Search
Search results
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated 7 Wonders Duel in Tabletop Games
Oct 26, 2021
The original 7 Wonders was my #1 game of all time for a long while. While it has since dropped off my Top 10, I still have so many fond memories of it. Now, I know I am not breaking any stories here by finally reviewing its 2-player successor, but this game is really streamlined and fabulous. Obviously it is wonderful as it has earned the Purple Phoenix Games Golden Feather Award! But why do we love it so much?
7 Wonders: Duel is a 2-player tableau and engine-building card game set in the 7 Wonders game universe where players collect cards to create an engine to gain VP using any number of winning strategies. The game takes place over three ages and the player with the most VP at the end of the game, becomes victorious via military supremacy, or wins via scientific supremacy.
To setup, place the game board between the players with the green Progress tokens, Military tokens, and red Conflict pawn upon it. Shuffle the Age I cards and lay them according to the rule book (this formation changes for each age. Age I is setup in the photo below). Each player receives seven gold and they draft their Wonders according to the process in the rules.
On a turn the active player will choose one uncovered face-up card to be used one of three different ways. The card can be added to the player’s tableau and “built” by spending resources required, if any. The card may be discarded in exchange for coins totaling 2 + the number of yellow cards built in the player’s city. Lastly, the card may be used to build a player’s Wonder card by inserting it below the Wonder and paying the cost, as in 7 Wonders proper. The next player will then take their turn.
If on a turn a player builds certain card types into their city, special actions are taken. This happens as a result of building Military or Science cards. When a player builds a Military (red shield icon) card they immediately move the Conflict token on the board one space toward their opponent’s Capital (the end of the board closest to the opponent). Should a player force the Conflict token to reach their opponent’s Capital, the attacking player immediately wins! The other special action that can be taken is with a pair of Science cards being built. For every pair of like-symbol Science cards built, the active player may choose to take one of the Progress tokens from the game board and add it to their collection. These tokens can be very powerful, and just as in 7 Wonders proper, Science is a viable yet difficult strategy. Should a player build any six unique Science icons on cards they will immediately win!
If a Military or Science supremacy victory is not achieved, the game continues to Age II, where setup of the cards is different, but play remains the same. Similarly, Age III is setup differently still and has the added bonus of three random Guild cards, which may add significant strategic icons or abilities. At the end of Age III the players count their VP from the various sources listed in the rule book and the ultimate champion is then crowned!
Components. This game comes in a very small box, so the components are also quite small. I believe myself to have medium-sized man-paws and I have not had any issues with size of components. They are all very high quality, as is to be expected from Repos Production, and are fantastically illustrated. The Conflict token is enticingly menacing, and it lures me into concentrating on a Military victory every time I play. I need to just ignore it, but it’s so beautiful! All in all, the components are great, and even though the cardstock is relatively thin, my copy has withstood many plays and has seen very little wear and tear.
So 7 Wonders: Duel exists for all those players who love 7 Wonders but do not wish to play it with the 2-player variant rules. While Duel is certainly a little sibling, it is also its own beast of a game and should be treated as such. There are several key changes in rules for Duel, such as the trading with the BANK for missing resources upon building versus paying a neighbor to borrow their resource production. Also, the obvious change of adding a board with an ever-dancing Conflict token is unique to this title. Wonders are treated differently and instead of receiving one Wonder with three layers, Duels gives each player four Wonders with just one layer.
Aside from the differences between the two games, I do believe that if you are a fan of one you will also like the other. I can see, though, gamers who dislike 7 Wonders enjoying the smaller 7 Wonders: Duel. There is just something about being able to focus on one other player and agonizing over every turn so that your opponent receives a useless card from the offer, or taking every Military or Science card possible so as to end the game as quickly as possible. My brother, Bryan, greatly dislikes 7 Wonders, but he does not mind playing Duel, or at least that is what he led me to believe…
Myself, though, I think I still prefer original 7 Wonders, and I believe it is because I can soar through a game of it in under 15 minutes while holding a conversation with the other players (as long as they have played before and are very comfortable with the rules). Duels creates a more intimate feeling and eats up more of my brainpower. Purple Phoenix Games has awarded 7 Wonders Duel the coveted Golden Feather Award, so we agree that this is a fabulous game. If you have been waffling over grabbing a copy of Duels, please do yourself a favor and just purchase it! I promise you will have a great time with it, and if you end up disagreeing with me, let me know. We can play whatever you like next time we meet.
7 Wonders: Duel is a 2-player tableau and engine-building card game set in the 7 Wonders game universe where players collect cards to create an engine to gain VP using any number of winning strategies. The game takes place over three ages and the player with the most VP at the end of the game, becomes victorious via military supremacy, or wins via scientific supremacy.
To setup, place the game board between the players with the green Progress tokens, Military tokens, and red Conflict pawn upon it. Shuffle the Age I cards and lay them according to the rule book (this formation changes for each age. Age I is setup in the photo below). Each player receives seven gold and they draft their Wonders according to the process in the rules.
On a turn the active player will choose one uncovered face-up card to be used one of three different ways. The card can be added to the player’s tableau and “built” by spending resources required, if any. The card may be discarded in exchange for coins totaling 2 + the number of yellow cards built in the player’s city. Lastly, the card may be used to build a player’s Wonder card by inserting it below the Wonder and paying the cost, as in 7 Wonders proper. The next player will then take their turn.
If on a turn a player builds certain card types into their city, special actions are taken. This happens as a result of building Military or Science cards. When a player builds a Military (red shield icon) card they immediately move the Conflict token on the board one space toward their opponent’s Capital (the end of the board closest to the opponent). Should a player force the Conflict token to reach their opponent’s Capital, the attacking player immediately wins! The other special action that can be taken is with a pair of Science cards being built. For every pair of like-symbol Science cards built, the active player may choose to take one of the Progress tokens from the game board and add it to their collection. These tokens can be very powerful, and just as in 7 Wonders proper, Science is a viable yet difficult strategy. Should a player build any six unique Science icons on cards they will immediately win!
If a Military or Science supremacy victory is not achieved, the game continues to Age II, where setup of the cards is different, but play remains the same. Similarly, Age III is setup differently still and has the added bonus of three random Guild cards, which may add significant strategic icons or abilities. At the end of Age III the players count their VP from the various sources listed in the rule book and the ultimate champion is then crowned!
Components. This game comes in a very small box, so the components are also quite small. I believe myself to have medium-sized man-paws and I have not had any issues with size of components. They are all very high quality, as is to be expected from Repos Production, and are fantastically illustrated. The Conflict token is enticingly menacing, and it lures me into concentrating on a Military victory every time I play. I need to just ignore it, but it’s so beautiful! All in all, the components are great, and even though the cardstock is relatively thin, my copy has withstood many plays and has seen very little wear and tear.
So 7 Wonders: Duel exists for all those players who love 7 Wonders but do not wish to play it with the 2-player variant rules. While Duel is certainly a little sibling, it is also its own beast of a game and should be treated as such. There are several key changes in rules for Duel, such as the trading with the BANK for missing resources upon building versus paying a neighbor to borrow their resource production. Also, the obvious change of adding a board with an ever-dancing Conflict token is unique to this title. Wonders are treated differently and instead of receiving one Wonder with three layers, Duels gives each player four Wonders with just one layer.
Aside from the differences between the two games, I do believe that if you are a fan of one you will also like the other. I can see, though, gamers who dislike 7 Wonders enjoying the smaller 7 Wonders: Duel. There is just something about being able to focus on one other player and agonizing over every turn so that your opponent receives a useless card from the offer, or taking every Military or Science card possible so as to end the game as quickly as possible. My brother, Bryan, greatly dislikes 7 Wonders, but he does not mind playing Duel, or at least that is what he led me to believe…
Myself, though, I think I still prefer original 7 Wonders, and I believe it is because I can soar through a game of it in under 15 minutes while holding a conversation with the other players (as long as they have played before and are very comfortable with the rules). Duels creates a more intimate feeling and eats up more of my brainpower. Purple Phoenix Games has awarded 7 Wonders Duel the coveted Golden Feather Award, so we agree that this is a fabulous game. If you have been waffling over grabbing a copy of Duels, please do yourself a favor and just purchase it! I promise you will have a great time with it, and if you end up disagreeing with me, let me know. We can play whatever you like next time we meet.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The 5th wave (2016) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Films about invaders from space have been a staple of film and television since the golden age of cinema. Playing on many Cold War fears in the aftermath of W.W.II, aliens bent on destruction has been an enduring staple of cinematic culture.
In the new film “The 5th Wave” which is based on the book of the same name, Chloe Grace Moretz plays Cassie, a teen who has her entire life turned upside down by the arrival of a mysterious craft. A few days after the arrival of “the Others” as they are known, a pulse wipes out all electronics on the planet. This is soon followed by tsunamis and earthquakes as well as disease and death.
Cassie along with her father and brother find shelter but their community is soon disrupted by the arrival of the military who say that the invaders are now amongst them and posing as humans.
The military under the leadership of Colonel Vosch (Liev Schreiber) has a plan to train the children to spot and defeat the alien invaders thus setting in motion the main conflict of the film. The secondary story consists of Cassie attempting to reunite with her family and her relationship with a mysterious stranger named Evan (Alex Roe).
The film is clearly aimed at a young adult market and as such I was able to spot the big twist in the film a long ways off as the clues were blatantly obvious to me. That being said, the film is better than you might expect and being the first chapter in a trilogy of books does set up the possibilities of sequels.
The dialogue and acting is pretty groan inducing at times, but again, remember the target audience, the film should entertain and it is nice to see Moretz deliver a solid performance in what in many ways could have been a limited role.
While it is not going to make you forget “The Hunger Games” anytime soon, the film is still a decent escape for those willing to overlook the flaws.
http://sknr.net/2016/01/22/the-5th-wave/
In the new film “The 5th Wave” which is based on the book of the same name, Chloe Grace Moretz plays Cassie, a teen who has her entire life turned upside down by the arrival of a mysterious craft. A few days after the arrival of “the Others” as they are known, a pulse wipes out all electronics on the planet. This is soon followed by tsunamis and earthquakes as well as disease and death.
Cassie along with her father and brother find shelter but their community is soon disrupted by the arrival of the military who say that the invaders are now amongst them and posing as humans.
The military under the leadership of Colonel Vosch (Liev Schreiber) has a plan to train the children to spot and defeat the alien invaders thus setting in motion the main conflict of the film. The secondary story consists of Cassie attempting to reunite with her family and her relationship with a mysterious stranger named Evan (Alex Roe).
The film is clearly aimed at a young adult market and as such I was able to spot the big twist in the film a long ways off as the clues were blatantly obvious to me. That being said, the film is better than you might expect and being the first chapter in a trilogy of books does set up the possibilities of sequels.
The dialogue and acting is pretty groan inducing at times, but again, remember the target audience, the film should entertain and it is nice to see Moretz deliver a solid performance in what in many ways could have been a limited role.
While it is not going to make you forget “The Hunger Games” anytime soon, the film is still a decent escape for those willing to overlook the flaws.
http://sknr.net/2016/01/22/the-5th-wave/
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Pandora's Box (1929) in Movies
Feb 18, 2019
Pandora’s Box was one of the last films of the silent era, a period of transition to sound which I believe set the art of cinematography back a decade.
In short. Pandora’s Box looks stunning! Using the frame to its fullest, with a combination of wide framing and exploiting the art of the close up as Lulu herself, would the men around her, as well as driven by brilliant performances by most of the cast. But kudos needs to go to the star, Louise Brooks, as she portrays Lulu, the alluring flapper girl who can work her innocent, secutive magic on anyone, men and women alike.
But this is not limited to the narrative’s characters as her performance is subtle and underplayed, oozing out the silver screen and seducing the audience with same allure. If looks could kill, then this movie has them all.
With a sparse use of inter-titles, the film relies on both the physicality of the cast and imaginative cinematography to convey the seductive and danger of the events as they unfold over the two and bit hour runtime. Fritz Korner in particular rivals Brooks with the intensity of his performance as the ill fated husband of the girl about town.
And then there’s Alice Roberts, the Countess, who is widely thought to have the first lesbian to be seen on screen. Only Belgian actress’s second film in her short career, is played very Germanic, yet sympathetic as she too, has been drawn under Lulu’s spell.
This was made during the period in which German cinema was ruling, driving the art form from the nickelodeon to the theatre, but this was about to change in the 1930’s with advent of the sound and the golden age of American cinema. But as this film proves, you do not need sound to tell or show a good story.
Granted, the central story is pretty mediocre; a simple tale of a damaged woman who instinctively uses her allure to get her own way yet not as a diva, just an instinctive manipulator, casting her spell far and wide until that spell leads her into the hands London serial killer, Jack The Ripper (Gustav Diessl). But she is never portrayed as evil or scheming, just as herself as those around her are drawn to her aide.
There is little of the pantamine action or motives that you can expect from this genre even now, 90 years on.
But German director G.W. Pabst manages to create a multi-layered tale, deepened by psychological and social subtext, achieved as much because of the relationship he garnered with the star, Brookes, as he played on her natural talents to bring one of cinemas most defining roles to the screen. This would be the first of two collaborations between the director and the wayward starlet that year.
Pandora’s Box is yet another example of how German Cinema was leading the world back in the 1920’s; and even though the second world war may have brought this golden era to an abrupt end, it’s legacy lives on today with the styles, both in front and behind the camera, still being honoured by entire film industry now and hopefully for decades to come.
In short. Pandora’s Box looks stunning! Using the frame to its fullest, with a combination of wide framing and exploiting the art of the close up as Lulu herself, would the men around her, as well as driven by brilliant performances by most of the cast. But kudos needs to go to the star, Louise Brooks, as she portrays Lulu, the alluring flapper girl who can work her innocent, secutive magic on anyone, men and women alike.
But this is not limited to the narrative’s characters as her performance is subtle and underplayed, oozing out the silver screen and seducing the audience with same allure. If looks could kill, then this movie has them all.
With a sparse use of inter-titles, the film relies on both the physicality of the cast and imaginative cinematography to convey the seductive and danger of the events as they unfold over the two and bit hour runtime. Fritz Korner in particular rivals Brooks with the intensity of his performance as the ill fated husband of the girl about town.
And then there’s Alice Roberts, the Countess, who is widely thought to have the first lesbian to be seen on screen. Only Belgian actress’s second film in her short career, is played very Germanic, yet sympathetic as she too, has been drawn under Lulu’s spell.
This was made during the period in which German cinema was ruling, driving the art form from the nickelodeon to the theatre, but this was about to change in the 1930’s with advent of the sound and the golden age of American cinema. But as this film proves, you do not need sound to tell or show a good story.
Granted, the central story is pretty mediocre; a simple tale of a damaged woman who instinctively uses her allure to get her own way yet not as a diva, just an instinctive manipulator, casting her spell far and wide until that spell leads her into the hands London serial killer, Jack The Ripper (Gustav Diessl). But she is never portrayed as evil or scheming, just as herself as those around her are drawn to her aide.
There is little of the pantamine action or motives that you can expect from this genre even now, 90 years on.
But German director G.W. Pabst manages to create a multi-layered tale, deepened by psychological and social subtext, achieved as much because of the relationship he garnered with the star, Brookes, as he played on her natural talents to bring one of cinemas most defining roles to the screen. This would be the first of two collaborations between the director and the wayward starlet that year.
Pandora’s Box is yet another example of how German Cinema was leading the world back in the 1920’s; and even though the second world war may have brought this golden era to an abrupt end, it’s legacy lives on today with the styles, both in front and behind the camera, still being honoured by entire film industry now and hopefully for decades to come.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Irishman (2019) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
If anyone tells me they didn’t enjoy The Irishman, I would have to say, fair enough. There are reasons not to. As an entertainment it isn’t Goodfellas, as a thriller it isn’t The Departed, and as a classic gangster tale it isn’t anywhere near The Godfather, of course. It sags in the middle, ends morbidly, and, at three and a half hours, even in its brightest moments, you can find yourself waiting for it to finish. But, anyone who tells me The Irishman isn’t a great film is blind to the artistry at work here from a gang of septegenarians with a mighty track record. If it is one thing, it is Epic!
Also in the negative column is the ageing and de-ageing technology, which whilst pretty damn good is noticable and sometimes distracting. Myself, I was willing to forgive these faults, just for the privilege of being swept away once more by Scorsese’s eye for a shot and moments of pure mood, of which there are too many to count.
De Niro hasn’t been this good for years, that seems to be accepted knowledge. Pacino is Pacino, what else would you want him to be? But, it is the return from retirement of Joe Pesci that really impressed me. Almost certainly a career best performance at the age of 77 – always underplayed and menacing, there were times he acted the big two under the table. Of the 10 nominations at the 92nd Oscars, this is the one I hope lands.
If Scorsese also wins for best director, I wouldn’t complain either. Looking at his body of work, I count this as the 20th film I would class as very good or better. And although less “fun” it is certainly a better, classier film than The Departed, his only win to date. Other gongs I would give serious weight to are Thelma Schoonmaker for editing, and production design, which is as rich and detailed as it could possibly be, at times breath-takingly so.
There has been much made of the idea that this is Scorsese atoning for his sins in using violence as entertainment. And it is true that this film seems to meditate more or regret and loneliness as a side effect of a violent life. There is blood, people die violently, but these moments are often brief and unshowey, keeping the focus on the men (and it is always the men) who choose to live this way. In the end, we all age and grow weak; time advances and we are left with nothing but memories, surrounded by people who can’t remember who we are and what we did in our Golden days.
I found the last half hour very moving and somewhat depressing. I think we are meant to. No big climax, just a fading away. It felt like the hours after a party, full of joy and noise, when you are finally left alone with only yourself for company. More than any other emotion, this is what I have taken from this experience; and it’s a good trick, fully intended, that I applaud. And it is what ultimately makes the film feel mature and meaningful.
However, for all the praise it deserves, this isn’t a film I will choose to watch again in a hurry. And I think that will be common. It lacks the tension of a tighter, shorter film, and emotionally it is often difficult to connect to these men and their brutal deeds. If that is the point, then I get it… but there are plenty of films to go to, as already mentioned that have a more satisfying and rounded feel. Recommended highly, but with reservations.
Also in the negative column is the ageing and de-ageing technology, which whilst pretty damn good is noticable and sometimes distracting. Myself, I was willing to forgive these faults, just for the privilege of being swept away once more by Scorsese’s eye for a shot and moments of pure mood, of which there are too many to count.
De Niro hasn’t been this good for years, that seems to be accepted knowledge. Pacino is Pacino, what else would you want him to be? But, it is the return from retirement of Joe Pesci that really impressed me. Almost certainly a career best performance at the age of 77 – always underplayed and menacing, there were times he acted the big two under the table. Of the 10 nominations at the 92nd Oscars, this is the one I hope lands.
If Scorsese also wins for best director, I wouldn’t complain either. Looking at his body of work, I count this as the 20th film I would class as very good or better. And although less “fun” it is certainly a better, classier film than The Departed, his only win to date. Other gongs I would give serious weight to are Thelma Schoonmaker for editing, and production design, which is as rich and detailed as it could possibly be, at times breath-takingly so.
There has been much made of the idea that this is Scorsese atoning for his sins in using violence as entertainment. And it is true that this film seems to meditate more or regret and loneliness as a side effect of a violent life. There is blood, people die violently, but these moments are often brief and unshowey, keeping the focus on the men (and it is always the men) who choose to live this way. In the end, we all age and grow weak; time advances and we are left with nothing but memories, surrounded by people who can’t remember who we are and what we did in our Golden days.
I found the last half hour very moving and somewhat depressing. I think we are meant to. No big climax, just a fading away. It felt like the hours after a party, full of joy and noise, when you are finally left alone with only yourself for company. More than any other emotion, this is what I have taken from this experience; and it’s a good trick, fully intended, that I applaud. And it is what ultimately makes the film feel mature and meaningful.
However, for all the praise it deserves, this isn’t a film I will choose to watch again in a hurry. And I think that will be common. It lacks the tension of a tighter, shorter film, and emotionally it is often difficult to connect to these men and their brutal deeds. If that is the point, then I get it… but there are plenty of films to go to, as already mentioned that have a more satisfying and rounded feel. Recommended highly, but with reservations.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Last Duel (2021) in Movies
Oct 30, 2021
Doesn't Really Work
With films such as GLADIATOR, KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, ROBIN HOOD, EXODUS: GODS AND MONSTERS and the current THE LAST DUEL, Director Ridley Scott is single-handedly trying to keep alive the “Sword and Sandals” genre that was so much en vogue in the Golden Age of Hollywood.
However, he’ll have to do better than THE LAST DUEL to keep the genre going.
Starring Matt Damon, Ben Affleck, Adam Driver and Jodi Comer, THE LAST DUEL tells the tale of the…well…Last Duel in France in the 1300’s. The story tells the tale of 2 noblemen, their ups & downs and the accusation of the wife of one of them that the other raped her. The only way to solve the dispute is a duel to the death.
Following the format of such films as RASHOMON (1950) and, more recently, WRATH OF MAN (2021), THE LAST DUEL is told in 4 parts - telling the same story from different perspectives. But, unlike RASHOMON and (surprisingly) WRATH OF MAN which peeled the onion back during each different telling, adding a deeper and richer layer to the story each time, THE LAST DUEL pretty much tells the same story over and over, not really telling it differently and not really adding any layers to the story. You pretty much know before THE LAST DUEL who is innocent, who is guilty and how the duel is going to play out.
So, Director Scott will need to rely on the performances and the look and feel of the film to get the audience hooked and intrigued during this 2 hour and 32 minute epic, but the script (by Nicole Holofcener, Affleck & Damon just isn’t up to the task.
The acting is…fine. Driver fares the best out of the 4 leads - probably because he is the actor most suited for this type of film than the others. Comer’s part is underwritten and she has surprisingly little to do - which brings us to Affleck and Damon. Affleck has the showier role and provides a spark of interest in his limited time on the screen while Damon is dour and serious and trudges through the film - as does the audience.
Director Scott (ALIEN) brings professionalism to the proceedings and accurately depicts the look and feel of the time and stages the duel (and battle scenes) with a trained eye, but the characters/performances did not leave me with anyone to truly root for (or care about) and by the time we got to THE LAST DUEL, I just wanted it to be over.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
However, he’ll have to do better than THE LAST DUEL to keep the genre going.
Starring Matt Damon, Ben Affleck, Adam Driver and Jodi Comer, THE LAST DUEL tells the tale of the…well…Last Duel in France in the 1300’s. The story tells the tale of 2 noblemen, their ups & downs and the accusation of the wife of one of them that the other raped her. The only way to solve the dispute is a duel to the death.
Following the format of such films as RASHOMON (1950) and, more recently, WRATH OF MAN (2021), THE LAST DUEL is told in 4 parts - telling the same story from different perspectives. But, unlike RASHOMON and (surprisingly) WRATH OF MAN which peeled the onion back during each different telling, adding a deeper and richer layer to the story each time, THE LAST DUEL pretty much tells the same story over and over, not really telling it differently and not really adding any layers to the story. You pretty much know before THE LAST DUEL who is innocent, who is guilty and how the duel is going to play out.
So, Director Scott will need to rely on the performances and the look and feel of the film to get the audience hooked and intrigued during this 2 hour and 32 minute epic, but the script (by Nicole Holofcener, Affleck & Damon just isn’t up to the task.
The acting is…fine. Driver fares the best out of the 4 leads - probably because he is the actor most suited for this type of film than the others. Comer’s part is underwritten and she has surprisingly little to do - which brings us to Affleck and Damon. Affleck has the showier role and provides a spark of interest in his limited time on the screen while Damon is dour and serious and trudges through the film - as does the audience.
Director Scott (ALIEN) brings professionalism to the proceedings and accurately depicts the look and feel of the time and stages the duel (and battle scenes) with a trained eye, but the characters/performances did not leave me with anyone to truly root for (or care about) and by the time we got to THE LAST DUEL, I just wanted it to be over.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Mayhawke (97 KP) rated Bats In The Belfry in Books
Feb 26, 2018 (Updated Feb 27, 2018)
A Cosy Crime sleeper worthy of resurrection
I’m a huge fan of Cosy Crime, I cut my grown-up reading teeth on Agatha Christie and Dorothy L Sayers, so it should be no surprise that I’m a big fan of the British Library’s inspired decision to republish lost Golden Age novels.
Fifty-one re-issues in and I’m still stunned at the number of authors who had stellar careers as crime writers, were fully inducted members of the Detection Club, and had publication lists to rival Christie’s but who, within a few years of their deaths, had just vanished from the pantheon classic crime novelists.
Such a writer was E.C.R.Lorac, author of Bats In The Belfry. In his introduction Martin Edwards describes the pseudonymous Lorac (real name Edith Caroline Rivett) as enjoying a “low-key career spanning more than a quarter of a century.” It also produced a catalogue of over seventy novels, yet, cosy crime fan that I am I had never heard of her until her book turned up on my work intranet.
Bats, British Library’s inaugural Crime Classic for 2018, is also the first of Lorac’s novels to be given the British Library treatment. It couldn’t have happened to a better book! One of the dangers of republishing books that have disappeared in the mists of time, at least if you are republishing them for the mass market, is that some of them will prove to have been ‘lost’ with good cause. Not that the writing need be poor or the plotting weak, but there are social aspects that can be critical to the development or fundamental premise of the story that change over the course of half a century. When that happens there is a danger that the reader will at best be disgruntled with a puzzle they were unlikely to be able to solve because they didn’t understand the clues they were being given, or, at worst, that the whole premise will seem beyond ludicrous to modern readers. Of the twenty or so BLCC’s I have read only one has fallen into the latter category, and whilst there have been one or two which were a bit plodding thanks to such issues they have largely been a pleasure to read, and I have been able to joyfully pit my wits against the authors’ intrinsic challenge to solve the mystery before the denouement.
Bats in the Belfry most definitely falls into this class of Crime Classic, so much so that it’s a surprise to find from Edwards that it was a bit of a non-starter when it was first published in 1937.
A failing writer, his actress wife, his ward and a selection of friends are collected one evening following the funeral of the writer’s cousin. Shortly thereafter the writer himself has vanished, his suitcase and passport left in a darkly sinister studio known variously as The Belfry, and The Morgue. The story is as dark and twisty as any you could hope for from a member of the Detection Club, and it plays nicely on themes of the time. Broken marriages, financially emasculated men, and the requisite ‘strange foreign man’ all appear, and even aarchaeology gets a look in. As the main characters sit and incautiously discuss ways to bump off someone and hide the body there is brief verbal tussle over the usefulness – and even existence of – dene holes, ancient subterranean storage areas that provided writers of the time with endless possibilities, most notably in Sayers’ The Nine Tailors. Lorac’s plotting is flawless and deceptively simplistic, and she leads you back and forth from suspect to suspect. She is brutally unsympathetic to her characters, and her writing bundles you along until you finally reach the conclusion, to discover how good you are at detecting. Or not.
Fifty-one re-issues in and I’m still stunned at the number of authors who had stellar careers as crime writers, were fully inducted members of the Detection Club, and had publication lists to rival Christie’s but who, within a few years of their deaths, had just vanished from the pantheon classic crime novelists.
Such a writer was E.C.R.Lorac, author of Bats In The Belfry. In his introduction Martin Edwards describes the pseudonymous Lorac (real name Edith Caroline Rivett) as enjoying a “low-key career spanning more than a quarter of a century.” It also produced a catalogue of over seventy novels, yet, cosy crime fan that I am I had never heard of her until her book turned up on my work intranet.
Bats, British Library’s inaugural Crime Classic for 2018, is also the first of Lorac’s novels to be given the British Library treatment. It couldn’t have happened to a better book! One of the dangers of republishing books that have disappeared in the mists of time, at least if you are republishing them for the mass market, is that some of them will prove to have been ‘lost’ with good cause. Not that the writing need be poor or the plotting weak, but there are social aspects that can be critical to the development or fundamental premise of the story that change over the course of half a century. When that happens there is a danger that the reader will at best be disgruntled with a puzzle they were unlikely to be able to solve because they didn’t understand the clues they were being given, or, at worst, that the whole premise will seem beyond ludicrous to modern readers. Of the twenty or so BLCC’s I have read only one has fallen into the latter category, and whilst there have been one or two which were a bit plodding thanks to such issues they have largely been a pleasure to read, and I have been able to joyfully pit my wits against the authors’ intrinsic challenge to solve the mystery before the denouement.
Bats in the Belfry most definitely falls into this class of Crime Classic, so much so that it’s a surprise to find from Edwards that it was a bit of a non-starter when it was first published in 1937.
A failing writer, his actress wife, his ward and a selection of friends are collected one evening following the funeral of the writer’s cousin. Shortly thereafter the writer himself has vanished, his suitcase and passport left in a darkly sinister studio known variously as The Belfry, and The Morgue. The story is as dark and twisty as any you could hope for from a member of the Detection Club, and it plays nicely on themes of the time. Broken marriages, financially emasculated men, and the requisite ‘strange foreign man’ all appear, and even aarchaeology gets a look in. As the main characters sit and incautiously discuss ways to bump off someone and hide the body there is brief verbal tussle over the usefulness – and even existence of – dene holes, ancient subterranean storage areas that provided writers of the time with endless possibilities, most notably in Sayers’ The Nine Tailors. Lorac’s plotting is flawless and deceptively simplistic, and she leads you back and forth from suspect to suspect. She is brutally unsympathetic to her characters, and her writing bundles you along until you finally reach the conclusion, to discover how good you are at detecting. Or not.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Wolfman (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
During the golden age of cinematic horror, Lon Chaney terrified audiences with his portrayal of the Wolfman which launched the character as a cultural mainstay.
Over the years there have been countless updates to the tale which ranged from Michael Landon in “I Was a Teenage Werewolf, to the more contemporary “An American Werewolf in London” and “Dog Soldiers”.
With remakes being all the rage in Hollywood, Universal has returned to the original source material to offer an updated version of the original classic.
Set in England near the start of the twentieth century, the film stars Benicio Del Toro as an actor named Lawrence who is summoned home when his brother goes missing. Upon returning to the lavish familial estate, he is greeted by his estranged father, (Sir Anthony Hopkins), who informs him that his brother mutilated body was discovered earlier.
Dismayed by the condition of his brother’s remains, Lawrence decides to stay and get to the bottom of the mystery. When a clue provided by his brother’s fiancé leads him to a Gypsy encampment, Lawrence learns of a curse, but before he can obtain the information he desires, the camp is attacked by a mysterious creature that leaves a horrific path of carnage in its wake and leaves Lawrence badly wounded from a bite.
Lawrence makes an amazing recovery from his wounds and in doing so raises the suspicions of the locals who now see Lawrence as cursed and a threat to their society.
Lawrence has also raised the suspicions of Scotland Yard Inspector, (Hugo Weaving) who is convinced that Lawrence may be a key player in the local horror, as he was confined to an asylum in his childhood following the death of his mother.
At first Lawrence is outraged at the accusations, but when he transforms into a deadly creature and embarks on a deadly killing spree during a full moon, he soon learns a dangerous secret that places not only his life in danger, but endangers all those around him.
In a desperate race against time, Lawrence attempts to get to the root of his troubles and set things right before the next full moon, when his animal side will take over once again.
The film is a stylish update of the original and the cast is strong. Sadly they are given little to do with the by the numbers plot, and spend much of the time looking like they are simply going through the motions which makes it difficult for the audience to develop a deep sympathy or attachment to the characters.
Oscar winner Rick Baker has done some amazing makeup work and the effects of the film are solid. It was reported that the film was delayed so Universal could punch the film up by adding some new fx and sequences.
The final result is a mixed bag as while the film is a nice update on the original, audiences have seen more so many variations of the story over the years it is hard to be surprised by anything in the picture. Despite the best efforts of the creative talent, there is little tension or drama in the film and by the time the finale plays out, many may think they have seen it all before.
Universal has released the 1941 original Lon Cheney version of the film on DVD and for those who like film history; they may gain a new insight into the film by watching the original version prior.
In the end, “The Wolfman” works as a matinee or a DVD rental, but I would not suggest it as a full priced theatrical experience for anyone other than those looking for a piece of nostalgia.
Over the years there have been countless updates to the tale which ranged from Michael Landon in “I Was a Teenage Werewolf, to the more contemporary “An American Werewolf in London” and “Dog Soldiers”.
With remakes being all the rage in Hollywood, Universal has returned to the original source material to offer an updated version of the original classic.
Set in England near the start of the twentieth century, the film stars Benicio Del Toro as an actor named Lawrence who is summoned home when his brother goes missing. Upon returning to the lavish familial estate, he is greeted by his estranged father, (Sir Anthony Hopkins), who informs him that his brother mutilated body was discovered earlier.
Dismayed by the condition of his brother’s remains, Lawrence decides to stay and get to the bottom of the mystery. When a clue provided by his brother’s fiancé leads him to a Gypsy encampment, Lawrence learns of a curse, but before he can obtain the information he desires, the camp is attacked by a mysterious creature that leaves a horrific path of carnage in its wake and leaves Lawrence badly wounded from a bite.
Lawrence makes an amazing recovery from his wounds and in doing so raises the suspicions of the locals who now see Lawrence as cursed and a threat to their society.
Lawrence has also raised the suspicions of Scotland Yard Inspector, (Hugo Weaving) who is convinced that Lawrence may be a key player in the local horror, as he was confined to an asylum in his childhood following the death of his mother.
At first Lawrence is outraged at the accusations, but when he transforms into a deadly creature and embarks on a deadly killing spree during a full moon, he soon learns a dangerous secret that places not only his life in danger, but endangers all those around him.
In a desperate race against time, Lawrence attempts to get to the root of his troubles and set things right before the next full moon, when his animal side will take over once again.
The film is a stylish update of the original and the cast is strong. Sadly they are given little to do with the by the numbers plot, and spend much of the time looking like they are simply going through the motions which makes it difficult for the audience to develop a deep sympathy or attachment to the characters.
Oscar winner Rick Baker has done some amazing makeup work and the effects of the film are solid. It was reported that the film was delayed so Universal could punch the film up by adding some new fx and sequences.
The final result is a mixed bag as while the film is a nice update on the original, audiences have seen more so many variations of the story over the years it is hard to be surprised by anything in the picture. Despite the best efforts of the creative talent, there is little tension or drama in the film and by the time the finale plays out, many may think they have seen it all before.
Universal has released the 1941 original Lon Cheney version of the film on DVD and for those who like film history; they may gain a new insight into the film by watching the original version prior.
In the end, “The Wolfman” works as a matinee or a DVD rental, but I would not suggest it as a full priced theatrical experience for anyone other than those looking for a piece of nostalgia.
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated Flatland (Enhanced Illustrated Edition) in Books
Nov 13, 2019
I have wanted to read Flatland since I read the reference to it in Gödel Escher Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid which was a set text at university. As the book is out of copyright it was one of the first that I downloaded to my eReader.
The book (although really a novella rather than a full novel at only 88 pages) works on two levels; firstly the story revolves around A Square, an inhabitant of the two dimensional space that is Flatland. Most of the book describes the rigid social hierarchy of the regular polygons that make up the people - the more sides a person has the higher their social standing. Irregular shapes are despised and usually executed. The second half involves investigation into the nature of dimensions when A Square first of all dreams of a one dimensional land, then is shown three dimensions and zero dimensions by a spherical person from the three dimensional land.
The first half is a satire on the rigid class system of Victorian society - it is particularly disparaging of women, who being lines rather than shapes are very much second class citizens, even having their own doors into and out of houses. This half shows the book's age, it was written in a different time and looking at it from more than 100 years later a lot of the discussion is overlong and unengaging. This part has not aged at all well.
The book only comes into its own when A Square has a dream about a land of one dimension, populated by lines of varying length, the longest line being the King of Lineland. The two dimensional dreamer attempts to persuade the King that is he could step sideways he would be able to see that his land of a single line was limited. Of course the King can conceive of no such direction as 'sideways' and rejects the suggestion as ridiculous.
A sphere from the 3 dimensional land of Space then visits Flatland, appearing as a circle of varying size as he passes through the two dimensional space. He tries to persuade Square that if he could move 'up' or 'down' he would be able to move beyond the rigid plane of his existence. Obviously the square cannot understand a direction which doesn't fall into two dimensions, until the sphere pulls him up and then he can look down to see Flatland spread out below him. He has an epiphany and is determined to spread the word on three dimensional space. The sphere also visits a zero dimensional land. However when the square suggests that if the sphere could somehow move in a new direction he might be able to enter four dimensional space the sphere is very quick to say how ridiculous such a notion is.
In this way the ideas behind dimensions are communicated quite effectively, including being able to deduce the properties of a four dimensional regular shape by extrapolating the properties of lines, squares and cubes. It is then clear how properties of higher dimensions can be calculated without our poor three dimensional minds actually being able to perceive of it.
Flatland is regarded as one of the very first science fiction novels. So is Gulliver's Travels but that has very little science and to my mind is more of a fantasy book. Despite Flatland having very little in the way of story and plot (although there are twists in the story) and the first half isn't really story at all but social commentary, it definitely describes fantastic worlds and imagines what the results would be of living in such places. This seems to me to be the very concept behind science fiction.
In conclusion, I would not recommend this to everyone as I think its appeal is quite limited. But for anyone of a mathematical bent who likes science fiction, it's always good to see where it all started.
The book (although really a novella rather than a full novel at only 88 pages) works on two levels; firstly the story revolves around A Square, an inhabitant of the two dimensional space that is Flatland. Most of the book describes the rigid social hierarchy of the regular polygons that make up the people - the more sides a person has the higher their social standing. Irregular shapes are despised and usually executed. The second half involves investigation into the nature of dimensions when A Square first of all dreams of a one dimensional land, then is shown three dimensions and zero dimensions by a spherical person from the three dimensional land.
The first half is a satire on the rigid class system of Victorian society - it is particularly disparaging of women, who being lines rather than shapes are very much second class citizens, even having their own doors into and out of houses. This half shows the book's age, it was written in a different time and looking at it from more than 100 years later a lot of the discussion is overlong and unengaging. This part has not aged at all well.
The book only comes into its own when A Square has a dream about a land of one dimension, populated by lines of varying length, the longest line being the King of Lineland. The two dimensional dreamer attempts to persuade the King that is he could step sideways he would be able to see that his land of a single line was limited. Of course the King can conceive of no such direction as 'sideways' and rejects the suggestion as ridiculous.
A sphere from the 3 dimensional land of Space then visits Flatland, appearing as a circle of varying size as he passes through the two dimensional space. He tries to persuade Square that if he could move 'up' or 'down' he would be able to move beyond the rigid plane of his existence. Obviously the square cannot understand a direction which doesn't fall into two dimensions, until the sphere pulls him up and then he can look down to see Flatland spread out below him. He has an epiphany and is determined to spread the word on three dimensional space. The sphere also visits a zero dimensional land. However when the square suggests that if the sphere could somehow move in a new direction he might be able to enter four dimensional space the sphere is very quick to say how ridiculous such a notion is.
In this way the ideas behind dimensions are communicated quite effectively, including being able to deduce the properties of a four dimensional regular shape by extrapolating the properties of lines, squares and cubes. It is then clear how properties of higher dimensions can be calculated without our poor three dimensional minds actually being able to perceive of it.
Flatland is regarded as one of the very first science fiction novels. So is Gulliver's Travels but that has very little science and to my mind is more of a fantasy book. Despite Flatland having very little in the way of story and plot (although there are twists in the story) and the first half isn't really story at all but social commentary, it definitely describes fantastic worlds and imagines what the results would be of living in such places. This seems to me to be the very concept behind science fiction.
In conclusion, I would not recommend this to everyone as I think its appeal is quite limited. But for anyone of a mathematical bent who likes science fiction, it's always good to see where it all started.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mercy (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“With shroud, and mast, and pennon fair”.
It’s 1968. Donald Crowhurst (Colin Firth, “Kingsman: The Golden Circle“; “Magic in the Moonlight“), an amateur sailor and entrepreneur based in Teignmouth, Devon, is inspired by listening to single-handed round-the-world yachtsman Sir Francis Chichester and does a a crazy thing. He puts his business, his family’s house and his own life on the line by entering the Sunday Times single-handed round-the-world yacht race. It’s not even as if he has a boat built yet!
Lending him the money, under onerous terms, are local businessman Mr Best (Ken Stott, “The Hobbit“) and local newspaper editor Rodney Hallworth (David Thewlis, “Wonder Woman“, “The Theory of Everything“). With the race deadline upon him, Crowhurst is pressed into sailing away from his beloved wife Clare (Rachel Weisz, “Denial“, “The Lobster“) and young family in a trimaran that is well below par.
But what happens next is so ludicrous that it makes a mockery of whoever wrote this ridiculous work of fiction. Ah… but wait a minute… it’s a true story!
It is in fact such an astonishing story that this is a film that is easy to spoil in a review, a fact that seems to have passed many newspaper reviewers by (Arrrggghhh!!). So I will leave much comment to a “spoiler section” that follows the trailer (which is also best avoided). This is honestly a film worth seeing cold. What can I say that is spoiler-free then?
Firth and Weisz make a well-matched couple, and the rest of the cast is peppered with well-known faces from British film and (particularly) TV: Andrew Buchan and Jonathan Bailey (from “Broadchurch”); Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”, “Out Kind of Traitor“); Adrian Schiller (“Victoria”; “Beauty and the Beast“).
The first part of the film is well executed and excellent value for older viewers. 60’s Devon is warm, bucolic and nostalgic. In fact, the film beautifully creates the late 60’s of my childhood, from the boxy hardwood furniture of the Crowhurst’s house to the Meccano set opened at Christmas time.
Once afloat though, the film is less successful at getting its sea-legs. The story is riveting, but quite a number of the scenes raise more questions than they answer. As stress takes hold it is perhaps not surprising that there are a few fantastical flights of movie fancy. But some specific elements in Scott Burns’ script don’t quite gel: a brass clock overboard is a case in point. What? Why?
And it seems to be light on the fallout from the race: there is a weighty scene in the trailer between Best and Hallworth that (unless I dozed off!) I don’t think appeared in the final cut, and I think was needed.
All in all, I was left feeling mildly dissatisfied: a potentially good film by “Theory of Everything” director James Marsh that rather goes off the rails in the final stretch.
This was a time where morality and honour were often rigidly adhered to – British “stiff upper lip” and all that – and seemed to carry a lot more weight than they do today. So some of the decisions in the film might mystify younger viewers. But for the packed older audience in my showing (Cineworld: this needs to be put on in a bigger screen!) then it was a gripping, stressful, but far from flawless watch.
I’d also like to take this opportunity to pay my respects to the film’s composer Jóhann Jóhannsson, who shockingly died last week at the ridiculously young age of 48. His strange and atmospheric music for films including “The Theory of Everything“, “Sicario” and (particularly) “Arrival” set him on the path to be a film composing great of the future. Like James Horner, another awful and untimely loss to the film music industry.
Lending him the money, under onerous terms, are local businessman Mr Best (Ken Stott, “The Hobbit“) and local newspaper editor Rodney Hallworth (David Thewlis, “Wonder Woman“, “The Theory of Everything“). With the race deadline upon him, Crowhurst is pressed into sailing away from his beloved wife Clare (Rachel Weisz, “Denial“, “The Lobster“) and young family in a trimaran that is well below par.
But what happens next is so ludicrous that it makes a mockery of whoever wrote this ridiculous work of fiction. Ah… but wait a minute… it’s a true story!
It is in fact such an astonishing story that this is a film that is easy to spoil in a review, a fact that seems to have passed many newspaper reviewers by (Arrrggghhh!!). So I will leave much comment to a “spoiler section” that follows the trailer (which is also best avoided). This is honestly a film worth seeing cold. What can I say that is spoiler-free then?
Firth and Weisz make a well-matched couple, and the rest of the cast is peppered with well-known faces from British film and (particularly) TV: Andrew Buchan and Jonathan Bailey (from “Broadchurch”); Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”, “Out Kind of Traitor“); Adrian Schiller (“Victoria”; “Beauty and the Beast“).
The first part of the film is well executed and excellent value for older viewers. 60’s Devon is warm, bucolic and nostalgic. In fact, the film beautifully creates the late 60’s of my childhood, from the boxy hardwood furniture of the Crowhurst’s house to the Meccano set opened at Christmas time.
Once afloat though, the film is less successful at getting its sea-legs. The story is riveting, but quite a number of the scenes raise more questions than they answer. As stress takes hold it is perhaps not surprising that there are a few fantastical flights of movie fancy. But some specific elements in Scott Burns’ script don’t quite gel: a brass clock overboard is a case in point. What? Why?
And it seems to be light on the fallout from the race: there is a weighty scene in the trailer between Best and Hallworth that (unless I dozed off!) I don’t think appeared in the final cut, and I think was needed.
All in all, I was left feeling mildly dissatisfied: a potentially good film by “Theory of Everything” director James Marsh that rather goes off the rails in the final stretch.
This was a time where morality and honour were often rigidly adhered to – British “stiff upper lip” and all that – and seemed to carry a lot more weight than they do today. So some of the decisions in the film might mystify younger viewers. But for the packed older audience in my showing (Cineworld: this needs to be put on in a bigger screen!) then it was a gripping, stressful, but far from flawless watch.
I’d also like to take this opportunity to pay my respects to the film’s composer Jóhann Jóhannsson, who shockingly died last week at the ridiculously young age of 48. His strange and atmospheric music for films including “The Theory of Everything“, “Sicario” and (particularly) “Arrival” set him on the path to be a film composing great of the future. Like James Horner, another awful and untimely loss to the film music industry.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Director Quentin Tarantino is well known for his language and excessive violence-based movies. All one needs to do is look at some of his earlier works such as Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction to really get an understanding of how over-the-top they really can be. So, when I saw the initial previews for his latest dramatic comedy Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, I wasn’t sure what to expect. This only fueled the expectation and interest I had going into the film.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood takes place in 1969 near the end of the golden age of Hollywood. Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) is an aging star of Westerns trying to desperately remain relevant in a world that considers those even in their 30’s as ancient, much like the black and white film common even to that day. His stuntman and best friend Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) is happy to go along for the ride. More of an assistant and better known as the man who got away with killing his own wife, Cliff is content with his role in the world and isn’t looking for the next big break.
You can’t have a Hollywood story in 1969 without involving one of the most brutal murders of the time, that of Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and the now infamous Charles Manson and his “family”. A dark cloud that would leave a lasting mark on Hollywood itself. Their presence reminds us of the chilling reality to the evil that is lurking just outside the amazing set pieces and bright lights of the city itself.
Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio do a phenomenal job as one would expect. It’s always interesting to watch a movie where the actor is portraying another character in an entirely different movie and Leonardo delivers in spades. Brad Pitt brings his usual lovable charm to the otherwise tough persona as Cliff, the dog loving, Bruce Lee ass kicking sidekick. The chemistry between the two is undeniable, displaying both touching and comedic undertones throughout. It’s almost surreal to think that they are portraying characters that do represent themselves in the real world. It’s hard not to make the comparison of Brad and Leo to their onscreen characters, as aging stars wondering what the future holds for them.
Tarantino does a marvelous job of transporting his viewers back to 1969. Everything from episodes of old television shows, to advertisements on the street envelop the viewers in the tie-dyed/hippy reality of what the 60’s was. It’s hard not to be impressed with the cinematography that has been so lavishly recreated before us. The streets, the cars, even the film itself all take their cues from the time period. Car scenes are shot with laughably fake backdrops at times to remind us exactly the types of effects that went into filming back in the day. It’s a mix of old school and new school filming that takes you from one reality and places you in another. Tarantino does his best to make the audience more than spectators to what is developing on screen and instead as active participants.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a fairytale of sorts, of what made Hollywood so special back in the 60’s. It lacks much of the brutal nature that has become second nature to Tarantino films, and those who are going to see it for its brutality will likely be very disappointed. It’s a film that is incredibly difficult to talk about without spoilers, because outside the general plot synopsis the viewer is left with more questions than answers. The film is long, coming in at two hours and forty minutes, and there are scenes that tend to drag on a little longer than necessary. Thankfully though, Tarantino has weaved a story of what was and what could have been, if Rick and Cliff both had existed…Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
4 out of 5 stars
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood takes place in 1969 near the end of the golden age of Hollywood. Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) is an aging star of Westerns trying to desperately remain relevant in a world that considers those even in their 30’s as ancient, much like the black and white film common even to that day. His stuntman and best friend Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) is happy to go along for the ride. More of an assistant and better known as the man who got away with killing his own wife, Cliff is content with his role in the world and isn’t looking for the next big break.
You can’t have a Hollywood story in 1969 without involving one of the most brutal murders of the time, that of Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and the now infamous Charles Manson and his “family”. A dark cloud that would leave a lasting mark on Hollywood itself. Their presence reminds us of the chilling reality to the evil that is lurking just outside the amazing set pieces and bright lights of the city itself.
Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio do a phenomenal job as one would expect. It’s always interesting to watch a movie where the actor is portraying another character in an entirely different movie and Leonardo delivers in spades. Brad Pitt brings his usual lovable charm to the otherwise tough persona as Cliff, the dog loving, Bruce Lee ass kicking sidekick. The chemistry between the two is undeniable, displaying both touching and comedic undertones throughout. It’s almost surreal to think that they are portraying characters that do represent themselves in the real world. It’s hard not to make the comparison of Brad and Leo to their onscreen characters, as aging stars wondering what the future holds for them.
Tarantino does a marvelous job of transporting his viewers back to 1969. Everything from episodes of old television shows, to advertisements on the street envelop the viewers in the tie-dyed/hippy reality of what the 60’s was. It’s hard not to be impressed with the cinematography that has been so lavishly recreated before us. The streets, the cars, even the film itself all take their cues from the time period. Car scenes are shot with laughably fake backdrops at times to remind us exactly the types of effects that went into filming back in the day. It’s a mix of old school and new school filming that takes you from one reality and places you in another. Tarantino does his best to make the audience more than spectators to what is developing on screen and instead as active participants.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a fairytale of sorts, of what made Hollywood so special back in the 60’s. It lacks much of the brutal nature that has become second nature to Tarantino films, and those who are going to see it for its brutality will likely be very disappointed. It’s a film that is incredibly difficult to talk about without spoilers, because outside the general plot synopsis the viewer is left with more questions than answers. The film is long, coming in at two hours and forty minutes, and there are scenes that tend to drag on a little longer than necessary. Thankfully though, Tarantino has weaved a story of what was and what could have been, if Rick and Cliff both had existed…Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
4 out of 5 stars