Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated People Just Do Nothing: Big in Japan (2021) in Movies
Aug 20, 2021
Good jokes, most of which land (1 more)
Enough David Brent/Partridge moments to make you cringe
As a PJDN virgin, I still laughed a lot!
It’s brave then that such a relatively niche UK TV show should have a go at ‘jumping the shark’ onto the big screen. Would fans like it? And, just as importantly, would newcomers to the characters, like me, be able to enjoy the film as a standalone entity? The answer to the last question is a qualified “yes”.
Positives:
- It well-surpasses the “6 laugh test” for a comedy. There are some scenes that I found extremely funny, with others that rated highly for me on the David Brent / Alan Partridge scale of cringiness.
- I’ve seen comment that the story is "silly" and “unbelievable”. But having experienced the crazy clash between English and Japanese culture first hand, it strikes me as very true to form! The way in which the Japanese music execs try to stylise the ground as a ‘boy band’ (“Bang Boys”!), which Grindah greedily goes along with, is a nice satire on the music industry asserting its brand over musician’s art.
- A subplot of a love story beween the inept Steves and the cute Japanese translator Ishika (Ayumi Itô) is nicely done and strangely touching.
- The good news is that you don’t need any previous experience of the characters to get fun out of the movie: you can jump right in. That being said though, I’m sure fans of the series will get more out of this than I did.
Negatives:
- While the ending was uplifting, I was itching to know what fallout (or success?) there was from the event we witnessed. Perhaps if its a box office success (unlikely I think!) then there will be a sequel.
Summary Thoughts on “People Just Do Nothing: Big in Japan”: IMDB is littered with disastrous reviews of British TV shows that have tried and failed to make the leap from the small screen to the big screen. “On the Buses”; “Are You Being Served?”; “Steptoe and Son”; “Please Sir”; “Love Thy Neighbour” – the list is endless. They are mostly all horribly unfunny. Even the great “Morecambe and Wise”, although showing occasional moments of brilliance, struggled to fully land any of their three big-screen outings.
The ‘go-to’ of many of these efforts was to “go abroad”: take the well-loved characters and put them into a ‘bigger’ and stranger pool. So “People Just Do Nothing: Big in Japan” was following a well-trodden path here. It’s a tribute to the team and their TV-series director Jack Clough, in his feature debut, that they pretty much pull it off.
I’d like to agree with Kevin Maher of “The Times” that the movie is full of “Japanese stereotypes… drunken businessmen, passive giggling women etc”. But having travelled extensively on business in Japan, it seems pretty close to the mark with its observations to me! More importantly, the film never seems to be particularly derogatory or disrespectful of the culture. For example, they take their shoes off too much!
Key to its box office success will be whether or not it can attract an audience outside of its niche TV fan-bases. As a member of that sub-group, I really wasn’t expecting to enjoy this one, but I actually did. It was good fun, and if you want a good laugh at the cinema – a pretty rare thing – then I’d recommend this one, even if – like me – you haven’t seen the original TV show.
(For the full graphical review, please check out onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks!)
Positives:
- It well-surpasses the “6 laugh test” for a comedy. There are some scenes that I found extremely funny, with others that rated highly for me on the David Brent / Alan Partridge scale of cringiness.
- I’ve seen comment that the story is "silly" and “unbelievable”. But having experienced the crazy clash between English and Japanese culture first hand, it strikes me as very true to form! The way in which the Japanese music execs try to stylise the ground as a ‘boy band’ (“Bang Boys”!), which Grindah greedily goes along with, is a nice satire on the music industry asserting its brand over musician’s art.
- A subplot of a love story beween the inept Steves and the cute Japanese translator Ishika (Ayumi Itô) is nicely done and strangely touching.
- The good news is that you don’t need any previous experience of the characters to get fun out of the movie: you can jump right in. That being said though, I’m sure fans of the series will get more out of this than I did.
Negatives:
- While the ending was uplifting, I was itching to know what fallout (or success?) there was from the event we witnessed. Perhaps if its a box office success (unlikely I think!) then there will be a sequel.
Summary Thoughts on “People Just Do Nothing: Big in Japan”: IMDB is littered with disastrous reviews of British TV shows that have tried and failed to make the leap from the small screen to the big screen. “On the Buses”; “Are You Being Served?”; “Steptoe and Son”; “Please Sir”; “Love Thy Neighbour” – the list is endless. They are mostly all horribly unfunny. Even the great “Morecambe and Wise”, although showing occasional moments of brilliance, struggled to fully land any of their three big-screen outings.
The ‘go-to’ of many of these efforts was to “go abroad”: take the well-loved characters and put them into a ‘bigger’ and stranger pool. So “People Just Do Nothing: Big in Japan” was following a well-trodden path here. It’s a tribute to the team and their TV-series director Jack Clough, in his feature debut, that they pretty much pull it off.
I’d like to agree with Kevin Maher of “The Times” that the movie is full of “Japanese stereotypes… drunken businessmen, passive giggling women etc”. But having travelled extensively on business in Japan, it seems pretty close to the mark with its observations to me! More importantly, the film never seems to be particularly derogatory or disrespectful of the culture. For example, they take their shoes off too much!
Key to its box office success will be whether or not it can attract an audience outside of its niche TV fan-bases. As a member of that sub-group, I really wasn’t expecting to enjoy this one, but I actually did. It was good fun, and if you want a good laugh at the cinema – a pretty rare thing – then I’d recommend this one, even if – like me – you haven’t seen the original TV show.
(For the full graphical review, please check out onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks!)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mercy (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“With shroud, and mast, and pennon fair”.
It’s 1968. Donald Crowhurst (Colin Firth, “Kingsman: The Golden Circle“; “Magic in the Moonlight“), an amateur sailor and entrepreneur based in Teignmouth, Devon, is inspired by listening to single-handed round-the-world yachtsman Sir Francis Chichester and does a a crazy thing. He puts his business, his family’s house and his own life on the line by entering the Sunday Times single-handed round-the-world yacht race. It’s not even as if he has a boat built yet!
Lending him the money, under onerous terms, are local businessman Mr Best (Ken Stott, “The Hobbit“) and local newspaper editor Rodney Hallworth (David Thewlis, “Wonder Woman“, “The Theory of Everything“). With the race deadline upon him, Crowhurst is pressed into sailing away from his beloved wife Clare (Rachel Weisz, “Denial“, “The Lobster“) and young family in a trimaran that is well below par.
But what happens next is so ludicrous that it makes a mockery of whoever wrote this ridiculous work of fiction. Ah… but wait a minute… it’s a true story!
It is in fact such an astonishing story that this is a film that is easy to spoil in a review, a fact that seems to have passed many newspaper reviewers by (Arrrggghhh!!). So I will leave much comment to a “spoiler section” that follows the trailer (which is also best avoided). This is honestly a film worth seeing cold. What can I say that is spoiler-free then?
Firth and Weisz make a well-matched couple, and the rest of the cast is peppered with well-known faces from British film and (particularly) TV: Andrew Buchan and Jonathan Bailey (from “Broadchurch”); Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”, “Out Kind of Traitor“); Adrian Schiller (“Victoria”; “Beauty and the Beast“).
The first part of the film is well executed and excellent value for older viewers. 60’s Devon is warm, bucolic and nostalgic. In fact, the film beautifully creates the late 60’s of my childhood, from the boxy hardwood furniture of the Crowhurst’s house to the Meccano set opened at Christmas time.
Once afloat though, the film is less successful at getting its sea-legs. The story is riveting, but quite a number of the scenes raise more questions than they answer. As stress takes hold it is perhaps not surprising that there are a few fantastical flights of movie fancy. But some specific elements in Scott Burns’ script don’t quite gel: a brass clock overboard is a case in point. What? Why?
And it seems to be light on the fallout from the race: there is a weighty scene in the trailer between Best and Hallworth that (unless I dozed off!) I don’t think appeared in the final cut, and I think was needed.
All in all, I was left feeling mildly dissatisfied: a potentially good film by “Theory of Everything” director James Marsh that rather goes off the rails in the final stretch.
This was a time where morality and honour were often rigidly adhered to – British “stiff upper lip” and all that – and seemed to carry a lot more weight than they do today. So some of the decisions in the film might mystify younger viewers. But for the packed older audience in my showing (Cineworld: this needs to be put on in a bigger screen!) then it was a gripping, stressful, but far from flawless watch.
I’d also like to take this opportunity to pay my respects to the film’s composer Jóhann Jóhannsson, who shockingly died last week at the ridiculously young age of 48. His strange and atmospheric music for films including “The Theory of Everything“, “Sicario” and (particularly) “Arrival” set him on the path to be a film composing great of the future. Like James Horner, another awful and untimely loss to the film music industry.
Lending him the money, under onerous terms, are local businessman Mr Best (Ken Stott, “The Hobbit“) and local newspaper editor Rodney Hallworth (David Thewlis, “Wonder Woman“, “The Theory of Everything“). With the race deadline upon him, Crowhurst is pressed into sailing away from his beloved wife Clare (Rachel Weisz, “Denial“, “The Lobster“) and young family in a trimaran that is well below par.
But what happens next is so ludicrous that it makes a mockery of whoever wrote this ridiculous work of fiction. Ah… but wait a minute… it’s a true story!
It is in fact such an astonishing story that this is a film that is easy to spoil in a review, a fact that seems to have passed many newspaper reviewers by (Arrrggghhh!!). So I will leave much comment to a “spoiler section” that follows the trailer (which is also best avoided). This is honestly a film worth seeing cold. What can I say that is spoiler-free then?
Firth and Weisz make a well-matched couple, and the rest of the cast is peppered with well-known faces from British film and (particularly) TV: Andrew Buchan and Jonathan Bailey (from “Broadchurch”); Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”, “Out Kind of Traitor“); Adrian Schiller (“Victoria”; “Beauty and the Beast“).
The first part of the film is well executed and excellent value for older viewers. 60’s Devon is warm, bucolic and nostalgic. In fact, the film beautifully creates the late 60’s of my childhood, from the boxy hardwood furniture of the Crowhurst’s house to the Meccano set opened at Christmas time.
Once afloat though, the film is less successful at getting its sea-legs. The story is riveting, but quite a number of the scenes raise more questions than they answer. As stress takes hold it is perhaps not surprising that there are a few fantastical flights of movie fancy. But some specific elements in Scott Burns’ script don’t quite gel: a brass clock overboard is a case in point. What? Why?
And it seems to be light on the fallout from the race: there is a weighty scene in the trailer between Best and Hallworth that (unless I dozed off!) I don’t think appeared in the final cut, and I think was needed.
All in all, I was left feeling mildly dissatisfied: a potentially good film by “Theory of Everything” director James Marsh that rather goes off the rails in the final stretch.
This was a time where morality and honour were often rigidly adhered to – British “stiff upper lip” and all that – and seemed to carry a lot more weight than they do today. So some of the decisions in the film might mystify younger viewers. But for the packed older audience in my showing (Cineworld: this needs to be put on in a bigger screen!) then it was a gripping, stressful, but far from flawless watch.
I’d also like to take this opportunity to pay my respects to the film’s composer Jóhann Jóhannsson, who shockingly died last week at the ridiculously young age of 48. His strange and atmospheric music for films including “The Theory of Everything“, “Sicario” and (particularly) “Arrival” set him on the path to be a film composing great of the future. Like James Horner, another awful and untimely loss to the film music industry.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated FIRESTARTER (2022) in Movies
May 21, 2022
Commits the Biggest Film Crime - It's Boring
Sometimes, I watch a movie, so you don’t have to.
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Final Challenge in Tabletop Games
Oct 1, 2021
Have you got some stiffs in your gaming group? Do you introduce lots of new gamers to the hobby? Are you looking to get up off the table every once in a while and just play something wacky? Well, I may have the answer for you here. I am a natural performer, so many things do not affect me, and I do not have performance anxiety AT ALL. But what if you have a table with a bunch of people who do not really know each other? What do you pull out then? I might suggest you keep reading.
Final Challenge is a crazy party game for up to six players. In it, players are attempting to earn cards from different categories in order to place themselves in the Final Challenge round where they will attempt to compete for all the marbles.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign coming October 2021, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, shuffle all the cards in the game (in this prototype version I was given a smattering of each type of card, including several from planned expansions) and make a large draw pile. Place the timer nearby and give each player a player board and reminder card. Determine the first player and the game may begin!
On a turn, the active player will check their board to see if they have any active challenges. These are challenge cards that have specific timing applied in order to complete. Completed challenges are either placed face-down on their board or discarded. Next, the active player draws the top card from the deck and has three choices: Perform the Challenge, Ask for Volunteers, or Attack Another Player.
The active player will most often prefer to Perform the Challenge by reading the card’s challenge aloud and attempting to satisfy the requirement. Other players at the table are the judges in determining if the attempt is successful or not. If so, the challenge is placed face-down on the player’s board. If unsuccessful, the card is discarded. As this is the only way to progress in the game, it is usually the best bet on a turn.
However, the player may not wish the complete the challenge and can Ask for Volunteers to help perform the challenge. Whomever accepts and completes will win the card and be able to place it in front of themselves for a quick extra boost of completed challenges.
Should the active player not wish to complete the challenge drawn, and to Attack Another Player, they may assign the challenge to another player who already has completed a challenge of the same type previously. This offers some benefit to the assigned player, as they may collect another card of a similar type, and forces them the complete the challenge card instead of the active player. Should the attacked player lose, however, they lose not only the attacking card, but the face-down card they have previously completed!
Once a player has locked (earned completed face-down cards) one challenge card of each type, they have unlocked the Final Challenge. On the back of each challenge card is one word. When placed on the player board the words will spell out a ridiculous prompt that the active player will need to perform in order to win the Final Challenge. In the example photo below, the prompt is: Mischievous Cavegirl Uses Force On Someone’s Ear While Moaning Loudly. Therefore, in order to win this Final Challenge, the active player will need to exemplify this prompt to the satisfaction of the other players/judges. Think about how you would complete this one.
After a successful Final Challenge, the winner collects the red Personality card to add to their winnings. On the backs of red cards are abilities that are now in effect for the rest of the game. The winner is the player who collects two red cards. The rules indicate any stopping point that is agreed upon by the players is acceptable, but they suggest just to two.
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of this game, and I do not know which, if any, components will be different in the final version. That said, what I received was a box of cards, player boards, reminder cards, and a sand timer. Also included were card dividers, which confused me since the cards are to be shuffled for play. I like the direction the game is going, especially with regards to aesthetics. In a crazy over-saturated niche of party games, Final Challenge is trying to be a little different. The art is quirky, and that is definitely not a bad thing here. All the text is easily legible and the sand timer… works. It is fine as is, but I am sure that a successful Kickstarter will improve all the components in the game.
I am definitely not a party game kind of guy. My wife always makes fun of me when I groan at them, like I am some board game snob. And maybe I guess I really am. I know how I would like to spend my gaming time, and usually it is not with a party game. That said, Final Challenge does offer something a little different by having each card present a challenge that could be storytelling, actions, impersonations, and all kinds of cuckoo… but I like it. Now, I think every game has its place, and for me and my typical game groups, this would be a great one to pull out when I introduce fresh gamers into the hobby, or as something to completely break the ice/tension. As long as all players understand that they may need to get out of their comfort zones to have a good time with it, Final Challenge can be that entry into the hobby for some.
My highest-rated party game to this point is Happy Salmon, and I use it for silliness between heavier games, or to help re-energize my players. It works wonders, and I love it for that. I don’t think Final Challenge will replace Happy Salmon for me for its purpose, but I definitely can see instances when I would need something with just a little more meat on its bones, but still in the ridiculous category. So if you are in need of a weird, quick, zany, little card game (with origins in Serbia – how many Serbian games do you have?) then check out Final Challenge, coming to Kickstarter in October.
For those more raunchy gamers, I have some insight for you as well. I said earlier that Kerber was kind enough to pepper this copy with a few cards from expansions as well, and one of them is the “Rated R Expansion.” I won’t give you exact examples of cards from that set, but just as a levels-check, two cards I pulled from the normal deck has this text on the front, “You have ended up in a talent show. Tell a joke. If no one laughs, you lose.” On the back of this it says, “Their Nipples.” Another example from the core set is, “Someone in this group just got immensely attractive. Point that person out by casually looking at them in a seductive manner until your next draw.” On the back? It says, “While Praying.” Soooooooo, the fronts and backs don’t necessarily have anything to do with each other… but they could. Enjoy the game, everyone!
Final Challenge is a crazy party game for up to six players. In it, players are attempting to earn cards from different categories in order to place themselves in the Final Challenge round where they will attempt to compete for all the marbles.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign coming October 2021, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, shuffle all the cards in the game (in this prototype version I was given a smattering of each type of card, including several from planned expansions) and make a large draw pile. Place the timer nearby and give each player a player board and reminder card. Determine the first player and the game may begin!
On a turn, the active player will check their board to see if they have any active challenges. These are challenge cards that have specific timing applied in order to complete. Completed challenges are either placed face-down on their board or discarded. Next, the active player draws the top card from the deck and has three choices: Perform the Challenge, Ask for Volunteers, or Attack Another Player.
The active player will most often prefer to Perform the Challenge by reading the card’s challenge aloud and attempting to satisfy the requirement. Other players at the table are the judges in determining if the attempt is successful or not. If so, the challenge is placed face-down on the player’s board. If unsuccessful, the card is discarded. As this is the only way to progress in the game, it is usually the best bet on a turn.
However, the player may not wish the complete the challenge and can Ask for Volunteers to help perform the challenge. Whomever accepts and completes will win the card and be able to place it in front of themselves for a quick extra boost of completed challenges.
Should the active player not wish to complete the challenge drawn, and to Attack Another Player, they may assign the challenge to another player who already has completed a challenge of the same type previously. This offers some benefit to the assigned player, as they may collect another card of a similar type, and forces them the complete the challenge card instead of the active player. Should the attacked player lose, however, they lose not only the attacking card, but the face-down card they have previously completed!
Once a player has locked (earned completed face-down cards) one challenge card of each type, they have unlocked the Final Challenge. On the back of each challenge card is one word. When placed on the player board the words will spell out a ridiculous prompt that the active player will need to perform in order to win the Final Challenge. In the example photo below, the prompt is: Mischievous Cavegirl Uses Force On Someone’s Ear While Moaning Loudly. Therefore, in order to win this Final Challenge, the active player will need to exemplify this prompt to the satisfaction of the other players/judges. Think about how you would complete this one.
After a successful Final Challenge, the winner collects the red Personality card to add to their winnings. On the backs of red cards are abilities that are now in effect for the rest of the game. The winner is the player who collects two red cards. The rules indicate any stopping point that is agreed upon by the players is acceptable, but they suggest just to two.
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of this game, and I do not know which, if any, components will be different in the final version. That said, what I received was a box of cards, player boards, reminder cards, and a sand timer. Also included were card dividers, which confused me since the cards are to be shuffled for play. I like the direction the game is going, especially with regards to aesthetics. In a crazy over-saturated niche of party games, Final Challenge is trying to be a little different. The art is quirky, and that is definitely not a bad thing here. All the text is easily legible and the sand timer… works. It is fine as is, but I am sure that a successful Kickstarter will improve all the components in the game.
I am definitely not a party game kind of guy. My wife always makes fun of me when I groan at them, like I am some board game snob. And maybe I guess I really am. I know how I would like to spend my gaming time, and usually it is not with a party game. That said, Final Challenge does offer something a little different by having each card present a challenge that could be storytelling, actions, impersonations, and all kinds of cuckoo… but I like it. Now, I think every game has its place, and for me and my typical game groups, this would be a great one to pull out when I introduce fresh gamers into the hobby, or as something to completely break the ice/tension. As long as all players understand that they may need to get out of their comfort zones to have a good time with it, Final Challenge can be that entry into the hobby for some.
My highest-rated party game to this point is Happy Salmon, and I use it for silliness between heavier games, or to help re-energize my players. It works wonders, and I love it for that. I don’t think Final Challenge will replace Happy Salmon for me for its purpose, but I definitely can see instances when I would need something with just a little more meat on its bones, but still in the ridiculous category. So if you are in need of a weird, quick, zany, little card game (with origins in Serbia – how many Serbian games do you have?) then check out Final Challenge, coming to Kickstarter in October.
For those more raunchy gamers, I have some insight for you as well. I said earlier that Kerber was kind enough to pepper this copy with a few cards from expansions as well, and one of them is the “Rated R Expansion.” I won’t give you exact examples of cards from that set, but just as a levels-check, two cards I pulled from the normal deck has this text on the front, “You have ended up in a talent show. Tell a joke. If no one laughs, you lose.” On the back of this it says, “Their Nipples.” Another example from the core set is, “Someone in this group just got immensely attractive. Point that person out by casually looking at them in a seductive manner until your next draw.” On the back? It says, “While Praying.” Soooooooo, the fronts and backs don’t necessarily have anything to do with each other… but they could. Enjoy the game, everyone!
Jamie (131 KP) rated The Darkest Lies in Books
Jul 26, 2017
Believable plot regarding child abduction (1 more)
The mystery is compelling
Frustrating protagonist, (2 more)
Extremely predictable
Good case for why civilians shouldn’t go rogue and get in the way of police work
A frustrating abduction mystery
You know that age in every teenager’s life where they start to become a little bit rebellious? Telling little white lies, sneaking out, hanging out with crowds they know the family wouldn’t approve of? It can be a scary time for parents, who knows who’s out there? The Darkest Lies is every parent’s worst nightmare and follows a mother who finds her world shattered when her daughter goes missing.
I’m going to come right out and say that this book was frustrating for me. The synopsis really caught my eye and the idea for the plot is intriguing. Unfortunately, issues with the protagonist as well as a shaky and highly predictable plot made for a mediocre experience.
The narration in this book was a little bit weird and I had a hard time getting used to it. It is primarily told using first person point of view though switches regularly to second person as Melanie speaks directly to Beth in her inner monologue. It was just uncomfortable to read.
What’s so bad about first person point of view? See the issue for me with first person narration is that it’s easy to end up alienating readers if it’s difficult to relate to the narrator, and boy did I dislike Melanie. To be blunt, she was really annoying. She was self-centered, mean-spirited, often blinded by her own hubris, and near the end has a bit of a messiah complex going which I found completely ridiculous. She was constantly complaining about the police’s incompetence, throwing herself in the way of the investigation despite being asked multiple times to back off before she could destroy their leads. “I couldn’t go home. I was too furious, too desperate to prove I was right and the police were wrong.”
I get it, she’s consumed with guilt and grief over what happened to her daughter, over not being able to protect her. Desperate people tend to lash out and do stupid things, but I just couldn’t believe anyone would be so foolish. Melanie’s antics do lead up to something important in the plot, but honestly she didn’t need any help making a fool of herself. Before all the crazy came out she was constantly breaking down every female character she encountered, often focusing in on their looks and finding ways to insult them. Neighbors, police officers working on the case, teenagers, it didn’t matter. There are numerous examples of Melanie exhibiting this jealous personality throughout the course of the book.
She spends more time going on drunken rampages pointing fingers at everyone in town, harassing the police, treating her husband like garbage while emotionally cheating with a friend, and avoiding actually seeing and being there for her daughter. While her awful actions over the course of the book is an important aspect of the plot, I just couldn’t justify it because she never learns and remains stubborn even after being told off multiple times. Add on top how stereotypically reckless she acts at the end instead of seeking help from the police because of course she doesn’t need them and I just couldn’t dig the story.
I liked the central idea around the dangers of teens sneaking out and trusting strangers, but the story meandered so much it kind of gets lost in Melanie’s mental collapse and crazed search for the culprit. The plot attempts to use some misdirection to keep the reader guessing but the construction was just sloppy, and the actual culprit isn’t even the character that Melanie cares about the most. Every “bad” character is so blatantly obvious that the advertised twist is really easy to see. I kept on reading because I wanted to know the how and the why. I think there was potential here, and if the author wanted to stick to the narrative that Mel is actually really nice and is just being manipulated then why does she remain every bit as petty and controlling? She is still unable to see past her own emotions and unable to learn from her mistakes. I wished that this could’ve ended with more character growth for the main character.
I’m going to come right out and say that this book was frustrating for me. The synopsis really caught my eye and the idea for the plot is intriguing. Unfortunately, issues with the protagonist as well as a shaky and highly predictable plot made for a mediocre experience.
The narration in this book was a little bit weird and I had a hard time getting used to it. It is primarily told using first person point of view though switches regularly to second person as Melanie speaks directly to Beth in her inner monologue. It was just uncomfortable to read.
What’s so bad about first person point of view? See the issue for me with first person narration is that it’s easy to end up alienating readers if it’s difficult to relate to the narrator, and boy did I dislike Melanie. To be blunt, she was really annoying. She was self-centered, mean-spirited, often blinded by her own hubris, and near the end has a bit of a messiah complex going which I found completely ridiculous. She was constantly complaining about the police’s incompetence, throwing herself in the way of the investigation despite being asked multiple times to back off before she could destroy their leads. “I couldn’t go home. I was too furious, too desperate to prove I was right and the police were wrong.”
I get it, she’s consumed with guilt and grief over what happened to her daughter, over not being able to protect her. Desperate people tend to lash out and do stupid things, but I just couldn’t believe anyone would be so foolish. Melanie’s antics do lead up to something important in the plot, but honestly she didn’t need any help making a fool of herself. Before all the crazy came out she was constantly breaking down every female character she encountered, often focusing in on their looks and finding ways to insult them. Neighbors, police officers working on the case, teenagers, it didn’t matter. There are numerous examples of Melanie exhibiting this jealous personality throughout the course of the book.
She spends more time going on drunken rampages pointing fingers at everyone in town, harassing the police, treating her husband like garbage while emotionally cheating with a friend, and avoiding actually seeing and being there for her daughter. While her awful actions over the course of the book is an important aspect of the plot, I just couldn’t justify it because she never learns and remains stubborn even after being told off multiple times. Add on top how stereotypically reckless she acts at the end instead of seeking help from the police because of course she doesn’t need them and I just couldn’t dig the story.
I liked the central idea around the dangers of teens sneaking out and trusting strangers, but the story meandered so much it kind of gets lost in Melanie’s mental collapse and crazed search for the culprit. The plot attempts to use some misdirection to keep the reader guessing but the construction was just sloppy, and the actual culprit isn’t even the character that Melanie cares about the most. Every “bad” character is so blatantly obvious that the advertised twist is really easy to see. I kept on reading because I wanted to know the how and the why. I think there was potential here, and if the author wanted to stick to the narrative that Mel is actually really nice and is just being manipulated then why does she remain every bit as petty and controlling? She is still unable to see past her own emotions and unable to learn from her mistakes. I wished that this could’ve ended with more character growth for the main character.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Sing Me to Sleep in Books
Apr 27, 2018
My Summary: Beth is a ridiculously tall, horribly ugly girl suffering though high school. Her nickname is “the Beast.” She is bullied by everyone. Her face is scared and pimply and messed up, she was born that way and nothing works to get rid of it. The only people in the world that she has are her mother—who loves her fiercely—and her best friend since pre-school, Scott.
But then through the course of several unexpected events, Beth ends up with the solo in her choir. She goes from ugly and in the back rows to re-made, re-styled, and re-“faced” after laser surgery. Her choir gets a chance to go to a competition in Switzerland.
And she meets Derek. Derek is on one of the other teams, the biggest, best, most famous choir. He’s the hottest guy she’s ever met. And he’s in love with her.
But there’s something wrong with Derek. He won’t tell her what it is, and she’s scared to ask because every time she brings it up, he runs away.
And the fact that Scott has admitted that he’s in love with her—and she’s pretty sure she loves him too—isn’t making anything less complicated…
Review:
I enjoyed Sing Me To Sleep. Please realize and remember that. It kept me reading, it moved quickly. But there were a few things that drove me crazy while I read this and took away from the overall enjoyment.
The first was the writing. There’s a difference between a writing style, and writing crappy. 75% of the “sentences” in this book were fragments. No, I did not count the sentences and take a literal percentage, but that’s what it felt like. There were a lot of two or three word phrases stacked next to each other. That does not count as a writing style, it’s poor grammar. It was so distracting that I found myself annoyed and wanting to put it down.
The second was the romance. In the beginning, the romance between Derek and Beth was just too rushed. There were no meaningful conversations, there wasn’t much plot, there wasn’t much talking. There was a lot of “I love you’s” and a lot of tension and a lot of kissing (hot kissing, but just kissing none the less). Beth was convinced she was in love with him—and he with her—but their relationship was so shallow, that I expected him to dump her any minute (or vice versa). It didn’t feel real.
Near the end, it became a little more real after Derek’s secret came out and Beth began to feel a little different about him. For the sake of keeping this review spoiler-free, I won’t say much more than that. However because their “love” was built on such shaky ground in the first place, most of the end didn’t feel very real either. Beth didn’t know what love really meant until the very end of the book. Poor girl.
The third… sadly, the characters. I didn’t feel much of a connection to them. Believe it or not, the one character I related to most was Scott. He wasn’t even in most of the book—most of it was Beth and Derek—but Scott was the most realistic character (and I’m totally in love with him) and the character that I could understand the best. But Beth and Derek both… I just didn’t connect.
I feel really bad that I’ve complained so much. I also feel really sad that I didn’t love this one. But as a reviewer I promise to be honest, and this is how I feel. Again, as I said at the top, I enjoyed the book, it kept me reading though it wasn’t a sit-on-the-edge-of-your-seat kind of page-turner. But it was a bit of a let-down after all the 5-star or A+ reviews I’ve read for it. Don’t listen to just one opinion. Check out some other reviews for this one before you decide to believe me.
But then through the course of several unexpected events, Beth ends up with the solo in her choir. She goes from ugly and in the back rows to re-made, re-styled, and re-“faced” after laser surgery. Her choir gets a chance to go to a competition in Switzerland.
And she meets Derek. Derek is on one of the other teams, the biggest, best, most famous choir. He’s the hottest guy she’s ever met. And he’s in love with her.
But there’s something wrong with Derek. He won’t tell her what it is, and she’s scared to ask because every time she brings it up, he runs away.
And the fact that Scott has admitted that he’s in love with her—and she’s pretty sure she loves him too—isn’t making anything less complicated…
Review:
I enjoyed Sing Me To Sleep. Please realize and remember that. It kept me reading, it moved quickly. But there were a few things that drove me crazy while I read this and took away from the overall enjoyment.
The first was the writing. There’s a difference between a writing style, and writing crappy. 75% of the “sentences” in this book were fragments. No, I did not count the sentences and take a literal percentage, but that’s what it felt like. There were a lot of two or three word phrases stacked next to each other. That does not count as a writing style, it’s poor grammar. It was so distracting that I found myself annoyed and wanting to put it down.
The second was the romance. In the beginning, the romance between Derek and Beth was just too rushed. There were no meaningful conversations, there wasn’t much plot, there wasn’t much talking. There was a lot of “I love you’s” and a lot of tension and a lot of kissing (hot kissing, but just kissing none the less). Beth was convinced she was in love with him—and he with her—but their relationship was so shallow, that I expected him to dump her any minute (or vice versa). It didn’t feel real.
Near the end, it became a little more real after Derek’s secret came out and Beth began to feel a little different about him. For the sake of keeping this review spoiler-free, I won’t say much more than that. However because their “love” was built on such shaky ground in the first place, most of the end didn’t feel very real either. Beth didn’t know what love really meant until the very end of the book. Poor girl.
The third… sadly, the characters. I didn’t feel much of a connection to them. Believe it or not, the one character I related to most was Scott. He wasn’t even in most of the book—most of it was Beth and Derek—but Scott was the most realistic character (and I’m totally in love with him) and the character that I could understand the best. But Beth and Derek both… I just didn’t connect.
I feel really bad that I’ve complained so much. I also feel really sad that I didn’t love this one. But as a reviewer I promise to be honest, and this is how I feel. Again, as I said at the top, I enjoyed the book, it kept me reading though it wasn’t a sit-on-the-edge-of-your-seat kind of page-turner. But it was a bit of a let-down after all the 5-star or A+ reviews I’ve read for it. Don’t listen to just one opinion. Check out some other reviews for this one before you decide to believe me.
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated Strange Weather in Books
May 16, 2018
Strange Weather is the first bit of fiction I’ve managed to snare by Joe Hill. I heard some pretty great things about his work, but it’s possible I took those praises a little too much to heart. Rating this book doesn’t come easily. To quote what I told a friend on Twitter, reading Strange Weather felt like an attempt at chewing the gristle on steak. That is, wrong and uncomfortable, but not in a good way. I’ve decided to divvy my review up based on each storry.
SNAPSHOT
“Snapshot,” though a bit lacking in style, is one of two stories in this small collection that I found myself capable of tolerating. I figure it’s because this short tale embodies a sort of Twilight Zone and Night Gallery feel. It read the quickest out of the four stories and I found myself nearly in tears at its conclusion, so the best I can say about it is that I either felt something, or my emotions went bonkers again.
LOADED
The second shorty story in Hill’s collection, “Loaded,” is a bunch of driveling bullshit, for lack of a better word. I’m all about our Second Amendment Rights; I even have a cup that says “Don’t ban guns, ban idiots,” but this story encompasses the stereotypical idea that every gun owner or enthusiast is a batshit crazy blowhard that’s just looking for a reason to go off. I have friends and family that appreciate this machinery, that agree people should under go background and mental wellness checks prior to purchase of a fire arm, but this? This story just adds fuel to a fire that seeks kindling via blame on inanimate objects, rather than the person behind them. The main guy of “Loaded” shows us exactly how restricting gun ownership will fail so hey, better hurry and make it entirely illegal right? Oh, and let’s not get started with the over-saturation of Social Justice Warriorness in this piece. I’m all for equality, but this? This just reeks of extremism in a way that I almost abandoned the book as a whole.
ALOFT
“Aloft” is by far the best in this collection of short stories. An embodiment of the collections title, the main character encounters something unusual while fulfilling a dead friend’s promise and from there, things really take a turn for the bizarre. While I feel Hill gives us a bit too much exposition in this tale, there are many things about it that I feel should be appreciated. For instance, the next time anyone asks me what it’s like to have ulcerative colitis, I’ll probably ask them if they’ve read “Aloft”‘ by Joe Hill, because let’s face it: the torment Aubrey goes through gastrically (is that even a word?) in this story is a pretty damned accurate depiction of the suffering people with Crohn’s and Colitis endure.
RAIN
The final story in Hill’s collection seemed like it could have had a loft of potential. “Rain” further supports the title of the collection when a torrent of crystal nails fall from the sky to impale poor, unexpecting citizens. So what’s the problem then? “Rain” is so fundamentally flawed that it’s just… no. First, Hill is more obsessed with making fun of Trump in this story than the events that occur. This isn’t a bad thing – I absolutely loathe Trump, especially considering his policies may very well shorten my lifespan significantly. “Rain” is more a mockery than the story it could be. At least the twist at the end was fairly amusing, but by that point all I could do is roll my eyes in frustration.
CONCLUSION
Joe Hill’s Strange Weather is probably a poor choice for first time introduction to his work. In fact, it’s almost a deterrent considering it’s the first book by him that I read and I was ecstatic about receiving a review copy. It is with a bit of a heavy heart for the sake of disappointment that I am forced to conclude my review with a largely poor rating. Part of my compliance with FTC guidelines as a reviewer requires that I disclose when I read a free book in exchange for an honest, unbiased review. In this case, I’d like to thank Edelweiss and HarperCollins/William Morrow for this opportunity.
SNAPSHOT
“Snapshot,” though a bit lacking in style, is one of two stories in this small collection that I found myself capable of tolerating. I figure it’s because this short tale embodies a sort of Twilight Zone and Night Gallery feel. It read the quickest out of the four stories and I found myself nearly in tears at its conclusion, so the best I can say about it is that I either felt something, or my emotions went bonkers again.
LOADED
The second shorty story in Hill’s collection, “Loaded,” is a bunch of driveling bullshit, for lack of a better word. I’m all about our Second Amendment Rights; I even have a cup that says “Don’t ban guns, ban idiots,” but this story encompasses the stereotypical idea that every gun owner or enthusiast is a batshit crazy blowhard that’s just looking for a reason to go off. I have friends and family that appreciate this machinery, that agree people should under go background and mental wellness checks prior to purchase of a fire arm, but this? This story just adds fuel to a fire that seeks kindling via blame on inanimate objects, rather than the person behind them. The main guy of “Loaded” shows us exactly how restricting gun ownership will fail so hey, better hurry and make it entirely illegal right? Oh, and let’s not get started with the over-saturation of Social Justice Warriorness in this piece. I’m all for equality, but this? This just reeks of extremism in a way that I almost abandoned the book as a whole.
ALOFT
“Aloft” is by far the best in this collection of short stories. An embodiment of the collections title, the main character encounters something unusual while fulfilling a dead friend’s promise and from there, things really take a turn for the bizarre. While I feel Hill gives us a bit too much exposition in this tale, there are many things about it that I feel should be appreciated. For instance, the next time anyone asks me what it’s like to have ulcerative colitis, I’ll probably ask them if they’ve read “Aloft”‘ by Joe Hill, because let’s face it: the torment Aubrey goes through gastrically (is that even a word?) in this story is a pretty damned accurate depiction of the suffering people with Crohn’s and Colitis endure.
RAIN
The final story in Hill’s collection seemed like it could have had a loft of potential. “Rain” further supports the title of the collection when a torrent of crystal nails fall from the sky to impale poor, unexpecting citizens. So what’s the problem then? “Rain” is so fundamentally flawed that it’s just… no. First, Hill is more obsessed with making fun of Trump in this story than the events that occur. This isn’t a bad thing – I absolutely loathe Trump, especially considering his policies may very well shorten my lifespan significantly. “Rain” is more a mockery than the story it could be. At least the twist at the end was fairly amusing, but by that point all I could do is roll my eyes in frustration.
CONCLUSION
Joe Hill’s Strange Weather is probably a poor choice for first time introduction to his work. In fact, it’s almost a deterrent considering it’s the first book by him that I read and I was ecstatic about receiving a review copy. It is with a bit of a heavy heart for the sake of disappointment that I am forced to conclude my review with a largely poor rating. Part of my compliance with FTC guidelines as a reviewer requires that I disclose when I read a free book in exchange for an honest, unbiased review. In this case, I’d like to thank Edelweiss and HarperCollins/William Morrow for this opportunity.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Captain Marvel (2019) in Movies
Mar 9, 2019
Chemistry between Brie Larson and Samuel L. Jackson (1 more)
As always, END CREDITS SEQUENCE
A Marvel-ous "Buddy Cop" film
For those of you who read my reviews regularly know, I am a fan of the films produced in the MARVEL CINEMATIC UNIVERSE. There has been a bit of a hiatus in these films (the last one was ANT MAN AND THE WASP last July) so it was with some excitement that I headed to the multiplex to check out the latest installment in this film franchise.
And...after an opening that paid tribute to the late, great Stan Lee, I settled in for what, I hoped would be a fun time at the movies. I started to become a little concerned in the first half hour of this film as it jumbled things around, trying to tell an origin story of a person who has no memory of where she came from while Jude Law was "man-splaining" the new worlds and the new people that the audience needs to know about it. I was becoming concerned that this film was going to become a "hot mess".
And then came Samuel L. Jackson.
Mr. Jackson is a MOVIE STAR and his presence in this film instantly catapulted it to another level. The star power, energy and pacing of the film improved and (if I am honest with myself) the performance of Brie Larson as Carol Danvers/Captain Marvel improved as well. The film stopped being an "alien Super Hero" film and it become a "buddy cop film" along the lines of LETHAL WEAPON, 48 HOURS and (my personal favorite) MIDNIGHT RUN.
The chemistry between Jackson and Larson is undeniable and they play off of each other very well, bantering and bouncing lines back and forth while chasing - and being chased - by the bad guys. This dynamic raised the level of this film from a "middle of the road" SuperHero film to a fun action/comedy that is in the upper third of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
Aside from Jackson, Larson (eventually) is terrifically cast as the titular character. She has a difficult balancing act to fulfill in the first 1/2 hour of the film, since her character has no memories, she also was in danger of having no personality. I've heard the word "bland" thrown around to characterize her performance, but I wouldn't quite go there (especially once Jackson shows up and her character's memories start to return). This is a well rounded, fierce performance and I don't think we've really seen the "best" that this character - or Larson's portrayal - has to offer.
Jude Law, Annette Benning(!) Lashana Lynch and Clark Gregg are all "fine" in supporting roles, but they pale in comparison to Larson/Jackson. Only Ben Mendehlson was able to "up" his performance to match these two, so when Jackson/Larson/Mendehlson were on the screen together, things crackled. Oh...and I would be remiss if I didn't mention one of the best feline performances in film in quite some time - GOOSE, the cat (yes, named after the character in TOP GUN). The less I say about this character the better - but it was really fun. The only disappointment for me was the usage of Gemma Chan (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) as Minn-Erva. She just didn't have much to do, probably because at the time of filming Chan was not much of a "name". I know here character is crucial to some Captain Marvel storylines in the comics, so I am hoping they bring her back and use her more in the future.
But...as for this film...it is a fun romp, with good action and a truly memorable pairing of Jackson/Larson - one that does not disappoint. Stay, of course, for the TWO end credits scene - the first one sets up AVENGERS: ENDGAME and the last one is...
Letter Grade A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
And...after an opening that paid tribute to the late, great Stan Lee, I settled in for what, I hoped would be a fun time at the movies. I started to become a little concerned in the first half hour of this film as it jumbled things around, trying to tell an origin story of a person who has no memory of where she came from while Jude Law was "man-splaining" the new worlds and the new people that the audience needs to know about it. I was becoming concerned that this film was going to become a "hot mess".
And then came Samuel L. Jackson.
Mr. Jackson is a MOVIE STAR and his presence in this film instantly catapulted it to another level. The star power, energy and pacing of the film improved and (if I am honest with myself) the performance of Brie Larson as Carol Danvers/Captain Marvel improved as well. The film stopped being an "alien Super Hero" film and it become a "buddy cop film" along the lines of LETHAL WEAPON, 48 HOURS and (my personal favorite) MIDNIGHT RUN.
The chemistry between Jackson and Larson is undeniable and they play off of each other very well, bantering and bouncing lines back and forth while chasing - and being chased - by the bad guys. This dynamic raised the level of this film from a "middle of the road" SuperHero film to a fun action/comedy that is in the upper third of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
Aside from Jackson, Larson (eventually) is terrifically cast as the titular character. She has a difficult balancing act to fulfill in the first 1/2 hour of the film, since her character has no memories, she also was in danger of having no personality. I've heard the word "bland" thrown around to characterize her performance, but I wouldn't quite go there (especially once Jackson shows up and her character's memories start to return). This is a well rounded, fierce performance and I don't think we've really seen the "best" that this character - or Larson's portrayal - has to offer.
Jude Law, Annette Benning(!) Lashana Lynch and Clark Gregg are all "fine" in supporting roles, but they pale in comparison to Larson/Jackson. Only Ben Mendehlson was able to "up" his performance to match these two, so when Jackson/Larson/Mendehlson were on the screen together, things crackled. Oh...and I would be remiss if I didn't mention one of the best feline performances in film in quite some time - GOOSE, the cat (yes, named after the character in TOP GUN). The less I say about this character the better - but it was really fun. The only disappointment for me was the usage of Gemma Chan (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) as Minn-Erva. She just didn't have much to do, probably because at the time of filming Chan was not much of a "name". I know here character is crucial to some Captain Marvel storylines in the comics, so I am hoping they bring her back and use her more in the future.
But...as for this film...it is a fun romp, with good action and a truly memorable pairing of Jackson/Larson - one that does not disappoint. Stay, of course, for the TWO end credits scene - the first one sets up AVENGERS: ENDGAME and the last one is...
Letter Grade A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Mothergamer (1536 KP) rated The Green Hornet (2011) in Movies
Apr 3, 2019
I don't even have the words for how infuriated I am right now with The Green Hornet film. There's a small part of me that wishes I could just throw a brick at Seth Rogen's crotch right now, because he absolutely deserves it along with director Michael Gondry. That's right, the director of the film Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind which to me was a good movie is responsible for this equally terrible movie.
I do feel much of the blame lies with the fact that Seth Rogen co-wrote this screenplay and he claimed that he was so glad he didn't screw up one of his favorite childhood heroes. Seth, Seth, Seth....tsk tsk, someone's a dirty rotten liar Seth. Why must you constantly lie to us Seth? The truth is you messed up completely! In the original radio show, comics, and T.V. Show Britt Reid wasn't a moron. He was a smart successful newspaper publisher, he was confident, and he could fight well alongside his equally confident sidekick Kato. I loved the T.V. show and I loved the comic. I loved watching The Green Hornet on Kung Fu Saturday when I was a kid. That was the highlight of my Saturday. I would watch a couple of episodes of The Green Hornet and then watch the featured kung fu film. That's a sacred childhood memory and you, Seth Rogen along with your director have pissed all over it.
Not only did you make Britt Reid a total jerk, you made him stupid too! He loosely based Britt Reid on Paris Hilton? Are you kidding me with this nonsense?
Seth Rogen's Britt Reid is a spoiled rich brat who shows no interest in running the newspaper, but he instead becomes buddies with Kato his mechanic and coffee maker. I felt bad for Jay Chou because he's no Bruce Lee, but he did alright in spite of Seth Rogen constantly hyperventilating and shouting in every scene. He tried, he really did. Cameron Diaz's role as Reid's secretary Lenore Case is completely useless. She's basically camera filler with a great smile.
Of course, The Green Hornet has to have a villain and that is Christoph Waltz (Oscar winner from Inglorious Basterds) as Chudnofsky, but there is no depth to the character which proves bad writing is bad writing. Now I like action scenes as much as the next person, but it's as if Seth Rogen got bored and just added as much action as possible as filler rather than having an actual plot that tells the story. There's also so much pointless dialogue, watching this train wreck of a film is like being stuck in a dentist's chair having a root canal with no anesthesia. Yes, it's that damn bad. Not even the overpriced 3-D could save this film. That is just a gimmick to get more money out of people and this film proved that point real quick.
There is so much that could have been done to make this film version of the T.V. show great, but none of it was done. Instead, we get a film that is so terrible with no plot at all, a fake Britt Reid (I don't care what you say Rogen, that character you played was NOT Britt Reid! You are a liar sir!), a subdued Kato that got overshadowed by the crazy rich brat, a useless vapid secretary, and a villain that's about as threatening as a labradoodle. Seth Rogen and Michale Gondry you should be ashamed and embarrassed that your names are on this piece of trash.
Don't waste your money on this folks and certainly don't waste it on 3-D. The original is better and I'm sure that Mr. Rogen's going to have several bricks thrown at his crotch for even writing this awful screenplay. Just please, do us a favor and go sit in the corner with M. Night Shyamalan and quit making movies, because you really screwed the pooch on this one pal.
I do feel much of the blame lies with the fact that Seth Rogen co-wrote this screenplay and he claimed that he was so glad he didn't screw up one of his favorite childhood heroes. Seth, Seth, Seth....tsk tsk, someone's a dirty rotten liar Seth. Why must you constantly lie to us Seth? The truth is you messed up completely! In the original radio show, comics, and T.V. Show Britt Reid wasn't a moron. He was a smart successful newspaper publisher, he was confident, and he could fight well alongside his equally confident sidekick Kato. I loved the T.V. show and I loved the comic. I loved watching The Green Hornet on Kung Fu Saturday when I was a kid. That was the highlight of my Saturday. I would watch a couple of episodes of The Green Hornet and then watch the featured kung fu film. That's a sacred childhood memory and you, Seth Rogen along with your director have pissed all over it.
Not only did you make Britt Reid a total jerk, you made him stupid too! He loosely based Britt Reid on Paris Hilton? Are you kidding me with this nonsense?
Seth Rogen's Britt Reid is a spoiled rich brat who shows no interest in running the newspaper, but he instead becomes buddies with Kato his mechanic and coffee maker. I felt bad for Jay Chou because he's no Bruce Lee, but he did alright in spite of Seth Rogen constantly hyperventilating and shouting in every scene. He tried, he really did. Cameron Diaz's role as Reid's secretary Lenore Case is completely useless. She's basically camera filler with a great smile.
Of course, The Green Hornet has to have a villain and that is Christoph Waltz (Oscar winner from Inglorious Basterds) as Chudnofsky, but there is no depth to the character which proves bad writing is bad writing. Now I like action scenes as much as the next person, but it's as if Seth Rogen got bored and just added as much action as possible as filler rather than having an actual plot that tells the story. There's also so much pointless dialogue, watching this train wreck of a film is like being stuck in a dentist's chair having a root canal with no anesthesia. Yes, it's that damn bad. Not even the overpriced 3-D could save this film. That is just a gimmick to get more money out of people and this film proved that point real quick.
There is so much that could have been done to make this film version of the T.V. show great, but none of it was done. Instead, we get a film that is so terrible with no plot at all, a fake Britt Reid (I don't care what you say Rogen, that character you played was NOT Britt Reid! You are a liar sir!), a subdued Kato that got overshadowed by the crazy rich brat, a useless vapid secretary, and a villain that's about as threatening as a labradoodle. Seth Rogen and Michale Gondry you should be ashamed and embarrassed that your names are on this piece of trash.
Don't waste your money on this folks and certainly don't waste it on 3-D. The original is better and I'm sure that Mr. Rogen's going to have several bricks thrown at his crotch for even writing this awful screenplay. Just please, do us a favor and go sit in the corner with M. Night Shyamalan and quit making movies, because you really screwed the pooch on this one pal.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Us (2019) in Movies
Apr 10, 2019 (Updated Apr 10, 2019)
Fantastic performances all round (2 more)
Brilliant direction
Lighting is on point
Just You & I
Contains spoilers, click to show
I saw Us last night and I really enjoyed it. It's the latest movie by comedian turned horror auteur Jordan Peele and after how much I loved Get Out, I was very much looking forward to seeing this. I think that if Us had came before Get Out, I probably would have enjoyed it more, as for every element that I enjoyed in Us, I couldn't help but keep thinking that it had already been done better in Get Out.
Okay, from this point on I am going to dive into spoilers, so please make sure that you have seen the movie before you continue reading.
The main reason that I am having to go into spoilers pretty soon into my review is because the shit hits the fan in this film fairly early on. In Get Out the first 3 quarters of the movie was build up before things eventually got nuts in the last 30 minutes, whereas in Us we are only just at the end of the first act when crazy shit starts to go down. I get why Peele did this from a filmmaker's perspective; in Get Out, we didn't really know what we were in for and he had the benefit of keeping us in the dark for as long as he wanted to, whereas in Us we all went in expecting bizarre things to take place, so rather than messing about for too long building tension, Peele lets things get weird fairly early in the film. Whether you prefer the slower burn of Get Out like I did, or the faster pace in Us will be down to personal preference.
The worst thing about Us is that it is following Get Out. Even when something really cool happens, it was done better in Get Out. Take the score for example; it is pretty great in Us, but was superior in Get Out. The same goes for the editing, the script, the cinematography and a whole load of other technical elements. One thing that did stand out was the fantastic use of lighting. It was perfect in every scene throughout the film and conveyed the feelings that Peele was subjecting the audience to flawlessly.
The performances were also great. The whole cast did a fantastic job, (including the kids,) but the stand outs for me were Lupita Nyong'o and Elisabeth Moss. They were pretty good as the normal versions of their characters, but they really shone when they got to play the psychotic doppelgangers, for way more reasons than just how scary they were.
Another thing that I liked was that for the most part, the film doesn't treat you like you are dumb, with one exception. The film opens on a shot of an old CRT TV showing various adverts. One of these is an advert for Santa Cruz tourism and another tells us that the year is 1986. In the very next shot we are shown a title card reading, "Santa Cruz, 1986." This isn't an outrageous inclusion, just one that causes an eyeroll for anyone actually paying attention to what they are seeing onscreen.
Another thing that didn't quite work for me was the use of comedy. Where Get Out used comedy to cut away from the intensity and give the audience a breather, Us intertwined it more with the carnage, which made it come off as fairly messy in parts. Don't get me wrong, any comedic lines were well written and well delivered, I just feel that they could have been implemented a bit better.
Overall, Us is another great horror/thriller from Jordan Peele. I know that I compared it to Get Out all the way through this review, but even when watching it, it is extremely hard not to make comparisons. That does not mean that this is a bad movie by any stretch though and I am very much looking forward to seeing Peele's upcoming Twilight Zone series as well as any other projects he is working on.
Okay, from this point on I am going to dive into spoilers, so please make sure that you have seen the movie before you continue reading.
The main reason that I am having to go into spoilers pretty soon into my review is because the shit hits the fan in this film fairly early on. In Get Out the first 3 quarters of the movie was build up before things eventually got nuts in the last 30 minutes, whereas in Us we are only just at the end of the first act when crazy shit starts to go down. I get why Peele did this from a filmmaker's perspective; in Get Out, we didn't really know what we were in for and he had the benefit of keeping us in the dark for as long as he wanted to, whereas in Us we all went in expecting bizarre things to take place, so rather than messing about for too long building tension, Peele lets things get weird fairly early in the film. Whether you prefer the slower burn of Get Out like I did, or the faster pace in Us will be down to personal preference.
The worst thing about Us is that it is following Get Out. Even when something really cool happens, it was done better in Get Out. Take the score for example; it is pretty great in Us, but was superior in Get Out. The same goes for the editing, the script, the cinematography and a whole load of other technical elements. One thing that did stand out was the fantastic use of lighting. It was perfect in every scene throughout the film and conveyed the feelings that Peele was subjecting the audience to flawlessly.
The performances were also great. The whole cast did a fantastic job, (including the kids,) but the stand outs for me were Lupita Nyong'o and Elisabeth Moss. They were pretty good as the normal versions of their characters, but they really shone when they got to play the psychotic doppelgangers, for way more reasons than just how scary they were.
Another thing that I liked was that for the most part, the film doesn't treat you like you are dumb, with one exception. The film opens on a shot of an old CRT TV showing various adverts. One of these is an advert for Santa Cruz tourism and another tells us that the year is 1986. In the very next shot we are shown a title card reading, "Santa Cruz, 1986." This isn't an outrageous inclusion, just one that causes an eyeroll for anyone actually paying attention to what they are seeing onscreen.
Another thing that didn't quite work for me was the use of comedy. Where Get Out used comedy to cut away from the intensity and give the audience a breather, Us intertwined it more with the carnage, which made it come off as fairly messy in parts. Don't get me wrong, any comedic lines were well written and well delivered, I just feel that they could have been implemented a bit better.
Overall, Us is another great horror/thriller from Jordan Peele. I know that I compared it to Get Out all the way through this review, but even when watching it, it is extremely hard not to make comparisons. That does not mean that this is a bad movie by any stretch though and I am very much looking forward to seeing Peele's upcoming Twilight Zone series as well as any other projects he is working on.