Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated West Side Story (2021) in Movies
Mar 7, 2022
Very Good...but could have (SHOULD HAVE) been GREAT
One of the biggest disappointments in watching a Motion Picture is when a Film has all of the ingredients to be a GREAT film, but is knocked off this tier by one flaw - and sometimes - is knocked down to merely good by an egregious flaw.
Such is the case with Stephen Spielberg’s adaptation of the 1957 Broadway Musical WEST SIDE STORY - it has all of the ingredients to be considered a great film, but it has a problem at it’s core that knocks it down to very good (and maybe just “good”).
The 1961 version of West Side Story, of course, swept the 1962 Oscars, winning 10 Oscars - including Best Picture. This musical, of course, is based on William Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet about a doomed love relationship set in a time of battling factions.
There is much to like in this adaptation - and let’s start with Spielberg’s Oscar nominated Direction. It is “spot-on”, for the most part in this telling of this tale, keeping the events rolling, and the tension taught (and rising) throughout the course of the film and orchestrating well deserved Production Design, Sound, Cinematography and Costume Oscar nominations. This film is a treat to watch (and listen to) and is the very definition of a film deserving of Awards. These are all top notch professionals in their fields delivering top notch results and having the Songs of Leonard Bernstein (Music) and Stephen Sondheim (Lyrics) so beautifully depicted is a treat, indeed.
Spielberg, wisely, ethnically cast this movie appropriately. Having Latino performers playing one faction of these warring entities and White performers playing the Anglos in this film is the correct move. Spielberg (and playwright Tony Kushner who adapted Arthur Laurents book) decided to have some of the scenes performed in Spanish (as they would be in “real life”) with no subtitles. As a non-Spanish speaking Anglo, these scenes worked very well for me.
Add to all of this strong performances across the cast. David Alvarez as Bernardo, Mike Faist as Riff, Josh Andres Rivera as Chino all shine as does Iris Menas as Anybodys. Stealing the show, of course, is Ariana DeBose (HAMILTON) as the hot-blooded Anita, a performance that will, IMHO, win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. If she does win, she will be the 2nd Actress to win the Oscar for playing this role in a film. Rita Moreno won it in 1961 - and let’s talk about her work in this film. Spielberg, wisely, gender-swapped the “Doc” role in this film - and gave it to Moreno. Her Valentino is the heart and soul of this film and it was a risky, and wise, choice to give Valentino the song “Somewhere” - and it works beautifully. I would have been happy to see the EGOT winning, 90-something year old Moreno get an Oscar nomination as well.
You will notice that the 2 leads - Tony (Ansel Elgort) and Maria (Rachel Zegler) have yet to be mentioned and, therein, lies the problem with this film.
Individually, their performances are “good”. Zegler’s Maria is young, sweet and innocent and she is “pitch-perfect” for this role. Most critics point to Elgort’s work as the reason that this film falls short of greatness and I think that this is unfair to Elgort. Remember, Tony has been tucked away in jail for a few years for almost killing a rival gang member with his fists, so he needs to be somewhat older than the others and he needs to have a temper simmering underneath that is ready to explode. Elgort plays this role as Directed by Spielberg and is a good fit for the interpretation of this role as formed through the eyes of his talented Director.
The issue is when Tony and Maria are put together on the screen - there just is no chemistry between the two and the age difference (at least how the 2 characters look and are portrayed on screen) is jarring and is almost creepy. I never felt the love connection between Tony and Maria, a factor that is so important to the spine of this film that when it is missing - as it is here - the movie fell flat.
Ultimately, you have to fault the Director for this and that is too bad, for the other aspects of the film - and Spielberg’s Direction - are so good and so strong that the disappointment of the black hole that is central to this film is crushing.
Letter Grade: A- (heading towards B+)
8 stars out of 10 (it could have…SHOULD HAVE…been a 9 or a 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with Stephen Spielberg’s adaptation of the 1957 Broadway Musical WEST SIDE STORY - it has all of the ingredients to be considered a great film, but it has a problem at it’s core that knocks it down to very good (and maybe just “good”).
The 1961 version of West Side Story, of course, swept the 1962 Oscars, winning 10 Oscars - including Best Picture. This musical, of course, is based on William Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet about a doomed love relationship set in a time of battling factions.
There is much to like in this adaptation - and let’s start with Spielberg’s Oscar nominated Direction. It is “spot-on”, for the most part in this telling of this tale, keeping the events rolling, and the tension taught (and rising) throughout the course of the film and orchestrating well deserved Production Design, Sound, Cinematography and Costume Oscar nominations. This film is a treat to watch (and listen to) and is the very definition of a film deserving of Awards. These are all top notch professionals in their fields delivering top notch results and having the Songs of Leonard Bernstein (Music) and Stephen Sondheim (Lyrics) so beautifully depicted is a treat, indeed.
Spielberg, wisely, ethnically cast this movie appropriately. Having Latino performers playing one faction of these warring entities and White performers playing the Anglos in this film is the correct move. Spielberg (and playwright Tony Kushner who adapted Arthur Laurents book) decided to have some of the scenes performed in Spanish (as they would be in “real life”) with no subtitles. As a non-Spanish speaking Anglo, these scenes worked very well for me.
Add to all of this strong performances across the cast. David Alvarez as Bernardo, Mike Faist as Riff, Josh Andres Rivera as Chino all shine as does Iris Menas as Anybodys. Stealing the show, of course, is Ariana DeBose (HAMILTON) as the hot-blooded Anita, a performance that will, IMHO, win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. If she does win, she will be the 2nd Actress to win the Oscar for playing this role in a film. Rita Moreno won it in 1961 - and let’s talk about her work in this film. Spielberg, wisely, gender-swapped the “Doc” role in this film - and gave it to Moreno. Her Valentino is the heart and soul of this film and it was a risky, and wise, choice to give Valentino the song “Somewhere” - and it works beautifully. I would have been happy to see the EGOT winning, 90-something year old Moreno get an Oscar nomination as well.
You will notice that the 2 leads - Tony (Ansel Elgort) and Maria (Rachel Zegler) have yet to be mentioned and, therein, lies the problem with this film.
Individually, their performances are “good”. Zegler’s Maria is young, sweet and innocent and she is “pitch-perfect” for this role. Most critics point to Elgort’s work as the reason that this film falls short of greatness and I think that this is unfair to Elgort. Remember, Tony has been tucked away in jail for a few years for almost killing a rival gang member with his fists, so he needs to be somewhat older than the others and he needs to have a temper simmering underneath that is ready to explode. Elgort plays this role as Directed by Spielberg and is a good fit for the interpretation of this role as formed through the eyes of his talented Director.
The issue is when Tony and Maria are put together on the screen - there just is no chemistry between the two and the age difference (at least how the 2 characters look and are portrayed on screen) is jarring and is almost creepy. I never felt the love connection between Tony and Maria, a factor that is so important to the spine of this film that when it is missing - as it is here - the movie fell flat.
Ultimately, you have to fault the Director for this and that is too bad, for the other aspects of the film - and Spielberg’s Direction - are so good and so strong that the disappointment of the black hole that is central to this film is crushing.
Letter Grade: A- (heading towards B+)
8 stars out of 10 (it could have…SHOULD HAVE…been a 9 or a 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Black Mirror - Season 3 in TV
Mar 3, 2020
Nosedive - 8
We had to wait almost another 2 years for the Netflix investment to show a product, and in time for Halloween 2016 we got the super-glossy re-boot of Nosedive, with a big name up front and lots of anticipation. The tone was instantly more playful; less British, more inclusive to a world audience. It tackled with a wry humour the universal phenomenon of popularity and everything being rated, most notably, people themselves. In a future world of sunshine and pastel shades it has become the norm to rate every interaction, from buying coffee to buying a house, in the hope of becoming one of the beautiful people rated above a 4.5. It cleverly questions the motivations for that desire, and the pitfalls of false behaviour and the manipulation from an elite standpoint. It isn’t necessary to imagine this future, as we are virtually there already, and all this episode does is heighten the idea to hyperbolic proportions. Rated down by many viewers because it is “annoying”, but that is entirely the point: the whole thing makes you want to scream!
Playtest - 6.5
Also available for Halloween (as was the whole season, in standard Netflix style) came a chance to explore what really scares us! And… they blew it. Sure, the idea that gaming and VR becomes so photo realistic it seems entirely real isn’t far away. But, making it personal to a very annoying character dissolves all tension quite early on. Some mild jump scares aside, this has to go down as a missed opportunity. Notable only for the re-occurance of the White Bear symbol.
Shut Up and Dance - 7
This is the one most likely to make you think, hmm, that is too far! An uncomfortable episode, not only because of the subject matter and ultimate revelation, but because of the intense nastiness that pervades it. No doubt that tension is intentional, and therefore effective to a degree, but for me it crosses the line of entertainment and becomes simply nasty. Being unafraid to tackle controversial subjects is to be applauded, but the execution has to be note perfect, or the risk is the backlash this episode received. A cautionary tale about surveillance, data theft, blackmail and our personal online responsibility. Not a bad piece, just a slight misjudgment on tone and delivery.
San Junipero - 9.5
Just when critics were sharpening their pens that Netflix had ruined the potential of Black Mirror in its first phase, comes an almost perfect piece of TV that is literally heavenly! Everything about San Junipero is a work of art! Another “blind” episode that takes a while to unravel; the pacing and realisation of which is so beautifully judged that, from a writing point of view, this has to be seen as the pinnacle of the show to date. Mackenzie Davis is extraordinary as the vulnerable, shy and naive Yorkie, looking for a connection in an 80s nightclub, filled with nostalgia and cultural memes galore. The music alone is not only sing aloud perfect, but chosen for storytelling reasons so clever it raises goosebumps! The relationship between Yorkie and Kelly, an equally great Gugu Mbatha-Raw, is filled with chemistry and nuance, drawing us in to a place so deep that when the penny drops on what is really going on it draws a gasp and then possibly tears – I know it did for me! The mechanics of the technology that would make this story possible does raise a lot of questions, but in the end it is better to accept it as an allegory for love, life and our ideas of “eternity”. Don’t look too deeply at the how, but marvel at the why, and this could be the best hour of TV you will ever see! So rewatchable, rich and rewarding; the only reason not to make this a feature length big budget film is that how could it possibly be improved?
Men Against Fire - 7
Revisiting yet again the technology of a brain implant that affects our vision of the world, literally and figuratively, this episode explores indoctrination and brainwashing, with the underlying themes of racism and basic human compassion. It is a fine analogy of how the media and governments would have us think of immigrants and the “dangers” of anything “not us”. A tad obvious, and doesn’t really go anywhere new once the twist is revealed. Visually quite stunning, but not as strong as other episodes that cover similar ground.
Hated in the Nation - 8.5
With a running time of 89 minutes, this is essentially what happens when Black Mirror pushes an idea to feature length. Allowing more time for character development does make a difference, and the tension build in this fine concept for a thriller also benefits from a few extra minutes. The ever reliable Kelly MacDonald is the cornerstone of a strong cast, on the hunt for the mind behind a series of killings by killer bee drones, targeted at a democratically elected “most hated” person every day, based on a public vote. An exploration of media vilification and how easy it can be to manipulate our idea of someone’s identity and judge their actions and even personalities based on one wrong thing they may have said or done. The episode is a who-dunnit? A why-doit? And, framed, with the backdrop of the inquest surrounding events, both a good cop movie and a courtroom drama. Charlie Brooker has hinted that some of these characters may return at some point. I’m all for it.
We had to wait almost another 2 years for the Netflix investment to show a product, and in time for Halloween 2016 we got the super-glossy re-boot of Nosedive, with a big name up front and lots of anticipation. The tone was instantly more playful; less British, more inclusive to a world audience. It tackled with a wry humour the universal phenomenon of popularity and everything being rated, most notably, people themselves. In a future world of sunshine and pastel shades it has become the norm to rate every interaction, from buying coffee to buying a house, in the hope of becoming one of the beautiful people rated above a 4.5. It cleverly questions the motivations for that desire, and the pitfalls of false behaviour and the manipulation from an elite standpoint. It isn’t necessary to imagine this future, as we are virtually there already, and all this episode does is heighten the idea to hyperbolic proportions. Rated down by many viewers because it is “annoying”, but that is entirely the point: the whole thing makes you want to scream!
Playtest - 6.5
Also available for Halloween (as was the whole season, in standard Netflix style) came a chance to explore what really scares us! And… they blew it. Sure, the idea that gaming and VR becomes so photo realistic it seems entirely real isn’t far away. But, making it personal to a very annoying character dissolves all tension quite early on. Some mild jump scares aside, this has to go down as a missed opportunity. Notable only for the re-occurance of the White Bear symbol.
Shut Up and Dance - 7
This is the one most likely to make you think, hmm, that is too far! An uncomfortable episode, not only because of the subject matter and ultimate revelation, but because of the intense nastiness that pervades it. No doubt that tension is intentional, and therefore effective to a degree, but for me it crosses the line of entertainment and becomes simply nasty. Being unafraid to tackle controversial subjects is to be applauded, but the execution has to be note perfect, or the risk is the backlash this episode received. A cautionary tale about surveillance, data theft, blackmail and our personal online responsibility. Not a bad piece, just a slight misjudgment on tone and delivery.
San Junipero - 9.5
Just when critics were sharpening their pens that Netflix had ruined the potential of Black Mirror in its first phase, comes an almost perfect piece of TV that is literally heavenly! Everything about San Junipero is a work of art! Another “blind” episode that takes a while to unravel; the pacing and realisation of which is so beautifully judged that, from a writing point of view, this has to be seen as the pinnacle of the show to date. Mackenzie Davis is extraordinary as the vulnerable, shy and naive Yorkie, looking for a connection in an 80s nightclub, filled with nostalgia and cultural memes galore. The music alone is not only sing aloud perfect, but chosen for storytelling reasons so clever it raises goosebumps! The relationship between Yorkie and Kelly, an equally great Gugu Mbatha-Raw, is filled with chemistry and nuance, drawing us in to a place so deep that when the penny drops on what is really going on it draws a gasp and then possibly tears – I know it did for me! The mechanics of the technology that would make this story possible does raise a lot of questions, but in the end it is better to accept it as an allegory for love, life and our ideas of “eternity”. Don’t look too deeply at the how, but marvel at the why, and this could be the best hour of TV you will ever see! So rewatchable, rich and rewarding; the only reason not to make this a feature length big budget film is that how could it possibly be improved?
Men Against Fire - 7
Revisiting yet again the technology of a brain implant that affects our vision of the world, literally and figuratively, this episode explores indoctrination and brainwashing, with the underlying themes of racism and basic human compassion. It is a fine analogy of how the media and governments would have us think of immigrants and the “dangers” of anything “not us”. A tad obvious, and doesn’t really go anywhere new once the twist is revealed. Visually quite stunning, but not as strong as other episodes that cover similar ground.
Hated in the Nation - 8.5
With a running time of 89 minutes, this is essentially what happens when Black Mirror pushes an idea to feature length. Allowing more time for character development does make a difference, and the tension build in this fine concept for a thriller also benefits from a few extra minutes. The ever reliable Kelly MacDonald is the cornerstone of a strong cast, on the hunt for the mind behind a series of killings by killer bee drones, targeted at a democratically elected “most hated” person every day, based on a public vote. An exploration of media vilification and how easy it can be to manipulate our idea of someone’s identity and judge their actions and even personalities based on one wrong thing they may have said or done. The episode is a who-dunnit? A why-doit? And, framed, with the backdrop of the inquest surrounding events, both a good cop movie and a courtroom drama. Charlie Brooker has hinted that some of these characters may return at some point. I’m all for it.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Asator in Tabletop Games
Oct 20, 2020
Vikings. Raiding and pillaging and dragon riding. That’s about the extent of my knowledge of the ancient(?) civilization that so many people go bonkers romanticizing. Okay, so they didn’t REALLY ride dragons, but How To Train Your Dragon is great and the game I am previewing today also includes dragons, so I’m rolling with it. But how does this Viking game play and compare to its inspirations?
Asator is a head to head (or teams) game of troop maneuvering and attacking using 30 identical miniatures on each side. Each mini acts as a platoon of three different kinds of armies, plus a Chieftan, Master, Wizard, and Dragon that all have different special abilities. The winner of Asator is the player who can eliminate their opponent’s leadership (Chieftan, Master, and Wizard).
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I know that the final components will be slightly different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, place the battle mat on the table, and then players will place groups of minis on the field within the closest three rows of hexes in alternating turn fashion. Players will also take the two large Battle Sheets and a dry-erase marker to keep track of every one of their minis’ stats throughout the game. Each player will also choose five of the given 10 Wizard spell cards to use for the game, and each spell may only be used once during the game. Once all army minis are placed, the first player will move up to 20 units on the battlefield and attack opponent armies if possible. The game is now on and decimation is the goal.
Each mini type corresponds to a different group of armies, plus the dragon and three leader pieces. All armies of the same type have the same stats for movement, hit points (HP), armor rating (AR), and attack weapons. Also each mini is labeled on the bottom so keeping track of each unit is made a little easier. Obviously the leader pieces are more powerful and each has a special style of combat. The Master wields an axe and shield (which is broken after one hit) to increase AR and dole out the damage. The Chieftan wields a spear, twin axes, a bow, and a shield. Similar to the Master, the Chieftan’s shield is broken after an attack against him, and his spear is broken after a missed attack. The Wizard is not at all strong in melee, but has powerful spells at his disposal to be used for the disposal of enemy units.
Besides the leadership trio each side also brings a Dragon to the battle. Dragons can move slowly by land, but quite quickly by air. Once in the air he or she may deliver a Fire Blast that causes huge damage, but then the Dragon must ground themselves to regain stamina for flight. In addition, each player will have access to Cavalry, Infantry, and Bowmen, each with their own stat blocks and abilities.
This is all well and good, and is somewhat similar to the strategy one would use in Chess. Combat, however, is much more involved than that of simply moving into an enemy’s space and automatically overtaking it. In Asator combat victory is decided via a VERY pared down version of D&D combat. It uses a simplified d20-based attack versus the enemy Armor Rating (AR). Rolls over the AR of the enemy is a success and damage is dealt. Done. Some attacks require a roll of 2d6 for damage amount, like spells and Dragon attacks. That said, combat is decided using 1d20 and 2d6. That’s it.
The game continues in turns where the first player will move their pieces and attack, and then the next player will do the same until one player has defeated all three enemy leaders and earned the title of Asator – Master of War.
Components. Again, we were provided a prototype copy of the game, but most of the components are what will be received when the game is backed or purchased. That said, the game utilizes a cloth battle mat that folds into the box, four dry-erase Battle Sheets, two dry-erase markers, dice for both players, Wizard spell cards for both players, and 60 miniatures. The battle mat is great fabric quality with minimal art that doesn’t get in the way of play (much appreciated). The dry-erase components are good. The card quality is fine. The dice are black and white dice to correspond with players using the black or white minis, and are of normal quality. The minis are great and I enjoyed playing with them.
Now for the negatives of what is included in the box. First, the art. Now, there is very minimal art used throughout the game. It’s just not a focal point, and it shows in the game’s production. I found the sketch on the cover of the rule book (which is the same as the watermark on the Battle Mat) to be very cool, but the box cover art leaves some to be desired. Similarly, the Wizard spell cards use very generic-looking art icons with text for explanation. I am most certainly being hyper-critical here because flashy art on these components are certainly not needed to play or highly enjoy the game. For my tastes, though, I would like to see more polished art on these pieces as the art is so sparse throughout.
But how does the game feel? It’s truly quite good. I don’t play many wargames or 1v1 skirmish style games, so to present me with something like this and for me to enjoy it as much as I have has to be a sign of something good. Again, I am no strategic war general, but being able to employ different strategies every game is exciting. Testing out the different combinations of Wizard spell cards is fun for a tinkerer. And, of course, playing with a bunch of minis is always good fun.
There is a good game here, and I absolutely love the combination of Chess maneuverability with the simplified RPG d20 battle system. It works well in a game like this where each piece owns a stat block of which players will need to be mindful. I didn’t quite mention my favorite part of the rules yet either: natural 20 on a combat roll equals insta-death. Yes, even to the Dragon, which happened in my very first game. THAT is a cool rule that tripped up tactics quite often in my plays.
All in all this game is a great example of combining a couple sets of mechanics that wouldn’t be expected and creating a great gaming experience from them. I invite you to back the game on Kickstarter when it goes live if you are looking for that special game that is unlike many others you currently own. If the art were spruced up a bit I would be fawning all over it, but even without impressive art I still find I have the twitch in my brain to play it again and again. I wonder how many natural 20s I can roll in a game. Great, now I want to set it up and see…
Asator is a head to head (or teams) game of troop maneuvering and attacking using 30 identical miniatures on each side. Each mini acts as a platoon of three different kinds of armies, plus a Chieftan, Master, Wizard, and Dragon that all have different special abilities. The winner of Asator is the player who can eliminate their opponent’s leadership (Chieftan, Master, and Wizard).
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I know that the final components will be slightly different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, place the battle mat on the table, and then players will place groups of minis on the field within the closest three rows of hexes in alternating turn fashion. Players will also take the two large Battle Sheets and a dry-erase marker to keep track of every one of their minis’ stats throughout the game. Each player will also choose five of the given 10 Wizard spell cards to use for the game, and each spell may only be used once during the game. Once all army minis are placed, the first player will move up to 20 units on the battlefield and attack opponent armies if possible. The game is now on and decimation is the goal.
Each mini type corresponds to a different group of armies, plus the dragon and three leader pieces. All armies of the same type have the same stats for movement, hit points (HP), armor rating (AR), and attack weapons. Also each mini is labeled on the bottom so keeping track of each unit is made a little easier. Obviously the leader pieces are more powerful and each has a special style of combat. The Master wields an axe and shield (which is broken after one hit) to increase AR and dole out the damage. The Chieftan wields a spear, twin axes, a bow, and a shield. Similar to the Master, the Chieftan’s shield is broken after an attack against him, and his spear is broken after a missed attack. The Wizard is not at all strong in melee, but has powerful spells at his disposal to be used for the disposal of enemy units.
Besides the leadership trio each side also brings a Dragon to the battle. Dragons can move slowly by land, but quite quickly by air. Once in the air he or she may deliver a Fire Blast that causes huge damage, but then the Dragon must ground themselves to regain stamina for flight. In addition, each player will have access to Cavalry, Infantry, and Bowmen, each with their own stat blocks and abilities.
This is all well and good, and is somewhat similar to the strategy one would use in Chess. Combat, however, is much more involved than that of simply moving into an enemy’s space and automatically overtaking it. In Asator combat victory is decided via a VERY pared down version of D&D combat. It uses a simplified d20-based attack versus the enemy Armor Rating (AR). Rolls over the AR of the enemy is a success and damage is dealt. Done. Some attacks require a roll of 2d6 for damage amount, like spells and Dragon attacks. That said, combat is decided using 1d20 and 2d6. That’s it.
The game continues in turns where the first player will move their pieces and attack, and then the next player will do the same until one player has defeated all three enemy leaders and earned the title of Asator – Master of War.
Components. Again, we were provided a prototype copy of the game, but most of the components are what will be received when the game is backed or purchased. That said, the game utilizes a cloth battle mat that folds into the box, four dry-erase Battle Sheets, two dry-erase markers, dice for both players, Wizard spell cards for both players, and 60 miniatures. The battle mat is great fabric quality with minimal art that doesn’t get in the way of play (much appreciated). The dry-erase components are good. The card quality is fine. The dice are black and white dice to correspond with players using the black or white minis, and are of normal quality. The minis are great and I enjoyed playing with them.
Now for the negatives of what is included in the box. First, the art. Now, there is very minimal art used throughout the game. It’s just not a focal point, and it shows in the game’s production. I found the sketch on the cover of the rule book (which is the same as the watermark on the Battle Mat) to be very cool, but the box cover art leaves some to be desired. Similarly, the Wizard spell cards use very generic-looking art icons with text for explanation. I am most certainly being hyper-critical here because flashy art on these components are certainly not needed to play or highly enjoy the game. For my tastes, though, I would like to see more polished art on these pieces as the art is so sparse throughout.
But how does the game feel? It’s truly quite good. I don’t play many wargames or 1v1 skirmish style games, so to present me with something like this and for me to enjoy it as much as I have has to be a sign of something good. Again, I am no strategic war general, but being able to employ different strategies every game is exciting. Testing out the different combinations of Wizard spell cards is fun for a tinkerer. And, of course, playing with a bunch of minis is always good fun.
There is a good game here, and I absolutely love the combination of Chess maneuverability with the simplified RPG d20 battle system. It works well in a game like this where each piece owns a stat block of which players will need to be mindful. I didn’t quite mention my favorite part of the rules yet either: natural 20 on a combat roll equals insta-death. Yes, even to the Dragon, which happened in my very first game. THAT is a cool rule that tripped up tactics quite often in my plays.
All in all this game is a great example of combining a couple sets of mechanics that wouldn’t be expected and creating a great gaming experience from them. I invite you to back the game on Kickstarter when it goes live if you are looking for that special game that is unlike many others you currently own. If the art were spruced up a bit I would be fawning all over it, but even without impressive art I still find I have the twitch in my brain to play it again and again. I wonder how many natural 20s I can roll in a game. Great, now I want to set it up and see…
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Tragedy of Macbeth (2021) in Movies
Jan 25, 2022
Good...not Great...kind of like Macbeth
The history of cinema is littered with adaptations of William Shakespeare plays. Some are very successful - Olivier’s HAMLET (1948), Zeffirelli’s ROMEO & JULIET (1968) and, especially, Kenneth Branagh’s HENRY V (1989), my favorite film Shakespeare adaptation. And, of course, some are less than successful, like HAMLET starring Mel Gibson (1990).
Joel Cohen’s adaptation of MACBETH falls somewhere in between, more for the former but veering towards the latter.
Based on my favorite Shakespeare play, THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH follows the rise and fall of a Scottish Thane who becomes King thanks to the help (and backstage machinations) of his wife…and a murderous deed. This adaptation should really be called “THE BEST OF MACBETH” as it takes a fairly lengthy stage play and compresses it into 1 hour and 47 minutes of Cinema time.
There is plenty here that works, starting with the sense of unreality that Cohen sets this version of this story in. He filmed the entire movie on a soundstage that has a constant haziness to the background, making one think that everything going on is a dream…or maybe a memory…or maybe taking place on some parallel ethereal plane and the black and white cinematography emphasizes this point to a perfect degree.
The performances are stellar - starting with the choice to cast both Macbeth and Lady with older actors. Usually, these 2 are cast as “ambitious up and comers” in their late 20’s/early 30’s, but by using 60-something actors Denzel Washington and Frances McDormand, it makes these 2 characters more desperate for one last chance at the brass ring and makes the choices these 2 make more understandable. Of course, having Denzel and Frances play these 2 certainly helps, as both are superb thespians who are mesmerizing in their speeches (such as Macbeth’s “Is this a dagger I see before me” and Lady Macbeth’s “Out, out damn spot”).
Along for the ride - and performing strongly in this film - is Brendan Gleeson (King Duncan), Corey Hawkins (MacDuff), Bertie Carvel (Banquo) and Harry Melling (yes, Dudley Dursley of Harry Potter fame) as Malcolm. Also…it was fun to see Ralph Ineson (the Captain that pretty much starts the show), Stephen Root (the Porter) and Jefferson Mayes (the Doctor) showing up in brief, one scene cameos along the way.
But, special notice needs to be paid to Kathryn Hunter (the Witches) and Alex Hassell (Ross) who elevate both of these roles to something more than I’ve seen previously. Sure, the Witches…with such speeches as “Bubble, Bubble, Toil and Trouble”…are the “showey” roles in this script, but in the hands of veteran Stage Actor Hunter, it turns into something much, much more. Cohen does more with the Witches than I’ve seen previously done and it works well - quite possibly to the tune of an Academy Award Nomination as Best Supporting Actress for her. Also working well is the use of the character Ross as sort of an “agent” of the Witches. This role, as written by The Bard of Avon, is pretty much a throw away, but Cohen uses it as something more and Hassell delivers the goods in an interesting way.
So, if the acting is good, the setting appropriately mysterious and the Direction generally strong, why did I not connect more with this film? I think it falls to the adaptation of the play by Mr. Cohen. By necessity, he pares down the film and it feels like it just jumps from speech to speech. As I’ve said earlier, each speech is terrific and the performers present these words very, very well, but they didn’t coalesce into anything whole that I could get emotionally attached to. This film is an “abridged” version of the Scottish play and it shows, Cohen opts to keep in the speeches (as is necessary) but that comes at the cost of losing the scenes between characters that would more strongly tie this film apart.
It’s still a worthy entry in the “Shakespeare on Film” canon - and one that is “above average” but falls far short of greatness - kind of like Macbeth himself.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Joel Cohen’s adaptation of MACBETH falls somewhere in between, more for the former but veering towards the latter.
Based on my favorite Shakespeare play, THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH follows the rise and fall of a Scottish Thane who becomes King thanks to the help (and backstage machinations) of his wife…and a murderous deed. This adaptation should really be called “THE BEST OF MACBETH” as it takes a fairly lengthy stage play and compresses it into 1 hour and 47 minutes of Cinema time.
There is plenty here that works, starting with the sense of unreality that Cohen sets this version of this story in. He filmed the entire movie on a soundstage that has a constant haziness to the background, making one think that everything going on is a dream…or maybe a memory…or maybe taking place on some parallel ethereal plane and the black and white cinematography emphasizes this point to a perfect degree.
The performances are stellar - starting with the choice to cast both Macbeth and Lady with older actors. Usually, these 2 are cast as “ambitious up and comers” in their late 20’s/early 30’s, but by using 60-something actors Denzel Washington and Frances McDormand, it makes these 2 characters more desperate for one last chance at the brass ring and makes the choices these 2 make more understandable. Of course, having Denzel and Frances play these 2 certainly helps, as both are superb thespians who are mesmerizing in their speeches (such as Macbeth’s “Is this a dagger I see before me” and Lady Macbeth’s “Out, out damn spot”).
Along for the ride - and performing strongly in this film - is Brendan Gleeson (King Duncan), Corey Hawkins (MacDuff), Bertie Carvel (Banquo) and Harry Melling (yes, Dudley Dursley of Harry Potter fame) as Malcolm. Also…it was fun to see Ralph Ineson (the Captain that pretty much starts the show), Stephen Root (the Porter) and Jefferson Mayes (the Doctor) showing up in brief, one scene cameos along the way.
But, special notice needs to be paid to Kathryn Hunter (the Witches) and Alex Hassell (Ross) who elevate both of these roles to something more than I’ve seen previously. Sure, the Witches…with such speeches as “Bubble, Bubble, Toil and Trouble”…are the “showey” roles in this script, but in the hands of veteran Stage Actor Hunter, it turns into something much, much more. Cohen does more with the Witches than I’ve seen previously done and it works well - quite possibly to the tune of an Academy Award Nomination as Best Supporting Actress for her. Also working well is the use of the character Ross as sort of an “agent” of the Witches. This role, as written by The Bard of Avon, is pretty much a throw away, but Cohen uses it as something more and Hassell delivers the goods in an interesting way.
So, if the acting is good, the setting appropriately mysterious and the Direction generally strong, why did I not connect more with this film? I think it falls to the adaptation of the play by Mr. Cohen. By necessity, he pares down the film and it feels like it just jumps from speech to speech. As I’ve said earlier, each speech is terrific and the performers present these words very, very well, but they didn’t coalesce into anything whole that I could get emotionally attached to. This film is an “abridged” version of the Scottish play and it shows, Cohen opts to keep in the speeches (as is necessary) but that comes at the cost of losing the scenes between characters that would more strongly tie this film apart.
It’s still a worthy entry in the “Shakespeare on Film” canon - and one that is “above average” but falls far short of greatness - kind of like Macbeth himself.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Roma (2018) in Movies
Mar 2, 2020 (Updated Mar 3, 2020)
I watched Roma exactly a week ago today. And although I knew 20 minutes in that I loved it, and at the end that I really loved it, I have taken that time to let it settle within me in before coming to write about it. Some films are so good that you have to do that: let it sink into you fully, before doing anything so trivial as judging and comparing them. Roma is incomparable! I have never seen anything like it, or felt as deeply moved by a film in a long time.
Not that it didn’t get attention at the time of its release, it did, receiving 10 Oscar nominations and winning 3, for best foreign language film, director and cinematography, but it certainly wasn’t seen by as many people as it should have been, despite its presence on Netflix from the start. Having digested it now, and spending some time reading about how and why it was made, I feel a slight mission to recommend it to as many people as I can.
Based on Alfonso Cuarón’s own childhood in Mexico City, and his memories of his family and especially their housemaid, Liboria (Libo) Rodriguez, to whom the film is dedicated, it is a masterpiece labour of love that few directors ever achieve or even attempt to make. After a strong career of exceptional films, including Y Tu Mamá También, Children of Men and Gravity, it was the box office and critical success of the latter that gave Cuarón carte blanche to go and make whatever project he chose. Where many might have been tempted by the big money of superhero or fantasy movies (for which he had some experience with Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban) he went back to his roots and shot a very personal non-English film, in black and white, where no music exists except that which occurs naturally, and on the surface not much happens.
At least it feels like not much is happening, such is the naturalistic, almost improvised (although it wasn’t) style and pace; shot with a lens capturing detail and nuance with some of the most beautiful photography I have ever had the privilege to see. Truly, an awful lot is happening, but you have to feel and experience it, not simply be told it by the narrative. It takes a while for our Hollywood conditioned brains to accept this at first, and many might come to it and give up half an hour in because of that challenge. I can promise, however, there is not a single thing boring about this film, unless humanity is boring.
Oscar nominated lead Yalitza Aparicio as the shy, loving maid, Cleo, was not an actor before this film. She auditioned and was hand picked by Cuarón from hundreds of young women, without knowing who he was or what the film was about. Apparently, the film was shot in sequence so as not to confuse her emotionally on her extraordinary journey. She is so unassuming and natural that part of you falls in love with her immediately. In time, we almost come to forget we are watching an act at all, and almost become her, such is the empathy she evokes.
Which isn’t an easy ride, as we watch her be gently and then cruelly ignored, mistreated and used; climaxing in one of the most astonishingly painful and jaw-dropping scenes imaginable, and then a scene of such powerful redemption and humanity it instantly breaks the heart and lifts the soul. All the while she never asks for attention or love, but is just herself: a young woman living a difficult but beautiful life in a country and time full of turmoil, prejudice and social change.
The recreation of Mexico in 1970 is so breathtaking, it is hard to imagine at times we are not watching a documentary from that era. But, it is the detail the lens chooses to capture that reminds you this is a visual poem and a love-letter to a time, a place and a family far away in history and the memory of one man (represented by ten year old Carlos Peralta as Paco). At times it evokes the work of the very greatest film artists of all time: Bergman, Fellini, Hitchcock etc. Not one image is wasted or insignificant, from the reflection of the sky in water, to the dog-shit constantly lining the driveway. Everything is chosen and meaningful in the full context of the work.
There is no awkward exposition, no dramatic moments milked for all they are worth, no sequences of heightened excitement that manipulate us; simply truthful moments that hang in the air for what they are, leaving us to decide how we relate to them without ever preaching or teaching us how. In that way, it is a work of such maturity that I doubt many living directors could emulate it at all. The closest comparison I can think of is the personal passion Spielberg put into Shindler’s List, but really it is a moot comparison, and in fact owes much more to films like Haneke’s The White Ribbon.
Can it be faulted? Well, yes, certainly. But, honestly, I don’t see the point in trying. It is as close to perfection a small story of this kind can be. Importantly, I think it is an open film, that allows us to take from it whatever we like, relating to our own experiences and cares. For me, it said that any pain and hardship can be overcome, as long as there is love and beauty walking by its side. A message of no small importance. If you haven’t seen it, I urge you to do so. If you have, then please keep spreading the word. I believe it to be a genuine classic that will endure the criticism of many decades to come. Without a doubt in my mind something very special indeed.
Not that it didn’t get attention at the time of its release, it did, receiving 10 Oscar nominations and winning 3, for best foreign language film, director and cinematography, but it certainly wasn’t seen by as many people as it should have been, despite its presence on Netflix from the start. Having digested it now, and spending some time reading about how and why it was made, I feel a slight mission to recommend it to as many people as I can.
Based on Alfonso Cuarón’s own childhood in Mexico City, and his memories of his family and especially their housemaid, Liboria (Libo) Rodriguez, to whom the film is dedicated, it is a masterpiece labour of love that few directors ever achieve or even attempt to make. After a strong career of exceptional films, including Y Tu Mamá También, Children of Men and Gravity, it was the box office and critical success of the latter that gave Cuarón carte blanche to go and make whatever project he chose. Where many might have been tempted by the big money of superhero or fantasy movies (for which he had some experience with Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban) he went back to his roots and shot a very personal non-English film, in black and white, where no music exists except that which occurs naturally, and on the surface not much happens.
At least it feels like not much is happening, such is the naturalistic, almost improvised (although it wasn’t) style and pace; shot with a lens capturing detail and nuance with some of the most beautiful photography I have ever had the privilege to see. Truly, an awful lot is happening, but you have to feel and experience it, not simply be told it by the narrative. It takes a while for our Hollywood conditioned brains to accept this at first, and many might come to it and give up half an hour in because of that challenge. I can promise, however, there is not a single thing boring about this film, unless humanity is boring.
Oscar nominated lead Yalitza Aparicio as the shy, loving maid, Cleo, was not an actor before this film. She auditioned and was hand picked by Cuarón from hundreds of young women, without knowing who he was or what the film was about. Apparently, the film was shot in sequence so as not to confuse her emotionally on her extraordinary journey. She is so unassuming and natural that part of you falls in love with her immediately. In time, we almost come to forget we are watching an act at all, and almost become her, such is the empathy she evokes.
Which isn’t an easy ride, as we watch her be gently and then cruelly ignored, mistreated and used; climaxing in one of the most astonishingly painful and jaw-dropping scenes imaginable, and then a scene of such powerful redemption and humanity it instantly breaks the heart and lifts the soul. All the while she never asks for attention or love, but is just herself: a young woman living a difficult but beautiful life in a country and time full of turmoil, prejudice and social change.
The recreation of Mexico in 1970 is so breathtaking, it is hard to imagine at times we are not watching a documentary from that era. But, it is the detail the lens chooses to capture that reminds you this is a visual poem and a love-letter to a time, a place and a family far away in history and the memory of one man (represented by ten year old Carlos Peralta as Paco). At times it evokes the work of the very greatest film artists of all time: Bergman, Fellini, Hitchcock etc. Not one image is wasted or insignificant, from the reflection of the sky in water, to the dog-shit constantly lining the driveway. Everything is chosen and meaningful in the full context of the work.
There is no awkward exposition, no dramatic moments milked for all they are worth, no sequences of heightened excitement that manipulate us; simply truthful moments that hang in the air for what they are, leaving us to decide how we relate to them without ever preaching or teaching us how. In that way, it is a work of such maturity that I doubt many living directors could emulate it at all. The closest comparison I can think of is the personal passion Spielberg put into Shindler’s List, but really it is a moot comparison, and in fact owes much more to films like Haneke’s The White Ribbon.
Can it be faulted? Well, yes, certainly. But, honestly, I don’t see the point in trying. It is as close to perfection a small story of this kind can be. Importantly, I think it is an open film, that allows us to take from it whatever we like, relating to our own experiences and cares. For me, it said that any pain and hardship can be overcome, as long as there is love and beauty walking by its side. A message of no small importance. If you haven’t seen it, I urge you to do so. If you have, then please keep spreading the word. I believe it to be a genuine classic that will endure the criticism of many decades to come. Without a doubt in my mind something very special indeed.
Jamie (131 KP) rated Nasty Women in Books
May 24, 2017
A timely collection of personal and political essays
It was really cool to get to see the world through the eyes of women coming from walks of life entirely removed from my own. There were many whose struggles I couldn’t even begin to imagine dealing with, while others I found comfort that I wasn’t alone in the issues that I have faced. The anthology really does cover a wide range of topics by authors from drastically different backgrounds.
The one essay that stood out the most to me was “Choices” by Rowan C. Clarke, which discussed the author’s difficult relationship with her mother and that never ending struggle to please. While the underlying messages in all of the stories were political and feminist, they were also very personal and down to earth which is what made this collection pretty emotional.
I did have a few issues with the anthology, however, that I need to address. The first was that the quality of each essay varied pretty wildly. The version I read was an ARC so it’s difficult for me to judge the final product, but there were several that weren’t well structured or were rife with grammatical and formatting errors. There were citations (I love citations!) that weren’t formatted all that well for my ebook version (cutting into the middle of paragraphs) that perhaps would’ve been better placed at the end. As for the actual content, most were incredibly well written and heartfelt, a few felt like angry rants that were more alienating than empowering, then there was one that just felt stiff and spent more time with the preface rather than the story.
While on the subject of alienation, despite the rather diverse sets of authors and essays, I feel like there were some missing pieces still. It’s obvious from the title what many of the authors thought about the last election and I didn’t like how black and white things were with barely any room in-between. In cases like this, I’m sure most of the readers would be those looking for confirmation of beliefs that they already share, which is fine except that it closes the door on discussion with the other side which is truly unfortunate.
Don’t get me wrong, I think that what was already here was pretty great. I see what they were going for and I appreciated it. I love to see discussion about politics and social issues, but I worry when the tone leans too far toward one extreme it only invites backlash from the other extreme. It’s a difficult balancing act between maintaining one’s own core beliefs while also trying to open things up to the other side so that perhaps they could engage in the conversation and, ideally, listen and have their own perceptions changed.
But I digress, despite the complaints I had about the book, I found it to be a pretty quick and enjoyable read. It gives a voice to groups of women that aren’t often heard in the greater narrative of the feminist movement. The experiences of these many women enrich that narrative and there’s a lot we can all learn from each other especially in these troubling times.
The one essay that stood out the most to me was “Choices” by Rowan C. Clarke, which discussed the author’s difficult relationship with her mother and that never ending struggle to please. While the underlying messages in all of the stories were political and feminist, they were also very personal and down to earth which is what made this collection pretty emotional.
I did have a few issues with the anthology, however, that I need to address. The first was that the quality of each essay varied pretty wildly. The version I read was an ARC so it’s difficult for me to judge the final product, but there were several that weren’t well structured or were rife with grammatical and formatting errors. There were citations (I love citations!) that weren’t formatted all that well for my ebook version (cutting into the middle of paragraphs) that perhaps would’ve been better placed at the end. As for the actual content, most were incredibly well written and heartfelt, a few felt like angry rants that were more alienating than empowering, then there was one that just felt stiff and spent more time with the preface rather than the story.
While on the subject of alienation, despite the rather diverse sets of authors and essays, I feel like there were some missing pieces still. It’s obvious from the title what many of the authors thought about the last election and I didn’t like how black and white things were with barely any room in-between. In cases like this, I’m sure most of the readers would be those looking for confirmation of beliefs that they already share, which is fine except that it closes the door on discussion with the other side which is truly unfortunate.
Don’t get me wrong, I think that what was already here was pretty great. I see what they were going for and I appreciated it. I love to see discussion about politics and social issues, but I worry when the tone leans too far toward one extreme it only invites backlash from the other extreme. It’s a difficult balancing act between maintaining one’s own core beliefs while also trying to open things up to the other side so that perhaps they could engage in the conversation and, ideally, listen and have their own perceptions changed.
But I digress, despite the complaints I had about the book, I found it to be a pretty quick and enjoyable read. It gives a voice to groups of women that aren’t often heard in the greater narrative of the feminist movement. The experiences of these many women enrich that narrative and there’s a lot we can all learn from each other especially in these troubling times.
Mothergamer (1549 KP) rated Puppeteer in Video Games
Apr 3, 2019
I was perusing games on Amazon when the game Puppeteer was suggested to me. I was intrigued by the cover and looked at the game description to see what it was about. It sounded interesting and it was on sale so I purchased it. I started playing the game and I was blown away by it because it's not like any game I've played before. The whimsical aspect of it is charming and it made me think of Little Big Planet which is also a fun and whimsical game. If you're a fan of Little Big Planet like I am, you will enjoy Puppeteer.
Puppeteer is a side scrolling platform game and you play as a boy turned into an animated puppet who loses his head named Kutaro. Kutaro gains a variety of puppet heads to replace his own throughout the game. You have three puppet heads and when you lose a head, you have thirty seconds to grab the head and put it back on or you lose it forever. Your heads are basically like lives so when you lose all three heads/lives it's game over.
The story takes place in a fantasy world representing Earth's moon which is inhabited by a myriad of folklore style characters and they are all puppets as well. The game is set up to look like a faux stage with red curtains and you can hear an audience reacting to the events that happen in the story along with commentary from the narrator. It adds to the charm of Puppeteer, making it feel like a complete theater experience while playing a video game. The first half of the game is on the dark side of the moon while the second half is on the Earth side. When Kutaro's story begins, the narrator explains that the Moon Goddess was overthrown by by her servant Little Bear who then seized her black moonstone and the scissors called Calibrus and dubbed himself the Moon Bear King.
Kutaro exploring the first level of the game.
The Moon Bear King is the main villain, but there are several villains you have to battle before you get to him; twelve of his generals based on the twelve animals of the Chinese Zodiac. Each of them has a piece of the Goddess' white moonstone which Kutaro must get from them. Kutaro does get tools that can help him and eventually he does get Calibrus which are essentially a weapon for him. There are creative ways in which they are used besides as a weapon such as jumping to cut clouds to get to a high ledge or cutting seams to move faster while battling an enemy. They are also used to free the other animated children like Kutaro by cutting the puppet strings so they can return home.
There are other tools that are used as well such as ninja bombs which can open pathways for you and a pirate hook which can hook items or secret doors. They are smartly and creatively used with simple puzzles in various levels of the game which makes the game play entertaining and interesting.
Talking with Ezma Potts, one of the many characters in Puppeteer.
The environments in Puppeteer are bright, colorful, and filled with beautifully done imaginative things. They're fun to explore and you can go back and play previously beaten levels because there are so many puppet heads and bonus items to collect. A couple of levels were my favorites such as the pirate one and the Halloween one because they put a smile on my face while playing and the Halloween one gave a Nightmare Before Christmas vibe that I loved. There are a few moments of frustration here and there with a couple of the boss battles and depth perception issues in a couple of levels, but it's not a huge deal because the execution of how the game plays and how well the story flows makes Puppeteer worth playing.
Avast! Hanging out with pirates.
The game is about nine or ten hours of story and if you really want to explore to get every single puppet head out there, all the trophies, and bonus stages that can add a little more extra time and keep you pretty busy. The voice acting and music for the game is superb and there are even moments of humor that will cause you to laugh. It's quite clear that the developers of Puppeteer loved this game and enjoyed designing it and their imaginations really shine throughout the entire game; making Puppeteer a wonderful gem for gamers like myself who appreciate the fun and whimsy.
While some of the art can be dark and spooky like the Halloween level, there's plenty of light and fun levels making the game enjoyable for people of all ages. Overall, Puppeteer is a delightfully charming game and so much fun to play. It is worth buying and playing more than once because it doesn't take itself seriously, celebrates all things whimsical and fun, and is a terrific game.
Puppeteer is a side scrolling platform game and you play as a boy turned into an animated puppet who loses his head named Kutaro. Kutaro gains a variety of puppet heads to replace his own throughout the game. You have three puppet heads and when you lose a head, you have thirty seconds to grab the head and put it back on or you lose it forever. Your heads are basically like lives so when you lose all three heads/lives it's game over.
The story takes place in a fantasy world representing Earth's moon which is inhabited by a myriad of folklore style characters and they are all puppets as well. The game is set up to look like a faux stage with red curtains and you can hear an audience reacting to the events that happen in the story along with commentary from the narrator. It adds to the charm of Puppeteer, making it feel like a complete theater experience while playing a video game. The first half of the game is on the dark side of the moon while the second half is on the Earth side. When Kutaro's story begins, the narrator explains that the Moon Goddess was overthrown by by her servant Little Bear who then seized her black moonstone and the scissors called Calibrus and dubbed himself the Moon Bear King.
Kutaro exploring the first level of the game.
The Moon Bear King is the main villain, but there are several villains you have to battle before you get to him; twelve of his generals based on the twelve animals of the Chinese Zodiac. Each of them has a piece of the Goddess' white moonstone which Kutaro must get from them. Kutaro does get tools that can help him and eventually he does get Calibrus which are essentially a weapon for him. There are creative ways in which they are used besides as a weapon such as jumping to cut clouds to get to a high ledge or cutting seams to move faster while battling an enemy. They are also used to free the other animated children like Kutaro by cutting the puppet strings so they can return home.
There are other tools that are used as well such as ninja bombs which can open pathways for you and a pirate hook which can hook items or secret doors. They are smartly and creatively used with simple puzzles in various levels of the game which makes the game play entertaining and interesting.
Talking with Ezma Potts, one of the many characters in Puppeteer.
The environments in Puppeteer are bright, colorful, and filled with beautifully done imaginative things. They're fun to explore and you can go back and play previously beaten levels because there are so many puppet heads and bonus items to collect. A couple of levels were my favorites such as the pirate one and the Halloween one because they put a smile on my face while playing and the Halloween one gave a Nightmare Before Christmas vibe that I loved. There are a few moments of frustration here and there with a couple of the boss battles and depth perception issues in a couple of levels, but it's not a huge deal because the execution of how the game plays and how well the story flows makes Puppeteer worth playing.
Avast! Hanging out with pirates.
The game is about nine or ten hours of story and if you really want to explore to get every single puppet head out there, all the trophies, and bonus stages that can add a little more extra time and keep you pretty busy. The voice acting and music for the game is superb and there are even moments of humor that will cause you to laugh. It's quite clear that the developers of Puppeteer loved this game and enjoyed designing it and their imaginations really shine throughout the entire game; making Puppeteer a wonderful gem for gamers like myself who appreciate the fun and whimsy.
While some of the art can be dark and spooky like the Halloween level, there's plenty of light and fun levels making the game enjoyable for people of all ages. Overall, Puppeteer is a delightfully charming game and so much fun to play. It is worth buying and playing more than once because it doesn't take itself seriously, celebrates all things whimsical and fun, and is a terrific game.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Casablanca (1942) in Movies
Feb 13, 2019
A classic in every sense of the word
"Of all the gin joints in all the towns, in all the world, she had to walk into mine."
If there was only 1 movie that could be shown to show off "classic", old time Hollywood of the 1930's, '40's and early '50s, look no further than Michael Curtiz' 1942 classic CASABLANCA. While well known for the performances of the leads, the multiple quoted lines, Sam singing AS TIME GOES BY and the iconic ending, this film also is a time capsule to a Hollywood of another year - one that just doesn't exist today.
Starring the great Humphrey Bogart in an Academy Award nominated performance (inexplicably, losing to Paul Lukas for WATCH ON THE RHINE), CASABLANCA tells the tale of Rick Blaine the owner/operator of "Rick's Place" a bar in Casablanca, Morocco in the early days of WWII. He is world-weary, beaten and cynical and is well known as someone who can get things done (for a price) but also one who will not stick his neck out for anyone. When a couple on the run from the Nazi's (Paul Henreid, Ingrid Bergman) enter's Rick's Place, Blaine (for reasons that are revealed in the film) decides to help.
"Here's looking at your kid."
Bogart is marvelous as Blaine, you can see every inch of his world-weariness on his well-worn, craggy face. He is perfectly cast as Rick and his mannerisms and vocal patterns depict a heaviness within. Bogart is often criticized for his lack of acting talent - nothing could be further from the truth here. He is perfectly paired with Bergman as Ilse - a former love of Rick's, who is now the wife of Freedom Fighter Victor Laszlo (Henreid). There is real chemistry between Bogart and Bergman in this film and you can tell that they are former lovers that still has a flame burning inside.
"We'll always have Paris."
But it's not just the leads who are terrific in this, it's the "who's who" of character actors that make up the Supporting Cast that really brings this film to life. From Peter Lorre to Sydney Greenstreet to Conrad Veidt to S.Z. Sakall to Dooley Wilson as Sam (who plays and sings AS TIME GOES BY), all bring interesting faces and characters to Casablanca (and Rick's Place) but the standout is Claude Rains (nominated for Best Supporting Actor - losing, inexplicably, to Charles Coburn in THE MORE THE MERRIER) as Louis, the corrupt Police Captain of Casablanca who becomes an uneasy ally of Rick's. Did I say that Bogart and Bergman had good chemistry? Check out the chemistry between Bogart and Rains, there was talk of a sequel to Casablance featuring these two - I, for one, would love to have seen that buddy flick.
Director Michael Curtiz won an Oscar for his work - and it is richly deserved. Nary a shot is wasted on this film, each picture a rich black and white portrait. It is interesting to note that this entire film was shot in California (not Casablanca), mostly on the Warner Brothers lot, but Curtiz was able to give the look and (more importantly) the feel of the place through the sets, costumes, lighting and atmosphere.
But it's the words that these characters got to say that really brought home the feel and atmosphere of the time, so credit needs to go to Screenwriters Julius and Phillip Epstein as well as Howard Koch who won Oscars for their work here. This is a masterful, classic work. One that stands up to this day. If you haven't seen this film in awhile, do yourself a favor and check it out - you'll be glad you did.
"Louie, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship."
Letter Grade: A+
A rare 10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
If there was only 1 movie that could be shown to show off "classic", old time Hollywood of the 1930's, '40's and early '50s, look no further than Michael Curtiz' 1942 classic CASABLANCA. While well known for the performances of the leads, the multiple quoted lines, Sam singing AS TIME GOES BY and the iconic ending, this film also is a time capsule to a Hollywood of another year - one that just doesn't exist today.
Starring the great Humphrey Bogart in an Academy Award nominated performance (inexplicably, losing to Paul Lukas for WATCH ON THE RHINE), CASABLANCA tells the tale of Rick Blaine the owner/operator of "Rick's Place" a bar in Casablanca, Morocco in the early days of WWII. He is world-weary, beaten and cynical and is well known as someone who can get things done (for a price) but also one who will not stick his neck out for anyone. When a couple on the run from the Nazi's (Paul Henreid, Ingrid Bergman) enter's Rick's Place, Blaine (for reasons that are revealed in the film) decides to help.
"Here's looking at your kid."
Bogart is marvelous as Blaine, you can see every inch of his world-weariness on his well-worn, craggy face. He is perfectly cast as Rick and his mannerisms and vocal patterns depict a heaviness within. Bogart is often criticized for his lack of acting talent - nothing could be further from the truth here. He is perfectly paired with Bergman as Ilse - a former love of Rick's, who is now the wife of Freedom Fighter Victor Laszlo (Henreid). There is real chemistry between Bogart and Bergman in this film and you can tell that they are former lovers that still has a flame burning inside.
"We'll always have Paris."
But it's not just the leads who are terrific in this, it's the "who's who" of character actors that make up the Supporting Cast that really brings this film to life. From Peter Lorre to Sydney Greenstreet to Conrad Veidt to S.Z. Sakall to Dooley Wilson as Sam (who plays and sings AS TIME GOES BY), all bring interesting faces and characters to Casablanca (and Rick's Place) but the standout is Claude Rains (nominated for Best Supporting Actor - losing, inexplicably, to Charles Coburn in THE MORE THE MERRIER) as Louis, the corrupt Police Captain of Casablanca who becomes an uneasy ally of Rick's. Did I say that Bogart and Bergman had good chemistry? Check out the chemistry between Bogart and Rains, there was talk of a sequel to Casablance featuring these two - I, for one, would love to have seen that buddy flick.
Director Michael Curtiz won an Oscar for his work - and it is richly deserved. Nary a shot is wasted on this film, each picture a rich black and white portrait. It is interesting to note that this entire film was shot in California (not Casablanca), mostly on the Warner Brothers lot, but Curtiz was able to give the look and (more importantly) the feel of the place through the sets, costumes, lighting and atmosphere.
But it's the words that these characters got to say that really brought home the feel and atmosphere of the time, so credit needs to go to Screenwriters Julius and Phillip Epstein as well as Howard Koch who won Oscars for their work here. This is a masterful, classic work. One that stands up to this day. If you haven't seen this film in awhile, do yourself a favor and check it out - you'll be glad you did.
"Louie, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship."
Letter Grade: A+
A rare 10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
ClearScanner:scan image to pdf
Business and Utilities
App
Free Document Scanner App that gives you the following features + Good scan results. + No watermarks...