Search
Search results
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Too Good To Be Real: A Novel in Books
Jul 22, 2021
A very meta romantic comedy
Julia is a writer desperate to save her job. She's tired of posting nothing but quizzes and lists. So she pitches an article to her boss in an attempt to save her job: a new resort that's letting its guests live out their romantic comedy dreams via role playing. Julia doesn't believe in love, of course, but she'll play along if it means keeping her job. But when she and her two best friends show up, she meets a handsome man by the lake via the quintessential meet-cute: a humorous seagull incident. She thinks Luke is taking part in the rom-com experience, but he's actually one of the event planners, along with his best friend and sister. Luke decides to take part in the experience in order to impress a reviewer arriving. Sparks fly between the two, but can their love be real when no one is being honest about who they are?
"I'm as likely to find the wardrobe to Narnia as I am to find my own Mark Darcy. Life isn't like a romantic comedy."
This was a perfectly cute romantic comedy and it's important to remember that 3-stars is in no way a negative rating. Did this book wow me or sweep me off my feet? No. But it had its funny moments.
The concept is an interesting and original one: a rom-com resort, where guests are assigned a character, a role to play, select activities, and then the games begin. The characters get funny names associated with famous romantic comedies (think Sally, a la Harry Met Sally) and there are a ton of references to all sorts of rom-com favorites. If you're a romantic comedy fan, you'll love all the little inside jokes.
"For the chance to achieve his dreams, Luke had to do one thing. Make the fantasy real."
I liked Julia's character and enjoyed Luke, although I must admit the guy was a bit of a clueless idiot. The seagulls were easily the best characters in the book and some of their scenes made me laugh out loud. I'm never a fan of "lying by omission" plots, so it was a little hard to stomach that the story that was based off of falsehoods. Julia and Luke did have chemistry but also suffered a bit from instalove--maybe it was the seagulls?
Overall, this is a fun, fairly quick read, peppered with rom-com references. It's definitely silly and a bit cheesy, but sweet too. 3 stars.
I received a copy of this book from St. Martin's Press and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.
"I'm as likely to find the wardrobe to Narnia as I am to find my own Mark Darcy. Life isn't like a romantic comedy."
This was a perfectly cute romantic comedy and it's important to remember that 3-stars is in no way a negative rating. Did this book wow me or sweep me off my feet? No. But it had its funny moments.
The concept is an interesting and original one: a rom-com resort, where guests are assigned a character, a role to play, select activities, and then the games begin. The characters get funny names associated with famous romantic comedies (think Sally, a la Harry Met Sally) and there are a ton of references to all sorts of rom-com favorites. If you're a romantic comedy fan, you'll love all the little inside jokes.
"For the chance to achieve his dreams, Luke had to do one thing. Make the fantasy real."
I liked Julia's character and enjoyed Luke, although I must admit the guy was a bit of a clueless idiot. The seagulls were easily the best characters in the book and some of their scenes made me laugh out loud. I'm never a fan of "lying by omission" plots, so it was a little hard to stomach that the story that was based off of falsehoods. Julia and Luke did have chemistry but also suffered a bit from instalove--maybe it was the seagulls?
Overall, this is a fun, fairly quick read, peppered with rom-com references. It's definitely silly and a bit cheesy, but sweet too. 3 stars.
I received a copy of this book from St. Martin's Press and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Unforgettable (2017) in Movies
Sep 26, 2019
Characters – Julia Banks is hitting the high point of her, promotion and engagement to the man of her dream. She does have a past which is very secretive that even David doesn’t know about it. She does have a habit about losing stuff, well she starts too, her past can play into her downfall against Tessa. Tessa is the ex-wife of David, she is very controlling and hasn’t taken the idea of David moving on well, she wants him back and with her own demanding mother in her life she is acting the same towards her own daughter. She always feels distant from any human interaction as she is planning to make Julia’s life a nightmare. David is the man stuck in the middle of everything, he is trying to keep both women happy one for the new love in his life the other to keep his daughter part of his life.
Performances – Rosario Dawson is good in her role we needed to see more of the life falling apart around her though. Katherine Heigl has had a mixed reaction from the audience and business over the last few years, she does work in this role as you do get an uneasy feeling whenever she is on screen. Geoff Stults is fine, he never really gets too much to do through the movie.
Story – The story follows an ex-wife that wants to make the new girlfriends life a living nightmare in an attempt to get her husband back. This does play out like all over the stalker films we have seen before and yes, we have moved along technologically making the moves against the victim more personally. This is an easy enough watch and playing into the idea that the victim has a past which could make her easier to frame does help even if the whole thing plays out just like you would imagine.
Thriller – The film tries to give us the tension bound levels needed, only for the most part to feel like it was just being slowly building and any scenes involving Julia and Tessa feel empty for the first half of the film.
Settings – The film puts us in high-life houses which shows how the family can cope with divorce easily, while this works, a lower class of victim would make this more intense and interesting.
Scene of the Movie – The final showdown.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – There isn’t enough tension in the early part of the film.
Final Thoughts – This is the trademark yearly stalker ex movie, it checks the boxes well without needing to be anything special or dreadful.
Overall: Simple Thriller.
Performances – Rosario Dawson is good in her role we needed to see more of the life falling apart around her though. Katherine Heigl has had a mixed reaction from the audience and business over the last few years, she does work in this role as you do get an uneasy feeling whenever she is on screen. Geoff Stults is fine, he never really gets too much to do through the movie.
Story – The story follows an ex-wife that wants to make the new girlfriends life a living nightmare in an attempt to get her husband back. This does play out like all over the stalker films we have seen before and yes, we have moved along technologically making the moves against the victim more personally. This is an easy enough watch and playing into the idea that the victim has a past which could make her easier to frame does help even if the whole thing plays out just like you would imagine.
Thriller – The film tries to give us the tension bound levels needed, only for the most part to feel like it was just being slowly building and any scenes involving Julia and Tessa feel empty for the first half of the film.
Settings – The film puts us in high-life houses which shows how the family can cope with divorce easily, while this works, a lower class of victim would make this more intense and interesting.
Scene of the Movie – The final showdown.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – There isn’t enough tension in the early part of the film.
Final Thoughts – This is the trademark yearly stalker ex movie, it checks the boxes well without needing to be anything special or dreadful.
Overall: Simple Thriller.
Darren (1599 KP) rated St. Vincent (2014) in Movies
Sep 26, 2019
Characters – Julia Banks is hitting the high point of her, promotion and engagement to the man of her dream. She does have a past which is very secretive that even David doesn’t know about it. She does have a habit about losing stuff, well she starts too, her past can play into her downfall against Tessa. Tessa is the ex-wife of David, she is very controlling and hasn’t taken the idea of David moving on well, she wants him back and with her own demanding mother in her life she is acting the same towards her own daughter. She always feels distant from any human interaction as she is planning to make Julia’s life a nightmare. David is the man stuck in the middle of everything, he is trying to keep both women happy one for the new love in his life the other to keep his daughter part of his life.
Performances – Rosario Dawson is good in her role we needed to see more of the life falling apart around her though. Katherine Heigl has had a mixed reaction from the audience and business over the last few years, she does work in this role as you do get an uneasy feeling whenever she is on screen. Geoff Stults is fine, he never really gets too much to do through the movie.
Story – The story follows an ex-wife that wants to make the new girlfriends life a living nightmare in an attempt to get her husband back. This does play out like all over the stalker films we have seen before and yes, we have moved along technologically making the moves against the victim more personally. This is an easy enough watch and playing into the idea that the victim has a past which could make her easier to frame does help even if the whole thing plays out just like you would imagine.
Thriller – The film tries to give us the tension bound levels needed, only for the most part to feel like it was just being slowly building and any scenes involving Julia and Tessa feel empty for the first half of the film.
Settings – The film puts us in high-life houses which shows how the family can cope with divorce easily, while this works, a lower class of victim would make this more intense and interesting.
Scene of the Movie – The final showdown.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – There isn’t enough tension in the early part of the film.
Final Thoughts – This is the trademark yearly stalker ex movie, it checks the boxes well without needing to be anything special or dreadful.
Overall: Simple Thriller.
Performances – Rosario Dawson is good in her role we needed to see more of the life falling apart around her though. Katherine Heigl has had a mixed reaction from the audience and business over the last few years, she does work in this role as you do get an uneasy feeling whenever she is on screen. Geoff Stults is fine, he never really gets too much to do through the movie.
Story – The story follows an ex-wife that wants to make the new girlfriends life a living nightmare in an attempt to get her husband back. This does play out like all over the stalker films we have seen before and yes, we have moved along technologically making the moves against the victim more personally. This is an easy enough watch and playing into the idea that the victim has a past which could make her easier to frame does help even if the whole thing plays out just like you would imagine.
Thriller – The film tries to give us the tension bound levels needed, only for the most part to feel like it was just being slowly building and any scenes involving Julia and Tessa feel empty for the first half of the film.
Settings – The film puts us in high-life houses which shows how the family can cope with divorce easily, while this works, a lower class of victim would make this more intense and interesting.
Scene of the Movie – The final showdown.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – There isn’t enough tension in the early part of the film.
Final Thoughts – This is the trademark yearly stalker ex movie, it checks the boxes well without needing to be anything special or dreadful.
Overall: Simple Thriller.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Matrix Resurrections (2021) in Movies
Dec 31, 2021
Unnecessary
And now from the unnecessary sequels department…
And, that, pretty much sums up THE MATRIX RESURRECTIONS - a title that is a confession of a studio and creator that is looking to milk a few more bucks out of a dormant franchise.
Written and Directed by Lana Wachowski (one of the creators/directors of the original Matrix trilogy), MATRIX RESURRECTIONS drops us back into the Matrix that is the same, yet different, and - intriguingly enough - brings us back to Neo and Trinity, 2 characters that died in the 3rd film.
Of course, this being Science Fiction/Fantasy, no one needs to stay dead, if another story can be built around them.
Keanu Reeves and Carrie-Anne Moss are back as Neo & Trinity (this film would not have happened if they didn’t say yes to this) - and they are the best thing in this film. Their chemistry is strong and any film that can bring back Carrie-Anne Moss as a lead in a film, is okay by me.
The best newcomer in this film is Jonathan Groff as “Agent Smith” (Hugo Weaving was set to reprise his role, but had to drop out due to Theater Commitments). Groff channels his inner “King George” (the character that he was Tony Nominated for in the Stage Musical Hamilton) and it works well in this film.
As for the other “character/actors” - like the characters that Jada Pinkett-Smith (the only other returning actor from the original trilogy), Yahya Abdbul-Mateen II (playing a version of Morpheus), Thelma Hopkins, Jessica Henwick and…yes that IS Cristina Ricci - they are all pretty generic and serve as plot machinations to get us from one action set piece to another.
And, of course, there is Neil Patrick Harris as “THE ANALYST”, it’s an interesting, pivotal, role in this film and would have been better served being played by someone less “well known”. All I kept thinking as I watched this performance was - “it’s evil Neil Patrick Harris”!
As for the special effects/set pieces, they are “fine” but nothing “special”. The first Matrix film was a brilliant, groundbreaking and mind-bending piece of filmmaking that introduced cinema (for good or ill) to “bullet time” - a Special F/X that has been en vogue ever since. But this film is just a mismash of CGI that is neither brilliant nor groundbreaking and the dense mythology plot of this film is not “mind-bending”, it is more like “headache-inducing”.
Do yourself a favor and skip the Resurrection of The Matrix and, instead, check out the brilliant 1999 original - it holds up well (and is the subject of my January podcast).
Letter Grade: B- (thanks to Reeves, Moss and Groff)
6 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And, that, pretty much sums up THE MATRIX RESURRECTIONS - a title that is a confession of a studio and creator that is looking to milk a few more bucks out of a dormant franchise.
Written and Directed by Lana Wachowski (one of the creators/directors of the original Matrix trilogy), MATRIX RESURRECTIONS drops us back into the Matrix that is the same, yet different, and - intriguingly enough - brings us back to Neo and Trinity, 2 characters that died in the 3rd film.
Of course, this being Science Fiction/Fantasy, no one needs to stay dead, if another story can be built around them.
Keanu Reeves and Carrie-Anne Moss are back as Neo & Trinity (this film would not have happened if they didn’t say yes to this) - and they are the best thing in this film. Their chemistry is strong and any film that can bring back Carrie-Anne Moss as a lead in a film, is okay by me.
The best newcomer in this film is Jonathan Groff as “Agent Smith” (Hugo Weaving was set to reprise his role, but had to drop out due to Theater Commitments). Groff channels his inner “King George” (the character that he was Tony Nominated for in the Stage Musical Hamilton) and it works well in this film.
As for the other “character/actors” - like the characters that Jada Pinkett-Smith (the only other returning actor from the original trilogy), Yahya Abdbul-Mateen II (playing a version of Morpheus), Thelma Hopkins, Jessica Henwick and…yes that IS Cristina Ricci - they are all pretty generic and serve as plot machinations to get us from one action set piece to another.
And, of course, there is Neil Patrick Harris as “THE ANALYST”, it’s an interesting, pivotal, role in this film and would have been better served being played by someone less “well known”. All I kept thinking as I watched this performance was - “it’s evil Neil Patrick Harris”!
As for the special effects/set pieces, they are “fine” but nothing “special”. The first Matrix film was a brilliant, groundbreaking and mind-bending piece of filmmaking that introduced cinema (for good or ill) to “bullet time” - a Special F/X that has been en vogue ever since. But this film is just a mismash of CGI that is neither brilliant nor groundbreaking and the dense mythology plot of this film is not “mind-bending”, it is more like “headache-inducing”.
Do yourself a favor and skip the Resurrection of The Matrix and, instead, check out the brilliant 1999 original - it holds up well (and is the subject of my January podcast).
Letter Grade: B- (thanks to Reeves, Moss and Groff)
6 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Dean Gregory (18 KP) rated Scotland Yard in Tabletop Games
Jun 5, 2019
Clever asymmetrical gameplay (2 more)
Strategic
Beginner rules available for younger players
Catch Me If You Can
Scotland Yard is an asymmetrical game of deduction and deception, depending on which role you take. Mister X must move in secret to stay out of the reach of the law long enough to escape London (22 turns), while the detectives must work together to trap and capture him.
The board is a map of London divided into numbered stations and linked together by coloured lines, depicting routes and different modes of transport - yellow for taxis, blue for buses and red for the underground. There are also a handful of black routes for ferries, which are available only to Mister X under special rules.
The mechanic of a player moving in complete secret on a tabletop game is one I never would have thought was possible, but Scotland Yard manages to pull it off, and make it work well. Mister X plots their movements with the use of a special pad and paper by writing down the station number they occupy, covering it with the ticket they used to make their move. This is the only clue the detectives have as to where X might be. It works extremely well.
Mister X also has access to two special tickets - a X2 ticket allows them to make two moves in one, and a black ticket allows them to use any mode of transport, with the added bonus of showing them to take ferry routes. Smart use of these powers is necessary to get out of scrapes, as they also have to reveal their location every 5 moves, starting with move 3.
Detectives have a limited number of tickets for each mode of transport, so in order to win they need to coordinate their movements so they don't waste tickets unnecessarily. However, if there are less than 4 detective players, each detective not controlled by a player is replaced with a police officer who is universally controlled. The police can move freely without the need for tickets, making them far more versatile than detectives. This is presumably to balance the difficulty for smaller teams, but it ends up making a game with all 4 detectives considerably harder than a game with only 3. The level of care and consideration that must go into each move makes playing the detectives a completely different experience to playing as Mister X.
I came into the game thinking it would be heavily skewed in Mister X's favour. After all, most of the moves they make are in secret, they're completely unhindered by tickets, and they get a couple of special powers to boot. On top of that, the detectives first two moves are complete guesswork, so X gets a head start. In practice though, staying 3 steps ahead of the detectives is vital to survival, and when they work together well it can be ready for X to put themselves in an impossible situation. It takes careful planning to stay ahead of the game.
There is a beginner mode which is aimed at younger players. The differences are that the number of rounds Mister X needs to survive for is 13 instead of 22, red underground routes are unavailable to all players, and most of all, Mister X remains in the board all game, only disappearing on the turns where he would appear in the regular game. I can't really offer an opinion on this version, but I can see the appeal of it, even if it defeats the concept of the game a bit.
This is a bonafide classic, and a solid challenge no matter which role you take on. As long as the game doesn't devolve into a series of guesses and lucky breaks (which, due to the nature of Mister X's movements, can be a regular issue), it offers an evening of smart gameplay with a solid replay value.
The board is a map of London divided into numbered stations and linked together by coloured lines, depicting routes and different modes of transport - yellow for taxis, blue for buses and red for the underground. There are also a handful of black routes for ferries, which are available only to Mister X under special rules.
The mechanic of a player moving in complete secret on a tabletop game is one I never would have thought was possible, but Scotland Yard manages to pull it off, and make it work well. Mister X plots their movements with the use of a special pad and paper by writing down the station number they occupy, covering it with the ticket they used to make their move. This is the only clue the detectives have as to where X might be. It works extremely well.
Mister X also has access to two special tickets - a X2 ticket allows them to make two moves in one, and a black ticket allows them to use any mode of transport, with the added bonus of showing them to take ferry routes. Smart use of these powers is necessary to get out of scrapes, as they also have to reveal their location every 5 moves, starting with move 3.
Detectives have a limited number of tickets for each mode of transport, so in order to win they need to coordinate their movements so they don't waste tickets unnecessarily. However, if there are less than 4 detective players, each detective not controlled by a player is replaced with a police officer who is universally controlled. The police can move freely without the need for tickets, making them far more versatile than detectives. This is presumably to balance the difficulty for smaller teams, but it ends up making a game with all 4 detectives considerably harder than a game with only 3. The level of care and consideration that must go into each move makes playing the detectives a completely different experience to playing as Mister X.
I came into the game thinking it would be heavily skewed in Mister X's favour. After all, most of the moves they make are in secret, they're completely unhindered by tickets, and they get a couple of special powers to boot. On top of that, the detectives first two moves are complete guesswork, so X gets a head start. In practice though, staying 3 steps ahead of the detectives is vital to survival, and when they work together well it can be ready for X to put themselves in an impossible situation. It takes careful planning to stay ahead of the game.
There is a beginner mode which is aimed at younger players. The differences are that the number of rounds Mister X needs to survive for is 13 instead of 22, red underground routes are unavailable to all players, and most of all, Mister X remains in the board all game, only disappearing on the turns where he would appear in the regular game. I can't really offer an opinion on this version, but I can see the appeal of it, even if it defeats the concept of the game a bit.
This is a bonafide classic, and a solid challenge no matter which role you take on. As long as the game doesn't devolve into a series of guesses and lucky breaks (which, due to the nature of Mister X's movements, can be a regular issue), it offers an evening of smart gameplay with a solid replay value.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Coconuts in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
I usually like to create some fanciful intro to my reviews to get you in the setting of the game and in the mood to be entertained and educated about the game in question. I have failed this time.
You’re a monkey trying to throw coconuts into cups.
This is not a very theme-heavy role-playing game where you need to get into the heads of the characters and base your actions on what they would do. Instead, you are grabbing a monkey shooter action figure, placing a rubber Milk Dud (not a sponsor) in its hands and making the figure fling said forbidden delicious treat into yellow and red plastic cups. Should you make a basket into a yellow cup, you take that cup and place it in front of you in a vertical bowling pin assembly. Make a red cup shot and you not only get the cup to add to your collection, but you take another turn. The first player to amass six cups in front of them is the winner!
This sounds so stupid. Why am I reviewing this?? This is a kid’s “game.” You are right. This is incredibly childish. But it’s also INCREDIBLY fun. Have you read our review of Happy Salmon? This fills a similar role in that you break this bad boy out when you need a mental break between heavier games, or when you want the children to be involved in your game night. There is no real thinking involved. Player interaction? Sure. Some. Whether you choose to shoot your coconuts into the middle area of unclaimed cups, or into your opponents’ collections and take their hard-earned cups is up to you (I approve and encourage this cutthroat behavior).
Let’s go back to the children playing this with you thought. The box says ages 6+. I wholeheartedly disagree, but it may just be my situation. I have played this with my 2-year-old son and he had an absolute blast just flinging the coconuts everywhere while we adults were trying to play the game correctly. But the final score doesn’t matter. In a game like this I rarely care about winning or losing. My kid “wins” every time. It’s just plain fun to fling coconuts. I also rarely play with the included disadvantage cards to screw with my opponents because honestly, it’s hard enough to get those things in the cups.
Yes, he also shot one into my water cup so I let him score it on his mat. It’s only fair…
Components. I have good news and bad news. Good news: the monkeys, coconuts, and cups are of amazing quality. Amazing, I say! Bad news: the cards and the player mats. They are just of entry level acceptable quality. But like I said, I really don’t care much about using the cards, and the player mats are really just there to create a solid surface to put your score cups on anyway. So I’m ultimately good with that.
Now, I Kickstarted this game (as well as the Coconuts Duo project that was made for 2 player games or as a 6 player expansion for Coconuts). I got all the fancy pink and green coconuts too. They officially add nothing mechanically to the game (but you can home-brew house rules for them), but they are easier to find on the floor when you inevitably fling too far. That is, if you can find them before your dogs decide that you have given them little brown treats…
There is really not much else to say about this game except that it is super fun, takes literally 10 seconds to explain, and kids can play with you as well. We love it, and so our rating reflects that. Purple Phoenix Games gives this little game a Whopper (see what I did there?) of 18 / 24.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/05/07/coconuts-review/
You’re a monkey trying to throw coconuts into cups.
This is not a very theme-heavy role-playing game where you need to get into the heads of the characters and base your actions on what they would do. Instead, you are grabbing a monkey shooter action figure, placing a rubber Milk Dud (not a sponsor) in its hands and making the figure fling said forbidden delicious treat into yellow and red plastic cups. Should you make a basket into a yellow cup, you take that cup and place it in front of you in a vertical bowling pin assembly. Make a red cup shot and you not only get the cup to add to your collection, but you take another turn. The first player to amass six cups in front of them is the winner!
This sounds so stupid. Why am I reviewing this?? This is a kid’s “game.” You are right. This is incredibly childish. But it’s also INCREDIBLY fun. Have you read our review of Happy Salmon? This fills a similar role in that you break this bad boy out when you need a mental break between heavier games, or when you want the children to be involved in your game night. There is no real thinking involved. Player interaction? Sure. Some. Whether you choose to shoot your coconuts into the middle area of unclaimed cups, or into your opponents’ collections and take their hard-earned cups is up to you (I approve and encourage this cutthroat behavior).
Let’s go back to the children playing this with you thought. The box says ages 6+. I wholeheartedly disagree, but it may just be my situation. I have played this with my 2-year-old son and he had an absolute blast just flinging the coconuts everywhere while we adults were trying to play the game correctly. But the final score doesn’t matter. In a game like this I rarely care about winning or losing. My kid “wins” every time. It’s just plain fun to fling coconuts. I also rarely play with the included disadvantage cards to screw with my opponents because honestly, it’s hard enough to get those things in the cups.
Yes, he also shot one into my water cup so I let him score it on his mat. It’s only fair…
Components. I have good news and bad news. Good news: the monkeys, coconuts, and cups are of amazing quality. Amazing, I say! Bad news: the cards and the player mats. They are just of entry level acceptable quality. But like I said, I really don’t care much about using the cards, and the player mats are really just there to create a solid surface to put your score cups on anyway. So I’m ultimately good with that.
Now, I Kickstarted this game (as well as the Coconuts Duo project that was made for 2 player games or as a 6 player expansion for Coconuts). I got all the fancy pink and green coconuts too. They officially add nothing mechanically to the game (but you can home-brew house rules for them), but they are easier to find on the floor when you inevitably fling too far. That is, if you can find them before your dogs decide that you have given them little brown treats…
There is really not much else to say about this game except that it is super fun, takes literally 10 seconds to explain, and kids can play with you as well. We love it, and so our rating reflects that. Purple Phoenix Games gives this little game a Whopper (see what I did there?) of 18 / 24.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/05/07/coconuts-review/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Endless (2020) in Movies
Oct 19, 2020
Alexandra Shipp's acting is OK (1 more)
The British Columbian scenary
A Ghost "Ditto" - but without the star quality
Riley (Alexandra Shipp) and Chris (Nicholas Hamilton) are teenage lovers about to be torn apart... but not in the way you think. Riley is about to turn her back on her talent for comic book art to follow her parent's wishes: to study law on the other side of the country in Georgetown. Chris is from the other side of the tracks - aren't they always in these films? - living in a one-parent family with his mother Lee (Bond-girl Famke Janssen).
But fate is about to push them even further apart as - with an advert as to why drinking, texting and driving don't mix - Chris is killed in a car crash. Tragedy - when the feeling's gone and you can't go on! Can their love for each other reach beyond death itself, and if so, at what cost?
We've been here before of course with the Demi Moore / Patrick Swayze hit "Ghost" from 1990. That was an Oscar winner (Best Supporting Actress for Whoopi Goldberg and screenplay by Bruce Joel Rubin). Will "Endless" - a teen-love version - match this potential? Unfortunately, without a potter's wheel in sight, it doesn't stand a ghost of a chance.
It feels like it's not for the want of trying from the five youngsters* at the heart of the action, with Eddie Ramos and Zoë Belkin playing the lover's best friends and DeRon Horton being the limbo-trapped ghost-guide equivalent to the subway dropout from "Ghost". (* I say "youngsters", but most seem to be in their late twenties!) )
All seem to invest their energy into the project. Unfortunately, with the exception of Alexandra Shipp, the energy is not matched with great acting talent. Poor Nicholas Hamilton (the bully from "It") seems to have a particularly limited range, with his resting expression being "gormless".
None of the adult actors fair much better, with Famke Janssen being particularly unconvincing.
As I said, the exception here is Alexandra Shipp, who had a supporting role in "Love, Simon" and a more centre-stage role as "Storm" in the otherwise disappointing "X-Men: Dark Phoenix". Here she remains eminently watchable, but is hog-bound by a seriously dodgy script.
If you read my bob-the-movie-man blog regularly, you will know I reach for my flame-thrower at the appearance of voiceovers. And the start of this movie made me shudder with fear as a "tell, not show" approach was followed. It's a mild blessing that the script - by Andre Case and O'Neil Sharma - used this device purely as a slightly lazy way to set the scene and the voiceover didn't rear its ugly head again.
However, on a broader basis, the screenplay doesn't excite - predictability is its middle name - and it contains lines of dialogue that are absolute stinkers. There are whole sections of the movie that defy belief, with a police investigation in particular appearing completely incompetent. The result is that it adds neither drama or tension.
Through my career in IT I've had the great fortune to travel to a number of small cities in Canada, and all have appealed with their consistently picturesque qualities and consistently quirky individuals! Here we have the cities of Kelowna and Vernon in British Columbia playing California, and the drone cinematography (by Frank Borin and Mark Dobrescu) displays the dramatic lake-filled scenery to the full.
With so many cookie-cutter movies out there, it feels like the non-horror "Ghost" recipe (or "Heaven Can Wait" / "It's a Wonderful Life" / "A Matter of Life and Death" / delete per your preference) is well overdue for a makeover. Unfortunately, director Scott Speer's attempt just isn't good enough to fill the void. And that's a shame.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the bob-the-movie-man review here - https://rb.gy/mzq6jx . Thanks.)
But fate is about to push them even further apart as - with an advert as to why drinking, texting and driving don't mix - Chris is killed in a car crash. Tragedy - when the feeling's gone and you can't go on! Can their love for each other reach beyond death itself, and if so, at what cost?
We've been here before of course with the Demi Moore / Patrick Swayze hit "Ghost" from 1990. That was an Oscar winner (Best Supporting Actress for Whoopi Goldberg and screenplay by Bruce Joel Rubin). Will "Endless" - a teen-love version - match this potential? Unfortunately, without a potter's wheel in sight, it doesn't stand a ghost of a chance.
It feels like it's not for the want of trying from the five youngsters* at the heart of the action, with Eddie Ramos and Zoë Belkin playing the lover's best friends and DeRon Horton being the limbo-trapped ghost-guide equivalent to the subway dropout from "Ghost". (* I say "youngsters", but most seem to be in their late twenties!) )
All seem to invest their energy into the project. Unfortunately, with the exception of Alexandra Shipp, the energy is not matched with great acting talent. Poor Nicholas Hamilton (the bully from "It") seems to have a particularly limited range, with his resting expression being "gormless".
None of the adult actors fair much better, with Famke Janssen being particularly unconvincing.
As I said, the exception here is Alexandra Shipp, who had a supporting role in "Love, Simon" and a more centre-stage role as "Storm" in the otherwise disappointing "X-Men: Dark Phoenix". Here she remains eminently watchable, but is hog-bound by a seriously dodgy script.
If you read my bob-the-movie-man blog regularly, you will know I reach for my flame-thrower at the appearance of voiceovers. And the start of this movie made me shudder with fear as a "tell, not show" approach was followed. It's a mild blessing that the script - by Andre Case and O'Neil Sharma - used this device purely as a slightly lazy way to set the scene and the voiceover didn't rear its ugly head again.
However, on a broader basis, the screenplay doesn't excite - predictability is its middle name - and it contains lines of dialogue that are absolute stinkers. There are whole sections of the movie that defy belief, with a police investigation in particular appearing completely incompetent. The result is that it adds neither drama or tension.
Through my career in IT I've had the great fortune to travel to a number of small cities in Canada, and all have appealed with their consistently picturesque qualities and consistently quirky individuals! Here we have the cities of Kelowna and Vernon in British Columbia playing California, and the drone cinematography (by Frank Borin and Mark Dobrescu) displays the dramatic lake-filled scenery to the full.
With so many cookie-cutter movies out there, it feels like the non-horror "Ghost" recipe (or "Heaven Can Wait" / "It's a Wonderful Life" / "A Matter of Life and Death" / delete per your preference) is well overdue for a makeover. Unfortunately, director Scott Speer's attempt just isn't good enough to fill the void. And that's a shame.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the bob-the-movie-man review here - https://rb.gy/mzq6jx . Thanks.)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Lost Daughter (2021) in Movies
Feb 17, 2022
Strong Acting and Direction
The nice thing about being fanatical about catching all of the Oscar Nominated films in the “Major” categories is that it forces me to watch films that, normally, my interests would not gravitate towards - and, most of the time, I am rewarded and my mind and emotions are expanded because of this.
Such is the case with THE LOST DAUGHTER, Maggie Gyllenhaal’s film Directing debut (she is also Oscar nominated for Adapted Screenplay) that follows the emotional journey of a College Professor (the great Olivia Colman) on Holiday in Greece who is forced to confront her past decisions amidst the emotional toil that these decisions have created.
Normally, these introspective, “Art House” films are not my cup of tea and during the first half of this film, I did find myself wandering a bit. This is because Colman’s character of Leda arrives on-screen at the onset of this film heavy with emotional (almost crippling so) baggage and it is almost too much to bear…which is the point. The movie, then, peels the layers back slowly to reveal why.
It is, yet again, a tour-de-force performance by Colman - who just might win ANOTHER Oscar for this work - it is that strong without being show-offey (if that is a word). Colman becomes Leda and delves strongly into the introspection, guilt, hurt and confusion that this character has. She allows the character to breathe (sometimes in gulps of crying). It is the type of character (and performance) that film today rarely allows time for on screen.
Credit for this has to go to Directer/ScreenWriter Maggie Gyllenhaal who adapted Elana Ferrante’s novel into a quiet, retrospective film. The adaptation works well for someone who has no prior knowledge of the novel and the direction and camerawork of this film is unwavering in it’s look into a character that is flawed and at times unlikeable. It is a strong Directorial and Screenwriting debut for Gyllenhaal.
Jessie Buckley is also Oscar nominated (for Best Supporting Actress) for her role as the younger Leda - a character who’s actions strongly affect the older Leda. While this character is not as nuanced as Colman’s version of Leda, she still is strong and Buckley’s performance is just as confident, self-centered, and fierce showing the roots of the person that would become Colman’s character. This is only the 3rd time in Oscars history that 2 actresses have been nominated for Academy Awards for playing younger and older versions of the same person (Kate Winslet/Gloria Stewart playing Rose in TITANIC and Kate Winslet/Judi Dench playing Iris in IRIS).
Ed Harris shows up as the proprietor of the space that Leda is renting in Greece and is a welcome presence (as always). The surprises to me in this film were the performances of Dakota Johnson and Jack Farthing. Johnson is proving that she is more than just the “50 SHADES” girl and spars with Colman quite well, more than holding her own. Farthing, who played the cold and distant Prince Charles in SPENCER is the husband of the younger Leda and he is the polar opposite of Prince Charles - open, loving and emotional. It is fun to see 2 clearly differing performances by the same actor. Farthing is someone to keep an eye on.
As is Gyllenhaal, Colman and THE LOST DAUGHTER. It is a strong piece of film-making and not an easy watch. But, if you can click into the emotion of this flawed character - and stick with this film through the ugliness and mistakes that Leda selfishly makes, you will be rewarded with a character study, the likes of which is rare in film today.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with THE LOST DAUGHTER, Maggie Gyllenhaal’s film Directing debut (she is also Oscar nominated for Adapted Screenplay) that follows the emotional journey of a College Professor (the great Olivia Colman) on Holiday in Greece who is forced to confront her past decisions amidst the emotional toil that these decisions have created.
Normally, these introspective, “Art House” films are not my cup of tea and during the first half of this film, I did find myself wandering a bit. This is because Colman’s character of Leda arrives on-screen at the onset of this film heavy with emotional (almost crippling so) baggage and it is almost too much to bear…which is the point. The movie, then, peels the layers back slowly to reveal why.
It is, yet again, a tour-de-force performance by Colman - who just might win ANOTHER Oscar for this work - it is that strong without being show-offey (if that is a word). Colman becomes Leda and delves strongly into the introspection, guilt, hurt and confusion that this character has. She allows the character to breathe (sometimes in gulps of crying). It is the type of character (and performance) that film today rarely allows time for on screen.
Credit for this has to go to Directer/ScreenWriter Maggie Gyllenhaal who adapted Elana Ferrante’s novel into a quiet, retrospective film. The adaptation works well for someone who has no prior knowledge of the novel and the direction and camerawork of this film is unwavering in it’s look into a character that is flawed and at times unlikeable. It is a strong Directorial and Screenwriting debut for Gyllenhaal.
Jessie Buckley is also Oscar nominated (for Best Supporting Actress) for her role as the younger Leda - a character who’s actions strongly affect the older Leda. While this character is not as nuanced as Colman’s version of Leda, she still is strong and Buckley’s performance is just as confident, self-centered, and fierce showing the roots of the person that would become Colman’s character. This is only the 3rd time in Oscars history that 2 actresses have been nominated for Academy Awards for playing younger and older versions of the same person (Kate Winslet/Gloria Stewart playing Rose in TITANIC and Kate Winslet/Judi Dench playing Iris in IRIS).
Ed Harris shows up as the proprietor of the space that Leda is renting in Greece and is a welcome presence (as always). The surprises to me in this film were the performances of Dakota Johnson and Jack Farthing. Johnson is proving that she is more than just the “50 SHADES” girl and spars with Colman quite well, more than holding her own. Farthing, who played the cold and distant Prince Charles in SPENCER is the husband of the younger Leda and he is the polar opposite of Prince Charles - open, loving and emotional. It is fun to see 2 clearly differing performances by the same actor. Farthing is someone to keep an eye on.
As is Gyllenhaal, Colman and THE LOST DAUGHTER. It is a strong piece of film-making and not an easy watch. But, if you can click into the emotion of this flawed character - and stick with this film through the ugliness and mistakes that Leda selfishly makes, you will be rewarded with a character study, the likes of which is rare in film today.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Story: 71 starts as we see Gary Hook (O’Connell) going through his training with his regiment before they get deployed to Belfast to deal with the riot situation. In Ireland the regiment receive their instructions and onto the Catholic side of the war. When the riots get out of hand Gary finds himself on the wrong side of the barrier alone and unarmed in the Irish territory.
With tensions rising Gary finds himself in the middle of the battle not knowing which side to trust as both side are preparing to attack each other as Gary learns the harsh reality of what these riots are causing.
71 puts us into the middle of the Irish riots showing just one soldier’s experience behind enemy lines, this works well. My issue with the story is unless you know the history which I only know the basics you are left kind of wondering why the riots are happening in the first place. Another problem I found was telling what was going on with the supporting characters like who was on whose side which I do understand adds to the mystery but in this situation we should be able to identify them easily. As a film about survival in an urban setting this is great though.
Actor Review
Jack O’Connell: Gary Hook is the young soldier who is on his first mission on the streets on Belfast during the riots of 71, trying to receive a lost weapon he gets separated by his unit and stranded alone behind enemy lines never sure who to trust. Jack is great in this leading role in what was an outstanding year for the young actor.gary
Sam Reid: Lt. Armitage is one of the men that wants to start searching for Gary but constantly gets put down Captain Browning. Sam is solid in this role but doesn’t get enough screen time.
Sean Harris: Captain Sandy Browning is the man running the situation he knows that Gary is alive but really is playing both sides of the battle. Sean is also solid but only in a supporting role.
Killian Scott: Quinn is one of the leaders out trying to kill Gary, he takes his men and boys out on the streets on the hunt for him and will hurt anyone who gets in his way. Killian is good in what seems like one of the primary villains.
Support Cast: 71 has a large supporting cast but working out which side they are on gets confusing at times.
Director Review: Yann Demange – Yann gives us wonderfully shot sequences throughout but not enough back story to the events on the film.
Action: 71 has intensely shot action sequences involved.
Thriller: 71 keeps us on edge as we watch Gary trying to survive the warzone.
War: 71 puts us into a warzone as we see Gary trying to avoid conflict seemingly around every single corner.
Settings: 71 puts us in the warzone of the Belfast streets which really works to pull us into the story.
Special Effects: 71 has great effects when needed without having to just go overboard with them.
Suggestion: 71 is one for fans of the genre but otherwise people might find it slightly hard to keep up with. (War Film Fans Watch)
Best Part: Bomb shock.
Worst Part: Not enough history of the events.
Believability: The riots were real but story is fictional.
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Similar Too: Behind Enemy Lines
Awards: Nominated for One BAFTA.
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 39 Minutes
Trivia: Most scenes within the film were shot in Northern England, not in the film’s setting of Belfast.
Overall: Good history war thriller that is intense but never fully drags you into believing everything.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/11/08/71-2014/
With tensions rising Gary finds himself in the middle of the battle not knowing which side to trust as both side are preparing to attack each other as Gary learns the harsh reality of what these riots are causing.
71 puts us into the middle of the Irish riots showing just one soldier’s experience behind enemy lines, this works well. My issue with the story is unless you know the history which I only know the basics you are left kind of wondering why the riots are happening in the first place. Another problem I found was telling what was going on with the supporting characters like who was on whose side which I do understand adds to the mystery but in this situation we should be able to identify them easily. As a film about survival in an urban setting this is great though.
Actor Review
Jack O’Connell: Gary Hook is the young soldier who is on his first mission on the streets on Belfast during the riots of 71, trying to receive a lost weapon he gets separated by his unit and stranded alone behind enemy lines never sure who to trust. Jack is great in this leading role in what was an outstanding year for the young actor.gary
Sam Reid: Lt. Armitage is one of the men that wants to start searching for Gary but constantly gets put down Captain Browning. Sam is solid in this role but doesn’t get enough screen time.
Sean Harris: Captain Sandy Browning is the man running the situation he knows that Gary is alive but really is playing both sides of the battle. Sean is also solid but only in a supporting role.
Killian Scott: Quinn is one of the leaders out trying to kill Gary, he takes his men and boys out on the streets on the hunt for him and will hurt anyone who gets in his way. Killian is good in what seems like one of the primary villains.
Support Cast: 71 has a large supporting cast but working out which side they are on gets confusing at times.
Director Review: Yann Demange – Yann gives us wonderfully shot sequences throughout but not enough back story to the events on the film.
Action: 71 has intensely shot action sequences involved.
Thriller: 71 keeps us on edge as we watch Gary trying to survive the warzone.
War: 71 puts us into a warzone as we see Gary trying to avoid conflict seemingly around every single corner.
Settings: 71 puts us in the warzone of the Belfast streets which really works to pull us into the story.
Special Effects: 71 has great effects when needed without having to just go overboard with them.
Suggestion: 71 is one for fans of the genre but otherwise people might find it slightly hard to keep up with. (War Film Fans Watch)
Best Part: Bomb shock.
Worst Part: Not enough history of the events.
Believability: The riots were real but story is fictional.
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Similar Too: Behind Enemy Lines
Awards: Nominated for One BAFTA.
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 39 Minutes
Trivia: Most scenes within the film were shot in Northern England, not in the film’s setting of Belfast.
Overall: Good history war thriller that is intense but never fully drags you into believing everything.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/11/08/71-2014/
Darren (1599 KP) rated Nanny McPhee Returns (2010) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Story: Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang starts as we meet mother Isabel (Gyllenhaal) who is trying to run the family home and raise her three children, while her husband is away at war, adding to her pressure is her brother-in-law Phil (Ifans) that is looking to get money and two cousins added to the family that are used to the luxury life.
When Isabel starts struggling, she gets the call from Nanny McPhee (Thompson) who offers to help put the children back in line with her magic. The children must learn to work together to help the farm stay in the right hands.
Thoughts on Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang
Characters – Nanny McPhee is the magical nanny that comes to family’s when they are in need of support, she has come to this family in their time of need to help teach them how to be together in one of the most difficult times in their lives, the war, she brings her rules like before as she looks to bring the best out in the people. Isabel is the mother of the three that is trying to run and farm and work, her husband is at war, with the uncertainty of whether he will be returning. She doesn’t want help, but must accept it to keep the pressures of her life away from her children. Phil is the brother-in-law to Isabel, he has created his own gambling debts and wants the farm to clear the debts, he will do anything to get what he needs. Mrs Docherty is the boss of Isabel and family friend, she isn’t quite all there which makes her character come off funnier than she should. The children do come from different worlds which does see them clash in the time of conflict.
Performances – Emma Thompson does continue to enjoy playing this role which she handles with ease. Maggie Gyllenhaal gets to play the role well through the film, which shows us just how difficult a position her character is in. Rhys Ifans does everything you would imagine in the comedy role in the film, while Maggie Smith also adds plenty of comedy through the film.
Story – The story here follows a mother that takes over the family farm with her husband away at war, with money running low and the stress of life getting to her, that gets help from Nanny McPhee. The story here easily becomes a much more serious one because we are dealing with children that are being separated from their parents during war, where they don’t know if their family will be together once the war is over. This story does have a very different tone to the first one, one that does feel real, even though it does seem slightly stranger for Nanny McPhee to be here, this time around. The story here is more entertaining than the original which is always a good thing.
Comedy/Fantasy – The comedy in the film does hit better than the first film, most of it comes from the arguments which feel funnier, the fantasy in the film does work too, which ends up blending with the comedy involved.
Settings – The film is mostly set within one farm which does show us just how much trouble the family will be facing in their time of need.
Special Effects – The effects here are the biggest step back sadly because we can see the CGI moments looking completely out of place.
Scene of the Movie – Connection.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The CGI.
Final Thoughts – This is a great sequel that does have a strong story to cover up the weaker CGI being used in the film.
Overall: Wonderful sequel.
When Isabel starts struggling, she gets the call from Nanny McPhee (Thompson) who offers to help put the children back in line with her magic. The children must learn to work together to help the farm stay in the right hands.
Thoughts on Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang
Characters – Nanny McPhee is the magical nanny that comes to family’s when they are in need of support, she has come to this family in their time of need to help teach them how to be together in one of the most difficult times in their lives, the war, she brings her rules like before as she looks to bring the best out in the people. Isabel is the mother of the three that is trying to run and farm and work, her husband is at war, with the uncertainty of whether he will be returning. She doesn’t want help, but must accept it to keep the pressures of her life away from her children. Phil is the brother-in-law to Isabel, he has created his own gambling debts and wants the farm to clear the debts, he will do anything to get what he needs. Mrs Docherty is the boss of Isabel and family friend, she isn’t quite all there which makes her character come off funnier than she should. The children do come from different worlds which does see them clash in the time of conflict.
Performances – Emma Thompson does continue to enjoy playing this role which she handles with ease. Maggie Gyllenhaal gets to play the role well through the film, which shows us just how difficult a position her character is in. Rhys Ifans does everything you would imagine in the comedy role in the film, while Maggie Smith also adds plenty of comedy through the film.
Story – The story here follows a mother that takes over the family farm with her husband away at war, with money running low and the stress of life getting to her, that gets help from Nanny McPhee. The story here easily becomes a much more serious one because we are dealing with children that are being separated from their parents during war, where they don’t know if their family will be together once the war is over. This story does have a very different tone to the first one, one that does feel real, even though it does seem slightly stranger for Nanny McPhee to be here, this time around. The story here is more entertaining than the original which is always a good thing.
Comedy/Fantasy – The comedy in the film does hit better than the first film, most of it comes from the arguments which feel funnier, the fantasy in the film does work too, which ends up blending with the comedy involved.
Settings – The film is mostly set within one farm which does show us just how much trouble the family will be facing in their time of need.
Special Effects – The effects here are the biggest step back sadly because we can see the CGI moments looking completely out of place.
Scene of the Movie – Connection.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The CGI.
Final Thoughts – This is a great sequel that does have a strong story to cover up the weaker CGI being used in the film.
Overall: Wonderful sequel.