Search
Search results
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
Nancy Thompson (Heather Langenkamp) and her friends have more on their plate to worry about than typical high school drama. A child murderer named Fred Krueger (Robert Englund) was killed by the parents residing on Elm Street after they took matters into their own hands when the justice system failed to get the redemption the parents so desperately seeked. That was thought to be the end of it and everyone tried to move on with their lives. That is until Nancy, her boyfriend Glen (Johnny Depp), her best friend Tina (Amanda Wyss), and Tina's boyfriend Rod (Jsu Garcia) begin having nightmares about the same man. A man wearing a red and green striped sweater, brown fedora, and a four finger-bladed leather glove. Could Fred Krueger really be exacting his revenge from beyond the grave and in the dreams of his victims?
Wes Craven is probably best known for the Scream franchise since it's the most successful set of films he's ever been a part of, at least as far as the box office is concerned, but there was another film that he created that spawned seven sequels and a remake. A film that is looked at as a horror classic and is considered to be the first commercially successful release from New Line Cinema. That film is A Nightmare on Elm Street.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is looked at by some (including myself) as the best film in the franchise. While most of the sequels feature a Freddy that is more interested in cracking a joke than being an intimidating serial killer, the original film is where he seems to shine brightest. He seems to always be lurking in the shadows making it nearly impossible to get a clear look at his face. Remember when films left a bit of a mystery to things rather than being entirely realistic and showing every little detail when it came to gore? Well, this is a good example.
The deaths of Tina and Glen could arguably be reason alone to watch the film. Tina's death is so original and so well done. One of the reasons it still holds up today is because it was done with practical effects. The same can be said about Glen's death. The only thing more impressive than his death is the fact that it's Johnny Depp's debut. Both deaths are two of the most memorable in horror film history.
Despite A Nightmare on Elm Street being one of the most influential horror films of our time, it still has that cheesiness associated with most horror films that come out of the eighties. Bad acting (Heather Langenkamp especially. The "Screw your pass!" scene is a good example, but is hilarious in its own right) and dated special effects being the best examples. While the practical effects are a good thing and are much preferred over CGI, some of them haven't aged well over the past 26 years. The scene of Freddy chasing Tina is probably the best example of this. His arms stretching inhuman lengths to scratch the walls and Tina ripping off his face just didn't hold up as well as other effects in the film.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is a beloved horror classic that gave birth to one of the most iconic serial killers in the genre. The original film features some of the most creative deaths and practical effects (seeing Freddy in the wall above Nancy's bed in the beginning of the film is one of the best scenes) to come out of any horror film held in such high regard. The film's charm will go over a lot of people's heads who look into it for the first time after seeing the remake which will probably result in the film getting more flack than it deserves. But nevertheless, it's hard to deny the impact Freddy and Wes Craven have had on this genre thanks to this film.
Special Features: The two-disc Infinifilm is packed with extras including:
Feature commentary including a variety of topics: the financial problems the film had with writer/director Wes Craven, producer Bob Shaye, actor John Saxon, and cinematographer Jacques Haitkin sharing their thoughts, Heather Langenkamp and Wes Craven talk about how great it was to work with Johnny Depp, Amanda Wyss goes into detail about not knowing much about the horror genre before taking her role as Tina, a discussion of how Robert Englund got the role of Fred Krueger and Englund shares his thoughts on the Fred Krueger character. Everything from the problems the film had to Freddy's popularity to the film's reputation and more are discussed by the cast and crew.
Original commentary includes Heather Langenkamp, John Saxon, Wes Craven, and Jacques Haitkin.
Beyond the Movie Features include The House That Freddy Built: The Legacy of New Line Horror and Night Terrors: The Origins of Wes Craven's Nightmares.
All Access Pass Features include three alternate endings, Never Sleep Again: The making of A Nightmare on Elm Street, a trivia challenge and the theatrical trailer.
There's also Infinifilm bonus features that can be accessed while the film is playing and the original screenplay can be viewed as a DVD-ROM feature.
The film is remastered and restored from the original film negative and is presented in both Dolby Digital 5.1-EX surround sound and DTS-ES 6.1 Surround Sound.
Wes Craven is probably best known for the Scream franchise since it's the most successful set of films he's ever been a part of, at least as far as the box office is concerned, but there was another film that he created that spawned seven sequels and a remake. A film that is looked at as a horror classic and is considered to be the first commercially successful release from New Line Cinema. That film is A Nightmare on Elm Street.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is looked at by some (including myself) as the best film in the franchise. While most of the sequels feature a Freddy that is more interested in cracking a joke than being an intimidating serial killer, the original film is where he seems to shine brightest. He seems to always be lurking in the shadows making it nearly impossible to get a clear look at his face. Remember when films left a bit of a mystery to things rather than being entirely realistic and showing every little detail when it came to gore? Well, this is a good example.
The deaths of Tina and Glen could arguably be reason alone to watch the film. Tina's death is so original and so well done. One of the reasons it still holds up today is because it was done with practical effects. The same can be said about Glen's death. The only thing more impressive than his death is the fact that it's Johnny Depp's debut. Both deaths are two of the most memorable in horror film history.
Despite A Nightmare on Elm Street being one of the most influential horror films of our time, it still has that cheesiness associated with most horror films that come out of the eighties. Bad acting (Heather Langenkamp especially. The "Screw your pass!" scene is a good example, but is hilarious in its own right) and dated special effects being the best examples. While the practical effects are a good thing and are much preferred over CGI, some of them haven't aged well over the past 26 years. The scene of Freddy chasing Tina is probably the best example of this. His arms stretching inhuman lengths to scratch the walls and Tina ripping off his face just didn't hold up as well as other effects in the film.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is a beloved horror classic that gave birth to one of the most iconic serial killers in the genre. The original film features some of the most creative deaths and practical effects (seeing Freddy in the wall above Nancy's bed in the beginning of the film is one of the best scenes) to come out of any horror film held in such high regard. The film's charm will go over a lot of people's heads who look into it for the first time after seeing the remake which will probably result in the film getting more flack than it deserves. But nevertheless, it's hard to deny the impact Freddy and Wes Craven have had on this genre thanks to this film.
Special Features: The two-disc Infinifilm is packed with extras including:
Feature commentary including a variety of topics: the financial problems the film had with writer/director Wes Craven, producer Bob Shaye, actor John Saxon, and cinematographer Jacques Haitkin sharing their thoughts, Heather Langenkamp and Wes Craven talk about how great it was to work with Johnny Depp, Amanda Wyss goes into detail about not knowing much about the horror genre before taking her role as Tina, a discussion of how Robert Englund got the role of Fred Krueger and Englund shares his thoughts on the Fred Krueger character. Everything from the problems the film had to Freddy's popularity to the film's reputation and more are discussed by the cast and crew.
Original commentary includes Heather Langenkamp, John Saxon, Wes Craven, and Jacques Haitkin.
Beyond the Movie Features include The House That Freddy Built: The Legacy of New Line Horror and Night Terrors: The Origins of Wes Craven's Nightmares.
All Access Pass Features include three alternate endings, Never Sleep Again: The making of A Nightmare on Elm Street, a trivia challenge and the theatrical trailer.
There's also Infinifilm bonus features that can be accessed while the film is playing and the original screenplay can be viewed as a DVD-ROM feature.
The film is remastered and restored from the original film negative and is presented in both Dolby Digital 5.1-EX surround sound and DTS-ES 6.1 Surround Sound.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Philadelphia Story (1940) in Movies
Sep 14, 2019
It's as good (maybe better) than you've heard
We all know of movies that you hear are considered a "classic", but you've never seen, and the few clips of the film you've seen does not, exactly, motivate you to check out the entire film. THE PHILADELPHIA STORY was one such film for me. This 1940 George Cukor production is lauded for it's dialogue, direction and the stellar performances of the cast - particularly the 3 leads, Katherine Hepburn, Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart.
Recently, I attended our monthly "Secret Movie Night" where we pack the Willow Creek Movie Theater on the 2nd Thursday of every month and get treated to a "Classic" Film (made before 1970) or a "New Classic" (made after 1970), but we don't know what the film is until it starts playing on the screen.
So...imagine how much my eyes rolled back into my head when I saw that this month's film was the aforementioned THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. I sighed to myself and said "all right, time to endure this one all the way through."
And...I couldn't have been more wrong. Almost from the start the script, pacing and witty dialogue of this Broadway-Play-Turned-Movie swept me away. Most certainly aided by the fact that 3 of the best movie stars of all time - at the peak of their abilities - were letting this wonderful dialogue roll off their tongues. This film is a "classic" in every sense of the word.
The plot is...inconsequential. Basically...Philadelphia socialite Tracy Lord (Hepburn) is getting remarried. Her ex-husband (Cary Grant) enlists the aid of a Journalist (Jimmy Stewart) to create havoc at the wedding.
But...this is a film where the journey, not the destination, is the fun of the flick. The 3 leads banter back and forth with each other, arming and disarming (and charming) one another with their quick wit and biting criticism. The Broadway Stage play was written, specifically, for Hepburn and she exceeds in this role. Here is a newsflash - KATHERINE HEPBURN IS A VERY GOOD ACTRESS - and I think this is the very best performance of the very best actress of all time (with apologies to Meryl Streep). She was nominated (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Actress for her performance (losing to a very deserving Ginger Rogers in KITTY FOYLE, I would have voted for Hepburn, but gotta give Rogers her due, she is very good as the titular KITTY FOYLE).
Stepping up to the plate - and matching Hepburn blow for blow - is, surprisingly, Stewart. I didn't really know the story of this film, so I was surprised where Stewart's character-arc went, especially in relation to his relationship with Hepburn. Stewart lost the Oscar in 1939 for his bravura performance in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (inexplicably losing to Robert Donat in GOODBYE MR. CHIPS), so the Academy made up for it's mistake by awarding Stewart the Oscar for Best Actor of 1940. This most certainly was a worthy Oscar-winning performance, but (if I"m going to be honest), pales in comparison to his work in MR. SMITH...
Looming over these two (and Tracy's impeding marriage to another person) is Cary Grant as Tracy's ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven. While Grant's role is the least showy of the 3, he commands the screen just with his presence whenever he shows up and strengthens this triangle with his strength of character.
The supporting cast is just as strong - Ruth Hussy (Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress) as a photographer, Roland Young (as the lecherous Uncle Willy) and, especially, 13 year old Virginia Weidler who is spunky, fun and smart as Tracy's kid sister. The only performer relegated to the back of the scenery is the bland John Howard as George Kittredge (the man Tracy is slated to marry). With Grant and Stewart on the scene, you know that Kittredge has no shot at getting Tracy Lord to the altar (or does he?).
All of these fine actors and the wonderful dialogue were put into the hands of the great Director George Cukor - who had 1 of his 5 Best Director Oscar Nominations for this film (he will win for MY FAIR LADY in 1964). He handles this film with skilled hands letting the actors (and the dialogue) "do their thing" without letting any of them overstay their welcome. It is a masterful job of directing and with strong actors (and off-screen personalities) like Hepburn, Grant and Stewart, he had his hands full.
Sure...it's a 1940's movie, so some of the "social situations" (mostly male/female dynamics) do not age particularly well, but Hepburn was a strong personality - certainly well ahead of the game in terms of equality of strength of the sexes, so these dynamics do not jump at us as strongly as it might have been in a lesser actress's hands.
If you haven't seen this film in sometime (or if you haven't seen it at all) - check out THE PHILADELPHIA STORY - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Recently, I attended our monthly "Secret Movie Night" where we pack the Willow Creek Movie Theater on the 2nd Thursday of every month and get treated to a "Classic" Film (made before 1970) or a "New Classic" (made after 1970), but we don't know what the film is until it starts playing on the screen.
So...imagine how much my eyes rolled back into my head when I saw that this month's film was the aforementioned THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. I sighed to myself and said "all right, time to endure this one all the way through."
And...I couldn't have been more wrong. Almost from the start the script, pacing and witty dialogue of this Broadway-Play-Turned-Movie swept me away. Most certainly aided by the fact that 3 of the best movie stars of all time - at the peak of their abilities - were letting this wonderful dialogue roll off their tongues. This film is a "classic" in every sense of the word.
The plot is...inconsequential. Basically...Philadelphia socialite Tracy Lord (Hepburn) is getting remarried. Her ex-husband (Cary Grant) enlists the aid of a Journalist (Jimmy Stewart) to create havoc at the wedding.
But...this is a film where the journey, not the destination, is the fun of the flick. The 3 leads banter back and forth with each other, arming and disarming (and charming) one another with their quick wit and biting criticism. The Broadway Stage play was written, specifically, for Hepburn and she exceeds in this role. Here is a newsflash - KATHERINE HEPBURN IS A VERY GOOD ACTRESS - and I think this is the very best performance of the very best actress of all time (with apologies to Meryl Streep). She was nominated (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Actress for her performance (losing to a very deserving Ginger Rogers in KITTY FOYLE, I would have voted for Hepburn, but gotta give Rogers her due, she is very good as the titular KITTY FOYLE).
Stepping up to the plate - and matching Hepburn blow for blow - is, surprisingly, Stewart. I didn't really know the story of this film, so I was surprised where Stewart's character-arc went, especially in relation to his relationship with Hepburn. Stewart lost the Oscar in 1939 for his bravura performance in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (inexplicably losing to Robert Donat in GOODBYE MR. CHIPS), so the Academy made up for it's mistake by awarding Stewart the Oscar for Best Actor of 1940. This most certainly was a worthy Oscar-winning performance, but (if I"m going to be honest), pales in comparison to his work in MR. SMITH...
Looming over these two (and Tracy's impeding marriage to another person) is Cary Grant as Tracy's ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven. While Grant's role is the least showy of the 3, he commands the screen just with his presence whenever he shows up and strengthens this triangle with his strength of character.
The supporting cast is just as strong - Ruth Hussy (Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress) as a photographer, Roland Young (as the lecherous Uncle Willy) and, especially, 13 year old Virginia Weidler who is spunky, fun and smart as Tracy's kid sister. The only performer relegated to the back of the scenery is the bland John Howard as George Kittredge (the man Tracy is slated to marry). With Grant and Stewart on the scene, you know that Kittredge has no shot at getting Tracy Lord to the altar (or does he?).
All of these fine actors and the wonderful dialogue were put into the hands of the great Director George Cukor - who had 1 of his 5 Best Director Oscar Nominations for this film (he will win for MY FAIR LADY in 1964). He handles this film with skilled hands letting the actors (and the dialogue) "do their thing" without letting any of them overstay their welcome. It is a masterful job of directing and with strong actors (and off-screen personalities) like Hepburn, Grant and Stewart, he had his hands full.
Sure...it's a 1940's movie, so some of the "social situations" (mostly male/female dynamics) do not age particularly well, but Hepburn was a strong personality - certainly well ahead of the game in terms of equality of strength of the sexes, so these dynamics do not jump at us as strongly as it might have been in a lesser actress's hands.
If you haven't seen this film in sometime (or if you haven't seen it at all) - check out THE PHILADELPHIA STORY - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Tail Story in Tabletop Games
Jul 1, 2020
The saying goes, “If you can dream it, you can achieve it.” I know there were points in my life when I wanted to be a rock star, a zookeeper, or even a professional mascot. But who says that dreams only apply to people? Our beloved pets can dream too! Haven’t you ever seen a sleeping pup, legs twitching from an imaginary chase? Or caught your cat prowling around, as if on a secret mission? What do animals dream about? Well, Tail Story allows you to create dreams and achieve the impossible with your chosen pet!
Disclaimer: We were provided with a preview copy of Tail Story for the purposes of this review. Some of the components pictured are not final, and will be addressed in production. Also, I do not intend to rehash the entire rulebook, but rather provide an overview of the rules and game flow. -L
Tail Story is a competitive card game in which players are racing to become the most memorable pet in history! How? By partaking in various events and gathering a total of 4 Achievements. Here’s how it works. To setup, each player takes a player mat, and randomly draws a Queue Card. Players then get to choose a Character card – a pet from either the Canine, Feline, or Rodent & Friends type. Shuffle the Event cards, deal 15 to each player, everyone draws 5 cards to their hand, and the game is ready to begin! The player who drew Queue Card 1 is the first player, and play continues in numerical order.
Each turn consists of 5 steps: Draw, Play, Bonus, Deck Check, and End of Turn. The first step is always to Draw 1 card from your deck. In the Play Step, you choose one action to perform. Each player has 2 Action Points (AP) per turn, and those are spent here in the Play Step. All Event cards require either 1 or 2 AP to play, and the other standard actions in the Play Step require either 0 or 1 AP to perform (Check out the Reference Cards pictured below to see the possible actions). After performing 1 action, you move to the Bonus Step, where a player may choose to activate a Bonus ability. The Deck Check step is next. All players count how many cards remain in their Draw piles. If all decks still have at least 1 card, you jump back to the Play Step and perform another action. If any deck is out of cards, that player reshuffles their discard pile, and places a card from their hand face-down on their player mat to signify that they have collected an Achievement. Even if another player collects an Achievement on your turn, play then returns to you, and you jump back to the Play Step again. The last step is the End of Turn – a player decides to be done and ends their turn, discarding their hand down to 5 cards. The game ends when a player has collected their 4th Achievement.
Here’s a neat twist though – whenever you play a card, any opponent can choose to play a Stop card to prevent you from performing that action! And then, if you have a Stop card too, you could play it to cancel out their Stop card. This twist adds a strategic and competitive element to the game that elevates it to the next level. There’s a fun little element of role-play too that encourages you to get into your animal character – I’ll leave that for you to discover on your own!
I know that seems like quite a lot, but once you get into the swing of things, Tail Story plays pretty quickly. One thing I particularly like about this game is that it requires a decent amount of strategy. Everyone is racing to get through their Draw decks and collect Achievements, while at the same time hindering the progress of their opponents. Are you willing to risk a valuable Stop card to cancel the action of an opponent and hope that they don’t play a Stop card back to you? Should you play a card that could activate your Bonus ability now or wait for your next action to pull a fast one over on your opponents? Your strategy has to be adjustable on the fly depending on what cards your opponents are playing. There is no single right strategy to win, and the riskiness makes the game more exciting and engaging.
Another thing I really like about Tail Story is that there are really only 4 different Event cards that can be played. Yes, the artwork may vary, but ultimately the actions are the same. They rely on key text and color coding to communicate their uses, and after a few rounds, recognizing those effects is easy. One thing I wish is that the reference cards had these effect explanation instead of only being listed in the rulebook. Just for a quick glance if you need a reminder instead of having to look back in the rules for the full text. The reference cards do have the Turn Steps and possible Actions on them, which are helpful – don’t get me wrong!
I would recommend Tail Story at the higher player counts for maximum enjoyment. With only 2 players, it feels like it drags on a bit because it is only a back-and-forth game. With 3-4 players, you have more opponents with which to interact, and playing cards against others doesn’t feel as targeted and keeps the game play more light-hearted than cut-throat.
Let’s talk about components. As I mentioned earlier, this is only a preview copy of the game, so some elements are still not finalized. The player mats are only paper right now, but I anticipate that they will be sturdier in final production. That being said, the information on the player mats is awesome. They provide enough information to understand where everything goes, while not being so wordy that they are confusing. I am excited to see what kind of color scheme they come up with for the player mats, to match the artwork of the cards. On to the cards – they are amazing. For starters, the cards are nice, sturdy, and thick. Definitely a game that will not easily succumb to bent corners or torn cards. The actual artwork of the cards is perfect. Each card is detailed, colorful, and appropriate for their respective card names. Probably the coolest part of the cards is that they all have a holographic finish on them. This really makes the artwork pop and makes you admire every card instead of just reading the text. That being said, the holographic finish makes the cards stick together a little more – not a huge detriment, but something to be aware of and careful with when drawing or playing cards! The game box is a cute little box with a magnet closure that is perfect for easy transportation.
Overall, I would say that I love Tail Story. It’s fun, fast-paced, strategic, and exciting. Being able to choose from 3 Character types (Canine, Feline, Rodent & Friends) gives you the opportunity to play a different game, with a different strategy, every time. With more plays, the special text of cards is engrained in your head, which means that it can play even faster and with no interruptions to check rules. It’s definitely a memorable game, and one that I can see myself pulling out often on game nights. I am excited to see this campaign launch, and for the sake of all animal dreams out there, you should check it out!
Disclaimer: We were provided with a preview copy of Tail Story for the purposes of this review. Some of the components pictured are not final, and will be addressed in production. Also, I do not intend to rehash the entire rulebook, but rather provide an overview of the rules and game flow. -L
Tail Story is a competitive card game in which players are racing to become the most memorable pet in history! How? By partaking in various events and gathering a total of 4 Achievements. Here’s how it works. To setup, each player takes a player mat, and randomly draws a Queue Card. Players then get to choose a Character card – a pet from either the Canine, Feline, or Rodent & Friends type. Shuffle the Event cards, deal 15 to each player, everyone draws 5 cards to their hand, and the game is ready to begin! The player who drew Queue Card 1 is the first player, and play continues in numerical order.
Each turn consists of 5 steps: Draw, Play, Bonus, Deck Check, and End of Turn. The first step is always to Draw 1 card from your deck. In the Play Step, you choose one action to perform. Each player has 2 Action Points (AP) per turn, and those are spent here in the Play Step. All Event cards require either 1 or 2 AP to play, and the other standard actions in the Play Step require either 0 or 1 AP to perform (Check out the Reference Cards pictured below to see the possible actions). After performing 1 action, you move to the Bonus Step, where a player may choose to activate a Bonus ability. The Deck Check step is next. All players count how many cards remain in their Draw piles. If all decks still have at least 1 card, you jump back to the Play Step and perform another action. If any deck is out of cards, that player reshuffles their discard pile, and places a card from their hand face-down on their player mat to signify that they have collected an Achievement. Even if another player collects an Achievement on your turn, play then returns to you, and you jump back to the Play Step again. The last step is the End of Turn – a player decides to be done and ends their turn, discarding their hand down to 5 cards. The game ends when a player has collected their 4th Achievement.
Here’s a neat twist though – whenever you play a card, any opponent can choose to play a Stop card to prevent you from performing that action! And then, if you have a Stop card too, you could play it to cancel out their Stop card. This twist adds a strategic and competitive element to the game that elevates it to the next level. There’s a fun little element of role-play too that encourages you to get into your animal character – I’ll leave that for you to discover on your own!
I know that seems like quite a lot, but once you get into the swing of things, Tail Story plays pretty quickly. One thing I particularly like about this game is that it requires a decent amount of strategy. Everyone is racing to get through their Draw decks and collect Achievements, while at the same time hindering the progress of their opponents. Are you willing to risk a valuable Stop card to cancel the action of an opponent and hope that they don’t play a Stop card back to you? Should you play a card that could activate your Bonus ability now or wait for your next action to pull a fast one over on your opponents? Your strategy has to be adjustable on the fly depending on what cards your opponents are playing. There is no single right strategy to win, and the riskiness makes the game more exciting and engaging.
Another thing I really like about Tail Story is that there are really only 4 different Event cards that can be played. Yes, the artwork may vary, but ultimately the actions are the same. They rely on key text and color coding to communicate their uses, and after a few rounds, recognizing those effects is easy. One thing I wish is that the reference cards had these effect explanation instead of only being listed in the rulebook. Just for a quick glance if you need a reminder instead of having to look back in the rules for the full text. The reference cards do have the Turn Steps and possible Actions on them, which are helpful – don’t get me wrong!
I would recommend Tail Story at the higher player counts for maximum enjoyment. With only 2 players, it feels like it drags on a bit because it is only a back-and-forth game. With 3-4 players, you have more opponents with which to interact, and playing cards against others doesn’t feel as targeted and keeps the game play more light-hearted than cut-throat.
Let’s talk about components. As I mentioned earlier, this is only a preview copy of the game, so some elements are still not finalized. The player mats are only paper right now, but I anticipate that they will be sturdier in final production. That being said, the information on the player mats is awesome. They provide enough information to understand where everything goes, while not being so wordy that they are confusing. I am excited to see what kind of color scheme they come up with for the player mats, to match the artwork of the cards. On to the cards – they are amazing. For starters, the cards are nice, sturdy, and thick. Definitely a game that will not easily succumb to bent corners or torn cards. The actual artwork of the cards is perfect. Each card is detailed, colorful, and appropriate for their respective card names. Probably the coolest part of the cards is that they all have a holographic finish on them. This really makes the artwork pop and makes you admire every card instead of just reading the text. That being said, the holographic finish makes the cards stick together a little more – not a huge detriment, but something to be aware of and careful with when drawing or playing cards! The game box is a cute little box with a magnet closure that is perfect for easy transportation.
Overall, I would say that I love Tail Story. It’s fun, fast-paced, strategic, and exciting. Being able to choose from 3 Character types (Canine, Feline, Rodent & Friends) gives you the opportunity to play a different game, with a different strategy, every time. With more plays, the special text of cards is engrained in your head, which means that it can play even faster and with no interruptions to check rules. It’s definitely a memorable game, and one that I can see myself pulling out often on game nights. I am excited to see this campaign launch, and for the sake of all animal dreams out there, you should check it out!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Tenet (2020) in Movies
Aug 28, 2020
Spectacular action set pieces done "in camera" (1 more)
Branagh and Debecki, both superb
Sound mix makes dialogue unintelligible (1 more)
In the words of Huey Lewis, "You're too darn loud"
Only Nolan and Schrödinger’s cat knows what’s going on.
Tenet is the long awaited new movie from Christopher Nolan. The movie that's set to reboot the multiplexes post-Covid. It's a manic, extremely loud, extremely baffling sci-fi cum spy rollercoaster that will please a lot of Nolan fan-boys but which left me with very mixed views.
How to write a spoiler-free plot summary? John David Washington (Denzel's lad) plays "The Protagonist" - a crack-CIA field operative who is an unstoppable one-man army in the style of Hobbs or Shaw. Recruited into an even more shadowy organisation, he's on the trail of an international arms dealer, Andrei Sator (Kenneth Branagh in full villain mode). Sator is bullying his estranged wife Kat (Elizabeth Debicki) over custody of their son (and the film unusually has a BBFC warning about "Domestic Abuse"). Our hero jets the world to try to prevent a very particular kind of Armageddon while also keeping the vulnerable and attractive Kat alive.
This is cinema at its biggest and boldest. Nolan has taken a cinema 'splurge' gun, filled it with money, set it on rapid fire, removed the safety and let rip at the screen. Given that Nolan is famous for doing all of his 'effects' for real and 'in camera', some of what you see performed is almost unbelievable. You thought crashing a train through rush-hour traffic in "Inception" was crazy? You ain't seen nothing yet with the airport scene! And for lovers of Chinooks (I must admit I am one and rush out of the house to see one if I hear it coming!) there is positively Chinook-p*rn on offer in the film's ridiculously huge finale.
The 'inversion' aspects of the story also lends itself to some fight scenes - one in particular in an airport 'freeport' - which are both bizarre to watch and, I imagine, technically extremely challenging to pull off. In this regard John David Washington is an acrobatic and talented stunt performer in his own right, and must have trained for months for this role.
Nolan's crew also certainly racked up their air miles pre-lockdown, since the locations range far and wide across the world. The locations encompassed Denmark, Estonia, India, Italy, Norway, the United Kingdom, and United States. Hoyte Van Hoytema's cinematography is lush in introducing these, especially the beautiful Italian coast scenes. Although I did miss the David Arnold strings that would typically introduce these in a Bond movie: it felt like that was missing.
The 'timey-wimey' aspects of the plot are also intriguing and very cleverly done. There are numerous points at which you think "Oh, that's a sloppy continuity error" or "Shame the production design team missed that cracked wing mirror". Then later in the movie, you get at least a dozen "Aha!" moments. Some of them (no spoilers) are jaw-droppingly spectacular.
Perhaps the best twist is hidden in the final line of the movie. I only processed it on the way home.
And so to the first of my significant gripes with Tenet. The sound mix in the movie is all over the place. I'd go stronger than that... it's truly awful (expletive deleted)! Nolan often implements Shakespeare's trick of having characters in the play provide exposition of the plot to aid comprehension. But unfortunately, all of this exposition dialogue was largely incomprehensible. This was due to:
- the ear-splitting volume of the sound: 2020 movie audiences are going to be suffering from 'Tenetis'! (that joke © David Moody, 2020);
- the dialogue is poorly mixed with the thumping music by Ludwig Göransson (Wot? No Hans Zimmer?);
- a large proportion of the dialogue was through masks of varying description (#covid-appropriate). Aaron Taylor-Johnson was particularly unintelligible to my ears.
Overall, watching this with subtitles at a special showing might be advisable!
OK, so I only have a PhD in Physics... but at times I was completely lost as to the intricacies of the plot. It made "Inception" look like "The Tiger Who Came to Tea". There was an obvious 'McGuffin' in "Inception" - - ("These 'dream levels'... how exactly are they architected??".... "Don't worry... they'll never notice". And we didn't!) In "Tenet" there are McGuffins nested in McGuffins. So much of this is casually waved away as "future stuff... you're not qualified" that it feels vaguely condescending to the audience. At one point Kat says "I don't understand what's going on" - darn right luv.
There are also gaps in the storyline that jar. The word "Tenet"? What does it mean. Is it just a password? I'm none the wiser.
The manic pace of Tenet and the constant din means that the movie gallops along like a series of disconnected (albeit brilliant) action set pieces. For me, it has none of the emotional heart of the Cobb's marriage problems from "Inception" or the father/daughter separation of "Interstellar". In fact, you barely care for anyone in the movie, perhaps with the exception of Kat.
It's a talented cast. As mentioned above, John David Washington is muscular and athletic in the role. It's a big load for the actor to carry in such a tent-pole movie, given his only significant starring role before was in the excellent BlacKkKlansman. But he carries it off well. A worthy successor to Gerard Butler and Jason Statham for action roles in the next 10 years.
This is also a great performance by Robert Pattinson, in his most high-profile film in a long time, playing the vaguely alcoholic and Carré-esque support guy. Pattinson's Potter co-star Clemence Poésy also pops up - rather more un-glam that usual - as the scientist plot-expositor early in the movie.
Nolan's regular Michael Caine also pops up. although the 87-year old legend is starting to show his age: His speech was obviously affected at the time of filming (though nice try Mr Nolan in trying to disguise that with a mouth full of food!). But in my book, any amount of Caine in a movie is a plus. He also gets to deliver the best killer line in the film about snobbery!
However, it's Kenneth Branagh and Elizabeth Debicki that really stand out. They were both fabulous, especially when they were bouncing off each other in their marital battle royale.
So, given this was my most anticipated movie of the year, it's a bit of a curate's egg for me. A mixture of being awe-struck at times and slightly disappointed at others. It's a movie which needs a second watch, so I'm heading back today to give my ear drums another bashing! And this is one where I reserve the right to revisit my rating after that second watch... it's not likely to go down... but it might go up.
(For the full graphical review, check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/08/28/tenet-only-nolan-and-schrodingers-cat-knows-whats-going-on/ .)
How to write a spoiler-free plot summary? John David Washington (Denzel's lad) plays "The Protagonist" - a crack-CIA field operative who is an unstoppable one-man army in the style of Hobbs or Shaw. Recruited into an even more shadowy organisation, he's on the trail of an international arms dealer, Andrei Sator (Kenneth Branagh in full villain mode). Sator is bullying his estranged wife Kat (Elizabeth Debicki) over custody of their son (and the film unusually has a BBFC warning about "Domestic Abuse"). Our hero jets the world to try to prevent a very particular kind of Armageddon while also keeping the vulnerable and attractive Kat alive.
This is cinema at its biggest and boldest. Nolan has taken a cinema 'splurge' gun, filled it with money, set it on rapid fire, removed the safety and let rip at the screen. Given that Nolan is famous for doing all of his 'effects' for real and 'in camera', some of what you see performed is almost unbelievable. You thought crashing a train through rush-hour traffic in "Inception" was crazy? You ain't seen nothing yet with the airport scene! And for lovers of Chinooks (I must admit I am one and rush out of the house to see one if I hear it coming!) there is positively Chinook-p*rn on offer in the film's ridiculously huge finale.
The 'inversion' aspects of the story also lends itself to some fight scenes - one in particular in an airport 'freeport' - which are both bizarre to watch and, I imagine, technically extremely challenging to pull off. In this regard John David Washington is an acrobatic and talented stunt performer in his own right, and must have trained for months for this role.
Nolan's crew also certainly racked up their air miles pre-lockdown, since the locations range far and wide across the world. The locations encompassed Denmark, Estonia, India, Italy, Norway, the United Kingdom, and United States. Hoyte Van Hoytema's cinematography is lush in introducing these, especially the beautiful Italian coast scenes. Although I did miss the David Arnold strings that would typically introduce these in a Bond movie: it felt like that was missing.
The 'timey-wimey' aspects of the plot are also intriguing and very cleverly done. There are numerous points at which you think "Oh, that's a sloppy continuity error" or "Shame the production design team missed that cracked wing mirror". Then later in the movie, you get at least a dozen "Aha!" moments. Some of them (no spoilers) are jaw-droppingly spectacular.
Perhaps the best twist is hidden in the final line of the movie. I only processed it on the way home.
And so to the first of my significant gripes with Tenet. The sound mix in the movie is all over the place. I'd go stronger than that... it's truly awful (expletive deleted)! Nolan often implements Shakespeare's trick of having characters in the play provide exposition of the plot to aid comprehension. But unfortunately, all of this exposition dialogue was largely incomprehensible. This was due to:
- the ear-splitting volume of the sound: 2020 movie audiences are going to be suffering from 'Tenetis'! (that joke © David Moody, 2020);
- the dialogue is poorly mixed with the thumping music by Ludwig Göransson (Wot? No Hans Zimmer?);
- a large proportion of the dialogue was through masks of varying description (#covid-appropriate). Aaron Taylor-Johnson was particularly unintelligible to my ears.
Overall, watching this with subtitles at a special showing might be advisable!
OK, so I only have a PhD in Physics... but at times I was completely lost as to the intricacies of the plot. It made "Inception" look like "The Tiger Who Came to Tea". There was an obvious 'McGuffin' in "Inception" - - ("These 'dream levels'... how exactly are they architected??".... "Don't worry... they'll never notice". And we didn't!) In "Tenet" there are McGuffins nested in McGuffins. So much of this is casually waved away as "future stuff... you're not qualified" that it feels vaguely condescending to the audience. At one point Kat says "I don't understand what's going on" - darn right luv.
There are also gaps in the storyline that jar. The word "Tenet"? What does it mean. Is it just a password? I'm none the wiser.
The manic pace of Tenet and the constant din means that the movie gallops along like a series of disconnected (albeit brilliant) action set pieces. For me, it has none of the emotional heart of the Cobb's marriage problems from "Inception" or the father/daughter separation of "Interstellar". In fact, you barely care for anyone in the movie, perhaps with the exception of Kat.
It's a talented cast. As mentioned above, John David Washington is muscular and athletic in the role. It's a big load for the actor to carry in such a tent-pole movie, given his only significant starring role before was in the excellent BlacKkKlansman. But he carries it off well. A worthy successor to Gerard Butler and Jason Statham for action roles in the next 10 years.
This is also a great performance by Robert Pattinson, in his most high-profile film in a long time, playing the vaguely alcoholic and Carré-esque support guy. Pattinson's Potter co-star Clemence Poésy also pops up - rather more un-glam that usual - as the scientist plot-expositor early in the movie.
Nolan's regular Michael Caine also pops up. although the 87-year old legend is starting to show his age: His speech was obviously affected at the time of filming (though nice try Mr Nolan in trying to disguise that with a mouth full of food!). But in my book, any amount of Caine in a movie is a plus. He also gets to deliver the best killer line in the film about snobbery!
However, it's Kenneth Branagh and Elizabeth Debicki that really stand out. They were both fabulous, especially when they were bouncing off each other in their marital battle royale.
So, given this was my most anticipated movie of the year, it's a bit of a curate's egg for me. A mixture of being awe-struck at times and slightly disappointed at others. It's a movie which needs a second watch, so I'm heading back today to give my ear drums another bashing! And this is one where I reserve the right to revisit my rating after that second watch... it's not likely to go down... but it might go up.
(For the full graphical review, check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/08/28/tenet-only-nolan-and-schrodingers-cat-knows-whats-going-on/ .)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Hotel Artemis (2018) in Movies
Feb 10, 2019
Not as interesting as it wanted to be
On my airplane ride from Mpls to San Diego I was able to catch up with gritty, action-noir thriller BAD TIMES AT THE EL ROYALE and was really surprised by how much I enjoyed it. So, I was excited to see that another gritty,, action-noir film, HOTEL ARTEMIS was showing on the flight back.
Well...HOTEL ARTEMIS is no EL ROYALE and maybe that's not fair to Artemis, for I was constantly comparing the two films, so let me see if I can separate the 2 and hold HOTEL ARTEMIS up to it's own scrutiny.
Telling the tale of a JOHN WICK-type world where - instead of a safehouse Hotel for crooks, the HOTEL ARTEMIS is a safehouse HOSPITAL for crooks where the rules are that the crooks cannot hurt each other on the premises. When a riot breaks out in downtown Los Angeles, the rules go out the window and mayhem - and violence - ensue.
Well...this film is no JOHN WICK either. Oh shoot, I've done it again. I've compared this film to another film.
And that's the problem with HOTEL ARTEMIS, it treads ground that has been trod better - and with more style - before. So this film, no matter how well intention-ed, falls short in originality, style and substance. I was still entertained, but not as entertained as I was by JOHN WICK or EL ROYALE.
Jodie Foster (in her first acting role since 2013's ELYSIUM) stars as the person who runs the Artemis. She has a mysterious background (of course) and runs the Artemis with an emotional-less efficiency. Her performance is quirky and interesting and almost holds the film together - almost. She is joined by Sterling K. Brown, Charlie Day, Brian Tyree Henry and Sofia Boutella as patients in the Hotel - none of which were interesting or unusual. They all were playing variants of the characters they usually play, almost as if Director/Writer Drew Pearce said "Get my a Charlie Day-type and a Sterling K. Brown-type", and the Casting Director thought they "scored" by getting the original person - each of whom looks like they are coasting through this film at about 70% output.
Only Dave Bautista shines as the "Health Care Professional" who works with Foster. He brings an interesting charisma to his character and was almost the high point in the film.
Almost. All of the performances pale in comparison to the Mob Boss who shows up about 2/3 of the way through the film. This character is talked about in reverential and scary terms throughout the film. The build-up was huge for this character and I was prepared for the inevitable let down when the mob boss finally shows up, but when the elevator door opens up and I saw that is was Jeff Goldblum in "full Goldblum" mode, I was thrilled and he did not disappoint. He commanded the screen at a time that the film was getting tiresome and he wound up the characters, the energy of the film and the action to help it ride to its inevitable, bloody conclusion.
Ultimately, Pearce delivered a solid B- film, one that has moments of quirk and interest, but set against a backdrop - and supporting actors - that are subdued and not memorable. This is a cardinal sin for this kind of film, instead of subduing those parts, Pearce needed to enhance those and he just plainly did not.
If you want to see a good, stylized, gritty action film, with interesting locales and supporting players, check out JOHN WICK or BAD TIMES AT THE EL ROYALE. If you've seen these, HOTEL ARTEMIS is fine, but the other two do it better.
Letter Grade: B-
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Well...HOTEL ARTEMIS is no EL ROYALE and maybe that's not fair to Artemis, for I was constantly comparing the two films, so let me see if I can separate the 2 and hold HOTEL ARTEMIS up to it's own scrutiny.
Telling the tale of a JOHN WICK-type world where - instead of a safehouse Hotel for crooks, the HOTEL ARTEMIS is a safehouse HOSPITAL for crooks where the rules are that the crooks cannot hurt each other on the premises. When a riot breaks out in downtown Los Angeles, the rules go out the window and mayhem - and violence - ensue.
Well...this film is no JOHN WICK either. Oh shoot, I've done it again. I've compared this film to another film.
And that's the problem with HOTEL ARTEMIS, it treads ground that has been trod better - and with more style - before. So this film, no matter how well intention-ed, falls short in originality, style and substance. I was still entertained, but not as entertained as I was by JOHN WICK or EL ROYALE.
Jodie Foster (in her first acting role since 2013's ELYSIUM) stars as the person who runs the Artemis. She has a mysterious background (of course) and runs the Artemis with an emotional-less efficiency. Her performance is quirky and interesting and almost holds the film together - almost. She is joined by Sterling K. Brown, Charlie Day, Brian Tyree Henry and Sofia Boutella as patients in the Hotel - none of which were interesting or unusual. They all were playing variants of the characters they usually play, almost as if Director/Writer Drew Pearce said "Get my a Charlie Day-type and a Sterling K. Brown-type", and the Casting Director thought they "scored" by getting the original person - each of whom looks like they are coasting through this film at about 70% output.
Only Dave Bautista shines as the "Health Care Professional" who works with Foster. He brings an interesting charisma to his character and was almost the high point in the film.
Almost. All of the performances pale in comparison to the Mob Boss who shows up about 2/3 of the way through the film. This character is talked about in reverential and scary terms throughout the film. The build-up was huge for this character and I was prepared for the inevitable let down when the mob boss finally shows up, but when the elevator door opens up and I saw that is was Jeff Goldblum in "full Goldblum" mode, I was thrilled and he did not disappoint. He commanded the screen at a time that the film was getting tiresome and he wound up the characters, the energy of the film and the action to help it ride to its inevitable, bloody conclusion.
Ultimately, Pearce delivered a solid B- film, one that has moments of quirk and interest, but set against a backdrop - and supporting actors - that are subdued and not memorable. This is a cardinal sin for this kind of film, instead of subduing those parts, Pearce needed to enhance those and he just plainly did not.
If you want to see a good, stylized, gritty action film, with interesting locales and supporting players, check out JOHN WICK or BAD TIMES AT THE EL ROYALE. If you've seen these, HOTEL ARTEMIS is fine, but the other two do it better.
Letter Grade: B-
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Beauty and the Beast (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
A tale as old as time
Whichever big wig down at Disney decided it would be a good idea to remake all of their animated classics using live-action is surely due a massive promotion. The studio’s reputation is soaring after the acquisition of Marvel and Lucasfilm and this new way of thinking is paying off at the box office.
Last year’s The Jungle Book earned just shy of $1billion worldwide, their Marvel Cinematic Universe has taken upwards of $5billion and don’t get me started on Star Wars. Continuing the studio’s trend of remaking their animated features is Beauty & the Beast, but does this modern day reimagining of a fairly modern classic conjure up memories of 1991?
Belle (Emma Watson), a bright, beautiful and independent young woman, is taken prisoner by a beast (Dan Stevens) in its castle. Despite her fears, she befriends the castle’s enchanted staff including Cogsworth (Ian McKellen) and Lumiere (Ewan McGregor) and tries her best to learn to look beyond the beast’s hideous exterior, allowing her to recognise the kind heart and soul of the true prince that hides on the inside.
There were gasps of shock when Harry Potter actress Emma Watson was cast as Belle, but thankfully after sitting through 129 minutes of her singing and dancing, there is no reason to be concerned. She slots into the role of a Disney princess with ease, though it’s still incredibly difficult to see her as anything but the talented witch from Hogwarts.
The rest of the cast is very good with the exception of Ewan McGregor’s dreadful French accent. It can be forgiven however because the sense of nostalgia that the castle’s staff bring to the table is wonderful. Ian McKellen, Emma Thompson, Stanley Tucci all lend their voices with Thompson taking over from Angela Lansbury beautifully. Her rendition of the iconic titular song brings goose bumps.
Elsewhere, Luke Evans is an excellent choice to play villainous Gaston. It’s hard to imagine anyone better to play the gluttonous womaniser and Josh Gad is sublime as his sidekick.
Dan Stevens’ transformation into Beast is one that’s a little bit harder to judge. There is no doubt he is up to the task of playing this iconic character, but the limits of current motion capture technology can sometimes render him a little playdoh like. There are fleeting moments when the illusion is shattered because of something as trivial as the way his fur moves.
Nevertheless, the rest of the special effects are absolutely top notch. The costumes and the set design all integrate perfectly with the naturally heavy use of CGI to create a film that harks back to its predecessor in every way.
Whilst not as dark as last year’s The Jungle Book, Beauty & the Beast is still a deeply disturbing film at times, made all the more so by its recreation in live-action. Young children may find it a troubling watch, a reason why the BBFC has awarded it a PG rating rather than the typical U that most other Disney features receive.
Overall, Beauty & the Beast is a faithful recreation of its 1991 predecessor and that comes with its own set of challenges. The animated version is widely regarded as one of Disney’s best films, so director Bill Condon (Dreamgirls, Twilight) had massive shoes to fill. For the most part, he’s succeeded in crafting a visually stunning and poignant movie that’s only drawbacks are its length and poor motion capture. Much better than Cinderella, but not quite as ground-breaking as The Jungle Book, it’s a lovely watch for all the family.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/17/a-tale-as-old-as-time-beauty-the-beast-review/
Last year’s The Jungle Book earned just shy of $1billion worldwide, their Marvel Cinematic Universe has taken upwards of $5billion and don’t get me started on Star Wars. Continuing the studio’s trend of remaking their animated features is Beauty & the Beast, but does this modern day reimagining of a fairly modern classic conjure up memories of 1991?
Belle (Emma Watson), a bright, beautiful and independent young woman, is taken prisoner by a beast (Dan Stevens) in its castle. Despite her fears, she befriends the castle’s enchanted staff including Cogsworth (Ian McKellen) and Lumiere (Ewan McGregor) and tries her best to learn to look beyond the beast’s hideous exterior, allowing her to recognise the kind heart and soul of the true prince that hides on the inside.
There were gasps of shock when Harry Potter actress Emma Watson was cast as Belle, but thankfully after sitting through 129 minutes of her singing and dancing, there is no reason to be concerned. She slots into the role of a Disney princess with ease, though it’s still incredibly difficult to see her as anything but the talented witch from Hogwarts.
The rest of the cast is very good with the exception of Ewan McGregor’s dreadful French accent. It can be forgiven however because the sense of nostalgia that the castle’s staff bring to the table is wonderful. Ian McKellen, Emma Thompson, Stanley Tucci all lend their voices with Thompson taking over from Angela Lansbury beautifully. Her rendition of the iconic titular song brings goose bumps.
Elsewhere, Luke Evans is an excellent choice to play villainous Gaston. It’s hard to imagine anyone better to play the gluttonous womaniser and Josh Gad is sublime as his sidekick.
Dan Stevens’ transformation into Beast is one that’s a little bit harder to judge. There is no doubt he is up to the task of playing this iconic character, but the limits of current motion capture technology can sometimes render him a little playdoh like. There are fleeting moments when the illusion is shattered because of something as trivial as the way his fur moves.
Nevertheless, the rest of the special effects are absolutely top notch. The costumes and the set design all integrate perfectly with the naturally heavy use of CGI to create a film that harks back to its predecessor in every way.
Whilst not as dark as last year’s The Jungle Book, Beauty & the Beast is still a deeply disturbing film at times, made all the more so by its recreation in live-action. Young children may find it a troubling watch, a reason why the BBFC has awarded it a PG rating rather than the typical U that most other Disney features receive.
Overall, Beauty & the Beast is a faithful recreation of its 1991 predecessor and that comes with its own set of challenges. The animated version is widely regarded as one of Disney’s best films, so director Bill Condon (Dreamgirls, Twilight) had massive shoes to fill. For the most part, he’s succeeded in crafting a visually stunning and poignant movie that’s only drawbacks are its length and poor motion capture. Much better than Cinderella, but not quite as ground-breaking as The Jungle Book, it’s a lovely watch for all the family.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/17/a-tale-as-old-as-time-beauty-the-beast-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pokémon the Movie: I Choose You! (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
20th Birthday Tribute
For the uninitiated, let’s start with some key facts: Pokémon has been entertaining kids and the young at heart for 20 years. A phenomenon like no other in the 90s, Nintendo’s award-winning franchise has been a worldwide smash, and despite a dip in the late 00s, it shows no signs of slowing down.
With 19 movies under its belt, dozens of video games including the ridiculously popular Pokémon Go, and countless TV series, Pokémon is an occurrence that doesn’t come around too often. Now, to celebrate the brand’s 20th anniversary, Nintendo has released this; Pokémon the Movie: I Choose You! But does being the 20th film in the franchise mean it’s not worth a watch?
Acting as a soft reboot of sorts, Pokémon: I Choose You! follows franchise hero, Ash Ketchum from Pallet Town, as he starts out on his journey to catch as many Pocket Monsters as he can. For fans of the brand, what follows next needs no introduction; he meets Pikachu and the rest as they say, is history.
Or is it? Well, in this case, not so much. The basic story that delighted kids in the 90s has been slightly reset as we are taken through the pairs journey, meeting people and Pokémon that weren’t in the original 1st television series. This has both positive and negative results on the finished product.
The plot is as simple as you would expect from a children’s film and it’s clear that Nintendo are out to make as much money from this as possible. Pre-film adverts were all Pokémon related and the cost of a ticket for this particular showing was double the normal price.
Why? Well, this is the first Pokémon film to be released in the UK in 15 years. That’s not a milestone to be sniffed at, and it’s clear the producers, animators and orchestras have gone all out for this instalment.
The film itself is beautiful to look at. Pokémon has always been criticised for its rather lacklustre animation compared to other Anime features like Spirited Away, but I Choose You is right up there with the very best. It’s colourful and drips with detail. From gorgeous sunsets to damp caves, the animation comes alive.
Elsewhere, the score is nicely integrated into the film with a single, haunting piano playing through much of the succinct 98-minute runtime. The familiar theme tune that kids and adults have come to know and love over the years is given a lovely instrumental upgrade and this is when the flutters of nostalgia start to kick in.
Unfortunately, the removal of Ash’s companions, Brock and Misty, from the film undoes some of the hard work for this 20th anniversary as they were such an integral role in the first films and television show. However, newcomers Sorell and Verity each provide the story with a couple of different layers.
I Choose You also tugs at the heartstrings more than previous instalments. As the title suggests, this is about Ash’s journey with Pikachu and that doesn’t just include the happy times. Younger viewers may find some of the imagery on screen a little disturbing as we’re taken through an at times, dark and menacing backstory.
Overall, Pokémon the Movie: I Choose You! is a film that absolutely represents 20 years of the beloved series. With gorgeous animation and an intriguing change to the story that kids and adults have come to know, it’s definitely the best Pokémon movie out there. Let’s be frank, each of the films has been made to sell Pokémon toys and games, but never has it been done so beautifully.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/11/05/pokemon-the-movie-i-choose-you-review/
With 19 movies under its belt, dozens of video games including the ridiculously popular Pokémon Go, and countless TV series, Pokémon is an occurrence that doesn’t come around too often. Now, to celebrate the brand’s 20th anniversary, Nintendo has released this; Pokémon the Movie: I Choose You! But does being the 20th film in the franchise mean it’s not worth a watch?
Acting as a soft reboot of sorts, Pokémon: I Choose You! follows franchise hero, Ash Ketchum from Pallet Town, as he starts out on his journey to catch as many Pocket Monsters as he can. For fans of the brand, what follows next needs no introduction; he meets Pikachu and the rest as they say, is history.
Or is it? Well, in this case, not so much. The basic story that delighted kids in the 90s has been slightly reset as we are taken through the pairs journey, meeting people and Pokémon that weren’t in the original 1st television series. This has both positive and negative results on the finished product.
The plot is as simple as you would expect from a children’s film and it’s clear that Nintendo are out to make as much money from this as possible. Pre-film adverts were all Pokémon related and the cost of a ticket for this particular showing was double the normal price.
Why? Well, this is the first Pokémon film to be released in the UK in 15 years. That’s not a milestone to be sniffed at, and it’s clear the producers, animators and orchestras have gone all out for this instalment.
The film itself is beautiful to look at. Pokémon has always been criticised for its rather lacklustre animation compared to other Anime features like Spirited Away, but I Choose You is right up there with the very best. It’s colourful and drips with detail. From gorgeous sunsets to damp caves, the animation comes alive.
Elsewhere, the score is nicely integrated into the film with a single, haunting piano playing through much of the succinct 98-minute runtime. The familiar theme tune that kids and adults have come to know and love over the years is given a lovely instrumental upgrade and this is when the flutters of nostalgia start to kick in.
Unfortunately, the removal of Ash’s companions, Brock and Misty, from the film undoes some of the hard work for this 20th anniversary as they were such an integral role in the first films and television show. However, newcomers Sorell and Verity each provide the story with a couple of different layers.
I Choose You also tugs at the heartstrings more than previous instalments. As the title suggests, this is about Ash’s journey with Pikachu and that doesn’t just include the happy times. Younger viewers may find some of the imagery on screen a little disturbing as we’re taken through an at times, dark and menacing backstory.
Overall, Pokémon the Movie: I Choose You! is a film that absolutely represents 20 years of the beloved series. With gorgeous animation and an intriguing change to the story that kids and adults have come to know, it’s definitely the best Pokémon movie out there. Let’s be frank, each of the films has been made to sell Pokémon toys and games, but never has it been done so beautifully.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/11/05/pokemon-the-movie-i-choose-you-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Rocketman (2019) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Strong Lead Performance
I have to admit, I thought the Freddy Mercury bio-pic BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY was just "meh" and that Rami Malek was "just o'k" as the Queen frontman (personally, I would have given the Oscar to Christian Bale for his portrayal of Dick Cheney in VICE) so I was not rushing to the multi-plex to check out the Elton John musical film ROCKETMAN. And the fact that the release of this film was "buried" in the summer and not right before "Oscar Season" gave me room to pause.
And...I would be wrong...for ROCKETMAN is a fun, fantastical fantasy musical depicting the rise and fall (by drug and alcohol abuse) of one of rock's most flamboyant showman of the 1970's.
Following the "Jukebox Musical" blueprint of something like JERSEY BOYS, Rocketman follows a young Reggie Dwight as he discovers his musical talent and grows into the Global Superstar known as Elton John.
I was happy that the filmmakers went this route (vs the bio-pic route that BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY went) for they were able to use the vast catalog of Elton John/Bernie Taupin tunes to their fullest advantage, when it made sense to drive the narrative forward - or to give the storytelling a shot of adrenaline.
This film had Elton John's blessings and he was not kind to a few people in his life - most notably his mother (an almost unrecognizable Bryce Dallas Howard in a strong turn), his father (Steve Mackintosh, who I had never seen before) and his Manager, John Reid (Game of Throne's Richard Madden). All 3 are pretty one-dimensional villains that help contribute to Elton's drug and alcohol abuse.
On the other side of the coin is his writing partner, Bernie Taupin (Jamie Bell, the original BILLY ELLIOT in a performance that I think is the best of his career) and his Grandmother, Ivy (good ol' Gemma Jones BRIDGET JONES DIARY and Madam Pomfrey in the Harry Potter films). Both of these characters are generally positive influences on Elton's life, trying to understand and support our hero on his journey.
As for our hero, Taran Egerton (the KINGSMAN films) embodies Elton with panache and zeal while showing an underlying shyness and insecurity that helps lead to his abuse issues. Egerton is EXCELLENT in this role - both in acting and singing. He doesn't so much imitate Elton John but embodies the essence of Sir Elton and his performance is quite effective. If Rami Malek deserved his Oscar for playing Freddy Mercury in BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY then Taran Egerton better be in the Oscar conversation this year.
The film was Directed by Dexter Fletcher (who was brought on to finish BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY once Bryan Singer was fired from that film for his on-set behavior), so he puts to good use his experience on the Queen movie, keeping the action moving fast, the characterizations simple (but satisfying) enough while showcasing just enough music to fill a "Best of" Album.
While BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY was a "meh" movie with a buffo ending (the recreation of the LIVE AID concert was amazing), ROCKETMAN suffers from just the opposite problem. Starting off strong and growing weaker until it ends in "meh" fashion. The fact that this film musical fantasy decided to end with a faithful recreation of the I'M STILL STANDING music video is at the heart of the issue. I understand the implied underlying meaning of this song selection, but it just doesn't pack the punch that a live concert appearance would have.
Come for the music, stay for Egerton's performance and you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...I would be wrong...for ROCKETMAN is a fun, fantastical fantasy musical depicting the rise and fall (by drug and alcohol abuse) of one of rock's most flamboyant showman of the 1970's.
Following the "Jukebox Musical" blueprint of something like JERSEY BOYS, Rocketman follows a young Reggie Dwight as he discovers his musical talent and grows into the Global Superstar known as Elton John.
I was happy that the filmmakers went this route (vs the bio-pic route that BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY went) for they were able to use the vast catalog of Elton John/Bernie Taupin tunes to their fullest advantage, when it made sense to drive the narrative forward - or to give the storytelling a shot of adrenaline.
This film had Elton John's blessings and he was not kind to a few people in his life - most notably his mother (an almost unrecognizable Bryce Dallas Howard in a strong turn), his father (Steve Mackintosh, who I had never seen before) and his Manager, John Reid (Game of Throne's Richard Madden). All 3 are pretty one-dimensional villains that help contribute to Elton's drug and alcohol abuse.
On the other side of the coin is his writing partner, Bernie Taupin (Jamie Bell, the original BILLY ELLIOT in a performance that I think is the best of his career) and his Grandmother, Ivy (good ol' Gemma Jones BRIDGET JONES DIARY and Madam Pomfrey in the Harry Potter films). Both of these characters are generally positive influences on Elton's life, trying to understand and support our hero on his journey.
As for our hero, Taran Egerton (the KINGSMAN films) embodies Elton with panache and zeal while showing an underlying shyness and insecurity that helps lead to his abuse issues. Egerton is EXCELLENT in this role - both in acting and singing. He doesn't so much imitate Elton John but embodies the essence of Sir Elton and his performance is quite effective. If Rami Malek deserved his Oscar for playing Freddy Mercury in BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY then Taran Egerton better be in the Oscar conversation this year.
The film was Directed by Dexter Fletcher (who was brought on to finish BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY once Bryan Singer was fired from that film for his on-set behavior), so he puts to good use his experience on the Queen movie, keeping the action moving fast, the characterizations simple (but satisfying) enough while showcasing just enough music to fill a "Best of" Album.
While BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY was a "meh" movie with a buffo ending (the recreation of the LIVE AID concert was amazing), ROCKETMAN suffers from just the opposite problem. Starting off strong and growing weaker until it ends in "meh" fashion. The fact that this film musical fantasy decided to end with a faithful recreation of the I'M STILL STANDING music video is at the heart of the issue. I understand the implied underlying meaning of this song selection, but it just doesn't pack the punch that a live concert appearance would have.
Come for the music, stay for Egerton's performance and you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated New In Town (2009) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
When asked my impression of “New in Town” the first thing I could come up with was, “It was cute.” That meant I felt positive about the movie, right? Right. It just wasn’t exactly a ringing endorsement. However, anything less than “cute” would’ve been unfair, but anything more would’ve been effusive.
Now that I’ve had time to mull over my response, I can’t help but remember the time I overheard a coworker compliment another coworker with, “You look cute.” To which the complimented coworker replied, “Thank you, but cute is for puppies. I was hoping for great.” Her inability to accept compliments graciously aside, I suppose, when you’re in your mid-40s, as this coworker was, cute just doesn’t cut it anymore. There does come a time, with maturity, one would rather hear they made a more indelible impression.
So what made this movie simply cute and not great? Maybe because I can’t answer the following questions with “Great!” But I could certainly answer them with “Cute.”
How was Renee Zellwegger, who plays Lucy Hill, a determined and driven Miami executive presented with the opportunty to restructure a manufacturing plant in New Ulm, Minnesota? Cute. Okay, I can say she’s extremely fit. Dresses impeccably in tailored power suits and works designer stilletos something fierce. But the whole package, complete with a pretty, but oddly stiff, face that winces more than it smiles, is just…cute.
How was Harry Connick, Jr., who plays Ted Mitchell, the union rep Renee’s character must negotiate with to facilitate the reorganization. Cute. Real cute with that beard. But that’s as enthusiastic as I can get and I love love love Harry Connick, Jr. His role is lowkey and what charm it allows him to cast toward Lucy is from afar. Personally, I think he would’ve been great with a piano and some singing. But that’s HCJ the singer. Alas, HCJ the actor only had a truck, birdshot and malfunctioning factory equipment. Thus, he remained just darn cute.
How was the supporting cast, headed by Siobhan Fallon, who plays Lucy’s quirky secretary, Blanche, and J. K. Simmons as the dour factory foreman, Stu? Cute. The only thing not cute about the townfolk were the sweaters and wallpaper. Ghastly would work better there. Their Minnesotan accents were spot-on (well, as far as I know, considering the only other Minnesotans I’ve ever heard were in other movies). Apparently we’re to believe New Ulm is full of either scrapbooking, Christian do-gooders bearing food or joyless, implacable factory workers who would rather drink beer, ice-fish or shoot crow.
How was the storyline? Cute. Predictable. An unoriginal romantic comedy that attempts to have message. An ambitious up-and-comer has her eye on the CEO title and thinks playing the hardnose in a cost-cutting, streamlining reorganization project will impress the boss. Hardnose in high heels comes up against a tight-knit community in flannel that’s not impressed with her wardrobe, her multi-syllabic vocaulary or her city girl naivete at all. Despite the arctic attitudes and scenery, there’s thawing on both sides as Lucy is drawn into the fold by Blanche and her scrapbooking matchmakers. She and Ted take turns rescuing each other and eventually Lucy discovers there’s a time to be all-business and there’s a time to be human, and her success comes when she finds the balance between both.
So, while I was hoping I could tell you this movie was great, I can’t. Maybe with more story development, more tangible chemistry between Ted & Lucy, it would have made a more indelible impression. For this lighthearted rom-com, cute will just have to do.
Now that I’ve had time to mull over my response, I can’t help but remember the time I overheard a coworker compliment another coworker with, “You look cute.” To which the complimented coworker replied, “Thank you, but cute is for puppies. I was hoping for great.” Her inability to accept compliments graciously aside, I suppose, when you’re in your mid-40s, as this coworker was, cute just doesn’t cut it anymore. There does come a time, with maturity, one would rather hear they made a more indelible impression.
So what made this movie simply cute and not great? Maybe because I can’t answer the following questions with “Great!” But I could certainly answer them with “Cute.”
How was Renee Zellwegger, who plays Lucy Hill, a determined and driven Miami executive presented with the opportunty to restructure a manufacturing plant in New Ulm, Minnesota? Cute. Okay, I can say she’s extremely fit. Dresses impeccably in tailored power suits and works designer stilletos something fierce. But the whole package, complete with a pretty, but oddly stiff, face that winces more than it smiles, is just…cute.
How was Harry Connick, Jr., who plays Ted Mitchell, the union rep Renee’s character must negotiate with to facilitate the reorganization. Cute. Real cute with that beard. But that’s as enthusiastic as I can get and I love love love Harry Connick, Jr. His role is lowkey and what charm it allows him to cast toward Lucy is from afar. Personally, I think he would’ve been great with a piano and some singing. But that’s HCJ the singer. Alas, HCJ the actor only had a truck, birdshot and malfunctioning factory equipment. Thus, he remained just darn cute.
How was the supporting cast, headed by Siobhan Fallon, who plays Lucy’s quirky secretary, Blanche, and J. K. Simmons as the dour factory foreman, Stu? Cute. The only thing not cute about the townfolk were the sweaters and wallpaper. Ghastly would work better there. Their Minnesotan accents were spot-on (well, as far as I know, considering the only other Minnesotans I’ve ever heard were in other movies). Apparently we’re to believe New Ulm is full of either scrapbooking, Christian do-gooders bearing food or joyless, implacable factory workers who would rather drink beer, ice-fish or shoot crow.
How was the storyline? Cute. Predictable. An unoriginal romantic comedy that attempts to have message. An ambitious up-and-comer has her eye on the CEO title and thinks playing the hardnose in a cost-cutting, streamlining reorganization project will impress the boss. Hardnose in high heels comes up against a tight-knit community in flannel that’s not impressed with her wardrobe, her multi-syllabic vocaulary or her city girl naivete at all. Despite the arctic attitudes and scenery, there’s thawing on both sides as Lucy is drawn into the fold by Blanche and her scrapbooking matchmakers. She and Ted take turns rescuing each other and eventually Lucy discovers there’s a time to be all-business and there’s a time to be human, and her success comes when she finds the balance between both.
So, while I was hoping I could tell you this movie was great, I can’t. Maybe with more story development, more tangible chemistry between Ted & Lucy, it would have made a more indelible impression. For this lighthearted rom-com, cute will just have to do.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated The Man Who Killed Don Quixote (2018) in Movies
Jul 1, 2019
25+ years in the making!
Up until its release, "The Man Who Killed Don Quixote" would have been at the top of any movie list featuring movies in development hell never to actually make it to the big screen. Those who are interested should read the lengthy details of the various derailed productions of the film including its original incarnation starring Johnny Depp and the late Jean Rochefort. The film chronicles can even be viewed on their own in the 2002 documentary film "Lost in La Mancha".
To say director Terry Gilliam has had a hard time getting some of his quirky films made, financed and released is an understatement for sure. Films like "Brazil", "The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" or "Tideland" had their difficulties making it to the big screen. How about having the main star of your film die in the middle of production? He had that issue as well during filming of "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus" when Heath Ledger passed away. Thanks to the help of Johnny Depp, Collin Farrell and Jude Law stepping in, the film was able to be released eventually.
Over the years I had kept up with Gilliam's repeated attempts to get the film financed and made including another time where he had cast fellow Python vet Michael Palin in the lead or even Robert Duvall was attached at one point.
The movie itself is a marvel of tenacity for Gilliam and I am very glad he was finally able to make it.
This final version of the film stars Adam Driver as troubled film director, Toby, and Jonathan Pryce as Don Quixote.
Toby is not thrilled about his current production and wanders back to the small Spanish town where he had met some of the locals and made a student film about Quixote 10 years earlier. He finds his "Quixote" living out a sideshow fantasy having lost his grip on reality thinking he is still Quixote today. Toby decides to launch an adventure with him through the Spanish countryside as his "Sancho Panza". Through their quests they encounter a multitude of interesting, wacky and outlandish characters who feed into the Quixote fantasy.
I have to say the film's look left me breathless. As with Gilliam's entire library of films, the production design, art direction and cinematography were astonishing really delving you into this larger than life world and helped move along some of the weaker elements.
Gilliam's goal with the screenplay was to adapt the classic Quixote story to be told under up to date circumstances and I'm not sure he completely succeeded. Some of the scenes and dialogue were boring and the movie's plot dragged at times. The mixing of world's was a little confusing and not sure the payoff entirely wrapped the story to conclusion.
Besides playing Kylo Wren, I am not sure Adam Driver will end up having a long career in film as I thought he was flat and not entertaining to watch as I am sure Depp would have been in the role. Jonathan Pryce was a joy to watch and every scene he was in he really stole the show.
It was fun to watch some elements from some of Gilliam's other work on display including the red knight from "The Fisher King", the sprawling landscapes from "Baron Munchausen" or "Time Bandits" and even the sideshow from "Parnassus".
Overall, I am glad I finally got to watch it as I am sure Gilliam was to finally film and release his long-awaited project. I guess I would say I was entertained, but felt like it fell short of being a true classic.
To say director Terry Gilliam has had a hard time getting some of his quirky films made, financed and released is an understatement for sure. Films like "Brazil", "The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" or "Tideland" had their difficulties making it to the big screen. How about having the main star of your film die in the middle of production? He had that issue as well during filming of "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus" when Heath Ledger passed away. Thanks to the help of Johnny Depp, Collin Farrell and Jude Law stepping in, the film was able to be released eventually.
Over the years I had kept up with Gilliam's repeated attempts to get the film financed and made including another time where he had cast fellow Python vet Michael Palin in the lead or even Robert Duvall was attached at one point.
The movie itself is a marvel of tenacity for Gilliam and I am very glad he was finally able to make it.
This final version of the film stars Adam Driver as troubled film director, Toby, and Jonathan Pryce as Don Quixote.
Toby is not thrilled about his current production and wanders back to the small Spanish town where he had met some of the locals and made a student film about Quixote 10 years earlier. He finds his "Quixote" living out a sideshow fantasy having lost his grip on reality thinking he is still Quixote today. Toby decides to launch an adventure with him through the Spanish countryside as his "Sancho Panza". Through their quests they encounter a multitude of interesting, wacky and outlandish characters who feed into the Quixote fantasy.
I have to say the film's look left me breathless. As with Gilliam's entire library of films, the production design, art direction and cinematography were astonishing really delving you into this larger than life world and helped move along some of the weaker elements.
Gilliam's goal with the screenplay was to adapt the classic Quixote story to be told under up to date circumstances and I'm not sure he completely succeeded. Some of the scenes and dialogue were boring and the movie's plot dragged at times. The mixing of world's was a little confusing and not sure the payoff entirely wrapped the story to conclusion.
Besides playing Kylo Wren, I am not sure Adam Driver will end up having a long career in film as I thought he was flat and not entertaining to watch as I am sure Depp would have been in the role. Jonathan Pryce was a joy to watch and every scene he was in he really stole the show.
It was fun to watch some elements from some of Gilliam's other work on display including the red knight from "The Fisher King", the sprawling landscapes from "Baron Munchausen" or "Time Bandits" and even the sideshow from "Parnassus".
Overall, I am glad I finally got to watch it as I am sure Gilliam was to finally film and release his long-awaited project. I guess I would say I was entertained, but felt like it fell short of being a true classic.
