Search
Search results
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated DiTiC in Tabletop Games
Oct 2, 2019
Purple Phoenix Games Preview
Abstract strategy games hold a special place in my heart. I’m not really a fan of Chess, but I am a fan of games that are light on rules and components but heavier in strategy needed to best your opponents. Yes, I like games that have zombies and gore or adventure and treasures as well, but abstracts are a great escape from those Ameritrashy games we all love.
So my original thought was to try to open this preview with a dastardly abstract statement to truly emphasize how theming is irrelevant with some activities. Not quite having done that, DiTiC is an abstract strategy game of “tile placement and dice-pawn” movement. How does it play? Read on.
In DiTiC the winner is the first player to upgrade one of their dice from a smaller-valued die into a value of six. Bring out smaller value dice and move them around the “board” to combine with other dice and win the game!
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a review copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know if the final components will be similar or different, or if the Kickstarter campaign will alter or add anything through stretch goals. -T
To setup a game of DiTiC, each player chooses a color of dice and takes all dice into their hand. The tile with “DiTiC START” on it is the, well, starting tile and is placed in the middle of the table. Roll off to see who goes first and you are ready to play!
On a turn a player may draw and place a tile or move one of their dice. Players start with zero dice on the board, so the first few turns will be drawing a tile from the bag and placing it on the board either side face-up. As you can see from the photos the tiles will have different colored (and shaped) corners. It’s when these corners complete an intersection of four tile corners that dice may enter the board. Depending on the color of the intersection’s majority control a die of said majority color comes into play on the value of the number of icons present. That’s a mouthful. So there are four corners to the intersection. If said intersection contains two red, a blue, and a black icon then red will place a die with value of two pips showing on that intersection. These dice may now be moved and combined with like-valued dice (with an exception). If a player has at least one die on the board when initiating this action, they may roll the action die after placement and complete any other actions the die result allows.
When a player decides instead to move, combine, or overtake a die, they simply move the die along the edge of a tile to the next closest intersection. Exception to movement: players can move all dice with a value of one BEFORE any other dice movement, and dice with value of one or two may move in any direction – even diagonally.
To combine/upgrade dice players will need to move one die into the same intersection as an equal-valued die in order to combine into a die of value +1. Example: a four die and a four die combine to make a five die. Exception to combinations: a value one die may combine with a value three die (remember the exception from the previous paragraph?) to create a value four die.
To overtake an opponent’s die, a player simply moves a superior die onto an occupied intersection. Typically, a die of larger value can overtake any die of smaller value. Exceptions: nothing may overtake a four or five, and only a five can overtake a three. Three-value dice seem to be the superheros of DiTiC.
So after many back-and-forth turns of placing tiles and rolling dice or moving/combining/overtaking dice the winner is crowned once they have upgraded any die into a value six die.
Components. Again, this is a prototype version of the game, so I will comment on what I can. I think the game looks very nice, even in this stage of production. The icons on the tiles are clear – and THANK YOU for considering the colorblind gamer community by making each icon different by both color and art style. The dice are your typical d6 (and I do not know if there will be any changes made to these as a result of a successful campaign). The icons on the action die make sense and I really dig the laser-etched wooden design, and I kinda hope that detail makes it into the final product. But I prefer wooden dice to plastic every time. The game also came with a burlap bag to house and conceal the tiles, and coupled with the wooden dice makes a nice little natural organic combo. My only request for the final version of the game? Go crazy with the color scheme. Black, red, white, and blue are great colors, but fling out the purple and the gold and the orange and the aqua. But I’m no designer. It looks great as it is.
So like I said up top, I love abstracts. Surprisingly so. The more I play them the more I love them. And this game definitely adds to my love of the genre. The rules are kinda wacky, and the dice of different values each can do their own thing, and I think that’s really interesting. It’s not simply a game of moving big dice around eating all the little dice. I mean, you CAN do that, but you will not advance your own strategies. But there is an amount of take that in this game, from the action dice to the tile placement to the overtaking of dice, that will really appeal to lots of people. It’s not a big game, but it looks great on the table, and plays really well once you have immersed yourself in the rules. I really believe that the more I play it the more I will fall in love with it. In fact, as I type this I want to go home and play it right now. And that’s a mark of a good, if not great, game, isn’t it?
If you like abstract strategy games and have a little room for this small game in your collection (or better, MAKE some room for it) then you should definitely consider backing it on Kickstarter, or (depending on when you read this) picking it up at your FLGS.
So my original thought was to try to open this preview with a dastardly abstract statement to truly emphasize how theming is irrelevant with some activities. Not quite having done that, DiTiC is an abstract strategy game of “tile placement and dice-pawn” movement. How does it play? Read on.
In DiTiC the winner is the first player to upgrade one of their dice from a smaller-valued die into a value of six. Bring out smaller value dice and move them around the “board” to combine with other dice and win the game!
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a review copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know if the final components will be similar or different, or if the Kickstarter campaign will alter or add anything through stretch goals. -T
To setup a game of DiTiC, each player chooses a color of dice and takes all dice into their hand. The tile with “DiTiC START” on it is the, well, starting tile and is placed in the middle of the table. Roll off to see who goes first and you are ready to play!
On a turn a player may draw and place a tile or move one of their dice. Players start with zero dice on the board, so the first few turns will be drawing a tile from the bag and placing it on the board either side face-up. As you can see from the photos the tiles will have different colored (and shaped) corners. It’s when these corners complete an intersection of four tile corners that dice may enter the board. Depending on the color of the intersection’s majority control a die of said majority color comes into play on the value of the number of icons present. That’s a mouthful. So there are four corners to the intersection. If said intersection contains two red, a blue, and a black icon then red will place a die with value of two pips showing on that intersection. These dice may now be moved and combined with like-valued dice (with an exception). If a player has at least one die on the board when initiating this action, they may roll the action die after placement and complete any other actions the die result allows.
When a player decides instead to move, combine, or overtake a die, they simply move the die along the edge of a tile to the next closest intersection. Exception to movement: players can move all dice with a value of one BEFORE any other dice movement, and dice with value of one or two may move in any direction – even diagonally.
To combine/upgrade dice players will need to move one die into the same intersection as an equal-valued die in order to combine into a die of value +1. Example: a four die and a four die combine to make a five die. Exception to combinations: a value one die may combine with a value three die (remember the exception from the previous paragraph?) to create a value four die.
To overtake an opponent’s die, a player simply moves a superior die onto an occupied intersection. Typically, a die of larger value can overtake any die of smaller value. Exceptions: nothing may overtake a four or five, and only a five can overtake a three. Three-value dice seem to be the superheros of DiTiC.
So after many back-and-forth turns of placing tiles and rolling dice or moving/combining/overtaking dice the winner is crowned once they have upgraded any die into a value six die.
Components. Again, this is a prototype version of the game, so I will comment on what I can. I think the game looks very nice, even in this stage of production. The icons on the tiles are clear – and THANK YOU for considering the colorblind gamer community by making each icon different by both color and art style. The dice are your typical d6 (and I do not know if there will be any changes made to these as a result of a successful campaign). The icons on the action die make sense and I really dig the laser-etched wooden design, and I kinda hope that detail makes it into the final product. But I prefer wooden dice to plastic every time. The game also came with a burlap bag to house and conceal the tiles, and coupled with the wooden dice makes a nice little natural organic combo. My only request for the final version of the game? Go crazy with the color scheme. Black, red, white, and blue are great colors, but fling out the purple and the gold and the orange and the aqua. But I’m no designer. It looks great as it is.
So like I said up top, I love abstracts. Surprisingly so. The more I play them the more I love them. And this game definitely adds to my love of the genre. The rules are kinda wacky, and the dice of different values each can do their own thing, and I think that’s really interesting. It’s not simply a game of moving big dice around eating all the little dice. I mean, you CAN do that, but you will not advance your own strategies. But there is an amount of take that in this game, from the action dice to the tile placement to the overtaking of dice, that will really appeal to lots of people. It’s not a big game, but it looks great on the table, and plays really well once you have immersed yourself in the rules. I really believe that the more I play it the more I will fall in love with it. In fact, as I type this I want to go home and play it right now. And that’s a mark of a good, if not great, game, isn’t it?
If you like abstract strategy games and have a little room for this small game in your collection (or better, MAKE some room for it) then you should definitely consider backing it on Kickstarter, or (depending on when you read this) picking it up at your FLGS.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
I'm a celebrity... Get me out of here
It’s been 22 years since Joe Johnston thrilled cinemagoers with a little film called Jumanji. Starring the late, great Robin Williams, it has amassed a huge following over the years and has become nearly as loved as its leading star.
What’s surprising given the film’s success is the lack of a sequel. For over 20 years the non-franchise stayed completely dormant until now. Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle sees Columbia Pictures resurrect this classic property for a high-action, CGI-filled blockbuster. But is it actually any good?
Four high school kids discover an old video game console and are drawn into the game’s jungle setting, literally becoming the adult avatars they chose. What they discover is that you don’t just play Jumanji – you must survive it. To beat the game and return to the real world, they’ll have to go on the most dangerous adventure of their lives, discover what Alan Parrish left 20 years ago, and change the way they think about themselves – or they’ll be stuck in the game forever.
Considering the overwhelmingly negative response to the film’s first trailer, it’s a pleasant surprise to see an enjoyable romp that has likeable characters and some nicely filmed set pieces. The problem is, it really doesn’t feel anything like Jumanji and regularly feels like the producers down at Sony had dollar signs in their eyes more than anything else.
There’s only one reference to its now classic predecessor, an homage to Robin William’s Alan Parrish but this is such a fleeting indication of any connection to the 1995 film, it’s barely noticeable. The film may as well lose the Jumanji tag from its name and be done with it: of course that wouldn’t sell half as many tickets now would it?
Of the school-age characters, none of them make any impact before being sucked into Jumanji, now a video game, and director Jake Kasdan (Bad Teacher) wisely focusses on their avatar characters instead. Dwayne Johnson is always reliable and plays the fish-out-of-water nerd surprisingly well. He also has great chemistry with Kevin Hart and the two share some of the film’s best sequences.
Jack Black is hilarious as his inner female tries to break through at numerous points throughout the movie and Karen Gillan shows particular warmth as the awkward Martha. Nick Jonas also stars in a role originally destined for Tom Holland and continues to prove what a versatile actor he has become.
It’s a pleasant surprise to see an enjoyable romp that has likeable characters and some nicely filmed set pieces.
Jake Kasdan films the action confidently and with visual panache but the CGI at times is left wanting, disappointing in this day and age. A helicopter ride across a rhino-infested canyon is particularly fun to watch and the way in which the writers write the film around video game lore is exciting and makes for a pleasant distraction from an otherwise mediocre script.
What the film does have in abundance however is laughs. Indeed, they are of the Dairylea variety, cheesy, but sometimes that’s exactly what you need. Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is a very funny film that knows how to squeeze every last drop of humour from its writing.
It’s also very well paced. Apart from a few lapses in judgement where the screenwriters desperately try to make us feel emotion towards the characters – we don’t – the film really doesn’t have a boring moment to its name and at 119 minutes, that’s a real achievement.
Overall, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is a film that is fun to watch, if a little lacking in originality. All the lead actors perform their roles well, with Jack Black being a particular highlight. Unfortunately, while I’m not usually one for sickly nostalgia, the film really needed to provide a few more tasteful references to its predecessor, especially considering its link to the wonderful Robin Williams.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/10/jumanji-welcome-to-the-jungle-review-im-a-celebrity-get-me-out-of-here/
What’s surprising given the film’s success is the lack of a sequel. For over 20 years the non-franchise stayed completely dormant until now. Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle sees Columbia Pictures resurrect this classic property for a high-action, CGI-filled blockbuster. But is it actually any good?
Four high school kids discover an old video game console and are drawn into the game’s jungle setting, literally becoming the adult avatars they chose. What they discover is that you don’t just play Jumanji – you must survive it. To beat the game and return to the real world, they’ll have to go on the most dangerous adventure of their lives, discover what Alan Parrish left 20 years ago, and change the way they think about themselves – or they’ll be stuck in the game forever.
Considering the overwhelmingly negative response to the film’s first trailer, it’s a pleasant surprise to see an enjoyable romp that has likeable characters and some nicely filmed set pieces. The problem is, it really doesn’t feel anything like Jumanji and regularly feels like the producers down at Sony had dollar signs in their eyes more than anything else.
There’s only one reference to its now classic predecessor, an homage to Robin William’s Alan Parrish but this is such a fleeting indication of any connection to the 1995 film, it’s barely noticeable. The film may as well lose the Jumanji tag from its name and be done with it: of course that wouldn’t sell half as many tickets now would it?
Of the school-age characters, none of them make any impact before being sucked into Jumanji, now a video game, and director Jake Kasdan (Bad Teacher) wisely focusses on their avatar characters instead. Dwayne Johnson is always reliable and plays the fish-out-of-water nerd surprisingly well. He also has great chemistry with Kevin Hart and the two share some of the film’s best sequences.
Jack Black is hilarious as his inner female tries to break through at numerous points throughout the movie and Karen Gillan shows particular warmth as the awkward Martha. Nick Jonas also stars in a role originally destined for Tom Holland and continues to prove what a versatile actor he has become.
It’s a pleasant surprise to see an enjoyable romp that has likeable characters and some nicely filmed set pieces.
Jake Kasdan films the action confidently and with visual panache but the CGI at times is left wanting, disappointing in this day and age. A helicopter ride across a rhino-infested canyon is particularly fun to watch and the way in which the writers write the film around video game lore is exciting and makes for a pleasant distraction from an otherwise mediocre script.
What the film does have in abundance however is laughs. Indeed, they are of the Dairylea variety, cheesy, but sometimes that’s exactly what you need. Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is a very funny film that knows how to squeeze every last drop of humour from its writing.
It’s also very well paced. Apart from a few lapses in judgement where the screenwriters desperately try to make us feel emotion towards the characters – we don’t – the film really doesn’t have a boring moment to its name and at 119 minutes, that’s a real achievement.
Overall, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is a film that is fun to watch, if a little lacking in originality. All the lead actors perform their roles well, with Jack Black being a particular highlight. Unfortunately, while I’m not usually one for sickly nostalgia, the film really needed to provide a few more tasteful references to its predecessor, especially considering its link to the wonderful Robin Williams.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/10/jumanji-welcome-to-the-jungle-review-im-a-celebrity-get-me-out-of-here/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 21, 2019
Middle of the Road
I have to give the Walt Disney Company credit, with their Live Action remakes of their classic animated movies, they have developed a very lucrative profit stream with properties that they already own - and are well known to audiences. Some are successful (THE JUNGLE BOOK, ALADDIN), some are not quite so successful (DUMBO, ALICE IN WONDERLAND).
And...somewhere in the middle...is the LION KING.
Directed by Jon Favreau (THE JUNGLE BOOK, IRON MAN), this Lion King is a fairly faithful reproduction of the animated movie - and that is a blessing and a curse - and it, ultimately, keeps this remake squarely in the middle in terms of quality, interest and achievement.
What works: the CGI animation of the animals and scenery. Favreau shot CGI-fest films like THE JUNGLE BOOK and IRON MAN, so he knows how to do these things and they work here in a very workmanlike way. The are all professionally done - there's not a bad shot in the film. But the "wow" moments are few and far between in this film as well
The story is a timeless classic (kind of an "animal adventure Hamlet") and that works as do OME of the voice cast (more on that later)...and...of course...the songs - especially the faithful recreation of the CIRCLE OF LIFE opening - one of the best opening musical numbers in movie history.
What doesn't work: The first 1/2 of the film's pacing. It drags pretty badly early on and the songs in that part of the film (like I CAN'T WAIT TO BE KING) just don't have the energy and pizzazz that is needed. And SOME of the voice work is just plain bland and boring and (in one case) I found irritating.
So...let's talk about the voice cast. James Earl Jones (reprising Mufasa) is terrific (of course) as is John Oliver's Zazu (a much bigger presence in this film than the animated film), Chiwetel Ejiofor's Scar is appropriately menacing, if a bit bland, but "good enough" as is Beyonce's grown up Nala. I would have liked to see/feel a bit more of her "presence" in this character's voice, but that might be a Director choice and not an actress choice. John Kani's Rafiki is quite good as is the always steady/credible Alfre Woodward as Sarabi.
What doesn't work is the two voice actors cast to play Simba. Donald Glover (TV's ATLANTA) is just too bland and boring as the adult Simba. He doesn't really bring anything interesting to his voice work of this character (but does hold his own in the musical duet "Can You Feel The Love Tonight" opposite the great Beyonce).
I usually don't comment on child performances that I don't like (they are kids after all), so I won't really comment much on JD McCrary's voice performance as the young Simba except to say I didn't really how much MORE the young Simba is in this film as opposed to the older Simba - or at least it felt to me that the weakest voice performance in this film was on screen for far longer than I remembered from the animated film.
As for the best voice performances in this film - that is easy - Billy Eichner and Seth Rogan's performance as Simba's pals Timon and Pumbaa. They had big shoes to fill in comparison to the voice work in the animated film from Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella, so they did the smart thing - they didn't even try. Much like Will Smith not trying to imitate Robin Williams in the live action ALADDIN earlier this year (another voice performance that worked well) Eichner and Rogan make these characters their own and succeeded well - these two characters/performances are the high point in the film and bring much needed life and energy to a movie that was sagging under it's own weight by the time they show up.
This Lion King will be THE Lion King for this generation - and that is "fine" - if the youngsters in my life want to watch this, I won't complain. But... I will try to steer them towards the much better animated version of this film from the 1990's.
Letter Grade: a solid B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
And...somewhere in the middle...is the LION KING.
Directed by Jon Favreau (THE JUNGLE BOOK, IRON MAN), this Lion King is a fairly faithful reproduction of the animated movie - and that is a blessing and a curse - and it, ultimately, keeps this remake squarely in the middle in terms of quality, interest and achievement.
What works: the CGI animation of the animals and scenery. Favreau shot CGI-fest films like THE JUNGLE BOOK and IRON MAN, so he knows how to do these things and they work here in a very workmanlike way. The are all professionally done - there's not a bad shot in the film. But the "wow" moments are few and far between in this film as well
The story is a timeless classic (kind of an "animal adventure Hamlet") and that works as do OME of the voice cast (more on that later)...and...of course...the songs - especially the faithful recreation of the CIRCLE OF LIFE opening - one of the best opening musical numbers in movie history.
What doesn't work: The first 1/2 of the film's pacing. It drags pretty badly early on and the songs in that part of the film (like I CAN'T WAIT TO BE KING) just don't have the energy and pizzazz that is needed. And SOME of the voice work is just plain bland and boring and (in one case) I found irritating.
So...let's talk about the voice cast. James Earl Jones (reprising Mufasa) is terrific (of course) as is John Oliver's Zazu (a much bigger presence in this film than the animated film), Chiwetel Ejiofor's Scar is appropriately menacing, if a bit bland, but "good enough" as is Beyonce's grown up Nala. I would have liked to see/feel a bit more of her "presence" in this character's voice, but that might be a Director choice and not an actress choice. John Kani's Rafiki is quite good as is the always steady/credible Alfre Woodward as Sarabi.
What doesn't work is the two voice actors cast to play Simba. Donald Glover (TV's ATLANTA) is just too bland and boring as the adult Simba. He doesn't really bring anything interesting to his voice work of this character (but does hold his own in the musical duet "Can You Feel The Love Tonight" opposite the great Beyonce).
I usually don't comment on child performances that I don't like (they are kids after all), so I won't really comment much on JD McCrary's voice performance as the young Simba except to say I didn't really how much MORE the young Simba is in this film as opposed to the older Simba - or at least it felt to me that the weakest voice performance in this film was on screen for far longer than I remembered from the animated film.
As for the best voice performances in this film - that is easy - Billy Eichner and Seth Rogan's performance as Simba's pals Timon and Pumbaa. They had big shoes to fill in comparison to the voice work in the animated film from Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella, so they did the smart thing - they didn't even try. Much like Will Smith not trying to imitate Robin Williams in the live action ALADDIN earlier this year (another voice performance that worked well) Eichner and Rogan make these characters their own and succeeded well - these two characters/performances are the high point in the film and bring much needed life and energy to a movie that was sagging under it's own weight by the time they show up.
This Lion King will be THE Lion King for this generation - and that is "fine" - if the youngsters in my life want to watch this, I won't complain. But... I will try to steer them towards the much better animated version of this film from the 1990's.
Letter Grade: a solid B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Black Widow (2021) in Movies
Jul 8, 2021
An entertaining pose-struck by Johansson and Pugh
A long time in the waiting (again) but "Black Widow" is an excellent addition to the Marvel canon: almost a "Rogue One" in the series, taking us back to fill in some gaps after "Captain America: Civil War". It's just great to have ANY Marvel back in the cinema.... that Michael Giacchino Marvel tune set the hairs going on the back of my neck!
Positives:
- Loving the heart in this Marvel! There's more sense of "family" than in F9! Johansson and Pugh, in particular, have a great on-screen relationship, and nice sisterly bickering goes on. There's a fabulous scene in a petrol (gas) station between the pair that really shows what class acting is available in this outing.
- David Harbour adds some fine comedy as the "Red Guardian", complete with action figure! Seeing him squeezing into his old uniform reminded me strongly of Mr Incredible! And the relationship with Rachel Weisz's Melina is also great fun.
- Completing the strong acting complement is Ray Winstone as villain Dreykov. It's a role he's played so many times before that he could probably do it in his sleep: but still great to watch. A shout-out too to the lovely Olga Kurylenko, looking decidedly unlovely here! (She isn't given very much to do as Taskmaster though.)
- There were some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments for me: both through witty dialogue and visual gags. A helicopter 'landing' was particularly snort-worthy!
- Lorne Balfe delivers another stonking soundtrack, full of Russian undertones. Also great is a twisted version of Nirvana's "Teen Spirit" over the opening titles.
Negatives:
- Now I KNOW you need to suspend belief during Marvel films, but the "Red Room" location (no spoilers, and no - not the "50 Shades" type) stretches that too far. It leads to an over-blown, free-falling finale that somewhat lessened the impact for me of the rather more realistic flow of the movie to that point.
- Tonally the movie is rather inconsistent. As an example, the start of the movie is played 'straight', as is the role of Alexei. But when he reappears later in the film - and it took me a long time to appreciate the jailbird character was in fact him - then he suddenly becomes the comic heart of the movie.
- I loved the way the film built the relationships between the characters. So this is NOT a negative from me. But I *suspect* some Marvel action fans may find the narrative portions of the movie too slow for their liking.
Summary Thoughts on "Black Widow": Black Widow has always struck me as an odd and slightly second-rate member of The Avengers. After all, she has no specific "superpowers", so how has she survived all of the physical abuse to date? So, given what we know happened to her in "Endgame", I questioned whether this was an origin story that would hold much interest with me. But the knack here is that it really isn't an "origin story" at all. It covers her early life, pre-titles, but then skips all the intermediate biopic stuff to drill into this specific adventure in her life. And the quality of the acting and the relationships that are built up delivered something that I greatly enjoyed.
Cate Shortland seems an odd choice to front a huge movie like this (she has a very short movie CV) but I think she's done a great job here. I'd put it in the top quartile of Marvel movies for me.
And BTW, as it's Marvel so as you might expect there is an end credits scene. You have to wait until the very end of the credits for it (so you can appreciate Lorne Balfe's score some more). But it is worth waiting for, re-introducing a character from one of the Phase 4 TV series.
(For the full graphical version, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/07/07/black-widow-a-posers-guide-to-the-incredibles-3/. One Mann's Movies is also on Facebook and Tiktok (@onemannsmovies).)
Positives:
- Loving the heart in this Marvel! There's more sense of "family" than in F9! Johansson and Pugh, in particular, have a great on-screen relationship, and nice sisterly bickering goes on. There's a fabulous scene in a petrol (gas) station between the pair that really shows what class acting is available in this outing.
- David Harbour adds some fine comedy as the "Red Guardian", complete with action figure! Seeing him squeezing into his old uniform reminded me strongly of Mr Incredible! And the relationship with Rachel Weisz's Melina is also great fun.
- Completing the strong acting complement is Ray Winstone as villain Dreykov. It's a role he's played so many times before that he could probably do it in his sleep: but still great to watch. A shout-out too to the lovely Olga Kurylenko, looking decidedly unlovely here! (She isn't given very much to do as Taskmaster though.)
- There were some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments for me: both through witty dialogue and visual gags. A helicopter 'landing' was particularly snort-worthy!
- Lorne Balfe delivers another stonking soundtrack, full of Russian undertones. Also great is a twisted version of Nirvana's "Teen Spirit" over the opening titles.
Negatives:
- Now I KNOW you need to suspend belief during Marvel films, but the "Red Room" location (no spoilers, and no - not the "50 Shades" type) stretches that too far. It leads to an over-blown, free-falling finale that somewhat lessened the impact for me of the rather more realistic flow of the movie to that point.
- Tonally the movie is rather inconsistent. As an example, the start of the movie is played 'straight', as is the role of Alexei. But when he reappears later in the film - and it took me a long time to appreciate the jailbird character was in fact him - then he suddenly becomes the comic heart of the movie.
- I loved the way the film built the relationships between the characters. So this is NOT a negative from me. But I *suspect* some Marvel action fans may find the narrative portions of the movie too slow for their liking.
Summary Thoughts on "Black Widow": Black Widow has always struck me as an odd and slightly second-rate member of The Avengers. After all, she has no specific "superpowers", so how has she survived all of the physical abuse to date? So, given what we know happened to her in "Endgame", I questioned whether this was an origin story that would hold much interest with me. But the knack here is that it really isn't an "origin story" at all. It covers her early life, pre-titles, but then skips all the intermediate biopic stuff to drill into this specific adventure in her life. And the quality of the acting and the relationships that are built up delivered something that I greatly enjoyed.
Cate Shortland seems an odd choice to front a huge movie like this (she has a very short movie CV) but I think she's done a great job here. I'd put it in the top quartile of Marvel movies for me.
And BTW, as it's Marvel so as you might expect there is an end credits scene. You have to wait until the very end of the credits for it (so you can appreciate Lorne Balfe's score some more). But it is worth waiting for, re-introducing a character from one of the Phase 4 TV series.
(For the full graphical version, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/07/07/black-widow-a-posers-guide-to-the-incredibles-3/. One Mann's Movies is also on Facebook and Tiktok (@onemannsmovies).)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Rambo: Last Blood (2019) in Movies
Sep 24, 2019
Not really a "Rambo" flick...but kind of is (if you squint)...
The "final" installment in the Sylvester Stallone as John Rambo series of films (the 5th!) RAMBO: LAST BLOOD is one of those hybrid type of films that is really two 45-50 minute films put together to give you one 1 hour, 45 minute adventure. These two film-ettes are clear throwbacks to 2 other films.
"Oh...you say...they are paying homage to previous RAMBO films, like the first one FIRST BLOOD and the best one RAMBO..." and...that would make sense and give a reason for this character to re-emerge, but this is NOT what is happening here.
The first half of this film has been done better as the Liam Neeson film TAKEN while the 2nd half of this film is a clear homage to HOME ALONE - or as I call it BLOODY HOME ALONE. So, instead of the crooks being comically hurt, they are dismembered, disemboweled, be-headed and run through the middle with pointy stuff.
All with lots and lots of blood spurting everywhere.
Inexplicably, Sylvester Stallone agreed to revise his John Rambo personae after 11 years away from it and he is showing every moment of his 73 years of age in this role. To say that Stallone is a little "long in the tooth" for this type of action/beat 'em up role would be doing a disservice to the term "long in the tooth".
As is fairly typical in these types of films, the plot is fairly straightforward - John Rambo is living a peaceful existence until someone close to him is kidnapped by bad guys south of the border, so Rambo goes in search of her (that's the first half of the film - the TAKEN portion). And...this part of the film is...okay (just...okay). The "good guys" around Rambo are nice (enough) and he is joined by a crusading journalist who also has had someone kidnapped so you think he might be joined by a ragtag group of "frenemies" to fight a common enemy...but...Rambo goes in "mano a mano" (this is a Stallone/Rambo film after all) and this part of the film, ultimately, fails to deliver the goods and falls flat.
Director Adrian Grunberg (the immortal GET THE GRINGO...yeah, I've never heard of it, either) sets up at the beginning of this movie some interesting side characters (the journalist, the one time bad guy who is now out of the bad guy business and might have a redemption-type arc, the plucky teenager) and some interesting character traits (PTSD, Concussion symptoms) that our hero is suffering from. All of these elements should have/could have been utilized to bring some interesting twists to the action scenes - but they are all quickly...and promptly...dropped to show Stallone being macho and killing bad guys on his way to fulfilling the goal of the first half of the film.
And then comes the 2nd half.
The bad guys come to Rambo's Ranch to exact some revenge (I can see a bobby-trapped Halloween-type walk through haunted house coming to a corn field near you this fall). Any pretense of plot, character development, etc. is gone in a hot minute as this part of the film is all about the bloody Home Alone-type booby-traps at the ranch. Wanna see someone get a pitchfork to the face? Check! Wanna see someone get their arm chopped off with a machete? Check! How about falling through a trap door onto some spikes? You got it! And it just gets bigger, bloodier and more comedicly-"awesome-gruesome" as we go. If you enjoy this type of thing (and...I gotta admit...I do) then this is pretty entertaining.
Ridiculous? Yes. Is Stallone too old for this type of film? Yes. Over-the-top? Of course. A good film with strong characters? Heck no.
But that's not what we came to see. If you can get through the fairly slow (and poorly written) first half of this film, the 2nd half is bloody good fun.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10 - just know what kind of film you are watching) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
"Oh...you say...they are paying homage to previous RAMBO films, like the first one FIRST BLOOD and the best one RAMBO..." and...that would make sense and give a reason for this character to re-emerge, but this is NOT what is happening here.
The first half of this film has been done better as the Liam Neeson film TAKEN while the 2nd half of this film is a clear homage to HOME ALONE - or as I call it BLOODY HOME ALONE. So, instead of the crooks being comically hurt, they are dismembered, disemboweled, be-headed and run through the middle with pointy stuff.
All with lots and lots of blood spurting everywhere.
Inexplicably, Sylvester Stallone agreed to revise his John Rambo personae after 11 years away from it and he is showing every moment of his 73 years of age in this role. To say that Stallone is a little "long in the tooth" for this type of action/beat 'em up role would be doing a disservice to the term "long in the tooth".
As is fairly typical in these types of films, the plot is fairly straightforward - John Rambo is living a peaceful existence until someone close to him is kidnapped by bad guys south of the border, so Rambo goes in search of her (that's the first half of the film - the TAKEN portion). And...this part of the film is...okay (just...okay). The "good guys" around Rambo are nice (enough) and he is joined by a crusading journalist who also has had someone kidnapped so you think he might be joined by a ragtag group of "frenemies" to fight a common enemy...but...Rambo goes in "mano a mano" (this is a Stallone/Rambo film after all) and this part of the film, ultimately, fails to deliver the goods and falls flat.
Director Adrian Grunberg (the immortal GET THE GRINGO...yeah, I've never heard of it, either) sets up at the beginning of this movie some interesting side characters (the journalist, the one time bad guy who is now out of the bad guy business and might have a redemption-type arc, the plucky teenager) and some interesting character traits (PTSD, Concussion symptoms) that our hero is suffering from. All of these elements should have/could have been utilized to bring some interesting twists to the action scenes - but they are all quickly...and promptly...dropped to show Stallone being macho and killing bad guys on his way to fulfilling the goal of the first half of the film.
And then comes the 2nd half.
The bad guys come to Rambo's Ranch to exact some revenge (I can see a bobby-trapped Halloween-type walk through haunted house coming to a corn field near you this fall). Any pretense of plot, character development, etc. is gone in a hot minute as this part of the film is all about the bloody Home Alone-type booby-traps at the ranch. Wanna see someone get a pitchfork to the face? Check! Wanna see someone get their arm chopped off with a machete? Check! How about falling through a trap door onto some spikes? You got it! And it just gets bigger, bloodier and more comedicly-"awesome-gruesome" as we go. If you enjoy this type of thing (and...I gotta admit...I do) then this is pretty entertaining.
Ridiculous? Yes. Is Stallone too old for this type of film? Yes. Over-the-top? Of course. A good film with strong characters? Heck no.
But that's not what we came to see. If you can get through the fairly slow (and poorly written) first half of this film, the 2nd half is bloody good fun.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10 - just know what kind of film you are watching) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Ad Astra (2019) in Movies
Sep 16, 2019
My first experience in IMAX was at the IMAX theater at the Grand Canyon. This was before IMAX theaters could easily be found within easy driving distance in most large cities. The movie, which interestingly still is showing today from those early years took viewers on the magical journey through the Grand Canyon. Throwing in a bit of history, with incredible visages, viewers could experience the canyon without ever hiking within its depths. It may seem odd to compare a big budget title like Ad Astra written and directed by James Gray (The Immigrant / The Lost City of Z) to a short thirty-minute experience film about the Grand Canyon, but both are equally awe inspiring and beautiful if experienced in the same way.
Ad Astra features Brad Pitt as Astronaut Roy McBride, a film that takes place in the not so distant future where the moon has become a commercialized tourist destination. A place where outside the safe tourist zones corporations fight for control of resources, and convoys are regularly ransacked by pirates looking to make a quick buck off the wares they are able to obtain. Mars has become a staging location for deep exploration ships hoping to discover if intelligent life exists outside our solar system.
Strange power surges begin to emanate deep within the galaxy, threatening to destroy everything in their path (Earth not excluded) and the top scientist are brought together to identify the threat and propose a theory to stop it. Roy McBride after suffering a near fatal fall from aboard a space station is brought into a top-secret meeting to discuss these surges. It is in this meeting that Roy is informed that the surges appear to be manifesting near Neptune and even more interestingly they are identified as anti-matter surges that are being generated from a ship that Roy’s father Clifford (Tommy Lee Jones) was in charge of nearly 29 years ago. The mission was a search for extra terrestrial life that Clifford was overseeing and presumed dead after Earth had lost contact with his ship. Roy must put his personal feelings aside regarding his father and must travel to the outer reaches of our solar system to put a stop to the surges, in any way possible.
Ad Astra is an incredible achievement in cinematography. The visions of the moon, mars and the numerous rockets taken to get there are spectacular. Much like the Grand Canyon film I spoke of earlier, in IMAX Ad Astra gives you a front row seat exploring the solar system as we know it. It takes a realistic approach while not bogging the viewers in all the technical details that would be necessary to achieve this flight. You would be doing yourself a disservice to see this film on any but the largest of movie screens. While it might be an acceptable experience in a normal theater, much of the grandiose vistas and beautiful sets would be wasted. This is not a movie to wait for on Netflix if you have any interest in seeing it at all.
From a story perspective, there isn’t a whole lot to tell. Brad Pitt brings his amazing acting abilities to a film that features more inner dialogue to himself, then to others on the screen. It is reminiscent to the original Dune movie from the 80s combined with 2001: A space odyssey. For a movie that literally is about a voyage to deep space, there are some scenes sprinkled throughout that provide some action and even a bit of suspense. Supporting characters such as Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland provide outstanding performances, even if their screen time is extremely limited. Liv Tyler once again reprises a role similar to the one from Armageddon as the reluctant wife of a man who is tasked with saving the world.
Ad Astra is a cinematic experience, the story alone is passable if not particularly quick moving and at time rarely engaging. However, when you combine this with the technological wizardry used to bring the Solar System to life it makes for an adventure that certainly lives up to the hype and will delight your visual senses. If you’ve ever dreamed of what it would be like to live on the moon or adventure into the stars, then Ad Astra might just be the closest we ever get in our lifetime. It’s beautiful, deadly and overall an achievement to behold, just make sure you see it on the biggest screen you can.
4 out of 5 stars
Ad Astra features Brad Pitt as Astronaut Roy McBride, a film that takes place in the not so distant future where the moon has become a commercialized tourist destination. A place where outside the safe tourist zones corporations fight for control of resources, and convoys are regularly ransacked by pirates looking to make a quick buck off the wares they are able to obtain. Mars has become a staging location for deep exploration ships hoping to discover if intelligent life exists outside our solar system.
Strange power surges begin to emanate deep within the galaxy, threatening to destroy everything in their path (Earth not excluded) and the top scientist are brought together to identify the threat and propose a theory to stop it. Roy McBride after suffering a near fatal fall from aboard a space station is brought into a top-secret meeting to discuss these surges. It is in this meeting that Roy is informed that the surges appear to be manifesting near Neptune and even more interestingly they are identified as anti-matter surges that are being generated from a ship that Roy’s father Clifford (Tommy Lee Jones) was in charge of nearly 29 years ago. The mission was a search for extra terrestrial life that Clifford was overseeing and presumed dead after Earth had lost contact with his ship. Roy must put his personal feelings aside regarding his father and must travel to the outer reaches of our solar system to put a stop to the surges, in any way possible.
Ad Astra is an incredible achievement in cinematography. The visions of the moon, mars and the numerous rockets taken to get there are spectacular. Much like the Grand Canyon film I spoke of earlier, in IMAX Ad Astra gives you a front row seat exploring the solar system as we know it. It takes a realistic approach while not bogging the viewers in all the technical details that would be necessary to achieve this flight. You would be doing yourself a disservice to see this film on any but the largest of movie screens. While it might be an acceptable experience in a normal theater, much of the grandiose vistas and beautiful sets would be wasted. This is not a movie to wait for on Netflix if you have any interest in seeing it at all.
From a story perspective, there isn’t a whole lot to tell. Brad Pitt brings his amazing acting abilities to a film that features more inner dialogue to himself, then to others on the screen. It is reminiscent to the original Dune movie from the 80s combined with 2001: A space odyssey. For a movie that literally is about a voyage to deep space, there are some scenes sprinkled throughout that provide some action and even a bit of suspense. Supporting characters such as Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland provide outstanding performances, even if their screen time is extremely limited. Liv Tyler once again reprises a role similar to the one from Armageddon as the reluctant wife of a man who is tasked with saving the world.
Ad Astra is a cinematic experience, the story alone is passable if not particularly quick moving and at time rarely engaging. However, when you combine this with the technological wizardry used to bring the Solar System to life it makes for an adventure that certainly lives up to the hype and will delight your visual senses. If you’ve ever dreamed of what it would be like to live on the moon or adventure into the stars, then Ad Astra might just be the closest we ever get in our lifetime. It’s beautiful, deadly and overall an achievement to behold, just make sure you see it on the biggest screen you can.
4 out of 5 stars
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated Bloodshot (Cheshire Red Reports, #1) in Books
Feb 15, 2019
What a truly awesome and fresh take on vampires in the crowded genre of Urban Fantasy! The star of <u><b>Bloodshot</b></u> is vampire Raylene Pendle, a top thief of priceless artifacts, who takes on a case from another vampire. This vampire, Ian Stott, was blinded by a top-secret government program and wants Raylene to steal back papers dealing with those experiments. What follows is a fast-paced, scene-changing adventure filled with unique characters that fulfills everything the book promised and more.
Raylene is your typical vampire in a lot of ways: the sun gives her a nasty sunburn to the extent of death, there's no awakening to dusk after decapitation or going up in flames, and of course, she's preternaturally fast and strong. However, she differs in that she's paranoid, self-deprecating, neurotic, and a tad OCD. So while Raylene can kick some major ass and make sarcastic remarks like the rest of the UF heroines, she also second- (and third and fourth) guesses herself a lot and is always prepared for the worst, usually thanks to her quick wits and sometimes even to the helpful contents of her "go-bag". I found Raylene to be a terrific protagonist, and for someone who claims to be anti-social, she sure picks up a lot of "pet people" throughout the duration of the book, which makes her a big, warm, gooey marshmallow inside (even if she doesn't own up to the fact).
What did surprise me was how funny the book was. I laughed, giggled, chortled, snorted, and smiled (usually rather goofily) quite often (there was many a line that left me in hysterics -- good thing I was reading in the privacy of my own home). Judging by the cover, I expected a more serious and suspenseful read, but while I wouldn't say this was exactly light, it wasn't as heavy as I imagined either. The plot moves swiftly each step of the way and kept me glued to the pages; there wasn't one dull moment to be had. Every character that popped up in the book was interesting and fully fleshed out, no bores within these covers, and helped move the story along. The writing was great, from Raylene's first-person inner dialogue to the action scenes, not one thing bothered me overly much.
While there is a sense of closure to the book as a whole, the story is really just beginning and I am left eager (and impatient beyond belief) for the next installment, [b:Hellbent|9842559|Hellbent (Cheshire Red Reports, #2)|Cherie Priest|http://www.goodreads.com/images/nocover-60x80.jpg|14733361] (set to come out August 30, 2011). If one book can make you a fan of an author, surely this one did it for me. Cherie Priest created a great intro to a character whose very vitality is evident every page of this book and has made Raylene one of my new favorites in the UF field.
Raylene is your typical vampire in a lot of ways: the sun gives her a nasty sunburn to the extent of death, there's no awakening to dusk after decapitation or going up in flames, and of course, she's preternaturally fast and strong. However, she differs in that she's paranoid, self-deprecating, neurotic, and a tad OCD. So while Raylene can kick some major ass and make sarcastic remarks like the rest of the UF heroines, she also second- (and third and fourth) guesses herself a lot and is always prepared for the worst, usually thanks to her quick wits and sometimes even to the helpful contents of her "go-bag". I found Raylene to be a terrific protagonist, and for someone who claims to be anti-social, she sure picks up a lot of "pet people" throughout the duration of the book, which makes her a big, warm, gooey marshmallow inside (even if she doesn't own up to the fact).
What did surprise me was how funny the book was. I laughed, giggled, chortled, snorted, and smiled (usually rather goofily) quite often (there was many a line that left me in hysterics -- good thing I was reading in the privacy of my own home). Judging by the cover, I expected a more serious and suspenseful read, but while I wouldn't say this was exactly light, it wasn't as heavy as I imagined either. The plot moves swiftly each step of the way and kept me glued to the pages; there wasn't one dull moment to be had. Every character that popped up in the book was interesting and fully fleshed out, no bores within these covers, and helped move the story along. The writing was great, from Raylene's first-person inner dialogue to the action scenes, not one thing bothered me overly much.
While there is a sense of closure to the book as a whole, the story is really just beginning and I am left eager (and impatient beyond belief) for the next installment, [b:Hellbent|9842559|Hellbent (Cheshire Red Reports, #2)|Cherie Priest|http://www.goodreads.com/images/nocover-60x80.jpg|14733361] (set to come out August 30, 2011). If one book can make you a fan of an author, surely this one did it for me. Cherie Priest created a great intro to a character whose very vitality is evident every page of this book and has made Raylene one of my new favorites in the UF field.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Pokémon: Detective Pikachu (2019) in Movies
May 18, 2019
Much better than I was expecting
I never really 'got' Pokémon. I've never watched it, never read it, never had any interest in it whatsoever. I actually gave the game Pokémon Go a shot, as I was already a big fan of Niantic's previous game, Ingress. But swiping balls randomly at floating animated creatures on the screen? Yeah, not really my idea of fun. So, why then would I go watch a Pokémon movie where, for some strange reason, Deadpool is voicing the lead character, a cute little fluffy Pikachu? Well, in the interests of providing balanced, impartial Smashbomb reviews that's why. And, because my nephew asked me to take him...
I guess one of my concerns before heading in to see Detective Pikachu was how exactly the Pokémon we're going to be portrayed. If this was going to be some kind of Smurfs or Alvin and the Chipmunks style movie, where over-the-top CGI characters are thrust upon the world of over-the-top human characters in some crazy adventure aimed at six year olds, then I wouldn't be very happy. Thankfully, it turned out to be the compete opposite.
21 year old Tim receives news that his father, top detective Harry Goodman, has gone missing following a car accident, and is presumed dead. He travels to his father's place of work - Ryme City, a modern metropolis where humans and Pokémon live happily side by side - and joins forces with Harry's Pokémon partner, Detective Pikachu. Tim discovers that he can understand what the wise cracking, cute little Pikachu is saying to him and they set about trying to get to the bottom of the mystery surrounding Harry's suspected death.
I was pretty impressed from the offset just how well this movie is presented. It's set in a world where humans and these strange, wonderful creatures live alongside each other in harmony, yet the Pokémon are never really presented in that wacky manner that I described earlier with other CGI character movies. It's extremely well done and feels both natural and believable. And because the focus of the movie is more on the story, and the mystery to be solved, rather than revelling in the fact that this is a live action Pokémon movie, it made it all the more enjoyable. This felt to me something more alike to 'Who Framed Roger Rabbit'. And I really liked it!
Better still, I rarely felt as though I needed any prior knowledge of Pokémon in order to appreciate and enjoy it. There's a brief explainer near the beginning regarding the whole trainer/balls/battles concept, which didn't make it any less ridiculous as far as I'm concerned, but that just didn't matter as it wasn't really necessary to the main plot. Having never experienced Pokémon in any other media form, I obviously can't comment on how faithful this is to any of that, but as a family movie I'd say this is a pretty big hit.
I guess one of my concerns before heading in to see Detective Pikachu was how exactly the Pokémon we're going to be portrayed. If this was going to be some kind of Smurfs or Alvin and the Chipmunks style movie, where over-the-top CGI characters are thrust upon the world of over-the-top human characters in some crazy adventure aimed at six year olds, then I wouldn't be very happy. Thankfully, it turned out to be the compete opposite.
21 year old Tim receives news that his father, top detective Harry Goodman, has gone missing following a car accident, and is presumed dead. He travels to his father's place of work - Ryme City, a modern metropolis where humans and Pokémon live happily side by side - and joins forces with Harry's Pokémon partner, Detective Pikachu. Tim discovers that he can understand what the wise cracking, cute little Pikachu is saying to him and they set about trying to get to the bottom of the mystery surrounding Harry's suspected death.
I was pretty impressed from the offset just how well this movie is presented. It's set in a world where humans and these strange, wonderful creatures live alongside each other in harmony, yet the Pokémon are never really presented in that wacky manner that I described earlier with other CGI character movies. It's extremely well done and feels both natural and believable. And because the focus of the movie is more on the story, and the mystery to be solved, rather than revelling in the fact that this is a live action Pokémon movie, it made it all the more enjoyable. This felt to me something more alike to 'Who Framed Roger Rabbit'. And I really liked it!
Better still, I rarely felt as though I needed any prior knowledge of Pokémon in order to appreciate and enjoy it. There's a brief explainer near the beginning regarding the whole trainer/balls/battles concept, which didn't make it any less ridiculous as far as I'm concerned, but that just didn't matter as it wasn't really necessary to the main plot. Having never experienced Pokémon in any other media form, I obviously can't comment on how faithful this is to any of that, but as a family movie I'd say this is a pretty big hit.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Ben-Hur (1959) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Solid Conflict but Falls Just Short of a Classic For Me
Jewish hero Judah Ben-Hur rises up to challenge the Romans after they make him a slave.
Acting: 10
I understand that Charlton Heston’s performance as Ben-Hur is a point of contention with this movie, but I thought he delivered a strong performance. Was it perfect? Nope, but he gave me enough of a fiery presence to keep me entertained and to give me someone to root for. One thing I will not contend is that Stephen Boyd’s performance as Messala was the best in the movie. He’s an easy person to hate, but Boyd also helps you sympathize with the role as well. There’s a quiet fierceness about him that you loathe and respect at the same time.
Beginning: 5
Oh, that this was just about the Overture. It’s not. I understand full-well that a lot of classics had an Overture before the start of the movie. That wasn’t my problem. There were at least sixty minutes that could have been cut from this movie and twenty of them come from the beginning. By the time Judah and Messala converse for the first time, I was almost fully checked out. It took me a minute to get involved in the story again.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
You expect an epic like this to deliver on the visuals and Ben-Hur doesn’t disappoint. The movie takes you throughout a number of different setpieces, each of them just as beautiful as the last. From the Coliseum to the Valley of the Lepers, director William Wyler puts you right where you need to be. I was captivated by the magic of the visuals and, as a result, never bored.
Conflict: 9
It is hard to stretch conflict out over the course of almost four hours, but Ben-Hur really succeeds here. You know the Romans are bad news so you feel the trouble brewing when they start marching in Judah’s city. From there, through Judah’s captivity, to his return home, there is a consistent amount of action that drives and pushes the story forward. There are some slow parts but the chariot scene alone makes up for those parts. It is historically viewed as a classic scene and it doesn’t take long to see why. By the end of it, I was cheering harder than when I watched Rocky beat up the Russian.
Genre: 7
Memorability: 9
Pace: 6
Plot: 8
Ben-Hur’s story is beautiful for the most part. Again, it definitely could have been cut quite a few times, but I still rather enjoyed the adventure. It makes you really feel like you are a part of something special. If only it hadn’t overstayed it’s welcome…
Resolution: 4
Overall: 78
I refuse to call a movie a classic because everyone else does. A classic is something you want to watch over and over. When it comes to Ben-Hur, once was absolutely enough.
Acting: 10
I understand that Charlton Heston’s performance as Ben-Hur is a point of contention with this movie, but I thought he delivered a strong performance. Was it perfect? Nope, but he gave me enough of a fiery presence to keep me entertained and to give me someone to root for. One thing I will not contend is that Stephen Boyd’s performance as Messala was the best in the movie. He’s an easy person to hate, but Boyd also helps you sympathize with the role as well. There’s a quiet fierceness about him that you loathe and respect at the same time.
Beginning: 5
Oh, that this was just about the Overture. It’s not. I understand full-well that a lot of classics had an Overture before the start of the movie. That wasn’t my problem. There were at least sixty minutes that could have been cut from this movie and twenty of them come from the beginning. By the time Judah and Messala converse for the first time, I was almost fully checked out. It took me a minute to get involved in the story again.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
You expect an epic like this to deliver on the visuals and Ben-Hur doesn’t disappoint. The movie takes you throughout a number of different setpieces, each of them just as beautiful as the last. From the Coliseum to the Valley of the Lepers, director William Wyler puts you right where you need to be. I was captivated by the magic of the visuals and, as a result, never bored.
Conflict: 9
It is hard to stretch conflict out over the course of almost four hours, but Ben-Hur really succeeds here. You know the Romans are bad news so you feel the trouble brewing when they start marching in Judah’s city. From there, through Judah’s captivity, to his return home, there is a consistent amount of action that drives and pushes the story forward. There are some slow parts but the chariot scene alone makes up for those parts. It is historically viewed as a classic scene and it doesn’t take long to see why. By the end of it, I was cheering harder than when I watched Rocky beat up the Russian.
Genre: 7
Memorability: 9
Pace: 6
Plot: 8
Ben-Hur’s story is beautiful for the most part. Again, it definitely could have been cut quite a few times, but I still rather enjoyed the adventure. It makes you really feel like you are a part of something special. If only it hadn’t overstayed it’s welcome…
Resolution: 4
Overall: 78
I refuse to call a movie a classic because everyone else does. A classic is something you want to watch over and over. When it comes to Ben-Hur, once was absolutely enough.
Merissa (11805 KP) rated In Pain and Blood (Spellster #1) in Books
Jun 15, 2018
In Pain and Blood (Spellster #1) by Aldrea Alien
In Pain and Blood is the first book in the Spellster series, and has all the hallmarks of everything I enjoy - epic fantasy, m/m, romance, action, and adventure. Dylan has spent his life in 'the Tower' learning how to be a spellster. Magic comes easily to him, but his guardian keeps on telling him to stay safe in the tower, and not to make waves. However, one event shoves him to the forefront, and he sees more of life than he expected. Trying to make his way back to the Tower, he becomes part of a ragtag group and sees life in a completely different way.
This should have been a good book. I really wanted it to be a good book, but it fell short for me on a number of different levels. First of all, it's long. And I mean REALLY long. Now don't get me wrong, I love epic fantasy, and regularly read books of a thick volume. However, for this book, it felt like it needed some serious editing to get some of the monotonous repetition removed. Also, this land is supposed to be under attack, but they manage to completely miss any and every member of either army on their two month trek across the land - which we hear about in great detail. How this book started actually had me going back to check on the blurb as I thought I was reading a completely different book. It does change and become the story the blurb describes, but only after a long start. It is only the two main characters who we really meet, and I wouldn't say I 'know' them very well. Even their companions, who they spend so much time with, aren't really fleshed out. It didn't help when one of the main characters spoke to everyone as 'my dear hunter/my dear warrior/my dear spellster'. I know this was supposed to be one of his quirks, but I got it after the first dozen times. It really didn't need repeating multiple times on every page. The ending, such as it was, is the only thing in the book that felt rushed. Big events happen, something life-changing happens to a supporting character, opinions change, a lifetime's enduring love is pronounced, and it happens at the speed of light.
I struggled to finish this book. It was only my sheer stubborn nature and optimistic belief that it would get better (and if I finished it before it ended, I would never know) that kept me turning the pages to the very end. I am glad I've read it, but I wouldn't recommend it.
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book, and my comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
This should have been a good book. I really wanted it to be a good book, but it fell short for me on a number of different levels. First of all, it's long. And I mean REALLY long. Now don't get me wrong, I love epic fantasy, and regularly read books of a thick volume. However, for this book, it felt like it needed some serious editing to get some of the monotonous repetition removed. Also, this land is supposed to be under attack, but they manage to completely miss any and every member of either army on their two month trek across the land - which we hear about in great detail. How this book started actually had me going back to check on the blurb as I thought I was reading a completely different book. It does change and become the story the blurb describes, but only after a long start. It is only the two main characters who we really meet, and I wouldn't say I 'know' them very well. Even their companions, who they spend so much time with, aren't really fleshed out. It didn't help when one of the main characters spoke to everyone as 'my dear hunter/my dear warrior/my dear spellster'. I know this was supposed to be one of his quirks, but I got it after the first dozen times. It really didn't need repeating multiple times on every page. The ending, such as it was, is the only thing in the book that felt rushed. Big events happen, something life-changing happens to a supporting character, opinions change, a lifetime's enduring love is pronounced, and it happens at the speed of light.
I struggled to finish this book. It was only my sheer stubborn nature and optimistic belief that it would get better (and if I finished it before it ended, I would never know) that kept me turning the pages to the very end. I am glad I've read it, but I wouldn't recommend it.
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book, and my comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!