Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Dolittle (2020) in Movies
Feb 23, 2020
A complete mess, but kids will probably love it.
With the words of Mark Kermode's review ringing in my ears ("It's shockingly poor... and that's the same in any language") I was bracing myself when I went to see this latest incarnation of Hugh Lofting's famous animal-chatting character. And I have to agree that it is a shocking mess of a film, given $175 million was poured into this thing. But, and I say this cautiously without first-hand empirical evidence, I *think* this is a movie that kids in the 6 to 10 age range might fall in love with.
Doctor Doolittle (Robert Downey Jnr) - famed animal doctor, with the unique ability to communicate with any animal - is now holed up in his animal sanctuary, a recluse. His beloved wife - adventurer Lily - was lost at sea (in a cartoon sequence that could have just used the same clip from "Frozen"). He's lost the will to practice; and almost lost the will to live.
Impinging on his morose life come two humans: Tommy Stubbings (Harry Collett), a reluctant hunter with a wounded squirrel, and Lady Rose (Carmel Laniado), daughter of the Queen of England. (We'll quietly ignore the coincidence that, after what looks like several years of mourning, these two independently pitch up at Chez Doolittle within ten minutes of each other!).
For the Queen (the omnipresent Jessie Buckley) is dying, and noone (other than us viewers, let in on the deal) suspect foul play might be at work in the form of Lord Thomas Badgley (the ever-reliable Jim Broadbent) and the Queen's old leech-loving doctor Blair Müdfly (a moustache-twiddling Michael Sheen).
Doolittle must engage in a perilous journey to find the only cure that will save both the Queen and his animal sanctuary - the fruit of the tree on a missing island that his long lost love was searching for.
Let's start with the most obvious point first up. Robert Downey Jnr's Welsh accent is quite the most terrible, most preposterous, most unintelligible, most offensive (to the Welsh) attempt at an accent in a mainstream film in movie history. And that's really saying something when you have Laurence Olivier's Jewish father from "The Jazz Singer" and Russell Crowe's English cum Irish cum Scottish cum Yugoslavian "Robin Hood" in the list. Why? Just why? Was it to distance this version from Rex Harrison's? (Since most younger movie goers will be going "Rex who?" at this point, this seems unlikely). It's a wholly curious decision.
It turns RDj's presence in the movie from being an asset to a liability.
The movie has had a tortuous history. Filmed in 2018 at enormous expense, the film completely bombed at test screenings so they brought in more script writers to make it funnier and did extensive additional filming.
I actually disagree with the general view that the film is unfunny. For there are a few points in the movie where I laughed out loud. A fly's miraculous, if temporary, escape was one such moment. The duck laying an egg in fright, another.
However, these seem to stand out starkly in isolation as 'the funny bits they inserted'. Much of the rest of the movie's comedy falls painfully flat.
In terms of the acting, there are the obvious visual talents on show of Michael Sheen (doing a great English accent for a Welshman.... #irony), Jim Broadbent, Jessie Buckley, Joanna Page (blink and you'll miss her) and Antonio Banderas, as the swashbuckling pirate king cum father-in-law.
But the end titles are an amazing array of "Ah!" moments as the vocal performances are revealed: Emma Thompson as the parrot; Rami Malek as the gorilla; John Cena as the polar bear; Kumail Nanjiani at the ostrich; Octavia Spencer at the duck; Tom Holland as the dog; Selena Gomez as the giraffe; Marion Cotillade as the fox, Frances de la Tour as a flatulent dragon and Ralph Fiennes as an evil tiger with mummy issues. It's a gift for future contestants on "Pointless"!
There are a lot of poe-faced critics throwing brick-bats at this movie, and to a degree it's deserved. They lavished $175 million on it, and it looked like it was going to be a thumping loss. (However, against all the odds, at the time of writing it has grossed north of $184 million. And it only opened yesterday in China. So although not stellar in the world of blockbuster movies it's not going to be a studio-killer like "Heaven's Gate").
And I suspect there's a good reason for that latent salvation. I think kids are loving this movie, driving repeat viewings and unexpected word of mouth. It is certainly a family friendly experience. There are no truly terrifying scenes that will haunt young children. A dragon-induced death, not seen on screen, is - notwithstanding the intro Frozen-esque cartoon sequence - the only obvious one in the movie and is (as above) played for laughs. There are fantastical sets and landscapes. Performing whales. A happy-ending (albeit not the one I was cynically expecting). And an extended dragon-farting scene, and what kids are not going to love that!!
Directed by Stephen Gaghan ("Syriana", but better known as a writer than a director) it's a jumbled messy bear of a movie but is in no way an unpleasant watch. I would take a grandkid along to watch this again. It even has some nuggets of gold hidden within its matted coat.
As this is primarily one for the kids, I'm giving the movie two ratings: 4/10 for adults and 8/10 for kids... the Smashbomb rating is the mean of these.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/22/doolittle-2019/ . Thanks).
Doctor Doolittle (Robert Downey Jnr) - famed animal doctor, with the unique ability to communicate with any animal - is now holed up in his animal sanctuary, a recluse. His beloved wife - adventurer Lily - was lost at sea (in a cartoon sequence that could have just used the same clip from "Frozen"). He's lost the will to practice; and almost lost the will to live.
Impinging on his morose life come two humans: Tommy Stubbings (Harry Collett), a reluctant hunter with a wounded squirrel, and Lady Rose (Carmel Laniado), daughter of the Queen of England. (We'll quietly ignore the coincidence that, after what looks like several years of mourning, these two independently pitch up at Chez Doolittle within ten minutes of each other!).
For the Queen (the omnipresent Jessie Buckley) is dying, and noone (other than us viewers, let in on the deal) suspect foul play might be at work in the form of Lord Thomas Badgley (the ever-reliable Jim Broadbent) and the Queen's old leech-loving doctor Blair Müdfly (a moustache-twiddling Michael Sheen).
Doolittle must engage in a perilous journey to find the only cure that will save both the Queen and his animal sanctuary - the fruit of the tree on a missing island that his long lost love was searching for.
Let's start with the most obvious point first up. Robert Downey Jnr's Welsh accent is quite the most terrible, most preposterous, most unintelligible, most offensive (to the Welsh) attempt at an accent in a mainstream film in movie history. And that's really saying something when you have Laurence Olivier's Jewish father from "The Jazz Singer" and Russell Crowe's English cum Irish cum Scottish cum Yugoslavian "Robin Hood" in the list. Why? Just why? Was it to distance this version from Rex Harrison's? (Since most younger movie goers will be going "Rex who?" at this point, this seems unlikely). It's a wholly curious decision.
It turns RDj's presence in the movie from being an asset to a liability.
The movie has had a tortuous history. Filmed in 2018 at enormous expense, the film completely bombed at test screenings so they brought in more script writers to make it funnier and did extensive additional filming.
I actually disagree with the general view that the film is unfunny. For there are a few points in the movie where I laughed out loud. A fly's miraculous, if temporary, escape was one such moment. The duck laying an egg in fright, another.
However, these seem to stand out starkly in isolation as 'the funny bits they inserted'. Much of the rest of the movie's comedy falls painfully flat.
In terms of the acting, there are the obvious visual talents on show of Michael Sheen (doing a great English accent for a Welshman.... #irony), Jim Broadbent, Jessie Buckley, Joanna Page (blink and you'll miss her) and Antonio Banderas, as the swashbuckling pirate king cum father-in-law.
But the end titles are an amazing array of "Ah!" moments as the vocal performances are revealed: Emma Thompson as the parrot; Rami Malek as the gorilla; John Cena as the polar bear; Kumail Nanjiani at the ostrich; Octavia Spencer at the duck; Tom Holland as the dog; Selena Gomez as the giraffe; Marion Cotillade as the fox, Frances de la Tour as a flatulent dragon and Ralph Fiennes as an evil tiger with mummy issues. It's a gift for future contestants on "Pointless"!
There are a lot of poe-faced critics throwing brick-bats at this movie, and to a degree it's deserved. They lavished $175 million on it, and it looked like it was going to be a thumping loss. (However, against all the odds, at the time of writing it has grossed north of $184 million. And it only opened yesterday in China. So although not stellar in the world of blockbuster movies it's not going to be a studio-killer like "Heaven's Gate").
And I suspect there's a good reason for that latent salvation. I think kids are loving this movie, driving repeat viewings and unexpected word of mouth. It is certainly a family friendly experience. There are no truly terrifying scenes that will haunt young children. A dragon-induced death, not seen on screen, is - notwithstanding the intro Frozen-esque cartoon sequence - the only obvious one in the movie and is (as above) played for laughs. There are fantastical sets and landscapes. Performing whales. A happy-ending (albeit not the one I was cynically expecting). And an extended dragon-farting scene, and what kids are not going to love that!!
Directed by Stephen Gaghan ("Syriana", but better known as a writer than a director) it's a jumbled messy bear of a movie but is in no way an unpleasant watch. I would take a grandkid along to watch this again. It even has some nuggets of gold hidden within its matted coat.
As this is primarily one for the kids, I'm giving the movie two ratings: 4/10 for adults and 8/10 for kids... the Smashbomb rating is the mean of these.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/22/doolittle-2019/ . Thanks).
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Angel Has Fallen (2019) in Movies
Sep 16, 2019
After putting in plenty of years and two prior movies spent protecting the President, Secret Service member Mike Banning is up for promotion. In Angel Has Fallen, the third installment of the Fallen franchise, Banning has been personally hand-picked by President Allan Trumbull to take over as the new Secret Service Director. Trumbull tells him the good news directly during a getaway fishing trip, but then things quickly turn bad when a drone attack attempts to assassinate the President. Banning is able to successfully save himself and the President, but the attack kills all the rest of the Secret Service members on site and the aftermath leaves Trumbull in a coma. Planted DNA evidence linking Banning to an involvement in the attack leads to his arrest, and with the President unconscious, he has no other witness to clear his name. Banning’s obviously been framed and set-up and will have to escape from authorities to find out who is responsible, and to also protect the President from any further attempts on his life.
Directed by Ric Roman Waugh, Angel Has Fallen is a film that starts off pretty well, yet I feel that the whole narrative of Banning being so easily framed is pretty hard to believe, especially given that he’s been the hero of two films already. It’s the driving force of the film’s story and yet it seems highly questionable to me that the intelligence committee would be so quick to blame it all on Banning considering his reputable history. Naturally any attack on the President is taken very seriously, but the FBI is extremely quick to condemn the man that just saved his life. I think it’s the weakest part of the story, although story is not an area this film ever really excels at. I would even say that most of its attempts at being smart usually fall flat. Regardless, this is the kind of movie that would be best enjoyed if you didn’t take it too seriously. It’s in many ways a throwback to the macho action movies of yesteryear, and that’s where it makes up for its shortcomings.
As the first film I’ve seen in this series, I admittedly had low expectations for it. If not for my dad wanting to see it, I probably would have skipped it entirely, but in truth it turned out to be better than I had anticipated. It’s also been the number one movie at the box office for two weeks running, so what do I know? I must confess that ever since seeing Den of Thieves last year, I’ve instantly become a huge fan of Gerard Butler, whose filmography I’ve largely overlooked. I love his energy, his over-the-top acting and his tough guy persona. He’s a great fit here in Angel Has Fallen as Banning and is enjoyable to watch, even if at times it can be a little hard to believe that he’s somehow always the smartest guy in the room.
The rest of the cast in the movie is respectful as well. Morgan Freeman is a comfortable choice as President Trumbull, and he truly makes me long for a time when we had a sane and competent President. It’s a rather reserved role for Freeman, as he spends most of the runtime in a coma. Still, he’s a graceful and welcome presence who has at least a couple moments to shine. Jada Pinkett Smith has the unfortunate role of playing the FBI agent who orders Banning’s arrest, and I wish she had a bit more to work with. Nick Nolte plays Banning’s estranged father Clay, a paranoid war veteran living off the grid, and he’s one of the highlights of the film. I enjoyed his character’s relationship with Banning, and he and Butler play off each other well. Danny Huston also gives a worthwhile performance as Banning’s former military companion Wade Jennings.
Despite having the appearance of a run-of-the-mill, rescue-the-President type of action movie, the action is actually for the most part quite admirable. Right from the get-go, it makes an impressive statement with its tense and exciting introductory scene which feels reminiscent of tactical military-style video games. The movie is heavy on explosions, shootouts, and hand-to-hand combat, and its action is generally fun. There’s also an impressive final stand-off that’s surprisingly well-planned and executed. It’s in moments like this where the movie demonstrates its intelligence and expertise. If not for these strong action sequences, I feel the movie as a whole would have suffered tremendously, but it rightfully delivers on what we came to see. Of course, not all of the action is stellar, and there’s a clunker of a car chase thrown into the mix, but overall I was entertained.
One area where the movie could have used some more improvement was with the special effects. They’re sufficient in the sense that they still clearly convey what the movie is trying to show, but a lot of it looks noticeably fake. It’s unfortunate, but I also don’t believe it was ever a major distraction. Another issue with the film is that its run-time feels a little long and there are some subplots that I really couldn’t care less about. It’s your standard government scheming and political conspiracy stuff, complete with all of the twists you would expect, but it isn’t particularly interesting, even if it does explain the purpose of the initial attack on the President.
Overall, I had a better time with Angel Has Fallen than I would have imagined. It’s far from great, but it’s good enough that I’ll probably now check out the two previous Fallen films at some point. The story might leave a lot to be desired, but the action sequences help fill the void. I would recommend it for fans of action movies, or anyone who likes Gerard Butler. It’s not something anyone needs to rush to the theater to see, but if you’re looking for a little action to end your summer with, it should do the trick.
Directed by Ric Roman Waugh, Angel Has Fallen is a film that starts off pretty well, yet I feel that the whole narrative of Banning being so easily framed is pretty hard to believe, especially given that he’s been the hero of two films already. It’s the driving force of the film’s story and yet it seems highly questionable to me that the intelligence committee would be so quick to blame it all on Banning considering his reputable history. Naturally any attack on the President is taken very seriously, but the FBI is extremely quick to condemn the man that just saved his life. I think it’s the weakest part of the story, although story is not an area this film ever really excels at. I would even say that most of its attempts at being smart usually fall flat. Regardless, this is the kind of movie that would be best enjoyed if you didn’t take it too seriously. It’s in many ways a throwback to the macho action movies of yesteryear, and that’s where it makes up for its shortcomings.
As the first film I’ve seen in this series, I admittedly had low expectations for it. If not for my dad wanting to see it, I probably would have skipped it entirely, but in truth it turned out to be better than I had anticipated. It’s also been the number one movie at the box office for two weeks running, so what do I know? I must confess that ever since seeing Den of Thieves last year, I’ve instantly become a huge fan of Gerard Butler, whose filmography I’ve largely overlooked. I love his energy, his over-the-top acting and his tough guy persona. He’s a great fit here in Angel Has Fallen as Banning and is enjoyable to watch, even if at times it can be a little hard to believe that he’s somehow always the smartest guy in the room.
The rest of the cast in the movie is respectful as well. Morgan Freeman is a comfortable choice as President Trumbull, and he truly makes me long for a time when we had a sane and competent President. It’s a rather reserved role for Freeman, as he spends most of the runtime in a coma. Still, he’s a graceful and welcome presence who has at least a couple moments to shine. Jada Pinkett Smith has the unfortunate role of playing the FBI agent who orders Banning’s arrest, and I wish she had a bit more to work with. Nick Nolte plays Banning’s estranged father Clay, a paranoid war veteran living off the grid, and he’s one of the highlights of the film. I enjoyed his character’s relationship with Banning, and he and Butler play off each other well. Danny Huston also gives a worthwhile performance as Banning’s former military companion Wade Jennings.
Despite having the appearance of a run-of-the-mill, rescue-the-President type of action movie, the action is actually for the most part quite admirable. Right from the get-go, it makes an impressive statement with its tense and exciting introductory scene which feels reminiscent of tactical military-style video games. The movie is heavy on explosions, shootouts, and hand-to-hand combat, and its action is generally fun. There’s also an impressive final stand-off that’s surprisingly well-planned and executed. It’s in moments like this where the movie demonstrates its intelligence and expertise. If not for these strong action sequences, I feel the movie as a whole would have suffered tremendously, but it rightfully delivers on what we came to see. Of course, not all of the action is stellar, and there’s a clunker of a car chase thrown into the mix, but overall I was entertained.
One area where the movie could have used some more improvement was with the special effects. They’re sufficient in the sense that they still clearly convey what the movie is trying to show, but a lot of it looks noticeably fake. It’s unfortunate, but I also don’t believe it was ever a major distraction. Another issue with the film is that its run-time feels a little long and there are some subplots that I really couldn’t care less about. It’s your standard government scheming and political conspiracy stuff, complete with all of the twists you would expect, but it isn’t particularly interesting, even if it does explain the purpose of the initial attack on the President.
Overall, I had a better time with Angel Has Fallen than I would have imagined. It’s far from great, but it’s good enough that I’ll probably now check out the two previous Fallen films at some point. The story might leave a lot to be desired, but the action sequences help fill the void. I would recommend it for fans of action movies, or anyone who likes Gerard Butler. It’s not something anyone needs to rush to the theater to see, but if you’re looking for a little action to end your summer with, it should do the trick.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Daisy's Vintage Cornish Camper Van in Books
Aug 3, 2020
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Book-Review-Banner-40.png"/>;
Daisy's Vintage Cornish Camper Van by Ali McNamara is exactly the book I thought I needed to put me in a better mood!
When Ana inherits a camper van from her best friend, she needs to go to Cornwall to get it. A nice sea air and fish and chips are enver a bad choice.
But when she arrives, she realises that the camper van is in a much worse state than she imagined. The fixing will take longer than she anticipated. On top of this, Ana finds a series of unsent postcards dating back to the 1940s, hidden in the van. This is a sign and Ana wants to make sure the postcards are delivered.
And while the camper van is restored and Ana is helping other people be happy, she may eventually notice she is finding her way back to happiness again.
<b><i>My Thoughts:</i></b>
Daisy's Vintage Cornish Camper Van got my attention from the moment I saw that beautiful cover. Then, I read the synopsis and I was sold.
For me, both camper vans and postcards have a big importance in my life. I have always wanted to have a camper van and be able to go on a road trips and experience that freedom. Even though I was lucky to be able to travel the world, it is never enough.
<b><i>"Yes, there's definitely something about a camper van that makes people smile. They're a happy vehicle, so people enjoy seeing them as much as their owners enjoy driving them."</i></b>
And postcards were always a way to travel without living my home. Get to meet other places and cultures, meet other people. It is extraordinary how many things I have learned about the world and the people from other countries just by reading their postcards.
<b><i>"Deltiology - it's the name for the study and collection of postcards. It comes from the Greek word deltios, which means "writing tablet" or "letter"."</i></b>
Ana is working in London, busy in her day-to-day job. When her best friend Daisy dies, she is completely lost. Daisy was everything she had, and now she is gone. When she inherits this van, Ana is eager to pick the van up and return to her normal London routine. She is not really a fan of travel, camper vans or camping. But Daisy was, and if she wanted for Ana to have this van and that was her last wish, this is the least Ana can do for her.
<b><i>"These old vehicles are very sensitive - especially camper vans. They're the worst, very temperamental they can be."</i></b>
Throughout her stay, Ana meets Malachi, the mechanic, who sold the van to Daisy and who will help Ana restore it. He is a very interesting character with an interesting point of view on life.
He was my favourite character in the book.
<b><i>"People pay a lot of money these days to find themselves. They're not really finding themselves, they're finding a version of themselves they feel happy to be for a while."
"We all change through our lives, and what you're happy to be when you're twenty is unlikely to be what you're happy being when you're older."</i></b>
Malachi also has a camper van himself. He always tells Ana why camper vans are amazing. If you are a fan of camper van, this book will be a favourite by default.
<b><i>"But... you'd be mad not to at least try camping in her. It's a wonderful experience. You can drive where you like, set up camp and cook your dinner in the open air, even bed down under the stars if you're lucky. The freedom is amazing."</i></b>
I loved everything about this book. The story was beautiful. All the characters were likeable and real. They all had their stories and points of development. It was nice to see Ana finally healing and learning to be happy again. Malachi's story was beautiful and it was the perfect closure to his mission. Noah's personal story was also heartwarming, as he learns to accept what happened in the past and be able to move on. I also really want to talk about the mystery couple from the postcards, but I won't, in fear that I will spoil anything. But the development on that story was amazing and it helped Ana in many ways to heal herself, which was magical!
<b><i>"If something is worth doing, Ana - I hear one of her favourite sayings echo in my ears - it's worth doing well."</i></b>
To summarize - Daisy's Vintage Cornish Camper Van is my new favorite!
Beautiful and heartwarming. It will make you want to go on a road trip. I definitely recommend Daisy's Vintage Cornish Camper Van. And as with every book, I love learning random things, and here are some things I learned:
<b><i>"Did you know the phrase "dilly-dally" is commonly attributed to the English music hall singer Marie Lloyd, but was actually in use much earlier than her 1918 song, as far back as the seventeenth century?"
"A Splitty. It's what we call a split screen camper van. All pre-1967 camper vans have a windscreen split in two. After that the new models all had the solid bay windows."</i></b>
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Book-Review-Banner-40.png"/>;
Daisy's Vintage Cornish Camper Van by Ali McNamara is exactly the book I thought I needed to put me in a better mood!
When Ana inherits a camper van from her best friend, she needs to go to Cornwall to get it. A nice sea air and fish and chips are enver a bad choice.
But when she arrives, she realises that the camper van is in a much worse state than she imagined. The fixing will take longer than she anticipated. On top of this, Ana finds a series of unsent postcards dating back to the 1940s, hidden in the van. This is a sign and Ana wants to make sure the postcards are delivered.
And while the camper van is restored and Ana is helping other people be happy, she may eventually notice she is finding her way back to happiness again.
<b><i>My Thoughts:</i></b>
Daisy's Vintage Cornish Camper Van got my attention from the moment I saw that beautiful cover. Then, I read the synopsis and I was sold.
For me, both camper vans and postcards have a big importance in my life. I have always wanted to have a camper van and be able to go on a road trips and experience that freedom. Even though I was lucky to be able to travel the world, it is never enough.
<b><i>"Yes, there's definitely something about a camper van that makes people smile. They're a happy vehicle, so people enjoy seeing them as much as their owners enjoy driving them."</i></b>
And postcards were always a way to travel without living my home. Get to meet other places and cultures, meet other people. It is extraordinary how many things I have learned about the world and the people from other countries just by reading their postcards.
<b><i>"Deltiology - it's the name for the study and collection of postcards. It comes from the Greek word deltios, which means "writing tablet" or "letter"."</i></b>
Ana is working in London, busy in her day-to-day job. When her best friend Daisy dies, she is completely lost. Daisy was everything she had, and now she is gone. When she inherits this van, Ana is eager to pick the van up and return to her normal London routine. She is not really a fan of travel, camper vans or camping. But Daisy was, and if she wanted for Ana to have this van and that was her last wish, this is the least Ana can do for her.
<b><i>"These old vehicles are very sensitive - especially camper vans. They're the worst, very temperamental they can be."</i></b>
Throughout her stay, Ana meets Malachi, the mechanic, who sold the van to Daisy and who will help Ana restore it. He is a very interesting character with an interesting point of view on life.
He was my favourite character in the book.
<b><i>"People pay a lot of money these days to find themselves. They're not really finding themselves, they're finding a version of themselves they feel happy to be for a while."
"We all change through our lives, and what you're happy to be when you're twenty is unlikely to be what you're happy being when you're older."</i></b>
Malachi also has a camper van himself. He always tells Ana why camper vans are amazing. If you are a fan of camper van, this book will be a favourite by default.
<b><i>"But... you'd be mad not to at least try camping in her. It's a wonderful experience. You can drive where you like, set up camp and cook your dinner in the open air, even bed down under the stars if you're lucky. The freedom is amazing."</i></b>
I loved everything about this book. The story was beautiful. All the characters were likeable and real. They all had their stories and points of development. It was nice to see Ana finally healing and learning to be happy again. Malachi's story was beautiful and it was the perfect closure to his mission. Noah's personal story was also heartwarming, as he learns to accept what happened in the past and be able to move on. I also really want to talk about the mystery couple from the postcards, but I won't, in fear that I will spoil anything. But the development on that story was amazing and it helped Ana in many ways to heal herself, which was magical!
<b><i>"If something is worth doing, Ana - I hear one of her favourite sayings echo in my ears - it's worth doing well."</i></b>
To summarize - Daisy's Vintage Cornish Camper Van is my new favorite!
Beautiful and heartwarming. It will make you want to go on a road trip. I definitely recommend Daisy's Vintage Cornish Camper Van. And as with every book, I love learning random things, and here are some things I learned:
<b><i>"Did you know the phrase "dilly-dally" is commonly attributed to the English music hall singer Marie Lloyd, but was actually in use much earlier than her 1918 song, as far back as the seventeenth century?"
"A Splitty. It's what we call a split screen camper van. All pre-1967 camper vans have a windscreen split in two. After that the new models all had the solid bay windows."</i></b>
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated GoodFellas (1990) in Movies
Aug 25, 2020
Cast (3 more)
Sets
Script
Directing
Masterpiece
Contains spoilers, click to show
At the weekend, I was lucky enough to go and see one of my favourite films ever made on the big screen; Goodfellas. I thoroughly enjoyed the experience of seeing the movie in an actual cinema, but it has been a few years since I have last seen it and seeing it after seeing some of Scorsese’s more recent efforts, I actually saw the story in a different light.
Here me out here; Goodfellas is a religious story.
I know what you are thinking, “But Scorsese has already made religious movies with The Last Temptation of Christ and Silence. Goodfellas is about gangsters and murder and the only brief mention of religion in the movie is the fact that Karen is Jewish and Henry wears a cross.” Well none of that is strictly untrue, but there were just several points of the movie that I just couldn’t help but feel an implied religious undertone.
The first of which is in the opening scene of the movie, when Henry, Tommy and Jimmy open the boot of the car to finish off Billy Batts. The bright red tail light shines harshly on Henry’s face as he watches a man die and delivers his iconic voiceover: “As far back as I can remember, I’ve always wanted to be a gangster.” Here we are being introduced to a man who is capable of literally staring death in the face and metaphorically staring into the jaws of hell without even flinching.
From this point on, Henry is our guide into this forbidden underworld. He treats us the viewers as total newcomers to this chaotic landscape as he attempts to sell to us how great it is to live this way. It’s akin to Virgil guiding Dante through the various circles of hell in the Divine Comedy. This idea of Henry being a guide into hell is most explicit in the scene of his and Karen’s first real date at the Copacabana nightclub. In this scene we are treated to a glorious tracking shot that follows the couple all the way from their car to their seat directly in front of the stage. The first major direction we are taken is down. We descend down a staircase into a hallway painted red, in fact if you pay attention to the background in this entire sequence, there is almost always at least one red object onscreen. All the way to the table, Henry is greeted by various sinners as the ‘Then He Kissed Me,’ plays in the background; a song of seduction and lust.
Another example of this is the famous scene where Henry introduces us to various gangsters such as Jimmy Two Times through voiceover. Once again, the environment is littered with red light and dark shadowed areas as we are being introduced to a batch of sinners, thieves and murderers.
After Tommy’s death, the period of seduction in the movie is over. From this point on, we are seeing the intense fall of Henry’s world. It is just as chaotic as the first half of the movie, but now Henry and his friends are no longer in charge of the chaos and slowly they are beginning to lose control of everything that was once theirs. All of a sudden the momentum that has carried the movie and Henry’s life up until this point is brought to a halt, most obviously manifested in the scene of Henry driving far too fast despite being unaware of wait awaits him ahead and having to slam on his breaks and come to a screeching stop mere inches away from crashing. What direction is he looking just prior to this? He’s looking up for the chopper that he suspects has been following him, however he is also looking in the direction of Heaven, looking for a threat of something bigger than him that threatens to put a stop to his sinful lifestyle.
In the movie’s epilogue, once Henry gives up Jimmy and Paulie to the FBI, we see him in an entirely different environment. He’s dressed different, the weather is different and he describes how he is now just a nobody like everyone else as if that to him is a fate worse that death. Almost as if, he is in Limbo. No longer is he amongst the sinners in a world of gratification and sin, but instead he is in a ‘safe,’ environment where he can’t do anything even remotely illegal or morally questionable because he is being monitored by people just waiting for him to slip up. Then the very last shot we see is Tommy shooting at the audience. This is not only a very neat bookend as both the opening scene and final scene of the movie see Tommy committing a violent act, but it signifies that elements of Henry’s old life still follow him and he will spend the rest of his days looking over his shoulder for demons from his old life, like Tommy waiting to snuff him out.
Maybe I’m reaching slightly with this, but I feel like at least a few of these choices were intentionally put in by Scorsese. Especially the opening scene showing the murder of Billy Batts and the tracking shot as we are taken into the Copacabana. After watching recently watching Silence and The Irishman, it is clear that faith and mortality are both things that heavily weigh on Scorsese’s mind, so I don’t think that it is too much of a stretch to say that it was probably something that was at least in the back of his mind in 1990.
Regardless, this movie is a masterpiece and is still great no matter how many times you have seen it previously. It feels so authentic and genuine through the direction and presentation and the fantastic performances given by the respective cast members allow the characters to feel so real and deep. There is a reason that this is still considered as one of the seminal gangster movies. 10/10
Here me out here; Goodfellas is a religious story.
I know what you are thinking, “But Scorsese has already made religious movies with The Last Temptation of Christ and Silence. Goodfellas is about gangsters and murder and the only brief mention of religion in the movie is the fact that Karen is Jewish and Henry wears a cross.” Well none of that is strictly untrue, but there were just several points of the movie that I just couldn’t help but feel an implied religious undertone.
The first of which is in the opening scene of the movie, when Henry, Tommy and Jimmy open the boot of the car to finish off Billy Batts. The bright red tail light shines harshly on Henry’s face as he watches a man die and delivers his iconic voiceover: “As far back as I can remember, I’ve always wanted to be a gangster.” Here we are being introduced to a man who is capable of literally staring death in the face and metaphorically staring into the jaws of hell without even flinching.
From this point on, Henry is our guide into this forbidden underworld. He treats us the viewers as total newcomers to this chaotic landscape as he attempts to sell to us how great it is to live this way. It’s akin to Virgil guiding Dante through the various circles of hell in the Divine Comedy. This idea of Henry being a guide into hell is most explicit in the scene of his and Karen’s first real date at the Copacabana nightclub. In this scene we are treated to a glorious tracking shot that follows the couple all the way from their car to their seat directly in front of the stage. The first major direction we are taken is down. We descend down a staircase into a hallway painted red, in fact if you pay attention to the background in this entire sequence, there is almost always at least one red object onscreen. All the way to the table, Henry is greeted by various sinners as the ‘Then He Kissed Me,’ plays in the background; a song of seduction and lust.
Another example of this is the famous scene where Henry introduces us to various gangsters such as Jimmy Two Times through voiceover. Once again, the environment is littered with red light and dark shadowed areas as we are being introduced to a batch of sinners, thieves and murderers.
After Tommy’s death, the period of seduction in the movie is over. From this point on, we are seeing the intense fall of Henry’s world. It is just as chaotic as the first half of the movie, but now Henry and his friends are no longer in charge of the chaos and slowly they are beginning to lose control of everything that was once theirs. All of a sudden the momentum that has carried the movie and Henry’s life up until this point is brought to a halt, most obviously manifested in the scene of Henry driving far too fast despite being unaware of wait awaits him ahead and having to slam on his breaks and come to a screeching stop mere inches away from crashing. What direction is he looking just prior to this? He’s looking up for the chopper that he suspects has been following him, however he is also looking in the direction of Heaven, looking for a threat of something bigger than him that threatens to put a stop to his sinful lifestyle.
In the movie’s epilogue, once Henry gives up Jimmy and Paulie to the FBI, we see him in an entirely different environment. He’s dressed different, the weather is different and he describes how he is now just a nobody like everyone else as if that to him is a fate worse that death. Almost as if, he is in Limbo. No longer is he amongst the sinners in a world of gratification and sin, but instead he is in a ‘safe,’ environment where he can’t do anything even remotely illegal or morally questionable because he is being monitored by people just waiting for him to slip up. Then the very last shot we see is Tommy shooting at the audience. This is not only a very neat bookend as both the opening scene and final scene of the movie see Tommy committing a violent act, but it signifies that elements of Henry’s old life still follow him and he will spend the rest of his days looking over his shoulder for demons from his old life, like Tommy waiting to snuff him out.
Maybe I’m reaching slightly with this, but I feel like at least a few of these choices were intentionally put in by Scorsese. Especially the opening scene showing the murder of Billy Batts and the tracking shot as we are taken into the Copacabana. After watching recently watching Silence and The Irishman, it is clear that faith and mortality are both things that heavily weigh on Scorsese’s mind, so I don’t think that it is too much of a stretch to say that it was probably something that was at least in the back of his mind in 1990.
Regardless, this movie is a masterpiece and is still great no matter how many times you have seen it previously. It feels so authentic and genuine through the direction and presentation and the fantastic performances given by the respective cast members allow the characters to feel so real and deep. There is a reason that this is still considered as one of the seminal gangster movies. 10/10
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Post (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Landing the Hindenburg in a Thunderstorm.
What a combination: Streep, Hanks, Spielberg, Kaminski behind the camera, Williams behind the notes. What could possibly go wrong?
Nothing as it turns out. After, for me, the disappointment of “The BFG” here is Spielberg on firm ground and at the height of his game.
It’s 1971 and the New York Times is in trouble for publishing what became known as “The Pentagon Papers”: a damning account of multiple administration’s dodgy dealings around the Vietnam War, put together by Robert McNamara (Bruce Greenwood, “Star Trek: Into Darkness“) and meant for “posterity” – not for publication! Watching from the sidelines with frustration at their competitor’s scoop are the Washington Post’s editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“, “Inferno“) and the new owner Kay Graham (Meryl Streep, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “Suffragette“). With immaculate timing, Graham is taking the paper public, so needs the newspaper embroiled in any sort of scandal like a hole in the head. But with the US First Amendment under pressure, will Graham and Bradlee put their business and their freedom at risk by publishing and being damned?
Bradlee (Tom Hanks) and Graham (Meryl Streep) in the Washington Post’s newsroom.
Both of the leads play characters that are quite strikingly out of character from their normal roles.
In a seamingly endless run of ‘kick-ass’ women in the movie driving seat, here I expected Streep to be in full “Iron Lady” mode, but in fact she starts the film as quite the opposite: nervous, timid, vascillating. For although the story is about “The Washington Post” and “The Pentagon Papers”, the real story is about Graham herself (Liz Hannah’s script is actually based on Graham’s autobiography). In many ways it’s about a woman, in a male world, overcoming her fear and finding her own voice. As has been demonstrated in many recent films (“Hidden Figures” for example) the working world for woman has changed so markedly since the 60’s and 70’s that it’s almost impossible to relate to these chavenistic attitudes. Graham is repeatedly downtrodden as “not good enough” by her underlings within earshot, and then thanks them “for their frankness”. When the women folk retire at dinner, to let the men-folk talk politics, Graham meekly goes with them. Even her father, for God’s sake, left the newspaper not to her but to her (now late) husband! It’s no surprise then that she is coming from a pretty low base of self-confidence, and her journey in the film – as expertly played by Streep – is an extraordinarily rousing one.
The real deal: Ben Bradlee and Kay Graham.
Hanks, normally the guy you’d most like to invite round for dinner (@tomhanks if you happen to be reading this sir, that’s a genuine invitation… we make a mean lasagne here!) also plays somewhat outside of his normal character here. As Bradlee, he is snappy, brusque and businesslike. Although I don’t think he could ever quite match the irascibility of the character’s portrayal by Jason Robards in the classic “All the President’s Men” – who could? – its a character with real screen presence.
The similarities with Alan J Pakula’s 1976 classic Watergate movie – one of my personal favourites – don’t stop there. The same sets that were once populated by Redford and Hoffman are gloriously reproduced with Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski delivering great tracking shots through the newsroom. (Watch out for Sacha Spielberg – daughter of Stephen and Kate Capshaw – who also turns up there delivering a package).
The scoop revealed: Odenkirk, Hanks and David Cross get the low-down.
The supporting cast includes Sarah Paulson (so memorable in “The Trial of O.J. Simpson”) as Bradlee’s wife Tony, Bradley Whitford (“The West Wing”, “Get Out“) and Tracy Letts (“The Big Short“) as two of Graham’s board advisors and Jesse Plemons (“The Program“, “Bridge of Spies“) as the lead legal advisor. Particularly impressive though is Bob Odenkirk (“Breaking Bad”) as Ben Bagdikian, Bradlee’s lead investigative reporter on the case: all stress, loose change and paranoia in his dealings with the leaky Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys).
Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk) ordering a drink for himself and his travelling companion.
In a memorable piece of casting Richard Nixon is played by…. Richard Nixon. Although a silluohetted Curzon Dobell stalks the Oval office, the ex-president’s original phone recordings are played on the soundtrack. (There, I knew those recordings would be useful for something… thank heavens he kept them all!)
The film also demonstrates in fascinating style the newsprint business of yesteryear. When I click a button on my PC and a beautifully laser-printed page streams out of my Epson printer, it still seems like witchcraft to me! But it is extraordinary to think that newspapers in those days were put together by typesetters manually building up the pages from embossed metal letters laboriously slotted into a frame. Brilliantly evocative.
Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys) takes a risk.
If Spielberg has a fault, it is one of sentimentality – something that is pointed out in Susan Lacy’s superb HBO documentary on Spielberg (something I have yet to write a review on, but if you like Spielberg you should definitely seek out). Here he falls into that trap again, with an unnecessary bedroom scene between Graham and her daughter tipping the screenplay into mawkishness. It’s unnecessary since we don’t need the points raised rammed down our throats again. It’s something repeated in a rather bizarre final scene with Graham walking down the steps of the supreme court with admiring woman – only woman – watching her. These irritations tarnish for me what could have been a top-rated film.
But the movie is an impressive watch and older viewers, and anyone interested in American political history will, I think, love it. The film, especially with its nice epilogue, did make me immediately want to come home and put “All the President’s Men” on again… which is never a bad thing. Highly recommended.
Nothing as it turns out. After, for me, the disappointment of “The BFG” here is Spielberg on firm ground and at the height of his game.
It’s 1971 and the New York Times is in trouble for publishing what became known as “The Pentagon Papers”: a damning account of multiple administration’s dodgy dealings around the Vietnam War, put together by Robert McNamara (Bruce Greenwood, “Star Trek: Into Darkness“) and meant for “posterity” – not for publication! Watching from the sidelines with frustration at their competitor’s scoop are the Washington Post’s editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“, “Inferno“) and the new owner Kay Graham (Meryl Streep, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “Suffragette“). With immaculate timing, Graham is taking the paper public, so needs the newspaper embroiled in any sort of scandal like a hole in the head. But with the US First Amendment under pressure, will Graham and Bradlee put their business and their freedom at risk by publishing and being damned?
Bradlee (Tom Hanks) and Graham (Meryl Streep) in the Washington Post’s newsroom.
Both of the leads play characters that are quite strikingly out of character from their normal roles.
In a seamingly endless run of ‘kick-ass’ women in the movie driving seat, here I expected Streep to be in full “Iron Lady” mode, but in fact she starts the film as quite the opposite: nervous, timid, vascillating. For although the story is about “The Washington Post” and “The Pentagon Papers”, the real story is about Graham herself (Liz Hannah’s script is actually based on Graham’s autobiography). In many ways it’s about a woman, in a male world, overcoming her fear and finding her own voice. As has been demonstrated in many recent films (“Hidden Figures” for example) the working world for woman has changed so markedly since the 60’s and 70’s that it’s almost impossible to relate to these chavenistic attitudes. Graham is repeatedly downtrodden as “not good enough” by her underlings within earshot, and then thanks them “for their frankness”. When the women folk retire at dinner, to let the men-folk talk politics, Graham meekly goes with them. Even her father, for God’s sake, left the newspaper not to her but to her (now late) husband! It’s no surprise then that she is coming from a pretty low base of self-confidence, and her journey in the film – as expertly played by Streep – is an extraordinarily rousing one.
The real deal: Ben Bradlee and Kay Graham.
Hanks, normally the guy you’d most like to invite round for dinner (@tomhanks if you happen to be reading this sir, that’s a genuine invitation… we make a mean lasagne here!) also plays somewhat outside of his normal character here. As Bradlee, he is snappy, brusque and businesslike. Although I don’t think he could ever quite match the irascibility of the character’s portrayal by Jason Robards in the classic “All the President’s Men” – who could? – its a character with real screen presence.
The similarities with Alan J Pakula’s 1976 classic Watergate movie – one of my personal favourites – don’t stop there. The same sets that were once populated by Redford and Hoffman are gloriously reproduced with Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski delivering great tracking shots through the newsroom. (Watch out for Sacha Spielberg – daughter of Stephen and Kate Capshaw – who also turns up there delivering a package).
The scoop revealed: Odenkirk, Hanks and David Cross get the low-down.
The supporting cast includes Sarah Paulson (so memorable in “The Trial of O.J. Simpson”) as Bradlee’s wife Tony, Bradley Whitford (“The West Wing”, “Get Out“) and Tracy Letts (“The Big Short“) as two of Graham’s board advisors and Jesse Plemons (“The Program“, “Bridge of Spies“) as the lead legal advisor. Particularly impressive though is Bob Odenkirk (“Breaking Bad”) as Ben Bagdikian, Bradlee’s lead investigative reporter on the case: all stress, loose change and paranoia in his dealings with the leaky Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys).
Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk) ordering a drink for himself and his travelling companion.
In a memorable piece of casting Richard Nixon is played by…. Richard Nixon. Although a silluohetted Curzon Dobell stalks the Oval office, the ex-president’s original phone recordings are played on the soundtrack. (There, I knew those recordings would be useful for something… thank heavens he kept them all!)
The film also demonstrates in fascinating style the newsprint business of yesteryear. When I click a button on my PC and a beautifully laser-printed page streams out of my Epson printer, it still seems like witchcraft to me! But it is extraordinary to think that newspapers in those days were put together by typesetters manually building up the pages from embossed metal letters laboriously slotted into a frame. Brilliantly evocative.
Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys) takes a risk.
If Spielberg has a fault, it is one of sentimentality – something that is pointed out in Susan Lacy’s superb HBO documentary on Spielberg (something I have yet to write a review on, but if you like Spielberg you should definitely seek out). Here he falls into that trap again, with an unnecessary bedroom scene between Graham and her daughter tipping the screenplay into mawkishness. It’s unnecessary since we don’t need the points raised rammed down our throats again. It’s something repeated in a rather bizarre final scene with Graham walking down the steps of the supreme court with admiring woman – only woman – watching her. These irritations tarnish for me what could have been a top-rated film.
But the movie is an impressive watch and older viewers, and anyone interested in American political history will, I think, love it. The film, especially with its nice epilogue, did make me immediately want to come home and put “All the President’s Men” on again… which is never a bad thing. Highly recommended.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Gerald's Game (2017) in Movies
Oct 13, 2017 (Updated Oct 13, 2017)
Top Notch Performances. (1 more)
Effective Scares.
Hard To Watch, Yet Impossible To Turn Away
Contains spoilers, click to show
After being underwhelmed by the major blockbuster release of IT, I didn’t have much hope for this small Netflix movie with a limited cast, a low budget and being an adaption of what is regarded as one of Stephen King’s lesser works. I am happy to report that I was pleasantly surprised when I sat down to watch this one, in fact I’d go as far as to say it blew me away.
This is a movie that lives and dies on the performances of the actors involved. For those of you not familiar with the story’s premise, it involves a married couple driving out to a holiday cottage in the woods for a dirty weekend. The couple is played by Carla Gugino, (Jessie,) and Bruce Greenwood, (Gerald,) who both totally nail their respective roles in the movie. Once they get to the cottage and the door is conveniently left ajar, Gerald handcuffs Jessie to the bed and goes to the bathroom to pop a Viagra. Once he comes back and explains how he has made sure the gardeners and the cleaners won’t disturb them for a few days, he takes a heart attack and collapses onto the floor and dies.
From this point on, Carla Gugino spends the vast majority of the movie handcuffed to the bed and she gives an absolutely stellar performance, possibly the best of her career. She goes though a vast array of emotions in convincing, believable form and shows everything, from despair, to sadness, to anger, to fear, to resilience. I don’t think anyone has ever been Oscar nominated for a straight-to-Netflix movie, but if there is one performance that deserves to be, it is this one.
If you haven’t seen the movie yet, please don’t read on past this point as I am going to have to delve into spoilers in order to discuss the other aspects of the movie that I enjoyed. I thought the way that Gerald appeared to Jessie as a sort of devil on her shoulder was really effective and Greenwood delivered the required level of intense cruelty perfectly. Then the fact that Jessie appeared to herself as a sort of angel on the shoulder to oppose Gerald’s negative thoughts, meant that Gugino was required to deliver a dual character performance, on top of the already challenging role of being chained to the bed.
Flashback sequences in movies can go either way for me. They usually either tend to detract from the story at hand and become an unnecessary tangent, or they compliment what is going on and add to the movie overall. Thankfully in this movie, it is the latter. The flashback scenes are uncomfortable and hard to watch, but they do add context to what is going on in the character’s mind and make for a more interesting dissection of the effect that child abuse can have on a person in later life and how psychologically, even as adults people are still affected by the dreadful things that occurred in their past.
I also thought that this film was extremely effective in terms of its fear factor. As opposed to IT, which was scary at the start, but became repetitive and managed to desensitise its audience for what to expect by the halfway mark, Gerald’s game retains an unpredictable level of uneasiness throughout.
As far as the viewer knows during the first half of the movie, the main conflict facing the protagonist is starvation and the dog that is gnawing on Gerald’s dead body, but then things take a much more sinister turn. In what is possibly the creepiest scene I have seen in a movie this year, Jessie wakes up during the night after passing out for a few hours and she looks into the corner of the room, squinting her eyes. The camera follows where she is looking and the general shape of something can be made out. Then the shape begins to move forwards into the moonlight and is revealed to be a huge, deformed man holding a trinket box. This was so unexpected and freaky, and I loved it. I thought it was so effective in the context of the movie and was executed perfectly to be as disturbing as possible. It is also a relatable scare, as we have all experienced that moment; glancing at the corner of the room, something catches our eye and looks off in the darkness, but you just brush it off and fall back asleep. Jessie’s worst fears are confirmed here though, as she really did see something in the corner of the room and she is helpless to get away from it.
It also throws a twist into a story that has so far been based in what could be a real situation. You start to wonder, is Jessie experiencing something supernatural, or is she just hallucinating due to lack of food and water? Then the Gerald hallucination asks her if ‘The Moonlight Man,’ that she saw isn’t real, then why did the dog run away when he was in the room? Just like Jessie, the audience starts to wonder if he could be real, perhaps he is death and he has come to take Jessie to hell. All of these questions add to the already intense and disturbing tone of the movie and I thought it worked perfectly.
Eventually the movie wraps up with Jessie having an epiphany that if she smashes the glass of water and cuts her wrist, the blood can help her slip her hand out of the cuffs. What follows is a gory, brutal, difficult to watch de-gloving scene that will have you wincing and watching through your fingers. Then in true Stephen King fashion, the movie goes on to reveal another twist. It is revealed that ‘The Moonlight Man,’ really was in the room with Jessie. He was a serial killer that collected various body parts form dead people and he was taking parts from Gerald’s body while Jessie was chained to the bed. I can see why this ending could be polarizing for some, but I loved it and I thought it added an extra layer of craziness to the already insane sequence of events that we just witnessed.
Overall, Gerald’s Game is fantastic. A truly unsettling, chilling Stephen King adaption that showcases fantastic performances from its cast, makes the most of its minimal setting and managed to creep me out way more than any other horror movie I have seen this year.
This is a movie that lives and dies on the performances of the actors involved. For those of you not familiar with the story’s premise, it involves a married couple driving out to a holiday cottage in the woods for a dirty weekend. The couple is played by Carla Gugino, (Jessie,) and Bruce Greenwood, (Gerald,) who both totally nail their respective roles in the movie. Once they get to the cottage and the door is conveniently left ajar, Gerald handcuffs Jessie to the bed and goes to the bathroom to pop a Viagra. Once he comes back and explains how he has made sure the gardeners and the cleaners won’t disturb them for a few days, he takes a heart attack and collapses onto the floor and dies.
From this point on, Carla Gugino spends the vast majority of the movie handcuffed to the bed and she gives an absolutely stellar performance, possibly the best of her career. She goes though a vast array of emotions in convincing, believable form and shows everything, from despair, to sadness, to anger, to fear, to resilience. I don’t think anyone has ever been Oscar nominated for a straight-to-Netflix movie, but if there is one performance that deserves to be, it is this one.
If you haven’t seen the movie yet, please don’t read on past this point as I am going to have to delve into spoilers in order to discuss the other aspects of the movie that I enjoyed. I thought the way that Gerald appeared to Jessie as a sort of devil on her shoulder was really effective and Greenwood delivered the required level of intense cruelty perfectly. Then the fact that Jessie appeared to herself as a sort of angel on the shoulder to oppose Gerald’s negative thoughts, meant that Gugino was required to deliver a dual character performance, on top of the already challenging role of being chained to the bed.
Flashback sequences in movies can go either way for me. They usually either tend to detract from the story at hand and become an unnecessary tangent, or they compliment what is going on and add to the movie overall. Thankfully in this movie, it is the latter. The flashback scenes are uncomfortable and hard to watch, but they do add context to what is going on in the character’s mind and make for a more interesting dissection of the effect that child abuse can have on a person in later life and how psychologically, even as adults people are still affected by the dreadful things that occurred in their past.
I also thought that this film was extremely effective in terms of its fear factor. As opposed to IT, which was scary at the start, but became repetitive and managed to desensitise its audience for what to expect by the halfway mark, Gerald’s game retains an unpredictable level of uneasiness throughout.
As far as the viewer knows during the first half of the movie, the main conflict facing the protagonist is starvation and the dog that is gnawing on Gerald’s dead body, but then things take a much more sinister turn. In what is possibly the creepiest scene I have seen in a movie this year, Jessie wakes up during the night after passing out for a few hours and she looks into the corner of the room, squinting her eyes. The camera follows where she is looking and the general shape of something can be made out. Then the shape begins to move forwards into the moonlight and is revealed to be a huge, deformed man holding a trinket box. This was so unexpected and freaky, and I loved it. I thought it was so effective in the context of the movie and was executed perfectly to be as disturbing as possible. It is also a relatable scare, as we have all experienced that moment; glancing at the corner of the room, something catches our eye and looks off in the darkness, but you just brush it off and fall back asleep. Jessie’s worst fears are confirmed here though, as she really did see something in the corner of the room and she is helpless to get away from it.
It also throws a twist into a story that has so far been based in what could be a real situation. You start to wonder, is Jessie experiencing something supernatural, or is she just hallucinating due to lack of food and water? Then the Gerald hallucination asks her if ‘The Moonlight Man,’ that she saw isn’t real, then why did the dog run away when he was in the room? Just like Jessie, the audience starts to wonder if he could be real, perhaps he is death and he has come to take Jessie to hell. All of these questions add to the already intense and disturbing tone of the movie and I thought it worked perfectly.
Eventually the movie wraps up with Jessie having an epiphany that if she smashes the glass of water and cuts her wrist, the blood can help her slip her hand out of the cuffs. What follows is a gory, brutal, difficult to watch de-gloving scene that will have you wincing and watching through your fingers. Then in true Stephen King fashion, the movie goes on to reveal another twist. It is revealed that ‘The Moonlight Man,’ really was in the room with Jessie. He was a serial killer that collected various body parts form dead people and he was taking parts from Gerald’s body while Jessie was chained to the bed. I can see why this ending could be polarizing for some, but I loved it and I thought it added an extra layer of craziness to the already insane sequence of events that we just witnessed.
Overall, Gerald’s Game is fantastic. A truly unsettling, chilling Stephen King adaption that showcases fantastic performances from its cast, makes the most of its minimal setting and managed to creep me out way more than any other horror movie I have seen this year.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Chronicles of Crime: 1900 in Tabletop Games
Apr 23, 2021
WARNING: Extremely minor spoilers ahead (in the photos)! Don’t say I didn’t warn you (they aren’t big spoilers).
If you have been following us for a while now you have probably noticed we have published another title from the Millennium Series – Chronicles of Crime: 1400. While that title takes place in the year, well, 1400, this new title is set 500 years later in Paris. How do these games compare? What about the link to the original Chronicles of Crime (review to be posted later)? Should one purchase copies of all Chronicles of Crime games?
Chronicles of Crime: 1900 (which I shall refer to as CoC1900 from here) is a cooperative campaign, deduction, storytelling, puzzle solving adventure game, but I prefer to play it, and its relatives, solo. In it, the player(s) take control of the journalist Victor Lavel, a descendent of the main character from CoC1400. Victor has a limited amount of time to complete his investigation and return the scoop to the local newspaper by which he is employed. Players will be tackling the investigations of our noble hero in attempts to solve the case that is presented.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, place the main card holder board on the table. Anywhere. I called it. Next, keep the card decks in order (or don’t) and place them near the board. Similarly, place the location boards on the table and ready the main newspaper board for play. Launch the Chronicles of Crime app on a device, choose 1900, and select the scenario you wish to play. The app will drive the remainder of the game, so hold onto your butts!
How do I explain this game succinctly? Well, each of the cases will involve players traveling to different Location Boards and meeting Characters at these locations. Many cases will be involving several Special Items and, new for the 1900 version, Puzzle Cards that players will need to solve or use in special ways in order to progress with certain leads. These Puzzle Cards do not really give the story away or anything, but are merely tools to be used to help solve the cases.
By using the app and scanning the QR codes on the boards and cards players will be learning about the case, viewing the scene of the crime(s), inspecting items, and chatting up locals for information. Play will continue not so much in “rounds” but until the players have enough evidence and a good handle on the situation enough to return to the paper’s office to report to their coworkers all the details of the crime(s) by scanning answers to their questions about the case. The app then assesses the accuracy of the answers and outputs a score. Based on the score achieved players can play again to pick up clues they missed along the way or try another scenario entirely.
Components. As with all CoC games I have played, the components are simply wonderful. Most of what is in the box is cardstock of varying thickness, but the art is what really stands out. This is a gorgeous game and when it is displayed on the table, people become fascinated by its presence. Then when the onlookers see an app driving the gameplay they are hooked. I have heard complaints from other reviewers that the Character cards in the game are lacking in variation, and I would have to agree. Yes, it is set in 1900 Paris, but all the Character cards feature white people, most of whom seem to be upper crust, and with most of the males sporting an awful mustache. So I get that complaint and agree. With inclusivity and diversity being major hot issues currently, you would expect to see more of it in our industry. I would have liked to have come across more diverse characters, and maybe a mini expansion can add many alternate art characters to the game.
All in all I loved this theme of Chronicles of Crime. Being set in Paris and following a young investigative journalist is a nice twist on the protagonists commonly featured in these games. The gameplay is the same as previous versions of CoC, save for the new Puzzle cards. I do enjoy their addition, and look to find more of these in future versions. I love the Chronicles of Crime system so I was bound to love this one as well.
Now, should you buy this version if you already have base Chronicles of Crime? Sure! Why? I like this one because it adds a different mechanic to the game with all-new scenarios, and I enjoy having more of a good thing. I think I personally prefer the theme in 1400 more, but 1900 is a great addition to the family. If you are someone who has and enjoys the base CoC, or any of its iterations, and are looking for more content to devour, then definitely grab a copy of 1900. If you are new to the system, I say go ahead and start with 1900. The Puzzle cards do not add enough complexity to take it out of reach for beginner gamers or those who enjoy lighter games, but certainly add a new and welcome layer to the series. Purple Phoenix Games certainly recommends this one to all our fans. Can’t get enough Chronicles of Crime? Grab 1900. Want to start in the series but London or Medieval times don’t do it for you? Grab 1900. Like tons of portraits of mustachioed white dudes and floofy ladies? Grab 1900. Whatever your motivation, play the game and let me know how you score. I am not advertising my first score here because I am mortified by my performance. (I did get better on subsequent plays.)
If you have been following us for a while now you have probably noticed we have published another title from the Millennium Series – Chronicles of Crime: 1400. While that title takes place in the year, well, 1400, this new title is set 500 years later in Paris. How do these games compare? What about the link to the original Chronicles of Crime (review to be posted later)? Should one purchase copies of all Chronicles of Crime games?
Chronicles of Crime: 1900 (which I shall refer to as CoC1900 from here) is a cooperative campaign, deduction, storytelling, puzzle solving adventure game, but I prefer to play it, and its relatives, solo. In it, the player(s) take control of the journalist Victor Lavel, a descendent of the main character from CoC1400. Victor has a limited amount of time to complete his investigation and return the scoop to the local newspaper by which he is employed. Players will be tackling the investigations of our noble hero in attempts to solve the case that is presented.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, place the main card holder board on the table. Anywhere. I called it. Next, keep the card decks in order (or don’t) and place them near the board. Similarly, place the location boards on the table and ready the main newspaper board for play. Launch the Chronicles of Crime app on a device, choose 1900, and select the scenario you wish to play. The app will drive the remainder of the game, so hold onto your butts!
How do I explain this game succinctly? Well, each of the cases will involve players traveling to different Location Boards and meeting Characters at these locations. Many cases will be involving several Special Items and, new for the 1900 version, Puzzle Cards that players will need to solve or use in special ways in order to progress with certain leads. These Puzzle Cards do not really give the story away or anything, but are merely tools to be used to help solve the cases.
By using the app and scanning the QR codes on the boards and cards players will be learning about the case, viewing the scene of the crime(s), inspecting items, and chatting up locals for information. Play will continue not so much in “rounds” but until the players have enough evidence and a good handle on the situation enough to return to the paper’s office to report to their coworkers all the details of the crime(s) by scanning answers to their questions about the case. The app then assesses the accuracy of the answers and outputs a score. Based on the score achieved players can play again to pick up clues they missed along the way or try another scenario entirely.
Components. As with all CoC games I have played, the components are simply wonderful. Most of what is in the box is cardstock of varying thickness, but the art is what really stands out. This is a gorgeous game and when it is displayed on the table, people become fascinated by its presence. Then when the onlookers see an app driving the gameplay they are hooked. I have heard complaints from other reviewers that the Character cards in the game are lacking in variation, and I would have to agree. Yes, it is set in 1900 Paris, but all the Character cards feature white people, most of whom seem to be upper crust, and with most of the males sporting an awful mustache. So I get that complaint and agree. With inclusivity and diversity being major hot issues currently, you would expect to see more of it in our industry. I would have liked to have come across more diverse characters, and maybe a mini expansion can add many alternate art characters to the game.
All in all I loved this theme of Chronicles of Crime. Being set in Paris and following a young investigative journalist is a nice twist on the protagonists commonly featured in these games. The gameplay is the same as previous versions of CoC, save for the new Puzzle cards. I do enjoy their addition, and look to find more of these in future versions. I love the Chronicles of Crime system so I was bound to love this one as well.
Now, should you buy this version if you already have base Chronicles of Crime? Sure! Why? I like this one because it adds a different mechanic to the game with all-new scenarios, and I enjoy having more of a good thing. I think I personally prefer the theme in 1400 more, but 1900 is a great addition to the family. If you are someone who has and enjoys the base CoC, or any of its iterations, and are looking for more content to devour, then definitely grab a copy of 1900. If you are new to the system, I say go ahead and start with 1900. The Puzzle cards do not add enough complexity to take it out of reach for beginner gamers or those who enjoy lighter games, but certainly add a new and welcome layer to the series. Purple Phoenix Games certainly recommends this one to all our fans. Can’t get enough Chronicles of Crime? Grab 1900. Want to start in the series but London or Medieval times don’t do it for you? Grab 1900. Like tons of portraits of mustachioed white dudes and floofy ladies? Grab 1900. Whatever your motivation, play the game and let me know how you score. I am not advertising my first score here because I am mortified by my performance. (I did get better on subsequent plays.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated No Time to Die (2021) in Movies
Oct 7, 2021 (Updated Oct 10, 2021)
What a wait it’s been for Bond 25! But Daniel Craig’s last outing as Bond is finally here and I thought it was great! It has all the elements of Bond… but perhaps not as we traditionally know it.
Plot Summary:
We pick up immediately after the ending of “Spectre“, with Bond (Daniel Craig) and Madeleine (Léa Seydoux) all loved up and driving off into the sunset together. But their romantic getaway to Italy is rudely broken short by Spectre as elements of Madeleine’s past emerge to haunt the couple.
One element of that past – the horribly disfigured Lyutsifer Safin (Rami Malek) has a plan to make his mark on mankind with a biochemical weapon. And the retired Bond teams with the CIA’s Felix Leiter (a very welcome return of Jeffrey Wright) in a mission to Jamaica to combat it.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Daniel Craig, Léa Seydoux, Rami Malek, Lashana Lynch, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Ana de Armas.
Directed by: Cary Joji Fukunaga.
Written by: Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, Cary Joji Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge. (From a story by Purvis, Wade and Fukunaga).
Positives:
- The script has all the trappings of Bond: exotic locations; great stunts; thrilling action sequences; and more gadgets on show than in recent times. Yet it’s a real character piece too, delving far more into Bond’s emotions. The story running through it with Madeleine is both deep and emotional: something we haven’t seen since the Bond and Tracy romance in OHMSS. (And with Craig’s acting, he manages to pull this off far better than George Lazenby ever could!).
- I found the finale to be magnificent, bold and surprising. We’re back to the megalomaniac owning an island lair, à la Dr No. It even has its own submarine pen (a nod to Austin Power’s “Goldmember” perhaps!?). For me, the production design harks back to the superbly over-the-top Ken Adams creations of the Connery years. There are no sharks with frickin’ laser beams… but there could have been. (The set is a rather obvious redressing of the 007 stage at Pinewood, created of course for the tanker scenes in “The Spy Who Loved Me”. It even re-uses of the gantry level control room.)
- Craig is magnificent in his swan-song performance. There’s a scene, during the extended pre-credits sequence, where he’s sat in his bullet-ridden Aston just glowering for an extended period. I thought this was Craig’s acting at its best. I thought this again in a dramatic showdown scene with Rami Malek. Malek is not given a huge amount to do in the film, But what he does he does wonderfully, particularly in that electrifying scene with Craig.
- The film has a great deal more female empowerment than any previous Bond, with the tell-tale signs (although this might be a sexist presumption) of Phoebe Waller-Bridge on the script. Newcomer Lashana Lynch acquits herself well as the first female 00-agent, getting not just kick-ass action sequences but also her fair share of quips. But stealing the show is Ana de Armas (reunited with Craig of course from “Knives Out“). Her scenes in Cuba are brief but memorable, delivering a delicious mixture of action and comedy that makes you think “cast HER as the next Bond”!
- The music by Hans Zimmer! It’s a glorious soundtrack that pays deference not only to the action style of recent composers, like David Arnold and Thomas Newman, but particularly to the classic scores of John Barry. It actually incorporates not one but two classic themes from “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”, directly into the film. I’m even starting to warm to the Billie Eilish theme song, although I think it’s too similar in style to the Sam Smith offering from “Spectre“.
- The cinematography from Linus Sandgren (who did “La La Land“) is gorgeous: in turns colourful and vibrant for the Italian and Cuban scenes and cool and blue for the tense Norwegian action sequences.
Negatives:
- My main criticism is not of the film, but of the trailer(s). There are so many of the money shots from the film (particularly from the Matera-based action of the pre-title sequence) included in the trailers that I had an “OK, move on, seen this” attitude. Why did they have to spoil the movie so much? IT’S A NEW BOND… OF COURSE WE’RE GOING TO SEE IT. All you EVER needed for this is a 20-second teaser trailer. Just put white “Bond is Back” text on a black background and the Craig tunnel shot to the camera. Job done. It really infuriates me. B arbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson, PLEASE take note!
- At 163 minutes it’s the longest Bond ever and a bit of a bladder tester. But, having said that, there are no more than a few minutes here and there that I would want to trim. To do more you’d need to cut out whole episodes, and leaving Ana de Armas on the cutting room floor would have been criminal. As the illustrious Mrs Movie Man commented, “I wish they’d bring in the half time Intermission card like they used to do in the old days”. I agree. Everyone would have been a whole lot more comfortable and less fidgety.
Summary Thoughts on “No Time to Die”: Reading the comments on IMDB for the movie, I’m perplexed at the diatribe coming from supposed ‘Bond fans’ on this one. One-star review after one-star review (despite, I note, the overall film getting an overall 7.8/10 at the time of writing). In this regard, I class myself as very much a Bond fan. (My first film at the cinema was the release of “Live and Let Die” in 1973, but I then binge-watched all the other Bond films at the cinema: they used to do repeated double-features in those days). And I thought this was a fabulous Bond film. Full of drama, action, humour and deep-seated emotion. Couldn’t be better for me, and certainly on a par with “Casino Royale” and “Skyfall” for me as my favourite Craig outings.
As the end of the end credits said – “James Bond Will Return”. Who will they cast as the next Bond? And where will they take the story from here? Two of the most intriguing movie questions to take into 2022.
(For the full graphical review and video review, please search for @onemannsmovies. Thanks.)
Plot Summary:
We pick up immediately after the ending of “Spectre“, with Bond (Daniel Craig) and Madeleine (Léa Seydoux) all loved up and driving off into the sunset together. But their romantic getaway to Italy is rudely broken short by Spectre as elements of Madeleine’s past emerge to haunt the couple.
One element of that past – the horribly disfigured Lyutsifer Safin (Rami Malek) has a plan to make his mark on mankind with a biochemical weapon. And the retired Bond teams with the CIA’s Felix Leiter (a very welcome return of Jeffrey Wright) in a mission to Jamaica to combat it.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Daniel Craig, Léa Seydoux, Rami Malek, Lashana Lynch, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Ana de Armas.
Directed by: Cary Joji Fukunaga.
Written by: Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, Cary Joji Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge. (From a story by Purvis, Wade and Fukunaga).
Positives:
- The script has all the trappings of Bond: exotic locations; great stunts; thrilling action sequences; and more gadgets on show than in recent times. Yet it’s a real character piece too, delving far more into Bond’s emotions. The story running through it with Madeleine is both deep and emotional: something we haven’t seen since the Bond and Tracy romance in OHMSS. (And with Craig’s acting, he manages to pull this off far better than George Lazenby ever could!).
- I found the finale to be magnificent, bold and surprising. We’re back to the megalomaniac owning an island lair, à la Dr No. It even has its own submarine pen (a nod to Austin Power’s “Goldmember” perhaps!?). For me, the production design harks back to the superbly over-the-top Ken Adams creations of the Connery years. There are no sharks with frickin’ laser beams… but there could have been. (The set is a rather obvious redressing of the 007 stage at Pinewood, created of course for the tanker scenes in “The Spy Who Loved Me”. It even re-uses of the gantry level control room.)
- Craig is magnificent in his swan-song performance. There’s a scene, during the extended pre-credits sequence, where he’s sat in his bullet-ridden Aston just glowering for an extended period. I thought this was Craig’s acting at its best. I thought this again in a dramatic showdown scene with Rami Malek. Malek is not given a huge amount to do in the film, But what he does he does wonderfully, particularly in that electrifying scene with Craig.
- The film has a great deal more female empowerment than any previous Bond, with the tell-tale signs (although this might be a sexist presumption) of Phoebe Waller-Bridge on the script. Newcomer Lashana Lynch acquits herself well as the first female 00-agent, getting not just kick-ass action sequences but also her fair share of quips. But stealing the show is Ana de Armas (reunited with Craig of course from “Knives Out“). Her scenes in Cuba are brief but memorable, delivering a delicious mixture of action and comedy that makes you think “cast HER as the next Bond”!
- The music by Hans Zimmer! It’s a glorious soundtrack that pays deference not only to the action style of recent composers, like David Arnold and Thomas Newman, but particularly to the classic scores of John Barry. It actually incorporates not one but two classic themes from “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”, directly into the film. I’m even starting to warm to the Billie Eilish theme song, although I think it’s too similar in style to the Sam Smith offering from “Spectre“.
- The cinematography from Linus Sandgren (who did “La La Land“) is gorgeous: in turns colourful and vibrant for the Italian and Cuban scenes and cool and blue for the tense Norwegian action sequences.
Negatives:
- My main criticism is not of the film, but of the trailer(s). There are so many of the money shots from the film (particularly from the Matera-based action of the pre-title sequence) included in the trailers that I had an “OK, move on, seen this” attitude. Why did they have to spoil the movie so much? IT’S A NEW BOND… OF COURSE WE’RE GOING TO SEE IT. All you EVER needed for this is a 20-second teaser trailer. Just put white “Bond is Back” text on a black background and the Craig tunnel shot to the camera. Job done. It really infuriates me. B arbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson, PLEASE take note!
- At 163 minutes it’s the longest Bond ever and a bit of a bladder tester. But, having said that, there are no more than a few minutes here and there that I would want to trim. To do more you’d need to cut out whole episodes, and leaving Ana de Armas on the cutting room floor would have been criminal. As the illustrious Mrs Movie Man commented, “I wish they’d bring in the half time Intermission card like they used to do in the old days”. I agree. Everyone would have been a whole lot more comfortable and less fidgety.
Summary Thoughts on “No Time to Die”: Reading the comments on IMDB for the movie, I’m perplexed at the diatribe coming from supposed ‘Bond fans’ on this one. One-star review after one-star review (despite, I note, the overall film getting an overall 7.8/10 at the time of writing). In this regard, I class myself as very much a Bond fan. (My first film at the cinema was the release of “Live and Let Die” in 1973, but I then binge-watched all the other Bond films at the cinema: they used to do repeated double-features in those days). And I thought this was a fabulous Bond film. Full of drama, action, humour and deep-seated emotion. Couldn’t be better for me, and certainly on a par with “Casino Royale” and “Skyfall” for me as my favourite Craig outings.
As the end of the end credits said – “James Bond Will Return”. Who will they cast as the next Bond? And where will they take the story from here? Two of the most intriguing movie questions to take into 2022.
(For the full graphical review and video review, please search for @onemannsmovies. Thanks.)
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated The Forever Purge (2021) in Movies
Dec 14, 2021
The Purger's costumes (1 more)
The film's genuinely bad ass female characters.
There's no character development. (1 more)
The film is just more of the same.
America, A Ho-Hum Dystopia
Searching for stability in the face of record high levels of illegal immigration resulting from a surge in refugees fleeing cartel violence in Mexico and a growing wave of White Supremacy and anti-hispanic racism in the United States, the New Founding Fathers of America have proposed the unthinkable in order to solve the nation’s problems: the reinstatement of the Purge.
Written by The Purge creator James DeMonaco and directed by Everardo Gout, The Forever Purge is the fifth film in the franchise and its first entry since The Purge TV series ended after only two seasons in 2019.
Taking place primarily in Los Felis Valley, Texas, The Forever Purge follows Mexican refugees Adela (Ana de la Reguera) and Juan (Tenoch Huerta), who despite having made a life in America after living in the country for just ten months, continue to find themselves the victims of racism.
A talented cowboy, Juan works for the financially successful Tucker family on their ranch alongside Dylan (Josh Lucas), a member of the Tucker family who isn’t as good of a cowboy as Juan and lets his “white man good, Mexican bad” mentality drive his actions way more often than he should.
With the announcement that the Purge will be reinstated, the two buckle down and prepare to survive their first ever experience with the country’s most gruesome tradition. While the two successfully find sanctuary and survive the initial 12 hours of the sanctioned Purge, they emerge to find that many US citizens have just outright refused to stop purging.
Amidst the chaos, Canada and Mexico open their borders for six hours, allowing anyone not interesting in partaking in the events and wants to survive to flee to one of respective countries. However, the two countries also announce that after these six hours pass, they will be closing their American borders forever, preventing any further escape.
As the entire nation falls into chaos, its citizens begin to realize that The Forever Purge has begun.
The fifth film in the franchise and the latest installment since The Purge tv series ended in 2019, The Forever Purge is pretty much of the same for the horror franchise – in other words, it’s not going to make or break the opinion you already have about these movies.
A definite improvement over The First Purge, which one could argue is the worst film in the series, the performances in The Forever Purge in particular are leaps and bounds better in comparison to those found in its predecessor
You know how there are some movies where, for some reason or another, you don’t watch every trailer it drops before release, and thus are end up surprised when the film turns out to be completely different from the one-note-concept you imagined it would have?
While the upside to this avoidance of marketing material is that you’re almost completely in the dark about a given film prior to seeing it, the downside is that what your own imagined concept of the film may have more more potential than the final product.
The Forever Purge was one such film for me. For some reason, I thought the movie took place in a not-too-distant future where the majority of the country had become a desolate wasteland, water was scarce, and tumbleweeds were the closest thing to a pet anyone had.
Not only that, but I imagined that The Purge, long-outlawed in this post-apocalyptic future, had been reinstated as a full-time event by a group of crazed desperadoes.
Sadly, my idea of a western-slash-Mad Max-inspired Purge film ended up being way more interesting than The Forever Purge actually was, as most of the film’s creativity is found not in the Purge itself, but rather in the expansion to the franchise’s lore – specifically the state in which the USA is left in by the end of the film, as well as the end credits reveal of where Americans across the country are located
A Purger in The Forever Purge, directed by Everardo Valerio Gout.As a result, The Forever Purge ends with the franchise seemingly having lost whatever bite it may have once had. Kills are about as memorable as a bug splat on your windshield while driving on the highway, character development is minimal at best, and you aren’t invested in the outcome of what’s transpiring whatsoever.
You also don’t really know who the protagonists of the film are. Do you root for the successful family that doesn’t know how to cooperate outside of its own race, or the married couple that came to this country illegally?
Furthermore, why is it that each film’s unique masked purgers, who literally show up for only a handful of scenes in each of their respective appearances, are the best part of these films? It’s like really awesome DLC for a lifelessly dull video game.
While the action-horror film does at least introduce two strong female characters, Dylan Tucker’s wife, Cassidy (Cassidy Freeman), isn’t one of them. Her defining characteristics are that she’s pregnant and helpless.
However, Dylan’s younger sister, Harper (Leven Rambin), is awesome. She knows how to use a gun, is resourceful, intelligent, and breaks the ‘dumb blonde’ stereotype we’re all too familiar with.
Ana de la Reguera also rectifies her death in Army of the Dead with her performance as Adela, a former member of a group of women who fought against the cartel in Mexico who can fight, has knowledge of weapons, and knows how to navigate the city in the safest way possible. In other words, she’s a bad ass.
While The Forever Purge is meant to serve as a ‘final entry’ for the franchise, everything is left wide open at the end of the film, just in case another sequel gets greenlit. After all, we know how the general movie-going population just loves to keep mediocre franchises alive.
As such, nothing is resolved by the end of film, and the Forever Purge ends up being just what it sounds like: never ending.
The issue with this non-ending is that where the franchise could potentially go and where it’s actually going are two entirely different things, and thus the end result of the Forever Purge is way more disappointing because of this split.
A lackluster Purge entry at best that is only considered decent because the film that came before it is so awful, The Forever Purge does put some effort into attempting to put a different spin on how we view immigrants, but even that seems half-cocked at best.
With a concept this stagnant, The Forever Purge has successfully done what other horror movies have never been able to do; make deaths, murdering, and killing a total bore. Hopefully, with any luck, The Purge franchise will pillage and murder itself with this entry.
Written by The Purge creator James DeMonaco and directed by Everardo Gout, The Forever Purge is the fifth film in the franchise and its first entry since The Purge TV series ended after only two seasons in 2019.
Taking place primarily in Los Felis Valley, Texas, The Forever Purge follows Mexican refugees Adela (Ana de la Reguera) and Juan (Tenoch Huerta), who despite having made a life in America after living in the country for just ten months, continue to find themselves the victims of racism.
A talented cowboy, Juan works for the financially successful Tucker family on their ranch alongside Dylan (Josh Lucas), a member of the Tucker family who isn’t as good of a cowboy as Juan and lets his “white man good, Mexican bad” mentality drive his actions way more often than he should.
With the announcement that the Purge will be reinstated, the two buckle down and prepare to survive their first ever experience with the country’s most gruesome tradition. While the two successfully find sanctuary and survive the initial 12 hours of the sanctioned Purge, they emerge to find that many US citizens have just outright refused to stop purging.
Amidst the chaos, Canada and Mexico open their borders for six hours, allowing anyone not interesting in partaking in the events and wants to survive to flee to one of respective countries. However, the two countries also announce that after these six hours pass, they will be closing their American borders forever, preventing any further escape.
As the entire nation falls into chaos, its citizens begin to realize that The Forever Purge has begun.
The fifth film in the franchise and the latest installment since The Purge tv series ended in 2019, The Forever Purge is pretty much of the same for the horror franchise – in other words, it’s not going to make or break the opinion you already have about these movies.
A definite improvement over The First Purge, which one could argue is the worst film in the series, the performances in The Forever Purge in particular are leaps and bounds better in comparison to those found in its predecessor
You know how there are some movies where, for some reason or another, you don’t watch every trailer it drops before release, and thus are end up surprised when the film turns out to be completely different from the one-note-concept you imagined it would have?
While the upside to this avoidance of marketing material is that you’re almost completely in the dark about a given film prior to seeing it, the downside is that what your own imagined concept of the film may have more more potential than the final product.
The Forever Purge was one such film for me. For some reason, I thought the movie took place in a not-too-distant future where the majority of the country had become a desolate wasteland, water was scarce, and tumbleweeds were the closest thing to a pet anyone had.
Not only that, but I imagined that The Purge, long-outlawed in this post-apocalyptic future, had been reinstated as a full-time event by a group of crazed desperadoes.
Sadly, my idea of a western-slash-Mad Max-inspired Purge film ended up being way more interesting than The Forever Purge actually was, as most of the film’s creativity is found not in the Purge itself, but rather in the expansion to the franchise’s lore – specifically the state in which the USA is left in by the end of the film, as well as the end credits reveal of where Americans across the country are located
A Purger in The Forever Purge, directed by Everardo Valerio Gout.As a result, The Forever Purge ends with the franchise seemingly having lost whatever bite it may have once had. Kills are about as memorable as a bug splat on your windshield while driving on the highway, character development is minimal at best, and you aren’t invested in the outcome of what’s transpiring whatsoever.
You also don’t really know who the protagonists of the film are. Do you root for the successful family that doesn’t know how to cooperate outside of its own race, or the married couple that came to this country illegally?
Furthermore, why is it that each film’s unique masked purgers, who literally show up for only a handful of scenes in each of their respective appearances, are the best part of these films? It’s like really awesome DLC for a lifelessly dull video game.
While the action-horror film does at least introduce two strong female characters, Dylan Tucker’s wife, Cassidy (Cassidy Freeman), isn’t one of them. Her defining characteristics are that she’s pregnant and helpless.
However, Dylan’s younger sister, Harper (Leven Rambin), is awesome. She knows how to use a gun, is resourceful, intelligent, and breaks the ‘dumb blonde’ stereotype we’re all too familiar with.
Ana de la Reguera also rectifies her death in Army of the Dead with her performance as Adela, a former member of a group of women who fought against the cartel in Mexico who can fight, has knowledge of weapons, and knows how to navigate the city in the safest way possible. In other words, she’s a bad ass.
While The Forever Purge is meant to serve as a ‘final entry’ for the franchise, everything is left wide open at the end of the film, just in case another sequel gets greenlit. After all, we know how the general movie-going population just loves to keep mediocre franchises alive.
As such, nothing is resolved by the end of film, and the Forever Purge ends up being just what it sounds like: never ending.
The issue with this non-ending is that where the franchise could potentially go and where it’s actually going are two entirely different things, and thus the end result of the Forever Purge is way more disappointing because of this split.
A lackluster Purge entry at best that is only considered decent because the film that came before it is so awful, The Forever Purge does put some effort into attempting to put a different spin on how we view immigrants, but even that seems half-cocked at best.
With a concept this stagnant, The Forever Purge has successfully done what other horror movies have never been able to do; make deaths, murdering, and killing a total bore. Hopefully, with any luck, The Purge franchise will pillage and murder itself with this entry.
Sarah (7798 KP) Feb 23, 2020