Search
Search results
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Wyze Cam Outdoor Starter Bundle in Tech
Sep 16, 2021
Features like motion detection, night vision, 8x digital zoom, up to 6 months rechargeable battery life and 14 day rolling Cloud storage. (2 more)
Easy setup for physical product.
Lets you easily share your camera with family.
Software setup can be pretty tricky, especially for those not too tech-savvy. (1 more)
Too easily removed if intended for security.
Plenty of Features, Kind of Tricky Setup
The Wyze Cam Outdoor Starter Bundle is a package you can purchase for a wireless camera meant for outdoor use. The camera is equipped with IP65 weather resistance, PIR motion detection, free rolling 14 day Cloud storage, 1080P full HD live stream, night vision, 8x digital zoom, time-lapse, and up to 6 month rechargeable battery life. Wyze has some wired indoor cameras that start at $29.99 each but I wanted wireless ones for less hassle on installation since I'd probably be doing it myself. The Wyze Cam Outdoor Starter Bundle is listed for $49.99 on their website. That comes with (1) Wyze Cam Outdoor camera, (1) Base Station, (1) 32GB microSDHC card, (1) power adapter, (1), network cable, (1) USB cable, a quick start guide, and a screw assembly set containing (2) screws and (2) plastic anchors.
I had been wanting to get some cameras for the house for a long time. I had seen these before but I wanted to make sure if I bought some to put outside, that they were meant for outside and wouldn't get messed up because of heat or rain. Also these came highly recommended from family that have them and use them as well. Plus I was able to score them on a deal from Home Depot's deal of the day at the time as a package with an extra camera included and an Amazon Echo Show.
So this is my first venture into getting a wireless camera for security or monitoring purposes and I didn't really know what to expect. I had gotten my parents a really cheap doorbell camera once on a Black Friday deal from Wal-Mart a couple years back and thought that worked pretty well for the price I paid, but nothing other than that. I have to say that these cameras are pretty cool. You have to download the Wyze app to be able to use them so you do need a smart phone and setting them up can be a little tricky at first. I didn't run into any problems but I can see how most people could run into some very easily. I just had to charge them first to make sure they were ready to go, which didn't take that long either. I think it was about an hour or two for each of them. The only thing that was a little annoying was the extra camera came with an extra USB cord but not another power adapter so had to wait to charge the other one instead of being able to charge at the same time. The installation was pretty easy too. Of course I help from my brother who came over to do it for me but he got both setup in less than 30 minutes.
So the base station that comes with the bundle is able to connect up to 4 cameras. It needs to stay near your wireless router and actually needs to be plugged into it with the provided network cable. For some reason it's also only compatible with the 2.4G WI-FI signal provided from the router, and you have to have your phone on the same WI-FI bandwidth during setup or it won't let you set it up. The range for them seems pretty good though. I have a decent size house and yard and put one in the farthest part of my backyard and didn't have any problems with connecting to it. The app is a little complicated too but once you have everything setup it's not too bad.
On the home tab it will show you your base station and what cameras you have connected and you can name the base station in case you have more than one. You can name the cameras connected as well. I just called mine front yard and backyard. If you click on a camera it will show you what quality you have it set on auto, HD, SD, or 360P. It has a setting for infrared to be either on/off or auto and shows you battery life percent. It has a couple of tabs for features like sound on/off, record, speak, take photo and more. Under the more tab it has features like time lapse, scheduled recording, album, motion tagging, siren and turn off. You can also easily turn them off from the home tab where it shows you the word "on" in a circle, the name of the camera and the battery percentage too. There's an events tab where it will show you a 12 second video of whatever triggered the motion sensor. If you click on it, you can watch it, listen to the sound by clicking on sound, look at the livestream of the camera or delete the video. I've noticed that the motion detection doesn't capture everything but it does catch the majority of things most of the time.
There's a monitoring service that you can purchase along with the cameras. I chose not to because I didn't do any research into what it does or what they provide for you so sorry if you wanted more info on that. There's a shop tab to purchase more of their products and an account tab for the more important things on the app. You can do a lot of things on the account tab like setup a password or two-step verification under the security tab, share your camera with family members under the sharing tab, and more.
Pro:
Features like motion detection, night vision, 8x digital zoom, up to 6 months rechargeable battery life and 14 day rolling Cloud storage.
Easy setup for physical product
Lets you easily share your camera with family
Con:
Software setup can be pretty tricky, especially for those not too tech-savvy
Too easily removed if intended for security
Rating: 8/10
Conclusion:
I have to say these cameras are definitely worth the money to get them. The motion detection is pretty decent and the night vision is really good as well as the zoom. I have been pretty pleased with how they work and have encountered very little issues with them. My parents got some at the same time, so I helped them with setup and everything as well. They have a much bigger home and had some issues with range with where they wanted to put them. One camera has had some issues with connectivity and battery usage. Not sure if it's because it gets more traffic for the motion detection or if defective. Also sometimes a strange alarm sound comes out in recordings as well as static instead of audio. I haven't researched or reached out to Wyze about it yet. That being said, I would still recommend them to people wanting to get some wireless cameras setup at their home but only if they have really good WI-FI and are tech-savvy. I give the Wyze Cam Outdoor Starter Bundle an 8/10.
I had been wanting to get some cameras for the house for a long time. I had seen these before but I wanted to make sure if I bought some to put outside, that they were meant for outside and wouldn't get messed up because of heat or rain. Also these came highly recommended from family that have them and use them as well. Plus I was able to score them on a deal from Home Depot's deal of the day at the time as a package with an extra camera included and an Amazon Echo Show.
So this is my first venture into getting a wireless camera for security or monitoring purposes and I didn't really know what to expect. I had gotten my parents a really cheap doorbell camera once on a Black Friday deal from Wal-Mart a couple years back and thought that worked pretty well for the price I paid, but nothing other than that. I have to say that these cameras are pretty cool. You have to download the Wyze app to be able to use them so you do need a smart phone and setting them up can be a little tricky at first. I didn't run into any problems but I can see how most people could run into some very easily. I just had to charge them first to make sure they were ready to go, which didn't take that long either. I think it was about an hour or two for each of them. The only thing that was a little annoying was the extra camera came with an extra USB cord but not another power adapter so had to wait to charge the other one instead of being able to charge at the same time. The installation was pretty easy too. Of course I help from my brother who came over to do it for me but he got both setup in less than 30 minutes.
So the base station that comes with the bundle is able to connect up to 4 cameras. It needs to stay near your wireless router and actually needs to be plugged into it with the provided network cable. For some reason it's also only compatible with the 2.4G WI-FI signal provided from the router, and you have to have your phone on the same WI-FI bandwidth during setup or it won't let you set it up. The range for them seems pretty good though. I have a decent size house and yard and put one in the farthest part of my backyard and didn't have any problems with connecting to it. The app is a little complicated too but once you have everything setup it's not too bad.
On the home tab it will show you your base station and what cameras you have connected and you can name the base station in case you have more than one. You can name the cameras connected as well. I just called mine front yard and backyard. If you click on a camera it will show you what quality you have it set on auto, HD, SD, or 360P. It has a setting for infrared to be either on/off or auto and shows you battery life percent. It has a couple of tabs for features like sound on/off, record, speak, take photo and more. Under the more tab it has features like time lapse, scheduled recording, album, motion tagging, siren and turn off. You can also easily turn them off from the home tab where it shows you the word "on" in a circle, the name of the camera and the battery percentage too. There's an events tab where it will show you a 12 second video of whatever triggered the motion sensor. If you click on it, you can watch it, listen to the sound by clicking on sound, look at the livestream of the camera or delete the video. I've noticed that the motion detection doesn't capture everything but it does catch the majority of things most of the time.
There's a monitoring service that you can purchase along with the cameras. I chose not to because I didn't do any research into what it does or what they provide for you so sorry if you wanted more info on that. There's a shop tab to purchase more of their products and an account tab for the more important things on the app. You can do a lot of things on the account tab like setup a password or two-step verification under the security tab, share your camera with family members under the sharing tab, and more.
Pro:
Features like motion detection, night vision, 8x digital zoom, up to 6 months rechargeable battery life and 14 day rolling Cloud storage.
Easy setup for physical product
Lets you easily share your camera with family
Con:
Software setup can be pretty tricky, especially for those not too tech-savvy
Too easily removed if intended for security
Rating: 8/10
Conclusion:
I have to say these cameras are definitely worth the money to get them. The motion detection is pretty decent and the night vision is really good as well as the zoom. I have been pretty pleased with how they work and have encountered very little issues with them. My parents got some at the same time, so I helped them with setup and everything as well. They have a much bigger home and had some issues with range with where they wanted to put them. One camera has had some issues with connectivity and battery usage. Not sure if it's because it gets more traffic for the motion detection or if defective. Also sometimes a strange alarm sound comes out in recordings as well as static instead of audio. I haven't researched or reached out to Wyze about it yet. That being said, I would still recommend them to people wanting to get some wireless cameras setup at their home but only if they have really good WI-FI and are tech-savvy. I give the Wyze Cam Outdoor Starter Bundle an 8/10.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Shazam! (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Zoltar Rides Again!
All work and no play makes Bob the Movie Man a dull reviewer. Due to work commitments, this is the first film I’ve been able to see at the cinema for over a month. There’s a whole slew of films I wanted to see that have already come and gone. Big sigh. So I might be about the last of the crowd to review this, but I’m glad I caught it before it shuffled off its silver screen coil.
Every review I’ve seen of this starts off with the hackneyed comment that “At last, DC have produced a fun film” – so I won’t (even though it’s true!).
The Plot
“Shazam!” harks back, strongly, to the vehicle that helped launch Tom Hanks‘ illustrious career – Penny Marshall’s “Big” from 1988. In that film the young teen Josh (David Moscow) visits a deserted fairground where “Zoltar” mystically (and without explanation) morphs Josh into his adult self (Hanks). Much fun is had with Hanks showing his best friend Billy the joys (and sometimes otherwise) of booze, girls and other adult pastimes. In similar vein, in “Shazam!” we see the parent-less Billy Batson (Asher Angel) hijacked on a Philadelphia subway train and transformed into a DC superhero as a last-gasp effort of the ancient-wizard (Djimon Hounsou) to find someone ‘good’ to pass his magic onto. “Grab onto my staff with both hands” (Ugh) and say my name – “Juman….”…. no, sorry, wrong film…. “Shazam!”. And as in “Big”, Billy has to explore his new superhero powers with the only person vaguely close to him; his new foster-brother Freddie (Jack Dylan Grazer from “It”).
Billy is not the first to have met the wizard – not by a long shot. There has been a long line of potential candidates examined and rejected on this road, one of which, back in 1974, was the unhappy youngster Thaddeus Sivana (Ethan Pugiotto, but now grown up as Mark Cross), who has a seething chip on his shoulder as big as the Liberty Bell. Gaining evil super-powers of his own, the race is on to see if Dr Sivana can track down the fledgling Billy before he can learn to master his superhero skills and so take him down.
Wizards with red capes?
With the loose exception of possibly Scarlet Witch, I don’t think it’s actually ever been explored before that “superheroes” are actually “magicians” with different coloured capes… it’s a novel take. Before the Marvel/DC wheels eventually come off – which before another twenty years are up they surely must? – will we see a “Harry Potter vs Superman” crossover? “YOUR MOTHER’S NAME WAS LILY AND MINE WAS MARTHA…. L AND M ARE NEXT TO EACH OTHER IN THE DICTIONARY!!!!” The mind boggles.
What does make “Shazam!” interesting is that the story is consciously set in a DC world where Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman and the rest all live and breathe. Freddie has a Bat-a-rang (“only a replica”) and a carefully shrink-wrapped squashed bullet that had impacted on Superman’s body. So when Billy – in superhero form – makes his appearances on the streets of Philly, this makes “Shazam” an “oh look, there’s another one” curiosity rather than an out-and-out marvel.
(Source: Warner Brothers). Lightning from the fingers! Proving very useful for Shazam’s own….
Much fun is obviously had with “Shazam” testing out his powers. Freddie’s Youtube videos gather thousands of hits baas Billy tries to fly; tries to burn; tries to use his “laser sight”; etc.
What works well.
It’s a fun flick that delivers the Marvel laughs of “Ragnarok” and “Ant Man” without ever really getting to the gravitas of either. The screenplay writer (Henry Gayden) is clearly a lover of cinema, as there are numerous references to other movies scattered throughout the film: the victory run of “Rocky” (obviously); the cracking windshield of “The Lost World”; the scary-gross-out body disintegrations of “Indiana Jones”; the portal entry doors of “Monsters, Inc”. Even making an appearance briefly, as a respectful nod presumably to the story’s plagiarism, is the toy-store floor piano of “Big”. There are probably a load of other movie Easter Eggs that I missed.
Playing Billy, the relatively unknown Zachary Levi also charms in a similarly goofball way as Hanks did all those years ago. (Actually, he’s more reminiscent of the wide-eyed delight of Brendan Fraser’s “George of the Jungle” rather than Hanks). In turns, his character is genuinely delighted then shocked at his successes and failures (“Leaping buildings with a single bound” – LOL!). Also holding up their own admirably are the young leads Asher Angel and Jack Dylan Grazer.
Mark Cross, although having flaunted with being the good guy in the “Kingsman” films, is now firmly back in baddie territory as the “supervillain”: and very good he is at it too; I thought he was the best thing in the whole film.
Finally, the movie’s got a satisfying story arc, with Billy undergoing an emotional journey that emphasises the importance of family. But it’s not done in a slushy manipulative way.
What works less well.
As many of you know, I have a few rules-of-thumb for movies, one of which is that a comedy had better by bloody good if it’s going to have a run-time of much more than 90 minutes. At 132 minutes, “Shazam!” overstayed its welcome for me by a good 20 or 30 minutes. Director David F. Sandberg could have made a much tighter and better film if he had wielded the editing knife a bit more freely. I typically enjoy getting backstory to characters, and in many ways this film delivers where many don’t. The pre-credit scenes with Thaddeus nicely paint the character for his (hideous) actions that follow. However, Billy is over-burdened with backstory, and it takes wayyyyyyy too long for the “Shazam!” to happen and the fun to begin. We also lapse into an overlong superhero finale. I didn’t actually see the twist in the plot coming, which was good, but once there then the denouement could and should have been much swifter.
The film also has its scary moments and deserves its 12A certificate. As a film rather painted as kid-friendly from the trailer and the poster, there is probably the potential to traumatise young children here, particularly in a terrifying scene in a board room (with a view). As well as the physical scares there is also a dark streak running under the story that reminded me of both the original “Jumanji” and “Ghostbusters”. Parents beware.
Monkeys?
Following on from the Marvel expectations, there are a couple of “monkeys” (see Glossary) in the title roll: one mid-titles, featuring Dr Sivana and implying an undoubted sequel, and one right at the end pointing fun at the otherwise ignored “Aquaman”.
Final thoughts.
It’s clearly been a long overdue hit for DC, and on the whole I enjoyed it. If the film had been a bit tighter, this would have had the potential to be a classic.
Every review I’ve seen of this starts off with the hackneyed comment that “At last, DC have produced a fun film” – so I won’t (even though it’s true!).
The Plot
“Shazam!” harks back, strongly, to the vehicle that helped launch Tom Hanks‘ illustrious career – Penny Marshall’s “Big” from 1988. In that film the young teen Josh (David Moscow) visits a deserted fairground where “Zoltar” mystically (and without explanation) morphs Josh into his adult self (Hanks). Much fun is had with Hanks showing his best friend Billy the joys (and sometimes otherwise) of booze, girls and other adult pastimes. In similar vein, in “Shazam!” we see the parent-less Billy Batson (Asher Angel) hijacked on a Philadelphia subway train and transformed into a DC superhero as a last-gasp effort of the ancient-wizard (Djimon Hounsou) to find someone ‘good’ to pass his magic onto. “Grab onto my staff with both hands” (Ugh) and say my name – “Juman….”…. no, sorry, wrong film…. “Shazam!”. And as in “Big”, Billy has to explore his new superhero powers with the only person vaguely close to him; his new foster-brother Freddie (Jack Dylan Grazer from “It”).
Billy is not the first to have met the wizard – not by a long shot. There has been a long line of potential candidates examined and rejected on this road, one of which, back in 1974, was the unhappy youngster Thaddeus Sivana (Ethan Pugiotto, but now grown up as Mark Cross), who has a seething chip on his shoulder as big as the Liberty Bell. Gaining evil super-powers of his own, the race is on to see if Dr Sivana can track down the fledgling Billy before he can learn to master his superhero skills and so take him down.
Wizards with red capes?
With the loose exception of possibly Scarlet Witch, I don’t think it’s actually ever been explored before that “superheroes” are actually “magicians” with different coloured capes… it’s a novel take. Before the Marvel/DC wheels eventually come off – which before another twenty years are up they surely must? – will we see a “Harry Potter vs Superman” crossover? “YOUR MOTHER’S NAME WAS LILY AND MINE WAS MARTHA…. L AND M ARE NEXT TO EACH OTHER IN THE DICTIONARY!!!!” The mind boggles.
What does make “Shazam!” interesting is that the story is consciously set in a DC world where Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman and the rest all live and breathe. Freddie has a Bat-a-rang (“only a replica”) and a carefully shrink-wrapped squashed bullet that had impacted on Superman’s body. So when Billy – in superhero form – makes his appearances on the streets of Philly, this makes “Shazam” an “oh look, there’s another one” curiosity rather than an out-and-out marvel.
(Source: Warner Brothers). Lightning from the fingers! Proving very useful for Shazam’s own….
Much fun is obviously had with “Shazam” testing out his powers. Freddie’s Youtube videos gather thousands of hits baas Billy tries to fly; tries to burn; tries to use his “laser sight”; etc.
What works well.
It’s a fun flick that delivers the Marvel laughs of “Ragnarok” and “Ant Man” without ever really getting to the gravitas of either. The screenplay writer (Henry Gayden) is clearly a lover of cinema, as there are numerous references to other movies scattered throughout the film: the victory run of “Rocky” (obviously); the cracking windshield of “The Lost World”; the scary-gross-out body disintegrations of “Indiana Jones”; the portal entry doors of “Monsters, Inc”. Even making an appearance briefly, as a respectful nod presumably to the story’s plagiarism, is the toy-store floor piano of “Big”. There are probably a load of other movie Easter Eggs that I missed.
Playing Billy, the relatively unknown Zachary Levi also charms in a similarly goofball way as Hanks did all those years ago. (Actually, he’s more reminiscent of the wide-eyed delight of Brendan Fraser’s “George of the Jungle” rather than Hanks). In turns, his character is genuinely delighted then shocked at his successes and failures (“Leaping buildings with a single bound” – LOL!). Also holding up their own admirably are the young leads Asher Angel and Jack Dylan Grazer.
Mark Cross, although having flaunted with being the good guy in the “Kingsman” films, is now firmly back in baddie territory as the “supervillain”: and very good he is at it too; I thought he was the best thing in the whole film.
Finally, the movie’s got a satisfying story arc, with Billy undergoing an emotional journey that emphasises the importance of family. But it’s not done in a slushy manipulative way.
What works less well.
As many of you know, I have a few rules-of-thumb for movies, one of which is that a comedy had better by bloody good if it’s going to have a run-time of much more than 90 minutes. At 132 minutes, “Shazam!” overstayed its welcome for me by a good 20 or 30 minutes. Director David F. Sandberg could have made a much tighter and better film if he had wielded the editing knife a bit more freely. I typically enjoy getting backstory to characters, and in many ways this film delivers where many don’t. The pre-credit scenes with Thaddeus nicely paint the character for his (hideous) actions that follow. However, Billy is over-burdened with backstory, and it takes wayyyyyyy too long for the “Shazam!” to happen and the fun to begin. We also lapse into an overlong superhero finale. I didn’t actually see the twist in the plot coming, which was good, but once there then the denouement could and should have been much swifter.
The film also has its scary moments and deserves its 12A certificate. As a film rather painted as kid-friendly from the trailer and the poster, there is probably the potential to traumatise young children here, particularly in a terrifying scene in a board room (with a view). As well as the physical scares there is also a dark streak running under the story that reminded me of both the original “Jumanji” and “Ghostbusters”. Parents beware.
Monkeys?
Following on from the Marvel expectations, there are a couple of “monkeys” (see Glossary) in the title roll: one mid-titles, featuring Dr Sivana and implying an undoubted sequel, and one right at the end pointing fun at the otherwise ignored “Aquaman”.
Final thoughts.
It’s clearly been a long overdue hit for DC, and on the whole I enjoyed it. If the film had been a bit tighter, this would have had the potential to be a classic.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Spectre (2015) in Movies
Jul 20, 2017
Well written (1 more)
Good direction
Mr Hinx (1 more)
Not enough Cristoph Waltz
As good as the last?
Contains spoilers, click to show
When Casino Royale released in 2006, it was to be a soft reboot of the franchise that showed viewers the events of Bond’s first mission and it strived to rectify some of the silly gadgets etc that were being over-used with Brosnan’s Bond. In my opinion, Casino Royale was a great film, it just wasn’t a Bond film. It done away with all of the silly gimmicks and cheesy one liners and was an introduction to a more grounded version of the iconic character, which made for a great spy thriller but not a great Bond movie. Then Quantum of Solace came out and literally nobody cared, not many people went to see it, it didn’t make much money at the box office and to this day I’ve still not seen that whole movie from start to finish and to be honest, I’m perfectly okay with that. Skyfall was the third Craig Bond movie to be released and it was a triumph. Finally Craig felt like he was actually playing Bond and not just some random hard ass military spy. It even flirted with the idea of gadgets, had a flamboyant supervillain and introduced a young, fresh faced Q, which was a nice touch. The movie ended with Silva killing Judi Dench’s M and Bond killing Silva, Ralph Fiennes was then appointed with the title of M and Naomi Harris was revealed to be the new Moneypenny. So with the last movie pleasing both long time Bond fans and newcomers alike, SPECTRE had a lot to live up to.
The movie opens with Bond in Mexico City, during the Day Of The Dead festival, Bond listens in on a meeting of two Mafioso and learns about a mysterious organisation hoping to achieve world domination and their illusive leader known as ‘The Pale King.’ He then blows up the building they are in and ends up in a chopper fight with one of the gangsters, whom he eventually kills. This leads into a stunning opening credits sequence, that really is one of the best I’ve seen, (even though the song is still crap.) This is an awesome intro and probably tops Skyfall’s intro which was also very cool.
The rest of the movie is a joy to a long time Bond fan like me. It checks off all of the boxes that make up a classic Bond movie. An awesome Aston Martin car chase – check, a big bad henchman who doesn’t say much but is very hard to kill – check, an effective use of gadgets and cheesy one liners – check, a supervillain that has an epic secret layer that he invites Bond to – check, Bond being strapped to an elaborate device in that secret layer and tortured – check. Now all of this is really well executed, but the problem with it is that it throws any of the gritty realism shown in the last three movies right out of the window, which like I say is perfectly okay, but it causes this movie to feel as if it is taking place in a separate universe from the last three. This is not a problem to me, I am more than happy to have a good old fashioned Bond movie back on our screens that isn’t afraid to shy away from the use of gadgets and witty quips and it’s a movie that actually handles it well unlike some of the naff late Brosnan movies. On the other hand though, I can totally see why some people would have a problem with this movie, especially if you aren’t a long time Bond fan and prefer Craig’s more realistic turn as Bond. If that is the case then this movie really won’t be for you and the chances are that you will leave the cinema leaving pretty disappointed.
Now, let’s forget for a minute that this is a 007 movie and just analyse it as a traditional piece of cinema. First off, I’m really glad that they brought Sam Mendes back to direct this one, he is very obviously a passionate Bond fan and I think he has done a great job with both Bond movies that he has made and I also really hope they can keep him on to do at least one more movie in the series. This is also a well written movie, its script is witty and fast paced, while keeping making sure that although the audience is kept intrigued, they are never lost in whatever is going on. The cinematography in this movie is also great, besides a shaky cam chase sequence during the opening of the movie, I’d actually say that this is a masterfully shot movie. Hoyte Van Hoytema was the principle of photography for this movie and that guy really likes his eye pleasing shots and his use of the rule of thirds, which is especially evident in the funeral scene where Monica Belluci is introduced. There were two Bond girls in this movie and they were both serviceable, Belluci was really only there for exposition, but Lea Seadoux did a good job with her more fleshed out role.
Now, I want to talk about the main villain in the movie, played by the incredible Christophe Waltz. When he is in the movie, he steals every scene, however that leads me on to a problem I have with the movie. He is introduced near the beginning of the movie, within the first half hour, then a good hour passes before he is reintroduced, and although what is going on during that hour is entertaining, when you have already introduced a villain played by the master of playing villains that is Mr Waltz, it’s hard not to wonder when he is going to be back in the movie. Also I feel that this movie is quite long, possibly due to the large number of different locales and although it is actually only a few more minutes longer than Skyfall, Skyfall didn’t feel that long and this movie feels a lot longer. Also Mr Hinx is a pretty rubbish henchman, he is as forgetful as Jaws and Oddjob were memorable and doesn’t have a line until the last fight with Bond, I felt he was just very underused.
Now I’m going to go into spoiler territory, so if you haven’t seen the film yet, you may want to jump to the end of the review. Okay, we all good? Well turns out Christophe Waltz is actually the new Blofeld, which really isn’t surprising since he is the head of SPECTRE. What did annoy me a little, is the fact that he was Bond’s step-brother, kind of? But whatever, I can live with it. Also, although the villains lair was kind of a trope and wasn’t really used all too much before it was blown up, once Blofeld got his scar, he did look the part. So that is another classic Bond thing to introduce, Blofeld is to Bond what The Joker is to Batman and it is nice to have the arch nemesis introduced. One of the downsides to introducing Blofeld though is that it was obvious they weren’t going to kill him off, at least not in this movie, also Mr Hinx’s death was also rather anticlimactic. Andrew Scott’s character C was revealed to be a spy for SPECTRE and again had a fairly anticlimactic death, but he was perfectly serviceable in the role.
Overall I did enjoy the movie a great deal and although this is a review based on my opinion, I do somewhat have to take into consideration the bigger picture and how other fans will feel upon seeing this film. Like I have said, I think fans of old fashioned traditional Bond will love this movie as it finally fulfils the criteria for it to be labelled a ‘Bond’ movie, I can definitely see a lot of people being disappointed in the film if they go in expected another realistic spy thriller.
The movie opens with Bond in Mexico City, during the Day Of The Dead festival, Bond listens in on a meeting of two Mafioso and learns about a mysterious organisation hoping to achieve world domination and their illusive leader known as ‘The Pale King.’ He then blows up the building they are in and ends up in a chopper fight with one of the gangsters, whom he eventually kills. This leads into a stunning opening credits sequence, that really is one of the best I’ve seen, (even though the song is still crap.) This is an awesome intro and probably tops Skyfall’s intro which was also very cool.
The rest of the movie is a joy to a long time Bond fan like me. It checks off all of the boxes that make up a classic Bond movie. An awesome Aston Martin car chase – check, a big bad henchman who doesn’t say much but is very hard to kill – check, an effective use of gadgets and cheesy one liners – check, a supervillain that has an epic secret layer that he invites Bond to – check, Bond being strapped to an elaborate device in that secret layer and tortured – check. Now all of this is really well executed, but the problem with it is that it throws any of the gritty realism shown in the last three movies right out of the window, which like I say is perfectly okay, but it causes this movie to feel as if it is taking place in a separate universe from the last three. This is not a problem to me, I am more than happy to have a good old fashioned Bond movie back on our screens that isn’t afraid to shy away from the use of gadgets and witty quips and it’s a movie that actually handles it well unlike some of the naff late Brosnan movies. On the other hand though, I can totally see why some people would have a problem with this movie, especially if you aren’t a long time Bond fan and prefer Craig’s more realistic turn as Bond. If that is the case then this movie really won’t be for you and the chances are that you will leave the cinema leaving pretty disappointed.
Now, let’s forget for a minute that this is a 007 movie and just analyse it as a traditional piece of cinema. First off, I’m really glad that they brought Sam Mendes back to direct this one, he is very obviously a passionate Bond fan and I think he has done a great job with both Bond movies that he has made and I also really hope they can keep him on to do at least one more movie in the series. This is also a well written movie, its script is witty and fast paced, while keeping making sure that although the audience is kept intrigued, they are never lost in whatever is going on. The cinematography in this movie is also great, besides a shaky cam chase sequence during the opening of the movie, I’d actually say that this is a masterfully shot movie. Hoyte Van Hoytema was the principle of photography for this movie and that guy really likes his eye pleasing shots and his use of the rule of thirds, which is especially evident in the funeral scene where Monica Belluci is introduced. There were two Bond girls in this movie and they were both serviceable, Belluci was really only there for exposition, but Lea Seadoux did a good job with her more fleshed out role.
Now, I want to talk about the main villain in the movie, played by the incredible Christophe Waltz. When he is in the movie, he steals every scene, however that leads me on to a problem I have with the movie. He is introduced near the beginning of the movie, within the first half hour, then a good hour passes before he is reintroduced, and although what is going on during that hour is entertaining, when you have already introduced a villain played by the master of playing villains that is Mr Waltz, it’s hard not to wonder when he is going to be back in the movie. Also I feel that this movie is quite long, possibly due to the large number of different locales and although it is actually only a few more minutes longer than Skyfall, Skyfall didn’t feel that long and this movie feels a lot longer. Also Mr Hinx is a pretty rubbish henchman, he is as forgetful as Jaws and Oddjob were memorable and doesn’t have a line until the last fight with Bond, I felt he was just very underused.
Now I’m going to go into spoiler territory, so if you haven’t seen the film yet, you may want to jump to the end of the review. Okay, we all good? Well turns out Christophe Waltz is actually the new Blofeld, which really isn’t surprising since he is the head of SPECTRE. What did annoy me a little, is the fact that he was Bond’s step-brother, kind of? But whatever, I can live with it. Also, although the villains lair was kind of a trope and wasn’t really used all too much before it was blown up, once Blofeld got his scar, he did look the part. So that is another classic Bond thing to introduce, Blofeld is to Bond what The Joker is to Batman and it is nice to have the arch nemesis introduced. One of the downsides to introducing Blofeld though is that it was obvious they weren’t going to kill him off, at least not in this movie, also Mr Hinx’s death was also rather anticlimactic. Andrew Scott’s character C was revealed to be a spy for SPECTRE and again had a fairly anticlimactic death, but he was perfectly serviceable in the role.
Overall I did enjoy the movie a great deal and although this is a review based on my opinion, I do somewhat have to take into consideration the bigger picture and how other fans will feel upon seeing this film. Like I have said, I think fans of old fashioned traditional Bond will love this movie as it finally fulfils the criteria for it to be labelled a ‘Bond’ movie, I can definitely see a lot of people being disappointed in the film if they go in expected another realistic spy thriller.
Cyn Armistead (14 KP) rated Down These Strange Streets in Books
Mar 1, 2018
This anthology gathers stories from authors who normally write in various genres. The commonality is that each story is a mystery, and there's a fantastic twist to each. Martin's introduction calls such stories the "bastard stepchild" of mystery and horror.
[a:Charlaine Harris|17061|Charlaine Harris|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1307925926p2/17061.jpg]'; "Death by Dahlia," set in the Sookie Stackhouse universe, is one of a series of stories about the vampire Dahlia Lynley-Chivers. Each story stands alone, but my enjoyment grows greater with each addition to her tales. I'd much rather see Dahlia as the main character of a novel than Sookie, to be honest. This story, set at the party for the ascension of a new vampire sherrif, was a little gem, and a nice start to the collection.
"The Bleeding Shadow" by [a:Joe R. Lansdale|58971|Joe R. Lansdale|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1200406474p2/58971.jpg] is grittier from start to finish, set in the south of black folks in the 1950s. A beautiful woman sends her sometime-suitor to find her brother, a blues musician who has gotten into music that isn't of this world. I couldn't be done with this one soon enough, as it gave me the willies. I have a feeling Lansdale would be happy that it stuck with me for a while.
[a:Simon R. Green|41942|Simon R. Green|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1224555729p2/41942.jpg]'s "Hungry Heart" takes us to the Nightside, where John Taylor is hired by a young witch to retrieve her stolen heart. I haven't read any of the Nightside novels, but this is probably the third or fourth short story I've read, and for some reason they never leave me wanting more. I don't hunger for the darkness, I guess. I will give Green points for creativity in evil henchmen, though.
"Styx and Stones" by [a:Steven Saylor|42919|Steven Saylor|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1243268148p2/42919.jpg] takes a teenage version of his novel hero Gordianus on a world tour to see the Seven Wonders of the World, and this stop is Babylon. Gordianus and his companion, Antipater, find a murderous ghost in residence near their inn in addition to seeing the Ziggurat, the Gate of Ishtar, and what's left of the Hanging Gardens.
[a:S. M. Stirling|6448047|S. M. Stirling|http://www.goodreads.com/assets/nophoto/nophoto-U-50x66.jpg]'s "Pain and Suffering" was unsatisfying to me. It opened with an ex-soldier's combat flashback twisted into something Other, then we learn that the ex-soldier is a cop. He and his partner spend a lot of time investigating an apparent arson and possibly-connected kidnapping. The flashbacks repeat. There's more, but I don't want to spoil the story. I just felt that there was a lot of build-up for very little payoff, and that perhaps this story was meant as a teaser for a novel in which context it would all make far more sense.
"It's Still the Same Old Story' by [a:Carrie Vaughn|8988|Carrie Vaughn|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1231952277p2/8988.jpg] features vampire Rick, from the Kitty Norville books. An old friend calls him needing his help, but by the time he gets to her, she's dead. Most of the story is told in flashback, with him remembering when he originally met the now-old-woman, when they were lovers for a time. The murder is no great mystery for very long. The story felt more rote than anything else, as if perhaps Vaughn wanted to humanize Rick a bit by showing that he had cared for this woman at one time. I didn't feel much of anything from it.
One of the more creative pieces, "The Lady is a Screamer" by [a:Conn Iggulden|119121|Conn Iggulden|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1235073163p2/119121.jpg], is told in first person by a con man turned ghostbuster. I didn't like it, precisely, and i certainly didn't like the narrator. It stands alone, though, and doesn't feel derivative at all, so that says something all by itself.
"Hellbender" by [a:Laurie R. King|6760|Laurie R. King|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1314242901p2/6760.jpg] is probably the only story that left me determined to hunt down more of the author's work. I would classify it as near-future science fiction, but it certainly fits in the noir detective genre as well. I have no hesitation giving this one story five out of five stars.
"Shadow Thieves" is a Garrett, P.I. story by [a:Glen Cook|13026|Glen Cook|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1207159752p2/13026.jpg]. That's another series I haven't read, but I believe this is the first time I've read a short story set in that world. I wouldn't mind reading the series if the novels are all light-hearted like this story. There was some darkness, obviously, or the piece wouldn't be in this anthology - but overall, there was humor.
[a:Melinda M. Snodgrass|725899|Melinda M. Snodgrass|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1271184595p2/725899.jpg]'; "No Mystery, No Miracle" is probably the most controversial story in the book if anybody is really paying attention. I found it intriguing and well-written.
"The Difference Between a Puzzle and a Mystery" by [a:M.L.N. Hanover|1868743|M.L.N. Hanover|http://www.goodreads.com/assets/nophoto/nophoto-M-50x66.jpg] takes us a big city, where an overworked cop is trying to get a confession out of a supposedly demon-possessed killer. He gets help from an unusual minister (Unitarian, we're told - not something that will thrill any UUs out there). I found this one of the most chilling stories in the book. Telling you why, however, would be a spoiler.
I would love to see a novel featuring the main characters of [a:Lisa Tuttle|38313|Lisa Tuttle|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1296860221p2/38313.jpg]'s "The Curious Affair of the Deodand" - a young woman in the Watson role and a young man as a Sherlock Holmes-type consulting detective. The young lady is every bit as vital to resolving the case as the man is, which is one of the things I enjoyed about the story. The resolution isn't as satisfying as it could be, though, which is one of the reasons I'd like to see the same characters in other circumstances.
"Lord John and the Plague of Zombies" by [a:Diana Gabaldon|3617|Diana Gabaldon|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1213918339p2/3617.jpg] is a Lord John Grey story. This is, I believe, the first thing I've read by Gabaldon. It wasn't bad and it wasn't earth-shakingly good. It was decently-plotted with predictable characters and a nice little twist at the end, so enjoyable to read. I won't avoid her work but I'm not burning to read more, either.
"Beware the Snake" is an SPQR story by [a:John Maddox Roberts|19522|John Maddox Roberts|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1285244765p2/19522.jpg]. Once again, I'm unfamiliar with the author and the series, but the story gave enough context for me to understand the setting and the characters, so that was all right. It was enjoyable, although I probably would have twigged to a couple of things more quickly were I more familiar with Roman naming customs.
[a:Patricia Briggs|40563|Patricia Briggs|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1228867484p2/40563.jpg]'; "In Red, With Pearls" is set in Mercedes Thompson's world but featuring werewolf Warren Smith and his lover Kyle. Kyle is set upon by a zombie assassin who is thwarted by Warren, but of course Warren wants to know who sent the zombie, why, and who made the zombie. It's a very good story, as I've come to expect from Briggs. I had a bit of a hard time keeping up with some of the secondary characters in the story, but then I was distracted at the time.
"The Adakian Eagle" by [a:Bradley Denton|198305|Bradley Denton|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1320697919p2/198305.jpg] is a Dashiell Hammett story - as in, Hammett is a character. That was interesting alone, but the story in general was well-told. Spare and hard, as befits one of the main characters.
All in all this is a collection that I can definitely recommend. There are very few clunkers are several excellent stories. [a:George R.R. Martin|346732|George R.R. Martin|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1195658637p2/346732.jpg] and [a:Gardner R. Dozois|12052|Gardner R. Dozois|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1247758142p2/12052.jpg] did their jobs very well.
[a:Charlaine Harris|17061|Charlaine Harris|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1307925926p2/17061.jpg]'; "Death by Dahlia," set in the Sookie Stackhouse universe, is one of a series of stories about the vampire Dahlia Lynley-Chivers. Each story stands alone, but my enjoyment grows greater with each addition to her tales. I'd much rather see Dahlia as the main character of a novel than Sookie, to be honest. This story, set at the party for the ascension of a new vampire sherrif, was a little gem, and a nice start to the collection.
"The Bleeding Shadow" by [a:Joe R. Lansdale|58971|Joe R. Lansdale|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1200406474p2/58971.jpg] is grittier from start to finish, set in the south of black folks in the 1950s. A beautiful woman sends her sometime-suitor to find her brother, a blues musician who has gotten into music that isn't of this world. I couldn't be done with this one soon enough, as it gave me the willies. I have a feeling Lansdale would be happy that it stuck with me for a while.
[a:Simon R. Green|41942|Simon R. Green|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1224555729p2/41942.jpg]'s "Hungry Heart" takes us to the Nightside, where John Taylor is hired by a young witch to retrieve her stolen heart. I haven't read any of the Nightside novels, but this is probably the third or fourth short story I've read, and for some reason they never leave me wanting more. I don't hunger for the darkness, I guess. I will give Green points for creativity in evil henchmen, though.
"Styx and Stones" by [a:Steven Saylor|42919|Steven Saylor|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1243268148p2/42919.jpg] takes a teenage version of his novel hero Gordianus on a world tour to see the Seven Wonders of the World, and this stop is Babylon. Gordianus and his companion, Antipater, find a murderous ghost in residence near their inn in addition to seeing the Ziggurat, the Gate of Ishtar, and what's left of the Hanging Gardens.
[a:S. M. Stirling|6448047|S. M. Stirling|http://www.goodreads.com/assets/nophoto/nophoto-U-50x66.jpg]'s "Pain and Suffering" was unsatisfying to me. It opened with an ex-soldier's combat flashback twisted into something Other, then we learn that the ex-soldier is a cop. He and his partner spend a lot of time investigating an apparent arson and possibly-connected kidnapping. The flashbacks repeat. There's more, but I don't want to spoil the story. I just felt that there was a lot of build-up for very little payoff, and that perhaps this story was meant as a teaser for a novel in which context it would all make far more sense.
"It's Still the Same Old Story' by [a:Carrie Vaughn|8988|Carrie Vaughn|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1231952277p2/8988.jpg] features vampire Rick, from the Kitty Norville books. An old friend calls him needing his help, but by the time he gets to her, she's dead. Most of the story is told in flashback, with him remembering when he originally met the now-old-woman, when they were lovers for a time. The murder is no great mystery for very long. The story felt more rote than anything else, as if perhaps Vaughn wanted to humanize Rick a bit by showing that he had cared for this woman at one time. I didn't feel much of anything from it.
One of the more creative pieces, "The Lady is a Screamer" by [a:Conn Iggulden|119121|Conn Iggulden|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1235073163p2/119121.jpg], is told in first person by a con man turned ghostbuster. I didn't like it, precisely, and i certainly didn't like the narrator. It stands alone, though, and doesn't feel derivative at all, so that says something all by itself.
"Hellbender" by [a:Laurie R. King|6760|Laurie R. King|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1314242901p2/6760.jpg] is probably the only story that left me determined to hunt down more of the author's work. I would classify it as near-future science fiction, but it certainly fits in the noir detective genre as well. I have no hesitation giving this one story five out of five stars.
"Shadow Thieves" is a Garrett, P.I. story by [a:Glen Cook|13026|Glen Cook|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1207159752p2/13026.jpg]. That's another series I haven't read, but I believe this is the first time I've read a short story set in that world. I wouldn't mind reading the series if the novels are all light-hearted like this story. There was some darkness, obviously, or the piece wouldn't be in this anthology - but overall, there was humor.
[a:Melinda M. Snodgrass|725899|Melinda M. Snodgrass|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1271184595p2/725899.jpg]'; "No Mystery, No Miracle" is probably the most controversial story in the book if anybody is really paying attention. I found it intriguing and well-written.
"The Difference Between a Puzzle and a Mystery" by [a:M.L.N. Hanover|1868743|M.L.N. Hanover|http://www.goodreads.com/assets/nophoto/nophoto-M-50x66.jpg] takes us a big city, where an overworked cop is trying to get a confession out of a supposedly demon-possessed killer. He gets help from an unusual minister (Unitarian, we're told - not something that will thrill any UUs out there). I found this one of the most chilling stories in the book. Telling you why, however, would be a spoiler.
I would love to see a novel featuring the main characters of [a:Lisa Tuttle|38313|Lisa Tuttle|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1296860221p2/38313.jpg]'s "The Curious Affair of the Deodand" - a young woman in the Watson role and a young man as a Sherlock Holmes-type consulting detective. The young lady is every bit as vital to resolving the case as the man is, which is one of the things I enjoyed about the story. The resolution isn't as satisfying as it could be, though, which is one of the reasons I'd like to see the same characters in other circumstances.
"Lord John and the Plague of Zombies" by [a:Diana Gabaldon|3617|Diana Gabaldon|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1213918339p2/3617.jpg] is a Lord John Grey story. This is, I believe, the first thing I've read by Gabaldon. It wasn't bad and it wasn't earth-shakingly good. It was decently-plotted with predictable characters and a nice little twist at the end, so enjoyable to read. I won't avoid her work but I'm not burning to read more, either.
"Beware the Snake" is an SPQR story by [a:John Maddox Roberts|19522|John Maddox Roberts|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1285244765p2/19522.jpg]. Once again, I'm unfamiliar with the author and the series, but the story gave enough context for me to understand the setting and the characters, so that was all right. It was enjoyable, although I probably would have twigged to a couple of things more quickly were I more familiar with Roman naming customs.
[a:Patricia Briggs|40563|Patricia Briggs|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1228867484p2/40563.jpg]'; "In Red, With Pearls" is set in Mercedes Thompson's world but featuring werewolf Warren Smith and his lover Kyle. Kyle is set upon by a zombie assassin who is thwarted by Warren, but of course Warren wants to know who sent the zombie, why, and who made the zombie. It's a very good story, as I've come to expect from Briggs. I had a bit of a hard time keeping up with some of the secondary characters in the story, but then I was distracted at the time.
"The Adakian Eagle" by [a:Bradley Denton|198305|Bradley Denton|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1320697919p2/198305.jpg] is a Dashiell Hammett story - as in, Hammett is a character. That was interesting alone, but the story in general was well-told. Spare and hard, as befits one of the main characters.
All in all this is a collection that I can definitely recommend. There are very few clunkers are several excellent stories. [a:George R.R. Martin|346732|George R.R. Martin|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1195658637p2/346732.jpg] and [a:Gardner R. Dozois|12052|Gardner R. Dozois|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1247758142p2/12052.jpg] did their jobs very well.
Twisted Cysts (13 KP) rated Terminator: Dark Fate (2019) in Movies
Oct 24, 2019
Action (2 more)
Performances
VFX
Terminator 3?
I need your clothes, your Re-boot and your motorcycle.
That’s the second l pun I’ve made out of that infamous terminator 2 line this week and I feel dirty because of it;
Dirty, much like how I imagine the Terminator franchise feels after Genisys (or however they spelt it)
Terminator:Dark Fate however is billed as a follow up to Terminator & T2;
The former an 80’s classic that sparked a franchise & its sequel that has easily landed itself as one of the best sequels of all time.
So you probably know that this one is ditching all those other terminator films that came in the couple of decades that came between & aims to be the definitive third instalment of franchise (for the third time after Rise Against The Machines & Gen-I-size also promised to do the same) and it’s actually succeeds somewhat, but maybe not in the way a lot of die-hards will want it to.
It’s the “Day After Judgement Day” and Dark Fate opens strong; using footage of Sarah Connor’s crazed speech of Judgement day & machines whilst being interviewed by doctors from T2.
you’ll immediately appreciate Linda Hamilton’s presence one again & from the first scene that follows it’s immediately clear that the previous sequels were missing her presence on screen.
We get a very brief tease of that 80’s style future of skulls on beaches and red & blue lasers that you’ve now seen in 6 films before it but This film doesn’t mess about, Judgement Day didn’t Happen, Sarah, John & The T-800 stopped it in terminator 2 and this film wants you to know that.
You see this film takes a huge risk that may divide fans, but imo it’s a risk that needed to be taken;
it’s no longer about John Connor, not anymore.
We’re introduced to Dani Ramos (Natalia Reyes) & her brother Diego (Diego Boneta) as factory workers facing replacement my machines (see what they did there, I’ll forgive it though as it gets good).
Next up is the rather brutal and badass introduction to the new Kyle Reese in the form of McKenzie Davis’s Grace & then a similar although ironically more Graceful introduction to the new Terminator (Gabriel Luna) both coming back in time via the iconic time bubble effect of series has had since 1984.
And he’s The most polite & possibly menacing Terminator since the T-1000…
Yes I said polite but I’ll get back to that later.
This new ‘black metal’ terminator or “Rev-9” as its referred to is a sort of 2 for 1 deal Terminator, like a T-800 and a T-1000 at the same time, able to split up and act independently as liquid and skeleton simultaneously.
Unlike previous attempts though this terminator is genuinely threatening, he isn’t messing around and finds his new target Dani within minutes.
He’s lightening fast, intelligent and creepy.
The VFX on him thankfully holds up as well and look fantastic other than a few shoddy cgi jumps that can be forgiven.
Within minutes we’re into an explosive highway car chase and the action rarely lets up after.
Genuinely… theres a Mexican border assault, a US detention pen riot, a fight on fucking C5-M plane (it’s big) and then some.
The action in this film Is relentless, gripping and satisfying as fuck.
But story itself, is Terminator 1984, again…
New familiar threat from the future under a different name and that’s all that’s really new at its core.
That’s because Terminator Dark Fate actually serves as a Star Wars: The Force Awakens style Reboot.
T2’s Judgement Day didn’t happen, Skynet didn’t happen, Terminators as we know and love didn’t happen…
But eventually another A.I does and forces our incredibly toned soldier & the black-metal Rev-9 to Time Travel back to our present day.
Despite the opening chase echoing T2 this film matches Terminator 1 in tone entirely,
Everything is very desperate and our character are almost constantly on the run. If anything this is a beat for beat remake that also happens to be a sequel by bringing along the old cast (No J.J Abrams was not involved.
The cast are fantastic, every single member, this film is stollen by McKenzie Davis and Natalia Reyes, they own their roles.
Gabriel Luna as mentioned before is fantastically creepy, this terminator has one mission and won’t waste time killing innocent bystanders, he’s even well mannered! Which just adds to the creep factor.
And don’t worry, his eye-rolling one liner of “my whole body is a weapon” from the trailer is thankfully immediately shut down by an extra in the full scene.
As a re-boot these cast need to be the ones you care about. Wether you like it or not this is a passing of the torch from old to new and luckily They deliver.
I cared about them more than I did about Sarah Connor!
Who Now bitter as fuck, as ruthless as ever and making it known that she had nothing in life other than a vengeance for Terminators and a fear of a Judgement Day she’s actually prevented.
Linda Hamilton is also great as expected. Her character being even more cold, cynical and sarcastic than ever and if you think about that’s how it should be. Her presence is essential though and makes it feel like a sequel to terminator 2.
The comedy of T2 is missing until we’re eventually re-introduced to Arnie’s Terminator.
I genuinely found him hilarious, and his humour it not forced, he’s the most dead-Pan he’s ever been and of course you know that Sarah Connor isn’t going to trust this weirdly humorous rust-bucket.
But his story is quite a hard one to swallow, without spoiling we get an evolution of his character, one that’s definitely an interesting take, one that also create its own Jokes out it. But it’s doesn’t quite land. It’s too much.
That having been said Arnie is also absolutely fantastic with what he’s been given but unfortunately I didn’t care for him as much as I wanted to.
You’ll have questions multiple times throughout this film but thankfully our characters are intelligent enough to ask them before too long whilst the action is unfolding.
The film never hangs around too much and suffers a little for it, the story comes off as very little more than a remake and passing of the torch.
We get the sorry of this new threatening 2042 future via flashbacks (or is it flash forwards? time travel) and it’s grittier than we’re used to.
More in vein of Salvations dusty, military future than the synth wave metal and blue lasers, which is a shame but ultimately makes sense and enforces the idea that the future we saw in T1 & T2 was actually prevented by John & Sarah back in T2.
It’s risky but it’s the deviation from the formulae of the past attempts at a new Terminator that the franchise needs.
Luckily the risks set up also give us an appropriately emotional if predictable ending. There’s just not enough of the touching character development the the first two films had.
The film succeeded in making me care about the new characters but I left feeling like I didn’t get enough despite a bit of fleshing out via flashbacks that unfold as the film progressed.
Tim Miller (Deadpool) has directed one hell of an action film, Dark Fate is a sequel that wipes the slate clean for a future of new terminator films and just about succeeds buy the skin of it’s endo-skeleton teeth.
It’s not the best, it’s essentially the first film again with new and old cast but it’s good enough for a new series to blossom off it and thrill ride for the most part.
There are few questions left for the sequel and three-quel that I know are already planned (what the fuck does Rev-9 actually stand for anyway?) but that’s understandable, I just hope we get that sequel and that it’s as good or even better because this is the only terminator film I cared about since terminator 2.
The box office will ultimately be the decider and I can already hear the keyboard warriors that haven’t even seen the movie panning it on twitter but I for one, really enjoyed Terminator: Dark Fate.
Photo courtesy of Skydance & Paramount VIa talent house media.
7/10
That’s the second l pun I’ve made out of that infamous terminator 2 line this week and I feel dirty because of it;
Dirty, much like how I imagine the Terminator franchise feels after Genisys (or however they spelt it)
Terminator:Dark Fate however is billed as a follow up to Terminator & T2;
The former an 80’s classic that sparked a franchise & its sequel that has easily landed itself as one of the best sequels of all time.
So you probably know that this one is ditching all those other terminator films that came in the couple of decades that came between & aims to be the definitive third instalment of franchise (for the third time after Rise Against The Machines & Gen-I-size also promised to do the same) and it’s actually succeeds somewhat, but maybe not in the way a lot of die-hards will want it to.
It’s the “Day After Judgement Day” and Dark Fate opens strong; using footage of Sarah Connor’s crazed speech of Judgement day & machines whilst being interviewed by doctors from T2.
you’ll immediately appreciate Linda Hamilton’s presence one again & from the first scene that follows it’s immediately clear that the previous sequels were missing her presence on screen.
We get a very brief tease of that 80’s style future of skulls on beaches and red & blue lasers that you’ve now seen in 6 films before it but This film doesn’t mess about, Judgement Day didn’t Happen, Sarah, John & The T-800 stopped it in terminator 2 and this film wants you to know that.
You see this film takes a huge risk that may divide fans, but imo it’s a risk that needed to be taken;
it’s no longer about John Connor, not anymore.
We’re introduced to Dani Ramos (Natalia Reyes) & her brother Diego (Diego Boneta) as factory workers facing replacement my machines (see what they did there, I’ll forgive it though as it gets good).
Next up is the rather brutal and badass introduction to the new Kyle Reese in the form of McKenzie Davis’s Grace & then a similar although ironically more Graceful introduction to the new Terminator (Gabriel Luna) both coming back in time via the iconic time bubble effect of series has had since 1984.
And he’s The most polite & possibly menacing Terminator since the T-1000…
Yes I said polite but I’ll get back to that later.
This new ‘black metal’ terminator or “Rev-9” as its referred to is a sort of 2 for 1 deal Terminator, like a T-800 and a T-1000 at the same time, able to split up and act independently as liquid and skeleton simultaneously.
Unlike previous attempts though this terminator is genuinely threatening, he isn’t messing around and finds his new target Dani within minutes.
He’s lightening fast, intelligent and creepy.
The VFX on him thankfully holds up as well and look fantastic other than a few shoddy cgi jumps that can be forgiven.
Within minutes we’re into an explosive highway car chase and the action rarely lets up after.
Genuinely… theres a Mexican border assault, a US detention pen riot, a fight on fucking C5-M plane (it’s big) and then some.
The action in this film Is relentless, gripping and satisfying as fuck.
But story itself, is Terminator 1984, again…
New familiar threat from the future under a different name and that’s all that’s really new at its core.
That’s because Terminator Dark Fate actually serves as a Star Wars: The Force Awakens style Reboot.
T2’s Judgement Day didn’t happen, Skynet didn’t happen, Terminators as we know and love didn’t happen…
But eventually another A.I does and forces our incredibly toned soldier & the black-metal Rev-9 to Time Travel back to our present day.
Despite the opening chase echoing T2 this film matches Terminator 1 in tone entirely,
Everything is very desperate and our character are almost constantly on the run. If anything this is a beat for beat remake that also happens to be a sequel by bringing along the old cast (No J.J Abrams was not involved.
The cast are fantastic, every single member, this film is stollen by McKenzie Davis and Natalia Reyes, they own their roles.
Gabriel Luna as mentioned before is fantastically creepy, this terminator has one mission and won’t waste time killing innocent bystanders, he’s even well mannered! Which just adds to the creep factor.
And don’t worry, his eye-rolling one liner of “my whole body is a weapon” from the trailer is thankfully immediately shut down by an extra in the full scene.
As a re-boot these cast need to be the ones you care about. Wether you like it or not this is a passing of the torch from old to new and luckily They deliver.
I cared about them more than I did about Sarah Connor!
Who Now bitter as fuck, as ruthless as ever and making it known that she had nothing in life other than a vengeance for Terminators and a fear of a Judgement Day she’s actually prevented.
Linda Hamilton is also great as expected. Her character being even more cold, cynical and sarcastic than ever and if you think about that’s how it should be. Her presence is essential though and makes it feel like a sequel to terminator 2.
The comedy of T2 is missing until we’re eventually re-introduced to Arnie’s Terminator.
I genuinely found him hilarious, and his humour it not forced, he’s the most dead-Pan he’s ever been and of course you know that Sarah Connor isn’t going to trust this weirdly humorous rust-bucket.
But his story is quite a hard one to swallow, without spoiling we get an evolution of his character, one that’s definitely an interesting take, one that also create its own Jokes out it. But it’s doesn’t quite land. It’s too much.
That having been said Arnie is also absolutely fantastic with what he’s been given but unfortunately I didn’t care for him as much as I wanted to.
You’ll have questions multiple times throughout this film but thankfully our characters are intelligent enough to ask them before too long whilst the action is unfolding.
The film never hangs around too much and suffers a little for it, the story comes off as very little more than a remake and passing of the torch.
We get the sorry of this new threatening 2042 future via flashbacks (or is it flash forwards? time travel) and it’s grittier than we’re used to.
More in vein of Salvations dusty, military future than the synth wave metal and blue lasers, which is a shame but ultimately makes sense and enforces the idea that the future we saw in T1 & T2 was actually prevented by John & Sarah back in T2.
It’s risky but it’s the deviation from the formulae of the past attempts at a new Terminator that the franchise needs.
Luckily the risks set up also give us an appropriately emotional if predictable ending. There’s just not enough of the touching character development the the first two films had.
The film succeeded in making me care about the new characters but I left feeling like I didn’t get enough despite a bit of fleshing out via flashbacks that unfold as the film progressed.
Tim Miller (Deadpool) has directed one hell of an action film, Dark Fate is a sequel that wipes the slate clean for a future of new terminator films and just about succeeds buy the skin of it’s endo-skeleton teeth.
It’s not the best, it’s essentially the first film again with new and old cast but it’s good enough for a new series to blossom off it and thrill ride for the most part.
There are few questions left for the sequel and three-quel that I know are already planned (what the fuck does Rev-9 actually stand for anyway?) but that’s understandable, I just hope we get that sequel and that it’s as good or even better because this is the only terminator film I cared about since terminator 2.
The box office will ultimately be the decider and I can already hear the keyboard warriors that haven’t even seen the movie panning it on twitter but I for one, really enjoyed Terminator: Dark Fate.
Photo courtesy of Skydance & Paramount VIa talent house media.
7/10
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.
A Bibliophagist (113 KP) rated Wuthering Heights in Books
Feb 12, 2020
Stands up (2 more)
Enthralling
Unique
Dislikable characters (1 more)
Difficult accents without translations
I will do my best to review this, however, I didn't heed the intro, this tour de force really does leave you as quickly as it comes, and reading another book before reviewing this one was a mistake.
In reading reviews prior to reading this book, I learned three major things; 1, people either love or hate this book, 2. I had no idea what I was actually in for, and 3. this may have not been the romantic pick for February I was expecting it to be.
So yes, PSA for anyone out there considering going into this thinking it's a romance. It is NOT. There are love stories in this, absolutely, powerful love stories that made me read quotes to my boyfriend with snarky statements like "if you don't say this at my funeral, did you ever really love me?". But it is NOT a romance. If anything this has more in common with "The Count of Monte Cristo" than it does "Pride and Prejudice". Honestly, the only thing it has in common with other, romantic books of this time, is the time period. But beware, no balls and high society and Mr. Darcy's await you in this novel. I feel a number of the reviews decrying the book, calling the characters "monstrous" both were the orchestrators of their own disappointment by assuming it to be like an Austin, and really need to look in the mirror and reflect on if they are really as perfect as they think they are. Especially if they were in the circumstances that surround this tale.
I find that Heathcliff himself addresses this mistake many readers had going into this book.
"picturing in me a hero of romance, and expecting unlimited indulgences from my chivalrous devotion. I can hardly regard her in the light of a rational creature, so obstinately has she persisted in forming a fabulous notion of my character and actin gon false impressions she cherished."
SO many readers went into this expecting Heathcliff to be some misunderstood brute or one harsh but salvaged by the purity of his love of Catherine. But this isn't the case.
Wuthering Heights tells the story of (I guess technically 3) but really 2 generations of families. Living in the Yorkshire Moors, isolated from high society. We have the Liptons, primmer and properer and more in touch with society, and the Earnshaws which become a little rough around the edges in their isolation and loss. Papa Earnshaw has two children, Catherine and Hindley, and adopts a small boy of unknown heritage but is implied to be Romani or of mixed race (sorry Tom Hardy and nearly every portrayal of Heathcliff), that he names, simply, Heathcliff. He loves Heathcliff, and dotes on him greatly, much to the chagrin of Hindly who grows to resent Heathcliff, treating him terribly until Hindly leaves for school. Catherine and Heathcliff become great playmates, their care is given primarily to a maid scarcely older than them, as Papa Earnshaw is a single daddy. They are wild things, as children I would assume would be, in such isolation as the Yorkshire Moors in a time before the creature comforts and entertainment we have. They grow very close, obsessively close. Upon Papa Earnshaw's death, Hindley returns (at around the age of 23) to run the household, and take over the care of these two youngsters, one of which, he hates. So, Cinderella-style, Heathcliff gets treated worse and worse and treated like a servant rather than the adoptive child that Papa Earnshaw loved so dearly. Suddenly Heathcliff is nothing, treated terribly, and has the most important thing in his life banned from him, Catherine. Meanwhile, the Liptons also have two children, not wild, but spoilt in their own ways, Edgar and Isabella, close in age to Heathcliff and Catherine. When H and C run off on a camping adventure and find themselves at the Lipton's house, Catherine is injured and stays with the Liptons, in their higher society for 5 weeks. Leaving Heathcliff to the abuse of her brother and further isolation. She returns much more a lady and with her connection to Heathcliff slightly burned. In an attempt to protect Heathcliff, and because Heathcliff is now no more than a servant and not an option to marry, Catherine intends to marry Edgar. Causing our resident bad boy to run off for a number of years. Only to return a proper, but still broody gentleman, and confuse Catherine's affection much to the displeasure of Edgar.
Now, this is where a number of shows and movies end things. With a focus on Catherine and Heathcliff's whirlwind romance, obsession. It has some of the most to the point and beautiful lines regarding love, not all flowery, not "I love you most ardently" but rather cries of "I am Heathcliff" by Catherine. Absolutely heart-rending, even though I didn't like Catherine. But this is not where the book ends. The book goes on to follow Heathcliff's obsession with revenge, with his treatment as a child, his rage against Hindley, and against losing Catherine to Edgar. He spends years slowly ruining everyone's lives. Not that you could really ruin Hindley's life, he was a mean drunk. But he even goes as far as to meddle with the next generation, Hindley's son Hareton is raised terribly and is a bit of a wild thing (those his redemption and love story is quite beautiful), Catherine's daughter Cathy and Heathcliff's son Lipton are whisked up into a big scheme by Heathcliff to take everything. Heathcliff even marry's out of pure spite.
Love does not redeem this man, he's barely an antihero without his youth story. He is angry and passionate and obsessed. Which for the first half of the book I didn't fault him for, but he does do some damnable things in the second half that you cannot argue away. No matter how romantic and beautiful and heartrending his lamentations can be. I was quite the character arc, quite the tale of revenge and loss. He was unredeemable because of his big sprawling schemes and harsh intentions. Catherine for me was unredeemable because she was an obnoxious, selfish thing, that honestly if Heathcliff had stopped thinking about two minutes would have found a better woman in every town. She whined and treated Edgar (who was honestly super sweet) so terribly, she had an anger problem and would work herself up until she was sick. But it is in this imperfection that I fell in love more with the book. Here is something unique and real, this is no Elizabeth Bennett. The isolation and hermetic lifestyle created very different characters than what we see in Jane Austin or even in Emily's sister's novel.
It's no wonder this book was harshly critiqued upon release, here is a woman, writing a revenge story, with love stories in it. That based on the biographical intro had some parallels to her own life. She lived an isolated existence, surrounded by the death of the majority of her family young. She was in her late 20s when she wrote this and died a year after publication. She made humans of monsters and monsters of humans and wrote something unexpected and truly unique.
It's hard for me to explain, amongst the harshness and bleakness of this novel, why I loved it so much. But I did, I loved every bit. The anger, the passion, the love, the scheming, I loved it all.
I also feel it's important to note that this whole story is told by a maid to a new tenant. So the narrator is unreliable. Were these people truly this way? Or is it clouded by this maid's opinions of them? How much is omitted due to the maid not being privy to an event?
Truly a fantastic read, that punched me in my chest and gut, grabbed and twisted my insides and refuses to let go. I would argue it's a cult classic rather than a classic. So please, shed all preconceived notions of what this book is, shake that Austin out of your mind and read this tale of obsession and revenge. It's well worth it.
In reading reviews prior to reading this book, I learned three major things; 1, people either love or hate this book, 2. I had no idea what I was actually in for, and 3. this may have not been the romantic pick for February I was expecting it to be.
So yes, PSA for anyone out there considering going into this thinking it's a romance. It is NOT. There are love stories in this, absolutely, powerful love stories that made me read quotes to my boyfriend with snarky statements like "if you don't say this at my funeral, did you ever really love me?". But it is NOT a romance. If anything this has more in common with "The Count of Monte Cristo" than it does "Pride and Prejudice". Honestly, the only thing it has in common with other, romantic books of this time, is the time period. But beware, no balls and high society and Mr. Darcy's await you in this novel. I feel a number of the reviews decrying the book, calling the characters "monstrous" both were the orchestrators of their own disappointment by assuming it to be like an Austin, and really need to look in the mirror and reflect on if they are really as perfect as they think they are. Especially if they were in the circumstances that surround this tale.
I find that Heathcliff himself addresses this mistake many readers had going into this book.
"picturing in me a hero of romance, and expecting unlimited indulgences from my chivalrous devotion. I can hardly regard her in the light of a rational creature, so obstinately has she persisted in forming a fabulous notion of my character and actin gon false impressions she cherished."
SO many readers went into this expecting Heathcliff to be some misunderstood brute or one harsh but salvaged by the purity of his love of Catherine. But this isn't the case.
Wuthering Heights tells the story of (I guess technically 3) but really 2 generations of families. Living in the Yorkshire Moors, isolated from high society. We have the Liptons, primmer and properer and more in touch with society, and the Earnshaws which become a little rough around the edges in their isolation and loss. Papa Earnshaw has two children, Catherine and Hindley, and adopts a small boy of unknown heritage but is implied to be Romani or of mixed race (sorry Tom Hardy and nearly every portrayal of Heathcliff), that he names, simply, Heathcliff. He loves Heathcliff, and dotes on him greatly, much to the chagrin of Hindly who grows to resent Heathcliff, treating him terribly until Hindly leaves for school. Catherine and Heathcliff become great playmates, their care is given primarily to a maid scarcely older than them, as Papa Earnshaw is a single daddy. They are wild things, as children I would assume would be, in such isolation as the Yorkshire Moors in a time before the creature comforts and entertainment we have. They grow very close, obsessively close. Upon Papa Earnshaw's death, Hindley returns (at around the age of 23) to run the household, and take over the care of these two youngsters, one of which, he hates. So, Cinderella-style, Heathcliff gets treated worse and worse and treated like a servant rather than the adoptive child that Papa Earnshaw loved so dearly. Suddenly Heathcliff is nothing, treated terribly, and has the most important thing in his life banned from him, Catherine. Meanwhile, the Liptons also have two children, not wild, but spoilt in their own ways, Edgar and Isabella, close in age to Heathcliff and Catherine. When H and C run off on a camping adventure and find themselves at the Lipton's house, Catherine is injured and stays with the Liptons, in their higher society for 5 weeks. Leaving Heathcliff to the abuse of her brother and further isolation. She returns much more a lady and with her connection to Heathcliff slightly burned. In an attempt to protect Heathcliff, and because Heathcliff is now no more than a servant and not an option to marry, Catherine intends to marry Edgar. Causing our resident bad boy to run off for a number of years. Only to return a proper, but still broody gentleman, and confuse Catherine's affection much to the displeasure of Edgar.
Now, this is where a number of shows and movies end things. With a focus on Catherine and Heathcliff's whirlwind romance, obsession. It has some of the most to the point and beautiful lines regarding love, not all flowery, not "I love you most ardently" but rather cries of "I am Heathcliff" by Catherine. Absolutely heart-rending, even though I didn't like Catherine. But this is not where the book ends. The book goes on to follow Heathcliff's obsession with revenge, with his treatment as a child, his rage against Hindley, and against losing Catherine to Edgar. He spends years slowly ruining everyone's lives. Not that you could really ruin Hindley's life, he was a mean drunk. But he even goes as far as to meddle with the next generation, Hindley's son Hareton is raised terribly and is a bit of a wild thing (those his redemption and love story is quite beautiful), Catherine's daughter Cathy and Heathcliff's son Lipton are whisked up into a big scheme by Heathcliff to take everything. Heathcliff even marry's out of pure spite.
Love does not redeem this man, he's barely an antihero without his youth story. He is angry and passionate and obsessed. Which for the first half of the book I didn't fault him for, but he does do some damnable things in the second half that you cannot argue away. No matter how romantic and beautiful and heartrending his lamentations can be. I was quite the character arc, quite the tale of revenge and loss. He was unredeemable because of his big sprawling schemes and harsh intentions. Catherine for me was unredeemable because she was an obnoxious, selfish thing, that honestly if Heathcliff had stopped thinking about two minutes would have found a better woman in every town. She whined and treated Edgar (who was honestly super sweet) so terribly, she had an anger problem and would work herself up until she was sick. But it is in this imperfection that I fell in love more with the book. Here is something unique and real, this is no Elizabeth Bennett. The isolation and hermetic lifestyle created very different characters than what we see in Jane Austin or even in Emily's sister's novel.
It's no wonder this book was harshly critiqued upon release, here is a woman, writing a revenge story, with love stories in it. That based on the biographical intro had some parallels to her own life. She lived an isolated existence, surrounded by the death of the majority of her family young. She was in her late 20s when she wrote this and died a year after publication. She made humans of monsters and monsters of humans and wrote something unexpected and truly unique.
It's hard for me to explain, amongst the harshness and bleakness of this novel, why I loved it so much. But I did, I loved every bit. The anger, the passion, the love, the scheming, I loved it all.
I also feel it's important to note that this whole story is told by a maid to a new tenant. So the narrator is unreliable. Were these people truly this way? Or is it clouded by this maid's opinions of them? How much is omitted due to the maid not being privy to an event?
Truly a fantastic read, that punched me in my chest and gut, grabbed and twisted my insides and refuses to let go. I would argue it's a cult classic rather than a classic. So please, shed all preconceived notions of what this book is, shake that Austin out of your mind and read this tale of obsession and revenge. It's well worth it.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Cubitos in Tabletop Games
Mar 17, 2022
Let me tell you a story about how I came to own Cubitos. My FLGS, which since moving to Tennessee is an hour away in Knoxville (Sci-Fi City), had great stock of this game a couple months ago. I would step in, browse around, and pass on picking up a copy since they seemed to have so many. Forward in time to a month ago, when I was ready to grab my own copy, they are sold out. WHAT. Well, I had to order a copy online from somewhere I don’t normally shop because my favorite online sellers were also out of stock. Then Christmas came and my brother gifted me a copy of Cubitos. So then I had two. Long story now short – I have a copy and that’s all that matters because Cubitos is amazing.
Cubitos is a push-your-luck, dice building, racing game for two to four players. In it, players have runners that will be moving around a crazy race track, and another runner who keeps track of fans (the manager maybe?), and the first player’s runner to cross the finish line will be the winner! Now, managing movement and special abilities is where the game REALLY is, and it all boils down to which special dice are purchased and used, and whether Lady Luck will find favor or not. It’s a wild ride, so prepare your runner and let’s go!
To setup, place out one of the double-sided Racetrack boards, along with the Fan Track board. Runners for each player are placed at the Starting Line on the Racetrack board, and the other on the bleachers of the Fan Track. Each player receives a color-coded Player Board and nine gray starting dice. They receive a Phase Token to keep track of each phase in a round, and the starting player receives the Start Player Die. Each dice box is placed around the boards with the dice on top. All corresponding cards for each die type is placed by the dice box, and the game may now begin!
DISCLAIMER: We have adopted an unofficial variant/house rule that differs from the rules because we find it works better for us. During the phases where all players may play simultaneously we instead just have each player take a turn individually. -T
A turn in Cubitos is divided into two main phases with several sub-phases for each. During the main Roll Phase, players will first Draw dice from their personal Draw Zone (on the Player Board) and place them into the Roll Zone. Initially, players will have a hand size of nine, but that may be adjusted as the game progresses. Once the dice have been drawn the player then Rolls their dice. Every die face showing an icon is counted as a Hit, and every die showing a blank face is considered a Miss. All dice showing Hits are moved to the Active Zone of the board, and the player then decides if they wish to Push (their luck) and re-roll all the Misses in hopes of more Hits, or if they are done rolling. Once a player re-rolls their Misses, if the result is all Misses, the player Busts and must move ALL rolled dice to the Discard Zone on their board. However, players may continue to roll all Misses until they Bust or are content and stop.
The Run Phase then begins with players resolving their red die icons (crossed swords for attacks), and determining their other icons rolled for coins and movement. Feet icons (and certain dice special abilities) provide players with movement along the Racetrack board, and coins provide the player with purchasing power to buy new dice. Once a player’s Runner has landed on a reward spot on the board, the player receives the benefit and moves all dice used this turn to the Discard Zone on the Player board.
Every time a player Busts, or lands on a Fan icon on the Racetrack, the other matching Runner on the Fan Track board will move one spot along the track, and the player receives the benefits of the new space. These benefits are either an increase in hand limit of dice drawn, or more purchasing power in the form of credits. Reward spaces on the board could give players extra dice for free, allow players to remove dice from their collection, or even gain credits to be used at any time. The game continues in this fashion of each player taking their turns until one player crosses the finish line and wins!
Components. This box is chock full of tasty components that we all just adore. The boards and cards are all good quality and feature some fantastic art, and the custom dice are just so fun to handle. A truly ingenious use of folding arts is used when setting up all the dice boxes. Not only are they used in-game to remind players what icons are on each die face, but they also hold the dice during play, and store the dice in the box. I mean, triple duty dice boxes are where it’s at! Everything is super colorful and just a joy to play with each time. My one quibble is the very offensive block of cheese on the box cover. I am a big Chicago Bears fan, and seeing something so proudly displayed that even remotely resembles an homage to the Packers is such a shame to me. I really hope that wasn’t intentional, but I am also joking. Mostly.
The absolute best part about this game is the selection of action cards associated with each special set of dice. For example, the purple dinosaur dice could be paired with seven different cards, each with different abilities when the icon is rolled. Each color has a seven card deck, from which a card could randomly be used each game. The rulebook also offers 10 suggested combinations of cards, and also invites players to choose their own combos. This reminds me of a similar mechanic I first saw with the Dice Masters system, where each die’s faces could mean something completely different depending on the card associated with it. I loved that mechanic back then, and I do now as well.
I cannot believe I passed on this game for as long as I did. I mean, I like AEG-published games. We have reviewed John D. Clair games positively: Mystic Vale, with Custom Heroes and Space Base coming soon. Was it a subconscious dislike for the dumb cheese man on the cover? I am not too sure, but I am clearly glad to have it now. The cool dice. The interesting theme. The multi-use dice/card components. The fact they included both orange and purple dice. Am I into racing games now? The reasons are plentiful, and I just cannot wait for my next play of Cubitos. Maybe I can get my wife into it and it can be a staple in our rotation.
There are several other little rules that I did not mention here, but all in all I have had a blast every time I play Cubitos. I was certainly correct in wanting to add it to my collection, and having Josh teach Laura and me originally just adds a unique personal touch to the game for me. Creating lasting memories is a big reason I am so into board games in the first place, and I think Cubitos will hold a special place in my heart simply because I was able to play it with my best friends. They agree with me that this is a special game, and Purple Phoenix Games gives this a nonsquare 16 / 18. If you see this at your LFGS I highly recommend you pick up a copy. Don’t wait, like I did, because when you do get around to it, they just may be out of stock. And a suggestion: because the cheeseperson is wearing lederhosen, just refer to them as a great German friend. AND THAT’S IT. Go Bears.
Cubitos is a push-your-luck, dice building, racing game for two to four players. In it, players have runners that will be moving around a crazy race track, and another runner who keeps track of fans (the manager maybe?), and the first player’s runner to cross the finish line will be the winner! Now, managing movement and special abilities is where the game REALLY is, and it all boils down to which special dice are purchased and used, and whether Lady Luck will find favor or not. It’s a wild ride, so prepare your runner and let’s go!
To setup, place out one of the double-sided Racetrack boards, along with the Fan Track board. Runners for each player are placed at the Starting Line on the Racetrack board, and the other on the bleachers of the Fan Track. Each player receives a color-coded Player Board and nine gray starting dice. They receive a Phase Token to keep track of each phase in a round, and the starting player receives the Start Player Die. Each dice box is placed around the boards with the dice on top. All corresponding cards for each die type is placed by the dice box, and the game may now begin!
DISCLAIMER: We have adopted an unofficial variant/house rule that differs from the rules because we find it works better for us. During the phases where all players may play simultaneously we instead just have each player take a turn individually. -T
A turn in Cubitos is divided into two main phases with several sub-phases for each. During the main Roll Phase, players will first Draw dice from their personal Draw Zone (on the Player Board) and place them into the Roll Zone. Initially, players will have a hand size of nine, but that may be adjusted as the game progresses. Once the dice have been drawn the player then Rolls their dice. Every die face showing an icon is counted as a Hit, and every die showing a blank face is considered a Miss. All dice showing Hits are moved to the Active Zone of the board, and the player then decides if they wish to Push (their luck) and re-roll all the Misses in hopes of more Hits, or if they are done rolling. Once a player re-rolls their Misses, if the result is all Misses, the player Busts and must move ALL rolled dice to the Discard Zone on their board. However, players may continue to roll all Misses until they Bust or are content and stop.
The Run Phase then begins with players resolving their red die icons (crossed swords for attacks), and determining their other icons rolled for coins and movement. Feet icons (and certain dice special abilities) provide players with movement along the Racetrack board, and coins provide the player with purchasing power to buy new dice. Once a player’s Runner has landed on a reward spot on the board, the player receives the benefit and moves all dice used this turn to the Discard Zone on the Player board.
Every time a player Busts, or lands on a Fan icon on the Racetrack, the other matching Runner on the Fan Track board will move one spot along the track, and the player receives the benefits of the new space. These benefits are either an increase in hand limit of dice drawn, or more purchasing power in the form of credits. Reward spaces on the board could give players extra dice for free, allow players to remove dice from their collection, or even gain credits to be used at any time. The game continues in this fashion of each player taking their turns until one player crosses the finish line and wins!
Components. This box is chock full of tasty components that we all just adore. The boards and cards are all good quality and feature some fantastic art, and the custom dice are just so fun to handle. A truly ingenious use of folding arts is used when setting up all the dice boxes. Not only are they used in-game to remind players what icons are on each die face, but they also hold the dice during play, and store the dice in the box. I mean, triple duty dice boxes are where it’s at! Everything is super colorful and just a joy to play with each time. My one quibble is the very offensive block of cheese on the box cover. I am a big Chicago Bears fan, and seeing something so proudly displayed that even remotely resembles an homage to the Packers is such a shame to me. I really hope that wasn’t intentional, but I am also joking. Mostly.
The absolute best part about this game is the selection of action cards associated with each special set of dice. For example, the purple dinosaur dice could be paired with seven different cards, each with different abilities when the icon is rolled. Each color has a seven card deck, from which a card could randomly be used each game. The rulebook also offers 10 suggested combinations of cards, and also invites players to choose their own combos. This reminds me of a similar mechanic I first saw with the Dice Masters system, where each die’s faces could mean something completely different depending on the card associated with it. I loved that mechanic back then, and I do now as well.
I cannot believe I passed on this game for as long as I did. I mean, I like AEG-published games. We have reviewed John D. Clair games positively: Mystic Vale, with Custom Heroes and Space Base coming soon. Was it a subconscious dislike for the dumb cheese man on the cover? I am not too sure, but I am clearly glad to have it now. The cool dice. The interesting theme. The multi-use dice/card components. The fact they included both orange and purple dice. Am I into racing games now? The reasons are plentiful, and I just cannot wait for my next play of Cubitos. Maybe I can get my wife into it and it can be a staple in our rotation.
There are several other little rules that I did not mention here, but all in all I have had a blast every time I play Cubitos. I was certainly correct in wanting to add it to my collection, and having Josh teach Laura and me originally just adds a unique personal touch to the game for me. Creating lasting memories is a big reason I am so into board games in the first place, and I think Cubitos will hold a special place in my heart simply because I was able to play it with my best friends. They agree with me that this is a special game, and Purple Phoenix Games gives this a nonsquare 16 / 18. If you see this at your LFGS I highly recommend you pick up a copy. Don’t wait, like I did, because when you do get around to it, they just may be out of stock. And a suggestion: because the cheeseperson is wearing lederhosen, just refer to them as a great German friend. AND THAT’S IT. Go Bears.
Mandy and G.D. Burkhead (26 KP) rated Banewreaker in Books
May 20, 2018
Shelf Life – Banewreaker Will Make You Feel Bad for Sauron
Contains spoilers, click to show
Very few fantasy fans can get away with admitting that they aren’t all that big into sweeping, high epic fantasy à la Lord of the Rings or the Pern stories or everything that Terry Brooks writes. Many non-fantasy fans, however, can point to these tales as examples of why they aren’t into fantasy. Like it or not, it’s hard not to see the latter group’s point, as a lot of high fantasy is riddled with confusing terminology, rehashed stories, and genre clichés. This is not to say that these stories are bad, per sé, just that they can easily turn off readers who aren’t in the right kind of crowd.
Banewreaker, the first book in Jacqueline Carey’s two-part volume The Sundering, will probably not change any opinions in this respect, then, as it’s sweeping high fantasy to the core. This, as it turns out, is both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness.
There are some reviews out there that laud Banewreaker as a masterful examination of subjective viewpoints in an epic fantasy turned into a human tragedy by a simple change of perspective. And they are absolutely correct.
There are other reviews, however, that call the book out as a heap of all of the stalest fantasy clichés piled one atop the other in a confusing and pretentious jumble with a shellacking of purple prose for good measure. And they are also absolutely correct.
Let me explain.
For starters, it would be inaccurate to say that this story is full of clichés. This story is clichés. This story is every familiar and used-up trope you would expect from a high fantasy, all of those details that have been done to death in thousands of other versions until almost nothing that happens seems original anymore.
This is what’s going to turn off a lot of people. But the thing is, Banewreaker has to be this way. It wants the reader to look at all of the things that they’ve come to expect from a fantasy epic and then, by shifting the narrative focus, realize that all of these beloved tropes are actually, when you think about it, tragic as hell.
In other words, it’s Lord of the Rings from Sauron’s point of view.
It’s not a riff, though. It’s not goofy like most of the stuff I go in for. It takes its subject just as seriously as the stories that it’s mirroring, and this is what makes the whole story ultimately so gripping and so moving.
The story starts out like many stories of this magnitude, with exposition stretching back to the Dawn of This Particular Creation. In this case, we have a protogenos world god named Uru-Alat who died and gave rise to seven smaller godlike beings called Shapers. First comes Haomane, who becomes the Lord of Thought and sets himself up as head honcho for this ensuing pantheon. Second is Arahila, the Basically a Love Goddess; and third is Satoris, whose purview was “the quickening of the flesh,” which is high fantasy speak for sexy times. Four more Shapers come after this who, for the sake of brevity, we’ll be glossing over.
To summarize the important godly exposition, the Seven Shapers set about shaping the world to the surprise of no one. Haomane creates elves (here called Ellyl, but if you’ve ever even looked at a fantasy, you know that they’re the elves here), Arahila creates humans, and Satoris doesn’t create anything because he’s busy hanging out with dragons and learning their wisdom. Satoris grants his fleshy quickening to the humans but not the elves, because Haomane didn’t want his elves to do that. Then Haomane decides he doesn’t want the humans to do that either, but Satoris refuses to take the gift away again. Conflict escalates, god wars ensue, and the world splits into two continents, with Satoris ostracized from his brethren on one and the remaining Shapers on the other. By the time the dust has settled, Satoris is scarred and burned pitch black, living in a mostly dead land thanks to Haomane’s wrath, but with a dagger in his possession that is the only weapon capable of killing any of the Shapers.
The story itself picks up thousands of years later, with Satoris as the Satan/Sauron stand-in living in a forbidding land surrounded by classically evil things like trolls, giant spiders, and insane people. Since Haomane is the head god, the rest of the world believes Satoris to be a terrible figure of evil and betrayal, while Satoris’s few allies know him as a pitiable and misunderstood figure who only ever wanted to honor his word and do right by his own sense of morality rather than the dictates of his elder brother god king.
From here the plot becomes the typical Army of Good vs. Army of Evil adventure, but with the protagonistic focus on Satoris and his allies. His trolls we see not as a mindless horde but as a simple, honorable people who happily serve their lord because he happily serves them right back. The mad individuals inhabiting his fortress are castaways from normal society with nowhere else to go. And the giant spiders just happen to live there and be bigger than normal, with no sinister intentions beyond that.
And just like that, by actually showing us the home life of the ultimate in evil fantasy tropes, we see how easily one side’s view of evil is another’s view of good. In doing so, Banewreaker becomes perhaps the first sweeping fantasy epic with no real bad guy, just two sides of an unfortunate conflict. Both sides have their likeable characters, both sides seem from their view to be in the right, and pretty soon you, as the reader, will stop cheering for either one, because whenever one person that you like succeeds it means that another person whom you also like is failing.
In fact, the closest thing that this story has to a clearly-labeled “evil” character is the sorceress Lilias, and even then, she’s not evil so much as a woman who has done some bad things for completely understandable reasons. Lilias, in fact, is one of the most pitiful characters in this whole saga of pitiable characters, with her fears and attachments closely mirroring those of most readers, only amplified by her immortality and magical powers. She is afraid of dying. She wants to be more in the grand scheme of things than just another man’s wife or another country’s momentary ruler, both of which would just be tiny moments in a long history. She likes her youth. She likes having pretty things and pretty people around her. And from her interactions with her dragon mentor and apparently only friend, Calandor, we see that she is also capable of intense affection and even love just as she is capable of indulging in self-centered self-interest that, if not particularly a good trait, is also one that she is not alone in possessing.
Banewreaker, then, is a story with a large cast of characters but very few actual heroes or innocents as well as very few outright villains, which is exactly what it sets out to be. Those who love it and those who hate it both seem to blame this quality in particular for their feelings. The biggest complaint leveled against it (that I have read, anyway) is that the people we should be rooting for do not deserve our sympathy, while the people we should be rooting against are more misguided and unwilling to see things in another light than deserving of our scorn.
This is true. But if it’s a flaw, it’s an intentional one. And if it makes you feel like you shouldn’t be cheering for either side at all in this conflict, that’s the point. This is a story of clichés, yes, but it has something that it needs to say about these clichés and, in doing so, about the subjective and impossibly nebulous quality of morality in general.
In short, here again is another fantasy story about the Forces of Good wiping out an entire nation dedicated to their “evil” enemy. And as the story points out, even if you believe in that cause, you’re still wiping out an entire nation of people. No way is there not a downside to that. Seeing things in a black-and-white morality just means crushing a whole lot of important shades of gray underfoot.
Whether or not you like Banewreaker, then, depends in large part upon how much you realize that Carey as an author is being self-aware. As someone who read and still hasn’t stopped being awed over her Kushiel series, I can’t claim complete objectivity in this area, because I came to Banewreaker already in love with her. I can say, however, that unless you have an intense and searing aversion to ornate and sweeping style, this book is worth any fantasy-lover’s time – especially if you’ve ever felt a pang of empathy for all of the poor villainous mooks that fantasy heroes tend to mow down without a thought because they were the wrong kind of ugly.
Banewreaker, the first book in Jacqueline Carey’s two-part volume The Sundering, will probably not change any opinions in this respect, then, as it’s sweeping high fantasy to the core. This, as it turns out, is both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness.
There are some reviews out there that laud Banewreaker as a masterful examination of subjective viewpoints in an epic fantasy turned into a human tragedy by a simple change of perspective. And they are absolutely correct.
There are other reviews, however, that call the book out as a heap of all of the stalest fantasy clichés piled one atop the other in a confusing and pretentious jumble with a shellacking of purple prose for good measure. And they are also absolutely correct.
Let me explain.
For starters, it would be inaccurate to say that this story is full of clichés. This story is clichés. This story is every familiar and used-up trope you would expect from a high fantasy, all of those details that have been done to death in thousands of other versions until almost nothing that happens seems original anymore.
This is what’s going to turn off a lot of people. But the thing is, Banewreaker has to be this way. It wants the reader to look at all of the things that they’ve come to expect from a fantasy epic and then, by shifting the narrative focus, realize that all of these beloved tropes are actually, when you think about it, tragic as hell.
In other words, it’s Lord of the Rings from Sauron’s point of view.
It’s not a riff, though. It’s not goofy like most of the stuff I go in for. It takes its subject just as seriously as the stories that it’s mirroring, and this is what makes the whole story ultimately so gripping and so moving.
The story starts out like many stories of this magnitude, with exposition stretching back to the Dawn of This Particular Creation. In this case, we have a protogenos world god named Uru-Alat who died and gave rise to seven smaller godlike beings called Shapers. First comes Haomane, who becomes the Lord of Thought and sets himself up as head honcho for this ensuing pantheon. Second is Arahila, the Basically a Love Goddess; and third is Satoris, whose purview was “the quickening of the flesh,” which is high fantasy speak for sexy times. Four more Shapers come after this who, for the sake of brevity, we’ll be glossing over.
To summarize the important godly exposition, the Seven Shapers set about shaping the world to the surprise of no one. Haomane creates elves (here called Ellyl, but if you’ve ever even looked at a fantasy, you know that they’re the elves here), Arahila creates humans, and Satoris doesn’t create anything because he’s busy hanging out with dragons and learning their wisdom. Satoris grants his fleshy quickening to the humans but not the elves, because Haomane didn’t want his elves to do that. Then Haomane decides he doesn’t want the humans to do that either, but Satoris refuses to take the gift away again. Conflict escalates, god wars ensue, and the world splits into two continents, with Satoris ostracized from his brethren on one and the remaining Shapers on the other. By the time the dust has settled, Satoris is scarred and burned pitch black, living in a mostly dead land thanks to Haomane’s wrath, but with a dagger in his possession that is the only weapon capable of killing any of the Shapers.
The story itself picks up thousands of years later, with Satoris as the Satan/Sauron stand-in living in a forbidding land surrounded by classically evil things like trolls, giant spiders, and insane people. Since Haomane is the head god, the rest of the world believes Satoris to be a terrible figure of evil and betrayal, while Satoris’s few allies know him as a pitiable and misunderstood figure who only ever wanted to honor his word and do right by his own sense of morality rather than the dictates of his elder brother god king.
From here the plot becomes the typical Army of Good vs. Army of Evil adventure, but with the protagonistic focus on Satoris and his allies. His trolls we see not as a mindless horde but as a simple, honorable people who happily serve their lord because he happily serves them right back. The mad individuals inhabiting his fortress are castaways from normal society with nowhere else to go. And the giant spiders just happen to live there and be bigger than normal, with no sinister intentions beyond that.
And just like that, by actually showing us the home life of the ultimate in evil fantasy tropes, we see how easily one side’s view of evil is another’s view of good. In doing so, Banewreaker becomes perhaps the first sweeping fantasy epic with no real bad guy, just two sides of an unfortunate conflict. Both sides have their likeable characters, both sides seem from their view to be in the right, and pretty soon you, as the reader, will stop cheering for either one, because whenever one person that you like succeeds it means that another person whom you also like is failing.
In fact, the closest thing that this story has to a clearly-labeled “evil” character is the sorceress Lilias, and even then, she’s not evil so much as a woman who has done some bad things for completely understandable reasons. Lilias, in fact, is one of the most pitiful characters in this whole saga of pitiable characters, with her fears and attachments closely mirroring those of most readers, only amplified by her immortality and magical powers. She is afraid of dying. She wants to be more in the grand scheme of things than just another man’s wife or another country’s momentary ruler, both of which would just be tiny moments in a long history. She likes her youth. She likes having pretty things and pretty people around her. And from her interactions with her dragon mentor and apparently only friend, Calandor, we see that she is also capable of intense affection and even love just as she is capable of indulging in self-centered self-interest that, if not particularly a good trait, is also one that she is not alone in possessing.
Banewreaker, then, is a story with a large cast of characters but very few actual heroes or innocents as well as very few outright villains, which is exactly what it sets out to be. Those who love it and those who hate it both seem to blame this quality in particular for their feelings. The biggest complaint leveled against it (that I have read, anyway) is that the people we should be rooting for do not deserve our sympathy, while the people we should be rooting against are more misguided and unwilling to see things in another light than deserving of our scorn.
This is true. But if it’s a flaw, it’s an intentional one. And if it makes you feel like you shouldn’t be cheering for either side at all in this conflict, that’s the point. This is a story of clichés, yes, but it has something that it needs to say about these clichés and, in doing so, about the subjective and impossibly nebulous quality of morality in general.
In short, here again is another fantasy story about the Forces of Good wiping out an entire nation dedicated to their “evil” enemy. And as the story points out, even if you believe in that cause, you’re still wiping out an entire nation of people. No way is there not a downside to that. Seeing things in a black-and-white morality just means crushing a whole lot of important shades of gray underfoot.
Whether or not you like Banewreaker, then, depends in large part upon how much you realize that Carey as an author is being self-aware. As someone who read and still hasn’t stopped being awed over her Kushiel series, I can’t claim complete objectivity in this area, because I came to Banewreaker already in love with her. I can say, however, that unless you have an intense and searing aversion to ornate and sweeping style, this book is worth any fantasy-lover’s time – especially if you’ve ever felt a pang of empathy for all of the poor villainous mooks that fantasy heroes tend to mow down without a thought because they were the wrong kind of ugly.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Bunny Party at Maple Valley in Tabletop Games
Oct 11, 2021
What kinds of pets did you have growing up? My family was allowed one dog throughout my formative years, and I even tried to keep a turtle once in college. I have not ever had rabbits, but my brother did – Brewster. He was a cool bunny. Kinda freaked out sometimes and made a huge mess, but overall a nice little fella. I am trying to imagine an entire village of Brewsters planning a party and inviting all their friends. I can’t really do it, but now I don’t have to – there’s a game I can play.
Bunny Party at Maple Valley (which I shall refer to as simply Bunny Party from here) is a sweet and cute little card game for three or four players. In it players are the titular bunnies decorating for and competing to win the chance to host the Night Sky Party at their place. However, in this game more often than not the victory is shared between they who amass the requisite five decorations and their neighbor who also co-hosts the event! The bunnies gotta get crackin’ so let’s get going!
PS – I will be reviewing the 3-player version of the game, which has ever-so-slightly different rules.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, character cards are shuffled and two dealt to each player. They choose one to be their avatar and discard the other back to the box. The large deck of cards with the house on the back is shuffled and placed on the table within reach. The villager cards are shuffled and one is drawn and placed outside the play area – it will not be used this round. The other five villagers are arranged as a market of friends. Each player draws three cards on the first round, and the game is ready to begin!
Bunny Party is played over a series of rounds until one player satisfies the win condition. Each round consists of eight phases: Turn Start, Tidy a Card, Villagers Visit, Play Cards, Trade, Play Cards (again), Party Start?, and Villagers Go Home. Turn Start typically involves players setting the table for the round. First, the villager cards are re-shuffled, one set aside to be ignored this round (they are staying home), and the remainders displayed. Then each player draws two cards from the deck and collects one Trade Token.
Next, all players will choose one of their cards they drew during the Tidy a Card step to be placed in a temporary discard pile face-down. Alternatively, a player may forego the Tidy in order to place a card in front of another player by spending one Trade Token. Once all players have tidied a card or placed one in front of another player, the Tidy pile is shuffled, then flipped as a stack to the top of the discard pile, face-up.
The villagers are now becoming impatient, so players will allow them audience during this Villagers Visit phase. Each player chooses a villager from those available to host during their party preparation. These villagers offer special abilities each round and can be very valuable at certain times during the game.
While the villagers are visiting, players may next Play Cards from their hand. These cards are typically of three types: Item, Event, or Decoration. Item cards are placed in the player’s tableau and offer one-time or lingering effects. Event cards are typically one-and-done cards to be completed and then discarded. Decorations are what players are really after, as they are what determine win conditions. With five star or moon cards the player can start the party and end the game. At the bottom of the decoration cards is printed an arrow. This arrow points to the neighbor that will co-host and also win the game. In a three-player game Decoration cards are displayed upside down, so that is why the photo below looks a little strange.
When players have all played their hand of cards, the Trade phase may begin. Players may offer Item cards to other players and a trade may be struck by each player discarding a Trade Token from their stash. This may result in a player receiving a new card to be played. When this happens, the next phase is immediately played (after all trades have been completed). Any player who now holds an unplayed card may Play Cards (again) as before.
If a player (or players) have now collected five or more star or moon Decoration cards, they may claim victory during this Party Start? phase. Again, the Decoration cards have arrows printed to determine the co-host/co-victor in the game, and the winners may then invite the rest of the burrow to their den for the Night Sky Party! However, if no victor emerges during the Party Start? phase, then all the Villagers Go Home, and a new round begins with the Turn Start phase.
Play continues in this fashion until winners have been crowned host and co-host of the Night Sky Party in Maple Valley!
Components. This one is a bunch of cards a few cardboard chits. The cards are all fine quality, as are the chits. What is really great about these components is the art on them. I cannot think of many cuter themes than uber-nice bunnies throwing a party and sharing their victory with a neighbor. So obviously the art has to match the theme, tone, and style of the game. I believe Bunny Party knocks it out of the park here. The art is so playful and cute, and I absolutely have to give a huge shout out to Evan’s Games for the very apparent inclusivity and representation. I see you and I applaud you!
Gameplay for me is where I take just a little issue. Everything works, and once you understand the phases it does flow better, but, I can see myself really only playing this with children or in a gateway/breaking in new gamers situation. It is very light, but there are eight phases to a round! So while each phase is easy to understand and execute, each round takes a little longer because there are a few too many steps. Once my kids really know how to read well they will be playing this with me and I know right now that we will have a great time with it. I really do appreciate the special efforts that were made with regards to representation (yes, even with anthropomorphic cartoon animals) and with the design being more focused on sharing victory and being nice to neighbors. My children will certain have good habits reinforced while playing this, and that is what makes this game important.
Again, this is not the game for hardcore gamers, nor those who are interested in bigger and more complex medium-weight games. This is a quick filler at best during a game night when newer gamers are gathered. That being said, I still find a great deal of value in this one, and will be keeping it for a long time. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a 4 / 6 on stand-by. I do want to try this with different types of people (once we are able again) to see if my predictions are correct. I have only been able to play it with adult family, and none of them are medium to heavy weight game enthusiasts. If you are needing a nice game that can be played among other games for a themed game night (like Bunny Party + Bob Ross: Art of Chill + Hues and Cues + Escape: The Curse of the Temple) then this certainly fits that niche.
So my official stance, for now, is that Bunny Party has a great theme, excellent art, a wonderful message of harmony, but is both too light and too complex for what it is. I realize that sounds ridiculous. Please try it and let me know your thoughts. For now, I am keeping this close and I will be trying it with various groups with whom I game.
Bunny Party at Maple Valley (which I shall refer to as simply Bunny Party from here) is a sweet and cute little card game for three or four players. In it players are the titular bunnies decorating for and competing to win the chance to host the Night Sky Party at their place. However, in this game more often than not the victory is shared between they who amass the requisite five decorations and their neighbor who also co-hosts the event! The bunnies gotta get crackin’ so let’s get going!
PS – I will be reviewing the 3-player version of the game, which has ever-so-slightly different rules.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, character cards are shuffled and two dealt to each player. They choose one to be their avatar and discard the other back to the box. The large deck of cards with the house on the back is shuffled and placed on the table within reach. The villager cards are shuffled and one is drawn and placed outside the play area – it will not be used this round. The other five villagers are arranged as a market of friends. Each player draws three cards on the first round, and the game is ready to begin!
Bunny Party is played over a series of rounds until one player satisfies the win condition. Each round consists of eight phases: Turn Start, Tidy a Card, Villagers Visit, Play Cards, Trade, Play Cards (again), Party Start?, and Villagers Go Home. Turn Start typically involves players setting the table for the round. First, the villager cards are re-shuffled, one set aside to be ignored this round (they are staying home), and the remainders displayed. Then each player draws two cards from the deck and collects one Trade Token.
Next, all players will choose one of their cards they drew during the Tidy a Card step to be placed in a temporary discard pile face-down. Alternatively, a player may forego the Tidy in order to place a card in front of another player by spending one Trade Token. Once all players have tidied a card or placed one in front of another player, the Tidy pile is shuffled, then flipped as a stack to the top of the discard pile, face-up.
The villagers are now becoming impatient, so players will allow them audience during this Villagers Visit phase. Each player chooses a villager from those available to host during their party preparation. These villagers offer special abilities each round and can be very valuable at certain times during the game.
While the villagers are visiting, players may next Play Cards from their hand. These cards are typically of three types: Item, Event, or Decoration. Item cards are placed in the player’s tableau and offer one-time or lingering effects. Event cards are typically one-and-done cards to be completed and then discarded. Decorations are what players are really after, as they are what determine win conditions. With five star or moon cards the player can start the party and end the game. At the bottom of the decoration cards is printed an arrow. This arrow points to the neighbor that will co-host and also win the game. In a three-player game Decoration cards are displayed upside down, so that is why the photo below looks a little strange.
When players have all played their hand of cards, the Trade phase may begin. Players may offer Item cards to other players and a trade may be struck by each player discarding a Trade Token from their stash. This may result in a player receiving a new card to be played. When this happens, the next phase is immediately played (after all trades have been completed). Any player who now holds an unplayed card may Play Cards (again) as before.
If a player (or players) have now collected five or more star or moon Decoration cards, they may claim victory during this Party Start? phase. Again, the Decoration cards have arrows printed to determine the co-host/co-victor in the game, and the winners may then invite the rest of the burrow to their den for the Night Sky Party! However, if no victor emerges during the Party Start? phase, then all the Villagers Go Home, and a new round begins with the Turn Start phase.
Play continues in this fashion until winners have been crowned host and co-host of the Night Sky Party in Maple Valley!
Components. This one is a bunch of cards a few cardboard chits. The cards are all fine quality, as are the chits. What is really great about these components is the art on them. I cannot think of many cuter themes than uber-nice bunnies throwing a party and sharing their victory with a neighbor. So obviously the art has to match the theme, tone, and style of the game. I believe Bunny Party knocks it out of the park here. The art is so playful and cute, and I absolutely have to give a huge shout out to Evan’s Games for the very apparent inclusivity and representation. I see you and I applaud you!
Gameplay for me is where I take just a little issue. Everything works, and once you understand the phases it does flow better, but, I can see myself really only playing this with children or in a gateway/breaking in new gamers situation. It is very light, but there are eight phases to a round! So while each phase is easy to understand and execute, each round takes a little longer because there are a few too many steps. Once my kids really know how to read well they will be playing this with me and I know right now that we will have a great time with it. I really do appreciate the special efforts that were made with regards to representation (yes, even with anthropomorphic cartoon animals) and with the design being more focused on sharing victory and being nice to neighbors. My children will certain have good habits reinforced while playing this, and that is what makes this game important.
Again, this is not the game for hardcore gamers, nor those who are interested in bigger and more complex medium-weight games. This is a quick filler at best during a game night when newer gamers are gathered. That being said, I still find a great deal of value in this one, and will be keeping it for a long time. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a 4 / 6 on stand-by. I do want to try this with different types of people (once we are able again) to see if my predictions are correct. I have only been able to play it with adult family, and none of them are medium to heavy weight game enthusiasts. If you are needing a nice game that can be played among other games for a themed game night (like Bunny Party + Bob Ross: Art of Chill + Hues and Cues + Escape: The Curse of the Temple) then this certainly fits that niche.
So my official stance, for now, is that Bunny Party has a great theme, excellent art, a wonderful message of harmony, but is both too light and too complex for what it is. I realize that sounds ridiculous. Please try it and let me know your thoughts. For now, I am keeping this close and I will be trying it with various groups with whom I game.
