Search
Lee (2222 KP) rated Pet Sematary (2019) in Movies
Apr 2, 2019 (Updated Apr 5, 2019)
Not only have I not read the Stephen King book that Pet Sematary is based on, I haven't even seen the original 1989 movie either. As much as I feel ashamed for completely missing out on both of those, it also meant that I was able to head into this movie with nothing to compare it to and no idea of what to expect, other than a bit of creepy-burial-ground-raising-the-dead type stuff that the first trailer covered. One quick note on the trailers before I begin though - the most recent one, which luckily I only saw after I had seen the movie, pretty much gives away the entire plot. Granted, if you're a fan of Stephen Kings work, or even the original movie, then you're going to know what to expect anyway. But, if you're like me - someone who enjoys a good horror movie, but doesn't read books and has gaping holes in his movie viewing history, then try and give the trailers a miss on this occasion before heading into the cinema.
Louis Creed (Jason Clarke) is a Boston doctor who moves his family to the (hopefully) less chaotic setting of rural Maine - wife Rachel (Amy Seimetz), 8 year old daughter Ellie (Jeté Laurence), toddler Gage and friendly family cat Church. However, the family soon discover that their house is located right alongside a road which is prone to noisy trucks suddenly speeding past - our first jump scare and something already given away by the trailers! Those trucks also have a tendency to end the lives of any local pets who might happen to wander out in front of them, so it's pretty handy that there happens to be a Native American graveyard out in the woods at the back of the Creed's new house.
The local children make good use of the area, carrying out a funeral procession while wearing masks before burying deceased pets there, and they have also erected a sign - "Pet Sematary", which is nailed to one of the trees outside of it. Unfortunately, it's not too long before Church falls victim to a passing truck, at which point friendly neighbour Jud (John Lithgow) tells Louis of a special burial ritual which can be carried out on an area of ground located even further into the forest. It's a ritual that can bring the dead back to life so, in order to avoid upsetting daughter Ellie, Louis keeps the death a secret until he and Jud can head out late that night to perform the ritual with Church. Sure enough, Church is back with the family the next morning - alive, but looking very disheveled and in a seriously grumpy mood. He's not quite the cute little bundle of joy he once was - as Jud puts it, "Sometimes dead is better".
After banging on earlier about spoilers for movies, I feel it would be wrong of me to go and do the same thing here. If you're familiar with the story, then you'll know what happens anyway, although there is a moderate change of detail in this particular version which has already had a few die hard Stephen King fans up in arms. I'll just say that the special properties of the burial ground get used on a few more occasions during the course of the movie, with increasingly devastating consequences, and I personally felt that the change to the source material totally worked within the confines of this version of the story.
Ok, so what did I think of the movie overall? Well, I found Pet Sematary to be pretty intense, even more so than 'Us' recently. There were a couple of guys to the side of me in the cinema who were sitting forward on the edge of their seat for the majority of the movie just hyperventilating - I thought they were going to have a heart attack at one point! Yes, there are some jump scares, but this was more the kind of nightmare horror that I loved while watching 'Us' and it had me gripped to my seat for a good 80% or so of its run-time. Everyone involved in the movie is on top form - the children are outstanding, as is Jason Clarke, John Lithgow, even the cat! The dread-filled atmosphere, the tragedy and the horror of it all, it really resonated with me and I came away from this exhausted but happy!
Louis Creed (Jason Clarke) is a Boston doctor who moves his family to the (hopefully) less chaotic setting of rural Maine - wife Rachel (Amy Seimetz), 8 year old daughter Ellie (Jeté Laurence), toddler Gage and friendly family cat Church. However, the family soon discover that their house is located right alongside a road which is prone to noisy trucks suddenly speeding past - our first jump scare and something already given away by the trailers! Those trucks also have a tendency to end the lives of any local pets who might happen to wander out in front of them, so it's pretty handy that there happens to be a Native American graveyard out in the woods at the back of the Creed's new house.
The local children make good use of the area, carrying out a funeral procession while wearing masks before burying deceased pets there, and they have also erected a sign - "Pet Sematary", which is nailed to one of the trees outside of it. Unfortunately, it's not too long before Church falls victim to a passing truck, at which point friendly neighbour Jud (John Lithgow) tells Louis of a special burial ritual which can be carried out on an area of ground located even further into the forest. It's a ritual that can bring the dead back to life so, in order to avoid upsetting daughter Ellie, Louis keeps the death a secret until he and Jud can head out late that night to perform the ritual with Church. Sure enough, Church is back with the family the next morning - alive, but looking very disheveled and in a seriously grumpy mood. He's not quite the cute little bundle of joy he once was - as Jud puts it, "Sometimes dead is better".
After banging on earlier about spoilers for movies, I feel it would be wrong of me to go and do the same thing here. If you're familiar with the story, then you'll know what happens anyway, although there is a moderate change of detail in this particular version which has already had a few die hard Stephen King fans up in arms. I'll just say that the special properties of the burial ground get used on a few more occasions during the course of the movie, with increasingly devastating consequences, and I personally felt that the change to the source material totally worked within the confines of this version of the story.
Ok, so what did I think of the movie overall? Well, I found Pet Sematary to be pretty intense, even more so than 'Us' recently. There were a couple of guys to the side of me in the cinema who were sitting forward on the edge of their seat for the majority of the movie just hyperventilating - I thought they were going to have a heart attack at one point! Yes, there are some jump scares, but this was more the kind of nightmare horror that I loved while watching 'Us' and it had me gripped to my seat for a good 80% or so of its run-time. Everyone involved in the movie is on top form - the children are outstanding, as is Jason Clarke, John Lithgow, even the cat! The dread-filled atmosphere, the tragedy and the horror of it all, it really resonated with me and I came away from this exhausted but happy!
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Colt Express in Tabletop Games
Feb 6, 2020
Aaaaaall aboard! Next stop, the Old West! Climb onto the Union Pacific Express and prepare for the journey of a lifetime. Your plan? To rob this train, of course! Unbeknownst to you, however, several other bandits have picked this exact train as their score as well! Which bandit can outwit the others and come away with the most loot? Or will the Marshall track you all down and hand you over to the Law?
Disclaimer: There are many expansions for Colt Express. I do not have any of them, nor do I have any gameplay experience with any of them. If and when I do get them added into my base game, I will either amend this review or write a new one! – L
Colt Express is a game of action programming in which players are trying to accumulate the most treasure over 5 rounds of play. Each round consists of 2 phases – Schemin’ and Stealin’. During the Schemin’ phase, players select action cards from their hand and play them to the center of the table in turn order. Possible actions are: Move between cars, Change floors, Shoot, Rob, or Move the Marshall. Depending on the round requirements, cards will be played either face-up or face-down. Face-up cards allow your opponents to see what you are programming and gives everyone a chance to counteract those actions, while the face-down cards leave some mystery to your strategy and your ultimate plan for victory. During the Stealin’ phase, the action cards are actually performed in the same order in which they were played. A new round card is then revealed, and players start the next Schemin’ phase. After 5 rounds, the player who has accumulated the most loot is the winner!
I have to start by saying that I generally do not like action programming games. I like to have a clear step-by-step strategy that I am able to adjust and adapt based on the current play situations. In action programming games, that really isn’t possible because you have to commit to your chosen actions before they are played out. That makes these games more chaotic than I would like because your carefully thought-out plans can be easily compromised by one single action of an opponent, throwing your strategy out the window. That being said, I think Colt Express approaches action programming in a unique way that takes the game to the next level. How? By varying whether your programmed actions are public or private knowledge. Depending on the round, you play cards face-up or face-down to the center of the table. As stated earlier, face-up cards give your opponents a peek at your strategy while your face-down cards keep some mystery in your plans. I really like this approach because it makes the game less luck-driven and gives players the opportunity to play with some semblance of strategy. Instead of focusing on just your actions and hoping that they aren’t inadvertently compromised, you get the chance to see some of what your opponents are planning and adjust your gameplay based on that. Yes, there will always be some twists and surprises that you didn’t see coming, but you’ve got to think beyond your strategy and keep yourself safe from other players. The added element of partial hidden-information makes Colt Express a more exciting game for me.
Let’s talk components next. I think the game components of Colt Express make the game so neat and cute at the same time. Colt Express is played on an actual 3D cardboard train! Each player has a meeple in their color, and you get to physically move your merson around the train according to your programmed actions. I think it works great by adding that spacial element to help players visualize their movement. The components themselves are pretty good quality, in my opinion. The train and the loot tokens are made of nice sturdy cardboard, and I know they will hold up to lots of plays. And don’t sweat it – the train can be stored fully-assembled in the box! That minimizes the time required for setup, and lets you get right to playing.
All in all, I think Colt Express is a fun game that requires strategy, but is not a brain-burner. There’s still enough luck involved to keep everyone on their toes, and the ensuing quasi-chaos really make the game feel like a train heist. If you haven’t tried Colt Express, I would recommend you do. It’s not on my list of favorite games, but it’s one that I like to bring out every so often! Purple Phoenix Games gives Colt Express a high-speed 15 / 24.
Disclaimer: There are many expansions for Colt Express. I do not have any of them, nor do I have any gameplay experience with any of them. If and when I do get them added into my base game, I will either amend this review or write a new one! – L
Colt Express is a game of action programming in which players are trying to accumulate the most treasure over 5 rounds of play. Each round consists of 2 phases – Schemin’ and Stealin’. During the Schemin’ phase, players select action cards from their hand and play them to the center of the table in turn order. Possible actions are: Move between cars, Change floors, Shoot, Rob, or Move the Marshall. Depending on the round requirements, cards will be played either face-up or face-down. Face-up cards allow your opponents to see what you are programming and gives everyone a chance to counteract those actions, while the face-down cards leave some mystery to your strategy and your ultimate plan for victory. During the Stealin’ phase, the action cards are actually performed in the same order in which they were played. A new round card is then revealed, and players start the next Schemin’ phase. After 5 rounds, the player who has accumulated the most loot is the winner!
I have to start by saying that I generally do not like action programming games. I like to have a clear step-by-step strategy that I am able to adjust and adapt based on the current play situations. In action programming games, that really isn’t possible because you have to commit to your chosen actions before they are played out. That makes these games more chaotic than I would like because your carefully thought-out plans can be easily compromised by one single action of an opponent, throwing your strategy out the window. That being said, I think Colt Express approaches action programming in a unique way that takes the game to the next level. How? By varying whether your programmed actions are public or private knowledge. Depending on the round, you play cards face-up or face-down to the center of the table. As stated earlier, face-up cards give your opponents a peek at your strategy while your face-down cards keep some mystery in your plans. I really like this approach because it makes the game less luck-driven and gives players the opportunity to play with some semblance of strategy. Instead of focusing on just your actions and hoping that they aren’t inadvertently compromised, you get the chance to see some of what your opponents are planning and adjust your gameplay based on that. Yes, there will always be some twists and surprises that you didn’t see coming, but you’ve got to think beyond your strategy and keep yourself safe from other players. The added element of partial hidden-information makes Colt Express a more exciting game for me.
Let’s talk components next. I think the game components of Colt Express make the game so neat and cute at the same time. Colt Express is played on an actual 3D cardboard train! Each player has a meeple in their color, and you get to physically move your merson around the train according to your programmed actions. I think it works great by adding that spacial element to help players visualize their movement. The components themselves are pretty good quality, in my opinion. The train and the loot tokens are made of nice sturdy cardboard, and I know they will hold up to lots of plays. And don’t sweat it – the train can be stored fully-assembled in the box! That minimizes the time required for setup, and lets you get right to playing.
All in all, I think Colt Express is a fun game that requires strategy, but is not a brain-burner. There’s still enough luck involved to keep everyone on their toes, and the ensuing quasi-chaos really make the game feel like a train heist. If you haven’t tried Colt Express, I would recommend you do. It’s not on my list of favorite games, but it’s one that I like to bring out every so often! Purple Phoenix Games gives Colt Express a high-speed 15 / 24.
Take Me Apart by Kelela
5.8
Rate It
Album Watch
With great anticipation, Kelela's debut album emerges as an epic portrait of an artist spanning the...
dance electronic R&B pop
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Deception: Murder in Hong Kong in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
One of the funnest (yeah I know, it’s not a word) parts of board gaming is getting to introduce new people to the hobby! Whether it’s a family gathering or a party with friends, I love breaking out a fun game for any occasion! Some board gamers have an aversion to the ‘party’ games category, but I think you just need to find the right game for the group to have the best experience! One of those games, for me, is Deception: Murder in Hong Kong!
MURDER! As an Investigator, that’s just another day on the job for you. This time feels different, though. Something about this case is off… After the initial evidence is gathered, the team’s Forensic Scientist has disclosed to the team that the killer is one of the Investigators! Everyone is on edge, accusing every other Investigator of being the murderer. Everyone had potential means and motive, and it is up to you to figure it out! As the Forensic Scientist uncovers more evidence, the details of the crime will come to light, and the killer will be revealed. Put your investigative and deductive skills to the test as you try to unmask the killer, or throw the team off your scent if you are the culprit!
DISCLAIMER!! This review is for vanilla Deception: Murder in Hong Kong. We have plans to add in the expansion once one of us purchases it and learns it and teaches it to the rest of us. Should that happen and our review change, we will add that information to this review or to a new review and link to it from here. -T
Deception: Murder in Hong Kong is a game of bluffing, deduction, and hidden identity. All players (except for the Forensic Scientist) have a secret role in the game – Investigator, Witness, Murderer, or Accomplice. The Forensic Scientist knows who the killer is, and how they did it. It is their job to guide the Investigators to the killer by providing clues about the uncovered evidence. The Investigators are trying to interpret the clues and uncover the killer’s identity. The Witness knows who the killer is, but has not yet figured out how they did it. The Murderer and Accomplice are looking to pin the murder on one of the other innocent members of the team! As clues are revealed, each player gets a chance to make a case against the player whom they think is the murderer. You must convince everyone of your logic, or else the killer could get away! In a game where everyone is a suspect, who can you trust? Gather clues, present your case, and put your poker face to the test in this ultimate game of deception! (See what I did there?)
I thoroughly enjoy games of deduction. Anything where you have to think and solve puzzles/riddles/etc. is fun for me. In Deception, it’s a race to see who can find the solution first. Not only do you have to deduce the correct answer from the provided clues, but you also have to put your persuasive skills to the test! Unless you can convince everyone that a specific player is the killer, they might turn their accusations towards someone else, or even worse, towards YOU! You really have to think outside of the box to interpret the Forensic Scientist’s clues, and I like to challenge myself to find the solution in as few turns as possible. The faster I can solve the murder, the smarter I feel. Don’t lie, it makes you feel smart too when you figure it out before anyone else!
The only part of Deception that I don’t really enjoy is the bluffing aspect, which is one of the most integral parts of the game, I know. I am just a horrible liar with a questionable poker face. If we play and I am the Murderer, I am almost always found out. Whenever anyone accuses me, my mind blanks and I cannot think of a single convincing way to get everyone off my scent! That is a personal problem, though, because when I get to be just a regular ol’ Investigator, I have a blast! I can still be accused, but I always feel like I have an easier time getting people off my case if I am actually innocent. I know some people really enjoy being the Murderer because they like the challenge of deceiving the entire team. I am not one of those people though. If I was guaranteed to be just a plain Investigator (or the Forensic Scientist) every time, I would probably pull this game out more!
Deception: Murder in Hong Kong is a ‘party’ game, but with the right group, it can still be a challenging game. A higher player count, in this case, does not necessarily equate to a chaotic game either. So give Deception a try. It’ll be worth it! Purple Phoenix Games gives it a 17 / 24.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2018/12/26/deception-murder-in-hong-kong-review/
MURDER! As an Investigator, that’s just another day on the job for you. This time feels different, though. Something about this case is off… After the initial evidence is gathered, the team’s Forensic Scientist has disclosed to the team that the killer is one of the Investigators! Everyone is on edge, accusing every other Investigator of being the murderer. Everyone had potential means and motive, and it is up to you to figure it out! As the Forensic Scientist uncovers more evidence, the details of the crime will come to light, and the killer will be revealed. Put your investigative and deductive skills to the test as you try to unmask the killer, or throw the team off your scent if you are the culprit!
DISCLAIMER!! This review is for vanilla Deception: Murder in Hong Kong. We have plans to add in the expansion once one of us purchases it and learns it and teaches it to the rest of us. Should that happen and our review change, we will add that information to this review or to a new review and link to it from here. -T
Deception: Murder in Hong Kong is a game of bluffing, deduction, and hidden identity. All players (except for the Forensic Scientist) have a secret role in the game – Investigator, Witness, Murderer, or Accomplice. The Forensic Scientist knows who the killer is, and how they did it. It is their job to guide the Investigators to the killer by providing clues about the uncovered evidence. The Investigators are trying to interpret the clues and uncover the killer’s identity. The Witness knows who the killer is, but has not yet figured out how they did it. The Murderer and Accomplice are looking to pin the murder on one of the other innocent members of the team! As clues are revealed, each player gets a chance to make a case against the player whom they think is the murderer. You must convince everyone of your logic, or else the killer could get away! In a game where everyone is a suspect, who can you trust? Gather clues, present your case, and put your poker face to the test in this ultimate game of deception! (See what I did there?)
I thoroughly enjoy games of deduction. Anything where you have to think and solve puzzles/riddles/etc. is fun for me. In Deception, it’s a race to see who can find the solution first. Not only do you have to deduce the correct answer from the provided clues, but you also have to put your persuasive skills to the test! Unless you can convince everyone that a specific player is the killer, they might turn their accusations towards someone else, or even worse, towards YOU! You really have to think outside of the box to interpret the Forensic Scientist’s clues, and I like to challenge myself to find the solution in as few turns as possible. The faster I can solve the murder, the smarter I feel. Don’t lie, it makes you feel smart too when you figure it out before anyone else!
The only part of Deception that I don’t really enjoy is the bluffing aspect, which is one of the most integral parts of the game, I know. I am just a horrible liar with a questionable poker face. If we play and I am the Murderer, I am almost always found out. Whenever anyone accuses me, my mind blanks and I cannot think of a single convincing way to get everyone off my scent! That is a personal problem, though, because when I get to be just a regular ol’ Investigator, I have a blast! I can still be accused, but I always feel like I have an easier time getting people off my case if I am actually innocent. I know some people really enjoy being the Murderer because they like the challenge of deceiving the entire team. I am not one of those people though. If I was guaranteed to be just a plain Investigator (or the Forensic Scientist) every time, I would probably pull this game out more!
Deception: Murder in Hong Kong is a ‘party’ game, but with the right group, it can still be a challenging game. A higher player count, in this case, does not necessarily equate to a chaotic game either. So give Deception a try. It’ll be worth it! Purple Phoenix Games gives it a 17 / 24.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2018/12/26/deception-murder-in-hong-kong-review/
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Doomsday (2008) in Movies
Jun 18, 2019
The Reaper Virus has made its way across Great Britain. The uninfected are evacuated while a wall is built in an effort to quarantine the virus and it’s worked up until now. 30 years later, the virus has broken out again. Survivors are discovered on the other side of the wall, which brings hope for a cure. A team of special forces including Eden Sinclair (Rhona Mitra) are sent to the other side of the wall to try to find this cure. The survivors aren’t like normal people though as they’ve become cannibalistic savages and will kill or eat anyone who stands in their way. Even if a cure is found, it’s unlikely Sinclair and her team will be able to make it back in one piece.
Doomsday is probably not the best movie. It has a 6.0/10 on IMDb based off of 66,848 user ratings and a 51 on both Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes. It’s a jumbled mess of a film, but it’s one where the first time viewing a decade ago triggered some sort of happiness in the cynical brain and barely beating heart attached to the decrepit fingers that type these halfhearted reviews (writing is more important than asthmatic breathing, so just pretend you understood the sarcasm here). There’s still a fondness for Doomsday despite its reputation and a soft spot for Neil Marshall who will hopefully blow us away with his Hellboy film in 2019. So sit back, relax, and enjoy a positive review for what is likely a nonsensical excuse of a film that is fairly enjoyable anyway.
It’s odd that the massive amount of inconsistencies in Dance of the Dead made the film practically unbearable and yet that’s half the charm of Doomsday. Written and directed by Neil Marshall (The Descent, Dog Soldiers), Doomsday is a sci-fi film that has heavy elements of films you likely already love. Judging by the screenshots alone, the film already has a Mad Max and even a Beyond Thunderdome aspect to its post-apocalyptic setting. Doomsday also seems to borrow elements from films such as Aliens, Gladiator, 28 Days Later, and The Warriors.
Sol, played by Craig Conway who was also the main crawler in The Descent, is an extremely violent and hardcore character. Sol is always seething with anger and with that kind of passion and energy he tends to steal nearly every scene he’s in. He pales in comparison to Rhona Mitra’s Sinclair character though. She doesn’t seem to care about anything and always manages to find a way to get out of whatever situation she finds herself in. Back in 2008, Sinclair came off as one of the fiercest and most dominant female on-screen characters that a 24-year-old rookie film critic had ever come across.
Watching the way the savages live and what they do to survive is disgustingly mesmerizing. Malcolm McDowell puts in a convincing performance as Kane. You hear him more than you see him over the course of the film, but his words are felt rather than just heard. Bob Hoskins is rather tame as Sinclair’s boss Bill Nelson. Neil Marhsall had the intention of having Hoskins mimic his bulldog role from The Long Good Friday, but he mostly sits on the sidelines while Sinclair does all of the dirty work.
Doomsday has an impressive amount of gore and the scenes where all hell breaks loose are the most fun. Witnessing the battle sequences, the deaths, and especially the car chase at the end makes Doomsday a worthwhile experience. One could make the argument that Doomsday is a chaotic mess that can’t pick a genre and stick with it for longer than a few minutes at a time, but it’s also difficult to take that to heart when a film is this much fun. It may have an A.D.D. method of filmmaking, but at least you’re never bored and the film manages to hold your interest and entertain you from beginning to end.
Doomsday won’t be for everyone, but it’s a wild, bloody ride at its core and it’s incredibly easy to enjoy the film as a one hour and 45 minute thrill ride in the vein of Mad Max: Fury Road. Horror, science fiction, and action collide along with a massive amalgamation of outbreak, post-apocalyptic, and medieval storylines in the utterly blood-soaked pandemonium known as Neill Marshall’s Doomsday.
Doomsday is currently available to stream on Amazon Prime, YouTube, Vudu, and Google Play for $2.99 and iTunes for $3.99. It’s also currently free on Amazon Prime with Starz and Prime Video Channels. The Multi-Format Blu-ray is $9.81 on Amazon while a two-disc Blu-ray packaged with Arnold Schwarzenegger’s End of Days will set you back $34.98. The DVD is available in brand new condition with free shipping for $6.02 on eBay while a pre-owned Blu-ray is $4.99 with free shipping.
Doomsday is probably not the best movie. It has a 6.0/10 on IMDb based off of 66,848 user ratings and a 51 on both Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes. It’s a jumbled mess of a film, but it’s one where the first time viewing a decade ago triggered some sort of happiness in the cynical brain and barely beating heart attached to the decrepit fingers that type these halfhearted reviews (writing is more important than asthmatic breathing, so just pretend you understood the sarcasm here). There’s still a fondness for Doomsday despite its reputation and a soft spot for Neil Marshall who will hopefully blow us away with his Hellboy film in 2019. So sit back, relax, and enjoy a positive review for what is likely a nonsensical excuse of a film that is fairly enjoyable anyway.
It’s odd that the massive amount of inconsistencies in Dance of the Dead made the film practically unbearable and yet that’s half the charm of Doomsday. Written and directed by Neil Marshall (The Descent, Dog Soldiers), Doomsday is a sci-fi film that has heavy elements of films you likely already love. Judging by the screenshots alone, the film already has a Mad Max and even a Beyond Thunderdome aspect to its post-apocalyptic setting. Doomsday also seems to borrow elements from films such as Aliens, Gladiator, 28 Days Later, and The Warriors.
Sol, played by Craig Conway who was also the main crawler in The Descent, is an extremely violent and hardcore character. Sol is always seething with anger and with that kind of passion and energy he tends to steal nearly every scene he’s in. He pales in comparison to Rhona Mitra’s Sinclair character though. She doesn’t seem to care about anything and always manages to find a way to get out of whatever situation she finds herself in. Back in 2008, Sinclair came off as one of the fiercest and most dominant female on-screen characters that a 24-year-old rookie film critic had ever come across.
Watching the way the savages live and what they do to survive is disgustingly mesmerizing. Malcolm McDowell puts in a convincing performance as Kane. You hear him more than you see him over the course of the film, but his words are felt rather than just heard. Bob Hoskins is rather tame as Sinclair’s boss Bill Nelson. Neil Marhsall had the intention of having Hoskins mimic his bulldog role from The Long Good Friday, but he mostly sits on the sidelines while Sinclair does all of the dirty work.
Doomsday has an impressive amount of gore and the scenes where all hell breaks loose are the most fun. Witnessing the battle sequences, the deaths, and especially the car chase at the end makes Doomsday a worthwhile experience. One could make the argument that Doomsday is a chaotic mess that can’t pick a genre and stick with it for longer than a few minutes at a time, but it’s also difficult to take that to heart when a film is this much fun. It may have an A.D.D. method of filmmaking, but at least you’re never bored and the film manages to hold your interest and entertain you from beginning to end.
Doomsday won’t be for everyone, but it’s a wild, bloody ride at its core and it’s incredibly easy to enjoy the film as a one hour and 45 minute thrill ride in the vein of Mad Max: Fury Road. Horror, science fiction, and action collide along with a massive amalgamation of outbreak, post-apocalyptic, and medieval storylines in the utterly blood-soaked pandemonium known as Neill Marshall’s Doomsday.
Doomsday is currently available to stream on Amazon Prime, YouTube, Vudu, and Google Play for $2.99 and iTunes for $3.99. It’s also currently free on Amazon Prime with Starz and Prime Video Channels. The Multi-Format Blu-ray is $9.81 on Amazon while a two-disc Blu-ray packaged with Arnold Schwarzenegger’s End of Days will set you back $34.98. The DVD is available in brand new condition with free shipping for $6.02 on eBay while a pre-owned Blu-ray is $4.99 with free shipping.
KittyMiku (138 KP) rated The Vampire went to Georgia in Books
May 23, 2019
I really have to say that as much as I loved this book and this series, that I found the final battle a little anticlimactic. I was really hoping for more, and even though I did hope for more, I wasn't entirely disappointed. In this 216 page book, I think I cried for a third of it. I have to say that even with a few things I would have loved to see differently, that the overall book was amazing.
First, to see everything that we only got glimpses at before to unfold, was amazing. To learn how some of the characters who seemed to just be filler to hold such an important role in saving the world was truly inspiring. I think my favorite part was learning how Death himself had changed because of Pandora and her lover, as well as how Scarlett and Tenebris were stronger in this world together than Tenebris had been in other worlds by herself. I have to say that the love that Death had for his daughters Scarlett and Tenebris. had been touching and surprisingly difficult to understand when he was asking so much from them. But it wasn't just his love that made you smile and feel all warm and fuzzy, it was the love of all those around them as well. To willingly sacrifice yourself for someone is a huge deal and there were plenty of sacrificing in this book that kept your heart bleeding. However, I have to say, it was what definitely made me not want to stop reading.
This kind of thing reminds me of a saying that states if you love someone truly, then you have to be willing to let go of them. Everyone in this book had loved Scarlett so much, they were willing to do whatever it took, even if it broke her down to nothing. I hated seeing her hurt that way but the strength while dealing with it all and how she was determined to be strong and prove what everyone was saying in times to be false, was just truly amazing. Even though I felt like my own heart was being ripped out, I could see how all the betrayals and pains of the previous books helped her cope and deal with the impending battle, whether or not that I felt she deserved any of it.
Even though love and romance was spread through the series, the romance was heavily lacked in this book. Which made is extremely serious. Though you knew who loved who and it was stated in their appropriate times, the book just didn't have all the romantic drama the others had. It seemed to be too serious at times and I would have loved some comedy or that romantic air to it to help break up all the seriousness that the book seemed to drag on about. Not saying the seriousness ruined the book. It just seemed to end slightly anticlimactic compared to what you were being led to believe would happen. Which would have to be the biggest complaint I had. This next part WILL have spoilers and I apologize for that, but it may save you from feeling let down. If you don't wish to read the spoilers, you can skip to the final paragraph.
When you first learn of how War and Scarlett and Tenebris are connected and how there will be a battle between War nd Scarlett, who is the shell that holds Tenebris and ground the chaotic being, you find yourself excited for the battle. However, at the end, during the face off, Death grants the girls one last gift and suddenly War just pretty much gives up. Don't get me wrong, if I had to fight the dragon Scarlett and Tenebris transformed into, I would be ready to throw in the towel, but still, Tenebris was supposed to be War's right hand woman and to see her standing by Death should have been the rage enough to lead that woman into battle. This is War after all. But no the Horseman pretty much just gives up and allows herself to die. To me, not having the battle and making it end in such a way was disheartening and I am quite upset over it. I was moved to tears all the way up until this point and now I can't even get the action I felt I needed to be okay with the prior actions of characters. Needless to say, the fight scene wasn't all that it could have been.
I would rate this book 3 stars out of 5 stars because as much as I loved crying at certain parts and we were able to learn more about a few of the beloved characters and so on, the ending wasn't all that it was chalked up to be. It was a huge let down, in my opinion. The series overall was amazing and besides the ending I would just make a few changes, like maybe adding the novellas into the books that they belong before or after, instead of leaving a note before a book about a novella being needed for that book. And maybe making the ending have slightly more action. I would rate the series overall, 4 stars out of 5 stars and recommend it to anyone into the paranormal romance and adventure scene with a bit of mystery in it.
First, to see everything that we only got glimpses at before to unfold, was amazing. To learn how some of the characters who seemed to just be filler to hold such an important role in saving the world was truly inspiring. I think my favorite part was learning how Death himself had changed because of Pandora and her lover, as well as how Scarlett and Tenebris were stronger in this world together than Tenebris had been in other worlds by herself. I have to say that the love that Death had for his daughters Scarlett and Tenebris. had been touching and surprisingly difficult to understand when he was asking so much from them. But it wasn't just his love that made you smile and feel all warm and fuzzy, it was the love of all those around them as well. To willingly sacrifice yourself for someone is a huge deal and there were plenty of sacrificing in this book that kept your heart bleeding. However, I have to say, it was what definitely made me not want to stop reading.
This kind of thing reminds me of a saying that states if you love someone truly, then you have to be willing to let go of them. Everyone in this book had loved Scarlett so much, they were willing to do whatever it took, even if it broke her down to nothing. I hated seeing her hurt that way but the strength while dealing with it all and how she was determined to be strong and prove what everyone was saying in times to be false, was just truly amazing. Even though I felt like my own heart was being ripped out, I could see how all the betrayals and pains of the previous books helped her cope and deal with the impending battle, whether or not that I felt she deserved any of it.
Even though love and romance was spread through the series, the romance was heavily lacked in this book. Which made is extremely serious. Though you knew who loved who and it was stated in their appropriate times, the book just didn't have all the romantic drama the others had. It seemed to be too serious at times and I would have loved some comedy or that romantic air to it to help break up all the seriousness that the book seemed to drag on about. Not saying the seriousness ruined the book. It just seemed to end slightly anticlimactic compared to what you were being led to believe would happen. Which would have to be the biggest complaint I had. This next part WILL have spoilers and I apologize for that, but it may save you from feeling let down. If you don't wish to read the spoilers, you can skip to the final paragraph.
When you first learn of how War and Scarlett and Tenebris are connected and how there will be a battle between War nd Scarlett, who is the shell that holds Tenebris and ground the chaotic being, you find yourself excited for the battle. However, at the end, during the face off, Death grants the girls one last gift and suddenly War just pretty much gives up. Don't get me wrong, if I had to fight the dragon Scarlett and Tenebris transformed into, I would be ready to throw in the towel, but still, Tenebris was supposed to be War's right hand woman and to see her standing by Death should have been the rage enough to lead that woman into battle. This is War after all. But no the Horseman pretty much just gives up and allows herself to die. To me, not having the battle and making it end in such a way was disheartening and I am quite upset over it. I was moved to tears all the way up until this point and now I can't even get the action I felt I needed to be okay with the prior actions of characters. Needless to say, the fight scene wasn't all that it could have been.
I would rate this book 3 stars out of 5 stars because as much as I loved crying at certain parts and we were able to learn more about a few of the beloved characters and so on, the ending wasn't all that it was chalked up to be. It was a huge let down, in my opinion. The series overall was amazing and besides the ending I would just make a few changes, like maybe adding the novellas into the books that they belong before or after, instead of leaving a note before a book about a novella being needed for that book. And maybe making the ending have slightly more action. I would rate the series overall, 4 stars out of 5 stars and recommend it to anyone into the paranormal romance and adventure scene with a bit of mystery in it.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated First Man (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I have put off writing this review because I honestly didn't know what, or more precisely how to sum up my feelings about this movie. That's not a typo at the top. I'm giving this one star, and honestly I nearly didn't even give it that.
Previously I've mentioned that I will happily sit through a movie bawling my eyes out. I hadn't quite realised how important it was to have good characters behind the emotional pieces. Twice this movie brought a tear to my eye, and neither were when I particularly expected. I'll circle back round to one of those in a moment.
It is entirely possible that how these people were portrayed is accurate to real life, I honestly don't know much about the people apart from what most around the world know. I could make no emotional connection with them. So much so that at the beginning of the film when we have our first opportunity to sympathise with them I was left frowning at the screen wondering how this devastating story line left me not caring.
The redeeming feature in this film was the Armstrong's oldest son. For the most part they're just around in the periphery of the story, after all most people are there for the space film not the biopic, but he earned this star. Janet makes Neil talk to their sons about the mission he's about to leave for, the boy is just old enough to know what it might mean, how dangerous it is, and in that moment he gave a brilliant performance and I could feel his sadness and anger.
Until I saw Blade Runner 2049 I had not seen Ryan Gosling in a film in 15 years. (I have seen Murder By Numbers but didn't realise he was in it until about five minutes ago.) From that one film I was sold on him as an actor, he played that part really well and I could almost forgive him for doing La La Land. (I have not seen La La Land. However, thanks to the film's sponsorship of drama on ITV2 at a peak moment in time for series I was watching, I have seen the trailer hundreds of times and vowed never to watch it.) Gosling's role in this pained me. As I said, I don't know the people this film is based on, his portrayal of Armstrong could be entirely accurate but I didn't find anything about it believable. His devastation at the beginning of the movie appeared like it should have been a genuine heartbreak for him, and yet his performance didn't reflect that at all apart from some unconvincing wailing.
Claire Foy's Janet Armstrong, again, could be accurate I honestly don't know. Listening to her spend a lot of her time getting angry left me frustrated. Anger is a strong emotion, yet it was another performance that didn't leave me identifying with her pain. I knew where it should have been, but I couldn't find it in any of the scenes.
I feel like I could go on about this for ages. Originally I was going to give First Man two stars, which on my score card is for films that I didn't like but I can see that they're well done and could appeal to other people. Usually that would mean the subject matter isn't too my liking but the performances were good... well. Yeah.
While I can understand the chaotic nature of shuttle's in flight, starting a film with camera shots that are so violently shaky that you can't tell what's going on didn't sit well with me. From the very start you're left confused and not knowing exactly who or what you're watching. Unfortunately that was not the only time that shot was used. The film didn't seem glossy, if that makes sense. It's a film in 2018, we want to see the past in glorious high definition, but everything felt a little retro in an old kind of way. Shaky camera was a constant feature and when we see the exterior shots of the module in space I honestly though I was watching a less technicolour version of Red Dwarf. With one main difference, I like Red Dwarf.
Lots of production choices make sense to some degree. When we go from the landing to getting down on to the moon there is silence. I can see that silence would be a good tool in what is essentially nothingness. But would it have been silent? Wouldn't they have heard console beeping, com channels, and the sound of their own breathing? The silence was deafening, and dull.
When I came out of the film I really couldn't reconcile what I'd seen with what people had been raving about. There was no redeeming feature for me. So much potential telling a story that everyone knows, but doesn't really, and I was left with a bad taste in my mouth and the desire to watch Apollo 13 to reassure myself that there were better films out there.
What you should do
You're going to go and see it because everyone thinks it's amazing. You shouldn't bother. Don't watch it on DVD, don't watch it streaming... buy yourself a copy of Apollo 13 instead.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I want nothing from this film. Anything I could have would be a horrible reminder of me wasting my time at the cinema.
Previously I've mentioned that I will happily sit through a movie bawling my eyes out. I hadn't quite realised how important it was to have good characters behind the emotional pieces. Twice this movie brought a tear to my eye, and neither were when I particularly expected. I'll circle back round to one of those in a moment.
It is entirely possible that how these people were portrayed is accurate to real life, I honestly don't know much about the people apart from what most around the world know. I could make no emotional connection with them. So much so that at the beginning of the film when we have our first opportunity to sympathise with them I was left frowning at the screen wondering how this devastating story line left me not caring.
The redeeming feature in this film was the Armstrong's oldest son. For the most part they're just around in the periphery of the story, after all most people are there for the space film not the biopic, but he earned this star. Janet makes Neil talk to their sons about the mission he's about to leave for, the boy is just old enough to know what it might mean, how dangerous it is, and in that moment he gave a brilliant performance and I could feel his sadness and anger.
Until I saw Blade Runner 2049 I had not seen Ryan Gosling in a film in 15 years. (I have seen Murder By Numbers but didn't realise he was in it until about five minutes ago.) From that one film I was sold on him as an actor, he played that part really well and I could almost forgive him for doing La La Land. (I have not seen La La Land. However, thanks to the film's sponsorship of drama on ITV2 at a peak moment in time for series I was watching, I have seen the trailer hundreds of times and vowed never to watch it.) Gosling's role in this pained me. As I said, I don't know the people this film is based on, his portrayal of Armstrong could be entirely accurate but I didn't find anything about it believable. His devastation at the beginning of the movie appeared like it should have been a genuine heartbreak for him, and yet his performance didn't reflect that at all apart from some unconvincing wailing.
Claire Foy's Janet Armstrong, again, could be accurate I honestly don't know. Listening to her spend a lot of her time getting angry left me frustrated. Anger is a strong emotion, yet it was another performance that didn't leave me identifying with her pain. I knew where it should have been, but I couldn't find it in any of the scenes.
I feel like I could go on about this for ages. Originally I was going to give First Man two stars, which on my score card is for films that I didn't like but I can see that they're well done and could appeal to other people. Usually that would mean the subject matter isn't too my liking but the performances were good... well. Yeah.
While I can understand the chaotic nature of shuttle's in flight, starting a film with camera shots that are so violently shaky that you can't tell what's going on didn't sit well with me. From the very start you're left confused and not knowing exactly who or what you're watching. Unfortunately that was not the only time that shot was used. The film didn't seem glossy, if that makes sense. It's a film in 2018, we want to see the past in glorious high definition, but everything felt a little retro in an old kind of way. Shaky camera was a constant feature and when we see the exterior shots of the module in space I honestly though I was watching a less technicolour version of Red Dwarf. With one main difference, I like Red Dwarf.
Lots of production choices make sense to some degree. When we go from the landing to getting down on to the moon there is silence. I can see that silence would be a good tool in what is essentially nothingness. But would it have been silent? Wouldn't they have heard console beeping, com channels, and the sound of their own breathing? The silence was deafening, and dull.
When I came out of the film I really couldn't reconcile what I'd seen with what people had been raving about. There was no redeeming feature for me. So much potential telling a story that everyone knows, but doesn't really, and I was left with a bad taste in my mouth and the desire to watch Apollo 13 to reassure myself that there were better films out there.
What you should do
You're going to go and see it because everyone thinks it's amazing. You shouldn't bother. Don't watch it on DVD, don't watch it streaming... buy yourself a copy of Apollo 13 instead.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I want nothing from this film. Anything I could have would be a horrible reminder of me wasting my time at the cinema.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Of Knights & Ninjas in Tabletop Games
Jan 23, 2020
Little-known factoid about me: I am a Knight. Not from England, and not due to my daring heroics in war, but a Knight Templar of the Grand Commandery in the York Rite of Freemasonry. Politics and conspiracy theories aside, becoming a Knight was a highlight of my life, and something I will forever treasure. And speaking of treasure and Knights Templar (read your history, kids), we all know that one of the biggest foes of the Knights in olden times were the nefarious Ninjas. Or maybe it’s just fun to think about and play a game where these factions are represented.
Of Knights & Ninjas is a card game about claiming enough treasure to ascend to kinghood and rule all the lands. You can accomplish this by sending forces to your opponents’ realms and stealing their glorious gems. The first lord to amass 10 gems will have sufficient wealth to assume the kinghood and rule all realms!
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and the final components may be different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, but to give our readers an idea of how the game plays. If you would like to read the rulebook in full, you may visit the publisher’s website, purchase the game through the publisher, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, each player will take five gems of their preferred color in front of them. Shuffle the large deck of cards, and deal each player four cards (this rule was updated after our play-throughs). You are now ready to play!
On your turn, you will draw two cards from the deck (unless it’s the first draw of the game – that player will draw just one). You must now play a card to the table or discard a card from your hand. Cards that you can play from your hand will each have different abilities, and thankfully the designer will be providing a reference sheet for these, as there are many cards with wildly different abilities. This is also why I will not be explaining the entire rulebook.
Typically you will be able to play Fortify cards (castles, archers), Attack cards (knights, ninjas, etc), Respond cards, and Special cards (minstrels, jesters, etc). Fortify cards protect your gems from certain Attack cards, like an Archer only being able to attack another Archer, or a Dragon being able to attack a Castle – but not if an Archer is stationed there (logic). Although, a Ninja can scale a Castle wall, and a Catapult can destroy a Castle altogether (but not that pesky Archer that happens to be sitting on top)…
Attack cards are just that: they Attack. Each Attack card will show a number in a starburst icon in the upper right hand corner that signifies how many gems they are able to steal. Once an opponent is declared and an Attack card played, let’s say a 1-power Peasant, the defender may then play a card with the Respond keyword (which will also have a starburst number) to offset the number of stolen gems. If the attacker chooses, they may continue playing Attack cards against the same opponent in order to draw out all the Respond cards and come away with some sweet, sweet gems.
But maybe once all is said and done, and gems are about to change hands, another opponent plays a Special card – a Highwayman, for example. These characters will steal all the gems that are about to change hands (as if he was robbing the gem carriage en route to the new owner). But then again, perhaps yet ANOTHER opponent plays a Highwayman as well, and steals those gems a second time! You just never know when these Special cards will come out and how they may affect the best laid plans.
Play continues in this fashion until one player has amassed the 10 gems they require to win the game!
Components. Again, we were provided a prototype copy of this game, and we understand that components can change during the course of a successful Kickstarter campaign. That said, this game is a ton of cards and some plastic gem pieces. The art is stellar – cartoony, but whimsical and fun. The card layouts make sense and are very easy to read and understand. The gems are colorful and fun to play with. I only have one concern/suggestion/wish for the components here. I wish the individual card’s abilities were somehow printed on the cards themselves. That would alleviate the need for a reference sheet, but it would then detract from the cute art on the cards. So, maybe that wouldn’t be so great after all. I’m torn on that.
All in all, this game is super fun to play. It will be chaotic one moment, and strategically tense the next. Being able to whittle an opponent’s hand down to nothing and then slapping them with a King card to steal a huge chunk of gems is just so sneakily satisfying. Or sending your Ninja to infiltrate their unArchered (I know it’s not a word) Castle and slither away with the goods. Don’t get too attached to your gems, because you may find yourself without for several rounds. You can always rebuild, but make haste as your opponents will keep you down if you let them.
If you are a fan of games that are cute, fun, and relatively quick with a quirky, but light-hearted theme, then definitely check this one out.
Of Knights & Ninjas is a card game about claiming enough treasure to ascend to kinghood and rule all the lands. You can accomplish this by sending forces to your opponents’ realms and stealing their glorious gems. The first lord to amass 10 gems will have sufficient wealth to assume the kinghood and rule all realms!
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and the final components may be different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, but to give our readers an idea of how the game plays. If you would like to read the rulebook in full, you may visit the publisher’s website, purchase the game through the publisher, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, each player will take five gems of their preferred color in front of them. Shuffle the large deck of cards, and deal each player four cards (this rule was updated after our play-throughs). You are now ready to play!
On your turn, you will draw two cards from the deck (unless it’s the first draw of the game – that player will draw just one). You must now play a card to the table or discard a card from your hand. Cards that you can play from your hand will each have different abilities, and thankfully the designer will be providing a reference sheet for these, as there are many cards with wildly different abilities. This is also why I will not be explaining the entire rulebook.
Typically you will be able to play Fortify cards (castles, archers), Attack cards (knights, ninjas, etc), Respond cards, and Special cards (minstrels, jesters, etc). Fortify cards protect your gems from certain Attack cards, like an Archer only being able to attack another Archer, or a Dragon being able to attack a Castle – but not if an Archer is stationed there (logic). Although, a Ninja can scale a Castle wall, and a Catapult can destroy a Castle altogether (but not that pesky Archer that happens to be sitting on top)…
Attack cards are just that: they Attack. Each Attack card will show a number in a starburst icon in the upper right hand corner that signifies how many gems they are able to steal. Once an opponent is declared and an Attack card played, let’s say a 1-power Peasant, the defender may then play a card with the Respond keyword (which will also have a starburst number) to offset the number of stolen gems. If the attacker chooses, they may continue playing Attack cards against the same opponent in order to draw out all the Respond cards and come away with some sweet, sweet gems.
But maybe once all is said and done, and gems are about to change hands, another opponent plays a Special card – a Highwayman, for example. These characters will steal all the gems that are about to change hands (as if he was robbing the gem carriage en route to the new owner). But then again, perhaps yet ANOTHER opponent plays a Highwayman as well, and steals those gems a second time! You just never know when these Special cards will come out and how they may affect the best laid plans.
Play continues in this fashion until one player has amassed the 10 gems they require to win the game!
Components. Again, we were provided a prototype copy of this game, and we understand that components can change during the course of a successful Kickstarter campaign. That said, this game is a ton of cards and some plastic gem pieces. The art is stellar – cartoony, but whimsical and fun. The card layouts make sense and are very easy to read and understand. The gems are colorful and fun to play with. I only have one concern/suggestion/wish for the components here. I wish the individual card’s abilities were somehow printed on the cards themselves. That would alleviate the need for a reference sheet, but it would then detract from the cute art on the cards. So, maybe that wouldn’t be so great after all. I’m torn on that.
All in all, this game is super fun to play. It will be chaotic one moment, and strategically tense the next. Being able to whittle an opponent’s hand down to nothing and then slapping them with a King card to steal a huge chunk of gems is just so sneakily satisfying. Or sending your Ninja to infiltrate their unArchered (I know it’s not a word) Castle and slither away with the goods. Don’t get too attached to your gems, because you may find yourself without for several rounds. You can always rebuild, but make haste as your opponents will keep you down if you let them.
If you are a fan of games that are cute, fun, and relatively quick with a quirky, but light-hearted theme, then definitely check this one out.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Bill & Ted Face the Music (2020) in Movies
Sep 15, 2020
Back in 1991, I thought that Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey was the greatest movie of all time. Sure, Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure was pretty incredible too, but with the addition of Death… Station… evil robot Bill & Ted… it was all just genius as far as I was concerned. My movie watching habits since the nineties have shown me that neither of those films is actually the greatest of all time (well, maybe top 50), but that certainly didn't stop me from getting ridiculously giddy with excitement at the prospect of a third outing. Even more so after successfully introducing my youngest daughter to both movies recently, at which point I also concluded that Excellent Adventure was, in fact, the better of the two!
So, here we are. 29 years on from Bogus Journey, and we find Bill & Ted at a very difficult time in their lives. Dwindling popularity and record sales mean that their destiny of uniting the world with a single song is now becoming increasingly unlikely. A wedding reception where Bill & Ted are unveiling their latest musical creation to a less than lukewarm reception gives us a nice nostalgic chance to see some familiar faces from the previous movies and also brings us quickly up to speed on the lives of our two heroes. Still married to the medieval princesses (Jayma Mays and Erinn Hayes), they now both have grown-up daughters, Thea (Brigette Lundy-Paine) and Billie (Samara Weaving). Both girls are like younger versions of their fathers, making heavy use of the word ‘dude’, and with extensive musical tastes and knowledge. They worship their fathers though and truly believe in their music.
Following the wedding reception, a trip to couples therapy shows us that it's not just their music career that's heading for the rocks. There's even talk of breaking up the band - “We’ve spent our entire lives trying to unite the world. And I’m tired, dude” Ted confesses to Bill. And as their destiny begins to fracture, reality also starts to unravel, with historical figures randomly being sucked from their own time and dumped into another.
Arriving just in the nick of time is a traveller from the future. Kelly (Kristen Schaal) lands in an egg-shaped time machine and whisks the boys into the future where they find that they are now no longer being worshipped in the same way as they were before. They are told in no uncertain terms that they have just 77 minutes to come up with the song they were destined to write, or the past, present and future are all going to collide, resulting in the world collapsing in on itself. Whoah!
Resigning themselves to the fact that if they haven't been able to come up with the song in the last couple of decades, they're unlikely to come up with it in the next 77 minutes, Bill & Ted land on the genius idea that they can simply go to the future and steal the song from their future selves. So, they begin jumping forward to various points in time and meeting up with different versions of themselves. We get overweight rock star Bill & Ted, complete with dodgy British accents, muscular prison inmate Bill & Ted and even OAP nursing home Bill & Ted.
Meanwhile, daughters Thea and Billie come up with a slightly more solid plan of action that involves picking up prominent musicians from history and forming them into the ultimate band, in the hopes that their combined talents will come up with the song that saves the world. It's a race against time as both missions play out simultaneously, taking in a trip to hell, recruiting ex-band member Death (William Sandler) and trying to outwit a robot who's out to kill them. It's basically a greatest hits remix of the first two movies.
It took some time for me to adjust to seeing Keanu Reeves outside of his role as John Wick, clean-shaven and considerably less dangerous. Both he and Alex Winter are obviously much older than when we last saw them as Bill & Ted, but it was surprising just how well they slipped right back into the roles. It honestly felt so good to be back in the company of these guys. The daughters are also a welcome addition, although they feel underused, and being separated from their fathers for much of the movie means that everything feels a lot more chaotic than we’re used to.
Bill & Ted Face the Music rattles along at a fairly brisk pace and the ending felt very rushed and abrupt. Something about the whole thing just doesn’t feel right and I didn’t feel as though we were ever getting very much time to explore or experience a particular scene before we were straight onto the next. It’s funny at times, but with most of it essentially reworking themes and ideas from earlier movies it ends up as the weakest of the trilogy, which is a real shame.
I’ve got so much love for these characters and movies that I feel bad about being negative in any way. However, I can’t help feeling that Face the Music teeters on the edge of ‘maybe they should have just left alone with the last movie’ a little too often. At the end of the day though, I can't really knock a movie that's essentially all about harmless fun and, more importantly, carries with it a message about uniting the world, being excellent to each other. I think we all could appreciate that philosophy in our lives right now.
So, here we are. 29 years on from Bogus Journey, and we find Bill & Ted at a very difficult time in their lives. Dwindling popularity and record sales mean that their destiny of uniting the world with a single song is now becoming increasingly unlikely. A wedding reception where Bill & Ted are unveiling their latest musical creation to a less than lukewarm reception gives us a nice nostalgic chance to see some familiar faces from the previous movies and also brings us quickly up to speed on the lives of our two heroes. Still married to the medieval princesses (Jayma Mays and Erinn Hayes), they now both have grown-up daughters, Thea (Brigette Lundy-Paine) and Billie (Samara Weaving). Both girls are like younger versions of their fathers, making heavy use of the word ‘dude’, and with extensive musical tastes and knowledge. They worship their fathers though and truly believe in their music.
Following the wedding reception, a trip to couples therapy shows us that it's not just their music career that's heading for the rocks. There's even talk of breaking up the band - “We’ve spent our entire lives trying to unite the world. And I’m tired, dude” Ted confesses to Bill. And as their destiny begins to fracture, reality also starts to unravel, with historical figures randomly being sucked from their own time and dumped into another.
Arriving just in the nick of time is a traveller from the future. Kelly (Kristen Schaal) lands in an egg-shaped time machine and whisks the boys into the future where they find that they are now no longer being worshipped in the same way as they were before. They are told in no uncertain terms that they have just 77 minutes to come up with the song they were destined to write, or the past, present and future are all going to collide, resulting in the world collapsing in on itself. Whoah!
Resigning themselves to the fact that if they haven't been able to come up with the song in the last couple of decades, they're unlikely to come up with it in the next 77 minutes, Bill & Ted land on the genius idea that they can simply go to the future and steal the song from their future selves. So, they begin jumping forward to various points in time and meeting up with different versions of themselves. We get overweight rock star Bill & Ted, complete with dodgy British accents, muscular prison inmate Bill & Ted and even OAP nursing home Bill & Ted.
Meanwhile, daughters Thea and Billie come up with a slightly more solid plan of action that involves picking up prominent musicians from history and forming them into the ultimate band, in the hopes that their combined talents will come up with the song that saves the world. It's a race against time as both missions play out simultaneously, taking in a trip to hell, recruiting ex-band member Death (William Sandler) and trying to outwit a robot who's out to kill them. It's basically a greatest hits remix of the first two movies.
It took some time for me to adjust to seeing Keanu Reeves outside of his role as John Wick, clean-shaven and considerably less dangerous. Both he and Alex Winter are obviously much older than when we last saw them as Bill & Ted, but it was surprising just how well they slipped right back into the roles. It honestly felt so good to be back in the company of these guys. The daughters are also a welcome addition, although they feel underused, and being separated from their fathers for much of the movie means that everything feels a lot more chaotic than we’re used to.
Bill & Ted Face the Music rattles along at a fairly brisk pace and the ending felt very rushed and abrupt. Something about the whole thing just doesn’t feel right and I didn’t feel as though we were ever getting very much time to explore or experience a particular scene before we were straight onto the next. It’s funny at times, but with most of it essentially reworking themes and ideas from earlier movies it ends up as the weakest of the trilogy, which is a real shame.
I’ve got so much love for these characters and movies that I feel bad about being negative in any way. However, I can’t help feeling that Face the Music teeters on the edge of ‘maybe they should have just left alone with the last movie’ a little too often. At the end of the day though, I can't really knock a movie that's essentially all about harmless fun and, more importantly, carries with it a message about uniting the world, being excellent to each other. I think we all could appreciate that philosophy in our lives right now.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Front Runner (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Candidate for a downfall.
We can all probably rattle off some of the classics movies with US politics as their backdrop. For me, “All the President’s Men”; “Primary Colors”; and “Frost/Nixon” might make that list. In the next tier down there are many great drama/thrillers – “Miss Sloane“; “The Post“; “The Ides of March”; “The American President”; “JFK” – and even some pretty funny comedies – “Dave” and “My Fellow Americans” for example. It’s actually quite difficult to think of many films on the subject that are outright dire, proving it remains a fertile ground for film-makers.
“The Front Runner” fortunately avoids this last category, but it’s certainly not good enough to make it into the ‘classics’ list either.
A true story.
The film is based on the true-story of US presidential hopeful Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) and if you are NOT aware of the historical background then you might want to skip the rest of this review – and indeed all others – so you can see the film first and let the history come as a surprise to you.
Hart was younger than most candidates: good-looking, floppy-haired and refreshingly matter of fact in his dealings with the public and the press. Any interviews had to be about his politics: not about his family life with wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and teenage daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever).
Unfortunately, Hart has a weakness for a pretty face (or ten) and his marriage is rocky as a result: “Just don’t embarrass me” is Lee’s one requirement. His “nothing to hide” line to an intelligent Washington Post reporter – AJ Parker (a well cast Mamoudou Athie) – leads to a half-arsed stake-out by Miami Herald reporters and incriminating pictures linking Hart to a Miami pharmaceutical saleswoman Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As the growing press tsunami rises, and his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) gets more and more frustrated with him, can his candidacy survive and will his (now very much embarrassed) wife stick by him?
The turns.
Hugh Jackman is perfectly cast here; very believable as the self-centred, self-righteous and stubborn politician. But this central performance is surrounded by a strong team of supporting players. Vera Farmiga is superb as the wounded wife. Sara Paxton is heartbreaking as the intelligent college girl unfairly portrayed as a “slapper” by the media. The scenes between her and Hart-staffer Irene (Molly Ephraim), trying desperately to support her as best she can, are very nicely done. J.K Simmons as campaign manager Bill Dixon is as reliable as ever. And Alfred Molina turns up as the latest film incarnation of The Post’s Ben Bradlee – surely one of the most oft portrayed real-life journalists in film history.
“What did they just say”?
The biggest cause of dissatisfaction I have with the film is with the sound mixing. Was this a deliberate act by director Jason Reitman, to reflect the chaotic nature of political campaigning? Whether it was deliberate or not, much of the film’s dialogue – particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film – is drowned out by background noise. Sometimes I just longed for subtitles!
Just a little bit dull.
The screenplay, by Matt Bai (from his source book), Jay Carson (a Clinton staffer) and director Jason Reitman might align with the history, but the big problem is that the story’s just a little bit dull, particularly by today’s levels of scandal. This suffers the same fate as “House of Cards” (even before the Kevin Spacey allegations) in that the shocking realities of the Trump-era have progressively neutered the shock-factor of the fiction: to the point where it starts to become boring. Here, only once or twice does the screenplay hit a winning beat: for me, it was the scenes between Donna Rice and Irene Kelly and the dramatic press conference towards the end of the film. The rest of the time, the screenplay was perfectly serviceable but nothing spectacular.
When is a politician’s personal life private?
A core tenet of the film is Hart’s view that politics should be about the policies and not about the personality. Looking at the subject nowadays, it’s clearly a ridiculously idealistic viewpoint. Of course it matters. Politicians need to be trusted by their constituents (yeah, like that’s the case in the UK and the US at the moment!) and whether or not they slap their wives around or sleep with farm animals is clearly a material factor in that relationship. But this was clearly not as much the case in the 70’s as it is today, and the suggestion is that the Hart case was a turning point and a wake-up call to politicians around the world. (An interesting article by the Washington Post itself points out that this is also a simplistic view: that Hart should have been well aware of the dangerous game he was playing.)
Fidelity in politics.
Do you think that powerful politicos are driven to infidelity because they are powerful? Or that it is a characteristic of men who have the charisma to become political leaders in the first place? Such was the discussion my wife and I had in the car home after this film. Nature or political nurture? I’m still not sure.
It’s worth pointing out that to this day both Hart and Rice (interestingly, an alleged ex-girlfriend of Eagles front-man Don Henley) stick to their story that they never had sex.
Final thoughts.
The film’s perfectly watchable, has great acting, but is a little bit of a non-event. The end titles came and I thought “OK, that’s that then”…. nothing more. If you’re a fan of this style of historical political film then you probably won’t be disappointed by it; if not, probably best to wait and catch this on the TV.
“The Front Runner” fortunately avoids this last category, but it’s certainly not good enough to make it into the ‘classics’ list either.
A true story.
The film is based on the true-story of US presidential hopeful Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) and if you are NOT aware of the historical background then you might want to skip the rest of this review – and indeed all others – so you can see the film first and let the history come as a surprise to you.
Hart was younger than most candidates: good-looking, floppy-haired and refreshingly matter of fact in his dealings with the public and the press. Any interviews had to be about his politics: not about his family life with wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and teenage daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever).
Unfortunately, Hart has a weakness for a pretty face (or ten) and his marriage is rocky as a result: “Just don’t embarrass me” is Lee’s one requirement. His “nothing to hide” line to an intelligent Washington Post reporter – AJ Parker (a well cast Mamoudou Athie) – leads to a half-arsed stake-out by Miami Herald reporters and incriminating pictures linking Hart to a Miami pharmaceutical saleswoman Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As the growing press tsunami rises, and his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) gets more and more frustrated with him, can his candidacy survive and will his (now very much embarrassed) wife stick by him?
The turns.
Hugh Jackman is perfectly cast here; very believable as the self-centred, self-righteous and stubborn politician. But this central performance is surrounded by a strong team of supporting players. Vera Farmiga is superb as the wounded wife. Sara Paxton is heartbreaking as the intelligent college girl unfairly portrayed as a “slapper” by the media. The scenes between her and Hart-staffer Irene (Molly Ephraim), trying desperately to support her as best she can, are very nicely done. J.K Simmons as campaign manager Bill Dixon is as reliable as ever. And Alfred Molina turns up as the latest film incarnation of The Post’s Ben Bradlee – surely one of the most oft portrayed real-life journalists in film history.
“What did they just say”?
The biggest cause of dissatisfaction I have with the film is with the sound mixing. Was this a deliberate act by director Jason Reitman, to reflect the chaotic nature of political campaigning? Whether it was deliberate or not, much of the film’s dialogue – particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film – is drowned out by background noise. Sometimes I just longed for subtitles!
Just a little bit dull.
The screenplay, by Matt Bai (from his source book), Jay Carson (a Clinton staffer) and director Jason Reitman might align with the history, but the big problem is that the story’s just a little bit dull, particularly by today’s levels of scandal. This suffers the same fate as “House of Cards” (even before the Kevin Spacey allegations) in that the shocking realities of the Trump-era have progressively neutered the shock-factor of the fiction: to the point where it starts to become boring. Here, only once or twice does the screenplay hit a winning beat: for me, it was the scenes between Donna Rice and Irene Kelly and the dramatic press conference towards the end of the film. The rest of the time, the screenplay was perfectly serviceable but nothing spectacular.
When is a politician’s personal life private?
A core tenet of the film is Hart’s view that politics should be about the policies and not about the personality. Looking at the subject nowadays, it’s clearly a ridiculously idealistic viewpoint. Of course it matters. Politicians need to be trusted by their constituents (yeah, like that’s the case in the UK and the US at the moment!) and whether or not they slap their wives around or sleep with farm animals is clearly a material factor in that relationship. But this was clearly not as much the case in the 70’s as it is today, and the suggestion is that the Hart case was a turning point and a wake-up call to politicians around the world. (An interesting article by the Washington Post itself points out that this is also a simplistic view: that Hart should have been well aware of the dangerous game he was playing.)
Fidelity in politics.
Do you think that powerful politicos are driven to infidelity because they are powerful? Or that it is a characteristic of men who have the charisma to become political leaders in the first place? Such was the discussion my wife and I had in the car home after this film. Nature or political nurture? I’m still not sure.
It’s worth pointing out that to this day both Hart and Rice (interestingly, an alleged ex-girlfriend of Eagles front-man Don Henley) stick to their story that they never had sex.
Final thoughts.
The film’s perfectly watchable, has great acting, but is a little bit of a non-event. The end titles came and I thought “OK, that’s that then”…. nothing more. If you’re a fan of this style of historical political film then you probably won’t be disappointed by it; if not, probably best to wait and catch this on the TV.
Sarah (7799 KP) Apr 2, 2019
Lee (2222 KP) Apr 3, 2019