Search
Search results
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated The Box (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
Norma (Cameron Diaz) and Arthur Lewis (James Marsden) don't seem to be any different than any other hardworking family in the late 1970s on the surface, but things aren't always what they seem. After a freak accident at the doctor's office when she was 18, Norma suffers from a disfigurement on her foot and has a noticeable limp. A student humiliates her in front of her class while she's teaching and Norma is under the impression that would be the worst part of her day until she's informed that the discount faculty had been getting on tuition would be cut next semester. Meanwhile, Arthur works for NASA and had been counting on being recruited as an astronaut since he aced every test, but is rejected for failing the psychological exam. Already living paycheck to paycheck, Norma and Lewis wonder how they'll support their son Walter and themselves until an opportunity presents itself in the form of a box. Arlington Steward (Frank Langella), a man who's missing half of his face, shows up at the Lewis' home and makes them an offer that could solve all of their financial situations at the expense of somebody else with the simple push of a button. But the consequences that unfold for Norma and Arthur ar far greater than what they bargained for.
Richard Kelly is capable of making pretty fantastic films. Donnie Darko is still his crowning achievement. People seem to either love the film or think it's highly overrated, but with repeat viewings over the years it's become a favorite and has a cult like status. Southland Tales showed promise, but just felt like the second half of an already established franchise. That turned out to be true when the three graphic novels were published and were recommended to be read before seeing the film. I admire the fact that they took a different approach to the filmwatching experience, but since I didn't hear about the reading material until after I saw the film it seemed like a lost cause. Possibly too much to be bothered with. So Kelly offers his take on a Twilight Zone episode with The Box and the result leaves the viewer with mixed reactions.
The film seems to drag a bit in the first half hour as it introduces us to the Lewis family. The Box is dropped off on their doorstep, but then we're offered a glimpse into the daily lives of Norma and Arthur Lewis; mostly what their careers and daily struggles are like. Once Mr. Steward shows up and explains what The Box does is when the film begins to gain momentum. From that point until around the time Arthur gets knee deep into his investigation is when The Box is at its peak. There's at least one twist in there that's actually pretty satisfying, but it's unfortunate that the film can't keep that up for its entire duration. From then on, it just seems like the film adds more and more weird plot twists and ridiculous explanations. You'll want the film to have ended 20 minutes prior by the time Mr. Steward makes his second offer to the Lewis family.
The dialogue seemed to fluctuate between sounding natural and sounding forced throughout the film. The film takes place in 1976 and it's established rather well, for the most part. At times, it felt like some of the dialect from today slipped through the cracks and made it into a film that took place over 30 years ago. The acting wasn't entirely satisfying either. Was Cameron Diaz's accent noticeable in the trailer for the film? It didn't really click until around the five minute mark of the actual film and seemed to kind of come and go depending on how much dialogue Diaz actually had in a particular scene. Frank Langella was the most enjoyable, but if he wasn't missing half of his face or being so mysterious then his character would probably be kind of dull since he doesn't actually show any range of emotion in the film. The CG also seemed to look a bit low budget during the three gateways scene, which is odd since the pool scene was pulled off incredibly well. With all of these superbly CG animated films coming out as of late like Disney Pixar's Up, Disney's A Christmas Carol, and even next year's Toy Story 3, if CG of a lower quality is contained in a film after that it becomes extremely evident in comparison.
Richard Kelly's The Box puts a modern day spin on a classic story and while it isn't entirely satisfying, it does have its high points. As the puzzle the film is wrapped in unravels, its first few reveals are interesting, but it was like they tried to cram in as many twists and turns as possible as the film went on. While Kelly has at least one great film under his belt, it seems like he still hasn't found a specific stride to being a great director. That doesn't mean he's not capable of doing so and he certainly has his trademarks that seem to bleed through in his films (usually something relating to another gateway or dimension), but that he hasn't been able to channel a similar formula to what made Donnie Darko his standout film. That, in itself, is disappointing.
Richard Kelly is capable of making pretty fantastic films. Donnie Darko is still his crowning achievement. People seem to either love the film or think it's highly overrated, but with repeat viewings over the years it's become a favorite and has a cult like status. Southland Tales showed promise, but just felt like the second half of an already established franchise. That turned out to be true when the three graphic novels were published and were recommended to be read before seeing the film. I admire the fact that they took a different approach to the filmwatching experience, but since I didn't hear about the reading material until after I saw the film it seemed like a lost cause. Possibly too much to be bothered with. So Kelly offers his take on a Twilight Zone episode with The Box and the result leaves the viewer with mixed reactions.
The film seems to drag a bit in the first half hour as it introduces us to the Lewis family. The Box is dropped off on their doorstep, but then we're offered a glimpse into the daily lives of Norma and Arthur Lewis; mostly what their careers and daily struggles are like. Once Mr. Steward shows up and explains what The Box does is when the film begins to gain momentum. From that point until around the time Arthur gets knee deep into his investigation is when The Box is at its peak. There's at least one twist in there that's actually pretty satisfying, but it's unfortunate that the film can't keep that up for its entire duration. From then on, it just seems like the film adds more and more weird plot twists and ridiculous explanations. You'll want the film to have ended 20 minutes prior by the time Mr. Steward makes his second offer to the Lewis family.
The dialogue seemed to fluctuate between sounding natural and sounding forced throughout the film. The film takes place in 1976 and it's established rather well, for the most part. At times, it felt like some of the dialect from today slipped through the cracks and made it into a film that took place over 30 years ago. The acting wasn't entirely satisfying either. Was Cameron Diaz's accent noticeable in the trailer for the film? It didn't really click until around the five minute mark of the actual film and seemed to kind of come and go depending on how much dialogue Diaz actually had in a particular scene. Frank Langella was the most enjoyable, but if he wasn't missing half of his face or being so mysterious then his character would probably be kind of dull since he doesn't actually show any range of emotion in the film. The CG also seemed to look a bit low budget during the three gateways scene, which is odd since the pool scene was pulled off incredibly well. With all of these superbly CG animated films coming out as of late like Disney Pixar's Up, Disney's A Christmas Carol, and even next year's Toy Story 3, if CG of a lower quality is contained in a film after that it becomes extremely evident in comparison.
Richard Kelly's The Box puts a modern day spin on a classic story and while it isn't entirely satisfying, it does have its high points. As the puzzle the film is wrapped in unravels, its first few reveals are interesting, but it was like they tried to cram in as many twists and turns as possible as the film went on. While Kelly has at least one great film under his belt, it seems like he still hasn't found a specific stride to being a great director. That doesn't mean he's not capable of doing so and he certainly has his trademarks that seem to bleed through in his films (usually something relating to another gateway or dimension), but that he hasn't been able to channel a similar formula to what made Donnie Darko his standout film. That, in itself, is disappointing.
Amazing historical retelling!
You can also find this review on my blog: bookingwayreads.wordpress.com
4.5 stars
TRIGGER WARNINGS: murder, hostage situation, violence, alcoholism, loss of a loved one, starvation, terminal illness, executions, gunshots, trauma
“The bond of our hearts spans miles, memory, and time.”
Main Characters:
Anastasia "Nastya" Romanov - the mischievous and cunning main character. Narration is told from her POV and the development she receives throughout the novel is a breath of fresh air. The emotions she feels leaps out to the reader on every page and is honestly the most relatable character in the entire novel.
Zash - at first he was a hardhearted Bolshevik but eventually warms to Nastya's mischievousness. He does a full 180 after a certain scene and it was really nice to see him and Nastya become close.
Alexei - Nastya's brother who has a terminal illness that weakens his body. He's sassy, stubborn (but not as much as Nastya), and calms the wildness within Nastya. Alexei is the yin to Nastya's yang.
The Romanov family - the first half of the book revolves around the family as a whole, but they all had equal parts throughout the storyline compared to the two that outshown everyone: Alexei and Nastya.
The Bolsheviks - the soldiers in charge of keeping the Romanov's in order. They're all stone and ice and everything but warmth and friendliness (besides Ivan and Zash of course.)
Ivan - oh my dear Ivan... (let's just leave it at that)
“It is if you separate the two- old life and new life. But once you learn that it's all one life and each day is a new page, it gets a bit easier to let your story take an unexpected path.”
Review:
**Possible spoilers ahead**
Romanov starts with the Romanov's in a house that is their base of exile, they have been taken into custody and are awaiting their execution trial. The family lives life to the best of their ability but then the dreadful day comes when half of the family is moved further away to be questioned. This only brings even more heartbreaking scenes until the moment when Nastya saves herself and Alexei.
Romanov is a historical retelling with a magical aspect that combines into a wonderfully executed novel. Family is the central focus, this ends up not only being the Romanov's greatest strength, but also their biggest burden. How the family is portrayed adds a sympathetic nature to the novel, and the relationship between Alexei and Nastya is not only sweet but also a strength that keeps them fighting together until the very end.
One thing that I really loved about Romanov, was that the Romanov's themselves were kind and forgiving to the Bolshevik's. They believed that they could prove their innocence to them by being friendly, plus it was just second nature to be friendly. The tension between the two was felt by everyone though, especially Nastya. Throughout the novel, you can see everything that she has to worry about but she still holds onto that little spark that makes her who she is, even despite the predicament she's in.
Nastya is a mischievous, cunning, and lovable young woman and her emotions leap out at the reader. When Zash enters the picture, he's nothing but harsh words and hostility. Nastya though, senses a kindness lurking underneath that stone wall and she becomes determined to release it.
As the story progresses, readers can sense the chemistry between the two of them and it makes you crave more of this heartbreaking story.
Story background and development –
The connections that are built with the reader and the narrator is beautiful and well crafted. And oh man! Was there a TON of background and development on more than just the main character. Romanov is a historical retelling of what the real Romanov family experienced, with a little bit of a fantasy twist to it of course. Nadine does an amazing job at giving the facts yet keeping it light enough to be read like a fantasy novel.
Plot –
History of fact and fiction with magic interwoven brings a tale that's not only intriguing but fascinating as well. Every page brings a few more steps into the build-up, causing this novel to be a pivoting story to be read by all.
Spelling/ Grammatical errors –
I did notice a few grammatical and spelling errors that took away from the scene but overall, Nadine's writing style is gripping and crafted in a way that allows nothing to pass you by.
Overall –
Romanov is a breathtaking and heart-wrenching story that will make the reader feel every tragedy, heartbreak, and moment of love that is seeped into every page.
Enjoyment –
I enjoyed every second of this novel and even stayed up late to devour it! All because I couldn't put it down. Nadine grabbed my attention and kept it until the very last page, leaving me in a ball of agony, mourning the pain that I felt.
Do I recommend?
H to the E to the L to the L to the Y to the E to the S, what does that spell? HELL YES! Everyone needs to pick this novel up and give it a read!!
“Let no one call you tame.”
4.5 stars
TRIGGER WARNINGS: murder, hostage situation, violence, alcoholism, loss of a loved one, starvation, terminal illness, executions, gunshots, trauma
“The bond of our hearts spans miles, memory, and time.”
Main Characters:
Anastasia "Nastya" Romanov - the mischievous and cunning main character. Narration is told from her POV and the development she receives throughout the novel is a breath of fresh air. The emotions she feels leaps out to the reader on every page and is honestly the most relatable character in the entire novel.
Zash - at first he was a hardhearted Bolshevik but eventually warms to Nastya's mischievousness. He does a full 180 after a certain scene and it was really nice to see him and Nastya become close.
Alexei - Nastya's brother who has a terminal illness that weakens his body. He's sassy, stubborn (but not as much as Nastya), and calms the wildness within Nastya. Alexei is the yin to Nastya's yang.
The Romanov family - the first half of the book revolves around the family as a whole, but they all had equal parts throughout the storyline compared to the two that outshown everyone: Alexei and Nastya.
The Bolsheviks - the soldiers in charge of keeping the Romanov's in order. They're all stone and ice and everything but warmth and friendliness (besides Ivan and Zash of course.)
Ivan - oh my dear Ivan... (let's just leave it at that)
“It is if you separate the two- old life and new life. But once you learn that it's all one life and each day is a new page, it gets a bit easier to let your story take an unexpected path.”
Review:
**Possible spoilers ahead**
Romanov starts with the Romanov's in a house that is their base of exile, they have been taken into custody and are awaiting their execution trial. The family lives life to the best of their ability but then the dreadful day comes when half of the family is moved further away to be questioned. This only brings even more heartbreaking scenes until the moment when Nastya saves herself and Alexei.
Romanov is a historical retelling with a magical aspect that combines into a wonderfully executed novel. Family is the central focus, this ends up not only being the Romanov's greatest strength, but also their biggest burden. How the family is portrayed adds a sympathetic nature to the novel, and the relationship between Alexei and Nastya is not only sweet but also a strength that keeps them fighting together until the very end.
One thing that I really loved about Romanov, was that the Romanov's themselves were kind and forgiving to the Bolshevik's. They believed that they could prove their innocence to them by being friendly, plus it was just second nature to be friendly. The tension between the two was felt by everyone though, especially Nastya. Throughout the novel, you can see everything that she has to worry about but she still holds onto that little spark that makes her who she is, even despite the predicament she's in.
Nastya is a mischievous, cunning, and lovable young woman and her emotions leap out at the reader. When Zash enters the picture, he's nothing but harsh words and hostility. Nastya though, senses a kindness lurking underneath that stone wall and she becomes determined to release it.
As the story progresses, readers can sense the chemistry between the two of them and it makes you crave more of this heartbreaking story.
Story background and development –
The connections that are built with the reader and the narrator is beautiful and well crafted. And oh man! Was there a TON of background and development on more than just the main character. Romanov is a historical retelling of what the real Romanov family experienced, with a little bit of a fantasy twist to it of course. Nadine does an amazing job at giving the facts yet keeping it light enough to be read like a fantasy novel.
Plot –
History of fact and fiction with magic interwoven brings a tale that's not only intriguing but fascinating as well. Every page brings a few more steps into the build-up, causing this novel to be a pivoting story to be read by all.
Spelling/ Grammatical errors –
I did notice a few grammatical and spelling errors that took away from the scene but overall, Nadine's writing style is gripping and crafted in a way that allows nothing to pass you by.
Overall –
Romanov is a breathtaking and heart-wrenching story that will make the reader feel every tragedy, heartbreak, and moment of love that is seeped into every page.
Enjoyment –
I enjoyed every second of this novel and even stayed up late to devour it! All because I couldn't put it down. Nadine grabbed my attention and kept it until the very last page, leaving me in a ball of agony, mourning the pain that I felt.
Do I recommend?
H to the E to the L to the L to the Y to the E to the S, what does that spell? HELL YES! Everyone needs to pick this novel up and give it a read!!
“Let no one call you tame.”
<a href="https://bookingwayreads.wordpress.com">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://https://www.instagram.com/ernest.bookingway/">Bookstagram</a>; | <a href="https://https://twitter.com/bookingwayreads">Twitter</a>;
4.5 stars
TRIGGER WARNINGS: murder, hostage situation, violence, alcoholism, loss of a loved one, starvation, terminal illness, executions, gunshots, trauma
“The bond of our hearts spans miles, memory, and time.”
Main Characters:
Anastasia "Nastya" Romanov - the mischievous and cunning main character. Narration is told from her POV and the development she receives throughout the novel is a breath of fresh air. The emotions she feels leaps out to the reader on every page and is honestly the most relatable character in the entire novel.
Zash - at first he was a hardhearted Bolshevik but eventually warms to Nastya's mischievousness. He does a full 180 after a certain scene and it was really nice to see him and Nastya become close.
Alexei - Nastya's brother who has a terminal illness that weakens his body. He's sassy, stubborn (but not as much as Nastya), and calms the wildness within Nastya. Alexei is the yin to Nastya's yang.
The Romanov family - the first half of the book revolves around the family as a whole, but they all had equal parts throughout the storyline compared to the two that outshown everyone: Alexei and Nastya.
The Bolsheviks - the soldiers in charge of keeping the Romanov's in order. They're all stone and ice and everything but warmth and friendliness (besides Ivan and Zash of course.)
Ivan - oh my dear Ivan... (let's just leave it at that)
“It is if you separate the two- old life and new life. But once you learn that it's all one life and each day is a new page, it gets a bit easier to let your story take an unexpected path.”
Review:
**Possible spoilers ahead**
Romanov starts with the Romanov's in a house that is their base of exile, they have been taken into custody and are awaiting their execution trial. The family lives life to the best of their ability but then the dreadful day comes when half of the family is moved further away to be questioned. This only brings even more heartbreaking scenes until the moment when Nastya saves herself and Alexei.
Romanov is a historical retelling with a magical aspect that combines into a wonderfully executed novel. Family is the central focus, this ends up not only being the Romanov's greatest strength, but also their biggest burden. How the family is portrayed adds a sympathetic nature to the novel, and the relationship between Alexei and Nastya is not only sweet but also a strength that keeps them fighting together until the very end.
One thing that I really loved about Romanov, was that the Romanov's themselves were kind and forgiving to the Bolshevik's. They believed that they could prove their innocence to them by being friendly, plus it was just second nature to be friendly. The tension between the two was felt by everyone though, especially Nastya. Throughout the novel, you can see everything that she has to worry about but she still holds onto that little spark that makes her who she is, even despite the predicament she's in.
Nastya is a mischievous, cunning, and lovable young woman and her emotions leap out at the reader. When Zash enters the picture, he's nothing but harsh words and hostility. Nastya though, senses a kindness lurking underneath that stone wall and she becomes determined to release it.
As the story progresses, readers can sense the chemistry between the two of them and it makes you crave more of this heartbreaking story.
Story background and development –
The connections that are built with the reader and the narrator is beautiful and well crafted. And oh man! Was there a TON of background and development on more than just the main character. Romanov is a historical retelling of what the real Romanov family experienced, with a little bit of a fantasy twist to it of course. Nadine does an amazing job at giving the facts yet keeping it light enough to be read like a fantasy novel.
Plot –
History of fact and fiction with magic interwoven brings a tale that's not only intriguing but fascinating as well. Every page brings a few more steps into the build-up, causing this novel to be a pivoting story to be read by all.
Spelling/ Grammatical errors –
I did notice a few grammatical and spelling errors that took away from the scene but overall, Nadine's writing style is gripping and crafted in a way that allows nothing to pass you by.
Overall –
Romanov is a breathtaking and heart-wrenching story that will make the reader feel every tragedy, heartbreak, and moment of love that is seeped into every page.
Enjoyment –
I enjoyed every second of this novel and even stayed up late to devour it! All because I couldn't put it down. Nadine grabbed my attention and kept it until the very last page, leaving me in a ball of agony, mourning the pain that I felt.
Do I recommend?
H to the E to the L to the L to the Y to the E to the S, what does that spell? HELL YES! Everyone needs to pick this novel up and give it a read!!
“Let no one call you tame.”
4.5 stars
TRIGGER WARNINGS: murder, hostage situation, violence, alcoholism, loss of a loved one, starvation, terminal illness, executions, gunshots, trauma
“The bond of our hearts spans miles, memory, and time.”
Main Characters:
Anastasia "Nastya" Romanov - the mischievous and cunning main character. Narration is told from her POV and the development she receives throughout the novel is a breath of fresh air. The emotions she feels leaps out to the reader on every page and is honestly the most relatable character in the entire novel.
Zash - at first he was a hardhearted Bolshevik but eventually warms to Nastya's mischievousness. He does a full 180 after a certain scene and it was really nice to see him and Nastya become close.
Alexei - Nastya's brother who has a terminal illness that weakens his body. He's sassy, stubborn (but not as much as Nastya), and calms the wildness within Nastya. Alexei is the yin to Nastya's yang.
The Romanov family - the first half of the book revolves around the family as a whole, but they all had equal parts throughout the storyline compared to the two that outshown everyone: Alexei and Nastya.
The Bolsheviks - the soldiers in charge of keeping the Romanov's in order. They're all stone and ice and everything but warmth and friendliness (besides Ivan and Zash of course.)
Ivan - oh my dear Ivan... (let's just leave it at that)
“It is if you separate the two- old life and new life. But once you learn that it's all one life and each day is a new page, it gets a bit easier to let your story take an unexpected path.”
Review:
**Possible spoilers ahead**
Romanov starts with the Romanov's in a house that is their base of exile, they have been taken into custody and are awaiting their execution trial. The family lives life to the best of their ability but then the dreadful day comes when half of the family is moved further away to be questioned. This only brings even more heartbreaking scenes until the moment when Nastya saves herself and Alexei.
Romanov is a historical retelling with a magical aspect that combines into a wonderfully executed novel. Family is the central focus, this ends up not only being the Romanov's greatest strength, but also their biggest burden. How the family is portrayed adds a sympathetic nature to the novel, and the relationship between Alexei and Nastya is not only sweet but also a strength that keeps them fighting together until the very end.
One thing that I really loved about Romanov, was that the Romanov's themselves were kind and forgiving to the Bolshevik's. They believed that they could prove their innocence to them by being friendly, plus it was just second nature to be friendly. The tension between the two was felt by everyone though, especially Nastya. Throughout the novel, you can see everything that she has to worry about but she still holds onto that little spark that makes her who she is, even despite the predicament she's in.
Nastya is a mischievous, cunning, and lovable young woman and her emotions leap out at the reader. When Zash enters the picture, he's nothing but harsh words and hostility. Nastya though, senses a kindness lurking underneath that stone wall and she becomes determined to release it.
As the story progresses, readers can sense the chemistry between the two of them and it makes you crave more of this heartbreaking story.
Story background and development –
The connections that are built with the reader and the narrator is beautiful and well crafted. And oh man! Was there a TON of background and development on more than just the main character. Romanov is a historical retelling of what the real Romanov family experienced, with a little bit of a fantasy twist to it of course. Nadine does an amazing job at giving the facts yet keeping it light enough to be read like a fantasy novel.
Plot –
History of fact and fiction with magic interwoven brings a tale that's not only intriguing but fascinating as well. Every page brings a few more steps into the build-up, causing this novel to be a pivoting story to be read by all.
Spelling/ Grammatical errors –
I did notice a few grammatical and spelling errors that took away from the scene but overall, Nadine's writing style is gripping and crafted in a way that allows nothing to pass you by.
Overall –
Romanov is a breathtaking and heart-wrenching story that will make the reader feel every tragedy, heartbreak, and moment of love that is seeped into every page.
Enjoyment –
I enjoyed every second of this novel and even stayed up late to devour it! All because I couldn't put it down. Nadine grabbed my attention and kept it until the very last page, leaving me in a ball of agony, mourning the pain that I felt.
Do I recommend?
H to the E to the L to the L to the Y to the E to the S, what does that spell? HELL YES! Everyone needs to pick this novel up and give it a read!!
“Let no one call you tame.”
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Following the very successful adaptation of Stieg Larssons millennium trilogy into three very successful Swedish language films, it came as no surprise when Hollywood announced that it would be making an English-language version of the series. Director David Fincher was announced to craft the first book in the series, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. The new version follows very close to the original material with one fairly big exception which I will detail later in the review.
Daniel Craig stars as Mikael Blomkvist, who at the opening of the film has recently lost a court case for which he was being sued for libel by a prominent business figure. His career is in ruins and virtually all of his savings gone as a result of the trial and punitive damages. So when he is contacted by an attorney representing the wealthy and powerful Vanger family, he agrees to meet. Although highly reluctant to take a meeting, Mikael takes the four hour train ride north of Stockholm to a cold and remote island to meet with Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer). Henrik wishes Mikael to investigate the disappearance of his niece some 40 years earlier, a niece vanished under the families’ very noses and not a trace of her has been discovered since. Henrik is convinced that she has met with foul play, yet every year on his birthday, he continues to receive a gift of ornate pressed flowers in an anonymous package.
Henrik believes that the killer is haunting him by sending the gifts and that a member of his family may be to blame. Although skeptical of being able to find anything 40 years later, Mikael accepts the case and soon sets up residence in a small cabin on the island and begins his investigation by combing through police reports, conducting interviews, and examining photographs and newspaper clippings. Mikael had been warned that the other members of the Vanger family may not be too thrilled with his presence as not only is the family fractured, they all have their share of secrets.
At the same time, a very Goth punk girl named Lisabeth (Rooney Mara), is fighting her own demons. Lisabeth is an extremely gifted computer and surveillance expert who specializes in gathering background information on individuals. As such, her skills have made her in high demand with her employer. Unfortunately, Lisabeth is also a deeply antisocial person who is prone to lash out violently if provoked. Much of this stems from an extremely traumatic childhood spent in institutions which resulted in Lisabeth being placed as a ward of the state, not deemed competent to care for herself. This arrangement requires her to check in on a regular basis with a representative who, unfortunately for her, has recently suffered a stroke and places her in the care of the new guardian.
The new guardian subjects Lisabeth to horrific demands just so Lisabeth can access her money. The traumatized Lisabeth does not play victim long and in a twist of fate, is assigned by Henrik’s attorney to assist Mikael since she did the background check on him prior to Mikael being approached by Henrik for the investigation. The unlikely duo combined to form a highly efficient pair as they start to piece together the clues which indicate a brutal string of murders leading back for decades. As they work together, the relationship deepens and the reserved Lisabeth starts to come out of her shell. Tension mounts as danger surrounds them in an epic race against time to solve the case that certain members of the family do not want solved.
The film runs approximately 2 hours and 45 min and does take a little while to get started as the landscape and back story of the characters is established. The film has some very dark and brutal moments, which are hard to watch, yet were not as graphic as those in the Swedish language version. Craig and Mara work very well with one another and props to Craig for being willing to put on weight and occasionally looked disheveled to enhance his character.
Mara gives a masterful performance as the complicated Lisabeth, the anti-damsel-in-distress heroine, who subtly shows the many complicated sides to the character. Noomi Rapace first portrayed the character and has gone on to prominent success in Hollywood with a slew of upcoming high profile films. I would expect nothing less for Mara with two other sequels in this series to film. I am sure this breakout performance will not go unnoticed as it is an extremely difficult and daring role that few in Hollywood would want to tackle, much less be able to pull off as convincingly as she did.
I was extremely happy to see that the character names, settings, and situations were not changed in the new version, and it was refreshing to see the film set in Sweden and not relocated to London or New York. The biggest issue I had with the film was with the ending, which deviated from the previous versions. I will not provide spoilers, suffice it to say the resolution was a bit too tidy of a Hollywood ending and in my opinion greatly undermined one of the central characters of the film. That being said the film is a bold and dynamic vision from Fincher and is a deeply dark and disturbing story that is difficult to forget.
Daniel Craig stars as Mikael Blomkvist, who at the opening of the film has recently lost a court case for which he was being sued for libel by a prominent business figure. His career is in ruins and virtually all of his savings gone as a result of the trial and punitive damages. So when he is contacted by an attorney representing the wealthy and powerful Vanger family, he agrees to meet. Although highly reluctant to take a meeting, Mikael takes the four hour train ride north of Stockholm to a cold and remote island to meet with Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer). Henrik wishes Mikael to investigate the disappearance of his niece some 40 years earlier, a niece vanished under the families’ very noses and not a trace of her has been discovered since. Henrik is convinced that she has met with foul play, yet every year on his birthday, he continues to receive a gift of ornate pressed flowers in an anonymous package.
Henrik believes that the killer is haunting him by sending the gifts and that a member of his family may be to blame. Although skeptical of being able to find anything 40 years later, Mikael accepts the case and soon sets up residence in a small cabin on the island and begins his investigation by combing through police reports, conducting interviews, and examining photographs and newspaper clippings. Mikael had been warned that the other members of the Vanger family may not be too thrilled with his presence as not only is the family fractured, they all have their share of secrets.
At the same time, a very Goth punk girl named Lisabeth (Rooney Mara), is fighting her own demons. Lisabeth is an extremely gifted computer and surveillance expert who specializes in gathering background information on individuals. As such, her skills have made her in high demand with her employer. Unfortunately, Lisabeth is also a deeply antisocial person who is prone to lash out violently if provoked. Much of this stems from an extremely traumatic childhood spent in institutions which resulted in Lisabeth being placed as a ward of the state, not deemed competent to care for herself. This arrangement requires her to check in on a regular basis with a representative who, unfortunately for her, has recently suffered a stroke and places her in the care of the new guardian.
The new guardian subjects Lisabeth to horrific demands just so Lisabeth can access her money. The traumatized Lisabeth does not play victim long and in a twist of fate, is assigned by Henrik’s attorney to assist Mikael since she did the background check on him prior to Mikael being approached by Henrik for the investigation. The unlikely duo combined to form a highly efficient pair as they start to piece together the clues which indicate a brutal string of murders leading back for decades. As they work together, the relationship deepens and the reserved Lisabeth starts to come out of her shell. Tension mounts as danger surrounds them in an epic race against time to solve the case that certain members of the family do not want solved.
The film runs approximately 2 hours and 45 min and does take a little while to get started as the landscape and back story of the characters is established. The film has some very dark and brutal moments, which are hard to watch, yet were not as graphic as those in the Swedish language version. Craig and Mara work very well with one another and props to Craig for being willing to put on weight and occasionally looked disheveled to enhance his character.
Mara gives a masterful performance as the complicated Lisabeth, the anti-damsel-in-distress heroine, who subtly shows the many complicated sides to the character. Noomi Rapace first portrayed the character and has gone on to prominent success in Hollywood with a slew of upcoming high profile films. I would expect nothing less for Mara with two other sequels in this series to film. I am sure this breakout performance will not go unnoticed as it is an extremely difficult and daring role that few in Hollywood would want to tackle, much less be able to pull off as convincingly as she did.
I was extremely happy to see that the character names, settings, and situations were not changed in the new version, and it was refreshing to see the film set in Sweden and not relocated to London or New York. The biggest issue I had with the film was with the ending, which deviated from the previous versions. I will not provide spoilers, suffice it to say the resolution was a bit too tidy of a Hollywood ending and in my opinion greatly undermined one of the central characters of the film. That being said the film is a bold and dynamic vision from Fincher and is a deeply dark and disturbing story that is difficult to forget.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Attack the Block (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Remember, remember the fifth of November…because that’s when the film Attack the Block (from the producers of “Shaun of the Dead”) begins – on Guy Fawkes Night. If you want to know what that is, use a search engine like I did (there’s even a catchy poem for this British holiday, too).
Anyway, back to the film. It’s Guy Fawkes Night in London, with fireworks exploding throughout the city, a small gang of teens are looking to have a little fun. The gang has 5 people; the leader Moses (John Boyega), Jerome (Leeon Jones), Dennis (Franz Drameh), Biggz (Simon Howard) and Pest (Alex Esmail). During this “fun time” they mug Sam (Jodie Whitaker) a nurse returning home from work. During the course of the mugging an object falls from the sky striking a nearby car. While the gang is distracted, Sam runs off and calls the police. As Moses investigates what hit the car and what he can steal, something scratches his arm and escapes into the night. Moses is so furious, he and the rest of the gang give chase, eventually cornering and killing the creature.
They aren’t sure what the creature is but they know they can probably make money off of it, so they take it to Ron (Nick Frost), the friendly neighborhood drug dealer who lives in their apartment complex, for safe keeping. As the gang enjoys a “relaxing” smoke (don’t worry anti-tobacco people, they aren’t smoking cigarettes), Moses is approached by Hi-Hatz (Jumayn Hunter) the local drug kingpin that Ron works for. Hi-Hatz likes the tough, street-smart Moses and wants him to be one of his dealers, a job Moses considers an honor to be offered.
As Moses’ gang gaze out the apartment’s window at the fireworks exploding over South London they see more aliens landing. They soon discover that these aliens are bigger, stronger, tougher and way more violent than the first one they encountered and, even worse than that, these aliens are coming after them. The gang decides that they have to fight back and protect their block. During one encounter with the aliens, Pest becomes seriously injured and they end up tracking down Sam (the nurse they mugged at the beginning of the movie) for help. Once Sam is convinced that they are telling the truth about the invasion she joins them and eventually a sort of mutual respect forms between her and the members of the gang. Unfortunately while they are fighting off the invasion, Moses’s gang has a falling out with Hi-Hatz. So just to be clear, at a point in the film, Moses and his gang have the police, Hi-Hatz with his crew and aliens chasing after them. Will Moses and his merry men be victorious or will they fall prey to ‘those clamorous harbingers of blood and death’? Sorry, felt the need to quote Shakespeare.
The movie is highly enjoyable with its unique twist on the sci-fi genre blended with a healthy dose of humor, believable action and great anti-heroes. While the movie is a low budget film, the cast put on a big budget performance. The special effects were well done and not over the top like so many other sci-fi action movies I’ve seen. While the movie is a bit on the campy side (which I do enjoy) I do want to point out that with the exception of the alien-thing the film keeps things quite realistic. One negative thing about the film is that because of the British accent and slang I did not understand some of the dialogue (I’m sure the British say the same thing about our movies).
I will be honest, Nick Frost was the driving force behind me wanting to see this movie and I thoroughly enjoyed his scenes but he only has a few scenes. Jodie Whitaker did a very nice job of taking the audience on a journey of a character who, at the beginning is both mad at and afraid of those who had mugged her, but as the movie progresses those feelings are slowly replaced with mutual respect, understanding and friendship. Jumayn Hunter portrayed such a unique drug kingpin I was actually rooting for him (don’t worry law enforcement officials, I will still “Say ‘No’ to Drugs”). The rest of the supporting cast all did wonderful jobs as well but I want to talk about the actors that made up Moses’s Gang.
You wouldn’t know it by watching the movie but this is the first film for John Boyega, Leeon Jones, Simon Howard and Alex Esmail; the second movie for Franz Drameh. Even before knowing that, I already thought these five actors did an incredible job in the film but after finding that out I was really blown away. Their five characters are the core of the movie that takes us on this great adventure. However I do want to single out the lead John Boyega, as his character goes through a sort of rite of passage in the film. He does an amazing job with the range of emotion that is needed all the while keeping the character as real as a sci-fi film will allow. I will definitely keep an eye out for future films with these actors.
Anyway, back to the film. It’s Guy Fawkes Night in London, with fireworks exploding throughout the city, a small gang of teens are looking to have a little fun. The gang has 5 people; the leader Moses (John Boyega), Jerome (Leeon Jones), Dennis (Franz Drameh), Biggz (Simon Howard) and Pest (Alex Esmail). During this “fun time” they mug Sam (Jodie Whitaker) a nurse returning home from work. During the course of the mugging an object falls from the sky striking a nearby car. While the gang is distracted, Sam runs off and calls the police. As Moses investigates what hit the car and what he can steal, something scratches his arm and escapes into the night. Moses is so furious, he and the rest of the gang give chase, eventually cornering and killing the creature.
They aren’t sure what the creature is but they know they can probably make money off of it, so they take it to Ron (Nick Frost), the friendly neighborhood drug dealer who lives in their apartment complex, for safe keeping. As the gang enjoys a “relaxing” smoke (don’t worry anti-tobacco people, they aren’t smoking cigarettes), Moses is approached by Hi-Hatz (Jumayn Hunter) the local drug kingpin that Ron works for. Hi-Hatz likes the tough, street-smart Moses and wants him to be one of his dealers, a job Moses considers an honor to be offered.
As Moses’ gang gaze out the apartment’s window at the fireworks exploding over South London they see more aliens landing. They soon discover that these aliens are bigger, stronger, tougher and way more violent than the first one they encountered and, even worse than that, these aliens are coming after them. The gang decides that they have to fight back and protect their block. During one encounter with the aliens, Pest becomes seriously injured and they end up tracking down Sam (the nurse they mugged at the beginning of the movie) for help. Once Sam is convinced that they are telling the truth about the invasion she joins them and eventually a sort of mutual respect forms between her and the members of the gang. Unfortunately while they are fighting off the invasion, Moses’s gang has a falling out with Hi-Hatz. So just to be clear, at a point in the film, Moses and his gang have the police, Hi-Hatz with his crew and aliens chasing after them. Will Moses and his merry men be victorious or will they fall prey to ‘those clamorous harbingers of blood and death’? Sorry, felt the need to quote Shakespeare.
The movie is highly enjoyable with its unique twist on the sci-fi genre blended with a healthy dose of humor, believable action and great anti-heroes. While the movie is a low budget film, the cast put on a big budget performance. The special effects were well done and not over the top like so many other sci-fi action movies I’ve seen. While the movie is a bit on the campy side (which I do enjoy) I do want to point out that with the exception of the alien-thing the film keeps things quite realistic. One negative thing about the film is that because of the British accent and slang I did not understand some of the dialogue (I’m sure the British say the same thing about our movies).
I will be honest, Nick Frost was the driving force behind me wanting to see this movie and I thoroughly enjoyed his scenes but he only has a few scenes. Jodie Whitaker did a very nice job of taking the audience on a journey of a character who, at the beginning is both mad at and afraid of those who had mugged her, but as the movie progresses those feelings are slowly replaced with mutual respect, understanding and friendship. Jumayn Hunter portrayed such a unique drug kingpin I was actually rooting for him (don’t worry law enforcement officials, I will still “Say ‘No’ to Drugs”). The rest of the supporting cast all did wonderful jobs as well but I want to talk about the actors that made up Moses’s Gang.
You wouldn’t know it by watching the movie but this is the first film for John Boyega, Leeon Jones, Simon Howard and Alex Esmail; the second movie for Franz Drameh. Even before knowing that, I already thought these five actors did an incredible job in the film but after finding that out I was really blown away. Their five characters are the core of the movie that takes us on this great adventure. However I do want to single out the lead John Boyega, as his character goes through a sort of rite of passage in the film. He does an amazing job with the range of emotion that is needed all the while keeping the character as real as a sci-fi film will allow. I will definitely keep an eye out for future films with these actors.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Canvas in Tabletop Games
Feb 3, 2021
I do not have any natural talent for art. That doesn’t stop me from enjoying it, though! Whether it’s coloring, painting, or crafting, I like to let my artistic side run free. So imagine my surprise as I was perusing Kickstarter one day and happened upon Canvas. A game about ‘painting’ and creating unique, brilliant, and one-of-a-kind pieces of artwork, all without having to worry about my lack of actual artistic talent?? I was immediately sold! Now that I have the game in hand and have gotten the opportunity to play it, will it withstand the test of time, like a classic masterpiece?
Canvas is a game of card drafting and set collection in which players are trying to layer their cards to create unique pieces of artwork that will earn them Ribbons (VP) at the local art festival. To begin, set up the canvas mat, 4 random Scoring Cards, Ribbon tokens, and Art cards in their corresponding locations in the play area. Each player receives 3 sleeved Background cards and 4 Inspiration tokens. Select a starting player, and the game is ready to begin!
Playing over a series of rounds, players will take turns either Taking an Art Card or Completing a Painting. If you choose to Take an Art Card, you select an Art Card from the canvas mat and take it into your hand. The card furthest from the draw deck is free, but subsequent cards must be ‘purchased’ by spending Inspiration. Place 1 Inspiration token on every card preceding the one you take into hand. If you select an Art Card that has an Inspiration token on it, you collect that token for future use!
If you have at least 3 Art Cards, or a maximum of 5 Art Cards in hand, you must Complete a Painting. You will select 3 of your Art Cards to be sleeved with one of your starting Background cards. You may layer the Art Cards in any order you choose – but remember, only visible icons are used for scoring! Once you have Completed a Painting, you immediately score that piece. Compare the visible icons on your final painting to the Scoring Cards, taking any corresponding Ribbon tokens for successfully meeting their requirements. Play continues in this manner until all players have completed their 3 paintings. Players count up their cumulative scores from all paintings, and the player with the most points is the winner!
The gameplay seems simple enough, right? Yes! It is very straightforward since you only have 2 options for each turn. Either draft a card, or complete a painting. Teaching time is minimal and the gameplay can move quickly. But THAT is where the simplicity ends, my friends. The heart of Canvas is in its strategy. Each game has 4 random Scoring Cards, which define how you will earn points. And each transparent Art Card has a number of icons at the bottom that will affect how you resolve each Scoring Card. By layering your Art Cards, you will cover some icons, while letting others remain visible. The possibilities are truly endless when it comes to how to layer your cards, but are you clever enough to layer them for maximum points? Admittedly, the various layering possibilities coupled with 4 different Scoring Cards can lead to some analysis paralysis, as players try to figure out every combination they have to see what could earn the most points. But all in all, I have found the that the gameplay is never really at a standstill, because as one player is taking their turn, all others can be strategizing with their own cards.
Let’s talk about components. First off, I love the canvas mat – it really brings the theme to life and is good quality! The Art Cards are colorful and sturdy, and they really are clear enough to see even when layered upon each other. (I should say that I did remove the plastic film from the manufacturing process.) The Scoring and Background cards are nice, big, and easy to read and understand. My deluxe copy of Canvas has Wooden Ribbons and Inspiration tokens instead of the standard cardboard, and they are nice, chunky, and fun to play with. There are even 5 small wooden easels on which players can display their masterpieces! All in all, the deluxe components are great quality and really elevate the gameplay. AND the game box literally has a hole in the back so it can be hung on the wall, like a real piece of art! Such a creative and immersive approach to the game, that just puts a smile on my face.
If you’ve read this far in my review, I think you can tell that I really love Canvas. The theme is creative, the gameplay is simple, but extremely strategic, and the high quality components really make it feel deluxe. Is there anything I don’t like about it? Maybe that it makes my brain hurt sometimes when trying to figure out the best layering combo of my Art Cards. But seriously, this game is a new and unique twist on some of my favorite mechanics. Canvas is quickly making its way towards my Top 10 list, and this is one I will definitely be pulling out at game nights pretty often. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one an eccentric 11 / 12. Give it a shot, I don’t think you’ll be disappointed.
Canvas is a game of card drafting and set collection in which players are trying to layer their cards to create unique pieces of artwork that will earn them Ribbons (VP) at the local art festival. To begin, set up the canvas mat, 4 random Scoring Cards, Ribbon tokens, and Art cards in their corresponding locations in the play area. Each player receives 3 sleeved Background cards and 4 Inspiration tokens. Select a starting player, and the game is ready to begin!
Playing over a series of rounds, players will take turns either Taking an Art Card or Completing a Painting. If you choose to Take an Art Card, you select an Art Card from the canvas mat and take it into your hand. The card furthest from the draw deck is free, but subsequent cards must be ‘purchased’ by spending Inspiration. Place 1 Inspiration token on every card preceding the one you take into hand. If you select an Art Card that has an Inspiration token on it, you collect that token for future use!
If you have at least 3 Art Cards, or a maximum of 5 Art Cards in hand, you must Complete a Painting. You will select 3 of your Art Cards to be sleeved with one of your starting Background cards. You may layer the Art Cards in any order you choose – but remember, only visible icons are used for scoring! Once you have Completed a Painting, you immediately score that piece. Compare the visible icons on your final painting to the Scoring Cards, taking any corresponding Ribbon tokens for successfully meeting their requirements. Play continues in this manner until all players have completed their 3 paintings. Players count up their cumulative scores from all paintings, and the player with the most points is the winner!
The gameplay seems simple enough, right? Yes! It is very straightforward since you only have 2 options for each turn. Either draft a card, or complete a painting. Teaching time is minimal and the gameplay can move quickly. But THAT is where the simplicity ends, my friends. The heart of Canvas is in its strategy. Each game has 4 random Scoring Cards, which define how you will earn points. And each transparent Art Card has a number of icons at the bottom that will affect how you resolve each Scoring Card. By layering your Art Cards, you will cover some icons, while letting others remain visible. The possibilities are truly endless when it comes to how to layer your cards, but are you clever enough to layer them for maximum points? Admittedly, the various layering possibilities coupled with 4 different Scoring Cards can lead to some analysis paralysis, as players try to figure out every combination they have to see what could earn the most points. But all in all, I have found the that the gameplay is never really at a standstill, because as one player is taking their turn, all others can be strategizing with their own cards.
Let’s talk about components. First off, I love the canvas mat – it really brings the theme to life and is good quality! The Art Cards are colorful and sturdy, and they really are clear enough to see even when layered upon each other. (I should say that I did remove the plastic film from the manufacturing process.) The Scoring and Background cards are nice, big, and easy to read and understand. My deluxe copy of Canvas has Wooden Ribbons and Inspiration tokens instead of the standard cardboard, and they are nice, chunky, and fun to play with. There are even 5 small wooden easels on which players can display their masterpieces! All in all, the deluxe components are great quality and really elevate the gameplay. AND the game box literally has a hole in the back so it can be hung on the wall, like a real piece of art! Such a creative and immersive approach to the game, that just puts a smile on my face.
If you’ve read this far in my review, I think you can tell that I really love Canvas. The theme is creative, the gameplay is simple, but extremely strategic, and the high quality components really make it feel deluxe. Is there anything I don’t like about it? Maybe that it makes my brain hurt sometimes when trying to figure out the best layering combo of my Art Cards. But seriously, this game is a new and unique twist on some of my favorite mechanics. Canvas is quickly making its way towards my Top 10 list, and this is one I will definitely be pulling out at game nights pretty often. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one an eccentric 11 / 12. Give it a shot, I don’t think you’ll be disappointed.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Parasite (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021 (Updated Jan 22, 2021)
Hello there! It’s been six weeks since my last post – Covid 19 related restriction issues sent me to a very odd place mentally and it has taken me a while to snap out of it enough to have the energy and will to keep writing these reviews. But what better way to recomense than with the history making Best Picture film from earlier in this strange year of 2020, before all the things that changed our way of thinking began?
The hype surrounding this movie in January was immense, for a film coming from Korea out of the blue, with an image and plot that didn’t fit into any of the normal marketing boxes. Every review ranged from this is incredible to… just see it for yourself. Nothing could have been more intriguing. I was certainly hooked on the idea, although by the time the Oscars came around I still hadn’t managed to see it at the cinema.
I found it fascinating that the academy had chosen 2020 as the year to change the dodgy sounding “Best Foreign Language film” to “Best International film”. It was about time, really, to acknowledge the us and them philosophy of world cinema didn’t really wash. And as the sublime Roma had paved the way for non English films to be considered again in all the main categories as serious contenders, I just had a feeling this was the year Oscar would make a statement with this film.
And so it turned out to be. It was a strong year. At the time I was a huge Joker advocate, having not yet seen 1917 either. Looking back now, I think, although not as perfect as Roma the year before, Parasite certainly deserves the praise and accolades it garnered from all around the world. Although any of those 3 films (Parasite, 1917 and Joker) would have been obvious winners in any other less competitive year.
So what is it about Parasite that raises it above the masses? Well, for a start it looks both beautiful and awe inspiring in every shot. Each image is designed and framed expertly to create a montage of mood and form that holds the multi-layered storytelling in place. Rarely have I seen such a well balanced and crisp visual design for a film, of any kind. Even with the subtitles off there is plenty to engage the eye and mind here. But it’s real secret is how it draws you in to believing you are watching one kind of satirical drama for about 40 minutes and then punches you in the solar plexus with the revelation that it has mutated into something darker, weirder and more entertaining on every level.
The “twist” when it comes along is so well placed and unexpected, even if you are told to expect one, that it entirely transforms your experience. You have been engaging with social issues and a basic satire on the rich vs the poor, where true power is a good wifi signal, and then, blam, you are watching a modern horror story with truly disturbing ramifications. I found this gear shift riveting and striking in a way that I can’t remember from a film in a long time.
But, looking back on it after several months, is that tonal shift really a strength? Some criticism, however minor in the scheme of things, did point this out, that what we get with Parasite is an unfocused and confused mix of genres that doesn’t entirely cohere. I mean, I see that, but have to disagree, simply because the writing at every point is too intelligent and sharp to give a damn about staying still and balanced on just one idea. Parasite is an exercise in energetic chaos that juggles many balls, all as interesting as one another, without dropping any of them.
Poverty, class, elitism, generational gaps, vanity, work ethics and morality, roles within a family unit, loyalty, weakness, revenge and bitterness are all themes here, and many more. Start going down the alley of one conversation that Parasite starts and end up somewhere entirely different in just a few sentences. And that is why it is worth seeing, several times. And that is why it works and was rewarded.
Is it a film I will be keen to see over again as the years pass? Yes and no. I’d probably be most interested to see it with someone who hasn’t seen it, to see their reaction. But I’m much less likely to give it multiple watches than the previous mentioned Joker and 1917, or indeed Roma, which I just can’t help comparing it to, even though they have virtually nothing in common, as I wish it had been Roma that made history at the awards rather than this. Of course, it is personal taste at that level of quality, but I believe Roma to be the better film.
If nothing else, however, Parasite marks the graduation of Bong Joon Ho, from a quirky filmmaker, whose interesting but not quite great near misses include The Host, Snowpiercer and Okja – all entertaining but flawed – to an auteur of considerable skill. Will the elements of his mind and vision ever align this well again. I hope so. I’ll be looking out for it, as will the rest of the world now.
The hype surrounding this movie in January was immense, for a film coming from Korea out of the blue, with an image and plot that didn’t fit into any of the normal marketing boxes. Every review ranged from this is incredible to… just see it for yourself. Nothing could have been more intriguing. I was certainly hooked on the idea, although by the time the Oscars came around I still hadn’t managed to see it at the cinema.
I found it fascinating that the academy had chosen 2020 as the year to change the dodgy sounding “Best Foreign Language film” to “Best International film”. It was about time, really, to acknowledge the us and them philosophy of world cinema didn’t really wash. And as the sublime Roma had paved the way for non English films to be considered again in all the main categories as serious contenders, I just had a feeling this was the year Oscar would make a statement with this film.
And so it turned out to be. It was a strong year. At the time I was a huge Joker advocate, having not yet seen 1917 either. Looking back now, I think, although not as perfect as Roma the year before, Parasite certainly deserves the praise and accolades it garnered from all around the world. Although any of those 3 films (Parasite, 1917 and Joker) would have been obvious winners in any other less competitive year.
So what is it about Parasite that raises it above the masses? Well, for a start it looks both beautiful and awe inspiring in every shot. Each image is designed and framed expertly to create a montage of mood and form that holds the multi-layered storytelling in place. Rarely have I seen such a well balanced and crisp visual design for a film, of any kind. Even with the subtitles off there is plenty to engage the eye and mind here. But it’s real secret is how it draws you in to believing you are watching one kind of satirical drama for about 40 minutes and then punches you in the solar plexus with the revelation that it has mutated into something darker, weirder and more entertaining on every level.
The “twist” when it comes along is so well placed and unexpected, even if you are told to expect one, that it entirely transforms your experience. You have been engaging with social issues and a basic satire on the rich vs the poor, where true power is a good wifi signal, and then, blam, you are watching a modern horror story with truly disturbing ramifications. I found this gear shift riveting and striking in a way that I can’t remember from a film in a long time.
But, looking back on it after several months, is that tonal shift really a strength? Some criticism, however minor in the scheme of things, did point this out, that what we get with Parasite is an unfocused and confused mix of genres that doesn’t entirely cohere. I mean, I see that, but have to disagree, simply because the writing at every point is too intelligent and sharp to give a damn about staying still and balanced on just one idea. Parasite is an exercise in energetic chaos that juggles many balls, all as interesting as one another, without dropping any of them.
Poverty, class, elitism, generational gaps, vanity, work ethics and morality, roles within a family unit, loyalty, weakness, revenge and bitterness are all themes here, and many more. Start going down the alley of one conversation that Parasite starts and end up somewhere entirely different in just a few sentences. And that is why it is worth seeing, several times. And that is why it works and was rewarded.
Is it a film I will be keen to see over again as the years pass? Yes and no. I’d probably be most interested to see it with someone who hasn’t seen it, to see their reaction. But I’m much less likely to give it multiple watches than the previous mentioned Joker and 1917, or indeed Roma, which I just can’t help comparing it to, even though they have virtually nothing in common, as I wish it had been Roma that made history at the awards rather than this. Of course, it is personal taste at that level of quality, but I believe Roma to be the better film.
If nothing else, however, Parasite marks the graduation of Bong Joon Ho, from a quirky filmmaker, whose interesting but not quite great near misses include The Host, Snowpiercer and Okja – all entertaining but flawed – to an auteur of considerable skill. Will the elements of his mind and vision ever align this well again. I hope so. I’ll be looking out for it, as will the rest of the world now.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Terrible Candidates in Tabletop Games
Aug 28, 2020
2020 is a year that will definitely go down in the history books for many reasons. Amidst a global pandemic, a growing civil rights movement, and a hurricane-like storm that ravaged the state of Iowa on August 10th, we ALSO find ourselves in an election year. As if things couldn’t get any crazier, right? Get in the campaigning mood by checking out Terrible Candidates, and remember to get out and vote on November 3rd, America!
Disclaimer: We were provided a copy of Terrible Candidates for the purposes of this review. The components pictured are finalized and are what come in a production copy of the game. I do not intend to rehash the entire rulebook, but rather provide an overview of the rules and general gameplay. -L
Terrible Candidates is a party game in which all players, candidates vying for the Presidency, participate in a series of public debates. At the end of the game, the player who has won the most debates is declared the new President! Setup is simple: Deal 5 Policy cards to each player, place the remaining Policy and Topic cards in the center of the table, place the Dumpster Fire of Democracy card within reach of all players to indicate the discard pile, and keep the President card off to the side.
The gameplay itself is just as simple! Select a pair of neighboring players to be the first debate Candidates. A Topic card is revealed, and the 2 Candidates select a Policy card from their hand to play in this debate. Once the Policy cards are selected, each Candidate gets 30 seconds to explain/debate their selected response to the Topic, providing as many talking points, facts (true or alternative) and other general jargon or nonsense to convince the Media (the non-Candidates for this turn) to vote for them. When both Candidates have made their debates, each member of the Media is allowed to ask one question, providing an extra chance for political shenanigans or hilarity. Once all questions have been asked, the Media votes on which Candidate they believe was the best of the pair, and that winning Candidate keeps the Topic card as their point. The game moves on to the next debate, rotating one person around the group to get a new pair of Candidates – one Candidate from the previous debate, and a new competitor. Play progresses in this manner until all players have participated in 2 debates, thus ending the round. Any players who have no Topic cards (meaning they didn’t win either of their debates in the round) is knocked out of the game, and the next round commences with the remaining players. The second round follows the steps of the first, and when all players have debated twice, the game ends. The player with the most Topic cards is declared the winner and becomes President!
I know that this game might seem like a lot, but it’s honestly not complicated. Each round works as follows: Debate, Question, Vote, and repeat until all players have done 2 debates. If there is one thing that is a must for a party game, it’s a simple set of rules and gameplay to maximize playing time, and Terrible Candidates has adhered to that policy (See what I did there?). The overall atmosphere of the game is reminiscent of CAH, but with a twist. In CAH, all players submit a card and one player is the ultimate judge for the turn, thus allowing players to cater to the personality/sense of humor of that one person. Terrible Candidates is a group effort, meaning that you have to get a majority of the votes in your favor to win the debate. Instead of focusing on one person, you have to be quick-witted and clever enough to find ways to influence all other players. That makes it feel like a more engaging game overall, since all players are involved in every step of the turn.
Obviously, this game has some political implications, but the gameplay can be whatever your group wants it to be. Playing with a group of highly political friends? Maybe it will turn into some intelligent debates and conversations throughout the night. Playing with the fam at a reunion or get-together? Go crazy, make up hilarious stories, and just have a good time. It all depends on your gaming group, and it can be whatever kind of game you want it to be – serious or silly. A caveat with this, as with CAH-esque games, is knowing your group and the kind of humor that is acceptable. Just make sure that however you decide to play, everyone involved is comfortable and having fun!
All in all, I think that Terrible Candidates is a fun and funny little game for everyone involved. As a Candidate, you put your improv skills to the test as you make ridiculous claims or present decent ideas in your 30-second time limit. As a member of the Media, you also get in on a little improv, coming up with a question to ask the Candidates, and then casting your vote for the most convincing side. This game can be so unpredictable, and that’s what helps keep it fresh, entertaining, and funny. Whether you are politically active or not, this game can result in some great times and good conversations among the group. If you’re up for it, take a chance and cast your vote for Terrible Candidates!
Disclaimer: We were provided a copy of Terrible Candidates for the purposes of this review. The components pictured are finalized and are what come in a production copy of the game. I do not intend to rehash the entire rulebook, but rather provide an overview of the rules and general gameplay. -L
Terrible Candidates is a party game in which all players, candidates vying for the Presidency, participate in a series of public debates. At the end of the game, the player who has won the most debates is declared the new President! Setup is simple: Deal 5 Policy cards to each player, place the remaining Policy and Topic cards in the center of the table, place the Dumpster Fire of Democracy card within reach of all players to indicate the discard pile, and keep the President card off to the side.
The gameplay itself is just as simple! Select a pair of neighboring players to be the first debate Candidates. A Topic card is revealed, and the 2 Candidates select a Policy card from their hand to play in this debate. Once the Policy cards are selected, each Candidate gets 30 seconds to explain/debate their selected response to the Topic, providing as many talking points, facts (true or alternative) and other general jargon or nonsense to convince the Media (the non-Candidates for this turn) to vote for them. When both Candidates have made their debates, each member of the Media is allowed to ask one question, providing an extra chance for political shenanigans or hilarity. Once all questions have been asked, the Media votes on which Candidate they believe was the best of the pair, and that winning Candidate keeps the Topic card as their point. The game moves on to the next debate, rotating one person around the group to get a new pair of Candidates – one Candidate from the previous debate, and a new competitor. Play progresses in this manner until all players have participated in 2 debates, thus ending the round. Any players who have no Topic cards (meaning they didn’t win either of their debates in the round) is knocked out of the game, and the next round commences with the remaining players. The second round follows the steps of the first, and when all players have debated twice, the game ends. The player with the most Topic cards is declared the winner and becomes President!
I know that this game might seem like a lot, but it’s honestly not complicated. Each round works as follows: Debate, Question, Vote, and repeat until all players have done 2 debates. If there is one thing that is a must for a party game, it’s a simple set of rules and gameplay to maximize playing time, and Terrible Candidates has adhered to that policy (See what I did there?). The overall atmosphere of the game is reminiscent of CAH, but with a twist. In CAH, all players submit a card and one player is the ultimate judge for the turn, thus allowing players to cater to the personality/sense of humor of that one person. Terrible Candidates is a group effort, meaning that you have to get a majority of the votes in your favor to win the debate. Instead of focusing on one person, you have to be quick-witted and clever enough to find ways to influence all other players. That makes it feel like a more engaging game overall, since all players are involved in every step of the turn.
Obviously, this game has some political implications, but the gameplay can be whatever your group wants it to be. Playing with a group of highly political friends? Maybe it will turn into some intelligent debates and conversations throughout the night. Playing with the fam at a reunion or get-together? Go crazy, make up hilarious stories, and just have a good time. It all depends on your gaming group, and it can be whatever kind of game you want it to be – serious or silly. A caveat with this, as with CAH-esque games, is knowing your group and the kind of humor that is acceptable. Just make sure that however you decide to play, everyone involved is comfortable and having fun!
All in all, I think that Terrible Candidates is a fun and funny little game for everyone involved. As a Candidate, you put your improv skills to the test as you make ridiculous claims or present decent ideas in your 30-second time limit. As a member of the Media, you also get in on a little improv, coming up with a question to ask the Candidates, and then casting your vote for the most convincing side. This game can be so unpredictable, and that’s what helps keep it fresh, entertaining, and funny. Whether you are politically active or not, this game can result in some great times and good conversations among the group. If you’re up for it, take a chance and cast your vote for Terrible Candidates!
IT… didn’t really float my boat.
IT is based on the Stephen King novel, and tells the disturbing recurring events that happen within the town of Derry in Maine. Kids keep disappearing and sightings of a spooky clown, other visitations and red balloons occur. A group of bullied high school kids – one directly impacted by the disappearances – work to get to the bottom of the supernatural goings on. (Fortunately they don’t have a dog called Scooby).
I had in mind that with the disturbing and dangerous “clowning around” that happened in the summer of 2016 that this film had been shot a while ago and the release delayed until now for fear of adding ‘clown-flavoured fuel’ to the fire. But it appears that filming only completed in September of last year, so that appears not to be the case.
The film starts memorably and brutally with the “drain scene” from the trailer. And very effective it is too. “Great!” you think… this is a spookfest that has legs! Unfortunately, for me at least, it all went downhill from there. The film really doesn’t seem to know WHAT it’s trying to be. There are elements of “Stand By Me”; elements of “Alien”; elements of “The Conjuring”, all thrown into a cinematic blender and pulsed well.
The most endearing aspects of the movie are the interactions of the small-town kids, with this aspect of the film bearing the closest comparison with J.J. Abrams’ “Super 8”. This is carried by the great performances of the young actors involved, with Jaeden Lieberher (so memorable in “Midnight Special”) as Bill; Jeremy Ray Taylor (“Ant Man”) as Ben (‘the chubby one’); and Finn Wolfhard, in his big-screen premiere and sporting an absurd set of glasses, as the wise-cracking Ritchie.
Standout for my though was the then 14-year old Sophia Lillis as Beverly (the nearest equivalent to the Elle Fanning role in “Super 8”). This young lady has SUCH screen presence, reminiscent of Emma Watson in the Harry Potter films. I think she is a name to watch!
While commenting on the acting I do need to acknowledge Bill Skarsgård (“Atomic Blonde” and son of Stellan Skarsgård) who is creepily effective as Pennywise the clown.
Having a film that just centred on the pubescent interplay between the youngsters and their battles against the near-psychopathic school bully Bowers (Nicholas Hamilton, “Captain Fantastic”) would have kept me well-entertained for two hours. However, in the same way that the hugely over-inflated Sci-Fi ending of “Super 8” rather detracted from that film, so the clown-related story popping up all the time just irritated me to distraction. (“WILL YOU JUST FECK OFF AND LEAVE US TO FIND OUT WHO BEVERLY GETS OFF WITH???!!”)
While the film has a number of good jump-scares, a lot of them – especially those with excessive use of CGI – just don’t really work. There are normally no “outcomes” from the scares. It’s all a bit like a ghost train where the carriage rounds a corner, something jumps out, and then the carriage moves on round the corner again! What makes a great horror film is where the “science” of the horror is well thought through. “Alien” was an exceptional example of that, where the science wasn’t just “physics” but also “biology”. Here (and I’m not sure whether this is true to the book… this is one of Stephen King’s I haven’t read) there seems to be no rules involved at all. Things happen fairly randomly: shape-shifting and effects on physical objects happen with no rational explanation; the kids can see things adults can’t see. (Why?). In fact the “adults” – the usual mix of Stephen King dysfunctional small-town crazies – seem to have no significant part in the story at all. It’s all like some lame teenage fantasy where actions (a number of individuals in the story meet their demise) seem to carry no legal consequences whatsoever. I half expected Bill to wake up – Dallas style – at the end and realise it had all been an “awful dream”!
In particular, the denouement is highly dissatisfying. An opportunity for a (very black) twist in the plot is discarded. Pennywise the clown’s departure is both lame and unconvincing. And there are numerous loose ends that are never properly tied down (what was that “floaters descending” dialogue about?…. it was just never followed through!).
It’s not all bad though. The location shoots in Bangor, Maine and the Ontario countryside are all beautifully rendered by cinematographer Chung-hoon Chung (“Stoker”) and where the film clicks with the young cast it clicks well and enjoyably. I just wish that the overall film wasn’t just such a jumbled-up mess. Blame for that must lie with the screenwriting team and director Andy Muschietti (“Mama”). I’m going to give it a kicking in my rating, since with all the marketing build-up it was certainly a disappointment. I see though that at the time of writing that this film sports an unfathomably high imdb rating of 8.0/10 so I’ll acknowledge that somebody must have seen something more in this than I did!!
I had in mind that with the disturbing and dangerous “clowning around” that happened in the summer of 2016 that this film had been shot a while ago and the release delayed until now for fear of adding ‘clown-flavoured fuel’ to the fire. But it appears that filming only completed in September of last year, so that appears not to be the case.
The film starts memorably and brutally with the “drain scene” from the trailer. And very effective it is too. “Great!” you think… this is a spookfest that has legs! Unfortunately, for me at least, it all went downhill from there. The film really doesn’t seem to know WHAT it’s trying to be. There are elements of “Stand By Me”; elements of “Alien”; elements of “The Conjuring”, all thrown into a cinematic blender and pulsed well.
The most endearing aspects of the movie are the interactions of the small-town kids, with this aspect of the film bearing the closest comparison with J.J. Abrams’ “Super 8”. This is carried by the great performances of the young actors involved, with Jaeden Lieberher (so memorable in “Midnight Special”) as Bill; Jeremy Ray Taylor (“Ant Man”) as Ben (‘the chubby one’); and Finn Wolfhard, in his big-screen premiere and sporting an absurd set of glasses, as the wise-cracking Ritchie.
Standout for my though was the then 14-year old Sophia Lillis as Beverly (the nearest equivalent to the Elle Fanning role in “Super 8”). This young lady has SUCH screen presence, reminiscent of Emma Watson in the Harry Potter films. I think she is a name to watch!
While commenting on the acting I do need to acknowledge Bill Skarsgård (“Atomic Blonde” and son of Stellan Skarsgård) who is creepily effective as Pennywise the clown.
Having a film that just centred on the pubescent interplay between the youngsters and their battles against the near-psychopathic school bully Bowers (Nicholas Hamilton, “Captain Fantastic”) would have kept me well-entertained for two hours. However, in the same way that the hugely over-inflated Sci-Fi ending of “Super 8” rather detracted from that film, so the clown-related story popping up all the time just irritated me to distraction. (“WILL YOU JUST FECK OFF AND LEAVE US TO FIND OUT WHO BEVERLY GETS OFF WITH???!!”)
While the film has a number of good jump-scares, a lot of them – especially those with excessive use of CGI – just don’t really work. There are normally no “outcomes” from the scares. It’s all a bit like a ghost train where the carriage rounds a corner, something jumps out, and then the carriage moves on round the corner again! What makes a great horror film is where the “science” of the horror is well thought through. “Alien” was an exceptional example of that, where the science wasn’t just “physics” but also “biology”. Here (and I’m not sure whether this is true to the book… this is one of Stephen King’s I haven’t read) there seems to be no rules involved at all. Things happen fairly randomly: shape-shifting and effects on physical objects happen with no rational explanation; the kids can see things adults can’t see. (Why?). In fact the “adults” – the usual mix of Stephen King dysfunctional small-town crazies – seem to have no significant part in the story at all. It’s all like some lame teenage fantasy where actions (a number of individuals in the story meet their demise) seem to carry no legal consequences whatsoever. I half expected Bill to wake up – Dallas style – at the end and realise it had all been an “awful dream”!
In particular, the denouement is highly dissatisfying. An opportunity for a (very black) twist in the plot is discarded. Pennywise the clown’s departure is both lame and unconvincing. And there are numerous loose ends that are never properly tied down (what was that “floaters descending” dialogue about?…. it was just never followed through!).
It’s not all bad though. The location shoots in Bangor, Maine and the Ontario countryside are all beautifully rendered by cinematographer Chung-hoon Chung (“Stoker”) and where the film clicks with the young cast it clicks well and enjoyably. I just wish that the overall film wasn’t just such a jumbled-up mess. Blame for that must lie with the screenwriting team and director Andy Muschietti (“Mama”). I’m going to give it a kicking in my rating, since with all the marketing build-up it was certainly a disappointment. I see though that at the time of writing that this film sports an unfathomably high imdb rating of 8.0/10 so I’ll acknowledge that somebody must have seen something more in this than I did!!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Their Finest (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Keep Calm and Carry on Writing.
In a well-mined category, “Their Finest” is a World War 2 comedy/drama telling a tale I haven’t seen told before: the story behind the British Ministry of Information and their drive to produce propaganda films that support morale and promote positive messages in a time of national crisis. For it is 1940 and London is under nightly attack by the Luftwaffe during the time known as “The Blitz”. Unfortunately the Ministry is run by a bunch of toffs, and their output is laughably misaligned with the working class population, and especially the female population: with their husbands fighting overseas, these two groups are fast becoming one and the same. For women are finding and enjoying new empowerment and freedom in being socially unshackled from the kitchen sink.
The brave crew of the Nancy Starling. Bill Nighy as Uncle Frank, with twins Lily and Francesca Knight as the Starling sisters.
Enter Catrin Cole (Gemma Arterton, “The Girl with all the Gifts“) who is one such woman arriving to a dangerous London from South Wales to live with struggling disabled artist Ellis (Jack Huston, grandson of John Huston). Catrin, stretching the truth a little, brings a stirring ‘true’ tale of derring-do about the Dunkirk evacuation to the Ministry’s attention. She is then employed to “write the slop” (the woman’s dialogue) in the writing team headed by spiky Tom Buckley (Sam Claflin, “Me Before You“).
One of the stars of the film within the film is ‘Uncle Frank’ played by the aging but charismatic actor Ambrose Hilliard (Bill Nighy, “Dad’s Army“, “Love Actually”). Catrin proves her worth by pouring oil on troubled waters as the army insist on the introduction of an American airman (Jake Lacy, “Carol“) to the stressful mix. An attraction builds between Catrin and Tom, but how will the love triangle resolve itself? (For a significant clue see the “Spoiler Section” below the trailer, but be warned that this is a major spoiler!).
As you might expect if you’ve seen the trailer the film is, in the main, warm and funny with Gemma Arterton just gorgeously huggable as the determined young lady trying to make it in a misogynistic 40’s world of work. Arterton is just the perfect “girl next door”: (sigh… if I was only 20 years younger and unattached!) But mixed in with the humour and the romantic storyline is a harsh sprinkling of the trials of war and not a little heartbreak occurs. This is at least a 5 tissue movie.
Claflin, who is having a strong year with appearances in a wide range of films, is also eminently watchable. One of his best scenes is a speech with Arterton about “why people love the movies”, a theory that the film merrily and memorably drives a stake through the heart of!
Elsewhere Lacy is hilarious as the hapless airman with zero acting ability; Helen McCrory (“Harry Potter”) as Sophie Smith vamps it up wonderfully as the potential Polish love interest for Hilliard; Richard E Grant (“Logan“) and Jeremy Irons (“The Lion King”, “Die Hard: with a Vengeance”) pop up in useful cameos and Eddie Marsan (“Sherlock Holmes”) is also touching as Hilliard’s long-suffering agent.
But it is Bill Nighy’s Hilliard who carries most of the wit and humour of the film with his pompous thespian persona, basking in the dwindling glory of a much loved series of “Inspector Lynley” films. With his pomposity progressively warming under the thawing effect of Sophie and Catrin, you have to love him! Bill Nighy is, well, Bill Nighy. Hugh Grant gets it (unfairly) in the neck for “being Hugh Grant” in every film, but this pales in comparison with Nighy’s performances! But who cares: his kooky delivery is just delightful and he is a national treasure!
Slightly less convincing for me was Rachael Stirling’s role as a butch ministry busybody with more than a hint of the lesbian about her. Stirling’s performance in the role is fine, but would this really have been so blatant in 1940’s Britain? This didn’t really ring true for me.
While the film gamely tries to pull off London in the Blitz the film’s limited budget (around £25m) makes everything feel a little underpowered and ’empty’: a few hundred more extras in the Underground/Blitz scenes for example would have helped no end. However, the special effects crew do their best and the cinematography by Sebastian Blenkov (“The Riot Club”) suitably conveys the mood: a scene where Catrin gets caught in a bomb blast outside a clothes shop is particularly moving.
As with all comedy dramas, sometimes the bedfellows lie uncomfortably with each other, and a couple of plot twists: one highly predictable; one shockingly unpredictable make this a non-linear watch. This rollercoaster of a script by Gaby Chiappe, in an excellent feature film debut (she actually also has a cameo in the propaganda “carrot film”!), undeniably adds interest and makes the film more memorable. However (I know from personal experience) that the twist did not please everyone in the audience!
Despite its occasionally uneven tone, this is a really enjoyable watch (particularly for more mature audiences) and Danish director Lone Scherfig finally has a vehicle that matches the quality of her much praised Carey Mulligan vehicle “An Education”.
The brave crew of the Nancy Starling. Bill Nighy as Uncle Frank, with twins Lily and Francesca Knight as the Starling sisters.
Enter Catrin Cole (Gemma Arterton, “The Girl with all the Gifts“) who is one such woman arriving to a dangerous London from South Wales to live with struggling disabled artist Ellis (Jack Huston, grandson of John Huston). Catrin, stretching the truth a little, brings a stirring ‘true’ tale of derring-do about the Dunkirk evacuation to the Ministry’s attention. She is then employed to “write the slop” (the woman’s dialogue) in the writing team headed by spiky Tom Buckley (Sam Claflin, “Me Before You“).
One of the stars of the film within the film is ‘Uncle Frank’ played by the aging but charismatic actor Ambrose Hilliard (Bill Nighy, “Dad’s Army“, “Love Actually”). Catrin proves her worth by pouring oil on troubled waters as the army insist on the introduction of an American airman (Jake Lacy, “Carol“) to the stressful mix. An attraction builds between Catrin and Tom, but how will the love triangle resolve itself? (For a significant clue see the “Spoiler Section” below the trailer, but be warned that this is a major spoiler!).
As you might expect if you’ve seen the trailer the film is, in the main, warm and funny with Gemma Arterton just gorgeously huggable as the determined young lady trying to make it in a misogynistic 40’s world of work. Arterton is just the perfect “girl next door”: (sigh… if I was only 20 years younger and unattached!) But mixed in with the humour and the romantic storyline is a harsh sprinkling of the trials of war and not a little heartbreak occurs. This is at least a 5 tissue movie.
Claflin, who is having a strong year with appearances in a wide range of films, is also eminently watchable. One of his best scenes is a speech with Arterton about “why people love the movies”, a theory that the film merrily and memorably drives a stake through the heart of!
Elsewhere Lacy is hilarious as the hapless airman with zero acting ability; Helen McCrory (“Harry Potter”) as Sophie Smith vamps it up wonderfully as the potential Polish love interest for Hilliard; Richard E Grant (“Logan“) and Jeremy Irons (“The Lion King”, “Die Hard: with a Vengeance”) pop up in useful cameos and Eddie Marsan (“Sherlock Holmes”) is also touching as Hilliard’s long-suffering agent.
But it is Bill Nighy’s Hilliard who carries most of the wit and humour of the film with his pompous thespian persona, basking in the dwindling glory of a much loved series of “Inspector Lynley” films. With his pomposity progressively warming under the thawing effect of Sophie and Catrin, you have to love him! Bill Nighy is, well, Bill Nighy. Hugh Grant gets it (unfairly) in the neck for “being Hugh Grant” in every film, but this pales in comparison with Nighy’s performances! But who cares: his kooky delivery is just delightful and he is a national treasure!
Slightly less convincing for me was Rachael Stirling’s role as a butch ministry busybody with more than a hint of the lesbian about her. Stirling’s performance in the role is fine, but would this really have been so blatant in 1940’s Britain? This didn’t really ring true for me.
While the film gamely tries to pull off London in the Blitz the film’s limited budget (around £25m) makes everything feel a little underpowered and ’empty’: a few hundred more extras in the Underground/Blitz scenes for example would have helped no end. However, the special effects crew do their best and the cinematography by Sebastian Blenkov (“The Riot Club”) suitably conveys the mood: a scene where Catrin gets caught in a bomb blast outside a clothes shop is particularly moving.
As with all comedy dramas, sometimes the bedfellows lie uncomfortably with each other, and a couple of plot twists: one highly predictable; one shockingly unpredictable make this a non-linear watch. This rollercoaster of a script by Gaby Chiappe, in an excellent feature film debut (she actually also has a cameo in the propaganda “carrot film”!), undeniably adds interest and makes the film more memorable. However (I know from personal experience) that the twist did not please everyone in the audience!
Despite its occasionally uneven tone, this is a really enjoyable watch (particularly for more mature audiences) and Danish director Lone Scherfig finally has a vehicle that matches the quality of her much praised Carey Mulligan vehicle “An Education”.