Search
Search results
Kara Skinner (332 KP) rated The Remnants in Books
Sep 10, 2019
Genre: Historical Fiction
Average Goodreads Rating: 4.26/5 stars
My rating: 3/5 stars
Danny Pulbrook is a handsome and rebellious young man. Born the bastard son of a minor royal and orphaned at birth he is determined to find a new life far beyond his “pre-ordained oblivion”. His only way out – a forced enlistment into the army brings him to an inevitable confrontation with his own demons in the cauldron of the first world war.
Rose Quayle is a beautiful and confident hazel-eyed housemaid who, like her mother and her mother’s mother is employed in service at Meaford House – an expansive vice-regal estate near Tunbridge Wells. Like Danny she longs for a life beyond the tyranny of the rigid class system that defines her humble destiny.
Their chance meeting becomes the catalyst that changes both of their lives forever.
The Remnants is like a fixer upper. It’s unpolished and a bit of a hot mess, but you can still see the potential. Unfortunately, The Remnants was published before it got the TLC it deserved.
Not only is the text plagued with typos and missing punctuation, but there are too many storylines and character to keep straight. It’s a hot mess that could have been amazing.
The story starts out on a seemingly inconsequential day, with two minor characters talking. Yes, minor. They’re barely in the story but they make up the opening scene that eventually introduces Rose as a young, innocent girl going on her first car ride. So far there’s promise. After all, the boggy description will clear up when the story gets going, right?
I wish.
But it does pick up when we meet lovable bad boy Danny. Straight from an orphanage and now working at a general store, he’s a troublemaker and has never known love of any sort. He’s convinced he’s unlovable. Perfect for a love interest. I do have a thing for the bad boys. Give them a vulnerable side and I’m practically putty.
Rose and Danny have an excellently sweet and innocent chance encounter that clashes with the darkness in the rest of the book. Actually, there’s no foreshadowing at all that things will go so horribly awry when they met, or how dark most of the book is.
But dark it is. Danny goes off to fight in India, leaving Rose behind, but promising to still see her. After realizing he will die unless he deserts the army, he runs away and Rose goes to live with him in Canada
Had this been split into two or three full-length novels with the first novel ending here, I would have liked it a lot. But instead this great beginning with Danny’s and Rose’s innocence isn’t given the full detail and development it deserves, instead being condensed to the beginning of the novel.
But unfortunately it gets worse. Because the story continues. With so many characters that it’s impossible to keep them straight.
Danny’s character takes a sharp left when he feels the need to go to war again, this time with the Canadian army. He and Rose had practically just found each other and now he’s going back to fight, and after he had almost died the last time? Yeah. That makes total sense. What is he, an addict all of a sudden?
The entire story goes in a whirlwind. Danny has such a steep character arc, from innocent teenaged boy to hardened veteran, it might as well be a character cliff. Rose, on the other hand, doesn’t have that much character to arc. She’s slightly more bitter by the end, but she had already been bitter in the beginning of the story. Her lack of character frustrates me to no end.
There are some good parts to this story, though. Rose’s experience in the workplace was well-written, as was the death of Grace, Danny’s girl on the side. His war buddy, Mitch, is an excellent character and funny as hell, even if he is a bit cliched. The dynamic between Danny and his comrades is actually very good and I wish I had seen more of that and less flowery description about the war atmosphere.
While this story is mildly entertaining, well-researched, and interesting, it’s not my favorite and I will definitely not be reading it again. What do you think? Does this book sound interesting to you?
Average Goodreads Rating: 4.26/5 stars
My rating: 3/5 stars
Danny Pulbrook is a handsome and rebellious young man. Born the bastard son of a minor royal and orphaned at birth he is determined to find a new life far beyond his “pre-ordained oblivion”. His only way out – a forced enlistment into the army brings him to an inevitable confrontation with his own demons in the cauldron of the first world war.
Rose Quayle is a beautiful and confident hazel-eyed housemaid who, like her mother and her mother’s mother is employed in service at Meaford House – an expansive vice-regal estate near Tunbridge Wells. Like Danny she longs for a life beyond the tyranny of the rigid class system that defines her humble destiny.
Their chance meeting becomes the catalyst that changes both of their lives forever.
The Remnants is like a fixer upper. It’s unpolished and a bit of a hot mess, but you can still see the potential. Unfortunately, The Remnants was published before it got the TLC it deserved.
Not only is the text plagued with typos and missing punctuation, but there are too many storylines and character to keep straight. It’s a hot mess that could have been amazing.
The story starts out on a seemingly inconsequential day, with two minor characters talking. Yes, minor. They’re barely in the story but they make up the opening scene that eventually introduces Rose as a young, innocent girl going on her first car ride. So far there’s promise. After all, the boggy description will clear up when the story gets going, right?
I wish.
But it does pick up when we meet lovable bad boy Danny. Straight from an orphanage and now working at a general store, he’s a troublemaker and has never known love of any sort. He’s convinced he’s unlovable. Perfect for a love interest. I do have a thing for the bad boys. Give them a vulnerable side and I’m practically putty.
Rose and Danny have an excellently sweet and innocent chance encounter that clashes with the darkness in the rest of the book. Actually, there’s no foreshadowing at all that things will go so horribly awry when they met, or how dark most of the book is.
But dark it is. Danny goes off to fight in India, leaving Rose behind, but promising to still see her. After realizing he will die unless he deserts the army, he runs away and Rose goes to live with him in Canada
Had this been split into two or three full-length novels with the first novel ending here, I would have liked it a lot. But instead this great beginning with Danny’s and Rose’s innocence isn’t given the full detail and development it deserves, instead being condensed to the beginning of the novel.
But unfortunately it gets worse. Because the story continues. With so many characters that it’s impossible to keep them straight.
Danny’s character takes a sharp left when he feels the need to go to war again, this time with the Canadian army. He and Rose had practically just found each other and now he’s going back to fight, and after he had almost died the last time? Yeah. That makes total sense. What is he, an addict all of a sudden?
The entire story goes in a whirlwind. Danny has such a steep character arc, from innocent teenaged boy to hardened veteran, it might as well be a character cliff. Rose, on the other hand, doesn’t have that much character to arc. She’s slightly more bitter by the end, but she had already been bitter in the beginning of the story. Her lack of character frustrates me to no end.
There are some good parts to this story, though. Rose’s experience in the workplace was well-written, as was the death of Grace, Danny’s girl on the side. His war buddy, Mitch, is an excellent character and funny as hell, even if he is a bit cliched. The dynamic between Danny and his comrades is actually very good and I wish I had seen more of that and less flowery description about the war atmosphere.
While this story is mildly entertaining, well-researched, and interesting, it’s not my favorite and I will definitely not be reading it again. What do you think? Does this book sound interesting to you?
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Graveyard Book in Books
Sep 30, 2019
A different look at ghosts (1 more)
Flow of writing is great
Questions left unanswered (1 more)
There won't be a sequel
Neil Gaiman knows how to turn an innocent childhood into a terror-filled one. 'The Graveyard Book' revolves around a young boy named Nobody Owens. What makes him different from everyone else is that he lives in a graveyard where he's being raised by the ghostly residents. Nobody, or Bod (as his friends call him), ended up here after his family was brutally murdered, which actually doesn't seem to bother him too much throughout the story. Right from the beginning, readers get to follow the murderer as he makes his way through Bod's house, killing all the members of the family except for Bod, who fortunately manages to get away.
Yet, when Bod showed up at the graveyard, not all the residents wanted to keep the boy, but when a woman in grey appears, she settles the argument by telling them to keep him - - - bringing in the woman in grey seemed as though it only happened to introduce the character, which, unfortunately she is only seen one other time throughout the entire novel; this character really wasn't necessary. When Bod is kept, he is given the "Freedom of the Graveyard," which gives him the ability to see and talk to ghosts, as well as other things. This makes for a very intriguing adventure for us readers.
This book is almost flawless with the concept being very original. I honestly have nothing bad to say about the story. Gaiman doesn't use the usual horror tropes, instead he describes horrific events through the eyes of Bod, as he becomes more familiar with the world outside of the graveyard. Gaiman explains all of Bod's natural needs effortlessly within a graveyard, such as Bod learning to read and spell by using the letters on headstones. This book will surely change the way you look at graveyards for the rest of your life, if you hadn't already seen them in this way. 'The Graveyard Book' is a different type of ghost story, where the reader isn't afraid of the spirits, but rather of the living.
Later on in 'the Graveyard Book,' we meet a character named Scarlett. She is one of the only friends that Bod makes who is alive. For the majority of the book, Scarlett believes that Bod is just her imaginary friend, as her mother brings her to the graveyard every day to play (by this time, it is a claimed nature reserve) . But later on, when Scarlett returns as a teenager, she realizes that Bod is actually a real person. My only complaint about Scarlett's character is that the reader gets to see her dream walk- - - something we have been told only ghosts, supernatural creatures and Bod can do- - - yet, this is never explained why she is able to do this. It leaves one to wonder if Scarlett is a supernatural being or just a human with a particular ability?
" One grave in every graveyard belongs to the ghouls. Wander any graveyard long enough and you will find it- - - waterstained and bulging, with cracked or broken stone, scraggly grass or rank weeds about it, and a feeling, when you reach it, of abandonment. It may be colder than the other gravestones, too, and the name on the stone is all too often impossible to read. If there is a statue on the grave it will be headless or so scabbed with fungus and lichens as to look like a fungus itself. If one grave in a graveyard looks like a target for petty vandals, that is the ghoul-gate. If the grave makes you want to be somewhere else, that is the ghoul-gate. " The ghoul-gate has it's own entire scene in the book, but I wish the ghouls had been in the story quite a bit more. Overall, Gaiman wrote a very pleasing book that looks at ghosts in a different light. He brings up real life fears and fictional ones as well. Unfortunately, the book was written in 2008, and it doesn't seem that Gaiman is working on a sequel, so some questions may never be answered for the readers.
I really liked this book, and I think readers who enjoy paranormal aspects will love this story, too. As far as a ghost story goes, this one I highly recommend, but if you are looking for scares, I suggest you look elsewhere.
Yet, when Bod showed up at the graveyard, not all the residents wanted to keep the boy, but when a woman in grey appears, she settles the argument by telling them to keep him - - - bringing in the woman in grey seemed as though it only happened to introduce the character, which, unfortunately she is only seen one other time throughout the entire novel; this character really wasn't necessary. When Bod is kept, he is given the "Freedom of the Graveyard," which gives him the ability to see and talk to ghosts, as well as other things. This makes for a very intriguing adventure for us readers.
This book is almost flawless with the concept being very original. I honestly have nothing bad to say about the story. Gaiman doesn't use the usual horror tropes, instead he describes horrific events through the eyes of Bod, as he becomes more familiar with the world outside of the graveyard. Gaiman explains all of Bod's natural needs effortlessly within a graveyard, such as Bod learning to read and spell by using the letters on headstones. This book will surely change the way you look at graveyards for the rest of your life, if you hadn't already seen them in this way. 'The Graveyard Book' is a different type of ghost story, where the reader isn't afraid of the spirits, but rather of the living.
Later on in 'the Graveyard Book,' we meet a character named Scarlett. She is one of the only friends that Bod makes who is alive. For the majority of the book, Scarlett believes that Bod is just her imaginary friend, as her mother brings her to the graveyard every day to play (by this time, it is a claimed nature reserve) . But later on, when Scarlett returns as a teenager, she realizes that Bod is actually a real person. My only complaint about Scarlett's character is that the reader gets to see her dream walk- - - something we have been told only ghosts, supernatural creatures and Bod can do- - - yet, this is never explained why she is able to do this. It leaves one to wonder if Scarlett is a supernatural being or just a human with a particular ability?
" One grave in every graveyard belongs to the ghouls. Wander any graveyard long enough and you will find it- - - waterstained and bulging, with cracked or broken stone, scraggly grass or rank weeds about it, and a feeling, when you reach it, of abandonment. It may be colder than the other gravestones, too, and the name on the stone is all too often impossible to read. If there is a statue on the grave it will be headless or so scabbed with fungus and lichens as to look like a fungus itself. If one grave in a graveyard looks like a target for petty vandals, that is the ghoul-gate. If the grave makes you want to be somewhere else, that is the ghoul-gate. " The ghoul-gate has it's own entire scene in the book, but I wish the ghouls had been in the story quite a bit more. Overall, Gaiman wrote a very pleasing book that looks at ghosts in a different light. He brings up real life fears and fictional ones as well. Unfortunately, the book was written in 2008, and it doesn't seem that Gaiman is working on a sequel, so some questions may never be answered for the readers.
I really liked this book, and I think readers who enjoy paranormal aspects will love this story, too. As far as a ghost story goes, this one I highly recommend, but if you are looking for scares, I suggest you look elsewhere.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Winds of Fear (Fearless Series #3) in Books
Aug 4, 2020
I have a thing about thrillers involving neighbors and false identities, so when I got the opportunity to read Winds of Fear by Glede Browne Kabongo, I jumped at the chance!
When Jenna and Charlie Payne move into the house next door, things start going bad for Abbie Rambally, especially after Jenna takes a special interest in Abbie's 10 year old son Lucas. Before long, Abbie starts suspecting that her neighbors aren't who they say they are and that their intentions could put her family in mortal danger.
The synopsis really sucked me in. I had to know what was up with Abbie's neighbors, so I dove into Winds of Fear right away. The pacing is fairly slow for the first half of the book as Kabongo sets up the backstory for each character. However, once I got to the second half of the novel, the pacing sped up, and I was hooked! I could not stop reading even though it was way past time for me to go to sleep. I felt like this was where the most action really happened and where the actually plot and the meat of the story was. Kabongo is heavily into describing each and every thing which was a bit tedious, but in the second half of the story, I was hooked on every word, so I didn't really mind. There were quite a few plot twists in Winds of Fear. In fact, every time I thought I had something figured out and felt smug about it, a plot twist would smack me right in the face! Though this book the third in the Fearless Series, I felt like it stands alone quite well without reading the first two books. Kabongo does a fantastic job of explaining what happened to Abbie (and her family) previously quite well. There is a fourth book that will be released in the series, but I found that all my questions were answered in Winds of Fear. However, I will be reading the next installment in the series because I want to know more about Abbie's life!
The characters in Winds of Fear were very fleshed out and well written thanks to all of Kabongo's backstory she added throughout the book. I enjoyed the character of Abbie although sometimes I felt like she was being a little too suspicious too early on after just meeting the Paynes...her paranoia just felt too rushed. However, Abbie was a very well written character besides that. I could feel how much she loved her kids, her husband, and her life. My heart went out to her when she was torn between her duties as a mother and advancing her career. I was beside myself when everything went down involving Lucas. Her pain and worry felt very realistic. I would have liked to see more of Ty, Abbie's husband. Ty came across as such a fantastic man. I couldn't help but love him myself after reading about him. His love for wife and children were obvious from the get-go. The Rambally children (Alexis, Blake, and Lucas) were all so smart and adorable. I just wanted to hug them all! I loved their close relationship and how they all wanted to help each other out. Blake and Lucas were fantastic with how inquisitive they were. I also loved Olivia (Liv). She seemed like such a sweet girl. I won't go into much more detail about her, but I was saddened that I didn't get to read more about her. Jenna and Charlie were also fantastic characters. I kept trying to figure out what they brought to the table and why they were so wrapped up with the Ramballys. Also, with the Iceman, I felt he really did live up to his nickname!
Trigger warnings for Winds of Fear include mentions of sexual assault (not graphic), drinking alcohol (although not to excess), violence, murder (not very graphic), kidnapping, and blackmail.
All in all, Winds of Fear is quite the psychological thriller. It's got relatable characters, an interesting plot, and it makes you try to guess just to be wrong. I would recommend Winds of Fear by Glede Browne Kabongo to those ages 18+ to those who love to be sucked into a good book!
--
(A special thank you to Xpresso Tours for providing me with an eBook of Winds of Fear by Glede Browne Kabongo in exchange for a fair and unbiased review.)
When Jenna and Charlie Payne move into the house next door, things start going bad for Abbie Rambally, especially after Jenna takes a special interest in Abbie's 10 year old son Lucas. Before long, Abbie starts suspecting that her neighbors aren't who they say they are and that their intentions could put her family in mortal danger.
The synopsis really sucked me in. I had to know what was up with Abbie's neighbors, so I dove into Winds of Fear right away. The pacing is fairly slow for the first half of the book as Kabongo sets up the backstory for each character. However, once I got to the second half of the novel, the pacing sped up, and I was hooked! I could not stop reading even though it was way past time for me to go to sleep. I felt like this was where the most action really happened and where the actually plot and the meat of the story was. Kabongo is heavily into describing each and every thing which was a bit tedious, but in the second half of the story, I was hooked on every word, so I didn't really mind. There were quite a few plot twists in Winds of Fear. In fact, every time I thought I had something figured out and felt smug about it, a plot twist would smack me right in the face! Though this book the third in the Fearless Series, I felt like it stands alone quite well without reading the first two books. Kabongo does a fantastic job of explaining what happened to Abbie (and her family) previously quite well. There is a fourth book that will be released in the series, but I found that all my questions were answered in Winds of Fear. However, I will be reading the next installment in the series because I want to know more about Abbie's life!
The characters in Winds of Fear were very fleshed out and well written thanks to all of Kabongo's backstory she added throughout the book. I enjoyed the character of Abbie although sometimes I felt like she was being a little too suspicious too early on after just meeting the Paynes...her paranoia just felt too rushed. However, Abbie was a very well written character besides that. I could feel how much she loved her kids, her husband, and her life. My heart went out to her when she was torn between her duties as a mother and advancing her career. I was beside myself when everything went down involving Lucas. Her pain and worry felt very realistic. I would have liked to see more of Ty, Abbie's husband. Ty came across as such a fantastic man. I couldn't help but love him myself after reading about him. His love for wife and children were obvious from the get-go. The Rambally children (Alexis, Blake, and Lucas) were all so smart and adorable. I just wanted to hug them all! I loved their close relationship and how they all wanted to help each other out. Blake and Lucas were fantastic with how inquisitive they were. I also loved Olivia (Liv). She seemed like such a sweet girl. I won't go into much more detail about her, but I was saddened that I didn't get to read more about her. Jenna and Charlie were also fantastic characters. I kept trying to figure out what they brought to the table and why they were so wrapped up with the Ramballys. Also, with the Iceman, I felt he really did live up to his nickname!
Trigger warnings for Winds of Fear include mentions of sexual assault (not graphic), drinking alcohol (although not to excess), violence, murder (not very graphic), kidnapping, and blackmail.
All in all, Winds of Fear is quite the psychological thriller. It's got relatable characters, an interesting plot, and it makes you try to guess just to be wrong. I would recommend Winds of Fear by Glede Browne Kabongo to those ages 18+ to those who love to be sucked into a good book!
--
(A special thank you to Xpresso Tours for providing me with an eBook of Winds of Fear by Glede Browne Kabongo in exchange for a fair and unbiased review.)
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Com-Pet-Ability in Tabletop Games
Apr 14, 2020
I have two dogs: a Yorkshire Terrier and a Powderpuff Chinese Crested. I love them dearly, but I just cannot see myself having any more 4-legged mammal pets. We promised our son a pet fish when we move (or a whole aquarium community if my wife will allow), but other than that, we will NOT be adding more pets to our household. So when I heard about a game that requires you to collect cards so that you have five pets to take home I immediate gave the deer-in-headlights look. No, I would not have a pet deer.
ComPetAbility is a card game with two play modes: a mode for players aged 7+ and one for younger gamers. We will be taking a look at the game for older gamers. In this game mode a player is attempting to amass five pets that will be accepting of each other and not cause heck in your house.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of the game for the purposes of this review. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rule book, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy from the publisher directly or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, shuffle the large deck of cards and deal five to each player. Put the rest of the cards in the middle of the table as a draw pile, flip one over for the “shed” pile. You are now setup and ready to go!
The goal of the game is to begin a turn with five compatible pets (com-pet-able). This is achieved by having five cards whose three icons are satisfied with each other. For instance, turtles are compatible with every other type of animal, so the three icons on turtle cards are all green – compatible with all dogs, cats, and birds. Some dogs are compatible with other dogs but not cats, and some cats are compatible with other cats or kittens but not birds.
So on a turn, a player will choose a card to draw from either the draw pile or the shed pile to add to their hand. A turn ends when that player sheds (discards) a card to the shed pile. Turns continue in this fashion until a player begins their turn with five compatible animals. Players will then add up the points in their hands (the numbers in the upper right corner of the cards) of compatible animals. The player that ended the game with a completed set of five animal pets will score a bonus 10 points to add to their total. Whomever scores the highest is the winner of ComPetAbility!
Components. This is a stack of cards in a tin can. Yep, a tin can with a plastic lid. It’s very novel and lovely, but heck for someone who cares about how the games look and fit on their shelves. The game cards are good quality, which is handy because the game mode aimed at smaller children have them handling the cards a lot too so they have to be able to withstand that abuse. The art is cute, and the layout is easy to understand – even for young ones. No issues with the components from us (aside from the can not being a box, wink wink).
So here’s the thing with this one. We liked it. It is a great idea and is executed well. I don’t think I will pull this one out with adult gamers anymore though. The children’s mode of this game is what I hold dear, as my three-year-old LOVES it and “wins” every time. I have just played this one too many times where a player can be dealt either a winning hand or four of the five cards right away. I’m no designer, so I don’t know how to mitigate that besides chalking it up to “luck of the draw.” But that’s a negative for me, and perhaps I shouldn’t let it detract from an otherwise enjoyable game, but it’s what comes to mind every time I see on the shelf as a possibility for Game Night. However, if you like the theme, the style, and ease of play between two different modes then check it out. It can be used as a light filler, a gateway game, or children’s game. So for the pure flexibility of this one, Purple Phoenix Games gives it a canned (hehe) 13 / 18. The turtles are really cute, but the hybrid animals are kinda weird-lookin’.
ComPetAbility is a card game with two play modes: a mode for players aged 7+ and one for younger gamers. We will be taking a look at the game for older gamers. In this game mode a player is attempting to amass five pets that will be accepting of each other and not cause heck in your house.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of the game for the purposes of this review. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rule book, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy from the publisher directly or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, shuffle the large deck of cards and deal five to each player. Put the rest of the cards in the middle of the table as a draw pile, flip one over for the “shed” pile. You are now setup and ready to go!
The goal of the game is to begin a turn with five compatible pets (com-pet-able). This is achieved by having five cards whose three icons are satisfied with each other. For instance, turtles are compatible with every other type of animal, so the three icons on turtle cards are all green – compatible with all dogs, cats, and birds. Some dogs are compatible with other dogs but not cats, and some cats are compatible with other cats or kittens but not birds.
So on a turn, a player will choose a card to draw from either the draw pile or the shed pile to add to their hand. A turn ends when that player sheds (discards) a card to the shed pile. Turns continue in this fashion until a player begins their turn with five compatible animals. Players will then add up the points in their hands (the numbers in the upper right corner of the cards) of compatible animals. The player that ended the game with a completed set of five animal pets will score a bonus 10 points to add to their total. Whomever scores the highest is the winner of ComPetAbility!
Components. This is a stack of cards in a tin can. Yep, a tin can with a plastic lid. It’s very novel and lovely, but heck for someone who cares about how the games look and fit on their shelves. The game cards are good quality, which is handy because the game mode aimed at smaller children have them handling the cards a lot too so they have to be able to withstand that abuse. The art is cute, and the layout is easy to understand – even for young ones. No issues with the components from us (aside from the can not being a box, wink wink).
So here’s the thing with this one. We liked it. It is a great idea and is executed well. I don’t think I will pull this one out with adult gamers anymore though. The children’s mode of this game is what I hold dear, as my three-year-old LOVES it and “wins” every time. I have just played this one too many times where a player can be dealt either a winning hand or four of the five cards right away. I’m no designer, so I don’t know how to mitigate that besides chalking it up to “luck of the draw.” But that’s a negative for me, and perhaps I shouldn’t let it detract from an otherwise enjoyable game, but it’s what comes to mind every time I see on the shelf as a possibility for Game Night. However, if you like the theme, the style, and ease of play between two different modes then check it out. It can be used as a light filler, a gateway game, or children’s game. So for the pure flexibility of this one, Purple Phoenix Games gives it a canned (hehe) 13 / 18. The turtles are really cute, but the hybrid animals are kinda weird-lookin’.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Upside (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Not the 5* French classic, but a fun and moving movie nonetheless.
So, the movie-going audience for this film will divide into two categories:
Category A: those that have seen the original 2011 French classic “The Intouchables” that this is based on, and;
Category B: those that haven’t.
2011 is just before I started “One Mann’s Movies”, but “The Intouchables” would have got 5* from me, no problem.
This movie joins a list of standout European movies – for example, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”; “Let The Right One In”; “Sleepless Night”; etc. – that have had Hollywood “makeovers” that don’t match up to the originals. And this is no exception. However, it’s still been well made and deserves respect as a standalone piece of movie-making.
The Plot
Based on a true story, Phillip Lacasse (Bryan Cranston) is left both paraplegic and widowed by a string of bad luck. Not that money can buy you everything, but his care arrangements are substantially helped by him being a multi-millionaire (“Not rich enough to buy The Yankees; Rich enough to buy The Mets”). This is from success in investments and writing about such investments.
Depressed, cranky and with a “DNR” that his diligent PA Yvonne (Nicole Kidman) seems unable to comply with, Phillip lashes out at anyone and everyone and so dispatches his carers with monotonous regularity. Dell Scott (Kevin Hart) is on parole, with the requirement to seek work. Due to a mix-up, he finds himself in the employ of Phillip: with the suspicion that he’s been hired because he is the very worst candidate imaginable, and thus the most likely to let Phillip shuffle off this mortal coil. But the two men’s antipathy to each other slowly thaws as they teach each other new tricks.
Pin left in the grenade
Those who have seen “The Intouchables” will fondly remember the first 5 minutes of that film: a flash-forward to a manic police car-chase featuring our protagonists (there played by François Cluzet and Omar Sy). It drops like a comedy hand-grenade to open the film. Unfortunately, you can’t help but feel a bit let down by the same re-creation in “The Upside”. It has all the same content but none of the heart.
After that rocky start, the film continues to rather stutter along. Part of the reason for this I think is Kevin Hart. It’s not that he’s particularly bad in the role: it’s just that he IS Kevin Hart, and I was constantly thinking “there’s that comedian playing that role”.
However, once the story gets into its swing, giving Cranston more of a chance to shine (which he does), then the film started to motor and my reservations about Hart started to wane. Some of these story set pieces – such as the one about the art work – are punch-the-air funny in their own right. Cranston’s timing in delivering his punchlines is immaculate.
This IS what actors do
There seems to have been some furore about the casting of Bryan Cranston as the role of the disabled millionaire instead of a disabled actor. Lord save us! He’s an actor! That’s what actors do for a living: pretend to be people they’re not! It’s also worth pointing out that François Cluzet was an able-bodied actor as well.
As already mentioned, Bryan Cranston excels in the role. Phillip goes through such a wide range of emotions from despair to pure joy and back again that you can’t help but be impressed by the performance.
On the female side of the cast, it’s really nice to see Nicole Kidman in such a quiet and understated role and it’s nicely done; Aja Naomi King does a nice job as Dell’s protective ex-girlfriend Latrice; and there’s a nice female cameo as well, which I won’t spoil since I wasn’t expecting to see her in the film.
Final Thoughts
As a standalone film it has some laugh-out-loud moments, some feelgood highs and some moments of real pathos. The audience I saw this with was small, but there was still a buzz in the room and sporadic applause as the end titles came up: God only knows that’s unusual for a film!
The director is “Limitless” and “Divergent” director Neil Burger, and it’s a perfectly fun and innocent night out at the flicks that I commend to the house in this month of celluloid awards heavyweights.
Category A: those that have seen the original 2011 French classic “The Intouchables” that this is based on, and;
Category B: those that haven’t.
2011 is just before I started “One Mann’s Movies”, but “The Intouchables” would have got 5* from me, no problem.
This movie joins a list of standout European movies – for example, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”; “Let The Right One In”; “Sleepless Night”; etc. – that have had Hollywood “makeovers” that don’t match up to the originals. And this is no exception. However, it’s still been well made and deserves respect as a standalone piece of movie-making.
The Plot
Based on a true story, Phillip Lacasse (Bryan Cranston) is left both paraplegic and widowed by a string of bad luck. Not that money can buy you everything, but his care arrangements are substantially helped by him being a multi-millionaire (“Not rich enough to buy The Yankees; Rich enough to buy The Mets”). This is from success in investments and writing about such investments.
Depressed, cranky and with a “DNR” that his diligent PA Yvonne (Nicole Kidman) seems unable to comply with, Phillip lashes out at anyone and everyone and so dispatches his carers with monotonous regularity. Dell Scott (Kevin Hart) is on parole, with the requirement to seek work. Due to a mix-up, he finds himself in the employ of Phillip: with the suspicion that he’s been hired because he is the very worst candidate imaginable, and thus the most likely to let Phillip shuffle off this mortal coil. But the two men’s antipathy to each other slowly thaws as they teach each other new tricks.
Pin left in the grenade
Those who have seen “The Intouchables” will fondly remember the first 5 minutes of that film: a flash-forward to a manic police car-chase featuring our protagonists (there played by François Cluzet and Omar Sy). It drops like a comedy hand-grenade to open the film. Unfortunately, you can’t help but feel a bit let down by the same re-creation in “The Upside”. It has all the same content but none of the heart.
After that rocky start, the film continues to rather stutter along. Part of the reason for this I think is Kevin Hart. It’s not that he’s particularly bad in the role: it’s just that he IS Kevin Hart, and I was constantly thinking “there’s that comedian playing that role”.
However, once the story gets into its swing, giving Cranston more of a chance to shine (which he does), then the film started to motor and my reservations about Hart started to wane. Some of these story set pieces – such as the one about the art work – are punch-the-air funny in their own right. Cranston’s timing in delivering his punchlines is immaculate.
This IS what actors do
There seems to have been some furore about the casting of Bryan Cranston as the role of the disabled millionaire instead of a disabled actor. Lord save us! He’s an actor! That’s what actors do for a living: pretend to be people they’re not! It’s also worth pointing out that François Cluzet was an able-bodied actor as well.
As already mentioned, Bryan Cranston excels in the role. Phillip goes through such a wide range of emotions from despair to pure joy and back again that you can’t help but be impressed by the performance.
On the female side of the cast, it’s really nice to see Nicole Kidman in such a quiet and understated role and it’s nicely done; Aja Naomi King does a nice job as Dell’s protective ex-girlfriend Latrice; and there’s a nice female cameo as well, which I won’t spoil since I wasn’t expecting to see her in the film.
Final Thoughts
As a standalone film it has some laugh-out-loud moments, some feelgood highs and some moments of real pathos. The audience I saw this with was small, but there was still a buzz in the room and sporadic applause as the end titles came up: God only knows that’s unusual for a film!
The director is “Limitless” and “Divergent” director Neil Burger, and it’s a perfectly fun and innocent night out at the flicks that I commend to the house in this month of celluloid awards heavyweights.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Green Book (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
“Vacation without Aggravation.”
The “Green Book” was a handbook (now, thankfully, out of print) for blacks travelling in the southern states of the US , who want to stay in or dine in places they will be welcomed rather than abused. It is of course 1962 and Bobby Kennedy as Attorney General has racial equality strongly in his firing line.
The ever-flexible (and here, after piling a lot of weight on, almost unrecognisable) Viggo Mortensen plays Tony ‘Lip’ Vallelonga – a racist Italian-American living in The Bronx and working as a bouncer at “The Copacabana” club. Oscar-winner Mahershala Ali plays Dr Don Shirley – a black virtuoso pianist of high acclaim. How this odd couple meet and interact on a journey from Titsburg (sic) to Birmingham is the heart of the film.
I’m actually loathe to say ANY more about the plot of this film. I saw this at a Cineworld “Secret Screening” and so went into the film completely blind about the content: which was just BRILLIANT! For this, for me, is as near a perfect road-movie as I am likely to see this or any other decade. To say it is a feelgood Christmas classic to approach “It’s a Wonderful Life” is not – I think – putting it too strongly.
Oh… dammit… I’ve already given away my rating haven’t I….?
The turns
The film has apparently had Oscar buzz since winning the Toronto Film Festival’s “People’s Choice” award, and the chemistry that builds up between Ali and Mortensen is just fantastic. While I’m a fan of Mortensen (“Captain Fantastic” was a minor classic), it is Ali’s performance as the gentle and mannered Shirley which impresses most, and would be my pick for the Oscar nomination if I had to choose between them.
Also truly impressive is ER’s Linda Cardllini as Tony’s wife Dolores: her reactions to “Tony’s” letters home are just exquisite. I wonder whether a Supporting Actress nomination might be deserved here also.
And what a script
The screenplay by Brian Hayes Currie, Peter Farrelly and Nick Vallelonga (Tony’s son…. yes, this is based on a true story), sizzles with fantastic one-liners and wordplay. It breathes life into the 1962 setting by not shying away from using what, today, are highly offensive racial slurs: these might offend some, but they are essential for a film that lampoons racist behaviour so wonderfully.
Above all, it’s a film with genuine heart. A story that lifts the spirit and paints onto the screen in technicolour glory the struggle (albeit you feel a rather sanitised one) that lifted America out of the dark ages in terms of equality.
It is perhaps this degree of “Oscar baitedness” – (if that’s not a word then it is now) – that might be its biggest weakness in garnering support among the voters at Oscar time. It is though perhaps worth bearing in mind that it was “Driving Miss Daisy” – an odd-couple inter-racial chauffeur-based movie – that won the Best Film Oscar for 1989!
Farrelly? What THAT Farrelly?
This is a film of subtlety and nuance that makes it all the more surprising that the director is Peter Farrelly. Yes, he of the Farrelly brothers of such crass, unsubtle and hilarious films like “There’s Something about Mary” and “Dumb and Dumber” and such crass, unsubtle and totally awful films like “Me, Myself and Irene” and “Dumb and Dumber To”! It’s like asking Mr Bean to direct a performance of Swan Lake at the Royal Opera House! Yet, here it just plain works. The comedy injected into the film (and there are a number of times I laughed out loud) is perfectly balanced with the story.
Final thoughts
What I wanted to say here was:
“Go see this film. No, REALLY. It will leave you with a warm Christmas glow in your heart to last you through the holidays. Well, it should – it did me.”
However, although the States already had this for Thanksgiving, it looks as if the UK general release of this film is not set to happen until the 1st of February next year. Which is a great shame and a missed opportunity. (It’s as if they made a Christmas film like “Die Hard” and then released it in July! #sarcasm #yesiknowtheydid).
I really hope that’s a mistake and you guys can get to see it before then. When you can, go see it (No, REALLY!). Seldom have two hours flown by with such joy at the cinema. At this late stage in the year, my “Films of the Year” draft list is going to need another shake up!
The ever-flexible (and here, after piling a lot of weight on, almost unrecognisable) Viggo Mortensen plays Tony ‘Lip’ Vallelonga – a racist Italian-American living in The Bronx and working as a bouncer at “The Copacabana” club. Oscar-winner Mahershala Ali plays Dr Don Shirley – a black virtuoso pianist of high acclaim. How this odd couple meet and interact on a journey from Titsburg (sic) to Birmingham is the heart of the film.
I’m actually loathe to say ANY more about the plot of this film. I saw this at a Cineworld “Secret Screening” and so went into the film completely blind about the content: which was just BRILLIANT! For this, for me, is as near a perfect road-movie as I am likely to see this or any other decade. To say it is a feelgood Christmas classic to approach “It’s a Wonderful Life” is not – I think – putting it too strongly.
Oh… dammit… I’ve already given away my rating haven’t I….?
The turns
The film has apparently had Oscar buzz since winning the Toronto Film Festival’s “People’s Choice” award, and the chemistry that builds up between Ali and Mortensen is just fantastic. While I’m a fan of Mortensen (“Captain Fantastic” was a minor classic), it is Ali’s performance as the gentle and mannered Shirley which impresses most, and would be my pick for the Oscar nomination if I had to choose between them.
Also truly impressive is ER’s Linda Cardllini as Tony’s wife Dolores: her reactions to “Tony’s” letters home are just exquisite. I wonder whether a Supporting Actress nomination might be deserved here also.
And what a script
The screenplay by Brian Hayes Currie, Peter Farrelly and Nick Vallelonga (Tony’s son…. yes, this is based on a true story), sizzles with fantastic one-liners and wordplay. It breathes life into the 1962 setting by not shying away from using what, today, are highly offensive racial slurs: these might offend some, but they are essential for a film that lampoons racist behaviour so wonderfully.
Above all, it’s a film with genuine heart. A story that lifts the spirit and paints onto the screen in technicolour glory the struggle (albeit you feel a rather sanitised one) that lifted America out of the dark ages in terms of equality.
It is perhaps this degree of “Oscar baitedness” – (if that’s not a word then it is now) – that might be its biggest weakness in garnering support among the voters at Oscar time. It is though perhaps worth bearing in mind that it was “Driving Miss Daisy” – an odd-couple inter-racial chauffeur-based movie – that won the Best Film Oscar for 1989!
Farrelly? What THAT Farrelly?
This is a film of subtlety and nuance that makes it all the more surprising that the director is Peter Farrelly. Yes, he of the Farrelly brothers of such crass, unsubtle and hilarious films like “There’s Something about Mary” and “Dumb and Dumber” and such crass, unsubtle and totally awful films like “Me, Myself and Irene” and “Dumb and Dumber To”! It’s like asking Mr Bean to direct a performance of Swan Lake at the Royal Opera House! Yet, here it just plain works. The comedy injected into the film (and there are a number of times I laughed out loud) is perfectly balanced with the story.
Final thoughts
What I wanted to say here was:
“Go see this film. No, REALLY. It will leave you with a warm Christmas glow in your heart to last you through the holidays. Well, it should – it did me.”
However, although the States already had this for Thanksgiving, it looks as if the UK general release of this film is not set to happen until the 1st of February next year. Which is a great shame and a missed opportunity. (It’s as if they made a Christmas film like “Die Hard” and then released it in July! #sarcasm #yesiknowtheydid).
I really hope that’s a mistake and you guys can get to see it before then. When you can, go see it (No, REALLY!). Seldom have two hours flown by with such joy at the cinema. At this late stage in the year, my “Films of the Year” draft list is going to need another shake up!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Pitch Perfect 3 (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Aca-bysmal.
Mr Plot and Miss Tale were teenage sweethearts. They met at Storyville High School and inseparable, but were viciously cursed by a jealous school nurse, bitter from a recent split. Notwithstanding this setback, they realised that they were soul-mates, got engaged and were married in the following summer. Everyone wished them well, and spoke of the time when the sound of little Plots would ring out around their new house. Unfortunately, however hard they tried, no little Plot arrived. The ancient curse of the school nurse rang in their ears. They paid to see the most expensive doctors on Harley Street, but noone could help them. It turned out that not only was Mrs Plot infertile, but so was Mr Plot. It was hopeless, and because of an unfortunate conviction for marujiana possession in Mr Plot’s teenage years they couldn’t even adapt, sorry, adopt a little Plot from someone else. So they lived together with sadness and bitterness building up inside them. Would the curse ever be lifted? Would they work through their differences to find new purpose in life? Or would they part acromoniously with Mrs Plot joining a convent to sing mournful songs of grief and missed opportunities in the Swiss Alps? TO… BE…CONTINUED.
There. You were there, weren’t you? Living it. You want to know what happens next? Sure you do. You see, even I can come up with a story…. and I’m not a “professional Hollywood scriptwriter”.
Why then, I ask you. Why oh why oh why oh why oh why do the scriptwriters of Pitch Perfect 3 – Kay Cannon (the original PP screenwriter) and Mike White (“The Emoji Movie”) – think that this dreadfully lazy set of loosely connected scenes represent a viable basis for a movie? Is the view from the guys who green-lit this thing that the crowd that loved “Pitch Perfect” and the pretty dreadful sequel “Pitch Perfect 2” will pay their box office money regardless? Let’s advertise the hell out of it and cash in our chips before word of mouth gets out!?
In this ‘adventure’ the Bellas go on a US Forces overseas tour (though this is not really explained until they suddenly appear in Spain – what? how?). The really REALLY annoying commentators John (John Michael Higgins) and Gail (Elizabeth Banks, “Love and Mercy“) tag along, filming some lame half-arsed documentary about them until even the scriptwriters get fed up of that tedious plot-line and it quietly withers on the vine.
Fat Amy (is this still an acceptable nickname in 2017?) also runs into her nefarious father again after many years (John Lithgow, “Interstellar“, “Daddy’s Home 2“). Lithgow – sporting a wonderful Australian accent – is about the best thing in the film. The “plot” (sorry, I can barely bring myself to use that word) revolves around Daddy trying to get something of Amy’s that he needs, for reasons – given the yacht he sails – that makes no sense whatsoever. Will he succeed? Will the Bellas get selected to headline with DJ Khaled (who is apparently a thing, but I’ve never heard him on BBC Radio 2)? Does anyone really care?
As my wife pointed out, it’s a bit unfortunate that the only Bellas who are not stick-thin size zeroes are the obese and annoyingly loud one, the black lesbian one and two that nobody knows why they are there. The message to the target female teen audience is clear: if you want to be “in” you’d better diet… hard. Nice.
Looking for all the world like sticks of candy-cane. The size 0 Bellas.
What can I say that’s vaguely nice about this monstrosity?
Some of the acapella song and dance numbers are fun enough, particularly “Toxic” that opens the film;
The closing number by Anna Kendrick (“Table 19“) is quite appealing;
There are also about 5 funny lines that made me smile: not laugh… smile;
It’s also a relief that John and Gail, unlike in “Pitch Perfect 2“, only come out with one xenophobic/racist comment in the film (and that’s about the French, so that hardly counts 🙂 ).
And I’m out…
There will be no doubt die-hard teenage fans who will love this one too. But my wife was a great fan of the first film (as indeed was I); she tolerated the second one; but even she declared this to be “Aca-Awful”. It’s not as toxically dreadful as “Dirty Grandpa“… what could be? But, seriously, life is too short for this.
There. You were there, weren’t you? Living it. You want to know what happens next? Sure you do. You see, even I can come up with a story…. and I’m not a “professional Hollywood scriptwriter”.
Why then, I ask you. Why oh why oh why oh why oh why do the scriptwriters of Pitch Perfect 3 – Kay Cannon (the original PP screenwriter) and Mike White (“The Emoji Movie”) – think that this dreadfully lazy set of loosely connected scenes represent a viable basis for a movie? Is the view from the guys who green-lit this thing that the crowd that loved “Pitch Perfect” and the pretty dreadful sequel “Pitch Perfect 2” will pay their box office money regardless? Let’s advertise the hell out of it and cash in our chips before word of mouth gets out!?
In this ‘adventure’ the Bellas go on a US Forces overseas tour (though this is not really explained until they suddenly appear in Spain – what? how?). The really REALLY annoying commentators John (John Michael Higgins) and Gail (Elizabeth Banks, “Love and Mercy“) tag along, filming some lame half-arsed documentary about them until even the scriptwriters get fed up of that tedious plot-line and it quietly withers on the vine.
Fat Amy (is this still an acceptable nickname in 2017?) also runs into her nefarious father again after many years (John Lithgow, “Interstellar“, “Daddy’s Home 2“). Lithgow – sporting a wonderful Australian accent – is about the best thing in the film. The “plot” (sorry, I can barely bring myself to use that word) revolves around Daddy trying to get something of Amy’s that he needs, for reasons – given the yacht he sails – that makes no sense whatsoever. Will he succeed? Will the Bellas get selected to headline with DJ Khaled (who is apparently a thing, but I’ve never heard him on BBC Radio 2)? Does anyone really care?
As my wife pointed out, it’s a bit unfortunate that the only Bellas who are not stick-thin size zeroes are the obese and annoyingly loud one, the black lesbian one and two that nobody knows why they are there. The message to the target female teen audience is clear: if you want to be “in” you’d better diet… hard. Nice.
Looking for all the world like sticks of candy-cane. The size 0 Bellas.
What can I say that’s vaguely nice about this monstrosity?
Some of the acapella song and dance numbers are fun enough, particularly “Toxic” that opens the film;
The closing number by Anna Kendrick (“Table 19“) is quite appealing;
There are also about 5 funny lines that made me smile: not laugh… smile;
It’s also a relief that John and Gail, unlike in “Pitch Perfect 2“, only come out with one xenophobic/racist comment in the film (and that’s about the French, so that hardly counts 🙂 ).
And I’m out…
There will be no doubt die-hard teenage fans who will love this one too. But my wife was a great fan of the first film (as indeed was I); she tolerated the second one; but even she declared this to be “Aca-Awful”. It’s not as toxically dreadful as “Dirty Grandpa“… what could be? But, seriously, life is too short for this.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Colossal (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A Marvel-ous Indie Movie
Well!! I’ve been really surprised (in a good way) by two films this year, and both have involved monsters (the first being “A Monster Calls” back in January).
It’s really difficult to categorise “Colossal” – imdb classes it as a “Comedy, Action, Drama”. Comedy? Yes, but it’s a very dark comedy indeed. Action? Hmm, not really… if you go to this expecting ‘Godzilla 2’ or some polished Marvel-style film (not that I was!) you will be sorely disappointed. Drama? This is probably the nearest match, since at its heart this is a clever study on the people and relationships at the heart of a bizarre Sci-Fi event.
Anne Hathaway (“Les Miserables”) stars as Gloria, a borderline alcoholic-waster sponging off the good-natured but controlling Tim (Dan Stevens, “Beauty and the Beast”) in his New York apartment. When Tim’s patience finally runs out, Gloria returns to her hometown to an empty house and the attentions of a former school friend, bar owner Oscar (Jason Sudeikis), who clearly holds an unhealthy fascination with her. Borrowing an idea from “A Monster Calls”, at a specific time in the US morning a huge monster appears from thin air in Seoul, South Korea, killing people and smashing buildings in a seemingly uncoordinated and random way. Bizarrely, this only happens when Gloria is standing at a particular spot in a particular kid’s playground. Could the two events possibly be related?
I always like to categorize films in my head as being “like” others, but this one’s really difficult to pin down. It borrows its main premise from a famous scene in “E.T.” (indeed one also involving alcohol) but the film’s fantasy elements and dark undertones have more similarities in style to “Jumanji”. Then again, there are elements of the Kaufman about it in that it is as weird in some places as “Being John Malkovich”.
The film stays on ‘Whimsical Street’ for the first half of the film, but then takes a sharp left turn into ‘Dark Avenue’ (and for “dark” read “extremely black and sinister”). It then becomes a far more uncomfortable watch for the viewer. The metaphor of the monster for Gloria’s growing addiction is clear, but emerging themes of control, jealousy, violent bullying and small-town social entrapment also emerge.
Here the acting talents of Hathaway and Sudeikis really come to the fore: heavyweight Hollywood talent adding some significant ‘oomph’ to what is a fairly modest indie project. Hathaway is in kooky mode here, gurning to great comic effect, and this adds warmth to a not particularly likeable character. And Sudeikis (more commonly seen in lighter and frothier comedies like “We’re the Millers” and “Horrible Bosses”) is a surprise in the role delivering some real acting grit.
The writer and director is Spaniard Nacho Vigalondo. No, me neither. But he seems to have come from nowhere to deliver this high profile cinema release, and it would not be a surprise for me to see this nominated as an original screenplay come the awards season. His quirky style is refreshing. (Hell, delivering ANY novel new summer movie that is not part of a franchise or TV re-boot is refreshing!)
The film’s not perfect, and its disjointed style can be unsettling. While the lead characters are quite well defined, others are less so. Joel in particular, played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“), is such an irritating doormat of a character that you just want to thump him yelling “Do Something you wimp” to his face!
I am normally the first to pick scientific holes in a story, but here the story is so “out there” that the details become irrelevant, and – like “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2” – the film revels in its absurdity. (There is however a jumbo jet sized hole in the plot if you think about it!) But some of the moments of revelation (particularly one set in a wood) are brilliantly done and you are never quite sure where the film is going to go next. I was concerned that the ending would not live up to the promise of the film, but I was not disappointed.
Like “A Monster Calls” the film will probably suffer at the box office by its marketing confusing the audience. People will assume it’s possibly a “monster movie” or maybe a piece of comedy fluff (particularly with Sudeikis in the cast), but in reality it’s neither of these. It won’t be to everyone’s tastes for sure, but in the bland desert of mainstream movie releases, here is an oasis of something interesting and novel and in my book definitely worthy of your movie dollar. Recommended.
It’s really difficult to categorise “Colossal” – imdb classes it as a “Comedy, Action, Drama”. Comedy? Yes, but it’s a very dark comedy indeed. Action? Hmm, not really… if you go to this expecting ‘Godzilla 2’ or some polished Marvel-style film (not that I was!) you will be sorely disappointed. Drama? This is probably the nearest match, since at its heart this is a clever study on the people and relationships at the heart of a bizarre Sci-Fi event.
Anne Hathaway (“Les Miserables”) stars as Gloria, a borderline alcoholic-waster sponging off the good-natured but controlling Tim (Dan Stevens, “Beauty and the Beast”) in his New York apartment. When Tim’s patience finally runs out, Gloria returns to her hometown to an empty house and the attentions of a former school friend, bar owner Oscar (Jason Sudeikis), who clearly holds an unhealthy fascination with her. Borrowing an idea from “A Monster Calls”, at a specific time in the US morning a huge monster appears from thin air in Seoul, South Korea, killing people and smashing buildings in a seemingly uncoordinated and random way. Bizarrely, this only happens when Gloria is standing at a particular spot in a particular kid’s playground. Could the two events possibly be related?
I always like to categorize films in my head as being “like” others, but this one’s really difficult to pin down. It borrows its main premise from a famous scene in “E.T.” (indeed one also involving alcohol) but the film’s fantasy elements and dark undertones have more similarities in style to “Jumanji”. Then again, there are elements of the Kaufman about it in that it is as weird in some places as “Being John Malkovich”.
The film stays on ‘Whimsical Street’ for the first half of the film, but then takes a sharp left turn into ‘Dark Avenue’ (and for “dark” read “extremely black and sinister”). It then becomes a far more uncomfortable watch for the viewer. The metaphor of the monster for Gloria’s growing addiction is clear, but emerging themes of control, jealousy, violent bullying and small-town social entrapment also emerge.
Here the acting talents of Hathaway and Sudeikis really come to the fore: heavyweight Hollywood talent adding some significant ‘oomph’ to what is a fairly modest indie project. Hathaway is in kooky mode here, gurning to great comic effect, and this adds warmth to a not particularly likeable character. And Sudeikis (more commonly seen in lighter and frothier comedies like “We’re the Millers” and “Horrible Bosses”) is a surprise in the role delivering some real acting grit.
The writer and director is Spaniard Nacho Vigalondo. No, me neither. But he seems to have come from nowhere to deliver this high profile cinema release, and it would not be a surprise for me to see this nominated as an original screenplay come the awards season. His quirky style is refreshing. (Hell, delivering ANY novel new summer movie that is not part of a franchise or TV re-boot is refreshing!)
The film’s not perfect, and its disjointed style can be unsettling. While the lead characters are quite well defined, others are less so. Joel in particular, played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“), is such an irritating doormat of a character that you just want to thump him yelling “Do Something you wimp” to his face!
I am normally the first to pick scientific holes in a story, but here the story is so “out there” that the details become irrelevant, and – like “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2” – the film revels in its absurdity. (There is however a jumbo jet sized hole in the plot if you think about it!) But some of the moments of revelation (particularly one set in a wood) are brilliantly done and you are never quite sure where the film is going to go next. I was concerned that the ending would not live up to the promise of the film, but I was not disappointed.
Like “A Monster Calls” the film will probably suffer at the box office by its marketing confusing the audience. People will assume it’s possibly a “monster movie” or maybe a piece of comedy fluff (particularly with Sudeikis in the cast), but in reality it’s neither of these. It won’t be to everyone’s tastes for sure, but in the bland desert of mainstream movie releases, here is an oasis of something interesting and novel and in my book definitely worthy of your movie dollar. Recommended.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Moonfall (2022) in Movies
Feb 5, 2022
Terribly written. (2 more)
Overacted.
Halle Berry.
Moonfall Review: It’s Raining Moon
Moonfall is a $146 million sci-fi disaster film directed by Roland Emmerich (Independence Day, Godzilla) and written by Emmerich, Harald Kloser (2012, 10000 BC), and Spenser Cohen (Extinction, The Expendables 4).
On January 12, 2011, during what is referred to as routine outer space maintenance (it’s a thing), an unidentified technological swarm caused significant damage to the astronaut’s shuttle; killing one of them and incapacitating the surviving two crew members. Brian Harper (Patrick Wilson) maneuvers the shuttle back to earth with no power while his navigator Jocinda Fowl (Halle Berry) is unconscious. Brian takes the fall as he’s labeled incompetent despite previously being an acclaimed hero and he loses his job with NASA.
Ten years later, the moon suddenly begins changing course as a hole 26-kilometers deep is discovered in the center of it. People on earth have three weeks before the moon begins falling to earth in city-sized pieces. While NASA scrambles to discover a solution, an orbital megastructure aficionado and conspiracy blogger named K.C. Houseman (John Bradley) knew about the moon’s shift in course before NASA and may end up being the savior of mankind.
The opening scene of Moonfall lets its audience know that they’re in for an excruciating two hours. Patrick Wilson and Halle Berry argue over the lyrics to Toto’s “Africa” as Wilson musically screeches the 80s rock ballad to annoying results. The film does a few things right like earth’s gravity being a complete dumpster fire and the ocean literally being at foot of everyone’s door like Bo Burnham talked about in Inside. But then introduces the aspect of orbital megastructure in an attempt to not adhere to believable physics while lethargically committing to it.
Flooding, earthquakes, and birds falling to the ground due to gravity alterations are the culmination of the insanity in Moonfall. The moon coming closer to earth also apparently means humans can lift trees above their head and jump over gaps left by fallen bridges with little effort. There’s an awkward car chase between some redneck looters and the main characters of the film.
It’s awkward due to the fact that it’s really funky visual effects (literally everything taking place on the road and in the background) with green screen (the actors driving the cars), but it’s difficult to distinguish what’s what in a bad way. The CGI and special effects in the film are that peculiar blend of not necessarily being bad, but are just off-putting enough to look weird in some capacity. It’s a high speed chase involving a gravity wave, which is mostly just cars and debris floating in the air as the sky turns red. Coincidentally enough, the disaster effects are the best part of the film because they do what they’re supposed to do without overstaying their welcome.
The dialogue in the film is atrocious and Halle Berry is a filter for most of the bad lines. Some of her gems include, “I don’t work for you, I work for the American people and I don’t like keeping them in the dark,” “I am…(the longest pause ever between one word and another)…thinking about our son,” and something overwhelmingly corny about earth’s hourglass and our time running out. Donald Sutherland can barely stomach a brief cameo appearance shared with Berry’s character before excusing himself to the loaded gun he left back in his room (yes, this actually happens).
The evacuation route in Moonfall seems to involve fleeing to Colorado. What is in Colorado and why that’s important is never really explained other than because everyone else is there. Jocinda Fowl becomes the lead director of NASA during the film and her ex-husband (played by Eme Ikwuakor) works for the military. Ikwuakor does nothing but squint like French Stewart the entire time. NASA wants to survey the activity of what’s transpiring on the moon, fly inside of its new fancy made hole, and come up with a plan to save earth in the process. The military just wants to blow up the moon with nukes; screw the consequences, this is America!
With Moonfall, Roland Emmerich has essentially made an even dumber version of Michael Bay’s Armageddon. There’s not a lot to enjoy here apart from KC Houseman’s house cat being named Fuzz Aldrin. With its idiotic premise, hammy dialogue involving some of the most exaggerated emotional speeches ever, stiff acting, unfunny humor, and purposely distorted CGI, Moonfall features an overwhelming amount of frenetic nonsense and has no excuse to be as boring as it is.
On January 12, 2011, during what is referred to as routine outer space maintenance (it’s a thing), an unidentified technological swarm caused significant damage to the astronaut’s shuttle; killing one of them and incapacitating the surviving two crew members. Brian Harper (Patrick Wilson) maneuvers the shuttle back to earth with no power while his navigator Jocinda Fowl (Halle Berry) is unconscious. Brian takes the fall as he’s labeled incompetent despite previously being an acclaimed hero and he loses his job with NASA.
Ten years later, the moon suddenly begins changing course as a hole 26-kilometers deep is discovered in the center of it. People on earth have three weeks before the moon begins falling to earth in city-sized pieces. While NASA scrambles to discover a solution, an orbital megastructure aficionado and conspiracy blogger named K.C. Houseman (John Bradley) knew about the moon’s shift in course before NASA and may end up being the savior of mankind.
The opening scene of Moonfall lets its audience know that they’re in for an excruciating two hours. Patrick Wilson and Halle Berry argue over the lyrics to Toto’s “Africa” as Wilson musically screeches the 80s rock ballad to annoying results. The film does a few things right like earth’s gravity being a complete dumpster fire and the ocean literally being at foot of everyone’s door like Bo Burnham talked about in Inside. But then introduces the aspect of orbital megastructure in an attempt to not adhere to believable physics while lethargically committing to it.
Flooding, earthquakes, and birds falling to the ground due to gravity alterations are the culmination of the insanity in Moonfall. The moon coming closer to earth also apparently means humans can lift trees above their head and jump over gaps left by fallen bridges with little effort. There’s an awkward car chase between some redneck looters and the main characters of the film.
It’s awkward due to the fact that it’s really funky visual effects (literally everything taking place on the road and in the background) with green screen (the actors driving the cars), but it’s difficult to distinguish what’s what in a bad way. The CGI and special effects in the film are that peculiar blend of not necessarily being bad, but are just off-putting enough to look weird in some capacity. It’s a high speed chase involving a gravity wave, which is mostly just cars and debris floating in the air as the sky turns red. Coincidentally enough, the disaster effects are the best part of the film because they do what they’re supposed to do without overstaying their welcome.
The dialogue in the film is atrocious and Halle Berry is a filter for most of the bad lines. Some of her gems include, “I don’t work for you, I work for the American people and I don’t like keeping them in the dark,” “I am…(the longest pause ever between one word and another)…thinking about our son,” and something overwhelmingly corny about earth’s hourglass and our time running out. Donald Sutherland can barely stomach a brief cameo appearance shared with Berry’s character before excusing himself to the loaded gun he left back in his room (yes, this actually happens).
The evacuation route in Moonfall seems to involve fleeing to Colorado. What is in Colorado and why that’s important is never really explained other than because everyone else is there. Jocinda Fowl becomes the lead director of NASA during the film and her ex-husband (played by Eme Ikwuakor) works for the military. Ikwuakor does nothing but squint like French Stewart the entire time. NASA wants to survey the activity of what’s transpiring on the moon, fly inside of its new fancy made hole, and come up with a plan to save earth in the process. The military just wants to blow up the moon with nukes; screw the consequences, this is America!
With Moonfall, Roland Emmerich has essentially made an even dumber version of Michael Bay’s Armageddon. There’s not a lot to enjoy here apart from KC Houseman’s house cat being named Fuzz Aldrin. With its idiotic premise, hammy dialogue involving some of the most exaggerated emotional speeches ever, stiff acting, unfunny humor, and purposely distorted CGI, Moonfall features an overwhelming amount of frenetic nonsense and has no excuse to be as boring as it is.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Throw Octopus in Tabletop Games
Dec 18, 2021
It’s a great sign when your 5-year-old wants to play a game over, and over, and over, and over… right? Especially if you also really enjoy playing? You never really know what to expect with new games and, luckily, this one is great… especially if you have kiddos or uptight friends.
In Throw Octopus, players are underwater city planners. Of sorts. Depending on the mode of play, players will attempt to rid themselves of their hand of seascape tiles, which depict wonky underwater creatures. The first player to shed their entire hand of tiles will be the winner!
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, chuck the tiles into a giant face-down pile and swirl them around to shuffle. Or try to riffle-shuffle, like, a thousand little cardboard tiles. Good luck. From the pile each player will choose eight tiles for their starting hand. Eight tiles, eight octopus tentacles. Coincidence? Also shuffle the Octopus Cards and place in a draw pile nearby. Flip over one of the tiles from the pile to serve as the starting tile. Youngest player goes first, and the game is ready to play!
On a turn, players will try to play one of their tiles to the ever-growing seascape being built on the table. Only by adding a tile from their hand to an appropriate place within the seascape can hands dwindle. At times a player will play a tile to the seascape depicting an octopus icon. After placing this tile, the active player will draw a card from the deck and either perform its action immediately or save it to be used at a later time (the card will instruct the players which to do). These cards could have players drawing more tiles, forcing other players to draw tiles, giving the active player the ability to manipulate tiles already placed in the seascape, or THROWING THE ADORABLE PLUSH OCTOPUS that comes with the game at an opponent. When the octopus is thrown at a player, they must immediately draw two tiles and skip their next turn. Should a player not have any other play, they must draw a tile from the pile and pass play to the next player.
As players are gaining and playing tiles to the board, the seascape is constantly changing, thus reflecting the real-life constantly-changing seascapes across the world. I may be reading too much into it. In any case, once a player places their final tile, they win and may challenge the players to a rematch immediately.
Recently added two-player rules allow for Speed Octopus play. In this mode, players are attempting to add to their own seascapes, and when they cannot play a card, they must discard a tile from their hand to their box top/bottom and draw a new tile from the shared pile. Once the game ends by players unable to play legally, points are scored for completed creatures in their personal board and negative points are earned for each tile in their box top/bottom. In this mode the cards and plushie are not used, but we house-ruled the usage of a Throw Octopus each time a creature was completed, just to further humiliate the other player.
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of the game, but what we received was a box full of tiles, cards, and just the cutest little octoplushie we have ever seen. I really hope that all copies of the game come with this style of octopus, as my daughter immediately confiscated it the first few nights to sleep with her, no joke. I can only imagine the upgrades this will receive as a result of a successful Kickstarter campaign.
This is a silly, and sometimes frantic, tile laying game with take that and dexterity elements. Throwing the octopus and seeing the finished seascape at the end of the game are so satisfying. The art is great, and the concept is unique. I just know we will be playing this game for years to come. Again, if you happen to have littles in your your life or uptight friends, this is the game for you.
In Throw Octopus, players are underwater city planners. Of sorts. Depending on the mode of play, players will attempt to rid themselves of their hand of seascape tiles, which depict wonky underwater creatures. The first player to shed their entire hand of tiles will be the winner!
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, chuck the tiles into a giant face-down pile and swirl them around to shuffle. Or try to riffle-shuffle, like, a thousand little cardboard tiles. Good luck. From the pile each player will choose eight tiles for their starting hand. Eight tiles, eight octopus tentacles. Coincidence? Also shuffle the Octopus Cards and place in a draw pile nearby. Flip over one of the tiles from the pile to serve as the starting tile. Youngest player goes first, and the game is ready to play!
On a turn, players will try to play one of their tiles to the ever-growing seascape being built on the table. Only by adding a tile from their hand to an appropriate place within the seascape can hands dwindle. At times a player will play a tile to the seascape depicting an octopus icon. After placing this tile, the active player will draw a card from the deck and either perform its action immediately or save it to be used at a later time (the card will instruct the players which to do). These cards could have players drawing more tiles, forcing other players to draw tiles, giving the active player the ability to manipulate tiles already placed in the seascape, or THROWING THE ADORABLE PLUSH OCTOPUS that comes with the game at an opponent. When the octopus is thrown at a player, they must immediately draw two tiles and skip their next turn. Should a player not have any other play, they must draw a tile from the pile and pass play to the next player.
As players are gaining and playing tiles to the board, the seascape is constantly changing, thus reflecting the real-life constantly-changing seascapes across the world. I may be reading too much into it. In any case, once a player places their final tile, they win and may challenge the players to a rematch immediately.
Recently added two-player rules allow for Speed Octopus play. In this mode, players are attempting to add to their own seascapes, and when they cannot play a card, they must discard a tile from their hand to their box top/bottom and draw a new tile from the shared pile. Once the game ends by players unable to play legally, points are scored for completed creatures in their personal board and negative points are earned for each tile in their box top/bottom. In this mode the cards and plushie are not used, but we house-ruled the usage of a Throw Octopus each time a creature was completed, just to further humiliate the other player.
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of the game, but what we received was a box full of tiles, cards, and just the cutest little octoplushie we have ever seen. I really hope that all copies of the game come with this style of octopus, as my daughter immediately confiscated it the first few nights to sleep with her, no joke. I can only imagine the upgrades this will receive as a result of a successful Kickstarter campaign.
This is a silly, and sometimes frantic, tile laying game with take that and dexterity elements. Throwing the octopus and seeing the finished seascape at the end of the game are so satisfying. The art is great, and the concept is unique. I just know we will be playing this game for years to come. Again, if you happen to have littles in your your life or uptight friends, this is the game for you.
