Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated About a Boy (2002) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: About a Boy starts as we meet Will Freeman (Grant) who lives the perfect life in his head, no job because of his father’s royalties, no responsibilities and no relationship, he can jump from woman to woman and now he has learnt about single mums, he new target. Marcus (Hoult) is a young boy whose single mother is battling depression and when the two become unlikely friends.
As the friendship builds between Will and Marcus, the two learn valuable life lessons with Will finally learning the serious side to life, one he had coasted over through his life.
Thoughts on About a Boy
Characters – Will is the playboy bachelor who has gone from woman to woman never taking responsibility in anything in his life, at the age of 38 he isn’t getting any younger and wants to look to a new location to meet women, which finally gives him a chance to look at his own life errors and start to make something from life. Marcus is a bullied young boy, his mother is battling depression and he never fits in at school, he sees a male role model in Will and starts to becoming friends with Will where he can starts to learn how to be who he should be. This character is drawn up wonderfully because he doesn’t understand the problems his mother is going through, while he is aware there is a problem it reflects in his everyday life. Fiona is the mother of Marcus, she is battle depression in her life while trying her hardest to stay positive for Marcus, a battle she isn’t always winning. Rachel is the woman that shows Will a new meaning to life, only she is the one that could shatter his new look too.
Performances – Hugh Grant is easily one of the most British actors out there, he gives one of his best performances here that will make you like his bad character. This role could easily be a look at the person people believed he would be in real life. Nicholas Hoult gives one of the greatest breakthrough performances for a young star and by seeing just how far he has gone since this shows the early talent he showed. Toni Collette gives us a supporting performance that is just as difficult to watch because of her characters problems that it is an essential performance to see. Rachel Weisz is good in her supporting role, she doesn’t need to do too much with her character though.
Story – The story here plays out as a middle-aged man needing to grow up, a young boy who needs a male role model and understand that life isn’t going to be perfect no matter how much you want to believe it. The growing up side of the story is the one that we get to focus on the most and is everything you expect it to be. There is however a much deeper and stronger side to this story we see, that comes from seeing how young Marcus doesn’t completely understand his mother’s depression and just wants somebody to talk to, while finding his own way to fix her. Now this is important because the mental health issues are a bigger talking point now and showing it through the eyes of an innocent young boy shows how difficult it can be to talk about and deal with, with him never truly understanding what the problems are.
Comedy/Romance – This film did get me laughing a lot, this is usually hard for any comedy movie, this has so many clever visions on life through the shallow nature Will has. The romance is the backburner because it shows us just how Will is trying to find women, even if one does change his life.
Settings – The film is set in London, we get the see the home environment, which for the most part are empty, the social life and everyday life, nothing is new.
Scene of the Movie – Be a Godfather question?
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The generic bullies.
Final Thoughts – This is a brilliant comedy that gets everything right with the way the comedy is handled, we do get a big issue covered and is a film that people need to look back on and watch.
Overall: Must watch comedy.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/03/26/about-a-boy-2002/
As the friendship builds between Will and Marcus, the two learn valuable life lessons with Will finally learning the serious side to life, one he had coasted over through his life.
Thoughts on About a Boy
Characters – Will is the playboy bachelor who has gone from woman to woman never taking responsibility in anything in his life, at the age of 38 he isn’t getting any younger and wants to look to a new location to meet women, which finally gives him a chance to look at his own life errors and start to make something from life. Marcus is a bullied young boy, his mother is battling depression and he never fits in at school, he sees a male role model in Will and starts to becoming friends with Will where he can starts to learn how to be who he should be. This character is drawn up wonderfully because he doesn’t understand the problems his mother is going through, while he is aware there is a problem it reflects in his everyday life. Fiona is the mother of Marcus, she is battle depression in her life while trying her hardest to stay positive for Marcus, a battle she isn’t always winning. Rachel is the woman that shows Will a new meaning to life, only she is the one that could shatter his new look too.
Performances – Hugh Grant is easily one of the most British actors out there, he gives one of his best performances here that will make you like his bad character. This role could easily be a look at the person people believed he would be in real life. Nicholas Hoult gives one of the greatest breakthrough performances for a young star and by seeing just how far he has gone since this shows the early talent he showed. Toni Collette gives us a supporting performance that is just as difficult to watch because of her characters problems that it is an essential performance to see. Rachel Weisz is good in her supporting role, she doesn’t need to do too much with her character though.
Story – The story here plays out as a middle-aged man needing to grow up, a young boy who needs a male role model and understand that life isn’t going to be perfect no matter how much you want to believe it. The growing up side of the story is the one that we get to focus on the most and is everything you expect it to be. There is however a much deeper and stronger side to this story we see, that comes from seeing how young Marcus doesn’t completely understand his mother’s depression and just wants somebody to talk to, while finding his own way to fix her. Now this is important because the mental health issues are a bigger talking point now and showing it through the eyes of an innocent young boy shows how difficult it can be to talk about and deal with, with him never truly understanding what the problems are.
Comedy/Romance – This film did get me laughing a lot, this is usually hard for any comedy movie, this has so many clever visions on life through the shallow nature Will has. The romance is the backburner because it shows us just how Will is trying to find women, even if one does change his life.
Settings – The film is set in London, we get the see the home environment, which for the most part are empty, the social life and everyday life, nothing is new.
Scene of the Movie – Be a Godfather question?
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The generic bullies.
Final Thoughts – This is a brilliant comedy that gets everything right with the way the comedy is handled, we do get a big issue covered and is a film that people need to look back on and watch.
Overall: Must watch comedy.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/03/26/about-a-boy-2002/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Spider-Man 2 (2004) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
There comes a time in every young persons life where they have to make a series of decisions regarding their future. For many the pressures of finance, school, work, and ever-changing social dynamic force individuals to take a look at their values and what is important, adjusting their lives as needed.
For many this is a difficult situation that is often accomplished through trial and error marking the difficult transition into adulthood. For Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire), the added pressure of dealing with his dual identity of Spider-Man has driven him to the edge.
Since Peter spends his evenings scouring New York fighting crime, his college studies and job have become seriously neglected. With difficulties paying the bills and making it to class and work on time, Peter has become weary of his life, as Spider-Man has made it close to impossible for him to lead any semblance of normality.
Further hindering Peter’s life is his strong feelings for Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst), who he keeps at a distance to protect her from reprisals from enemies of his alter ego, though it is causing him endless emotional turmoil to do so.
Faced with losing the woman of his dreams and his lives goals, Peter decides to abandon his alter ego and live life as a normal person allowing his energies to be focused on his studies and pursuit of science.
Peter’s new found freedom is interrupted by the emergence of a new villain named Dr. Octopus (Alfred Molina), who is a brilliant scientist turned evil as a result of an experiment gone awry. The Doctor has four metallic limbs grafted to his body and is capable of amazing feats of strength and copious amounts of destruction and mayhem due to his unrestrained madness.
The cause of the good doctors wrath is to complete the experiment that disabled him and avenge the loss of his wife in the accident that created him. Towards that end, the Doctor needs an abundance of financial assets and a rare fuel source that can only be provided by his former employer Harry Osborn (James Franco). Harry is only to happy to comply as he still blames Spider-Man for the death of his father in the previous film, and promises to supply the Doctor if he delivers Spider-Man to him. The recent failure of the Doctors experiment, have pushed Norman to the edge as what was to be a shining achievement for the company has now left him reeling and looking for answers, straining his relationship with Peter and Mary Jane.
What follows is a wild ride of action, romance, drama, and comedy as the tangled web that is Peter Parker’s life unfolds and it is one wild ride.
“Spider-Man 2” is a solid film that will delight fans of the first film as well as the comic and will provide a welcome presence at the theaters this Summer from the flock of big budget disappointments that have been the norm.
Sam Raimi paces the film at a slow pace to start with and allows the action and pace of the film to unfold. The film never seems in your face as despite the intense action sequences, the film remains a character driven piece as the relationship between Peter and those he cares for are central elements to the film.
As adventure films go, “Spider-Man 2” has a very complex storyline as several mature issues are developed and explored which helps round out the characters from comic book icons to people that you actually care about.
If I had to find fault with the film, and it would be nitpicking, would be that Doctor Octopus did not stand out as menacing a threat as The Green Goblin did in the last film, as he does not embody the same level of fear and evil. That being said, Maguire is amazing as he does a great job of making Peter a realistic character by showing the audience the pain and conflict as well as the joy that Peter experiences being Spider-Man.
The special effects are amazing but never overshadow the human performance and tone of the film, as after all, this is still a story about a regular guy, with regular problems and extraordinary abilities that are part gift and part curse.
The supporting work of Franco and Dunst is solid and there chemistry amongst the leads is evident. The ending of the film sets the stage perfectly for the next chapter in the series and here is hoping that the winning formula continues as “Spider-Man 2” is not only the best comic inspired film ever made, but one of the best films of the year.
For many this is a difficult situation that is often accomplished through trial and error marking the difficult transition into adulthood. For Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire), the added pressure of dealing with his dual identity of Spider-Man has driven him to the edge.
Since Peter spends his evenings scouring New York fighting crime, his college studies and job have become seriously neglected. With difficulties paying the bills and making it to class and work on time, Peter has become weary of his life, as Spider-Man has made it close to impossible for him to lead any semblance of normality.
Further hindering Peter’s life is his strong feelings for Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst), who he keeps at a distance to protect her from reprisals from enemies of his alter ego, though it is causing him endless emotional turmoil to do so.
Faced with losing the woman of his dreams and his lives goals, Peter decides to abandon his alter ego and live life as a normal person allowing his energies to be focused on his studies and pursuit of science.
Peter’s new found freedom is interrupted by the emergence of a new villain named Dr. Octopus (Alfred Molina), who is a brilliant scientist turned evil as a result of an experiment gone awry. The Doctor has four metallic limbs grafted to his body and is capable of amazing feats of strength and copious amounts of destruction and mayhem due to his unrestrained madness.
The cause of the good doctors wrath is to complete the experiment that disabled him and avenge the loss of his wife in the accident that created him. Towards that end, the Doctor needs an abundance of financial assets and a rare fuel source that can only be provided by his former employer Harry Osborn (James Franco). Harry is only to happy to comply as he still blames Spider-Man for the death of his father in the previous film, and promises to supply the Doctor if he delivers Spider-Man to him. The recent failure of the Doctors experiment, have pushed Norman to the edge as what was to be a shining achievement for the company has now left him reeling and looking for answers, straining his relationship with Peter and Mary Jane.
What follows is a wild ride of action, romance, drama, and comedy as the tangled web that is Peter Parker’s life unfolds and it is one wild ride.
“Spider-Man 2” is a solid film that will delight fans of the first film as well as the comic and will provide a welcome presence at the theaters this Summer from the flock of big budget disappointments that have been the norm.
Sam Raimi paces the film at a slow pace to start with and allows the action and pace of the film to unfold. The film never seems in your face as despite the intense action sequences, the film remains a character driven piece as the relationship between Peter and those he cares for are central elements to the film.
As adventure films go, “Spider-Man 2” has a very complex storyline as several mature issues are developed and explored which helps round out the characters from comic book icons to people that you actually care about.
If I had to find fault with the film, and it would be nitpicking, would be that Doctor Octopus did not stand out as menacing a threat as The Green Goblin did in the last film, as he does not embody the same level of fear and evil. That being said, Maguire is amazing as he does a great job of making Peter a realistic character by showing the audience the pain and conflict as well as the joy that Peter experiences being Spider-Man.
The special effects are amazing but never overshadow the human performance and tone of the film, as after all, this is still a story about a regular guy, with regular problems and extraordinary abilities that are part gift and part curse.
The supporting work of Franco and Dunst is solid and there chemistry amongst the leads is evident. The ending of the film sets the stage perfectly for the next chapter in the series and here is hoping that the winning formula continues as “Spider-Man 2” is not only the best comic inspired film ever made, but one of the best films of the year.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Queen & Slim (2019) in Movies
Dec 4, 2019
Usually when my local cinema chain hosts a secret screening, it's for a lesser known film that they're hoping to drum up interest and support for. They do occasionally show something a bit more mainstream though (the last one I went to was for an advance showing of Le Mans '66) and a lot of people in the run up to last nights secret screening were actually expecting it to be Little Women. It turned out to be Queen & Slim, a film that I knew very little about, and probably wouldn't have ventured to see at the cinema if I'm honest. Which is obviously the whole idea behind the secret screenings and why they urge you on social media beforehand to stick with it when you discover what it is!
Queen (Jodie Turner-Smith) and Slim (Daniel Kaluuya) are at a diner for their first Tinder date and they seem to be getting along, although a second date isn't exactly a definite just yet. As they drive home afterwards, they are pulled over by a white cop for driving erratically (Slim was quickly reaching to grab his phone back from Queen at the time) and for failure to execute a turn signal. There are clearly some racial motives behind the actions of the police officer though, not helped by Slim's impatience as the officer checks through the contents of his car, and the questioning coming from Queen, who works as a defense attorney and knows their rights. Following a heated exchange, a shot is fired and Queen is left with a flesh wound to her leg. An angered Slim then brawls with the cop and, in what is clearly self defense, shoots and kills the officer. Fearing what will happen to them next and the likelihood of further injustice, they decide to go on the run.
What follows is around 40 minutes of pretty tense drama, unexpectedly peppered with some moments of real humour when as the pair find themselves getting into even more difficult situations. As dash-cam footage from the vehicle of the deceased police officer goes viral, there's a real sense of urgency and intensity to their predicament, making for a really intense and gripping roller-coaster of a ride. They make it to New Orleans, and a brief stopover at the home of Queen's Uncle Earl (Bokeem Woodbine), and it's around this point in the movie that momentum gets lost somewhat, never really recovering until the finale.
Written by Lena Waithe (Master of None and Ready Player One), Queen & Slim is clearly a relevant and important movie, boasting a great look and style from director Melina Matsoukas. Daniel Kaluuya is a great choice for Slim too, no stranger to portraying strong emotions with his eyes and facial expressions, as he did so perfectly in his iconic Get Out role. While I wasn't so keen on Jodie Turner-Smith, the pair did work well together, despite making some questionable character choices at times. When a photo of the pair goes viral, they become a kind of modern day Bonnie & Clyde, hailed as heroes and legends by many as they make their way down towards Florida, where they hope to be able catch a flight to freedom in Cuba. Along the way, their relationship develops and they occasionally find support among the black community in each town they stop at.
But, following that stopover in New Orleans, Queen & Slim becomes much more of a slow meander towards the finish line, and it's a real noticeable tonal shift and change of pacing from those first 40 minutes or so. People in the cinema became fidgety (including me), some gave up on the movie completely and left the cinema (I've done that before, vowed never to do it again though) and all I could think about when they get help from some old friends of Queen's Uncle was "Is that Needles, from Back to the Future?" (it was).
All of this shouldn't detract from how important this movie is though, highlighting racial injustice and delving into real issues unashamedly. While Queen & Slim didn't quite work for me overall, it is certainly a story which deserves to be told and seen by many, getting people talking and hopefully instigating some real change. I'm glad I had the chance to see it, and glad I stuck with it right until the end.
Queen (Jodie Turner-Smith) and Slim (Daniel Kaluuya) are at a diner for their first Tinder date and they seem to be getting along, although a second date isn't exactly a definite just yet. As they drive home afterwards, they are pulled over by a white cop for driving erratically (Slim was quickly reaching to grab his phone back from Queen at the time) and for failure to execute a turn signal. There are clearly some racial motives behind the actions of the police officer though, not helped by Slim's impatience as the officer checks through the contents of his car, and the questioning coming from Queen, who works as a defense attorney and knows their rights. Following a heated exchange, a shot is fired and Queen is left with a flesh wound to her leg. An angered Slim then brawls with the cop and, in what is clearly self defense, shoots and kills the officer. Fearing what will happen to them next and the likelihood of further injustice, they decide to go on the run.
What follows is around 40 minutes of pretty tense drama, unexpectedly peppered with some moments of real humour when as the pair find themselves getting into even more difficult situations. As dash-cam footage from the vehicle of the deceased police officer goes viral, there's a real sense of urgency and intensity to their predicament, making for a really intense and gripping roller-coaster of a ride. They make it to New Orleans, and a brief stopover at the home of Queen's Uncle Earl (Bokeem Woodbine), and it's around this point in the movie that momentum gets lost somewhat, never really recovering until the finale.
Written by Lena Waithe (Master of None and Ready Player One), Queen & Slim is clearly a relevant and important movie, boasting a great look and style from director Melina Matsoukas. Daniel Kaluuya is a great choice for Slim too, no stranger to portraying strong emotions with his eyes and facial expressions, as he did so perfectly in his iconic Get Out role. While I wasn't so keen on Jodie Turner-Smith, the pair did work well together, despite making some questionable character choices at times. When a photo of the pair goes viral, they become a kind of modern day Bonnie & Clyde, hailed as heroes and legends by many as they make their way down towards Florida, where they hope to be able catch a flight to freedom in Cuba. Along the way, their relationship develops and they occasionally find support among the black community in each town they stop at.
But, following that stopover in New Orleans, Queen & Slim becomes much more of a slow meander towards the finish line, and it's a real noticeable tonal shift and change of pacing from those first 40 minutes or so. People in the cinema became fidgety (including me), some gave up on the movie completely and left the cinema (I've done that before, vowed never to do it again though) and all I could think about when they get help from some old friends of Queen's Uncle was "Is that Needles, from Back to the Future?" (it was).
All of this shouldn't detract from how important this movie is though, highlighting racial injustice and delving into real issues unashamedly. While Queen & Slim didn't quite work for me overall, it is certainly a story which deserves to be told and seen by many, getting people talking and hopefully instigating some real change. I'm glad I had the chance to see it, and glad I stuck with it right until the end.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Military Wives (2020) in Movies
Feb 25, 2020
The story perfectly balances between melodrama and feel good comedy (1 more)
Kristin Scott-Thomas and Sharon Horgan work fabulously together
Bound to grab the grey pound and be a huge UK success
I must admit that I was a bit of a drag-along to this one. The trailer excited me not.... one.... bit. Sentimental film. Dull story. Wrong demographic. No, no, no. But... in this case I am very happy to be proved wrong, wrong, wrong.
True that I didn't sit in the ideal demographic for this movie. 90% of the audience at the UK premiere showing I attended last night were female and older that me. This is a movie to turn the blue-rinse crowd out in DROVES! Because the - inherently British - story is engaging and rewarding from start to finish.
Loosely based on the true story, it's 2010 and a regiment of husbands (and at least one wife.... nice to see an all female marriage featured) are dispatched from the fictional "Flitcroft Barracks" to Afghanistan on a tour of duty. Thereafter every ring at the door by a friend spells mild panic ; every thoughtless call from an accident-chaser induces hypertension.
Trying to take their minds off there loved ones, Colonel's wife Kate (Kristin Scott Thomas) muscles in on the insipid entertainment plans of Lisa (Sharon Horgan) in organising a singing group. Lisa thinks "girls just wanna have fun"; Kate thinks they should be training as a proper choir. Sparks fly.
But against all the odds, the women progressively improve until they get the chance to present their talents to an unaware nation.
My wife summed up in one word why this movie is so good...... "balance". The movie covers topics of fear, grief, social conflict, family conflict and uplifting joy. One step off the tightrope could have spelled disaster. But director Peter Cattaneo, of "Full Monty" fame, through the expert script of Roseanne Flynn and Rachel Tunnard, walks that line with perfect balance. It never feels overly melodramatic; never feels a light piece of superficial fluff either.
And when "the performance" happens, you will be hard pushed not to need a tissue or two..... I certainly succumbed to the emotion of the moment.
At the core of the story are the perfectly cast duo of Kristin Scott Thomas and Sharon Horgan. With just a handful of introductory lines, you quickly get the measure of Kate's character, without ever knowing the story behind the icy and brittle facade. The conflict between her and the fun-loving egalitarian Lisa is writ large. What's nice here is that you are never totally sure who's side of the argument you are on. It is easy to side with Lisa at the start of the film, but as you learn more and particularly after a particularly careless act by Lisa towards the end of the film, your sympathies change.
The rest of the excellent ensemble cast also work naturally together, with Emma Lowndes as Annie and Amy James-Kelly as the newly married Sarah being particularly impressive.This feels like a group of actors who were brought together to film a story and bonded as friends in the process. You end up caring a great deal for what happens to them
Although the script is based on the true story of the military wives it diverges significantly from what actually happens in the interests of an engaging story. Choirmaster Gareth Malone was, of course, actively involved in the true story as a part of a TV programme, but none of that is referenced in the movie. But that doesn't remotely impinge on your enjoyment of the movie for one second.
In particular, a sub-story about the long-term effects of grief is particularly well handled, with 'Dave' turning from being a passive to an active participant in the story at a key moment.
It's that depressing time of the year when everyone is fed up of rain, wind and dripping noses. It's a time of year when you look for some uplifting entertainment.... people surely watch "Death in Paradise" for the sun rather than the stories? Ladies - and the odd gentleman - I give you "Military Wives". It's not bloody Shakespeare. But if this doesn't make you feel uplifted and better about the world, then I will dutifully kiss the regimental goat.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/25/one-manns-movies-film-review-military-wives-2020/. Thanks).
True that I didn't sit in the ideal demographic for this movie. 90% of the audience at the UK premiere showing I attended last night were female and older that me. This is a movie to turn the blue-rinse crowd out in DROVES! Because the - inherently British - story is engaging and rewarding from start to finish.
Loosely based on the true story, it's 2010 and a regiment of husbands (and at least one wife.... nice to see an all female marriage featured) are dispatched from the fictional "Flitcroft Barracks" to Afghanistan on a tour of duty. Thereafter every ring at the door by a friend spells mild panic ; every thoughtless call from an accident-chaser induces hypertension.
Trying to take their minds off there loved ones, Colonel's wife Kate (Kristin Scott Thomas) muscles in on the insipid entertainment plans of Lisa (Sharon Horgan) in organising a singing group. Lisa thinks "girls just wanna have fun"; Kate thinks they should be training as a proper choir. Sparks fly.
But against all the odds, the women progressively improve until they get the chance to present their talents to an unaware nation.
My wife summed up in one word why this movie is so good...... "balance". The movie covers topics of fear, grief, social conflict, family conflict and uplifting joy. One step off the tightrope could have spelled disaster. But director Peter Cattaneo, of "Full Monty" fame, through the expert script of Roseanne Flynn and Rachel Tunnard, walks that line with perfect balance. It never feels overly melodramatic; never feels a light piece of superficial fluff either.
And when "the performance" happens, you will be hard pushed not to need a tissue or two..... I certainly succumbed to the emotion of the moment.
At the core of the story are the perfectly cast duo of Kristin Scott Thomas and Sharon Horgan. With just a handful of introductory lines, you quickly get the measure of Kate's character, without ever knowing the story behind the icy and brittle facade. The conflict between her and the fun-loving egalitarian Lisa is writ large. What's nice here is that you are never totally sure who's side of the argument you are on. It is easy to side with Lisa at the start of the film, but as you learn more and particularly after a particularly careless act by Lisa towards the end of the film, your sympathies change.
The rest of the excellent ensemble cast also work naturally together, with Emma Lowndes as Annie and Amy James-Kelly as the newly married Sarah being particularly impressive.This feels like a group of actors who were brought together to film a story and bonded as friends in the process. You end up caring a great deal for what happens to them
Although the script is based on the true story of the military wives it diverges significantly from what actually happens in the interests of an engaging story. Choirmaster Gareth Malone was, of course, actively involved in the true story as a part of a TV programme, but none of that is referenced in the movie. But that doesn't remotely impinge on your enjoyment of the movie for one second.
In particular, a sub-story about the long-term effects of grief is particularly well handled, with 'Dave' turning from being a passive to an active participant in the story at a key moment.
It's that depressing time of the year when everyone is fed up of rain, wind and dripping noses. It's a time of year when you look for some uplifting entertainment.... people surely watch "Death in Paradise" for the sun rather than the stories? Ladies - and the odd gentleman - I give you "Military Wives". It's not bloody Shakespeare. But if this doesn't make you feel uplifted and better about the world, then I will dutifully kiss the regimental goat.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/25/one-manns-movies-film-review-military-wives-2020/. Thanks).
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Cryptid in Tabletop Games
Jul 1, 2020
If you are a fan of the lore behind the likes of the Cthulhu, Sasquatch, Loch Ness, and El Cucuy, then you will love the theme behind this next game. Cryptid is a board game that basks in these old tales of years long past and puts you on the hunt for the infamous “Cryptid” snake/dragon-like monster. You are in a race against the other players to determine who can catch the infamous Cryptid first. This snake-like dragon is slippery and likes to hide just out of reach of the players though. It will take a bit of strategy, some social deduction with other players, and well, a bit of luck to find it! Good luck adventurers!
Upon setup, each player, up to a max of 4, will take a hints booklet and tokens of any of the 4 colors. The booklets provide each player with one, and only one, hint as to where the “Cryptid” could be hiding on the game board. The game board has 4 different terrain types, and a few landmark spots such as bear dens, towers, and cougar hideouts, where the monster could be hiding. Once each player has read their clue, they will go around the table a total of 2 times placing small cubes in places where the “Cryptid” is not. This serves two purposes, to assist the game from taking more than the time necessary to have fun, and to allow the players a little early game strategy to throw other players off the scent.
From this point forward, it is up to the players to start deducing what clues they think the other players have. A list of all possible clue types can be found in each booklet to give the players an idea of what to be considering. This also assists the game experience from taking too long. Players will now have 2 options on their turn. They can ask for information from any other player, or they can take a guess as to where they think the “Cryptid” might be. There is NO penalty for guessing the correct answer, but in doing so, if you are incorrect, you are identifying a space to the other players of where your clue may indicate where the “Cryptid” could be located. So guess carefully! As you venture forth to ask clues of other players, they will place either a cube on the space you inquired about, indicating the “Cryptid” could not be in that spot based on their clue, or they will place a disk, indicating that the space could be the space as to where the monster could be hiding. As the board begins to fill with cubes and disks, you will begin to triangulate (just a fun word I LOVE using) where you think the monster may be hiding. When you feel like you’ve got it, then take a guess. If all other players place a disk on the spot you have guessed, then you have located the “Cryptid”!
What I love about this game is its simplicity, but immersion. The game does a great job of creating that on-the-edge-of-your-seat feeling that you are about to get another clue. As I mentioned above, the designers have included some very non-intrusive, but key elements, into the game that prevent it from becoming a waiting game while other players who may be stuck trying to over-analyze the clues and accidentally hijack the time. From the simplistic clues, to the initial cube setting, the game board will fill with clues fairly quick, giving you the opportunity to make some key guesses early on.
It’s this fast paced organization of “Cryptid” that allows for multiple plays, and hopefully multiple winners. Or, if you are my 12 year old son….the winner EVERY time. Don’t ask me how he does it! My wife and I think he has special powers. We may be on to something here! Anyhow, “Cryptid” is a wonderfully whimsical game that will take you on about a 30-45 minute adventure with your friends and family. You will furiously be on the edge of your chair trying to figure out the next clue. The gameplay feels satisfying and smooth, and will leave you wanting to trek across the island again someday to find the ever illusive “Cryptid”! For these reasons, and many more, Purple Phoenix Games gives this one an illusive 19 / 24.
Upon setup, each player, up to a max of 4, will take a hints booklet and tokens of any of the 4 colors. The booklets provide each player with one, and only one, hint as to where the “Cryptid” could be hiding on the game board. The game board has 4 different terrain types, and a few landmark spots such as bear dens, towers, and cougar hideouts, where the monster could be hiding. Once each player has read their clue, they will go around the table a total of 2 times placing small cubes in places where the “Cryptid” is not. This serves two purposes, to assist the game from taking more than the time necessary to have fun, and to allow the players a little early game strategy to throw other players off the scent.
From this point forward, it is up to the players to start deducing what clues they think the other players have. A list of all possible clue types can be found in each booklet to give the players an idea of what to be considering. This also assists the game experience from taking too long. Players will now have 2 options on their turn. They can ask for information from any other player, or they can take a guess as to where they think the “Cryptid” might be. There is NO penalty for guessing the correct answer, but in doing so, if you are incorrect, you are identifying a space to the other players of where your clue may indicate where the “Cryptid” could be located. So guess carefully! As you venture forth to ask clues of other players, they will place either a cube on the space you inquired about, indicating the “Cryptid” could not be in that spot based on their clue, or they will place a disk, indicating that the space could be the space as to where the monster could be hiding. As the board begins to fill with cubes and disks, you will begin to triangulate (just a fun word I LOVE using) where you think the monster may be hiding. When you feel like you’ve got it, then take a guess. If all other players place a disk on the spot you have guessed, then you have located the “Cryptid”!
What I love about this game is its simplicity, but immersion. The game does a great job of creating that on-the-edge-of-your-seat feeling that you are about to get another clue. As I mentioned above, the designers have included some very non-intrusive, but key elements, into the game that prevent it from becoming a waiting game while other players who may be stuck trying to over-analyze the clues and accidentally hijack the time. From the simplistic clues, to the initial cube setting, the game board will fill with clues fairly quick, giving you the opportunity to make some key guesses early on.
It’s this fast paced organization of “Cryptid” that allows for multiple plays, and hopefully multiple winners. Or, if you are my 12 year old son….the winner EVERY time. Don’t ask me how he does it! My wife and I think he has special powers. We may be on to something here! Anyhow, “Cryptid” is a wonderfully whimsical game that will take you on about a 30-45 minute adventure with your friends and family. You will furiously be on the edge of your chair trying to figure out the next clue. The gameplay feels satisfying and smooth, and will leave you wanting to trek across the island again someday to find the ever illusive “Cryptid”! For these reasons, and many more, Purple Phoenix Games gives this one an illusive 19 / 24.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Crime Scene: The Vanishing at the Cecil Hotel in TV
Feb 22, 2021
Scarily glamourises internet sleuthing
Crime Scene: The Vanishing at the Cecil Hotel is the latest stylised true crime documentary from Netflix, and it’s a pretty scary watch, but not in the way you’d expect from something that has been advertised as a supernatural murder mystery.
The 4 episode documentary series focuses on a notorious hotel in downtown L.A, Hotel Cecil, and the disappearance of a Canadian student, Elisa Lam, who went missing from the hotel in unexplained circumstances and who was later found dead. On paper this has everything a true crime lover wants: CCTV footage of the victim acting strangely, a creepy hotel with a dodgy history and a lot of strange and unusual circumstances, which culminates in Elisa Lam’s decomposing body being found in a water tank on the hotel roof days after her disappearance, the same water that the hotel guests have been drinking all along. It’s a truly fascinating story and if done properly, would have been very interesting. However in the hands of director Joe Berlinger, the disappearance of Elisa Lam has been turned into a dull, drawn out affair that dangerously glamourises baseless conspiracy theories.
One of the two main problems is that this documentary has been drawn out over 4 hour long episodes, when realistically the true story of Elisa Lam’s disappearance could still have been told effectively in an hour, maybe two maximum, without detracting from the facts. And I guess that’s really the problem with The Vanishing at the Cecil Hotel, it isn’t necessarily all that concerned about the facts but rather just wants to create a film-like entertaining story, with the facts almost an afterthought crammed into the final parts of the last episode. It features lengthy and pointless interviews from other guests and tourists to try and give us a feel of what life at the Cecil was like, and these are entirely unnecessary, as some short exposition from the hotel manager or officers involved would’ve sufficed. Every part of this case is stretched so thinly that you almost lose track after having to weed out the truth and facts amongst all the irrelevant interviews and chatter. It isn’t helped by the narration of some of Elisa’s Tumblr posts, which comes across as cheesy and irritating rather than emotional and meaningful like it was probably intended.
What is most irrelevant and dangerous about this documentary, and the second main problem, is the focus on internet sleuths. These are mostly YouTubers who have spent hours dissecting every aspect of the case and have put forward many outrageous theories, all of which are completely laughable. But instead of mocking these idiots, this documentary glamourises them and their theories, and has dedicated more of it’s runtime to them than it has to any of the real life detectives and investigators involved. Watching these people wheel out one ridiculous theory after another had me wanting to throw my remote at the screen to make it stop. The theories ranged from the questionably plausible (foul player or murder) to the downright ludicrous - someone copying the film Dark Water, possible links to the Lam-Elisa TB test and a vast cover up jointly orchestrated by the police, hotel management and coroners staff are the ones that made me laugh and cringe the most.
All jokes aside, this focus on internet sleuths is extremely damaging and dangerous and this is illustrated by the awful accusations they made about Pablo Vergara aka Morbid, who’s only crime was to make music that wouldn’t be considered mainstream. If this documentary had focused on slamming these people and highlighting the dangers of them getting involved, then it would’ve redeemed itself. But it doesn’t, it gives them centre stage and debunking their theories is almost an afterthought. They aren’t even condemned for their treatment of Pablo despite the obviously long lasting effects on his mental health. These people are crazy and this only serves to highlight the huge problem with internet, video streaming sites and social media – how Joe public can ever think they know better than qualified pathologists and investigators is beyond me. And how this documentary can indulge and glamourise these people is even worse. From working a day job in the emergency services, I know how damaging this sort of interference and public perception can be.
The story of Elisa Lam’s disappearance at the Hotel Cecil is undoubtedly an interesting one. However in Crime Scene: The Vanishing at the Cecil Hotel, the real story has been mauled and disrespected by the focus and respect given to the internet sleuths and their absurd theories. I feel like I’m being generous giving it a 3, it made me so angry.
The 4 episode documentary series focuses on a notorious hotel in downtown L.A, Hotel Cecil, and the disappearance of a Canadian student, Elisa Lam, who went missing from the hotel in unexplained circumstances and who was later found dead. On paper this has everything a true crime lover wants: CCTV footage of the victim acting strangely, a creepy hotel with a dodgy history and a lot of strange and unusual circumstances, which culminates in Elisa Lam’s decomposing body being found in a water tank on the hotel roof days after her disappearance, the same water that the hotel guests have been drinking all along. It’s a truly fascinating story and if done properly, would have been very interesting. However in the hands of director Joe Berlinger, the disappearance of Elisa Lam has been turned into a dull, drawn out affair that dangerously glamourises baseless conspiracy theories.
One of the two main problems is that this documentary has been drawn out over 4 hour long episodes, when realistically the true story of Elisa Lam’s disappearance could still have been told effectively in an hour, maybe two maximum, without detracting from the facts. And I guess that’s really the problem with The Vanishing at the Cecil Hotel, it isn’t necessarily all that concerned about the facts but rather just wants to create a film-like entertaining story, with the facts almost an afterthought crammed into the final parts of the last episode. It features lengthy and pointless interviews from other guests and tourists to try and give us a feel of what life at the Cecil was like, and these are entirely unnecessary, as some short exposition from the hotel manager or officers involved would’ve sufficed. Every part of this case is stretched so thinly that you almost lose track after having to weed out the truth and facts amongst all the irrelevant interviews and chatter. It isn’t helped by the narration of some of Elisa’s Tumblr posts, which comes across as cheesy and irritating rather than emotional and meaningful like it was probably intended.
What is most irrelevant and dangerous about this documentary, and the second main problem, is the focus on internet sleuths. These are mostly YouTubers who have spent hours dissecting every aspect of the case and have put forward many outrageous theories, all of which are completely laughable. But instead of mocking these idiots, this documentary glamourises them and their theories, and has dedicated more of it’s runtime to them than it has to any of the real life detectives and investigators involved. Watching these people wheel out one ridiculous theory after another had me wanting to throw my remote at the screen to make it stop. The theories ranged from the questionably plausible (foul player or murder) to the downright ludicrous - someone copying the film Dark Water, possible links to the Lam-Elisa TB test and a vast cover up jointly orchestrated by the police, hotel management and coroners staff are the ones that made me laugh and cringe the most.
All jokes aside, this focus on internet sleuths is extremely damaging and dangerous and this is illustrated by the awful accusations they made about Pablo Vergara aka Morbid, who’s only crime was to make music that wouldn’t be considered mainstream. If this documentary had focused on slamming these people and highlighting the dangers of them getting involved, then it would’ve redeemed itself. But it doesn’t, it gives them centre stage and debunking their theories is almost an afterthought. They aren’t even condemned for their treatment of Pablo despite the obviously long lasting effects on his mental health. These people are crazy and this only serves to highlight the huge problem with internet, video streaming sites and social media – how Joe public can ever think they know better than qualified pathologists and investigators is beyond me. And how this documentary can indulge and glamourise these people is even worse. From working a day job in the emergency services, I know how damaging this sort of interference and public perception can be.
The story of Elisa Lam’s disappearance at the Hotel Cecil is undoubtedly an interesting one. However in Crime Scene: The Vanishing at the Cecil Hotel, the real story has been mauled and disrespected by the focus and respect given to the internet sleuths and their absurd theories. I feel like I’m being generous giving it a 3, it made me so angry.
When it is a director’s second, or sophomore movie, if you like, there is a lot of unfair pressure that finds people comparing the new work to the first one. Especially if that first work has set you up as the saviour of a particular genre, as was the case with Jordan Peele. Get Out was an excellent film for its type – a breath of fresh air, so they say, that subverted what a modern horror movie is and can be.
I actually don’t think Get Out deserves all the praise it gets, to be honest. Because Peele is not on his own in resurrecting dead ideas of what disturbs us, and I prefer both his main sophomore competitors: Ari Aster and Robert Eggers, of Hereditary/Midsommar and The Witch/The Lighthouse fame respectively. The Wasteland has already well documented this triumvirate of chillers, and perhaps only the man who produces the best third film will win the argument…
Not that Get Out isn’t great, in its way. It is. It has a lot to say in terms of social commentary, and plays very satisfyingly for tone, pace and momentum. It also has some wonderful performances at its heart. Which is the main thing that it shares with the less impressive, but equally ambitious Us.
Elisabeth Moss, who is racking up some very nice credits in recent years, is very watchable and sympathetic as the heroine of the tale forced into a survival situation. But it is the consistently superlative Lupito Nyong’o who shines most. Her ability to hold a moment is extraordinary! She has a chameleon quality as an actress, which when you see and understand the theme of this film is indispensable.
In the pivotal and most memorable early scene, her sheer presence and incredible voice fill the screen with dread and eerieness to an almost unbearable degree. It is a wow moment that lasts about 5 minutes. In that part of the film I was prepared to see something very special indeed. Sadly, the tension built so superbly is not maintained for long. In fact it is somewhat thrown away, and diluted by predictable tropes and simple chase scenes, rather than more moments of unique suspense, as it needed.
Note that I am not saying anything about the plot or the premise in any way here – on this occasion, even to explain the basic idea would be to spoil the experience from the start. Peele wants you to discover his themes as The “white” family are discovering them, to increase the creepiness and anxiety of it all. This works to a degree, but all too soon, I found, it becomes a mere slasher chase film, with little extra to say. Anything great about it happens in the first half hour. After that it is still watchable, just not amazing. Even the conclusion is a little flat, which is a rookie mistake if ever there was one.
I think Peele will have learned a lot from this film. Mostly that he can’t just create magic by willing it to exist. He has to hold the reigns a little tighter to create something of equal meaning to Get Out again. Perhaps it is a scripting issue as much as a directing issue, but he wrote it too, so there is no escaping the blame! Saying this, he still retains a lot of potential to go on and fix the things that didn’t work next time. And if he manages to string a good run together then this film will be very interesting to look back on as a cult movie that just misses the mark.
One thing I do like is how he uses images and names and colours etc. to create a larger puzzle within the film. The idea being that every detail is part of a bigger meaning. When reading about the film afterwards, I was surprised and thrilled to learn there were so many intentional nods to a theme and mythology beyond what I had already grasped. Something that is also true of Aster and Eggers, as if this approach is what the new Horror movement is based on – enough background detail to be able to revisit many times and geek out over later on fan forums.
The first thing to debate, and perhaps the last, is the title. Now that does deserve a round of applause. Let’s talk about that privately later… See this movie for Moss and especially Nyong’o, and that one astonishing scene early on. Otherwise it’s a take it or leave it kind of thing.
I actually don’t think Get Out deserves all the praise it gets, to be honest. Because Peele is not on his own in resurrecting dead ideas of what disturbs us, and I prefer both his main sophomore competitors: Ari Aster and Robert Eggers, of Hereditary/Midsommar and The Witch/The Lighthouse fame respectively. The Wasteland has already well documented this triumvirate of chillers, and perhaps only the man who produces the best third film will win the argument…
Not that Get Out isn’t great, in its way. It is. It has a lot to say in terms of social commentary, and plays very satisfyingly for tone, pace and momentum. It also has some wonderful performances at its heart. Which is the main thing that it shares with the less impressive, but equally ambitious Us.
Elisabeth Moss, who is racking up some very nice credits in recent years, is very watchable and sympathetic as the heroine of the tale forced into a survival situation. But it is the consistently superlative Lupito Nyong’o who shines most. Her ability to hold a moment is extraordinary! She has a chameleon quality as an actress, which when you see and understand the theme of this film is indispensable.
In the pivotal and most memorable early scene, her sheer presence and incredible voice fill the screen with dread and eerieness to an almost unbearable degree. It is a wow moment that lasts about 5 minutes. In that part of the film I was prepared to see something very special indeed. Sadly, the tension built so superbly is not maintained for long. In fact it is somewhat thrown away, and diluted by predictable tropes and simple chase scenes, rather than more moments of unique suspense, as it needed.
Note that I am not saying anything about the plot or the premise in any way here – on this occasion, even to explain the basic idea would be to spoil the experience from the start. Peele wants you to discover his themes as The “white” family are discovering them, to increase the creepiness and anxiety of it all. This works to a degree, but all too soon, I found, it becomes a mere slasher chase film, with little extra to say. Anything great about it happens in the first half hour. After that it is still watchable, just not amazing. Even the conclusion is a little flat, which is a rookie mistake if ever there was one.
I think Peele will have learned a lot from this film. Mostly that he can’t just create magic by willing it to exist. He has to hold the reigns a little tighter to create something of equal meaning to Get Out again. Perhaps it is a scripting issue as much as a directing issue, but he wrote it too, so there is no escaping the blame! Saying this, he still retains a lot of potential to go on and fix the things that didn’t work next time. And if he manages to string a good run together then this film will be very interesting to look back on as a cult movie that just misses the mark.
One thing I do like is how he uses images and names and colours etc. to create a larger puzzle within the film. The idea being that every detail is part of a bigger meaning. When reading about the film afterwards, I was surprised and thrilled to learn there were so many intentional nods to a theme and mythology beyond what I had already grasped. Something that is also true of Aster and Eggers, as if this approach is what the new Horror movement is based on – enough background detail to be able to revisit many times and geek out over later on fan forums.
The first thing to debate, and perhaps the last, is the title. Now that does deserve a round of applause. Let’s talk about that privately later… See this movie for Moss and especially Nyong’o, and that one astonishing scene early on. Otherwise it’s a take it or leave it kind of thing.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Nomadland (2020) in Movies
May 5, 2021
Frances McDormand - outstanding acting (2 more)
Cinematography
A novel slice of American alternative lifestyle
Don't exit with your sail-boat still in the driveway
"Nomadland" sees a widowed and depressed Fern (Frances McDormand) take what she needs from her lockup garage and head out on the road in her beat-up converted camper-van. Taking work wherever she can get it, she joins and befriends a similar set of 'nomads', all equally battered by life in different ways.
Positives:
- Undeniably a superior motion picture, full of memorable imagery and with an incredible central performance from the impeccably dour Frances McDormand. Few actors can 'listen' and react as well as she can.
- A key part of this is the superb cinematography from (Brit-born) Joshua James Richards. This is a movie which I MUST revisit on the big-screen when the cinemas reopen in the UK in 2 week's time. I thought "Mank" was terrific (rather against the grain of many other movie fans) largely because of Erik Messerschmitt's glorious black-and-white cinematography. But I suspect Mr Richards (interestingly, Chloé Zhao's partner) was mightily hacked-off for missing out on the golden prize, as well he might be.
- It's difficult to rate the script on this one, primarily because it's difficult to know sometimes where the scripted bits end and the 'ad lib' parts begin. The majority of the cast are real nomads, recounting - presumably - their genuine life experiences. (The only exceptions, I believe, are Frances McDormand, David Strathairn and his son Tay Strathairn. The two Strathairn's last appeared on screen together in 1988's "Eight Men Out" when Tay was just eight years old!). As such, the film is an interesting blend of fiction and documentary.
- The movie skewers both capitalism and materialism nicely. As someone who has recently got off the corporate rat-race by retiring, the tale of the man who died before he could use the retirement sail-boat parked in his driveway resonated strongly (and made me very pleased with my decision!). We all get so wrapped up with running around the maze trying to find the cheese that it's often difficult to appreciate that 'getting off and cutting back' is a stress-free and acceptable option. (Not that I'm particularly cutting back, a la Fern..... start saving the retirement coppers early kids!!)
- The movie is also an effective study of grief and the different ways in which people come to terms with it. (Although that does make the overall film feel like a bit of a downer).
- Beautiful classical accompanying music by the great Ludovico Einaudi.
Negatives:
- I really loved this movie for its first hour. But then, for me, the story didn't really maintain my full interest. It was all a bit grey and bland. Did Fern really have much of a story-arc here? She started off at point A and ended up at point B where AB is a short distance! True that perhaps she has a little more acceptance and contentment with her position. But I was looking for more. If this had been a 90 minute film rather than a 107 minute movie, it would have (imho) worked better.
Summary Thoughts on "Nomadland": When a movie gets so much awards-hype thrown at it, I often fear watching it in case I absolutely hate it! That's not really possible with Nomadland, since it is just so well made that you can't help but appreciate what Chloé Zhao and her team have done here. It successfully challenges your misconceptions of what a "normal life" can be. The life might not be for you, or me, but it is an option.
That being said, this is not a movie that will be on my "must re-watch repeatedly" list (although I definitely DO want to see it on the big screen). It sits on that 'worthy-but-dull' list, alongside "Lincoln" and "Moonlight": Movies that I can fully appreciate for their artistry but not for their entertainment value.
As a movie that explores an unexplored social strata in America, and does it in a novel semi-documentary manner, I can understand and accept why it was voted as the Best Film by the Academy. But 'entertainment' ranks highly on my list of criteria. So - for my personal Oscar Best Film choice - I would still go with "Promising Young Woman" every time.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/05/nomadland-dont-exit-with-your-sailboat-still-in-your-driveway/ . Thanks.)
Positives:
- Undeniably a superior motion picture, full of memorable imagery and with an incredible central performance from the impeccably dour Frances McDormand. Few actors can 'listen' and react as well as she can.
- A key part of this is the superb cinematography from (Brit-born) Joshua James Richards. This is a movie which I MUST revisit on the big-screen when the cinemas reopen in the UK in 2 week's time. I thought "Mank" was terrific (rather against the grain of many other movie fans) largely because of Erik Messerschmitt's glorious black-and-white cinematography. But I suspect Mr Richards (interestingly, Chloé Zhao's partner) was mightily hacked-off for missing out on the golden prize, as well he might be.
- It's difficult to rate the script on this one, primarily because it's difficult to know sometimes where the scripted bits end and the 'ad lib' parts begin. The majority of the cast are real nomads, recounting - presumably - their genuine life experiences. (The only exceptions, I believe, are Frances McDormand, David Strathairn and his son Tay Strathairn. The two Strathairn's last appeared on screen together in 1988's "Eight Men Out" when Tay was just eight years old!). As such, the film is an interesting blend of fiction and documentary.
- The movie skewers both capitalism and materialism nicely. As someone who has recently got off the corporate rat-race by retiring, the tale of the man who died before he could use the retirement sail-boat parked in his driveway resonated strongly (and made me very pleased with my decision!). We all get so wrapped up with running around the maze trying to find the cheese that it's often difficult to appreciate that 'getting off and cutting back' is a stress-free and acceptable option. (Not that I'm particularly cutting back, a la Fern..... start saving the retirement coppers early kids!!)
- The movie is also an effective study of grief and the different ways in which people come to terms with it. (Although that does make the overall film feel like a bit of a downer).
- Beautiful classical accompanying music by the great Ludovico Einaudi.
Negatives:
- I really loved this movie for its first hour. But then, for me, the story didn't really maintain my full interest. It was all a bit grey and bland. Did Fern really have much of a story-arc here? She started off at point A and ended up at point B where AB is a short distance! True that perhaps she has a little more acceptance and contentment with her position. But I was looking for more. If this had been a 90 minute film rather than a 107 minute movie, it would have (imho) worked better.
Summary Thoughts on "Nomadland": When a movie gets so much awards-hype thrown at it, I often fear watching it in case I absolutely hate it! That's not really possible with Nomadland, since it is just so well made that you can't help but appreciate what Chloé Zhao and her team have done here. It successfully challenges your misconceptions of what a "normal life" can be. The life might not be for you, or me, but it is an option.
That being said, this is not a movie that will be on my "must re-watch repeatedly" list (although I definitely DO want to see it on the big screen). It sits on that 'worthy-but-dull' list, alongside "Lincoln" and "Moonlight": Movies that I can fully appreciate for their artistry but not for their entertainment value.
As a movie that explores an unexplored social strata in America, and does it in a novel semi-documentary manner, I can understand and accept why it was voted as the Best Film by the Academy. But 'entertainment' ranks highly on my list of criteria. So - for my personal Oscar Best Film choice - I would still go with "Promising Young Woman" every time.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/05/nomadland-dont-exit-with-your-sailboat-still-in-your-driveway/ . Thanks.)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Death to 2020 in TV
Jan 22, 2021
The annual event of Charlie Brooker’s Yearly Wipe is the one piece of satire I have been sure not to miss over the years. But 2020 has been a bit different, and finding himself in lockdown like everyone else, Brooker re-imagines the format into a full on talking-heads mockumentary that does away with himself as host in favour of a cross Atlantic vibe and a narration from the bass tones of Laurence Fishburne, no less.
There are also some random big names delivering the sarcastic views on the headlines too: Samuel L. Jackson kicks it all off; Hugh Grant adds to his list of heavily made up characters (and is probably the highlight) as a crusty old historian who struggles to put it all into context; Lisa Kudrow represents the Trump mentality in the form of a Republican press officer who plays hard and loose with the facts and the enforcement of facts; and even Tracey Ullman is dragged out of obscurity to play The Queen (which I didn’t entirely see the point of).
Last, but actually far from least, is Joe Keery, who most will recognise as Steve Harrington in Stranger Things – he represents all youth and the social media generation, claiming some of the most pertinent lines of observation about attitudes and the need to be noticed and relevant, using the news as a basis to flaunt your own opinion and gain followers, as well as a soapbox to show the world how much you have suffered as the world suffers.
Diane Morgan, known for her hilarious regilar turns as Philomena Cunk, tries out an alternate role as the world’s most average woman, who has “finished” Netflix, but understands little of what has happened around her own bubble in the world at large. I mean, it is baffling, all of it! And together these voices and others fairly represent a lot of different types of fool to be lampooned. I missed Cunk, but essentially it served the same purpose.
You can expect from the Brooker team there will be no punches pulled, and at its best moments, Death to 2020, is almost worth standing up and applauding for making sense of things we have all been thinking for almost a year. Of course, part of the joke being that to make an historical documentary about a year that wasn’t even over at the time it was released on Netflix is as bizarre and ridiculous as the way any other news item has been the entire time we have experienced it in reality.
There is a British slant on things for a while, but inevitably the target becomes the US election and the Trump administration, which is a gold mine for all things silly, because it barely needs admonishing to become entirely bonkers! I felt like it could have been a little longer than just over an hour, to fit every angle of Covid and Trump and Boris and everything else in, but it also almost outstays its welcome as it is, so in the end I think they made the right call in leaving some issues out. Despite that it does move along at such a pace that often the joke flies past you before you can properly think about it.
The problem with it as a production is that it is neither a movie or a TV show, but some kind of inbetween thing, with as many ideas that don’t work as the ones that do, and not as many laugh out loud moments as there maybe should have been. Nor were there many moments of real weight, where the rug of comedy is pulled from under your feet and the truth and gravity of events is seen in terrifying reality and perspective for a moment – a trick Brooker usually employs on Yearly Wipe. And that was a shame. I missed that part of it, and felt it needed it.
For me, it was a take it or leave it kind of thing. Sure, it killed an hour or so and wasn’t bad in any way, but it wasn’t anything you’re gonna be shouting from the rooftops about. Maybe one or two moments will come up in conversation between two friends that saw it, but no one is saying “wow, that really hit the nail on the head”. Rather, it was a little silly, somewhat distracting and entirely throw-away.
Bring back the old format, Charlie, when you can. It was much more effective, and funny! I think you know that yourself.
There are also some random big names delivering the sarcastic views on the headlines too: Samuel L. Jackson kicks it all off; Hugh Grant adds to his list of heavily made up characters (and is probably the highlight) as a crusty old historian who struggles to put it all into context; Lisa Kudrow represents the Trump mentality in the form of a Republican press officer who plays hard and loose with the facts and the enforcement of facts; and even Tracey Ullman is dragged out of obscurity to play The Queen (which I didn’t entirely see the point of).
Last, but actually far from least, is Joe Keery, who most will recognise as Steve Harrington in Stranger Things – he represents all youth and the social media generation, claiming some of the most pertinent lines of observation about attitudes and the need to be noticed and relevant, using the news as a basis to flaunt your own opinion and gain followers, as well as a soapbox to show the world how much you have suffered as the world suffers.
Diane Morgan, known for her hilarious regilar turns as Philomena Cunk, tries out an alternate role as the world’s most average woman, who has “finished” Netflix, but understands little of what has happened around her own bubble in the world at large. I mean, it is baffling, all of it! And together these voices and others fairly represent a lot of different types of fool to be lampooned. I missed Cunk, but essentially it served the same purpose.
You can expect from the Brooker team there will be no punches pulled, and at its best moments, Death to 2020, is almost worth standing up and applauding for making sense of things we have all been thinking for almost a year. Of course, part of the joke being that to make an historical documentary about a year that wasn’t even over at the time it was released on Netflix is as bizarre and ridiculous as the way any other news item has been the entire time we have experienced it in reality.
There is a British slant on things for a while, but inevitably the target becomes the US election and the Trump administration, which is a gold mine for all things silly, because it barely needs admonishing to become entirely bonkers! I felt like it could have been a little longer than just over an hour, to fit every angle of Covid and Trump and Boris and everything else in, but it also almost outstays its welcome as it is, so in the end I think they made the right call in leaving some issues out. Despite that it does move along at such a pace that often the joke flies past you before you can properly think about it.
The problem with it as a production is that it is neither a movie or a TV show, but some kind of inbetween thing, with as many ideas that don’t work as the ones that do, and not as many laugh out loud moments as there maybe should have been. Nor were there many moments of real weight, where the rug of comedy is pulled from under your feet and the truth and gravity of events is seen in terrifying reality and perspective for a moment – a trick Brooker usually employs on Yearly Wipe. And that was a shame. I missed that part of it, and felt it needed it.
For me, it was a take it or leave it kind of thing. Sure, it killed an hour or so and wasn’t bad in any way, but it wasn’t anything you’re gonna be shouting from the rooftops about. Maybe one or two moments will come up in conversation between two friends that saw it, but no one is saying “wow, that really hit the nail on the head”. Rather, it was a little silly, somewhat distracting and entirely throw-away.
Bring back the old format, Charlie, when you can. It was much more effective, and funny! I think you know that yourself.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Addams Family (2019) in Movies
Oct 13, 2019
“They’re creepy and they’re kooky, Mysterious and spooky, They’re all together ooky, The Addams family…” a theme song that everyone aged five to ninety-five seem to know the words to. It’s amazing to think that a show that first aired in 1964 and only ran for two seasons could continue to have the impact that it does fifty-five years later. Let that sink in for just a couple of minutes, for reference the Apollo 11 moon landing occurred in 1969 almost three years after the show’s end date. To simply say that the Addams Family has made a cultural impact on our society is a bit of an understatement, so how would the first animated full-length movie treat these cultural icons?
The Addams Family is an origin story of sorts for everyone’s favorite kooky family. Gomez Addams (Oscar Isaac) and Morticia (Charlize Theron) are rudely interrupted during their wedding ceremony by a bunch of angry villagers carrying pitchforks. While this is a little cliché’ it sets the tone for the interaction between the Addams family and how they are perceived by “normal” folks. Morticia longs for a place where they can live in peace away from those who wish to disturb their lives. On a long and windy road in New Jersey, fate appears in the form of Lurch (Conrad Vernon) as he bounces off the hood of their car. In the distance, as lightning strikes, they peer up a mountain side to see an abandoned, haunted insane asylum. The perfect place to raise a family away from the peering eyes of the rest of the world.
For thirteen years the Addams Family lives in relative seclusion with their two young children, Wednesday (Chloë Grace Moretz) and Pugsley (Finn Wolfhard). Neither of the children are allowed to leave the Asylum grounds and know of nothing outside the cold iron gates. One day, the swamp is drained, the clouds part and the Addams Family life of seclusion comes to an abrupt end. Down in the valley the town of Assimilation, a town that as its name suggests was built by famous HAG TV designer Margaux Needler (Allison Janney). The asylum (and its inhabitants) do not “fit-in” with the designer’s vision and kookiness ensues as she attempts to make-over (and take-over) the family’s home.
Visually The Addams Family reminds me of several Tim Burton classics albeit with a more colorful palette. Each member of the family is a caricature of their infamous selves and stylistically imbues the spooky, ooky, kookiest versions we would expect. Backed by an incredible amount of supporting voice talent such as Bette Midler, Martin Short, and Snoop-Dog as everyone’s favorite fuzzy cousin…It, it’s a star-studded event that even the most die-hard Addams Family purist will enjoy.
The story goes through typical tropes that we’ve seen played out a thousand times already. A misunderstood family is misjudged by their neighbors, only to come together in the end. It’s a story about celebrating our differences and learning to appreciate what makes each of us unique. In a world of social media, cell phones and television shows that try to make us all conform, it teaches us that while people may look and act different than us, they all bring something special to the table. It’s this light-heartedness and sweet story telling which while not unique is something that I feel we need more of in the world today.
The Addams Family is a film for the entire family, there is light-hearted violence, but all done in jest with no one ever getting hurt. While it doesn’t bring anything unexpected to the table, its still enjoyable and a film that doesn’t ever attempt to take itself seriously. It won’t win any best picture awards, and likely will become another 30 days of Halloween past-time when it makes its way to television, it is still one that will leave you with a smile on your face long after it is over. The experience you get from it, will likely be based on the audience reaction to the film. In the theater I was in, there was lots of laughter, snapping and even a sing-along at the end. It’s a movie to see with other people, and even if you aren’t a fan of the TV series, it will still offer you something. Sometimes a simple movie, with a simple message, is exactly the escape we need from everything in the world today. The Addams Family makes a perfect escape for the entire family this Halloween Season.
3.5 out of 5 stars
http://sknr.net/2019/10/10/the-addams-family/
The Addams Family is an origin story of sorts for everyone’s favorite kooky family. Gomez Addams (Oscar Isaac) and Morticia (Charlize Theron) are rudely interrupted during their wedding ceremony by a bunch of angry villagers carrying pitchforks. While this is a little cliché’ it sets the tone for the interaction between the Addams family and how they are perceived by “normal” folks. Morticia longs for a place where they can live in peace away from those who wish to disturb their lives. On a long and windy road in New Jersey, fate appears in the form of Lurch (Conrad Vernon) as he bounces off the hood of their car. In the distance, as lightning strikes, they peer up a mountain side to see an abandoned, haunted insane asylum. The perfect place to raise a family away from the peering eyes of the rest of the world.
For thirteen years the Addams Family lives in relative seclusion with their two young children, Wednesday (Chloë Grace Moretz) and Pugsley (Finn Wolfhard). Neither of the children are allowed to leave the Asylum grounds and know of nothing outside the cold iron gates. One day, the swamp is drained, the clouds part and the Addams Family life of seclusion comes to an abrupt end. Down in the valley the town of Assimilation, a town that as its name suggests was built by famous HAG TV designer Margaux Needler (Allison Janney). The asylum (and its inhabitants) do not “fit-in” with the designer’s vision and kookiness ensues as she attempts to make-over (and take-over) the family’s home.
Visually The Addams Family reminds me of several Tim Burton classics albeit with a more colorful palette. Each member of the family is a caricature of their infamous selves and stylistically imbues the spooky, ooky, kookiest versions we would expect. Backed by an incredible amount of supporting voice talent such as Bette Midler, Martin Short, and Snoop-Dog as everyone’s favorite fuzzy cousin…It, it’s a star-studded event that even the most die-hard Addams Family purist will enjoy.
The story goes through typical tropes that we’ve seen played out a thousand times already. A misunderstood family is misjudged by their neighbors, only to come together in the end. It’s a story about celebrating our differences and learning to appreciate what makes each of us unique. In a world of social media, cell phones and television shows that try to make us all conform, it teaches us that while people may look and act different than us, they all bring something special to the table. It’s this light-heartedness and sweet story telling which while not unique is something that I feel we need more of in the world today.
The Addams Family is a film for the entire family, there is light-hearted violence, but all done in jest with no one ever getting hurt. While it doesn’t bring anything unexpected to the table, its still enjoyable and a film that doesn’t ever attempt to take itself seriously. It won’t win any best picture awards, and likely will become another 30 days of Halloween past-time when it makes its way to television, it is still one that will leave you with a smile on your face long after it is over. The experience you get from it, will likely be based on the audience reaction to the film. In the theater I was in, there was lots of laughter, snapping and even a sing-along at the end. It’s a movie to see with other people, and even if you aren’t a fan of the TV series, it will still offer you something. Sometimes a simple movie, with a simple message, is exactly the escape we need from everything in the world today. The Addams Family makes a perfect escape for the entire family this Halloween Season.
3.5 out of 5 stars
http://sknr.net/2019/10/10/the-addams-family/