Search
Search results
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Avengers: Endgame (2019) in Movies
Apr 26, 2019 (Updated Apr 29, 2019)
Epic Indeed
Hours after viewing Avengers: Endgame, it’s taken me awhile to really get to the meat of what I wanted to say. The movie is bananas and heavy, both in a good way. It’s kind of like eating a really delicious meal, thinking you want more before deciding, “No, I think I’ve had the perfect amount actually.” The movie isn’t perfect, but damn if it isn’t an amazing spectacle. After The Snap, the Avengers set out to fix what went wrong by whatever means they can muster.
Acting: 10
From Robert Downey Jr. to Paul Rudd, each of these actors/actresses manage to fit into their roles just right as if it was a part made just for them. One might say, “Well, they’ve played the roles for x amount of years. They should be good at it by now.” But it isn’t just their roles but the maturation of those roles that really make an impact. While one might think it easy just to play the same character repeatedly, we neglect to take into account the growth that characters do/should endure and how it affects the characters overall. Side note: I just love how much of a bad ass Brie Larson is and I can’t wait to see what Marvel has in store for her next.
Beginning: 10
Not only does the beginning have a strong emotional setup, it turns the entire film on its head. What you expected to happen is actually not happening at all. And furthermore…I LOVE IT!
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Visuals are absolutely jaw-dropping in certain spots. The movie probably had some of the absolute best one-shots in film PERIOD. I can’t go into detail without giving anything away, but serious eye candy awaits, especially during the battles.
Conflict: 10
Whatever the film lacks in action more than makes up for things in Endgame’s grand finale. The battle reminded me of old kung fu films and Helm’s Deep all rolled into one. Outside of The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, I can’t remember a battle so epic in movies. If you don’t love it, you don’t love movies.
Genre: 10
Memorability: 10
My brain is running 100 miles an hour as I type this, thinking of all the different scenes and how everything tied so seamlessly together. Just masterful and wonderfully crafted. This movie will remain etched in your brain for a long time to come. Talk about setting a bar.
Pace: 10
With a three-hour runtime, this was honestly where I expected the film to trip up. Thing is, it doesn’t feel like three hours, not even in the slightest. I would’ve watched another hour if they had let me. There are so many stories to tell and so much going on that you’re at the end before you know it.
Plot: 10
I did have to put my thinking cap on in some spots, but all plot points tied in really nicely with no glaring holes I could see. It would be easy to make the storyline overly complex, but The Russo Brothers were firing on all cylinders with the execution of the story. It’s just complex enough to keep you engaged, but not to over-the-top where you lose interest.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 100
Eleven years of these great superheroes leading up to this moment. Was Avengers: Endgame worth the wait? You better freakin’ believe it. Go see this with all the confidence in the world that you will walk away with a smile on your face and perhaps a tear or two in your eye. And, when you go, you might see me there because I’m DEFINITELY watching this again in theaters. All three hours.
Acting: 10
From Robert Downey Jr. to Paul Rudd, each of these actors/actresses manage to fit into their roles just right as if it was a part made just for them. One might say, “Well, they’ve played the roles for x amount of years. They should be good at it by now.” But it isn’t just their roles but the maturation of those roles that really make an impact. While one might think it easy just to play the same character repeatedly, we neglect to take into account the growth that characters do/should endure and how it affects the characters overall. Side note: I just love how much of a bad ass Brie Larson is and I can’t wait to see what Marvel has in store for her next.
Beginning: 10
Not only does the beginning have a strong emotional setup, it turns the entire film on its head. What you expected to happen is actually not happening at all. And furthermore…I LOVE IT!
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Visuals are absolutely jaw-dropping in certain spots. The movie probably had some of the absolute best one-shots in film PERIOD. I can’t go into detail without giving anything away, but serious eye candy awaits, especially during the battles.
Conflict: 10
Whatever the film lacks in action more than makes up for things in Endgame’s grand finale. The battle reminded me of old kung fu films and Helm’s Deep all rolled into one. Outside of The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, I can’t remember a battle so epic in movies. If you don’t love it, you don’t love movies.
Genre: 10
Memorability: 10
My brain is running 100 miles an hour as I type this, thinking of all the different scenes and how everything tied so seamlessly together. Just masterful and wonderfully crafted. This movie will remain etched in your brain for a long time to come. Talk about setting a bar.
Pace: 10
With a three-hour runtime, this was honestly where I expected the film to trip up. Thing is, it doesn’t feel like three hours, not even in the slightest. I would’ve watched another hour if they had let me. There are so many stories to tell and so much going on that you’re at the end before you know it.
Plot: 10
I did have to put my thinking cap on in some spots, but all plot points tied in really nicely with no glaring holes I could see. It would be easy to make the storyline overly complex, but The Russo Brothers were firing on all cylinders with the execution of the story. It’s just complex enough to keep you engaged, but not to over-the-top where you lose interest.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 100
Eleven years of these great superheroes leading up to this moment. Was Avengers: Endgame worth the wait? You better freakin’ believe it. Go see this with all the confidence in the world that you will walk away with a smile on your face and perhaps a tear or two in your eye. And, when you go, you might see me there because I’m DEFINITELY watching this again in theaters. All three hours.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) in Movies
May 10, 2019
“You said it yourself bitch, we’re the Guardians of the Galaxy”
The Marvel marathon continues. We started with the story of a soldier out of time. Now we move on to the tale of a group of losers having to learn not to kill each other and maybe, just maybe, becoming friends along the way. Guardians of the Galaxy I view as the movie that fully cemented Marvel Studios as the powerhouse we know today. The popularity of Iron Man and Thor spiked after their respective films, but I'm gonna guess if you pulled someone random off the street and asked them who either character was before their movies were released, they could probably at least tell you who they are. Now, not too far separated from the humongous success of The Avengers, here comes Marvel with a film about characters next to no one, not even some avid fans of comics, knew existed. And wouldn't you know, five years after Guardians came out and made Groot a household word, it's still one of their best films Marvel has made.
Guardians of the Galaxy almost off the bat confronts two major complaints I hear about Marvel flicks. First, that they don't look cinematic. Call it the "TV show aesthetic." Moderately flat shots, muted colors, forgettable music, etc. Second, that they're too heavy on witty banter and don't leave enough room for genuinely meaty substance. In regards to the first point, this film looks gorgeous. The color palette and cinematography are both creative and have an absolute blast with the concept of creating a grandiose space opera with equal parts charm and toilet humor. Each planet has its own distinct decor and aliens. Gunn managed to create a fleshed-out, lively, and unique galaxy. In regards to the second point, while there is all sorts of banter to be found throughout, including a Jackson Pollock cum joke, Guardians of the Galaxy has to have the biggest heart out of any film in the MCU. The movie is a full measured ton of fun, but it tugs at the heartstrings in a way few modern blockbusters have been able to achieve.
Four of the five Guardians have something in their life that lead to great tragedy. Peter and Drax lost family very close to them. Gamora and Rocket were tortured and bred to be bloodthirsty warriors. But then, there's Groot. Sweet, unassuming Groot. A beast in battle, but a gentle giant otherwise. His existence seems simple. He eats a leaf off of his shoulder, he drinks water straight from a fountain, and he's more than willing to grow and give a flower to a small girl. He's perhaps the closest we have to a lead character who is wholly happy. The Guardians all start off as renegades, loners, folks reasonably hardened by lives that have enjoyed fucking them over. We get to see them by the end of the film not just grow into heroes, but friends and good people. I am Groot. You are Groot. We are Groot.
Marvel took a big gamble with this movie, but it payed off so absurdly well. The humor is great, the characters even better, and the atmosphere equal parts fun and emotional. Guardians of the Galaxy stands out in the sea of superhero films as a movie that wears its heart on its sleeve. It's weird, but it's damn proud of the fact that it is. Maybe it's alright to be a loser. The world could use a few more losers to help us along the way of life. I think what I'm trying to get down to is this: It was polite of James Gunn to make a movie to go along with his sick mixtape.
Guardians of the Galaxy almost off the bat confronts two major complaints I hear about Marvel flicks. First, that they don't look cinematic. Call it the "TV show aesthetic." Moderately flat shots, muted colors, forgettable music, etc. Second, that they're too heavy on witty banter and don't leave enough room for genuinely meaty substance. In regards to the first point, this film looks gorgeous. The color palette and cinematography are both creative and have an absolute blast with the concept of creating a grandiose space opera with equal parts charm and toilet humor. Each planet has its own distinct decor and aliens. Gunn managed to create a fleshed-out, lively, and unique galaxy. In regards to the second point, while there is all sorts of banter to be found throughout, including a Jackson Pollock cum joke, Guardians of the Galaxy has to have the biggest heart out of any film in the MCU. The movie is a full measured ton of fun, but it tugs at the heartstrings in a way few modern blockbusters have been able to achieve.
Four of the five Guardians have something in their life that lead to great tragedy. Peter and Drax lost family very close to them. Gamora and Rocket were tortured and bred to be bloodthirsty warriors. But then, there's Groot. Sweet, unassuming Groot. A beast in battle, but a gentle giant otherwise. His existence seems simple. He eats a leaf off of his shoulder, he drinks water straight from a fountain, and he's more than willing to grow and give a flower to a small girl. He's perhaps the closest we have to a lead character who is wholly happy. The Guardians all start off as renegades, loners, folks reasonably hardened by lives that have enjoyed fucking them over. We get to see them by the end of the film not just grow into heroes, but friends and good people. I am Groot. You are Groot. We are Groot.
Marvel took a big gamble with this movie, but it payed off so absurdly well. The humor is great, the characters even better, and the atmosphere equal parts fun and emotional. Guardians of the Galaxy stands out in the sea of superhero films as a movie that wears its heart on its sleeve. It's weird, but it's damn proud of the fact that it is. Maybe it's alright to be a loser. The world could use a few more losers to help us along the way of life. I think what I'm trying to get down to is this: It was polite of James Gunn to make a movie to go along with his sick mixtape.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Beauty and the Beast (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
A tale as old as time
Whichever big wig down at Disney decided it would be a good idea to remake all of their animated classics using live-action is surely due a massive promotion. The studio’s reputation is soaring after the acquisition of Marvel and Lucasfilm and this new way of thinking is paying off at the box office.
Last year’s The Jungle Book earned just shy of $1billion worldwide, their Marvel Cinematic Universe has taken upwards of $5billion and don’t get me started on Star Wars. Continuing the studio’s trend of remaking their animated features is Beauty & the Beast, but does this modern day reimagining of a fairly modern classic conjure up memories of 1991?
Belle (Emma Watson), a bright, beautiful and independent young woman, is taken prisoner by a beast (Dan Stevens) in its castle. Despite her fears, she befriends the castle’s enchanted staff including Cogsworth (Ian McKellen) and Lumiere (Ewan McGregor) and tries her best to learn to look beyond the beast’s hideous exterior, allowing her to recognise the kind heart and soul of the true prince that hides on the inside.
There were gasps of shock when Harry Potter actress Emma Watson was cast as Belle, but thankfully after sitting through 129 minutes of her singing and dancing, there is no reason to be concerned. She slots into the role of a Disney princess with ease, though it’s still incredibly difficult to see her as anything but the talented witch from Hogwarts.
The rest of the cast is very good with the exception of Ewan McGregor’s dreadful French accent. It can be forgiven however because the sense of nostalgia that the castle’s staff bring to the table is wonderful. Ian McKellen, Emma Thompson, Stanley Tucci all lend their voices with Thompson taking over from Angela Lansbury beautifully. Her rendition of the iconic titular song brings goose bumps.
Elsewhere, Luke Evans is an excellent choice to play villainous Gaston. It’s hard to imagine anyone better to play the gluttonous womaniser and Josh Gad is sublime as his sidekick.
Dan Stevens’ transformation into Beast is one that’s a little bit harder to judge. There is no doubt he is up to the task of playing this iconic character, but the limits of current motion capture technology can sometimes render him a little playdoh like. There are fleeting moments when the illusion is shattered because of something as trivial as the way his fur moves.
Nevertheless, the rest of the special effects are absolutely top notch. The costumes and the set design all integrate perfectly with the naturally heavy use of CGI to create a film that harks back to its predecessor in every way.
Whilst not as dark as last year’s The Jungle Book, Beauty & the Beast is still a deeply disturbing film at times, made all the more so by its recreation in live-action. Young children may find it a troubling watch, a reason why the BBFC has awarded it a PG rating rather than the typical U that most other Disney features receive.
Overall, Beauty & the Beast is a faithful recreation of its 1991 predecessor and that comes with its own set of challenges. The animated version is widely regarded as one of Disney’s best films, so director Bill Condon (Dreamgirls, Twilight) had massive shoes to fill. For the most part, he’s succeeded in crafting a visually stunning and poignant movie that’s only drawbacks are its length and poor motion capture. Much better than Cinderella, but not quite as ground-breaking as The Jungle Book, it’s a lovely watch for all the family.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/17/a-tale-as-old-as-time-beauty-the-beast-review/
Last year’s The Jungle Book earned just shy of $1billion worldwide, their Marvel Cinematic Universe has taken upwards of $5billion and don’t get me started on Star Wars. Continuing the studio’s trend of remaking their animated features is Beauty & the Beast, but does this modern day reimagining of a fairly modern classic conjure up memories of 1991?
Belle (Emma Watson), a bright, beautiful and independent young woman, is taken prisoner by a beast (Dan Stevens) in its castle. Despite her fears, she befriends the castle’s enchanted staff including Cogsworth (Ian McKellen) and Lumiere (Ewan McGregor) and tries her best to learn to look beyond the beast’s hideous exterior, allowing her to recognise the kind heart and soul of the true prince that hides on the inside.
There were gasps of shock when Harry Potter actress Emma Watson was cast as Belle, but thankfully after sitting through 129 minutes of her singing and dancing, there is no reason to be concerned. She slots into the role of a Disney princess with ease, though it’s still incredibly difficult to see her as anything but the talented witch from Hogwarts.
The rest of the cast is very good with the exception of Ewan McGregor’s dreadful French accent. It can be forgiven however because the sense of nostalgia that the castle’s staff bring to the table is wonderful. Ian McKellen, Emma Thompson, Stanley Tucci all lend their voices with Thompson taking over from Angela Lansbury beautifully. Her rendition of the iconic titular song brings goose bumps.
Elsewhere, Luke Evans is an excellent choice to play villainous Gaston. It’s hard to imagine anyone better to play the gluttonous womaniser and Josh Gad is sublime as his sidekick.
Dan Stevens’ transformation into Beast is one that’s a little bit harder to judge. There is no doubt he is up to the task of playing this iconic character, but the limits of current motion capture technology can sometimes render him a little playdoh like. There are fleeting moments when the illusion is shattered because of something as trivial as the way his fur moves.
Nevertheless, the rest of the special effects are absolutely top notch. The costumes and the set design all integrate perfectly with the naturally heavy use of CGI to create a film that harks back to its predecessor in every way.
Whilst not as dark as last year’s The Jungle Book, Beauty & the Beast is still a deeply disturbing film at times, made all the more so by its recreation in live-action. Young children may find it a troubling watch, a reason why the BBFC has awarded it a PG rating rather than the typical U that most other Disney features receive.
Overall, Beauty & the Beast is a faithful recreation of its 1991 predecessor and that comes with its own set of challenges. The animated version is widely regarded as one of Disney’s best films, so director Bill Condon (Dreamgirls, Twilight) had massive shoes to fill. For the most part, he’s succeeded in crafting a visually stunning and poignant movie that’s only drawbacks are its length and poor motion capture. Much better than Cinderella, but not quite as ground-breaking as The Jungle Book, it’s a lovely watch for all the family.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/17/a-tale-as-old-as-time-beauty-the-beast-review/
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Coconuts in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
I usually like to create some fanciful intro to my reviews to get you in the setting of the game and in the mood to be entertained and educated about the game in question. I have failed this time.
You’re a monkey trying to throw coconuts into cups.
This is not a very theme-heavy role-playing game where you need to get into the heads of the characters and base your actions on what they would do. Instead, you are grabbing a monkey shooter action figure, placing a rubber Milk Dud (not a sponsor) in its hands and making the figure fling said forbidden delicious treat into yellow and red plastic cups. Should you make a basket into a yellow cup, you take that cup and place it in front of you in a vertical bowling pin assembly. Make a red cup shot and you not only get the cup to add to your collection, but you take another turn. The first player to amass six cups in front of them is the winner!
This sounds so stupid. Why am I reviewing this?? This is a kid’s “game.” You are right. This is incredibly childish. But it’s also INCREDIBLY fun. Have you read our review of Happy Salmon? This fills a similar role in that you break this bad boy out when you need a mental break between heavier games, or when you want the children to be involved in your game night. There is no real thinking involved. Player interaction? Sure. Some. Whether you choose to shoot your coconuts into the middle area of unclaimed cups, or into your opponents’ collections and take their hard-earned cups is up to you (I approve and encourage this cutthroat behavior).
Let’s go back to the children playing this with you thought. The box says ages 6+. I wholeheartedly disagree, but it may just be my situation. I have played this with my 2-year-old son and he had an absolute blast just flinging the coconuts everywhere while we adults were trying to play the game correctly. But the final score doesn’t matter. In a game like this I rarely care about winning or losing. My kid “wins” every time. It’s just plain fun to fling coconuts. I also rarely play with the included disadvantage cards to screw with my opponents because honestly, it’s hard enough to get those things in the cups.
Yes, he also shot one into my water cup so I let him score it on his mat. It’s only fair…
Components. I have good news and bad news. Good news: the monkeys, coconuts, and cups are of amazing quality. Amazing, I say! Bad news: the cards and the player mats. They are just of entry level acceptable quality. But like I said, I really don’t care much about using the cards, and the player mats are really just there to create a solid surface to put your score cups on anyway. So I’m ultimately good with that.
Now, I Kickstarted this game (as well as the Coconuts Duo project that was made for 2 player games or as a 6 player expansion for Coconuts). I got all the fancy pink and green coconuts too. They officially add nothing mechanically to the game (but you can home-brew house rules for them), but they are easier to find on the floor when you inevitably fling too far. That is, if you can find them before your dogs decide that you have given them little brown treats…
There is really not much else to say about this game except that it is super fun, takes literally 10 seconds to explain, and kids can play with you as well. We love it, and so our rating reflects that. Purple Phoenix Games gives this little game a Whopper (see what I did there?) of 18 / 24.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/05/07/coconuts-review/
You’re a monkey trying to throw coconuts into cups.
This is not a very theme-heavy role-playing game where you need to get into the heads of the characters and base your actions on what they would do. Instead, you are grabbing a monkey shooter action figure, placing a rubber Milk Dud (not a sponsor) in its hands and making the figure fling said forbidden delicious treat into yellow and red plastic cups. Should you make a basket into a yellow cup, you take that cup and place it in front of you in a vertical bowling pin assembly. Make a red cup shot and you not only get the cup to add to your collection, but you take another turn. The first player to amass six cups in front of them is the winner!
This sounds so stupid. Why am I reviewing this?? This is a kid’s “game.” You are right. This is incredibly childish. But it’s also INCREDIBLY fun. Have you read our review of Happy Salmon? This fills a similar role in that you break this bad boy out when you need a mental break between heavier games, or when you want the children to be involved in your game night. There is no real thinking involved. Player interaction? Sure. Some. Whether you choose to shoot your coconuts into the middle area of unclaimed cups, or into your opponents’ collections and take their hard-earned cups is up to you (I approve and encourage this cutthroat behavior).
Let’s go back to the children playing this with you thought. The box says ages 6+. I wholeheartedly disagree, but it may just be my situation. I have played this with my 2-year-old son and he had an absolute blast just flinging the coconuts everywhere while we adults were trying to play the game correctly. But the final score doesn’t matter. In a game like this I rarely care about winning or losing. My kid “wins” every time. It’s just plain fun to fling coconuts. I also rarely play with the included disadvantage cards to screw with my opponents because honestly, it’s hard enough to get those things in the cups.
Yes, he also shot one into my water cup so I let him score it on his mat. It’s only fair…
Components. I have good news and bad news. Good news: the monkeys, coconuts, and cups are of amazing quality. Amazing, I say! Bad news: the cards and the player mats. They are just of entry level acceptable quality. But like I said, I really don’t care much about using the cards, and the player mats are really just there to create a solid surface to put your score cups on anyway. So I’m ultimately good with that.
Now, I Kickstarted this game (as well as the Coconuts Duo project that was made for 2 player games or as a 6 player expansion for Coconuts). I got all the fancy pink and green coconuts too. They officially add nothing mechanically to the game (but you can home-brew house rules for them), but they are easier to find on the floor when you inevitably fling too far. That is, if you can find them before your dogs decide that you have given them little brown treats…
There is really not much else to say about this game except that it is super fun, takes literally 10 seconds to explain, and kids can play with you as well. We love it, and so our rating reflects that. Purple Phoenix Games gives this little game a Whopper (see what I did there?) of 18 / 24.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/05/07/coconuts-review/
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Tokaido in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
Tokaido is one of those simple, yet beautiful, games where you can bring it to the table and nearly everyone will have a great time, errrr I mean trip… Just keep reading! You’ll see!
DISCLAIMER: The photos showing game play reflect components from the Collector’s Edition, as they are upgraded from the traditional retail copy. There is no affect on game play, the components are just nicer. -T
I don’t recall another board game on the market, as of today 1/9/2019, that has been able to recreate some of the intuitive mechanisms that Tokaido provides its players. So okay, envision one of those looooong car rides as a kid in the stuffy old car full of suitcases with your parents. Boring, right? That’s NOT Tokaido!
NOW, Imagine one of the most thrilling trips across Japan – where you get to see the sights, experience the extensive shopping, eat great delicacies, and yes, even take a dip in a sultry hot spring! THAT is Tokaido! It is an immersive vacation in a box. So, how does it all work…
In Tokaido, you take on the persona of a Japanese tourist, a.k.a cute, very detailed, little meeples (or minis). From the start you are on a race, albeit not in a complete hurry, to have the most fulfilling vacation across Japan. Here’s the catch: go too fast and you will miss out on all the wonderful opportunities Japan has to offer, as well as victory points. Your goal in Tokaido is to stay just ahead of the other players, yet to visit as many places as possible. Each location provides you with some sort of benefit on your vacation. It may be a beautifully drawn panoramic picture of the landscape (something T.I.M.E Stories would later copy), a visit to a knickknack shop, a dip in a hot spring, some delicious looking hand-rolled sushi, or even a reverent donation to a beautifully ornate temple (highest donation equals BIG victory points later on). All of these items in your collection will reap you some sort of reward in the form of victory points at the end of the game. How you coordinate your collection is VERY important. Simply jumping from space to space will NOT get you delicious sweets like in Candy Land. It’s about timing your moves just right so that you are able complete that entire panoramic landscape, or eat just enough of the right food to satisfy your taste buds.
Seems simple, right? It is! That is the best part. New gamers in your group will gravitate toward the simplistic nature to which the game lends itself. In my gaming groups it has even lead to multiple plays! Experienced gamers will enjoy the delicate artwork and creative mechanics. Because the gameplay is so centered around the mechanic of, “don’t get too far ahead of your neighbor but stay just ahead of them,” it truly feels like you are on the T.V. show “The Greatest Race”. It is a very simple, but clever and excitement-driven concept. With that said, it can be played in under an hour, even with 4 players. Tokaido provides so much gameplay in one simple box, but yet allows you to have a little time left in your game night to still play that heavy Euro afterward. That’s a huge plus in my book, and one reason why it is ranked so high for me. That, and well, those cute little meeples (or minis) get me every time!
I really hope you give this one a try. It is a nice and relaxing experience that lends itself to quick gameplay, immersive theme, and excellent artwork. I hope your trip across Japan will truly be as rewarding as mine was! Ganbarou!! (Good luck!)
Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a relaxing 13 / 18 (Laura has not played it yet).
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/01/11/tokaido-review/
DISCLAIMER: The photos showing game play reflect components from the Collector’s Edition, as they are upgraded from the traditional retail copy. There is no affect on game play, the components are just nicer. -T
I don’t recall another board game on the market, as of today 1/9/2019, that has been able to recreate some of the intuitive mechanisms that Tokaido provides its players. So okay, envision one of those looooong car rides as a kid in the stuffy old car full of suitcases with your parents. Boring, right? That’s NOT Tokaido!
NOW, Imagine one of the most thrilling trips across Japan – where you get to see the sights, experience the extensive shopping, eat great delicacies, and yes, even take a dip in a sultry hot spring! THAT is Tokaido! It is an immersive vacation in a box. So, how does it all work…
In Tokaido, you take on the persona of a Japanese tourist, a.k.a cute, very detailed, little meeples (or minis). From the start you are on a race, albeit not in a complete hurry, to have the most fulfilling vacation across Japan. Here’s the catch: go too fast and you will miss out on all the wonderful opportunities Japan has to offer, as well as victory points. Your goal in Tokaido is to stay just ahead of the other players, yet to visit as many places as possible. Each location provides you with some sort of benefit on your vacation. It may be a beautifully drawn panoramic picture of the landscape (something T.I.M.E Stories would later copy), a visit to a knickknack shop, a dip in a hot spring, some delicious looking hand-rolled sushi, or even a reverent donation to a beautifully ornate temple (highest donation equals BIG victory points later on). All of these items in your collection will reap you some sort of reward in the form of victory points at the end of the game. How you coordinate your collection is VERY important. Simply jumping from space to space will NOT get you delicious sweets like in Candy Land. It’s about timing your moves just right so that you are able complete that entire panoramic landscape, or eat just enough of the right food to satisfy your taste buds.
Seems simple, right? It is! That is the best part. New gamers in your group will gravitate toward the simplistic nature to which the game lends itself. In my gaming groups it has even lead to multiple plays! Experienced gamers will enjoy the delicate artwork and creative mechanics. Because the gameplay is so centered around the mechanic of, “don’t get too far ahead of your neighbor but stay just ahead of them,” it truly feels like you are on the T.V. show “The Greatest Race”. It is a very simple, but clever and excitement-driven concept. With that said, it can be played in under an hour, even with 4 players. Tokaido provides so much gameplay in one simple box, but yet allows you to have a little time left in your game night to still play that heavy Euro afterward. That’s a huge plus in my book, and one reason why it is ranked so high for me. That, and well, those cute little meeples (or minis) get me every time!
I really hope you give this one a try. It is a nice and relaxing experience that lends itself to quick gameplay, immersive theme, and excellent artwork. I hope your trip across Japan will truly be as rewarding as mine was! Ganbarou!! (Good luck!)
Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a relaxing 13 / 18 (Laura has not played it yet).
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/01/11/tokaido-review/
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Notes on Blindness: A Journey Through The Dark in Books
Dec 17, 2018
<I>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.</I>
It is not often a blind man writes a book, and “write” is a word used due to the lack of a better. John M. Hull gradually lost his sight, registering as blind in 1980, a couple of days before the birth of his son. Although anticipating the event, John struggled to come to terms with his new circumstances and adjust to a new way of living. From 1983 through to 1985, John recorded his thoughts on tape, in diary form, as a way to ascertain and understand his predicament. Originally titled <I>Touching the Rock</I> (1990), John’s book has been republished as <I>Notes on Blindness</i> after the release of the film of the same name.
Initially, John made recordings every day, dictating the everyday occurrences he encountered. Amazingly, despite his disability, John was able to continue as a university lecturer and delve deeper into the world of theology. The way John thinks things through as he speaks reflects his academic abilities. Although he may have despaired at the thoughts of not being able to see his children, he had a fairly positive outlook on life.
John’s thought capacity and religious ideology are evident in his assemblage of diary entries. As a blind person, he learns to see the world in an alternative way, and often feels closer to God as a result. Through these new experiences, John begins to see the light despite the darkness.
The metaphorical descriptions of blindness help the reader to understand the horror and difficulties not being able to see visually provokes. This is heightened by John’s recordings of the bad dreams he often suffers, in which he is able to see. His fixations on these dreams are assumedly a fascination with visual imagery, which he does not have access to in his waking life.
It is hard not feel sorry for John as he reports the conversations he has with his young children. The effort to communicate and play with them is far greater than a seeing parent. Remarkably, as John begins to adjust to his new lifestyle, his children take the situation in their stride.
<i>Notes on Blindness</i> is also an educational narrative for those without sight problems. John explains the things other people, in attempts to be helpful, do that result in making things far more confusing for John as he tries to navigate his way from one place to another. Despite what most think, blind people are fairly good at walking routes they are familiar with, and, with the help of a stick, can safely travel through new areas. Once people start shouting instructions, it is difficult to pay attention to the location and listen to everyone else at the same time.
John’s voice is extremely articulate, and his thoughts profound, which may suggest heavy editing when compiling the recordings into written form. However, as he is an academician, his eloquence of speech does not feel forced or faked.
<i>Notes on Blindness</i> remains the same as the original publication but with the added inclusion of an introduction by Cathy Rentzenbrink, and an epilogue by his wife Marilyn, written in 2016, a year after his death. These, the latter in particular, provide an insight into how John’s blindness affected those around him and emphasises what a truly remarkable man he was.
Of the many memoirs available on bookshelves today,<i> Notes on Blindness</i> is a truly unique publication. It is not telling a story, or recounting a well-lived life, but gives great insight into the world of the blind. As John’s thoughts were not originally recorded with intention of being available to everyone, they are all the more personal and honest, provoking emotion and providing the reader with a new way of seeing. It is a book that will stay with you for a very long time.
It is not often a blind man writes a book, and “write” is a word used due to the lack of a better. John M. Hull gradually lost his sight, registering as blind in 1980, a couple of days before the birth of his son. Although anticipating the event, John struggled to come to terms with his new circumstances and adjust to a new way of living. From 1983 through to 1985, John recorded his thoughts on tape, in diary form, as a way to ascertain and understand his predicament. Originally titled <I>Touching the Rock</I> (1990), John’s book has been republished as <I>Notes on Blindness</i> after the release of the film of the same name.
Initially, John made recordings every day, dictating the everyday occurrences he encountered. Amazingly, despite his disability, John was able to continue as a university lecturer and delve deeper into the world of theology. The way John thinks things through as he speaks reflects his academic abilities. Although he may have despaired at the thoughts of not being able to see his children, he had a fairly positive outlook on life.
John’s thought capacity and religious ideology are evident in his assemblage of diary entries. As a blind person, he learns to see the world in an alternative way, and often feels closer to God as a result. Through these new experiences, John begins to see the light despite the darkness.
The metaphorical descriptions of blindness help the reader to understand the horror and difficulties not being able to see visually provokes. This is heightened by John’s recordings of the bad dreams he often suffers, in which he is able to see. His fixations on these dreams are assumedly a fascination with visual imagery, which he does not have access to in his waking life.
It is hard not feel sorry for John as he reports the conversations he has with his young children. The effort to communicate and play with them is far greater than a seeing parent. Remarkably, as John begins to adjust to his new lifestyle, his children take the situation in their stride.
<i>Notes on Blindness</i> is also an educational narrative for those without sight problems. John explains the things other people, in attempts to be helpful, do that result in making things far more confusing for John as he tries to navigate his way from one place to another. Despite what most think, blind people are fairly good at walking routes they are familiar with, and, with the help of a stick, can safely travel through new areas. Once people start shouting instructions, it is difficult to pay attention to the location and listen to everyone else at the same time.
John’s voice is extremely articulate, and his thoughts profound, which may suggest heavy editing when compiling the recordings into written form. However, as he is an academician, his eloquence of speech does not feel forced or faked.
<i>Notes on Blindness</i> remains the same as the original publication but with the added inclusion of an introduction by Cathy Rentzenbrink, and an epilogue by his wife Marilyn, written in 2016, a year after his death. These, the latter in particular, provide an insight into how John’s blindness affected those around him and emphasises what a truly remarkable man he was.
Of the many memoirs available on bookshelves today,<i> Notes on Blindness</i> is a truly unique publication. It is not telling a story, or recounting a well-lived life, but gives great insight into the world of the blind. As John’s thoughts were not originally recorded with intention of being available to everyone, they are all the more personal and honest, provoking emotion and providing the reader with a new way of seeing. It is a book that will stay with you for a very long time.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Robin Hood (2018) in Movies
Jan 28, 2019 (Updated Jan 28, 2019)
A Middling Reboot
This is another movie from late 2018 that I am only just getting a chance to see. After my girlfriend and I sat through this one, she turned to me and asked what I thought of it. In response, I just shrugged my shoulders and went, "It was alright." That is genuinely the best way that I can think of to sum up my feeling on this film.
It's a mediocre action movie based around the basic concept of the old tale of Robin Hood. It is extremely cheesy and has bags of whatever the opposite of subtle is. It tries to tell a gritty, 'Year One,' type of story for the character and treats the Robin Hood moniker as a dual identity for Robin Loxley, which draws heavy comparisons to the Batman/Bruce Wayne dynamic. Unfortunately, not much of it lands due to the lack of risk-taking involved.
The movie also feels weirdly dated, especially considering that it's only a few months old. There are an abundance of overindulgent slow motion shots in the style of 300; a movie that was 12 years old at the time of this movie's release. The use of green-screen in this film is actually pretty atrocious judging by today's standards and actually might be some of the worst out of any 2018 movie I saw. This is noticeable throughout the whole movie, but is especially rough-looking during a carriage chase that happens around two thirds into the film.
The cast are all phoning it in as well. Taron Egerton does nothing special with the lead role and Ben Mendlesohn hams it up as the Sheriff Of Nottingham, doing pretty much the same villainous shlock that he did in Ready Player One and Star Wars: Rogue One, way to not get typecast Mendo!
That's the other weird thing about this movie, is that it's not sure what era it wants to be set in. Some of the accents, language and costumes are suitable for the period that the movie is set in, but other elements and other lines and costumes etc feel like they are from 2018, the year that this movie was made. The end result that they were aiming for may have been a sort of rolling timeline that transcends the days of the Crusades that the movie is set in but what we get is just a scattered mess.
There were a few positives in this thing. Some cool shots, Some of the stunt archery is, (while super unrealistic,) pretty cool to watch. I know that 'Real Life Legolas,' Lars Andersen was hired to teach the cast some archery and I believe he helped out with the action choreography as well, which is pretty cool. There are also some glimpses of creativity in some of the shots. One in particular that stood out to me was a shot that gradually panned out from behind a solitary soldiers shield to show the intensity and scale of the battle that was taking place. It's just unfortunate that in so many other places in the movie, all we get is lazy, generic camera angles that add nothing to the scene taking place.
Overall, this is an okay action romp. Don't go in expecting anything of substance or you will most definitely come away disappointed. Though, if all that you are looking for is something to stick on in the background while you do other things or if you are just after an easy, straightforward action adventure popcorn flick, then you could probably do worse than this.
It's a mediocre action movie based around the basic concept of the old tale of Robin Hood. It is extremely cheesy and has bags of whatever the opposite of subtle is. It tries to tell a gritty, 'Year One,' type of story for the character and treats the Robin Hood moniker as a dual identity for Robin Loxley, which draws heavy comparisons to the Batman/Bruce Wayne dynamic. Unfortunately, not much of it lands due to the lack of risk-taking involved.
The movie also feels weirdly dated, especially considering that it's only a few months old. There are an abundance of overindulgent slow motion shots in the style of 300; a movie that was 12 years old at the time of this movie's release. The use of green-screen in this film is actually pretty atrocious judging by today's standards and actually might be some of the worst out of any 2018 movie I saw. This is noticeable throughout the whole movie, but is especially rough-looking during a carriage chase that happens around two thirds into the film.
The cast are all phoning it in as well. Taron Egerton does nothing special with the lead role and Ben Mendlesohn hams it up as the Sheriff Of Nottingham, doing pretty much the same villainous shlock that he did in Ready Player One and Star Wars: Rogue One, way to not get typecast Mendo!
That's the other weird thing about this movie, is that it's not sure what era it wants to be set in. Some of the accents, language and costumes are suitable for the period that the movie is set in, but other elements and other lines and costumes etc feel like they are from 2018, the year that this movie was made. The end result that they were aiming for may have been a sort of rolling timeline that transcends the days of the Crusades that the movie is set in but what we get is just a scattered mess.
There were a few positives in this thing. Some cool shots, Some of the stunt archery is, (while super unrealistic,) pretty cool to watch. I know that 'Real Life Legolas,' Lars Andersen was hired to teach the cast some archery and I believe he helped out with the action choreography as well, which is pretty cool. There are also some glimpses of creativity in some of the shots. One in particular that stood out to me was a shot that gradually panned out from behind a solitary soldiers shield to show the intensity and scale of the battle that was taking place. It's just unfortunate that in so many other places in the movie, all we get is lazy, generic camera angles that add nothing to the scene taking place.
Overall, this is an okay action romp. Don't go in expecting anything of substance or you will most definitely come away disappointed. Though, if all that you are looking for is something to stick on in the background while you do other things or if you are just after an easy, straightforward action adventure popcorn flick, then you could probably do worse than this.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Click (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Michael Newman (Adam Sandler) is a man in crisis. As a caring a devoted father and husband, Michael is at the end of his rope as his life has become a non-stop series of projects and endless deadlines as he attempts to become a partner in his architecture firm.
His boss, Ammer (David Hasselhoff) is constantly piling work on top of Michael’s already full plate, and promises a pending partnership which only drives Michael even harder at the expense of quality time for himself and his family.
With events such as camping trips, 4th of July family outings and his swim meets being lost to his increasing workload, Michael is in need of help as even his loving wife Donna (Kate Beckinsale), is becoming frustrated with his lack of time for his family and the fact that his family has become a distant second fiddle to his job.
When his frustration point gets the best of him, Michael decides to take a drive one night and locate a universal remote in an effort to clear up the clutter of remotes that inhabit his own.
With only a Bed Bath and Beyond open, Michael finds himself in a remote room of the store where a sympathetic employee named Morty (Christopher Walken), says he has the answer to Michaels situation, a special universal remote that is his free of charge.
Michael is skeptical but when Morty assures him that it is an advanced prototype and that sometimes a good guy need breaks in life, he sets home with the remote.
Eventually Michael realizes that the remote has the power to speed up, freeze, and access various moments of his life. Suddenly menial tasks, work, and other events can be avoided simply by forwarding past those points.
As Michael works with the remote, he is visited from time to time by Morty who shows him features such as a DVD like menu where Michael can look back at everything from past girlfriends to his conception and birth.
After a setback on his career path, Michael decides to fast forward to his promotion and is shocked to discover that not only has more time passed than he expected, but that his relationships at home have been strained in the process.
If this is not enough trouble for Michael, the remote starts to take on a mind of its own, and soon forwards him in time without his approval, forcing Michael to face the changes and repercussions of a life out of control.
Click is easily one of Sandler’s best films since “The Wedding Singer” and “Fifty First Dates”, as it blends the typical Sandler humor with moments of great candor and tenderness.
The supporting work of Walken and Beckinsale is enhanced by the presence of Henry Winkler ads to the enjoyment of the film.
Frank Coraci who previously directed Sandler in (The Wedding Singer), and (The Waterboy), is not afraid to force Sandler to stretch beyond the familiar comedic routines for which he has been known and make him address more serious subject matter.
While some fans may find the blend of comedy and a more mature subject matter difficult to accept, Click is a novel comedy that is filled with laughs and yet takes the time to address important topics without ever being heavy handed.
Some may want to take issues with the crude humor, and raise issues about the remote and why certain things were done or not done. To do this would be in my opinion would be missing the point of the film which is to remind us, that no matter what, take the time out for those that are important in your life.
His boss, Ammer (David Hasselhoff) is constantly piling work on top of Michael’s already full plate, and promises a pending partnership which only drives Michael even harder at the expense of quality time for himself and his family.
With events such as camping trips, 4th of July family outings and his swim meets being lost to his increasing workload, Michael is in need of help as even his loving wife Donna (Kate Beckinsale), is becoming frustrated with his lack of time for his family and the fact that his family has become a distant second fiddle to his job.
When his frustration point gets the best of him, Michael decides to take a drive one night and locate a universal remote in an effort to clear up the clutter of remotes that inhabit his own.
With only a Bed Bath and Beyond open, Michael finds himself in a remote room of the store where a sympathetic employee named Morty (Christopher Walken), says he has the answer to Michaels situation, a special universal remote that is his free of charge.
Michael is skeptical but when Morty assures him that it is an advanced prototype and that sometimes a good guy need breaks in life, he sets home with the remote.
Eventually Michael realizes that the remote has the power to speed up, freeze, and access various moments of his life. Suddenly menial tasks, work, and other events can be avoided simply by forwarding past those points.
As Michael works with the remote, he is visited from time to time by Morty who shows him features such as a DVD like menu where Michael can look back at everything from past girlfriends to his conception and birth.
After a setback on his career path, Michael decides to fast forward to his promotion and is shocked to discover that not only has more time passed than he expected, but that his relationships at home have been strained in the process.
If this is not enough trouble for Michael, the remote starts to take on a mind of its own, and soon forwards him in time without his approval, forcing Michael to face the changes and repercussions of a life out of control.
Click is easily one of Sandler’s best films since “The Wedding Singer” and “Fifty First Dates”, as it blends the typical Sandler humor with moments of great candor and tenderness.
The supporting work of Walken and Beckinsale is enhanced by the presence of Henry Winkler ads to the enjoyment of the film.
Frank Coraci who previously directed Sandler in (The Wedding Singer), and (The Waterboy), is not afraid to force Sandler to stretch beyond the familiar comedic routines for which he has been known and make him address more serious subject matter.
While some fans may find the blend of comedy and a more mature subject matter difficult to accept, Click is a novel comedy that is filled with laughs and yet takes the time to address important topics without ever being heavy handed.
Some may want to take issues with the crude humor, and raise issues about the remote and why certain things were done or not done. To do this would be in my opinion would be missing the point of the film which is to remind us, that no matter what, take the time out for those that are important in your life.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Kingsglaive: Final Fantasy XV (2016) in Movies
Jul 15, 2019
It seems like just last week that the creators of the Final Fantasy game franchise sought to bring their vision of the universe they created, and their story, to the silver screen. Well, okay. It wasn’t last week. It’s actually been about 15 years since this really took place in 2001.
I remember being extremely excited for Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, but the movie itself escapes me today. I think the lack of a lasting impact could have to do with those same creators scrambling to find the distinction between a wide-release movie and a game they’re already heavily invested in. After re-visiting the film, I remember my initial thoughts and they remain the same today. The nowhere-near-photo-realistic animated characters battled and chased each other to and fro in a tale that made little to no sense, with or without the rules of the (bad for its time) computer animated gamescape it’s all set in.
Flash back forward to today, another Japanese made FF movie makes its way to the screen via Kingsglaive: Final Fantasy XV. Kingsglaive represents a quantum leap forward in animation and design, if not a great leap in mo-cap technology and story. The images are far more flexible, more mobile, and more tactile; though, the faces still lack expression, much less what anyone could called subtle or nuanced. The backdrops are striking and surreal, on a par with many of the big sci-fi and fantasy films hitting theaters these days.
But, take away the advertorial nature of Kingsglaive, ignore its use as a cheat sheet, prep for the players of various corners of the game world it depicts, and deal with it as a story with characters and incidents anybody not devoted to the game would watch, and it’s the same old, same old when it comes to FF. It remains a misshapen mash-up heavy with sci-fi fantasy exposition and a back story so convoluted that a single two-hour movie cannot encapsulate it.
Kingsglaive dwells mostly in the realm of fantasy, inside a universe of medieval castles, steampunk weaponry, armor, and creatrues. A world where the Kingdom of Lucis faces a new threat at the end of an uneasy peace with the Niflheim Empire. There’s a magic crystal (of course there is) and the only warriors King Regis (Sean Bean) trusts to defend it are his Kingsglaive, who are empowered by the magic of their sovereign. There are tusked wildebeest warhorses. You would think these would be the point of reference when someone shouts, “Release the DEMON!” But no, they’re actually talking about war crabs – crabs that spit out a hailstorm of fireballs.
The stakes are high, and there’s been quite a bit of intermixing of Lucians and Niflheimers in the “hundred years of peace”, but anti-immigrant backlash rears its ugly head. Taunts and slurs against the immigrants are present, as is there a wall – who says video game movies can’t be topical. With the immigrants who must prove themselves, there are good soldiers, an evil prince, all with tongue-twisting names like Lenafreya Nox Fleuret, should you choose to try and remember them.
The dialogue, delivered by the likes of Aaron Paul and Lena Heady, could have been better. Though I don’t so much blame the voice talent as much as I do the script itself, with classics like “Get back here alive! That’s an order!” and “You speak of matters beyond the wall.”
Probably the biggest thing most movie fans will remember, is the name of the city under threat. It probably has the silliest name this side of Raccoon City. They call it, Insomnia. Which is kind of ironic, because Kingsglaive may be a cure for the condition for some.
I remember being extremely excited for Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, but the movie itself escapes me today. I think the lack of a lasting impact could have to do with those same creators scrambling to find the distinction between a wide-release movie and a game they’re already heavily invested in. After re-visiting the film, I remember my initial thoughts and they remain the same today. The nowhere-near-photo-realistic animated characters battled and chased each other to and fro in a tale that made little to no sense, with or without the rules of the (bad for its time) computer animated gamescape it’s all set in.
Flash back forward to today, another Japanese made FF movie makes its way to the screen via Kingsglaive: Final Fantasy XV. Kingsglaive represents a quantum leap forward in animation and design, if not a great leap in mo-cap technology and story. The images are far more flexible, more mobile, and more tactile; though, the faces still lack expression, much less what anyone could called subtle or nuanced. The backdrops are striking and surreal, on a par with many of the big sci-fi and fantasy films hitting theaters these days.
But, take away the advertorial nature of Kingsglaive, ignore its use as a cheat sheet, prep for the players of various corners of the game world it depicts, and deal with it as a story with characters and incidents anybody not devoted to the game would watch, and it’s the same old, same old when it comes to FF. It remains a misshapen mash-up heavy with sci-fi fantasy exposition and a back story so convoluted that a single two-hour movie cannot encapsulate it.
Kingsglaive dwells mostly in the realm of fantasy, inside a universe of medieval castles, steampunk weaponry, armor, and creatrues. A world where the Kingdom of Lucis faces a new threat at the end of an uneasy peace with the Niflheim Empire. There’s a magic crystal (of course there is) and the only warriors King Regis (Sean Bean) trusts to defend it are his Kingsglaive, who are empowered by the magic of their sovereign. There are tusked wildebeest warhorses. You would think these would be the point of reference when someone shouts, “Release the DEMON!” But no, they’re actually talking about war crabs – crabs that spit out a hailstorm of fireballs.
The stakes are high, and there’s been quite a bit of intermixing of Lucians and Niflheimers in the “hundred years of peace”, but anti-immigrant backlash rears its ugly head. Taunts and slurs against the immigrants are present, as is there a wall – who says video game movies can’t be topical. With the immigrants who must prove themselves, there are good soldiers, an evil prince, all with tongue-twisting names like Lenafreya Nox Fleuret, should you choose to try and remember them.
The dialogue, delivered by the likes of Aaron Paul and Lena Heady, could have been better. Though I don’t so much blame the voice talent as much as I do the script itself, with classics like “Get back here alive! That’s an order!” and “You speak of matters beyond the wall.”
Probably the biggest thing most movie fans will remember, is the name of the city under threat. It probably has the silliest name this side of Raccoon City. They call it, Insomnia. Which is kind of ironic, because Kingsglaive may be a cure for the condition for some.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Goldfinch (2019) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
Theo Decker's life is changed forever when a terrorist attack on the Metropolitan Museum of Art destroys everything he holds dear. In the debris he finds a man who pleads with him to take his ring and go to a shop, the last words before he dies.
After leaving the museum he is brough to the home of the Barbours, the only place he seems to be able to think of and they take him in rather than see him become part of the system.
Things should slowly be getting back on track for Theo but the ring wasn't the only thing he took from the museum, in his possession he has The Goldfinch, a priceless painting that will have a hold on him his whole life.
Much like the book the film is not for the faint hearted, 880 pages has become 2 hours and 29 minutes on screen. You could probably cut another chunk off this but that change would inevitable mess with the pace, which I don't think would suit the story all that well.
I wrote a lot of notes as I sat in this film and I've had to reread them all because I can remember the film/story but I can't remember anything about how I felt about it. I left myself a handy note though... "I am incredibly bored by this."
I know that I will never make it through the book, even before the film it wouldn't have been a possibility, but I would like to know what amendments were made to cram the story into that relatively small time frame.
The thing that threw me was Luke Wilson, I don't think I've ever seen him in a dramatic role before, plenty of comedy that I really enjoy but no drama. I can't say this made me want to watch him in this sort of role again. I didn't find him convincing as Theo's dad Larry, at least not convincingly through the film. Alongside him there's Sarah Paulson, she's a great actress but I felt that (while entertaining) her show of Xandra was too over the top for a film with this tone.
Nicole Kidman always brings a character to life and this was no exception but I found the relationship between Mrs Barbour and the kids, particularly Theo, to be confusing and difficult to navigate.
Where do I start with Ansel Elgort... I saw him in Baby Driver, I wasn't a fan, I watched him in this and I wanted to see something better, I don't feel like I got that. Even with the restrained characters actors can still give the role a little glimpse of something to click with but I don't get that from Elgort. There was the briefest flicker when he's confronted by a customer but soon enough it was back to the base level.
On the plus side I found the younger incarnation of Theo, Oakes Fegley, to be very engaging on screen. He worked well with the others and added something a little lighter to the heavy aspects of the film. He worked particularly well with Finn Wolfhard as Boris, though that's another part of the film that stuck out as strange and seemed to hold little meaning other than to allow for the ending to come together.
I'm sure that this is for someone out there, that person was not me though. While it did have a few touching moments here and there I just couldn't make it past the long run time and the slow story.
What you should do
I would only recommend this to people who have read the book.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
A large antiques store to explore.
After leaving the museum he is brough to the home of the Barbours, the only place he seems to be able to think of and they take him in rather than see him become part of the system.
Things should slowly be getting back on track for Theo but the ring wasn't the only thing he took from the museum, in his possession he has The Goldfinch, a priceless painting that will have a hold on him his whole life.
Much like the book the film is not for the faint hearted, 880 pages has become 2 hours and 29 minutes on screen. You could probably cut another chunk off this but that change would inevitable mess with the pace, which I don't think would suit the story all that well.
I wrote a lot of notes as I sat in this film and I've had to reread them all because I can remember the film/story but I can't remember anything about how I felt about it. I left myself a handy note though... "I am incredibly bored by this."
I know that I will never make it through the book, even before the film it wouldn't have been a possibility, but I would like to know what amendments were made to cram the story into that relatively small time frame.
The thing that threw me was Luke Wilson, I don't think I've ever seen him in a dramatic role before, plenty of comedy that I really enjoy but no drama. I can't say this made me want to watch him in this sort of role again. I didn't find him convincing as Theo's dad Larry, at least not convincingly through the film. Alongside him there's Sarah Paulson, she's a great actress but I felt that (while entertaining) her show of Xandra was too over the top for a film with this tone.
Nicole Kidman always brings a character to life and this was no exception but I found the relationship between Mrs Barbour and the kids, particularly Theo, to be confusing and difficult to navigate.
Where do I start with Ansel Elgort... I saw him in Baby Driver, I wasn't a fan, I watched him in this and I wanted to see something better, I don't feel like I got that. Even with the restrained characters actors can still give the role a little glimpse of something to click with but I don't get that from Elgort. There was the briefest flicker when he's confronted by a customer but soon enough it was back to the base level.
On the plus side I found the younger incarnation of Theo, Oakes Fegley, to be very engaging on screen. He worked well with the others and added something a little lighter to the heavy aspects of the film. He worked particularly well with Finn Wolfhard as Boris, though that's another part of the film that stuck out as strange and seemed to hold little meaning other than to allow for the ending to come together.
I'm sure that this is for someone out there, that person was not me though. While it did have a few touching moments here and there I just couldn't make it past the long run time and the slow story.
What you should do
I would only recommend this to people who have read the book.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
A large antiques store to explore.