Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Soul (2020) in Movies
Dec 30, 2020
Soul is Pixar at its most cerebral
In the last few days I've seen Pixar's latest animation - "Soul" - described by various reviewers as a cross between "Inside Out", "Coco", "La La Land" and "Whiplash". I'll add to that some older movies with more obvious parallels with the story: 1946's "A Matter of Life and Death" with David Niven; 1941's "Here Comes Mr Jordan" with Robert Montgomery and its 1978 remake - a personal favourite of mine - "Heaven Can Wait" with Warren Beatty. For these all tell the story of someone plucked from the world a tad too early.
In "Soul", Joe (Jamie Foxx) is a talented jazz pianist always dreaming of getting to be a big time session musician. He is stuck though in a worthwhile but unappreciated job as a high school music teacher. But his luck is - temporarily - about to change when an old successful student (nice touch) recommends him to provide backing to the fearsome jazz star Dorothea Williams (Angela Bassett).
Just as things seem to going his way, an open manhole cover has other ideas, and Joe falls to his 'death'. Feeling his soul has exited the world too early, and just before he gets his big shot, Joe's spirit struggles to return to the world with the help of reluctant soul/recruit "22" (Tina Fey).
Pete Docter seems to have done it again with "Soul". The man behind Pixar's hugely successful "Up" and "Inside Out" has the magic touch with these animated classics. He's had more than his share of Oscar success. (Although having gone straight to streaming on Disney+, does it qualify for the Oscars this year? Or have they relaxed the rules?) Assuming it is eligible, you'd be a brave man to bet against "Soul" winning Best Animated Feature this year.
For there are some sequences of this movie that are breathtakingly effective. The fall of Joe from the "stairway to the great beyond" to the pre-life domain (as shown in the trailer) is a masterpiece of graphic design. (And do I detect in there a tribute to the "stargate" in "2001: A Space Odyssey"?) What makes these sequences distinctive is not the afterlife soul's or the "great before" souls, who resemble blue variants of Casper. It's the 'counsellors' of the realms. They are surreally drawn Picasso-style in 2D and - although easy to draw for preschooler's with a crayon - might be a bit of a stretch for them to relate to.
But will the kids get it? I know that my 6-year old grandson enjoyed watching it. But ultimately, this is principally a Pixar film squarely targeted at adults to enjoy. Indeed, the themes of death and afterlife might be disturbing for younger children (as in "Coco"). They will certainly struggle to understand the land of lost souls, where those obsessed with their work or hobbies (metal detecting! LOL!) are almost beyond reach. And surely the message of 'enjoying the everyday here and now' rather than getting too wrapped up in career or life goals will only be relatable to adults.
"Soul" is brim-full with Pixar quirkiness. As per normal, the movie has a lot of detail that will need multiple watches. And I can confirm that the pause button helps! For example, "22" has been an earth-apprentice for so many millennia that he has had just about every mentor who's ever passed through. His 'den' is wallpapered with "Hello, My Name is ...." badges, and a pause at that point reveals mentors as varied as Gandhi, Aretha Franklin, Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking! And in the end titles, the usual list of babies born during production are "Recent You Seminar graduates"!
The movie also features two of the most distinctive voices from UK television. Graham Norton plays Moonwind: a sign-spinning hippy and lost-soul-sea piratical captain (I've honestly not been taking drugs). And Richard Ayoade, a UK TV regular but familiar to US audiences from his role in "The IT Crowd", plays Counsellor Jerry (well, one of them!). Alice Braga, as another Counsellor Jerry and most recently seen as the doctor in "The New Mutants", is another familiar voice
For once, Michael Giacchino doesn't get the scoring gig. Instead, this went to the "Nine Inch Nails" partnership of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. (The soundtrack for "Mank" was their most recent work). The music is perhaps not as immediately accessible as some of the previous Pixar scores. But I think will be a 'grower'.
I have a "but" in my review. I sobbed like a young child during parts of "Up". And similarly, I was a mess as 'Bing Bong' faded away in "Inside Out". And yet here, my tear ducts remained stubbornly unchallenged. Perhaps this is a personal thing, and others were a soggy mess after this movie. But, for me, it simply didn't connect with me at the same raw emotional level that Docter's other work (and indeed other Pixar movies) have done. So, for that reason (only), I'm going to hold off my highest rating.
It's highly recommended since, notwithstanding this, it's a magnificent effort. (At the 11th hour, it made my "Number 7" slot in my Top 10 of 2020). It's also worth noting that it's mildly groundbreaking in being the first Pixar movie with a black leading character.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the full review in One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/30/soul-is-pixar-at-its-most-cerebral/).
In "Soul", Joe (Jamie Foxx) is a talented jazz pianist always dreaming of getting to be a big time session musician. He is stuck though in a worthwhile but unappreciated job as a high school music teacher. But his luck is - temporarily - about to change when an old successful student (nice touch) recommends him to provide backing to the fearsome jazz star Dorothea Williams (Angela Bassett).
Just as things seem to going his way, an open manhole cover has other ideas, and Joe falls to his 'death'. Feeling his soul has exited the world too early, and just before he gets his big shot, Joe's spirit struggles to return to the world with the help of reluctant soul/recruit "22" (Tina Fey).
Pete Docter seems to have done it again with "Soul". The man behind Pixar's hugely successful "Up" and "Inside Out" has the magic touch with these animated classics. He's had more than his share of Oscar success. (Although having gone straight to streaming on Disney+, does it qualify for the Oscars this year? Or have they relaxed the rules?) Assuming it is eligible, you'd be a brave man to bet against "Soul" winning Best Animated Feature this year.
For there are some sequences of this movie that are breathtakingly effective. The fall of Joe from the "stairway to the great beyond" to the pre-life domain (as shown in the trailer) is a masterpiece of graphic design. (And do I detect in there a tribute to the "stargate" in "2001: A Space Odyssey"?) What makes these sequences distinctive is not the afterlife soul's or the "great before" souls, who resemble blue variants of Casper. It's the 'counsellors' of the realms. They are surreally drawn Picasso-style in 2D and - although easy to draw for preschooler's with a crayon - might be a bit of a stretch for them to relate to.
But will the kids get it? I know that my 6-year old grandson enjoyed watching it. But ultimately, this is principally a Pixar film squarely targeted at adults to enjoy. Indeed, the themes of death and afterlife might be disturbing for younger children (as in "Coco"). They will certainly struggle to understand the land of lost souls, where those obsessed with their work or hobbies (metal detecting! LOL!) are almost beyond reach. And surely the message of 'enjoying the everyday here and now' rather than getting too wrapped up in career or life goals will only be relatable to adults.
"Soul" is brim-full with Pixar quirkiness. As per normal, the movie has a lot of detail that will need multiple watches. And I can confirm that the pause button helps! For example, "22" has been an earth-apprentice for so many millennia that he has had just about every mentor who's ever passed through. His 'den' is wallpapered with "Hello, My Name is ...." badges, and a pause at that point reveals mentors as varied as Gandhi, Aretha Franklin, Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking! And in the end titles, the usual list of babies born during production are "Recent You Seminar graduates"!
The movie also features two of the most distinctive voices from UK television. Graham Norton plays Moonwind: a sign-spinning hippy and lost-soul-sea piratical captain (I've honestly not been taking drugs). And Richard Ayoade, a UK TV regular but familiar to US audiences from his role in "The IT Crowd", plays Counsellor Jerry (well, one of them!). Alice Braga, as another Counsellor Jerry and most recently seen as the doctor in "The New Mutants", is another familiar voice
For once, Michael Giacchino doesn't get the scoring gig. Instead, this went to the "Nine Inch Nails" partnership of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. (The soundtrack for "Mank" was their most recent work). The music is perhaps not as immediately accessible as some of the previous Pixar scores. But I think will be a 'grower'.
I have a "but" in my review. I sobbed like a young child during parts of "Up". And similarly, I was a mess as 'Bing Bong' faded away in "Inside Out". And yet here, my tear ducts remained stubbornly unchallenged. Perhaps this is a personal thing, and others were a soggy mess after this movie. But, for me, it simply didn't connect with me at the same raw emotional level that Docter's other work (and indeed other Pixar movies) have done. So, for that reason (only), I'm going to hold off my highest rating.
It's highly recommended since, notwithstanding this, it's a magnificent effort. (At the 11th hour, it made my "Number 7" slot in my Top 10 of 2020). It's also worth noting that it's mildly groundbreaking in being the first Pixar movie with a black leading character.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the full review in One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/30/soul-is-pixar-at-its-most-cerebral/).
Lee (2222 KP) rated Wonder Woman (2017) in Movies
Jul 14, 2017
After a pretty lengthy drought, we finally get another decent DC movie
As the DC TV universe continues to go from strength to strength, the DC movie universe is gradually going downhill. Don’t get me wrong, I really liked Man of Steel, despite the overloaded CGI destruction at the end. I didn’t mind Batman Vs Superman either, even with Jesse Eisenberg doing his very best to try and ruin it. But, despite successfully introducing two other major DC heavyweight characters (and not so successfully introducing a few others) and picking up steam in the final act, the movie struggled. Suicide Squad then managed to take bad to a completely new level, and was just a complete train-wreck.
Batman Vs Superman was our first introduction to Wonder Woman in the DC movie universe, and she was the most entertaining and promising aspect of the whole movie. As a child of the 70s, I grew up watching and enjoying the Wonder Woman TV show, along with re-runs of the Batman 60s show and of course the Christopher Reeve Superman movies. After all these years of countless Batman and Superman movies, it was great to not only see Wonder Woman finally on the big screen, but also to see her being portrayed so well. Now, with her standalone movie coming out a few months before the mediocre looking Justice League movie, this is not only an important movie for DC but also an important first step in finally bringing strong female superheroes to the big screen. Paving the way for Captain Marvel, a Black Widow standalone movie, and more. This had to be good.
Thankfully, it is. Although there’s still a long way to go in order to reach the level that Marvel already managed to achieve many movies ago, this is indeed a serious step up for DC. Opening with a brief scene set in present day, Wonder Woman then takes us back to Themyscira. A paradise island, hidden from view from the rest of the world, where a young Diana lives peacefully among her Amazon tribe. Despite their peaceful existence though, the Amazons are constantly preparing themselves for the return of Ares, God of War. Archery and combat training is undertaken daily on the island, under the guidance of Dianas aunt, General Antiope (Robin Wright). Diana is keen to train too and her reluctant mother, Queen Hippolyta (Connie Nielsen), eventually agrees, requesting that General Antiope train her hard and make her the best. As Diana grows into a woman, training has clearly gone well and she’s even managing to give her aunt a good run for her money! Just in time too as World War 1 pilot Steve Trevor (Chris Pine) crashes through the invisible barrier cloaking the island and crash lands into the sea, closely followed by a bunch of Germans who are on his tail. Time for the Amazon women to put their training to good use, but not without some casualties…
Steve tells Diana of the great war that’s raging throughout the world and Diana believes this to be the return of Ares. She decides to leave her home and travel with Steve to put an end to Ares once and for all. So, she grabs her shield and lasso of truth and ‘borrows’ the sacred ‘God Killer’ sword from the tower it rests in and off they go. Leaving behind the bright, vibrant island of Themyscira and returning to the traditional, dark grey pallet of colours that we’re used to seeing in our DC movies as they head to war-torn London.
Steve takes over as charming tour guide as Diana enters the human world for the first time. Her innocence and curiosity of the modern world are played beautifully by Gadot, with plenty of fish-out-of-water style humour too. But she’s also never afraid to question and stand up for what she believes in and tackle those who try and oppose her, giving an interesting perspective on aspects of humanity which deserve to be questioned. Her drive to get to the front-line of war, to seek out Ares and supposedly end all war by defeating him, constantly driving her forward. Romance eventually blossoms between Diana and Steve, but it feels natural and believable and helps to hold the movie together during some of its slower moments.
When Wonder Woman manages to get to the front line and steps out into no-mans land, ignoring the advice of Steve and those around her, it’s magnificent. It heralds the first in a series of magnificent action sequences involving German soldiers as she puts her training to good use. Initially shielding herself from the onslaught of bullets before moving onto the offensive with some bad-ass combat moves, slo-mo back-flips, jumps, whip action and displays of pure power and strength. Everything we got a glimpse of in Batman Vs Superman, ramped up to the max, perfectly executed and accompanied by a rocking soundtrack!
Where Wonder Woman doesn’t work so well is in the handling of its villains. Whenever we switch to General Ludendorff and Doctor Poison, busily developing deadly gases to unleash, momentum seems to be lost. And as for Ares, when we do finally meet him he’s pretty laughable, with no clearly defined motivation or character. Following a bit of villain monologue, we get the general gist of what his beef is and then the last 20 minutes or so descend into the over the top CG destruction that we’re so used to seeing now in these movies. It’s a minor gripe, and not handled as badly as some previous movies, but along with the pacing issues it does affect the overall enjoyment of the movie somewhat.
None of this detracts from Wonder Woman herself though. Gal Gadot has truly made this role her own and displays the perfect mix of strength, beauty, brains, confidence, determination and general all-round girl power. She can more than hold her own in the DC universe and should hopefully be a prominent force in the upcoming Justice League movie and beyond.
Batman Vs Superman was our first introduction to Wonder Woman in the DC movie universe, and she was the most entertaining and promising aspect of the whole movie. As a child of the 70s, I grew up watching and enjoying the Wonder Woman TV show, along with re-runs of the Batman 60s show and of course the Christopher Reeve Superman movies. After all these years of countless Batman and Superman movies, it was great to not only see Wonder Woman finally on the big screen, but also to see her being portrayed so well. Now, with her standalone movie coming out a few months before the mediocre looking Justice League movie, this is not only an important movie for DC but also an important first step in finally bringing strong female superheroes to the big screen. Paving the way for Captain Marvel, a Black Widow standalone movie, and more. This had to be good.
Thankfully, it is. Although there’s still a long way to go in order to reach the level that Marvel already managed to achieve many movies ago, this is indeed a serious step up for DC. Opening with a brief scene set in present day, Wonder Woman then takes us back to Themyscira. A paradise island, hidden from view from the rest of the world, where a young Diana lives peacefully among her Amazon tribe. Despite their peaceful existence though, the Amazons are constantly preparing themselves for the return of Ares, God of War. Archery and combat training is undertaken daily on the island, under the guidance of Dianas aunt, General Antiope (Robin Wright). Diana is keen to train too and her reluctant mother, Queen Hippolyta (Connie Nielsen), eventually agrees, requesting that General Antiope train her hard and make her the best. As Diana grows into a woman, training has clearly gone well and she’s even managing to give her aunt a good run for her money! Just in time too as World War 1 pilot Steve Trevor (Chris Pine) crashes through the invisible barrier cloaking the island and crash lands into the sea, closely followed by a bunch of Germans who are on his tail. Time for the Amazon women to put their training to good use, but not without some casualties…
Steve tells Diana of the great war that’s raging throughout the world and Diana believes this to be the return of Ares. She decides to leave her home and travel with Steve to put an end to Ares once and for all. So, she grabs her shield and lasso of truth and ‘borrows’ the sacred ‘God Killer’ sword from the tower it rests in and off they go. Leaving behind the bright, vibrant island of Themyscira and returning to the traditional, dark grey pallet of colours that we’re used to seeing in our DC movies as they head to war-torn London.
Steve takes over as charming tour guide as Diana enters the human world for the first time. Her innocence and curiosity of the modern world are played beautifully by Gadot, with plenty of fish-out-of-water style humour too. But she’s also never afraid to question and stand up for what she believes in and tackle those who try and oppose her, giving an interesting perspective on aspects of humanity which deserve to be questioned. Her drive to get to the front-line of war, to seek out Ares and supposedly end all war by defeating him, constantly driving her forward. Romance eventually blossoms between Diana and Steve, but it feels natural and believable and helps to hold the movie together during some of its slower moments.
When Wonder Woman manages to get to the front line and steps out into no-mans land, ignoring the advice of Steve and those around her, it’s magnificent. It heralds the first in a series of magnificent action sequences involving German soldiers as she puts her training to good use. Initially shielding herself from the onslaught of bullets before moving onto the offensive with some bad-ass combat moves, slo-mo back-flips, jumps, whip action and displays of pure power and strength. Everything we got a glimpse of in Batman Vs Superman, ramped up to the max, perfectly executed and accompanied by a rocking soundtrack!
Where Wonder Woman doesn’t work so well is in the handling of its villains. Whenever we switch to General Ludendorff and Doctor Poison, busily developing deadly gases to unleash, momentum seems to be lost. And as for Ares, when we do finally meet him he’s pretty laughable, with no clearly defined motivation or character. Following a bit of villain monologue, we get the general gist of what his beef is and then the last 20 minutes or so descend into the over the top CG destruction that we’re so used to seeing now in these movies. It’s a minor gripe, and not handled as badly as some previous movies, but along with the pacing issues it does affect the overall enjoyment of the movie somewhat.
None of this detracts from Wonder Woman herself though. Gal Gadot has truly made this role her own and displays the perfect mix of strength, beauty, brains, confidence, determination and general all-round girl power. She can more than hold her own in the DC universe and should hopefully be a prominent force in the upcoming Justice League movie and beyond.
Ande Thomas (69 KP) rated The Time Traveler's Wife in Books
May 30, 2019
I've been thinking a lot about what I would write about <i>The Time Traveler's Wife,</i> partly because it seems one usually falls into one of two camps: Love it, hate it. It turns out, I belong to the latter. I won't bother with the sci-fi elements, the could he/couldn't he, the exploration of time travel as a plot device - I'm always willing to engage with a story as long as it follows it's own rules. My problems run deeper.
Spoilers abound.
<spoiler>
First, I'd be remiss not to at least acknowledge the creepy factor of a 40 year old naked man befriending a 6 year old girl. It's been discussed ad nauseum, but I've got to put my two cents in.
The whole experience reeks of grooming. Henry shows up, naked, in a young girl's life and (although true) casually explains that he's a <i>time traveler</i>. Her imagination is hooked. Her very own secret Magic Man. Over the following years, their friendship blossoms, and Henry refuses to tell her anything about the future. He is friendly, charming even, and always respectful. But he remains an enigma. Clare is pulled in by the mystery of the Magic Man. All she knows are the dates of his future arrivals. Until one day he begins to break his rule and tell her that they will be together. They'll get married and be in love and have a life. What changed? Why is he suddenly willing to tell her snippets of her future life? Puberty. She admits her desire to be with him and he basically says "keep waiting, it'll happen."
From that moment, her life has been decided - by Henry, and for Henry. Clare spends the entirety of her teenage existence (and beyond) waiting on Henry. The whole of her character arc is basically one big middle finger to the Bechdel test. Henry leads her by a leash with clues and vague promises of the future. We'll be together when you're older (we're destined). We'll have sex on your 18th birthday (wait for me). We'll meet in Chicago (move to Chicago). Even after his dying breath, he subtly slides direction her way. "I hope you move on, but by the way, I'll drop by when you're EIGHTY. But by all means...move on." Is it coincidence that Henry's time traveling mimics an emotionally abusive relationship? Clare tells us, "Henry is an artist of another sort, a disappearing artist. Our life together in this too-small apartment is punctuated by Henry’s small absences. Sometimes he disappears unobtrusively . . . Sometimes it’s frightening." Sure, you say, but he can't help it. He wants to be there for her. <i>It's just the way he is.</i> It's not even hinted at. Multiple people tell Clare <b>to her face</b> that Henry is bad news. But she won't hear it, because he spent her entire childhood molding her into his wife.
The author doesn't hide the allusion to Homer. Rather, she beats us over the head with it. And sure, it makes sense; Clare is the patiently waiting wife, Henry the distant traveler. Even Alba takes up her role as Telemachus, going on her own journeys in search of her father. But do we need both main characters referring to Henry by name, as Odysseus? We get it, girl. You want to write your own romantic Odyssey. Ease up.
Oh, and by the way - Clare's quote above? That's one of her first comments on married life. Her first thoughts after the wedding are "Why is my husband always gone? Why am I always afraid for him?" Henry's first thoughts? "How can Clare listen to Cheap Trick?" Let me remind you that this is the guy who's willing to rattle off a comprehensive list of early punk before jumping up to join in singing a Prince song, but he's upset that his wife listens to The Eagles instead of some obscure as hell French punk band. Also, this man who is thrilled to share musical tastes with a young teen with a mohawk then laments that the kid can't find his own music and has to take his? He preaches the meaning of punk before privately questioning why those kids want to be punk? Here's a guy who's entire life was shaped by music - both of his parents made livings playing music written before they were even born, yet he can't comprehend why two preteens could (or should) like The Clash, or why Clare would like The Beatles. <i>Stay in your own time,</i> he is essentially saying, <i>leave the time traveling to me.</i>
The guy doesn't even realize the pain he causes. Ingrid asks him "Why were you so mean to me?" "Was I," he says, "I didn't want to be." I know, I know. Everyone around her didn't want him to see her or speak to her. But need I remind you - dude time travels and frequently gives himself tips from the future. "Hey pal, take it easy on Ingrid," or "Bro, Ingrid is really shaken up, don't listen to her family or doctor, she needs some closure." But of course, nothing can really change, everything is the way it is.
This is all before I even begin to mention how much Niffenegger LOVES to name-drop. Of course there's the aforementioned punk band name-vomit, mentions of Henry's parents' work can't go by without naming a specific piece, despite adding nothing to the story or our understanding of the characters, there are two separate references to Claude Levi-Strauss (why?), and various other casual mentions of figures that seem to serve no purpose other than to prove that Henry is smart, and knows smart people things.
</spoiler>
I wanted to like this book more, I thought it had a fascinating premise and an interesting perspective. Obviously, I'm not a regular consumer of romance, and I realize that the problems I have with this book are problems shared by a large portion of the genre. But I am positive that we can have a love story that isn't mired by (at best) morally ambiguous relationships. I understand it was a different world when it was published, and that's not directly anyone's fault. Questions of consent and power and respect have been thrust into the spotlight in the short years since this book was published, but that's the lens with which I have to peer through. Stop glorifying these vapid, and frankly, abusive relationships as the paragon of romance. We're better than this. We need to be.
Spoilers abound.
<spoiler>
First, I'd be remiss not to at least acknowledge the creepy factor of a 40 year old naked man befriending a 6 year old girl. It's been discussed ad nauseum, but I've got to put my two cents in.
The whole experience reeks of grooming. Henry shows up, naked, in a young girl's life and (although true) casually explains that he's a <i>time traveler</i>. Her imagination is hooked. Her very own secret Magic Man. Over the following years, their friendship blossoms, and Henry refuses to tell her anything about the future. He is friendly, charming even, and always respectful. But he remains an enigma. Clare is pulled in by the mystery of the Magic Man. All she knows are the dates of his future arrivals. Until one day he begins to break his rule and tell her that they will be together. They'll get married and be in love and have a life. What changed? Why is he suddenly willing to tell her snippets of her future life? Puberty. She admits her desire to be with him and he basically says "keep waiting, it'll happen."
From that moment, her life has been decided - by Henry, and for Henry. Clare spends the entirety of her teenage existence (and beyond) waiting on Henry. The whole of her character arc is basically one big middle finger to the Bechdel test. Henry leads her by a leash with clues and vague promises of the future. We'll be together when you're older (we're destined). We'll have sex on your 18th birthday (wait for me). We'll meet in Chicago (move to Chicago). Even after his dying breath, he subtly slides direction her way. "I hope you move on, but by the way, I'll drop by when you're EIGHTY. But by all means...move on." Is it coincidence that Henry's time traveling mimics an emotionally abusive relationship? Clare tells us, "Henry is an artist of another sort, a disappearing artist. Our life together in this too-small apartment is punctuated by Henry’s small absences. Sometimes he disappears unobtrusively . . . Sometimes it’s frightening." Sure, you say, but he can't help it. He wants to be there for her. <i>It's just the way he is.</i> It's not even hinted at. Multiple people tell Clare <b>to her face</b> that Henry is bad news. But she won't hear it, because he spent her entire childhood molding her into his wife.
The author doesn't hide the allusion to Homer. Rather, she beats us over the head with it. And sure, it makes sense; Clare is the patiently waiting wife, Henry the distant traveler. Even Alba takes up her role as Telemachus, going on her own journeys in search of her father. But do we need both main characters referring to Henry by name, as Odysseus? We get it, girl. You want to write your own romantic Odyssey. Ease up.
Oh, and by the way - Clare's quote above? That's one of her first comments on married life. Her first thoughts after the wedding are "Why is my husband always gone? Why am I always afraid for him?" Henry's first thoughts? "How can Clare listen to Cheap Trick?" Let me remind you that this is the guy who's willing to rattle off a comprehensive list of early punk before jumping up to join in singing a Prince song, but he's upset that his wife listens to The Eagles instead of some obscure as hell French punk band. Also, this man who is thrilled to share musical tastes with a young teen with a mohawk then laments that the kid can't find his own music and has to take his? He preaches the meaning of punk before privately questioning why those kids want to be punk? Here's a guy who's entire life was shaped by music - both of his parents made livings playing music written before they were even born, yet he can't comprehend why two preteens could (or should) like The Clash, or why Clare would like The Beatles. <i>Stay in your own time,</i> he is essentially saying, <i>leave the time traveling to me.</i>
The guy doesn't even realize the pain he causes. Ingrid asks him "Why were you so mean to me?" "Was I," he says, "I didn't want to be." I know, I know. Everyone around her didn't want him to see her or speak to her. But need I remind you - dude time travels and frequently gives himself tips from the future. "Hey pal, take it easy on Ingrid," or "Bro, Ingrid is really shaken up, don't listen to her family or doctor, she needs some closure." But of course, nothing can really change, everything is the way it is.
This is all before I even begin to mention how much Niffenegger LOVES to name-drop. Of course there's the aforementioned punk band name-vomit, mentions of Henry's parents' work can't go by without naming a specific piece, despite adding nothing to the story or our understanding of the characters, there are two separate references to Claude Levi-Strauss (why?), and various other casual mentions of figures that seem to serve no purpose other than to prove that Henry is smart, and knows smart people things.
</spoiler>
I wanted to like this book more, I thought it had a fascinating premise and an interesting perspective. Obviously, I'm not a regular consumer of romance, and I realize that the problems I have with this book are problems shared by a large portion of the genre. But I am positive that we can have a love story that isn't mired by (at best) morally ambiguous relationships. I understand it was a different world when it was published, and that's not directly anyone's fault. Questions of consent and power and respect have been thrust into the spotlight in the short years since this book was published, but that's the lens with which I have to peer through. Stop glorifying these vapid, and frankly, abusive relationships as the paragon of romance. We're better than this. We need to be.
honingwords (32 KP) rated No Good Reason in Books
Jul 5, 2018
Cari Hunter is most definitely as top notch a writer as you are going to find in crime/thriller writing.
Cari Hunter’s Dark Peak crime series, starting with No Good Reason, was recommended to me by a Lesfic author. I reckon you have to be pretty good for your peers to claim you are ‘top notch’ and after reading four of her books in quick succession I can guarantee that Cari is most definitely as top notch a writer as you are going to find in crime/thriller writing.
Let me admit to you that I generally find crime novels too much hard work to follow. I like my books to be romances, and the sexier the better. I’m surprised as all get out to find I love Cari’s thrilling ride through these Police stroke Hospital novels. Especially as there is almost no juicy sex to lubricate the grit. The infrequency of sex scenes is because the main characters, Sanne and Meg, aren’t officially a couple. Or maybe they are. It’s entirely possible everyone knows they are, except themselves.
The story isn't necessarily about their sexual tension, but it was always in the back of my mind that they would see sense in the end and I patiently waited them out.
I have found in the last few years that there are many padded-out books on the market by well-respected authors, where you can skip through whole pages at a time without losing any real sense of the plot. Not so with No Good Reason which kept me riveted through each paragraph and exquisite word right from the tense prologue.
Cari definitely makes every single word count and I felt engaged in the story and with her main characters within the first few pages.
I’d already read Snowbound, which was a fantastic debut novel, but the characters in No Good Reason are one smidge more sophisticatedly written.
Sanne and Meg go back a very long time, from before their first kiss at the age of twelve, and they know each other better than they know themselves. They have generated a world around them where they are each others’ support and comfort. They are BFFs, they are Friends With Benefits, but somehow Cari has written them as even more than these things. They are each others’ absolute other halves.
These two girls have aches and bruises, and tears and emotions, and genuine exhaustion from their ridiculously long work hours.
They do things like accidentally drop perishable shopping on the floor, but eat it anyway; burn their tea; and turn the shower off when the toilet flushes for fear of being scalded.
I love details like these. I love that they can have a discussion about putting the bins out and HobNobs can fall in their tea the same as they do for you and me, without making the whole book boring and mundane. It simply endears the characters to me all the more.
They made me smile a lot. Meg prefers ham and quaver butties, for goodness sake, what’s not to love?
It doesn’t take long for Cari to completely draw you into their world in Northern England, around the Manchester area, and mainly in the Peak District which is where Cari lives and I feel like I have travelled the hills and crunched the snow and tramped through the same streets as she has now.
This area has its own accent, Northern English, and it is noticeable that she uses phrases and words particular to there. I can’t remember which words I picked up on first, probably some dialogue, but you quickly become used to the fact this is not written by an American. It’s refreshing to have only regional UK main characters: no Londoners; no Americans.
Don’t let the idea of a local accent and local characters put you off, there is nothing in the book you wouldn’t understand, it is still all ‘plain English’ and if you come across a word you can’t decipher I will more than happily translate for you!
Other than the almost-a-romance-but-so-much-more between the two girls there is also this whole other kidnapping / crime malarkey going on. Sanne is a little too personally involved in the case right from the beginning, being caught up in the initial rescue of the victim. She and her police partner, the sensitive, caring, supportive, gorgeously written Nelson, are embroiled in working the case together. Needless to say they spend a lot of time visiting Meg in her role as A&E Doctor in the local hospital for one reason or another. Nelson is a beautiful soul and just the kind of partner Sanne needs, but that writers seldom allow their straight characters to be, especially in Police fiction.
The kidnapping plot is fast paced and exciting. The characters on both sides of the investigation were all believable and there was an audible ‘Huh!’ out of me with the final twist at the end. I really didn’t see that coming. Such a simple way to pull the whole plot together. Chilling!
Cari has a remarkable flair for descriptive writing and she pays particular attention to details like sounds and how things feel against skin. You are left in no doubt every time a character is sore, almost feeling the pain and peeling off the scabs with them.
Sometimes you have to reread a passage to understand the gist of what an author means, or furrow your brow over a combination of words because they just don’t make sense or even belong together, but with Cari Hunter the only thing I can point out to her is ‘Try feeding goldfinches niger seeds instead of nuts.’ That’s it. No other tweaking or corrections required. Nothing. Cari Hunter writes sheer perfection.
My favourite line in the book is the first one I stopped at, blinked appreciatively and re-read.
“Sanne ran her fingertips across the gritstone, letting it wear away her skin like an over-keen emery board.”
From that point on I knew I was going to love not only the book, but also Cari’s style and I wasn’t disappointed with further chapters.
I have a simple test for new authors, to find out how much I like them. The test is ‘how sick has this author made me?’ By that I mean - how long did they keep me awake reading when I ought to have been asleep for work the next day. If I am awake too long it makes me sick for several days after - it shouldn’t be something I am proud of but
Let me admit to you that I generally find crime novels too much hard work to follow. I like my books to be romances, and the sexier the better. I’m surprised as all get out to find I love Cari’s thrilling ride through these Police stroke Hospital novels. Especially as there is almost no juicy sex to lubricate the grit. The infrequency of sex scenes is because the main characters, Sanne and Meg, aren’t officially a couple. Or maybe they are. It’s entirely possible everyone knows they are, except themselves.
The story isn't necessarily about their sexual tension, but it was always in the back of my mind that they would see sense in the end and I patiently waited them out.
I have found in the last few years that there are many padded-out books on the market by well-respected authors, where you can skip through whole pages at a time without losing any real sense of the plot. Not so with No Good Reason which kept me riveted through each paragraph and exquisite word right from the tense prologue.
Cari definitely makes every single word count and I felt engaged in the story and with her main characters within the first few pages.
I’d already read Snowbound, which was a fantastic debut novel, but the characters in No Good Reason are one smidge more sophisticatedly written.
Sanne and Meg go back a very long time, from before their first kiss at the age of twelve, and they know each other better than they know themselves. They have generated a world around them where they are each others’ support and comfort. They are BFFs, they are Friends With Benefits, but somehow Cari has written them as even more than these things. They are each others’ absolute other halves.
These two girls have aches and bruises, and tears and emotions, and genuine exhaustion from their ridiculously long work hours.
They do things like accidentally drop perishable shopping on the floor, but eat it anyway; burn their tea; and turn the shower off when the toilet flushes for fear of being scalded.
I love details like these. I love that they can have a discussion about putting the bins out and HobNobs can fall in their tea the same as they do for you and me, without making the whole book boring and mundane. It simply endears the characters to me all the more.
They made me smile a lot. Meg prefers ham and quaver butties, for goodness sake, what’s not to love?
It doesn’t take long for Cari to completely draw you into their world in Northern England, around the Manchester area, and mainly in the Peak District which is where Cari lives and I feel like I have travelled the hills and crunched the snow and tramped through the same streets as she has now.
This area has its own accent, Northern English, and it is noticeable that she uses phrases and words particular to there. I can’t remember which words I picked up on first, probably some dialogue, but you quickly become used to the fact this is not written by an American. It’s refreshing to have only regional UK main characters: no Londoners; no Americans.
Don’t let the idea of a local accent and local characters put you off, there is nothing in the book you wouldn’t understand, it is still all ‘plain English’ and if you come across a word you can’t decipher I will more than happily translate for you!
Other than the almost-a-romance-but-so-much-more between the two girls there is also this whole other kidnapping / crime malarkey going on. Sanne is a little too personally involved in the case right from the beginning, being caught up in the initial rescue of the victim. She and her police partner, the sensitive, caring, supportive, gorgeously written Nelson, are embroiled in working the case together. Needless to say they spend a lot of time visiting Meg in her role as A&E Doctor in the local hospital for one reason or another. Nelson is a beautiful soul and just the kind of partner Sanne needs, but that writers seldom allow their straight characters to be, especially in Police fiction.
The kidnapping plot is fast paced and exciting. The characters on both sides of the investigation were all believable and there was an audible ‘Huh!’ out of me with the final twist at the end. I really didn’t see that coming. Such a simple way to pull the whole plot together. Chilling!
Cari has a remarkable flair for descriptive writing and she pays particular attention to details like sounds and how things feel against skin. You are left in no doubt every time a character is sore, almost feeling the pain and peeling off the scabs with them.
Sometimes you have to reread a passage to understand the gist of what an author means, or furrow your brow over a combination of words because they just don’t make sense or even belong together, but with Cari Hunter the only thing I can point out to her is ‘Try feeding goldfinches niger seeds instead of nuts.’ That’s it. No other tweaking or corrections required. Nothing. Cari Hunter writes sheer perfection.
My favourite line in the book is the first one I stopped at, blinked appreciatively and re-read.
“Sanne ran her fingertips across the gritstone, letting it wear away her skin like an over-keen emery board.”
From that point on I knew I was going to love not only the book, but also Cari’s style and I wasn’t disappointed with further chapters.
I have a simple test for new authors, to find out how much I like them. The test is ‘how sick has this author made me?’ By that I mean - how long did they keep me awake reading when I ought to have been asleep for work the next day. If I am awake too long it makes me sick for several days after - it shouldn’t be something I am proud of but
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Munchkin in Tabletop Games
Jan 6, 2020
A “Munchkin,” in gamer terms, is someone who is only out to better themselves with treasure and power at the expense of everyone else in their adventuring party. That rings so very true in the Munchkin line of games, as you are trying to be the first to gain 10th Level in a VERY loosely-based RPG setting. OG vanilla Munchkin (pictured above) was my first entry into hobby board gaming. Many many games later I ask myself: How has this system of games aged for me as my gaming tastes have changed? Let’s see.
In Munchkin games, you are trying to become the first player to reach 10th Level. That’s the goal. You take on the persona of a 1st Level basic human (no Starbucks jokes please) who will be adventuring with a party of your opponents through a dungeon. You will be kicking down doors, fighting monsters, placing curses on your fellow party members, and buffing yourself with cards featuring funny art and punny references. Your party mates are also trying to achieve 10th Level and will do everything they can to block your progress, so be prepared!
DISCLAIMER: This review is not for a specific game within the Munchkin universe, but for the system as a whole. All Munchkin games will pretty much use similar, if not exactly the same, rules to play the game with minor variations and different theming. I will be using The Good, The Bad, and The Munchkin for my review as it is one of the two versions I still own of the franchise. Also, I will not be detailing every rule in the book(s), but giving a brief overview of how the game plays. -T
Setup is easy: shuffle the deck of Door cards and the deck of Treasure cards. Deal cards to the players for their opening hands and keep the included die handy.
Your turn consists of just a few phases: Open a Door, Look for Trouble, Loot the Room, and Charity. To Open a Door, flip over the top card of the Door deck. If it is a monster you must fight it or run. If not a monster, you can move on to the next phase. If it IS a monster, prepare for combat. Combat is simple in that you add up all your bonuses from your gear cards you have attached to your character and try to beat the strength of the monster. Your party mates can screw with you during combat by adding strength to the monster or adding monsters to the fight to make it a more difficult encounter. If you win, you gain a Level on the spot. Some monsters are worth even more than one Level. If you did not encounter a monster, you will add the non-monster card you drew to your hand and you may Look for Trouble by playing a monster card from your hand to initiate a combat. This fight will work the same way and you will be susceptible to pile-ons as before. You may Loot the Room if you defeated a monster on your turn by drawing Treasure cards equal to the printed reward on the bottom of the monster card you defeated. If you defeated the monster yourself, unaided, these are drawn in secret. If you were given help by your mates then you may have to split up the loot per any agreements made. These cards are usually very advantageous to you so they are usually very valuable to others as they attempt to steal away your goods. If you did not fight a monster yet this turn, you may draw another secret card from the Door deck to add to your hand. Should your hand size climb above your limit (dictated by your Race card, if any) you will slide into the Charity phase to relieve your hand of extra cards. Give all excess cards to the player of lowest Level, or split them among those that share the lowest Level. It is now the next player’s turn and you continue play until someone reaches 10th Level.
Components. It’s a bunch of cards and one die. The cards are of okay quality. Nothing to write home about. The die is nice with one of the faces having the Munchkin logo head imprinted on it. It will also have a color scheme that matches the version of Munchkin you are playing, so it’s easy to match them back up if they become integrated with each other. Overall, the components are fine, but not wonderful. That’s probably why these are pretty inexpensive to purchase.
Okay, so like I said earlier the original vanilla Munchkin was the first hobby board game I ever purchased. My friends and family had no idea hobby games existed, so there was actually a pretty steep learning curve for us. Once we figured it out, however, we began to play it a ton and really love it! The cards are cute, the game play is pretty easy if you have played hobby games before, and the puns kept us rolling for a good while. There was a time when I owned every version of Munchkin in circulation and we never even played half of them. Seeing this I got rid of them through BGG Auctions. I have The Good, The Bad, and The Munchkin and Munchkin Zombies right now and I feel that will be plenty for me from here on out – unless they make a Doctor Who or Firefly set or something /*checks warehouse23 to find out if these are available/.
Do I still love Munchkin? No, not really. I LIKE it, but I don’t really want to play it all the time any more. Why? Well, as my gamer experience increases and I level up, my game tastes also level up. I see why people enjoy and even love this game system. I myself loved it for a time. But there are better games out there that accomplish the same feelings without being as sophomoric and have better choices to be made. Will I still play these games? Heck yeah! If someone asks to play a Munchkin game I am all in. I have different tastes and preferences now, but I’m no snob. Just come prepared, because I won’t go easy on you.
We at Purple Phoenix Games give this family of titles a backstabby 16 / 24.
In Munchkin games, you are trying to become the first player to reach 10th Level. That’s the goal. You take on the persona of a 1st Level basic human (no Starbucks jokes please) who will be adventuring with a party of your opponents through a dungeon. You will be kicking down doors, fighting monsters, placing curses on your fellow party members, and buffing yourself with cards featuring funny art and punny references. Your party mates are also trying to achieve 10th Level and will do everything they can to block your progress, so be prepared!
DISCLAIMER: This review is not for a specific game within the Munchkin universe, but for the system as a whole. All Munchkin games will pretty much use similar, if not exactly the same, rules to play the game with minor variations and different theming. I will be using The Good, The Bad, and The Munchkin for my review as it is one of the two versions I still own of the franchise. Also, I will not be detailing every rule in the book(s), but giving a brief overview of how the game plays. -T
Setup is easy: shuffle the deck of Door cards and the deck of Treasure cards. Deal cards to the players for their opening hands and keep the included die handy.
Your turn consists of just a few phases: Open a Door, Look for Trouble, Loot the Room, and Charity. To Open a Door, flip over the top card of the Door deck. If it is a monster you must fight it or run. If not a monster, you can move on to the next phase. If it IS a monster, prepare for combat. Combat is simple in that you add up all your bonuses from your gear cards you have attached to your character and try to beat the strength of the monster. Your party mates can screw with you during combat by adding strength to the monster or adding monsters to the fight to make it a more difficult encounter. If you win, you gain a Level on the spot. Some monsters are worth even more than one Level. If you did not encounter a monster, you will add the non-monster card you drew to your hand and you may Look for Trouble by playing a monster card from your hand to initiate a combat. This fight will work the same way and you will be susceptible to pile-ons as before. You may Loot the Room if you defeated a monster on your turn by drawing Treasure cards equal to the printed reward on the bottom of the monster card you defeated. If you defeated the monster yourself, unaided, these are drawn in secret. If you were given help by your mates then you may have to split up the loot per any agreements made. These cards are usually very advantageous to you so they are usually very valuable to others as they attempt to steal away your goods. If you did not fight a monster yet this turn, you may draw another secret card from the Door deck to add to your hand. Should your hand size climb above your limit (dictated by your Race card, if any) you will slide into the Charity phase to relieve your hand of extra cards. Give all excess cards to the player of lowest Level, or split them among those that share the lowest Level. It is now the next player’s turn and you continue play until someone reaches 10th Level.
Components. It’s a bunch of cards and one die. The cards are of okay quality. Nothing to write home about. The die is nice with one of the faces having the Munchkin logo head imprinted on it. It will also have a color scheme that matches the version of Munchkin you are playing, so it’s easy to match them back up if they become integrated with each other. Overall, the components are fine, but not wonderful. That’s probably why these are pretty inexpensive to purchase.
Okay, so like I said earlier the original vanilla Munchkin was the first hobby board game I ever purchased. My friends and family had no idea hobby games existed, so there was actually a pretty steep learning curve for us. Once we figured it out, however, we began to play it a ton and really love it! The cards are cute, the game play is pretty easy if you have played hobby games before, and the puns kept us rolling for a good while. There was a time when I owned every version of Munchkin in circulation and we never even played half of them. Seeing this I got rid of them through BGG Auctions. I have The Good, The Bad, and The Munchkin and Munchkin Zombies right now and I feel that will be plenty for me from here on out – unless they make a Doctor Who or Firefly set or something /*checks warehouse23 to find out if these are available/.
Do I still love Munchkin? No, not really. I LIKE it, but I don’t really want to play it all the time any more. Why? Well, as my gamer experience increases and I level up, my game tastes also level up. I see why people enjoy and even love this game system. I myself loved it for a time. But there are better games out there that accomplish the same feelings without being as sophomoric and have better choices to be made. Will I still play these games? Heck yeah! If someone asks to play a Munchkin game I am all in. I have different tastes and preferences now, but I’m no snob. Just come prepared, because I won’t go easy on you.
We at Purple Phoenix Games give this family of titles a backstabby 16 / 24.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Darkest Hour (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Not buggering it up.
As Doctor Who repeatedly points out, time is most definitely a tricksy thing. As I think I’ve commented on before, the events of 1940-45 are not in my lifetime but were sufficiently fresh to my parents that they were still actively talked about… so they still appear “current” to me. But I find it astonishing to realize that to a teen viewer this film is equivalent in timeframe to the sinking of the Titanic! #ancienthistory! So I suspect your connection to this film will be strongly affected by your age, and that was definitely reflected in the average age at my showing which must have been at least 60.
It’s 1940 and Western Europe is under siege. Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup, “The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“) is the Conservative Prime Minister but is voted out of office in an attempt to form a grand coalition government with Labour leader Clement Atlee (David Schofield). Despite appearing a shoe-in for the role, Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) turns it down, thinking that his alternative (and bête noire) would drink from the poisoned chalice and be quickly be out of his (and Chamberlain’s) hair. For that alternative choice is the volatile and unpredictable Churchill (Gary Oldman), grudgingly invited into the job by King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“). With the Nazi’s bearing down on the 300,000 encircled troops at Dunkirk, and with calls from his war cabinet to capitulate and seek terms of settlement, this is indeed both Churchill’s, and the country’s, ‘darkest hour’.
Despite the woeful lack of historical knowledge among today’s youngsters, most will be at least aware of the story of Dunkirk, with many having absorbed Christopher Nolan’s film of last summer. This film is almost the matching bookend to that film, showing the terrifying behind-closed-door events that led up to that miracle. For it was terrifying seeing how close Britain came to the brink, and I’m not sure even I really appreciated that before. While this might have been a “thriller” if it had been a fictional story, we well know the outcome of the story: but even with this knowledge I still found the film to be extremely tense and claustrophobic as the net draws in around Churchill’s firmly-held beliefs.
Gary Oldman’s performance is extraordinary, and his award nominations are well-deserved. We have grown so used to some of his more over-the-top Russian portrayals in films like “Air Force One” and last year’s (pretty poor) “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” that it is easy to forget what a nuanced and flexible actor he is. Ever since that “No, surely not!” moment of that first glimpse of the film’s trailer, it has almost been impossible to ‘see’ Oldman behind the brilliant make-up of the character (Kazuhiro Tsuji gets a special credit for it). But his eyes are in there, and there are some extreme close-ups (for example, during a bizarre and tense phone call with Roosevelt (David Strathairn)) when you suddenly see “There you are!”.
The supportive wife – Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas) gives Winston (Gary Oldman) a hug.
While I have nothing against Brian Cox as an actor, I far prefer the portrayal of Churchill on show here compared to last year’s “Churchill“: true that that film was set three or four stressful years later, but Cox’s Churchill was portrayed as an incompetent fool, an embarrassment to the establishment that have to work around him. Oldman’s Churchill is irascible, unreasonable, but undeniably a leader and a great orator.
Mirroring “Churchill” though, the action is seen through the eyes of Churchill’s put-upon secretary, here played delightfully by Lily James (“Downton Abbey”, “Baby Driver“) who perfectly looks and sounds the part. The character is more successful than that of Ella Purnell’s Garrett in that she is given more room to develop her character and for the audience to warm to her. Oldman is getting all the kudos, but Lily James really deserves some for her touching and engaging performance here.
Perfectly cast: Lily James as Churchill’s secretary Elizabeth Layton.
Also in Oldman’s shadow is the always marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “The English Patient”) as Clemmie Churchill, expressing all the love and frustration associated with being a long-suffering wife to an over-worked husband in the public service.
At the pen is “The Theory of Everything” writer Anthony McCarten, and I’d like to say its a great script but with most of the best lines (“a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – LoL) coming from Winston himself it’s difficult to tell. Some of the scenes can get a bit laborious and at 125 minutes – though not long by any means – the script could still perhaps have had a nip and tuck here and there.
Where some of this time is well spent though is in some sedate shots of London street life, across two separate scenes panning across everyday folk as the stresses of war start to become more evident. This is just one of the areas where director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride and Prejudice”) shows considerable panache, ably assisted by the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (“Inside Llewyn Davis“): a boy closes his telescope-fingers around Churchill’s plane; a bomb’s eye-view of the beleaguered Brigadier Nicholson in Calais; and – very impressively – the smoky imperiousness of the House of Commons set.
An atmospheric chamber: the recreation of the wartime House of Commons is spectacular (with production design by Sarah Greenwood (“Anna Karenina”, “Atonement”)).
And most-importantly Wright delivers what Christopher Nolan couldn’t deliver in “Dunkirk“: a properly CGI’d vista of hundred of small boats crossing the channel to Dunkirk. Now THAT is a scene that Kenneth Branagh could justly have looked in awe at!!!
There are a number of scenes that require disbelief to be suspended though: the biggest one being a tube train ride – very moving and effective I must say – but one that features the longest journey between any two stations on the District Line than has ever been experienced!
One stop on the District Line via Westminster…. via Harrow-on-the-Hill!
So this is a great film for really reliving a knife-edge moment in British history, and is highly recommended particularly for older viewers. If I’m honest though, between “Darkest Hour”, “Churchill” and John Lithgow’s excellent portrayal in “The Crown” I’m all over portrayals of the great man for a few years. Can we please move on now Hollywood?
It’s 1940 and Western Europe is under siege. Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup, “The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“) is the Conservative Prime Minister but is voted out of office in an attempt to form a grand coalition government with Labour leader Clement Atlee (David Schofield). Despite appearing a shoe-in for the role, Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) turns it down, thinking that his alternative (and bête noire) would drink from the poisoned chalice and be quickly be out of his (and Chamberlain’s) hair. For that alternative choice is the volatile and unpredictable Churchill (Gary Oldman), grudgingly invited into the job by King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“). With the Nazi’s bearing down on the 300,000 encircled troops at Dunkirk, and with calls from his war cabinet to capitulate and seek terms of settlement, this is indeed both Churchill’s, and the country’s, ‘darkest hour’.
Despite the woeful lack of historical knowledge among today’s youngsters, most will be at least aware of the story of Dunkirk, with many having absorbed Christopher Nolan’s film of last summer. This film is almost the matching bookend to that film, showing the terrifying behind-closed-door events that led up to that miracle. For it was terrifying seeing how close Britain came to the brink, and I’m not sure even I really appreciated that before. While this might have been a “thriller” if it had been a fictional story, we well know the outcome of the story: but even with this knowledge I still found the film to be extremely tense and claustrophobic as the net draws in around Churchill’s firmly-held beliefs.
Gary Oldman’s performance is extraordinary, and his award nominations are well-deserved. We have grown so used to some of his more over-the-top Russian portrayals in films like “Air Force One” and last year’s (pretty poor) “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” that it is easy to forget what a nuanced and flexible actor he is. Ever since that “No, surely not!” moment of that first glimpse of the film’s trailer, it has almost been impossible to ‘see’ Oldman behind the brilliant make-up of the character (Kazuhiro Tsuji gets a special credit for it). But his eyes are in there, and there are some extreme close-ups (for example, during a bizarre and tense phone call with Roosevelt (David Strathairn)) when you suddenly see “There you are!”.
The supportive wife – Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas) gives Winston (Gary Oldman) a hug.
While I have nothing against Brian Cox as an actor, I far prefer the portrayal of Churchill on show here compared to last year’s “Churchill“: true that that film was set three or four stressful years later, but Cox’s Churchill was portrayed as an incompetent fool, an embarrassment to the establishment that have to work around him. Oldman’s Churchill is irascible, unreasonable, but undeniably a leader and a great orator.
Mirroring “Churchill” though, the action is seen through the eyes of Churchill’s put-upon secretary, here played delightfully by Lily James (“Downton Abbey”, “Baby Driver“) who perfectly looks and sounds the part. The character is more successful than that of Ella Purnell’s Garrett in that she is given more room to develop her character and for the audience to warm to her. Oldman is getting all the kudos, but Lily James really deserves some for her touching and engaging performance here.
Perfectly cast: Lily James as Churchill’s secretary Elizabeth Layton.
Also in Oldman’s shadow is the always marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “The English Patient”) as Clemmie Churchill, expressing all the love and frustration associated with being a long-suffering wife to an over-worked husband in the public service.
At the pen is “The Theory of Everything” writer Anthony McCarten, and I’d like to say its a great script but with most of the best lines (“a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – LoL) coming from Winston himself it’s difficult to tell. Some of the scenes can get a bit laborious and at 125 minutes – though not long by any means – the script could still perhaps have had a nip and tuck here and there.
Where some of this time is well spent though is in some sedate shots of London street life, across two separate scenes panning across everyday folk as the stresses of war start to become more evident. This is just one of the areas where director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride and Prejudice”) shows considerable panache, ably assisted by the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (“Inside Llewyn Davis“): a boy closes his telescope-fingers around Churchill’s plane; a bomb’s eye-view of the beleaguered Brigadier Nicholson in Calais; and – very impressively – the smoky imperiousness of the House of Commons set.
An atmospheric chamber: the recreation of the wartime House of Commons is spectacular (with production design by Sarah Greenwood (“Anna Karenina”, “Atonement”)).
And most-importantly Wright delivers what Christopher Nolan couldn’t deliver in “Dunkirk“: a properly CGI’d vista of hundred of small boats crossing the channel to Dunkirk. Now THAT is a scene that Kenneth Branagh could justly have looked in awe at!!!
There are a number of scenes that require disbelief to be suspended though: the biggest one being a tube train ride – very moving and effective I must say – but one that features the longest journey between any two stations on the District Line than has ever been experienced!
One stop on the District Line via Westminster…. via Harrow-on-the-Hill!
So this is a great film for really reliving a knife-edge moment in British history, and is highly recommended particularly for older viewers. If I’m honest though, between “Darkest Hour”, “Churchill” and John Lithgow’s excellent portrayal in “The Crown” I’m all over portrayals of the great man for a few years. Can we please move on now Hollywood?
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Haunting of Hill House in Books
Apr 19, 2019
Strong writing (1 more)
Good characters
Run-on sentences (1 more)
No explanations for paranormal activity
Contains spoilers, click to show
If you're looking for a scary story, 'The Haunting of Hill House' just doesn't add up.
The story is still worth reading because Jackson's story telling is something that is missing in literature today. The reader is introduced to characters that are different enough to be interesting; their development is just right that it leaves the reader satisfied. The story moves along well enough that the pace keeps us from getting bored. And each turn of the page keeps the reader guessing what is going to happen next- a must for any ghost story.
In 'The Haunting of Hill House,' Jackson mostly focuses on the character Eleanor - a woman who recently lost the sickly mother she had taken care of for years, to receiving an invitation for a paranormal experiment at the infamous Hill House. Eleanor also seems to be the main character affected by the house, not only having her name written on a wall, but also having her named called out by spirits during an automatic writing session with them.
Our first introduction to the Hill House happens as Eleanor arrives: "No Human eye can isolate the unhappy coincidence of line and place which suggests evil in the face of a house, and yet somehow a maniac juxtaposition, a badly turned angle, some chance meeting of roof and sky, turned Hill House into a place of despair, more frightening because the face of Hill House seemed awake, with a watchfulness from the blank windows and a touch of glee in the eyebrow of a cornice. Almost any house, caught unexpectedly or at an odd angle, can turn a deeply humorous look on a watching person; even a mischievous little chimney, or a dormer like a dimple, can catch up a beholder with a sense of fellowship; but a house arrogant and hating, never off guard, can only be evil. This house, which seemed somehow to have formed itself, flying together into its own powerful pattern under the hands of its builders, fitting itself into its own construction of lines and angles, reared its great head back against the sky without concession to humanity. It was a house without kindness, never meant to be lived in , not a fit place for people or for love or for hope. Exorcism cannot alter the countenance of a house; Hill House would stay as it was until it was destroyed."
We never see Hill House through any other character's eyes, and the viewpoints mostly come from Eleanor (a missed opportunity,I think). Everyone who arrives at the house feels uneasy about it: doors and curtains close on their own, unexplained banging noises down the hallways(only at night), the chattering and laughter of children, and with an oddly placed cold spot. Yet,to the reader's dismay, nothing is fully explained by the end of the story - no apparitions show up, no one seems harmed by anything unseen (although, the character, Luke, suddenly shows up with a bruised face that is never discussed), and the reader ends up wondering if this really is a product of mass psychosis. It almost seems like Jackson ended the story abruptly just to finish it(the book is only a little under 200 pages). She set up wonderful scenarios, but without explanations, we're left with a very empty feeling.
Nearing the end of the book, the doctor, John Montague, who has ran the entire experiment, has his wife,Mrs. Montague,arrive a few days later, who seems to know more about contacting spirits than he does: "The library? I think it might do; books are frequently very good carriers, you know. Materializations are often best produced in rooms where there are books. I cannot think of any time when materialization was in any way hampered by the presence of books." And with the arrival of Dr. Montague's wife, we get one of the major experiences in the entire book. Although her character is quite annoying- even seen through the eyes of other characters- she brings some of the most ghost story elements, one of which is her automatic writing sessions: "Planchette felt very strongly about a nun, John. Perhaps something of the sort- a dark, vague figure, even- has been seen in the neighborhood? Villagers terrified when staggering home late at night?" None of the characters, besides Mrs. Montague's companion, Arthur, believe her automatic writing sessions are real, even after Eleanor's name is brought up during one. As I stated before, without any explanations, the reader is even led to believe that nothing was meant to come of these sessions whatsoever.
The ghost story elements may not have been strong in the story, but the characters make up for them. They constantly question what they are experiencing and/or seeing, they question their surroundings, and they question each other -Jackson does an amazing job weaving paranoia into the story line.
One of the more shocking and unbelievable scenes is when Eleanor is suddenly not fearful of the house anymore: "And here I am, she thought. Here I am inside. It was not cold at all, but deliciously, fondly warm. It was light enough for her to see the iron stairway curving around and around up to the tower, and the little door at the top. Under her feet the stone floor moved caressingly, rubbing itself against the soles of her feet, and all around the soft air touched her, stirring her hair, drifting against her fingers, coming in a light breath across her mouth, and she danced in circles. No stone lions for me, she thought, no oleanders; I have broken the spell of Hill House and somehow come inside. I am home, she thought, and stopped in wonder at the thought. I am home, I am home, she thought; now to climb." It was as if Eleanor was a completely different person in just a few pages.
I do have a couple of problems with 'The Haunting of Hill House,' mostly centering around the use of run-on sentences and extra long paragraphs. The run-on sentences are a waste of time because Jackson seems to merely elaborate on something that could be easily explained or experienced with fewer words. The paragraphs, however, need to be broken up for scene transitioning purposes -when she transitions from one scene to the next, she can confuse the reader with them: one paragraph will have all the characters in the dining area, but in that same paragraph, just a few sentences down, Jackson has the characters suddenly in the parlor,drinking Brandy. Maybe the intention was to make the reader feel paranoid and uneasy like the characters in the book, but it was certainly not needed with the way of Jackson's style of writing.
With all that said, it's easy to see why this book is a popular classic. The writing is strong, using enough descriptions to put the reader in Hill House with all of its paranormal beings. And no matter who you are, you are able to find at least one of the lead characters as a favorite. I feel the book is a must-read for anyone interested in the paranormal, because Jackson brings out the occult interest that was going on around 1959 - when she published 'The Haunting of Hill House;' everything from cold spots to the use of a planchette for automatic writing.
I recommend this book, but if you're looking for scares, you must look elsewhere.
The story is still worth reading because Jackson's story telling is something that is missing in literature today. The reader is introduced to characters that are different enough to be interesting; their development is just right that it leaves the reader satisfied. The story moves along well enough that the pace keeps us from getting bored. And each turn of the page keeps the reader guessing what is going to happen next- a must for any ghost story.
In 'The Haunting of Hill House,' Jackson mostly focuses on the character Eleanor - a woman who recently lost the sickly mother she had taken care of for years, to receiving an invitation for a paranormal experiment at the infamous Hill House. Eleanor also seems to be the main character affected by the house, not only having her name written on a wall, but also having her named called out by spirits during an automatic writing session with them.
Our first introduction to the Hill House happens as Eleanor arrives: "No Human eye can isolate the unhappy coincidence of line and place which suggests evil in the face of a house, and yet somehow a maniac juxtaposition, a badly turned angle, some chance meeting of roof and sky, turned Hill House into a place of despair, more frightening because the face of Hill House seemed awake, with a watchfulness from the blank windows and a touch of glee in the eyebrow of a cornice. Almost any house, caught unexpectedly or at an odd angle, can turn a deeply humorous look on a watching person; even a mischievous little chimney, or a dormer like a dimple, can catch up a beholder with a sense of fellowship; but a house arrogant and hating, never off guard, can only be evil. This house, which seemed somehow to have formed itself, flying together into its own powerful pattern under the hands of its builders, fitting itself into its own construction of lines and angles, reared its great head back against the sky without concession to humanity. It was a house without kindness, never meant to be lived in , not a fit place for people or for love or for hope. Exorcism cannot alter the countenance of a house; Hill House would stay as it was until it was destroyed."
We never see Hill House through any other character's eyes, and the viewpoints mostly come from Eleanor (a missed opportunity,I think). Everyone who arrives at the house feels uneasy about it: doors and curtains close on their own, unexplained banging noises down the hallways(only at night), the chattering and laughter of children, and with an oddly placed cold spot. Yet,to the reader's dismay, nothing is fully explained by the end of the story - no apparitions show up, no one seems harmed by anything unseen (although, the character, Luke, suddenly shows up with a bruised face that is never discussed), and the reader ends up wondering if this really is a product of mass psychosis. It almost seems like Jackson ended the story abruptly just to finish it(the book is only a little under 200 pages). She set up wonderful scenarios, but without explanations, we're left with a very empty feeling.
Nearing the end of the book, the doctor, John Montague, who has ran the entire experiment, has his wife,Mrs. Montague,arrive a few days later, who seems to know more about contacting spirits than he does: "The library? I think it might do; books are frequently very good carriers, you know. Materializations are often best produced in rooms where there are books. I cannot think of any time when materialization was in any way hampered by the presence of books." And with the arrival of Dr. Montague's wife, we get one of the major experiences in the entire book. Although her character is quite annoying- even seen through the eyes of other characters- she brings some of the most ghost story elements, one of which is her automatic writing sessions: "Planchette felt very strongly about a nun, John. Perhaps something of the sort- a dark, vague figure, even- has been seen in the neighborhood? Villagers terrified when staggering home late at night?" None of the characters, besides Mrs. Montague's companion, Arthur, believe her automatic writing sessions are real, even after Eleanor's name is brought up during one. As I stated before, without any explanations, the reader is even led to believe that nothing was meant to come of these sessions whatsoever.
The ghost story elements may not have been strong in the story, but the characters make up for them. They constantly question what they are experiencing and/or seeing, they question their surroundings, and they question each other -Jackson does an amazing job weaving paranoia into the story line.
One of the more shocking and unbelievable scenes is when Eleanor is suddenly not fearful of the house anymore: "And here I am, she thought. Here I am inside. It was not cold at all, but deliciously, fondly warm. It was light enough for her to see the iron stairway curving around and around up to the tower, and the little door at the top. Under her feet the stone floor moved caressingly, rubbing itself against the soles of her feet, and all around the soft air touched her, stirring her hair, drifting against her fingers, coming in a light breath across her mouth, and she danced in circles. No stone lions for me, she thought, no oleanders; I have broken the spell of Hill House and somehow come inside. I am home, she thought, and stopped in wonder at the thought. I am home, I am home, she thought; now to climb." It was as if Eleanor was a completely different person in just a few pages.
I do have a couple of problems with 'The Haunting of Hill House,' mostly centering around the use of run-on sentences and extra long paragraphs. The run-on sentences are a waste of time because Jackson seems to merely elaborate on something that could be easily explained or experienced with fewer words. The paragraphs, however, need to be broken up for scene transitioning purposes -when she transitions from one scene to the next, she can confuse the reader with them: one paragraph will have all the characters in the dining area, but in that same paragraph, just a few sentences down, Jackson has the characters suddenly in the parlor,drinking Brandy. Maybe the intention was to make the reader feel paranoid and uneasy like the characters in the book, but it was certainly not needed with the way of Jackson's style of writing.
With all that said, it's easy to see why this book is a popular classic. The writing is strong, using enough descriptions to put the reader in Hill House with all of its paranormal beings. And no matter who you are, you are able to find at least one of the lead characters as a favorite. I feel the book is a must-read for anyone interested in the paranormal, because Jackson brings out the occult interest that was going on around 1959 - when she published 'The Haunting of Hill House;' everything from cold spots to the use of a planchette for automatic writing.
I recommend this book, but if you're looking for scares, you must look elsewhere.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Cloud Atlas (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
While I am not familiar with the novel, I was not excited to review the film adaptation of David Mitchell’s Cloud Atlas. Though the Screenplay was written and directed by the Wachowskis (The Matrix) and Tom Tykwer (Run Lola Run) I did not know exactly what I was getting into. The trailer shows it as an epic sci-fi film crossing the time and lives of several stories and how everything and everyone is connected. Needless to say my curiosity was piqued. But I was nervous because I knew it would take a grand effort to keep this epic and ambitious project from falling flat. And well, I can honestly say that I am not quite sure if the combined effort succeeded.
Allow me to explain. About an hour into the film I had a young film reviewer to my left and I noticed he started to nod his head in approval at each new developing story throughout the film. To my right was a friend of mine, I would consider as an average film viewer, who at this same time I could tell was counting the minutes till the lights came up but felt trapped with nowhere to go but forward. And for me, I can see both sides of these reactions.
The plot is comprised of a multi-narrative of six stories, each with a complete beginning, middle and end. These stories are told from different timelines following a group of souls throughout the ages to show how everything is woven together and the connection between them; From the 1849 slave trader, to a young composer in 1936 Britain, to a 1973 journalist attempting to uncover corruption of the big business ruling class, to a 2012 literary publisher who’s life becomes a daring escape from a geriatric home, to a 2144 Neo-Soul synthetic learning to become human, to a post-apocalyptic tribesman trying to save his world and family… Lost yet? Believe me you will want to focus during the first hour of this film as we are introduced to the sudden shift of timelines. All of the main actors appear as varying characters of significance in every narrative, each with different accents and types of language. It is a bit of an unexpected bother to keep everything straight at first, however if you pay attention it is fairly easy to follow. This first hour is where I feel the film becomes a make or break for those actively thinking about what they are watching and the average movie viewer who is just there to be entertained and see the new Tom Hanks (Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close) or Halle Berry (Perfect Stanger) movie. For those who make it through that first hour still engaged, the film moves along at a steady pace and provides everything from romance to action that keeps you guessing and intrigued at what is next to come.
The Wachowskis and Tykwer do an outstanding job of visually fleshing out each timeline in its own visual style, especially the futuristic ones, which subtlety organize each narrative for the viewer. Additionally, there are so many talented actors in this film and it is somewhat fascinating to try and pick them out throughout the film. It is almost like a giant game of Where’s Waldo on screen as the makeup and special effects artists do a fantastic job of making the actors fit each character in every timeline. In fact, during the fourth or fifth timeline a lady in my row asked her partner if the man on screen was Forrest Gump, which was surprising because Hanks was the easiest character to pick out among them all.
Tom Hanks delivers one of his better performances in years. We watch his character’s soul transition from a sinister and vile doctor to a tribesman making the righteous choice while struggling with that inkling of evil that is the devil within us all. It was refreshing to see Hanks play parts that were not just an “everyman” that he has played in recent years.
Halle Berry’s performance is mostly average in her parts with the exception of 1973 journalist role where she is the main protagonist. Hugo Weaving channels a bit of his Agent Smith role from The Matrix as he plays a villain throughout the timelines. Hugh Grant (Love Actually) makes unexpected soild appearances throughout the timelines. With Jim Sturgess (One Day), James D’Arcy (Mansfield Park) and Ben Whishaw (who is the new Q in the upcoming James Bond film Skyfall) rounding out the cast with a young contrast to the already heavy acting handled by the bigger names of this film. Each of these young actors hold’s their own against their older more notable counterparts. Whishaw’s performance as the lead in the 1936 composer role is especially noteworthy.
The other stand out performance in the film comes from Jim Broadbent best known in the states as Professor Slughorn in the Harry Potter Films. His performance in the 1936 composer and 2012 literary publisher are excellent. The Publisher story was my favorite timeline throughout the film. Not only did it deliver some much needed comic relief to an emotionally engaging and heavy film, but it also made me care the most about the elderly characters trying to escape the clutches of the geriatric prison of a nursing home. Unfortunately, other than the aforementioned comic relief this timeline seemed the most unnecessary to the overarching story at hand.
When I left the film and talked it over with my friend I was indifferent to the film. It was not great, it was not bad either. As my friend described it, it was a movie that was trying too hard. We agreed that somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but we were not sure if we watched it.
However as the days have passed I have found myself thinking about the stories constantly. More specifically about how the main protagonist played by a different actor in each narrative has the same birthmark of a shooting star that in some way symbolizes some universal soul encompassing a new shell of a body in each timeline. Like some kind of reincarnation of that soul is fighting the same revolution throughout the ages against the powerful class and illusion of natural order. Additionally how each of the central characters found themselves connected with the main characters in the stories that preceded them through some kind of medium; whether it was by an old journal, or love letters, or a written story, or film, or message of hope. These subtle insights of growth and change for this main soul leaping into a new life in each timeline has caused me to examine our world and how we as people can be truly connected to one another not only today, but throughout the ages. I want to view the film again and am inspired to read the novel in some sort of effort to better understand these concepts.
Nevertheless as a film that is almost three hours long it does its best to be an epic sci-fi film and give something for everyone. And while it succeeds in many aspects of feel, it also falls short in aspects that are probably best accomplished in a literary form. As I said above, somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but I am not sure if I watched it. Or maybe I am not intelligent enough to comprehend it. Because of that I can only give it an average score. Though I believe if you ask me after a second viewing, I may be inclined to raise it.
Allow me to explain. About an hour into the film I had a young film reviewer to my left and I noticed he started to nod his head in approval at each new developing story throughout the film. To my right was a friend of mine, I would consider as an average film viewer, who at this same time I could tell was counting the minutes till the lights came up but felt trapped with nowhere to go but forward. And for me, I can see both sides of these reactions.
The plot is comprised of a multi-narrative of six stories, each with a complete beginning, middle and end. These stories are told from different timelines following a group of souls throughout the ages to show how everything is woven together and the connection between them; From the 1849 slave trader, to a young composer in 1936 Britain, to a 1973 journalist attempting to uncover corruption of the big business ruling class, to a 2012 literary publisher who’s life becomes a daring escape from a geriatric home, to a 2144 Neo-Soul synthetic learning to become human, to a post-apocalyptic tribesman trying to save his world and family… Lost yet? Believe me you will want to focus during the first hour of this film as we are introduced to the sudden shift of timelines. All of the main actors appear as varying characters of significance in every narrative, each with different accents and types of language. It is a bit of an unexpected bother to keep everything straight at first, however if you pay attention it is fairly easy to follow. This first hour is where I feel the film becomes a make or break for those actively thinking about what they are watching and the average movie viewer who is just there to be entertained and see the new Tom Hanks (Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close) or Halle Berry (Perfect Stanger) movie. For those who make it through that first hour still engaged, the film moves along at a steady pace and provides everything from romance to action that keeps you guessing and intrigued at what is next to come.
The Wachowskis and Tykwer do an outstanding job of visually fleshing out each timeline in its own visual style, especially the futuristic ones, which subtlety organize each narrative for the viewer. Additionally, there are so many talented actors in this film and it is somewhat fascinating to try and pick them out throughout the film. It is almost like a giant game of Where’s Waldo on screen as the makeup and special effects artists do a fantastic job of making the actors fit each character in every timeline. In fact, during the fourth or fifth timeline a lady in my row asked her partner if the man on screen was Forrest Gump, which was surprising because Hanks was the easiest character to pick out among them all.
Tom Hanks delivers one of his better performances in years. We watch his character’s soul transition from a sinister and vile doctor to a tribesman making the righteous choice while struggling with that inkling of evil that is the devil within us all. It was refreshing to see Hanks play parts that were not just an “everyman” that he has played in recent years.
Halle Berry’s performance is mostly average in her parts with the exception of 1973 journalist role where she is the main protagonist. Hugo Weaving channels a bit of his Agent Smith role from The Matrix as he plays a villain throughout the timelines. Hugh Grant (Love Actually) makes unexpected soild appearances throughout the timelines. With Jim Sturgess (One Day), James D’Arcy (Mansfield Park) and Ben Whishaw (who is the new Q in the upcoming James Bond film Skyfall) rounding out the cast with a young contrast to the already heavy acting handled by the bigger names of this film. Each of these young actors hold’s their own against their older more notable counterparts. Whishaw’s performance as the lead in the 1936 composer role is especially noteworthy.
The other stand out performance in the film comes from Jim Broadbent best known in the states as Professor Slughorn in the Harry Potter Films. His performance in the 1936 composer and 2012 literary publisher are excellent. The Publisher story was my favorite timeline throughout the film. Not only did it deliver some much needed comic relief to an emotionally engaging and heavy film, but it also made me care the most about the elderly characters trying to escape the clutches of the geriatric prison of a nursing home. Unfortunately, other than the aforementioned comic relief this timeline seemed the most unnecessary to the overarching story at hand.
When I left the film and talked it over with my friend I was indifferent to the film. It was not great, it was not bad either. As my friend described it, it was a movie that was trying too hard. We agreed that somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but we were not sure if we watched it.
However as the days have passed I have found myself thinking about the stories constantly. More specifically about how the main protagonist played by a different actor in each narrative has the same birthmark of a shooting star that in some way symbolizes some universal soul encompassing a new shell of a body in each timeline. Like some kind of reincarnation of that soul is fighting the same revolution throughout the ages against the powerful class and illusion of natural order. Additionally how each of the central characters found themselves connected with the main characters in the stories that preceded them through some kind of medium; whether it was by an old journal, or love letters, or a written story, or film, or message of hope. These subtle insights of growth and change for this main soul leaping into a new life in each timeline has caused me to examine our world and how we as people can be truly connected to one another not only today, but throughout the ages. I want to view the film again and am inspired to read the novel in some sort of effort to better understand these concepts.
Nevertheless as a film that is almost three hours long it does its best to be an epic sci-fi film and give something for everyone. And while it succeeds in many aspects of feel, it also falls short in aspects that are probably best accomplished in a literary form. As I said above, somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but I am not sure if I watched it. Or maybe I am not intelligent enough to comprehend it. Because of that I can only give it an average score. Though I believe if you ask me after a second viewing, I may be inclined to raise it.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Monster Stomping: Heroes in Tabletop Games
Dec 15, 2020
Godzilla. King Kong. Goldar. Large monsters that terrorize cities. We’ve all seen ’em. They’ve kicked in our schools, workplaces, and neighborhood parks. Luckily, even greater heroes are around to save the day and protect our livelihoods with their amazing superpowers. What, just my neighborhood? Oh. Well, get ready to play a game based on my neighborhood superhero and the kaijus that wreak havoc and bring devastation everywhere they tread.
Ok, so I don’t have these monsters and superheroes in my area. I wish we did. In any case, Monster Stomping: Heroes is a card game of building heroes to protect your city and also building monsters to attack other cities. The first player to have six City Defense cards in their tableau will win!
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, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, each player will receive one monster body card, one hero body card, and one city card to be placed in front of them on the table. The remaining setup cards can be placed back in the box. The remaining cards will be shuffled to create the large draw deck. Each player is dealt five cards from this deck to create their hand and the game may now begin!
On a player’s turn they will have a choice of three actions to take: Play, Discard Your Hand, or Attack! When the active player decides to Play they will first draw cards to increase their hand to six cards. Next they may play a card face-up on the table. These cards are Monster Powers, Hero Powers, or City Defense cards. Both Monster and Hero Powers are mix-and-match body parts that add value to the Attack phase. City Defense cards are placed around the city card. Six of these are needed to win. After one of these three card types are played to the table the player may also play a blue-bordered Special Card. The Special Cards could allow players to view the contents of an opponent’s hand, or skip a player’s turn, or even discard a City Defense card.
A player may dislike their hand of cards and wish to Discard Your Hand any number of cards. Once done the player will draw back up to six cards and then discard one to return to the hand limit of five cards.
If the active player is feeling lucky or particularly surly they may Attack! another player’s city. During an Attack! the attacking player and defending player will both roll 1d6. The result of the die roll is then added to any bonuses afforded them from their built Monster (attacker) or Hero (defender). At this time any involved player may play a Combat card from their hand to tip the scales of battle. These will either add or subtract values from the Monster or Hero, or block the Monster altogether, or even switch a player’s Hero and Monster values during the battle. The winning attacker then steals one of the defender’s City Defense cards and places it in their own city. The winning defender will receive the Morale Boost meeple to earn a +1 to their hero the next time they are attacked.
Once the active player has completed their turn play continues to the next player until a sixth City Defense card has been placed. When this happens the next player is allowed one more turn to either earn their sixth City Defense card or thwart the previous player by causing them to lose their sixth card. Play continues in this fashion until one player is the ultimate winner and completely defends their city!
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of the game and I do not know if these will be updated in any fashion in the final copy. That said, we were provided a box with 2d6, a Morale Boost meeple, and a bunch of cards. The dice are fine and can be switched out with prettier ones if you prefer (I might), and the meeple is an interesting shape and excellent orange color. The cards are matte finished and the art on them is pretty good. The layout of the cards is easy to use. In fact, the layout of the cards (especially the Special and Combat cards) are incredibly reminiscent of the cards in Munchkin.
Actually, the entire time I was playing Monster Stomping: Heroes I could not help but feel like I was playing a better version of Munchkin. It is essentially the same game: the winner has to get to six City Defense cards (10th level in Munchkin), uses cards to debilitate opponents (same in Munchkin), creates better toons in front of themselves (same in Munchkin), and has the additional ability of a helper to aid in battle (same in Munchkin). Let me reiterate that this game is a BETTER version of Munchkin, even though it is extremely similar.
What I really like about this one is the quick play that can be had and the ability to be played by two players. Since I’m comparing it to Munchkin now, a game of Munchkin can easily take a frustrating two or more hours to complete. I say frustrating because all players end up simply ganging up on their opponents at the end just trying to prevent them from winning. While the same is partially true in Monster Stomping, there are only six cards to be collected before becoming the winner and some players may become untouchable at times due to their impressive Monster or Hero-building skills. Another aspect I truly appreciate and enjoy here is that the game can be played with only two players, while Munchkin requires at least three. That may not seem like a huge difference, but if I can play a game at home with my wife without having to add house rules or other ways to doctor up the rules, then I am a much happier man.
I enjoy building the different characters in the game and seeing what kind of abomination I end up with at game’s end. This is much more personal preference for me because building a character in Munchkin is handled much the same way, but differently. For those who have played Munchkin, I am sure you understand.
So all in all, if you are a closet fan of Munchkin and want to protect your gamer cred, you certainly need to check out Monster Stomping: Heroes. It will give you all the good parts of Munchkin but filter out the underwhelming or over-stuffed feelings. It plays quickly, and gives players lots of options to build their characters. The game is easy to teach and learn, and you may even wish to play several games in a row. While I have compared this to Munchkin quite a bit, Monster Stomping: Heroes is its own game and offers several differences to players. If you have been looking for a Munchkin replacement, I may have found it for you. You’re welcome.
Ok, so I don’t have these monsters and superheroes in my area. I wish we did. In any case, Monster Stomping: Heroes is a card game of building heroes to protect your city and also building monsters to attack other cities. The first player to have six City Defense cards in their tableau will win!
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, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, each player will receive one monster body card, one hero body card, and one city card to be placed in front of them on the table. The remaining setup cards can be placed back in the box. The remaining cards will be shuffled to create the large draw deck. Each player is dealt five cards from this deck to create their hand and the game may now begin!
On a player’s turn they will have a choice of three actions to take: Play, Discard Your Hand, or Attack! When the active player decides to Play they will first draw cards to increase their hand to six cards. Next they may play a card face-up on the table. These cards are Monster Powers, Hero Powers, or City Defense cards. Both Monster and Hero Powers are mix-and-match body parts that add value to the Attack phase. City Defense cards are placed around the city card. Six of these are needed to win. After one of these three card types are played to the table the player may also play a blue-bordered Special Card. The Special Cards could allow players to view the contents of an opponent’s hand, or skip a player’s turn, or even discard a City Defense card.
A player may dislike their hand of cards and wish to Discard Your Hand any number of cards. Once done the player will draw back up to six cards and then discard one to return to the hand limit of five cards.
If the active player is feeling lucky or particularly surly they may Attack! another player’s city. During an Attack! the attacking player and defending player will both roll 1d6. The result of the die roll is then added to any bonuses afforded them from their built Monster (attacker) or Hero (defender). At this time any involved player may play a Combat card from their hand to tip the scales of battle. These will either add or subtract values from the Monster or Hero, or block the Monster altogether, or even switch a player’s Hero and Monster values during the battle. The winning attacker then steals one of the defender’s City Defense cards and places it in their own city. The winning defender will receive the Morale Boost meeple to earn a +1 to their hero the next time they are attacked.
Once the active player has completed their turn play continues to the next player until a sixth City Defense card has been placed. When this happens the next player is allowed one more turn to either earn their sixth City Defense card or thwart the previous player by causing them to lose their sixth card. Play continues in this fashion until one player is the ultimate winner and completely defends their city!
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of the game and I do not know if these will be updated in any fashion in the final copy. That said, we were provided a box with 2d6, a Morale Boost meeple, and a bunch of cards. The dice are fine and can be switched out with prettier ones if you prefer (I might), and the meeple is an interesting shape and excellent orange color. The cards are matte finished and the art on them is pretty good. The layout of the cards is easy to use. In fact, the layout of the cards (especially the Special and Combat cards) are incredibly reminiscent of the cards in Munchkin.
Actually, the entire time I was playing Monster Stomping: Heroes I could not help but feel like I was playing a better version of Munchkin. It is essentially the same game: the winner has to get to six City Defense cards (10th level in Munchkin), uses cards to debilitate opponents (same in Munchkin), creates better toons in front of themselves (same in Munchkin), and has the additional ability of a helper to aid in battle (same in Munchkin). Let me reiterate that this game is a BETTER version of Munchkin, even though it is extremely similar.
What I really like about this one is the quick play that can be had and the ability to be played by two players. Since I’m comparing it to Munchkin now, a game of Munchkin can easily take a frustrating two or more hours to complete. I say frustrating because all players end up simply ganging up on their opponents at the end just trying to prevent them from winning. While the same is partially true in Monster Stomping, there are only six cards to be collected before becoming the winner and some players may become untouchable at times due to their impressive Monster or Hero-building skills. Another aspect I truly appreciate and enjoy here is that the game can be played with only two players, while Munchkin requires at least three. That may not seem like a huge difference, but if I can play a game at home with my wife without having to add house rules or other ways to doctor up the rules, then I am a much happier man.
I enjoy building the different characters in the game and seeing what kind of abomination I end up with at game’s end. This is much more personal preference for me because building a character in Munchkin is handled much the same way, but differently. For those who have played Munchkin, I am sure you understand.
So all in all, if you are a closet fan of Munchkin and want to protect your gamer cred, you certainly need to check out Monster Stomping: Heroes. It will give you all the good parts of Munchkin but filter out the underwhelming or over-stuffed feelings. It plays quickly, and gives players lots of options to build their characters. The game is easy to teach and learn, and you may even wish to play several games in a row. While I have compared this to Munchkin quite a bit, Monster Stomping: Heroes is its own game and offers several differences to players. If you have been looking for a Munchkin replacement, I may have found it for you. You’re welcome.
Nymphomaniac Volume II (2014)
6.3
Rate It
Movie Watch
Joe becomes annoyed with Seligman, accusing him of overlooking the severity of her lost sexuality to...