Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Pan (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
I had mixed emotions when I first saw the trailer for Pan. The story of Peter Pan was one of my all time favorites growing up. Then Steven Spielberg had to go and get Robin Williams and Dustin Hoffman together to bring us Hook, and it solidified the stories of Pan as the best thing since sliced bread for me. So here we have Joe Wright bringing the word put on paper by Jason Fuchs to real life. The story of how Peter came to Neverland; and just how did Captain James T. Hook become so fearful of crocodiles. I was worried, and so I shut it all out. I did not watch any more trailers, clips, or synopsis on the film. But, my curiosity got the best of me, and when we offered the press screening, I jumped at the opportunity to see it. And boy, I am glad I did.
Pan, in case you haven’t figured it out, tells the story of 12-year old orphan Peter (Levi Miller), who is abducted from his orphanage, along with many other little boy orphans, by pirates from Neverland. When they bring Peter to Neverland, he is forced to work in the mines, serving the evil pirate overlord, Black Beard (Hugh Jackman, no seriously. It totally doesn’t even look like him.). It’s not long before some very unusual things start happening to him, and he, along with James T. Hook (Garrett Hedlund), escape the mines to find the natives and Princess Tiger Lily (Rooney Mara), who helps Peter discover his destiny.
Loaded with stunning visuals and a great soundtrack (including some very recognizable songs in the form of pirate chants), Pan nails it in all the right ways. The visionaries who brought this world to life are amazing, and the creativity in every scene is astounding. It was especially charming that the people behind the film kept in mind that it is a family film. While there is some violence, it is an action movie after all, they applied some very interesting effects and theories to use in place of the gore and blood. I also enjoyed, as weird as this sounds, the brightness of the whole movie. They didn’t try to make the film a dark tale of gritty origins. The feel of the story has the same notes of brightness that I remember from the Disney film as a kid, to even Hook in my later years.
And the likenesses do not stop there. It was very fun, and a bit nostalgic, to catch the references and clues of what’s to come. You see things that influence the characters to become who we know and love. And true to the rumors/stories I heard of the background of the beloved Peter Pan tale, Captain Hook and Peter began their time together as friends. The film sets out to do what it was meant to do… tell the story of how Peter and Captain Hook became who they were. But, not all is revealed in this film. When the film is over, and you’ll wish it weren’t, our beloved hero and villain have a long way to go still. So look forward to more films to come.
The only gripe I had with this movie was the acting. And just one part in general. I felt most of the cast was excellent. Jackman portrayed a great, and zany by the standards of the Paniverse (hoping to coin a new term here people, #paniverse), pirate… czar?! I know I used overlord, but it’s hard to say what he is other than he is the captain of captains. Mara played Tiger Lily oh so very well, and Miller held his own right up there with the bigger names. But it was Hedlund I had issue with. His portrayal of James Hook was more reminiscent of Jack Nicholson with elongated words, and an almost creepy like vibe. It’s just not how I imagined him to act, and maybe that is just throwing my perception off. Though, my feeling and view of the portrayal was echoed by my guest at the screening, so there may be something to it. Luckily, my negative view of the acting was not enough to pull me out of the experience, and I was still able to enjoy the movie.
Bottom line. Go see this movie. Take your kids, your partners, your parents, your grandparents, your cousin’s, aunt’s son/daughter… oh wait. That’s you. The point is. It’s definitely worth seeing. The 3D effects were nothing ground breaking, but it would still be worth it to see it in 3D. And this will definitely be in my collection on day 1 of home release.
Pan, in case you haven’t figured it out, tells the story of 12-year old orphan Peter (Levi Miller), who is abducted from his orphanage, along with many other little boy orphans, by pirates from Neverland. When they bring Peter to Neverland, he is forced to work in the mines, serving the evil pirate overlord, Black Beard (Hugh Jackman, no seriously. It totally doesn’t even look like him.). It’s not long before some very unusual things start happening to him, and he, along with James T. Hook (Garrett Hedlund), escape the mines to find the natives and Princess Tiger Lily (Rooney Mara), who helps Peter discover his destiny.
Loaded with stunning visuals and a great soundtrack (including some very recognizable songs in the form of pirate chants), Pan nails it in all the right ways. The visionaries who brought this world to life are amazing, and the creativity in every scene is astounding. It was especially charming that the people behind the film kept in mind that it is a family film. While there is some violence, it is an action movie after all, they applied some very interesting effects and theories to use in place of the gore and blood. I also enjoyed, as weird as this sounds, the brightness of the whole movie. They didn’t try to make the film a dark tale of gritty origins. The feel of the story has the same notes of brightness that I remember from the Disney film as a kid, to even Hook in my later years.
And the likenesses do not stop there. It was very fun, and a bit nostalgic, to catch the references and clues of what’s to come. You see things that influence the characters to become who we know and love. And true to the rumors/stories I heard of the background of the beloved Peter Pan tale, Captain Hook and Peter began their time together as friends. The film sets out to do what it was meant to do… tell the story of how Peter and Captain Hook became who they were. But, not all is revealed in this film. When the film is over, and you’ll wish it weren’t, our beloved hero and villain have a long way to go still. So look forward to more films to come.
The only gripe I had with this movie was the acting. And just one part in general. I felt most of the cast was excellent. Jackman portrayed a great, and zany by the standards of the Paniverse (hoping to coin a new term here people, #paniverse), pirate… czar?! I know I used overlord, but it’s hard to say what he is other than he is the captain of captains. Mara played Tiger Lily oh so very well, and Miller held his own right up there with the bigger names. But it was Hedlund I had issue with. His portrayal of James Hook was more reminiscent of Jack Nicholson with elongated words, and an almost creepy like vibe. It’s just not how I imagined him to act, and maybe that is just throwing my perception off. Though, my feeling and view of the portrayal was echoed by my guest at the screening, so there may be something to it. Luckily, my negative view of the acting was not enough to pull me out of the experience, and I was still able to enjoy the movie.
Bottom line. Go see this movie. Take your kids, your partners, your parents, your grandparents, your cousin’s, aunt’s son/daughter… oh wait. That’s you. The point is. It’s definitely worth seeing. The 3D effects were nothing ground breaking, but it would still be worth it to see it in 3D. And this will definitely be in my collection on day 1 of home release.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Warm Bodies (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Considering how many movies are typically released in the first quarter of the year, Warm Bodies is by far the best movie of 2013 so far. “Zombie Love Story” was the first term that came to my mind when I was first made aware of the movie, but it is so much more than that. Part “Romeo and Juliet”, part “Zombieland”, this adaptation of Isaac Marion’s critically acclaimed young adult novel is a humorous and surprisingly fresh zombie movie that gives its own unique look at love.
R, the zombie in our “Romeo” role, is your typical walker (excuse me while I borrow terms from another hit zombie medium). He moves around without purpose, mostly spending his days at the airport. He carries “conversations” with another zombie, M, and his internal monologue certainly lets the viewer know that zombies are fully aware of what they are. As a result of their condition, they no longer have control over what they do. Nor does R try to make excuses for it; they are what they are. This is demonstrated when he and a horde of walkers attack a group of humans. In this group is Julie, who as I am sure you have guessed is our “Juliet”. R immediately falls for her and is determined to have her reciprocate the feelings. This might prove to be difficult, considering that humans and zombies at their core just want to kill each other. It is this feeling, this emotion, that humans thought zombies incapable of, that begins to change R, and other zombies around him.
After the attack, R takes Julie back to his… er, safe haven comes to mind, but it’s really just an abandoned airplane sitting on a tarmac filled with wacky items that R has collected in the time since he became a zombie. Writer/Director Jonathan Levine, who adapted Marion’s novel, has managed to create very smart, witty dialogue, but in a cute way as he did with The Wackness (which Levine also wrote). The sincerity of the dialogue in the movie keeps you interested in a growing relationship that’s way, way outside the box. There is plenty of violence in the movie too, as we see R attack a human, bite their arm, and hide their brains away for a snack later. Speaking of brain, the film explains that when a zombie eats a human’s brains, they remember our memories. This is kind of important.
Despite being a very different romantic comedy, the film also delivers a healthy horror flick. Zombies are not the only thing that is a result of the zombie outbreak. In this post-apocalyptic world there is another threat: bonies. Bonies are zombies that are so far gone they do not care anymore. They’ve given up, have peeled off their skin and attack anything with beating hearts. R says it best in the film. “Zombies do this also, but at least they are conflicted about eating it.” Even though the bonies are fully CG creations, and utterly obviously so, Levine has done it in such a way that you only get quick glances, which is a nice way to keep the PG-13 rating considering all of the blood flowing in the film.
Nicholas Hoult is fantastic in the lead role of R, and he finds a way to turn on the creepy just as easily as he can turn the funny on. Everything our “Romeo” character is supposed to be is remarkably portrayed by Hoult. Of course it helps to have a great supporting cast, Teresa Palmer strong and sweet as Julie and John Malkovich as her father who is the hardened general who is leading the human survivors.
Warm Bodies is a great zombie movie, with an excellent sound track to set the mood throughout the film. But it’s more than that. It is also a charming story of unconventional love. Telling the story from R’s point of view gives it a very fresh feel, but it’s the thought and care that Levine and the cast members put into it that make it such a superb film. Warm Bodies is a love story between woman and monster, and the screenwriting and execution delivers a charm that cannot be denied. Warm Bodies is funny, but it’s also sweet, a bit dark at times, and highly original. All of this combined makes it the first must-see film of 2013.
R, the zombie in our “Romeo” role, is your typical walker (excuse me while I borrow terms from another hit zombie medium). He moves around without purpose, mostly spending his days at the airport. He carries “conversations” with another zombie, M, and his internal monologue certainly lets the viewer know that zombies are fully aware of what they are. As a result of their condition, they no longer have control over what they do. Nor does R try to make excuses for it; they are what they are. This is demonstrated when he and a horde of walkers attack a group of humans. In this group is Julie, who as I am sure you have guessed is our “Juliet”. R immediately falls for her and is determined to have her reciprocate the feelings. This might prove to be difficult, considering that humans and zombies at their core just want to kill each other. It is this feeling, this emotion, that humans thought zombies incapable of, that begins to change R, and other zombies around him.
After the attack, R takes Julie back to his… er, safe haven comes to mind, but it’s really just an abandoned airplane sitting on a tarmac filled with wacky items that R has collected in the time since he became a zombie. Writer/Director Jonathan Levine, who adapted Marion’s novel, has managed to create very smart, witty dialogue, but in a cute way as he did with The Wackness (which Levine also wrote). The sincerity of the dialogue in the movie keeps you interested in a growing relationship that’s way, way outside the box. There is plenty of violence in the movie too, as we see R attack a human, bite their arm, and hide their brains away for a snack later. Speaking of brain, the film explains that when a zombie eats a human’s brains, they remember our memories. This is kind of important.
Despite being a very different romantic comedy, the film also delivers a healthy horror flick. Zombies are not the only thing that is a result of the zombie outbreak. In this post-apocalyptic world there is another threat: bonies. Bonies are zombies that are so far gone they do not care anymore. They’ve given up, have peeled off their skin and attack anything with beating hearts. R says it best in the film. “Zombies do this also, but at least they are conflicted about eating it.” Even though the bonies are fully CG creations, and utterly obviously so, Levine has done it in such a way that you only get quick glances, which is a nice way to keep the PG-13 rating considering all of the blood flowing in the film.
Nicholas Hoult is fantastic in the lead role of R, and he finds a way to turn on the creepy just as easily as he can turn the funny on. Everything our “Romeo” character is supposed to be is remarkably portrayed by Hoult. Of course it helps to have a great supporting cast, Teresa Palmer strong and sweet as Julie and John Malkovich as her father who is the hardened general who is leading the human survivors.
Warm Bodies is a great zombie movie, with an excellent sound track to set the mood throughout the film. But it’s more than that. It is also a charming story of unconventional love. Telling the story from R’s point of view gives it a very fresh feel, but it’s the thought and care that Levine and the cast members put into it that make it such a superb film. Warm Bodies is a love story between woman and monster, and the screenwriting and execution delivers a charm that cannot be denied. Warm Bodies is funny, but it’s also sweet, a bit dark at times, and highly original. All of this combined makes it the first must-see film of 2013.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Emma (2020) in Movies
Feb 21, 2020
Anya Taylor-Joy.... mesmerising (2 more)
Gorgeous to look at; stunning locations and costumes
Witty and well-observed debut script
Simply Sublime
I loved the look of "Emma" from the trailer. And I was not disappointed. It is a simply sublime piece of comic entertainment.
Emma Woodhouse (Anya Taylor-Joy) is a rich, privileged 21 year-old looking after her elderly and quirky father (Bill Nighy) in the family stately home. She has never loved, despite the persistent presence of 'family friend' George Knightley (Johnny Flynn), but finds it entertaining to engage in matchmaking, particularly in respect to her somewhat lower class friend Harriet Smith (Mia Goth). Emma has high ambitions for Harriet... ideas significantly above what her social station and looks might suggest.
Emma has her sights on a dream.... the mystery man Frank Churchill (Callum Turner), son of wealthy local landowner Mr Weston (Rupert Graves). She has never actually met him, but is obsessed with his myth. #fangirl. As a source of immense annoyance to her, but often a source of valuable information on news of Churchill, is the village 'old maid' Miss Bates (Miranda Hart). "Such fun"!
But Emma's perfect life is about to face sticky times, as her machinations fail to yield the expected results and a stray comment, at a disastrous picnic, threatens to damage both her reputation and her social standing.
If you like your movies full of action and suspense, you are digging in the wrong place. "Emma" is slow... glacially slow... wallowing in beautiful bucolic scenes (with superb cinematography by Christopher Blauvelt); gorgeous costumes by Alexandra Byrne; and hair styling by Marese Langan.
The movie also benefits from a joyfully tight and funny script by debut screenwriter Eleanor Catton (a Man-Booker prize winner). This picks relentlessly at the strata of the class system set up by Jane Austen's novel: "Every body has their level" spits spurned suitor Mr Elton (Josh O'Connor).
I know Anya Taylor-Joy as the spirited Casey from "Split" and "Glass": she was impressive in "Split"; less so for me in the disappointing "Glass". But here, I found her UTTERLY mesmerising. She has such striking features - those eyes! - that she fully inhabits the role of the beautiful heiress who haunts multiple men sequentially. I even muttered the word "Oscar nomination" at the end of the film: though we are too early in the year to seriously go there.
An even bigger surprise was the actor playing George Knightley. Johnny Flynn has been in a number of TV shows I haven't seen, and a few films I haven't seen either (e.g. "Beast"). But I had the nagging feeling I knew him really well. The illustrious Mrs Movie Man clocked him: he's the Cineworld "plaid man"! (For those outside the UK or not patrons of Cineworld cinemas, he was the 'star' of a Cineworld advert that played over and Over AND OVER again for months on end before every film I saw. Arrrgggghhhh!).
Here, Flynn is excellent as the frustrated and brooding Austen-hunk. He even gets away with an ar*e-shot within a U-certificate!
Particularly strong in the supporting cast are Bill Nighy (being delightfully more restrained in his performance); Miranda Hart (being "Miranda", but perfectly cast) and Mia Goth (memorable for that eel-bath in "A Cure for Wellness").
And a big thank-you for a web review in the online Radio Times for naming one of the comical (and bizarrely uncredited) footmen as Angus Imrie - - the truly disturbed stepson of Claire in "Fleabag". It was driving me crazy where I knew him from!
The one criticism I would have is that I found the (perfectly fine and well-fitting) music, by David Schweitzer and Isobel Waller-Bridge (sister of Phoebe) poorly mixed within the soundtrack. There were times when I found it overly intrusive, suddenly ducking under dialogue and then BLASTING out again. Sometimes music should be at the forefront.... but more often it should be barely perceptible.
As you might guess....
...I loved this one. The story is brilliant (obsv!); the film is simply gorgeous to look at; the locations (including the village of Lower Slaughter in the Cotswolds and Wilton House - near me - in Salisbury) are magnificent and a blessing for the English Tourist Board.
All the more impressive then that this is the directorial feature of video/short director Autumn de Wilde.
This comes with a "highly recommended" from both myself and the illustrious Mrs Movie-Man.
(For the full graphical review, please check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-emma-2020/ .)
Emma Woodhouse (Anya Taylor-Joy) is a rich, privileged 21 year-old looking after her elderly and quirky father (Bill Nighy) in the family stately home. She has never loved, despite the persistent presence of 'family friend' George Knightley (Johnny Flynn), but finds it entertaining to engage in matchmaking, particularly in respect to her somewhat lower class friend Harriet Smith (Mia Goth). Emma has high ambitions for Harriet... ideas significantly above what her social station and looks might suggest.
Emma has her sights on a dream.... the mystery man Frank Churchill (Callum Turner), son of wealthy local landowner Mr Weston (Rupert Graves). She has never actually met him, but is obsessed with his myth. #fangirl. As a source of immense annoyance to her, but often a source of valuable information on news of Churchill, is the village 'old maid' Miss Bates (Miranda Hart). "Such fun"!
But Emma's perfect life is about to face sticky times, as her machinations fail to yield the expected results and a stray comment, at a disastrous picnic, threatens to damage both her reputation and her social standing.
If you like your movies full of action and suspense, you are digging in the wrong place. "Emma" is slow... glacially slow... wallowing in beautiful bucolic scenes (with superb cinematography by Christopher Blauvelt); gorgeous costumes by Alexandra Byrne; and hair styling by Marese Langan.
The movie also benefits from a joyfully tight and funny script by debut screenwriter Eleanor Catton (a Man-Booker prize winner). This picks relentlessly at the strata of the class system set up by Jane Austen's novel: "Every body has their level" spits spurned suitor Mr Elton (Josh O'Connor).
I know Anya Taylor-Joy as the spirited Casey from "Split" and "Glass": she was impressive in "Split"; less so for me in the disappointing "Glass". But here, I found her UTTERLY mesmerising. She has such striking features - those eyes! - that she fully inhabits the role of the beautiful heiress who haunts multiple men sequentially. I even muttered the word "Oscar nomination" at the end of the film: though we are too early in the year to seriously go there.
An even bigger surprise was the actor playing George Knightley. Johnny Flynn has been in a number of TV shows I haven't seen, and a few films I haven't seen either (e.g. "Beast"). But I had the nagging feeling I knew him really well. The illustrious Mrs Movie Man clocked him: he's the Cineworld "plaid man"! (For those outside the UK or not patrons of Cineworld cinemas, he was the 'star' of a Cineworld advert that played over and Over AND OVER again for months on end before every film I saw. Arrrgggghhhh!).
Here, Flynn is excellent as the frustrated and brooding Austen-hunk. He even gets away with an ar*e-shot within a U-certificate!
Particularly strong in the supporting cast are Bill Nighy (being delightfully more restrained in his performance); Miranda Hart (being "Miranda", but perfectly cast) and Mia Goth (memorable for that eel-bath in "A Cure for Wellness").
And a big thank-you for a web review in the online Radio Times for naming one of the comical (and bizarrely uncredited) footmen as Angus Imrie - - the truly disturbed stepson of Claire in "Fleabag". It was driving me crazy where I knew him from!
The one criticism I would have is that I found the (perfectly fine and well-fitting) music, by David Schweitzer and Isobel Waller-Bridge (sister of Phoebe) poorly mixed within the soundtrack. There were times when I found it overly intrusive, suddenly ducking under dialogue and then BLASTING out again. Sometimes music should be at the forefront.... but more often it should be barely perceptible.
As you might guess....
...I loved this one. The story is brilliant (obsv!); the film is simply gorgeous to look at; the locations (including the village of Lower Slaughter in the Cotswolds and Wilton House - near me - in Salisbury) are magnificent and a blessing for the English Tourist Board.
All the more impressive then that this is the directorial feature of video/short director Autumn de Wilde.
This comes with a "highly recommended" from both myself and the illustrious Mrs Movie-Man.
(For the full graphical review, please check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-emma-2020/ .)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Military Wives (2020) in Movies
Feb 25, 2020
The story perfectly balances between melodrama and feel good comedy (1 more)
Kristin Scott-Thomas and Sharon Horgan work fabulously together
Bound to grab the grey pound and be a huge UK success
I must admit that I was a bit of a drag-along to this one. The trailer excited me not.... one.... bit. Sentimental film. Dull story. Wrong demographic. No, no, no. But... in this case I am very happy to be proved wrong, wrong, wrong.
True that I didn't sit in the ideal demographic for this movie. 90% of the audience at the UK premiere showing I attended last night were female and older that me. This is a movie to turn the blue-rinse crowd out in DROVES! Because the - inherently British - story is engaging and rewarding from start to finish.
Loosely based on the true story, it's 2010 and a regiment of husbands (and at least one wife.... nice to see an all female marriage featured) are dispatched from the fictional "Flitcroft Barracks" to Afghanistan on a tour of duty. Thereafter every ring at the door by a friend spells mild panic ; every thoughtless call from an accident-chaser induces hypertension.
Trying to take their minds off there loved ones, Colonel's wife Kate (Kristin Scott Thomas) muscles in on the insipid entertainment plans of Lisa (Sharon Horgan) in organising a singing group. Lisa thinks "girls just wanna have fun"; Kate thinks they should be training as a proper choir. Sparks fly.
But against all the odds, the women progressively improve until they get the chance to present their talents to an unaware nation.
My wife summed up in one word why this movie is so good...... "balance". The movie covers topics of fear, grief, social conflict, family conflict and uplifting joy. One step off the tightrope could have spelled disaster. But director Peter Cattaneo, of "Full Monty" fame, through the expert script of Roseanne Flynn and Rachel Tunnard, walks that line with perfect balance. It never feels overly melodramatic; never feels a light piece of superficial fluff either.
And when "the performance" happens, you will be hard pushed not to need a tissue or two..... I certainly succumbed to the emotion of the moment.
At the core of the story are the perfectly cast duo of Kristin Scott Thomas and Sharon Horgan. With just a handful of introductory lines, you quickly get the measure of Kate's character, without ever knowing the story behind the icy and brittle facade. The conflict between her and the fun-loving egalitarian Lisa is writ large. What's nice here is that you are never totally sure who's side of the argument you are on. It is easy to side with Lisa at the start of the film, but as you learn more and particularly after a particularly careless act by Lisa towards the end of the film, your sympathies change.
The rest of the excellent ensemble cast also work naturally together, with Emma Lowndes as Annie and Amy James-Kelly as the newly married Sarah being particularly impressive.This feels like a group of actors who were brought together to film a story and bonded as friends in the process. You end up caring a great deal for what happens to them
Although the script is based on the true story of the military wives it diverges significantly from what actually happens in the interests of an engaging story. Choirmaster Gareth Malone was, of course, actively involved in the true story as a part of a TV programme, but none of that is referenced in the movie. But that doesn't remotely impinge on your enjoyment of the movie for one second.
In particular, a sub-story about the long-term effects of grief is particularly well handled, with 'Dave' turning from being a passive to an active participant in the story at a key moment.
It's that depressing time of the year when everyone is fed up of rain, wind and dripping noses. It's a time of year when you look for some uplifting entertainment.... people surely watch "Death in Paradise" for the sun rather than the stories? Ladies - and the odd gentleman - I give you "Military Wives". It's not bloody Shakespeare. But if this doesn't make you feel uplifted and better about the world, then I will dutifully kiss the regimental goat.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/25/one-manns-movies-film-review-military-wives-2020/. Thanks).
True that I didn't sit in the ideal demographic for this movie. 90% of the audience at the UK premiere showing I attended last night were female and older that me. This is a movie to turn the blue-rinse crowd out in DROVES! Because the - inherently British - story is engaging and rewarding from start to finish.
Loosely based on the true story, it's 2010 and a regiment of husbands (and at least one wife.... nice to see an all female marriage featured) are dispatched from the fictional "Flitcroft Barracks" to Afghanistan on a tour of duty. Thereafter every ring at the door by a friend spells mild panic ; every thoughtless call from an accident-chaser induces hypertension.
Trying to take their minds off there loved ones, Colonel's wife Kate (Kristin Scott Thomas) muscles in on the insipid entertainment plans of Lisa (Sharon Horgan) in organising a singing group. Lisa thinks "girls just wanna have fun"; Kate thinks they should be training as a proper choir. Sparks fly.
But against all the odds, the women progressively improve until they get the chance to present their talents to an unaware nation.
My wife summed up in one word why this movie is so good...... "balance". The movie covers topics of fear, grief, social conflict, family conflict and uplifting joy. One step off the tightrope could have spelled disaster. But director Peter Cattaneo, of "Full Monty" fame, through the expert script of Roseanne Flynn and Rachel Tunnard, walks that line with perfect balance. It never feels overly melodramatic; never feels a light piece of superficial fluff either.
And when "the performance" happens, you will be hard pushed not to need a tissue or two..... I certainly succumbed to the emotion of the moment.
At the core of the story are the perfectly cast duo of Kristin Scott Thomas and Sharon Horgan. With just a handful of introductory lines, you quickly get the measure of Kate's character, without ever knowing the story behind the icy and brittle facade. The conflict between her and the fun-loving egalitarian Lisa is writ large. What's nice here is that you are never totally sure who's side of the argument you are on. It is easy to side with Lisa at the start of the film, but as you learn more and particularly after a particularly careless act by Lisa towards the end of the film, your sympathies change.
The rest of the excellent ensemble cast also work naturally together, with Emma Lowndes as Annie and Amy James-Kelly as the newly married Sarah being particularly impressive.This feels like a group of actors who were brought together to film a story and bonded as friends in the process. You end up caring a great deal for what happens to them
Although the script is based on the true story of the military wives it diverges significantly from what actually happens in the interests of an engaging story. Choirmaster Gareth Malone was, of course, actively involved in the true story as a part of a TV programme, but none of that is referenced in the movie. But that doesn't remotely impinge on your enjoyment of the movie for one second.
In particular, a sub-story about the long-term effects of grief is particularly well handled, with 'Dave' turning from being a passive to an active participant in the story at a key moment.
It's that depressing time of the year when everyone is fed up of rain, wind and dripping noses. It's a time of year when you look for some uplifting entertainment.... people surely watch "Death in Paradise" for the sun rather than the stories? Ladies - and the odd gentleman - I give you "Military Wives". It's not bloody Shakespeare. But if this doesn't make you feel uplifted and better about the world, then I will dutifully kiss the regimental goat.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/25/one-manns-movies-film-review-military-wives-2020/. Thanks).
Seez R - Buy Used Cars in UAE
Auto & Vehicles, Lifestyle and Shopping
8.0
Rate It
App
We find all used cars for sale in Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Sharjah and the rest of UAE & negotiate with...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Finding Steve McQueen (2019) in Movies
Nov 9, 2020
This heist comedy (we'll come to that later) sounds pretty good from the synopsis, I can't really elaborate much on it like I normally would because, for once, it's spot on!
I had a big issue almost straight off the bat... "In 1972"... that's how the synopsis starts. I had reread it just before starting the film and as it begins it actually flashes up "1980", very quickly it's explained (and it makes sense) but I didn't enjoy starting the film with that confusion. Now, if I was seeing this in the cinema it wouldn't have been an issue because you don't tend to sit there in the trailers reading the synopsis before it starts, but with it hitting digital you will be instantly seeing it before you press play... I know it's a really minor thing to be bugged by... but it did bug me.
The reason for the jump in years is that we're seeing Harry Barber telling his girlfriend, Molly, the story of his past and the heist. Flashbacks are a time-honoured tradition in films, but they're difficult to get right. The story jumps several times, but there's very little differentiation between time unless the diner is involved on one side of the jump. At one point it jumps because he talks at the camera and we hop back to Molly talking, it stuck out... it either never happened again or it blended in so well that I didn't notice it. It wouldn't be the first film to add something random like that and abandon the style choice. Some else will have to let me know if it happened more than I think it did.
These two things, combined with some free moving camerawork (that you know I hate) meant that I found the beginning of Finding Steve McQueen, especially when the heist that is pushed in the marketing doesn't appear for quite a while.
IMDb lists crime thriller as a guide... thriller is definitely the wrong word. Heist comedy (as per the PR I saw) is definitely more accurate, though I didn't find it particularly funny. It did bring a mild laugh out of me, but not enough to stamp it with the comedy tag. Even "heist" feels like it doesn't fit well, it may be about one but what's presented is much heavier on other parts of the story. It's more like a biopic with romance than crime. In the end that's a little bit disappointing when you're looking forward to crime.
William Fichtner was an instant standout for me, I thought he handled the role of Enzo Rotella particularly well, and there was a great dynamic with Louis Lombardi as Pauly. Rachael Taylor as Molly Murphy was great too, when she wasn't freaking me out with how much she looked like Nicole Kidman. Somehow I've never noticed that before so I'll have to put it down to a cunning makeup artist.
From there though I was underwhelmed. I'm not familiar with Travis Fimmel, and sadly, from this performance I've not been convinced to check out anything in his back catalogue. Apart from two well-played emotional scenes I didn't enjoy the character of Harry Barber at all.
Had this been advertised as a biography instead of a crime/heist then I probably would have had a more favourable opinion, but we're presented with a slow and light film. I'm not expecting all crime films to be gritty and dark, but I do expect them to focus more on the actual crime and investigation. That's also where I found the flashback idea falling apart because we're shown things for context that Harry wouldn't have known and been able to tell Molly.
What I did love about this film was the setting and the look of everything. It had a wonderful freshness about it and that coupled with the costumes felt natural and like it captured the era perfectly.
I by no means hated this film, but I was extremely disappointed. The way the story was balanced means that the heist gets lost in everything else that's happening and although it's hailed as an amazing feat in American history it doesn't feel all that impressive in this portrayal. The only real criminal thing about this film was the underuse of Forest Whitaker.
As a biography I could have seen clear to give this a 3, maybe a 3.5, but as a crime I can't give it more than a 2. It feels entirely misrepresented, had it not been for the few excellent performances, and the hope of exciting crime drama, I think I would have turned it off.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/finding-steve-mcqueen-movie-review.html
I had a big issue almost straight off the bat... "In 1972"... that's how the synopsis starts. I had reread it just before starting the film and as it begins it actually flashes up "1980", very quickly it's explained (and it makes sense) but I didn't enjoy starting the film with that confusion. Now, if I was seeing this in the cinema it wouldn't have been an issue because you don't tend to sit there in the trailers reading the synopsis before it starts, but with it hitting digital you will be instantly seeing it before you press play... I know it's a really minor thing to be bugged by... but it did bug me.
The reason for the jump in years is that we're seeing Harry Barber telling his girlfriend, Molly, the story of his past and the heist. Flashbacks are a time-honoured tradition in films, but they're difficult to get right. The story jumps several times, but there's very little differentiation between time unless the diner is involved on one side of the jump. At one point it jumps because he talks at the camera and we hop back to Molly talking, it stuck out... it either never happened again or it blended in so well that I didn't notice it. It wouldn't be the first film to add something random like that and abandon the style choice. Some else will have to let me know if it happened more than I think it did.
These two things, combined with some free moving camerawork (that you know I hate) meant that I found the beginning of Finding Steve McQueen, especially when the heist that is pushed in the marketing doesn't appear for quite a while.
IMDb lists crime thriller as a guide... thriller is definitely the wrong word. Heist comedy (as per the PR I saw) is definitely more accurate, though I didn't find it particularly funny. It did bring a mild laugh out of me, but not enough to stamp it with the comedy tag. Even "heist" feels like it doesn't fit well, it may be about one but what's presented is much heavier on other parts of the story. It's more like a biopic with romance than crime. In the end that's a little bit disappointing when you're looking forward to crime.
William Fichtner was an instant standout for me, I thought he handled the role of Enzo Rotella particularly well, and there was a great dynamic with Louis Lombardi as Pauly. Rachael Taylor as Molly Murphy was great too, when she wasn't freaking me out with how much she looked like Nicole Kidman. Somehow I've never noticed that before so I'll have to put it down to a cunning makeup artist.
From there though I was underwhelmed. I'm not familiar with Travis Fimmel, and sadly, from this performance I've not been convinced to check out anything in his back catalogue. Apart from two well-played emotional scenes I didn't enjoy the character of Harry Barber at all.
Had this been advertised as a biography instead of a crime/heist then I probably would have had a more favourable opinion, but we're presented with a slow and light film. I'm not expecting all crime films to be gritty and dark, but I do expect them to focus more on the actual crime and investigation. That's also where I found the flashback idea falling apart because we're shown things for context that Harry wouldn't have known and been able to tell Molly.
What I did love about this film was the setting and the look of everything. It had a wonderful freshness about it and that coupled with the costumes felt natural and like it captured the era perfectly.
I by no means hated this film, but I was extremely disappointed. The way the story was balanced means that the heist gets lost in everything else that's happening and although it's hailed as an amazing feat in American history it doesn't feel all that impressive in this portrayal. The only real criminal thing about this film was the underuse of Forest Whitaker.
As a biography I could have seen clear to give this a 3, maybe a 3.5, but as a crime I can't give it more than a 2. It feels entirely misrepresented, had it not been for the few excellent performances, and the hope of exciting crime drama, I think I would have turned it off.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/finding-steve-mcqueen-movie-review.html
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated You Decide in Tabletop Games
Nov 12, 2020
What game do you think of when I mention, “roll and move?” For me, it’s Candy Land. Perhaps most kids’ first foray into board games at all. To be honest, it’s not even a roll and move, it’s more a flip and move, but they are usually all the same anyway: roll/flip/spin something and then move your pawn. Sometimes there will be something on the spot to “do” and sometimes you just try to race to the finish. So when the publisher and I were chatting about You Decide and they mentioned it was a family-style roll and move game, I had my doubts, but I wanted to try it out. How does this first game from new publisher Davidson Games fare? Let’s find out and You Decide.
As mentioned in my intro, You Decide is a roll and move game for two players. More players can be added to the game with more copies of the game. In the game players are attempting to be the first to move all six of their pawns from the STARTing line to the FINISH line.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are retail copy components, and therefore final components. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, but give a feel for the flow of the game and how it plays. You are invited to download the rulebook, purchase the game from the publisher, or through any retailers stocking it soon. -T
To setup, lay out the board between the two players and each player will place their pawns on the six circles on the START area. Roll off to see who will start the game and you are ready to begin!
You Decide turns are simple: roll both dice and decide which pawn to move. Move it and pass the turn to the opponent. When a player rolls the 2d6 it creates two numbers. For this review we will just use the example of a 4 and a 6. With this roll the player will decide to move the pawn in the 4 spot a total of six spaces, or the pawn in the 6 spot a total of four spaces. Easy, right?
Though movement is easy to determine, deciding which to activate is the challenge, though not severe. Upon many spaces on the board are printed instructions for the player to obey when a pawn lands on it. These could include returning the pawn to the START space, or moving forward a number of spaces but also allowing the opponent to move forward, or simply staying put and moving an opponent’s pawn.
When a player lands their pawn at the FINISH area, that number is no longer able to be used in subsequent rolls, and once several dice are at the FINISH area, each die rolls becomes more and more dire as players are on a mad dash to finish first. Play continues in this fashion until a winner has reached the FINISH area with all their pawns.
Components. This is a board, 12 pawns, and 2d6. The board is fine, with legible print and art that is present but stays out of the way. The pawns are typical plastic pawns but in excellent colors: orange and black. The 2d6 are fine as well. Black plastic with white pips. For this type of game, the components are completely functional. Nothing super impressive nor too egregious.
The gameplay is exactly what you want for a family level game. It is extremely light, offers choices that are meaningful without burning little brains, and has just the right amount of take-that to wean newer gamers off the Candy Land Express.
For me, it fills an interesting niche in my collection that I really didn’t know I had: a simple game for my family that even my 4-year-old can play and do well with, as long as we read the choices to him. Now, You Decide is very light and could be considered a gateway filler, but also as an easygoing family stepping stone game to get little ones rolling dice and making choices. Candy Land does NOT allow you to do that. So if you have young ones about to embark on their board game journey, I suggest you grab a copy of You Decide instead of those beginner games at Wal-Mart or Target. That is, unless You Decide gets picked up and sold at those locations.
As mentioned in my intro, You Decide is a roll and move game for two players. More players can be added to the game with more copies of the game. In the game players are attempting to be the first to move all six of their pawns from the STARTing line to the FINISH line.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are retail copy components, and therefore final components. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, but give a feel for the flow of the game and how it plays. You are invited to download the rulebook, purchase the game from the publisher, or through any retailers stocking it soon. -T
To setup, lay out the board between the two players and each player will place their pawns on the six circles on the START area. Roll off to see who will start the game and you are ready to begin!
You Decide turns are simple: roll both dice and decide which pawn to move. Move it and pass the turn to the opponent. When a player rolls the 2d6 it creates two numbers. For this review we will just use the example of a 4 and a 6. With this roll the player will decide to move the pawn in the 4 spot a total of six spaces, or the pawn in the 6 spot a total of four spaces. Easy, right?
Though movement is easy to determine, deciding which to activate is the challenge, though not severe. Upon many spaces on the board are printed instructions for the player to obey when a pawn lands on it. These could include returning the pawn to the START space, or moving forward a number of spaces but also allowing the opponent to move forward, or simply staying put and moving an opponent’s pawn.
When a player lands their pawn at the FINISH area, that number is no longer able to be used in subsequent rolls, and once several dice are at the FINISH area, each die rolls becomes more and more dire as players are on a mad dash to finish first. Play continues in this fashion until a winner has reached the FINISH area with all their pawns.
Components. This is a board, 12 pawns, and 2d6. The board is fine, with legible print and art that is present but stays out of the way. The pawns are typical plastic pawns but in excellent colors: orange and black. The 2d6 are fine as well. Black plastic with white pips. For this type of game, the components are completely functional. Nothing super impressive nor too egregious.
The gameplay is exactly what you want for a family level game. It is extremely light, offers choices that are meaningful without burning little brains, and has just the right amount of take-that to wean newer gamers off the Candy Land Express.
For me, it fills an interesting niche in my collection that I really didn’t know I had: a simple game for my family that even my 4-year-old can play and do well with, as long as we read the choices to him. Now, You Decide is very light and could be considered a gateway filler, but also as an easygoing family stepping stone game to get little ones rolling dice and making choices. Candy Land does NOT allow you to do that. So if you have young ones about to embark on their board game journey, I suggest you grab a copy of You Decide instead of those beginner games at Wal-Mart or Target. That is, unless You Decide gets picked up and sold at those locations.
When it is a director’s second, or sophomore movie, if you like, there is a lot of unfair pressure that finds people comparing the new work to the first one. Especially if that first work has set you up as the saviour of a particular genre, as was the case with Jordan Peele. Get Out was an excellent film for its type – a breath of fresh air, so they say, that subverted what a modern horror movie is and can be.
I actually don’t think Get Out deserves all the praise it gets, to be honest. Because Peele is not on his own in resurrecting dead ideas of what disturbs us, and I prefer both his main sophomore competitors: Ari Aster and Robert Eggers, of Hereditary/Midsommar and The Witch/The Lighthouse fame respectively. The Wasteland has already well documented this triumvirate of chillers, and perhaps only the man who produces the best third film will win the argument…
Not that Get Out isn’t great, in its way. It is. It has a lot to say in terms of social commentary, and plays very satisfyingly for tone, pace and momentum. It also has some wonderful performances at its heart. Which is the main thing that it shares with the less impressive, but equally ambitious Us.
Elisabeth Moss, who is racking up some very nice credits in recent years, is very watchable and sympathetic as the heroine of the tale forced into a survival situation. But it is the consistently superlative Lupito Nyong’o who shines most. Her ability to hold a moment is extraordinary! She has a chameleon quality as an actress, which when you see and understand the theme of this film is indispensable.
In the pivotal and most memorable early scene, her sheer presence and incredible voice fill the screen with dread and eerieness to an almost unbearable degree. It is a wow moment that lasts about 5 minutes. In that part of the film I was prepared to see something very special indeed. Sadly, the tension built so superbly is not maintained for long. In fact it is somewhat thrown away, and diluted by predictable tropes and simple chase scenes, rather than more moments of unique suspense, as it needed.
Note that I am not saying anything about the plot or the premise in any way here – on this occasion, even to explain the basic idea would be to spoil the experience from the start. Peele wants you to discover his themes as The “white” family are discovering them, to increase the creepiness and anxiety of it all. This works to a degree, but all too soon, I found, it becomes a mere slasher chase film, with little extra to say. Anything great about it happens in the first half hour. After that it is still watchable, just not amazing. Even the conclusion is a little flat, which is a rookie mistake if ever there was one.
I think Peele will have learned a lot from this film. Mostly that he can’t just create magic by willing it to exist. He has to hold the reigns a little tighter to create something of equal meaning to Get Out again. Perhaps it is a scripting issue as much as a directing issue, but he wrote it too, so there is no escaping the blame! Saying this, he still retains a lot of potential to go on and fix the things that didn’t work next time. And if he manages to string a good run together then this film will be very interesting to look back on as a cult movie that just misses the mark.
One thing I do like is how he uses images and names and colours etc. to create a larger puzzle within the film. The idea being that every detail is part of a bigger meaning. When reading about the film afterwards, I was surprised and thrilled to learn there were so many intentional nods to a theme and mythology beyond what I had already grasped. Something that is also true of Aster and Eggers, as if this approach is what the new Horror movement is based on – enough background detail to be able to revisit many times and geek out over later on fan forums.
The first thing to debate, and perhaps the last, is the title. Now that does deserve a round of applause. Let’s talk about that privately later… See this movie for Moss and especially Nyong’o, and that one astonishing scene early on. Otherwise it’s a take it or leave it kind of thing.
I actually don’t think Get Out deserves all the praise it gets, to be honest. Because Peele is not on his own in resurrecting dead ideas of what disturbs us, and I prefer both his main sophomore competitors: Ari Aster and Robert Eggers, of Hereditary/Midsommar and The Witch/The Lighthouse fame respectively. The Wasteland has already well documented this triumvirate of chillers, and perhaps only the man who produces the best third film will win the argument…
Not that Get Out isn’t great, in its way. It is. It has a lot to say in terms of social commentary, and plays very satisfyingly for tone, pace and momentum. It also has some wonderful performances at its heart. Which is the main thing that it shares with the less impressive, but equally ambitious Us.
Elisabeth Moss, who is racking up some very nice credits in recent years, is very watchable and sympathetic as the heroine of the tale forced into a survival situation. But it is the consistently superlative Lupito Nyong’o who shines most. Her ability to hold a moment is extraordinary! She has a chameleon quality as an actress, which when you see and understand the theme of this film is indispensable.
In the pivotal and most memorable early scene, her sheer presence and incredible voice fill the screen with dread and eerieness to an almost unbearable degree. It is a wow moment that lasts about 5 minutes. In that part of the film I was prepared to see something very special indeed. Sadly, the tension built so superbly is not maintained for long. In fact it is somewhat thrown away, and diluted by predictable tropes and simple chase scenes, rather than more moments of unique suspense, as it needed.
Note that I am not saying anything about the plot or the premise in any way here – on this occasion, even to explain the basic idea would be to spoil the experience from the start. Peele wants you to discover his themes as The “white” family are discovering them, to increase the creepiness and anxiety of it all. This works to a degree, but all too soon, I found, it becomes a mere slasher chase film, with little extra to say. Anything great about it happens in the first half hour. After that it is still watchable, just not amazing. Even the conclusion is a little flat, which is a rookie mistake if ever there was one.
I think Peele will have learned a lot from this film. Mostly that he can’t just create magic by willing it to exist. He has to hold the reigns a little tighter to create something of equal meaning to Get Out again. Perhaps it is a scripting issue as much as a directing issue, but he wrote it too, so there is no escaping the blame! Saying this, he still retains a lot of potential to go on and fix the things that didn’t work next time. And if he manages to string a good run together then this film will be very interesting to look back on as a cult movie that just misses the mark.
One thing I do like is how he uses images and names and colours etc. to create a larger puzzle within the film. The idea being that every detail is part of a bigger meaning. When reading about the film afterwards, I was surprised and thrilled to learn there were so many intentional nods to a theme and mythology beyond what I had already grasped. Something that is also true of Aster and Eggers, as if this approach is what the new Horror movement is based on – enough background detail to be able to revisit many times and geek out over later on fan forums.
The first thing to debate, and perhaps the last, is the title. Now that does deserve a round of applause. Let’s talk about that privately later… See this movie for Moss and especially Nyong’o, and that one astonishing scene early on. Otherwise it’s a take it or leave it kind of thing.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Belfort in Tabletop Games
Jun 10, 2021
I don’t know if I have ever just come out and said it before, but I love worker placement games. I just adore the mechanic and if a game includes it, the chances of me liking it are quite good. Belfort is an older game now (almost 10 years old!) so does it still excite and deliver the goods when so many other great worker placement games have been produced since it debuted?
The winner of Belfort is the player who, at the end of seven rounds of play, earns the most Victory Points (VP). Players will earn victory points by having majority of buildings claimed within the five districts of Belfort. To claim a building, players will be shrewdly sending workers to mines, the forest, and various buildings and guilds of Belfort to recruit more workers and earn the ever-important buck to finance these buildings.
Setup is kind of a beast, so I won’t detail everything here. Similarly, I will not be detailing every rule in the book, as there are just too many. But, I will give a general flow of the game so readers may be able to decide if this is a game they must add to their collections.
Once the game is setup and player order is established, each player will complete their entire turn in player order. Players will have many choices available to them on their turn: place workers on various buildings they had previously built, place workers on guild tiles to access powerful abilities, recruit more workers, hire gnomes to unlock certain portions of buildings, gaining more building plans, visiting the trading post to exchange resources, transform normal workers into master workers, and lastly assign workers to gather resources (wood, stone, metal, and gold) in the forests and mines surrounding Belfort.
At certain times during the game players will score their efforts to move up (and down) the VP track. It is at the end of the third and final scoring that the game ends and a victor is crowned.
While this is a very broad and general description of the rules of Belfort, each option listed contains layers of strategic depth that, like all good worker placement games, limits the players’ abilities to go everywhere they like as workers are in limited supply. For those gamers who have never played a worker placement game, this is both excruciating and delicious.
Components. This game boasts way too many components for the box in which is barely contained. I say this with one complete expansion and the promo set of guild tiles included, and the latest expansion on the way. All of the components in this game are stellar. The cards are great. All the cardboard play mats and tiles are great. The worker components and all the wooden bits are super great, AND I didn’t even mind having to sticker my own workers. The best part about the components in Belfort is definitely the art. The team designed an excellent art style for this one, and seeing little hidden jokes within the art makes it all that more interesting to me.
So DOES it hold up after all these years? I think it does. Though I would not consider Belfort an “easy” game to learn, teach, or play at first, after a few rounds players generally catch on and begin to really weigh all their options. This is a great game for think-hungry gamers. This game is conversely a bane for all AP-prone players. I fall right in the middle, but lean towards faster play at the expense of my final score. But that’s the beauty of Belfort and of all worker placement games: there are so many choices that one could easily just try to play so that they visit every location at least once. Now, by doing this the players are also ignoring the true goal of the game: area majority within the districts of Belfort, but if a player isn’t as aggressive or victory-crazed, that’s not a bad thing.
For me, I love Belfort. A lot. Unfortunately for me, during this crazy COVID time, I will not be able to play it much, and was lucky to be able to pull it out recently again after not playing it for several years. But, I always look upon the box fondly and wish I could just bust it out any time I want. Maybe someday someone will create solo rules for it and I can enjoy it that way. My wife is not a fan, but also she’s not really a fan of games that are longer than an hour generally. I cherish this game, and am quite happy to have it in my collection.
The winner of Belfort is the player who, at the end of seven rounds of play, earns the most Victory Points (VP). Players will earn victory points by having majority of buildings claimed within the five districts of Belfort. To claim a building, players will be shrewdly sending workers to mines, the forest, and various buildings and guilds of Belfort to recruit more workers and earn the ever-important buck to finance these buildings.
Setup is kind of a beast, so I won’t detail everything here. Similarly, I will not be detailing every rule in the book, as there are just too many. But, I will give a general flow of the game so readers may be able to decide if this is a game they must add to their collections.
Once the game is setup and player order is established, each player will complete their entire turn in player order. Players will have many choices available to them on their turn: place workers on various buildings they had previously built, place workers on guild tiles to access powerful abilities, recruit more workers, hire gnomes to unlock certain portions of buildings, gaining more building plans, visiting the trading post to exchange resources, transform normal workers into master workers, and lastly assign workers to gather resources (wood, stone, metal, and gold) in the forests and mines surrounding Belfort.
At certain times during the game players will score their efforts to move up (and down) the VP track. It is at the end of the third and final scoring that the game ends and a victor is crowned.
While this is a very broad and general description of the rules of Belfort, each option listed contains layers of strategic depth that, like all good worker placement games, limits the players’ abilities to go everywhere they like as workers are in limited supply. For those gamers who have never played a worker placement game, this is both excruciating and delicious.
Components. This game boasts way too many components for the box in which is barely contained. I say this with one complete expansion and the promo set of guild tiles included, and the latest expansion on the way. All of the components in this game are stellar. The cards are great. All the cardboard play mats and tiles are great. The worker components and all the wooden bits are super great, AND I didn’t even mind having to sticker my own workers. The best part about the components in Belfort is definitely the art. The team designed an excellent art style for this one, and seeing little hidden jokes within the art makes it all that more interesting to me.
So DOES it hold up after all these years? I think it does. Though I would not consider Belfort an “easy” game to learn, teach, or play at first, after a few rounds players generally catch on and begin to really weigh all their options. This is a great game for think-hungry gamers. This game is conversely a bane for all AP-prone players. I fall right in the middle, but lean towards faster play at the expense of my final score. But that’s the beauty of Belfort and of all worker placement games: there are so many choices that one could easily just try to play so that they visit every location at least once. Now, by doing this the players are also ignoring the true goal of the game: area majority within the districts of Belfort, but if a player isn’t as aggressive or victory-crazed, that’s not a bad thing.
For me, I love Belfort. A lot. Unfortunately for me, during this crazy COVID time, I will not be able to play it much, and was lucky to be able to pull it out recently again after not playing it for several years. But, I always look upon the box fondly and wish I could just bust it out any time I want. Maybe someday someone will create solo rules for it and I can enjoy it that way. My wife is not a fan, but also she’s not really a fan of games that are longer than an hour generally. I cherish this game, and am quite happy to have it in my collection.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Enola Holmes (2020) in Movies
Oct 3, 2020
There were several things that didn't make me leap at this one, but I was excited to have a "new release" to watch so...
The Holmes family name is a recognisable one, Sherlock and Mycroft are taking London by storm... but did you know about their younger sister, Enola? Raised by her mother, an eccentric and strong woman with a very alternative view on education, Enola is a strong will young woman in her image. When her mother goes missing Enola sets off to find her against the wishes of her brothers, taking herself to London and crossing paths with friends and foes along the way.
When I was looking for something between Sherlock Holmes and Nancy Drew I was hoping they'd throw the stone a little further. In my notes I scribbled that there are plenty of books about teen detectives that would have adapted well... and then I discovered that this was a book, and a series no less. I understand that the association with Sherlock Holmes is a strong one to market, but I feel like we're a little Sherlocked out these days. I miss vaguely original content... sorry, that sounds bitchier than it was meant to be.
Millie Bobby Brown did a good job of bringing Enola to life, there's a strong precocious nature to the role and she adapted to every twist convincingly. At times I noticed the odd slip that felt a little pantomime-y but by the time I'd pursed my lips and frowned it had already passed.
The Holmes brothers, brought to us by Henry Cavill and Sam Claflin, where to start... Claflin as Mycroft did a pretty good job, possibly too good, every time he was on screen I wanted him to leave. However, am I the only one that thought that these actors should have been playing each other's roles? As much as I love Cavill, he is not Sherlock. Sherlock is not suave and naturally charming, and he's certainly not built like a Chippendale, well, maybe a bit of furniture. It felt like a very unnatural fit, but I could just about visualise it with the roles reversed.
Supporting actors were great, I particularly enjoyed Susan Wokoma's, Edith. But, I was pleasantly surprised to see Fiona Shaw pop up in what appeared to be a reprisal of her role from Three Men and a Little Lady, but I digress.
To a layman like myself the period setting looked amazing and I thought the costumes were excellent. In fact, everything about the film looked stunning, but here is where I part with compliments.
Enola Holmes clocks in at just over the 2 hour mark, 2 hours and 3 minutes if we're being precise. If you say "family film" I think 1 hour 30, 45 maybe, if you say "thriller" I think 2 hours+... I know there are no hard and fast rules about it, but here's the thing, there wasn't enough content to fill that time. Yes, they managed to fill the runtime, but so much of it was unnecessary. Her mother's storyline seemed entirely there to get her to London, which could easily have been done in several ways, there's one scene in particular that seemed to go nowhere. I hate to say it, but Fiona Shaw and her finishing school were completely surplus to requirements too, nothing happened there that was very relevant at all. Some of the additions to what is quite a simple story made it a little complicated, though complicated isn't quite the right word because everything was easy to grasp (when it was relevant), perhaps "fussy" would be a better choice.
When the film ended I knew we were being set up for round 2, though this one came with less of a sickening groan than Artemis Fowl's did. I don't know how the books run as a series so I'd be interested to see how they compare, but I'm not a fan of continued storyline and that will definitely be on the cards for a sequel.
While I'm fully aware I've just moaned about a lot of points, the film is definitely watchable, but for me it was too cluttered and drawn out to hold my attention. With some snipping here and there it could have been vastly improved.
(My god, I didn't even mention the 4th wall breaking or the very end... but I guess no one really wants a full essay on the subject.)
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/10/enola-holmes-movie-review.html
The Holmes family name is a recognisable one, Sherlock and Mycroft are taking London by storm... but did you know about their younger sister, Enola? Raised by her mother, an eccentric and strong woman with a very alternative view on education, Enola is a strong will young woman in her image. When her mother goes missing Enola sets off to find her against the wishes of her brothers, taking herself to London and crossing paths with friends and foes along the way.
When I was looking for something between Sherlock Holmes and Nancy Drew I was hoping they'd throw the stone a little further. In my notes I scribbled that there are plenty of books about teen detectives that would have adapted well... and then I discovered that this was a book, and a series no less. I understand that the association with Sherlock Holmes is a strong one to market, but I feel like we're a little Sherlocked out these days. I miss vaguely original content... sorry, that sounds bitchier than it was meant to be.
Millie Bobby Brown did a good job of bringing Enola to life, there's a strong precocious nature to the role and she adapted to every twist convincingly. At times I noticed the odd slip that felt a little pantomime-y but by the time I'd pursed my lips and frowned it had already passed.
The Holmes brothers, brought to us by Henry Cavill and Sam Claflin, where to start... Claflin as Mycroft did a pretty good job, possibly too good, every time he was on screen I wanted him to leave. However, am I the only one that thought that these actors should have been playing each other's roles? As much as I love Cavill, he is not Sherlock. Sherlock is not suave and naturally charming, and he's certainly not built like a Chippendale, well, maybe a bit of furniture. It felt like a very unnatural fit, but I could just about visualise it with the roles reversed.
Supporting actors were great, I particularly enjoyed Susan Wokoma's, Edith. But, I was pleasantly surprised to see Fiona Shaw pop up in what appeared to be a reprisal of her role from Three Men and a Little Lady, but I digress.
To a layman like myself the period setting looked amazing and I thought the costumes were excellent. In fact, everything about the film looked stunning, but here is where I part with compliments.
Enola Holmes clocks in at just over the 2 hour mark, 2 hours and 3 minutes if we're being precise. If you say "family film" I think 1 hour 30, 45 maybe, if you say "thriller" I think 2 hours+... I know there are no hard and fast rules about it, but here's the thing, there wasn't enough content to fill that time. Yes, they managed to fill the runtime, but so much of it was unnecessary. Her mother's storyline seemed entirely there to get her to London, which could easily have been done in several ways, there's one scene in particular that seemed to go nowhere. I hate to say it, but Fiona Shaw and her finishing school were completely surplus to requirements too, nothing happened there that was very relevant at all. Some of the additions to what is quite a simple story made it a little complicated, though complicated isn't quite the right word because everything was easy to grasp (when it was relevant), perhaps "fussy" would be a better choice.
When the film ended I knew we were being set up for round 2, though this one came with less of a sickening groan than Artemis Fowl's did. I don't know how the books run as a series so I'd be interested to see how they compare, but I'm not a fan of continued storyline and that will definitely be on the cards for a sequel.
While I'm fully aware I've just moaned about a lot of points, the film is definitely watchable, but for me it was too cluttered and drawn out to hold my attention. With some snipping here and there it could have been vastly improved.
(My god, I didn't even mention the 4th wall breaking or the very end... but I guess no one really wants a full essay on the subject.)
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/10/enola-holmes-movie-review.html