Search
Search results
Hadley (567 KP) rated Hell House in Books
Sep 3, 2020
" 'It's the Mount Everest of haunted houses, you might say. There were two attempts to investigate it, one in 1931, the other in 1940. Both were disasters. Eight people involved in those attempts were killed, committed suicide, or went insane. Only one survived, and I have no idea how sound he is- - -Benjamin Fischer, one of the two who'll be with me.' " Barrett, our main character, explains before setting out to investigate the Belasco House in the paranormal novel, Hell House.
At the beginning of the book, Barrett is speaking to a rich man named Deutsch, who is on his death bed, and wanting to know if life exists after death:
" 'It isn't lies I want,' Deutsch told him. 'I'll buy the answer, either way. So long as it's definitive.'
Barrett felt a roil of despair. 'How can I convince you, either way?' He was compelled to say it.
'By giving me facts,' Deutsch answered irritably.
'Where am I to find them? I'm a physicist. In the twenty years I've studied parapsychology, I've yet to - - -'
'If they exist,' Deutsch interrupted,' you'll find them in the only place on earth I know of where survival has yet to be refuted. The Belasco house in Maine.' "
Along with Barrett and Fischer a well-known medium named Florence and Barrett's wife, Edith join them on their trip to the Belasco house. Fischer is also a medium, who gets prodded at by Florence for refusing to use his 'gift:'
" 'You were the most powerful physical medium this country has ever known, Ben.'
'Still am, Florence. Just a little bit more careful now, that's all. I suggest the same approach for you. You're walking around this house like an open nerve. When you really do hit something, it'll tear your insides out. This place isn't called Hell House for nothing, you know. It intends to kill every one of us, so you'd damn well better learn to protect yourself until you're ready. Or you'll just be one more victim on the list.' "
Florence's need to prove that spirits exist to Barrett, the skeptic of the group, permeates throughout the entire book. She allows him to subject her to entirely naked pat-downs and the use of all sorts of instruments while she becomes possessed by spirits in the house. She slowly begins to lose her patience with Barrett every time she speaks with him about the possibility of ghosts existing until one day she becomes so infuriated with him that the entire dining area becomes a minefield of seemingly unaided flying dishes.
Even after this incident, Barrett refuses to believe that the Belasco house is haunted and that spirits exist. As the reader continues on through the story, Barrett's skepticism becomes a little annoying with the amount of paranormal things that happen, especially how he has a scientific reasoning for everything: " 'Making use of the power in the room,' he[Barrett] said. 'Converting it to poltergeist-type phenomena directed at me.' " As Fischer and Florence continue to find evidence of paranormal activity, Barrett stays focused on a machine that he invented to arrive soon, which he states will prove his theory of energy causing the 'hauntings,' rather than spirits, while avoiding all evidence that may prove otherwise.
Early on, Florence becomes preoccupied with a spirit in the house, who she believes to be the son of Belasco (the man who owned the house). After coming in contact with this spirit, physical harm starts to come to Florence, one such incident is of something in the night biting her breasts hard enough to leave teeth marks. Barrett and the others find her, crying in bed during this, where she states that Belasco is punishing her for finding and communicating with his son.
During all of this, Edith seems to come under an influence at the house, which causes her to start to drink heavily although she's never touched a drop of alcohol in her life due to an alcoholic father. One incident with a drunk Edith, she comes onto Fischer in a way that makes the reader question whether or not this is a spirit taking her over, or if this is what Edith is like when she's drunk. When Fischer confronts Barrett about his wife and her possible possession by the house, Barrett refuses to see it as that:
" 'Irrelevant?' Fischer looked amazed. 'What the hell do you mean, irrelevant? Whatever's going on is getting to your wife. It's gotten to Florence, and it's gotten to you. Or maybe you haven't noticed.'
Barrett regarded him in silence, his expression hard. 'I've noticed a number of things, Mr. Fischer,' he finally said. 'One of which is that Mr. Deutsch is wasting approximately a third of his money.' "
Although Hell House has all of the great paranormal tropes in it, it objectifies women almost to an extreme, and to a point that it isn't believable at all to the reader: the Belasco house is one of depravity, including sexual interactions, but Belasco's guests were both female and male, yet only sexual things (albeit crude) only happen to Florence and Edith, neither Barrett or Fischer are affected. Hell House is a great story with an even greater villain, but Matheson really ruined the story with his crude fantasies about women. I absolutely think this book is better than the Haunting of Hill House because the scares are better while Haunting lacked a lot of them. If you can get past a horny man's fantasies, then the book is very enjoyable.
At the beginning of the book, Barrett is speaking to a rich man named Deutsch, who is on his death bed, and wanting to know if life exists after death:
" 'It isn't lies I want,' Deutsch told him. 'I'll buy the answer, either way. So long as it's definitive.'
Barrett felt a roil of despair. 'How can I convince you, either way?' He was compelled to say it.
'By giving me facts,' Deutsch answered irritably.
'Where am I to find them? I'm a physicist. In the twenty years I've studied parapsychology, I've yet to - - -'
'If they exist,' Deutsch interrupted,' you'll find them in the only place on earth I know of where survival has yet to be refuted. The Belasco house in Maine.' "
Along with Barrett and Fischer a well-known medium named Florence and Barrett's wife, Edith join them on their trip to the Belasco house. Fischer is also a medium, who gets prodded at by Florence for refusing to use his 'gift:'
" 'You were the most powerful physical medium this country has ever known, Ben.'
'Still am, Florence. Just a little bit more careful now, that's all. I suggest the same approach for you. You're walking around this house like an open nerve. When you really do hit something, it'll tear your insides out. This place isn't called Hell House for nothing, you know. It intends to kill every one of us, so you'd damn well better learn to protect yourself until you're ready. Or you'll just be one more victim on the list.' "
Florence's need to prove that spirits exist to Barrett, the skeptic of the group, permeates throughout the entire book. She allows him to subject her to entirely naked pat-downs and the use of all sorts of instruments while she becomes possessed by spirits in the house. She slowly begins to lose her patience with Barrett every time she speaks with him about the possibility of ghosts existing until one day she becomes so infuriated with him that the entire dining area becomes a minefield of seemingly unaided flying dishes.
Even after this incident, Barrett refuses to believe that the Belasco house is haunted and that spirits exist. As the reader continues on through the story, Barrett's skepticism becomes a little annoying with the amount of paranormal things that happen, especially how he has a scientific reasoning for everything: " 'Making use of the power in the room,' he[Barrett] said. 'Converting it to poltergeist-type phenomena directed at me.' " As Fischer and Florence continue to find evidence of paranormal activity, Barrett stays focused on a machine that he invented to arrive soon, which he states will prove his theory of energy causing the 'hauntings,' rather than spirits, while avoiding all evidence that may prove otherwise.
Early on, Florence becomes preoccupied with a spirit in the house, who she believes to be the son of Belasco (the man who owned the house). After coming in contact with this spirit, physical harm starts to come to Florence, one such incident is of something in the night biting her breasts hard enough to leave teeth marks. Barrett and the others find her, crying in bed during this, where she states that Belasco is punishing her for finding and communicating with his son.
During all of this, Edith seems to come under an influence at the house, which causes her to start to drink heavily although she's never touched a drop of alcohol in her life due to an alcoholic father. One incident with a drunk Edith, she comes onto Fischer in a way that makes the reader question whether or not this is a spirit taking her over, or if this is what Edith is like when she's drunk. When Fischer confronts Barrett about his wife and her possible possession by the house, Barrett refuses to see it as that:
" 'Irrelevant?' Fischer looked amazed. 'What the hell do you mean, irrelevant? Whatever's going on is getting to your wife. It's gotten to Florence, and it's gotten to you. Or maybe you haven't noticed.'
Barrett regarded him in silence, his expression hard. 'I've noticed a number of things, Mr. Fischer,' he finally said. 'One of which is that Mr. Deutsch is wasting approximately a third of his money.' "
Although Hell House has all of the great paranormal tropes in it, it objectifies women almost to an extreme, and to a point that it isn't believable at all to the reader: the Belasco house is one of depravity, including sexual interactions, but Belasco's guests were both female and male, yet only sexual things (albeit crude) only happen to Florence and Edith, neither Barrett or Fischer are affected. Hell House is a great story with an even greater villain, but Matheson really ruined the story with his crude fantasies about women. I absolutely think this book is better than the Haunting of Hill House because the scares are better while Haunting lacked a lot of them. If you can get past a horny man's fantasies, then the book is very enjoyable.
MIRRAW - Online Shopping App
Shopping and Lifestyle
App
In MIRRAW – Online Fashion Shopping App Shop for Sarees, Jewelry, Salwar kameez, Bridal Suits,...
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Black Mirror - Season 3 in TV
Mar 3, 2020
Nosedive - 8
We had to wait almost another 2 years for the Netflix investment to show a product, and in time for Halloween 2016 we got the super-glossy re-boot of Nosedive, with a big name up front and lots of anticipation. The tone was instantly more playful; less British, more inclusive to a world audience. It tackled with a wry humour the universal phenomenon of popularity and everything being rated, most notably, people themselves. In a future world of sunshine and pastel shades it has become the norm to rate every interaction, from buying coffee to buying a house, in the hope of becoming one of the beautiful people rated above a 4.5. It cleverly questions the motivations for that desire, and the pitfalls of false behaviour and the manipulation from an elite standpoint. It isn’t necessary to imagine this future, as we are virtually there already, and all this episode does is heighten the idea to hyperbolic proportions. Rated down by many viewers because it is “annoying”, but that is entirely the point: the whole thing makes you want to scream!
Playtest - 6.5
Also available for Halloween (as was the whole season, in standard Netflix style) came a chance to explore what really scares us! And… they blew it. Sure, the idea that gaming and VR becomes so photo realistic it seems entirely real isn’t far away. But, making it personal to a very annoying character dissolves all tension quite early on. Some mild jump scares aside, this has to go down as a missed opportunity. Notable only for the re-occurance of the White Bear symbol.
Shut Up and Dance - 7
This is the one most likely to make you think, hmm, that is too far! An uncomfortable episode, not only because of the subject matter and ultimate revelation, but because of the intense nastiness that pervades it. No doubt that tension is intentional, and therefore effective to a degree, but for me it crosses the line of entertainment and becomes simply nasty. Being unafraid to tackle controversial subjects is to be applauded, but the execution has to be note perfect, or the risk is the backlash this episode received. A cautionary tale about surveillance, data theft, blackmail and our personal online responsibility. Not a bad piece, just a slight misjudgment on tone and delivery.
San Junipero - 9.5
Just when critics were sharpening their pens that Netflix had ruined the potential of Black Mirror in its first phase, comes an almost perfect piece of TV that is literally heavenly! Everything about San Junipero is a work of art! Another “blind” episode that takes a while to unravel; the pacing and realisation of which is so beautifully judged that, from a writing point of view, this has to be seen as the pinnacle of the show to date. Mackenzie Davis is extraordinary as the vulnerable, shy and naive Yorkie, looking for a connection in an 80s nightclub, filled with nostalgia and cultural memes galore. The music alone is not only sing aloud perfect, but chosen for storytelling reasons so clever it raises goosebumps! The relationship between Yorkie and Kelly, an equally great Gugu Mbatha-Raw, is filled with chemistry and nuance, drawing us in to a place so deep that when the penny drops on what is really going on it draws a gasp and then possibly tears – I know it did for me! The mechanics of the technology that would make this story possible does raise a lot of questions, but in the end it is better to accept it as an allegory for love, life and our ideas of “eternity”. Don’t look too deeply at the how, but marvel at the why, and this could be the best hour of TV you will ever see! So rewatchable, rich and rewarding; the only reason not to make this a feature length big budget film is that how could it possibly be improved?
Men Against Fire - 7
Revisiting yet again the technology of a brain implant that affects our vision of the world, literally and figuratively, this episode explores indoctrination and brainwashing, with the underlying themes of racism and basic human compassion. It is a fine analogy of how the media and governments would have us think of immigrants and the “dangers” of anything “not us”. A tad obvious, and doesn’t really go anywhere new once the twist is revealed. Visually quite stunning, but not as strong as other episodes that cover similar ground.
Hated in the Nation - 8.5
With a running time of 89 minutes, this is essentially what happens when Black Mirror pushes an idea to feature length. Allowing more time for character development does make a difference, and the tension build in this fine concept for a thriller also benefits from a few extra minutes. The ever reliable Kelly MacDonald is the cornerstone of a strong cast, on the hunt for the mind behind a series of killings by killer bee drones, targeted at a democratically elected “most hated” person every day, based on a public vote. An exploration of media vilification and how easy it can be to manipulate our idea of someone’s identity and judge their actions and even personalities based on one wrong thing they may have said or done. The episode is a who-dunnit? A why-doit? And, framed, with the backdrop of the inquest surrounding events, both a good cop movie and a courtroom drama. Charlie Brooker has hinted that some of these characters may return at some point. I’m all for it.
We had to wait almost another 2 years for the Netflix investment to show a product, and in time for Halloween 2016 we got the super-glossy re-boot of Nosedive, with a big name up front and lots of anticipation. The tone was instantly more playful; less British, more inclusive to a world audience. It tackled with a wry humour the universal phenomenon of popularity and everything being rated, most notably, people themselves. In a future world of sunshine and pastel shades it has become the norm to rate every interaction, from buying coffee to buying a house, in the hope of becoming one of the beautiful people rated above a 4.5. It cleverly questions the motivations for that desire, and the pitfalls of false behaviour and the manipulation from an elite standpoint. It isn’t necessary to imagine this future, as we are virtually there already, and all this episode does is heighten the idea to hyperbolic proportions. Rated down by many viewers because it is “annoying”, but that is entirely the point: the whole thing makes you want to scream!
Playtest - 6.5
Also available for Halloween (as was the whole season, in standard Netflix style) came a chance to explore what really scares us! And… they blew it. Sure, the idea that gaming and VR becomes so photo realistic it seems entirely real isn’t far away. But, making it personal to a very annoying character dissolves all tension quite early on. Some mild jump scares aside, this has to go down as a missed opportunity. Notable only for the re-occurance of the White Bear symbol.
Shut Up and Dance - 7
This is the one most likely to make you think, hmm, that is too far! An uncomfortable episode, not only because of the subject matter and ultimate revelation, but because of the intense nastiness that pervades it. No doubt that tension is intentional, and therefore effective to a degree, but for me it crosses the line of entertainment and becomes simply nasty. Being unafraid to tackle controversial subjects is to be applauded, but the execution has to be note perfect, or the risk is the backlash this episode received. A cautionary tale about surveillance, data theft, blackmail and our personal online responsibility. Not a bad piece, just a slight misjudgment on tone and delivery.
San Junipero - 9.5
Just when critics were sharpening their pens that Netflix had ruined the potential of Black Mirror in its first phase, comes an almost perfect piece of TV that is literally heavenly! Everything about San Junipero is a work of art! Another “blind” episode that takes a while to unravel; the pacing and realisation of which is so beautifully judged that, from a writing point of view, this has to be seen as the pinnacle of the show to date. Mackenzie Davis is extraordinary as the vulnerable, shy and naive Yorkie, looking for a connection in an 80s nightclub, filled with nostalgia and cultural memes galore. The music alone is not only sing aloud perfect, but chosen for storytelling reasons so clever it raises goosebumps! The relationship between Yorkie and Kelly, an equally great Gugu Mbatha-Raw, is filled with chemistry and nuance, drawing us in to a place so deep that when the penny drops on what is really going on it draws a gasp and then possibly tears – I know it did for me! The mechanics of the technology that would make this story possible does raise a lot of questions, but in the end it is better to accept it as an allegory for love, life and our ideas of “eternity”. Don’t look too deeply at the how, but marvel at the why, and this could be the best hour of TV you will ever see! So rewatchable, rich and rewarding; the only reason not to make this a feature length big budget film is that how could it possibly be improved?
Men Against Fire - 7
Revisiting yet again the technology of a brain implant that affects our vision of the world, literally and figuratively, this episode explores indoctrination and brainwashing, with the underlying themes of racism and basic human compassion. It is a fine analogy of how the media and governments would have us think of immigrants and the “dangers” of anything “not us”. A tad obvious, and doesn’t really go anywhere new once the twist is revealed. Visually quite stunning, but not as strong as other episodes that cover similar ground.
Hated in the Nation - 8.5
With a running time of 89 minutes, this is essentially what happens when Black Mirror pushes an idea to feature length. Allowing more time for character development does make a difference, and the tension build in this fine concept for a thriller also benefits from a few extra minutes. The ever reliable Kelly MacDonald is the cornerstone of a strong cast, on the hunt for the mind behind a series of killings by killer bee drones, targeted at a democratically elected “most hated” person every day, based on a public vote. An exploration of media vilification and how easy it can be to manipulate our idea of someone’s identity and judge their actions and even personalities based on one wrong thing they may have said or done. The episode is a who-dunnit? A why-doit? And, framed, with the backdrop of the inquest surrounding events, both a good cop movie and a courtroom drama. Charlie Brooker has hinted that some of these characters may return at some point. I’m all for it.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated BlacKkKlansman (2018) in Movies
Oct 1, 2018 (Updated Oct 2, 2018)
Brilliant performances by the entire cast (1 more)
Funny, while still being relevant and sending a serious message
Spike Lee's Best In Years
BlackkKlansman released while I was on holiday, so after playing a bit of catchup at my local cinema, I eventually got around to seeing this film that I was looking forward to ever since seeing the first trailer for it. It lived up to my expectations and I really enjoyed it. Also, just a heads up; I usually don't like to get political in movie reviews, but I feel that with a film as politically charged as this one, it makes it inevitable to get around, so there may be some stuff in here that you disagree with.
The movie worked in several different ways, it definitely worked as a comedy and had me laughing raucously at certain points and then it would drop an important and relevant point on you and suddenly things wouldn't seem so funny any more. All of a sudden, these laughably ignorant racists suddenly became a very real threat, which I don't think was an accident in paralleling how Lee feels about a good amount of modern day Americans like Donald Trump. Remember when he first announced that he was running for office and everybody, (including the current president at that time,) laughed at him? Now he is the most powerful man in the world and poses a very real threat to minorities in the US. I thought that this was a very clever, subtle way to take a shot without being too blatant.
Then there was a slightly more obvious shot at him when characters are discussing a man filled with hate potentially working his way into power and getting the majority of the American public on his side and how awful that would be. Although this particular dig is way more obvious, it still didn't bother me too much and I accepted it as a filmmaker using his platform to send a message to someone that he morally disagrees with.
The final dig was a step too far for me. During a phone conversation between David Duke and Ron Stallworth, Duke says something about getting rid of non-whites to "make America great again." It was so heavy handed that the characters onscreen might as well have turned around and winked at the camera. Please don't get me wrong, I think that Donald Trump is a scumbag and am totally fine with Lee taking a couple of shots at him, but I much preferred the more subtle undertones that he sent his way earlier in the film to this blatantly obvious, slightly cringey callout.
I did enjoy Lee's references to Blaxploitation films of the 70's and I liked the whole aesthetic that this movie had. The score was brilliant and the cast did a great job, the performance that stayed with me the most after the film, was Corey Hawkins monologue as Kwame Ture. He only appears in one scene in the film, but his speech, (in which I felt he strongly channelled Denzel,) was mesmerising and electrifying to watch.
The way that Spike Lee chose to end this movie has stirred some controversy, but I found it to be incredibly powerful and moving. It really sent home the message that this kind of intense, despicable hatred isn't just something that was around in the 70's and 80's, it is something that is still sadly prevalent and happening in today's society and we have people in power, like Trump, who is willing to defend and stand by these people and their violent, hateful behaviour. It was also a fitting tribute to Heather Heyer who was killed when a car crashed into a crowd of people who had been peacefully protesting the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia one-year prior to this film's release.
Overall, this is a funny, entertaining, uncomfortable and anger-inducing film and all of these emotion are equally relevant. I also feel that this movie does exactly what it intends to on a moral level, whether you agree with the ideals portrayed or not, Lee does a terrific job in turning a period piece movie into a painfully relevant message for modern audiences.
The movie worked in several different ways, it definitely worked as a comedy and had me laughing raucously at certain points and then it would drop an important and relevant point on you and suddenly things wouldn't seem so funny any more. All of a sudden, these laughably ignorant racists suddenly became a very real threat, which I don't think was an accident in paralleling how Lee feels about a good amount of modern day Americans like Donald Trump. Remember when he first announced that he was running for office and everybody, (including the current president at that time,) laughed at him? Now he is the most powerful man in the world and poses a very real threat to minorities in the US. I thought that this was a very clever, subtle way to take a shot without being too blatant.
Then there was a slightly more obvious shot at him when characters are discussing a man filled with hate potentially working his way into power and getting the majority of the American public on his side and how awful that would be. Although this particular dig is way more obvious, it still didn't bother me too much and I accepted it as a filmmaker using his platform to send a message to someone that he morally disagrees with.
The final dig was a step too far for me. During a phone conversation between David Duke and Ron Stallworth, Duke says something about getting rid of non-whites to "make America great again." It was so heavy handed that the characters onscreen might as well have turned around and winked at the camera. Please don't get me wrong, I think that Donald Trump is a scumbag and am totally fine with Lee taking a couple of shots at him, but I much preferred the more subtle undertones that he sent his way earlier in the film to this blatantly obvious, slightly cringey callout.
I did enjoy Lee's references to Blaxploitation films of the 70's and I liked the whole aesthetic that this movie had. The score was brilliant and the cast did a great job, the performance that stayed with me the most after the film, was Corey Hawkins monologue as Kwame Ture. He only appears in one scene in the film, but his speech, (in which I felt he strongly channelled Denzel,) was mesmerising and electrifying to watch.
The way that Spike Lee chose to end this movie has stirred some controversy, but I found it to be incredibly powerful and moving. It really sent home the message that this kind of intense, despicable hatred isn't just something that was around in the 70's and 80's, it is something that is still sadly prevalent and happening in today's society and we have people in power, like Trump, who is willing to defend and stand by these people and their violent, hateful behaviour. It was also a fitting tribute to Heather Heyer who was killed when a car crashed into a crowd of people who had been peacefully protesting the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia one-year prior to this film's release.
Overall, this is a funny, entertaining, uncomfortable and anger-inducing film and all of these emotion are equally relevant. I also feel that this movie does exactly what it intends to on a moral level, whether you agree with the ideals portrayed or not, Lee does a terrific job in turning a period piece movie into a painfully relevant message for modern audiences.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Greatest Showman (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
This IS the Greatest Show!
I sometimes wonder how “proper” UK film critics view films early for review. Is there a ‘special screening’ which all the film critics attend in London? The point I’m getting at is whether the collective critical opinion of a movie can be swayed by a critic leaping to their feet and wildly applauding a film like “Star Wars: The Last Jedi” or, alternatively, snorting in derision at a film like “The Greatest Showman”. For sometimes the critics seem to get it massively wrong across the board, panning a film that the general public will adore. Unfortunately, this has the effect of putting the general public off seeing it, especially in the lethargic post-Christmas period. I think here is a case in point. It’s not the best little film in the world, but as a musical crowd-pleaser it delivers in spades.
Will you like “The Greatest Showman”? This will be dictated almost entirely by whether you are a “musicals” person or not! For “The Greatest Showman” is a frothy, very loud, cheesy and high-energy musical, much more aligned, in fact, to the mainstream genre from the 40’s and 50’s than “La La Land” was.
Roll up, roll up. The circus cast entertain.
In a VERY loose interpretation of the early life of Phineas Taylor Barnum, the American huckster and impressario, we start the story with a pre-pubescent Barnum (Ellis Rubin, sung by Ziv Zaifman) as a young tailor’s assistant punching above his weight with young socialite Charity (Skylar Dunn), firmly against the wishes of her father. Spin forward (via song) and the hitched Barnum’s – now Hugh Jackman (“Logan“) and Michelle Williams (“Manchester By The Sea“) – are barely scraping a living. But Barnum has “A Million Dreams” and hits on the novel idea of opening an entertainment (coined “a circus” by journalist James Gordon Bennett (Paul Sparks)) where he offers both respect and a family to those of the city who are deformed, rejected and socially shunned. Barnum’s show is shockingly entertaining – as in both filling seats and shocking the morally-self-righteous upper classes. But never one to rest on his laurels, Barnum’s endless ambition drives him to break his social ceiling by importing the “Swedish songbird”, opera singer Jenny Lind (Rebecca Ferguson, “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “The Snowman“) ), for an ambitious and extravegant tour of the States. All does not exactly go to plan.
Washing day tunes. Hugh Jackman and Michelle Williams take to the rooftops.
As I’ve said, most critics have been making sniffy noises about this film. But I am not one of them…. I LOVED IT, have already bought the glorious soundtrack album and will be looking forwards to the DVD release. For this is joy in a box. Sure, the story is a bit weak, the characterisations of everyone (other than Barnum) pretty lightweight, but it’s a musical extravaganza! Live with it!
Hugh Jackman, who of course started his career in stage musicals, is marvellously charismatic as Barnum although his singing does tend to the “shouty” end of the scale in many of the numbers. He’s joined here by fellow musicals star Zac Efron (let’s forget “Dirty Grandpa“) as the fictitious Phillip Carlyle: a socialite playwright and partner.
But the acting and singing revelation for me was Zendaya (“Spider-Man: Homecoming“) as Efron’s (scandalous) inter-racial love interest, who has a fantastically athletic body, sings and dances wonderfully and has a magnetic stare. A marvellous trapeze routine between Efron and Zendaya (“Rewrite The Stars”) is one of the high-spots of the film for me.
An energetic dance. Zendaya and Efron take to the skies.
Elsewhere Williams proves she has a singing voice as well as being a top flight actress and the bearded lady (Broadway star Keala Settle) belts out one of the show-stopping numbers “This is Me” (although she is a little ‘shrill’ for my musical tastes).
It would be nice to extend that compliment to the wonderful Rebecca Ferguson as the “greatest singer in the world” – but she is (wisely I think) dubbed here by Loren Allred (a finalist on the US version of “The Voice”). It is a bit of a shock when “the great opera singer” opens her mouth and a modern love song comes out, but once you get over that then the combination of Ferguson’s acting and Allred’s singing makes “Never Enough” one of the standout songs in the movie. (It’s been described as “a bit Eurovision” by Kevin Maher, “The Times” critic, which I can see but I don’t care! I find it marvellously moving).
A dangerous songbird’s nest for the married Barnum. Rebecca Ferguson and Hugh Jackman.
If you haven’t guessed it, there are some fantastic songs in this movie, written by “La La Land” song composers Benj Pasek and Justin Paul and at least one of these surely must be Oscar nominated (I’m not sure what the cut-off would be for the 2018 Oscars?).
There’s also a lot of talent in the backroom with production design and memorable costumes. Where I’d single out particular praise though is in the choreography and the editing on show.
Firstly, the choreography of “beats” in the song to the action on screen is brilliantly done, done, probably at its most impressive in a shot-glass bar-room scene between Jackman and Efron. And never (hats off to the special effects guys and cinematographer Seamus McGarvey) have you seen washing on a washing line so cleverly in time with the music.
Secondly in terms of the film editing, I am a sucker for clever “transition” shots, and there are some in this movie that just took my breath away: a transition to a pregnant Charity; a transition from ballet practice to ballet performance; there are numerous others!
Inverted magnetism. Zendaya as the trapeze artist Anne Wheeler.
I have decided to park some of my minor criticisms within the greater joy of the whole: some of the dialogue (by Jenny Bicks and Bill Condon) is as cheesy as hell, but probably no more so than in some of the Judy Garland/Mickey Rooney musicals. Where I had my biggest problem is in some of the lip synching to the songs. This is an age where the live recording of songs in films like “Les Miserables” and “La La Land” has set the bar high, and returning to the norm (I had the same problem with “Beauty and the Beast“) becomes noticeable and irritating to me. (Perhaps this is just me!).
It’s certainly not a perfect film, but its energy and drive carry it through as a memorable movie musical that may well take on a life of its own as word-of-mouth gets it more widely viewed (outside of the rather difficult Christmas holiday season). It would also be a good film for youngsters, with a bit of judicious editing (there is one moment of violence in the first 10 minutes that I would choose to edit out). From my perspective it is certainly a truly impressive debut for advert director Michael Gracey. Recommended for musical fans.
Will you like “The Greatest Showman”? This will be dictated almost entirely by whether you are a “musicals” person or not! For “The Greatest Showman” is a frothy, very loud, cheesy and high-energy musical, much more aligned, in fact, to the mainstream genre from the 40’s and 50’s than “La La Land” was.
Roll up, roll up. The circus cast entertain.
In a VERY loose interpretation of the early life of Phineas Taylor Barnum, the American huckster and impressario, we start the story with a pre-pubescent Barnum (Ellis Rubin, sung by Ziv Zaifman) as a young tailor’s assistant punching above his weight with young socialite Charity (Skylar Dunn), firmly against the wishes of her father. Spin forward (via song) and the hitched Barnum’s – now Hugh Jackman (“Logan“) and Michelle Williams (“Manchester By The Sea“) – are barely scraping a living. But Barnum has “A Million Dreams” and hits on the novel idea of opening an entertainment (coined “a circus” by journalist James Gordon Bennett (Paul Sparks)) where he offers both respect and a family to those of the city who are deformed, rejected and socially shunned. Barnum’s show is shockingly entertaining – as in both filling seats and shocking the morally-self-righteous upper classes. But never one to rest on his laurels, Barnum’s endless ambition drives him to break his social ceiling by importing the “Swedish songbird”, opera singer Jenny Lind (Rebecca Ferguson, “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “The Snowman“) ), for an ambitious and extravegant tour of the States. All does not exactly go to plan.
Washing day tunes. Hugh Jackman and Michelle Williams take to the rooftops.
As I’ve said, most critics have been making sniffy noises about this film. But I am not one of them…. I LOVED IT, have already bought the glorious soundtrack album and will be looking forwards to the DVD release. For this is joy in a box. Sure, the story is a bit weak, the characterisations of everyone (other than Barnum) pretty lightweight, but it’s a musical extravaganza! Live with it!
Hugh Jackman, who of course started his career in stage musicals, is marvellously charismatic as Barnum although his singing does tend to the “shouty” end of the scale in many of the numbers. He’s joined here by fellow musicals star Zac Efron (let’s forget “Dirty Grandpa“) as the fictitious Phillip Carlyle: a socialite playwright and partner.
But the acting and singing revelation for me was Zendaya (“Spider-Man: Homecoming“) as Efron’s (scandalous) inter-racial love interest, who has a fantastically athletic body, sings and dances wonderfully and has a magnetic stare. A marvellous trapeze routine between Efron and Zendaya (“Rewrite The Stars”) is one of the high-spots of the film for me.
An energetic dance. Zendaya and Efron take to the skies.
Elsewhere Williams proves she has a singing voice as well as being a top flight actress and the bearded lady (Broadway star Keala Settle) belts out one of the show-stopping numbers “This is Me” (although she is a little ‘shrill’ for my musical tastes).
It would be nice to extend that compliment to the wonderful Rebecca Ferguson as the “greatest singer in the world” – but she is (wisely I think) dubbed here by Loren Allred (a finalist on the US version of “The Voice”). It is a bit of a shock when “the great opera singer” opens her mouth and a modern love song comes out, but once you get over that then the combination of Ferguson’s acting and Allred’s singing makes “Never Enough” one of the standout songs in the movie. (It’s been described as “a bit Eurovision” by Kevin Maher, “The Times” critic, which I can see but I don’t care! I find it marvellously moving).
A dangerous songbird’s nest for the married Barnum. Rebecca Ferguson and Hugh Jackman.
If you haven’t guessed it, there are some fantastic songs in this movie, written by “La La Land” song composers Benj Pasek and Justin Paul and at least one of these surely must be Oscar nominated (I’m not sure what the cut-off would be for the 2018 Oscars?).
There’s also a lot of talent in the backroom with production design and memorable costumes. Where I’d single out particular praise though is in the choreography and the editing on show.
Firstly, the choreography of “beats” in the song to the action on screen is brilliantly done, done, probably at its most impressive in a shot-glass bar-room scene between Jackman and Efron. And never (hats off to the special effects guys and cinematographer Seamus McGarvey) have you seen washing on a washing line so cleverly in time with the music.
Secondly in terms of the film editing, I am a sucker for clever “transition” shots, and there are some in this movie that just took my breath away: a transition to a pregnant Charity; a transition from ballet practice to ballet performance; there are numerous others!
Inverted magnetism. Zendaya as the trapeze artist Anne Wheeler.
I have decided to park some of my minor criticisms within the greater joy of the whole: some of the dialogue (by Jenny Bicks and Bill Condon) is as cheesy as hell, but probably no more so than in some of the Judy Garland/Mickey Rooney musicals. Where I had my biggest problem is in some of the lip synching to the songs. This is an age where the live recording of songs in films like “Les Miserables” and “La La Land” has set the bar high, and returning to the norm (I had the same problem with “Beauty and the Beast“) becomes noticeable and irritating to me. (Perhaps this is just me!).
It’s certainly not a perfect film, but its energy and drive carry it through as a memorable movie musical that may well take on a life of its own as word-of-mouth gets it more widely viewed (outside of the rather difficult Christmas holiday season). It would also be a good film for youngsters, with a bit of judicious editing (there is one moment of violence in the first 10 minutes that I would choose to edit out). From my perspective it is certainly a truly impressive debut for advert director Michael Gracey. Recommended for musical fans.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Lighthouse (2019) in Movies
Jan 25, 2021
Weird - and I couldn't look away
I have viewed some really strange films in my day. When asked, I often mention MIRRORMASK (based on a Neil Gaiman story) and mother! (the Darren Aronofsky oddity) as the strangest films I have ever seen.
Add Robert Eggers’ THE LIGHTHOUSE to this list.
Based on a real life tragedy from 1801, THE LIGHTHOUSE follows 2 isolated Lighthouse keepers as they interact with each other, slowly going mad in the process…or did they? Is one of them mad and the other sane? Are they both mad? Or…is it the viewer who is going mad? Eggers let’s you, the viewer, decide.
And…good for him. I have now encountered 2 films directed by former Production Designer Eggers - THE WITCH and now this film. In both cases, the movies are interestingly shot and intriguing to view but almost incomprehensible. The more so with THE LIGHTHOUSE, it is almost as if Eggers heard the criticism of THE WITCH of being incomprehensible and said “hold my beer”.
Besides the production values - which really are quite good (especially Eggers use of Black and White) - what holds this movie in high regards is the acting of the 2 people in film. These 2 characters are the only speaking parts in this movie.
Willem Dafoe portrays the older, veteran Lighthouseman who tells the tales of Mermaids and Curses and has a generally air of foreboding from the start. It is a masterwork by Dafoe - his best work of his career (and that’s saying something). He is unnerving to view from the start. The only thing the viewer needs to figure out is whether he is insane or very, very, very sane.
The surprise for me in this movie is the work of Robert Pattinson, the younger Lighthouseman who is in his first assignment. He is the audience’s eyes into this weird world and he is very much sane at the beginning. At the end…well…you decide. He was able to go toe-to-toe with DaFoe and held his own very well. This young actor has made a conscious choice following the Twilight films and with this movie and with Christopher Nolan's TENANT he is establishing himself as a darn good performer.
As for the film itself, my one recommendation for you is to not be too concerned of making sense of what is going on in the scene you are watching…you’ll drive yourself mad doing this (at least it was driving me mad). After awhile I just sat back and drank in the weirdness - and the quality acting and production values - that was enfolding in front of me and the ending was satisfying (enough).
All in all one of the stranger times I’ve had at the movies.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Add Robert Eggers’ THE LIGHTHOUSE to this list.
Based on a real life tragedy from 1801, THE LIGHTHOUSE follows 2 isolated Lighthouse keepers as they interact with each other, slowly going mad in the process…or did they? Is one of them mad and the other sane? Are they both mad? Or…is it the viewer who is going mad? Eggers let’s you, the viewer, decide.
And…good for him. I have now encountered 2 films directed by former Production Designer Eggers - THE WITCH and now this film. In both cases, the movies are interestingly shot and intriguing to view but almost incomprehensible. The more so with THE LIGHTHOUSE, it is almost as if Eggers heard the criticism of THE WITCH of being incomprehensible and said “hold my beer”.
Besides the production values - which really are quite good (especially Eggers use of Black and White) - what holds this movie in high regards is the acting of the 2 people in film. These 2 characters are the only speaking parts in this movie.
Willem Dafoe portrays the older, veteran Lighthouseman who tells the tales of Mermaids and Curses and has a generally air of foreboding from the start. It is a masterwork by Dafoe - his best work of his career (and that’s saying something). He is unnerving to view from the start. The only thing the viewer needs to figure out is whether he is insane or very, very, very sane.
The surprise for me in this movie is the work of Robert Pattinson, the younger Lighthouseman who is in his first assignment. He is the audience’s eyes into this weird world and he is very much sane at the beginning. At the end…well…you decide. He was able to go toe-to-toe with DaFoe and held his own very well. This young actor has made a conscious choice following the Twilight films and with this movie and with Christopher Nolan's TENANT he is establishing himself as a darn good performer.
As for the film itself, my one recommendation for you is to not be too concerned of making sense of what is going on in the scene you are watching…you’ll drive yourself mad doing this (at least it was driving me mad). After awhile I just sat back and drank in the weirdness - and the quality acting and production values - that was enfolding in front of me and the ending was satisfying (enough).
All in all one of the stranger times I’ve had at the movies.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Mike Wilder (20 KP) rated Rage (2009) in Movies
May 30, 2018
If you get the option to see this film you really should take the chance.
Contains spoilers, click to show
I started out making a blog for movie reviews a short while ago for the purpose of making reviews for fans. However, I didn't expect to be sent films to review so soon. I was put in touch with film maker Chris Witherspoon, he is promoting an independent film that he wrote, produced, directed and starred in called Rage. He sent me a copy and asked if I would review it for him. Happily I accepted. This is what being a film critic and reviewer is all about. Then I started to think, an independent film? There are a lot of them around and a lot of them are made by people that believe they possess the talent and ability to make a film, but in reality they fall far short of the mark. To get a good and unbiased opinion of the film I only watched the trailer for it, I left all the promotional material I received alone. The film arrived and with a fair amount of trepidation I put it on.
The film is about Dennis, a struggling writer with a loving wife Crystal (Audrey Walker) and a mistress Dana (Anna Lodej). Heading out one day he encounters a figure on a motorcycle in a car park. Pushing the encounter to one side he meets up with Dana. During the meeting he tells her that he loves his wife and breaks off the affair. She doesn't take it all that well. Once back in his car he encounters the biker again and this time the biker scratches his car and rides off. This leads to a game of cat and mouse, where at first Dennis hunts the biker down but the confrontations escalate and Dennis is soon in fear for his life. He now believes that the biker is a former boyfriend of his now ex-lover out for revenge. The biker arrives at Dennis's home and things turn deadly.
I went into this with a very open mind. I knew this was an independent film and I didn't expect too much from it. I find this is the best way to view new films. The film started off well with good introductions to the main characters but by the time the second encounter with the biker happened I found myself drawn in to the film. I forgot all about reviewing the film and got engrossed into the story. The film finished and not for a single moment did I feel bored. The pacing of the film is great, the story progresses well and the characters are well written and acted. The biker is menacing and all the more so because you don't really know his motives. The direction is professional and makes good use of lighting and colouring. The effects are very well utilised during the films climax. But the best thing about the movie was the way the story kept you guessing. I thought I had the plot figured out about 5 different times but each time I was wrong. That's what makes a good thriller/horror. There is one particular scene that was emotionally hard to watch but its place in the film drives the story and the terror forward to a new level.
You can see with this film that Chris Witherspoon is a very talented film maker. I wish him luck and hope this film has the desired effect and someone takes a chance on his abilities. I would love to see what he could to with a studio backing him. After all Spielberg started out with a movie called Duel about a truck pursuing and terrorising someone.
If you get the chance to see this film you really should take the chance. If you do you will see the start of hopefully a very successful film maker.
The film is about Dennis, a struggling writer with a loving wife Crystal (Audrey Walker) and a mistress Dana (Anna Lodej). Heading out one day he encounters a figure on a motorcycle in a car park. Pushing the encounter to one side he meets up with Dana. During the meeting he tells her that he loves his wife and breaks off the affair. She doesn't take it all that well. Once back in his car he encounters the biker again and this time the biker scratches his car and rides off. This leads to a game of cat and mouse, where at first Dennis hunts the biker down but the confrontations escalate and Dennis is soon in fear for his life. He now believes that the biker is a former boyfriend of his now ex-lover out for revenge. The biker arrives at Dennis's home and things turn deadly.
I went into this with a very open mind. I knew this was an independent film and I didn't expect too much from it. I find this is the best way to view new films. The film started off well with good introductions to the main characters but by the time the second encounter with the biker happened I found myself drawn in to the film. I forgot all about reviewing the film and got engrossed into the story. The film finished and not for a single moment did I feel bored. The pacing of the film is great, the story progresses well and the characters are well written and acted. The biker is menacing and all the more so because you don't really know his motives. The direction is professional and makes good use of lighting and colouring. The effects are very well utilised during the films climax. But the best thing about the movie was the way the story kept you guessing. I thought I had the plot figured out about 5 different times but each time I was wrong. That's what makes a good thriller/horror. There is one particular scene that was emotionally hard to watch but its place in the film drives the story and the terror forward to a new level.
You can see with this film that Chris Witherspoon is a very talented film maker. I wish him luck and hope this film has the desired effect and someone takes a chance on his abilities. I would love to see what he could to with a studio backing him. After all Spielberg started out with a movie called Duel about a truck pursuing and terrorising someone.
If you get the chance to see this film you really should take the chance. If you do you will see the start of hopefully a very successful film maker.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Marriage Story (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
One Mann’s Movies Review of “Marriage Story” – a “Kramer vs Kramer lite” in my book, albeit with some great acting performances.
K vs K Lite.
For me, mention the phrase “divorce movie” and there’s only one film that comes to mind – the Oscar-laden classic from 1979 starring an immaculate Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep. THAT toy plane; THOSE stiches! (Gulp). This is the yardstick by which I judge such movies… and to be honest, “Marriage Story” didn’t measure up.
The story.
We start the movie seeing the apparently idyllic married life of theatre impresario Charlie (Adam Driver) and his lead actress and muse Nicole (Scarlett Johansson), together bringing up their young child. But spin forwards and the pair are in the middle of an ‘amicable’ separation, with Nicole returning to her home roots in California and Charlie having an expensive commute to and from New York where he’s struggling to premiere his show on Broadway.
But despite an agreement to keep lawyers out of the equation, Nicole is persuaded to lawyer up with Nora Fanshaw (Laura Dern) tightening up the legal screws until Charlie’s life risks being torn apart. It’s time for him to fight back.
Well regarded by the Academy.
As for “Kramer vs Kramer”, this is a movie that has been garlanded with multiple Oscar nominations. Both Driver and Johansson are nominated in the lead acting roles and Laura Dern seems to be favourite for the Best Supporting Actress gong (after winning the Golden Globe and the BAFTA). Three more Oscar nominations come for the score (by Randy Newman); the original screenplay (by director Noah Baumbach); and a Best Film nomination.
Both leads deliver really emotional performances, with Johansson in particular being very believable in the role. But who knew she was so short?! She always strikes me as a statuesque beauty, but she’s only 5′ 3” and it’s particularly noticeable in a scene filmed at Warner Brothers Studios.
It’s also fabulous to see both the great Alan Alda (here showing signs of his Parkinson’s) and Ray Liotta on screen again, as both low-rent and top-dollar lawyers respectively.
But WHY exactly are they divorcing?
I found the whole set up of the movie as frustrating. There seemed no clear understanding of why the separation is happening. True there is an affair involved (and Mrs Movie Man and I have always lived our nearly 40 years of marriage with the understanding that a “one strike” rule applies). But notwithstanding that, it seems to be more of a ‘drifting apart’ that’s gone on. I just wanted to give them a good shaking and get them to work it out!
This is all obviously unfair – because (and I also know this from experience) that in many marriages ‘shit happens’: some people do just want to do different things; feel suffocated; etc. And – thinking about it – I’m not sure there was any real reason given for Meryl Streep‘s departure in K vs K: which was part of the reason for Dustin Hoffman‘s character’s frustration.
Who do you sympathise with?
This is a movie where the audience is bound to take a side. But for me, there was only one side to take and that was Charlie’s. The actions of Nicole seem reprehensible and unforgivable, and when there are lines to be crossed she seems to have little hesitation in crossing them.
Many people seem to rave about this movie, but…
…I found the pace to be inconsistent. At one point, the story just stops for a soulful rendition by Charlie of a song in a bar, and I frankly just got bored with it. And while there’s a steady build up of the legal case involved, suddenly we seem to skip to a resolution without any real rationale for it. Or did I fall asleep??
A further irritation for me was Julie Hagerty as Nicole’s mum Sandra. She does the kooky mum turn that she did perfectly well in last year’s funny “Instant Family“, but its a role that really didn’t seem to fit in this movie. There’s an element of slapstick comedy in these scenes that just didn’t suit the general tone of the movie.
Overall, I just don’t share the love for this movie. Given the choice, I’d much rather watch Kramer vs Kramer again.
And what was that punchline?
By the way, Alan Alda is a fantastic comedian, and really knows how to deliver a joke. In this movie he’s regaling Charlie with a long-winded story (on the clock) when Charlie interrupts him. How did it end…. Alda revealed the full joke after a press screening at the New York Film Festival… and it’s a corker!
This woman’s at her hairdresser’s, and she says, “I’m going to Rome on holiday.”
He says, “Oh really, what airline are you taking?”
She says, “Alitalia.”
He says, “Alitalia, are you crazy? That’s terrible, don’t take that.”
He says, “Where are you gonna stay?”
She says, “I’m gonna stay at The Hassler.”
“The Hassler! What, are you kidding? They’re renovating the Hassler. You’ll hear hammering all night long. You won’t sleep! What are you gonna see?”
She says, “I think I’m going to try to go to the Vatican.” “The Vatican? You’ll be standing in line all day long—”
(Charlie interrupts at this point, but the joke goes on)
So she goes to Rome. She comes back, and the hairdresser says, “How was it?”
She says, “It was a great trip, it was wonderful.”
“How was the Vatican?”
“Wonderful! We happened to meet the Pope.”
“You met the Pope?”
“Yeah, and he spoke to me.”
“What did he say to you?”
“He said, ‘Where’d you get that f***ing haircut?’”
LOL!
For me, mention the phrase “divorce movie” and there’s only one film that comes to mind – the Oscar-laden classic from 1979 starring an immaculate Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep. THAT toy plane; THOSE stiches! (Gulp). This is the yardstick by which I judge such movies… and to be honest, “Marriage Story” didn’t measure up.
The story.
We start the movie seeing the apparently idyllic married life of theatre impresario Charlie (Adam Driver) and his lead actress and muse Nicole (Scarlett Johansson), together bringing up their young child. But spin forwards and the pair are in the middle of an ‘amicable’ separation, with Nicole returning to her home roots in California and Charlie having an expensive commute to and from New York where he’s struggling to premiere his show on Broadway.
But despite an agreement to keep lawyers out of the equation, Nicole is persuaded to lawyer up with Nora Fanshaw (Laura Dern) tightening up the legal screws until Charlie’s life risks being torn apart. It’s time for him to fight back.
Well regarded by the Academy.
As for “Kramer vs Kramer”, this is a movie that has been garlanded with multiple Oscar nominations. Both Driver and Johansson are nominated in the lead acting roles and Laura Dern seems to be favourite for the Best Supporting Actress gong (after winning the Golden Globe and the BAFTA). Three more Oscar nominations come for the score (by Randy Newman); the original screenplay (by director Noah Baumbach); and a Best Film nomination.
Both leads deliver really emotional performances, with Johansson in particular being very believable in the role. But who knew she was so short?! She always strikes me as a statuesque beauty, but she’s only 5′ 3” and it’s particularly noticeable in a scene filmed at Warner Brothers Studios.
It’s also fabulous to see both the great Alan Alda (here showing signs of his Parkinson’s) and Ray Liotta on screen again, as both low-rent and top-dollar lawyers respectively.
But WHY exactly are they divorcing?
I found the whole set up of the movie as frustrating. There seemed no clear understanding of why the separation is happening. True there is an affair involved (and Mrs Movie Man and I have always lived our nearly 40 years of marriage with the understanding that a “one strike” rule applies). But notwithstanding that, it seems to be more of a ‘drifting apart’ that’s gone on. I just wanted to give them a good shaking and get them to work it out!
This is all obviously unfair – because (and I also know this from experience) that in many marriages ‘shit happens’: some people do just want to do different things; feel suffocated; etc. And – thinking about it – I’m not sure there was any real reason given for Meryl Streep‘s departure in K vs K: which was part of the reason for Dustin Hoffman‘s character’s frustration.
Who do you sympathise with?
This is a movie where the audience is bound to take a side. But for me, there was only one side to take and that was Charlie’s. The actions of Nicole seem reprehensible and unforgivable, and when there are lines to be crossed she seems to have little hesitation in crossing them.
Many people seem to rave about this movie, but…
…I found the pace to be inconsistent. At one point, the story just stops for a soulful rendition by Charlie of a song in a bar, and I frankly just got bored with it. And while there’s a steady build up of the legal case involved, suddenly we seem to skip to a resolution without any real rationale for it. Or did I fall asleep??
A further irritation for me was Julie Hagerty as Nicole’s mum Sandra. She does the kooky mum turn that she did perfectly well in last year’s funny “Instant Family“, but its a role that really didn’t seem to fit in this movie. There’s an element of slapstick comedy in these scenes that just didn’t suit the general tone of the movie.
Overall, I just don’t share the love for this movie. Given the choice, I’d much rather watch Kramer vs Kramer again.
And what was that punchline?
By the way, Alan Alda is a fantastic comedian, and really knows how to deliver a joke. In this movie he’s regaling Charlie with a long-winded story (on the clock) when Charlie interrupts him. How did it end…. Alda revealed the full joke after a press screening at the New York Film Festival… and it’s a corker!
This woman’s at her hairdresser’s, and she says, “I’m going to Rome on holiday.”
He says, “Oh really, what airline are you taking?”
She says, “Alitalia.”
He says, “Alitalia, are you crazy? That’s terrible, don’t take that.”
He says, “Where are you gonna stay?”
She says, “I’m gonna stay at The Hassler.”
“The Hassler! What, are you kidding? They’re renovating the Hassler. You’ll hear hammering all night long. You won’t sleep! What are you gonna see?”
She says, “I think I’m going to try to go to the Vatican.” “The Vatican? You’ll be standing in line all day long—”
(Charlie interrupts at this point, but the joke goes on)
So she goes to Rome. She comes back, and the hairdresser says, “How was it?”
She says, “It was a great trip, it was wonderful.”
“How was the Vatican?”
“Wonderful! We happened to meet the Pope.”
“You met the Pope?”
“Yeah, and he spoke to me.”
“What did he say to you?”
“He said, ‘Where’d you get that f***ing haircut?’”
LOL!
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Tutankhamun in Tabletop Games
Jul 9, 2021
Tutankhamun (per dictionary.com, the pronunciation is as such: [ toot-ahng-kah-muhn ]) is regularly shortened and often referred to as “King Tut.” My real question is that if the first syllable is “toot,” why do we not call him King Toot? I have a 5 year old boy and a 2 year old girl at the time of this writing, so I can tell you EXACTLY why we don’t call him King Toot, but that’s for another discussion. Never having played the original version, will I enjoy this new version of the game by world-renowned designer Dr. Reiner Knizia?
In Tutankhamun, players take on the roles of Egyptian priests attempting to cleanse their souls by gifting the sarcophagus with relics found along the Nile River. The priest who can cleanse their soul quickest will be proclaimed the next High Priest and winner 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, place the King Tut sarcophagus on the table somewhere inside the box bottom. From this starting place (or you could place these components last I suppose), begin the laborious job of creating the Nile from the trapezoidal Relic TIles. This part took me a good several minutes each game. Place out the Underworld Mat near the start of the Nile, and place upon it the two Guardian Statue standees. From there give every player a reference card, have them choose a player color, place their boats at the start of the Nile, and Canopic Jar scoring markers on the appropriate space along the box bottom score track. The game may now begin!
Tutankhamun is played in turns starting with the starting player and proceeding clockwise. The starting player will choose ANY Relic Tile to collect and move their boat to that location. Once collected, the player will check to make sure there are still matching Relics along the Nile. If so, then play continues to the next player. If the active player had collected the last Relic of that type still active in the game, then the Relic type is scored.
Each Relic Tile features art of a Relic, a God, or a Scarab Ring. Relics come in sets, and when the final Relic of its type is collected, scoring immediately follows. Whichever player possesses the most Relic Tiles of the one being scored will earn points (or rather, negative points, as the priests are trying to cleanse their souls down to the winning score of zero) equal to the number printed on the tile. That number stands for the score earned as well as the number of Relics of that type in the game. The player with the second most Relics of the scored type will score half the number printed on the tile. All others do not score.
God Tiles feature art of one of five ancient Egyptian Gods: Osiris, Isis, Ra, Thoth, and Horus. Each of these Gods provide the collecting player with special powers to be used during the turn, and are always positive for the player.
Finally, Scarab Ring tiles are special in that they feature no number upon them. There are 10 tiles in the game, and as soon as a player collects one they immediately score one point (or one negative point). These tiles are not thrown into the box bottom, as the other scoring tiles are once scored, but are kept with the players to be scored at the end of the game. The player holding the most Scarab Tiles scores five negative points.
Any tile along the Nile that has been passed by all players is deposited onto the Underworld Mat and not added to the box bottom with the King Tut sarcophagus. Tiles may still be collected from the Underworld by permission of the Gods being collected in-game. Whichever priest is able to dwindle down their points and cleanse their soul first will win the game and become the next High Priest of Egypt!
Components. I am more and more becoming a fan of everything 25th Century Games is putting out. This is certainly no exception. I have seen photos of the original versions of this game, entitled Tutankhamen (with an E at the end instead of a U) and this game was certainly begging for a renovation. All the components have updated art, more vibrant colors, and the game even includes luxurious (and completely unnecessary) components. These are the very cool, but very unnecessary King Tut sarcophagus, and the Guardian Statue standees that add nothing to the gameplay but definitely help set the mood and theme. That all said, this version looks amazing on the table and has nearly infinite setup configurations!
What I like most about the game is the fact that on a player’s turn they can literally move forward to ANYWHERE along the Nile to gather whatever Relic they wish. They can pass up a tile or twelve along the way to snatch exactly what they want. However, the quicker a player reaches the sarcophagus does not automatically make them the winner. No, they still need to reduce their soul spirit score to zero in order to win (or be closest by the time all players reach the final spot). Conversely, dilly-dallying along the River just picking up every available tile also will not guarantee a victory. Specializing in a select few items may be the ticket to a victory, or setting oneself to win a couple types and win runner-up on the remainder may be a great path to victory.
Unlike many other games with this lazy race mechanic, the player furthest back does NOT get to keep taking turns to catch up (I’m looking at you, Tokaido), but rather just means that player has many more options ahead of themselves than the other players have. This is very interesting to me, and definitely something worth exploring more. It makes for tough turns when players have to really crunch which options are best for them: take the tile right ahead of them, diversify vs bolster the collection, or hate block another player by taking what you know they need. Ahh, so beautiful are the choices given!
At the end of the day (and this review), Purple Phoenix Games gives this one an Obama-meme-where-he-is-drinking-a-beer-and-giving-a-thumbs-up 5 / 6. I would certainly not have purchased this game in its original form had I seen it in a game store. However, with the changes made to make it more pretty, I would have given it a chance. I am so very glad I have the opportunity to play this a lot, as I can see this getting to the table allllllll the time. It is right up my alley, and I place it high among other Knizia games. Long live King Toot!!
In Tutankhamun, players take on the roles of Egyptian priests attempting to cleanse their souls by gifting the sarcophagus with relics found along the Nile River. The priest who can cleanse their soul quickest will be proclaimed the next High Priest and winner 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, place the King Tut sarcophagus on the table somewhere inside the box bottom. From this starting place (or you could place these components last I suppose), begin the laborious job of creating the Nile from the trapezoidal Relic TIles. This part took me a good several minutes each game. Place out the Underworld Mat near the start of the Nile, and place upon it the two Guardian Statue standees. From there give every player a reference card, have them choose a player color, place their boats at the start of the Nile, and Canopic Jar scoring markers on the appropriate space along the box bottom score track. The game may now begin!
Tutankhamun is played in turns starting with the starting player and proceeding clockwise. The starting player will choose ANY Relic Tile to collect and move their boat to that location. Once collected, the player will check to make sure there are still matching Relics along the Nile. If so, then play continues to the next player. If the active player had collected the last Relic of that type still active in the game, then the Relic type is scored.
Each Relic Tile features art of a Relic, a God, or a Scarab Ring. Relics come in sets, and when the final Relic of its type is collected, scoring immediately follows. Whichever player possesses the most Relic Tiles of the one being scored will earn points (or rather, negative points, as the priests are trying to cleanse their souls down to the winning score of zero) equal to the number printed on the tile. That number stands for the score earned as well as the number of Relics of that type in the game. The player with the second most Relics of the scored type will score half the number printed on the tile. All others do not score.
God Tiles feature art of one of five ancient Egyptian Gods: Osiris, Isis, Ra, Thoth, and Horus. Each of these Gods provide the collecting player with special powers to be used during the turn, and are always positive for the player.
Finally, Scarab Ring tiles are special in that they feature no number upon them. There are 10 tiles in the game, and as soon as a player collects one they immediately score one point (or one negative point). These tiles are not thrown into the box bottom, as the other scoring tiles are once scored, but are kept with the players to be scored at the end of the game. The player holding the most Scarab Tiles scores five negative points.
Any tile along the Nile that has been passed by all players is deposited onto the Underworld Mat and not added to the box bottom with the King Tut sarcophagus. Tiles may still be collected from the Underworld by permission of the Gods being collected in-game. Whichever priest is able to dwindle down their points and cleanse their soul first will win the game and become the next High Priest of Egypt!
Components. I am more and more becoming a fan of everything 25th Century Games is putting out. This is certainly no exception. I have seen photos of the original versions of this game, entitled Tutankhamen (with an E at the end instead of a U) and this game was certainly begging for a renovation. All the components have updated art, more vibrant colors, and the game even includes luxurious (and completely unnecessary) components. These are the very cool, but very unnecessary King Tut sarcophagus, and the Guardian Statue standees that add nothing to the gameplay but definitely help set the mood and theme. That all said, this version looks amazing on the table and has nearly infinite setup configurations!
What I like most about the game is the fact that on a player’s turn they can literally move forward to ANYWHERE along the Nile to gather whatever Relic they wish. They can pass up a tile or twelve along the way to snatch exactly what they want. However, the quicker a player reaches the sarcophagus does not automatically make them the winner. No, they still need to reduce their soul spirit score to zero in order to win (or be closest by the time all players reach the final spot). Conversely, dilly-dallying along the River just picking up every available tile also will not guarantee a victory. Specializing in a select few items may be the ticket to a victory, or setting oneself to win a couple types and win runner-up on the remainder may be a great path to victory.
Unlike many other games with this lazy race mechanic, the player furthest back does NOT get to keep taking turns to catch up (I’m looking at you, Tokaido), but rather just means that player has many more options ahead of themselves than the other players have. This is very interesting to me, and definitely something worth exploring more. It makes for tough turns when players have to really crunch which options are best for them: take the tile right ahead of them, diversify vs bolster the collection, or hate block another player by taking what you know they need. Ahh, so beautiful are the choices given!
At the end of the day (and this review), Purple Phoenix Games gives this one an Obama-meme-where-he-is-drinking-a-beer-and-giving-a-thumbs-up 5 / 6. I would certainly not have purchased this game in its original form had I seen it in a game store. However, with the changes made to make it more pretty, I would have given it a chance. I am so very glad I have the opportunity to play this a lot, as I can see this getting to the table allllllll the time. It is right up my alley, and I place it high among other Knizia games. Long live King Toot!!
