Search
Search results
Nom Nom Paleo
Food & Drink and Lifestyle
App
***IMPORTANT: Please contact us with any feedback or issues at feedback@nomnompaleo.com. We'd love...
Joy of Cooking
Food & Drink and Book
App
Joy of Cooking, the first cookbook in many kitchens, is now the must-have app for every...
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Lost Ruins of Arnak in Tabletop Games
Feb 7, 2021
If you are reading this review, chances are you have heard something about the board game “Lost Ruins of Arnak.” If not, continue forward, as there’s a lot to discover in this jungle adventure experience. “Lost Ruins of Arnak” for those that have not already been exposed to the exciting hype leading up to its release date, is a board game that delves deep into the jungle, not unlike a 1980’s Indiana Jones film. It has treasure, hidden idols, lost artifacts, guardians of the jungle, and exploration in the form of a very large game board. The box boasts of multiple gaming mechanisms that all work in tandem for one epic journey. From deckbuilding, exploration, worker placement, to resource management this game throws the entire kitchen at the players. Whether that is a positive or negative is up to each player. I share my thoughts at the very bottom if you want to skip past the gameplay portion of the review.
Players, or “archaeologists” as the game coins them, will have only 5 rounds to explore as much of the board as possible, which includes a hidden temple as well as the jungle proper. At the end of the 5 rounds, players will add up all victory points they have obtained from the temple, any treasure they have left, points on any cards collected, and guardians they have overcome.
“Lost Ruins of Arnak” takes place on, well… Arnak. It’s a fictional jungle that is teeming with wild animals and guardians which keep watch over various treasures all over the expansive island, from here forward referred to as the giant game board. These guardians appear when you explore a new jungle tile for the first time. They attack only if you stay in the location longer than a turn OR if you return to the location on a subsequent turn. If you eliminate a guardian, they provide a couple victory points towards your overall total at the end of the game, and a slight bonus when collecting artifacts from other locations later. Being attacked by a guardian isn’t the end of the world, but can have detrimental effects on your personal deck of cards if you fail to overcome a guardian too many times.
While in the jungle, you may place a single meeple, or “archaeologist” on your turn to discover a new area, or visit a previously discovered one. These new areas contain a guardian and some sort of gold amount or trinket (idols, artifacts, or jewels). These items can be used to push your token further through the hidden temple (see below) OR to purchase cards to improve your play deck going forward. While navigating this mysterious jungle can seem exciting at first glance, you have to be careful not to let your gold fever take over, as it may leave you with minimal points by not using some worker placement to explore the mysterious temple ruins further.
While the jungle takes up a majority of the board, there is a temple which players navigate through simultaneously on the right hand side of the giant board. While it isn’t as visually appealing as the jungle portion of the board, it serves by far the highest purpose by scoring victory points. As your token travels through this temple, more and more treasure (victory points) await. It is not suggested in the rulebook, but should be noted that failing to spend ample treasure to work your way through the temple is almost a sure-fire means of not having a chance to win the game. The mechanic of exploring the temple is unique, but can be costly in terms of managing your resources properly. In my opinion, this takes away from the luster of traversing through a hidden temple and finding as much fat loots as possible. Rather, it feels like another board game I own, where you are furiously chucking dice just trying to get through with no time to look around.
The final mechanic of the game, which, as I read reviews myself prior to purchase, thought would be more prominent, is the deck building mechanic. You are provided a few cards at the start, which is similar to most any deckbuilding game. These basic cards are your first few resources to use for traveling around the board OR for their monetary value in either gold or scrolls. Using the cards for travel allow you to explore different levels of the jungle on the game board. The lower areas of the board require less travel points, while the more lucrative spaces higher up in the jungle require more. To get more travel points, you will need better cards from the decks provided. By using your gold, also an aspect of each card, you may purchase stronger cards from the supply. So, there is a balance you must find between using your cards for travel or for purchases each turn. This can be very limiting with only having the 5 rounds in which to play.
My final thoughts: I am a total sucker for pretty much anything that says the words “deck building” on them, and this game was no exception. I went into this game thinking there was going to be this new way of using a deck building mechanic to also explore a really well crafted game board. I could not have been more wrong. The deck building aspect got so lost in the other mechanics, that I felt like I rarely had the opportunity to actually build my deck. After 3-4 plays of this game, with varying player counts from 2-4, I always ended up with a deck no bigger than about 15-20 cards. When I think deck build, I think of those powerhouses like Marvel Legendary, Ascension, or Star Realms where you are really transforming your deck into a large deck by the end. On top of that, most highly regarded deck builders require you to strategize somewhat in which cards that you buy to compliment your current deck further. Arnak completely leaves both of these elements out. Most times I found myself only able to purchase 1 card in the supply due to lack of resources that I did not have any choice in how that card would compliment my deck or not. It was merely just collecting a card to try and give my deck any sort of a distinct advantage going forward. Now, don’t get me wrong, like the game board, the artwork on the cards is stunning. By far this saves the poor mechanism of the actual cards themselves.
To me, the amount of mechanisms in the game is what gets in its own way. Its that classic, everything but the kitchen sink expression. The exploration gets in the way of the deck-building, which gets in the way of the worker placement, which gets in the way of the resource management. When I found myself wanting to build my deck, it was more crucial that I move up the temple one step. When I wanted to move up the temple, I was missing a certain idol, so I had to resort to wasting cards for gold to purchase a card for my deck that I really didn’t want. So while I think the premise is really thrilling for what this game could have been, in my opinion it just fell short. I left me wanting to explore the upper part of the jungle I never got to. I left me wanting to look at more of the artwork on the cards I never was able to purchase. In the end, I made it to the top of the temple. I couldn’t wait to enjoy my heaping pile of fat loots that awaited my studded archaeologist. However, once I turned over the treasure token, I only acquired another measly 12 victory points. This feeling left me wanting more from this game that was so hyped for its gameplay. I no longer felt like Indiana Jones, and more like I was in a bad B movie hoping for a better acting career.
Players, or “archaeologists” as the game coins them, will have only 5 rounds to explore as much of the board as possible, which includes a hidden temple as well as the jungle proper. At the end of the 5 rounds, players will add up all victory points they have obtained from the temple, any treasure they have left, points on any cards collected, and guardians they have overcome.
“Lost Ruins of Arnak” takes place on, well… Arnak. It’s a fictional jungle that is teeming with wild animals and guardians which keep watch over various treasures all over the expansive island, from here forward referred to as the giant game board. These guardians appear when you explore a new jungle tile for the first time. They attack only if you stay in the location longer than a turn OR if you return to the location on a subsequent turn. If you eliminate a guardian, they provide a couple victory points towards your overall total at the end of the game, and a slight bonus when collecting artifacts from other locations later. Being attacked by a guardian isn’t the end of the world, but can have detrimental effects on your personal deck of cards if you fail to overcome a guardian too many times.
While in the jungle, you may place a single meeple, or “archaeologist” on your turn to discover a new area, or visit a previously discovered one. These new areas contain a guardian and some sort of gold amount or trinket (idols, artifacts, or jewels). These items can be used to push your token further through the hidden temple (see below) OR to purchase cards to improve your play deck going forward. While navigating this mysterious jungle can seem exciting at first glance, you have to be careful not to let your gold fever take over, as it may leave you with minimal points by not using some worker placement to explore the mysterious temple ruins further.
While the jungle takes up a majority of the board, there is a temple which players navigate through simultaneously on the right hand side of the giant board. While it isn’t as visually appealing as the jungle portion of the board, it serves by far the highest purpose by scoring victory points. As your token travels through this temple, more and more treasure (victory points) await. It is not suggested in the rulebook, but should be noted that failing to spend ample treasure to work your way through the temple is almost a sure-fire means of not having a chance to win the game. The mechanic of exploring the temple is unique, but can be costly in terms of managing your resources properly. In my opinion, this takes away from the luster of traversing through a hidden temple and finding as much fat loots as possible. Rather, it feels like another board game I own, where you are furiously chucking dice just trying to get through with no time to look around.
The final mechanic of the game, which, as I read reviews myself prior to purchase, thought would be more prominent, is the deck building mechanic. You are provided a few cards at the start, which is similar to most any deckbuilding game. These basic cards are your first few resources to use for traveling around the board OR for their monetary value in either gold or scrolls. Using the cards for travel allow you to explore different levels of the jungle on the game board. The lower areas of the board require less travel points, while the more lucrative spaces higher up in the jungle require more. To get more travel points, you will need better cards from the decks provided. By using your gold, also an aspect of each card, you may purchase stronger cards from the supply. So, there is a balance you must find between using your cards for travel or for purchases each turn. This can be very limiting with only having the 5 rounds in which to play.
My final thoughts: I am a total sucker for pretty much anything that says the words “deck building” on them, and this game was no exception. I went into this game thinking there was going to be this new way of using a deck building mechanic to also explore a really well crafted game board. I could not have been more wrong. The deck building aspect got so lost in the other mechanics, that I felt like I rarely had the opportunity to actually build my deck. After 3-4 plays of this game, with varying player counts from 2-4, I always ended up with a deck no bigger than about 15-20 cards. When I think deck build, I think of those powerhouses like Marvel Legendary, Ascension, or Star Realms where you are really transforming your deck into a large deck by the end. On top of that, most highly regarded deck builders require you to strategize somewhat in which cards that you buy to compliment your current deck further. Arnak completely leaves both of these elements out. Most times I found myself only able to purchase 1 card in the supply due to lack of resources that I did not have any choice in how that card would compliment my deck or not. It was merely just collecting a card to try and give my deck any sort of a distinct advantage going forward. Now, don’t get me wrong, like the game board, the artwork on the cards is stunning. By far this saves the poor mechanism of the actual cards themselves.
To me, the amount of mechanisms in the game is what gets in its own way. Its that classic, everything but the kitchen sink expression. The exploration gets in the way of the deck-building, which gets in the way of the worker placement, which gets in the way of the resource management. When I found myself wanting to build my deck, it was more crucial that I move up the temple one step. When I wanted to move up the temple, I was missing a certain idol, so I had to resort to wasting cards for gold to purchase a card for my deck that I really didn’t want. So while I think the premise is really thrilling for what this game could have been, in my opinion it just fell short. I left me wanting to explore the upper part of the jungle I never got to. I left me wanting to look at more of the artwork on the cards I never was able to purchase. In the end, I made it to the top of the temple. I couldn’t wait to enjoy my heaping pile of fat loots that awaited my studded archaeologist. However, once I turned over the treasure token, I only acquired another measly 12 victory points. This feeling left me wanting more from this game that was so hyped for its gameplay. I no longer felt like Indiana Jones, and more like I was in a bad B movie hoping for a better acting career.
Louise (64 KP) rated My True Love Gave to Me: Twelve Winter Romances in Books
Jul 2, 2018
This set of short stories were very interesting to read and I like that they were all different in there own way, with fantasy and LGBTQ elements. I am fairly new to young adult so many of these authors I haven't read before but I will be delving into some of their works in 2016.
I was a little let down with this collection of short stories, there has been so much buzz going around for this book. I felt that the stories were too short and that you didn't really build enough connection with the characters to feel the warm fuzzy feeling of romance.
I will try to put a brief synopsis of each story but I don't want to ruin it for anyone.
Midnights by Rainbow Rowell is a story about Mags and Noel who have been friends over the past 4-5 years and it is told on every New Years eve and gradually they grow closer every year to more than just friends. 3 stars. Now everyone should know that I am a fan of Rainbow Rowell, but for me she is better at longer novels with the slow burn of a romance, for me this was much too short and I didn't feel the connection with the characters.
The Lady and the Fox by Kelly Link is a fantasy love story (to be honest I can't remember too much about this) 2 stars. It was ok, but things weren't explained enough.
Angels in the snow by Matt de la Pena is about a guy called Shy and he is cat sitting for his boss, when he gets a knock on the door from a women called Hayley , she has problems in her flat and Shy is the only guy to help out.3.5 stars. I really enjoyed this book, the characters were super cute, the romance was cute and a lovely short story.
Polaris is where you'll find me by Jenny Han is a about Natalie, she was abandoned as a baby, found and adopted by Santa, she grows up in the North Pole. Love between her and an elf develops. 3.5 stars This was super cute and reminded me of the film Elf.
It's a yuletide miracle Charlie Brown by Stephanie Perkins was another cute story of Marigold buying a Christmas tree just to speak to a guy. 3.5 stars.I don't know how many times I am going to say cute but this is what it was.
Your Temporary Santa is a LGTBQ story, which is great to see in this mix of stories, however it wasn't for me 2 stars.
Krampuslauf by Holly Black has elements of fantasy, however I didn't like the story for me it felt a bit juvenile. 1.5 stars
What the hell have you done, Sophie Roth, I loved this story, it has to be my favorite in the book, it's just a basic romance story but written and developed really well. 4 stars.
Beer buckets and baby Jesus by Myra McEntire, Vaughn Hatcher is the local prankster, however one day he gets arrested but saved by the local priest in exchange for community service, there he meets the girl he has been seeking attention. 2 stars
Welcome to Christmas, CA by Kiersten White was a really cool story, a girl hating her family, the town she lives in and the people until they get a new chef in the kitchen of the diner that her mum owns and somehow everything starts to become clearer. 3.5 stars This was an enjoyable read.
Star of Bethlehem by Ally Carter was a cute story of a girl trying to escape her life and swaps plane tickets with an Icelandic girl and pretends to be her when she meets her destination. 3.5 Stars
The girl who woke the dreamer by Laini Taylor is a fantasy story, which starts off very sad and gripping, but I wasn't sure about the ending. It was very strange. 2 stars
I know that Stephanie Perkins has another collection of short stories coming out in 2016 and will be interested in reading them aswell
Overall I gave this book 3 out of 5 stars
I was a little let down with this collection of short stories, there has been so much buzz going around for this book. I felt that the stories were too short and that you didn't really build enough connection with the characters to feel the warm fuzzy feeling of romance.
I will try to put a brief synopsis of each story but I don't want to ruin it for anyone.
Midnights by Rainbow Rowell is a story about Mags and Noel who have been friends over the past 4-5 years and it is told on every New Years eve and gradually they grow closer every year to more than just friends. 3 stars. Now everyone should know that I am a fan of Rainbow Rowell, but for me she is better at longer novels with the slow burn of a romance, for me this was much too short and I didn't feel the connection with the characters.
The Lady and the Fox by Kelly Link is a fantasy love story (to be honest I can't remember too much about this) 2 stars. It was ok, but things weren't explained enough.
Angels in the snow by Matt de la Pena is about a guy called Shy and he is cat sitting for his boss, when he gets a knock on the door from a women called Hayley , she has problems in her flat and Shy is the only guy to help out.3.5 stars. I really enjoyed this book, the characters were super cute, the romance was cute and a lovely short story.
Polaris is where you'll find me by Jenny Han is a about Natalie, she was abandoned as a baby, found and adopted by Santa, she grows up in the North Pole. Love between her and an elf develops. 3.5 stars This was super cute and reminded me of the film Elf.
It's a yuletide miracle Charlie Brown by Stephanie Perkins was another cute story of Marigold buying a Christmas tree just to speak to a guy. 3.5 stars.I don't know how many times I am going to say cute but this is what it was.
Your Temporary Santa is a LGTBQ story, which is great to see in this mix of stories, however it wasn't for me 2 stars.
Krampuslauf by Holly Black has elements of fantasy, however I didn't like the story for me it felt a bit juvenile. 1.5 stars
What the hell have you done, Sophie Roth, I loved this story, it has to be my favorite in the book, it's just a basic romance story but written and developed really well. 4 stars.
Beer buckets and baby Jesus by Myra McEntire, Vaughn Hatcher is the local prankster, however one day he gets arrested but saved by the local priest in exchange for community service, there he meets the girl he has been seeking attention. 2 stars
Welcome to Christmas, CA by Kiersten White was a really cool story, a girl hating her family, the town she lives in and the people until they get a new chef in the kitchen of the diner that her mum owns and somehow everything starts to become clearer. 3.5 stars This was an enjoyable read.
Star of Bethlehem by Ally Carter was a cute story of a girl trying to escape her life and swaps plane tickets with an Icelandic girl and pretends to be her when she meets her destination. 3.5 Stars
The girl who woke the dreamer by Laini Taylor is a fantasy story, which starts off very sad and gripping, but I wasn't sure about the ending. It was very strange. 2 stars
I know that Stephanie Perkins has another collection of short stories coming out in 2016 and will be interested in reading them aswell
Overall I gave this book 3 out of 5 stars
Ballerina Princess Doll House - Game.s for Girls
Lifestyle and Entertainment
App
▶▶▶ It's time to design your playhome and create a dream home for your ballerina girl!...
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Alone (2020) in Movies
Nov 7, 2020
Fails To Live Up To It's Clone #Alive, Even Though It Was Made First (5/10)
Contains spoilers, click to show
Alone is a 2020 Survival/Horror movie directed by Johnny Martin and written by Matt Naylor. It was produced by Grindstone Entertainment Group and HIG Productions and distributed by Lionsgate. Producers who worked on the film include Rabih Aridi, Anne Jordan, and Johnny Martin. The movie stars Tyler Posey, Summer Spiro and Donald Sutherland.
Aiden (Tyler Posey) who lives alone in an apartment complex, learns of a mysterious rapidly-spreading disease that's causing its victims to attack and eat uninfected people. From his balcony, he can see his neighbors fleeing and others attacking one another. The news reports for people to hide and stay inside so he barricades himself inside his apartment and starts rationing food. His complex is overrun by those that are infected, and with the world falling apart into chaos, he is left completely alone fighting for his life and dealing with complete isolation.
This movie got me so confused in the beginning and not because it was confusing but because it was so similar to #Alive. I mean everything was happening the same in the movie, so much so that I was starting to believe they were made by the same company or something. I looked it up and what I found was that Alone was actually made before it's Korean counterpart #Alive and that #Alive was based off of the same script for Alone. That being said, I would have to say that #Alive is the better film. Alone is not a bad zombie film but having seen #Alive first, Alone fails to live up to it's Korean rival. There were some pretty cool scenes and the movie didn't lack action although it is a little slow paced here and there but just seemed lacking on a couple of fronts. I want to say more but I'm going to save it for the spoiler section. As is I give this movie a 5/10. It's a decent movie and good zombie movie but didn't do anything to go above and beyond. Felt like your average zombie film.
Spoiler Section Review:
So this movie really freaked me out because of how everything plot wise was happening exactly like the movie #Alive. Like how first thing in the movie he starts seeing neighbors going berserk and attacking people, then how he hears the report on the news and how a neighbor barges into his apartment to escape the infected on his floor. It even unfolds the same way from there that the guy is bitten and infected already and how Aiden (Tyler Posey) goes to the kitchen for a knife and kicks the guy out of his apartment as he is transforming into a zombie. So many things happen the exact same from the movie #Alive like how he runs out of food and water, how he tries to kill himself and how he finds out that there is another survivor in the complex which is a girl (Summer Spiro) who he starts communicating with and helps him mentally from going stir crazy. The similarities made this movie way more predictable then normal but I was still going along for the ride because it was interesting enough for a first time watch but I don't feel there is really anything to watch this movie a second time for. Aiden's personality and character were pretty dull and didn't make you empathize with him much. Summer Spiro as Eva was more charming but also didn't have alot to get you invested in her character. The zombies or infected were pretty horrible too with most looking like they were just people who twitched and ran around and less like actual zombies. Also I have a hang up on zombies that don't eat people but look like they just want to spread a disease/virus and I felt like for some of them in this movie it looked liked they weren't really eating their victims. This movie wasn't as scary or cool as #Alive but like I said it's not terrible but suffers from a lot of things that could have been done different. I gave this movie a 5/10.
Aiden (Tyler Posey) who lives alone in an apartment complex, learns of a mysterious rapidly-spreading disease that's causing its victims to attack and eat uninfected people. From his balcony, he can see his neighbors fleeing and others attacking one another. The news reports for people to hide and stay inside so he barricades himself inside his apartment and starts rationing food. His complex is overrun by those that are infected, and with the world falling apart into chaos, he is left completely alone fighting for his life and dealing with complete isolation.
This movie got me so confused in the beginning and not because it was confusing but because it was so similar to #Alive. I mean everything was happening the same in the movie, so much so that I was starting to believe they were made by the same company or something. I looked it up and what I found was that Alone was actually made before it's Korean counterpart #Alive and that #Alive was based off of the same script for Alone. That being said, I would have to say that #Alive is the better film. Alone is not a bad zombie film but having seen #Alive first, Alone fails to live up to it's Korean rival. There were some pretty cool scenes and the movie didn't lack action although it is a little slow paced here and there but just seemed lacking on a couple of fronts. I want to say more but I'm going to save it for the spoiler section. As is I give this movie a 5/10. It's a decent movie and good zombie movie but didn't do anything to go above and beyond. Felt like your average zombie film.
Spoiler Section Review:
So this movie really freaked me out because of how everything plot wise was happening exactly like the movie #Alive. Like how first thing in the movie he starts seeing neighbors going berserk and attacking people, then how he hears the report on the news and how a neighbor barges into his apartment to escape the infected on his floor. It even unfolds the same way from there that the guy is bitten and infected already and how Aiden (Tyler Posey) goes to the kitchen for a knife and kicks the guy out of his apartment as he is transforming into a zombie. So many things happen the exact same from the movie #Alive like how he runs out of food and water, how he tries to kill himself and how he finds out that there is another survivor in the complex which is a girl (Summer Spiro) who he starts communicating with and helps him mentally from going stir crazy. The similarities made this movie way more predictable then normal but I was still going along for the ride because it was interesting enough for a first time watch but I don't feel there is really anything to watch this movie a second time for. Aiden's personality and character were pretty dull and didn't make you empathize with him much. Summer Spiro as Eva was more charming but also didn't have alot to get you invested in her character. The zombies or infected were pretty horrible too with most looking like they were just people who twitched and ran around and less like actual zombies. Also I have a hang up on zombies that don't eat people but look like they just want to spread a disease/virus and I felt like for some of them in this movie it looked liked they weren't really eating their victims. This movie wasn't as scary or cool as #Alive but like I said it's not terrible but suffers from a lot of things that could have been done different. I gave this movie a 5/10.
Weight Loss - Weight Loss Recipes, Diet Plan & Tip
Health & Fitness and Food & Drink
App
If weight loss tips and a wide selection of not only tasty but healthy recipes is what you are...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Long Shot (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
#Punching.
#Punching refers to an in-family joke….. my WhatsApp reply to my son when he sent me a picture of his new “Brazilian supermodel girlfriend” (she’s not). Bronwyn is now my daughter-in-law!
Similarly, the ‘out-there’ journalist Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan) has been holding a candle for the glacial ice-queen Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron) for nearly twenty years. At the age of 16 she was his babysitter. Always with an interest in school issues, she has now risen to the dizzy heights of secretary (“of State”) to the President of the United States (Bob Odenkirk). With Charlotte getting the opportunity to run for President, fate arranges for Fred to get hired as a speechwriter on the team to help inject some necessary humour into Charlotte’s icy public persona. But in terms of romantic options, the shell-suited Fred is surely #punching isn’t he?
A rare thing.
Getting the balance right for a “romantic comedy” is a tricky job, but “Long Shot” just about gets it spot on. The comedy is sharp with a whole heap of great lines, some of which will need a second watch to catch. It’s also pleasingly politically incorrect, with US news anchors in particular being lampooned for their appallingly sexist language.
Just occasionally, the humour flips into Farrelly-levels of dubious taste (one “Mary-style” incident in particular was, for me, very funny but might test some viewer’s “ugh” button). The film also earns its UK15 certificate from the extensive array of “F” words utilized, and for some casual drug use.
Romantically, the film harks back to a classic blockbuster of 1990, but is well done and touching.
Writing and Directing
The sharp and tight screenplay was written by Dan Sterling, who wrote the internationally controversial Seth Rogen/James Franco comedy “The Interview” from 2014, and Liz Hannah, whose movie screenplay debut was the Spielberg drama “The Post“.
Behind the camera is Jonathan Levine, who previously directed the pretty awful “Snatched” from 2017 (a film I have started watching on a plane but never finished) but on the flip side he has on his bio the interesting rom-com-zombie film “Warm Bodies” and the moving cancer comedy “50:50”, also with Rogan, from 2011.
Also worthy of note in the technical department is the cinematography by Yves Bélanger (“The Mule“, “Brooklyn“, “Dallas Buyers Club“) with some lovely angles and tracking shots (a kitchen dance scene has an impressively leisurely track-away).
The Cast
Seth Rogen is a bit of an acquired taste: he’s like the US version of Johnny Vegas. Here he is suitably geeky when he needs to be, but has the range to make some of the pathos work in the inevitable “downer” scenes. Theron is absolutely gorgeous on-screen (although unlike the US anchors I OBVIOUSLY also appreciate her style and acting ability!). She really is the Grace Kelly of the modern age. She’s no stranger to comedy, having been in the other Seth (Macfarlane)’s “A Million Ways to Die in the West“. But she seems to be more comfortable with this material, and again gets the mix of comedy, romance and drama spot-on.
The strong supporting cast includes the unknown (to me) June Diane Raphael who is very effective at the cock-blocking Maggie, Charlotte’s aide; O’Shea Jackson Jr. as Fred’s buddy Lance; and Ravi Patel as the staffer Tom.
But winning the prize for the most unrecognizable cast member was Andy Serkis as the wizened old Rupert Murdoch-style media tycoon Parker Wembley: I genuinely got a shock as the titles rolled that this was him.
Final thoughts.
Although possibly causing offence to some, this is a fine example of a US comedy that delivers consistent laughs. Most of the audience chatter coming out of the screening was positive. At just over 2 hours, it breaks my “90 minute comedy” rule, but just about gets away with it. It’s not quite for me at the bar of “Game Night“, but it’s pretty close. Recommended.
#Punching refers to an in-family joke….. my WhatsApp reply to my son when he sent me a picture of his new “Brazilian supermodel girlfriend” (she’s not). Bronwyn is now my daughter-in-law!
Similarly, the ‘out-there’ journalist Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan) has been holding a candle for the glacial ice-queen Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron) for nearly twenty years. At the age of 16 she was his babysitter. Always with an interest in school issues, she has now risen to the dizzy heights of secretary (“of State”) to the President of the United States (Bob Odenkirk). With Charlotte getting the opportunity to run for President, fate arranges for Fred to get hired as a speechwriter on the team to help inject some necessary humour into Charlotte’s icy public persona. But in terms of romantic options, the shell-suited Fred is surely #punching isn’t he?
A rare thing.
Getting the balance right for a “romantic comedy” is a tricky job, but “Long Shot” just about gets it spot on. The comedy is sharp with a whole heap of great lines, some of which will need a second watch to catch. It’s also pleasingly politically incorrect, with US news anchors in particular being lampooned for their appallingly sexist language.
Just occasionally, the humour flips into Farrelly-levels of dubious taste (one “Mary-style” incident in particular was, for me, very funny but might test some viewer’s “ugh” button). The film also earns its UK15 certificate from the extensive array of “F” words utilized, and for some casual drug use.
Romantically, the film harks back to a classic blockbuster of 1990, but is well done and touching.
Writing and Directing
The sharp and tight screenplay was written by Dan Sterling, who wrote the internationally controversial Seth Rogen/James Franco comedy “The Interview” from 2014, and Liz Hannah, whose movie screenplay debut was the Spielberg drama “The Post“.
Behind the camera is Jonathan Levine, who previously directed the pretty awful “Snatched” from 2017 (a film I have started watching on a plane but never finished) but on the flip side he has on his bio the interesting rom-com-zombie film “Warm Bodies” and the moving cancer comedy “50:50”, also with Rogan, from 2011.
Also worthy of note in the technical department is the cinematography by Yves Bélanger (“The Mule“, “Brooklyn“, “Dallas Buyers Club“) with some lovely angles and tracking shots (a kitchen dance scene has an impressively leisurely track-away).
The Cast
Seth Rogen is a bit of an acquired taste: he’s like the US version of Johnny Vegas. Here he is suitably geeky when he needs to be, but has the range to make some of the pathos work in the inevitable “downer” scenes. Theron is absolutely gorgeous on-screen (although unlike the US anchors I OBVIOUSLY also appreciate her style and acting ability!). She really is the Grace Kelly of the modern age. She’s no stranger to comedy, having been in the other Seth (Macfarlane)’s “A Million Ways to Die in the West“. But she seems to be more comfortable with this material, and again gets the mix of comedy, romance and drama spot-on.
The strong supporting cast includes the unknown (to me) June Diane Raphael who is very effective at the cock-blocking Maggie, Charlotte’s aide; O’Shea Jackson Jr. as Fred’s buddy Lance; and Ravi Patel as the staffer Tom.
But winning the prize for the most unrecognizable cast member was Andy Serkis as the wizened old Rupert Murdoch-style media tycoon Parker Wembley: I genuinely got a shock as the titles rolled that this was him.
Final thoughts.
Although possibly causing offence to some, this is a fine example of a US comedy that delivers consistent laughs. Most of the audience chatter coming out of the screening was positive. At just over 2 hours, it breaks my “90 minute comedy” rule, but just about gets away with it. It’s not quite for me at the bar of “Game Night“, but it’s pretty close. Recommended.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A Simple Favor (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A Dangerous Liaison.
Wow, this one starts spectacularly well! Who’s not to love some “Thomas Crown” style titles over a French language version of “Music to watch girls by”? Brilliant!
We are then introduced to the hyper-annoying single mum Stephanie Smothers (Anna Kendrick): someone so perky and goodie-two-shoes as a school helper that every other parent loathes her. What she does seem to have a talent for is filming cheesy “mom’s hints and tips” videos in her kitchen that she posts to her video blog.
Enter the polar opposite of Stephanie: the stylish, sophisticated, amoral and highly intimidating she-wolf called Emily (Blake Lively). On the excuse of play-dates between their sons, she seduces Stephanie with her swanky 5* lifestyle that she lives with her husband Sean (Henry Golding), a struggling writer. Given the oddness of the couple, there are more than a few hints – in line with the title of my review – that this is some kind of subtle grooming. But to what end?
How can someone so beautiful be so camera-shy? Anna Kendrick going for a cheeky snap of Blake Lively (and failing). (Source: GEM Entertainment).
When Emily suddenly goes missing without explanation, Sergeant Malloy (Andrew Moodie) has no shortage of suspects to investigate as Stephanie finds that she actually knew very little about the ghost-like Emily.
There is a surfeit of glossy style in Paul Feig‘s film. I’ve already enthused about the opening titles. But the stylish french-language music – coordinated by Theodore Shapiro – continues throughout, reaching a peak with Serge Gainsbourg’s sublime “Laisse Tomber Les Filles” over the equally entertaining end-titles.
Sharing confessions. A “BF” moment (and no… not “Best Friends”!). (Source: GEM Entertainment
But as a comedy thriller ther….
“HANG ON A MINUTE DR BOB! WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY? COMEDY THRILLER? I watched the trailer for this one, and it’s “Gone Girl” remade isn’t it? It wasn’t comedy! Even IMDB describe it as “Crime, Drama, Mystery”!”
Yes, quite, and therein lies the problem with this film. I found the trailers (the full trailer as well as the teaser trailer attached below) to be highly misleading about the “feel” of the film. The comedy is distributed throughout with some great comic put-downs (“Prudes are people too” coos Emily to Stephanie) and generally laugh-out-loud dialogue. So yes, it IS a “Gone Girl” or “The Girl on the Train” wannabe… but it’s with added ‘laffs’. Now this revelation might make the film appeal to you much more than the trailer did. But in my book, ‘thriller’ and ‘comedy’ are not genres to comfortably share a bed and for me the film became increasingly inconsistent. This inconsistency built to a finale where all semblance of plot and reality seemed to go right out of the window… it could have been an improv episode or “Who’s Line Is It Anyway?”.
The writer is Jessica Sharzer (who did the screenplay for “Nerve” which I very much liked). But I suspect the issue lies more with Paul Feig‘s background in comedies (“Bridesmaids”, “The Heat”, “Spy”) and he couldn’t resist spicing up the thriller with some out-of-place comedy. Which was a shame, since I really liked the overall thriller plot, and the dynamic built up between Kendrick and Lively.
Coming clean…ing. Anna Kendrick as an undercover mopper. (Source: GEM Entertainment).
Blake Lively (Mrs Deadpool of course) is actually staggeringly good as the unfathomable and slightly deranged Emily, and even Kendrick – who seems to have had a run of very so-so movies recently – is entertainingly quirky in this one.
I also enjoyed the performance of Rupert Friend (probably best known as Peter Quinn in “Homeland”) playing a vain and ego-centric fashion designer Dennis Nylon. Great fun.
Never trust a redhead. Emily being a-muse-ing. (Source: GEM Entertainment).
Was I entertained? Yes I was, so I am tempted to recommend you seeing this rather than not. But I was also irritated in equal measure…. I really felt from the opening scenes that this one had legs to make my Top 10 for the year. But no.
Please comment and let me know which side of the fence you sit on!
We are then introduced to the hyper-annoying single mum Stephanie Smothers (Anna Kendrick): someone so perky and goodie-two-shoes as a school helper that every other parent loathes her. What she does seem to have a talent for is filming cheesy “mom’s hints and tips” videos in her kitchen that she posts to her video blog.
Enter the polar opposite of Stephanie: the stylish, sophisticated, amoral and highly intimidating she-wolf called Emily (Blake Lively). On the excuse of play-dates between their sons, she seduces Stephanie with her swanky 5* lifestyle that she lives with her husband Sean (Henry Golding), a struggling writer. Given the oddness of the couple, there are more than a few hints – in line with the title of my review – that this is some kind of subtle grooming. But to what end?
How can someone so beautiful be so camera-shy? Anna Kendrick going for a cheeky snap of Blake Lively (and failing). (Source: GEM Entertainment).
When Emily suddenly goes missing without explanation, Sergeant Malloy (Andrew Moodie) has no shortage of suspects to investigate as Stephanie finds that she actually knew very little about the ghost-like Emily.
There is a surfeit of glossy style in Paul Feig‘s film. I’ve already enthused about the opening titles. But the stylish french-language music – coordinated by Theodore Shapiro – continues throughout, reaching a peak with Serge Gainsbourg’s sublime “Laisse Tomber Les Filles” over the equally entertaining end-titles.
Sharing confessions. A “BF” moment (and no… not “Best Friends”!). (Source: GEM Entertainment
But as a comedy thriller ther….
“HANG ON A MINUTE DR BOB! WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY? COMEDY THRILLER? I watched the trailer for this one, and it’s “Gone Girl” remade isn’t it? It wasn’t comedy! Even IMDB describe it as “Crime, Drama, Mystery”!”
Yes, quite, and therein lies the problem with this film. I found the trailers (the full trailer as well as the teaser trailer attached below) to be highly misleading about the “feel” of the film. The comedy is distributed throughout with some great comic put-downs (“Prudes are people too” coos Emily to Stephanie) and generally laugh-out-loud dialogue. So yes, it IS a “Gone Girl” or “The Girl on the Train” wannabe… but it’s with added ‘laffs’. Now this revelation might make the film appeal to you much more than the trailer did. But in my book, ‘thriller’ and ‘comedy’ are not genres to comfortably share a bed and for me the film became increasingly inconsistent. This inconsistency built to a finale where all semblance of plot and reality seemed to go right out of the window… it could have been an improv episode or “Who’s Line Is It Anyway?”.
The writer is Jessica Sharzer (who did the screenplay for “Nerve” which I very much liked). But I suspect the issue lies more with Paul Feig‘s background in comedies (“Bridesmaids”, “The Heat”, “Spy”) and he couldn’t resist spicing up the thriller with some out-of-place comedy. Which was a shame, since I really liked the overall thriller plot, and the dynamic built up between Kendrick and Lively.
Coming clean…ing. Anna Kendrick as an undercover mopper. (Source: GEM Entertainment).
Blake Lively (Mrs Deadpool of course) is actually staggeringly good as the unfathomable and slightly deranged Emily, and even Kendrick – who seems to have had a run of very so-so movies recently – is entertainingly quirky in this one.
I also enjoyed the performance of Rupert Friend (probably best known as Peter Quinn in “Homeland”) playing a vain and ego-centric fashion designer Dennis Nylon. Great fun.
Never trust a redhead. Emily being a-muse-ing. (Source: GEM Entertainment).
Was I entertained? Yes I was, so I am tempted to recommend you seeing this rather than not. But I was also irritated in equal measure…. I really felt from the opening scenes that this one had legs to make my Top 10 for the year. But no.
Please comment and let me know which side of the fence you sit on!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Tomb Raider (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A tremendously energetic and fun video game spin-off.
In this #TimesUp year, reviewing a film like “Tomb Raider” is just asking for trouble! So where shall I start digging my shallow grave?
Let’s start with the video game… “Tomb Raider” is of course the original video game phenomenon that started in 1993, featuring Lara Croft: someone that teenagers across the land mastur…. did their homework alongside in bedrooms up and down the land. Beauty; athleticism; a fierce independence; unfeasibly large breasts; ridiculously impossible leaps: in this film reboot, Alicia Vikander’s Lara differs from this ideal in just one respect. And before the Dora Milaje smash through my windows and drag me off for incarceration on Mysogeny Island, I’ll point out that this is OBVIOUSLY the least important omission! 🙂
For this film is good… very good.
“I’M SORRY….? WHAT DID YOU SAY DR BOB??” “But this is a film about a VIDEO GAME! … They are all uniformly s****e!”
Beauty, brains and talent: the GB Olympic team will likely be calling.
I know – I can barely bring myself to admit it. But this one really is good. Most of this is down to the reason I was looking forward so much to this one. Alicia Vikander (“Ex Machina“; “The Danish Girl“; “The Light Between Oceans“) is such a class act, and here she is so much more than just a one-dimensional action hero. She hurts, she mourns, she feels guilt, she’s vulnerable. And it’s all there on her face. Great acting skill. She also kicks ass like no woman on film since Emily Blunt in “Edge of Tomorrow“!
Don’t you just hate it when you drop a bag of flour in your kitchen?
The story by Evan Daugherty and Geneva Robertson-Dworet (with Alastair Siddons adding to the screenplay) rockets off in great style with a “fox and hounds” bike chase around the City of London which is brilliantly done and sets up Croft’s character with the minimum of tedious back story. Switch to the main story and Lara is struggling to face the fact that her father (Dominic West, “Money Monster“), seen in flashback, is finally dead after going off to Japan seven years previously in search of the legendary tomb of ancient sorceress Queen Himiko. The Croft corp. COO (Kristin Scott Thomas, “Darkest Hour“) persuades Lara its time to sign the necessary papers, but on the verge of this act the lawyer Mr Yaffe (Derek Jacobi, “Murder on the Orient Express“) lets a significant cat out of the bag and sets Lara off on the trail of her long-dead father’s original mission.
In happier times. Daddy (Dominic West) goes off on yet another trip from Croft Manor.
It’s a rollercoaster ride that’s really well done. But I reckon the writers should have named Jeffrey Boam, George Lucas and Menno Meyjes as co-collaborators, for the film plagerises terribly from “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”. In two or three places, the similarities are shocking! As in the best of Lucas traditions though there are some breathtaking set-pieces, with the best of them staged at the top of a raging waterfall that’s just plane ridiculous! (Even if it plagerises blatantly from “The Lost World”!).
English and patient. Kristin Scott Thomas as the guiding hand at the Croft corporation.
The movie’s tremendous to look at too, with cinematography by George Richmond (“Kingsman“; “Eddie the Eagle“) and (aside from a dodgy helicopter effect) good special effect by Max Poolman (“District 9”) and his team.
My one criticism would be that Vogel – the chief villain, played by Walton Goggins (“The Hateful Eight“) – is rather too unremittingly evil to have two sweetly smiling young children in his desk photo. One can only hope he faces a nasty demise!
Never trust a guy with a beard. Walton Goggins, a bit over the top as the villain of the piece.
The film is directed by Norwegian director Roar Uthaug, in what looks to be his first “non-Norwegian” film. Roar by name; roar by nature! He does a great job. An early “summer blockbuster” actioner that gets two thumbs up from me. What a pleasant surprise!
Let’s start with the video game… “Tomb Raider” is of course the original video game phenomenon that started in 1993, featuring Lara Croft: someone that teenagers across the land mastur…. did their homework alongside in bedrooms up and down the land. Beauty; athleticism; a fierce independence; unfeasibly large breasts; ridiculously impossible leaps: in this film reboot, Alicia Vikander’s Lara differs from this ideal in just one respect. And before the Dora Milaje smash through my windows and drag me off for incarceration on Mysogeny Island, I’ll point out that this is OBVIOUSLY the least important omission! 🙂
For this film is good… very good.
“I’M SORRY….? WHAT DID YOU SAY DR BOB??” “But this is a film about a VIDEO GAME! … They are all uniformly s****e!”
Beauty, brains and talent: the GB Olympic team will likely be calling.
I know – I can barely bring myself to admit it. But this one really is good. Most of this is down to the reason I was looking forward so much to this one. Alicia Vikander (“Ex Machina“; “The Danish Girl“; “The Light Between Oceans“) is such a class act, and here she is so much more than just a one-dimensional action hero. She hurts, she mourns, she feels guilt, she’s vulnerable. And it’s all there on her face. Great acting skill. She also kicks ass like no woman on film since Emily Blunt in “Edge of Tomorrow“!
Don’t you just hate it when you drop a bag of flour in your kitchen?
The story by Evan Daugherty and Geneva Robertson-Dworet (with Alastair Siddons adding to the screenplay) rockets off in great style with a “fox and hounds” bike chase around the City of London which is brilliantly done and sets up Croft’s character with the minimum of tedious back story. Switch to the main story and Lara is struggling to face the fact that her father (Dominic West, “Money Monster“), seen in flashback, is finally dead after going off to Japan seven years previously in search of the legendary tomb of ancient sorceress Queen Himiko. The Croft corp. COO (Kristin Scott Thomas, “Darkest Hour“) persuades Lara its time to sign the necessary papers, but on the verge of this act the lawyer Mr Yaffe (Derek Jacobi, “Murder on the Orient Express“) lets a significant cat out of the bag and sets Lara off on the trail of her long-dead father’s original mission.
In happier times. Daddy (Dominic West) goes off on yet another trip from Croft Manor.
It’s a rollercoaster ride that’s really well done. But I reckon the writers should have named Jeffrey Boam, George Lucas and Menno Meyjes as co-collaborators, for the film plagerises terribly from “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”. In two or three places, the similarities are shocking! As in the best of Lucas traditions though there are some breathtaking set-pieces, with the best of them staged at the top of a raging waterfall that’s just plane ridiculous! (Even if it plagerises blatantly from “The Lost World”!).
English and patient. Kristin Scott Thomas as the guiding hand at the Croft corporation.
The movie’s tremendous to look at too, with cinematography by George Richmond (“Kingsman“; “Eddie the Eagle“) and (aside from a dodgy helicopter effect) good special effect by Max Poolman (“District 9”) and his team.
My one criticism would be that Vogel – the chief villain, played by Walton Goggins (“The Hateful Eight“) – is rather too unremittingly evil to have two sweetly smiling young children in his desk photo. One can only hope he faces a nasty demise!
Never trust a guy with a beard. Walton Goggins, a bit over the top as the villain of the piece.
The film is directed by Norwegian director Roar Uthaug, in what looks to be his first “non-Norwegian” film. Roar by name; roar by nature! He does a great job. An early “summer blockbuster” actioner that gets two thumbs up from me. What a pleasant surprise!