Search
Search results
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Predestination (2015) in Movies
Nov 8, 2019
A story about a girl named Jane
It seems I've been watching a fair amount of Ethan Hawke lately, total coincidence. I have to say he is probably one of my favorite current actors as he always seems to select smart scripts. His recent film First Reformed was amazing as was another recent Hawke watch, Daybreakers. The directors of Daybreakers recast Hawke as a time traveling policeman of sorts trying to track down one last killer before hanging up his hat.
His current status as a lonely barkeep is interrupted when a stranger walks in, sits down and begins telling their story. Intrigued, Hawke sits down and listens to the tale of an unwanted orphan, a unique person misunderstood by society but maybe destined for great things. They try not to let the hardships of their life get them down, but disappointment lies around every turn. The interactions they have in their life may seem adrift and random, but maybe they have some deeper meaning about the meaning of life or at least their place in it.
Ok, this is kind of a vague description; however, if you take the time to watch this film (I sure wish you would) you will thank me for not saying too much
It is easy to get caught up in all the time paradox stuff when writing or watching a time travel film. What would happen if Marty McFly meets his future self or disrupts the meeting of his parents? Themes are a lot deeper here and the mystery continues to weave itself into a knot before slowly unraveling as the film reaches its end.
Hawke and Australian actress Sarah Snook are captivating together onscreen as their characters interact and their true feelings and motivations are revealed. Both are flawed in their own way, but also looking for redemption and validation that their time on Earth has meaning.
I was totally blown away by the smart, completely interesting story and hope I can convince others to view. Mesmerizing!
His current status as a lonely barkeep is interrupted when a stranger walks in, sits down and begins telling their story. Intrigued, Hawke sits down and listens to the tale of an unwanted orphan, a unique person misunderstood by society but maybe destined for great things. They try not to let the hardships of their life get them down, but disappointment lies around every turn. The interactions they have in their life may seem adrift and random, but maybe they have some deeper meaning about the meaning of life or at least their place in it.
Ok, this is kind of a vague description; however, if you take the time to watch this film (I sure wish you would) you will thank me for not saying too much
It is easy to get caught up in all the time paradox stuff when writing or watching a time travel film. What would happen if Marty McFly meets his future self or disrupts the meeting of his parents? Themes are a lot deeper here and the mystery continues to weave itself into a knot before slowly unraveling as the film reaches its end.
Hawke and Australian actress Sarah Snook are captivating together onscreen as their characters interact and their true feelings and motivations are revealed. Both are flawed in their own way, but also looking for redemption and validation that their time on Earth has meaning.
I was totally blown away by the smart, completely interesting story and hope I can convince others to view. Mesmerizing!
Tim McGuire (301 KP) rated Brahms: The Boy II (2020) in Movies
Mar 14, 2020
401. Brahms: The Boy II. What little kid doesn't want a creepy doll? Mom, Liza, and son, Jude are hanging out at home one night and they get attacked and robbed in their home in a very PG undramatic scene. Jude suffers from PTSD and doesn't say a word afterwards, and Liza gets the nightmares, so hubby Sean and Liza decide the best thing to do is get away from it all and vacation at a completely secluded guesthouse of a completely empty creepy mansion! Fun! Oh, and there's a creepy groundskeeper walking around with a shotgun and a big ol mean dog! Nice! Out of the many activities that they can do on this vacation like, looking at the woods, admiring the woods, or exploring the woods, they decide to take a walk in the woods. And this is when Jude discovers a hand sticking up out of the dirt, and he uncovers...a dirty old extremely creepy looking doll, and he obvi falls in love, and names it Brahms, well, that is the name Brahms told him to call him. Mom and Dad are like, eww gross, but it makes him happy, let's take it home clean it up! Within a short time, Jude starts turning around, while Liza thinks the doll is alive causing mischief, cause it can't be Jude doing these things. What to do, what to do... Internet investigation montage scene to recap Part I, give a little more backstory of course. It's not a great movie, honestly it felt they were going to go one way with it, felt rushed then went with a different route, it wasn't a terrible way to go, just felt they changed gears all of sudden. I liked it, i do like bad horror movies, add a creepy doll, makes it better. I personally now want a Chucky Vs. Chucky movie! Filmbufftim on FB
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Lucy (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Luc Besson’s latest film will leave you impressed, and possibly a little confused.
Lucy, starring Scarlett Johansson and Morgan Freeman, comes out this Friday and is Besson’s (Fifth Element, The Professional) most recent stab at something a little bit different.
The film opens with Johansson’s character, Lucy, having an argument with her boyfriend about dropping off a case with unknown contents. After a lot of arguing (and having it handcuffed to her), Lucy is forced into going inside to make the delivery.
As she does, the director takes us on an interesting visual representation of her feelings using scenes similar to what most people recognize from National Geographic, complete with a cheetah hunting a gazelle. The scenes are punctuated by her cheetah-print jacket.
As the story continues, an Asian drug lord uses her as a mule for the substance inside the case. The bag breaks and the chemical starts changing Lucy, evolving her into something… different.
It’s been a long time since I’ve seen cinematography of this unique nature, where scenes were spliced in to express the character’s feelings. It’s unusual for a serious film (but still often done in a humorous way). Besson has done a masterful job of integrating serious moments, compelling action, and humor in a Fifth-Element-style to make a fluid, dynamic film. That said, it can feel slightly awkward at times.
I found myself laughing at the humor and engaged by the action, but most of all I was confused as to what I was watching.
This film seems very much akin to an episode of Cosmos. It’s interlaced with a story and some action, but purposefully meant to make a statement about human evolution.
Overall, I’d say this is a film well worth seeing. The acting was great, the cinematography was fantastic, and the direction was beautifully done. The main reason I feel it’s worth spending your money to see on the big screen is because of the gorgeous special effects, which were integrated in a captivating manner.
Lucy, starring Scarlett Johansson and Morgan Freeman, comes out this Friday and is Besson’s (Fifth Element, The Professional) most recent stab at something a little bit different.
The film opens with Johansson’s character, Lucy, having an argument with her boyfriend about dropping off a case with unknown contents. After a lot of arguing (and having it handcuffed to her), Lucy is forced into going inside to make the delivery.
As she does, the director takes us on an interesting visual representation of her feelings using scenes similar to what most people recognize from National Geographic, complete with a cheetah hunting a gazelle. The scenes are punctuated by her cheetah-print jacket.
As the story continues, an Asian drug lord uses her as a mule for the substance inside the case. The bag breaks and the chemical starts changing Lucy, evolving her into something… different.
It’s been a long time since I’ve seen cinematography of this unique nature, where scenes were spliced in to express the character’s feelings. It’s unusual for a serious film (but still often done in a humorous way). Besson has done a masterful job of integrating serious moments, compelling action, and humor in a Fifth-Element-style to make a fluid, dynamic film. That said, it can feel slightly awkward at times.
I found myself laughing at the humor and engaged by the action, but most of all I was confused as to what I was watching.
This film seems very much akin to an episode of Cosmos. It’s interlaced with a story and some action, but purposefully meant to make a statement about human evolution.
Overall, I’d say this is a film well worth seeing. The acting was great, the cinematography was fantastic, and the direction was beautifully done. The main reason I feel it’s worth spending your money to see on the big screen is because of the gorgeous special effects, which were integrated in a captivating manner.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Queens of Geek in Books
Mar 4, 2021
Simple yet sweet look into fandom and friendship
Charlie, Taylor, and Jamie are extremely close friends. They come to SupaCon as one last blast before they all head to college--and to celebrate Charlie, a famous video blogger and actress. Charlie's struggling to get over her very public breakup with her former co-star, Reese Ryan. Taylor is dealing with how the Con flames her anxiety and that she has feelings for her best friend: Jamie. Plus, she wants to enter a contest at the Con to meet her favorite actress from her favorite fandom, but knows her fears would never allow it. And Jamie just wants to make Taylor happy. Can the three survive SupaCon?
This is the seventeenth book in my #atozchallenge! I'm challenging myself to read a book from my shelves that starts with each letter of the alphabet. Let's clear those shelves and delve into that backlist!
This was a cute book--easy to read with sweet characters. It's written very simply and honestly it's often trite in its writing and plot. Expect some undeveloped characters, some insta-love, and problems that resolve themselves before they even fully develop. It's a shame, because QUEENS covers some incredibly important topics--Asperger's, autism, anxiety, bisexuality--and covers them fairly well--but often quickly, without a lot of depth.
The book is a true ode to geeks (I say this with the highest praise) and con/fandom lovers. However, not really being a fan of these fandoms, it was hard to truly get into those parts. I loved how much comfort Taylor took in her fandom, but it wasn't something I could be into, if that made sense.
Mostly, I loved the spot-on passages describing social anxiety and the diverse cast. This was an easy YA read, but one lacking true depth; still, it satisfied the "Q" requirement for my A to Z reading challenge. 3 stars, mostly for the bi rep.
This is the seventeenth book in my #atozchallenge! I'm challenging myself to read a book from my shelves that starts with each letter of the alphabet. Let's clear those shelves and delve into that backlist!
This was a cute book--easy to read with sweet characters. It's written very simply and honestly it's often trite in its writing and plot. Expect some undeveloped characters, some insta-love, and problems that resolve themselves before they even fully develop. It's a shame, because QUEENS covers some incredibly important topics--Asperger's, autism, anxiety, bisexuality--and covers them fairly well--but often quickly, without a lot of depth.
The book is a true ode to geeks (I say this with the highest praise) and con/fandom lovers. However, not really being a fan of these fandoms, it was hard to truly get into those parts. I loved how much comfort Taylor took in her fandom, but it wasn't something I could be into, if that made sense.
Mostly, I loved the spot-on passages describing social anxiety and the diverse cast. This was an easy YA read, but one lacking true depth; still, it satisfied the "Q" requirement for my A to Z reading challenge. 3 stars, mostly for the bi rep.
Kim Pook (101 KP) rated Case 39 (2010) in Movies
Dec 13, 2020
Emily - a social worker - is assigned to a young girl called lily due to suspected neglect. She goes to the family's House who appear to be very strange, the girl doesn't speak and the father refuses to speak directly to Emily and instead glares at her which she finds very unsettling. She reports this back to her boss who just brushes it off.
The next day Emily is able to speak to lily alone, who tells her that she overheard her parents talking about sending her to hell. Emily makes it her mission to try and save lily from her parents, and gives her her phone number telling her to call if ever she gets scared. Sure enough Lily calls her that evening asking for help before passing out. Emily racess to her house only to find lily's parents doing the most unspeakable thing to her (I won't say what it was but it definitely shocked me to the core). Thankfully lily's parents are arrested and lily is put into Foster care, eventually Emily decides to take lily into her own care until they can find her a permanent Foster family.
Things seem to be going well, until a 10 year old boy kills his parents after receiving a mysterious phone call from Emily's House with a man's voice.......... It isn't long before we discover that something is off with lily and it isn't good. This child is in fact pure evil!
Before this movie I wasn't sure if I could imagine Renee zellwegger in a more serious role than Bridget Jones but I was wrong, she played this role brilliantly and the role of lily was spot on as well, that girl was proper creepy. For a 2009 movie, some scenes did look rather dated. For example the scene at the beach didn't look very believable. The movie was entertaining enough to keep me interested though, right to the end.
The next day Emily is able to speak to lily alone, who tells her that she overheard her parents talking about sending her to hell. Emily makes it her mission to try and save lily from her parents, and gives her her phone number telling her to call if ever she gets scared. Sure enough Lily calls her that evening asking for help before passing out. Emily racess to her house only to find lily's parents doing the most unspeakable thing to her (I won't say what it was but it definitely shocked me to the core). Thankfully lily's parents are arrested and lily is put into Foster care, eventually Emily decides to take lily into her own care until they can find her a permanent Foster family.
Things seem to be going well, until a 10 year old boy kills his parents after receiving a mysterious phone call from Emily's House with a man's voice.......... It isn't long before we discover that something is off with lily and it isn't good. This child is in fact pure evil!
Before this movie I wasn't sure if I could imagine Renee zellwegger in a more serious role than Bridget Jones but I was wrong, she played this role brilliantly and the role of lily was spot on as well, that girl was proper creepy. For a 2009 movie, some scenes did look rather dated. For example the scene at the beach didn't look very believable. The movie was entertaining enough to keep me interested though, right to the end.
POGs Battle
Games
App
Get HYPE! Play for keeps as you battle other real humans in this grown-up schoolyard classic!...
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Halloween Kills (2021) in Movies
Oct 17, 2021
I can safely say, that I'm not 100% sure whether I liked Halloween Kills or not. There were parts that I genuinely enjoyed, in no small part thanks to Michael Myers. As in Halloween (2018), this Myers is a brutal and unforgiving one. His aesthetic is great and he's intimidating as fuck. This movie pulls no punches in making him out to be a monster, shying further away from the days of rooting for slasher villains. To top it off, Kills easily has some of the best Michael moments in the entire franchise. This is bolstered by some truly fantastic cinematography.
However, the positives are marred quite severely by everything else. The script is hammy as fuck, which is fine, but the tone of the movie is pretty damn serious, and a lot of the screenplay just doesn't land properly. There are endless characters saying something along the lines of "it's my fault, and I'm going to be the one to kill Michael Myers" for no real reason. Additionally, there are a whole bunch of "legacy" characters from the OG Halloween making their return. It's lovely to see the likes of Kyle Richards, Charles Cyphers, and Nancy Stephens back for another round, but they do kind of feel shoehorned in. Tommy Doyle being thrust into the spotlight as a main character is in no means a bad idea, but he's just a bit of a gammon for the entire runtime, and quickly becomes a tiresome protagonist. All of this is exacerbated by pacing that just plummets around the mid point. The whole subplot of a mob chasing down a small bald man who clearly isn't Michael Myers is just ludicrous, and it's goes on FOREVER. All just to throw in a forced "maybe we were the monsters all along" conundrum. It's really dumb.
I didn't hate Halloween Kills by any means, but for me, it was a huge step down from the fantastic 2018 effort. Hopefully, Halloween Ends will bring the quality back up (with more Laurie Strode fingers crossed)
However, the positives are marred quite severely by everything else. The script is hammy as fuck, which is fine, but the tone of the movie is pretty damn serious, and a lot of the screenplay just doesn't land properly. There are endless characters saying something along the lines of "it's my fault, and I'm going to be the one to kill Michael Myers" for no real reason. Additionally, there are a whole bunch of "legacy" characters from the OG Halloween making their return. It's lovely to see the likes of Kyle Richards, Charles Cyphers, and Nancy Stephens back for another round, but they do kind of feel shoehorned in. Tommy Doyle being thrust into the spotlight as a main character is in no means a bad idea, but he's just a bit of a gammon for the entire runtime, and quickly becomes a tiresome protagonist. All of this is exacerbated by pacing that just plummets around the mid point. The whole subplot of a mob chasing down a small bald man who clearly isn't Michael Myers is just ludicrous, and it's goes on FOREVER. All just to throw in a forced "maybe we were the monsters all along" conundrum. It's really dumb.
I didn't hate Halloween Kills by any means, but for me, it was a huge step down from the fantastic 2018 effort. Hopefully, Halloween Ends will bring the quality back up (with more Laurie Strode fingers crossed)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Straight Outta Compton (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The moment I heard they were making a film about N.W.A., I knew I had to see it. Like many, I didn’t listen to their music during their height of their popularity. Unlike many, I am willing to admit that. But it doesn’t mean that their music didn’t influence me in significant ways when I was in my teens. So naturally, I was excited about this movie. I only wish it would have lived up to my expectations.
Straight Outta Compton tells the story of N.W.A.’s formation, but it’s more than just that. It tells of the trials and tribulations the members of the group went through to become the icons they were. It tells of both the struggle with their oppressors, as well as each other. We start the film in 1986 with an introduction to the three main guys that everyone knows: Eazy-E (Jason Mitchell), Dr. Dre (Corey Hawkings) and Ice Cube (O’Shea Jackson, Jr.). They soon form Ruthless records putting out their first single, which gets the attention of Jerry Heller (Paul Giamatti), their future manager. The movie then tells of their rise to stardom, and ultimate falling out, all the way through to the passing of Eazy-E.
Straight Outta Compton sets out to do a lot of things, some of which it doesn’t get exactly right. Don’t get me wrong, the movie is good. It just felt… unnatural at times. The actors themselves did a great job portraying the real-life people they were representing, but I don’t think they had the chemistry as an ensemble. I noticed it really early on in the movie, when Ice Cube and Dr. Dre were at Dre’ aunt’s house. The flow of the conversation just didn’t feel comfortable. It didn’t feel like the natural conversations I had with my friends when I was around the same age, as they were putting clear distance (time) between each of the character’s lines, just so you can make out what they were saying. And Hawkings and Jackson, Jr. just seemed really awkward in delivering their lines to each other. I know that this is needed often in movies, but I have seen similar scenes in other movies where I didn’t have this feeling.
There were also many things that the movie put into your face, but then didn’t really finish telling you what it was about, or make you believe in the connection. For example, the movie starts with Dre having a girl and baby, and you see her for all of 10 seconds, and then you see her a little later when she is leaving him. Dre also has very minimal time with his brother in the beginning of the film, again a short time later they interact for a few moments on screen (over the phone), and then there is supposed to be a moving scene where Dre finds out his brother was killed. I say supposed to be because as with the film where Dre’s girl left him, you are supposed to feel something for the character here, but there wasn’t enough for you to go on. There wasn’t the emotional connection to the relationship between Dre and his girl/brother for you to feel connected to the movie and character. These are just a few examples, another could be a menacing threat to Jerry Heller at his home, but the movie never really wraps back around to it. Most people are supposed to know, or maybe you are supposed to infer from the plotline at the time, but it seemed a little abrupt to me. Now, I hear that the running time of this film, 147 minutes, is actually a far cry from the original 210 minutes. This could explain a lot of where I felt the film just kind of failed at follow through. Hopefully we get to see this on the home release.
Ultimately, this was a great movie. It was amazing to sit in the theater and listen to people sing along with the iconic songs that were released not only from the super group themselves, but even from Eazy-E, Ice Cube and others. Plus, there were many great easter eggs throughout the film, including appearances of the characters Snoop Dogg, Tupac, Warren G, Suge Knight and many others. There was plenty of humor, but still managing to portray the struggle they went through well. One of things I was worried about was O’Shea Jackson, Jr. I originally thought they only cast him as his father because of the looks, but he really did hold his own. I definitely see a future in acting, and possibly in music too, just like his father.
Should you go see it in theaters? If you are a super fan, then definitely. Even if you are not, definitely check it out as it tells a great story about what was considered at one point the most dangerous group in music. This is definitely one that will be added to my collection upon home release, especially if there is an uncut version.
Straight Outta Compton tells the story of N.W.A.’s formation, but it’s more than just that. It tells of the trials and tribulations the members of the group went through to become the icons they were. It tells of both the struggle with their oppressors, as well as each other. We start the film in 1986 with an introduction to the three main guys that everyone knows: Eazy-E (Jason Mitchell), Dr. Dre (Corey Hawkings) and Ice Cube (O’Shea Jackson, Jr.). They soon form Ruthless records putting out their first single, which gets the attention of Jerry Heller (Paul Giamatti), their future manager. The movie then tells of their rise to stardom, and ultimate falling out, all the way through to the passing of Eazy-E.
Straight Outta Compton sets out to do a lot of things, some of which it doesn’t get exactly right. Don’t get me wrong, the movie is good. It just felt… unnatural at times. The actors themselves did a great job portraying the real-life people they were representing, but I don’t think they had the chemistry as an ensemble. I noticed it really early on in the movie, when Ice Cube and Dr. Dre were at Dre’ aunt’s house. The flow of the conversation just didn’t feel comfortable. It didn’t feel like the natural conversations I had with my friends when I was around the same age, as they were putting clear distance (time) between each of the character’s lines, just so you can make out what they were saying. And Hawkings and Jackson, Jr. just seemed really awkward in delivering their lines to each other. I know that this is needed often in movies, but I have seen similar scenes in other movies where I didn’t have this feeling.
There were also many things that the movie put into your face, but then didn’t really finish telling you what it was about, or make you believe in the connection. For example, the movie starts with Dre having a girl and baby, and you see her for all of 10 seconds, and then you see her a little later when she is leaving him. Dre also has very minimal time with his brother in the beginning of the film, again a short time later they interact for a few moments on screen (over the phone), and then there is supposed to be a moving scene where Dre finds out his brother was killed. I say supposed to be because as with the film where Dre’s girl left him, you are supposed to feel something for the character here, but there wasn’t enough for you to go on. There wasn’t the emotional connection to the relationship between Dre and his girl/brother for you to feel connected to the movie and character. These are just a few examples, another could be a menacing threat to Jerry Heller at his home, but the movie never really wraps back around to it. Most people are supposed to know, or maybe you are supposed to infer from the plotline at the time, but it seemed a little abrupt to me. Now, I hear that the running time of this film, 147 minutes, is actually a far cry from the original 210 minutes. This could explain a lot of where I felt the film just kind of failed at follow through. Hopefully we get to see this on the home release.
Ultimately, this was a great movie. It was amazing to sit in the theater and listen to people sing along with the iconic songs that were released not only from the super group themselves, but even from Eazy-E, Ice Cube and others. Plus, there were many great easter eggs throughout the film, including appearances of the characters Snoop Dogg, Tupac, Warren G, Suge Knight and many others. There was plenty of humor, but still managing to portray the struggle they went through well. One of things I was worried about was O’Shea Jackson, Jr. I originally thought they only cast him as his father because of the looks, but he really did hold his own. I definitely see a future in acting, and possibly in music too, just like his father.
Should you go see it in theaters? If you are a super fan, then definitely. Even if you are not, definitely check it out as it tells a great story about what was considered at one point the most dangerous group in music. This is definitely one that will be added to my collection upon home release, especially if there is an uncut version.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated A Game of Thrones: Hand of the King in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
I’ll be honest with you. I’m a big A Game of Thrones fan. We watch it religiously on Sunday nights at my dad’s house. Now, when I say “we” I mean my brother Bryan, my dad, and me. My wife has zero interest in it, and it’s really not her style anyway. So imagine my surprise when she agreed to play this little card game featuring the IP and she didn’t hate it! She didn’t really love it either, as shown by her guest score on the graphic above.
A Game of Thrones: Hand of the King (that’s a lot to say/type) is a dueling set collection card game. To setup, you create a grid of randomized character cards that all belong to one of the seven houses (save for Varys, who is our pawn in all this). Also reveal six of the 14 provided companion cards to be used for this game. Each player will control Varys on their turn, spreading influence and intrigue throughout the houses.
On your turn you will announce the house you would like to influence (Stark, Greyjoy, etc), and then move the Varys card in any of the four cardinal directions to a character belonging to your announced house. Any character cards you pass along the way bearing the same house will be collected along with the card on which you stopped. If you now have simple majority of characters in that house, you claim the corresponding house banner and place it in front of you to taunt your opponent. Should you influence the last character of said house you will be able to recruit and use one of the companion cards that are available from the beginning of the game. These cards are game-changers sometimes and provide very powerful abilities. Play continues in this fashion until Varys has no more legal moves. And that’s the game. Each player is trying to have simple majority ownership of the house banners at the end of the game.
Components. This is easy. There are square character cards featuring excellent artwork from The Mico (who always does an amazing job IMO), smaller companion cards, and the house banners. The cards are of good quality, and the banners are good too. I have no complaints about the components at all.
Now, I have only played this with my wife and she can be pretty ruthless when gaming. That’s pretty much expected for a game of this IP. That being said, this is an easy and light filler card game that is enjoyable, but not overly strategic. You really do not have to make many choices, as the placement of characters mostly determine how you are going to attack the grid. The companions, however, make this game much more interesting because they can be loose cannons and otherwise monkey wrenches in your opponent’s plans. Outside of being a simple annoyance, there isn’t a lot of player interaction unless you are specifically hate-drafting (which we typically do not do). After all, it’s not similar to its cousin big boy board game that destroys friendships over a 6 hour+ slog. This one is light and quick and a good filler for two. My wife may not love it, but I don’t think I will be getting rid of it. Kind of a nice surprise from a game I was gifted (and it was not originally on my wish list).
That said, we at Purple Phoenix Games (with the help of my wife Kristin) give this one a 7 / 12. Not the best game based on this IP but worth keeping for a quick filler.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/03/13/a-game-of-thrones-hand-of-the-king-review/
A Game of Thrones: Hand of the King (that’s a lot to say/type) is a dueling set collection card game. To setup, you create a grid of randomized character cards that all belong to one of the seven houses (save for Varys, who is our pawn in all this). Also reveal six of the 14 provided companion cards to be used for this game. Each player will control Varys on their turn, spreading influence and intrigue throughout the houses.
On your turn you will announce the house you would like to influence (Stark, Greyjoy, etc), and then move the Varys card in any of the four cardinal directions to a character belonging to your announced house. Any character cards you pass along the way bearing the same house will be collected along with the card on which you stopped. If you now have simple majority of characters in that house, you claim the corresponding house banner and place it in front of you to taunt your opponent. Should you influence the last character of said house you will be able to recruit and use one of the companion cards that are available from the beginning of the game. These cards are game-changers sometimes and provide very powerful abilities. Play continues in this fashion until Varys has no more legal moves. And that’s the game. Each player is trying to have simple majority ownership of the house banners at the end of the game.
Components. This is easy. There are square character cards featuring excellent artwork from The Mico (who always does an amazing job IMO), smaller companion cards, and the house banners. The cards are of good quality, and the banners are good too. I have no complaints about the components at all.
Now, I have only played this with my wife and she can be pretty ruthless when gaming. That’s pretty much expected for a game of this IP. That being said, this is an easy and light filler card game that is enjoyable, but not overly strategic. You really do not have to make many choices, as the placement of characters mostly determine how you are going to attack the grid. The companions, however, make this game much more interesting because they can be loose cannons and otherwise monkey wrenches in your opponent’s plans. Outside of being a simple annoyance, there isn’t a lot of player interaction unless you are specifically hate-drafting (which we typically do not do). After all, it’s not similar to its cousin big boy board game that destroys friendships over a 6 hour+ slog. This one is light and quick and a good filler for two. My wife may not love it, but I don’t think I will be getting rid of it. Kind of a nice surprise from a game I was gifted (and it was not originally on my wish list).
That said, we at Purple Phoenix Games (with the help of my wife Kristin) give this one a 7 / 12. Not the best game based on this IP but worth keeping for a quick filler.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/03/13/a-game-of-thrones-hand-of-the-king-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Little Women (2019) in Movies
Feb 5, 2020
A Worthy Adaptation
There have been many adaptations of Louisa May Alcott's 19th Century Classic novel LITTLE WOMEN following the adventures, loves and losses of the 4 March sisters - Jo, Meg, Amy and Beth.. My favorite is the Orono High School's production of the musical version of LITTLE WOMEN (starring my daughter as Jo), but coming in a close second is the 1933 version with Katherine Hepburn starring as Jo (the quintessential Jo, in my book). So was there really a need for ANOTHER version of this?
Well...yes...and...no.
As adapted and directed by Greta Gerwig, this version of LITTLE WOMEN stars Saoirse Ronan as Jo, Emma Watson as Meg, Florence Pugh as Amy and Eliza Scanlen as Beth and has a strong "2019" female empowerment vibe to it (this is intended to be a compliment). I've seen this called a "Little Women for the #metoo era" and I think this is misguided branding - for it does disservice to the #metoo movement - and to this film.
Ronan - as expected - was Oscar nominated for her strong, independent turn as the strong and independent Jo. This is a perfect marriage of performer and material (almost as good as the Hepburn turn) and Ronan lands this character strongly (and correctly) at every turn. Timothee Chalamet matches her beat for beat as her erstwhile love, Laurie. This is the 2nd time that these two have played opposite each other (LADYBIRD was the other time) and there is a strong chemistry between these two - I look forward to many, many more pairings of Ronan and Chalamet in the future.
Famously (or maybe, it's infamously) Greta Gerwig did NOT receive and Oscar nomination for her Direction - and I think that is a shame (there are at least 2 nominated Directors that I would take off the list in favor of her). Because she adapted the screen play (a piece of work that she WAS Oscar nominated for - and will win in an effort to make up for the Directing snub), her Direction is sure-handed and strong throughout. She has a very good feel for the material and knows what she wants to do throughout, to interesting results.
This is because Gerwig chooses to focus much of this version on the relationship between Jo and Amy - a relationship that gets short shrift in most of the other adaptations. By casting Florence Pugh (also Oscar nominated) in the Amy role, Gerwig has a strong antagonist to Ronan's protagonist - with shades of both being grey. Neither character (or performance) is black and white they are both interacting with each other as realistic sisters would, both taking turns being "in the right"....and "the wrong".
Because of the focus on the Jo and Amy characters, the other 2 sisters - Meg and (especially) Beth - get short changed and even though both Watson and Scanlen are "game", they have precious little to do. The same goes with Meryl Streep (Aunt March), Laura Dern (Marmie), Tracy Letts (who seems to be in EVERYTHING right now) and Bob Odenkirk (of all people). They are all strong - and earnest - in their limited time on screen, but NONE of them have that much to do. Only Chris Cooper shines brightly in his small, supporting role.
I have to admit that because I've seen this story many, many times, I found my mind wandering a bit - especially at the beginning. But by the time Ronan/Chalamet/Pugh started working off of each other, the film - and my interest - rose.
So...is another version of LITTLE WOMEN necessary? I'd say no. But...if this version of LITTLE WOMEN is the one that the Little Women of today see - and can identify with - then I say "bring it on."
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Well...yes...and...no.
As adapted and directed by Greta Gerwig, this version of LITTLE WOMEN stars Saoirse Ronan as Jo, Emma Watson as Meg, Florence Pugh as Amy and Eliza Scanlen as Beth and has a strong "2019" female empowerment vibe to it (this is intended to be a compliment). I've seen this called a "Little Women for the #metoo era" and I think this is misguided branding - for it does disservice to the #metoo movement - and to this film.
Ronan - as expected - was Oscar nominated for her strong, independent turn as the strong and independent Jo. This is a perfect marriage of performer and material (almost as good as the Hepburn turn) and Ronan lands this character strongly (and correctly) at every turn. Timothee Chalamet matches her beat for beat as her erstwhile love, Laurie. This is the 2nd time that these two have played opposite each other (LADYBIRD was the other time) and there is a strong chemistry between these two - I look forward to many, many more pairings of Ronan and Chalamet in the future.
Famously (or maybe, it's infamously) Greta Gerwig did NOT receive and Oscar nomination for her Direction - and I think that is a shame (there are at least 2 nominated Directors that I would take off the list in favor of her). Because she adapted the screen play (a piece of work that she WAS Oscar nominated for - and will win in an effort to make up for the Directing snub), her Direction is sure-handed and strong throughout. She has a very good feel for the material and knows what she wants to do throughout, to interesting results.
This is because Gerwig chooses to focus much of this version on the relationship between Jo and Amy - a relationship that gets short shrift in most of the other adaptations. By casting Florence Pugh (also Oscar nominated) in the Amy role, Gerwig has a strong antagonist to Ronan's protagonist - with shades of both being grey. Neither character (or performance) is black and white they are both interacting with each other as realistic sisters would, both taking turns being "in the right"....and "the wrong".
Because of the focus on the Jo and Amy characters, the other 2 sisters - Meg and (especially) Beth - get short changed and even though both Watson and Scanlen are "game", they have precious little to do. The same goes with Meryl Streep (Aunt March), Laura Dern (Marmie), Tracy Letts (who seems to be in EVERYTHING right now) and Bob Odenkirk (of all people). They are all strong - and earnest - in their limited time on screen, but NONE of them have that much to do. Only Chris Cooper shines brightly in his small, supporting role.
I have to admit that because I've seen this story many, many times, I found my mind wandering a bit - especially at the beginning. But by the time Ronan/Chalamet/Pugh started working off of each other, the film - and my interest - rose.
So...is another version of LITTLE WOMEN necessary? I'd say no. But...if this version of LITTLE WOMEN is the one that the Little Women of today see - and can identify with - then I say "bring it on."
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Andy K (10823 KP) Nov 8, 2019
Versusyours (757 KP) Nov 8, 2019 (Updated Nov 8, 2019)