Search
Search results
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...