Search
Search results
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Crazier Eights: Olympus in Tabletop Games
Feb 25, 2020
War. Old Maid. Go Fish. Crazy Eights. These are classic card games we probably all grew up playing. There have been many re-themes and new difficulty layers spread upon them to make them even more interesting. While UNO certainly has cornered the market on the Crazy Eights base, we have a new contender: Crazier Eights. Recoculous has published several versions of this card game with different themes: Camelot, Avalon, One Thousand & One Nights, and Shahrzad. Today we are taking a preview of Crazier Eights: Olympus.
You HAVE played Crazy Eights right? The card game where you attempt to be the first to exhaust your hand of cards, but you can only play down if you can match the suit or number on top of the discard pile? And if you can’t, you throw down an 8 as a wild and call the color to be played next? Well there you have the easy rules. Crazier Eights: Olympus (which I will from here call C8O) holds basically the same rule-set with a few new mechanics and a theme. The win condition is still the same: be the first to exhaust your hand of cards, but to win you will need to play your hand strategically against your opponents.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game. You are invited to back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or purchase it through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, shuffle the large deck of cards and place the deck in the middle of the table. Flip the top card to begin the discard pile and dictate the first card play. Deal each player seven cards and you are ready to begin!
The turn structure is familiar: check for any “start of turn” effects and apply them, draw a card, play and/or discard a card, then resolve any “end of turn” effects. The deck is comprised of Events and Assets in different colors (suits) and numbers like in a typical deck of playing cards. After checking and resolving start of turn effects on Asset cards in your personal tableau, you must draw a card from the deck. This is where C8O strays from OG Crazy Eights a bit. You may play a card from your hand (Assets and Events) and discard a card to the discard pile (matching the suit/number/or an Eight), or simply play a card from your hand without discarding. Cards played from your hand can be Event cards that are played, resolved, and then discarded to the bottom of the discard pile, or an Asset card that is played to your tableau that cause chain reactions or other abilities on future turns. Next, resolve any end of turn effects from Assets in your tableau before the next player begins their turn.
Play continues in this fashion until one player has rid themselves of their hand and is crowned the Master of Olympus! Or at least, the winner of the game.
Components. This game is a box full of cards. Again, as I do not know if these components will be altered at all, I will comment on what we were provided. The cards are fine. The layout makes sense, and the art on the faces of the cards remind me of very classic art depicting ancient Grecian scenes. I am no art historian, so I do not know if they are existing art pieces or new ones crafted for this game, but either way, they are a joy to behold… if you can spend the time appreciating the art instead of tracking what cards you need to play and what effects you can chain together (that was me). Extra points to the Recoculous team for associating symbols with the different suit colors for our colorblind friends. This is something that unfortunately goes unaddressed far too often.
This implementation is the first Crazier Eights we have had the chance to try, and I can say that we really enjoyed our plays of it. The game comes with many interesting and varied effects to craft an ingenious strategy, and the art is stellar. Beware of playing with AP-prone gamers, as there is a lot going on and it is more than just a skinned Crazy Eights. However, now having played this several times, I can say that it is my favorite Crazy Eights derivative and certainly worthy of a look. If your game collection is sorely lacking in ancient Greek-themed card games, or if you want a hybrid game of old school rules with interesting twists, then do consider backing this one or purchasing one of its predecessors.
PS – Don’t worry if, while you are playing, you have all your Assets stolen or destroyed. I have won the game with zero Assets in front of me while opponents have had eight, ironically. Assets are great, but you still need to shed your hand.
You HAVE played Crazy Eights right? The card game where you attempt to be the first to exhaust your hand of cards, but you can only play down if you can match the suit or number on top of the discard pile? And if you can’t, you throw down an 8 as a wild and call the color to be played next? Well there you have the easy rules. Crazier Eights: Olympus (which I will from here call C8O) holds basically the same rule-set with a few new mechanics and a theme. The win condition is still the same: be the first to exhaust your hand of cards, but to win you will need to play your hand strategically against your opponents.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game. You are invited to back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or purchase it through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, shuffle the large deck of cards and place the deck in the middle of the table. Flip the top card to begin the discard pile and dictate the first card play. Deal each player seven cards and you are ready to begin!
The turn structure is familiar: check for any “start of turn” effects and apply them, draw a card, play and/or discard a card, then resolve any “end of turn” effects. The deck is comprised of Events and Assets in different colors (suits) and numbers like in a typical deck of playing cards. After checking and resolving start of turn effects on Asset cards in your personal tableau, you must draw a card from the deck. This is where C8O strays from OG Crazy Eights a bit. You may play a card from your hand (Assets and Events) and discard a card to the discard pile (matching the suit/number/or an Eight), or simply play a card from your hand without discarding. Cards played from your hand can be Event cards that are played, resolved, and then discarded to the bottom of the discard pile, or an Asset card that is played to your tableau that cause chain reactions or other abilities on future turns. Next, resolve any end of turn effects from Assets in your tableau before the next player begins their turn.
Play continues in this fashion until one player has rid themselves of their hand and is crowned the Master of Olympus! Or at least, the winner of the game.
Components. This game is a box full of cards. Again, as I do not know if these components will be altered at all, I will comment on what we were provided. The cards are fine. The layout makes sense, and the art on the faces of the cards remind me of very classic art depicting ancient Grecian scenes. I am no art historian, so I do not know if they are existing art pieces or new ones crafted for this game, but either way, they are a joy to behold… if you can spend the time appreciating the art instead of tracking what cards you need to play and what effects you can chain together (that was me). Extra points to the Recoculous team for associating symbols with the different suit colors for our colorblind friends. This is something that unfortunately goes unaddressed far too often.
This implementation is the first Crazier Eights we have had the chance to try, and I can say that we really enjoyed our plays of it. The game comes with many interesting and varied effects to craft an ingenious strategy, and the art is stellar. Beware of playing with AP-prone gamers, as there is a lot going on and it is more than just a skinned Crazy Eights. However, now having played this several times, I can say that it is my favorite Crazy Eights derivative and certainly worthy of a look. If your game collection is sorely lacking in ancient Greek-themed card games, or if you want a hybrid game of old school rules with interesting twists, then do consider backing this one or purchasing one of its predecessors.
PS – Don’t worry if, while you are playing, you have all your Assets stolen or destroyed. I have won the game with zero Assets in front of me while opponents have had eight, ironically. Assets are great, but you still need to shed your hand.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) in Movies
Jul 3, 2020
Introduce a horror icon (3 more)
Robert Englund
Freddy
Wes Craven
Whatever you do, don’t fall asleep!
Contains spoilers, click to show
A Nightmare on Elm Street- is one of my all time favorite horror films. Its also one of the greatest horror movies of all time. That being said, the ending sucks and i will get to that, but first lets talk more about the film.
I just love the idea of someone who appears in your dreams. Someone who stalks you, someone who messes with you, someone who kills you in your dreams. Now Wes got the idea from several newspaper articles printed in the Los Angeles Times in the 1970s about Southeast Asian refugees, who, after fleeing to the United States because of war and genocide in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam, suffered disturbing nightmares and refused to sleep. Some of the men died in their sleep soon after and some of his own childhood nightmares.
The idea of Freddy was Craven's early life. One night, a young Craven saw an elderly man walking on the sidepath outside the window of his home. The man stopped to glance at a startled Craven and walked off. Now Initially, Fred Krueger was intended to be a child molester, but Craven eventually characterized him as a child murderer to avoid being accused of exploiting a spate of highly publicized child molestation cases that occurred in California around the time of production of the film. This idea happened in the 2010 remake.
Lets talk about the plot: In Wes Craven's classic slasher film, several Midwestern teenagers fall prey to Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund), a disfigured midnight mangler who preys on the teenagers in their dreams -- which, in turn, kills them in reality. After investigating the phenomenon, Nancy (Heather Langenkamp) begins to suspect that a dark secret kept by her and her friends' parents may be the key to unraveling the mystery, but can Nancy and her boyfriend Glen (Johnny Depp) solve the puzzle before it's too late?
The plot/story is excellent, the mystery surrounded of Krueger. Who he exactly is, why is he do this, what made him do this, how do the parnets know about Krueger? All of these questions and more your trying to figure out and the movie does a excellent job explaining them.
The deaths: the death scenes are excellent. Tina revolving around her room, Rod's bed sheets wrapping around him while he is in a prison cell and dies hanging and Glen getting pulled through his bed and then his blood gushes to the ceiling. Excellent deaths and memorable.
The Ending: Craven originally planned for the film to have a more evocative ending: Nancy kills Krueger by ceasing to believe in him, then awakens to discover that everything that happened in the film was an elongated nightmare. However, New Line leader Robert Shaye demanded a twist ending, in which Krueger disappears and all seems to have been a dream, only for the audience to discover that it was a dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream.
According to Craven, "The original ending of the script has Nancy come out the door. It's an unusually cloudy and foggy day. A car pulls up with her dead friends in it. She's startled. She goes out and gets in the car wondering what the hell is going on, and they drive off into the fog, with the mother left standing on the doorstep and that's it. It was very brief, and suggestive that maybe life is sort of dream-like too. Shaye wanted Freddy Krueger to be driving the car, and have the kids screaming. It all became very negative. I felt a philosophical tension to my ending. Shaye said, "That's so 60s, it's stupid." I refused to have Freddy in the driver's seat, and we thought up about five different endings. The one we used, with Freddy pulling the mother through the doorway amused us all so much, we couldn't not use it."
Heather Langenkamp states that "there always was this sense that Freddy was the car", while according to Sara Risher, "it was always Wes' idea to pan to the little girls' jumping rope". Both a happy ending and a twist ending were filmed, but the final film used the twist ending. As a result, Craven who never wanted the film to be an ongoing franchise, did not work on the first sequel, Freddy's Revenge (1985).
Also Nancy's mom getting pulles through the window door was wierd and you can tell it was a blow up doll.
The Music: The lyrics for Freddy's theme song, sung by the jumprope children throughout the series and based on One, Two, Buckle My Shoe, was already written and included in the script when Bernstein started writing the soundtrack, while the melody for it was not set by Bernstein, but by Heather Langenkamp's boyfriend and soon-to-be husband at the time, Alan Pasqua, who was a musician himself. One of the three girls who recorded the vocal part of the theme was Robert Shaye's then 14-year-old daughter. Per the script, the lyrics are as follow: One two, Freddie's coming for you.Three four, better lock your door. Five six, grab your crucifix. Seven eight, gonna stay up late. Nine ten, never sleep again.
End Thoughts: A Nightmare on Elm Street is a excellent horror movie, it introduces a horror icon, has great charcters, has great death scenes and above all is perfect. Thank you Wes for giving us this movie.
I just love the idea of someone who appears in your dreams. Someone who stalks you, someone who messes with you, someone who kills you in your dreams. Now Wes got the idea from several newspaper articles printed in the Los Angeles Times in the 1970s about Southeast Asian refugees, who, after fleeing to the United States because of war and genocide in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam, suffered disturbing nightmares and refused to sleep. Some of the men died in their sleep soon after and some of his own childhood nightmares.
The idea of Freddy was Craven's early life. One night, a young Craven saw an elderly man walking on the sidepath outside the window of his home. The man stopped to glance at a startled Craven and walked off. Now Initially, Fred Krueger was intended to be a child molester, but Craven eventually characterized him as a child murderer to avoid being accused of exploiting a spate of highly publicized child molestation cases that occurred in California around the time of production of the film. This idea happened in the 2010 remake.
Lets talk about the plot: In Wes Craven's classic slasher film, several Midwestern teenagers fall prey to Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund), a disfigured midnight mangler who preys on the teenagers in their dreams -- which, in turn, kills them in reality. After investigating the phenomenon, Nancy (Heather Langenkamp) begins to suspect that a dark secret kept by her and her friends' parents may be the key to unraveling the mystery, but can Nancy and her boyfriend Glen (Johnny Depp) solve the puzzle before it's too late?
The plot/story is excellent, the mystery surrounded of Krueger. Who he exactly is, why is he do this, what made him do this, how do the parnets know about Krueger? All of these questions and more your trying to figure out and the movie does a excellent job explaining them.
The deaths: the death scenes are excellent. Tina revolving around her room, Rod's bed sheets wrapping around him while he is in a prison cell and dies hanging and Glen getting pulled through his bed and then his blood gushes to the ceiling. Excellent deaths and memorable.
The Ending: Craven originally planned for the film to have a more evocative ending: Nancy kills Krueger by ceasing to believe in him, then awakens to discover that everything that happened in the film was an elongated nightmare. However, New Line leader Robert Shaye demanded a twist ending, in which Krueger disappears and all seems to have been a dream, only for the audience to discover that it was a dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream.
According to Craven, "The original ending of the script has Nancy come out the door. It's an unusually cloudy and foggy day. A car pulls up with her dead friends in it. She's startled. She goes out and gets in the car wondering what the hell is going on, and they drive off into the fog, with the mother left standing on the doorstep and that's it. It was very brief, and suggestive that maybe life is sort of dream-like too. Shaye wanted Freddy Krueger to be driving the car, and have the kids screaming. It all became very negative. I felt a philosophical tension to my ending. Shaye said, "That's so 60s, it's stupid." I refused to have Freddy in the driver's seat, and we thought up about five different endings. The one we used, with Freddy pulling the mother through the doorway amused us all so much, we couldn't not use it."
Heather Langenkamp states that "there always was this sense that Freddy was the car", while according to Sara Risher, "it was always Wes' idea to pan to the little girls' jumping rope". Both a happy ending and a twist ending were filmed, but the final film used the twist ending. As a result, Craven who never wanted the film to be an ongoing franchise, did not work on the first sequel, Freddy's Revenge (1985).
Also Nancy's mom getting pulles through the window door was wierd and you can tell it was a blow up doll.
The Music: The lyrics for Freddy's theme song, sung by the jumprope children throughout the series and based on One, Two, Buckle My Shoe, was already written and included in the script when Bernstein started writing the soundtrack, while the melody for it was not set by Bernstein, but by Heather Langenkamp's boyfriend and soon-to-be husband at the time, Alan Pasqua, who was a musician himself. One of the three girls who recorded the vocal part of the theme was Robert Shaye's then 14-year-old daughter. Per the script, the lyrics are as follow: One two, Freddie's coming for you.Three four, better lock your door. Five six, grab your crucifix. Seven eight, gonna stay up late. Nine ten, never sleep again.
End Thoughts: A Nightmare on Elm Street is a excellent horror movie, it introduces a horror icon, has great charcters, has great death scenes and above all is perfect. Thank you Wes for giving us this movie.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Angel Has Fallen (2019) in Movies
Aug 22, 2019
Verdict: Franchise Hasn’t Fallen
Story: Angel Has Fallen starts when Mike banning (Butler) is the only survivor of a drone attack on President Allan Trumbull (Freeman), the rest of the team are killed and Mike has been framed for the assassination attempt. FBI agent Helen Thompson (Smith) is investigating the case, with Mike looking cut and dry to have been the man behind it, but when Mike escapes, he sets out to prove his innocence.
Mike turns to his estranged father Clay (Nolte) as he looks to discover why his old friend an private contractor Wade Jennings (Huston) has set him up and how he can prove his isn’t involved despite a nationwide manhunt for him.
Thoughts on Angel Has Fallen
Characters – Mike Banning is still a senior secret service man, playing righthand to the President, he has been keeping his injuries secret, which is nice to see an action man actually suffering injuries, instead of just being fine, like most action stars. He does his duty saving the President from an attack, only to find himself framed. When the people come to finish the job on Banning, he escapes and uses all his training to allude and search for a way to prove his innocence. Allan Trumbull is now the President, stepping up from his role as the Vice in the previous two outings, he is looking to change certain ideas, though he spends most of his film in a coma after the attack, he is the only other witness who could defend Mike’s involvement too. Wade Jennings is the private military contractor and old military buddy of Mike’s, he has framed him and is using his expertly trained team to hunt him down and finish off the job. Leah is the wife of Mike’s she is trying to keep him from working now they have a child and must deal with the consequences of seeing the name dragged through the dirt. FBI Agent Helen Thompson is trying to put the pieces together, seeing Mike as the prime suspect, she just wants the case closed without anybody else being hurt. Clay Banning is the estranged father of Mike’s he has been off the grid for years because of his own trauma from his time in the war, he is the only person Mike knows he can turn too.
Performances – Gerard Butler is great in the leading role, he is always going to be a bankable star when it comes to action roles and this is no different. Morgan Freeman does everything you would expect from a President role, without needing to do much. Piper Perabo takes over from Radha Mitchell in the wife role, which doesn’t have much to do if we are being honest. Danny Huston is one of these actors that you know is always going to be a villain, he does everything we know he can do in this role. Nick Nolte is a lot of fun, bringing his trademark estranged father role to the big screen once again, he gets a few laughs in too.
Story – The story here sees Mike Banning being framed for the assassination attempt of the President, the figure that he has been guarding for years and he must go off the grid to prove who was really behind it. The story is one that is great to watch for action, but if you have seen the previous instalments of the franchise, you will be left asking a few questions. First what happened to President Benjamin Asher, we have zero mention of him, secondly, how is nobody on Mike’s side after all he has done in the past, like seriously, he pretty much saved the President against impossible odds twice. While this question could be answered with the number of pieces of evidence placed on him, it still doesn’t seem to fit the character these people have created. Away from these questions, we must say this does build on the scale of the previous film’s stories, which is good because it does feel different, which each film does do. We could easily watch this story as a single film too and the fact that we do touch on the physical injuries that Mike has suffered through his job, does show a vulnerable action character.
Action – The action is big, we might not have the large scale opening attack, but once we get into the military formations ideas, we get plenty of tactical shootings.
Settings – The film does build on the settings, with the first one being one building, the second being one city, now we have a nationwide hunt.
Special Effects – The effects, well this has been an issue for the franchise all along, but the green screen scenes are so clear to see it almost feels like they didn’t finish the job yet.
Scene of the Movie – Mike and Clay have an escape plan.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – No mention of former President Benjamin Asher, like what happened here?
Final Thoughts – This is a action sequel that does enough different to make it feel fresh even if certain parts of the story feels too farfetched, it does continue to have a 24 vibe to everything, but it is well for a watch if you have seen the franchise or not.
Overall: Trilogy that hasn’t Fallen.
Story: Angel Has Fallen starts when Mike banning (Butler) is the only survivor of a drone attack on President Allan Trumbull (Freeman), the rest of the team are killed and Mike has been framed for the assassination attempt. FBI agent Helen Thompson (Smith) is investigating the case, with Mike looking cut and dry to have been the man behind it, but when Mike escapes, he sets out to prove his innocence.
Mike turns to his estranged father Clay (Nolte) as he looks to discover why his old friend an private contractor Wade Jennings (Huston) has set him up and how he can prove his isn’t involved despite a nationwide manhunt for him.
Thoughts on Angel Has Fallen
Characters – Mike Banning is still a senior secret service man, playing righthand to the President, he has been keeping his injuries secret, which is nice to see an action man actually suffering injuries, instead of just being fine, like most action stars. He does his duty saving the President from an attack, only to find himself framed. When the people come to finish the job on Banning, he escapes and uses all his training to allude and search for a way to prove his innocence. Allan Trumbull is now the President, stepping up from his role as the Vice in the previous two outings, he is looking to change certain ideas, though he spends most of his film in a coma after the attack, he is the only other witness who could defend Mike’s involvement too. Wade Jennings is the private military contractor and old military buddy of Mike’s, he has framed him and is using his expertly trained team to hunt him down and finish off the job. Leah is the wife of Mike’s she is trying to keep him from working now they have a child and must deal with the consequences of seeing the name dragged through the dirt. FBI Agent Helen Thompson is trying to put the pieces together, seeing Mike as the prime suspect, she just wants the case closed without anybody else being hurt. Clay Banning is the estranged father of Mike’s he has been off the grid for years because of his own trauma from his time in the war, he is the only person Mike knows he can turn too.
Performances – Gerard Butler is great in the leading role, he is always going to be a bankable star when it comes to action roles and this is no different. Morgan Freeman does everything you would expect from a President role, without needing to do much. Piper Perabo takes over from Radha Mitchell in the wife role, which doesn’t have much to do if we are being honest. Danny Huston is one of these actors that you know is always going to be a villain, he does everything we know he can do in this role. Nick Nolte is a lot of fun, bringing his trademark estranged father role to the big screen once again, he gets a few laughs in too.
Story – The story here sees Mike Banning being framed for the assassination attempt of the President, the figure that he has been guarding for years and he must go off the grid to prove who was really behind it. The story is one that is great to watch for action, but if you have seen the previous instalments of the franchise, you will be left asking a few questions. First what happened to President Benjamin Asher, we have zero mention of him, secondly, how is nobody on Mike’s side after all he has done in the past, like seriously, he pretty much saved the President against impossible odds twice. While this question could be answered with the number of pieces of evidence placed on him, it still doesn’t seem to fit the character these people have created. Away from these questions, we must say this does build on the scale of the previous film’s stories, which is good because it does feel different, which each film does do. We could easily watch this story as a single film too and the fact that we do touch on the physical injuries that Mike has suffered through his job, does show a vulnerable action character.
Action – The action is big, we might not have the large scale opening attack, but once we get into the military formations ideas, we get plenty of tactical shootings.
Settings – The film does build on the settings, with the first one being one building, the second being one city, now we have a nationwide hunt.
Special Effects – The effects, well this has been an issue for the franchise all along, but the green screen scenes are so clear to see it almost feels like they didn’t finish the job yet.
Scene of the Movie – Mike and Clay have an escape plan.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – No mention of former President Benjamin Asher, like what happened here?
Final Thoughts – This is a action sequel that does enough different to make it feel fresh even if certain parts of the story feels too farfetched, it does continue to have a 24 vibe to everything, but it is well for a watch if you have seen the franchise or not.
Overall: Trilogy that hasn’t Fallen.
Ari Augustine (10 KP) rated Crave (Crave, #1) in Books
May 4, 2020
I am super torn about CRAVE by Tracy Wolff.
First off, the world is kind of amazing. I did love the Hogwarts-Vampire Academy-Narnia-in-Alaska vibes I was getting from the setting. It was beautiful, secluded, and totally magical. Grace is hilarious most of the time, filled with snark and near corny knock knock jokes, but I also enjoyed how she called characters out on their crap. She wasn't always a reckless mess, which was nice, and I readily felt for her grief over the death of her parents. From the beginning, I was there for her pain, her panic attacks, her bravery, her wit, and this new adventure before her. Second to Grace is Jaxon, who I adored in so many ways. Perfection and arrogance aside, he's totally a broody vampire, but this isn't the ONLY side to his character we get, and unlike so many other characters we could compare him to, he does change throughout the course of the book. In fact, I'd go as far as saying that maybe Jaxon, not Grace, is the main lead of this story. They had amazing chemistry, sexy banter, and I deeply enjoyed the tug o' war between them.
Okay. Now for the....not so great. For one, while the setting is so magical and new, we don't really get to explore it much. Yes, we get the AMAZING library filled with witches, unusual tomes, and gargoyles, but I would have loved to hear more about the classes, the different cliques, the way this new place functioned. Unfortunately, because Grace was left out of the loop for pretty much the whole book, we were, too. So we end up not really getting to explore this new place much and that really sucked. This brings us to a second thing I struggled with: Grace.
While I absolutely adored her character, I also kind of wanted to smack her and scream "OPEN YOUR EYES". Even with Macy (her cousin) half spelling it out and with all the impossibilities going on (like students standing outside in below 0 weather without jackets), Grace just sort of files it away as odd, but shrugs. Meh. So that guy wanted to murder me? Meh. So these beads shock everyone but me? Meh. So I fell from a tree and somehow this hot guy caught me midair? Double meh. The list goes on. This went on for the ENTIRE BOOK. And while it was all painfully obvious to us, it sailed over her head like an invisible wind. This really bothered me. Just like the instalove with Jaxon bothered me. Look, I believe in instant attraction. I know a hottie when I see one and, yeah, there's always that little phase of infatuation and attraction, but this started intense and just sort of ended with love bombs. The chemistry, as I said before, was amazing, but I wished we could have had more to go on. It bothered me that Grace was constantly throwing herself at Jaxon, forcing herself on him and forcing him to open on. She also made so many assumptions about Jaxon and I was waiting for her rationale, which never really came. It's like meeting a feral dog in the tundra and believing it wont harm you because it's one of God's creatures or something. She totally idolized him, and I think that, more than anything, kept preventing me from fully loving her as a character.
Odd things I don't know how to feel about: I can totally see where people here are comparing it to Twilight. It pretty much follows the same Vampire Romance formula. Human girl meets broody vampire boy who has a dark past, a set of fangs, and, of course, many enemies. The girl almost always sacrifices herself for love and that happens here, too. I will argue that these characters had WAY MORE personality than Bella and Edward, though. In fact, I FUCKING LOVES all the scenes where Grace handed Jaxon his ass. In fact, this is pretty much why I was unable to put the book down despite all the issues I had with it later. What struck me, though, was I couldn't shake the feeling that the book was either laughing at Twilight (by being a better version of it) or if it was laughing at itself....as if Twilight were the inside joke. This was actually the most entertaining part of the book, and I was unable to figure out if this was meant to be comedic or if I was just reading it that way. Does this make sense? There were so many Twilight references and at one point, Grace event comments to herself about how she wasn't going to be like those female heroines in YA fantasy novels. I don't know. I read this alongside a friend who also felt like the book wasn't taking itself seriously, but neither of us could tell if this was deliberate or not.
Overall, it was a light and entertaining read. Was it perfect? No. Is it funny? Hell yes. Lots of delicious fangy hotness? Um...YEAH. And despite all the problems I had with it, it was still a fun book to setting into during midterms week.
First off, the world is kind of amazing. I did love the Hogwarts-Vampire Academy-Narnia-in-Alaska vibes I was getting from the setting. It was beautiful, secluded, and totally magical. Grace is hilarious most of the time, filled with snark and near corny knock knock jokes, but I also enjoyed how she called characters out on their crap. She wasn't always a reckless mess, which was nice, and I readily felt for her grief over the death of her parents. From the beginning, I was there for her pain, her panic attacks, her bravery, her wit, and this new adventure before her. Second to Grace is Jaxon, who I adored in so many ways. Perfection and arrogance aside, he's totally a broody vampire, but this isn't the ONLY side to his character we get, and unlike so many other characters we could compare him to, he does change throughout the course of the book. In fact, I'd go as far as saying that maybe Jaxon, not Grace, is the main lead of this story. They had amazing chemistry, sexy banter, and I deeply enjoyed the tug o' war between them.
Okay. Now for the....not so great. For one, while the setting is so magical and new, we don't really get to explore it much. Yes, we get the AMAZING library filled with witches, unusual tomes, and gargoyles, but I would have loved to hear more about the classes, the different cliques, the way this new place functioned. Unfortunately, because Grace was left out of the loop for pretty much the whole book, we were, too. So we end up not really getting to explore this new place much and that really sucked. This brings us to a second thing I struggled with: Grace.
While I absolutely adored her character, I also kind of wanted to smack her and scream "OPEN YOUR EYES". Even with Macy (her cousin) half spelling it out and with all the impossibilities going on (like students standing outside in below 0 weather without jackets), Grace just sort of files it away as odd, but shrugs. Meh. So that guy wanted to murder me? Meh. So these beads shock everyone but me? Meh. So I fell from a tree and somehow this hot guy caught me midair? Double meh. The list goes on. This went on for the ENTIRE BOOK. And while it was all painfully obvious to us, it sailed over her head like an invisible wind. This really bothered me. Just like the instalove with Jaxon bothered me. Look, I believe in instant attraction. I know a hottie when I see one and, yeah, there's always that little phase of infatuation and attraction, but this started intense and just sort of ended with love bombs. The chemistry, as I said before, was amazing, but I wished we could have had more to go on. It bothered me that Grace was constantly throwing herself at Jaxon, forcing herself on him and forcing him to open on. She also made so many assumptions about Jaxon and I was waiting for her rationale, which never really came. It's like meeting a feral dog in the tundra and believing it wont harm you because it's one of God's creatures or something. She totally idolized him, and I think that, more than anything, kept preventing me from fully loving her as a character.
Odd things I don't know how to feel about: I can totally see where people here are comparing it to Twilight. It pretty much follows the same Vampire Romance formula. Human girl meets broody vampire boy who has a dark past, a set of fangs, and, of course, many enemies. The girl almost always sacrifices herself for love and that happens here, too. I will argue that these characters had WAY MORE personality than Bella and Edward, though. In fact, I FUCKING LOVES all the scenes where Grace handed Jaxon his ass. In fact, this is pretty much why I was unable to put the book down despite all the issues I had with it later. What struck me, though, was I couldn't shake the feeling that the book was either laughing at Twilight (by being a better version of it) or if it was laughing at itself....as if Twilight were the inside joke. This was actually the most entertaining part of the book, and I was unable to figure out if this was meant to be comedic or if I was just reading it that way. Does this make sense? There were so many Twilight references and at one point, Grace event comments to herself about how she wasn't going to be like those female heroines in YA fantasy novels. I don't know. I read this alongside a friend who also felt like the book wasn't taking itself seriously, but neither of us could tell if this was deliberate or not.
Overall, it was a light and entertaining read. Was it perfect? No. Is it funny? Hell yes. Lots of delicious fangy hotness? Um...YEAH. And despite all the problems I had with it, it was still a fun book to setting into during midterms week.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mortal Engines (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
At last, the hilarious Brexit comedy we’ve all been waiting for.
As comedy goes it’s classic gold! London has been transferred, presumably via a futuristic big-arsed forklift truck of some kind, onto a huge chassis and is now chugging its way across mainland Europe. Needing fuel, it has the capability to gobble-up other roving towns and cities (take that Barnier!) which London ‘digests’ (smoke that Tusk!). Curiously, the captured cities’ inhabitants are not exterminated but integrated into the City’s population: so much for any anti-immigration policy! (LOL).
But all doesn’t go entirely smoothly for the UK capital. The Lord Mayor of London (Patrick Malahide) declares “We should never have gone into Europe. It’s the biggest mistake we ever made”. (Classic: how we SNORTED with laughter!)
Cities on wheels. London in hot pursuit of a Bavarian mining town. (Some things you just write, and then have to do a double take!). (Source: Universal Pictures International).
Stuffing it squarely to the ‘remainers’, London makes its own future. “It’s time to show the world how strong London can be”. Having conquered most of Europe, it’s time to set its sights on new markets to conquer: so London takes the Chinese on! (Now the tears of laughter are flowing freely!) Trade deals have never been more entertaining since “Star Wars: The Phantom Menace”!
Well, perhaps not
OK, so in the interests of ‘advertising standards’, I’d better make clear before you rush out to the cinema expecting a comedy feature that my tongue is firmly in my cheek here. For “Mortal Engines” is the latest sci-fi feature from Peter Jackson. But when viewed from a Brexit perspective, it’s friggin’ hilarious!
In terms of plot, this (like “Waterworld”) makes clever use of the Universal logo to set the agenda. The world has been decimated with a worldwide war – though clearly one that selectively destroyed bits of London and not others! – and the survivors must try to survive in any way they can. Settlements are divided between those that are ‘static’ and those (like London) that are mobile and constantly evolving: “Municipal Darwinism” as it is hysterically described. But London, or rather the power-crazed Londoner Thaddeus Valentine (Hugo Weaving), wants revolution rather than evolution and he is working on development of one of the super-weapons that started the world’s demise in the first place.
But Hester Shaw (Hera Hilmar), separated when young from her mother Pandora (yes, she has a box and we’ve seen it: wink, wink) is intent on stopping him, since she is on a personal path of vengence. Teaming up with Londoner Tom (Robert Sheehan) and activist Anna Fang (Jihae) they must face both Thaddeus and the ever-relentless Shrike (Stephen Lang) to try to derail the destructive plan.
“I’m not subtle”
So says Anna Fang, but then neither is this movie. The film is loud and action-filled and (as a significant plus) visually extremely impressive with it. I’m not a great fan of excessive CGI but here it is essential, and the special-effects team do a great job. The production design is tremendous – a lot of money has been thrown at this – and the costume design inventive, a high-spot (again snortworthy) being the Beefeater guards costumes!
Where the film really crashes, like a post-Brexit stock market, is with the dialogue. The screenplay by Jackson himself, with his regular writers Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens contains some absolute clunkers, notwithstanding the unintended LOL-worthy Brexit irony. It’s jaw-droppingly bad, believe me.
The turns
The only real “name” in the whole film is Jackson-favourite Hugo Weaving. Just about everyone else in the cast is pretty well unknown, and in many cases it shows. Standing head and shoulders though for me over the rest of the cast was Icelandic actress Hera Hilmar, who strikes a splendidly feisty pose as the mentally and physically scarred Hester. I look forward to seeing what she does next.
Plagerism: the movie
Story-wise, there’s not a sci-fi film that’s not been looted, and a number of other films seem to be plundered too. (I can’t comment on how much of this comes from the source book by Philip Reeve). The Londonmobile looks for all the world like Monty Python’s “Crimson Permanent Assurance Company”; the teenage female lead is Sarah Connors, relentlessly pursued by The Terminator; the male lead is archaologist cum hot-shot pilot Indiana Solo, leather jacket and all; there is a Blade Runner moment; a battle that is a meld of “The Great Wall” and Morannon from “The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers”; a less sophisticated aerial location from “The Empire Strikes Back”; and another classic Star Wars moment (without the words being actually said!).
A case of the Jackson Pollocks
Now I’m loathe to say anything bad about director Peter Jackson, after his breathtakingly memorable “They Shall Not Grown Old“. And the film has its moments of flair, most memorably a “life flashing before your eyes scene” that I found genuinely moving. But overall, as an actioner, it’s a bit of a mess.
It’s a long way from being the worse film I’ve seen this year by a long stroke – it kept me interested and amused in equal measure for the running time. But I think given it’s initially bombed at the Box Office, any plans Jackson had to deliver a series of these movies might need to be self-funded.
But all doesn’t go entirely smoothly for the UK capital. The Lord Mayor of London (Patrick Malahide) declares “We should never have gone into Europe. It’s the biggest mistake we ever made”. (Classic: how we SNORTED with laughter!)
Cities on wheels. London in hot pursuit of a Bavarian mining town. (Some things you just write, and then have to do a double take!). (Source: Universal Pictures International).
Stuffing it squarely to the ‘remainers’, London makes its own future. “It’s time to show the world how strong London can be”. Having conquered most of Europe, it’s time to set its sights on new markets to conquer: so London takes the Chinese on! (Now the tears of laughter are flowing freely!) Trade deals have never been more entertaining since “Star Wars: The Phantom Menace”!
Well, perhaps not
OK, so in the interests of ‘advertising standards’, I’d better make clear before you rush out to the cinema expecting a comedy feature that my tongue is firmly in my cheek here. For “Mortal Engines” is the latest sci-fi feature from Peter Jackson. But when viewed from a Brexit perspective, it’s friggin’ hilarious!
In terms of plot, this (like “Waterworld”) makes clever use of the Universal logo to set the agenda. The world has been decimated with a worldwide war – though clearly one that selectively destroyed bits of London and not others! – and the survivors must try to survive in any way they can. Settlements are divided between those that are ‘static’ and those (like London) that are mobile and constantly evolving: “Municipal Darwinism” as it is hysterically described. But London, or rather the power-crazed Londoner Thaddeus Valentine (Hugo Weaving), wants revolution rather than evolution and he is working on development of one of the super-weapons that started the world’s demise in the first place.
But Hester Shaw (Hera Hilmar), separated when young from her mother Pandora (yes, she has a box and we’ve seen it: wink, wink) is intent on stopping him, since she is on a personal path of vengence. Teaming up with Londoner Tom (Robert Sheehan) and activist Anna Fang (Jihae) they must face both Thaddeus and the ever-relentless Shrike (Stephen Lang) to try to derail the destructive plan.
“I’m not subtle”
So says Anna Fang, but then neither is this movie. The film is loud and action-filled and (as a significant plus) visually extremely impressive with it. I’m not a great fan of excessive CGI but here it is essential, and the special-effects team do a great job. The production design is tremendous – a lot of money has been thrown at this – and the costume design inventive, a high-spot (again snortworthy) being the Beefeater guards costumes!
Where the film really crashes, like a post-Brexit stock market, is with the dialogue. The screenplay by Jackson himself, with his regular writers Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens contains some absolute clunkers, notwithstanding the unintended LOL-worthy Brexit irony. It’s jaw-droppingly bad, believe me.
The turns
The only real “name” in the whole film is Jackson-favourite Hugo Weaving. Just about everyone else in the cast is pretty well unknown, and in many cases it shows. Standing head and shoulders though for me over the rest of the cast was Icelandic actress Hera Hilmar, who strikes a splendidly feisty pose as the mentally and physically scarred Hester. I look forward to seeing what she does next.
Plagerism: the movie
Story-wise, there’s not a sci-fi film that’s not been looted, and a number of other films seem to be plundered too. (I can’t comment on how much of this comes from the source book by Philip Reeve). The Londonmobile looks for all the world like Monty Python’s “Crimson Permanent Assurance Company”; the teenage female lead is Sarah Connors, relentlessly pursued by The Terminator; the male lead is archaologist cum hot-shot pilot Indiana Solo, leather jacket and all; there is a Blade Runner moment; a battle that is a meld of “The Great Wall” and Morannon from “The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers”; a less sophisticated aerial location from “The Empire Strikes Back”; and another classic Star Wars moment (without the words being actually said!).
A case of the Jackson Pollocks
Now I’m loathe to say anything bad about director Peter Jackson, after his breathtakingly memorable “They Shall Not Grown Old“. And the film has its moments of flair, most memorably a “life flashing before your eyes scene” that I found genuinely moving. But overall, as an actioner, it’s a bit of a mess.
It’s a long way from being the worse film I’ve seen this year by a long stroke – it kept me interested and amused in equal measure for the running time. But I think given it’s initially bombed at the Box Office, any plans Jackson had to deliver a series of these movies might need to be self-funded.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Hate U Give (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
It’s a turf war on a global scale.
I saw this as part of a “Secret Cinema” event by Cineworld cinemas in the UK. That’s where you go to see a pre-release movie without knowing what it is going to be. It’s an interesting litmus test for a) a movie’s upfront marketing appeal (how many people get up and walk out when the BBFC title appears) and b) the “grab ’em early” appeal of the movie itself (how many people get up and walk out during the first 20 minutes of so).
I’m afraid this movie didn’t do very well on either a) or b) at my showing: about 20 people left immediately, and more tellingly about another 20 people left in the first half hour. There’s a reason for that: the first half hour of this film is goddamn awful!
Starr Carter (Amandla Stenberg) is a sixteen year-old resident of Garden Heights, a black neighbourhood in a US city, where she lives with her younger brother and step-brother. Their parents Maverick (Russell Hornsby, “Fences“) and Lisa (Regina Hall) are devoting all of their energies to “break the cycle” and get their kids out of the neighbourhood and off to college and better futures. As such, the kids attend not the rough-house local school but a much more upper-class establishment: there Starr has to play a different role, with links to her origins being kept hidden even from her white boyfriend Chris (K.J. Apa).
But all that changes when her boyhood friend Khalil (Algee Smith) is shot and killed in a police stop-and-search. As the only witness, and with Khalil linked to local gang lord King (Anthony Mackie), Starr’s anonymous world is about to get a national focus shone onto it.
Man… I hate voiceovers in films and always have. So I really hated the start of this film which has Starr narrating ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING (“Blah, blah, blah..”): no audience discovery is required. It also starts with a sort of highschool romance vibe, but not one that’s well done with kissing (“Blah, blah, blah..”) while the local Mean Girls look on (“Blah, blah”) then with Starr’s friends trying to act street (“blah, blah”) while Starr tries not to be street, all to the constant droning of Starr’s voiceover (“Blah, blah, blah..”). (I never walk out of movies…. but I can kind of understand the rationale of those who did).
Fortunately the voiceover then largely recedes (it only pops up with occasional staccato “thoughts”, before storming back for a “blah, blah” finale). And with the shooting, the film takes on a much more interesting slant, giving Amandla Stenberg a chance to really shine.
I have commented on Ms Stenberg before: she was the only really good thing in the recent “The Darkest Minds“. Here she exhibits a tremendous range from the delighted (her smile is radiant and seems astonishingly unforced) to the heartbroken and furious. There’s also a really strong supporting cast with great turns from Hornsby, Hall, Mackie and Smith. Hornsby in particular I found great as the Dad desperately tutoring his kids in military (but loving) fashion to avoid his mistakes.
For me, this seemed to be a surprisingly atypical view of a black ghetto-living family. A scene set in a diner is genuinely touching at emphasising the loving and close-knit nature of the Carter family.
Where I will struggle here is in trying to interpret my overall feelings about the film. As a white, older male person I have three degrees of separation from Starr’s perspective. And these are undoubtedly difficult issues to juggle with. The riots that happened recently in towns like Ferguson ape the activities on screen uncomfortably. Your sympathies might lie to some degree with the unfortunate white police officer (Drew Starkey); sympathies supported by the views of Starr’s police officer uncle Carlos (Common): until Starr points out via a punchy question that you REALLY shouldn’t feel like that… and your views are brought up with a jolt.
Aside from the rights and wrongs of the incident, there’s a frustrating dichotomy at play in the film with black and white communities wanting to be treated equally but never wanting to be treated the same. “You don’t SEE me” wails Starr. “I see you” replies Chris (as if James Cameron was directing!) But does he really? Without colour, I do not consider myself to be remotely capable of fully understanding Starr’s perspective on life. It made me want to read the source novel by Angie Thomas to try to get better insight.
Directed by George Tillman Jr., it’s undoubtedly a mixed bag, but I came down in the end on the side of it being good rather than bad… it has certainly had me thinking for a couple of days. The clumsy voiceovers and story elements in the opening and closing scenes mask a number of parallel and interesting story strands that generate conflicting thoughts about the state of race relations in today’s America. Jackson sang “It doesn’t matter if you’re black or white”: and it really shouldn’t, but actually in some quarters, it clearly still does.
I’m afraid this movie didn’t do very well on either a) or b) at my showing: about 20 people left immediately, and more tellingly about another 20 people left in the first half hour. There’s a reason for that: the first half hour of this film is goddamn awful!
Starr Carter (Amandla Stenberg) is a sixteen year-old resident of Garden Heights, a black neighbourhood in a US city, where she lives with her younger brother and step-brother. Their parents Maverick (Russell Hornsby, “Fences“) and Lisa (Regina Hall) are devoting all of their energies to “break the cycle” and get their kids out of the neighbourhood and off to college and better futures. As such, the kids attend not the rough-house local school but a much more upper-class establishment: there Starr has to play a different role, with links to her origins being kept hidden even from her white boyfriend Chris (K.J. Apa).
But all that changes when her boyhood friend Khalil (Algee Smith) is shot and killed in a police stop-and-search. As the only witness, and with Khalil linked to local gang lord King (Anthony Mackie), Starr’s anonymous world is about to get a national focus shone onto it.
Man… I hate voiceovers in films and always have. So I really hated the start of this film which has Starr narrating ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING (“Blah, blah, blah..”): no audience discovery is required. It also starts with a sort of highschool romance vibe, but not one that’s well done with kissing (“Blah, blah, blah..”) while the local Mean Girls look on (“Blah, blah”) then with Starr’s friends trying to act street (“blah, blah”) while Starr tries not to be street, all to the constant droning of Starr’s voiceover (“Blah, blah, blah..”). (I never walk out of movies…. but I can kind of understand the rationale of those who did).
Fortunately the voiceover then largely recedes (it only pops up with occasional staccato “thoughts”, before storming back for a “blah, blah” finale). And with the shooting, the film takes on a much more interesting slant, giving Amandla Stenberg a chance to really shine.
I have commented on Ms Stenberg before: she was the only really good thing in the recent “The Darkest Minds“. Here she exhibits a tremendous range from the delighted (her smile is radiant and seems astonishingly unforced) to the heartbroken and furious. There’s also a really strong supporting cast with great turns from Hornsby, Hall, Mackie and Smith. Hornsby in particular I found great as the Dad desperately tutoring his kids in military (but loving) fashion to avoid his mistakes.
For me, this seemed to be a surprisingly atypical view of a black ghetto-living family. A scene set in a diner is genuinely touching at emphasising the loving and close-knit nature of the Carter family.
Where I will struggle here is in trying to interpret my overall feelings about the film. As a white, older male person I have three degrees of separation from Starr’s perspective. And these are undoubtedly difficult issues to juggle with. The riots that happened recently in towns like Ferguson ape the activities on screen uncomfortably. Your sympathies might lie to some degree with the unfortunate white police officer (Drew Starkey); sympathies supported by the views of Starr’s police officer uncle Carlos (Common): until Starr points out via a punchy question that you REALLY shouldn’t feel like that… and your views are brought up with a jolt.
Aside from the rights and wrongs of the incident, there’s a frustrating dichotomy at play in the film with black and white communities wanting to be treated equally but never wanting to be treated the same. “You don’t SEE me” wails Starr. “I see you” replies Chris (as if James Cameron was directing!) But does he really? Without colour, I do not consider myself to be remotely capable of fully understanding Starr’s perspective on life. It made me want to read the source novel by Angie Thomas to try to get better insight.
Directed by George Tillman Jr., it’s undoubtedly a mixed bag, but I came down in the end on the side of it being good rather than bad… it has certainly had me thinking for a couple of days. The clumsy voiceovers and story elements in the opening and closing scenes mask a number of parallel and interesting story strands that generate conflicting thoughts about the state of race relations in today’s America. Jackson sang “It doesn’t matter if you’re black or white”: and it really shouldn’t, but actually in some quarters, it clearly still does.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Rear Window (1954) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Hmm… must have splattered a lot”.
Maddy at Maddy Loves Her Classic Films is hosting The Alfred Hitchcockblogathon. A fine idea, celebrating the life and works of the “Master of Suspense”. My contribution comes from his 1954 masterpiece “Rear Window” starring James Stewart and Grace Kelly.
rw-poster
In one pan around his small apartment, and without a word of dialogue required, Hitchcock deftly fills in all the back-story you need: Stewart plays ace photo-journalist L.B. Jefferies, laid up from jetting the world to worn-torn regions by a broken leg in a full-cast with only his courtyard view to entertain him. In sweltering summer temperatures all the apartments are open to the elements, so he can be well entertained by the menagerie before him: “Miss Torso”, the scantily-clad and frequently showering ballerina; a sculptress with an eye towards Henry Moore; a struggling composer (who has his clock wound by someone very familiar!); a newly-wedded bride threatening to wear out the groom; a salesman and his bed-ridden wife; a dog-loving and balcony-sleeping couple; and “Miss Lonelyhearts” – a hard-drinking spinster forced to create imaginary male dinner-guests.
Stewart plays his usual ‘Mr Ordinary’ watching perfectly ordinary goings on in a perfectly ordinary apartment block.
Or not. Jefferies is drawn to some odd-events in the apartment of the salesman (Raymond Burr, still 13 years before his career-defining role in TV’s “Ironside”). His rampant suspicions infect not only his cranky middle-aged physiotherapist Stella (Thelma Ritter) but also his perfect (“too perfect”) girlfriend, the fashion expert Lisa (Grace Kelly). Of course his police friend Doyle (Wendell Corey) is having none of it… there is no evidence of any crime being committed. And the “murdered” wife has been seen being put on a train by her husband, and is sending him letters from the countryside.
Is Jefferies just going stir-crazy? Or is there really something to it?
The set for this film is masterly. Although depicting a genuine location in New York’s Greenwich village the huge set was constructed on the Paramount lot in Hollywood, and you can just imagine the army of carpenters and artists building the multi-layered structure.
It’s one of the stars of the film, allowing for a wealth of detail to be populated: in the apartments; in the street behind; even in the cafe over the other side of the street. And it’s this detail that really makes what could be a highly static film come alive. There are a half dozen films-within-the-film going on at once, with Stewart’s character – and you as the fellow-voyeur – having a multi-pass to watch them all simultaneously.
And watch he does. As what could be perceived as a seriously pervy character – something he is called out on by Stella – Jeffries gets to see an eyeful in particular of the shapely and scantily-clad ballerina (Georgine Darcy, agent-less and only paid $350 for the role!). These scenes must have been deemed quite risque for the year of release.
Where the film rather falters is in the bickering romance between Stewart and Kelly. As a hot-blooded man, I will declare that even today Kelly’s first dream-like appearance (with Vaseline lightly coating the lens) is breathtaking. She’s just the ‘girl-next-door’: if you live next to a palace that is! And yet (with Kelly 21 years Stewart’s junior) she’s just “too perfect” for L.B. , who feels (against her protestations) that she’s ‘too girly’ to hack the life of a war photographer on the road. The mysogeny, common for the day, is gasp-making: “If a girl’s pretty enough, she just has to ‘be'” intones Stewart, to no howls of protest or throwing of saucepans! In fact Kelly is greatly encouraged: “Preview of coming attractions” purrs Kelly, flaunting what she has around the apartment in a negligee.
These scenes though are rather overlong and somewhat get in the way of the murder mystery plot-line. Things really start to warm up when a death occurs, to piercing screams in the night: “Which one of you did it?” shouts a woman to the neighbourhood, as everything – momentarily – stops. “WHICH ONE OF YOU DID IT?”. Given your emotional involvement in the ongoing voyeurism, it’s hard as a viewer not to feel discomforted…. (“well, it wasn’t me”…. shifts uneasily in the seat).
From then on, Hitchcock proceeds to pile on suspenseful jolt after jolt, with first Lisa and then L.B. placed in harms way. While the perpetrator may seem clueless and incompetent, as most murderers of passion probably are, the denouement is satisfying, with a great trial use of green-screen ‘falling’ that would be perfected by Hitchcock for “Vertigo” four years later.
What’s curious for such as classic is that there are a number of fluffed lines in the piece: with two notable ones by Stewart and Kelly. Hitchcock was the master of long and uninterrupted takes, but did he not believe in re-shooting scenes when such errors occurred? Most odd.
Although tighter and more claustrophobic that some of his better known films, this is a firm favourite of mine. If you’ve never seen it, its well worth you checking out.
rw-poster
In one pan around his small apartment, and without a word of dialogue required, Hitchcock deftly fills in all the back-story you need: Stewart plays ace photo-journalist L.B. Jefferies, laid up from jetting the world to worn-torn regions by a broken leg in a full-cast with only his courtyard view to entertain him. In sweltering summer temperatures all the apartments are open to the elements, so he can be well entertained by the menagerie before him: “Miss Torso”, the scantily-clad and frequently showering ballerina; a sculptress with an eye towards Henry Moore; a struggling composer (who has his clock wound by someone very familiar!); a newly-wedded bride threatening to wear out the groom; a salesman and his bed-ridden wife; a dog-loving and balcony-sleeping couple; and “Miss Lonelyhearts” – a hard-drinking spinster forced to create imaginary male dinner-guests.
Stewart plays his usual ‘Mr Ordinary’ watching perfectly ordinary goings on in a perfectly ordinary apartment block.
Or not. Jefferies is drawn to some odd-events in the apartment of the salesman (Raymond Burr, still 13 years before his career-defining role in TV’s “Ironside”). His rampant suspicions infect not only his cranky middle-aged physiotherapist Stella (Thelma Ritter) but also his perfect (“too perfect”) girlfriend, the fashion expert Lisa (Grace Kelly). Of course his police friend Doyle (Wendell Corey) is having none of it… there is no evidence of any crime being committed. And the “murdered” wife has been seen being put on a train by her husband, and is sending him letters from the countryside.
Is Jefferies just going stir-crazy? Or is there really something to it?
The set for this film is masterly. Although depicting a genuine location in New York’s Greenwich village the huge set was constructed on the Paramount lot in Hollywood, and you can just imagine the army of carpenters and artists building the multi-layered structure.
It’s one of the stars of the film, allowing for a wealth of detail to be populated: in the apartments; in the street behind; even in the cafe over the other side of the street. And it’s this detail that really makes what could be a highly static film come alive. There are a half dozen films-within-the-film going on at once, with Stewart’s character – and you as the fellow-voyeur – having a multi-pass to watch them all simultaneously.
And watch he does. As what could be perceived as a seriously pervy character – something he is called out on by Stella – Jeffries gets to see an eyeful in particular of the shapely and scantily-clad ballerina (Georgine Darcy, agent-less and only paid $350 for the role!). These scenes must have been deemed quite risque for the year of release.
Where the film rather falters is in the bickering romance between Stewart and Kelly. As a hot-blooded man, I will declare that even today Kelly’s first dream-like appearance (with Vaseline lightly coating the lens) is breathtaking. She’s just the ‘girl-next-door’: if you live next to a palace that is! And yet (with Kelly 21 years Stewart’s junior) she’s just “too perfect” for L.B. , who feels (against her protestations) that she’s ‘too girly’ to hack the life of a war photographer on the road. The mysogeny, common for the day, is gasp-making: “If a girl’s pretty enough, she just has to ‘be'” intones Stewart, to no howls of protest or throwing of saucepans! In fact Kelly is greatly encouraged: “Preview of coming attractions” purrs Kelly, flaunting what she has around the apartment in a negligee.
These scenes though are rather overlong and somewhat get in the way of the murder mystery plot-line. Things really start to warm up when a death occurs, to piercing screams in the night: “Which one of you did it?” shouts a woman to the neighbourhood, as everything – momentarily – stops. “WHICH ONE OF YOU DID IT?”. Given your emotional involvement in the ongoing voyeurism, it’s hard as a viewer not to feel discomforted…. (“well, it wasn’t me”…. shifts uneasily in the seat).
From then on, Hitchcock proceeds to pile on suspenseful jolt after jolt, with first Lisa and then L.B. placed in harms way. While the perpetrator may seem clueless and incompetent, as most murderers of passion probably are, the denouement is satisfying, with a great trial use of green-screen ‘falling’ that would be perfected by Hitchcock for “Vertigo” four years later.
What’s curious for such as classic is that there are a number of fluffed lines in the piece: with two notable ones by Stewart and Kelly. Hitchcock was the master of long and uninterrupted takes, but did he not believe in re-shooting scenes when such errors occurred? Most odd.
Although tighter and more claustrophobic that some of his better known films, this is a firm favourite of mine. If you’ve never seen it, its well worth you checking out.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021) in Movies
Dec 18, 2021
Willem Dafoe (2 more)
The on-screen bickering between characters.
The Doc Ock, Doctor Strange, and villainous team-up action sequences.
The humor doesn't always land. (2 more)
Peter's idiotic logic.
Lizard is supremely underutilized.
Riding the Nostalgia Train
Spider-Man: No Way Home picks up immediately after the events of Spider-Man: Far From Home. Quentin Beck (Jake Gyllenhaal) has revealed to the world that Peter Parker (Tom Holland) is Spider-Man. The world is torn in thinking that Peter is either still a hero or behind the drone attacks on London like Beck stated before his death.
Peter is now in a relationship with MJ (Zendaya) while Ned (Jacob Batalon) tags along as the third wheel more than the guy in the chair. As the three attempt to get into MIT and other colleges, MJ and Ned are punished for being associated with Peter. Feeling guilty, Peter takes it upon himself to contact Doctor Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch), who eventually agrees to perform a spell that would make everyone forget that Peter Parker is Spider-Man. However, Peter’s motor mouth and constant need to change Strange’s spell botches it and ends up opening the multiverse.
Early on, the humor in Spider-Man: No Way Home is lacking and a little lame. Much of the film rides on Peter’s relationship with MJ. Peter, MJ, and Ned have become inseparable in the film thanks to the events of Homecoming, Far From Home, Infinity War, and Endgame. Nearly everything boils down to them making decisions as a trio even when Peter is out there as Spider-Man. The humor in the film doesn’t really find its footing until the villains come along and even then it starts off pretty rough (making fun of the Otto Octavius name in the trailer is a prime example).
Peter’s solution to all of these villains invading his universe from their own is pure stupidity. The desire to do what’s best for someone’s well being is there and you understand why Peter is so adamant about going in the direction that he does. However, he has the opportunity to end all of this early on with little to no repercussions other than some structural damage that he is able to repair in one night.
Peter chooses to change the fate of these villains with the best intentions and suffers for it. In a way, it’s inevitable as it factors in to and is motivation for who Peter Parker and Spider-Man are as essentially one heroic character. “It’s what they do,” as they say several times in the film. That doesn’t mean you have to swallow it as something a supposed genius and one of Marvel’s smartest minds would conjure up though.
Next to the surprises the film has in store for first time viewers, the villains are arguably the highlight of the film. Peter’s fight with Doctor Octopus (Alfred Molina) on the bridge is nearly on par with the Spider-Man/Doc Ock fight on the train from Spider-Man 2. Willem Dafoe is also still Spider-Man’s greatest and most sinister adversary as Norman Osborn/The Green Goblin two decades later.
Dafoe’s one stipulation for returning to the franchise was that he would be allowed to do all of his own stunts even at 66 years old; he believes it all factors in to his performance and it shows. You feel sympathy for Norman and admire his brilliance, but he’s plagued with this gushingly nefarious and uncontrollable alternate personality. With that reverberating laugh and amazing facial expressions, Dafoe literally steals the film every time he’s on screen.
The bickering in the film results in some of the most entertaining sequences in the film. There’s at least two instances, one between all of the villains when they’re all in the same room and another sequence later that occurs right before the big fight scene between Spider-Man and the five villains that have crossed over, that are just incredible and it’s basically just dialogue.
Screenwriters Chris McKenna and Erik Sommers deserve a lot of the credit. If it wasn’t for their writing then those back-and-forth dialogue exchanges between characters wouldn’t exist. But the performances from the cast also factor in to how great those sequences are. Much of the older returning cast have joked about only returning for the money, but it’s clear that there was some enjoyment of not only the script but also being able to work with such a talented group of people.
Speaking of trains, the Spider-Man/Doctor Strange battle in the mirror dimension is one of No Way Home’s visual treats. Doctor Strange and his magical origins opened up the cosmic aspect for the MCU, which has always resulted in trippy and otherworldly sequences that are tonally different and unlike anything else from the other Marvel films. Seeing Spider-Man swing around as the world is upside down while dodging kaleidoscopic skyscrapers and barely escaping gravity defying portals results in a sequence especially memorable for MCU fans.
Spider-Man: No Way Home isn’t without its flaws, but it is mostly exactly what it’s advertised to be. The film doesn’t necessarily redefine the, “With great power comes great responsibility,” aspect for Tom Holland’s Spider-Man but it without a doubt gives the MCU version of Spider-Man his version of that principle. No Way Home is a nostalgic extravaganza that exceeds expectations and is a perfect and satisfying bookend for the first three Tom Holland Spider-Man movies.
Peter is now in a relationship with MJ (Zendaya) while Ned (Jacob Batalon) tags along as the third wheel more than the guy in the chair. As the three attempt to get into MIT and other colleges, MJ and Ned are punished for being associated with Peter. Feeling guilty, Peter takes it upon himself to contact Doctor Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch), who eventually agrees to perform a spell that would make everyone forget that Peter Parker is Spider-Man. However, Peter’s motor mouth and constant need to change Strange’s spell botches it and ends up opening the multiverse.
Early on, the humor in Spider-Man: No Way Home is lacking and a little lame. Much of the film rides on Peter’s relationship with MJ. Peter, MJ, and Ned have become inseparable in the film thanks to the events of Homecoming, Far From Home, Infinity War, and Endgame. Nearly everything boils down to them making decisions as a trio even when Peter is out there as Spider-Man. The humor in the film doesn’t really find its footing until the villains come along and even then it starts off pretty rough (making fun of the Otto Octavius name in the trailer is a prime example).
Peter’s solution to all of these villains invading his universe from their own is pure stupidity. The desire to do what’s best for someone’s well being is there and you understand why Peter is so adamant about going in the direction that he does. However, he has the opportunity to end all of this early on with little to no repercussions other than some structural damage that he is able to repair in one night.
Peter chooses to change the fate of these villains with the best intentions and suffers for it. In a way, it’s inevitable as it factors in to and is motivation for who Peter Parker and Spider-Man are as essentially one heroic character. “It’s what they do,” as they say several times in the film. That doesn’t mean you have to swallow it as something a supposed genius and one of Marvel’s smartest minds would conjure up though.
Next to the surprises the film has in store for first time viewers, the villains are arguably the highlight of the film. Peter’s fight with Doctor Octopus (Alfred Molina) on the bridge is nearly on par with the Spider-Man/Doc Ock fight on the train from Spider-Man 2. Willem Dafoe is also still Spider-Man’s greatest and most sinister adversary as Norman Osborn/The Green Goblin two decades later.
Dafoe’s one stipulation for returning to the franchise was that he would be allowed to do all of his own stunts even at 66 years old; he believes it all factors in to his performance and it shows. You feel sympathy for Norman and admire his brilliance, but he’s plagued with this gushingly nefarious and uncontrollable alternate personality. With that reverberating laugh and amazing facial expressions, Dafoe literally steals the film every time he’s on screen.
The bickering in the film results in some of the most entertaining sequences in the film. There’s at least two instances, one between all of the villains when they’re all in the same room and another sequence later that occurs right before the big fight scene between Spider-Man and the five villains that have crossed over, that are just incredible and it’s basically just dialogue.
Screenwriters Chris McKenna and Erik Sommers deserve a lot of the credit. If it wasn’t for their writing then those back-and-forth dialogue exchanges between characters wouldn’t exist. But the performances from the cast also factor in to how great those sequences are. Much of the older returning cast have joked about only returning for the money, but it’s clear that there was some enjoyment of not only the script but also being able to work with such a talented group of people.
Speaking of trains, the Spider-Man/Doctor Strange battle in the mirror dimension is one of No Way Home’s visual treats. Doctor Strange and his magical origins opened up the cosmic aspect for the MCU, which has always resulted in trippy and otherworldly sequences that are tonally different and unlike anything else from the other Marvel films. Seeing Spider-Man swing around as the world is upside down while dodging kaleidoscopic skyscrapers and barely escaping gravity defying portals results in a sequence especially memorable for MCU fans.
Spider-Man: No Way Home isn’t without its flaws, but it is mostly exactly what it’s advertised to be. The film doesn’t necessarily redefine the, “With great power comes great responsibility,” aspect for Tom Holland’s Spider-Man but it without a doubt gives the MCU version of Spider-Man his version of that principle. No Way Home is a nostalgic extravaganza that exceeds expectations and is a perfect and satisfying bookend for the first three Tom Holland Spider-Man movies.
FearlessLover (27 KP) rated Dunkirk (2017) in Movies
Jul 31, 2017
Stunning cinea
It' s 1940, 400,000 allied troops are cornered and cut off on the beaches of Dunkirk; with the enemy closing in, and no cover or defence, they await annihilation or a miracle. We experience the moment as the characters do, without unnecessary exposition or dialogue! This proves quite the departure for Nolan; there is a lot here that owes more to silent cinema than anything else, but his images often say all that needs to be said.
An opening frame invites us to join a group of soldiers. Next, the loudest onslaught of gunfire kicks the film into another gear. We are given as much pause for thought as the soldiers we follow. We run with Tommy, played here by a Fionn Whitehead, and like him, we are aware of comrades falling dead next to us, but it is all panic and no time; we will lament their loss later. Set to the ticking of a watch, we feel Tommy's heart pounding with ours, and we know the tone for this audacious movie has been set.
We see the event from different perspectives and from within different time frames. Right now, not many directors can build momentum like Nolan. The jumping to and from different characters' point of view, the corkscrewing impression of the editing, events echoed and mirrored by Hans Zimmer's Shepherd's Tones and persistent, all enveloping score, acting at times more like sound design than music; it all results in a constant rise in tension, to the point of almost being exhaustive.
This said, the editing also serves another purpose. The "Miracle of Dunkirk" is a grand story, with every soldier, every pilot, and every civilian having their own point of view. Nolan wants us to build up an overall picture of the event purely through subjective experience, so of course we spend a tiring week with the terrified boys. Of course we spend a desperate day with a fisherman as he and his familial crew sail their way into action. Lastly, given the fuel constraints of the RAF, whose decisions had to be immediate and impulsive, always a choice between defending the beach or getting home, why would we spend any more that an edge-of-your-seat, quickly-cut hour in the cockpit of a Spitfire, as they do their duty and enter into dogfights to keep the German aircraft at bay? Each timeline is contracted or dilated to give everybody equal measure and importance, whilst staying true to and very much in their situation. Yes, this means we're kept on our toes; we have moments of confusion as timelines cross over and we see the same thing happening from another point of view, but as we head into the finale, as well as the aforementioned tension and release (which is just exciting cinema), we also get to see how, despite very different perspectives, everyone was working together, and how sacrifice and struggle for duty were par for the course for all involved, whether other people knew it or not. It is important that we the audience recognise this bigger picture, and as everything clicks together in an emotive final convergence of efforts, we not only see the justification for the techniques adopted, but struggle to imagine the story told another way. That is, at least, without going down a standard route, with objective storytelling employed.
A proper review not being complete without comment on the elephant in the room, it must be said that Harry Styles does not stand out like the proverbial sore thumb at all. Frankly, he carries his scenes with aplomb, and surely, following the Heath Ledger lesson, and now this, it is time we learned that, maybe, Christopher Nolan just knows what he's doing better that we do? As to the other big names, there are moments from that remain with me so long after having seen it: Kenneth Brannagh and Mark Rylance can say so much with so little, their faces and gestures doing the heavy lifting to deliver a lot of the human emotion, and it would appear Tom Hardy has Oscar-worthy eyes! You need see nothing more through the course of his drama to have a complete sense of the type of man his Farrier is. We talk about great acting and achieving realism through imagination, but with the knowledge that Nolan actually took everyone to Dunkirk, sank real ships, sailed real ships, flew real Spitfires overhead, employed real explosions on the beach, and even rejected green screen and CGI in favour of cardboard cut-outs, it seems imagination wasn't too necessary for these already consummate actors.
Nolan's principle fan base will be well prepared for what they get; but with his insistence on holding back from the audience any perspective not afforded his characters, ala 'Memento', some knowledge of the "Miracle Of Dunkirk" might put the more casual viewer in better stead. Regardless of which camp you fall into, or indeed of whether or not the movie does it for you, certain things are for sure: With no melodrama or cheese, and no superfluous fluff or emotional subterfuge, 'Dunkirk' is a purely experiential movie, a technical marvel of a war film unlike any other I can name. It also stands as a beacon in Nolan's career, characterised by his desire to cultivate an audience willing to keep up with him. And perhaps most importantly, this is a key moment in world history that is often overlooked; a disaster averted which, had it not been, would have seen the history books written very differently. That this event has been marshalled by a confident and sincere director, who has surely by now cemented his name alongside those of his own heroes, is reason enough to see 'Dunkirk'.
An opening frame invites us to join a group of soldiers. Next, the loudest onslaught of gunfire kicks the film into another gear. We are given as much pause for thought as the soldiers we follow. We run with Tommy, played here by a Fionn Whitehead, and like him, we are aware of comrades falling dead next to us, but it is all panic and no time; we will lament their loss later. Set to the ticking of a watch, we feel Tommy's heart pounding with ours, and we know the tone for this audacious movie has been set.
We see the event from different perspectives and from within different time frames. Right now, not many directors can build momentum like Nolan. The jumping to and from different characters' point of view, the corkscrewing impression of the editing, events echoed and mirrored by Hans Zimmer's Shepherd's Tones and persistent, all enveloping score, acting at times more like sound design than music; it all results in a constant rise in tension, to the point of almost being exhaustive.
This said, the editing also serves another purpose. The "Miracle of Dunkirk" is a grand story, with every soldier, every pilot, and every civilian having their own point of view. Nolan wants us to build up an overall picture of the event purely through subjective experience, so of course we spend a tiring week with the terrified boys. Of course we spend a desperate day with a fisherman as he and his familial crew sail their way into action. Lastly, given the fuel constraints of the RAF, whose decisions had to be immediate and impulsive, always a choice between defending the beach or getting home, why would we spend any more that an edge-of-your-seat, quickly-cut hour in the cockpit of a Spitfire, as they do their duty and enter into dogfights to keep the German aircraft at bay? Each timeline is contracted or dilated to give everybody equal measure and importance, whilst staying true to and very much in their situation. Yes, this means we're kept on our toes; we have moments of confusion as timelines cross over and we see the same thing happening from another point of view, but as we head into the finale, as well as the aforementioned tension and release (which is just exciting cinema), we also get to see how, despite very different perspectives, everyone was working together, and how sacrifice and struggle for duty were par for the course for all involved, whether other people knew it or not. It is important that we the audience recognise this bigger picture, and as everything clicks together in an emotive final convergence of efforts, we not only see the justification for the techniques adopted, but struggle to imagine the story told another way. That is, at least, without going down a standard route, with objective storytelling employed.
A proper review not being complete without comment on the elephant in the room, it must be said that Harry Styles does not stand out like the proverbial sore thumb at all. Frankly, he carries his scenes with aplomb, and surely, following the Heath Ledger lesson, and now this, it is time we learned that, maybe, Christopher Nolan just knows what he's doing better that we do? As to the other big names, there are moments from that remain with me so long after having seen it: Kenneth Brannagh and Mark Rylance can say so much with so little, their faces and gestures doing the heavy lifting to deliver a lot of the human emotion, and it would appear Tom Hardy has Oscar-worthy eyes! You need see nothing more through the course of his drama to have a complete sense of the type of man his Farrier is. We talk about great acting and achieving realism through imagination, but with the knowledge that Nolan actually took everyone to Dunkirk, sank real ships, sailed real ships, flew real Spitfires overhead, employed real explosions on the beach, and even rejected green screen and CGI in favour of cardboard cut-outs, it seems imagination wasn't too necessary for these already consummate actors.
Nolan's principle fan base will be well prepared for what they get; but with his insistence on holding back from the audience any perspective not afforded his characters, ala 'Memento', some knowledge of the "Miracle Of Dunkirk" might put the more casual viewer in better stead. Regardless of which camp you fall into, or indeed of whether or not the movie does it for you, certain things are for sure: With no melodrama or cheese, and no superfluous fluff or emotional subterfuge, 'Dunkirk' is a purely experiential movie, a technical marvel of a war film unlike any other I can name. It also stands as a beacon in Nolan's career, characterised by his desire to cultivate an audience willing to keep up with him. And perhaps most importantly, this is a key moment in world history that is often overlooked; a disaster averted which, had it not been, would have seen the history books written very differently. That this event has been marshalled by a confident and sincere director, who has surely by now cemented his name alongside those of his own heroes, is reason enough to see 'Dunkirk'.
