spirit/
Joe Julians (221 KP) rated Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (2017) in Movies
Jan 17, 2018
Given that the premise to this movie focuses on the unsolved rape and murder of a teenage girl, you would be forgiven for thinking that Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri would be a bleak and depressing watch. And at times it is. This is by no means a happy movie and there is a lot of misery and upset that plagues the central characters. But, interwoven in all that is a dark comedic vibe that makes the script story and characters come to life in ways that I wasn’t expecting going in.
The film starts us off seven months after Mildred’s daughter’s death and we immediately get a sense of how frustrated she is that she’s had no answers or closure as to what happened. Her blame for this lies solely with the police department and as the man in charge, it’s Willoughby that initially is the target of her ire; his is the name that is plastered across billboard number 3. What follows is a story that is utterly engrossing for almost all of its run time. The cast here are across the board superb. Everyone here puts in a stellar performance but despite Sam Rockwell giving her a run for her money, this is Frances McDormand’s movie through and through. She’s utterly captivating in every second of screen time she gets which is all the more remarkable given that Mildred is not an easy role to play. She’s almost joyless given what has happened to her and her fractured family, yet her cynical and blunt nature allows for some wonderfully, sometimes uncomfortable, comedic moments that really help make the character one that feels oddly warm despite her cold hardened exterior.
I mentioned Rockwell too and this is the best I’ve seen him. Officer Dixon isn’t a nice guy by any stretch of the imagination. He’s a racist mother’s boy that has little care for his job or the people that he’s meant to be protecting. And yet despite his flaws, Rockwell makes him almost sympathetic. Dixon also ends up having what I think to be the best arc of the whole movie- something I would not have picked when he first appeared on the screen and showed what kind of man he is. Just naming these two seems like a detriment to everyone else as there isn’t anyone that puts a foot wrong. Harrelson for example is wonderful as Chief Willoughby and delivers a nuanced and understated performance that really made me feel for the character and the horrible things he’s going through. Even those with far smaller parts are memorable, such as Peter Dinklage as the alcoholic “town midget” with an unreciprocated crush.
Performances aside, Three Billboards would be nothing without a decent script and Martin McDonagh delivers that in spades. This is a sharp script that doesn’t waste a moment of dialogue. And there’s some fantastic lines here with laughs coming at the most unexpected moments and at the most unexpected of times. There’s an early zinger in a scene with Mildred and a priest at her home that took me by surprise with its crassness that seemed to perfectly suit the scene. McDonagh is also on directing duties and he is equally as impressive with that as he is with penning the screenplay. This is a beautifully shot film with the rural location and the small-town setting used perfectly. He never oversells a moment despite the fact there are a few moments where it would be possible to do so. One scene in particular featuring Mildred in perhaps her angriest moment of the movie could easily have been overblown, yet it’s somewhat subdued despite being the closest to an action sequence that we get.
If there’s issues to be found in Three Billboards, it would be, at least for me, its ending. Until just before the credits rolled, this was an easy perfect score film for me, yet it’s ambiguity with its conclusion left me feeling a little cold. It’s not that I need every story I experience to have a neat and clear-cut end, but this was one that I felt needed something more final to close it out. It almost feels like it ended too soon, like there were a few more minutes worth of story still to be told that for whatever reason ended up being removed from the final product. Of course, that’s not the case, but it’s hard not to feel like things are left incomplete in a way that is more frustrating than they are intriguing.
Verdict
Despite an ending that felt too abrupt, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri is a joy to watch. Brilliantly written, acted and directed, this is one of those movies that had me completely immersed in its world right from the start and had me gripped until the final frame. Highly recommended.
The film starts us off seven months after Mildred’s daughter’s death and we immediately get a sense of how frustrated she is that she’s had no answers or closure as to what happened. Her blame for this lies solely with the police department and as the man in charge, it’s Willoughby that initially is the target of her ire; his is the name that is plastered across billboard number 3. What follows is a story that is utterly engrossing for almost all of its run time. The cast here are across the board superb. Everyone here puts in a stellar performance but despite Sam Rockwell giving her a run for her money, this is Frances McDormand’s movie through and through. She’s utterly captivating in every second of screen time she gets which is all the more remarkable given that Mildred is not an easy role to play. She’s almost joyless given what has happened to her and her fractured family, yet her cynical and blunt nature allows for some wonderfully, sometimes uncomfortable, comedic moments that really help make the character one that feels oddly warm despite her cold hardened exterior.
I mentioned Rockwell too and this is the best I’ve seen him. Officer Dixon isn’t a nice guy by any stretch of the imagination. He’s a racist mother’s boy that has little care for his job or the people that he’s meant to be protecting. And yet despite his flaws, Rockwell makes him almost sympathetic. Dixon also ends up having what I think to be the best arc of the whole movie- something I would not have picked when he first appeared on the screen and showed what kind of man he is. Just naming these two seems like a detriment to everyone else as there isn’t anyone that puts a foot wrong. Harrelson for example is wonderful as Chief Willoughby and delivers a nuanced and understated performance that really made me feel for the character and the horrible things he’s going through. Even those with far smaller parts are memorable, such as Peter Dinklage as the alcoholic “town midget” with an unreciprocated crush.
Performances aside, Three Billboards would be nothing without a decent script and Martin McDonagh delivers that in spades. This is a sharp script that doesn’t waste a moment of dialogue. And there’s some fantastic lines here with laughs coming at the most unexpected moments and at the most unexpected of times. There’s an early zinger in a scene with Mildred and a priest at her home that took me by surprise with its crassness that seemed to perfectly suit the scene. McDonagh is also on directing duties and he is equally as impressive with that as he is with penning the screenplay. This is a beautifully shot film with the rural location and the small-town setting used perfectly. He never oversells a moment despite the fact there are a few moments where it would be possible to do so. One scene in particular featuring Mildred in perhaps her angriest moment of the movie could easily have been overblown, yet it’s somewhat subdued despite being the closest to an action sequence that we get.
If there’s issues to be found in Three Billboards, it would be, at least for me, its ending. Until just before the credits rolled, this was an easy perfect score film for me, yet it’s ambiguity with its conclusion left me feeling a little cold. It’s not that I need every story I experience to have a neat and clear-cut end, but this was one that I felt needed something more final to close it out. It almost feels like it ended too soon, like there were a few more minutes worth of story still to be told that for whatever reason ended up being removed from the final product. Of course, that’s not the case, but it’s hard not to feel like things are left incomplete in a way that is more frustrating than they are intriguing.
Verdict
Despite an ending that felt too abrupt, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri is a joy to watch. Brilliantly written, acted and directed, this is one of those movies that had me completely immersed in its world right from the start and had me gripped until the final frame. Highly recommended.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Spider-Man 3 (2007) in Movies
Jul 1, 2019 (Updated Jul 3, 2019)
"None of that matters now, you're my friend"
After the worldwide success of the first two "Spider-Man" films, director Sam Raimi and the cast decided to take a break. The first two had been shot almost back-to-back, with very little "down time" in between. So, in late 2005, about 18 months after the release of "Spider-Man 2", Raimi began fleshing out ideas for a third storyline. For this chapter, the director wanted to teach Peter Parker about forgiveness; to do so, he'd need a villain with personal ties. The problem was that, besides the Osborn family and Otto Octavius, no villains in the comics had such a huge connection. Raimi didn't want to contradict a well-established character, so he sought one out whose backstory had never been fully realized: the Sandman, whose literary incarnation was little more than a random thief. Connecting the character to the death of Ben Parker gave Peter a huge obstacle that needed facing. Wrapping up Harry Osborn's story was also necessary, since Marvel wasn't sure if James Franco would agree to more chapters in the franchise. The addition of Gwen Stacy (who in the comics, was Peter's first love) was done mainly for the fans, and to create a conflicted love triangle with Peter & Mary Jane. Satisfied with his concept, Raimi told his plans to Marvel Comics; the result was less than expected.
Therein lies my biggest problem with "Spider-Man 3". I liked the Venom character as a kid, but in all honesty having 4 villains in the same film (Harry, Marko, the black symbiote itself, and eventually Venom) was just too much at once. From the standpoint of a fan, I'd have preferred that Venom be saved for a future entry, so he could have taken center stage. By having him alongside both Marko and Harry Osborn, the story became rather confusing for many fans, and the film's box office suffered as a direct result. Overall, this film made less money across the board than its predecessor...all because of corporate greed.
That being said, I still enjoy the film on many levels, but knowing what caused the multi-arc story makes some moments bittersweet. The actors clearly enjoyed this ride, but something in general seemed a bit lacking. Looking back, I realize it was the Venom character. The fact of it essentially being forced into the narrative only made the tale confusing and hard to follow. It became one of those films many people have to watch more than once, just to understand it...and these days, audiences don't have a lot of patience for films with too many angles. Rightfully so, in my opinion.
Tobey Maguire, slipping into the spandex suit for a third try, really shows his acting range here, even more so than his diverse performance in "Spider-Man 2". From intense love to seething hatred (and everything in between), he really brings his game up to a whole new level. Kirsten Dunst shines again as Parker's star-crossed love, Mary Jane Watson. I liked her performance very much, and her singing in the film is beautiful. She's less helpless than in either prior entry, and far more confident. Bryce Dallas Howard (daughter of acclaimed director Ron) makes her first apearance in the franchise as the bubbling, exuberant, and gorgeous Gwen Stacy. I liked her character, but felt she didn't have much to do in the long run.
James Franco does an equally-remarkable turn, finally completing the journey that began at the end of the original film. He gives Harry a blend of jealousy, mystique, and severe determination. He also revisits the lighter tones of his role, for the scenes where Harry has amnesia. And in the finale, he shows that in his heart, Harry was truly a hero. Thomas Haden Church gave Marko both sentiment and menace, and turned what was originally a two-bit thug into a far more interesting character. Topher Grace played the "creepy" card as Venom, and gave Eddie Brock a know-it-all arrogance that makes you almost feel disgusted.
Aside from the criticisms surrounding Venom, I honestly didn't have a lot for this entry. Mary Jane is no longer in a water-drenched position (thank God!), so I was very relieved. I guess my main concern was that there were too many villians should of just stuck with Harry and Venom or Harry and sandman. And for anyone who asks why i haven't put the dancing scenes as a negative. I get a kick out of them what can i say?
Therein lies my biggest problem with "Spider-Man 3". I liked the Venom character as a kid, but in all honesty having 4 villains in the same film (Harry, Marko, the black symbiote itself, and eventually Venom) was just too much at once. From the standpoint of a fan, I'd have preferred that Venom be saved for a future entry, so he could have taken center stage. By having him alongside both Marko and Harry Osborn, the story became rather confusing for many fans, and the film's box office suffered as a direct result. Overall, this film made less money across the board than its predecessor...all because of corporate greed.
That being said, I still enjoy the film on many levels, but knowing what caused the multi-arc story makes some moments bittersweet. The actors clearly enjoyed this ride, but something in general seemed a bit lacking. Looking back, I realize it was the Venom character. The fact of it essentially being forced into the narrative only made the tale confusing and hard to follow. It became one of those films many people have to watch more than once, just to understand it...and these days, audiences don't have a lot of patience for films with too many angles. Rightfully so, in my opinion.
Tobey Maguire, slipping into the spandex suit for a third try, really shows his acting range here, even more so than his diverse performance in "Spider-Man 2". From intense love to seething hatred (and everything in between), he really brings his game up to a whole new level. Kirsten Dunst shines again as Parker's star-crossed love, Mary Jane Watson. I liked her performance very much, and her singing in the film is beautiful. She's less helpless than in either prior entry, and far more confident. Bryce Dallas Howard (daughter of acclaimed director Ron) makes her first apearance in the franchise as the bubbling, exuberant, and gorgeous Gwen Stacy. I liked her character, but felt she didn't have much to do in the long run.
James Franco does an equally-remarkable turn, finally completing the journey that began at the end of the original film. He gives Harry a blend of jealousy, mystique, and severe determination. He also revisits the lighter tones of his role, for the scenes where Harry has amnesia. And in the finale, he shows that in his heart, Harry was truly a hero. Thomas Haden Church gave Marko both sentiment and menace, and turned what was originally a two-bit thug into a far more interesting character. Topher Grace played the "creepy" card as Venom, and gave Eddie Brock a know-it-all arrogance that makes you almost feel disgusted.
Aside from the criticisms surrounding Venom, I honestly didn't have a lot for this entry. Mary Jane is no longer in a water-drenched position (thank God!), so I was very relieved. I guess my main concern was that there were too many villians should of just stuck with Harry and Venom or Harry and sandman. And for anyone who asks why i haven't put the dancing scenes as a negative. I get a kick out of them what can i say?
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Last Christmas (2019) in Movies
Nov 25, 2019
Alas, Christmas
Oh Dear! Now I wouldn't go as far as saying I had "high hopes" for this film, but as a real fan of the goo-fest that is "Love Actually" I at least thought this might fill some seasonal void in the run up to the festive season. "Best Christmas film of the decade!!" screams the marketing. Er... no.
This review will be spoiler free.
The plot: Kate (Emilia Clarke) is an immigrant from the former-Yugoslavia now living in London. She has a dead-end job working for "Santa" (Michelle Yeoh) in a Christmas shop in Covent Garden. She is perennially lubricated both with drink and other bodily fluids thanks to her hedonistic lifestyle. And she really likes George Michael.
But life just seems vacuous and to have no purpose for her anymore. Her composure is not helped by her mother (Emma Thompson) constantly fussing about her health, since Kate has only recently recovered from a serious illness.
Dropping into her life then comes Tom (Henry Golding). Smartly dressed and calmly reassuring, Tom seems to have the potential to start turning Kate's life around. But is she prepared to listen?
There are startling similarities here with Phoebe Waller-Bridge's triumphant tribute to hedonistic 30-something sex-addicted females everywhere.... "Fleabag". Kate is similarly louche, hopping from bed to bed in a heartbeat. She has a dysfunctional family and - most strikingly - she has a particularly difficult relationship with her high-achieving sister. This is not helped by a remarkable similarity between the actress playing Marta (Lydia Leonard ) and Fleabag's Clare (Sian Clifford). But whereas Fleabag is both brilliantly written, heart-rending and hilarious, this simply is not.
There were a total of two laughs in the movie for me. Period. Both were lines delivered by Emma Thompson, and if you've seen the film you probably know the ones. Now, I'm aware that Thompson co-wrote the script and she is, of course, a national acting treasure. But here the script is clunky and all of the "comic" scenes are so laboured and forced that they land like leaden weights.
And some of it makes no sense whatsoever. There is some strange Danish sauerkraut salesman (Peter Mygind) with a crush on "Santa". He suddenly appears in the shop acting like some escaped mental patient. When he first appears, acting bizarrely, you think, "oh, there must be some fascinating backstory between these two - a murky past they are trying to rekindle". But no! This is the first time they have EVER met? It's completely bonkers!
Much was made of this being Michelle Yeoh's "first comedy". Sorry, but if she proves anything here it is that she is not a comic actress.
Emilia Clarke is still looking to land in a decent mainstream role outside "Game of Thrones", after a failed Terminator sequel, a half-decent weepie ("Me Before You") and the commercial failure that was "Solo". Here she certainly looks curvaciously cute as the Christmas elf. But unfortunately cute can't save her from the car-crash of a script.
Similarly Henry Golding is well-dressed eye-candy for the ladies, almost doing a re-tread of his cool and laid-back character from the excellent "Crazy Rich Asians". Without the same need to be "zany", he fairs slightly better from the script. But again, this feels like one to shuffle into a quiet corner of his CV.
What can I say that's even remotely good about this? Three things:
1) London. It looks glorious, decked out in lights like some chocolate-box-cover cum tourist-board publicity shot. London is one of the most photogenic cities on the planet, and I could relate to Tom's mantra to "look up" and see all of the architectural quirks and foibles that exist around every corner in that wonderful city;
2) The payoff. Exactly when you get the payoff will depend on how much you know going in (if you've managed to avoid the trailer... continue to avoid it!) and how attentive you are. There's an "aha!" moment. And it's nicely played out.
3) There's a topical xenophobic Brexit angle, that's a little clumsy in the exposition but - in my view - is good for the telling.
This is a movie desperately trying to blend "Love Actually" with another Christmas classic (no... not "Die Hard"... but to say more would introduce spoilers!) But in my view it misses badly.
The director is Paul Feig, famous for "Bridesmaids" and "Spy" and infamous for the female "Ghostbusters" reboot.
There are clearly lovers of this film. At the time of writing it has made an impressive $51M on its $25M budget. But I went with another three cinema-goers from my family, all of differing ages and sentiments: and we all universally agreed on the rating for this one.
(For the graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/25/one-manns-movies-film-review-last-christmas-2019/ . Thanks).
This review will be spoiler free.
The plot: Kate (Emilia Clarke) is an immigrant from the former-Yugoslavia now living in London. She has a dead-end job working for "Santa" (Michelle Yeoh) in a Christmas shop in Covent Garden. She is perennially lubricated both with drink and other bodily fluids thanks to her hedonistic lifestyle. And she really likes George Michael.
But life just seems vacuous and to have no purpose for her anymore. Her composure is not helped by her mother (Emma Thompson) constantly fussing about her health, since Kate has only recently recovered from a serious illness.
Dropping into her life then comes Tom (Henry Golding). Smartly dressed and calmly reassuring, Tom seems to have the potential to start turning Kate's life around. But is she prepared to listen?
There are startling similarities here with Phoebe Waller-Bridge's triumphant tribute to hedonistic 30-something sex-addicted females everywhere.... "Fleabag". Kate is similarly louche, hopping from bed to bed in a heartbeat. She has a dysfunctional family and - most strikingly - she has a particularly difficult relationship with her high-achieving sister. This is not helped by a remarkable similarity between the actress playing Marta (Lydia Leonard ) and Fleabag's Clare (Sian Clifford). But whereas Fleabag is both brilliantly written, heart-rending and hilarious, this simply is not.
There were a total of two laughs in the movie for me. Period. Both were lines delivered by Emma Thompson, and if you've seen the film you probably know the ones. Now, I'm aware that Thompson co-wrote the script and she is, of course, a national acting treasure. But here the script is clunky and all of the "comic" scenes are so laboured and forced that they land like leaden weights.
And some of it makes no sense whatsoever. There is some strange Danish sauerkraut salesman (Peter Mygind) with a crush on "Santa". He suddenly appears in the shop acting like some escaped mental patient. When he first appears, acting bizarrely, you think, "oh, there must be some fascinating backstory between these two - a murky past they are trying to rekindle". But no! This is the first time they have EVER met? It's completely bonkers!
Much was made of this being Michelle Yeoh's "first comedy". Sorry, but if she proves anything here it is that she is not a comic actress.
Emilia Clarke is still looking to land in a decent mainstream role outside "Game of Thrones", after a failed Terminator sequel, a half-decent weepie ("Me Before You") and the commercial failure that was "Solo". Here she certainly looks curvaciously cute as the Christmas elf. But unfortunately cute can't save her from the car-crash of a script.
Similarly Henry Golding is well-dressed eye-candy for the ladies, almost doing a re-tread of his cool and laid-back character from the excellent "Crazy Rich Asians". Without the same need to be "zany", he fairs slightly better from the script. But again, this feels like one to shuffle into a quiet corner of his CV.
What can I say that's even remotely good about this? Three things:
1) London. It looks glorious, decked out in lights like some chocolate-box-cover cum tourist-board publicity shot. London is one of the most photogenic cities on the planet, and I could relate to Tom's mantra to "look up" and see all of the architectural quirks and foibles that exist around every corner in that wonderful city;
2) The payoff. Exactly when you get the payoff will depend on how much you know going in (if you've managed to avoid the trailer... continue to avoid it!) and how attentive you are. There's an "aha!" moment. And it's nicely played out.
3) There's a topical xenophobic Brexit angle, that's a little clumsy in the exposition but - in my view - is good for the telling.
This is a movie desperately trying to blend "Love Actually" with another Christmas classic (no... not "Die Hard"... but to say more would introduce spoilers!) But in my view it misses badly.
The director is Paul Feig, famous for "Bridesmaids" and "Spy" and infamous for the female "Ghostbusters" reboot.
There are clearly lovers of this film. At the time of writing it has made an impressive $51M on its $25M budget. But I went with another three cinema-goers from my family, all of differing ages and sentiments: and we all universally agreed on the rating for this one.
(For the graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/25/one-manns-movies-film-review-last-christmas-2019/ . Thanks).
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Underwater (2020) in Movies
Mar 5, 2020
Underwater was in my top picks for February, it looked like a cross between Deep Rising, Alien and a selection of Doctor Who episodes... I was definitely in.
Down on a drilling station in the Mariana Trench the researchers and crew are thrown into chaos as an earthquake rips through the facility. Desperately trying to get to their escape pods the handful of remaining crew gather to assess their options. They're short on equipment and their best hope appears to be making it to another part of the complex, the only problem? It's 2 miles across the ocean floor... in the pitch black... without a craft. Oh, and unbeknownst to them, they're not alone.
The film does a great job of its opening, diagrams, reports and images of the station and their mission give us instant background which allows us to drop right into (what feels like) the middle of a scene. It reminds me of various monster movies with some of the recent Godzilla ones having similar montages, I like it because there's always something new to pick up when you watch the film again. The other thing the opening does is use sound in a very interesting way, the music builds and when we land in the station it instantly cuts and gives you a feeling of isolation. Sandwich that with the chaos of the earthquake soon after and it gives you a very odd and almost uncomfortable feeling.
While I was impressed by the opening I was also confused. There's a moment where you see a massive horror trope that doesn't actually go anywhere, it was like some strange red herring. It felt like a deliberate misdirect, but I have no idea what the purpose would have been for it.
My mixed feelings didn't end there, in the ensuing chaos we get a slow-motion shot of Stewart flying backwards in an explosion... it didn't fit with any of the style around it and was the last effect I expected to see.
Shortly after this I was dealt another blow when they access the last transmission from another part of the station. These are peak creature feature moments, cast get to gasp and scream in distress and it gives us a sneak peek of what's to come... what we got wasn't clear and wasn't intriguing. Underwater is a film filled with classic tropes of multiple genres and yet it doesn't seem to carry through with any of them.
As the cast get out into the water the film does start to pick up. Cutting from helmet cam footage to inside the suits with the characters starts to build some of that intrigue that's been missing. It gets a little more claustrophobic and finally feels like the films I'd been hoping for.
This whole section is filled with great moments because we're finally becoming aware of a presence with them. In some ways it reminds me of Blair Witch, it does well to hide from us what they're actually up against, it's just a shadow or a movement on the edge of the light. That really got me back on board.
But these feelings were fleeting. All the tension was broken again. I do wonder if someone went "the tension should come in waves... because... water". The constant up and down didn't work for me.
From this point on I didn't feel much for the film. It's clear from the building of the story how the film is going to end, and even the big reveal moments weren't exciting.
Kristen Stewart has been appearing in a lot of things recently and I've never been a big fan but I was looking forward to her in this off the back of the last couple of films I saw her in. The most I can say is it was fine, there weren't any moments I hated, there weren't any that wowed me. The same is true for most of the cast in fact. I enjoyed T.J. Miller's comedic role but the light-heartedness it brought also became a little frustrating as the scripting seemed unnecessarily crass at time.
I can't fault the effects, it felt right and the magnitude of what they created underwater, and how they filmed it felt solid. With a little less underwater and a little more creature though, I think they would have been on to something.
The rollercoaster ride this story went on left me exhausted. The momentum was repeatedly lost and the intrigue wasn't there to hook me in. I can tell you that I will watch it again though. I know, after I just moaned about it and everything! There's definitely something in this film and I'm still struggling as to the reasons why it didn't click more with me, it feels like this is one that might benefit from a second viewing.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/underwater-movie-review.html
Down on a drilling station in the Mariana Trench the researchers and crew are thrown into chaos as an earthquake rips through the facility. Desperately trying to get to their escape pods the handful of remaining crew gather to assess their options. They're short on equipment and their best hope appears to be making it to another part of the complex, the only problem? It's 2 miles across the ocean floor... in the pitch black... without a craft. Oh, and unbeknownst to them, they're not alone.
The film does a great job of its opening, diagrams, reports and images of the station and their mission give us instant background which allows us to drop right into (what feels like) the middle of a scene. It reminds me of various monster movies with some of the recent Godzilla ones having similar montages, I like it because there's always something new to pick up when you watch the film again. The other thing the opening does is use sound in a very interesting way, the music builds and when we land in the station it instantly cuts and gives you a feeling of isolation. Sandwich that with the chaos of the earthquake soon after and it gives you a very odd and almost uncomfortable feeling.
While I was impressed by the opening I was also confused. There's a moment where you see a massive horror trope that doesn't actually go anywhere, it was like some strange red herring. It felt like a deliberate misdirect, but I have no idea what the purpose would have been for it.
My mixed feelings didn't end there, in the ensuing chaos we get a slow-motion shot of Stewart flying backwards in an explosion... it didn't fit with any of the style around it and was the last effect I expected to see.
Shortly after this I was dealt another blow when they access the last transmission from another part of the station. These are peak creature feature moments, cast get to gasp and scream in distress and it gives us a sneak peek of what's to come... what we got wasn't clear and wasn't intriguing. Underwater is a film filled with classic tropes of multiple genres and yet it doesn't seem to carry through with any of them.
As the cast get out into the water the film does start to pick up. Cutting from helmet cam footage to inside the suits with the characters starts to build some of that intrigue that's been missing. It gets a little more claustrophobic and finally feels like the films I'd been hoping for.
This whole section is filled with great moments because we're finally becoming aware of a presence with them. In some ways it reminds me of Blair Witch, it does well to hide from us what they're actually up against, it's just a shadow or a movement on the edge of the light. That really got me back on board.
But these feelings were fleeting. All the tension was broken again. I do wonder if someone went "the tension should come in waves... because... water". The constant up and down didn't work for me.
From this point on I didn't feel much for the film. It's clear from the building of the story how the film is going to end, and even the big reveal moments weren't exciting.
Kristen Stewart has been appearing in a lot of things recently and I've never been a big fan but I was looking forward to her in this off the back of the last couple of films I saw her in. The most I can say is it was fine, there weren't any moments I hated, there weren't any that wowed me. The same is true for most of the cast in fact. I enjoyed T.J. Miller's comedic role but the light-heartedness it brought also became a little frustrating as the scripting seemed unnecessarily crass at time.
I can't fault the effects, it felt right and the magnitude of what they created underwater, and how they filmed it felt solid. With a little less underwater and a little more creature though, I think they would have been on to something.
The rollercoaster ride this story went on left me exhausted. The momentum was repeatedly lost and the intrigue wasn't there to hook me in. I can tell you that I will watch it again though. I know, after I just moaned about it and everything! There's definitely something in this film and I'm still struggling as to the reasons why it didn't click more with me, it feels like this is one that might benefit from a second viewing.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/underwater-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Pixie (2020) in Movies
Nov 2, 2020
Olivia Cooke - utterly enchanting (1 more)
Just the right balance of black humour and Tarantino-esque violence
Once upon a Time in the West... of Ireland
You know sometimes when you see a trailer you think "oh yeah - this is a must see"! The trailer for "Pixie" (see below) was one such moment for me. A spaghetti western set in Sligo? With Alec Baldwin as a "deadly gangster priest"? Yes, yes, yes!
In a remote Irish church, two Irish priests and two "visiting Afghan Catholic priests" are gunned down by a couple of losers in animal masks - Fergus (Fra Fee) and Colin (Rory Fleck Byrne) - over a stash of MDMA worth a million Euros. This reignites a simmering gang war between the gangster families of Dermot O'Brien (Colm Meaney) and Father Hector McGrath (Alec Baldwin). Linking everything together is Pixie (Olivia Cooke), O'Brien's daughter, who has a magnetic effect on men. She is somehow subtly the woman controlling everything going on.
Drawn into the mayhem are hapless teens Frank (Ben Hardy) and Harland (Daryl McCormack) - both of who have the hots for Pixie - who embark on a wild and bloody road-trip around southern Ireland.
Key to your belief in the ridiculous story is that the character of Pixie has to have the beauty and charisma to utterly enslave the poor men she crosses paths with: taking a "Kalashnikov to their hearts" as drug dealer Daniel (Chris Walley) puts it. And Olivia Cooke - so good in "Ready Player One" - absolutely and completely nails the role. I'm utterly in love with her after this movie, and she's thirty years too young for me! There's a sparkle and a mischief behind her that reminded me strongly of a young Audrey Hepburn.
Supporting her really well are the "Harry and Ron" to Cooke's Hermione - Ben Hardy (Roger Taylor in "Bohemian Rhapsody") and Daryl McCormack. And the trio make a truly memorable "love triangle". A bedroom scene manages to be both quietly erotic and excruciatingly funny in equal measure.
The direction here is by Barnaby Thompson, who's better known as a producer with the only previous movie directing credits being the St Trinian's reboots in 2007/09. Here he manages to channel some of the quirky camera shots of the likes of Guy Ritchie and Matthew Vaughn and mix them with the black humour and comedic gore of Quentin Tarantino. The taciturn hit-man Seamus (Ned Dennehy) typifies the comedy on offer, using a Land Rover to drag a poor victim round in a figure of eight on a soggy moor to make him talk!
Where I think the movie wimps out a bit is in an ecclesiastical shoot-out finale. Vaughn's "Kingsman: The Secret Service" set the bar here for completely outrageous and out-there church-based violence. Here, the scene is both tame by comparison (not necessarily a bad thing!), but also highly predictable. Given this is supposed to be "a plan", none of it feels to be very well thought-through! As such, belief can only be suspended for so long.
The visuals and music are fab. The cinematography - by veteran John de Borman - makes the west Ireland coast look utterly glorious and the Irish tourist board must have been delighted. There are also some beautifully-framed shots: a boot-eye (US: trunk-eye) perspective is fabulous, and there's a gasp-inducing fade-back to Pixie's face following a flashback. And a shout-out too to the editing by Robbie Morrison, since some of the plot twists are delivered as expert surprises.
The music - by Gerry Diver and David Holmes - is also spectacularly good at propelling the action and maintaining the feel-good theme.
Where I did have issues was with the audio mix. I'm sure there were a bunch of clever one-liners buried in there, but the combination of the accents (and I've worked in Northern Ireland for 20 years and am "tuned in"!) and the sound quality meant I missed a number of them. I will need another watch with subtitles to catch them all.
Thanks to ANOTHER WRETCHED LOCKDOWN in the UK this was my last trip to the cinema for at least a month: I was one of only four viewers in the "Odeon" cinema for this showing. Because it's a great shame that so few people will get to see this (at least for a while), since its the sort of feelgood movie that we all need right now. Slick and utterly entertaining, I'll quietly predict that this one will gain a following as a mini-cult-classic when it gets to streaming services. Recommended.
(For the full graphical review, please check-out the bob the movie man review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/11/02/pixie-once-upon-a-time-in-the-west-of-ireland/. Thanks.)
In a remote Irish church, two Irish priests and two "visiting Afghan Catholic priests" are gunned down by a couple of losers in animal masks - Fergus (Fra Fee) and Colin (Rory Fleck Byrne) - over a stash of MDMA worth a million Euros. This reignites a simmering gang war between the gangster families of Dermot O'Brien (Colm Meaney) and Father Hector McGrath (Alec Baldwin). Linking everything together is Pixie (Olivia Cooke), O'Brien's daughter, who has a magnetic effect on men. She is somehow subtly the woman controlling everything going on.
Drawn into the mayhem are hapless teens Frank (Ben Hardy) and Harland (Daryl McCormack) - both of who have the hots for Pixie - who embark on a wild and bloody road-trip around southern Ireland.
Key to your belief in the ridiculous story is that the character of Pixie has to have the beauty and charisma to utterly enslave the poor men she crosses paths with: taking a "Kalashnikov to their hearts" as drug dealer Daniel (Chris Walley) puts it. And Olivia Cooke - so good in "Ready Player One" - absolutely and completely nails the role. I'm utterly in love with her after this movie, and she's thirty years too young for me! There's a sparkle and a mischief behind her that reminded me strongly of a young Audrey Hepburn.
Supporting her really well are the "Harry and Ron" to Cooke's Hermione - Ben Hardy (Roger Taylor in "Bohemian Rhapsody") and Daryl McCormack. And the trio make a truly memorable "love triangle". A bedroom scene manages to be both quietly erotic and excruciatingly funny in equal measure.
The direction here is by Barnaby Thompson, who's better known as a producer with the only previous movie directing credits being the St Trinian's reboots in 2007/09. Here he manages to channel some of the quirky camera shots of the likes of Guy Ritchie and Matthew Vaughn and mix them with the black humour and comedic gore of Quentin Tarantino. The taciturn hit-man Seamus (Ned Dennehy) typifies the comedy on offer, using a Land Rover to drag a poor victim round in a figure of eight on a soggy moor to make him talk!
Where I think the movie wimps out a bit is in an ecclesiastical shoot-out finale. Vaughn's "Kingsman: The Secret Service" set the bar here for completely outrageous and out-there church-based violence. Here, the scene is both tame by comparison (not necessarily a bad thing!), but also highly predictable. Given this is supposed to be "a plan", none of it feels to be very well thought-through! As such, belief can only be suspended for so long.
The visuals and music are fab. The cinematography - by veteran John de Borman - makes the west Ireland coast look utterly glorious and the Irish tourist board must have been delighted. There are also some beautifully-framed shots: a boot-eye (US: trunk-eye) perspective is fabulous, and there's a gasp-inducing fade-back to Pixie's face following a flashback. And a shout-out too to the editing by Robbie Morrison, since some of the plot twists are delivered as expert surprises.
The music - by Gerry Diver and David Holmes - is also spectacularly good at propelling the action and maintaining the feel-good theme.
Where I did have issues was with the audio mix. I'm sure there were a bunch of clever one-liners buried in there, but the combination of the accents (and I've worked in Northern Ireland for 20 years and am "tuned in"!) and the sound quality meant I missed a number of them. I will need another watch with subtitles to catch them all.
Thanks to ANOTHER WRETCHED LOCKDOWN in the UK this was my last trip to the cinema for at least a month: I was one of only four viewers in the "Odeon" cinema for this showing. Because it's a great shame that so few people will get to see this (at least for a while), since its the sort of feelgood movie that we all need right now. Slick and utterly entertaining, I'll quietly predict that this one will gain a following as a mini-cult-classic when it gets to streaming services. Recommended.
(For the full graphical review, please check-out the bob the movie man review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/11/02/pixie-once-upon-a-time-in-the-west-of-ireland/. Thanks.)
