Search
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Hitman's Bodyguard (2017) in Movies
Aug 16, 2017
The double act bickering of Reynolds and Jackson (1 more)
Salma Hayek!
Surprisingly Good
I wasn't sure what to make of The Hitman's Bodyguard when I first saw the poster. Movies which try to squeeze some comedy out of two people being thrown together who don't really like each other generally tend to suck. But then I saw the trailer, which made it look entertaining and worth a watch. However, if it hadn't been for the fact that I was away on holiday last week I may well have read some of the early negative reviews and thought about giving it a miss. Luckily though, I was on holiday, I didn't read any reviews and I ended up watching one of the funniest action packed movies I've seen in a while.
Ryan Reynolds is Michael Bryce, a 'Triple-A' bodyguard with a hot girlfriend, nice house, nice car and a smart suit. He likes to make sure that the protection of his clients runs like clockwork (boring is best, as he likes to remind his team!). So when things go badly wrong on a job, Bryce suddenly finds himself way back down the ladder when it comes to landing quality bodyguard roles. Consequently, his expensive lifestyle takes a big hit and we join him 2 years down the line, unshaven and peeing into a bottle while sitting in his beat up car before heading into a job.
Meanwhile, Samuel L Jackson is Darius Kincaid, a hitman being escorted by Interpol from Manchester to testify in Holland at The Hague. The man he is testifying against is warlord Vladislav Dukhovich (Gary Oldman, suitably evil). A nasty piece of work determined to take out anyone with the potential to put him behind bars. So when the escort accompanying Kincaid takes a hit, it becomes clear that someone in Interpol has been leaking their route, and Bryce ends up landing the role of escorting Kincaid for the rest of his trip to The Netherlands. Turns out though that Bryce and Kincaid have history, with Kincaid nearly killing Bryce on 28 previous occasions, so their initial meeting doesn't go too well. Eventually the pair reach enough of an understanding so that they can head out on the road together, down through the English countryside. It's their constant bickering on this road trip that then provides a lot of the humour for the movie. Bryce is pretty particular when it comes to how smoothly these things should be handled, whereas Kincaid just likes to get things done and screw the consequences. The word 'motherfucker' gets used to great effect A LOT by Jackson (as Bryce puts it, “This guy single-handedly ruined the word ‘motherfucker’”) and Bryce continues to be frustrated and amazed at just how 'un-killable' Kincaid appears to be.
It's not very long before the bad guys are on their tail though, leading to a succession of more and more complex action sequences. These hit a real high when everyone reaches The Netherlands, with an exciting chase through the streets and canals of Amsterdam kicking things off nicely. The only complaint with this, and the rest of the action in the movie, is that there does appears to be a never ending supply of bad guys lining up to take them out. Just when you think we're down to the final few, another wave of vehicles appears, all full of weapon waving maniacs! I loved all of the action in the movie, but because of this it does constantly run the risk of seeming a little too dragged out. It's a very fine line.
Before I forget, a special mention to Salma Hayek who stars as the wife of Kincaid. Despite being locked in a cell for the entire movie, she gets more than her fair share of funny lines and action, mainly in flashbacks where we get to see just how much of a foul mouthed bad ass she really is. Taking no crap from anyone, she's brilliant.
Although there's nothing really here that hasn't been done before, it was the brilliant double act of Reynolds and Jackson that really made this worth seeing for me. That, along with the hugely entertaining action sequences. Judging by other reviews though, I think it's just my taste in these movies that's different from most others. I actually hated last years 'The Nice Guys', while everyone else seemed to love it so I guess I'm just going to be in the minority when it comes to this movie too!
Ryan Reynolds is Michael Bryce, a 'Triple-A' bodyguard with a hot girlfriend, nice house, nice car and a smart suit. He likes to make sure that the protection of his clients runs like clockwork (boring is best, as he likes to remind his team!). So when things go badly wrong on a job, Bryce suddenly finds himself way back down the ladder when it comes to landing quality bodyguard roles. Consequently, his expensive lifestyle takes a big hit and we join him 2 years down the line, unshaven and peeing into a bottle while sitting in his beat up car before heading into a job.
Meanwhile, Samuel L Jackson is Darius Kincaid, a hitman being escorted by Interpol from Manchester to testify in Holland at The Hague. The man he is testifying against is warlord Vladislav Dukhovich (Gary Oldman, suitably evil). A nasty piece of work determined to take out anyone with the potential to put him behind bars. So when the escort accompanying Kincaid takes a hit, it becomes clear that someone in Interpol has been leaking their route, and Bryce ends up landing the role of escorting Kincaid for the rest of his trip to The Netherlands. Turns out though that Bryce and Kincaid have history, with Kincaid nearly killing Bryce on 28 previous occasions, so their initial meeting doesn't go too well. Eventually the pair reach enough of an understanding so that they can head out on the road together, down through the English countryside. It's their constant bickering on this road trip that then provides a lot of the humour for the movie. Bryce is pretty particular when it comes to how smoothly these things should be handled, whereas Kincaid just likes to get things done and screw the consequences. The word 'motherfucker' gets used to great effect A LOT by Jackson (as Bryce puts it, “This guy single-handedly ruined the word ‘motherfucker’”) and Bryce continues to be frustrated and amazed at just how 'un-killable' Kincaid appears to be.
It's not very long before the bad guys are on their tail though, leading to a succession of more and more complex action sequences. These hit a real high when everyone reaches The Netherlands, with an exciting chase through the streets and canals of Amsterdam kicking things off nicely. The only complaint with this, and the rest of the action in the movie, is that there does appears to be a never ending supply of bad guys lining up to take them out. Just when you think we're down to the final few, another wave of vehicles appears, all full of weapon waving maniacs! I loved all of the action in the movie, but because of this it does constantly run the risk of seeming a little too dragged out. It's a very fine line.
Before I forget, a special mention to Salma Hayek who stars as the wife of Kincaid. Despite being locked in a cell for the entire movie, she gets more than her fair share of funny lines and action, mainly in flashbacks where we get to see just how much of a foul mouthed bad ass she really is. Taking no crap from anyone, she's brilliant.
Although there's nothing really here that hasn't been done before, it was the brilliant double act of Reynolds and Jackson that really made this worth seeing for me. That, along with the hugely entertaining action sequences. Judging by other reviews though, I think it's just my taste in these movies that's different from most others. I actually hated last years 'The Nice Guys', while everyone else seemed to love it so I guess I'm just going to be in the minority when it comes to this movie too!
Kara Skinner (332 KP) rated Desire of the Gods in Books
Jun 12, 2019
Taudry Statue Gets Woman Laid in Desire of the Gods
Contains spoilers, click to show
The last thing Paula needed was a blindfolded, glowing god in her bed, but that’s exactly what she got.
Still reeling from her fiance, Nick, breaking up with her, Paula is desperate to try anything to get him back. So when her neighbor, Mrs. Stephanopolos gives her a magic statue that will give Paula her heart’s desire, she’s skeptical but does the required ritual anyway.
A split second later, Apollo, the Greek god of the sun, is standing in her bedroom, ready to help Paula, even though he thinks Paula can do so much better than Nick.
Everything seems to be working out until Eros sneaks in and shoots one of his insta-love arrows at Apollo. Now the sun god needs to stay permanently blindfolded to avoid falling in love with the first woman he sees, especially when Paula is so not his type. Now Paula and Apollo are stuck with each other until Aphrodite can swoop in and reverse the spell. But with the two of them in such close proximity to each other, they might realize they’re each other’s types after all.
I definitely enjoyed this book. A lot of little details were explained, like the history of the statue and why she and Apollo can understand each other, despite them speaking different languages. And even though this book has a lot of my usual pet peeves, like insta-love, arrogance, and even lack of regard for personal boundaries, I still didn’t mind it. I think it’s easier to accept because Apollo is a god and things work differently for him. His love for Paula doesn’t have to be completely realistic because he’s not human.
However, the actual moment Apollo gets shot is incredibly anti-climactic.
Suddenly, the golden god flinched, and he slapped at the side of his neck as if stung by a mosquito.
“No – Oh No! Not again!” He shut his eyes tight.
“What’s the matter?” Paula stared at him.
“Eros,” groaned the god, keeping his eyes tight shut, “He’s fired on me.”
That’s it. It’s a significant event in the book but it’s as dramatic as a mosquito bite. You don’t even meet Eros in this book. But aside from that unsatisfying scene, this was an excellent story.
I really liked Paula as a character. She’s a bit of a smartass and despite being insecure with her looks, she’s not whiny or obsessive about it. Even though she needs to go along with Apollo’s absurdity to get her heart’s desire, she stays snarky instead of being resigned to taking his (unintentionally) hurtful comments about her appearance. The only thing I didn’t really like about her was her attachment to Nick. I get the fact that he was her fiance and she’s in love with him, but it got a little repetitive, even in this novella-length story. It was especially bad when Nick saw her with Apollo, jumped to conclusions, and called her a slut for moving on so quickly, even though he left her for another woman.
However, for the most part, Paula rocked.
Apollo is so absurd, he’s adorable. Normally, arrogance turns me off, but Apollo is so over the top, it’s impossible to take him seriously.
“Turn away from me, and try not to think of my wonderfully developed upper arms or what you moderns call my six pack”
It’s just so silly that it’s funny. And Apollo genuinely does care for Paula. He warned her away from Nick from the start, telling her she could do better. He also offered to strike Nick dead for her and was in general very protective of her (but not in a controlling way).
His lack of personal boundaries bothers me slightly. He has no concept of personal space and has no problem touching Paula randomly and without warning. When sleeping in her bed, he used her breasts for a pillow, and while sleeping he dry-humped her.
While this sort of behavior would usually bother me a lot, I don’t really mind it because it’s pretty clear he’s not doing it to exert power over her or because he thinks he owns her. He’s just pretty oblivious to how the world works. (The second book in this trilogy explains that the gods are all immature and careless like this because they do not have the ability to change and grow like humans do.)
However, I really liked him for the most part. He’s really sweet in general and has a great dynamic with Paula.
Still reeling from her fiance, Nick, breaking up with her, Paula is desperate to try anything to get him back. So when her neighbor, Mrs. Stephanopolos gives her a magic statue that will give Paula her heart’s desire, she’s skeptical but does the required ritual anyway.
A split second later, Apollo, the Greek god of the sun, is standing in her bedroom, ready to help Paula, even though he thinks Paula can do so much better than Nick.
Everything seems to be working out until Eros sneaks in and shoots one of his insta-love arrows at Apollo. Now the sun god needs to stay permanently blindfolded to avoid falling in love with the first woman he sees, especially when Paula is so not his type. Now Paula and Apollo are stuck with each other until Aphrodite can swoop in and reverse the spell. But with the two of them in such close proximity to each other, they might realize they’re each other’s types after all.
I definitely enjoyed this book. A lot of little details were explained, like the history of the statue and why she and Apollo can understand each other, despite them speaking different languages. And even though this book has a lot of my usual pet peeves, like insta-love, arrogance, and even lack of regard for personal boundaries, I still didn’t mind it. I think it’s easier to accept because Apollo is a god and things work differently for him. His love for Paula doesn’t have to be completely realistic because he’s not human.
However, the actual moment Apollo gets shot is incredibly anti-climactic.
Suddenly, the golden god flinched, and he slapped at the side of his neck as if stung by a mosquito.
“No – Oh No! Not again!” He shut his eyes tight.
“What’s the matter?” Paula stared at him.
“Eros,” groaned the god, keeping his eyes tight shut, “He’s fired on me.”
That’s it. It’s a significant event in the book but it’s as dramatic as a mosquito bite. You don’t even meet Eros in this book. But aside from that unsatisfying scene, this was an excellent story.
I really liked Paula as a character. She’s a bit of a smartass and despite being insecure with her looks, she’s not whiny or obsessive about it. Even though she needs to go along with Apollo’s absurdity to get her heart’s desire, she stays snarky instead of being resigned to taking his (unintentionally) hurtful comments about her appearance. The only thing I didn’t really like about her was her attachment to Nick. I get the fact that he was her fiance and she’s in love with him, but it got a little repetitive, even in this novella-length story. It was especially bad when Nick saw her with Apollo, jumped to conclusions, and called her a slut for moving on so quickly, even though he left her for another woman.
However, for the most part, Paula rocked.
Apollo is so absurd, he’s adorable. Normally, arrogance turns me off, but Apollo is so over the top, it’s impossible to take him seriously.
“Turn away from me, and try not to think of my wonderfully developed upper arms or what you moderns call my six pack”
It’s just so silly that it’s funny. And Apollo genuinely does care for Paula. He warned her away from Nick from the start, telling her she could do better. He also offered to strike Nick dead for her and was in general very protective of her (but not in a controlling way).
His lack of personal boundaries bothers me slightly. He has no concept of personal space and has no problem touching Paula randomly and without warning. When sleeping in her bed, he used her breasts for a pillow, and while sleeping he dry-humped her.
While this sort of behavior would usually bother me a lot, I don’t really mind it because it’s pretty clear he’s not doing it to exert power over her or because he thinks he owns her. He’s just pretty oblivious to how the world works. (The second book in this trilogy explains that the gods are all immature and careless like this because they do not have the ability to change and grow like humans do.)
However, I really liked him for the most part. He’s really sweet in general and has a great dynamic with Paula.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Finding Steve McQueen (2019) in Movies
Nov 9, 2020
This heist comedy (we'll come to that later) sounds pretty good from the synopsis, I can't really elaborate much on it like I normally would because, for once, it's spot on!
I had a big issue almost straight off the bat... "In 1972"... that's how the synopsis starts. I had reread it just before starting the film and as it begins it actually flashes up "1980", very quickly it's explained (and it makes sense) but I didn't enjoy starting the film with that confusion. Now, if I was seeing this in the cinema it wouldn't have been an issue because you don't tend to sit there in the trailers reading the synopsis before it starts, but with it hitting digital you will be instantly seeing it before you press play... I know it's a really minor thing to be bugged by... but it did bug me.
The reason for the jump in years is that we're seeing Harry Barber telling his girlfriend, Molly, the story of his past and the heist. Flashbacks are a time-honoured tradition in films, but they're difficult to get right. The story jumps several times, but there's very little differentiation between time unless the diner is involved on one side of the jump. At one point it jumps because he talks at the camera and we hop back to Molly talking, it stuck out... it either never happened again or it blended in so well that I didn't notice it. It wouldn't be the first film to add something random like that and abandon the style choice. Some else will have to let me know if it happened more than I think it did.
These two things, combined with some free moving camerawork (that you know I hate) meant that I found the beginning of Finding Steve McQueen, especially when the heist that is pushed in the marketing doesn't appear for quite a while.
IMDb lists crime thriller as a guide... thriller is definitely the wrong word. Heist comedy (as per the PR I saw) is definitely more accurate, though I didn't find it particularly funny. It did bring a mild laugh out of me, but not enough to stamp it with the comedy tag. Even "heist" feels like it doesn't fit well, it may be about one but what's presented is much heavier on other parts of the story. It's more like a biopic with romance than crime. In the end that's a little bit disappointing when you're looking forward to crime.
William Fichtner was an instant standout for me, I thought he handled the role of Enzo Rotella particularly well, and there was a great dynamic with Louis Lombardi as Pauly. Rachael Taylor as Molly Murphy was great too, when she wasn't freaking me out with how much she looked like Nicole Kidman. Somehow I've never noticed that before so I'll have to put it down to a cunning makeup artist.
From there though I was underwhelmed. I'm not familiar with Travis Fimmel, and sadly, from this performance I've not been convinced to check out anything in his back catalogue. Apart from two well-played emotional scenes I didn't enjoy the character of Harry Barber at all.
Had this been advertised as a biography instead of a crime/heist then I probably would have had a more favourable opinion, but we're presented with a slow and light film. I'm not expecting all crime films to be gritty and dark, but I do expect them to focus more on the actual crime and investigation. That's also where I found the flashback idea falling apart because we're shown things for context that Harry wouldn't have known and been able to tell Molly.
What I did love about this film was the setting and the look of everything. It had a wonderful freshness about it and that coupled with the costumes felt natural and like it captured the era perfectly.
I by no means hated this film, but I was extremely disappointed. The way the story was balanced means that the heist gets lost in everything else that's happening and although it's hailed as an amazing feat in American history it doesn't feel all that impressive in this portrayal. The only real criminal thing about this film was the underuse of Forest Whitaker.
As a biography I could have seen clear to give this a 3, maybe a 3.5, but as a crime I can't give it more than a 2. It feels entirely misrepresented, had it not been for the few excellent performances, and the hope of exciting crime drama, I think I would have turned it off.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/finding-steve-mcqueen-movie-review.html
I had a big issue almost straight off the bat... "In 1972"... that's how the synopsis starts. I had reread it just before starting the film and as it begins it actually flashes up "1980", very quickly it's explained (and it makes sense) but I didn't enjoy starting the film with that confusion. Now, if I was seeing this in the cinema it wouldn't have been an issue because you don't tend to sit there in the trailers reading the synopsis before it starts, but with it hitting digital you will be instantly seeing it before you press play... I know it's a really minor thing to be bugged by... but it did bug me.
The reason for the jump in years is that we're seeing Harry Barber telling his girlfriend, Molly, the story of his past and the heist. Flashbacks are a time-honoured tradition in films, but they're difficult to get right. The story jumps several times, but there's very little differentiation between time unless the diner is involved on one side of the jump. At one point it jumps because he talks at the camera and we hop back to Molly talking, it stuck out... it either never happened again or it blended in so well that I didn't notice it. It wouldn't be the first film to add something random like that and abandon the style choice. Some else will have to let me know if it happened more than I think it did.
These two things, combined with some free moving camerawork (that you know I hate) meant that I found the beginning of Finding Steve McQueen, especially when the heist that is pushed in the marketing doesn't appear for quite a while.
IMDb lists crime thriller as a guide... thriller is definitely the wrong word. Heist comedy (as per the PR I saw) is definitely more accurate, though I didn't find it particularly funny. It did bring a mild laugh out of me, but not enough to stamp it with the comedy tag. Even "heist" feels like it doesn't fit well, it may be about one but what's presented is much heavier on other parts of the story. It's more like a biopic with romance than crime. In the end that's a little bit disappointing when you're looking forward to crime.
William Fichtner was an instant standout for me, I thought he handled the role of Enzo Rotella particularly well, and there was a great dynamic with Louis Lombardi as Pauly. Rachael Taylor as Molly Murphy was great too, when she wasn't freaking me out with how much she looked like Nicole Kidman. Somehow I've never noticed that before so I'll have to put it down to a cunning makeup artist.
From there though I was underwhelmed. I'm not familiar with Travis Fimmel, and sadly, from this performance I've not been convinced to check out anything in his back catalogue. Apart from two well-played emotional scenes I didn't enjoy the character of Harry Barber at all.
Had this been advertised as a biography instead of a crime/heist then I probably would have had a more favourable opinion, but we're presented with a slow and light film. I'm not expecting all crime films to be gritty and dark, but I do expect them to focus more on the actual crime and investigation. That's also where I found the flashback idea falling apart because we're shown things for context that Harry wouldn't have known and been able to tell Molly.
What I did love about this film was the setting and the look of everything. It had a wonderful freshness about it and that coupled with the costumes felt natural and like it captured the era perfectly.
I by no means hated this film, but I was extremely disappointed. The way the story was balanced means that the heist gets lost in everything else that's happening and although it's hailed as an amazing feat in American history it doesn't feel all that impressive in this portrayal. The only real criminal thing about this film was the underuse of Forest Whitaker.
As a biography I could have seen clear to give this a 3, maybe a 3.5, but as a crime I can't give it more than a 2. It feels entirely misrepresented, had it not been for the few excellent performances, and the hope of exciting crime drama, I think I would have turned it off.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/finding-steve-mcqueen-movie-review.html
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Jojo Rabbit (2019) in Movies
Oct 8, 2019
Roman Griffin Davis stars as Jojo Betzler in Taika Waititi’s black comedy Jojo Rabbit. Along with his second best friend Yorki (Archie Yates), Jojo is a part of a Nazi training camp for young boys and girls to become the men and women suited for Hitler supporting soldiers. Meanwhile, Jojo’s mom Rosie (Scarlett Johansson) is secretly hiding a young Jewish girl named Elsa (Thomasin McKenzie) within the walls of their home. Jojo, who is incredibly adamant about Hitler becoming his first best friend, has Hitler as an imaginary friend (portrayed by Taika Waititi) who shows up whenever Jojo seems to need a pep talk.
Based on the 2008 novel Caging Skies by Christine Leunens, Jojo Rabbit is a bonkers twist on one of the most devastating wars and tyrannical madmen in history. On the surface, the film is about a child attempting to become a Nazi because he views HItler as this great leader. He has to attempt to learn to kill, hate Jews, and essentially ignore all of his morals in order to just fit in with an army who believes they are the superior race. The intriguing aspect is that Waititi injects this unexpected tenderness and has concocted a film that has a heartbeat that is entirely too human and too genuine for any sort of project involving the likes of Adolf Hitler.
The Jojo/Hitler dynamic is an incredibly playful one. Hitler only seems to show up when something doesn’t go according to plan for Jojo or he needs some words of encouragement when times get tough. Hitler is a figment of Jojo’s imagination and is completely reactionary to Jojo’s world. If Jojo gets scared, Hitler shows up to remind him why he’s risking his own self comfort. While Waititi is funny and awkwardly charming as Hitler, which is an odd thing to say in itself, don’t overlook Archie Yates. Roman Griffin Davis encapsulates this innocence that even Elsa describes as something along the lines of a ten year old playing dress up with his friends in order to join a club. But Yates often plays off of Davis humorously and amusingly and will likely be forgotten about by some by the time they leave the theater.
Seemingly tapping into his inspiration for Gentlemen Broncos, Sam Rockwell portrays Captain Klenzendorf - a former war veteran who lost an eye and is now forced to teach children how to be soldiers. He has this strange tension on the verge of romance thing going on with his right hand man Finkel (Alfie Allen) and has extravagant taste with intricate ideas for his new uniform. Rockwell and Allen are hilarious and outshine Rebel Wilson’s Fräulein Rahm who never seems to serve much purpose before or after her line about, “having 18 kids for Germany.”
The sweet nature of Jojo Rabbit is expanded upon with the mother/son relationship between Rosie and Jojo. They have completely different viewpoints of a world on the verge of total annihilation where Jojo is slowly nudged into his mother’s mindset. It’s not so much a brainwashing as it is Jojo coming to terms with how he feels about people. Jojo Rabbit defines who we all are on the inside and simply explores the path anyone with an everyday beating heart (not rooted by a tiny mustache) would travel down over the course of their youth.
It’s kind of extraordinary that Jojo Rabbit has been released during a time when Fox Searchlight Pictures is owned by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures where a guy directing two of the biggest Thor movies did a side project where he plays Hitler and never had to attempt to keep that a secret. Waititi puts Jojo Betzler through the ringer by blowing him up repeatedly and throwing him down a flight of stairs all while being bullied and pushed around the entire time. But dammit if Jojo Rabbit isn’t one of the most heartfelt and imaginative fairy tales of the year.
This is a film where storytelling, embellishing and elongating false reputations, and glorifying urban myths is the driving force of entertainment. Underneath its layers of SS uniforms, dangerous pistols, and knives you should never leave home without, Jojo Rabbit is a touching film about human compassion with an intimacy that is absolutely unparalleled. Categorized somewhere between Wes Anderson’s Moonrise Kingdom and an imaginative concept that is an obvious homage to Calvin and Hobbes, love feels like it’s the only thing spreading across the world more powerful than war and Jojo Rabbit is more than happy to hype you up and throw you in love’s way without remorse.
Based on the 2008 novel Caging Skies by Christine Leunens, Jojo Rabbit is a bonkers twist on one of the most devastating wars and tyrannical madmen in history. On the surface, the film is about a child attempting to become a Nazi because he views HItler as this great leader. He has to attempt to learn to kill, hate Jews, and essentially ignore all of his morals in order to just fit in with an army who believes they are the superior race. The intriguing aspect is that Waititi injects this unexpected tenderness and has concocted a film that has a heartbeat that is entirely too human and too genuine for any sort of project involving the likes of Adolf Hitler.
The Jojo/Hitler dynamic is an incredibly playful one. Hitler only seems to show up when something doesn’t go according to plan for Jojo or he needs some words of encouragement when times get tough. Hitler is a figment of Jojo’s imagination and is completely reactionary to Jojo’s world. If Jojo gets scared, Hitler shows up to remind him why he’s risking his own self comfort. While Waititi is funny and awkwardly charming as Hitler, which is an odd thing to say in itself, don’t overlook Archie Yates. Roman Griffin Davis encapsulates this innocence that even Elsa describes as something along the lines of a ten year old playing dress up with his friends in order to join a club. But Yates often plays off of Davis humorously and amusingly and will likely be forgotten about by some by the time they leave the theater.
Seemingly tapping into his inspiration for Gentlemen Broncos, Sam Rockwell portrays Captain Klenzendorf - a former war veteran who lost an eye and is now forced to teach children how to be soldiers. He has this strange tension on the verge of romance thing going on with his right hand man Finkel (Alfie Allen) and has extravagant taste with intricate ideas for his new uniform. Rockwell and Allen are hilarious and outshine Rebel Wilson’s Fräulein Rahm who never seems to serve much purpose before or after her line about, “having 18 kids for Germany.”
The sweet nature of Jojo Rabbit is expanded upon with the mother/son relationship between Rosie and Jojo. They have completely different viewpoints of a world on the verge of total annihilation where Jojo is slowly nudged into his mother’s mindset. It’s not so much a brainwashing as it is Jojo coming to terms with how he feels about people. Jojo Rabbit defines who we all are on the inside and simply explores the path anyone with an everyday beating heart (not rooted by a tiny mustache) would travel down over the course of their youth.
It’s kind of extraordinary that Jojo Rabbit has been released during a time when Fox Searchlight Pictures is owned by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures where a guy directing two of the biggest Thor movies did a side project where he plays Hitler and never had to attempt to keep that a secret. Waititi puts Jojo Betzler through the ringer by blowing him up repeatedly and throwing him down a flight of stairs all while being bullied and pushed around the entire time. But dammit if Jojo Rabbit isn’t one of the most heartfelt and imaginative fairy tales of the year.
This is a film where storytelling, embellishing and elongating false reputations, and glorifying urban myths is the driving force of entertainment. Underneath its layers of SS uniforms, dangerous pistols, and knives you should never leave home without, Jojo Rabbit is a touching film about human compassion with an intimacy that is absolutely unparalleled. Categorized somewhere between Wes Anderson’s Moonrise Kingdom and an imaginative concept that is an obvious homage to Calvin and Hobbes, love feels like it’s the only thing spreading across the world more powerful than war and Jojo Rabbit is more than happy to hype you up and throw you in love’s way without remorse.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Angel Has Fallen (2019) in Movies
Aug 23, 2019
It’s always surprising when a truly awful film performs well at the box-office, but that’s exactly what happened with 2017’s London Has Fallen. Despite overwhelmingly poor reviews, the sequel to 2013’s marginally better Olympus Has Fallen made over four times its production budget in ticket sales.
Naturally, a sequel in the now originally named ‘Fallen’ film series was greenlit soon after with the majority of the cast returning for the third instalment. But is the finished product, Angel Has Fallen as bad as its predecessor? Or is this the turning point?
Authorities take Secret Service agent Mike Banning (Gerard Butler) into custody for the failed assassination attempt of U.S. President Allan Trumbull (Morgan Freeman). After escaping from his captors, Banning must evade the FBI and his own agency to find the real threat to the president. Desperate to uncover the truth, he soon turns to unlikely allies to help clear his name and save the country from imminent danger.
First thing’s first. This is better than London Has Fallen in every conceivable area. Where that film was packed full of grainy stock footage, poor CGI and laughable dialogue, Angel Has Fallen at least attempts to create a reasonably coherent film, even if the end result is completely forgettable.
The script for one attempts to focus on the mental and physical strain Gerard Butler’s job has taken on both aspects of his health. We join the film with Butler working his way through an assault course of sorts, so far so Gerard. However, as the film progresses the audience realises that Agent Banning is suffering from a lot of demons, impacting his clarity and causing him to lose focus.
To be fair, Butler does his best with the material he’s given, but three films in, even he is starting to look a little bored. The rest of the cast don’t fare any better. Morgan Freeman dons his tried and tested President persona, but the 82-year-old legend struggles with the physical demands of the role – and the all too obvious body doubles are a jarring mismatch with a film that is occasionally nicely choreographed and edited.
Only a film series as mediocre as ‘Fallen’ could make Angel Has Fallen feel like a success
The highlight comes about half way through the film as we are introduced to a dishevelled Nick Nolte playing Clay Banning, Mike’s foul-mouthed father, living off grid in rural Virginia. The casting is a little odd at first but the pair share good on-screen chemistry with each other and are much better than any relationship we saw in the film’s two predecessors. One of the action sequences the two of them have together is absurd but genuinely funny.
While the script has improved somewhat (there’s no unnecessary racism to be had), there are still huge flaws here. A third-act twist is one of the most ridiculously predictable twists in movie history, made all the more insulting by the fact that there are no red herrings in the story whatsoever. Come on guys, at least give us something else to think about! Instead of an “oooo” when the twist is revealed, the collective response from the audience was practically an eye-roll.
Elsewhere, the film’s finale, which feels like it goes on for far too long, is pure cinematic nonsense of the highest degree but does utilise this instalment’s bigger budget reasonably well. There are instances of poor CGI and very very obvious green screen dotted throughout, but nothing as bad as the laughably rubbish explosions and CG helicopters that riddled London Has Fallen.
Angel Has Fallen (2019 Movie) Official Trailer - Gerard Butler, Morgan Freeman - YouTube
Overall, only a film series as mediocre as ‘Fallen’ could make Angel Has Fallen feel like a success but the increased focus on the human elements of the lead characters rather than the outright racism featured in the previous films is a welcome change, and while the action scenes are filmed with a little too much shaky cam for my liking, they’re decently watchable if lacking in any real originality.
The problem we have is that this film will undoubtedly be yet another success if the sold-out screening I attended is anything to go by. Inevitably, this will then pave the way for more similarly themed movies. However, these films aren’t created for those of us who love cinema or to show off the craft of film-making, they’re made for people who want to check their phones every now and then or have a chat to the person next to them. And to be frank, that’s a cinematic world I’d rather not be a part of.
Naturally, a sequel in the now originally named ‘Fallen’ film series was greenlit soon after with the majority of the cast returning for the third instalment. But is the finished product, Angel Has Fallen as bad as its predecessor? Or is this the turning point?
Authorities take Secret Service agent Mike Banning (Gerard Butler) into custody for the failed assassination attempt of U.S. President Allan Trumbull (Morgan Freeman). After escaping from his captors, Banning must evade the FBI and his own agency to find the real threat to the president. Desperate to uncover the truth, he soon turns to unlikely allies to help clear his name and save the country from imminent danger.
First thing’s first. This is better than London Has Fallen in every conceivable area. Where that film was packed full of grainy stock footage, poor CGI and laughable dialogue, Angel Has Fallen at least attempts to create a reasonably coherent film, even if the end result is completely forgettable.
The script for one attempts to focus on the mental and physical strain Gerard Butler’s job has taken on both aspects of his health. We join the film with Butler working his way through an assault course of sorts, so far so Gerard. However, as the film progresses the audience realises that Agent Banning is suffering from a lot of demons, impacting his clarity and causing him to lose focus.
To be fair, Butler does his best with the material he’s given, but three films in, even he is starting to look a little bored. The rest of the cast don’t fare any better. Morgan Freeman dons his tried and tested President persona, but the 82-year-old legend struggles with the physical demands of the role – and the all too obvious body doubles are a jarring mismatch with a film that is occasionally nicely choreographed and edited.
Only a film series as mediocre as ‘Fallen’ could make Angel Has Fallen feel like a success
The highlight comes about half way through the film as we are introduced to a dishevelled Nick Nolte playing Clay Banning, Mike’s foul-mouthed father, living off grid in rural Virginia. The casting is a little odd at first but the pair share good on-screen chemistry with each other and are much better than any relationship we saw in the film’s two predecessors. One of the action sequences the two of them have together is absurd but genuinely funny.
While the script has improved somewhat (there’s no unnecessary racism to be had), there are still huge flaws here. A third-act twist is one of the most ridiculously predictable twists in movie history, made all the more insulting by the fact that there are no red herrings in the story whatsoever. Come on guys, at least give us something else to think about! Instead of an “oooo” when the twist is revealed, the collective response from the audience was practically an eye-roll.
Elsewhere, the film’s finale, which feels like it goes on for far too long, is pure cinematic nonsense of the highest degree but does utilise this instalment’s bigger budget reasonably well. There are instances of poor CGI and very very obvious green screen dotted throughout, but nothing as bad as the laughably rubbish explosions and CG helicopters that riddled London Has Fallen.
Angel Has Fallen (2019 Movie) Official Trailer - Gerard Butler, Morgan Freeman - YouTube
Overall, only a film series as mediocre as ‘Fallen’ could make Angel Has Fallen feel like a success but the increased focus on the human elements of the lead characters rather than the outright racism featured in the previous films is a welcome change, and while the action scenes are filmed with a little too much shaky cam for my liking, they’re decently watchable if lacking in any real originality.
The problem we have is that this film will undoubtedly be yet another success if the sold-out screening I attended is anything to go by. Inevitably, this will then pave the way for more similarly themed movies. However, these films aren’t created for those of us who love cinema or to show off the craft of film-making, they’re made for people who want to check their phones every now and then or have a chat to the person next to them. And to be frank, that’s a cinematic world I’d rather not be a part of.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Coco (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Has pixar got it's mojo back?
Pixar has been on something of a downward trend of late, and that’s something I never thought I’d say. As much as it hurts, films like Cars 3, Finding Dory and The Good Dinosaur just don’t cut the mustard when compared to some of the studio’s greats.
Movies like Up, Inside Out and Wall.E as well as The Incredibles, which we’re finally getting a sequel to this year, are up there with the best animations ever produced, never mind just from Pixar. Hoping to get back on the right track this year, Pixar has released Coco. But are we back up to scratch?
Before we begin. Did you know you can now vote in the third annual Movie Metropolis Alternative Oscars? Vote for your favourite films from last year!
Despite his family’s generations-old ban on music, young Miguel (Anthony Gonzalez) dreams of becoming an accomplished musician like his idol Ernesto de la Cruz (Benjamin Bratt). Desperate to prove his talent, Miguel finds himself in the stunning and colourful Land of the Dead. After meeting a charming trickster named Héctor (Gael García Bernal), the two new friends embark on an extraordinary journey to unlock the real story behind Miguel’s family history.
The first thing of note is just how stunning Coco is to look at. Director Lee Unkrich (Toy Story 3) creates what could be Pixar’s finest looking film to date, it really is that staggering to watch. The colourful world of the Land of the Dead is astounding and it’s pleasing that he chooses to spend the majority of the film’s runtime here. Populated by vibrant animals and the living dead, it grabs attention from scene to scene and isn’t afraid to hold on.
The animation itself is spot on, but come on, this is Pixar we’re talking about, we expect nothing less. They really are getting very good at this photo-realistic scenery business and aside from the naturally carnival-esque Land of the Dead, it reeks of realism. The characters too are rendered in ridiculously detailed CGI with the work done on Coco herself being absolutely exquisite. Every well-deserved wrinkle and the remaining twinkle in her eyes – it’s all there.
Aside from all the spectacle though, at its heart, Coco is a film about family, and the importance of family no matter how annoying or frustrating they can be. This may sound a little straightforward in comparison to some of Pixar’s more mature themes, but it’s worth noting that the plot has more twists and turns in it than some of the best thrillers – it’s a brilliant story full of laughs and emotion.
The voice work done by the entire cast is absolutely sublime, but Anthony Gonzalez’s portrayal of Miguel is beautiful. His performance is perfectly integrated into the film as Miguel slowly unravels who he truly is – it’s a testament to the actors and actresses who lent their voices that it speaks to absolutely everyone in the audience.
Pixar films have never really been about moving from one set piece to another and what keeps Coco interesting is the constant shifts in tone, colour and story
Naturally, Pixar’s trademark wit and heart are here in spades. There are some genuinely funny moments that are beautifully juxtaposed with some more sombre scenes that make you realise just how important family is. Correctly awarded a PG certification by the BBFC means that smaller children may find some of the more adult themes a little hard to watch. In fact, there were a few children in floods of tears as I left the cinema.
Pacing wise, Coco is just about right for a family friendly film. At a shade under 110 minutes, it zips along smoothly, very rarely letting up pace. But Pixar films have never really been about moving from one set piece to another and what keeps Coco interesting is the constant shifts in tone, colour and story. In this respect, it’s up there with the very best the studio has to offer us.
It is unfortunate however that there is no Pixar Short attached to Coco. Films like Inside Out and Toy Story 3 had brilliant pre-movie films to get the kids interested in what they were about to see on screen. It’s not clear why Pixar chose to snub Coco like this, but that’s one of the only negative points in a film filled to the brim with memorable moments.
Overall, Pixar is well and truly back on track with Coco. They’ve managed to create a film that not only creates some new classic characters for the studio to bring back in a sequel, but they discuss life and death in a way that adults and children alike will enjoy. Couple this with a beautiful soundtrack with some gorgeous original songs, stunning animation and a heartfelt story and they’ve definitely recovered the animation crown. What a way to start 2018.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/01/13/coco-review-has-pixar-got-its-mojo-back/
Movies like Up, Inside Out and Wall.E as well as The Incredibles, which we’re finally getting a sequel to this year, are up there with the best animations ever produced, never mind just from Pixar. Hoping to get back on the right track this year, Pixar has released Coco. But are we back up to scratch?
Before we begin. Did you know you can now vote in the third annual Movie Metropolis Alternative Oscars? Vote for your favourite films from last year!
Despite his family’s generations-old ban on music, young Miguel (Anthony Gonzalez) dreams of becoming an accomplished musician like his idol Ernesto de la Cruz (Benjamin Bratt). Desperate to prove his talent, Miguel finds himself in the stunning and colourful Land of the Dead. After meeting a charming trickster named Héctor (Gael García Bernal), the two new friends embark on an extraordinary journey to unlock the real story behind Miguel’s family history.
The first thing of note is just how stunning Coco is to look at. Director Lee Unkrich (Toy Story 3) creates what could be Pixar’s finest looking film to date, it really is that staggering to watch. The colourful world of the Land of the Dead is astounding and it’s pleasing that he chooses to spend the majority of the film’s runtime here. Populated by vibrant animals and the living dead, it grabs attention from scene to scene and isn’t afraid to hold on.
The animation itself is spot on, but come on, this is Pixar we’re talking about, we expect nothing less. They really are getting very good at this photo-realistic scenery business and aside from the naturally carnival-esque Land of the Dead, it reeks of realism. The characters too are rendered in ridiculously detailed CGI with the work done on Coco herself being absolutely exquisite. Every well-deserved wrinkle and the remaining twinkle in her eyes – it’s all there.
Aside from all the spectacle though, at its heart, Coco is a film about family, and the importance of family no matter how annoying or frustrating they can be. This may sound a little straightforward in comparison to some of Pixar’s more mature themes, but it’s worth noting that the plot has more twists and turns in it than some of the best thrillers – it’s a brilliant story full of laughs and emotion.
The voice work done by the entire cast is absolutely sublime, but Anthony Gonzalez’s portrayal of Miguel is beautiful. His performance is perfectly integrated into the film as Miguel slowly unravels who he truly is – it’s a testament to the actors and actresses who lent their voices that it speaks to absolutely everyone in the audience.
Pixar films have never really been about moving from one set piece to another and what keeps Coco interesting is the constant shifts in tone, colour and story
Naturally, Pixar’s trademark wit and heart are here in spades. There are some genuinely funny moments that are beautifully juxtaposed with some more sombre scenes that make you realise just how important family is. Correctly awarded a PG certification by the BBFC means that smaller children may find some of the more adult themes a little hard to watch. In fact, there were a few children in floods of tears as I left the cinema.
Pacing wise, Coco is just about right for a family friendly film. At a shade under 110 minutes, it zips along smoothly, very rarely letting up pace. But Pixar films have never really been about moving from one set piece to another and what keeps Coco interesting is the constant shifts in tone, colour and story. In this respect, it’s up there with the very best the studio has to offer us.
It is unfortunate however that there is no Pixar Short attached to Coco. Films like Inside Out and Toy Story 3 had brilliant pre-movie films to get the kids interested in what they were about to see on screen. It’s not clear why Pixar chose to snub Coco like this, but that’s one of the only negative points in a film filled to the brim with memorable moments.
Overall, Pixar is well and truly back on track with Coco. They’ve managed to create a film that not only creates some new classic characters for the studio to bring back in a sequel, but they discuss life and death in a way that adults and children alike will enjoy. Couple this with a beautiful soundtrack with some gorgeous original songs, stunning animation and a heartfelt story and they’ve definitely recovered the animation crown. What a way to start 2018.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/01/13/coco-review-has-pixar-got-its-mojo-back/
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Haunted in Books
Jun 23, 2019
A lot of inconsistencies (1 more)
Stereo-typical characters
A murder begins the story of 'The Haunted,' where Vega starts with every parent's nightmare:
a little girl named Maribeth is killed in the cellar of the Steele House by an unseen force. We jump to three years later, where our main character, Hendricks, is moving into this house with her parents and baby brother- - - a family that is unaware of the murder that took place in the cellar. Vega does a wonderful job of steering the paranormal aspects away from the usual ones that most readers are used to. But although the story is good, the writing is poorly executed.
Starting with the teenaged girl Hendricks, she tells us that she refuses to be a stereo-type, but her first thoughts on the ride to school are of her ex-boyfriend, Grayson. But this is a young adult book, so a young girl obsessing over her ex is to be expected. Yet, when Hendricks gets to her new high school, she quickly begins to stereo-type everyone she meets by what they are wearing. Unfortunately, every character in this story, including Hendricks parents, are stereo-types. Eddie, who wears nothing but black clothing, is the outcast; Portia, who wears too short of skirts and too tight of shirts, is the makeup obsessed girly-girl; Raven, who tries to be funny, is the sporty best friend, and, Connor, who seems to be the only character that Vega tried to keep away from his stereo-type, is a friendly jock who loves his large family.
Readers learn early on that Hendricks' break-up with her ex, Grayson, was a traumatic event for her- - - as Hendricks releases more and more memories, it's soon easy to see that the relationship was an emotional abusive one; from Grayson telling her how to dress to him influencing the way she acted around other people, including who she was allowed to be around. In the middle of all this, Hendricks begins to learn the history of the Steele House, and we find out that Maribeth may not have been the only one murdered there. When Hendricks isn't trying to drink alcohol in almost every chapter, she begins experiencing strange things in the house, including one very similar to Maribeth's experience, but sadly, the paranormal aspect is the only good part of this book.
'The Haunted' could have been a great story, but there are so many inconsistencies, some even on the very next page. Such as, on page 44, Hendricks sees a singing doll waking up her baby brother inside his room (Vega literally states 'in the middle of his room'), but the very next page, Hendricks is suddenly scooping up the doll outside of her brother's room to put it away. On page 157, Hendricks is being pinned against a wall in the cellar by an unseen force, one of her arms is against her back, but suddenly she is able to use both hands to push off the wall, but it was never stated that her arm became unpinned.
One of Vega's biggest mistakes in 'The Haunted' was using the same handful of descriptions for emotions with every single character throughout the entire book. Such as, if a character was trying to make a decision, they always bit their lip; if a character was confused, they always furrowed their brow; if a character was embarrassed, they always had a reddening face. Vega never took advantage of other body language to convey these emotions, causing the story to come up short.
As I have said, the only good part of this book was the paranormal aspect, and the ghosts happen to be the only interesting characters. If I had to choose my favorite part of this story, I would have to choose when Eddie and Hendricks bring in the occult store owner, Ileana. Following this chapter, the best part of the paranormal aspects happen, but I don't want to spoil that for anyone who may want to read this. Vega is crafty in keeping up the suspense throughout this entire time, this is apparently where her strength in writing occurs. She amazingly describes scenes where readers can easily imagine them happening in reality. Her take on hauntings is one that is rarely seen and I think should be utilized in paranormal fiction more often.
'The Haunting' just didn't add up for me. It seems the story was written too hastily that beginning writer mistakes were made and overlooked, but most young adult readers may be able to look past this. Like Stephen King, Vega has great story-telling power in the horror genre, but in 'The Haunting,' I don't feel she was fully able to display this because the focus on Hendricks' life drama took over most of it. If I were to recommend this to anyone, I would only recommend it to people who like teenaged drama mixed in with a ghost story.
a little girl named Maribeth is killed in the cellar of the Steele House by an unseen force. We jump to three years later, where our main character, Hendricks, is moving into this house with her parents and baby brother- - - a family that is unaware of the murder that took place in the cellar. Vega does a wonderful job of steering the paranormal aspects away from the usual ones that most readers are used to. But although the story is good, the writing is poorly executed.
Starting with the teenaged girl Hendricks, she tells us that she refuses to be a stereo-type, but her first thoughts on the ride to school are of her ex-boyfriend, Grayson. But this is a young adult book, so a young girl obsessing over her ex is to be expected. Yet, when Hendricks gets to her new high school, she quickly begins to stereo-type everyone she meets by what they are wearing. Unfortunately, every character in this story, including Hendricks parents, are stereo-types. Eddie, who wears nothing but black clothing, is the outcast; Portia, who wears too short of skirts and too tight of shirts, is the makeup obsessed girly-girl; Raven, who tries to be funny, is the sporty best friend, and, Connor, who seems to be the only character that Vega tried to keep away from his stereo-type, is a friendly jock who loves his large family.
Readers learn early on that Hendricks' break-up with her ex, Grayson, was a traumatic event for her- - - as Hendricks releases more and more memories, it's soon easy to see that the relationship was an emotional abusive one; from Grayson telling her how to dress to him influencing the way she acted around other people, including who she was allowed to be around. In the middle of all this, Hendricks begins to learn the history of the Steele House, and we find out that Maribeth may not have been the only one murdered there. When Hendricks isn't trying to drink alcohol in almost every chapter, she begins experiencing strange things in the house, including one very similar to Maribeth's experience, but sadly, the paranormal aspect is the only good part of this book.
'The Haunted' could have been a great story, but there are so many inconsistencies, some even on the very next page. Such as, on page 44, Hendricks sees a singing doll waking up her baby brother inside his room (Vega literally states 'in the middle of his room'), but the very next page, Hendricks is suddenly scooping up the doll outside of her brother's room to put it away. On page 157, Hendricks is being pinned against a wall in the cellar by an unseen force, one of her arms is against her back, but suddenly she is able to use both hands to push off the wall, but it was never stated that her arm became unpinned.
One of Vega's biggest mistakes in 'The Haunted' was using the same handful of descriptions for emotions with every single character throughout the entire book. Such as, if a character was trying to make a decision, they always bit their lip; if a character was confused, they always furrowed their brow; if a character was embarrassed, they always had a reddening face. Vega never took advantage of other body language to convey these emotions, causing the story to come up short.
As I have said, the only good part of this book was the paranormal aspect, and the ghosts happen to be the only interesting characters. If I had to choose my favorite part of this story, I would have to choose when Eddie and Hendricks bring in the occult store owner, Ileana. Following this chapter, the best part of the paranormal aspects happen, but I don't want to spoil that for anyone who may want to read this. Vega is crafty in keeping up the suspense throughout this entire time, this is apparently where her strength in writing occurs. She amazingly describes scenes where readers can easily imagine them happening in reality. Her take on hauntings is one that is rarely seen and I think should be utilized in paranormal fiction more often.
'The Haunting' just didn't add up for me. It seems the story was written too hastily that beginning writer mistakes were made and overlooked, but most young adult readers may be able to look past this. Like Stephen King, Vega has great story-telling power in the horror genre, but in 'The Haunting,' I don't feel she was fully able to display this because the focus on Hendricks' life drama took over most of it. If I were to recommend this to anyone, I would only recommend it to people who like teenaged drama mixed in with a ghost story.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jul 31, 2019
The film Tarantino was born to make
ONCE UPON A TIME...IN HOLLYWOOD is the film that Quentin Tarantino was born to make and it is his Masterpiece.
Your enjoyment of this film will be in direct correlation with how you reacted to the previous statement.
Lovingly set in Hollywood of the late 1960's, OUATIH tells the tale of 3 performers in LaLa Land who's stories are undercut by - and eventually intersect with - the growing dread of the Hippie CounterCulture of the time and, specifically, the Charles Manson cult that would erupt in violence.
Leonardo DiCaprio stars as fading Cowboy star Rick Dalton who has been relegated to guest starring villain roles on TV and is contemplating a move to Italian "Spaghetti" Westerns. This is DiCaprio's strongest acting job in (perhaps) his career and one that showcases his range as a performer - and he nails it. His Rick Dalton is a real human being. Sometimes confident, often times at odds with himself, and filled with self doubt. It is a bravura performance, one that I am confident we will be hearing a lot more of come Awards season.
Ably counterbalancing him - and providing the strong core to this film - is Brad Pitt's Cliff Booth, Rick Dalton's stunt double, who is just trying to live day to day. He is the quintessential Hollywood/California "whatever" dude who blows with wherever the wind blows him - including into questionable places. This is Pitt's strongest performance in (perhaps) his career as well - and if Pitt wasn't there to provide the strength and core to this film than DiCaprio's performance would be seen as cartoonish and over-the-top, but this counterbalance is there, which strengthens both performances. I'm afraid that DiCaprio will win all the Acting Awards accolades (his part is much more flashy/flamboyant), but I think Pitt is every bit as good and I would LOVE to see his name called during Awards season.
There are many, many actors making extended cameos in this film, from members of the Tarantino "stock company" like Michael Madsen, Bruce Dern, Kurt Russell and Zoe Bell to newcomers Timothy Olyphant, Emile Hirsch, Margaret Qualley, Dakota Fanning and Al Pacino - all have a scene (or 2) that (I'm sure) each actor saw as "delicious" and their willingness to go along with whatever Tarantino wanted them to do is apparent on the screen.
Faring less well is Margot Robbie in the underwritten role of real-life actress Sharon Tate who met her death at the hands of the Manson cult (this isn't a spoiler, it's a footnote in history). Her role is tangential to the main story of the DiCaprio/Pitt characters and it feels...tangential. Robbie does what she can with the role, but she is under-served by the script and direction of Tarantino.
So let's talk about writer/director Quentin Tarantino. A self-described "movie buff", Tarantino spares no detail in showing the audience the sights and sounds of a bygone era - Hollywood in the days of transition from the studio system to a more "television-centric" system. His visuals are wonderful and you spend the first 2 1/2 hours of this 2 hour, 45 minute film meandering through scenes/scenarios/people that are filled with mood and atmosphere and REALLY, REALLY GREAT music, but don't really seem to go anywhere. I was (pleasantly) surprised by how little violence/blood is involved in this and I give Tarantino - the director - credit. For he plays with audiences expectations of him, this movie and the actual, real-life events of this time. While this film is an homage to specific time, it is undercut by an impending sense of doom that keeps you on edge. It is the journey, not the destination that is the joy of this part of the film.
But, when all these disparate storylines/scenerios/characters and events eventually collide, the final 15-20 minutes of this film is quintessential Tarantino - exploding in violence that is horrific, bloody - and damned funny. It is an auteur in full control of his faculties and he controls the items in his "play-set" superbly to bring this film to a very satisfying climax for me.
But...this film is not for everyone. Some will LOVE the first 2 1/2 hours and HATE the last 15-20 minutes while others will LOVE the last 15-20 minutes, but wonder why they had to suffer through the first 2 1/2 hours. For me, I LOVED IT ALL. It is one of the very best Writer/Directors of our time operating at the top of his game - driving some "A-List" actors to career-best performances.
And that's good enough for me.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Your enjoyment of this film will be in direct correlation with how you reacted to the previous statement.
Lovingly set in Hollywood of the late 1960's, OUATIH tells the tale of 3 performers in LaLa Land who's stories are undercut by - and eventually intersect with - the growing dread of the Hippie CounterCulture of the time and, specifically, the Charles Manson cult that would erupt in violence.
Leonardo DiCaprio stars as fading Cowboy star Rick Dalton who has been relegated to guest starring villain roles on TV and is contemplating a move to Italian "Spaghetti" Westerns. This is DiCaprio's strongest acting job in (perhaps) his career and one that showcases his range as a performer - and he nails it. His Rick Dalton is a real human being. Sometimes confident, often times at odds with himself, and filled with self doubt. It is a bravura performance, one that I am confident we will be hearing a lot more of come Awards season.
Ably counterbalancing him - and providing the strong core to this film - is Brad Pitt's Cliff Booth, Rick Dalton's stunt double, who is just trying to live day to day. He is the quintessential Hollywood/California "whatever" dude who blows with wherever the wind blows him - including into questionable places. This is Pitt's strongest performance in (perhaps) his career as well - and if Pitt wasn't there to provide the strength and core to this film than DiCaprio's performance would be seen as cartoonish and over-the-top, but this counterbalance is there, which strengthens both performances. I'm afraid that DiCaprio will win all the Acting Awards accolades (his part is much more flashy/flamboyant), but I think Pitt is every bit as good and I would LOVE to see his name called during Awards season.
There are many, many actors making extended cameos in this film, from members of the Tarantino "stock company" like Michael Madsen, Bruce Dern, Kurt Russell and Zoe Bell to newcomers Timothy Olyphant, Emile Hirsch, Margaret Qualley, Dakota Fanning and Al Pacino - all have a scene (or 2) that (I'm sure) each actor saw as "delicious" and their willingness to go along with whatever Tarantino wanted them to do is apparent on the screen.
Faring less well is Margot Robbie in the underwritten role of real-life actress Sharon Tate who met her death at the hands of the Manson cult (this isn't a spoiler, it's a footnote in history). Her role is tangential to the main story of the DiCaprio/Pitt characters and it feels...tangential. Robbie does what she can with the role, but she is under-served by the script and direction of Tarantino.
So let's talk about writer/director Quentin Tarantino. A self-described "movie buff", Tarantino spares no detail in showing the audience the sights and sounds of a bygone era - Hollywood in the days of transition from the studio system to a more "television-centric" system. His visuals are wonderful and you spend the first 2 1/2 hours of this 2 hour, 45 minute film meandering through scenes/scenarios/people that are filled with mood and atmosphere and REALLY, REALLY GREAT music, but don't really seem to go anywhere. I was (pleasantly) surprised by how little violence/blood is involved in this and I give Tarantino - the director - credit. For he plays with audiences expectations of him, this movie and the actual, real-life events of this time. While this film is an homage to specific time, it is undercut by an impending sense of doom that keeps you on edge. It is the journey, not the destination that is the joy of this part of the film.
But, when all these disparate storylines/scenerios/characters and events eventually collide, the final 15-20 minutes of this film is quintessential Tarantino - exploding in violence that is horrific, bloody - and damned funny. It is an auteur in full control of his faculties and he controls the items in his "play-set" superbly to bring this film to a very satisfying climax for me.
But...this film is not for everyone. Some will LOVE the first 2 1/2 hours and HATE the last 15-20 minutes while others will LOVE the last 15-20 minutes, but wonder why they had to suffer through the first 2 1/2 hours. For me, I LOVED IT ALL. It is one of the very best Writer/Directors of our time operating at the top of his game - driving some "A-List" actors to career-best performances.
And that's good enough for me.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Moonlighting in TV
Aug 6, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
Another dip into the retro TV archive as part of that odd period in lockdown when all I could do for my watching fix was find old shows with full episodes on You Tube. My favourite show when I was a teenager happened to be one of those, with most of seasons 1 and 5 out there, and a small selection from the middle years.
If you were to make a time capsule to show aliens what the mid to late 80s looked like, look no further than this madcap rom-com drama that ran for 66 episodes between 1985 and 1989. The shoulder pads, the hairdos, the slip on shoes, the large chunks of cheesiness, it’s all there. Some of the coloured silks Maddie Hayes (Cybill Shepherd) wears have to be seen to be believed.
It was the first show to get free reign creatively from a network, with ABC trusting Glenn Gordon Carol, fresh from success with Remington Steele, to create something cool and hip. At the peak of its success it was costing $1.6m per episode, with Bruce Willis’ pay check becoming a big chunk of that, as his ego inflated and his star rose.
They auditioned close to 600 actors for the role of glib, fast talking sleuth David Addison, before taking a risk on an out of work nobody the producers had heard singing karaoke in an LA bar. The phenomenal buzz around Bruce Willis in 1985 is hard to imagine now, but he was literally the biggest star on TV, and once Die Hard came along in 1988, he gave the movie star thing a good go too.
Famous for its post-modern take on episode content, with overlapping dialogue, direct address to camera, in jokes and endless references to current events and the show itself, it was a knowingly self-conscious misfit. Nothing had ever been like this. Nothing, even close. It was funny, cool, had mass appeal and could seemingly do no wrong, breaking ratings records all over the place.
But all was not paradise on set. Shepherd and Willis were never pals, and at the worst actively despised one another, often refusing to film scenes if they thought the other one was too much the focus – which in Shepherd’s case was often a weird anachronistic soft focus, that attempted to make her look like a vintage movie star. They argued, fell out, made up and threw tantrums just like the characters they played. And scripts for the unusual hour long format were often so late, they filmed filler scenes whilst they were being finished on set!
This allowed for an unparalleled voice in American TV land. They got away with some very terse comments and innuendo bordering on smut, that slipped under the network radar, simply because the show was being edited minutes before it was shown. By season four it was really falling apart, as episodes got more surreal and used the breaking of the fourth wall more often, in a desperate attempt just to keep going.
Ostensibly, it was a detective show. But it was never about the cases. The sleuthing was only a background to the will they won’t they romance of Maddie and David, facilitated by the ever present Allyce Beasley as Agnes DiPesto, the rhyming receptionist, that was the only other cast member to appear in all 66 shows apart from the two stars. Early on the mystery plots and crimes to be solved were taken semi seriously; with a peak in season three where it actually approached proper drama. But by the end it was all about Willis goofing around, at the expense of any recognisable story.
Let’s face it, looking back on it now it has aged a whole bunch in a lot of bad ways. You aren’t really going to indulge in it for anything other than nostalgia reasons. But I was a huge, huge fan, and so for me it was a real trip to see it again. I never missed it as a kid, and would sulk if anything threatened to stop me watching it as it aired. I had every episode taped on VHS and could quote entire episodes, I had watched them so much.
It all ended too soon for me, but not soon enough for them. Shepherd got pregnant, Willis took the break to go and make some mid budget action film, and the rest is history. To this day, footage of them reminiscing about it is a fascinating but awkward watch, as they clearing still can’t agree on anything and thinly veil their contempt for each other. Willis’ ego does not come out of it well, but David Addison will always remain the one character that formed my personality via TV in those days, for better or worse.
If you were to make a time capsule to show aliens what the mid to late 80s looked like, look no further than this madcap rom-com drama that ran for 66 episodes between 1985 and 1989. The shoulder pads, the hairdos, the slip on shoes, the large chunks of cheesiness, it’s all there. Some of the coloured silks Maddie Hayes (Cybill Shepherd) wears have to be seen to be believed.
It was the first show to get free reign creatively from a network, with ABC trusting Glenn Gordon Carol, fresh from success with Remington Steele, to create something cool and hip. At the peak of its success it was costing $1.6m per episode, with Bruce Willis’ pay check becoming a big chunk of that, as his ego inflated and his star rose.
They auditioned close to 600 actors for the role of glib, fast talking sleuth David Addison, before taking a risk on an out of work nobody the producers had heard singing karaoke in an LA bar. The phenomenal buzz around Bruce Willis in 1985 is hard to imagine now, but he was literally the biggest star on TV, and once Die Hard came along in 1988, he gave the movie star thing a good go too.
Famous for its post-modern take on episode content, with overlapping dialogue, direct address to camera, in jokes and endless references to current events and the show itself, it was a knowingly self-conscious misfit. Nothing had ever been like this. Nothing, even close. It was funny, cool, had mass appeal and could seemingly do no wrong, breaking ratings records all over the place.
But all was not paradise on set. Shepherd and Willis were never pals, and at the worst actively despised one another, often refusing to film scenes if they thought the other one was too much the focus – which in Shepherd’s case was often a weird anachronistic soft focus, that attempted to make her look like a vintage movie star. They argued, fell out, made up and threw tantrums just like the characters they played. And scripts for the unusual hour long format were often so late, they filmed filler scenes whilst they were being finished on set!
This allowed for an unparalleled voice in American TV land. They got away with some very terse comments and innuendo bordering on smut, that slipped under the network radar, simply because the show was being edited minutes before it was shown. By season four it was really falling apart, as episodes got more surreal and used the breaking of the fourth wall more often, in a desperate attempt just to keep going.
Ostensibly, it was a detective show. But it was never about the cases. The sleuthing was only a background to the will they won’t they romance of Maddie and David, facilitated by the ever present Allyce Beasley as Agnes DiPesto, the rhyming receptionist, that was the only other cast member to appear in all 66 shows apart from the two stars. Early on the mystery plots and crimes to be solved were taken semi seriously; with a peak in season three where it actually approached proper drama. But by the end it was all about Willis goofing around, at the expense of any recognisable story.
Let’s face it, looking back on it now it has aged a whole bunch in a lot of bad ways. You aren’t really going to indulge in it for anything other than nostalgia reasons. But I was a huge, huge fan, and so for me it was a real trip to see it again. I never missed it as a kid, and would sulk if anything threatened to stop me watching it as it aired. I had every episode taped on VHS and could quote entire episodes, I had watched them so much.
It all ended too soon for me, but not soon enough for them. Shepherd got pregnant, Willis took the break to go and make some mid budget action film, and the rest is history. To this day, footage of them reminiscing about it is a fascinating but awkward watch, as they clearing still can’t agree on anything and thinly veil their contempt for each other. Willis’ ego does not come out of it well, but David Addison will always remain the one character that formed my personality via TV in those days, for better or worse.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Big Easy Busking in Tabletop Games
Sep 15, 2020
Ahh New Orleans. If there ever was a city I NEED to revisit, it’s New Orleans. I love nearly everything about it. The history, the art and music, the architecture, and strolling down Frenchman Street at night listening to the hottest music I’ve ever heard live. But what is it like to BE a musician in NOLA? Or even a group’s manager? Well, I’ve never played in New Orleans (I am a professional trumpet player – don’t belive me? Check out the last photo in this review to see my axe and the box as proof), but I can imagine how it would go. Does Big Easy Busking capture the feeling? Let’s find out together.
Big Easy Busking is a card-based area control game with a sweet sweet music theme. Players will be taking turns learning charts, playing charts, and transferring energy from the musicians to the crowd and back. The winner of Big Easy Busking is the player who can score the biggest haul in tips for the weekend to become the hottest band in town.
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, two “streets” in New Orleans will need to be populated with song cards, both standards and learnable tunes. Crowd cards will be placed under the streets to depict certain crowds and what the moods of those crowds are. Each player will receive some starting bread (money for those not in the biz), energy for their 3-piece band of sax, trumpet, and drums, a starting set list of three tunes, and a reference card that has nothing to do with the metaphor. Decide who can play the highest note (if you are all trumpet players) and the gig may begin!
A turn is broken down into a few different parts. The first thing to be done on a turn is to finish playing the song that had been started in the previous round. Obviously you need to START playing a song to be able to finish, so the primary phase of the turn would be to either learn a song from the song offer or start playing a song from those dealt during setup. To play a song, players will choose a song card, place it under a crowd card (hopefully matching their mood: masks, hearts, beads, fleur-de-lis), gather the required energy from the musicians appropriately, and add those energy cubes to the song card.
After a song is started or learned, the player’s turn is over. On the next turn the player will finish playing the song by moving the spent energy to the crowd in full and taking $1 or moving some of the energy to the crowd and some back to their band members to be used on future songs.
The middle step in a turn (yes, I know I am explaining it out of order, but you do have to start playing a song before you can finish it) is to optionally tip your band members by trading in money for energy at a 1:1 ratio.
Once all players have used up their energy cubes or simply wish to, they will announce that they are “taking a break.” In other words, they pass for the remainder of the round. As the last player takes their break the end of round activities begin. Printed on each crowd card are two important icons: payout amounts for majority of energy and payout amounts for energy reaching the threshold. Resolving each crowd card will determine the players that hold majority or shared majority in each crowd location. For the majority holders payouts will reflect what is printed on the upper left of the crowd card. The upper right of the crowd card displays the number of energy needed upon it to meet the threshold in order to be paid the amount shown. When all crowd cards have been scored players will setup for the next night (round) per the rules. Play continues in this way over three rounds with the winner being the player at the end of the game with the most money.
Components. This is a smaller box (not exactly the same size, but think Tiny Epic), but it is packed with some really amazing bits. First off, as you can tell from the photos the art and color palette used here is simply phenomenal. I absolutely love the color scheme and the art certainly reminds me of some paintings we purchased from an artist on Jackson Square last time we were able to visit. The cards are nice, but I think I will want to sleeve them eventually as I had them in my hands the whole game. The cardboard money and mood tokens are fine, and the wooden cubes reflect the colorful nature of this little gem. All in all, exactly what I would expect from components in a Weird Giraffe Games production. Stellar (see what I did there, Carla?).
I have not really enjoyed a ton of area control games in my gaming history. So this came as a little bit of a shock as I truly loved playing this game. Even the solo rules are engaging and DIFFICULT to win. I came close though – within $1. The game is super quick as you are trying to please the crowds and their distinct moods with your best charts, but having to be mindful of not overextending your musicians lest they be too exhausted to give you the gas when you need it. THAT part resonates with me personally. Being a musician myself, I can tell you that crowds that are into a tune or a band and give them all the energy they have will be rewarded with even more from the band. I definitely give it more when the crowd digs what we’re laying down.
In any case, this is a game review, not a nostalgic trip down my musical memory lane. But then again, a little card game just brought me back wonderful memories of my band, and of visiting New Orleans, and of the joy of live music. Does Big Easy Busking completely mimic what it’s like to be a musician? Well, no, I can’t imagine how any game truly could, but it certainly shows the cyclical nature of energy being exchanged between musicians and appreciative crowds. Oh, the names of the tunes are also pretty funny on some. This all said, I super love this game and will be kicking out something in my collection to make room for it. If you are needing a smaller card game that you can bring out with musicians or non-musicians that appreciate the theme but also want to start introducing area control in a more accessible form, please do check out Big Easy Busking. Purple Phoenix Games gives it a good-for-the-soul 10 / 12. Maybe once I get into video I will do a Dan King (Game Boy Geek) serenade for Big Easy Busking as it travels into my collection.
Big Easy Busking is a card-based area control game with a sweet sweet music theme. Players will be taking turns learning charts, playing charts, and transferring energy from the musicians to the crowd and back. The winner of Big Easy Busking is the player who can score the biggest haul in tips for the weekend to become the hottest band in town.
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, two “streets” in New Orleans will need to be populated with song cards, both standards and learnable tunes. Crowd cards will be placed under the streets to depict certain crowds and what the moods of those crowds are. Each player will receive some starting bread (money for those not in the biz), energy for their 3-piece band of sax, trumpet, and drums, a starting set list of three tunes, and a reference card that has nothing to do with the metaphor. Decide who can play the highest note (if you are all trumpet players) and the gig may begin!
A turn is broken down into a few different parts. The first thing to be done on a turn is to finish playing the song that had been started in the previous round. Obviously you need to START playing a song to be able to finish, so the primary phase of the turn would be to either learn a song from the song offer or start playing a song from those dealt during setup. To play a song, players will choose a song card, place it under a crowd card (hopefully matching their mood: masks, hearts, beads, fleur-de-lis), gather the required energy from the musicians appropriately, and add those energy cubes to the song card.
After a song is started or learned, the player’s turn is over. On the next turn the player will finish playing the song by moving the spent energy to the crowd in full and taking $1 or moving some of the energy to the crowd and some back to their band members to be used on future songs.
The middle step in a turn (yes, I know I am explaining it out of order, but you do have to start playing a song before you can finish it) is to optionally tip your band members by trading in money for energy at a 1:1 ratio.
Once all players have used up their energy cubes or simply wish to, they will announce that they are “taking a break.” In other words, they pass for the remainder of the round. As the last player takes their break the end of round activities begin. Printed on each crowd card are two important icons: payout amounts for majority of energy and payout amounts for energy reaching the threshold. Resolving each crowd card will determine the players that hold majority or shared majority in each crowd location. For the majority holders payouts will reflect what is printed on the upper left of the crowd card. The upper right of the crowd card displays the number of energy needed upon it to meet the threshold in order to be paid the amount shown. When all crowd cards have been scored players will setup for the next night (round) per the rules. Play continues in this way over three rounds with the winner being the player at the end of the game with the most money.
Components. This is a smaller box (not exactly the same size, but think Tiny Epic), but it is packed with some really amazing bits. First off, as you can tell from the photos the art and color palette used here is simply phenomenal. I absolutely love the color scheme and the art certainly reminds me of some paintings we purchased from an artist on Jackson Square last time we were able to visit. The cards are nice, but I think I will want to sleeve them eventually as I had them in my hands the whole game. The cardboard money and mood tokens are fine, and the wooden cubes reflect the colorful nature of this little gem. All in all, exactly what I would expect from components in a Weird Giraffe Games production. Stellar (see what I did there, Carla?).
I have not really enjoyed a ton of area control games in my gaming history. So this came as a little bit of a shock as I truly loved playing this game. Even the solo rules are engaging and DIFFICULT to win. I came close though – within $1. The game is super quick as you are trying to please the crowds and their distinct moods with your best charts, but having to be mindful of not overextending your musicians lest they be too exhausted to give you the gas when you need it. THAT part resonates with me personally. Being a musician myself, I can tell you that crowds that are into a tune or a band and give them all the energy they have will be rewarded with even more from the band. I definitely give it more when the crowd digs what we’re laying down.
In any case, this is a game review, not a nostalgic trip down my musical memory lane. But then again, a little card game just brought me back wonderful memories of my band, and of visiting New Orleans, and of the joy of live music. Does Big Easy Busking completely mimic what it’s like to be a musician? Well, no, I can’t imagine how any game truly could, but it certainly shows the cyclical nature of energy being exchanged between musicians and appreciative crowds. Oh, the names of the tunes are also pretty funny on some. This all said, I super love this game and will be kicking out something in my collection to make room for it. If you are needing a smaller card game that you can bring out with musicians or non-musicians that appreciate the theme but also want to start introducing area control in a more accessible form, please do check out Big Easy Busking. Purple Phoenix Games gives it a good-for-the-soul 10 / 12. Maybe once I get into video I will do a Dan King (Game Boy Geek) serenade for Big Easy Busking as it travels into my collection.
