Search
Search results
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
A Near Perfect Film/Comic Book Movie With A Piece Missing
Contains spoilers, click to show
This film did a great job in making the Joker or rather Arthur a sympathetic character. Joaquin Phoenix did a phenomenal job in this movie. His laugh made me really feel for this character, it sounded sad but also painful, like it physically hurt him. I really felt for Arthur and it actually made me feel bad for him equally when he was getting beat up and assaulted but also just berated and treated bad by others. People were talking about the violence in the movie and how it was graphic and disturbing but what bothered me more were the parts where Arthur was having violence done on him, it made me sad for him. I thought a lot of the movie was well done. The double twist in him finding his mother's letter to Thomas Wayne saying he (Arthur) is his son only to find out that he was adopted was a great reveal. Still makes me wonder what the truth really is, because later he does find a photograph with Thomas Wayne's initials on the back. Either he really is his son and Wayne had it covered up, which he totally has the means to do, or maybe she was delusional about it. I also thought it was cool how they showed Arthur also had delusions of grandeur in the begging when he is watching the Murray show and he imagines himself as a guest there. Like I said this movie was really well done in a lot of ways but there were somethings that bothered me. One right off the back is that Bruce Wayne is just a kid in this movie and if Arthur is supposed to be the Joker he would be way older than he should be when Wayne becomes Batman. To mere there wasn't a lot that Arthur really did as Joker. Nothing grandiose or epic like what I've become accustomed to with the Joker in other incarnations. There was no plans or power moves like in The Dark Knight or parade and taking over the city like in 1989's Batman. They really could have called the movie something else since he really only becomes the Joker at the end of the movie for not really that long even. I know it's supposed to be an origin story of how he becomes the Joker but it wasn't even going off of any of the comics and just loosely based on the version of Joker from The Killing Joke and then given the "Hollywood" treatment. I think I just expected more Joker from a movie called Joker. I thought the ending was perfect if it would have ended with him on top of the car when they helped him escape. I honestly don't know why they should that little part with him in Arkham, I don't think it added anything and kind of took away from it. The only thing I can think of is they didn't want to end it that dark. I have to say that if your judging this film from not being a big fan of Joker, the comics or the films and only on as a stand alone film it's probably like a 9/10. But for me since at it's core it is a comic book movie I give it an 8/10.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Thirteen Days (2000) in Movies
Aug 26, 2019
Verdict: History Lesson
Story: Thirteen Days starts like a normal day in the Kennedy administration, his assistant Kenny O’Donnell (Costner) joins the President John F Kennedy (Greenwood), his brother Robert F Kennedy (Culp) and advisers from every side for an emergency meeting.
The meeting is called to discuss the appearance of nuclear warheads in Cuba, believing Russia are moving to a closer position which could destroy large parts of America in minutes. What follows in Kenny trying to help JFK make the smartest decision, despite how many different people are advising with multiply options, all leading to one of the most intense stand offs in military history.
Thoughts on Thirteen Days
Characters – Kenny O’Donnell is the assistant advisor to the President, he gives him advice which would see him make decisions which would support the image of the President and the country instead of agree with the fast track answers which would see America go to war, he is the man that people turn to if they are not prepared to challenge the President’s decisions. President John F Kennedy is the man in the middle of the situation, the man that needs to make the final decision after taking on all the advice from his experts, he wants to remain in control of the situation to the best of his ability. Robert F Kennedy is one of the men advising his brother, he knows how John thinks and knows how the help him make the right decisions to remain calm and in control. We do have plenty of different advisors who are trying to offer a plan to what could make this stand off end quicker.
Performances – Kevin Costner is always entertaining to watch in a political movie, this is no different as he plays the pivot to everything going on. Bruce Greenwood as the President is great to watch through the film, with the whole cast looking like they would have been the people they are playing.
Story – The story here follows the events around the Cuba Mission Crisis, from the point of view of the Americans. This does break down to be a political thriller that does keep us on edge as we see all the potential ideas that were thrown out which could have seen the world in a different place if different outcomes had been used, while this is a 2 hour story, we only focus on the different ideas, which is interesting to see. Each person could have their own agenda which could show the mindset of the public during the events. We could have more intense moments, but it just doesn’t really do that much more, which doesn’t display just how dangerous the event could have been.
History – This is a big historical moment and it does show how the people in power were put on panic station when the events started to unfold.
Settings – The film uses the political settings for the most part, which does show us just how the people stayed together through the events of the crisis.
Scene of the Movie – Putting the Admiral in his place.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We could have had more intense sequences.
Final Thoughts – This is an interesting look at one of the biggest stand offs in modern history, we do see how it could have gone very differently and how everything unfolded.
Overall: Interesting look at history.
Story: Thirteen Days starts like a normal day in the Kennedy administration, his assistant Kenny O’Donnell (Costner) joins the President John F Kennedy (Greenwood), his brother Robert F Kennedy (Culp) and advisers from every side for an emergency meeting.
The meeting is called to discuss the appearance of nuclear warheads in Cuba, believing Russia are moving to a closer position which could destroy large parts of America in minutes. What follows in Kenny trying to help JFK make the smartest decision, despite how many different people are advising with multiply options, all leading to one of the most intense stand offs in military history.
Thoughts on Thirteen Days
Characters – Kenny O’Donnell is the assistant advisor to the President, he gives him advice which would see him make decisions which would support the image of the President and the country instead of agree with the fast track answers which would see America go to war, he is the man that people turn to if they are not prepared to challenge the President’s decisions. President John F Kennedy is the man in the middle of the situation, the man that needs to make the final decision after taking on all the advice from his experts, he wants to remain in control of the situation to the best of his ability. Robert F Kennedy is one of the men advising his brother, he knows how John thinks and knows how the help him make the right decisions to remain calm and in control. We do have plenty of different advisors who are trying to offer a plan to what could make this stand off end quicker.
Performances – Kevin Costner is always entertaining to watch in a political movie, this is no different as he plays the pivot to everything going on. Bruce Greenwood as the President is great to watch through the film, with the whole cast looking like they would have been the people they are playing.
Story – The story here follows the events around the Cuba Mission Crisis, from the point of view of the Americans. This does break down to be a political thriller that does keep us on edge as we see all the potential ideas that were thrown out which could have seen the world in a different place if different outcomes had been used, while this is a 2 hour story, we only focus on the different ideas, which is interesting to see. Each person could have their own agenda which could show the mindset of the public during the events. We could have more intense moments, but it just doesn’t really do that much more, which doesn’t display just how dangerous the event could have been.
History – This is a big historical moment and it does show how the people in power were put on panic station when the events started to unfold.
Settings – The film uses the political settings for the most part, which does show us just how the people stayed together through the events of the crisis.
Scene of the Movie – Putting the Admiral in his place.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We could have had more intense sequences.
Final Thoughts – This is an interesting look at one of the biggest stand offs in modern history, we do see how it could have gone very differently and how everything unfolded.
Overall: Interesting look at history.
Garrett (1099 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
May 18, 2020
Set design (2 more)
Costumes
Most of the acting
Story (2 more)
Theme
Message/meaning
I think I need to note a few things about my review before I actually get into it. First, I got this for free in a giveaway. Second, having watched the trailers for this I thought I wasn't going to like it and I didn't see it in theaters, the buzz and good reviews made me want to enter the giveaway so I could see it because I likely wouldn't have paid for it. Third, I know that I can "grade" movies I don't like harsher than maybe they deserve. Finally, in an effort to prevent me from being too harsh I "forced" my sister to watch it with me and some of her views of the movie and review are mixed in with my opinion of it.
It was apparent to me, and my sister, that this movie was not an attempt at a comic book movie or even a movie about the Joker but a character study and a look into mental illness. This is confirmed in the special features with an interview with the director/writer/producer. I think that if this wasn't a "Joker" movie I would have liked it a little bit more. The biggest problem that this movie has, and many others like it, when the main character is a "bad guy" and they try to make you understand/sympathize with them and it doesn't work it messes up the movie's feel. It did that for both of us.
As a "DC" movie and set in the Batman "universe" this fails in almost every way possible. The actor and character are way too old (mid 30's to 40's at best), when compared to how young Bruce Wayne is (about 8). Joker is malnourished, frail, weak, incapable of planning anything out, and I can't stress this enough famous throughout the country for the actions in this movie with his real name... None of that fits the Joker from any Batman in the comics.
There are good to great parts in this movie but they are few and far between. Within this movie are the bones of a much better movie. Many of the choices the director made, that he is proud of, I think severely damage this movie. Chief among them is the dancing. With the exception of the celebrating down the stairs which is one of the most famous and favorite scenes in the movie (and that's how I saw it as celibating not dancing) the rest of them are useless, don't fit with the actual character (the Joker), and add to the run time of an already bloated and often very slow movie.
In the end I know I'm probably in the minority with my opinion on this movie, of those that have seen it, but I do think there is a good lesson here. If you see the trailers for this movie and it looks up your alley or it interests you then see it, but maybe just on streaming or renting. If you see the trailers for this and don't think you'd like it you are probably very right and shouldn't waste your money on it. If you get a chance to see it for free and you want to see what all the "hype" is about maybe check it out... but there are probably many better options that you should see before trying this out.
It was apparent to me, and my sister, that this movie was not an attempt at a comic book movie or even a movie about the Joker but a character study and a look into mental illness. This is confirmed in the special features with an interview with the director/writer/producer. I think that if this wasn't a "Joker" movie I would have liked it a little bit more. The biggest problem that this movie has, and many others like it, when the main character is a "bad guy" and they try to make you understand/sympathize with them and it doesn't work it messes up the movie's feel. It did that for both of us.
As a "DC" movie and set in the Batman "universe" this fails in almost every way possible. The actor and character are way too old (mid 30's to 40's at best), when compared to how young Bruce Wayne is (about 8). Joker is malnourished, frail, weak, incapable of planning anything out, and I can't stress this enough famous throughout the country for the actions in this movie with his real name... None of that fits the Joker from any Batman in the comics.
There are good to great parts in this movie but they are few and far between. Within this movie are the bones of a much better movie. Many of the choices the director made, that he is proud of, I think severely damage this movie. Chief among them is the dancing. With the exception of the celebrating down the stairs which is one of the most famous and favorite scenes in the movie (and that's how I saw it as celibating not dancing) the rest of them are useless, don't fit with the actual character (the Joker), and add to the run time of an already bloated and often very slow movie.
In the end I know I'm probably in the minority with my opinion on this movie, of those that have seen it, but I do think there is a good lesson here. If you see the trailers for this movie and it looks up your alley or it interests you then see it, but maybe just on streaming or renting. If you see the trailers for this and don't think you'd like it you are probably very right and shouldn't waste your money on it. If you get a chance to see it for free and you want to see what all the "hype" is about maybe check it out... but there are probably many better options that you should see before trying this out.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated UNCHARTED 4: A Thief's End in Video Games
Jul 21, 2017
Visuals (1 more)
Characters
Lack of set pieces (1 more)
Nadine
One Last Time...
This game was definitely my most anticipated of the year. Production was shaky, with the lead game designers being swapped over during the early stages of the game’s development, but the fact that Neil Druckman and Bruce Strailey had just finished developing the masterpiece that was The Last Of Us when they took this project on, I had every faith that this game was going to be great and it was, for the most part. The game opens with an aged Nathan who has left the treasure hunting life to settle down with his wife Elena. He now works as a diver for a salvaging company, but it is clear that he misses the more adventurous life. Then, long story short, Nate’s brother Sam is introduced into the fold and we get a fairly generic reason why Nate has never mentioned him in the past. Essentially Sam is in trouble and needs to pay off some dangerous people, which is why he needs Nate’s help in tracking down the pirate treasure that they began chasing a good number of years ago. Nate then lies to Elena about having to go to Malaysia for work reasons and their adventure begins.
The first thing that I want to praise this game for is its insanely impressive visuals. This is probably the best looking game that I have ever played through. Throughout the duration of the story, the player is granted with several outright beautiful landscapes and vistas. During the first half of Sam and Nate’s adventure, we see them go to Scotland, (which is actually where I’m from,) but that is probably the most boring location that they visit, everywhere else is warm and exotic and truly stunning. The incredible visuals caused me several times to get confused when I was given control of the player character, often times thinking that I was still watching a cutscene before realising, “wait, I can play this?!” The animations are also smooth for the majority of the game, for example early on in the game there is a mass brawl scene that takes place in a prison and although I was playing and controlling the punches that Nate was throwing, it looked like a choreographed fight from a movie like the Raid, which really did impress me in a big way. Although there are some animations that are a little more janky looking, especially when climbing and using the rope, but I’ll get back to that later.
As a character study, this is by far the best Uncharted game. The script is the best it’s been, the majority of the actors are brilliant in their roles and the relationships and emotions that are explored in this game are complex and compelling. However Uncharted is as much known for its characters and their relationships as it is for its epic, insane set pieces and that is sorely lacking here. There a few rinse and repeat building collapse and escape set pieces, which is nothing new to the Uncharted series and other than that, the big set piece of the game is the jeep chase that we saw at E3. Yeah, the biggest set piece in this game is a glorified car chase, as in pretty much the exact same jeep chase as we played though in Uncharted 2, but in Uncharted 2 it led to an epic train battle, which then led to the escape of the collapsed train. So basically, the biggest set piece in this game is only a portion of the awesome set piece that we already played through seven years ago. That is where this game sorely misses Amy Hennig’s influence, she really is a genius when it comes to epic action set pieces, whereas because Neil and Bruce are better are character, this is the main focus of Uncharted 4, but that’s never been the main selling point of the Uncharted series for me, but hey, it’s what we got, so let’s go through the characters that appear in Uncharted 4.
First of all, I do like this version of Nate, he is older more restrained and more reluctant to get himself into danger than he was before. His brother Sam is an okay character, if a bit of an arse at times, although he clearly knows his way around a treasure map and his relationship with Nate is quite an interesting one. It’s also nice to see Sully again even though his role in this game is fairly reserved, he is getting pretty old after all. The villains in this game aren’t great, which is pretty par for the course in the Uncharted series. The main antagonist is a wealthy man called Raef, he is about ages with Nate and he is a spoiled brat. He is a serviceable villain, but fairly generic and nothing to write home about. His sidekick, Nadine is the most unnecessary character I have seen in a game in a long time. There is literally no reason for her to be there other than for them to say, “look at us, we have a strong female character that can kick the male character’s ass, we aren’t sexist at all!” She brings absolutely nothing to the plot and if she didn’t exist the game would literally be no different to what it is now.
As I played through the game I marvelled at how well made everything was and up until about halfway through the game, my experience was totally smooth and seamless, but as I started making my way towards the end of the game, Nate started to randomly jut around as the animations felt more stiff and less free flowing. His hand was going through rocks, rather than leaning on them, his feet would either sink below the ground under him or hover above it slightly and then during one of the last chapters in the game, during yet another collapsing building escape sequence, while Nate was sliding, because I didn’t quite slide into the spot that I was supposed to, he got caught on a piece of debris and the game glitched out indefinitely. Eventually I had to restart the game from the last checkpoint to proceed. This was the only major glitch that I experienced during my playthrough, but when the rest of the game is so smooth, and that smooth standard is what you expect from all Naughty Dog games, this moment stands out like a sore thumb.
I feel like I have been quite critical of the game so far, but I really did enjoy my time with it. I was working full time while playing the game at nights, so it served as a nice respite from work and I savoured every moment of it, I had no intention to rush my way through to the end of the game, I think I beat it over 10 nights or so and that to me was a nice rate to play through the game at, because after you beat this one, that’s it, no more Uncharted, ever, so yeah, enjoy it. The game was a suitable send off for the epic series and as of now, it is my second favourite Uncharted game, behind Among Thieves. Unfortunately the glitches that I experienced towards the end of the game and the disturbing lack of set pieces throughout did detract from my experience, but if you are a long time Uncharted fan this is a must play and the standard of storytelling is truly astonishing.
The first thing that I want to praise this game for is its insanely impressive visuals. This is probably the best looking game that I have ever played through. Throughout the duration of the story, the player is granted with several outright beautiful landscapes and vistas. During the first half of Sam and Nate’s adventure, we see them go to Scotland, (which is actually where I’m from,) but that is probably the most boring location that they visit, everywhere else is warm and exotic and truly stunning. The incredible visuals caused me several times to get confused when I was given control of the player character, often times thinking that I was still watching a cutscene before realising, “wait, I can play this?!” The animations are also smooth for the majority of the game, for example early on in the game there is a mass brawl scene that takes place in a prison and although I was playing and controlling the punches that Nate was throwing, it looked like a choreographed fight from a movie like the Raid, which really did impress me in a big way. Although there are some animations that are a little more janky looking, especially when climbing and using the rope, but I’ll get back to that later.
As a character study, this is by far the best Uncharted game. The script is the best it’s been, the majority of the actors are brilliant in their roles and the relationships and emotions that are explored in this game are complex and compelling. However Uncharted is as much known for its characters and their relationships as it is for its epic, insane set pieces and that is sorely lacking here. There a few rinse and repeat building collapse and escape set pieces, which is nothing new to the Uncharted series and other than that, the big set piece of the game is the jeep chase that we saw at E3. Yeah, the biggest set piece in this game is a glorified car chase, as in pretty much the exact same jeep chase as we played though in Uncharted 2, but in Uncharted 2 it led to an epic train battle, which then led to the escape of the collapsed train. So basically, the biggest set piece in this game is only a portion of the awesome set piece that we already played through seven years ago. That is where this game sorely misses Amy Hennig’s influence, she really is a genius when it comes to epic action set pieces, whereas because Neil and Bruce are better are character, this is the main focus of Uncharted 4, but that’s never been the main selling point of the Uncharted series for me, but hey, it’s what we got, so let’s go through the characters that appear in Uncharted 4.
First of all, I do like this version of Nate, he is older more restrained and more reluctant to get himself into danger than he was before. His brother Sam is an okay character, if a bit of an arse at times, although he clearly knows his way around a treasure map and his relationship with Nate is quite an interesting one. It’s also nice to see Sully again even though his role in this game is fairly reserved, he is getting pretty old after all. The villains in this game aren’t great, which is pretty par for the course in the Uncharted series. The main antagonist is a wealthy man called Raef, he is about ages with Nate and he is a spoiled brat. He is a serviceable villain, but fairly generic and nothing to write home about. His sidekick, Nadine is the most unnecessary character I have seen in a game in a long time. There is literally no reason for her to be there other than for them to say, “look at us, we have a strong female character that can kick the male character’s ass, we aren’t sexist at all!” She brings absolutely nothing to the plot and if she didn’t exist the game would literally be no different to what it is now.
As I played through the game I marvelled at how well made everything was and up until about halfway through the game, my experience was totally smooth and seamless, but as I started making my way towards the end of the game, Nate started to randomly jut around as the animations felt more stiff and less free flowing. His hand was going through rocks, rather than leaning on them, his feet would either sink below the ground under him or hover above it slightly and then during one of the last chapters in the game, during yet another collapsing building escape sequence, while Nate was sliding, because I didn’t quite slide into the spot that I was supposed to, he got caught on a piece of debris and the game glitched out indefinitely. Eventually I had to restart the game from the last checkpoint to proceed. This was the only major glitch that I experienced during my playthrough, but when the rest of the game is so smooth, and that smooth standard is what you expect from all Naughty Dog games, this moment stands out like a sore thumb.
I feel like I have been quite critical of the game so far, but I really did enjoy my time with it. I was working full time while playing the game at nights, so it served as a nice respite from work and I savoured every moment of it, I had no intention to rush my way through to the end of the game, I think I beat it over 10 nights or so and that to me was a nice rate to play through the game at, because after you beat this one, that’s it, no more Uncharted, ever, so yeah, enjoy it. The game was a suitable send off for the epic series and as of now, it is my second favourite Uncharted game, behind Among Thieves. Unfortunately the glitches that I experienced towards the end of the game and the disturbing lack of set pieces throughout did detract from my experience, but if you are a long time Uncharted fan this is a must play and the standard of storytelling is truly astonishing.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Unmatched: Cobble & Fog in Tabletop Games
Mar 19, 2021
You know when you read a rulebook and you just know you are going to love the game? This was me whilst reading the rulebook for Unmatched: Cobble & Fog. I will go into more detail why I enjoy the game near the end of my review, but just know, I loved it from the start.
In Unmatched: Cobble & Fog (which I will be calling Unmatched from here) players will be taking on the roles of either Dracula and his Sisters, Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson, Invisible Man, or Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in a battle to the death to claim victory in this, “Who would win in a fight”-style skirmish fighting game. The last hero standing wins, so as one of my favorite characters in literary history says, “The game is afoot.”
DISCLAIMER: Even though this review is for the Cobble & Fog version of Unmatched, the rules are the same throughout the entire Unmatched family of games. I have the original Unmatched: Battle of Legends, Vol. 1 and it plays exactly the same. I prefer the characters in this version, so that’s why I am reviewing it specifically. -T
To setup, the players will choose which side of the board they wish to play and set it on the table. Next, players will choose their hero and gather all accoutrements associated with their choice. All heroes come with a deck of 30 action cards, a mini of their figure, a character card, at least one health dial (more if their sidekicks have more than one health point), and some characters will have sidekicks that have tokens, or tokens for other reasons. The youngest player places their mini on the space with the number 1 on the board, and then the rest of the players place theirs on subsequently-numbered spaces. Players shuffle their decks of action cards and draw five cards for their first hand.
On a turn a player may take two actions from the choice of: Maneuver, Scheme, Attack. When a player chooses to Maneuver they will draw a card into their hand, then move the amount of spaces noted on their character card (typically two spaces). These movement values may be boosted by also discarding additional cards for their boost value and adding it to the number of spaces moved.
All action cards will specify which character may use it for attack, defense, or Scheme action. These Scheme cards have a lightning bolt icon on them to indicate that they are played face-up to the table, resolved, and then discarded.
Finally, if a melee-based character is positioned adjacent to an opponent, or if a ranged character is in the same zone as an opponent, they may Attack said opponent. To Attack, the active player declares which opponent will be attacked, and each player involved will choose cards from their hands to use in the battle. The attacking player will need to use attack or versatile (either used for attack or defense) cards to try to inflict damage, while the defending player will need to play defense or versatile cards in defense. The difference of the values printed on the cards will determine which character wins the battle and if health points are to be deducted from the health dial.
Many cards will have action instructions that trigger either immediately during battle or even after the battle concludes. Resolve these actions when appropriate and try to stay on your feet.
Play continues in this fashion of moving around the board to gain cards or using the cards to scheme or attack/defend. The winning player is they who survives at the end and vanquishes all foes on the board.
Components. I love everything about the components in this game. The box is great. The insert is really incredible and well thought out. The cards are great quality and the game features spectacular art all around. The minis are cool and luckily are fitted inside colored bases to remind players which mini is theirs. The sidekick tokens are excellent thick plastic and color-matched to the bases of their hero counterparts. The board is nice and double-sided, and all the rest of the cardboard components are excellent.
It’s no secret here – I absolutely love this game. I have always been a big fan of Sherlock Holmes, and this set also includes other interesting characters to play. Each one is highly unique in style and that’s one of the reasons I am so intrigued by this system. I say system because this is not the only game in the Unmatched family. As of today the Unmatched system boasts all of these as playable characters from different sets: King Arthur, Alice, Medusa, and Sinbad from the “Battle of Legends, Vol 1” set; Robert Muldoon and raptors from the “Jurassic Park, InGen vs Raptors” set; the “Robin Hood vs Bigfoot” set; Bruce Lee; and Buffy, Spike, Willow, and Angel from the “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” set in addition to these here. I know more Jurassic Park sets are on the horizon, and I just cannot wait to see what other sets will be released in time.
Why do I love this game so much when I am not really a fan of moving and dueling games (I’m looking at you Mage Wars)? In these style of games I feel the movement is unnecessary as I just stand and fight. In this system, the only way to draw more cards from your deck is to enact the Maneuver action. There have been several times where I didn’t necessarily want to initiate a battle, but I saw opponents sitting with no cards in their hand. That means no defense cards can be played. Easy chunks of health taken by picking off the stationary few. Unmatched forces players to move around and I love that. Yes, there are opportunities to unleash giant blows or have double-digit health drops in battle, and that’s just delicious. Also there are times during play where mathing out exactly where to place your mini or sidekick is paramount to lay plans of ambush.
I mentioned earlier that I knew right away I would love this one. Opening the cover of the rulebook sold me immediately. As this set utilizes literary characters found in old timey Europe the game utilizes a period art style as well and I’m still fawning over it. Everything clicks for me and I can now understand why so many people were dying (not literally) to get copies of the game Unmatched is based on, Star Wars: Epic Duels. It is extremely fun and each character is interesting and unique. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a well-earned GOLDEN FEATHER AWARD! If you need a skirmish style game with excellent theme and art, you must grab this post haste. If you and I fall on the same side of the coin with our gaming preferences you NEED to have this in your collection.
I don’t know how many other sets I will be looking to add to my collection at this point, but I cannot tell you how excited I would be to pit Bigfoot against Bruce Lee. Or King Arthur against Dracula. It just feels epic and wonderful. Great job to the team at Restoration Games. This is a huge win for my collection.
In Unmatched: Cobble & Fog (which I will be calling Unmatched from here) players will be taking on the roles of either Dracula and his Sisters, Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson, Invisible Man, or Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in a battle to the death to claim victory in this, “Who would win in a fight”-style skirmish fighting game. The last hero standing wins, so as one of my favorite characters in literary history says, “The game is afoot.”
DISCLAIMER: Even though this review is for the Cobble & Fog version of Unmatched, the rules are the same throughout the entire Unmatched family of games. I have the original Unmatched: Battle of Legends, Vol. 1 and it plays exactly the same. I prefer the characters in this version, so that’s why I am reviewing it specifically. -T
To setup, the players will choose which side of the board they wish to play and set it on the table. Next, players will choose their hero and gather all accoutrements associated with their choice. All heroes come with a deck of 30 action cards, a mini of their figure, a character card, at least one health dial (more if their sidekicks have more than one health point), and some characters will have sidekicks that have tokens, or tokens for other reasons. The youngest player places their mini on the space with the number 1 on the board, and then the rest of the players place theirs on subsequently-numbered spaces. Players shuffle their decks of action cards and draw five cards for their first hand.
On a turn a player may take two actions from the choice of: Maneuver, Scheme, Attack. When a player chooses to Maneuver they will draw a card into their hand, then move the amount of spaces noted on their character card (typically two spaces). These movement values may be boosted by also discarding additional cards for their boost value and adding it to the number of spaces moved.
All action cards will specify which character may use it for attack, defense, or Scheme action. These Scheme cards have a lightning bolt icon on them to indicate that they are played face-up to the table, resolved, and then discarded.
Finally, if a melee-based character is positioned adjacent to an opponent, or if a ranged character is in the same zone as an opponent, they may Attack said opponent. To Attack, the active player declares which opponent will be attacked, and each player involved will choose cards from their hands to use in the battle. The attacking player will need to use attack or versatile (either used for attack or defense) cards to try to inflict damage, while the defending player will need to play defense or versatile cards in defense. The difference of the values printed on the cards will determine which character wins the battle and if health points are to be deducted from the health dial.
Many cards will have action instructions that trigger either immediately during battle or even after the battle concludes. Resolve these actions when appropriate and try to stay on your feet.
Play continues in this fashion of moving around the board to gain cards or using the cards to scheme or attack/defend. The winning player is they who survives at the end and vanquishes all foes on the board.
Components. I love everything about the components in this game. The box is great. The insert is really incredible and well thought out. The cards are great quality and the game features spectacular art all around. The minis are cool and luckily are fitted inside colored bases to remind players which mini is theirs. The sidekick tokens are excellent thick plastic and color-matched to the bases of their hero counterparts. The board is nice and double-sided, and all the rest of the cardboard components are excellent.
It’s no secret here – I absolutely love this game. I have always been a big fan of Sherlock Holmes, and this set also includes other interesting characters to play. Each one is highly unique in style and that’s one of the reasons I am so intrigued by this system. I say system because this is not the only game in the Unmatched family. As of today the Unmatched system boasts all of these as playable characters from different sets: King Arthur, Alice, Medusa, and Sinbad from the “Battle of Legends, Vol 1” set; Robert Muldoon and raptors from the “Jurassic Park, InGen vs Raptors” set; the “Robin Hood vs Bigfoot” set; Bruce Lee; and Buffy, Spike, Willow, and Angel from the “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” set in addition to these here. I know more Jurassic Park sets are on the horizon, and I just cannot wait to see what other sets will be released in time.
Why do I love this game so much when I am not really a fan of moving and dueling games (I’m looking at you Mage Wars)? In these style of games I feel the movement is unnecessary as I just stand and fight. In this system, the only way to draw more cards from your deck is to enact the Maneuver action. There have been several times where I didn’t necessarily want to initiate a battle, but I saw opponents sitting with no cards in their hand. That means no defense cards can be played. Easy chunks of health taken by picking off the stationary few. Unmatched forces players to move around and I love that. Yes, there are opportunities to unleash giant blows or have double-digit health drops in battle, and that’s just delicious. Also there are times during play where mathing out exactly where to place your mini or sidekick is paramount to lay plans of ambush.
I mentioned earlier that I knew right away I would love this one. Opening the cover of the rulebook sold me immediately. As this set utilizes literary characters found in old timey Europe the game utilizes a period art style as well and I’m still fawning over it. Everything clicks for me and I can now understand why so many people were dying (not literally) to get copies of the game Unmatched is based on, Star Wars: Epic Duels. It is extremely fun and each character is interesting and unique. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a well-earned GOLDEN FEATHER AWARD! If you need a skirmish style game with excellent theme and art, you must grab this post haste. If you and I fall on the same side of the coin with our gaming preferences you NEED to have this in your collection.
I don’t know how many other sets I will be looking to add to my collection at this point, but I cannot tell you how excited I would be to pit Bigfoot against Bruce Lee. Or King Arthur against Dracula. It just feels epic and wonderful. Great job to the team at Restoration Games. This is a huge win for my collection.
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated The Crow (1994) in Movies
Apr 19, 2017
Close to the source material (2 more)
Great Cast
A powerful and emotional film
A Powerful Classic
The Crow is one of my all time favourite films as well as one of my all time favourite graphic novels.
This Gothic, fantasy action film has a tragic story that's powerful to behold as we witness what the power of revenge can do to a person. However, this isn't your typical revenge plot, because SPOILERS!
Eric Draven, portrayed by the incredible Brandon Lee (son of Bruce Lee), is actual brought back from the dead as an avenging angel, after he and his fiance were murdered by a group of thugs on Devils Night (the night before Halloween).
If you've read the graphic novel you'll know just how great this film is, and the only downside to it is knowing it was Brandon Lee's last after an accident that happened on set.
However, the film sticks close to the source material, especially since James O'Barr, the creator of the characters and the graphic novel worked closely with the cast and crew of the film to ensure it was done correctly.
The tone of the film is, for obvious reasons, dark but there is still humour in it which lightens the mood and gives you a sense of Eric Draven's mind because let's face it, coming back from the dead with the ability to heal any wound, and the opportunity to get revenge on those who wronged you, it's enough to send a sensible man insane, and we see that shine through Brandon Lee performance with jokes and laughter, whilst still remaining eerily dark and twisted. When the bad guys realise he heals any wounds and can't die...You can see how much Eric enjoys seeing the fear grow in their faces, and as the strong unfolds we learn that the group of thugs who committed the crime, were just pawns to a bigger villain leading a crime syndicate in the city.
We see emotion as Eric tries to find out the truth of what really happened that night, and why he and his fiance lost their lives, and we see him trying to connect to his past through Sarah, a young girl that he and his fiance looked after and cared for. We also see the truth unfold through Officer Albrecht who was in charge of the investigation.
The characters are all brilliantly written, from Sarah's childhood innocence becoming a more mature sense of realising that the world can't always be a happy place, to Eric's lust for revenger and being sidetracked by emotions of his former life, trying to remain a good person whilst committing these acts of murder for revenge.
The music in the film really fits the scenes and the feel of the entire story with bands like The Cure, Pantera, Rage Against The Machine and Stone Temple Pilots among others, its soundtrack is brilliantly dark.
Also the main aspect that you have to love is Brandon Lee in the crow makeup and clothing. He looks menacing, he looks like he has a lust for revenge, most importantly he looks badass! One of the greatest comic book characters in film that I have ever seen, and whilst I was a little wary of the talks to remake this film in 2016/2017, I would be curious to see the character brought to life again and given a fresh look but I don't know if anyone can beat Brandon Lee in that portrayal because he looks incredible.
This film is dark, powerful, moving and poetic and will remain one of my top 5 films of all time. Maybe even top 3.
I highly recommend this film to anyone who enjoys a comic book movie, especially if you like movies with action and drama with a Gothic overtone.
R.I.P Brandon Lee (1965-1993)
This Gothic, fantasy action film has a tragic story that's powerful to behold as we witness what the power of revenge can do to a person. However, this isn't your typical revenge plot, because SPOILERS!
Eric Draven, portrayed by the incredible Brandon Lee (son of Bruce Lee), is actual brought back from the dead as an avenging angel, after he and his fiance were murdered by a group of thugs on Devils Night (the night before Halloween).
If you've read the graphic novel you'll know just how great this film is, and the only downside to it is knowing it was Brandon Lee's last after an accident that happened on set.
However, the film sticks close to the source material, especially since James O'Barr, the creator of the characters and the graphic novel worked closely with the cast and crew of the film to ensure it was done correctly.
The tone of the film is, for obvious reasons, dark but there is still humour in it which lightens the mood and gives you a sense of Eric Draven's mind because let's face it, coming back from the dead with the ability to heal any wound, and the opportunity to get revenge on those who wronged you, it's enough to send a sensible man insane, and we see that shine through Brandon Lee performance with jokes and laughter, whilst still remaining eerily dark and twisted. When the bad guys realise he heals any wounds and can't die...You can see how much Eric enjoys seeing the fear grow in their faces, and as the strong unfolds we learn that the group of thugs who committed the crime, were just pawns to a bigger villain leading a crime syndicate in the city.
We see emotion as Eric tries to find out the truth of what really happened that night, and why he and his fiance lost their lives, and we see him trying to connect to his past through Sarah, a young girl that he and his fiance looked after and cared for. We also see the truth unfold through Officer Albrecht who was in charge of the investigation.
The characters are all brilliantly written, from Sarah's childhood innocence becoming a more mature sense of realising that the world can't always be a happy place, to Eric's lust for revenger and being sidetracked by emotions of his former life, trying to remain a good person whilst committing these acts of murder for revenge.
The music in the film really fits the scenes and the feel of the entire story with bands like The Cure, Pantera, Rage Against The Machine and Stone Temple Pilots among others, its soundtrack is brilliantly dark.
Also the main aspect that you have to love is Brandon Lee in the crow makeup and clothing. He looks menacing, he looks like he has a lust for revenge, most importantly he looks badass! One of the greatest comic book characters in film that I have ever seen, and whilst I was a little wary of the talks to remake this film in 2016/2017, I would be curious to see the character brought to life again and given a fresh look but I don't know if anyone can beat Brandon Lee in that portrayal because he looks incredible.
This film is dark, powerful, moving and poetic and will remain one of my top 5 films of all time. Maybe even top 3.
I highly recommend this film to anyone who enjoys a comic book movie, especially if you like movies with action and drama with a Gothic overtone.
R.I.P Brandon Lee (1965-1993)
Gotham is the kind of show where I wonder whether they tried to save money by just having the interns write the script. It's got that stilted, on-the-nose kind of dialogue that makes me just feel bad for the actors. For a while I thought the quality of the writing varied from scene to scene, but it was really just that a certain few actors (those that play Fish Mooney, Ed Nygma, and Harvey Bullock spring to mind) that were able to transcend the material they were working with, while others struggled and some just seemed to give up.
Season one starts off promisingly enough for a superhero themed crime show. The premise is solid - we get to watch how these superheroes and supervillians come to be. And that is really the draw that keeps me watching - the character driven moments where we see Nygma descend into madness, the Penguin rise through the ranks of the underworld, Mooney wrestle to keep control of her little patch of Gotham. The conflict James Gordon faces in the first season - a Lawful Good character up against rampant, insidious, and impossible to root up corruption throughout every level of Gotham's government is genuinely interesting and feels like a relevant emotional thread that keeps you going through all of the schlocky and improbable events. All three seasons seem to have a firm grasp of their season plot arc and tentpole moments, setting up the next season nicely for whatever main villain and evil will be explored, but I feel like the tone of the show has shifted wildly. The show can't decide if it's gritty or campy, whether it's a comic book or a crime procedural. It handwaves technology and superpowers in a way that fails to establish in-world rules or limitations. So every super power is all-powerful until plot convenient. I also just personally hate the third season "blood virus" arc and the non-canonical Mad Hatter who speaks in rhyming couplets.
Speaking of which, I'd love to tell the writers that a mass of contradictory, plot-convenient impulses does not a strong female character make. Barbara Kean's story arc makes absolutely no sense. Lee Thompkins seems only to exist to push Gordon to do things he wouldn't otherwise, and Selina Kyle is easily swapped out with every spunky street urchin ever.
I almost want to be offended that every single queer character is, or ends up being, a baddie, but honestly I think that's probably just because the antagonists are more interesting and fleshed out characters to begin with. Still, there's some serious issues with representation (shocker). The third season introduces a really icky variant of the Born Sexy Yesterday trope (watch the video by the Pop Culture Detective, it's worth it.)
Still, I think the casting is pretty great, acting ability aside. The costuming is good, although everything is hampered by the show's refusal to nail down any sort of time period. The dream sequences in the first two seasons are beautiful. I love Oswald Cobblepot and Ed Nygma, and I'd love to see the actor who plays Bruce Wayne master more than just his admittedly very good "holding back tears" expression.
If you're looking for something campy, if you like your villians and your superheroes, and if you need something to watch while you fold laundry or go to sleep, I would recommend this show. It's a show that thrives on tired old tropes, but it lifts those tropes from its source material, so fans of comics might enjoy it, or might be aggrieved at the retconning of beloved old character's backstories.
Whatever you do, don't call Nymga insane. He's better now. He has a certificate.
Season one starts off promisingly enough for a superhero themed crime show. The premise is solid - we get to watch how these superheroes and supervillians come to be. And that is really the draw that keeps me watching - the character driven moments where we see Nygma descend into madness, the Penguin rise through the ranks of the underworld, Mooney wrestle to keep control of her little patch of Gotham. The conflict James Gordon faces in the first season - a Lawful Good character up against rampant, insidious, and impossible to root up corruption throughout every level of Gotham's government is genuinely interesting and feels like a relevant emotional thread that keeps you going through all of the schlocky and improbable events. All three seasons seem to have a firm grasp of their season plot arc and tentpole moments, setting up the next season nicely for whatever main villain and evil will be explored, but I feel like the tone of the show has shifted wildly. The show can't decide if it's gritty or campy, whether it's a comic book or a crime procedural. It handwaves technology and superpowers in a way that fails to establish in-world rules or limitations. So every super power is all-powerful until plot convenient. I also just personally hate the third season "blood virus" arc and the non-canonical Mad Hatter who speaks in rhyming couplets.
Speaking of which, I'd love to tell the writers that a mass of contradictory, plot-convenient impulses does not a strong female character make. Barbara Kean's story arc makes absolutely no sense. Lee Thompkins seems only to exist to push Gordon to do things he wouldn't otherwise, and Selina Kyle is easily swapped out with every spunky street urchin ever.
I almost want to be offended that every single queer character is, or ends up being, a baddie, but honestly I think that's probably just because the antagonists are more interesting and fleshed out characters to begin with. Still, there's some serious issues with representation (shocker). The third season introduces a really icky variant of the Born Sexy Yesterday trope (watch the video by the Pop Culture Detective, it's worth it.)
Still, I think the casting is pretty great, acting ability aside. The costuming is good, although everything is hampered by the show's refusal to nail down any sort of time period. The dream sequences in the first two seasons are beautiful. I love Oswald Cobblepot and Ed Nygma, and I'd love to see the actor who plays Bruce Wayne master more than just his admittedly very good "holding back tears" expression.
If you're looking for something campy, if you like your villians and your superheroes, and if you need something to watch while you fold laundry or go to sleep, I would recommend this show. It's a show that thrives on tired old tropes, but it lifts those tropes from its source material, so fans of comics might enjoy it, or might be aggrieved at the retconning of beloved old character's backstories.
Whatever you do, don't call Nymga insane. He's better now. He has a certificate.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Dark Knight (2008) in Movies
Apr 16, 2018
Not a Masterpiece, but has a Masterful performance
With the DARK KNIGHT, Christopher Nolan kicks his movie's up a notch. His previous films were critical - but not necessarily commercial - successes. With the 2nd of his Batman trilogy, Nolan swings for the seats and in more ways than one, hits a home run.
THE DARK KNIGHT continues the "dark, realistic" Batman story line (based on the Frank Miller Graphic Novels of the same name) that Nolan started with BATMAN BEGINS. This film starts off simply enough - a "James Bond" type of opening action sequence that has Batman tying up some loose ends (specifically regarding the villain Scarecrow), but Nolan (and his brother, the Screenwriter Jonathan Nolan) do a clever thing, they interweave the introduction of a new villain, The Joker, into this universe.
While The Joker commits crime after crime, his real purpose is to bring chaos and anarchy to Gotham City - and he succeeds wonderfully well, despite the attempts of Batman, Alfred, Lucious Fox and Detective Jim Gordon to stop him.
As is befitting a criminal such as The Joker - and also, as befitting a big budget summer tent pole blockbuster film - the stunts of this film are amazing, over-the-top, explosive and LOUD. There are death defying stunts, breathlessly captured, long, screeching car chases (that's a good thing) and fight scenes that are well choreographed and are, by the most part, done "practically" (not with the aid of CGI), including a wonderful stunt of flipping a semi-truck and trailer up in the air and onto it's back by the nose of the truck.
These stunts would mean nothing if there wasn't some folks to root for and get behind - and this film has those characters - and performances - in spades with continued good work from Nolan "Dark Knight Trilogy" regulars Christian Bale (Batman/Bruce Wayne), Detective Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman), Alfred the Butler (Michael Caine, really shining here) and Lucious Fox (Morgan Freeman - a nice character add to this universe for this trilogy). This core really brings the goods, which is good, for the newcomers to this series - Aaron Eckhart's District Attorney Harvey Dent and Maggie Gillenhall taking over the role of Rachel Dawes (from Katie Holmes) are pretty bland in comparison.
But...all of them pale in comparison to the once-in-a-lifetime performance and character of Heath Ledger as The Joker. Ledger, as most of you know, rightfully won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for this role - a rare feat for a "comic book" movie. This is not only the Best Supporting Actor turn for 2008, but I would argue it is one of the best Supporting Actor turns of all-time. Anytime that Ledger is on the screen, your eye goes to him and you lose all sense of anything else that is going on. His look, his tics, his pauses, his vocal patterns, his mannerisms, his walk, ALL convey a sense of the character and added all up, it is quite something to behold.
Many, many have called this their favorite "comic book" film of all time, but I don't think I share that idea. While Nolan spent much of his time on the characters, the "look" of the film and the effects and stunts, he left the story a little too thin and the length of this film is a bit too long, for my tastes. I was most certainly looking at my watch during the "thrilling conclusion" of this film waiting for it to be done.
Now...to be fair...most of the reason for that is that I was exhausted watching Ledger's performance. He wore me out. But...that's a compliment, not a complaint.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
THE DARK KNIGHT continues the "dark, realistic" Batman story line (based on the Frank Miller Graphic Novels of the same name) that Nolan started with BATMAN BEGINS. This film starts off simply enough - a "James Bond" type of opening action sequence that has Batman tying up some loose ends (specifically regarding the villain Scarecrow), but Nolan (and his brother, the Screenwriter Jonathan Nolan) do a clever thing, they interweave the introduction of a new villain, The Joker, into this universe.
While The Joker commits crime after crime, his real purpose is to bring chaos and anarchy to Gotham City - and he succeeds wonderfully well, despite the attempts of Batman, Alfred, Lucious Fox and Detective Jim Gordon to stop him.
As is befitting a criminal such as The Joker - and also, as befitting a big budget summer tent pole blockbuster film - the stunts of this film are amazing, over-the-top, explosive and LOUD. There are death defying stunts, breathlessly captured, long, screeching car chases (that's a good thing) and fight scenes that are well choreographed and are, by the most part, done "practically" (not with the aid of CGI), including a wonderful stunt of flipping a semi-truck and trailer up in the air and onto it's back by the nose of the truck.
These stunts would mean nothing if there wasn't some folks to root for and get behind - and this film has those characters - and performances - in spades with continued good work from Nolan "Dark Knight Trilogy" regulars Christian Bale (Batman/Bruce Wayne), Detective Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman), Alfred the Butler (Michael Caine, really shining here) and Lucious Fox (Morgan Freeman - a nice character add to this universe for this trilogy). This core really brings the goods, which is good, for the newcomers to this series - Aaron Eckhart's District Attorney Harvey Dent and Maggie Gillenhall taking over the role of Rachel Dawes (from Katie Holmes) are pretty bland in comparison.
But...all of them pale in comparison to the once-in-a-lifetime performance and character of Heath Ledger as The Joker. Ledger, as most of you know, rightfully won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for this role - a rare feat for a "comic book" movie. This is not only the Best Supporting Actor turn for 2008, but I would argue it is one of the best Supporting Actor turns of all-time. Anytime that Ledger is on the screen, your eye goes to him and you lose all sense of anything else that is going on. His look, his tics, his pauses, his vocal patterns, his mannerisms, his walk, ALL convey a sense of the character and added all up, it is quite something to behold.
Many, many have called this their favorite "comic book" film of all time, but I don't think I share that idea. While Nolan spent much of his time on the characters, the "look" of the film and the effects and stunts, he left the story a little too thin and the length of this film is a bit too long, for my tastes. I was most certainly looking at my watch during the "thrilling conclusion" of this film waiting for it to be done.
Now...to be fair...most of the reason for that is that I was exhausted watching Ledger's performance. He wore me out. But...that's a compliment, not a complaint.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Thor: Ragnarok (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
Utterly preposterous
Thor is arguably one of Marvel’s strongest characters. Played by the superb Chris Hemsworth since 2011, the God of thunder is one of the MCUs most popular assets.
It’s unfortunate then that he’s been lambasted with the weakest solo films of the entire series, the son of Odin really has deserved much better.
Thor’s inception in the first of his three solo outings was a competent if unremarkable origins story and the less said about Thor: The Dark World, which remains the poorest film of the entire MCU, the better. Now, just in time for Infinity War,Thor: Ragnarok rolls into cinemas. But does it do its leading man justice?Imprisoned on the other side of the universe, the mighty Thor (Hemsworth) finds himself in a deadly gladiatorial contest that pits him against the Hulk (Bruce Banner), his former ally and fellow Avenger. Thor’s quest for survival leads him in a race against time to prevent the all-powerful goddess of death, Hela, (Cate Blanchett) from destroying his home world and the Asgardian civilisation.
This third film for our mighty Avenger is really something. A film more akin to Guardians of the Galaxy than its overly stuffy predecessors. Director Taika Waititi in his first big-budget feature has managed what many had thought was impossible, he’s given Thor a rather brilliant movie.
But how? Well, he’s realised what no-one else has. The premise surrounding our titular hero is utterly ridiculous. Rather than shy away from that and create something serious, he’s embraced it with humour, music and my goodness, a lot of colour.
If you thought Guardians of the Galaxy used every colour on the spectrum, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Thor: Ragnarok is quite something to watch. From the gold-tipped spears of Asgard that glisten like never before, to the trash-topped planet of Sakaar, everything is dripping in colour.
“Casting Goldblum in the role of an immortal game-player really is an inspired choice.”
Speaking of Sakaar, it contains one of the MCUs best new additions: Jeff Goldbum. Sorry, I mean the Grandmaster. Casting Goldblum in the role of an immortal game-player really is an inspired choice. The 65-year-old legend has made a career on playing himself and it works exceptionally well here. His improvisation is absolutely spot on.
Ragnarok throws up a few other surprises too. One being that Chris Hemsworth is absolutely hilarious. He and Tom Hiddleston bounce off each other incredibly well and we see real chemistry – the chemistry that should have been evident from the start. Cate Blanchett also turns the cheese up to 11 as the latest throwaway Marvel villain, Hela.
She fares better than the majority of Marvel villains and is certainly more interesting than Christopher Eccelston’s, Malekith, but they never quite make the impact that the scriptwriters were clearly looking for. Nevertheless, Blanchett is excellent.
Thankfully, Thor: Ragnarok doesn’t suffer from the absence of Natalie Portman’s dull Jane Foster, and though she is referenced early on, newcomer Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie provides a fitting replacement and possible future love-interest for our intrepid hero.
Unfortunately, it’s not all good news. Surprisingly the first 30 minutes feel incredibly rushed as numerous loose storylines are brought together and the improvised nature of the script lends itself to a little too much humour. Yes, we get it, Marvel films are funny, but this should not be at the expense of the more emotional sequences that the movie tries to put across.
Nevertheless, Thor: Ragnarok is a resounding success, created by a man who clearly has a passion for this corner of the MCU. He manages to make an absolutely preposterous film – and that’s exactly how Thor should be. Take a bow Mr. Waititi.
A little tip – there are two end credit sequences waiting for you. You’re welcome.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/10/26/thor-ragnarok-review/
It’s unfortunate then that he’s been lambasted with the weakest solo films of the entire series, the son of Odin really has deserved much better.
Thor’s inception in the first of his three solo outings was a competent if unremarkable origins story and the less said about Thor: The Dark World, which remains the poorest film of the entire MCU, the better. Now, just in time for Infinity War,Thor: Ragnarok rolls into cinemas. But does it do its leading man justice?Imprisoned on the other side of the universe, the mighty Thor (Hemsworth) finds himself in a deadly gladiatorial contest that pits him against the Hulk (Bruce Banner), his former ally and fellow Avenger. Thor’s quest for survival leads him in a race against time to prevent the all-powerful goddess of death, Hela, (Cate Blanchett) from destroying his home world and the Asgardian civilisation.
This third film for our mighty Avenger is really something. A film more akin to Guardians of the Galaxy than its overly stuffy predecessors. Director Taika Waititi in his first big-budget feature has managed what many had thought was impossible, he’s given Thor a rather brilliant movie.
But how? Well, he’s realised what no-one else has. The premise surrounding our titular hero is utterly ridiculous. Rather than shy away from that and create something serious, he’s embraced it with humour, music and my goodness, a lot of colour.
If you thought Guardians of the Galaxy used every colour on the spectrum, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Thor: Ragnarok is quite something to watch. From the gold-tipped spears of Asgard that glisten like never before, to the trash-topped planet of Sakaar, everything is dripping in colour.
“Casting Goldblum in the role of an immortal game-player really is an inspired choice.”
Speaking of Sakaar, it contains one of the MCUs best new additions: Jeff Goldbum. Sorry, I mean the Grandmaster. Casting Goldblum in the role of an immortal game-player really is an inspired choice. The 65-year-old legend has made a career on playing himself and it works exceptionally well here. His improvisation is absolutely spot on.
Ragnarok throws up a few other surprises too. One being that Chris Hemsworth is absolutely hilarious. He and Tom Hiddleston bounce off each other incredibly well and we see real chemistry – the chemistry that should have been evident from the start. Cate Blanchett also turns the cheese up to 11 as the latest throwaway Marvel villain, Hela.
She fares better than the majority of Marvel villains and is certainly more interesting than Christopher Eccelston’s, Malekith, but they never quite make the impact that the scriptwriters were clearly looking for. Nevertheless, Blanchett is excellent.
Thankfully, Thor: Ragnarok doesn’t suffer from the absence of Natalie Portman’s dull Jane Foster, and though she is referenced early on, newcomer Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie provides a fitting replacement and possible future love-interest for our intrepid hero.
Unfortunately, it’s not all good news. Surprisingly the first 30 minutes feel incredibly rushed as numerous loose storylines are brought together and the improvised nature of the script lends itself to a little too much humour. Yes, we get it, Marvel films are funny, but this should not be at the expense of the more emotional sequences that the movie tries to put across.
Nevertheless, Thor: Ragnarok is a resounding success, created by a man who clearly has a passion for this corner of the MCU. He manages to make an absolutely preposterous film – and that’s exactly how Thor should be. Take a bow Mr. Waititi.
A little tip – there are two end credit sequences waiting for you. You’re welcome.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/10/26/thor-ragnarok-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Gerald's Game (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Not a very fun game
The horror film market is huge. Hundreds, if not thousands, of horror films are made every year, with only few standing out of the blood-drenched crowd. Netflix, with a penchant for outstanding horrors and thrillers, decided to hop on the horror flick train, bringing about an adaptation of Stephen King’s terrifying novel ‘Gerald’s Game’.
The film follows Jessie (Carla Gugino) and her husband, Gerald (Bruce Greenwood), as they head to a remote lake house in order to spice up their marriage. One thing leads to another, and then Gerald has a heart attack and dies, leaving Jessie handcuffed to the bed with the keys out of reach. She must then fight to survive, whilst having a few disturbing flashbacks and encounters along the way.
This movie is really disturbing. Like, really, really disturbing. It’s not particularly scary, there’s the odd jump-scare or three, but its the imagery and the situation that really get your heart going.
Carla Gugino as the shackled wife is a stand-out in this film. She basically carries it, only with a few interruptions from inside her head, and this makes for very entertaining viewing. She’s amusing, in a way that you didn’t think anyone could be whilst fighting dehydration, a hungry dog at the end of her bed and death himself. In all honesty, it’s not a very fun game.
Her husband, however, is brilliant at being horrible. Greenwood really amps up the bad husband vibes in the 20 minutes he is alive, which then are exacerbated in Jessie’s head after he has died. He’s manipulative, seedy and slimy: something that Jessie realises at the end of the film.
It could be argued that this film isn’t really a horror film in the typical sense. It’s more a horror film about what has happened to Jessie, the main character, and how she comes to terms with her past and survives. She calls on past experiences to escape her confines on the bed, and her horrible history.
That’s not to say that it doesn’t have stereotypical horror movie attributes. The Moonlight Man is their contribution to the supernatural – or more the ‘is he actually there or am I insane?’ kind of gimmick that sometimes comes with this genre. The Moonlight Man is a shadowy figure, lurking in the shadows with his box of trinkets and bones. He’s absolutely terrifying.
He’s also real. In the film and book, he’s a necrophiliac who’s waiting for Jessie to die so he can add her wedding ring and one of her bones to his box. The Moonlight Man is the kind of horror movie villain that you have nightmares about. Which is why he is one of the highlights of Gerald’s Game.
The film isn’t exactly the most complex plot in the world. It plays a bit too much on the stereotypes in some cases and the ending, in true horror film fashion, is too happy, is too well put together after such a traumatic experience. It all ends a bit too neatly after such a messy first three-quarters.
Even though this isn’t the best horror film ever, it certainly is not the worst. It has it’s flaws, but the acting and the scriptwriting make up for the few it has. In an era of horror trying too hard, this film is simple and refreshing, bringing a new feeling to the horror industry as a whole.
So, the moral of the story is: don’t handcuff yourself to the bed because your husband will die on top of you and then a stray dog will eat him and a necrophiliac will come into your house at night. Quite an easy thing to remember, right?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/06/geralds-game-review-not-a-very-fun-game/
The film follows Jessie (Carla Gugino) and her husband, Gerald (Bruce Greenwood), as they head to a remote lake house in order to spice up their marriage. One thing leads to another, and then Gerald has a heart attack and dies, leaving Jessie handcuffed to the bed with the keys out of reach. She must then fight to survive, whilst having a few disturbing flashbacks and encounters along the way.
This movie is really disturbing. Like, really, really disturbing. It’s not particularly scary, there’s the odd jump-scare or three, but its the imagery and the situation that really get your heart going.
Carla Gugino as the shackled wife is a stand-out in this film. She basically carries it, only with a few interruptions from inside her head, and this makes for very entertaining viewing. She’s amusing, in a way that you didn’t think anyone could be whilst fighting dehydration, a hungry dog at the end of her bed and death himself. In all honesty, it’s not a very fun game.
Her husband, however, is brilliant at being horrible. Greenwood really amps up the bad husband vibes in the 20 minutes he is alive, which then are exacerbated in Jessie’s head after he has died. He’s manipulative, seedy and slimy: something that Jessie realises at the end of the film.
It could be argued that this film isn’t really a horror film in the typical sense. It’s more a horror film about what has happened to Jessie, the main character, and how she comes to terms with her past and survives. She calls on past experiences to escape her confines on the bed, and her horrible history.
That’s not to say that it doesn’t have stereotypical horror movie attributes. The Moonlight Man is their contribution to the supernatural – or more the ‘is he actually there or am I insane?’ kind of gimmick that sometimes comes with this genre. The Moonlight Man is a shadowy figure, lurking in the shadows with his box of trinkets and bones. He’s absolutely terrifying.
He’s also real. In the film and book, he’s a necrophiliac who’s waiting for Jessie to die so he can add her wedding ring and one of her bones to his box. The Moonlight Man is the kind of horror movie villain that you have nightmares about. Which is why he is one of the highlights of Gerald’s Game.
The film isn’t exactly the most complex plot in the world. It plays a bit too much on the stereotypes in some cases and the ending, in true horror film fashion, is too happy, is too well put together after such a traumatic experience. It all ends a bit too neatly after such a messy first three-quarters.
Even though this isn’t the best horror film ever, it certainly is not the worst. It has it’s flaws, but the acting and the scriptwriting make up for the few it has. In an era of horror trying too hard, this film is simple and refreshing, bringing a new feeling to the horror industry as a whole.
So, the moral of the story is: don’t handcuff yourself to the bed because your husband will die on top of you and then a stray dog will eat him and a necrophiliac will come into your house at night. Quite an easy thing to remember, right?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/06/geralds-game-review-not-a-very-fun-game/