Search
Search results
Gaydar. Gay Dating and Chat.
Dating, Lifestyle and Social Networking
4.5
Rate It
App
Gaydar is one of the world’s best and busiest social and dating platforms for gay and bi men...
WRC The Official Game
Games
App
*****THE RALLY SIMULATION***** WRC The Official Game, the standard for off-road racing games, is...
Secret of Mana
Games
App
--- July 18, 2014 Gamepad support has been added. --- Initially released in Japan in 1993, Secret of...
Flashcards Deluxe
Education and Reference
App
Flashcards Deluxe is an easy to use, yet powerful flashcard app which you can use to study just...
Kickboxing Master Class
Sports and Health & Fitness
App
Take a Master Class in Kickboxing training and fighting techniques with this collection of 372...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2020
Tarantino makes good movies, I like them, but I don't love them. When everyone was raving about the OUATIH trailer I was sitting back going "that looks okay, but..." I wasn't sure I could see how they were going to mix the two strands of the story together, or why. After seeing it I'm still not sure.
I'm not going to do an extended synopsis for this, partly because I'm not sure what the point was to a lot of it. 2 hours and 41 minutes is a lot of time to fill with such random stuff. There are essentially to films here, and I definitely would have wanted to watch one of them. It doesn't matter how many times I think about this film, I can't make sense of why these stories were put together.
There's a lot of acting talent in this, obviously. I'm not a particular fan of DiCaprio, I can't give you a real reason behind that. I don't mind some of his older films but recently nothing has really caught my eye. He has some excellent moments in this though. I particularly liked the scene where he's on set explaining the story of his novel to his young co-star. The audience and Rick are able to reach the realisation at the same time, it's a moving moment that was annoyingly ruined for me by Trudi's lines afterwards. I guess it does reflect the way Hollywood is though so in that respect it was spot on.
Brad Pitt swooped in and stole the show though. There's a very laid back and sometimes cheeky sense to Cliff, and most of his scenes had me engaged with what was going on. The only thing I would say though is that occasionally you just see Brad Pitt and other characters he's portrayed in this performance. He really does have a strong presence though and apart from those small blips he was by far the best performance of the film and my favourite scenes were his fight with Bruce Lee and the last ten minutes. Both of these were done so well and Pitt's reactions were perfect.
The cast has a lot of bit parters in it, I'm never quite sure what gets something classed as a cameo over a "proper" role. As we're in Hollywood there are obviously a lot of Hollywood stars making appearances and they've all got really strong casting behind them, but they barely get any screen time. We get some Sharon Tate background from Steve McQueen (Damien Lewis) at a party, later on we have Bruce Lee appear for the onset fight scene, there are a lot of faces popping up everywhere.
I briefly want to mention Bruce Lee in this film, since seeing the film I read a couple of pieces about his portrayal in this... I know nothing about him as a person beyond his martial arts skills and while I did find the Lee/Booth fight scene amusing I thought it was a little... off? Lee comes across as a bit of an arse, there's no denying that. Like I said, I know nothing about him, this could be a true depiction but I feel like I would have heard that before if he was. Regardless of the truth, the character didn't come across well, he could easily have been given a slightly cocky demeanour to allow for the challenge to happen without giving him that persona.
I haven't got enough time to talk about every actor in the film but there wasn't anyone who stuck out as being bad, every role was handled reasonably well. Whether they all needed to be there though is another matter.
Earlier I mentioned that the film has two story threads, those being Rick Dalton/Cliff Booth and Sharon Tate. We get the odd crossover moment with the two but ultimately there's no proper link until the end. One of the problems going into the film is that if you don't know anything about Sharon Tate and Charles Manson then one of these storylines isn't going to make a great deal of sense. I'd be interested to see how people going in without that knowledge found the story overall, there have to be some out there right?
OUATIH almost seems like an introduction to Manson being in Mindhunter season 2, you've even got potential crossover as he's played by the same guy. I found the Manson inclusion to be very misleading in the advertising. His appearance is beyond brief in the final cut and it felt like we were due a lot more after watching the trailer. I think I would have preferred the movie if it was weighted the other way with the Tate/Manson side as the focus and the Dalton/Booth side at the add on.
Despite Pitt's performance, the great setting and some other small highlight this film just didn't hit the right notes for me. It was so long, I could have forgiven that had there been a more complex link between the two bits of story. I went in with low expectations and when I came out those were only just met.
If you're considering leaving partway through this there are three reasons that you should stick it out.
- Brad Pitt as Cliff Booth
- Booth's dog
- The last ten minutes (give or take)
The 18 certificate is there for "strong bloody violence", somehow the large amount of drug use doesn't warrant inclusion on the card. Up until around the 2 hour 30 minutes mark this film is a 15. You've had drugs, language and some fights, but nothing that matches up to those last few minutes. They earn that 18 certificate... and it's hilarious. Cliff and his dog are epic and it was worth the rest of the film just to see that, there's some terrible (ridiculous) acting in it that potentially it could have done without but at least I came out slightly less annoyed.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/once-upon-time-in-hollywood-movie-review.html
I'm not going to do an extended synopsis for this, partly because I'm not sure what the point was to a lot of it. 2 hours and 41 minutes is a lot of time to fill with such random stuff. There are essentially to films here, and I definitely would have wanted to watch one of them. It doesn't matter how many times I think about this film, I can't make sense of why these stories were put together.
There's a lot of acting talent in this, obviously. I'm not a particular fan of DiCaprio, I can't give you a real reason behind that. I don't mind some of his older films but recently nothing has really caught my eye. He has some excellent moments in this though. I particularly liked the scene where he's on set explaining the story of his novel to his young co-star. The audience and Rick are able to reach the realisation at the same time, it's a moving moment that was annoyingly ruined for me by Trudi's lines afterwards. I guess it does reflect the way Hollywood is though so in that respect it was spot on.
Brad Pitt swooped in and stole the show though. There's a very laid back and sometimes cheeky sense to Cliff, and most of his scenes had me engaged with what was going on. The only thing I would say though is that occasionally you just see Brad Pitt and other characters he's portrayed in this performance. He really does have a strong presence though and apart from those small blips he was by far the best performance of the film and my favourite scenes were his fight with Bruce Lee and the last ten minutes. Both of these were done so well and Pitt's reactions were perfect.
The cast has a lot of bit parters in it, I'm never quite sure what gets something classed as a cameo over a "proper" role. As we're in Hollywood there are obviously a lot of Hollywood stars making appearances and they've all got really strong casting behind them, but they barely get any screen time. We get some Sharon Tate background from Steve McQueen (Damien Lewis) at a party, later on we have Bruce Lee appear for the onset fight scene, there are a lot of faces popping up everywhere.
I briefly want to mention Bruce Lee in this film, since seeing the film I read a couple of pieces about his portrayal in this... I know nothing about him as a person beyond his martial arts skills and while I did find the Lee/Booth fight scene amusing I thought it was a little... off? Lee comes across as a bit of an arse, there's no denying that. Like I said, I know nothing about him, this could be a true depiction but I feel like I would have heard that before if he was. Regardless of the truth, the character didn't come across well, he could easily have been given a slightly cocky demeanour to allow for the challenge to happen without giving him that persona.
I haven't got enough time to talk about every actor in the film but there wasn't anyone who stuck out as being bad, every role was handled reasonably well. Whether they all needed to be there though is another matter.
Earlier I mentioned that the film has two story threads, those being Rick Dalton/Cliff Booth and Sharon Tate. We get the odd crossover moment with the two but ultimately there's no proper link until the end. One of the problems going into the film is that if you don't know anything about Sharon Tate and Charles Manson then one of these storylines isn't going to make a great deal of sense. I'd be interested to see how people going in without that knowledge found the story overall, there have to be some out there right?
OUATIH almost seems like an introduction to Manson being in Mindhunter season 2, you've even got potential crossover as he's played by the same guy. I found the Manson inclusion to be very misleading in the advertising. His appearance is beyond brief in the final cut and it felt like we were due a lot more after watching the trailer. I think I would have preferred the movie if it was weighted the other way with the Tate/Manson side as the focus and the Dalton/Booth side at the add on.
Despite Pitt's performance, the great setting and some other small highlight this film just didn't hit the right notes for me. It was so long, I could have forgiven that had there been a more complex link between the two bits of story. I went in with low expectations and when I came out those were only just met.
If you're considering leaving partway through this there are three reasons that you should stick it out.
- Brad Pitt as Cliff Booth
- Booth's dog
- The last ten minutes (give or take)
The 18 certificate is there for "strong bloody violence", somehow the large amount of drug use doesn't warrant inclusion on the card. Up until around the 2 hour 30 minutes mark this film is a 15. You've had drugs, language and some fights, but nothing that matches up to those last few minutes. They earn that 18 certificate... and it's hilarious. Cliff and his dog are epic and it was worth the rest of the film just to see that, there's some terrible (ridiculous) acting in it that potentially it could have done without but at least I came out slightly less annoyed.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/once-upon-time-in-hollywood-movie-review.html
Mattia Gagliardi (14 KP) rated Love, Death & Robots in TV
Jun 4, 2019
Outstanding animation (2 more)
Some of the shorts are amazing
I wish there would be more products like this
Other shorts where very dull and boring (3 more)
Sometimes it's style over substance
Too edgy in some parts
Some of the shorts look like commercial for videogame
Uff this is gonna be though to review
"Love Death & Robot" is an anthology of adult animated shorts. It features 18 shorts of different lenght with the common theme being the sci-fi.
The problem of reviewing a product like this is that the episodes are all so different to each other and the quality is too vary.
On a technical point of view, every shorts are amazing. The animation feels great in every style it is portrayed, either 2D or 3D. The quality of the shots, the models and basically every visual elements are simply gorgeous.
However that doesn't mean that the short themselves are by default good. The ones that are super realistic, like "Beyond the Aquila Rift" and "Lucky 13", just make you wonder why they didn't used real actors instead. This two in particular doesn't really benefit for being animated. For comparison, "Ice Age" uses real actors and the CG is contained in the special effects and it works perfectly. Oh and "Lucky 13" is just plain bad on top of that.
Then there are the shorts with amazing visual styles but with quite dull story. "The Witness" is the one that comes to mind using clever use of compositing (the implementation of CG elements in a realistic environment) and having a nice character design with excellent animation. However it feels pretentious because it doesn't say anything really interesting and it focus more on sexual visual rather than a story, with a nonsensical twist nevertheless. Style over substance.
Other shorts instead feels like watching a cinematic for a videogame, pilot for different series or University students showreel. This doesn't mean they are bad but it just feels a bit underwhelming.
However when a short is good, it's really good! The one that are always left me with a smile on my face and with an overall excitement, eager to see what was coming next or more works from these studios. "Three Robots" is definitely one of my favourite short thanks to the amazing visuals, clever dialogues and an interesting lore.
My main criticism that involves mostly all the shorts is the supposed maturity, especially in the use of sex and violence.. I am not against the use of them by any means. However using them just for the sake of it doesn't make your product automatically mature. It just felt edgy, the equivalent of a goth teenagers that watch gory movies just because "uuhhh so taboo".
I know that animation is still perceived as a product for children and I am always happy to see new ones that wants to focus on a more mature audience. I don't think though that you can do it with just the use of swear words, sex and violence without any substance in it.
I want to see more actually mature animations, with compelling stories and amazing styles, using animation as a media and not as a genre.
The problem of reviewing a product like this is that the episodes are all so different to each other and the quality is too vary.
On a technical point of view, every shorts are amazing. The animation feels great in every style it is portrayed, either 2D or 3D. The quality of the shots, the models and basically every visual elements are simply gorgeous.
However that doesn't mean that the short themselves are by default good. The ones that are super realistic, like "Beyond the Aquila Rift" and "Lucky 13", just make you wonder why they didn't used real actors instead. This two in particular doesn't really benefit for being animated. For comparison, "Ice Age" uses real actors and the CG is contained in the special effects and it works perfectly. Oh and "Lucky 13" is just plain bad on top of that.
Then there are the shorts with amazing visual styles but with quite dull story. "The Witness" is the one that comes to mind using clever use of compositing (the implementation of CG elements in a realistic environment) and having a nice character design with excellent animation. However it feels pretentious because it doesn't say anything really interesting and it focus more on sexual visual rather than a story, with a nonsensical twist nevertheless. Style over substance.
Other shorts instead feels like watching a cinematic for a videogame, pilot for different series or University students showreel. This doesn't mean they are bad but it just feels a bit underwhelming.
However when a short is good, it's really good! The one that are always left me with a smile on my face and with an overall excitement, eager to see what was coming next or more works from these studios. "Three Robots" is definitely one of my favourite short thanks to the amazing visuals, clever dialogues and an interesting lore.
My main criticism that involves mostly all the shorts is the supposed maturity, especially in the use of sex and violence.. I am not against the use of them by any means. However using them just for the sake of it doesn't make your product automatically mature. It just felt edgy, the equivalent of a goth teenagers that watch gory movies just because "uuhhh so taboo".
I know that animation is still perceived as a product for children and I am always happy to see new ones that wants to focus on a more mature audience. I don't think though that you can do it with just the use of swear words, sex and violence without any substance in it.
I want to see more actually mature animations, with compelling stories and amazing styles, using animation as a media and not as a genre.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated 2012 (2009) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Roland Emmerich does big budget disaster flicks as well as Dairylea does cheese. However, some of his most recent attempts to dominate the box office have been panned by viewers and critics alike, who say that he has become too reliant on special effects.
Unfortunately, those critics better look away now, as his new film is the biggest yet.
2012 takes place, well, in 2012 for the most part and features an array of big Hollywood names attracted none the less by the huge box office forecasts for the film. The premise is simple; here comes the end of the world and god should we run!
With a reported budget of over $200m which is more than Michael Bay spent on his worldwide smash Transformers: Revenge of the fallen, Emmerich was certainly able to splash out on some eye popping CGI.
2012 reads like The Day After Tomorrow on a steroid, which is no bad thing, but that film had some hideously underdeveloped characters and lacked the depth needed to allow viewers to share compassion for the people who had been affected by the global crisis.
Thankfully it seems that Emmerich has learnt his lesson here and has provided us with a back-story and it comes in many different forms. Thandie Newton and Danny Glover play president’s daughter and president respectively, a great deal of emotion has gone into writing these two characters and their on-screen scenes together, albeit a small amount, are wonderful.
John Cusack and Amanda Peet play divorced parents Jackson and Kate, only united by the love they share for their two young children and predictably later on in the film, a few deeper emotions. Unfortunately these two share no chemistry together and their on-screen scenes are flawed as a result.
2012 doesn’t have a huge deal of character development but it does improve on what was seen in The Day After Tomorrow and more recently, 10,000BC, with a deeper understanding of the characters. It ultimately succeeds in making the viewers share compassion for even the heartless characters in the film.
Moving on to the saving grace of all disaster films; the special effects, fans of major cities being destroyed are going to be pleased here with some eye-watering action pieces really showing why perhaps Emmerich overshadows even Michael Bay and has become the king of destroying anything that can be destroyed. There are a few questionable scenes, which look rather less than realistic, but this is a small point that doesn’t need to be taken into account.
Whilst all this may seem excellent, it all feels familiar, it’s all been seen and done before, so in reality 2012 adds nothing new to the genre which is unfortunate because it really is an excellent film.
Overall, 2012 is a mouth-watering treat in cinema engineering, apart from some lapses in scientific accuracy and some shaky special effects; it surpasses The Day After Tomorrow and similar disaster films by sheer depth. On the downside it adds nothing new to the formula, but if you want sheer popcorn fodder then please, look no further.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/18/2012-2009/
Unfortunately, those critics better look away now, as his new film is the biggest yet.
2012 takes place, well, in 2012 for the most part and features an array of big Hollywood names attracted none the less by the huge box office forecasts for the film. The premise is simple; here comes the end of the world and god should we run!
With a reported budget of over $200m which is more than Michael Bay spent on his worldwide smash Transformers: Revenge of the fallen, Emmerich was certainly able to splash out on some eye popping CGI.
2012 reads like The Day After Tomorrow on a steroid, which is no bad thing, but that film had some hideously underdeveloped characters and lacked the depth needed to allow viewers to share compassion for the people who had been affected by the global crisis.
Thankfully it seems that Emmerich has learnt his lesson here and has provided us with a back-story and it comes in many different forms. Thandie Newton and Danny Glover play president’s daughter and president respectively, a great deal of emotion has gone into writing these two characters and their on-screen scenes together, albeit a small amount, are wonderful.
John Cusack and Amanda Peet play divorced parents Jackson and Kate, only united by the love they share for their two young children and predictably later on in the film, a few deeper emotions. Unfortunately these two share no chemistry together and their on-screen scenes are flawed as a result.
2012 doesn’t have a huge deal of character development but it does improve on what was seen in The Day After Tomorrow and more recently, 10,000BC, with a deeper understanding of the characters. It ultimately succeeds in making the viewers share compassion for even the heartless characters in the film.
Moving on to the saving grace of all disaster films; the special effects, fans of major cities being destroyed are going to be pleased here with some eye-watering action pieces really showing why perhaps Emmerich overshadows even Michael Bay and has become the king of destroying anything that can be destroyed. There are a few questionable scenes, which look rather less than realistic, but this is a small point that doesn’t need to be taken into account.
Whilst all this may seem excellent, it all feels familiar, it’s all been seen and done before, so in reality 2012 adds nothing new to the genre which is unfortunate because it really is an excellent film.
Overall, 2012 is a mouth-watering treat in cinema engineering, apart from some lapses in scientific accuracy and some shaky special effects; it surpasses The Day After Tomorrow and similar disaster films by sheer depth. On the downside it adds nothing new to the formula, but if you want sheer popcorn fodder then please, look no further.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/18/2012-2009/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Girl on the Train (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A Victim of its marketing
It’s always refreshing to see a film released primarily for the adult market. We all loved The Hunger Games, but imagine what the series could’ve been like had the franchise been given a 15 or even an 18 certification.
And Fifty Shades of Grey may have its critics (me being one of them) but at least it appealed to those of us not interested in sharing cinema screens with rambling tweens. The finest of the adult genre? Well, that has to be Gone Girl. But now there’s a new kid on the block, ready to steal its crown. Is The Girl on the Train a worthy adversary?
Alcoholic Rachel Watson (Emily Blunt) catches daily glimpses of a seemingly perfect couple, Scott (Luke Evans) and Megan (Haley Bennett), from the window of her train. One day, Watson witnesses something shocking unfold in the garden of the strangers’ home. Rachel tells the authorities what she thinks she saw after learning Megan is missing. Unable to trust her memory, the troubled woman begins her own investigation, while police suspect that Rachel may have crossed a dangerous line.
Emily Blunt has become one of Hollywood’s finest actors, constantly adding new genres to her resume. From The Devil Wears Prada to Sicario and beyond, there is nothing she won’t try and The Girl on the Train is bolstered by a career-best performance by the actress. It’s never easy to play a drunk convincingly; you can look to some UK soap operas for proof of that, but she manages to pull it off exceptionally well.
Of the supporting cast, only Justin Theroux makes a lasting impact as Rachel’s ex-husband Tom, now living with his new wife Anna – a lacklustre Rebecca Ferguson. It would be unfair to sling too much mud at a very talented group of actors, but up against Blunt, there really is no comparison.
Elsewhere, the complex narrative of Paula Hawkins’ book translates to a rather messy filming style when viewed on the big screen. Continuous flashbacks from within Rachel’s mind are handled reasonably well by director Tate Taylor (The Help) and he manages to wrench everything together to stop the plot from becoming incoherent.
Unfortunately, The Girl on the Train is a victim of its own intense marketing campaign. The trailers have given away far too much for those who haven’t read the book and whilst the twists and turns aren’t immediately obvious, some of the Cluedo-esque fun has been removed. It’s clear Dreamworks wanted the film to resemble Gone Girl as much as possible, aiming to attract a similar audience, but this may have backfired slightly.
Overall, The Girl on the Train is a particularly faithful adaptation of the novel of the same name, held up by an intense and frankly incredible performance by Emily Blunt. Unfortunately, some of the film’s suspense has been lost by a poorly executed marketing campaign and as such it becomes a passable addition to the adult thriller genre. This year’s Gone Girl it is not.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/10/06/a-victim-of-its-marketing-the-girl-on-the-train-review/
And Fifty Shades of Grey may have its critics (me being one of them) but at least it appealed to those of us not interested in sharing cinema screens with rambling tweens. The finest of the adult genre? Well, that has to be Gone Girl. But now there’s a new kid on the block, ready to steal its crown. Is The Girl on the Train a worthy adversary?
Alcoholic Rachel Watson (Emily Blunt) catches daily glimpses of a seemingly perfect couple, Scott (Luke Evans) and Megan (Haley Bennett), from the window of her train. One day, Watson witnesses something shocking unfold in the garden of the strangers’ home. Rachel tells the authorities what she thinks she saw after learning Megan is missing. Unable to trust her memory, the troubled woman begins her own investigation, while police suspect that Rachel may have crossed a dangerous line.
Emily Blunt has become one of Hollywood’s finest actors, constantly adding new genres to her resume. From The Devil Wears Prada to Sicario and beyond, there is nothing she won’t try and The Girl on the Train is bolstered by a career-best performance by the actress. It’s never easy to play a drunk convincingly; you can look to some UK soap operas for proof of that, but she manages to pull it off exceptionally well.
Of the supporting cast, only Justin Theroux makes a lasting impact as Rachel’s ex-husband Tom, now living with his new wife Anna – a lacklustre Rebecca Ferguson. It would be unfair to sling too much mud at a very talented group of actors, but up against Blunt, there really is no comparison.
Elsewhere, the complex narrative of Paula Hawkins’ book translates to a rather messy filming style when viewed on the big screen. Continuous flashbacks from within Rachel’s mind are handled reasonably well by director Tate Taylor (The Help) and he manages to wrench everything together to stop the plot from becoming incoherent.
Unfortunately, The Girl on the Train is a victim of its own intense marketing campaign. The trailers have given away far too much for those who haven’t read the book and whilst the twists and turns aren’t immediately obvious, some of the Cluedo-esque fun has been removed. It’s clear Dreamworks wanted the film to resemble Gone Girl as much as possible, aiming to attract a similar audience, but this may have backfired slightly.
Overall, The Girl on the Train is a particularly faithful adaptation of the novel of the same name, held up by an intense and frankly incredible performance by Emily Blunt. Unfortunately, some of the film’s suspense has been lost by a poorly executed marketing campaign and as such it becomes a passable addition to the adult thriller genre. This year’s Gone Girl it is not.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/10/06/a-victim-of-its-marketing-the-girl-on-the-train-review/
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated That Snow Moon in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019 (Updated Jun 12, 2019)
Many years ago, in a star system located quite a long ways away from our own…… Remind you of a wildly successful fantasy film series involving laser swords, telekinetic powers, and space travel? That snow coincidence. Ha! See what I did there?
That Snow Moon is a card game of dexterity, mixed with some bluffing. Players are divided between two ‘teams’ – the Liberation (good guys) and the Dynasty (bad guys). The goals are simple. The Liberation is trying to assemble a set of plans to be used in the destruction of the Snow Moon. The Dynasty is trying to destroy the Liberation base and stop them from acquiring those plans. I don’t know about you, but if they turned this into a movie, I would probably watch it.
Here’s the kicker though – you don’t simply PLAY cards in this game. You toss/drop them. Yep, you read that right. In this game, you throw cards. Each team takes turns tossing cards into the play area, in hopes of creating clusters of touching cards that activate powers to aid in the completion of their respective goals. Bluffing comes into play because Liberation cards can be played face-down, and remain that way until exposed by a Dynasty card. Can you trick the Dynasty into revealing a card whose power you want to use, or will they see through your ruse and expose and eliminate your more powerful cards? On the flip side, can you foil the plans of the rebellious Liberation, or will they be sly enough to avoid detection? The final fate of your galaxy is up in the air – literally.
The premise of this game sounded really cool to me, but when I actually got to play it, it was quite….underwhelming. In theory, tossing cards puts a unique twist on the standard card game. But the unpredictability of actually tossing/dropping cards makes this game way more luck-driven than strategic to me. It should be noted that we have a PnP of this game – sleeved and with regular playing cards added to beef up the cards. Maybe if we had a retail version, the cards would be easier to manipulate? I’m not sure. At times it just felt futile to try to strategize certain tosses because they cards are going to fall where they may. The actual gameplay is a little bland too – it feels like it’s missing something. Maybe adding more action options or more complex/powerful card powers would up the ante a little bit. The game, as is, just kind of feels like 16-Card-Pick-Up to me.
As a huge fan of the brand-name muse of this game, That Snow Moon fell flat for me. It feels a little too simple, yet wildly unpredictable at the same time. Is it a game I’d pull out to play again? I don’t know – maybe? It’s not high on my list. That snow joke, Purple Phoenix Games gives it a disappointing 9 / 18.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/05/30/that-snow-moon-review/
That Snow Moon is a card game of dexterity, mixed with some bluffing. Players are divided between two ‘teams’ – the Liberation (good guys) and the Dynasty (bad guys). The goals are simple. The Liberation is trying to assemble a set of plans to be used in the destruction of the Snow Moon. The Dynasty is trying to destroy the Liberation base and stop them from acquiring those plans. I don’t know about you, but if they turned this into a movie, I would probably watch it.
Here’s the kicker though – you don’t simply PLAY cards in this game. You toss/drop them. Yep, you read that right. In this game, you throw cards. Each team takes turns tossing cards into the play area, in hopes of creating clusters of touching cards that activate powers to aid in the completion of their respective goals. Bluffing comes into play because Liberation cards can be played face-down, and remain that way until exposed by a Dynasty card. Can you trick the Dynasty into revealing a card whose power you want to use, or will they see through your ruse and expose and eliminate your more powerful cards? On the flip side, can you foil the plans of the rebellious Liberation, or will they be sly enough to avoid detection? The final fate of your galaxy is up in the air – literally.
The premise of this game sounded really cool to me, but when I actually got to play it, it was quite….underwhelming. In theory, tossing cards puts a unique twist on the standard card game. But the unpredictability of actually tossing/dropping cards makes this game way more luck-driven than strategic to me. It should be noted that we have a PnP of this game – sleeved and with regular playing cards added to beef up the cards. Maybe if we had a retail version, the cards would be easier to manipulate? I’m not sure. At times it just felt futile to try to strategize certain tosses because they cards are going to fall where they may. The actual gameplay is a little bland too – it feels like it’s missing something. Maybe adding more action options or more complex/powerful card powers would up the ante a little bit. The game, as is, just kind of feels like 16-Card-Pick-Up to me.
As a huge fan of the brand-name muse of this game, That Snow Moon fell flat for me. It feels a little too simple, yet wildly unpredictable at the same time. Is it a game I’d pull out to play again? I don’t know – maybe? It’s not high on my list. That snow joke, Purple Phoenix Games gives it a disappointing 9 / 18.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/05/30/that-snow-moon-review/