Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Live By Night (2017) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
I’m a sucker for a Prohibition-set yarn. It’s a fascinating period in history and typically yields excellent filmmaking with gritty, no-nonsense performances, gorgeous production design and hard-boiled action. It was De Palma’s The Untouchables that hooked me. Some would call it a guilty pleasure; and sure, Morricone’s score is a little over-the-top, De Niro is more caricature than character actor as Al Capone and I’m not going to argue that Connery’s Oscar was a “sympathy vote”, but it’s got everything I mentioned above in spades and for me it’ll always be the high benchmark of the Prohibition era gangster epic. Ben Affleck’s fourth turn as director has done nothing to change my position on that.
Live by Night is an uninspired mess, from voice-over laden start to disastrously predictable end, bringing nothing new or exciting to the table. Beat for beat, its weak script moves from one sigh-inducing cliché to another, reaching clumsily for moments of high emotion that ring hollow and false. If anyone needs any further proof that Matt Damon did all the heavy lifting on the script for Good Will Hunting, they need look no further. It feels wrong to come down so hard on Affleck after his back-to-back successes as a director, but this is more akin to the first work of a blundering novice, and also certainly not what we’ve come to expect of a Dennis Lehane adaptation (see Mystic River, Shutter Island and Affleck’s own incredible directorial debut, Gone Baby Gone). His decision to wear so many hats on this project, producing, directing, sole screenwriter and lead actor, has to be the reason for this stumble. The script desperately needed another set of eyes and the part of Joe Coughlin was clearly written for someone younger and more capable of performing with the subtlety needed to play someone who has to traverse the number of moral dilemmas he’s faced with. Hopefully, this inevitable failure will be what convinces Affleck that his place should be behind the camera directing other people’s scripts and guiding other people’s performances.
Speaking of the performances, there is a massive curve in this collection of acting that swings wildly from the cartoonish to the nuanced. To start with, we have Matthew Maher as a KKK member out for his cut and Robert Glenister as an Irish mob boss, both of whom are supposed to be playing dangerous and threatening but can’t do any better than laughable and two-dimensional. Then there’s Chris Messina and Affleck himself as the hoods on the rise, their chemistry is ill-advised at best as they both seem to think they’re in a buddy comedy as opposed to a serious piece of gangster melodrama A favorite of mine, Brendan Gleeson, sadly leaves the screen within the first twenty minutes and that left me with only the inimitable Chris Cooper to look forward to. The subplot involving him and Elle Fanning, as his born-again daughter speaking out against Coughlin’s sinful ways is not without problems of its own, but at least they sell it. That should be no surprise on Cooper’s part, but now between this and The Neon Demon last summer; Fanning is firmly on my radar as one to watch. My hope was that we were going to get some tremendous battle of wills between her and Affleck’s character akin to Paul Dano and Daniel Day-Lewis’ conflict in There Will Be Blood, but that was definitely asking too much. Fanning’s role, like Gleeson’s, is unfortunately cut short just as it gets good.
I guess The Untouchables is starting to sound less like a guilty pleasure and more like a masterpiece when compared to this regrettable misfire.
Live by Night is an uninspired mess, from voice-over laden start to disastrously predictable end, bringing nothing new or exciting to the table. Beat for beat, its weak script moves from one sigh-inducing cliché to another, reaching clumsily for moments of high emotion that ring hollow and false. If anyone needs any further proof that Matt Damon did all the heavy lifting on the script for Good Will Hunting, they need look no further. It feels wrong to come down so hard on Affleck after his back-to-back successes as a director, but this is more akin to the first work of a blundering novice, and also certainly not what we’ve come to expect of a Dennis Lehane adaptation (see Mystic River, Shutter Island and Affleck’s own incredible directorial debut, Gone Baby Gone). His decision to wear so many hats on this project, producing, directing, sole screenwriter and lead actor, has to be the reason for this stumble. The script desperately needed another set of eyes and the part of Joe Coughlin was clearly written for someone younger and more capable of performing with the subtlety needed to play someone who has to traverse the number of moral dilemmas he’s faced with. Hopefully, this inevitable failure will be what convinces Affleck that his place should be behind the camera directing other people’s scripts and guiding other people’s performances.
Speaking of the performances, there is a massive curve in this collection of acting that swings wildly from the cartoonish to the nuanced. To start with, we have Matthew Maher as a KKK member out for his cut and Robert Glenister as an Irish mob boss, both of whom are supposed to be playing dangerous and threatening but can’t do any better than laughable and two-dimensional. Then there’s Chris Messina and Affleck himself as the hoods on the rise, their chemistry is ill-advised at best as they both seem to think they’re in a buddy comedy as opposed to a serious piece of gangster melodrama A favorite of mine, Brendan Gleeson, sadly leaves the screen within the first twenty minutes and that left me with only the inimitable Chris Cooper to look forward to. The subplot involving him and Elle Fanning, as his born-again daughter speaking out against Coughlin’s sinful ways is not without problems of its own, but at least they sell it. That should be no surprise on Cooper’s part, but now between this and The Neon Demon last summer; Fanning is firmly on my radar as one to watch. My hope was that we were going to get some tremendous battle of wills between her and Affleck’s character akin to Paul Dano and Daniel Day-Lewis’ conflict in There Will Be Blood, but that was definitely asking too much. Fanning’s role, like Gleeson’s, is unfortunately cut short just as it gets good.
I guess The Untouchables is starting to sound less like a guilty pleasure and more like a masterpiece when compared to this regrettable misfire.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Way Too Many Cats! in Tabletop Games
Jan 24, 2022
Before we had children and pets my wife and I would love to visit the humane societies back home on a Saturday morning. Sometimes looking for ourselves, sometimes just to see the lovelies being kept, and maybe once or twice volunteering to walk the animals. One place I never really enjoyed visiting was the cat room. I am a dog person. Actually, the older I get, the more I am becoming strictly an aquatic animal lover. Give me a 55 gallon saltwater tank and I’ll be happy raising my Firefish Gobies and Coral Beauty Angelfish. However, when I was asked to preview Way Too Many Cats, I just couldn’t say no. One of my favorite publishers calls for help, I will do my best. Just know I wish it were fish themed instead of cats. Cats…
Way Too Many Cats is a cat and kitten drafting and spatial puzzle game for one to six players. In it, players work at feline adoption centers with the goal of having all stock adopted. To do this, players will be placing specific cats adjacent to other favorable cats for points, giving kittens a habitat of their own, and even supplying the cats with toys. The player who completes these tasks most effectively by the end of the game will score the most points and win!
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, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, each player receives an adoption center board, starter cat tile, and a reference card. The kitten and toy tokens are placed into the provided bag to be shuffled and drawn later. The stack of adoptable cats is shuffled, and four drawn and revealed to create Cat Alley (from which players will be drafting). Nearby, three stacks of kitten/toy tokens are made with one stack containing one token, the next stack containing two, and the final stack containing three tokens. The starting player marker is given to the player who most recently pet a cat (aka probably attacked by a cat) and the game may begin!
A game of Way Too Many Cats lasts many rounds, and ends once all players have had the same amount of turns and one player having completely filled their adoption center. On a turn, the active player will take one mandatory action, and then will choose to take another two actions. The mandatory action that all players take each turn is to Choose a Token Set and Cat Card(s) and Place Them. A bit wordy, but this is a prototype, so I will let it slide. In any case, the player will choose to (1) take the smallest group of tokens and two Cat tiles of their choice, (2) take the mid-sized group of tokens and one Cat tile of their choice, or (3) take the largest group of tokens and the right-most Cat tile from Cat Alley (the offer row). Once the choice has been made and all components taken, the player then refreshes Cat Alley by sliding all tiles to the right and refilling to four tiles. Also, the player pulls three tokens from the bag and adds one to each group of tokens on the table. Note, as the player has just chosen a group of tokens, one of the groups will be empty until they place a token there – thus creating the smallest group and embiggening (I’m on a Marvel kick right now) the other two groups.
As an optional second action, the player may choose to give any cat in their adoption center a toy from their personal supply. Cat tiles show icons for toys that the cat will appreciate, though not every cat is into toys. Note, the toy tokens may be given to the cats on any turn, and even at the end of the game just before scoring.
Finally, at the end of the turn, the player may Create a Kitten Habitat by discarding three toy tokens to the bag. The player then designates a space on their adoption center to be the kitty haven and it can house any number of kittens.
Once a player fills their last adoption center slot, the end game is triggered. Players will finish out the round so that all have an equal amount of turns. Then, points are tallied and scored following an involved scoring process. Points in this game are scored in numerous ways. Firstly, the starter cats are scored, and then each type of cat is scored. For example, the paw icon on cat tiles earn 1 VP for each adjacent cat of a different color. Each ball of yarn icon on cat tiles scores 2 VP. The goldfish cracker icon scores 2 VP for each adjacent cat or kitten sporting a ball of yarn icon. Finally, the feather icon scores 3/7/12/18 VP for each group of adjacent feather cats of train size 2/3/4/5 cats. So placement is very important in this game. Not enough scoring?
Players will score more points for kittens and for specific icons on cat tiles. 15 VP is awarded to a player who holds a complete set of the seven different types of kitten tokens, while another 8 VP is earned for holding a set of four matching kitten types. The player receives a -2VP penalty for each kitten token not associated with either type of set nor in a habitat on the board. Additionally, for each cat tile on the board, special scoring will be earned for supplying the tile with the requested toy, or placing it in the preferred space in the center, or even for other adjacency considerations.
Players will be scoring hundreds of points, and hopefully having their felines adopted by unsuspecting travelers and goo-goo eyed children. The player with the most VP at the end of the game is the winner!
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of the game, so I know that these are not final components at all. Having had many opportunities to preview for Weird Giraffe Games now, I am confident that the final game will be sparkling with upgrades and cool features. To reiterate, my interest in the theme is on the lower side, as I am not a cat person, but I can definitely understand the theme and it works well with this type of game. I guarantee that you will be able to spot Way Too Many Cats in stores right away because that box art is super colorful and busy. I do enjoy the cartoony art style, and it fits the theme really well. The final version of the game will undoubtedly affect this paragraph in the future, but for now this is well on the way to being a very solid title with regards to components, artwork, and theme.
But do I like it? Surprisingly, yes I do. Quite a bit. Theme goes a really long way with me, but I have been known to enjoy other games with themes that don’t necessarily resonate with me, so perhaps “surprising” isn’t the best term here. I really enjoy the spatial puzzle aspect of the game. I highlighted puzzle because that’s exactly what is going on here. When I am playing, I have to debate whether to take all those kitten tokens to complete my sets and be stuck with the right-most card, or perhaps taking the smallest group is more beneficial so that I can draft the two best cards for what I am building on my board. Is it really worth it to me to grab Taco just because I am starting to realize I have a food themed cat dispensary? Why does this cat need a scratching post token when it’s clearly been de-clawed?? These are serious questions, folks!
I kid, but only because this is a very light game, and one that I think works well in many situations. Have newer to intermediate level players coming over tonight? Grab Way Too Many Cats! Having an animal-themed game night? Pull this one out! Sticking with a mechanic-specific lineup? You got it. Now, I haven’t seen the Kickstarter page yet, nor have I asked Carla (the designer) what the plans are for it, but I know this one is close to many peoples’ hearts, so I imagine it will get all the love that’s possible in making this a wonder in a box. The mechanics are there. The theme is… great for some. Way Too Many Cats is a thinker in a catsuit disguise, but it is not too heavy to turn off casual or intermediate gamers. I can certainly add my stamp of approval and recommend checking out Way Too Many Cats. Look for it to hit Kickstarter in February and click here to be notified on launch. You will probably want to get in on this project early if any of this sounds appealing to you.
PS – How many catfolk did I offend in this preview? How many aquarists have I now befriended? What up, my peeps!
Way Too Many Cats is a cat and kitten drafting and spatial puzzle game for one to six players. In it, players work at feline adoption centers with the goal of having all stock adopted. To do this, players will be placing specific cats adjacent to other favorable cats for points, giving kittens a habitat of their own, and even supplying the cats with toys. The player who completes these tasks most effectively by the end of the game will score the most points and win!
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, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, each player receives an adoption center board, starter cat tile, and a reference card. The kitten and toy tokens are placed into the provided bag to be shuffled and drawn later. The stack of adoptable cats is shuffled, and four drawn and revealed to create Cat Alley (from which players will be drafting). Nearby, three stacks of kitten/toy tokens are made with one stack containing one token, the next stack containing two, and the final stack containing three tokens. The starting player marker is given to the player who most recently pet a cat (aka probably attacked by a cat) and the game may begin!
A game of Way Too Many Cats lasts many rounds, and ends once all players have had the same amount of turns and one player having completely filled their adoption center. On a turn, the active player will take one mandatory action, and then will choose to take another two actions. The mandatory action that all players take each turn is to Choose a Token Set and Cat Card(s) and Place Them. A bit wordy, but this is a prototype, so I will let it slide. In any case, the player will choose to (1) take the smallest group of tokens and two Cat tiles of their choice, (2) take the mid-sized group of tokens and one Cat tile of their choice, or (3) take the largest group of tokens and the right-most Cat tile from Cat Alley (the offer row). Once the choice has been made and all components taken, the player then refreshes Cat Alley by sliding all tiles to the right and refilling to four tiles. Also, the player pulls three tokens from the bag and adds one to each group of tokens on the table. Note, as the player has just chosen a group of tokens, one of the groups will be empty until they place a token there – thus creating the smallest group and embiggening (I’m on a Marvel kick right now) the other two groups.
As an optional second action, the player may choose to give any cat in their adoption center a toy from their personal supply. Cat tiles show icons for toys that the cat will appreciate, though not every cat is into toys. Note, the toy tokens may be given to the cats on any turn, and even at the end of the game just before scoring.
Finally, at the end of the turn, the player may Create a Kitten Habitat by discarding three toy tokens to the bag. The player then designates a space on their adoption center to be the kitty haven and it can house any number of kittens.
Once a player fills their last adoption center slot, the end game is triggered. Players will finish out the round so that all have an equal amount of turns. Then, points are tallied and scored following an involved scoring process. Points in this game are scored in numerous ways. Firstly, the starter cats are scored, and then each type of cat is scored. For example, the paw icon on cat tiles earn 1 VP for each adjacent cat of a different color. Each ball of yarn icon on cat tiles scores 2 VP. The goldfish cracker icon scores 2 VP for each adjacent cat or kitten sporting a ball of yarn icon. Finally, the feather icon scores 3/7/12/18 VP for each group of adjacent feather cats of train size 2/3/4/5 cats. So placement is very important in this game. Not enough scoring?
Players will score more points for kittens and for specific icons on cat tiles. 15 VP is awarded to a player who holds a complete set of the seven different types of kitten tokens, while another 8 VP is earned for holding a set of four matching kitten types. The player receives a -2VP penalty for each kitten token not associated with either type of set nor in a habitat on the board. Additionally, for each cat tile on the board, special scoring will be earned for supplying the tile with the requested toy, or placing it in the preferred space in the center, or even for other adjacency considerations.
Players will be scoring hundreds of points, and hopefully having their felines adopted by unsuspecting travelers and goo-goo eyed children. The player with the most VP at the end of the game is the winner!
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of the game, so I know that these are not final components at all. Having had many opportunities to preview for Weird Giraffe Games now, I am confident that the final game will be sparkling with upgrades and cool features. To reiterate, my interest in the theme is on the lower side, as I am not a cat person, but I can definitely understand the theme and it works well with this type of game. I guarantee that you will be able to spot Way Too Many Cats in stores right away because that box art is super colorful and busy. I do enjoy the cartoony art style, and it fits the theme really well. The final version of the game will undoubtedly affect this paragraph in the future, but for now this is well on the way to being a very solid title with regards to components, artwork, and theme.
But do I like it? Surprisingly, yes I do. Quite a bit. Theme goes a really long way with me, but I have been known to enjoy other games with themes that don’t necessarily resonate with me, so perhaps “surprising” isn’t the best term here. I really enjoy the spatial puzzle aspect of the game. I highlighted puzzle because that’s exactly what is going on here. When I am playing, I have to debate whether to take all those kitten tokens to complete my sets and be stuck with the right-most card, or perhaps taking the smallest group is more beneficial so that I can draft the two best cards for what I am building on my board. Is it really worth it to me to grab Taco just because I am starting to realize I have a food themed cat dispensary? Why does this cat need a scratching post token when it’s clearly been de-clawed?? These are serious questions, folks!
I kid, but only because this is a very light game, and one that I think works well in many situations. Have newer to intermediate level players coming over tonight? Grab Way Too Many Cats! Having an animal-themed game night? Pull this one out! Sticking with a mechanic-specific lineup? You got it. Now, I haven’t seen the Kickstarter page yet, nor have I asked Carla (the designer) what the plans are for it, but I know this one is close to many peoples’ hearts, so I imagine it will get all the love that’s possible in making this a wonder in a box. The mechanics are there. The theme is… great for some. Way Too Many Cats is a thinker in a catsuit disguise, but it is not too heavy to turn off casual or intermediate gamers. I can certainly add my stamp of approval and recommend checking out Way Too Many Cats. Look for it to hit Kickstarter in February and click here to be notified on launch. You will probably want to get in on this project early if any of this sounds appealing to you.
PS – How many catfolk did I offend in this preview? How many aquarists have I now befriended? What up, my peeps!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Life (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Life after Gravity.
Mankind is on the verge of a major milestone. The “Pilgrim” probe is returning from Mars containing soil samples that might spell the discovery of the first palpable evidence of life beyond earth. Proving that earth scientists are not completely incompetent, the probe is being returned not to earth but to a lab on the International Space Station where strict quarantine can be maintained. This key mission requirement is the responsibility of Miranda North (Rebecca Ferguson, “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation”). Supporting her is an international crew including fellow doctor David Harris (Jake Gyllenhaal, “Source Code”), professional astronaut Rory Adams (Ryan Reynolds, “Deadpool”) and Hugh Derry (Ariyon Bakare), the lead scientist studying the samples. Needless to say, the soil samples yield more promise than Derry could have ever hoped for (or North could have feared). A crisis of growth and death ensues in a manner that fans of “Alien” will be suitably familiar with. Can the crew survive against all the odds?
Jake Gyllenhaal is one of my favourite actors with a raft of quality films in his CV such as “Nightcrawler” and last year’s hugely underrated (and almost Oscar-ignored) “Nocturnal Animals”. Rebecca Ferguson is also a class act and one of my favourite actresses of the moment. Here they are starring together for the first time and they don’t disappoint. Whilst neither gets enough quality screentime to really hammer their roles home, both connect to the audience in different ways: Harris is heading for an ISS endurance record, and starting to mentally disconnect from earthly connections as his body also starts to atrophy. North, with a clear attraction to him, tries to hold both him and everything together with steely determination, while carrying more knowledge of the mission directives than anyone else has.
The supporting ensemble cast also work well, portraying a real mixture of nationalities from the cock-sure American played by Reynolds to the sultry Russian commander Golovkina, played by the lovely Olga Dihovichnaya. A special note should also be added in the margin for one of the most surprising portrayals of a disabled character in a recent film.
Unfortunately the material the actors get to deliver, by Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick (co-writers of “Deadpool” and “Zombieland”) doesn’t match their ability. The first 30 minutes or so of the film I found to be totally gripping, but even here some of the dialogue is sufficiently clunky to distract you from the ongoing narrative. Some of the rest of the dialogue becomes head-in-the-hands awful in places: a scene during a de-pressurization episode being particularly painful.
Some dodgy dialogue might be forgivable in an action movie if supported by a strong story. Unfortunately, while the premise of the film is sound (if not original), the story leaps from inconsistency to inconsistency from beginning to end. The writers never seem to settle on whether the ‘being’ needs oxygen, likes oxygen, likes hot, likes cold, etc. and this lack of credibility distracts from the whole film. While the screenplay delivers some seriously suspenseful moments, and some decent jump scares, this is not satisfactory enough to serve up a cohesive movie meal.
This is not helped by ‘bad science’. As I have commented upon before, I’m a physicist by training and unscientific scenes annoy me to distraction. I’ve had to learn to live with the basics of explosions and other ‘noise’ in space (something “Star Wars” started 40 years ago, damn those TIE fighters). But there is a scene in “Life” involving an airlock breach that just completely beggers belief, acted out as if it’s a stiff breeze on the front at Skegness! It’s almost – (almost) – as bonkers as the ‘reactor venting’ scene with Chris Pratt in “Passengers“.
However, the film has its strong points too. Like “Gravity”, this is another special effects triumph with the scenes outside the ISS being gorgeously rendered. “Gravity” was a clear 10/10; this is probably at least a 7, and a reason for seeing the film on the big screen. A key question though is why there wasn’t a 3D version of the film released? Heaven knows I’m no fan of 3D, but “Gravity” was one of the few films that was genuinely enhanced by the format: in fact it is currently the only 3D Blu-ray that I own!
In general, the whole film seems a little half-cocked and lacking in its own conviction. You wonder whether the production company (Skydance) got rather cold-feet about the film in releasing it when it did. Yes, “Deadpool” did very well with its February release, but this is a much more suitable film for a summer audience than a release in this post-Oscars doldrums.
In summary, its a moderately entertaining watch, but at heart just another retelling of the old ‘something nasty in the woodshed’ yarn that we’ve seen played out countless times before. Here though the swanky setting and special effects are diminished by a lack of credibility and consistency in the storytelling. Redemption was on hand though, for while it was heading for a middling 3-Fad rating, it managed to salvage another half Fad in the final 60 seconds: a memorable movie ending that might prove hard to beat during 2017.
Jake Gyllenhaal is one of my favourite actors with a raft of quality films in his CV such as “Nightcrawler” and last year’s hugely underrated (and almost Oscar-ignored) “Nocturnal Animals”. Rebecca Ferguson is also a class act and one of my favourite actresses of the moment. Here they are starring together for the first time and they don’t disappoint. Whilst neither gets enough quality screentime to really hammer their roles home, both connect to the audience in different ways: Harris is heading for an ISS endurance record, and starting to mentally disconnect from earthly connections as his body also starts to atrophy. North, with a clear attraction to him, tries to hold both him and everything together with steely determination, while carrying more knowledge of the mission directives than anyone else has.
The supporting ensemble cast also work well, portraying a real mixture of nationalities from the cock-sure American played by Reynolds to the sultry Russian commander Golovkina, played by the lovely Olga Dihovichnaya. A special note should also be added in the margin for one of the most surprising portrayals of a disabled character in a recent film.
Unfortunately the material the actors get to deliver, by Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick (co-writers of “Deadpool” and “Zombieland”) doesn’t match their ability. The first 30 minutes or so of the film I found to be totally gripping, but even here some of the dialogue is sufficiently clunky to distract you from the ongoing narrative. Some of the rest of the dialogue becomes head-in-the-hands awful in places: a scene during a de-pressurization episode being particularly painful.
Some dodgy dialogue might be forgivable in an action movie if supported by a strong story. Unfortunately, while the premise of the film is sound (if not original), the story leaps from inconsistency to inconsistency from beginning to end. The writers never seem to settle on whether the ‘being’ needs oxygen, likes oxygen, likes hot, likes cold, etc. and this lack of credibility distracts from the whole film. While the screenplay delivers some seriously suspenseful moments, and some decent jump scares, this is not satisfactory enough to serve up a cohesive movie meal.
This is not helped by ‘bad science’. As I have commented upon before, I’m a physicist by training and unscientific scenes annoy me to distraction. I’ve had to learn to live with the basics of explosions and other ‘noise’ in space (something “Star Wars” started 40 years ago, damn those TIE fighters). But there is a scene in “Life” involving an airlock breach that just completely beggers belief, acted out as if it’s a stiff breeze on the front at Skegness! It’s almost – (almost) – as bonkers as the ‘reactor venting’ scene with Chris Pratt in “Passengers“.
However, the film has its strong points too. Like “Gravity”, this is another special effects triumph with the scenes outside the ISS being gorgeously rendered. “Gravity” was a clear 10/10; this is probably at least a 7, and a reason for seeing the film on the big screen. A key question though is why there wasn’t a 3D version of the film released? Heaven knows I’m no fan of 3D, but “Gravity” was one of the few films that was genuinely enhanced by the format: in fact it is currently the only 3D Blu-ray that I own!
In general, the whole film seems a little half-cocked and lacking in its own conviction. You wonder whether the production company (Skydance) got rather cold-feet about the film in releasing it when it did. Yes, “Deadpool” did very well with its February release, but this is a much more suitable film for a summer audience than a release in this post-Oscars doldrums.
In summary, its a moderately entertaining watch, but at heart just another retelling of the old ‘something nasty in the woodshed’ yarn that we’ve seen played out countless times before. Here though the swanky setting and special effects are diminished by a lack of credibility and consistency in the storytelling. Redemption was on hand though, for while it was heading for a middling 3-Fad rating, it managed to salvage another half Fad in the final 60 seconds: a memorable movie ending that might prove hard to beat during 2017.
The Boy Who Drew Monsters
7.0
Rate It
Book
From the New York Times bestselling author of The Stolen Child comes a hypnotic literary horror...