Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A Quiet Place: Part II (2021) in Movies
May 29, 2021
Continuation of the original story, with thrills and suspense throughout (1 more)
Great cast - Millicent Simmonds and Noah Jupe are particularly good
Plot Summary:
In a pre-title sequence, we return to “Day 1” of the events of the first movie to see how life in the Abbott’s home town changed forever when chaos reigned down from the skies.
Rolling forward 473 days later, the plot picks up on the life of Evelyn (Emily Blunt), Regan (Millicent Simmons) and Marcus (Noah Jupe), following the dramatic events of “A Quiet Place” and the death of husband/father Lee (John Kravinski).
The three, together with Evelyn’s newborn, set off on a perilous journey to find help.
Positives:
- Sequels often try to over-reach, lobbing-in over-the-top action and forgetting why the audience so loved the original hit. This sequel doesn't fall into that trap, continuing the story in a seamless way. We very quickly get reinvested in the character's dire situation (as their situation suddenly gets even more dire!).
- The pre-title sequence is perfectly paced and utterly thrilling. It's the sequence that most grabbed my attention so many months (years?!) ago when - pre-Covid - I first saw the trailer attached below. That bus!!
- The ensemble cast works well together. Cillian Murphy is a fine actor, filling the Krasinski-shaped hole. And Emily Blunt is as kick-ass and wonderful as always. But special 'attaboys' need to go to the two youngsters, Millicent Simmonds and Noah Jupe. They were impressive in the first movie but here have to carry even more of the dramatic action and are just brilliant.
- Technically, the film has Oscar-worthy strengths.
-- The editing here is first rate: many of the jump scares are well-signposted, but they still work thanks to the timing of the cuts.
-- The sound design is (as you would expect) fantastic: once again this is a movie where snacks should be banned!
-- The soundtrack, by Marco Beltrami, is great, building on his themes from the original but knowing when to shut-up as well!
Negatives:
- It's a genuine joy to see John Krasinski in the dramatic pre-title sequence reprising his role of Lee Abbott. But then his massive presence is missed for the rest of the movie. Perhaps killing him off at the end of part 1 wasn't such a good idea?
- There's a lot of 'grief and mourning' to contend with here, post- (or nearly post-) Covid. This didn't affect me. But the illustrious Mrs Movie Man was 'not mentally ready' for it, and actively disliked the film as a result.
Summary Thoughts on "A Quiet Place Part II": Often a sequel doesn't live up to my expectations. Particularly so when I've loved the original AND had to wait SOOOOOOoooooooo long to see it. But this time I was not disappointed. I gave the original 5 stars. This naturally lacks the originality of the premise and is - imho - less good. But not by a great margin. It's still a rollercoaster thrill-ride that - at 97 minutes - doesn't overstay its welcome. Sometimes 'more of the same' is enough.
This is also a great movie to get people back into cinemas. Because, ladies and gents, since this is a MUST SEE on the big screen, and ideally in a screen with a great sound system.
As long as Krasinski stays at the helm, I'll personally be looking forwards to AQP - Part III, which I understand is in the works.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on t'interweb or Facebook. Thanks.)
In a pre-title sequence, we return to “Day 1” of the events of the first movie to see how life in the Abbott’s home town changed forever when chaos reigned down from the skies.
Rolling forward 473 days later, the plot picks up on the life of Evelyn (Emily Blunt), Regan (Millicent Simmons) and Marcus (Noah Jupe), following the dramatic events of “A Quiet Place” and the death of husband/father Lee (John Kravinski).
The three, together with Evelyn’s newborn, set off on a perilous journey to find help.
Positives:
- Sequels often try to over-reach, lobbing-in over-the-top action and forgetting why the audience so loved the original hit. This sequel doesn't fall into that trap, continuing the story in a seamless way. We very quickly get reinvested in the character's dire situation (as their situation suddenly gets even more dire!).
- The pre-title sequence is perfectly paced and utterly thrilling. It's the sequence that most grabbed my attention so many months (years?!) ago when - pre-Covid - I first saw the trailer attached below. That bus!!
- The ensemble cast works well together. Cillian Murphy is a fine actor, filling the Krasinski-shaped hole. And Emily Blunt is as kick-ass and wonderful as always. But special 'attaboys' need to go to the two youngsters, Millicent Simmonds and Noah Jupe. They were impressive in the first movie but here have to carry even more of the dramatic action and are just brilliant.
- Technically, the film has Oscar-worthy strengths.
-- The editing here is first rate: many of the jump scares are well-signposted, but they still work thanks to the timing of the cuts.
-- The sound design is (as you would expect) fantastic: once again this is a movie where snacks should be banned!
-- The soundtrack, by Marco Beltrami, is great, building on his themes from the original but knowing when to shut-up as well!
Negatives:
- It's a genuine joy to see John Krasinski in the dramatic pre-title sequence reprising his role of Lee Abbott. But then his massive presence is missed for the rest of the movie. Perhaps killing him off at the end of part 1 wasn't such a good idea?
- There's a lot of 'grief and mourning' to contend with here, post- (or nearly post-) Covid. This didn't affect me. But the illustrious Mrs Movie Man was 'not mentally ready' for it, and actively disliked the film as a result.
Summary Thoughts on "A Quiet Place Part II": Often a sequel doesn't live up to my expectations. Particularly so when I've loved the original AND had to wait SOOOOOOoooooooo long to see it. But this time I was not disappointed. I gave the original 5 stars. This naturally lacks the originality of the premise and is - imho - less good. But not by a great margin. It's still a rollercoaster thrill-ride that - at 97 minutes - doesn't overstay its welcome. Sometimes 'more of the same' is enough.
This is also a great movie to get people back into cinemas. Because, ladies and gents, since this is a MUST SEE on the big screen, and ideally in a screen with a great sound system.
As long as Krasinski stays at the helm, I'll personally be looking forwards to AQP - Part III, which I understand is in the works.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on t'interweb or Facebook. Thanks.)
StudentLife Organizer
Productivity and Education
App
--TRY STUDENTLIFE TODAY FOR FREE-- StudentLife is the calendar application and organizer designed...
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Steam Park in Tabletop Games
Aug 15, 2019 (Updated Aug 19, 2021)
Who couldn’t go for a nice week or weekend at a fancy theme park these days? I think even our Alexas and Googles would like to catch some rays in their robot bodies, if they had them. Welcome to Steam Park, where all your robots can enjoy themselves on roller coasters, visit vendor stands, and also create metric tons of dirt. You ready?
Steam Park is a real-time dice rolling, theme park building, negative VP mitigating game for two to four players. In it players are theme park owners who are attempting to build the greatest park in the land hoping to attract many robots and keep their parks squeaky clean. The game spans six rounds of four phases and the player with the most VP at the game end will be the winner!
To setup, separate all the different components by type and color and shuffle the cards into a face-down deck. Deal each player six dice, one large starting tile to build upon, six cards from which they will choose to keep three, and one pig board. The game may now begin!
The four phases of each round are Roll, Dirt, Actions, and Income. During the Roll phase players will simultaneously be rolling their dice until they get a result they like. The first player to finish will quickly grab the First Player token in the middle of the table. Each other player may continue rolling as much as they like, but the turn order tokens will be taken one by one until they are all gone. Bonuses exist for the First and Second Player tokens and a negative bonus for the last player (more Dirt).
The Dirt phase causes each player to add Dirt tokens to their park according to the number of Dirt symbols rolled on their dice as well as the number of visitors currently in their park. The player who nabbed the First Player token can now discard four Dirt tokens from the bonus while the last player will add two more Dirt tokens to their park.
Actions that can be taken during the next phase include: Building Rides, Building Vendor Stands, Attracting Visitors, Cleaning Dirt, Playing Bonus Cards, and Expanding the Park. Each of these actions cost symbols rolled on the dice. To build a ride of capacity three, then three Build symbols would need to be spent from those rolled, et al. The only Action that requires no specific symbol is the Expand the Park. Use any symbol to add on a small square tile to the existing park layout.
Players will collect $3 (not USD, just the game money) for every visitor enjoying their park amenities during this Income phase. If a player has less than three Bonus Cards they may draw two from the deck and choose one to take in hand.
The game continues in this fashion over the course of six rounds total and once the final Income phase has been completed players will consult the Final Dirt Track to see how much will need to be paid in Dirt fees. Whomever ends the game with the most money wins!
Components. This game has a LOT of cardboard components. Nearly everything in the box is medium-quality cardboard and generally fine. The art is quirky, whimsical, and endearing. The insert leaves much to be desired so I made my own out of foam board. I have no complaints about the components except that I wish I could visit some of the rides, and I am still not super sure why the dice locking area is a metal pig token.
I originally played Josh’s copy he brought over to my house. I fell in love with it right away, and I still very much enjoy it. It will never make my Top 10 Games of All Time, but I will cherish my copy. I have yet to add in the Play Dirty expansion for it, as I like the base game so well, but I plan to sometime soon.
What I like most about it is the real-time rolling of the dice coupled with the grabbing of the turn order tokens when satisfied. This means that I could just go with what I roll after one roll, or I can take my time and just accept the Dirt coming my way. Sometimes being last and taking that extra Dirt is worth having all the dice read what you really want.
I also like having a lot of vendor stands in my park. Finding room for them is a different story, but I end up usually having just a few rides and mostly stands. They each provide some different benefit or way to change up the game a little that I just love to take advantage of them.
I adore games with real-time dice rolling, so I was predisposed to being attracted to Steam Park. Coupled with the great overall theme, this is an easy win for me, and a prized entry in my collection. In fact, I’m not the only one of us who thinks this as Purple Phoenix Games gives Steam Park a monotone-robot-thrill-seeker-scream 14 / 18. If you are tiring of Escape: The Curse of the Temple (which is possible), then pick up a copy of Steam Park. It will spark your joy of frantic dice rolling once more!
Steam Park is a real-time dice rolling, theme park building, negative VP mitigating game for two to four players. In it players are theme park owners who are attempting to build the greatest park in the land hoping to attract many robots and keep their parks squeaky clean. The game spans six rounds of four phases and the player with the most VP at the game end will be the winner!
To setup, separate all the different components by type and color and shuffle the cards into a face-down deck. Deal each player six dice, one large starting tile to build upon, six cards from which they will choose to keep three, and one pig board. The game may now begin!
The four phases of each round are Roll, Dirt, Actions, and Income. During the Roll phase players will simultaneously be rolling their dice until they get a result they like. The first player to finish will quickly grab the First Player token in the middle of the table. Each other player may continue rolling as much as they like, but the turn order tokens will be taken one by one until they are all gone. Bonuses exist for the First and Second Player tokens and a negative bonus for the last player (more Dirt).
The Dirt phase causes each player to add Dirt tokens to their park according to the number of Dirt symbols rolled on their dice as well as the number of visitors currently in their park. The player who nabbed the First Player token can now discard four Dirt tokens from the bonus while the last player will add two more Dirt tokens to their park.
Actions that can be taken during the next phase include: Building Rides, Building Vendor Stands, Attracting Visitors, Cleaning Dirt, Playing Bonus Cards, and Expanding the Park. Each of these actions cost symbols rolled on the dice. To build a ride of capacity three, then three Build symbols would need to be spent from those rolled, et al. The only Action that requires no specific symbol is the Expand the Park. Use any symbol to add on a small square tile to the existing park layout.
Players will collect $3 (not USD, just the game money) for every visitor enjoying their park amenities during this Income phase. If a player has less than three Bonus Cards they may draw two from the deck and choose one to take in hand.
The game continues in this fashion over the course of six rounds total and once the final Income phase has been completed players will consult the Final Dirt Track to see how much will need to be paid in Dirt fees. Whomever ends the game with the most money wins!
Components. This game has a LOT of cardboard components. Nearly everything in the box is medium-quality cardboard and generally fine. The art is quirky, whimsical, and endearing. The insert leaves much to be desired so I made my own out of foam board. I have no complaints about the components except that I wish I could visit some of the rides, and I am still not super sure why the dice locking area is a metal pig token.
I originally played Josh’s copy he brought over to my house. I fell in love with it right away, and I still very much enjoy it. It will never make my Top 10 Games of All Time, but I will cherish my copy. I have yet to add in the Play Dirty expansion for it, as I like the base game so well, but I plan to sometime soon.
What I like most about it is the real-time rolling of the dice coupled with the grabbing of the turn order tokens when satisfied. This means that I could just go with what I roll after one roll, or I can take my time and just accept the Dirt coming my way. Sometimes being last and taking that extra Dirt is worth having all the dice read what you really want.
I also like having a lot of vendor stands in my park. Finding room for them is a different story, but I end up usually having just a few rides and mostly stands. They each provide some different benefit or way to change up the game a little that I just love to take advantage of them.
I adore games with real-time dice rolling, so I was predisposed to being attracted to Steam Park. Coupled with the great overall theme, this is an easy win for me, and a prized entry in my collection. In fact, I’m not the only one of us who thinks this as Purple Phoenix Games gives Steam Park a monotone-robot-thrill-seeker-scream 14 / 18. If you are tiring of Escape: The Curse of the Temple (which is possible), then pick up a copy of Steam Park. It will spark your joy of frantic dice rolling once more!
Black Rabbit Hall
6.0
Rate It
Book
One golden family. One fateful summer. Four lives changed forever. Amber Alton knows that the hours...
Month Calendar 2
Productivity and Utilities
App
Month Calendar is an amazing and simple way to manage your calendar. You get a brilliant overview at...
Buddies, Bullies, and Baseball
6.0
Rate It
Book
When Bullies Act Out, It’s Time for Buddies and Baseball A cloud hangs over Jack as he begins...
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated The Other Boleyn Girl in Books
Feb 15, 2019
Going into <b>The Other Boleyn Girl</b> I already knew that the historical details weren't very factual, but I had this laying around and needed something both light and set in the past, so I figured this would do nicely. The writing itself is perfectly fine, and mostly, I did enjoy the book. Although, for the first half, it seemed as if everyone only wore red and by the end I got so sick of hearing about Anne's "B" for Boleyn necklace I could scream.
Mary Boleyn, the narrator, is a strange character: sympathetic and of reasonable intelligence one minute, a moronic irritant the next. Personality-wise she went up and down and back and forth. First she was fine not being the King's favorite anymore and seeming to want to leave the court life for the country to be with her children, then she was jealous of a title Anne received, years after the affair between Mary and Henry was over. Possibly this was put in as part of the rivalry between the sisters, but it didn't contextually fit. Her development could have used more work and she didn't mature or change much throughout the whole book, especially between the years 1522 to 1533. I seriously got tired of everybody's patronizing and calling her a fool all the time. They should have just named the book, <b>The Foolish Boleyn Girl</b>. I find it hard to believe Mary was so ignorant the king would have continued to have her as mistress for four years, give or take. She had to offer something other than good looks and being great in the bedroom. Anne herself sure was a piece of work, and even though she was pretty much evil throughout the book, I did still feel sorry for her at the end. Jane Parker was a one-dimensional malicious harpy who wasn't given a reason why she was that way; she was just the resident baddy to the Boleyns. To me, it felt like defamation of character.
Politics and the separation of the Church of England from the Catholic Church were merely mentioned in passing as court life and its primary players took center stage. The whole incest plot, I could have done without. Now if it were the absolute truth then it'd be okay, but since it's highly debatable and based on hearsay, I found it unnecessary and gratuitous. Around the two-thirds mark, the pace let up and it became more sluggish and boring, and it wasn't until the last sixty pages that it recaptured my attention again.
As long as readers know going into this book that the history has been twisted around and invented for pure sensation, then it's fine as a fictional read, but take any "facts" with a grain of salt. While it was an okay read, I didn't love it, but it managed to divert my attention for a few days.
One last note dealing with the fourth question in the Q&A with Philippa Gregory in the back of the book:
<blockquote>How about Mary and Anne's brother, George? Did he really sleep with his sister so that she could give Henry a son?
<i>Nobody can know the answer to this one. Anne was accused of adultery with George at their trials and his wife gave evidence against them both. Most people think the trial was a show trial, but it is an interesting accusation. Anne had three miscarriages by the time of her trial, and she was not a woman to let something like sin or crime stand in her way--she was clearly guilty of one murder. I think if she had thought that Henry could not bear a son she was quite capable of finding someone to father a child on her. If she thought that, then George would have been the obvious choice.</i></blockquote>
Obvious? How in the world is that obvious? You cannot be serious, Ms. Gregory. Now I'm far from an expert in Tudor England, but I cannot imagine that being a common practice. Maybe someone more knowledgeable about this time could tell me if that ever happened, because it just boggles my mind that George would be the "<i>obvious choice</i>." Not to mention, who the hell did Anne supposedly kill? I hadn't heard that anywhere. Even my searches are coming up blank.
Mary Boleyn, the narrator, is a strange character: sympathetic and of reasonable intelligence one minute, a moronic irritant the next. Personality-wise she went up and down and back and forth. First she was fine not being the King's favorite anymore and seeming to want to leave the court life for the country to be with her children, then she was jealous of a title Anne received, years after the affair between Mary and Henry was over. Possibly this was put in as part of the rivalry between the sisters, but it didn't contextually fit. Her development could have used more work and she didn't mature or change much throughout the whole book, especially between the years 1522 to 1533. I seriously got tired of everybody's patronizing and calling her a fool all the time. They should have just named the book, <b>The Foolish Boleyn Girl</b>. I find it hard to believe Mary was so ignorant the king would have continued to have her as mistress for four years, give or take. She had to offer something other than good looks and being great in the bedroom. Anne herself sure was a piece of work, and even though she was pretty much evil throughout the book, I did still feel sorry for her at the end. Jane Parker was a one-dimensional malicious harpy who wasn't given a reason why she was that way; she was just the resident baddy to the Boleyns. To me, it felt like defamation of character.
Politics and the separation of the Church of England from the Catholic Church were merely mentioned in passing as court life and its primary players took center stage. The whole incest plot, I could have done without. Now if it were the absolute truth then it'd be okay, but since it's highly debatable and based on hearsay, I found it unnecessary and gratuitous. Around the two-thirds mark, the pace let up and it became more sluggish and boring, and it wasn't until the last sixty pages that it recaptured my attention again.
As long as readers know going into this book that the history has been twisted around and invented for pure sensation, then it's fine as a fictional read, but take any "facts" with a grain of salt. While it was an okay read, I didn't love it, but it managed to divert my attention for a few days.
One last note dealing with the fourth question in the Q&A with Philippa Gregory in the back of the book:
<blockquote>How about Mary and Anne's brother, George? Did he really sleep with his sister so that she could give Henry a son?
<i>Nobody can know the answer to this one. Anne was accused of adultery with George at their trials and his wife gave evidence against them both. Most people think the trial was a show trial, but it is an interesting accusation. Anne had three miscarriages by the time of her trial, and she was not a woman to let something like sin or crime stand in her way--she was clearly guilty of one murder. I think if she had thought that Henry could not bear a son she was quite capable of finding someone to father a child on her. If she thought that, then George would have been the obvious choice.</i></blockquote>
Obvious? How in the world is that obvious? You cannot be serious, Ms. Gregory. Now I'm far from an expert in Tudor England, but I cannot imagine that being a common practice. Maybe someone more knowledgeable about this time could tell me if that ever happened, because it just boggles my mind that George would be the "<i>obvious choice</i>." Not to mention, who the hell did Anne supposedly kill? I hadn't heard that anywhere. Even my searches are coming up blank.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Hot Tub Time Machine (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
Adam (John Cusack) is a man going nowhere fast. Upon his return home one day, Adam finds his girlfriend gone, his nephew Jacob (Clark Duke) in his basement addicted to playing online games that simulate real life, and his friend Lou (Rob Corddry) in the hospital.
When Adam meets up with his friend Nick (Craig Robinson) at the hospital, Nick attempts to brighten up Lou by offering him a trip to their old ski resort to relive the fun of their youth. With Jacob tagging along, the three friends head back to the site of their past glory, and realize that things have not improved with time.
The scenic town is now run down and largely abandoned and their resort has long since seen better days. Undaunted, the group breaks out the alcohol and heads for the hot tub in an effort to make the most out of their time with one another and to escape their empty lives.
Upon awakening from their stupor the group discovers that they have been whisked back to 1986 and they appear to everyone there as the younger versions of themselves. Jacob flips though when he sees himself as a flickering image and becomes convinced that they must not do anything to alter the future and must relive the weekend of 1986 over exactly as they did the first time.
A quirky repair man (Chevy Chase), indicates that he can fix the tub, but that he will need some time. Adam is thrilled when he meets his old girlfriend and then laments the fact that he has to end their relationship in order to preserve the timeline. Adam has long regretted her leaving the love of his life and is tempted to do things differently this time.
Nick looks to relieve his failed musical debut as a singer, but knows that he must do what is needed to get home. Lou, on the other hand, is the loose cannon of the group and is thrilled to get another chance at glory and chase women since he has become a pathetic loser in the future.
What follows is a madcap and outrageous comedy that lovingly resurrects the classic 80’s movies of old and infuses the modern gross out humor to successfully blend the old with the new as the friends struggle to get through the weekend and return home without altering the future.
The cast is solid, and Crispin Glover is great as the bizarre bellhop destined to have his arm go missing, but the when and how drives Lou insane in anticipation. While Robinson and Cusack do solid work, Corddry steals the film as a scheming, madcap mix of depravity and patheticness that drives the film.
While the movie did drag in a few parts for me there were enough laughs in the film to keep me interested and enjoy the nostalgic look back at my beloved 80s.
When Adam meets up with his friend Nick (Craig Robinson) at the hospital, Nick attempts to brighten up Lou by offering him a trip to their old ski resort to relive the fun of their youth. With Jacob tagging along, the three friends head back to the site of their past glory, and realize that things have not improved with time.
The scenic town is now run down and largely abandoned and their resort has long since seen better days. Undaunted, the group breaks out the alcohol and heads for the hot tub in an effort to make the most out of their time with one another and to escape their empty lives.
Upon awakening from their stupor the group discovers that they have been whisked back to 1986 and they appear to everyone there as the younger versions of themselves. Jacob flips though when he sees himself as a flickering image and becomes convinced that they must not do anything to alter the future and must relive the weekend of 1986 over exactly as they did the first time.
A quirky repair man (Chevy Chase), indicates that he can fix the tub, but that he will need some time. Adam is thrilled when he meets his old girlfriend and then laments the fact that he has to end their relationship in order to preserve the timeline. Adam has long regretted her leaving the love of his life and is tempted to do things differently this time.
Nick looks to relieve his failed musical debut as a singer, but knows that he must do what is needed to get home. Lou, on the other hand, is the loose cannon of the group and is thrilled to get another chance at glory and chase women since he has become a pathetic loser in the future.
What follows is a madcap and outrageous comedy that lovingly resurrects the classic 80’s movies of old and infuses the modern gross out humor to successfully blend the old with the new as the friends struggle to get through the weekend and return home without altering the future.
The cast is solid, and Crispin Glover is great as the bizarre bellhop destined to have his arm go missing, but the when and how drives Lou insane in anticipation. While Robinson and Cusack do solid work, Corddry steals the film as a scheming, madcap mix of depravity and patheticness that drives the film.
While the movie did drag in a few parts for me there were enough laughs in the film to keep me interested and enjoy the nostalgic look back at my beloved 80s.
The World Ends with You: Solo Remix for iPad
Games
App
SUPPORTED DEVICES iOS 5.1.1 or later is required. Square Enix’s fresh-faced hit The New York...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Greatest Showman (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
I can’t claim to know much about musicals. I don’t actively avoid them, but I don’t go out of my way to see them either. The few that I have seen and liked don’t seem to sit well with the musical theater crowd either. For instance, recently in conversation my defense of Russell Crowe as Javert in the latest adaptation of Les Misérables was shot down in a matter of seconds. My wife, with some frequency, reminds me that my (until now) secret admiration of Tim Burton’s Sweeney Todd is something that should never be declared in a public forum. For me, one of the best achievements in musical film will always be South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut; and though there is a general positivity about it, I’ve never seen it taken all that seriously as a contemporary musical (it was certainly a hell of a lot more memorable than 2003’s Best Picture winner, Chicago). So, if you haven’t already decided my opinion will be moot and stopped reading, I will, with the limited appreciation I have for this genre, give The Greatest Showman the fairest shake I can.
At a surprisingly short hour and forty-five minutes, this high-concept imagining of the meteoric rise of P.T. Barnum (Hugh Jackman), from the impoverished son of a tailor to one of the biggest names in the history of entertainment, should absolutely fly by. Tragically, it doesn’t. Beginning with an irresponsibly rushed first act that condenses decades of backstory into a few minutes, it dramatically stops dead between its second and third acts as we’re subjected to three songs in a row that not all that subtly beat us over the head with the inevitably that our leads are going to have to face some predictable, life-changing conflict before the big finale. Showman also suffers from the delusion that period pieces will be more engaging and relatable with a modern-inspired soundtrack, à la Baz Luhrmann’s misguided attempt at The Great Gatsby. The idea being that the music of the time, though antiquated to us now, would have sounded modern to people then, so why not put modern music, whether original or sourced, over period images in an attempt to bridge the gap between their world and ours? It’s a concept that might sound great on paper, but as Luhrmann already proved, the final results don’t so much complement each other as they expose each other’s weaknesses.
Its major flaw though, and why The Greatest Showman fails to be a great anything, is the insistence on force-feeding moments of attempted catharsis every 15-20 minutes, having earned almost none of them. A great many of the numbers are presented as such grand, climactic set pieces that they don’t feel as though they are working to serve a cohesive, larger whole. We are inundated with a blur of crescendo after crescendo and left little time to reflect on what we have just seen and heard before the film clumsily bounds off to the next song-and-dance laden plot point; and if you asked me to name any of the individual tunes now three days later, I’d be hard-pressed to do so. It’s an odd juxtaposition, and one I’ve very rarely experienced, wanting so badly for a film to end and at the same time wishing it had been given more time to fully realize its scope. Keep your ears open as well for an ill-advised line in which Barnum proudly compares himself to Napoleon. Isn’t Barnum supposed to be the “hero” of this piece, someone we are supposed to identify with and for whom we want to find success? Somebody please provide Showman’s writers a history lesson that didn’t just come off a Wikipedia page (for Barnum and Napoleon’s sakes).
With any negative criticism, I do like to try and go out on something positive, and if I have to concede anything to this movie, it’s that it finds its footing, albeit temporarily, while addressing issues of equality. Showman shines in the few moments where the supporting players portraying Barnum’s “oddities”, Keala Settle as Lettie Lutz in particular, are given the opportunity to stand toe-to-toe with the leads and, in many of these scenes, they rise above even the likes of Hugh Jackman. Another member of the cast who merits a little bit of praise (and I reserve the right to retract this at any time of my choosing, more than likely with whatever juvenile comedy he’ll be seen in next) is Zac Efron. Exposure to the likes of Nicole Kidman and John Cusack in 2012’s sadly overlooked The Paperboy, may finally be yielding results as he is the only lead who leaves an impression. Though his journey as a high society playwright begrudgingly brought into Barnum’s world definitely leans heavily on the saccharine side, it does provide a break of plausibility in amongst the unbridled chaos of the rest of the picture. I wouldn’t doubt that there is a much better movie that could have been made from expanding into its own feature the subplot of his character bucking the expectations of his status to fall in love with a circus performer.
At a surprisingly short hour and forty-five minutes, this high-concept imagining of the meteoric rise of P.T. Barnum (Hugh Jackman), from the impoverished son of a tailor to one of the biggest names in the history of entertainment, should absolutely fly by. Tragically, it doesn’t. Beginning with an irresponsibly rushed first act that condenses decades of backstory into a few minutes, it dramatically stops dead between its second and third acts as we’re subjected to three songs in a row that not all that subtly beat us over the head with the inevitably that our leads are going to have to face some predictable, life-changing conflict before the big finale. Showman also suffers from the delusion that period pieces will be more engaging and relatable with a modern-inspired soundtrack, à la Baz Luhrmann’s misguided attempt at The Great Gatsby. The idea being that the music of the time, though antiquated to us now, would have sounded modern to people then, so why not put modern music, whether original or sourced, over period images in an attempt to bridge the gap between their world and ours? It’s a concept that might sound great on paper, but as Luhrmann already proved, the final results don’t so much complement each other as they expose each other’s weaknesses.
Its major flaw though, and why The Greatest Showman fails to be a great anything, is the insistence on force-feeding moments of attempted catharsis every 15-20 minutes, having earned almost none of them. A great many of the numbers are presented as such grand, climactic set pieces that they don’t feel as though they are working to serve a cohesive, larger whole. We are inundated with a blur of crescendo after crescendo and left little time to reflect on what we have just seen and heard before the film clumsily bounds off to the next song-and-dance laden plot point; and if you asked me to name any of the individual tunes now three days later, I’d be hard-pressed to do so. It’s an odd juxtaposition, and one I’ve very rarely experienced, wanting so badly for a film to end and at the same time wishing it had been given more time to fully realize its scope. Keep your ears open as well for an ill-advised line in which Barnum proudly compares himself to Napoleon. Isn’t Barnum supposed to be the “hero” of this piece, someone we are supposed to identify with and for whom we want to find success? Somebody please provide Showman’s writers a history lesson that didn’t just come off a Wikipedia page (for Barnum and Napoleon’s sakes).
With any negative criticism, I do like to try and go out on something positive, and if I have to concede anything to this movie, it’s that it finds its footing, albeit temporarily, while addressing issues of equality. Showman shines in the few moments where the supporting players portraying Barnum’s “oddities”, Keala Settle as Lettie Lutz in particular, are given the opportunity to stand toe-to-toe with the leads and, in many of these scenes, they rise above even the likes of Hugh Jackman. Another member of the cast who merits a little bit of praise (and I reserve the right to retract this at any time of my choosing, more than likely with whatever juvenile comedy he’ll be seen in next) is Zac Efron. Exposure to the likes of Nicole Kidman and John Cusack in 2012’s sadly overlooked The Paperboy, may finally be yielding results as he is the only lead who leaves an impression. Though his journey as a high society playwright begrudgingly brought into Barnum’s world definitely leans heavily on the saccharine side, it does provide a break of plausibility in amongst the unbridled chaos of the rest of the picture. I wouldn’t doubt that there is a much better movie that could have been made from expanding into its own feature the subplot of his character bucking the expectations of his status to fall in love with a circus performer.