Search
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated The Girl You Left Behind in Books
Jun 6, 2018
This review can also be found on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.co.uk">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>.
I won this book through the first reads Goodreads program. It's not normally the type of book that would catch my attention attention based on the synopsis, but I'm always willing to read something out of my comfort zone. I'm more than glad that I read this book as I loved it!!
Sophie is a French woman in German occupied France during World War I. She and the Kommandent become close only because Sophie will do whatever it takes to see her husband who has been sent to a German work camp. Fast forward almost a century later...Liv is a woman that has a portrait that was painted by Sophie's husband years ago. The relatives of Sophie's husband want that painting back simply because they know how much it's worth. However, for Liv, the painting means so much more. This is the story of a painting and how two women from different centuries are so much alike.
I loved the character of Sophie. She was definitely a strong and brave character. I felt what she was feeling a majority of the time. She went through so much to get what she loved. I also loved Liv, who, like Sophie was willing to lose it all to get what she loved. Mo was another one of my favourite characters. She brought in the comic timing. Her humour was fantastic, and it wasn't over the top. It was just right for the mood of the story. I loved Paul. He was such a sweetheart! I wish my husband was as kind and romantic as Paul! It was lovely to see him grow as a character.
The title definitely suits the book as The Girl You Left Behind is what they painting is called, and much of the story centres around this painting. I don't think there could've been a better title for this book.
The cover is very beautiful, and while it does relate to the story somewhat, I just wish the cover could've been the painting of Sophie that was talked about so much throughout the book. I would've loved to see what the painting actually looked like.
The setting and world building were fab as well! I loved how a lot of this book was set in a little hotel in a French city. The author made the hotel sound so warm and welcoming. It was obvious that the author did a lot of research about World War I when it came to the Germans occupy French cities. The descriptions of every place mentioned in the book were well written.
The pacing was absolutely fantastic! Each page kept me enthralled. I did not want to put down this book for anything!
I also loved the ending of the book. It was well written and didn't feel rushed like a lot of books do when they end. I thought it was a fantastic ending to a well written book.
I would definitely recommend this book to everyone 16 and over. It's a little gem of a book, and it really took me by surprise.
I won this book through the first reads Goodreads program. It's not normally the type of book that would catch my attention attention based on the synopsis, but I'm always willing to read something out of my comfort zone. I'm more than glad that I read this book as I loved it!!
Sophie is a French woman in German occupied France during World War I. She and the Kommandent become close only because Sophie will do whatever it takes to see her husband who has been sent to a German work camp. Fast forward almost a century later...Liv is a woman that has a portrait that was painted by Sophie's husband years ago. The relatives of Sophie's husband want that painting back simply because they know how much it's worth. However, for Liv, the painting means so much more. This is the story of a painting and how two women from different centuries are so much alike.
I loved the character of Sophie. She was definitely a strong and brave character. I felt what she was feeling a majority of the time. She went through so much to get what she loved. I also loved Liv, who, like Sophie was willing to lose it all to get what she loved. Mo was another one of my favourite characters. She brought in the comic timing. Her humour was fantastic, and it wasn't over the top. It was just right for the mood of the story. I loved Paul. He was such a sweetheart! I wish my husband was as kind and romantic as Paul! It was lovely to see him grow as a character.
The title definitely suits the book as The Girl You Left Behind is what they painting is called, and much of the story centres around this painting. I don't think there could've been a better title for this book.
The cover is very beautiful, and while it does relate to the story somewhat, I just wish the cover could've been the painting of Sophie that was talked about so much throughout the book. I would've loved to see what the painting actually looked like.
The setting and world building were fab as well! I loved how a lot of this book was set in a little hotel in a French city. The author made the hotel sound so warm and welcoming. It was obvious that the author did a lot of research about World War I when it came to the Germans occupy French cities. The descriptions of every place mentioned in the book were well written.
The pacing was absolutely fantastic! Each page kept me enthralled. I did not want to put down this book for anything!
I also loved the ending of the book. It was well written and didn't feel rushed like a lot of books do when they end. I thought it was a fantastic ending to a well written book.
I would definitely recommend this book to everyone 16 and over. It's a little gem of a book, and it really took me by surprise.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Teen Titans Go! To the Movies (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
This summer has brought us many of the best and highest rated superhero movies of all time. After seeing big blockbusters such as Avengers: Infinity War and Deadpool 2 and even Disney Pixar’s animated superhero hit Incredibles 2, folks may have a bit of superhero overload. With so many genre-defining films one right after the other it would be easy to miss the newest contender, Teen Titans Go! To the Movies, but it’s absolutely a movie you should make a point to see.
Robin (Scott Menville), the leader of the Teen Titans dreams of nothing more than having a movie made about him. It seems like there is a movie about every other major superhero (even if it wasn’t a particularly good one as Green Lantern reluctantly admits too), so why not him? When he and his team Beast Boy (Greg Cipes), Cyborg (Khary Payton), Raven (Tara Strong) and Starfire (Hynden Walch) inquire why a movie has yet to be made about them, they are laughed at. After all, who would ever make a movie dedicated to the lowly sidekicks?
The Titans realize that there is one thing that all superheroes have that they are missing…an archnemesis, someone they could prove their heroic talents defeating and ultimately earn them a place among the stars. The Titans, due the other major superheroes being unavailable, come across Slade (Will Arnett) attempting to steal a precious crystal. Jumping quickly into action, the team realizes that this may be the archnemesis they are searching for.
Teen Titans is a movie that certainly does not take itself seriously, even their first battle is against a giant balloon man who steals safes by stuffing them inside helium filled balloons. There are also the occasional fart jokes and the expected waffles references, which are all the things that young kids have grown to love about the series. Even though those jokes and references were very funny, they are really only surface level jokes, ones to make the kids in the audience laugh. To get to the real genius of this movie you have to look a little deeper. Teen Titans is full of 80’s and pop culture references, so many that it’d be easy to overlook them the first time you see it. The movie includes subtle nods to everything from Back to the Future to superhero origin stories and every one of them is pure genius. The references were clearly made for the adults to catch, yet you’ll still see the younger audience members laughing (although they may not know why). One of my absolute favorite parts in the movie involves Aquaman, and 3 days later I’m still laughing about it. The joy this movie brings will stay with you for a very long time.
Teen Titans! Go to the Movies has my vote for best superhero movie of the year. It’s a bright shining star in the otherwise dismal DC Universe. It’s a movie that is made for young and old alike, but for entirely different reasons. It is both nostalgic and new, something that is incredibly difficult for most movies to accomplish these days. It will have you laughing throughout, but deep down teaches an incredibly important lesson about friendship, and what it means to be a true hero. For fans of the television series this is an absolute must see movie, in fact you should already have your tickets and know exactly when you are going. For those who have never seen a single episode but love superhero movies, don’t just sit there, fly/swim/portal your way over to the theater. If you have a fondness for the 80s, you’ll be in for a serious treat, in many, many ways. As cliché as this may seem, it’s the must-see movie of the summer and in my opinion the entire year. Oh, and make sure you stay for the credits…the genius lasts until the very end.
What I liked: Incredibly clever 80s and pop culture references, vivid and amazing animation, the superhero origin stories (you’ll understand when you watch it)
What I liked less: I couldn’t immediately go see it again
Robin (Scott Menville), the leader of the Teen Titans dreams of nothing more than having a movie made about him. It seems like there is a movie about every other major superhero (even if it wasn’t a particularly good one as Green Lantern reluctantly admits too), so why not him? When he and his team Beast Boy (Greg Cipes), Cyborg (Khary Payton), Raven (Tara Strong) and Starfire (Hynden Walch) inquire why a movie has yet to be made about them, they are laughed at. After all, who would ever make a movie dedicated to the lowly sidekicks?
The Titans realize that there is one thing that all superheroes have that they are missing…an archnemesis, someone they could prove their heroic talents defeating and ultimately earn them a place among the stars. The Titans, due the other major superheroes being unavailable, come across Slade (Will Arnett) attempting to steal a precious crystal. Jumping quickly into action, the team realizes that this may be the archnemesis they are searching for.
Teen Titans is a movie that certainly does not take itself seriously, even their first battle is against a giant balloon man who steals safes by stuffing them inside helium filled balloons. There are also the occasional fart jokes and the expected waffles references, which are all the things that young kids have grown to love about the series. Even though those jokes and references were very funny, they are really only surface level jokes, ones to make the kids in the audience laugh. To get to the real genius of this movie you have to look a little deeper. Teen Titans is full of 80’s and pop culture references, so many that it’d be easy to overlook them the first time you see it. The movie includes subtle nods to everything from Back to the Future to superhero origin stories and every one of them is pure genius. The references were clearly made for the adults to catch, yet you’ll still see the younger audience members laughing (although they may not know why). One of my absolute favorite parts in the movie involves Aquaman, and 3 days later I’m still laughing about it. The joy this movie brings will stay with you for a very long time.
Teen Titans! Go to the Movies has my vote for best superhero movie of the year. It’s a bright shining star in the otherwise dismal DC Universe. It’s a movie that is made for young and old alike, but for entirely different reasons. It is both nostalgic and new, something that is incredibly difficult for most movies to accomplish these days. It will have you laughing throughout, but deep down teaches an incredibly important lesson about friendship, and what it means to be a true hero. For fans of the television series this is an absolute must see movie, in fact you should already have your tickets and know exactly when you are going. For those who have never seen a single episode but love superhero movies, don’t just sit there, fly/swim/portal your way over to the theater. If you have a fondness for the 80s, you’ll be in for a serious treat, in many, many ways. As cliché as this may seem, it’s the must-see movie of the summer and in my opinion the entire year. Oh, and make sure you stay for the credits…the genius lasts until the very end.
What I liked: Incredibly clever 80s and pop culture references, vivid and amazing animation, the superhero origin stories (you’ll understand when you watch it)
What I liked less: I couldn’t immediately go see it again
Precision Ukulele Tuner - with Chords & Metronome
Music and Utilities
App
Precision Ukulele Tuner uses your device's microphone and visual feedback to enable you to tune your...
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated The Batman (2022) in Movies
Mar 6, 2022
Paul Dano and Colin Farrell's Performances (2 more)
The Batmobile car chase with Oz
The different/damaged take on Bruce Wayne
Entirely too long - too much detective work (2 more)
Little to no chemistry between The Bat and The Cat
The raspy adventures of Batsy and Jimbo
When is a Bat Not Quite a Bat?
Matt Reeves’ The Batman isn’t an origin story. Instead Bruce Wayne (Robert Pattinson) treats every villain and every thug as if they were the ones to take his parents away from him. This is a version of Bruce Wayne that hates being Bruce Wayne; Batman is his legacy. The tragedy of losing his parents is his most defining characteristic. Bruce is a social hermit and the world’s biggest introvert in The Batman.
The Riddler (Paul Dano) kills Gotham’s mayor on Halloween night and he continues to target key political figures throughout the film. A cryptic riddle is left for Batman at every crime scene revealing just a big enough clue to keep Batman and Jim Gordon (Jeffrey Wright) entangled in Riddler’s enigmatic bloodbath. As Batman crosses paths with a cat-loving thief named Selina Kyle (Zoe Kravitz) and the magnificently sleazy Iceberg Lounge owner Oswald Cobblepot (Colin Farrell), he soon realizes that the Wayne family may be a bigger piece of the puzzle than he originally imagined.
Paul Dano is essentially the highlight of the film. Matt Reeves stated that his inspiration for his version of the character was The Zodiac Killer and it shows. Riddler’s costume is basically a camouflage gimp outfit with tactical advantages and a fetish for duct tape. Dano’s performance is haunting. His riddles are more akin to Jigsaw’s games from the Saw franchise. The character is at his best when he’s showcased in grainy cell phone videos where his shouting and heavy breathing are even more distorted than if he was standing right in front of you. The intriguing aspect is that Dano seems to be even more mesmerizing as the character once he’s unmasked. He’s able to tap into this lunacy, this dread, and this hypnotic terror that defines the character whether he’s hiding his face or not.
Featured less prominently is Colin Farrell as Oswald Cobblepot, who also delivers a fantastic performance. Farrell is so unrecognizable thanks to the facial prosthetics and fat suit that he’s wearing. Some of the aspects of The Penguin that makes him so dangerous is that he’s incredibly resourceful and he can talk his way into and out of just about anything. Farrell’s best moments as the character come during the Batmobile chase featured in the trailer followed by the conversation Batman and Gordon have with him immediately afterwards. You never knew how much you needed a Spanish lesson from Oz until Matt Reeves came along.
The Batmobile car chase is the best sequence of the film. It’s absolutely explosive and worth seeing in a theater. Michael Giacchino’s score is also bold and thrilling; it helps define the Batman character for a new generation with an undeniably epic theme. Matt Reeves compared Bruce Wayne to Kurt Cobain in this film. Bruce’s relationship with the spotlight and how he’d rather stay away from it is a lot like how Cobain viewed being famous. “Something in the Way” by Nirvana fits the Batman universe so well and it’s surprising nobody has ever thought of utilizing it until now.
This unusual version of Bruce Wayne in The Batman makes it feel unlike any other Batman film. Bruce Wayne is typically a playboy that is consistently showcased at public events that flaunts his fortune and bounces from woman to woman on a nightly basis. In The Batman, we see the smudged black eye makeup as Bruce takes off his cowl. Robert Pattinson didn’t bulk up for the role, so he has this pale and gaunt appearance. He has no interest in the business his father left him in charge of. Vengeance is his only purpose.
The Batman is also the first Batman film to actually feel like a detective story. So much time is devoted to the investigation aspect of the film; maybe too much time. The film is five minutes shy of being three hours long and The Batman feels like a three hour film. Some of these sequences feel like they could have been trimmed (did we really need to see Batman or Bruce Wayne go to the Iceberg Lounge so many times?) or cut entirely, but everything feels like it’s part of the bigger picture of capturing The Riddler. Every little stop along the way leads to the next clue or next big encounter. Unfortunately, it feels like a chore listening to Batman answer riddles for the sixth time in the midst of three hours.
Robert Pattinson is a seriously talented actor outside of the Twilight franchise and Zoe Kravitz chooses interesting projects to be a part of, but their chemistry in The Batman feels forced. Batman tracks down Selina Kyle almost like a stalker as he starts inserting himself into her life after a random encounter at The Iceberg Lounge. Despite being friends in real life, the two actors seem stiff and awkward when they’re around each other. These are two versions of the characters that don’t have the history the comics or the movies laid out for them after decades of publication and on screen appearances. This is supposed to be the first time they’ve met and they go from being bumbling partners to nearly leaving Gotham together after being shot at a few times and finding a dead girl in a trunk; it doesn’t make sense.
Matt Reeves was capable of taking The Batman into a different direction for both the Batman universe and superhero films alike. The action sequences are almost earned here as there’s much more down time while following a lead or doing research. You actually see that Bruce documents his inner monologues and his nightly outings as Batman in handwritten journals. There’s a ton of interesting concepts in The Batman that ultimately don’t pay off.
Paul Dano and Colin Farrell are extraordinary, but The Batman is a three hour slog through Gotham that culminates with an over exaggerated riddle that isn’t worth solving. Having Batman and Jim Gordon both speak in raspy, whispery grunts feels excessive as does Gordon’s insistence on calling Batman, “Chief,” every time that they’re together. The film deserves credit for prominently shining the spotlight on the underbelly of crime in Gotham, but the storytelling in The Batman is a lot like Bugs Bunny meaning to have taken that left turn at Albuquerque; a meandering foray down a dark rabbit hole that isn’t entirely necessary.
The Riddler (Paul Dano) kills Gotham’s mayor on Halloween night and he continues to target key political figures throughout the film. A cryptic riddle is left for Batman at every crime scene revealing just a big enough clue to keep Batman and Jim Gordon (Jeffrey Wright) entangled in Riddler’s enigmatic bloodbath. As Batman crosses paths with a cat-loving thief named Selina Kyle (Zoe Kravitz) and the magnificently sleazy Iceberg Lounge owner Oswald Cobblepot (Colin Farrell), he soon realizes that the Wayne family may be a bigger piece of the puzzle than he originally imagined.
Paul Dano is essentially the highlight of the film. Matt Reeves stated that his inspiration for his version of the character was The Zodiac Killer and it shows. Riddler’s costume is basically a camouflage gimp outfit with tactical advantages and a fetish for duct tape. Dano’s performance is haunting. His riddles are more akin to Jigsaw’s games from the Saw franchise. The character is at his best when he’s showcased in grainy cell phone videos where his shouting and heavy breathing are even more distorted than if he was standing right in front of you. The intriguing aspect is that Dano seems to be even more mesmerizing as the character once he’s unmasked. He’s able to tap into this lunacy, this dread, and this hypnotic terror that defines the character whether he’s hiding his face or not.
Featured less prominently is Colin Farrell as Oswald Cobblepot, who also delivers a fantastic performance. Farrell is so unrecognizable thanks to the facial prosthetics and fat suit that he’s wearing. Some of the aspects of The Penguin that makes him so dangerous is that he’s incredibly resourceful and he can talk his way into and out of just about anything. Farrell’s best moments as the character come during the Batmobile chase featured in the trailer followed by the conversation Batman and Gordon have with him immediately afterwards. You never knew how much you needed a Spanish lesson from Oz until Matt Reeves came along.
The Batmobile car chase is the best sequence of the film. It’s absolutely explosive and worth seeing in a theater. Michael Giacchino’s score is also bold and thrilling; it helps define the Batman character for a new generation with an undeniably epic theme. Matt Reeves compared Bruce Wayne to Kurt Cobain in this film. Bruce’s relationship with the spotlight and how he’d rather stay away from it is a lot like how Cobain viewed being famous. “Something in the Way” by Nirvana fits the Batman universe so well and it’s surprising nobody has ever thought of utilizing it until now.
This unusual version of Bruce Wayne in The Batman makes it feel unlike any other Batman film. Bruce Wayne is typically a playboy that is consistently showcased at public events that flaunts his fortune and bounces from woman to woman on a nightly basis. In The Batman, we see the smudged black eye makeup as Bruce takes off his cowl. Robert Pattinson didn’t bulk up for the role, so he has this pale and gaunt appearance. He has no interest in the business his father left him in charge of. Vengeance is his only purpose.
The Batman is also the first Batman film to actually feel like a detective story. So much time is devoted to the investigation aspect of the film; maybe too much time. The film is five minutes shy of being three hours long and The Batman feels like a three hour film. Some of these sequences feel like they could have been trimmed (did we really need to see Batman or Bruce Wayne go to the Iceberg Lounge so many times?) or cut entirely, but everything feels like it’s part of the bigger picture of capturing The Riddler. Every little stop along the way leads to the next clue or next big encounter. Unfortunately, it feels like a chore listening to Batman answer riddles for the sixth time in the midst of three hours.
Robert Pattinson is a seriously talented actor outside of the Twilight franchise and Zoe Kravitz chooses interesting projects to be a part of, but their chemistry in The Batman feels forced. Batman tracks down Selina Kyle almost like a stalker as he starts inserting himself into her life after a random encounter at The Iceberg Lounge. Despite being friends in real life, the two actors seem stiff and awkward when they’re around each other. These are two versions of the characters that don’t have the history the comics or the movies laid out for them after decades of publication and on screen appearances. This is supposed to be the first time they’ve met and they go from being bumbling partners to nearly leaving Gotham together after being shot at a few times and finding a dead girl in a trunk; it doesn’t make sense.
Matt Reeves was capable of taking The Batman into a different direction for both the Batman universe and superhero films alike. The action sequences are almost earned here as there’s much more down time while following a lead or doing research. You actually see that Bruce documents his inner monologues and his nightly outings as Batman in handwritten journals. There’s a ton of interesting concepts in The Batman that ultimately don’t pay off.
Paul Dano and Colin Farrell are extraordinary, but The Batman is a three hour slog through Gotham that culminates with an over exaggerated riddle that isn’t worth solving. Having Batman and Jim Gordon both speak in raspy, whispery grunts feels excessive as does Gordon’s insistence on calling Batman, “Chief,” every time that they’re together. The film deserves credit for prominently shining the spotlight on the underbelly of crime in Gotham, but the storytelling in The Batman is a lot like Bugs Bunny meaning to have taken that left turn at Albuquerque; a meandering foray down a dark rabbit hole that isn’t entirely necessary.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Hunters of the Lost Creatures in Tabletop Games
May 8, 2022
If you are reading this, then we can agree on a few things: board games are cool and interesting, silly themes are usually fun, and we are all kids at heart. I appreciate other gamers so much because we all share a common bond of experiencing good and bad games, good and bad rules, as well as good and bad explanations of these rules. I would spoil it up top here if I let on which of these categories our featured game falls into, right? So keep reading.
Hunters of the Lost Creatures is a silly set collection card game for three to four players. In it, players assume the roles of zoological park curators charged with collecting unique creatures for their parks. They do this by bidding on and drafting creature cards, playing take-that style cards on their opponents, and blocking their cards from being manipulated by others.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, players choose one hunter card from each of the four hunting zones: Sea, Forest, Plains, and Air, as well as three “Park Closed” cards. The creature cards are to be split by zone and shuffled, with one special card (Turnado and Cat-a-Pult) added. These shuffled decks are then placed on the table and the top card revealed from each deck. Players decide turn order and the game may begin!
Hands are mostly played simultaneously, with players choosing either a hunter or special card from their hand and placing it face-down in front of themselves. All cards are revealed simultaneously and the card effects are applied. If a player has revealed a hunter, and no other players have the same-colored background/terrain type, that player receives the matching card from those on offer and places it in their park (tableau), or ANY OTHER PLAYER’S park. If ALL players have chosen the same terrain type hunters, the card on offer is removed from the game entirely. However, if not all hunters match, but at least one matches, the matching hunters’ players receive no cards.
Should a player choose to play a special card, their effects are triggered once per game. These include Turnado (switch any two creatures in any two parks), Cat-a-Pult (discards any creature from any player’s park), Thieves (steal any one terrain-matching creature and places it in the Thieves player’s park) and Closed Park (protects the player from the effects of aforementioned special cards). Again, these special cards may only be played once per game, so special consideration is needed as part of their strategy.
The game continues in this fashion of players throwing cards, messing with each other using special cards, and protecting themselves from said special cards until only one stack of creature cards remains. The game ends and points are tallied per the scoring table in the rulebook. The winner is promoted to Head Creature Park Guy and is carried around by the other players. Okay, that’s not at all true. They just win the game.
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of Hunters of the Lost Creatures, so all components shown here are subject to change at any time. That said, I received a huge deck of cards in a cute black cloth bag. The cards are all decent quality, and not super glossy, which I appreciate. The art on these cards are all whimsical and silly, which match the silly and punny titles for each. Some of these punny titles can be seen in our photos, with my favorites being the Dandylion (a well-“dressed” weed with a cane and lion face) and the Cougar (which is subtle, but portrays an adult apex big cat with a smaller and younger cat hanging on it). If you enjoy these somewhat intellectual, and sometimes visual, puns you will enjoy these cards.
What I have found in playing through this several times is that it is best when all players are taught the game backwards…ly. I mean to say that players need to know the premise, but most importantly, the scoring system before even the setup. Points are scored for having a run of 1-2-3, a straight of 0-1-2-3-10, at least one card from each terrain type, and for the printed value on the cards. It is more than simply collecting all the favorite cards or even highest value 10 cards. So there is strategy in collecting the best assortment of creatures for scoring purposes, which is great because otherwise this game is not really a game at all.
As players play their hunters to draft creatures, I have found that many players choose to chase the same cards over and over. It becomes obvious that most players will be vying for the value 10 cards, so the players who figure this out and grab the second best card is usually happier with the hand. Of course, more strategy is employed once the special cards are played, as they each mess with opponents in different ways. So even though I may not have acquired that 10 of Forest, I might grab the Turnado and switch out a value 0 or -10 card for that sparkling value 10. Wait, negative 10? Yep. Sometimes life just smacks you around and you get stuck with a -10 card to really punish your great play. Not that it ever happened to me, and not that I would be bitter about it.
The real game hinges on the usage of the special cards. When do you play them? Whom do you target? Turnabout is fair play, after all, and no alliances can be formed whilst playing Hunters of the Lost Creatures. Now, it is hinted at in the rulebook that preview copies ship with entry-level rules, which mean (to me) that more advanced rules may be coming in the final game, or at least some variants to spice up the gameplay. If true, then this game becomes much more interesting to me. Don’t get me wrong. I have enjoyed almost all of my plays, but be warned that playing with spiteful gamers may end poorly for a fun-filled game night.
All in all, I am excited to see how the campaign for Hunters of the Lost Creatures fares, as I believe many gamers and non-gamers alike will enjoy it. I would be super jazzed to grab a final copy if it does in fact ship with alternate or advanced rules, or if the creatures of the same value had unique names and art. That would really satisfy. Keep the bag or go traditional cardboard box, it matters not to me. Just beef up the card quality, add even more uniqueness and fanciful art and you’ve got a fan in me. Grab your copy during the Kickstarter campaign launching May 10, 2022!
Hunters of the Lost Creatures is a silly set collection card game for three to four players. In it, players assume the roles of zoological park curators charged with collecting unique creatures for their parks. They do this by bidding on and drafting creature cards, playing take-that style cards on their opponents, and blocking their cards from being manipulated by others.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, players choose one hunter card from each of the four hunting zones: Sea, Forest, Plains, and Air, as well as three “Park Closed” cards. The creature cards are to be split by zone and shuffled, with one special card (Turnado and Cat-a-Pult) added. These shuffled decks are then placed on the table and the top card revealed from each deck. Players decide turn order and the game may begin!
Hands are mostly played simultaneously, with players choosing either a hunter or special card from their hand and placing it face-down in front of themselves. All cards are revealed simultaneously and the card effects are applied. If a player has revealed a hunter, and no other players have the same-colored background/terrain type, that player receives the matching card from those on offer and places it in their park (tableau), or ANY OTHER PLAYER’S park. If ALL players have chosen the same terrain type hunters, the card on offer is removed from the game entirely. However, if not all hunters match, but at least one matches, the matching hunters’ players receive no cards.
Should a player choose to play a special card, their effects are triggered once per game. These include Turnado (switch any two creatures in any two parks), Cat-a-Pult (discards any creature from any player’s park), Thieves (steal any one terrain-matching creature and places it in the Thieves player’s park) and Closed Park (protects the player from the effects of aforementioned special cards). Again, these special cards may only be played once per game, so special consideration is needed as part of their strategy.
The game continues in this fashion of players throwing cards, messing with each other using special cards, and protecting themselves from said special cards until only one stack of creature cards remains. The game ends and points are tallied per the scoring table in the rulebook. The winner is promoted to Head Creature Park Guy and is carried around by the other players. Okay, that’s not at all true. They just win the game.
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of Hunters of the Lost Creatures, so all components shown here are subject to change at any time. That said, I received a huge deck of cards in a cute black cloth bag. The cards are all decent quality, and not super glossy, which I appreciate. The art on these cards are all whimsical and silly, which match the silly and punny titles for each. Some of these punny titles can be seen in our photos, with my favorites being the Dandylion (a well-“dressed” weed with a cane and lion face) and the Cougar (which is subtle, but portrays an adult apex big cat with a smaller and younger cat hanging on it). If you enjoy these somewhat intellectual, and sometimes visual, puns you will enjoy these cards.
What I have found in playing through this several times is that it is best when all players are taught the game backwards…ly. I mean to say that players need to know the premise, but most importantly, the scoring system before even the setup. Points are scored for having a run of 1-2-3, a straight of 0-1-2-3-10, at least one card from each terrain type, and for the printed value on the cards. It is more than simply collecting all the favorite cards or even highest value 10 cards. So there is strategy in collecting the best assortment of creatures for scoring purposes, which is great because otherwise this game is not really a game at all.
As players play their hunters to draft creatures, I have found that many players choose to chase the same cards over and over. It becomes obvious that most players will be vying for the value 10 cards, so the players who figure this out and grab the second best card is usually happier with the hand. Of course, more strategy is employed once the special cards are played, as they each mess with opponents in different ways. So even though I may not have acquired that 10 of Forest, I might grab the Turnado and switch out a value 0 or -10 card for that sparkling value 10. Wait, negative 10? Yep. Sometimes life just smacks you around and you get stuck with a -10 card to really punish your great play. Not that it ever happened to me, and not that I would be bitter about it.
The real game hinges on the usage of the special cards. When do you play them? Whom do you target? Turnabout is fair play, after all, and no alliances can be formed whilst playing Hunters of the Lost Creatures. Now, it is hinted at in the rulebook that preview copies ship with entry-level rules, which mean (to me) that more advanced rules may be coming in the final game, or at least some variants to spice up the gameplay. If true, then this game becomes much more interesting to me. Don’t get me wrong. I have enjoyed almost all of my plays, but be warned that playing with spiteful gamers may end poorly for a fun-filled game night.
All in all, I am excited to see how the campaign for Hunters of the Lost Creatures fares, as I believe many gamers and non-gamers alike will enjoy it. I would be super jazzed to grab a final copy if it does in fact ship with alternate or advanced rules, or if the creatures of the same value had unique names and art. That would really satisfy. Keep the bag or go traditional cardboard box, it matters not to me. Just beef up the card quality, add even more uniqueness and fanciful art and you’ve got a fan in me. Grab your copy during the Kickstarter campaign launching May 10, 2022!
iWedPlanner - The Wedding Planner
Lifestyle and Productivity
App
Planning a wedding can take time. No two weddings should be alike because everyone has a different...
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans '66) (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021 (Updated Jan 22, 2021)
Matt Damon asked Christian Bale how he had managed to lose almost 70lbs for his role as Ken Miles, following his chubbing up to play Dick Cheney in Vice the previous year. Bale just smiled, shrugged and said, “I didn’t eat”. Such is his reputation for playing real people with 100% commitment, apocryphal or not, I totally believe that is true.
Sports films, and especially racing films, hang on three things: the quality and believability of the sports/racing scenes, the dynamic tension between the lead characters, and the degree we are hooked by the underdog makes a comeback element. Le Mans ’66, also known as Ford V Ferrari for American audiences, who obviously can’t make sense of French or numbers, has all three of those boxes ticked, and several others besides.
It will make it easier for me to explain why I liked this film so much if I confess up front to how much I liked it, so without hesitation I confidently state… more than Rush (2013) and Grand Prix (1966), making it probably the best racing film ever, but less than Warrior (2011) or Rocky (1976), making it a contender for top 5 but not the best sports movie ever. So, that is pretty high praise from the flag-fall.
Let’s examine the 3 key elements in order. Firstly, the racing scenes: This film is based on real people in real races driving real cars, with very little altered or tweaked for dramatic purposes (save one key detail of the final race). It didn’t need anything adding, because the real story is incredible enough. Part of that is the very real rivalry that existed between the undisputed champions of the world’s most beautiful cars, Ferrari, representing everything essentially European, and the empire of mass production efficiency that was the Ford dynasty, representing everything American.
The reproductions of the cars themselves and the personalities behind them is vivid and believable from minute one, so when the cars hit the track you can almost smell the fuel and feel the heat and grime, not to mention the speed. Every shot on every straight and turn feels like it should, and would, if you yourself were driving: intense, terrifying, exhilarating and addictive!
At no point did I see anything unrealistic, or a piece of footage copied and pasted. No trick angles or overuse of time stretching techniques, what you see is mostly what you get, and if you understand car racing in even the most amateur way then that is impressive. Add to that a complete understanding of tension building during a race from a direction and acting point of view and you just have to tip your helmet visor to James Mangold and Christian Bale, who seem in complete synthesis about what is required from a racing scene.
Next, look at the chemistry between Damon’s laconic yet stubborn pragmatist, Carroll Shelby, and Bale’s idiosyncratic, twitchy adrenaline junky, Ken Miles. They couldn’t be more different, personality wise, or actually performance wise. Bale chews up the screen with another in a long line now of big bold characterisations that you can’t take your eyes off, and Damon gives off solid, dependable, trust-worthy movie-star vibes in return. Their scenes together are spiky, fun, compelling and feel authetic, in a Hollywood movie way that we recognise and love. It feels almost like Paul Newman and Jack Lemon – the handsome straight guy and the quirky foil.
I love both these actors when they bring their A game. And they do here. It is consummate film acting, completely in control of what kind of film they are making. Not a naturalistic drama hoping to sweep the Oscars and hit hard in the emotional solar plexus, but a fun sports film driven by the conventions and tropes of the genre. Both manage to keep it just the right side of fun and exciting, whilst holding the reigns on believability also. Mangold, who knows how both action (Logan) and Bio-pics (Walk the Line) work to a very high level, brings experience of both genres to the fore here, and the blend is sublime.
Finally, there is the underdog element. Both of these guys were unconventional mavericks, and well known as being so. Both respected, but never treated as champions as they deserved in their lifetime, perhaps because they were not yes men or company men, who toed the line and played by the rules of the big bosses of the sport. Both of them absolutely driven by compulsion and passion to win, yet both flawed on the ways they could achieve that.
Then there is the consideration how much the car is a character, or at least Ford as a concept. What makes this story so great is the David and Goliath element, that makes you sure there is no possible way this could be true. As with all great sports films, even if you know the history and result of a real event, the little guy sticking it to the invincible and arrogant behemoth, win, lose or draw, is what makes us invest and then cheer, or cry, when all the effort is finally spent.
Effort, sacrifice, overcoming obstacles, facing defeat, bouncing back from setbacks, gaining respect of friends and rivals alike – all these elements make a sports film great. Le Mans ’66 has it all, with the added bonus of enough budget to make it fly, which isn’t usually the case in this genre. It looks spectacular, feels exciting and is ultimately completely satisfying, as both a character study of real men, and a document of a game changing moment in sporting history.
It also doesn’t entirely ignore the female influence on such a masculine world; the little known Irish actress Catriona Balfe as Mollie Miles really caught my eye in some really tender scenes. This film won’t be passing the Bechdal test any time soon, however, as she is pretty much the only female member of the cast with an actual name! But it isn’t something to get too hung up about, in my opinion.
I’d be bold enough to recommend this to anyone. No need to love cars, or racing or even sport at all. If you love good movies that keep you hooked till the checkered flag of the credits, then look no further. High art? No. A proper movie with huge mass appeal? 100%
Sports films, and especially racing films, hang on three things: the quality and believability of the sports/racing scenes, the dynamic tension between the lead characters, and the degree we are hooked by the underdog makes a comeback element. Le Mans ’66, also known as Ford V Ferrari for American audiences, who obviously can’t make sense of French or numbers, has all three of those boxes ticked, and several others besides.
It will make it easier for me to explain why I liked this film so much if I confess up front to how much I liked it, so without hesitation I confidently state… more than Rush (2013) and Grand Prix (1966), making it probably the best racing film ever, but less than Warrior (2011) or Rocky (1976), making it a contender for top 5 but not the best sports movie ever. So, that is pretty high praise from the flag-fall.
Let’s examine the 3 key elements in order. Firstly, the racing scenes: This film is based on real people in real races driving real cars, with very little altered or tweaked for dramatic purposes (save one key detail of the final race). It didn’t need anything adding, because the real story is incredible enough. Part of that is the very real rivalry that existed between the undisputed champions of the world’s most beautiful cars, Ferrari, representing everything essentially European, and the empire of mass production efficiency that was the Ford dynasty, representing everything American.
The reproductions of the cars themselves and the personalities behind them is vivid and believable from minute one, so when the cars hit the track you can almost smell the fuel and feel the heat and grime, not to mention the speed. Every shot on every straight and turn feels like it should, and would, if you yourself were driving: intense, terrifying, exhilarating and addictive!
At no point did I see anything unrealistic, or a piece of footage copied and pasted. No trick angles or overuse of time stretching techniques, what you see is mostly what you get, and if you understand car racing in even the most amateur way then that is impressive. Add to that a complete understanding of tension building during a race from a direction and acting point of view and you just have to tip your helmet visor to James Mangold and Christian Bale, who seem in complete synthesis about what is required from a racing scene.
Next, look at the chemistry between Damon’s laconic yet stubborn pragmatist, Carroll Shelby, and Bale’s idiosyncratic, twitchy adrenaline junky, Ken Miles. They couldn’t be more different, personality wise, or actually performance wise. Bale chews up the screen with another in a long line now of big bold characterisations that you can’t take your eyes off, and Damon gives off solid, dependable, trust-worthy movie-star vibes in return. Their scenes together are spiky, fun, compelling and feel authetic, in a Hollywood movie way that we recognise and love. It feels almost like Paul Newman and Jack Lemon – the handsome straight guy and the quirky foil.
I love both these actors when they bring their A game. And they do here. It is consummate film acting, completely in control of what kind of film they are making. Not a naturalistic drama hoping to sweep the Oscars and hit hard in the emotional solar plexus, but a fun sports film driven by the conventions and tropes of the genre. Both manage to keep it just the right side of fun and exciting, whilst holding the reigns on believability also. Mangold, who knows how both action (Logan) and Bio-pics (Walk the Line) work to a very high level, brings experience of both genres to the fore here, and the blend is sublime.
Finally, there is the underdog element. Both of these guys were unconventional mavericks, and well known as being so. Both respected, but never treated as champions as they deserved in their lifetime, perhaps because they were not yes men or company men, who toed the line and played by the rules of the big bosses of the sport. Both of them absolutely driven by compulsion and passion to win, yet both flawed on the ways they could achieve that.
Then there is the consideration how much the car is a character, or at least Ford as a concept. What makes this story so great is the David and Goliath element, that makes you sure there is no possible way this could be true. As with all great sports films, even if you know the history and result of a real event, the little guy sticking it to the invincible and arrogant behemoth, win, lose or draw, is what makes us invest and then cheer, or cry, when all the effort is finally spent.
Effort, sacrifice, overcoming obstacles, facing defeat, bouncing back from setbacks, gaining respect of friends and rivals alike – all these elements make a sports film great. Le Mans ’66 has it all, with the added bonus of enough budget to make it fly, which isn’t usually the case in this genre. It looks spectacular, feels exciting and is ultimately completely satisfying, as both a character study of real men, and a document of a game changing moment in sporting history.
It also doesn’t entirely ignore the female influence on such a masculine world; the little known Irish actress Catriona Balfe as Mollie Miles really caught my eye in some really tender scenes. This film won’t be passing the Bechdal test any time soon, however, as she is pretty much the only female member of the cast with an actual name! But it isn’t something to get too hung up about, in my opinion.
I’d be bold enough to recommend this to anyone. No need to love cars, or racing or even sport at all. If you love good movies that keep you hooked till the checkered flag of the credits, then look no further. High art? No. A proper movie with huge mass appeal? 100%
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Knives Out (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Murder mystery films tend to be more fun in theory and anticipation than they are to watch. It’s a genre that I very much enjoy and have indulged in over the years. Yet, if I look back in detail at it, I find that it is the books, especially those of Agatha Christie, that I like much more than anything lasting a couple of hours on the screen. There’s something about the mystery being rushed and squeezed into the cinema artform that is usually anti-climactic or even a full on let down.
Perhaps my favourite of the entire genre is a film that refuses to take itself seriously and is at once a pastiche of the multiple cliches that have accumulated over the years. And that film is, of course, the wonderfully camp, funny and charming 1985 romp Clue, starring Tim Curry and a slough of 80s B stars having the time of their lives. It isn’t a “good” film, it is a cult film, it’s joy being in its absolute lack of pretension or moral judgement. Like the board game that inspired it, it isn’t overly complicated or long, but has just enough cleverness, mirth and ambiance about it to always be a winner.
Rian Johnson’s take on the genre, Knives Out, is aware of these elements at all times, being above all things colourful, playful, arch and glib, but never convoluted or cerebral in an alienating way. He is something of a master at subverting a genre and wringing new life into it; take the invention of the teen noir in Brick, or the blend of assassin time travel sci-fi in Looper. He even gave an entire franchise a new breath of life by re-examining the use of humour and self referencing in Star Wars: The Last Jedi.
All of those previous films have as many detractors as mega fans, proving his style is devisive, for its audacity and its irreverence towards any idea of purism within an established model. And Knives Out is no exception to that. However, it may be the film of his that most people can agree on that they enjoyed, for one reason or another. I think it’s as interesting to ask why that is as it is to talk about the film itself… so, I will. At least, I’ll try to do both without losing my train of thought.
Firstly, it looks stunning; the palate of rich colours used in the poster and all marketing just make it look like something you want to immerse yourself in – every jacket, tie, dress, or piece of furniture is designed to precision, and it works like a dream of the genre you may have once had, as if it had been plucked directly from your subconscious. As in all good murder mysteries, the location, props and costumes should hold as much character as the actors, and the stately home of the Thrombey family certainly provides plenty of atmosphere in every texture and material on display.
Of course, the cast of characters is wonderfully put together with some inspired casting of familiar faces and actors you trust, such as Toni Collette and Michael Shannon, together with a few we don’t see enough of these days, such as Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson, who both manage to create something as memorable as anything they did in their golden days. Add to the mix two bone fide action film superstars in Daniel Craig and Chris Evans, who leave the baggage of their most famous characters far behind and manage to convince you they are real actors again, the former with the aide of a jarring but hilarious Southern drawl, that grates at first but is a perfect choice on reflection.
Then there are the two lynchpins of this film’s ultimate success and joy: the exceptional legendary gravitas of 90 year old Christopher Plummer as the patriarch and victim at the centre of the intrigue, and the quite glorious revelation of Ana de Armas, whose charisma, beauty and skill in this delicately balanced role was the most impressive thing for me about the whole production. It may be Craig who is the ever present focus, as the detective tasked with solving the “crime”, but it is de Armas that you will remember most long after the credits roll.
As for the plot, well… I obviously can’t talk about it without ruining the whole thing. But, I can say that it isn’t far into the intricate web of motives, alibis and secrets before you start to sense this is going somewhere different, even unique. The examination of the relationships and personalities, and the extent to which they each demonstrate greed and selfishness is fascinating, superceding the crime that exists on the surface with a swamp of far seedier and unpleasant goings-on. Craig’s suave Benoit Blanc isn’t so much a detective here as a family therapist, or perhaps a supernatural presence in the style of the old classic, An Inspector Calls. Perhaps, it is suggested, no one completely escapes guilt and shame here… or do they? Are we looking for a murderer, or the only morally good person amidst a pack of dogs?
Another key element is how modern and unstuffy it feels, despite the country house and riches this is no play of manners, quite the opposite – no one here is on their best behaviour for the sake of decorum, and being upper class is an idea played with rather than enforced. The tea and cakes of the classic Christie, such as Murder on the Orient Express is replaced by smartphones and similar trappings, that identify it as definitely 2019 and no period piece. The concerns and themes are very much rooted in our present problems, and for that it engages and resonates in ways a costume drama just can’t do.
Upon finishing it for the first time, you may be thinking “sure, OK, I enjoyed that… but I’m not blown away here”. Then, as it sinks in over coming weeks, you find yourself recommending it to people, and thinking about how good it is in ways you didn’t initially think about. And that is surely why it was so embraced by the critics and paying public alike; it is a likeable, fun film, that can also stand some artistic scrutiny. It isn’t the smartest, or prettiest, or most meaningful film ever made, but it is enough of all three to make it an instant mini-classic, in my opinion.
I feel like there is maybe more to say about it, which is always a good sign, but that will do for now. I’d be happy to discuss it with anyone that feels the need. Or hear from anyone that didn’t like it! It would be interesting to hear that side of it, because I haven’t heard many negative comments on it at all. I don’t think I would defend it as a masterpiece to the end of the Earth, ‘cos it ain’t that good. I’m just hard pressed to find a serious fault. And it’s great when one of those sneaks up on you!
Perhaps my favourite of the entire genre is a film that refuses to take itself seriously and is at once a pastiche of the multiple cliches that have accumulated over the years. And that film is, of course, the wonderfully camp, funny and charming 1985 romp Clue, starring Tim Curry and a slough of 80s B stars having the time of their lives. It isn’t a “good” film, it is a cult film, it’s joy being in its absolute lack of pretension or moral judgement. Like the board game that inspired it, it isn’t overly complicated or long, but has just enough cleverness, mirth and ambiance about it to always be a winner.
Rian Johnson’s take on the genre, Knives Out, is aware of these elements at all times, being above all things colourful, playful, arch and glib, but never convoluted or cerebral in an alienating way. He is something of a master at subverting a genre and wringing new life into it; take the invention of the teen noir in Brick, or the blend of assassin time travel sci-fi in Looper. He even gave an entire franchise a new breath of life by re-examining the use of humour and self referencing in Star Wars: The Last Jedi.
All of those previous films have as many detractors as mega fans, proving his style is devisive, for its audacity and its irreverence towards any idea of purism within an established model. And Knives Out is no exception to that. However, it may be the film of his that most people can agree on that they enjoyed, for one reason or another. I think it’s as interesting to ask why that is as it is to talk about the film itself… so, I will. At least, I’ll try to do both without losing my train of thought.
Firstly, it looks stunning; the palate of rich colours used in the poster and all marketing just make it look like something you want to immerse yourself in – every jacket, tie, dress, or piece of furniture is designed to precision, and it works like a dream of the genre you may have once had, as if it had been plucked directly from your subconscious. As in all good murder mysteries, the location, props and costumes should hold as much character as the actors, and the stately home of the Thrombey family certainly provides plenty of atmosphere in every texture and material on display.
Of course, the cast of characters is wonderfully put together with some inspired casting of familiar faces and actors you trust, such as Toni Collette and Michael Shannon, together with a few we don’t see enough of these days, such as Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson, who both manage to create something as memorable as anything they did in their golden days. Add to the mix two bone fide action film superstars in Daniel Craig and Chris Evans, who leave the baggage of their most famous characters far behind and manage to convince you they are real actors again, the former with the aide of a jarring but hilarious Southern drawl, that grates at first but is a perfect choice on reflection.
Then there are the two lynchpins of this film’s ultimate success and joy: the exceptional legendary gravitas of 90 year old Christopher Plummer as the patriarch and victim at the centre of the intrigue, and the quite glorious revelation of Ana de Armas, whose charisma, beauty and skill in this delicately balanced role was the most impressive thing for me about the whole production. It may be Craig who is the ever present focus, as the detective tasked with solving the “crime”, but it is de Armas that you will remember most long after the credits roll.
As for the plot, well… I obviously can’t talk about it without ruining the whole thing. But, I can say that it isn’t far into the intricate web of motives, alibis and secrets before you start to sense this is going somewhere different, even unique. The examination of the relationships and personalities, and the extent to which they each demonstrate greed and selfishness is fascinating, superceding the crime that exists on the surface with a swamp of far seedier and unpleasant goings-on. Craig’s suave Benoit Blanc isn’t so much a detective here as a family therapist, or perhaps a supernatural presence in the style of the old classic, An Inspector Calls. Perhaps, it is suggested, no one completely escapes guilt and shame here… or do they? Are we looking for a murderer, or the only morally good person amidst a pack of dogs?
Another key element is how modern and unstuffy it feels, despite the country house and riches this is no play of manners, quite the opposite – no one here is on their best behaviour for the sake of decorum, and being upper class is an idea played with rather than enforced. The tea and cakes of the classic Christie, such as Murder on the Orient Express is replaced by smartphones and similar trappings, that identify it as definitely 2019 and no period piece. The concerns and themes are very much rooted in our present problems, and for that it engages and resonates in ways a costume drama just can’t do.
Upon finishing it for the first time, you may be thinking “sure, OK, I enjoyed that… but I’m not blown away here”. Then, as it sinks in over coming weeks, you find yourself recommending it to people, and thinking about how good it is in ways you didn’t initially think about. And that is surely why it was so embraced by the critics and paying public alike; it is a likeable, fun film, that can also stand some artistic scrutiny. It isn’t the smartest, or prettiest, or most meaningful film ever made, but it is enough of all three to make it an instant mini-classic, in my opinion.
I feel like there is maybe more to say about it, which is always a good sign, but that will do for now. I’d be happy to discuss it with anyone that feels the need. Or hear from anyone that didn’t like it! It would be interesting to hear that side of it, because I haven’t heard many negative comments on it at all. I don’t think I would defend it as a masterpiece to the end of the Earth, ‘cos it ain’t that good. I’m just hard pressed to find a serious fault. And it’s great when one of those sneaks up on you!
ArecRain (8 KP) rated Monster High (Monster High, #1) in Books
Jan 18, 2018
I am twenty years old and I loved this book more than I think an intelligent college student should. There were just way to many things that kept me from not turning the pages and walking away. In fact, I have only one negative thing to say about this book.
This is a book meant strictly for pleasure reading for fantasy and novels alike. While it kept true to the high school novel feel, it also had enough fantasy to make it that much more interesting than just high school girls worrying about losing their boy toys. It was similar to any other young adult novel I have read except for the one factor making it completely different: it revolves around the descendents of monsters. If it wasnt for that, I probably would have hated this book. I have always loved everything to do with fantast monsters and creatures. The fact that Mattel created a doll series about it was cute, but the book made it enjoyable for an audience older than seven years of age.
Quite honestly, I am tired of all the criticism of this book. It is meant to be a light-hearted, moral teaching novel meant for young adults, therefore, it is meant to relatable by teens. All the slang that the students use is how the real world is, people. I am sorry if you dont understand their lingo, but its how kids are, especially high schoolers. They invent words that they think are cool and some tend to catch on. Melodys family is from Beverly Hills. Why wouldnt they have designer clothes? Frankie was born 15 days ago. What else would she wear but what magazines and the media tell her to, which just happens to be designer clothing. As for the celebrity names dropped, this is not in the leagues of Lewis or Tolkien. Few people will read this in 50 years when the current generation doesnt know who Lady Gaga or Justin Beiber is. This was meant for the generation here and now.
This is not a deep novel people. There is no great mission by amazing warriors meant to save the world. The romance is just that: cute teen romance. No sex and no deep involved feeling that are too complicated. If this novel was not grown up for you, then you probably shouldnt be picking up books from the young adult section. Try some Lukyanenko novels and then talk to me. Thanks.
Moving on. The books two main female characters are Melody and Frankie Stein. The description is a bit misleading, however. Frankie and Melody actually dont even really talk to each until the end. Before tragedy strikes, bringing them together, the two are lost in their own little worlds, hardly even concerned with each other. Both girls are focused on making it a new community and high school, while dealing with major crushes and vicious students. Each makes their own friends. Ones are psychotic back-stabbers that need to have cell phone service banned and barred. The others are true and stand behind her even if they dont agree with her.
The characters were adorable, crazy, funny, and had so much well character. It was easy to tell one from another and I absolutely loved reading about them interacting with each other. Most of the novel had me either laughing, or setting the book aside until I could get over my empathetic embarrassment. I found myself sympathizing with all the characters points of view even though none of them know the whole picture like the reader does. Not to mention, sharing Frankies frustration. I was with her 100% even though I kept telling myself her parents way was the safest. How could you not feel frustrated when everyone was telling her to have pride in what she was and the forcing who to hide what she was? Hypocritical much? I thought so.
Now to the only negative thing I have to say about this book: I wanted to continuously shut Melody down. I found it down right annoying that she thought she knew how Jackson (Dr. Jekylls grandson) and Frankie (Frankensteins granddaughter) felt about being outcasts just because she had a nose she considered ugly. Are you kidding me? Really? I thought this was a poor attempt by Harrison to give Melody and Frankie some common ground. Being made fun of because of your nose is nowhere near the devastation of being hunted down because your grandfather was a chemical addict or a stitched together living doll. Oh, I am sure that it was tragic enough for Melody, but how dare she say she understood what it was like. Melody was never in mortal danger for her difference, so please, honey, get off your self-righteous horse.
The main reason I loved this book so much was because it was so distracting. It was such a light and fluffy book about the simplicity that is high school life. It was refreshing from all these novels nowadays where the protagonist is the only person capable of saving the world, their loved, blah blah blah, while the protagonist is some immensely powerful being. Note to writers: that scenario is getting old real quick.
This is a book meant strictly for pleasure reading for fantasy and novels alike. While it kept true to the high school novel feel, it also had enough fantasy to make it that much more interesting than just high school girls worrying about losing their boy toys. It was similar to any other young adult novel I have read except for the one factor making it completely different: it revolves around the descendents of monsters. If it wasnt for that, I probably would have hated this book. I have always loved everything to do with fantast monsters and creatures. The fact that Mattel created a doll series about it was cute, but the book made it enjoyable for an audience older than seven years of age.
Quite honestly, I am tired of all the criticism of this book. It is meant to be a light-hearted, moral teaching novel meant for young adults, therefore, it is meant to relatable by teens. All the slang that the students use is how the real world is, people. I am sorry if you dont understand their lingo, but its how kids are, especially high schoolers. They invent words that they think are cool and some tend to catch on. Melodys family is from Beverly Hills. Why wouldnt they have designer clothes? Frankie was born 15 days ago. What else would she wear but what magazines and the media tell her to, which just happens to be designer clothing. As for the celebrity names dropped, this is not in the leagues of Lewis or Tolkien. Few people will read this in 50 years when the current generation doesnt know who Lady Gaga or Justin Beiber is. This was meant for the generation here and now.
This is not a deep novel people. There is no great mission by amazing warriors meant to save the world. The romance is just that: cute teen romance. No sex and no deep involved feeling that are too complicated. If this novel was not grown up for you, then you probably shouldnt be picking up books from the young adult section. Try some Lukyanenko novels and then talk to me. Thanks.
Moving on. The books two main female characters are Melody and Frankie Stein. The description is a bit misleading, however. Frankie and Melody actually dont even really talk to each until the end. Before tragedy strikes, bringing them together, the two are lost in their own little worlds, hardly even concerned with each other. Both girls are focused on making it a new community and high school, while dealing with major crushes and vicious students. Each makes their own friends. Ones are psychotic back-stabbers that need to have cell phone service banned and barred. The others are true and stand behind her even if they dont agree with her.
The characters were adorable, crazy, funny, and had so much well character. It was easy to tell one from another and I absolutely loved reading about them interacting with each other. Most of the novel had me either laughing, or setting the book aside until I could get over my empathetic embarrassment. I found myself sympathizing with all the characters points of view even though none of them know the whole picture like the reader does. Not to mention, sharing Frankies frustration. I was with her 100% even though I kept telling myself her parents way was the safest. How could you not feel frustrated when everyone was telling her to have pride in what she was and the forcing who to hide what she was? Hypocritical much? I thought so.
Now to the only negative thing I have to say about this book: I wanted to continuously shut Melody down. I found it down right annoying that she thought she knew how Jackson (Dr. Jekylls grandson) and Frankie (Frankensteins granddaughter) felt about being outcasts just because she had a nose she considered ugly. Are you kidding me? Really? I thought this was a poor attempt by Harrison to give Melody and Frankie some common ground. Being made fun of because of your nose is nowhere near the devastation of being hunted down because your grandfather was a chemical addict or a stitched together living doll. Oh, I am sure that it was tragic enough for Melody, but how dare she say she understood what it was like. Melody was never in mortal danger for her difference, so please, honey, get off your self-righteous horse.
The main reason I loved this book so much was because it was so distracting. It was such a light and fluffy book about the simplicity that is high school life. It was refreshing from all these novels nowadays where the protagonist is the only person capable of saving the world, their loved, blah blah blah, while the protagonist is some immensely powerful being. Note to writers: that scenario is getting old real quick.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Last of Us Part II in Video Games
Jun 30, 2020 (Updated Jul 1, 2020)
Gameplay (2 more)
Graphics
Sound
I'm Not Mad, I'm Just Disappointed
Contains spoilers, click to show
It's been a while since I've written anything, but I couldn't let this one go by without saying anything about it.
The Last Of Us Part 2 is the biggest disappointment of 2020.
I finished the game a few days ago and have been letting it process in my mind in the hopes that it will somehow make more sense to me. So far that hasn't been the case.
Let me provide you with some context, I wanted to like this game more than anyone. The first Last Of Us is one of my favourite games of all time and because of the spectacular writing and performances in that first game, I was really excited to see what would happen to these characters. This was definitely one of my most anticipated releases in recent years and I'm genuinely in awe at how much of a let down it was, especially after the 10/10 reviews I had been reading leading up to the game's release.
Spoilers will follow from this point on as it's pretty difficult to discuss my reasoning for being let down by the game without getting in depth, so please tread carefully if you have yet to play through the game.
First off, I don't normally like to bring up my personal politics when discussing fictional media, but I do feel that it's necessary to mention that I am pro LGBTQ+ and none of my issues with this game stem from any sort of political bias that I may have.
The game opens slowly, juxtaposing the intense opening of the first game. However these slow opening few hours really allow you to drink in the breathtaking visuals and fantastic sound design. These elements really help to sell the cinematic nature of the game, along with consistently stellar performances.
Then we are shown the main conflict that will propel the story for the sequel. Joel is unceremoniosly murdered by Abby, a new character that we know nothing about at this point.
Now I don't have a problem with main characters being killed off in a story, in fact as a Tarantino fan, I relish it when it's done properly. The problem with Joel's death is the way that it was executed. First off, Joel and Tommy would never in a million years have blindly trusted this random faction that they've just bumped into enough to give them their names so quickly. They've both survived 25 years in the apocalypse and yet the writers still expect you to believe that they would be this naïve and stupid. Then, there's the fact that this is how they choose to introduce this new group that you are later expected to sympathize with and this character that they will later force you to play as for half the game. Why would anyone who is a fan of this world and these characters want to play and learn about this random ruthless killer?
Now, what you might be asking is "aren't Joel and Ellie ruthless killers at this point?" And you would be right, they are. However the point is that we were already invested in these characters before we seen them ruthlessly murdering infected and humans alike and therefore are able to put it down to them having to do what they had to in order to survive. With Abby you are introduced to her killing a beloved character from the first game for the sake of pure shock value.
The first game came out during an oversaturation period of zombie stories across media and yet because of it's stellar writing, it managed to stand out from the crowd and actually become one of the most unique games of the last generation in terms of the story it told. The story in this game feels so generic by comparison. I remember watching interviews with Neil Druckman in the lead up to the game's release where he would talk about how the main hurdle of writing this game was justifying it's existence after the first one ended so well. Really? You had seven years and another generic revenge plot was the best thing that you could come up with?
Another highlight from the first game was the fleshed out side characters that all felt deep and like they really existed in the world. Characters like Tess, Bill and Marlene all naturally fitted into the plot and felt necessary to the overall story being told. The same cannot be said for the side characters in this game. I have already mentioned how it is made impossible to sympathize with Abby and her crew after seeing what they did to Joel. There are two other new characters introduced called Yara and Lev. They are siblings, which put me in mind of Henry and Sam from the first game, but where Henry and Sam felt layered and genuine, Yara and Lev feel shallow and shoehorned in to give Abby's plotline some narrative weight.
Then there is the strange pacing of the story. I feel like I must reiterate, they introduce a character that murders the beloved protagonist from the first game and later expect you to sympathize with her. Then there is the fact that you play as Ellie for the next 8 hours or so before they present you with a shocking cliffhanger, only to then force you to play as Abby for the next 10 hours. Not only are they making you play as the character that murdered Joel and Jessie in cold blood, but every extra hour that they unsuccessfully attempt to make you feel sorry for Abby is another hour before you can get back to see how the cliffhanger, (that was introduced 10 hours ago,) is resolved. And then, they bafflingly make you fight Ellie while playing as Abby. Why would the game expect me to want to hurt this character that I care about as this brand new random stranger?
You are then eventually given control back as Ellie and the game lulls you into a false sense of thinking that you are finally done playing as Abby. Then Ellie makes the totally nonsensical decision to abandon a nice, cushty, quiet farm life that she's carved out for herself, to go after Abby yet again.
After that, you guessed it! You are forced to play as Abby yet again. Thankfully it's only briefly as we then at long last get to properly play as Ellie again. Not sure if you remember her at this point, she's the one that's in all of the trailers and posters and on the cover of the damn game?
Then we get what is probably the most anticlimactic ending in the history of gaming. Ellie lets Abby go. After Abby killed Joel and Jessie and crippled Tommy and after Ellie murdered all of Abby's friends and after Ellie abandoned her girlfriend and step-son and had her fingers bitten off, she's just like, "nah fam, I'm good."
I'm sorry, what?
You are going to break your promise to Tommy and let the person that murdered your father figure get away? Why?
If getting your revenge wasn't worth it, you should have really realized that back on the farm when you were surrounded by people you love and a chance at a family life. If you chose to leave that behind you must be committed enough to see it through, otherwise it is all for nothing. There is subverting audience expectations and then there is having your characters make nonsensical decisions and I feel like TLOU2 was full of the latter.
On a positive note, the gameplay is extremely fun and satisfying. Every blow lands with more force and every bullet seems to strike even harder than in the first game. It does get a bit repetitive after a while and the actual function of taking out a group of enemies hasn't evolved a great deal since the first game, but I still really enjoyed it. The upgrading and crafting systems have also been fleshed out. This, along with the immaculate graphical presentation, tight, fluid animations, brilliant audio and expectedly phenomenal performances make for something with so much potential, with only the writing and direction letting it down. Unfortunately, writing and directing are both pretty essential in a story driven game.
Before I summarise, I'd like to highlight that I am not against stories that explore the moral grey area and don't have clear heroes and villains. For example, Metal Gear Solid is my favourite franchise in gaming and the whole point of that series is to show that there is no black and white, but we all do things for our own reasons. A good story should be able to make you see the things from the "villain's" point of view without being like, "look see what you did to them? That is why they are the way they are! Look see, she is a good person because she plays fetch with dogs!" In TLOU2 it all just feels so forced and unnatural. A good storyteller should show a character's motivations and then show their actions and leave it up to audience to decide if it's justified, instead of strictly saying, "this character is 100% justified in the heinous act that you just seen her commit, now you must be on her side!"
I think that's all that I've got to say and I guess at the very least, this game has got people talking. You cannot accuse it of playing it safe, but there are a ton of different ways that the plot could have went that probably would have been a lot more satisfying for fans of the series like myself. 6/10
The Last Of Us Part 2 is the biggest disappointment of 2020.
I finished the game a few days ago and have been letting it process in my mind in the hopes that it will somehow make more sense to me. So far that hasn't been the case.
Let me provide you with some context, I wanted to like this game more than anyone. The first Last Of Us is one of my favourite games of all time and because of the spectacular writing and performances in that first game, I was really excited to see what would happen to these characters. This was definitely one of my most anticipated releases in recent years and I'm genuinely in awe at how much of a let down it was, especially after the 10/10 reviews I had been reading leading up to the game's release.
Spoilers will follow from this point on as it's pretty difficult to discuss my reasoning for being let down by the game without getting in depth, so please tread carefully if you have yet to play through the game.
First off, I don't normally like to bring up my personal politics when discussing fictional media, but I do feel that it's necessary to mention that I am pro LGBTQ+ and none of my issues with this game stem from any sort of political bias that I may have.
The game opens slowly, juxtaposing the intense opening of the first game. However these slow opening few hours really allow you to drink in the breathtaking visuals and fantastic sound design. These elements really help to sell the cinematic nature of the game, along with consistently stellar performances.
Then we are shown the main conflict that will propel the story for the sequel. Joel is unceremoniosly murdered by Abby, a new character that we know nothing about at this point.
Now I don't have a problem with main characters being killed off in a story, in fact as a Tarantino fan, I relish it when it's done properly. The problem with Joel's death is the way that it was executed. First off, Joel and Tommy would never in a million years have blindly trusted this random faction that they've just bumped into enough to give them their names so quickly. They've both survived 25 years in the apocalypse and yet the writers still expect you to believe that they would be this naïve and stupid. Then, there's the fact that this is how they choose to introduce this new group that you are later expected to sympathize with and this character that they will later force you to play as for half the game. Why would anyone who is a fan of this world and these characters want to play and learn about this random ruthless killer?
Now, what you might be asking is "aren't Joel and Ellie ruthless killers at this point?" And you would be right, they are. However the point is that we were already invested in these characters before we seen them ruthlessly murdering infected and humans alike and therefore are able to put it down to them having to do what they had to in order to survive. With Abby you are introduced to her killing a beloved character from the first game for the sake of pure shock value.
The first game came out during an oversaturation period of zombie stories across media and yet because of it's stellar writing, it managed to stand out from the crowd and actually become one of the most unique games of the last generation in terms of the story it told. The story in this game feels so generic by comparison. I remember watching interviews with Neil Druckman in the lead up to the game's release where he would talk about how the main hurdle of writing this game was justifying it's existence after the first one ended so well. Really? You had seven years and another generic revenge plot was the best thing that you could come up with?
Another highlight from the first game was the fleshed out side characters that all felt deep and like they really existed in the world. Characters like Tess, Bill and Marlene all naturally fitted into the plot and felt necessary to the overall story being told. The same cannot be said for the side characters in this game. I have already mentioned how it is made impossible to sympathize with Abby and her crew after seeing what they did to Joel. There are two other new characters introduced called Yara and Lev. They are siblings, which put me in mind of Henry and Sam from the first game, but where Henry and Sam felt layered and genuine, Yara and Lev feel shallow and shoehorned in to give Abby's plotline some narrative weight.
Then there is the strange pacing of the story. I feel like I must reiterate, they introduce a character that murders the beloved protagonist from the first game and later expect you to sympathize with her. Then there is the fact that you play as Ellie for the next 8 hours or so before they present you with a shocking cliffhanger, only to then force you to play as Abby for the next 10 hours. Not only are they making you play as the character that murdered Joel and Jessie in cold blood, but every extra hour that they unsuccessfully attempt to make you feel sorry for Abby is another hour before you can get back to see how the cliffhanger, (that was introduced 10 hours ago,) is resolved. And then, they bafflingly make you fight Ellie while playing as Abby. Why would the game expect me to want to hurt this character that I care about as this brand new random stranger?
You are then eventually given control back as Ellie and the game lulls you into a false sense of thinking that you are finally done playing as Abby. Then Ellie makes the totally nonsensical decision to abandon a nice, cushty, quiet farm life that she's carved out for herself, to go after Abby yet again.
After that, you guessed it! You are forced to play as Abby yet again. Thankfully it's only briefly as we then at long last get to properly play as Ellie again. Not sure if you remember her at this point, she's the one that's in all of the trailers and posters and on the cover of the damn game?
Then we get what is probably the most anticlimactic ending in the history of gaming. Ellie lets Abby go. After Abby killed Joel and Jessie and crippled Tommy and after Ellie murdered all of Abby's friends and after Ellie abandoned her girlfriend and step-son and had her fingers bitten off, she's just like, "nah fam, I'm good."
I'm sorry, what?
You are going to break your promise to Tommy and let the person that murdered your father figure get away? Why?
If getting your revenge wasn't worth it, you should have really realized that back on the farm when you were surrounded by people you love and a chance at a family life. If you chose to leave that behind you must be committed enough to see it through, otherwise it is all for nothing. There is subverting audience expectations and then there is having your characters make nonsensical decisions and I feel like TLOU2 was full of the latter.
On a positive note, the gameplay is extremely fun and satisfying. Every blow lands with more force and every bullet seems to strike even harder than in the first game. It does get a bit repetitive after a while and the actual function of taking out a group of enemies hasn't evolved a great deal since the first game, but I still really enjoyed it. The upgrading and crafting systems have also been fleshed out. This, along with the immaculate graphical presentation, tight, fluid animations, brilliant audio and expectedly phenomenal performances make for something with so much potential, with only the writing and direction letting it down. Unfortunately, writing and directing are both pretty essential in a story driven game.
Before I summarise, I'd like to highlight that I am not against stories that explore the moral grey area and don't have clear heroes and villains. For example, Metal Gear Solid is my favourite franchise in gaming and the whole point of that series is to show that there is no black and white, but we all do things for our own reasons. A good story should be able to make you see the things from the "villain's" point of view without being like, "look see what you did to them? That is why they are the way they are! Look see, she is a good person because she plays fetch with dogs!" In TLOU2 it all just feels so forced and unnatural. A good storyteller should show a character's motivations and then show their actions and leave it up to audience to decide if it's justified, instead of strictly saying, "this character is 100% justified in the heinous act that you just seen her commit, now you must be on her side!"
I think that's all that I've got to say and I guess at the very least, this game has got people talking. You cannot accuse it of playing it safe, but there are a ton of different ways that the plot could have went that probably would have been a lot more satisfying for fans of the series like myself. 6/10