Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Snowpiercer (2013) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Korean director Joon-ho Bong takes us on a Science fiction ride with Snowpiercer. Based on the graphic novel Le Transperceneige, Snowpiercer is a story set on a train which acts as a human Noah’s Ark as it is the only place to survive after an attempt to stop global warming caused the planet to over freeze and become inhabitable. Not only is the train humanity’s last salvation, but it also mirrors human society as each portion of the train represents a different class structure. The poor and underprivileged are kept imprisoned in the back of the train, while the first class passengers are living in privilege in the front of the train. When the back of the train has finally had enough, they revolt and attempt to take control of the train and improve their place.
This is the film that Chris Evans chose to do in-between filming The Avengers and Captain America: Winter Soldier. In my opinion, he made a great choice. To me, Evans has always been just blah and one-dimensional. While he does not stray too far from how we have seen him act in the past, this film gives him a chance to show some depth and grit of character that we have not truly seen from him. Everyone looks at him as being the leader and you can see why. He embodies that character. I was impressed by his performance.
Along with Evans, Tilda Swinton helps carry this film from basic Sci-Fi ride to better than average film. She is fantastic in this film. She plays Mason, the governance of the train that helps keep things in order. She is the one that comes down from the front of the train and explains how and why the people in the back should keep their place. She steals the show with her presence every time she is on screen and gives a fantastic performance that causes us to both spite her, but also understand she is doing what is best for the train.
Without revealing too much about the story, the pacing of the film is great. It is not in a rush to get you from point A to point B, but rather takes the time to intertwine character development into story. The first half of the film is the revolt film where we see the dregs of life and the fight for freedom. The second half of the film is the reveal of wonderment where we see how the other side lives. In true Sci-Fi fashion, the story is a social commentary on our current place in society with regards to the richest 1% in the world. The revolt changes to a question of control which in turn changes to a question of true freedom, but at what cost?
I would recommend this film to any Sci-Fi fans or anyone looking for a thoughtful film and change of pace from the big summer blockbuster.
For a more in-depth discussion about the film, be sure to check out our podcast review.
This is the film that Chris Evans chose to do in-between filming The Avengers and Captain America: Winter Soldier. In my opinion, he made a great choice. To me, Evans has always been just blah and one-dimensional. While he does not stray too far from how we have seen him act in the past, this film gives him a chance to show some depth and grit of character that we have not truly seen from him. Everyone looks at him as being the leader and you can see why. He embodies that character. I was impressed by his performance.
Along with Evans, Tilda Swinton helps carry this film from basic Sci-Fi ride to better than average film. She is fantastic in this film. She plays Mason, the governance of the train that helps keep things in order. She is the one that comes down from the front of the train and explains how and why the people in the back should keep their place. She steals the show with her presence every time she is on screen and gives a fantastic performance that causes us to both spite her, but also understand she is doing what is best for the train.
Without revealing too much about the story, the pacing of the film is great. It is not in a rush to get you from point A to point B, but rather takes the time to intertwine character development into story. The first half of the film is the revolt film where we see the dregs of life and the fight for freedom. The second half of the film is the reveal of wonderment where we see how the other side lives. In true Sci-Fi fashion, the story is a social commentary on our current place in society with regards to the richest 1% in the world. The revolt changes to a question of control which in turn changes to a question of true freedom, but at what cost?
I would recommend this film to any Sci-Fi fans or anyone looking for a thoughtful film and change of pace from the big summer blockbuster.
For a more in-depth discussion about the film, be sure to check out our podcast review.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021) in Movies
Nov 16, 2021
Back in 1984 when big hair and neon were the norms; a movie appeared that soon became a cultural phenomenon. The movie involved a team of unlikely Paranormal Investigators and the mix of comedy, FX, and Ghosts turned the movie into a smash hit and a Pop Culture mainstay. The abundance of products that followed and the inescapable theme song and tagline soon gave rise to a sequel which while a success; did not resonate the way the original film had and thus the “Ghostbusters” film franchise became dormant.
While a successful video game and merchandise line kept the franchise alive; the 2016 reboot with an all-female team failed to capture the magic at the box office and again put the franchise’s cinematic future in question.
Thankfully after several delays due to the Covid 19 Pandemic; “Ghostbusters Afterlife” has arrived and is the worthy sequel that does justice to the original film and sets the stage well for future cinematic exploits.
The film follows a down on her luck mother named Callie )Carrie Coon) and her children Trevor (Finn Wolfhard); and Phoebe (Mckenna Grace), as they are forced to move to a dilapidated farm in rural Oklahoma following the passing of Callie’s estranged father and her subsequent eviction.
A series of unexplained earthquakes clues the smart and precocious Phoebe that something is up and with her new friend Podcast (Logan Kim), and teacher Mr. Grooberson (Paul Rudd); help her uncover her connection to the original Ghostbusters and the abundance and significance of the gear that her Grandfather has left on the farm.
Things soon take a turn for the worse and despite skeptical locals and the emerging danger, Phoebe, Trevor, and their friends have to battle the forces of evil to save the world.
The movie takes its time getting to the action and spends plenty of time establishing the characters, their motivations, and their relationships with one another. There are abundant homages to the original film; some of which are very subtle and clever but never seem gratuitous or tacked on.
The film also does not rely on the FX to tell the tale as while there are some solid effects in the film; this is a character-driven tale and the new cast works well with some surprise guests who pop up throughout the film.
Director Jason Reitman; son of the Director of the original film; clearly knows and loves the material as he not only helped craft the story but deftly weaves a new tale into the franchise which also fits well with the first film and does not attempt to reboot but rather continue the franchise.
There are two extra scenes in the credits that you will not want to miss as not only are they great fun; but also tease of future adventures to come.
The film also has a few touching moments that caused some unexpected emotion from the audience at our Press Screening and helped establish “Ghostbusters Afterlife” as not only a winning entry into the series but also one of the most enjoyable films of the year.
4.5 stars out of 5.
While a successful video game and merchandise line kept the franchise alive; the 2016 reboot with an all-female team failed to capture the magic at the box office and again put the franchise’s cinematic future in question.
Thankfully after several delays due to the Covid 19 Pandemic; “Ghostbusters Afterlife” has arrived and is the worthy sequel that does justice to the original film and sets the stage well for future cinematic exploits.
The film follows a down on her luck mother named Callie )Carrie Coon) and her children Trevor (Finn Wolfhard); and Phoebe (Mckenna Grace), as they are forced to move to a dilapidated farm in rural Oklahoma following the passing of Callie’s estranged father and her subsequent eviction.
A series of unexplained earthquakes clues the smart and precocious Phoebe that something is up and with her new friend Podcast (Logan Kim), and teacher Mr. Grooberson (Paul Rudd); help her uncover her connection to the original Ghostbusters and the abundance and significance of the gear that her Grandfather has left on the farm.
Things soon take a turn for the worse and despite skeptical locals and the emerging danger, Phoebe, Trevor, and their friends have to battle the forces of evil to save the world.
The movie takes its time getting to the action and spends plenty of time establishing the characters, their motivations, and their relationships with one another. There are abundant homages to the original film; some of which are very subtle and clever but never seem gratuitous or tacked on.
The film also does not rely on the FX to tell the tale as while there are some solid effects in the film; this is a character-driven tale and the new cast works well with some surprise guests who pop up throughout the film.
Director Jason Reitman; son of the Director of the original film; clearly knows and loves the material as he not only helped craft the story but deftly weaves a new tale into the franchise which also fits well with the first film and does not attempt to reboot but rather continue the franchise.
There are two extra scenes in the credits that you will not want to miss as not only are they great fun; but also tease of future adventures to come.
The film also has a few touching moments that caused some unexpected emotion from the audience at our Press Screening and helped establish “Ghostbusters Afterlife” as not only a winning entry into the series but also one of the most enjoyable films of the year.
4.5 stars out of 5.
Piper (13 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Nov 27, 2019
Strong Characters (3 more)
Clever Camerawork
Myers is Finally Threatening Again
Callbacks and Subversions
"You're The New Doctor Loomis" (3 more)
Plot Holes
Predictable
Too Much Off-Screen Action
Halloween: Predictably Unpredictable
Contains spoilers, click to show
After the nightmare of a film that was Rob Zombie’s 2007 remake, I refused to bother seeing the new Halloween on its release, choosing instead to pick up a DVD when the price got knocked down significantly enough - after all, we’ve had sixty-three Halloween films now and only half of them were worth watching (really, Season of the Witch?) and this looked, in all honesty, like just another slasher-film-reboot that wasn’t worth the time. Now don’t get me wrong, it absolutely was just another slasher film, but I wish I’d seen it in the cinema. And a year earlier than I did, too, because I missed out big-time with this one.
The plot is predictable, because of course it is. It’s Michael Myers, what’s he going to do except escape from a mental institution and murder some people? But it’s beautifully subverted; some of the characters you might expect to last till the end die before the halfway mark, and while there are a fair amount who are clearly written in just to be killed minutes later, they contribute to some fine, gory moments, so it’s kind of okay. There’s no real heartbreaker here - everyone you really rooted for just about makes it, and everyone that was kind of a dick is killed. And that’s fine, because in a way this isn’t the kind of slasher where it matters who lives or dies. This is a film about preserving a legacy, or perhaps just making one, and it works. We’re told fairly early on that this is a direct sequel to the original Halloween (Myers’ death toll at the start of this version, apparently, is five, which matches the amount of kills he made in the first movie - as far as I’m aware, Myers has actually killed over 100 people in all the films combined, so this is a nice subtle way of telling us what to remember and what to ignore completely). Having said that, references are made throughout to previous films, the best of which is of course a callback to the infamous scene where Myers tumbles out of a window only for his body to completely disappear - this time it’s Laurie Strode who does the tumbling, and she very much intends to do a little vanishing act of her own, Michael, so keep an eye on - oh, no, you looked away, I wonder what’s happening down there!
Focusing on Laurie for a moment, Jamie Lee Curtis does an absolutely excellent job here. Age has given her character wisdom, paranoia, and a whole lot of guns, and the acting carries a huge amount of weight and strength with it. Having said that, there are a couple of moments where all of Laurie’s fear-induced calculations don’t seem to have quite worked out - why bother going to such extreme measures to protect your house, if the front door you’re standing behind is half glass? But that’s the thing about this movie - whatever you plan for, whatever you think Michael Myers is capable of, he’s stronger than you think, he’s far more terrifying than you remember, and right until the end, he’s here to remind you that nothing you can plan for will ever be enough. Of course, we never actually see him die (again) so here’s looking forward to the next sequel…
The cinematography is something to at least wonder over - settings and locations are used well and established with some wonderful wide shots, and some of the best scenes are those where the camera just stays in one place, at a very carefully-selected window for example, and watches. Two scenes are worth a particular mention; the first, in which we follow our two podcast-host characters to a gas station, seems fairly dull until Myers catches up to them, but if you watch the background carefully enough you’ll see he’s there all along, beating people up and murdering quite happily (swapping his prison jumpsuit for those traditional blues in the process). The second seems a little superficial, in the grand scheme of the movie, but it’s well-shot nonetheless - we watch, from that aforementioned window, as a woman hears about all the nasty things Michael might do, and of course we can see him through another window, heading for her front door, and when he finally appears inside the house he’s all the way across the room, somehow, and he calmly wanders on over and stabs the woman quite coolly through the throat, in a scene which I think is most reminiscent of the original films.
However, there are moments when you don’t see Michael at all, just the aftermath, or where we watch him enter a room and are forced to linger in the corridor while he does the dirty work. A couple of times that’s just fine, but considering the nature of the film it would be nice to watch the magic happen a couple more times. And while we’re on the negatives, I might mention that the reveal that the Doctor Loomis-type character who looked, felt, and sounded like a rip-off of Doctor Loomis, and was even referred to as “The New Doctor Loomis” did EXACTLY the same thing that Doctor Loomis did, surprise, and we were somehow expected to not see that coming like it was all one big, obvious, heavy-handed bluff. A couple of the other characters, too, felt like they were purely rammed in there to be irritating - there were a couple of strong scenes with our podcast hosts, but ultimately they were rude, on-the-nose and annoyingly egotistical, and I was happy to see them go, just like Alison’s friend Foggy Nelson.
The score, incidentally, is worth mentioning, from a haunting retune of the original Myers theme to darker and more dramatic variations on it later on that really would have been quite something to hear in surround-sound. I’m never usually one to appreciate the music of a film quite fully enough, so it was nice to have this grab my attention in quite the way it did. Overall, it’s a genuinely good follow-on that takes the best of the films before and makes the best use of the worst of them. Some of the characters might be a little annoying, some of the action could have translated better on-screen than off, but it was an honest and straight-up slasher film and it just wasn’t that bad at all.
The plot is predictable, because of course it is. It’s Michael Myers, what’s he going to do except escape from a mental institution and murder some people? But it’s beautifully subverted; some of the characters you might expect to last till the end die before the halfway mark, and while there are a fair amount who are clearly written in just to be killed minutes later, they contribute to some fine, gory moments, so it’s kind of okay. There’s no real heartbreaker here - everyone you really rooted for just about makes it, and everyone that was kind of a dick is killed. And that’s fine, because in a way this isn’t the kind of slasher where it matters who lives or dies. This is a film about preserving a legacy, or perhaps just making one, and it works. We’re told fairly early on that this is a direct sequel to the original Halloween (Myers’ death toll at the start of this version, apparently, is five, which matches the amount of kills he made in the first movie - as far as I’m aware, Myers has actually killed over 100 people in all the films combined, so this is a nice subtle way of telling us what to remember and what to ignore completely). Having said that, references are made throughout to previous films, the best of which is of course a callback to the infamous scene where Myers tumbles out of a window only for his body to completely disappear - this time it’s Laurie Strode who does the tumbling, and she very much intends to do a little vanishing act of her own, Michael, so keep an eye on - oh, no, you looked away, I wonder what’s happening down there!
Focusing on Laurie for a moment, Jamie Lee Curtis does an absolutely excellent job here. Age has given her character wisdom, paranoia, and a whole lot of guns, and the acting carries a huge amount of weight and strength with it. Having said that, there are a couple of moments where all of Laurie’s fear-induced calculations don’t seem to have quite worked out - why bother going to such extreme measures to protect your house, if the front door you’re standing behind is half glass? But that’s the thing about this movie - whatever you plan for, whatever you think Michael Myers is capable of, he’s stronger than you think, he’s far more terrifying than you remember, and right until the end, he’s here to remind you that nothing you can plan for will ever be enough. Of course, we never actually see him die (again) so here’s looking forward to the next sequel…
The cinematography is something to at least wonder over - settings and locations are used well and established with some wonderful wide shots, and some of the best scenes are those where the camera just stays in one place, at a very carefully-selected window for example, and watches. Two scenes are worth a particular mention; the first, in which we follow our two podcast-host characters to a gas station, seems fairly dull until Myers catches up to them, but if you watch the background carefully enough you’ll see he’s there all along, beating people up and murdering quite happily (swapping his prison jumpsuit for those traditional blues in the process). The second seems a little superficial, in the grand scheme of the movie, but it’s well-shot nonetheless - we watch, from that aforementioned window, as a woman hears about all the nasty things Michael might do, and of course we can see him through another window, heading for her front door, and when he finally appears inside the house he’s all the way across the room, somehow, and he calmly wanders on over and stabs the woman quite coolly through the throat, in a scene which I think is most reminiscent of the original films.
However, there are moments when you don’t see Michael at all, just the aftermath, or where we watch him enter a room and are forced to linger in the corridor while he does the dirty work. A couple of times that’s just fine, but considering the nature of the film it would be nice to watch the magic happen a couple more times. And while we’re on the negatives, I might mention that the reveal that the Doctor Loomis-type character who looked, felt, and sounded like a rip-off of Doctor Loomis, and was even referred to as “The New Doctor Loomis” did EXACTLY the same thing that Doctor Loomis did, surprise, and we were somehow expected to not see that coming like it was all one big, obvious, heavy-handed bluff. A couple of the other characters, too, felt like they were purely rammed in there to be irritating - there were a couple of strong scenes with our podcast hosts, but ultimately they were rude, on-the-nose and annoyingly egotistical, and I was happy to see them go, just like Alison’s friend Foggy Nelson.
The score, incidentally, is worth mentioning, from a haunting retune of the original Myers theme to darker and more dramatic variations on it later on that really would have been quite something to hear in surround-sound. I’m never usually one to appreciate the music of a film quite fully enough, so it was nice to have this grab my attention in quite the way it did. Overall, it’s a genuinely good follow-on that takes the best of the films before and makes the best use of the worst of them. Some of the characters might be a little annoying, some of the action could have translated better on-screen than off, but it was an honest and straight-up slasher film and it just wasn’t that bad at all.
Scott Tostik (389 KP) rated Blood Sucking Freaks (1976) in Movies
Apr 26, 2020
Excellent kills (2 more)
A dwarf... A torturing foul mouthed hilarious dwarf
Exploitation at its finest
If Le Champion Likes it... What could be wrong with it
When sitting down to watch The Last Drive In with Joe Bob Briggs, you never know what you're going to get.
His weekly double feature show on Shudder can bring some surprises to my tv screen and for that I thank him.
This past week, he double featured Chopping Mall and Joel M Reed's classic torture fest Blood Sucking Freaks.
1976 was a weird time in horror. Classics such as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre set the bar pretty high in the early 70's. So directors had to push the bar to try and compete with the instant classic.
Reed decided to make this film in the spirit of Master Gore technician Herschell Gordon Lewis. There is plenty of blood and gore to go around. People have been known to leave during a screening of this slashic. I for one, am not one of them. When I watch a movie, no matter how shitty it is. I have already made a commitment to sit through the bullshit and hope it gets better.
Freaks is just that kind of flick. But it makes you view it, you just have to see what Ralphus(the torturing wonder dwarf excellently played by the late Louis DeJesus) will do next to these women Sardu( Seamus....something or another... Yeah yeah, bad reviewer) has caged up in his basement.
The blood flows, the body parts roll and, yes, there is plenty of boobs and butts if that's your thing too.
I rated it 8/10 for a few reasons that some may not understand. I am a Horror Fanatic. No matter the plot, hole filled and silly... The script, if there is one... And the acting, if you could call it that... I seem to find the good in all films.
The gore, violence and total insanity that stems from the screen to your damaged brain is what should make the movie good/bad. And this movie is full of some of the most disgusting imagery that these eyes have ever fell upon. From playing backgammon for fingers to a woman guillotining herself because she was being spanked...and she had the rope holding the blade in her mouth... Heart removal, stretching, quartering, severed limbs and pulled out teeth... This flick has it all
Shout out to the cop who looks like David Berkowitz... I actually did a double take because at first glance I was like WTF???
Also a shout out to AEW Wrestler and all time wrestling G.O.A.T. Chris Jericho who, like me, is a huge fan of exploitation and gore films. And his own review of this film on his podcast, Talk is Jericho.
I recommend this film if you have a few hours to kill. I highly recommend you get Shudder... Its cheap 5.99 a month in Canada and its full of some great horror films and documentaries. But it's also the only place you can find THE LAST DRIVE-IN with Joe Bob Briggs... Friday nights at 9p.m. EST for the next 6-8 weeks.
Enjoy this film, horror fans. Because you will never see anything else like it....
His weekly double feature show on Shudder can bring some surprises to my tv screen and for that I thank him.
This past week, he double featured Chopping Mall and Joel M Reed's classic torture fest Blood Sucking Freaks.
1976 was a weird time in horror. Classics such as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre set the bar pretty high in the early 70's. So directors had to push the bar to try and compete with the instant classic.
Reed decided to make this film in the spirit of Master Gore technician Herschell Gordon Lewis. There is plenty of blood and gore to go around. People have been known to leave during a screening of this slashic. I for one, am not one of them. When I watch a movie, no matter how shitty it is. I have already made a commitment to sit through the bullshit and hope it gets better.
Freaks is just that kind of flick. But it makes you view it, you just have to see what Ralphus(the torturing wonder dwarf excellently played by the late Louis DeJesus) will do next to these women Sardu( Seamus....something or another... Yeah yeah, bad reviewer) has caged up in his basement.
The blood flows, the body parts roll and, yes, there is plenty of boobs and butts if that's your thing too.
I rated it 8/10 for a few reasons that some may not understand. I am a Horror Fanatic. No matter the plot, hole filled and silly... The script, if there is one... And the acting, if you could call it that... I seem to find the good in all films.
The gore, violence and total insanity that stems from the screen to your damaged brain is what should make the movie good/bad. And this movie is full of some of the most disgusting imagery that these eyes have ever fell upon. From playing backgammon for fingers to a woman guillotining herself because she was being spanked...and she had the rope holding the blade in her mouth... Heart removal, stretching, quartering, severed limbs and pulled out teeth... This flick has it all
Shout out to the cop who looks like David Berkowitz... I actually did a double take because at first glance I was like WTF???
Also a shout out to AEW Wrestler and all time wrestling G.O.A.T. Chris Jericho who, like me, is a huge fan of exploitation and gore films. And his own review of this film on his podcast, Talk is Jericho.
I recommend this film if you have a few hours to kill. I highly recommend you get Shudder... Its cheap 5.99 a month in Canada and its full of some great horror films and documentaries. But it's also the only place you can find THE LAST DRIVE-IN with Joe Bob Briggs... Friday nights at 9p.m. EST for the next 6-8 weeks.
Enjoy this film, horror fans. Because you will never see anything else like it....
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Happy Salmon in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
Brain burners. We have all played them. They typically aren’t my cup of tea because usually when I get to play games it is later in the evening. By that time I have had a full day’s work, taken care of a toddler (or more depending on when you read this), and thus my brainpower tank is already close to empty. Throw a game or two on top and I’m all mushy upstairs. ENTER: HAPPY SALMON.
Disclaimer (if needed): We are only reviewing the green version of this game. We know you can buy the blue version and add the cards for more players, but we haven’t done that yet. So we are just sticking with green for now. -T
In the activity Happy Salmon (let’s be honest, this isn’t necessarily a “game” so much as an “activity”) each player has a color-coded personal deck of cards that must be shuffled and held face-down. The players then stand in a circle. Setup is complete. The object of the game is to be the first player to deplete your deck of cards. You do so by turning over the top card of your deck and hopefully matching its face with another player who has turned over their copy of that card. Sounds easy right?
The “activity” portion and/or meat of this game happens when you find your match – you must both DO the action listed on your card. It could be as easy as high-fiving each other. Or pounding knuckles. Or simply switching places in the circle (see photo below). But then you have the ol’ Happy Salmon card which requires each player to do this absurd salmon handshake action that could be entertainment enough for the group if you have players with less-than-stellar bodily coordination.
So this doesn’t really sound all that appealing, I know. And I also wouldn’t have given it another thought, except I heard the guys from Dukes of Dice podcast raving about how rejuvenated they felt after having played this in the middle of an intense game sesh. I trust the opinions of Sean and Alex, and the price was right for me, so I picked it up. Boy am I glad I did! Now, this isn’t a game that I will bring out to every game session, nor with every play group, but I WILL pull this out if anyone is getting a little sleepy, or if we just want to shake out our bodies and our brains to hit up another long game.
The components are easy to discuss. It’s a fish made out of mousepad material that zips open and holds all the cards. The fish is great, but I really don’t care for “boxes” that aren’t… well, boxes. It’s great quality though. The cards, on the other hand, are really flimsy and make your hand sweaty. I don’t think I will sleeve these cards ever, as a replacement set is VERY affordable, and I do not really have any other suggestions to alleviate this “problem,” but the cards are just okay-quality. I suppose you are just flipping them over and then chucking them on the floor anyway, but for an extra $5 on the price of the game I would have preferred more rugged cards.
What this game lacks in hardcore thinkyness, prestige, and strategy, it makes up for in fun, hilarious moments, and plays that become raucously entertaining bits of your life you may never forget. It will never be on my Top 10 list, but it’s currently on my Top 100 and I will never get rid of my copy. For those reasons Purple Phoenix Games gives Happy Salmon a very appreciative 12 / 18 (Laura claims to have never played it).
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/03/08/happy-salmon-review/
Disclaimer (if needed): We are only reviewing the green version of this game. We know you can buy the blue version and add the cards for more players, but we haven’t done that yet. So we are just sticking with green for now. -T
In the activity Happy Salmon (let’s be honest, this isn’t necessarily a “game” so much as an “activity”) each player has a color-coded personal deck of cards that must be shuffled and held face-down. The players then stand in a circle. Setup is complete. The object of the game is to be the first player to deplete your deck of cards. You do so by turning over the top card of your deck and hopefully matching its face with another player who has turned over their copy of that card. Sounds easy right?
The “activity” portion and/or meat of this game happens when you find your match – you must both DO the action listed on your card. It could be as easy as high-fiving each other. Or pounding knuckles. Or simply switching places in the circle (see photo below). But then you have the ol’ Happy Salmon card which requires each player to do this absurd salmon handshake action that could be entertainment enough for the group if you have players with less-than-stellar bodily coordination.
So this doesn’t really sound all that appealing, I know. And I also wouldn’t have given it another thought, except I heard the guys from Dukes of Dice podcast raving about how rejuvenated they felt after having played this in the middle of an intense game sesh. I trust the opinions of Sean and Alex, and the price was right for me, so I picked it up. Boy am I glad I did! Now, this isn’t a game that I will bring out to every game session, nor with every play group, but I WILL pull this out if anyone is getting a little sleepy, or if we just want to shake out our bodies and our brains to hit up another long game.
The components are easy to discuss. It’s a fish made out of mousepad material that zips open and holds all the cards. The fish is great, but I really don’t care for “boxes” that aren’t… well, boxes. It’s great quality though. The cards, on the other hand, are really flimsy and make your hand sweaty. I don’t think I will sleeve these cards ever, as a replacement set is VERY affordable, and I do not really have any other suggestions to alleviate this “problem,” but the cards are just okay-quality. I suppose you are just flipping them over and then chucking them on the floor anyway, but for an extra $5 on the price of the game I would have preferred more rugged cards.
What this game lacks in hardcore thinkyness, prestige, and strategy, it makes up for in fun, hilarious moments, and plays that become raucously entertaining bits of your life you may never forget. It will never be on my Top 10 list, but it’s currently on my Top 100 and I will never get rid of my copy. For those reasons Purple Phoenix Games gives Happy Salmon a very appreciative 12 / 18 (Laura claims to have never played it).
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/03/08/happy-salmon-review/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Godzilla vs. Kong (2021) in Movies
Apr 29, 2021
Monsters! Yay! Small screen... booooooo!
Godzilla and Kong come head to head in a vicious battle as the humans embark on a mission to discover the ultimate power source.
I won't harp on this point too much because we're nearly at the point where I won't have to... hopefully... but this needs the big screen. You need that experience to get the full effect.
Monsters fight... do we need any story? I didn't. Which is just as well because I wouldn't be able to tell you what specifically happened apart from what I wrote in the synopsis.
You could have had this film without the humans, or as a human focus film with the monsters just lurking in the background of the whole thing. (Though I don't think anyone would care about the latter.) The monsters could easily have done a film without the humans, there's only actually one point where they're needed, and that was quite frankly dubious.
Let's talk about those humans, but where to start? The film needed to commit to either being a companion to the last film or being a new film in the franchise. So far all the others have been quite independent of each other in comparison. It may not be a popular opinion, but I would have opted for a new film... and that means no Millie Bobby Brown and no Kyle Chandler (who was quite frankly underused anyway).
My definite highlight was Brian Tyree Henry in his role as the conspiracy podcaster, and I really enjoyed that whole thread. But it definitely could have been switched up a bit and resulted in a much more believable discovery sequence in the plot. That was quite a big thing in the film, when giant monster events are more believable than human ones, you need to rethink what you're doing.
As much as I love Alexander Skarsgård, I cannot tell you much of anything about his role. He's usually always an enjoyable actor, but even that couldn't save this bland character. So much so, that when I listened to a podcast on this film and they mentioned him, I went "oh yeah, he was in it".
My main take away was that most characters had very little development, and I know I was there for the monsters, but the humans needed to not be throwaways for the amount of time they spent on screen.
I'm not going to go into the effects, they were great, and I loved them just as much as in King of the Monsters. The colours were amazing.
I'm very pleased I didn't spot spoilers for the film before seeing it. The reveals were well done and I enjoyed some of the moments that came from them, but it leads me to something I've been pondering...
This sequence of films feels wrong, Had Godzilla vs. Kong been before King of the Monsters then you'd have been presented with the perfect way to introduce more creatures, but the character dynamics would not have been right with that shuffle. There are so many possibilities, that going over them would take way too long.
For a title that highlights Godzilla before Kong, it's oddly weighted, Kong is a much bigger feature than G-zee is. He gets his own personality and a bit more heart, and it was nice to see him become a new person... ape... giant fuzzball. I can't help but be a little sad that one of his moments from the original wasn't duplicated in all its glory here.
Overall it's a fun creature feature and the action is epic as expected, with some twists thrown in if you managed to avoid the spoilers. While I really do love moments from Godzilla vs. Kong, I'm not sure it's better than KotM, but it's well worth the watch either way.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/04/godzilla-vs-kong-movie-review.html
Godzilla and Kong come head to head in a vicious battle as the humans embark on a mission to discover the ultimate power source.
I won't harp on this point too much because we're nearly at the point where I won't have to... hopefully... but this needs the big screen. You need that experience to get the full effect.
Monsters fight... do we need any story? I didn't. Which is just as well because I wouldn't be able to tell you what specifically happened apart from what I wrote in the synopsis.
You could have had this film without the humans, or as a human focus film with the monsters just lurking in the background of the whole thing. (Though I don't think anyone would care about the latter.) The monsters could easily have done a film without the humans, there's only actually one point where they're needed, and that was quite frankly dubious.
Let's talk about those humans, but where to start? The film needed to commit to either being a companion to the last film or being a new film in the franchise. So far all the others have been quite independent of each other in comparison. It may not be a popular opinion, but I would have opted for a new film... and that means no Millie Bobby Brown and no Kyle Chandler (who was quite frankly underused anyway).
My definite highlight was Brian Tyree Henry in his role as the conspiracy podcaster, and I really enjoyed that whole thread. But it definitely could have been switched up a bit and resulted in a much more believable discovery sequence in the plot. That was quite a big thing in the film, when giant monster events are more believable than human ones, you need to rethink what you're doing.
As much as I love Alexander Skarsgård, I cannot tell you much of anything about his role. He's usually always an enjoyable actor, but even that couldn't save this bland character. So much so, that when I listened to a podcast on this film and they mentioned him, I went "oh yeah, he was in it".
My main take away was that most characters had very little development, and I know I was there for the monsters, but the humans needed to not be throwaways for the amount of time they spent on screen.
I'm not going to go into the effects, they were great, and I loved them just as much as in King of the Monsters. The colours were amazing.
I'm very pleased I didn't spot spoilers for the film before seeing it. The reveals were well done and I enjoyed some of the moments that came from them, but it leads me to something I've been pondering...
This sequence of films feels wrong, Had Godzilla vs. Kong been before King of the Monsters then you'd have been presented with the perfect way to introduce more creatures, but the character dynamics would not have been right with that shuffle. There are so many possibilities, that going over them would take way too long.
For a title that highlights Godzilla before Kong, it's oddly weighted, Kong is a much bigger feature than G-zee is. He gets his own personality and a bit more heart, and it was nice to see him become a new person... ape... giant fuzzball. I can't help but be a little sad that one of his moments from the original wasn't duplicated in all its glory here.
Overall it's a fun creature feature and the action is epic as expected, with some twists thrown in if you managed to avoid the spoilers. While I really do love moments from Godzilla vs. Kong, I'm not sure it's better than KotM, but it's well worth the watch either way.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/04/godzilla-vs-kong-movie-review.html
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Rick and Morty - Season 2 in TV
Jul 21, 2017
Absolute insanity (1 more)
Will leave you in stitches throughout
The Universe Is A Crazy and Chaotic Place…
Rick & Morty was one of those shows that totally flew under the radar for me while it was on the air for months, then all of a sudden almost every podcast and youtuber that I subscribe to were recommending it. Though by the time that I was recommended it, I was aware it was an Adult Swim show, so I assumed each episode would only be around six or seven minutes long and put it on the backburner. Then one day I had run out of things to watch, I was up to date on all of my youtube videos and decided to give it a shot. Whilst I didn’t fall in love with it immediately, it did hook me right away and I was pleased to learn each episode was 20 minutes long and because the episodes are so short, I decided to watch a few episodes in a row and by the time I had finished watching Anatomy Park, the third episode of the first season, I realised how great this show was. The writing is so off the wall and insane yet dry that it works and the characters and the dynamic that they have is honestly hilarious, the comedic timing is also spot on. If you haven’t seen the show, think a blend of Family Guy style animation, with a backdrop of a Back To The Future or Doctor Who kind of universe and sprinkled with Always Sunny In Philadelphia style comedy. There is so much about this show that makes it funny, the sheer insanity and traumatisation that Rick exposes his grandchildren to, only to then brush it off as if it is totally normal as it is them that are overreacting and then there is Gerry and Beth’s broken marriage that only exists because Gerry got Beth pregnant with Summer when they were teenagers. Rick and Gerry are probably my two favourite characters in the show, Rick because you know he has seen so many insane things all over the galaxy over the years that literally nothing bothers him anymore and everything is normal to him, no matter how insane it seems to us and the other characters in the show and Gerry because of his exceptional mediocrity and impressive amount of general naivety. Also it would be criminal not to mention the other vast array of fantastically hilarious characters that we meet throughout the show, from Mr Meeseeks, (look at me!) to Mr Poopybutthole, to Birdperson, the list goes on getting more and more crazy as it does. The show is two seasons in so far, with a total of 21 episodes and I can honestly say that there is not one episode that I don’t like. I do have my favourites however, like M Night Shamaliens, when Rick, Morty and Gerry are stuck in a simulation of the real world and Gerry thinks he is having the greatest day of his life, or Rick Potion No.9, where said potion makes everybody fall in love with Morty, then transform into grotesque monsters, so they simply leave that reality behind and move into a fresh one, or Raising Gazorpazorp, where Morty goes through fatherhood in the space of a day, or Mortynight Run where they leave Gerry in a nursing home full of other Gerrys, I don’t want to spoil too much for those who haven’t seen it, but if you haven’t then stop watching this review right now and go watch Rick & Morty. The animation uses an odd art style, which may be initially off-putting, but a few episodes in, it becomes clear that this animation is to a high standard, just done in an odd style. The voice acting also seems fairly amateur at first, but as the show goes on and you get to know the characters and the world, the voice acting actually works perfectly in unison with the way that the show is written.
There isn’t much more to say, this show has hardly any negative qualities, it is one of the best animated shows that I have seen in the last decade and it is totally my kind of humour.
There isn’t much more to say, this show has hardly any negative qualities, it is one of the best animated shows that I have seen in the last decade and it is totally my kind of humour.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Dear Edward in Books
Feb 3, 2020
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<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>;
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Book-Review-Banner-28.png"/>;
<b><i>Dear Edward by Ann Napolitano is one of the few books that instantly captures your heart, then shatters it into hundred pieces and teaches you many life lessons at the same time.</i></b>
"A reporter holds up a copy of The New York Times to a camera, to show a huge block headline, the kind normally reserved for presidential elections and moonwalks. It reads:
191 DIE IN PLANE CRASH; 1 SURVIVOR
The relatives have only one question when the press briefing comes to close; they all lean toward it like a window in a dark room:
"How is the boy?"</i>
Dear Edward features a boy called Edward, who is flying with his family to move across states. This is their chance of a new life, a brand new start. When the plane crashes, he is the only survivor.
The author tells the story through two different timelines; during the flight and after the plane crash. We follow Edward's life and how he is coping with the loss of everything he knew. We also see how he is struggling to cope with the unwanted celebrity title he has now.
I have always been intrigued by planes and plane crashes. I used to watch every single episode of the documentary on Discovery Channel back in the days. And today, I like to listen to the Plane Crash Podcast by Michael Bauer. I have had some bad experiences while flying, and have always wanted to understand what exactly happens when a plane crashes, and what aviation does to prevent this from happening in the future. This book contains amazing details about the crash, and my hidden mystery person inside me was deeply satisfied by all those pilot dialogues and explanations.
Edward's grief and growing up journey is so painful. He survived, but everyone he loved and cared about in his life died. He is lucky to have survived, but why does he then feel guilty? Why did he swap places with his brother on the flight? If they didn't - his brother would still be alive now. The brother relationship was written so perfectly. The love and the bond they shared for each other was so strong.
Despite the fact that Edward is the main character in this story, we also get to meet so many other characters, the people who lost their lives in the crash. Through flashbacks and "during flight" scenes, as well as encounters from their families, we get to see all the wishes that will never come through, all the hopes and dreams buried under the plane ash.
And that is why Edward's journey is so difficult. He doesn't have to only carry to guilt for his own family, but all those other lives as well. Edward receives letters from the families asking him to do all these things that these people would do. He is asked to become a musician, a doctor, a teacher, to travel around the world, learn knitting, etc, and Edward feels obligated to do all of these things, to give peace to the families.
<a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/B5QrV56gmZi/">View this post on Instagram</a>
<img src="https://scontent.flhr4-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/78070730_2837573906254210_1110262175731023872_o.jpg?_nc_cat=107&_nc_ohc=i_DJ97h122QAQkKa2ZjxLPKo29PJKCSylYSTgWVXCvjS6YCTQzZ35Wt8g&_nc_ht=scontent.flhr4-1.fna&oh=baa75c6360fd9a085bce261040b8a027&oe=5E836DB6"/>;
<b><i>I knew this book would stay with me forever from the moment I started reading the first few pages. It is so harshly real and painful, but what it does it remind us how every day is special and we should be thankful for it! We may not get a tomorrow, but that's why we have today. Let's make the best of it!</i></b>
Thank you to the team at Penguin Random House for sending me a copy of this book in exchange for my honest review. Also thank you to the team at LoveReading UK, for allowing me to be their Super Ambassador of this book for the month of November.
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<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>;
<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>;
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Book-Review-Banner-28.png"/>;
<b><i>Dear Edward by Ann Napolitano is one of the few books that instantly captures your heart, then shatters it into hundred pieces and teaches you many life lessons at the same time.</i></b>
"A reporter holds up a copy of The New York Times to a camera, to show a huge block headline, the kind normally reserved for presidential elections and moonwalks. It reads:
191 DIE IN PLANE CRASH; 1 SURVIVOR
The relatives have only one question when the press briefing comes to close; they all lean toward it like a window in a dark room:
"How is the boy?"</i>
Dear Edward features a boy called Edward, who is flying with his family to move across states. This is their chance of a new life, a brand new start. When the plane crashes, he is the only survivor.
The author tells the story through two different timelines; during the flight and after the plane crash. We follow Edward's life and how he is coping with the loss of everything he knew. We also see how he is struggling to cope with the unwanted celebrity title he has now.
I have always been intrigued by planes and plane crashes. I used to watch every single episode of the documentary on Discovery Channel back in the days. And today, I like to listen to the Plane Crash Podcast by Michael Bauer. I have had some bad experiences while flying, and have always wanted to understand what exactly happens when a plane crashes, and what aviation does to prevent this from happening in the future. This book contains amazing details about the crash, and my hidden mystery person inside me was deeply satisfied by all those pilot dialogues and explanations.
Edward's grief and growing up journey is so painful. He survived, but everyone he loved and cared about in his life died. He is lucky to have survived, but why does he then feel guilty? Why did he swap places with his brother on the flight? If they didn't - his brother would still be alive now. The brother relationship was written so perfectly. The love and the bond they shared for each other was so strong.
Despite the fact that Edward is the main character in this story, we also get to meet so many other characters, the people who lost their lives in the crash. Through flashbacks and "during flight" scenes, as well as encounters from their families, we get to see all the wishes that will never come through, all the hopes and dreams buried under the plane ash.
And that is why Edward's journey is so difficult. He doesn't have to only carry to guilt for his own family, but all those other lives as well. Edward receives letters from the families asking him to do all these things that these people would do. He is asked to become a musician, a doctor, a teacher, to travel around the world, learn knitting, etc, and Edward feels obligated to do all of these things, to give peace to the families.
<a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/B5QrV56gmZi/">View this post on Instagram</a>
<img src="https://scontent.flhr4-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/78070730_2837573906254210_1110262175731023872_o.jpg?_nc_cat=107&_nc_ohc=i_DJ97h122QAQkKa2ZjxLPKo29PJKCSylYSTgWVXCvjS6YCTQzZ35Wt8g&_nc_ht=scontent.flhr4-1.fna&oh=baa75c6360fd9a085bce261040b8a027&oe=5E836DB6"/>;
<b><i>I knew this book would stay with me forever from the moment I started reading the first few pages. It is so harshly real and painful, but what it does it remind us how every day is special and we should be thankful for it! We may not get a tomorrow, but that's why we have today. Let's make the best of it!</i></b>
Thank you to the team at Penguin Random House for sending me a copy of this book in exchange for my honest review. Also thank you to the team at LoveReading UK, for allowing me to be their Super Ambassador of this book for the month of November.
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<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>;
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Little Women (2019) in Movies
Jan 3, 2020 (Updated Jan 3, 2020)
Saoirse Ronan - just mesmeric. What screen presence! (2 more)
Great supporting cast.
Alexandre Desplat soundtrack.
"God hasn't met my will yet"
Greta Gerwig's follow up to her Oscar-praised "Lady Bird" from 2017 looks set to repeat the job this year. For it's nothing short of a masterpiece of cinema.
Louisa M. Alcott's semi-autobiographical novel has been filmed before (in 1949 and 1994, together with a number of other TV versions). I've not seen any of these previous versions and (as a literary philistine) I've never read the book either. So the story was new to me and drew me in perfectly.
The March sisters - Jo (Saoirse Ronan), Meg (Emma Watson), Amy (Florence Pugh) and the youngest Beth (Eliza Scanlen) - are being brought up by their mother (Laura Dern) and Aunt (Meryl Streep) while their father (Bob Odenkirk) is away fighting in the Civil War. Also providing a helping hand is the rich neighbour Mr Lawrence (Chris Cooper), whose good-looking but indolent son 'Laurie' (Timothée Chalamet) has had the hots for tom-boy Jo for many years.
Each of the girls has a talent: for Jo it's writing, with her struggling to get her work past the grumpy publisher Mr Dashwood (Tracy Letts, from "Le Mans '66"); for Meg it's acting; for Amy it's painting; and for Beth it's music.
The film follows the lives, loves, successes and misfortunes of the sisters over two periods, split 7 years apart. It's a bumpy ride for some.
It struck me, as the big green BBFC certificate flashed onto the screen, how rare it is to find a "U - Suitable for all" (UK) certificate on a film these days. This is a film that the whole family *could* go and see. My only reservation here would be the way the film zips in and out of the two time periods at will. This might confuse the hell out of younger children. The subject matter of one part of the story may also disturb sensitive kids.
It's a really old-fashioned film - full of melodrama, love, unrequited love, death, charity, ambition and kindness - that builds to a feel-good ending that was totally corny but felt perfect in every way. We need more of this in our lives.
Wow. Just wow. The Oscar Best Actress categories are going to be a bloodied battlefield this year! There have been some GREAT roles for women on screen in the last year, and the Academy will have a job on their hands to narrow the long-list to the short-list this year. I would have tentatively forecast that Renée Zellweger might have had the Best Actor Oscar wrapped up for "Judy". But then here comes Saoirse Ronan. With phenomenal screen presence, she lights up every single scene she's in. Emma Watson and Florence Pugh are great actresses (and both here stand a stab at the Supporting Actress category), but your gaze always falls straight back to Ronan's reaction.
It's also a wonderful performance for newcomer Eliza Scanlen as the youngster Beth: I heard director Greta Gerwig comment (on Edith Bowman's excellent Soundtracking podcast) that Eliza needed less lighting than anyone else on set as she was "naturally luminous"!
Again lodging a cracking performance is the versatile Timothée Chalomet.... does the young chap make a bad film?
When you get to the end of the "cast bit", and you haven't mentioned Meryl Streep and Laura Dern yet, that says a lot!
What comes across more than anything else is just how apt this story is today to the 'girl power' times that we are currently living through. Jo in particular is the rebel of her day, fighting against the conformity of what it was in the time to be an independent woman, and specifically an independent working woman. Some of Alcott's words from the book could even today act as a rallying cry to those looking for greater change.
My reviewing year has certainly got off to a bang with this one. It's a glorious movie, utterly absorbing with ravishing cinematography by Yorick Le Saux and a brilliant soundtrack by Alexandre Desplat: both I suspect likely to feature in Oscar nominations. It's also likely to be nominated in other technical categories including Production Design, Costume and Hair & Makeup.
And I predict that this is inevitably going to be a Christmas favourite to match "The Sound of Music" and "It's a Wonderful Life" in future years.
Comes with a highly recommended tag from me.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies site here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/01/03/one-manns-movies-film-review-little-women-2019/. Thanks.)
Louisa M. Alcott's semi-autobiographical novel has been filmed before (in 1949 and 1994, together with a number of other TV versions). I've not seen any of these previous versions and (as a literary philistine) I've never read the book either. So the story was new to me and drew me in perfectly.
The March sisters - Jo (Saoirse Ronan), Meg (Emma Watson), Amy (Florence Pugh) and the youngest Beth (Eliza Scanlen) - are being brought up by their mother (Laura Dern) and Aunt (Meryl Streep) while their father (Bob Odenkirk) is away fighting in the Civil War. Also providing a helping hand is the rich neighbour Mr Lawrence (Chris Cooper), whose good-looking but indolent son 'Laurie' (Timothée Chalamet) has had the hots for tom-boy Jo for many years.
Each of the girls has a talent: for Jo it's writing, with her struggling to get her work past the grumpy publisher Mr Dashwood (Tracy Letts, from "Le Mans '66"); for Meg it's acting; for Amy it's painting; and for Beth it's music.
The film follows the lives, loves, successes and misfortunes of the sisters over two periods, split 7 years apart. It's a bumpy ride for some.
It struck me, as the big green BBFC certificate flashed onto the screen, how rare it is to find a "U - Suitable for all" (UK) certificate on a film these days. This is a film that the whole family *could* go and see. My only reservation here would be the way the film zips in and out of the two time periods at will. This might confuse the hell out of younger children. The subject matter of one part of the story may also disturb sensitive kids.
It's a really old-fashioned film - full of melodrama, love, unrequited love, death, charity, ambition and kindness - that builds to a feel-good ending that was totally corny but felt perfect in every way. We need more of this in our lives.
Wow. Just wow. The Oscar Best Actress categories are going to be a bloodied battlefield this year! There have been some GREAT roles for women on screen in the last year, and the Academy will have a job on their hands to narrow the long-list to the short-list this year. I would have tentatively forecast that Renée Zellweger might have had the Best Actor Oscar wrapped up for "Judy". But then here comes Saoirse Ronan. With phenomenal screen presence, she lights up every single scene she's in. Emma Watson and Florence Pugh are great actresses (and both here stand a stab at the Supporting Actress category), but your gaze always falls straight back to Ronan's reaction.
It's also a wonderful performance for newcomer Eliza Scanlen as the youngster Beth: I heard director Greta Gerwig comment (on Edith Bowman's excellent Soundtracking podcast) that Eliza needed less lighting than anyone else on set as she was "naturally luminous"!
Again lodging a cracking performance is the versatile Timothée Chalomet.... does the young chap make a bad film?
When you get to the end of the "cast bit", and you haven't mentioned Meryl Streep and Laura Dern yet, that says a lot!
What comes across more than anything else is just how apt this story is today to the 'girl power' times that we are currently living through. Jo in particular is the rebel of her day, fighting against the conformity of what it was in the time to be an independent woman, and specifically an independent working woman. Some of Alcott's words from the book could even today act as a rallying cry to those looking for greater change.
My reviewing year has certainly got off to a bang with this one. It's a glorious movie, utterly absorbing with ravishing cinematography by Yorick Le Saux and a brilliant soundtrack by Alexandre Desplat: both I suspect likely to feature in Oscar nominations. It's also likely to be nominated in other technical categories including Production Design, Costume and Hair & Makeup.
And I predict that this is inevitably going to be a Christmas favourite to match "The Sound of Music" and "It's a Wonderful Life" in future years.
Comes with a highly recommended tag from me.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies site here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/01/03/one-manns-movies-film-review-little-women-2019/. Thanks.)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ghostbusters (1984) in Movies
Oct 30, 2020
A Comedy Classic
My daughter was flipping channels the other day and ran across the great 1984 Supernatural comedy GHOSTBUSTERS and stopped to watch for awhile. As happens with her generation, she eventually got more interested in her phone and friends and wandered away. Me? I was drawn back into this film so much so that I went downstairs, grabbed the DVD (yes, kids, I still own DVDs) and popped the film into my Home Theater System to give it a proper viewing.
I gotta say...I was so inspired by how terrific this film is that I changed course and devoted the 23rd BankofMarquis Movies podcast to this film.
Starring the comedic trio of Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis and featuring Sigourney Weaver, Ernie Hudson and the great Rick Moranis, GHOSTBUSTERS tells the tale of supernatural exterminators called to save NYC when paranormal experiences start escalating in the Big Apple.
But it's not the destination, it's the journey that makes this film so much fun. Told in a standard 2 Act arc - Origin Story followed by a 2nd Act of battling the "Big Bad" - it is the comedic timing and chemistry of the 3 leads that makes this film work (aided by a wonderful "straight man" turn by Sigourney Weaver and a brilliant "side-kick" comedic turn by Rick Moranis).
Credit for keeping this film together, moving and more than just a "series of jokes" is Director Ivan Reitman (STRIPES, MEATBALLS), he had the comedic "cred" to appeal to these 3 big time comedians, but has a Producers sense of efficiency and a Director's command of subject and tone.
This film was Aykroyd's idea and he shines as, Ray Stantz, the heart of the Ghostbusters. He truly believes in what he is doing and has a child-like sense of wonder in his actions. Harold Ramis (more noted as a Writer and a Director) was brought in to co-write Aykroyd's idea, steering it more towards Reitman's idea of humor and writing in a way that would make Murray shine - but he is also wonderfully deadpan as techno-geek Egon Spengler. The serious nerd who never smiles.
But...make no mistake...this film revolves around the antics of con-man Dr. Peter Venkman, a scientist who doesn't believe any of this, but is willing to go along as long as it achieves his goals. And...what are his goals? Well...womanizing and getting through life with as little work as possible. Murray is at the top of his comedic game in this film and most of his scenes are improvised - but, to be fair to the writers, Murrya's riffs are what Ramos and Aykroyd put down on paper. He is the mouth of this film and his energy drives this movie throughout.
Sigourney Weaver proved that she could do more than Sci-Fi action (like ALIEN) when she plays the straightman to these 3 wild-men. She stated that she was channeling her inner Margaret Dumont (straightman to the Marx Brothers) and she does an admirable, charming job in a role that could have easily come off as annoying.
Rick Moranis, of course, almost steals the film as the nerdy accountant neighbor of Weaver's. His improvised riff as he goes around the room at his own party is the stuff of comedic gold.
Ernie Hudson comes along as the 4th Ghostbuster. Many folks thinks that he is the "unnecessary" GhostBuster, but I would argue that he comes along at a time (right after the origin story is complete) to be the audience surrogate - to ask the questions that need to be asked and to get necessary expository passages out.
And...finallly...there is William Atherton as EPA Agent Walter Peck. I kind of feel sorry for this actor, for he had a decent career going up to Ghostbusters, but he was so good as the annoying, buzzkill "anti-Ghostbuster" that serves as the foil for their antics, that he wasn't really accepted in any other kind of role the rest of his career (he would play a version of this character in the first 2 DIE HARD films).
The special effects hold up, just enough to make them passable. Keep in mind that this film was made over 35 years ago and the effects were state of the art back in the day, so I would recommend you cut that some slack.
And...if you do...you'll be rewarded with a rollicking fun time at the movies.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
I gotta say...I was so inspired by how terrific this film is that I changed course and devoted the 23rd BankofMarquis Movies podcast to this film.
Starring the comedic trio of Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis and featuring Sigourney Weaver, Ernie Hudson and the great Rick Moranis, GHOSTBUSTERS tells the tale of supernatural exterminators called to save NYC when paranormal experiences start escalating in the Big Apple.
But it's not the destination, it's the journey that makes this film so much fun. Told in a standard 2 Act arc - Origin Story followed by a 2nd Act of battling the "Big Bad" - it is the comedic timing and chemistry of the 3 leads that makes this film work (aided by a wonderful "straight man" turn by Sigourney Weaver and a brilliant "side-kick" comedic turn by Rick Moranis).
Credit for keeping this film together, moving and more than just a "series of jokes" is Director Ivan Reitman (STRIPES, MEATBALLS), he had the comedic "cred" to appeal to these 3 big time comedians, but has a Producers sense of efficiency and a Director's command of subject and tone.
This film was Aykroyd's idea and he shines as, Ray Stantz, the heart of the Ghostbusters. He truly believes in what he is doing and has a child-like sense of wonder in his actions. Harold Ramis (more noted as a Writer and a Director) was brought in to co-write Aykroyd's idea, steering it more towards Reitman's idea of humor and writing in a way that would make Murray shine - but he is also wonderfully deadpan as techno-geek Egon Spengler. The serious nerd who never smiles.
But...make no mistake...this film revolves around the antics of con-man Dr. Peter Venkman, a scientist who doesn't believe any of this, but is willing to go along as long as it achieves his goals. And...what are his goals? Well...womanizing and getting through life with as little work as possible. Murray is at the top of his comedic game in this film and most of his scenes are improvised - but, to be fair to the writers, Murrya's riffs are what Ramos and Aykroyd put down on paper. He is the mouth of this film and his energy drives this movie throughout.
Sigourney Weaver proved that she could do more than Sci-Fi action (like ALIEN) when she plays the straightman to these 3 wild-men. She stated that she was channeling her inner Margaret Dumont (straightman to the Marx Brothers) and she does an admirable, charming job in a role that could have easily come off as annoying.
Rick Moranis, of course, almost steals the film as the nerdy accountant neighbor of Weaver's. His improvised riff as he goes around the room at his own party is the stuff of comedic gold.
Ernie Hudson comes along as the 4th Ghostbuster. Many folks thinks that he is the "unnecessary" GhostBuster, but I would argue that he comes along at a time (right after the origin story is complete) to be the audience surrogate - to ask the questions that need to be asked and to get necessary expository passages out.
And...finallly...there is William Atherton as EPA Agent Walter Peck. I kind of feel sorry for this actor, for he had a decent career going up to Ghostbusters, but he was so good as the annoying, buzzkill "anti-Ghostbuster" that serves as the foil for their antics, that he wasn't really accepted in any other kind of role the rest of his career (he would play a version of this character in the first 2 DIE HARD films).
The special effects hold up, just enough to make them passable. Keep in mind that this film was made over 35 years ago and the effects were state of the art back in the day, so I would recommend you cut that some slack.
And...if you do...you'll be rewarded with a rollicking fun time at the movies.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can that to the Bank(OfMarquis)