Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Following the Lord of the Rings Trilogy was going to be no easy feat. The series not only made incredible amounts of cash at the box office worldwide, but also garnered an Academy award for best picture for the final film in the series. In the years since the trilogy, writer-director-producer Peter Jackson has not overwhelmed at the box office. His big-budget remake of “King Kong” performed below expectations and the high-profile collapse of the “Halo” movie to which he was attached, as well as the underwhelming box office of “The Lovely Bones” made many people question if Jackson had peaked and was better suited for the lower budgeted independent films that first gave him his start.
When it was announced that a film version of “The Hobbit” was in the works and that director Guillermo del Toro would direct the film as well as help write the screenplay and that Jackson would produce, the fans’ interest level was definitely piqued. But after a long state of pre-production, del Torro decided not to direct the film as he was unwilling to commit the next six years to living and working in New Zealand. Jackson then took over the film and soon after it was announced that it would be stretched into three movies to form a new trilogy.
For those unfamiliar with the story it was actually the first book written by J.R.R. Tolkien, which sets the stage for what was to follow in the Lord of the Rings even though it was originally conceived as a standalone story. The film opens with an older Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), writing a memoir while preparations for a party are underway. Bilbo discusses how there was one story that he had not disclosed and sets pen to paper in order to chronicle his legendary journey 60 years prior.
Gandolf Wizard (Sir Ian McKellen) visits the younger Bilbo and suggests he go on an adventure. Bilbo immediately declines, as being a Hobbit, he has no desire to leave the creature comforts and serenity of The Shire, much less face the dangers that exist in the world beyond. A group of dwarves arrive’ that evening and despite their gluttonous appetites and loud behavior, Bilbo has a change of heart the following morning and accompanies them on their quest.
The group’s goal is to travel to the dwarves’ kingdom of Erebor to reclaim their stronghold which was lost many years earlier to a vicious Dragon named Smaug. In the decades since, the dwarves existed as people without a home, forced to live as nomads taking work wherever they can find it. Along the way the group deals with all manner of threats and dangers ranging from trolls, goblins, orcs, and other supernatural elements. Of course there were some internal tensions and conflicts within the group as it marched towards a finale that sets the stage for the next film.
The movie has a runtime of nearly 3 hours and there were times that I caught a couple members in press row dozing briefly. While I enjoyed the film more than I did any of the Lord of the Rings movies, it was clearly obvious that things were being stretched out in order to justify a third film in the series. There were countless scenes of the band walking over hills and across the countryside so much so that at times I felt that I was watching the longest commercial for New Zealand tourism ever created. We get it. It’s a long journey. They travel near and far. I got it. I don’t need to see it every 10 minutes.
There were also several scenes that were done almost as if in aside that truthfully did not add much to the story but seem to exist as nothing more than time fillers. In the subsequent films it is learned that characters and scenes that did not appear in the book will be inserted into the film. Once again I have to question this as I do believe they could have easily cut an hour out of this movie and not lose much of the necessary narrative.
There’s been a lot of talk about the higher frame rate 3-D that was used to create the film. There have been claims that it was distracting, jerky, and detracted from the movie. I on the other hand found it absolutely captivating because it did not have that movie look to it, and it felt like I was watching an HD television. Even during the CGI heavy sequences, it did appear as if the performers were literally right there in front of me and I got the impression more of watching a play than of watching a movie.
The visual effects in the film were quite stunning. The live-action and computer-generated elements were absolutely amazing, especially during the latter part of the film when we meet Gollum (Andy Serkis), and during the battle and the goblin stronghold. Although the book is considered a children’s novel, I would really have to think twice about bringing young children to see this film as there is a lot of action and violence in the film as well as potential scares in the form of the monsters that abound.
The film could have definitely used some star power to it. While the cast does a solid job, they are fairly generic and almost interchangeable during certain segments of the film. That being said, the film works because despite its issues, it’s a visually spectacular masterpiece that, if you can endure the long periods of inaction, pays off especially well during the film’s battle sequences.
When it was announced that a film version of “The Hobbit” was in the works and that director Guillermo del Toro would direct the film as well as help write the screenplay and that Jackson would produce, the fans’ interest level was definitely piqued. But after a long state of pre-production, del Torro decided not to direct the film as he was unwilling to commit the next six years to living and working in New Zealand. Jackson then took over the film and soon after it was announced that it would be stretched into three movies to form a new trilogy.
For those unfamiliar with the story it was actually the first book written by J.R.R. Tolkien, which sets the stage for what was to follow in the Lord of the Rings even though it was originally conceived as a standalone story. The film opens with an older Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), writing a memoir while preparations for a party are underway. Bilbo discusses how there was one story that he had not disclosed and sets pen to paper in order to chronicle his legendary journey 60 years prior.
Gandolf Wizard (Sir Ian McKellen) visits the younger Bilbo and suggests he go on an adventure. Bilbo immediately declines, as being a Hobbit, he has no desire to leave the creature comforts and serenity of The Shire, much less face the dangers that exist in the world beyond. A group of dwarves arrive’ that evening and despite their gluttonous appetites and loud behavior, Bilbo has a change of heart the following morning and accompanies them on their quest.
The group’s goal is to travel to the dwarves’ kingdom of Erebor to reclaim their stronghold which was lost many years earlier to a vicious Dragon named Smaug. In the decades since, the dwarves existed as people without a home, forced to live as nomads taking work wherever they can find it. Along the way the group deals with all manner of threats and dangers ranging from trolls, goblins, orcs, and other supernatural elements. Of course there were some internal tensions and conflicts within the group as it marched towards a finale that sets the stage for the next film.
The movie has a runtime of nearly 3 hours and there were times that I caught a couple members in press row dozing briefly. While I enjoyed the film more than I did any of the Lord of the Rings movies, it was clearly obvious that things were being stretched out in order to justify a third film in the series. There were countless scenes of the band walking over hills and across the countryside so much so that at times I felt that I was watching the longest commercial for New Zealand tourism ever created. We get it. It’s a long journey. They travel near and far. I got it. I don’t need to see it every 10 minutes.
There were also several scenes that were done almost as if in aside that truthfully did not add much to the story but seem to exist as nothing more than time fillers. In the subsequent films it is learned that characters and scenes that did not appear in the book will be inserted into the film. Once again I have to question this as I do believe they could have easily cut an hour out of this movie and not lose much of the necessary narrative.
There’s been a lot of talk about the higher frame rate 3-D that was used to create the film. There have been claims that it was distracting, jerky, and detracted from the movie. I on the other hand found it absolutely captivating because it did not have that movie look to it, and it felt like I was watching an HD television. Even during the CGI heavy sequences, it did appear as if the performers were literally right there in front of me and I got the impression more of watching a play than of watching a movie.
The visual effects in the film were quite stunning. The live-action and computer-generated elements were absolutely amazing, especially during the latter part of the film when we meet Gollum (Andy Serkis), and during the battle and the goblin stronghold. Although the book is considered a children’s novel, I would really have to think twice about bringing young children to see this film as there is a lot of action and violence in the film as well as potential scares in the form of the monsters that abound.
The film could have definitely used some star power to it. While the cast does a solid job, they are fairly generic and almost interchangeable during certain segments of the film. That being said, the film works because despite its issues, it’s a visually spectacular masterpiece that, if you can endure the long periods of inaction, pays off especially well during the film’s battle sequences.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated T2 Trainspotting (2017) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
The first time I saw Trainspotting was my senior year of high school. At the time, I knew that I wanted to get involved in film, and I really did for about ¾ of a year after I graduated. I looked at movies for their artistry and cinematography even at a young age. I was a band geek, so music was also things I would love about movies. I was deep for a 17-year-old, or so I thought any way. But I explain this to you so you don’t think that I loved this movie simply because of the drug use or humor it presented. I have always been of the mind to find something I like about a movie, watch it for what it is, and try to just find the enjoyment value (I know, weird coming from a film reviewer). I didn’t even have to try for Trainspotting. It was the complete package, and ground breaking. It also introduced me to Ewan McGregor, who is one of my favorite actors. I loved the movie so much, I bought Irvine Welsh’s book that the movie was based on of the same title, Trainspotting, which I highly recommend simply for the fact that it’s written in phonetic Scottish. I never picked up Porno, the literary sequel to Trainspotting, but I hear it is bizarre and will need to pick it up, but not because of this movie. I’ll explain in a moment.
Naturally, when the announcement was made for a second Trainspotting movie, I was both excited and terrified at the same time. The first was so good, why did Hollywood need to ruin it with a sequel that has a bigger budget. What was promising was that it was announced that the entire cast of characters (that survived from the first film) would be back, including Diane (Kelly MacDonald). But it’s been 20 years. Typically, when you see sequels come out even after only 10 years, the whole film seems a contrite, forced replication of the first. Hell, look at all the criticism for the Hangover films being exactly that, and they were only a few years apart. Whether the script feels forced just for the sake of a sequel, or the actors are trying too hard to be the character they played many years prior, it never quite works. So, as we neared the release date, I was getting more and more weary of seeing the film. Then, the trailer dropped.
Damn the trailer looked good. And I will tell you, the movie did not fall into the trap of forced sequels. The main cast came back and played the characters perfectly. Not as they were, but as the people they grew to be over the 20-year period. The plot was fun and pointless, with all of the same charm as its predecessor. I saw the movie with fellow SKNR staffer Joshua Aja, and we had a pretty good conversation following the film. We both came to the same conclusion, that neither of us could remember the last time we saw a film that just that good.
So now to the actual meat of the review itself. What was the movie about? Well, I won’t give away too much, but I will give you a quick recap of the events leading up to this film. Basically, do you remember the end of Trainspotting? Renton (Ewan McGregor), Spud (Ewen Bremner), Sick Boy (Jonny Lee Miller), and Begbie (Robert Carlyle) had successfully pulled off a heist, and Renton was making off with the money while everyone slept, except Spud of course who saw Renton leaving but didn’t say anything. As a result, Renton left Spud’s share of the cash for him in a locker. Okay; all caught up.
T2 Trainspotting picks up 20 years later. Renton comes back to Scotland because his mother passed away, he ends up reuniting with Spud, and eventually Sick Boy, who we now know by his real name, Simon. Begbie is in prison because, well… he’s Begbie, but he doesn’t stay there long. Tempers fly, old feelings flare, and not every reunited moment is met with glee. But soon enough, Renton, Simon and Spud are drawn into old habits, though not old drugs, and start to build money up to open a ‘sauna’ (read: undercover brothel) for Simon’s girlfriend, Veronika (Angela Nedyalkova). It’s not long before Begbie shows up and starts mucking things up leading to a suspenseful conclusion between Renton, Simon and Begbie.
That’s all I can say. There was an excellent use of the history from the first film, and of course we get another fantastic ‘Choose Life’ speech from Renton. The soundtrack, while not quite as good as the first, still holds its own very well. And be sure to look for the Bowie tribute, since it was he who helped Danny Boyle obtain a lot of music rights on the cheap for the first film. And, you will find Spud’s writings throughout the movie to be lifted, verbatim, from the Trainspotting by Irvine Welsh. But what’s interesting, is that there is not a lot that relates this film to the literary sequel, Porno. Much of the plot of this film is taken from, or at least inspired by, parts of the book that were not used in the first film. That combined with some new writing and storytelling from Irvine Welsh and John Hodge.
Bottom line: if you liked the Trainspotting even in the slightest, you will absolutely enjoy T2 Trainspotting. A phenomenal job by cast, crew, and writers, and an excellent soundtrack will leave you wanting a trilogy. This is only the third film I have given a perfect score to in my 7 years of reviewing films, and it is well deserved. Go see this movie.
Naturally, when the announcement was made for a second Trainspotting movie, I was both excited and terrified at the same time. The first was so good, why did Hollywood need to ruin it with a sequel that has a bigger budget. What was promising was that it was announced that the entire cast of characters (that survived from the first film) would be back, including Diane (Kelly MacDonald). But it’s been 20 years. Typically, when you see sequels come out even after only 10 years, the whole film seems a contrite, forced replication of the first. Hell, look at all the criticism for the Hangover films being exactly that, and they were only a few years apart. Whether the script feels forced just for the sake of a sequel, or the actors are trying too hard to be the character they played many years prior, it never quite works. So, as we neared the release date, I was getting more and more weary of seeing the film. Then, the trailer dropped.
Damn the trailer looked good. And I will tell you, the movie did not fall into the trap of forced sequels. The main cast came back and played the characters perfectly. Not as they were, but as the people they grew to be over the 20-year period. The plot was fun and pointless, with all of the same charm as its predecessor. I saw the movie with fellow SKNR staffer Joshua Aja, and we had a pretty good conversation following the film. We both came to the same conclusion, that neither of us could remember the last time we saw a film that just that good.
So now to the actual meat of the review itself. What was the movie about? Well, I won’t give away too much, but I will give you a quick recap of the events leading up to this film. Basically, do you remember the end of Trainspotting? Renton (Ewan McGregor), Spud (Ewen Bremner), Sick Boy (Jonny Lee Miller), and Begbie (Robert Carlyle) had successfully pulled off a heist, and Renton was making off with the money while everyone slept, except Spud of course who saw Renton leaving but didn’t say anything. As a result, Renton left Spud’s share of the cash for him in a locker. Okay; all caught up.
T2 Trainspotting picks up 20 years later. Renton comes back to Scotland because his mother passed away, he ends up reuniting with Spud, and eventually Sick Boy, who we now know by his real name, Simon. Begbie is in prison because, well… he’s Begbie, but he doesn’t stay there long. Tempers fly, old feelings flare, and not every reunited moment is met with glee. But soon enough, Renton, Simon and Spud are drawn into old habits, though not old drugs, and start to build money up to open a ‘sauna’ (read: undercover brothel) for Simon’s girlfriend, Veronika (Angela Nedyalkova). It’s not long before Begbie shows up and starts mucking things up leading to a suspenseful conclusion between Renton, Simon and Begbie.
That’s all I can say. There was an excellent use of the history from the first film, and of course we get another fantastic ‘Choose Life’ speech from Renton. The soundtrack, while not quite as good as the first, still holds its own very well. And be sure to look for the Bowie tribute, since it was he who helped Danny Boyle obtain a lot of music rights on the cheap for the first film. And, you will find Spud’s writings throughout the movie to be lifted, verbatim, from the Trainspotting by Irvine Welsh. But what’s interesting, is that there is not a lot that relates this film to the literary sequel, Porno. Much of the plot of this film is taken from, or at least inspired by, parts of the book that were not used in the first film. That combined with some new writing and storytelling from Irvine Welsh and John Hodge.
Bottom line: if you liked the Trainspotting even in the slightest, you will absolutely enjoy T2 Trainspotting. A phenomenal job by cast, crew, and writers, and an excellent soundtrack will leave you wanting a trilogy. This is only the third film I have given a perfect score to in my 7 years of reviewing films, and it is well deserved. Go see this movie.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated It: Chapter Two (2019) in Movies
Sep 7, 2019
Hader steals the film
The "secret sauce" of the first chapter of IT (based on the horror novel by Stephen King) was NOT the gore or scares that were thrown at the audience, it was the characters and the performances that made that first film work. The young members of the "Loser's Club" - and especially the young actors populating these characters - created people that you wanted to root and cheer for throughout their ordeal with Pennywise the Clown and the bullies of Derry.
So...it should have been a "no-brainer" for Director Andy Muschietti and the filmmakers to repeat that pattern - it worked very, very well. But, somewhere along the way they forgot what made the first film good and Muschietti and new screenwriter Gary Dauberman decided to focus on the horror, gore and frights and let their talented group of adult actors inhabit the characters with little (maybe no) help from the screenplay.
And...the result is a "fine" film that wraps up the first film just "fine", but ultimately falls short of that first film and definitely falls short of what "could have been".
IT: CHAPTER TWO picks up 27 years later when Pennywise the Dancing Clown comes back (per his cycle) to terrorize the children of Derry once again. The Loser's Club from the first film band back together (per their pact at the end of the first film) to battle - and finally destroy - this dark threat.
The filmmakers pull a strong group of actors together to play the adult versions of the Loser's Club - headlined by Jessica Chastain (ZERO DARK THIRTY) as the adult Beverly Marsh and James McAvoy (Professor X in the recent run of X-MEN films) as the adult Bill Denborough. I find McAvoy to be (for the most part) a solid, if unspectacular, actor and he is true to from here. Solid, but unspectacular in a role that was written that way. Chastain, perhaps, is the biggest disappointment for me in this film as the young Beverly Marsh (as portrayed by Sophia Lillis) was the highlight of the first film but here this character is...bland and somewhat boring. I don't fault Chastain (an actress that I usually enjoy very, very much), I blame the screenplay which saddles these two characters with an underwritten "love triangle" with the adult Ben Hascombe (Jay Ryan - somewhat of a newcomer, who has smoldering good looks, but not much else going for him). It was rumored that Chris Pratt was circling this character (I would imagine he walked away when he saw the screenplay). That's too bad, for he might have brought some life to all 3 of these characters.
Faring better is the usually reliable Isiah Mustafa (TV's SHADOWHUNTERS) as the adult Mike Hanlon, the only one of the Loser's Club who stayed in Derry to keep a vigilant watch against Pennywise' return. He has a haunted air about him - certainly in keeping with the the past that only he remembers. And Andy Bean (SWAMP THING) has a nice couple of moments as the adult Stanley Uris.
The only truly interesting dynamic of the returning Loser's Club is the characters and love/hate relationship between the older Eddie Kaspbrak, the hypochondriac (played by James Ransome, TV's THE WIRE) and smart-mouth Richie Tolzier (inhabited by SNL vet Bill Hader). While Ransome's Eddie is quite a bit more interesting than he was as a youth (and that's no slight on Jack Dylan Grazer who played the younger Eddie, I just found Ransome's portrayal more nuanced and somewhat more interesting). But it is Hader who steals this film. His Richie is constantly using humor to cover his emotions building on the interesting characterization that Finn Wolfhard brought to the younger version and giving us more. Hader is a master comedian, so handles the comedy parts as deftly as you would think he would, but it is when the other emotions - fear, rage, love - come barreling out of him that Hader elevates this character (and the movie) to a higher level. I would be thrilled if Hader was nominated for an Oscar for this role - he is that good.
Also coming back are all of the "kids" from the first film to flesh out some scenes - and set up some other scenes/moments by the adults - they are a welcome addition and shine a spotlight at how weak - and underwritten - most of the adult characters are in this film.
Bill Skarsgard is seen quite a bit more as Pennywise - and that makes him less menacing and threatening (but still scary) and there are 2 fun cameos along the way by 2 prominent individuals, so that was fun.
There is a running gag throughout the film about author Bill Denborough (the surrogate for Stephen King) not being able to write a decent ending - a critique that King receives constantly - and they changed the ending of this film from the book. I am a big fan of the book, but would agree that the ending of the book was not that good, so was open to this trying a different way to end things...and...this new ending lands about as well as the original ending (oh well...).
But that's just a quibble, for by that time you've ridden with these characters for over 5 hours and while the first chapter is stronger than the first, the journey is good (enough) for an enjoyable (enough) time at the Cineplex.
Come for the Loser's Club and the scares - stay for Hader's Oscar worthy performance.
Letter Grade: B+
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
So...it should have been a "no-brainer" for Director Andy Muschietti and the filmmakers to repeat that pattern - it worked very, very well. But, somewhere along the way they forgot what made the first film good and Muschietti and new screenwriter Gary Dauberman decided to focus on the horror, gore and frights and let their talented group of adult actors inhabit the characters with little (maybe no) help from the screenplay.
And...the result is a "fine" film that wraps up the first film just "fine", but ultimately falls short of that first film and definitely falls short of what "could have been".
IT: CHAPTER TWO picks up 27 years later when Pennywise the Dancing Clown comes back (per his cycle) to terrorize the children of Derry once again. The Loser's Club from the first film band back together (per their pact at the end of the first film) to battle - and finally destroy - this dark threat.
The filmmakers pull a strong group of actors together to play the adult versions of the Loser's Club - headlined by Jessica Chastain (ZERO DARK THIRTY) as the adult Beverly Marsh and James McAvoy (Professor X in the recent run of X-MEN films) as the adult Bill Denborough. I find McAvoy to be (for the most part) a solid, if unspectacular, actor and he is true to from here. Solid, but unspectacular in a role that was written that way. Chastain, perhaps, is the biggest disappointment for me in this film as the young Beverly Marsh (as portrayed by Sophia Lillis) was the highlight of the first film but here this character is...bland and somewhat boring. I don't fault Chastain (an actress that I usually enjoy very, very much), I blame the screenplay which saddles these two characters with an underwritten "love triangle" with the adult Ben Hascombe (Jay Ryan - somewhat of a newcomer, who has smoldering good looks, but not much else going for him). It was rumored that Chris Pratt was circling this character (I would imagine he walked away when he saw the screenplay). That's too bad, for he might have brought some life to all 3 of these characters.
Faring better is the usually reliable Isiah Mustafa (TV's SHADOWHUNTERS) as the adult Mike Hanlon, the only one of the Loser's Club who stayed in Derry to keep a vigilant watch against Pennywise' return. He has a haunted air about him - certainly in keeping with the the past that only he remembers. And Andy Bean (SWAMP THING) has a nice couple of moments as the adult Stanley Uris.
The only truly interesting dynamic of the returning Loser's Club is the characters and love/hate relationship between the older Eddie Kaspbrak, the hypochondriac (played by James Ransome, TV's THE WIRE) and smart-mouth Richie Tolzier (inhabited by SNL vet Bill Hader). While Ransome's Eddie is quite a bit more interesting than he was as a youth (and that's no slight on Jack Dylan Grazer who played the younger Eddie, I just found Ransome's portrayal more nuanced and somewhat more interesting). But it is Hader who steals this film. His Richie is constantly using humor to cover his emotions building on the interesting characterization that Finn Wolfhard brought to the younger version and giving us more. Hader is a master comedian, so handles the comedy parts as deftly as you would think he would, but it is when the other emotions - fear, rage, love - come barreling out of him that Hader elevates this character (and the movie) to a higher level. I would be thrilled if Hader was nominated for an Oscar for this role - he is that good.
Also coming back are all of the "kids" from the first film to flesh out some scenes - and set up some other scenes/moments by the adults - they are a welcome addition and shine a spotlight at how weak - and underwritten - most of the adult characters are in this film.
Bill Skarsgard is seen quite a bit more as Pennywise - and that makes him less menacing and threatening (but still scary) and there are 2 fun cameos along the way by 2 prominent individuals, so that was fun.
There is a running gag throughout the film about author Bill Denborough (the surrogate for Stephen King) not being able to write a decent ending - a critique that King receives constantly - and they changed the ending of this film from the book. I am a big fan of the book, but would agree that the ending of the book was not that good, so was open to this trying a different way to end things...and...this new ending lands about as well as the original ending (oh well...).
But that's just a quibble, for by that time you've ridden with these characters for over 5 hours and while the first chapter is stronger than the first, the journey is good (enough) for an enjoyable (enough) time at the Cineplex.
Come for the Loser's Club and the scares - stay for Hader's Oscar worthy performance.
Letter Grade: B+
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Darkest Night (First edition) in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
One of the best parts of the board gaming experience is finding a fun group of people with whom to play! Sometimes, though, coordinating a game night is easier said than done. We all must occasionally forego the group experience and face the world as the Lonely Only. But fear not! The world of solo-play is a vast and exciting realm! What follows is a chronicle of my journey into the solo-playing world – notes on gameplay, mechanics, rules, difficulty, and overall experience with solo variations of commonly multiplayer games! I hope this will provide some insight as you continue to grow your collection, or explore your already owned games!
Once prosperous, your kingdom has fallen victim to a powerful Necromancer who has shrouded the realm in darkness. His minions traverse the land doing his bidding, and his army, as well as his powers, continue to grow. All hope is lost….or is it? Four heroes band together in a final attempt to defeat this evil being. Each brings unique powers and strategies to the table, and success will come in one of two ways – by defeating the Necromancer in direct combat, or by gathering Holy Relics and performing a ritual to undo his powers. But be warned: the Necromancer grows stronger with every passing moment, so be sure your chosen strategy is the right one. Otherwise you too will fall victim to the Necromancer’s might.
Darkest Night is a cooperative game where players take on the role of the heroes attempting to defeat the Necromancer. Each turn has 4 steps – Perform any start-of-turn actions, draw/resolve an Event card, perform one action, and defend against Blights (monsters). Each equipped with a unique set of powers, the heroes must work together to search the land for Holy Relics and destroy Blights before the kingdom is overrun. Once all of the heroes have had their turn, the Necromancer gets his turn, which entails advancing the Darkness track, moving towards the closest detected hero, and creating more Blights. Victory comes in two forms – ritual or combat. If the heroes collectively uncover three Holy Relics, they can use them in a ritual to break the Necromancer’s powers. Or if a hero gets strong enough, they could directly fight the Necromancer. If, at any point, the Monastery is overrun by Blights, the game ends in failure and the kingdom has fallen into darkness.
DISCLAIMER – This review is for the Darkest Night (First Edition) base game. There is a second edition, and several expansions, but I have not had experience with any of those, so my thoughts are solely based on the First Edition base game. -L
I’m just going to be up-front and let you know that I am not a huge fan of this game solo. The main reason is that this game is for four heroes, regardless of actual player count. So playing solo means that I have to control all four heroes. Controlling one hero, I can do. Controlling two heroes takes more focus, but is usually manageable. But controlling four heroes at once? Madness! At least for me it is. There is so much more for a single person to keep track of, and it can be pretty overwhelming. There are so many variables to keep track of, I often end up making mistakes – forgetting to draw Event cards, accidentally using one hero’s ability when it is a different hero’s turn, forgetting to give one hero a turn in a round because I thought they already had one, etc. If I am lucky, I will catch a mistake in-progress, or one turn later, and can rectify it. But to be honest, of all the mistakes I make while playing Darkest Night, I probably won’t catch 25% of them. Which can either make a game super easy, or super brutal. You might tell me, “Focus!” or “Pay better attention!” but believe me, I’m trying! I just feel like four heroes for one person is too much.
Patience is a virtue, but apparently I have none when it comes to this game. And by that, I mean that I feel like it takes an eternity to accomplish anything in this game. On your turn, you only get one single action. And movement is an action. Picture this – I am trying to move my hero to the opposite end of the kingdom (at least 2 spaces away). I am going to have to spend 2 complete rounds (active hero turn, other hero turns, Necromancer turn, x2) just to get there. And then once I finally get there, I have to wait for the 3rd round to even do anything in that location! I just get frustrated at the fact that something as simple as moving a few spaces takes multiple rounds to accomplish. Since everything takes so long to do, you have to be thinking so far into the future with every turn. That makes it difficult for me to strategize, and the game just feels so inefficient, especially in solo play, when you have to control all of the heroes. It can be tricky enough planning a few turns in advance for a single hero, but being in charge of all heroes just makes the job more complicated. And maybe I’m just not patient enough for this game, but I think that if every hero got two actions per turn, the game would be a lot more manageable.
This will come as no surprise to you, but I enjoy this game more in a group rather than solo. This game is cooperative, and I like being able to talk strategy with my fellow gamers, rather than trying to figure everything out for each of the four heroes by myself. Group play also allows me to focus my attention on one single hero instead of multiple, which makes the game feel less overwhelming to me. And perhaps the second edition or expansions address some of the issues I have with the game, but for the time being, Darkest Night is low on my list of solo games.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/01/04/solo-chronicles-darkest-night/
Once prosperous, your kingdom has fallen victim to a powerful Necromancer who has shrouded the realm in darkness. His minions traverse the land doing his bidding, and his army, as well as his powers, continue to grow. All hope is lost….or is it? Four heroes band together in a final attempt to defeat this evil being. Each brings unique powers and strategies to the table, and success will come in one of two ways – by defeating the Necromancer in direct combat, or by gathering Holy Relics and performing a ritual to undo his powers. But be warned: the Necromancer grows stronger with every passing moment, so be sure your chosen strategy is the right one. Otherwise you too will fall victim to the Necromancer’s might.
Darkest Night is a cooperative game where players take on the role of the heroes attempting to defeat the Necromancer. Each turn has 4 steps – Perform any start-of-turn actions, draw/resolve an Event card, perform one action, and defend against Blights (monsters). Each equipped with a unique set of powers, the heroes must work together to search the land for Holy Relics and destroy Blights before the kingdom is overrun. Once all of the heroes have had their turn, the Necromancer gets his turn, which entails advancing the Darkness track, moving towards the closest detected hero, and creating more Blights. Victory comes in two forms – ritual or combat. If the heroes collectively uncover three Holy Relics, they can use them in a ritual to break the Necromancer’s powers. Or if a hero gets strong enough, they could directly fight the Necromancer. If, at any point, the Monastery is overrun by Blights, the game ends in failure and the kingdom has fallen into darkness.
DISCLAIMER – This review is for the Darkest Night (First Edition) base game. There is a second edition, and several expansions, but I have not had experience with any of those, so my thoughts are solely based on the First Edition base game. -L
I’m just going to be up-front and let you know that I am not a huge fan of this game solo. The main reason is that this game is for four heroes, regardless of actual player count. So playing solo means that I have to control all four heroes. Controlling one hero, I can do. Controlling two heroes takes more focus, but is usually manageable. But controlling four heroes at once? Madness! At least for me it is. There is so much more for a single person to keep track of, and it can be pretty overwhelming. There are so many variables to keep track of, I often end up making mistakes – forgetting to draw Event cards, accidentally using one hero’s ability when it is a different hero’s turn, forgetting to give one hero a turn in a round because I thought they already had one, etc. If I am lucky, I will catch a mistake in-progress, or one turn later, and can rectify it. But to be honest, of all the mistakes I make while playing Darkest Night, I probably won’t catch 25% of them. Which can either make a game super easy, or super brutal. You might tell me, “Focus!” or “Pay better attention!” but believe me, I’m trying! I just feel like four heroes for one person is too much.
Patience is a virtue, but apparently I have none when it comes to this game. And by that, I mean that I feel like it takes an eternity to accomplish anything in this game. On your turn, you only get one single action. And movement is an action. Picture this – I am trying to move my hero to the opposite end of the kingdom (at least 2 spaces away). I am going to have to spend 2 complete rounds (active hero turn, other hero turns, Necromancer turn, x2) just to get there. And then once I finally get there, I have to wait for the 3rd round to even do anything in that location! I just get frustrated at the fact that something as simple as moving a few spaces takes multiple rounds to accomplish. Since everything takes so long to do, you have to be thinking so far into the future with every turn. That makes it difficult for me to strategize, and the game just feels so inefficient, especially in solo play, when you have to control all of the heroes. It can be tricky enough planning a few turns in advance for a single hero, but being in charge of all heroes just makes the job more complicated. And maybe I’m just not patient enough for this game, but I think that if every hero got two actions per turn, the game would be a lot more manageable.
This will come as no surprise to you, but I enjoy this game more in a group rather than solo. This game is cooperative, and I like being able to talk strategy with my fellow gamers, rather than trying to figure everything out for each of the four heroes by myself. Group play also allows me to focus my attention on one single hero instead of multiple, which makes the game feel less overwhelming to me. And perhaps the second edition or expansions address some of the issues I have with the game, but for the time being, Darkest Night is low on my list of solo games.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/01/04/solo-chronicles-darkest-night/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Annabelle Comes Home (2019) in Movies
Jun 28, 2019
Not The Best In The Series But Entertains
One of the most intriguing yet often exaggerated lines in movie history is “based on actual events”. I’ve always had a fascination with supernatural thrillers that came with this tag line, whether it’s a movie like Amityville Horror or The Exorcism of Emily Rose. None of these are more popular than The Conjuring series, based on two real life demonologists Ed and Lorraine Warren. Whether you believe in ghosts and haunted houses or not, these films always played on the notion that the events “could” possibly happen…even if they were exaggerated for Hollywood audiences. Annabelle Comes Home breaks the trend of previous Conjuring movies by not bothering to pretend that it’s based on any of the “actual” events from the previous films. So how does it stack up to its predecessors?
The movie begins with Ed and Lorraine Warren retrieving Annabelle and taking the scary doll home to lock her away in the now infamous artifact room. The dolls presence is so evil, that it takes not only blessings by a priest but being locked away in a case made up of glass from an old church to keep it’s evil at bay. Not only is the display case locked, but a sign is placed upon it, warning any who may enter not to release the doll within. Several pad locks later the Warrens feel comfortable that the evil within is contained.
A year passes and both Ed and Lorraine are called away on business, entrusting the care of their young daughter Judy (McKenna Grace) to her responsible babysitter Mary Ellen (Madison Iseman). Mary Ellen’s friend Daniela (Katie Sarife) blackmails Mary Ellen into allowing her to come over and stay with her and Judy in the Warren’s household. Using an opportunity when both Judy and Mary Ellen are out of the house, Daniela finds the artifact room (and the keys necessary to open it), and what at first appears to be idle curiosity, quickly turns into an attempt to utilize the artifacts in the room to reach out to her recently deceased father. It is in this attempt that Daniela unknowingly releases the evil in the room when she opens the case that Annabelle is in (it’s not like there was a BIG sign warning her not to do so).
Annabelle in her search for a soul, releases the full power and evil of all the artifacts in the room. Everything from an empty suit of Samurai armor to a wedding dress the drives the wearer insane is on display. Even a werewolf is released upon the world hunting an unwary suitor of Mary Ellen’s who happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. It’s up to this band of babysitters and children to restore order to the house and find a way to contain the evil that has been brought upon the world.
Annabelle Comes Home starts out fairly slow and takes awhile to build the tension. The first hour of the movie is mainly the interaction between the family and friends, and introductions to the various artifacts that are in the room. It’s not until the second half of the film when things really begin to take off. When the movie finally hits its creepy stride, it has plenty of genuine scares and intense moments, but focuses on several of the iconic artifacts and their affect on the individuals in the house.
While each of the artifacts has its own unique and interesting characteristics, we are hit with a barrage of items that are each going after one of the guests in the house. Whether it’s the television that can predict the future, or the locket that allows communication with the dead, it’s a lot to keep track of and tends to lose focus on the main plot. The movie attempts to cram every noticeable item from its previous films and give it some main purpose in the plot. In fact, the creepiest of all the artifacts Annabelle, takes on the role of evil puppet master controlling the artifacts which means less screen time and scares for her. Personally, Annabelle is scary enough to carry her own film (she has in previous installments), but in this film she is relegated to a side character, where the haunted artifacts take center stage.
The area I feel the movie loses the most is in the “believability” state. Remember that the Conjuring universe is based on real people, and on their actual encounters. Unfortunately, at no point in this film does one believe that any of these supernatural events could be mistaken for reality. It’s what I feel is the difference between a supernatural thriller and simply a monster movie. Much like other supernatural films, it’s about what you don’t see, rather than what you do, and Annabelle Comes Home unfortunately relies too much on its visuals leaving little to the viewers imagination. Imagining what a demon could look like is scarier than what Hollywood can dream up and show on the screen.
Ultimately Annabelle Comes home is a good movie which should have been great. It forgoes much of what made the series popular and replaces it with some goofy scenes and special effects. The artifacts are interesting, which makes the movie enjoyable, but not scary. I went in with hopes that I’d leave at least a little unnerved, looking under my covers, or turning the numerous dolls around that adorn my wife’s doll room. Unfortunately, I left feeling as though I’d simply been given a tour of the artifact room, with one night of scares that would disappear the next morning, as if from a bad dream. If you are looking to be scared, this movie likely won’t do that. If you are looking for an interesting movie with deeper background into the artifacts that have adorned the Warrens room for the past films, then this is the film for you.
3 out of 5 stars
http://sknr.net/2019/06/20/annabelle-comes-home/
The movie begins with Ed and Lorraine Warren retrieving Annabelle and taking the scary doll home to lock her away in the now infamous artifact room. The dolls presence is so evil, that it takes not only blessings by a priest but being locked away in a case made up of glass from an old church to keep it’s evil at bay. Not only is the display case locked, but a sign is placed upon it, warning any who may enter not to release the doll within. Several pad locks later the Warrens feel comfortable that the evil within is contained.
A year passes and both Ed and Lorraine are called away on business, entrusting the care of their young daughter Judy (McKenna Grace) to her responsible babysitter Mary Ellen (Madison Iseman). Mary Ellen’s friend Daniela (Katie Sarife) blackmails Mary Ellen into allowing her to come over and stay with her and Judy in the Warren’s household. Using an opportunity when both Judy and Mary Ellen are out of the house, Daniela finds the artifact room (and the keys necessary to open it), and what at first appears to be idle curiosity, quickly turns into an attempt to utilize the artifacts in the room to reach out to her recently deceased father. It is in this attempt that Daniela unknowingly releases the evil in the room when she opens the case that Annabelle is in (it’s not like there was a BIG sign warning her not to do so).
Annabelle in her search for a soul, releases the full power and evil of all the artifacts in the room. Everything from an empty suit of Samurai armor to a wedding dress the drives the wearer insane is on display. Even a werewolf is released upon the world hunting an unwary suitor of Mary Ellen’s who happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. It’s up to this band of babysitters and children to restore order to the house and find a way to contain the evil that has been brought upon the world.
Annabelle Comes Home starts out fairly slow and takes awhile to build the tension. The first hour of the movie is mainly the interaction between the family and friends, and introductions to the various artifacts that are in the room. It’s not until the second half of the film when things really begin to take off. When the movie finally hits its creepy stride, it has plenty of genuine scares and intense moments, but focuses on several of the iconic artifacts and their affect on the individuals in the house.
While each of the artifacts has its own unique and interesting characteristics, we are hit with a barrage of items that are each going after one of the guests in the house. Whether it’s the television that can predict the future, or the locket that allows communication with the dead, it’s a lot to keep track of and tends to lose focus on the main plot. The movie attempts to cram every noticeable item from its previous films and give it some main purpose in the plot. In fact, the creepiest of all the artifacts Annabelle, takes on the role of evil puppet master controlling the artifacts which means less screen time and scares for her. Personally, Annabelle is scary enough to carry her own film (she has in previous installments), but in this film she is relegated to a side character, where the haunted artifacts take center stage.
The area I feel the movie loses the most is in the “believability” state. Remember that the Conjuring universe is based on real people, and on their actual encounters. Unfortunately, at no point in this film does one believe that any of these supernatural events could be mistaken for reality. It’s what I feel is the difference between a supernatural thriller and simply a monster movie. Much like other supernatural films, it’s about what you don’t see, rather than what you do, and Annabelle Comes Home unfortunately relies too much on its visuals leaving little to the viewers imagination. Imagining what a demon could look like is scarier than what Hollywood can dream up and show on the screen.
Ultimately Annabelle Comes home is a good movie which should have been great. It forgoes much of what made the series popular and replaces it with some goofy scenes and special effects. The artifacts are interesting, which makes the movie enjoyable, but not scary. I went in with hopes that I’d leave at least a little unnerved, looking under my covers, or turning the numerous dolls around that adorn my wife’s doll room. Unfortunately, I left feeling as though I’d simply been given a tour of the artifact room, with one night of scares that would disappear the next morning, as if from a bad dream. If you are looking to be scared, this movie likely won’t do that. If you are looking for an interesting movie with deeper background into the artifacts that have adorned the Warrens room for the past films, then this is the film for you.
3 out of 5 stars
http://sknr.net/2019/06/20/annabelle-comes-home/
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (2019) in Movies
Sep 16, 2019
In the early 1980s, author Alvin Schwartz created a book of short horror stories titled Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark that would go on to terrorize a whole generation of curious young readers. Combined with its morbid and ghastly illustrations by artist Stephen Gammell, the book would serve as an introduction to horror for many. Over the next ten years, Schwartz wrote two more books in the Scary Stories series, and now, nearly forty years later, it has finally been adapted into a major motion picture. Produced by Academy Award-winning director Guillermo Del Toro and directed by André Øvredal, the Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark film constructs a new narrative around several of the iconic short stories from the book series, and brings them to life to haunt the movie’s teenage characters.
In Mill Valley, Pennsylvania in 1968, a group of teenage friends fleeing from a band of bullies hide out in an abandoned haunted house on Halloween night. They know the story of this house well, whose folklore is rooted in the origins of their own small town. It was once owned by the wealthy Bellows Family, who according to urban legend, locked away their own daughter, Sarah Bellows, inside the cellar of their home. Sarah had been accused of killing the town’s children, and so her family kept her hidden away and attempted to erase her from existence, even removing her from their own family portraits. According to legend, Sarah wrote a book of horror stories and would read them aloud through the walls of her room to frighten the local townspeople.
While inside this haunted house, our group of protagonists; Stella (Zoe Colletti), Ramón (Michael Garza), Auggie (Gabriel Rush), and Chuck (Austin Zajur), discover the room Sarah had spent her life trapped in. Stella, an amateur horror writer herself, finds the rumored book that was written by Sarah. Upon opening it she sees that a new page is somehow being written in blood right before her very eyes, and it happens to be about the bully that chased them into the house. The next day, they realize that it seems as though the story actually came true, and that the book itself may be haunted. This establishes the basic premise of the film, in which new stories are being written in the book and they appear to be targeting Stella and everyone else that entered the Bellows’ house that night.
It’s an interesting set-up that cleverly mixes horror with mystery, as the characters are not only trying to survive these stories as they come to life, but are also trying to figure out how to stop them from happening. The film features five different stories from the series, most of which come from the third and final book, and a sixth story centered around Stella and Sarah Bellows that is at least in part inspired by one of the original tales. To give an example without giving too much away, one story for instance, involves a haunted scarecrow, whereas another is about a walking corpse in search of its severed big toe. The stories themselves are much more dark and grotesque than I had anticipated. I was expecting something more along the lines of Goosebumps, which was a series of children’s horror books that I personally loved and grew up with as a child, but these are much more disturbing than that. While I only found the first story of the film, “Harold”, to actually be scary, I do imagine this movie might be a little too frightening for some teenagers.
I should clarify that I’m not familiar with the original written source material of Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark, and I had truthfully never even heard of the books prior to the movie’s announcement. I don’t have any personal stake in these stories, but I do admire the thoughtfulness and creativity that went into building the film around them. I thought the film started out really strong with a likable cast of characters, and with most of its best moments featured early on. I loved the introduction to the haunted house and the legend of the Bellows Family. I enjoyed the playful nature of our group of young protagonists, who in the beginning felt reminiscent of the fun and crazy kids you might find in an 80s movie like The Goonies. Additionally, I liked the mystery of Sarah Bellows that the kids were trying to uncover, all the while struggling to survive the dangers of her haunting stories that had come to life.
Unfortunately, as the movie went on, I found myself less and less invested in it with each passing story, all of which I would argue are weaker than the previous one before it. The Pale Lady storyline was particularly dull and underwhelming. The final act itself, although smartly designed with its use of parallels, wound up feeling poorly executed and unsatisfying overall.
Similarly, in regards to the acting, I liked the performances even less by the end as well. Early on I had been impressed with Zoe Colletti as Stella, but I found her to be annoying in the later parts of the movie. The same goes for Austin Zajur as Chuck. The cast for the most part was decent, but everything about the movie began to drop in quality as it dragged on, which is especially unfortunate given how well it starts out.
The special effects are mostly quite good and adequately disturbing, but on the same token, I wish they were more clearly visible at times. A lot of the horror settings take place in dark rooms, so at times it can be hard to see the monsters with much clarity. Still, I love the design of Harold the Scarecrow, as well as The Jangly Man, who is played by contortionist Troy James whose extreme flexibility allows the character to move in unnatural and disturbing looking ways.
To conclude, I’m left with some mixed feelings on Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark. For me, it almost hits the mark, but unfortunately it isn’t a movie that I think I’d bother to watch again. It made a solid first impression with its rich atmosphere and creepy first act, but it failed to maintain its momentum and level of quality. In the end, my favorite thing about the whole movie is actually the excellent cover song of “Season of the Witch” by Lana Del Rey that plays during the credits. However that’s not in any way to say the movie is so bad that the credits were my favorite part. It’s just a great song by an artist I very much enjoy. If you grew up with the Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark series, then by all means, I recommend that you at least check it out. If you like horror and have any troublesome teenaged kids, this may be a perfect opportunity to have some fun scaring the heck out of them.
In Mill Valley, Pennsylvania in 1968, a group of teenage friends fleeing from a band of bullies hide out in an abandoned haunted house on Halloween night. They know the story of this house well, whose folklore is rooted in the origins of their own small town. It was once owned by the wealthy Bellows Family, who according to urban legend, locked away their own daughter, Sarah Bellows, inside the cellar of their home. Sarah had been accused of killing the town’s children, and so her family kept her hidden away and attempted to erase her from existence, even removing her from their own family portraits. According to legend, Sarah wrote a book of horror stories and would read them aloud through the walls of her room to frighten the local townspeople.
While inside this haunted house, our group of protagonists; Stella (Zoe Colletti), Ramón (Michael Garza), Auggie (Gabriel Rush), and Chuck (Austin Zajur), discover the room Sarah had spent her life trapped in. Stella, an amateur horror writer herself, finds the rumored book that was written by Sarah. Upon opening it she sees that a new page is somehow being written in blood right before her very eyes, and it happens to be about the bully that chased them into the house. The next day, they realize that it seems as though the story actually came true, and that the book itself may be haunted. This establishes the basic premise of the film, in which new stories are being written in the book and they appear to be targeting Stella and everyone else that entered the Bellows’ house that night.
It’s an interesting set-up that cleverly mixes horror with mystery, as the characters are not only trying to survive these stories as they come to life, but are also trying to figure out how to stop them from happening. The film features five different stories from the series, most of which come from the third and final book, and a sixth story centered around Stella and Sarah Bellows that is at least in part inspired by one of the original tales. To give an example without giving too much away, one story for instance, involves a haunted scarecrow, whereas another is about a walking corpse in search of its severed big toe. The stories themselves are much more dark and grotesque than I had anticipated. I was expecting something more along the lines of Goosebumps, which was a series of children’s horror books that I personally loved and grew up with as a child, but these are much more disturbing than that. While I only found the first story of the film, “Harold”, to actually be scary, I do imagine this movie might be a little too frightening for some teenagers.
I should clarify that I’m not familiar with the original written source material of Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark, and I had truthfully never even heard of the books prior to the movie’s announcement. I don’t have any personal stake in these stories, but I do admire the thoughtfulness and creativity that went into building the film around them. I thought the film started out really strong with a likable cast of characters, and with most of its best moments featured early on. I loved the introduction to the haunted house and the legend of the Bellows Family. I enjoyed the playful nature of our group of young protagonists, who in the beginning felt reminiscent of the fun and crazy kids you might find in an 80s movie like The Goonies. Additionally, I liked the mystery of Sarah Bellows that the kids were trying to uncover, all the while struggling to survive the dangers of her haunting stories that had come to life.
Unfortunately, as the movie went on, I found myself less and less invested in it with each passing story, all of which I would argue are weaker than the previous one before it. The Pale Lady storyline was particularly dull and underwhelming. The final act itself, although smartly designed with its use of parallels, wound up feeling poorly executed and unsatisfying overall.
Similarly, in regards to the acting, I liked the performances even less by the end as well. Early on I had been impressed with Zoe Colletti as Stella, but I found her to be annoying in the later parts of the movie. The same goes for Austin Zajur as Chuck. The cast for the most part was decent, but everything about the movie began to drop in quality as it dragged on, which is especially unfortunate given how well it starts out.
The special effects are mostly quite good and adequately disturbing, but on the same token, I wish they were more clearly visible at times. A lot of the horror settings take place in dark rooms, so at times it can be hard to see the monsters with much clarity. Still, I love the design of Harold the Scarecrow, as well as The Jangly Man, who is played by contortionist Troy James whose extreme flexibility allows the character to move in unnatural and disturbing looking ways.
To conclude, I’m left with some mixed feelings on Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark. For me, it almost hits the mark, but unfortunately it isn’t a movie that I think I’d bother to watch again. It made a solid first impression with its rich atmosphere and creepy first act, but it failed to maintain its momentum and level of quality. In the end, my favorite thing about the whole movie is actually the excellent cover song of “Season of the Witch” by Lana Del Rey that plays during the credits. However that’s not in any way to say the movie is so bad that the credits were my favorite part. It’s just a great song by an artist I very much enjoy. If you grew up with the Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark series, then by all means, I recommend that you at least check it out. If you like horror and have any troublesome teenaged kids, this may be a perfect opportunity to have some fun scaring the heck out of them.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Dance of the Dead (2008) in Movies
Jun 18, 2019
Jimmy Dunn (Jared Kusnitz) never seems to take anything seriously. He likes to spend more time in detention than he does in class. So it’s no surprise that Lindsey (Greyson Chadwick), the girl Jimmy was going to take to prom, decides to not go with him after realizing that Jimmy has no ambition. To make matters worse, something weird is going on in the graveyard next to the nuclear power plant in town. The dead are walking and they’re headed to the prom. The town is now in the hands of the losers who couldn’t get dates to the prom. There goes the neighborhood and here comes the pain; that is something that is certainly meant in more ways than one.
This is the type of horror film you have the urge to turn off as soon as it starts. Written by Joe Ballarini (My Little Pony: The Movie) and directed by Gregg Bishop (the “Dante the Great” segment of V/H/S Viral), Dance of the Dead is a part of the eight films that made up Ghost House Underground; horror films from all over the world chosen by Sam Raimi and Rob Tapert supposedly representing a “fresh” perspective of the horror genre. The problem is that most people would seek out one of these films and then never bother with the rest because why would you torture yourself any further?
The first 20 or so minutes of the film revolve around high school melodrama and the prom. This is supposedly where you get accustomed to the film’s humor, but it’s mostly nothing more than high school kids being obnoxious and unbearable. The graveyard scene is where things get even worse. Zombies start rising from beyond the grave and decomposing hands start bursting through headstones since that makes more sense than soil. Emerging from the ground simply wasn’t enough either; these zombies explode from their graves with smoke and a loud crash. Moments later during the same sequence, there are zombies jumping several feet into the air out of the ground, landing on their feet, and running after these kids. If it sounds cool in the slightest, then this description isn’t doing this dumpster fire justice.
The zombies are all over the place in Dance of the Dead. They start off as the zombies that run similar to the zombies in Zack Snyder’s Dawn of the Dead remake. Later on in the film, they stumble around and are slow like George Romero’s zombies. Even later after that, the zombies are running again while some attempt to speak, say, “Brains!” and then get in a car and drive off. Someone had pointed out that the zombies in the film who are fresh out of the ground run while older ones move slower, which only makes this turd milkshake slightly less nutty. Dance of the Dead also can’t decide what zombie films to pay homage to either. Return of the Living Dead has a massive influence, but the film clearly pays tribute to Night of the Living Dead when the kids reach a house and decide to board up all the windows and take shelter. It seems like the one consistent aspect this film has is to be inconsistent.
Did you know zombies can be held at bay solely by the power of rocking out? Three stoners in a band (a guitarist, a bassist, and a drummer) inadvertently discover that their music stops zombies in their tracks. A bit later in the film during the prom, the gymnasium is full of zombies. There’s music playing and it shows three zombies on stage playing musical instruments; a guitar, a bass, and a drum set. Fast forward a little more and the three stoners are back again playing their stoner rock and the zombies are back to being frozen during their performance. There’s no consistency when it comes to what they play or how it affects zombies.
“In extreme circumstances, the assailants can be stopped by removing the head or destroying the brain.” Do you remember this quote from Shaun of the Dead? Try to keep it in mind, especially the, “removing the head,” part. A guy gets his head torn off by a zombie and you’d think he’d be dead, but this actually turns his decapitated head into a zombie. He comes back later on; his headless corpse carrying his decapitated head around. It’s one thing to try and reinvent a genre, but when you have so many reinventions along with homage out to wazoo you’re basically throwing cow pies at a brick wall and seeing what sticks.
Zombies shouldn’t make out with each other. Vampires shouldn’t sparkle and Warm Bodies isn’t canon. Two students turn into zombies and still end up in a giant make out session after they’ve turned. The kiss turns awkward as they start chewing on each other mid-kiss. They start taking bites out of each other while they’re still sucking face. This is the scariest aspect of the film considering that maybe most of us don’t want our eyeballs chewed out of our skulls during something so intimate.
When the special effects aren’t being a complete eyesore from being so cheap and ugly, the gore in Dance of the Dead is decent. Blood splattering everywhere is pretty common throughout the film. The acting isn’t completely terrible either. It absolutely isn’t good by any means. Dance of the Dead is basically Degrassi with zombies and everything lame you’re expecting to tag along with that reference. Lucas Till (X-Men: First Class, MacGyver) has a brief cameo as one of the rockers in the film and he's probably the only cast member you'll recognize.
The jumbled mass of homage and redefining of zombie lore in Dance of the Dead throws a monkey wrench in calling the film stereotypical and cliché, but it certainly feels that way. It seems like a rejected, alternate, first draft of a film you’ve already seen rather than a film that attempts to stand on its own two legs. It may be fun for fans of campy horror films, but its originality is borderline offensive since Dance of the Dead seems to just combine everything you know about zombies or purposely does the opposite at an attempt at being a different chomp of undead horror. Unfortunately though, Dance of the Dead is too overwhelmingly absurd for its own good as its gore feels like the drunken antics of a washed up clown rather than a competent horror film.
Dance of the Dead is available to stream on Amazon Prime, YouTube, and Google Play for $1.99, Vudu for $2.99, and iTunes for $5.99. The DVD is $7.72 on Amazon while the Blu-ray (which is Region 2 only) is $25.52 from a third party seller. The DVD is $7.49 in new condition and with free shipping on eBay or $4 with $2.99 shipping pre-owned. If you enjoy terrible things, the eight disc set of all the Ghost House Underground titles are available as a boxed set on Amazon for $179.74 and on eBay for $39.99 in brand new condition and with free shipping.
This is the type of horror film you have the urge to turn off as soon as it starts. Written by Joe Ballarini (My Little Pony: The Movie) and directed by Gregg Bishop (the “Dante the Great” segment of V/H/S Viral), Dance of the Dead is a part of the eight films that made up Ghost House Underground; horror films from all over the world chosen by Sam Raimi and Rob Tapert supposedly representing a “fresh” perspective of the horror genre. The problem is that most people would seek out one of these films and then never bother with the rest because why would you torture yourself any further?
The first 20 or so minutes of the film revolve around high school melodrama and the prom. This is supposedly where you get accustomed to the film’s humor, but it’s mostly nothing more than high school kids being obnoxious and unbearable. The graveyard scene is where things get even worse. Zombies start rising from beyond the grave and decomposing hands start bursting through headstones since that makes more sense than soil. Emerging from the ground simply wasn’t enough either; these zombies explode from their graves with smoke and a loud crash. Moments later during the same sequence, there are zombies jumping several feet into the air out of the ground, landing on their feet, and running after these kids. If it sounds cool in the slightest, then this description isn’t doing this dumpster fire justice.
The zombies are all over the place in Dance of the Dead. They start off as the zombies that run similar to the zombies in Zack Snyder’s Dawn of the Dead remake. Later on in the film, they stumble around and are slow like George Romero’s zombies. Even later after that, the zombies are running again while some attempt to speak, say, “Brains!” and then get in a car and drive off. Someone had pointed out that the zombies in the film who are fresh out of the ground run while older ones move slower, which only makes this turd milkshake slightly less nutty. Dance of the Dead also can’t decide what zombie films to pay homage to either. Return of the Living Dead has a massive influence, but the film clearly pays tribute to Night of the Living Dead when the kids reach a house and decide to board up all the windows and take shelter. It seems like the one consistent aspect this film has is to be inconsistent.
Did you know zombies can be held at bay solely by the power of rocking out? Three stoners in a band (a guitarist, a bassist, and a drummer) inadvertently discover that their music stops zombies in their tracks. A bit later in the film during the prom, the gymnasium is full of zombies. There’s music playing and it shows three zombies on stage playing musical instruments; a guitar, a bass, and a drum set. Fast forward a little more and the three stoners are back again playing their stoner rock and the zombies are back to being frozen during their performance. There’s no consistency when it comes to what they play or how it affects zombies.
“In extreme circumstances, the assailants can be stopped by removing the head or destroying the brain.” Do you remember this quote from Shaun of the Dead? Try to keep it in mind, especially the, “removing the head,” part. A guy gets his head torn off by a zombie and you’d think he’d be dead, but this actually turns his decapitated head into a zombie. He comes back later on; his headless corpse carrying his decapitated head around. It’s one thing to try and reinvent a genre, but when you have so many reinventions along with homage out to wazoo you’re basically throwing cow pies at a brick wall and seeing what sticks.
Zombies shouldn’t make out with each other. Vampires shouldn’t sparkle and Warm Bodies isn’t canon. Two students turn into zombies and still end up in a giant make out session after they’ve turned. The kiss turns awkward as they start chewing on each other mid-kiss. They start taking bites out of each other while they’re still sucking face. This is the scariest aspect of the film considering that maybe most of us don’t want our eyeballs chewed out of our skulls during something so intimate.
When the special effects aren’t being a complete eyesore from being so cheap and ugly, the gore in Dance of the Dead is decent. Blood splattering everywhere is pretty common throughout the film. The acting isn’t completely terrible either. It absolutely isn’t good by any means. Dance of the Dead is basically Degrassi with zombies and everything lame you’re expecting to tag along with that reference. Lucas Till (X-Men: First Class, MacGyver) has a brief cameo as one of the rockers in the film and he's probably the only cast member you'll recognize.
The jumbled mass of homage and redefining of zombie lore in Dance of the Dead throws a monkey wrench in calling the film stereotypical and cliché, but it certainly feels that way. It seems like a rejected, alternate, first draft of a film you’ve already seen rather than a film that attempts to stand on its own two legs. It may be fun for fans of campy horror films, but its originality is borderline offensive since Dance of the Dead seems to just combine everything you know about zombies or purposely does the opposite at an attempt at being a different chomp of undead horror. Unfortunately though, Dance of the Dead is too overwhelmingly absurd for its own good as its gore feels like the drunken antics of a washed up clown rather than a competent horror film.
Dance of the Dead is available to stream on Amazon Prime, YouTube, and Google Play for $1.99, Vudu for $2.99, and iTunes for $5.99. The DVD is $7.72 on Amazon while the Blu-ray (which is Region 2 only) is $25.52 from a third party seller. The DVD is $7.49 in new condition and with free shipping on eBay or $4 with $2.99 shipping pre-owned. If you enjoy terrible things, the eight disc set of all the Ghost House Underground titles are available as a boxed set on Amazon for $179.74 and on eBay for $39.99 in brand new condition and with free shipping.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Game Of Thrones in TV
Aug 6, 2020
Look on the bright side, we all said, without really believing it, when lockdown hit in March – time to watch those box sets we’ve been putting off. Well that was, of course, a great idea! For me that box set was possibly the biggest of all: the behemoth that is GOT.
Much like when a new band gets big quickly and you refuse to listen to the hype, I avoided watching the biggest show in the world, even when it was on in the same room as I tried to read a book in the other corner. It wasn’t that I thought I wouldn’t like it, but more that I didn’t believe it could be anywhere near as good as folk were making it out to be, especially as season one looked like only a slight step up on the swords and sandles exploitation-fests that had been going around. I labelled it “Tits and Dragons” and got on with my life for the next 8 years.
March 2020 will go down in history as the biggest spike in streaming TV services the globe will ever see. Literally millions of previously casual watchers, who had been busy having lives and jobs, turned to Netflix, Amazon Prime, Now TV and iPlayer etc, in search of endless hours of easy entertainment they could immerse their bored and twitchy minds inside of. Without internet at home, I had to go a bit more old school and rely on my daughter posting me the DVDs of GOT season by season.
I found season one enjoyable, with caveats, as it seemed to be one massive exposition (and sexposition) workshop. Obviously the main characters were being set up for big storylines down the road. In which sense it reminded me of a soap opera; in how it flitted between characters and relationships, never dwelling on one plot point for more than two minutes. I liked the way the production had set itself up though – the sets and costumes were of a much higher level than was usual for this kind of thing. Then there was those great opening credits, which become impossible not to hum along to as you get more into it.
Sadly, the first big shock moment didn’t shock me, as I’d heard so much about it on social media 9 years ago. But it was still very well done. Bold and brave; to take out a big name that early was a master stroke. By the end of S1E9 I was properly hooked. Although it helped I didn’t have anything else to do!
The next two weeks I had to wait for season two to be posted out, so I embarked on watching all the DVD commentaries too to kill some time in the evenings whilst I waited. This is almost certainly something I wouldn’t have done under normal circumstances and I believe it is what cemented my enjoyment of it as a whole. Listening to the cast and crew reminisce about what a great time they had, and how close they all were, really helped put it into context for me. I was already loving Peter Dinklage and Lena Headey, but their humour and irreverence in the commentaries made it feel like there were pals in the room watching it with me.
By season two and beyond, I was looking at maps, memorizing every minor character’s name, house and motto, and just immersing in it to the point of obsession. As, I guess, millions of people had already done over the years, but now I got what the fuss was all about. It is an addictive show; you have to know what happens next, you simply can’t leave it alone! Whether it is hissing and booing at Joffrey, or loving to hate Cersei, or siding with the bastards and broken things, there is always something engaging going on – and when a character you disliked dies horribly it is so satisfying!
It is a weird mix, however, of moments so horribly signposted, with some dubious acting, and moments of real surprise and emotion delivered with great acting. Many of the characters really grow into their skins as the actors get more familiar and comfortable being them. The writers too get better at putting the right words in their mouths, and learn to minimise the exposition moments. The young ones in particular really grow impressively as it goes on into seasons 3 and 4. Maisie Williams as the slightly sadistic loner Arya Stark especially. I loved how none stereotypical that character was, and have to say her relationship with The Hound was my favourite thing in the whole show.
At the climax of season four, which I believe was the peak of it artistically, the story arc of Dinklage as Tyrion Lannister, aka The Imp, becomes so compellingly good you can’t take your eyes off him. I had already come to the conclusion that his scenes were the best ones, but this went to 11 on the dial. And it gets better thinking back on it too. Which can’t truly be said of where they go with John Snow and Daenarys, who are ostensibly the main draw by this point, as all storylines seem to mirror their journeys on opposite sides of the world; a song of ice and fire, indeed.
Seasons 5 and 6 continued to be great, even though the dramatic peaks were hard to top. What did improve was the big set pieces, as episodes such as Hardhome and Battle of the Bastards upper the bar on huge battles, staged masterfully. There were things happening that I had never seen in a TV show before, both creatively and budget spent. Watching some of the making of documentaries was fascinating in this regard. The props department alone was astonishingly detailed, to Lord of the Rings degrees, properly impressive!
To go into story and scene details here is pointless, and I don’t want to include any more spoilers than I already have, just in case there is anyone else like me, that hasn’t done the whole journey yet. Obviously, there was some controversy in where seasons 7 and especially 8 went with some storylines and characters. I thought it was mostly fine, to be honest, I just went with it. But it did become a little stretched and hurried, as it raced towards its conclusion. It’s hard for me to get a proper impression of how tense and then annoying it would be to wait a long time for a new season and then have it not go where you imagined it would. Not a problem for me, as I blitzed the final 4 seasons in about a week.
As the episode ratings of season 8 on IMDb indicate, folk were not happy. There was an element of anti-climax, to be fair, but what else could it have been, now so many people claim it as their own? The end isn’t perfect, and that may have a lot to do with the fact they stopped following the books, because they hadn’t been written. In all honestly, I didn’t care. It was spectacular and diverting enough to keep my attention, and my investment in the characters not brutally killed off was not teenage enough to take it personally. I do have sympathy for fans that felt their loyalty betrayed, but come on… it’s just a TV show.
Watching the same fictional world for more than 70 actual hours can do things to you brain. In conclusion I would say I loved going there! The good things always outweighed the annoying things, and it is an experience I would recommend to anyone who hasn’t done it. Whatever age you are, it is a must see phenomenon, like The Sopranos – oh wait, I haven’t seen that yet either…
Much like when a new band gets big quickly and you refuse to listen to the hype, I avoided watching the biggest show in the world, even when it was on in the same room as I tried to read a book in the other corner. It wasn’t that I thought I wouldn’t like it, but more that I didn’t believe it could be anywhere near as good as folk were making it out to be, especially as season one looked like only a slight step up on the swords and sandles exploitation-fests that had been going around. I labelled it “Tits and Dragons” and got on with my life for the next 8 years.
March 2020 will go down in history as the biggest spike in streaming TV services the globe will ever see. Literally millions of previously casual watchers, who had been busy having lives and jobs, turned to Netflix, Amazon Prime, Now TV and iPlayer etc, in search of endless hours of easy entertainment they could immerse their bored and twitchy minds inside of. Without internet at home, I had to go a bit more old school and rely on my daughter posting me the DVDs of GOT season by season.
I found season one enjoyable, with caveats, as it seemed to be one massive exposition (and sexposition) workshop. Obviously the main characters were being set up for big storylines down the road. In which sense it reminded me of a soap opera; in how it flitted between characters and relationships, never dwelling on one plot point for more than two minutes. I liked the way the production had set itself up though – the sets and costumes were of a much higher level than was usual for this kind of thing. Then there was those great opening credits, which become impossible not to hum along to as you get more into it.
Sadly, the first big shock moment didn’t shock me, as I’d heard so much about it on social media 9 years ago. But it was still very well done. Bold and brave; to take out a big name that early was a master stroke. By the end of S1E9 I was properly hooked. Although it helped I didn’t have anything else to do!
The next two weeks I had to wait for season two to be posted out, so I embarked on watching all the DVD commentaries too to kill some time in the evenings whilst I waited. This is almost certainly something I wouldn’t have done under normal circumstances and I believe it is what cemented my enjoyment of it as a whole. Listening to the cast and crew reminisce about what a great time they had, and how close they all were, really helped put it into context for me. I was already loving Peter Dinklage and Lena Headey, but their humour and irreverence in the commentaries made it feel like there were pals in the room watching it with me.
By season two and beyond, I was looking at maps, memorizing every minor character’s name, house and motto, and just immersing in it to the point of obsession. As, I guess, millions of people had already done over the years, but now I got what the fuss was all about. It is an addictive show; you have to know what happens next, you simply can’t leave it alone! Whether it is hissing and booing at Joffrey, or loving to hate Cersei, or siding with the bastards and broken things, there is always something engaging going on – and when a character you disliked dies horribly it is so satisfying!
It is a weird mix, however, of moments so horribly signposted, with some dubious acting, and moments of real surprise and emotion delivered with great acting. Many of the characters really grow into their skins as the actors get more familiar and comfortable being them. The writers too get better at putting the right words in their mouths, and learn to minimise the exposition moments. The young ones in particular really grow impressively as it goes on into seasons 3 and 4. Maisie Williams as the slightly sadistic loner Arya Stark especially. I loved how none stereotypical that character was, and have to say her relationship with The Hound was my favourite thing in the whole show.
At the climax of season four, which I believe was the peak of it artistically, the story arc of Dinklage as Tyrion Lannister, aka The Imp, becomes so compellingly good you can’t take your eyes off him. I had already come to the conclusion that his scenes were the best ones, but this went to 11 on the dial. And it gets better thinking back on it too. Which can’t truly be said of where they go with John Snow and Daenarys, who are ostensibly the main draw by this point, as all storylines seem to mirror their journeys on opposite sides of the world; a song of ice and fire, indeed.
Seasons 5 and 6 continued to be great, even though the dramatic peaks were hard to top. What did improve was the big set pieces, as episodes such as Hardhome and Battle of the Bastards upper the bar on huge battles, staged masterfully. There were things happening that I had never seen in a TV show before, both creatively and budget spent. Watching some of the making of documentaries was fascinating in this regard. The props department alone was astonishingly detailed, to Lord of the Rings degrees, properly impressive!
To go into story and scene details here is pointless, and I don’t want to include any more spoilers than I already have, just in case there is anyone else like me, that hasn’t done the whole journey yet. Obviously, there was some controversy in where seasons 7 and especially 8 went with some storylines and characters. I thought it was mostly fine, to be honest, I just went with it. But it did become a little stretched and hurried, as it raced towards its conclusion. It’s hard for me to get a proper impression of how tense and then annoying it would be to wait a long time for a new season and then have it not go where you imagined it would. Not a problem for me, as I blitzed the final 4 seasons in about a week.
As the episode ratings of season 8 on IMDb indicate, folk were not happy. There was an element of anti-climax, to be fair, but what else could it have been, now so many people claim it as their own? The end isn’t perfect, and that may have a lot to do with the fact they stopped following the books, because they hadn’t been written. In all honestly, I didn’t care. It was spectacular and diverting enough to keep my attention, and my investment in the characters not brutally killed off was not teenage enough to take it personally. I do have sympathy for fans that felt their loyalty betrayed, but come on… it’s just a TV show.
Watching the same fictional world for more than 70 actual hours can do things to you brain. In conclusion I would say I loved going there! The good things always outweighed the annoying things, and it is an experience I would recommend to anyone who hasn’t done it. Whatever age you are, it is a must see phenomenon, like The Sopranos – oh wait, I haven’t seen that yet either…
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Who Built The Moon? by Noel Gallagher / Noel Gallagher's High Flying Birds in Music
Nov 28, 2017 (Updated Nov 28, 2017)
A new direction from Noel (1 more)
Some unexpectedly bold creative choices are made
A Breath Of Fresh Air
Who Built The Moon? was released on Friday 24/11/17 and has already proved to be the most divisive album that Noel has ever been a part of. I personally love it. I think if Noel had dropped another record in the now expected style of the first two HFB's records, we would be rolling our eyes. Instead he is trying something new, a bold step for a man of 50 who has been making music publicly for the last quarter of a century.
Working with notorious industry producer, David Holmes, this record possesses a whole new sound for Noel, his lyrics and vocals are obviously instantly recognisable, but the instrumentation and production on the record is like something we have never heard him do before. Now it's all well and good trying something new, but is it any good? Well, it is actually.
The record opens with a stomping instrumental called Fort Knox. A track reminiscent of George Harrison meets the Gorillaz, that you can't help but at least nod along to. This isn't the first time that Noel has opened a record with an instrumental, (2000's Standing On The Shoulders of Giants opened with Fuckin' In The Bushes,) but I think it may be his best instrumental to date.
Next up is the record's lead single; Holy Mountain. This track carries on the pace set by Fort Knox and contains elements of Slade and Bowie to boot. Much has already been said about the comparison to She Bangs, but it doesn't bother me, this is a fantastic song and I feel like it was a solid choice for the album's first single. Having Paul Weller playing the organ on it doesn't hurt much either.
Following this is one of my favourite songs on the record, Keep On Reaching. I actually heard Noel talking about this song in an interview before I heard the track itself and from what he was describing, I didn't think I was going to care for it. Well my preconceptions were whacked away once I got around to listening to the track. Absolutely brilliant song that feels uplifting and triumphant.
The next song is called It's A Beautiful World and I have to admit I found it to be a bit of a grower. I first heard the track played live on Jools Holland and didn't love it, then I heard the album track and liked it a bit more, then I listened to it again and wasn't feeling it as much. Now six or seven listens later, I love this song. There are a few odd choices made here and I can understand why people would initially be put off, but I think this track works perfectly, especially within the context of the rest of the album.
After this we hear She Taught Me How To Fly, which is probably my least favourite track on the record. Again though I have to admit that this has grown on me since I first heard it. Hearing it live for the first time on Jools Holland, combined with seeing that scissor player for the first time was a bit much for me and to be honest I really wasn't a fan of the track. While I still don't love the track, I do enjoy it within the context of the album and I much prefer it now to when I initially heard it.
Track six is called Be Careful What You Wish For and for me, it falls into the same category as She Taught Me How To Fly, in that it is good, but not great. I'd say that these two songs are definitely the 'filler' section of the album. On any other record, these songs would be highlights, but on a Noel Gallagher record, they only qualify as filler in my opinion. They do add to the album as a whole though and are absolutely necessary if you are looking to experience the album all the way through from start to finish, which is also definitely the best way to experience this album.
The record picks up again with Black & White Sunshine. A roaring rock n' roll stomper that definitely sounds the most like Oasis over anything else on the album. The song's upbeat tone and slightly melancholy lyrics match up with Noel's signature writing style and it works just as well here as it did in the Oasis days. It's nice to hear something that feels slightly more familiar in amongst all of the other more experimental stuff on this record.
After hearing Fort Knox, I was really excited to hear the other instrumental on this album, Wednesday - Part 1. Unfortunately it's nowhere near as good as Fort Knox and it's been split into two parts. It's still a decently enjoyable piece of music that helps the album plod along into it's final stretch, but if like me you were hoping this to be just as good as Fort Knox, you will be left disappointed.
Next up is what is perhaps my favourite track on the record; If Love Is The Law. This glorious banger of a tune adds so much to the record overall and sounds mega through a good set of headphones. Johnny Marr's unmistakable guitar playing works awesomely on this track, as does his harmonica work. The lyrics are top notch, Noel's voice sounds great and it is a brilliant tune from start to finish.
The last official track on the album is the title track, The Man Who Built the Moon. This song tells the story of a cowboy full of regrets, using all sorts of interesting metaphors it is definitely the most narrative track on the album. The tone of the song slightly reminds me of The Ballad Of The Mighty I, the closing track from Noel's last record. It is a great song and works fantastically as a way to end this record.
Lastly we have Wednesday - Part 2, which is simply a continuation of Wednesday - Part 1, not much else to say here really.
Finally, we have a bonus track called Dead In The Water. This was recorded live during a session Noel did on an Irish radio station while promoting his previous album. Noel apparently didn't even know he was being recorded at the time while he was singing, which I think makes this song even more special. Allegedly, David Holmes was reluctant to put this on the record, as he felt it was out of place with the rest of the songs on the record, but I am so glad that Noel convinced him otherwise. Noel's voice here, sounds pure and frankly astonishing and the lyrics are fantastic too. The tone sounds similar to Talk Tonight and it is definitely one of the album's best moments.
The one gripe I have about this album, is that while this is a fresh new direction for Noel, it's not a style that hasn't been done before by other bands and arguably been done better. The Gorillaz' records or any of the late Beatles albums serve as a good example of this. Then again, Noel is well known from 'borrowing,' song elements from other artists, so maybe this is as original as it gets for him and we should be grateful for that.
Regardless, as a long time Oasis, (and particularly Noel Gallagher,) fan, I am glad that Noel is doing something new. I am also glad that with both Gallagher brothers now producing music, we won't be getting two extremely similar sounding albums. This is exciting for Oasis fans and can maybe serve as a step forward for fans who are still stuck in the past, in finally getting over their favourite band breaking up - it only took 8 years.
Working with notorious industry producer, David Holmes, this record possesses a whole new sound for Noel, his lyrics and vocals are obviously instantly recognisable, but the instrumentation and production on the record is like something we have never heard him do before. Now it's all well and good trying something new, but is it any good? Well, it is actually.
The record opens with a stomping instrumental called Fort Knox. A track reminiscent of George Harrison meets the Gorillaz, that you can't help but at least nod along to. This isn't the first time that Noel has opened a record with an instrumental, (2000's Standing On The Shoulders of Giants opened with Fuckin' In The Bushes,) but I think it may be his best instrumental to date.
Next up is the record's lead single; Holy Mountain. This track carries on the pace set by Fort Knox and contains elements of Slade and Bowie to boot. Much has already been said about the comparison to She Bangs, but it doesn't bother me, this is a fantastic song and I feel like it was a solid choice for the album's first single. Having Paul Weller playing the organ on it doesn't hurt much either.
Following this is one of my favourite songs on the record, Keep On Reaching. I actually heard Noel talking about this song in an interview before I heard the track itself and from what he was describing, I didn't think I was going to care for it. Well my preconceptions were whacked away once I got around to listening to the track. Absolutely brilliant song that feels uplifting and triumphant.
The next song is called It's A Beautiful World and I have to admit I found it to be a bit of a grower. I first heard the track played live on Jools Holland and didn't love it, then I heard the album track and liked it a bit more, then I listened to it again and wasn't feeling it as much. Now six or seven listens later, I love this song. There are a few odd choices made here and I can understand why people would initially be put off, but I think this track works perfectly, especially within the context of the rest of the album.
After this we hear She Taught Me How To Fly, which is probably my least favourite track on the record. Again though I have to admit that this has grown on me since I first heard it. Hearing it live for the first time on Jools Holland, combined with seeing that scissor player for the first time was a bit much for me and to be honest I really wasn't a fan of the track. While I still don't love the track, I do enjoy it within the context of the album and I much prefer it now to when I initially heard it.
Track six is called Be Careful What You Wish For and for me, it falls into the same category as She Taught Me How To Fly, in that it is good, but not great. I'd say that these two songs are definitely the 'filler' section of the album. On any other record, these songs would be highlights, but on a Noel Gallagher record, they only qualify as filler in my opinion. They do add to the album as a whole though and are absolutely necessary if you are looking to experience the album all the way through from start to finish, which is also definitely the best way to experience this album.
The record picks up again with Black & White Sunshine. A roaring rock n' roll stomper that definitely sounds the most like Oasis over anything else on the album. The song's upbeat tone and slightly melancholy lyrics match up with Noel's signature writing style and it works just as well here as it did in the Oasis days. It's nice to hear something that feels slightly more familiar in amongst all of the other more experimental stuff on this record.
After hearing Fort Knox, I was really excited to hear the other instrumental on this album, Wednesday - Part 1. Unfortunately it's nowhere near as good as Fort Knox and it's been split into two parts. It's still a decently enjoyable piece of music that helps the album plod along into it's final stretch, but if like me you were hoping this to be just as good as Fort Knox, you will be left disappointed.
Next up is what is perhaps my favourite track on the record; If Love Is The Law. This glorious banger of a tune adds so much to the record overall and sounds mega through a good set of headphones. Johnny Marr's unmistakable guitar playing works awesomely on this track, as does his harmonica work. The lyrics are top notch, Noel's voice sounds great and it is a brilliant tune from start to finish.
The last official track on the album is the title track, The Man Who Built the Moon. This song tells the story of a cowboy full of regrets, using all sorts of interesting metaphors it is definitely the most narrative track on the album. The tone of the song slightly reminds me of The Ballad Of The Mighty I, the closing track from Noel's last record. It is a great song and works fantastically as a way to end this record.
Lastly we have Wednesday - Part 2, which is simply a continuation of Wednesday - Part 1, not much else to say here really.
Finally, we have a bonus track called Dead In The Water. This was recorded live during a session Noel did on an Irish radio station while promoting his previous album. Noel apparently didn't even know he was being recorded at the time while he was singing, which I think makes this song even more special. Allegedly, David Holmes was reluctant to put this on the record, as he felt it was out of place with the rest of the songs on the record, but I am so glad that Noel convinced him otherwise. Noel's voice here, sounds pure and frankly astonishing and the lyrics are fantastic too. The tone sounds similar to Talk Tonight and it is definitely one of the album's best moments.
The one gripe I have about this album, is that while this is a fresh new direction for Noel, it's not a style that hasn't been done before by other bands and arguably been done better. The Gorillaz' records or any of the late Beatles albums serve as a good example of this. Then again, Noel is well known from 'borrowing,' song elements from other artists, so maybe this is as original as it gets for him and we should be grateful for that.
Regardless, as a long time Oasis, (and particularly Noel Gallagher,) fan, I am glad that Noel is doing something new. I am also glad that with both Gallagher brothers now producing music, we won't be getting two extremely similar sounding albums. This is exciting for Oasis fans and can maybe serve as a step forward for fans who are still stuck in the past, in finally getting over their favourite band breaking up - it only took 8 years.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Rescuing Robin Hood in Tabletop Games
Nov 10, 2020
I have a secret to tell you all. I love the Robin Hood IP, even though my only real knowledge of it comes from the “Robin Hood: Men in Tights” and “Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves” movies. I have never read the story, nor have I ever watched the Errol Flynn movie. So why do I love Robin Hood so much? I really can’t tell you for sure, it just seems like such a fun theme with lots of characters and an interesting central plot. So how does this quasi-deck-builder fare? Faire? I think fare. Let’s find out.
Rescuing Robin Hood is a cooperative card drafting and deck building game with multiple value usage on each card and, at least in my very first play, the humbling experience of having over 20 guards protecting the Sheriff of Nottingham. Players will win once Robin Hood is rescued, but may achieve an ultimate victory by defeating the Sheriff and his guard detail.
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 launching November 10, 2020, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, follow the setup suggestion in the rulebook. The game should roughly look how it is below in the photo. Roughly. The components include cards for Nottingham Castle, the Sheriff, his guards, Robin Hood, his band of Merry Men, other recruitable villagers, and a Tracker Card. Along with all the cards, inside the box are tracker cubes and ability chips. Once the game is setup, determine the starting player and the game may begin!
A game of Rescuing Robin Hood lasts five rounds (or “days” to rescue the hero from being executed). Each round has players dealing four cards from their draw decks and using these four villagers in conjunction with their chosen Merry Men character card to create values on the Tracker Card for Wit, Stealth, Brawn, and Jolliness. Some villagers or characters will also provide the player with ability chips to be used during the turn. These include Prayer (which can move guards from one group to another, or eliminate a guard entirely – the power of prayer is REAL), Cookery (which can be used to increase the values of Wit, Stealth, or Brawn by +2 for each chip), and Scouting (which allows a player to reveal a face-down guard card in any group).
Once the active player has adjusted all their values they wish, they may now begin attacking guards. Per the setup card for each round a group of guards are holding villagers captive and they must be defeated in order to free the villagers to be recruited to players’ decks. In order to defeat a guard or entire groups of guards, players will be attacking twice using their Wit, Stealth, and/or Brawn values.
To attack with Wit, the active player will determine which group of guards they will attack and target the face-up guard at the end of the group. If defeated, the player will reduce their total Wit by the value of Wit they expended to defeat the first guard. Should they wish to continue attacking guards with Wit, they must state this before flipping the next guard face-up. This adds the push-your-luck element to the game. Should the player wish to stop, the guards are defeated. Should the player bust, the entire collection of guards previously outwitted are added back to the group face-up to be defeated by another player or by the same player using a different attack method.
If the active player wishes to use Stealth to attack guards, they must choose a group of guards and pick them off one by one. Using their total Stealth value and decreasing it with each successful attack, the player will choose one or more (face-up or face-down) guards to attack. Again, should they succeed the guards will be defeated and removed from play. Should the player bust by attempting to pick off too many guards, then all guards are added back to the group face-up.
Using Brawn to attack guards requires the active player to choose a group of guards and attack the ENTIRE group using their Brawn value. Should the player succeed in defeating all guards in the group (no matter the size of the group) then all guards are removed from play. If the player fails, as always, the guards are returned to the group to taunt the next player.
Active players will be able to attack guards twice on a turn but must use two different attack methods. Should the player end their turn with remaining Brawn or Jolliness values, those values will be passed along to the next player in turn order to be used. Additionally, should the next player end their turn with Brawn or Jolliness, they will be passed to the next player and so on.
At the end of each round villagers that were freed of guards during the round will be drafted to players’ decks. At the end of round 2 and 4 players’ decks will be thinned by choosing which villagers stay and which will aid the players in the final round. The final round of Rescuing Robin Hood pits the players against the walls of Nottingham Castle, a Courtyard full of guards, and even Sheriff Nottingham and his personal guards. Again, should the players defeat the Castle walls and Courtyard, they free Robin Hood and win the game. If the players are feeling particularly confident they may also challenge the Sheriff for ultimate victory.
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of the game using prototype components. That said, the components we received are truly excellent. Firstly, the art style throughout the game is crisp and colorful and a lot of fun. Some of the names of the villagers are downright silly and punny and I absolutely love that. The cards are all wonderful, and the cubes are normal game cubes (not Nintendo-related), and hopefully they will be upgraded via a successful Kickstarter campaign. All in all the components are great and the art is quite enjoyable.
So do I like Rescuing Robin Hood? Oh yes, quite a bit! This game exercises my brain so much without having to labor for minutes on end creating strategies and alternate strategies. I enjoy being able to just barrel into a group of guards and take out the entire swath of them using my extreme Brawniness. Need to pump up before a fight? Well obviously I’ll use up my Jolliness to boost my confidence or narrow my concentration. I purposely omitted several rules so as not to bog down my review any further, but there are so many interesting little flecks of mechanics working together to create a cohesive gaming experience and it is simply delicious.
While Rescuing Robin Hood is not incredibly heavy, there are tons of choices to be made and risks to be taken to achieve ultimate victory. I enjoy being able to tailor my deck with powerful villagers, or specialize in two attack values to unload on guards. Having players that use interesting mixes of Merry Men characters also increases the enjoyment as this game is absolutely cooperative and players may assist each other in many ways. Need some extra Wit for your turn coming up? Here, let me pass along my extra Jolliness to you to use. Want some Cookery too? Go ahead, I’ve got plenty to share. Oh, such great feelings at the table being able to share resources like this.
So I urge you, dear reader, to check out the Kickstarter campaign for Rescuing Robin Hood. If you enjoy lighter (but not tooooo light) cooperative, card drafting, deck building games with a great theme, you need to pick up a copy of Rescuing Robin Hood. I didn’t see Blinkin or Ahchoo in the game, but that’s not to say Castillo Games doesn’t have these hiding in stretch goals (I really don’t know if they are in the plans, but they SHOULD be).
Rescuing Robin Hood is a cooperative card drafting and deck building game with multiple value usage on each card and, at least in my very first play, the humbling experience of having over 20 guards protecting the Sheriff of Nottingham. Players will win once Robin Hood is rescued, but may achieve an ultimate victory by defeating the Sheriff and his guard detail.
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 launching November 10, 2020, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, follow the setup suggestion in the rulebook. The game should roughly look how it is below in the photo. Roughly. The components include cards for Nottingham Castle, the Sheriff, his guards, Robin Hood, his band of Merry Men, other recruitable villagers, and a Tracker Card. Along with all the cards, inside the box are tracker cubes and ability chips. Once the game is setup, determine the starting player and the game may begin!
A game of Rescuing Robin Hood lasts five rounds (or “days” to rescue the hero from being executed). Each round has players dealing four cards from their draw decks and using these four villagers in conjunction with their chosen Merry Men character card to create values on the Tracker Card for Wit, Stealth, Brawn, and Jolliness. Some villagers or characters will also provide the player with ability chips to be used during the turn. These include Prayer (which can move guards from one group to another, or eliminate a guard entirely – the power of prayer is REAL), Cookery (which can be used to increase the values of Wit, Stealth, or Brawn by +2 for each chip), and Scouting (which allows a player to reveal a face-down guard card in any group).
Once the active player has adjusted all their values they wish, they may now begin attacking guards. Per the setup card for each round a group of guards are holding villagers captive and they must be defeated in order to free the villagers to be recruited to players’ decks. In order to defeat a guard or entire groups of guards, players will be attacking twice using their Wit, Stealth, and/or Brawn values.
To attack with Wit, the active player will determine which group of guards they will attack and target the face-up guard at the end of the group. If defeated, the player will reduce their total Wit by the value of Wit they expended to defeat the first guard. Should they wish to continue attacking guards with Wit, they must state this before flipping the next guard face-up. This adds the push-your-luck element to the game. Should the player wish to stop, the guards are defeated. Should the player bust, the entire collection of guards previously outwitted are added back to the group face-up to be defeated by another player or by the same player using a different attack method.
If the active player wishes to use Stealth to attack guards, they must choose a group of guards and pick them off one by one. Using their total Stealth value and decreasing it with each successful attack, the player will choose one or more (face-up or face-down) guards to attack. Again, should they succeed the guards will be defeated and removed from play. Should the player bust by attempting to pick off too many guards, then all guards are added back to the group face-up.
Using Brawn to attack guards requires the active player to choose a group of guards and attack the ENTIRE group using their Brawn value. Should the player succeed in defeating all guards in the group (no matter the size of the group) then all guards are removed from play. If the player fails, as always, the guards are returned to the group to taunt the next player.
Active players will be able to attack guards twice on a turn but must use two different attack methods. Should the player end their turn with remaining Brawn or Jolliness values, those values will be passed along to the next player in turn order to be used. Additionally, should the next player end their turn with Brawn or Jolliness, they will be passed to the next player and so on.
At the end of each round villagers that were freed of guards during the round will be drafted to players’ decks. At the end of round 2 and 4 players’ decks will be thinned by choosing which villagers stay and which will aid the players in the final round. The final round of Rescuing Robin Hood pits the players against the walls of Nottingham Castle, a Courtyard full of guards, and even Sheriff Nottingham and his personal guards. Again, should the players defeat the Castle walls and Courtyard, they free Robin Hood and win the game. If the players are feeling particularly confident they may also challenge the Sheriff for ultimate victory.
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of the game using prototype components. That said, the components we received are truly excellent. Firstly, the art style throughout the game is crisp and colorful and a lot of fun. Some of the names of the villagers are downright silly and punny and I absolutely love that. The cards are all wonderful, and the cubes are normal game cubes (not Nintendo-related), and hopefully they will be upgraded via a successful Kickstarter campaign. All in all the components are great and the art is quite enjoyable.
So do I like Rescuing Robin Hood? Oh yes, quite a bit! This game exercises my brain so much without having to labor for minutes on end creating strategies and alternate strategies. I enjoy being able to just barrel into a group of guards and take out the entire swath of them using my extreme Brawniness. Need to pump up before a fight? Well obviously I’ll use up my Jolliness to boost my confidence or narrow my concentration. I purposely omitted several rules so as not to bog down my review any further, but there are so many interesting little flecks of mechanics working together to create a cohesive gaming experience and it is simply delicious.
While Rescuing Robin Hood is not incredibly heavy, there are tons of choices to be made and risks to be taken to achieve ultimate victory. I enjoy being able to tailor my deck with powerful villagers, or specialize in two attack values to unload on guards. Having players that use interesting mixes of Merry Men characters also increases the enjoyment as this game is absolutely cooperative and players may assist each other in many ways. Need some extra Wit for your turn coming up? Here, let me pass along my extra Jolliness to you to use. Want some Cookery too? Go ahead, I’ve got plenty to share. Oh, such great feelings at the table being able to share resources like this.
So I urge you, dear reader, to check out the Kickstarter campaign for Rescuing Robin Hood. If you enjoy lighter (but not tooooo light) cooperative, card drafting, deck building games with a great theme, you need to pick up a copy of Rescuing Robin Hood. I didn’t see Blinkin or Ahchoo in the game, but that’s not to say Castillo Games doesn’t have these hiding in stretch goals (I really don’t know if they are in the plans, but they SHOULD be).
