Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Jem and the Holograms (2015) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Being a teenager is a confusing time, we want to be accepted, popular, and, at times, invisible. In a world where you feel overlooked and ignored, it is gratifying to have a voice, an identity, some special aspect that is going to make you stand out and be accepted. Jem and the Holograms attempts to make this a theme. Creating your identity and having the ability to shape and form it into a way that it becomes your own shield against the ills of the world. It is a very promising concept and idea when attempting to update the series for today’s audience. Unfortunately there isn’t much substance to the film. The substance that is apparent is quite shallow and undeveloped.
Instead of sticking with the original premise and backstory of the popular cartoon series of the 1980s, it tries to modernize itself in a way that holds onto little of its origin other than the name of some of the characters. There is no heart with this film, there is no feeling driving the movie that makes you want to cheer for the characters to become successful. This is mainly due to the film not giving audiences a chance to like the characters or even learn who they really are. The film makes everything look so easy within the music industry. The basic understanding is that if you post a video online, you might be discovered and are immediately offered a recording contract. This storyline will resonate with many of the “Generation Me” and “Kardashian Culture” crowd that is filled dreams of becoming famous for doing little to nothing.
The story is beyond far-fetched in that it every problem, riddle, issue, and negative moment is resolved in the next scene. There is no struggle for any of the characters other than the possibility that their aunt and foster mother may lose their house, but even this is solved within two minutes.
The one shining light in the film is Juliette Lewis as Erica Raymond, CEO of Starlight Records who gives Jem and her sisters the opportunity to take over the spotlight. She is not only the comic relief, but serves the role as a conniving, manipulative recording manager. This is pretty much the only similarity that exists between this film and the original series. Erica prompts older audiences to think of the Misfits (the nemesis to the Holograms) who were continuously trying to sabotage their careers. The rest of the cast, leaves one not feeling connected to them or their storylines. There is no development for any of the people throughout the film. It almost seems as though when making the film, the production team sat around thinking, “It’s Jem, the music will carry the story.” Unfortunately, the music that is included goes no further than being the typical pop music similar to that which is on every station today. There is nothing that stands out about the music, as catchy as it is, that makes you feel as though you should become invested in who these girls are or even that they have something that makes them stand out. With the time that has passed since the cartoon appeared on television, there should have been more investment in who these girls are and why we should care about them. Audiences don’t have that opportunity, as they become famous, seemingly overnight. It almost makes one want to root against them.
There is a real opportunity missed with this film to combine the original show, catering to older audiences who watched the show as children, and update it for a newer generation. The film would have been much better served with inclusion of many of the elements that made the series have such appeal. The approach is very juvenile and rushed. The original show was more than music, it was about the relationships formed by many of the characters and the various adventures that they would pursue. There were stories with depth and continuity which reinforced the aspects of working hard and achievement of goals. The whole movie looks like a diary entry of what an American tween would see as their life in entertainment. The one positive note about the film is the way that it incorporates social media in the development of the story. It demonstrates the connection that is and can be made through music and pop culture.
Sadly, in contrast to the original series, the film demeans and belittles women. Its approach is short-sighted and does not deal with any aspect of reality that one would expect. Jem is nothing more than a manufactured pop music story. There is little that audiences could relate to. In a sense, it is anti-music, and anti-intellectual. The film itself, is filler and a corruption of the origin story and the time that has passed since it first debuted. Audiences of Jem the TV series may be appalled at what they witness, if they do decide to actually watch the film. For younger audiences, this film reinforces the belief that all kids should get participation trophies because they tried. There is the sense that if you just show up, the opportunity will be handed to you. There is no real work on the screen and it seems as though there was no real work or effort put into creating this film. Younger audiences will tout the music and friendship displayed. Older audiences who were fans of the television show will be soundly disappointed in what they witness on the screen. It is a bastardization of what Jem should be in a modern age. There is no soul to this film. Every note that it hits is flat.
http://sknr.net/2015/10/23/jem-and-the-holograms/
Instead of sticking with the original premise and backstory of the popular cartoon series of the 1980s, it tries to modernize itself in a way that holds onto little of its origin other than the name of some of the characters. There is no heart with this film, there is no feeling driving the movie that makes you want to cheer for the characters to become successful. This is mainly due to the film not giving audiences a chance to like the characters or even learn who they really are. The film makes everything look so easy within the music industry. The basic understanding is that if you post a video online, you might be discovered and are immediately offered a recording contract. This storyline will resonate with many of the “Generation Me” and “Kardashian Culture” crowd that is filled dreams of becoming famous for doing little to nothing.
The story is beyond far-fetched in that it every problem, riddle, issue, and negative moment is resolved in the next scene. There is no struggle for any of the characters other than the possibility that their aunt and foster mother may lose their house, but even this is solved within two minutes.
The one shining light in the film is Juliette Lewis as Erica Raymond, CEO of Starlight Records who gives Jem and her sisters the opportunity to take over the spotlight. She is not only the comic relief, but serves the role as a conniving, manipulative recording manager. This is pretty much the only similarity that exists between this film and the original series. Erica prompts older audiences to think of the Misfits (the nemesis to the Holograms) who were continuously trying to sabotage their careers. The rest of the cast, leaves one not feeling connected to them or their storylines. There is no development for any of the people throughout the film. It almost seems as though when making the film, the production team sat around thinking, “It’s Jem, the music will carry the story.” Unfortunately, the music that is included goes no further than being the typical pop music similar to that which is on every station today. There is nothing that stands out about the music, as catchy as it is, that makes you feel as though you should become invested in who these girls are or even that they have something that makes them stand out. With the time that has passed since the cartoon appeared on television, there should have been more investment in who these girls are and why we should care about them. Audiences don’t have that opportunity, as they become famous, seemingly overnight. It almost makes one want to root against them.
There is a real opportunity missed with this film to combine the original show, catering to older audiences who watched the show as children, and update it for a newer generation. The film would have been much better served with inclusion of many of the elements that made the series have such appeal. The approach is very juvenile and rushed. The original show was more than music, it was about the relationships formed by many of the characters and the various adventures that they would pursue. There were stories with depth and continuity which reinforced the aspects of working hard and achievement of goals. The whole movie looks like a diary entry of what an American tween would see as their life in entertainment. The one positive note about the film is the way that it incorporates social media in the development of the story. It demonstrates the connection that is and can be made through music and pop culture.
Sadly, in contrast to the original series, the film demeans and belittles women. Its approach is short-sighted and does not deal with any aspect of reality that one would expect. Jem is nothing more than a manufactured pop music story. There is little that audiences could relate to. In a sense, it is anti-music, and anti-intellectual. The film itself, is filler and a corruption of the origin story and the time that has passed since it first debuted. Audiences of Jem the TV series may be appalled at what they witness, if they do decide to actually watch the film. For younger audiences, this film reinforces the belief that all kids should get participation trophies because they tried. There is the sense that if you just show up, the opportunity will be handed to you. There is no real work on the screen and it seems as though there was no real work or effort put into creating this film. Younger audiences will tout the music and friendship displayed. Older audiences who were fans of the television show will be soundly disappointed in what they witness on the screen. It is a bastardization of what Jem should be in a modern age. There is no soul to this film. Every note that it hits is flat.
http://sknr.net/2015/10/23/jem-and-the-holograms/
Sass Perilla (36 KP) rated The Master and Margarita in Books
Aug 9, 2019
Worth a read? Yes. Worth a reread? Maybe not.
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Master and Magarita: Mikhail Bulgakov
Firstly, I didn’t intend to write an essay on this novel. However, once started I found I had a lot to say, and the more I thought about the plot and characters, the more ideas and parallels were sparked, so I am hopeful that the verbosity of this review can be forgiven.
At the risk of sounding both ignorant and uncultured, I found this novel (at least at first) bloody hard slog; not least because the Russian characters have three names, plus a nickname, plus a pun on their name (none of which work particularly well in translation and all of which sound rather similar to the English untrained ear). As an example- Ivan Nikolaevich Ponyrev (who seems to be referred to by any and all of these names) is also known as “Homeless” and “the poet” is a key character in the opening section of the novel. To further demonstrate: there are 17 different names that start with A that are used to refer to 15 different characters with Andreyevich used as the middle name of a bereaved uncle, who makes a journey from Kiev after his nephew is beheaded in a freak tram accident- and Andrey the buffet manager at a Moscow theatre. Clear as mud right? And that is before starting on similarly named characters with the initials M, P, L and S! At my last count there were 45 distinct characters, and I am fairly sure there will be some that I have missed. Hence, I did a lot of re-reading to work out exactly who was doing what to whom.
Additionally, I would suggest you need to be wary of the different translations. The distinct changes in meaning are subtle but important. To triangulate I had three versions at my disposal: Hugh Aplin’s translation (available for free on Kindle), the audiobook version translated by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky (which I listened to simultaneously when reading the book to come to my own interpretation, and the subtitles for the Russian TV miniseries from 2005 when I gave up trying to work out who was who from name alone!
So those were my “technical” issues (if you like) with engaging with this novel, and this lack of clarity and understanding (and my own lack of contextual knowledge of Stalinist Russia) meant I missed many of the (what I am sure are hysterically funny to those in the know) satirical jokes in the opening section. That said, the random action and quick changes of focus, undercurrent of chaos in Moscow despite entrenched hierarchal structures and clear threat that (any) one could go missing at any time, for an unclear reason gave a clear insight into the mind and fears of a 1930s Russian citizen. No wonder it was available only in censored form for so long.
Despite these hardships, there were some genuinely laugh out loud moments in the first Moscow based part of the novel. The citizens have not lost their individuality, as they scrabble and fight for bank notes in the theatre, which are later revealed to be worthless. Nor have they lost their sense of pride and vanity, which we see in the female theatre goers, so desperate to attain the fashionable French couture (which later literally disappears from their bodies leaving semi-naked citizenesses desperately trying to cover themselves in a scene reminiscent of “Allo Allo” meets “Benny Hill”). When Professor Woland says his show will “expose” what the locals have failed to realise is that it is their (moral) shortcomings that are about to be revealed. The message is clearly, that no government can successfully legislate against human nature.
Oooh- and another fun fact, apparently Woland (later revealed- or perhaps is implied- to be Satan) was the inspiration to the Rolling Stones 1968 hit “Sympathy for the Devil”, well at least that is what my Google-Fu tells me.
Obviously, there were substantial hurdles to leap, however, I found by the second half of the novel, when we finally meet the eponymous characters, I had got in to the swing of things and begun to embrace the farcical surrealism of the novel.
The second “book” marks a change in tone, although it continues to cut away to scenes of Jesus’ sentencing by Pilate and execution (here known in the Aramaic form Yeshua). Ironically it is these scenes that are the most “real” and substantially human, as Pilate’s decision weighs head achingly heavily on him throughout. The Master and Margarita seem to be the only two characters fully invested in the authenticity of literature, and serve as a counterpoint to the heavily censored “monstrous” writing of Ivan and the rest of the writers’ union Massolit, more interested in fine dining and what their positions can do for them then the production of quality writing.
And it is Margarita’s journey of discovery and liberation from the stodgy, miserable societal expectations of that leads her back to her Master. Bulgakov mixes classical myth, Russian folklore and Bible stories to give us an impression of the timelessness of the central romance. As the worlds of communist Moscow and the inner worlds of the Master and Margarita collide, we are informed of the former’s desire to excuse all magic (and mischief) as the product of mass hypnosis, when the latter (and the reader) are fully aware of the spiritual significance and dimension of the events.
Clever, astute and in places laugh out loud funny, this novel none-the-less requires a level of dedication from the non-Russian speaking reader. Worth a read? Yes. Worth a re-read? Maybe not.
Firstly, I didn’t intend to write an essay on this novel. However, once started I found I had a lot to say, and the more I thought about the plot and characters, the more ideas and parallels were sparked, so I am hopeful that the verbosity of this review can be forgiven.
At the risk of sounding both ignorant and uncultured, I found this novel (at least at first) bloody hard slog; not least because the Russian characters have three names, plus a nickname, plus a pun on their name (none of which work particularly well in translation and all of which sound rather similar to the English untrained ear). As an example- Ivan Nikolaevich Ponyrev (who seems to be referred to by any and all of these names) is also known as “Homeless” and “the poet” is a key character in the opening section of the novel. To further demonstrate: there are 17 different names that start with A that are used to refer to 15 different characters with Andreyevich used as the middle name of a bereaved uncle, who makes a journey from Kiev after his nephew is beheaded in a freak tram accident- and Andrey the buffet manager at a Moscow theatre. Clear as mud right? And that is before starting on similarly named characters with the initials M, P, L and S! At my last count there were 45 distinct characters, and I am fairly sure there will be some that I have missed. Hence, I did a lot of re-reading to work out exactly who was doing what to whom.
Additionally, I would suggest you need to be wary of the different translations. The distinct changes in meaning are subtle but important. To triangulate I had three versions at my disposal: Hugh Aplin’s translation (available for free on Kindle), the audiobook version translated by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky (which I listened to simultaneously when reading the book to come to my own interpretation, and the subtitles for the Russian TV miniseries from 2005 when I gave up trying to work out who was who from name alone!
So those were my “technical” issues (if you like) with engaging with this novel, and this lack of clarity and understanding (and my own lack of contextual knowledge of Stalinist Russia) meant I missed many of the (what I am sure are hysterically funny to those in the know) satirical jokes in the opening section. That said, the random action and quick changes of focus, undercurrent of chaos in Moscow despite entrenched hierarchal structures and clear threat that (any) one could go missing at any time, for an unclear reason gave a clear insight into the mind and fears of a 1930s Russian citizen. No wonder it was available only in censored form for so long.
Despite these hardships, there were some genuinely laugh out loud moments in the first Moscow based part of the novel. The citizens have not lost their individuality, as they scrabble and fight for bank notes in the theatre, which are later revealed to be worthless. Nor have they lost their sense of pride and vanity, which we see in the female theatre goers, so desperate to attain the fashionable French couture (which later literally disappears from their bodies leaving semi-naked citizenesses desperately trying to cover themselves in a scene reminiscent of “Allo Allo” meets “Benny Hill”). When Professor Woland says his show will “expose” what the locals have failed to realise is that it is their (moral) shortcomings that are about to be revealed. The message is clearly, that no government can successfully legislate against human nature.
Oooh- and another fun fact, apparently Woland (later revealed- or perhaps is implied- to be Satan) was the inspiration to the Rolling Stones 1968 hit “Sympathy for the Devil”, well at least that is what my Google-Fu tells me.
Obviously, there were substantial hurdles to leap, however, I found by the second half of the novel, when we finally meet the eponymous characters, I had got in to the swing of things and begun to embrace the farcical surrealism of the novel.
The second “book” marks a change in tone, although it continues to cut away to scenes of Jesus’ sentencing by Pilate and execution (here known in the Aramaic form Yeshua). Ironically it is these scenes that are the most “real” and substantially human, as Pilate’s decision weighs head achingly heavily on him throughout. The Master and Margarita seem to be the only two characters fully invested in the authenticity of literature, and serve as a counterpoint to the heavily censored “monstrous” writing of Ivan and the rest of the writers’ union Massolit, more interested in fine dining and what their positions can do for them then the production of quality writing.
And it is Margarita’s journey of discovery and liberation from the stodgy, miserable societal expectations of that leads her back to her Master. Bulgakov mixes classical myth, Russian folklore and Bible stories to give us an impression of the timelessness of the central romance. As the worlds of communist Moscow and the inner worlds of the Master and Margarita collide, we are informed of the former’s desire to excuse all magic (and mischief) as the product of mass hypnosis, when the latter (and the reader) are fully aware of the spiritual significance and dimension of the events.
Clever, astute and in places laugh out loud funny, this novel none-the-less requires a level of dedication from the non-Russian speaking reader. Worth a read? Yes. Worth a re-read? Maybe not.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Gemini Man (2019) in Movies
Nov 10, 2019
Will Smith plays top US hit-man Henry Brogan who is making the world "safer" one bullet at a time! With the mirror telling him his age, Henry hands in his firearm (not withstanding the arsenal under his stairs) to spend more time going fishing and doing the crossword.
But all is not well when Henry's 'one for the road' hit turns out to not be quite what it seems.
Teaming up with marina manager Danny (Danny??) Zakarweski (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), the pair go on the run from operatives of a government-funded black-ops organization called Gemini. Gemini is a private semi-military organization (didn't we just go here with "Angel Has Fallen"?!). These 'baddie goodies' would rather see Henry - and all who know him - fed to the fishes rather than have him catching them.
But one of these guys, under the direct command of Gemini-boss Clay Verris (Clive Owen), looks kinda familiar...
Let's focus on the positives for a minute. This is a spy movie that has all of the polish that the recent "Angel has Fallen" didn't have. Some nice photogenic locations fly in and out again (Georgia, Budapest and Colombia: the latter for no obvious reason I can remember!). It occasionally reminded me of a glossy Bond film, but without Bond.
There are also some high-class special effects (the special effects coordinator is Mark Hawker). A moonlit CGI Gulfstream with a zoom into the cockpit is particularly impressive.
Some of the action set pieces also entertain. A Will-on-Will bike chase is well done, and I've not seen a bike used as a hand-to-hand weapon in this way before!
And Will Smith is no doubt a class act, with his 'youngification' (I'm not sure what the official word is) also being effectively done. I also enjoyed Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who was great in "10 Cloverfield Lane". The lady has real screen presence.
But man oh man, that script. Let's name the guilty parties in this film: the scriptwriters David Benioff (Game of Thrones), Darren Lemke and Billy Ray. (I'll put Ray last in the list, since the story was by Benioff and Lemke and this has the smell to me of Ray - who has a history of some great scripts like Captain Phillips under his name - being drafted in to steady a listing ship).
Some of the dialogue in this film is not just a bit dodgy. It's head in the hands groan-worthy (and I actually did at times: fortunately the cinema was barely half full and I was on my own in the whole row). And some of it is just plain offensive. Henry meets his old pal Jack Willis (Douglas Hodge) on his yacht where he explains his wife is on a trip to Paris as a scantily clad dolly-bird wanders past. Henry comically rolls his eyes at this adulterous behaviour, with some sort of "Jack, what are you loike!" comment. Cringe-worthy.
Will Smith, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Benedict Wong (their ally, adding some comic relief) are clearly good actors. But the script often makes them look utterly vacuous and stupid. And Lee seems to have a "good enough, move on" approach to the filming. One jaw-dropping moment has Will Smith telling the others that they are going to Budapest. "Budapest?" Winstead and Wong are supposed to say in union, but mistime it. "Can we do that again?". Nope. It's on the screen.
As for Clive Owen... sorry, he's really not in the same acting league, and the script does him even fewer favours. As he says at one point "It's like the Hindenburg crashing into the Titanic". I couldn't have put it better myself.
"Uncanny Valley". You know this phrase. The Princess Leia and Moff Tarkin scenes in "Rogue One" is the classic example. Effects that don't quite work on the big screen. "But" - you say to yourself - "Dr Bob just said that the 'youngification' of Will Smith was done really well?". And I'll repeat again that it was. It's on a par with Samuel L. Jackson's 'youngification' in "Captain Marvel". Where something strange happens is in the film's overall projection. Ang Lee has tried again with his experiment of filming at a massive 120 frames per second..... five times the normal movie frame rate of 24 fps. And the quality of the picture - particularly during high-speed action scenes - becomes outstandingly good! But equally it just doesn't 'look right'.
When the human eye presumably works at an equivalent "fps" of thousands of 'frames per second' you'd think that it should all be fine. But for some reason I just found it distracting. Presumably the audiences for "The Jazz Singer" thought the same about sound; and those for "Gone with the Wind" and the "Wizard of Oz" about colour. Maybe we've seen the future, and its the new norm that we just need to get used to. We'll see.
Ang Lee's "Life of Pi" was extraordinary. His "Hulk" was one of the poorest of the Marvel canon. Unfortunately, this movie is at the "Hulk" end of the spectrum. Which is a real shame. The duo of the 51 year old Smith and the 35 year old Winstead work really well together. They have great chemistry, but, you'll be relieved to hear, avoid any icky love interest.
What a shame. With a different script, and some good production values, this could have been a very different story.
(For the full graphical review, please check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/10/18/one-manns-movies-film-review-gemini-man-2019/ )
But all is not well when Henry's 'one for the road' hit turns out to not be quite what it seems.
Teaming up with marina manager Danny (Danny??) Zakarweski (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), the pair go on the run from operatives of a government-funded black-ops organization called Gemini. Gemini is a private semi-military organization (didn't we just go here with "Angel Has Fallen"?!). These 'baddie goodies' would rather see Henry - and all who know him - fed to the fishes rather than have him catching them.
But one of these guys, under the direct command of Gemini-boss Clay Verris (Clive Owen), looks kinda familiar...
Let's focus on the positives for a minute. This is a spy movie that has all of the polish that the recent "Angel has Fallen" didn't have. Some nice photogenic locations fly in and out again (Georgia, Budapest and Colombia: the latter for no obvious reason I can remember!). It occasionally reminded me of a glossy Bond film, but without Bond.
There are also some high-class special effects (the special effects coordinator is Mark Hawker). A moonlit CGI Gulfstream with a zoom into the cockpit is particularly impressive.
Some of the action set pieces also entertain. A Will-on-Will bike chase is well done, and I've not seen a bike used as a hand-to-hand weapon in this way before!
And Will Smith is no doubt a class act, with his 'youngification' (I'm not sure what the official word is) also being effectively done. I also enjoyed Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who was great in "10 Cloverfield Lane". The lady has real screen presence.
But man oh man, that script. Let's name the guilty parties in this film: the scriptwriters David Benioff (Game of Thrones), Darren Lemke and Billy Ray. (I'll put Ray last in the list, since the story was by Benioff and Lemke and this has the smell to me of Ray - who has a history of some great scripts like Captain Phillips under his name - being drafted in to steady a listing ship).
Some of the dialogue in this film is not just a bit dodgy. It's head in the hands groan-worthy (and I actually did at times: fortunately the cinema was barely half full and I was on my own in the whole row). And some of it is just plain offensive. Henry meets his old pal Jack Willis (Douglas Hodge) on his yacht where he explains his wife is on a trip to Paris as a scantily clad dolly-bird wanders past. Henry comically rolls his eyes at this adulterous behaviour, with some sort of "Jack, what are you loike!" comment. Cringe-worthy.
Will Smith, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Benedict Wong (their ally, adding some comic relief) are clearly good actors. But the script often makes them look utterly vacuous and stupid. And Lee seems to have a "good enough, move on" approach to the filming. One jaw-dropping moment has Will Smith telling the others that they are going to Budapest. "Budapest?" Winstead and Wong are supposed to say in union, but mistime it. "Can we do that again?". Nope. It's on the screen.
As for Clive Owen... sorry, he's really not in the same acting league, and the script does him even fewer favours. As he says at one point "It's like the Hindenburg crashing into the Titanic". I couldn't have put it better myself.
"Uncanny Valley". You know this phrase. The Princess Leia and Moff Tarkin scenes in "Rogue One" is the classic example. Effects that don't quite work on the big screen. "But" - you say to yourself - "Dr Bob just said that the 'youngification' of Will Smith was done really well?". And I'll repeat again that it was. It's on a par with Samuel L. Jackson's 'youngification' in "Captain Marvel". Where something strange happens is in the film's overall projection. Ang Lee has tried again with his experiment of filming at a massive 120 frames per second..... five times the normal movie frame rate of 24 fps. And the quality of the picture - particularly during high-speed action scenes - becomes outstandingly good! But equally it just doesn't 'look right'.
When the human eye presumably works at an equivalent "fps" of thousands of 'frames per second' you'd think that it should all be fine. But for some reason I just found it distracting. Presumably the audiences for "The Jazz Singer" thought the same about sound; and those for "Gone with the Wind" and the "Wizard of Oz" about colour. Maybe we've seen the future, and its the new norm that we just need to get used to. We'll see.
Ang Lee's "Life of Pi" was extraordinary. His "Hulk" was one of the poorest of the Marvel canon. Unfortunately, this movie is at the "Hulk" end of the spectrum. Which is a real shame. The duo of the 51 year old Smith and the 35 year old Winstead work really well together. They have great chemistry, but, you'll be relieved to hear, avoid any icky love interest.
What a shame. With a different script, and some good production values, this could have been a very different story.
(For the full graphical review, please check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/10/18/one-manns-movies-film-review-gemini-man-2019/ )
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bad Times at the El Royale (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Why is everyone not raving about this movie?
Imagine a ménage à trois of Agatha Christie, Alfred Hitchcock and Quentin Tarantino at the Overlook Hotel with a banging 60’s soundtrack. Got that unpleasant vision in your mind? Good! You’re halfway there to getting the feel of “Bad Times at the El Royale”. And they really are bad times!
The Plot
It’s 1969 and an oddball set of characters arrive at the faded glory of the El Royale hotel at Lake Tahoe: “a bi-state establishment” straddling the Nevada/California border: so describes the manager-cum-bellhop-cum-bartender-cum-cleaner Miles Miller (Lewis Pullman, soon to appear as Maverick in the “Top Gun” sequel). The motley crew include Laramie Seymour Sullivan, a vacuum cleaner salesman (Jon Hamm); Father Daniel Flynn, an oddly-acting priest (Jeff Bridges); Darlene Sweet, a struggling Motown-style singer (Cynthia Erivo); and Emily Summerspring, a rude and abrupt hippy-chick with attitude (Dakota Johnson). But noone is quite who they seem and their twisted and convoluted lives combine in a memorable night of surprise and violence at the El Royale.
The turns
I’ve often expressed my admiration for the Screen Actor’s Guild Awards and their category of “Best Ensemble Cast”: at a time when there are controversial suggestions of additions to the Oscars, this is one I would like to see (along with a “Best Stunt Team” award that I’ve previously lobbied for). And here is my second serious candidate for the “Best Ensemble Cast” Oscar in 2018, my first being “Three Billboards in Ebbing, Missouri” (which in their books would count as 2017 anyway!) Everyone really works hard on this film and the larger than life characters suck you into the story because of the quality and intensity of their performances.
Out in front of the pack are the simply brilliant Jeff Bridges and Cynthia Erivo, an actress new to me who has a great voice and made a big impression. Scenes between the pair are just electric. Jon Hamm is as quirkily great as ever and Dakota “not Fanning” Johnson is far better in this film than any recent stuff I’ve seen her in. Another standout was another newcomer to me – young Cailee Spaeny as Rose, looking for all the world in some scenes like a young Carey Mulligan. While we’re on lookalikes, Lewis Pullman (best known to me for “Battle of the Sexes“) looks very like Tom Holland in some scenes.
The Review
I found this film to be just enormously entertaining. It is very Tarantino-esque in its claustrophobic nature (compare it with “The Hateful 8” in that respect) and with its quirky episodic flash cards (compare with “Pulp Fiction” or “Kill Bill”) but for me was much more appetising since – although very violent – it never stooped to the queasy “blow your face off” excesses of Tarantino, that I personally find distasteful. Where it apes Hitchcock is in its intricate plotting: the story regularly throws you off-balance with some genuinely surprising twists and turns that you never see coming. And the interesting time-splicing and flashbacks also keep you on your mental toes. To say any more or to give any examples would be a spoilerish crime, so I will refrain. This is a dish best served cold (so avoid the trailer if you can).
The film has a marvellous sense of place and time and key to establishing that is some superb set design; some brilliant costumes; and – most of all – an exquisitely chosen song catalogue. The great Michael Giacchino is behind the music, and he does a truly fabulous job, not just with the song selection but also with the background music. This never seems to intrude noticeably until the end titles, when you realise it’s been insistently working on you all the time: the best sort of soundtrack.
There are some films that make you marvel how someone sat at a keyboard and got a screenplay down on paper so satisfyingly. While it could be accused of aping Tarantino somewhat, for me this is still one such film. The writer/director Drew Goddard has come from the J.J. Abrams stable of “Alias” and “Lost”, and has previously written the great screenplays for films including “Cloverfield”, “The Martian” and “World War Z“. His only previous directorial feature was “The Cabin in the Woods” (which I’ve not seen), but after this he is definitely on my movie radar: his next film will be “X-force”: a “Deadpool 2” follow-on with Ryan Reynolds, Josh Brolin and Zazie Beetz, and I can’t wait to see that.
If there’s a criticism it’s that at 141 minutes its a tad long. It never to me felt like a film that long, such was the entertainment value, but while I just loved the development of character just a few of the scenes felt a little leisurely and superfluous. Trim 10 minutes off the running time – no more – and it might have felt tighter still.
I didn’t mention one star name in “The Turns” section, and that’s Chris Hemsworth. He actually does a great job in his demanding Messianic role of Billy Lee, but I just had trouble equating the “Thor” star as being “all kinds of bad”: this felt like a slight misstep in the casting to me.
Summary
This film is without a doubt going to storm into my Top 10 for the year. It’s an entertaining delight, full of twists, turns, deliciously wordy dialogue and a satisfyingly open ending. I can’t believe this film hasn’t been top billing in multiplexes up and down the country for WEEKS on end. If you get the chance, my advice would be to seek this out before it disappears.
The Plot
It’s 1969 and an oddball set of characters arrive at the faded glory of the El Royale hotel at Lake Tahoe: “a bi-state establishment” straddling the Nevada/California border: so describes the manager-cum-bellhop-cum-bartender-cum-cleaner Miles Miller (Lewis Pullman, soon to appear as Maverick in the “Top Gun” sequel). The motley crew include Laramie Seymour Sullivan, a vacuum cleaner salesman (Jon Hamm); Father Daniel Flynn, an oddly-acting priest (Jeff Bridges); Darlene Sweet, a struggling Motown-style singer (Cynthia Erivo); and Emily Summerspring, a rude and abrupt hippy-chick with attitude (Dakota Johnson). But noone is quite who they seem and their twisted and convoluted lives combine in a memorable night of surprise and violence at the El Royale.
The turns
I’ve often expressed my admiration for the Screen Actor’s Guild Awards and their category of “Best Ensemble Cast”: at a time when there are controversial suggestions of additions to the Oscars, this is one I would like to see (along with a “Best Stunt Team” award that I’ve previously lobbied for). And here is my second serious candidate for the “Best Ensemble Cast” Oscar in 2018, my first being “Three Billboards in Ebbing, Missouri” (which in their books would count as 2017 anyway!) Everyone really works hard on this film and the larger than life characters suck you into the story because of the quality and intensity of their performances.
Out in front of the pack are the simply brilliant Jeff Bridges and Cynthia Erivo, an actress new to me who has a great voice and made a big impression. Scenes between the pair are just electric. Jon Hamm is as quirkily great as ever and Dakota “not Fanning” Johnson is far better in this film than any recent stuff I’ve seen her in. Another standout was another newcomer to me – young Cailee Spaeny as Rose, looking for all the world in some scenes like a young Carey Mulligan. While we’re on lookalikes, Lewis Pullman (best known to me for “Battle of the Sexes“) looks very like Tom Holland in some scenes.
The Review
I found this film to be just enormously entertaining. It is very Tarantino-esque in its claustrophobic nature (compare it with “The Hateful 8” in that respect) and with its quirky episodic flash cards (compare with “Pulp Fiction” or “Kill Bill”) but for me was much more appetising since – although very violent – it never stooped to the queasy “blow your face off” excesses of Tarantino, that I personally find distasteful. Where it apes Hitchcock is in its intricate plotting: the story regularly throws you off-balance with some genuinely surprising twists and turns that you never see coming. And the interesting time-splicing and flashbacks also keep you on your mental toes. To say any more or to give any examples would be a spoilerish crime, so I will refrain. This is a dish best served cold (so avoid the trailer if you can).
The film has a marvellous sense of place and time and key to establishing that is some superb set design; some brilliant costumes; and – most of all – an exquisitely chosen song catalogue. The great Michael Giacchino is behind the music, and he does a truly fabulous job, not just with the song selection but also with the background music. This never seems to intrude noticeably until the end titles, when you realise it’s been insistently working on you all the time: the best sort of soundtrack.
There are some films that make you marvel how someone sat at a keyboard and got a screenplay down on paper so satisfyingly. While it could be accused of aping Tarantino somewhat, for me this is still one such film. The writer/director Drew Goddard has come from the J.J. Abrams stable of “Alias” and “Lost”, and has previously written the great screenplays for films including “Cloverfield”, “The Martian” and “World War Z“. His only previous directorial feature was “The Cabin in the Woods” (which I’ve not seen), but after this he is definitely on my movie radar: his next film will be “X-force”: a “Deadpool 2” follow-on with Ryan Reynolds, Josh Brolin and Zazie Beetz, and I can’t wait to see that.
If there’s a criticism it’s that at 141 minutes its a tad long. It never to me felt like a film that long, such was the entertainment value, but while I just loved the development of character just a few of the scenes felt a little leisurely and superfluous. Trim 10 minutes off the running time – no more – and it might have felt tighter still.
I didn’t mention one star name in “The Turns” section, and that’s Chris Hemsworth. He actually does a great job in his demanding Messianic role of Billy Lee, but I just had trouble equating the “Thor” star as being “all kinds of bad”: this felt like a slight misstep in the casting to me.
Summary
This film is without a doubt going to storm into my Top 10 for the year. It’s an entertaining delight, full of twists, turns, deliciously wordy dialogue and a satisfyingly open ending. I can’t believe this film hasn’t been top billing in multiplexes up and down the country for WEEKS on end. If you get the chance, my advice would be to seek this out before it disappears.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
In the search for a way to watch the 92nd Academy Awards live from Hollywood tonight I was led to a subscription for Now TV, which is basically the online platform for Sky Cinema. And there I found all the missing films I had yet to see from last year that aren’t available “free” on Amazon Prime or Netflix. I should really have worked it out before now that a free trial might be available, having assumed that a Sky subscription was beyond my means at the moment. Imagine my excitement to not only secure the Oscars but a 7 day pass to catch up on some big titles. It’s the small things in life…
Having made a 20 strong watch list, I wasted no time in heading straight for the Queen biopic, Bohemian Rhapsody, winner of 4 awards last February, including one for Rami Malek as Freddy Mercury that I applauded very loudly at the time, without having seen it, due to my love for him as Elliot Alderson in my favourite TV show of the last 5 years, the incredible and mindbendingly brilliant Mr. Robot.
My connection to Queen as a fan isn’t an especially strong one; I have always thought they were fine, and enjoyed their biggest hits as much as anyone. But it is the story, charisma and undeniable singing talent of Mercury that attracts me. From the opening scenes it is apparent that what we are going to get here is a fairly straightforward, by the numbers recounting of events, punctuated by some serious tunes and some glorious 70s fashions. Having read that this was the main criticism of it going in, it really didn’t bother me at all to find it wasn’t going to make bolder artistic and dramatic choices. It was very much about sitting back and enjoying the show!
In fact, there is something comforting and unchallenging about its format that I liked. The pattern of abc that is a) some background to Freddy’s life, b) a build up to how they came across their big hits, and c) a rendition of that hit, didn’t strike me as cheap, but rather unpretentious and to the point. The whole thing clipped along nicely with very little dead air; Malek is a joy to watch in every moment; the clothes and scenery of the 70s and later 80s is a treat; and the music stands for itself, with you often forgetting how good the tunes are until you hear them in this context.
Of course, at times it is almost laughable how well known facts and details are crow-barred into the narrative, with some of the darker elements glossed over, as if this were almost a Disney retelling. But, again, it doesn’t matter, because as an entertainment it is all so enjoyable. Not to say the dark side of the story isn’t touched upon, because it is to an extent, just that it is clear this is a celebration of a life and a talent, not an exposé. Which is fine. As with the superior Walk The Line, and the recently inferior Rocketman, we know a seedier story of Johnny Cash and Elton John exists, but we accept that revelling in the genius of the music is more fun than trawling through the trash.
Malek is a wonder to behold! It has to be said. Once you (and he) get used to the false teeth and bite down on the energy and drive of Mercury, it is impossible to take your eyes off him! He handles the dramatic moments and nuance of this fragile mind with ease, but it is the performances that stand out: his movement is so fluid and accurate that you forget at times you aren’t watching archive footage, which is some trick! Gwilym Lee and Ben Hardy as Brian May and Roger Taylor are also to be praised for this, despite having less to do. With Joseph Mazzello as John Deacon largely merging into the background inoffensively, much as his real life counterpart did.
There is some solid support too. Lucy Boynton is completely charming if largely uninteresting; Tom Hollander quietly steals several scenes as the lawyer who doesn’t just work for them but idolises them as much as any fan; and an unrecognisable Mike Myers is a lot of fun as the manager who missed out on the vision and lives to regret it. Honourable mention also to Allen Leech as the villain of the piece, who walks the tightrope of cartoonish nastiness with some skill, serving the story well in the latter half.
My favourites parts were, unsurprisingly, the genesis and evolution of the big tunes, which was invariably very satisfying. Love of My Life, We Will Rock You, We are the Champions and of course Bohemian Rhapsody are treated like holy texts, with fascinating detail and a reverence that never seems over-egged. Building to the climax of Live Aid; a twenty minute segment at the end of the film that brings a genuine lump to the throat. The magnitude of the event and its natural energy are so well realised, every minor foible of the film up to that point are forgiven, and you walk away from it feeling elated and glad that this moment exists in music history.
Artistically, it isn’t a movie to get too caried away about, but the art of creating a spectacle that pleases on a basic, uncomplicated level is. Director Bryan Singer knows a trick or two, and the trick here is what is left out. There just isn’t a moment to be bored, and I find myself wishing that films of this kind took a leaf out of that book more often. In conclusion, I think this movie will endure the test of time, which is a lot more than most biopic genre films can say. But who wants to live forever anyway?
Having made a 20 strong watch list, I wasted no time in heading straight for the Queen biopic, Bohemian Rhapsody, winner of 4 awards last February, including one for Rami Malek as Freddy Mercury that I applauded very loudly at the time, without having seen it, due to my love for him as Elliot Alderson in my favourite TV show of the last 5 years, the incredible and mindbendingly brilliant Mr. Robot.
My connection to Queen as a fan isn’t an especially strong one; I have always thought they were fine, and enjoyed their biggest hits as much as anyone. But it is the story, charisma and undeniable singing talent of Mercury that attracts me. From the opening scenes it is apparent that what we are going to get here is a fairly straightforward, by the numbers recounting of events, punctuated by some serious tunes and some glorious 70s fashions. Having read that this was the main criticism of it going in, it really didn’t bother me at all to find it wasn’t going to make bolder artistic and dramatic choices. It was very much about sitting back and enjoying the show!
In fact, there is something comforting and unchallenging about its format that I liked. The pattern of abc that is a) some background to Freddy’s life, b) a build up to how they came across their big hits, and c) a rendition of that hit, didn’t strike me as cheap, but rather unpretentious and to the point. The whole thing clipped along nicely with very little dead air; Malek is a joy to watch in every moment; the clothes and scenery of the 70s and later 80s is a treat; and the music stands for itself, with you often forgetting how good the tunes are until you hear them in this context.
Of course, at times it is almost laughable how well known facts and details are crow-barred into the narrative, with some of the darker elements glossed over, as if this were almost a Disney retelling. But, again, it doesn’t matter, because as an entertainment it is all so enjoyable. Not to say the dark side of the story isn’t touched upon, because it is to an extent, just that it is clear this is a celebration of a life and a talent, not an exposé. Which is fine. As with the superior Walk The Line, and the recently inferior Rocketman, we know a seedier story of Johnny Cash and Elton John exists, but we accept that revelling in the genius of the music is more fun than trawling through the trash.
Malek is a wonder to behold! It has to be said. Once you (and he) get used to the false teeth and bite down on the energy and drive of Mercury, it is impossible to take your eyes off him! He handles the dramatic moments and nuance of this fragile mind with ease, but it is the performances that stand out: his movement is so fluid and accurate that you forget at times you aren’t watching archive footage, which is some trick! Gwilym Lee and Ben Hardy as Brian May and Roger Taylor are also to be praised for this, despite having less to do. With Joseph Mazzello as John Deacon largely merging into the background inoffensively, much as his real life counterpart did.
There is some solid support too. Lucy Boynton is completely charming if largely uninteresting; Tom Hollander quietly steals several scenes as the lawyer who doesn’t just work for them but idolises them as much as any fan; and an unrecognisable Mike Myers is a lot of fun as the manager who missed out on the vision and lives to regret it. Honourable mention also to Allen Leech as the villain of the piece, who walks the tightrope of cartoonish nastiness with some skill, serving the story well in the latter half.
My favourites parts were, unsurprisingly, the genesis and evolution of the big tunes, which was invariably very satisfying. Love of My Life, We Will Rock You, We are the Champions and of course Bohemian Rhapsody are treated like holy texts, with fascinating detail and a reverence that never seems over-egged. Building to the climax of Live Aid; a twenty minute segment at the end of the film that brings a genuine lump to the throat. The magnitude of the event and its natural energy are so well realised, every minor foible of the film up to that point are forgiven, and you walk away from it feeling elated and glad that this moment exists in music history.
Artistically, it isn’t a movie to get too caried away about, but the art of creating a spectacle that pleases on a basic, uncomplicated level is. Director Bryan Singer knows a trick or two, and the trick here is what is left out. There just isn’t a moment to be bored, and I find myself wishing that films of this kind took a leaf out of that book more often. In conclusion, I think this movie will endure the test of time, which is a lot more than most biopic genre films can say. But who wants to live forever anyway?
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mary Poppins Returns (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A valiant attempt to recreate a masterpiece.
How do you repaint a masterpiece: the Mona Lisa of children’s fantasy cinema? Some would say “You shouldn’t try”.
As I’ve said before, Mary Poppins was the first film I saw when it came out (or soon afterwards) at a very impressionable age…. I was said to have bawled my eyes out with “THE MAGIC NANNY IS GOING AWAY!!” as Julie Andrews floated off! So as my last cinema trip of 2018 I went to see this sequel, 54 years after the original, with a sense of dread. I’m relieved to say that although the film has its flaws it’s by no means the disaster I envisaged.
The plot
It’s a fairly lightweight story. Now all grown up, young Michael from the original film (Ben Whishaw) has his own family. His troubles though come not singly but in battalions since not only is he grieving a recent loss but he is also about to be evicted from 17 Cherry Tree Lane. Help is at hand in that his father, George Banks, had shares with the Fidelity Fiduciary Bank. But despite their best efforts neither he, his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) nor their chirpy “strike a light” lamplighter friend Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda) can find the all-important share certificates. With the deadline from bank manager Wilkins (Colin Firth) approaching, it’s fortuitous that Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt) drops in to look after the Banks children – John (Nathanael Saleh), Anabel (Pixie Davies) and Georgie (Joel Dawson) – in her own inimitable fashion.
Songs that are more Meh-ry Poppins
I know musical taste is very personal. My biggest problem with the film though was that the songs by Marc Shaiman were, to me, on the lacklustre side. Only one jumped out and struck me: the jaunty vaudeville number “A Cover is not the Book”. Elsewhere they were – to me – unmemorable and nowhere near as catchy as those of “The Greatest Showman“. (What amplified this for me was having some of the classic Sherman-brothers themes woven into the soundtrack that just made me realise what I was missing!) Richard M Sherman – now 90 – was credited with “Music Consultant” but I wonder how much input he actually had?
The other flaws
Another issue I had with the film was that it just tried WAAYYY too hard to tick off the key attributes of the original:
‘Mary in the mirror’ – check
‘Bottomless carpet bag’ – check
‘Initial fun in the nursery’ – check
‘Quirky trip to a cartoon land’ – check
‘Dance on the ceiling with a quirky relative’ – check
‘Chirpy chimney sweeps’ – check (“Er… Mr Marshall… we couldn’t get chimney sweeps… will lamplighters do?” “Yeah, good enough”)
Another thing that struck me about the film – particularly as a film aimed at kids – is just how long it is. At 2 hours and 10 minutes it’s a bladder-testing experience for adults let alone younger children. (It’s worth noting that this is still 9 minutes shorter than the original, but back in the 60’s we had FAR fewer options to be stimulated by entertainment and our attention spans were – I think – much longer as a result!)
What it does get right
But with this whinging aside, the film does get a number of things spit-spot on.
Emily Blunt is near perfection as Poppins. (In the interests of balance my wife found her bizarrely clipped accent very grating, but I suspect P.L. Travers would have approved!). Broadway star Lin-Manuel Miranda also does a good job as Jack, although you wonder whether the ‘society of cockney actors’ must again be in a big grump about the casting! I found Emily Mortimer just delightful as the grown-up Jane, although Ben Whishaw‘s Michael didn’t particularly connect with me.
Almost unrecognisable was David Warner as the now wheelchair-bound Admiral Boom. His first mate is none other than Jim Norton of “Father Ted” Bishop Brennan fame (thanks to my daughter Jenn for pointing that one out)!
Also watch out (I’d largely missed it before I realised!) for a nice pavement cameo by Karen Dotrice, the original Jane, asking directions to number 19 Cherry Tree Lane.
What the film also gets right is to implement the old-school animation of the “Jolly Holidays” segment of the original. That’s a really smart move. Filmed at Shepperton Studios in London, this is once again a great advert for Britain’s film technicians. The London sets and the costumes (by the great Sandy Powell) are just superb.
Some cameo cherries on the cake
Finally, the aces in the hole are the two cameos near the end of the film. And they would have been lovely surprises as well since neither name appears in the opening credits. It’s therefore a CRYING SHAME that they chose to let the cat out of the bag in the trailer (BLOODY MARKETING EXECS!). In case you haven’t seen the trailer, I won’t spoil it for you here. But as a magical movie experience the first of those cameos moved me close to tears. He also delivers a hum-dinger of a plot twist that is a genuinely welcome crossover from the first film.
Final Thoughts
Rob Marshall directs, and with a pretty impossible task he delivers an end-product that, while it didn’t completely thrill me, did well not to trash my delicate hopes and dreams either. Having just listened to Kermode and Mayo’s review (and it seems that Mark Kermode places Poppins on a similar pedestal to me) the songs (and therefore the “Place Where Lost Things Go” song) just didn’t resonate with me in the same way, and so, unlike Kermode, I mentally never bridged the gap to safely enjoying it.
But what we all think is secondary. Because if some three or four year old out there gets a similarly lifelong love of the cinema by watching this, then that’s all that matters.
As I’ve said before, Mary Poppins was the first film I saw when it came out (or soon afterwards) at a very impressionable age…. I was said to have bawled my eyes out with “THE MAGIC NANNY IS GOING AWAY!!” as Julie Andrews floated off! So as my last cinema trip of 2018 I went to see this sequel, 54 years after the original, with a sense of dread. I’m relieved to say that although the film has its flaws it’s by no means the disaster I envisaged.
The plot
It’s a fairly lightweight story. Now all grown up, young Michael from the original film (Ben Whishaw) has his own family. His troubles though come not singly but in battalions since not only is he grieving a recent loss but he is also about to be evicted from 17 Cherry Tree Lane. Help is at hand in that his father, George Banks, had shares with the Fidelity Fiduciary Bank. But despite their best efforts neither he, his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) nor their chirpy “strike a light” lamplighter friend Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda) can find the all-important share certificates. With the deadline from bank manager Wilkins (Colin Firth) approaching, it’s fortuitous that Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt) drops in to look after the Banks children – John (Nathanael Saleh), Anabel (Pixie Davies) and Georgie (Joel Dawson) – in her own inimitable fashion.
Songs that are more Meh-ry Poppins
I know musical taste is very personal. My biggest problem with the film though was that the songs by Marc Shaiman were, to me, on the lacklustre side. Only one jumped out and struck me: the jaunty vaudeville number “A Cover is not the Book”. Elsewhere they were – to me – unmemorable and nowhere near as catchy as those of “The Greatest Showman“. (What amplified this for me was having some of the classic Sherman-brothers themes woven into the soundtrack that just made me realise what I was missing!) Richard M Sherman – now 90 – was credited with “Music Consultant” but I wonder how much input he actually had?
The other flaws
Another issue I had with the film was that it just tried WAAYYY too hard to tick off the key attributes of the original:
‘Mary in the mirror’ – check
‘Bottomless carpet bag’ – check
‘Initial fun in the nursery’ – check
‘Quirky trip to a cartoon land’ – check
‘Dance on the ceiling with a quirky relative’ – check
‘Chirpy chimney sweeps’ – check (“Er… Mr Marshall… we couldn’t get chimney sweeps… will lamplighters do?” “Yeah, good enough”)
Another thing that struck me about the film – particularly as a film aimed at kids – is just how long it is. At 2 hours and 10 minutes it’s a bladder-testing experience for adults let alone younger children. (It’s worth noting that this is still 9 minutes shorter than the original, but back in the 60’s we had FAR fewer options to be stimulated by entertainment and our attention spans were – I think – much longer as a result!)
What it does get right
But with this whinging aside, the film does get a number of things spit-spot on.
Emily Blunt is near perfection as Poppins. (In the interests of balance my wife found her bizarrely clipped accent very grating, but I suspect P.L. Travers would have approved!). Broadway star Lin-Manuel Miranda also does a good job as Jack, although you wonder whether the ‘society of cockney actors’ must again be in a big grump about the casting! I found Emily Mortimer just delightful as the grown-up Jane, although Ben Whishaw‘s Michael didn’t particularly connect with me.
Almost unrecognisable was David Warner as the now wheelchair-bound Admiral Boom. His first mate is none other than Jim Norton of “Father Ted” Bishop Brennan fame (thanks to my daughter Jenn for pointing that one out)!
Also watch out (I’d largely missed it before I realised!) for a nice pavement cameo by Karen Dotrice, the original Jane, asking directions to number 19 Cherry Tree Lane.
What the film also gets right is to implement the old-school animation of the “Jolly Holidays” segment of the original. That’s a really smart move. Filmed at Shepperton Studios in London, this is once again a great advert for Britain’s film technicians. The London sets and the costumes (by the great Sandy Powell) are just superb.
Some cameo cherries on the cake
Finally, the aces in the hole are the two cameos near the end of the film. And they would have been lovely surprises as well since neither name appears in the opening credits. It’s therefore a CRYING SHAME that they chose to let the cat out of the bag in the trailer (BLOODY MARKETING EXECS!). In case you haven’t seen the trailer, I won’t spoil it for you here. But as a magical movie experience the first of those cameos moved me close to tears. He also delivers a hum-dinger of a plot twist that is a genuinely welcome crossover from the first film.
Final Thoughts
Rob Marshall directs, and with a pretty impossible task he delivers an end-product that, while it didn’t completely thrill me, did well not to trash my delicate hopes and dreams either. Having just listened to Kermode and Mayo’s review (and it seems that Mark Kermode places Poppins on a similar pedestal to me) the songs (and therefore the “Place Where Lost Things Go” song) just didn’t resonate with me in the same way, and so, unlike Kermode, I mentally never bridged the gap to safely enjoying it.
But what we all think is secondary. Because if some three or four year old out there gets a similarly lifelong love of the cinema by watching this, then that’s all that matters.
I first learned about you, Joe, when I sat one Sunday morning on Netflix and I could not keep my eyes off of the promo for this show about you fixating on a blonde woman. Naturally, I was intrigued and I had to learn about you, Joe, and how exactly you could see stalking as a way of getting close to someone and love them. I do wish you hadn't been a manager at a bookstore, Joe. I'm a booknerd, it was difficult to not like you, most of the time.
I watched your story and then I listened to your story. Joe, there are quite a few differences between the BookJoe and the NetflixJoe. Either way, Joe, I judge you harshly at each passing moment when you follow this girl, Guinevere Beck (can we just laugh at the irony that her name is Guinevere? If you haven't read King Author, you should) or stalk her using her old phone that she believed lost.
Just a little nit pick on my part, Netflix, Android and Apple DO NOT use the same cloud! They are ENTIRELY different companies with entirely different hardware. There was no way, NetflixJoe, that you could have seen the woman's emails or texts from an Android phone when she got a new phone that is an Apple. Rant over, now back to you, Joe.
BookJoe is more wordy and more story telling. Perhaps your warped mind may have believed Guinevere (Beck in both stories) might have flirted with you. This begs the question, what made her stand out from any other WOMAN who doesn't wear a bra (and don't state that you can't tell because you point that out about Beck every chance you got)? It couldn't have been the books she purchased as how you mentally made fun of the fact that she bought a certain book because the author was a relative of a celebrity.
I'll give you credit, NetflixJoe, while NetflixBeck was still a bit off with her procrastination and her obsessiveness with a crack head and drinking, she still grew some character and made for someone with potential. BookBeck, on the other hand, BookJoe, you really could have picked a much better person to stalk.
BookBeck is highly ditzy, a pushover, loves to drink (a lot!), and prefers casual encounters (which you found that out by going through her email) with other men, except you! She claims she wants to write, yet spends little if any time doing it, and while you do somewhat encourage her, it doesn't work. She just wants to say she wants to write, but not do it. And when she does write, and BookJoe you have stated this a little annoyance before, it's pure pornography.
BookJoe, I often pitied you because you are highly intelligent yet so stupid. BookBeck was all wrong for you and you spent all this time trying to make her right and doing it all the wrong way. Oh, Joe, you just couldn't take it. And you couldn't see it. So stupid, Joe.
Okay, as fun as that was, here's the remainder of the review without me talking to Joe. The show on Netflix was so hard to turn off because it was that intense. No, I DO NOT ship Beck and Joe. HE IS STILL A STALKER!! The show really showed that even the people who seem all nice and laid back CAN BE THE PERSON THAT IS DANGEROUS! The book does the same thing as well.
In the book, it's all told in Joe's point of view, and he could very well be not a very reliable narrator. All of it is told from what he sees and sometimes what he wishes he could see. At least on Netflix, though Joe narrates mostly, you're able to see the evidence instead of going off by his word. He also gives off of how delusional he really is when it comes to Beck. He makes himself BELIEVE that Beck is just suffering from daddy issues with all these men and he can help her and make her only want him.
The story itself was really well put together. The book will definitely not give you the shipping feels like Netflix seems to do for some people. Most of the time, I do just say out loud how stupid Joe really is and how he maybe he should move on. I wasn't lying when I said BookBeck was all those things. She really was. I actually did not like her character at all. To me, there wasn't much growth except for small things here and there, but for the most part, she just remained this person who had daddy issues and tried to do everything she could to NOT write. I'll give her credit for finding out about Joe and trying to figure out how to get away, but that's about it.
The show is a great watch cause the story is pretty good. If you want to see everything and not go by Joe, watch the show first. If you are curious as to how BookJoe started and became NetflixJoe, read this book first. Do you think he's a reliable narrator?
I have to point out the similarities with these characters that of King Arthur, however. I mentioned that earlier because Beck's first name is Guinevere. Think about it (if you've read King Arthur when you were in school).
Joe is Arthur - he manages a bookstore and reads. He fixates himself on a woman who apparently is so enchanting that he must have her no matter what.
Benji in retrospect is Merlin - He may be hooked on drugs and a total douche, but he WARNS Joe about Beck and that she is indeed crazy and not faithful. Joe does NOT listen.
Dr. Nicky is Lancelot - he is a therapist to both Joe and Beck (separately and without the other knowing) and he tries to guide Joe through his therapy, but in the end, he falls for Beck and they have an affair.
Beck IS GUINEVERE - Not at all the person she appears to be for Joe and winds up being entirely unfaithful and suffers for it.
**I haven't figured out Peach, but she's just crazy**
It is a two part series - I need a break from Joe before I think about reading the second book.
I watched your story and then I listened to your story. Joe, there are quite a few differences between the BookJoe and the NetflixJoe. Either way, Joe, I judge you harshly at each passing moment when you follow this girl, Guinevere Beck (can we just laugh at the irony that her name is Guinevere? If you haven't read King Author, you should) or stalk her using her old phone that she believed lost.
Just a little nit pick on my part, Netflix, Android and Apple DO NOT use the same cloud! They are ENTIRELY different companies with entirely different hardware. There was no way, NetflixJoe, that you could have seen the woman's emails or texts from an Android phone when she got a new phone that is an Apple. Rant over, now back to you, Joe.
BookJoe is more wordy and more story telling. Perhaps your warped mind may have believed Guinevere (Beck in both stories) might have flirted with you. This begs the question, what made her stand out from any other WOMAN who doesn't wear a bra (and don't state that you can't tell because you point that out about Beck every chance you got)? It couldn't have been the books she purchased as how you mentally made fun of the fact that she bought a certain book because the author was a relative of a celebrity.
I'll give you credit, NetflixJoe, while NetflixBeck was still a bit off with her procrastination and her obsessiveness with a crack head and drinking, she still grew some character and made for someone with potential. BookBeck, on the other hand, BookJoe, you really could have picked a much better person to stalk.
BookBeck is highly ditzy, a pushover, loves to drink (a lot!), and prefers casual encounters (which you found that out by going through her email) with other men, except you! She claims she wants to write, yet spends little if any time doing it, and while you do somewhat encourage her, it doesn't work. She just wants to say she wants to write, but not do it. And when she does write, and BookJoe you have stated this a little annoyance before, it's pure pornography.
BookJoe, I often pitied you because you are highly intelligent yet so stupid. BookBeck was all wrong for you and you spent all this time trying to make her right and doing it all the wrong way. Oh, Joe, you just couldn't take it. And you couldn't see it. So stupid, Joe.
Okay, as fun as that was, here's the remainder of the review without me talking to Joe. The show on Netflix was so hard to turn off because it was that intense. No, I DO NOT ship Beck and Joe. HE IS STILL A STALKER!! The show really showed that even the people who seem all nice and laid back CAN BE THE PERSON THAT IS DANGEROUS! The book does the same thing as well.
In the book, it's all told in Joe's point of view, and he could very well be not a very reliable narrator. All of it is told from what he sees and sometimes what he wishes he could see. At least on Netflix, though Joe narrates mostly, you're able to see the evidence instead of going off by his word. He also gives off of how delusional he really is when it comes to Beck. He makes himself BELIEVE that Beck is just suffering from daddy issues with all these men and he can help her and make her only want him.
The story itself was really well put together. The book will definitely not give you the shipping feels like Netflix seems to do for some people. Most of the time, I do just say out loud how stupid Joe really is and how he maybe he should move on. I wasn't lying when I said BookBeck was all those things. She really was. I actually did not like her character at all. To me, there wasn't much growth except for small things here and there, but for the most part, she just remained this person who had daddy issues and tried to do everything she could to NOT write. I'll give her credit for finding out about Joe and trying to figure out how to get away, but that's about it.
The show is a great watch cause the story is pretty good. If you want to see everything and not go by Joe, watch the show first. If you are curious as to how BookJoe started and became NetflixJoe, read this book first. Do you think he's a reliable narrator?
I have to point out the similarities with these characters that of King Arthur, however. I mentioned that earlier because Beck's first name is Guinevere. Think about it (if you've read King Arthur when you were in school).
Joe is Arthur - he manages a bookstore and reads. He fixates himself on a woman who apparently is so enchanting that he must have her no matter what.
Benji in retrospect is Merlin - He may be hooked on drugs and a total douche, but he WARNS Joe about Beck and that she is indeed crazy and not faithful. Joe does NOT listen.
Dr. Nicky is Lancelot - he is a therapist to both Joe and Beck (separately and without the other knowing) and he tries to guide Joe through his therapy, but in the end, he falls for Beck and they have an affair.
Beck IS GUINEVERE - Not at all the person she appears to be for Joe and winds up being entirely unfaithful and suffers for it.
**I haven't figured out Peach, but she's just crazy**
It is a two part series - I need a break from Joe before I think about reading the second book.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated The Awakening (The Vampire Diaries, #1) in Books
Feb 3, 2020
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
#1 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2998210568">The Awakening</a> - ★★★★★
#2 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2998210684">The Struggle</a> - ★★★★★
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Book-Review-Banner-24.png"/>;
<b><i>I had The Awakening and the Struggle (the first and second books from the Vampire Diaries series) on my shelf for years.</i></b>
When I say years, I mean it. It all started when I was in high-school, around 6 years ago, and I was in love with the Vampire Diaries TV Show. When I found out there are books as well, I begged my mum to buy them for me. And once I had them, I never got to read them, because teenage logic...
I recently noticed the Vampire Diaries books sitting on my shelf, forgotten, and I thought it would be a perfect opportunity to read it in October, because of the whole spooky vibe. So there it is now - even thought the wheel didn't choose it, I did, because it deserved the attention!
Elena Gilbert is a popular girl in high-school and she always gets what she wants. Boys want to be with her, girls hate her, or want to be her best friends. And when this new boy Stefan comes into town, all mysterious, Elena wants him. But Stefan is hiding a deadly secret that Elena might now be ready for just yet. And her life, as well as the life of everyone living in Fell's Church is in grave danger... Elena finds herself between two brothers - one who came for a new life, and the other, who came for revenge...
Reading this book, while already knowing what the plot it, I thought I found find it boring. But no. I still enjoyed every single page of it, and I still devoured this book in one day.
From the first chapter, this book is intense and captures your attention. It is written in third person, but it also contains diary entries that belong to Elena and capture her deepest thoughts that she doesn't dare share with anyone else.
<b><i>I loved Elena!</i></b>
Her character is exactly what I was expected and what I have known to love - brave and fierce, and also willing to sacrifice her own happiness and safety for the people she loves the most.
Elena's friends, Meredith and Bonnie are the friends every girl needs. Funny and caring. A few pages in, and you will get to love them too.
Stefan - the mysterious new guy in school. The guy that tries to stay away from the girl he really wants because he's a danger to her. A little bit of Twilight vibes, but we can get past that. Because there is one thing that Twilight didn't have, that you can find reading The Vampire Diaries...
<b><i>DAMON</i></b>
Even though we only get a glimpse of him in this book, we can feel his presence throughout the whole book. We can feel his connection with Elena, as weird and spooky as it may be. All that danger that he carries with him, we all want to see whether there's anything good in him at all. His story is the most intriguing one, I think. His hunger for revenge makes you really understand both sides of the story and choose a side for yourself.
<b><i>So, are you team Stefan, or team Damon?</i></b>
I loved reading this - it was an amazing experience and it reminded me of my high-school days, of those innocent happy memories. My teenage life didn't include vampires, but hey - it was still awesome!
Pick the Vampire Diaries up if you love Young Adult spooky books, if you loved Twilight and if you love vampire, love and mystery stories in general.
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Book-Review-Banner-8.png"/>;
<b><i>The Struggle is the continuation of the Vampire Diaries Series by L.J. Smith. The second book that features the life of popular girl Elena Gilbert and her endeavors with the mysterious vampire brothers Stefan and Damon Salvatore.</i></b>
The Struggle continues where The Awakening ends; Elena is looking to talk to Damon, knowing that he has something to do with Stefan's disappearance.
I felt like there was more action in this book, compared to the first one. It made me more engrossed with the story and I was very excited for all the twists.
Elena was obviously the main character in this book, alongside Stefan and Damon. I am not sure how I felt about Elena in this book. She seemed to ignore everyone for a while and just be her selfish self - which resulted in getting people in trouble.
On the other hand, I really loved the history of Stefan and Damon. The memories from hundreds of years ago. The author manager to portray the time very well, and I was easily transported into another world, another time... I think these scenes were definitely the favourite part of this book.
I wish we saw more chapters with Bonnie and Meredith. Even though best friends, it didn't feel like they were too involved in the story. We didn't get to know them properly and it has already been two books. I really hope book three will let us meet these two characters better.
I am happy with the book in general.
The scenes, the plot, the twists - they were all very carefully put together. Elena's love choices are opening up, letting us wonder which brother she might choose. Making us choose sides (team Damon here!). This battle between the love and hate of the two brothers definitely seems interesting.
<b>The ending was everything I was hoping for and now I can't wait for the next book. The Awakening and The Struggle were only an introduction and the real adventures are yet to begin!</b>
I recommend it to all of you that love young-adult, teen romance and vampire stories. It will keep you on your toes for sure!
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
#1 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2998210568">The Awakening</a> - ★★★★★
#2 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2998210684">The Struggle</a> - ★★★★★
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Book-Review-Banner-24.png"/>;
<b><i>I had The Awakening and the Struggle (the first and second books from the Vampire Diaries series) on my shelf for years.</i></b>
When I say years, I mean it. It all started when I was in high-school, around 6 years ago, and I was in love with the Vampire Diaries TV Show. When I found out there are books as well, I begged my mum to buy them for me. And once I had them, I never got to read them, because teenage logic...
I recently noticed the Vampire Diaries books sitting on my shelf, forgotten, and I thought it would be a perfect opportunity to read it in October, because of the whole spooky vibe. So there it is now - even thought the wheel didn't choose it, I did, because it deserved the attention!
Elena Gilbert is a popular girl in high-school and she always gets what she wants. Boys want to be with her, girls hate her, or want to be her best friends. And when this new boy Stefan comes into town, all mysterious, Elena wants him. But Stefan is hiding a deadly secret that Elena might now be ready for just yet. And her life, as well as the life of everyone living in Fell's Church is in grave danger... Elena finds herself between two brothers - one who came for a new life, and the other, who came for revenge...
Reading this book, while already knowing what the plot it, I thought I found find it boring. But no. I still enjoyed every single page of it, and I still devoured this book in one day.
From the first chapter, this book is intense and captures your attention. It is written in third person, but it also contains diary entries that belong to Elena and capture her deepest thoughts that she doesn't dare share with anyone else.
<b><i>I loved Elena!</i></b>
Her character is exactly what I was expected and what I have known to love - brave and fierce, and also willing to sacrifice her own happiness and safety for the people she loves the most.
Elena's friends, Meredith and Bonnie are the friends every girl needs. Funny and caring. A few pages in, and you will get to love them too.
Stefan - the mysterious new guy in school. The guy that tries to stay away from the girl he really wants because he's a danger to her. A little bit of Twilight vibes, but we can get past that. Because there is one thing that Twilight didn't have, that you can find reading The Vampire Diaries...
<b><i>DAMON</i></b>
Even though we only get a glimpse of him in this book, we can feel his presence throughout the whole book. We can feel his connection with Elena, as weird and spooky as it may be. All that danger that he carries with him, we all want to see whether there's anything good in him at all. His story is the most intriguing one, I think. His hunger for revenge makes you really understand both sides of the story and choose a side for yourself.
<b><i>So, are you team Stefan, or team Damon?</i></b>
I loved reading this - it was an amazing experience and it reminded me of my high-school days, of those innocent happy memories. My teenage life didn't include vampires, but hey - it was still awesome!
Pick the Vampire Diaries up if you love Young Adult spooky books, if you loved Twilight and if you love vampire, love and mystery stories in general.
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Book-Review-Banner-8.png"/>;
<b><i>The Struggle is the continuation of the Vampire Diaries Series by L.J. Smith. The second book that features the life of popular girl Elena Gilbert and her endeavors with the mysterious vampire brothers Stefan and Damon Salvatore.</i></b>
The Struggle continues where The Awakening ends; Elena is looking to talk to Damon, knowing that he has something to do with Stefan's disappearance.
I felt like there was more action in this book, compared to the first one. It made me more engrossed with the story and I was very excited for all the twists.
Elena was obviously the main character in this book, alongside Stefan and Damon. I am not sure how I felt about Elena in this book. She seemed to ignore everyone for a while and just be her selfish self - which resulted in getting people in trouble.
On the other hand, I really loved the history of Stefan and Damon. The memories from hundreds of years ago. The author manager to portray the time very well, and I was easily transported into another world, another time... I think these scenes were definitely the favourite part of this book.
I wish we saw more chapters with Bonnie and Meredith. Even though best friends, it didn't feel like they were too involved in the story. We didn't get to know them properly and it has already been two books. I really hope book three will let us meet these two characters better.
I am happy with the book in general.
The scenes, the plot, the twists - they were all very carefully put together. Elena's love choices are opening up, letting us wonder which brother she might choose. Making us choose sides (team Damon here!). This battle between the love and hate of the two brothers definitely seems interesting.
<b>The ending was everything I was hoping for and now I can't wait for the next book. The Awakening and The Struggle were only an introduction and the real adventures are yet to begin!</b>
I recommend it to all of you that love young-adult, teen romance and vampire stories. It will keep you on your toes for sure!
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Big Easy Busking in Tabletop Games
Sep 15, 2020
Ahh New Orleans. If there ever was a city I NEED to revisit, it’s New Orleans. I love nearly everything about it. The history, the art and music, the architecture, and strolling down Frenchman Street at night listening to the hottest music I’ve ever heard live. But what is it like to BE a musician in NOLA? Or even a group’s manager? Well, I’ve never played in New Orleans (I am a professional trumpet player – don’t belive me? Check out the last photo in this review to see my axe and the box as proof), but I can imagine how it would go. Does Big Easy Busking capture the feeling? Let’s find out together.
Big Easy Busking is a card-based area control game with a sweet sweet music theme. Players will be taking turns learning charts, playing charts, and transferring energy from the musicians to the crowd and back. The winner of Big Easy Busking is the player who can score the biggest haul in tips for the weekend to become the hottest band in town.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, two “streets” in New Orleans will need to be populated with song cards, both standards and learnable tunes. Crowd cards will be placed under the streets to depict certain crowds and what the moods of those crowds are. Each player will receive some starting bread (money for those not in the biz), energy for their 3-piece band of sax, trumpet, and drums, a starting set list of three tunes, and a reference card that has nothing to do with the metaphor. Decide who can play the highest note (if you are all trumpet players) and the gig may begin!
A turn is broken down into a few different parts. The first thing to be done on a turn is to finish playing the song that had been started in the previous round. Obviously you need to START playing a song to be able to finish, so the primary phase of the turn would be to either learn a song from the song offer or start playing a song from those dealt during setup. To play a song, players will choose a song card, place it under a crowd card (hopefully matching their mood: masks, hearts, beads, fleur-de-lis), gather the required energy from the musicians appropriately, and add those energy cubes to the song card.
After a song is started or learned, the player’s turn is over. On the next turn the player will finish playing the song by moving the spent energy to the crowd in full and taking $1 or moving some of the energy to the crowd and some back to their band members to be used on future songs.
The middle step in a turn (yes, I know I am explaining it out of order, but you do have to start playing a song before you can finish it) is to optionally tip your band members by trading in money for energy at a 1:1 ratio.
Once all players have used up their energy cubes or simply wish to, they will announce that they are “taking a break.” In other words, they pass for the remainder of the round. As the last player takes their break the end of round activities begin. Printed on each crowd card are two important icons: payout amounts for majority of energy and payout amounts for energy reaching the threshold. Resolving each crowd card will determine the players that hold majority or shared majority in each crowd location. For the majority holders payouts will reflect what is printed on the upper left of the crowd card. The upper right of the crowd card displays the number of energy needed upon it to meet the threshold in order to be paid the amount shown. When all crowd cards have been scored players will setup for the next night (round) per the rules. Play continues in this way over three rounds with the winner being the player at the end of the game with the most money.
Components. This is a smaller box (not exactly the same size, but think Tiny Epic), but it is packed with some really amazing bits. First off, as you can tell from the photos the art and color palette used here is simply phenomenal. I absolutely love the color scheme and the art certainly reminds me of some paintings we purchased from an artist on Jackson Square last time we were able to visit. The cards are nice, but I think I will want to sleeve them eventually as I had them in my hands the whole game. The cardboard money and mood tokens are fine, and the wooden cubes reflect the colorful nature of this little gem. All in all, exactly what I would expect from components in a Weird Giraffe Games production. Stellar (see what I did there, Carla?).
I have not really enjoyed a ton of area control games in my gaming history. So this came as a little bit of a shock as I truly loved playing this game. Even the solo rules are engaging and DIFFICULT to win. I came close though – within $1. The game is super quick as you are trying to please the crowds and their distinct moods with your best charts, but having to be mindful of not overextending your musicians lest they be too exhausted to give you the gas when you need it. THAT part resonates with me personally. Being a musician myself, I can tell you that crowds that are into a tune or a band and give them all the energy they have will be rewarded with even more from the band. I definitely give it more when the crowd digs what we’re laying down.
In any case, this is a game review, not a nostalgic trip down my musical memory lane. But then again, a little card game just brought me back wonderful memories of my band, and of visiting New Orleans, and of the joy of live music. Does Big Easy Busking completely mimic what it’s like to be a musician? Well, no, I can’t imagine how any game truly could, but it certainly shows the cyclical nature of energy being exchanged between musicians and appreciative crowds. Oh, the names of the tunes are also pretty funny on some. This all said, I super love this game and will be kicking out something in my collection to make room for it. If you are needing a smaller card game that you can bring out with musicians or non-musicians that appreciate the theme but also want to start introducing area control in a more accessible form, please do check out Big Easy Busking. Purple Phoenix Games gives it a good-for-the-soul 10 / 12. Maybe once I get into video I will do a Dan King (Game Boy Geek) serenade for Big Easy Busking as it travels into my collection.
Big Easy Busking is a card-based area control game with a sweet sweet music theme. Players will be taking turns learning charts, playing charts, and transferring energy from the musicians to the crowd and back. The winner of Big Easy Busking is the player who can score the biggest haul in tips for the weekend to become the hottest band in town.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, two “streets” in New Orleans will need to be populated with song cards, both standards and learnable tunes. Crowd cards will be placed under the streets to depict certain crowds and what the moods of those crowds are. Each player will receive some starting bread (money for those not in the biz), energy for their 3-piece band of sax, trumpet, and drums, a starting set list of three tunes, and a reference card that has nothing to do with the metaphor. Decide who can play the highest note (if you are all trumpet players) and the gig may begin!
A turn is broken down into a few different parts. The first thing to be done on a turn is to finish playing the song that had been started in the previous round. Obviously you need to START playing a song to be able to finish, so the primary phase of the turn would be to either learn a song from the song offer or start playing a song from those dealt during setup. To play a song, players will choose a song card, place it under a crowd card (hopefully matching their mood: masks, hearts, beads, fleur-de-lis), gather the required energy from the musicians appropriately, and add those energy cubes to the song card.
After a song is started or learned, the player’s turn is over. On the next turn the player will finish playing the song by moving the spent energy to the crowd in full and taking $1 or moving some of the energy to the crowd and some back to their band members to be used on future songs.
The middle step in a turn (yes, I know I am explaining it out of order, but you do have to start playing a song before you can finish it) is to optionally tip your band members by trading in money for energy at a 1:1 ratio.
Once all players have used up their energy cubes or simply wish to, they will announce that they are “taking a break.” In other words, they pass for the remainder of the round. As the last player takes their break the end of round activities begin. Printed on each crowd card are two important icons: payout amounts for majority of energy and payout amounts for energy reaching the threshold. Resolving each crowd card will determine the players that hold majority or shared majority in each crowd location. For the majority holders payouts will reflect what is printed on the upper left of the crowd card. The upper right of the crowd card displays the number of energy needed upon it to meet the threshold in order to be paid the amount shown. When all crowd cards have been scored players will setup for the next night (round) per the rules. Play continues in this way over three rounds with the winner being the player at the end of the game with the most money.
Components. This is a smaller box (not exactly the same size, but think Tiny Epic), but it is packed with some really amazing bits. First off, as you can tell from the photos the art and color palette used here is simply phenomenal. I absolutely love the color scheme and the art certainly reminds me of some paintings we purchased from an artist on Jackson Square last time we were able to visit. The cards are nice, but I think I will want to sleeve them eventually as I had them in my hands the whole game. The cardboard money and mood tokens are fine, and the wooden cubes reflect the colorful nature of this little gem. All in all, exactly what I would expect from components in a Weird Giraffe Games production. Stellar (see what I did there, Carla?).
I have not really enjoyed a ton of area control games in my gaming history. So this came as a little bit of a shock as I truly loved playing this game. Even the solo rules are engaging and DIFFICULT to win. I came close though – within $1. The game is super quick as you are trying to please the crowds and their distinct moods with your best charts, but having to be mindful of not overextending your musicians lest they be too exhausted to give you the gas when you need it. THAT part resonates with me personally. Being a musician myself, I can tell you that crowds that are into a tune or a band and give them all the energy they have will be rewarded with even more from the band. I definitely give it more when the crowd digs what we’re laying down.
In any case, this is a game review, not a nostalgic trip down my musical memory lane. But then again, a little card game just brought me back wonderful memories of my band, and of visiting New Orleans, and of the joy of live music. Does Big Easy Busking completely mimic what it’s like to be a musician? Well, no, I can’t imagine how any game truly could, but it certainly shows the cyclical nature of energy being exchanged between musicians and appreciative crowds. Oh, the names of the tunes are also pretty funny on some. This all said, I super love this game and will be kicking out something in my collection to make room for it. If you are needing a smaller card game that you can bring out with musicians or non-musicians that appreciate the theme but also want to start introducing area control in a more accessible form, please do check out Big Easy Busking. Purple Phoenix Games gives it a good-for-the-soul 10 / 12. Maybe once I get into video I will do a Dan King (Game Boy Geek) serenade for Big Easy Busking as it travels into my collection.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Cubitos in Tabletop Games
Mar 17, 2022
Let me tell you a story about how I came to own Cubitos. My FLGS, which since moving to Tennessee is an hour away in Knoxville (Sci-Fi City), had great stock of this game a couple months ago. I would step in, browse around, and pass on picking up a copy since they seemed to have so many. Forward in time to a month ago, when I was ready to grab my own copy, they are sold out. WHAT. Well, I had to order a copy online from somewhere I don’t normally shop because my favorite online sellers were also out of stock. Then Christmas came and my brother gifted me a copy of Cubitos. So then I had two. Long story now short – I have a copy and that’s all that matters because Cubitos is amazing.
Cubitos is a push-your-luck, dice building, racing game for two to four players. In it, players have runners that will be moving around a crazy race track, and another runner who keeps track of fans (the manager maybe?), and the first player’s runner to cross the finish line will be the winner! Now, managing movement and special abilities is where the game REALLY is, and it all boils down to which special dice are purchased and used, and whether Lady Luck will find favor or not. It’s a wild ride, so prepare your runner and let’s go!
To setup, place out one of the double-sided Racetrack boards, along with the Fan Track board. Runners for each player are placed at the Starting Line on the Racetrack board, and the other on the bleachers of the Fan Track. Each player receives a color-coded Player Board and nine gray starting dice. They receive a Phase Token to keep track of each phase in a round, and the starting player receives the Start Player Die. Each dice box is placed around the boards with the dice on top. All corresponding cards for each die type is placed by the dice box, and the game may now begin!
DISCLAIMER: We have adopted an unofficial variant/house rule that differs from the rules because we find it works better for us. During the phases where all players may play simultaneously we instead just have each player take a turn individually. -T
A turn in Cubitos is divided into two main phases with several sub-phases for each. During the main Roll Phase, players will first Draw dice from their personal Draw Zone (on the Player Board) and place them into the Roll Zone. Initially, players will have a hand size of nine, but that may be adjusted as the game progresses. Once the dice have been drawn the player then Rolls their dice. Every die face showing an icon is counted as a Hit, and every die showing a blank face is considered a Miss. All dice showing Hits are moved to the Active Zone of the board, and the player then decides if they wish to Push (their luck) and re-roll all the Misses in hopes of more Hits, or if they are done rolling. Once a player re-rolls their Misses, if the result is all Misses, the player Busts and must move ALL rolled dice to the Discard Zone on their board. However, players may continue to roll all Misses until they Bust or are content and stop.
The Run Phase then begins with players resolving their red die icons (crossed swords for attacks), and determining their other icons rolled for coins and movement. Feet icons (and certain dice special abilities) provide players with movement along the Racetrack board, and coins provide the player with purchasing power to buy new dice. Once a player’s Runner has landed on a reward spot on the board, the player receives the benefit and moves all dice used this turn to the Discard Zone on the Player board.
Every time a player Busts, or lands on a Fan icon on the Racetrack, the other matching Runner on the Fan Track board will move one spot along the track, and the player receives the benefits of the new space. These benefits are either an increase in hand limit of dice drawn, or more purchasing power in the form of credits. Reward spaces on the board could give players extra dice for free, allow players to remove dice from their collection, or even gain credits to be used at any time. The game continues in this fashion of each player taking their turns until one player crosses the finish line and wins!
Components. This box is chock full of tasty components that we all just adore. The boards and cards are all good quality and feature some fantastic art, and the custom dice are just so fun to handle. A truly ingenious use of folding arts is used when setting up all the dice boxes. Not only are they used in-game to remind players what icons are on each die face, but they also hold the dice during play, and store the dice in the box. I mean, triple duty dice boxes are where it’s at! Everything is super colorful and just a joy to play with each time. My one quibble is the very offensive block of cheese on the box cover. I am a big Chicago Bears fan, and seeing something so proudly displayed that even remotely resembles an homage to the Packers is such a shame to me. I really hope that wasn’t intentional, but I am also joking. Mostly.
The absolute best part about this game is the selection of action cards associated with each special set of dice. For example, the purple dinosaur dice could be paired with seven different cards, each with different abilities when the icon is rolled. Each color has a seven card deck, from which a card could randomly be used each game. The rulebook also offers 10 suggested combinations of cards, and also invites players to choose their own combos. This reminds me of a similar mechanic I first saw with the Dice Masters system, where each die’s faces could mean something completely different depending on the card associated with it. I loved that mechanic back then, and I do now as well.
I cannot believe I passed on this game for as long as I did. I mean, I like AEG-published games. We have reviewed John D. Clair games positively: Mystic Vale, with Custom Heroes and Space Base coming soon. Was it a subconscious dislike for the dumb cheese man on the cover? I am not too sure, but I am clearly glad to have it now. The cool dice. The interesting theme. The multi-use dice/card components. The fact they included both orange and purple dice. Am I into racing games now? The reasons are plentiful, and I just cannot wait for my next play of Cubitos. Maybe I can get my wife into it and it can be a staple in our rotation.
There are several other little rules that I did not mention here, but all in all I have had a blast every time I play Cubitos. I was certainly correct in wanting to add it to my collection, and having Josh teach Laura and me originally just adds a unique personal touch to the game for me. Creating lasting memories is a big reason I am so into board games in the first place, and I think Cubitos will hold a special place in my heart simply because I was able to play it with my best friends. They agree with me that this is a special game, and Purple Phoenix Games gives this a nonsquare 16 / 18. If you see this at your LFGS I highly recommend you pick up a copy. Don’t wait, like I did, because when you do get around to it, they just may be out of stock. And a suggestion: because the cheeseperson is wearing lederhosen, just refer to them as a great German friend. AND THAT’S IT. Go Bears.
Cubitos is a push-your-luck, dice building, racing game for two to four players. In it, players have runners that will be moving around a crazy race track, and another runner who keeps track of fans (the manager maybe?), and the first player’s runner to cross the finish line will be the winner! Now, managing movement and special abilities is where the game REALLY is, and it all boils down to which special dice are purchased and used, and whether Lady Luck will find favor or not. It’s a wild ride, so prepare your runner and let’s go!
To setup, place out one of the double-sided Racetrack boards, along with the Fan Track board. Runners for each player are placed at the Starting Line on the Racetrack board, and the other on the bleachers of the Fan Track. Each player receives a color-coded Player Board and nine gray starting dice. They receive a Phase Token to keep track of each phase in a round, and the starting player receives the Start Player Die. Each dice box is placed around the boards with the dice on top. All corresponding cards for each die type is placed by the dice box, and the game may now begin!
DISCLAIMER: We have adopted an unofficial variant/house rule that differs from the rules because we find it works better for us. During the phases where all players may play simultaneously we instead just have each player take a turn individually. -T
A turn in Cubitos is divided into two main phases with several sub-phases for each. During the main Roll Phase, players will first Draw dice from their personal Draw Zone (on the Player Board) and place them into the Roll Zone. Initially, players will have a hand size of nine, but that may be adjusted as the game progresses. Once the dice have been drawn the player then Rolls their dice. Every die face showing an icon is counted as a Hit, and every die showing a blank face is considered a Miss. All dice showing Hits are moved to the Active Zone of the board, and the player then decides if they wish to Push (their luck) and re-roll all the Misses in hopes of more Hits, or if they are done rolling. Once a player re-rolls their Misses, if the result is all Misses, the player Busts and must move ALL rolled dice to the Discard Zone on their board. However, players may continue to roll all Misses until they Bust or are content and stop.
The Run Phase then begins with players resolving their red die icons (crossed swords for attacks), and determining their other icons rolled for coins and movement. Feet icons (and certain dice special abilities) provide players with movement along the Racetrack board, and coins provide the player with purchasing power to buy new dice. Once a player’s Runner has landed on a reward spot on the board, the player receives the benefit and moves all dice used this turn to the Discard Zone on the Player board.
Every time a player Busts, or lands on a Fan icon on the Racetrack, the other matching Runner on the Fan Track board will move one spot along the track, and the player receives the benefits of the new space. These benefits are either an increase in hand limit of dice drawn, or more purchasing power in the form of credits. Reward spaces on the board could give players extra dice for free, allow players to remove dice from their collection, or even gain credits to be used at any time. The game continues in this fashion of each player taking their turns until one player crosses the finish line and wins!
Components. This box is chock full of tasty components that we all just adore. The boards and cards are all good quality and feature some fantastic art, and the custom dice are just so fun to handle. A truly ingenious use of folding arts is used when setting up all the dice boxes. Not only are they used in-game to remind players what icons are on each die face, but they also hold the dice during play, and store the dice in the box. I mean, triple duty dice boxes are where it’s at! Everything is super colorful and just a joy to play with each time. My one quibble is the very offensive block of cheese on the box cover. I am a big Chicago Bears fan, and seeing something so proudly displayed that even remotely resembles an homage to the Packers is such a shame to me. I really hope that wasn’t intentional, but I am also joking. Mostly.
The absolute best part about this game is the selection of action cards associated with each special set of dice. For example, the purple dinosaur dice could be paired with seven different cards, each with different abilities when the icon is rolled. Each color has a seven card deck, from which a card could randomly be used each game. The rulebook also offers 10 suggested combinations of cards, and also invites players to choose their own combos. This reminds me of a similar mechanic I first saw with the Dice Masters system, where each die’s faces could mean something completely different depending on the card associated with it. I loved that mechanic back then, and I do now as well.
I cannot believe I passed on this game for as long as I did. I mean, I like AEG-published games. We have reviewed John D. Clair games positively: Mystic Vale, with Custom Heroes and Space Base coming soon. Was it a subconscious dislike for the dumb cheese man on the cover? I am not too sure, but I am clearly glad to have it now. The cool dice. The interesting theme. The multi-use dice/card components. The fact they included both orange and purple dice. Am I into racing games now? The reasons are plentiful, and I just cannot wait for my next play of Cubitos. Maybe I can get my wife into it and it can be a staple in our rotation.
There are several other little rules that I did not mention here, but all in all I have had a blast every time I play Cubitos. I was certainly correct in wanting to add it to my collection, and having Josh teach Laura and me originally just adds a unique personal touch to the game for me. Creating lasting memories is a big reason I am so into board games in the first place, and I think Cubitos will hold a special place in my heart simply because I was able to play it with my best friends. They agree with me that this is a special game, and Purple Phoenix Games gives this a nonsquare 16 / 18. If you see this at your LFGS I highly recommend you pick up a copy. Don’t wait, like I did, because when you do get around to it, they just may be out of stock. And a suggestion: because the cheeseperson is wearing lederhosen, just refer to them as a great German friend. AND THAT’S IT. Go Bears.
