Search
Search results
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Villagers in Tabletop Games
Jan 16, 2020
The saying is, “It takes a village…” but that village didn’t just magically appear overnight. Creating a prosperous and thriving community takes not only time, but hard work, ingenuity, and a little bit of luck! Villagers is a game that takes you through that process, as you strive to create a village of renown.
Disclaimer: I do not intent to rehash the entire rulebook in this review, but rather provide an overview of the gameplay, and how it differs between multiplayer and solo play. -L
Villagers is a game of card drafting and tableau building in which players are competing to build the most prosperous village in the land. The game is played over a series of rounds, each broken up into the Draft Phase and the Build Phase. During the Draft Phase, players take turns drafting villagers from the available card stacks into their hands. During the Build Phase, players can add villagers from their hand to their tableau. Certain cards can be chained together, and provide more powers and/or end-game points – but they must be added to the village in chain order. At two points throughout the game, the First and Second Market Phases, all players will collect money depending on which cards they have in their villages. The game ends immediately after the Second Market Phase is completed, and the player with the most money is the winner!
As a solo game, Villagers plays very similarly to group play, with only a couple of differences. First, the solo player is battling against The Countess, an AI character, to create the best village. The Countess is incorporated into the game in a unique way. During the Draft Phase, whenever you draft a villager to your hand, you also select an available villager to go straight into the village of the Countess. The Build Phase is carried out as normal. At the end of every round, you blindly draw a face-down card from the Reserve (draw deck), and it automatically goes into the Countess’ village as well. The other twist to a solo game of Villagers is that there are Event cards in play each round. Events are resolved after the Build Phase, before beginning the next round, and are often detrimental to the player – like making you pay extra gold to unlock padlocks, for example. The First and Second Market Phases work the same as they do in a multiplayer game, and the game ends immediately after the Second Market Phase. If you have managed to accrue more money than the Countess, then you have won!
I want to start off by saying that I love Villagers. Card drafting and set collection are my JAM, and this is a game that highlights those really well without making it too complicated. Even when playing solo, those mechanics still feel balanced, and that makes the overall game enjoyable. From my previous Solo Chronicles, I have stated how much I dislike “Beat your own high score” solo modes, so I was extremely happy when I saw that Villagers pitted the solo player against an AI character – the Countess. For the most part, I think that the Countess works really well in this game. When you draft a card, the Countess gets a card as well. But the best part about that is that you get to choose which card goes to the Countess. That means that you are able to keep some semblance of strategy in your game, because you have the power to decide what cards go where, for the most part.
The other neat thing about solo play is the inclusion of Event cards in the game – which are not present in group play. The Events add an extra element that you have to take into account for the given round. Depending on the Event, it could compromise your strategy quite a bit, but that’s what keeps it interesting. You can’t just get into a groove and grind through the rounds, drafting everything you want, when you want. You have to adapt your strategy based upon the Event(s) in play, and the Countess’ village.
The only downside for me is that at the end of every round, the Countess gets the top face-down card from the Reserve, and depending on what card that is, it could throw a wrench into the strategy you’ve been working hard to set up. I guess that mimics a multiplayer game in a sense, though, because you can’t always control what your opponents will do. The biggest downside about solo play for me has nothing to do with actual gameplay, but rather table space. Every card that goes into the Countess’ village is a stand-alone, meaning that they do not chain together like cards in your village will. So depending on how long the game goes, the Countess’ village will get to be pretty large, and hog lots of the table. I think that just means I need a bigger table though…
All that being said – is Villagers a good game for solo play? I would say mostly yes. Strategy is still required for success, but adaptability of that strategy is what keeps the game engaging and entertaining. Nothing can quite replace the multiplayer experience, but playing against the AI character keeps the competitiveness alive in the game. As someone who does a lot of solo playing these days, I am glad that I have added Villagers to my collection. If you haven’t gotten a chance to play Villagers yet, I would highly recommend checking it out. Solo or multiplayer, it’s a great time!
Disclaimer: I do not intent to rehash the entire rulebook in this review, but rather provide an overview of the gameplay, and how it differs between multiplayer and solo play. -L
Villagers is a game of card drafting and tableau building in which players are competing to build the most prosperous village in the land. The game is played over a series of rounds, each broken up into the Draft Phase and the Build Phase. During the Draft Phase, players take turns drafting villagers from the available card stacks into their hands. During the Build Phase, players can add villagers from their hand to their tableau. Certain cards can be chained together, and provide more powers and/or end-game points – but they must be added to the village in chain order. At two points throughout the game, the First and Second Market Phases, all players will collect money depending on which cards they have in their villages. The game ends immediately after the Second Market Phase is completed, and the player with the most money is the winner!
As a solo game, Villagers plays very similarly to group play, with only a couple of differences. First, the solo player is battling against The Countess, an AI character, to create the best village. The Countess is incorporated into the game in a unique way. During the Draft Phase, whenever you draft a villager to your hand, you also select an available villager to go straight into the village of the Countess. The Build Phase is carried out as normal. At the end of every round, you blindly draw a face-down card from the Reserve (draw deck), and it automatically goes into the Countess’ village as well. The other twist to a solo game of Villagers is that there are Event cards in play each round. Events are resolved after the Build Phase, before beginning the next round, and are often detrimental to the player – like making you pay extra gold to unlock padlocks, for example. The First and Second Market Phases work the same as they do in a multiplayer game, and the game ends immediately after the Second Market Phase. If you have managed to accrue more money than the Countess, then you have won!
I want to start off by saying that I love Villagers. Card drafting and set collection are my JAM, and this is a game that highlights those really well without making it too complicated. Even when playing solo, those mechanics still feel balanced, and that makes the overall game enjoyable. From my previous Solo Chronicles, I have stated how much I dislike “Beat your own high score” solo modes, so I was extremely happy when I saw that Villagers pitted the solo player against an AI character – the Countess. For the most part, I think that the Countess works really well in this game. When you draft a card, the Countess gets a card as well. But the best part about that is that you get to choose which card goes to the Countess. That means that you are able to keep some semblance of strategy in your game, because you have the power to decide what cards go where, for the most part.
The other neat thing about solo play is the inclusion of Event cards in the game – which are not present in group play. The Events add an extra element that you have to take into account for the given round. Depending on the Event, it could compromise your strategy quite a bit, but that’s what keeps it interesting. You can’t just get into a groove and grind through the rounds, drafting everything you want, when you want. You have to adapt your strategy based upon the Event(s) in play, and the Countess’ village.
The only downside for me is that at the end of every round, the Countess gets the top face-down card from the Reserve, and depending on what card that is, it could throw a wrench into the strategy you’ve been working hard to set up. I guess that mimics a multiplayer game in a sense, though, because you can’t always control what your opponents will do. The biggest downside about solo play for me has nothing to do with actual gameplay, but rather table space. Every card that goes into the Countess’ village is a stand-alone, meaning that they do not chain together like cards in your village will. So depending on how long the game goes, the Countess’ village will get to be pretty large, and hog lots of the table. I think that just means I need a bigger table though…
All that being said – is Villagers a good game for solo play? I would say mostly yes. Strategy is still required for success, but adaptability of that strategy is what keeps the game engaging and entertaining. Nothing can quite replace the multiplayer experience, but playing against the AI character keeps the competitiveness alive in the game. As someone who does a lot of solo playing these days, I am glad that I have added Villagers to my collection. If you haven’t gotten a chance to play Villagers yet, I would highly recommend checking it out. Solo or multiplayer, it’s a great time!
Justin Taylor (59 KP) rated Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017) in Movies
Oct 29, 2018
The action pieces were kinda on point (4 more)
Of course the Rock kills it as usual and brings his a game or at least tries his best
The trio of Kevin Hart, Karen Gillan and Jack Black are the best things about this movie
It does something original with the source material
A good movie to sit down and eat popcorn to
Although this is a sequel to Jumanji yeah in case y'all didn't know it's a sequel and outside of a couple of references including a name-drop of Robin Williams character from the original it has nothing to do with the first (2 more)
Also basic plot getting sucked into a video game which is a plot that we have seen in Many other things (Spy Kids, Tron and fairly odd parents to name a few) and while it does it in a fresh way at the end of the day it's the exact same plot from the first
The villain is pretty much meh but if u like Jumanji I think you probably have no problem with him
Jumanji was passable
Contains spoilers, click to show
Ok this movie ain't perfect but it did do it's purpose and I personally thought it wasn't bad,
Too be honest I wasn't crazy about a Jumanji sequel especially after the late great Robin Williams passed away. But they did some things good and some things not so good so I'll start with the good first
1. It does something fresh with the original so in case you haven't seen it spoiler warning the board game we all know and love turned into a video game which is something I was kinda expecting but I wasn't surprised and it was nice seeing it getting updated for a new generation
2. The characters in the Jumanji world are hilariously entertaining with props particularly to Karen Gillan and Jack Black..they bring it in this movie and they had me laughing my butt off. Not totally saying that the Rock and Kevin Hart weren't funny either but they all are great
3 the action sequences are awesomely executed and exciting as it should be. Nothing more to say.
Now for the bad
1. Elephant in the room, the plot, ok so getting stuck in a video game is something that's been done to death but they do something creative with it but at the end of the day it's the exact same plot of the first movie.
2. The villains pretty much meh, he's your standard I'm gonna take what I want and no one can stop me type villain and yes in case your wondering his last name is van pelt.
3. Speaking of homages to the first movie don't expect too much outside of a couple of references including a name drop of Williams character from the original movie it has nothing to do with the first movie so it's like a standalone sequel and a soft reboot which means the events of the original still exist but they're pretty much making some retcons.
Overall I didn't hate this movie, I laughed at anything but I think if u take ur nostalgia glasses off and watch it with a new point of view youll enjoy it also this movie did something right because its getting a sequel next year
Too be honest I wasn't crazy about a Jumanji sequel especially after the late great Robin Williams passed away. But they did some things good and some things not so good so I'll start with the good first
1. It does something fresh with the original so in case you haven't seen it spoiler warning the board game we all know and love turned into a video game which is something I was kinda expecting but I wasn't surprised and it was nice seeing it getting updated for a new generation
2. The characters in the Jumanji world are hilariously entertaining with props particularly to Karen Gillan and Jack Black..they bring it in this movie and they had me laughing my butt off. Not totally saying that the Rock and Kevin Hart weren't funny either but they all are great
3 the action sequences are awesomely executed and exciting as it should be. Nothing more to say.
Now for the bad
1. Elephant in the room, the plot, ok so getting stuck in a video game is something that's been done to death but they do something creative with it but at the end of the day it's the exact same plot of the first movie.
2. The villains pretty much meh, he's your standard I'm gonna take what I want and no one can stop me type villain and yes in case your wondering his last name is van pelt.
3. Speaking of homages to the first movie don't expect too much outside of a couple of references including a name drop of Williams character from the original movie it has nothing to do with the first movie so it's like a standalone sequel and a soft reboot which means the events of the original still exist but they're pretty much making some retcons.
Overall I didn't hate this movie, I laughed at anything but I think if u take ur nostalgia glasses off and watch it with a new point of view youll enjoy it also this movie did something right because its getting a sequel next year
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Glass (2019) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
It is hard to believe it has been 19 years since “Unbreakable” arrived in cinemas as the film seemed to setup a sequel but it did not look like it would come to fruition. That all changed in 2016 when “Split” arrived and shocked audiences with a late reveal that showed a connection to the film. Writer/Director M. Night Shyamalan has wasted no time in bringing the new film to fans with the arrival of “GLASS”. The film picks up soon after the events of “Split” as The Horde embodied by 23 personalities in the form of Kevin Wendell Crumb (James McAvoy) continues to kidnap young girls to serve to his highly dangerous 24th personality The Beast.
Security expert David Dunn (Bruce Willis) along with the help of his son attempts to locate the Horde as a new group of girls has gone missing. In time David locates The Beast and the two clash; but end up captured by authorities and sent to a facility for evaluation.
Their captive Dr. Ellie Staple (Sarah Paulson) believes their special abilities are in their minds and that they really do not have the special abilities they believe they do. Each of them have a special cell designed to restrain them as David is under threat of being doused with water while Kevin has a series of strobes which will halt him and trigger a new personality.
Added to the mix is Elijah Price (Samuel L. Jackson), who has been at the facility under heavy sedation after the events of “Unbreakable”.
As the therapy unfolds it becomes clear that an elaborate game of cat and mouse is underway between Price and her charges as each seems to have their own agenda. This all builds to a very unusual final act which left me pondering if I enjoyed the final result or was disappointed with it.
The film seems to slowly be building to a big finale but yet it is far more restrained than one would expect. The film has a constant theme of Super Heroes and their traditional stories and roles as well as that of their Super Villains.
One expects a massive Battle Royale complete with elaborate FX but the film takes a more restrained approach and in doing so may disappoint some fans while pleasing others. The film naturally has its twist moments and while I will not spoil it, I can say I predicted it before I even saw the film. When I saw “Split” I actually told my wife my theory and low and behold it was true. I also predicted the twists for many of Shyamalan’s previous films so I had hoped for a bit more in this regard. The film does offer up some interesting options for another sequel or Spin-Off and the cast was very good especially McAvoy who adds to his menagerie of characters by showing audiences a few more of the ones previously undisclosed.
The film is at times very enjoyable and at times a bit frustrating as it seems to deviate from themes and elements that were setup earlier. That being said it does very much appear that this could indeed be just the start of something much bigger in the series.
http://sknr.net/2019/01/16/glass/
Security expert David Dunn (Bruce Willis) along with the help of his son attempts to locate the Horde as a new group of girls has gone missing. In time David locates The Beast and the two clash; but end up captured by authorities and sent to a facility for evaluation.
Their captive Dr. Ellie Staple (Sarah Paulson) believes their special abilities are in their minds and that they really do not have the special abilities they believe they do. Each of them have a special cell designed to restrain them as David is under threat of being doused with water while Kevin has a series of strobes which will halt him and trigger a new personality.
Added to the mix is Elijah Price (Samuel L. Jackson), who has been at the facility under heavy sedation after the events of “Unbreakable”.
As the therapy unfolds it becomes clear that an elaborate game of cat and mouse is underway between Price and her charges as each seems to have their own agenda. This all builds to a very unusual final act which left me pondering if I enjoyed the final result or was disappointed with it.
The film seems to slowly be building to a big finale but yet it is far more restrained than one would expect. The film has a constant theme of Super Heroes and their traditional stories and roles as well as that of their Super Villains.
One expects a massive Battle Royale complete with elaborate FX but the film takes a more restrained approach and in doing so may disappoint some fans while pleasing others. The film naturally has its twist moments and while I will not spoil it, I can say I predicted it before I even saw the film. When I saw “Split” I actually told my wife my theory and low and behold it was true. I also predicted the twists for many of Shyamalan’s previous films so I had hoped for a bit more in this regard. The film does offer up some interesting options for another sequel or Spin-Off and the cast was very good especially McAvoy who adds to his menagerie of characters by showing audiences a few more of the ones previously undisclosed.
The film is at times very enjoyable and at times a bit frustrating as it seems to deviate from themes and elements that were setup earlier. That being said it does very much appear that this could indeed be just the start of something much bigger in the series.
http://sknr.net/2019/01/16/glass/
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Godzilla vs. Kong (2021) in Movies
Apr 1, 2021
The fight is awesome (2 more)
Jia, the little deaf girl was perhaps the best human character in the movie
The visual effects and CGI are superb
The human storyline or B-plot (1 more)
A few things that didn't make sense plot wise and some major/minor plot holes
A Battle of Titans, God Versus King, Who Will Win?
I thought this movie was really good and it was a lot of fun. They fight more than once in the movie and there is a clear winner. I'm definitely glad I went to go check it out in theaters and get that authentic "full movie theater experience" and enjoy it the way that a movie with giant monsters should be seen. The movie started off really interesting right away with us seeing Kong in his natural environment on Skull Island, almost like time stood still for him since we last saw him in Kong: Skull Island. Though he did look older in appearance. Right away you realize things are very different as we see that Kong is being monitored by hidden surveillance cameras in the forest and he seems to have found himself a little friend in the young deaf girl who greets him. That's when we're thrown for a twist as Kong throws a tree that he ripped out of the ground at the sky and it shatters. We discover that Kong is inside a giant dome on Skull Island meant to hide him from Godzilla. We're then shown a montage of different graphics such as news articles and secret Monarch files of information on both Godzilla and Kong. It shows us that Godzilla and Kong have both defeated multiple Titans and are seemingly destined to fight each other as seen in the ancient cave paintings in Godzilla: King of the Monsters. I feel like this movie definitely had it's good parts and bad parts and while it was a ton of fun it also had quite a few flaws. I really liked the action sequences and monster fight scenes. The monsters seemed to move a lot better than in some of the other movies, especially Godzilla when compared to the first Godzilla (2014) movie. The parts where they fought were some of the best parts of the film. I feel like the human part of the movie wasn't so much glossed over but didn't really have anything that was very impactful. Nothing like the death of Ford's mother or Father in Godzilla (2014) or the soldiers in Kong: Skull Island or even scientist Ishiro Serizawa in Godzilla: King of the Monsters. In fact I feel that Millie Bobby Brown's character Madison Russell and her father, Dr. Mark Russell and the whole B-plot fell kind of flat or felt kind of unnecessary to the movie. There were also some major plot holes and things that didn't make sense to me that really brought the score down from it being a great movie but I'll go over that in the spoiler section. For me this movie was still really enjoyable and worth watching in theaters. It really delivered in what you wanted for a giant monster movie so if you're thinking about getting it on HBOMax, I got to say I give this movie my "must see seal of approval" and I give it a 7/10.
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review was too long to post here so it can be found on my website or check out the review on YouTube.
https://cobracharliecr.wixsite.com/charliecobrareviews/post/godzilla-vs-kong-movie-review-7-10
https://youtu.be/3E3b1e8OqU4
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review was too long to post here so it can be found on my website or check out the review on YouTube.
https://cobracharliecr.wixsite.com/charliecobrareviews/post/godzilla-vs-kong-movie-review-7-10
https://youtu.be/3E3b1e8OqU4
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Circle (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Social Media involvement in political manipulation? Don’t be ridiculous!
Set in the near future “The Circle” tells a horror story of the social media age involving an omnipotent American corporate, pitched somewhere between being Facebook-like and Google-like (note, lawyers, I just said “like”!) Emma Watson (“Beauty and the Beast“) plays young intern Mae who, partly through the aid of family friend Annie (Karen Gillan, “Guardians of the Galaxy“, “Doctor Who”) but mostly through her own aptitude, lands a foothold job in customer services for the company. With the lush corporate campus fast becoming home, Mae is quickly singled out as having “executive potential” by the charismatic CEO Bailey (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“) and his more taciturn sidekick Stenton (US comedian Patton Oswalt).
Progressively brainwashed into believing the company’s intrusive snooping (a favourite motto is “Secrets are Lies”) is all for ‘the greater good’, Mae champions the cause until a tragedy rocks her world and her company beliefs to the core.
Whenever I watch a film I tend to form my own opinion first before checking out what the ‘general public’ on IMDB think. In this case, I must confess to being a bit surprised at our divergence of views: a lot of people clearly hated this movie whereas I confess that I found it very entertaining. Certainly with the alleged role of Russia in influencing elections around the world via social media, the film is most certainly topical! Many reviewers seemed quite upset that Watson’s character is such a ‘doormat’, in that her views are so easily manipulated by the corporate machine. But not every woman – as indeed every man – can or should be a Joan of Arc style role model in every film: why should they be?
I actually found her indoctrination into “the Circle way” as quite convincing, especially a creepy scene where two corporate lackies (Cho Smith and Amir Talai) say that they’re not checking up on Mae’s social life, but…. Watson enjoys extending her post-Potter repertoire well, but the talented John Boyega (“Star Wars: The Force Awakens“) is completely wasted in his role as Ty; the Wozniak-like genious behind The Circle’s technology. The script gives him very little to do other than stand around and look grumpy.
A wasted John Boyega with Emma Watson.
The film is sad in being the last movie appearance of the great Bill Paxton (“Apollo 13”) who plays Mae’s sick father and who died of complications following heart surgery two months before the film’s release (the film is dedicated “For Bill”). Tragically, Mae’s mother in the film, actress Glenn Headly (“Dirty Rotten Scoundrels”) also died suddenly at the age of 62, also due to heart problems, a couple of months after the film’s release. It’s surprising the film doesn’t have a “curse of The Circle” tag on it.
The film was directed by James Ponsoldt, who also wrote the screenplay with novel-writer Dave Eggers (“Away We Go”). I particularly liked the on-screen use of captioning (posts) which was reminiscent to me of last year’s “Nerve“, a B-movie film I rated highly that also had a string social media theme.
While the ending of the film is a bit twee – a movie definition of “being hoisted by your own petard” – it’s overall a thought provoking piece sufficiently close to the truth as to where society is going to raise the hairs on your neck.
Progressively brainwashed into believing the company’s intrusive snooping (a favourite motto is “Secrets are Lies”) is all for ‘the greater good’, Mae champions the cause until a tragedy rocks her world and her company beliefs to the core.
Whenever I watch a film I tend to form my own opinion first before checking out what the ‘general public’ on IMDB think. In this case, I must confess to being a bit surprised at our divergence of views: a lot of people clearly hated this movie whereas I confess that I found it very entertaining. Certainly with the alleged role of Russia in influencing elections around the world via social media, the film is most certainly topical! Many reviewers seemed quite upset that Watson’s character is such a ‘doormat’, in that her views are so easily manipulated by the corporate machine. But not every woman – as indeed every man – can or should be a Joan of Arc style role model in every film: why should they be?
I actually found her indoctrination into “the Circle way” as quite convincing, especially a creepy scene where two corporate lackies (Cho Smith and Amir Talai) say that they’re not checking up on Mae’s social life, but…. Watson enjoys extending her post-Potter repertoire well, but the talented John Boyega (“Star Wars: The Force Awakens“) is completely wasted in his role as Ty; the Wozniak-like genious behind The Circle’s technology. The script gives him very little to do other than stand around and look grumpy.
A wasted John Boyega with Emma Watson.
The film is sad in being the last movie appearance of the great Bill Paxton (“Apollo 13”) who plays Mae’s sick father and who died of complications following heart surgery two months before the film’s release (the film is dedicated “For Bill”). Tragically, Mae’s mother in the film, actress Glenn Headly (“Dirty Rotten Scoundrels”) also died suddenly at the age of 62, also due to heart problems, a couple of months after the film’s release. It’s surprising the film doesn’t have a “curse of The Circle” tag on it.
The film was directed by James Ponsoldt, who also wrote the screenplay with novel-writer Dave Eggers (“Away We Go”). I particularly liked the on-screen use of captioning (posts) which was reminiscent to me of last year’s “Nerve“, a B-movie film I rated highly that also had a string social media theme.
While the ending of the film is a bit twee – a movie definition of “being hoisted by your own petard” – it’s overall a thought provoking piece sufficiently close to the truth as to where society is going to raise the hairs on your neck.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Shaft (2019) in Movies
Jun 18, 2019
Bland, boring and uninteresting
Were you the one clamoring for a sequel to the year 2000 Samuel L. Jackson SHAFT (the sequel to the original 1971 Richard Roundtree SHAFT)? Did you remember there WAS a 2000 version of SHAFT? Do you remember the 1971 SHAFT?
Doesn't matter.
The makers of this film certainly don't remember those films for - besides casting Jackson and Roundtree - there is no similarity to either of these films.
The first SHAFT was a Blacksploitation film starring Roundtree with mucho gunfire and bloodshed and SHAFT 2000 (as I'll call it) is a full on action flick with Jackson as Roundtree's nephew fighting crime. SHAFT 2019 is none of these - the Samuel L. Jackson Shaft is now the SON of Richard Roundtree and partners with his son JJ ,John Shaft, Jr. (played by Jessie T. Usher) to investigate the death of his friend.
Okay...fine. I can forgive the change in tone and the "tweak" (I'm being generous) to the timeline. What I can't forgive is the weak script (why write any good, or interesting, dialogue when we can have all of the characters say Samuel L. Jackson's signature motherf*^#er over and over) by 3 different writers (never a good sign) that were all, clearly, just in it for the paycheck.
Jessie T. Usher (he played Will Smith's son in the also ill-advised sequel to INDEPENDENCE DAY) is a bland lead with no gravitas and no swagger that starts out young and naive and is supposed to develop (under the tutelage of his father) street smarts but, really, just becomes annoying.
Regina Hall (GIRLS TRIP), Titus Welliver (BOSCH), Method Man (!) and Luna Lauren Velez (DEXTER) are all sleepwalking through underwritten roles just counting the minutes until they can take their paychecks to the bank.
At the heart of all of this "missed opportunities" is Director Tim Story (RIDE ALONG) he directs this film like he has someplace else to be, never missing an opportunity to be obvious (for example, JJ's friend - Karim - who's death sparks what passes for a plot in this film - might as well be walking around with a "Dead Man Walking" sign on him). Story's direction is lazy (and that's doing injustice to the word lazy) and obvious with no spark of ingenuity or imagination to be found.
And then there's Samuel L. Jackson as SHAFT. He defines the term "sleepwalking through the picture" looking bored and uninterested throughout and HE'S THE BEST THING IN THE FILM! Thank goodness his charisma and charm ooze out of him without really trying - for he didn't really try here.
Save 2 hours of your life - skip SHAFT - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: C
4 Stars (out of 10) and you can take this to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Doesn't matter.
The makers of this film certainly don't remember those films for - besides casting Jackson and Roundtree - there is no similarity to either of these films.
The first SHAFT was a Blacksploitation film starring Roundtree with mucho gunfire and bloodshed and SHAFT 2000 (as I'll call it) is a full on action flick with Jackson as Roundtree's nephew fighting crime. SHAFT 2019 is none of these - the Samuel L. Jackson Shaft is now the SON of Richard Roundtree and partners with his son JJ ,John Shaft, Jr. (played by Jessie T. Usher) to investigate the death of his friend.
Okay...fine. I can forgive the change in tone and the "tweak" (I'm being generous) to the timeline. What I can't forgive is the weak script (why write any good, or interesting, dialogue when we can have all of the characters say Samuel L. Jackson's signature motherf*^#er over and over) by 3 different writers (never a good sign) that were all, clearly, just in it for the paycheck.
Jessie T. Usher (he played Will Smith's son in the also ill-advised sequel to INDEPENDENCE DAY) is a bland lead with no gravitas and no swagger that starts out young and naive and is supposed to develop (under the tutelage of his father) street smarts but, really, just becomes annoying.
Regina Hall (GIRLS TRIP), Titus Welliver (BOSCH), Method Man (!) and Luna Lauren Velez (DEXTER) are all sleepwalking through underwritten roles just counting the minutes until they can take their paychecks to the bank.
At the heart of all of this "missed opportunities" is Director Tim Story (RIDE ALONG) he directs this film like he has someplace else to be, never missing an opportunity to be obvious (for example, JJ's friend - Karim - who's death sparks what passes for a plot in this film - might as well be walking around with a "Dead Man Walking" sign on him). Story's direction is lazy (and that's doing injustice to the word lazy) and obvious with no spark of ingenuity or imagination to be found.
And then there's Samuel L. Jackson as SHAFT. He defines the term "sleepwalking through the picture" looking bored and uninterested throughout and HE'S THE BEST THING IN THE FILM! Thank goodness his charisma and charm ooze out of him without really trying - for he didn't really try here.
Save 2 hours of your life - skip SHAFT - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: C
4 Stars (out of 10) and you can take this to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Our Kind of Cruelty: A Novel in Books
May 15, 2018
Eerily mesmerizing & creepy thriller
Mike Hayes had a terrible childhood, where he was neglected by his drunken mother and beaten by her string of hapless boyfriends. At ten, he was taken into care, eventually winding up with a nice couple. With their help, Mike went on to a good university, where he met Verity (V), with whom he fell madly in love. V helped Mike learn the ways of the world and society. They also played a sexual game called the Crave that brought them even closer together. However, after Mike went to New York for two years for work, their relationship ended. Even worse, Verity is now getting married to another man, Angus. At first, Mike is devastated. But soon, he realizes that V's wedding invitation is just another piece of Crave. As such, he must watch her, track her, and prepare his home for her inevitable return--all parts of the tense and careful game that is Crave.
Well, this was an interesting one. It was a pretty quick read, yet sometimes felt a bit long. It was definitely creepy, for sure. Hall has created a slow-burning thriller here, and you become eerily mesmerized by Mike's crazy. In fact, at times, I almost found myself rooting for him, despite the fact you knew he was unreliable, delusional, and not at all good for anyone in the novel. The book is less "edge-on-your-seat" thriller and more a character-driven study. Be prepared for Mike, Mike, and more Mike. The novel is told from his perspective and we're reliant entirely on his mindset. Because we know we can't trust said mindset, we're constantly waiting for something bad to happen. It's like watching a train wreck. A very twisted one.
That being said, the novel can be fascinating at times, but it also hard to know where it's going. As you're constantly waiting for something terrible to occur, you're waiting. And waiting. The novel moves slowly, with its intense focus on Mike, and his thoughts on Verity. I would have liked more insight to V, for instance, or the other people in Mike's life. So at that point, things can get feel drawn out. Not to mention, is Mike really this delusional, you wonder? Can he really believe what he's spouting? Needless to say the book is very effective at making you feel uncomfortable. It captures anger, longing, tension, and more (stalking?!) very well.
Overall, this novel drew me in with its creepy tone and compelling character of Mike. It's definitely slow-moving at times, but oddly fascinating as well.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.
Well, this was an interesting one. It was a pretty quick read, yet sometimes felt a bit long. It was definitely creepy, for sure. Hall has created a slow-burning thriller here, and you become eerily mesmerized by Mike's crazy. In fact, at times, I almost found myself rooting for him, despite the fact you knew he was unreliable, delusional, and not at all good for anyone in the novel. The book is less "edge-on-your-seat" thriller and more a character-driven study. Be prepared for Mike, Mike, and more Mike. The novel is told from his perspective and we're reliant entirely on his mindset. Because we know we can't trust said mindset, we're constantly waiting for something bad to happen. It's like watching a train wreck. A very twisted one.
That being said, the novel can be fascinating at times, but it also hard to know where it's going. As you're constantly waiting for something terrible to occur, you're waiting. And waiting. The novel moves slowly, with its intense focus on Mike, and his thoughts on Verity. I would have liked more insight to V, for instance, or the other people in Mike's life. So at that point, things can get feel drawn out. Not to mention, is Mike really this delusional, you wonder? Can he really believe what he's spouting? Needless to say the book is very effective at making you feel uncomfortable. It captures anger, longing, tension, and more (stalking?!) very well.
Overall, this novel drew me in with its creepy tone and compelling character of Mike. It's definitely slow-moving at times, but oddly fascinating as well.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Jurassic World Evolution in Video Games
Jul 8, 2018
Highly addictive, but with a few slightly irritating features
Having a decent Jurassic Park builder is something I've been waiting for for a long time, and I'd say it does very well to live up to expectations.
The graphics in this game are very good, right up to zooming in as close as possible to the dinosaurs. They're not 100% perfect, but they're much better than you'd expect for a game like this. The gameplay itself is fairly straightforward and well paced. Unlike the freemium park builder apps, this game doesn't make you wait too long for actions to be completed, and there's lots of things to do in the meantime - so you're always kept busy and not sat twiddling your thumbs for ages. This could also be considered a drawback as it means you can play the game for hours without realising...
The variety of dinosaurs is good too, and they do keep you fairly busy. Each have their own character traits, and it's fun to work out what the best environment is for them and if they like living with other dinos. Hint - raptors are best kept on their own!
There's lots of missions too to keep you occupied, and it's great when you get to the point of unlocking multiple islands as it means you can try out different strategies for your parks on each island. Each of the 6 islands is different too, with varied weather or time of day. Isla Nublar also has the sandbox mode, which basically gives you whatever you want to build the ultimate park.
Sadly though there are some slightly irritating niggles. Firstly, there is no passage of time on the islands. Each might have their own default setting (e.g. night time) but they never cycle through a 24 hour day. Linked in to this, time never seems to pass when you navigate off an island to another one. If I set some actions going on Isla Matanceros and switch to Muerta, when I go back to Matanceros the actions haven't moved on. Whilst I appreciate that time can't progress while you're not playing the game at all, surely it can when you're just playing a different island? The final niggle is the missions and contracts. A lot of these are very basic and repetitive or similar, and it would be good to get a better variety or some that are more difficult.
All in all though, it's a very addictive and entertaining game and definitely worth playing if you like park builders. I'd love to see more like this be released on the ps4. There are a few issues, but nothing a few updates couldn't solve!
The graphics in this game are very good, right up to zooming in as close as possible to the dinosaurs. They're not 100% perfect, but they're much better than you'd expect for a game like this. The gameplay itself is fairly straightforward and well paced. Unlike the freemium park builder apps, this game doesn't make you wait too long for actions to be completed, and there's lots of things to do in the meantime - so you're always kept busy and not sat twiddling your thumbs for ages. This could also be considered a drawback as it means you can play the game for hours without realising...
The variety of dinosaurs is good too, and they do keep you fairly busy. Each have their own character traits, and it's fun to work out what the best environment is for them and if they like living with other dinos. Hint - raptors are best kept on their own!
There's lots of missions too to keep you occupied, and it's great when you get to the point of unlocking multiple islands as it means you can try out different strategies for your parks on each island. Each of the 6 islands is different too, with varied weather or time of day. Isla Nublar also has the sandbox mode, which basically gives you whatever you want to build the ultimate park.
Sadly though there are some slightly irritating niggles. Firstly, there is no passage of time on the islands. Each might have their own default setting (e.g. night time) but they never cycle through a 24 hour day. Linked in to this, time never seems to pass when you navigate off an island to another one. If I set some actions going on Isla Matanceros and switch to Muerta, when I go back to Matanceros the actions haven't moved on. Whilst I appreciate that time can't progress while you're not playing the game at all, surely it can when you're just playing a different island? The final niggle is the missions and contracts. A lot of these are very basic and repetitive or similar, and it would be good to get a better variety or some that are more difficult.
All in all though, it's a very addictive and entertaining game and definitely worth playing if you like park builders. I'd love to see more like this be released on the ps4. There are a few issues, but nothing a few updates couldn't solve!
