Search
COBUILD Advanced American
Reference and Education
App
Transform your English with Collins COBUILD Advanced American English Dictionary [Second edition]....
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Hangover Part II (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
It has been two years since writer-director producer Todd Phillips unleashed the mother of all benders on audiences with The Hangover. The film about four buddies on a lost weekend in Vegas was a comedic tour de force that left audiences laughing from start to finish and went on to be the highest grossing R-rated film in history. Naturally when a film does this kind of business, thoughts turned to a sequel and Phillips has returned with the original cast and crew to follow up this comedy classic.
Plot of the film mild-mannered dentist Stu (Ed Helms), who is getting married in Thailand to the girl of his dreams. Undaunted by the fact that his fiancé’s father despises everything about him, Stu convinces his best friends Phil (Bradley Cooper), and Doug (Justin Bartha), to take the 16 hour flight to attend the ceremony. When news reaches them that a crestfallen Alan (Zach Galifianikis), is waiting for his invitation to the ceremony, Stu is reluctant because he does not want a repeat of what happened in Vegas.
But despite their misgivings, the friends decide to include Alan in the ceremony and embark to the airport for the long flight to Thailand. They’re joined at the airport by Stu’s future brother-in-law Teddy (Mason Lee), a child prodigy who was already attending Stanford at 16 and has designs on a future medical career. As Stu’s fiance explains later in the film, Teddy is their father’s “most prized possession.”
Alan takes an instant disliking to Teddy and sees him as an outsider in their “wolf pack” and doesn’t miss an opportunity to try to exclude Teddy. Upon their arrival in beautiful Thailand, the friends get through a somewhat awkward dinner with the future in-laws and relax on the beach for a bonfire and bachelor party. Phil makes sure to be extra careful to avoid any of the issues they had in Vegas and selects bottled beer that was given to them by the hotel staff and makes sure that every one of them only gets an unopened bottle to drink.
Despite these precautions, Stu, Phil, and Alan wake up the next morning in a seedy hotel with absolutely no memory of how they got there and what happened the night before. Stu now sports a fresh facial tattoo while Alan has a completely shaved head. Matters are further complicated when the group realizes that Teddy is missing and that what appears to be his severed finger is found to be floating in a bucket of water.
As if things were not bad enough, matters take an even extreme turn for the worse when a monkey and Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong), show up and add even bigger complications to the already complex situation. The group learns that Doug is safely back at the resort and waiting for their arrival at breakfast after having left the bonfire early, leaving Stu, Alan and Phil to piece together the forgotten events of the night and locate Teddy before the wedding. Along the way they run into criminals, the sleazy side of Bangkok, upset monks, and much more as they race against time to solve the mystery and locate Teddy.
What follows is a comedic adventure complete with jaw-dropping sequences that leaves the audience shocked at just how far they push the envelope. The cast works well with one another and there are some truly funny moments in the film. The biggest issue with the movie is that it must walk a fine line between using the established formula of friends trying to remember and deal with the consequences of their lost evening while not repeating itself.
This is a very tricky proposition as the film essentially follows the same plot line of the original film: a group of friends are trying to remember the previous night and locate a missing member prior to a wedding. There are also similar jokes such as Stu dealing with a tattoo instead of a missing tooth and Alan’s constant nonsensical bantering and plethora of useless information.
Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel director Todd Phillips instead focuses on the relationship of the cast and allows the unique and exotic setting to be the new character and foil for the comedy. Many times in the film it is established that Teddy must be located before “Bangkok gets him” and as such the city offers endless opportunities for the cast.
The film does drag at the three quarters mark but recovers nicely, leading to a predictable finale. While the film was not as thoroughly funny as the original, in terms of humor and storytelling, but there are still plenty of laughs and eye-popping scenes that make it an enjoyable comedy. There are rumors that Phillips has plans for third film in the series to complete the trilogy. If this is indeed the case I would welcome a third film with the understanding that more care be put into the plot to avoid rehashing previous jokes and situations.
Plot of the film mild-mannered dentist Stu (Ed Helms), who is getting married in Thailand to the girl of his dreams. Undaunted by the fact that his fiancé’s father despises everything about him, Stu convinces his best friends Phil (Bradley Cooper), and Doug (Justin Bartha), to take the 16 hour flight to attend the ceremony. When news reaches them that a crestfallen Alan (Zach Galifianikis), is waiting for his invitation to the ceremony, Stu is reluctant because he does not want a repeat of what happened in Vegas.
But despite their misgivings, the friends decide to include Alan in the ceremony and embark to the airport for the long flight to Thailand. They’re joined at the airport by Stu’s future brother-in-law Teddy (Mason Lee), a child prodigy who was already attending Stanford at 16 and has designs on a future medical career. As Stu’s fiance explains later in the film, Teddy is their father’s “most prized possession.”
Alan takes an instant disliking to Teddy and sees him as an outsider in their “wolf pack” and doesn’t miss an opportunity to try to exclude Teddy. Upon their arrival in beautiful Thailand, the friends get through a somewhat awkward dinner with the future in-laws and relax on the beach for a bonfire and bachelor party. Phil makes sure to be extra careful to avoid any of the issues they had in Vegas and selects bottled beer that was given to them by the hotel staff and makes sure that every one of them only gets an unopened bottle to drink.
Despite these precautions, Stu, Phil, and Alan wake up the next morning in a seedy hotel with absolutely no memory of how they got there and what happened the night before. Stu now sports a fresh facial tattoo while Alan has a completely shaved head. Matters are further complicated when the group realizes that Teddy is missing and that what appears to be his severed finger is found to be floating in a bucket of water.
As if things were not bad enough, matters take an even extreme turn for the worse when a monkey and Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong), show up and add even bigger complications to the already complex situation. The group learns that Doug is safely back at the resort and waiting for their arrival at breakfast after having left the bonfire early, leaving Stu, Alan and Phil to piece together the forgotten events of the night and locate Teddy before the wedding. Along the way they run into criminals, the sleazy side of Bangkok, upset monks, and much more as they race against time to solve the mystery and locate Teddy.
What follows is a comedic adventure complete with jaw-dropping sequences that leaves the audience shocked at just how far they push the envelope. The cast works well with one another and there are some truly funny moments in the film. The biggest issue with the movie is that it must walk a fine line between using the established formula of friends trying to remember and deal with the consequences of their lost evening while not repeating itself.
This is a very tricky proposition as the film essentially follows the same plot line of the original film: a group of friends are trying to remember the previous night and locate a missing member prior to a wedding. There are also similar jokes such as Stu dealing with a tattoo instead of a missing tooth and Alan’s constant nonsensical bantering and plethora of useless information.
Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel director Todd Phillips instead focuses on the relationship of the cast and allows the unique and exotic setting to be the new character and foil for the comedy. Many times in the film it is established that Teddy must be located before “Bangkok gets him” and as such the city offers endless opportunities for the cast.
The film does drag at the three quarters mark but recovers nicely, leading to a predictable finale. While the film was not as thoroughly funny as the original, in terms of humor and storytelling, but there are still plenty of laughs and eye-popping scenes that make it an enjoyable comedy. There are rumors that Phillips has plans for third film in the series to complete the trilogy. If this is indeed the case I would welcome a third film with the understanding that more care be put into the plot to avoid rehashing previous jokes and situations.
Louise (64 KP) rated Beautiful Broken Things in Books
Jul 2, 2018
This is Sara Barnard's debut novel and a good one at that! Beautiful broken things is an emotional rollercoaster, you are literally up and down on this suspenseful ride, With friendship, self discovery, school, family and abuse this novel certainly packs a punch!
Caddy has been best friends with Rosie for over 10 years despite attending different schools. Calling each other throughout the week and spending the weekends together they couldn't be closer, until Caddy is introduced to Suzanne a new girl from Rosie's school. Jealous of Rosie's new friendship she doesn't instantly take to her, Suzanne is pretty, bold, exciting and totally different from what Caddy is used to. Slowly Suzanne starts to reveal things about herself and the issues that she is hiding from her friends. With this new found knowledge Caddy suddenly sees Suzanne in a different light and wants to help her but also be involved in this interesting girls life and so their friendship blossoms but threatens to break them all apart for good.
Caddy goes to Esther's which is an all girls private school, she is on a tight leash with her parents, paying thousands of pounds per term for her education they are expecting A grades. With all work and no play nothing significant has happened in Caddy's life, she makes a vow for that to end this year and Suzanne is there to help. People around caddy don't think their friendship is a good idea as Suzanne is 'troubled' and leading her astray. Caddy is very naive and hasn't really be involved with boys or been to house parties but with her new-found friend and wanting to fit in she gets more involved and really comes out of her shell.
Suzanne is beautiful, funny and also a "troubled" teenager, living with her aunt starts speculation as to why this is. With a history of abuse, Suzanne is broken and is what people would call a bad influence, she drinks, she goes around with any boy who will have her and when things get tough she runs away. As she becomes friends with Caddy she is pulling her towards her way of life. Caddy would never have dreamt of climbing out of her window in the middle of the night or randomly catching a train without knowing the destination. But in her bid to help Suzanne she feels she has to be with her every step of the way.
This book explores the true meaning of friendship and love between teenage girls. This is a coming of age story with no romance involved and scarily realistic. It portrays mental health and teenagers sensitively and honest.
I loved that this book was set in the UK it felt so more relatable and exciting when your hometown gets referenced in the book.
There things that let down the book for me were the details of the abuser, there wasn't really any detail whether the abuser had been arrested or why Suzanne had or hadn't reported the abuser. It was sort of just glimpsed over this and neither Caddy nor Rosie questioned it which I thought was a little odd. Caddy was very annoying at points and was making some stupid decisions,I felt like shaking her and telling her to stop! JUST STOP!
I definitely recommend this book if you are looking for a realistic portrayal of mental health in young adults.
I rated this 4 out of 5 stars
Caddy has been best friends with Rosie for over 10 years despite attending different schools. Calling each other throughout the week and spending the weekends together they couldn't be closer, until Caddy is introduced to Suzanne a new girl from Rosie's school. Jealous of Rosie's new friendship she doesn't instantly take to her, Suzanne is pretty, bold, exciting and totally different from what Caddy is used to. Slowly Suzanne starts to reveal things about herself and the issues that she is hiding from her friends. With this new found knowledge Caddy suddenly sees Suzanne in a different light and wants to help her but also be involved in this interesting girls life and so their friendship blossoms but threatens to break them all apart for good.
Caddy goes to Esther's which is an all girls private school, she is on a tight leash with her parents, paying thousands of pounds per term for her education they are expecting A grades. With all work and no play nothing significant has happened in Caddy's life, she makes a vow for that to end this year and Suzanne is there to help. People around caddy don't think their friendship is a good idea as Suzanne is 'troubled' and leading her astray. Caddy is very naive and hasn't really be involved with boys or been to house parties but with her new-found friend and wanting to fit in she gets more involved and really comes out of her shell.
Suzanne is beautiful, funny and also a "troubled" teenager, living with her aunt starts speculation as to why this is. With a history of abuse, Suzanne is broken and is what people would call a bad influence, she drinks, she goes around with any boy who will have her and when things get tough she runs away. As she becomes friends with Caddy she is pulling her towards her way of life. Caddy would never have dreamt of climbing out of her window in the middle of the night or randomly catching a train without knowing the destination. But in her bid to help Suzanne she feels she has to be with her every step of the way.
This book explores the true meaning of friendship and love between teenage girls. This is a coming of age story with no romance involved and scarily realistic. It portrays mental health and teenagers sensitively and honest.
I loved that this book was set in the UK it felt so more relatable and exciting when your hometown gets referenced in the book.
There things that let down the book for me were the details of the abuser, there wasn't really any detail whether the abuser had been arrested or why Suzanne had or hadn't reported the abuser. It was sort of just glimpsed over this and neither Caddy nor Rosie questioned it which I thought was a little odd. Caddy was very annoying at points and was making some stupid decisions,I felt like shaking her and telling her to stop! JUST STOP!
I definitely recommend this book if you are looking for a realistic portrayal of mental health in young adults.
I rated this 4 out of 5 stars
Louise (64 KP) rated A Discovery of Witches in Books
Jul 2, 2018
Reading the reviews for this book, I knew it was going to be one of those reads, it’s a bit of a marmite book, you either love it or hate it. In my case I liked it enough to finish and want to continue to read the next one in the series.When I finished the book that was it. I didnt have loads of questions consuming me, it was just ok? what am I going to read next?
Diana Bishop is the female protagonist, she has descended from a very distinguished line of witches, however Diana does not use her powers that she has inherited, not since her parent’s died. Diana, a scholar is studying at a the Oxfords Bodleain Library as a historian. Unknown to her, she calls a bewitched alchemical manuscript, Ashmole 782. Finding nothing of interest to her apart from a funny feeling and an off putting text, she returns it to the stacks without a futher thought. Soon there are daemons, vampires and witches swarming around the library in search for this particular manuscript as it has been lost for 150 years and has all the answers from their past and to their future.
Deborah Harkness did a great job with the development of the two main characters Diana Bishop and Matthew Clairmont, and even the sub characters, you got to see all their traits and mannerisms.
Diana is the female protagonist she is very bold, outgoing, hardworking and sometimes just damn annoying. She is a witch that doesn’t want to use her powers but is forced to as she needs to protect herself, in the book she is feisty and then other times whiney and saying she can’t do certain things.
Matthew Clairmont is a Vampire that has existed for over a Thousand years, who is currently a geneticist and falls in love instantly with Diana, however, he is very possessive (a vampire trait….supposedly) has moodswings and just generally annoying at times.
The first half of this book is very slow paced and is more of the character building and the relationship developing between the two. The second half is much faster paced as you get more action and magical elements added to it.
There is insta-love but not in the normal way, they don’t show each other that they have feelings for one another for several days but it is a gradual build up, however the book only spans 40 days according to Harkness and I cant believe they are that involved with each other so quickly, I had to take a step back, realising that all this had happened in such a short space of time.
There is also references to a lot of historical figures and wars, so if you like a bit of history in your fiction then this could be for you. There is also no sex scenes in this book, only referencing to kissing, cuddling and a bit of fondling.
One thing that I didn’t like in this book was all the french that was used (I am not french or learnt any either) However, I think Harkness added this to feel more authentic as that was where Matthews mother Ysabeau lived.
I will definitely be reading the second book in the trilogy as I am intrigued to find out what happens next.
I rated this book a 3 out of 5 stars.
Diana Bishop is the female protagonist, she has descended from a very distinguished line of witches, however Diana does not use her powers that she has inherited, not since her parent’s died. Diana, a scholar is studying at a the Oxfords Bodleain Library as a historian. Unknown to her, she calls a bewitched alchemical manuscript, Ashmole 782. Finding nothing of interest to her apart from a funny feeling and an off putting text, she returns it to the stacks without a futher thought. Soon there are daemons, vampires and witches swarming around the library in search for this particular manuscript as it has been lost for 150 years and has all the answers from their past and to their future.
Deborah Harkness did a great job with the development of the two main characters Diana Bishop and Matthew Clairmont, and even the sub characters, you got to see all their traits and mannerisms.
Diana is the female protagonist she is very bold, outgoing, hardworking and sometimes just damn annoying. She is a witch that doesn’t want to use her powers but is forced to as she needs to protect herself, in the book she is feisty and then other times whiney and saying she can’t do certain things.
Matthew Clairmont is a Vampire that has existed for over a Thousand years, who is currently a geneticist and falls in love instantly with Diana, however, he is very possessive (a vampire trait….supposedly) has moodswings and just generally annoying at times.
The first half of this book is very slow paced and is more of the character building and the relationship developing between the two. The second half is much faster paced as you get more action and magical elements added to it.
There is insta-love but not in the normal way, they don’t show each other that they have feelings for one another for several days but it is a gradual build up, however the book only spans 40 days according to Harkness and I cant believe they are that involved with each other so quickly, I had to take a step back, realising that all this had happened in such a short space of time.
There is also references to a lot of historical figures and wars, so if you like a bit of history in your fiction then this could be for you. There is also no sex scenes in this book, only referencing to kissing, cuddling and a bit of fondling.
One thing that I didn’t like in this book was all the french that was used (I am not french or learnt any either) However, I think Harkness added this to feel more authentic as that was where Matthews mother Ysabeau lived.
I will definitely be reading the second book in the trilogy as I am intrigued to find out what happens next.
I rated this book a 3 out of 5 stars.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Borat (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
One of the funniest and most shockingly outrageous comedies in the history of film has arrived, and it is poised not only to make Sacha Baron Cohen a major star, but also ignite controversy. The film is Borat and it follows Cohen’s Kazakhstan news man, Borat, as he leaves his homeland to film a documentary in New York.
Naturally one would expect a fish out of water story, but fans are treated to much more than this as Borat and his backwards thoughts and practices and given form all over the U.S. often to the shock of those around him as well as howls of laughter from the audience.
You see Borat is a man with a few issues. He is anti-Semitic, a misogynist, ignorant and uncultured, and not ashamed of his actions which grow bolder and more outrageous as the film progresses.
The opening segments in his native land like the entire film is filled with one rapid fire joke after another as Borat introduces us to his family and key people in his town such as the town rapist and his sister the prostitute. As funny as the setup and the settings are, it is the clever comments that Cohen slips in that allows Borat to make some biting social and political commentaries.
Once in America, he travels from New York to Los Angeles making several stops along the way with side splitting results as Borat encounters events ranging from a rodeo, polite society, pop culture, a religious revival and much more.
The amazing thing about the film is that it never grows old and over the roughly 84 minutes of the films running time, there are plenty of jokes and a absence of slow spots which are often so common in comedies today.
Cohen is great at portraying Borat as a likeable guy who does not know any better which makes his comments and actions so easy to take. Cohen who is himself Jewish is able to get away with making jokes about his faith as he is doing it through the persona of someone who is ignorant to many realities in the world.
In a way the film allows us to laugh at ourselves as well as Borat is supposed to be a foreigner who does not know better, but is wiser in some ways due to his ignorance of topics. There is a scene where Borat buys a car is a true look at consumerism in the West as he spells out in graphic detail what he wants in a car and what he expects it to do for his love life.
Not only is the scene outrageous but it underscores the message of sex appeal and desirability that is prevalent in car ads aimed at men. Instead of hinting at it, Borat lifts the lid on the subject and takes it on with no punches pulled.
The film is tricky to review as one of the greatest joys of the film is the sense of discovery and not knowing where or what Borat will say or do next. Suffice it to say, that the film is a comedic masterpiece that will have you shocked and laughing harder than any film in recent memory.
Naturally one would expect a fish out of water story, but fans are treated to much more than this as Borat and his backwards thoughts and practices and given form all over the U.S. often to the shock of those around him as well as howls of laughter from the audience.
You see Borat is a man with a few issues. He is anti-Semitic, a misogynist, ignorant and uncultured, and not ashamed of his actions which grow bolder and more outrageous as the film progresses.
The opening segments in his native land like the entire film is filled with one rapid fire joke after another as Borat introduces us to his family and key people in his town such as the town rapist and his sister the prostitute. As funny as the setup and the settings are, it is the clever comments that Cohen slips in that allows Borat to make some biting social and political commentaries.
Once in America, he travels from New York to Los Angeles making several stops along the way with side splitting results as Borat encounters events ranging from a rodeo, polite society, pop culture, a religious revival and much more.
The amazing thing about the film is that it never grows old and over the roughly 84 minutes of the films running time, there are plenty of jokes and a absence of slow spots which are often so common in comedies today.
Cohen is great at portraying Borat as a likeable guy who does not know any better which makes his comments and actions so easy to take. Cohen who is himself Jewish is able to get away with making jokes about his faith as he is doing it through the persona of someone who is ignorant to many realities in the world.
In a way the film allows us to laugh at ourselves as well as Borat is supposed to be a foreigner who does not know better, but is wiser in some ways due to his ignorance of topics. There is a scene where Borat buys a car is a true look at consumerism in the West as he spells out in graphic detail what he wants in a car and what he expects it to do for his love life.
Not only is the scene outrageous but it underscores the message of sex appeal and desirability that is prevalent in car ads aimed at men. Instead of hinting at it, Borat lifts the lid on the subject and takes it on with no punches pulled.
The film is tricky to review as one of the greatest joys of the film is the sense of discovery and not knowing where or what Borat will say or do next. Suffice it to say, that the film is a comedic masterpiece that will have you shocked and laughing harder than any film in recent memory.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Irresistible (2020) in Movies
Jun 23, 2020
Jon Stewart has been fairly quiet since his retirement from The Daily Show. In a recent interview with Howard Stern he talked about being content on a farm for rescued animals and enjoying more time with his family. He also sent to that he would be doing projects that interested him. In “Irresistible” Stewart working as both Writer and Director has crafted a funny, informative, and expansive look at the political process.
Steve Carell stars as Gary Zimmer; a senior advisor to the Clinton’s who is still smarting over the recent election particularly his insistence that the “Rust Belt” was firmly in their hands and therefore opted not to devote a significant amount of time campaigning there which in turn was a key reason for their defeat.
An online video from a small farming community in Wisconsin catches Gary’s eye as it shows a former Marine farmer named Jack Hastings (Chris Cooper) challenging the local mayor at a town hall over immigration related issues and other hot topics.
Convinced that he can bring Jack over to the Democratic Party and use him as a starting point to restore the party in Wisconsin; Gary heads to the small town to make his pitch.
He quickly finds himself out of his element as the small-town community with friendly townsfolk to watch out for one another is very different than what he is used to. Gary eventually convinces Jack to run for Mayor and his involvement soon attracts the big money from the opposing side that seem to be rattled by what appears to be an insignificant small-town campaign.
Gary soon realizes that his nemesis Faith (Rose Byrne) who is his opposite for the Republican Party.
Gary and Faith have a clear history with one another and there is clearly plenty of animosity between them as each one is determined to succeed and broke their success in the face of the other.
As the campaign unfolds viewers are given a very direct look at how the political machine works from polling, demographics, special interests, fund raising, campaigning, muckraking, and using the media.
While this is often presented in a humorous way; Stewart uses a lot of simple but direct approaches to the various topics as he did on The Daily Show as a basis for further discussion.
The film takes some unexpected twists as it unfolds and the conclusion helps underscore that all parties involved often have an angle that they’re trying to work. One of the biggest messages that I took from the film was that the amount of money poured into campaigns has become more about one side beating the other rather than addressing the issues and putting the best possible people forward to represent the population.
Stewart handles the very complicated topics of the film through humor but above all used generally likable characters on all sides. Nobody was truly evil and you could clearly see much of their motivations.
The closing credits contains an interview with a political expert who discusses Superpacs and their lack of oversight and how people with ulterior motives can generate large amounts of money by manipulating the system completely within the law.
From a strong cast and entertaining story. Stewart has crafted a very solid and enjoyable film that will make you think.
Steve Carell stars as Gary Zimmer; a senior advisor to the Clinton’s who is still smarting over the recent election particularly his insistence that the “Rust Belt” was firmly in their hands and therefore opted not to devote a significant amount of time campaigning there which in turn was a key reason for their defeat.
An online video from a small farming community in Wisconsin catches Gary’s eye as it shows a former Marine farmer named Jack Hastings (Chris Cooper) challenging the local mayor at a town hall over immigration related issues and other hot topics.
Convinced that he can bring Jack over to the Democratic Party and use him as a starting point to restore the party in Wisconsin; Gary heads to the small town to make his pitch.
He quickly finds himself out of his element as the small-town community with friendly townsfolk to watch out for one another is very different than what he is used to. Gary eventually convinces Jack to run for Mayor and his involvement soon attracts the big money from the opposing side that seem to be rattled by what appears to be an insignificant small-town campaign.
Gary soon realizes that his nemesis Faith (Rose Byrne) who is his opposite for the Republican Party.
Gary and Faith have a clear history with one another and there is clearly plenty of animosity between them as each one is determined to succeed and broke their success in the face of the other.
As the campaign unfolds viewers are given a very direct look at how the political machine works from polling, demographics, special interests, fund raising, campaigning, muckraking, and using the media.
While this is often presented in a humorous way; Stewart uses a lot of simple but direct approaches to the various topics as he did on The Daily Show as a basis for further discussion.
The film takes some unexpected twists as it unfolds and the conclusion helps underscore that all parties involved often have an angle that they’re trying to work. One of the biggest messages that I took from the film was that the amount of money poured into campaigns has become more about one side beating the other rather than addressing the issues and putting the best possible people forward to represent the population.
Stewart handles the very complicated topics of the film through humor but above all used generally likable characters on all sides. Nobody was truly evil and you could clearly see much of their motivations.
The closing credits contains an interview with a political expert who discusses Superpacs and their lack of oversight and how people with ulterior motives can generate large amounts of money by manipulating the system completely within the law.
From a strong cast and entertaining story. Stewart has crafted a very solid and enjoyable film that will make you think.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Stan & Ollie (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I think that almost everyone has some knowledge of Laurel and Hardy. Certainly growing up with a love of black and white comedies meant that I saw a fair few myself. There's certainly a familiarity in what we see from Coogan and Reilly that brings a smile to your face. The main problem is that it's such a hard act to follow. I can't say that I'm left raving about what was presented. It's a charming film... I'm just not sure if that's a compliment or not.
Seeing the BBC Films logo come up at the beginning gave me some hope. Having never really enjoy either of the main actor's work this actually gave me some hope that this would be an amazing sort of production that I've come to love from the BBC. Sadly, again, I wasn't wowed by what I saw.
Coogan and Reilly do both manage to capture their part of the double act well, and seeing those trademark moves briefly gives you that spark of joy. Nostalgia is a very powerful thing and you get a great buzz but I'm not sure it's enough to make up for the overall feeling of the film.
Both Shirley Henderson and Nina Arianda make for a fiery support cast in the roles of Lucille Hardy and Ida Laurel, but I have to say that Ida was the character for me. Self promoting and yet fiercely loyal. Loving and yet tinged with a streak of harsh reality. It was pleasing to see how she evolved to show such heart and unite the pair at the end.
Capturing snippets of a lifetime is always difficult. There are so many things going on that you have to choose whether to feature or not and that inevitably leads to gaps and slight inconsistencies. Hardy's gambling made several appearances but at no point is it really shown as a severe problem , most of it was done in a very lighthearted manner which sort of defeated the point of it being mentioned at all.
The first half of the film is incredibly slow and dare I say dull. So much so that I did wonder whether it was anything like the film that the trailer had promised. While I did silently chuckle to myself it was by no means laugh out loud funny with it's comedy... although the woman across the aisle from me would probably disagree on that point.
Despite my rather bland feelings about the film it did have some excellent moments. The opening sequence of them walking through the studio lot is really well set up, but shots after that were all very traditional. My other stand out moment was right at the end where they're doing their last performance. In that moment I had a stream of tears running down my face. The fact that they managed to convey the end of Laurel and Hardy's career in such a relatively short sequence was amazing.
Ultimately I think some of the greats from history should probably be left in that iconic position. I'm really not sure that this added anything to their story.
What you should do
If you#re one for nostalgia then you should head on out to see this in January.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'd have to have just a little piece of Stan Laurel's creativity and dedication.
Seeing the BBC Films logo come up at the beginning gave me some hope. Having never really enjoy either of the main actor's work this actually gave me some hope that this would be an amazing sort of production that I've come to love from the BBC. Sadly, again, I wasn't wowed by what I saw.
Coogan and Reilly do both manage to capture their part of the double act well, and seeing those trademark moves briefly gives you that spark of joy. Nostalgia is a very powerful thing and you get a great buzz but I'm not sure it's enough to make up for the overall feeling of the film.
Both Shirley Henderson and Nina Arianda make for a fiery support cast in the roles of Lucille Hardy and Ida Laurel, but I have to say that Ida was the character for me. Self promoting and yet fiercely loyal. Loving and yet tinged with a streak of harsh reality. It was pleasing to see how she evolved to show such heart and unite the pair at the end.
Capturing snippets of a lifetime is always difficult. There are so many things going on that you have to choose whether to feature or not and that inevitably leads to gaps and slight inconsistencies. Hardy's gambling made several appearances but at no point is it really shown as a severe problem , most of it was done in a very lighthearted manner which sort of defeated the point of it being mentioned at all.
The first half of the film is incredibly slow and dare I say dull. So much so that I did wonder whether it was anything like the film that the trailer had promised. While I did silently chuckle to myself it was by no means laugh out loud funny with it's comedy... although the woman across the aisle from me would probably disagree on that point.
Despite my rather bland feelings about the film it did have some excellent moments. The opening sequence of them walking through the studio lot is really well set up, but shots after that were all very traditional. My other stand out moment was right at the end where they're doing their last performance. In that moment I had a stream of tears running down my face. The fact that they managed to convey the end of Laurel and Hardy's career in such a relatively short sequence was amazing.
Ultimately I think some of the greats from history should probably be left in that iconic position. I'm really not sure that this added anything to their story.
What you should do
If you#re one for nostalgia then you should head on out to see this in January.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'd have to have just a little piece of Stan Laurel's creativity and dedication.
SceneRecord +
Utilities and Productivity
App
A MP3 Recorder, and is also a Voice-Changer. ●●●After five years of hard work, more stable...
Logic Master 1 - Mind Twist
Games and Entertainment
App
Looking for a game that is brilliant, creative and strange at the same time? Now you can become a...
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Terrible Candidates in Tabletop Games
Aug 28, 2020
2020 is a year that will definitely go down in the history books for many reasons. Amidst a global pandemic, a growing civil rights movement, and a hurricane-like storm that ravaged the state of Iowa on August 10th, we ALSO find ourselves in an election year. As if things couldn’t get any crazier, right? Get in the campaigning mood by checking out Terrible Candidates, and remember to get out and vote on November 3rd, America!
Disclaimer: We were provided a copy of Terrible Candidates for the purposes of this review. The components pictured are finalized and are what come in a production copy of the game. I do not intend to rehash the entire rulebook, but rather provide an overview of the rules and general gameplay. -L
Terrible Candidates is a party game in which all players, candidates vying for the Presidency, participate in a series of public debates. At the end of the game, the player who has won the most debates is declared the new President! Setup is simple: Deal 5 Policy cards to each player, place the remaining Policy and Topic cards in the center of the table, place the Dumpster Fire of Democracy card within reach of all players to indicate the discard pile, and keep the President card off to the side.
The gameplay itself is just as simple! Select a pair of neighboring players to be the first debate Candidates. A Topic card is revealed, and the 2 Candidates select a Policy card from their hand to play in this debate. Once the Policy cards are selected, each Candidate gets 30 seconds to explain/debate their selected response to the Topic, providing as many talking points, facts (true or alternative) and other general jargon or nonsense to convince the Media (the non-Candidates for this turn) to vote for them. When both Candidates have made their debates, each member of the Media is allowed to ask one question, providing an extra chance for political shenanigans or hilarity. Once all questions have been asked, the Media votes on which Candidate they believe was the best of the pair, and that winning Candidate keeps the Topic card as their point. The game moves on to the next debate, rotating one person around the group to get a new pair of Candidates – one Candidate from the previous debate, and a new competitor. Play progresses in this manner until all players have participated in 2 debates, thus ending the round. Any players who have no Topic cards (meaning they didn’t win either of their debates in the round) is knocked out of the game, and the next round commences with the remaining players. The second round follows the steps of the first, and when all players have debated twice, the game ends. The player with the most Topic cards is declared the winner and becomes President!
I know that this game might seem like a lot, but it’s honestly not complicated. Each round works as follows: Debate, Question, Vote, and repeat until all players have done 2 debates. If there is one thing that is a must for a party game, it’s a simple set of rules and gameplay to maximize playing time, and Terrible Candidates has adhered to that policy (See what I did there?). The overall atmosphere of the game is reminiscent of CAH, but with a twist. In CAH, all players submit a card and one player is the ultimate judge for the turn, thus allowing players to cater to the personality/sense of humor of that one person. Terrible Candidates is a group effort, meaning that you have to get a majority of the votes in your favor to win the debate. Instead of focusing on one person, you have to be quick-witted and clever enough to find ways to influence all other players. That makes it feel like a more engaging game overall, since all players are involved in every step of the turn.
Obviously, this game has some political implications, but the gameplay can be whatever your group wants it to be. Playing with a group of highly political friends? Maybe it will turn into some intelligent debates and conversations throughout the night. Playing with the fam at a reunion or get-together? Go crazy, make up hilarious stories, and just have a good time. It all depends on your gaming group, and it can be whatever kind of game you want it to be – serious or silly. A caveat with this, as with CAH-esque games, is knowing your group and the kind of humor that is acceptable. Just make sure that however you decide to play, everyone involved is comfortable and having fun!
All in all, I think that Terrible Candidates is a fun and funny little game for everyone involved. As a Candidate, you put your improv skills to the test as you make ridiculous claims or present decent ideas in your 30-second time limit. As a member of the Media, you also get in on a little improv, coming up with a question to ask the Candidates, and then casting your vote for the most convincing side. This game can be so unpredictable, and that’s what helps keep it fresh, entertaining, and funny. Whether you are politically active or not, this game can result in some great times and good conversations among the group. If you’re up for it, take a chance and cast your vote for Terrible Candidates!
Disclaimer: We were provided a copy of Terrible Candidates for the purposes of this review. The components pictured are finalized and are what come in a production copy of the game. I do not intend to rehash the entire rulebook, but rather provide an overview of the rules and general gameplay. -L
Terrible Candidates is a party game in which all players, candidates vying for the Presidency, participate in a series of public debates. At the end of the game, the player who has won the most debates is declared the new President! Setup is simple: Deal 5 Policy cards to each player, place the remaining Policy and Topic cards in the center of the table, place the Dumpster Fire of Democracy card within reach of all players to indicate the discard pile, and keep the President card off to the side.
The gameplay itself is just as simple! Select a pair of neighboring players to be the first debate Candidates. A Topic card is revealed, and the 2 Candidates select a Policy card from their hand to play in this debate. Once the Policy cards are selected, each Candidate gets 30 seconds to explain/debate their selected response to the Topic, providing as many talking points, facts (true or alternative) and other general jargon or nonsense to convince the Media (the non-Candidates for this turn) to vote for them. When both Candidates have made their debates, each member of the Media is allowed to ask one question, providing an extra chance for political shenanigans or hilarity. Once all questions have been asked, the Media votes on which Candidate they believe was the best of the pair, and that winning Candidate keeps the Topic card as their point. The game moves on to the next debate, rotating one person around the group to get a new pair of Candidates – one Candidate from the previous debate, and a new competitor. Play progresses in this manner until all players have participated in 2 debates, thus ending the round. Any players who have no Topic cards (meaning they didn’t win either of their debates in the round) is knocked out of the game, and the next round commences with the remaining players. The second round follows the steps of the first, and when all players have debated twice, the game ends. The player with the most Topic cards is declared the winner and becomes President!
I know that this game might seem like a lot, but it’s honestly not complicated. Each round works as follows: Debate, Question, Vote, and repeat until all players have done 2 debates. If there is one thing that is a must for a party game, it’s a simple set of rules and gameplay to maximize playing time, and Terrible Candidates has adhered to that policy (See what I did there?). The overall atmosphere of the game is reminiscent of CAH, but with a twist. In CAH, all players submit a card and one player is the ultimate judge for the turn, thus allowing players to cater to the personality/sense of humor of that one person. Terrible Candidates is a group effort, meaning that you have to get a majority of the votes in your favor to win the debate. Instead of focusing on one person, you have to be quick-witted and clever enough to find ways to influence all other players. That makes it feel like a more engaging game overall, since all players are involved in every step of the turn.
Obviously, this game has some political implications, but the gameplay can be whatever your group wants it to be. Playing with a group of highly political friends? Maybe it will turn into some intelligent debates and conversations throughout the night. Playing with the fam at a reunion or get-together? Go crazy, make up hilarious stories, and just have a good time. It all depends on your gaming group, and it can be whatever kind of game you want it to be – serious or silly. A caveat with this, as with CAH-esque games, is knowing your group and the kind of humor that is acceptable. Just make sure that however you decide to play, everyone involved is comfortable and having fun!
All in all, I think that Terrible Candidates is a fun and funny little game for everyone involved. As a Candidate, you put your improv skills to the test as you make ridiculous claims or present decent ideas in your 30-second time limit. As a member of the Media, you also get in on a little improv, coming up with a question to ask the Candidates, and then casting your vote for the most convincing side. This game can be so unpredictable, and that’s what helps keep it fresh, entertaining, and funny. Whether you are politically active or not, this game can result in some great times and good conversations among the group. If you’re up for it, take a chance and cast your vote for Terrible Candidates!
