Search
Search results
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
Nancy (Rooney Mara) thinks she's suffering from an average case of nightmares that are causing her to lose sleep. A burned man with blades on his fingers haunts her dreams. She doesn't think much of it until her friends start getting picked off one by one while they sleep and are dreaming of the same man. Something happened during their childhood that connects them to this man that their parents are trying to cover up. As far as anyone else is concerned, Freddy Krueger (Jackie Earle Haley) never existed. What their parents refuse to believe is that Freddy exists in the dreams of their children causing them to remember their past and kill them. Now it's up to Nancy and her friend Quentin (Kyle Gallner) to figure out how the pieces of the puzzle fit before they become Freddy's next victims.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is one of the most beloved horror classics of all time. The original introduced us to Fred Krueger who would later be known as "Freddy" and evolve into one of the most popular icons in the horror genre. 26 years later, the film has been remade and Jackie Earle Haley has replaced Robert Englund as the dream-stalking child killer. Fans of the original franchise were left wondering if there was a slight chance of this being somewhat decent and if Haley's version of Freddy wouldn't be cringeworthy. Truth be told, the film may not be as bad as you're expecting.
This remake rests on the shoulders of Haley's portrayal of Freddy. If die hard horror fans can get past constantly comparing him to Englund, then they'll realize that Haley doesn't do a bad job. His Rorschach voice was actually a great choice for the role as it seemed to reverberate off the walls of the theater throughout the entire film. His stalking methods were a bit different than expected. Haley's Freddy doesn't talk as much as Englund's and seems to be off-screen just as often as he is on. The wisecracking has been toned way down, as well, but he does manage to squeeze in, "How's this for a wet dream?" Haley's version of Freddy is angry. He is PISSED that these kids squealed on him and he wants them to pay, but wants to dish out his revenge in a way that lets him have fun at the same time. His body language speaks volumes, too. His bladed fingers itch in anticipation of the kill. In fact, it seems like his fingers talk more than he does. The realistic burn victim route with the make-up seems like it's just as much a blessing as it is a curse. Freddy's eyes look really weird. They're too small and beady. He looks like kind of like a monkey when you do catch a full glimpse of his face. That's a shame, too. Since everything else looks pretty fantastic.
The storyline seems to basically follow the same path as the original film, but it probably should have skipped some of the new detours it makes along the way. Kris dreams of herself as a child with bloody claw marks across her torso and then finds the same dress with four gashes in her attic, but she doesn't have any scars from this rather severe injury she obtained when she was five? Even if the explanation was she had some sort of cosmetic surgery, wouldn't that be just as traumatic for a child? The CG version of the scene where we see Freddy coming out of the wall in the remake is probably the weakest in the entire film. The scene in the original is one of its most memorable visuals. In the remake, it's botched thanks to crummy CG. Even in comparison to the rest of the CG in the film, it doesn't measure up. It's the one scene that I wasn't able to look past. However, the micronaps idea is truly fantastic for the film. That was one thing I highly approved of going into it. The way that is pulled off is one of the highlights of the remake. It's one of those ideas that fits so perfectly, you're surprised it wasn't in the original film. Fred Krueger's background is where the film really goes into its own territory though. Fred was a gardener who lived in the basement of Badham Pre-School and the children were his life. He apparently took them to his "cave" where they emerged with scratches on their bodies. The parents of Elm Street don't bother trying to inform the police. They just burn Krueger alive as retribution to what he did to their children. While the original franchise never really came right out and said that Freddy was a child molester, it always strongly hinted at it. The remake seems to basically come right out and say that he is one without actually saying it. The evidence they find in his "cave" solidifies that fact. Maybe they felt like they needed to do that since this is such a "serious" version of Freddy...? Certain things just don't add up in the long run. Quentin and Nancy are driving in a car at one point and Quentin has a micronap where he sees Freddy in front of the car. He swerves out of the way to avoid hitting him and winds up in this boggy marsh off the side of the road. The question is WHY would you swerve out of the way of a man who was trying to kill you?
The kills seem to get more gruesome as the film goes on. It's a nice route to go, really. The last kill of the film is probably the one you'll remember most. I wasn't too incredibly attached to Nancy in the original film, but Rooney Mara's version was really boring. You don't care about what happens to her at all. You're more interested in what happens to her friends. She's an art student that can't sleep and is connected to Freddy somehow. That's pretty much all that's revealed. Why should we care that she may die?
A Nightmare on Elm Street certainly has its misfires when it comes to special effects and its storyline, but the problems it has aren't really any different than the problems most modern day horror movies have. At least the acting wasn't terrible like in an 80s slasher and the CG effects aren't incredibly outdated or anything. The film was designed to appeal to the demographic going to movie theaters to see a horror movie in 2010 and it seems to do that very well. Sure, it probably doesn't live up to the original film, but not many remakes do. If people see this without seeing the original film first, they'll probably love the remake. For original Freddy fans though, it'll probably come down to Haley's portrayal of Freddy. If you can see the film without any expectations or with finally accepting the fact that Robert Englund is no longer Freddy, it actually isn't quite as terrible as you may have originally thought. Strangely enough, it's even entertaining at times. Go figure.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is one of the most beloved horror classics of all time. The original introduced us to Fred Krueger who would later be known as "Freddy" and evolve into one of the most popular icons in the horror genre. 26 years later, the film has been remade and Jackie Earle Haley has replaced Robert Englund as the dream-stalking child killer. Fans of the original franchise were left wondering if there was a slight chance of this being somewhat decent and if Haley's version of Freddy wouldn't be cringeworthy. Truth be told, the film may not be as bad as you're expecting.
This remake rests on the shoulders of Haley's portrayal of Freddy. If die hard horror fans can get past constantly comparing him to Englund, then they'll realize that Haley doesn't do a bad job. His Rorschach voice was actually a great choice for the role as it seemed to reverberate off the walls of the theater throughout the entire film. His stalking methods were a bit different than expected. Haley's Freddy doesn't talk as much as Englund's and seems to be off-screen just as often as he is on. The wisecracking has been toned way down, as well, but he does manage to squeeze in, "How's this for a wet dream?" Haley's version of Freddy is angry. He is PISSED that these kids squealed on him and he wants them to pay, but wants to dish out his revenge in a way that lets him have fun at the same time. His body language speaks volumes, too. His bladed fingers itch in anticipation of the kill. In fact, it seems like his fingers talk more than he does. The realistic burn victim route with the make-up seems like it's just as much a blessing as it is a curse. Freddy's eyes look really weird. They're too small and beady. He looks like kind of like a monkey when you do catch a full glimpse of his face. That's a shame, too. Since everything else looks pretty fantastic.
The storyline seems to basically follow the same path as the original film, but it probably should have skipped some of the new detours it makes along the way. Kris dreams of herself as a child with bloody claw marks across her torso and then finds the same dress with four gashes in her attic, but she doesn't have any scars from this rather severe injury she obtained when she was five? Even if the explanation was she had some sort of cosmetic surgery, wouldn't that be just as traumatic for a child? The CG version of the scene where we see Freddy coming out of the wall in the remake is probably the weakest in the entire film. The scene in the original is one of its most memorable visuals. In the remake, it's botched thanks to crummy CG. Even in comparison to the rest of the CG in the film, it doesn't measure up. It's the one scene that I wasn't able to look past. However, the micronaps idea is truly fantastic for the film. That was one thing I highly approved of going into it. The way that is pulled off is one of the highlights of the remake. It's one of those ideas that fits so perfectly, you're surprised it wasn't in the original film. Fred Krueger's background is where the film really goes into its own territory though. Fred was a gardener who lived in the basement of Badham Pre-School and the children were his life. He apparently took them to his "cave" where they emerged with scratches on their bodies. The parents of Elm Street don't bother trying to inform the police. They just burn Krueger alive as retribution to what he did to their children. While the original franchise never really came right out and said that Freddy was a child molester, it always strongly hinted at it. The remake seems to basically come right out and say that he is one without actually saying it. The evidence they find in his "cave" solidifies that fact. Maybe they felt like they needed to do that since this is such a "serious" version of Freddy...? Certain things just don't add up in the long run. Quentin and Nancy are driving in a car at one point and Quentin has a micronap where he sees Freddy in front of the car. He swerves out of the way to avoid hitting him and winds up in this boggy marsh off the side of the road. The question is WHY would you swerve out of the way of a man who was trying to kill you?
The kills seem to get more gruesome as the film goes on. It's a nice route to go, really. The last kill of the film is probably the one you'll remember most. I wasn't too incredibly attached to Nancy in the original film, but Rooney Mara's version was really boring. You don't care about what happens to her at all. You're more interested in what happens to her friends. She's an art student that can't sleep and is connected to Freddy somehow. That's pretty much all that's revealed. Why should we care that she may die?
A Nightmare on Elm Street certainly has its misfires when it comes to special effects and its storyline, but the problems it has aren't really any different than the problems most modern day horror movies have. At least the acting wasn't terrible like in an 80s slasher and the CG effects aren't incredibly outdated or anything. The film was designed to appeal to the demographic going to movie theaters to see a horror movie in 2010 and it seems to do that very well. Sure, it probably doesn't live up to the original film, but not many remakes do. If people see this without seeing the original film first, they'll probably love the remake. For original Freddy fans though, it'll probably come down to Haley's portrayal of Freddy. If you can see the film without any expectations or with finally accepting the fact that Robert Englund is no longer Freddy, it actually isn't quite as terrible as you may have originally thought. Strangely enough, it's even entertaining at times. Go figure.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Widows (2018) in Movies
Nov 14, 2018 (Updated Nov 14, 2018)
Outstanding performances from the entire cast (3 more)
Phenomenal Direction
Clever Cinematography
A Brilliant Script With Sharp Dialogue
The Best Movie I Have Seen This Year
Widows is an outstanding thriller from Steve McQueen. It stars a brilliant Viola Davis as Veronica Rawlings at the top of her game as a widow of her criminal husband. He and his crew died during the heist and now she and the other widows of the recently deceased crew decide to complete the heist and take the money for themselves. That is the basic plot outline, but it is actually a lot more in depth and layered than that, embroiled in politics and gang rivalries, amongst even more complex elements. However, although there are a lot of moving parts in the film, it never seems confused or messy. It doesn't treat it's audience like idiots either, as long as you are paying attention.
The cast are astonishing in the movie and I truly believe that is the sign of a great director getting the best out of his actors. Viola Davis is an acting powerhouse, making you want to cry one moment and then stand up and jump into battle with her the next. That woman could read the phonebook and make it sound convincingly intense. She is supported by a fantastic turn from Michelle Rodrigez, an actress who I have been a fan of for years, but can sometimes be known to come across fairly wooden. Not here, she is convincing and passionate in every scene she appears in. I also really liked seeing Elizabeth Debecki playing against type here. She is usually cast as a 'perfect,' type of character, such as Tom Hiddleston's love interest in Night Manager or as a member of the perfect alien race in Guardians of The Galaxy. Here she is a much more realistic, down to earth character. Cynthia Erivo, who came out of nowhere and blew me away in Bad Times At The El Royale, also appears here as the crew's driver and gives a genuine, energetic performance who is also the first one to stand up to Veronica's hard-ass attitude. Carrie Coon appears briefly as another widow, but her role is more of a cameo than anything else, it is still important to the story though towards the film's conclusion.
The male actors in the film are equally as brilliant as their female counterparts. I don't want to give too much away about Liam Neeson's Henry Rawlings, but he is convincing and engaging in every part of his performance. Jon Bernthal is slowly becoming the king of appearing in small impactful roles in big ensemble movies. He has already done this in Wolf Of Wall Street, Baby Driver, Sicario and Wind River and he does it here too appearing in a small but memorable role as one of Henry's crew. Colin Farrell and Robert Duvall are great as usual here, as a believable father and son duo. Daniel Kaluuya deserves a special shout out as the movie's main antagonist. This role really gives Kaluuya a chance to flex his more cruel acting skills and show off his versatility as a performer.
The script written by McQueen and Gillian Flynn is full of razor sharp wit and electrifying moments. This is the type of golden material that most actors dream of getting to work with. The movie is shot by Sean Bobbitt who uses an array of clever camera angles and techniques to help convey the mood of each scene. Bobbit also shot Hunger, Shame and 12 Years a Slave and there is a reason that McQueen continues to use him to shoot his films. The score and audio mixing was also effective and helped to amplify the atmosphere throughout the movie.
Overall, Widows is a perfect storm of extremely high quality technical aspects and exquisite performances from an exceptionally talented ensemble of actors. If you didn't get what you wanted out of a female led heist thriller from Ocean's 8, then go out and see this masterpiece asap.
The cast are astonishing in the movie and I truly believe that is the sign of a great director getting the best out of his actors. Viola Davis is an acting powerhouse, making you want to cry one moment and then stand up and jump into battle with her the next. That woman could read the phonebook and make it sound convincingly intense. She is supported by a fantastic turn from Michelle Rodrigez, an actress who I have been a fan of for years, but can sometimes be known to come across fairly wooden. Not here, she is convincing and passionate in every scene she appears in. I also really liked seeing Elizabeth Debecki playing against type here. She is usually cast as a 'perfect,' type of character, such as Tom Hiddleston's love interest in Night Manager or as a member of the perfect alien race in Guardians of The Galaxy. Here she is a much more realistic, down to earth character. Cynthia Erivo, who came out of nowhere and blew me away in Bad Times At The El Royale, also appears here as the crew's driver and gives a genuine, energetic performance who is also the first one to stand up to Veronica's hard-ass attitude. Carrie Coon appears briefly as another widow, but her role is more of a cameo than anything else, it is still important to the story though towards the film's conclusion.
The male actors in the film are equally as brilliant as their female counterparts. I don't want to give too much away about Liam Neeson's Henry Rawlings, but he is convincing and engaging in every part of his performance. Jon Bernthal is slowly becoming the king of appearing in small impactful roles in big ensemble movies. He has already done this in Wolf Of Wall Street, Baby Driver, Sicario and Wind River and he does it here too appearing in a small but memorable role as one of Henry's crew. Colin Farrell and Robert Duvall are great as usual here, as a believable father and son duo. Daniel Kaluuya deserves a special shout out as the movie's main antagonist. This role really gives Kaluuya a chance to flex his more cruel acting skills and show off his versatility as a performer.
The script written by McQueen and Gillian Flynn is full of razor sharp wit and electrifying moments. This is the type of golden material that most actors dream of getting to work with. The movie is shot by Sean Bobbitt who uses an array of clever camera angles and techniques to help convey the mood of each scene. Bobbit also shot Hunger, Shame and 12 Years a Slave and there is a reason that McQueen continues to use him to shoot his films. The score and audio mixing was also effective and helped to amplify the atmosphere throughout the movie.
Overall, Widows is a perfect storm of extremely high quality technical aspects and exquisite performances from an exceptionally talented ensemble of actors. If you didn't get what you wanted out of a female led heist thriller from Ocean's 8, then go out and see this masterpiece asap.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Book of Blood (2008) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
"The dead have highways. Highways that lead to intersections and intersections that spill into our world. And if you find yourself at one of those intersections, you should stop and you should listen because the dead have stories to tell."
Mary Florescu, writer, teacher, and overall expert of the paranormal, is still looking for the distinct evidence of supernatural occurences. A house catches her eye that has been on the market since the daughter of the couple living there before had been murdered. It's said the original homeowner was thrown against the wall by an invisible force so hard that shards of his broken bones pierced his lungs and he choked to death on his own blood. During each incident, the message, "Don't mock us," was found written in blood on the closet doors. Mary decides to move into the house to find proof of the supernatural, bringing an audio/video technician, Reg Fuller, to help document anything they find. A new student, Simon McNeal, transfers into Mary's class. He seems to have a special gift related to the paranormal and is brought into the house to help work with Mary and Reg on the project. Strange occurences seem to begin immediately and only get more violent as they occur. But as things progress, the relationship between Mary and Simon turns physical and suspicious evidence is found in Simon's bag that point to him being a fake. Is the house actually "haunted," or is Simon playing everyone for a fool?
I'm a fairly big fan of Clive Barker's work. I've loved the books and stories (Books of Blood Vol. 1-3, Mister B. Gone, The Hellbound Heart) of his that I've read and several of his films (Hellraiser, Midnight Meat Train) are some of the best the horror genre has to offer. Midnight Meat Train was probably the best horror film to come out of last year, so my expectations were high when I heard about this film and saw the trailer. This was one of my most anticipated horror films of the year even though it seemed to get the short end of the stick with its release much like what happened with Midnight Meat Train. I can tell you that Book of Blood is a good watch, but it may not be what you're expecting.
Book of Blood has its bloody moments, but it's not an all out gorefest. It's actually more of a supernatural thriller. The director, John Harrison, described the film as being more along the lines of films like The Others and The Orphanage. It relies more on mood and atmosphere rather than blood and guts splattering all over your face, which isn't a bad thing at all if done correctly. Book of Blood almost pulls that aspect of the film flawlessly. I say, "almost," because certain lines of dialogue ("I promise we will listen and I will tell your stories to the world.") and a few of the things that happened in the final act of the film (steel briefcase...it'll make sense when you see it) seem a bit cheesy, but may sit better with me on repeat viewings.
The film actually reminded me of Hellraiser quite a bit throughout the film. Other than Doug Bradley's brief cameo (if you blink, you'll probably miss him), the opening scene of when Reg and Mary go into the room where everything happened just reminds me of Frank staying in the attic in Hellraiser. Hellraiser is one of my favorite horror films, so the brief nod to the film (whether intentional or not) was very welcome to me.
My main concern with Book of Blood was how they were going to turn a short story that was originally just an introduction to the actual Books of Blood by Clive Barker into a full length film. The concern wound up being for nothing as Book of Blood met nearly all of my expectations and was extremely faithful to the original material while bringing in elements from another one of his stories called, "On Jerusalem Street." The story fleshes out nicely and the acting is good, for the most part. I think the perfectionist in me kept me from rating this any higher, but I'd definitely recommend it as it's a worthy addition to any avid horror movie enthusiast's collection.
Mary Florescu, writer, teacher, and overall expert of the paranormal, is still looking for the distinct evidence of supernatural occurences. A house catches her eye that has been on the market since the daughter of the couple living there before had been murdered. It's said the original homeowner was thrown against the wall by an invisible force so hard that shards of his broken bones pierced his lungs and he choked to death on his own blood. During each incident, the message, "Don't mock us," was found written in blood on the closet doors. Mary decides to move into the house to find proof of the supernatural, bringing an audio/video technician, Reg Fuller, to help document anything they find. A new student, Simon McNeal, transfers into Mary's class. He seems to have a special gift related to the paranormal and is brought into the house to help work with Mary and Reg on the project. Strange occurences seem to begin immediately and only get more violent as they occur. But as things progress, the relationship between Mary and Simon turns physical and suspicious evidence is found in Simon's bag that point to him being a fake. Is the house actually "haunted," or is Simon playing everyone for a fool?
I'm a fairly big fan of Clive Barker's work. I've loved the books and stories (Books of Blood Vol. 1-3, Mister B. Gone, The Hellbound Heart) of his that I've read and several of his films (Hellraiser, Midnight Meat Train) are some of the best the horror genre has to offer. Midnight Meat Train was probably the best horror film to come out of last year, so my expectations were high when I heard about this film and saw the trailer. This was one of my most anticipated horror films of the year even though it seemed to get the short end of the stick with its release much like what happened with Midnight Meat Train. I can tell you that Book of Blood is a good watch, but it may not be what you're expecting.
Book of Blood has its bloody moments, but it's not an all out gorefest. It's actually more of a supernatural thriller. The director, John Harrison, described the film as being more along the lines of films like The Others and The Orphanage. It relies more on mood and atmosphere rather than blood and guts splattering all over your face, which isn't a bad thing at all if done correctly. Book of Blood almost pulls that aspect of the film flawlessly. I say, "almost," because certain lines of dialogue ("I promise we will listen and I will tell your stories to the world.") and a few of the things that happened in the final act of the film (steel briefcase...it'll make sense when you see it) seem a bit cheesy, but may sit better with me on repeat viewings.
The film actually reminded me of Hellraiser quite a bit throughout the film. Other than Doug Bradley's brief cameo (if you blink, you'll probably miss him), the opening scene of when Reg and Mary go into the room where everything happened just reminds me of Frank staying in the attic in Hellraiser. Hellraiser is one of my favorite horror films, so the brief nod to the film (whether intentional or not) was very welcome to me.
My main concern with Book of Blood was how they were going to turn a short story that was originally just an introduction to the actual Books of Blood by Clive Barker into a full length film. The concern wound up being for nothing as Book of Blood met nearly all of my expectations and was extremely faithful to the original material while bringing in elements from another one of his stories called, "On Jerusalem Street." The story fleshes out nicely and the acting is good, for the most part. I think the perfectionist in me kept me from rating this any higher, but I'd definitely recommend it as it's a worthy addition to any avid horror movie enthusiast's collection.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Finding your feet (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Foot tapping and Tear Jerking.
There are some films whose trailers really don’t properly represent their contents. The trailer for the new ‘grey-pound’ film “Finding Your Feet” promised a light hearted and witty foray into an elderly dance-club. And, yes, you get some laughs. But it’s very much a bitter sweet comedy, and the bitterness is ladled on by the bucketload leading to more tears than smiles through the majority of the running time.
Sandra (Imelda Staunton, “Pride“) – now Lady Sandra, after her husband’s latest knighthood – is in a predictable, sex-free but reasonably happy marriage to legal beagle Mike (John Sessions, “Denial“, “Florence Foster Jenkins“) when her world is shaken to its core on discovering that Mike has been having a five-year affair with her best friend Pamela (Josie Lawrence). Moving in with her Bohemian sister Bif (Celia Imrie, “Bridget Jones Baby“), she struggles to integrate into her decidedly lower class lifestyle and find common ground with Bif’s dance club friends Charlie (Timothy Spall, “Denial“, “Mr Turner”), Ted (David Hayman) and Jackie (Joanna Lumley, “The Wolf of Wall Street“).
Can Sandra turn her downward spiral around and find love and happiness again? Well, the posters scream “The Feel Good Film of the Year” so you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know the answer to that! But it’s a bumpy journey for sure.
Getting all the acting honours is Timothy Spall, who is far too good to be buried away in this small British rom com. To watch him do “ordinary bloke doing ordinary things” is an absolute delight. He adds class and distinction to every scene he’s in, especially for those concerned with his truly tragic and upsetting back-story. Running a close second is Celia Imrie who has a wicked smile off to perfection and adds a lot of emotional depth to her performance: and she needs the range, since she too is on a pretty emotional journey through the second half of the film.
John Sessions and Josie Lawrence – old compatriots of course from the original version of TV’s “Whose Line Is It Anyway” – also deliver marvellous cameo performances, as does Phoebe Nicholls (“The Elephant Man”, “Downton Abbey”) as the tennis playing friend Janet.
Less convincing for me was Imelda Staunton, particularly in the first half of the film: for me she never quite pulls off the icy cold emotional wreck of Sandra, but is much better once the thaw has set in.
The film is written by Meg Leonard (in a debut script) and Nick Moorcroft (who did the “St Trinians” scripts). And there are some funny lines in there, although it has to be said that there are not enough of them. The majority of the best ones in fact are in the trailer, never bettered by Joanna Lumley’s zinger…. “My last marriage ended for religious reasons…. he thought he was God and I didn’t”! There’s not much more room for comic lines, since the rest of the script is stuffed with the dramatic outcomes from various flavours of old-age malady. Fortunately I was one of the younger members of the generally grey-haired audience, but for those further up the scale it must have been like staring into the void!
The film will win no awards for choreography, since the dance scenes are gloriously inept and out of sync. But this all rather adds to the charm of the piece.
Directed by Richard Loncraine, director of the equally forgettable Brit-flick “Wimbledon” and the rather more memorable “Brimstone and Treacle”, this is as Douglas Adams would have said “Mostly Harmless”: a film that most over-50’s will find a pleasant way to spend two hours. But go in expecting a drama with comic moments, rather than the hilarious comedy predicted by the trailer, and you will be better prepared.
(I should comment that the rating below is my view: my illustrious wife declared it a triumphant chick-flick and gave it FFFFf).
Sandra (Imelda Staunton, “Pride“) – now Lady Sandra, after her husband’s latest knighthood – is in a predictable, sex-free but reasonably happy marriage to legal beagle Mike (John Sessions, “Denial“, “Florence Foster Jenkins“) when her world is shaken to its core on discovering that Mike has been having a five-year affair with her best friend Pamela (Josie Lawrence). Moving in with her Bohemian sister Bif (Celia Imrie, “Bridget Jones Baby“), she struggles to integrate into her decidedly lower class lifestyle and find common ground with Bif’s dance club friends Charlie (Timothy Spall, “Denial“, “Mr Turner”), Ted (David Hayman) and Jackie (Joanna Lumley, “The Wolf of Wall Street“).
Can Sandra turn her downward spiral around and find love and happiness again? Well, the posters scream “The Feel Good Film of the Year” so you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know the answer to that! But it’s a bumpy journey for sure.
Getting all the acting honours is Timothy Spall, who is far too good to be buried away in this small British rom com. To watch him do “ordinary bloke doing ordinary things” is an absolute delight. He adds class and distinction to every scene he’s in, especially for those concerned with his truly tragic and upsetting back-story. Running a close second is Celia Imrie who has a wicked smile off to perfection and adds a lot of emotional depth to her performance: and she needs the range, since she too is on a pretty emotional journey through the second half of the film.
John Sessions and Josie Lawrence – old compatriots of course from the original version of TV’s “Whose Line Is It Anyway” – also deliver marvellous cameo performances, as does Phoebe Nicholls (“The Elephant Man”, “Downton Abbey”) as the tennis playing friend Janet.
Less convincing for me was Imelda Staunton, particularly in the first half of the film: for me she never quite pulls off the icy cold emotional wreck of Sandra, but is much better once the thaw has set in.
The film is written by Meg Leonard (in a debut script) and Nick Moorcroft (who did the “St Trinians” scripts). And there are some funny lines in there, although it has to be said that there are not enough of them. The majority of the best ones in fact are in the trailer, never bettered by Joanna Lumley’s zinger…. “My last marriage ended for religious reasons…. he thought he was God and I didn’t”! There’s not much more room for comic lines, since the rest of the script is stuffed with the dramatic outcomes from various flavours of old-age malady. Fortunately I was one of the younger members of the generally grey-haired audience, but for those further up the scale it must have been like staring into the void!
The film will win no awards for choreography, since the dance scenes are gloriously inept and out of sync. But this all rather adds to the charm of the piece.
Directed by Richard Loncraine, director of the equally forgettable Brit-flick “Wimbledon” and the rather more memorable “Brimstone and Treacle”, this is as Douglas Adams would have said “Mostly Harmless”: a film that most over-50’s will find a pleasant way to spend two hours. But go in expecting a drama with comic moments, rather than the hilarious comedy predicted by the trailer, and you will be better prepared.
(I should comment that the rating below is my view: my illustrious wife declared it a triumphant chick-flick and gave it FFFFf).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated I, Tonya (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Some Darwin award winners.
Man, I personally found this one to be an exceedingly uncomfortable watch.
“I, Tonya” is cleverly filmed as a pseudo-documentary, featuring re-enactments of the real-life interviews of most of the participants in this true-life drama. I recently bitterly criticised some film critics for spoiling the story of Donald Crowhurst, the subject of the recent “The Mercy”. But I was about to do exactly the same here, *assuming* that you all know the lurid tale of the rivalry between Tonya Harding and Nancy Kerrigan that led up to an ‘event’ in 1994 that shocked the world. And of course, many of you younger folk don’t know: case in point my 26 year old son who I went to see this with, and who went into the story blissfully blind of the drama about to unfold. So I will try to keep this review spoiler-free.
Playing Tonya from a (not very credible!) 15 years old to her mid-20’s is Margot Robbie (“The Wolf of Wall Street”, “Suicide Squad”) in what is a BAFTA and Oscar nominated performance. And for good reason: the performance is raw, visceral and disturbing in reflecting a victim who still thinks everything at heart is her own fault.
Also BAFTA and Oscar nominated is Allison Janney (“The Girl on the Train”) as Tonya’s obnoxious chain-smoking mother LaVona. Janney is truly terrifying as the mother who abuses her daughter both physically and mentally in a driven attempt to make her the best ice-skater in the world.
Victims seem to attract abusers, and Tonya is surrounded by people who are just plain bad for her: notably her husband Jeff (Sebastian Stan, “The Martian”, “Captain America: Winter Soldier”) and his slimy and pitifully self-deluded friend Shawn (Paul Walter Hauser). The end credits video footage of the real-life players show just how well these parts were cast.
Why so uncomfortable to watch? There is a significant degree of domestic abuse featured in the film, both in terms of LaVona on her child and Jeff on his wife. This is something I abhor in general, having been brought up to believe it is never EVER acceptable to lay a hand on a woman. To have these cowardly individuals sensationalised in the movie I found to be really upsetting. I strongly feel, for this reason alone, that the film should have had an 18 certificate. Violence in film should be related to the context as well as the severity. (Note that this is in stark contrast to my comments of recent BBFC decisions to make “Phantom Thread” and “Lady Bird” 15-certificates when I believe they should have been 12A).
The film is executed extremely well, with 4:3 framing for the staged interviews, and ice skating scenes that seamlessly cut between the professional clearly doing the stunts and Robbie (who must also be a half decent skater too). The soundtrack is nicely littered – “Guardians of the Galaxy” style – with classic hits of the early 90’s.
To think that this story actually unfolded in this way is nothing short of astounding… but it did! There is an astonishing video clip here (#spoilers) of the run up to, and the immediate aftermath of, the Kerrigan incident. I came out of the film with a deep feeling of sadness for Harding (at least, as portrayed) and utter disgust that the villains of this piece could be a) so cruel and out of control and b) so utterly stupid. These are individuals who really should have been sterilised to stop them polluting the gene pool any further.
Written by Steven Rogers (“Stepmom”) and directed by Australian Craig Gillespie, there is no doubting that this is a powerful film: played to an absolutely silent and gripped Saturday night cinema audience. And it has truly dynamite performances from Allison Janney and Margot Robbie. But be warned that you’ll need a strong stomach to go and see it without being affected by it afterwards. It’s a mental keeper.
“I, Tonya” is cleverly filmed as a pseudo-documentary, featuring re-enactments of the real-life interviews of most of the participants in this true-life drama. I recently bitterly criticised some film critics for spoiling the story of Donald Crowhurst, the subject of the recent “The Mercy”. But I was about to do exactly the same here, *assuming* that you all know the lurid tale of the rivalry between Tonya Harding and Nancy Kerrigan that led up to an ‘event’ in 1994 that shocked the world. And of course, many of you younger folk don’t know: case in point my 26 year old son who I went to see this with, and who went into the story blissfully blind of the drama about to unfold. So I will try to keep this review spoiler-free.
Playing Tonya from a (not very credible!) 15 years old to her mid-20’s is Margot Robbie (“The Wolf of Wall Street”, “Suicide Squad”) in what is a BAFTA and Oscar nominated performance. And for good reason: the performance is raw, visceral and disturbing in reflecting a victim who still thinks everything at heart is her own fault.
Also BAFTA and Oscar nominated is Allison Janney (“The Girl on the Train”) as Tonya’s obnoxious chain-smoking mother LaVona. Janney is truly terrifying as the mother who abuses her daughter both physically and mentally in a driven attempt to make her the best ice-skater in the world.
Victims seem to attract abusers, and Tonya is surrounded by people who are just plain bad for her: notably her husband Jeff (Sebastian Stan, “The Martian”, “Captain America: Winter Soldier”) and his slimy and pitifully self-deluded friend Shawn (Paul Walter Hauser). The end credits video footage of the real-life players show just how well these parts were cast.
Why so uncomfortable to watch? There is a significant degree of domestic abuse featured in the film, both in terms of LaVona on her child and Jeff on his wife. This is something I abhor in general, having been brought up to believe it is never EVER acceptable to lay a hand on a woman. To have these cowardly individuals sensationalised in the movie I found to be really upsetting. I strongly feel, for this reason alone, that the film should have had an 18 certificate. Violence in film should be related to the context as well as the severity. (Note that this is in stark contrast to my comments of recent BBFC decisions to make “Phantom Thread” and “Lady Bird” 15-certificates when I believe they should have been 12A).
The film is executed extremely well, with 4:3 framing for the staged interviews, and ice skating scenes that seamlessly cut between the professional clearly doing the stunts and Robbie (who must also be a half decent skater too). The soundtrack is nicely littered – “Guardians of the Galaxy” style – with classic hits of the early 90’s.
To think that this story actually unfolded in this way is nothing short of astounding… but it did! There is an astonishing video clip here (#spoilers) of the run up to, and the immediate aftermath of, the Kerrigan incident. I came out of the film with a deep feeling of sadness for Harding (at least, as portrayed) and utter disgust that the villains of this piece could be a) so cruel and out of control and b) so utterly stupid. These are individuals who really should have been sterilised to stop them polluting the gene pool any further.
Written by Steven Rogers (“Stepmom”) and directed by Australian Craig Gillespie, there is no doubting that this is a powerful film: played to an absolutely silent and gripped Saturday night cinema audience. And it has truly dynamite performances from Allison Janney and Margot Robbie. But be warned that you’ll need a strong stomach to go and see it without being affected by it afterwards. It’s a mental keeper.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Murder on the Orient Express (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
You’ll never guess who dunnit…
There’s a big problem with Kenneth Branagh’s 2017 filming of the Hercule Poirot-based murder mystery…. and that’s the 1974 Sidney Lumet classic featuring Albert Finney in the starring role. For that film was so memorable – at least, the “who” of the “whodunnit” (no spoilers here) was so memorable – that any remake is likely to be tarnished by that knowledge. If you go into this film blissfully unaware of the plot, you are a lucky man/woman. For this is a classic Agatha Christie yarn.
The irascible, borderline OCD, but undeniably great Belgian detective, Poirot, is dragged around the world by grateful police forces to help solve unsolvable crimes. After solving a case in Jerusalem, Poirot is called back to the UK with his mode of transport being the famous Orient Express. Trapped in the mountains by an avalanche, a murder is committed and with multiple suspects and a plethora of clues it is up to Poirot to solve the case.
Branagh enjoys himself enormously as Poirot, sporting the most distractingly magnificent facial hair since Daniel Day-Lewis in “The Gangs of New York”. The moustache must have had its own trailer and make-up team!
Above all, the film is glorious to look at, featuring a rich and exotic colour palette that is reminiscent of the early colour films of the 40’s. Cinematography was by Haris Zambarloukos (“Mamma Mia” and who also collaborated with Branagh on “Thor) with lots of innovative “ceiling down” shots and artful point-of-view takes that might be annoying to some but which I consider as deserving of Oscar/BAFTA nominations.
The pictures are accompanied by a lush score by Patrick Doyle (who also scored Branagh’s “Thor”). Hats off also to the special effects crew, who made the alpine bridge scenes look decidedly more alpine than where they were actually filmed (on a specially made bridge in the Surrey Hills!).
All these technical elements combine to make the film’s early stages look and feel truly epic.
And the cast… what a cast! Dame Judi Dench (“Victoria and Abdul“); Olivia Coleman (“The Lobster“); Johnny Depp (“Black Mass“); Daisy Ridley (“Star Wars: The Force Awakens“); Penélope Cruz (“Zoolander 2“); Josh Gad (Olaf!); Derek Jacobi (“I, Claudius”); Willem Dafoe (“The Great Wall“) and Michelle Pfeiffer (“mother!“). A real case again of an “oh, it’s you” film again at the cinema – when’s the last time we saw that?
It’s also great to see young Lucy Boynton, so magnificent in last year’s excellent “Sing Street“, getting an A-list role as the twitchy and disturbed countess.
With all these ingredients in the pot, it should be great, right? Unfortunately, in my view, no, not quite. The film’s opening momentum is really not maintained by the screenplay by Michael Green (“Blade Runner 2049“; “Logan“). At heart, it’s a fairly static and “stagey” piece at best, set as it is on the rather claustrophobic train (just three carriages… on the Orient Express… really?). But the tale is made even more static by the train’s derailment in the snow. Branagh and Green try to sex up the action where they can, but there are lengthy passages of fairly repetitive dialogue. One encounter in particular between Branagh and Depp seems to last interminably: you wonder if the problem was that the director wasn’t always looking on to yell “Cut”!
All this leads to the “revelation” of the murderer as being a bit of an anticlimactic “thank heavens for that” rather than the gasping denouement it should have been. (Perhaps this would be different if you didn’t know the twist).
However, these reservations aside, it’s an enjoyable night out at the flicks, although a bit of a disappointment from the level of expectation I had for it. I can’t be too grumpy about it, given it’s a return to good old-fashioned yarn-spinning at the cinema, with great visuals and an epic cast. And that has to be good news.
For sure, Branagh does make for an amusing and engaging Poirot, even if his dialogue did need some ‘tuning in’ to. There was a suggestion at the end of the film that we might be seeing his return in “Death on the Nile” – the most lush and decorous of Peter Ustinov’s outings – which I would certainly welcome. He will have to find another 10 A-list stars though to decorate the boat, which will be a challenge for casting!
The irascible, borderline OCD, but undeniably great Belgian detective, Poirot, is dragged around the world by grateful police forces to help solve unsolvable crimes. After solving a case in Jerusalem, Poirot is called back to the UK with his mode of transport being the famous Orient Express. Trapped in the mountains by an avalanche, a murder is committed and with multiple suspects and a plethora of clues it is up to Poirot to solve the case.
Branagh enjoys himself enormously as Poirot, sporting the most distractingly magnificent facial hair since Daniel Day-Lewis in “The Gangs of New York”. The moustache must have had its own trailer and make-up team!
Above all, the film is glorious to look at, featuring a rich and exotic colour palette that is reminiscent of the early colour films of the 40’s. Cinematography was by Haris Zambarloukos (“Mamma Mia” and who also collaborated with Branagh on “Thor) with lots of innovative “ceiling down” shots and artful point-of-view takes that might be annoying to some but which I consider as deserving of Oscar/BAFTA nominations.
The pictures are accompanied by a lush score by Patrick Doyle (who also scored Branagh’s “Thor”). Hats off also to the special effects crew, who made the alpine bridge scenes look decidedly more alpine than where they were actually filmed (on a specially made bridge in the Surrey Hills!).
All these technical elements combine to make the film’s early stages look and feel truly epic.
And the cast… what a cast! Dame Judi Dench (“Victoria and Abdul“); Olivia Coleman (“The Lobster“); Johnny Depp (“Black Mass“); Daisy Ridley (“Star Wars: The Force Awakens“); Penélope Cruz (“Zoolander 2“); Josh Gad (Olaf!); Derek Jacobi (“I, Claudius”); Willem Dafoe (“The Great Wall“) and Michelle Pfeiffer (“mother!“). A real case again of an “oh, it’s you” film again at the cinema – when’s the last time we saw that?
It’s also great to see young Lucy Boynton, so magnificent in last year’s excellent “Sing Street“, getting an A-list role as the twitchy and disturbed countess.
With all these ingredients in the pot, it should be great, right? Unfortunately, in my view, no, not quite. The film’s opening momentum is really not maintained by the screenplay by Michael Green (“Blade Runner 2049“; “Logan“). At heart, it’s a fairly static and “stagey” piece at best, set as it is on the rather claustrophobic train (just three carriages… on the Orient Express… really?). But the tale is made even more static by the train’s derailment in the snow. Branagh and Green try to sex up the action where they can, but there are lengthy passages of fairly repetitive dialogue. One encounter in particular between Branagh and Depp seems to last interminably: you wonder if the problem was that the director wasn’t always looking on to yell “Cut”!
All this leads to the “revelation” of the murderer as being a bit of an anticlimactic “thank heavens for that” rather than the gasping denouement it should have been. (Perhaps this would be different if you didn’t know the twist).
However, these reservations aside, it’s an enjoyable night out at the flicks, although a bit of a disappointment from the level of expectation I had for it. I can’t be too grumpy about it, given it’s a return to good old-fashioned yarn-spinning at the cinema, with great visuals and an epic cast. And that has to be good news.
For sure, Branagh does make for an amusing and engaging Poirot, even if his dialogue did need some ‘tuning in’ to. There was a suggestion at the end of the film that we might be seeing his return in “Death on the Nile” – the most lush and decorous of Peter Ustinov’s outings – which I would certainly welcome. He will have to find another 10 A-list stars though to decorate the boat, which will be a challenge for casting!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Alita: Battle Angel (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A Berserk Excursion Down Uncanny Valley.
“I see you”. James Cameron‘s fingerprints are all over this one, as producer ahead of his threatened (and with this movie-goer, entirely unwanted) Avatar sequels. Alita is a huge great smelly CGI mess of a film, but quite fun with it.
The Plot.
Christophe Waltz plays Dr. Dyson (no, not that one), a cyber-surgeon in the 24th century whose job is to give cyber/human crossovers (which just about everyone now seems to be) a ‘service’ to get them back on the road again.
Hanging over Iron City – in just the same way as bricks don’t – is a huge floating cloud city called Zalem (“What keeps it up?”; “Engineering!”). A stream of detritus falls from the city into the scrap yards below, and Dr Dyson scavenges through the mess for parts. He discovers that the best way to get ahead in business is to… get a head! In this case, it’s the head and upper torso of a female ‘teenage’ cyber-girl who he finds to be still alive and who he names “Alita”.
But Alita (Rosa Salazar) isn’t just any teenage girl. When fitted out with a new body, one very precious to Dyson, Alita proves to have massive strength and dexterity which sets her up to trial for the national sport of Motorball: a no-holds-barred race around an arena to capture and keep a ball. Her love interest, Hugo (Keean Johnson), can help her in that department.
But dark forces are also in play and the agents of Nova, the Zalem-overseer, have great interest in destroying Alita before she can damage his plans.
What a mess!
I’ve significantly simplified the plot and reduced the characters referenced. There are so many different things going on here, it’s like they’ve made Back to the Future I, II and III and squeezed them all into one film. There’s Dyson’s ex-wife Chiran (Jennifer Connolly) and her partner in crime Vector (Maherashala Ali); there’s their pet thug called Grewishka (Jackie Earle Haley); there’s a bunch of “Hunter-Warriors” including a vicious sword-wielding guy called Zapan (Ed Skrein); there’s a kind of “Lost Boys” vibe to Hugo’s pals including Alita-hater Tanji (Jorge Lendeborg Jr.); etc. etc. etc. It’s a huge great sprawling mess of a plot.
The movie is also highly derivative, and watching it feels like you are working through a mental set of check-boxes of the films it apes: Wall-E (check); Elysium (check); Terminator (check); Rollerball (if you’re old enough to remember that one) (check); even some Harry Potter quidditch thrown in for good measure.
Urm… berserk dialogue.
The story is based on a Manga work by Yukito Kishiro, but the script by James Cameron, director Robert Rodriquez and Laeta Kalogridis has some bat-shit crazy moments.
Remembering that Cameron in Avatar brought us the mineral ‘unobtainium’ there are similar ‘jolt yourself awake’ moments here. At one point Waltz starts talking about what sounds like “Panda c***s”…. I’m sorry… what?? (This was clearly an episode of David Attenborough’s “Life on Earth” that passed me by! Although frankly, if male pandas took a bit more interest in panda c***s, that wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing. But I digress….)
The turns.
What stands out if the quality of the cast. Who wouldn’t kill to have Waltz, Connolly and Ali starring in their film? The inclusion of Maherashala Ali in here was a surprise to me. I know he has had a part in “The Hunger Games” series, but this is surely (Marvel must be kicking themselves) his most ‘mainstream’ film to date. And he again really shows his class, bringing a gravitas to all the scenes he’s in.
It was also interesting to see Ed Skrein in a movie for the second time in a month. He was the racist cop in “If Beale Street Could Talk“, and here he plays an equally unpleasant character with a sideline in vanity.
Also good fun is to see the cameo of who plays Nova in the final scene of the film. I was not expecting that.
But the film lives and dies on believing Alita, and after you get used to the rather spooky ‘uncanny valley’ eyes, Rosa Salazar really breathes life into the android character: you can really believe its a teenage android girl developing her understanding of the world and of love. (We’ll gloss over the age thing here which doesn’t make a lot of sense!). One thing’s for sure, when Alita gives her heart to a boy, she really gives her heart to a boy!
Will I like it?
I was not expecting to, but did. It’s a big, brash, loud CGI-stuffed adventure, but well done and visually appealing (as you would expect given the director is Robert Rodriguez of “Sin City” fame). The BBFC have given it a 12A rating in the UK, which feels appropriate: there are some pretty graphic scenes of violence (true they are “mostly involving robots fighting each other” as the BBFC says, but not all). That would make it not very suitable for younger children.
But I was entertained. You might well be too.
The Plot.
Christophe Waltz plays Dr. Dyson (no, not that one), a cyber-surgeon in the 24th century whose job is to give cyber/human crossovers (which just about everyone now seems to be) a ‘service’ to get them back on the road again.
Hanging over Iron City – in just the same way as bricks don’t – is a huge floating cloud city called Zalem (“What keeps it up?”; “Engineering!”). A stream of detritus falls from the city into the scrap yards below, and Dr Dyson scavenges through the mess for parts. He discovers that the best way to get ahead in business is to… get a head! In this case, it’s the head and upper torso of a female ‘teenage’ cyber-girl who he finds to be still alive and who he names “Alita”.
But Alita (Rosa Salazar) isn’t just any teenage girl. When fitted out with a new body, one very precious to Dyson, Alita proves to have massive strength and dexterity which sets her up to trial for the national sport of Motorball: a no-holds-barred race around an arena to capture and keep a ball. Her love interest, Hugo (Keean Johnson), can help her in that department.
But dark forces are also in play and the agents of Nova, the Zalem-overseer, have great interest in destroying Alita before she can damage his plans.
What a mess!
I’ve significantly simplified the plot and reduced the characters referenced. There are so many different things going on here, it’s like they’ve made Back to the Future I, II and III and squeezed them all into one film. There’s Dyson’s ex-wife Chiran (Jennifer Connolly) and her partner in crime Vector (Maherashala Ali); there’s their pet thug called Grewishka (Jackie Earle Haley); there’s a bunch of “Hunter-Warriors” including a vicious sword-wielding guy called Zapan (Ed Skrein); there’s a kind of “Lost Boys” vibe to Hugo’s pals including Alita-hater Tanji (Jorge Lendeborg Jr.); etc. etc. etc. It’s a huge great sprawling mess of a plot.
The movie is also highly derivative, and watching it feels like you are working through a mental set of check-boxes of the films it apes: Wall-E (check); Elysium (check); Terminator (check); Rollerball (if you’re old enough to remember that one) (check); even some Harry Potter quidditch thrown in for good measure.
Urm… berserk dialogue.
The story is based on a Manga work by Yukito Kishiro, but the script by James Cameron, director Robert Rodriquez and Laeta Kalogridis has some bat-shit crazy moments.
Remembering that Cameron in Avatar brought us the mineral ‘unobtainium’ there are similar ‘jolt yourself awake’ moments here. At one point Waltz starts talking about what sounds like “Panda c***s”…. I’m sorry… what?? (This was clearly an episode of David Attenborough’s “Life on Earth” that passed me by! Although frankly, if male pandas took a bit more interest in panda c***s, that wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing. But I digress….)
The turns.
What stands out if the quality of the cast. Who wouldn’t kill to have Waltz, Connolly and Ali starring in their film? The inclusion of Maherashala Ali in here was a surprise to me. I know he has had a part in “The Hunger Games” series, but this is surely (Marvel must be kicking themselves) his most ‘mainstream’ film to date. And he again really shows his class, bringing a gravitas to all the scenes he’s in.
It was also interesting to see Ed Skrein in a movie for the second time in a month. He was the racist cop in “If Beale Street Could Talk“, and here he plays an equally unpleasant character with a sideline in vanity.
Also good fun is to see the cameo of who plays Nova in the final scene of the film. I was not expecting that.
But the film lives and dies on believing Alita, and after you get used to the rather spooky ‘uncanny valley’ eyes, Rosa Salazar really breathes life into the android character: you can really believe its a teenage android girl developing her understanding of the world and of love. (We’ll gloss over the age thing here which doesn’t make a lot of sense!). One thing’s for sure, when Alita gives her heart to a boy, she really gives her heart to a boy!
Will I like it?
I was not expecting to, but did. It’s a big, brash, loud CGI-stuffed adventure, but well done and visually appealing (as you would expect given the director is Robert Rodriguez of “Sin City” fame). The BBFC have given it a 12A rating in the UK, which feels appropriate: there are some pretty graphic scenes of violence (true they are “mostly involving robots fighting each other” as the BBFC says, but not all). That would make it not very suitable for younger children.
But I was entertained. You might well be too.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Dying Light in Video Games
Jul 19, 2017
Awkward parkour (2 more)
Terrible story
Disappointing loot
Mutton dressed as lamb
This game came out in January last year, so it’s now more than a year old, but honestly it feels much older than that. I can remember when this came out to glowing reviews and I was pleased, because I was a big fan of Techland’s first open world, first person zombie game, Dead Island. Plus this looked really cool as it added free running and a transformation of zombies. I bought the game in about September last year, but I have only recently gotten around to actually playing it, so I figured I’d give my thoughts on the game so far. To be honest I am very disappointed, after the glowing reviews and audience praise I was expecting a game that was a lot better than this. I honestly think I may prefer the original Dead Island to Dying Light and although I may be looking at Dead Island through rose tinted glasses, it was only a couple of years ago that I played it, so I’m not so sure.
The big gimmick in this game is the free running. I went into the game expecting Dead Island meets Mirror’s Edge, but instead I got something more akin to Shadow Fall or Far Cry’s janky free running. The player character honestly feels so heavy and clunky and there is no coherent flow to the free running at all. The other gimmick is the idea of ‘drops,’ which are basically supply drops that are dropped in various locations throughout the map. The controller will vibrate, the blue icon will appear on the map and you haul ass across the environment towards it, in the awkward parkour motion that you are forced to endure throughout the game. The first couple of drops are difficult when you don’t yet really know what you are doing, but after a while you know what to expect and as soon as you feel the controller rumble and the icon appear on the mini map you know to just run as fast as possible towards the icon and everything will be straightforward. Also, while I am aware that players don’t tend to love this game for it’s immersive story, what story they attempt is garbage delivered by poor voice acting, in addition it makes absolutely no sense that you are just some random guy that the people from The Tower find out on the street and within spending a day or two with them they declare you to be the best free runner in the whole tower, it is all just far too convenient. The game also attempts to force you to change your play style at night, some of the zombies transform into hulking, hard to kill beasts with super speed, but their field of vision also appears on the map, so as long as you can avoid that, everything will be hunky dory and even if you do get seen you can just run away for a bit and climb onto a ledge and they will soon forget about you. I actually think that the virals that attack you during the day are more dangerous as they don’t have a specific field of view and are faster than the night time virals. Now while all these minor gripes do add up to my dislike of the game, the biggest let down in this game is it’s loot system. The loot in Dead Island was so good and when you had a great weapon, you knew it was great because it was so effective and felt so good to use in combat, there was just a charm to the weapons you could find in that game. The loot in Dying Light is much more generic and the effectiveness of the weapons has been neutered. The game starts you off with flimsy blunt weapons, which is expected, then you either find or save up your money and buy a sweet new axe or machete, you think that this is going to help you take out everything so much easier, but there isn’t much more of an effect, like maybe instead of dying after 18 hits a guy will die after 15, but that still doesn’t exactly feel effective to me. Also, the weapons degrade quickly, but that doesn’t matter because there is a good amount of weapons to buy and find, but since they have all been nerfed anyway it renders the whole process totally pointless, the loot system is really redundant and has no impact at all on the game. Also the guns are overpowered as all hell. The big guys with the heavy weapons will take you around fifty smacks with a hammer to bring down, but if you have a pistol and jump over a three foot wall, they can’t follow you and so they just stand still, so you just pop two or three caps into their skull and they go down in a couple of seconds. I also dislike how the damage you inflict on an enemy is the same no matter where on the body that you hit them. You can whack a guy repeatedly in the head or the legs and he will fall down in the same amount of time either way.
Overall, this game tries to be the next gen version of Dead Island, but what it delivers is a game that looks and feels like it came out at the same time as its predecessor and in a lot of ways it is even less intuitive than the first game. I know that I keep comparing this game to Dead Island, but I honestly believe that if you are looking for a first person zombie survival game, you should save yourself the cash and go pick up Dead Island as it plays better than this one and is graphically on par. However even though I have torn this game apart for the duration of this review, it is still a good game and I can see why people like it, I just don’t understand the massive amounts of praise it gets when Dead Island was a better game.
The big gimmick in this game is the free running. I went into the game expecting Dead Island meets Mirror’s Edge, but instead I got something more akin to Shadow Fall or Far Cry’s janky free running. The player character honestly feels so heavy and clunky and there is no coherent flow to the free running at all. The other gimmick is the idea of ‘drops,’ which are basically supply drops that are dropped in various locations throughout the map. The controller will vibrate, the blue icon will appear on the map and you haul ass across the environment towards it, in the awkward parkour motion that you are forced to endure throughout the game. The first couple of drops are difficult when you don’t yet really know what you are doing, but after a while you know what to expect and as soon as you feel the controller rumble and the icon appear on the mini map you know to just run as fast as possible towards the icon and everything will be straightforward. Also, while I am aware that players don’t tend to love this game for it’s immersive story, what story they attempt is garbage delivered by poor voice acting, in addition it makes absolutely no sense that you are just some random guy that the people from The Tower find out on the street and within spending a day or two with them they declare you to be the best free runner in the whole tower, it is all just far too convenient. The game also attempts to force you to change your play style at night, some of the zombies transform into hulking, hard to kill beasts with super speed, but their field of vision also appears on the map, so as long as you can avoid that, everything will be hunky dory and even if you do get seen you can just run away for a bit and climb onto a ledge and they will soon forget about you. I actually think that the virals that attack you during the day are more dangerous as they don’t have a specific field of view and are faster than the night time virals. Now while all these minor gripes do add up to my dislike of the game, the biggest let down in this game is it’s loot system. The loot in Dead Island was so good and when you had a great weapon, you knew it was great because it was so effective and felt so good to use in combat, there was just a charm to the weapons you could find in that game. The loot in Dying Light is much more generic and the effectiveness of the weapons has been neutered. The game starts you off with flimsy blunt weapons, which is expected, then you either find or save up your money and buy a sweet new axe or machete, you think that this is going to help you take out everything so much easier, but there isn’t much more of an effect, like maybe instead of dying after 18 hits a guy will die after 15, but that still doesn’t exactly feel effective to me. Also, the weapons degrade quickly, but that doesn’t matter because there is a good amount of weapons to buy and find, but since they have all been nerfed anyway it renders the whole process totally pointless, the loot system is really redundant and has no impact at all on the game. Also the guns are overpowered as all hell. The big guys with the heavy weapons will take you around fifty smacks with a hammer to bring down, but if you have a pistol and jump over a three foot wall, they can’t follow you and so they just stand still, so you just pop two or three caps into their skull and they go down in a couple of seconds. I also dislike how the damage you inflict on an enemy is the same no matter where on the body that you hit them. You can whack a guy repeatedly in the head or the legs and he will fall down in the same amount of time either way.
Overall, this game tries to be the next gen version of Dead Island, but what it delivers is a game that looks and feels like it came out at the same time as its predecessor and in a lot of ways it is even less intuitive than the first game. I know that I keep comparing this game to Dead Island, but I honestly believe that if you are looking for a first person zombie survival game, you should save yourself the cash and go pick up Dead Island as it plays better than this one and is graphically on par. However even though I have torn this game apart for the duration of this review, it is still a good game and I can see why people like it, I just don’t understand the massive amounts of praise it gets when Dead Island was a better game.
Paul Chesworth (3 KP) created a post
Feb 20, 2018
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Tropico 6 in Video Games
Aug 14, 2019
I used to spend my time dreaming of what it would be like to live in a tropical paradise. No concerns in the world except for when my next umbrella drink was to arrive and how long I could nap before flipping over and beginning the whole process again. The leisurely island lifestyle seemed to be the perfect escape from the non-stop chaotic life that has become my own. Getting my hands-on Tropico 6, developer Limbic Entertainment’s latest installment of the popular city-builder series, quickly turned my peaceful dreams into a hectic, fast-paced adventure. Now instead of wondering what the difference between SPF 15 and SPF 30 in my sunblock are, I was forced to quell revolutions, ensure that my people had enough entertainment and housing, and promising improvement in healthcare…all in the hopes of getting re-elected and I loved every minute of it.
Tropico 6 takes the familiar city builder game and turns it on its head a bit. You begin your life as El Presidente with the ability to customize the look and feel of your miniature ruler. Not only dealing with his/her physical attributes, but also defining their personality type. This provides special in-game bonuses which can affect your influence with the super-powers or even the internal factions themselves. Your next option is to design what your palace will look like, everything from roof-top holographic images of yourself, to the type of wall that surrounds your palace. While these are really nothing more than decorative facades on which you will build your spanning empire, it’s these little touches where Tropico really shines.
For those who haven’t played Tropico before, there is a two-hour tutorial that takes you through not only the basics, but some of the advanced concepts as well. It introduces the player to not only specific buildings, but also some of the more in-depth features that are provided. Concepts such as firing an individual from a building and closing the opening job requisition or identifying rebels and putting down uprisings are all covered in detail here. The tutorial however barely scratches the surface as to all the things that can be done. Thankfully Tropico 6 includes fifteen story missions that take you through numerous game concepts and challenges to build upon what the tutorial has taught you.
There are essentially two ways one can play Tropico 6, there are the story missions as well as the sandbox mode. While players will likely be quick to want to jump into Sandbox mode and begin cultivating their own island, there are compelling reasons to play through the story missions first. The story missions are not truly connected to one another, and while you must complete several to unlock them all, there isn’t an order in which you need to play them. If you go in order, the game will take you through the various “Era’s” that are new to the series. Starting with Colonial times where you regularly need to appease the crown until you can raise enough revolutionaries (or money) to claim your independence. Working your way through the World Wars (which roughly cover the events between World War I and World War II), into the Cold war and finally Modern Times. Each of the Eras unlock access to specific technology and buildings, ensuring that each Era provides a unique challenge to overcoming certain obstacles. Each story mission tasks you with a specific goal and places several obstacles in your way. Everything from claiming independence in the first mission, to going after the seedy underbelly of crime and bringing down a notorious kingpin. The story missions themselves last anywhere from one to several hours, ensuring plenty of game play in each one.
Tropico 6 brings a lot of new concepts and gameplay to the series. The game now takes place on a series of islands interconnected with docks and bridges. It’s easy to focus on your main island only to forget your others, and some missions will task you with specific goals that can only be created outside the main island. It’s a good introduction to thinking on a wider scale. Additionally, you can build a pirate cove that allow you to send pirates on raids. These raids involve everything from “rescuing” educated people or stealing wonders from around the world, like the Eiffel Tower or the Statue of Liberty. A new character known simply as “The Broker” provides opportunities to raise cash for your swiss bank account. The swiss bank account is a private account for El Presidente’ and allows him to purchase items from the Broker. These can be anything from blue prints that unlock buildings at a cheaper price, or the opportunity to automatically complete a demand without having to do the grunt work behind it. Election speeches also make their return to Tropico 6, elections are held every ten years to ensure you are keeping the people in your island nation happy. Lose an election and you lose the game, fairly straight forward. One opportunity to sway your people is to craft election speeches from the four categories. These include acknowledging an issue (like entertainment or health care), praising one of the four factions that exist on Tropico, blaming a super power (Axis or Allies) for the current state of affairs and finally making a promise to address a specific issue. Be warned however, that each of these choices can hold severe consequences and note that a promise to address a concern means you’ll be focusing on that before the next election.
Each of the folks who inhabit the island are individuals. You can literally select any person walking down the street and identify who they are, how they are leaning in the upcoming election, what political party they belong to and even where they work. If someone is a political rival you can bribe them to choose your side, if a particular set of rebels are causing issues you can have them arrested or locked up in an asylum. You can even execute any individual you want; however, this will have lasting consequences. The amount of detail is staggering; however, Tropico 6 does an excellent job of allowing you to be as micro managing as you want to be. While you can certainly go in and fire individuals from the various businesses that pop up, you certainly don’t have to.
Graphically Tropico 6 is a spectacle in itself. Everything from the waves as they slowly crash upon the shoreline, to the awe-inspiring sunsets. It’s certainly one of the most beautiful city builders around. Each building is unique enough to identify it easily and each has its own unique flavor all to itself. Even with all of this, I never encountered any hiccups in performance, and load screens are pretty much left to new games. Its soundtrack has a distinctive island flair to it, and while the longer you play the more repetitive it becomes, I never felt the urge to simply mute it. In fact, I found myself humming some of the tunes while doing chores around the house…yes it can get in your head like that.
Tropico 6 does have some flaws, but nothing truly game breaking. The road construction tool, while doing it’s very best to identify the best path you wish to take, will sometimes go a bit crazy. Spaces between buildings which should allow for careful road placement will be blocked for unknown reasons, which can force you to destroy existing buildings if you haven’t planned for expansion appropriately enough. With so much to do, some of the specific tools or buildings can be a bit difficult to find, in particular once you “acquire” a world wonder it took me several attempts to locate where you can go to actually place it. Again, nothing that stops the game in it’s tracks, and certainly some things that can easily be patched in later releases of the game.
Tropico 6 is all about freedom, the freedom to rule your tiny island kingdom the way you want. Well… at least the way you want as long as you can appease the numerous factions and ensure you get re-elected in the next general elections. You are free to do as much or as little as you want, and you are free to dig in as deep as any city builder type game allows you to go. The included stories ensure that you have at least 40-50 hours of defined content, but it’s the limitless playability of the sandbox setting where the game truly shines. The game isn’t perfect, but it’s about as close as city-builder games can get these days. It’s mix of humor, city management, and that one-more turn itch will keep you playing long after you told yourself you should go to bed. Long live El Presidente’! Viva Tropico!
What I liked: Variety of Story Missions, Excellent Tutorial, Amazing visuals
What I liked less: Road tool seems a bit finicky, some items are difficult to locate
Tropico 6 takes the familiar city builder game and turns it on its head a bit. You begin your life as El Presidente with the ability to customize the look and feel of your miniature ruler. Not only dealing with his/her physical attributes, but also defining their personality type. This provides special in-game bonuses which can affect your influence with the super-powers or even the internal factions themselves. Your next option is to design what your palace will look like, everything from roof-top holographic images of yourself, to the type of wall that surrounds your palace. While these are really nothing more than decorative facades on which you will build your spanning empire, it’s these little touches where Tropico really shines.
For those who haven’t played Tropico before, there is a two-hour tutorial that takes you through not only the basics, but some of the advanced concepts as well. It introduces the player to not only specific buildings, but also some of the more in-depth features that are provided. Concepts such as firing an individual from a building and closing the opening job requisition or identifying rebels and putting down uprisings are all covered in detail here. The tutorial however barely scratches the surface as to all the things that can be done. Thankfully Tropico 6 includes fifteen story missions that take you through numerous game concepts and challenges to build upon what the tutorial has taught you.
There are essentially two ways one can play Tropico 6, there are the story missions as well as the sandbox mode. While players will likely be quick to want to jump into Sandbox mode and begin cultivating their own island, there are compelling reasons to play through the story missions first. The story missions are not truly connected to one another, and while you must complete several to unlock them all, there isn’t an order in which you need to play them. If you go in order, the game will take you through the various “Era’s” that are new to the series. Starting with Colonial times where you regularly need to appease the crown until you can raise enough revolutionaries (or money) to claim your independence. Working your way through the World Wars (which roughly cover the events between World War I and World War II), into the Cold war and finally Modern Times. Each of the Eras unlock access to specific technology and buildings, ensuring that each Era provides a unique challenge to overcoming certain obstacles. Each story mission tasks you with a specific goal and places several obstacles in your way. Everything from claiming independence in the first mission, to going after the seedy underbelly of crime and bringing down a notorious kingpin. The story missions themselves last anywhere from one to several hours, ensuring plenty of game play in each one.
Tropico 6 brings a lot of new concepts and gameplay to the series. The game now takes place on a series of islands interconnected with docks and bridges. It’s easy to focus on your main island only to forget your others, and some missions will task you with specific goals that can only be created outside the main island. It’s a good introduction to thinking on a wider scale. Additionally, you can build a pirate cove that allow you to send pirates on raids. These raids involve everything from “rescuing” educated people or stealing wonders from around the world, like the Eiffel Tower or the Statue of Liberty. A new character known simply as “The Broker” provides opportunities to raise cash for your swiss bank account. The swiss bank account is a private account for El Presidente’ and allows him to purchase items from the Broker. These can be anything from blue prints that unlock buildings at a cheaper price, or the opportunity to automatically complete a demand without having to do the grunt work behind it. Election speeches also make their return to Tropico 6, elections are held every ten years to ensure you are keeping the people in your island nation happy. Lose an election and you lose the game, fairly straight forward. One opportunity to sway your people is to craft election speeches from the four categories. These include acknowledging an issue (like entertainment or health care), praising one of the four factions that exist on Tropico, blaming a super power (Axis or Allies) for the current state of affairs and finally making a promise to address a specific issue. Be warned however, that each of these choices can hold severe consequences and note that a promise to address a concern means you’ll be focusing on that before the next election.
Each of the folks who inhabit the island are individuals. You can literally select any person walking down the street and identify who they are, how they are leaning in the upcoming election, what political party they belong to and even where they work. If someone is a political rival you can bribe them to choose your side, if a particular set of rebels are causing issues you can have them arrested or locked up in an asylum. You can even execute any individual you want; however, this will have lasting consequences. The amount of detail is staggering; however, Tropico 6 does an excellent job of allowing you to be as micro managing as you want to be. While you can certainly go in and fire individuals from the various businesses that pop up, you certainly don’t have to.
Graphically Tropico 6 is a spectacle in itself. Everything from the waves as they slowly crash upon the shoreline, to the awe-inspiring sunsets. It’s certainly one of the most beautiful city builders around. Each building is unique enough to identify it easily and each has its own unique flavor all to itself. Even with all of this, I never encountered any hiccups in performance, and load screens are pretty much left to new games. Its soundtrack has a distinctive island flair to it, and while the longer you play the more repetitive it becomes, I never felt the urge to simply mute it. In fact, I found myself humming some of the tunes while doing chores around the house…yes it can get in your head like that.
Tropico 6 does have some flaws, but nothing truly game breaking. The road construction tool, while doing it’s very best to identify the best path you wish to take, will sometimes go a bit crazy. Spaces between buildings which should allow for careful road placement will be blocked for unknown reasons, which can force you to destroy existing buildings if you haven’t planned for expansion appropriately enough. With so much to do, some of the specific tools or buildings can be a bit difficult to find, in particular once you “acquire” a world wonder it took me several attempts to locate where you can go to actually place it. Again, nothing that stops the game in it’s tracks, and certainly some things that can easily be patched in later releases of the game.
Tropico 6 is all about freedom, the freedom to rule your tiny island kingdom the way you want. Well… at least the way you want as long as you can appease the numerous factions and ensure you get re-elected in the next general elections. You are free to do as much or as little as you want, and you are free to dig in as deep as any city builder type game allows you to go. The included stories ensure that you have at least 40-50 hours of defined content, but it’s the limitless playability of the sandbox setting where the game truly shines. The game isn’t perfect, but it’s about as close as city-builder games can get these days. It’s mix of humor, city management, and that one-more turn itch will keep you playing long after you told yourself you should go to bed. Long live El Presidente’! Viva Tropico!
What I liked: Variety of Story Missions, Excellent Tutorial, Amazing visuals
What I liked less: Road tool seems a bit finicky, some items are difficult to locate