Search
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Game Of Thrones in TV
Jul 1, 2019
Winter has come and gone... and there won't ever be anything like it again!
Contains spoilers, click to show
Game of Thrones. The only show that drove people to brag on social media about the fact they've never seen it every time a new series came out!
I watched this from Season 3, quickly binging the first two seasons about a week before it aired. I'm not a huge Fantasy fan, but this show really was something else. Despite the setting, it gave us everything - blood, guts, drama, sex... even comedy. It gave us some of the most vile and hated antagonists to ever grace the screen, and it made heroes out of the unlikeliest of people.
Watching it week-to-week was difficult for a couple of reasons. One, so much is going on (especially in the earlier seasons) that you can forget a lot in a week, and you find yourself questioning everything. Two, it's so bloody good, you didn't want to wait a whole week to get your fix! Obviously, now it's finished, the second issue is no longer relevant - it's available to binge to your heart's content, which you absolutely should do.
I want to address the recent criticism of the eighth and final season. We waited over two years for it, and many people felt it was rushed, too short and too shallow. I would say 75% of people who watched the last season were left disappointed. Myself included.
But a few days after it had finished, I found myself thinking about the series as a whole more and more. I was reading articles online, theories and arguments about how and why the story played out the way it did. I realised I had felt somewhat detached watching Season 8 because it HAD been two years since I watched Season 7. It's as if I'd forgotten what it was like to watch it.
So, having never seen any episode more than once, I went back to the beginning and watched all eight seasons in a little under three weeks...
SO MUCH BETTER the second time around!
For two reasons. Firstly, there was no break in the story at all. Watching it as it aired meant you had a 12-month break every 10 hours, basically. Easy to lose your thread. Easy to forget things. When that doesn't happen, it's much more enjoyable and actually makes a lot more sense. There was so much I'd forgotten over the course of the nine years it was on, I kind of felt like I'd cheated myself, in a way, by not watching Seasons 1-7 before Season 8 aired.
Second, much in the way that Star Wars Episodes 1-3 work better if you've seen 4-6 first, Game of Thrones was actually much more enjoyable having seen the ending, because things make a lot more sense in retrospect.
***This is where it gets spoilery***
It becomes evident early on, even in the first season, that Jon Snow is one to watch. His shocking death at the end of Season 5 caused much confusion and debate. Obviously, his resurrection early in Season 6 put an end to that, and when the secret about his true identity is finally revealed in Season 8, it was a shocking moment, as everything started to fall into place and the true threat became evident.
However...
Having now done Seasons 1-8 back-to-back, the revelation that Jon Snow is, in fact, a Targaryen is far from surprising, given they've been dropping clues about it since back in the first few episodes. Obviously, at the time, these seemingly throwaway comments meant nothing, but now we know, there are numerous conversations throughout the show that border on being spoilers themselves.
Same with Arya Stark and her storyline. Second time around, even from Season 1, it's evident she was destined to slay The Night King. And as with Jon Snow, you never would've picked up on it at the time, but in hindsight it's been obvious for years.
Now, the major criticism about Season 8 was that it felt rushed and that it sacrificed too many characters arcs for the sake of finishing inside of six episodes. Watching it as it aired, I completely agreed. Jon Snow "suddenly" went from a brooding hero to a pointless extra. Daenerys Targaryen "suddenly" went from the freer of slaves and saviour of Westeros to an insane despot who slaughtered half the world because someone took her toys away.
Not true.
It seemed like that after two years of forgetting almost everything that had happened previously, but watching it from start to finish in one go, those things make perfect sense, and aren't actually that sudden. The Mother of Dragons showed clear and obvious signs of becoming The Mad Queen of Ashes very early on in the show. She was always kind and fair and just... but my goodness, did you get it if you pissed her off! Let's not forget she crucified almost 200 slave-owners long after they surrendered to prove a point. And poor Sam Tarly's father and brother! She had a mean streak, and she lived on a knife's edge. At any point since she married Khal Drogo back at the beginning of Season 1, the slightest push and she would snap. Fast forward to Season 8 and, after many years of fighting to fulfil her birthright and take the Iron Throne, she finds out she's not actually the heir to it at all... that's a pretty big push to a woman with a history of losing her shit when things don't go her way. So not much of a surprise at all, really.
And to address the criticism further, I'll analyse this as a writer. I tell stories for a living. When you're writing a novel, you look at it as a triangle, of sorts. It starts off wide and gradually gets to a point. Game of Thrones began very wide, with lots of characters and subplots. But as time goes on, it narrows and becomes more focused on the main threat... the main storylines - the battle against The Night King and the fight for the Iron Throne. Those two things are what nine years of storytelling were working towards, so yes, when you get to the final season and you have to wrap things up, it makes sense that you're going to focus on the big finish - the point of the series.
Not only that, for the first six seasons, the shows writers and creators had their hands held by George R. R. Martin and his source material. But then the TV show caught up with the books, which meant they suddenly had nothing more than a handful of bullet points to work off instead. Not easy to go from one to the other. They can't embellish things too much, because they run the risk of contradicting and undermining future books, which Mr. Martin wouldn't allow them to do. So they had to keep it simple, stick to the point and finish the job they started - nothing more.
Ultimately, no one likes to see their favourite show end. In hindsight, I think a lot of the criticism the final season received was because the audience forgot what came before it, and because they didn't want it to end.
If you're reading this having never watched it before.... first of all, sorry for ruining the story for you (but I did say it contained spoilers, in my defence). But you have the benefit of being able to binge through this, which means you'll get the full, uninterrupted experience, which is well worth the investment of your time to do.
If you HAVE watched the show before, I strongly suggest re-watching it from the beginning, because I enjoyed it far more the second time around.
This is the kind of show that comes along once a generation. The kind of show people talk about daily long after it finished. It redefines TV drama and I can promise you, you'll never see anything like it again.
That said, don't watch it if you're easily offended or grossed out. Or if you like animals. Oh, and don't watch Season 4, Episode 8 whilst you're eating. And don't watch Season 3, Episode 9 if you believe in the afterlife and have your heart set on getting into Heaven. And it's perfectly acceptable to watch Season 6, Episode 9 and feel like that's what you would do if faced with certain death.
Just perfect.
I watched this from Season 3, quickly binging the first two seasons about a week before it aired. I'm not a huge Fantasy fan, but this show really was something else. Despite the setting, it gave us everything - blood, guts, drama, sex... even comedy. It gave us some of the most vile and hated antagonists to ever grace the screen, and it made heroes out of the unlikeliest of people.
Watching it week-to-week was difficult for a couple of reasons. One, so much is going on (especially in the earlier seasons) that you can forget a lot in a week, and you find yourself questioning everything. Two, it's so bloody good, you didn't want to wait a whole week to get your fix! Obviously, now it's finished, the second issue is no longer relevant - it's available to binge to your heart's content, which you absolutely should do.
I want to address the recent criticism of the eighth and final season. We waited over two years for it, and many people felt it was rushed, too short and too shallow. I would say 75% of people who watched the last season were left disappointed. Myself included.
But a few days after it had finished, I found myself thinking about the series as a whole more and more. I was reading articles online, theories and arguments about how and why the story played out the way it did. I realised I had felt somewhat detached watching Season 8 because it HAD been two years since I watched Season 7. It's as if I'd forgotten what it was like to watch it.
So, having never seen any episode more than once, I went back to the beginning and watched all eight seasons in a little under three weeks...
SO MUCH BETTER the second time around!
For two reasons. Firstly, there was no break in the story at all. Watching it as it aired meant you had a 12-month break every 10 hours, basically. Easy to lose your thread. Easy to forget things. When that doesn't happen, it's much more enjoyable and actually makes a lot more sense. There was so much I'd forgotten over the course of the nine years it was on, I kind of felt like I'd cheated myself, in a way, by not watching Seasons 1-7 before Season 8 aired.
Second, much in the way that Star Wars Episodes 1-3 work better if you've seen 4-6 first, Game of Thrones was actually much more enjoyable having seen the ending, because things make a lot more sense in retrospect.
***This is where it gets spoilery***
It becomes evident early on, even in the first season, that Jon Snow is one to watch. His shocking death at the end of Season 5 caused much confusion and debate. Obviously, his resurrection early in Season 6 put an end to that, and when the secret about his true identity is finally revealed in Season 8, it was a shocking moment, as everything started to fall into place and the true threat became evident.
However...
Having now done Seasons 1-8 back-to-back, the revelation that Jon Snow is, in fact, a Targaryen is far from surprising, given they've been dropping clues about it since back in the first few episodes. Obviously, at the time, these seemingly throwaway comments meant nothing, but now we know, there are numerous conversations throughout the show that border on being spoilers themselves.
Same with Arya Stark and her storyline. Second time around, even from Season 1, it's evident she was destined to slay The Night King. And as with Jon Snow, you never would've picked up on it at the time, but in hindsight it's been obvious for years.
Now, the major criticism about Season 8 was that it felt rushed and that it sacrificed too many characters arcs for the sake of finishing inside of six episodes. Watching it as it aired, I completely agreed. Jon Snow "suddenly" went from a brooding hero to a pointless extra. Daenerys Targaryen "suddenly" went from the freer of slaves and saviour of Westeros to an insane despot who slaughtered half the world because someone took her toys away.
Not true.
It seemed like that after two years of forgetting almost everything that had happened previously, but watching it from start to finish in one go, those things make perfect sense, and aren't actually that sudden. The Mother of Dragons showed clear and obvious signs of becoming The Mad Queen of Ashes very early on in the show. She was always kind and fair and just... but my goodness, did you get it if you pissed her off! Let's not forget she crucified almost 200 slave-owners long after they surrendered to prove a point. And poor Sam Tarly's father and brother! She had a mean streak, and she lived on a knife's edge. At any point since she married Khal Drogo back at the beginning of Season 1, the slightest push and she would snap. Fast forward to Season 8 and, after many years of fighting to fulfil her birthright and take the Iron Throne, she finds out she's not actually the heir to it at all... that's a pretty big push to a woman with a history of losing her shit when things don't go her way. So not much of a surprise at all, really.
And to address the criticism further, I'll analyse this as a writer. I tell stories for a living. When you're writing a novel, you look at it as a triangle, of sorts. It starts off wide and gradually gets to a point. Game of Thrones began very wide, with lots of characters and subplots. But as time goes on, it narrows and becomes more focused on the main threat... the main storylines - the battle against The Night King and the fight for the Iron Throne. Those two things are what nine years of storytelling were working towards, so yes, when you get to the final season and you have to wrap things up, it makes sense that you're going to focus on the big finish - the point of the series.
Not only that, for the first six seasons, the shows writers and creators had their hands held by George R. R. Martin and his source material. But then the TV show caught up with the books, which meant they suddenly had nothing more than a handful of bullet points to work off instead. Not easy to go from one to the other. They can't embellish things too much, because they run the risk of contradicting and undermining future books, which Mr. Martin wouldn't allow them to do. So they had to keep it simple, stick to the point and finish the job they started - nothing more.
Ultimately, no one likes to see their favourite show end. In hindsight, I think a lot of the criticism the final season received was because the audience forgot what came before it, and because they didn't want it to end.
If you're reading this having never watched it before.... first of all, sorry for ruining the story for you (but I did say it contained spoilers, in my defence). But you have the benefit of being able to binge through this, which means you'll get the full, uninterrupted experience, which is well worth the investment of your time to do.
If you HAVE watched the show before, I strongly suggest re-watching it from the beginning, because I enjoyed it far more the second time around.
This is the kind of show that comes along once a generation. The kind of show people talk about daily long after it finished. It redefines TV drama and I can promise you, you'll never see anything like it again.
That said, don't watch it if you're easily offended or grossed out. Or if you like animals. Oh, and don't watch Season 4, Episode 8 whilst you're eating. And don't watch Season 3, Episode 9 if you believe in the afterlife and have your heart set on getting into Heaven. And it's perfectly acceptable to watch Season 6, Episode 9 and feel like that's what you would do if faced with certain death.
Just perfect.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Sweet Little Lies in Books
Mar 18, 2019
Perplexing, well-written tale
Young Detective Constable Catrina (Cat) Kinsella hasn't had the easiest of lives--she didn't get along well with her father and her mother has since passed away. At twenty-six, Cat is in counseling after a traumatic incident while on the job, and she spends most of her nights alone, plagued by insomnia. She isn't close to her family, including her father, sister, or brother. Her latest case is that of thirty-five-year old Alice Lapaine, who is found murdered and dumped in Leamington Square. Alice too led a solitary life, spending weeks away from her husband, Thomas, who quickly becomes the team's top suspect. But then they receive a call--Alice isn't Alice, but rather Maryanne Doyle, a teenager who went missing in Ireland nearly twenty years ago. Suddenly, Cat's world is upside down. After all, she knew Maryanne, whom her family met while visiting Cat's grandmother when Cat was eight. And Cat has always suspected her father had something to do with Maryanne's sudden disappearance. Cat chooses not to tell her DCI about the linkages between Maryanne and her father, but this choice may have serious consequences: for Cat, her career, and her entire family.
"I feel it's necessary to make clear that I know nothing about what happened to Maryanne Doyle, the girl who went to Riley's for hairspray and never came back. I have my suspicions, of course. I speculate plenty, especially after white wine. But when it comes right down to it, I actually know nothing. The same cannot be said of my father."
This was an interesting, complicated tale. The mystery aspect of it was actually really fascinating, with the linkages slowly building between Alice and Maryanne, as we try to figure out what happened between Maryanne disappearing as a teen, her becoming Alice and then winding up murdered. Overall, I really enjoyed that part of the book. Frear has a lot of good surprises for us, and I was kept guessing for most of the novel.
The personal side of the book was a little harder for me. Don't get me wrong, I did like Cat. She certainly is a complicated character. I have to admit that characters that don't tell the truth or narratives that revolve around this aspect of keeping the truth hidden can be a bit of a pet peeve of mine. So basically an entire book that involves the main character keeping such a big secret (my Dad knew my murder victim, who was found a few paces outside the pub he owns)--that was tough for me. The more involved Cat gets in her case and the more entwined the case becomes with her own life and past: ugh. It all felt a little wrong and icky for me.
Honestly, I probably would have enjoyed this book more if the personal ties to Cat weren't there, or weren't so strong. I recognize they existed to give her depth and add more to the story and case, but they just made me uncomfortable and almost added an extra layer to the mystery that I felt wasn't necessary. Things were already twisty enough, it seemed as we didn't need this whole additional convoluted element with Cat's family. But maybe that's just me and my aversion to lying and such. (I don't even like when this happens in movies and eventually you know it's all going to come out and bad things will happen.)
This is not a simple book, and the story told is a perplexing and sophisticated one: you really have to be ready to follow along. On the plus side, it's original, and the characters are rather unique. I'm intrigued that it looks like Cat will be part of a series. I did like this book, even if some elements were a little harder for me to enjoy, and it was well-written. I'd certainly pick up the next book in a series and perhaps if her family wasn't so entwined in her case, enjoy it even more.
I received a copy of this book from the publisher and Edelweiss in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
"I feel it's necessary to make clear that I know nothing about what happened to Maryanne Doyle, the girl who went to Riley's for hairspray and never came back. I have my suspicions, of course. I speculate plenty, especially after white wine. But when it comes right down to it, I actually know nothing. The same cannot be said of my father."
This was an interesting, complicated tale. The mystery aspect of it was actually really fascinating, with the linkages slowly building between Alice and Maryanne, as we try to figure out what happened between Maryanne disappearing as a teen, her becoming Alice and then winding up murdered. Overall, I really enjoyed that part of the book. Frear has a lot of good surprises for us, and I was kept guessing for most of the novel.
The personal side of the book was a little harder for me. Don't get me wrong, I did like Cat. She certainly is a complicated character. I have to admit that characters that don't tell the truth or narratives that revolve around this aspect of keeping the truth hidden can be a bit of a pet peeve of mine. So basically an entire book that involves the main character keeping such a big secret (my Dad knew my murder victim, who was found a few paces outside the pub he owns)--that was tough for me. The more involved Cat gets in her case and the more entwined the case becomes with her own life and past: ugh. It all felt a little wrong and icky for me.
Honestly, I probably would have enjoyed this book more if the personal ties to Cat weren't there, or weren't so strong. I recognize they existed to give her depth and add more to the story and case, but they just made me uncomfortable and almost added an extra layer to the mystery that I felt wasn't necessary. Things were already twisty enough, it seemed as we didn't need this whole additional convoluted element with Cat's family. But maybe that's just me and my aversion to lying and such. (I don't even like when this happens in movies and eventually you know it's all going to come out and bad things will happen.)
This is not a simple book, and the story told is a perplexing and sophisticated one: you really have to be ready to follow along. On the plus side, it's original, and the characters are rather unique. I'm intrigued that it looks like Cat will be part of a series. I did like this book, even if some elements were a little harder for me to enjoy, and it was well-written. I'd certainly pick up the next book in a series and perhaps if her family wasn't so entwined in her case, enjoy it even more.
I received a copy of this book from the publisher and Edelweiss in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
Sassy Brit (97 KP) rated Jefferson's Treasure: How Albert Gallatin Saved the New Nation from Debt in Books
Jun 5, 2019
Jefferson’s Treasure, by Gregory May, details, “how Albert Gallatin saved the new nation from debt.” Appointed by President Thomas Jefferson to be his Treasury Secretary, Gallatin continued under President Madison, maintaining that position for twelve years. During his tenure, he abolished internal revenue taxes in peacetime, slashed federal spending, and repaid half of the national debt.
So who was this man that undid Alexander Hamilton’s fiscal system, rejecting it along with Madison and Jefferson? Because both Presidents did not understand the financial system, they depended on Gallatin to reform it. Gallatin arrived in America in 1790 from Geneva and rose up to become a trusted advisor of the Republicans. Six years before Jefferson was elected President, Gallatin’s Pennsylvania neighbors rebelled against the tax on whiskey. He supported them in principle but opposed the violence that ensued, burning the local tax collector’s house, robbing the mail, and marching on Pittsburgh.
The play “Hamilton” uses revisionist history. The real Hamilton believed in big government and wanted to continue funding federal deficits. He based his theories on the British who used the money to fund their large military conflicts, believing that the ability to borrow endless amounts of money would allow the new United States to become a great nation. Jefferson and Madison thought Hamilton’s system, straight from the British way, was tainted with tyranny. As May noted, “It made the people pay obnoxious taxes in order to fund interest payments on a mounting federal debt and the costs of an expensive military establishment. It shifted money from ordinary taxpayers to the relatively few rich men who held the government’s bonds. That was just the sort of thing that had led Americans to revolt against Britain in the first place.”
May believes, “The hip-hop immigrant hero of the Broadway musical is a myth. The musical might be a great work of art, but is relies on misconceptions of Hamilton. He was not an immigrant, but a migrant within the British Empire. Also, he was not a man of the people, as Gallatin was, but an elitist.”
While Hamilton committed to paying only the interest on the government’s debt, Gallatin committed the government to repaying fixed amounts of the principal each year. He also insisted that the government should never spend more than it earned except in times of war. By slashing federal expenses, Gallatin was able to get rid of the tax on whiskey and abolish the entire internal revenue service.
The Republicans, an agrarian society, distrusted these elitists where two-thirds of the government debt belonged to a few hundred very wealthy men residing mainly in Philadelphia, New York, and other mercantile cities. They saw Hamilton’s plan of collecting taxes from ordinary citizens as a way for a few rich men to become even wealthier. Implementing these excise taxes required government officials to inspect, quantify, and mark the items subject to tax.
The Hamilton system benefited the wealthy debt holders and spectators at the expense of the average taxpayer who had to pay the interest. The government would borrow more than the people could pay. Hamilton tried to hide how much money the government was actually spending and spiraled the debt higher and higher.
This was an important part of the British tax base, and “I wanted to show how unpopular it was. Hamilton and company were resented because they created a tax collection network that affected the lives of ordinary citizens. The excise tax is a form of internal taxation, while tariffs are a form of external taxation that fell on the well to do. Remember mostly the well to do bought imports. The Republicans once they came to power relied on import duties rather than excise taxes.”
May further explained, “When Jefferson and his administration came to power it was Gallatin who got rid of Hamilton’s deficit finance system and cut taxes. By the time he has left office he has repaid half the federal debt and set up a program for repaying the rest.”
Anyone who wants to understand the early economic systems of the Founding Fathers will enjoy this book. It shows how Gallatin, by killing Hamilton’s financial system, abolished internal revenue taxes in peacetime, slashed federal spending, and repaid half of the national debt.
So who was this man that undid Alexander Hamilton’s fiscal system, rejecting it along with Madison and Jefferson? Because both Presidents did not understand the financial system, they depended on Gallatin to reform it. Gallatin arrived in America in 1790 from Geneva and rose up to become a trusted advisor of the Republicans. Six years before Jefferson was elected President, Gallatin’s Pennsylvania neighbors rebelled against the tax on whiskey. He supported them in principle but opposed the violence that ensued, burning the local tax collector’s house, robbing the mail, and marching on Pittsburgh.
The play “Hamilton” uses revisionist history. The real Hamilton believed in big government and wanted to continue funding federal deficits. He based his theories on the British who used the money to fund their large military conflicts, believing that the ability to borrow endless amounts of money would allow the new United States to become a great nation. Jefferson and Madison thought Hamilton’s system, straight from the British way, was tainted with tyranny. As May noted, “It made the people pay obnoxious taxes in order to fund interest payments on a mounting federal debt and the costs of an expensive military establishment. It shifted money from ordinary taxpayers to the relatively few rich men who held the government’s bonds. That was just the sort of thing that had led Americans to revolt against Britain in the first place.”
May believes, “The hip-hop immigrant hero of the Broadway musical is a myth. The musical might be a great work of art, but is relies on misconceptions of Hamilton. He was not an immigrant, but a migrant within the British Empire. Also, he was not a man of the people, as Gallatin was, but an elitist.”
While Hamilton committed to paying only the interest on the government’s debt, Gallatin committed the government to repaying fixed amounts of the principal each year. He also insisted that the government should never spend more than it earned except in times of war. By slashing federal expenses, Gallatin was able to get rid of the tax on whiskey and abolish the entire internal revenue service.
The Republicans, an agrarian society, distrusted these elitists where two-thirds of the government debt belonged to a few hundred very wealthy men residing mainly in Philadelphia, New York, and other mercantile cities. They saw Hamilton’s plan of collecting taxes from ordinary citizens as a way for a few rich men to become even wealthier. Implementing these excise taxes required government officials to inspect, quantify, and mark the items subject to tax.
The Hamilton system benefited the wealthy debt holders and spectators at the expense of the average taxpayer who had to pay the interest. The government would borrow more than the people could pay. Hamilton tried to hide how much money the government was actually spending and spiraled the debt higher and higher.
This was an important part of the British tax base, and “I wanted to show how unpopular it was. Hamilton and company were resented because they created a tax collection network that affected the lives of ordinary citizens. The excise tax is a form of internal taxation, while tariffs are a form of external taxation that fell on the well to do. Remember mostly the well to do bought imports. The Republicans once they came to power relied on import duties rather than excise taxes.”
May further explained, “When Jefferson and his administration came to power it was Gallatin who got rid of Hamilton’s deficit finance system and cut taxes. By the time he has left office he has repaid half the federal debt and set up a program for repaying the rest.”
Anyone who wants to understand the early economic systems of the Founding Fathers will enjoy this book. It shows how Gallatin, by killing Hamilton’s financial system, abolished internal revenue taxes in peacetime, slashed federal spending, and repaid half of the national debt.
Super Mario Run
Games
6.7
Rate It
App Watch
A new kind of Mario game that you can play with one hand. Super Mario Run has received some big...
Cost A Cake Pro
Food & Drink and Productivity
App
** NUMBER 1 Food and Drink App in 15 countries including UK and Ireland, Top 10 in 32 countries...
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Doctor Who: Time of the Daleks in Tabletop Games
Sep 2, 2021
I cannot tell you what a big fan of Doctor Who I am. I have one sticker on my car, and it’s a DW TARDIS right there in the upper left. They say you’ll never forget your first Doctor, and I only started watching several years into the reboot, but started with 9. And then 10 stole my heart. 11 was also quite amazing and I always reference people who have never seen the show to please please please watch, “Vincent and the Doctor.” If you watch that episode and are not moved to tears by the sheer beauty of the story being told, you absolutely have no soul. And if after watching that episode you are not an immediately-converted Whovian, then it was never meant to be. So why then is my rating on this game so lackluster if I love the IP so?
Doctor Who: Time of the Daleks (which I will carefully refer to as DW from here on out though I would never abbreviate to Dr.) is an adventure dice racing game, even though the only official tag is dice. In it, players take on the roles of different Doctor regenerations and will travel through time and space collecting companions, Timey-Wimey cards, and Sonic Charges in order to manipulate dice rolls to defeat Dilemmas and Time Anomalies that pop up at the absolute worst times.
To setup, follow the rulebook instructions – there are just too many components to detail here. The game takes up quite a bit of table space, so do make sure to use your largest table.
On a player’s turn they will be adding Sonic Charges, shuffling up companions, and rolling the TARDIS die to determine travel. Once at a location, the Doctor (and subsequent harem) can Adventure by assessing the challenge of dice results printed on the Location board plus the Dilemma disc combined. It is these icons that must be rolled (and possibly manipulated) in order to have a successful adventure. If successful, typically this involves a reward of moving the TARDIS pawn on the main Web of Time board closer to Gallifrey, in addition to other rewards. Failure on an adventure will typically result in the Dalek ship being moved further from Skaro and closer to Gallifrey.
Once the Doctors have had their turn, the Daleks will take a turn. Immediately move the Dalek ship one space on the Web of Time track towards Gallifrey, and if they have reached Gallifrey before any Doctor, or on the same turn as a Doctor, the Daleks win and the Doctors all lose. If not, play continues in this fashion until one of those win conditions are met, along with a couple more loss conditions I will leave you to discover.
This is a very pared-down synopsis of the rules, and I have intentionally left out several rules so as not to bog down my paraphrasing with minutia. Take this into consideration when determining if this is the game for you.
Components. All in all the components in DW are absolutely stellar! All the cardboard is thick and features great art and screencaps (which is a polarizing subject that I simply don’t mind). The dice are great quality, though I wish they had chosen a different color for the blue dice so that the TARDIS die would be the only blue in the box. The minis are great, and have interchangeable bases because throughout the game the Doctors may have to regenerate, thus switching to a different Doctor mid-game (awesome mechanic for this IP by the way).
Let me tell you why I like this DW game and why I do not. Firstly, the game is just too hard for me. Maybe it’s how I roll the dice, but I feel I am almost never in possession of enough resources to be able to reroll or manually manipulate my dice results enough to have the requisite amount of successful adventures. Some challenges require the Doctor to roll six dice, but then there are restrictions in play that drop a Doctor’s dice pool down to six, thus creating a you-must-roll-EXACTLY-what-you-need-to-win scenario that is tough to swallow for a dice game. Also, this next part is completely personal opinion, I wish that 10 was included in the starter box. I got my 11, and I appreciate that, but I feel like 10 is the most widely-popular Doctor in the franchise, or at least in New Who, so the ball was dropped here. I know I can purchase 10 in an expansion pack with 5 (and kudos to whomever made THAT combination), but I want him NOW.
Time travel games are so difficult to pull off, and with Doctor Who you HAVE to consider that time travel will play a very important part in gameplay. I believe this title handles it well, and even allows for multiple Doctors to work together (let’s not talk about time paradoxes for now). That is great and allows for excellent cooperative play, so I applaud the designer for that. I also enjoy the different abilities given by each different regeneration as well as what the companions each bring to the table. Perhaps a companion will add certain colors of dice to the Dice Pool, or allow the Doctor to switch out some of his generic dice for stronger and more specific dice, or simply allow rerolls of certain colors of dice. I dig that a lot. And seeing my precious companions in the game matched up to their Doctors fills me with a sense of nostalgia that I just do not feel in other games.
While this has been the subject of much deliberation on my part, I will be keeping my copy of the game, and will most definitely be adding 5 and 10 to the mix. I really want to like this game more than I do, and maybe having 10 in my arsenal is enough to do it, though I have my doubts. I love the Doctor Who IP and love dice games. I think this is a good game overall, and will continue to explore it with other gamers. Something will click, I’m sure of it. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one wibbly-wobbly 8 / 12. If you need a difficult dice game in your collection and also love the Doctors, pick up a copy. But also do yourself a favor and grab a copy of any expansion that includes your favorite Doctor – you will thank me later. Spoilers, sweetie, that’s coming in tomorrow’s post.
Doctor Who: Time of the Daleks (which I will carefully refer to as DW from here on out though I would never abbreviate to Dr.) is an adventure dice racing game, even though the only official tag is dice. In it, players take on the roles of different Doctor regenerations and will travel through time and space collecting companions, Timey-Wimey cards, and Sonic Charges in order to manipulate dice rolls to defeat Dilemmas and Time Anomalies that pop up at the absolute worst times.
To setup, follow the rulebook instructions – there are just too many components to detail here. The game takes up quite a bit of table space, so do make sure to use your largest table.
On a player’s turn they will be adding Sonic Charges, shuffling up companions, and rolling the TARDIS die to determine travel. Once at a location, the Doctor (and subsequent harem) can Adventure by assessing the challenge of dice results printed on the Location board plus the Dilemma disc combined. It is these icons that must be rolled (and possibly manipulated) in order to have a successful adventure. If successful, typically this involves a reward of moving the TARDIS pawn on the main Web of Time board closer to Gallifrey, in addition to other rewards. Failure on an adventure will typically result in the Dalek ship being moved further from Skaro and closer to Gallifrey.
Once the Doctors have had their turn, the Daleks will take a turn. Immediately move the Dalek ship one space on the Web of Time track towards Gallifrey, and if they have reached Gallifrey before any Doctor, or on the same turn as a Doctor, the Daleks win and the Doctors all lose. If not, play continues in this fashion until one of those win conditions are met, along with a couple more loss conditions I will leave you to discover.
This is a very pared-down synopsis of the rules, and I have intentionally left out several rules so as not to bog down my paraphrasing with minutia. Take this into consideration when determining if this is the game for you.
Components. All in all the components in DW are absolutely stellar! All the cardboard is thick and features great art and screencaps (which is a polarizing subject that I simply don’t mind). The dice are great quality, though I wish they had chosen a different color for the blue dice so that the TARDIS die would be the only blue in the box. The minis are great, and have interchangeable bases because throughout the game the Doctors may have to regenerate, thus switching to a different Doctor mid-game (awesome mechanic for this IP by the way).
Let me tell you why I like this DW game and why I do not. Firstly, the game is just too hard for me. Maybe it’s how I roll the dice, but I feel I am almost never in possession of enough resources to be able to reroll or manually manipulate my dice results enough to have the requisite amount of successful adventures. Some challenges require the Doctor to roll six dice, but then there are restrictions in play that drop a Doctor’s dice pool down to six, thus creating a you-must-roll-EXACTLY-what-you-need-to-win scenario that is tough to swallow for a dice game. Also, this next part is completely personal opinion, I wish that 10 was included in the starter box. I got my 11, and I appreciate that, but I feel like 10 is the most widely-popular Doctor in the franchise, or at least in New Who, so the ball was dropped here. I know I can purchase 10 in an expansion pack with 5 (and kudos to whomever made THAT combination), but I want him NOW.
Time travel games are so difficult to pull off, and with Doctor Who you HAVE to consider that time travel will play a very important part in gameplay. I believe this title handles it well, and even allows for multiple Doctors to work together (let’s not talk about time paradoxes for now). That is great and allows for excellent cooperative play, so I applaud the designer for that. I also enjoy the different abilities given by each different regeneration as well as what the companions each bring to the table. Perhaps a companion will add certain colors of dice to the Dice Pool, or allow the Doctor to switch out some of his generic dice for stronger and more specific dice, or simply allow rerolls of certain colors of dice. I dig that a lot. And seeing my precious companions in the game matched up to their Doctors fills me with a sense of nostalgia that I just do not feel in other games.
While this has been the subject of much deliberation on my part, I will be keeping my copy of the game, and will most definitely be adding 5 and 10 to the mix. I really want to like this game more than I do, and maybe having 10 in my arsenal is enough to do it, though I have my doubts. I love the Doctor Who IP and love dice games. I think this is a good game overall, and will continue to explore it with other gamers. Something will click, I’m sure of it. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one wibbly-wobbly 8 / 12. If you need a difficult dice game in your collection and also love the Doctors, pick up a copy. But also do yourself a favor and grab a copy of any expansion that includes your favorite Doctor – you will thank me later. Spoilers, sweetie, that’s coming in tomorrow’s post.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Dragons Wild in Tabletop Games
Feb 1, 2021
Have you ever had Gamer Deja Vu? Like you know you’ve played this game before but don’t remember, or the mechanics just feel so familiar? I have it seldomly, but I still feel it at times. What I enjoy about certain games is how quick they are teach, have familiar mechanics, but also have their own twists to truly make it unique. Have I found that here with Dragons Wild?
Dragons Wild is a trick-taking game very similar to the old standard, Rummy. So like its predecessor players are trying to rid their hands of cards in order to signal the end of the game. Where this version separates is in the little details that are absent from Rummy.
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 February 2, 2021, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup choose a dealer and a scorer (different players). The dealer will shuffle the entire deck of cards, save for the scoring cards, and deal each player seven cards. The draw deck is placed in the middle of the table and the dealer flips the top card to create the discard pile. The scorer finds the reference score card and places the dragon token on or near the “Round 1, Score 8 per card” text. The game may now begin!
Generally, the game is played much like Rummy where players are attempting to lay down melds of cards containing either runs (1, 2, 3, 4, etc) or sets (2, 2, 2 of different suits). Once a player has a meld in front of themselves they may play their cards onto other players’ melds. Players must discard a card at the end of each turn, and play continues in this manner until a player runs out of cards.
Dragons Wild, however, adds a few twists to pump up the play of traditional Rummy. Each player will need to keep track of their point totals as they will change with each play of a card. Should a player lay a meld on Round 1 they score eight VP for each card laid. In Round 2 cards are worth seven points each. Round 3 each card is worth six points and so on until Round 8 (or more) where each card is worth just one point.
Another way in which Dragons Wild differs from its older cousin is in the buying of cards (as far as I remember – I’m no Rummy expert). On their turn the active player must draw a card from either the top of the draw deck or the top of the discard pile. However, before the active player chooses, should another player wish to buy the face-up discard card the active player decides to allow or disallow the buy. With a successful buy the buying player takes the discarded card as well as the top card of the draw deck as payment. A player may buy as many as three cards in this fashion for each new active player.
Also, Dragons Wild offers a slight rule change for Wild cards in melds. Every time I have played Rummy in my lifetime any Wild is up for grabs as long as it can be replaced with a legal card from any player’s hand on their turn. This is not the case in Dragons Wild, as only Wild cards that hang on the end of a RUN of cards may be taken, replaced, or moved to the other end by the active player.
The game ends once one player is able to rid their entire hand of cards and still have one card to discard at the end of their turn. Players then total their scores from all cards played, scoring points differently depending on the Round in which they were laid. Other players still possessing cards then subtract the NUMBER of cards still held from their entire score, not their values. The player with the most points after this scoring phase is the winner!
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of the game, and I am completely unsure which, if any, components will be upgraded as a result of a successful Kickstarter campaign. That said, I can comment on a couple things. First, the art style. While it is not my cup of tea (dragons have tea parties, right?) I can see where others may quite enjoy its fancifulness and whimsy. The game is very colorful, and I do appreciate that quite a lot. The cards are laid out well, and each suit is a different species of fantastic beast (though I rarely knew which was which – I just paid attention to the background color in the corners of the cards mostly). So I have no real problems with the components at all, I just wish for different art. The designer was nice enough to send along a print of a purple phoenix with this copy, which is super rad of her, and it looks great. Maybe she will add them into the final version…
Gameplay is familiar, like I stated earlier, because I would think most people have played Rummy or a variation of it at some point. In fact, my family was big into Rummikub growing up, and my grandparents were big into Rummy proper. So this was somewhat nostalgic for me while also bringing a few house rules and art that is different from a boring deck of normal playing cards.
The rules are not at all difficult, so learning, teaching, and playing have not seemed to be an issue at all here. If players have all played a version of Rummy before then this one will fly pretty quickly. It is a simple, fast, and slightly unique version of Rummy that would be nice to keep around if you need to wait on another player to arrive and they are 10 minutes away, or as a palette cleanser between games. Definitely a filler game, and not at all a bad one!
If you are looking for a differently-themed Rummy replacement with a twist, I recommend checking out Dragons Wild. It’s cute, quick, and has dragons, for Pete’s sake. Consider backing the Kickstarter campaign or asking your LFGS to stock it upon release.
Dragons Wild is a trick-taking game very similar to the old standard, Rummy. So like its predecessor players are trying to rid their hands of cards in order to signal the end of the game. Where this version separates is in the little details that are absent from Rummy.
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 February 2, 2021, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup choose a dealer and a scorer (different players). The dealer will shuffle the entire deck of cards, save for the scoring cards, and deal each player seven cards. The draw deck is placed in the middle of the table and the dealer flips the top card to create the discard pile. The scorer finds the reference score card and places the dragon token on or near the “Round 1, Score 8 per card” text. The game may now begin!
Generally, the game is played much like Rummy where players are attempting to lay down melds of cards containing either runs (1, 2, 3, 4, etc) or sets (2, 2, 2 of different suits). Once a player has a meld in front of themselves they may play their cards onto other players’ melds. Players must discard a card at the end of each turn, and play continues in this manner until a player runs out of cards.
Dragons Wild, however, adds a few twists to pump up the play of traditional Rummy. Each player will need to keep track of their point totals as they will change with each play of a card. Should a player lay a meld on Round 1 they score eight VP for each card laid. In Round 2 cards are worth seven points each. Round 3 each card is worth six points and so on until Round 8 (or more) where each card is worth just one point.
Another way in which Dragons Wild differs from its older cousin is in the buying of cards (as far as I remember – I’m no Rummy expert). On their turn the active player must draw a card from either the top of the draw deck or the top of the discard pile. However, before the active player chooses, should another player wish to buy the face-up discard card the active player decides to allow or disallow the buy. With a successful buy the buying player takes the discarded card as well as the top card of the draw deck as payment. A player may buy as many as three cards in this fashion for each new active player.
Also, Dragons Wild offers a slight rule change for Wild cards in melds. Every time I have played Rummy in my lifetime any Wild is up for grabs as long as it can be replaced with a legal card from any player’s hand on their turn. This is not the case in Dragons Wild, as only Wild cards that hang on the end of a RUN of cards may be taken, replaced, or moved to the other end by the active player.
The game ends once one player is able to rid their entire hand of cards and still have one card to discard at the end of their turn. Players then total their scores from all cards played, scoring points differently depending on the Round in which they were laid. Other players still possessing cards then subtract the NUMBER of cards still held from their entire score, not their values. The player with the most points after this scoring phase is the winner!
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of the game, and I am completely unsure which, if any, components will be upgraded as a result of a successful Kickstarter campaign. That said, I can comment on a couple things. First, the art style. While it is not my cup of tea (dragons have tea parties, right?) I can see where others may quite enjoy its fancifulness and whimsy. The game is very colorful, and I do appreciate that quite a lot. The cards are laid out well, and each suit is a different species of fantastic beast (though I rarely knew which was which – I just paid attention to the background color in the corners of the cards mostly). So I have no real problems with the components at all, I just wish for different art. The designer was nice enough to send along a print of a purple phoenix with this copy, which is super rad of her, and it looks great. Maybe she will add them into the final version…
Gameplay is familiar, like I stated earlier, because I would think most people have played Rummy or a variation of it at some point. In fact, my family was big into Rummikub growing up, and my grandparents were big into Rummy proper. So this was somewhat nostalgic for me while also bringing a few house rules and art that is different from a boring deck of normal playing cards.
The rules are not at all difficult, so learning, teaching, and playing have not seemed to be an issue at all here. If players have all played a version of Rummy before then this one will fly pretty quickly. It is a simple, fast, and slightly unique version of Rummy that would be nice to keep around if you need to wait on another player to arrive and they are 10 minutes away, or as a palette cleanser between games. Definitely a filler game, and not at all a bad one!
If you are looking for a differently-themed Rummy replacement with a twist, I recommend checking out Dragons Wild. It’s cute, quick, and has dragons, for Pete’s sake. Consider backing the Kickstarter campaign or asking your LFGS to stock it upon release.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated The Lone Ranger (2013) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
With much of the pre-release coverage of the film centered on the reportedly $250 million plus shooting budget, audiences can finally see the fruits of this labor as Disney brings “The Lone Ranger” to the big screen. The movie stars Johnny Depp as Tonto and tells a slightly updated tale of the masked ranger, yet stays refreshingly grounded in the traditions and history of the source material.
Armie Hammer stars as John Reid, a district attorney who returns to Texas to provide justice to a lawless land that is in the process of great expansion thanks to the pending completion of the Transcontinental Railroad. In the 1860s, the country is in a great state of change as the completion of the railroad will allow people to travel coast-to-coast across, something that was once an extremely long and dangerous journey to undertake.
The local railroad administrator plans to do a public hanging of notorious outlaw murder Butch Cavendish (William Fichtner), as an example of how law and order has come to the wild frontier, a show to encourage Western expansion and install a sense of security in the local populace. The local Comanche tribes are told that as long as they continue to honor the established treaties they will be able to coexist in peace with the Western settlers.
Following a daring escape from the train that is carrying him to justice, Cavendish departs into the desert with his gang of outlaws. Not willing to let him escape justice once again, Reid’s brother Dan deputizes John, and leads the posse to bring Cavendish to justice. Now as anybody who’s followed any of the previous incarnations of the story knows, the posse is ambushed and all the Rangers are brutally murdered by Cavendish and is outlaws. Enter Tonto, who discovers John barely alive, and overseas his restoration to health. It is Tonto who convinces Reid to wear a mask as he is convinced that Cavendish had help and that it would be best for John and his brother’s family if the world believed John died with the other rangers to save them from any possible retribution
In a refreshing change of pace, Reid is not a swaggering fountain of machismo. He is a man who puts his faith in the law rather than in a six shooter and is actually hesitant to fire a weapon and use lethal forms of violence to dispense justice. This brings him at odds from time to time with Tonto who tries to walk the thin line between his people and his beliefs and the ever-changing modern world around him.
When the military began systematically retaliating against Tonto’s people for perceived raids against the townspeople, Reid and Tonto not only must deal with Cavendish and his gang of outlaws but must get to the bottom of a larger mystery that threatens to not only eradicate the Comanche people but to threaten the good citizens of the area. With his trusty and at times comical white horse, Silver, Reid and Tonto must learn to coexist with each other in a desperate race against time.
The film was an extremely enjoyable and fresh take on the characters that I really enjoyed. By giving the characters slightly more updated and relatable personas and traits yet retaining their core identities in history, Depp and Hammer made this a Western that was fun and cool and yet stayed true to the origins of the characters while making them more appealing to a modern audience. What really impressed me was Depp how he took what is often jokingly seen as a stereo typical Western sidekick and made him a very compelling yet diverse character. Yes, there is a lot of humor in the film but it is entertainingly at the expense of Reid, most often with Tonto getting some of the best lines in the film. I really appreciated the fact how it told a story without being overly politically correct or preaching, letting the characters and the action convey the message.
The action in the film is solid and the harrowing finale had people in the test screening cheering the action. Producer Jerry Bruckheimer and Director Gore Verbinski are to be commended for bringing a lively story that introduces the iconic characters to a new generation of fans. I hope that the film is able to draw fans and gives Disney’s a good return on its large investment as I would love to see Depp and Hammer back for future adventures. “The Lone Ranger” was the most pleasant surprise of the summer to date and the only summer film so far that I would pay to see again.
http://sknr.net/2013/07/03/the-lone-ranger/
Armie Hammer stars as John Reid, a district attorney who returns to Texas to provide justice to a lawless land that is in the process of great expansion thanks to the pending completion of the Transcontinental Railroad. In the 1860s, the country is in a great state of change as the completion of the railroad will allow people to travel coast-to-coast across, something that was once an extremely long and dangerous journey to undertake.
The local railroad administrator plans to do a public hanging of notorious outlaw murder Butch Cavendish (William Fichtner), as an example of how law and order has come to the wild frontier, a show to encourage Western expansion and install a sense of security in the local populace. The local Comanche tribes are told that as long as they continue to honor the established treaties they will be able to coexist in peace with the Western settlers.
Following a daring escape from the train that is carrying him to justice, Cavendish departs into the desert with his gang of outlaws. Not willing to let him escape justice once again, Reid’s brother Dan deputizes John, and leads the posse to bring Cavendish to justice. Now as anybody who’s followed any of the previous incarnations of the story knows, the posse is ambushed and all the Rangers are brutally murdered by Cavendish and is outlaws. Enter Tonto, who discovers John barely alive, and overseas his restoration to health. It is Tonto who convinces Reid to wear a mask as he is convinced that Cavendish had help and that it would be best for John and his brother’s family if the world believed John died with the other rangers to save them from any possible retribution
In a refreshing change of pace, Reid is not a swaggering fountain of machismo. He is a man who puts his faith in the law rather than in a six shooter and is actually hesitant to fire a weapon and use lethal forms of violence to dispense justice. This brings him at odds from time to time with Tonto who tries to walk the thin line between his people and his beliefs and the ever-changing modern world around him.
When the military began systematically retaliating against Tonto’s people for perceived raids against the townspeople, Reid and Tonto not only must deal with Cavendish and his gang of outlaws but must get to the bottom of a larger mystery that threatens to not only eradicate the Comanche people but to threaten the good citizens of the area. With his trusty and at times comical white horse, Silver, Reid and Tonto must learn to coexist with each other in a desperate race against time.
The film was an extremely enjoyable and fresh take on the characters that I really enjoyed. By giving the characters slightly more updated and relatable personas and traits yet retaining their core identities in history, Depp and Hammer made this a Western that was fun and cool and yet stayed true to the origins of the characters while making them more appealing to a modern audience. What really impressed me was Depp how he took what is often jokingly seen as a stereo typical Western sidekick and made him a very compelling yet diverse character. Yes, there is a lot of humor in the film but it is entertainingly at the expense of Reid, most often with Tonto getting some of the best lines in the film. I really appreciated the fact how it told a story without being overly politically correct or preaching, letting the characters and the action convey the message.
The action in the film is solid and the harrowing finale had people in the test screening cheering the action. Producer Jerry Bruckheimer and Director Gore Verbinski are to be commended for bringing a lively story that introduces the iconic characters to a new generation of fans. I hope that the film is able to draw fans and gives Disney’s a good return on its large investment as I would love to see Depp and Hammer back for future adventures. “The Lone Ranger” was the most pleasant surprise of the summer to date and the only summer film so far that I would pay to see again.
http://sknr.net/2013/07/03/the-lone-ranger/
Darren (1599 KP) rated Aftershock (2013) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Aftershock starts as Gringo (Roth), Ariel (Levy) and Pollo (Martinez) travelling around Chile, they party over all night where they meet three girls Monica (Osvart), Irina (Yarovenko) and Kylie (Izzo). Going for one last party the six new friends find themselves in the middle of an earthquake, one seriously injured and an impending tsunami heading towards them.
The friends must race against time in a country none of them call home to make it out alive but the natural disaster isn’t the only threat when the prison is damaged leading to the prisoners being released upon the streets.
Aftershock gives us something very different because we get a disaster movie which comes off realistic and sudden which is a big plus but it doesn’t stop there by giving us a survival horror when the group have to survive from prisoners. It would be fair to say there is a negative with the building up to the disaster but this does help give us small character development. When we deal with the aftershock of the earthquake we have to deal with non-stop action throughout. This was a real surprise because I thought there would have been more hype about the film.
Actor Review
Eli Roth: Gringo is the single father on the trip, he is friends with Ariel which shows that he isn’t the closet with Pollo. He is using this holiday as a chance to get over the recently divorce but when the quake hits he finds himself having to pull Pollo out of his daze. Eli does well but it becomes clear he really should be behind the camera.
Andrea Osvart: Monica is the stricter older sister to Kylie who tries her best to keep her sister safe on their adventure but she has a secret from the rest which is very important for the aftershock side of the story. Andrea is good in this leading role being the sensible one during the situation.monica
Nicolas Martinez: Pollo is the Spanish talking member of the group, he has gotten by because the money his family has. He finds himself having to step up after the quake to do the things normal men wouldn’t. his final moments are slightly stupid but otherwise a good character. Nicolas is good in this role as the man who needs to step up.
Natasha Yarovenko: Irina is one of the girls who is very similar to Gringo being a single parent and also a success. She starts off thinking she is more but soon becomes the strongest one during the situation. Natasha is good in this role and the sympathy between her and Gringo’s character comes through strong.
Lorenza Izzo: Kylie is the younger party animal of the two sisters, she just wants to have fun on her trip but with her old sister trying to protect her she finds herself being held back until the quake hits and she wants her sister to help her. Lorenza is good in this bratty like character which put her on the map for a future horror scream queen.
Support Cast: Aftershock has the basic supporting cast that all help with the survival side of the story.
Director Review: Nicolas Lopez – Nicolas gives us a film that keeps pulling us in once the earthquake hits.
Action: Aftershock use the action for the destruction side of the story which helps us with mother nature side of the story.
Horror: Aftershock comes from the human side of the story as we see just how twisted they can become in a situation our characters find themselves in.
Thriller: Aftershock keeps us on edge from start to finish.
Settings: Aftershock uses Chile for the settings which works for a different location and shows our characters lost during a disaster.
Special Effects: Aftershock has good effects to create what happens to the characters in the disaster.
Suggestion: Aftershock is one to watch especially is you like disaster movies. (Watch)
Best Part: Earthquake.
Worst Part: Slightly too much before the quake.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $2 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 29 Minutes
Tagline: The only thing more terrifying than Mother Nature is human nature.
Overall: Surprisingly intense film that blends two great genres.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/08/19/movie-reviews-101-midnight-horror-aftershock-2012/
The friends must race against time in a country none of them call home to make it out alive but the natural disaster isn’t the only threat when the prison is damaged leading to the prisoners being released upon the streets.
Aftershock gives us something very different because we get a disaster movie which comes off realistic and sudden which is a big plus but it doesn’t stop there by giving us a survival horror when the group have to survive from prisoners. It would be fair to say there is a negative with the building up to the disaster but this does help give us small character development. When we deal with the aftershock of the earthquake we have to deal with non-stop action throughout. This was a real surprise because I thought there would have been more hype about the film.
Actor Review
Eli Roth: Gringo is the single father on the trip, he is friends with Ariel which shows that he isn’t the closet with Pollo. He is using this holiday as a chance to get over the recently divorce but when the quake hits he finds himself having to pull Pollo out of his daze. Eli does well but it becomes clear he really should be behind the camera.
Andrea Osvart: Monica is the stricter older sister to Kylie who tries her best to keep her sister safe on their adventure but she has a secret from the rest which is very important for the aftershock side of the story. Andrea is good in this leading role being the sensible one during the situation.monica
Nicolas Martinez: Pollo is the Spanish talking member of the group, he has gotten by because the money his family has. He finds himself having to step up after the quake to do the things normal men wouldn’t. his final moments are slightly stupid but otherwise a good character. Nicolas is good in this role as the man who needs to step up.
Natasha Yarovenko: Irina is one of the girls who is very similar to Gringo being a single parent and also a success. She starts off thinking she is more but soon becomes the strongest one during the situation. Natasha is good in this role and the sympathy between her and Gringo’s character comes through strong.
Lorenza Izzo: Kylie is the younger party animal of the two sisters, she just wants to have fun on her trip but with her old sister trying to protect her she finds herself being held back until the quake hits and she wants her sister to help her. Lorenza is good in this bratty like character which put her on the map for a future horror scream queen.
Support Cast: Aftershock has the basic supporting cast that all help with the survival side of the story.
Director Review: Nicolas Lopez – Nicolas gives us a film that keeps pulling us in once the earthquake hits.
Action: Aftershock use the action for the destruction side of the story which helps us with mother nature side of the story.
Horror: Aftershock comes from the human side of the story as we see just how twisted they can become in a situation our characters find themselves in.
Thriller: Aftershock keeps us on edge from start to finish.
Settings: Aftershock uses Chile for the settings which works for a different location and shows our characters lost during a disaster.
Special Effects: Aftershock has good effects to create what happens to the characters in the disaster.
Suggestion: Aftershock is one to watch especially is you like disaster movies. (Watch)
Best Part: Earthquake.
Worst Part: Slightly too much before the quake.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $2 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 29 Minutes
Tagline: The only thing more terrifying than Mother Nature is human nature.
Overall: Surprisingly intense film that blends two great genres.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/08/19/movie-reviews-101-midnight-horror-aftershock-2012/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Magnificent Seven (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A Hornery Exit.
As a big fan of the original – a staple of many Bank Holiday afternoons in my youth – I was prepared to be sniffy about this remake and came to the film on my high-horse (I left that tied to the rail outside the cinema by the way). But I was surprised to have my expectations reset.
Possibly on the basis that Trump has been given the Mexican’s a good bashing lately, the villain of the piece in this film is updated from Mexican bandit Calvera to Sacremento based land-snatcher and all round bad-egg Bartholomew Bogue (an expressionless Peter Sarsgaard). After ripping through some of the inhabitants of Rose Creek in a brutal pre-title sequence, widowed sharp-shooter Emma Cullen (Haley Bennett, “The Equalizer”) heads into the West on a recruiting mission for hired guns. She first recruits the bounty hunter Chisholm (sing “Chisum, John Chisum…”… no, sorry different Western) played by Denzel Washington. Washington matches Yul Brynner’s famous black outfit, and unlike Brynner is obviously able to finish off the ensemble naturally!
They recruit another six (who’d have thought it?) including wise-guy gambler Faraday (Chris “Guardians of the Galaxy” Pratt); famed confederate sniper Goodnight Robicheaux (Ethan Hawke); his nifty knife throwing Asian sidekick (but good for the Far East box office) Billy Rocks (Bjung-hun Lee, from Terminator: Genisys); and religious bear-of-a-man Indian-hunter Jack Horne (Vincent D’Onofrio, “Jurassic World”). After trying to whip the incompetent townsfolk into shape, and setting some Home-Alone style surprises, the stage is set for a showdown as Bogue whips up an army to re-take “his” town.
I like classic Westerns, with John Ford’s Rio Bravo being a particular favourite. In my view the problem with many modern Westerns is that they try too hard to shock (Tarentino’s recent “Hateful 8” was a case in point: a promising start ruined by gratuitous over-the-top violence). “The Magnificent Seven” doesn’t make that mistake, and while the squib-master and blood-bag boy are heavily employed throughout, nothing is too excessive: in fact, my view – and I don’t often tend in this direction – is that the censors rather over-egged the UK 12A rating on this one and could have gone with a 12. Director Antoine Fuqua has produced a film that is highly respectful of its heritage: perhaps to the point where many scenes might be deemed to be clichéd. But I personally warmed to that.
Denzel Washington was born to be in a Western like this and the emerging Chris Pratt does his star potential no harm by turning in a stellar performance adding both levity – with some whip-sharp lines – and screen presence in the role made famous by Steve McQueen. (Although no one comes close to the screen presence of McQueen…. Look up “real man” in the dictionary and his picture is there!) Also effective is Ethan Hawke in the nearest thing to the Robert Vaughan character in this film.
Where the adapted script by Richard Wenk and Nik Pizzolatto falters somewhat is in the motivations of the characters, which come across as superficial and unconvincing. (Perhaps “selling” was a whole lot easier in the Old West?) It is even unclear at the end of the film whether the survivors (and I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the seven don’t all make it!) actually take their payment, or even a “share of the gold” that the town is sitting on. It makes for an unsatisfactory closure. The degree of racial harmony present in the film is also difficult to buy into, and the script could have made something more of this.
The film soundtrack marks the swan-song of the late James Horner, so tragically killed in a plane crash last year at the age of just 61. As the natural successor to the great John Williams and the late Jerry Goldsmith, Horner’s loss was a terrible one. The film is dedicated to him. Although the soundtrack was completed by Simon Franglen, there are flourishes of classic Horner, most notably in the first Rose Creek showdown scene. There is also a treat to the ears over the closing credits which is very welcome.
Although the film draws natural comparison with its 5* classic predecessor, this is a good film in its own right – a genuinely pleasant surprise. Perhaps its done well enough that we might get to now see a remake of “The Return of the Seven”. I hope so… “the Western is dead… long live the Western”!
Possibly on the basis that Trump has been given the Mexican’s a good bashing lately, the villain of the piece in this film is updated from Mexican bandit Calvera to Sacremento based land-snatcher and all round bad-egg Bartholomew Bogue (an expressionless Peter Sarsgaard). After ripping through some of the inhabitants of Rose Creek in a brutal pre-title sequence, widowed sharp-shooter Emma Cullen (Haley Bennett, “The Equalizer”) heads into the West on a recruiting mission for hired guns. She first recruits the bounty hunter Chisholm (sing “Chisum, John Chisum…”… no, sorry different Western) played by Denzel Washington. Washington matches Yul Brynner’s famous black outfit, and unlike Brynner is obviously able to finish off the ensemble naturally!
They recruit another six (who’d have thought it?) including wise-guy gambler Faraday (Chris “Guardians of the Galaxy” Pratt); famed confederate sniper Goodnight Robicheaux (Ethan Hawke); his nifty knife throwing Asian sidekick (but good for the Far East box office) Billy Rocks (Bjung-hun Lee, from Terminator: Genisys); and religious bear-of-a-man Indian-hunter Jack Horne (Vincent D’Onofrio, “Jurassic World”). After trying to whip the incompetent townsfolk into shape, and setting some Home-Alone style surprises, the stage is set for a showdown as Bogue whips up an army to re-take “his” town.
I like classic Westerns, with John Ford’s Rio Bravo being a particular favourite. In my view the problem with many modern Westerns is that they try too hard to shock (Tarentino’s recent “Hateful 8” was a case in point: a promising start ruined by gratuitous over-the-top violence). “The Magnificent Seven” doesn’t make that mistake, and while the squib-master and blood-bag boy are heavily employed throughout, nothing is too excessive: in fact, my view – and I don’t often tend in this direction – is that the censors rather over-egged the UK 12A rating on this one and could have gone with a 12. Director Antoine Fuqua has produced a film that is highly respectful of its heritage: perhaps to the point where many scenes might be deemed to be clichéd. But I personally warmed to that.
Denzel Washington was born to be in a Western like this and the emerging Chris Pratt does his star potential no harm by turning in a stellar performance adding both levity – with some whip-sharp lines – and screen presence in the role made famous by Steve McQueen. (Although no one comes close to the screen presence of McQueen…. Look up “real man” in the dictionary and his picture is there!) Also effective is Ethan Hawke in the nearest thing to the Robert Vaughan character in this film.
Where the adapted script by Richard Wenk and Nik Pizzolatto falters somewhat is in the motivations of the characters, which come across as superficial and unconvincing. (Perhaps “selling” was a whole lot easier in the Old West?) It is even unclear at the end of the film whether the survivors (and I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the seven don’t all make it!) actually take their payment, or even a “share of the gold” that the town is sitting on. It makes for an unsatisfactory closure. The degree of racial harmony present in the film is also difficult to buy into, and the script could have made something more of this.
The film soundtrack marks the swan-song of the late James Horner, so tragically killed in a plane crash last year at the age of just 61. As the natural successor to the great John Williams and the late Jerry Goldsmith, Horner’s loss was a terrible one. The film is dedicated to him. Although the soundtrack was completed by Simon Franglen, there are flourishes of classic Horner, most notably in the first Rose Creek showdown scene. There is also a treat to the ears over the closing credits which is very welcome.
Although the film draws natural comparison with its 5* classic predecessor, this is a good film in its own right – a genuinely pleasant surprise. Perhaps its done well enough that we might get to now see a remake of “The Return of the Seven”. I hope so… “the Western is dead… long live the Western”!