Search
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Hunt (2020) in Movies
Nov 14, 2020
Darkly fun
The Hunt follows twelve strangers as they wake up in a clearing with no recollection of how they got there, and soon find themselves hunted for sport by a group of liberal elites.
Starring Betty Gilpin, Hilary Swank, Emma Roberts, Ethan Suplee and Justin Hartley, and written by Nick Cuse and Damon Lindelof, The Hunt’s original release was delayed in 2019 due to a number of mass shootings in America. It was pushed back to Spring 2020 only for it to come out just before the big lockdown for COVID-19, so to say this film has suffered a few setbacks would be an understatement, and this is a shame as it’s actually one of the most enjoyable new releases I’ve seen in 2020 so far.
Right from the opening scene, The Hunt shows you what it’s made of - understated and subtle it is not. It’s a riotously funny and witty parody, poking fun at absolutely everyone in it with it’s on the nose references that are so relevant to today’s political and social climate. Neither the prey or the hunters escape unscathed, in all manner of the word, and everything from climate change to racial prejudices and political ideology feature heavily in the running satire on offer here. This is a darkly funny and very smart film, and it knows it.
What this film is not though, is a horror film. Gory yes and brilliantly so, but it is in no means scary or horrifying. The plot itself is of course reminiscent of Battle Royale and even The Hunger Games, but The Hunt is very much it’s own film. It starts with an overly dramatic score and a decent amount of tension, and shifts into the action virtually straight away - with a short 90 minute runtime, this doesn’t waste it’s time on unnecessary exposition. Whilst I wouldn’t say this isn’t entirely unpredictable, The Hunt still has a few surprises to throw at you. The first half hour plays out a lot differently than you’d expect and makes you wonder if it’s played out it’s hand a little too soon.
But then in walks Betty Gilpin who is by far the star of the show and leads the remaining hour almost single handedly. Gilpin’s Crystal is a kickass, strong, smart heroine and she’s a delight to watch, although even she can’t quite save the lull half way through. Fortunately the lull doesn’t last long and watching Crystal exact her revenge on the hunters is wonderful to watch. Hilary Swank however is on the sidelines for most of the film, and for some bizarre reason whenever she is featured earlier on her face is kept hidden which is a rather strange move when we all know who it is. But despite this, when Swank is finally revealed in the final act she plays the cold, cruel and calculating Athena as a perfect callous bitch. The final exchange and reveal between Athena and Crystal is smart, tense and wickedly funny, and the ensuing fight scene is beautifully choreographed with some great laughs thrown in, and is probably the best fight scene I’ve seen in any film in quite some time.
The Hunt is gloriously over the top and mocks everyone and everything, yet also proves to be an equally thought provoking and relevant commentary on today’s society. As long as you’re not easily offended and don’t take it too seriously, it’ll prove to be hugely entertaining.
Starring Betty Gilpin, Hilary Swank, Emma Roberts, Ethan Suplee and Justin Hartley, and written by Nick Cuse and Damon Lindelof, The Hunt’s original release was delayed in 2019 due to a number of mass shootings in America. It was pushed back to Spring 2020 only for it to come out just before the big lockdown for COVID-19, so to say this film has suffered a few setbacks would be an understatement, and this is a shame as it’s actually one of the most enjoyable new releases I’ve seen in 2020 so far.
Right from the opening scene, The Hunt shows you what it’s made of - understated and subtle it is not. It’s a riotously funny and witty parody, poking fun at absolutely everyone in it with it’s on the nose references that are so relevant to today’s political and social climate. Neither the prey or the hunters escape unscathed, in all manner of the word, and everything from climate change to racial prejudices and political ideology feature heavily in the running satire on offer here. This is a darkly funny and very smart film, and it knows it.
What this film is not though, is a horror film. Gory yes and brilliantly so, but it is in no means scary or horrifying. The plot itself is of course reminiscent of Battle Royale and even The Hunger Games, but The Hunt is very much it’s own film. It starts with an overly dramatic score and a decent amount of tension, and shifts into the action virtually straight away - with a short 90 minute runtime, this doesn’t waste it’s time on unnecessary exposition. Whilst I wouldn’t say this isn’t entirely unpredictable, The Hunt still has a few surprises to throw at you. The first half hour plays out a lot differently than you’d expect and makes you wonder if it’s played out it’s hand a little too soon.
But then in walks Betty Gilpin who is by far the star of the show and leads the remaining hour almost single handedly. Gilpin’s Crystal is a kickass, strong, smart heroine and she’s a delight to watch, although even she can’t quite save the lull half way through. Fortunately the lull doesn’t last long and watching Crystal exact her revenge on the hunters is wonderful to watch. Hilary Swank however is on the sidelines for most of the film, and for some bizarre reason whenever she is featured earlier on her face is kept hidden which is a rather strange move when we all know who it is. But despite this, when Swank is finally revealed in the final act she plays the cold, cruel and calculating Athena as a perfect callous bitch. The final exchange and reveal between Athena and Crystal is smart, tense and wickedly funny, and the ensuing fight scene is beautifully choreographed with some great laughs thrown in, and is probably the best fight scene I’ve seen in any film in quite some time.
The Hunt is gloriously over the top and mocks everyone and everything, yet also proves to be an equally thought provoking and relevant commentary on today’s society. As long as you’re not easily offended and don’t take it too seriously, it’ll prove to be hugely entertaining.
Mike Wilder (20 KP) rated The Hunger Games (2012) in Movies
May 30, 2018
Let the games begin!
Contains spoilers, click to show
This was an interesting film, the marketing was excellent and I wanted to see it even though I knew almost nothing about it. I knew it was based upon a novel but I hadn't read it. Jennifer Lawrence plays the lead of Katniss Everdeen and in my review of X-Men: First Class, I put her as the stand out performance of the film. I could see that she had something special, but would she be up to the task of carrying the whole film? Would my prediction about her be right?
The film is about a girl Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) who volunteers to fight in the Hunger Games taking the place of her younger sister. Competitors in the games are forced to fight to the death until only one is left standing.
There have been many films about people hunting people from Hard Target (1993) with Jean-Claude Van Damme to Surviving the Game (1994) staring Ice-T. The one that is most similar in style is the Japanese classic Battle Royale (2000). It also has youths forced to fight to the death, but where that film was purely designed for adults to shock and horrify you, Hunger Games is based on a book for teenagers and so is the film.
This was a very good film and for the most part it was beautifully shot. The actors in this are perfectly cast which includes Jennifer Lawrence, Stanley Tucci, Liam Hemsworth, Josh Hutcherson, Woody Harrelson, Wes Bentley, Paula Malcomson, Amandla Stenberg & Elizabeth Banks. Once again Jennifer Lawrence is outstanding, this time as the lead. Her portrayal of Katniss Everdeen is captivating. She has a great skill in drawing the audience in and making a connection with them. As with her performance in X-Men: First Class, her skill in portraying emotions comes over amazingly.
The film is a great visual treat, with a good story. However as good as the film is, the film makers failed in the transition from book to screen.
Minor Spoilers The book is set from the perspective of Katniss who is telling the story. However this is not the case with the film. It is just a story. The film really loses a lot from changing the format. With the book you get a lot of the history of the Hunger Games and you understand what they are all about. With the film this is missed out and barely covered in a small written intro. All the film needed to do was to have Katniss telling the story at least up until the point where her sister is chosen. Her giving a background narrative over the start of the film would have made a perfect introduction. The way it was done left me as a viewer without the necessary information I felt was needed to create an emotional connection to the characters and the story. Fortunately for me I started to read the book the night before the viewing as I had read that the film was a little vague during the opening scenes. This gave me the background that unfortunately the viewers of the film wouldn't necessarily have.
Minor Spoilers end The intentionally shaky camera shots get a bit too much at times and the lack of blood and carnage is a little too unbelievable and while overall this is a good film, it could have been a great film. If you have already read the book you should enjoy the film more than if you haven't.
8 out of 10 if you haven't read the book 9 out of 10 if you have read the book.
The film is about a girl Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) who volunteers to fight in the Hunger Games taking the place of her younger sister. Competitors in the games are forced to fight to the death until only one is left standing.
There have been many films about people hunting people from Hard Target (1993) with Jean-Claude Van Damme to Surviving the Game (1994) staring Ice-T. The one that is most similar in style is the Japanese classic Battle Royale (2000). It also has youths forced to fight to the death, but where that film was purely designed for adults to shock and horrify you, Hunger Games is based on a book for teenagers and so is the film.
This was a very good film and for the most part it was beautifully shot. The actors in this are perfectly cast which includes Jennifer Lawrence, Stanley Tucci, Liam Hemsworth, Josh Hutcherson, Woody Harrelson, Wes Bentley, Paula Malcomson, Amandla Stenberg & Elizabeth Banks. Once again Jennifer Lawrence is outstanding, this time as the lead. Her portrayal of Katniss Everdeen is captivating. She has a great skill in drawing the audience in and making a connection with them. As with her performance in X-Men: First Class, her skill in portraying emotions comes over amazingly.
The film is a great visual treat, with a good story. However as good as the film is, the film makers failed in the transition from book to screen.
Minor Spoilers The book is set from the perspective of Katniss who is telling the story. However this is not the case with the film. It is just a story. The film really loses a lot from changing the format. With the book you get a lot of the history of the Hunger Games and you understand what they are all about. With the film this is missed out and barely covered in a small written intro. All the film needed to do was to have Katniss telling the story at least up until the point where her sister is chosen. Her giving a background narrative over the start of the film would have made a perfect introduction. The way it was done left me as a viewer without the necessary information I felt was needed to create an emotional connection to the characters and the story. Fortunately for me I started to read the book the night before the viewing as I had read that the film was a little vague during the opening scenes. This gave me the background that unfortunately the viewers of the film wouldn't necessarily have.
Minor Spoilers end The intentionally shaky camera shots get a bit too much at times and the lack of blood and carnage is a little too unbelievable and while overall this is a good film, it could have been a great film. If you have already read the book you should enjoy the film more than if you haven't.
8 out of 10 if you haven't read the book 9 out of 10 if you have read the book.
Kayleigh (12 KP) rated The Hunger Games in Books
Jan 2, 2019
I finished this book for the second time around 15 minutes ago, and I’m still missing being part of its world. Yes, it’s that good. Actually, I read the whole book just today. The first time I read it, just before the film came out, I’d followed a friend’s recommendation to read the books first, and devoured all three in as many days. I then had to give up my Kindle for a few days so that my friend could read it, and she was just as enamoured. I know my American cousins loved it too. Safe to say, it was very popular in my circle of friends! I have heard a couple of dismissive comments saying it’s a rip-off of Battle Royale, but I haven’t read that yet, so I’ll reserve judgement.
Set in post-apocalyptic America, now known as Panem, the book very quickly sets Katniss, the protagonist, up as a fiercely protective older sister. <spoiler>So protective, she learnt to hunt, barter on the black market and generally help her family survive when their father dies and their mother is overcome by depression. So protective, she volunteers in her sister’s place for the practically suicidal Hunger Games.</spoiler> It’s not long into the book that the reaping takes place, but by the time it does, the reader knows all they need to about who Katniss is, where she’s coming from, and also sets the scene for her dilemma over the coming books. I was rooting for her all the way, and the way Suzanne Collins writes from Katniss’s perspective is extremely effective. I was constantly sympathising with her, while at the same time simply admiring how the cogs in her mind worked in helping her to survive. None of it seemed contrived.
I’m a really big fan of dystopias anyway, but I loved what this plot was based on. Collins has said that her idea for The Hunger Games came from reality TV, and what might happen if it got warped. In a society where it’s almost impossible to avoid reality television, the plot is really contemporary, whilst also having a definite mix of Orwell’s Big Brother in there. Having also read the next two stories before, I know it gets a lot darker, but I’ll review those another time. <spoiler>In the TV context, it’s also really easy to see how anything that boosted ratings (the “star-crossed lovers”) would be extremely powerful. It took me a while to get this, but actually, being torn between Gale and Peeta is quite understandable, given the different extremes she knows both under. I suppose comparisons could be made, but it’s definitely no Twilight.</spoiler>
The pacing of the book is done brilliantly (hence why I’ve read it twice, both taking less than a day!). Collins controls the twists and turns of the plot as adeptly as the gamemakers. The main characters are really multi-faceted, and the important themes – action, politics, and yes, even love – all come out in sometimes unexpected places.
Having also seen the film, I’m really impressed with how well it translated across. Obviously, no film can ever compete with the level of detail and the reader’s own imagination in a book, but it was good. I can’t remember what I thought of casting at the time, but I must admit, I did see Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson in my mind when reading the book this time. This may come across as a backhanded compliment, but Jennifer Lawrence seems to have the right level of awkwardness/social unease in front of the cameras that I associated with Katniss, and also fits the book’s description.
This review is also on my <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com">blog</a>; - if you liked it, please check it out!
Set in post-apocalyptic America, now known as Panem, the book very quickly sets Katniss, the protagonist, up as a fiercely protective older sister. <spoiler>So protective, she learnt to hunt, barter on the black market and generally help her family survive when their father dies and their mother is overcome by depression. So protective, she volunteers in her sister’s place for the practically suicidal Hunger Games.</spoiler> It’s not long into the book that the reaping takes place, but by the time it does, the reader knows all they need to about who Katniss is, where she’s coming from, and also sets the scene for her dilemma over the coming books. I was rooting for her all the way, and the way Suzanne Collins writes from Katniss’s perspective is extremely effective. I was constantly sympathising with her, while at the same time simply admiring how the cogs in her mind worked in helping her to survive. None of it seemed contrived.
I’m a really big fan of dystopias anyway, but I loved what this plot was based on. Collins has said that her idea for The Hunger Games came from reality TV, and what might happen if it got warped. In a society where it’s almost impossible to avoid reality television, the plot is really contemporary, whilst also having a definite mix of Orwell’s Big Brother in there. Having also read the next two stories before, I know it gets a lot darker, but I’ll review those another time. <spoiler>In the TV context, it’s also really easy to see how anything that boosted ratings (the “star-crossed lovers”) would be extremely powerful. It took me a while to get this, but actually, being torn between Gale and Peeta is quite understandable, given the different extremes she knows both under. I suppose comparisons could be made, but it’s definitely no Twilight.</spoiler>
The pacing of the book is done brilliantly (hence why I’ve read it twice, both taking less than a day!). Collins controls the twists and turns of the plot as adeptly as the gamemakers. The main characters are really multi-faceted, and the important themes – action, politics, and yes, even love – all come out in sometimes unexpected places.
Having also seen the film, I’m really impressed with how well it translated across. Obviously, no film can ever compete with the level of detail and the reader’s own imagination in a book, but it was good. I can’t remember what I thought of casting at the time, but I must admit, I did see Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson in my mind when reading the book this time. This may come across as a backhanded compliment, but Jennifer Lawrence seems to have the right level of awkwardness/social unease in front of the cameras that I associated with Katniss, and also fits the book’s description.
This review is also on my <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com">blog</a>; - if you liked it, please check it out!
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Widows (2018) in Movies
Nov 14, 2018 (Updated Nov 14, 2018)
Outstanding performances from the entire cast (3 more)
Phenomenal Direction
Clever Cinematography
A Brilliant Script With Sharp Dialogue
The Best Movie I Have Seen This Year
Widows is an outstanding thriller from Steve McQueen. It stars a brilliant Viola Davis as Veronica Rawlings at the top of her game as a widow of her criminal husband. He and his crew died during the heist and now she and the other widows of the recently deceased crew decide to complete the heist and take the money for themselves. That is the basic plot outline, but it is actually a lot more in depth and layered than that, embroiled in politics and gang rivalries, amongst even more complex elements. However, although there are a lot of moving parts in the film, it never seems confused or messy. It doesn't treat it's audience like idiots either, as long as you are paying attention.
The cast are astonishing in the movie and I truly believe that is the sign of a great director getting the best out of his actors. Viola Davis is an acting powerhouse, making you want to cry one moment and then stand up and jump into battle with her the next. That woman could read the phonebook and make it sound convincingly intense. She is supported by a fantastic turn from Michelle Rodrigez, an actress who I have been a fan of for years, but can sometimes be known to come across fairly wooden. Not here, she is convincing and passionate in every scene she appears in. I also really liked seeing Elizabeth Debecki playing against type here. She is usually cast as a 'perfect,' type of character, such as Tom Hiddleston's love interest in Night Manager or as a member of the perfect alien race in Guardians of The Galaxy. Here she is a much more realistic, down to earth character. Cynthia Erivo, who came out of nowhere and blew me away in Bad Times At The El Royale, also appears here as the crew's driver and gives a genuine, energetic performance who is also the first one to stand up to Veronica's hard-ass attitude. Carrie Coon appears briefly as another widow, but her role is more of a cameo than anything else, it is still important to the story though towards the film's conclusion.
The male actors in the film are equally as brilliant as their female counterparts. I don't want to give too much away about Liam Neeson's Henry Rawlings, but he is convincing and engaging in every part of his performance. Jon Bernthal is slowly becoming the king of appearing in small impactful roles in big ensemble movies. He has already done this in Wolf Of Wall Street, Baby Driver, Sicario and Wind River and he does it here too appearing in a small but memorable role as one of Henry's crew. Colin Farrell and Robert Duvall are great as usual here, as a believable father and son duo. Daniel Kaluuya deserves a special shout out as the movie's main antagonist. This role really gives Kaluuya a chance to flex his more cruel acting skills and show off his versatility as a performer.
The script written by McQueen and Gillian Flynn is full of razor sharp wit and electrifying moments. This is the type of golden material that most actors dream of getting to work with. The movie is shot by Sean Bobbitt who uses an array of clever camera angles and techniques to help convey the mood of each scene. Bobbit also shot Hunger, Shame and 12 Years a Slave and there is a reason that McQueen continues to use him to shoot his films. The score and audio mixing was also effective and helped to amplify the atmosphere throughout the movie.
Overall, Widows is a perfect storm of extremely high quality technical aspects and exquisite performances from an exceptionally talented ensemble of actors. If you didn't get what you wanted out of a female led heist thriller from Ocean's 8, then go out and see this masterpiece asap.
The cast are astonishing in the movie and I truly believe that is the sign of a great director getting the best out of his actors. Viola Davis is an acting powerhouse, making you want to cry one moment and then stand up and jump into battle with her the next. That woman could read the phonebook and make it sound convincingly intense. She is supported by a fantastic turn from Michelle Rodrigez, an actress who I have been a fan of for years, but can sometimes be known to come across fairly wooden. Not here, she is convincing and passionate in every scene she appears in. I also really liked seeing Elizabeth Debecki playing against type here. She is usually cast as a 'perfect,' type of character, such as Tom Hiddleston's love interest in Night Manager or as a member of the perfect alien race in Guardians of The Galaxy. Here she is a much more realistic, down to earth character. Cynthia Erivo, who came out of nowhere and blew me away in Bad Times At The El Royale, also appears here as the crew's driver and gives a genuine, energetic performance who is also the first one to stand up to Veronica's hard-ass attitude. Carrie Coon appears briefly as another widow, but her role is more of a cameo than anything else, it is still important to the story though towards the film's conclusion.
The male actors in the film are equally as brilliant as their female counterparts. I don't want to give too much away about Liam Neeson's Henry Rawlings, but he is convincing and engaging in every part of his performance. Jon Bernthal is slowly becoming the king of appearing in small impactful roles in big ensemble movies. He has already done this in Wolf Of Wall Street, Baby Driver, Sicario and Wind River and he does it here too appearing in a small but memorable role as one of Henry's crew. Colin Farrell and Robert Duvall are great as usual here, as a believable father and son duo. Daniel Kaluuya deserves a special shout out as the movie's main antagonist. This role really gives Kaluuya a chance to flex his more cruel acting skills and show off his versatility as a performer.
The script written by McQueen and Gillian Flynn is full of razor sharp wit and electrifying moments. This is the type of golden material that most actors dream of getting to work with. The movie is shot by Sean Bobbitt who uses an array of clever camera angles and techniques to help convey the mood of each scene. Bobbit also shot Hunger, Shame and 12 Years a Slave and there is a reason that McQueen continues to use him to shoot his films. The score and audio mixing was also effective and helped to amplify the atmosphere throughout the movie.
Overall, Widows is a perfect storm of extremely high quality technical aspects and exquisite performances from an exceptionally talented ensemble of actors. If you didn't get what you wanted out of a female led heist thriller from Ocean's 8, then go out and see this masterpiece asap.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ghost in the Shell (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A robot you could take home to meet mother.
I was intrigued to watch the other day (purely for the interest in the technology employed of course!) a short Guardian video on the development of the world’s first fully functioning sex robot: a disturbing watch, requiring a fairly broad mind. Watching it on the same day as going to see Scarlett Johansson’s new film “Ghost in the Shell” though was a mistake, since the similarities between Johansson’s character (‘Major’) and the animatronic sex doll (‘Harmony’) were… erm… distracting.
Johansson is a stunning actress, with unquestionably a stunning figure that she loves to show off, but you would have to start questioning her film choices: since there is hardly a hair’s breadth between the emotionally reserved superhero depiction here and her recent roles in “Lucy” and “Under the Skin“. With her other ongoing “Avengers” superhero work as Natasha Romanoff, and nothing much else beyond that other than brief cameos (“Hail Caesar“, “Hitchcock“) and voice work, its all getting a bit ‘samey’: I’d like to see her get back to her more dramatic roles like “Lost in Translation” that really launched her career.
Anyhoo, back to this flick. Set in the dazzling fictional Japanese city of Niihama, Johansson plays a terrorist victim saved only by having her brain transplanted into an android by the Hanka corporation. In this time (40 years in the future) human ‘upgrades’ with cybernetic technology are commonplace, but Major is a ‘first of a kind’ experiment. Hanka are not pure humanitarians though, since they have turned Major into a lethal fighting weapon with powers of invisibility and lightning reactions. She works for a shadowy anti-terrorism unit called Section 9, led by the Japanese speaking Aramaki (Takeshi Kitano, “Battle Royale”).
The upside of having no human form is that if you get burned or blown up, the team of cyber-surgeons back at Hanka, led by Dr. Ouelet (Juliette Binoche), can rebuild her – – they “have the technology” to quote another bionic hero.
But all is not necessarily well in the idyll of anti-terrorist slashing and burning. Major suffers from recurring ‘glitches’ of memories from her past life: a life that she has no clear memories of. Her latest mission against a deformed and vindictive terrorist called Kuze (Michael Pitt) progressively resurfaces more of these memories, since Kuze clearly knows more about Major than she does.
“Ghost in the Shell” looks glorious, with the Hong Kong-like city being in the style of Blade Runner but with more holograms. (What exactly the holograms are supposed to be doing or advertising is rather unclear!). The cinematography and special effects deserve an Oscar nomination.
Given the film is based on an original Manga series, written and illustrated by Masamune Shirow and well known for its complexity, this Hollywood version has a surprisingly simple and linear story. As such it may disappoint the hoard of fans who adore the original materials.
Treating it as a standalone film, it should have an emotional depth beyond the superficial action, dealing as it does with loyalty and family ties. However, the scripting and editing is rather pedestrian making the whole thing a bit dull. Johansson and Pilou Asbæk, as her co-worker Batou, breathe what life they can into the material; but Binoche is less convincing as the Dr Frankenstein-style doctor. The best act in the piece though is Takeshi Kitano as the kick-ass OAP with attitude.
Where I had particular issues was in some of the detail of the action. ‘Invisibility’ is an attribute that needs to be metered out very carefully in the movies: Harry Potter just about got away with it; in “Die Another Day” it nearly killed the Bond franchise for good. Here, exactly how the androids can achieve invisibility is never explained and I disliked that intently. Similarly, the androids can clearly be physically damaged, yet Major seems to start each mission by throwing herself headfirst off the tallest skyscraper. Again, never explained.
Even though the premise, and the opening titles, brought back bad memories of that truly terrible Star Trek episode “Spock’s Brain”, this is a dark and thoughtful adaptation with great CGI effects but unfortunately its pedestrian pace means it is one that never truly breaks through into the upper echelons of Sci Fi greatness. Worth a watch though.
Johansson is a stunning actress, with unquestionably a stunning figure that she loves to show off, but you would have to start questioning her film choices: since there is hardly a hair’s breadth between the emotionally reserved superhero depiction here and her recent roles in “Lucy” and “Under the Skin“. With her other ongoing “Avengers” superhero work as Natasha Romanoff, and nothing much else beyond that other than brief cameos (“Hail Caesar“, “Hitchcock“) and voice work, its all getting a bit ‘samey’: I’d like to see her get back to her more dramatic roles like “Lost in Translation” that really launched her career.
Anyhoo, back to this flick. Set in the dazzling fictional Japanese city of Niihama, Johansson plays a terrorist victim saved only by having her brain transplanted into an android by the Hanka corporation. In this time (40 years in the future) human ‘upgrades’ with cybernetic technology are commonplace, but Major is a ‘first of a kind’ experiment. Hanka are not pure humanitarians though, since they have turned Major into a lethal fighting weapon with powers of invisibility and lightning reactions. She works for a shadowy anti-terrorism unit called Section 9, led by the Japanese speaking Aramaki (Takeshi Kitano, “Battle Royale”).
The upside of having no human form is that if you get burned or blown up, the team of cyber-surgeons back at Hanka, led by Dr. Ouelet (Juliette Binoche), can rebuild her – – they “have the technology” to quote another bionic hero.
But all is not necessarily well in the idyll of anti-terrorist slashing and burning. Major suffers from recurring ‘glitches’ of memories from her past life: a life that she has no clear memories of. Her latest mission against a deformed and vindictive terrorist called Kuze (Michael Pitt) progressively resurfaces more of these memories, since Kuze clearly knows more about Major than she does.
“Ghost in the Shell” looks glorious, with the Hong Kong-like city being in the style of Blade Runner but with more holograms. (What exactly the holograms are supposed to be doing or advertising is rather unclear!). The cinematography and special effects deserve an Oscar nomination.
Given the film is based on an original Manga series, written and illustrated by Masamune Shirow and well known for its complexity, this Hollywood version has a surprisingly simple and linear story. As such it may disappoint the hoard of fans who adore the original materials.
Treating it as a standalone film, it should have an emotional depth beyond the superficial action, dealing as it does with loyalty and family ties. However, the scripting and editing is rather pedestrian making the whole thing a bit dull. Johansson and Pilou Asbæk, as her co-worker Batou, breathe what life they can into the material; but Binoche is less convincing as the Dr Frankenstein-style doctor. The best act in the piece though is Takeshi Kitano as the kick-ass OAP with attitude.
Where I had particular issues was in some of the detail of the action. ‘Invisibility’ is an attribute that needs to be metered out very carefully in the movies: Harry Potter just about got away with it; in “Die Another Day” it nearly killed the Bond franchise for good. Here, exactly how the androids can achieve invisibility is never explained and I disliked that intently. Similarly, the androids can clearly be physically damaged, yet Major seems to start each mission by throwing herself headfirst off the tallest skyscraper. Again, never explained.
Even though the premise, and the opening titles, brought back bad memories of that truly terrible Star Trek episode “Spock’s Brain”, this is a dark and thoughtful adaptation with great CGI effects but unfortunately its pedestrian pace means it is one that never truly breaks through into the upper echelons of Sci Fi greatness. Worth a watch though.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Call of Duty: Black Ops 4 in Video Games
Jun 19, 2019
The latest in the popular Call of Duty series has arrived with Call of Duty: Black Ops IIII. The game has made the controversial decision to forgo the traditional campaign in favor of a Battle Royale mode known as Blackout and a more expansive online experience which includes more Zombie modes and a greater emphasis on gameplay.
I played the game first at E3 and then again during the Beta phases for the game so I had a decent familiarity with what to expect when the full release version of the game arrived.
After several days of playing the game, I have to say it is to me a mixed bag and many aspects of it disappointed me which is very frustrating as fan of the series since the very first game.
The look and feel of the game does not come across to me as a new game but instead to me look and play like DLC for Call of Duty: Black Ops 3. Many of the maps seem familiar and have been updated from their appearances in previous games. The same holds true for the weapons and kill streaks. I am not saying it is not fun, but it all has a sense of having seen most of it before.
Another very annoying change to the game is the severe limitation of grenades in the game. Usually a player has a grenade option which comes in handy when Snipers setup behind cover. Without the ability to lob a grenade to get Snipers out from cover, players are easy pickings, especially when the first appear on the screen. You can unload a full clip into a player at a distance and still end up dead with one shot from a sniper. As such you have to wait until you reach level 42 in order to add them to your customized loadout and even then they are very Nerfed from what players have come to expect.
The multiplayer modes are what you have come to expect as there are the Team Deathmatch variations as well as the Capture and Control modes and a new mode called Heist where players need to capture or prevent the capture of a target.
For me the most enjoyable aspect of the game was the Zombie modes as not only were the players I was matched with usually very helpful, but they were also much friendlier than many of the other people I encountered.
The Blackout mode is very popular with gamers but not being a fan of the One and Done mode of play, I found myself enjoying the vast details of the map and preferring to work with a team, capturing vehicles, and such. I have seen multiple players unload point blank on a player in this mode only to see them walk away and one shot kill their attackers. This is either a hack or an example of how imbalanced things can be at times and you will see multiple instances of players taking numerous hits and walking away while others go down with one shot.
Black Ops IIII does not have a regenerative health system and instead requires players to use a timed injection in order to restore health.
This is all designed to foster teamwork and to make the game more appealing to the eSports community. While this is nice, it deviates from much of what has made the game so appealing from the start.
The game to me seems like it was hurried to market as it released on October 12th vs the traditional November release date. I am sure a big part of this was a desire to beat Red Dead Redemption 2 to market but in doing so it seems that things are missing from the final product.
There is much to like about the game as it is still an exciting and intense experience but to me is the first Call of Duty game to not feel shiny and new but instead more of the same in many cases.
The developers have supported the game with numerous updates and there are more on the way as well as planned DLC down the road so the game as it is now is likely to change in the next few months as more feedback is given to developers and new features are added.
Hopefully they will also look to add a campaign at a later date as although it is fun, it seems lacking and dated in many aspects as the changes seem like a step back to me rather than progress.
http://sknr.net/2018/10/23/call-of-duty-black-ops-iiii-2/
I played the game first at E3 and then again during the Beta phases for the game so I had a decent familiarity with what to expect when the full release version of the game arrived.
After several days of playing the game, I have to say it is to me a mixed bag and many aspects of it disappointed me which is very frustrating as fan of the series since the very first game.
The look and feel of the game does not come across to me as a new game but instead to me look and play like DLC for Call of Duty: Black Ops 3. Many of the maps seem familiar and have been updated from their appearances in previous games. The same holds true for the weapons and kill streaks. I am not saying it is not fun, but it all has a sense of having seen most of it before.
Another very annoying change to the game is the severe limitation of grenades in the game. Usually a player has a grenade option which comes in handy when Snipers setup behind cover. Without the ability to lob a grenade to get Snipers out from cover, players are easy pickings, especially when the first appear on the screen. You can unload a full clip into a player at a distance and still end up dead with one shot from a sniper. As such you have to wait until you reach level 42 in order to add them to your customized loadout and even then they are very Nerfed from what players have come to expect.
The multiplayer modes are what you have come to expect as there are the Team Deathmatch variations as well as the Capture and Control modes and a new mode called Heist where players need to capture or prevent the capture of a target.
For me the most enjoyable aspect of the game was the Zombie modes as not only were the players I was matched with usually very helpful, but they were also much friendlier than many of the other people I encountered.
The Blackout mode is very popular with gamers but not being a fan of the One and Done mode of play, I found myself enjoying the vast details of the map and preferring to work with a team, capturing vehicles, and such. I have seen multiple players unload point blank on a player in this mode only to see them walk away and one shot kill their attackers. This is either a hack or an example of how imbalanced things can be at times and you will see multiple instances of players taking numerous hits and walking away while others go down with one shot.
Black Ops IIII does not have a regenerative health system and instead requires players to use a timed injection in order to restore health.
This is all designed to foster teamwork and to make the game more appealing to the eSports community. While this is nice, it deviates from much of what has made the game so appealing from the start.
The game to me seems like it was hurried to market as it released on October 12th vs the traditional November release date. I am sure a big part of this was a desire to beat Red Dead Redemption 2 to market but in doing so it seems that things are missing from the final product.
There is much to like about the game as it is still an exciting and intense experience but to me is the first Call of Duty game to not feel shiny and new but instead more of the same in many cases.
The developers have supported the game with numerous updates and there are more on the way as well as planned DLC down the road so the game as it is now is likely to change in the next few months as more feedback is given to developers and new features are added.
Hopefully they will also look to add a campaign at a later date as although it is fun, it seems lacking and dated in many aspects as the changes seem like a step back to me rather than progress.
http://sknr.net/2018/10/23/call-of-duty-black-ops-iiii-2/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Downton Abbey (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Very little happens…. and it’s totally glorious!
The “Downton Abbey” TV show is comfortingly bland. The tales of the well-heeled Grantham family and the below-stairs antics of their servants. But for those who have followed Julian Fellowes‘ pot-boiler drama through all six seasons, and a number of Christmas specials, it’s like a favourite jumper… or rediscovering your comfy slippers just as the nights start getting colder.
But in a world where TV spin-off movies are notoriously dire, would this movie by the nail in Downton’s coffin?
Thankfully not.
It’s a glorious production! The opening of this film will, I’m sure, fill all Downton fans with utter glee. John Lunn‘s music builds progressively as a royal letter wends its way through the 1927 postal system, eventually ending up (as the famous theme finally emerges spectacularly) at the doors of Downton Abbey. (Downton is of course the gorgeous Highclere Castle near Newbury, acting as a star of the film in its own right. Somewhere I was lucky enough to visit just a couple of weeks before filming began).
The plot(s).
In a year of Thanos-crushing drama, there really is nothing very substantial going on here!
The King (George V, an almost unrecognizable Simon “Hitchhikers Guide” Jones) and Queen Mary (Geraldine James) are staying over in Downton for one night on their Yorkshire tour. This naturally sets the below-stairs staff into a bit of a tizz, as indeed it does the whole village. But their glee at involvement and recognition is a bit premature, since the royal entourage – headed by an officious Mr Wilson (David Haig) – parachute the complete gamut of staff into the location to serve the royal party, so bypassing the locals completely.
The ‘Downton massive’ are of course having none of this, and a battle-royale ensues.
Scattered as sub-plots like confetti at a wedding are a military man putting a strong arm around the potentially-risky Irish Tom Branson (Allen Leech); a family rift that erupts between Aunt Violet (Maggie Smith) and cousin (and royal lady-in-waiting) Maud Bagshaw (Imelda Staunton); a sobbing princess (Kate Phillips); an over-enthusiastic shopkeeper (Mark Addy), who is difficult to let-down gently; a plumbing emergency with romantic jealousy and sabotage involved; the sexual preferences of Barrow (Robert James-Collier) getting him into trouble; and a potential love-interest for the widowed Tom with Maud’s maid Lucy (Tuppence Middleton). (There are probably half a dozen others that I’ve forgotten!)
A huge ensemble cast.
As befits a show that has gone over six seasons, there is a huge ensemble cast involved. Inevitably, some get more air time than others. Bates (Brendan Coyle) seems to be particularly short-changed, and above stairs I thought the same was true – strangely enough – of the Crawleys (Hugh Bonneville and Elizabeth McGovern).
As for Henry Talbot (Matthew Goode), he’s hardly in it at all! Apart from some impressive camera gymnastics for his running-up-the-stairs arrival, he doesn’t make much of an impression at all. (I can only guess he had other filming commitments).
These are players that have worked together as a team for many years, and it shows.
But the acting kudos has to go to Maggie Smith who steals absolutely every scene she’s in, with genuinely witty lines – “I’ll lick the stamps myself” (LoL). Close behind though is Imelda Staunton who also turns in a very impressive performance.
Glorious photography.
The photography is fantastic throughout, with deep rich colours, pin-sharp focus and some seriously dramatic pans. A big hats off to cinematographer Ben Smithard, but also to his drone team (“The helicopter ladies”) for delivering some jaw-droppingly gorgeous shots of Highclere castle.
(By the way, I thought the picture at my local Picturehouse cinema – Harbour Lights in Southampton – was particularly stunning: I queried it with them, and they said they had changed the (very expensive) projector bulb just that day! These things clearly matter!)
Will is appeal?
If you are a Downton fan, yes, Yes, YES! I have been a moderate fan of the TV series, but went with superfans – the illustrious Mrs Movie-Man and (as a guest visitor) Miss Movie-Man. I loved it, but the two ladies were ecstatic with the movie.
Even if you have never seen an episode, it is easy to pick up and the quality of the production is so impressive I don’t think you will be disappointed.
As such, I think I need to post a blend of ratings for this one.
But in a world where TV spin-off movies are notoriously dire, would this movie by the nail in Downton’s coffin?
Thankfully not.
It’s a glorious production! The opening of this film will, I’m sure, fill all Downton fans with utter glee. John Lunn‘s music builds progressively as a royal letter wends its way through the 1927 postal system, eventually ending up (as the famous theme finally emerges spectacularly) at the doors of Downton Abbey. (Downton is of course the gorgeous Highclere Castle near Newbury, acting as a star of the film in its own right. Somewhere I was lucky enough to visit just a couple of weeks before filming began).
The plot(s).
In a year of Thanos-crushing drama, there really is nothing very substantial going on here!
The King (George V, an almost unrecognizable Simon “Hitchhikers Guide” Jones) and Queen Mary (Geraldine James) are staying over in Downton for one night on their Yorkshire tour. This naturally sets the below-stairs staff into a bit of a tizz, as indeed it does the whole village. But their glee at involvement and recognition is a bit premature, since the royal entourage – headed by an officious Mr Wilson (David Haig) – parachute the complete gamut of staff into the location to serve the royal party, so bypassing the locals completely.
The ‘Downton massive’ are of course having none of this, and a battle-royale ensues.
Scattered as sub-plots like confetti at a wedding are a military man putting a strong arm around the potentially-risky Irish Tom Branson (Allen Leech); a family rift that erupts between Aunt Violet (Maggie Smith) and cousin (and royal lady-in-waiting) Maud Bagshaw (Imelda Staunton); a sobbing princess (Kate Phillips); an over-enthusiastic shopkeeper (Mark Addy), who is difficult to let-down gently; a plumbing emergency with romantic jealousy and sabotage involved; the sexual preferences of Barrow (Robert James-Collier) getting him into trouble; and a potential love-interest for the widowed Tom with Maud’s maid Lucy (Tuppence Middleton). (There are probably half a dozen others that I’ve forgotten!)
A huge ensemble cast.
As befits a show that has gone over six seasons, there is a huge ensemble cast involved. Inevitably, some get more air time than others. Bates (Brendan Coyle) seems to be particularly short-changed, and above stairs I thought the same was true – strangely enough – of the Crawleys (Hugh Bonneville and Elizabeth McGovern).
As for Henry Talbot (Matthew Goode), he’s hardly in it at all! Apart from some impressive camera gymnastics for his running-up-the-stairs arrival, he doesn’t make much of an impression at all. (I can only guess he had other filming commitments).
These are players that have worked together as a team for many years, and it shows.
But the acting kudos has to go to Maggie Smith who steals absolutely every scene she’s in, with genuinely witty lines – “I’ll lick the stamps myself” (LoL). Close behind though is Imelda Staunton who also turns in a very impressive performance.
Glorious photography.
The photography is fantastic throughout, with deep rich colours, pin-sharp focus and some seriously dramatic pans. A big hats off to cinematographer Ben Smithard, but also to his drone team (“The helicopter ladies”) for delivering some jaw-droppingly gorgeous shots of Highclere castle.
(By the way, I thought the picture at my local Picturehouse cinema – Harbour Lights in Southampton – was particularly stunning: I queried it with them, and they said they had changed the (very expensive) projector bulb just that day! These things clearly matter!)
Will is appeal?
If you are a Downton fan, yes, Yes, YES! I have been a moderate fan of the TV series, but went with superfans – the illustrious Mrs Movie-Man and (as a guest visitor) Miss Movie-Man. I loved it, but the two ladies were ecstatic with the movie.
Even if you have never seen an episode, it is easy to pick up and the quality of the production is so impressive I don’t think you will be disappointed.
As such, I think I need to post a blend of ratings for this one.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated War of the Worlds (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In a summer season of grand blockbusters, War of the Worlds” is perhaps the biggest dud in years, and is a failure of epic proportions. The film is a remake of the classic 1953 film of the same name which like the new one is inspired from the H.G. Wells novel of 1898.
The new version is directed by Steven Spielberg, and stars Tom Cruise as Ray Ferrier, a divorced dockworker who is spending some time with his estranged children, Robbie (Justin Chatwin), and Rachael (Dakota Fanning), while his ex-wife and her new husband take a trip.
The children are very cold to Ray as they feel they were dumped on their mother as Ray only cares about himself. When a series of freak electrical storms hits various cities around the world, Ray attempts to comfort his children who are disturbed by the storm as well as the fact that all electronic devices have ceased to function.
Ray leaves the children at home and ventures into the neighborhood and is soon facing a waking nightmare as giant machines burst from the ground laying waste to everything in their paths.
Ray gathers his family and flees in a working vehicle trying to stay one step ahead of the alien machines in an attempt to find safety and reunite the children with their mother in Boston.
As basic as the above plot outline is, it is pretty much the entire plot of the film. There is little else to it aside from a few interruptions such as the family seeking shelter in a couple of houses or facing an angry mob as they attempt to reach a ferry.
While a thin plot can be excused for many action films, what cannot be excused are the painfully bad lack of any excitement in the film and the lack of any compelling action or suspense.
We are supposed to believe that the world is being destroyed by the alien’s but aside from a few blasted bridges, and small buildings, we see a surprising lack of carnage. There are no sequences of classic landmarks being reduced to rubble, there are no scenes of vast armies locked in a desperate struggle against the invaders.
Instead, we get a sequence of helicopters firing, and a line of soldiers firing, but they never show us what they are shooting at, nor do we see the alien retaliation behind a bright explosion and a few vehicles emerging on fire. This is particularly frustrating when you consider that the 1954 version at least showed a few tanks being blasted outright.
Another issue I had with the film was the painfully obvious superimposed backdrops as during the films limited action scenes; the background was clearly inserted into the shot as it was so fuzzy that it did not fit in with the events in the foreground.
While I am willing to dismiss this as stylistic nitpicking what cannot be ignored is that for most of the films running length, the cast does little more than stand around waiting for something to happen.
There are no great segments of character development, no insight into why the aliens waited all this time to attack when they could have done so centuries earlier, why they want the planet, and numerous other plot holes, some of which are so glaring. One of my favorites was the guy who was able to use a video camera to record the opening attacks when it was clearly shown that all electronic devices were rendered useless.
Much has been made of Cruise’s recent off screen actions and I must say that those have been far more interesting and engaging than his performance here. Cruise spends the majority of the film in a wide-eyed gaze or frantically moving and yelling. His character like his annoyingly bratty daughter are so unsympathetic, I found myself hoping that the aliens would take them out and end our suffering.
I hate stated prior that I thought this film may have problems as in light of films such as “ID4”, the story would seem bland to modern audiences unless the action was increased and there was a dynamic story with interesting characters. Sadly all of those are missing from a film that also has one of the worst endings in recent history.
There is no build up, no final confrontation, no moment of high tension to get to the payoff; it just ends with a whimper. One would think that a grand battle or an effects royale is in store instead, it plays out in a very matter of fact fashion with shockingly little action or suspense.
I could go on and on, but suffice it to say that between the weak acting, tired, thin plot, and infrequent and underwhelming action and effects, this is a film that exists only due to the talents of Cruise and Spielberg., That being said, I have to wonder how and why they could not have picked a better product than this stale offering.
The new version is directed by Steven Spielberg, and stars Tom Cruise as Ray Ferrier, a divorced dockworker who is spending some time with his estranged children, Robbie (Justin Chatwin), and Rachael (Dakota Fanning), while his ex-wife and her new husband take a trip.
The children are very cold to Ray as they feel they were dumped on their mother as Ray only cares about himself. When a series of freak electrical storms hits various cities around the world, Ray attempts to comfort his children who are disturbed by the storm as well as the fact that all electronic devices have ceased to function.
Ray leaves the children at home and ventures into the neighborhood and is soon facing a waking nightmare as giant machines burst from the ground laying waste to everything in their paths.
Ray gathers his family and flees in a working vehicle trying to stay one step ahead of the alien machines in an attempt to find safety and reunite the children with their mother in Boston.
As basic as the above plot outline is, it is pretty much the entire plot of the film. There is little else to it aside from a few interruptions such as the family seeking shelter in a couple of houses or facing an angry mob as they attempt to reach a ferry.
While a thin plot can be excused for many action films, what cannot be excused are the painfully bad lack of any excitement in the film and the lack of any compelling action or suspense.
We are supposed to believe that the world is being destroyed by the alien’s but aside from a few blasted bridges, and small buildings, we see a surprising lack of carnage. There are no sequences of classic landmarks being reduced to rubble, there are no scenes of vast armies locked in a desperate struggle against the invaders.
Instead, we get a sequence of helicopters firing, and a line of soldiers firing, but they never show us what they are shooting at, nor do we see the alien retaliation behind a bright explosion and a few vehicles emerging on fire. This is particularly frustrating when you consider that the 1954 version at least showed a few tanks being blasted outright.
Another issue I had with the film was the painfully obvious superimposed backdrops as during the films limited action scenes; the background was clearly inserted into the shot as it was so fuzzy that it did not fit in with the events in the foreground.
While I am willing to dismiss this as stylistic nitpicking what cannot be ignored is that for most of the films running length, the cast does little more than stand around waiting for something to happen.
There are no great segments of character development, no insight into why the aliens waited all this time to attack when they could have done so centuries earlier, why they want the planet, and numerous other plot holes, some of which are so glaring. One of my favorites was the guy who was able to use a video camera to record the opening attacks when it was clearly shown that all electronic devices were rendered useless.
Much has been made of Cruise’s recent off screen actions and I must say that those have been far more interesting and engaging than his performance here. Cruise spends the majority of the film in a wide-eyed gaze or frantically moving and yelling. His character like his annoyingly bratty daughter are so unsympathetic, I found myself hoping that the aliens would take them out and end our suffering.
I hate stated prior that I thought this film may have problems as in light of films such as “ID4”, the story would seem bland to modern audiences unless the action was increased and there was a dynamic story with interesting characters. Sadly all of those are missing from a film that also has one of the worst endings in recent history.
There is no build up, no final confrontation, no moment of high tension to get to the payoff; it just ends with a whimper. One would think that a grand battle or an effects royale is in store instead, it plays out in a very matter of fact fashion with shockingly little action or suspense.
I could go on and on, but suffice it to say that between the weak acting, tired, thin plot, and infrequent and underwhelming action and effects, this is a film that exists only due to the talents of Cruise and Spielberg., That being said, I have to wonder how and why they could not have picked a better product than this stale offering.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Putting the “Wars” back into “Star Wars”.
Expectations have been sky-high for this first in the ‘add-in’ series of Star Wars films. But with director Gareth Edwards at the helm, whose past movie track-record includes just the low-budget “Monsters” and the less than memorable “Godzilla“, I was frankly concerned.
But the English guy (with the Welsh name) has seriously delivered!
“Rogue One” (I have omitted the inane and irritating suffix “: A Star Wars Story”) tells the story behind the story of the original Episode IV: “A New Hope”. Felicity Jones (“The Theory of Everything“) plays Jyn Erso, daughter to Imperial weapons expert Mads Mikkelsen (“Doctor Strange“, “Casino Royale”). An interrupted childhood leads the delinquent Jyn on a personal journey to become a leader in the fragmenting Rebel Alliance, as a small band of heroes battle to obtain the plans for the Empire’s planet-zapping Death Star. Will they succeed (this is hardly a question worth asking given the start of Episode IV!) and at what cost?
I’m throwing it out there…. this is the best Star Wars film since “The Empire Strikes Back”. The story (John Knoll and Gary Whitta) is almost Shakespearean in its scope, leading to a moving and memorable finale. As a standalone episode within the Star Wars canon – chronologically positioned as it between “Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith” and “Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope” – the film marvellously knits the two together bringing in cameos from Episode III as well as (very surprising) cameos from Episode IV, now nearly 40 years old. The screenplay (by Chris “About a Boy” Weitz and Tony Gilroy, writer of the “Bourne” films) is whip-smart with great lines.
For Star Wars fans the film is also chock full of ‘Easter Eggs’ from the original Star Wars. All of these are great fun but – frankly – some don’t make a lot of sense: for example, a chance encounter with a character in the streets of Jedha City doesn’t gel with what happens an hour or two later.
After Rey in last December’s “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” we again see another kick-ass heroine and a further cinematic nod towards girl-power in the movies. But this is a nuanced heroine with more than a hint of darkness about her. Felicity Jones plays her perfectly, reflecting her transition from teenage rebel to rebel-leading teen.
In general, the darkness continues throughout the supporting cast with some of the heroes – notably the impressive Diego Luna (“The Terminal”) as Cassian Andor – managing to do some very anti-heroic things at points in the story. The rest of the cast, and especially Donnie Yen and Wen Jiang as dynamic martial arts duo Chirrut Îmwe and Baze Malbus, generate the warm fuzzies enough for you – as the audience – to really care for what happens to them. This even extends to the lump of metal in the frame – the droid K-2SO (voiced by Alan Tudyk) – who could be the film’s Jar Jar Binks but manages instead to steal the best comic lines in the film.
Elsewhere Forest Whitaker (“Arrival“) is underused as rebel guerilla Saw Gerrera; Mads Mikkelsen adds gravitas to a key strategic role; and Ben Mendelsohn makes for a memorable Imperial villain. The only slightly irritating character in an otherwise stellar ensemble cast is pilot Rodhi Rook (played by Riz Ahmed from “Jason Bourne“): more for the rather pointless way his character is written than for the Londoner’s portrayal per se.
An equal member of the cast is the sublime music of Michael Giacchino, having the unenviable task of following John Williams into the Star Wars franchise. But he does a great job. After the shock of the non-traditional opening (and an abrupt and rather out of place Title shot) the style settles down, with some of the swelling music in the closing reel adding tremendously to the emotion of the finale.
The film is not quite perfect though. The first half of the film could have moved on a bit quicker to get to the breathtaking finale. And even though CGI has moved on significantly from the stick men and women walking around on the deck in “Titanic” in 1997, the state of the art (no spoilers, but you’ll know what I mean if you’ve seen the film) still has room for some improvement. (Perhaps the first of these scenes could have been as subliminal as the last for better effect).
An outstanding effort, and one I definitely want to watch again. The Bluray version will also be a ‘must-buy’ when it emerges, since – with 4 to 5 weeks of re-shoots done in the summer, and many scenes in the trailer not appearing in the final cut – there must be an enormous number of deleted (original?) scenes that may tell a very different story from the one we saw this week.
Disney must be so, so pleased at their very expensive investment in Star Wars, and fears that the Mouse would trash the brand seem to be – thankfully – unfounded.
But the English guy (with the Welsh name) has seriously delivered!
“Rogue One” (I have omitted the inane and irritating suffix “: A Star Wars Story”) tells the story behind the story of the original Episode IV: “A New Hope”. Felicity Jones (“The Theory of Everything“) plays Jyn Erso, daughter to Imperial weapons expert Mads Mikkelsen (“Doctor Strange“, “Casino Royale”). An interrupted childhood leads the delinquent Jyn on a personal journey to become a leader in the fragmenting Rebel Alliance, as a small band of heroes battle to obtain the plans for the Empire’s planet-zapping Death Star. Will they succeed (this is hardly a question worth asking given the start of Episode IV!) and at what cost?
I’m throwing it out there…. this is the best Star Wars film since “The Empire Strikes Back”. The story (John Knoll and Gary Whitta) is almost Shakespearean in its scope, leading to a moving and memorable finale. As a standalone episode within the Star Wars canon – chronologically positioned as it between “Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith” and “Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope” – the film marvellously knits the two together bringing in cameos from Episode III as well as (very surprising) cameos from Episode IV, now nearly 40 years old. The screenplay (by Chris “About a Boy” Weitz and Tony Gilroy, writer of the “Bourne” films) is whip-smart with great lines.
For Star Wars fans the film is also chock full of ‘Easter Eggs’ from the original Star Wars. All of these are great fun but – frankly – some don’t make a lot of sense: for example, a chance encounter with a character in the streets of Jedha City doesn’t gel with what happens an hour or two later.
After Rey in last December’s “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” we again see another kick-ass heroine and a further cinematic nod towards girl-power in the movies. But this is a nuanced heroine with more than a hint of darkness about her. Felicity Jones plays her perfectly, reflecting her transition from teenage rebel to rebel-leading teen.
In general, the darkness continues throughout the supporting cast with some of the heroes – notably the impressive Diego Luna (“The Terminal”) as Cassian Andor – managing to do some very anti-heroic things at points in the story. The rest of the cast, and especially Donnie Yen and Wen Jiang as dynamic martial arts duo Chirrut Îmwe and Baze Malbus, generate the warm fuzzies enough for you – as the audience – to really care for what happens to them. This even extends to the lump of metal in the frame – the droid K-2SO (voiced by Alan Tudyk) – who could be the film’s Jar Jar Binks but manages instead to steal the best comic lines in the film.
Elsewhere Forest Whitaker (“Arrival“) is underused as rebel guerilla Saw Gerrera; Mads Mikkelsen adds gravitas to a key strategic role; and Ben Mendelsohn makes for a memorable Imperial villain. The only slightly irritating character in an otherwise stellar ensemble cast is pilot Rodhi Rook (played by Riz Ahmed from “Jason Bourne“): more for the rather pointless way his character is written than for the Londoner’s portrayal per se.
An equal member of the cast is the sublime music of Michael Giacchino, having the unenviable task of following John Williams into the Star Wars franchise. But he does a great job. After the shock of the non-traditional opening (and an abrupt and rather out of place Title shot) the style settles down, with some of the swelling music in the closing reel adding tremendously to the emotion of the finale.
The film is not quite perfect though. The first half of the film could have moved on a bit quicker to get to the breathtaking finale. And even though CGI has moved on significantly from the stick men and women walking around on the deck in “Titanic” in 1997, the state of the art (no spoilers, but you’ll know what I mean if you’ve seen the film) still has room for some improvement. (Perhaps the first of these scenes could have been as subliminal as the last for better effect).
An outstanding effort, and one I definitely want to watch again. The Bluray version will also be a ‘must-buy’ when it emerges, since – with 4 to 5 weeks of re-shoots done in the summer, and many scenes in the trailer not appearing in the final cut – there must be an enormous number of deleted (original?) scenes that may tell a very different story from the one we saw this week.
Disney must be so, so pleased at their very expensive investment in Star Wars, and fears that the Mouse would trash the brand seem to be – thankfully – unfounded.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Tiny Epic Mechs in Tabletop Games
Jun 30, 2021
I am someone who loves strategy. It is fun for me to create elaborate plans and see them through to either success or failure. Ok, it’s fun to see them succeed, not so much fail. BUT either way – I like to have a plan. So when Tiny Epic Mechs launched on Kickstarter, I was a little wary. Action programming? Can’t that effectively negate any strategy you have set up? I was on the fence. But I backed it anyway. So was my investment a good one, or did my programmed action of picking up this game backfire and leave me KO’d?
Disclaimer: I do not intend to rehash the entire rulebook in this review, but give a general overview of turns and gameplay. For a more in-depth look at the rules, pick up a copy of the game from the publisher or your FLGS! -L
Tiny Epic Mechs is a game of action programming in which players take on the roles of Mech pilots competing in an arena-style battle royale event. Through the purchase of new weapons, powering up into Mech suits, combat with opponents (either face-to-face, or through the deployment of mines and turrets), and controlling different zones of the arena, players are trying to earn the most Victory Points by the end of 6 rounds of play. To begin, follow the setup instructions for the arena, based on the player count. Each player receives a player card (to track resources, and also acts as a reference card), a Pilot card, components in their chosen player color, and 1 Basic Weapon card to equip on their Pilot. Set the Round Tracker to round 1, create a market row of Advanced Weapons, place the Mighty Mech suit on it’s corresponding zone card, and the game is ready to begin!
Each round consists of 3 phases: Program, Execution, and Scoring. During the Program phase, players will secretly choose 4 Program Cards from their hand to represent their 4 moves/actions for this round. The chosen Program Cards will be laid out in order above the player card, and will immediately be covered by a face-down unused Program Card. (There are 8 Program Cards total, only 4 of which are used each round). It is important to note that the orientation of the Program Cards matters – Program Cards must be played parallel to the zone cards of the arena. Since they dictate the directions in which you move, you must place them exactly as you want to move. During the second phase, Execution, players will take turns revealing their Program Cards, one at a time and in order, and resolving the actions. To Execute a Program Card, you will first move your Pilot in the direction of the card’s arrow, and then resolve the action listed on the card. Movement is a must and cannot be skipped.
After Movement, you may perform the action on your card – Collect Resources, Purchase a Weapon, Deploy a Mine or a Turret, or Power Up. The first three of these are pretty self-explanatory. The Power Up action allows your Pilot to either heal themselves or upgrade into a Mech suit. Now to discuss crux of the game – combat. During the Execution phase, if you enter into the same zone as another player, you must immediately begin Combat. You will use your equipped weapons to battle your opponent, in hopes of knocking them out or forcing them to retreat. Weapons will deal base damage, or Power Attack damage, based on the circumstances of the combat. To attack with a weapon, you will deal the base damage immediately to your opponent. After your attack, the weapon you used is Exhausted and cannot be used again this combat. Your opponent then has the chance to attack back – either regularly or via Power Attack (I’ll leave that for you to discover on your own). Combat continues, alternating between players, until either a player is KO’d, or is forced to retreat because all of their weapons have been Exhausted. Initiating combat, dealing damage, and defeating your opponent all earn you VP, so combat is a vital part of the game!
After all players have revealed and performed their final Program Card, the round ends. At the end of the 2nd, 4th, and 6th round, players will perform a Scoring phase, earning points for any zones occupied by their own mines, turrets, or Pilot. At the end of the 6th and final round, scoring takes place as stated above, but players will also earn VP for all weapons they have purchased throughout the game. The player with the highest VP is the winner!
I have to admit that I am not a person who generally enjoys the mechanic of action programming. I like to really think through my strategy, and execute it exactly as I want. Action programming makes strategizing more difficult because your success or failure depends on the actions selected in advance by your opponents. You can’t really adapt mid-round, you kind of just have to deal with what’s happening. That being said, Tiny Epic Mechs, in my opinion, has a good balance of combat and actions/resource management. Your entire strategy can’t be based on combat – you need to upgrade weapons, climb into your Mech suit, etc. – and the ability to vary combat with individual upgrades makes the gameplay feel more strategic. Yes, your opponents might still mess up some of your best-laid plans, but you have to be prepared for any situation.
The overall gameplay can feel calculated or chaotic simply based on the player count. In a 2-player game, obviously there are only 2 people, and you have more opportunities to really focus on your individual Pilot before necessarily traipsing into combat. In a game with 3 or 4 players, interactions between players are inevitable and can really make the action programming mechanic stand out/feel more random/etc. Especially with a small play arena, Pilots will be crossing paths at probably every turn, and you may be forced into more combats that you anticipated. With only 2 players, there are interactions between players, but it feels a little more calm overall, and you can really work with a strategy instead of having to adapt to sudden changes in the arena.
Let’s touch on components for a minute. As always, this Tiny Epic delivers on quality components. The cards are colorful and sturdy, the text easy to read. The wooden components for tracking health/resources are good, but maybe just a little too small, even for my regularly-sized hands. The ITEMeeples, Mech suits, and weapons are always fun to play with, and sturdy enough to hold up to lots of plays. All in all, great work from Gamelyn Games once again.
For being a game of action programming, I have to admit that I enjoyed Tiny Epic Mechs more than I thought I would. At least at a 2-player count. Anything more feels too chaotic and random to me. The elements of programming and combat are engaging and elevate the gameplay, but it’s just not my favorite mechanic. Will I keep this game? Definitely. For what it is, I think it does a good job. Will I get more action programming games in the future? Probably not. I’d say Tiny Epic Mechs fills that spot for me, and that is all good in my book. Check this one out if you’re looking for something fun and relatively simple that utilizes this mechanic. Purple Phoenix Games gives it a mechanical 7 / 12.
Disclaimer: I do not intend to rehash the entire rulebook in this review, but give a general overview of turns and gameplay. For a more in-depth look at the rules, pick up a copy of the game from the publisher or your FLGS! -L
Tiny Epic Mechs is a game of action programming in which players take on the roles of Mech pilots competing in an arena-style battle royale event. Through the purchase of new weapons, powering up into Mech suits, combat with opponents (either face-to-face, or through the deployment of mines and turrets), and controlling different zones of the arena, players are trying to earn the most Victory Points by the end of 6 rounds of play. To begin, follow the setup instructions for the arena, based on the player count. Each player receives a player card (to track resources, and also acts as a reference card), a Pilot card, components in their chosen player color, and 1 Basic Weapon card to equip on their Pilot. Set the Round Tracker to round 1, create a market row of Advanced Weapons, place the Mighty Mech suit on it’s corresponding zone card, and the game is ready to begin!
Each round consists of 3 phases: Program, Execution, and Scoring. During the Program phase, players will secretly choose 4 Program Cards from their hand to represent their 4 moves/actions for this round. The chosen Program Cards will be laid out in order above the player card, and will immediately be covered by a face-down unused Program Card. (There are 8 Program Cards total, only 4 of which are used each round). It is important to note that the orientation of the Program Cards matters – Program Cards must be played parallel to the zone cards of the arena. Since they dictate the directions in which you move, you must place them exactly as you want to move. During the second phase, Execution, players will take turns revealing their Program Cards, one at a time and in order, and resolving the actions. To Execute a Program Card, you will first move your Pilot in the direction of the card’s arrow, and then resolve the action listed on the card. Movement is a must and cannot be skipped.
After Movement, you may perform the action on your card – Collect Resources, Purchase a Weapon, Deploy a Mine or a Turret, or Power Up. The first three of these are pretty self-explanatory. The Power Up action allows your Pilot to either heal themselves or upgrade into a Mech suit. Now to discuss crux of the game – combat. During the Execution phase, if you enter into the same zone as another player, you must immediately begin Combat. You will use your equipped weapons to battle your opponent, in hopes of knocking them out or forcing them to retreat. Weapons will deal base damage, or Power Attack damage, based on the circumstances of the combat. To attack with a weapon, you will deal the base damage immediately to your opponent. After your attack, the weapon you used is Exhausted and cannot be used again this combat. Your opponent then has the chance to attack back – either regularly or via Power Attack (I’ll leave that for you to discover on your own). Combat continues, alternating between players, until either a player is KO’d, or is forced to retreat because all of their weapons have been Exhausted. Initiating combat, dealing damage, and defeating your opponent all earn you VP, so combat is a vital part of the game!
After all players have revealed and performed their final Program Card, the round ends. At the end of the 2nd, 4th, and 6th round, players will perform a Scoring phase, earning points for any zones occupied by their own mines, turrets, or Pilot. At the end of the 6th and final round, scoring takes place as stated above, but players will also earn VP for all weapons they have purchased throughout the game. The player with the highest VP is the winner!
I have to admit that I am not a person who generally enjoys the mechanic of action programming. I like to really think through my strategy, and execute it exactly as I want. Action programming makes strategizing more difficult because your success or failure depends on the actions selected in advance by your opponents. You can’t really adapt mid-round, you kind of just have to deal with what’s happening. That being said, Tiny Epic Mechs, in my opinion, has a good balance of combat and actions/resource management. Your entire strategy can’t be based on combat – you need to upgrade weapons, climb into your Mech suit, etc. – and the ability to vary combat with individual upgrades makes the gameplay feel more strategic. Yes, your opponents might still mess up some of your best-laid plans, but you have to be prepared for any situation.
The overall gameplay can feel calculated or chaotic simply based on the player count. In a 2-player game, obviously there are only 2 people, and you have more opportunities to really focus on your individual Pilot before necessarily traipsing into combat. In a game with 3 or 4 players, interactions between players are inevitable and can really make the action programming mechanic stand out/feel more random/etc. Especially with a small play arena, Pilots will be crossing paths at probably every turn, and you may be forced into more combats that you anticipated. With only 2 players, there are interactions between players, but it feels a little more calm overall, and you can really work with a strategy instead of having to adapt to sudden changes in the arena.
Let’s touch on components for a minute. As always, this Tiny Epic delivers on quality components. The cards are colorful and sturdy, the text easy to read. The wooden components for tracking health/resources are good, but maybe just a little too small, even for my regularly-sized hands. The ITEMeeples, Mech suits, and weapons are always fun to play with, and sturdy enough to hold up to lots of plays. All in all, great work from Gamelyn Games once again.
For being a game of action programming, I have to admit that I enjoyed Tiny Epic Mechs more than I thought I would. At least at a 2-player count. Anything more feels too chaotic and random to me. The elements of programming and combat are engaging and elevate the gameplay, but it’s just not my favorite mechanic. Will I keep this game? Definitely. For what it is, I think it does a good job. Will I get more action programming games in the future? Probably not. I’d say Tiny Epic Mechs fills that spot for me, and that is all good in my book. Check this one out if you’re looking for something fun and relatively simple that utilizes this mechanic. Purple Phoenix Games gives it a mechanical 7 / 12.
