Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Pet Sematary (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Yes, I'm a scared cat and bailed out on the Unlimited Screening of this. Those of you on Twitter know that I prefer my horrors to be brightly lit with ample opportunity to scream at the idiots on the screen who are quite clearly going to get themselves killed. That being said, I did decide to see it after reading some general comments after the screening. I believe the phrase I used was "Suck it up, Emma. You can do this."
Pet Sematary is obviously a remake but as I understand it they've made a fair few tweaks to give viewers something a bit different. The premise is still the same though.
After the Creeds move into their new home they discover that the woods on their property are home to a pet cemetery that has quite a local tradition. When their cat, Church, dies on the road outside their house the neighbour overs to help Louis find a spot to bury him. Jud realises that Ellie will be devastated at the loss and leads Louis out to a remote and unusual spot to bury Church. What he doesn't tell him is that Church won't stay buried for long.
Jason Clarke is getting some great screen time this year what with The Aftermath and Serenity (which I hope to catch sometime soon). I liked how he managed to play the sceptic in this, he's a man of science which has a set of rules but the longer he spends in their new surrounds the more he becomes changed by them. He's also a great contrast with his wife and watching them trying to explain death to their daughter was captured in a very interesting way.
Amy Seimetz as Rachel felt a little underwhelming as a character, the backstory she has is odd on its own but having it pop up sporadically through the film felt confusing. I don't know whether it's the same storyline as was in the book but something a little less bizarre felt like it would have worked better and left you with less unanswered questions.
John Lithgow is always a favourite of mine and this performance was no exception. Sort of like the old man shovelling snow in Home Alone he comes across as scary until you realise he's not so bad after all. I'm intrigued by his character though, Jud should surely be much less friendly and changed because of his experiences with the woods, and yet he's fairly normal. The only thing that I was a little disappointed with was that his backstory was very obvious... and to be honest given all the trouble he's had you'd think he'd be a little more cautious.
Our little leading lady certainly has a flair for the demonic and I actually found her to be a much better offering after her unfortunate incident. From what I understand it's her little brother that dies in the original, but in my head I can't see that working very well. They do try and bring him into the story with a slightly supernatural ability to see the dead but it felt a little forced and perhaps it would have been better to just bypass it completely.
If you read my reviews every so often I'm sure you're aware of my dislike for cameras that move erratically. I was aware that we felt to be constantly on the move and it made for a challenging watch. Pet Sematary also featured my least favourite of all the shots, the overhead pan that sets off my motion sickness. Opening the film with a sweeping shot of the forest nearly had me passed out on the floor, and to my joy we also get a brief reprise of this towards the end.
Apart from the camera work that wasn't to my liking there wasn't a lot that I found out of place with the production itself apart from one moment that jumped out at me. When that monstrous little bastard of a cat lured Ellie out into the road we get what is a surprisingly well thought out scene, I was onboard and engrossed and then there were some terrible digital effects involving the truck that stuck out like a sore thumb.
Stephen King and I have a very patchy history with adaptations. I often feel like he writes a fantastic story and then realises he hasn't worked out how to end it and just goe "Boom! Aliens!" I'm looking hard at Under The Dome here, nearly 40 hours of my life... for aliens! Needless to say I was quite pleased that there was some "reasonable" explanation for everything that was happening. Not a single alien in sight and the ending wrapped with a nice ominous vibe that made me glad they hadn't gone with a happily ever after scenario.
Apart from the camera work and the cheap ass jumping scares this wasn't such a bad film. If you ignore the things that don't make sense, like why are parents letting their creepy children give their dead pets a procession through another person's property... or why does the "pet sematary" actually have nothing to do with the resurrections... or why do they walk through about five miles of Star Wars-esque forest and swamp to a random mountain to do the ritual... yeah, if you ignore those things it isn't too bad.
What you should do
It's not a bad horror to watch and if you aren't a big ol' chicken like me then you might want to see it on the big screen.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
What I would like is something very specific, like genie wish specific, I want Church... but I want him in his curly looking death state... without the death. No smell, no blood, no guts, no demonic hell beast, just the regular cat type of hell beast.
Pet Sematary is obviously a remake but as I understand it they've made a fair few tweaks to give viewers something a bit different. The premise is still the same though.
After the Creeds move into their new home they discover that the woods on their property are home to a pet cemetery that has quite a local tradition. When their cat, Church, dies on the road outside their house the neighbour overs to help Louis find a spot to bury him. Jud realises that Ellie will be devastated at the loss and leads Louis out to a remote and unusual spot to bury Church. What he doesn't tell him is that Church won't stay buried for long.
Jason Clarke is getting some great screen time this year what with The Aftermath and Serenity (which I hope to catch sometime soon). I liked how he managed to play the sceptic in this, he's a man of science which has a set of rules but the longer he spends in their new surrounds the more he becomes changed by them. He's also a great contrast with his wife and watching them trying to explain death to their daughter was captured in a very interesting way.
Amy Seimetz as Rachel felt a little underwhelming as a character, the backstory she has is odd on its own but having it pop up sporadically through the film felt confusing. I don't know whether it's the same storyline as was in the book but something a little less bizarre felt like it would have worked better and left you with less unanswered questions.
John Lithgow is always a favourite of mine and this performance was no exception. Sort of like the old man shovelling snow in Home Alone he comes across as scary until you realise he's not so bad after all. I'm intrigued by his character though, Jud should surely be much less friendly and changed because of his experiences with the woods, and yet he's fairly normal. The only thing that I was a little disappointed with was that his backstory was very obvious... and to be honest given all the trouble he's had you'd think he'd be a little more cautious.
Our little leading lady certainly has a flair for the demonic and I actually found her to be a much better offering after her unfortunate incident. From what I understand it's her little brother that dies in the original, but in my head I can't see that working very well. They do try and bring him into the story with a slightly supernatural ability to see the dead but it felt a little forced and perhaps it would have been better to just bypass it completely.
If you read my reviews every so often I'm sure you're aware of my dislike for cameras that move erratically. I was aware that we felt to be constantly on the move and it made for a challenging watch. Pet Sematary also featured my least favourite of all the shots, the overhead pan that sets off my motion sickness. Opening the film with a sweeping shot of the forest nearly had me passed out on the floor, and to my joy we also get a brief reprise of this towards the end.
Apart from the camera work that wasn't to my liking there wasn't a lot that I found out of place with the production itself apart from one moment that jumped out at me. When that monstrous little bastard of a cat lured Ellie out into the road we get what is a surprisingly well thought out scene, I was onboard and engrossed and then there were some terrible digital effects involving the truck that stuck out like a sore thumb.
Stephen King and I have a very patchy history with adaptations. I often feel like he writes a fantastic story and then realises he hasn't worked out how to end it and just goe "Boom! Aliens!" I'm looking hard at Under The Dome here, nearly 40 hours of my life... for aliens! Needless to say I was quite pleased that there was some "reasonable" explanation for everything that was happening. Not a single alien in sight and the ending wrapped with a nice ominous vibe that made me glad they hadn't gone with a happily ever after scenario.
Apart from the camera work and the cheap ass jumping scares this wasn't such a bad film. If you ignore the things that don't make sense, like why are parents letting their creepy children give their dead pets a procession through another person's property... or why does the "pet sematary" actually have nothing to do with the resurrections... or why do they walk through about five miles of Star Wars-esque forest and swamp to a random mountain to do the ritual... yeah, if you ignore those things it isn't too bad.
What you should do
It's not a bad horror to watch and if you aren't a big ol' chicken like me then you might want to see it on the big screen.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
What I would like is something very specific, like genie wish specific, I want Church... but I want him in his curly looking death state... without the death. No smell, no blood, no guts, no demonic hell beast, just the regular cat type of hell beast.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Five years after Godzilla saved us from the MUTO attack the world (or some of it at least) wants to see an end to the potential threat of the Titans. Monarch are studying them and hiding them away from the world, but there are calls to destroy the monsters before more devastation befalls the planet?
Dr Emma Russell has developed the Orca, a device that communicates with the Titans and can be used to calm them and stop any further destruction. Not everyone has the same idea about how to use the Orca though and it's taken, along with Dr Russell and her daughter Madison, after its successful test run. The race is on to recover the device and avert the impending crisis.
Godzilla is one of my favourite monsters. For years the 1998 film with Matthew Broderick and Jean Reno in it was one of my favourite films. I also love the "proper" Godzilla movies where they destroy Tokyo at every given opportunity. To have new films felt like a wonderful thing... until I saw 2014 Godzilla. I rewatched it before going to see King Of The Monsters and I remembered how underwhelmed I was. The characters didn't grab me and I found the whole thing uninspiring. The prospect of a second wasn't great, but then I saw the trailers, they were spectacular.
I really enjoyed this and went to see it again in 3D, a much more peaceful screening than the first viewing. The girl who was sitting a couple of seats away was animatedly jumping at every opportunity, her reaction was far scarier than anything that happened on the screen.
This was much improved on the last instalment. I loved that it embraced the original films and the fact that it switched its focus more to the monsters than the humans. You go to a monster movie to see monsters, and Godzilla 2014 felt like it had forgotten that fact.
If I had to describe this film to someone I'd say it was a combination of Infinity War and Jurassic Park, just with slightly larger monsters... yep, I'm fairly happy with that comparison. I may have been imagining it but I felt like there were a few nods to JP jumbled in there... maybe that's just me.
There's a collection of recognisable faces in the cast and I don't think there's a single person who underperforms. I thought that Millie Bobby Brown gave a great performance as Madison, she managed to give us a child character that wasn't particularly annoying, which may actually be a first in creature features.
Charles Dance makes an excellent bad guy, there's something about his look, a cross between a vampire and the restaurant critic from Ratatouille that works for me. He also gets to have a great moment of silent humour with Brown when they're in a lift together, it was very unexpected for their potential on-screen relationship.
We get to see four of our Titans in this movie as main players. Godzilla, obvs, Mothra, Rodan and Monster Zero, or King Ghidorah to his friends. The sheer scale they've gone to is amazing, and I thought the way they were created with their individual traits was beautiful. The one drawback to the beautiful glowing monster bodies is that the scenes have to be fairly dark to appreciate that aspect. They manage to use those aspects of the creatures to give the extra lighting the scenes need meaning that you get something that's both dark and scary as well as light and hopeful. The colours were something that really stood out to me in the advertising, the lightness of the blue and green against the anger of the orange and yellow, it shows the good and evil relationship really well.
The size of the creatures is mad and sometimes a little impossible to gauge, we get a few moments where we're given some perspective with man-made structures but they do a good job of trying to get it across in basic visual techniques too. You see a lot of them from "human" angles, from the ground running, from buildings and vehicles. It feels like an exercise in shock and awe and takes you back to Dr Serizawa's point at the beginning of the film that we're Godzilla's pets, it's not the other way around.
The effects/animation looked solid, at no point did I see anything on-screen that drew my attention away from the action. One moment in particular stood out and that was a large explosion somewhere in the middle of the movie. It was given an old fashioned kind of a look and it gave me the impression that they'd really looked at things that had come before it for inspiration.
You have to obviously accept the facts that in these sorts of films, parents will willingly put their children in immense danger, bad guys will always have prepared a short video presentation to explain their motivations and just because there's destruction happening all around you does not mean you will die. It's got all the classic monster/disaster movie moments that you love to hate in it. "Movie Reality" is awesome.
If you couldn't already tell, I loved this. Much improvement from the last instalment and an entertaining action-packed addition to the monsterverse. Oscar winner? Probably not. Entertaining escapism? Most definitely. I am a little concerned about how the story will progress from here. They had plenty of scope for lots of movies after some of the things they showed in the film, but the events of KotM mean that there's little room to move with it all, we'll have to see what happens in Godzilla Vs Kong next year.
What you should do
This really deserves to be seen on the big screen. The sound and the effects combine to make some great viewing.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
If they could adapt the Orca for human use I'd be interested.
Dr Emma Russell has developed the Orca, a device that communicates with the Titans and can be used to calm them and stop any further destruction. Not everyone has the same idea about how to use the Orca though and it's taken, along with Dr Russell and her daughter Madison, after its successful test run. The race is on to recover the device and avert the impending crisis.
Godzilla is one of my favourite monsters. For years the 1998 film with Matthew Broderick and Jean Reno in it was one of my favourite films. I also love the "proper" Godzilla movies where they destroy Tokyo at every given opportunity. To have new films felt like a wonderful thing... until I saw 2014 Godzilla. I rewatched it before going to see King Of The Monsters and I remembered how underwhelmed I was. The characters didn't grab me and I found the whole thing uninspiring. The prospect of a second wasn't great, but then I saw the trailers, they were spectacular.
I really enjoyed this and went to see it again in 3D, a much more peaceful screening than the first viewing. The girl who was sitting a couple of seats away was animatedly jumping at every opportunity, her reaction was far scarier than anything that happened on the screen.
This was much improved on the last instalment. I loved that it embraced the original films and the fact that it switched its focus more to the monsters than the humans. You go to a monster movie to see monsters, and Godzilla 2014 felt like it had forgotten that fact.
If I had to describe this film to someone I'd say it was a combination of Infinity War and Jurassic Park, just with slightly larger monsters... yep, I'm fairly happy with that comparison. I may have been imagining it but I felt like there were a few nods to JP jumbled in there... maybe that's just me.
There's a collection of recognisable faces in the cast and I don't think there's a single person who underperforms. I thought that Millie Bobby Brown gave a great performance as Madison, she managed to give us a child character that wasn't particularly annoying, which may actually be a first in creature features.
Charles Dance makes an excellent bad guy, there's something about his look, a cross between a vampire and the restaurant critic from Ratatouille that works for me. He also gets to have a great moment of silent humour with Brown when they're in a lift together, it was very unexpected for their potential on-screen relationship.
We get to see four of our Titans in this movie as main players. Godzilla, obvs, Mothra, Rodan and Monster Zero, or King Ghidorah to his friends. The sheer scale they've gone to is amazing, and I thought the way they were created with their individual traits was beautiful. The one drawback to the beautiful glowing monster bodies is that the scenes have to be fairly dark to appreciate that aspect. They manage to use those aspects of the creatures to give the extra lighting the scenes need meaning that you get something that's both dark and scary as well as light and hopeful. The colours were something that really stood out to me in the advertising, the lightness of the blue and green against the anger of the orange and yellow, it shows the good and evil relationship really well.
The size of the creatures is mad and sometimes a little impossible to gauge, we get a few moments where we're given some perspective with man-made structures but they do a good job of trying to get it across in basic visual techniques too. You see a lot of them from "human" angles, from the ground running, from buildings and vehicles. It feels like an exercise in shock and awe and takes you back to Dr Serizawa's point at the beginning of the film that we're Godzilla's pets, it's not the other way around.
The effects/animation looked solid, at no point did I see anything on-screen that drew my attention away from the action. One moment in particular stood out and that was a large explosion somewhere in the middle of the movie. It was given an old fashioned kind of a look and it gave me the impression that they'd really looked at things that had come before it for inspiration.
You have to obviously accept the facts that in these sorts of films, parents will willingly put their children in immense danger, bad guys will always have prepared a short video presentation to explain their motivations and just because there's destruction happening all around you does not mean you will die. It's got all the classic monster/disaster movie moments that you love to hate in it. "Movie Reality" is awesome.
If you couldn't already tell, I loved this. Much improvement from the last instalment and an entertaining action-packed addition to the monsterverse. Oscar winner? Probably not. Entertaining escapism? Most definitely. I am a little concerned about how the story will progress from here. They had plenty of scope for lots of movies after some of the things they showed in the film, but the events of KotM mean that there's little room to move with it all, we'll have to see what happens in Godzilla Vs Kong next year.
What you should do
This really deserves to be seen on the big screen. The sound and the effects combine to make some great viewing.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
If they could adapt the Orca for human use I'd be interested.
The Bandersnatch (199 KP) rated The Hunchback of Notre-Dame in Books
Nov 7, 2019
The Hunchback of Notre Dame is set in 1829's Paris, France where the gypsy Esmeralda (Born Agnes) captures the hearts of several men including captain Phoebus and Pierre Gringoire but especially Quasimodo the bell ringer and his guardian the Archdeacon Claude Frollo.
Frollo orders Quasimodo to bring Esmeralda to him and after a lot of chaos where the guards under Phoebus capture Quasimodo, Gringoire is knocked out and only rescued from hanging when Esmeralda saves him with promise of marriage and Quasimodo flogged and placed on a pillory for several hours of public exposure. When Esmeralda is accused of attempted murder Quasimodo helps by giving her space in the cathedral of Notre Dame under law of sanctuary. Frollo finds out that the court of parliament has voted the removal of Esmeralda's right for sanctuary and orders her to be taken and killed. Clopin the head of the gypsies hears this and leads a rescue party to help Esmeralda. During the chaos Quasimodo mistakes who is wanting to help the Gypsy he loves and ends up in aiding in her arrest. Frollo after failing to win her love betrays Esmeralda and sends her to be hung. Frollo laughs as Esmeralda dies and is pushed from the top of the Cathedral by Quasimodo. Quasimodo dies of starvation after joining Esmeralda's body in the cemetery.
Victor Hugo began writing the book in 1829The novels original title was Notre Dame de Paris, it was largely to make his contemporaries more aware of the value of the Gothic architecture, Notre Dame Cathedral had been in disrepair at the time and along with other buildings which were neglected and often destroyed to be replaced by new buildings or defaced by replacement of parts of buildings in a newer style. During the summer of 1830 Gosselin demanded that Hugo complete the book by February 1831, Hugo -starting in September 1830- worked non stop on the book finishing it six months later. Several ballets, comics, TV show, theatre, music, musical theatre and films have been inspired by The Hunchback of Notre Dame most notably has been the 1996 Walt Disney animated movie of the same name.
I think that The Hunchback of Notre Dame is a very prolific book which promotes the fact that it doesn't matter what you look like on the outside, its how you deal with people and what is on the inside that counts. The books portrayal of the romantic era as an extreme through the architecture, passion and religion as well as the exploration of determinism, revolution and social strife adds to the ultimately magical make up of the book. I believe that most people would see themselves in the position of Quasimodo, Esmeralda and Phoebus rather than that of Frollo. I know I certainly wouldn't see myself otherwise.
Victor Marie Hugo was born on February 26th 1802 in Besançon. eastern Franche-Combe as the third son of Joseph Leopold Sigisbert Hugo (1774-1828) and Sophie Trebuchet (1772-1821). Victor was a French poet, novelist and dramatist of the romantic movement, he's also considered one of the greatest and best known French writers. Victors childhood was a period of national political turmoil with Napoleon being proclaimed Emperor two years after he was born and the Bourbon monarchy was restored before his 13th birthday. His parents held vastly different political and religious views which prompted a brief separation in 1803, during that time Hugo's mother dominated his education and upbringing. Hugos work reflected her devotion to king and faith. However during the events leading up to France's 1848 revolution, Hugos work changed to that of Republicanism and free thought. Hugo went on to married to his childhood sweetheart Adele Foucher in 1822 and they had five children.
Victor Hugo's works hold a vast collection of poetry, novels and music. His first Novel Han D'Islande was published in 1823 and he published five volumes of poetry between 1829 and 1840 which cemented his reputation as a great elagiac and lyric poet. Hugos first mature work of fiction was published in February 1829 by Charles Gosselin without his name attached, this would infuse with his later work Le Dernier Jour d'un Condamne (The last day of a Condemned man) and go on to not only influence other writers including Charles Dickens and Albert Camus, and be a precursor to Hugo's work Les Miserables published in 1862.
After three attempts Hugo was finally elected to Academie francaise in 1841and in 1845 King Louis-Phillipe elevated him to the peerage and in 1848 he was elected to the national assembly of the second republic. When Louis Napoleon the 3rd seized power in 1851 Hugo openly declared him a traitor to France then relocated to Brussels, Jersey (where he was thrown out of for supporting a paper criticising Queen Victoria) and ending up in guernsey where he remained an exile until 1870. after returning to France a hero in 1870 Hugo spent the rest of his life writing and just living and died from pneumonia on may 22nd 1885 at the age of 83. He was given a state funeral by degree of president Jules Grevy, more than two million people joined his funeral procession in Paris which went form the Arc Du Triomphe to the Pantheon where he was consequently buried, he shared a crypt with Alexandre Dumas and Emile Zola. Most French towns and cities have streets named after him.
Victor Hugo in my opinion is one of those naturally born creative souls who had felt compelled to both write and at least try to make the world a better place. He definitely attempted to do so from the positions he accumulated in his life time and despite this the three mistresses he had in his later years definitely shows that his love life left something to be desired.
And there you have it a book for all the ages, its definitely under the banner of AWESOME!!!.
Frollo orders Quasimodo to bring Esmeralda to him and after a lot of chaos where the guards under Phoebus capture Quasimodo, Gringoire is knocked out and only rescued from hanging when Esmeralda saves him with promise of marriage and Quasimodo flogged and placed on a pillory for several hours of public exposure. When Esmeralda is accused of attempted murder Quasimodo helps by giving her space in the cathedral of Notre Dame under law of sanctuary. Frollo finds out that the court of parliament has voted the removal of Esmeralda's right for sanctuary and orders her to be taken and killed. Clopin the head of the gypsies hears this and leads a rescue party to help Esmeralda. During the chaos Quasimodo mistakes who is wanting to help the Gypsy he loves and ends up in aiding in her arrest. Frollo after failing to win her love betrays Esmeralda and sends her to be hung. Frollo laughs as Esmeralda dies and is pushed from the top of the Cathedral by Quasimodo. Quasimodo dies of starvation after joining Esmeralda's body in the cemetery.
Victor Hugo began writing the book in 1829The novels original title was Notre Dame de Paris, it was largely to make his contemporaries more aware of the value of the Gothic architecture, Notre Dame Cathedral had been in disrepair at the time and along with other buildings which were neglected and often destroyed to be replaced by new buildings or defaced by replacement of parts of buildings in a newer style. During the summer of 1830 Gosselin demanded that Hugo complete the book by February 1831, Hugo -starting in September 1830- worked non stop on the book finishing it six months later. Several ballets, comics, TV show, theatre, music, musical theatre and films have been inspired by The Hunchback of Notre Dame most notably has been the 1996 Walt Disney animated movie of the same name.
I think that The Hunchback of Notre Dame is a very prolific book which promotes the fact that it doesn't matter what you look like on the outside, its how you deal with people and what is on the inside that counts. The books portrayal of the romantic era as an extreme through the architecture, passion and religion as well as the exploration of determinism, revolution and social strife adds to the ultimately magical make up of the book. I believe that most people would see themselves in the position of Quasimodo, Esmeralda and Phoebus rather than that of Frollo. I know I certainly wouldn't see myself otherwise.
Victor Marie Hugo was born on February 26th 1802 in Besançon. eastern Franche-Combe as the third son of Joseph Leopold Sigisbert Hugo (1774-1828) and Sophie Trebuchet (1772-1821). Victor was a French poet, novelist and dramatist of the romantic movement, he's also considered one of the greatest and best known French writers. Victors childhood was a period of national political turmoil with Napoleon being proclaimed Emperor two years after he was born and the Bourbon monarchy was restored before his 13th birthday. His parents held vastly different political and religious views which prompted a brief separation in 1803, during that time Hugo's mother dominated his education and upbringing. Hugos work reflected her devotion to king and faith. However during the events leading up to France's 1848 revolution, Hugos work changed to that of Republicanism and free thought. Hugo went on to married to his childhood sweetheart Adele Foucher in 1822 and they had five children.
Victor Hugo's works hold a vast collection of poetry, novels and music. His first Novel Han D'Islande was published in 1823 and he published five volumes of poetry between 1829 and 1840 which cemented his reputation as a great elagiac and lyric poet. Hugos first mature work of fiction was published in February 1829 by Charles Gosselin without his name attached, this would infuse with his later work Le Dernier Jour d'un Condamne (The last day of a Condemned man) and go on to not only influence other writers including Charles Dickens and Albert Camus, and be a precursor to Hugo's work Les Miserables published in 1862.
After three attempts Hugo was finally elected to Academie francaise in 1841and in 1845 King Louis-Phillipe elevated him to the peerage and in 1848 he was elected to the national assembly of the second republic. When Louis Napoleon the 3rd seized power in 1851 Hugo openly declared him a traitor to France then relocated to Brussels, Jersey (where he was thrown out of for supporting a paper criticising Queen Victoria) and ending up in guernsey where he remained an exile until 1870. after returning to France a hero in 1870 Hugo spent the rest of his life writing and just living and died from pneumonia on may 22nd 1885 at the age of 83. He was given a state funeral by degree of president Jules Grevy, more than two million people joined his funeral procession in Paris which went form the Arc Du Triomphe to the Pantheon where he was consequently buried, he shared a crypt with Alexandre Dumas and Emile Zola. Most French towns and cities have streets named after him.
Victor Hugo in my opinion is one of those naturally born creative souls who had felt compelled to both write and at least try to make the world a better place. He definitely attempted to do so from the positions he accumulated in his life time and despite this the three mistresses he had in his later years definitely shows that his love life left something to be desired.
And there you have it a book for all the ages, its definitely under the banner of AWESOME!!!.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Roma (2018) in Movies
Mar 2, 2020 (Updated Mar 3, 2020)
I watched Roma exactly a week ago today. And although I knew 20 minutes in that I loved it, and at the end that I really loved it, I have taken that time to let it settle within me in before coming to write about it. Some films are so good that you have to do that: let it sink into you fully, before doing anything so trivial as judging and comparing them. Roma is incomparable! I have never seen anything like it, or felt as deeply moved by a film in a long time.
Not that it didn’t get attention at the time of its release, it did, receiving 10 Oscar nominations and winning 3, for best foreign language film, director and cinematography, but it certainly wasn’t seen by as many people as it should have been, despite its presence on Netflix from the start. Having digested it now, and spending some time reading about how and why it was made, I feel a slight mission to recommend it to as many people as I can.
Based on Alfonso Cuarón’s own childhood in Mexico City, and his memories of his family and especially their housemaid, Liboria (Libo) Rodriguez, to whom the film is dedicated, it is a masterpiece labour of love that few directors ever achieve or even attempt to make. After a strong career of exceptional films, including Y Tu Mamá También, Children of Men and Gravity, it was the box office and critical success of the latter that gave Cuarón carte blanche to go and make whatever project he chose. Where many might have been tempted by the big money of superhero or fantasy movies (for which he had some experience with Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban) he went back to his roots and shot a very personal non-English film, in black and white, where no music exists except that which occurs naturally, and on the surface not much happens.
At least it feels like not much is happening, such is the naturalistic, almost improvised (although it wasn’t) style and pace; shot with a lens capturing detail and nuance with some of the most beautiful photography I have ever had the privilege to see. Truly, an awful lot is happening, but you have to feel and experience it, not simply be told it by the narrative. It takes a while for our Hollywood conditioned brains to accept this at first, and many might come to it and give up half an hour in because of that challenge. I can promise, however, there is not a single thing boring about this film, unless humanity is boring.
Oscar nominated lead Yalitza Aparicio as the shy, loving maid, Cleo, was not an actor before this film. She auditioned and was hand picked by Cuarón from hundreds of young women, without knowing who he was or what the film was about. Apparently, the film was shot in sequence so as not to confuse her emotionally on her extraordinary journey. She is so unassuming and natural that part of you falls in love with her immediately. In time, we almost come to forget we are watching an act at all, and almost become her, such is the empathy she evokes.
Which isn’t an easy ride, as we watch her be gently and then cruelly ignored, mistreated and used; climaxing in one of the most astonishingly painful and jaw-dropping scenes imaginable, and then a scene of such powerful redemption and humanity it instantly breaks the heart and lifts the soul. All the while she never asks for attention or love, but is just herself: a young woman living a difficult but beautiful life in a country and time full of turmoil, prejudice and social change.
The recreation of Mexico in 1970 is so breathtaking, it is hard to imagine at times we are not watching a documentary from that era. But, it is the detail the lens chooses to capture that reminds you this is a visual poem and a love-letter to a time, a place and a family far away in history and the memory of one man (represented by ten year old Carlos Peralta as Paco). At times it evokes the work of the very greatest film artists of all time: Bergman, Fellini, Hitchcock etc. Not one image is wasted or insignificant, from the reflection of the sky in water, to the dog-shit constantly lining the driveway. Everything is chosen and meaningful in the full context of the work.
There is no awkward exposition, no dramatic moments milked for all they are worth, no sequences of heightened excitement that manipulate us; simply truthful moments that hang in the air for what they are, leaving us to decide how we relate to them without ever preaching or teaching us how. In that way, it is a work of such maturity that I doubt many living directors could emulate it at all. The closest comparison I can think of is the personal passion Spielberg put into Shindler’s List, but really it is a moot comparison, and in fact owes much more to films like Haneke’s The White Ribbon.
Can it be faulted? Well, yes, certainly. But, honestly, I don’t see the point in trying. It is as close to perfection a small story of this kind can be. Importantly, I think it is an open film, that allows us to take from it whatever we like, relating to our own experiences and cares. For me, it said that any pain and hardship can be overcome, as long as there is love and beauty walking by its side. A message of no small importance. If you haven’t seen it, I urge you to do so. If you have, then please keep spreading the word. I believe it to be a genuine classic that will endure the criticism of many decades to come. Without a doubt in my mind something very special indeed.
Not that it didn’t get attention at the time of its release, it did, receiving 10 Oscar nominations and winning 3, for best foreign language film, director and cinematography, but it certainly wasn’t seen by as many people as it should have been, despite its presence on Netflix from the start. Having digested it now, and spending some time reading about how and why it was made, I feel a slight mission to recommend it to as many people as I can.
Based on Alfonso Cuarón’s own childhood in Mexico City, and his memories of his family and especially their housemaid, Liboria (Libo) Rodriguez, to whom the film is dedicated, it is a masterpiece labour of love that few directors ever achieve or even attempt to make. After a strong career of exceptional films, including Y Tu Mamá También, Children of Men and Gravity, it was the box office and critical success of the latter that gave Cuarón carte blanche to go and make whatever project he chose. Where many might have been tempted by the big money of superhero or fantasy movies (for which he had some experience with Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban) he went back to his roots and shot a very personal non-English film, in black and white, where no music exists except that which occurs naturally, and on the surface not much happens.
At least it feels like not much is happening, such is the naturalistic, almost improvised (although it wasn’t) style and pace; shot with a lens capturing detail and nuance with some of the most beautiful photography I have ever had the privilege to see. Truly, an awful lot is happening, but you have to feel and experience it, not simply be told it by the narrative. It takes a while for our Hollywood conditioned brains to accept this at first, and many might come to it and give up half an hour in because of that challenge. I can promise, however, there is not a single thing boring about this film, unless humanity is boring.
Oscar nominated lead Yalitza Aparicio as the shy, loving maid, Cleo, was not an actor before this film. She auditioned and was hand picked by Cuarón from hundreds of young women, without knowing who he was or what the film was about. Apparently, the film was shot in sequence so as not to confuse her emotionally on her extraordinary journey. She is so unassuming and natural that part of you falls in love with her immediately. In time, we almost come to forget we are watching an act at all, and almost become her, such is the empathy she evokes.
Which isn’t an easy ride, as we watch her be gently and then cruelly ignored, mistreated and used; climaxing in one of the most astonishingly painful and jaw-dropping scenes imaginable, and then a scene of such powerful redemption and humanity it instantly breaks the heart and lifts the soul. All the while she never asks for attention or love, but is just herself: a young woman living a difficult but beautiful life in a country and time full of turmoil, prejudice and social change.
The recreation of Mexico in 1970 is so breathtaking, it is hard to imagine at times we are not watching a documentary from that era. But, it is the detail the lens chooses to capture that reminds you this is a visual poem and a love-letter to a time, a place and a family far away in history and the memory of one man (represented by ten year old Carlos Peralta as Paco). At times it evokes the work of the very greatest film artists of all time: Bergman, Fellini, Hitchcock etc. Not one image is wasted or insignificant, from the reflection of the sky in water, to the dog-shit constantly lining the driveway. Everything is chosen and meaningful in the full context of the work.
There is no awkward exposition, no dramatic moments milked for all they are worth, no sequences of heightened excitement that manipulate us; simply truthful moments that hang in the air for what they are, leaving us to decide how we relate to them without ever preaching or teaching us how. In that way, it is a work of such maturity that I doubt many living directors could emulate it at all. The closest comparison I can think of is the personal passion Spielberg put into Shindler’s List, but really it is a moot comparison, and in fact owes much more to films like Haneke’s The White Ribbon.
Can it be faulted? Well, yes, certainly. But, honestly, I don’t see the point in trying. It is as close to perfection a small story of this kind can be. Importantly, I think it is an open film, that allows us to take from it whatever we like, relating to our own experiences and cares. For me, it said that any pain and hardship can be overcome, as long as there is love and beauty walking by its side. A message of no small importance. If you haven’t seen it, I urge you to do so. If you have, then please keep spreading the word. I believe it to be a genuine classic that will endure the criticism of many decades to come. Without a doubt in my mind something very special indeed.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Dolittle (2020) in Movies
Feb 23, 2020
A complete mess, but kids will probably love it.
With the words of Mark Kermode's review ringing in my ears ("It's shockingly poor... and that's the same in any language") I was bracing myself when I went to see this latest incarnation of Hugh Lofting's famous animal-chatting character. And I have to agree that it is a shocking mess of a film, given $175 million was poured into this thing. But, and I say this cautiously without first-hand empirical evidence, I *think* this is a movie that kids in the 6 to 10 age range might fall in love with.
Doctor Doolittle (Robert Downey Jnr) - famed animal doctor, with the unique ability to communicate with any animal - is now holed up in his animal sanctuary, a recluse. His beloved wife - adventurer Lily - was lost at sea (in a cartoon sequence that could have just used the same clip from "Frozen"). He's lost the will to practice; and almost lost the will to live.
Impinging on his morose life come two humans: Tommy Stubbings (Harry Collett), a reluctant hunter with a wounded squirrel, and Lady Rose (Carmel Laniado), daughter of the Queen of England. (We'll quietly ignore the coincidence that, after what looks like several years of mourning, these two independently pitch up at Chez Doolittle within ten minutes of each other!).
For the Queen (the omnipresent Jessie Buckley) is dying, and noone (other than us viewers, let in on the deal) suspect foul play might be at work in the form of Lord Thomas Badgley (the ever-reliable Jim Broadbent) and the Queen's old leech-loving doctor Blair Müdfly (a moustache-twiddling Michael Sheen).
Doolittle must engage in a perilous journey to find the only cure that will save both the Queen and his animal sanctuary - the fruit of the tree on a missing island that his long lost love was searching for.
Let's start with the most obvious point first up. Robert Downey Jnr's Welsh accent is quite the most terrible, most preposterous, most unintelligible, most offensive (to the Welsh) attempt at an accent in a mainstream film in movie history. And that's really saying something when you have Laurence Olivier's Jewish father from "The Jazz Singer" and Russell Crowe's English cum Irish cum Scottish cum Yugoslavian "Robin Hood" in the list. Why? Just why? Was it to distance this version from Rex Harrison's? (Since most younger movie goers will be going "Rex who?" at this point, this seems unlikely). It's a wholly curious decision.
It turns RDj's presence in the movie from being an asset to a liability.
The movie has had a tortuous history. Filmed in 2018 at enormous expense, the film completely bombed at test screenings so they brought in more script writers to make it funnier and did extensive additional filming.
I actually disagree with the general view that the film is unfunny. For there are a few points in the movie where I laughed out loud. A fly's miraculous, if temporary, escape was one such moment. The duck laying an egg in fright, another.
However, these seem to stand out starkly in isolation as 'the funny bits they inserted'. Much of the rest of the movie's comedy falls painfully flat.
In terms of the acting, there are the obvious visual talents on show of Michael Sheen (doing a great English accent for a Welshman.... #irony), Jim Broadbent, Jessie Buckley, Joanna Page (blink and you'll miss her) and Antonio Banderas, as the swashbuckling pirate king cum father-in-law.
But the end titles are an amazing array of "Ah!" moments as the vocal performances are revealed: Emma Thompson as the parrot; Rami Malek as the gorilla; John Cena as the polar bear; Kumail Nanjiani at the ostrich; Octavia Spencer at the duck; Tom Holland as the dog; Selena Gomez as the giraffe; Marion Cotillade as the fox, Frances de la Tour as a flatulent dragon and Ralph Fiennes as an evil tiger with mummy issues. It's a gift for future contestants on "Pointless"!
There are a lot of poe-faced critics throwing brick-bats at this movie, and to a degree it's deserved. They lavished $175 million on it, and it looked like it was going to be a thumping loss. (However, against all the odds, at the time of writing it has grossed north of $184 million. And it only opened yesterday in China. So although not stellar in the world of blockbuster movies it's not going to be a studio-killer like "Heaven's Gate").
And I suspect there's a good reason for that latent salvation. I think kids are loving this movie, driving repeat viewings and unexpected word of mouth. It is certainly a family friendly experience. There are no truly terrifying scenes that will haunt young children. A dragon-induced death, not seen on screen, is - notwithstanding the intro Frozen-esque cartoon sequence - the only obvious one in the movie and is (as above) played for laughs. There are fantastical sets and landscapes. Performing whales. A happy-ending (albeit not the one I was cynically expecting). And an extended dragon-farting scene, and what kids are not going to love that!!
Directed by Stephen Gaghan ("Syriana", but better known as a writer than a director) it's a jumbled messy bear of a movie but is in no way an unpleasant watch. I would take a grandkid along to watch this again. It even has some nuggets of gold hidden within its matted coat.
As this is primarily one for the kids, I'm giving the movie two ratings: 4/10 for adults and 8/10 for kids... the Smashbomb rating is the mean of these.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/22/doolittle-2019/ . Thanks).
Doctor Doolittle (Robert Downey Jnr) - famed animal doctor, with the unique ability to communicate with any animal - is now holed up in his animal sanctuary, a recluse. His beloved wife - adventurer Lily - was lost at sea (in a cartoon sequence that could have just used the same clip from "Frozen"). He's lost the will to practice; and almost lost the will to live.
Impinging on his morose life come two humans: Tommy Stubbings (Harry Collett), a reluctant hunter with a wounded squirrel, and Lady Rose (Carmel Laniado), daughter of the Queen of England. (We'll quietly ignore the coincidence that, after what looks like several years of mourning, these two independently pitch up at Chez Doolittle within ten minutes of each other!).
For the Queen (the omnipresent Jessie Buckley) is dying, and noone (other than us viewers, let in on the deal) suspect foul play might be at work in the form of Lord Thomas Badgley (the ever-reliable Jim Broadbent) and the Queen's old leech-loving doctor Blair Müdfly (a moustache-twiddling Michael Sheen).
Doolittle must engage in a perilous journey to find the only cure that will save both the Queen and his animal sanctuary - the fruit of the tree on a missing island that his long lost love was searching for.
Let's start with the most obvious point first up. Robert Downey Jnr's Welsh accent is quite the most terrible, most preposterous, most unintelligible, most offensive (to the Welsh) attempt at an accent in a mainstream film in movie history. And that's really saying something when you have Laurence Olivier's Jewish father from "The Jazz Singer" and Russell Crowe's English cum Irish cum Scottish cum Yugoslavian "Robin Hood" in the list. Why? Just why? Was it to distance this version from Rex Harrison's? (Since most younger movie goers will be going "Rex who?" at this point, this seems unlikely). It's a wholly curious decision.
It turns RDj's presence in the movie from being an asset to a liability.
The movie has had a tortuous history. Filmed in 2018 at enormous expense, the film completely bombed at test screenings so they brought in more script writers to make it funnier and did extensive additional filming.
I actually disagree with the general view that the film is unfunny. For there are a few points in the movie where I laughed out loud. A fly's miraculous, if temporary, escape was one such moment. The duck laying an egg in fright, another.
However, these seem to stand out starkly in isolation as 'the funny bits they inserted'. Much of the rest of the movie's comedy falls painfully flat.
In terms of the acting, there are the obvious visual talents on show of Michael Sheen (doing a great English accent for a Welshman.... #irony), Jim Broadbent, Jessie Buckley, Joanna Page (blink and you'll miss her) and Antonio Banderas, as the swashbuckling pirate king cum father-in-law.
But the end titles are an amazing array of "Ah!" moments as the vocal performances are revealed: Emma Thompson as the parrot; Rami Malek as the gorilla; John Cena as the polar bear; Kumail Nanjiani at the ostrich; Octavia Spencer at the duck; Tom Holland as the dog; Selena Gomez as the giraffe; Marion Cotillade as the fox, Frances de la Tour as a flatulent dragon and Ralph Fiennes as an evil tiger with mummy issues. It's a gift for future contestants on "Pointless"!
There are a lot of poe-faced critics throwing brick-bats at this movie, and to a degree it's deserved. They lavished $175 million on it, and it looked like it was going to be a thumping loss. (However, against all the odds, at the time of writing it has grossed north of $184 million. And it only opened yesterday in China. So although not stellar in the world of blockbuster movies it's not going to be a studio-killer like "Heaven's Gate").
And I suspect there's a good reason for that latent salvation. I think kids are loving this movie, driving repeat viewings and unexpected word of mouth. It is certainly a family friendly experience. There are no truly terrifying scenes that will haunt young children. A dragon-induced death, not seen on screen, is - notwithstanding the intro Frozen-esque cartoon sequence - the only obvious one in the movie and is (as above) played for laughs. There are fantastical sets and landscapes. Performing whales. A happy-ending (albeit not the one I was cynically expecting). And an extended dragon-farting scene, and what kids are not going to love that!!
Directed by Stephen Gaghan ("Syriana", but better known as a writer than a director) it's a jumbled messy bear of a movie but is in no way an unpleasant watch. I would take a grandkid along to watch this again. It even has some nuggets of gold hidden within its matted coat.
As this is primarily one for the kids, I'm giving the movie two ratings: 4/10 for adults and 8/10 for kids... the Smashbomb rating is the mean of these.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/22/doolittle-2019/ . Thanks).
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Dinos Not Assembled in Tabletop Games
Mar 15, 2021
I think it’s no secret that I would be super hyped to go on a dinosaur dig. My brother, Bryan, is certainly more of a dino dude than I am, but I still remember loving them as a child and wishing I could see a skeleton being unearthed. Now I am the one with children who wish the same thing, and now I can play games with just that theme and they enjoy themselves. This is just such a game.
Dinos Not Assembled is a competitive set collection board game with hints of take-that for two to four players that can be enjoyed by players as young as four years old (I know this because my son is four and he loves it). In it players are acting as assistant paleontologists vying for the prestigious opportunity to join a world-famous paleo on their next dig. The player who is first to display three complete dinosaur skeletons in their portion of the museum will win the chance to go on the dig and win the game.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, 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 online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup place the main Museum Board and Dig Site Board in the middle of the table. The Dino Cards are shuffled and each player receives two cards. In addition each player will choose their Character Boards and section of the museum. All Bone Tiles are shuffled into the Dirt Sack, four of these tiles are drawn and displayed on the Dig Site Board, and the Dino Meeples are placed on the table nearby. The first player receives the velociraptor talon (in my copy) and the game may begin!
On a turn a player may perform one action from a choice of five actions: Dig, Steal, Clear, Make, Plan. Since the players are attempting to build their dinosaur skeletons based on the necessary tile types from their Dino Cards, players may Dig by selecting two Bone Tiles from the Dig Site Board to add to their Character Board. Players may never have more than four tiles at any one time. Perhaps the Dig Site Board offers nothing of interest to the active player. The active player may choose to instead Steal one Bone Tile from another player onto their own Character Board. When this happens the player that was just stolen from alerts the Security Meeple and they take the meeple to their Character Board to signify they may not be stolen from again until another player has suffered a Steal action. The active player may choose to instead Clear the board by removing the tiles on offer and drawing four new tiles to the board.
Once a player has collected the necessary Bone Tiles to build a dino skeleton they may Make the skeleton. This requires the player to discard their Bone Tiles back to the Dirt Sack (which I mistakenly kept calling the Dirt Bag), place their completed Dino Card on their Character Board, and place the appropriate Dino Meeple on one of their museum spaces. This player is now one dino closer to winning the game.
If none of these options suit the active player they may always Plan a new dig by drawing a Dino Card from the pile on the Dig Site Board and adding it to their hand. Players may not hold more than three Dino Cards at any one time.
Play continues in this manner of players choosing one action to perform on their turn until one player has made their third dino skeleton. That player wins the game and then gloats to their father. I mean, that didn’t happen…
Components. This game is fabulously produced. The artwork is just perfect for this game. It is colorful, cartoony without being too wacky, and lovable all around. The components themselves are also very good quality. My favorite pieces are all the Dino Meeples and the fancy Security Meeple. Securiteeple?
For a game that states it is intended for players aged eight and above this is a great family game. Yes, my four year old plays it and loves it, and absolutely zero reading skills are necessary to play. The Dino Cards have some fun facts on them, but are not required to enjoy the game. Once players truly understand the five actions that can be taken (and it may take several turns to click) the game is a breeze and flows really well. I would caution gamers playing with younger kids that the Steal action may cause some tears, but it can be used as an essential teaching moment.
Even with strictly adults this game is excellent. Very light and gateway, but still very enjoyable. There is just something about collecting dinosaur bones and building your beasts, but having to also struggle with deciding which bones to keep and which to pass on, as your board can only hold four tiles at a time, but each dinosaur requires three bones to complete. It can be a tasty balancing act of resource collection that I truly love.
This all said Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a very enthusiastic 11 / 12, with a guest score from my son. If your collection lacks a great family game for younger gamers or you are completely invested in the dinosaur theme then this one is a no-brainer. If you enjoy family games with a little bit of take-that, then this is a little gem for you to consider. I am so glad to have this in my collection and my son is already asking to be its caretaker. He has only ever requested two games to ever become “his,” and this is one of them. High praise from the son of a game reviewer.
Dinos Not Assembled is a competitive set collection board game with hints of take-that for two to four players that can be enjoyed by players as young as four years old (I know this because my son is four and he loves it). In it players are acting as assistant paleontologists vying for the prestigious opportunity to join a world-famous paleo on their next dig. The player who is first to display three complete dinosaur skeletons in their portion of the museum will win the chance to go on the dig and win the game.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, 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 online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup place the main Museum Board and Dig Site Board in the middle of the table. The Dino Cards are shuffled and each player receives two cards. In addition each player will choose their Character Boards and section of the museum. All Bone Tiles are shuffled into the Dirt Sack, four of these tiles are drawn and displayed on the Dig Site Board, and the Dino Meeples are placed on the table nearby. The first player receives the velociraptor talon (in my copy) and the game may begin!
On a turn a player may perform one action from a choice of five actions: Dig, Steal, Clear, Make, Plan. Since the players are attempting to build their dinosaur skeletons based on the necessary tile types from their Dino Cards, players may Dig by selecting two Bone Tiles from the Dig Site Board to add to their Character Board. Players may never have more than four tiles at any one time. Perhaps the Dig Site Board offers nothing of interest to the active player. The active player may choose to instead Steal one Bone Tile from another player onto their own Character Board. When this happens the player that was just stolen from alerts the Security Meeple and they take the meeple to their Character Board to signify they may not be stolen from again until another player has suffered a Steal action. The active player may choose to instead Clear the board by removing the tiles on offer and drawing four new tiles to the board.
Once a player has collected the necessary Bone Tiles to build a dino skeleton they may Make the skeleton. This requires the player to discard their Bone Tiles back to the Dirt Sack (which I mistakenly kept calling the Dirt Bag), place their completed Dino Card on their Character Board, and place the appropriate Dino Meeple on one of their museum spaces. This player is now one dino closer to winning the game.
If none of these options suit the active player they may always Plan a new dig by drawing a Dino Card from the pile on the Dig Site Board and adding it to their hand. Players may not hold more than three Dino Cards at any one time.
Play continues in this manner of players choosing one action to perform on their turn until one player has made their third dino skeleton. That player wins the game and then gloats to their father. I mean, that didn’t happen…
Components. This game is fabulously produced. The artwork is just perfect for this game. It is colorful, cartoony without being too wacky, and lovable all around. The components themselves are also very good quality. My favorite pieces are all the Dino Meeples and the fancy Security Meeple. Securiteeple?
For a game that states it is intended for players aged eight and above this is a great family game. Yes, my four year old plays it and loves it, and absolutely zero reading skills are necessary to play. The Dino Cards have some fun facts on them, but are not required to enjoy the game. Once players truly understand the five actions that can be taken (and it may take several turns to click) the game is a breeze and flows really well. I would caution gamers playing with younger kids that the Steal action may cause some tears, but it can be used as an essential teaching moment.
Even with strictly adults this game is excellent. Very light and gateway, but still very enjoyable. There is just something about collecting dinosaur bones and building your beasts, but having to also struggle with deciding which bones to keep and which to pass on, as your board can only hold four tiles at a time, but each dinosaur requires three bones to complete. It can be a tasty balancing act of resource collection that I truly love.
This all said Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a very enthusiastic 11 / 12, with a guest score from my son. If your collection lacks a great family game for younger gamers or you are completely invested in the dinosaur theme then this one is a no-brainer. If you enjoy family games with a little bit of take-that, then this is a little gem for you to consider. I am so glad to have this in my collection and my son is already asking to be its caretaker. He has only ever requested two games to ever become “his,” and this is one of them. High praise from the son of a game reviewer.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Annabelle Comes Home (2019) in Movies
Jun 28, 2019
Not The Best In The Series But Entertains
One of the most intriguing yet often exaggerated lines in movie history is “based on actual events”. I’ve always had a fascination with supernatural thrillers that came with this tag line, whether it’s a movie like Amityville Horror or The Exorcism of Emily Rose. None of these are more popular than The Conjuring series, based on two real life demonologists Ed and Lorraine Warren. Whether you believe in ghosts and haunted houses or not, these films always played on the notion that the events “could” possibly happen…even if they were exaggerated for Hollywood audiences. Annabelle Comes Home breaks the trend of previous Conjuring movies by not bothering to pretend that it’s based on any of the “actual” events from the previous films. So how does it stack up to its predecessors?
The movie begins with Ed and Lorraine Warren retrieving Annabelle and taking the scary doll home to lock her away in the now infamous artifact room. The dolls presence is so evil, that it takes not only blessings by a priest but being locked away in a case made up of glass from an old church to keep it’s evil at bay. Not only is the display case locked, but a sign is placed upon it, warning any who may enter not to release the doll within. Several pad locks later the Warrens feel comfortable that the evil within is contained.
A year passes and both Ed and Lorraine are called away on business, entrusting the care of their young daughter Judy (McKenna Grace) to her responsible babysitter Mary Ellen (Madison Iseman). Mary Ellen’s friend Daniela (Katie Sarife) blackmails Mary Ellen into allowing her to come over and stay with her and Judy in the Warren’s household. Using an opportunity when both Judy and Mary Ellen are out of the house, Daniela finds the artifact room (and the keys necessary to open it), and what at first appears to be idle curiosity, quickly turns into an attempt to utilize the artifacts in the room to reach out to her recently deceased father. It is in this attempt that Daniela unknowingly releases the evil in the room when she opens the case that Annabelle is in (it’s not like there was a BIG sign warning her not to do so).
Annabelle in her search for a soul, releases the full power and evil of all the artifacts in the room. Everything from an empty suit of Samurai armor to a wedding dress the drives the wearer insane is on display. Even a werewolf is released upon the world hunting an unwary suitor of Mary Ellen’s who happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. It’s up to this band of babysitters and children to restore order to the house and find a way to contain the evil that has been brought upon the world.
Annabelle Comes Home starts out fairly slow and takes awhile to build the tension. The first hour of the movie is mainly the interaction between the family and friends, and introductions to the various artifacts that are in the room. It’s not until the second half of the film when things really begin to take off. When the movie finally hits its creepy stride, it has plenty of genuine scares and intense moments, but focuses on several of the iconic artifacts and their affect on the individuals in the house.
While each of the artifacts has its own unique and interesting characteristics, we are hit with a barrage of items that are each going after one of the guests in the house. Whether it’s the television that can predict the future, or the locket that allows communication with the dead, it’s a lot to keep track of and tends to lose focus on the main plot. The movie attempts to cram every noticeable item from its previous films and give it some main purpose in the plot. In fact, the creepiest of all the artifacts Annabelle, takes on the role of evil puppet master controlling the artifacts which means less screen time and scares for her. Personally, Annabelle is scary enough to carry her own film (she has in previous installments), but in this film she is relegated to a side character, where the haunted artifacts take center stage.
The area I feel the movie loses the most is in the “believability” state. Remember that the Conjuring universe is based on real people, and on their actual encounters. Unfortunately, at no point in this film does one believe that any of these supernatural events could be mistaken for reality. It’s what I feel is the difference between a supernatural thriller and simply a monster movie. Much like other supernatural films, it’s about what you don’t see, rather than what you do, and Annabelle Comes Home unfortunately relies too much on its visuals leaving little to the viewers imagination. Imagining what a demon could look like is scarier than what Hollywood can dream up and show on the screen.
Ultimately Annabelle Comes home is a good movie which should have been great. It forgoes much of what made the series popular and replaces it with some goofy scenes and special effects. The artifacts are interesting, which makes the movie enjoyable, but not scary. I went in with hopes that I’d leave at least a little unnerved, looking under my covers, or turning the numerous dolls around that adorn my wife’s doll room. Unfortunately, I left feeling as though I’d simply been given a tour of the artifact room, with one night of scares that would disappear the next morning, as if from a bad dream. If you are looking to be scared, this movie likely won’t do that. If you are looking for an interesting movie with deeper background into the artifacts that have adorned the Warrens room for the past films, then this is the film for you.
3 out of 5 stars
http://sknr.net/2019/06/20/annabelle-comes-home/
The movie begins with Ed and Lorraine Warren retrieving Annabelle and taking the scary doll home to lock her away in the now infamous artifact room. The dolls presence is so evil, that it takes not only blessings by a priest but being locked away in a case made up of glass from an old church to keep it’s evil at bay. Not only is the display case locked, but a sign is placed upon it, warning any who may enter not to release the doll within. Several pad locks later the Warrens feel comfortable that the evil within is contained.
A year passes and both Ed and Lorraine are called away on business, entrusting the care of their young daughter Judy (McKenna Grace) to her responsible babysitter Mary Ellen (Madison Iseman). Mary Ellen’s friend Daniela (Katie Sarife) blackmails Mary Ellen into allowing her to come over and stay with her and Judy in the Warren’s household. Using an opportunity when both Judy and Mary Ellen are out of the house, Daniela finds the artifact room (and the keys necessary to open it), and what at first appears to be idle curiosity, quickly turns into an attempt to utilize the artifacts in the room to reach out to her recently deceased father. It is in this attempt that Daniela unknowingly releases the evil in the room when she opens the case that Annabelle is in (it’s not like there was a BIG sign warning her not to do so).
Annabelle in her search for a soul, releases the full power and evil of all the artifacts in the room. Everything from an empty suit of Samurai armor to a wedding dress the drives the wearer insane is on display. Even a werewolf is released upon the world hunting an unwary suitor of Mary Ellen’s who happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. It’s up to this band of babysitters and children to restore order to the house and find a way to contain the evil that has been brought upon the world.
Annabelle Comes Home starts out fairly slow and takes awhile to build the tension. The first hour of the movie is mainly the interaction between the family and friends, and introductions to the various artifacts that are in the room. It’s not until the second half of the film when things really begin to take off. When the movie finally hits its creepy stride, it has plenty of genuine scares and intense moments, but focuses on several of the iconic artifacts and their affect on the individuals in the house.
While each of the artifacts has its own unique and interesting characteristics, we are hit with a barrage of items that are each going after one of the guests in the house. Whether it’s the television that can predict the future, or the locket that allows communication with the dead, it’s a lot to keep track of and tends to lose focus on the main plot. The movie attempts to cram every noticeable item from its previous films and give it some main purpose in the plot. In fact, the creepiest of all the artifacts Annabelle, takes on the role of evil puppet master controlling the artifacts which means less screen time and scares for her. Personally, Annabelle is scary enough to carry her own film (she has in previous installments), but in this film she is relegated to a side character, where the haunted artifacts take center stage.
The area I feel the movie loses the most is in the “believability” state. Remember that the Conjuring universe is based on real people, and on their actual encounters. Unfortunately, at no point in this film does one believe that any of these supernatural events could be mistaken for reality. It’s what I feel is the difference between a supernatural thriller and simply a monster movie. Much like other supernatural films, it’s about what you don’t see, rather than what you do, and Annabelle Comes Home unfortunately relies too much on its visuals leaving little to the viewers imagination. Imagining what a demon could look like is scarier than what Hollywood can dream up and show on the screen.
Ultimately Annabelle Comes home is a good movie which should have been great. It forgoes much of what made the series popular and replaces it with some goofy scenes and special effects. The artifacts are interesting, which makes the movie enjoyable, but not scary. I went in with hopes that I’d leave at least a little unnerved, looking under my covers, or turning the numerous dolls around that adorn my wife’s doll room. Unfortunately, I left feeling as though I’d simply been given a tour of the artifact room, with one night of scares that would disappear the next morning, as if from a bad dream. If you are looking to be scared, this movie likely won’t do that. If you are looking for an interesting movie with deeper background into the artifacts that have adorned the Warrens room for the past films, then this is the film for you.
3 out of 5 stars
http://sknr.net/2019/06/20/annabelle-comes-home/
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated The Beast Within: A Tale of Beauty's Prince (Villains #2) in Books
Aug 24, 2019
Beauty and the Beast is arguably one of my favourite Disney classics. I adored Tale as Old as Time and so the Beast’s version of the villain’s tale series had some pretty big boots to fill.
The Beast Within is the second book in the villains’ series and shifts between time periods to provide the reader with an insight to the Beast’s life before and after he was cursed. This was such an interesting concept because each version of Beauty and the Beast contains the vain prince who shuns the enchantress: it’s a pretty key part of the story! However, Serena Valentino expands upon this and, although the Prince becomes no more likeable, Valentino humanises him. We learn the extent of his vanity and, to be honest, probably dislike him more than the original version!
We also receive more of an insight into the Odd Sisters within this novel. We visit their house and gain an idea of the pecking order within the foursome. Yes foursome! I have not drunk too much prosecco and can no longer count (well not yet) – the witches have a little sister.
Circe is as beautiful as her sisters are odd and also happens to be engaged to the Prince (massive coincidence I am sure) but is rejected by him when his best friend Gaston reveals that her family are pig farmers. He claims she deceived him with her beauty and is sickened by her grotesque appearance now he knows the truth.
In fact, by placing Gaston and the Prince side by side we start to think that maybe Belle made the wrong choice by dismissing the shallow hunter so quickly!
Needless to say, Circe is crushed: she accuses him of behaving like a beast, being tainted by vanity and not capable of true love. The spurned witch curses the Prince, warning him that he will slowly transform into the horrifying creature that he is within.
The fact that the reader witnesses the full transformation of Prince into Beast is really interesting and Circe’s words have a profound effect on the Prince, his grasp on his sanity and his future relationships. He veers wildly between dismissing Circe as crazy whilst simultaneously finding a bride in order to break the spell.
Naturally, the Prince is not alone in this story: Mrs Potts, Cogsworth and Lumiere unwittingly become swept up in Circe’s curse. In fact, the odd sisters taunt the Beast, implying that he is only concerned about his servants because of what they may do to him if the curse is not lifted.
Valentino does choose to express that Mrs Potts, in particular, had great affection for the Prince and Gaston as children but this isn’t really played on at all. The reader does gain the sense that the Prince is cared for by his staff but there are no real relationships developed here. Even when Lumiere realises that the Prince views the objects of the curse differently from everyone else; there lacks the compassion and assistance of their animated counterparts.
Another relationship that lacked conviction was that between the Beast and Belle. This is one of the most iconic love stories in the Disney portfolio but I’m afraid I just wasn’t feeling it. I understand that Valentino needs to focus on Tulip: she is an important character who shows the Prince’s desperation, his unwillingness to change and his escalating beastly behaviour (she also links into the next book in the series). However, the focus on Tulip seems to sacrifice any detail when it comes to Belle. Yes, we learn that she attended the original ball and that she will do anything to save her father but that’s pretty much it. The blossoming romance that ensues is witnessed third hand via the odd sisters’ mirror and it begs the question: is this the tale of Beauty’s Prince or is the tale of Circe and her sisters?
Despite Circe being the youngest, it is often implied that she is more powerful than her older sisters and, although she does seem more sane, it cannot be said that Circe is a pushover: upon learning of her sisters’ involvement in the Beast’s fate, Circe punishes them; removes the curse and creates the spinning prince complete with fireworks that we remember from the original movie. This transition from bitter, heartbroken witch to sympathetic and forgiving is unforeseen and abrupt. To be honest it felt like it was a convenient way of shoe-horning the movie ending into the book.
Overall, I loved the potential of The Beast Within. I really enjoyed learning more about the Prince’s character and seeing a side of him that the reader cannot merely brush off as young or vain: he was a truly horrible person. I also loved the little nods to the fairy-tale world, such as Gaston suggesting a ball because it all worked out for the Prince’s friend “after the business with the slipper”.
Valentino also provides hints to future novels and so the references to Ursula were very intriguing as I prepare to read ‘Poor Unfortunate Soul’ next. There is the occasional reference to the old Queen, as well as the continuation of the theme of mirrors and love as a weakness: the odd sisters really do dominate the tales.
In a way I almost feel that the book has a little too much going on: we have the beast’s battle against the curse; the odd sister’s magic; Circe and Ursula’s little tangent and the original storyline. In my opinion, all of these factors make the ending of the book very rushed. For example, the Beast juxtaposes from being unable to fall in love with someone like Belle to presenting her with an entire library just to see her smile in a matter of sentences!
It is a shame because, after the ending of ‘Fairest of All’ I was expecting so much more. I did still like the book but I didn’t love it- I felt like the book could have expanded more on the more unique/dark aspects of the story, such as the creepy statues and the Beast’s alternative view of the curse.
Ah well, you can’t love them all! Onwards and upwards to Poor Unfortunate Soul!
The Beast Within is the second book in the villains’ series and shifts between time periods to provide the reader with an insight to the Beast’s life before and after he was cursed. This was such an interesting concept because each version of Beauty and the Beast contains the vain prince who shuns the enchantress: it’s a pretty key part of the story! However, Serena Valentino expands upon this and, although the Prince becomes no more likeable, Valentino humanises him. We learn the extent of his vanity and, to be honest, probably dislike him more than the original version!
We also receive more of an insight into the Odd Sisters within this novel. We visit their house and gain an idea of the pecking order within the foursome. Yes foursome! I have not drunk too much prosecco and can no longer count (well not yet) – the witches have a little sister.
Circe is as beautiful as her sisters are odd and also happens to be engaged to the Prince (massive coincidence I am sure) but is rejected by him when his best friend Gaston reveals that her family are pig farmers. He claims she deceived him with her beauty and is sickened by her grotesque appearance now he knows the truth.
In fact, by placing Gaston and the Prince side by side we start to think that maybe Belle made the wrong choice by dismissing the shallow hunter so quickly!
Needless to say, Circe is crushed: she accuses him of behaving like a beast, being tainted by vanity and not capable of true love. The spurned witch curses the Prince, warning him that he will slowly transform into the horrifying creature that he is within.
The fact that the reader witnesses the full transformation of Prince into Beast is really interesting and Circe’s words have a profound effect on the Prince, his grasp on his sanity and his future relationships. He veers wildly between dismissing Circe as crazy whilst simultaneously finding a bride in order to break the spell.
Naturally, the Prince is not alone in this story: Mrs Potts, Cogsworth and Lumiere unwittingly become swept up in Circe’s curse. In fact, the odd sisters taunt the Beast, implying that he is only concerned about his servants because of what they may do to him if the curse is not lifted.
Valentino does choose to express that Mrs Potts, in particular, had great affection for the Prince and Gaston as children but this isn’t really played on at all. The reader does gain the sense that the Prince is cared for by his staff but there are no real relationships developed here. Even when Lumiere realises that the Prince views the objects of the curse differently from everyone else; there lacks the compassion and assistance of their animated counterparts.
Another relationship that lacked conviction was that between the Beast and Belle. This is one of the most iconic love stories in the Disney portfolio but I’m afraid I just wasn’t feeling it. I understand that Valentino needs to focus on Tulip: she is an important character who shows the Prince’s desperation, his unwillingness to change and his escalating beastly behaviour (she also links into the next book in the series). However, the focus on Tulip seems to sacrifice any detail when it comes to Belle. Yes, we learn that she attended the original ball and that she will do anything to save her father but that’s pretty much it. The blossoming romance that ensues is witnessed third hand via the odd sisters’ mirror and it begs the question: is this the tale of Beauty’s Prince or is the tale of Circe and her sisters?
Despite Circe being the youngest, it is often implied that she is more powerful than her older sisters and, although she does seem more sane, it cannot be said that Circe is a pushover: upon learning of her sisters’ involvement in the Beast’s fate, Circe punishes them; removes the curse and creates the spinning prince complete with fireworks that we remember from the original movie. This transition from bitter, heartbroken witch to sympathetic and forgiving is unforeseen and abrupt. To be honest it felt like it was a convenient way of shoe-horning the movie ending into the book.
Overall, I loved the potential of The Beast Within. I really enjoyed learning more about the Prince’s character and seeing a side of him that the reader cannot merely brush off as young or vain: he was a truly horrible person. I also loved the little nods to the fairy-tale world, such as Gaston suggesting a ball because it all worked out for the Prince’s friend “after the business with the slipper”.
Valentino also provides hints to future novels and so the references to Ursula were very intriguing as I prepare to read ‘Poor Unfortunate Soul’ next. There is the occasional reference to the old Queen, as well as the continuation of the theme of mirrors and love as a weakness: the odd sisters really do dominate the tales.
In a way I almost feel that the book has a little too much going on: we have the beast’s battle against the curse; the odd sister’s magic; Circe and Ursula’s little tangent and the original storyline. In my opinion, all of these factors make the ending of the book very rushed. For example, the Beast juxtaposes from being unable to fall in love with someone like Belle to presenting her with an entire library just to see her smile in a matter of sentences!
It is a shame because, after the ending of ‘Fairest of All’ I was expecting so much more. I did still like the book but I didn’t love it- I felt like the book could have expanded more on the more unique/dark aspects of the story, such as the creepy statues and the Beast’s alternative view of the curse.
Ah well, you can’t love them all! Onwards and upwards to Poor Unfortunate Soul!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Instant Family (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Enjoyable and harmless comedy laced with a degree of sentimentality.
The Plot
Pete (Mark Wahlberg) and Ellie (Rose Byrne) are focused and business-oriented home designers. They’ve talked about having kids “sometime in the future” but the years – as years are want to do – are motoring away from them. Pete is concerned that if they have their own kids now then he will end up being an “old dad” (cue very funny, black-comedy, flashback). This leads them into contact with the State’s fostering service – led by Karen (Octavia Spencer) and Sharon (Tig Notaro) – and they progress into foster training. This introduces into their ‘perfect adult lives’ 15-year old Lizzy (Isabela Moner) and her younger siblings Juan (Gustavo Quiroz) and Lita (Julianna Gamiz). As these guys come from a troubled background Pete and Ellie find they have their work cut out. Who will crack first?
The turns
You’ve got to admire Mark Wahlberg as an actor. In the same vein as Steve Carell, he seems to be able to flex from dramatic (in his case, tough-guy action roles) to comedy without a blink. He’s nowhere near the calibre of actor as Carell, but he brings to all his roles a sense of menace – derived no doubt from his torrid criminal background in younger days. (His wiki page makes your eyes water: there’s a great biopic screenplay waiting to be written there! ) It must have made the kid actor who plays Charlie (Carson Holmes) actually soil himself at a key point in the film!
Wahlberg and the excellent Rose Byrne make a believable driven-couple, and Byrne has such a range of expressive faces that she can’t help but make you laugh.
Of the child actors, Nickelodeon star Isabella Moner shines with genuine brilliance, both in terms of her acting as the fiercely loyal Lizzy but also in terms of her musical ability (she sings the impressive end-title song). With Hollywood in ‘post-La-La-Showman: Here we go again’ mode, this is a talented young lady I predict might be in big demand over the next few years.
Top of my list of the most stupid “where the hell have I seen her before bang-my-head-against-the-cinema-wall” moments is the actress playing Ellie’s mother Jan. She is OF COURSE Julie Hagerty, air-hostess supreme from “Airplane!”.
Also good value, and topping my list of “I know her from lots of films but don’t know her name” is Margo Martindale* as Pete’s exuberant and easily bought mother Sandy. (*Must write this out 100 times before her picture appears in the Picturehouse Harbour Lights film quiz!).
A well-crafty script with some wayward characters
The script by director Sean (“Daddy’s Home”) Anders and John Morris zips along at a fine pace, albeit in a wholly predictable direction. It helps that I struggle the think of many films about the adoption process itself. Sure there have been lots of movies about children that have been adopted – Manchester By The Sea and Lion being two recent examples – but the only film I can immediately think of (and not in a good way) with foster care at its heart was the Katherine Heigl comedy from a few years ago “Life as we know it”. So this is good movie territory to mine.
There are some fine running jokes, notably young Juan’s penchant for constantly getting injured. However, the script also lapses as did Anders’ “Daddy’s Home 2” from last year – into moments of slushy sentimentality. (My dear departed Dad always used to affect an exaggerated snore at such points, and I could hear him in my head at regular intervals during the film!). I would have preferred a harder and blacker edge to the comedy: something that last year’s excellent “Game Night” pulled off so well.
There are also a couple of characters in the film that were poorly scripted and which just didn’t work. While Octavia Spencer was fine (channelling an almost identical version of her wisecracking and sardonic character from “The Shape of Water“), I just had no idea what her colleague Sharon (Tig Notaro) was supposed to be. The tone was all over the place. Similarly, who should pop up on a balcony in an unexpected cameo but the great Joan Cusack. And very funny she is too for the 10 second interruption. But the writers having got her there just couldn’t leave alone and we get a plain embarrassing extended interruption that strikes a duff note in the flow of the film.
Summary
The film is amusing and harmless without taxing many brain cells. Most notably unlike many so-called American ‘comedies’ it did actually make me laugh at multiple points. I should also point out that my wife absolutely loved it, rating it a strong 4* going on 5*.
But the really cute thing is that…
…the film is “inspired by a true family”: namely Anders’ own. He and his wife fostered three kids out of the US foster service, so the script is undoubtedly loosely based on their own experiences, which give it an extra impact for some of Peter and Ellie’s lines. In an essay for TIME (source: bustle.com) Anders wrote:
My wife Beth and I had been talking for years about whether we should have kids,” he wrote. “For the longest time we just felt like we couldn’t afford it. Then I sold a couple of scripts and was feeling like I might have a career, but we were in our 40s and worried we had left it too long. We knew kids would make our life bigger, so one day I joked, ‘Why don’t we just adopt a five-year-old and it will be like we got started five years ago?'”
It gives you a completely different perspective on the film knowing this. My wife after the film was saying “I’m not sure how accurately it portrays the fostering process”. But it clearly does.
Pete (Mark Wahlberg) and Ellie (Rose Byrne) are focused and business-oriented home designers. They’ve talked about having kids “sometime in the future” but the years – as years are want to do – are motoring away from them. Pete is concerned that if they have their own kids now then he will end up being an “old dad” (cue very funny, black-comedy, flashback). This leads them into contact with the State’s fostering service – led by Karen (Octavia Spencer) and Sharon (Tig Notaro) – and they progress into foster training. This introduces into their ‘perfect adult lives’ 15-year old Lizzy (Isabela Moner) and her younger siblings Juan (Gustavo Quiroz) and Lita (Julianna Gamiz). As these guys come from a troubled background Pete and Ellie find they have their work cut out. Who will crack first?
The turns
You’ve got to admire Mark Wahlberg as an actor. In the same vein as Steve Carell, he seems to be able to flex from dramatic (in his case, tough-guy action roles) to comedy without a blink. He’s nowhere near the calibre of actor as Carell, but he brings to all his roles a sense of menace – derived no doubt from his torrid criminal background in younger days. (His wiki page makes your eyes water: there’s a great biopic screenplay waiting to be written there! ) It must have made the kid actor who plays Charlie (Carson Holmes) actually soil himself at a key point in the film!
Wahlberg and the excellent Rose Byrne make a believable driven-couple, and Byrne has such a range of expressive faces that she can’t help but make you laugh.
Of the child actors, Nickelodeon star Isabella Moner shines with genuine brilliance, both in terms of her acting as the fiercely loyal Lizzy but also in terms of her musical ability (she sings the impressive end-title song). With Hollywood in ‘post-La-La-Showman: Here we go again’ mode, this is a talented young lady I predict might be in big demand over the next few years.
Top of my list of the most stupid “where the hell have I seen her before bang-my-head-against-the-cinema-wall” moments is the actress playing Ellie’s mother Jan. She is OF COURSE Julie Hagerty, air-hostess supreme from “Airplane!”.
Also good value, and topping my list of “I know her from lots of films but don’t know her name” is Margo Martindale* as Pete’s exuberant and easily bought mother Sandy. (*Must write this out 100 times before her picture appears in the Picturehouse Harbour Lights film quiz!).
A well-crafty script with some wayward characters
The script by director Sean (“Daddy’s Home”) Anders and John Morris zips along at a fine pace, albeit in a wholly predictable direction. It helps that I struggle the think of many films about the adoption process itself. Sure there have been lots of movies about children that have been adopted – Manchester By The Sea and Lion being two recent examples – but the only film I can immediately think of (and not in a good way) with foster care at its heart was the Katherine Heigl comedy from a few years ago “Life as we know it”. So this is good movie territory to mine.
There are some fine running jokes, notably young Juan’s penchant for constantly getting injured. However, the script also lapses as did Anders’ “Daddy’s Home 2” from last year – into moments of slushy sentimentality. (My dear departed Dad always used to affect an exaggerated snore at such points, and I could hear him in my head at regular intervals during the film!). I would have preferred a harder and blacker edge to the comedy: something that last year’s excellent “Game Night” pulled off so well.
There are also a couple of characters in the film that were poorly scripted and which just didn’t work. While Octavia Spencer was fine (channelling an almost identical version of her wisecracking and sardonic character from “The Shape of Water“), I just had no idea what her colleague Sharon (Tig Notaro) was supposed to be. The tone was all over the place. Similarly, who should pop up on a balcony in an unexpected cameo but the great Joan Cusack. And very funny she is too for the 10 second interruption. But the writers having got her there just couldn’t leave alone and we get a plain embarrassing extended interruption that strikes a duff note in the flow of the film.
Summary
The film is amusing and harmless without taxing many brain cells. Most notably unlike many so-called American ‘comedies’ it did actually make me laugh at multiple points. I should also point out that my wife absolutely loved it, rating it a strong 4* going on 5*.
But the really cute thing is that…
…the film is “inspired by a true family”: namely Anders’ own. He and his wife fostered three kids out of the US foster service, so the script is undoubtedly loosely based on their own experiences, which give it an extra impact for some of Peter and Ellie’s lines. In an essay for TIME (source: bustle.com) Anders wrote:
My wife Beth and I had been talking for years about whether we should have kids,” he wrote. “For the longest time we just felt like we couldn’t afford it. Then I sold a couple of scripts and was feeling like I might have a career, but we were in our 40s and worried we had left it too long. We knew kids would make our life bigger, so one day I joked, ‘Why don’t we just adopt a five-year-old and it will be like we got started five years ago?'”
It gives you a completely different perspective on the film knowing this. My wife after the film was saying “I’m not sure how accurately it portrays the fostering process”. But it clearly does.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Nutcracker and the Four Realms (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A fantasy that’s glossy and beautiful to look at.
Before the heavyweight juggernaut of “Mary Poppins Returns” arrives at Christmas, here’s another Disney live action feature to get everyone in the festive spirit.
The Plot.
It’s Victorian London and Young Clara (Mackenzie Foy) lives with her father (Matthew Macfadyen), her older sister Louise (Ellie Bamber) and her younger brother Fritz (Tom Sweet). It’s Christmas and the family are having a hard time as they are grieving the recent death of wife and mother Marie (Anna Madeley). Like her mother, Clara has an astute mind with an engineering bias and is encouraged in this pursuit by her quirky inventor godfather, Drosselmeyer (Morgan Freeman). At his fabled Christmas ball, Clara asks for his help in accessing a gift Clara’s mother has bequeathed to her. This leads Clara on a magical adventure to a parallel world with four realms, where everything is not quite peace and harmony.
The Review.
This is a film that visually delights from the word go. The film opens with a swooping tour of Victorian London (who knew the Disney castle was in the capital’s suburbs?!) via Westminster bridge and into the Stahlbaum’s attic. It’s a spectacular tour-de-force of special-effects wizardry and sets up the expectation of what’s to come. For every scene that follows is a richly decorated feast for the eyes. Drosselmeyer’s party is a glorious event, full of extras, strong on costume design and with a rich colour palette as filmed by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“). When we are pitched into the Four Realms – no wardrobe required – the magical visions continue.
The film represents a Narnia-esque take on the four compass-point lands of Oz, and on that basis it’s a bit formulaic. But the good vs evil angles are more subtley portrayed. Of the Four Realms leaders, Keira Knightley as Sugar Plum rather steals the show from the others (played by Richard E. Grant, Eugenio Derbez and Helen Mirren). Mirren in particular is given little to do.
What age kids would this be suitable for? Well, probably a good judge would be the Wizard of Oz. If your kids are not completely freaked out by the Wicked Witch of the West and the flying monkeys, then they will probably cope OK with the scary bits of the “Realm of Entertainment”. Although those who suffer from either musophobia or (especially) coulrophobia might want to give it a miss! All kids are different though, and the “loss of the mother” is also an angle to consider: that might worry and upset young children. It is definitely a “PG” certificate rather than a “U” certificate.
Young people who also enjoy ballet (I nearly fell into a sexist trap there!) will also get a kick out of some of the dance sequences, which are “Fantasia-esque” in their presentation and feature Misty Copeland, famously the first African American Female Principal Dancer with the American Ballet Theatre. (I have no appreciation at all for ballet, but I’m sure it was brilliant!)
As for the moral tone of the film, the female empowerment message is rather ladled on with a trowel, but as it’s a good message I have no great problem with that. I am often appalled at how lacking in confidence young people are in their own abilities. Here is a young lady (an engineer!) learning self-resilience and the confidence to be able to do anything in life she puts her mind to. Well said.
The story is rather generic – child visits a magical other world – but the screenplay is impressive given its the first-feature screenplay for Ashleigh Powell: there is an article on her approach to screenwriting that you might find interesting here.
The film is credited with two directors. This – particularly if there is also an army of screenwriters – is normally a warning sign on a film. (As a case in point, the chaotic 1967 version of “Casino Royale” had six different directors, and it shows!). Here, there clearly were issues with the filming since Disney insisted on reshoots for which the original director, Lasse Hallström, was not available. This is where the “Captain America” director Joe Johnston stepped in.
The turns.
I really enjoyed Mackenzie Foy‘s performance as Clara. Now 18, she is a feisty and believable Disney princess for the modern age. (If, like me, you are struggling to place where you’ve heard her name before, she was the young Murph in Nolan’s “Interstellar“).
Another name I was struggling with was Ellie Bamber as her sister. Ellie was excellent in the traumatic role of the daughter in the brilliant “Nocturnal Animals“, one of my favourite films of 2016. (Hopefully the therapy has worked and Ellie can sleep at night again!).
A newcomer with a big role is Jayden Fowora-Knight as the Nutcracker soldier: Jayden had a bit part in “Ready Player One” but does a great job here in a substantial role in the film. He stands out as a black actor in a Disney feature: notwithstanding the Finn character in “Star Wars”, this is a long-overdue and welcome approach from Disney.
British comedians Omid Djalili and Jack Whitehouse turn up to add some light relief, but the humour seems rather forced and not particularly fitting.
Final thoughts
I wasn’t expecting to enjoy this one much, but I did. Prinicipally because it is such a visual feast and worth going to see just for that alone: I have a prediction that this film will be nominated for production design, costume design and possible special effects.
I think kids of the right age – I would have thought 6 to 10 sort of range – will enjoy this a lot, particularly if they like dance. Young girls in particular will most relate to the lead character. For such kids, I’d rate this a 4*. The rating below reflects my rating as an adult: so I don’t think ‘drag-a-long’ parents in the Christmas holidays (if it is still on by then) will not be totally bored.
The Plot.
It’s Victorian London and Young Clara (Mackenzie Foy) lives with her father (Matthew Macfadyen), her older sister Louise (Ellie Bamber) and her younger brother Fritz (Tom Sweet). It’s Christmas and the family are having a hard time as they are grieving the recent death of wife and mother Marie (Anna Madeley). Like her mother, Clara has an astute mind with an engineering bias and is encouraged in this pursuit by her quirky inventor godfather, Drosselmeyer (Morgan Freeman). At his fabled Christmas ball, Clara asks for his help in accessing a gift Clara’s mother has bequeathed to her. This leads Clara on a magical adventure to a parallel world with four realms, where everything is not quite peace and harmony.
The Review.
This is a film that visually delights from the word go. The film opens with a swooping tour of Victorian London (who knew the Disney castle was in the capital’s suburbs?!) via Westminster bridge and into the Stahlbaum’s attic. It’s a spectacular tour-de-force of special-effects wizardry and sets up the expectation of what’s to come. For every scene that follows is a richly decorated feast for the eyes. Drosselmeyer’s party is a glorious event, full of extras, strong on costume design and with a rich colour palette as filmed by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“). When we are pitched into the Four Realms – no wardrobe required – the magical visions continue.
The film represents a Narnia-esque take on the four compass-point lands of Oz, and on that basis it’s a bit formulaic. But the good vs evil angles are more subtley portrayed. Of the Four Realms leaders, Keira Knightley as Sugar Plum rather steals the show from the others (played by Richard E. Grant, Eugenio Derbez and Helen Mirren). Mirren in particular is given little to do.
What age kids would this be suitable for? Well, probably a good judge would be the Wizard of Oz. If your kids are not completely freaked out by the Wicked Witch of the West and the flying monkeys, then they will probably cope OK with the scary bits of the “Realm of Entertainment”. Although those who suffer from either musophobia or (especially) coulrophobia might want to give it a miss! All kids are different though, and the “loss of the mother” is also an angle to consider: that might worry and upset young children. It is definitely a “PG” certificate rather than a “U” certificate.
Young people who also enjoy ballet (I nearly fell into a sexist trap there!) will also get a kick out of some of the dance sequences, which are “Fantasia-esque” in their presentation and feature Misty Copeland, famously the first African American Female Principal Dancer with the American Ballet Theatre. (I have no appreciation at all for ballet, but I’m sure it was brilliant!)
As for the moral tone of the film, the female empowerment message is rather ladled on with a trowel, but as it’s a good message I have no great problem with that. I am often appalled at how lacking in confidence young people are in their own abilities. Here is a young lady (an engineer!) learning self-resilience and the confidence to be able to do anything in life she puts her mind to. Well said.
The story is rather generic – child visits a magical other world – but the screenplay is impressive given its the first-feature screenplay for Ashleigh Powell: there is an article on her approach to screenwriting that you might find interesting here.
The film is credited with two directors. This – particularly if there is also an army of screenwriters – is normally a warning sign on a film. (As a case in point, the chaotic 1967 version of “Casino Royale” had six different directors, and it shows!). Here, there clearly were issues with the filming since Disney insisted on reshoots for which the original director, Lasse Hallström, was not available. This is where the “Captain America” director Joe Johnston stepped in.
The turns.
I really enjoyed Mackenzie Foy‘s performance as Clara. Now 18, she is a feisty and believable Disney princess for the modern age. (If, like me, you are struggling to place where you’ve heard her name before, she was the young Murph in Nolan’s “Interstellar“).
Another name I was struggling with was Ellie Bamber as her sister. Ellie was excellent in the traumatic role of the daughter in the brilliant “Nocturnal Animals“, one of my favourite films of 2016. (Hopefully the therapy has worked and Ellie can sleep at night again!).
A newcomer with a big role is Jayden Fowora-Knight as the Nutcracker soldier: Jayden had a bit part in “Ready Player One” but does a great job here in a substantial role in the film. He stands out as a black actor in a Disney feature: notwithstanding the Finn character in “Star Wars”, this is a long-overdue and welcome approach from Disney.
British comedians Omid Djalili and Jack Whitehouse turn up to add some light relief, but the humour seems rather forced and not particularly fitting.
Final thoughts
I wasn’t expecting to enjoy this one much, but I did. Prinicipally because it is such a visual feast and worth going to see just for that alone: I have a prediction that this film will be nominated for production design, costume design and possible special effects.
I think kids of the right age – I would have thought 6 to 10 sort of range – will enjoy this a lot, particularly if they like dance. Young girls in particular will most relate to the lead character. For such kids, I’d rate this a 4*. The rating below reflects my rating as an adult: so I don’t think ‘drag-a-long’ parents in the Christmas holidays (if it is still on by then) will not be totally bored.