Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A Simple Favor (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A Dangerous Liaison.
Wow, this one starts spectacularly well! Who’s not to love some “Thomas Crown” style titles over a French language version of “Music to watch girls by”? Brilliant!
We are then introduced to the hyper-annoying single mum Stephanie Smothers (Anna Kendrick): someone so perky and goodie-two-shoes as a school helper that every other parent loathes her. What she does seem to have a talent for is filming cheesy “mom’s hints and tips” videos in her kitchen that she posts to her video blog.
Enter the polar opposite of Stephanie: the stylish, sophisticated, amoral and highly intimidating she-wolf called Emily (Blake Lively). On the excuse of play-dates between their sons, she seduces Stephanie with her swanky 5* lifestyle that she lives with her husband Sean (Henry Golding), a struggling writer. Given the oddness of the couple, there are more than a few hints – in line with the title of my review – that this is some kind of subtle grooming. But to what end?
How can someone so beautiful be so camera-shy? Anna Kendrick going for a cheeky snap of Blake Lively (and failing). (Source: GEM Entertainment).
When Emily suddenly goes missing without explanation, Sergeant Malloy (Andrew Moodie) has no shortage of suspects to investigate as Stephanie finds that she actually knew very little about the ghost-like Emily.
There is a surfeit of glossy style in Paul Feig‘s film. I’ve already enthused about the opening titles. But the stylish french-language music – coordinated by Theodore Shapiro – continues throughout, reaching a peak with Serge Gainsbourg’s sublime “Laisse Tomber Les Filles” over the equally entertaining end-titles.
Sharing confessions. A “BF” moment (and no… not “Best Friends”!). (Source: GEM Entertainment
But as a comedy thriller ther….
“HANG ON A MINUTE DR BOB! WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY? COMEDY THRILLER? I watched the trailer for this one, and it’s “Gone Girl” remade isn’t it? It wasn’t comedy! Even IMDB describe it as “Crime, Drama, Mystery”!”
Yes, quite, and therein lies the problem with this film. I found the trailers (the full trailer as well as the teaser trailer attached below) to be highly misleading about the “feel” of the film. The comedy is distributed throughout with some great comic put-downs (“Prudes are people too” coos Emily to Stephanie) and generally laugh-out-loud dialogue. So yes, it IS a “Gone Girl” or “The Girl on the Train” wannabe… but it’s with added ‘laffs’. Now this revelation might make the film appeal to you much more than the trailer did. But in my book, ‘thriller’ and ‘comedy’ are not genres to comfortably share a bed and for me the film became increasingly inconsistent. This inconsistency built to a finale where all semblance of plot and reality seemed to go right out of the window… it could have been an improv episode or “Who’s Line Is It Anyway?”.
The writer is Jessica Sharzer (who did the screenplay for “Nerve” which I very much liked). But I suspect the issue lies more with Paul Feig‘s background in comedies (“Bridesmaids”, “The Heat”, “Spy”) and he couldn’t resist spicing up the thriller with some out-of-place comedy. Which was a shame, since I really liked the overall thriller plot, and the dynamic built up between Kendrick and Lively.
Coming clean…ing. Anna Kendrick as an undercover mopper. (Source: GEM Entertainment).
Blake Lively (Mrs Deadpool of course) is actually staggeringly good as the unfathomable and slightly deranged Emily, and even Kendrick – who seems to have had a run of very so-so movies recently – is entertainingly quirky in this one.
I also enjoyed the performance of Rupert Friend (probably best known as Peter Quinn in “Homeland”) playing a vain and ego-centric fashion designer Dennis Nylon. Great fun.
Never trust a redhead. Emily being a-muse-ing. (Source: GEM Entertainment).
Was I entertained? Yes I was, so I am tempted to recommend you seeing this rather than not. But I was also irritated in equal measure…. I really felt from the opening scenes that this one had legs to make my Top 10 for the year. But no.
Please comment and let me know which side of the fence you sit on!
We are then introduced to the hyper-annoying single mum Stephanie Smothers (Anna Kendrick): someone so perky and goodie-two-shoes as a school helper that every other parent loathes her. What she does seem to have a talent for is filming cheesy “mom’s hints and tips” videos in her kitchen that she posts to her video blog.
Enter the polar opposite of Stephanie: the stylish, sophisticated, amoral and highly intimidating she-wolf called Emily (Blake Lively). On the excuse of play-dates between their sons, she seduces Stephanie with her swanky 5* lifestyle that she lives with her husband Sean (Henry Golding), a struggling writer. Given the oddness of the couple, there are more than a few hints – in line with the title of my review – that this is some kind of subtle grooming. But to what end?
How can someone so beautiful be so camera-shy? Anna Kendrick going for a cheeky snap of Blake Lively (and failing). (Source: GEM Entertainment).
When Emily suddenly goes missing without explanation, Sergeant Malloy (Andrew Moodie) has no shortage of suspects to investigate as Stephanie finds that she actually knew very little about the ghost-like Emily.
There is a surfeit of glossy style in Paul Feig‘s film. I’ve already enthused about the opening titles. But the stylish french-language music – coordinated by Theodore Shapiro – continues throughout, reaching a peak with Serge Gainsbourg’s sublime “Laisse Tomber Les Filles” over the equally entertaining end-titles.
Sharing confessions. A “BF” moment (and no… not “Best Friends”!). (Source: GEM Entertainment
But as a comedy thriller ther….
“HANG ON A MINUTE DR BOB! WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY? COMEDY THRILLER? I watched the trailer for this one, and it’s “Gone Girl” remade isn’t it? It wasn’t comedy! Even IMDB describe it as “Crime, Drama, Mystery”!”
Yes, quite, and therein lies the problem with this film. I found the trailers (the full trailer as well as the teaser trailer attached below) to be highly misleading about the “feel” of the film. The comedy is distributed throughout with some great comic put-downs (“Prudes are people too” coos Emily to Stephanie) and generally laugh-out-loud dialogue. So yes, it IS a “Gone Girl” or “The Girl on the Train” wannabe… but it’s with added ‘laffs’. Now this revelation might make the film appeal to you much more than the trailer did. But in my book, ‘thriller’ and ‘comedy’ are not genres to comfortably share a bed and for me the film became increasingly inconsistent. This inconsistency built to a finale where all semblance of plot and reality seemed to go right out of the window… it could have been an improv episode or “Who’s Line Is It Anyway?”.
The writer is Jessica Sharzer (who did the screenplay for “Nerve” which I very much liked). But I suspect the issue lies more with Paul Feig‘s background in comedies (“Bridesmaids”, “The Heat”, “Spy”) and he couldn’t resist spicing up the thriller with some out-of-place comedy. Which was a shame, since I really liked the overall thriller plot, and the dynamic built up between Kendrick and Lively.
Coming clean…ing. Anna Kendrick as an undercover mopper. (Source: GEM Entertainment).
Blake Lively (Mrs Deadpool of course) is actually staggeringly good as the unfathomable and slightly deranged Emily, and even Kendrick – who seems to have had a run of very so-so movies recently – is entertainingly quirky in this one.
I also enjoyed the performance of Rupert Friend (probably best known as Peter Quinn in “Homeland”) playing a vain and ego-centric fashion designer Dennis Nylon. Great fun.
Never trust a redhead. Emily being a-muse-ing. (Source: GEM Entertainment).
Was I entertained? Yes I was, so I am tempted to recommend you seeing this rather than not. But I was also irritated in equal measure…. I really felt from the opening scenes that this one had legs to make my Top 10 for the year. But no.
Please comment and let me know which side of the fence you sit on!
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Point Salad in Tabletop Games
Nov 1, 2021
What does “elegant design” mean to you? For me, it is a game that has been well-fleshed out and the rules, components, and mechanics are not over-fluffed. I hear and see so many games being described as having elegant design, and I sit and ponder sometimes because I have played the game in question and it certainly doesn’t follow my personal interpretation of the term. Point Salad, however, is the perfect example of elegant design – to me. Follow along to learn how such a simple game can cause such great experiences.
Simply put, Point Salad is a tableau-building game where players are drafting cards with specific scoring rules and sets of the six different suits to maximize the scoring of their drafted score cards. Each card in the game is double-sided, with one side showing a vegetable and the other side showing a unique scoring system. The player who earns the most points at the end of the game will be the winner and be forced to eat a salad reflecting their drafted veggies from the game. All right, that isn’t true, but they CAN gloat as much as they please.
To setup, construct the deck as outlined in the rules per the number of players. Shuffle the deck and roughly divide into three stacks, point side up. From these stacks place out two cards, veggie side up, below them. Choose the first player and the harvesting may begin!
On a turn, the active player may choose to draft one point card or two veggie cards from those visible in the market. They now place the cards in their personal tableau in front of themselves and the turn moves to the next player. The game continues in this fashion of drafting one or two cards every turn until all cards have been drafted.
Once all cards are drafted from the market, players analyze their scoring cards and determine points using the veggie cards they drafted. As each point card depicts a unique scoring set, each player may end with wildly different score totals. The player with the most points is the winner!
Components. This one is easy. It’s a deck of 108 double-sided cards and a tiny set of rules. The cards are all great quality and feature the most clear and appropriate art by Dylan Mangini. I have grown to really love his artwork on different games – I really dig his style. Components in this one are wonderful and I am considering sleeving the game because I just want to keep it pristine through the years.
It is certainly no surprise that I adore this game. Honestly, I only even gave it a shot because my friend Bethany, of Ryan and Bethany Board Game Reviews, placed it in one of her Top 10 lists and I had oftentimes simply passed it up at the FLGS. I am super glad she turned me on to this one, as it is easily one of my new favorites to bring to the table. I do have one tiny issue with the game. The box reads for ages 8+ but my 5-year-old son has zero problems understanding and playing the game. I mean, I have to read (and sometimes explain) the point cards to him, but I love seeing him think about and work through some tactics while playing.
I think that for me and my family, Point Salad fills a nice little niche in my collection. It is an excellent introduction to both drafting and tableau-building that other games can build upon for us. I very much enjoy the possibility of never playing the same game twice as 108 double-sided cards offers such variability and replayability that I hope will keep the game from becoming boring over multiple plays. Right now, though, it is humming along for us, and we are so grateful to Miss Bethany for introducing us to this little gem! Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a delicious 5 / 6. If you are looking for that low-stress, but very tactical, card game for easygoing nights, pick yourself up a copy of Point Salad.
Simply put, Point Salad is a tableau-building game where players are drafting cards with specific scoring rules and sets of the six different suits to maximize the scoring of their drafted score cards. Each card in the game is double-sided, with one side showing a vegetable and the other side showing a unique scoring system. The player who earns the most points at the end of the game will be the winner and be forced to eat a salad reflecting their drafted veggies from the game. All right, that isn’t true, but they CAN gloat as much as they please.
To setup, construct the deck as outlined in the rules per the number of players. Shuffle the deck and roughly divide into three stacks, point side up. From these stacks place out two cards, veggie side up, below them. Choose the first player and the harvesting may begin!
On a turn, the active player may choose to draft one point card or two veggie cards from those visible in the market. They now place the cards in their personal tableau in front of themselves and the turn moves to the next player. The game continues in this fashion of drafting one or two cards every turn until all cards have been drafted.
Once all cards are drafted from the market, players analyze their scoring cards and determine points using the veggie cards they drafted. As each point card depicts a unique scoring set, each player may end with wildly different score totals. The player with the most points is the winner!
Components. This one is easy. It’s a deck of 108 double-sided cards and a tiny set of rules. The cards are all great quality and feature the most clear and appropriate art by Dylan Mangini. I have grown to really love his artwork on different games – I really dig his style. Components in this one are wonderful and I am considering sleeving the game because I just want to keep it pristine through the years.
It is certainly no surprise that I adore this game. Honestly, I only even gave it a shot because my friend Bethany, of Ryan and Bethany Board Game Reviews, placed it in one of her Top 10 lists and I had oftentimes simply passed it up at the FLGS. I am super glad she turned me on to this one, as it is easily one of my new favorites to bring to the table. I do have one tiny issue with the game. The box reads for ages 8+ but my 5-year-old son has zero problems understanding and playing the game. I mean, I have to read (and sometimes explain) the point cards to him, but I love seeing him think about and work through some tactics while playing.
I think that for me and my family, Point Salad fills a nice little niche in my collection. It is an excellent introduction to both drafting and tableau-building that other games can build upon for us. I very much enjoy the possibility of never playing the same game twice as 108 double-sided cards offers such variability and replayability that I hope will keep the game from becoming boring over multiple plays. Right now, though, it is humming along for us, and we are so grateful to Miss Bethany for introducing us to this little gem! Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a delicious 5 / 6. If you are looking for that low-stress, but very tactical, card game for easygoing nights, pick yourself up a copy of Point Salad.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Small Islands in Tabletop Games
Oct 13, 2021
I have often wished to have been born in a different era of time. For me, I would have loved to have seen the birth of jazz in the US early 20th century. Or to witness the Renaissance first-hand. Another wish of mine was always to somehow discover something amazing. Like an island, or an unknown mountain range, or a new species of animal. That is so exciting to me, and I would have really loved to have just been around during these times. So along comes Small Islands, and my dreams have been woven into a board game about discovering new islands. That means the game is good, right?
Small Islands is a tile placement exploration game for one to four players. In it, players are explorers tasked with discovering resource-rich new islands upon which their clans may either exploit or inhabit. However, it’s each clan for themselves, and the players all need those precious resources. In the solo game, the player’s AI opponent is Alexis Allard, designer of the game. He has goal cards to be used and finishing point totals that the solo player will be attempting to beat during the course of the game.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, the player claims their player color and assigns Alexis with his color. They take all the components for each player and places them on the table. The starting tiles (that feature flying seagulls) are placed on the table in any orientation that is legal for play: islands need to connect, and seas need to flow from one tile to the next, as seen below. The Landscape tiles are to be shuffled and placed within reach. The four ship tiles are displayed, with all ships on their gray side, save for the solo player’s chosen color. The Navigation tile is placed below the ship tiles, and the beginning three Landscape tiles are placed in a row beside it. The small stack of Objective cards are shuffled and placed nearby, with the player drawing one to begin. They also draw two Landscape to start. For solo play, one Alexis difficulty card is chosen, and his deck of Explore and Land cards is built accordingly. The Prestige (VP) tokens are (apparently when I play) just thrown on the table and gathered in a loose pile. The game may now begin!
Small Islands is played over four rounds, with several turns being played per round. The solo player begins each round with their turn. A turn is divided into three phases: Preparation, Exploration, Reward. The Preparation phase has the player populating the Navigation Tile with six Landscape tiles face-down as a draw stack. The player then draws two Objective cards to add to their one they are currently holding. From these three cards the player will choose one to become their current objective for the round, one to be saved for a future round, and one to be discarded back to the stack. These Objective cards provide a strategy to guide the player through the current round, and also setup future rounds for scoring purposes. Upon them are icons that will award the player with points for scoring islands containing specific combinations of resources.
During the Exploration phase in the solo game, the player takes their turn first, and then Alexis will take his. A typical Exploration phase has a player deciding if they will Explore a tile or Land a ship. To Explore a tile, the player chooses one of the face-up Landscape tiles from the market/offer row and, along with their two held tiles, choose one to add to the play area. These tiles may be rotated in any fashion, as long as they can be legally placed: island edges are to be extended, sea spaces connected, et al. It is also at this time the player may place one of their Bonus Tokens upon any tile on the play area. These Bonus Tokens are resource icons that cover up existing icons on a tile, or directly over another Bonus Token. A player would do this in order to affect the balance of icons on a given island for scoring purposes.
Should the Navigation tile be empty of Landscape tiles and the player wish, they may instead Land a ship, thus ending the Exploration phase. The player chooses any of the ship tiles, and places it legally on the play area (in a sea space, as shown below). Once the player ends the phase, the game progresses to the Reward phase.
After the player takes their turn during the Exploration phase, Alexis takes his turn. This is done by drawing an Expedition card from his stack and following its instructions. The Expedition card will show whether Alexis would like to Explore or Land, which Landscape tile he would like to draw, and where he would like to place it – in relation to where the last player tile was placed.
During the Reward phase, the player will place any of their clan houseeples they wish on any island upon which they have not placed a houseeple previously. Then, consulting their Objective card, score points for successfully satisfying the card’s requirements. For Alexis, the player will draw a new Expedition card from Alexis’s stack, note the icons present on the Mission area of the card, and place Alexis houseeples upon islands that satisfy its requirements.
The game continues in this fashion until the fourth round is complete. The player totals their Prestige points (VP) and if they score more than Alexis, they win! The player must then take a picture of their archipelago they built and send it to the designer directly and gloat to them about their massive victory. Or simply rest in the satisfaction of having played the game well. Whichever.
Components. This game has a lot of components, and they are mostly cardboard and houseeples. The cardstock and board are good quality, as I have come to expect from Lucky Duck Games, and the houseeples are all different shapes for each clan color. I find that a nice and unnecessary, but very cool, touch. The art in this one is simply amazing. I mean, look at these photos! Everything from the color scheme to the art style all mesh well and give a well-considered polish to a great theme.
Okay, I won’t even hide it – I LOOOOOOVE this game. I never really liked Carcassonne very much, but Small Islands gives a similar feel, but executes everything so much better. Even with the solo rules. There are so many options available at any one time, and having a random Alexis game each time you play is just so satisfying. I feel like I could keep this game forever and not play the same game twice. Ever. And I think that I would WANT to play this one forever. Yes, I think this is a solid fit for my collection indeed, and I can see it working for so many different gamer types.
Having Alexis constantly applying the pressure to maximize and strategize every turn is delicious, and having almost zero conflict with him as we both explore is welcome. You know when you start the game how many points Alexis will score at the end of the game, so having that knowledge really makes you consider all the options available. It just works on so many levels.
If you are looking for a light-hearted, but with some great decisions to be made, then I strongly urge you to check out Small Islands. I knew immediately that this was a game for me. It’s on the lighter side without being too simple, I get to build a thing and admire it at the end of the game, and I have an opponent who just wants to see me win because he designed the game! I’m in and out in less than an hour and feel content that I was able to have a great experience with a well-designed game. I cannot wait to introduce this to all my friends and family gamers so they can fall in love with it as well.
Small Islands is a tile placement exploration game for one to four players. In it, players are explorers tasked with discovering resource-rich new islands upon which their clans may either exploit or inhabit. However, it’s each clan for themselves, and the players all need those precious resources. In the solo game, the player’s AI opponent is Alexis Allard, designer of the game. He has goal cards to be used and finishing point totals that the solo player will be attempting to beat during the course of the game.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, the player claims their player color and assigns Alexis with his color. They take all the components for each player and places them on the table. The starting tiles (that feature flying seagulls) are placed on the table in any orientation that is legal for play: islands need to connect, and seas need to flow from one tile to the next, as seen below. The Landscape tiles are to be shuffled and placed within reach. The four ship tiles are displayed, with all ships on their gray side, save for the solo player’s chosen color. The Navigation tile is placed below the ship tiles, and the beginning three Landscape tiles are placed in a row beside it. The small stack of Objective cards are shuffled and placed nearby, with the player drawing one to begin. They also draw two Landscape to start. For solo play, one Alexis difficulty card is chosen, and his deck of Explore and Land cards is built accordingly. The Prestige (VP) tokens are (apparently when I play) just thrown on the table and gathered in a loose pile. The game may now begin!
Small Islands is played over four rounds, with several turns being played per round. The solo player begins each round with their turn. A turn is divided into three phases: Preparation, Exploration, Reward. The Preparation phase has the player populating the Navigation Tile with six Landscape tiles face-down as a draw stack. The player then draws two Objective cards to add to their one they are currently holding. From these three cards the player will choose one to become their current objective for the round, one to be saved for a future round, and one to be discarded back to the stack. These Objective cards provide a strategy to guide the player through the current round, and also setup future rounds for scoring purposes. Upon them are icons that will award the player with points for scoring islands containing specific combinations of resources.
During the Exploration phase in the solo game, the player takes their turn first, and then Alexis will take his. A typical Exploration phase has a player deciding if they will Explore a tile or Land a ship. To Explore a tile, the player chooses one of the face-up Landscape tiles from the market/offer row and, along with their two held tiles, choose one to add to the play area. These tiles may be rotated in any fashion, as long as they can be legally placed: island edges are to be extended, sea spaces connected, et al. It is also at this time the player may place one of their Bonus Tokens upon any tile on the play area. These Bonus Tokens are resource icons that cover up existing icons on a tile, or directly over another Bonus Token. A player would do this in order to affect the balance of icons on a given island for scoring purposes.
Should the Navigation tile be empty of Landscape tiles and the player wish, they may instead Land a ship, thus ending the Exploration phase. The player chooses any of the ship tiles, and places it legally on the play area (in a sea space, as shown below). Once the player ends the phase, the game progresses to the Reward phase.
After the player takes their turn during the Exploration phase, Alexis takes his turn. This is done by drawing an Expedition card from his stack and following its instructions. The Expedition card will show whether Alexis would like to Explore or Land, which Landscape tile he would like to draw, and where he would like to place it – in relation to where the last player tile was placed.
During the Reward phase, the player will place any of their clan houseeples they wish on any island upon which they have not placed a houseeple previously. Then, consulting their Objective card, score points for successfully satisfying the card’s requirements. For Alexis, the player will draw a new Expedition card from Alexis’s stack, note the icons present on the Mission area of the card, and place Alexis houseeples upon islands that satisfy its requirements.
The game continues in this fashion until the fourth round is complete. The player totals their Prestige points (VP) and if they score more than Alexis, they win! The player must then take a picture of their archipelago they built and send it to the designer directly and gloat to them about their massive victory. Or simply rest in the satisfaction of having played the game well. Whichever.
Components. This game has a lot of components, and they are mostly cardboard and houseeples. The cardstock and board are good quality, as I have come to expect from Lucky Duck Games, and the houseeples are all different shapes for each clan color. I find that a nice and unnecessary, but very cool, touch. The art in this one is simply amazing. I mean, look at these photos! Everything from the color scheme to the art style all mesh well and give a well-considered polish to a great theme.
Okay, I won’t even hide it – I LOOOOOOVE this game. I never really liked Carcassonne very much, but Small Islands gives a similar feel, but executes everything so much better. Even with the solo rules. There are so many options available at any one time, and having a random Alexis game each time you play is just so satisfying. I feel like I could keep this game forever and not play the same game twice. Ever. And I think that I would WANT to play this one forever. Yes, I think this is a solid fit for my collection indeed, and I can see it working for so many different gamer types.
Having Alexis constantly applying the pressure to maximize and strategize every turn is delicious, and having almost zero conflict with him as we both explore is welcome. You know when you start the game how many points Alexis will score at the end of the game, so having that knowledge really makes you consider all the options available. It just works on so many levels.
If you are looking for a light-hearted, but with some great decisions to be made, then I strongly urge you to check out Small Islands. I knew immediately that this was a game for me. It’s on the lighter side without being too simple, I get to build a thing and admire it at the end of the game, and I have an opponent who just wants to see me win because he designed the game! I’m in and out in less than an hour and feel content that I was able to have a great experience with a well-designed game. I cannot wait to introduce this to all my friends and family gamers so they can fall in love with it as well.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Ben-Hur (2016) in Movies
Feb 20, 2019
Who thought it was a good idea to remake Ben-Hur? Well, on paper, it would seem to be a possibility. Ben-Hur has been hitting our cinema screens since 1907, with three other theatrical versions before this one; a short silent effort in 1907, the 1925 silent epic and the blockbusting MGM epic from 1959.
But this follows stage plays, TV movies and even animated movies, all based on General Lee Wallace's 1880 novel of the same name. But if a comparison is to be made, let us focus on the 1959 Charlton Heston movie. That, which ran for over three and half hours, takes its time to establish characters and situations, then takes us on a journey across the Roman Empire as we follow the turmoil of Judah Ben-Hur, betrayed by his best friend, a Roman who he considered to be a brother.
This journey takes place and parallels the life and ultimate execution of Jesus Christ and with this parallel, Judah is gradually inspired to temper his vengeance against his friend turned enemy and after the famous chariot race and the hollow victory therein, he will witness the crucifixion and through several machinations, find solace in the fledgling Christian movement.
So, how does this version hold up? To the 1959 version; not very well. This two-hour action movie is centred around the chariot race from start to finish, something which happens in the second act of the 1959 version but this is NOT the conclusion, but a catalyst for the finale.
Here, even though the events play out in a similar fashion, they are rushed and none of the character moments are earned. It is as if the film was pitched soley on the concept of showing an action packed chariot race in the 21st century.
If you want to see a modern interpretation of this race, possibly cinema's greatest such sequence, then look at Star Wars: Episode I's Podrace which captures the spirit perfectly. The positioning of this race and its significance to the plot was the same in the 1925 version as well, yet the fifteen minute 1907 short pretty much cherry picked the same plot elements as this 2016 version, which is quite telling really.
There was little interest in the story, just a cynical desire to bring this iconic movie back to the big screen and milk it as they would any franchise. But Ben-Hur is a poisoned chalice, so iconic that it would have to have offered something new without losing the original feel to succeed, as this classic simply did not warrant a remake.
But if you are going to remake it, give it a mega budget, which they did not, an all star cast, again, not the case and bring on board a top director to lead this project.
Instead we have a cast of relative unknowns, with Morgan Freeman being the most notable cast member, the director of such movies as Wanted (2007) and a small budget of just $100,000,000, when a blockbuster these days is usually pushing $200,000,000.
The main selling point for the previous two Ben-Hurs was the scale. These were epics and pushed the technology, filmmaking styles and never shied away from the strong religious overtones. Here it looks like it is given little more than lip service hoping to pander to the religious right.
It failed. Darren Aronofsky's Noah (2013) made more of an impact and it divided audiences, but at least it was faithful to itself, pushed boundaries and left its mark on cinema.
But by the end, my jaw was literally on the floor as the maimed Massalia reconciled with Judah and the pair ride off into the sunset together, all forgiven....
WHAT!!!
And more importantly, what was the point? Jesus sacrified himself, (in the story) so that people like Judah would put down their swords and learn to forgive, yet in the end, Judah and Massalia sacrifice nothing as they both regain their friendship and live happily ever after. In the previous versions, Ben-Hur beat Massalia but he has the last laugh as his mother and sister have been left with leprosy, that is until Jesus' death sparks a miracle which cures them. This was his reward for seeing the error of his ways, not getting his family and his friend back.
In the end, this is not a bad action romp, very watchable and is an entertaining spectacle but ultimately forgettable. It will entertain for two hours but leaves you with nothing to think about, unlike the books, plays and films which have preceded this.
A real shame...
But this follows stage plays, TV movies and even animated movies, all based on General Lee Wallace's 1880 novel of the same name. But if a comparison is to be made, let us focus on the 1959 Charlton Heston movie. That, which ran for over three and half hours, takes its time to establish characters and situations, then takes us on a journey across the Roman Empire as we follow the turmoil of Judah Ben-Hur, betrayed by his best friend, a Roman who he considered to be a brother.
This journey takes place and parallels the life and ultimate execution of Jesus Christ and with this parallel, Judah is gradually inspired to temper his vengeance against his friend turned enemy and after the famous chariot race and the hollow victory therein, he will witness the crucifixion and through several machinations, find solace in the fledgling Christian movement.
So, how does this version hold up? To the 1959 version; not very well. This two-hour action movie is centred around the chariot race from start to finish, something which happens in the second act of the 1959 version but this is NOT the conclusion, but a catalyst for the finale.
Here, even though the events play out in a similar fashion, they are rushed and none of the character moments are earned. It is as if the film was pitched soley on the concept of showing an action packed chariot race in the 21st century.
If you want to see a modern interpretation of this race, possibly cinema's greatest such sequence, then look at Star Wars: Episode I's Podrace which captures the spirit perfectly. The positioning of this race and its significance to the plot was the same in the 1925 version as well, yet the fifteen minute 1907 short pretty much cherry picked the same plot elements as this 2016 version, which is quite telling really.
There was little interest in the story, just a cynical desire to bring this iconic movie back to the big screen and milk it as they would any franchise. But Ben-Hur is a poisoned chalice, so iconic that it would have to have offered something new without losing the original feel to succeed, as this classic simply did not warrant a remake.
But if you are going to remake it, give it a mega budget, which they did not, an all star cast, again, not the case and bring on board a top director to lead this project.
Instead we have a cast of relative unknowns, with Morgan Freeman being the most notable cast member, the director of such movies as Wanted (2007) and a small budget of just $100,000,000, when a blockbuster these days is usually pushing $200,000,000.
The main selling point for the previous two Ben-Hurs was the scale. These were epics and pushed the technology, filmmaking styles and never shied away from the strong religious overtones. Here it looks like it is given little more than lip service hoping to pander to the religious right.
It failed. Darren Aronofsky's Noah (2013) made more of an impact and it divided audiences, but at least it was faithful to itself, pushed boundaries and left its mark on cinema.
But by the end, my jaw was literally on the floor as the maimed Massalia reconciled with Judah and the pair ride off into the sunset together, all forgiven....
WHAT!!!
And more importantly, what was the point? Jesus sacrified himself, (in the story) so that people like Judah would put down their swords and learn to forgive, yet in the end, Judah and Massalia sacrifice nothing as they both regain their friendship and live happily ever after. In the previous versions, Ben-Hur beat Massalia but he has the last laugh as his mother and sister have been left with leprosy, that is until Jesus' death sparks a miracle which cures them. This was his reward for seeing the error of his ways, not getting his family and his friend back.
In the end, this is not a bad action romp, very watchable and is an entertaining spectacle but ultimately forgettable. It will entertain for two hours but leaves you with nothing to think about, unlike the books, plays and films which have preceded this.
A real shame...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Cold Pursuit (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Neeson's best film in years
Yes, we all know the jokes. Liam Neeson’s spiral into revenge thriller territory is one of the most meme-worthy things in film, except maybe John Travolta and Battlefield Earth. Starting with Taken and its, let’s be honest, dreadful sequels, the Irish actor has made a name for himself as the go-to guy to rough someone up after a spate of bad-luck.
He’s had kids killed, kidnapped and spouses murdered in cold blood, he’s even been framed for hijacking a jumbo jet – if anyone deserves a break, it’s Liam Neeson. Unfortunately, his films have ranged from great (Taken, Non-Stop), to middling (Run All Night, The Commuter), to downright dreadful (Taken 2, Taken 3) and that’s how the meme-worthiness was born. Nevertheless, Neeson is back for yet another revenge thriller in Cold Pursuit. But how does it stack up?
Nels Coxman’s (Neeson) quiet life as a snowplough driver comes crashing down when his beloved son (Micheál Richardson) dies under mysterious circumstances. His search for the truth soon becomes a quest for revenge against a psychotic drug lord named Viking (Tom Bateman) and his sleazy henchmen. Transformed from upstanding citizen to cold-blooded vigilante, Coxman unwittingly sets off a chain of events that includes a kidnapping, a series of deadly misunderstandings and a turf war between Viking and a rival boss called White Bull.
Let’s get the elephant in the room out of the way first. This is not a review biased by Neeson’s, shall we say, ill-worded rant on his former life. We all have our own opinions on the matter, but that should not detract from individuals going to see a movie in the cinema. In fact, Cold Pursuit is Neeson’s most accomplished film in years, helped by stylish directing from Swedish director Hans Petter Moland. It’s worth noting that Cold Pursuit is in fact a US remake of Swedish film, In Order of Disappearance and there’s a tasteful nod to the film’s roots in the end-credits.
With a dark, comedic edge, Cold Pursuit is as funny as much as it is gory and it is this hybridity of genres that remains the film’s trump card. The script, penned by Moland himself, is witty and sharp, filled with fantastic line-delivery by the entire cast who look like they’re having a cracking time. There are twists and turns and even a gay-romantic subplot – how very contemporary.
Apart from Neeson, Tom Bateman is an absolute stand-out as the film’s primary antagonist. Allowing him to be a presence in the film from the outset allows the audience to fully feel his character and there’s no doubt that he is a despicable human-being. Neeson performs in typical Liam Neeson fashion. He snarls and growls his way through the film but allows a softer side to creep in than we’re used to, helped in part by that comedic script.
Revenge thrillers rarely have the budget for flashy CGI or top-notch practical effects but Cold Pursuit is one of the better in the genre
It’s not perfect however. Laura Dern is a massively underused presence throughout and disappears completely from the film about 1-hour in with no other references to her character. This is a real shame as her chemistry with Neeson is good and they make a believable couple, especially when they’re dealing with the ramifications of their son’s death.
Dern continues to prove her acting prowess and it would have been nice to see her continue to be a feature throughout the film. The pacing is a little off too. At 118 minutes long, the film plods a little as it gets going and then doesn’t stop until the fun and entirely ridiculous finale.
However, it’s good to see the special effects are up to scratch for the genre. Revenge thrillers rarely have the budget for flashy CGI or top-notch practical effects but Cold Pursuit is one of the better in the genre. With a relatively modest budget of $60million, it appears that was well spent with clever editing and cinematography masking any less-than-stellar visuals.
Overall, Cold Pursuit is a fun, if forgettable revenge thriller that features some delicious dark comedy mixed with an intriguing story. It’s certainly Neeson’s best film since Non-Stopand marks a return to form for the Irish actor. Unfortunately, these type of flicks are ten-a-penny nowadays and I’m unsure whether snappy one-liners and beautiful snow-capped peaks are enough to differentiate it in a crowded marketplace.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/03/01/cold-pursuit-review-neesons-best-film-in-years/
He’s had kids killed, kidnapped and spouses murdered in cold blood, he’s even been framed for hijacking a jumbo jet – if anyone deserves a break, it’s Liam Neeson. Unfortunately, his films have ranged from great (Taken, Non-Stop), to middling (Run All Night, The Commuter), to downright dreadful (Taken 2, Taken 3) and that’s how the meme-worthiness was born. Nevertheless, Neeson is back for yet another revenge thriller in Cold Pursuit. But how does it stack up?
Nels Coxman’s (Neeson) quiet life as a snowplough driver comes crashing down when his beloved son (Micheál Richardson) dies under mysterious circumstances. His search for the truth soon becomes a quest for revenge against a psychotic drug lord named Viking (Tom Bateman) and his sleazy henchmen. Transformed from upstanding citizen to cold-blooded vigilante, Coxman unwittingly sets off a chain of events that includes a kidnapping, a series of deadly misunderstandings and a turf war between Viking and a rival boss called White Bull.
Let’s get the elephant in the room out of the way first. This is not a review biased by Neeson’s, shall we say, ill-worded rant on his former life. We all have our own opinions on the matter, but that should not detract from individuals going to see a movie in the cinema. In fact, Cold Pursuit is Neeson’s most accomplished film in years, helped by stylish directing from Swedish director Hans Petter Moland. It’s worth noting that Cold Pursuit is in fact a US remake of Swedish film, In Order of Disappearance and there’s a tasteful nod to the film’s roots in the end-credits.
With a dark, comedic edge, Cold Pursuit is as funny as much as it is gory and it is this hybridity of genres that remains the film’s trump card. The script, penned by Moland himself, is witty and sharp, filled with fantastic line-delivery by the entire cast who look like they’re having a cracking time. There are twists and turns and even a gay-romantic subplot – how very contemporary.
Apart from Neeson, Tom Bateman is an absolute stand-out as the film’s primary antagonist. Allowing him to be a presence in the film from the outset allows the audience to fully feel his character and there’s no doubt that he is a despicable human-being. Neeson performs in typical Liam Neeson fashion. He snarls and growls his way through the film but allows a softer side to creep in than we’re used to, helped in part by that comedic script.
Revenge thrillers rarely have the budget for flashy CGI or top-notch practical effects but Cold Pursuit is one of the better in the genre
It’s not perfect however. Laura Dern is a massively underused presence throughout and disappears completely from the film about 1-hour in with no other references to her character. This is a real shame as her chemistry with Neeson is good and they make a believable couple, especially when they’re dealing with the ramifications of their son’s death.
Dern continues to prove her acting prowess and it would have been nice to see her continue to be a feature throughout the film. The pacing is a little off too. At 118 minutes long, the film plods a little as it gets going and then doesn’t stop until the fun and entirely ridiculous finale.
However, it’s good to see the special effects are up to scratch for the genre. Revenge thrillers rarely have the budget for flashy CGI or top-notch practical effects but Cold Pursuit is one of the better in the genre. With a relatively modest budget of $60million, it appears that was well spent with clever editing and cinematography masking any less-than-stellar visuals.
Overall, Cold Pursuit is a fun, if forgettable revenge thriller that features some delicious dark comedy mixed with an intriguing story. It’s certainly Neeson’s best film since Non-Stopand marks a return to form for the Irish actor. Unfortunately, these type of flicks are ten-a-penny nowadays and I’m unsure whether snappy one-liners and beautiful snow-capped peaks are enough to differentiate it in a crowded marketplace.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/03/01/cold-pursuit-review-neesons-best-film-in-years/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Avengers: Infinity War (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
An Exhausting Thrill Ride
The Marvel Cinematic Universe has been delighting fans of the comics and thrilling moviegoers since 2008 when Iron Man steamrolled itself onto the big screen in an epic fashion. From the special effects to the casting of Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark, it was the complete package.
The culmination of all those films through Phase One, Phase Two and Three has come to a head in this, Avengers: Infinity War. It promises to be the biggest, baddest and most epic Marvel movie to date, but is it actually any good? Read on to find out.
Directed by Antony and Joe Russo, the masterminds behind the fantastic Captain America sequels, Infinity War picks up just after the end of Thor: Ragnarok. This starting place seems fitting and not jumping too far ahead of the finale of that film is perfect to reintroduce our beloved heroes.
The cast form one of the best ensembles ever put to screen, though from each of their solo outings, this is really no surprise. Seeing Black Panther, Black Widow, Captain America et al come back together is frankly, a joy and the film works best when there are as many heroes on screen together as possible.
A highlight in this instance is Benedict Cumberbatch’s Dr. Strange – prepare to jump on the Steven Strange bandwagon. After a relatively lacklustre solo outing, his character pops on the screen and really benefits from the Russo brothers zingy direction.
As is the case with many films involving such a large cast, much of the 149 minute runtime is spent following a few of them at once, each going about their own mission in relation to stopping Thanos and his possession of the Infinity stones. If I count correctly, there are 3 quests going on at once, but only two are really successful.
Special effects wise, this is a $400million movie, so you know what to expect. For the most part, the CGI from Industrial Light & Magic is seamless and really rather beautiful. The motion capture work done on Josh Brolin to turn him into Thanos is exquisite and the end result is a truly menacing villain. Elsewhere however, there are a few corners cut if you look closely enough, but I’ll leave it down to you to try and spot them.
Focussing on Thanos himself, he proves to be a fitting villain for a film this gargantuan in scale. His towering presence and almost demonic sense of entitlement completely does away with the stereotypical Marvel bad-guy problem that the MCU has been suffering with. Obviously helped massively by Brolin’s incredible performance, Thanos is up there with Loki in terms of sheer entertainment value.
Nevertheless, Avengers: Infinity War is not a perfect film and it would be wrong of me to pretend it was. Despite its massive length, elements do feel rushed from time-to-time and cramming 20+ characters into a film was never going to be a slam dunk. Some moments that should have deep resonance really don’t reach the emotion they were clearly intended to do, and that’s because of the film’s need to tie up as much of the plot as possible. Thankfully, from a tonal perspective, the Russo brothers manage to keep the balance almost perfect and it’s a vast improvement over Joss Whedon’s disjointed Age of Ultron.
My biggest issue with the film however, is the ending. Avengers: Infinity War is not a film you come to the end of and applaud. In fact, the main response from the entire screening of the film I was watching was a collective groan as the end credits begin to roll. Despite the promise that Infinity War would work as a standalone movie; it just doesn’t. It’s very much a starting chapter for what comes next in Avengers 4. But we need to wait just over a year for the concluding chapter to arrive in UK cinemas, and that is incredibly infuriating.
Overall, Avengers: Infinity War is a culmination of everything Marvel has been working towards for a decade. In its favour are an incredible cast, that trademark MCU humour and some stunning action sequences but these are offset by an infuriating ending and a lack of emotional heft to the film’s inevitable darker moments.
This may definitely be the biggest movie in the MCU and it’s definitely the 2nd best Avengers movie, but it’s not quite up there with the very best.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/04/26/avengers-infinity-war-review-an-exhausting-thrill-ride/
The culmination of all those films through Phase One, Phase Two and Three has come to a head in this, Avengers: Infinity War. It promises to be the biggest, baddest and most epic Marvel movie to date, but is it actually any good? Read on to find out.
Directed by Antony and Joe Russo, the masterminds behind the fantastic Captain America sequels, Infinity War picks up just after the end of Thor: Ragnarok. This starting place seems fitting and not jumping too far ahead of the finale of that film is perfect to reintroduce our beloved heroes.
The cast form one of the best ensembles ever put to screen, though from each of their solo outings, this is really no surprise. Seeing Black Panther, Black Widow, Captain America et al come back together is frankly, a joy and the film works best when there are as many heroes on screen together as possible.
A highlight in this instance is Benedict Cumberbatch’s Dr. Strange – prepare to jump on the Steven Strange bandwagon. After a relatively lacklustre solo outing, his character pops on the screen and really benefits from the Russo brothers zingy direction.
As is the case with many films involving such a large cast, much of the 149 minute runtime is spent following a few of them at once, each going about their own mission in relation to stopping Thanos and his possession of the Infinity stones. If I count correctly, there are 3 quests going on at once, but only two are really successful.
Special effects wise, this is a $400million movie, so you know what to expect. For the most part, the CGI from Industrial Light & Magic is seamless and really rather beautiful. The motion capture work done on Josh Brolin to turn him into Thanos is exquisite and the end result is a truly menacing villain. Elsewhere however, there are a few corners cut if you look closely enough, but I’ll leave it down to you to try and spot them.
Focussing on Thanos himself, he proves to be a fitting villain for a film this gargantuan in scale. His towering presence and almost demonic sense of entitlement completely does away with the stereotypical Marvel bad-guy problem that the MCU has been suffering with. Obviously helped massively by Brolin’s incredible performance, Thanos is up there with Loki in terms of sheer entertainment value.
Nevertheless, Avengers: Infinity War is not a perfect film and it would be wrong of me to pretend it was. Despite its massive length, elements do feel rushed from time-to-time and cramming 20+ characters into a film was never going to be a slam dunk. Some moments that should have deep resonance really don’t reach the emotion they were clearly intended to do, and that’s because of the film’s need to tie up as much of the plot as possible. Thankfully, from a tonal perspective, the Russo brothers manage to keep the balance almost perfect and it’s a vast improvement over Joss Whedon’s disjointed Age of Ultron.
My biggest issue with the film however, is the ending. Avengers: Infinity War is not a film you come to the end of and applaud. In fact, the main response from the entire screening of the film I was watching was a collective groan as the end credits begin to roll. Despite the promise that Infinity War would work as a standalone movie; it just doesn’t. It’s very much a starting chapter for what comes next in Avengers 4. But we need to wait just over a year for the concluding chapter to arrive in UK cinemas, and that is incredibly infuriating.
Overall, Avengers: Infinity War is a culmination of everything Marvel has been working towards for a decade. In its favour are an incredible cast, that trademark MCU humour and some stunning action sequences but these are offset by an infuriating ending and a lack of emotional heft to the film’s inevitable darker moments.
This may definitely be the biggest movie in the MCU and it’s definitely the 2nd best Avengers movie, but it’s not quite up there with the very best.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/04/26/avengers-infinity-war-review-an-exhausting-thrill-ride/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Michael Bay had a lot to prove with the third instalment of his big bot franchise. The scathing reviews of Revenge of the Fallen from nearly every critic who went to see it proved that even giant robots aren’t safe from the picky eyes of the global audience. Now, I may get lambasted for this but I preferred number 2 to number 1, so let’s see if number 3 can impress.
Here, Bay returns to helm the latest addition: Dark of the Moon, it’s a good film nonetheless but it’s sci-fi themes, more so than in either of the previous offerings fail to provide enough impact to make it the best in the series.
Transformers: Dark of the Moon picks up three years after the last film and a lot has changed. Sam Witwicky again played by the fantastic Shia LeBeouf is now living in Washington, envious of his new girlfriend Carly Spencer and her fabulous lifestyle. Carly, played by newcomer Rosie Huntington-Whitely is about as wooden as a character can get; Whitely’s performance is very laboured and her on screen scenes suffer as a result; she’s a disappointment in a film that doesn’t really require it’s characters to do much; so that shows how bad she actually is.
Megan Fox is actually missed this time around, but it’s not too much of a problem because Rosie’s character is given exactly the same clothes, the same pout and practically the same lines.
Michael Bay has also lined up the legendary John Malkovich as Sam’s troubled new boss, his screen time is worth a watch but he feels wasted considering his lines amount to about 10 minutes of screen time. Patrick Dempsey also stars as good guy gone back; Dylan Gould.
The special effects coupled with the fantastic 3D make Transformers 3 a spectacle to watch, the bots are seamlessly integrated into the picture alongside their human counterparts and deliver once again, these films really are the pinnacle now for special effects.
Bay has managed to fashion a half coherent story out of the toy franchise which many critics were sceptical of, but it works really well. The film focuses on the space race of the 60’s and the reasons why the US wanted to beat everyone to the moon. In short, the Decepticons are looking for something that crash-landed on the moon; if they find it, then Cybertron will be reborn, using Earth as a template; oh no!
The last hour is just carnage, carnage, carnage as the entire city of Chicago is plunged into a post-apocalyptic world where the Decepticons rule and the Autobots are, alongside humans as slaves. Here, Bay really showcases his prowess for stunning cinematography and first class special effects, one scene in particular, involving a glass skyscraper is particularly awe-inspiring.
Speaking of the robots themselves, all the favourites return with their fantastic voice acting. Peter Cullen delivers Optimus Prime in his usual, gruff manner and a welcome addition is Star Trek’s Leonard Nimoy as veteran Autobot leader Sentinel Prime. Hugo Weaving also returns as a rough looking Megatron.
The problem that blights Transformers 3 is that there’s too much going on. I found myself lost in parts of the story because the film is constantly rushing to get to the next plot line. It’s frustrating that a film franchise criticised for its lack of story is penalised for having too much of one this time around, but this is the case here. As such, some of the best characters don’t get screen time. Josh Duhamel is only in the film for 5 minutes at a time, whilst Sam’s parents only get brief appearances which is a tragic shame as they are, all in all, the best human characters in the franchise.
Overall, Transformers has become one of my favourite film franchises of all time; it delivers on its promise and doesn’t pretend it’s going to be something else. Yes, they’re far too long (this one is just short of 3 hours), they’re exceptionally loud and mind-numbingly obnoxious but that’s what you should want from an action film. Transformers 3 delivers, and it delivers it like a smack in the face; but it falls down in a couple of areas where the others didn’t.
Michael Bay is a very talented film director who gives the best out of everything, but in response to his critics from the last movie, he has developed too much of the story and as such, it feels disjointed and ultimately a little disappointing.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/07/07/transformers-dark-of-the-moon-2011/
Here, Bay returns to helm the latest addition: Dark of the Moon, it’s a good film nonetheless but it’s sci-fi themes, more so than in either of the previous offerings fail to provide enough impact to make it the best in the series.
Transformers: Dark of the Moon picks up three years after the last film and a lot has changed. Sam Witwicky again played by the fantastic Shia LeBeouf is now living in Washington, envious of his new girlfriend Carly Spencer and her fabulous lifestyle. Carly, played by newcomer Rosie Huntington-Whitely is about as wooden as a character can get; Whitely’s performance is very laboured and her on screen scenes suffer as a result; she’s a disappointment in a film that doesn’t really require it’s characters to do much; so that shows how bad she actually is.
Megan Fox is actually missed this time around, but it’s not too much of a problem because Rosie’s character is given exactly the same clothes, the same pout and practically the same lines.
Michael Bay has also lined up the legendary John Malkovich as Sam’s troubled new boss, his screen time is worth a watch but he feels wasted considering his lines amount to about 10 minutes of screen time. Patrick Dempsey also stars as good guy gone back; Dylan Gould.
The special effects coupled with the fantastic 3D make Transformers 3 a spectacle to watch, the bots are seamlessly integrated into the picture alongside their human counterparts and deliver once again, these films really are the pinnacle now for special effects.
Bay has managed to fashion a half coherent story out of the toy franchise which many critics were sceptical of, but it works really well. The film focuses on the space race of the 60’s and the reasons why the US wanted to beat everyone to the moon. In short, the Decepticons are looking for something that crash-landed on the moon; if they find it, then Cybertron will be reborn, using Earth as a template; oh no!
The last hour is just carnage, carnage, carnage as the entire city of Chicago is plunged into a post-apocalyptic world where the Decepticons rule and the Autobots are, alongside humans as slaves. Here, Bay really showcases his prowess for stunning cinematography and first class special effects, one scene in particular, involving a glass skyscraper is particularly awe-inspiring.
Speaking of the robots themselves, all the favourites return with their fantastic voice acting. Peter Cullen delivers Optimus Prime in his usual, gruff manner and a welcome addition is Star Trek’s Leonard Nimoy as veteran Autobot leader Sentinel Prime. Hugo Weaving also returns as a rough looking Megatron.
The problem that blights Transformers 3 is that there’s too much going on. I found myself lost in parts of the story because the film is constantly rushing to get to the next plot line. It’s frustrating that a film franchise criticised for its lack of story is penalised for having too much of one this time around, but this is the case here. As such, some of the best characters don’t get screen time. Josh Duhamel is only in the film for 5 minutes at a time, whilst Sam’s parents only get brief appearances which is a tragic shame as they are, all in all, the best human characters in the franchise.
Overall, Transformers has become one of my favourite film franchises of all time; it delivers on its promise and doesn’t pretend it’s going to be something else. Yes, they’re far too long (this one is just short of 3 hours), they’re exceptionally loud and mind-numbingly obnoxious but that’s what you should want from an action film. Transformers 3 delivers, and it delivers it like a smack in the face; but it falls down in a couple of areas where the others didn’t.
Michael Bay is a very talented film director who gives the best out of everything, but in response to his critics from the last movie, he has developed too much of the story and as such, it feels disjointed and ultimately a little disappointing.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/07/07/transformers-dark-of-the-moon-2011/
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Emma in the Night in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Cassandra Tanner and her sister, Emma, disappeared on the same night three years ago. Cass was fifteen and her lovely, enigmatic older sister seventeen. Suddenly, Cass shows up on her mother's doorstep, desperately begging her family to find Emma, whom she claims is being against her will on a remote island in Maine. Immediately, the FBI is called back to the case, including forensic psychiatrist Abby Winter, who has been haunted by the investigation since Emma and Cass went missing. Abby had a lot of theories about Emma and Cass' case--and saw similarities in their mother to her own--but kept most of these thoughts to herself. But now that Cass is back, with a story that doesn't completely add up, Abby realizes she might not be so off track after all. And that there might be a lot more to Emma and Cass' disappearance then everyone thinks.
This book is a tough one for me. It started off in great fashion--completely sucking me in. It's an interesting novel, as in some ways it seems like a rather straightforward tale of two missing girls, but it's also incredibly puzzling and keeps you guessing from the start. I think my brow was probably actually furrowed as I was reading. It's hard to trust <i>anyone</i> in this novel, or know who to believe, and that has you frantically turning pages, trying to figure out what on earth is the actual truth.
The story flips between Cass' point of view and that of Abby's. I was intrigued by Cass' story, though not particularly attached to her and while I sympathized with Abby, wasn't really drawn to her as a character, either. I actually sort of wanted to rush through her sections so I could get back to Cass and what was actually happening (or had happened) to her, and by proxy, Emma.
Make no mistake--the Tanner/Martin family saga is a twisted one. This book will shock and bewilder you--this is not a nice set of characters. Emma and Cass' mother is hateful and downright despicable, as are many of the supporting characters. Even Emma--via stories--is tough to care for at times. The premise is that Ms. Martin, the mother, has narcissistic personality disorder--the same disorder that affected Abby's mother as well. At first, this works, as you're shocked by the treatment of Emma and Cass and what it's done to each girl.
But, admittedly, after a while, I grew a little weary of this plot device. The disorder and its effects are explained repeatedly. If Walker could have explained it and moved on, I would have enjoyed the novel a lot more. I found myself skimming over some of the repetitive psychological descriptions, so I could get on with the story. As the story continues, the family almost seems <i>too</i> fractured and horrible; I was shocked at the continuing tale of horror regarding her mother, stepfather, stepbrother, and sister that Cass kept weaving. Goodness--they come across as diabolical, but not real.
I actually really enjoyed Walker's previous novel, <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/26114146-all-is-not-forgotten">ALL IS NOT FORGOTTEN</a> - particularly because the ending lived up to the earlier parts of the novel and shocked me. Here, I am pretty sure the intent was the same, but it didn't quite pan out. By the time we reached the end, I was tired of the psychological drama and ramblings. I hadn't exactly figured out what had happened--I'll definitely give Walker that--but I knew something was up. I also felt so much of all of this could have been avoided from the start by Cass, but I won't go into that for spoilers sake.
So, alas. As I started this one, I really thought it was going to be a novel that I was going to recommend to everyone. By the end, I was a bit let down. I'll go with 3 stars overall, since it certainly did keep me flipping the pages.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!); it is available everywhere as of 08/08/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.instagram.com/justacatandabook/">Instagram</a>; </center>
This book is a tough one for me. It started off in great fashion--completely sucking me in. It's an interesting novel, as in some ways it seems like a rather straightforward tale of two missing girls, but it's also incredibly puzzling and keeps you guessing from the start. I think my brow was probably actually furrowed as I was reading. It's hard to trust <i>anyone</i> in this novel, or know who to believe, and that has you frantically turning pages, trying to figure out what on earth is the actual truth.
The story flips between Cass' point of view and that of Abby's. I was intrigued by Cass' story, though not particularly attached to her and while I sympathized with Abby, wasn't really drawn to her as a character, either. I actually sort of wanted to rush through her sections so I could get back to Cass and what was actually happening (or had happened) to her, and by proxy, Emma.
Make no mistake--the Tanner/Martin family saga is a twisted one. This book will shock and bewilder you--this is not a nice set of characters. Emma and Cass' mother is hateful and downright despicable, as are many of the supporting characters. Even Emma--via stories--is tough to care for at times. The premise is that Ms. Martin, the mother, has narcissistic personality disorder--the same disorder that affected Abby's mother as well. At first, this works, as you're shocked by the treatment of Emma and Cass and what it's done to each girl.
But, admittedly, after a while, I grew a little weary of this plot device. The disorder and its effects are explained repeatedly. If Walker could have explained it and moved on, I would have enjoyed the novel a lot more. I found myself skimming over some of the repetitive psychological descriptions, so I could get on with the story. As the story continues, the family almost seems <i>too</i> fractured and horrible; I was shocked at the continuing tale of horror regarding her mother, stepfather, stepbrother, and sister that Cass kept weaving. Goodness--they come across as diabolical, but not real.
I actually really enjoyed Walker's previous novel, <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/26114146-all-is-not-forgotten">ALL IS NOT FORGOTTEN</a> - particularly because the ending lived up to the earlier parts of the novel and shocked me. Here, I am pretty sure the intent was the same, but it didn't quite pan out. By the time we reached the end, I was tired of the psychological drama and ramblings. I hadn't exactly figured out what had happened--I'll definitely give Walker that--but I knew something was up. I also felt so much of all of this could have been avoided from the start by Cass, but I won't go into that for spoilers sake.
So, alas. As I started this one, I really thought it was going to be a novel that I was going to recommend to everyone. By the end, I was a bit let down. I'll go with 3 stars overall, since it certainly did keep me flipping the pages.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!); it is available everywhere as of 08/08/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.instagram.com/justacatandabook/">Instagram</a>; </center>
Andy Meakin (5 KP) rated Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2018
Welcome back to Jumanji
How dare they make a sequel/remake/reboot of Jumanji? I mean that film was a classic. Admittedly a very average classic that doesn’t really live up to your childhood memory of it, but still. And, yeah, Zathura was a kind of remake given it was adapted from a book by the same writer and explored the same themes, but nobody watched that, so how dare they do a new Jumanji film? I mean it’s only 22 years since the original came out!
Do you find yourself agreeing with any of that little rant? If you do, then I have a few things to say. First, accept that for thousands of years similar tales have been retold to new generations to keep the spirit of a story alive. Second, why not actually wait to see what the new film has to offer before casting judgement as Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle actually serves well as a sequel to the first film, whilst doing something new with the idea.
Starting in the mid-90s, and the board game is unearthed on a beach. Given to a teenage kid by his father, the kid isn’t impressed as ‘nobody plays board games these days’, and he gets back to playing on his console. Overnight, reacting to the changes in gaming culture the box works some magic, and the next day the game has morphed to a video game format, to entice a new generation. Jump forward to present day and a group of unlikely teenagers are cast together in detention when they happen upon the abandoned game console. Taking a break from their junk-room sorting, they fire up the game and find themselves pulled into the game -world, each taking on the avatar of the character template they chose on load up. Presented with a quest in true video-game fashion, they set off to find a way to escape, whilst learning something about themselves in the process.
By transitioning to a video-game setting, the story allows for a great deal of fun to be had poking at the contrivances and conventions of the format, especially for games of the era in which the game was inspired. The characters all have strengths and weaknesses, the spawning of lives by dropping from the sky is so reminiscent of many a side-scrolling platform shooter of yesteryear. Even the behaviour of the NPC – I mean support cast – is perfectly drawn upon the mannerisms that game characters act, being there to spout random exposition to move you on your quest. As for the quests – yep, they are pointlessly complicated, filled with traps and red herrings.
But such pokes at video game culture would be wasted if the casting was wrong, but in the four main stars they have cast the perfect personae for each archetype. The heroic, strong and smouldering hero, who is being played by a soft heated geek – The Rock of course. You want a ‘Lara Croft’ style action heroine, albeit played by a socially awkward teen girl – enter Karen Gillan. Weak sidekick who is only there to carry equipment, but being played by a high school jock who thinks he can do anything – Kevin Hart is your man. Round that off with a studious professor type, being played by a female – that kind of comic role works well for Jack Black. Each of the stars cast has a lot of fun playing with there archetypes, and the film does them all justice to allow them to each have their moments to shine. Gillan, in particular, does a great job at looking entirely awkward yet confident at the same time, and her nerdy seduction scene showcases a comic timing ability equal to her action talents showcased in the GotG films.
The action is thrilling, the humour well placed, and the direction solid enough to bring this video game movie to life. In fact, this is one of the best video game movies to date, even though it isn’t even adapted from a real video game. A few nods to the original Jumanji are present, but without awkwardly placed. The end result is a fun family adventure with some great action set pieces and a wry humour, much like the original was. Don’t let nostalgia for the original put you off exploring the world of Jumanji once more.
Do you find yourself agreeing with any of that little rant? If you do, then I have a few things to say. First, accept that for thousands of years similar tales have been retold to new generations to keep the spirit of a story alive. Second, why not actually wait to see what the new film has to offer before casting judgement as Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle actually serves well as a sequel to the first film, whilst doing something new with the idea.
Starting in the mid-90s, and the board game is unearthed on a beach. Given to a teenage kid by his father, the kid isn’t impressed as ‘nobody plays board games these days’, and he gets back to playing on his console. Overnight, reacting to the changes in gaming culture the box works some magic, and the next day the game has morphed to a video game format, to entice a new generation. Jump forward to present day and a group of unlikely teenagers are cast together in detention when they happen upon the abandoned game console. Taking a break from their junk-room sorting, they fire up the game and find themselves pulled into the game -world, each taking on the avatar of the character template they chose on load up. Presented with a quest in true video-game fashion, they set off to find a way to escape, whilst learning something about themselves in the process.
By transitioning to a video-game setting, the story allows for a great deal of fun to be had poking at the contrivances and conventions of the format, especially for games of the era in which the game was inspired. The characters all have strengths and weaknesses, the spawning of lives by dropping from the sky is so reminiscent of many a side-scrolling platform shooter of yesteryear. Even the behaviour of the NPC – I mean support cast – is perfectly drawn upon the mannerisms that game characters act, being there to spout random exposition to move you on your quest. As for the quests – yep, they are pointlessly complicated, filled with traps and red herrings.
But such pokes at video game culture would be wasted if the casting was wrong, but in the four main stars they have cast the perfect personae for each archetype. The heroic, strong and smouldering hero, who is being played by a soft heated geek – The Rock of course. You want a ‘Lara Croft’ style action heroine, albeit played by a socially awkward teen girl – enter Karen Gillan. Weak sidekick who is only there to carry equipment, but being played by a high school jock who thinks he can do anything – Kevin Hart is your man. Round that off with a studious professor type, being played by a female – that kind of comic role works well for Jack Black. Each of the stars cast has a lot of fun playing with there archetypes, and the film does them all justice to allow them to each have their moments to shine. Gillan, in particular, does a great job at looking entirely awkward yet confident at the same time, and her nerdy seduction scene showcases a comic timing ability equal to her action talents showcased in the GotG films.
The action is thrilling, the humour well placed, and the direction solid enough to bring this video game movie to life. In fact, this is one of the best video game movies to date, even though it isn’t even adapted from a real video game. A few nods to the original Jumanji are present, but without awkwardly placed. The end result is a fun family adventure with some great action set pieces and a wry humour, much like the original was. Don’t let nostalgia for the original put you off exploring the world of Jumanji once more.
Alice (12 KP) rated Summoned (Summoned, #1) in Books
Jul 3, 2018
<em>Summoned</em> follows a 23-year-old genie named Dimitri - who, in typical genie fashion - is bound by his master to fulfill wishes. The twist is that Dimitri's master isn't limited to just 3 but has no limit.
The story opens with Dimitri fulfilling a kidnapping request followed by his inevitable rest period directly after - where he meets Syd in a dive bar. From there the story just gets a little weird - Dimitri takes Syd home and they end up having sex literally right away (nothing against it cause whatever floats your boat right?) But it was practically as soon as they got in Dimitri's house.
For a book that generally is considered fantasy with a bit of romance thrown in there's an awful lot of sex and it's rushed sex - almost as if the author felt a little weird writing the scenes - Syd is all kinds of crazy stalker as well, like she steals his number from his phone, turns up on his doorstep unannounced and threatens to slash his tires kinda crazy.
<h2 style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #f6c7b7;">∞</span></h2>
The master - Karl - is an millionaire arse. I have nothing good to say about him whatsoever. Generally, Dimitri can rest for a day or two before Karl makes another wish but Karl starts to make make a new wish every day - Silvia is Karl's daughter and she screams spoiled rich girl who wants to breed with Dimitri - her inheritance.
It's all kinds of messed up.
Dimitri does a job for Karl and goes home to rest only to get a call from Stalker Syd going a little crazy on him for abandoning her - I forgot to mention that when Karl wants a wish he summons Dimitri to a chamber - the following day after yet more rushed sex Karl has another wish for Dimitri where he has to steal a safe - only he <em>fails</em>.
When Dimitri fails to fulfill a wish the buzz in his head grows and he ends up getting a really bad migraine until he fulfills his wish or pigs fly and Karl recant the wish.
<h2 style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #f6c7b7;">∞</span></h2>
Syd is all kinds of crazy. I don't think much of her character at all, it's like she's got her heart invested after a one night stand and then goes crazy everyone Dimitri doesn't do what she expects him to do.
<blockquote>"You're just gone so much." Syd's voice sounds so empty and hollow. "I never really know when you'll be back, what you're doing, or anything at all. I don't want to be that needy girlfriend, but it's so frustrating. I know it was meant to be casual, but I thought it could be... more. I just wanted some way to know you were thinking of me."</blockquote>
They've been having sex - not even dating - for what feels like 2 days but is more like 3 weeks or so. Little cray cray.
Silvia Walker is also all kinds of crazy - she wants to breed with Dimitri even if it's against his wishes, she murders small furry animals and she smokes like a chimney. She's got it into her head that Dimitri is the love of her life even though he makes it abundantly clear that he can't stand the sight of her. To make matters worse, she finds out that her daddy is trying to sire a son to make sure she doesn't receive her inheritance.
<h2 style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #f6c7b7;">∞</span></h2>
Although it's a very good concept - a power hungry, slightly crazy millionaire with his own personal genie to fulfill any and every wish he wants - there was just something missing. I don't know maybe the book was too short and the story was a little rushed for me, the insta-love between Dimitri and Syd bugged the ever-loving crap out of me.
The story as a whole was just too rushed for my tastes and at times I didn't get why something was happening or why Dimitri sounded like a stupid teenager, or why for an "all-powerful" master Karl was an absolute douchebag about a lot of stuff.Like wishing Dimitri kills Syd for one - what's his deal?
It had one <em>hell</em> of a twist at the end though. I didn't expect that all which is what pushed this review up from a 3 to a 3.5.
<blockquote>I'm no longer Leo, or Alan, or Alex.
I'm Dimitri.
And I'm free.</blockquote>
The story opens with Dimitri fulfilling a kidnapping request followed by his inevitable rest period directly after - where he meets Syd in a dive bar. From there the story just gets a little weird - Dimitri takes Syd home and they end up having sex literally right away (nothing against it cause whatever floats your boat right?) But it was practically as soon as they got in Dimitri's house.
For a book that generally is considered fantasy with a bit of romance thrown in there's an awful lot of sex and it's rushed sex - almost as if the author felt a little weird writing the scenes - Syd is all kinds of crazy stalker as well, like she steals his number from his phone, turns up on his doorstep unannounced and threatens to slash his tires kinda crazy.
<h2 style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #f6c7b7;">∞</span></h2>
The master - Karl - is an millionaire arse. I have nothing good to say about him whatsoever. Generally, Dimitri can rest for a day or two before Karl makes another wish but Karl starts to make make a new wish every day - Silvia is Karl's daughter and she screams spoiled rich girl who wants to breed with Dimitri - her inheritance.
It's all kinds of messed up.
Dimitri does a job for Karl and goes home to rest only to get a call from Stalker Syd going a little crazy on him for abandoning her - I forgot to mention that when Karl wants a wish he summons Dimitri to a chamber - the following day after yet more rushed sex Karl has another wish for Dimitri where he has to steal a safe - only he <em>fails</em>.
When Dimitri fails to fulfill a wish the buzz in his head grows and he ends up getting a really bad migraine until he fulfills his wish or pigs fly and Karl recant the wish.
<h2 style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #f6c7b7;">∞</span></h2>
Syd is all kinds of crazy. I don't think much of her character at all, it's like she's got her heart invested after a one night stand and then goes crazy everyone Dimitri doesn't do what she expects him to do.
<blockquote>"You're just gone so much." Syd's voice sounds so empty and hollow. "I never really know when you'll be back, what you're doing, or anything at all. I don't want to be that needy girlfriend, but it's so frustrating. I know it was meant to be casual, but I thought it could be... more. I just wanted some way to know you were thinking of me."</blockquote>
They've been having sex - not even dating - for what feels like 2 days but is more like 3 weeks or so. Little cray cray.
Silvia Walker is also all kinds of crazy - she wants to breed with Dimitri even if it's against his wishes, she murders small furry animals and she smokes like a chimney. She's got it into her head that Dimitri is the love of her life even though he makes it abundantly clear that he can't stand the sight of her. To make matters worse, she finds out that her daddy is trying to sire a son to make sure she doesn't receive her inheritance.
<h2 style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #f6c7b7;">∞</span></h2>
Although it's a very good concept - a power hungry, slightly crazy millionaire with his own personal genie to fulfill any and every wish he wants - there was just something missing. I don't know maybe the book was too short and the story was a little rushed for me, the insta-love between Dimitri and Syd bugged the ever-loving crap out of me.
The story as a whole was just too rushed for my tastes and at times I didn't get why something was happening or why Dimitri sounded like a stupid teenager, or why for an "all-powerful" master Karl was an absolute douchebag about a lot of stuff.Like wishing Dimitri kills Syd for one - what's his deal?
It had one <em>hell</em> of a twist at the end though. I didn't expect that all which is what pushed this review up from a 3 to a 3.5.
<blockquote>I'm no longer Leo, or Alan, or Alex.
I'm Dimitri.
And I'm free.</blockquote>